An Explanatory Handbook

to
the Code of Practice
for
Foundations 2017

Structural Division
The Hong Kong Institution of Engineers
 An Explanatory Handbook
to
the Code of Practice
for
Foundations 2017

June 2019
Prepared by a Working Committee of
Structural Division
The Hong Kong Institution of Engineers
Published by
Structural Division
The Hong Kong Institution of Engineers
Published by the Structural Division of the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers

All information contained in this document is subject to copyright owned by The

Hong Kong Institution of Engineers, Structural Division. All rights reserved.

The content of this document is an expression of opinion only. In the preparation of

this document, the Structural Division has endeavoured to make the document as
accurate and current as possible. It is provided “as is” without any guarantee or
warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied.

Guidance and recommendations given in this document should always be reviewed by

those using this document in the light of the facts of their particular case. Individuals
who use this document in any way assume all risk and accept total responsibility for
its use. The Structural Division, its members and the working group who produced
this document disclaim liability for damages of any kind which may result from its
use.

First published 2015

Revised 2019
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

Foreword

With an aim to facilitate understanding of the rationale and application of the code of practices
published by the Buildings Department of Hong Kong, the Structural Division of the Hong Kong
Institution of Engineers has published the “Explanatory Handbook to the Code of Practice for
Foundations 2004” for the Foundation Code promulgated in 2004. While the Foundation Code
has been updated and published in 2017, the Structural Division has taken the initiatives to revise
the Handbook accordingly which is now named “An Explanatory Handbook to the Code of
Practice for Foundations 2017”.

The updated handbook adopts similar formats and approaches as the 2004 version. Apart from
adding new materials to explain the new topics, a thorough review of the existing topics has also
been carried out and with updating as necessary.

We trust that the content of this handbook would help practitioners in design and construction of
foundation works for compliance with the current Foundation Code.

With the above, it gives me enormous pleasure to recommend you to read this Handbook. I
would also like to congratulate the Working Committee, chaired by Ir Lam King-kong for their
dedicated efforts and professionalism which make this handbook a great success.

Ir Prof Ben Young

Chairman
Structural Division, HKIE
October 2019

i
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

Acknowledgement

This Explanatory Handbook for the Code of Practice for Foundations 2017 as the revised version
to the previous 2004 version of the Foundation Code aims to echo with the revisions in the Code.
It incorporates the views and comments of experienced researchers and practicing engineers. It
has been compiled by a Working Committee appointed by the Structural Division of the Hong
Kong Institution of Engineers. The Working Committee Members are as follows-

Chairman : Ir Lam King-kong

Members : Ir Cheung Ping-yip, Sammy

Ir Lau Chi-kin
Ir Sze Wang-cho, James
Ir Tse Wai-keung, Ben

(in alphabetical order)

Secretary : Ir Law Chi-wai

The Chairman of the Working Committee would like to express his deep gratitude to each
Committee Member and those who contributed during the course of the compilation work over
the past years, including the Structural Division Committee Members of the Hong Kong
Institution of Engineers. Without their remarkable contributions and unreserved efforts, this
Explanatory Handbook would not have been successfully finalized and published.

ii
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

Contents

Page
No.
H1 General …………………………………………………………………………...... 1

H1.1 Scope …………………………………………………………………..... 1

H1.2 Glossary …………………………………………………………………. 1
H1.3 Abbreviation ………….…………………………………………………. 5
H1.4 Symbols ………….…………………………………………………….... 5

H2 General Design Requirements …………………………………………………… 6

H2.1 General …………………………………………………………………... 6

H2.1.1 Basic Requirements ………………………………………….. 6
H2.1.2 Compatibility of Design and Construction …………………... 6
H2.1.3 Classification of Soils and Rocks ……………………………. 7
H2.2 Allowable Bearing Pressure, Bond or Friction of Ground ………………. 7
H2.2.1 Rational Design Method ……………………………………... 7
H2.2.2 Presumed Values ……………………………………………... 8
H2.2.3 In Situ Testing Method ………………………………………. 9
H2.2.4 Bearing Capacity Equation Method …………………………. 9
H2.2.5 Other Methods ……………………………………………….. 10
H2.3 Foundation Settlement and Rotation …………………………………….. 10
H2.3.1 Estimation of Settlement …………………………………….. 10
H2.3.2 Acceptable Settlement and Rotation ………………………… 12
H2.4 Structures on Reclaimed Land …………………………………………... 13
H2.4.1 General Design Rules ………………………………………... 13
H2.4.2 Alternative Approach ………………………………………... 14
H2.4.3 Long-term Monitoring and/or Maintenance …………………. 14
H2.4.4 Reclaimed Land with Consolidation Substantially Completed. 14
H2.5 Structural Requirements …………………………………………………. 14
H2.5.1 General ………………………………………………………. 14
H2.5.2 Design Loads ………………………………………………… 14
H2.5.3 Underground Water ………………………………………….. 15
H2.5.4 Resistance to Sliding, Uplift and Overturning ………………. 15
H2.5.5 Materials and Stresses ……………………………………….. 17
H2.6 Corrosion Protection of Foundations ……………………………………. 21
H2.6.1 General ………………………………………………………. 21
H2.6.2 Concrete Foundations ………………………………………... 21
H2.6.3 Steel Piles ……………………………………………………. 23
H2.6.4 Marine Foundations ………………………………………….. 25
H2.7 Foundation Plans ………………………………………………………… 26
H2.8 Foundation Design in Scheduled Areas …………………………………. 26
H2.9 Foundation Design in Designated Area .………………………………… 27
H2.10 Foundation Design in Sloping Ground ………………………………….. 27

iii
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

H3 Site Investigation 28

H3.1 General …………………………………………………………………... 28

H3.2 Documentary Studies ……………………………………………………. 28
H3.3 Site Survey ………………………………………………………………. 29
H3.4 Ground Investigation ……………………………………………………. 30
H3.4.1 General ………………………………………………………. 30
H3.4.2 Supervision for Ground Investigation Works ……………….. 31
H3.4.3 Preparation of Ground Investigation Reports ..……………… 31
H3.4.4 Soil and Rock Sampling …………………………………….. 32
H3.4.5 Number and Disposition of Boreholes/Trial Pits …………… 32
H3.4.6 Depth of Ground Investigation ……………………………… 32
H3.4.7 Groundwater ………………………………………………… 33
H3.5 Ground Investigation in Scheduled Areas ……………………………… 34
H3.6 Ground Investigation within Designated Area …………………………. 36

H4 Shallow Foundations ……………………………………………………………… 37

H4.1 General Requirements …………………………………………………… 37

H4.2 Allowable Bearing Pressure and Settlement …………………………….. 37
H4.2.1 Shallow Foundations on Categories 1(a), 1(b), 1(c), 1(d) or 2
Rock ………………………………………………………….. 37
H4.2.2 Shallow Foundations on Soil ………………………………… 37
H4.3 Structural Requirements …………………………………………………. 40
H4.4 Common Types of Shallow Foundations ………………………………... 42
H4.4.1 Pad Footings …………………………………………………. 42
H4.4.2 Strip Footings ………………………………………………... 43
H4.4.3 Raft Foundations …………………………………………….. 43

H5 Pile Foundations …………………………………………………………………... 44

H5.1 General …………………………………………………………………... 44

H5.1.1 Recognized Types of Pile Foundations ……………………… 44
H5.1.2 Group Effect ………………………………………………… 44
H5.1.3 Minimum Pile Spacing ………………………………………. 46
H5.1.4 Horizontal Restraints to Piles and Pile Caps ………………… 46
H5.1.5 Piles Providing Resistance against Sliding ………………….. 46
H5.1.6 Piles Providing Resistance against Uplift, Overturning and
Buoyancy …………………………………………………….. 46
H5.1.7 Pile Group Settlement ……………………………………….. 47
H5.2 Negative Skin Friction ………………………………………………….. 47
H5.2.1 Design Requirement ………………………………………… 47
H5.2.2 Conventional Approach ……………………………………… 48
H5.2.3 Alternative Approach ………………………………………... 49
H5.3 Pile Capacity of Piles …………………………………………………… 49
H5.3.1 Structural Strength …………………………………………… 49
H5.3.2 Ground Resistance for Piles in Compression ……………….. 50
H5.3.3 Ground Resistance for Piles Subjected to Uplift Forces ……. 58
H5.3.4 Ground Resistance for Piles Subjected to Lateral Load …….. 60
iv
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

H5.4 Common Pile Types …………………………………………………….. 62

H5.4.1 Steel H-Piles/Steel Tubular Piles …………………………… 63
H5.4.2 Socketed Steel H-Piles ………………………………………. 65
H5.4.3 Precast Reinforced Concrete Piles …………………………... 66
H5.4.4 Precast Prestressed Spun Concrete Piles …………………….. 66
H5.4.5 Driven Cast-in-Place Concrete Piles ………………………… 68
H5.4.6 Small Diameter Bored Piles …………………………………. 69
H5.4.7 Large Diameter Bored Piles …………………………………. 71
H5.4.8 Mini-Piles ……………………………………………………. 74
H5.4.9 Barrettes ……………………………………………………… 77
H5.4.10 Hand-Dug Caissons ………………………………………….. 81
H5.4.11 Steel H-Piles Driven to Bedrock …………………………….. 81
H5.4.12 Steel H Shear Piles …………………………………………... 82
H5.5 Pile Caps ………………………………………………………………… 82

H6 Other Foundation Types/Elements ………………………………………………. 84

H6.1 Basements and Hollow Boxes …………………………………………… 84

H6.2 Diaphragm Walls ………………………………………………………… 86
H6.3 Retaining Walls ………………………………………………………….. 89
H6.4 Ground Anchors …………………………………………………………. 89
H6.5 Re-use of Existing Foundations …………………………………………. 90

H7 Construction Practice and Site Safety for Foundation Works …………………. 91

H7.1 General …………………………………………………………………... 91

H7.1.1 General Requirements ……………………………………….. 91
H7.1.2 Quality Supervision for Foundation Works ………………….. 91
H7.1.3 Construction Materials ………………………………………. 91
H7.1.4 Excavation …………………………………………………… 92
H7.2 Effect of Foundation Works on Adjacent Structures and Land ………….. 94
H7.2.1 Assessment of the Effects of Foundation Works …………….. 94
H7.2.2 Shoring and Underpinning …………………………………... 95
H7.2.3 Monitoring Plan ……………………………………………… 96
H7.2.4 Ground Settlement …………………………………………… 96
H7.2.5 Dewatering …………………………………………………... 97
H7.2.6 Vibration ……………………………………………………... 97
H7.2.7 Public Relations Plan for Piling Works ……………………… 98
H7.2.8 Blasting ………………………………………………………. 98
H7.3 Foundation Records and Reports ………………………………………... 98
H7.4 Pile Construction ………………………………………………………… 99
H7.4.1 Driving Test and Trial Piles ………………………………….. 99
H7.4.2 Test Boring …………………………………………………... 99
H7.4.3 Pre-Drilling …………………………………………………... 99
H7.4.4 Post Construction Proof Drilling …………………………….. 99
H7.4.5 Proof Tests …………………………………………………… 99
H7.4.6 Further on Site Tests …………………………………………. 99
H7.5 Construction Tolerances …………………………………………………. 100

v
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

H7.6 Ground Treatment ……………………………………………………….. 100

H7.7 Control of Nuisance ……………………………………………………... 100
H7.8 Foundation Works in Scheduled Areas ………………………………….. 102

H8 Testing of Foundation and Ground ………………………………………………. 103

H8.1 General ………………………………………………………………….. 103
H8.2 Plate Load Test …………………………………………………………... 103
H8.3 Standard Penetration Test ………………………………………………... 104
H8.4 Compression Loading Test ………………………………………………. 104
H8.5 Core-Drilling Test ……………………………………………………….. 108
H8.6 Sonic Logging …………………………………………………………… 109
H8.7 Sonic Echo Test ………………………………………………………….. 112
H8.8 Vibration Test ……………………………………………………………. 112
H8.9 Dynamic Load Test for Driven Piles …………………………………….. 112
H8.10 Tension Loading Test ……………………………………………………. 112
H8.11 Lateral Load Test ………………………………………………………… 114
H8.12 Ultrasonic Echo Sounder Test …………………………………………… 114

Appendices
Page
No.
Appendix HA Practical Examples of Inspection of Rock Samples ………………… A-1
Appendix HB A Worked Example on Determination of Ultimate Bearing Capacity
of an Inclined Rectangular Footing …………………………………. B-1
Appendix HC Determination of Settlement and Support Stiffness of Footings on an
Elastic Subgrade …………………………………………………….. C-1
Appendix HD Design of General Flexural Reinforcement in a R.C. Plate Bending
Structure …………………………………………………………….. D-1
Appendix HE A Worked Example on Determination of the Group Reduction
Factor (Geotechnical Capacity) of a Pile Group in Cohesionless
Soil …………………………………………………………………... E-1
Appendix HF Worked Examples for Determination of Ultimate Lateral Shear
Resistances of Piles ………………………………………………… F-1
Appendix HG Checking of Piles against Uplift, Overturning and Buoyancy of a
Hypothetical Pile Group …………………………………………….. G-1
Appendix HH Equivalent Raft Method …………………………………………….. H-1
Appendix HI Buckling of Slender Piles – Embedded, Partially Exposed or Sleeved
in Soil…...…………………………………………………………… I-1
Appendix HJ Principle and Derivation of the Hiley Formula ……………………... J-1
Appendix HK Discussion on Limits of “Final Set” and Criteria for Formulation of
the “Final Set” Table ………………………………………………... K-1
Appendix HL More Details and Examples in Wave Equation, the Case Method and
CAPWAP for Analysis of Pile Capacities …………………………... L-1
Appendix HM Closed Form Solution for the Bearing Capacity Factor Nq in
accordance with Berezantsev ……………………………………….. M-1
Appendix HN Worked Examples for Determination of Ultimate Uplift Resistance
of Piles ………………………………………………………………. N-1
vi
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

Appendix HO Determination of Horizontal Displacement of Pile Cap under Lateral

Loads in accordance with the Elastic Continuum Theory …………... O-1
Appendix HP Lateral Restraint on a Pile by the Winkler’s Spring Assumptions –
Cohesionless Soil …………………………………………………… P-1
Appendix HQ Lateral Resistance of a Piled Foundation – Distribution of Lateral
Loads among the Piles and the Pile Cap ……………………………. Q-1
Appendix HR Assessment of Effects on Adjacent Structures due to Loads from a
New Structure by the Continuum Theory based on Mindlin’s
Equations ……………………………………………………………. R-1
Appendix HS Seepage Analysis of Excavation in a Homogeneous, Isotropic Soil
Medium ……………………………………………………………... S-1
Appendix HT Trench Stability Calculation of Bentonite Slurry
Excavation …………………………………………………………... T-1
Appendix HU Photographic Demonstration of Construction Procedures of Some
Common Types of Foundations …………………………………….. U-1
Appendix HV Estimation of Interactions of Piles in Close Proximity under Vertical
Loads by Randolph’s Approach …………………………………….. V-1

Page
No.

References Ref-1

vii
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

List of Tables

Page
No.
Table H5.1 Values of nh for Cohesionless Soils ……………………………….. 61
Table H5.2 Data of Common Precast Prestressed Spun Concrete Pile ……....... 67
Table H5.3 Determination of Geotechnical Capacity of a Small Diameter
Bored Pile …………………………………………………………. 70
Table HG-1 Example of Checking of Piles against Uplift, Overturning and
Buoyancy of a Hypothetical Pile Group ………………………….. G-1
Table HH-1 Summary for Calculation for Worked Example HH-1 …………… H-3
Table HH-2 Calculation for Worked Example HH-2 by the Approach in
Appendix HC ……………………………………………………… H-3
Table HI-1 Restraint Conditions on Lateral Load Analysis on Pile by the
Finite Difference Method …………………………………………. I-3
Table HI-2(a) Table showing Variation of “Equivalent Length Factor” with L/T
ratio and Pile Exposed Length Factor for End-bearing Piles with
Bottom Free ……………………………………………………….. I-4
Table HI-2(b) Table showing Variation of “Equivalent Length Factor” with L/T
ratio and Pile Exposed Length Factor for End-bearing Piles with
Bottom Pinned …………………………………………………….. I-5
Table HI-2(c) Table showing Variation of “Equivalent Length Factor” with L/T
ratio and Pile Exposed Length Factor for End-bearing Piles with
Bottom Fixed ……………………………………………………… I-5
Table HI-2(d) Table showing Variation of “Equivalent Length Factor” with L/T
ratio and Pile Sleeved Length Factor for End-bearing Piles with
Bottom Free ……………………………………………………….. I-6
Table HI-2(e) Table showing Variation of “Equivalent Length Factor” with L/T
ratio and Pile Exposed Length Factor for End-bearing Piles with
Bottom Pinned …………………………………………………….. I-6
Table HI-2(f) Table showing Variation of “Equivalent Length Factor” with L/T
ratio and Pile Exposed Length Factor for End-Bearing Piles with
Bottom Fixed ……………………………………………………… I-7
Table HK-1 Final Set Values per 10 Blows with No Restriction on the S values K-3
Table HK-2 Final Set Values per 10 blows (i) with limits between 25mm and
100mm per 10 Blows; (ii) and (cp+cq)/L ≤ 1.15 where cp+cq is in
mm and L is in m ………………………………………………….. K-3
Table HK-3 Final Set Values per 10 blows (i) with limits between 25mm and
100mm per 10 Blows; (ii) (cp+cq)/L ≤ 1.15 where cp+cq is in mm;
and L is in m; and (iii) S capped at 50mm ………………………… K-4
Table HL-1 Estimation of Ultimate Static Resistance of a Hypothetical Pile by
the Case Method …………………………………………………... L-9
Table HN-1 Computation of Ultimate Uplift Resistance of a Driven Pile
(Effective Stress Method) …………………………………………. N-6
Table HN-2 Computation of Ultimate Uplift Resistance of a Driven Pile (SPTN
Values) ……………………………………….................................. N-7
Table HO-1(a) Coefficient of Translation Soil Poisson’s Ratio µ = 0.3 ………….. O-7

viii
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

Table HO-1(b) Coefficient of Translation Soil Poisson’s Ratio µ = 0.35 ………… O-7
Table HO-1(c) Coefficient of Translation Soil Poisson’s Ratio µ = 0.4 ………….. O-8
Table HO-1(d) Coefficient of Translation Soil Poisson’s Ratio µ = 0.45 ………… O-8
Table HO-1(e) Coefficient of Translation Soil Poisson’s Ratio µ = 0.5 ………….. O-8
Table HO-2(a) Coefficient of Rotation Soil Poisson’s Ratio µ = 0.3 …………….. O-9
Table HO-2(b) Coefficient of Rotation Soil Poisson’s Ratio µ = 0.35 …………… O-9
Table HO-2(c) Coefficient of Rotation Soil Poisson’s Ratio µ = 0.4 …………….. O-9
Table HO-2(d) Coefficient of Rotation Soil Poisson’s Ratio µ = 0.45 …………… O-10
Table HO-2(e) Coefficient of Rotation Soil Poisson’s Ratio µ = 0.5 …………….. O-10
Table HP-1 Restraint Conditions on Lateral Load Analysis on Pile by the
Finite Difference Method …………………………………………. P-1
Table HP-2 Use of Coefficients for Determination of Displacements,
Rotations, Shears and Moments in Piles by the Finite Difference
Method …………………………………………………………...... P-2
Table HP-3(a) Deflection and Moment Coefficients for Pile with Free Head and
Tip Unrestrained from both Lateral Movement and Rotation due to
Horizontal Shear at Cut-off Level ………………………………… P-4
Table HP-3(b) Deflection and Moment Coefficients for Pile with Head Restrained
from Rotation and Tip Unrestrained from both Lateral Movement
and Rotation due to Horizontal Shear at Cut-off Level …………… P-4
Table HP-3(c) Deflection and Moment Coefficients for Pile with Free Head and
Tip Restrained from Lateral Movement but Free to Rotate due to
Horizontal Shear at Cut-off Level ………………………………… P-4
Table HP-3(d) Deflection and Moment Coefficients for Pile with Head Restrained
from Rotation and Tip Restrained from Lateral Movement but
Free to Rotate due to Horizontal Shear at Cut-off Level …………. P-5
Table HP-3(e) Deflection and Moment Coefficients for Pile with Head Pinned
and Tip Restrained from both Lateral Movement and Rotation due
to Horizontal Shear at Cut-off Level ……………………………… P-5
Table HP-3(f) Deflection and Moment Coefficients for Pile with Head Restrained
from Rotation and Tip Restrained from both Lateral Movement
and Rotation due to Horizontal Shear at Cut-off Level ………….. P-5
Table HP-4(a) Rotation Coefficients for Pile Tip Unrestrained from both Lateral
Movement and Rotation due to Moment at Pile Head ……………. P-6
Table HP-4(b) Rotation Coefficients for Pile Tip Restrained from Lateral
Movement but Free to Rotation due to Moment at Pile Head ……. P-6
Table HP-4(c) Rotation Coefficients for Pile Tip Restrained from both Lateral
Movement and Rotation due to Moment at Pile Head ……………. P-6
Table HP-5(a) Shear Coefficients for Pile Tip Unrestrained from both Lateral
Movement and Rotation due to Moment at Pile Head ……………. P-7
Table HP-5(b) Shear Coefficients for Pile Tip Restrained from Lateral Movement
but Free to Rotation due to Moment at Pile Head ………………… P-7
Table HP-5(c) Shear Coefficients for Pile Tip Restrained from both Lateral
Movement and Rotation due to Moment at Pile Head ……………. P-7
Table HP-6 Comparison of Results between Worked Examples HP-1 and HP-2 P-10
Table HQ-1 Lateral Stiffness of the Piled Foundation of Worked Example
HQ-1 ………………………………………………………………. Q-4

ix
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

Table HQ-2 Summary of Stiffness of the Piled Foundation of Worked Example

HQ-1 ………………………………………………………………. Q-4
Table HQ-3 Summary of External Lateral Load of Worked Example HQ-1 ….. Q-5
Table HQ-4(a) Summary of Pile and Pile Cap Reactions to Wind in X-direction ... Q-5
Table HQ-4(b) Summary of Pile and Pile Cap Reactions to Wind in Y-direction ... Q-6
Table HS-1 Summary of Heads/Pressures of Worked Example HS-1 ………… S-3
Table HS-2 Summary of Heads/Pressures of Worked Example HS-2 ………… S-6
Table HT-1 Summary of Stresses in Worked Example HT-1 …………………. T-3

List of Figures
Page
No.
Figure H1.1 General Configuration of Bell-Out of Bored Pile ………………… 2
Figure H1.2 Typical Final Set Graph …………………………………………… 3
Figure H1.3 Modes of Failure for Ultimate Bearing Capacity …………………. 5
Figure H2.1 Measures to mitigate the Migration of Soil into any Voids that may
be formed underneath the Suspended Structure …………………... 13
Figure H2.2 Worked Example H2.1 for Checking Stability ……………………. 16
Figure H2.3 Typical Socketed H-Pile with Cross Bars as Shear Connectors …... 19
Figure H2.4 Chemical Process of Corrosion …………………………………… 23
Figure H2.5 Splash and Tidal Zone in a Marine Foundation …………………… 24
Figure H2.6 Examples of Cathodic Protection to Piles in Marine Foundations .. 25
Figure H3.1 Vertical Stress Bulb beneath a Square Footing or a Circular
Footing (or Pile) …………………………………………………... 33
Figure H4.1 Ground Pressure Distribution beneath Footing under Different
Assumptions ……………………………………………………… 38
Figure H4.2 Explanation of Ground Bearing Pressure under the Continuum
Theory ……………………………………………………………... 39
Figure H4.3 Demonstration of the Determination of Design Forces on Sections
of Footing …………………………………………………………. 40
Figure H4.4 Plans showing Pad Footings, Strip Footings and Raft Footings ….. 42
Figure H5.1 Illustration of Pile Group Effect on Pile Settlement ………………. 44
Figure H5.2 Load Displacement Path for Set and Temporary Compression of 52
Soil …………………………………………………………………
Figure H5.3 Splicing Details for H-pile (for Lengthening of Pile) …………….. 64
Figure H5.4 Details for Pile Head ……………………………………………… 64
Figure H5.5 Acceptable Details for Pile Toe – Strengthened for Hard Driving 65
on or close to Bedrock ……………………………………………..
Figure H5.6 Details of a 14”×14” Precast Reinforced Concrete Pile …………... 66
Figure H5.7 Details of Pile Shaft of a Precast Prestressed Spun Concrete Pile ... 68
Figure H5.8 Typical Pile Head Details of a Precast Prestressed Spun Concrete
Pile…………………………………………………………………. 68
Figure H5.9 Pile Shoe Details of a Precast Prestressed Spun Concrete Pile …… 68
Figure H5.10 Pile Head Details of a Driven Cast in Place Pile ………………….. 69
Figure H5.11 Details of a Small Diameter CFA Pile …………………………….. 71
Figure H5.12 Details of a Typical Large Diameter Bored Pile …………………... 73
Figure H5.13 Shear Plane for Checking Bond Stress between Steel Bars and
Grout for 4T50 and 5T50 Mini-pile ………………………………. 75
x
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

Figure H5.14 Structural Configuration of Raking Mini-pile Resulting in Pure

Axial Loads in the Pile ……………………………………………. 75
Figure H5.15 Details of a 4T50 Mini-pile ……………………………………….. 77
Figure H5.16 Construction of Typical Barrette ………………………………….. 80
Figure H5.17 Details of a Hand-dug Caisson ……………………………………. 81
Figure H5.18 Additional Bars to Trim Wide Spacing of Main Bars to Avoid
Conflict with H-piles in Pile Cap as per clause 5.5 of the Code ….. 83
Figure H6.1 Differential Settlements of Linking Services or Structures to
Basement …………………………………………………………... 85
Figure H6.2 Increase of Water Flow Path by Cut-off by Impermeable Wall …… 86
Figure H6.3 Illustration of the “Locked-in” Stresses Formulation in a Top-down
One Storey Basement Construction and the Method of Analysis …. 88
Figure H6.4 Illustration of Mobilization of Soil Mass against Uplift for
Foundation Elements in Close Proximity …………………………. 89
Figure H7.1 Photographic Illustration of Excavation .………………………….. 93
Figure H7.2 Common Preventive Measures in Foundation Construction ……… 94
Figure H7.3 Double Raking Shore to Enhance Stability of Building …………... 95
Figure H7.4 Photographic Illustrations of Monitoring of Ground and Structure 96
Movement and Ground Water Level ………………………………
Figure H7.5 Dewatering in Excavation to Lower Ground Water Table ………… 97
Figure H7.6 Noise Nuisance Reduction Measures ……………………………... 101
Figure H7.7 Exhaust Purifier for Diesel Power of Reverse Circulation Drill ….. 102
Figure H7.8 Spraying of Water for Dust Suppression ………………………….. 102
Figure H8.1 Set-up of Loading Test on Top Level of Pile ……………………… 106
Figure H8.2 A typical Load Settlement Curve in a Pile Load Test ……………... 108
Figure H8.3 Twin Tube and Single Tube Set-up of Sonic Logging Test ……….. 110
Figure H8.4 Example Demonstrating Sonic Coring Test Revealing Anomaly …. 112
Figure H8.5 Photograph showing Arrangement of a Tension Pile Test (Raking
Pile) ………………………………………………………………... 113
Figure H8.6 Tension Pile Test using Ground as Reaction ……………………… 113
Figure H8.7 Example of “Traces” Revealed by Ultrasonic Echo Sounder Test ... 114
Figure HA-1 Representation of a Corestone-bearing Rock Mass (Malone,
1990) ………………………………………………………………. A-1
Figure HB-1 Worked Example of Determination of Ultimate Bearing Capacity
of Footing …………………………………………………………. B-1
Figure HB-2 Failure Mode under a Strip Footing ………………………………. B-2
Figure HB-3 Demonstration of Interpolation of Ultimate Bearing Capacity …… B-4
Figure HC-1(a) Variation of Depth Factor with L/B Ratios for Soil of Poisson’s
Ratio = 0.3 ………………………………………………………… C-2
Figure HC-1(b) Variation of Depth Factor with L/B Ratios for Soil of Poisson’s
Ratio = 0.35 ……………………………………………………….. C-2
Figure HC-1(c) Variation of Depth Factor with L/B Ratios for Soil of Poisson’s
Ratio = 0.4 ………………………………………………………… C-3
Figure HC-1(d) Variation of Depth Factor with L/B Ratios for Soil of Poisson’s
Ratio = 0.45 ……………………………………………………….. C-3
Figure HC-1(e) Variation of Depth Factor with L/B Ratios for Soil of Poisson’s
Ratio = 0.5 ………………………………………………………… C-3

xi
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

Figure HC-2 Illustration of Symbols used in the Equations for Estimating

Corner Settlements of Rectangular Footing ………………………. C-4
Figure HC-3 Calculation of Settlement of a Point X under a Point of a Footing
Exerting a Uniformly Distributed Load on an Elastic Subgrade ….. C-4
Figure HC-4 Settlement Contours for a Rectangular Footing Exerting Uniformly
Distributed Load on an Elastic Subgrade …………………………. C-5
Figure HC-5(a) Coefficients for Determination of Average Settlement of
Rectangular Footing Resting on Top of an Elastic Half-space of
Finite Depth to Hard Stratum, Soil of Poisson’s Ratio =0.3 ………. C-6
Figure HC-5(b) Coefficients for Determination of Average Settlement of
Rectangular Footing Resting on Top of an Elastic Half-space of
Finite Depth to Hard Stratum, Soil of Poisson’s Ratio =0.35 ……... C-6
Figure HC-5(c) Coefficients for Determination of Average Settlement of
Rectangular Footing Resting on Top of an Elastic Half-space of
Finite Depth to Hard Stratum, Soil of Poisson’s Ratio =0.4 ………. C-7
Figure HC-5(d) Coefficients for Determination of Average Settlement of
Rectangular Footing Resting on Top of an Elastic Half-space of
Finite Depth to Hard Stratum, Soil of Poisson’s Ratio =0.45 …….. C-7
Figure HC-5(e) Coefficients for Determination of Average Settlement of
Rectangular Footing Resting on Top of an Elastic Half-space of
Finite Depth to Hard Stratum, Soil of Poisson’s Ratio =0.5 ………. C-8
Figure HC-6 Estimation of Settlement outside Rectangular Plan Footing
Carrying u.d.l. ……………………………………………………... C-9
Figure HC-7 Estimation of Settlement inside Non-rectangular Plan Shaped
Footing …………………………………………………………….. C-9
Figure HC-8 Illustration of Calculation of Footing Settlement in 2 Layered
Subgrade …………………………………………………………... C-10
Figure HC-9 Worked Example HC-2 …………………………………………… C-10
Figure HD-1 Derivation and Nature of the “Twisting Moment” ………………... D-1
Figure HD-2 General Moments at a Point in a Plate Bending Structure ………... D-2
Figure HD-3 Bending and Twisting Moment as Represented by the Mohr
Circle ………………………………………………………………. D-2
Figure HD-4 Plots of Normal Moments and Strengths by Wood Armer Equation
for Worked Example HD-1 ………………………………………... D-4
Figure HD-5 Plots of Normal Moments and Strengths by Wood Armer Equation
for Worked Example HD-2 ………………………………………... D-5
Figure HE-1 Worked Example HE-1 for Pile Group Reduction Factor ……….... E-1
Figure HF-1 Worked Example HF-1 for Determination of Ultimate Lateral
Shear Resistances of Piles Pinned at Pile Cap …………………….. F-1
Figure HF-2 Worked Example HF-2 for Determination of Ultimate Lateral
Shear Resistances of Piles Rigidly Connected at Pile Cap ………... F-2
Figure HH-1 Extract from Tomlinson (2008) Demonstrating the Principles of
the Equivalent Raft Method ……………………………………….. H-1
Figure HH-2 Worked Example HH-1 …………………………………………… H-2
Figure HI-1 Illustration of the Buckling Phenomenon of Piles in Elastic Soil … I-1
Figure HI-2 The Finite Difference Model for the Simulation of a Pile ………… I-1
Figure HI-3 Illustration of Exposed Length and Sleeved Length Factors ……… I-4

Figure HI-4 Numerical Example of a 4-T50 Mini-pile ………………………… I-8

xii
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

Figure HJ-1 Energy Transfer Process as Assumed by the Hiley Formula ……… J-1
Figure HJ-2 Work Done in Quake and Set as Assumed by the Hiley Formula … J-3
Figure HL-1 Derivation of Wave Speed in Pile …………………………………. L-1
Figure HL-2 Derivation of the Basic Wave Equation ………………………........ L-2
Figure HL-3 Pile Forces and Velocities …………………………………………. L-4
Figure HL-4 Wave Transmission in Pile Shaft ………………………………….. L-5
Figure HL-5 Typical Plot of Measured Forces and Velocities of a Pile by PDA
Test .………………………………………………………………... L-9
Figure HL-6 Smith’s Idealization of Pile ………………………………………... L-10
Figure HL-7 Typical Graphs showing Good Matching between the Measured
Forces and Calculated Forces with Time ………………………….. L-11
Figure HL-8 Wave Forms of P and Z⋅v of a Pile undergoing PDA Test and
Photograph showing the Defected Portion ………………………... L-12
Figure HM-1 Bearing Capacity Factor Nq for Circular Foundations (after Kezdi,
1975) ……………………………………………………………… M-1
Figure HM-2 The Shapes of Failure Modes at the Pile Tips as assumed by (a)
Terzaghi and Berezantsev; (b) Meyerhof; (c) Vesic ………………. M-2
Figure HM-3 Bearing Capacity Factors of Berezantsev and Brinch Hansen (after
Tomlinson 2008) ………………………………………………….. M-2
Figure HM-4 Variation of Nq with φ at Different L/d ratios to Berezantsev …….. M-4
Figure HN-1 Geometrical Shapes due to Overlapping of Soil Columns and Rock
Cones of Two Adjacent Circular Piles ……………………………. N-1
Figure HN-2 Worked Example for Checking Uplift of a Large Diameter Bored N-3
Pile …………………………………………………………………
Figure HN-3 Overlapping of Soil Columns and Rock Cones of 4 Large
Diameter Bored Pile for Worked Example HN-2 …………………. N-4
Figure HN-4 Pile Layout for Worked Example HN-5 ………………………….. N-8
Figure HO-1 Illustration of the Use of (Eqn HO-1) …………………………….. O-1
Figure HO-2 Coordinate System for Calculation of Lateral Displacement of Pile
Cap ………………………………………………………………… O-2
Figure HO-3 Calculation of Horizontal Displacement of a point X on the Front
Face of a Uniformly Distributed Load acting on a Vertical Plane
within a Semi-infinite Homogenous Elastic medium ……………... O-2
Figure HO-4 Lateral Deflection Contour of a Vertical Plane Exerting u.d.l. in a
Semi-infinite Homogenous Elastic Medium ……………………… O-3
Figure HO-5 Front face of a Pile Cap divided into a Number of Equal
Rectangular Elements ……………………………………………... O-4
Figure HP-1 Illustrative Plots of Deflection and Moment Coefficients of Pile
under Lateral Load ………………………………………………… P-3
Figure HP-2 The Winkler’s Spring Model for Piles under Lateral Load …….…. P-9
Figure HP-3 An Example Demonstrating the Differences in Deflection and
Bending Moment of a Pile with Free Head with and without
P-∆ Effect …………………………………………………………. P-11
Figure HP-4 An Example Demonstrating the Differences in Deflection and
Bending Moment of a Pile with Fixed Head with and without
P-∆ Effect ………………………………………………………….. P-12
Figure HQ-1 Piling Layout Plan and Details for Worked Example HQ-1 ……… Q-3

xiii
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

Figure HR-1 Illustration of Mindlin’s Equations for Determination of Various

Components of Stresses due to a Vertical Load in a Semi-infinite
Elastic Medium ……………………………………………………. R-1
Figure HR-2 Worked Example HR-1 …………………………………………… R-2
Figure HR-3(a) Normal Stress Contours in kPa on the Wall of Worked Example
HR-1 ……………………………………………………………… R-3
Figure HR-3(b) Shear Stress Contours in kPa on the Wall of Worked Example
HR-1 ………………………………………………………………. R-3
Figure HS-1 Worked Example HS-1 ……………………………………………. S-2
Figure HS-2 Hydrostatic Pressures on Wall in Worked Example HS-1 ………... S-4
Figure HS-3 Worked Example HS-2 ……………………………………………. S-5
Figure HS-4 Hydrostatic Pressures on Wall in Worked Example HS-2 ………... S-6
Figure HS-5 Soil Medium Idealized into a Regular Rectangular Mesh ………… S-7
Figure HS-6 “Flow net” Analysis of Worked Example HS-2 by the Finite
Difference Method ………………………………………………… S-8
Figure HS-7 Hydrostatic Pressure Contour of Worked Example HS-2 ………… S-9
Figure HS-8 Finite Difference Mesh after Elimination of Nodes of Negative
Water Heads and Final Water Profile ……………………………... S-10
Figure HT-1 Soil Profile for Worked Example HT-1 …………………………… T-2
Figure HT-2 Graphical Representation of Variation of Stresses with Depth in
Worked Example HT-1 ……………………………………………. T-4
Figure HV-1 Extract from GEO 1/2006 (Figure 6.26) to Explain Randolph’s
Approach in Settlement Determination …………………………… V-1
Figure HV-2 Extract from GEO 1/2006 (Figure 7.9) to Explain Randolph’s
Approach in Pile Interaction of Settlement ……………………….. V-3
Figure HV-3 Worked Example HV-1 for a Tension Loading Test ……………… V-3

List of Photographs in Appendix U

Page
No.
HU.1 Driven Steel H-Piles

Photo HU-1.1 Welding of Pile Shoes …………………………………………….. U-1

Photo HU-1.2 Setting-Out of Pile on Ground ………………………………......... U-1
Photo HU-1.3 Installation of Pile in Correct Position ……………………………. U-1
Photo HU-1.4 Checking Verticality ………………...…………………………….. U-1
Photo HU-1.5 Pitching of Pile (by Hydraulic Hammer) ……………………......... U-1
Photo HU-1.6 Connection of Pile by Welding ……...…………………………….. U-1
Photo HU-1.7 Test of Weld ………………………………………………………. U-1
Photo HU-1.8 Pitching to the Required Depth ……...………………………......... U-1
Photo HU-1.9 Installing Transducers on Pile for the PDA Test …………………. U-1
Photo HU-1.10 Pile Driving Analyzer Test Data Displaced on Screen ...………….. U-2
Photo HU-1.11 Final Set Measurement ……………...…………………………….. U-2
Photo HU-1.12 Close-up of Final Set Measurement ……………...……………….. U-2
Photo HU-1.13 Static Loading Test – Set-up with Kentledge .…………………….. U-2
Photo HU-1.14 Static Loading Test – Close-up of Load Cell on Top of Pile ……… U-2

xiv
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

HU.2 Large Diameter Bored Pile

Photo HU2.1 Setting-Out of Pile on Ground ………………………………......... U-2

Photo HU2.2 Set up the Hydraulic Oscillator with Crawler Crane and Drive the
Temporary Steel Casing into the Ground …………………………. U-2
Photo HU2.3 Excavation using Hammer Grab inside Temporary Steel Casing … U-3
Photo HU2.4 Extending the Temporary Steel Casing by Bolting or Welding
Connection …………………………………………………........... U-3
Photo HU2.5 Excavation of rock or similar hard material using Reverse
Circulation Drilling Rig for Formation of the Rock Socket………. U-3
Photo HU2.6 Formation of Bellout by Hydraulic Bellout Bit using Reverse
Circulation Drilling Rig …………………………………………... U-4
Photo HU2.7 Installation of Permanent Liner (usually in Zone of Weak Soil)
inside the Temporary Casing to Avoid “Necking” ………………... U-4
Photo HU2.8 Installation of Steel Reinforcement Cage inside the Bored Pile
Shaft using Crawler Crane ………………………………………... U-4
Photo HU2.9 Cleaning of Pile Base using Airlifting Method by Compressed
Air …………………………………………………………………. U-5
Photo HU2.10 Placing Tremie Concrete with Gradual Extraction of the
Temporary Steel Casing Concurrently ………..…………………... U-5
Photo HU2.11 Rotary Drilling Rig for Concrete Core Test ………..……………... U-5
Photo HU2.12 Sonic Logging Test ………..………………………………………. U-5
Photo HU2.13 Sample of Concrete / Rock Interface ………..……………………. U-5

HU.3 Socketed Steel H-Pile

Photo HU3.1 Drilling with the first Temporary Casing ………………………..... U-5
Photo HU3.2 Checking Alignment ………………………..................................... U-5
Photo HU3.3 Drilling Works by ODEX Method ………………………............... U-5
Photo HU3.4 ODEX Drilling Bit ………………………....................................... U-6
Photo HU3.5 Prefabrication of Steel H-pile for Socket Length Portion ……….... U-6
Photo HU3.6 Double Shelter for Noise and Dust Reduction during Piling ……... U-6
Photo HU3.7 Casing Joint Preparation …………………………………………... U-6
Photo HU3.8 Splicing of Temporary Casing …………………………………….. U-6
Photo HU3.9 Splicing of Steel H-pile …………………………………………… U-6
Photo HU3.10 Obtaining Rock Sample after Completion of Drilling Operation … U-6
Photo HU3.11 Preparation Works for Grouting Work ……………………………. U-6
Photo HU3.12 Air-lifting before Grouting Work …………………………………. U-6
Photo HU3.13 Cement Grouting Work for the Socketed H-Pile ………………….. U-7
Photo HU3.14 Extracting Temporary Steel Casing by Vibrating Hammer ……….. U-7
Photo HU3.15 Extracting Temporary Steel Casing by Hydraulic Jack under
Adverse Condition ………………………………………………… U-7
Photo HU3.16 Grouting Testing Work…………………………………………….. U-7

HU.4 Mini-pile

Photo HU.4.1 Drilling Rig for Mini-pile on Working Platform U-7

Photo HU.4.2 Drilling Work in Progress (Vertical Mini-pile) U-7

xv
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

Photo HU.4.3 Drilling Work in Progress (Raking Mini-pile) ……………………. U-8

Photo HU.4.4 Checking Alignment of Mini-pile ………………………………… U-8
Photo HU.4.5 Splicing of Steel Casing …………………………………………... U-8
Photo HU.4.6 Collecting Rock Sample at Founding Level ……………………… U-8
Photo HU.4.7 Air Lifting at Completion of Drilling ……………………………... U-8
Photo HU.4.8 Prefabrication of Steel Bars ……………………………………….. U-8
Photo HU.4.9 Installation of Steel Bars ………………………………………...... U-8
Photo HU.4.10 Completion of Pile by Cement Grouting ………………………….. U-8

HU.5 PIP Pile

Photo HU5.1 Setting Out of Pile ………………………………………………… U-9

Photo HU5.2 Auger Drilling Rod ……………………………………………….. U-9
Photo HU5.3 Drilling Work in Progress …………………………………………. U-9
Photo HU5.4 Extension of Auger Drilling Rod …………………………………. U-9
Photo HU5.5 Drilling Completed to the Required Depth of Pile ………………... U-9
Photo HU5.6 Grouting Work of Pile …………………………………………….. U-9
Photo HU5.7 Flow Cone Test for Grout …………………………………………. U-9
Photo HU5.8 Initial Setting Time Test for Grout ………………………………... U-9
Photo HU5.9 Grouting Cube Compression Test ………………………………… U-9
Photo HU5.10 Completion of Grouting Work ……………………………………. U-10
Photo HU5.11 Prefabricated Steel Cage ………………………………………….. U-10
Photo HU5.12 Installation of Steel Cage into the Pile Shaft ……………………… U-10
Photo HU5.13 Surveying of the Top Level of Steel Bar ………………………….. U-10
Photo HU5.14 Stabilizing the Steel Cage (in Grout) by U-bolts ………………….. U-10
Photo HU5.15 Inspection of Grout at Top Level of Pile before Backfill …………. U-10

HU.6 Barrette Construction

Photo HU6.1 Shallow Trench formed and surrounded by Guide Walls and filled
by Bentonite Slurry ……………………………………………….. U-10
Photo HU6.2 Silos on Site for Re-circulation of Bentonite Slurry ……………… U-10
Photo HU6.3 The Hydromill Machine for Trench Excavation …………………. U-10
Photo HU6.4 Cutter at the bottom of The Hydromill Machine …………………. U-11
Photo HU6.5 Excavation by Hydromill within Guide Walls ……………………. U-11
Photo HU6.6 Scrapers used to Clean Trench sides by Removing Excess Filter
Cake ……………………………………………………………….. U-11
Photo HU6.7 Reinforcement Cage Pre-fabricated on Site ………………………. U-11
Photo HU6.8 Lifting Reinforcement Cage ………………………………………. U-11
Photo HU6.9 Lowering Reinforcement Cage into Excavation Trench ………….. U-11
Photo HU6.10 Tremie Concreting for Barrette …………………………………… U-11
Photo HU6.11 Finished Barrette after Concreting / Grouting …………………….. U-11

HU.7 Hollow Box Footing

Photo HU7.1 Open Excavation for Raft Footing Construction ………………….. U-12
Photo HU7.2 Blinding the Bottom Level of the Raft Footing …………………... U-12
Photo HU7.3 Reinforcement Fixing for the Bottom Slab ……………………….. U-12

xvi
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

Photo HU7.4 Concreting for the Bottom Slab …………………………………... U-12

Photo HU7.5 Reinforcement Fixing for the Walls ………………………………. U-12
Photo HU7.6 Concreting for the Walls …………………………………………... U-12
Photo HU7.7 Formwork Erection and Reinforcement Fixing for the Top Slab …. U-13
Photo HU7.8 Concreting for the Top Slabs ……………………………………… U-13

xvii
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

H1 GENERAL
As similar to the Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2004, this Handbook
explains and elaborates the Code of Practice for Foundations 2017 on a clause by clause
basis, with the clause numbers prefixed by the letter “H” for ease of identification and
distinction. Figures, tables and equations in the Handbook are also prefixed by “H” for
the same purpose.

H1.1 SCOPE

The “Code of Practice for Foundations” is referred to as “the Code” hereafter in this
Handbook.

The Code covers mainly analysis, design, site investigation, construction and testing of
foundations. Relevance to local practice is emphasised.

The Code contains deemed-to-satisfy requirements (satisfying the Hong Kong Building
(Construction) Regulations). However, justifications based on the principles of
mechanics are also permitted, including rational design methods for determination of the
ultimate capacity of subgrades.

Cross references to other technical documents and codes including the current Codes of
Practice for the Structural Use of Concrete and Steel for design are also included. The
Code permits both ultimate limit state and permissible stress methods in the design of
structural elements. However, avoidance of over-stressing a foundation element beyond
its yield strength under the application of the required test load needs also to be
considered in design which constitutes a limiting minimum design strength constraint.

Analysis and design approaches together with a number of worked examples have been
included in this Handbook to illustrate the use of recognized approaches in solving
specific engineering problems. But it must be stressed that these do not represent the
only acceptable approaches. Others based on sound laws of mechanics with justified
design parameters are also acceptable.

H1.2 GLOSSARY

Elaborations / clarifications of some of the terms defined by the Code in this section are
stated as follows :

Allowable load and Allowable bearing pressure

The allowable load refers to the working load being applied to the foundation and the
subgrade which is usually the “characteristic load” (normally defined as the load with a
5% chance of being exceeded). The allowable bearing pressure is often taken as the
“ultimate bearing capacity” divided by a factor of safety which is checked against the
allowable load in design.

Page 1 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

Bell-out

The function of the bell-out of a bored pile is to increase the end-bearing capacity of the
pile due to the enlarged base area so that the structural capacity of the concrete can be
more fully utilized. The general configuration of a bell-out is as shown in Figure H1.1 in
relation to the rockhead and founding levels, with the limitation of the bell-out diameter
to 1.65 times the shaft diameter of the pile (Re clause 5.4.7) which can be taken as that
formed above bedrock as shown in the figure. The limitation of the bell-out size is to
avoid ineffective spreading of the load from the bored pile shaft to the rock bearing
stratum. Furthermore, in addition to the bearing on rock under the use of bell-out, the
Code also allows inclusion of bond / frictional resistance derived from rock for a height
not greater than the lesser of 3m and the rock socket diameter as part of the pile’s load
carrying capacity as provided in clause 5.4.7. However, the socket length can be doubled
(the lesser of 6m and twice the rock socket diameter) if no bell-out is used.

Thickness of
Temporary
Casing Dia. = D3
formed by
Dia. = D2 permanent
formed by the casing and
temporary Soil with sleeving
casing
Dia. = D2
formed by the Thickness of
Rock head level Rock head level
temporary Temporary
casing Casing
500mm for Cat. 1(a) & (b),
300mm for Cat. 1(c), (d) & 2

Socket into rock for gaining extra

load carrying capacity of the pile,
≤ 3m and D1 as per 5.4.7

Reduced Dia. D1 as Reduced Dia. D1 as

the temporary the temporary
casing does not casing does not
≤ 30o ≤ 30o
advance into rock advance into rock
Founding level

Overbreak Bell-out
Bell-out

Base of Pile Base of Pile

Maximum Dia. = 1.65D2 Maximum Dia. = 1.65D2

(a) Bored Pile Bell-out without (b) Bored Pile Bell-out with
Permanent Casing Above Permanent Casing above

Figure H1.1 – General Configuration of Bell-Out of Bored Pile

Page 2 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

Final set

The final set (denoted by the symbol s) is defined in the Code as the penetration per blow
of the driving hammer which is the same as that GEO Publication 1/2006. As
distinguished from the elastic displacement of the pile and the soil (usually denoted by Cp
+ Cq), which is recoverable after the strike by the hammer, the set is the permanent
settlement of the pile which is non-recoverable.

The local practice generally is to calculate the final set as the average set value of the last
10 pile driving blows in accordance with the following typical final set graph contained
in Figure H1.2.

Final set s = 33 mm/10

= 3.3 mm
Cp + Cq = 53 mm

Figure H1.2 – Typical Final Set Graph

Rock Socket

Rock should be of the required design grade or better.

Page 3 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

Test Driving of Pile

Test driving of a pile is often carried out prior to commencement of the main piling work
and is required even for recognized types of piles, normal installation method and normal
ground geology. Apart from verification of design assumptions, integrity and
constructability can also be verified with respect to the installation method, ground
geology and founding level by the test driving. The term should include installation of
both percussive and non-percussive piles such as driven piles, socketed piles and mini-
piles. Loading test is normally not required.

Test pile

A test pile refers to a completed working pile chosen among others to undergo testing
(usually a loading test) for verification of its load-carrying capacity and/or displacement
characteristics. The success or failure of the test will lead to acceptance, rejection or a
requirement for further tests of the bulk of the remaining working piles represented by the
test pile.

Trial pile

A trial pile is often required for (i) a new pile type; (ii) an unconventional design method,
or verification of a set of design parameters, and/or a new installation method; (iii) a pile
type and/or installation method where there is inadequate local experience; and/or (iv) a
site with complex geology, and/or (v) steel H-piles driven to bedrock with design net
length shorter than 10m and for any other special reasons. Installation and test of the trial
pile is often carried out prior to commencement of the main piling work. Loading test, if
feasible, will normally be required.

Ultimate Bearing Capacity

The definition in the Code includes both full mobilization of the resistance of the bearing
stratum and substantial deformation. However, the latter is not well defined or quantified.
BS8004:2015 which names by another term “ultimate unit base resistance” has referred
to BSEN1997-1-2004 for defining the term “resistance” as “capacity of a structure to
withstand actions without failure, e.g. resistance of the ground.” Conventionally ultimate
bearing capacity is defined as failure (shear failure according to Craig (2004)) of the
subgrade which involves splitting or tearing away of the subgrade structures generally in
the modes illustrated in Figure H1.3 with reference to a strip footing.

The deformation at ultimate bearing failure is very large and is normally not quantified as
a criterion for defining ultimate bearing capacity. The control of deformation, however,
is taken as a separate criterion for foundation design as in clause 2.1.1 in which a
foundation has to be designed so that it (i) possesses a factor of safety of 2 or 3 over the
ultimate bearing failure; and (ii) has a limiting deformation (quantified) under the
working load condition. It should also be noted that the equation given in clause 2.2.4
based on soil mechanics principle, is only suitable for failure mode (a) in Figure H1.3.

Page 4 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

(a) General Shear Failure Mode is the mode in which a

continuous failure surface occurs as illustrated in the
diagram. Ultimately a state of plastic equilibrium is
fully developed throughout the soil above the failure
surfaces. Upheaving of ground will occur. This mode
occurs in soil of low compressibility, i.e. dense or stiff
soils;
(a) General Shear Failure Mode
(b) Local Shear Failure Mode is the mode in which there is
significant compression of the soil underneath the
foundation but only partial development of the state of
plastic equilibrium. Failure surfaces do not reach the
ground and only slight upheaving is found. The failure
is associated with large displacement which is not well
defined;
(b) Local Shear Failure Mode (c) Punching Shear Failure Mode occurs when shearing
failure occurs in the vertical direction along the edges of
the foundation, causing large displacements. This mode
of failure occurs also in soil of low compressibility.

In Hong Kong, generally footings on loose sand are not

preferred. If founding has to be carried out on loose sand,
failure modes (b) or (c) may take place which is/are not
preferred.
(c) Punching Shear Failure Mode
The bearing capacity equation quoted in H2.2.1 is applicable
to Mode (a).

Figure H1.3 – Modes of Failure for Ultimate Bearing Capacity

H1.3 ABBREVIATIONS

In addition to those of the Code, the following abbreviations are added :

GI Ground Investigation
GIU Geotechnical Information Unit of the Civil Engineering Library in the
Civil Engineering and Development Department
HKB(C)R Hong Kong Building (Construction) Regulation
SPT N value Uncorrected Standard Penetration N value before foundation installation

H1.4 SYMBOLS

A number of symbols are listed in this clause of the Code. Nevertheless, the following
should be noted :

(i) L has been defined as the symbol for pile length in mm in this clause. However,
the same symbol has been defined as length of core run in Note (11) under Table
2.1.

Page 5 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

H2 GENERAL DESIGN REQUIREMENTS

H2.1 GENERAL

H2.1.1 BASIC REQUIREMENTS

The Code describes the basic requirements for foundation design and construction in this
sub-clause. The following are highlighted and discussed:

(i) The checking of adequacy of the founding soil/rock of a foundation is based on

the “allowable capacity” (for bearing, bond or friction) of the soil/rock which
should be checked against the “working load” (normally the characteristic load
without load factors) imposed on it;

(ii) The “allowable capacity” of the soil/rock can be determined by the lesser of

(1) the “ultimate capacity” (defined as the least pressure which will cause
shear failure of the soil/rock) divided by an adequate factor of safety
against failure; and

(2) limited movement and/or deformation.

The determination of the factor of safety for the former is based on a number of
factors as stated in the Code. In practice, the factor of safety is in the range of 2
to 3, depending on the uncertainties in the behaviour of the foundation. For
example, the allowable bearing capacity of soil can be obtained from the ultimate
bearing capacity divided by a factor of safety of 3, though it is often the
settlement or differential settlement which is the controlling criterion. Another
example for determination of “allowable capacity” in accordance with the
settlement criterion is that of a common driven pile which is the least load acting
on the pile to cause a pre-determined limiting settlement divided by a factor of
safety of 2;

(iii) The allowable capacity can be increased by 25% when such increase is solely due
to wind which induces load of transient nature.

It should be noted that a foundation should be designed for dead, imposed and wind loads
where imposed load covers live loads, water uplift and earth load. This is to accord with
the Building (Construction) Regulations and the Code of Practice for Dead and Imposed
Load 2011.

H2.1.2 COMPATIBILITY OF DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

When determining ultimate capacity or estimating settlement of a foundation, it is

important to ensure compatibility among the design approach, use of parameters, method
of construction, testing, acceptance standards etc.

Page 6 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

H2.1.3 CLASSIFICATION OF SOILS AND ROCKS

GEOGUIDE 3 is referred to by the Code for the classification of soils and rocks. As
described by the Guide, there are two kinds of rock descriptions to serve specific
purposes. The one for engineering usage of ‘rocks’ and ‘soils’ gives an indication of the
likely engineering properties of the rock. The geological classification of ‘rocks’ and
‘superficial deposits’ enables interpretation of the geological structure of an area and
good correlation between boreholes. In practice, the geological classification does not
include the engineering properties of rock but the engineering properties are often closely
related to the geological characteristics.

Rock material weathering in Hong Kong rarely produces a homogeneous weathered rock
mass where all rock material is weathered to the same degree, or even a simple weathered
profile where the degree of weathering decreases progressively with depth. Complex
variation of weathering throughout the rock mass is often the rule as seen in the Worked
Example HA-1 in Appendix HA which is abstracted from Figure 4 of the GEOGUIDE 3.
The presence of discontinuities and the effects of weathering have a great influence on
engineering behaviour and should be treated with care.

H2.2 ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURE, BOND OR FRICTION OF

GROUND

H2.2.1 RATIONAL DESIGN METHOD

Apart from adopting presumed values for the allowable capacity of soils and rocks, the
Code allows using a rational design method for calculating the ultimate bearing capacity
which, by applying a factor of safety, can be converted to an allowable capacity. A factor
of safety of 3 is normally adopted with respect to geotechnical capacity in view of the
uncertainties involved. An example of the rational design method is that based on the
ultimate bearing capacity equation in the form of qu = cN c + 0.5 BγNγ + qo N q for shallow
strip footings as found in common soil mechanics textbooks. A more detailed form of the
equation taking account of dimensions and load eccentricities at the footing is given in
Vesic (1973) which is also quoted in GEOGUIDE 1 and reproduced in clause 2.2.4 of the
Code. It should be noted that the allowable bearing capacity should be checked against
the loading pressure calculated based on the effective dimensions of the shallow footings
(i.e. Bf’ and Lf’) instead of the maximum bearing pressure derived from the eccentricity
of the loading.

Other factors of safety may be adopted having regard to the nature of the soil or rock, its
variability over the site and the reliability of the design method or whether there is some
form of proof-testing that has been carried out during pile installation. This applies to the
situation when well-established design methods are used. For example, if the Hiley
formula is adopted in driven pile design, where the pile will be subject to some form of
proof-testing by achieving an acceptable final set value, a lower factor of safety of 2 can
commonly be used which is applied to the design working load.

Page 7 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

H2.2.2 PRESUMED VALUES

(1) General
The Code has included in H2.2.2 a set of “Presumed Values” for the allowable
vertical bearing pressures on horizontal ground in its Table 2.1. These values can
be adopted under the conditions stated in paragraphs (1) (a) and (b) of the Code
which refers to the sites where site investigations have been carried out and
normal structures are to be constructed. It should be noted that the use of the
“Presumed Values” does not preclude the requirement for consideration of
settlement of the structure which may need to be assessed separately.

(2) Allowable Vertical Bearing Values

The Code refers to Table 2.1 for presumed values of vertical bearing values of
soil and rock on the basis of the material description. Some points are discussed
as follows :

(i) Category 1(d) Rocks

According to GEOGUIDE 3, a six-fold grade scheme for material

decomposition is used to classify the state of decomposition. For
engineering design purposes, grade I to III materials generally cannot be
broken down by hand and are considered as rocks. Grade IV to VI materials
generally can be broken down by hand into their constituents and are
considered as soils. Soils of grades IV and V are termed saprolites. They
can be distinguished by a simple slaking test because slaking can be readily
seen in grade V soil, but not in grade IV, when they are immersed in water.

(ii) Interpretation of Category of Rock Mass against Total Core Recovery

The determination of the “Presumed Values” of rock depends very much on

the Total Core Recovery (TCR) and TCR is one of the criteria for the
classification of rock as given in Table 2.1 of the Code. It is clarified that
recovering rock of a grade lower than the design grade in a core run is
acceptable. For example, a Cat 1(c) rock core run can have no more than
15% of material of lower grade than grade III. This is in line with the
weathering of the rock mass represented by the Worked Example HA-1 in
Appendix HA. In addition, by Notes (5) and (11) following Table 2.1 of the
Code, core run (L) should be taken as 1.0m for determination of TCR. And
for the determination of TCR of a designated grade of rock, the TCR of 5
consecutive core runs have to achieve the TCR of the grade.

Furthermore, attention should be given to the rock stratum immediately

underneath the foundation level which must be rock of the required grade or
a better material. However, the weathering of the rock mass may vary in
complex fashion and sometimes it is difficult to determine the founding rock
from the TCR of a borehole.

(iii) Recommendation on Depth of Pre-design Ground Investigation Boreholes

Page 8 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

Note (5) of Table 2.1 requires that the founding stratum should be proved to
a depth of at least 5m into the specified category of rock because a rock
layer of thickness less than 5m is traditionally treated as corestone.
However, in the case of piles with a rock socket, the requirements on pre-
drilling should be followed as stipulated in para. 10 of PNAP APP-18. In
such cases, the drilling should be sunk into the rock mass for at least 5m
below the rock head of the specified grade or the designed length of the rock
socket of the nearest pile, whichever is the deeper.

(3) Allowable Lateral Bearing Pressure for Rock

Clause 2.2.2(3) of the Code is self-explanatory.

(4) Allowable Bond or Friction between Rock and Concrete

Table 2.2 of the Code specifies different values of presumed allowable bond or
friction between rock and the concrete of piles for the conditions “under
compression or transient tension” and “under permanent tension.” It should be
understood that transient tension refers to tension in the foundation structure
under transient loads such as wind loads whereas permanent tension results from
persistent dead loads, soil loads and the like. As an example, a load case of
“Dead Load minus Wind Load” resulting in tension should be considered a
transient tension. However, tension resulting from flotation should not be
considered as transient as the duration of the flotation load can be long, possibly
half a day in the case of tidal variation or even longer for severe storm conditions.

(5) Footings of Minor Temporary Structures

The clause allows the use of allowable vertical bearing pressure of 100kPa (if dry)
or 50kPa (if submerged) for the design of minor temporary structures which
should include fencing, hoarding, lamp pole, covered walkway, disabled ramp,
minor single storey buildings – e.g. refuse collection point, pergola.

H2.2.3 IN SITU TESTING METHOD

Examples of insitu testing methods include the “Plate Load Test” and the full scale
loading test.

H2.2.4 BEARING CAPACITY EQUATION METHOD

Allowable Vertical Bearing Pressure of Shallow Foundation founded on Soil

The clause first lists an equation for determination of allowable vertical bearing pressure
qa for shallow foundations (depth to bottom not greater than 3 m by Note (1)) as follows :
q − qo
qa = u + qo
F

where qu is the ultimate bearing capacity, qo is the effective overburden pressure at the
base of the foundation due to the soil originally exists above the foundation and F is the

Page 9 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

factor of safety not less than 3. The applicability of the formula is irrespective to whether
there will be soil backfill over the top of the foundation after construction.

The above equation is actually derived from the following relation :

qu − qo
=F
qa − qo

where qu − qo and qa − qo refer to the effective ultimate bearing capacity and allowable
bearing capacity after reduction of qo which is often known with high certainty. The
ratio of qu − qo to qa − qo is the required factor of safety F .

The clause lists the general equations for determination of qu for shallow foundation
with limitations based on the work of Vesic (1973, 1975) which have been quoted in
GEOGUIDE 1. A worked example is contained in Appendix HB of this Handbook.

Nevertheless, it should be noted that though the use of the bearing capacity equation for
foundations on soil can often achieve values significantly higher than the presumed
values in Table 2.1, two restraints are imposed :

(i) qu is limited to 3000kPa;

(ii) Plate load tests have to be carried out as per clause 4.2.2(2).

In addition, the Code has provided in Figure 2.4 that the application of the bearing
capacity equation to an irregular shaped shallow footing can be taken as that of a
rectangular one with dimensions as the largest inscribed rectangle in the irregular shape
of the footing. As the bearing capacity increases generally with the plan dimension of the
footing, the approach is generally a conservative one for homogeneous soil or for soil
strata with strength increasing with depth.

H2.2.5 OTHER METHODS

Clause 2.2.5 of the Code is self-explanatory.

H2.3 FOUNDATION SETTLEMENT AND ROTATION

H2.3.1 ESTIMATION OF SETTLEMENT

(1) General

The Code outlines the general principles in foundation settlement estimation in

this clause which should be determined by principles of mechanics based on
appropriate soil parameters obtained by proper site investigation and laboratory
work. Also settlement comprises immediate settlement and secondary settlement
(or creep).

(2) Foundations on Granular Soils

Page 10 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

The Code lists the following formula for estimation of immediate settlement of
foundations on granular based on the elastic theory

qnet B f ' Fo
Se =
Es

where the symbols are defined in the Code.

The formula is a popular one listed in common text books which can used to
calculate the settlement of a rectangular loaded area with different values of Fo
depending on length breadth ratio of the footing, hard stratum depth to footing
breadth ratio, buried depth to footing breadth ratio and Poisson’s ratio of the soil.
The Code refers the determination of the coefficient Fo to GEO Publication No.
1/2006 (in clause 3.2 of the Publication). Poulos & Davis (1974) and Tomlinson
(2008) contain charts and tables for deriving the Fo under different loading
configurations and loaded area in resting on elastic medium. A series of charts for
quick estimation of mean settlements of rectangular footings covering variations
of the afore-mentioned parameters, together with the basic principles, analytical
approach and worked examples for single and multi-layered soils are included in
Appendix HC for ease of use by the readers.
[A digital copy of the book by Poulos & Davis (1974) is published and with the
permission of the authors and can be downloaded in this link:
http://research.engr.oregonstate.edu/usucger/PandD/PandD.htm]

(3) Foundations on Fine-Grained Soils

In fine grained soils, the immediate settlement depends on the rate of the
dissipation of excess pore water pressure caused by the application of the
foundation loads. This is usually termed as primary consolidation settlement.
Soils continue to deform after the primary consolidation settlement and this
process is termed as secondary compression (or creep). Nevertheless, the
followings are highlighted for reference by the readers :

(i) Primary consolidation is the process by which water is expelled from the
fine-grained soil leading to decrease in volume and thus settlement under
long term loading. As the permeability of the soil is low, the
consolidation process will take time, the completion of which may take
years. Primary consolidation can be regarded being completed when the
excess pore water pressure has dissipated to zero;
(ii) Secondary consolidation follows that of the primary consolidation which
is caused by creep – gradual readjustment of the soil particles to a more
stable configuration which leads to further settlement. The time at which
secondary consolidation commences is not well defined. A pragmatic
approach is to assume that the secondary consolidation settlement
commences when 95% of the primary consolidation is reached;
(iii) The soil is described as over-consolidated, normally consolidated or
under-consolidated if it has been under a pre-consolidated stress which is
higher, identical or smaller stress in the past as compared with the present

Page 11 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

stress. The past history of stress affects the consolidation settlement under
applied stress ∆σv;
(iv) The soil parameters including the pre-consolidated stress can be estimated
by the oedometer test.

(4) Young’s Modulus

In the estimation of settlement, the use of soil and rock parameters based on
ground investigation results are crucial. The determining parameter, which is the
Young’s modulus, E of soil can be determined by appropriate laboratory or in-situ
tests such as the plate load test. Nevertheless, the Code suggests the correlation E
= N (in MPa) for granular soils in the absence of more accurate if the design
allowable bearing capacity is not greater than 250kPa. In addition, there are also
recommendations in other references including GEO Publication 1/2006 (2006)
Table 6.10 relating E to SPT N values.

(5) Poisson’s Ratio

The Code suggests ranges of Poisson’s ratios of soils as related to their SPT N
values. As high Poisson’s ratio implies more significant effects from lateral
strains or stresses, smaller soil settlement in the direction of the applied load and
higher lateral stress / strain are anticipated in the soil with higher Poisson’s ratio.

H2.3.2 ACCEPTABLE SETTLEMENT AND ROTATION

(1) General

Clause 2.3.2(1) of the Code is self-explanatory.

(2) Reference Criteria

Notwithstanding (1), the Code suggests some reference criteria for settlements
and rotation at base of footing and under-side of pile cap for buildings or
structures not particularly sensitive to movement under conditions listed in the
clause. Nevertheless, as the settlement of upper levels of a building structure due
to dead load can be adjusted throughout the construction sequence, it should be
reasonable to take half of the dead load for estimation of settlement.

Criteria of other recommendations and codes are listed as follows for readers’
reference. These include that by Skempton and MacDonald (1956)
recommending maximum slopes (between any two points within a single
foundation unit or in separate foundation units) to vary from 1 in 500 for steel and
concrete frame infilled structures to 1 in 200 where there is no infill or no danger
of damage to the cladding. Furthermore, Meyerhof (1956) recommended limiting
slopes to 1 in 250 for open frames, 1 in 500 for infilled frames. Burland (1975)
gives a comprehensive summary of the recommendations of these past researches.
In addition, the Eurocode BSEN1997-1:2004 Annex H states that total settlements
up to 50mm are often acceptable for normal structures with isolated foundations
and a maximum relative rotation of 1 in 500 is acceptable for many structures in a
sagging mode and half of that value for a hogging mode. Furthermore, the

Page 12 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (1992) suggests that the total

settlement is not to exceed 80mm for structures on clay and 40mm for structures
on sand and the maximum slopes for reinforced concrete frames to vary from 1 in
400 to 1 in 250 and for steel frames to be 1 in 500 (continuous) and 1 in 200
(simply supported), leaving the maximum deflection between supports to be
determined by design. So the limits of 1 in 500 for gravity load and 1 in 500 for
transient loads are of the same order as the above and generally on the
conservative side. But as far as the structural integrity is concerned, differential
settlement is often more critical than absolute settlement.

(3) Individual Case

The Code requires checking of the structure against ultimate and serviceability
limits if the criteria in (2) cannot be satisfied.

H2.4 STRUCTURES ON NEWLY RECLAIMED LAND

Clause 2.4 of the Code is self-explanatory.

H2.4.1 GENERAL DESIGN RULES

The Code has set a number of design rules in this sub-clause which are generally
applicable to structures built on newly reclaimed land. The rules, being more or less
identical to those listed in PNAP APP-103, aim at minimizing damage to structures and
non-structural components due to settlements and differential settlements.

To avoid the migration of soil into voids underneath a pile cap formed by ground
consolidation as discussed in item (f) of the sub-clause, Figure H2.1 illustrates an
effective measure for reference which is the construction of a short wall. The figure is
reproduced from the figure in Appendix A of PNAP APP-103 with the additional
illustration of the short wall.

Ground Rock fill in

accordance with
Short wall of depth PNAP APP-103
1200 min.
greater than 300mm Appendix A
and the estimated
settlement to prevent
ingress of soil into the
void formed beneath
the Cap
1
1
Filter Layer
Settling soil surface (Terram1000
underneath Pile Cap 1000 or equivalent)

Voids created after soil The greater of 300mm

settlement and estimated maximum
possible settlement

Figure H2.1 – Measures to mitigate the Migration of Soil into any Voids that may be formed
underneath the Suspended Structure

Page 13 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

Nevertheless, it should be understood that assessment of settlements cannot be totally

ignored even if measures in this sub-clause have been implemented.

H2.4.2 ALTERNATIVE APPROACH

In addition to the considerations discussed in this sub-clause when an Alternative

Approach is adopted for design of structure on newly reclaimed land, effects due to loads
from adjacent features, including structures, should also be considered as necessary as
they might create extra stresses and deformations.

H2.4.3 LONG-TERM MONITORING AND/OR MAINTENANCE

The long-term monitoring and/or maintenance requirements may take the form of a
“performance review” which may be required in Scheduled Areas, sites of complex
geology and for special structures. The usual forms of long-term monitoring include
building settlement and tilt and ground-water table monitoring.

H2.4.4 RECLAIMED LAND WITH CONSOLIDATION SUBSTANTIALLY

COMPLETED

Theoretically the time of a certain percentage of consolidation completion depends on the

coefficient of consolidation cv and the length of drainage path. The latter can be taken as
the thickness of soil layer if the bottom level touches an impermeable layer or halved the
thickness of soil layer, if otherwise. Nevertheless, the Code has, as a general guidance,
tabulated the number of years for achieving 95% consolidation for different ranges of
thickness of clayey deposits. Apart from those design rules being exempted from
complying with clause 2.4.1, other design considerations such as negative skin friction
can also be ignored.

H2.5 STRUCTURAL REQUIREMENTS

H2.5.1 GENERAL

In addition to the compliance requirement with the Hong Kong Buildings (Construction)
Regulations, reference to relevant requirements from other well-established codes of
practice such as the British Codes and European standards and the general laws of
mechanics can also be made for the structural design of foundations.

H2.5.2 DESIGN LOADS

Apart from the Building (Construction) Regulations Section 17, the Code of Practice for
Dead and Imposed Loads 2011 published by the Buildings Department should be referred
to for the determination of the design loads. In addition, reference should be made to the
circulars issued by the Fire Services Department giving updated loads for fire engines if
the structure has to be designed to carry fire engines.

It is a popular local trade practice to design separately the foundation and superstructure
of a building. The foundation is designed using a set of assumed loads from the

Page 14 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

superstructure prior to detailed analysis of the superstructure. Nevertheless, the Code

requires the design to demonstrate that the loads from detailed calculations of the
superstructure do not exceed the assumed loads used in the foundation design.

In addition, in the case that a foundation design is controlled by sliding or overturning

stability and stability is ensured only by a heavier gravity load from the superstructure,
the foundation may need to be re-checked under a gravity load reduced from the original
assumed loads.

For a foundation which has to undergo a “static load” test, the maximum test load can be
2 to 3 times the foundation working load which is generally greater than the partial load
factors used for ultimate strength design. So this can be regarded as another limit state
that has to be taken into account for design.

For the determination of soil loads, active pressure only should be used in checking
stability of the whole structure where adequate soil movement is allowed. Full passive
pressures should only be included when the designer is confident that they will be
mobilized for the duration of loading. It should be noted that the movement to fully
mobilize the passive pressure is usually large unless there is a lock-in movement due to
the construction sequence of the structure. Generally the structural design of members
should be based on at rest soil pressure instead of active soil pressures.

H2.5.3 UNDERGROUND WATER

Clause 2.5.3 of the Code is self-explanatory.

H2.5.4 RESISTANCE TO SLIDING, UPLIFT AND OVERTURNING

The clause is identical to the provisions in the current Building (Construction)

Regulations except that the factor applied to the uplift force due to ground water as a de-
stabilizing load based on “highest possible groundwater table” is 1.1 instead of 1.5.
Summarizing the provisions stated in the clause, (Eqn H2.1) to (Eqn H2.3) can be listed
as below as stability check against sliding, uplift and overturning respectively. The
structure can be regarded as having achieved the required factor of safety in stability
check if the equations are satisfied.

S stabilizing
≥ 1.0 (Eqn H2.1)
fu × S sliding ( flotation ) + 1.5 × S sliding ( others )
Fstabilizing
≥ 1. 0 (Eqn H2.2)
f u × Fuplift ( flotation ) + 1.5 × Fuplift ( others )
M stabilizing
≥ 1 .0 (Eqn H2.3)
1.5 × M overturning ( wind ) + f u × M overturning ( flotation ) + 2.0 × M overturning ( others )

In the above inequalities, the terms S , F and M in the numerators represent stabilizing
lateral forces, vertical forces and moments against the wind, soil, water flotation loads
causing instability respectively. These stabilizing forces and moments are usually
provided by the structure’s own weight and other anchoring forces to the ground, if any.

Page 15 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

For the factor f u , it is 1.5 if the check is based on highest anticipated groundwater table
and becomes 1.1 if the check is based on highest possible groundwater table.

Worked Example H2.1 for the structure shown in Figure H2.2 demonstrates the use of the
above inequalities. In the example, the case of highest anticipated groundwater table is
considered with level as marked on the figure by which lateral hydrostatic load balances
out. It should be noted that the most adverse combination of loads should be used in
determining the factor of safety including (i) wind and soil loads acting in the same
direction; (ii) the live load in the building ignored; (iii) live load acting as surcharge only
on the active soil pressure side; and (iv) highest water table on the active pressure side.
In addition, the stabilizing force due to the soil passive pressure may have to be ignored if
there is probable removal of the soil offering the passive resistance during the life time of
the building.
Worked Example H2.1
(i) Check Sliding Stability
Sliding Force
kN
Wind Load
Passive Soil Resistance = 900kN
kN; Friction at the Base of the Building
Line of action Flotation load kN
m above kN;
Factor of Safety against Sliding is
A Line of action at O.K.
m from A
(ii) Check Uplift Stability
O.K.
Load due to Soil
Active Pressure (iii) Check Overturning Stability (about A)
kN; GWL Overturning moment by wind about A is
Line of action kNm
Soil Passive
m above Resistance Overturning moment by active soil pressure about
A Coefficient of A A is kNm
friction at the kN; Line of Overturning moment by flotation about A is
Lateral loads due m action kNm
to ground water m Stabilizing moment by passive soil pressure about
balance on both Dead Load above A A is kNm
sides.
kN; Stabilizing moment by dead load about A is
Line of action at kNm
m from A Checking against Overturning is

O.K.

Figure H2.2 – Worked Example H2.1 for Checking Stability

It should also be noted that the clause is for checking global stability of the whole
building or structure. It is generally not necessary for buildings with adequate rigidities
or ties at the foundation level to check that every foundation element of the building such
as individual footings or piles can achieve the same factor of safety. However, if each
foundation element can achieve the same factor of safety, stability of the whole structure
can be deemed satisfactory. An example is the checking of all piles. If there is no
tension in any piles, this obviously implies stability of the whole building or structure
against overturning. Checking of pile loads can be carried out according to the following
inequality which is extracted from clause 5.1.6 :

Page 16 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

Pmin DL + 0.9 Panchorage ≥ 1.5 Pwind + f u Pfloatation + 2.0 Pothers (Eqn H2.3)

where Pmin DL is the minimum dead load on the pile

Panchorage is the effective ground anchorage
Pwind is the uplift load on the pile due to wind
Pfloatation is the uplift load due to flotation
Pothers is the uplift load due to that other than wind and flotation
f u is 1.5 if the upthrust is due to the highest anticipated ground water table but
can be reduced to 1.1 if the water is due to highest possible groundwater level

H2.5.5 MATERIALS AND STRESSES

(1) General

Traditionally design of foundations in Hong Kong has been based on the working
stress method for both the checking of ground bearing and the structural design of
individual structural elements. However, in recent years limit state design has
been becoming popular for concrete foundation members, though not yet so
popular for structural steel members. This clause in the Code reflects this practice
by making references to the current Codes of Practice for Structural Use of
Concrete and Steel which are based on limit state design.

Nevertheless, the permissible stress design method is still allowed which can be
conveniently used in design of mini-piles and steel piles because of the
requirement to ensure that the steel bars or sections are not to be stressed beyond
their material yield strength during a load test where the test load is twice that of
the design working load.

(2) Concrete

The followings are highlighted :

(i) Limit state design should be adopted generally for structural design of
footings, cast-insitu-piles while leaving the bearing stresses on rock or soil
to be checked against working loads. However, the design of driven
precast concrete pile may still have to follow the permissible stress
method as the Code limits the axial compressive stress on the pile under
working loads to 0.2fcu;

(ii) The Code specifies a 20% reduction in “strength” for concrete where
water is likely to be encountered during concreting or when concrete is
placed underwater or alike. The requirement is more general than the
provision in the Hong Kong Building (Construction) Regulation
(HKB(C)R) which instead limits concrete stresses to 80% of the
appropriate limitation of “design stress”;

Page 17 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

(3) Grout

Clause 2.5.5(3) of the Code is self-explanatory.

(4) Steel

The followings are highlighted :

(i) Though allowable stresses for structural element design are specified in
the clause, the Code allows both the permissible stress method and the use
of the Code of Practice for the Structural Use of Steel 2011 which
involves ultimate limit state in structural element design. A practitioner
can easily work out that the structural design of steel to the limit state, in
accordance with the Code of Practice for the Structural Use of Steel 2011,
is more economical than the permissible stress method by simply
comparing the design working axial stress (stress due to axial load only) of
steel, of the order of 30% to 50% of the yield stress to that of the limit
state method based on the almost full yield stress, (0.9py to 1.0py) even
with the application of partial load factors ranging from 1.2 to 1.6.
Nevertheless, as there is again the requirement of a loading test with a test
load twice the working load, as for a mini-pile and others, the load
carrying capacity will be capped at values similar to those applying the
permissible stress method;

(ii) The allowable bond stress between steel and grout (minimum
characteristic strength 30MPa at 28 days) for both compression and
tension specified in the Code are 400kPa or 320kPa when grouting under
water. However, local testing work by Chung (2005) and Wang et. al
(2005) showed that the ultimate values for compression are in the range of
300kPa to 600kPa if grouting is done in dry conditions and the grout is
unconfined, giving allowable values of 150kPa to 300kPa upon an
application of a safety factor of 2 which are significantly less than those
specified in the Code. Nevertheless, the ultimate bond strengths are
significantly increased when the grout is placed under confined conditions
(confinement in the steel tube), up to 850 to 1160kPa with their allowable
values (ultimate values divided by 2) in the order of the values specified in
the Code. The phenomenon of higher bond strengths where the grout is
confined occurs because the confinement increases the lateral stresses and
subsequently the bond strengths (largely contributed by friction) which
depends on lateral stress;

(iii) The use of shear connectors can obviously enhance bond stress between
the section and the grout. The Code allows the increase in the allowable
bond stress to 600kPa (or 480kPa when grouting under water) under the
use of shear studs designed in accordance with the Code of Practice for the
Structural Use of Steel 2011. The Code also mentions that steel sections
or other means as substitute for shear studs may also be used. It has been
a practice of the local industry to weld steel cross bars along the flanges of
the steel pile for shear connections as illustrated in Worked Example 2.2
which follows;

Page 18 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

(iv) It is therefore advisable to (a) adopt reduced bond strengths between the
grout and the steel section above the rock socket; and (b) enhance the
bonding in the rock socket by the use of “shear connectors” which can
sustain at least 50% of the bond force. Typical arrangements for the use
of welded cross bars for enhancement of bond within the socket for a
socketed pile are shown in Figure H2.3;

Steel Bars of 250mm in length and

diameter not less than 20mm welded
with 8mm flare-bevel-grove weld to H-
Piles as by Shear Connectors 40mm
Steel Bars of cover
250mm in length Soil
Grout
and diameter not
less than 20mm Pipes
welded with
8mm flare-bevel-
grove weld to H-
Piles as by Shear
Connectors

Section X-X – bars welded on flanges

300mm Grout 40mm

typical Steel Bars of Pipes cover
grout
250mm in length
and diameter not
Rock less than 20mm
Rock welded with
Socket
8mm flare-bevel-
grove weld to H-
Piles as by Shear
Connectors
X X

Section X-X – bars welded on webs

Figure H2.3 – Typical Socketed H-Pile with Cross Bars as Shear Connectors

The following Worked Example H2.2 for a grade S450J0 305×305×223kg/m

socketed pile with bond strength enhanced by shear studs is demonstrated as
follows :

Worked Example H2.2 :

Pile Section : grade S450J0 305×305×223kg/m

Perimeter of the Pile Section = 1918mm
Maximum Pile Compression Load : 6000kN
Pile Socket Length : 5m
Shear Studs (Class 1) : nominal shank diameter d = 22 mm;
nominal height h = 100 mm
Ultimate Tensile Strength of Stud : fu = 450 MPa
Grout Cube Strength : f cu = 30 MPa

Page 19 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

Young’s Modulus of Grout : Ecm = 22000 MPa

(The Ecm value is quoted from Table 3.2 of the Code of Practice for the Structural
Use of Concrete 2013 for concrete of grade C30, as the Code cl. 2.5.5(3) states
that the requirements (including the use of the Young’s modulus) of concrete
applies to that of grout)

Allowable bond stress between steel and grout (concreting under water) = 320kPa
without shear studs or other substitutes.

So the total bond force that can be provided by the bare bond between the grout
and the pile is 1.918 × 5 × 320 = 3068.8 kN

If shear stud is to be used to enhance the bond force, characteristic strength of a

shear stud is (in accordance with Eqn (10.20) of the Code of Practice for the
Structural Use of Steel 2011)
Pk = 0.29d 2α 0.8 f cu Ecm = 0.29 × 222 × 1 0.8 × (0.8 × 30 ) × 22000 × 10−3 = 91.22
 πd 2   π × 22 2 
kN ≤ 0.8 f u   = 0.8 × 450 ×   × 10 −3 = 136.85 kN (shear resistance of
 4   4 
h 100
the stud) as = = 4.55 > 4 ⇒ α = 1 (Note: f cu of grout is discounted by
d 22
20% to allow for grouting in water).

As the shear stud is Class 1 material, the partial strength factor γ m1 = 1.0 is used
in accordance with Table 4.1 of the Code of Practice for the Structural Use of
Steel 2011. So the design strength of the shear stud is Pk = 91.22 / γ m1 = 91.22 kN.

Treating the shear stud as if it is in slab under negative moment as per clause
10.3.2.1 of the Code of Practice for the Structural Use of Steel 2011 for
conservative design, its design resistance is Pn = 0.6 Pk = 0.6 × 91.22 = 54.73 kN.

The bond strength of a socketed pile can thus be enhanced by adding an

appropriate number of shear studs, bearing in mind that the overall bond strength
has to be capped at 480kPa according to the Code which is 50% over the bare
bond strength of 320kPa. So the enhancement should be limited to
3068.8 × 0.5 = 1534.4 kN, requiring 1534.4 / 54.73 = 28 nos. of shear studs.

Alternatively, T20 cross bars of length Lb = 250 mm with spacing s = 300 mm

along the pile can be used as shear connectors. The shear connection is derived
from the bearing resistance of the bars on the grout. By cl. 6.2.2.3(m) of the Code
of Practice for Structural Use of Concrete 2013, the ultimate bearing strength is
f bu = 0.6 f cu = 0.6 × 0.8 × 30 = 14.4 N/mm2.

The allowable bearing strength is f ba = 0.5 f bu = 0.5 × 14.4 = 7.2 N/mm2;

The bearing area of a bar is Ab = 20 × 250 = 5000 mm2;
The allowable resistance per a bar is f ba × Ab = 36 kN.

Page 20 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

So 1534.4 / 36 = 42.6 or 44 nos. of cross bars are required.

During loading test when the applied load is twice the working load, the bond
stress should at most be twice the working stress and this load can be safely
resisted as the ultimate bond strength is twice that of the allowable working stress.

H2.6 CORROSION PROTECTION OF FOUNDATIONS

H2.6.1 GENERAL

In general, this sub-clause requires that corrosion by the external environment (soil and
underground water) will not weaken the foundation to such an extent that structural
inadequacy results during the life time of the foundation. For example, the loss in
thickness of a steel pile will not render its strength inadequate (by reduction of the cross
sectional area) to resist the imposed load during its life time (say 50 years).

H2.6.2 CONCRETE FOUNDATIONS

Concrete is a comparatively durable material. Yet, it is still susceptible to attack by

sulphates, chlorides, alkali-aggregate reactions, acids etc. in the presence or absence of
reinforcements. This sub-clause requires protections proposed to mitigate these effects to
be shown on the foundation plans if these aggressors exist in the ground. The
mechanisms of corrosion by such aggressors on concrete are briefly discussed as follows :

(a) Sulphate attack on concrete, in accordance with Neville (1995), refers to the
chemical reactions in hardened concrete in which (i) tricalcium aluminate (C3A)
hydrate in the concrete reacts with a sulphate salt from outside to form calcium
sulphoaluminate which will result in a volume expansion of 227%; and (ii) base
exchange between calcium hydroxide and the sulphate to form a gypsum with
volume expansion of the solid phase up to 124%. As the expansions are within the
framework of the hydrated cement paste, gradual disintegration of concrete takes
place. However, as remarked in the MTR New Works Design Standards Manual
(2008) (NWDSM), Hong Kong soils contain negligible amounts of naturally
occurring sulphates and therefore sulphate attack in natural soil is generally
insignificant. Nevertheless, if sulphate content is found to be excessive in areas of
reclaimed land, marine environments, leaking water mains and/or service reservoirs,
preventive measures including use of sulphate resisting cement concrete should be
implemented. The sulphate resisting cement has a low content of C3A. Use of PFA
and GGBS as cement replacement, which can alternatively decrease the content of
C3A is also beneficial to sulphate resistance. NWDSM classifies soils with sulphate
content below 0.24% and groundwater with sulphate content below 0.4 gm/litre as
non-aggressive.

Chloride attack is distinct in that its primary action is the corrosion of the steel
reinforcement in the concrete instead of direct corrosion of the concrete. The
chloride first breaks through the protective passivity layer formed by the alkaline
environment of the concrete around the reinforcement, followed by corrosion of the
steel in the presence of water and oxygen. The products of corrosion occupy a

Page 21 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

volume several times larger than the original steel which results in cracking and/or
disintegration of the concrete. Nevertheless, Neville (2003) indicates that such
corrosion will not take place in dry concrete, probably below a relative humidity of
60%, nor in concrete fully immersed in water (where oxygen is very small amount)
except when water can entrain air, for example by wave action. As the chloride
attack usually arises from ingress of chloride ions from outside the concrete and the
primary action is on the steel reinforcement, a dense concrete with adequate cover
to the reinforcement is the best protection against chloride attack. NWDSM
classifies soils with chloride content below 0.05% and groundwater with chloride
content below 200ppm as non-aggressive. Miguel et al. (2010) has developed and
quotes formulae for predicting chloride diffusion rates of concrete in tidal zones.

Aggressive chemicals or agents other than sulphates and chlorides may include
acidic chemicals. Cement in the concrete, being highly alkaline, is not resistant to
attack by strong acids or compounds that may convert to acids. Generally, the
attack occurs by way of decomposition of the products of hydration and the
formation of new compounds which will either be disruptive or soluble.
Consequently, concrete should not be used in locations where this form of attack
may occur, unless with adequate protection such as effective coating. In
accordance with Neville (1995) concrete will be subject to attack by acid in an
acidic environment with a pH value below 6.5. A pH value below 5.5 indicates a
severe environment and below 4.5 a very severe environment (the former is
consistent with NWDSM whilst the latter is consistent with the classification in
Table 4.1 of the Code of Practice for the Structural Use of Concrete 2013).

(b) Alkali Aggregate Reaction (AAR) is a chemical process in which alkalis, mainly
from the cement, combine with certain types of minerals in the aggregate (alkali-
reactive aggregates) in the presence of moisture to produce a gel that can absorb
water and subsequently expand to cause cracking and disruption of concrete. An
effective means of reducing the risk of AAR is to control the alkali content in the
cement, and with appropriate use of cement replacement such as PFA in accordance
with PNAP APP-74. Appendix A of the PNAP has a full description of control of
the AAR, requiring that the “equivalent sodium oxide content” in concrete is not to
exceed 3.0kg/m3.

(c) For foundations constructed on a landfill site where there may be various kinds of
fills with the probable existence of aggressive materials, investigation of the
contents of the materials may have to be taken and appropriate measures
implemented.

(d) Damage by abrasion which refers to damage by abrasive machinery, metal tyred
vehicles or water carrying solids is not common in foundations as they are not
normally exposed to such abrasive actions except for marine foundations subject to
wave attack. However, if abrasive actions do exist, protection which may take the
forms of protective barriers or coatings may have to be provided.

From the above discussion, it can be seen that the composition of concrete, its denseness
and adequacy of cover to reinforcement in concrete foundations are important to
corrosion resistance. The requirements should be more stringent for more severe
environments (which may also require additional measures such as cathodic protection as

Page 22 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

will be discussed in H2.6.4). Rough guides to minimum concrete grades and concrete
covers for reinforced concrete structures in general for various categories of “exposure”
are given in the Code of Practice for the Structural Use of Concrete 2013 and other
standards. In addition, crack widths sometimes need to be estimated against pre-
determined limits to ensure durability.

H2.6.3 STEEL PILES

As for concrete foundations, this sub-clause requires corrosion protection to be provided

in the foundation plans for steel piles where items (a) to (e) listed in the sub-clause exist.
A discussion of these items is as follows :

(a) Sulphate, chloride, aggressive chemicals or other similar agents (including oxygen)
present in the ground will react chemically with steel (with iron as its major
composition) to form other materials which cause corrosion. The corrosion is
chemically a reduction oxidation process in which the iron is “oxidized”. In the
corrosion process, the presence of water is essential and an acidic environment will
accelerate the corrosion process. Figure H2.4 illustrates the chemical process of
corrosion by water and oxygen.

Rust Moist Soil

O2 + 2H2O + 4e– → 4OH–

Cathode Fe → Fe2+ + 2e–

Anode
2e–
Steel

Figure H2.4 – Chemical Process of Corrosion

From the figure it can be readily deduced that if (i) the steel is negatively charged,
i.e. the steel becomes a cathode or (ii) electrically connected to a metal of higher
reducing power (e.g. zinc) by which formation of iron cation (Fe2+) is not favoured,
the corrosion process will be inhibited. Anti-corrosion provisions for steel can
therefore be based on these two phenomena.

(b) The alternate wetting and drying by sea waves in the “splash and tidal zones” of
steel piles installed through the sea will accelerate the corrosion rates as illustrated
in Figure H2.5 and therefore special treatment in corrosion protection is required for
the piles. CEDD (2002) recommends that steel piles have to be fully protected
against corrosion (by effective coating and/or cathodic protection described below)
above the seabed throughout their design life;

Page 23 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

Atmospheric Atmospheric
Pile zone zone

Splash zone High dissolved Cathode Splash zone

oxygen O2+2H2O+4e–→4OH–
Tidal zone concentration Tidal zone
Corrosion Low dissolved
Sea Water Submerged oxygen Anode (corrosion) Submerged
Sea bed concentration Fe→Fe2++2e–

Figure H2.5 – Splash and Tidal Zone in a Marine Foundation

(c) If the steel pile (with iron as its major composition) is in contact with other metals
of lower “reducing power” such as copper (or alternatively described as having
lower position in the “electrochemical series” in chemistry), oxidation and therefore
corrosion of the steel will be accelerated. It is in fact a common protective measure
to protect steel piles by electrically connecting them to a metal rod of higher
reducing power (such as zinc as illustrated in Figure H2.6(a)) so that corrosion
takes place in that metal instead of the steel pile;

(d) “Stray direct electric current” through the piles are direct electric currents flowing
through the earth from a source not related to the piles affected. When these stray
direct currents accumulate on the steel pile, they can induce “electrolytic corrosion”
of the iron by which iron is lost to the surrounding soil which acts as an electrolyte.
Sources of stray current include existing cathodic protection systems, direct current
power trains or trams, arc-welding equipment, direct current transmission systems,
and electrical grounding systems. Fortunately, in most cases, these corrosion
currents are only measured in thousandths of an ampere and so the effects are
normally not significant. One technique to minimize the corrosion effect involves
insulating or shielding the pile from the stray current source and another involves
draining the collected current by either electrically bonding the pile to the negative
side of the stray current source or installing grounding cell(s). The phenomenon
and techniques are also applicable to underground pipelines.

(e) As for concrete foundations, potential damage by abrasion, if any, needs to be

considered.

The rate of corrosion of steel in soil is of the order of about 0.02mm/year in undisturbed
natural soils to 0.05mm/year in non-compacted and aggressive fills (ashes, slag….) as
deduced from BSEN14199:2005 Annex D. The measures protecting against the
corrosion processes mentioned in the above include :

(i) Use of protective paint or coatings (made of polyethylene, epoxy or asphalt);

(ii) Casting in cement mortar or concrete;

Page 24 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

(iii) Sacrificial steel thickness by which the pile is over-sized so that a certain thickness
of steel is reserved for “sacrifice” by corrosion during the lifetime of the pile;
(iv) Zinc coating, as zinc is a stronger reducing agent than iron and can effect protection
by actions as explained in H2.6.3(c); and
(v) Electro-chemical (cathodic) protection by turning the pile into the cathode of a
corrosion cell.

H2.6.4 MARINE FOUNDATIONS

More stringent protective measures for foundations are naturally required in marine
conditions. The Code has highlighted some of the measures which are adopted in the
“Port Works Design Manual Part 1” by CEDD (2002) for both concrete and steel
foundations. Generally the protective measures mentioned in 2.6.2 and 2.6.3 are
applicable to marine foundations with higher standards. Further discussion is as follows :

(i) The intermittent or periodical wetting and drying due to waves and tides accelerate
penetration of chlorides from the seawater into the reinforced concrete foundation
structure and initiate corrosion of the reinforcement. Therefore, it is important to
use a dense concrete mix with comparatively large concrete cover to protect the
reinforcements. In addition to the specified minimum concrete cover of 75mm, the
Port Works Design Manual also specifies that the cementitious content of the
concrete shall be within 380 – 450 kg/m3, of which the dry mass of condensed silica
fume shall be within 5 – 10% range by mass of the cementitious content;

(ii) Steel tubular piles infilled with concrete may be used where the entire thickness of
the casing is regarded as sacrificial. That is, the infilled concrete core alone can
withstand the imposed load after the casing is entirely eroded in the long term.

Some cathodic protective measures against corrosion are illustrated in Figure H2.6 as
discussed by Goran Camitz (2009).
Electrical Power
Source

Support
Steel Pile Steel Pile Tube
Anode Steel Pile
Cable Electric
Zinc Anode sea Current sea

Anode

(a) Cathodic Protection with “Sacrifice Anode” (b) Cathodic Protection with Electric Current
(zinc anode) for steel piles in a pier Applied to Steel Piles in water. Anodes Rigidly
Mounted in Protection Tubes between Piles

Figure H2.6 – Examples of Cathodic Protection to Piles in Marine Foundations

Page 25 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

H2.7 FOUNDATION PLANS

In relation to expected depths and founding levels of the foundation as required in (1)(c)
of clause 2.7 of the Code, it is a common practice that bedrock contours for foundations
founded on rock and SPT N value contours for driven piles are included in the foundation
plan. The SPT N values for plotting contours are subject to different types of driven piles.

H2.8 FOUNDATION DESIGN IN SCHEDULED AREAS

The relevant PNAPs that provide requirements for design in Scheduled Areas include
PNAP APP-24 (PNAP 77) for Scheduled Area No. 3, APP-28 (PNAP 83), APP-30
(PNAP 85) for Scheduled Area No. 1, APP-61 (PNAP 161) for Scheduled Areas Nos. 2
and 4, APP-62 (PNAP 165), for Scheduled Area No. 5 ADM-16 (PNAP 225), APP-131
(PNAP 279) for Scheduled Area No. 3. In addition, drawings showing details and
extents of the MTR Protection Areas can be inspected in the Buildings Department for
Scheduled Area No. 3 or on the website of the MTR given in this link.
[http://www.mtr.com.hk/en/corporate/operations/protection_boundary_map.html]

For Scheduled Area No. 1 (Mid-levels), foundation plans need to be submitted together
with the site formation plans (if any) according to Building (Administration) Regulations
Section 11A. The foundation design should be such that bulk excavation (e.g. for pile
cap construction) should not be lower than the determined bulk excavation limit (DBEL).
Information on the tentative bulk excavation limit (TBEL) can be obtained from the
Buildings Department upon request in writing. The DBEL will be formally issued upon
request when drillhole records for ground investigation and topographic survey covering
the required extent outside the site (specified by the BD at the time of issuing the TBEL)
have been submitted to the satisfaction of the BD.

For Scheduled Areas Nos. 2 and 4 (with marble formation), the current practices of
foundation design are usually based on site characterization using the approach of marble
quality designation (MQD). The Code has outlined detailed requirements in 2.8.2 which
are consistent with GEO Publication 1/2006 and Chan (1994).

A pile redundancy is provided for the uncertainties which the driven piles can be affected
by karst features beneath the pile toe or damaged sustained during driving. The Code
provides guidelines on the adoption of the redundancy factors based on the site
classification taking into account the karst features underneath the site. Preboring may
be used in case the piles have to penetrate overhangs or roofs to install piles at greater
depth. In such circumstances, the pile redundancy can be adjusted accordingly that it
should correspond to the karst feature (and site classification) underneath the installed
piles.

For Scheduled Area No. 3, the MTRCL will impose conditions that may affect the
foundation design. In addition to the requirements specified in PNAP APP-24 (PNAP
77), the following restriction should normally apply:
(i) no foundation work is allowed within 3m from MTR structures;
(ii) no percussive piling works are permitted within 10m from MTR structure.

Page 26 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

H2.9 FOUNDATION DESIGN IN DESIGNATED AREA

The relevant PNAP giving detailed information and layout of the Designated Area of the
North Shore Lantau is PNAP APP-134. In accordance with the PNAP, administrative
procedures including site supervision of GI work should also follow the Code of Practice
for Site Supervision 2009. GI work should also be carried out in stages and with an
assessment of whether the building plans should be modified or the buildings relocated
for economy of design when complex geology is encountered and deep foundations are
involved.

Although the designated area is not different from a non-scheduled area in terms of
building control, foundation design should take note of the complex geology of the site
when designing site investigation works and selecting the appropriate foundation option
for the site.

H2.10 FOUNDATION DESIGN IN SLOPING GROUND

For slope improvement work, it should be noted that the factor of safety has to be
upgraded to the current standard in the checking of the slope.

When designing a foundation in sloping ground, due consideration should be given to the
effect of vertical and/or lateral loads on the stability of the slope. Reference can be made
to GEO Publication 1/2006 for the checking of the bearing capacity for shallow
foundation affected by sloping ground and Geotechnical Manual for Slopes by GEO for
the checking of slope stability. For the design of pile foundations embedded in slopes
which carry lateral load, the slope should be checked for its stability against the imposed
lateral load or, as a common practice, the pile should be “sleeved” to avoid imposing
lateral load onto the slope.

Page 27 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

H3 SITE INVESTIGATION

H3.1 GENERAL

In addition to the various functions of a site investigation report as discussed under this
clause of the Code, the site investigation carried out on site for the proposed foundation
work should also assist the Engineer to:

(i) ascertain suitability of the proposed foundation work for the site;
(ii) choose the most appropriate and/or the most cost effective foundation options for
the building work;
(iii) plan the best method of construction and foresee and mitigate difficulties and
delays that may arise during construction;
(iv) identify the nature of and estimate the volume for waste disposal and surplus
materials arising from the foundation work. The site investigation report should
support any necessary applications to relevant authorities for disposal
arrangement which may require investigation of the impacts on the environment;
(v) identify suitability of the reuse of excavated fills.

H3.2 DOCUMENTARY STUDIES

Documentary studies are cost and time effective means of compiling available
geotechnical information about the Site which can act as the basis for the planning of
future ground investigations. In fact, the information revealed by the documentary
studies often affects the planning of the permanent work design. The Geotechnical
Information Unit (GIU) of the Civil Engineering Library within the Civil Engineering
and Development Department possesses a collection of such information across the
territory which is most convenient to retrieval and study by practitioners. Reference can
be made to PNAP ADM-7 for details of the documentary studies in the GIU concerning
the acquisition of such information. A digital platform of the GIU is available for
practitioners to examine the ground investigation and laboratory testing reports. It is
accessible in this link (www.ginfo.cedd.gov.hk/dgiu). It is important that the
documentary studies should be carried out before planning the ground investigation prior
to design of foundation work. In addition, the accuracy of the retrieved information
should be verified before use.

The documentary studies should aim at compilation of, but not limited to the followings,
as far as they are available :

(i) Previous land use and development;

(ii) Existing borehole data;
(iii) Field and laboratory testing reports on soil and rock properties;
(iv) Information relating to geological profiles;
(v) Ground water levels monitoring data indicating seasonal fluctuations and storm
response;

Page 28 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

(vi) Design and construction records of current and past site formation works such as
reclamation, construction of slopes, retaining structures and basements (with
highlights on the standards of safety adopted in design);
(vii) Design and construction records of foundation works such as piling;
(viii) Past and/or continuing monitoring records and details of special geotechnical
works, for example, ground anchor, horizontal drain, building settlements, and
slope and retaining wall movements;
(ix) Tunnels and disused tunnels, including design and construction records of linings
and ground support;
(x) Records of past failures including landslides. Flooding and settlement of ground
and structures should also be noted and studied where appropriate.

H3.3 SITE SURVEY

The site survey comprises a topographical survey, geological survey, survey of existing
structures, survey of any disused tunnel, nullah or stream course, and a survey of
underground services. The following is in addition to items already mentioned and
cautioned in the Code under the same headings :

(1) Topographical Survey

A topographical survey is important for the planning and design of the construction
work because the topography of the site directly affects the extents of cut and fill
work on site which may have significant effects on construction sequence, cost and
safety. Topography may also dictate access points and types of construction
equipment to be used during construction. For example, on a very steep sloping site,
it may be necessary to form elevated flat platforms using steelwork or extensive
filling work for the construction of large diameter bored piles. If such platform
forming or filling work is costly, the Engineer should carry out feasibility and cost
effectiveness studies by taking into account other feasible foundation options such
as the socketed H-pile or mini-pile involving the use of lighter machinery.

(2) Geological Survey

This sub-clause describes the purpose of a geological study and lists the key
requirements for the geological and ground models in respect of foundations.

(3) Survey of Structures

For the survey of adjacent structures, where required and with permission, sampling
tests on structural members of adjacent structures may be carried out to investigate
and/or confirm their structural integrity in addition to the assessment of paper
records and visual inspection. Agreement from the owners of the adjacent
structures must be sought before carrying out the tests. Where tests are to be
carried out for old building structures, an assessment of the effects of testing must
be made.

For the foundation structures supporting the adjacent structures or buildings, it may
not be enough to limit the survey to their structural integrities only as the adequacy

Page 29 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

of the bearing strata is also important. If considered necessary, investigation or

testing of the bearing strata should also be carried out.

In addition, the effects on these adjacent structures of the proposed temporary and
permanent works on site should be carefully studied. These are important items for
inclusion in the foundation plan submissions to the Building Authority.

(4) Survey of any Disused Tunnel, Culvert, Nullah or Stream Course

The identification of any disused tunnels, culverts or stream courses is important as

they are underground/ground features which directly affect the permanent work
design. Damage to these structures and/or hazards may result if they are not
properly protected during construction work.

(5) Survey of Underground Services

The survey of underground services aims to locate these services precisely so that
damage to them during construction work, leading to suspension of the intended
services, can be avoided. In addition, the survey can help to minimize risks
originating from underground services such as high voltage power cables, gas pipes
and the associated installations. Extreme care must be taken when surveying and/or
working in close vicinity to these underground services. Before any trial pits,
probes or boreholes are sunk in areas where there may be underground services,
hand-excavated inspection pits should be used to establish the presence or
otherwise of all such services. Hand-operated power tools to facilitate excavation
through hard materials should be used with extreme care in inspection pits.

The conditions of the buried water carrying pipes should be ascertained as far as
possible, as bursting of pressurised pipes and leakage of drains are often reported.
Relevant departments (e.g. Water Supplies Department, Drainage Services
Department and Highways Department) should be approached for obtaining any
records of pipe leakage/burst incidents from their services occurred within the past
12 months.

H3.4 GROUND INVESTIGATION

H3.4.1 GENERAL

Ground investigation is that part of a site investigation carried out in the ground. It
serves to retrieve information about the ground to aid the proposed foundation work in
the following aspects :

(i) estimation of the depths, adequacy and suitability of the bearing strata for the
proposed foundation work;
(ii) estimation of future settlements;
(iii) choice of construction methods and necessary precautionary measures for the
proper execution of the foundation works and the minimization of damage to

Page 30 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

adjacent structures due to ground movements, vibrations, and groundwater

fluctuations;
(iv) avoidance of conflicts with existing underground utilities and structures;
(v) determination of the extent of contaminated soils, if present;
(vi) assessment of the degree of aggressiveness if the site has a known history or
potential for significant corrosion and identification of the extent and scope of
chemical tests for further confirmation.

Good quality soil samples and continuous rock cores from boreholes should be obtained
for both geological logging and laboratory testing purpose. Laboratory tests should be
carried out to characterize materials and determine relevant design parameters. These
include classification tests to establish the index properties of the ground and strength and
compressibility tests to obtain the foundation design parameters based on soil and rock
mechanics principles. In addition, in-situ testing (e.g. plate load test, standard penetration
test, permeability test) should also be implemented as necessary.

Despite borehole spacing should vary from site to site depending on the complexity of the
site geology and the building plan of the proposed development, it may be worthwhile to
consider having boreholes at 30m centre to centre for general sites to facilitate the detail
design of the proposed foundation works. Additional boreholes shall be sunk in case of
abrupt change in ground condition between boreholes is observed. For the sites underlain
by complex geology or karst marble, it is recommended to refer to GEO Publication No.
1/2006 for guidelines on the strategy in conducting the ground investigation and spacing
of the boreholes.

The Code reminds practitioners of the requirement of the employment of Registered

Specialist Contractors (Ground Investigation Field Works) for the ground investigation
and laboratory testing work respectively. In addition, the Code stresses the importance of
compliance with the Code of Practice for Site Supervision in Ground Investigation
Fieldworks.

H3.4.2 SUPERVISION FOR GROUND INVESTIGATION WORKS

The current Code of Practice for site supervision in which ground investigation works is
included is the “Code of Practice for Site Supervision 2009” and its corrigenda.

H3.4.3 PREPARATION OF GROUND INVESTIGATION REPORTS

A ground investigation report should comprise the following :

(i) an introduction stating the purpose, timing, nature and extent of the investigation;
(ii) a description of the site including the site location, area covered by the investigation,
the topography and the structure to be constructed on the site;
(iii) a description of the geology of the site (including faulting) and the sources from
which the geology is extracted;
(iv) groundwater and its highest and lowest levels and the period of monitoring;
(v) an account of the field work including the methods of investigation, testing and
equipment used. Difficulties encountered should also be described;
(vi) a summary of the boreholes drilled during the investigation with full reports of the
borehole numbers, locations (with Hong Kong Metric Grid Reference), dates of

Page 31 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

operation, method of forming boreholes, plant equipment used, ground levels and
depths of drilling, descriptions and properties of the soils encountered (except for
wash boring where only the bedrock is extracted for investigation); ground water
levels;
(vii) any interpretation/comment based on data obtained by the engineer. Where
appropriate, the method of analysis, and cross checking of test results should be also
be included.

H3.4.4 SOIL AND ROCK SAMPLING

Clause 3.4.4 of the Code is self-explanatory.

H3.4.5 NUMBER AND DISPOSITION OF BOREHOLES/TRIAL PITS

The Code emphasizes that the number and disposition of boreholes/trial pits should
depend on the size, type, performance requirement of the structure, the general conditions
of the site and the availability of existing information. Chapter 2.4 of GEO Publication
1/2006 provides the general guideline on the extent of ground investigation works.

Below are requirements stated by the Code under clause 7.4.2 for “pre-drilling” for the
following end-bearing pile types, which are applicable generally under all circumstances :

(i) Large Diameter Bored Pile, Barrettes and the like – one pre-drill hole for each pile;
(ii) Mini-pile, Socketed H-pile, H-pile driven to bedrock – pre-drilling be carried out
such that the tip of each pile will not be more than 5m from a pre-drilled hole.

H3.4.6 DEPTH OF GROUND INVESTIGATION

The Code adopts 5m as the required depth for the definition of “bedrock” and therefore
requires drilling into rock for at least 5m for confirmation of bedrock as the end-bearing
stratum for foundation units designed for founding on bedrock. However, for complex
geology, depth of borehole should be increased.

Apart from the requirements on determination of depth for bedrock investigation, the
Code generally requires ground investigation to be carried out to such a depth that stress
increase would cause an insignificant strain or displacement. Taking the stresses beneath
square and circular footings as examples for determination of the depths where
insignificant strains occur, reference can be made to the following “stress bulb” charts as
shown in Figure H3.1 which are arrived at by integration of the Boussinesq Equation (for
determination of stress in a semi-infinite elastic medium due to a point load at the
surface).

Page 32 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

B/2 B/2
45 degrees 45 degrees
Line Line

0.5B 0.5B

1.0B 1.0B
Depth Beneath Footing

Depth Beneath Footing

1.5B 1.5B

2.0B 2.0B

2.5B 2.5B
Circular Footing
Square Footing or Pile

3.0B 3.0B
0B 0.5B 1.0B 1.5B 0B 0.5B 1.0B 1.5B

Figure H3.1 – Vertical Stress Bulb beneath a Square Footing and a Circular Footing (or Pile)
From Figure H3.1, at depths greater than 2.1B (2.1 times the breadth of the footing) for
the square footing and 1.85B (1.85 times the diameter of the footing) for the circular
footing, the vertical stress is only 10% of the contact pressure at the founding stratum.
As such small stresses which imply small strains, further settlements beneath these levels
is likely to be insignificant. So the ground investigation can terminate at these levels.
Nevertheless, if hard stratum, e.g. rock or stiff clay is encountered above these levels
where settlements will be small despite the higher stresses, ground investigation can be
terminated at higher levels. It should also be noted that this “stress bulb” approach is
applicable to both cohesionless and cohesive soils under the assumption that the soil
medium behaves elastically. (The chart for the circular footing can also be used to
estimate stresses beneath a circular bored pile.)

Overlapping of stress bulbs will result if footings are in close proximity. By the elastic
theory, the stress in an overlapping zone at any point is the sum of the stresses by the
individual footings.

H3.4.7 GROUNDWATER

Groundwater level often presents difficulties in the design and construction of foundation
work. In permanent work design, a high groundwater level can give rise to flotation

Page 33 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

problems where the structure is light. Seasonal fluctuations of groundwater level may
induce movements in the permanent structures. During construction when de-watering is
required, care should be taken to avoid subsidence of the ground which may affect
adjacent structures and utilities. Impermeable cut-off or re-charging of ground water may
need to be considered. The groundwater investigation must provide all relevant
information needed for geotechnical design and construction which should include the
followings as appropriate:

(i) depth, thickness, extent and permeability of water-bearing strata in the ground and
joint systems in the rock mass;
(ii) the elevation of the groundwater surface or piezometric surface of aquifers and their
variation over time and actual groundwater levels including possible extreme levels
and their periods of recurrence;
(iii) the pore water pressure distribution; and
(iv) the chemical composition of the groundwater.

H3.5 GROUND INVESTIGATION IN SCHEDULED AREAS

Ground investigation works in Scheduled Areas are subject to special control. The
relevant PNAPs for ground investigation in Scheduled Areas are:
(i) ADM-16 (PNAP 225) – Approval and consent is required under the Buildings
Ordinance. However, the concurrent processing option is available.
(ii) APP-28 (PNAP 83) – Requirement for qualified supervision is imposed.
(iii) APP-30 (PNAP 85) – As Scheduled Area No. 1 is located in the region of sloping
ground, a Registered Geotechnical Engineer (RGE) must be appointed under the
Buildings Ordinance.
(iv) APP-61 (PNAP 161) – As the ground conditions in Scheduled Area Nos. 2 and No.
4 are complex, RGE has to be appointed under the Buildings Ordinance.
(v) APP-24 (PNAP 77) – In Scheduled Area No. 3, railway protection areas have been
delineated and shown on relevant plans and a set of building/engineering guidelines
produced to safeguard the safety and stability of the railway structures. As a general
rule, the boundary of the railway protection areas is about 30m outside the outer
surface of the railway structures or the railway fence/wall, or from the nearest rail if
there is no railway fence/wall. Proposal for ground investigation works or
underground drainage works in or for any existing buildings to be carried out within
railway protection areas other than those designated as Schedule Area No. 3 should
be forwarded to the MTRCL for comment prior to commencement of the proposed
works.
(vi) APP-62 (PNAP 165) – In Scheduled Area No. 5, all proposals for new building
works within 100m from the centerline of the gazetted routes of sewage tunnels
shall be subjected to special scrutiny by Government.

For ground investigation works within the Scheduled Areas Nos. 2 and 4, PNAP
APP-61 (PNAP 161) describes the geotechnical control measures in respect of building
works. By virtue of the Buildings Ordinance, ground investigation in these Areas
requires approval and consent of the Building Authority. The AP, RSE and RGE are
required to ensure that ground investigation works are carried out to a high standard and
are properly supervised. The site supervision requirements and the minimum

Page 34 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

qualifications and experience of the supervision personnel and the Competent Person
(Logging) for ground investigation field works are given in the Code of Practice for Site
Supervision 2009. The cores recovered should be examined and properly logged by the
Competent Person (Logging). Pending the substantial completion of the building works,
all cores and samples should be retained on site in good conditions for inspection by the
staff of the Buildings Department and the Geotechnical Engineering Office.

Technical recommendations on the requirements are also provided by the GEO Technical
Guidance Note No. 12 (GEO 2004) and ETWB TC(W) No. 4/2004 (ETWB, 2004).

In addition, for ground investigation within the Designated Area of Northshore Lantau,
GEO Technical Guidance Note No. 12 (GEO 2004) outlines the establishment of the
Designated Area of Northshore Lantau and the relevant technical recommendations.
Related documents are also provided.

The Designated Area is underlain by locally complex geological conditions that require
due attention to be given to the potential problems associated with high-rise buildings
and other structures involving deep foundations. The complex geological conditions
include some, or all, of the following:

(i) An anomalously deep rockhead, locally in excess of 160m below ground level, in
the deeply weathered, mainly instrusive igneous rocks comprising medium-grained
granite and dykes of rhyolites;
(ii) Metasedimentary rocks and their weathering products giving rise to cavities, cavity
fill deposits and residual soil;
(iii) Superficial deposits, typically between 10 and 150m, occupying depressions in the
subcrop surface, most of which lie directly above or adjacent to metasedimentary
rocks and cavity-fill deposits.

The following additional ground conditions are often contributory to the complex
geological conditions and should also be assessed :

(i) Steep gradients on rockhead; and

(ii) Faulting.

In site investigations for developments with deep foundations within the Designated Area,
some guidelines are recommended for identifying the complex geological conditions:

(i) During the initial ground investigation phase, emphasis should be directed to
developing a representative geological and hydrogeological model rather than just
testing.
(ii) Commonly used ground investigation techniques have limitations in identifying
very localized areas of complex geological conditions. Detailed geophysical gravity
surveying has proved to be a useful technique for identifying the locations of
deeply weathered zones and should be considered as a supplement to and a basis
for planning drillholes.
(iii) Reference can be made to the logging guide by Sewell and Kirk (2002).

Page 35 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

H3.6 GROUND INVESTIGATION WITHIN THE DESIGNATED AREA

The Code reminds that ground investigation works within the Designated Area are
subject to special administrative procedures in accordance with the Code of Practice
for Site Supervision 2009 and ground investigations should be carried out in stages.

Page 36 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

H4 SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

H4.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

The controlling criteria for the design of shallow footing are often settlement and
differential settlement that would be experienced by the structure, the magnitude of
which are controlled by the serviceability requirements of the structure.

The construction of new footings should avoid conflicts with existing foundations and
underground services, as revealed by the ground investigation. Additional stresses and
movements induced in the adjacent structures, foundations, services and slopes etc.
should also be examined, noting the prescribed values imposed by authorities such as the
MTRC, WSD. The analysis can be carried out by (i) using the simple load spread
assumption (say 2 (vertical) to 1 (horizontal) in soil and 45o in rock); (ii) the continuum
theory by treating the ground as an elastic (or elasto-plastic) medium; or (iii) finite
element method analysis. The latter two approaches have to be carried out by computer
methods.

H4.2 ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURE AND SETTLEMENT

H4.2.1 SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS ON CATEGORIES 1(a), 1(b), 1(c), 1(d) OR 2 ROCK

Clause 4.2.1 of the Code is self-explanatory.

H4.2.2 SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS ON SOIL

(1) Design Procedures

The clause outlines the procedure for design of shallow foundations which mainly
aims at establishment of the allowable bearing pressure together with checking of
settlements. Plate load test will be required under conditions as stated in clause
4.2.2(2). Nevertheless, the analysis of the working bearing pressures beneath the
shallow footing need to be established first.

As a conventional and acceptable practice, the determination of ground bearing

pressure due to loads acting on a footing is often based on the assumption of a
“Linear Pressure Distribution” and rigid foundation as illustrated in Figure
H4.1(a). The adequacy of the plan size of the footing can therefore be ascertained
by checking the maximum ground pressure (obtained by the above assumption)
against the presumed values of allowable vertical bearing pressure as given in
Table 2.1 of the Code, in lieu of the “Rational Design Method” described in
clause 2.2.1.

Page 37 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

Plastic stress is
often resulted

(a) By Linear Pressure (b) By Independent (c) By Continuum Theory or

Distribution Assumption Winkler Spring Concept the Finite Element Method

Figure H4.1 – Ground Pressure Distribution beneath Footing under Different Assumptions

However, with the use of structural computer methods, a popular approach

involving the use of the “Winkler Spring Concept” is widely used currently. In this
method the ground is idealized into a series of isolated spring supports which are
independent of each other. Depending on the relative stiffness of the footing
structure and the spring stiffness values, local high pressure values exceeding the
presumed values may result after analysis (in locations under heavy loads) as shown
in Figure H4.1(b) where such a large pressure does not occur using the “Linear
Pressure Distribution” method as illustrated in Figure H4.1(a). Nevertheless, the
excess ground pressure will be even more significant if the analysis is based on the
more accurate “Continuum Theory” approach or the Finite Element Method with
the consideration of full subgrade structure interaction as illustrated in Figure
H4.1(c).

In comparison, analysis by the Continuum Theory and the Finite Element Method
which will result in high ground pressures at the edges and corners of the footing is
usually more realistic than the Linear Stress Distribution Method and the Winkler
Spring Method as illustrated in Figure H4.2. In fact, for a rigid footing resting on
an elastic semi-infinite subgrade, the pressure at the edge of the footing will be at
infinity using elastic theory. Reference can be made to the work of Borowicka
(1939) for an infinitely long rigid strip and Muki (1961) for a circular rigid disc.
But practically the infinite pressure will not exist. The ground will “yield”, resulting
in “plastic pressures” as illustrated by the dotted lines in Figure H4.1(c).

Page 38 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

Original
ground Profile

Ground Ground Settlement

Settlement Profile

(a) Under a uniformly distributed load (u.d.l.) exerted by (b) If a footing of certain stiffness carrying u.d.l. is used, the
a flexible footing (zero stiffness), the centre part of settlement will be more “even” than (a). In fact the
the footing will settle to a greater extent than the outer settlement profile will be a horizontal straight line if the
part because of the greater stresses on the ground footing is infinitely rigid. In order to achieve more even
(stress bulb) as created by the greater summation of settlement by which the settlement of the centre portion
influences from the applied load. decreases and the outer portion increases as compared
with (a), the ground pressure has to be re-distributed
such that higher pressure will be at the edges.

Figure H4.2 – Explanation of Ground Bearing Pressure under the Continuum Theory

The “Linear Pressure Distribution” method is a widely used and accepted method
and this method is presumed when the bearing pressures are checked against the
presumed values in Table 2.1 of the Code. Nevertheless, as the Code does not
preclude more accurate methods of analysis, the Winkler Spring Method or the
Continuum Theory are also accepted in the structural design of the footing.
Furthermore, it should be noted that both the “Linear Pressure Distribution” method
and the “Winkler Spring” method cannot achieve settlement compatibility of the
footing structure and the ground. If the designer were to apply the ground reactions
arrived by these two methods to the ground for calculation of settlements by the
continuum theory, e.g. application of the Boussinesq or Mindlin Equations (or their
integrated forms) (Vaziri et al; 1982) or the finite element method, the settlement
profiles of the ground and the footing structure will not match and this is thus a
draw-back of these approaches. Analytical approaches including the work by Lam
et al. (2009), however, have been developed to account for the true subgrade
structure interactions through the use of the “Continuum Theory” which can
achieve compatibility of settlement of the footing and the subgrade.

In addition, as the Winkler Spring Method and the Continuum Theory may result in
very high ground stresses locally, the designer may, with adequate justification
and/or by making conservative assumptions, assume certain limits of ground stress
(elastic limit) beyond which the stress may remain constant (plastic stage).
Reference to other publications for more accurate constitutive laws of rock or soil
can be made.

Apart from stresses induced on the ground, settlement is another important

controlling design criterion for shallow foundations as required in the flow chart
attached at clause 4.2.2 of the Code. Methods for estimating settlement are often
based on the elastic theory in cohesionless soil and the consolidation theory in a
cohesive soil. Discussions of settlement estimations for cohesionless soil
(commonly encountered in Hong Kong) with charts and worked examples are
enclosed in Appendix HC.

Page 39 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

(2) Testing Requirements

The Code imposes the requirement of carrying out “plate load test” for shallow
foundations (founded on soil) described in clause 8.2 when any one of the 3
conditions listed in clause 4.2.2 (2) is satisfied which includes (a) use of presumed
values for qa greater than 300kPa unless qa − qo less than 50kPa; (b) use of the
bearing capacity equation in clause 2.2.4; (c) use of Young's modulus greater than
the 1 × SPT N values in MPa in settlement determination. The plate load test
serves to correlate the settlement of a test plate (300mm to 400mm plan
dimension) under the test loads to that of the actual shallow foundation for
determination of the Young’s Modulus of soil and back-calculation of foundation
settlement.

H4.3 STRUCTURAL REQUIREMENTS

The structural design of shallow reinforced concrete footing should be in accordance with
the latest version of the Code of Practice for the Structural Use of Concrete 2013.

Generally the structural design of footings should be carried out to resist the “internal
forces” determined by structural analysis. In the conventional structural design of
footings, the internal forces acting on a cross section are often determined by balancing
the applied loads and reactions as demonstrated by Figure H4.3. The analysis and design
are effectively based on a “one-dimensional beam model”.

Shear

X Torsion Bending

X Section X

Design force on Section X will be the net

force between the applied load acting on the
footing and the reaction beyond Section X.
The design force should comprise shear,
bending and torsion as appropriate.

Figure H4.3 – Demonstration of the Determination of Design Forces on Sections of Footing

However, as can be seen readily, the application of the method is quite limited, because (i)
the simulation of a plate structure as a beam structure may not be realistic and; (ii) there
is difficulty in determining the “effective width” of the cross section beyond which local
effects cannot be well captured.

Page 40 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

In contrast to the conventional method, the structural analysis of footings in the local
industry is now frequently based on the “2-dimensional plate bending model” using finite
element analysis. In this approach, the footing is idealized as a 2-dimensional plate
bending structure. “Stresses” which comprise the bending moments, twisting moments
and shear forces per unit plan width of the footing are the analytical results of the
structural design process. The origin and nature of the twisting moment which are not so
familiar to some designers are discussed in Appendix HD. Approaches have been
developed to arrive at a complete flexural design allowing for the bending moments and
twisting moments. The simplest and most popular approach is that based on the Wood-
Armer Equations by Wood (1968). The equations have been adopted in the New Zealand
Code NSZ 3101 Commentary (2006) and are reproduced in Appendix HD with
illustrative worked examples.

Out-of-plane shear stresses (shear forces per unit width) are also obtained for the
checking of out-of-plane shear. Under pre-determined global axes in X and Y directions
in the mathematical model, shear stresses are denoted along the X and Y directions as Vx
and Vy . It can be easily proved (Lam and Law (2009)) that the maximum shear stress for
design is Vmax = Vx + Vy and the failure plane on a plan view is at an angle of
2 2

tan −1 (Vy Vx ) to the X axis. Design against out-of-plane shears should be carried out for
this value of Vmax (in shear force per unit plan width) accordingly.

In addition to the direct approach based on “stress” determined by the Finite Element
Method, an approach based on “node force” has been employed in a popular software
which is being widely used locally. However, there are shortcomings to the approach
which have been discussed by Lam and Law (2009). In short, the “node force” used in
the approach is a hypothetical parameter which does not exist in the structure and the
design based on this approach fails to take into account some important structural
behaviours. A more reasonable approach is to take the average stresses over a design
width for the reinforcement design in reinforced concrete, and such an approach is
usually a more economical in design which is available in some computer software.

An even more advanced method of analysis is by simulation of the footing structure as an

assembly of brick elements (finite elements) by which the mathematical model becomes a
3-dimensional one. The 3-dimensional model is more realistic compared with the 1- and
2-dimensional models as it can capture the strut-and-tie actions that are more likely to
take place in a thick footing structure instead of the pure bending coupled with out-of-
plane shear in plate bending structures. However, the structural design has to take
account of the of the 3-dimensional stress components which comprise 3 components of
direct stresses and 3 components of shear stresses. The analysis is obviously much more
complicated. Law et al. (2007) has developed a design method which is based on
extension of the approach by Clark (1976) for 2-dimensional in-plane problems. A
different approach has also been developed by Foster et al. (2003). These methods may
be used for sophisticated design for an entire footing structure or local examination of a
footing for locations where the structural behaviours are complicated.

The Code also notes that the stability of shallow foundations should comply with clause
2.5.4.

Page 41 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

H4.4 COMMON TYPES OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

The Code distinguishes three types of footing foundation, namely the “pad footing”,
“strip footing” and “raft footing” in this Section. By common understanding of the
profession, the distinction between the three types of footing is roughly based on their
plan sizes or plan length to width ratios as roughly shown by Figure H4.4, though no
strict limits of plan sizes and length to width ratios have been imposed.

(a) Pad Footing (b) Strip Footing (c) Raft Footing

Figure H4.4 – Plans showing Pad Footings, Strip Footings and Raft Footings

Footings in close proximity will likely adversely affect each other in settlement and stress
superimposition which may need to be accounted for. Nevertheless, it may be a rule of
thumb that the effects of a different footing at a higher level can be ignored if the footing
is outside the “2 (vertical) in 1 (horizontal)” (in soil) and 45o (in rock) stress spread from
the higher footing, as illustrated in Figure H3.1. Alternatively, simple superimposition of
the stresses due to different footings can be carried by the continuum theory under the
elastic theory.

H4.4.1 PAD FOOTINGS

A pad footing is one which is relatively small in plan size and usually supports a single
column. Pad footing foundations are usually used to support structures with isolated
columns where the bearing pressures are within allowable limits of the subgrade.
However, the use of isolated pad footings may result in significant differential
settlements between the footings due to different stress levels on the subgrade and/or the
varying bearing capacities and stiffnesses of the subgrade in different locations. In
addition to the differential settlements that will be incurred to the superstructure as
cautioned by the Code, the overlapping of “stress bulbs” in the subgrade together with
consideration of the cross influences between settlements should also be considered for
pad footings in close proximity.

The Code has imposed in clause 2.3.2(2) limit of differential settlement to 1:500 for
shallow foundations generally for buildings or structures not particularly sensitive to
movement. This limit between adjacent footings supporting a structure is also generally

Page 42 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

acceptable for design of reinforced concrete structures of adequate flexibility. However,

smaller values may be required for a comparatively stiff superstructure (such as one with
shear walls and/or wall beams) and sensitive structures such as water tanks.

H4.4.2 STRIP FOOTINGS

A strip footing is one which is narrow in the transverse direction normally supporting
walls. Ties by beams in the direction perpendicular to the length of the strip footing may
sometimes be required to enhance stability or to cater for construction errors and the
beams should be designed for at least certain eccentric moments.

Depending on the ratio of the structural width of the strip footing to the structural depth
and length, the structural behaviour of a strip footing may resemble that of a beam
structure rather than a plate structure. Analysis and design as a beam structure may
therefore be more appropriate.

H4.4.3 RAFT FOUNDATIONS

A raft footing is relatively large in plan size and usually supports a number of columns
and walls. The use of a raft footing is common for structures (i) with closely spaced
vertical members; (ii) with a comparatively large loading or if resting on weak subgrade
requiring a large bearing area; and (iii) varying intensities of imposed loads across the
raft or resting on varying subgrade where differential settlements can be significant. A
raft structure enables differential settlements to be more effectively minimized.
Nevertheless, the Code has cautioned that raft footings should be designed with adequate
strengths to withstand the differential settlements.

In addition, “two way bending” structural behaviour is often more pronounced in raft
footings. Therefore design assuming plate bending behaviour would be more appropriate
than that according to the beam theory as discussed in H4.3.

Traditionally, it is believed that a stiff structure can achieve an even stress distribution on
the subgrade. Although a stiff foundation structure can more effectively spread the loads
from the interior columns or walls over large areas, very high local pressures can still
result along the edges of the foundation as discussed in H4.2. Nevertheless, “local
overstress” of the subgrade (which may turn the subgrade from the elastic stage to the
plastic stage) can be tolerated and the concept average bearing pressure should be
followed in foundation design.

Page 43 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

H5 PILE FOUNDATIONS

H5.1 GENERAL

In addition to the general requirements for a pile foundation as discussed by the Code, it
should be noted that “settlement” and “structural capacity” are the usual controlling
design criteria for piles, with settlement often proving to be the dominant criterion.

H5.1.1 RECOGNIZED TYPES OF PILE FOUNDATIONS

The Building Authority maintains a list of recognized types of pile foundations for ease
of control. The common types of pile such as the driven steel H-pile, prebored H-pile,
large diameter bored pile, barrette and mini-pile, for example are included. There are
provisions in this Section for the inclusion of new types of pile into the list comprising
the submission of technical data, past performance and demonstration of performance
which likely include loading tests.

H5.1.2 GROUP EFFECT

The performance of a single pile will be different if load carrying piles are installed in
close proximity because of the overlapping of stresses created by the piles in the subgrade.
The effect is commonly known as the “Group Effect” and is generally an adverse effect
which may reduce the load carrying capacity of any single pile and increase settlement as
illustrated in Figure H5.1.

Original Ground Profile at Cut-off

Settlement Profile

Piles

Settlement of this pile

Single Pile is due to action of its
own and that of the
adjacent ones.
Pile Interaction

Figure H5.1 – Illustration of Pile Group Effect on Pile Settlement

But there are cases when the effect can become beneficial, e.g. when the subgrade is
densified by closely spaced driven piles increasing the load carrying capacity.

Obviously the group effect is more pronounced for friction piles than for end-bearing
piles founded on competent stratum. The Code does not require consideration of group

Page 44 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

effects for end bearing piles (including piles driven to firm soil of SPT N value ≥ 200)
and piles founded on rock of Category 1(c) or better.

The Code has adopted a simple approach whereby a group reduction factor of 0.85 can be
applied for piles under prescribed conditions. The factor is applied to the pile capacity of
individual piles (for friction piles spaced at less than 3 times the pile perimeter), not the
settlement. Theoretically, there are two group reduction factors, one relates to settlement
and the other to geotechnical capacity. It is well accepted that a pile group has a larger
average settlement than a single pile with the same average load. However, for piles
installed in sand the group capacity is usually higher than that arrived by summation of
the capacities of all the individual piles. An illustrative example is enclosed in Appendix
HE in which a pile group with its piles, pile cap and the soil mass among the piles is
idealized as an integrated structure behaving as a sunken footing founded at the average
founding level of the piles. By determining the ultimate bearing capacity of the
“idealized footing” and with the application of a factor of safety of 3, the allowable total
bearing of the pile group can be determined and compared against the summation of the
capacities of all the individual piles. A pile group factor exceeding unity can be obtained
in this way. As the Code does allow use of factors other than 0.85 (including unity) when
justified by recognized engineering principles, the method can be adopted to justify for
the use of a pile group factor exceeding 0.85.

Despite this easy-to-use provision in the Code, there are also other theoretical approaches
to allow for the interactions between piles and the subgrade and/or the pile cap structure.
Relevant works include that of Randolph (1977) and Poulos & Davis (1980). Both
Randolph and Poulos & Davis’ work take into account the superposition of stresses
and/or settlements of the adjacent piles in determining pile settlements so that the
settlement of any pile is actually the summation of the actions of its own and others. The
work of Randolph was based on the shear deformation of soil whilst Poulos & Davis
(1980) used the integrated forms of Mindlin’s Equation to calculate pile settlements.
Randolph developed a software PIGLET (1980), (2004) for analyzing piles (vertical and
raking) under rigid caps with employment of his theory. Cheng (2013) extended the
approach to cover flexible pile cap cases while keeping Randolph’s theory in assessing
pile-soil interactions in the software PLATE. However, these approaches are based on
elastic deformation of soil only. More sophisticated geotechnical-structural finite
element computer programs have incorporated more advanced soil models including
plastic stress-strain behaviour of soils.

Notwithstanding the foregoing discussion in relation to pile-cap-soil interactions, there is

a simpler approach by which the cap is simulated by a mathematical model as a flexible
structure with piles supports. However, the stiffness of the pile support which actually
involves pile soil interaction effects is difficult to simulate and simple assumption of a
free standing pile restrained at its tip is often employed. Though the approach seems
more advanced than the “rigid cap” approach in which the pile cap is assumed to possess
infinite “out-of-plane” stiffness, accuracy is not significantly improved since the pile
support stiffness is not properly represented. In fact, the unreasonable phenomenon will
result in that a pile driven to greater depth will attract smaller load if the free pile length
approach is adopted.

Page 45 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

H5.1.3 MINIMUM PILE SPACING

The Code specifies minimum pile spacing for various types of pile so as to (i) minimize
the group effects of overstressing the subgrade and/or creating excessive settlement; and
(ii) allow for positional and verticality tolerances in pile construction. However, the
requirement (i) may be waived for piles founding on competent strata. For example, for a
mini-pile or socketed pile where the bearing capacity is derived from rock, the minimum
pile spacing requirement could be based on consideration of construction tolerances only.

With full justifications based on recognized engineering principles or tests, proposals for
other minimum pile spacing values may be accepted.

H5.1.4 HORIZONTAL RESTRAINTS TO PILES AND PILE CAPS

The Code specifies that for driven piles and small diameter piles, adequate horizontal
restraints in at least 2 directions shall be provided for individual piles or pile caps.
However, the restraint should only be necessary for potentially “unstable” pile groups, for
example a pile group comprising only one or two piles where restraint is effected by
tying at the pile cap levels to other pile groups or foundations. A pile group with a large
numbers of driven piles or small diameter piles is stable and tying to other foundations is
not necessary.

H5.1.5 PILE PROVIDING RESTRAINTS AGAINST SLIDING

The clause simply requires

Ultimate Lateral Resistance by the Ground on the Piled Foundation

External Applied Lateral Load ≥ 1.5

The passive resistance of the ground has to be determined by recognized soil mechanics
principles. Ultimate lateral resistances to movements of the pile cap and the pile group in
soil and rock depend on the passive resistance of the soil and the ultimate lateral bearing
capacity of the rock. Reference can be made to clause 5.3.4 and Appendix HF for
determination of the ultimate lateral resistance to movement of a pile while that of the
pile cap is generally governed by the passive resistance of the soil.

Nevertheless, it should be borne in mind that deflection is another controlling design

criterion as in addition to the ultimate resistance.

H5.1.6 PILE PROVIDING RESTRAINTS AGAINST UPLIFT, OVERTURNING AND

BUOYANCY

The clause is concerned with checking the stability of the piled foundation against uplift,
overturning and buoyancy by achieving the required factors of safety as stated in clause
2.5.4 for the whole structure. In addition, if all piles of the structure satisfy the following
two equations, then stability of the whole structure is deemed to have satisfied.

(a) Dmin + 0.9 Ru − 2.0 I a − 1.5U a (or 1.1U p ) − 1.5Wk ≥ 0 (ultimate load condition);

Page 46 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

(b) Dmin + Ra − I a − U a − Wk ≥ 0 (working load condition);

where the symbols are defined by the Code. It can readily be seen that generally equation
(a) controls the pile design unless Ru has a very high value comparatively and Ru > 2 Ra .
A demonstration is enclosed in Appendix HG for a hypothetical pile group in which the
loads on each pile for various load cases are analyzed.

The clause allows stability check to be carried out “globally” as in Worked Example
H2.2 by which the entire structure is treated as an integral unit with the assumption that
the structure possesses adequate stiffness and the structural members have adequate
strengths to effect global behaviour. Generally, if the structural analysis is carried out for
the “integral structure” used for global analysis for stability (with the same load factors
for stability check) and the structural design is carried out accordingly, the stiffness and
strengths of the members are deemed to satisfy the stability requirements. However, it
should be noted that some individual piles may not possess adequate factors of safety
against uplift if equation (a) above is not satisfied while global stability is found
satisfactory to clause 2.5.4. So, instead, equation (b) above should be checked to ensure
all piles do not fail uplift under working load, or otherwise non-linear analysis has to be
carried out, by which the piles reaching their maximum values will stay at these values
and excess being taken up by others.

H5.1.7 PILE GROUP SETTLEMENT

The equivalent raft method as mentioned by the Code for determination of pile group
settlement is a conventional method which applies to pile groups of closely spaced piles.
The closely spaced piles with the soil held by the piles can effectively perform as a
sunken raft footing. The settlements are then estimated as if the pile group is a sunken
footing at the levels equal to two thirds of the pile group in case the piles are end-bearing
on soil or at the hard rock stratum if founded on hard rock stratum. The method is fully
described by Tomlinson (2008) which also specifies the spread of the foundation loads.
Detailed discussions of the method together with a worked example are enclosed in
Appendix HH. Nevertheless, it should be noted that there are quite a number of methods
complying with recognized engineering principles for the estimation of pile group
settlements, apart from the equivalent raft method.

H5.2 NEGATIVE SKIN FRICTION

H5.2.1 DESIGN REQUIREMENT

Negative skin friction (NSF) on a pile originates from the downward drag action due to
the settlement of soil that surrounds the pile. The relative movement between the
installed piles and the surrounding soils is usually caused by the consolidation settlement
of fine-grained soils that take a long time to complete after the pile installation. It is
common that the effect of NSF should be considered on sites in newly reclaimed land
where consolidation settlement of fine-grained soil strata is still on-going after the
completion of the structure. In addition, as the soil strata above the consolidating stratum
will also settle, the determination of NSF should include effects due to the consolidating
stratum and all soil strata above it.

Page 47 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

In considering provision of a double skin permanent liner infilled with inert flexible
material to reduce NSF, such a pile may be free-standing for certain height and is not
embedded in the soil. The ‘buckling’ problem may lead to reduction of the load carrying
capacity of the pile.

Two more general aspects for NSF are discussed as follows:

(i) NSF depends on the relative displacement between the piles and the surrounding
soils. If there is subsequent settlement of the pile against the surrounding soil, the
NSF will be reduced or even eliminated;
(ii) NSF will develop with time as the soil consolidates. When it exists, NSF acts
together with the dead load and permanent imposed load (a term used in clause
2.3.3.3 of the Code of Practice for the Structural Use of Concrete 2013) on the pile.
Therefore the pile must be structurally designed to resist dead + permanent imposed
load + NSF. However, a transitory imposed load creating a transitory pile
settlement will help reduce NSF and therefore needs not be taken into account in
design unless it is greater than twice the NSF which, apart from entirely nullifying
the NSF, adds a load greater than the NSF itself, thus constituting a critical design
load, leading to a design load of dead + permanent imposed + transitory imposed
load.

The Code outlines two approaches for the determination of NSF in clauses 5.2.2 and
5.2.3.

H5.2.2 CONVENTIONAL APPROACH

The Conventional Approach requires NSF to be included in the checking of structural

integrity of the pile and the bearing capacity of the ground. In the equation for assessing
l l
NSF on the pile, which is ∫τ s . pdl = ∫ βσ '. pdl , where τ s = βσ ' is the unit skin friction on
0 0

the pile shaft in which β is the coefficient directly converting the effective vertical stress
σ ' to the friction τ s and p is the perimeter of the pile. Analytically it may be
considered that β = K s tan δ where K s and tan δ are respectively coefficients for
converting the effective vertical stress in the soil to horizontal stress and for converting
horizontal stress to a friction (Bowles 1996). The use of this β coefficient constitutes
the “Beta approach”. The β values can be back analyzed from pile loading tests to
derive the positive skin friction force which assumes the relationship τ s = K sσ ' tan δ as
described in more details in 5.3.2 (1)(b). It should be noted that the method of pile
construction would influence the horizontal stress. The derivation of K s may be
correlated to the at-rest lateral coefficient of the soil, K o . GEO Publication 1/2006 gives
some guidance on the use of K s for displacement and replacement piles. Table 6.3 of
the Publication summarizes the range of β values interpreted from pile loading tests
conducted in saprolites in Hong Kong. From the table it can be seen that the β values
can vary a lot for different installation method and types of piles. The clause in the Code
recommends the use of a typical value of 0.25 in saprolites, sand or marine deposit in

Page 48 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

design, in the absence of more accurate assessment. However, economy of the pile
design in term of NSF consideration may be achieved by deriving the β values using
recognized engineering principles and/or verified by tests.

The length of the pile, for determination of NSF is taken conservatively to the depth of
the consolidation stratum, though strictly speaking NSF ends at the “neutral point” which
is at a higher level. However, the determination of the neutral point is generally difficult.

The group effect should also be considered in the determination of negative skin friction.

H5.2.3 ALTERNATIVE APPROACH

In the alternative approach, NSF does not need to be considered when checking the
ground bearing capacity (geotechnical capacity) of the pile, but the NSF does need to be
fully considered in the checking of the structural capacity. This is based on the
consideration of the limit state that where the ground supporting the pile has reached the
ultimate condition, the pile under this limit state would be settled leading to a reversal of
relative movement between the pile and the surrounding soils. Therefore all NSF in the
pile is eliminated and needs not be considered in the following equation / condition :

Ultimate ground bearing capacity of pile ≥ ultimate loads excluding NSF

Assuming the allowable ground-bearing capacity of the pile has a safety factor of not less
than 2 and the load factors for ultimate loads are not greater than 2, the above equation /
condition may be simplified to :

Allowable ground bearing capacity of pile ≥ working loads excluding NSF.

In addition, the Code requires that checking of the settlement behaviour of the pile under
total loads including NSF should be satisfactory.

The Code allows the test load for a pile designed by the alternative approach be 2Pc +
NSF instead of the normal requirement of twice of the total allowable load which should
be 2(Pc + NSF) where Pc is the allowable bearing load for the pile and NSF is determined
in accordance with clause 5.2.2. This is because (i) the NSF so determined is an ultimate
load as discussed above which should be divided by 2 for conversion to allowable load;
(ii) the excessive settlement of the pile during a loading test can effectively eliminate the
NSF.

More detailed discussion on NSF can be found in Fellenius (1989) and other references.

H5.3 LOAD CAPACITY OF PILES

Clause 5.3 of the Code is self-explanatory.

H5.3.1 STRUCTURAL STRENGTH

Structural strength design can be based on the appropriate limitation of stresses as

Page 49 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

specified. Furthermore, the Code reminds that the buckling capacity of piles should be
checked to allow for embedment in soft strata. Slender piles with considerable lengths
which are sleeved or exposed should also be checked for buckling. A discussion of the
buckling phenomenon in piles based on Law (2013) together with design tables is given
in Appendix HI.

H5.3.2 GROUND RESISTANCE FOR PILES IN COMPRESSION

(1) Driven piles

The ultimate bearing capacity of a driven pile can be determined from (a) dynamic
formula; (b) a static formula; and (c) a loading test.

(a) Dynamic Formula

The Code has listed the Hiley formula as a dynamic formula and values / ranges of
parameters for the production of final set tables. The Handbook, as in addition to
the Hiley Formula, also includes discussions on various popular techniques
including wave equations, PDA, Case Equation, CAPWAP in the determination of
pile load capacity and pile integrity.

(I) Hiley Formula (1925)

The Hiley Formula listed in the clause which is also the commonest dynamic
formula used locally is reproduced as follows

EhWh h Wh + e 2 (W p + Wr )

Pu =  
s + 0.5(cc + c p + cq )  Wh + (W p + Wr ) 
(Eqn H5.1)

where the definition of the symbols are listed in the clause.

If a follower is used, its weight should be added to W p . The underlying principle

and derivation of the formula is based on the energy and momentum conservation
principles as detailed in Appendix HJ. There are many uncertainties, however, with
this method discussed as follows :

(i) The Hammer Efficiency Eh

The loss in potential energy of the hammer represented as Wh h , does not

convert entirely into kinetic energy of the hammer before impact. The cables
and/or guide rails within the hammer absorb some of the energy so that only
EhWh h remains. The Eh (hammer efficiency) of the hammer is entirely a
characteristic of the hammer and recommendations, which are only
approximations, are given in reference books (Poulos & Davis (1980)) for
different types of hammer varying from 0.7 to 0.9. The Code has adopted
the value of 0.7 for drop hammer, unless verified otherwise by test. New
techniques such as the PDA test which can measure the velocity U h of the
hammer just before impact enable the user to back-calculate the factor using

Page 50 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

Eh = 0.5(W g )U h Wh h =U h 2 gh . But it is tedious to calibrate Eh by the

2 2

technique as Eh is not independent of drop height as is often assumed.

(ii) Momentum during Impact

The formula assumes “rigid body collision” between the hammer and the pile
in setting up the momentum transfer equation (Re (Eqn HJ-2) in Appendix HJ)
as part of the derivation of the Hiley Formula. This assumes that every part of
the pile is affected and moves with the same velocity after impact. This is
obviously not valid as the pile is compressible and the error is significant for a
long pile in which the pile and the hammer may separate (momentum transfer
completed) before the impact “wave” can travel to the tip of the pile. As such,
only a certain length of the pile (termed the “affected length”) is affected
Wh + e 2 (W p + Wr )
Wh + (W p + Wr )
during impact. The factor representing the percentage of

energy remaining after impact, as derived in (Eqn HJ-8) of Appendix HJ, is an

under-estimation of the factor and consequently lead to under-estimation of
the pile capacity.

(iii) Energy in Temporary Compression of Cushion and Pile

The terms representing the energy used in a temporary compression of the

cushion and the pile represented respectively by 0.5 Pu cc and 0.5 Pu c p are
taken as static in the derivation. As the actions are actually dynamic, the
energy loss is under-estimated in the temporary compressions. In addition, a
constant value of cc in the range of 4 mm to 6 mm is often assumed in actual
trade practice, regardless of the variation of other parameters, which again
induces further errors. A current practice utilizes a video camera to measure
the actual value of cc .

(iv) Energy in Temporary Compression of the Soil

The formula assumes elasto-plastic behaviour of the soil and that the load on
the soil increases slowly from zero to the maximum at Pu where the soil
reaches its elastic limit at cq , beyond which the soil continues to slip (deform)
at the constant load Pu until S which is the permanent toe movement of the
Pile or the “Final Set” measured in pile driving. The energy transfer assumed
by the Hiley Formula is represented by the area below the load displacement
line in Figure H5.2(a). But in fact, the problem is not a static one as, in
addition to the static force, a “damping” force in the soil is also mobilized
when the pile moves relatively to the soil at a certain speed so that the actual
“load path” diagram should be represented by Figure H5.2(b). As this soil
damping force consumes some energy which dissipates to the soil around
when pile driving has finished, the pile will exhibit static behaviour only, and
the load carrying capacity of the soil is overestimated by the formula.

Page 51 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

cq s
cq s

Pu
Force Force
Pu

O O
Displacement Displacement
(a) Idealized Load Path by Hiley Formula (b) Actual Load Path

Figure H5.2 – Load Displacement Path for Set and Temporary Compression of Soil

Two major sources of error are identified in relation to the foregoing discussion but
there are means to minimize them:

(1) “Affected Length” of the Pile

In relation to the phenomenon that only a portion of pile length (affected

length) can be mobilized during driving as “body movement” when the pile
length is long, GEO Publication No. 1/2006 has commented that “According
to dynamic stress wave theory, it is not rational to take into account the full
weight of the pile in the Hiley Formula where the pile length exceeds about
30m, depending on the velocity of wave propagation through the pile.” This
is also evidenced by the phenomenon that when Wh h of a given hammer
exceeds a certain threshold value, c p + cq become insensitive to an increase of
drop height h , indicating that a maximum c p exists (as cq is comparatively
very small, of the order of 2.5mm), and that the maximum “affected length”
has been reached. There are suggestions in the estimation of W p using only a
portion of the length (affected length) of the pile in the dynamic formula.
Cornfield (1961) advised that, “Wave equation suggests that for steel bearing
piles of normal weights the effect of variation in pile length may be
insignificant in which the lengths are over about 50ft (around 15m).”
Triantafyllidis (2000), based on the principles of wave mechanics, derived a
method for estimating the “affected length of the pile”. However, the method
is not commonly used and there appears to be no simple approach that can
fairly accurately determine the affected length of the pile.

(2) Energy injected to the Pile

Another major source of error is the determination of the energy transferred to

the pile after impact. The error can be eliminated however if the energy at the
top level of the pile after impact can be measured. The measurement can be
made using techniques such as the Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA) test. So if the
energy can be measured and expressed as a fraction of the loss in potential

Page 52 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

energy of the hammer Wh h as XWh h where X is the energy transfer ratio,

the following relation can be established as :

XWh h
Emax = XWh h = Pu s + 0.5 Pu (c p + cq ) ⇒ Pu =
s + 0.5(c p + cq )
(Eqn H5.2)

with X allowing for the effects of hammer efficiency and energy loss due to
impact. But these factors are related to the characteristics of the hammers and
the site geology and therefore need to be established on site through energy
measurements and back-calculations. The factors would have different values
even on the same site for different hammers, different pile lengths, soil
geology etc.

Summing up, it is generally accepted that Hiley’s Formula under-estimates the pile
capacity (determined by static loading test as required by the Code) or requires
more than adequately stringent “Set” to achieve the required pile capacity,
especially for long piles. Past practice is to limit the final “Set” values to certain
ranges including “not less than 25mm per 10 blows unless rock has been reached”,
resulting in very narrow range for the Set values available. In recent years there is a
modification that “Set” between more than 50mm but not greater than 100mm per
10 blows can also be accepted though capped at 50mm per 10 blows in the
calculation of Pu . In addition, the calculated final “Set” should be discarded if the
( )
corresponding c p + cq L > 1.15 where c p , cq are in mm and L in m for the
purpose of limiting the driving stress in the pile. The practice is formally
incorporated in the clause. A discussion of the evolution and demonstration of the
use of these limits are given in Appendix HK.

(II) Wave Equations

The realization that pile driving cannot be accurately analyzed by rigid-body

mechanics has led to the development of an analysis that utilizes the wave theory on
an elastic body. This analysis takes into account the fact that stress waves (created
in the pile by impact of the driving hammer) of varying magnitudes move down the
length of the pile at the speed of sound. The pile is not stressed equally and
simultaneously along its length, as assumed in the conventional dynamic formulae.
In addition, the wave equation analysis also considers individually the effects of
various factors in the driving process such as pile and hammer characteristics,
cushion stiffness, soil damping effects by inserting appropriate parameters. The
ultimate static load capacity of the pile offered by the soil can be estimated more
correctly.

The basic wave equation for pile driving follows a partial differential equation. The
equation is a one dimensional (geometrically) solution describing the displacement
of any point of the pile at co-ordinate x and at time t which reads :

∂ 2u 2 ∂ u
2
= c + S ( x, t ) (Eqn H5.3)
∂t 2 ∂x 2

Page 53 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

where
u is the displacement of a point in the pile from its original position;
x is the co-ordinate of a point on the pile, often taken as distance from the
pile top;
t is time;
c is the wave speed in the pile which is equal to E ρ where E and ρ are
the Young’s Modulus and the density of the material making up the pile
respectively; and
S ( x, t ) is the term representing the soil resistance force at x and t comprising both
the static and dynamic components

Derivation of the differential equation can be found in Appendix HL and text books
including Poulos & Davis (1980) and Bowles (1996). By solving the equation the
displacement at any point of the pile and at any time can be obtained provided that
S ( x, t ) and other boundary conditions of the differential equation such as initial
displacements, velocities etc. are known. However, it is often the other way round
in that by measuring the displacements (sets) and velocities etc. and making
assumptions on parameters such as the form of distribution of resistance, soil spring
values, quake (elastic limit of the soil), damping constants of soil etc., the soil
resistance which represents the load capacity of the pile is calculated instead. Smith
(1962) suggested an approach to solve the equation in which the pile is idealized
into a series of masses connected by elastic springs and “dashpots” as illustrated in
Figure HL-6 in Appendix HL. Each of the masses meets soil resistances, both static
(dependent on displacement of soil) and dynamic (dependent on the velocity of the
mass when the pile is struck by the hammer) components. A pile capacity versus
final set values can be obtained. The analysis is tedious and the iterative
computation usually requires a computer programme to derive the solution.

(III) Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA)

Use of the Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA) is a technique by which the pile dynamic
behaviours during driving including pile forces and accelerations are measured by
such electronic devices as transducers and accelerometers installed at the top of the
pile. By applying wave theory analysis to these measured quantities, the load
carrying capacity, soil parameters, energy transfer, pile driving stresses and
integrity of the pile can be estimated. Among these methods, the Case method and
CAPWAP are relatively common and are described in details in Appendix HL.

Generally the following quantities can be measured in PDA tests :

(i) Maximum energy delivered to the pile by the ram (EMX). As discussed, this
energy can be used to calibrate the hammer efficiency and the impact factor
used in the Hiley Formula. The quantity can be found for a single hammer
blow and an averaged value over 10 blows can also be calculated;
(ii) Maximum impact force (FMX) which is usually the first maximum force as
shown in Figure HL-7 in Appendix HL. This force can be used to calculate
the static capacity of the pile by the Case Method commonly used in the
industry as described below and in Appendix HL;
(iii) Forces and velocities (particle velocities) at the top of the pile are normally

Page 54 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

taken at 1024 (210) “time measurement points” (or multiples). (The use of the
1024 time measurement points is for facilitation of the working of “Fast
Fourier Transform”.) Thus if the total time taken for measurement is 102.4ms
(millisecond), the readings are taken at 0.1ms intervals;

The following quantities can then be calculated based on the measured quantities:
(i) The maximum compressive stress (CSX), which is simply the measured
maximum force in the pile divided by the cross sectional area of the pile;
(ii) The ultimate static capacity of the pile (RMX) which can be calculated by the
Case Method under various assumed J c values (soil damping constants) as
demonstrated in HL.3.2 in Appendix HL;
(iii) The pile integrity factor (BTA) which is arrived at by examination of the wave
forms. More detailed discussion is given in Appendix HL;
(iv) The compressive stress at the bottom of the pile (CSB);
(v) Total skin friction (SFT).

(IV) Case Method

The Case Method (Rausche et al., 1985) is a closed-form solution based on the
assumptions of a uniform pile cross-section, linear elastic pile behaviour; and others
as stated in Appendix HL Section HL.3. For a pile with impedance Z p = EA c
where E , A and c are the Young’s Modulus of the pile material, cross sectional
area of the pile and wave propagation velocity of the stress-wave in the pile
respectively, the ultimate static capacity is approximately given by

R=
(1 − J c ) (F + Z v ) + (1 + J c ) (F − Z v ) (Eqn H5.4)
1 p 1 2 p 2
2 2
where R is the ultimate static capacity of the pile;
F1 is the pile head force measured at time tc1 ;
F2 is the pile head force measured at time tc 2 ;
v1 is the pile head velocity measured at time tc1 ;
v2 is the pile head velocity measured at time tc 2 ;
tc1 is the time when the pile head force F1 is recorded;
tc 2 = tc1 + 2 L c ;
L is the length of pile measured from pile head instruments to pile toe;
c is the propagation of velocity of stress-wave in pile and can be
calculated by c = E ρ where E and ρ are the Young’s Modulus
and density of the piling material respectively;
Jc is the “Lumped Case damping factor” which defines the dynamic
component of the pile at the pile toe. Its value depends on the type
of soil at the pile toe and the dimensions of the pile.

With the appropriately chosen J c value, R is determined as the maximum value

that can be arrived at among various measured sets of F1 , F2 , v1 , v2 . A detailed
description of the Case Method with illustration of its use by a numerical example

Page 55 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

is given in Appendix HL. It should be noted that Case method is more accurate
when the end bearing resistance is the dominating component, as the damping
factor is lumped at the pile toe only.

(V) CAPWAP (Case Pile Wave Analysis Program) or Similar

CAPWAP is a computer program developed by the Case Institute of Technology in

the late 1960s. It originated from the Smith (1960) model by combining the PDA
data in the form of a force and velocity development against time (wave traces)
with the Wave Equation Analysis of Pile (WEAP) program (Rausche et al. 1972,
Rausche et al. 1988) and computes R iteratively by signal matching.

With this technique, the velocities and forces are first measured by the PDA method
at the top of the pile during the strike by the hammer. The pile head forces (or pile
head velocities) are then input into the Wave Equation as ‘input excitation’ to carry
out analysis under a set of initially assumed soil parameters including quake,
damping constant, ultimate friction distribution along pile shaft etc. Normally, the
back-calculated pile head velocities (or pile head forces) would be different from
the measured ones. The soil parameters are then adjusted and the Wave Equation
reanalyzed until a reasonably good matching between the calculated and measured
values is obtained. Then, there is a good reason to assume that the correct soil
parameters have been ascertained and the ultimate static capacity of the pile can be
calculated. However, it should be noted that the answers may not be unique, i.e.
different sets of soil parameters can all result in good matching with the measured
quantities.

Thus CAPWAP analysis is actually an extension of Wave Equation Analysis with

the following improvements :

(i) The hammer input excitation is measured by electronic devices. The energy
at the top of the pile can also be estimated. It thus eliminates the use of the
assumed values of hammer efficiency and the elastic compression cc ;
(ii) In the Wave Equation Analysis, the only measurable quantity to be checked
against the calculated pile load capacity is the “set”. However, the CAPWAP
enables pile load capacity to be arrived at by achieving a match between the
calculated and measured pile head velocities and forces. Thus CAPWAP
should be able to give more accurate answers.

The matching mechanism of the CAPWAP method is illustrated in Appendix HL.

In actual CAPWAP operation, an automatic matching approach is used where the
matching is carried out by the optimization algorithm built in the program.
However, as good matching by the algorithm can still be achieved by unreasonable
soil parameters and load capacity of the pile, the results should be carefully
assessed by experienced HOKLAS accredited laboratories and where necessary
exercise manual signal matching with soil parameters within reasonable ranges.

(VI) Using CAPWAP to Calibrate the Final Set Table

Page 56 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

As CAPWAP can give a fairly accurate pile load capacity, the CAPWAP capacity
can be used to calibrate the parameters, including the hammer efficiency Eh and the
coefficient of restitution e used in the Hiley Formula by back-substitution. The
calibrated formula can then be used to determine the final set table. The calibrated
parameters may not carry any physical meanings by which they were derived. They
may be considered simply as coefficients to fit into the Hiley Formula which may
only be used in the particular site and hammer with certain fall heights.

(b) Static Formula

The static formula for determination of the geotechnical load capacity of pile is
based on soil mechanics principles from which shaft friction and end-bearing of the
pile in the soil are determined and the sum gives the total capacity of the pile.
Generally the unit shaft friction and end-bearing are determined by the following
expressions which is based on soil mechanics theory.

Unit shaft friction τ = c + K s 'σ ' tan δ ' (Eqn H5.5a)

Or τ = c + βσ ' (Eqn H5.5b)
End-bearing qb = cN c + σ ' N q + 0.5γBNγ (Eqn H5.6)
L
Total shaft friction is Ps = ∫τ . pdl (Eqn H5.7)
0

Total end bearing is Pb = qb Ab (Eqn H5.8)

Total pile capacity is P = Ps + Pb (Eqn H5.9)

For the above equations, the symbols are defined as follows :

τ is the unit skin friction;
qb is the unit end-bearing;
σ' is the effective vertical earth pressure;
K s ' is the coefficient of horizontal pressure;
δ' is the angle of friction between the soil and the pile shaft;
β is the shaft friction coefficient converting effective vertical earth pressure to
unit shaft friction;
N c , N q and Nγ are the bearing capacity factors for cohesion, end bearing and
overburden pressures;
γ is the unit weight of the soil;
B is the lateral dimension of the pile;
p is the perimeter length of the pile;
Ab is the base area of the pile;
L is the pile length.

Formulae and charts to determine the parameters can be found in various

publications including Poulos & Davis (1980) and GEO Publication 1/2006 which
are often based on soil parameters such as φ , c and SPT N values of the soil.
However, it should be noted that the correlations with these parameters are largely

Page 57 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

based on limited field data. Accurate assessments are often difficult, but the
assessments tend to be on the conservative side.

As for the end bearing capacity in accordance with (Eqn H5.6), the component
σ ' N q is often the pre-dominant one. There are different theoretical approaches for
the determination of N q by Berezantsev, Vesic, Hansen etc. However, according to
Poulos (1980), Vesic (1967) had pointed out that Berezantsev et al. (1961) appeared
to fit the available test data best. GEO Publication 1/2006 has included the design
chart in Poulos (1980) based on Berezantsev’s work. Nevertheless, a more precise
chart showing relations with pile length to diameter ratio is found in Tomlinson
(2008) which is extracted in Appendix HM together with some discussions on
Berezantsev’s approach and the mathematical expressions.

In addition, loading test on instrumented pile can be carried out to determine the
soil parameters. Strain gauges are installed along their shafts so that the strains and
consequently stresses along the pile shaft can be measured and finally skin frictions
and the end-bearing of the pile can be determined. The measured values can then
be applied to other piles in the same site for pre-determination of their bearing
capacities.

(c) Loading Test of the Pile on Site

Compliance criteria for a pile loading test are often in terms of limitation of
settlements and/or residual settlements. The test is often specified for verification
of pile loading capacity. The testing procedures involved for common types of
piles are clearly stipulated in the Code.

(2) Non-Driven piles

Determination of the bearing capacity of piles socketed into rock by the Code is
comparatively straightforward when compared with driven piles as the capacity is
usually based on the geometry of the pile and the allowable bearing pressures
and/or bond strengths of different categories of rock. The Code explicitly allows
the combined use of end-bearing and shaft resistance in the determination of the
total bearing capacity of large diameter bored piles in accordance with clause 5.4.7
of the Code. However, for all other piles, the combined use of end-bearing and
shaft resistance is restricted unless it can be justified that settlements under working
load conditions are acceptable and adequate to mobilize the required shaft
resistance and end bearing simultaneously. The is because mobilization of the
required shaft friction and end-bearing may require movements of the subgrade of
different orders which might not be compatible along the pile shaft and the pile base,
taking into account the shortening of the pile under the applied load. In addition,
the minimum socket length in rock specified in Note (3) under Table 2.1 of the
Code could be ignored in pile bearing calculation for large diameter bored piles and
other piles socketed in rock.

H5.3.3 GROUND RESISTANCE FOR PILES SUBJECTED TO UPLIFT FORCES

(1) General

Page 58 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

The clause defines allowable and ultimate anchorage resistance (Ra and Ru) of a pile
against uplift as respectively the allowable and ultimate uplift resistance of pile
shaft plus “effective self-weight” of the pile. The anchorage resistance refers to the
frictional resistance of soil on the pile shaft with methods of determination
stipulated in sub-clause (3). Nevertheless, the Code further states that anchorage
resistance is limited by the effect weight of soil mass/cone weight the pile
mobilized as a check against “pull out failure” of the pile with the weight of rock
cone and soil column effectively carried by it. It should, however, be noted that the
Code lists the limitation by a mathematical inequality for Ru only as

Ru – Wp’ ≤ W1’ + W2’

While there is no similar inequality listed for Ra, similar check for Ra is therefore
not necessary. In fact, it should be very adequate to take the effective weight as an
upper limit in checking for stability as the load factors for the de-stabilizing forces
are all taken into account in cl. 5.1.6.

(2) Piles with Rock Socket

The clause reminds that friction and bond resistance of the pile shaft with rock
should be based on simple figures in Table 2.2 of the Code and also that the
ultimate bond stress is related to the allowable value by a factor of safety of 2.

Detailed criteria are laid down in the clause for determination of the extent of the
rock / soil cone / column the pile can mobilize as weight against uplift. The criteria
are based on conservative consideration with the maximum half angle of the
inverted rock cone limited to 30o which is for heavily jointed or shattered rock. In
addition, the weight of the soil mass is also limited to that directly over the rock
cone while neglecting friction between the outer face of the soil column and the
surrounding soil as shown in Figure 5.1(a) of the Code which also illustrates that
soil weight beyond boundary to be ignored. In addition, as a conservative approach,
the bell-out (if any) is considered not effective by the Code in mobilizing the cone
and cylinder shaped mass of soil and rock above the base of the pile. As the
determination of the volume of rock and soil is complicated in case the soil columns
and rock cones of adjacent piles overlap as shown in Figure 5.1(b), some useful
algebraic expressions are given in Appendix HN, together with worked examples.
Although the worked examples are for large diameter bored piles, the same
approach can be applied to rock socketed piles.

Unlike friction piles in sub-clauses (3)(a)(ii) and (iii) which require uplift resistance
due to permanent tension to be half of that of transient tension, the uplift resistance
for piles with rock socket determined in this sub-clause applies equally to transient
and permanent tension.

(3) Piles in Granular Soil

This clause is for determination of uplift resistance of piles from shaft friction only
in granular soil. Three methods are outlined for driven steel H-piles. The first
method is based on a nominal uniform allowable shaft friction of 10kPa, with the

Page 59 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

ultimate value doubled. The second method is based on effective stress theory
which correlates the shaft friction to the horizontal stress acting normally to the
circumference of the pile which in turn depends on the effective vertical stress. The
third method is based on empirical correlation of shaft friction to SPT N values of
soil. For the second and third method, limiting values are imposed unless verified
by trial piles and the values determined are for transient tension with that due to
permanent tension being halved. So for the application of the equations in clause
5.1.6 which contain single value for Ru and Ra , they may have to be modified as
follows

2.0 I a + 1.5U a (or 1.1U p ) − Dmin 1.5Wk

(a) + ≤ 0.9
Ru − permanent Ru − transient

I a + U a − Dmin Wk
(b) + ≤1
Ra − permanent Ra − transient

In fact, the two relations listed above are equivalent to adoption of the original
formulae in the Code with the transient wind loads to be checked against the
transient resistance, i.e. Ru − transient and Ra − transient .

The Code has not specified specific design requirements for other pile types. It
would be acceptable so long recognized engineering principles are complied with.

Assessment of the effective weight of the soil cone/soil column for pile groups in
granular soil also involves complicated geometry. A worked example
demonstrating compliance with the design requirements is included in Appendix
HN.

H5.3.4 GROUND RESISTANCE FOR PILES SUBJECTED TO LATERAL LOAD

Horizontal restraint can be provided by the piles or the pile cap alone or the combined
action of both. Estimation of the restraint of a pile cap can be based on the elastic
continuum theory where the pile cap is embedded in a semi-infinite elastic medium.
Mindlin’s Equations or their integrated forms (Vaziri et al. 1982) can be used to
determine restraints on pile cap. More in-depth discussions based on Law & Cheng
(2014) are given in Appendix HO in which tabulated values are given for determination
of the lateral restraint by a more rigorous approach taking compatibility of the pile cap
and the soil movement into account. Nevertheless, caution should be taken in design if
there is probable removal of the embedding soil to the pile cap.

The Code requires checking of the load carrying capacity of the pile and capacity of the
lateral soil resistance, as an addition to deflection when considering group effects.
Lateral deflection of pile is discussed first in this section.

As for the pile cap case above, the lateral deflection of a pile can also be based on the
elastic continuum method (summarized by Poulos & Davis 1980) or the finite element
method. Randolph (1981) has fitted the results of finite element analysis into algebraic
expressions and proposed formulae which are reproduced in GEO Publication 1/2006.

Page 60 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

However, a simpler method based on Terzaghi’s “subgrade reactions” method (1955)

which is in turn a Winkler’s spring approach is commonly used in the local industry and
this approach is adopted for granular soil in the Code where the “Constant of Horizontal
Subgrade Reaction” are listed in its Table 5.1. Under the “subgrade reactions” method,
the soil restraint is idealized as a series of elastic springs (independent of each other) on
the pile shaft. Design charts based on the approach are found in Tomlinson (1994), DM-
7 (1971) and GEO Publication 1/2006. Detailed discussion of the method with tabulated
coefficients for quick determination of deflection and bending moments in the piles are
given in Appendix HP with illustrative worked examples. Unlike the charts given by
Tomlinson (1994), DM-7 (1971) and GEO Publication 1/2006 which are confined to
piles with pile heads at ground level, the tabulated coefficients cover piles with cut-off
levels below ground, which is more general in use.

In accordance with Terzaghi (1955), the “coefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction”

which is the pressure on the soil required to produce unit displacement is, for a given type
of soil, directly proportional to depth and inversely proportional to the width (or diameter)
of the pile. The relationship is given by equation (Eqn HP-1) in Appendix HP with the
proportionality constant known as the “constant of horizontal subgrade reaction” (symbol
nh ) as termed by Terzaghi (1955). Terzaghi (1955) further recommended typical values
of nh for “loose”, “medium” and “dense” soils which are extracted in Table H5.1 after
conversion into metric unit. To substantiate the effect due to denseness of the soil, GEO
Publication 1/2006 has added the SPT N values which are also appended in Table H5.1 as
follows and basically identical to Table 5.1 of the Code.

Loose Medium Dense

(SPT N value (SPT N value (SPT N value
= 4 – 10) = 11 – 30) = 31 – 50)
nh for dry or moist sand 2200 kN/m2/m 6600 kN/m2/m 17600 kN/m2/m
nh for submerged sand 1300 kN/m2/m 4400 kN/m2/m 10700 kN/m2/m

Table H5.1 – Values of for Cohesionless Soils

From (Eqn HP-1) in Appendix HP, it follows that the final restraint exerted by the soil on
the pile is independent on the width (or diameter) of the pile which appears not very
reasonable. Poulos & Davis (1980) actually proposed that kh in (Eqn HP-1) (the
coefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction of the soil defined as the pressure required to
move the soil by unit length) should be proportional to ( z B ) where n is slightly greater
n

than 1 for sandy soil and n = 0 for clayey soil. Since n is close to unity, kh can be
approximately taken as independent of pile diameter. In addition, Siu (1992)
alternatively proposed to modify kh by applying the factor (B B0 ) where B is the
0.25

diameter of the pile in metre and B0 = 1 m for a circular pile.

According to GEO Publication 1/2006, the nh values quoted in Table 5.1 of the Code are
valid for stresses up to half of the ultimate bearing capacity of the soil with allowance
made for long term movement.

Page 61 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

To account for the group effect, reductions on the nh value as functions of pile spacing
in the direction of loading have been proposed in the Canadian Foundation Engineering
Manual (1978) which is reproduced in Table 5.2 of the Code. Nevertheless, if
interpolation of values is assumed, the relation can be fitted to a linear equation as

Reduction Factor = Ratio of pile spacing to pile diameter × 0.15 – 0.2 (Eqn H5.10)

Both the Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual and the Code have no clear
indication on the reduction factor when the ratio of pile spacing to pile diameter is less
than 3 but the pile spacing still satisfies the minimum requirements in cl. 5.1.3 of the
Code. Nevertheless, it should be reasonable to adopt a value as extrapolation from the
values of Table 5.2 which is the simple application of (Eqn H5.10).

In Appendix HP, the analysis of a pile under lateral load is illustrated with results in
deflections and internal forces of the pile. For structural design, partial load factors
should be applied as appropriate.

For checking the lateral load capacity of a pile which is governed either by the ultimate
soil strength or the structural strength of the pile, approaches by Broms (1964a &1964b)
and Poulos & Davis (1980) may be followed respectively for floating piles and socketed
piles. The ultimate loads so arrived at should be divided by a factor of safety of 3 for
checking against the characteristic lateral load. Illustrations of the checking of the
ultimate lateral resistance of a floating pile assuming pinned and fixed connections to the
pile cap is demonstrated in Appendix HF with numerical worked examples.

As a control to excessive pile deflection, the Code requires P-∆ effects to be addressed
when estimated pile deflection exceeds 25mm by elastic analysis. Both deflections and
internal forces in the pile will be increased when P-∆ effect is included in design
consideration. Some detailed discussion is outlined in Appendix HP, with reference to
Appendix HI.

The Code further warrants that piles and pile caps should not be used together to resist
lateral forces unless a distribution of forces between piles and pile caps can be
demonstrated. The distribution can be calculated assuming compatibility of displacement
of the piles and pile cap with the pre-determined lateral stiffness of the piles and the pile
cap. A recommended approach with a numerical example is given in Appendix HQ.
Analysis can also be carried out by computer with appropriate lateral stiffness inputs of
the piles and pile cap.

H5.4 COMMON PILE TYPES

The clause outlines particular requirements for some specific types of pile commonly
used in Hong Kong. The following serves to highlight the characteristics of each type of
pile and elaborates the requirements further with illustrations by figures and practical
examples.

The points in common relating to the design of all types of piles under this clause are
listed as follows :

Page 62 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

(i) The load carrying capacities of the piles can be increased by 25% due to wind load
under the permissible stress method as per clause 2.5.5(1) of the Code;
(ii) Pile group reduction factors should be applied where appropriate in accordance with
clause 5.1.2 of the Code;

H5.4.1 STEEL H-PILES/STEEL TUBULAR PILES

The following considerations apply to this type of pile :

(i) Loading Capacity of the Pile;

Allowable working loading capacity (axial load) of the pile is limited by clause
2.5.5(4) of the Code as follows :

P = 0.3 × f y × Ap (Installed by Driving) (Eqn H5.11)

P = 0.5 × f y × Ap (Installed by Preboring or Jacking) (Eqn H5.12)

where f y is the yield strength of the steel and Ap is the cross sectional area of the
pile. The lower factor of 0.3 for a pile installed by driving is to reduce the bearing
capacity of the driven pile so as to minimize the use of the heavy hammer and high
drop height to avoid high stresses during pile driving.

The minimum steel yield stresses should be determined from the “design strength”
of steelwork in accordance with Table 3.2 of the Code of Practice for the Structural
Use of Steel 2011 or BSEN10025. The yield stresses depend on the grades and
thicknesses of the steel pile sections. A thicker section has a smaller yield strength
because of the greater locked-in stresses created during the cooling of the hot-rolled
section.

Nevertheless, the Code also allows the use of limit state design in the structural
design of piles in accordance with the Code of Practice for Structural Use of Steel
2011. So the designer may use limit state design for pile sections under axial load
and bending, while limiting axial load to comply with (Eqn H5.11) and (Eqn 5.12).

The geotechnical capacity of the driven pile can also be ascertained by a dynamic
formula. For driven steel H pile or small diameter tubular piles, the pile would
generally be founded on soil of a specified SPT N values, e.g. not lower than 200.
However, driven piles founded on soil of SPT N values < 200 are also acceptable if
their capacities can be justified by other rational means.

(ii) The clause also requires “splicing”, “pile head” and “pile tip” details to be included
in the foundation plan. Typical details are illustrated in Figures H5.3 to H5.5. In
addition, the clause lists the requirements for weld testing in relation to the control
of workmanship including certification of welder tests, welding procedure
specification and the welding procedure test. Sample rates of not less than 10% of
the total number of welded joints by non-destructive testing are also specified for
destructive testing.

Page 63 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

Figure H5.3 – Splicing Details for H-pile (for Lengthening of Pile)

Figure H5.4 – Details for Pile Head

Page 64 of 114
 An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

8mm FILLET WELD

ALL ROUND
8mm FILLET WELD
ALL ROUND

Figure H5.5 – Acceptable Details for Pile Toe – Strengthened for Hard Driving on or close to Bedrock

H5.4.2 SOCKETED STEEL H-PILES

As the pile is installed after pre-boring, its design axial load capacity is given by (Eqn
H5.12) in accordance with clause 2.5.5(4) of the Code. Reference to Table 3.4 of the
Code of Practice for the Structural Use of Steel 2011 or BSEN10025 for the design
strength of steel should also be made.

The following Worked Example H5.1 illustrates the determination of the required bond
lengths between (i) the steel section and the grout; and (ii) the grout and the rock.

Worked Example H5.1 :

Steel Section is S450J0 305×305×223 H-Section of cross sectional area 284cm2

Diameter of the bore hole in the rock = 550mm
Perimeter of the Steel Section = 1918mm;
Rock encountered : Category 1(c) rock, 700 kPa as the presumed allowable friction
between rock and concrete or grout taken from Table 2.2; and 480kPa as the bond
strength between the grout and steel given the use of shear connectors in accordance with
clause 2.5.5(4) of the Code

Design of Load Carrying Capacity of the Pile (excluding casing and grout)
(i) Due to structural strength of the Steel Section :
P = 0.5 × 430 × 28400 × 10−3 = 6106 kN
(ii) To withstand the maximum load capacity of 6106kN, the minimum socket grouted
length in rock should be 6106 (0.55π × 700 ) = 5.048 m;
(iii) Again to withstand the same maximum load, the minimum bond length between the
grout and the steel section is 6106 (1.918 × 480 ) = 6.632 m which should be
measured within the rock socket where effective confinement to the grout can be
provided by rock for achievement of the 480kPa bond strength.

So, to maximize the load carrying capacity of the pile as per its structural provisions and
taking the required bond length into account, the minimum bond length required in
Category 1(c) rock (as derived in the foregoing) is 6.632m.

Page 65 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

Shorter bond lengths can be used if the pile is not designed for its maximum load
carrying capacity.

Details of the splicing of piles and the pile head for socketed steel H-piles are similar to
those for Steel H-piles/Steel Tubular Piles as discussed in H5.4.1, Figures H5.3 to H5.5.
Typical elevation of the socketed portion of a socketed pile is shown in Figure H2.3.

The Code requires rock sockets of sufficient strengths (and depths) to resist the ultimate
shears and moments acting at the pile tip. The ultimate lateral strength of the rock can be
assumed to be one third of the vertical allowable bearing pressure provided that there are
no unfavourable joint sets or a steeply inclined rock surface in accordance with clause
2.2.2(3) of the Code. Reference can be made to Figures 51 to 53 of GEOGUIDE 1 for
determination of the required depths of the socket.

H5.4.3 PRECAST REINFORCED CONCRETE PILES

The precast reinforced concrete pile is a large displacement pile driven into the ground
where the geotechnical capacity is usually determined by a dynamic formula. Due to the
relatively low load carrying capacity of the pile (governed by its small structural size and
materials) and its limited penetration power through underground obstructions, the pile is
usually used to support low or medium rise buildings on ground without significant
amount of boulders or corestones. In addition, the pile should not be subjected to hard
driving which can easily lead to damage of the pile head and pile toe.

Currently the pile is not commonly used in the local industry. A typical pile of square 14
inch (355.6mm) and concrete mix grade 20 (allowable concrete stress = 5MPa) possesses
a maximum structural load carrying capacity of the order of 355.62 × 5 × 10-3 = 632 kN.

The capacity may be further limited by the geotechnical capacity as determined by its
final set value in accordance with a dynamic formula. A typical detail of the 14 inch
square pile is shown in Figure H5.6.

7’0” 7’0” 3’0”

1/4”φ ties@3”c/c 1/4”φ ties@9”c/c 1/4”φ ties@3”c/c 1/4”φ ties@2”c/c
3’0”
1/4”φ ties@2”c/c

4-3/4”φ

1” 12” 1”

Figure H5.6 – Details of a 14”×14” Precast Reinforced Concrete Pile

Page 66 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

H5.4.4 PRECAST PRESTRESSED SPUN CONCRETE PILES

The precast prestressed spun concrete pile is manufactured using high grade concrete
(cube strength up to 78MPa) with prestressed tendons embedded in the pile. Spinning of
the pile shaft is involved during manufacture of the pile. The prestressing force in the
tendons serves to resist the transient tensions which may be induced during pile driving,
though it takes up some of the compressive load carrying capacity of the pile.

Like precast reinforced concrete piles, the pile is a large displacement pile and both share
similar construction problems such as a low resistance to hard driving to penetrate
underground obstructions. Reports of structural damage were not uncommon when the
piles were hard driven to decomposed rock strata of high SPT N values with significant
boulder contents. (as often pre-determined in design). The advantage of this type of pile
is that they are normally terminated at soil strata with SPT N values greater than 120,
which would usually be founded at a shallower depth when compared with small
diameter displacement piles, such as driven steel H pile. However, the driving sequence
has to be planned carefully to minimize the difficulty in driving the piles in over-
densified soil due to driving of the already installed piles and pile rising, e.g. pile driving
in the outward directions. Re-driving of pile (after suffering from pile rising) may also be
needed. So the pile has to be constructed with great care.

The load carrying capacities of the common types of precast prestressed concrete piles
are listed in Table H5.3. It should be noted that the maximum compressive load capacity
of the pile is obtained by multiplying the cross sectional area of the pile by one quarter of
the cube strength of concrete after deduction of the strength taken up by the pre-stressing
tendons. A sample calculation is done for the second item in Table H5.2 as
0.25 × (78.48 − 5.33) × 125664 × 10−3 = 2298 ≈ 2300 kN
where the concrete cube strength and the ultimate stress induced in the concrete by the
prestressing tendons are 78.48MPa and 5.33MPa respectively.

Outside Inside Wall Cross Effective Allowable Tensile Strength of Allowable Allowable
Diameter Diameter Thickness Sectional Prestress Bearing Pile (kN) Shearing Cracking
(D) (mm) (T) Area (MPa) Capacity Strength Bending
Allowable Ultimate
(mm) (mm) (cm2) of Pile (kN) Moment
(kN) (kNm)
400 206 97 923 5.10 1,690 471 969 227 73.55
500 300 100 1257 5.33 2,300 669 1347 304 137.29
500 250 125 1473 5.03 2,700 741 1536 361 147.10
600 390 105 1633 4.95 3,000 809 1690 382 215.75
600 340 130 1920 5.24 3,500 1005 2041 466 245.17

Table H5.2 – Data of Common Precast Prestressed Spun Concrete Pile

Precast prestressed spun concrete piles should not be designed to resist bending and/or
tension. Also, a follower is not recommended for use with this piling system.

Figure H5.7 to Figure H5.9 show typical details of this type of Pile. For driving the pile
into stiff soil, there are two common types of pile shoes, one being conical type, the other
being cross type. The cross type pile shoe with cross stiffeners is shown in Figure H5.9.

Page 67 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

Figure H5.7 – Details of Pile Shaft of a Precast Prestressed Spun Concrete Pile

Figure H5.8 – Typical Pile Head Details of a Precast Prestressed Spun Concrete Pile

Figure H5.9 – Pile Shoe Details for a Precast Prestressed Spun Concrete Pile

H5.4.5 DRIVEN CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE PILES

The pile is constructed by driving a steel tube capped at the bottom into the ground until a
satisfactory “set” has been achieved in accordance with a dynamic formula or for a length

Page 68 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

determined by a static formula for the load carrying capacity which is usually pre-
determined by the structural provisions. Concrete is then poured into the tube with
reinforcing steel and the steel tube extracted (with the bottom cap detached) before the
concrete hardens.

The Code limits the size of the pile to 750mm. Popular sizes used in the 1980s were
610mm diameter and 635mm diameter with grade 25 concrete (permissible stress =
6.25MPa). The capacities are therefore
0.25 × 6102 π × 6.25 × 10−3 = 1827 kN and 0.25 × 6352 π × 6.25 × 10−3 = 1979 kN.

Figure H5.10 shows the pile details.

Figure H5.10 – Pile Head Details of a Driven Cast-in-Place Pile

As vibrations may adversely affect the integrity of newly poured concrete, the Code does
not allow driving of new piles which are less than 5 diameters away within 24 hours.

H5.4.6 SMALL DIAMETER BORED PILES

(1) General

The Code defines a small diameter bored pile as a bored pile with diameter not
exceeding 750mm which may be formed by boring a casing into the ground and
subsequently filling the hole with concrete or grout. As the pile derives its bearing
largely from skin friction, pressure grouting or pressurized concrete are favoured.

Basically, the total allowable bearing capacity of the pile is derived from skin
friction and end-bearing which are often related to the SPT N values.

Trial piles are generally necessary for this type of pile as the bearing capacities and
the integrity of the pile are affected by so many uncertainties related to the site
geology and construction method. Even with adequate trial piles to justify the

Page 69 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

friction factor μ (used to correlate unit skin friction to SPT N values), the factor is
recommended to be capped at 0.7 generally.

(2) Continuous Flight Auger Pile (CFA Pile)

The CFA pile is a small diameter bored pile formed by augering into the ground and
then subsequently filling the hole with cement sand grout (by pumping) and a
reinforcement cage. Under pressurized grouting, a higher friction factor μ can be
allowed for this type of small diameter bored pile. The Code allows the factor to be
1.0 which can be increased to 1.6 with trial pile tests. A sample design calculation
of a CFA pile with pressurized cement sand grout is presented below as Worked
Example H5.2. The design data for the pile and calculations are as follows :

Worked Example H5.2

Pile Diameter = 610mm;

Shaft resistance taken as 0.61 × π × µ × N av kN per metre depth with the use of trial
pile where N av is the average SPT N value capped at a maximum value of 40;
Concrete strength = 25MPa;
No. of piles under the same pile cap : less than 4 (i.e. no pile group reduction factor
is required)
The permissible stress of the concrete is 6.25MPa. But allowing for 20% reduction
in strength due to concreting under water, the permissible stress is reduced to 5MPa.

The geotechnical capacity of the pile is determined in accordance with the empirical
relations that shaft friction is 1.6 N av ( µ = 1.6 ) kN/m2 and end-bearing is 5 N b
kN/m2 in accordance with the Code with N av capped at 40. The SPT N values of
the soil embedding the pile are listed in Table H5.3 by which the total shaft friction
and end-bearing are calculated as 1709.60kN.

Layer of SPT N value Shaft Shaft

Depths Below Soil Design SPT
depth from Resistance Resistance
Ground Description N value
(m) G.I. report (kN/m2) (kN)
Fill or marine
0m – 6m – – – Neglected –
deposit
1.50 18 18 28.8 82.79
1.50 25 25 40.0 114.98
1.50 36 36 57.6 165.57
1.50 48 40 64.0 183.97
Completely
1.50 57 40 64.0 183.97
6m – 21m Decomposed
1.50 62 40 64.0 183.97
Granite
1.50 78 40 64.0 183.97
1.50 91 40 64.0 183.97
1.50 104 40 64.0 183.97
1.50 118 40 64.0 183.97
Allowable Friction resistance 1,651.15
Allowable End bearing resistance = 5×40×0.612π/4 58.45
Total loading capacity of pile 1,709.60

Table H5.3 – Determination of Geotechnical Capacity of a Small Diameter Bored Pile

Page 70 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

Capacity of the pile in accordance with its structural provision is

P = 0.25 × 6102 π × 5 × 10−3 = 1460 kN (without wind).

As the geotechnical capacity of the pile which is 1709kN is greater than the
structural capacity, the structural capacity of 1460kN dictates.

The Code also stresses the monitoring of the grout factor, because of the relatively
high uncertainty of the behaviour of the pile, together with precautionary measures.

Details of a small diameter CFA pile are shown in Figure H5.11. It should be noted that
the reinforcement cage is normally not required to extend for the full length of the pile as
long as structural adequacy of the pile can be demonstrated.

Pile
Cap
Cut-off level

75

A A

Section A-A
N.T.S.

Figure H5.11 – Details of a Small Diameter CFA Pile

H5.4.7 LARGE DIAMETER BORED PILES

A large diameter bored pile is one having a diameter exceeding 750mm.

In Hong Kong, the geotechnical capacity of the large diameter bored pile usually derives
from end-bearing with or without inclusion of shaft bond/friction with the rock along its
pile shaft. As the concrete grades currently used are usually high, up to grade 45, giving
a permissible compressive stress of the order of 11.25MPa which is well in excess of the
rock bearing pressure of the order of 3 to 10MPa, bell-outs for enlargement of the end-
bearing areas have been extensively used so that the geotechnical capacity can match the
structural capacity in the pile shaft. Configuration of the large diameter bored pile with
bell-out and the use of the shaft friction is demonstrated in Figure H1.1.

The design principles of large diameter bored pile are summarized as follows :

Page 71 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

(i) The loading capacity of a large diameter bored pile usually derives from the end
bearing capacity on rock with or without shaft friction between rock and concrete;
(ii) If there is a reduction of the cross sectional area in a rock socket, checking of the
structural section for the reduced area is required with or without compensating
reinforcement as necessary;
(iii) The presumed values for allowable vertical bearing pressure and shaft resistance are
given in Table 2.1 and Table 2.2 of the Code respectively;
(iv) The maximum bell-out size of large diameter bored pile shall not exceed 1.65 times
the shaft diameter and the gradient should not exceed 30o from vertical;
(v) It should be noted that the nominal socket length of 0.5m or 0.3m as specified in
note (3) under Table 2.1 are extra provisions over the limitation on design socket
length and should not be counted in the calculation of shaft bond/friction. Normally,
the nominal socket length can be well provided by the bell-out, if any;
(vi) Socket length for bond or frictional resistance of the pile for enhancing bearing
capacity of the pile should be limited to the lesser of 1 time the rock diameter and
3m if bell-out is used and the limitation can be relaxed to the lesser of 2 times the
rock diameter and 6m if bell-out is not used.
(vii) The design load capacity of a pile shaft is also governed by the structural section
design of the pile, bearing in mind that a reduction of 20% of concrete or grout
strength should be adopted if concreting or grouting under water;
(viii) In steep bedrock profile, two adjacent large diameter bored piles shall be founded at
levels differing by not more than the clear distance between them unless stability of
the rock can be checked by recognized engineering principle. As the internal
friction angle of bedrock is often taken as 40o, it is suggested that an elevation less
than 40o can be taken as not being a steep bedrock profile, in which case the
requirement can be exempted. In addition, the checking of overstresses as part of
rock slope stability check can be based on the continuum theory by which reference
can be made to Figure H3.1. For example, a 2m diameter pile with a bearing stress
of 4500kN/m2, at a clear distance of 2m from and a level 2m above another pile will
create a maximum additional stress of 0.08 × 4500 = 360 kN/m2 at the perimeter of
the other pile (0.12 is estimated from Figure H3.1). It can also be seen from Figure
H3.1 that additional stress on a pile due to another pile at a higher level will be less
than 5% of the bearing stress of the higher pile if their clear distance is more than
one diameter apart as marked up by the 45 degrees lines.

A sample design of the load carrying capacity of a large diameter bored pile under
Worked Example H5.3 is demonstrated as follows :

Worked Example H5.3 :

(a) Shaft diameter = 3m in soil;

(b) Bell-out diameter (at its maximum) = 1.65 × 3.0 = 4.95 m;
(c) Category 1(c) rock is encountered at its base giving 5000kPa allowable end-bearing
pressure and 700kPa shaft resistance under compression (Re Tables 2.1 and 2.2 of
the Code.)

End-bearing capacity of the pile without bell-out is 0.25 × 32 × π × 5000 = 35343 kN

End-bearing capacity of the pile with bell-out is 0.25 × 4.952 × π × 5000 = 96221 kN

Page 72 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

Effective socket length used without bell-out is 3 × 2 = 6 not greater than 6 m

Shaft Resistance is therefore 3 × π × 6 × 700 = 39584 kN

Effective socket length used with bell-out is 3 × 1 = 3 not greater than 3 m

Shaft Resistance is therefore 3 × π × 3 × 700 = 19792 kN

The total geotechnical capacity of the pile without bell-out but with socket length of 6m
is 35343 + 39584 = 79427 kN

The total geotechnical capacity of the pile with bell-out but with 3m socket length is
96221 + 19792 = 116013 kN

So the use of bell-out (though with less allowable shaft friction) is more efficient in
enhancing geotechnical capacity of the pile.

Typical details of a large diameter bored pile are shown in Figure H5.12.

150mmφ PIPE TO A DEPTH 1M

ABOVE THE PILE BASE FOR
CHECKING OF PILE TOE AND
ROCK INTERFACE ACCORDING
TO PNAP APP-18. WHERE
NEEDED, ACCESS TUBES
(USUALLY 4 NOS. 100MM DIA
ABOVE THE PILE TOE ARE
ALSO INCLUDED FOR SONIC
LOGGING TEST FOR
CONFIRMING CONCRETE
INTEGRITY

MIN SOCKET LENGTH =

500mm FOR CAT 1(a), (b)
AND 300mm. FOR CAT 1(c)
AND (d)

90o

EFFECTIVE ROCK SOCKET

LENGTH

750

30o

Figure H5.12 – Details of a Typical Large Diameter Bored Pile

Page 73 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

H5.4.8 MINI-PILES

A mini-pile usually comprises 4 to 5 nos. of 50mm diameter steel reinforcing bars in a

steel casing which is installed into a drill hole in the ground filled by cement grout in the
trade practice. The pile derives its geotechnical capacity from bonding of the reinforcing
bars with the rock through cement grout at level beneath the steel casing. The rock
socket should be formed in Category 1(c) rock or better in accordance with Table 2.1 of
the Code. The Code limits the number of bars to 5 and the outer diameter of casing to
450mm. The allowable working load on a mini-pile solely derives from the strength of
reinforcing bars which is based on an allowable strength of 0.475 f y . The use of the
factor 0.475 < 0.5 is to avoid exceedance of the yield strength of the pile during loading
test with test load often twice the maximum working load.

The structural capacity of a mini-pile is comparatively low due to its relatively small size.
However, as the machinery required for the construction is small and construction is fast,
the pile is suitable for construction of buildings in sites where access is difficult. Though
the overall load carrying capacity of a mini-pile foundation is not small if the piles are
installed to minimum pile spacing (the smaller of 750mm and twice the outer diameter
according to clause 5.1.3 of the Code), they may not be suitable for high-rise building as
the pile cannot resist lateral load unless “raked”. Where mini-piles are to be adopted for
high-rise building, some raking mini-piles are required to resist the lateral loads acting on
the building structure.

The Code includes detailed descriptions of the design principles and construction
considerations for this type of pile under this clause. The design principles of a mini-pile
are briefly summarized as follows :
(i) With f y = 500 MPa, the load carrying capacity of a normal 4T50 mini-pile is only
4 × 252 π × 0.475 × 500 / 1000 = 1865 kN and that with 5T50 is 2332kN accordingly
which are both less than the limit of 2350kN imposed by the Code;
(ii) The presumed allowable bond or friction between rock and concrete is given in
Table 2.2 of the Code;
(iii) The perimeter of the shear plane for checking bond stress between the steel bars and
grout are shown and determined in Figure H5.13 according to the clause 5.4.8(2)(e)
of the Code :

Page 74 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

70
o
36

20 35

72o

For 5T50 minipile :

Radius of enclosing circle (dotted line)
is 35÷sin36o+25=84.546
For 4T50 minipile : So perimeter of the enclosing circle is
Perimeter of the shear plane (dotted line) 2×84.546×π = 531mm
= 4×0.25×50×π+70×4 = 437mm

Figure H5.13 – Shear Plane for Checking Bond Stress between Steel Bars and Grout
for 4T50 and 5T50 Mini-pile

(iv) The allowable bond strength between steel bars and grout is limited to 0.8MPa
which is small as compared with the ultimate bond strength as stated in clause 8.4.4
of the Code of Practice for Structural Use of Concrete 2013. Taking the 4T50 mini-
pile where the perimeter is 437mm, the bond length required to achieve the design
capacity of 1865kN is 1865/(0.437×800) = 5.33m which is the minimum length of a
4T50 mini-pile to develop the full capacity;
(v) The allowable buckling capacity of the mini-pile may be checked with
consideration of lateral restraints from the grout, permanent steel casing and the
surrounding soil. A worked example is enclosed in Appendix HI;
(vi) Only raking mini-pile can be used to resist lateral load in view of the small bending
strengths of the pile. Figure H5.14 shows a structural configuration involving a
raking pile that can achieve equilibrium in resisting the applied lateral load and
result in no bending moments on the piles.

Resultant Applied
Lateral Load
The raking pile and the vertical
Pile Reactions pile should be so arranged that
the lines of actions (axial loads)
of the piles and the resultant
applied lateral load are
concurrent so as to achieve
rotational equilibrium.

Figure H5.14 – Structural Configuration of Raking Mini-pile Resulting in Pure Axial

Loads in the Piles

Page 75 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

A sample design of the load carrying capacity of a mini-pile under Worked Example
H5.4 in accordance with Figure H5.15 is demonstrated as follows :

Worked Example H5.4 :

Casing to the Mini-pile is Grade S275 263/273 CHS

Steel Casing External Diameter = 273mm;
Steel Casing Thickness = 5mm
Rock hole Diameter = 235mm;
4T50 Grade 500 High Yield Deformed Steel Bar;
Design grout strength = 30 MPa;
Rock encountered : Category 1(c) rock, 700 kPa (presumed allowable friction between
rock and concrete or grout) is taken from Table 2.2;

Design of Load Carrying Capacity of the Pile (excluding casing and grout)
(i) Due to structural strength of the reinforcing bars
P = 4 × 0.25 × 502 × π × 0.475 × 500 = 1865 kN
(ii) To withstand the maximum load capacity of 1865kN, the minimum socket grouted
length should be 1865 (π × 0.235 × 700 ) = 3.61 m.

So, to maximize the load carrying capacity of the pile as per its structural provisions and
taking the required bond length with grout into account, the minimum bond length
required in Category 1(c) rock (as derived in the foregoing) is 5.33m > 3.61m.

In view of the relatively small slenderness of the mini-pile, the Code reminds checking
the allowable buckling capacity. Reference may be made to Appendix HI.

Page 76 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

TYPE 1
MIN. 300mm CLEAR
SPACING BETWEEN MECHANICAL
COUPLERS COUPLER
TYPE 1 MECHANICAL
COUPLER MIN.
200mm CLEAR
SPACING BETWEEN
COUPLERS

235mm φ
DRILLED HOLE

4 Nos. T50 GRADE 500

DEFORMED BARS

Figure H5.15 – Details of a 4T50 Mini-pile

H5.4.9 BARRETTES

Barrettes or barrette piles are constructed by machine excavation under a slurry filled
trench down to the founding level. A reinforcement cage (and other structural elements
as necessary, such as stanchions) is then inserted, followed by concreting of the
excavated trench by tremie method. Barrettes are usually of rectangular plan section.

Page 77 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

More detailed descriptions of this type of foundation are as follows. The descriptions
also apply to diaphragm walls, which are essentially a succession of contiguous barrettes
and as such can also be used as foundations resisting vertical loads.

(i) General Considerations :

(a) Effect of slurry :

While excavating the trench under bentonite slurry, the water from the slurry
tends to filter out into the surrounding soil, driven by the necessary pressure
head difference between the slurry and the outside groundwater. In this
process, the bentonite clay particles are retained at the soil interface and form
what is called a “cake”, plugging the soil pores and rendering the interface
impermeable. The cake is generally a few millimetres thick and the
performance depends essentially on the permeability of the surrounding soil
(water from slurry has to flow out), and the permeability of the bentonite cake
itself which in turn depends on the mud quality.

(b) Barrettes founded on rock

Barrettes are normally designed to be founded by end bearing on rock,

following the same criteria as for bored piles. Where there is a socket, rock
socket friction can also contribute to the bearing capacity.

(c) Barrettes founded in soil

Barrette can also be designed to be founded in soil by deriving bearing from

soil friction and end-bearing in locations where bedrock is deep. As the ratio
of perimeter over sectional area for a barrette is generally greater than that of
large diameter bored pile, more cost effective design can therefore be
achieved by using barrettes as friction piles.

The friction capacity of barrettes in soil may also be enhanced using shaft
grouting, which consists of grouting the interface between the concrete and
the soil, so as to compact the soil and increase the lateral stress acting on the
barrette. The foundations of the International Commerce Centre in Hong
Kong are a major example of such design.

However, it should be noted that instrumented trial piles are often required
before construction of the working piles in order to verify the design
assumptions, particularly on the mobilised pile shaft.

(ii) Design principles :

(a) End-bearing in rock :

End-bearing criteria in rock for barrettes and diaphragm walls should

generally follow the same criteria as those for bored piles.

(b) Socket friction in rock

Page 78 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

Where there is a socket, rock socket friction also contributes to the load
carrying capacity, in addition to the end-bearing capacity. Rock socket
friction shall follow the requirements of Table 2.2 of the Code in relation to
“Presumed Allowable Bond or Friction between Rock and Concrete for Piles”.

(c) Friction & end-bearing in soil :

(1) Friction in Soils :

Minimum nominal friction : When full scale load tests are carried out, it is
sometimes attempted to eliminate friction over the top section of the barrettes
in order to concentrate the load in the soil stratum to be tested (e.g. CDG).
This is usually done by means of creating an artificial interface using
“Volclay” panels or similar arrangement. Monitoring results always show that
even with such an artificial interface, the mobilized ultimate friction is always
in the order of 25 to 30 kPa. Therefore it is concluded that an allowable
nominal friction of 10 kPa can be adopted.

Estimation of friction capacity : Friction capacity in soils will depend on the

type of soil and on whether shaft grouting is used. For the case of barrettes
without shaft grouting, reference shall be made to GEO Publication 1/2006,
paragraph 6.4.5.3 and case histories of tests given in Table A1 of its Appendix
A.

(2) End-bearing in soils :

An end-bearing component in soil can be considered together with shaft

friction in soil. Full scale load tests on “friction + end-bearing” barrettes,
when carried to failure, have demonstrated ultimate end-bearing resistance
values of 10N or more in C/HDG.

(iii) Construction Requirements

The slurry used for excavation may be based on bentonite, polymers or compatible
combinations thereof.

The slurry in the excavated trench should be of sufficient hydraulic head to

maintain the stability of the trench, including any surcharge from adjacent
structures and construction loads.

Rigid reinforced concrete guide walls are usually provided to maintain alignment
and verticality of the excavation as well as for supporting the weight of the
structural elements (e.g. reinforcement cage, stanchions) hanging in the trench prior
to pouring the concrete.

As for bored piles, the type of concrete used for barrettes and diaphragm walls shall
have suitable workability characteristics. Suitable concrete characteristics are
provided in BSEN 1538:2010+A1:2015 “Execution of special geotechnical works :
Diaphragm Walls”.

Page 79 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

Construction of a typical barrette is shown in Figure H5.16.

Tremie pipe, 300mm in

dia., 1 to 2 in number
for concreting

Figure H5.16 – Construction of Typical Barrette

Page 80 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

H5.4.10 HAND-DUG CAISSON

Caisson
Cap
blinding
Cut off level
75

Caisson 100
Ring nominal
cover to
blinders

Diameter Diameter
of of
Caisson Caisson

Typical Cross Section

binders

600 min.
Key in
rock

Bedrock

Figure H5.17 –Details of a Hand-dug Caisson

H5.4.11 STEEL H-PILE DRIVEN TO BEDROCK

A steel H-pile driven to bedrock is used in locations where the bedrock is shallow and the
soil above bedrock does not have sufficient strength to take the set so that the pile is
driven to bedrock for founding. The pile is described as being “driven to refusal” with
set value less than 10mm per 10 blows. The bedrock to be founded on should not be
inferior to category 1(d) in accordance with Table 2.1 of the Code.

The Code also requires special considerations when the bedrock is steeper than 25o from
the horizontal to avoid “slipping” of the pile at the bedrock under hard driving. In
addition, even if the slope of the bedrock is less than 25o to the horizontal, the Code
cautions that drop heights of the hammer should be reduced when driving is close to the
bedrock so as to secure better anchorage of the pile into the bedrock.

The details of the pile are similar to those of steel H-piles discussed in 5.4.1. The Code
has cautioned users to check against (i) buckling, construction tolerances and stability
due to the relatively thin layer of embedment soil; (ii) the necessity of a strengthened pile
base (hard driving when reaching bedrock where the superimposition of the upward and
downward stress waves can magnify the stress on the pile toe as discussed in Appendix

Page 81 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

HL); and (iii) additional testing requirements including driving a sufficient number of
trial piles to demonstrate “buildability” of the pile prior to installation of the working
piles.

When piles are short, the Code reminds the users of stability problem. Design of a “fixed
head” is recommended especially when the embedding soil is weak. For piles shorter
than 10m, trial piles may be required.

The Code also requires the peak driving stress at final set be not less than 75% of the
yield stress of the pile when undergoing dynamic load test. The dynamic test may be
limited to piles of lengths shorter than 30 m. There is also room for decrease of the peak
driving stress to 65% of the yield stress of the pile which should be able to ensure
adequacy in the test.

5.4.12 STEEL H SHEAR PILES

Steel H shear piles are effective in enhancing lateral shear capacity of a pile foundation as
each provides full lateral shear capacity of a pile with no structural capacity exhausted by
axial load. As they are not required to be installed to strong bearing strata and to undergo
final set or loading test, the construction time of them are relatively short.

To maximize lateral shear capacity, the pile heads of the steel H shear piles have to be
fixed to the pile cap with adequate lengths of anchorage into the pile cap. As the piles
will protrude above the lowest layer of reinforcing bars of the pile cap, some construction
difficulties will be imposed.

5.5 PILE CAPS

Except for statically determinate cases, the Code requires the analysis of pile load
distribution through pile cap be generally carried out by flexible cap analysis
incorporating stiffnesses of the pile cap and the piles. In addition, it also stresses on the
interaction effects between the piles. While it is easy to incorporate stiffness of a pile cap
in the mathematical model, the axial stiffness of a pile is often difficult as strictly
speaking the soil restraint along the pile shaft and the settlement of the pile tip in soil
which directly affect the axial stiffness are difficult to determine. The interactions
between the piles through the soil medium are even more difficult to determine. Methods
by Poulos & Davis (1970) and Randolph (1980) involving complicated mathematical
expressions, tables or charts for limited cases may be employed but they are not
popularly used in the trade practice at present.

The Code reiterates that mini-piles possess limited bending stiffness and only raking
mini-piles should be designed to resist lateral load in analysis. So unless raking piles are
used, lateral restraints can only be provided by pile cap.

Reinforcement and detailing of pile caps are similar to raft footings as discussed in H4.3
and Appendix HD. Nevertheless, detailing is more complicated in case steel H-piles
protrude into the pile cap for fixity against rotation which may interfere with the bottom
steel bars. As it is not advisable to use wide spacing of steel bars which may result in
excessive cracking affecting durability, the Code requires additional reinforcing bars

Page 82 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

when the spacing of the continuous steel bars is increased to 400mm to cope with the
commonly used steel pile such as 305×305×223 piles having lateral dimensions in the
order of 330mm. Figure H5.18 demonstrates the arrangement.

additional bars, Y additional

cross sectional area bar bent and
≥ 50% of main bar welded to
main bars the web of
the H-pile

X ≤ 250 X

≤ 250

X-X
additional
bar bent and
welded to
the flange of
the H-pile
Y

Y-Y

Figure H5.18 – Additional Bars to Trim Wide Spacing of Main Bars to Avoid Conflict with
H-piles in Pile Cap as per clause 5.5 of the Code

Page 83 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

H6 OTHER FOUNDATION TYPES/ELEMENTS

H6.1 BASEMENTS AND HOLLOW BOXES

A basement or hollow box serving as a foundation is effectively a “floating footing” with

an empty space in the foundation that serves to reduce dead weight and “net bearing
pressures” on ground by displacing a large volume of soil mass. The Code allows the
vertical resistance of ground for the foundation to comprise end bearing at the bottom of
the slabs and bases of side walls plus side friction or bond resistance on the external
surfaces of the side walls. To assess the allowable bearing pressure of the basement or
hollow box, the “net” bearing pressure design concept as discussed in H2.2.4 is
applicable by which the allowable bearing pressures are given in Table 2.1 of the Code.
As for the bond on the external surfaces of the walls, reference can be made to Table 2.2
of the Code whilst frictional resistance can be derived from the positive skin friction
using the same principle as for piles as discussed in H5.3.2(1)(b). It should also be borne
in mind that settlement is another controlling criterion as discussed in clause 2.3.2 of the
Code.

Similarly, the horizontal resistance of the ground can also be mobilized from bond or side
resistance at the side walls and the base, together with the passive resistance of soil.
Worked Example H2.1 under H2.5.4 demonstrates mobilization of the horizontal
resistance of the ground so that the basement or hollow box structures can achieve
acceptable factors of safety against sliding and overturning.

The Code cautions that when more than one component (e.g. base friction plus side
friction) is utilized as ground resistance for the basement or hollow box structure, it has to
be demonstrated that they can be mobilized simultaneously. Compatibility of movements
should be demonstrated.

The Code also requires that unacceptable disturbance (movement and stress) to the
ground or adjacent structures and services should not be caused by the foundation
structure. Assessment of such disturbance has to be carried out in the design stage, when
additional stresses and movements induced should be estimated and where required,
measures implemented to keep the disturbances within tolerable limits. Some of the
tolerable limits are pre-determined by authorities such as the MTRC, WSD and some are
statutory ones. Sometimes monitoring during and/or after construction has to be carried
out to ensure that the limits are not exceeded. Assessment of the disturbance in the
design stage involves determination of additional stress and movements induced on other
structures through the soil medium. For simple configurations, the assessment can be
based on charts and/or formulae provided by publications including Poulos & Davis
(1973) which are in accordance with the continuum theory. More sophisticated analysis
can be carried out by numerical modeling based on either the finite element or continuum
method. Nevertheless, a worked example using the continuum theory based on Mindlin’s
Equations to estimate the stresses induced on a nearby structure due to a newly
constructed structure founded on hollow box foundation is given in Appendix HR.

There is a requirement in the Code that the concrete used should not be inferior to grade
C35 and be sufficiently water-tight. This is to avoid the trapping of water inside the box

Page 84 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

structure which may upset the pre-determined load balance in design stage. If water-
tightness cannot be fully guaranteed, a water pumping system (automatic if required)
should be installed.

Stability against buoyancy is important, especially when the dead weight of the structure
is less than the water upthrust at the permanent finished stage or during construction.
Reference to H2.5.4 and Worked Example H2.1 of this Handbook can be made for the
checking of stability against buoyancy. Use of ground anchors may be required to
withstand the buoyancy uplift. More details are discussed in H6.4. However, it should
be noted that permanent prestressed anchors designed to resist permanent upthrust may
not be acceptable to the Buildings Department. This is because the use of permanent
prestressed ground anchors in a project would impose a long-term monitoring
commitment on the maintenance parties which usually involves appreciable recurrent
cost and, should deficiencies be revealed, remedial works may be difficult and expensive.
Past experience shows that compliance with such commitment by owners is not
practically viable.

The Code remarks that the design of the permanent structure should take into account the
stresses that may have developed during the various stages of the construction sequence.
An example is the design of the base slab of a basement which has to cater for different
distributions of soil and water upthrust at different stages of construction and where the
load distribution at the final stage is not the most critical at all locations.

Care has to be taken if there are services or structures (such as tunnels) that have to be
connected to a basement structure and the basement is resting on soil where the increase
in settlement as construction proceeds is significant. This is because these services or
structures connected to other foundations may be subject to different settlements at their
other ends, thus creating differential settlements that may be intolerable. Flexible
connections may have to be used. Another practice is to defer the connection work to
until completion of the superstructure so that the settlement of the basement structure is
almost completed (at least due to dead load). Figure H6.1 illustrates the phenomenon.

differential
settlement

(i) Service connected to the (ii) Settlement of the Basement Service connected to the
Basement when superstructure continues when superstructure basement upon completion of
construction not yet commenced. construction proceeds, thus superstructure so that
creates differential settlement differential settlement will be
to the linking services. minimized.

(a) Construction sequence by which services connected to (b) Construction sequence by which services
basement prior to construction of superstructure. connection after completion of superstructure.

Figure H6.1 – Differential Settlements of Linking Services or Structures to Basement

Page 85 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

H6.2 DIAPHRAGM WALLS

The construction of a diaphragm wall is similar to that of a barrette as described in H5.4.9

of this Handbook, though the latter is usually formed by panels with length varying from
2.8m to 7m. In contrast with the barrette, which is usually a vertical load resisting
member, a diaphragm wall can also be a flexural member resisting lateral soil pressures.
The Code requires the wall thickness to be in excess of 600mm, below which
construction is impractical.

The obvious advantage in constructing a diaphragm wall is that temporary works such as
sheetpiling can be eliminated as the permanent wall structure can also act as a soil
retaining structure during excavation. As the wall structure is very strong compared with
steel sheetpiling, shoring work can be minimized and is more suitable in case of deep
excavation. In some cases, diaphragm walls are used for the “top down construction
method” of basement by which diaphragm walls are first formed, followed by excavation
from the ground level downwards and successive construction of the floor slab structures.
It is relatively speedy for constructing the basement and superstructure simultaneously
provided that good site planning is implemented.

The Code required analysis of diaphragm walls to include the following :

1. Seepage analysis for water cut-off

The diaphragm wall, being an impermeable structure, can serve the water cut-off
purpose during excavation work by lengthening the water flow path as shown in
Figure H6.2.

The “flow lines” and

the “equipotential lines”
together constitute a
“flow net”.

Figure H6.2 – Increase of Water Flow Path by Cut-off by Impermeable Wall

In Figure H6.2, the flow lines indicate the direction of the flow of water and the
equipotential lines are contours along which the “total head” (elevation head plus
static pore water pressure) is constant. The deeper the key-in of the impermeable
wall, the longer is the flow path and therefore the smaller the rate of water flow into

Page 86 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

the excavation. Analysis for a 2-dimensional flow field can be based on the
fundamental equations listed in Appendix HS. Approximate determination of the
hydrostatic pressures on the wall and water seepage rates can be carried out by the
“flow net” analysis described in most of the text books in soil mechanics.
Nevertheless, analytical solutions of the basic equations are available for some
simple configurations and their uses are demonstrated as worked examples in
Appendix HS. For more complicated cases, use of the computer analysis software
will be necessary.

2. Lateral stability analysis including toe stability

The checking of lateral stability of an excavation involves the determination of

earth pressures and hydrostatic pressures. Determination of the earth pressures
(active and passive) can be based on GEOGUIDE 1 and that of pore water pressures
can be based on “flownet” analysis described in (a). In the absence of rigorous
analysis of soil pressure taking deformation of wall into account, “at rest” soil
pressure should be used instead of active pressure. If the wall is keyed into rock,
the ultimate lateral resistance of the key can be determined by assuming the
ultimate lateral strength of the rock to be one third of the vertical allowable bearing
pressure, and with reference to Figures 51 to 53 of GEOGUIDE 1.

In addition, commercial softwares based on the finite element method or Winkler’s

spring method are available for lateral load analysis.

3. Bending moments, shear forces and deflections due to lateral loads for the
proposed construction sequence

The bending moments, shear forces and deflections due to lateral loads for the
proposed construction sequence are the results of excavation analysis. The
structural strengths of the wall structure should be able to resist the forces induced
in them, together with tolerable deflections. The deflections induced in the
surrounding ground and structures should also be studied if found significant.

The proposed construction sequence should also be taken into account if found to
have significant effects on stresses (locked-in stresses) in the structures and
deflections. The phenomenon of “locked-in” stress in a diaphragm wall under “top
down construction” sequence is illustrated in Figure H6.3 as a simplified case with
only two layers of strutting. In the analysis, apart from the possible changing of soil
load profiles as highlighted in the figure, compatibility of displacements of the soil
profiles, the wall and the strutting may also need to be ensured. The same
phenomenon can in fact apply to other similar excavations such as those supported
by sheetpile walls in which successive strutting supports are installed as excavation
proceeds downwards from ground level. Commercial software are available to
analyze multi-layer strut excavations with full account taken of the construction
sequence.

Page 87 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

δ1 δ1 Note: The soil load

profiles shown on
both sides of the
wall are indicative
only. The profiles
generally vary with
different stages in
construction.

Stage (1) : Basement wall Stage (2) : Front part Stage (3) : Top Floor constructed, but the
excavated for certain depth, deflection and forces in the wall remains as
constructed.
wall deflected by δ1 with δ1, F1 & M1. F1 & M1 are “locked” in the
forces F1 and M1 induced. wall. Top strut is free of load at this stage.

δ3 δ1
δ2

Model 1 +
Model 2

Stage (4) : Further excavation and lower floor The analysis of the wall for forces and displacements to simulate the construction
constructed. Deflection of the wall increases sequence can be conveniently carried out by performing analysis according to the
to δ2. Top strut load is due to δ2 – δ1 (δ1 final configuration as Model 1 (with prop by the upper floor) to obtain the
creates no load on strut) with new forces F2 deflections and forces δ3, F3 & M3 + the deflection and forces of Model 2 which is
& M2. The lower floor constructed does not the wall structure under the prescribed deflected shapes at Stage (2) with deflections
affect δ2, F2 & M2 at this stage. and forces δ1, F1 & M1.

Figure H6.3 – Illustration of the “Locked-in” Stresses Formulation in a Top-down One

Storey Basement Construction and the Method of Analysis

4. Bearing capacity for vertical loads

If the bearing capacity is derived from end-bearing, the determination of allowable

bearing capacity should be similar to that of an end-bearing pile. However, if the
axial capacity is derived from skin friction, it can normally be derived by
multiplying the peripheral area by the ultimate friction which is often related to the
SPT N values of the soil in the order of 0.8N to 1.4N (N is capped to 200) in kPa in
accordance with GEO Publication 1/2006. Additional capping to an absolute value
of 200 kPa is also recommended. Shaft friction can however, be enhanced by “shaft
grouting” by which cement grout is injected from the surfaces (which may include
the bottom level) of the wall into the surrounding soil. Compatibility of settlement
may have to be studied if both end-bearing and skin friction are designed to be
mobilized simultaneously.

5. Slurry trench stability during excavation

To maintain stability in the slurry trench excavation, the bentonite slurry should be
maintained at a certain depth above the groundwater level outside the trench
excavation such that the slurry pressures exceed the pressure exerted by the soil and
ground water with a certain factor of safety. Reference can be made to Hajinal I. et

Page 88 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

al.’s “Construction of Diaphragm Walls” (1984) and others. A worked example is

enclosed in Appendix HT.

6. Assessment of settlement induced on adjacent structures, services and ground

during construction.

The assessment is particularly important if the diaphragm wall is founded on soil

and derives its bearing capacity from skin friction at shallow soil depths. The Finite
Element Method and the Continuum Method as described in H6.1 are applicable for
such an assessment, with the proper use of soil parameters.

H6.3 RETAINING WALLS

Clause 6.3 of the Code is self-explanatory.

H6.4 GROUND ANCHORS

Where ground anchors are needed to resist the buoyancy force acting on the structure,
they are normally formed in rock whereby steel tendon/bars are grouted in drilled holes in
the rock. The uplift resistance of the ground anchor depends on (i) strength of the anchor
bars; (ii) bond strength of the grout with the steel bars; (iii) bond strength of the grout
with rock; and (iv) weight of the rock mass and the overlying soil that will be mobilized
by the anchor. Demonstration of item (iv) is shown in Figure H5.3. The effects of
adjacent anchors should also be considered with due regard to the overlapping of
mobilized rock and soil masses. An illustration is shown in Figure H6.4.

Ground Level

Mass of Soil Mobilized

as Counter-weight against
Uplift of Foundation

30o for rock 30o for rock rock

rock

Figure H6.4 – Illustration of Mobilization of Soil Mass against Uplift for Foundation
Elements in Close Proximity

Page 89 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

Reference can be made to Table 2.2 of the Code for the bond strength of grout with rock.
The cement grout should comply with the requirements of GEOSPEC 1 of CEDD (1989)
by which the grout should consist of OPC and water only. Sand and PFA should not be
used in general. As for the bond strength of steel bars with grout, reference can be made
to reliable test data.

For pre-stressed anchors, design and construction shall comply with GEOSPEC 1 of
CEDD (1989). Monitoring should also be carried out as necessary.

H6.5 RE-USE OF EXISTING FOUNDATIONS

Re-use of existing foundations should be encouraged as far as possible, as a measure of

environmental protection. However, the integrity of the existing foundations and their
suitability for re-use should be carefully studied. The Code contains a detailed discussion
of the requirements including comprehensive testing schemes concerning the re-use of
existing foundations under this clause.

Page 90 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

H7 CONSTRUCTION PRACTICE AND SITE SAFETY FOR

FOUNDATION WORKS
This Chapter of the Code relates to construction practice and site safety for foundation
works. To facilitate understanding of the topics, photographs showing the construction
sequence for common types of foundations are enclosed in Appendix HU.

H7.1 GENERAL

In addition to the requirements as stipulated in the Code under this sub-clause, a review
of actual site conditions should be conducted to ascertain the adequacy of the design and
suitability of the construction method prior to execution of the foundation construction
work.

H7.1.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

The list of Registered Specialist Contractors (Foundation Work) can be found in the web-
site of the Buildings Department.

H7.1.2 QUALITY SUPERVISION FOR FOUNDATION WORKS

Adequate resources from the AP, RSE, RGE and RSC Streams must also be ensured so
that the quality supervision for foundation works can be carried out.

H7.1.3 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS

Whilst the Code concentrates on the testing of materials in this sub-clause, discussion in
relation to construction practice and safety is also outlined.

(1) Concrete and Grout

In addition to the requirement to comply with CS1 as stipulated in the Code,

reference to the Hong Kong Building (Construction) Regulation (HKB(C)R) and
Code of Practice for the Structural Use of Concrete 2013 should also be made for
the determination of the sizes of test cubes, sampling frequencies and compliance
criteria in relation to concrete cube tests. The followings are highlighted for users’
attention:

(i) Whilst the HKB(C)R (2012) requires the standard size of test cubes to be
150mm, an alternative standard size of 100mm is also allowed in the Code of
Practice for the Structural Use of Concrete 2013. The use of the smaller size
test cubes serves to reduce the crushing loads exerted by the testing machines
which might otherwise be too high to test concrete of grade exceeding 60.
The alternative size is to meet the increasing demand for the use of high
strength concrete which has been gaining popularity in recent years;
(ii) PFA and GGBS should preferably be used in large volume concrete pour for
pile caps and raft footings so as to reduce the heat of hydration. In case of
very massive structures, say over 3m thickness, additional precautionary

Page 91 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

measures including the use of icy water in the concrete mix, planned
sequential concrete pours, temperature monitoring etc. should be considered;
(iii) Corrosion protection of the concrete is a concern in adverse sub-soil
conditions. More detailed discussion can be found in H2.6.

(2) Reinforcement

Testing reinforcement requirements should be in accordance with CS2 as stated in

the Code. In addition, reference should also be made to the Code of Practice for the
Structural Use of Concrete 2013 for fixing and bending of reinforcement bars.

When heavy reinforcement cages have to be inter-connected and lifted such as in

the case of large diameter bored pile construction, care must be taken to ensure that
the connection of the reinforcement cages (usually connected by U-bolts) is secure
and the lifting machine has adequate capacity to perform safely.

(3) Steel piles

Structural steel has been classified into Classes 1, 2, 3, 1H and UH in accordance

with the Code of Practice for the Structural Use of Steel 2011 with respect to the
quality assurance systems implemented and compliance with reference material
standards. Frequencies of testing for the different classes are different. For Class 1,
being the highest standard, submission of mill sheets will be adequate to prove its
acceptability. No additional tests upon delivery to the construction site will be
required.

In addition to the testing of the material, tests of welds are also important. Testing
methods and frequencies are also illustrated in the Code of Practice for the
Structural Use of Steel 2011.

In the driving of steel piles, it is an established practice to limit the driving stress to
80 – 90% of the yield stress of the steel pile in order to avoid damage due to “hard
driving”. Measurements of the driving stresses are often made by PDA tests.

H7.1.4 EXCAVATION

Excavations, especially deep excavations, often bring safety concerns. The Building
Authority requires prior submission and approval of an “Excavation and Lateral Support
Plan” (ELS Plan) if the extent and depth of the excavation exceed that stipulated in the
PNAP APP-57. For excavations of minor extent, submissions and acknowledgements of
“shoring and excavation procedure details” may be sufficient as required by the Building
Authority.

As far as excavation is concerned, the following may also act as guidelines for the design
and execution of the excavation :

(i) Adequate data in relation to soil strengths and ground water levels should be
acquired and analyzed;
(ii) Determination of the type of excavation (open cut excavation or shored
excavation) and construction method should be based on factors including (1)

Page 92 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

depth of excavation; (2) strength of the soil; (3) ground water level; (4)
environmental consideration (e.g. noise and dust); and (5) anticipated effects on
the adjacent structures or utilities;
(iii) In the case of an open cut excavation, the gradients of the slopes should be
designed with adequate factors of safety and if necessary, the surface may have to
be protected by such measures as covering by tarpaulin sheets or chunam to
prevent surface infiltration if considered necessary. Surface drainage channels
should also be provided in order to properly direct the surface run-off to a safe
discharge point;
(iv) In case of a shored excavation, stability and strength of the shoring should be
checked against the soil loads appropriately determined. Effects of the
construction sequence should be catered for as appropriate;
(v) Monitoring (generally against soil movement, water draw-down, vibration) should
be considered as necessary with pre-determined warning and stop-work threshold
limits. Generally the three “triggering levels” – alert, alarm and action levels as
stipulated in PNAP APP18 can be adopted in monitoring. In addition, authorities
including MTRC and WSD have imposed well known threshold limits to induced
stresses, movements and vibrations on their structures and installations due to
nearby construction;
(vi) Effects of water draw-down on adjacent structures and utilities should be assessed
as it may create excessive settlements. Re-charging may be necessary to restore
ground water to acceptable levels during construction;
(vii) The necessity of grouting may be considered for stabilization of the soil and
enhancement of water cut-off;
(viii) Danger due to the upheaving of soil at the bottom of the excavation needs to be
assessed;
(ix) According to the Construction Sites (Safety) Regulations, excavations deeper than
1.2m need to be shored. The shoring work is especially important in areas of high
ground water.

Photographs showing open and shored excavations are in Figures H7.1(a) and (b).

Figure H7.1(a) – Open Excavation Figure H7.1(b) – Shored Excavation

Figure H7.1 – Photographic Illustration of Excavation

Page 93 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

H7.2 EFFECT OF FOUNDATION WORKS ON ADJACENT STRUCTURES

AND LAND

H7.2.1 ASSESSMENT OF THE EFFECT OF FOUNDATION WORKS

The following serve to supplement the assessment as required in the Code. They are
suggested measures and should be implemented as necessary to suit actual site conditions.
Alternative measure can always be suggested instead :

(a) In the preparation of the detailed report as required under this sub-clause, the
engineer should determine the scope and details of the investigation in accordance
with his professional judgement which may include (i) review of existing records,
(ii) visual inspections, (iii) determination of tests (non-destructive or destructive)
that need to be carried out for assessment;
(b) Where sensitive structures and services are in close proximity, the estimation of the
effects including “stresses”, “movements”, “vibrations” on them as a result of the
proposed foundation should be carried out as appropriate;
(c) Where required, examples of preventive measures proposals may include (i)
“sleeving” of newly constructed piles or walls along certain portions of their lengths
so as to avoid loads to be exerted by these portions onto the soil which may
otherwise create instability; (ii) strutting of excavations to prevent excessive lateral
movements of existing foundations; (iii) re-charging of surrounding sub-soil by
water to minimize settlements due to water draw-down; and (iv) careful control of
the construction procedures to avoid over-break and ground loss during pre-boring
process. These are illustrated in Figure H7.2. In addition, the monitoring scheme
and contingency plans should also be included where necessary.

External
lateral load Strutting to prevent
acting on lateral movement of
foundation foundation

Safe angle Length

line of pile
sleeved Safe
Slope

Sleeving, to
ensure no Transmission Water
lateral load of lateral load recharging
transmission beneath safe if necessary
angle line Casing and
Existing
Pre-determined drill bit should
foundation
Safe Angle not advance
Water independently
Pile on slope “sleeved” for length above safe angle Pumping to avoid
line so that lateral load is not transmitted to the slope Well overbreak
above the line which will otherwise create instability. during boring

Figure H7.2 – Common Preventive Measures in Foundation Construction

Having completed the detailed report on the structural conditions of all surrounding
buildings, land, structures and existing services that are likely to be affected by the
proposed foundation works, as well as the estimation of the effect due to the works (such
as vibration, ground loss or ground water drawdown), the most appropriate foundation

Page 94 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

type and construction sequence should be selected, together with proposals for preventive
measures, a monitoring scheme and contingency plans as appropriate.

H7.2.2 SHORING AND UNDERPINNING

Depending on the assessed effect of foundation works, and also the importance of the
surrounding buildings, land, structures and existing services, precautionary measures in
the form of shoring, underpinning should be included in the foundation proposal as
appropriate.

Shoring is a general term in construction to describe the process of supporting a structure

to enhance stability or to prevent collapse so that construction can proceed safely. Apart
from its use in excavation, shoring in the form of “raking shores” on the superstructure of
a building are sometimes carried out to enhance stability as illustrated in Figure H7.3.
Raking Shores usually consist of one or more timbers or structural steel members sloping
between the face of the structure to be supported and the ground. The most effective
support is given if the raker meets the wall at an angle of 60 to 70 degrees. A wall-plate
is typically used to increase the bearing area to facilitate stress dispersion.

Connection at High Levels

Founding Details

Figure H7.3 – Double Raking Shore to Enhance Stability of Building

Underpinning is the process of strengthening and stabilizing the foundation of an existing

structure by extending it into subsurface strata that is deeper and stronger than the
original ground immediately supporting the existing foundation. Underpinning is often
applied as remedial work for foundations that have undergone structural or supporting
ground failures.

Page 95 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

H7.2.3 MONITORING PLAN

The Code gives a comprehensive description of the monitoring plan including the three
“Triggering A” levels (“Alert”, “Alarm” and “Action” Levels as stipulated in AP/RSE
Practice Notes APP-18) under this sub-clause.

As an example, a parameter for the determination of triggering levels may be the

piezometer readings in a construction site involving dewatering in which the “Alert”,
“Alarm” and “Action” levels are when the ground water level drops to 1.3mPD, 0.8mPD
and 0.3mPD respectively. The responses as listed in Table 7.1 of the Code will be
required. Another parameter normally is “settlement measurement”.

Photographs for the various instruments and their installations for monitoring purpose are
shown in Figures H7.4(a) to H7.4(e).

Figure H7.4(a) – Settlement Figure H7.4(b) – Settlement Figure H7.4(c) – Check

Monitoring Marker on Ground Monitoring Marker on Wall Point against Tilting

Figure H7.4(d) – Vibrograph Figure H7.4(e) – Piezometer (for Checking

Ground Water Level)
Figure H7.4 – Photographic Illustrations of Monitoring of Ground and Structure
Movement and Ground Water Level

H7.2.4 GROUND SETTLEMENT

Ground settlement is an important indicator to the adverse effects created to nearby

buildings by the construction process and should therefore be closely monitored as
appropriate. It should be emphasized that different structures and utilities will have
different tolerance in accommodating movements of their foundations. Acceptance of
estimated ground settlements should be considered on a case-by-case basis. PNAP 137
recommends to define the serviceability limit based on the maximum calculated

Page 96 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

movements or the allowable movement of adjacent ground, structures and services. In

the absence of these estimation, the typical values given in Table 7.2 may be adopted,
provided that no particular sensitive structures and utilities are present.

H7.2.5 DEWATERING

Dewatering using electric submersible pumps to drawdown the groundwater table is very
common in keeping the excavation dry for foundation works such as the construction of a
raft foundation. Recharging to maintain within design limits the groundwater level
outside the excavation may be considered when necessary. The groundwater table during
construction is to be properly checked by monitoring stations. Figure H7.5 schematically
shows water draw-down by pumping and a photograph of submersible pumps.

Excavation
GWL
drawdown

Submersible pumps

Figure H7.5 – Dewatering in Excavation to

Lower Ground Water Table Submersible Pumps

However, the maximum settlement criteria imposed by various authorities as relevant on

their installations should be observed during dewatering e.g. there is a 20mm movement
limitation for MTR installations.

H7.2.6 VIBRATION

The classification of vibrations by the Code into “continuous”, “transient” and

“intermittent” vibrations is identical to the categorization by BS5228-2:2009 and the
limits of ppv are taken from PNAP APP-137.

The Code also cautions that resonance may occur if the frequency of a continuous
vibration coincides with the natural frequency of a building structure. However, the
vibration is generally a band of ground excitation of many frequencies and the substantial
responses of a building may be due to a few of its lowest natural frequencies and careful
study has to be carried out to identify the adverse effects. Fortunately, dynamic analysis
by computer method is common today. However, care should be taken in assessing
stiffness of the building as the non-structural components which are often ignored in
structural analysis can contribute substantially to the stiffness and hence lower the natural
frequencies.

The formula for estimation of vres is extracted BS5228-2:2009 Table E.1 for percussive
piling which is in turn quoted from Hiller and Crabb (2000). The formula takes a similar
form to that of Attewell and Farmer (1973). The latter uses horizontal distance from the
pile axis as the variable instead of the slope distance used by the former.

Page 97 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

H7.2.7 PUBLIC RELATIONS PLAN FOR PILING WORKS

Clause 7.2.7 of the Code is self-explanatory.

H7.2.8 BLASTING

The use of explosives is governed by Dangerous Goods Ordinance Cap. 295 :

(i) 295A Dangerous Goods (Application and Exemption) Regulations;
(ii) 295B Dangerous Goods (General) Regulations;
(iii) 295C Dangerous Goods (Shipping) Regulations;
(iv) 295D Dangerous Goods (Government explosive depots) Regulations.

Other ordinances include :

(i) Mining Ordinance (Cap 285);

(ii) Building Ordinance (Cap 123);
(iii) Factories and Industrial Undertaking Ordinance (Cap 59);
(iv) Protected Places (Safety Ordinance) (Cap 260);
(v) Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (Cap 499);
(vi) Dangerous Goods (General) Regulations Reg. 46 - Permission required for blasting.

Regulatory control on the safety and security on the use of explosives in Hong Kong is
under the control of the Commissioner of Mines (Director of Civil Engineering and
Development).

When an explosive is detonated, shock waves and vibration are generated. Vibration is
measured in terms of peak particle velocity (ppv) in units of mm/sec. A report is
generally required for assessing vibrations that would be incurred to the surrounding
structures and facilities to ensure that they are within tolerable limits.

H7.3 FOUNDATION RECORDS AND REPORTS

In addition to the records and reports materials as stipulated in the Code, the following
should also be included :

(i) Rockhead contours should be mapped with information obtained from the initial SI
report, pre-boring and post construction drilling records;
(ii) Rockhead contours (for end bearing piles on rock) or contours for soil having SPT
N value ≥ 200 for driven steel piles normally, though SPT N value < 200 is
sometimes acceptable for other large displacement piles, such as tubular pile,
precast prestressed concrete piles, etc.;
(iii) Sonic Tests on large diameter bored piles;
(iv) Ultrasonic echo sounder tests on large diameter bored piles;
(v) Material tests reports including concrete core tests, grout cube tests.

Page 98 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

H7.4 PILE CONSTRUCTION

H7.4.1 DRIVING TEST AND TRIAL PILES

If considered necessary, the trial pile may be “instrumented” by which strains, and
settlements can be measured for the subsequent derivation of soil resistances along the
pile shaft.

In accordance with the Code, test driving is required for driven piles. The current
practice also includes test installations for pre-bored piles such as mini-piles and socketed
H-piles.

H7.4.2 TEST BORING

Test boring is important for sites where the construction activities may induce excessive
settlements and vibrations which are detrimental to nearby structures or utilities.

In addition to item (c) of the test boring proposal requiring the minimum rate of
advancement of the drill bit be stated, the maximum rate should also be stated for
monitoring.

H7.4.3 PRE-DRILLING

Reference to clause 2.1 of the Code should be made for the definition of “bedrock” in the
determination of depth of pre-drilling in rock.

For barrettes which are long on plan (in excess of 5m), it may be worthwhile to consider
sinking more than one pre-drilling hole for confirmation of bedrock levels.

H7.4.4 POST CONSTRUCTION PROOF DRILLING

Further investigation may be required if there are substantial differences between the pre-
drilling and the post construction proof drilling records. Good quality drilling is required
to avoid possible damage to the soundness of the interface. Triple barrel drilling and
drilling fluid such as foam, supermud or polymers can be used.

H7.4.5 PROOF TESTS

If the proof tests involve use of instruments, calibrations by accredited laboratories

should also be included.

H7.4.6 FURTHER ON SITE TESTS

The tests may include Pile Driving Analyzer Tests (PDA), CAPWAP etc.

Page 99 of 114
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

H7.5 CONSTRUCTION TOLERANCES

The Code tabulates construction tolerances for foundation elements generally in this
clause.

The justification mentioned in Note (2) can comprise re-analysis and / or re-design of the
structure with the as-constructed dimensions / layouts.

H7.6 GROUND TREATMENT

Common ground treatment methods include (i) grouting; (ii) dynamic compaction; (iii)
vibroflotation; and (iv) stone column construction. While grouting can easily be
understood, dynamic compaction is a soil densification process achieved by dropping
heavy weights of concrete and steel hammers from heights of 10m to 30m onto a grid
pattern. Vibroflotation involves the use of a vibrating probe that can penetrate granular
soil to depths of over 30m. The vibrations of the probe cause the grain structure to
collapse thereby densifying the soil surrounding the probe. Stone columns are columns
of gravel constructed in the ground to improve the bearing pressures. The stone columns
can be constructed by the vibroflotation method or by driving steel casings and
subsequently filled with gravels which are tamped with a drop hammer as the steel casing
is gradually withdrawn.

H7.7 CONTROL OF NUISANCE

(1) Noise

Sources of noise may include but are not limited to the following:

(i) Percussive / non-percussive piling operation;

(ii) Excavation of soil / rock using Powered Mechanical Equipment (PME) /
manually operated hand tools or equipment;
(iii) Concreting of raft foundation etc.

Generally noise levels below 75dB(A) are acceptable. In case of percussive piling
work where the construction noise levels are very high, limitations to certain period
of time for the piling work will generally be imposed.

Measures for reducing noise may involve the use of a noise barrier (Figure H7.6(a)),
noise muffler (Figure H7.6(b)) or the use of Quality Powered Mechanical
Equipment (QPME) which produce less noise during foundation work.

Page 100 of 114

An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

Figure H7.6(a) – Noise Figure H7.6(b) – Noise Muffler Enclosing Hydraulic Hammer
Barrier during Percussive Piling Work

Figure 7.6 – Noise Nuisance Reduction Measures

(2) Smoke and Fume

Sources of smoke and fumes are usually generated from sources including :

(i) Combustion of fuel for operating powered mechanical equipment (PME) such
as air compressors, generators or construction plant and;
(ii) Excavation of dusty materials.

Routine maintenance and servicing of the diesel engines of mechanical plant is vital
in preventing emission of excessive black smoke and fumes. Figure H7.7 shows the
use of an exhaust purifier for a diesel power pack plant, which can help to improve
the quality of exhaust gas significantly.

Dust generation can also be reduced by

(i) covering by tarpaulin sheets;

(ii) switching off engines when the PME / vehicles are not in use;
(iii) spraying water over the excavation works;
(iv) cleaning the wheels of vehicles before leaving site.

Figure H7.8 shows the spraying of water to suppress dust generated by foundation
excavation.

Page 101 of 114

An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

Figure H7.7 – Exhaust Purifier for Diesel Figure H7.8 – Spraying of Water for Dust
Power Pack of Reverse Circulation Drill Suppression

(3) Waste water and chemical waste

Disposal of waste water and chemical waste is controlled by the Environmental

Protection Department (EPD) as follows:

(i) A discharge License for disposal of waste water issued by EPD must be
obtained prior to discharging waste water into urban drains. Discharged water
must be passed through an efficient desilting system (e.g. using a series of
desilting tanks) prior to discharging and the discharged water must comply
with all the requirements stipulated in the Discharge License.
(ii) Registration with EPD as a chemical waste producer must be completed and
all collection of chemical waste must be handled by chemical waste collectors
registered with EPD.

(4) Vibration

Reference may be made to H7.2.5 for its limitation and means of estimating
vibrations due to foundation construction.

H7.8 FOUNDATION WORKS IN SCHEDULED AREAS

For foundation works in the Scheduled Areas defined by the Fifth Schedule of Buildings
Ordinance, there may be special requirements imposed by the Building Authority.
Consequently, sufficient time must be allowed in the planning and designing foundations,
as well as in the execution of foundation works in the Scheduled Areas.

Page 102 of 114

An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

H8 TESTING OF FOUNDATION AND GROUND

H8.1 GENERAL

Clause 8.1 of the Code is self-explanatory.

H8.2 PLATE LOAD TEST

The plate load test as described in the Code aims at determination of allowable bearing
capacity and estimation of Young’s modulus of soil through measurement of the
settlement of a square or circular “plate” under pre-determined loading.

The derivation of the formulae listed in the Code for determination of allowable bearing
capacity and Young’s modulus by plate load tests are as follows :

(A) Allowable bearing capacity on cohesionless soil:

Only N γ needs be considered as the soil is without cohesion and no adjacent

surcharge is applied during the plate load test.

(1) Square Plate : By the formulae listed in Table 2.3 of the Code,
ζ γs = 1 − 0.4 × 1 = 0.6
So the ultimate bearing capacity is qult = ζ γs × 0.5 BγNγ = 0.3BγNγ ;
Thus qallowable = qult ÷ 3 = 0.1BγNγ ⇒ Wt = 0.1γB 3 Nγ
(2) Circular Plate : Approximation is made by finding a square of same area of
the circle. The side of the square is π 4 B .
So Wt = 0.1γ ( π 4B ) BN
2
γ = 0.025πγB 3 Nγ .

(B) Young’s Modulus

By Poulos (1974), the formulae for calculating settlement S of a square rigid plate
and a circular rigid plate with a uniform pressure p , dimension B on soil of
Young’s modulus Es , Poisson’s ratio v and as a semi-infinite medium are
respectively

S=
(
p × B 1 − v2) π
and S = (1 − v 2 )
p × 0 .5 B
1.13Es 2 Es
Wt
with Wt as the applied load at which S is measured so that p = and
B2
Wt
p= for the square plate and the circular plate respectively and re-
0.25πB 2
arranging the above equations:

Page 103 of 114

An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

Es =
(
Wt 1 − v 2 ) W 1 − v2
for square plate; and Es = t
( ) for circular plate as listed in
1.13SB SB
the Code.

The Es so determined will be used to verify the design values used in the settlement
calculations done in the design stage.

However, there is a criticism that only the top soil (less than half a metre) can be
mobilized in the plate load test due to the small plan dimensions of the testing plate
whilst the actual footing with much larger plan dimensions can mobilize soil at depths of
1 to 1.5 times the plan dimensions of the footing. The settlement measured can therefore
be significantly over-estimated.

Li (2007) discussed the problems of using plate load test as a verification test for proving
the bearing capacity of the founding soil. According to the recognized engineering
principle, the bearing capacity depends on the dimensions of the shallow footing. The
common size of the testing plate ranges between 300mm and 600mm, which is much
smaller when compared with the actual dimension of the footing. Failure in the plate
load test does not necessarily indicate that the shallow footing will experience a general
shearing failure at the same bearing pressure. In many cases, settlement is usually the
controlling factor in determining the allowable bearing capacity. In fact, the plate load
test is best to determine the soil stiffness, Es , for confirming the estimated settlement
(GEO, 2006). Where there is evidence that weaker soils exist beneath the test level or the
soil strength is not increasing with depth, it may be necessary to carry out a series of plate
load tests at different levels.

H8.3 STANDARD PENETRATION TEST

The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is often carried out during ground investigation to
assess the ground conditions and to infer the anticipated founding levels for foundations.
The procedures for SPT are described in GEOGUIDE 2.

The SPT N values measured give an indication of compactness of the soils. Empirical
correlations are available in the literature to relate soil properties, such as soil stiffness
and strength parameters, to SPT N values (GEO, 1993; GCO, 1990). It should be
cautioned that such correlations may be subject to a high degree of variability and care
must be taken in using such correlations, particularly for clayey soils.

H8.4 COMPRESSION LOADING TEST

Test loads used for proof tests of piles are either applied by means of a jack which
obtains its reaction from (i) kentledge heavier than the required test load or (ii) tension
piles or suitable anchors. For (i), to prevent the applied load from being eccentrically
applied to the pile, the centre of gravity of the kentledge should lie on the axis of the test
pile. For (ii), the anchor or anchor piles should be at adequate distance from the test pile

Page 104 of 114

An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

so as to minimize effects on settlement of the test pile due to loads in the anchor or
anchor piles.

A test pile may be laterally restrained in the loading test if it is also laterally restrained
(by the pile cap or tie beams) under the permanent condition. The restraint may be
important if the pile is laterally free for a certain height such that buckling or inclination
will significantly reduce its bearing capacity.

Procedure and failure criteria for pile load test are discussed in this clause.

(a) The reason for excluding group effect from determination of test loads is obvious,
as normally only single test piles are loaded during the loading test. The Code also
states that the test load should be applied at the cut-off level. Nevertheless, if the
application of the test load is at a higher level, the allowable maximum settlement
as arrived at by (e) (i) below should be modified by the use of a longer value of pile
length;

(b) The test load on a test pile is generally twice its working load (2W). However, if
the working load is very high so that the imposition of kentledge up to 2W is not
practical, the test load may be reduced to below 2W, subject to acceptance by the
Buildings Department. Moreover, the maximum allowable settlement for loading
test in (e)(i) should be adjusted if the test load is not 2W. If the test load is xW
where x < 2, the first term of the formula in (e)(i) for determination of the maximum
allowable settlement should accordingly become xW . In addition, the terms
AE
D
+ 4 that follow may also require adjustment;
120

(c) The requirement that the load at each incremental stage be held for 10 minutes or
longer until the rate of settlement is less than 0.05mm in 10 minutes is to ensure the
settlement of the pile is practically completed at the applied load;

(d) The measuring devices should be calibrated before use. Normally, 4 dial gauges
arranged at corners of a square above the pile head are installed to measure the
settlement of the pile as shown in Figure H8.1. Average values of the measured
settlements should be taken as the settlement of the pile. Care should be taken
when there are significant differences in values of the 4 readings which reveal that
the pile may have been eccentrically loaded;

Page 105 of 114

An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

Hydraulic Jack

Reference Beam

Dial Gauge for

Measuring
Settlement

Pile with
Instrumentation

Figure H8.1 – Set-up of Loading Test on Top Level of Pile

(e) Failure criteria for load test of piles with a least lateral dimension not exceeding
750mm are stipulated in this sub-clause. Load tests for piles exceeding a least
dimension of 750mm will probably require test loads of such magnitude that it is
impractical to carry out the test. For piles with a diameter or least lateral dimension
not exceeding 750mm, the test is deemed to be unsatisfactory if any of the
following conditions apply:

(i) The criterion for maximum settlement at the pile head is stipulated in this sub-
2WL D
clause by the formula + + 4 mm in which the symbols are defined in
AE 120
the Code.

This failure criterion is similar to the Davisson (1972) criterion which is one
of the most widely used methods in the world. Originally, the Davisson (1972)
criterion was intended for quick load test and the settlement due to long term
creep is excluded. Nevertheless, it has been developed for end-bearing piles
by considering the deformation required to cause yielding of soil at pile toes.
This deformation is known as “soil quake” as denoted by Qt . Based on the
loading test results, dynamic measurements and wave equation analysis, Qt is
determined to be 0.10 inch in most soils for a normal pile dimension of 1 foot
but increases linearly with pile size. So, when converted to the unit in mm,
D
this term becomes (probably) where D is normally taken as the least
120
dimension of the pile in mm. In a pile load test, ultimate load is presumed to

Page 106 of 114

An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

have reached when the pile head settlement ∆ h is 0.15 inch (= 4 mm) plus Qt
and the sum is below the “elastic deflection index line”. This index line can
be calculated by assuming the pile as a fixed-base free-standing column which
2WL
is at the applied load normally equal to twice the design working load.
AE
So, by adding these three terms together, the equation listed in the Code is
arrived at;

(ii) By the Code requirement, the loading test is deemed unsatisfactory if the
“residual settlement” exceeds the greater of

D/120 + 4mm; and

25% of the maximum pile head settlement

The criterion D/120 + 4mm was used only originally, intending to limit the
degrees of “yield” or “plastic settlement” that has occurred during pile load
testing. 25% of the maximum pile head settlement has been added in recent
years to make allowance for the locked in stresses. The requirement is not
common in other parts of the world. Past experience indicates that this
criterion is more difficult to fulfil than the maximum settlement criterion
discussed in (i). As a result, piles often have to be driven to deeper levels in
order to fulfil this additional requirement. This may cause problems in pile
termination and even pile damage when the piles are long;

(f) The Code states that grout can be taken into consideration in the calculation of axial
stiffness of mini-piles and socketed H-piles while the casing can be included in the
determination of axial compression / extension of the pile in the loading test;

(g) Normally confirmatory tests on large diameter bored piles (diameter > 750mm),
barrette piles and hand-dug caissons are performed by concrete coring instead of
that by imposition of loads.

A typical load settlement proof test curve due to the imposition of load on a local socketed
H-pile is shown in Figure H8.2.

Page 107 of 114

An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

Load vs Pile Head Settlement

Load (KN)
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000
0.0

5.0

10.0
Pile Head Settlement (mm)

15.0 Cycle 1

20.0 Cycle 2
25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

55.0

60.0

Figure H8.2 – A Typical Load Settlement Curve in a Pile Load Test

H8.5 CORE-DRILLING TEST

Two types of proof core-drilling; namely interface coring and full length coring, are
commonly used in large diameter bored piles, barrettes and the like.

Interface coring should be taken through the reservation tube for each of the large
diameter bored piles, barrettes and the like to a distance of at least 1m above and below
the rock/pile interface. The main purpose is to confirm good contact between the
concrete and rock. It can also serve to check the length of pile, quality of the concrete
near the pile base and give some indication of the soundness of the founding rock.

Common types of defects at the concrete/rock interface are the presence of sediments,
soil inclusions, unbounded aggregates and rock fragments debris. Remedial treatment
may be necessary subjected to the review by AP/RSE/RGE (see clause 12 of PNAP APP-
18). Typical remedial treatments for bored piles commonly accepted by BD include
water jetting and subsequent pressure grouting for sediments and/or segregation at the
pile/rock interface not exceeding (i) 50mm for pile lengths less than 30m; and (ii) 100mm
for pile length longer than 30m. Verification cores after grouting are normally not
necessary. However, sediments and/or segregation in excess of the foregoing will require
further investigation of the extent of the defects and the effects on the pile performance.
If the defect is localized and the effect on the overall pile performance is not significant,
cleaning by high pressure water jetting and pressure grouting shall be used to rectify the
defects. However, verification cores are normally required to prove the effectiveness of
the treatment. Prescribed methods for remedial treatments of barrettes and the like have
not been developed, but reference can be made to those for bored piles.

Local imperfections such as weak seams, more weathered and/or shattered rocks are
sometimes present at the bearing stratum below the interface. However, it is sometimes

Page 108 of 114

An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

difficult to distinguish whether the imperfection is above or below the concrete/rock

interface, particularly when there is a core loss, because the interface level is traditionally
taken as the average of a few levels dipped by a measuring tape. Caution is therefore
required to identify the various types of observed occurrences on the interface core logs.
If the imperfection at the bearing stratum below the interface is greater than 100mm,
further investigation of the extent of imperfection and individual assessment on the
capacity of the bearing stratum and the design may be required.

The concrete core taken should not show any sign of honeycombing or segregation of the
individual constituent materials. Defects, if identified, should be investigated as to their
extent and their effects on pile performance. Destructive compression tests can be carried
out to ascertain the concrete strength if required. The compressive strengths of the
concrete core can be corrected to equivalent cube strengths which can thus act as a
checking or compliance criterion of the permanent concrete work of the pile. If the
defect is localized and does not affect overall pile performance, high pressure water
jetting and pressure grouting shall be used to rectify the defects, with verification cores to
prove the effectiveness of the treatment.

Concrete cores are sometimes included by some practitioners in the calculation of the
TCR. On this basis, they argue that the presence of defects at the concrete/rock interface
up to 150mm is acceptable due to the achievement of 85% TCR. This is contrary to the
Ordinance which requires sound, adequate interface in good contact, and not some
irregular materials at the toe due to workmanship. In Hong Kong, rock weathering rarely
produces a homogeneous weathered rock mass where all rock material is weathered to
the same degree, or even a simple weathered profile where the degree of weathering
decreases progressively with depth. The presence of these discontinuities and the effects
of weathering have a great influence on engineering behaviour. According to
GEOGUIDE 3, TCR is one of the parameters in classifying the engineering properties of
a rock mass. Inclusion of a concrete core in the calculation of the TCR is therefore
irrational because concrete is an artificial material. Furthermore, this will make TCR
become arbitrary as it can vary depending on the start and the end of the drilling in the
interface coring. Notwithstanding this, the TCR of founding rock is reported in the
drilling log of the interface coring. Caution is required on the interpretation of the
capacity of the founding rock since the rock core run is less than 1.0m.

Full coring should be taken throughout the full length of large diameter bored piles,
barrettes and the like selected by the BD to a distance of at least half a diameter of the
pile base or 600mm whichever is larger into the rock upon which the pile is founded.
The main purpose is to confirm the adequacy of the interface between the concrete and
rock, quality of the concrete and soundness of the rock for founding. Defects revealed
should be treated in similar fashion to those given for the interface coring.

H8.6 SONIC LOGGING

The test should be carried out by a HOKLAS accredited laboratory as per clause 8.1 of
the Code. In addition to the provisions in the Code, the followings are discussed :

(i) Introduction

Page 109 of 114

An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

As discussed in the Code, sonic logging is one of the most commonly used
types of non-destructive test to examine the integrity and homogeneity of cast-in-
place concrete piles, diaphragm walls and barrettes. However, it should be noted
that only the existence of, but not the nature of, defects can be identified with this
test. Figure H8.3 illustrates the execution of the test.

Concrete Transducer
Pile (emitter)
Transducer Transducer Wave
(emitter) (receiver) Direction Transducer
Wave
Direction (receiver)

Steel
Access
Tubes
(water
filled) Paths of the sonic pulse detecting
if there is anomaly in concrete Plan Single Tube

Twin Tube

Figure H8.3 – Twin Tube and Single Tube Set-up of Sonic Logging Test

(ii) Equipment

The equipment for sonic logging generally consists of one ultrasonic pulse emission
probe, one (or multiple) reception probe(s), a depth encoder and a main unit which
is used to record the information collected in the test and for subsequent analysis.

(iii) Access Tube

In order to perform this test, the access tubes are fixed in the desired position before
concreting. Although both plastic and metal access tubes can be used, metal access
tubes are preferred because of the smaller risk of debonding (i.e. separation between
the tube and the concrete). Users should follow manufacturer’s instruction in
choosing the minimum diameter of the access tuber. Sometimes, the access tube
can also be used for interface coring to investigate the condition at the bottom of the
pile and the interface between the concrete and founding rock/soil. As such, the
diameter of the access tube should be large enough to suit the coring process. If the
diameter of the tube is double or more than double of the diameter of the probe, a
centralizer should be attached to the probe so as to minimize any possible snagging
on irregularities in the access tube.

(iv) Principle of Sonic Logging

Page 110 of 114

An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

Although the single tube method is adequate for performing sonic logging, the
cross-hole method is preferable as long as the pile (or the concrete element to be
tested) is large enough to accommodate two or more access tubes.

During the test, the emitting probe and receiving probe are lowered into the access
tube(s) at the same speed as shown in Figure H8.3. Time of propagation (also
called first arrival time, FAT) and the attenuation of energy of an ultrasound pulse
transmitted from the emitting probe to the receiving probe will be recorded by the
equipment. If the concrete is homogeneous, the FAT and attenuation of energy is
generally stable. If the time and/or attenuation of energy at certain location is
excessively varied, a defect is suspected at that location. The defect can be a soil
inclusion, cracks or segregation in concrete.

(v) Test Procedure

(1) One emitting probe and one receiving probe are lowered down to the bottom
of the water-filled parallel tubes;
(2) The equipment is triggered and the emitting and receiving probes are pulled
up simultaneously;
(3) When the probes are being pulled up, the emitting probe emits sonic signals
and the main unit of the equipment will also recorded the relevant parameters
of the signal (i.e. arriving time of the signal, energy, corresponding depth etc.)
through the receiving probe and the depth encoder;
(4) The test result will then be presented graphically. The graph will show the
arrival time and energy of signals along the pile.

(vi) Interpretation of Test Results

According to the principle of the test, an excessively long arrival time or severe
attenuation of the signal received is an indication of defect. If an anomaly is found
at certain levels in one profile, the signals at the corresponding levels of other
profiles should be carefully compared. The overall assessment should be made
based on the study and comparison of all profiles, taking into account of other
factors such as concreting sequence, possibility of air gap around the tube, etc.
Because of the limitations of this kind of test, sometimes further investigation such
as coring may be required to confirm the existence of a defect. Figure H8.4 shows
an “anomaly” to the sonic signal of a pile 14m below ground. Coring of the pile
confirmed that there are cracks in the concrete at that location.

Page 111 of 114

An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

Level
with
anomaly

Figure H8.4 – Example Demonstrating Sonic Coring Test Revealing Anomaly

H8.7 SONIC ECHO TESTS

The sonic echo test is also known as the “Pile Integrity Test” (PIT) or “low strain
dynamic test”. The name “low strain dynamic” stems from the fact that the strain
produced by the hand-held hammer is low. The test is quick and cost effective. Its
working principles and limitations are described in the Code. The test should be carried
out by a HOKLAS accredited laboratory as per clause 8.1 of the Code.

H8.8 VIBRATION TEST

The test has not been commonly carried out in Hong Kong in recent years.

H8.9 DYNAMIC LOAD TEST FOR DRIVEN PILES

The commonest dynamic load tests comprise the Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA) and the
CAPWAP which have been described in detail in H5.3.2 and Appendix HL.

H8.10 TENSION LOADING TEST

The Code requires effects due to pile interaction be made if any reaction piles are closer
than the lesser of 3 pile diameter and 2m to the test pile, as in consistency with GEO
Publication 1/2006. The interaction may be accounted for by the elastic theory such as
Poulos & Davis (1980) or Randolph (1977). They both involve calculation of settlement
of soil due to a pile embedded in soil under vertical loads. The method by Randolph is
simpler and has been quoted by GEO Publication 1/2006 for pile under compression.
While a reaction pile in close proximity to a test pile undergoing tension loading test is
under compression, it will then be creating settlement on the test pile which reduces its
up-rise during loading. Randolph’s equations are shown in Appendix HV.

A photograph showing a tension test arrangement (for a raking pile) is shown in Figure
H8.5.

Page 112 of 114

An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

Load Cell

Hydraulic
Supporting Jack
Frame

Reaction
Pile

Test Pile

Figure H8.5 – Photograph showing Arrangement of a Tension Pile Test (Raking Pile)

In addition to the provisions / requirements in the Code, the following are added :

(1) Apart from reaction piles, the ground may be used for reaction purposes to provide
the tension load on the pile if it is adequately strong such as sound rock as
illustrated in Figure H8.6. Nevertheless, the ground beams or bearers should be
spaced at an ample distance from the test pile as otherwise the lateral pressure on
the pile induced by the load on the ground will increase the skin friction of the pile;

Figure H8.6 – Tension Pile Test using Ground as Reaction

(2) Effects due to close proximity of the reaction pile should be considered;

Page 113 of 114

An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017

(3) If the tension loads on the pile are intermittent or cyclic in nature, it may be more
desirable to adopt repetitive loading sequence on the test pile. Reference can be
made to Tomlinson (1994).

H8.11 LATERAL LOAD TEST

In addition to the provisions / requirements in the Code, the following are added :

Lateral load tests on piles may be used to verify soil parameters suitable for a particular
analysis or design method. An example is the horizontal subgrade reactions (Terzaghi
1955) based on the Winkler spring theory in which the pile is mathematically modeled as
a flexible beam and the soil restraints modeled as lateral springs (Winkler springs). The
measured deflection profile can then be used to back-calculate the horizontal subgrade
reaction values and these values can be used to predict deflection profiles for other piles
together with the forces induced. Reference can be made to H5.3.4.

H8.12 ULTRASONIC ECHO SOUNDER TEST

The descriptions and precautionary measures provided in the Code are comprehensive.
An example of the “trace results” of the excavation profile of a large diameter bored pile,
including its bell-out is included in Figure H8.7.

Trace of
Pile Shaft

Trace of Pile
Bell-out of
Large
Diameter
Bored Pile

Figure H8.7 – Example of “Traces” Revealed by Ultrasonic Echo Sounder Test

Page 114 of 114

 Appendix HA

Practical Examples of Inspection of Rock Samples

An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HA

Practical Examples in Inspection of Rock Samples

Worked Example HA-1

Note : Refer to Geoguide 3 (GCO, 1988) for classification of rock decomposition Grade I to VI
Figure HA-1 – Representation of a Corestone–bearing Rock Mass (Malone, 1990)

As described by GEO Publication 1/2006 (2006), the thickness and nature of weathering profiles
varying markedly depends on the rock type, topographical location and geological history.
Taking an example quoted from GEOGUIDE 3, the corestone-bearing profiles as shown in
Figure HA-1 are primarily developed in medium and coarse grained granites and coarse ash tuffs.
The incidence of corestones generally increases with depth in a weathering profile, although
abrupt lateral variations are also common. The depth and extent of weathering can vary
considerably with changes in rock type and discontinuity spacings. Thus, the inherent spatial
variability of the soil masses formed from the weathering of rocks insitu and the undulating
weathering front are important considerations in the design and construction of foundations.

A-1
 Appendix HB

A Worked Example on Determination of Ultimate

Bearing Capacity of an Inclined Rectangular Footing

An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HB

A Worked Example on Determination of Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Inclined

Footing

Ultimate bearing pressure of a footing of plan dimensions 8m × 6m under a vertical load of

8000kN and horizontal load of 1000kN of eccentricities 0.3m along its length and 0.4m along its
width from the centre is to be found by the Vesic Equation (1975). The footing is founded at an
inclination of 10o to the horizontal and is in close proximity of a 20o slope as shown in Figure
HB-1. The soil parameters are also given in Figure HB-1.

X b = 1.5 m

ω = 20 o
P = 8000 kN

Df = 3m
H = 1000 kN Soil of φ = 35 o ;
c = 10 kPa
α f = 10 o γ s = 20 kN/m3
q = γ s D f = 60 kPa

0.5 B f = 3 m
0.5 B f = 3 m
Section

0.5 L f = 4 m
e L = 0.3 m Point of Load
Application

0.5 L f = 4 m
e B = 0.4 m

Plan Shape

Figure HB-1 – Worked Example of Determination of Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Footing

The ultimate bearing capacity of the footing is determined by the equation

qu = cN cζ csζ ciζ ctζ cg + 0.5 B feg s N g ζ gsζ giζ gtζ gg + qN qζ qsζ qiζ qtζ qg (Eqn HB-1)
where c is the cohesion of the soil, B fe is the effective width of the footing, γ s is the unit
weight of the soil, q is the surcharge on the area adjacent to the footing and the N factors are
the bearing capacity factors.

B-1
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HB

The original equation in its simplest form is in fact

qu = cN c + 0.5 Bγ s N γ + qN q (Eqn HB-2)
for a footing of infinite length without tiling and the footing is resisting vertical load only. The
derivation is based on failure mode shown by Figure HB-2.

Figure HB-2 – Failure Mode under a Strip Footing

It can be seen that the ultimate bearing capacity by (Eqn B-2) is made up of three components
with failures along the assumed failure surface : (i) the first one of which is given by cohesion of
the soil; (ii) the second one is due to friction effected by weight of the soil mass; and (iii) the last
one is due to friction effected by the adjacent surcharge.

For general use where a footing of finite dimensions which may be tilted and / or adjacent to
slope, (Eqn HB-1) is derived based on (Eqn HB-2) with the ζ s as coefficients to account effects
for (1) length width ratio of the footing; (2) inclination of resultant loads to the footing; (3) tiling
of the footing; and (4) sloping of ground.

For the footing shown in Figure HB-2, the following factors are computed prior to arrival of the
final ultimate bearing capacity.

Effective width and Length of the Footing

B fe = B f − 2eB = 5.2 m
L fe = L f − 2eL = 7.4 m

Bearing Capacity Factors

φ 
N q = eπ tan φ tan 2  + 450  = 33.296
2 
N c = (N q − 1)cot φ = 46.124
N γ = 2(N q + 1)tan φ = 48.029

Shape Factors
B N
ζ cs = 1 + f q = 1.541
L f Nc

B-2
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HB

Bf
ζ γs = 1 − 0.4 = 0.7
Lf
Bφ
ζ qs = 1 + tan φ = 1.525
Lφ

Inclination Factors
mi = (2 + B fe / L fe )/ (1 + B fe / L fe ) = 1.587
mi
 H 
ζ qi = 1 − 

= 0.821
 P + B fe L fe c cot f 
1 − ζ qi
ζ ci = ζ qi − = 0.815
N c tan φ
mi +1
 H 
ζ γi = 1 − 

= 0.725
 P + B fe L fe c cot f 

Tilt Factors
ζ γt = (1 − a φ tan φ )2 = 0.771
ζ qt = ζ γt = 0.771
1 − ζ qt
ζ ct = ζ qt − = 0.763
N c tan φ

Ground Sloping Factors

ζ cg = e −2ω tan φ = 0.613
ζ qg = (1 − tan ω )2 = 0.405
ζ gg = ζ qg = 0.405

So the ultimate bearing capacity when the footing is at the edge of the slope is
qu = cN cζ csζ ciζ ctζ cg + 0.5 B feg s N g ζ gsζ giζ gtζ gg + qN qζ qsζ qiζ qtζ qg
= 271.399 + 394.974 + 779.554 = 1445.926 kPa < 3000kPa

It can be seen that the surcharge adjacent to the footing gives the greatest contribution in this
example.

The ultimate bearing capacity of the same footing without tilting, sloping ground and resists
vertical load only is re-calculated. The ultimate bearing pressure increases to qu = 5340.727 kPa,
(though the Code limits the value to 3000kPa as per Clause 2.2.4). So it can be seen that these
factors have significant effects on reduction of ultimate bearing pressure.

When the footing is at ground level which can be assumed for the footing to be located at
4 B fe = 20.8 m from the edge of the slope, the ground sloping factors are all unity, the ultimate
capacity becomes
qu = cN cζ csζ ciζ ct + 0.5 B feg s N g ζ gsζ giζ gt + qN qζ qsζ qiζ qt

B-3
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HB

= 442.493 + 976.367 + 1927.042 = 3345.902 kPa.

By Figure 2.3(c) of the Code, the ultimate bearing capacity of the footing which is at 1.5m from
the edge of the slope can be interpolated between the ultimate values at edge = 1445.926kPa and
that at 4 B fe = 20.8 m which is 3345.902kPa. The linearly interpolated value is 1582.943kPa as
demonstrated in Figure HB-3.

3345.902kPa

Bearing
Capacity

1582.943kPa

1445.926kPa
Distance of Footing from Edge of Slope (m)

1.5m

4 B fe = 20.8 m

Figure HB-3 – Demonstration of Interpolation of Ultimate Bearing Capacity

So the ultimate bearing capacity of the footing is

1445.926 + (3345.902 − 1445.926 ) ×
1.5
= 1582.943 kPa.
20.8

With the overburden pressure q0 = γ s D f = 20 × 3 = 60 kPa and by the equation listed in 2.2.4 of
the Code, the allowable bearing capacity can be calculated as follows :

qu − q 0 1582.943 − 60
qa = + q0 = + 60 = 567.648 kPa.
F 3

Comparing with the pressure exerted by the footing which is determined as

P 8000
= = 207.9 kPa, the pressure is within the allowable bearing capacity.
B fe L fe 5.2 × 7.4

B-4
 Appendix HC

Determination of Settlement and Support Stiffness of

Footings on an Elastic Subgrade

An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HC

Determination of Settlement and Support Stiffness of Footings on an Elastic

Subgrade

HC.1 Theoretical Background

To estimate the settlement and support stiffness of footings, the basic equation for
computation of the corner of a rectangular flexible footing of dimension B'L' on
the surface of an elastic layer can be used which is computed by the Theory of
Elasticity (Timoshenko and Goodier (1951)) quoted as follows :

1  v2  1  2v 
H  q0 B'  I1  I2 I F (Eqn HC-1)
Es  1 v 

where q0 is the uniformly distributed pressure applied by the footing;

B' is the lesser plan dimension of the rectangular footing;
L' is the greater plan dimension of the rectangular footing;
H ' is the thickness of the elastic subgrade below which is a hard stratum;
E s is the Young’s Modulus of the soil;
v is the Poisson’s ratio of the soil;
I 1 and I 2 are factors given by Steinbrenner (1934) as follows :
1  
1 M 2 1 M 2  N 2 
M  M 2 1 1 N 2  
I1  M ln
  
M 1 M 2  N 2 1 
 ln 
M  M 2  N 2  1 
N  M 
I2  tan 1  

2  N M 2
 N 2
 1 
L' H
with M  ; N
B' B'
where H is the depth of the elastic half-space.
I F is the “influence factor” for a footing buried at depth D' below ground.
It is dependent on v , M and D' / B' ratios which can be calculated by the
Fox Equations in Fox (1948). The Fox equation is indicated as follows.

 Y i i
IF  i 1
(Eqn HC-2)
1   2 Y1
where 1  3  4v ; 2  5  12v  8v 2 ; 3  4v1  2v  ;
4  1  4v  8v 2 ’ 5  41  2v 2
R  2D' ;
R1  L'2  R 2 ; R2  B'2  R 2 ;
R3  L'2  B'2  R 2 ; R4  L'2  B'2
 R  B'   R4  L'  R4  L'  B'
3 3 3
Y1  L' ln  4   B ' ln    ;
 L'   B'  3L ' B '

C-1
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HC

 R  B'   R  L'  R33  R23  R13  R3

Y2  L' ln  3   B' ln  3   ;
 R1   R2  3L ' B '
R2  B' R2 R1  R 2  L' R1 R2 
Y3   ln    ln  ;
L'  B' R3 R  B'  L' R3 R 
R 2 R1  R2  R3  R 
Y4  ;
L' B '
 L' B ' 
Y5  R  tan 1  
 RR3 
I F can either be worked out by (Eqn HC-2) or estimated from
Figures HC-1(a) to (e). ( I F converges to 1.0 when D' / B'  0 )

Depth Factor I F as related to L'/B' Ratio, Soil Poisson Ratio = 0.3

L'/B'=1 L'/B'=2 L'/B'=3 L'/B'=5 L'/B'=10 L'/B'=20 L'/B'=50

1
0.95
0.9
0.85
Depth Factor IF

0.8
0.75
Figure HC-1(a)
0.7
– Variation of
0.65 Depth Factor
0.6 with L/B Ratios
0.55 for Soil of
0.5 Poisson’s Ratio
0.45 = 0.3
0.1 1 10

Depth/Breadth (D'/B' ) Ratio

Depth Factor I F as related to L'/B' Ratio, Soil Poisson Ratio = 0.35

L'/B'=1 L'/B'=2 L'/B'=3 L'/B'=5 L'/B'=10 L'/B'=20 L'/B'=50

1
0.95
0.9
0.85
Depth Factor IF

0.8
0.75 Figure HC-1(b)
0.7 – Variation of
0.65 Depth Factor
0.6 with L/B Ratios
0.55 for Soil of
0.5 Poisson’s Ratio
0.45 = 0.35
0.1 1 10

Depth/Breadth (D'/B' ) Ratio

C-2
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HC

Depth Factor I F as related to L'/B' Ratio, Soil Poisson Ratio = 0.4

L'/B'=1 L'/B'=2 L'/B'=3 L'/B'=5 L'/B'=10 L'/B'=20 L'/B'=50

1
0.95
0.9
0.85
Depth Factor IF

0.8
0.75 Figure HC-1(c)
0.7 – Variation of
0.65 Depth Factor
0.6 with L/B Ratios
0.55
for Soil of
0.5
Poisson’s Ratio
0.45
= 0.4
0.1 1 10

Depth/Breadth (D'/B' ) Ratio

Depth Factor I F as related to L'/B' Ratio, Soil Poisson Ratio = 0.45

L'/B'=1 L'/B'=2 L'/B'=3 L'/B'=5 L'/B'=10 L'/B'=20 L'/B'=50

1
0.95
0.9
0.85
Depth Factor IF

0.8
0.75 Figure HC-1(d)
0.7 – Variation of
0.65 Depth Factor
0.6 with L/B Ratios
0.55 for Soil of
0.5 Poisson’s Ratio
0.45 = 0.45
0.1 1 10

Depth/Breadth (D'/B' ) Ratio

Depth Factor I F as related to L'/B' Ratio, Soil Poisson Ratio = 0.5

L'/B'=1 L'/B'=2 L'/B'=3 L'/B'=5 L'/B'=10 L'/B'=20 L'/B'=50

1
0.95
0.9
0.85
Depth Factor IF

0.8
0.75 Figure HC-1(e)
0.7 – Variation of
0.65 Depth Factor
0.6 with L/B Ratios
0.55 for Soil of
0.5 Poisson’s ratio
0.45 = 0.5
0.1 1 10

Depth/Breadth (D'/B' ) Ratio

C-3
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HC

Symbols used in the above equations are illustrated in Figure HC-2.

Ground Level

Soil of Young’s Modulus

and Poisson’s ratio

Plan Dimension of Footing

Hard Stratum

Figure HC-2 – Illustration of Symbols used in the Equations for Estimating Corner
Settlements of Rectangular Footing

Settlements at any point beneath the footing can be determined in accordance with the
principle illustrated in Figure HC-3.

A B
Settlement of X is the sum of settlements of the
X corners due to u.d.l. on areas A, B, C and D, each
of which is determined by (Eqn HC-1)
C D

Figure HC-3 – Calculation of Settlement of a point X under a point of a Footing

exerting a Uniformly Distributed Load on an Elastic subgrade

It is obvious that settlements at the centre of the footing are greater than those at the
corners and the edges if the applied load is a uniformly distributed load.

HC.2 Worked Example HC-1

A footing of plan dimensions 3m by 2m on a subgrade of elastic modulus 15000kPa,

Poisson’s ratio 0.35, thickness 10m above a hard stratum is exerting a uniformly
distributed load of 200kPa on the surface of the subgrade. The settlement is
analyzed using (Eqn HC-1) with the procedure described in the last paragraph of
HC.1. In the analysis, settlements of 441 nos. of joints (at the interior, edges and
corners of the footing) equally spaced in the directions parallel to its length and width
are analyzed. The analytical results show that the settlement at the centre portion of
the footing is the greatest among all joints as illustrated in Figure HC-4.

C-4
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HC

Maximum
Settlement is at
the centre which
is 27.85mm.

Minimum
Settlement is at
the Corner
which is
12.08mm.

Average
Settlement is
22.90mm

( X Y S)
Figure HC-4 – Settlement Contours for a Rectangular Footing exerting Uniformly
Distributed Load on an Elastic Subgrade
However, this phenomenon can only be true if the footing is flexible enough to
deform with the same settlement contours as the subgrade. If the footing is
possessing some stiffness by which the settlements will be less extreme (i.e. the
differences in settlements between the centre and the corners and edges are smaller),
there will be a redistribution of pressures on the subgrade such that the centre portion
will experience smaller pressures than those at the corners and the edges.

HC.3 Design Charts for Rectangular Footing resting on Ground

Charts are drafted for general use in estimating average settlement of rectangular
footings under uniformly distributed loads with founding levels on ground. In the
exercise, a rectangular footing with its lesser plan dimension equal to unity and the
greater plan dimension equal to M (  1.0 ) is used. In each of the footing,
settlements of 441 nos. of nodes spaced at equal intervals in the two directions
(including the corner nodes and edge nodes) parallel to the length and breadth of the
footing are analyzed in accordance with the approach as described in the foregoing
1  2v 
sections.  
The coefficient I   1  v 2  I1   I 2 b' (by Eqn HC-1) is
1 v 

calculated for each node which is in general the sum of the contributions of the 4
rectangles adjoining to the node (see Figure HC-3) and b' is the lesser plan
dimension of the adjoining rectangle. Weighted averaging of the I values for the
441 nodes is carried out for the whole footing and the coefficients are plotted against
ratio of soil stratum thickness to footing width (the N values in (Eqn HC-1)) in
Figures HC-5(a) to HC-5(e) for various values of length breadth ratios (the M values
in (Eqn HC-1)) of the footing and Poisson’s ratios of soil. According to (Eqn HC-1),
q
multiplying the coefficients in Figures HC-5(a) to HC-5(e) by 0 B ' will give the
Es
average settlement of the footing. If the footing is a sunken one as shown in Figure
HC-2, the settlement should be further multiplied by the factor I F as calculated by
(Eqn HC-2) or estimated from Figure HC-1.

C-5
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HC

Coefficients for Computation of Average Settlement beneath a Rectangular Footing,

Soil of Poisson's Ratio = 0.3
2.6
2.5
M = L’/B’ M=20
2.4
2.3
M=15
2.2
2.1 B’
Average Settlement Coefficients

M=10
2
1.9 H
M=7
1.8
1.7
Hard Stratum
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6 M=1 M=1.2 M=1.5 M=2 M=2.5 M=3 M=4 M=5
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1 1 10 100 1000

H/B'

Figure HC-5(a) – Coefficients for Determination of Average Settlement of Rectangular Footing Resting on
Top of an Elastic Half-space of Finite Depth to Hard Stratum, Soil of Poisson’s ratio = 0.3

Coefficients for Computation of Average Settlement beneath a Rectangular Footing,

Soil of Poisson's Ratio = 0.35
2.5
2.4
M = L’/B’ M=20
2.3
2.2 M=15
2.1
2 B’
Average Settlement Coefficients

M=10
1.9
1.8 H
M=7
1.7
1.6 Hard Stratum
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6 M=1 M=1.2 M=1.5 M=2 M=2.5 M=3 M=4 M=5
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1 1 10 100 1000

H/B'

Figure HC-5(b) – Coefficients for Determination of Average Settlement of Rectangular Footing Resting on
Top of an Elastic Half-space of Finite Depth to Hard Stratum, Soil of Poisson’s ratio = 0.35

C-6
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HC

Coefficients for Computation of Average Settlement beneath a Rectangular Footing,

Soil of Poisson's Ratio = 0.4
2.4
2.3
M = L’/B’ M=20
2.2
2.1 M=15
2
B’
Average Settlement Coefficients

1.9 M=10
1.8
H
1.7 M=7
1.6
1.5 Hard Stratum
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
M=1 M=1.2 M=1.5 M=2 M=2.5 M=3 M=4 M=5
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1 1 10 100 1000

H/B'

Figure HC-5(c) – Coefficients for Determination of Average Settlement of Rectangular Footing Resting on
Top of an Elastic Half-space of Finite Depth to Hard Stratum, Soil of Poisson’s ratio = 0.4

Coefficients for Computation of Average Settlement beneath a Rectangular Footing,

Soil of Poisson's Ratio = 0.45
2.3
2.2 M = L’/B’
2.1 M=20

2 M=15
1.9
B’
Average Settlement Coefficients

1.8 M=10
1.7
H
1.6 M=7
1.5
Hard Stratum
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4 M=1 M=1.2 M=1.5 M=2 M=2.5 M=3 M=4 M=5

0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1 1 10 100 1000

H/B'

Figure HC-5(d) – Coefficients for Determination of Average Settlement of Rectangular Footing Resting on
Top of an Elastic Half-space of Finite Depth to Hard Stratum, Soil of Poisson’s ratio = 0.45

C-7
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HC

Coefficients for Computation of Average Settlement beneath a Rectangular Footing,

Soil of Poisson's Ratio = 0.5
2.1
2 M = L’/B’ M=20
1.9
M=15
1.8
1.7 B’
Average Settlement Coefficients

M=10
1.6
1.5 H
M=7
1.4
1.3 Hard Stratum

1.2
1.1
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5 M=1 M=1.2 M=1.5 M=2 M=2.5 M=3 M=4 M=5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1 1 10 100 1000

H/B'

Figure HC-5(e) – Coefficients for Determination of Average Settlement of Rectangular Footing Resting on
Top of an Elastic Half-space of Finite Depth to Hard Stratum, Soil of Poisson’s ratio = 0.5

Figure HC-5(e) matches very well with that similarly produced by the National
Research Council of Canada which has been reproduced by Azizi F. (2000) pp200 for
v  0.5 .

For the Worked Example HC-1 where M  3 / 2  1.5 and N  10 / 2  5 . With

v  0.35 , the average settlement coefficient is estimated to be 0.85 by Figure HC-5(b).
q  B' 200  2
So the average settlement is I  0  0.85   0.0227 m or 22.7mm which
Es 15000
is very close to the value by the more exact calculations in HC.2 of 22.9mm. The
error arises from the reading of the charts.

HC.4 Sunken Footing

For footing buried below the ground surface at certain depths, the settlement can be
simply multiplied by the coefficients calculated by (Eqn HC-2) or read from Figure
HC-1.

HC.5 Non-rectangular Plan Shaped Footing

The approach discussed in the previous sections can be extended to estimation of the
settlements of footings of non-rectangular plan shapes on a subgrade, so far as the
plan shape of the footing can be divided into a number of rectangles, each carrying
uniformly distributed loads. The estimation will involve estimating the settlement of

C-8
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HC

points outside rectangles by the process which can be explained in Figure HC-6. By
averaging an adequate number of point settlements, the average settlement of the
non-rectangular plan shaped footing can be estimated.
B
P
A A uniformly distributed load (u.d.l.) is exerting on Rectangle
ABCD. The settlement it will create in X is calculated by adding
(i) Corner displacement due to u.d.l. on rectangle APXS; and
S R X (ii) Corner displacement due to u.d.l. on rectangle SXQD
Subtracting
(iii) Corner displacement due to u.d.l. on rectangle BPXR; and
(iv) Corner displacement due to u.d.l. on rectangle RXQC
D
Q
C

S R X
A uniformly distributed load (u.d.l.) is exerting on Rectangle
ABCD. The settlement it will create in X is calculated by adding
P (i) Corner displacement due to u.d.l. on rectangle SXQD
A
B Subtracting
(ii) Corner displacement due to u.d.l. on rectangle SXPA; and
(iii) Corner displacement due to u.d.l. on rectangle RXQC
Adding
(iv) Corner displacement due to u.d.l. on rectangle RXPB (which
has been subtracted twice in (ii) and (iii))
D
C Q

Figure HC-6 – Estimation of Settlement outside Rectangle Plan Footing carrying u.d.l.

Take an example of a footing of cruciform plan shape carrying a uniformly

distributed load which can be divided into 3 nos. of rectangles ABMN, CEJL and
FGHI as shown in Figure HC-7, the settlement of a point X inside the footing can be
estimated in accordance with the principles illustrated in the Figure. By working out
the settlements of a number of points similar to that of X and carrying out averaging,
the average settlement can be calculated.

D
C E Settlement of X due to u.d.l. on the cruciform
shaped footing ABCDEFGHJNKLMNO is the
sum of the corner displacement of the adjoining
A B F rectangles LPXK, KXQJ, PCDX, XDEQ, together
G
with rectangles ABMN and FGHI. Settlement due
O P Q
X to u.d.l on the adjoining rectangles ABMN and
FGHI can be estimated in accordance with Figure
N
M I H HC-3 and that due to ABMN and FGHI which are
outside X has to be estimated in accordance with
Figure HC-6.
L J
K

Figure HC-7 – Estimation of Settlement inside Non-rectangular Plan Shaped Footing

HC.6 Multi-Layer Subgrade

Equation (Eqn HC-1) applies to uniform subgrade of constant E s and v . However,

for multi-layer subgrades of different properties, the settlement of the footing can be

C-9
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HC

estimated by the principle explained in Figure HC-8. Though Figure HC-8

demonstrates a 2 layers subgrade, the same principle can be extended to more than 2
layers of subgrade.

E1 , v1 E1 , v1 E2 , v2
h1 h1 h1
E2 , v2
= + h1+h2 –
h2 E2 , v2

(a) Settlement of footing on (b) Settlement due to soil of (c) Settlement due to soil of the (d) Settlement due to soil of
a 2-layer soil strata. the first layer of depth h1 second layer of depth h1+h2 the second layer of depth h1

The settlement of the footing on the 2 layer subgrade will be the settlement calculated in (b) plus that in (c)
minus that in (d).

Figure HC-8 – Illustration of Calculation of Footing Settlement in 2 Layered Subgrade

HC.7 Worked Example HC-2

Ground Level
u.d.l. = 100kPa
m

m
m m
kPa

m kPa
m

Plan Dimension of Footing

m kPa

Hard Stratum

Figure HC-9 – Worked Example HC-2

To find the average settlement of a sunken Footing on a 3 layered strata as shown in

Figure HC-9, the following procedures can be adopted:

(i) Average settlement of the first layer of soil

C-10
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HC

L' 12 h 8
M   1.5 ; N    1.0 , v  0.4
B' 8 B' 8
Average settlement coefficient is 0.43 from Figure HC-5(c), so average
settlement is
q B' 100  8
I  0  0.43   0.0344 m =34.4mm
E 10000

(ii) Average settlement of the second layer of soil

From bottom level of footing to bottom level of the second layer of soil
h 86
M  1.5 N   1.75 , v  0.35
B' 8
Average settlement coefficient is 0.63 from Figure HC-5(b), so average
settlement is
q B' 100  8
I  0  0.63   0.0252 m = 25.2mm
E 20000
From bottom level of footing to top level of the second layer of soil
h 8
M  1.5 , N    1.0 ; v  0.35
B' 8
Average settlement coefficient is 0.46 from Figure HC-5(b), so average
settlement is
q B' 100  8
I  0  0.46   0.0184 m =18.4mm
E 20000
So the net average settlement of the second layer of soil is
25.2 – 18.4 = 6.8mm

(iii) Average settlement of the third layer of soil

From bottom level of footing to bottom level of the third layer of soil
h 865
M  1.5 N   2.375 , v  0.3
B' 8
Average settlement coefficient is 0.75 from Figure HC-5(a), so average
settlement is
q B' 100  8
I  0  0.75   0.0171 m = 17.1mm
E 35000
From bottom level of footing to top level of the third layer of soil
h 86
M  1.5 , N    1.75 ;   0.3
B' 8
Average settlement coefficient is 0.67 from Figure HC-5(a), so average
settlement is
q B' 100  8
I  0  0.67   0.0153 m = 15.3mm
E 35000
So the net average settlement of the third layer of soil is
17.1 – 15.3 = 1.8mm

I F as determined from (Eqn HC-2) or estimated from Figure HC-1(b) (based on

D 3.5
  0.4375 ) is 0.86
B' 8

C-11
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HC

So the total average settlement is 0.86  34.4  6.8  1.8  36.98 mm.

HC.8 Support Stiffness of Footing

Sometimes it is required to input “support stiffness” in the Winkler’s spring

mathematical model for the analysis of footings. The support stiffness is the
pressure creating unit average settlement. The stiffness is therefore simply
applied pressure
Support Stiffness 
average settlement

In Worked Example HC-1, the support stiffness of the footing is

200
 8734 kN/m2/m;
0.0229
In Worked Example HC-2, the support stiffness of the footing is
100
 2704 kN/m2/m.
0.03698

The support stiffnesses can be used as “surface springs” to 2-dimensional

mathematical models for analysis. These “surface springs” are actually “Winkler’s
springs” as discussed in Section 4.2 of this Handbook.

HC.9 Footing Carrying Non-uniformly Distributed Loads

Theoretically the above approach can be extended to determine settlements of various

points beneath a footing (rectangular or non-rectangular plan shapes) carrying a
non-uniformly distributed load so far the load can be approximated by being divided
into a number of rectangular portions each carrying different uniformly distributed
loads. The settlement of any point is the summation of all such rectangles each
carrying a u.d.l. The approach can be tedious. In fact, it may be simpler to use the
primary forms of the Boussinesq or Mindlin Equations in which effects due to single
point loads can be estimated and the footing loads be approximated as a number of
point loads. However, it should be noted that the primary form of the Boussinesq or
Mindlin Equations are for semi-finite subgrade. If finite depths of subgrade are
encountered, it might be necessary to use the stress equations to find out the strain
and then use integration to calculate the settlements of the subgrade subsequently.
Alternatively, the Finite Element Method may be used. The design method and
equations as given apply to the case of a flexible footing where the bending stiffness
of the footing structure can be neglected. To account for the stiffness of the footing
where the differential settlements will be smaller, the Finite Element Method should
be used.

C-12
 Appendix HD

Design of General Flexural Reinforcement in a R.C.

Plate Bending Structure

An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HD

Design of General Flexural Reinforcement in a R.C. Plate Bending Structure

Rigorous analysis of a plate bending structure generally reveals a “twisting moment” at points of
the structure, as in addition to bending moments in any mutually two perpendicular directions.
However, design to resist a twisting moment is not as straightforward as it is for the bending
moments. The existence and nature of the twisting moment are demonstrated in the rest of this
appendix.

Figure HD-1 shows a small right-angled triangular element cut from a plate bending structure
with its short sides parallel to the pre-determined x and y axes. The triangular element generally
sustains bending moments (per unit width) M x and M y about the x and y axes as shown.
The vectors representing the moments are also shown.

For the triangular element to be in equilibrium, the direction (vector direction) of the bending
moment M b about the hypotenuse, in general, does not align with that of the vector sum of
M x and M y . So M b alone cannot achieve equilibrium for the triangular element and
another moment M t whose direction being perpendicular to the hypotenuse must exist to
perform the function. However, this M t (the direction of which is shown in Figure HD-1
taken from Lam and Law (2009)) is actually “twisting” the section, creating “complementary
shear stress” (in contrast to pure flexural tensile and compressive stresses) which are in-plane
shear flows on the structure as shown on the right half of the Figure.

Plate Structure

Mt exists so
as achieve
equilibrium
for the
triangular
element.
Mt

My
Mb
y  y
x
Mx
x Complementary shear stress pattern
created by the twisting moment

Figure HD-1 – Derivation and Nature of the “Twisting Moment”

As the hypotenuse can be in any orientation, it follows that a twisting moment exists, in general
at any orientations, including the global X and Y directions. So at any point in a plate bending

D-1
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HD

structure, there exists a set of moments comprising two bending moments at mutually
perpendicular directions and a twisting moment as summarized in Figure HD-2. In Figure
HD-2, M x , M y and M xy (the twisting moment) form a complete set of “moments” at a point
with respect to the orientation  .

Mxy
Mx My
Mxy

Mx
Y
Mxy My
y x 

 Mxy
X

Figure HD-2 – General Moments at a Point in a Plate Bending Structure

It should be noted that the three moments change magnitudes as  varies. At the orientation
where M xy  0 , the moments M x , M y become the “principal moments” and the orientation
becomes the “principal directions”. The phenomenon is entirely analogous to the in-plane
stress problem such that the variation of moments with orientation can be represented on a
“Mohr Circle” as shown in Figure HD-3. In Figure HD-3, the moments M x , M y and M xy
at a point in the structure exist at an orientation  to one principal direction and when   0 ,
the bending moments at the point will become M 1 and M 2 (principal moments) and the
twisting moment is zero.
The moments Mx, My and Mxy are at
an orientation  to the principal
directions at which the bending
moments are the principal moments
Mxy and the twisting moment is zero.

M2 M1 M2

M1 My
My Mxy
 Mx
Mxy
Mx
y
M1 M2
x

Figure HD-3 – Bending and Twisting Moment as Represented by the Mohr Circle

D-2
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HD

Theoretically it is sufficient to design the structure to resist the principal moments in the
principal directions. However, in practice it is impossible to do so for reinforced concrete slabs
as the principal directions change from point to point and from load case to load case. So if it is
the intention that the reinforcing bars are in pre-determined directions where the twisting
moments are in general not zero, it is necessary to cater for the twisting moments. The Wood
Armer Equations by Wood (1968) for the reinforced concrete design of plate structures are to
* *
work out the “design moments” M x and M y in selected directions so that they incorporate
effects due to M x , M y and M xy . The underlying principle of the Wood-Armer Equations is
* *
that structural design based on M x and M y can resist bending moments in any directions
while leaving the twisting moments to be resisted by the concrete. This is known as the
“Normal Yield Criterion” which can be mathematically expressed as follows :

M x cos 2   M y sin 2   M x cos 2   M y sin 2   2 M xy cos sin 

* *
(Eqn HD-1)

The left hand side of the above inequality represents the flexural strengths of the plate structure
in the direction  upon the provision of flexural strengths of M x and M y in the x and y
* *

directions as derived by the Johansen’s Criterion (1962) whilst the right side represents the
‘normal moment’ which is the bending moment in the direction  .

The Wood Armer Equations from Wood (1968) are reproduced as follows, with the convention
that sagging moments are positive and hogging moment are negative:

For sagging moment:

Generally M x  M x  M xy ; M y  M y  M xy (Eqn HD-2)

If either M x or M y is found to be negative, then such a value is changed to zero as follows :

2 2

M xy  
M xy
Either M  M x 
x with M  0 or M  M y 
y y with M x  0 (Eqn HD-2a)
My Mx

If, in these changed formulae, the wrong algebraic sign results for M x or M y , then no such
reinforcement is required. If both M x and M y are negative, no bottom reinforcement is
required.

Similarly for hogging moment:

Generally M x  M x  M xy M y  M y  M xy (Eqn HD-3)

If either M x or M y is found to be positive, then such a value is changed to zero as follows :

2 2
 M xy  M xy
Either M  M x 
x

with M  0 or M  M y 
y y with M x  0 (Eqn HD-3a)
My Mx

If, in these changed formulae, the wrong algebraic sign results for M x or M y , then no such

D-3
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HD

reinforcement is required. If both M x and M y are positive, no top reinforcement is required.

The following 2 examples demonstrate the use of the Wood-Armer Equations and their
fulfillment of the “normal yield criterion”.

Worked Example HD-1 – (bending moments of equal sign)

M x  7 ; M y  23 ; M xy  9
For sagging :
M x  M x  M xy  7  9  16  0 , so M x  16 ;
M y  M y  M xy  23  9  32  0 , so M y  32 ;
For hogging :
M x  M x  M xy  7  9  2  0 , so M x  2 ;
2
M xy 92
M y  M y  M xy  23  9  14  0 , so M y  0 , M x  M x  7  3.478  0
My 23
(wrong algebraic sign, M x  0 )
So for sagging : M x  16 ; M y  32 ;
for hogging : M x  0 ; M y  0

* *
A plot of the strengths provided by M x and M y (sagging only) as determined by the left side
of (Eqn HD-1) and the normal bending moments based on M x  7 ; M y  23 ; M xy  9 as
determined by the right hand side of (Eqn HD-1) have been done for orientations from 0o to 360o
and presented in Figure HD-4. It can be seen that the moment capacity curve (only sagging)
envelops the normal bending moment for all orientations.
Normal Bending Moment, Twisting Moment, Design Moment by Wood
Armer Equation in Worked Example HD-1 : M x = 7, M y = 23, M xy = 9

Bending Moment Moment Capacity by Wood Armer +ve Moment Capacity by Wood Armer -ve

30

25
Moment (kNm/m)

20

15

10

0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

Angle in Degrees ()

Figure HD-4 – Plots of Normal Moments and Strengths by Wood Armer Equation for
Worked Example HD-1

D-4
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HD

Worked Example HD-2 – (bending moments of different signs)

M x  7 ; M y  23 ; M xy  9
For sagging :
M x  M x  M xy  7  9  16  0 , so M x  16 ;
2
M xy 92
M y  M y  M xy  23  9  14  0 , so M y  0 and M x  M x  7  10.522
My 23
For hogging :
M x  M x  M xy  7  9  2  0 , so M x  2 ;
M y  M y  M xy  23  9  32  0 ,
So for sagging M x  10.522 ; M y  0
for hogging M x  2 M y  32

* *
Plots of the strengths provided by M x and M y (for both sagging and hogging) as determined
by the left hand side of (Eqn HD-1) and the normal moments worked out by M x  7 ;
M y  23 ; M xy  9 as determined by the right hand side of (Eqn HD-1) for orientations from
0o to 360o are presented in Figure HD-5. It can be seen that the moment capacity curves
(sagging and hogging) envelop the normal bending moment for all orientations.

Plots of Normal Bending Moment, Design Moment by Wood Armer Equation

Worked Example HD-2 : M x = 7, M y = -23, M xy = 9

Normal Bending M oment M oment Capacity by Wood Armer +ve M oment Capacity by Wood Armer -ve

15
10
5
Moment (kNm/m)

0
-5 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35

Angle in Degrees ()

Figure HD-5 – Plots of Normal Moments and Strengths by Wood Armer Equation for
Worked Example HD-2

D-5
 Appendix HE

A Worked Example on Determination of the Group

Reduction Factor (Geotechnical Capacity) of Pile

Group in Cohesionless Soil

An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HE

A Worked Example on Determination of the Group Reduction Factor (Geotechnical

Capacity) of a Pile Group in Cohesionless Soil

Worked Example HE-1

Consider a pile group of 30 nos. S450 305305223kg/m driven piles capped by a pile cap and
arranged as shown in Figure HE-1. The pile group with the soil mass embedded among the
piles is “idealized” as a sunken footing at the average pile tip level which is 24m below ground.

1.5m 1.5m 1.5m 1.5m

1.5m

1.5m

1.5m 7.8m

X 1.5m X

1.5m

Plan of the
Foundation

6.3m

1.5m GWL

1.5m Pile Cap

Soil Parameters :
(i) average angle of shear resistance  = 36o;
(ii) cohesion, c = 10kN/m2;
(iii) soil density above GWL ’ = 20kN/m3
(iv) submerged soil density ’ = 20 – 10 = 10kN/m3
21m

Section X-X

Surcharge q = 201.5+1022.5 = 255kN/m2

Average
Pile Tip
Level

Figure HE-1 – Worked Example HE-1 for Pile Group Reduction Factor

E-1
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HE

The ultimate bearing capacity of the “idealized footing” is determined by the equation
qu  cN c cs  0.5 B f  s N   s  qN q qs (Eqn HE-1)
where c is the cohesion of the soil, B f is the effective width of the idealized footing,  s is
the effective density of the soil, q is the surcharge on the area adjacent to the footing, the N
factors are the bearing capacity factors and the  factors are those same factors which relate to
the plan length to breadth ratio of the “idealized footing”. The equations for determination of
the  factors can be found in clause 2.2.4 of the Code and GEOGUIDE 1 (2000) Figure A1.

The following parameters are listed as :

Soil Parameters
  360 ; c  10 kN/m2;  ' 20 kN/m3 above GWL;  '  20  10  10 kN/m3 below GWL

Effective width and Lengths of the “Idealized Footing”

B f  6.3 m; L f  7.8 m

Bearing Capacity Factors


N c  N q  1cot   50.585 ;

N q  e tan  tan 2   45 0   37.752 ;
2 
N   2N q  1tan   56.311

Shape Factors
B N Bf Bf
 cs  1  f q  1.603 ;  s  1  0.4  0.677 ;  qs  1  tan   1.587
L f Nc Lf Lf

So the ultimate bearing capacity is

qu  cN c cs  0.5 B f  s N   s  qN q qs  810.88  1200.86  15277 .67  17289 .41 kN/m2,
but capped at 15MPa as per GEO 1/2006 clause 6.4.4.4. (It can readily be seen that the most
significant component is qN q qs which is due to the overburden soil.)

Taking a factor of safety = 3, the allowable bearing capacity is

q 15000
qallowbale  u   5000 kN/m2.
3 3

The allowable load of the pile group based on the “idealized footing” is
qallowable  B f  L f  245700 kN.

Comparing with the load carrying capacity calculated as the summation of the individual load
carrying capacity of each pile, which is at most 30  3663.6  109908 kN, the ratio is
245700
 2.24  1.0
109908
So the pile group reduction factor can remain as unity which is governed by the “structural
capacity” of the pile group.

E-2
 Appendix HF

Worked Examples for Determination of Ultimate

Lateral Shear Resistances of Piles

An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HF

Worked Examples for Determination of Ultimate Lateral Shear Resistances of Piles

Worked Example HF-1

A 305×305×180kg/m S450 floating pile is embedded in cohesionless soil of φ’ = 35o as shown

with pinned connection at the Pile Cap, with flexural capacity of 300kNm under the ultimate
axial load. The ultimate shear resistance of the pile due to soil is to be determined.
1 + sin 35 o
Passive Pressure Coeff. K p = = 3.69
1 − sin 35 o
Width of the Pile is D = 0.325m
The ultimate soil lateral resistance according to
3.5m
GWL
σ1' = 3.5 × 19 = 66.5 kPa Broms (1964b) is 3K pσ ' .
S Pult1 = 3K pσ1' = 736.16 kPa For rotational equilibrium of the pile, there must
be a reversed direction of soil pressure at the pile
tip. Assuming the reversed soil load is at a single
pile tip level and taking moment about the tip level
of the pile,
S × 15 = [736.19 × 15 × 7.5
15m + 0.5 × (2263.92 − 736.19) × 15 × (15 / 3)] × 0.325
⇒ S = 3035.74 kN.
Let the level of zero shear be at h below the cap.
 (2263.92 − 736.19)h × h 
736.19h + 2 
 15
× 0.325 − 3035.61 = 0
⇒ h = 8.123 m
σ 2 ' = 3.5 × 19 + 15 × (19 − 9.8) = 204.5 kPa The maximum moment of the pile at the level
X = [(736.16 + 2263.82 ) × 15 / 2] 8.123m below the pile cap is
Pult 2 = 3K pσ1' = 2263.82 kPa
× 0.325 − 3035.61 = 4276.84 (736.19 × 8.1232 / 2 + 1527.73 × 8.1233 / 15 / 6)
×0.325 − 3035.74 × 8.123 = 13808 kNm > 300kNm
(i) Preliminary Check by Considering the Pile to be a “Short
As the flexural capacity is only 300kNm, the level
Pile”, i.e. no reverse of Bending along the Pile Shaft of maximum moment (zero shear) has to be raised
and h re-calculated as in (ii). At depth h , the
ultimate lateral soil pressure is
736.19 +
(2263.92 − 736.19)h
GWL 3.5m 15
= 736.19 + 101.849h
S The lateral shear provided by soil from top level of
h pile to the new depth h is
[736.19 + 101.849h + 736.19] ÷ 2 × h × 0.325
Mu=300

= 16.550423h 2 + 239.26155h
As zero shear exists in this level, the lateral soil
15m shear balances the applied shear S
S = 16.55042h 2 + 239.2615h (a)
Listing the moment equation as follows and
limiting it to 300kNm
 h2 h h
S × h −  736.19 × + 101.849h × ×  × 0.325
 2 2 3
 
= 300 (b)
Solving equations (a) and (b) (involving solution
(ii) Revised Check by Allowing the Pile to have Reversed Moments of cubic equation), h = 1.485 m and
along the Pile Shaft and Limiting to Flexural Strength of the S = 16.55042h 2 + 239.2615h = 391.84 kN
Pile, i.e. the Pile becomes a “Long Pile” So the ultimate shear capacity required is
391.84kN

Figure HF-1 – Worked Example HF-1 for Determination of Ultimate Lateral Shear
Resistances of Piles Pinned at Pile Cap

F-1
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HF

Worked Example HF-2

The pile in Worked Example HF-1 is now rigidly connected to the pile cap and its ultimate shear
resistance of the pile due to soil is to be re-worked.

Passive Pressure Coeff.

1 + sin 35 o
Kp = = 3.69
1 − sin 35 o
Width of the Pile is D = 0.325m
3.5m The ultimate soil lateral resistance according to
GWL
σ1' = 3.5 × 19 = 66.5 kPa Broms (1964b) is 3K pσ ' .
S Pult1 = 3K pσ1' = 736.19 kPa Assuming “short pile” by which the full
ultimate lateral soil resistance is mobilized, to
achieve equilibrium, the total shear and moment
at top level of pile are respectively
S = (736.19 + 2263.92 ) / 2 × 15 × 0.325
= 7312.77 kN
M = [736.19 × 15 × 7.5 + 1527.73 × 15 / 2 × 10]
15m

×0.325 = 64155.38 kNm > 300kNm

As the flexural capacity is only 300kNm, the

level of zero moment has to be raised to h
below pile cap. This is based on the assumption
that the maximum moment of 300kNm occurs
at some depths of the pile, as equal to that at top
σ 2 ' = 3.5 × 19 + 15 × (19 − 9.8) = 204.5 kPa level but in reversed direction and at this level,
Pult 2 = 3K pσ1' = 2263.92 kPa the shear is zero. At depth h , the ultimate
lateral soil pressure is
736.19 +
(2263.92 − 736.19)h
(i) Preliminary Check by Considering the Pile to be a “Short Pile”, 15
i.e. no reverse of Bending along the Pile Shaft = 736.19 + 101.849h
The lateral shear provided by soil from top level
of pile to the new depth h is
[736.19 + 101.849h + 736.19] ÷ 2 × h × 0.325
3.5m Mu=300 = 16.55042h 2 + 239.2615h
GWL
As zero shear exists at this level, the lateral
S shear by soil should balance the applied shear at
cut-off level of the pile. So we can list
h S = 16.55042h 2 + 239.2615h (c)
Listing the moment equation as follows and
Mu=300 limiting it to 300kNm at the zero shear location
 h2 h h
15m S × h −  736.19 × + 101.849h × × 
 2 2 3 (d)
 
× 0.325 − 300 = 300

Solving equations (c) and (d) (involving

solution of cubic equation), h = 2.053 m and
S = 16.5504h 2 + 239.2615h = 561.11 kN

So the ultimate shear capacity is 561.11kN

(ii) Revised Check by Allowing the Pile to have Reversed Moments
along the Pile Shaft and Limiting to Flexural Strength of the Pile,
i.e. the Pile becomes a “Long Pile”

Figure HF-2 – Worked Example HF-2 for Determination of Ultimate Lateral Shear
Resistances of Piles Rigidly Connected at Pile Cap

F-2
 Appendix HG

Checking of Piles against Uplift, Overturning and

Buoyancy of a Hypothetical Pile Group

An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HG

Checking of Piles against Uplift, Overturning and Buoyancy of a Hypothetical Pile

Group

Worked Example HG-1

The pile group comprises 26 nos. of 305×305×223 Grade S450J0 H-piles. No piles have
adverse live load (i.e. uplift due to live load). The Ru values are derived from cohesion (c = 20
kPa as the ultimate value being twice the allowable value of 10kPa) on the pile shaft.

Critical Load
Wind Axial Load Uplift Checking
Combination
Pile Dmin TL Dmin
Wind X Wind Y Wmax TL TL Upthrust Ra Ru Dmin–Wmax Dmin–1.5Wmax Dmin+0.9Ru–
No. (DL+LL) –Wmax
+Wmax Ua +U+Ra +Ua 1.5(Ua+Wmax)
(kN) (kN) +Ua
(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)
(kN)
P1 1566 2211 -483 -987 987 2211 3198 -70 509 633 1227 1142 16 1085
P2 1450 2030 -83 -1033 1033 2030 3063 -69 348 633 1227 981 -169 901
P3 1438 2007 338 -1148 1148 2007 3155 -66 224 633 1227 857 -350 721
P4 1581 2217 982 -1407 1407 2217 3624 -58 116 633 1227 749 -588 488
P5 1671 2366 -808 -870 870 2366 3236 -70 731 633 1227 1364 296 1365
P6 1732 2458 -1154 -743 1154 2458 3612 -68 510 633 1227 1143 -67 1003
P7 1462 2036 986 -1131 1131 2036 3167 -58 273 633 1227 906 -293 783
P8 1641 2308 -1238 -513 1238 2308 3546 -68 335 633 1227 968 -284 786
P9 1389 1923 1029 -863 1029 1923 2952 -57 303 633 1227 936 -212 864
P10 1584 2207 -1365 -211 1365 2207 3572 -65 154 633 1227 787 -529 543
P11 1370 1890 1144 -455 1144 1890 3034 -53 173 633 1227 806 -399 679
P12 1429 1968 342 -62 342 1968 2310 -58 1029 633 1227 1662 858 1933
P13 1513 2096 -1469 143 1469 2096 3565 -60 -16 633 1227 617 -751 324
P14 1501 2068 -65 213 213 2068 2281 -58 1230 633 1227 1863 1124 2199
P15 1412 1951 1312 113 1312 1951 3263 -46 54 633 1227 687 -602 479
P16 1454 2008 878 399 878 2008 2886 -47 529 633 1227 1162 90 1171
P17 1473 2036 -1547 465 1547 2036 3583 -55 -129 633 1227 504 -903 174
P18 1518 2096 422 656 656 2096 2752 -49 813 633 1227 1446 485 1565
P19 1483 2054 1465 654 1465 2054 3519 -40 -22 633 1227 611 -755 330
P20 1530 2111 -1240 710 1240 2111 3351 -53 237 633 1227 870 -383 695
P21 1592 2199 -40 884 884 2199 3083 -50 658 633 1227 1291 216 1295
P22 1536 2127 985 934 985 2127 3112 -42 509 633 1227 1142 17 1100
P23 1451 2002 -1600 821 1600 2002 3602 -50 -199 633 1227 434 -999 80
P24 1596 2204 -893 995 995 2204 3199 -50 551 633 1227 1184 54 1133
P25 1603 2219 488 1177 1177 2219 3396 -43 383 633 1227 1016 -206 877
P26 1579 2194 1616 1258 1616 2194 3810 -35 -72 633 1227 561 -880 207

Table HG-1 – Example of Checking of Piles against Uplift, Overturning and Buoyancy of a
Hypothetical Pile Group

Notes :

(i) As the values in the last column are all greater than zero, cl. 5.1.6 of the Code is fulfilled;
(ii) The load factor for uplift U can be 1.1 instead of 1.5 if the ground water level is taken as
the ground level in the determination of U;
(iii) A further check on the ultimate resistance Ru involving effective weight of soil mass/rock
cone in accordance with cl. 5.3.3(b) should be required if the pile is in tension.

G-1
 Appendix HH

Equivalent Raft Method

An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HH

Equivalent Raft Method

HH.1 Principles of the Approach

The approach is for estimation of settlement of piled foundations in compressible soil as

discussed by Tomlinson (2008). In principle, it assumes that the piled foundation
behaves as a raft foundation with its founding level at 2/3 of the average pile length
below ground. Determination of the size of the equivalent raft is under the assumption
of load spread of 1 in 4 above the assumed equivalent raft level and 30o below as shown
in Figure HH-1 which is extracted from Tomlinson (2008). With the soil beneath treated
as elastic materials, the settlement due to loads from the foundation can be estimated.

Figure HH-1 – Extract from Tomlinson (2008) Demonstrating the Principles of the
Equivalent Raft Method

HH.2 Worked Example HH-1

Worked Example HH-1 illustrated by Figure HH-2 is used to demonstrate the equivalent
raft method. In addition to the data given in the figure, the followings are added :

(i) the plan dimensions of the pile group is 30m × 40m;

(ii) E stands for the Young’s Moduli of the soils;
(iii) v stands for their Poisson’s ratios
(iv) The load acting on the pile group is 100000 kN;
(v) The piles are 305×305×223 H-piles, each with cross sectional area 0.0284m2
(vi) Total number of piles is 374.

H-1
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HH

30m Ground Level

1.5m
Plan Length of the Pile
1.5m Group in the Direction
perpendicular to the
Piles 1 Paper is 40 m
(374 Nos.)

20m 4
Founding Level of
Equivalent Raft

Layer 1 30o
E = 100000kPa 10m 12m
v = 0.4

Layer 2; E = 200000kPa; v = 0.35 10m

Layer 3; E = 350000kPa; v = 0.3 8m

Hard Stratum

Figure HH-2 – Worked Example HH-1

The plan dimensions of the “Equivalent Raft” are worked out as

B1 = 30 + 20 / 4 × 2 = 40 m and L1 = 40 + 20 / 4 × 2 = 50 m;

The plan dimensions at the base level of Layer 1 are

B2 = 40 + 12 tan 300 × 2 = 53.856 m and L2 = 50 + 12 tan 300 × 2 = 63.856 m;

Similarly, the plan dimensions at base levels of Layer 2 and Layer 3 are
B3 = 40 + 22 tan 300 × 2 = 65.403 m and L3 = 50 + 22 tan 300 × 2 = 75.403 m;
B4 = 40 + 30 tan 300 × 2 = 74.641 m and L3 = 50 + 30 tan 300 × 2 = 84.641 m.

The average plan width and length of Layer 1 are (40 + 53.856 ) 2 = 46.928 m and
(50 + 63.856) 2 = 56.928 m giving a plan area of 46.928 × 56.928 = 2671.52 m2.
Under the applied load of 100000 kN, treating the soil layer as an elastic material of
height 12m with the load evenly exerted on the top of the layer, the settlement of Layer 1
is

PL 100000 × 12
= = 0.00449 .
AE 2671.52 × 100000

Settlement of other layers are similarly worked out worked out and summarized in Table
HH-1.

H-2
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HH

Table HH-1 – Summary for Calculation for Worked Example HH-1

Layer Average Average Average Plan Depth Young’s Modulus Settlement

Width (m) Length (m) Area (m2) (m) of Soil (kN/m2) (mm)
1 46.928 56.928 2671.52 12 100000 4.49
2 59.630 69.630 4152.04 10 200000 1.20
3 70.022 80.022 5603.30 8 350000 0.41
Sum 6.10

So the total settlement is 6.10mm.

Alternatively, a more accurate estimation is that by the approach outlined in Appendix

HC as presented in Table HH-2. In the table, D' which is the depth of the “sunken
footing” being simulated by the pile group is 23m and the applied pressure at the sunken
footing level is q0 = 100000 / 40 / 50 = 50 kN/m2. B'= 40 m; L'= 50 m;
D' / B' = 0.575 .

Table HH-2 – Calculation for Worked Example HH-2 by the Approach in Appendix HC
(the I and I F coefficients are read from Figures HC-1 and HC-5 of Appendix HC).
M = 50 / 40 = 1.25 . In the last column, the settlement is calculated by (q0 B ' Es )I × I F .
The items with * are subtractive items.

Step Description E v M H’ N D' B' I IF Settlement

(MPa) (m) (mm)
1 Due to 1st layer, 100 0.4 1.25 12 0.3 0.575 0.139 0.806 2.241
2 Due to 1st + 2nd 200 0.35 1.25 22 0.55 0.575 0.285 0.785 2.234
layers
3 Due to 1st layer * 200 0.35 1.25 12 0.3 0.575 0.16 0.785 –1.254
4 Due to 1st + 2nd + 350 0.3 1.25 30 0.75 0.575 0.395 0.765 2.725
3rd layers
5 Due to 1st + 2nd 350 0.3 1.25 22 0.55 0.575 0.309 0.765 –1.352
layers *
Sum 4.594

The settlement determined is 4.594 mm which is significantly less than that by Tomlinson
of 6.10 mm. This may be due to the assumption of 30o load spread in soil being too
conservative by Tomlinson’s approach. Another factor to account for the difference is
due to the lack of consideration of the Poisson’s effect of the soil which also helps reduce
settlement.

Nevertheless, the above only caters for the settlement of the soil, additional settlement
should also be allowed for the elastic shortening of the piles. Conservative estimation can
be made through the elastic shortening (AE/L) approach which assumes the greatest
shortening by ignoring skin friction along the pile shaft. As the cross sectional area of
each of the pile is 0.0284m2, conservatively ignoring the skin friction on the piles and
assuming each pile have each share of the load from the pile cap, the elastic shortening of
the piles are estimated as

PL 100000 × 30
= = 0.00138 m = 1.38mm
AE 374 × 0.0284 × 205 × 106

H-3
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HH

This elastic shortening of the pile may be added to the settlement due to the compression
of the soil.

H-4
 Appendix HI

Buckling of Slender Piles – Embedded, Partially

Exposed or Sleeved in Soil

An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HI

Buckling of Slender Piles – Embedded, Partially Exposed or Sleeved in Soil

HI.1 Theoretical Background – based on Solution of the Basic Differential Equation by

the Finite Difference Method

Assuming a pile as shown in Figure HI-1 is embedded in soil idealized as an elastic

medium, buckling of the pile is based on the fundamental differential equation
d 4v d 2v
E p I p 4 + P 2 + K hv = 0 (Eqn HI-1)
dz dz
where v is the lateral displacement of the pile at depth z
E p I p is the flexural rigidity of the pile at depth z
P is the axial load of the pile at depth z
Kh is the elastic spring stiffness per unit length of the pile at depth z

The finite difference model for the analysis of (Eqn HI-1) is shown in Figure HI-2.

Applied load P
Applied load P
Node –2
Node –1

Node 1

Node 2
z
Node 3
Node 0 to N are
real nodes while
v Pile length Node –1, –2, N+1,
L divided N+2 are fictitious
into N Node i
ones added for
segments, finite difference
each of analysis
equal
length of
L
δ=
N

Node N–1

Node N

Node N+1

Node N+2

Node N+3

Figure HI-1 – Illustration of the Buckling Figure HI-2 – The Finite Difference Model
Phenomenon of Pile in Elastic Soil for the Simulation of a Pile

I-1
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HI

For cohesionless soil, the assessment of K h can be based on Terzaghi (1955) on

cohesionless soil which assumes lateral restraint by soil on the pile as follows :
K h = kh B (Eqn HI-2)
z
k h = nh (Eqn HI-3)
B
where k h is the “coefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction” of the soil defined as the
pressure required to move the soil by unit length; and
z is the depth of the soil below ground;
B is the width of surface of contact of the pile and the soil which can be taken as the
pile diameter;
nh is the “constant of horizontal subgrade reaction” of the soil given in Table 5.1 of the
Code which can be regarded as constant for a layer of soil.

It is obvious that
z
K h = B × k h = B × nh= nh z (Eqn HI-4)
B
So (Eqn HI-1) can be written as
d 4v d 2v
E p I p 4 + P 2 + nh zv = 0 (Eqn HI-5)
dz dz

Analytical solution for (Eqn HI-5) is difficult, taking into account the many different
boundary conditions including end support conditions of piles, portions of pile length
being sleeved or exposed. Nevertheless, they can be solved by a numerical method such
as the finite difference method for the model shown in Figure HI-2.

HI.2 Solution by the Finite Difference Method

By the Finite Difference Method, the pile of length L is divided into N segments of
equal length (each of segment length L N with N + 1 no. of “real nodes” and 4
“fictitious” nodes as shown in Figure HI-2. (Eqn HI-5) for the ith node (z coordinate
= iL N ) can be written as
 v − 4vi +1 + 6vi − 4vi −1 + vi −2   vi +1 − 2vi + vi +1  i
E p I p  i+2  + P  + nh Lvi = 0
 (L / N )4
  (L / N )
2
 N
EpI p N 2   nh L5 i  
⇒ (vi−1 − 2vi + vi+1 ) = −  v − 4v +  6 + v − 4v + vi+2  (Eqn HI-6)
PL2 
i −2 i −1  E p I p N 5 
i i +1
 

By putting T = 5 E p I p / nh , (Eqn HI-6) becomes

EpI p N 2    L 5 i  
⇒ (vi −1 − 2vi + vi +1 ) = −  vi − 2 − 4vi −1 +  6 +    vi − 4 vi +1 + vi + 2  (Eqn HI-7)
PL2    T  N 
5

Accuracy of the solution increases with increasing value of N. N + 1 equations can be
formulated by (Eqn HI-7) for the N + 1 “real nodes” in the pile. However, to form
equations at Nodes 1, 2, N and N + 1 , 4 additional fictitious nodes have to be added

I-2
 An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HI

which are numbered -2, -1, N + 2 , N + 3 as shown in Figure HI-2. Thus 4 more
equations are required which have to be derived from restraints at pile top and pile tip for
solution of the problem. They are summarized in Table HI-1.

Conditions Pile Top Pile Tip

Restraint from
lateral v=0 v1 = 0 v N +1 = 0
movement
Restraint from dv v2 − v−1 vN +2 − vN
θ= =0 =0 =0
Rotation dz 2(L / N ) 2(L / N )
Hinged
d 2v v2 − 2v1 + v−1 v N + 2 − 2v N +1 + v N
M = EpI p =0 EpI p =0 EpI p =0
Connections
(moment = 0) dz 2 (L / N ) 2
(L / N )2
Free end d 3v v3 − 2v2 + 2v−1 − v− 2 v N +3 − 2v N + 2 + 2v N − v N −1
S = EpI p ; EpI p EpI p
2(L / N ) 2(L / N )3
(Shear of pile 3
to balance dz 3
component of d 3v dv v2 − v−1 vN +2 − vN
+P =0 +P =0 +P =0
2(L / N ) 2(L / N )
EpI p
axial load) dz 3
dz

Table HI-1 – Restraint Conditions on Lateral Load Analysis on Pile by the Finite Difference Method

With the boundary conditions at the pile ends added, (Eqn HI-7) can be written in a
E I
matrix form [A][v ] = − p 2p N 2 [B ][v ] where [ A] and [B ] can be readily formulated
PL
and the expression can be written as
E I E I
[B]−1[A][v] = − p 2p N 2 [v] ⇒ [C ][v] = − p 2p N 2 [v] (Eqn HI-8)
PL PL
where [C ] = [B ] [A]
−1

EpI p
(Eqn HI-8) is an eigen-value problem. The eigen-values λ = − 2
N 2 can be solved
PL
2
EpI p N
and P=− (Eqn HI-9)
λL2

(Eqn HI-9) gives the buckling loads and the eigen-vectors giving the relative values of v
are the buckling mode shapes. Theoretically, there will be N + 1 valid modes or
buckling loads. The smallest load will be the fundamental buckling load or Euler load.

To find an equivalent length RLeq L as if the pile is a simple strut pinned at both ends and
p 2EpI p EpI p N 2
free from restraints along its pile shaft, we may list P = =−
(R L)
, which
Leq
2
λL2
gives the equivalent length ratio as
RLeq = π − λ N (Eqn HI-10)

By the above, Tables HI-2(a) to HI-2(f) which were extracted from Law (2013) with
extension to L T = 40 showing the equivalent length ratios against the L T ratios for

I-3
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HI

end bearing piles are presented (where P is constant along the pile shaft) with different
exposed length and sleeved length factors. Intermediate values can be interpolated.
The exposed and sleeved length factors are the ratios of the lengths of the top part of the
pile exposed above ground and sleeved below ground respectively as shown in Figure
HI-3 (extracted from Law (2013)) to the total length of the pile. (Eqn HI-8) can easily
be modified to account for the effects of these length factors. In addition, it can also be
noted that the equivalent length ratios are almost independent of the pile tip support
conditions at high L T ratios, indicating that the pile tip support conditions become
unimportant when the pile is long or the soil resistance is high.
Soil top level

Rex×L Rsle×L
Soil top level

Kh increases
Kh increases L linearly from L
linearly from 0 at soil top
0 at soil top level
level

Rex is the exposed length ratio Rsle is the sleeved length ratio

Figure HI-3 – Illustration of Exposed Length and Sleeved Length Factors

Top Pinned / Bottom Free Top fixed / Bottom Free Top Free / Bottom Free
L/T
Exposed Length Factor (Rex) Exposed Length Factor (Rex) Exposed Length Factor (Rex)
Ratio
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
0 – – – – – 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.000 – – – – –
1 6.293 6.757 7.341 8.098 9.118 1.942 1.949 1.955 1.962 1.969 18.854 23.227 29.459 38.474 52.362
2 1.234 1.291 1.370 1.482 1.645 1.225 1.266 1.313 1.369 1.436 3.362 4.154 5.255 6.852 9.307
3 0.869 0.896 0.925 0.956 0.984 0.787 0.804 0.823 0.846 0.873 1.330 1.637 2.046 2.626 3.509
4 0.606 0.642 0.690 0.752 0.824 0.588 0.610 0.636 0.666 0.701 0.922 1.107 1.318 1.586 1.980
5 0.439 0.454 0.480 0.542 0.632 0.438 0.454 0.476 0.507 0.554 0.737 0.924 1.116 1.314 1.541
6 0.349 0.367 0.400 0.449 0.513 0.346 0.358 0.372 0.389 0.420 0.612 0.800 0.995 1.191 1.390
7 0.283 0.304 0.353 0.411 0.473 0.283 0.293 0.305 0.324 0.351 0.525 0.713 0.908 1.106 1.304
8 0.240 0.271 0.322 0.382 0.447 0.239 0.246 0.255 0.281 0.326 0.459 0.648 0.843 1.041 1.241
9 0.210 0.246 0.299 0.361 0.426 0.205 0.211 0.224 0.262 0.308 0.408 0.597 0.794 0.992 1.191
10 0.189 0.226 0.281 0.344 0.410 0.179 0.184 0.208 0.249 0.295 0.368 0.557 0.754 0.952 1.152
12 0.157 0.197 0.255 0.320 0.387 0.142 0.151 0.186 0.230 0.278 0.307 0.497 0.694 0.893 1.093
14 0.135 0.176 0.237 0.303 0.371 0.117 0.134 0.172 0.218 0.266 0.263 0.454 0.652 0.851 1.051
16 0.118 0.161 0.223 0.291 0.359 0.099 0.121 0.162 0.208 0.257 0.230 0.422 0.621 0.820 1.020
18 0.105 0.150 0.213 0.281 0.350 0.088 0.111 0.154 0.201 0.250 0.205 0.398 0.596 0.796 0.996
20 0.095 0.141 0.205 0.274 0.343 0.079 0.104 0.148 0.196 0.245 0.185 0.378 0.577 0.776 0.976
22 0.086 0.133 0.199 0.268 0.337 0.072 0.098 0.143 0.192 0.241 0.168 0.362 0.561 0.760 0.960
24 0.079 0.128 0.194 0.263 0.332 0.066 0.093 0.139 0.188 0.238 0.154 0.348 0.547 0.747 0.947
26 0.073 0.123 0.188 0.259 0.326 0.061 0.090 0.136 0.185 0.235 0.142 0.337 0.536 0.736 0.936
28 0.068 0.119 0.186 0.255 0.325 0.056 0.086 0.133 0.183 0.232 0.132 0.327 0.527 0.727 0.926
30 0.063 0.115 0.183 0.252 0.322 0.053 0.084 0.131 0.180 0.230 0.124 0.319 0.518 0.718 0.918
32 0.059 0.112 0.18 0.249 0.319 0.049 0.081 0.129 0.178 0.228 0.116 0.312 0.511 0.711 0.911
34 0.056 0.11 0.178 0.247 0.317 0.047 0.079 0.127 0.177 0.227 0.110 0.305 0.505 0.705 0.905
36 0.053 0.107 0.176 0.245 0.315 0.044 0.077 0.126 0.175 0.225 0.104 0.300 0.499 0.699 0.899
38 0.050 0.105 0.174 0.243 0.313 0.042 0.076 0.124 0.174 0.224 0.098 0.295 0.494 0.694 0.894
40 0.047 0.103 0.172 0.242 0.311 0.040 0.075 0.123 0.173 0.223 0.094 0.290 0.490 0.690 0.890

Table HI-2(a) – Table showing Variation of “Equivalent Length Factor” with L/T ratio and
Pile Exposed Length Factor for End-bearing Piles with Bottom Free

I-4
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HI

Top Pinned / Bottom Pinned Top fixed / Bottom Pinned Top Free / Bottom Pinned
L/T
Exposed Length Factor (Rex) Exposed Length Factor (Rex) Exposed Length Factor (Rex)
Ratio
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
0 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.699 0.699 0.699 0.699 0.699 – – – – –
1 0.997 0.998 0.998 0.999 0.999 0.698 0.699 0.699 0.699 0.699 10.906 13.461 17.030 22.236 30.256
2 0.927 0.940 0.954 0.967 0.979 0.674 0.678 0.682 0.686 0.690 2.076 2.529 3.156 4.066 5.468
3 0.671 0.711 0.759 0.813 0.869 0.557 0.575 0.595 0.617 0.640 1.187 1.360 1.570 1.857 2.307
4 0.461 0.490 0.533 0.595 0.674 0.388 0.406 0.434 0.473 0.521 0.922 1.102 1.280 1.459 1.663
5 0.381 0.411 0.450 0.498 0.554 0.323 0.337 0.353 0.372 0.402 0.735 0.922 1.116 1.306 1.489
6 0.314 0.348 0.394 0.449 0.507 0.261 0.280 0.308 0.337 0.371 0.612 0.799 0.994 1.191 1.387
7 0.270 0.303 0.352 0.410 0.473 0.226 0.242 0.267 0.303 0.345 0.525 0.713 0.907 1.105 1.304
8 0.236 0.271 0.322 0.382 0.446 0.197 0.214 0.242 0.279 0.323 0.459 0.648 0.843 1.041 1.240
9 0.210 0.246 0.299 0.360 0.426 0.175 0.193 0.223 0.262 0.307 0.408 0.597 0.794 0.992 1.191
10 0.189 0.226 0.281 0.344 0.410 0.158 0.176 0.208 0.249 0.295 0.368 0.557 0.754 0.952 1.152
12 0.157 0.197 0.255 0.320 0.387 0.131 0.151 0.186 0.230 0.278 0.307 0.497 0.694 0.893 1.093
14 0.135 0.176 0.237 0.303 0.371 0.113 0.134 0.172 0.218 0.266 0.263 0.454 0.652 0.851 1.051
16 0.118 0.161 0.223 0.291 0.359 0.099 0.121 0.162 0.208 0.257 0.230 0.422 0.621 0.820 1.020
18 0.105 0.150 0.213 0.281 0.350 0.088 0.111 0.154 0.201 0.250 0.205 0.398 0.596 0.796 0.996
20 0.095 0.141 0.205 0.274 0.343 0.079 0.104 0.148 0.196 0.245 0.185 0.378 0.577 0.776 0.976
22 0.086 0.133 0.199 0.268 0.337 0.072 0.098 0.143 0.192 0.241 0.168 0.362 0.561 0.760 0.960
24 0.079 0.128 0.194 0.263 0.332 0.066 0.093 0.139 0.188 0.238 0.154 0.348 0.547 0.747 0.947
26 0.073 0.123 0.190 0.259 0.328 0.061 0.090 0.136 0.185 0.235 0.142 0.337 0.536 0.736 0.931
28 0.068 0.119 0.186 0.255 0.325 0.056 0.086 0.133 0.183 0.232 0.132 0.327 0.527 0.727 0.926
30 0.063 0.115 0.183 0.252 0.322 0.053 0.084 0.131 0.180 0.230 0.124 0.319 0.518 0.718 0.918
32 0.059 0.112 0.180 0.249 0.319 0.049 0.081 0.129 0.178 0.228 0.116 0.312 0.511 0.711 0.911
34 0.056 0.110 0.178 0.247 0.317 0.047 0.076 0.127 0.177 0.227 0.110 0.305 0.505 0.705 0.905
36 0.053 0.107 0.176 0.245 0.315 0.044 0.077 0.126 0.175 0.225 0.104 0.300 0.499 0.699 0.899
38 0.050 0.105 0.174 0.243 0.313 0.042 0.076 0.124 0.174 0.224 0.098 0.295 0.494 0.694 0.894
40 0.047 0.103 0.172 0.242 0.311 0.040 0.075 0.123 0.173 0.223 0.094 0.290 0.490 0.690 0.890

Table HI-2(b) – Table showing Variation of “Equivalent Length Factor” with L/T
ratio and Pile Exposed Length Factor for End-bearing Piles with Bottom Pinned

Top Pinned / Bottom Fixed Top fixed / Bottom Fixed Top Free / Bottom Fixed
L/T
Exposed Length Factor (Rex) Exposed Length Factor (Rex) Exposed Length Factor (Rex)
Ratio
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
0 0.699 0.699 0.699 0.699 0.699 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.000
1 0.699 0.699 0.699 0.699 0.699 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 1.897 1.993 1.996 1.998 1.999
2 0.681 0.685 0.689 0.693 0.696 0.493 0.494 0.496 0.497 0.498 1.694 1.809 1.893 1.948 1.978
3 0.593 0.614 0.636 0.658 0.676 0.451 0.460 0.469 0.478 0.487 1.176 1.360 1.550 1.725 1.862
4 0.458 0.490 0.530 0.576 0.623 0.364 0.381 0.402 0.427 0.453 0.908 1.084 1.266 1.456 1.652
5 0.374 0.404 0.445 0.496 0.554 0.304 0.318 0.337 0.365 0.402 0.734 0.919 1.107 1.293 1.483
6 0.314 0.347 0.392 0.445 0.504 0.260 0.277 0.300 0.329 0.365 0.612 0.799 0.993 1.187 1.377
7 0.270 0.303 0.352 0.409 0.471 0.224 0.241 0.267 0.302 0.341 0.525 0.713 0.907 1.105 1.301
8 0.236 0.271 0.322 0.382 0.446 0.197 0.214 0.242 0.279 0.322 0.459 0.648 0.843 1.041 1.240
9 0.210 0.246 0.299 0.360 0.426 0.175 0.193 0.223 0.262 0.307 0.408 0.597 0.794 0.992 1.191
10 0.189 0.226 0.281 0.344 0.410 0.158 0.176 0.208 0.249 0.295 0.368 0.557 0.754 0.952 1.152
12 0.157 0.197 0.255 0.320 0.387 0.131 0.151 0.186 0.230 0.278 0.307 0.497 0.694 0.893 1.093
14 0.135 0.176 0.237 0.303 0.371 0.113 0.134 0.172 0.218 0.266 0.263 0.454 0.652 0.851 1.051
16 0.118 0.161 0.223 0.291 0.359 0.099 0.121 0.162 0.208 0.257 0.230 0.422 0.621 0.820 1.020
18 0.105 0.150 0.213 0.281 0.350 0.088 0.111 0.154 0.201 0.250 0.205 0.398 0.596 0.796 0.996
20 0.095 0.141 0.205 0.274 0.343 0.079 0.104 0.148 0.196 0.245 0.185 0.378 0.577 0.776 0.976
22 0.086 0.133 0.199 0.268 0.337 0.072 0.098 0.143 0.192 0.241 0.168 0.362 0.561 0.760 0.960
24 0.079 0.128 0.194 0.263 0.328 0.066 0.093 0.139 0.188 0.238 0.154 0.348 0.547 0.747 0.947
26 0.073 0.121 0.190 0.259 0.326 0.061 0.090 0.136 0.185 0.233 0.142 0.337 0.531 0.736 0.931
28 0.068 0.119 0.186 0.255 0.325 0.056 0.086 0.133 0.183 0.232 0.132 0.327 0.527 0.727 0.926
30 0.063 0.115 0.183 0.252 0.322 0.053 0.084 0.131 0.180 0.230 0.124 0.319 0.518 0.718 0.918
32 0.059 0.112 0.18 0.249 0.319 0.049 0.081 0.129 0.178 0.228 0.116 0.312 0.511 0.711 0.911
34 0.056 0.110 0.178 0.247 0.317 0.047 0.079 0.127 0.177 0.227 0.11 0.305 0.505 0.705 0.905
36 0.053 0.107 0.176 0.245 0.315 0.044 0.077 0.126 0.175 0.225 0.104 0.300 0.499 0.699 0.899
38 0.050 0.105 0.174 0.243 0.313 0.042 0.076 0.124 0.174 0.224 0.098 0.295 0.494 0.694 0.894
40 0.047 0.103 0.172 0.242 0.311 0.040 0.075 0.123 0.173 0.223 0.094 0.290 0.490 0.690 0.890

Table HI-2(c) – Table showing Variation of “Equivalent Length Factor” with L/T ratio and
Pile Exposed Length Factor for End-bearing Piles with Bottom Fixed

I-5
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HI

Top Pinned / Bottom Free Top fixed / Bottom Free Top Free / Bottom Free
L/T Sleeved Length Factor (Rsle) Sleeved Length Factor (Rsle) Sleeved Length Factor (Rsle)
Ratio
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
0 – – – – – 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.000 – – – – –
1 6.293 6.293 6.298 6.320 6.378 1.942 1.942 1.942 1.942 1.942 18.854 19.566 21.397 24.443 29.183
2 1.234 1.234 1.234 1.234 1.236 1.225 1.225 1.225 1.226 1.226 3.362 3.493 3.829 4.380 5.229
3 0.869 0.869 0.871 0.879 0.895 0.787 0.787 0.787 0.788 0.791 1.330 1.395 1.547 1.775 2.101
4 0.606 0.607 0.609 0.618 0.645 0.588 0.588 0.588 0.590 0.596 0.922 0.982 1.102 1.254 1.438
5 0.439 0.439 0.440 0.441 0.446 0.438 0.438 0.438 0.438 0.439 0.737 0.808 0.940 1.098 1.269
6 0.349 0.349 0.353 0.377 0.426 0.346 0.346 0.346 0.347 0.350 0.612 0.692 0.834 1.000 1.177
7 0.283 0.283 0.295 0.341 0.398 0.283 0.283 0.283 0.284 0.294 0.525 0.612 0.762 0.933 1.113
8 0.240 0.241 0.268 0.319 0.379 0.239 0.239 0.239 0.239 0.273 0.459 0.553 0.709 0.884 1.067
9 0.210 0.215 0.249 0.303 0.365 0.205 0.205 0.205 0.220 0.263 0.408 0.508 0.669 0.847 1.033
10 0.189 0.196 0.234 0.291 0.354 0.179 0.179 0.179 0.211 0.255 0.368 0.473 0.638 0.819 1.006
12 0.157 0.167 0.214 0.274 0.339 0.142 0.142 0.156 0.198 0.243 0.307 0.421 0.593 0.777 0.967
14 0.135 0.149 0.200 0.263 0.329 0.117 0.117 0.145 0.189 0.236 0.263 0.385 0.561 0.748 0.940
16 0.118 0.135 0.191 0.256 0.322 0.099 0.103 0.138 0.183 0.231 0.230 0.359 0.539 0.728 0.920
18 0.105 0.126 0.184 0.250 0.317 0.088 0.094 0.133 0.179 0.227 0.205 0.339 0.522 0.712 0.906
20 0.095 0.119 0.179 0.245 0.313 0.079 0.088 0.129 0.176 0.224 0.185 0.324 0.508 0.700 0.894
22 0.086 0.113 0.175 0.242 0.310 0.072 0.083 0.126 0.173 0.222 0.168 0.312 0.498 0.690 0.885
24 0.079 0.109 0.172 0.239 0.307 0.066 0.079 0.123 0.171 0.220 0.154 0.302 0.489 0.682 0.878
26 0.073 0.105 0.169 0.237 0.305 0.061 0.076 0.121 0.169 0.218 0.142 0.293 0.482 0.673 0.872
28 0.068 0.102 0.167 0.235 0.303 0.056 0.074 0.120 0.168 0.217 0.132 0.286 0.476 0.670 0.866
30 0.063 0.100 0.165 0.233 0.302 0.053 0.072 0.118 0.167 0.216 0.124 0.280 0.471 0.666 0.862
32 0.059 0.098 0.163 0.232 0.300 0.049 0.071 0.117 0.166 0.215 0.116 0.275 0.466 0.662 0.858
34 0.056 0.096 0.162 0.230 0.299 0.047 0.069 0.116 0.165 0.214 0.110 0.271 0.463 0.658 0.855
36 0.053 0.094 0.161 0.229 0.298 0.044 0.068 0.115 0.164 0.213 0.104 0.267 0.459 0.655 0.853
38 0.050 0.093 0.160 0.228 0.297 0.042 0.067 0.115 0.163 0.213 0.098 0.263 0.456 0.653 0.85
40 0.047 0.092 0.159 0.228 0.297 0.040 0.066 0.114 0.163 0.212 0.094 0.260 0.454 0.650 0.848

Table HI-2(d) – Table showing Variation of “Equivalent Length Factor” with L/T ratio
and Pile Sleeved Length Factor for End-bearing Piles with Bottom Free

Top Pinned / Bottom Pinned Top fixed / Bottom Pinned Top Free / Bottom Pinned
L/T
Sleeved Length Factor (Rsle) Sleeved Length Factor (Rsle) Sleeved Length Factor (Rsle)
Ratio
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
0 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.699 0.699 0.699 0.699 0.699 – – – – –
1 0.997 0.997 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.698 0.698 0.698 0.698 0.698 10.906 11.232 12.108 13.604 15.965
2 0.927 0.927 0.928 0.932 0.939 0.674 0.674 0.674 0.674 0.676 2.076 2.142 2.313 2.592 3.017
3 0.671 0.671 0.674 0.686 0.714 0.557 0.557 0.557 0.558 0.564 1.187 1.232 1.329 1.459 1.623
4 0.461 0.461 0.468 0.488 0.523 0.388 0.388 0.388 0.388 0.389 0.922 0.982 1.099 1.240 1.391
5 0.381 0.382 0.392 0.421 0.465 0.323 0.323 0.324 0.331 0.350 0.735 0.806 0.939 1.098 1.268
6 0.314 0.316 0.333 0.372 0.425 0.261 0.262 0.264 0.280 0.312 0.612 0.691 0.834 0.999 1.176
7 0.270 0.273 0.295 0.340 0.397 0.226 0.226 0.231 0.252 0.288 0.525 0.612 0.762 0.933 1.113
8 0.236 0.240 0.268 0.319 0.378 0.197 0.197 0.205 0.234 0.273 0.459 0.553 0.709 0.884 1.067
9 0.210 0.215 0.249 0.303 0.365 0.175 0.176 0.187 0.220 0.263 0.408 0.508 0.669 0.847 1.033
10 0.189 0.196 0.234 0.291 0.354 0.158 0.158 0.174 0.211 0.255 0.368 0.473 0.638 0.819 1.006
12 0.157 0.167 0.214 0.274 0.339 0.131 0.133 0.156 0.198 0.243 0.307 0.421 0.593 0.777 0.967
14 0.135 0.149 0.200 0.263 0.329 0.113 0.116 0.145 0.189 0.236 0.263 0.385 0.561 0.748 0.940
16 0.118 0.135 0.191 0.256 0.322 0.099 0.103 0.138 0.183 0.231 0.230 0.359 0.539 0.728 0.920
18 0.105 0.126 0.184 0.250 0.317 0.088 0.094 0.133 0.179 0.227 0.205 0.339 0.522 0.712 0.906
20 0.095 0.119 0.179 0.245 0.313 0.079 0.088 0.129 0.176 0.224 0.185 0.324 0.508 0.700 0.894
22 0.086 0.113 0.175 0.242 0.310 0.072 0.083 0.126 0.173 0.222 0.168 0.312 0.498 0.690 0.885
24 0.079 0.109 0.172 0.239 0.307 0.066 0.079 0.123 0.171 0.220 0.154 0.302 0.489 0.682 0.878
26 0.073 0.105 0.168 0.237 0.305 0.061 0.076 0.121 0.169 0.218 0.142 0.293 0.482 0.676 0.872
28 0.068 0.102 0.167 0.235 0.303 0.056 0.074 0.12 0.168 0.217 0.132 0.286 0.476 0.67 0.866
30 0.063 0.100 0.165 0.233 0.302 0.053 0.072 0.118 0.167 0.216 0.124 0.280 0.471 0.666 0.862
32 0.059 0.098 0.163 0.232 0.300 0.049 0.071 0.117 0.166 0.215 0.116 0.275 0.466 0.662 0.858
34 0.056 0.096 0.162 0.230 0.299 0.047 0.069 0.116 0.165 0.214 0.110 0.271 0.463 0.658 0.855
36 0.053 0.094 0.161 0.229 0.298 0.044 0.068 0.115 0.164 0.213 0.104 0.267 0.459 0.655 0.853
38 0.050 0.093 0.160 0.228 0.297 0.042 0.067 0.115 0.163 0.213 0.098 0.263 0.456 0.653 0.850
40 0.047 0.092 0.159 0.228 0.297 0.040 0.066 0.114 0.163 0.212 0.094 0.260 0.454 0.650 0.848

Table HI-2(e) – Table showing Variation of “Equivalent Length Factor” with L/T ratio and
Pile Exposed Length Factor for End-bearing Piles with Bottom Pinned

I-6
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HI

Top Pinned / Bottom Fixed Top fixed / Bottom Fixed Top Free / Bottom Fixed
L/T
Sleeved Length Factor (Rsle) Sleeved Length Factor (Rsle) Sleeved Length Factor (Rsle)
Ratio
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
0 0.699 0.699 0.699 0.699 0.699 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.000
1 0.699 0.699 0.699 0.699 0.699 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 1.897 1.988 1.991 1.994 1.997
2 0.681 0.681 0.682 0.684 0.687 0.493 0.493 0.493 0.493 0.494 1.694 1.721 1.778 1.844 1.905
3 0.593 0.593 0.596 0.606 0.625 0.451 0.451 0.451 0.453 0.459 1.176 1.224 1.326 1.459 1.608
4 0.458 0.459 0.466 0.487 0.523 0.364 0.364 0.364 0.369 0.384 0.908 0.966 1.082 1.222 1.378
5 0.374 0.375 0.387 0.416 0.460 0.304 0.304 0.306 0.315 0.337 0.734 0.805 0.936 1.092 1.258
6 0.314 0.316 0.333 0.372 0.424 0.260 0.260 0.263 0.279 0.310 0.612 0.691 0.834 0.999 1.175
7 0.270 0.272 0.295 0.340 0.397 0.224 0.224 0.229 0.252 0.288 0.525 0.612 0.762 0.933 1.113
8 0.236 0.240 0.268 0.319 0.378 0.197 0.197 0.205 0.233 0.273 0.459 0.553 0.709 0.884 1.067
9 0.210 0.215 0.249 0.303 0.365 0.175 0.176 0.187 0.220 0.263 0.408 0.508 0.669 0.847 1.033
10 0.189 0.196 0.234 0.291 0.354 0.158 0.158 0.174 0.211 0.255 0.368 0.473 0.638 0.819 1.006
12 0.157 0.167 0.214 0.274 0.339 0.131 0.133 0.156 0.198 0.243 0.307 0.421 0.593 0.777 0.967
14 0.135 0.149 0.200 0.263 0.329 0.113 0.116 0.145 0.189 0.236 0.263 0.385 0.561 0.748 0.940
16 0.118 0.135 0.191 0.256 0.322 0.099 0.103 0.138 0.183 0.231 0.230 0.359 0.539 0.728 0.920
18 0.105 0.126 0.184 0.250 0.317 0.088 0.094 0.133 0.179 0.227 0.205 0.339 0.522 0.712 0.906
20 0.095 0.119 0.179 0.245 0.313 0.079 0.088 0.129 0.176 0.224 0.185 0.324 0.508 0.700 0.894
22 0.086 0.113 0.175 0.242 0.310 0.072 0.083 0.126 0.173 0.222 0.168 0.312 0.498 0.690 0.885
24 0.079 0.109 0.172 0.239 0.307 0.066 0.079 0.123 0.171 0.220 0.154 0.302 0.489 0.682 0.878
26 0.073 0.105 0.169 0.237 0.305 0.061 0.076 0.121 0.169 0.218 0.142 0.293 0.482 0.676 0.872
28 0.068 0.102 0.167 0.235 0.303 0.056 0.074 0.120 0.168 0.217 0.132 0.286 0.476 0.670 0.866
30 0.063 0.100 0.165 0.233 0.302 0.053 0.072 0.118 0.167 0.216 0.124 0.280 0.471 0.666 0.862
32 0.059 0.098 0.163 0.232 0.300 0.049 0.071 0.117 0.166 0.215 0.116 0.275 0.466 0.662 0.858
34 0.056 0.096 0.162 0.230 0.299 0.047 0.069 0.116 0.165 0.214 0.110 0.271 0.463 0.658 0.855
36 0.053 0.094 0.161 0.229 0.298 0.044 0.068 0.115 0.164 0.213 0.104 0.267 0.459 0.655 0.853
38 0.050 0.093 0.160 0.228 0.297 0.042 0.067 0.115 0.163 0.213 0.098 0.263 0.456 0.653 0.850
40 0.047 0.092 0.159 0.228 0.297 0.040 0.066 0.114 0.163 0.212 0.094 0.260 0.454 0.650 0.848

Table HI-2(f) – Table showing Variation of “Equivalent Length Factor” with L/T ratio and
Pile Exposed Length Factor for End-Bearing Piles with Bottom Fixed

HI.3 Brief Discussion on the “Buckling Phenomenon”

Law (2013) points out that the analytical results of “buckling” reveals only that a strut
can take up the shape of any of the analyzed buckling modes, with any magnitude i.e. the
“discrete buckling” loads. It is not the case, as discussed in some references and text
books such as Coates et al (1980) that the Euler load is a threshold load above which the
strut becomes unstable.

Nevertheless, a strut normally fails due to its own “initial imperfection” at loads well
below the Euler load. By initial imperfection we refer to the initial “bowing” of the
strut causing eccentric bending in the strut under applied pure axial load. The axial load
will create further “bowing”, which may cause the strut to fail subsequently. It has,
however, been proved that the Euler load is the absolute maximum, at which the
imperfection (bowing) will increase to infinity, i.e. the strut will fail certainly.

It should also be noted that provisions in the steel and concrete codes (BS5950 and
BS8110) for reduction of load capacity of a strut due to its length are actually not to cater
for the theoretical “buckling phenomenon”. The provisions are to account for the extra
bending caused by the initial imperfections assumed which lead to reduction of strut load
capacity. The analysis for the Euler load, however, is useful in determining the effective
length of the pile and the “buckling mode shape” which is the most critical initial
imperfection shape leading to subsequent failure. Law (2013) has analyzed and
provided design charts. Upon determination of the equivalent buckling length, it would

I-7
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HI

be acceptable, based on the approach outlined in HI.4, to determine the reduced load
carrying capacity. Nevertheless, Law (2013) has, by assuming a sinusoidal deflected
initial imperfection profile for the pile, developed an approach for determination of the
moment due to the axial load and the imperfection for the pile under lateral restraint.
The moment can then be taken into design.

HI.4 Numerical Example

Consider a 4-T50 mini-pile with cross section as shown in Figure HI-4 driven into soil of
nh = 1300 kN/m3 of total length 30m and the top 3m exposed. Its head is pinned at the
underside of the pile cap and its other end socketed into rock which is considered as
fixed.

263/273 CHS
π 2734 π 2634
Icasing = − = 37808149 mm4
64 64
 π 50 4 π 50 2 
IT50 = 4 + × 35 2  = 10848312 mm4
 64 4
20  
35 4
Itotal = 48656461mm
E p I p = 205 × 10 6 × 48656361 × 10 −12 = 9974.57 kNm2
For nh = 1300 kN/m3
T = 5 E p I p / nh = 1.503 m
T50 bars

Figure HI-4 – Numerical Example of a 4-T50 Mini-pile

Exposed length ratio is 3 / 30 = 0.1 , L T = 30 / 1.503 = 19.96 . By Table HI-2(c), the

equivalent length factor is 0.1412 and the equivalent length is
Leq = 0.1412 × 30 = 4.236 m. So the “Euler” load is p E p I p Leq = 5486 kN > the
2 2

structural capacity of the pile of 0.475 × 500 × 7854 ×10 −3 = 1865 kN. It can be seen that
this theoretical “Euler” load is very high.

However, as discussed in HI.3, the codified design against “buckling” is not performed
by checking against this Euler load. Instead, the codes including BS5950, the Code of
Practice for Structural Use of Steel 2011 determine the reduced load carrying capacity of
the strut based on its “initial imperfections”. The 2 steel codes are based on
back-calculation from the experimental failure loads of struts of various types of sections
and grades to determine the initial imperfections and provide formulae and tables for
determination of the reduced strengths. To calculate the reduced strengths, we may
assume the mini-pile to adopt the CHS section as no study has been carried out on the
mini-pile section to determine initial imperfections. So according to Table 8.7 of the
Code of Practice for Structural Use of Steel 2011, curve a) should be followed. The
next step is to find the radius of gyration r of the section and subsequently the λ
value which is Leq r .

I-8
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HI

As Asteel = (2732 − 2632 )π / 4 + 4 × π 252 = 12064 mm2;

r = I / A = 63.51 mm; λ = Leq / r = 4230 / 63.51 = 66.6

By Table 8.8 (a) of the Steel Code and assuming S460 (nearest to the grade of the T50
bars), the design strength of steel drops from 460N/mm2 to 331N/mm2, i.e. drops to 72%
of its original value. So the load carrying capacity of the pile is 1689 × 0.72 = 1216 kN.

However, if the pile is completely embedded, by Table HI-2(c), the equivalent length
factor is 0.095 and the equivalent length is Leq = 0.095 × 30 = 2.85 m. With
λ = 2850 / 63.51 = 44.87 and by Table 8.8 (a) of the Steel Code, the design strength of
steel drops from 460N/mm2 to 415.26N/mm2, i.e. drops to 90.3% of its original value. So
the load carrying capacity of the pile is 1689 × 0.903 = 1525 kN.

HI.5 Stiffness Method by the Use of the Geometric Matrix

The buckling phenomenon can also be solved by the stiffness method through the use of
the “geometric matrix”. The stiffness matrix and the geometric matrix of a strut of
length L and flexural stiffness EI are

 12 EI 6 EI − 12 EI 6 EI 
 L3 L L3 L2 
 6 EI  36 3L − 36 3L 
4 EI − 6 EI 2 EI 
   2
L  and [k ] = − 1  3L 4 L − 3L − L 
2

[ke ] =  − 12L EI
2
L L2
 − 6 EI 12 EI − 6 EI  G
30 L − 36 − 3L 36 − 3L 
 L3 L2 L3 2   
 6 EI
L
  3L − L2 − 3L 4 L2 
2 EI − 6 EI 4 EI
 
 L2 L L2 L 
(Eqn HI-11)

It can be proven that the stiffness of the strut under an axial P becomes

[ke ] + P[kG ] (Eqn HI-12)

It should be noted that P carries a positive value if in compression representing a

reduction in the overall stiffness of the strut. Conversely P increases the stiffness if in
tension. The mathematical model for Figure HI-1 can then be formed by assembling the
matrices ke and kG for individual struts in the usual manner to form the entire stiffness
matrix for the pile with the soil restraints as “point springs” in the following formula

[K e ] + P[K G ] (Eqn HI-13)

If P is so chosen that when the matrix [K e ] + P[K G ] diminishes implying zero stiffness
of the pile, the buckling of the pile takes place and P becomes the buckling load, with
[v] as the lateral displacement matrix. So we may list

I-9
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HI

[K e ] + P[K G ] = 0 ⇒ {[K e ] + P[K G ]}[v] = 0 ⇒ [K e ][v] = − P[K G ][v]

−1
⇒ [K e ] [K G ][v ] = [v]
−1
(Eqn HI-14)
P

Again (Eqn HI-14) is an eigen-value problem for the matrix [K e ] [K G ] and the
−1

−1
eigen-values λ = by which the buckling load can be determined as
P
−1
P= (Eqn HI-15)
λ

The lowest value of P represents the fundamental buckling load.

And the eigen vectors [v ] analyzed represent the buckling modes (shapes).

HI.6 P-∆ Effects

Both the finite difference approach and the stiffness method described above can be used
directly to calculate lateral displacements with inclusion of P-∆ effects. Further details
are discussed in Appendix HP.

I-10
 Appendix HJ

Principle and Derivation of the Hiley Formula

An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HJ

Principle and Derivation of the Hiley Formula

HJ.1 Theoretical Background

The Hiley Formula, like most of the pile dynamic formulae is based on an energy
approach by which the energy injected from the driving hammer into the pile is set equal
to the work done by the pile on the soil in the form of “set” (advancement of the pile into
the soil) and temporary compression of the soil (quake) and the pile itself. The ultimate
resistance on the pile is then solved by the principle of conservation of energy. The
energy transfer process is demonstrated in Figure HJ-1.

Hammer Weight Wh
Loss in potential energy of
hammer = Wh h . After some
energy loss due to guard and
rail etc., energy before Hammer Drop
impact is EhWh h Height h

After impact, the remaining energy in the

pile and the hammer is Loss in energy in the

EhWh h
 h (
 W + e2 W + W 
p r ) with further
temporary compression of
the Pile and the Soil along
 Wh + W p + Wr 
  the Pile shaft is
deduction of 0.5 Pu cc due to loss in ( )
0.5 Pu c p + c q
compressing the cushion.

Total Ultimate
Resistance of the Pile
from the Pile Shaft
and the Base is Pu

Legend :

Pu : Ultimate Resistance of Pile

Wh : Weight of Hammer
Wp : Weight of Pile
Work done in “Set” Wr : Weight of cushion
of the Pile is Pu s Eh : Hammer Efficiency
Set s h: Hammer Drop Height
e: Coefficient of Restitution
cc : Temporary compression of Cushion
cp : Temporary compression of the Pile
cq : Temporary compression of Soil
s: Permanent Set of Pile

Figure HJ-1 – Energy Transfer Process as Assumed by the Hiley Formula

J-1
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HJ

HJ.2 Detailed Derivation

Referring to Figure HJ-1, consider the drop hammer of weight Wh dropping from height
h and impact on the pile of weight W p and the weight of the helmet Wr . The loss of
potential energy of the hammer is Wh h . After some loss due to hammer efficiency, the
energy of the hammer just before impact is EhWh h , which is converted to the kinetic
W 2
energy of the hammer h U h where Uh is the velocity of the hammer before impact.
2g
By equating the two energies,

U h = Eh 2 gh (Eqn HJ-1)

Let Vh and V P be the velocities of the hammer and the pile (and helmet) after impact,
then during impact, by the Law of Conservation of Momentum (the contribution of the
soil is ignored)

Wh W (W + Wr )V ⇒ W U = W V + (W + W )V
U h = h Vh + p (Eqn HJ-2)
p h h h h p r p
g g g

Assuming the rigid body impact condition and applying Newton’s Law of Restitution, we
V p − Vh
have = −e ⇒ Vh = V p − eU h (Eqn HJ-3)
0 −Uh

Substituting (Eqn HJ-3) into (Eqn HJ-2)

WhU h = Wh (V p − eU h ) + (W p + Wr )V p ⇒ V p =
(1 + e )Wh
Wh + (W p + Wr )
Uh (Eqn HJ-4)

The kinetic energy of the pile and the cushion after impact is
(W p+ Wr ) 2
V p (Eqn HJ-5)
2g

Combining (Eqn HJ-5) with (Eqn HJ-1) and (Eqn HJ-4), the kinetic energy of the pile
with the cushion after impact is

(W p+ Wr )  (1 + e )Wh
2
 ( )
 1 + 2e + e 2 Wh (W p + Wr )
Eh 2 gh  = EhWh h 

(Wh + Wp + Wr )2 
(Eqn HJ-6)
2g Wh + W p + Wr  

Wh 2
The kinetic energy of the hammer after impact is Vh
2g

Combining (Eqn HJ-3) with (Eqn HJ-4) and (Eqn HJ-1)

J-2
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HJ

(1 + e )Wh Wh + eWh − eWh − eW p − eWr Wh − e(W p + Wr )

Vh = U h − eU h = Uh = Eh 2 gh
Wh + W p + Wr Wh + W p + Wr Wh + W p + Wr

So the kinetic energy of the hammer after impact is

Wh 2 Wh Wh − e(W p + Wr ) W − e(W p + Wr )

2 2

Vh =  Eh 2 gh  = EhWh H  h  (Eqn HJ-7)
2g 2 g  Wh + W p + Wr   Wh + W p + Wr 

Adding the energies of the pile with cushion in (Eqn HJ-6) and that of the hammer in
(Eqn HJ-7), the total energy T .E. is

T .E. = EhWh h
( )
 1 + 2e + e 2 Wh (W p + Wr ) Wh − e(W p + Wr )
2

 + EhWh h 
 (Wh + Wp + Wr ) 
2
 Wh + W p + Wr 
W + e (W p + Wr )
2

= EhWh h  h  (Eqn HJ-8)

 Wh + W p + Wr 

This total energy is eventually transferred to the pile and is dissipated through work done
against soil resistances and elastic compression of the pile and cushion.

Assuming the soil is exhibiting elasto-plastic behaviour with elastic limit cq (the
quake) beyond which the soil resistance is constant at Pu and for a distance s which is
the set, the work done on the soil is
0.5 Pu cq + Pu s (Eqn HJ-9)

Pu
The area beneath the force /
displacement curve
Force represents the work done on
soil by a force varying from 0
to Pu, assuming static
problem.

Displacement
cq s

Figure HJ-2 – Work done in Quake and Set as Assumed by the Hiley Formula

Similarly, again assuming static behaviour, the work done on the elastic compression of the
pile and the cushion is

0.5Pu c p + 0.5Pu cc (Eqn HJ-10)

J-3
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HJ

where c p and cc are respectively the temporary compressions of the pile and the cushion.

So, equating the energy after impact to the work done on temporary compression of the pile
/ the soil and total “Set” of the Pile,

Wh + e 2 (W p + Wr )
EhWh h   = 0.5 Pu cq + Pu s + 0.5 Pu c p + 0.5 Pu cc = 0.5 Pu (cc + c p + cq ) + Pu s
 Wh + W p + Wr 
EhWh h Wh + e 2 (W p + Wr )
⇒ Pu =  
s + 0.5(cc + c p + cq )  Wh + W p + Wr 
(Eqn HJ-11)

which is the Hiley Formula.

It should be noted that c p + cq and s can be measured during the final set of the pile.
cc is small comparatively. It is often assumed to be constant, ranging from 4 to 6 mm. The
value is either assumed or can be measured by video camera.

J-4
 Appendix HK

Discussion on Limits of “Final Set” and Criteria for

Formulation of the “Final Set” Table

An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HK

Discussion of Limits of “Final Set” and Criteria for Formulation of the “Final Set”
Table

HK.1 The “Final Set” Table

Other than piles driven to refusal achieving sets less than 10mm per 10 blows, the format
of a final set table depends on the pile driving formula. The final set table relates the
allowable maximum final set value S of a driven pile for a given design ultimate capacity
to the elastic displacement of the pile head or other measurable quantities. The elastic
displacement of the pile head is often regarded as the sum of the elastic compression of
the piles cp and the elastic settlement of the ground cq when the pile is being driven. For
the Hiley formula commonly used in Hong Kong, the actual final set s is related to cp+cq
and the pile length L. A driven pile is considered to have achieved a sufficient ultimate
pile capacity if s is smaller than S.

The ultimate pile capacity that can be developed by pile driving depends on the energy
imparted to the pile. The same pile driving energy can be attained by using a lighter
hammer with a larger drop height or a heavy hammer with a smaller drop height. Each
combination of hammer weight and drop height produces a different final set table.

A higher drop height will tend to induce higher driving stress and thus a higher risk of
damaging the pile. From a theoretical point of view, it is preferable to use a heavy
hammer with a smaller drop height to limit the driving stress.

HK.2 Applicable Range of S

It is common to impose criteria limiting the applicable range of s. In Hong Kong, the
most commonly used criteria in the past were that the combination of hammer weight and
drop height should be such that s will not be higher than 50mm per 10 blows or less than
25mm per 10 blows. It was believed that the first criterion of requiring s to be more
than 25mm per 10 blows was originated from the Civil Engineering Code of Practice 4
(ICE, 1954). There was a good reason for setting this limit. In the 1950s and 1960s,
precast concrete piles were perhaps the most common type of driven piles. Imposing a
lower limit is equivalent to discouraging the contractor from using a light hammer with a
large drop height. This indirectly controls the driving stress and hence the potential for
damaging precast concrete piles.

The setting of this lower bound limit of 25mm per 10 blows was later abandoned in the
British standards CP2004 and BS8004 (BSI, 1972, 1986), but replaced by the second
criterion of setting an upper limit of S not greater than 50mm per 10 blows. The reason
for imposing such an upper limit is not explained in the British Standards nor discussed
in the literature. From a theoretical point of view, this criterion is not reasonable.
Imposing an upper limit will deter contractors from using a heavy hammer which is
beneficial in reducing driving stresses.

If both of the above two criteria are imposed, the applicable range of S becomes very
narrow. A driven pile which has attained a very small actual set value s will not be
acceptable if the combination of measured cp+cq value and actual pile length is outside

K-1
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HK

the applicable range of S. The criteria for limiting the applicable range are developed so
as to minimize the potential of pile damage. A driven pile with a small actual set value s
that can achieve a higher pile capacity and has no apparent damage occurring during pile
driving could be deemed not acceptable under such criteria. The contractors have to
select a suitable combination of hammer weight and drop height that can meet the
applicable range of S. They are often compelled to use drop hammers to perform final
setting of piles even though the piles have been pitched by hydraulic hammers. With a
drop hammer, the drop height can be varied much more easily than is the case with a
hydraulic hammer to increase the chance of finding a suitable final set table that can
fulfill the criteria.

HK.3 Criteria for Formulating the Final Set Table

In determining the criteria for formulating the Final Set Table, that the pile driving stress
can now be measured directly by a Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA) is a consideration.
According to recent studies by Lam (2007) and Li & Lam (2007) based on a large
database of PDA test results, the driving stress is found to have no correlation with S.
Fung et al (2004), Lam (2007) and Li & Lam (2007) further observed that the ratio of
(cp+cq)/L is a simple and useful indicator of pile driving stress. Lam (2007) and Li &
Lam (2007) proposed that by limiting the ratio of (cp+cq)/L to 1.15 where cp+cq is in
millimetre and L is in metre, the driving stress in steel H-piles can generally be controlled
to less than 80% of the yield stress of steel piles at which the risk of damage to the pile is
considered to be acceptably small. Based on these findings, the following criteria were
formulated for the final set table which are acceptable to the Buildings Department and
finally incorporated into the Code.

(i) The upper bound limit of S is relaxed to 100mm per 10 blows, but with the
allowable value capped at 50mm. That is, if a calculated value of S between 50
and 100 is obtained, a value of 50 will still be used in the final set table;
(ii) (cp+cq)/L is limited to not greater than 1.15 where cp+cq is in millimetre and L is in
metre.

The following Worked Example HK-1, of a final set table is developed using the above
criteria based on the Hiley formula. It can be observed that the applicable range of S has
become much wider, making it easier for compliance.

Data
Weight of Hammer : 16T
Type of Pile : 305×305×223 kg/m S450J0 Steel H-pile
Design Working Capacity 3053kN
Factor of Safety : 2
Design Ultimate Capacity R = 6106kN
Weight of Hammer : W = 156.96kN
Drop Height of Hammer: H = 1.5m
Maximum Driving Energy: E = 235.44kJ
Average Hammer Efficiency:  = 0.7
Pile Helmet Compression: cc = 5mm
Coefficient of Restitution: e = 0.32
Weight of Pile Helmet: Wr = 30kN

K-2
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HK

Weight of Pile: Wp = 2.19kN/m

First of all, if no restriction on the S values at all, the set table is as shown in Table HK-1.
Pile
Length Temporary Compression cp+cq
(m) 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
15 146 141 136 131 126 121 116 111 106 101 96 91 86 81 76 71 66 61 56 51 46 41 36 31 26 21
16 144 139 134 129 124 119 114 109 104 99 94 89 84 79 74 69 64 59 54 49 44 39 34 29 24 19
17 142 137 132 127 122 117 112 107 102 97 92 87 82 77 72 67 62 57 52 47 42 37 32 27 22 17
18 141 136 131 126 121 116 111 106 101 96 91 86 81 76 71 66 61 56 51 46 41 36 31 26 21 16
19 139 134 129 124 119 114 109 104 99 94 89 84 79 74 69 64 59 54 49 44 39 34 29 24 19 14
20 137 132 127 122 117 112 107 102 97 92 87 82 77 72 67 62 57 52 47 42 37 32 27 22 17 12
21 136 131 126 121 116 111 106 101 96 91 86 81 76 71 66 61 56 51 46 41 36 31 26 21 16 11
22 134 129 124 119 114 109 104 99 94 89 84 79 74 69 64 59 54 49 44 39 34 29 24 19 14 9
23 133 128 123 118 113 108 103 98 93 88 83 78 73 68 63 58 53 48 43 38 33 28 23 18 13 8
24 131 126 121 116 111 106 101 96 91 86 81 76 71 66 61 56 51 46 41 36 31 26 21 16 11 6
25 130 125 120 115 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5
26 129 124 119 114 109 104 99 94 89 84 79 74 69 64 59 54 49 44 39 34 29 24 19 14 9 4
27 127 122 117 112 107 102 97 92 87 82 77 72 67 62 57 52 47 42 37 32 27 22 17 12 7 2
28 126 121 116 111 106 101 96 91 86 81 76 71 66 61 56 51 46 41 36 31 26 21 16 11 6 1
29 124 119 114 109 104 99 94 89 84 79 74 69 64 59 54 49 44 39 34 29 24 19 14 9 4 -1
30 123 118 113 108 103 98 93 88 83 78 73 68 63 58 53 48 43 38 33 28 23 18 13 8 3 -2
31 122 117 112 107 102 97 92 87 82 77 72 67 62 57 52 47 42 37 32 27 22 17 12 7 2 -3
32 121 116 111 106 101 96 91 86 81 76 71 66 61 56 51 46 41 36 31 26 21 16 11 6 1 -4
33 119 114 109 104 99 94 89 84 79 74 69 64 59 54 49 44 39 34 29 24 19 14 9 4 -1 -6
34 118 113 108 103 98 93 88 83 78 73 68 63 58 53 48 43 38 33 28 23 18 13 8 3 -2 -7
35 117 112 107 102 97 92 87 82 77 72 67 62 57 52 47 42 37 32 27 22 17 12 7 2 -3 -8
36 116 111 106 101 96 91 86 81 76 71 66 61 56 51 46 41 36 31 26 21 16 11 6 1 -4 -9
37 115 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 -5 -10
38 113 108 103 98 93 88 83 78 73 68 63 58 53 48 43 38 33 28 23 18 13 8 3 -2 -7 -12
39 112 107 102 97 92 87 82 77 72 67 62 57 52 47 42 37 32 27 22 17 12 7 2 -3 -8 -13
40 111 106 101 96 91 86 81 76 71 66 61 56 51 46 41 36 31 26 21 16 11 6 1 -4 -9 -14
41 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15
42 109 104 99 94 89 84 79 74 69 64 59 54 49 44 39 34 29 24 19 14 9 4 -1 -6 -11 -16
43 108 103 98 93 88 83 78 73 68 63 58 53 48 43 38 33 28 23 18 13 8 3 -2 -7 -12 -17
44 107 102 97 92 87 82 77 72 67 62 57 52 47 42 37 32 27 22 17 12 7 2 -3 -8 -13 -18

Table HK-1 – Final Set Values per 10 blows with No Restriction on the S values

If adopting the requirements that the applicable range of allowable set S = 25 to 100mm;
and (cp+cq)/L  1.15 where cp+cq is in mm and L is in metre. Table HK-1 is reduced to
Table HK-2.
Pile
Length Temporary Compression cp+cq
(m) 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
15 - - - - - - - - - - 96 91 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
16 - - - - - - - - - 99 94 89 84 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
17 - - - - - - - - - 97 92 87 82 77 - - - - - - - - - - - -
18 - - - - - - - - - 96 91 86 81 76 71 - - - - - - - - - - -
19 - - - - - - - - 99 94 89 84 79 74 69 64 - - - - - - - - - -
20 - - - - - - - - 97 92 87 82 77 72 67 62 57 - - - - - - - - -
21 - - - - - - - - 96 91 86 81 76 71 66 61 56 51 46 - - - - - - -
22 - - - - - - - 99 94 89 84 79 74 69 64 59 54 49 44 39 - - - - - -
23 - - - - - - - 98 93 88 83 78 73 68 63 58 53 48 43 38 33 - - - - -
24 - - - - - - - 96 91 86 81 76 71 66 61 56 51 46 41 36 31 26 - - - -
25 - - - - - - 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 - - - - -
26 - - - - - - 99 94 89 84 79 74 69 64 59 54 49 44 39 34 29 - - - - -
27 - - - - - - 97 92 87 82 77 72 67 62 57 52 47 42 37 32 27 - - - - -
28 - - - - - - 96 91 86 81 76 71 66 61 56 51 46 41 36 31 26 - - - - -
29 - - - - - 99 94 89 84 79 74 69 64 59 54 49 44 39 34 29 - - - - - -
30 - - - - - 98 93 88 83 78 73 68 63 58 53 48 43 38 33 28 - - - - - -
31 - - - - - 97 92 87 82 77 72 67 62 57 52 47 42 37 32 27 - - - - - -
32 - - - - - 96 91 86 81 76 71 66 61 56 51 46 41 36 31 26 - - - - - -
33 - - - - 99 94 89 84 79 74 69 64 59 54 49 44 39 34 29 - - - - - - -
34 - - - - 98 93 88 83 78 73 68 63 58 53 48 43 38 33 28 - - - - - - -
35 - - - - 97 92 87 82 77 72 67 62 57 52 47 42 37 32 27 - - - - - - -
36 - - - - 96 91 86 81 76 71 66 61 56 51 46 41 36 31 26 - - - - - - -
37 - - - 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 - - - - - - - -
38 - - - 98 93 88 83 78 73 68 63 58 53 48 43 38 33 28 - - - - - - - -
39 - - - 97 92 87 82 77 72 67 62 57 52 47 42 37 32 27 - - - - - - - -
40 - - - 96 91 86 81 76 71 66 61 56 51 46 41 36 31 26 - - - - - - - -
41 - - - 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 - - - - - - - -
42 - - 99 94 89 84 79 74 69 64 59 54 49 44 39 34 29 - - - - - - - - -
43 - - 98 93 88 83 78 73 68 63 58 53 48 43 38 33 28 - - - - - - - - -
44 - - 97 92 87 82 77 72 67 62 57 52 47 42 37 32 27 - - - - - - - - -
Table HK-2 – Final Set Values per 10 blows (i) with limits between 25mm and 100mm per 10
blows; (ii) and (cp+cq)/L  1.15 where cp+cq is in mm and L is in m

K-3
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HK

Finally, to be conservative, the values of S in excess of 50mm are capped at 50mm so that
the final set table of Table HK-2 is modified as follows as Table HK-3:
Pile
Length Temporary Compression cp+cq
(m) 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
15 - - - - - - - - - - 50 50 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
16 - - - - - - - - - 50 50 50 50 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Zone C1
17 - - - - - - - - - 50 50 50 50 50 - - - - - - - - - - - -
18 - - - - - - - - - 50 50 50 50 50 50 - - - - - - - - - - -
Zone C2
19 - - - - - - - - 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 - - - - - - - - - -
20 - - - - - - - - 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 - - - - - - - - -
21 - - - - - - - - 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 46 - - - - - - -
22 - - - - - - - 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 49 44 39 - - - - - -
23 - - - - - - - 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 48 43 38 33 - - - - -
24 - - - - - - - 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 46 41 36 31 26 - - - -
Zone A
25 - - - - - - 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 45 40 35 30 - - - - -
26 - - - - - - 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 49 44 39 34 29 - - - - -
27 - - - - - - 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 47 42 37 32 27 - - - - -
28 - - - - - - 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 46 41 36 31 26 - - - - -
29 - - - - - 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 49 44 39 34 29 - - - - - -
30 - - - - - 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 48 43 38 33 28 - - - - - -
31 - - - - - 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 47 42 37 32 27 - - -Zone- B - -
32 - - - - - 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 46 41 36 31 26 - - - - - -
Zone E
33 - - - - 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 49 44 39 34 29 - - - - - - -
34 - - - - 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 48 43 38 33 28 - - - - - - -
35 - - - - 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 47 42 37 32 27 - - - - - - -
36 - - - - 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 46 41 36 31 26 - - - - - - -
37 - - - 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 45 40Zone
35D 30 - - - - - - - -
38 - - - 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 48 43 38 33 28 - - - - - - - -
39 - - - 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 47 42 37 32 27 - - - - - - - -
40 - - - 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 46 41 36 31 26 - - - - - - - -
41 - - - 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 45 40 35 30 25 - - - - - - - -
42 - - 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 49 44 39 34 29 - - - - - - - - -
43 - - 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 48 43 38 33 28 - - - - - - - - -
44 - - 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 47 42 37 32 27 - - - - - - - - -

Table HK-3 – Final Set Values per 10 blows (i) with limits between 25mm and 100mm per 10
blows; (ii) (cp+cq)/L  1.15 where cp+cq is in mm; and L is in m; and (iii) S capped at 50mm

By Table HK-3, only Zones D and E are applicable zones. The controlling criteria in
Zones A to E are described as follows :

(a) Zone A : S > 100;

(b) Zone B : S < 25;
(c) Zone C including Zone C1 and C2 is for (cp+cq)/L > 1.15. Zone C1 is with S > 50
and Zone C2 is with 50  S  25. Zone C2 is acceptable in the previous practice
when the new restraint (cp+cq)/L  1.15 is not imposed;
(d) Zone D is for 50  S  25 and (cp+cq)/L  1.15;
(e) Zone E is for 100  S > 50 and (cp+cq)/L  1.15.

To conclude, comparing with the previous practice, an additional large area of Zone D is
added where the calculated value of S is relaxed to 100mm but capped at 50mm but a Zone
C2 is excluded due to the imposition of the restraint (cp+cq)/L  1.15 to avoid overstressing
the pile.

K-4
 Appendix HL

More Details and Examples in Wave Equation, the

Case Method and CAPWAP for Analysis of Pile

Capacities
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HL

More Details and Examples in Wave Equation, the Case Method and CAPWAP for
Analysis of Pile Capacities

HL.1 Wave Speed in a Pile

The speed of wave in a pile is an important parameter in the determination of pile load
capacity by making use of the Wave Equation on the Case Method and CAPWAP
analysis. This parameter can be derived as in follows:

F Consider a pile being suddenly hit by a force F at time t as

shown in Figure HL-1. At the first instant, all of its
δ particles are at rest. But after a short time dt , a certain
dL short rod element of length dL has been compressed
which implies the wave has travelled a distance dL .
Because of the compression, the end face of the pile has
moved a distance δ as shown in the figure:

If the cross sectional area of the Pile is A , its Young’s

 P 
Modulus is E , then d = ε ⋅ dL =  dL
 AE 
The change of particle velocity is
d PdL P dL P
dv = = = = c
t=0 dt AEdt AE dt AE
at dt
dL
afterwards where = c , the wave speed.
dt
dv P c
Figure HL-1 – Derivation of The acceleration is a = = ;
Wave Speed in Pile dt AE dt

As by Newton’s Law F = ma and m = AdLρ where ρ is the density of the pile, so

P P P c P dL E E
a= = ⇒ = ⇒c = c2 = ⇒ c = (Eqn HL-1)
m AdLρ AE dt AdLρ dt ρ ρ

The speed of force wave is therefore about 4000 to 5100m/sec in concrete and steel
respectively. The wave speed should not be confused with the actual particle velocity
which is comparatively very small, of the order of a few metres per second.

HL.2 The Basic Wave Equation

The Basic Wave Equation is derived as follows :

Consider an element of length ∂x in a pile of cross sectional area A and material

density ρ as shown in Figure HL-2. The pile is struck by an external force so that a
force acting on the element’s upper face is F and that at its lower face is F + ∂F .

L-1
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HL

Further, if u is the displacement of the element and the side

friction per unit length is R( x, t ) which can also be the end
F resistance at the pile tip. By Newton’s second Law in which
∂x R(x, t )∂x Force = mass × acceleration, we can list:
∂ 2u
F + ∂F (F + ∂F ) − F + R(x, t )∂x = − ρA∂x 2
∂t
∂F ∂u
2
⇒ = − ρA 2 − R( x, t ) (Eqn HL-2)
∂x ∂t

However, F is also related to the deformation of the pile as

∂u ∂F ∂ 2u
F = − AEε = − AE ⇒ = − AE 2 (Eqn HL-3)
Figure HL-2 – Derivation of ∂x ∂x ∂x
the Basic Wave Equation

Combining (Eqn HL-1), (Eqn HL-2) and (Eqn HL-3), we have

∂ 2u E ∂ 2u ∂ 2u 2 ∂ u
2
= + S ( x , t ) ⇒ = c + S ( x, t ) (Eqn HL-4)
∂t 2 ρ ∂x 2 ∂t 2 ∂x 2
where S ( x, t ) = − R( x, t ) / ρA is a term related to the shaft and end-bearing resistance of
the pile.

The pile driving force will be a boundary condition of (Eqn HL-4) and if S ( x, t ) is
known (even if it is related to the particle movement and velocity of the pile), the particle
movement of the pile including the “Set” can be determined. Nevertheless, the equation
is often used to back-calculate the pile shaft and end-bearing resistance with known
values of measurable quantities such as forces, particle movements, velocities and set.

HL.3 Case Method

The Case Method is based on the basic wave equation (Eqn HL-4). The basic
assumptions are as follows :

(i) The pile is uniform in section and construction material, i.e. the impedance
Z = AE / c is constant;
(ii) The stress wave experiences no energy loss in its transmission through the pile shaft
and there are no distortions of signals;
(iii) The resistance to the dynamic component of the force is at the pile toe only whilst
that of the pile shaft is ignored;
(iv) The resistance to the dynamic component is proportional to the particle velocity;

The following contains derivation of the formulae used in the Method with reference to
王杰賢(2001). If the reader is not interested, he may go directly to HL.3.2 where the
symbols used in the formula are fully defined and the application is demonstrated.

HL.3.1 Derivation of the Formula for the Case Method

(Eqn HL-4) describes the particle displacement of the pile at any position x and time t ,

L-2
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HL

the general solution of the wave equation is given by mathematics as :

u ( x, t ) = h( x − ct ) + f ( x + ct ) (Eqn HL-5)
where h and f are arbitrary functions determined by the initial boundary conditions.

Physically h and f may respectively be regarded as the downward and upward waves
travelling in opposite directions but with the same speed c as derived in (Eqn HL-1).
h and f cannot be measured directly, but the sum of these two waves which is the
actual wave in the pile can be measured by the strain gauges and accelerometers in such
tests as PDA tests. The shapes of the two waves remain unchanged in their course of
transmission. However, at any level of the pile the side resistance R will de-generate
into two resistance waves (both of magnitude 0.5 R ), one of which is an upward
compressive wave and the other is a downward tension wave. The resistance wave
serves to increase the resistance and decrease the velocity of the pile at its top. As the
total resistance of the pile is the sum of the static and dynamic resistance generated by the
striking hammer, the Case Method is to determine the static resistance which is the true
resistance of the pile in the course of its service life by wave analysis with a number of
assumptions. The following sets out the detailed derivation of the formula to be used.

For the downward particle velocity (the actual moving velocity of the section)
∂h( x − ct ) ∂h( x − ct ) ∂x ∂h( x − ct )
vd = = ⋅ = ⋅ (− c )
∂t ∂x ∂t ∂x
− ∂h(x − ct ) vd
As strain ε d = =
∂x c
 v  AE
the downward force Fd = AEε d = AE  d  = vd = Zvd , (Eqn HL-6)
 c  c
by putting Z = AE / c , called the impedance as a mechanical property of the pile.
Similarly, it can be deduced that the upward force is Fu = − Zvu (Eqn HL-7)
where vu is the upward particle velocity.

So generally, it can be described that the velocity and force at any section of the pile shaft
are made up of the upward and downward components as illustrated in Figure HL-3(a).
That is:
v = vu + vd (Eqn HL-8)
F = Fu + Fd (Eqn HL-9)

The individual upward or downward components of the wave cannot be measured

directly. Instead, the total sum v and F are measured by the PDA. If the measured
velocity and force at any section M are respectively vM and FM , by replacing v and
F by vM and FM and re-arranging (Eqn HL-6) to (Eqn HL-9), we can write :
1 F 
vd =  v M + M  (Eqn HL-10)
2 Z 
1 F 
vu =  vM − M  (Eqn HL-11)
2 Z 

L-3
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HL

Fd =
1
(FM + ZvM ) (Eqn HL-12)
2
Fu = (FM − ZvM )
1
(Eqn HL-13)
2

At the pile base, if it is free without any base resistance as illustrated in Figure HL-3(b),
F = 0 i.e. Fu = − Fd (Eqn HL-14)
vu = vd ; v = vu + vd = 2vd (Eqn HL-15)
At the pile base, if it is restrained from movement as illustrated in Figure HL-3(c)
v = 0 i.e. vu + vd = 0 ⇒ vu = −vd (Eqn HL-16)
Fu = Fd ; F = Fu + Fd = 2 Fd (Eqn HL-17)

(Eqn HL-17) is important as it shows by theory that the pile tip penetration force is at
most twice the pile axial force during driving. Without this dynamic effect, driving of
pile will require a much higher driving force which may damage the pile.

F1d F1u
Upward
Fu wave v1d v1u

vu 0.5Ri

Ri

0.5Ri
Fd
v2d v2u
Fd Fu Fd Fu
vd Downward vu+vd = 0
wave Fu+Fd = 0 F2d F2u

HL-3(a) Speed and Force HL-3(b) Free Pile HL-3(c) Restrained Pile HL-3(d) Action by Shaft
at any section of a Pile Base Base Friction

Figure HL-3 – Pile Forces and Velocities

The actual pile base condition will be between “free” and “restrained”, depending on the
stiffness of the pile base subgrade. Reference is now made to Figure HL-3(d) for the
analysis of side friction. Above and below the section i , the forces and velocities can
be formulated as:

Above the section: F1 = F1u + F1d ; v1 = v1u + v1d ; F1 = − Zv1 (Eqn HL-18)
Below the section : F2 = F2u + F2 d ; v2 = v2u + v2 d ; F2 = Zv2 (Eqn HL-19)

For equilibrium and compatibility Ri = F1 − F2 ; v1 = v2 (Eqn HL-20)

L-4
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HL

As Ri = F1 − F2 = (F1u + F1d ) − (F2u + F2 d ) = (F1u − F2u ) + (F1d − F2 d ) , and solving (Eqn

HL-18) to (Eqn HL-20), (F1u − F2u ) = 0.5 Ri and (F1d − F2 d ) = 0.5 Ri (Eqn HL-21)
implying that Ri is split into 2 equal parts, each of 0.5 Ri . One generates an upward
compressive wave and the other a downward tension wave.

Consider Figure HL-4, illustrating the transmission of waves in the pile shaft with
particular reference to a section at xi below ground. The pile is of length L below
ground, and its head at height H above ground, cross sectional area A , Young’s
Modulus E and density ρ (the last two are for determination of wave speed c by (Eqn
HL-1)). A sensor is installed at ground level.
2L/c

2(H+xi)/c
sensor Time

H
F(t)

xi 0.5Ri

0.5Ri

0.5Ri
L

F(t)
0.5Ri

Figure HL-4 – Wave Transmission in Pile Shaft

When the hammer strikes the pile at its top, only a compressive downward wave is
created with particle velocity v M (t ) = FM (t ) / Z where v M (t ) and FM (t ) are recorded
by the sensor.

When the compressive wave is transmitted to the pile tip which is assumed to be free
after time L / c , a reflective wave (tension wave by which Fu = − Fd = − F and
vu = vd = v ) is generated and reaches the sensor after time 2 L / c . The wave then
subsequently reaches the top level of the pile at which it is reflected back to the sensor at
2(L + H ) / c . So the velocity and force detected by the sensor at time t is due to the
wave reaching the sensor at time t and all the previous waves ( n numbers) reaching
the sensor after reflections at top level and tip of the pile as listed in (Eqn HL-22) and

L-5
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HL

(Eqn HL-23),
1  2L   2L 2H   4L 2H   4L 4H  
vMF (t ) =  F (t ) + F  t −  + Ft − −  + Ft − −  + Ft − −  + .....
Z  c   c c   c c   c c  
 n
 2 jL 2 jH  n  2 jL 2 jH  
=
1
 F (t ) + ∑ F t − − ( j − 1 ) + ∑ F t − c − c   (Eqn HL-22)
Z j =1 c c j =1 
 2 jL 2 jH
( j − 1) + ∑ F t − 2 jL − 2 jH 
n n
FMF (t ) = F (t ) − ∑ F t − − (Eqn HL-23)
j =1  c c  j =1  c c 

As for the side friction R at xi as indicated in Figure HL-4, similar to the generated
upward waves, we can put down
1  1  n  2 x 2 jL 2 jH   1  n  2 xi 2 jL 2 jH 
v MRu (t ) =  − ∑ Ri t − i − −  +  − ∑ Ri t − − − ( j − 1) 
Z  2  j =0  c c c   2  i =0  c c c 
(Eqn HL-24)
1  2 x 2 jL 2 jH   2 x 2 jL 2 jH 
( j − 1) 
n n
FMRu (t ) = ∑ Ri t − i − −  − ∑ Ri t − i − −
2  j =0  c c c  i =0  c c c 
(Eqn HL-25)
If there are N segments each giving friction forces R1 , R2 …… RN , then
− 1  N n  2 xi 2 jL 2 jH  N n  2 xi 2 jL 2 jH 
v MRu (t ) = ∑∑ Ri t − − − + ∑∑ R t − − − ( j − 1)
c  i =1 j =0 
i
2Z  i =1 j =0  c c c c c 
(Eqn HL-26)
1 N n
 2 x 2 jL 2 jH  N n
 2 xi 2 jL 2 jH 
FMRu (t ) = ∑∑ Ri t − i − − − ∑∑ R t − − − ( j − 1)
c  i =1 j =0 
i
2  i =1 j =0  c c c c c 
(Eqn HL-27)
Similarly for the downward waves,
− 1  N n  2 xi 2 jL 2 jH 
( j − 1) + ∑∑ Ri t − 2 xi − 2 jL − 2 jH  
N n
vMRd (t ) = ∑∑ Ri t − − −
2 Z  i =1 j =0  c c c  i =1 j =0  c c c 
(Eqn HL-28)
  2 x 2 jL 2 jH 
( j − 1) − ∑∑ Ri t − 2 xi − 2 jL − 2 jH  
N n N n
FMRd (t ) = ∑∑ Ri t − i −
1
−
2  i=1 j =0  c c c  i=1 j =0  c c c 
(Eqn HL-29)

The signal v M and FM as detected by the sensor is the sum of the above.
vM = v MF + vMRu + vMRd (Eqn HL-30)
FM = FMF + FMRu + FMRd (Eqn HL-31)

Energy loss in the form of radiating damping to the surrounding has been ignored in the
above derivation. So error can be more significant if the testing time is long involving
many time steps.

L-6
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HL

where the signals vM (t1 ) , FM (t1 ) ,

2L
Consider only times at t1 and t1 +
c
 2L   2L 
vM  t1 +  , FM  t1 +  are taken are added up (with the v M multiplied by Z for
 c   c 
matching of units) and by (Eqn HL-22) to (Eqn HL-29), we can arrive at
 2L   2L  N N
 2 L 2 xi 
FM (t1 ) + FM  t1 +  + Zv M (t1 ) − Zv M  t1 +  = ∑ Ri (t1 ) + ∑ Ri  t1 + − 
 c   c  i =1 i =1  c c 
(Eqn HL-32)
 2 L 2 xi 
Assuming Ri is constant, i.e. Ri (t1 ) = Ri  t1 + − 
 c c 
1 N N
 2 L 2 xi  
So the total pile shaft resistance RT = ∑ Ri (t1 ) + ∑ Ri  t1 + − 
2  i =1 i =1  c c 
1  2 L  Z   2 L 
⇒ RT =  FM (t1 ) + FM  t1 +  + vM (t1 ) − vM  t1 + c  (Eqn HL-33)
2  c  2   

(Eqn HL-33) represents the basic equation for the Case Method. However, RT
comprises both the static and dynamic components, i.e.
RT = Rstatic + Rdynamic ⇒ Rstatic = RT − Rdynamic . (Eqn HL-34)
Rstatic is to be found, which is the capacity of the pile during its service life.

Assuming Rdynamic originated from the pile tip and that Rdynamic is directly proportional
to the velocity where the constant of proportionality is a “damping coefficient” J p . That
is
Rdynamic (t ) = J p vtoe (t ) (Eqn HL-35)

When the wave generated by the blow at top reaches the pile tip, we can write
1 N
Ftoe = FM (t ) − ∑ Ri (t ) = FM (t ) − RT (t )
1
(Eqn HL-36)
2 i=1 2
2  1
vtoe = 2vd = 2 toe =  FM (t ) − RT (t ) = [2 FM (t ) − RT (t )]
F 1
(Eqn HL-37)
Z Z 2  Z

Putting J c = J p / Z which is called the “Lumped Case Damping Factor” and

substituting (Eqn HL-33), (Eqn HL-35) and (Eqn HL-37) into (Eqn HL-34)
1  2 L  Z   2 L 
Rstatic (t1 ) =  FM (t1 ) + FM  t1 +  + vM (t1 ) − vM  t1 + 
2  c  2   c 
 1  2 L  Z   2 L  
2 FM (t ) −  FM (t1 ) + FM  t1 +  − vM (t1 ) − vM  t1 +
1
− JcZ ×  
Z 2  c  2   c  
After simplifying, the static component of resistance of the pile at time t1 is

Rstatic (t1 ) =
(1 − J c ) [F (t ) + Zv (t )] + (1 + J c )  F  t + 2 L  − Zv  t + 2 L  (Eqn HL-38)
M 1 M 1  M 1  M 1 
2 2   c   c 

L-7
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HL

HL.3.2 Application of the Case Formula

The Case Formula for the ultimate static resistance of the Pile is as follows :
Rstatic (t1 ) =
(1 − J c ) [F (t ) + Zv (t )] + (1 + J c )  F  t + 2 L  − Zv  t + 2 L  (Eqn HL-38)
M 1  M 1 
2   c 
M 1 M 1
2 c  

By (Eqn HL-38), the ultimate static resistance of the pile at time t1 can be estimated if
the Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA) can produce readings of forces and velocities at time
 2L 
which are FM (t1 ) , vM (t1 ) ; FM  t1 +
2L
t1 (any chosen time) and t1 +  ,
c  c 
 2L 
vM  t1 +  and with the assumed values of J c . In the equation, the following
 c 
symbols are re-iterated :

Rstatic is the static resistance of the pile at pile at time t1 ;

Jc is the “Lumped Case Damping Factor” which need to be assumed or
calibrated;
L is the length of the pile below ground;
c is the wave velocity in the pile shaft and can be determined by c = E / ρ
where E and ρ are respectively the Young’s Modulus and density
(mass, not weight per unit volume) of the pile material;
Z is the impedance of the pile determined by Z = AE / c where A is the
cross sectional area of the pile;
FM (t1 ) is the force reading detected by the PDA sensor at time t1 ;
vM (t1 ) is the velocity reading detected by the PDA sensor at time t1 ;
 2L  2L
FM  t1 +  is the force reading detected by the PDA sensor at time t1 + ;
 c  c
 2L  2L
vM  t1 +  is the velocity reading detected by the PDA sensor at time t1 +
 c  c

A worked example to demonstrate the use of the formula using a hypothetical pile is as
follows :

Data :

The pile is 305×305×223 S450 H-pile

Cross section area of pile : A = 284.8 cm2;
Length of the Pile below ground : L = 46.8 m;
Young’s Modulus of Steel : E = 205000 MPa
Density of Pile : 78.5kN/m3 which is actually 78500 ÷ 9.807 = 8010 kg/m3
Wave velocity in pile shaft is c = E / ρ = 205000 × 106 / 8010 = 5060.6 m/sec;
Impedance Z = AE / c = 0.02848 × 205000000 / 5060.6 = 1153.7 kNsec/m
Time interval 2 L / c = 2 × 46.8 / 5060.6 = 0.0184 sec = 18.4ms;

L-8
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HL

The following graph in Figure HL-5 shows the plot of the measured forces and velocities
at the top level of a pile (length 46.8m) by a typical PDA test during a particular blow by
a hammer. The first peaks of force and velocity indicate the peak values upon the
arrival of the wave at the top without reflection and the later wave forms are results of
superimposition of the upward and downward waves comprising reflected waves. The
second peak in the force wave after time 18.40msec is likely due to superimposition of
the reflected wave generated at the pile tip.

Time interval = 2L/c which is the time for the

wave from the sensor down to the tip of the
pile, reflected and back to the sensor. There is
likely superimposition between the incident
wave and the reflected wave.

Figure HL-5 – Typical Plot of Measured Forces and Velocities of a Pile by PDA Test

The recorded values are tabulated in the following table and the ultimate static resistances
of the pile for J c varying from 0.4 to 0.9 are calculated in accordance with (Eqn HL-38).
In the table, tc1 = t1 + 2 L / c = t1 + 18.4 msec.

Time after 1st

max Force FM (t1 ) vM (t1 ) FM (tc1 ) vM (t c1 ) Static Resistance (kN)

(t1 ) (msec) (kN) (m/sec) (kN) (m/sec) J c = 0.4 J c = 0.5 J c = 0.6 J c = 0.7 J c = 0.8 J c = 0.9
0 7750 6.66 6400 0.53 8682.07 8199.82 7717.56 7235.30 6753.05 6270.79
3.68 3200 2.45 6350 -0.43 6600.23 6641.21 6682.19 6723.16 6764.14 6805.12
7.36 4185 2.88 4923 -1.52 6925.93 6884.38 6842.83 6801.28 6759.73 6718.18
11.04 4050 1.6 3125 -2.17 5708.75 5695.38 5682.01 5668.64 5655.27 5641.90
14.72 6875 0.87 3125 -2.60 6650.85 6563.15 6475.44 6387.74 6300.03 6212.33
18.40 6400 0.53 1750 -2.92 5686.60 5591.97 5497.34 5402.70 5308.07 5213.44
Maximum Resistance 8682.07 8199.82 7717.56 7235.30 6764.14 6805.12

Table HL-1 – Estimation of Ultimate Static Resistance of a Hypothetical Pile by the Case Method

The appropriate value of J c is dependent on the type of soil at the pile toe. GEO
Publication 1/2006 quotes values ranging from 0.05 for clean sand to 1.1 for clay in its
Table 9.2. For an appropriate chosen value of J c , the ultimate static resistance of the

L-9
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HL

pile should be the maximum value identified for choices of t1 as listed in the last row of
Table HL-1.

HL.4 CAPWAP (Case Pile Wave Analysis Programme)

Figure HL-6 shows schematically the “Smith Model” for dynamic analysis of a pile. In
the model the pile is idealized into a series of “lumped masses” connected by elastic
springs. In the wave equation analysis, the set and the ultimate static resistance of the
pile can be calculated under the assumed values of various parameters during driving.

Hammer impact
W1 velocity Vh
Hammer

Cap block Cap block and cushion

block elastic properties
W2
Cushion block

W3

W4

W5

Soil friction on the nth

mass : W6 Mass of each of the “lumped
masses” is ALρ where A, L and ρ
Static + Dynamic are respectively its cross sectional
Static is Ksδn where δn is W7
area, length and density. The
limited to the spring is EA/L where E is the
The predetermined plastic Young’s Modulus of the material.
Pile displacement called
“quake” (q, normally The force in the spring connecting
W8
assumed to be 2.5mm); the nth and (n+1)th will be
(EA/L)(δn+1 – δn) where δn+1 and δn
Dynamic is C×vn where C are the displacements of the
is a constant and vn is the
W9
adjoining nth and (n+1)th masses.
velocity of the element.
Static and Dynamic
combined together
usually expressed as W10

Ksq(1+J×vn) as generally
the quake q will be
exceeded.
W11

W12

Pile end-bearing

Figure HL-6 – Smith’s Idealization of Pile

L-10
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HL

The Smith’s idealization can be applied by solving (Eqn HL-4) mathematically, by

technique such as the finite difference method. If the soil parameters are given, (Eqn
HL-4) can be solved directly to give the pile particle displacements and subsequently the
particle velocity, set and axial force during pile driving. This is an alternative to the use of
Hiley’s formula in determining the set before pile driving. On site, the pile driving force
and velocity of the wave (combined downward and upward component) can be measured
by techniques such as PDA.

In the CAPWAP analysis, the matching of forces and velocities with time between the
measured values and those calculated values by the wave equation (transformed into a
numerical approach developed by Smith (1960)) under various sets of assumed parameters
can be done for a pre-determined hammer blow. Good matching can justify the validity of
the assumed parameters and thus the ultimate static resistance of the pile can be calculated.
The following Figure HL-7 shows good matching between the measured force and the
calculated force and measured velocity with computed velocity using the wave equation (in
numerical form) for an actual blow on a pile.

Figure HL-7 – Typical Graphs showing Good Matching between the Measured Forces and
Calculated Forces with Time

HL.5 Pile Integrity as Revealed by the PDA Test

Another function of the PDA test is the assessment of pile shaft integrity through the
examination of anomalies in the wave forms. Figure HL-8 displays the wave forms of a
force wave (the P wave) and a Z ⋅ v wave (impedance as defined by (Eqn HL-6) times
wave velocity which is a force generated by the wave where the particle velocity is v )
obtained in a PDA test of a steel H-pile. The crossing of the P curve and Z ⋅ v
curves indicates an anomaly and the integrity number is estimated to be 0.8. The depth
of the anomaly below ground can also be located which is the arithmetic product of the
wave speed and the time between the start of the test and the time when the reflected
wave has reached the sensor at the top. The wave speed is a constant for a material
which is 5060 m/sec in steel.

L-11
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HL

The pile is finally extracted from the ground and it is noticed that it is bent as shown in
the photograph also in Figure HL-8, the location of which agrees with the assessment
described above.

.
Figure HL-8 – Wave Forms of P and Z ⋅ v of a Pile undergoing PDA Test and Photograph
showing the Defected Portion

L-12
 Appendix HM

Closed Form Solution for the Bearing Capacity

Factor Nq in accordance with Berezantsev

An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HM

Closed Form Solution for the Bearing Capacity Factor Nq in accordance with Berezantsev

HM.1 General Review of Bearing Capacity Factors for End Bearing Piles

As a well known phenomenon, a pile can develop very substantial end bearing capacity
in soil at depth due to the high surcharge by the weight of the surrounding soil. As a
common design approach by most of the researchers, the ultimate bearing capacity of pile
in cohesionless soil is related to the effective overburden pressure at the pile base and the
pile base area as

Qb  N q 'v Ab (Eqn HM-1)

where  'v is the effective overburden pressure at the pile base

Ab is the pile base area
N q is the bearing capacity factor

While it is easy to determine  'v and Ab , the determination of N q is much more

difficult. Researchers including Terzaghi, Meyerhof, Vesic and Berezantsev had put
forward different formulae, charts for determination of N q as shown in Figure HM-1
based on different failure modes with some of which shown in Figure HM-2.

Figure HM-1 – Bearing Capacity Factor Nq for Circular Foundations

(after Kezdi, 1975)

M-1
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HM

Figure HM-2 – The Shapes of Failure Modes at the Pile Tips as assumed by (a)
Terzaghi and Berezantsev; (b) Meyerhof; (c) Vesic

The N q depends on  which is the angle of shearing resistance of soil, as adopted by

all researchers. But in fact, N q also depends on the L d ratio which is ratio of the
depth of penetration of the pile to its diameter, though the parameter L d has been
ignored in many design charts including Figure HM-1. Nevertheless, Tomlinson (2008)
has included the L d values for the work by Berezantsev and Brinch Hansen as
indicated in Figure HM-3.

Figure HM-3 –Bearing Capacity Factors of Berezantsev and Brinch Hansen

(after Tomlinson 2008)

M-2
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HM

As the original derivation of the formulae for determination of N q were usually lengthy
and complicated, use of these charts was comparatively convenient before the era of
computers. However, it should be even more convenient and accurate to use computer to
calculate the N q values based on the original formulae nowadays. Law & Li (2017)
has outlined the analytical procedure for determination of N q by Berezantsev (1961)
which is reproduced as follows. The analysis is easy to perform on spreadsheets.

HM.2 Analytical Procedure for Nq to Berezantsev’s Approach

Law & Li (2017) has referred to 鄭大同 (1979) which was based on Berezantsev et al
(1961) to derive the following procedures for the determination of N q a function of 
and L d ratio. The detailed derivations of the equations are omitted.

   
   tan   
(i) Determine the l a ratio as l a  2e 4 2 2
sin    (Eqn HM-2)
 4 2
where a  0.5d

(ii) Determine k1  lo d  l d  0.5 where lo  l  a (Eqn HM-3)

  
(iii) Determine   2 tan  tan   (Eqn HM-4)
 4 2
(iv) Determine
 2 
2    L    
 tan     k1 cot    
1    
2
 4 2  d  4 2  k1 
ED  tan   k1  
 1   4 2  1    L 

 
 L    2   
L 
  tan    1   2  
  k1  4 2d  d   d 

(Eqn HM-5)

 k1 2  0.25  E D 2k1 tan  

(v) Determine  T   
 (Eqn HM-6)
k1  0.25
2
 
       tan   
    
 
 
sin    2 e  2 2 2
 cos 
  4 2   2 
(vi) Determine M   (Eqn HM-7)
     2  2  tan  2      
cos   e     sin  
  2    4 2 
  
(vii) Determine   2 tan  tan   (Eqn HM-8)
 4 2

M-3
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HM

 cos0.5   e ( 0.5  0.5 ) tan 0.5  

  
M  1  1 e1.5 tan  
   1 cos  cos0.5  
1  sin       1.5 tan   3   
(viii) Determine Ak   0.77 cot    e    
3   4 2   4 2  



 cot  1.2  0.26 cot   e1.5 tan   1  

 
(Eqn HM-9)
1 1  sin   tan 
(ix) Determine Bk  
3 1  sin 
e 
1.5  M  e tan   (Eqn HM-10)

 1  1 L
(x) Finally, N q    Ak  Bk  T  (Eqn HM-11)
 L / d  2 d

Nevertheless, it should be noted that ED in (Eqn HM-5) cannot be directly calculated

when   30o which will lead to   2 by (Eqn HM-4) and subsequently the sum of
the last 2 terms of ED becomes zero divided by zero which is indeterminate. A good
approximation is to calculate N q as average of   30.05o and   29.95o . An exact
approach is to find the limit of the sum of the last 2 terms (for   30 o only) so that
1     Y  Z ln( X ) 
ED   tan   k1  3 
 1   4 2  X L / d   1 
where X  3.464101615L d   15.050157522
Y  58155.992  40157.374L d   9243.041L d   709.158L d 
2 3

Z  21448.787  14810.631L d   3408.97L d   261.548L d 

2 3

Using the above, Figure HM-4 as follows is constructed which agrees very well with
Tomlinson (2008).

Figure HM-4 – Variation of Nq with  at Different L/d ratios to Berezantsev

M-4
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HM

HM.5 Worked Example HM-1

Find N q if   35o and L d  10

   
   tan   
l a  2e 4 2
sin    4.564
2

 4 2
l d  0.5l a   2.282
k1  l d  0.5  2.782
  
  2 tan  tan    2.690
 4 2
 2 
2    L    
 tan     k1 cot     
1    
2
 4 2  d  4 2  k1 
ED   tan   k1  
 1 
 L 
 
4 2 1    L 
 tan     1   2     2  d  
L
  k1  4 2d  d   

 0.514
 k 2  0.25  ED 2k1 tan  
T   1   0.733

k1  0.25
2
 
       tan   
    
 
sin    2e 2 2   2   cos 
  4 2   2   2.171
M
     2  2  tan  2      
cos   e     sin  
  2    4 2 
  
  2 tan  tan    0.729
 4 2
 cos0.5   e( 0.5  0.5 ) tan 0.5  
  
M  1  1 e1.5 tan  
   1 cos  cos0.5  
1  sin        1.5 tan   3   
Ak    0.77 cot   4  2 e      82.454
3     4 2  



 cot  1.2  0.26 cot   e1.5 tan   1  

 
1 1  sin   tan 
Bk  
3 1  sin 
e  
1.5  M  e tan   75.319

 1  1 L
 Nq    Ak  BkT   59.313
 L / d  2 d

M-5
 Appendix HN

Worked Examples for Determination of Ultimate

Uplift Resistance of Piles

An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HN

Worked Examples for Determination of Ultimate Uplift Resistance of Piles

HN.1 Useful Mathematical Expressions for Determination of Geometry of Anchorages by

Soil and Rock against Uplift of Piles

Due to overlapping of the soil columns and rock cones for piles against uplift as
illustrated by Figures 5.1 and 5.2 of the Code, the shaded portions of the soil column and
rock cone on the top right portion of Figure HN-1 should be deducted from calculation of
effective weight for a pile against uplift. Mathematical expressions for the
determination of the geometric volumes of the overlapped portions are presented in the
first part of this appendix.

R Ro R

r θ
D
Plan area of Soil Column
above Rock
Overlapped area between 2 adjacent
r d Overlapped
circular piles (above rock head
Portion of
stratum) y Rock Cone
dcotα

R − y tαn α
d − y tαn α
α

Elevation of r
Rock Cone

Horizontal Section at y
below Junction
between Soil Column
and Rock Cone

Figure HN-1 – Geometrical Shapes due to Overlapping of Soil Columns and Rock Cones of
Two Adjacent Circular Piles

Consider a circular pile with R as its radius of the soil column as shown in Figure 5.1
of the Code. If its soil column overlaps with another pile of radius of soil column Ro
with centre to centre distance D as shown in the top left portion of Figure HN-1, the
distance r can be determined through the application of the cosine rule as

N-1
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HN

R 2 + D 2 − Ro
2
r = R cosθ = (Eqn HN-1)
2D

Referring to the top right portion of Figure HN-1, the area of shaded portion is

 R2 − r 2 
As = R (2θ ) − r R − r = R sin
1 2 2 2 2 −1   − r R2 − r 2 (Eqn HN-2)
2  R 
 

The volume of the overlapped portion of the soil column is

Vs = As L (Eqn HN-3)

Below the rock head level, the overlapped portion will be that beyond a vertical plane at
r from the centre a height of d cot α as illustrated in Figure HN-2, with α limited to
30o by the Code. Consider an “elementary slice” at depth y beneath rock head
stratum, the radius of the elementary slice is R − y tαn α and the width beyond
“touching line” with the adjacent circular pile is d − y tαn α as illustrated in Figure
HN-2. So the area of the overlapped portion by (Eqn HN-2) for one pile is

 (R − y tan a )2 − r 2 
A( y ) = [R − y tan a ] sin 
−1
−r (R − y tan a )2 − r 2
2
 R − y tan a 
 

The volume of the elementary slice will be A( y )dy . Integrating over the height of
overlapping of d cot α , the volume of the overlapping portion of the rock cone is

d cot α
Vr = ∫ A( y )dy
0

Analytically, the result is

cot α  3  r   R2 − r 2  
Vr = r ln  + R 3 sin −1   − 2 Rr R 2 − r 2  (Eqn HN-4)
3  R− R −r
2 2
  R  
  

Nevertheless, an estimate can be obtained by treating the overlapping portion as a

pyramid which results in a smaller value and subsequently a smaller deduction for the
final effective weight, so

d cot α
Vr ≈ As (Eqn HN-5)
3
where As is taken from (Eqn HN-2).

N-2
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HN

The above geometric expressions can be used to evaluate the volume of soil columns and
rock cones as required by clause 5.3.3 of the Code.

HN.2 Worked Example HN-1 – Ultimate Uplift Resistance of a Single Large Diameter
Bored Pile by Weight of Rock Cone and Soil Column
GRL

GWL
Pile Loading

D.L. = 30000kN
Dmin = 26000kN
LL = 12000kN
Wind W = 12000kN
Uplift, U = 14500kN
V1
d1 = 35m
Density of Soil taken as 19kN/m3
r1
Density of Rock taken as 22 kN/m3
Density of concrete taken as 24.5kN/m3
Soil
Density of water taken as 9.8kN/m3

Ground Water Level : at Underside of

Pile Cap

V2 d2 = 4.5m Rock anchoring the pile is Grade 1(c)

Grade 1(c)
30o d3
rock
2.5m

Figure HN-2 – Worked Example for Checking

Uplift of a Large Diameter Bored Pile

Check for Allowable Bond Resistance to Table 2.2 of the Code (under permanent tension
condition)
Allowable Bond Resistance from Rock Rbond = 2.5 × π × 4.5 × 350 = 12370.02kN

Check for Ground Resistance to Figure H5.3(a)

From the above Figure HN-2 d3 = 2500 ÷ 2 ÷ tan30o = 2165.06mm
r1 = (4500 + 2165.06) × tan30o = 3848mm
Soil Column Volume V1 = (3.8482 – 1.252) × π × 35 = 1456.32 m3
Rock Cone Net Volume
V2 = [(3.8482 × (4.5 + 2.165) – 1.252 × 2.165)] / 3 × π – 1.252 × 4.5 × π = 77.72 m3
Buoyant Weight of Soil Column W’1 = V1 × (19 – 9.8) = 13398.14kN
Buoyant Weight of Rock Cone W’2 = V2 × (22 – 9.8) = 948.18kN
Buoyant Weight of Pile W’p = 1.252 × π × (35 + 4.5) × (24.5 – 9.8) = 2850.26 kN
W’1 + W’2 = 14346.32 kN

N-3
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HN

Ultimate Anchorage Resistance Ru = W’1 + W’2 + W’p = 17197kN

Check for Ultimate Anchorage and Allowable Anchorage to Cl. 5.1.6 of the Code
Dmin + 0.9Ru – 2.0Ia – 1.5Ua – 1.5W = 26000 + 0.9 × 17197 – 2 × 0 – 1.5 × 14500 – 1.5 ×
12000 = 1727 kN > 0

HN.3 Worked Example HN-2 – Ultimate Uplift Resistance of Group of Large Diameter
Bored Piles by Effective Weight of Soil Column and Rock Cone

Consider a group of 4 large diameter bored piles, each of same geometry as in Worked
Example HN-2 with centre to centre 6.0m as shown in Figure HN-3.

6m

6m

Figure HN-3 – Overlapping of Soil Columns and Rock Cones of 4 Large Diameter Bored
Piles for Worked Example HN-2

Consider one single pile, the volumes of the overlapped portion of the soil column and
rock cone of a pile are to be worked out.

By (Eqn HN-1), the distance r is calculated as (the radius of the soil column is
r1 = R = 3.848 m as per calculation in Worked Example HN-1)

R 2 + D 2 − Ro 3.8482 + 62 − 3.8482
2
r= = = 3m
2D 2×6

(the symbols being defined in Figure HN-1. It can readily be seen that r = 0.5 D if
R = Ro )

By (Eqn HN-2), the area of the overlapped portion in the soil column is

N-4
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HN

 R2 − r 2 
As = R 2 sin −1   − r R 2 − r 2 = 2.791 m2;
 R 
 

By (Eqn HN-3), the volume of an overlapped portion soil column is

Vs = As L = 2.791× 35 = 97.685 m3;

As there are 2 overlaps, the total volume of soil to be deducted is 97.685 × 2 = 195.37 m3
and the weight of the soil column is

Ws = 195.37 × (19 − 9.8) = 1797.404 kN

By (Eqn HN-4), volume of an overlapped portion of the rock cone is

cot α  3  r   R2 − r 2  
Vr = r ln  + R 3 sin −1   − 2 Rr R 2 − r 2  = 1.6 m3;
3  R− R −r
2 2
  R  
  

Or by (Eqn HN-5),
d cot α
Vr ≈ As = 1.366 m3
3

The weight of the rock cone to be deducted (again 2 no.) is

Wr = 1.6 × (22 − 9.8) × 2 = 39.04 kN.

So total weight to be deducted as the anchorage of a pile becomes

Ws + Wr = 1797.404 + 39.04 = 1836.444 kN

So the corrected weight for anchorage by soil and rock is

17197 − 1836 = 15361 kN

HN.4 Worked Example HN-3 – Uplift Resistance of Driven H-Pile by Frictional

Resistance between Soil and Pile Surface – Effective Stress Method

A driven H-pile (305×305×223 kg/m) 46m long encounters soil of N-values as shown in
Table HN-1. Adopting the Effective Stress Method τ s = βs v ' capped at 120kPa in
accordance with clause 5.3.3(3)(ii) of the Code, Without trial pile, β = 0.2 , the ultimate
skin friction against uplift under transient tension worked out is worked out by Table
HN-1.

N-5
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HN

Depth of Unit Skin Friction Force

Pile Below σv' Friction per unit Pile Loading
N-value τ s = βs v '
Ground (kPa) Perimeter of GWL
(m) (kPa) Pile (kN/m) D.L. = 4500kN
0 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 Dmin = 3600kN
2 0 18.4 0.00 0.00 LL = -500kN (adverse)
Wind Wk = 1300kN
4 11 36.8 0.00 0.00
Uplift, Ua = 1800kN
6 11 55.2 0.00 0.00
8 51 73.6 14.72 29.44
10 50 92.0 18.40 36.80
12 15 110.4 0.00 0.00
14 41 128.8 25.76 51.52
16 48 147.2 29.44 58.88
18 54 165.6 33.12 66.24
20 62 184.0 36.80 73.60 Unit weight of soil
22 69 202.4 40.48 80.96 γ = 19 kN/m3
24 75 220.8 44.16 88.32 < 20kN/m3;
26 60 239.2 47.84 95.68
28 58 257.6 51.52 103.04 Effective weight of soil
30 59 276.0 55.20 110.40 γ ' = 19 − 9.8 = 9.2 kN/m3
32 68 294.4 58.88 117.76 < 10kN/m3
34 71 312.8 62.56 125.12
36 73 331.2 66.24 132.48
38 77 349.6 69.92 139.84
40 81 368.0 73.60 147.20
42 80 386.4 77.28 154.56
44 83 404.8 80.96 161.92
σ v ' = 9.2 × 46 = 423.2 kPa
46 82 423.2 84.64 169.28
Sum 1943.04

Table HN-1 – Computation of Ultimate Uplift Resistance of a Driven Pile (Effective Stress
Method)

As the perimeter of the pile is 1.326m (the enclosing rectangle for the pile section), the
total ultimate tension capacity against uplift for transient load on the pile is Ru-transient =
1943.04kN/m × 1.326m = 2576kN.

The ultimate tension capacity against uplift for permanent load is Ru-permanent = 2576/2 =
1288kN.

Taking a factor of safety = 3, the allowable uplift resistance of the pile is Ra-transient =
2576/3 = 859kN for transient load and Ra-permanent = 1288/3 = 429kN for permanent load.

Check for Ultimate Anchorage and Allowable Anchorage to Cl. 5.1.6 of the Code

By [2.0Ia + 1.5Ua(or 1.1Up) – Dmin]/Ru-permanent + 1.5Wk/Ru-transient = 0.83 < 0.9

By [Ia + Ua – Dmin]/Ra-permanent + Wk/Ra-transient = –1.51 < 1

So both conditions are satisfied.

N-6
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HN

HN.5 Worked Example HN-4 – Uplift Resistance of Driven H-Pile by Frictional

Resistance between Soil and Pile Surface – Empirical Method by SPT N-values

A driven H-pile (305×305×223 kg/m) 46m long encounters soil of N-values as shown in
Table HN-2. Without trial pile, the empirical correlation with SPT N-values as the
ultimate value τ s = 0.75 N is adopted in accordance with clause 5.3.3(3)(iii) of the Code
with τ s capped at 60kPa (or SPT N capped at 80), the ultimate skin friction against
uplift under transient tension is worked out by Table HN-2.

Depth of Friction Force

Unit Skin
Pile Below Actual Design per unit Pile Loading
Friction
Ground N-Value N-value Perimeter of
(kPa)
(m) Pile (kN/m) D.L. = 4500kN
0 0 0 0 0 Dmin = 3600kN
2 0 0 0 0 LL = 500kN (adverse)
4 11 11 8.25 16.5 Wind Wk = 1300kN
6 11 11 8.25 16.5 Uplift, Ua = 1800kN
8 51 51 38.25 76.5
10 50 50 37.5 75
12 15 15 11.25 22.5
14 41 41 30.75 61.5
16 48 48 36 72
18 54 54 40.5 81
20 62 62 46.5 93
22 69 69 51.75 103.5
24 75 75 56.25 112.5
26 60 60 45 90
28 58 58 43.5 87
30 59 59 44.25 88.5
32 68 68 51 102
34 71 71 53.25 106.5
36 73 73 54.75 109.5
38 77 77 57.75 115.5
40 81 80 60 120
42 80 80 60 120
44 83 80 60 120
46 82 80 60 60
Sum 1849.5
Table HN-2 – Computation of Ultimate Uplift Resistance of a Driven Pile (SPTN Values)

As the perimeter of the pile is 1.326m, the total ultimate tension capacity against uplift
for transient load on the pile is Ru-transient = 1849.5kN/m × 1.326m = 2452.44kN.

The ultimate tension capacity against uplift for permanent load is Ru-permanent = 2452.44/2
= 1226.22kN.

Taking a factor of safety = 3, the allowable uplift resistance of the pile is Ra-transient =
2452.44/3 = 817.48kN for transient load and Ra-permanent = 1226.22/3 = 407.74kN for
permanent load.

N-7
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HN

Check for Ultimate Anchorage and Allowable Anchorage to Cl. 5.1.6 of the Code

By [2.0Ia + 1.5Ua(or 1.1Up) – Dmin]/Ru-permanent + 1.5Wk/Ru-transient = 0.88 < 0.9

By [Ia + Ua – Dmin]/Ra-permanent + Wk/Ra-transient = –1.59 < 1

So both conditions are satisfied.

HN.6 Worked Example HN-5 – Effective weight of the Soil Columns and Cones of a
Group of Floating Piles

The effective weight of the soil columns and cones of a pile group comprising 9 driven
H-piles (305×305×223 kg/m) against uplift is as shown in Figure HN-4. The piles are
4m centre to centre apart. With the B and D dimension of the H-pile as B = 325.7mm and
D = 337.9mm, the plan dimensions of the overlapping rectangles and circles are as shown
in Figure HN-4.

Lot boundary
6.163m 4m 4m
6m 4.163m 4.163m 6m

10m SPT N < 30

6m
Level X

4.169m
SPT N ≥ 30
8m
6m Level Y
4.169m

24m
6m
4

(2-0.163)
1
2m ×4=7.348m
2m

4.169m

4.169m
Level Y

Figure HN-4 – Pile Layout for Worked Example HN-5

N-8
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HN

Ignoring the lot boundary first, the plan area of the soil column at ground level is
π × 62
8.326 × 8.338 + 2 × 8.326 × 6 + 2 × 8.338 × 6 + 4 × = 382.488 m2
4

So volume of the soil column above Level X is 382.488 × 10 = 3824.88 m3.

The soil volume beneath Level X can be regarded as comprising a square cylinder, 4
prisms and 4 quadrant circular cones at the corners as shown in Level Y in Figure HN-4.
So the volume is
1 1 1 1
8.326 × 8.338 × 24 + 2 × × 6 × 8.326 × 24 + 2 × × 6 × 8.338 × 24 + 4 × × × π × 62 × 24
2 2 4 3
= 1666.133 + 1198.944 + 1200.672 + 904.779
= 4970.528 m3

However, there are 4 “pyramids” of plan area (4 − 0.326 )(4 − 0.338) = 13.454 m2 and
height 7.348m among the pile tip that need to be deducted. The volume of these 4
“pyramids” is
1
4 × × 13.454 × 7.348 = 131.813 m3
3

Adding up, volume of soil without consideration of the lot boundary is

3824.88 + 4970.528 − 131.813 = 8663.587 m3

If the lot boundary is considered, volume beyond the lot boundary is to be determined for
deduction. The plan area of the portion is (with the use of (Eqn HN-2)

 62 − 42 
8.338 × 2 + 62 sin −1   − 4 62 − 42 = 29.066 m2, giving a volume of
 6 
 
29.066 × 10 = 290.66 m3 above Level X.

For the portion below Level X comprising a prism and a cut cone with volume that can
be calculated by (Eqn HN-4), the volume is

1 4  4  3  62 − 42  
× 8.338 × 2 × 8 + 4 3 ln  + 6 sin −1   − 2 × 6 × 4 62 − 42 
3    
2 6− 6 −4  6
2 2
  
= 104.842 m3.

So volume of soil beyond lot boundary to be deducted is 290.66 + 104.842 = 395.502 m3.

Net soil volume after deduction of the portion beyond lot boundary is
8663.587 − 395.502 = 8268.085 m3.

If the buoyant unit weight of soil is 19 − 9.8 = 9.2 kN/m3, the total soil weight for
balancing uplift is 8268.085 × 9.2 = 76066.392 kN.

N-9
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HN

Shared among the 9 identical piles, the effective weight available for each pile against
uplift is 76066.392 / 9 = 8541.82 kN.

As the effective weight available for each pile is greater than the structural capacity of the
pile, the bond friction of soil on pile shaft is the controlling factor in this case.

N-10
 Appendix HO

Determination of Horizontal Displacement of Pile

Cap under Lateral Loads in accordance with the

Elastic Continuum Theory

An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HO

Determination of Horizontal Displacement of Pile Cap under Lateral Loads in

accordance with the Elastic Continuum Theory

HO.1 Theoretical Background

In determining the horizontal displacement of a pile cap under lateral loads in

accordance with Elastic Theory, the following assumptions are made :

(i) Mindlin’s Equations and their integrated forms (Vaziri et al 1982) which are
applicable to calculations of displacements inside a semi-infinite homogeneous
elastic medium due to loads applied in the medium are adopted for estimating
pile cap lateral displacement due to lateral loads. The use of Mindlin’s
Equations are considered to give conservative estimations as long as parameters
of the upper layer of soil embedding the pile cap only are used in the estimation,
as the deeper and generally harder soil beneath will tend to reduce the soil
movement;

(ii) Basically the original form of Mindlin’s Equation which calculates horizontal
displacement  x at any point in a horizontal direction in a semi-infinite
homogeneous elastic medium due to a horizontal point load Q acting in the
same direction and in the same medium is used. By considering the vertical
face of the pile cap as exerting a serious of point loads on soil idealized as an
elastic medium, and as we are only interested in the displacement of the soil
immediately at the wall face, we can simplify Mindlin’s Equation as follows :

Q  3  4  1 2cz 41   1  2  

x       (Eqn HO-1)
16G 1     R1 R2 R23 R2  z  c 

where G and  are the shear modulus and Poisson’s ratio of the soil and the
other dimensional symbols are explained in Figure HO-1.

Ground Level
c

c R2 Pile Cap
Vertical Face
Point of z
Q Pile Cap
Application Point with Vertical
of Load Q horizontal Face
R1 displacement
x as created
by Q as per
(Eqn HO-1)
Wall Front Elevation Side Elevation

Figure HO-1 – Illustration of the Use of (Eqn HO-1)

Using the coordinate system as shown in Figure HO-2, the lateral deflection at

O-1
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HO

any point u, v  due to load from the rectangular pile cap face can be expressed
as summation of effects due to all points  x, y  on the face as

qdxdy  3  4  1 2cz 41   1  2  

c1 0.5b

 u ,v    16G1     R1  R2  R23  R2  z  c  (Eqn HO-2)

c2  0.5b

where q is the load per unit area at the point  x, y 

c  0.5c1  c2   y ; z  0.5c1  c2   v
R1  x  u 2   y  v 2 ; R2  x  u 2  c1  c2  y  v 2
Ground Level
c2

c1 dy (x,y)

dx
(u,v)

b/2 b/2

Figure HO-2 – Coordinate System for Calculation of Lateral Displacement of Pile Cap

HO.2 Calculation of Lateral Displacement of any point due to a Uniformly Distributed

Horizontal Load

(Eqn HO-2) can be used to calculate the lateral deflections due to a rectangular patch
of lateral load of any load intensity as long as the elastic limits of the soil medium are
not exceeded. If the load is a uniformly distributed load, q in (Eqn HO-2) is a
constant. Poulos and Davis (1980) have quoted the closed form solutions by
Douglas and Davis (1964) for the upper and lower corners of a rectangular patch of a
uniformly distributed load. The deflection of any point X within the rectangular
patch can therefore be determined by the summation of effects due to the 4 rectangles
as demonstrated in Figure HO-3 which is extracted from Law & Cheng (2014).

Horizontal Displacement of X is
A B
 X   xL ( A)   xL ( B )   xU (C )   xU ( D )
X where  xL( A) is the displacement at the lower
C D corner of rectangle A due to u.d.l. acting on A etc.

Figure HO-3 – Calculation of Horizontal Displacement of a point X on the Front Face of a

Uniformly Distributed Load acting on a Vertical Plane within a Semi-infinite
Homogenous Elastic medium

O-2
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HO

Yet the algebraic expressions for the solutions are very lengthy. So instead Law &
Cheng (2014) have evaluated the double integral in (Eqn HO-2) directly by numerical
methods with the aid of modern computers which is simpler in formulation.

HO.3 Worked Example HO-1

As demonstrated by the following Worked Example HO-1, the method is applied to

calculate the lateral deflections at various points due to a rectangular patch of load 8m
wide and 2m deep with a uniformly distributed load intensity of 50kPa acting in an
elastic medium of Young’s modulus 5000kPa and Poisson’s ratio 0.35. The
rectangular patch is divided into 21 equally spaced grids in both the horizontal and
vertical direction and the deflections of the 441 nodes in total are calculated and the
deflection contours are plotted in Figure HO-4. The deflections are in mm. The
displacement is a maximum at 20.93mm at 14.4mm above the centre, a minimum at
the lower corners at 11.39mm and the overall average value is 18.19mm. Greater
deflections are found near the centre which is obvious as it is the area under greater
superimposition of stresses.

Figure HO-4 – Lateral Deflection Contour of a Vertical Plane Exerting u.d.l.

in a Semi-infinite Homogenous Elastic Medium

HO.4 “Rigid Face” Analysis

However, a pile cap exerting a horizontal load on the soil medium normally has a
very large in-plane stiffness such that its front face cannot deform as discussed in
HO.2 and HO.3. Effectively the plane section containing the front face of the pile
cap should remain plane after soil movement named by Law & Cheng as “rigid face”.
In order to satisfy Mindlin’s Equations, it follows that the horizontal pressures on the
front face of the pile cap should vary such that the horizontal movements of the soil
remain intact with the cap in a vertical plane.

The proposed approach is based on numerical analysis. The vertical face of the pile
cap confronting the soil is divided into a number of equal rectangular elements each
of width b' and depth d ' , centre at  y i , z i  and each having a uniform pressure
pi to be determined as shown in Figure HO-5 extracted from Law & Cheng (2014).
The displacement at the centre of the element  i will be the summation of effects
from loads of itself and all other elements.

O-3
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HO

c2 y

b’

c1 ( xi , yi ) d’

Figure HO-5 – Front face of a Pile Cap divided into a Number of Equal Rectangular
Elements

The reduced form of the Mindlin’s Equation as listed in (Eqn HO-1) in Figure HO-1 for
a point load will be used to calculate the contribution to the displacement of element i
due to an element j by considering the element j to be exerting a point load of
magnitude p j b'd ' .
 3  4  1 2 zi z j 41   1  2  
p j b' d '
 ij       (Eqn HO-3)
16G 1     R1 R2 R2
3
R2  zi  z j 
where zi  0.5c1  c2   yi ; z j  0.5c1  c2   y j

R1  x  x   y  y 
i j
2
i j
2
; R2  x  x   c  c
i j
2
1 2  yi  y j 
2

(Eqn HO-3) can be re-written as

 ij  f ij p j (Eqn HO-4)
b' d '  3  4  1 2 zi z j 41   1  2   
where f ij       (Eqn HO-5)
16G 1     R1 R2 R2
3
R2  zi  z j 
is the interaction coefficient between the two elements i and j .

However, direct application of (Eqn HO-4) to calculate effect on element i due to the
load on itself cannot be carried out as R1 will be zero. So the integrated forms of the
equations (Eqn HO-2) and (Eqn HO-3) in Figure HO-2 have to be used with the
average displacement approach as discussed in para. HO.2 with the approximation that
the pressure is uniform within the small area represented by the joint. By this
approach, the displacements at the four corners and the centre of the element i are
calculated by the integrated forms of the equation and the weighted mean value is then
taken as  ii due to a unit load applied to the element. The coefficient f ii is
ii
obtained from f ii 
pi
So the total deflection at the centre of an element i is
 i  f ii pi   f ij p j
i j

O-4
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HO

 f ii pi   f ij p j   i  0 (Eqn HO-6)
i j

However,  i follows a linear deflection. Let the deflection at the centre of the front
face of the cap be  0 , then the deflection of the centre of element i is  0  my i
where m is a constant. So (Eqn HO-6) can be re-written as
f ii pi   f ij p j   0  myi  0 (Eqn HO-7)
i j

N equations will be formulated if the pile cap front face is divided into N elements.
For summation of the total force, under the application of the total external force P
P
 pib' d '  P   pi  b' d ' (Eqn HO-8)
For summation of the total moment about the centre under the action of the external
moment (torsional about a vertical axis through the centre of the pile cap face)
M
 pib' d ' yi  M   pi yi  b' d ' (Eqn HO-9)
From (Eqn HO-7) to (Eqn HO-9), there will be N  2 equations solving N  2
unknowns which comprise the N nos. of pi , the centre deflection  0 and the
constant m . With determination of  0 and m , the deflection profile of the whole
pile cap vertical face can be determined. Re-arranging (Eqn HO-7) to (Eqn HO-9) in
matrix form, (Eqn HO-10) is formulated as follows :

 y1 y2 y3 . . . y N 1 yN 0 0   p1  M 
 1 1 1 . . . 1 1 0 
0  p2   P
    
 f1,1 f1, 2 f1,3 . . . f1, N 1 f1, N 1 y1   p3  0
     
 f 2,1 f 2, 2 f 2,3 . . . f 2, N 1 f 2, N 1 y2   .  1 0
 
 . . . . . . . . . .   .  b' d '  0 
     
 . . . . . . . . . .   pN  0
 . . . . . . . . . .   0  0
     
 f N ,1 f N ,2 f N ,3 . . . f N , N 1 f N ,N  1 y N   m   0 
(Eqn HO-10)

HO.5 Worked Example HO-2

The approach as described in HO.4 is applied to the solution of the pile cap face as
described in Worked Example HO-1. For comparison purpose, the applied load on
the face is first set to 50  8  2  800 kN which is the same as the applied load on the
“flexible face”.

The deflection becomes a unique value of 16.72mm which is smaller than the average
value of 18.19mm arrived in Worked Example HO-1.

However, very high pressures at the corners and edges result and the pressures
increase with an increasing number of “meshes” (division of the face in a number of

O-5
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HO

grids). Law & Cheng (2014) points out that the pressures should be at infinity
which is a common phenomenon in the application of continuum theory. However,
in actual practice, the soil would “yield” at certain stress levels and therefore another
parameter, which is the yield stress of soil, should be introduced into the calculation.
As an acceptable approach, the passive resistance of the soil which is dependent on
the vertical effective stresses in the soil can be used to determine the yield stress.

The next consideration is on the on-plan rotation of the cap. For a “rigid face”, to
resist a pure torsional moment, the pressures on different halves of the face (the two
halves being formed by a vertical line through the centre of the face) are in opposite
directions. While soil cannot sustain tensile stresses, the opposite pressures have to
be derived from compression on the far end of the cap. As it is unlikely that there
are interactions between the pressures at the opposite faces of the cap as they are far
apart through a solid cap structure, the f i , j coefficients in (Eqn HO-10) should be
set to zero if point i and point j belong to different faces. By this modification,
applying a torsional moment of M  1200 kNm to the face, the rotation is
m  0.002297 rad. This is obtained by setting M  1200 in (Eqn HO-10) and
P  0 in addition to modification of the f coefficients. Again peak stresses occur
at the edges of the face. Law & Cheng (2014) however conclude that the elastic
analysis as described above is the most conservative approach.

HO.6 Parametric Studies of Pile Cap Displacement

In order to eliminate the use of yield stresses of the soil so as to simplify the problem,
Law & Cheng (2014) discuss that conservative results for the cap movements
comprising translation and rotation can be achieved by (i) adopting the average
deflection due to a uniformly distributed pressure on a vertical face as the cap moves
laterally; (ii) adopting the rigid face approach for the determination of rotation despite
the occurrence of the high stresses along the edges and the corners. Based on this
approach and the assumptions, Law & Cheng (2014) prepared tables containing
coefficients for determination of translational and on-plan rotational stiffnesses of a
pile cap which are reproduced in Tables HO-1(a) to (e) and HO-2(a) to (e). By the
term “translational stiffness” of a pile cap, we refer to the horizontal shear acting on a
pile cap required to produce unit translation and similarly for the rotational stiffness,
it is the on-plan moment required to produce unit rotation. In these tables, the
notations for determination of the depth and dimensions of the pile cap face by Poulos
2c 2c
& Davis (1980) are used by which K1  1 and K 2  2 where c1 , c2 are
b b
defined in Figure HO-2 and b is the width of the cap. In Tables HO-1(a) to (e), the
coefficients obtained should be multiplied by bG to arrive at the estimated
translation stiffness while those for Tables HO-2(a) to (e) be multiplied by b3G to
obtain the rotational stiffness.

2  3.5 2  1.5
As a check, for Worked Example HO-1, K1   0.875 , K 2   0.375 ,
8 8
the coefficient for translation as interpolated in Figure HO-1(b) is 2.960. When this

O-6
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HO

E 5000
coefficient is multiplied by bG , where G    1851.85 kN/m2,
21    2  1  0.35
the translation stiffness is 2.960  8  1851.85  43851.85 kN/m. Upon application
of the horizontal shear of 8  2  50  800 kN, a lateral deflection of
800
 0.01824 m or 18.24mm is obtained, which is very close to the value
43851.85
obtained by direct analysis of 18.19mm. For rotation, the coefficient interpolated in
Table HO-2(b) is 0.5446 for Worked Example HO-2. When this coefficient is
multiplied by b3G , the rotational stiffness is 0.5446  83  1851.85  516361 kNm.
Upon application of the torsional moment of 1200kNm, the rotation is
1200
 0.002324 rad which is again close to the value obtained by direct analysis
516361
of 0.002297rad.

K2 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1
K1
0.1 1.356 – – – – – – – – – – –
0.2 1.674 1.615 – – – – – – – – – –
0.3 1.929 1.903 1.745 – – – – – – – – –
0.4 2.154 2.139 2.039 1.832 – – – – – – – –
0.5 2.359 2.351 2.276 2.137 1.896 – – – – – – –
0.6 2.551 2.546 2.487 2.378 2.211 1.946 – – – – – –
0.7 2.735 2.732 2.681 2.591 2.458 2.270 1.986 – – – – –
0.8 2.912 2.909 2.864 2.786 2.674 2.523 2.319 2.019 – – – –
0.9 3.080 3.081 3.040 2.970 2.871 2.742 2.576 2.359 2.046 – – –
1.0 3.245 3.245 3.210 3.145 3.056 2.942 2.800 2.622 2.393 2.070 – –
1.1 3.406 3.406 3.373 3.315 3.232 3.129 3.002 2.848 2.660 2.423 2.090 –
1.2 3.563 3.563 3.532 3.478 3.404 3.306 3.191 3.053 2.890 2.694 2.448 2.107

Table HO-1(a) Coefficient of Translation Soil Poisson’s Ratio   0.3

K2 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1
K1
0.1 1.426 – – – – – – – – – – –
0.2 1.755 1.686 – – – – – – – – – –
0.3 2.018 1.984 1.818 – – – – – – – – –
0.4 2.250 2.229 2.123 1.908 – – – – – – – –
0.5 2.462 2.448 2.369 2.223 1.974 – – – – – – –
0.6 2.661 2.651 2.587 2.474 2.300 2.026 – – – – – –
0.7 2.850 2.842 2.788 2.694 2.556 2.362 2.067 – – – – –
0.8 3.033 3.026 2.978 2.896 2.780 2.624 2.413 2.102 – – – –
0.9 3.209 3.204 3.160 3.087 2.985 2.851 2.680 2.455 2.131 – – –
1.0 3.379 3.375 3.336 3.268 3.177 3.058 2.911 2.727 2.491 2.155 – –
1.1 3.545 3.541 3.506 3.445 3.359 3.252 3.121 2.962 2.768 2.522 2.176 –
1.2 3.707 3.704 3.670 3.614 3.537 3.436 3.317 3.175 3.007 2.803 2.549 2.195

Table HO-1(b) Coefficient of Translation Soil Poisson’s Ratio   0.35

O-7
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HO

K2 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1
K1
0.1 1.505 – – – – – – – – – – –
0.2 1.847 1.768 – – – – – – – – – –
0.3 2.119 2.078 1.905 – – – – – – – – –
0.4 2.360 2.332 2.222 1.998 – – – – – – – –
0.5 2.579 2.560 2.477 2.326 2.067 – – – – – – –
0.6 2.786 2.770 2.704 2.586 2.407 2.122 – – – – – –
0.7 2.982 2.970 2.912 2.816 2.673 2.473 2.167 – – – – –
0.8 3.171 3.160 3.110 3.026 2.907 2.745 2.527 2.204 – – – –
0.9 3.355 3.344 3.299 3.224 3.119 2.982 2.805 2.572 2.235 – – –
1.0 3.532 3.524 3.482 3.414 3.319 3.198 3.046 2.856 2.611 2.261 – –
1.1 3.705 3.697 3.660 3.596 3.510 3.400 3.265 3.101 2.899 2.644 2.284 –
1.2 3.874 3.867 3.831 3.774 3.693 3.592 3.469 3.322 3.149 2.937 2.673 2.304

Table HO-1(c) Coefficient of Translation Soil Poisson’s Ratio   0.4

K2 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1
K1
0.1 1.596 – – – – – – – – – – –
0.2 1.952 1.865 – – – – – – – – – –
0.3 2.235 2.188 2.009 – – – – – – – – –
0.4 2.485 2.453 2.339 2.108 – – – – – – – –
0.5 2.715 2.691 2.606 2.451 2.183 – – – – – – –
0.6 2.930 2.911 2.843 2.723 2.539 2.243 – – – – – –
0.7 3.135 3.119 3.062 2.963 2.817 2.610 2.292 – – – – –
0.8 3.333 3.319 3.268 3.183 3.061 2.895 2.669 2.333 – – – –
0.9 3.525 3.512 3.466 3.390 3.284 3.143 2.960 2.719 2.367 – – –
1.0 3.711 3.700 3.657 3.589 3.493 3.370 3.214 3.017 2.762 2.397 – –
1.1 3.891 3.882 3.845 3.780 3.693 3.581 3.443 3.274 3.065 2.799 2.422 –
1.2 4.069 4.060 4.025 3.967 3.885 3.782 3.657 3.507 3.327 3.107 2.832 2.445

Table HO-1(d) Coefficient of Translation Soil Poisson’s Ratio   0.45

K2 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1
K1
0.1 1.702 – – – – – – – – – – –
0.2 2.074 1.983 – – – – – – – – – –
0.3 2.371 2.321 2.138 – – – – – – – – –
0.4 2.633 2.599 2.485 2.248 – – – – – – – –
0.5 2.874 2.849 2.764 2.608 2.332 – – – – – – –
0.6 3.101 3.081 3.014 2.893 2.706 2.399 – – – – – –
0.7 3.317 3.300 3.244 3.146 2.999 2.786 2.455 – – – – –
0.8 3.525 3.511 3.462 3.379 3.256 3.087 2.854 2.502 – – – –
0.9 3.727 3.714 3.671 3.597 3.492 3.349 3.162 2.911 2.542 – – –
1.0 3.925 3.912 3.873 3.807 3.713 3.588 3.429 3.226 2.961 2.577 – –
1.1 4.116 4.107 4.070 4.009 3.924 3.812 3.672 3.498 3.282 3.004 2.607 –
1.2 4.303 4.295 4.263 4.205 4.127 4.025 3.898 3.745 3.559 3.331 3.042 2.633

Table HO-1(e) Coefficient of Translation Soil Poisson’s Ratio   0.5

O-8
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HO

K2 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1
K1
0.1 0.188 – – – – – – – – – – –
0.2 0.260 0.229 – – – – – – – – – –
0.3 0.326 0.299 0.247 – – – – – – – – –
0.4 0.387 0.362 0.320 0.258 – – – – – – – –
0.5 0.443 0.419 0.384 0.333 0.265 – – – – – – –
0.6 0.502 0.477 0.442 0.398 0.342 0.270 – – – – – –
0.7 0.554 0.534 0.501 0.458 0.408 0.348 0.273 – – – – –
0.8 0.616 0.589 0.558 0.516 0.467 0.415 0.353 0.276 – – – –
0.9 0.665 0.639 0.613 0.574 0.528 0.475 0.421 0.357 0.278 – – –
1.0 0.721 0.693 0.663 0.630 0.586 0.536 0.481 0.425 0.360 0.280 – –
1.1 0.763 0.746 0.717 0.680 0.642 0.595 0.543 0.486 0.429 0.362 0.281 –
1.2 0.804 0.799 0.770 0.733 0.692 0.651 0.602 0.548 0.490 0.431 0.364 0.282

Table HO-2(a) Coefficient of Rotation for Soil Poisson’s Ratio   0.3

K2 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1
K1
0.1 0.196 – – – – – – – – – – –
0.2 0.270 0.238 – – – – – – – – – –
0.3 0.338 0.311 0.257 – – – – – – – – –
0.4 0.401 0.375 0.333 0.268 – – – – – – – –
0.5 0.460 0.434 0.398 0.346 0.275 – – – – – – –
0.6 0.520 0.495 0.458 0.414 0.356 0.281 – – – – – –
0.7 0.575 0.554 0.519 0.475 0.424 0.362 0.284 – – – – –
0.8 0.639 0.611 0.579 0.536 0.486 0.432 0.367 0.287 – – – –
0.9 0.690 0.663 0.636 0.596 0.548 0.494 0.438 0.371 0.289 – – –
1.0 0.747 0.719 0.688 0.654 0.609 0.557 0.501 0.442 0.374 0.291 – –
1.1 0.791 0.773 0.744 0.706 0.666 0.618 0.565 0.506 0.446 0.377 0.293 –
1.2 0.834 0.828 0.798 0.762 0.719 0.676 0.626 0.570 0.510 0.449 0.379 0.294

Table HO-2(b) Coefficient of Rotation for Soil Poisson’s Ratio   0.35

K2 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1
K1
0.1 0.205 – – – – – – – – – – –
0.2 0.282 0.248 – – – – – – – – – –
0.3 0.352 0.324 0.269 – – – – – – – – –
0.4 0.418 0.391 0.347 0.281 – – – – – – – –
0.5 0.479 0.453 0.416 0.362 0.289 – – – – – – –
0.6 0.542 0.516 0.479 0.433 0.372 0.294 – – – – – –
0.7 0.599 0.578 0.542 0.497 0.444 0.380 0.298 – – – – –
0.8 0.665 0.637 0.604 0.561 0.508 0.452 0.385 0.301 – – – –
0.9 0.719 0.692 0.664 0.623 0.574 0.518 0.459 0.389 0.304 – – –
1.0 0.779 0.750 0.719 0.683 0.637 0.584 0.525 0.464 0.393 0.306 – –
1.1 0.825 0.807 0.777 0.738 0.697 0.647 0.591 0.530 0.468 0.396 0.307 –
1.2 0.870 0.864 0.834 0.796 0.752 0.708 0.656 0.598 0.535 0.471 0.398 0.309

Table HO-2(c) Coefficient of Rotation for Soil Poisson’s Ratio   0.4

O-9
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HO

K2 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1
K1
0.1 0.216 – – – – – – – – – – –
0.2 0.296 0.261 – – – – – – – – – –
0.3 0.370 0.340 0.283 – – – – – – – – –
0.4 0.438 0.410 0.366 0.297 – – – – – – – –
0.5 0.503 0.476 0.438 0.382 0.305 – – – – – – –
0.6 0.569 0.542 0.504 0.456 0.394 0.312 – – – – – –
0.7 0.628 0.607 0.571 0.524 0.469 0.402 0.316 – – – – –
0.8 0.698 0.669 0.636 0.591 0.537 0.479 0.408 0.320 – – – –
0.9 0.755 0.728 0.699 0.657 0.606 0.548 0.486 0.413 0.323 – – –
1.0 0.818 0.789 0.757 0.720 0.673 0.617 0.556 0.492 0.417 0.325 – –
1.1 0.867 0.849 0.818 0.779 0.736 0.684 0.626 0.562 0.496 0.420 0.327 –
1.2 0.915 0.909 0.879 0.840 0.795 0.748 0.694 0.633 0.567 0.500 0.422 0.328

Table HO-2(d) Coefficient of Rotation for Soil Poisson’s Ratio   0.45

K2 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1
K1
0.1 0.228 – – – – – – – – – – –
0.2 0.313 0.277 – – – – – – – – – –
0.3 0.391 0.361 0.302 – – – – – – – – –
0.4 0.463 0.435 0.390 0.318 – – – – – – – –
0.5 0.532 0.505 0.466 0.409 0.328 – – – – – – –
0.6 0.602 0.575 0.537 0.488 0.422 0.335 – – – – – –
0.7 0.665 0.644 0.608 0.559 0.503 0.432 0.341 – – – – –
0.8 0.740 0.711 0.678 0.632 0.576 0.514 0.439 0.345 – – – –
0.9 0.802 0.774 0.744 0.702 0.649 0.588 0.522 0.445 0.348 – – –
1.0 0.868 0.839 0.808 0.769 0.720 0.662 0.597 0.529 0.449 0.351 – –
1.1 0.920 0.904 0.873 0.833 0.788 0.734 0.673 0.605 0.534 0.453 0.353 –
1.2 0.974 0.967 0.937 0.898 0.852 0.802 0.745 0.681 0.611 0.539 0.456 0.355

Table HO-2(e) Coefficient of Rotation for Soil Poisson’s Ratio   0.5

The translational stiffness and rotational stiffness of the pile cap are useful as input to
analysis of the pile group against lateral shear as demonstrated in the worked example
in Appendix HQ. They can also be inputted into computer mathematical models for
analysis.

O-10
 Appendix HP

Lateral Restraint on a Pile by the Winkler’s Spring

Assumption – Cohesionless Soil

An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HP

Lateral Resistance on a Pile by the Winkler’s Spring Assumption – Cohesionless Soil

HP.1 Theoretical Background

The basic equation governed by elastic beam theory is used, by which the pile is treated
as a beam and the lateral deflection of the pile v , as related to the elastic support, can be
described by the differential equation as follows, without consideration of P-d effect :
d 4v
E p I p 4 = − K hv (Eqn HP-1)
dz

(Eqn HP-1) is in fact a particular case of (Eqn HI-1) of Appendix HI for study of the
buckling of a pile with the axial load P set to zero, i.e. the axial load effect is ignored.
Using also Terzaghi (1955)’s theory for the coefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction
and the finite difference method, (Eqn HP-1) can be similarly formulated as (Eqn HI-7)
by setting P = 0 leading to
  L 5 i 
vi −2 − 4vi −1 + 6 +   5  vi − 4vi +1 + vi + 2 = 0 (Eqn HP-2)
  T  N 

The formulation of the support conditions of the pile ends are also identical to that in
Appendix HI except that for the free conditions as summarized in Table HP-1.

Conditions Pile Head Pile Tip

Restraint
from lateral v=0 v1 = 0 v N +1 = 0
movement
Restraint dv v2 − v−1 yN + 2 − yN
θ= =0 =0 =0
from Rotation dz 2(L / N ) 2(L / N )
Hinged
d 2v v2 − 2v1 + v−1 v N + 2 − 2v N +1 + v N
M = EpI p =0 EpI p =0 EpI p =0
Connections
(moment = 0) dz 2 (L / N ) 2
(L / N )2
d 3v v3 − 2v2 + 2v−1 − v− 2 y N +3 − 2 y N + 2 + 2 y N − y N −1
Free end S = EpI p =0 EpI p =0 EpI p =0
dz 3 2(L / N )3 2(L / N )3

Table HP-1 – Restraint Conditions on Lateral Load Analysis on Pile by the Finite Difference
Method

The formulation of moments and lateral shears in the finite difference method is as
follows at the pile head are as follow :
d 2v  v − 2v1 + v−1   1  L  2  MT 2
M = EpI p 2 = EpI p  2  ⇒ v − 2v + v =  2   (Eqn HP-3)
dz  ( L / N )2

2 1 −1
 N  T   p p
E I

d 3v  v3 − 2v2 + 2v−1 − v−2   2  L 3  ST 3

S = EpI p 3 = EpI p   ⇒ v3 − 2v2 + 2v−1 − v−2 =  3   
2(L / N )  N  T   E p I p
3
dz  
(Eqn HP-4)

Thus 4 additional equations comprising 2 at pile head (for support condition and / or
application of external shear or moment) and 2 at pile tip (both support conditions) can be

P-1
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HP

formed by the equations listed in Table HP-1 and (Eqn HP-2) to (Eqn HP-4) in regards to
the end restraint conditions at the head and tip of the pile, making up altogether N + 5
equations for solving all the N + 5 nos. of v values. Subsequently, the rotation,
v −v
moment and shear at the ith node can be back-calculated respectively as θ i = i +1 i −1 ;
2(L / N )
d2y  vi +1 − 2vi + vi −1  d3y  v − 2vi +1 + 2vi −1 − vi −2 
M i = EI 2 = EI   and Si = EI 3 = EI  i + 2 .
dz  ( L / N )2
 dz  2( L / N )3


The lateral or rotational stiffnesses at the pile head can be determined by dividing the
applied shear or moments by the lateral displacement or rotation respectively obtained by
solving the N + 5 equations.

HP.2 Design Charts and Tables based on the Finite Difference Method

Design charts based on the solution of the equations described in HP.1 have, however,
been given in various publications including DM-7 (1971), Tomlinson (2001). In the
preparation of these charts, the equations for applied moment and shear used for analysis
were transformed from (Eqn HP-3) and (Eqn HP-4) to (Eqn HP-5) and (Eqn HP-6) as
follows with the incorporation of E p I p and nh into T as T = 5 E p I p nh so that the
whole set of equations is based on L / T and N only where N dictates accuracy.
2
1 L
v2 − 2v1 + v−1 =   (for applied shear at pile head) (Eqn HP-5)
N2 T 
3
2 L
v3 − 2v2 + 2v−1 − v−2 = 3   (for applied moment at pile head) (Eqn HP-6)
N T 

Direct solution of the equations gives v as the “deflection coefficients” are to be

multiplied by MT 2 / E p I p o ST 3 / E p I p as appropriate to obtain the actual deflection.
Formulation of the rotation, shear and moment coefficients and the corresponding
parameters multiplied by these coefficients to obtain the respective true values of the
rotation, shear and moment are summarized in Table HP-2:

Parameters Multiplied to Coefficient to obtain True

Expressions for the True Value of Value of Lateral deflection, Rotation, Lateral Shear
Coefficients related to L/T
Lateral deflection, Rotation, Lateral and Moment
and N only
Shear and Moment
Shear S at Pile Head Moment M at Pile Head
Lateral ST 3 MT 2
vi vi
Deflection EpI p EpI p

vi +1 − vi −1 vi +1 − vi −1 ST 3 1 ST 2 MT 2 1 MT
× = × =
2(L / N ) 2(L / T ) / N
Rotation
EpI p T EpI p EpI p T EpI p
 v − 2v + 2v − v  v − 2vi +1 + 2vi −1 − v− 2  ST 3 EpI p MT 2 E p I p M
Lateral Shear E p I p  i+2 i +1 i −1 −2   i+2  × =S × =
 2(L / N )3   2(L / T )3 / N 3  EpI p T3 EpI p T3 T

v − 2vi + vi −1 vi +1 − 2vi + vi −1 ST 3 EpI p MT 2 E p I p

Moment E p I p i +1 × = ST × =M
(L / N )2 (L / T )2
/N 2 EpI p T2 EpI p T2

Table HP-2 – Use of Coefficients for Determination of Displacements, Rotations, Shears and
Moments in Piles by the Finite Difference Method

P-2
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HP

Samples of these design charts are reproduced in Figure HP-1 :

Deflection Coefficient of Pile (Free Top Free Tip) under Moment Coefficient of Pile (Free Top Free Tip) under
Lateral Shear at Top of Pile with Different L/T Ratios Lateral Shear at Top of Pile with Different L/T Ratios

L/T=2 L/T=3 L/T=4 L/T=5 L/T=7 L/T=10 L/T=2 L/T=3 L/T=4 L/T=5 L/T=7 L/T=10

Deflection Coefficent d p Moment Coefficent M p

-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
0 0

1 1

2 2

Deflection
3 of Pile = 3
Depth of Pile as a Multiple of T

Depth of Pile as a Multiple of T

ST 3 Bending
4 δp 4 Moment
EI of Pile =
M p ST
5 5

6 6

7 7

8 8

9 9

10 10

Figure HP-1 – Illustrative Plots of Deflection and Moment Coefficients of Pile

under Lateral Load
However, these design charts are all for piles (i) whose cut-off levels are at ground level
and (ii) which are ‘floating’, i.e. unrestrained from lateral deflection and rotation at their
tips; and (iii) with constant nh values along the whole length of the pile. As most piles
have cut-off levels below ground, where the initial soil stiffness is not zero, these charts
under-estimate the stiffness for piles with cut-off below ground level because the actual
lateral soil restraint is obviously higher. In addition, restraint of the pile tip against
lateral movement (e.g. a large diameter bored pile with short socket into rock) and
restraint against both lateral deflection and rotation (e.g. a socketed pile with long socket
into rock) may also considerably increase the pile stiffness, especially for short piles.

In this Appendix, analysis by the Finite Difference Method as described in HP.1 and HP.2
has been carried out which takes into account the cases where the pile cut-offs are below
ground and the pile tip is either free or restrained from rotation or translation. Similar
coefficients are obtained which need to be multiplied by the constants listed in the last 2
columns of Table HP-2 to obtain the true values of deflections, rotations, shears and
moments as appropriate. Coefficients for the lateral deflections and moments for pile
cut-off levels at certain depths beneath ground and under lateral shear at the cut-off level
with different pile tip restraint conditions are listed in Tables HP-3(a) to (f), for various
L/T values. Intermediate values can be interpolated. It should be noted that the
moment coefficient is for determination of the maximum moment along the pile shaft

P-3
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HP

which takes place at the pile head if the pile head is restrained from rotation and at certain
depth below the pile head if the pile head is free to rotate.

Lateral Deflection Coefficient at Cut-off Level (dp) Coefficient for Maximum Moment (Mp)
Pile Length
as Multiple Ratio of Depth between Ground and the Cut-off Ratio of Depth between Ground and the Cut-off
of L/T Level of the Pile to the Total Pile Length Level of the Pile to the Total Pile Length
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
2 4.739 3.850 3.247 2.812 2.482 2.224 2.016 0.513 0.468 0.438 0.416 0.399 0.386 0.375
3 2.728 2.218 1.878 1.635 1.452 1.310 1.195 0.704 0.628 0.577 0.539 0.511 0.488 0.469
4 2.442 1.933 1.611 1.388 1.224 1.098 0.998 0.768 0.659 0.589 0.541 0.505 0.477 0.455
5 2.433 1.837 1.489 1.260 1.098 0.976 0.881 0.772 0.640 0.564 0.513 0.477 0.450 0.428
7 2.431 1.676 1.299 1.070 0.916 0.805 0.720 0.772 0.606 0.522 0.472 0.437 0.411 0.391
10 2.431 1.488 1.097 0.881 0.742 0.645 0.573 0.772 0.564 0.478 0.429 0.396 0.373 0.355
15 2.431 1.260 0.881 0.69 0.573 0.493 0.435 0.772 0.514 0.429 0.384 0.355 0.334 0.318
20 2.431 1.097 0.742 0.573 0.472 0.404 0.356 0.772 0.478 0.396 0.355 0.328 0.309 0.295
30 2.431 0.881 0.573 0.435 0.356 0.303 0.266 0.772 0.429 0.355 0.318 0.295 0.278 0.265
40 2.431 0.742 0.472 0.356 0.290 0.246 0.216 0.772 0.396 0.328 0.295 0.273 0.258 0.246
Table HP-3(a) – Deflection and Moment Coefficients for Pile with Free Head and Tip Unrestrained
from both Lateral Movement and Rotation due to Horizontal Shear at Cut-off Level

Lateral Deflection Coefficient at Cut-off Level (dp) Moment Coefficient (Mp)

Pile Length
as Multiple Ratio of Depth between Ground and the Cut-off Ratio of Depth between Ground and the Cut-off
of L/T Level of the Pile to the Total Pile Length Level of the Pile to the Total Pile Length
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
2 1.102 0.999 0.915 0.846 0.787 0.736 0.692 1.064 1.009 0.963 0.924 0.89 0.86 0.834
3 1.028 0.891 0.788 0.707 0.643 0.590 0.546 0.967 0.893 0.836 0.792 0.756 0.726 0.700
4 0.940 0.792 0.687 0.609 0.548 0.499 0.459 0.926 0.847 0.789 0.745 0.709 0.681 0.656
5 0.929 0.757 0.642 0.560 0.498 0.450 0.411 0.927 0.832 0.767 0.719 0.682 0.652 0.627
7 0.928 0.706 0.574 0.487 0.425 0.378 0.342 0.927 0.803 0.727 0.675 0.636 0.606 0.581
10 0.928 0.642 0.498 0.410 0.351 0.309 0.276 0.927 0.767 0.682 0.627 0.588 0.558 0.534
15 0.928 0.560 0.410 0.328 0.276 0.240 0.213 0.927 0.719 0.627 0.572 0.534 0.506 0.484
20 0.928 0.498 0.351 0.276 0.230 0.198 0.175 0.927 0.682 0.588 0.534 0.498 0.472 0.451
30 0.928 0.410 0.276 0.213 0.175 0.150 0.132 0.927 0.627 0.534 0.484 0.451 0.427 0.408
40 0.928 0.351 0.230 0.175 0.143 0.122 0.107 0.927 0.588 0.498 0.451 0.420 0.397 0.379

Table HP-3(b) – Deflection and Moment Coefficients for Pile with Head Restrained from Rotation and
Tip Unrestrained from both Lateral Movement and Rotation due to Horizontal Shear at Cut-off Level

Deflection Coefficient at Cut-off Level (dp) Moment Coefficient (Mp)

Pile Length
as Multiple Ratio of Depth between Ground and the Cut-off Ratio of Depth between Ground and the Cut-off
of L/T Level of the Pile to the Total Pile Length Level of the Pile to the Total Pile Length
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
2 3.384 2.833 2.442 2.149 1.922 1.741 1.237 0.605 0.560 0.528 0.503 0.484 0.468 0.674
3 2.407 2.005 1.727 1.522 1.366 1.242 1.140 0.768 0.685 0.626 0.582 0.548 0.520 0.497
4 2.421 1.923 1.606 1.386 1.223 1.098 0.998 0.776 0.663 0.592 0.543 0.506 0.478 0.455
5 2.429 1.836 1.489 1.260 1.098 0.976 0.881 0.773 0.640 0.564 0.514 0.478 0.450 0.429
7 2.431 1.676 1.299 1.070 0.916 0.805 0.720 0.772 0.606 0.522 0.472 0.437 0.411 0.391
10 2.431 1.488 1.097 0.881 0.742 0.645 0.573 0.772 0.564 0.478 0.429 0.396 0.373 0.355
15 2.431 1.260 0.881 0.690 0.573 0.493 0.435 0.772 0.514 0.429 0.384 0.355 0.334 0.318
20 2.431 1.097 0.742 0.573 0.472 0.404 0.356 0.772 0.478 0.396 0.355 0.328 0.309 0.295
30 2.431 0.881 0.573 0.435 0.356 0.303 0.266 0.772 0.429 0.355 0.318 0.295 0.278 0.265
40 2.431 0.742 0.472 0.356 0.290 0.246 0.216 0.772 0.396 0.328 0.295 0.273 0.258 0.246

Table HP-3(c) – Deflection and Moment Coefficients for Pile with Free Head and Tip Restrained from
Lateral Movement but Free to Rotate due to Horizontal Shear at Cut-off Level

P-4
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HP

Deflection Coefficient at Cut-off Level (dp) Moment Coefficient (Mp)

Pile Length
as Multiple Ratio of Depth between Ground and the Cut-off Ratio of Depth between Ground and the Cut-off
of L/T Level of the Pile to the Total Pile Length Level of the Pile to the Total Pile Length
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
2 1.096 0.997 0.915 0.846 0.786 0.735 0.691 1.099 1.030 0.973 0.925 0.884 0.848 0.817
3 0.965 0.841 0.747 0.673 0.614 0.565 0.524 0.919 0.855 0.806 0.767 0.736 0.709 0.686
4 0.924 0.782 0.681 0.604 0.545 0.497 0.457 0.925 0.847 0.790 0.746 0.711 0.682 0.657
5 0.928 0.757 0.642 0.560 0.498 0.449 0.411 0.928 0.832 0.767 0.719 0.682 0.652 0.627
7 0.928 0.706 0.574 0.487 0.425 0.378 0.342 0.927 0.803 0.727 0.675 0.636 0.606 0.581
10 0.928 0.642 0.498 0.410 0.351 0.309 0.276 0.927 0.767 0.682 0.627 0.588 0.558 0.534
15 0.928 0.560 0.410 0.328 0.276 0.240 0.213 0.927 0.719 0.627 0.572 0.534 0.506 0.484
20 0.928 0.498 0.351 0.276 0.230 0.198 0.175 0.927 0.682 0.588 0.534 0.498 0.472 0.451
30 0.928 0.410 0.276 0.213 0.175 0.150 0.132 0.927 0.627 0.534 0.484 0.451 0.427 0.408
40 0.928 0.351 0.230 0.175 0.143 0.122 0.107 0.927 0.588 0.498 0.451 0.420 0.397 0.379

Table HP-3(d) – Deflection and Moment Coefficients for Pile with Head Restrained from Rotation and
Tip Restrained from Lateral Movement but Free to Rotate due to Horizontal Shear at Cut-off Level

Deflection Coefficient at Cut-off Level (dp) Moment Coefficient (Mp)

Pile Length
as Multiple Ratio of Depth between Ground and the Cut-off Ratio of Depth between Ground and the Cut-off
of L/T Level of the Pile to the Total Pile Length Level of the Pile to the Total Pile Length
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
2 1.842 1.701 1.581 1.477 1.387 1.307 1.237 1.180 1.066 0.969 0.886 0.813 0.749 0.693
3 2.387 1.998 1.725 1.522 1.366 1.241 1.139 0.781 0.691 0.628 0.583 0.548 0.520 0.496
4 2.402 1.910 1.596 1.377 1.216 1.092 0.994 0.778 0.666 0.595 0.546 0.509 0.480 0.458
5 2.427 1.834 1.487 1.259 1.097 0.976 0.881 0.773 0.641 0.565 0.514 0.478 0.450 0.429
7 2.431 1.676 1.299 1.070 0.916 0.805 0.720 0.772 0.606 0.522 0.472 0.437 0.411 0.391
10 2.431 1.488 1.097 0.881 0.742 0.645 0.573 0.772 0.564 0.478 0.429 0.396 0.373 0.355
15 2.431 1.260 0.881 0.690 0.573 0.493 0.435 0.772 0.514 0.429 0.384 0.355 0.334 0.318
20 2.431 1.097 0.742 0.573 0.472 0.404 0.356 0.772 0.478 0.396 0.355 0.328 0.309 0.295
30 2.431 0.881 0.573 0.435 0.356 0.303 0.266 0.772 0.429 0.355 0.318 0.295 0.278 0.265
40 2.431 0.742 0.472 0.356 0.290 0.246 0.216 0.772 0.396 0.328 0.295 0.273 0.258 0.246

Table HP-3(e) – Deflection and Moment Coefficients for Pile with Head Pinned and Tip Restrained
from both Lateral Movement and Rotation due to Horizontal Shear at Cut-off Level

Deflection Coefficient at Cut-off Level (dp) Moment Coefficient (Mp)

Pile Length
as Multiple Ratio of Depth between Ground and the Cut-off Ratio of Depth between Ground and the Cut-off
of L/T Level of the Pile to the Total Pile Length Level of the Pile to the Total Pile Length
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
2 0.545 0.525 0.506 0.488 0.471 0.456 0.442 0.888 0.865 0.843 0.823 0.805 0.788 0.772
3 0.898 0.796 0.716 0.652 0.599 0.554 0.516 0.938 0.875 0.825 0.785 0.751 0.723 0.698
4 0.924 0.782 0.680 0.604 0.544 0.496 0.457 0.924 0.845 0.788 0.744 0.709 0.680 0.656
5 0.927 0.756 0.641 0.559 0.498 0.449 0.410 0.927 0.832 0.767 0.719 0.682 0.652 0.627
7 0.928 0.706 0.574 0.487 0.425 0.378 0.342 0.927 0.803 0.727 0.675 0.636 0.606 0.581
10 0.928 0.642 0.498 0.410 0.351 0.309 0.276 0.927 0.767 0.682 0.627 0.588 0.558 0.534
15 0.928 0.560 0.410 0.328 0.276 0.240 0.213 0.927 0.719 0.627 0.572 0.534 0.506 0.484
20 0.928 0.498 0.351 0.276 0.230 0.198 0.175 0.927 0.682 0.588 0.534 0.498 0.472 0.451
30 0.928 0.410 0.276 0.213 0.175 0.150 0.132 0.927 0.627 0.534 0.484 0.451 0.427 0.408
40 0.928 0.351 0.230 0.175 0.143 0.122 0.107 0.927 0.588 0.498 0.451 0.420 0.397 0.379

Table HP-3(f) – Deflection and Moment Coefficients for Pile with Head Restrained from Rotation and
Tip Restrained from both Lateral Movement and Rotation due to Horizontal Shear at Cut-off Level

Similarly, coefficients for rotation due to moments applied at the cut-off level are
determined and tabulated in Table HP-4(a) to (c). Again the coefficients should be
multiplied by the constants as listed in Table HP-2 for the determination of rotation.

P-5
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HP

Rotation Coefficient for Pile Restrained from Rotation Coefficient for Pile Free to Translate at
Pile Length Translation at Head Head
as Multiple Ratio of Depth between Ground and the Cut-off Ratio of Depth between Ground and the Cut-off
of L/T Level of the Pile to the Total Pile Length Level of the Pile to the Total Pile Length
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
2 0.747 0.727 0.709 0.693 0.679 0.666 0.654 3.213 2.801 2.516 2.305 2.142 2.012 1.905
3 0.686 0.669 0.654 0.640 0.627 0.616 0.605 1.819 1.666 1.559 1.479 1.417 1.366 1.324
4 0.674 0.652 0.633 0.616 0.601 0.588 0.576 1.751 1.592 1.484 1.405 1.344 1.294 1.252
5 0.668 0.642 0.621 0.602 0.586 0.571 0.558 1.750 1.559 1.439 1.355 1.291 1.240 1.198
7 0.667 0.633 0.605 0.582 0.563 0.546 0.532 1.747 1.504 1.369 1.279 1.213 1.162 1.120
10 0.667 0.621 0.585 0.558 0.536 0.517 0.501 1.747 1.438 1.291 1.197 1.131 1.080 1.038
15 0.667 0.601 0.557 0.525 0.500 0.480 0.464 1.747 1.349 1.196 1.103 1.038 0.988 0.949
20 0.667 0.585 0.535 0.501 0.475 0.454 0.437 1.747 1.290 1.131 1.038 0.974 0.926 0.888
30 0.667 0.558 0.501 0.464 0.437 0.417 0.400 1.747 1.197 1.038 0.949 0.888 0.843 0.807
40 0.667 0.536 0.475 0.437 0.411 0.391 0.375 1.747 1.131 0.975 0.888 0.830 0.787 0.753
Table HP-4(a) – Rotation Coefficients for Pile Tip Unrestrained from both Lateral Movement and
Rotation due to Moment at Pile Head
Rotation Coefficient for Pile Restrained from Rotation Coefficient for Pile Free to Translate at
Pile Length Translation at Head Head
as Multiple Ratio of Depth between Ground and the Cut-off Ratio of Depth between Ground and the Cut-off
of L/T Level of the Pile to the Total Pile Length Level of the Pile to the Total Pile Length
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
2 0.614 0.609 0.604 0.599 0.595 0.590 0.586 1.896 1.730 1.612 1.523 1.454 1.398 1.351
3 0.685 0.667 0.652 0.637 0.624 0.612 0.601 1.707 1.591 1.507 1.442 1.389 1.345 1.308
4 0.668 0.647 0.629 0.613 0.598 0.585 0.573 1.751 1.592 1.484 1.405 1.343 1.293 1.251
5 0.667 0.642 0.620 0.602 0.585 0.571 0.558 1.748 1.558 1.438 1.354 1.290 1.239 1.197
7 0.667 0.633 0.605 0.582 0.563 0.546 0.532 1.747 1.504 1.369 1.279 1.213 1.162 1.120
10 0.667 0.621 0.585 0.558 0.536 0.517 0.501 1.747 1.438 1.291 1.197 1.131 1.080 1.038
15 0.667 0.601 0.557 0.525 0.500 0.480 0.464 1.747 1.354 1.197 1.104 1.038 0.989 0.949
20 0.667 0.585 0.535 0.501 0.475 0.454 0.437 1.747 1.290 1.131 1.038 0.974 0.926 0.888
30 0.667 0.558 0.501 0.464 0.437 0.417 0.400 1.747 1.197 1.038 0.949 0.888 0.843 0.807
40 0.667 0.536 0.475 0.437 0.411 0.391 0.375 1.747 1.131 0.975 0.888 0.830 0.787 0.753
Table HP-4(b) – Rotation Coefficients for Pile Tip Restrained from Lateral Movement but Free to
Rotation due to Moment at Pile Head

Rotation Coefficient for Pile Restrained from Rotation Coefficient for Pile Free to Translate at
Pile Length Translation at Head Head
as Multiple Ratio of Depth between Ground and the Cut-off Ratio of Depth between Ground and the Cut-off
of L/T Level of the Pile to the Total Pile Length Level of the Pile to the Total Pile Length
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
2 0.487 0.485 0.484 0.482 0.48 0.479 0.477 1.645 1.573 1.512 1.459 1.413 1.372 1.336
3 0.636 0.625 0.615 0.605 0.596 0.587 0.579 1.691 1.569 1.481 1.413 1.360 1.315 1.278
4 0.666 0.646 0.628 0.612 0.598 0.585 0.573 1.733 1.578 1.474 1.397 1.337 1.288 1.247
5 0.667 0.642 0.620 0.602 0.585 0.571 0.558 1.747 1.557 1.438 1.354 1.290 1.239 1.197
7 0.667 0.633 0.605 0.582 0.563 0.546 0.532 1.747 1.504 1.369 1.279 1.213 1.162 1.120
10 0.667 0.621 0.585 0.558 0.536 0.517 0.501 1.747 1.438 1.291 1.197 1.131 1.080 1.038
15 0.667 0.601 0.557 0.525 0.500 0.480 0.464 1.747 1.354 1.197 1.104 1.038 0.989 0.949
20 0.667 0.585 0.535 0.501 0.475 0.454 0.437 1.747 1.290 1.131 1.038 0.974 0.926 0.888
30 0.667 0.558 0.501 0.464 0.437 0.417 0.400 1.747 1.197 1.038 0.949 0.888 0.843 0.807
40 0.667 0.536 0.475 0.437 0.411 0.391 0.375 1.747 1.131 0.975 0.888 0.830 0.787 0.753

Table HP-4(c) – Rotation Coefficients for Pile Tip Restrained from both Lateral Movement and
Rotation due to Moment at Pile Head

The coefficients listed in Tables HP-4(a) to (c) are useful in determining the “rotational
stiffness” of a pile embedded in soil so that rotational restraints can be applied to the pile
cap for analysis in which the piles are assumed to be rigidly jointed to the pile cap. The
assumption of rigid joint connections between the pile and the pile cap can often

P-6
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HP

significantly reduce lateral deflection of the pile cap. In addition, Tables HP-5(a) to (c)
are given below for determination of the maximum shear forces on pile shafts due to a
moment acting at the pile head. The maximum shears exist at the pile head when the pile
is restrained from translation at the pile head. The coefficients are useful when assigning
translation stiffnesses to piles during lateral load analysis.

Shear Coefficient (Sp) for Pile Head Restrained Shear Coefficient (Sp) for Pile Head Unrestrained
Pile Length from Translation from Translation
as Multiple Ratio of Depth between Ground and the Cut-off Ratio of Depth between Ground and the Cut-off
of L/T Level of the Pile to the Total Pile Length Level of the Pile to the Total Pile Length
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
2 0.721 0.734 0.746 0.757 0.768 0.778 0.788 0.874 0.837 0.813 0.797 0.785 0.777 0.770
3 0.645 0.670 0.694 0.716 0.737 0.757 0.776 0.556 0.536 0.528 0.527 0.529 0.533 0.538
4 0.664 0.697 0.727 0.754 0.779 0.802 0.823 0.475 0.480 0.491 0.504 0.517 0.530 0.543
5 0.667 0.706 0.742 0.773 0.802 0.828 0.852 0.478 0.487 0.501 0.517 0.533 0.548 0.562
7 0.667 0.721 0.767 0.807 0.843 0.875 0.904 0.479 0.492 0.514 0.536 0.556 0.575 0.592
10 0.667 0.741 0.802 0.852 0.896 0.934 0.969 0.479 0.501 0.533 0.562 0.587 0.611 0.632
15 0.667 0.773 0.853 0.916 0.970 1.016 1.056 0.479 0.517 0.561 0.597 0.631 0.660 0.686
20 0.667 0.802 0.896 0.969 1.029 1.081 1.126 0.479 0.533 0.588 0.632 0.669 0.702 0.730
30 0.667 0.852 0.969 1.056 1.126 1.185 1.237 0.479 0.562 0.632 0.686 0.730 0.767 0.800
40 0.667 0.896 1.029 1.126 1.203 1.269 1.325 0.479 0.587 0.669 0.730 0.779 0.820 0.856
Table HP-5(a) – Shear Coefficients for Pile Tip Unrestrained from both Lateral Movement and Rotation
due to Moment at Pile Head

Shear Coefficient (Sp) for Pile Head Restrained Shear Coefficient (Sp) for Pile Head Unrestrained
Pile Length from Translation from Translation
as Multiple Ratio of Depth between Ground and the Cut-off Ratio of Depth between Ground and the Cut-off
of L/T Level of the Pile to the Total Pile Length Level of the Pile to the Total Pile Length
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
2 0.615 0.629 0.643 0.656 0.668 0.681 0.693 0.928 0.874 0.833 0.801 0.775 0.752 0.732
3 0.652 0.679 0.704 0.727 0.748 0.768 0.787 0.473 0.466 0.469 0.476 0.485 0.495 0.506
4 0.669 0.701 0.730 0.756 0.780 0.803 0.824 0.472 0.480 0.493 0.507 0.520 0.533 0.546
5 0.667 0.706 0.741 0.773 0.801 0.828 0.852 0.480 0.487 0.502 0.517 0.533 0.548 0.562
7 0.667 0.721 0.767 0.807 0.843 0.875 0.904 0.479 0.492 0.514 0.536 0.556 0.575 0.592
10 0.667 0.741 0.802 0.852 0.896 0.934 0.969 0.479 0.501 0.533 0.562 0.587 0.611 0.632
15 0.667 0.774 0.853 0.916 0.969 1.015 1.056 0.479 0.515 0.561 0.600 0.632 0.661 0.686
20 0.667 0.802 0.896 0.969 1.029 1.081 1.126 0.479 0.533 0.587 0.632 0.669 0.702 0.730
30 0.667 0.852 0.969 1.056 1.126 1.185 1.237 0.479 0.562 0.632 0.686 0.730 0.767 0.800
40 0.667 0.896 1.029 1.126 1.203 1.269 1.325 0.479 0.587 0.669 0.730 0.779 0.820 0.856

Table HP-5(b) – Shear Coefficients for Pile Tip Restrained from Lateral Movement but Free to Rotation
due to Moment at Pile Head

Shear Coefficient (Sp) for Pile Head Restrained Shear Coefficient (Sp) for Pile Head Unrestrained
Pile Length from Translation from Translation
as Multiple Ratio of Depth between Ground and the Cut-off Ratio of Depth between Ground and the Cut-off
of L/T Level of the Pile to the Total Pile Length Level of the Pile to the Total Pile Length
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
2 0.793 0.800 0.807 0.813 0.820 0.827 0.833 0.426 0.467 0.501 0.53 0.555 0.576 0.593
3 0.665 0.687 0.709 0.729 0.748 0.766 0.783 0.540 0.526 0.521 0.521 0.524 0.529 0.534
4 0.666 0.699 0.728 0.755 0.779 0.802 0.823 0.475 0.480 0.491 0.504 0.517 0.530 0.542
5 0.667 0.707 0.742 0.773 0.802 0.828 0.852 0.478 0.486 0.501 0.517 0.533 0.548 0.562
7 0.667 0.721 0.767 0.807 0.843 0.875 0.904 0.479 0.492 0.514 0.536 0.556 0.575 0.592
10 0.667 0.741 0.802 0.852 0.896 0.934 0.969 0.479 0.501 0.533 0.562 0.587 0.611 0.632
15 0.667 0.774 0.853 0.916 0.969 1.015 1.056 0.473 0.515 0.561 0.600 0.632 0.661 0.686
20 0.667 0.802 0.896 0.969 1.029 1.081 1.126 0.479 0.533 0.587 0.632 0.669 0.702 0.730
30 0.667 0.852 0.969 1.056 1.126 1.185 1.237 0.479 0.562 0.632 0.686 0.730 0.767 0.800
40 0.667 0.896 1.029 1.126 1.203 1.269 1.325 0.479 0.587 0.669 0.730 0.779 0.820 0.856
Table HP-5(c) – Shear Coefficients for Pile Tip Restrained from both Lateral Movement and Rotation
due to Moment at Pile Head

P-7
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HP

HP.4 Application of the Method

For layered soils, different nh values can be applied at respective levels of the pile for
the determination of lateral restraint, for analysis purpose by the finite difference method
using (Eqn HP-2) and others or the stiffness method. However, as the top level of the
soil plays the most important part in lateral restraint, the result will be conservative if the
whole mass of soil is taken as that of the top layer which generally has the smallest nh
values.

It can also be shown readily that the translational and rotational stiffness of a pile can be
determined respectively by
E I
KT = p p3 (Eqn HP-7)
δ pT
EpI p
Kθ = (Eqn HP-8)
M pT

HP.5 Illustration for the Use of the Tables HP-3 and HP-4

The use of the Tables HP-3 and HP-4 is illustrated by Worked Example HP-1 as follows :

Worked Example HP-1

Consider a driven H-pile 305×305×223 Section of length 20m embedded in loose fill and
in the presence of closely spaced piles. The effective value of the constant of horizontal
subgrade reaction is nh = 1300 × 0.25 = 325 kN/m3 (Table 5.2 of the Code). The cut-off
level is at 3.5m below ground. Applied load at cut-off level is S = 100 kN in the
direction to causing bending about the major axis of the pile. E p = 205× 106 kN/m2;
I p = 52700 × 10 −8 m4 so that E p I p = 205 × 106 × 52700 × 10−8 = 108035 kN/m2

T = 5 EI / nh = 5 108035 / 325 = 3.194 m;

L / T = 20 / 3.194 = 6.262

The depth factor representing cut-off level to total pile length is 3.5/20 = 0.175

(i) The pile is a floating pile, i.e. not driven to rock and hinged at top level to the pile
cap.
From Table HP-3(a), the interpolated deflection coefficient is
δ p = 1.062 .
Deflection at cut-off level due to the applied shear is
ST 3 100 × 3.1943
vT = δ p × = 1.062 × = 0.03203 m = 32.03mm
EpI p 108035
S 100
So the shear stiffness of the pile is = = 3122 kN/m
vT 0.03203

P-8
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HP

From Table HP-3(a), the interpolated moment coefficient is M p = 0.469

Maximum moment on the pile shaft is
M p × ST = 0.469 × 100 × 3.194 = 149.80 kNm.

(ii) The pile is restrained from rotation at the cut-off level and restrained from rotation
and lateral displacement at the tip
From Table HP-3(f), the interpolated deflection coefficient is
δ p = 0.483 .
Deflection at cut-off level due to the horizontal shear is
ST 3 100 × 3.1943
δp × = 0.483 × = 0.01457 m = 14.57mm
EpI p 108035
From Table HO-3(f), the interpolated moment coefficient is M p = 0.672
Maximum moment on the pile shaft is
M p × ST = 0.672 × 100 × 3.194 = 214.64 kNm.

(iii) Rotational stiffness of the floating pile in (i) restrained from translation at the pile
head is to be found. The appropriate coefficient is interpolated from Table HP-4(a)
which is 0.5804. So the rotation due to unit moment applied at the pile head is
0.5804 × MT / E p I p = 0.5804 × 1× 3.194 / 108035 = 17.159 × 10−6 rad
Thus the rotational stiffness is 1 / 17.159 × 10 −6 = 58278 kNm/rad.

HO.6 Frame Analysis Method

Alternatively, the pile can be idealized as a strut member carrying the E p I p value of the
pile laterally supported by a series of elastic “point springs” simulating the lateral support
of the soil as shown in Figure HP-2. The structure can then be solved by the stiffness
method as is included in many commercial softwares.
Ground Level

Figure HP-2 – The Winkler’s Spring Model for Piles under Lateral Load

P-9
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HP

The frame method is used to analyze the pile in Worked Example HP-1. The elastic spring
values worked out follow (Eqn HI-4) as K h = nh z . However, as (Eqn HI-4) in Appendix
HI is the spring value per unit length, each of them has to be multiplied by the tributary
length which is the sum of half the distance between the spring above and the spring below
to obtain the value of a “point support” for stiffness method analysis. As a counter-check,
the problems in Worked Example HP-1 are re-done below by the stiffness method.

Worked Example HP-2

The pile in Worked Example HP-1 is divided into 40 equal segments laterally supported by
41 elastic point springs. The point spring values are worked out using K h d = nh zd
where d is the tributary length equal to d = 20 / 40 = 0.5 m. So the spring value at z
below ground is 325 z × 0.5 = 162.5 z in which starting at z = 3.5 m for the first spring.
The values at the first spring and the last spring are, however, halved as
162.5 × 3.5 × 0.5 = 284.375 and 162.5 × 23.5 × 0.5 = 1909.375 due to the halved tributary
lengths.

Frame analysis is carried out accordingly to give the solution for comparison with results of
Worked Example HP-1 as listed in Table HP-6. It can be seen that the two sets of results
are very close.

HP-1 HP-2
Pile Head
Parameter for Comparison From Tables By Frame
Connection
4 and 5 Analysis
Pile Head Deflection (mm) 32.02 31.52
Pinned Pile Head
Pile Shaft Max Moment (kNm) 149.80 148.48
Connection
Pile Head Rotation (rad) at unit Mt 17.16×10-6 17.13×10-6
Fixed Pile Head Pile Head Deflection (mm) 14.57 14.42
Connection Pile Head Moment (kNm) 214.64 213.71
Table HP-6 – Comparison of Results between Worked Examples HP-1 and HP-2

HP.7 P-∆ Effects

The 1st order linear analysis has ignored the effects of axial load on the lateral deflection
as per the foregoing analysis in this appendix, both by the finite difference and stiffness
approaches. However, for a pile under lateral load, the axial load in the pile can in fact
create additional eccentric moments (axial load × the lateral displacement of the pile) on
the pile and subsequently further lateral displacements. Alternatively it can be regarded
that the axial load decreases the stiffness of the pile thus produce greater lateral
displacements.

Nevertheless, if the analysis is based on (Eqn HI-1) for the finite difference method in
Appendix HI so that (Eqn HP-2) can be modified as follows, P-∆ effects can then be
accounted for.

P-10
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HP

 v − 4vi +1 + 6vi − 4vi −1 + vi −2   vi +1 − 2vi + vi +1  i

E p I p  i+2  + P  + nh Lvi = 0
 (L / N )4
  (L / N )
2
 N

 Pr   2 Pr  L 5 i   P 
⇒ vi + 2 −  4 − 2 vi +1 + 6 − 2 +   5  vi −  4 − r2 vi −1 + vi −2 = 0 (Eqn HP-9)
 N   N  T  N   N 

Other equations for support conditions and application of loads and moments remain
unchanged and the full set of equations can then be analyzed which would include the
effects due to P-∆. Similarly, for the stiffness method, if the combined stiffness (the
conventional stiffness matrix + the geometric matrix) as listed in (Eqn HI-12) is used,
P-∆ effects can also be accounted for.

Figure HP-3 shows the difference in deflection profiles and bending moments of a 40m
long 305×305×223 pile with free head embedded in soil of nh = 1100 kN/m3 under a
horizontal shear of 90kN with and without an axial load of 5500kN. There are significant
differences under such a comparatively high axial load.

Figure HP-3 – An Example Demonstrating the Differences in Deflection and Bending

Moment of a Pile with Free Head with and without P-∆ Effect

Nevertheless, the differences are significantly reduced when the pile head is restrained
against rotation as shown in Figure HP-4. The proportion of stiffness reduction is
smaller when the pile head is fixed.

P-11
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HP

Figure HP-4 – An Example Demonstrating the Differences in Deflection and Bending

Moment of a Pile with Fixed Head with and without P-∆ Effect

Analysis of P-∆ effects is available in many commercial softwares.

P-12
 Appendix HQ

Lateral Resistance of a Piled Foundation –

Distribution of Lateral Loads among the Piles and the

Pile Cap
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HQ

Lateral Resistance of a Piled Foundation – Distribution of Lateral Loads among

the Piles and the Pile Cap

HQ.1 Theoretical Background

The determination of the distribution of lateral shear forces among the piles and the
pile cap of a piled foundation is based on the compatibility of lateral deflections of the
piles and the pile cap at the pile cut-off levels. To simplify calculation, infinite
in-plane stiffness of the pile cap is usually assumed.

The elastic theory is adopted to determine the lateral load distribution among the piles
and the pile cap. The lateral stiffness of the pile group (which is the load to produce
unit displacement) is first determined based on the summation of the lateral
stiffnesses of the individual piles. Consider a pile group of N piles no. 1, 2, 3, …
i, …… N located respectively at coordinates x1 , y1  ,  x2 , y2  , …..
xi , yi  , …… xN , yN  with reference to a pre-determined rectangular co-ordinate
system on X and Y axes. The lateral stiffness of each pile in each of the X and Y
directions is pre-determined as K px1 , K px 2 ,….. K pxi , ….. K pxN and K py1 ,
K py 2 ,….. K pyi ,….. K pyN respectively in accordance with the approach discussed in
Appendix HP.

The lateral stiffness of the pile cap, which may also experience restraint from the
embedded soil can be pre-determined in accordance with the approach discussed in
Appendix HO, if rectangular on plan. The pre-determined lateral stiffnesses and
on-plan rotational stiffness of the cap with respect to the global X and Y axes are
K capx , K capy , K capz and the centroidal axes are at xcap and ycap .

The recommended approach and formulae for analysis are as follows:

(i) The “shear centre” of the pile group and the pile cap is to be located with
respect to the pre-determined coordinate system as

X cg 
 K pyi xi  K capy xcap (Eqn HQ-1)
 K pyi  K capy
Ycg 
K y  K
pxi i capx ycap
(Eqn HQ-2)
K  K pxi capx

(ii) The external applied load in the directions parallel to the global X and Y
directions are denoted by S X and SY respectively. Any unbalanced on plan
torsion calculated about the shear centre is denoted by T which is taken as
positive if it is acting anti-clockwise;

(iii) The total lateral stiffness of the piled foundation system in the X and Y
directions are respectively
K X   K pxi  K capx (Eqn HQ-3)

Q-1
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HQ

K Y   K pyi  K capy (Eqn HQ-4)

Physically the two stiffnesses are the forces required to produce unit
displacements in the directions under consideration when the resultant external
loads acts at the “shear centre”;

(iv) The rotational stiffness of the system is:

 2

J   K pxi  yi  Ycg   K pyi xi  X cg   K capz
2
(Eqn HQ-5)

Physically it is the moment required to produce unit rotation at the shear centre;

(v) To ensure compatibility of the lateral displacements of the pile cap and the piles,
the lateral shears of the pile i in the X and Y directions will respectively be
K K y  Y 
S pxi  S X pxi  T pxi i cg ; (Eqn HQ-6)
KX J
K K x  X cg 
S pyi  SY pyi  T pyi i ; (Eqn HQ-7)
KY J

(vi) The lateral shears in the X and Y directions and torsion acting on the pile cap
are respectively
K K y  Y 
Scapx  S X capx  T capx cap cg ; (Eqn HQ-8)
KX J
K K x  X cg 
S capy  SY capy  T capy cap (Eqn HQ-9)
KY J
K
M cap  T capz (Eqn HQ-10)
J

(vii) As compatibility of displacements of the pile group and the pile cap is ensured,
the lateral displacements (in the global X and Y directions) and rotation of the
shear centre can be worked out as
S S T
X  X ; Y  Y ; Z  (Eqn HQ-11)
KX KY J

HQ.2 Worked Example HQ-1

The distribution of lateral loads on a piled foundation comprising a pile cap covering
26 nos. of H-piles of section 305×305×223 grade S450 piles is analyzed as Worked
Example HQ-1. The piles are 30m long and assumed pinned at the cut-off levels to
the pile cap. The pile cap is 1.5m thick, of plan size 10m by 10m and is buried 1.5m
below the ground surface. Soil restraint on the pile cap can only be considered in
the Y direction. In the X direction where there are foundations of adjacent buildings,
there will be no restraint assumed by the soil on the pile cap. The layout is shown in
Figure HQ-1.

Q-2
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HQ

Pile Layout Plan

Pile Ground Level

Soil of 1.5m
10
Young’s
P23 P24 P25 P26 Modulus
9 5000kPa &
1.5m
P20 P21 P22 Poisson
Ratio 0.35
8 P17 P18 P19 Pile Cap
P16
7
P13 P14 P15
Typical Pile
Distance in m

6
P12

5 P10 P11 30m

Embedding Soil of
4 nh = 4400kN/m3

P8 P9
3

P6
2 P7
P5
1 P1 P2 P3
Y P4
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Pile Section
X Distance in m

Figure HQ-1 – Piling Layout Plan and Details for Worked Example HQ-1
Design Data :

Pile 305305223 H-Pile (Grade S450) ; E steel  205 GPa

I major  52700 cm ; 4
I min or  17580 cm ; B  325.7 mm; D  337.9 mm
4

Soil parameters above pile cut-off level : Esoil  5000 kPa;   0.35 ;
Gsoil  Esoil 21     1851.85 kPa;
Soil below cut-off level nh  4400 kN/m3; Cap width b  10 m

(i) The lateral stiffness of the pile cap is determined by the approach discussed in
Appendix HP. The lateral stiffness of the pile cap in the X-direction is taken as
zero (no soil restraint in the X-direction) and 2.474  bGsoil  45815 kN/m in the
Y direction (Table HO-1(b) with K1=23/10=0.6 and K2=21.5/10=0.3). The
rotational stiffness is 0.414  b 3Gsoil  766667 kNm/rad (Table HO-2(b));

(ii) The lateral stiffnesses of the individual piles are first determined in accordance
with the method discussed in Appendix HP. As discussed the constant of
horizontal subgrade reaction is to be discounted with respect to pile spacing in
accordance with Table 5.2 of the Code. The values arrived at are tabulated in
Table HQ-1. As the ratio of cut-off level depth to pile length is 3/30 = 0.1 and
the piles are floating piles with a pinned connection at the pile heads, Table
HP-3(a) is used to find the lateral deflection coefficients px and py in accordance
with the L/T ratios as tabulated in Table HQ-1. The determination of the pile
shear stiffnesses is in accordance with (Eqn HP-7) in Appendix HP.

Q-3
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HQ

Coordinate Distance to nh Discount Shear Stiffness

Pile TXi TYi
(m) Closest Pile (m) Factor L/TXi L/TYi pxi pyi (kN/m)
No. (m) (m)
xi yi X-dir Y-dir X-dir Y-dir Kpxi Kpyi
P1 3.040 0.500 1.748 8.890 0.605 1.000 2.097 1.523 14.304 19.700 0.911 0.750 12853.27 13599.28
P2 4.788 0.500 1.748 6.190 0.605 1.000 2.097 1.523 14.304 19.700 0.911 0.750 12853.27 13599.28
P3 6.536 0.500 1.748 5.317 0.605 1.000 2.097 1.523 14.304 19.700 0.911 0.750 12853.27 13599.28
P4 8.876 0.500 2.340 1.350 0.878 0.399 1.947 1.830 15.409 16.395 0.870 0.842 16832.95 6984.42
P5 1.870 1.175 10.000 7.540 1.000 1.000 1.897 1.523 15.816 19.700 0.858 0.750 18443.86 13599.28
P6 0.700 1.850 8.176 1.350 1.000 0.399 1.897 1.830 15.816 16.395 0.858 0.842 18443.86 6984.42
P7 8.876 1.850 8.176 1.350 1.000 0.399 1.897 1.830 15.816 16.395 0.858 0.842 18443.86 6984.42
P8 0.700 3.200 8.176 1.350 1.000 0.399 1.897 1.830 15.816 16.395 0.858 0.842 18443.86 6984.42
P9 8.876 3.200 8.176 1.350 1.000 0.399 1.897 1.830 15.816 16.395 0.858 0.842 18443.86 6984.42
P10 0.700 4.945 8.176 1.745 1.000 0.575 1.897 1.701 15.816 17.633 0.858 0.808 18443.86 9059.78
P11 8.876 4.945 8.176 1.745 1.000 0.575 1.897 1.701 15.816 17.633 0.858 0.808 18443.86 9059.78
P12 6.536 5.817 10.000 2.223 1.000 0.787 1.897 1.598 15.816 18.777 0.858 0.776 18443.86 11388.14
P13 0.700 6.690 4.666 1.350 1.000 0.399 1.897 1.830 15.816 16.395 0.858 0.842 18443.86 6984.42
P14 5.366 6.690 3.510 2.025 1.000 0.699 1.897 1.636 15.816 18.338 0.858 0.788 18443.86 10442.38
P15 8.876 6.690 3.510 1.350 1.000 0.399 1.897 1.830 15.816 16.395 0.858 0.842 18443.86 6984.42
P16 7.706 7.365 10.000 1.350 1.000 0.399 1.897 1.830 15.816 16.395 0.858 0.842 18443.86 6984.42
P17 0.700 8.040 5.836 1.350 1.000 0.399 1.897 1.830 15.816 16.395 0.858 0.842 18443.86 6984.42
P18 6.536 8.040 2.340 1.350 0.878 0.399 1.947 1.830 15.409 16.395 0.870 0.842 16832.95 6984.42
P19 8.876 8.040 2.340 1.350 0.878 0.399 1.947 1.830 15.409 16.395 0.870 0.842 16832.95 6984.42
P20 1.870 8.715 3.496 7.540 1.000 1.000 1.897 1.523 15.816 19.700 0.858 0.750 18443.86 13599.28
P21 5.366 8.715 2.340 2.025 0.878 0.699 1.947 1.636 15.409 18.338 0.870 0.788 16832.95 10442.38
P22 7.706 8.715 2.340 1.350 0.878 0.399 1.947 1.830 15.409 16.395 0.870 0.842 16832.95 6984.42
P23 0.700 9.390 2.340 1.350 0.878 0.399 1.947 1.830 15.409 16.395 0.870 0.842 16832.95 6984.42
P24 3.040 9.390 2.340 8.890 0.878 1.000 1.947 1.523 15.409 19.700 0.870 0.750 16832.95 13599.28
P25 6.536 9.390 2.340 1.350 0.878 0.399 1.947 1.830 15.409 16.395 0.870 0.842 16832.95 6984.42
P26 8.876 9.390 2.340 1.350 0.878 0.399 1.947 1.830 15.409 16.395 0.870 0.842 16832.95 6984.42

Table HQ-1 – Lateral Stiffness of the Piled Foundation of Worked Example HQ-1
(iii) The shear centre and stiffness of the piled foundation are worked out by Table
HQ-2 as follows.

Shear Stiffness Coordinate Eccentricity

Pile No / Kpyi.xi Kpxi.yi Kpyixci2 Kpxiyci2
(kN/mm) (m) from pile group (m)
Cap. (kN) (kN) (kNm) (kNm)
Kpxi Kpyi xi yi xci=xi -Xcg yci=yi -Ycg
P1 12853 13599 3.040 0.500 41341.82 6426.637 -1.862 -5.159 47162.16 342075.2
P2 12853 13599 4.788 0.500 65113.37 6426.637 -0.114 -5.159 177.5237 342075.2
P3 12853 13599 6.536 0.500 88884.92 6426.637 1.634 -5.159 36298.22 342075.2
P4 16833 6984 8.876 0.500 61993.72 8416.474 3.974 -5.159 110288.6 447989.8
P5 18444 13599 1.870 1.175 25430.66 21671.53 -3.032 -4.484 125039.5 370814.1
P6 18444 6984 0.700 1.850 4889.095 34121.13 -4.202 -3.809 123337.4 267573
P7 18444 6984 8.876 1.850 61993.72 34121.13 3.974 -3.809 110288.6 267573
P8 18444 6984 0.700 3.200 4889.095 59020.34 -4.202 -2.459 123337.4 111511.6
P9 18444 6984 8.876 3.200 61993.72 59020.34 3.974 -2.459 110288.6 111511.6
P10 18444 9060 0.700 4.945 6341.848 91204.87 -4.202 -0.714 159986.1 9398.98
P11 18444 9060 8.876 4.945 80414.63 91204.87 3.974 -0.714 143059.9 9398.98
P12 18444 11388 6.536 5.817 74432.9 107287.9 1.634 0.158 30396.4 461.235
P13 18444 6984 0.700 6.690 4889.095 123389.4 -4.202 1.031 123337.4 19610.34
P14 18444 10442 5.366 6.690 56033.8 123389.4 0.464 1.031 2245.745 19610.34
P15 18444 6984 8.876 6.690 61993.72 123389.4 3.974 1.031 110288.6 19610.34
P16 18444 6984 7.706 7.365 53821.95 135839 2.804 1.706 54904.49 53688.33
P17 18444 6984 0.700 8.040 4889.095 148288.6 -4.202 2.381 123337.4 104573.3
P18 16833 6984 6.536 8.040 45650.18 135336.9 1.634 2.381 18642.31 95439.73
P19 16833 6984 8.876 8.040 61993.72 135336.9 3.974 2.381 110288.6 95439.73
P20 18444 13599 1.870 8.715 25430.66 160738.2 -3.032 3.056 125039.5 172265.2
P21 16833 10442 5.366 8.715 56033.8 146699.2 0.464 3.056 2245.745 157219.4
P22 16833 6984 7.706 8.715 53821.95 146699.2 2.804 3.056 54904.49 157219.4
P23 16833 6984 0.700 9.390 4889.095 158061.4 -4.202 3.731 123337.4 234338
P24 16833 13599 3.040 9.390 41341.82 158061.4 -1.862 3.731 47162.16 234338
P25 16833 6984 6.536 9.390 45650.18 158061.4 1.634 3.731 18642.31 234338
P26 16833 6984 8.876 9.390 61993.72 158061.4 3.974 3.731 110288.6 234338
Pile Cap 0 45815 5.000 5.000 229075 0 0.098 -0.659 437.7322 0
Sum 448270 282569 1385227 2536700 2144763 4454486

Table HQ-2 – Summary of Stiffness of the Piled Foundation of Worked Example HQ-1

Q-4
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HQ

From Table HQ-2, the total translational stiffnesses of the piled foundation in the
X and Y directions are K X  448270 kN/m and K Y  282569 kN/m respectively
(as sum of the 2nd and 3rd columns respectively)
By (Eqn HQ-1) and (Eqn HQ-2), the shear centre is located at

X cg 
 K pyi xi  K capy xcap  1385227  4.902 m from the origin,
 K pyi  K capy 282569

Ycg 
K y pxi i  K capx y cap
2536700
  5.659 m from the origin.
K pxi  K capx 448270
Based on the worked out location of the shear centre, the coordinates of the piles
and the pile cap are shifted (the 8th and 9th columns) relative to the shear centre as
the origin. The rotational stiffness of the pile cap is therefore worked out as
  
J   K pxi  yi  Ycg   K pyi xi  X cg   K capz  K pxi yci  K pyi xci  K capz
2 2 2 2

 2144763  4454486  766667  7365916 kNm/rad by (Eqn HQ-5)

(iv) The applied external lateral wind load about the shear centre are worked out as :
Wind X (kN) Wind Y (kN) On-plan Moment (kNm)
Wind Load in X-direction 2260 0 1755.449
Wind Load in Y-direction 15 1890 680.7435

Table HQ-3 – Summary of External Lateral Load of Worked Example HQ-1

(v) The shears and moments acting on the piles and the pile cap are worked out for
two wind load cases in accordance with (Eqn HQ-6) to (Eqn HQ-10) and
tabulated in Tables HQ-4(a) and HQ-4(b) as follows :
Shear (kN) Moment Coeff. Max. Moment (kNm)
Pile No /
Cap Due to Direct Shear Due to Torsion Total along along
Mpxi Mpyi
X-X Y-Y X-X Y-Y X-X Y-Y X-X Y-Y
P1 64.801 0.000 15.803 -6.036 80.604 -6.036 0.436 0.398 73.68 -3.66
P2 64.801 0.000 15.803 -0.370 80.604 -0.370 0.436 0.398 73.68 -0.22
P3 64.801 0.000 15.803 5.295 80.604 5.295 0.436 0.398 73.68 3.21
P4 84.865 0.000 20.695 6.614 105.560 6.614 0.426 0.420 87.61 5.08
P5 92.987 0.000 19.709 -9.827 112.696 -9.827 0.424 0.398 90.55 -5.96
P6 92.987 0.000 16.742 -6.995 109.729 -6.995 0.424 0.420 88.17 -5.37
P7 92.987 0.000 16.742 6.614 109.729 6.614 0.424 0.420 88.17 5.08
P8 92.987 0.000 10.808 -6.995 103.795 -6.995 0.424 0.420 83.40 -5.37
P9 92.987 0.000 10.808 6.614 103.795 6.614 0.424 0.420 83.40 5.08
P10 92.987 0.000 3.138 -9.073 96.124 -9.073 0.424 0.412 77.24 -6.35
P11 92.987 0.000 3.138 8.580 96.124 8.580 0.424 0.412 77.24 6.01
P12 92.987 0.000 -0.695 4.434 92.291 4.434 0.424 0.404 74.16 2.86
P13 92.987 0.000 -4.532 -6.995 88.454 -6.995 0.424 0.420 71.07 -5.37
P14 92.987 0.000 -4.532 1.154 88.454 1.154 0.424 0.407 71.07 0.77
P15 92.987 0.000 -4.532 6.614 88.454 6.614 0.424 0.420 71.07 5.08
P16 92.987 0.000 -7.499 4.667 85.487 4.667 0.424 0.420 68.69 3.58
P17 92.987 0.000 -10.466 -6.995 82.520 -6.995 0.424 0.420 66.31 -5.37
P18 84.865 0.000 -9.552 2.719 75.313 2.719 0.426 0.420 62.51 2.09
P19 84.865 0.000 -9.552 6.614 75.313 6.614 0.426 0.420 62.51 5.08
P20 92.987 0.000 -13.433 -9.827 79.553 -9.827 0.424 0.398 63.92 -5.96
P21 84.865 0.000 -12.260 1.154 72.605 1.154 0.426 0.407 60.26 0.77
P22 84.865 0.000 -12.260 4.667 72.605 4.667 0.426 0.420 60.26 3.58
P23 84.865 0.000 -14.968 -6.995 69.897 -6.995 0.426 0.420 58.01 -5.37
P24 84.865 0.000 -14.968 -6.036 69.897 -6.036 0.426 0.398 58.01 -3.66
P25 84.865 0.000 -14.968 2.719 69.897 2.719 0.426 0.420 58.01 2.09
P26 84.865 0.000 -14.968 6.614 69.897 6.614 0.426 0.420 58.01 5.08
Pile Cap 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.067 0.000 1.067 – – – –
Sum 2260.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 2260.00 0.000

Table HQ-4(a) – Summary of Pile and Pile Cap Reactions to Wind in X-direction

Q-5
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HQ

Shear (kN) Moment Coeff. Max. Moment (kNm)

Pile No /
Cap Due to Direct Shear Due to Torsion Total along along
Mpxi Mpyi
X-X Y-Y X-X Y-Y X-X Y-Y X-X Y-Y
P1 0.430 90.960 6.128 -2.341 6.558 88.620 0.436 0.398 5.99 53.71
P2 0.430 90.960 6.128 -0.144 6.558 90.817 0.436 0.398 5.99 55.04
P3 0.430 90.960 6.128 2.053 6.558 93.014 0.436 0.398 5.99 56.37
P4 0.563 46.716 8.025 2.565 8.589 49.281 0.426 0.420 7.13 37.85
P5 0.617 90.960 7.643 -3.811 8.260 87.149 0.424 0.398 6.64 52.82
P6 0.617 46.716 6.492 -2.712 7.110 44.004 0.424 0.420 5.71 33.80
P7 0.617 46.716 6.492 2.565 7.110 49.281 0.424 0.420 5.71 37.85
P8 0.617 46.716 4.191 -2.712 4.808 44.004 0.424 0.420 3.86 33.80
P9 0.617 46.716 4.191 2.565 4.808 49.281 0.424 0.420 3.86 37.85
P10 0.617 60.597 1.217 -3.518 1.834 57.079 0.424 0.412 1.47 39.97
P11 0.617 60.597 1.217 3.327 1.834 63.925 0.424 0.412 1.47 44.77
P12 0.617 76.171 -0.270 1.719 0.348 77.890 0.424 0.404 0.28 50.28
P13 0.617 46.716 -1.758 -2.712 -1.140 44.004 0.424 0.420 -0.92 33.80
P14 0.617 69.845 -1.758 0.448 -1.140 70.293 0.424 0.407 -0.92 46.80
P15 0.617 46.716 -1.758 2.565 -1.140 49.281 0.424 0.420 -0.92 37.85
P16 0.617 46.716 -2.908 1.810 -2.291 48.526 0.424 0.420 -1.84 37.27
P17 0.617 46.716 -4.059 -2.712 -3.442 44.004 0.424 0.420 -2.77 33.80
P18 0.563 46.716 -3.704 1.055 -3.141 47.771 0.426 0.420 -2.61 36.69
P19 0.563 46.716 -3.704 2.565 -3.141 49.281 0.426 0.420 -2.61 37.85
P20 0.617 90.960 -5.209 -3.811 -4.592 87.149 0.424 0.398 -3.69 52.82
P21 0.563 69.845 -4.754 0.448 -4.191 70.293 0.426 0.407 -3.48 46.80
P22 0.563 46.716 -4.754 1.810 -4.191 48.526 0.426 0.420 -3.48 37.27
P23 0.563 46.716 -5.804 -2.712 -5.241 44.004 0.426 0.420 -4.35 33.80
P24 0.563 90.960 -5.804 -2.341 -5.241 88.620 0.426 0.398 -4.35 53.71
P25 0.563 46.716 -5.804 1.055 -5.241 47.771 0.426 0.420 -4.35 36.69
P26 0.563 46.716 -5.804 2.565 -5.241 49.281 0.426 0.420 -4.35 37.85
Pile Cap 0.000 306.439 0.000 0.414 0.000 306.853 – – – –
Sum 15.00 1890.00 0.000 0.000 15.00 1890.00

Table HQ-4(b) – Summary of Pile and Pile Cap Reactions to Wind in Y-direction

The determination of maximum moment on the pile shaft is based on the

coefficients from Table HP-3(a) in Appendix HP in accordance with the L/T ratios.
The moments are determined by multiplying the coefficients by the shear and the
T values according to Table HP-2.

The shear in the pile cap is given in the Table whilst the torsion on the pile cap
has to be worked out using (Eqn HQ-10) as
K 766667
M cap  T capz  1755.449   182.71 kNm for Wind in the X-direction
J 7365916
K 766667
M cap  T capz  680.74   70.85 kNm for Wind in the Y-direction
J 7365916

(vi) The displacement of the shear centre of the piled foundation is determined by
(Eqn HQ-11) as

Translation in Translation in On-plan Rotation

X-direction (mm) Y-direction (mm) (Radian / Degrees)
Wind Load in X-direction 8.00 0 0.000238 / 0.014o
Wind Load in Y-direction 0.05 6.69 0.000092 / 0.0053o

Table HQ-5 – Summary of Pile and Pile Cap Displacements to Wind Loads

Lateral displacements of a pile i or any coordinate point  X ci , Yci  with respect

Q-6
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HQ

to the coordinate system with the shear Centre as the origin and the axes parallel
to the X and Y axes can be determined as

Along the X-direction X g  Yci 

Along the Y-direction Yg  X ci 
where X g , X g and  are respectively the translation of the shear centre
in the X-direction, translation of the shear centre in the Y-direction and on-plan
rotation of the shear centre. Take the Worked Example HQ-1 for the case of
“Wind Load in X-direction” where the on-plan rotation of the shear centre is
positive (i.e. anti-clockwise), the pile no. P26 (at 3.974m and 3.731m along X
and Y respectively from the shear centre of the system) should therefore suffer
the actual translation as

Along the X-direction X g  Yci   8.00  0.000238  3731  7.11 mm

Along the Y-direction Yg  X ci   0  0.000238  3974  0.95 mm

HQ.3 Application in Mathematical Models

The approach as described above is for hand calculations with or without the use of
spreadsheets. Nevertheless, with the inputs of the stiffnesses of the piles and the pile
cap into computer mathematical models, the analysis can also be carried out by
computer software. Nowadays analysis based on 3-dimensional mathematical
models can analyze in-plane (due to shear) and out-of-plane loads simultaneously
enabling load combinations to be carried out for structural design.

Q-7
 Appendix HR

Assessment of Effects on Adjacent Structures due to

Loads from a New Structure by the Continuum

Theory based on Mindlin’s Equation

An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HR

Assessment of Effects on Adjacent Structures due to Loads from a New Structure

by the Continuum Theory based on Mindlin’s Equations

HR.1 Theoretical Background

The Mindlin’s Equations calculate stresses and deformations in various directions at a

point within a semi-infinite elastic medium due to a point load acting in the same
medium but at another point. Figure HR-1 indicates application of the equations for
calculating direct and shear stresses at the point B due to a vertical point load P at
A.

c P Ground Level

R2
Ground Level
A
z

Z R1 R1  x 2  y 2  z  c 2

Y B R2  x 2  y 2  z  c 2
v is the Poisson’s ratio of the
Medium
y
X x

 1  2v z  c  3 x 2 z  c  1  2v 3z  c   4vz  c  33  4v x 2 z  c   6cz  c 1  2c z  2vc 

    
P  R13 R15 R2 3 R2 5 
x    (Eqn HR-1)
8 1  v   30cx 2 z z  c  41  v 1  2v   2 2  
  1  x

x 


 R 2
7 R 2 R 2  z  c   R2 R2  z  c  R 2 
 2  

 1  2v z  c  3 y 2 z  c  1  2v 3z  c   4vz  c  33  4v y 2 z  c   6cz  c 1  2c z  2vc 
    
P  R13 R15 R2 3 R2 5 
y   
8 1  v   30cy 2 z z  c  41  v 1  2v   y2 y 2  
   1  
 R2 7 R 
2 2R  z  c  

R R
2 2  z  c  R2 2  

(Eqn HR-2)
 P  1  2v z  c  1  2v z  c  3z  c 3 33  4v z z  c 2  3cz  c 5 z  c  30cz z  c 3 
z        (Eqn HR-3)
8 1  v  
 R13 R2 3 R15 R2 5 R2 7 

 Py  1  2v 1  2v 3z  c 2 33  4v z z  c   3c3z  c  30cz z  c 2 

 yz        (Eqn HR-4)
8 1  v   R 3
 1 R2 3 R15 R2 5 R2 7 

 Px  1  2v 1  2v 3z  c 2 33  4v z z  c   3c3 z  c  30cz z  c 2 

 zx        (Eqn HR-5)
8 1  v   R 3
 1 R2 3 R15 R2 5 R2 7 

 Pxy  3z  c  33  4v z  c  41  v 1  2v   1 1  30cz z  c  

 xy       
8 1  v   R zc  R  (Eqn HR-6)
 R15
R2 5
R2 R2  z  c   2
2
2  R2 7 

Figure HR-1 – Illustration of Mindlin’s Equations for Determination of Various

Components of Stresses due to a Vertical Load in a Semi-infinite Elastic Medium

R-1
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HR

The effects due to loaded area can then be obtained by integrating the effects over the
whole area which can be idealized as comprising a series of point loads. For
example, if the exerting stress of an area of load at a location of coordinate  x, y  is
u z  x, y  by which we can define a point load dP  u z  x, y dxdy acting at the point
and by applying the relevant formula in Figure HR-1, we can calculate the effect, say
the vertical stress at another point X due to the point load as
d z  dPI z  x, y   u z  x, y dxdyI z  x, y  where I z  x, y  is the coefficient of P in (Eqn
HR-3). The total effect due to the area load at X will then be
 d z   u z x, y I z x, y dxdy .
A A

HR.2 Worked Example HR-1

A rectangular footing of plan area 40m by 30m is exerting a linearly varying “net”
ground pressures at 3m below ground. That is, the pressures are due to the weight of
the structure minus the weight of soil displaced. The “net” pressures at the 4 corners
of the footing are 125kPa, 155kPa, 45kPa and 75kPa as shown in Figure HR-2 in
which a coordinate system with the origin at the centre of the footing is shown. The
ground pressure at any point  x, y  within the footprint of the footing can then be
defined by the equation P x, y   2 x  y  100 . The horizontal and shear stresses of
a wall at location shown in Figure HR-2 with its top level at the ground and bottom
level 15m below ground are to be determined.

Pressure = A
45kPa Y
20m 20m Pressure =
125kPa

10m
Footing Grd Level
15m
3m

15m
X

15m
Section A-A

10m
15m 10m Pressure =
155kPa

Pressure =
75kPa A Underground Wall
where Stresses are
to be found
Plan

Figure HR-2 – Worked Example HR-1

The normal stresses of the wall (stresses in the global Y direction of Figure HR-2) are
calculated for points in on the wall at 1m gird (in both global X and Z directions) and
the stress contour is plotted is Figure HR-3. Analytical solutions have not been

R-2
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HR

found for the integrals. Instead numerical solutions based on the software Mathcad
(2001) have been used for calculation and plotting. Alternatively, other software
including Microsoft excel can be used.

Ground

5m below
Ground

10m below
Ground

15m below Grd

Figure HR-3(a) – Normal Stress Contours in kPa on the Wall of Worked Example HR-1

Similarly, the shear stresses on the wall are also calculated and plotted in Figure
HR-3(b)
Grd

5m below Grd

10m below Grd

15m below Grd

Figure HR-3(b) – Shear Stress Contours in kPa on the Wall of Worked Example HR-1

R-3
 Appendix HS

Seepage Analysis of Excavation in a Homogeneous,

Isotropic Soil Medium

An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HS

Seepage Analysis of Excavation in a Homogeneous, Isotropic Soil Medium

HS.1 Theoretical Background

By the theory of water seepage through soil, the following governing differential
equation can be derived which is found in many text books.
 2h  2h
Kx 2  Ky 2  0 (Eqn HS-1)
x y

In the equation, h is the total head (the sum of elevation head and pressure head in
the Bernoulli Theorem with the velocity head ignored due to its insignificant
contribution, K x and K y are the coefficients of permeability of the soil in the X
and Y directions defined by the Darcy Law as :
h h
vx  K x ; vy  K y (Eqn HS-2)
x y

where v x and v y are respectively the velocities of flow of water in the soil in the X
and Y directions.

Though numerical methods can always be used to solve (Eqn HS-1), analytical
solutions of the equation can also be found for certain cases where the geometries of
excavations involving impermeable walls are simple. The following Worked
Examples HS-1 and HS-2 illustrate the use of analytical solutions for two simple but
common geometries by which water pressures on the wall and the “criticalities” of
water seepage can be estimated. However, in these 2 examples, the ground water
levels are assumed to be at constant levels on the upstream sides so that constant
values of total head h can be prescribed at the levels as boundary conditions to the
differential equation at (Eqn HS-1) for solution. The assumption in fact transforms
the problem to a “confined flow” problem where the water is flowing through fixed
boundary. On the other hand, if the assumption is not adopted where the flow
becomes an “unconfined flow”, the ground water level is not constant but drops
towards the sheetpile and the solution has to be based on a trial and error process
which will be discussed in the later part of this appendix. Nevertheless, the analysis
will be more critical in terms of water pressure and flow under the “confined flow”
assumption which can be adopted as a conservative design for excavation supported
by sheetpile.

HS.2 Worked Example HS-1 – Impermeable layer at depth at infinity

In the example, the head and criticalities of an excavation shown in Figure HS-1
where the flow is at steady stage are to be estimated. The impermeable soil layer is
taken at depth infinity and the soil is homogeneous and isotropic. It is also intended
to keep the water level at the downstream side constant at 0.5m (by pumping) below
ground.

S-1
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HS

Hu = 1.5m
GWL
A
T is at most measured to the ground H = 3m
level of the upstream side even if the T = 3m
water level is above ground level while
H is measured to the water level on the 0.5m C
upstream side, regardless whether the
B z=0
water level is above or below ground. So d = 2.5m
T = H if the water level is below ground
on the upstream side, otherwise T < H. F

Figure HS-1 – Worked Example HS-1

If the soil is homogeneous and isotropic where K x  K y , (Eqn HS-1) can be reduced
 2h  2h
to  0 (Eqn HS-3)
x 2 y 2

Analytical solutions for the geometry have been derived and are listed in Azizi (2000)
and the following steps can be followed :

(i) Determine  from (Eqn HS-4) listed below (by trial and error)
d
tan      (Eqn HS-4)
T

(ii) Determine hF (head at F which is the toe level of the impermeable wall) by
hF   H (Eqn HS-5)

H T 
(iii) Determine   ;  ;  (Eqn HS-6)
  coshF /  

(iv) The equation relating total head hz along the wall and depth z is
h h
z  z   sin z (Eqn HS-7)
 
where z is taken as zero at the downstream water level. It should be noted
that the equation is applicable both upstream and downstream. When hz
increases along the flow from upstream to downstream, z will change from
decreasing to increasing at the upstream course.

(v) The average hydraulic gradient at the upstream side at the wall at level z is
h h
iuz  A z (Eqn HS-8)
T z
where hA is the total head at the ground surface of the upstream side.

(vi) The average hydraulic gradient at the upstream side at the wall at level z is

S-2
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HS

hz  hB
iud  (Eqn HS-9)
z
where hB is the total head at the water surface of the downstream side.

(vii) The actual pressure is hz  z  w where  w is the density of water.

For the numerical problem in Worked Example HS-1, by (Eqn HS-4)

d   2.5
tan          0.42089
T 3
hF  H  0.42089  3  1.26267
H 3 T 3 
    0.95493 ;     0.95493 ;    3.882132
    coshF /  

So the governing equation between z and hz is

h h
z  z   sin z  hz  3.882132 sin 1.047198hz ;
 

The calculated results at the various levels on the upstream and downstream sides are
tabulated as :

Average Hydraulic Average Hydraulic

Head Depth Hydraulic Pressure Head Depth Hydraulic Pressure
hz (m) z (m) Gradient (hz – z)w hz (m) z (m) Gradient (hz – z)w
izu (kPa) izd (kPa)
3 3 0 0.00 0 0.0000 0 0.00
2.75 1.7452 0.1992 10.05 0.25 –0.7548 –0.3312 10.05
2.5 0.5589 0.2048 19.41 0.5 –1.4411 –0.3470 19.41
2.25 –0.4951 0.2146 27.45 0.75 –1.9951 –0.3759 27.45
2 –1.3620 0.2293 33.62 1 –2.3620 –0.4234 33.62
1.75 –1.9999 0.2500 37.50 1.25 –2.4999 –0.5000 37.50
1.625 –2.2239 0.2632 38.49 1.272 –2.5000 –0.5088 37.72
1.5 –2.3821 0.2787 38.82
1.45 –2.4268 0.2856 38.77
1.4 –2.4609 0.2930 38.61
1.272 –2.5000 0.3142 37.72
Table HS-1(a) – Summary of Upstream Side Table HS-1(b) – Summary of Downstream Side

Table HS-1 – Summary of Heads/Pressures of Worked Example HS-1

The calculated hydrostatic pressure profiles are plotted in Figure HS-2 as follows :

S-3
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HS

Upstream Net Water Pressure

Water Pressure on Wall Stem with
on Wall Stem Seepage
with Seepage

Upstream Water Downstream

Pressure on Wall Water Pressure on
Stem without Wall Stem
Seepage without Seepage

Downstream
Water Pressure
on Wall Stem
with Seepage

Figure HS-2 – Hydrostatic Pressures on Wall in Worked Example HS-1

The total forces and moments on the wall due to the seeping water on both sides are
summed and tabulated as :

Force (kN) per metre width Moment (kNm) about wall toe per metre width
Up Stream Down Stream Net Up Stream Down Stream Net
116.8 42.99 73.81 218.33 35.19 183.14

The average hydraulic gradient at downstream is 0.5. The “Quick sand” effect can
be assumed not to take place as the gradient is less than the critical value of the ratio
of buoyant density of soil over density of water divided by 1.5 which is
19  10 / 10 / 1.5  0.6 . It should be pointed out that the water pressures at both
sides at the wall toe must be equal. Thus adoption of the “No seepage” hydrostatic
pressure for design will be very conservative.

HS.3 Worked Example HS-2 – Impermeable layer at finite depth

Worked Example HS-1 is modified with the impermeable layer at finite depth as
shown in Figure HS-3 and re-analyzed as Worked Example HS-2.

S-4
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HS

Hu = 1.5m
A
H = 3m

0.5m C
B
d = 2.5m
T = 9m
D = 6m
F

L = 3.5m

z=0 Impermeable Layer

Figure HS-3 – Worked Example HS-2

The analytical formulae are different from those of Worked Example HS-1 which are
listed as follows. z  0 is set at the level of the impermeable layer.

H
(i) Calculate   (Eqn HS-9)
T T 2  D D2 
ln    1  ln    1
 L L2   L L2 

z z2 
(ii) Along upstream side AF, the head is hz   ln   2  1 (Eqn HS-10)
 L L 

z z2 
(iii) Along downstream side AF, the head is hz   ln   2  1 (Eqn HS-11)
 L L 

T T2 
(iv) Determine the head at A hA   ln    1 ; and head at B
 L L2 
D D2 
hB   ln    1 and it can be shown that hA  hB  H
 L L2 

(v) So the total head at z on wall upstream is hTuz  hz  hA  T (Eqn HS-12)

and at z on the wall downstream is hTdz  hz  hB  D (Eqn HS-13)

(vi) The water pressure at z on wall at upstream is hTuz  z  w (Eqn HS-14)

and that at z on the wall downstream is hTdz  z  w (Eqn HS-15)

S-5
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HS

For the numerical problem in Figure HS-3,   1.0985 ; hA  1.7548 m;

hB  1.2452 m
The heads, hydraulic gradients, and water pressures are tabulated as follows :

Average Water Average Water

hTuz = hz
Depth Head Hydraulic Pressure Depth Head hTdz = hz Hydraulic Pressure
– hA + T
z (m) hz (m) Gradient (hTuz – z)w z (m) hz (m) – hB + D Gradient (hTdz – z)w
(m)
izu (kPa) (m) izd (kPa)
9 1.7548 9.0000 0.0000 0.00 6 –1.2452 6.0000 0.0000 0.00
8.5 1.6863 8.9315 0.1370 4.31 5.5 –1.1246 6.1206 –0.2412 6.21
8 1.6127 8.8579 0.1421 8.58 5 –0.9838 6.2614 –0.2614 12.61
7.5 1.5332 8.7784 0.1477 12.78 4.5 –0.8118 6.4334 –0.2889 19.33
7 1.4467 8.6919 0.1541 16.92 4 –0.5804 6.6648 –0.3324 26.65
6.5 1.3514 8.5966 0.1614 20.97 3.5 0.0000 7.2452 –0.4981 37.45
6 1.2452 8.4904 0.1699 24.90
5.5 1.1246 8.3698 0.1801 28.70
5 0.9838 8.2290 0.1927 32.29
4.5 0.8118 8.0570 0.2096 35.57
4 0.5804 7.8256 0.2349 38.26
3.5 0.0000 7.2452 0.3191 37.45
Table HS-2(a) – Summary of Upstream Side Table HS-2(b) – Summary of Downstream Side

Table HS-2 – Summary of Heads/Pressures of Worked Example HS-2

The calculated hydrostatic pressure profiles are plotted in Figure HS-4 as follows :

Upstream Net Water

Water Pressure Pressure on
on Wall Stem Wall Stem
with Seepage with Seepage

Downstream
Upstream Water
Water Pressure on
Pressure on Wall
Wall Stem
Stem without
without Seepage
Seepage

Downstream
Water Pressure
on Wall Stem
with Seepage

Figure HS-4 – Hydrostatic Pressures on Wall in Worked Example HS-2

S-6
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HS

Summing the total force and moments on the wall due to the seeping water on both
sides :

Force (kN) per metre width Moment (kNm) about wall toe per metre width
Up Stream Down Stream Net Up Stream Down Stream Net
121.0 41.76 79.24 229.67 33.56 196.12

As compared with Worked Example HS-1, there is a slight increase in the forces and
moments.

The exercise is re-done by decreasing the depth between the wall toe and the
impermeable layer to 1.5m as Worked Example HS-3 and the summation of force and
moment become as follows which only slightly greater than Worked Example HS-2:

Force (kN) per metre width Moment (kNm) about wall toe per metre width
Up Stream Down Stream Net Up Stream Down Stream Net
123.37 41.60 81.76 234.58 33.30 201.28

Again the average hydraulic gradient which is 0.5 < 0.6 as in Worked Example HS-1.

HS.4 Solution by Numerical Method

(Eqn HS-1) can in fact be solved by the finite difference method. The 2-dimensional
soil medium is first divided into a regular rectangular mesh with “nodes” at which the
total head h as defined in para. HS.1 are to be determined. Formulation in
accordance with (Eqn HS-1) in accordnce with the h value of a point at the location
i, j  denoted as hi , j as illustrated in Figure HS-5 can be as follows :
hi , j 1  2hi , j  hi , j 1 hi 1, j  2hi , j  hi 1, j
Kx  Ky
0 (Eqn HS-16)
x 2 y 2
where x and y are the intervals between adjacent points in the X and Y
directions along the rectangular mesh as shown in Figure HS-5.

hi-1,,j

hi,,j hi,,j+1
hi,,j-1
y
hi+1,,j The ith row

x
hN-1,,j
Impermeable
hN,,j Layer

The jth column hN+1,,j (fictitious node)

Figure HS-5 – Soil Medium Idealized into a Regular Rectangular Mesh

If setting K x  K y , x  y , (Eqn HS-16) can be simplified to

S-7
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HS

hi 1, j  hi , j 1  4hi , j  hi , j 1  hi 1, j  0 (Eqn HS-17)

N number of equations can be formulated in accordance with (Eqn HS-17) for N

number of nodes, together with the use of “fictitious nodes” outside the soil medium
which is the usual assumption in finite difference analysis. To ensure the number of
equations equals the sum of the N real nodes and the number of fictitious nodes,
additional “boundary conditions” equations have to be included. For the Worked
Example HS-2 where x  y  0.5 m, these boundary conditions include :

(i) Total head h remain constant at the nodes along the top “free surface” of the
upstream and downstream sides which are respectively 9m and 6m;

(ii) At the nodes along a vertical edge considerably far away from the wall, the
hydrostatic conditions are considered normal without flow, i.e. the total head h
remain constant. The total head at a node at z below the top surface along
the far vertical edge at the upstream side, the elevation head is 9  z and the
pressure head is z so that the total head remains at h  9  z   z  9 .
Similarly for the downstream side the total head at the nodes along the far edge
remains at h  6 . The far edges are taken as 10m from the wall;

(iii) The speed of flow in (1) the vertical direction (Y-direction) at the impermeable
layer and (2) the horizontal direction at the wall are 0, i.e. by (Eqn HS-2) for (1)
h hN 1, j  hN 1, j
vy  K y 0  0  hN 1, j  hN 1, j where hN 1, j and hN 1, j
y 2y
are respectively the heads at the nodes just above the impermeable layer and at
the “fictitious nodes” beneath the impermeable layer as illustrated in Figure
HS-5 above. Similar boundary conditions can be formulated for (2).

The solution yields the total head contours (or equi-potential lines) in Figure HS-6. A
set of “flow-lines” perpendicular to the total head contours are superimposed onto the
total head contours to form the “flow net”.
Volume of flow summed
Variation of
up is 2.06m3/day per
Flow rate
metre width of
excavation
Very Low
Flow Rate
0.495m/day

Figure HS-6 – “Flow net” Analysis of Worked Example HS-2 by the Finite Difference Method

S-8
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HS

In addition, the water flow rate at coordiante y  j at the top level of the downstream
h hM , j  hM 1, j
side can be calculated by v y  K y  Ky where hM , j is the head at
y y  M y
the top of the downstream surface. Taking K y  2 10 5 m/sec, the flow rates at
various points are calculated and plotted in Figure HS-6. The total seepage volume
can be determined numerically at 2.06m3/day.

The “pressure head” can, however be obtained by subtracting the elevation head from
the total head as determined previously. The hydrostatic pressure can then be
determined by multiplying the pressure head by the density of water and the pressure
contour is plotted in Figure HS-7.

Figure HS-7 – Hydrostatic Pressure Contour of Worked Example HS-2

HS.5 Finite Element Approach

The flow can also be solved analytically by the finite element method in which the
soil medium is “meshed” into an assembly of polygonal elements similar to that of
structural analysis. The commonest elements are the triangular element and
rectangular element and solution at the nodes are the total head. For a rectangular
element of sides 2a and 2b , the “seepage stiffness” matrix of isotropic material is

 a2  b2  2a 2  b 2 a 2  2b 2  a 2  b2 
 
 3ab 6ab 6ab 6ab 
  2a  b a2  b2  a 2  b2 a 2  2b 2 
2 2

K e  K s  26ab 2 3ab 6ab 6ab  (Eqn HS-18)

a  2b  a 2  b2 a2  b2  2a 2  b 2 
 
 62ab 2 6ab 3ab 6ab 
 a b a 2  2b 2  2a 2  b 2 a2  b2 
 6ab 6ab 6ab 3ab 

With the formulation of “seepage stiffness” matrix for each element and the entire

S-9
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HS

matrix for the soil mass can be assembled in the same manner as that for structural
analysis. Conditions at boundaries can also be similarly prescribed for solution of the
total head h at the joining nodes of the elements.

HS.6 Unconfined Flow

If the assumption of prescribed constant ground water level on the upstream side is
not adopted resulting in “unconfined flow”, the upstream profile becomes another
unknown to be solved. So the upstream top water level is not prescribed to a
constant total head but instead only under the condition that the vertical flow velocity
is zero as similar to the impermeable layer below. However, total head values less
than the elevation heads resulting in negative hydraulic pressure heads will be
resulted at certain nodes at the upper portion of the upstream side. In the finite
difference approach, these nodes have to be eliminated for re-analysis as shown in
Figure HS-8. The iterative process should go on until only one layer of negative
hydraulic pressure heads are obtained and the zero hydraulic pressure head can be
obtained by interpolation between the negative head nodes and the next positive head
nodes. In the finite element approach, however, as any rectangular element with one
or more negative hydraulic pressure head values have to be eliminated altogether
resulting finally with all positive values, the zero hydraulic pressure head profile has
to be obtained by extrapolation for the zero values. The zero hydraulic pressure
head profile is obviously the final ground water level.

Nodes with Negative Hydraulic

Head Values to be Eliminated
in the Next Analysis

Final Water Profile with Zero

Hydraulic Pressure Head

Figure HS-8 – Finite Difference Mesh after Elimination of Nodes of Negative Water Heads
and Final Water Profile

S-10
 Appendix HT

Trench Stability Calculation of Bentonite Slurry

Excavation
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HT

Trench Stability Calculation of Bentonite Slurry Excavation

The calculation is based on Schneebeli’s Method as quoted by Hajinal I. et. al.’s “Construction of
Diaphragm Walls”. The method is applicable to both cohesive and cohesionless soils.

HT.1 Theoretical Background

The theoretical background and design parameters are summarized as follows :

(i) Trench stability is ensured when the “net bentonite pressure” (which is the pressure
exerted by the bentonite inside the trench less the ground water pressure outside)
achieves a factor of safety 1.2 (in line with many temporary work practices) over
the effective lateral soil pressure. Mathematically, it is expressed as :

Pb  Pw
 FOS  1.2 (Eqn HT-1)
 'h

(ii) In (Eqn HT-1) above, Pb is the pressure exerted by the bentonite inside the trench.
It varies with hb (which is the depth below the top level of the bentonite) as

Pb   b hb (Eqn HT-2)
where  b is the density of the bentonite

Similarly Pw which is the pressure by the water outside the trench at depth hw
below the ground water level can be calculated by

Pw   w hw (Eqn HT-3)
where  w is the density of water.

(iii)  'h is the lateral earth pressure to be supported by the net bentonite pressure. It is
1  sin 
conventionally related to the coefficient of active soil pressure K a  ,
1  sin 
vertical effective stress  'v and cohesion c as

 'h  K a 'v 2c K a (Eqn HT-4)

Determination of  'v can take into account the “vertical arching effect” which is
significant over the relatively short length of a barrette. The arching effect serves
to reduce the effective vertical pressure from the pure overburden weight of the soil
and surcharge by (Eqn HT-5) :

 sL
 'v 
sin 2

1  e sin 2 . z / L   q0e sin 2 . z / L (Eqn HT-5)

The outstanding symbols in the above equations are defined as follows :

T-1
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HT

z is the depth under consideration;

L is the length of the trench opening;
 is the soil friction angle;
 s is the effective weight of soil;
z is the depth of soil;
c is cohesion of the soil;
q0 is the vertical surcharge.

It can be shown that the first term of (Eqn HT-5) will tend to  s z and the second
term tend to q0 when L tends to infinity.

(iv) The equations listed in (iii) are for homogeneous soil. For layered soil,  'v
needs to be assessed layer by layer with q0 being the vertical stress at the top level
of the layer.

HT.2 Worked Example HT-1

The following worked example serves to demonstrate the use of the equations in HT.1.

Determinations of bentonite pressure and ground

water pressure are straightforward. For example, at
Surcharge level 6m below ground :
bentonite q0 = 10kN/m2 Bentonite Pressure is pb  10.8  6  64.8 kN/m2;
top level
Ground Water Pressure is p w  10  5  50 kN/m2.
Fill, 1m GWL
Determination of Soil active pressure is more
 = 30o,
difficult as the effective vertical pressure takes
c=0
“arching effect” into account :
s1 = 19kN/m3
(i) For the fill above GWL;
10m q 0  10 kN/m2, the external surcharge,
bentonite
filled  s  19 kN/m3;
trench Using (Eqn HT-5), at z  1 ,
b = 10.8  'v  23.996 kN/m2;
kN/m3
Using (Eqn HT-4),  ' h  7.999 kN/m2.
CDG,
 = 35o, (ii) For the fill below GWL, q0  23.996 kN/m2,
c = 5 kN/m2  s  19  10  9 kN/m3; So, again using (Eqn
s2 = 19kN/m3 12m HT-5) at the bottom level of the fill where
z  10 ;  'v  30.777 kN/m2; and
by (Eqn HT-6),  ' h  10.259 kN/m2
(iii) For the CDG, at top level,  'v  30.777 kN/m2
as obtained in (ii);  ' h  3.134 kN/m2 by (Eqn
HT-6) as  =35o and c = 5kN/m2
Length of Guide Wall L = 3.0m (iv) For the CDG, at bottom level,
q0  30.777 kN/m2; z  12 m;
 'v  28.78 kN/m2 by (Eqn HT-5) and
 ' h  2.594 kN/m2 by (Eqn HT-6)

Figure HT-1 – Soil Profile for Worked Example HT-1

T-2
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HT

The results are tabulated in Table HT-1. The following observations can be drawn :

(i) The vertical stresses and hence the horizontal pressures in the soil become more or
less constant at greater depths instead of increasing linearly. The arching effect is
thus very significant;

(ii) The factor of safety of 1.2 can be achieved at all levels, except at the top first metre
which is safeguarded by the existence of the guide walls.

Depth  s’ v’  h  w  b b – w FOS

0 30 19 10.000 3.333 0 0 0 0.00
1 30 19 23.996 7.999 0 10.8 10.8 1.35
1 30 9 23.996 7.999 0 10.8 10.8 1.35
2 30 9 25.797 8.599 10 21.6 11.6 1.35
3 30 9 27.146 9.049 20 32.4 12.4 1.37
4 30 9 28.156 9.385 30 43.2 13.2 1.41
5 30 9 28.914 9.638 40 54 14 1.45
6 30 9 29.481 9.827 50 64.8 14.8 1.51
7 30 9 29.906 9.969 60 75.6 15.6 1.56
8 30 9 30.225 10.075 70 86.4 16.4 1.63
9 30 9 30.464 10.155 80 97.2 17.2 1.69
10 30 9 30.643 10.214 90 108 18 1.76
11 30 9 30.777 10.259 100 118.8 18.8 1.83
11 35 9 30.777 3.134 100 118.8 18.8 6.00
12 35 9 30.227 2.986 110 129.6 19.6 6.57
13 35 9 29.825 2.877 120 140.4 20.4 7.09
14 35 9 29.531 2.797 130 151.2 21.2 7.58
15 35 9 29.317 2.739 140 162 22 8.03
16 35 9 29.160 2.696 150 172.8 22.8 8.46
17 35 9 29.045 2.665 160 183.6 23.6 8.85
18 35 9 28.961 2.642 170 194.4 24.4 9.23
19 35 9 28.900 2.626 180 205.2 25.2 9.60
20 35 9 28.855 2.614 190 216 26 9.95
21 35 9 28.822 2.605 200 226.8 26.8 10.29
22 35 9 28.798 2.598 210 237.6 27.6 10.62
23 35 9 28.780 2.594 220 248.4 28.4 10.95

Table HT-1 – Summary of Stresses in Worked Example HT-1

Graphical variations of the stresses are shown in Figure HT-2.

T-3
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HT

Figure HT-2 – Graphical Representation of Variation of Stresses with Depth in Worked

Example HT-1

T-4
 Appendix HU

Photographic Demonstration of Construction

Procedures of Some Common Types of Foundations

An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HU

Photographic Demonstration of Construction Procedures of Some Common

Types of Piles

HU.1 Driven Steel H-Piles

Photo HU1.1 – Welding of Pile Photo HU1.2 – HU2.1 Photo HU1.3 – Installation of Pile in
Shoes Correct Position

Photo HU1.4 – Checking Verticality Photo HU1.5 – Pitching of Pile Photo HU1.6 – Connection of Pile by
(by Hydraulic Hammer) Welding

Photo HU1.7 – Test of Weld Photo HU1.8 – Pitching to the Photo HU1.9 – Installing
Required Depth Transducers on Pile for the PDA
Test

U-1
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HU

Photo HU1.10 – Pile Driving Analyzer Photo HU1.11 – Final Set Photo HU1.12 – Close-up of Final
Test Data Displaced on Screen Measurement Set Measurement

Photo HU1.13 – Static Loading Test – Set-up Photo HU1.14 – Static Loading Test –
with Kentledge Close-up of Load Cell on Top of Pile

HU.2 Large Diameter Bored Pile

Photo HU2.1 – Setting-Out of Pile on Ground Photo HU2.2 –Set up the Hydraulic Oscillator with Crawler
Crane and Drive the Temporary Steel Casing into the Ground

U-2
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HU

Photo HU2.3 – Excavation using Hammer Grab inside Temporary Steel Casing.

Photo HU2.4 – Extending the Temporary Steel Casing by Bolting or Welding Connections

Tungstin Carbide Roller Cutter

Photo HU2.5 – Excavation of rock or similar hard material using Reverse Circulation Drilling Rig for Formation of
the Rock Socket.

U-3
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HU

Photo HU2.6 – Formation of Bellout by Hydraulic Bellout Bit using Reverse Circulation Drilling Rig

Photo HU2.7 – Installation of Permanent Liner (usually in Zone of Weak Soil) inside the Temporary Casing to Avoid
“Necking”

Photo HU2.8 – Installation of Steel Reinforcement Cage inside the Bored Pile Shaft using Crawler Crane

U-4
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HU

Photo HU2.9 – Cleaning of Pile Base using Airlifting Photo HU2.10 – Placing Tremie Concrete with Gradual
Method by Compressed Air Extraction of the Temporary Steel Casing Concurrently

Photo HU2.11 – Rotary Drilling Rig for Photo HU2.12 – Sonic Logging Photo HU2.13 – Sample of
Concrete Core Test Test Concrete / Rock Interface

HU.3 Socketed Steel H-Pile

Photo HU3.1 – Drilling with the first Photo HU3.2 – Checking Alignment Photo HU3.3 – Drilling Works by
Temporary Casing ODEX Method

U-5
 An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HU

Photo HU3.4 – ODEX Drilling Bit Photo HU3.5 – Prefabrication of Steel Photo HU3.6 – Double Shelter for Noise
H-pile for Socket Length Portion and Dust Reduction during Piling

Photo HU3.7 – Casing Joint Preparation Photo HU3.8 – Splicing of Temporary Photo HU3.9 – Splicing of Steel
Casing H-pile

Photo HU3.10 – Obtaining Rock Photo HU3.11 – Preparation Works for Photo HU3.12 – Air-lifting before
Sample after Completion of Drilling Grouting Work Grouting Work
Operation

U-6
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HU

Photo HU3.13 – Cement Grouting for Photo HU3.14 – Extracting Photo HU3.15 – Extracting
the Socketed H-Pile Temporary Steel Casing by Vibrating Temporary Steel Casing by Hydraulic
Hammer Jack under Adverse Condition

Photo HU3.16 – Grout Testing Work

HU.4 Mini-pile

Photo HU4.1 – Drilling Rig for Mini-pile on Working Platform Photo HU4.2 – Drilling Work in Progress
(Vertical Mini-pile)

U-7
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HU

Photo HU4.3 – Drilling Work in Photo HU4.4 – Checking Alignment of Photo HU4.5 – Splicing of Steel Casing
Progress (Raking Min-pile) Mini-pile

Photo HU4.6 – Collecting Rock Photo HU4.7 – Air Lifting at Photo HU4.8 – Prefabrication of Steel
Sample at Founding Level Completion of Drilling Bars

Photo HU4.9 – Installation of Steel Photo HU4.10 – Completion of Pile

Bars by Cement Grouting

U-8
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HU

HU.5 PIP Pile

Photo HU5.1 – Setting Out of Pile Photo HU5.2 – Auger Drilling Rod Photo HU5.3 – Drilling Work in
Progress

Photo HU5.4 – Extension of Auger Photo HU5.5 – Drilling Completed to Photo HU5.6 – Grouting Work of Pile
Drilling Rod the Required Depth of Pile

Photo HU5.7 – Flow Cone Test for Photo HU5.8 – Initial Setting Time Photo HU5.9 – Grout Cube
Grout Test for Grout Compression Test

U-9
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HU

Photo HU5.10 – Completion of Photo HU5.11 – Prefabricated Steel Photo HU5.12 – Installation of
Grouting Work Cage Steel Cage into the Pile Shaft

Photo HU5.13 – Surveying of the Photo HU5.14 – Stabilizing the Steel Photo HU5.15 – Inspection of Grout
Top Level of Steel Bar Cage (in Grout) by U-bolts at Top Level of Pile before Backfill

HU.6 Barrette Construction

Photo HU6.1 – Shallow Trench Photo HU6.2 – Silos on Site for Photo HU6.3 – The Hydromill
formed and surrounded by Guide Re-circulation of Bentonite Slurry Machine for Trench Excavation
Walls and filled by Bentonite Slurry

U-10
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HU

Photo HU6.4 – Cutter at the bottom Photo HU6.5 – Excavation by Photo HU6.6 – Scrapers used to
of The Hydromill Machine Hydromill within Guide Walls Clean Trench sides by Removing
Excess Filter Cake

Photo HU6.7 – Reinforcement Photo HU6.8 – Lifting Photo HU6.9 – Lowering Reinforcement
Cage Pre-fabricated on Site Reinforcement Cage Cage into Excavation Trench

Photo HU6.10 – Tremie Concreting for Photo HU6.11 – Finished Barrette after
Barrette Concreting / Grouting

U-11
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HU

HU.7 Hollow Box Footing

Photo HU7.1 – Open Excavation for Raft Footing Photo HU7.2 – Blinding the Bottom Level of the
Construction Raft Footing

Photo HU7.3 – Reinforcement Fixing for the Photo HU7.4 – Concreting for the Bottom Slab
Bottom Slab

Photo HU7.5 – Reinforcement Fixing for the Photo HU7.6 – Concreting for the Walls
Walls

U-12
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HU

Photo HU7.7 – Formwork Erection and Photo HU7.8 – Concreting for the Top Slab
Reinforcement Fixing for the Top Slab

U-13
 Appendix HV

Estimation of Interactions of Piles in Close Proximity

under Vertical Loads by Randolph’s Approach

An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HV

Estimation of Interactions of Piles in Close Proximity under Vertical Loads by Randolph’s

Approach

HV.1 Introduction

A pile under vertical load will settle and “drag” the soil around it downwards and thus
will create further settlement on adjacent piles. So the settlement of a pile is that due to
its own and the effects from others. The phenomenon is termed as “pile interactions”.

The mechanism is difficult to quantify even under the elastic theory by which the soil is
idealized as an elastic continuum. Poulos & Davis (1980) has developed an approach
based on Mindlin’s Equations originated from effects due to point loads in an elastic
continuum. However, the approach involves lengthy and tedious mathematical
manipulations. Randolph (1977), nevertheless, has developed a much simplified
approach which has been popularly used by designers and researchers.

HV.2 Description of Randolph’s Approach

Basically, Randolph assumes the soil deforms by shear due to the shear stress on the pile
shaft and that the effects on soil will be considered negligible beyond a distance rm
(defined below) for determination of pile settlement due to soil friction. The following
Figure HV-1 and (Eqn HV-1) are extracted from GEO Publication 1/2006 (Figure 6.26)
which explains the assumption. It should be noted that the formula is based on linearly
varying shear modulus of soil with depth.

Figure HV-1 – Extract from GEO 1/2006 (Figure 6.26) to Explain Randolph’s
Approach in Settlement Determination

4 2 tanh L  L


P

1  vs   L ro
 t roGL 1  4 tanh L  L (Eqn HV-1)

 1  vs  L ro

V-1
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HV

where P is the load applied at the pile head

 t is the settlement of the pile head
ro is the pile radius at the pile shaft
rb is the radius of the underream for underreamed pile
L is the length of embedment of the pile
 r  rb ro (ratio of underream to pile radius for underreamed pile)
GL is the shear modulus of soil at the pile tip
G0.5 L is the shear modulus of soil at mid-depth
Gb is the shear modulus of soil under the pile tip
  G0.5 L GL (rate of variation of shear modulus of soil with depth)
  GL Gb
E p is Young’s modulus of Pile
  E p GL (pile-soil stiffness ratio)
vs is the Poisson’s ratio of the soil
rm  0.25  2.5 1  v   0.25 L
  ln rm ro  (measure of radius of influence of pile)
L  2  L ro  (measure of pile compressibility)

Re-writing (Eqn HV-1), we may list

 4 r tanh L  L 
 1 
 1  v s  L ro
 t    P (Eqn HV-2)
4 r 2 tanh L  L r G
   o L
 1  v s   L ro 

Again by Randolph’s approach, the settlement at the soil surface at distance S pi away is

ln rm S pi 
i  t (Eqn HV-3)

where   ln rm ro  as defined above.

By the elastic theory, this settlement can be imposed onto a pile at the same distance from
the original pile. The phenomenon is explained by Figure HV-2 which is an extract of
Figure 7.9 of GEO Publication 1/2006.

V-2
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HV

Figure HV-2 – Extract from GEO 1/2006 (Figure 7.9) to Explain Randolph’s
Approach in Pile Interaction of Settlement

So for the application to piles undergoing tension test, the settlement due to a test pile
carrying a compression load created onto the test pile will be calculated which should be
deducted from the up-rise of the pile.

HV.3 Worked Example HV-1

Consider a socketed H-pile of cross section undergoing tension load test in soil as
indicated in Figure HV-3.

Reaction
pile E0 = 10MPa

1.5m E value
of Soil
Profile

Test pile
L=30m 305305223 H-pile
1.5m
Total pile perimeter is 1.3272m.
Reaction The diameter of the circle with
pile the same perimeter is
EL = 200MPa d = 1.3272/=0.4225m.
Plan View
Eb = 5GPa (rock) 5m AE of the pile is 2051060.0284
= 5822000kN,
So equivalent E of the circular
v of soil and rock are 0.35 pile is 5822000/(0.42242/4)
= 41534532 kNm2.

Figure HV-3 – Worked Example HV-1 for a Tension Loading Test

V-3
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017
Appendix HV

The maximum test tension load on the socketed pile is 6100kN so that each reaction pile
carries 3050kN compression. The followings are calculated for estimation of settlement
of the reaction pile by (Eqn HV-1) :

 r  d b d  1.0
E0 10000
E0  10000 kPa  G0    3703.7 kPa
21  v  21  0.35
EL 200000
EL  200000 kPa  GL    74074.07 kPa
21  v  21  0.35
Eb 5000000
Eb  5000000 kPa  Gb    1851851.85 kPa
21  v  21  0.35
  GL Gb  0.04 (ratio of soil and rock shear moduli at rock top level)
  G GL  3703.7  74074.07  / 2 / 74074.07  0.525
  E p GL  41534532 74074.07  560.716
rm  0.25  2.5 1  v   0.25 L
 0.25  2.5  0.5251  0.35  0.25  0.0430  8.224 m
  ln2rm d   ln2  8.224 / 0.4225  3.6618
L  2 2  L d   2 2 3.6618  560.716 30 0.4225  4.4326
ro  0.5d
 4 r tanh L  2 L 
1 
  1  v s  L d  2P
So  t 
 4 r 4 tanh L  L  dG L
  
 1  v s   L d 
 8 r tanh L  L 
 1 
  1  v  L d  P
So  t   0.00405 m
 2 r 2 tanh L  L  dG L
  
 1  v   L d 

By (Eqn HV-3), the settlement induced on the test pile at S pi  1.5 m away is

ln rm S pi  ln 8.224 1.5

i  t  0.00405   0.00405  0.4647  0.00188 m
 3.6618

As there are 2 reaction piles, a downward settlement of 1.88  2  3.77 mm would be

induced to the test pile which would reduce the uplift displacement of the test pile. So
this downward settlement should be added to the measured uplift displacement of the test
pile to increase its upward displacement reflect the scenario of no pile interaction.

(Note : in reality the variation of the G values of soil is not linear. An approximation
can be made by fitting a best line with least error through the G values measured at
different levels by the mathematical technique of linear regression.)

V-4
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017 References

References

1. Attewell, P.B. and Farmer, L.W. Attenuation of Ground Vibrations from Pile Driving.
Ground Engineering, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp 26 – 29. (1973)
2. Azizi Fethi. Applied analysis in geotechnics, E & EN Spon Press, (2000).
3. Berezantsev, V.G.; Khristoforov, V.S.; Golubkov, V.N. Load Bearing Capacity and
Deformation of Piled Foundation, Proc, 5th Int. Conf. Soil Mechanics (1961). Vol. II pp11-15
4. Borowicka, H., Druckverteilug unter elastischen Platten. Ingenieur Archiv, Vol. X, No. 2, pp
113 – 125 (1939)
5. Bowles J.E. Foundation Analysis and Design. 5th Edition. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
(1996)
6. Braja M. Das Advanced Soil Mechanics Third Edition. Taylor & Francis London and New
York (2007)
7. British Standard Institute (BSI), CP2004 : September 1972 – Code of Practice for
Foundations. (1972)
8. British Standard Institute. BS5228-2:2009 Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control
on Construction and Open Sites Part 2: Vibration. (2009)
9. British Standard Institute. BS8004:1986 Code of Practice for Foundations. (1986)
10. British Standard Institute. BSEN 1538:2010+A1:2015 Execution of special geotechnical
works : Diaphragm Walls (2000)
11. British Standard Institute BSEN10025-1:2004 – Hot Rolled Product of Structural Steel (2004)
12. British Standard Institute BSEN14199-2005 – Execution of special geotechnical works –
Micropile Annex D (2005)
13. British Standard Institute BSEN1997-1:2004 Eurocode 7 – Geotechnical design (2004)
14. British Standard Institute BSEN1997-2:2007 Eurocode 7 – Geotechnical design (2007)
15. Broms, B.B. Lateral Resistance of Piles in Cohesive Soils, J.S.M.F.D., ASCE Vol. 90, SM2:
27 – 63 (1964a)
16. Broms, B.B. Lateral Resistance of Piles in Cohesionless Soils, J.S.M.F.D., ASCE Vol. 90,
SM3: 123 – 156 (1964b)
17. Building (Construction) Regulations (2012) The Government of SAR. Hong Kong (2012)
18. Building (Construction) Regulations (1985) The Government of SAR. Hong Kong (1985)
19. Buildings Department. Code of Practice for Foundations. The Government of SAR. Hong
Kong (2004).
20. Buildings Department. Code of Practice for Structural Use of Concrete 2013. The
Government of SAR. Hong Kong (2013).
21. Buildings Department. Code of Practice for Structural Use of Concrete 1987. The
Government of Hong Kong (1987).
22. Buildings Department. Code of Practice for Dead and Imposed Loads 2011. The
Government of SAR. Hong Kong (2011).
23. Buildings Department. Code of Practice for Structural Use of Steel 2011. The Government
of SAR. Hong Kong (2011).
24. Buildings Department. Explanatory Report to the Code of Practice for the Structural Use of
Steel 2005. The Government of SAR. Hong Kong (2005).
25. Buildings Department. Code of Practice for Structural Use of Steel 1987. The Government
of Hong Kong (1987).
26. Buildings Department. Code of Practice for Site Supervision 2009. The Government of SAR.
Hong Kong (2009).
27. Building Department. Practice Notes for Authorized Persons and Registered Structural
Engineers.

Ref 1
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017 References

28. Burland J.B. and Wroth C.P. Settlement of Buildings and Associated Damage. Settlement of
Structures, Pentech Press, London (1975).
29. Canadian Geotechnical Society (CGS). Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (1978)
30. Canadian Geotechnical Society (CGS). Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual 3rd
Edition (1992)
31. Canadian Geotechnical Society (CGS). Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual 4th
Edition (2006)
32. Chan, Y.C. Classification and Zoning of Marble Sites, GEO Publication No. 29, GEO.
(1994).
33. Cheng, Y.M. PLATE User Manual. (2013)
34. Chung, K.F. Study of Load Transfer Mechanism of Rock-Socketed Steel Piles. Design or
Rock-socketed Piles (Editor, Victor Li), HKU SPACE and Centre for Research &
Professional Development, pp. 19 – 25 (2005)
35. Civil Engineering and Development Department. GEO Publication 1/2006 Foundation
Design and Construction. The Government of SAR. Hong Kong (2006)
36. Civil Engineering and Development Department. GEOGUIDE 1 Guide to Retaining Wall
Design. The Government of SAR. Hong Kong (2000)
37. Civil Engineering and Development Department. GEOGUIDE 2 Guide to Rock and Soil
Descriptions. The Government of SAR. Hong Kong (2000)
38. Civil Engineering and Development Department. GEOGUIDE 3 Guide to Site Investigations.
The Government of SAR. Hong Kong (2000)
39. Civil Engineering and Development Department. GEOSPEC 1 Model Specification for
Prestressed Ground Anchors . The Government of SAR. Hong Kong (1989)
40. Civil Engineering and Development Department. Port Works Design Manual. The
Government of SAR. Hong Kong (2002)
41. Civil Engineering and Development Department – Standing Committee on Concrete
Technology (SCCT). Construction Standard CS1:2010 Volume 1 and 2. The Government of
SAR. Hong Kong (2010)
42. Civil Engineering and Development Department – Standing Committee on Concrete
Technology (SCCT). Construction Standard CS2:2012. The Government of SAR. Hong
Kong (2012)
43. Clark L.A., The provision of Tension and Compression Reinforcement to resist In-Plane
forces, Magazine of Concrete Research, Vol. 28, No. 94, March 1976 (1976)
44. Coates, R.C., Coutie, M.G. and Kong, F.K. Structural Analysis, 2nd Edition, Van Nostrand
Reinhold, pp 293 – 306 (1980)
45. Cornfield, G.M. Discussion on ‘Pile driving analysis by the wave equation’ by Smith.
Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, American Society of Civil
Engineers, vol. 87, no. SM1, pp 63-75. (1961)
46. Craig, R.F. Soil Mechanics, 7th Edition Spon Press, London & New York. (2004)
47. Davisson M.T. High Capacities Piles. Proceedings, Lecture Series, Innovation in Foundation
Construction, SM&FD, ASCE, Illinois Section, Chicago (1972)
48. Department of the Navy Naval Facilities Engineering command Washington. Design Manual
NAVFAC DM-7. March 1971. (1971)
49. Domone P. and Illston J. Construction Materials – their nature and behavior 4th Edition
Spon Press (2010)
50. Douglas D.J. and Davis E.H. The Movement of Buried Footings due to Moment and
Horizontal Load and the Movement of Anchor Plates. Géotechnique Vol. 14, pp115 – 132
51. Fellenius, B.H. Unified design of piles and pile groups. Transportation Research Board, no.
1169, pp 75-82. (1989).

Ref 2
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017 References

52. Fleming K. Weltman A. Randolph M.F. Elson K. Piling Engineering 3rd Edition Taylor &
Francis London and New York. (2008)
53. Foster S.J., Marti, P., and Mojsilović N. (2003) Design of Reinforced Concrete Solids Using
Stress Analysis ACI Structural Journal November – December 2003.
54. Fox, E.N. The Mean Elastic Settlement of a Uniformly Loaded Area at a Depth below the
Ground Surface, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Rotterdam, Netherlands, Vol. 1, pp 129 – 132 (1948).
55. Fung, W.K., Wong, C.T. and Wong, M.K. (2004). A study on capacity for driven piles. The
HKIE Transactions Vol. 11, No. 3, pp 10-16.
56. Goran Camitz (2009). Corrosion and protection of steel piles and sheet piles in soil and
water Excerpt and translation of Report 93, Swedish Commission on Pile Research.
57. Hajnal, I., Morton, J., and Regele, Z., (1984) Construction of Diaphragm Walls – John Wiley
& Sons Inc.
58. Highways Department, Structural Design Manual for Highways and Railways Third Edition.
The Government of SAR. Hong Kong (2005)
59. Hiley, A. (1925), Rational Pile Driving Formula and its Application in Piling Practice
Explained, Engineering, 657 and 7
60. Hiller D.M., and Crabb G.I. Groundborne vibration caused by mecahnised construction
works. TRL Report 429. Wokingham: TRL, (2000).
61. Hirsch T.J. Modulus of Elasticity of Concrete Affected by Moduli of Cement Paste Matrix
and Aggregate Journal of the American Concrete Institute March 1962 (1962)
62. Housing Department, Standard Specific Specifications. The Government of SAR. Hong
Kong (2010).
63. Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) (1954), Civil Engineering Codes of Practice No. 4 –
Foundations.
64. Johansen, K.W. Yield Line Theory, Cement and Concrete Association, London, (1962)
65. Lam, J. (2007). Termination criteria for high-capacity jacked and driven steel H-piles in
Hong Kong, PhD Thesis, University of Hong Kong.
66. Lam S.C., Law C.W., Cheng Y.M Elasto-plastic Analysis of Footing Structures by the
Stiffness Method with Subgrade Structure Interaction. The HKIE Transactions Vol. 16, No.
3 , September 2009 (2009)
67. Lam S.C., Law C.W., Discussion on the Design of RC Plate Bending Structures by the
‘Stress’ and ‘Node Force’ Methods. The HKIE Transactions Vol. 16, No. 2, June 2009
(2009)
68. Law C.W., Cheng Y.M., Su R.K.L., Approach for Reinforcement Design in Reinforced
Concrete Structures Based on 3-Dimensional Stress Field. The HKIE Transactions Vol. 14
No. 2, June 2007 (2007)
69. Law C.W., Parametric Studies on Buckling of Piles in Cohesionless Soils by Numerical
Methods The HKIE Transactions Vol. 21 No. 1, March 2013 (2013)
70. Law C.W., Cheng Y.M., Study on the P- Effects of Piles in Cohesionless Soil. The HKIE
Transactions Vol. 22 No. 3, September 2015 (2015)
71. Law C.W., Cheng Y.M., Analysis of piled foundations with piles rigidly jointed to the pile
caps under coupled support stiffness. The HKIE Transactions Vol. 23 No. 2, July 2016
(2016) pp106-117.
72. Law C.W., Li, Victor Bearing Capacity Factor Nq for Piles in Cohesionless Soil by
Berezantsev. Bridging Research and Practice – the VLA experience Edited by Victor Li Vol.
3 (2017)
73. Leung, K.W. Settlement of buildings founded on caissons bearing on soil. Proceedings of the
Fourth International Conference on Tall Buildings, Hong Kong & Shanghai, vol. 1, pp 377-
383 (1988)
Ref 3
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017 References

74. Li, Victor. and Lam, J. New criteria for formulating final set table for high-capacity steel H-
piles, Bridging Research and Practice – the VLA Experience, Victor Li (ed.), Centre for
Research & Professional Development, pp 213-237. (2007)
75. Li, K.S. (2007) Use of plate load test for design of shallow foundations – A suggested
alternative practice. Bridging Research and Practice – the VLA Experience, pp191-199.
76. MathSoft Engineering & Education, Inc. Mathcad 2001i User’s Guide with Reference
Manual.
77. Meyerhof, G.G. Discussion on Paper by Skempton, A.W. and Macdonald, D.H., ‘The
Allowable Settlement of Buildings,’ Proc. Instn. Civ. Engrs., Pt. II, vol 5, 774 (1956)
78. Miguel A. Bermùdex and Pilar Alaejos Models for Chloride Diffusion Coefficients of
Concrete in Tidal Zone, ACI Materials Journal Vol 107. No. 1 January – February 2010.
(2010)
79. MTRC MTR New Works Design Standards Manual (2008).
80. Muki, R., Asymmetric problems of the theory of elasticity for a semi-infinite solid and a thick
plate. Progress in Solid Mechanics, Vol. 1, North Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam. (1961)
81. Mylonakis, G. and Gazetas G. Settlement and Additional Internal Forces of Group Piles in
Layered Soil Géotechnique, 48(1): 55 – 72 (1998)
82. Neville A.M. Properties of Concrete Fourth Edition, Longman Group Limited. (1995)
83. Neville A.M. Neville on Concrete – An examination of Issues in Concrete Practice ACI
International (2003)
84. Ng W.W., Yau L.Y., Li H.M. and Tang W. New Failure Load Criterion for Large Diameter
Bored Piles in Weathered Geomaterials. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering. June 2001.
85. Poulos H.G. and Davis E.H. Elastic Solutions for soil and Rock Mechanics. John Wiley &
Sons (1974)
86. Poulos H.G. and Davis E.H. Pile Foundation Analysis and Design. John Wiley & Sons (1980)
87. Randolph M.F., A Theoretical Study of the Performance of Piles. A dissertation submitted
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Cambridge. December 1977.
(1977)
88. Randolph M.F., PIGLET A Computer Program for the Analysis and Design of Pile Groups
under General Loading Conditions. (1980)
89. Randolph, M.F. The response of flexible piles to lateral loading. Géotechnique, vol. 31, pp
247-259. (1981).
90. Randolph, M.F. Science and empiricism in pile foundation design: 43rd Rankine Lecture,
Géotechnique, vol. 53 No. 10, pp 847 – 875 (2003)
91. Randolph M.F. PIGLET Analysis and Design of Pile Groups Version 5.1 (Released May
2004, last edited July 2006)
92. Sewell R.J. & Kirk P.A. (2002) Geology of Tung Chung and Northshore Lantau Island.
Hong Kong Geological Survey Sheet Report No. 6, Geotechnical Engineering Office, Civil
Engineering Department, 91 p.
93. Siu, K.L. Review of design approaches for laterally-loaded caissons for building structures
on soil slopes. Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Seminar, Geotechnical Division, Hong
Kong Institution of Engineers, Hong Kong, pp 67-89. (1992).
94. Skempton, A.W., MacDonald, D.H. Allowable Settlement of Structures, Proc. Instn. Civ.
Engrs., Pt. III, vol. 5, 727 – 768 (1956)
95. Smith E.A.L. Pile-driving Analysis by the Wave Equation – ASCE Transaction Vol. 127
1962 pp.1145 – 1193 (1962).
96. Standards New Zealand Concrete Standard Design Committee P3101 NZS 3101 : Part 1 and
2 Concrete Structures Standard and Commentary (2006)

Ref 4
An Explanatory Handbook to Code of Practice for Foundations 2017 References

97. Steinbrenner, W., Tafeln zur Setzungsberechnung, Die Strasse, Vol. 1, Oct, pp. 121-124.
(1934).
98. Terzaghi K. Evaluation of coefficients of subgrade reactions. Géotechnique, Vol. 5, pp297 –
326 (1955)
99. Terzaghi, K. & Peck, R.B. (1967). Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice. (Second edition)
Wiley, New York.
100. Tijou, J.C. (1984). Integrity and dynamic testing of deep foundations – recent experiences in
Hong Kong (1981-83). Hong Kong Engineer, Vol. 12, no. 9, pp 15-22.
101. Timoshenko, S., and J. N. Goodier, Theory of Elasticity, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York
(1951).
102. Tomlinson M.J. Piled Design and Construction Practice 5th Edition. Taylor & Francis
(2008).
103. Triantafyllidis T. On the Application of the Hiley Formula in driving long piles.
Géotechnique 51, No. 10 pp. 891 – 895 (2001)
104. Wang, Y.H., Tham, L.G., Lee, P.K.K. and Yang J. A study on Rock-socketed Piles. Design of
Rock-socketed Piles (Editor, Victor Li), HKU SPACE and Centre for Research &
Professional Development, pp. 1 – 18 (2005)
105. Vaziri H., Simpson B. Pappin J. W. and Simpson L. Integrated forms of Mindlin’s equations.
Géotechnique Vol. 32, Issue 3 pp. 275 – 278 (1982)
106. Vesic, A.S. A study of Bearing Capacity of Deep Foundations Final Rep., Proj, B-189,
School of Civil Eng., Georgia, Inst. Tech., Atlanta, Ga (1967)
107. Vesic A.S. (1973) Analysis of ultimate loads for shallow foundations, Journal of the Soil
Mechanics and Foundations Division, ACSE, Vol.99, No. SM1, 45-73
108. Vesic A.S. (1975) Chapter 3 : Foundation Engineering Handbook, 1st Ed., ed. Winterkorn
and Fang, Van Nostrand Reinhold, 751 pp.
109. Wood R.H. The reinforcement of slabs in accordance with a pre-determined field of moments,
Concrete, 2, pp 69–76, U.K. (1968)
110. Zienkiewicz O.C., Taylor R.L. Zhu J.Z. Nithiarasu P. The Finite Element Method 6th Edition,
Oxford, New York, Elsevier/Butterworth-Heinemann (2005)
111. 王杰賢． 動力地基與基礎，科學出版社（北京）(2001)
112. 鄭大同，地基極限承載力的計算，中國工業出版社 (1979)

Ref 5