Pile Jacking FullText

Behavior of large capacity jacked piles= 大荷載靜壓樁的
Title 機理
Author(s) Yu, Feng; 俞峰
Citation
Issue Date 2004
URL http://hdl.handle.net/10722/39987
Rights unrestricted
BEHAVIOR OF LARGE CAPACITY
JACKED PILES
(大荷載靜壓樁的機理)
by
Yu, Feng
(俞峰)
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for

the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
at The University of Hong Kong
September, 2004
Abstract of thesis entitled
Behavior of Large Capacity Jacked Piles
Submitted by
YU Feng
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

at The University of Hong Kong
in September 2004
Pile jacking is an environmentally friendly pile-installation system. It was

introduced into Hong Kong relatively recently as an alternative to the traditional
percussive and boring systems. Though jacked piles have been used for decades in
Mainland China, their use has mainly been restricted to small-capacity piles in soft
ground conditions. Reports on experimental studies are mostly confined to
laboratory tests, and very few systematic field-tests have been carried out.
A comprehensive field-test program of long steel H-piles jacked into stiff
residual soils is presented in this thesis. The largest capacity machines then available
worldwide were used in the tests. The jacking loads were up to 7400 kN. Six jacked
piles were fully instrumented with strain gauges along the shaft for investigation of
the load transfer behavior. In order to monitor the variations of pore pressure induced
by jacking, piezometers were installed in the alluvial and completely decomposed
granitic soil layers adjacent to each of the test piles. Changes in strains and pore
pressures were recorded during various stages of installation and during the loading
test, jacking of adjacent piles, reloading, and construction of superstructure. A
number of instrumented H-piles installed by percussive hammer in similar soil
i
conditions were also monitored for comparison purpose.
The results indicate that the mobilized unit shaft resistance during the
installation of the jacked piles increased persistently with increasing penetration,
while the base resistance varied according to the stiffness of the surrounding soil.
Excess pore pressure induced by jacking was localized and closely related to the
penetration. It dissipated rapidly in both the alluvium and completely decomposed
granite, and the performance of the piles after installation was unaffected by
reconsolidation. The pre-creep jacking procedure was very effective in reducing
creep and residual settlement during the loading tests, hence increasing the pile
capacities. Although the jacked piles were founded on softer strata than the driven
piles, they exhibited similar capacities. Installation of adjacent piles mainly produced
tensile stress along a completed jacked pile. Significant compressive residual stress
due to jacking was locked in. This could be the reason why the shaft resistance
induced by the applied load was considerable.
A framework based on the spherical cavity expansion theory was developed to
predict the pile-tip behavior with the knowledge of local overburden pressure and the
N value of standard penetration test. The mean volumetric strain in the plastic zone
was analytically determined by the finite strain theory. The dependency of soil
strength on the relative density and stress level was taken into account. The cavity
radius and subsequently the pile-tip settlement were evaluated by incorporating the
principle of energy conservation. The model was used to simulate the load-test
results derived from the jacked piles and also a large number of piles driven through
various sandy soils. The consistency relies on the appropriate interpretation of field
measurements as well as the evaluation of soil parameters.
Word count: 476
Signature:
ii
DECLARATION
I declare that this thesis represents my own work, except
where due acknowledgement is made; and that it has not been
previously included in a thesis, dissertation or report submitted to
this University or to any other institution for a degree, diploma or
other qualification.
Yu Feng
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to take this opportunity to express sincere appreciation to my

supervisor, Mr P. K. K. Lee for his continuous guidance during the candidature. It is
Mr Lee who provided me the chance to participate in the field-test projects for
jacked piles. Without his support and encouragement, my research progress would
not be so smooth and this thesis could not have been materialized. It is my fortune to
have such a kind and tolerant supervisor during the years at HKU.
I would also like to express my gratitude to Professor L. G. Tham for his
detailed instructions on my study. Prof Tham gave me valuable comments in every
step along the way in my research.
Special thanks are also dedicated to Dr Y. Tsui for encouraging me many times.
I wish him health and happiness after his retirement.
I am indebted to Dr J. Yang, who is not only my advisor but also my alumnus of
ZJU. Although we met only one year ago, he gave me much assistance on working
out a feasible analytical model. His academic attainments on studying sandy soils
enlightened me and enhanced my field of vision.
I am also grateful to Dr D. J. Guo, Mr T. C. Chan, Mr T. O. Chan and Mr N. C.
Poon. They made great effort to ensure favorable accomplishment of the field tests.
My special thanks are devoted to Dr Guo, who offered me his abundant knowledge
on solving practical problems in in-situ testing. I cherish the time when we worked
together at sites.
The test projects were sponsored by the Housing Authority and Architectural
Services Department of the HKSARG. I would like to thank them for allowing me to
publish the test results. The cooperation of Sunley Construction Ltd. and Gammon
Skanska Construction Ltd. is appreciated as well. Finally, the financial support
provided by the Research Grants Council (HKU7131/03E) is acknowledged.
iv
CONTENT
List of Tables
List of Figures
Page no.
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
§1.1 Research Background 1
§1.2 Research Objective and Scope 3
§1.3 Layout of This Thesis 4
Chapter 2 Literature Review 6

§2.1 Shaft and Base Capacity of Driven and Bored Piles 6
§2.2 Residual Stress and Critical Depth 11
§2.3 Excess Pore Pressure and Time-related Pile’s Capacity 13
§2.4 Jacked Piles in Clayey and Sandy Soils 15
§2.5 Applications of Pile-jacking in China 24
§2.6 Jack-piling in Hong Kong 30
§2.7 Cavity Expansion Theory and Pile’s Behavior 31
§2.8 Alternative Theoretical Simulation of Pile’s Behavior 36
§2.9 Relation between Penetration Tests and Pile’s Capacity 38
Chapter 3 Test Program 40

§3.1 Site Conditions 40
§3.2 Test Setup 41
v
Chapter 4 Field Performance of the Piles 72
§4.1 Load Transfer in Jacked Piles During Installation 72
§4.2 Pore Water Pressure Induced by Jacking 75
§4.3 Shaft and Base Capacities of Jacked Piles 80
§4.4 Comparison with Driven Piles 84
§4.5 Response of Pile to Adjacent Jacking 89
§4.6 Long-term Performance of Jacked Pile 91
§4.7 Influence of Residual Stress on Jacked Piles 92
Chapter 5 Analysis on Behavior of Pile Base 143

§5.1 Basic Equations 143
§5.2 Evaluation of Mean Volumetric Strain 145
§5.3 Equation of Energy Conservation 147
§5.4 Factors for End-bearing Capacity 149
§5.5 Load-settlement Relation at Pile Base 151
§5.6 Density and Stress-dependent Properties 153
§5.7 Solution Procedures 160
§5.8 Interpretation of Pile-load Tests 161
§5.9 Influence of Model Parameters 163
Chapter 6 Concluding Remarks 186

§6.1 Conclusions 186
§6.2 Suggestions for Further Studies 189
Appendix 191
References 192
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Page no.
Table 2-1. List of instrumented jacked-piles reported by other researchers 22-23

Table 2-2. Relevant pile-jacking projects in China 25
Table 3-1. List of steel H-piles involved in the study 45
Table 4-1. Predicted ultimate shaft-resistance of a pile in Masado sand 97
Table 4-2. Maximum excess pore pressure induced by jacking 97
Table 4-3. Measured and predicted values of a and b 98
Table 4-4. Load-settlement characteristics of jacked piles 99
Table 4-5. Percentage of shaft and base capacity of jacked piles 99
Table 4-6. Particulars of driven piles during load test 100
Table 4-7. Average shaft resistances mobilized in different soil layers 101
Table 4-8. Variation of end-resistance of PJ2 against construction progress 101
Table 5-1. Physical characteristics of CDG soils 166
Table 5-2. Measured and predicted end-resistance and settlement of jacked piles 167
Table 5-3. Database of pile load tests in sandy soils: comparison between measured
and predicted results 168-169
Table 5-4. Chart for limit pressure factors 170
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Page no.
Figure 1-1. The geological map of Hong Kong 2

Figure 3-1. Location of the three field-test sites 46
Figure 3-2a. Ground profile of BH1 at Site 1 46
Figure 3-2b. Ground profile of BH2 at Site 1 47
Figure 3-2c. Ground profile of BH3 at Site 1 47
Figure 3-2d. Ground profile of BH4 at Site 2 48
Figure 3-2e. Ground profile of BH5 at Site 3 48
Figure 3-2f. Ground profile of BH6 at Site 3 49
Figure 3-2g. Ground profile of BH7 at Site 3 49
Figure 3-2h. Ground profile of BH8 at Site 3 50
Figure 3-2i. Ground profile of BH9 at Site 3 50
Figure 3-2j. Ground profile of BH10 at Site 3 51
Figure 3-2k. Ground profile of BH11 at Site 3 51
Figure 3-2l. Ground profile of BH12 at Site 3 52
Figure 3-3. Sampling and recording during the SPT 52
Figure 3-4a. Arrangement of strain gauges along PJ1 and PJ2 53
Figure 3-4b. Arrangement of strain gauges along PJ6 and PJ7 54
Figure 3-4c. Arrangement of strain gauges along PJ8 and PJ9 55
Figure 3-4d. Arrangement of strain gauges along PD1 and PD2 56
Figure 3-4e. Arrangement of strain gauges along PD3 and PD4 57
Figure 3-4f. Arrangement of strain gauges along PD5 and PD6 58
Figure 3-4g. Arrangement of strain gauges along PD7, PD8 and PD9 59
Figure 3-5. Installation of strain gauges 60
viii
Figure 3-6a. The weldable strain gauge 61
Figure 3-6b. The vibrating-wire strain gauge 61
Figure 3-6c. Protection measure for strain gauges 62
Figure 3-7a. Horizontal locations of piezometers 62
Figure 3-7b. Vertical locations of piezometers 63
Figure 3-8. Installation of piezometer 64
Figure 3-9. The data acquisition system 65
Figure 3-10. The jack-piling machine and instrumented pile 66
Figure 3-11. Test schedule for jacked piles 67
Figure 3-12. Loading sequences for piles during load test 68-69
Figure 3-13. Static load test 70
Figure 3-14. Long-term monitoring of PJ2 71
Figure 4-1a. Penetration progress of relatively long piles 102
Figure 4-1b. Penetration progress of relatively short piles 102
Figure 4-2a. Variation of stresses in pile during jacking PJ1 103
Figure 4-2b. Variation of stresses in pile during jacking PJ2 103
Figure 4-2c. Variation of stresses in pile during jacking PJ8 104
Figure 4-3a. Variation of pile-end resistance during jacking 104
Figure 4-3b. Variation of unit shaft resistance during jacking 105
Figure 4-4a. Variation of permeability against void ratio in CDG soils 105
Figure 4-4b. Variation of coefficient of consolidation against void ratio in CDG soils
106
Figure 4-5a. Variation of excess pore pressure induced by jacking PJ1 106
Figure 4-5b. Variation of excess pore pressure induced by jacking PJ2 107
Figure 4-5c. Variation of excess pore pressure induced by jacking PJ5 107
Figure 4-5d. Variation of excess pore pressure induced by jacking PJ4 108
Figure 4-5e. Variation of excess pore pressure induced by jacking PJ3 108
Figure 4-5f. Variation of excess pore pressure induced by jacking the first segment of
PJ8 109
Figure 4-5g. Variation of excess pore pressure induced by jacking the second
ix
segment of PJ8 109
Figure 4-6a. Initial excess pore pressure vs. distance at M1 110
Figure 4-6b. Initial excess pore pressure vs. distance at M2 110
Figure 4-6c. Initial excess pore pressure vs. distance at M3 111
Figure 4-6d. Initial excess pore pressure vs. distance at M4 111
Figure 4-6e. Initial excess pore pressure vs. distance at M5 112
Figure 4-6f. Initial excess pore pressure vs. distance at M6, M7 and M8 112
Figure 4-7a. Initial excess pore pressure vs. distance in alluvium 113
Figure 4-7b. Initial excess pore pressure vs. distance in CDG 113
Figure 4-8a. Load-settlement curve for PJ1 114
Figure 4-8b. Load-settlement curve for PJ2 114
Figure 4-8c. Load-settlement curve for PJ6 115
Figure 4-8d. Load-settlement curve for PJ7 115
Figure 4-8e. Load-settlement curve for PJ8 116
Figure 4-8f. Load-settlement curve for PJ9 116
Figure 4-9. Stress distributions along PJ1 during jacking and load test 117
Figure 4-10. Shaft resistances along PJ1 during jacking and load test 117
Figure 4-11a. Stress distributions in pile along PJ1 at Stage 3 118
Figure 4-11b. Stress distributions in pile along PJ2 at Stage 2 118
Figure 4-11c. Stress distributions in pile along PJ6 at Stage 3 119
Figure 4-11d. Stress distributions in pile along PJ7 at Stage 4 119
Figure 4-11e. Stress distributions in pile along PJ8 at Stage 3 120
Figure 4-11f. Stress distributions in pile along PJ9 at Stage 3 120
Figure 4-12a. Shaft resistances along PJ1 at Stage 3 121
Figure 4-12b. Shaft resistances along PJ2 at Stage 2 121
Figure 4-12c. Shaft resistances along PJ8 at Stage 3 122
Figure 4-13. Percentage of total resistance taken up by pile-end of jacked piles 122
Figure 4-14a. Shear deformation along the pile-soil interface of PJ1 123
Figure 4-14b. Shear deformation along the pile-soil interface of PJ2 123
Figure 4-14c. Shear deformation along the pile-soil interface of PJ8 124
x
Figure 4-15. Compressive deformation at the base of jacked piles 124
Figure 4-16a. Stress distributions in pile along PD1 at Stage 3 125
Figure 4-16b. Stress distributions in pile along PD2 at Stage 3 125
Figure 4-16c. Stress distributions in pile along PD3 at Stage 3 126
Figure 4-16d. Stress distributions in pile along PD4 at Stage 3 126
Figure 4-16e. Stress distributions in pile along PD5 at Stage 3 127
Figure 4-16f. Stress distributions in pile along PD6 at Stage 3 127
Figure 4-16g. Stress distributions in pile along PD7 at Stage 3 128
Figure 4-16h. Stress distributions in pile along PD8 at Stage 3 128
Figure 4-16i. Stress distributions in pile along PD9 at Stage 3 129
Figure 4-17. Percentage of total resistance taken up by pile-end of driven piles 129
Figure 4-18a. Shear deformation along the pile-soil interface of PD1 130
Figure 4-18b. Shear deformation along the pile-soil interface of PD2 130
Figure 4-18c. Shear deformation along the pile-soil interface of PD3 131
Figure 4-18d. Shear deformation along the pile-soil interface of PD4 131
Figure 4-18e. Shear deformation along the pile-soil interface of PD5 132
Figure 4-18f. Shear deformation along the pile-soil interface of PD6 132
Figure 4-18g. Shear deformation along the pile-soil interface of PD7 133
Figure 4-18h. Shear deformation along the pile-soil interface of PD8 133
Figure 4-18i. Shear deformation along the pile-soil interface of PD9 134
Figure 4-19. Compressive deformation at the base of driven piles 134
Figure 4-20. Correlation between shaft capacity and SPT-N 135
Figure 4-21a. Shaft response of PJ2 due to the penetration of PJ5 135
Figure 4-21b. Shaft response of PJ2 due to the penetration of PJ4 136
Figure 4-21c. Shaft response of PJ2 due to the penetration of PJ3 136
Figure 4-22. Schematic explanation for the influence of neighboring penetration 137
Figure 4-23. Numerical simulation on the shaft response due to adjacent penetration
137
Figure 4-24. Variation of stress near the pile base of PJ2 during penetration of PJ5
138
xi
Figure 4-25. Stress distribution along PJ2 during reloading 138
Figure 4-26. Stress distribution along PJ2 during construction 139
Figure 4-27a. Residual stress along PJ2 during installation 139
Figure 4-27b. Residual stress along PJ8 during installation 140
Figure 4-28. Effect of residual stress on load-test result 140
Figure 4-29a. Residual stress in PJ1 due to cyclic load test 141
Figure 4-29b. Residual stress in PJ2 due to cyclic load test 141
Figure 4-30. Residual stress in PJ2 due to adjacent jacking 142
Figure 4-31. Residual stress in PJ2 in different tests 142
Figure 5-1. Deformation of sand around pile base 171
Figure 5-2. Schematic explanation for spherical cavity expansion in infinite soil 171
Figure 5-3. Schematic explanation for failure patterns associated with spherical
expansion 172
Figure 5-4. Generic load-settlement behavior at pile toe 172
Figure 5-5. Zone of soil embraced in the vertical compression of H-piles 173
Figure 5-6. Particle-size distribution of CDG soils 173
Figure 5-7. Sample of CDG soil after failure 174
Figure 5-8. Variations of void ratio with depth for CDG soils 174
Figure 5-9. Variations of elastic modulus with confining pressure for CDG soils 175
Figure 5-10. Variations of Poisson’s ratio with confining pressure for CDG soils 175
Figure 5-11. Variations of effective friction angle with mean normal stress for dense
sandy soils 176
Figure 5-12. Variations of effective friction angle with relative density for sandy soils
176
Figure 5-13. Proposed correlation between effective friction angle and mean normal
stress for CDG soil 177
Figure 5-14. Different patterns of area for calculating the end-bearing resistance of
H-pile 177
Figure 5-15a. Measured and predicted load-settlement behavior at pile base of PJ1
178
xii
Figure 5-15b. Measured and predicted load-settlement behavior at pile base of PJ6
178
Figure 5-15c. Measured and predicted load-settlement behavior at pile base of PJ7
179
Figure 5-15d. Measured and predicted load-settlement behavior at pile base of PJ8
179
Figure 5-15e. Measured and predicted load-settlement behavior at pile base of PJ9
180
Figure 5-16. Comparison of the measured and predicted end-bearing capacities of all
piles 180
Figure 5-17. Variations of stiffness of soil with pile length and N value 181
Figure 5-18. Variations of rigidity index with pile length and N value 181
Figure 5-19. Variations of Ru and Rp with pile length and N value 182
Figure 5-20. Variations of mean normal stress with pile length and N value 182
Figure 5-21. Variations of K0, υ and φ’ vs. effective overburden pressure 183
Figure 5-22. Variations of mean volumetric strain in plastic zone 183
Figure 5-23a. Variations of cavity limit pressure: effect of N value 184
Figure 5-23b. Variations of cavity limit pressure: effect of cohesion 184
Figure 5-24. Variations of immediate settlement at pile base 185
Figure 5-25. Ratios of Pu/st versus embedded pile length 185
xiii
Behavior of Large Capacity Jacked Piles—Chapter 1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Research Background
Most commercial and residential buildings in Hong Kong are high-rise

buildings because of the dense population and high land cost. As a result, the most
common foundation types used in Hong Kong are deep foundations, such as
large-diameter bored piles, driven steel H-piles, prebored socketed steel H-piles and
mini-piles. Among them, percussion piling is the most economical deep-foundation
construction method if the site and geological conditions permit. Percussive method,
however, has insurmountable environmental shortcomings so that the Government
restricts its use. Installation of driven piles in the urban area is permitted only during
restricted periods in daytime. In addition, excessive vibration during driving may
endanger existing buildings nearby, especially those sensitive infrastructures such as
subways. For bored piles, disposal of large amount of slurry produced during the wet
operation also encounters environmental problems. Furthermore, any residual sludge
at the pile bottom, which may be the cause for large settlement under working
condition, is not easy to clean up. Excavation after installation also shows that the
cast-in-place method may not ensure uniform diameter of the pile body.
More recently, the technique of pile-jacking was introduced into Hong Kong
and adopted in a few projects. Pile-jacking as an environmentally friendly method
has been used in the Mainland China, Japan as well as some countries in Southeast
Asia. Compared with other traditional pile installation methods, pile-jacking is free
of noise, vibration and slurry handling. Period for construction of jacked piles is also
not longer than that for driven or bored piles. The jacking process is similar to that in
1
an accelerated static load test. Piles installed by jacking are therefore proof-tested in
achieving the design capacities, although the jacking resistances are not exactly the
same as the ultimate pile capacities.
Figure 1-1. The geological map of Hong Kong
However, engineers in Hong Kong were not very confident in the adoption of
the pile-jacking method due to the lack of local experience. For those projects in
which pile-jacking was adopted, it was for the sake of avoiding complaints of noise
and vibration from neighboring occupants. Since there was no established criteria for
termination of jacking, those piles were finally checked using a drop hammer against
the termination criterion in the percussive method. Although there is a wealth of
experience in pile-jacking from the Mainland China, the ground conditions are very
different in Hong Kong. In the southeastern coastal regions of China, jacked piles are
widely used in soft ground such as clayey deposit. It is because the required capacity
of pile is usually small, normally below 2000 kN for a single pile. Unlike Hong
Kong where steel H-piles are widely used, short precast concrete cylindrical or
square pile is the common pile type. However, the Chinese code does not
2
recommend the use of jack piling in sand or silty sand layers because of possible
difficulties in penetration.
The ground conditions in Hong Kong are relatively stiffer and piles having
greater bearing capacities are required to bear the heavy load from the high-rise
buildings. Residual soils of the weathered rocks normally form the upper strata of
the ground (Figure 1-1). Particularly, the residual formation of granitic rock covers
the major developed areas of the territory. Completely to slightly decomposed
granite layers, which can be classified as very stiff soil layers (Gan and Fredlund,
1996), are usually the founding strata for piled foundations. Construction of deep
foundations will often encounter marine deposit and alluvium layers at the reclaimed
areas transformed from shallow sea. These soil layers always comprise a
considerable content of silt and sand. Experience in the installation of long jacked
steel H-piles in such soil layers is extremely rare if not non-existent. The experience
obtained in Mainland China can only be taken as a reference but cannot be applied
directly to the situation in Hong Kong.
1.2 Research Objective and Scope
For those projects in Hong Kong where jacked piles were used, the performance
of the piles jacked in the local soil conditions was closely monitored. The
performance and load-transfer mechanism of the jacked piles were investigated. One
of the termination criteria for driven steel H-piles in Hong Kong normally requires
piles to penetrate to a founding level with the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N
value of about 200. It creates difficulties in achieving penetrations to such a level,
even if a very-large-capacity pile-jacking machine is used. Engineers at one time are
suspicious whether jacked piles can achieve the same bearing capacities as that by
driven pile. Studies on instrumented jacked piles installed in the geological condition
in Hong Kong were therefore carried out in order to confirm whether pile-jacking
can be a suitable pile-installation system generally applicable to Hong Kong.
Since 2001, a field test program on jacked piles at three construction sites has
3
been carried out including six piles with full instrumentation. Test results obtained
from all those six piles and a number of other non-instrumented piles will be
discussed in this thesis. Although the database is limited, it can be demonstrated that
it leads a good understanding of the basic characteristics of load transfer in steel
H-piles jacked into residual soils, especially in the Completely Decomposed Granite
(CDG) soil layers which are the usual founding strata for piles. With available
information for the instrumented driven piles, comparative studies can be made to
differentiate the load-transfer characteristics in the jacked and the driven piles under
similar soil conditions. As in other investigations, attentions were drawn to the
penetration-induced changes of excess-pore-water pressure and the time-related
variations of the pile’s behavior which have been known to be the major concerns in
clayey soils. The buildup and dissipation of pore pressure as well as the long-term
performance of jacked piles in residual soils, which contain high percentage of silt
and sand, were also included in this study. In addition, the influence of jacking a
neighboring pile on an already installed pile as well as the existence and possible
sources of residual stress together with its effect on pile performance were closely
monitored. A numerical study based on the spherical cavity expansion theory was
also developed to simulate the load-settlement behavior at the pile base in the CDG
soils.
1.3 Layout of This Thesis
The framework of the thesis will be as follows. Firstly, a review on previous

researches is made in Chapter 2, including the experimental performance of piles,
collection of published tests on instrumented jacked piles, the current uses of
jack-piling systems in the Mainland and Hong Kong, the progress of cavity
expansion theory and other theoretical methods for predicting pile’s behavior and
capacity as well as in-situ tests of residual soils in relation to the pile’s capacity. In
Chapter 3, the field-test program is elaborated. It consists of the site information,
instrumentation details and test scheme. Chapter 4 presents the observed results
4
derived from the jacked piles. Discussions will be made on the pile’s load-transfer
behavior at various stages, including installation, load tests and under construction.
The load-transfer characteristics of the jacked and the driven piles under similar
ground condition are compared. Attentions are also paid to the variations of pore
pressure during installation, the influence of jacking adjacent piles and the residual
stresses developed along the shaft. A theoretical model based on the cavity expansion
theory is described in Chapter 5. The model is used to predict the ultimate
base-resistance and the settlement of the instrumented jacked-piles as well as a
number of other reported driven and bored piles in sandy soils. Finally, conclusions
and recommendations on further study are given in Chapter 6.
5
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Experimental performance of axially compressed piles has been widely studied

during the past decades. A common approach was to load the instrumented piles in
the laboratory or in the field. Instrumentation generally aimed at measuring the load
distribution along a pile as well as the stress and pore-water-pressure of the
surrounding soil. The mechanism of load transfer was the focus of those studies.
Theoretical analysis of pile’s behavior involves several approaches, such as the limit
equilibrium analysis, the strain path method, the finite element method and the
cavity expansion method. Among them, the cavity expansion theory is a convenient
and popular way to describe the pile-shaft and pile-toe capacity and also the
penetration-induced stress field around the pile. Literature regarding the pile testing
and the progress in cavity expansion theory is reviewed in the following sections in
this Chapter.
2.1 Shaft and Base Capacity of Driven and Bored Piles
Broms and Hellman (1968) introduced a device capable of separating the

components of shaft-resistance and end-resistance by measuring the compression of
the lower part of pile. A driven concrete pile (34.5 m in length) was load-tested in
their study. The effective radial stress and deformation around a pile were observed
by Clark and Meyerhof (1972). They measured the radial stress field by means of
loading a steel pipe pile (0.076 m in diameter and 0.762 m in length) into a clay bed.
Their study showed that the measured displacements near the pile agreed with those
predicted by the plastic theory. Pestana et al. (2002) reported a close-ended steel pipe
6
pile (36.6 m in length and 0.61 m in outside diameter) driven into a clay layer.
Inclinometers were installed in the adjacent soil to detect the horizontal movement of
the soil due to the installation of displacement pile. The measured outward radial
deformations agreed well with those predicted by cylindrical cavity expansion theory.
A subsequent study was also reported by Hunt et al. (2002), aiming to observe
changes in the properties of soil adjacent to the pile after driving. In-situ
measurement was by means of suspension logging method to record the shear wave
velocity. Results from laboratory tests including the constant-rate consolidation test
and the direct shear test were used to study the effect of soil fabric.
Clark and Meyerhof (1973) evaluated the validity of total stress (α) method and
effective stress (β) method based on the test results of driven piles (0.076 m in
diameter and 0.76 m in length) in sensitive clay. They found that the α-method could
estimate the short-term bearing capacity while the β-method was more suitable for
evaluating the long-term bearing capacity. O’Neill et al. (1982) investigated the
load-transfer mechanism in pile groups embedded in overconsolidated clay layer.
The pile groups were composed of nine close-ended driven steel pipe piles (0.273 m
in diameter and 13 m in length). Unit load transfer relations were presented in terms
of analytical equations. The coefficient for lateral earth pressure Kc was found within
a wide range between 2 and 3. Azzouz et al. (1990) proposed a so-called ρ-method to
study the skin friction in driven piles in moderately consolidated clay. The parameter
β in the well-known β-method was divided into two parameters: Kc and ρ, of which
the effect was considered separately. The coefficient of lateral earth pressure Kc was
found to be dependent on the overconsolidation ratio and clay sensitivity, whereas
the parameter ρ corresponded to the undrained strength normalized by the effective
vertical stress.
For piles in sandy soils, Vesic (1970) conducted a series of load tests on steel
pipe piles (0.323 m in diameter and 12.81 to 20.13 m in length) driven into sand. The
results showed that the side-resistance and end-resistance would increase linearly for
a depth up to 20 times of the pile diameter. The limiting value was related to the
relative density of sand. Distributions of shaft resistance showed that under the same
7
soil condition the shaft resistance along a long pile was mostly derived from the
lower portion of the shaft. Tavenas (1971) loaded an instrumented steel H-pile and a
concrete pile (21 m in length) together with several timber piles. A series of load
tests was performed for various penetrations of the piles, so that the effect of
embedded depth on bearing capacity, side-resistance and end-resistance could be
investigated. Value of Kc for the steel-sand interface was assessed to be 0.47 from the
measured skin friction. It was close to the coefficient of earth pressure at rest.
Open-toe and closed-toe model piles (0.102 m in diameter) were driven into a
pressure chamber containing 20 m dense siliceous sand (O’Neill, 1991). The
ultimate skin friction was found to be approximately equal to the ambient lateral
effective stress for both types of piles. It indicated that the peak friction angle at the
steel-sand interface was about 45o which was larger than the friction angle for
steel-sand interface reported by Kishida and Uesugi (1987). In their simple shear
tests, the frictional angle was found correlated to surface roughness and normally
smaller than 30o.
Jardine et al. (1998) reported a full-scale tension test of a steel tubular
driven-pile (0.66 m in diameter and 38.1 m in length) in dense sand. They proposed a
new design approach to pile-shaft capacity based on recent research progress. De
Nicola and Randolph (1999) performed a series of tubular model-pile tests equipped
with centrifugal device. The local shaft friction during load tests was found to
increase approximately linearly with depth. The pile’s base-resistance, which was
normalized by the local cone-tip resistance, reduced with depth and was unaffected
by the relative density of the sand.
Chan and Hanna (1980) noticed that cyclic loading sequence could result in a
reduction in shaft capacity of a pile in sand. As a consequence, piles would fail at
very low load level after several times of repeated loading. Poulos (1989a)
theoretically clarified that the extent of reduction relied on the cyclic displacement,
number of cycles, and the type of soil and pile. That behavior was also proved by
Tabucanon et al. (1995) from their shearbox test results obtained under constant
normal stiffness. Reduction was greatest for piles with rough interface in loose sand
8
under large shear displacement.

Joshi et al. (1989) discussed the differences of pile’s behavior in sand using
three loading-test methods, i.e., slow-maintained-load, quick-maintained-load and
constant-rate penetration methods. The ultimate bearing capacity and load-transfer
characteristics were found almost identical in the three methods. However, the
slow-maintained-load method resulted in the largest settlement among the three.
Besides the loading methods, the discrepancy in ultimate capacity may be derived
from the way how it is defined. Alhomoud et al. (2004) showed by an example that
the failure load and the related settlement could differ significantly if different failure
criteria were adopted. Criteria for failure load are always empirical and differ in
various regulations and codes of practices. In Hong Kong, different criteria have
been adopted by various governmental departments, such as the Building
Department (BD) criterion for private buildings and the Housing Authority (HA)
criterion for public buildings. Efforts have been made to propose a single unified
failure criterion for all different conditions in Hong Kong. Recently, Ng et al. (2001)
presented a semi-empirical criterion for bored piles in residual soils. Based on
load-test results of 38 bored piles, they proposed a modification to the BD failure
criterion which was originally adopted for small-diameter end-bearing driven piles.
In order to investigate the shaft resistance separately, special measures were
implemented to separate or minimize the base resistance. Details of the special
devices were described by Broms and Hellman (1968) as well as by Poulos and
Chan (1986). Webb (1976) reported his results on load tests of concrete bored piles
(0.615 m in diameter and 12 m in length) in highly weathered diabase. One of the
two piles was cast with polystyrene at the bottom to eliminate the end resistance.
Comparative studies showed that the ratios of ultimate-resistance to the local
unconfined strength of surrounding soil were 0.3 and 5 for the shaft and the toe,
respectively. In two successive studies of Ng et al. (2000) and Ng and Lei (2003),
attempts were made to construct a soft base to allow 100 mm vertical settlement at
the bottom. Those barrette piles were installed in granitic saprolites in Hong Kong. It
was found that at least 20 mm of local shear displacement was required to fully
9
mobilize the shaft resistance. Grouting may improve but delay-in-construction will
reduce the shaft resistance.
A series of tests was reported by BCP Committee (1971) on a study in which a
deep excavation was made to expose the steel pipe piles (0.2 m in diameter and 4-11
m in length) after load testing. It was found that the soil at the pile toe was highly
compacted with large volume change accompanied by crushed particles. This
indicated that the behavior of soil at the pile tip deviated from the rigid-plastic
assumption adopted in the classical bearing-capacity theory.
An important aspect of research studies on open-ended pipe piles driven into
sandy soils is the plugging behavior and its influence on pile’s capacity. O’Neill
(1991) had shown that the presence of soil plug reduced the pile’s capacity slightly.
This phenomenon could be related to the decrease of rigidity index (Ir) of sand at the
pile toe. The investigation of Paik et al. (2003) compared the dynamic response of
driven piles (0.356 m in diameter and 8.24 m in length) with and without soil plug.
The cumulative hammer blows, the limiting shaft-resistance and the base-resistance
of open-ended piles were all found to be lower than those in the close-ended ones.
The scale effect on pile’s capacity was investigated by several researchers.
Robinsky et al. (1964) found that the capacity of pile increased linearly with the
embedded pile volume but no explanation was given. Vesic (1970) found that the
ratio of base-to-shaft resistance was independent of the pile’s size. Meyerhof (1983)
concluded that the ultimate unit skin friction was independent of the pile’s diameter,
regardless of clayey or sandy soil condition. Ergun and Akbulut (1995) observed the
influence of the pile’s cross-sectional area on the load-settlement behavior by means
of enlarging the pile after installation, indicating an increase of pile’s capacity after
the enlarging of cross-section.
A number of researchers summarized the pile-load test results and made some
useful suggestions on pile design. Coyle and Castello (1981) enlisted the existing
data of full-scale load tests on driven piles in sand. The purpose was to properly
evaluate the bearing-capacity factors, which were related to the diameter and length
of piles as well as the friction angle or relative density of sand. Poulos (1989b)
10
summarized the progress on both experimental and analytical studies on piles in the
past decades. Case studies were also used to identify the discrepancy derived from
idealization of soil adopted in the analysis. He pointed out that the geotechnical
characteristics of sites could affect the predicted performance more significantly than
the choice of various analysis methods. Randolph et al. (1994) reviewed current
understandings of factors affecting the axial capacity of driven piles in sand. A
design framework was then proposed, considering the determination of end-bearing
capacity and shaft resistance distribution in detail. The parameter λ relating the
end-bearing capacity qp and cavity limit pressure Pu was proposed. The distribution
of β (i. e., the ratio of skin friction to vertical effective stress) values with depth was
given by an exponential equation. A database of load tests of piles in sand and the
components of side-resistance and end-resistance were also developed. Robert (1997)
summarized 63 pile-load test results and proposed a practical design framework for
pile’s capacities in relation to standard penetration resistance. O’Neill (2001)
summarized the early results on shaft resistance of driven piles in saturated clay and
siliceous sand. The total and effective stress methods for determining shaft capacity
were discussed. Analytical approaches for predicting the shaft resistance, such as the
general effective stress method which employed the undrained cylindrical cavity
expansion theory, were also reviewed. A comprehensive study was made by
Randolph (2003) on the present knowledge of estimating pile capacity and major
design parameters. His discussion was particularly applicable to close-ended piles or
pile groups driven into clay and siliceous sand.
2.2 Residual Stress and Critical Depth
Residual stress along the shaft of a pile may be produced during the installation
of pile and locked in for a long period. This can be frequently observed through
cyclic loading tests. Very often, the residual stress was ignored during the data
process by setting the initial readings to zero. Removal of residual load will normally
overestimate the shaft capacity but underestimate the end-bearing capacity (Robert,
11
1997). Briaud and Tucker (1984) introduced a method to predict the capacity of a
pile in sand considering the effect of residual stress. Based on the load-transfer
curves derived from standard penetration test results, the hyperbolic form of curves
appeared to be the most-fit to neglect the existence of the skin and point residual
resistance. The model was able to provide reasonable accuracy in predicting 33
pile-load test results. Rieke and Crowser (1987) performed load tests on four steel
H-piles (W14×145) in sandy fill in an attempt to study the residual stress caused by
driving. The residual stress was found to have significant influence on the ultimate
base and shaft resistance. Following the compressive load-tests, tension loading
procedures would have markedly reduced the residual stress along the piles due to
percussive installation. A program based on boundary element analysis was used to
predict the residual stress in a pile due to driving (Poulos, 1987). Parametric studies
revealed that the buildup of residual stress was more significant in sand than in clay.
Normally, the residual stress would reduce the pile capacity and the stiffness at the
pile head under cyclic loading condition. Darrag and Lovell (1989) also introduced a
numerical method based on the wave-equation analysis to predict the residual stress
in a driven pile. Fellenius (2002b) introduced a simplified method to derive the true
load distribution including residual load by the true shaft resistance distribution.
Residual stress could be a possible source for the appearance of critical depth
which refers to the presence of limiting values of unit shaft and end resistance below
a certain depth (Kraft, 1991). Vesic (1970) concluded that the critical depth for the
shaft and the toe resistance was about 20-pile diameter. The critical depth for failure
load reported by Tavenas (1971) was about 7.6 m for 21 m long piles. Hanna and Tan
(1973) performed laboratory load tests on model piles (0.159-0.381 m in diameter
and up to 1.8 m in length) buried in sand. The effect of initial boundary stress
condition on the mechanism of load mobilization was examined. Residual stress
generated during the test preparation stage was found to have control on the
subsequent end-bearing capacity and the limit of shaft resistance. Also included in
their investigation were the influence of pile flexibility, embedded depth and the
stress state of the soil near the pile toe. It was found that the ratio of ultimate end
12
resistance to ultimate shaft resistance was constant at 115 over the range of depths
studied. The test results also indicated the existence of critical depth in terms of ratio.
Altaee et al. (1992a) reported a square concrete pile (nominally 0.285 m in diameter
and 12 m in length) driven into a sand deposit. The results of three compression load
tests showed the existence of critical depth, which would disappear if the residual
stress before loading was taken into consideration.
However, based on their study in 1992, Altaee et al. (1993) reported load tests
on similarly driven concrete pile (4 m in length) located at 5 m away from the earlier
pile. They claimed that the concept of critical depth might not be true and pointed
out the incorrectness of the concept of critical depth based on a previous numerical
study (Altaee, 1992b). The critical depth could have been caused by the omission of
residual load and the history of testing-sequence during data handling. Especially for
laboratory studies on short model piles, if the variation of K0-values within shallow
depth was not taken into consideration, a critical depth would appear. Clemente
(1992) discussed the article of Kraft (1991) on critical depth and denied its existence.
Fellenius (2002a) also pointed out that the critical depth was a fallacy because of the
neglect of residual stress before test. Another set of load test results on 93
expanded-base piles showed no evidence of a critical depth, regardless of
homogeneous or layered soil condition (Neely, 1990). The debate on existence of
critical depth is far from conclusion and more convincing evidence is required on
either side of the argument for better understanding of the load-transfer
characteristics of piles.
2.3 Excess Pore Pressure and Time-related Pile’s Capacity
Observations on excess pore-water pressure and subsequent variation of pile

capacity with time were mainly restricted for piles in clayey soils. Clark and
Meyerhof (1972) investigated the excess pore pressure in clay induced by pile
driving. The buildup of excess pore pressure was not very great and its rate of
dissipation was faster than theoretical predictions. Farrell et al. (1998) reported a
13
study on a close-ended steel pipe pile (0.273 m in diameter and 7.5 m in length)
driven into clayey layer. Three load tests were carried out at 2.4 hours, 1.8 days and
17 days respectively after installation. Both the ultimate side- and the toe-resistance
increased significantly with time. The ultimate toe resistance was as high as 60% of
the total bearing capacity. The end-bearing factor Nc was over 50 after excess pore
pressure was dissipated. Chen et al. (1999a) described a case history of driven pile in
clay. The pile (nominally 0.226 m in diameter and 57.5 m in length) gained 73%
increase of shaft capacity in one month. From Pestana et al. (2002), the induced
excess pore pressure within one pile diameter was found to have slightly exceeded
the local vertical effective stress. It decreased with the distance (r) from the pile
center following a function of 1/r2. The dissipation of excess pore pressure was
characterized by t80 which ranged from 50 to 80 days. The time-related variation of
pile capacity was reflected by the variation of strength of the surrounding soil. Roy
and Lemieux (1986) found that the rigidity of soil varied with the distance to the
steel pile driven seven years ago. The impact zone was 0.3 m from the pile wall.
Long-term variation of pile capacity in sandy soils was also reported by some
researchers, although the excess pore pressure in such soil conditions lasted only for
a short period. Tavenas and Audy (1972) reported a case that piles in sand gained
70% increase of capacity in 20 days. Samson and Authier (1986) described four case
histories concerning the time-related change of driven pile capacity. For the first case,
hexagonal concrete piles (0.305 m in equivalent diameter and 8.5-13 m in length)
were driven in silty sand deposit. The pile capacity was found to have increased by
70% over 2-3 weeks after installation. At the second site, steel H-piles (HP 310×79,
14 m in length) were driven into sand. After 2 days, an increase of 33% in pile
capacity was recorded. It further increased by 85% after 51 days. The period for the
increase of pile capacity appeared longer than that required for the pore-pressure
dissipation. This may indicate that, the gain in pile capacity is not merely through the
consolidation of surrounding soils. The authors explained this phenomenon by the
change of soil structure around the piles. For another two cases, decrease in capacity
of close-ended pipe piles embedded in shale rock was reported.
14
Weber (1989) reported the time-related performance of H-piles up to 75 m long

installed in clay overlying sand. The stress-wave analysis (CAPWAP) showed that
the overall pile capacity increased by 50% and 100%, at 40 hours and 32 days
respectively after pile driving. Chow et al. (1997) found that four open-ended steel
pipe piles (0.324 m in diameter and 11-22 m in length) embedded in dense sand
achieved an increase in shaft capacity by 85% over five years. The mechanism was
not full understood but it was possible that the creep behavior of sand weakened the
arching around the pile shaft and hence increased the effective lateral stress. A
subsequent study by Chow et al. (1998) further elaborated the likely mechanism
responsible for the increase of shaft capacity in sand. Three aspects were discussed:
(1) chemical effects or corrosion could enhance the friction angle between pile and
soil; (2) strength of sand was disturbed by pile installation and would recover after a
long period; and (3), creep behavior reduced the circumferential arching stress
caused by driving and enhanced the radial stress acting on the pile wall. Chen et al.
(1999a) also reported that, a group of driven piles (0.2-0.381 m in diameter and 36 m
in length) in sand were found to have achieved an increase in pile capacity over a
period longer than that required for excess pore pressure dissipation.
Variation of pore pressure was usually detected during installation of pile.
Nevertheless, Ng et al. (2000) found that excess pore pressure would build up when
load-testing long barrette piles in sandy saprolite soils. A likely mechanism was that
the slip occurred during stress reversal permitted some localized drainage and
contraction of the surrounding soil.
2.4 Jacked Piles in Clayey and Sandy Soils
The penetration mechanism of jacked piles is somewhat different from that for
driven piles as the piles were statically pushed into the ground, and therefore, the
dynamic response is weak. The penetration resistance to pile jacking at the pile toe
may be more related to soil strength. The installation effect of jacking pile is
probably not as great as percussive driving and the disturbance to soil-strength may
15
only involve the soil mass surrounding the pile shaft. Consequently, the behavior of
jacked piles after installation is probably different from that of driven piles. The
database for tests on instrumented jacked-piles is much smaller compared to that for
driven piles. Although in some research studies, especially for tests on model piles in
the laboratory where the piles were installed by jacking method, the intent of the
research was not really to distinguish the installation methods. The model
jacked-piles were still deemed as “driven piles” or generally “displacement piles”
and the jacking process was adopted for the sake of convenience in installation. Very
few studies focused on the particular mechanism attributed to piles installed by
jacking.
The earliest documents reporting comprehensive experimental studies on jacked
piles in clayey soils were from Cooke and Price (1973) and Cooke et al. (1979,
1980). A group of steel pipe piles (0.168 m in diameter and 5 m in length) were
jacked into stiff clay deposit with a thickness of 30 m. Load distributions along the
piles and vertical soil movement at the ground surface were measured during the
jacking procedure. Load tests were performed at various depths of penetrations to
facilitate the study of the effect of penetration depth and soil conditions. The
movements and residual stresses in piles were also examined when the subsequent
piles were jacked. Variations of shear stiffness along the depth were deduced from
the measured data. The behavior of the pile group was analyzed as well. A
superposition method was proposed to estimate the pile settlement and the load
shared by each pile. An interaction factor was presented to consider the additional
settlement caused by installation of adjacent piles.
Six steel piles (0.2 m in diameter and 7.5 m in length) were jacked into sensitive
clay by Roy et al. (1981). The purpose was to study the buildup and dissipation of
excess pore pressure surrounding the piles. The variation of pore pressure during
penetration showed that excess pore pressure increased rapidly when the pile tip was
about 1 m above the monitored level, and reached the maximum when the pile tip
was 0-0.2 m above the level. Expressed in terms of the local vertical stress σv, the
induced pore pressures at the pile tip and along the shaft were 1.6σv and 0.8σv,
16
respectively. The undrained shear strength of clay dropped 0-30% due to jacking but
recovered after the excess pore pressure dissipated. Steenfelt et al. (1981) performed
tests on model tubular jacked-pile (0.019 m in diameter and 0.4 m in length) in a
cylindrical chamber of clay. The purpose was to validate prevailing assumptions
adopted for analytical modeling. The measurements showed that the cavity
expansion model could predict well the radial soil movement but overestimated the
excess pore pressure generated during pile installation.
Konrad and Roy (1987) carried out a study on the time-related change of
bearing capacity of jacked piles (0.22 m in diameter and 7.6 m in length) in
overconsolidated sensitive clay. The variations of pore pressure along the shaft and
around the ambient soil were recorded. The pile-end resistance was also monitored
by pressure cells. The primary finding was the evident increase of ultimate shaft
resistance (12 times the initial value) in 600 hrs. If the value of Kc in β-method was
determined by (1-sinφ), the ultimate shaft resistance would be underestimated by
45%. The ultimate end-resistance was found to be strain-dependent. Azzouz and
Morrison (1988) introduced the device of piezo-lateral stress cell which was installed
at the base of a close-ended model pile (0.038 m in diameter and 34.9 m in length).
The pile was jacked into clay at a steady rate of 1.2 m/min. The total lateral stress,
pore pressure and shear stress at the pile toe were measured during penetration and
the subsequent consolidation process. The measured results could be well predicted
by the strain path method other than the cavity expansion theory. Coop and Wroth
(1989) studied the installation and equalization procedures of an instrumented steel
pipe jacked pile (less than 10 m long). Soil conditions of overconsolidated and
normally consolidated clay were examined. A residual friction surface was found
along or near the pile wall during installation. They suggested that the strain path
method was suitable for modeling the pile installation process while the cavity
expansion theory could well predict the radial stress field.
Jardine and Bond (1989) reported three steel pipe piles (0.1 m in diameter and
5-7 m in length) jacked into London clay. Two of the compressed piles were installed
with different penetration rates, i.e., 0.095 and 0.425 m/min. Measurements of lateral
17
stress and excess pore pressure during jacking showed that the penetration rate had
very limited effect. However, the penetration rate did affect significantly the shaft
resistance during jacking, which increased about 40% for the pile jacked with a
faster rate. As the radial stress was almost unchanged, the increase was caused by the
increase of sliding friction angle between the pile and the clay. The jacking rate also
influenced the long-term capacity of jacked piles. The shaft capacity of the
fast-jacking pile was surprisingly 60% larger than that of the slow-jacking one.
Lehane and Jardine (1994a) performed a series of tests on the Imperial College
Instrumented Pile (Bond et al., 1991). The pile was a close-ended steel tubular pile
of 0.102 m in diameter and 6.38 m in length. It was jacked at a penetration rate of
0.5 m/min into a glacial deposit containing 30% clay, 50% silt and 20% sand and
gravel. The results showed that the pore pressure generated by installation was
dependent on the penetration rate and varied intricately with depth. The radial
effective stress would decrease during the equalization stage that resulted in a
short-term drop of shaft capacity. The friction angle between steel and clay was
found to be about 20o. They also reported a similar field test on the same type of
piles in soft marine clay (Lehane and Jardine, 1994b). The final penetrations were
3.2 m and 6 m with a typical jacking rate of 0.5 m/min. The penetration resistance
during jacking process was monitored and the pile-toe resistance during installation
was about 15% smaller than the ultimate base-capacity. The radial stress and shaft
resistance at a given depth reduced when the pile advanced to a deeper depth. The
maximum buildup of excess pore pressure was detected shortly after installation.
Bond and Jardine (1991, 1995) carried out two successive studies on the
behavior of jacked piles in highly overconsolidated clay. The shaft capacity remained
fairly constant during a period of 109 days after installation. Uplift performances of
the jacked and the driven piles were compared and there was no notable discrepancy.
It was found that the shaft capacity was governed by the failure of shaft-soil interface
instead of soil-soil interface. The penetration rate created significant influence on
mobilizing skin friction because different magnitudes of friction angle were created.
The trend was consistent with the observation of Jardine and Bond (1989) as
18
aforementioned. The fast-jacked and the driven piles exhibited similar pile-capacities
which were larger than the slow-jacked piles. Based on centrifugal-test results, Craig
(1985) concluded that the capacity of driven piles would be larger than that of the
jacked piles in clay but they were almost the same in sand. Actually, the influence of
penetration rate on jacked piles was also mentioned by BCP Committee (1971),
although the jacked piles were regarded as driven piles in that study. The finding also
agreed that fast jacking rate resulted in larger pile capacity.
Chen et al. (1999b) conducted centrifugal model tests on jacked piles in clay.
The timber piles were 0.02-0.05 m in diameter and 0.25 m in length and were placed
in a chamber with centrifugal radius of 1.66m to model 5 m long jacked piles. The
radial displacement of soil and the initial excess pore pressure during penetration
were found to decrease logarithmically with distance from the pile center. The radial
movement of surrounding soil increased linearly along shaft up to 2/3 of the pile
length. It then decreased to zero at the depth of about 5-10 times pile radius above
the pile tip. More recently, Lee et al. (2004) reported centrifugal tests on a sand
compaction pile installed in marine clay. Although the sand compaction pile was not
a jacked pile, the casing for filling in sand was installed by the jacking method. The
field of excess pore pressure and radial stress of clay caused by jacking can be
considered as the same to those induced by pile-jacking. The penetration of casing
led to a gradual buildup in total stress and pore pressure, reaching the maximum
when the casing passed through the level of transducers.
For jacked piles in sand, the plugging behavior and the associated side- and
toe-resistance of open-ended pipe piles have been a major focus of research. A series
of open-ended aluminum model piles (0.018 m in diameter and 0.35 m in length)
were driven and jacked into siliceous sand (De Nicola and Randolph, 1997). The
plug length increased for driven piles and decreased for jacked piles with increasing
relative density of soil. It was also confirmed by Craig (1985) in the centrifugal tests
that jacked piles tended to plug more than driven piles during installation. The
coefficient for lateral earth pressure at rest K0 was also studied with consideration of
soil plug. Open-ended model pipe-piles (0.04 m and 0.114 m in diameter and 1.55 m
19
in length) were jacked into loose dry sand in a chamber to observe the plugging
behavior (Lehane and Gavin, 2001). The plug stiffness and the pile capacity were
found to be related to the end resistance of cone-penetration-test results. The shear
stress on the inner wall was measured and the internal friction was analyzed by
means of β-method with consideration of soil dilation. Gavin and Lehane (2003)
investigated the shaft capacity of jacked pipe piles (0.114 m in diameter and 2.3 m in
length) in a chamber of loose sand. The ultimate shaft resistance developed during
installation was a function of the incremental filling ratio of soil plug.
Robinsky et al. (1964) employed an air pressure system to statically push
straight and tapered piles (0.021-0.038 m in diameter and 0.51 m in length) into two
specimens of sands, of which the relative densities were 0.17 and 0.37, respectively.
The percentage of end capacity was found to increase with the embedded length.
This was explained by the phenomena of building-up and breaking-down of
soil-arching along the shaft. They also discussed the difference between the driven
and the jacked piles by citing the works of Jolly (1963). The total capacities of the
driven and the jacked piles under the same soil condition were similar and the
difference was less than 5%. That was further confirmed by the tests conducted by
BCP Committee (1971). Although the total capacity was almost the same, the load
distributions in the driven and the jacked piles could be different. The shaft capacity
of driven piles was always at least 10-20% greater than that of the jacked ones. In
other words, jacked piles may mobilize more end-bearing capacity than the driven
piles do when similarly loaded. Comparative studies between the jacked and the
buried model piles (0.02 m in diameter and 0.256 m in length) in sand were carried
out by Poulos and Chan (1986). The observations were primarily on the mobilization
of side resistance. A laboratory device was developed to make the end resistance
negligible. The test results revealed that the equivalent Young’s modulus of the sand
surrounding the shaft was greater for the jacked piles than that for the buried piles.
Parametric studies also demonstrated that the ultimate side-resistance increased with
increasing effective overburden pressure, overconsolidation ratio and initial relative
density.
20
Both laboratory and in-situ tests on jacked pipe piles (0.102 m in diameter and
1.8 m and 5.95 m in length) in loose-to-medium sand were carried out by Lehane et
al. (1993). Direct shear tests gave the peak friction angle between steel and sand
ranging from 29o to 33o. The local effective radial stress was related to the relative
density of soil and the distance to the pile tip. That might imply the tendency of
having a critical depth in shaft resistance. The applied load on pile would also
increase the effective radial stress possibly due to the interface dilation and the
rotation of principal stress of sand.
Meyerhof and Sastry (1978) investigated the behavior of jacked piles in layered
soil condition. Model steel-pipe piles (0.076 m in diameter and 1.45 m in length)
were jacked into a clay-overlying-sand chamber at a penetration rate of 0.013 m/min.
The end resistance in sand could be correlated to the strength of clay and the relative
density of sand. The shaft resistance increased markedly when the pile penetrated to
levels near the interface of soil layers. The presence of the clay layer reduced the
coefficient of earth pressure in the sand layer by 20-50%.
The test program reported by Craig and Sabagh (1994) is of particular interest.
They performed tests on cone-ended steel pipe piles (0.008, 0.016 and 0.035 m in
diameter and 0.5 m in length) in dry sand. Though the piles were jacked into a
small-scale chamber, centrifugal technique was used to simulate the behavior of pile
in large-scale tests. The increase of stress level results in a decrease of internal
friction angle was verified by various laboratory tests on sand. The purpose of their
study was to investigate the effect of local stress level on the shaft-resistance and
toe-resistance of piles. Single parametric study was achieved by applying different
rates of acceleration to the identical model piles. The results showed obvious
decrease in pile-capacity with increasing stress level of surrounding soil.
Chow (1995) reported a test program for jacked steel-pipe piles (0.102 m in
diameter and 6 m in length) in dense sand. The influence of jacking a neighboring
pile on the performance of an already installed pile was investigated. Installation of
the adjacent pile could lead to the increase of effective lateral stress. As a result, the
shaft capacity during reloading was increased by 51%. The overall capacity
21
increased by 19% but the base capacity dropped by 43%. Such kind of influence can
also be theoretically examined by the method proposed by Poulos (1994).
Table 2-1. List of instrumented jacked-piles reported by other researchers

References Type of pile Test condition Pile length Maximum
and type of soil jacking load
Cooke and Price Steel pipe Field, clay 3.5 m About 73 kN
(1973)
Cooke et al. (1979, Steel pipe Field, clay 5m About 80 kN
1980)
Roy et al. (1981) Steel pipe Field, clay 7.5 m 200 kN
Steenfelt et al. (1981) Aluminum pipe Chamber, clay 0.4 m N.A.
Konrad and Roy Steel pipe Field, clay 7.6 m N.A.
(1987)
Azzouz and Morrison Steel pipe Field, clay 34.9 m N.A.
(1988)
Coop and Wroth Steel pipe Field, clay < 10 m N.A.
(1989)
Jardine and Bond Steel pipe Field, clay 5.2, 5.3 & 6 m N.A.
(1989)
Bond and Jardine Steel pipe Field, clay 7m N.A.
(1991, 1995)
Lehane and Jardine Steel pipe Field, clay 6.38 m N.A.
(1994a)
(To be continued)
Chin and Poulos (1996) conducted displacement-controlled cyclic tests in

laboratory on jacked piles (0.05 m and 0.1 m in diameter and 0.8 m in length) to be
embedded in dry calcareous sand. Scale effect on shaft resistance under cyclic
loading was observed. The shaft capacity degraded significantly in the
smaller-diameter piles when the cyclic displacement exceeded a threshold which was
in the order of displacement required to completely mobilize the shaft resistance.
Their results also showed the limiting values of jacking load as well as the shaft- and
toe-resistance within the penetration depth. Hanna and Nguyen (2003) made a
22
laboratory investigation on batter piles (0.038 and 0.076 m in diameter and 1.68 m in
length) jacked into sand, aiming at measuring the shaft resistance. A theoretical
model considering the distribution of earth pressure was developed and comparison
with test results showed good agreement. Their study also supported the concept of
critical depth for the shaft capacity in short model piles.
Table 2-1. (Continued) List of instrumented jacked-piles reported by other researchers

References Type of pile Test condition Pile length Maximum
and type of soil jacking load
Lehane and Jardine Steel pipe Field, clay 3.2 & 6 m About 13 kN
(1994b)
Meyerhof and Sastry Steel pipe Chamber, clay 1.45 m < 36 kN
(1978) and sand
Robinsky et al. (1964) Metal round Chamber, sand 0.51 m < 0.78 kN
BCP Committee (1971) Steel pipe Field, sand 4 & 11 m < 2500 kN
Poulos and Chan Aluminum Chamber, sand 0.256 m < 0.6 kN
(1986) round
Lehane et al. (1993) Steel round Field, sand 1.8 & 5.95 m 52 kN, 97 kN
Craig and Sabagh Steel pipe Chamber, sand 0.5 m < 80 kN
(1994)*
Chow (1995) Steel pipe Field, sand 6m 275 kN
Ergun and Akbulut Steel square Chamber, sand 0.53 m 10-15 kN
(1995)
Chin and Poulos Aluminum pipe Chamber, sand 0.8 m About 30 kN
(1996)
De Nicola and Aluminum pipe Chamber, sand 0.35 m N.A.
Randolph (1997)*
Lehane and Gavin Steel pipe Chamber, sand 1.55 m N.A.
(2001)
Gavin and Lehane Steel pipe Chamber, sand 2.3 m N.A.
(2003)
Hanna and Nguyen Steel pipe Chamber, sand 1.68 m < 150 kN
(2003)
(*) Model tests were performed in centrifugal chamber to simulate large-scale pile tests.
23
As seen above section on the review of technical publications, researches in

jacked piles are not as abundant as those for the driven piles and the bored piles.
Furthermore, literatures are mostly confined to short jacked piles having small
capacities. It can be clearly seen in Table 2-1, which covers most of the test works
carried out in the past three decades on instrumented jacked-piles.
Except those reported by BCP Committee (1971), Lehane et al. (1993) and
Chow (1995), tests of jacked piles in sandy soils were all carried out in laboratory
chambers. BCP Committee (1971) installed two piles with a hydraulic jack of
2500-kN capacity. It was not mentioned in their report what level the jacking force
had reached. For the other reports in Table 2-1, the jacking loads were all less than
300 kN which was far less than the usual capacities in foundation piles for high-rise
buildings. With regard to pile lengths, all were shorter than 15 m, except the one
reported by Azzouz and Morrison (1988). The ground conditions were rather
idealized for short piles and the layered soil condition was rarely considered.
Furthermore, effects due to methods of installation, i.e., the jacking equipment and
procedure which may have significant influence on the behavior of pile were not
explored. In this study, the author attempts to extend the understandings in these
areas and offer fundamental knowledge in enhancing the practical use of jack-piling
method under stiff soil conditions.
2.5 Applications of Pile-jacking in China
Jacking as a method of pile installation has been used in Mainland China for
some time. Although the soil conditions are quite different from those in Hong Kong,
it is prudent to examine such experience in China. The method was brought into
practical use in Shanghai as early as 1960’s (Shi, 1999). Extensive use of pile
jacking started in 1980’s due to the requirement of environmental protection and the
progress of pile-jacking machinery. Jacked piles were mostly used for small capacity
foundations. In recent years, they were also used in foundations for high-rise
buildings as large-capacity jacking machines became available. The jacking capacity
24
could reach 6000-7000 kN and the length of pile could exceed 65 m (Shen, 2001).
The types of jacked piles were primarily precast-concrete square piles and
prestressed-concrete pipe piles. Details of jacked piles used in China are listed in
Table 2-2.
Table 2-2. Relevant pile-jacking projects in China (Shen, 2001)

Ultimate bearing capacity 1000-2000 1700-3000 2100-3800 2800-4600 3500-5500
of single piles (kN)
Maximum jacking force 1600-1800 2400-2800 3000-3600 4000-4600 5000-6000
(kN)
Pile Lower limit 300 300 350 400 400
diameter
Upper limit 400 450 500 550 600
(mm)
Length of penetration in About 2 2-3 3-4 5-6 5-8
sand layer (m)
Description of the Residual Stiff clay, Stiff clay, Stiff clay, Stiff clay,
end-bearing stratum soil, stiff dense sand dense sand dense sand dense sand
clay and and and and and
medium completely completely completely completely
dense sand weathered weathered to highly to highly
rock rock weather weather
rock rock
SPT-N value of the 20-25 20-35 30-40 30-50 30-55
end-bearing stratum
Based on the experience gained in the past decades, Shi (1999) summarized the
favorable and adverse aspects encountered. The advantages are:
1. Free of noise and vibration renders jack-piling ideal for the construction of
urban buildings and workshops with precise instruments, as well as the
rehabilitation of endangered buildings.
2. Compared with the percussive driving load, the quasi-static jacking load can
preserve the integrity of the pile during installation. Furthermore, tensile
residual stress along the pile-shaft is smaller. Damages to the pile-shaft of
25
concrete is reduced.
3. Pile capacity can be estimated from the record of jacking forces and
penetrations.
4. Installation of jacked piles is efficient and fast.
Compared to other methods, jack-piling has its limitations:
1. Unsuccessful cases were reported that piles could not penetrate through
sandy strata, especially for jacking machines with capacities less than 2400
kN. A minimum capacity of 4000 kN is required to statically push a pile
through 5-6 m of dense sand. Jack-piling is not recommended for sites
containing large numbers of obstacles such as boulders.
2. Self weight of large-capacity jacking machines may challenge the bearing
capacity of ground. As a consequence, the maximum jacking load to date for
onshore use is 6000 kN.
3. Difficulties may arise in designing the clamps to hold tightly the pile but not
to crush the pile head at the same time.
4. Pile-jacking machine requires a large working space. Installation of piles
along site boundary will be difficult if neighboring buildings are very close
to the construction site.
The wide use of jack-piling in China is restricted in the coastal regions,
especially in Jiangsu, Shanghai, Zhejiang and Guangdong, where soft ground
condition is prevalent. In both the national and regional standards for pile
foundations, few provisions have been devoted to the jack piling method. In JGJ
94-94 code (1995), it states that “Jack piling is primarily suitable for soft ground and
not recommended for use in ground containing medium-dense sand layer thicker
than 2 m. Suspension time should be as short as possible during penetration of the
same segment of pile. Proper measures should be taken to reduce the soil movement
induced by installation of displacement jacked-piles.”
The technical code does not suggest the use of jack-piling in thick sandy bed in
respect of the lessons learnt from failing cases. Gong and Yang (1998) reported two
case histories involving the use of jacked piles for 9-storeyed residential buildings.
26
The concrete square piles were nominally 0.395 m in diameter. The design working
load was 750 kN. In the first case, piles were pushed until refusal to two times of the
working load is reached and rejacked for three times. The final penetration-length of
piles ranged from 15.7-20.2 m with pile tips in silty sand and sand layers. Loading
tests showed that the piles could have capacities exceeding two times of the working
load. The second case was a failure due to the difficulty in penetration. The
estimated embedded pile length was 20 m. However, the maximum jacking load
(1600-1700 kN) could only push the piles to about 13 m below ground at which the
SPT-N values were around 30. The ultimate pile capacities were found to be less than
two times of the working load. Similar case of failure caused by the difficulty in
penetrating through sandy layers was also reported by Wu et al. (2001). Li et al.
(2003) described another case involving jacking concrete square piles (nominally
0.451m in diameter and 20 m in length) into silty sand deposit. Static load tests and
large-strain dynamic analysis showed that the ultimate capacities were up to 3600
kN.
The code emphasizes in the suspension time because a long period of sustained
jacking load will lead to the recovery of soil strength which creates further
difficulties in pile penetration. Han (1996) reported a case history of jacking four
concrete piles in silty clay. The jacking resistances in the four piles were found to
increase by 36-66% in half an hour. Regional technical codes such as DBJ 08-11-89
(1989) also has similar provisions on the suspension time when installing jacked
piles.
There is, to date, no unified termination criterion for the installation of jacked
piles in the Mainland. However, some regional regulations are available in various
forms. The requirements normally intend to control either the final penetration or the
ultimate jacking load. Cyclic rejacking under working load or surcharge load may be
applied if appropriate. For example, in Shantou of Guangdong Province, the
termination criterion requires that the ultimate jacking load should not be less than
1.5-1.7 times of the working load (Song, 2001). For 14-21 m long piles, the ultimate
jacking load should be greater than 1.7-2.0 times of the working load and rejacking
27
for three times is recommended. For piles less than 14 m, the jacking load should
achieve 2.0-2.5 times of the working load and at least three times of rejacking is
required. For piles longer than 21 m, termination is primarily controlled by the
design pile length and the jacking force is only a reference. Regulations similar to
the aforementioned are also specified in Wuhan of Hubei Province (Chen et al.,
2001). The Technical Code for Jacked Pile Foundations in Guangdong stipulates that
(Shi, 1999):
1. Termination of floating jacked-piles should be controlled by the design pile
length. Preliminary trial piles should be rejacked up to the design working
load 24 hours after installation. The trial pile is considered satisfactory if
there is no further settlement during rejacking and the length of the trial pile
can be adopted for working piles.
2. In the case that end resistance is considered, piles longer than 21 m should be
rejacked to reach the design working load. For piles of 14-21 m long, it
should be rejacked to reach 1.1-1.4 times of the working load and for piles
shorter than 14 m, the ultimate jacking force should reach 1.4-1.6 times of
the working load.
3. Surcharge jacking is preferred if large-capacity jacking machine is available.
Otherwise rejacking method can be adopted. Cycles of rejacking should not
be more than two and the jacking force should be kept for a period not longer
than ten seconds.
It is noted that a Malaysian consulting engineering company also suggested a
termination criterion for jacked piles (Gue & Partners, 2002). Though it was not a
practice in China, it is described herein for comparative purpose. Their criterion
specified that friction piles should be jacked to the specified depth, aiming to control
the final penetration rather than the jacking load. For end-bearing piles, the ultimate
jacking force should reach 2.5 times of the working load and be maintained for at
least 30 seconds. The primary difference between the Chinese and Malaysian
specifications was the magnitude of the ultimate jacking force. In addition, rejacking
was not mentioned in the Malaysian practice.
28
There have been numerous discussions on the relationship between the ultimate
jacking force and the bearing capacity of pile in China. Research reporting on this
subject is rarely found elsewhere. In general, the ultimate jacking load is not equal to
but definitely related to the ultimate pile-capacity. Experience in China indicates that
the ultimate bearing capacity is greater than the jacking load for long piles in clayey
soils (Song, 2001). This is particularly evident for sensitive clay with a high
consolidation coefficient in which the ultimate capacity of a pile could be 3-4 times
of the maximum jacking load after recovery of clay. Similar relationships for piles of
various lengths have also been stipulated in the Technical Code for Jacked Pile
Foundations in Guangdong as described in the paragraphs above.
Han (1996) compared two precast concrete piles with the same length (23.8 m)
jacked into silty clay. The ultimate jacking forces were 750 kN and 900 kN
respectively but the bearing capacities were about 800 kN for both piles. He
conceived that the jacking load was a linear combination of the side-resistance and
the end-resistance registered by the cone-penetration test at the same site. The main
source of resistance to the jacking load was end-resistance while the bearing capacity
was primarily provided by shaft-resistance. Zhang et al. (1998) reported a case
history of a 31-storeyed building involving the use of a total of 1208 concrete
jacked-piles, of which the design working load was 2200 kN. Jacking machines with
capacity of 5200 kN were employed to push the piles with jacking forces of at least
4500 kN. More than 90% of the piles could achieve the design working load. It was
concluded that the actual bearing capacities of the piles were closely related to the
maximum jacking loads ever experienced.
In the Mainland, the common applications of the jack-piling technique are for
ground improvement and underpinning of existing foundations. These are generally
known as jacked anchor piles (Gao et al., 2000; Huang, 2000; Liu and Zhang, 2000;
Ma, 2000; Zhang and Liu, 2000; Yu and Hu, 2000). The first use of jacked anchor
piles appeared in 1980’s (Shen, 2001). Anchor piles are statically pushed into ground
against the foundation of existing buildings. The piles are then jointed to the old
foundations through a pile-cap such that it shares the building load. The method is
29
applicable to concrete foundations having short piles or shallow foundations. Anchor

piles are composed of short segments and the ultimate jacking force is not greater
than 1.5 times of the working load of a single pile (DBJ 10-1-90, 1990).
2.6 Jack-piling in Hong Kong
The pile-jacking technique was introduced for practical use in Hong Kong in
the last couple of years. Till now, jacked piles have only been used in a limited
number of projects, of which except for Project 5, steel H-piles were used for the
building foundations. These include (Li et al., 2003; Yeung, 2002):
Project 1. A residential development project at Yuen Long: Since there was no
termination criterion for jacked piles, the piles were firstly jacked to a depth and then
driven by a hammer to satisfy the final-set requirement for percussive installation
(i.e., jacked-and-then-driven method). A jacking machine with capacity of 6000 kN,
which was the first one introduced in Hong Kong, was employed at that site.
Project 2. A depot construction project at Tseung Kwan O: Piles were also
firstly jacked and then driven to reach the final-set requirement.
Project 3. A public housing project at Tin Shui Wai: Piles were jacked until
refusal to a jacking force of 7000 kN and then driven. The piles penetrated a further
5-6 m under the hammer blows to reach the final-set requirement. Pile Drive
Analyzer (PDA) results at final set indicated that the pile capacities were about 6000
kN. The piles were re-jacked up to 7000 kN several days later and no further
penetration could be achieved. That phenomenon suggested that the maximum
jacking force might be correlated to the axial capacity of pile, but the relation could
be quite complicated.
Project 4. A residential development project at Hollywood Road: Piles were
installed by the jacked-and-then-driven method. The contractor chose jacking as the
initial pile installation method mainly because the surrounding old buildings were
sensitive to vibration.
Project 5. A sheetpile wall as temporary earth-supporting system for East
30
Railway project at Tsim Sha Tsui: Sheetpiles of 24 m long were jacked at a

penetration rate of about 0.5 m/min.
Project 6. A public housing re-development project at Cheung Sha Wan: Piles
were also installed by the jacked-and-then-driven method. One of the trial piles was
instrumented and installed entirely by jacking. The capacity of the jacking machine
was 9000 kN. First comprehensive study on the behavior of a purely jacked pile with
large capacity began from that project.
Project 7. A school building at Ma On Shan: It was the first project that
jacked-only piles were used. Termination of jacked piles was controlled by an
additional jacking-force criterion aiming to reduce the creep settlement under
working load (i.e., pre-creep termination criterion). The problem of pile buckling
during jacking was the first ever observed and solved in practice by means of
sand-filling. One jacked pile was instrumented, load-tested and investigated for the
long-term behavior.
Project 8. A car-park building at the old Kai Tak Airport area: It was the largest
project involving the use of jacked piles to date. Piles were jacked and complied to
the termination criterion of additional jacking force. Four jacked piles were fully
instrumented and load-tested.
Steel H-piles with large capacity were used in Projects 6, 7 and 8. The details of
the research studies in those sites will be described in Chapters 3 and 4. For the other
projects, pile-jacking was used due to its environmental advantages. The engineers in
those projects, however, were apparently uncertain whether those jacked piles
satisfied the requirements for the design capacity. It is why most of the piles were
firstly jacked and then driven to satisfy the termination criterion for driven piles. In
Projects 7 and 8, a big step was advanced and the jacked-only piles were used. The
concept of additional jacking-force method was gradually accepted by the
professionals in foundation engineering in Hong Kong.
2.7 Cavity Expansion Theory and Pile’s Behavior
31
In the past decades, several analytical methods were developed during to

simulate the behavior of pile, such as the limit equilibrium analysis (Meyerhof,
1963), the strain path (Baligh, 1985) and the cavity expansion methods. Among them,
the cavity expansion theory offers a convenient and rational prediction and most
studies are based on this method. Tremendous progress has been achieved on the
fundamental solutions of cavity expansion theory and its applications have been
extended to a wide range of geotechnical engineering problems. However,
diversified solutions were obtained due to different assumptions adopted for the
deformation, choices of constitutive models and a variety of types of soil. Practical
solutions were available for some practical problems in geotechnical engineering,
such as the prediction of capacities of pile and earth anchors, interpretation of in-situ
soil testing, analysis of underground excavation and tunneling, as well as the
evaluation of borehole stability (Yu, 2000). Most of the publications fall on the first
two categories and it is briefly reviewed in the following.
Cavity expansion is a classical topic in mechanics. Its early applications are
restricted in solid mechanics, in particular in military engineering, concerning the
projectile velocity in penetration problem (Keer et al., 1998; Kartuzov et al., 1999).
The theory was first introduced to soil mechanics by Chadwick (1959). Vesic (1972)
presented the cylindrical and spherical cavity expansion solutions for ideal and
infinite Mohr-Coulomb soil. The limit-pressure solution of spherical cavity could be
applied to estimate the capacity of foundations. As the solutions were simple and
general, many subsequent solutions for cavity pressure were based on his work.
In order to model the rather complicated characteristics of soils, cavity
expansion solutions became more and more complex in recent publications.
Cylindrical cavity expansion solutions for dilatant and strain-softening soils were
numerically derived by Carter and Yeung (1985) considering finite deformation.
Carter et al. (1986) also presented cylindrical and spherical expansion solutions in
ideal and cohesive soils. Closed-form solution was available for small-strain
condition and numerical approach was required for large-deformation problems.
Analytical solutions of cavity expansion in linearly elastic-plastic and dilatant soils
32
were given by Yu and Houlsby (1991). The unloading analysis under the same soil
condition was further discussed by Yu and Houlsby (1995). The loading analysis
allowed large deformation of soil and the cavity pressure was found to approach a
limit value when the cavity radius increased. Vaziri and Wang (1993) derived the
solutions of radial and tangential stresses of a cylindrical cavity expansion in an ideal
Mohr-Coulomb soil. Cao et al. (2001) derived closed-form solutions for cavity
expansion in modified Cam clay. Large and small strains were assumed respectively
in the plastic and elastic areas. Chang et al. (2001) also adopted the solutions in
interpreting the in-situ piezocone test and estimating undrained shear strength and
overconsolidation ratio of clay. Li et al. (2002) used the small-strain solutions for
soil deformation from Carter et al. (1986) to calculate the radius of plastic zone due
to a spherical cavity expansion.
With regard to cavity expansion in granular soils, Baligh (1976) derived the
cavity expansion solutions in sand and obtained a curved Mohr-Coulomb failure
envelope. Different from Vesic (1972), his solutions took account the reduction of
friction angle under high stress and the shearing contraction characteristic of dense
sand. Gupta (1991) presented the finite strain method to account for large
deformation during deep penetration. The method was able to evaluate analytically
the mean volumetric strain in the plastic zone caused by cavity expansion and to
determine the cavity limit pressure rationally (Gupta, 2002a). Critical-state model
was chosen by Collins et al. (1992) to simulate expansion in dilatant sand. The cavity
limit pressure could be derived from the initial soil condition. Zhang (1994; 2002)
took account the nonlinear characteristic of sandy soils and deduced the cavity
limit-pressure in relation to soil parameters at actual stress levels. It was shown that
the limit-pressure solution obeying the principle of energy conservation is
independent of overburden pressure but relies on the stress-strain behavior of sand.
Yasufuku and Hyde (1995) used the spherical cavity expansion theory to
estimate the end-bearing capacity of a pile in sand considering the soil’s crushability.
The solution was developed into a practical framework as described in the article by
Yasufuku et al. (2001), who intended to provide a feasible approach to predict the
33
ultimate resistance of a pile with its base in sand. The load-settlement relationship at
the pile-end was also simulated using a hyperbolic transfer function, which was
originally proposed by Hirayama (1990). The strain path obtained from the
stress-strain curves of sand from laboratory tests was combined with the
cavity-expansion solution of Ladanyi and Foriero (1998). Zhou et al. (1998) derived
the time-domain solutions for cavity expansion in the thermoporoelastic field.
Russell and Khalili (2002) reported solutions for cavity expansion in Mohr-Coulomb
sand defined in terms of critical state line. They found that particle crushing would
cause a reduction of end-bearing capacity.
In order to apply the solution of cavity limit pressure for the prediction of the
end-bearing capacity of a pile, various relations have been proposed with respect to
the possible failure patterns at the pile base (Sayed and Hamed, 1987; Randolph et
al., 1994; Yasufuku and Hyde, 1995 and Salgado et al., 1997). Some of the proposed
bearing-capacity factors were summarized by Hirayama (1988), Yu and Mitchell
(1998) and Gupta (2002b).
There are a number of cavity-expansion solutions with particular application to
the behavior of jack-piling or static cone penetration. Wang et al. (1992) simulated
the jack-piling procedure with cylindrical cavity expansion method considering the
discrepancy of compressive and tensile moduli of Mohr-Coulomb soils. Wei (1994)
derived a solution for the penetration resistance and the critical depth based on the
spherical cavity expansion method. Yu et al. (1996) presented a practical method to
interpret cone penetration results versus soil parameters. The theoretical relationship
based on the cavity expansion could be used to evaluate the internal friction angle of
sand. Also based on the cavity expansion and the stress rotation analyses, Salgado et
al. (1997) developed a method to compute the cone-tip resistance in nonlinear
elastic-plastic material. Mabsout et al. (1999) combined the use of cavity expansion
and the non-linear finite element method to model the penetration of pile using a
radial opening in the ambient soil mass. The model took into account the large
deformation in soil by using an updated Lagrangian formulation.
Pan (1999) used the cylindrical cavity expansion model to simulate the soil
34
movements due to pile-jacking. The lateral displacement of Tresca soils could be

theoretically determined. However, the vertical displacement could only be evaluated
empirically since cylindrical expansion was a plane-strain phenomenon. Cudmani
and Osinov (2001) used a constitutive equation of hypo-plasticity in their model. The
cavity-expansion solutions were compared with experimental results from cone
penetration and pressuremeter tests. Li (2001) and Li et al. (2001) derived analytical
solutions for spherical cavity expansion in ideal Mohr-Coulomb soils considering
dilatancy. The jacking procedure was modeled by the expansion of an array of
spherical cavities. The solutions in infinite soil mass could represent the phenomena
showing the installation of piles in semi-infinite space by incorporating the
mirror-source-imaging technique (Chow and Teh, 1990) with the Boussinesq’s
solution.
The cavity expansion theory was also used to predict the buildup of excess pore
pressure induced by pile installation. The earliest solution was given by Vesic (1972).
Randolph et al. (1979) analyzed the radial field of pore pressure during pile
installation in work-hardening clayey soil with the cylindrical cavity-expansion
model. Similar attempt was made by Carter et al. (1979), considering soil as a
saturated two-phase material with pore water obeying the Darcy’s Law. Zhang (1995)
followed the solution of Vesic (1972) and considered the stress-level dependent
properties of dense sandy soils. The limitation of cavity expansion theory in
predicting penetration-induced pore pressure was also noticed by Yao and Hu (1997),
who conducted a case history. They preferred a method developed from the principle
of earth pressure rather than the cylindrical cavity expansion, which was unable to
simulate the vertical variations. Cao et al. (2001) derived a closed-form solution for
excess pore pressure with a simplified assumption on the shear stress field around a
cavity. Lee et al. (2004) back-analyzed the post-installation stress and pore pressure
field by the plane-strain cavity expansion theory. The results offered reasonable
estimations for deep depths but not for shallow depths. Better correlation may be
achieved by using a semi-empirical correction, i.e., plane strain at deep depths and
constant vertical stress near the ground level.
35
2.8 Alternative Theoretical Simulation of Pile’s Behavior
In addition to the cavity-expansion theory, numerous methods are available for

analytical study of axially loaded piles. Most of these methods involve the use of one
or more techniques listed below (Poulos, 1989b):
1. Simplified approach considering independent segments of pile and horizontal
slices of soil, such as the analyses by Randolph and Wroth (1978; 1981) and
Lee (1993); De Nicola and Randolph’s analyses (1993) on the pile-shaft
capacity and settlement; Misra and Chen’s (2004) load-deformation analysis
for minipiles.
2. Boundary element method which employs load-transfer functions (e.g., Kraft
et al., 1981), or elastic continuum theory (e.g., Butterfield and Banerjee,
1971).
3. Finite element method which employs constitutive soil models (e.g.,
Ottaviani, 1975).
Huang and Ma (1994) developed a method that coupled the boundary-element
and the distinct-element methods to simulate the cone penetration in granular soils.
Stress history indicated that the soil particles at the cone-tip experienced very high
levels of stress and appeared to have been crushed during the cone penetration. The
work of Mandolini and Viggiani (1997) was a development of boundary element
method in recent years. They complied a program based on the boundary element
analysis to predict the settlement of a pile group. Nineteen well-documented case
histories were back-analyzed and yielded good agreement with the measurements all
but one. Chow (1986) employed the finite element method to analyze the
load-settlement behavior of piled foundations. Hybrid load-transfer model was used
to consider the true pile-soil-pile interaction based on the Mindlin’s solution. Altaee
(1992b) presented a plasticity-bounding-surface model based on the nonlinear finite
element analysis. Study on cyclic loading tests demonstrated that the pile-toe
resistance increased and the shaft resistance decreased slightly under repeated
36
loading. The theoretical study of Lu (1998) is another example attributed to the finite
element approach aiming at simulating soil movement caused by pile-jacking.
Axisymmetric incremental elasto-plastic finite element algorithm was developed by
incorporating an updated Lagrangian formulation. The variation of pore pressure was
also modeled by the Biot’s formulae for consolidation. The predicted results of radial
movement and uplift of soils were reasonable and had good agreement with results
reported by Randolph et al. (1979) and Chow and Teh (1990). Gong et al. (1998)
employed a one-dimensional spring model to simulate the load-settlement behavior
of jacked piles in layered soils, incorporating the principle of pile-soil interaction and
load transfer. The model was used to estimate the ultimate bearing capacities of
seven jacked piles (8-36.2 m in length) and showed results close to the field
measurements. Tu (2002) studied the consolidation-induced settlement of piles in
clay subjected to a wide range of surcharge loads. Finite-difference approach was
employed to solve the differential equation for load transfer in pile.
Some semi-analytical methods based on test results are also noted. In view of
the conservative approach in the design of bored piles in residual soils and weathered
rocks where only base capacity was considered, Chang and Goh (1989) and
subsequently Chang and Broms (1991) proposed a design framework involving the
use of shaft capacity. In their method, the standard penetration resistance measured
from the field was used to determine the load-transfer parameters. This could be a
rational approach to properly simulate the actual bearing capacity of a pile.
Balakrishnan et al. (1999) summarized some load-test results for bored piles (0.6-1.2
m in diameter and 15-40 m in length) in residual weathered soils and studied the
observations showing the load transfer and the settlement of pile. They developed a
computer program to model the pile as an assembly of discrete elastic elements and
the soil as spring elements. The deformation analysis yielded results in good
agreement with the field-test data. The method proposed by Zhu and Chang (2002) is
also a semi-analytical approach that relies on the results of pressuremeter tests or
load tests. The load-transfer curve was approximated by a hyperbola with two fitting
parameters. From the two case studies, it was demonstrated that their method could
37
predict fairly well the load-transfer behavior of bored piles in residual soils.
Soderberg (1962) analyzed the problem of time-related bearing capacity of a
pile in clay. He assumed that the distribution of initial excess pore pressure was
inversely proportional to the radial distance. One-dimensional solution for lateral
consolidation was derived and was applicable to long piles. Similar work was carried
out by Randolph and Wroth (1979) in simulating a long cylinder expanding in an
ideal-elastic-and-perfectly-plastic soil mass. Baligh (1986a; 1986b) used the
strain-path method to model the undrained deep penetration problem. Solutions for
shear stress and pore pressure due to penetration were presented for ideal soil. Teh
and Houlsby (1991) analyzed the variation of pore pressure during cone penetration
using the uncoupled Terzaghi-Rendulic consolidation theory. The strain-path method
was employed in their analysis with idealization of the clayey soil as an
elastic-perfectly-plastic von Mises material.
2.9 Relation between Penetration Tests and Pile’s Capacity
Various attempts have been made to correlate the in-situ soil test results to the
performance of a pile. Such tests include the SPT, cone penetration test (CPT), field
vane-shear test, borehole shear test, flat dilatometer test and pressuremeter test.
Among all these tests, SPT is the most popular and standardized one worldwide
(Bowles, 1997). With regard to the nature of the testing methods, the performance of
SPT and CPT is similar to the installation procedure of driven pile and jacked pile
respectively. However, CPT is normally not applicable to granular soils and its
current use is restricted to softer fine grained materials (Wang, 2000). For jacked
piles in sandy soils, the first set of data obtained from site exploration are still the
results of SPT. The relationships between the soil parameters derived from SPT-N
values and the pile’s capacities have been proposed in different forms (e.g., Parry,
1977; Poulos, 1989b; Liu et al., 1996; Balakrishnan et al., 1999; Fang and Wen, 1999;
Ng et al., 2000; Kelley and Lutenegger, 2004). Based on the database for load tests
on driven and bored piles with different diameters and lengths, Meyerhof (1983)
38
suggested several empirical equations to estimate the pile’s capacity from SPT.
Similar studies based on a large number of load tests on pile were also made by
Coyle and Castello (1981), Briaud and Tucker (1988) and Neely (1990). A summary
of correlations between the shaft- and toe-resistance and SPT-N was made by Poulos
(1989b). From the available wealth of data, many researchers have been trying to
correlate the SPT-N values with the physical and mechanical indices of sand (e.g.,
Skempton, 1986; Hatanaka and Uchida, 1996; Cubrinovski and Ishihara, 1999).
Details on these references will be discussed in Chapter 5 and some of the relations
will be applied to a cavity-expansion model. Houlsby and Hitchman (1988) carried
out Fugro cone-penetrometer tests for sand in a cylindrical chamber. The cone
penetrometer was jacked in at a penetration rate of 1.2 m/min. The cone resistance,
which was somewhat similar to the pile-end resistance during the jack-in, was found
primarily dependent on the lateral stress and the friction angle but almost
independent of the vertical stress.
39
CHAPTER 3: TEST PROGRAM
3.1 Site Conditions
Field tests were carried out in stages starting from the year 2001. Three
Government-owned construction sites were involved in the test program, namely
Project 6, 7 and 8 as described in Chapter 2. The sites are located at Cheung Sha
Wan, Ma On Shan and Southeastern Kowloon, respectively, as shown in Figure 3-1.
Site 2 resides in the geological region of granitic rock. Both Sites 1 and 3 belong to
the reclaimed land, the extending area of the granitic region, which was formed from
shallow sea.
In-situ exploration was conducted at these sites. The profiles of soil strata and
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N values in relation to the observed piles were
shown in Figures 3-2a to 3-2l. The most commonly found soil layers in the 12
boreholes are the fill and the alluvial layers overlying decomposed granitic layers
with different weathering degree. Thin marine deposits are occasionally found
between the fill and the alluvium, particularly in reclaimed land. A brief description
of the general characteristics of the soil layers is as follows.
Fill layer: slightly silty coarse-grained sand to gravel; fragments of rock and
concrete are occasionally found.
Marine deposit layer: very clayey and slightly silty, fine to medium-grained
sand; fragments of rock and coral are occasionally found.
Alluvium layer: slightly silty and sandy clay at shallow depths, and silty dense
sand at deep depths.
Completely decomposed granite (CDG) layer: a residual soil formed by the
40
decomposition of granite; slightly clayey and silty sand; sand particles normally
occupy 50% and the percentage of clay may be up to 30%.
Highly to slightly decomposed granite layers: underlie the CDG layer by
sequence and overlie the bedrock. Their SPT-N values normally exceed 200.
As the most popular site-investigation method in Hong Kong, the SPT was
performed at all of the sites. The SPT-N value means the blow counts of two 150 mm
penetrations of a standard hammer. The soil in the boreholes was sampled while the
N-value was recorded (Figure 3-3). Reflected by the SPT-N values along the depths,
the ground conditions of the three sites, in general, are stiff. Local specifications for
the installation of driven piles require that piles should be founded at a level
exhibiting SPT-N value larger than 200.
3.2 Test Setup
A total of eighteen steel H-piles were involved in the current study. Nine of
them were installed by jacking method and the other nine were driven piles, as
shown in Table 3-1. At Site 1, a majority of the piles were installed by percussive
method. Being located at the vicinity of a subway, the piles were firstly jacked in and
then stopped in accordance to a proposed termination criterion. They were finally
driven in further to satisfy the requirement for final sets. A preliminary pile
numbered PJ1 is one of the two piles at Site 1 that were installed entirely by jacking.
It was jacked until a refusal of jacking force of 2.0P was reached (P: design capacity
of single pile; P=2950 kN and 3540 kN for 305×305×180 kg/m and 305×305×223
kg/m H-pile, respectively). The jacking force was held until the pile head settlement
in 15 minutes was not larger than 5 mm. The purpose was to reduce the creep
settlement under working load by pre-surcharge approach. In addition, five of the
observed driven piles were located at Site 1.
At Site 2, a large number of piles were installed by jacking. The four observed
piles, namely PJ2, PJ3, PJ4 and PJ5, are close to each other, and they share the same
borehole log. The piles were pushed in till a maximum jacking force of 2.3P was
41
reached. The jacking load was held at that level until the settlement rate was not
greater than 5 mm per 15 minutes.
At Site 3, four different pile-installation methods were used, that is, jacking,
driving, cast-in-place and vibrating methods. The termination criterion for the jacked
piles was further modified and became stricter than before. For all jacked piles
except PJ7, the maximum jacking load was 2.5P and held until the target settlement
rate (i.e., 5 mm in 15 min) was satisfied. This procedure was repeated for three times.
Especially for PJ7, it was subjected to five loading cycles, in each the maximum
jacking load was by sequence 2.2P, 2.5P, 2.5P, 2.0P and 2.4P, respectively. The
jacking load was held for 5 minutes during the first and the second cycles but 25
minutes during the fourth cycle. The holding period during the third and fifth cycles
was controlled by the above-mentioned target-settlement rate. The other four driven
piles were also from Site 3.
Fifteen piles except PJ3, PJ4 and PJ5, were densely instrumented with strain
gauges along the shafts to measure the load-transfer behavior. Figures 3-4a to 3-4g
present the schematic arrangement of strain gauges in the jacked and driven piles.
The soil profiles of PD3, PD4 and PD5 can be seen in Figures 3-4e and 3-4f,
although their SPT-N values are unavailable and not included in Figure 3-2. Two
types of strain gauges were used, i.e., Geokon VSM-4000 vibrating wire gauges and
Kyowa weldable gauges. The VSM-4000 gauges are designed primarily for testing
the quality of arc welding in steel structures. Their standard length is 150 mm and
the maximum measuring range is 3000 microstrain. The working principle of
vibrating wire is as follows. A length of steel wire is tensioned between two end
blocks which are welded to the pile surface. Deformation of the surface will cause
the two end blocks to move relative to each other, thus altering the tension in the
steel wire. The tension is measured by plucking the wire and measuring its resonant
frequency of vibration using an electromagnetic coil. The gauge length of the
weldable gauges is 5 mm and the limit of measurement is 9000 microstrain. It is
suitable for steel surface where the end blocks can be attached by spot welding.
Two gauges were installed symmetrically at every section, as shown in Figure
42
3-5. The location of gauges for the jacked piles is different from that for the driven
piles due to the shape of the clamp of the jacking machine. Gauge cables were placed
in PVC ducts and also surrounded by steel angles or channels for protection. Solid
steel shoes were made near the pile bases to seal off the open end. Figures 3-6a to
3-6c depict the gauge appearance and operation process.
Vibrating wire piezometers were also installed at all of the three sites to
measure the variations of pore water pressure near the jacked piles. The model of the
piezometer is Geokon 4500S-100 with a pressure range of 690 kPa. The eight
piezometers are numbered by M1-M8. Among them, M2, M3, M4 and M5 were
located in the CDG layers while the other four were in the alluvial soils. Their
horizontal distances to the jacked piles are given in Figure 3-7a. The piezometers
were installed in pre-drilled boreholes which would be filled with bentonite pellets to
fix the desired locations. The piezometers were buried with a layer of clean sand to
permit free flow of ground water, as shown in Figure 3-7b. The water table was 2.81
m, 3.65 m and 3.55 m below the ground surface for Site 1, Site 2 and Site 3,
respectively. The installation procedure is illustrated in Figure 3-8.
The data acquisition system comprised two types of dataloggers as shown in
Figure 3-9. The readout was in terms of microstrain and frequency for the weldable
and vibrating wire gauges, respectively. The datalogger for weldable strain gauges
was also used to record the readings of extensometers for measuring the pile-head
deformation.
All jacked piles except PJ8 were installed by the same type of jack-piling
machine having a capacity up to 9000 kN, which is believed to be the largest one
reported to date (Figure 3-10). Its dimensions were 15.6m (length) × 8m (width) ×
7.9m (height). The body of the system was supported by four suspension arms
connected with hydraulic hose. Both front/back and left/right movement of the
whole machine involved a set of hydraulic operation of different parts of the system.
The jacking force was supplied by six hydraulic jacks. The maximum penetration per
stroke was 1.8 m, so that the jacking process was therefore not continuous. Detailed
specification of the jacking machine can be referred to Li et al. (2003). The jacking
43
machine for PJ8 was similar to that one, except that the maximum jacking capacity
was 8000 kN which was supplied by four jacks and the penetration per stroke was
1.6 m. According to the pre-creep termination criterion mentioned above, the jacking
machine is capable of providing adequate jacking load. The applied jacking force
can be read directly from the dial. For the sake of double checking of the actual load
transferred to the pile head, four extensometers were installed at the pile head during
the penetration process (Figure 3-10).
Figure 3-11 presents the schematic flow chart for the test procedure. PJ9 is not
included in the schedule. The test results for PJ9 were provided by the Housing
Authority of the Government. In brief, PJ9 was penetrated in three segments and
load-tested five days after installation. Load test of the piles was carried out in
accordance with three different loading sequences, as shown in Figure 3-12. Except
PJ2 and PJ7, all piles followed the first sequence. It should be pointed out that PJ2
had not been loaded to failure because it was a working pile for the building at Site 2.
The “failure” of the other piles was defined by the failure criterion regulated by the
Building Department (GEO, 1996). The failure load was defined by the specific
settlement at each loading stage. The load test was performed in a manner attributed
to the slow maintained-load method. The load was applied by steps and maintained
to fulfill the required settlement rate. The reaction force was provided by the
deadweight as shown in Figure 3-13. The readings from the load cell and the
pile-head settlement were registered by the datalogger for weldable strain gauges.
Special attention was paid to the performance of PJ2. Apart from the
observations during installation and load test, the readings from the strain gauges and
the piezometers in PJ2 were collected during the jacking process for PJ3, PJ4 and
PJ5. PJ2 was also reloaded 27 days after the installation of PJ3. Long-term
monitoring was carried out during the rest period and also throughout the whole
superstructure-construction period. Figure 3-14 showed the preparation for the
long-term monitoring program. The gauge cables were protected by PVC duct and
also put in a steel tube, leading to a nearby data acquisition station.
44
Table 3-1. List of steel H-piles involved in the study

Pile Number Location Pile specification Installation method Embedded length Reference borehole Instrumented? Load-tested?
PJ1 Site 1 305×305×223 kg/m Jacking 40.9 m BH1 Yes Yes
PD1 Site 1 305×305×223 kg/m Driving 31.8 m BH2 Yes Yes
PD3 Site 1 305×305×223 kg/m Driving 33.2 m N.A. Yes Yes
PJ3 Site 2 305×305×180 kg/m Jacking 24.8 m BH4 No No
45
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
Figure 3-1. Location of the three field-test sites
SPT-N value
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
0
Fill (6.1 m) 3
Marine deposit (1.1 m) 6
9
Alluvium (6.0 m)
12
15
18
PJ1
21
Completely 24
decomposed 27
granite (27.8 m)
30
33
36
39 N>200 below this level

42
Figure 3-2a. Ground profile of BH1 at Site 1
46
SPT-N value
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
2
Fill (7.3m) 4
6
10
Alluvium (6.0m)
12
14
PD1
16
Completely 18
decomposed 20
granite (13.5m) 22
24
26
Completely to highly
decomposed granite (5.0m) 30
32
Figure 3-2b. Ground profile of BH2 at Site 1
SPT-N value
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
0
Fill (7.5m)
5
10
Alluvium (6.0m)
15
PD2
20
Completely
decomposed 25
granite (25.6m)
30
35
Completely to highly 40
N>200 below this level
decomposed granite (3.2m)
45
Figure 3-2c. Ground profile of BH3 at Site 1
47
SPT-N value
0 30 60 90 120
Fill (0.5m)
0
Alluvium (2.0m)
3
9
PJ2, PJ3, PJ4 and PJ5
Completely 12
decomposed
granite (23.3m) 15
18
21
24

27
Figure 3-2d. Ground profile of BH4 at Site 2
SPT-N value
0 30 60 90 120 150
0
Wash drilling (1.5m)
Fill (3.0m)
5
Marine deposit (4.9m)
10
15
Alluvium (20.6m) 20
PJ6
25
30
Completely decomposed
35
granite (9.0m)

40
Figure 3-2e. Ground profile of BH5 at Site 3
48
SPT-N value
0
N value unavailable
10
15
PD6
20
25
Completely to slightly 50<N<100

decomposed granite 30
(10.2m)
N>400
35
Figure 3-2f. Ground profile of BH6 at Site 3
SPT-N value
0 30 60 90 120 150
0
5
Fill (10.6m)
10
15
Alluvium (18.0m) 20
PD7
25
30
Completely decomposed 35
granite (13.5m)
40

45
Completely to highly decomposed granite (2.9m)
Figure 3-2g. Ground profile of BH7 at Site 3
49
SPT-N value
0 30 60 90 120 150
0
Fill (10.2m) 5
10
15
Alluvium (15.5m)
PD8
20
25
30
granite (7.5m)
decomposed granite (5.4m) N>200 below this level
40
Figure 3-2h. Ground profile of BH8 at Site 3
SPT-N value
0 30 60 90 120 150 180
0
Fill (6.6m)
5
10
15
Alluvium (21.0m) 20
25
PD9
30
35
40
granite (17.0m)
45
decomposed granite (7.8m)
55
60
Figure 3-2i. Ground profile of BH9 at Site 3
50
SPT-N value
0 30 60 90 120
0
Fill (9.0m) 5
Marine deposit (1.5m) 10
15
PJ7
20
Alluvium (21.0m)
25
30
Completely
35
decomposed
granite (12m) 40
Figure 3-2j. Ground profile of BH10 at Site 3
SPT-N value
0 30 60 90 120
0
5
Fill (9.0m)
10
15
20
PJ8
Alluvium (24.0m)
25
30
35
Completely
decomposed 40
granite (9.5m)
45
Figure 3-2k. Ground profile of BH11 at Site 3
51
SPT-N value
0 50 100 150 200
0
Fill (6.5m)
5

10
15
PJ9
Alluvium (21.0m) 20
25
30
Completely
decomposed 35
granite (14.5m)
40
Figure 3-2l. Ground profile of BH12 at Site 3
Figure 3-3. Sampling and recording during the SPT
52
0 0
1
Alluvium
1
Fill
2
Marine deposit
Welding joint
3
Fill
2
4 Welding joint
3
5
6 4
7
8 5
9
Alluvium
6
10
11 7
12
8
13
14 9
15
10
16 Welding joint
17 11
18
12
19
20 13
21 Welding joint
C.D.Granite
22 14
23
15
24
25 16
26
17
C.D.Granite
27
28 18
Welding joint
29
19
30
31 20
32
21
33
34 22
35
36 23
Weldable Vibrating wire
37 24
strain gauges strain gauges
38
39 25
40
26
41
42 PJ1: 40.9m 27 PJ2: 25.8m
Figure 3-4a. Arrangement of strain gauges along PJ1 and PJ2
53
0 0
1 1
2 2
Wash drilling
Welding joint
Fill
3 3
4 4 Welding joint
Fill
5 5
Marine deposit
6 6
7 7
8 8
9 9
10 10
11
11
Marine deposit
12
12
13
13
14
14
Welding joint 15
15
16 Welding joint
16
17
17
18
18
19
Alluvium
19
20
Alluvium
20
21
21
22
22 23
23
24
24 25
25 26
26 27
Welding joint
27 28 Welding joint
28 29
29 30
30 31
31 32
32 Weldable 33
33 strain gauges 34 Weldable
C.D.Grniate
C.D.Granite
34 35 strain gauges
35 36
36 37
37 38
38 39
39 40
40 PJ6: 39.0m 41
PJ7: 40.5m
Figure 3-4b. Arrangement of strain gauges along PJ6 and PJ7
54
0 0
1
1
2
Wash drilling
2
3
3
4
Fill
5 Welding joint 4
6 5
Fill
7 6
8
7
9
8
10
9
11
Marine deposit
12 10
13 11 Welding joint
14 12
15
13
16
14
17 Welding joint
15
18
19 16
20 17
21 18
22 19
23
20
24
Alluvium
Alluvium
21
25
26 22
27 23 Welding joint
28 24
29 Welding joint
25
30
26
31
27
32
33 28
Weldable
34 29
Vibrating wire strain gauges
35 30
strain gauges
36 31
37
C.D.Granite
C.D.Granite
32
38
33
39
40 34
41 35
42 36
PJ8: 41.5m PJ9: 35.5m
Figure 3-4c. Arrangement of strain gauges along PJ8 and PJ9
55
0 0
1

1
2
2
3 Welding joint
3 4
Fill
Fill
4 5
6
5
7
6
8
7 9
Welding joint
Alluvium
8 10
9 11
12
Alluvium
10
13
11 14
12 15 Welding joint
16
13
17
14
18
15 19
16 20
17 21
22
18
23
19 24
Welding joint
C.D.Granite
20 25
26
C.D.Granite
21
27 Welding joint
22
28
23 29
24 30
25 31
32
26 Vibrating wire
33
27 strain gauges
34
C./H.D.Granite
28 35
C./H.D.Granite
36
29
37
30
38
31 39
32 40
PD1: 31.8 m PD2: 39.6 m
Figure 3-4d. Arrangement of strain gauges along PD1 and PD2
56
0 0
1 1
Welding joint
2 2
Vibrating wire
3
3
strain gauges
Fill
4
Fill
4
5
5
6
6
7
7 8
Alluvium
8 9
Welding joint
9 10
Alluvium
10 11
12
11
13
12 Welding joint
14
13
15
14
16
15 17
16 18
17 19
18 20
19 21
22
20
Welding joint 23
21
24
C.D.Granite
22
C.D.Granite
25
23 Welding joint
26
24 27
25 28
26 29
27 30
31
28 Vibrating wire
C./H.D.Granite
C./H.D.Granite
32
29 strain gauges
33
30
34
31
35
32 36
33 37
34 PD3: 33.2 m 38
PD4: 37.9 m
Figure 3-4e. Arrangement of strain gauges along PD3 and PD4
57
0 0
1 1
2
2 Vibrating wire
3
3 strain gauges
4
Fill
5 4
6 5
Welding joint
7
6
8
7
9
Alluvium
10 8
11 9
12 10
13
11
14
12 Welding joint
15
16 13
Wash drilling
17 14
18
Welding joint 15
19
16
20
21 17
22 18
23
19
24
C.D.Granite
20
25
26 21
27 22
28 23
29 Welding joint
24
30
Welding joint
31 25
32 26
33 27
34
C./S.D.Granite
28
35
29
36
Vibrating wire
37 30
C./H.D.Granite
strain gauges
38 31
39 32
40
33
41
42 34
43 35 PD6: 34.2 m
PD5: 42.9 m
Figure 3-4f. Arrangement of strain gauges along PD5 and PD6
58
0 Vibrating wire 0 0
Welding joint
2 strain gauges
Fill
3 5
4
Welding joint
Fill
6
Fill
6 Vibrating wire
8 10
Welding joint
strain gauges
Marine deposit
10 9
12 Welding joint 15
14 12
Alluvium
16 20
15

18
Welding joint
Alluvium
Welding joint
Alluvium
20 25
18
22
24 21 30
Welding joint
26
28 24
Welding joint
35
C.D.Granite
30
32 27
C.D.Granite
40
Welding joint
C.D.Granite
34
C./H.D.Granite
C./H.D.Granite
C./H.D.Granite
30
36
45
38
Welding joint
33
40
50
42 36
44
46 39 55
PD7: 45.1 m PD8: 38.6 m PD9: 55.4 m
Figure 3-4g. Arrangement of strain gauges along PD7, PD8 and PD9
59
PVC duct
Gauge cables
Strain gauge
PVC pipe, gauge cables inside
152×76 steel channel PVC pipe, gauge cables inside
40×40 steel angle

40×40 steel angle
PVC pipe, gauge cables inside 152×76 steel channel
PVC pipe, gauge cables inside
For jacked piles For driven piles
Figure 3-5. Installation of strain gauges
60
Figure 3-6a. The weldable strain gauge
Figure 3-6b. The vibrating-wire strain gauge
61
Steel angles; gauge cables inside
Solid steel shoe
Figure 3-6c. Protection measure for strain gauges
PJ4
1.33 m
PJ1
1.75 m
Borehole (BHW1) for PJ3 PJ2 PJ5
piezometers M1 and M2 3.17 m 1.33 m

1.37 m
At Site 1 Borehole (BHW2) for piezometers

M3, M4 and M5
At Site 2
Borehole (BHW3) for M6 Borehole (BHW4) for M7 Borehole (BHW5) M8
PJ8 1.37 m
4.50 m
6.00 m At Site 3
Figure 3-7a. Horizontal locations of piezometers
62
BHW1 BH1 BHW2 BH4

0 0
1 1
2 Water table 2
3 3 Water table
4 4
5 5 Filled with
6 6
bentonite
7 7
8 8
balls
9 9 Surrounded
Surrounded M3
10 M1 10 by 600 mm
by 600 mm
11 11
sand filter
12 sand filter 12
13 13
14 Filled with 14 Surrounded
15 15
M4
bentonite by 600 mm
16 balls 16
sand filter
17 17
18 18
19 19 Surrounded
Surrounded M5
20 M2 20 by 600 mm
21 by 600 mm 21
sand filter
22 sand filter 22
At Site 1 At Site 2
BHW3 BHW4 BHW5 BH11

0
1
Filled with bentonite
2
3 Water table
4
5
balls
balls
6
balls
7
Surrounded by 600 mm
8
9
10
11
12
sand filter
sand filter
sand filter
13
14
15 M6 M7 M8
16
17 3.13 m 1.50 m
At Site 3
Figure 3-7b. Vertical locations of piezometers
63
Wrapped with sand and gauze

The piezometer
Bentonite pellets
Putting into the borehole
Figure 3-8. Installation of piezometer
64
Datalogger for weldable strain gauges
Datataker for vibrating wire

strain gauges and piezometers
Figure 3-9. The data acquisition system
65
Steel H-pile
Hydraulic jacks
Kentledge
The instrumented pile prepared for jacking
Four extensometers for measuring the

jacking load
Figure 3-10. The jack-piling machine and instrumented pile
66
23 hrs later * 12 hrs later *

Jacking the first segment of PJ1 Jacking the second segment of PJ1
4 days later * 3 days later

Final penetration of PJ1 Load-testing PJ1 End of load test
At Site 1

Jacking PJ2 to final penetration Load-testing PJ2
19 hrs later 23 hrs later *

End of load test Jacking PJ5 to final penetration
18 hrs later * 27 days later *

Jacking PJ4 to final penetration Jacking PJ3 to final penetration
4 months later *
Reloading PJ2 to two times design load Start to construct superstructure upon PJ2
8 months later
End of long-term monitoring of PJ2 At Site 2

Jacking PJ6 Final penetration of PJ6 Load-testing PJ6
3 days later 6 months later

End of load test of PJ6 Jacking the first segment of PJ8
23 hrs later * 1 hr later *

Jacking the first segment of PJ7 Jacking the second segment of PJ8

Jacking PJ7 to final penetration and jacking the third segment of PJ8

Final penetration of PJ8 Load-testing PJ7 End of load test of PJ7
10 days later 3 days later

Load-testing PJ8 End of load test of PJ8
At Site 3
(*) The time interval means the suspension period between two test steps.
Figure 3-11. Test schedule for jacked piles
67
Load
P—pile design capacity

P=3540 kN for 305×305×223 kg/m
72 hrs
2.0P
Loading to failure by steps then

unload to zero by four steps
1.5P
P
0.5P
Time
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3
For all piles except PJ2 and PJ7

Load
P—pile design capacity

P=2950 kN for 305×305×180 kg/m
72 hrs
2.0P
1.5P
P
0.5P
Time
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3
For PJ2
(Continued on next page)
68
Load
2 hrs
2 hrs
2.5P
2.4P 64 hrs
2.2P 5 hrs
2.0P
Loading to failure
1.5P by steps then
unload to zero by
four steps
69
1.0P
0.5P
Time
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4
For PJ7
Figure 3-12. Loading sequences for piles during load test

Reaction system
Four LVDTs for measuring

pile head settlement
Load cell
Reference beam
Figure 3-13. Static load test
70
Strain gauge cables
Piezometer cables
Data acquisition station
Figure 3-14. Long-term monitoring of PJ2
71
CHAPTER 4: FIELD PERFORMANCE OF THE PILES
4.1 Load Transfer in Jacked Piles during Installation
Figure 4-1 plotted the penetration versus jacking force for eight jacked piles.
The rates of penetration varied from time to time and were not easy to give certain
values. Generally speaking, the rates were in the order of 1-2 m/min but decreased to
tens of centimeters per minute or less during the last 1-2 meter of penetration.
Compared to the rates reported by Bond and Jardine (1995) who described 0.4-0.6
m/min as fast jacking while 0.05-0.1 m/min as slow jacking, five piles were jacked at
high rates. The general trend can be observed from Figure 4-1 that the jacking force
increases steadily with the penetration depth. The shape of the curves reflected the
stiffness of the ground. In Figure 4-1a, the resistances to jacking increased rapidly
from approximately 15 m below ground where the pile tip penetrated into the stiff
alluvium layers (see Figure 3-2a, 2e, 2j and 2k). In Figure 4-1b, the four piles were
subjected to the same soil conditions (see Figure 3-2d), and hence their behavior was
very similar. Their penetration-force curves were smooth in response to the relatively
uniform soil condition, i.e., entirely CDG soil 2.5 m below the ground.
Stress distributions in PJ1 and PJ2 during the whole jacking process were
recorded. The distributions of stress in PJ8 when jacking the final segment were
recorded as well. It was shown in Figure 4-2a to 4-2c. The stresses in the upper part
of PJ1 had very little change while the stresses in the lower part decreased almost
linearly. It indicates different mechanism for the shaft resistances mobilized in the
upper and lower parts. Actually, it was found during installation that the soil was not
in full contact with the inner flanges of the H-piles in the upper part for several
72
meters. A reduction in contact area resulted in a smaller shaft resistance in the upper
part. When PJ1 advanced to a deeper depth (20 m or more), the shaft resistance
began to take up more shares of the jacking force. With reference to the soil profile
shown in Figure 3-2a, when the pile tip advanced to the CDG layer, the SPT-N
values reached about 50. During the jacking of PJ2, clean sand was filled into the
space between the pile shaft and the surrounding soil. Hence the shaft resistance was
mobilized markedly even at a shallow depth of about 6 m. The load-transfer curves
for PJ8 also showed a similar trend that the stress in pile reduced significantly in the
deep and stiff soil layers such as the alluvium and CDG soil.
It is of interest to separate the pile-base and shaft resistances (Figure 4-2).
Noted that in Figure 3-4, strain gauges at the lowest location were not installed
exactly at the bottom of the pile due to operational difficulty. The pile-end resistance
should be slightly less than the one measured by those gauges. The stress reduction
in the pile is almost linear near the pile base, as shown in Figure 4-2. Therefore, it is
reasonable to assume that the segment between the pile base and the nearest gauge
level also has the same degree of stress reduction. Thus, the pile-end resistance can
be derived from the load-distribution curves with reasonable accuracy. Figures 4-3a
and 4-3b show the variations of pile-end resistance and the unit shaft resistance,
respectively, for both PJ1 and PJ2 during jacking. The unit shaft resistance was
obtained by dividing the total shaft load by the pile-soil contact area. The penetration
of a pile somewhat resembles to what happened in the cone penetration test (CPT).
The histories of resistance experienced by the CPT cone or the pile toe can reflect
the soil profiles. Contrasted to the borehole log, PJ1 penetrated into the stiff CDG
layer at the depth of 13 m, resulting in an increase of pile-end resistance. The trend
of end resistance was also in accord with the variations of SPT-N to some degree.
The increase of unit shaft resistance with penetration was persistent. The magnitude
of unit shaft resistance for PJ2 was much higher than that for PJ1 at the same
penetration. It reflects the relatively stiffer soil condition at Site 2.
The results imply that there is no limiting value to the resistance even under
such a deep penetration. Jack-piling is a quasi-static procedure which resembles a
73
load test in the manner of fast maintained-load. The shaft resistance during jacking is
not equal to but essentially correlated to the ultimate pile-shaft capacity. The
variations of unit shaft resistance shown in Figure 4-3b reflect the influence of a
pile’s embedded length. The existence of limiting value or critical depth for the unit
shaft and the end resistance has no consensus until now. As discussed by Kraft
(1991), the apparent existence of a critical depth may be due to the decrease of
friction angle occurred in the β-method. Actually, the friction angles for the soil-soil
or soil-pile interface decrease with increasing effective vertical stress. It may result
in a constant magnitude of the unit shaft resistance. Zeitlen and Paikowsky (1982)
also argued that the reduction of friction angle pointed to the existence of a critical
depth. However, the decrease of friction angle also leads to an increase of the lateral
effective stress. The coupling effect casts doubt over whether the ultimate unit shaft
resistance would be constant at deep penetrations.
It is convenient to evaluate the ultimate unit shaft resistance fmax using the
β-method (firstly proposed by Burland, 1973; after Meyerhof, 1976). It was
expressed by
f max = βσ v ' = K c tan ϕ 'σ v ' = (1 − sin ϕ ' ) tan ϕ 'σ v ' (4.1)
where Kc, φ’ and σv’ were the coefficient of earth pressure, the effective friction
angle and the initial effective vertical stress, respectively. Despite the simplicity of
the expression, it remains ambiguous about the value of Kc and the friction angle at
the pile-soil interface. Equation (4.1) allows the ultimate shaft resistance to evaluate
directly from the friction angle of soil. It has two approximations: (1) the friction
angle between the pile-soil surface was replaced by the internal friction angle of soil;
(2) Kc was assumed to be the coefficient of earth pressure at rest (K0). The relation of
φ’ decreasing with depth can be assessed in terms of effective mean normal stress by
−0.08
⎛ p' ⎞
tan ϕ ' = 1.04⎜ ⎟ (4.2)
⎝ 100 ⎠
which was an empirical relation suggested by Yasufuku and Hyde (1995) for densely
compacted weathered granitic soil (i.e., Masado sand). The effective mean normal
74
stress p’ (kPa) in Equation (4.2) can be derived using the equation below.
1 + 2K 0 3 − 2 sin ϕ '
p' = σ v '= σv' (4.3)
3 3
A simple evaluation of the ultimate shaft resistance of a pile entirely embedded

in Masado sand is made herein. For a given depth, an initial value of p’ was assumed
in the beginning, φ’ can thus be determined by Equation (4.2). A new value of p’ is
derived by the current value of φ’ with Equation (4.3). This procedure is repeated
until the currently updated p’ is close enough to the previous one.
The results are shown in Table 4-1. The calculated friction angle is larger than
that for medium clean sand. It is reasonable since Equation (4.2) was meant for
densely compacted granitic soil, which is in accord with the soil condition of being
highly compacted by pile-installation. Both fmax and β increase persistently over the
whole layer of Masado sand. The increase of β is not great because of the reduction
of friction angle with depth. As a result, fmax increases almost linearly with the depth,
deriving mainly from the increase of effective vertical stress (Figure 4-3b). The
example shows that a decrease in the friction angle does not necessarily lead to a
limiting value of shaft resistance. There is no obvious evidence to support the
existence of a critical depth during pile-installation. The unit shaft resistance
continues to increase beyond a presumed critical depth, although it may be at a much
smaller rate (Coyle and Castello, 1982). Perhaps, it may be valid in the situation of
cone penetration, which exhibits a limiting value of resistance. In laboratory tests for
short model piles, apparent critical depth of resistance was observed sometimes
(Altaee et al., 1993). However, for long piles jacked into layered soils, critical depth
was not noticed probably due to the effect of the pile length and the variations of soil
properties along the depth (Neely, 1990).
4.2 Pore Water Pressure Induced by Jacking
Behavior of excess pore pressure in clean sand during the pile-installation has
been often neglected, and frequently the sand is regarded as free drained material.
75
The alluvium and CDG soil being a kind of sandy soil may behave differently from
the clean sand. The content of clay in alluvial soils varies greatly with depth and site
location. The CDG soil also contains a considerable amount of clayey particles
though it mainly exhibits the characteristic of silty sand. Figure 4-4a shows the
variation of permeability of medium-grained CDG soils with the void ratio. The
normal range of permeability is in the order of 10-5-10-3 m/min, which is much
smaller than that for clean sand (see British Standard 5930, 1981; after Craig, 1997).
The compressibility of CDG soil is very little, thus the value of the coefficient of
consolidation is very huge. As seen in Figure 4-4b, the permeability increases
logarithmically with the increasing void ratio.
The buildup and dissipation of excess pore pressure during the penetration of
PJ1, PJ2, PJ3, PJ4, PJ5 and PJ8 were recorded and shown in Figures 4-5a to 4-5g. It
should be pointed out that the readings of the piezometer M3 during jacking PJ3 and
PJ4 were unstable and thus not included in the plots. Locations of the piles and the
piezometers can be referred to Fig 3-7. The piezometers M2, M3, M4 and M5 were
embedded in the CDG soil while the other four were in the alluvium layer. PJ5, PJ4
and PJ3 were installed in sequence several days after PJ2 had been jacked in and
load-tested. PJ8 was installed in segments over a few days. Hence the plots of excess
pore pressure in relation to PJ8 were given in two figures.
The general trend of the curves was that the variation of excess pore pressure
matched the penetration process fairly well. The buildup of excess pore pressure was
localized and the peak values were reached when the pile tips penetrated and passed
over the same level of the piezometers. The peak values were not absolutely
synchronous to the penetrations closest to the piezometers. That small discrepancy
was reasonable since the depth of piezometers and penetration-time record cannot be
guaranteed with absolute accuracy. The first obvious rises of excess pore pressure
prior to reaching the peak values corresponded to the penetrations down to the levels
of several meters above the piezometers. The dissipation of excess pore pressure was
very rapid compared to that happened in clayey soils (e.g., Pestana et al. 2002; Roy
et al. 1981). The rate of dissipation fluctuated with time because the advances of
76
piles were not continuous. Before the pile tips advanced down to the levels near the
piezometer, the dissipation behavior was concealed by larger buildups of excess pore
pressure. When the pile-tips passed through the piezometer levels, the buildups of
excess pore pressure due to jacking became weaker and weaker, and the dissipation
became more and more persistent. The excess pore pressure almost dissipated
entirely after the completion of pile installation that lasted for about 1-3 hours. The
readings of the piezometers were found to be nearly unchanged one day after the
installation of piles. The dissipation history indicated that the drain characteristic of
the alluvium and CDG soils was close to those of sandy soils rather than clayey soils.
With respect to the rapid dissipation of excess pore pressure, the influence is
short-term and within the installation stage. The performance of piles will be
unaffected by the buildup of excess pore pressure. Therefore, attempt will be mainly
made to interpret the initial distribution instead of the dissipation process.
Table 4-2 presents the maximum excess pore pressures (denoted by ∆umax)
detected when the pile-tips traversed the monitoring levels. Generally speaking, the
magnitude of ∆umax in the CDG soils was larger than that in the alluvial soils.
However, it not only depended on the soil property but also some other factors such
as the pile-tip load, the horizontal distance and the overburden pressure. For the
piezometers related to PJ8, ∆umax decreased sharply with increasing distance to the
pile axis. For the piezometers related to PJ2, the maximum excess pore pressures in
the CDG soil increased with the jacking load at the pile tip as well as the local
effective stress before installation. The ratio of ∆umax/σv’ represents the jacking effect
on reducing the effective stress in surrounding soils. The ratios for M1, M4 and M5
were larger than 1, indicating the local effective stresses were once negative when
the pile-tips advanced towards the monitoring levels. The decrease of the effective
stress reduced the strength of soil and sequentially made the penetration easy. The
little response received by M7 and M8 implied that the jacking process had very
limited impact on the alluvial soil at such a distance. The dissipation process was not
affected significantly by the jacking when the pile-tips had passed further away from
the piezometer levels. Thus, the values of t90 can be roughly determined by
77
considering the relatively smooth parts of the curves (normally the last obvious
decrease) in Figure 4-5. The notation t90 represents the time required for 90% of the
excess pore-pressure dissipated. It was found that t90 never exceeded one hour. The
rate of dissipation in the alluvial soils seemed much faster than that in the CDG soils.
At least it is valid for the observed cases.
It is of interest to study the initial distribution of excess pore pressure at
different distances to the pile tip. The initial fields of excess pore pressure induced
by the jacking were shown in Figures 4-6a to 4-6f, in which the symbol r represents
the distance from the piezometer to the pile-tip. As pointed out by Lumb (1962),
there was insignificant difference between the permeability of CDG soil in vertical
direction and that in the horizontal direction. It is therefore reasonable to consider
the initial distribution as a one-dimensional problem described in spherical
coordinates. The effective radius Rm was derived from an area equivalent to the
enveloping rectangle of the H-pile. Its magnitude equals to 0.183 m and 0.187 m for
the 305×305×180 kg/m and the 305×305×223 kg/m H-piles, respectively. The initial
excess pore pressure ∆u was normalized with respect to the effective vertical stress
σv’. For M3, M4 and M5, data of ∆u-r were collected when PJ2, PJ3, PJ4 and PJ5
were jacked in. For M1 and M2, data were available only when jacking PJ1. M6, M7
and M8 were located at the same depth below ground. Hence the readings obtained
during the penetration of PJ8 were plotted in the same figure. The readings were
classified according to the location of the pile-tip: above or below the piezometer
level. The influence of dissipation during the jacking-suspending period was not
taken into account. It leads to a slight underestimation of the initial excess pore
pressure.
The relationship between (∆u/0.01σv’) and ln(r/Rm) seemed to exhibit linearity
although some data scattered around. The straight regression lines are plotted in
Figures 4-6a to 4-6f, and can be mathematically expressed in a general form.
∆u ⎛R ⎞
= a + b ln⎜ m ⎟ (4.4)
σv' ⎝ r ⎠
The quasi-static penetration of piles resembles the event of a cylindrical cavity

78
expanded in soils. Attempts to interpret the penetration-induced excess pore pressure

by the cavity expansion method have been made in literature such as Roy et al.
(1981) and Lee et al. (2004). By considering a cylindrical cavity having a radius Rm,
the induced initial excess pore pressure in an ideal-elastic-and-perfectly-plastic
material was given by (Randolph and Wroth, 1979)
⎛G⎞ ⎛R ⎞
∆u = cu ln⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ + 2cu ln⎜ m ⎟ (4.5)
⎝ cu ⎠ ⎝ r ⎠
in which cu and G were the undrained shear strength and shear modulus, respectively.
Comparing Equations (4.4) and (4.5), one can find that
cu ⎛G⎞
a= ln⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ (4.6)
σ v ' ⎝ cu ⎠
2c u
b= (4.7)
σv'
The undrained shear strength is correlated to the effective overburden pressure

σv’ and their relation can be expressed by Skempton’s equation (after Craig, 1997).
cu = σ v ' (0.11 + 0.0037 I p ) (4.8)
where Ip is a plasticity index. For the CDG soil in Hong Kong, a value of 10 is often
adopted for Ip (Zhai, 2000). The shear modulus varies with depth and is correlative to
the local stress status and SPT-N value. In respect of the particle-size distribution of
the CDG soil (refer to Chapter 5 for details), the empirical equation suggested by
Randolph et al. (1994) can be adopted.
0.43
⎛ p' ⎞
G = 7500 exp(0.7 Dr )⎜ ⎟ (4.9)
⎝ 100 ⎠
where p’ denotes the effective mean normal stress. The relative density Dr in
Equation (4.9) can be determined by (Cubrinovski and Ishihara, 1999)
0.25
⎛ 98 N 2 ⎞
Dr = 0.12⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ (4.10)
σ
⎝ v ⎠ '
where N is the SPT-N value. The mean normal stress p’ (kPa) can be determined by
Equations (4.2) and (4.3).
79
Table 4-3 tabulates the values of a and b obtained from the above procedures as
well as the values for the fitted lines. The parameter a reflects the magnitude of
excess pore pressure in contact with the cavity wall or the pile-toe while b indicates
the attenuation rate. The observed and predicted values of a and b for M2, M3 and M4
have good agreement while the values for M5 differ greatly. Roy et al. (1981)
reported the ∆u/σv’-value of 1.6 at the pile surface for steel piles penetrated in
sensitive clay. In this study, the range of ∆u/σv’ for the CDG soil near the pile-toe
was measured to be 0.9-1.52 and predicted to be 0.9-0.94. It is of interest to sum up
all of the measured initial excess pore pressure in one plot for the two residual soils.
Figures 4-7a and 4-7b give the initial field induced in alluvium and CDG,
respectively, excluding unusual scattered data. Based on the large number of data, it
may be concluded that the rate of decrease of excess pore pressure with radial
distance in CDG is quicker than that in alluvium. The magnitude of excess pore
pressure induced in CDG is also larger than that in alluvium. Besides the difference
in soil properties, the difference of jacking loads at pile-tip is another cause of the
discrepancy of initial excess pore-pressure in CDG and alluvium.
4.3 Shaft and Base Capacities of Jacked Piles
Six jacked piles were subjected to static compressive load tests. Five of them
except PJ2 were loaded to failure. The state of “failure” was defined by the
allowable settlement stipulated in the BD ordinance (GEO, 1996). The loading
sequences were given in Figure 3-12. Plots of load-settlement at the pile head were
shown in Figures 4-8a to 4-8f. It should be pointed out that PJ2 was once
inadvertently loaded to 6570 kN (i.e., 2.23P) for a while during the 72-hour period
due to inappropriate operation. The load level was resumed to two times of the
working load several hours later.
It seemed that cyclic loading had insignificant effect on the load-deformation
relationship, although the settlement was reduced by a small amount during the
reloading cycles. Some major data registered for the load-settlement event are listed
80
in Table 4-4. The performance of the piles was fairly satisfactory except PJ1, which
was only loaded to 2.2P and the creep settlement under 2.0P was quite large. Two of
the piles were loaded to 3.3P, which was close to the uniaxial yielding stress of steel
and the limiting capacity of the load-test equipment. Especially for PJ8, its rate of
settlement under 3.3P was still lower than the allowable value, implying that PJ8
could have been loaded even further if the test condition permitted.
As mentioned in Chapter 3, the surcharge-load levels for installation of the
jacked piles were different. The maximum jacking loads were 2.0P, 2.3P and 2.5P for
PJ1, PJ2 and other four instrumented piles, respectively. The jacking loads were held
until the target settlement rate (5 mm in 15 minutes) was satisfied. It can be found
from Table 4-4 that the maximum jacking load is not equal to the failure load,
although a higher jacking load could lead to a higher bearing capacity. The surcharge
jacking method indeed reduced the creep settlement, which is crucial for a pile under
working condition. By placing surcharge load of up to 2.5P during jacking, the creep
settlement becomes very small when load-tested to 2.0P. The residual settlement
during a cyclic pile-load test is probably due to the plastic deformation of the soil at
the pile-toe. The residual settlement after the holding period was found to decrease
evidently. It means that a higher pre-creep jacking load makes the settlement under a
lower-load level more resumable. The ratio of Sres1/Shld was much lower for those
ever experiencing a jacking force of 2.5P. However, the ratio of Sres2/Smax did not
exhibit the similar trend. It can be explained by considering the influence of stress
history on the deformation characteristic of soil. The plastic deformation of the soil
is almost unaffected at the failure-load level, since the stress-deformation curve
exceeding the pre-creep load will coincide with the original one.
The stress distributions along the pile shaft during the load tests were derived.
Noted that installation of piles by jacking is a quasi-static penetration procedure and
resembles an accelerated load-test. It is of interest to observe the difference between
the load transfer in piles during jacking and the load test under the same load level.
Figure 4-9 and Figure 4-10 show the stress distributions along the pile and the shaft
resistances along PJ1 during jacking and load test, respectively. Shaft resistances
81
were derived from the pile’s stress-distribution curves. The difference in load level
between two neighboring sections was regarded as the unit friction at the middle
point multiplied by the surface area. The curves for load test at Stage 2 were referred
to the load level reaching 6175 kN for the first time.
It can be seen that the variations of shaft resistance were similar to the changes
of the SPT-N values along the depth. For instance, the SPT-N values indicated the
existence of a strong layer at about 30 m deep. The shaft resistances at that depth
were accordingly larger than the upper and lower depth. Although the same force
was applied, the load-transfer behavior during installation and that during load test
was different. The shaft resistances within the top 20 m soil were small in both cases
and never exceeded 50 kPa. Especially during the jacking process, the shaft
resistance was even smaller perhaps due to the partial separation between the pile
surface and the surrounding soil. The CDG soil at depths below 20 m played an
important role in sustaining the applied load. The stresses in the pile decreased
almost linearly within the bottom several meters. The average shaft resistances
mobilized in the bottom 8 m soil were 215 kPa during jacking and 167 kPa during
the load test. The shaft resistance during jacking was therefore much localized at the
bottom since it was small at the upper 20 m soil.
The pile-toe resistance during jacking was greater than that during the load test.
As a consequence, the total shaft load during the load test would be greater than that
during the jacking procedure. This phenomenal shift of shares between the end- and
shaft-resistance was the primary reason for the difference in the load-transfer
behavior between the jacking and the load test. In other words, this variation
reflected the effects of “fast penetration” and “slow penetration”. During the load
test, the load was applied by increments and maintained until a target settlement rate
(normally 0.05 mm in 10 minutes) was satisfied. The rate of penetration during the
load test was kept very small and the surrounding soil was not failed even under a
load of 6175 kN. Actually, the readings of pore water pressure had no virtual changes
during the load test. It means that excess pore pressure could not been built up under
such a “slow penetration”. The effective stress-level of the surrounding soil was
82
higher during the load test than that during the jacking. According to the β-method,
the soil around the pile shaft could provide greater resistance than that during the
jacking. The average value along the whole depth was 68.6 kPa, which was slightly
greater than that (65 kPa) during jacking. Note that the value was not the maximum
because 6175 kN was still less than the failure load. The increase in shaft capacity
resulted in the decrease of load transferred to the pile toe. The end-resistance during
the load test was 24.9 MPa, which was lower than 38.0 MPa during jacking.
Figures 4-11a to 4-11f plot the stress distributions in the six jacked piles at the
failure stages (except PJ2) during the load tests. The plot for PJ2 was referred to
Stage 2 because it was not loaded to failure. The readings for PJ6 and PJ7 were
somewhat scattering, although they still showed the trend of load transfer. The
stress-distribution curves for PJ6 were therefore obtained by best-fit method. For PJ7,
only the enveloping lines were presented because the fitted lines seemed unreliable
for that case. Skin friction can be approximately derived according to the reliable
stress distributions. The method is the same as adopted in Figure 4-10. Plots of skin
friction for PJ1, PJ2 and PJ8 are given in Figures 4-12a to 4-12c. The figures show
that the pile loads decreased sharply along depth, especially for the portion
embedded in the CDG soil. The stresses in the pile decreased almost linearly within
that layer. The curves of shaft resistance showed similar trend to the SPT-N curves
against depth. It indicates their consistency in reflecting the soil’s stiffness. The shaft
resistances mainly came from the alluvium and CDG layers. An overall impression
of these curves is that all of the six jacked piles were friction piles. Their shaft and
toe capacities are listed in Table 4-5. The share of total resistance taken up by the
shaft at failure was more than 80%. Actually the percentage would be even higher
when subjected to a load less than the failure load. Figure 4-13 illustrates that the
percentage of total resistance taken up by the pile-end increased persistently with
increasing applied-load. Nevertheless, the shaft resistance always played the major
role in sustaining the applied load. The pile-ends only contributed less than 10% of
the pile-head loads under working condition.
It seems that the shaft capacity was mobilized earlier than the base capacity,
83
since the function of end resistance enhanced with increasing load levels. In order to
clarify this point, the load-deformation behavior along the pile-shaft and at the
pile-toe was investigated, as shown in Figures 4-14a to 4-14c and 4-15. Shear
deformation along the pile-soil interface was focused on the alluvium and CDG soil,
because they were the principal soil layers in generating the skin friction. The
settlement at the pile-toe was derived from the pile-head settlement deducted by the
elastic shortening of the pile. The pile’s shortening can be determined according to
the load distribution curves by taking the average of two neighboring readings. The
relative movements between the pile and the soil at different depths were derived
from the pile-head settlement deducted by the total shortening of the pile above the
observed depth. It is valid with the assumption that the ground settlement during the
load tests was negligible. Otherwise, it would be overestimated if the ground surface
settled markedly.
It can be found that the soil at deeper depths provided higher shaft resistance.
When the pile was loaded, the soil at shallower depths provided a limiting resistance.
Later, the pile load was then transferred to deeper depths down to the pile base. For
PJ1, the shaft resistance along the whole depth seemed to reach the limiting value.
As a result, the pile base would share a larger portion of the applied load. From Table
4-5, one can note that the ratio Qb/Qmax for PJ1 is the highest among the five piles.
PJ2 was only once loaded to 2.0P and its ultimate capacity was not achieved. Figure
4-14b illustrates that the shaft resistance of PJ2 at deeper depths did not reach the
limiting value. The pile-end resistance of PJ2 also preserved great potential for two
times of the working load. The load-transfer characteristic of PJ8 showed similar
tendency (Figure 4-14c). The shaft resistance in the CDG layer still had not reached
the limiting value even when PJ8 was loaded to 3.3P. This localized analysis agreed
well with the macroscopical phenomenon that the share contributed by the end
resistance increased with increasing applied-load.
4.4 Comparison with Driven Piles
84
In this section, the performance of the driven piles will be discussed and
compared with that of the jacked piles which are presented in §4.3. Similar to the
jacked piles, load distributions along a driven pile during the load tests are given in
Figures 4-16a to 4-16i. The loading sequences all followed the first one in Figure
3-12. The components of the pile’s capacity and the settlement of the driven piles
were tabulated in Table 4-6. The average values of shaft resistance mobilized under
the maximum load in different soil strata are given in Table 4-7. The variations of
end resistance with increasing pile-head load for the driven piles are illustrated in
Figure 4-17. The local shear deformation characteristics at different depths of the
driven piles are presented in Figures 4-18a to 4-18i. The compressive deformation at
the base of the driven piles is given in Figure 4-19. The data-interpretation method
used in Figure 4-18 and 4-19 is the same as that for the jacked piles.
The stress distributions along a driven pile are apparently different from those
along a jacked pile. Driven piles are more of end-bearing type in comparison to the
jacked piles. Six of the nine driven piles exhibit that the base takes up more than
50% of the total capacity. The base capacities in the jacked piles, however, only take
up less than 15% of the overall capacities. In addition, the shaft resistance in the
driven piles is more localized in comparison to the jacked piles. It concentrated
mainly within the end-bearing zone and was mobilized mostly under heavy load. The
discrepancy is supposed to result from the difference in stiffness and strength of the
end-bearing strata. The jacked piles were all penetrated and founded on the CDG
layer, while the driven piles could be just stopped in the less decomposed granitic
soils ranging from HDG to SDG.
In general, the jacked piles were installed in softer soil strata in comparison to
the driven piles because of the limitation of their piling methods. The termination
criteria for the installation of the jacked and the driven piles are quite different. In
Hong Kong, the requirement for the final sets governs the installation of driven piles.
The dynamic-pile-driving formula proposed by Hiley (1930; after Bowles, 1997) is
used to predict the final sets. The Hiley’s equation is expressed as
85
(ehWh H )(Wh + n 2W p )
Qu = (4.11)
[ s + 0.5(k1 + k 2 + k 3 )](Wh + W p )
in which Qu represents the ultimate pile capacity; Wh and Wp are respectively the
weight of hammer and pile; H is the height of hammer; eh and n are the efficiency of
hammer and the coefficient of restitution, respectively; k1, k2 and k3 are the elastic
compression of the pile cap, the pile shaft and the soil, respectively; s is the pile-base
penetration per blow. Given a specified pile driving machine and site condition, the
final point-penetration s can be determined by Equation (4.11) to obtain the design
ultimate load. The value of s varies from case to case and is normally in the range of
10-20 mm in ten blows. Driven piles installed in accordance with this requirement
can normally penetrate to the soil strata where SPT-N values are larger than 200.
There was no existing termination criterion for the installation of jacked piles
before the current test program was carried out. A pre-creep termination criterion
was suggested to install the jacked piles (see Li et al, 2003). Two parameters need to
be determined in the criterion. One is the surcharge load level and the other is the
holding period. The requirement of holding period is consistent for all of the jacked
piles, that is, the settlement rate under holding jacking-load should not be higher than
5 mm in 15 minutes. The holding-load-level was adjusted to be stricter from the first
use at Site 1 to finally Site 3. The holding jacking-load for PJ1 is about 2P. It was
increased to 2.3P for the piles at Site 2, and further to 2.5P at Site 3. Furthermore, the
holding cycles were increased as well (see Chapter 3 for details).
It is difficult to correlate directly the termination criteria separately for the
jacked and the driven piles. The experience at the three test-sites demonstrates that
the driven piles terminated by the final-sets criterion will penetrate deeper than the
jacked piles do (The jacked piles are terminated by the pre-creep criterion). Although
the jack-piling machine employed at the sites carries one of the largest capacities in
the world, it seems impossible to push the pile to a depth as the driven pile does. The
SPT-N values near the base of the jacked piles ranged from 86 to 200.
Common sense may prevail that the jacked piles have smaller capacities than
the driven piles have. However, the load-test results showed that their capacities are
86
very high except PJ1. There is no evidence that the driven piles generally behaved
stronger than the jacked ones. As mentioned before, the load tests were performed in
a slow load-maintained manner. The determination of failure load was thus
settlement-controlled. The most widely acknowledged acceptance criterion to
determine the failure load is the one proposed by the Building Department (BD) for
private buildings. The BD ordinance can be expressed by (GEO, 1996):
Qmax L p Dl
S max ≤ + +4 (unit: mm) (4.12)
Ap E p 120
Dl
S res1 ≤ +4 (unit: mm) (4.13)
120
where Ap, Ep and Lp are respectively the cross-sectional area, elastic modulus and
length of the pile; Dl is the least lateral dimension of the pile section, which
respectively equals to 0.320 m and 0.325 m for the 305×305×180 kg/m and the
305×305×223 kg/m H-piles; The notations for Smax, Sres1 and Qmax are the same as in
Table 4-4. The two equations should be satisfied at the same time. A pile is regarded
as eligible if the two terms are satisfied after unloading from the holding period. The
pile can then be loaded to failure by loading increment of 0.1P. Incremental load
cannot be applied until the settlement rate is not large than 0.05 mm in 10 minutes.
The failure load is determined as the load level under which the pile-head settlement
exceeds Smax in Equation (4.12). The BD acceptance criterion is referred to the paper
by Davisson (1972), whose equations are originally for large-capacity driven piles
which have considerable base capacity. The maximum settlement Smax defined by
Equation (4.12) consists of two components. The first one is the elastic shortening of
shaft in which the load-decrease along the shaft is ignored. The second one is the
displacement due to yielding of soil at the pile toe.
As seen from Table 4-4, the residual settlement Sres1 is greatly reduced for those
piles that ever experienced higher surcharge jacking load. The creep settlement Scrp
during the holding period is reduced as well. The values of Sres1 and Scrp for the
driven piles are all very small (Table 4-6). A smaller creep and residual settlement
may indicate a larger failure load as stipulated in the BD acceptance criterion. The
87
“pre-creep” termination criterion, aiming at control of the settlement rate to satisfy

the same requirement for the load test, is effective in reducing the settlement during
the holding period. The failure load seems highly dependent on the surcharge load
level. PJ1 cannot satisfy the requirement of residual settlement defined by Equation
(4.13). When the pre-creep load level was raised to 2.3P, PJ2 seemed to perform
quite well though it was not loaded to failure. Figures 4-14b and 4-15 indicate that
PJ2 has great potential in providing both shaft and base resistance. The pre-creep
loads for the other four jacked piles were as high as 2.5P, and the failure loads were
up to 3.3P. It may be concluded from the above analyses that, though the jacked piles
were founded on weaker strata than the driven piles did, the pre-creep jacking
method ensured adequate capacity of the jacked piles. Recommendation on the
pre-creep loading level is at least 2.3P and better 2.5P provided that the jacking
capacity permits.
Figure 4-20 attempts to correlate the ultimate shaft resistance with the SPT-N
value. The ultimate shaft resistance corresponded to the limiting values in Figures
4-14 and 4-18. Those not reaching the limit state were not included in the plot. The
test results are also compared with an empirical relationship suggested by Meyerhof
(1956 and 1976; after Poulos, 1989b). It should be noted that the SPT-N values in
that plot were corrected with the overburden pressure included.
N 1 = N (95.76 / σ v ' ) (4.14)
Liao and Whitman (1986) suggested Equation (4.14) as a correction to include

the overburden pressure in sandy soils. The correction factor was very close to the
one used in Meyerhof’s empirical relation (Robert, 1997). The results show that
Meyerhof’s method underestimates the shaft capacity of both the jacked and the
driven piles, as they belong to the category of small-displacement piles. The writer
does not intend herein to propose empirical relation for the jacked and the driven
piles in residual soils, due to the lack of a sufficiency of large database. A large
number of high-quality data are necessary to propose a reliable empirical
relationship.
88
4.5 Response of Pile to Adjacent Jacking
Installation of displacement pile can change the stress field in the surrounding
soil and hence affects an already installed pile. It is of interest to observe the
influence of subsequent pile-jacking on a previously jacked pile. PJ5, PJ4 and PJ3
were jacked in by sequence after PJ2 was installed and load-tested. The influence of
their installation on PJ2 was investigated. Figures 4-21a to 4-21c show the
axial-stress response of PJ2 during the penetration of PJ5, PJ4 and PJ3. The
center-to-center distance of the three newly installed piles to PJ2 was 1.33 m, 1.88 m
and 3.17 m, respectively. The stress response of PJ2 was insignificant when the three
piles penetrated to a shallow depth. Significant response occurred when the
penetrations exceeded 10 m. There were small compressive stresses along the upper
part of the shaft. Tensile stresses were dominant along most of the lower portion of
the shaft. The magnitude of the maximum tensile stress induced during the whole
jacking process of PJ5 was in the order of 30 MPa. For the other two piles, the
magnitude was in the range of 10-20 MPa. For all three cases, the maximum tensile
stresses corresponded to a penetration of about 20 m, which was approximately
equal to 78% of the length of PJ2. Although PJ4 was nearer to PJ2 than PJ3 to PJ2,
the stress response due to the penetration of PJ4 was slightly weaker than that for
PJ3. The reason may be due to the orientation of the piles, as shown in Figure 3-7a.
The strain gauges were installed at the inner flanges of PJ2. The deformation
received by the gauges would be more sensitive to the direction in PJ3 and PJ5 rather
than PJ4.
The depths, where peak tensile stresses were detected, were approximately in
accord with the penetrations. It means that the stress response of PJ2 was mainly
correlated to the advancement of the tip of the newly installed piles. The quasi-static
penetration occurred at the pile tip resembles a spherical cavity expansion (Figure
4-22). The directions of soil movement were upward for the soil above the cavity
and downward for the soil below the cavity. The soil surrounding PJ2 thus ran in the
89
opposite direction at the level equally to the cavity. Positive and negative skin
frictions were produced respectively above and below the cavity depth due to the
different directions of soil displacement. The soil movement was the largest at the
interfacial level which was the closest to the cavity. As a consequence, the induced
tensile stress at that level was the largest along the whole depth.
It is noted that Chow (1995) reported similar field observation for the stress
interaction between two piles in sand. She found that compressive stress was
dominant along a six-meter long pile when jacking of another pile. Tensile stress was
only detected when the penetration of the second pile was about 1/3 of the pile
length. The results were conflicting to this study. The scale effect arising from
different sizes of pile may be the reason leading to the controversial finding. Poulos
(1994) carried out a theoretical study on the influence of pile-driving on adjacent
piles. His method firstly involved the evaluation of free-field soil movement due to
pile-driving by the strain path analysis. Response of pile was then estimated by the
analysis of pile-soil interaction. Figure 4-23 illustrates a parametric study of his
works. The pile-to-pile distance was three times of the pile diameter. The simulation
results were found consistent, at least with regard to the variation trend, with the
current field measurement. A shallow penetration mainly resulted in compressive
stress while deep penetration caused large tensile stress. The maximum tensile stress
during the whole penetration appeared when the newly installed pile reached 2/3 of
the pile length. In this study, the maximum tensile stress was detected when the
penetration is 78% of the pile length.
The stresses along PJ2 due to adjacent penetrations also varied with time.
Figure 4-24 presents the variation of stress near the pile end of PJ2 during the
penetration of PJ5. It was interesting to note that the time-dependent change of stress
in pile was similar to the variation of excess pore pressure induced by jacking. The
increase and decrease of tensile stresses were in accord with the advancement of pile.
The peak value is related to the level of penetration. The penetration-induced stresses
diminished when the jacking procedure was suspended. The difference between the
response stress in pile and the response of excess pore pressure induced by jacking
90
was that the stress diminished slowly when the jacking force was with-held during
the end of installation. The dissipation of excess pore pressure was almost unaffected
by the with-holding load. As a consequence, the phenomenon of stress response in a
pile caused by adjacent jacking was not so short-lived as the excess pore pressure. It
would diminish after the installation was completed. Residual stress would be
maintained in a long period. This point will be further discussed in a following
section.
4.6 Long-term Performance of Jacked Pile
In order to observe the time-dependent behavior of jacked pile in stiff soil

condition, PJ2 was loaded to two times of the working load again 34 days after its
first load test. As in the first load test, no virtual variation of excess pore water
pressure was detected during the entire reloading procedure. The load-distribution
curves under a load of 5900 kN were shown in Figure 4-25. The load-transfer curves
within the bottom 7.5 m soil layer were approximately linear. The unit shaft
resistance in that layer can be derived. It increased slightly from 167 kPa to 189 kPa
during reloading. The end resistance increased considerably by about 32% during
reloading, i.e., from 34.2 MPa to 45.0 MPa. As a consequence, the shaft resistance
within the upper layer of soil should decrease during reloading. It seemed that the
applied load tended to be transferred to deep depths after a period of rest. In other
words, the behavior of the pile became more of end-bearing type rather than in its
incipient installation state.
A number of researchers have reported the increase of pile capacity in sandy
soils several days after installation, such as Tavenas and Audy (1972), Samson and
Authier (1986) and Weber (1989). All of the observed results were consistent but the
mechanism was not easy to explain. Chow et al. (1998) attempted to find the
possible reasons, as given in §2.3. PJ2 was not loaded to failure during the load test
nor during the reloading. It cannot be concluded from the results that the capacity of
PJ2 increased after 34 days of rest. However, its load-transfer characteristic did make
91
a point. The time-related change of load transfer perhaps indicated the

self-adjustment of the pile, resulting from the change of soil structure around the pile.
The installation of PJ5, PJ4 and PJ3 could also affect the performance of PJ2 under
load-applying condition.
Four months after the reloading test, the contractor started to construct the
superstructure atop of PJ2. Simultaneous eight-month-long monitoring program was
carried out to observe the load transfer of PJ2 under the construction period. The
stress-distribution curves are shown in Figure 4-26. The curves seem quite different
from the previous ones. The curves show an obvious turning point at the depth of
about 15 m. The skin friction above this level has very little contribution to resist the
applied load. Particularly when the structure was constructed up to the ground floor,
the above 15-meter layer of soil exhibited the existence of negative skin friction,
implying the relative subsidence of ground. The friction below 15 m is considerable.
When the construction progressed to the fourth floor, the shaft friction within that
portion was about 598 kN while the base resistance was 310 kN.
The percentage of total resistance taken up by the pile-end can be
approximately derived from Figure 4-26, given that the upper 15-meter soil provides
no skin friction. The results are shown in Table 4-8. The end-resistance shares more
than 32% of the applied load. During the load test, that percentage offered by PJ2
increases from 4% under a load of 0.5P to 13% under a load of 2P (see Figure 4-13).
It further increases to 17% during the reloading procedure, which was carried out
about one month after the load-tests. The tendency is clear that higher percentage of
the total load was transferred to deeper depths over a longer period. It is
advantageous for the overall capacity of pile, since the shaft resistance reached a
limit earlier than the base resistance did.
4.7 Influence of Residual Stress on the Jacked Piles
Residual stress may be originated from the jack-piling procedure and also from
the cyclic loading test. Jacking of adjacent piles is another probable source of
92
generating residual stress along the pile at rest. It is well recognized of the existence
of residual stress and its effect on the performance of piles (Vesic, 1977; Poulos,
1987). Particularly for piles embedded in dense sand, the residual stress can be very
considerable. However, field-test data for the residual stress have been rarely
reported due to the difficulty in proper measurement. In order to clarify the direct
response of a pile to the applied load, the residual stress was also not taken into
account in the previous sections. It is appropriate to discuss the residual stress
separately. A comprehensive investigation is conducted in this section to find out the
possible origins of the residual stress.
Great disturbance occurs when large jacking load is suddenly released during
the installation of jacked piles. It is not easy to obtain steady readings for strains
during the penetration process. Vibrating wire strain gauges can provide reliable
measurement due to its robustness in recording the deformation in terms of
frequency. Figures 4-27a and 4-27b present the residual stresses developed along PJ2
and PJ8 during the suspension period between two jacking strokes. Significant
residual stresses were locked in the pile shafts especially during deep penetration.
The piles were intended to uplift when the large jacking load was released
completely within a short period of a few seconds. The pile-soil interaction resulted
in compressive stress along the shafts. The peak values did not appear at the pile tips
but at levels slightly above the tips. Those levels were located at about 80% of the
penetrations below the ground surface. A parametric study conducted by Poulos
(1987) proved that the level of the maximum residual driving stress was related to
soil stiffness. The location would be deeper for stiffer soil condition. Small tensile
stress was found at shallow penetration. Deeper penetration led to higher
compressive residual stress. The maximum values were 124.5 MPa and 110.3 MPa
registered in PJ2 and PJ8, respectively. Very little literature has reported such large
residual stresses induced by installation. Possible cause of such high residual stress
may be the test condition of long piles in stiff soils. Actually, the residual stress was
not that high when the penetrations were smaller than 10 m. In addition, the
operation of sand-filling during installation would cause the increase of the residual
93
stress. Caution should be drawn on the buildup of residual stress when installing
large capacity long piles in stiff soils.
The existence of significant residual stress due to installation will change the
load-transfer characteristic during the load test. Figure 4-28 gives such an example
of PJ2 under a load of 5900 kN at Stage 2 of the load test. The stress induced by the
applied load decreased with depths. However, this trend cannot be revealed if the
residual stress induced by jacking was added. The actual stress in the pile only
decreased steadily within the lower 5-m depth. It implies that the actual skin friction
in the upper layer is very small. The stress at the pile toe would be as large as 86.0
MPa. The ratio of residual toe-pressure to the actual toe-resistance was about 0.6,
which was consistent with the predicted results by Poulos (1987). The manner of the
residual stress distribution prior to the load test is a possible reason why the
performance of the jacked piles during the load test degenerated to that similar to
friction piles. Negative skin friction as large as 97.3 kPa was generated within the
upper 20-m soil before PJ2 was load-tested. When the applied load was transferred
to deeper depths, the negative friction should be counteracted first. The load-induced
behavior during the load-transfer would thereby constitute a greater contribution to
the shaft resistance. Robert (1997) also pointed out that neglecting the residual stress
would overestimate the shaft resistance but underestimate the end resistance.
Regardless the existence of significant residual stress, the maximum stress level
along the shaft was almost unchanged during the load test. Therefore, the
superposition of residual stress and load-induced stress would not increase the
possibility of yielding in steel under heavy load. It may be concluded from that
example that the pile-head load would be unaffected by the significant residual stress.
The existence of such a distribution of residual stress is advantageous to increase the
pile’s bearing capacity. Generally, the pile’s base-resistance does not reach the
ultimate value even if the overall performance of the pile reaches the ultimate state.
The residual stress increases the burden at the pile end and produces a negative shaft
resistance at the same time. That renders the ultimate shaft-resistance occurred under
higher applied load and exerts the potential of end resistance.
94
Figures 4-29a and 4-29b illustrate the effect of residual stress on the load
transfer of PJ1 and PJ2 during the cyclic load tests. The residual stress appeared
during the load tests was not very large. The pile-head load-settlement curves in
Figure 4-8 also indicate that the effect of residual stress on the stiffness during the
load tests is very limited. Tensile stress was found at the upper portion of shaft while
compressive stress was at the lower portion. The maximum values of compressive
residual stresses for PJ1 and PJ2 were 4.83 MPa and 10.57 MPa, occurred at depths
of 77% and 59% of the pile lengths, respectively. The existence of residual stress
caused a slight increase of the end resistance, hence a small reduction of the shaft
resistance during the loading stages. The manner of the distribution of residual stress
during the loading test was similar to that during installation. It is reasonable that the
residual stress generated during the load test was smaller compared to installation.
High percentage of the “penetration” during load test was recovered and the
pile-head residual settlement was small. Rebound did occur during the suspension
period between successive jacking, but it was not comparable to that happened
during the penetration. The effect of drag-down of soil would be much larger during
installation than that during the loading test.
As mentioned in §4.5, the shaft’s response to adjacent jacking resulted in
mainly tensile stress along PJ2. The induced stress diminished and the remainder
was the residual stress due to adjacent jacking. Figure 4-30 presents the distribution
of the lock-in stress in PJ2 after the adjacent piles were installed. The residual stress
was mainly tensile and its magnitude increased with depth. The tensile residual stress
increased when more adjacent piles were installed. The maximum stress level as
high as 56.5 MPa was registered near the pile toe after PJ3 was installed. The tensile
residual stress was reduced slightly 27 days after the installation of PJ3.
Compressive residual stress came forth along the upper portion of shaft, although its
magnitude was small compared to the tensile stress.
The residual stress due to individual source was separately studied so far. It is of
concern to observe the overall influence of the residual stress. Figure 4-31 presents
the superposition of the residual stress in PJ2 caused from different origins, with
95
reference to a baseline reading before PJ2 was jacked in. It was found that the
greatest source of residual stress was derived from the installation procedure of PJ2.
Subsequent cyclic load-test slightly increased the compressive residual stress.
Installation of adjacent piles had positive effect on reducing the compressive residual
stress by producing considerable tensile stress along the shaft. However, this effect
was counteracted during the reloading procedure. The maximum value of residual
stress (i.e., 132.8 MPa) was registered at depth of approximately 20 m. PJ2 was rest
at place for 131 days after being reloaded. The compressive residual stress reduced
during that period. Its peak value dropped to 99.6 MPa, indicating that the unit skin
friction at rest was approximately –61.1 kPa above the depth of 20 m and 270.9 kPa
below the depth of 20 m. The overall residual stress was still significant even after
such a long period of rest. A tension pile load-test can help further reduce the
residual stress, but complete disappearance seems unlikely (Rieke and Crowser,
1987).
96
Table 4-1. Predicted ultimate shaft-resistance of a pile in Masado sand

Depth (m) σv’ (kPa) K0, Kc φ’ β fmax (kPa)
o
5 50.95 0.242 49.3 0.281 14.32
10 101.90 0.261 47.6o 0.286 29.14
o
15 152.85 0.273 46.7 0.290 44.33
o
20 203.80 0.281 46.0 0.291 59.30
25 254.75 0.287 45.5o 0.292 74.39
o
30 305.70 0.293 45.0 0.293 89.57
35 356.65 0.297 44.7o 0.294 104.86
Table 4-2. Maximum excess pore pressure induced by jacking

Alluvium
Piezometers M1 M6 M7 M8
Distance to pile axes (m) 1.75 1.37 4.50 6.00
Depth below ground (m) 10.0 15.0 15.0 15.0
σv’ before jacking (kPa) 87.5 140.0 140.0 140.0
Load at pile toe (kN) 81 N.A. N.A. N.A.
∆umax (kPa) 105.6 24.4 5.7 0.9
∆umax/σv’ 1.21 0.17 0.04 0.01
t90 (min) 10.5 6.1 9.2 2.2
Completely decomposed granite
Distance to pile axes (m) 1.75 1.37 1.37 1.37
Depth below ground (m) 20.0 9.5 14.5 19.5
σv’ before jacking (kPa) 189.4 95.8 146.8 197.7
Load at pile toe (kN) 987 7 149 464
∆umax (kPa) 86.3 88.8 205.0 409.5
∆umax/σv’ 0.46 0.93 1.40 2.07
t90 (min) 19.2 42.8 38.7 21.5
97
Table 4-3. Measured and predicted values of a and b

Alluvium
Piezometers M1 M6, M7 and M8
Measured a 1.95 0.36
Measured b 0.54 0.09
Completely decomposed granite
SPT-N value 58 24 39 60
σv’ (kPa) 189.4 95.8 146.8 197.7
p’ (kPa) 98.6 48.5 75.5 102.8
Dr 0.775 0.591 0.677 0.780
G (MPa) 12.8 8.3 10.7 13.1
cu (kPa) 27.8 14.1 21.6 29.1
Measured a 0.90 1.11 1.19 1.52
Measured b 0.27 0.24 0.28 0.41
Predicted a 0.90 0.94 0.91 0.90
Predicted b 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29
98
Table 4-4. Load-settlement characteristics of jacked piles

PJ1 PJ2 PJ6 PJ7 PJ8 PJ9
Pile length (m) 40.9 25.8 39.0 40.5 41.5 35.5
SPT-N at pile toe 200 186 154 86 98 163
Maximum jacking force (kN) 7388 6829 7375 7273 7388 7375
Failure load—Qmax (kN) 7788 N.A. 8850 9735 9735 8555
Failure load (times working load) 2.2P N.A. 3.0P 3.3P 3.3P 2.9P
Failure stress—σmax (MPa) 273 N.A. 386 425 425 373
Maximum settlement—Smax (mm) 87.58 30.73 94.15 70.50 69.81 74.83
Settlement after holding—Shld (mm) 53.91 29.18 36.74 39.25 36.54 33.34
Creep settlement—Scrp (mm) 11.16 2.79 0.95 0.40 1.25 1.47
Residual settlement—Sres1 (mm) 9.76 2.96 0.04 0.25 1.61 0.87
Residual settlement—Sres2 (mm) 43.61 N.A. 42.21 10.45 7.27 29.06
Toe settlement at failure (mm) 37.07 N.A. 43.43 14.13 8.20 40.32
Ratio of Sres1/Shld 0.181 0.101 0.001 0.006 0.044 0.026
Ratio of Sres2/Smax 0.498 N.A. 0.448 0.148 0.104 0.388
Ratio of Qmax/Smax (kN/mm) 89 N.A. 94 138 139 114
Notice: Shld means the settlement at the end of the holding period of 72 hrs. Scrp means the
creep settlement during the holding period of 72 hrs. Sres1 denotes the residual settlement
unloading from the holding period. Sres2 denotes the residual settlement unloading from the
failure load. Note that PJ7 was held at 6490 kN (2.2P) for 64 hrs.
Table 4-5. Percentage of shaft and base capacity of jacked piles

PJ1 PJ6 PJ7 PJ8 PJ9
Pile length (m) 40.9 39.0 40.5 41.5 35.5
SPT-N at pile base 200 154 86 98 163
Failure load—Qmax (kN) 7788 8850 9735 9735 8555
Shaft capacity—Qs (kN) 6594 8208 8426 9396 7608
Unit shaft capacity (kPa) 84.1 111.7 110.4 120.2 113.8
Base capacity—Qb (kN) 1194 642 1309 339 947
Unit base capacity (MPa) 41.9 28.0 57.1 14.8 41.3
Ratio of Qs/Qmax 0.847 0.927 0.866 0.965 0.889
Ratio of Qb/Qmax 0.153 0.073 0.134 0.035 0.111
99
Table 4-6. Particulars of driven piles during load test

PD1 PD2 PD3 PD4 PD5
Pile length (m) 31.8 39.6 33.2 37.9 42.9
Failure load—Qmax (kN) 11682 10266 11328 11328 10974
Failure load (times working load) 3.3P 2.9P 3.2P 3.2P 3.1P
Shaft capacity—Qs (kN) 7869 4298 5129 5511 9615
Unit shaft capacity (kPa) 129.1 56.6 80.6 75.9 116.9
Base capacity—Qb (kN) 3813 5968 6199 5817 1359
Unit base capacity (MPa) 133.8 209.4 217.5 204.1 47.7
Ratio of Qs/Qmax 0.674 0.419 0.453 0.486 0.876
Ratio of Qb/Qmax 0.326 0.581 0.547 0.514 0.124
Maximum settlement—Smax (mm) 74.48 101.45 64.49 70.91 81.74
Creep settlement—Scrp (mm) 1.42 2.27 1.06 0.74 1.44
Residual settlement—Sres1 (mm) 0.00 0.00 2.07 0.32 1.17
Residual settlement—Sres2 (mm) 20.57 41.47 5.75 5.34 18.09
Toe settlement at failure (mm) 27.83 54.93 10.57 9.64 23.10
PD6 PD7 PD8 PD9
Notice: SPT-N values at the pile bases normally exceed 200 for
Pile length (m) 34.2 45.1 38.6 55.4
Failure load—Qmax (kN) 9225 10289 11708 9580
Failure load (times working load) 2.6P 2.9P 3.3P 2.7P
Shaft capacity—Qs (kN) 3448 8975 4369 4211
Unit shaft capacity (kPa) 52.6 103.8 59.0 39.7
Base capacity—Qb (kN) 5777 1314 7339 5369
Unit base capacity (MPa) 202.7 46.1 257.5 188.4
Ratio of Qs/Qmax 0.374 0.872 0.373 0.439
Ratio of Qb/Qmax 0.626 0.128 0.627 0.561
Maximum settlement—Smax (mm) 52.01 89.60 79.31 89.75
Creep settlement—Scrp (mm) 0.92 1.20 0.70 1.82
all driven piles.
Residual settlement—Sres1 (mm) 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.02

Residual settlement—Sres2 (mm) 4.61 36.80 9.43 9.85
Toe settlement at failure (mm) 9.64 39.16 19.51 12.28
100
Table 4-7. Average shaft resistances mobilized in different soil layers

Jacked piles
PJ1 PJ6 PJ7 PJ8 PJ9
Thickness of the stratum (m) 6.0 20.6 21.0 24.0 21.0
Alluvium
Average SPT-N of the stratum 8 48 43 43 33

Maximum shaft resistance (kPa) 3.9 72.1 91.2 101.3 81.1
Thickness of the stratum (m) 27.8 9.0 12.0 9.5 5.5
CDG
Average SPT-N of the stratum 82 125 89 79 102

Maximum shaft resistance (kPa) 109.8 284.3 102.2 377.5 126.1
Driven piles
PD1 PD2 PD3 PD4
Thickness of the stratum (m) 6.0 6.0 N.A. 4.5
Alluvium
Average SPT-N of the stratum 14 8 N.A.

Maximum shaft resistance (kPa) 18.7 23.4 0.0
Thickness of the stratum (m) 13.5 25.6 22.5 22.5
CDG
Average SPT-N of the stratum 44 46 N.A. N.A.

Maximum shaft resistance (kPa) 41.1 77.0 98.6 91.4
Thickness of the stratum (m) 5.0 N.A. N.A. N.A.
C/HDG
Average SPT-N of the stratum >200

Maximum shaft resistance (kPa) 543.2
PD5 PD7 PD8 PD9
Alluvium
Average SPT-N of the stratum N.A. 24 29 23

CDG
Average SPT-N of the stratum N.A. 73 80 96

C/HDG
Average SPT-N of the stratum N.A. >400 >200 >200

Table 4-8. Variation of end resistance of PJ2 against construction progress

Construction progress Ground floor First floor Third floor Fourth floor
Ratio of end resistance 0.349 0.325 0.320 0.334
101
Jacking force (kN)

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
0
3 PJ1 PJ6
6 PJ7 PJ8
9
12
15
Penetration (m)
18
21
24
27
30
33
36
39
42
Figure 4-1a. Penetration progress of relatively long piles
Jacking force (kN)

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
0
3 PJ2 PJ3
PJ4 PJ5
6
9
Penetration (m)
12
15
18
21
24
27
Figure 4-1b. Penetration progress of relatively short piles
102
Pile Stress (MPa)

0 50 100 150 200 250
0
10
15
Penetration (m)
20
25
30
35
Corresponding penetrations (m) from left to right:

40 6, 10, 14, 18, 22, 26, 29, 32, 35 and 38.
Figure 4-2a. Variation of stresses in pile during jacking PJ1
Pile stress (MPa)

0 30 60 90 120 150 180
0
9
Depth (m)
12
15
18
21
Corresponding penetrations (m) from left

24
to right: 12.2, 13.9, 15.7, 19.3 and 22.2
Figure 4-2b. Variation of stresses in pile during jacking PJ2
103
Pile stress (MPa)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
0
3
Penetration=34.9m
6 Penetration=41.4m
12
15
Penetration (m)
18
21
24
27
30
33
36
39
42
Figure 4-2c. Variation of stresses in pile during jacking PJ8
Pile end resistance (MPa)

0 10 20 30 40 50
0
PJ1
5
PJ2
10
15
Penetration (m)
20
25
30
35
40
Figure 4-3a. Variation of pile-end resistance during jacking
104
Unit shaft resistance (kPa)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0
PJ1
5 PJ2
Calculated in T able 4-1
10
15
Penetration (m)
20
25
30
35
40
Figure 4-3b. Variation of unit shaft resistance during jacking
10000
Permeability—k (×10-7 m/min)
1000
100
ln(k)=26.7e-8.2
10
1
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Void ratio—e
Figure 4-4a. Variation of permeability against
void ratio in CDG soils (Lumb, 1962)
105
1000
Coefficient of consolidation—Cv (cm2/min)
100
10 ln(Cv)=14.8e-4.5
1
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Void ratio—e
Figure 4-4b. Variation of coefficient of consolidation
against void ratio in CDG soils (Lumb, 1962)
Time (min)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
0
5
Penetration (m)
10 Level of M1
15
20 Level of M2
25
120
Excess pore pressure (kPa)
100
80
60
M1
40
M2
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
-20
Time (min)
Figure 4-5a. Variation of excess pore pressure induced by jacking PJ1
106
Time (min)
0 30 60 90 120 150 180
0
Penetration (m)
10 Level of M3
15 Level of M4
20 Level of M5
25
30
450
400
350
300
250
M4 M5
200
150
100 M3
50
0
-50 0 30 60 90 120 150 180
Time (min)
Figure 4-5b. Variation of excess pore pressure induced by jacking PJ2
Time (min)
0 20 40 60 80
0
5
Penetration (m)
10 Level of M3
15 Level of M4
20 Level of M5
25
30
180
160
140
120 M4 M5
100
80
60
M3
40
20
0
-20 0 20 40 60 80
Time (min)
Figure 4-5c. Variation of excess pore pressure induced by jacking PJ5
107
Time (min)
0 20 40 60 80 100
0
Penetration (m)
10
15 Level of M4
20 Level of M5
25
30
60
50
40 M4 M5
30
20
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
-10
Time (min)
Figure 4-5d. Variation of excess pore pressure induced by jacking PJ4
Time (min)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
0
5
Penetration (m)
10
15 Level of M4
20 Level of M5
25
30
120
100
80
60 M5
M4
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
-20
Time (min)
Figure 4-5e. Variation of excess pore pressure induced by jacking PJ3
108
Time (min)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
0
Penetration (m)
4
10
12
10
4
M6
2 M8
M7
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
-2
Time (min)
Figure 4-5f. Variation of excess pore pressure induced
by jacking the first segment of PJ8
Time (min)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
10
12
Penetration (m)
14
Level of M6, M7 and M8
16
18
20
22
24
27
24
21
18
15
12
9 M6
6 M7
3 M8
0
-3 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time (min)
Figure 4-5g. Variation of excess pore pressure induced
by jacking the second segment of PJ8
109
100
90
80
■ Pile tip above M1
70
∆u/(0.01×σv’)
▲ Pile tip below M1

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4 .5
ln(r/Rm)
Figure 4-6a. Initial excess pore pressure vs. distance at M1
50
40 ■ Pile tip above M2

∆u/(0.01×σv’)
30
20
10
0
2 2.5 3 3.5
ln(r/Rm)
Figure 4-6b. Initial excess pore pressure vs. distance at M2
110
70
60
50 ▲ Pile tip below M3
∆u/(0.01×σv’)
40
30
Scattering points excluded
20
10
0
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
ln(r/Rm)
Figure 4-6c. Initial excess pore pressure vs. distance at M3
100
90
80 ■ Pile tip above M4

70 ▲ Pile tip below M4
∆u/(0.01×σv’)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4 .5
ln(r/Rm)
Figure 4-6d. Initial excess pore pressure vs. distance at M4
111
90
80
70
60
∆u/(0.01×σv’)
50
40
30
20
10
0
2 2.5 3 3.5 4
ln(r/Rm)
Figure 4-6e. Initial excess pore pressure vs. distance at M5
20
18 Pile tip above M6
Pile tip below M6
∆u/(0.01×σv’)
12 Pile tip below M7

10 Pile tip below M8
8
6
4
2
0
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4 .5
ln(r/Rm)
Figure 4-6f. Initial excess pore pressure vs. distance at M6, M7 and M8
112
24
21
Pile tip above piezometer
Pile tip below piezometer
18
Best-fit line
∆u/(0.01×σv’)
15
12
a=0.28, b=0.07
9
0
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4 .5
ln(r/Rm)
Figure 4-7a. Initial excess pore pressure vs. distance in alluvium
100
90
Pile tip above piezometer
80 Pile tip below piezometer
Best-fit line
70
∆u/(0.01×σv’)
60
50 a=0.84, b=0.19
40
30
20
10
0
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4 .5
ln(r/Rm)
Figure 4-7b. Initial excess pore pressure vs. distance in CDG
113
Load at the pile head (kN)

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
0
10 Stage 1
Settlement at the pile head (mm)
20
30
Stage 2
40
50
60
Stage 3
70
80
90
100
Figure 4-8a. Load-settlement curve for PJ1

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
0
5
Stage 1
10
15
20
Stage 2
25
30
Stage 3
35
Figure 4-8b. Load-settlement curve for PJ2
114

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
0
10 Stage 1
20
30
40
50 Stage 2 Stage 3
60
70
80
90
100
Figure 4-8c. Load-settlement curve for PJ6

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
0
5
Settlement at the piles head (mm)
10
15
20
25 Stage 1
30
Stage 2
35
40
45
50
Stage 3
55
60
65 Stage 4
70
75
Figure 4-8d. Load-settlement curve for PJ7
115

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
0
5
10 Stage 1
15
20
25
30
35
40
Stage 2
45 Stage 3
50
55
60
65
70
75
Figure 4-8e. Load-settlement curve for PJ8

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
0
10 Stage 1
20
30
Stage 3
40 Stage 2
50
60
70
80
Figure 4-8f. Load-settlement curve for PJ9
116
Pile stress (MPa)

0 50 100 150 200 250
0
5
Load level: 6175 kN
10
During jacking
15
Depth (m)
20 Stage 2 of load test
25
Pile end resistance:

30
38.0 MPa
8m
35
8m
40 Pile end resistance: 24.9 MPa
45
Figure 4-9. Stress distributions along PJ1 during jacking and load test
Shaft resistance (kPa)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300
0
Load level: 6175 kN

5
10
15
Stage 2 of load test
Depth (m)
Average value: 68.6 kPa

20
During jacking
25
Average value: 65.0 kPa
30
35
40
Figure 4-10. Shaft resistances along PJ1 during jacking and load test
117
Pile stress (MPa)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300
0
1770 kN 3540 kN 5310 kN 7080 kN 7788 kN
10
15
Depth (m)
20
25
30
35 Working load: P=3540 kN
Failure load: 2.2P=7788 kN

40
Figure 4-11a. Stress distributions in pile along PJ1 at Stage 3
Pile stress (MPa)

0 50 100 150 200 250
0
3
1475 kN 2950 kN 4425 kN 5900 kN
9
Depth (m)
12
15
18
21
Failure load not achieved

27
Figure 4-11b. Stress distributions in pile along PJ2 at Stage 2
118
Pile stress (MPa)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
0
10
15
Depth (m)
20
25
30
35
Working load: P=2950 kN
Failure load: 3P=8850 kN

40
Curves from left to right: 2950 kN, 4425 kN,
5900 kN, 7375 kN and 8850 kN
Figure 4-11c. Stress distributions in pile along PJ6 at Stage 3
Pile stress (MPa)

0 100 200 300 400 500
0
7080 kN
5 7965 kN
8850 kN
10 9735 kN
15
Depth (m)
20
25
30
35

40
Figure 4-11d. Stress distributions in pile along PJ7 at Stage 4
119
Pile stress (MPa)

0 100 200 300 400 500
0
4425 kN
3
6490 kN
6 8260 kN
9735 kN
9
12
15
18
Depth (m)
21
24
27
30
33
36
39
42
Figure 4-11e. Stress distributions in pile along PJ8 at Stage 3
Pile stress (MPa)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
0
10
2950 kN
15
Depth (m)
5900 kN
7375 kN
8555 kN
20
25
30

35
Figure 4-11f. Stress distributions in pile along PJ9 at Stage 3
120

-30 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210
0

5
10
15
Depth (m)
20
25
30
35 7788 kN
1770 kN 3540 kN 5310 kN

40 7080 kN
Figure 4-12a. Shaft resistances along PJ1 at Stage 3

-30 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240
0
Failure load not achieved

5
10
Depth (m)
15
20
25 1475 kN 2950 kN 4425 kN 5900 kN
Figure 4-12b. Shaft resistances along PJ2 at Stage 2
121

-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
0
9 Failure load: 3.3P=9735 kN
12
15
18
Depth (m)
21
24
27
30
33
9735 kN
36
39
4425 kN 6490 kN 8260 kN
42
Figure 4-12c. Shaft resistances along PJ8 at Stage 3
16
14 PJ1 PJ2
Percentage of total resistance
PJ6 PJ7
12
PJ8 PJ9
10
taken up by pile-end
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Applied load (×P)
Figure 4-13. Percentage of total resistance

taken up by pile-end of jacked piles
122
210
CDG (-37.5m)
Local shaft resistance (kPa)
180
150 CDG (-29.5m)
120
90
CDG (-21.5m)
60
30 Alluvium (-11.0m)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Local shear deformation (mm)
Figure 4-14a. Shear deformation along the pile-soil interface of PJ1
210
180 CDG (-24.1m)

150
CDG (-19.1m)
120 CDG (-14.1m)
90
60
CDG (-9.1m)
30
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Figure 4-14b. Shear deformation along the pile-soil interface of PJ2
123
400
Local shaft resistance (kPa) 350
CDG (-38.5m)
300
250
200
Alluvium (-32.5m) Alluvium (-23.5m)
150

50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Figure 4-14c. Shear deformation along the pile-soil interface of PJ8
60
50
Base resistance (MPa)
40
30
20
PJ1 PJ2
PJ6 PJ7
10
PJ8 PJ9
0
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Pile base displacement (mm)
Figure 4-15. Compressive deformation at the base of jacked piles
124
Pile stress (MPa)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
0

3
11682 kN
6
9
3540 kN
7080 kN
12
Depth (m)
15 9558 kN
18
21
24
27
30
33
Figure 4-16a. Stress distributions in pile along PD1 at Stage 3
Pile stress (MPa)

0 100 200 300 400
0
5
3540 kN
10 7080 kN
15
Depth (m)
20
25
30
35
8850 kN 10266 kN
40
Figure 4-16b. Stress distributions in pile along PD2 at Stage 3
125
Pile stress (MPa)

0 100 200 300 400 500
0
3540 kN 7080 kN 9204 kN

5
11328 kN
10
15
Depth (m)
20

25
30
35
Figure 4-16c. Stress distributions in pile along PD3 at Stage 3
Pile stress (MPa)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
0
3540 kN 7080 kN 9204 kN 11328 kN
3
12
15
Depth (m)
18
21
24
27
30
33
36
39
Figure 4-16d. Stress distributions in pile along PD4 at Stage 3
126
Pile stress (MPa)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
0
9204 kN
5
3540 kN
10
7080 kN
15
Depth (m)
20
25
10974 kN
30
35

45
Figure 4-16e. Stress distributions in pile along PD5 at Stage 3
Pile stress (MPa)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
0
8160 kN
5
3548 kN
7096 kN
10
15
Depth (m)
9225 kN
20
25
30
35
Working load: P=3540 kN; Failure load: 2.6P=9225 kN
Figure 4-16f. Stress distributions in pile along PD6 at Stage 3
127
Pile stress (MPa)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
0
7096 kN
3548 kN
8870 kN
10
10289 kN
Depth (m) 15
20
25

30

35
40
45
Figure 4-16g. Stress distributions in pile along PD7 at Stage 3
Pile stress (MPa)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
0
3548 kN
7096 kN
9580 kN
5
11708 kN
10
15
Depth (m)
20
25
30
35
40 Working load: P=3540 kN; Failure load: 3.3P=11708 kN
Figure 4-16h. Stress distributions in pile along PD8 at Stage 3
128
Pile stress (MPa)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
0
10
3548 kN
7096 kN
8515 kN
15
9580 kN
20
Depth (m)
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
Working load: P=3540 kN; Failure load: 2.7P=9580 kN
Figure 4-16i. Stress distributions in pile along PD9 at Stage 3
70
PD1
60
Percentage of total resistance
PD2
PD3
50
taken up by the pile-end
PD4
PD5
40
PD6
PD7
30
PD8
PD9
20
10
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Applied load (×P)
Figure 4-17. Percentage of total resistance

taken up by the pile-end of driven piles
129
600
500
400 CDG (-15.7m)

CDG (-19.3m)
300 C/HDG (-29.8m)
200
100
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Figure 4-18a. Shear deformation along the pile-soil interface of PD1
120
110
90 CDG (-22.6m)
80 CDG (-32.6m)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Figure 4-18b. Shear deformation along the pile-soil interface of PD2
130
250
200
CDG (-13.7m)
CDG (-19.7m)
150 CDG (-25.7m)
CDG (-30.2m)
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Figure 4-18c. Shear deformation along the pile-soil interface of PD3
160
140
Alluvium (-10.9m)
120 CDG (-18.4m)

CDG (-24.4m)
100 CDG (-32.7m)
80
60
40
20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Figure 4-18d. Shear deformation along the pile-soil interface of PD4
131
400
350
300
CDG (-15.9m)
250 CDG (-27.9m)
CDG (-39.9m)
200
150
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Figure 4-18e. Shear deformation along the pile-soil interface of PD5
450
400
350
Wash drilling (-14.7m)
300 C/SDG (-26.2m)
C/SDG (-31.6m)
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Figure 4-18f. Shear deformation along the pile-soil interface of PD6
132
400

Alluvium (-24.6m)
300
CDG (-36.1m)
250 C/HDG (-43.1m)
200
150
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
-50
Figure 4-18g. Shear deformation along the pile-soil interface of PD7
200
180

CDG (-29.6m)
140
C/HDG (-36.3m)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Figure 4-18h. Shear deformation along the pile-soil interface of PD8
133
270
Local shaft resistance (kPa) 240

CDG (-43.4m)
180
C/HDG (-52.4m)
150
120
90
60
30
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Figure 4-18i. Shear deformation along the pile-soil interface of PD9
270
240
210
180
PD1 PD2
150 PD3 PD4
120 PD5 PD6
PD7 PD8
90 PD9
60
30
0
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Pile base displacement (mm)
Figure 4-19. Compressive deformation at the base of driven piles
134
240 Alluvium-Jacking
Alluvium-Driving
Ultimate shaft resistance—fmax (kPa) 210 CDG-Jacking
CDG-Driving
180 Non-displacement pile
Displacement pile
150
fmax=2.0N1
120
90
60
fmax=1.0N1
30
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Corrected SPT-N value
Figure 4-20. Correlation between shaft capacity and SPT-N
Compressive Pile stress (MPa) Tensile

10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50
0
Penetration of PJ5: 5.2m

3 Penetration of PJ5: 10.1m
12
Depth (m)
15
18
21
24
27
Figure 4-21a. Shaft response of PJ2 due to the penetration of PJ5
135

3 0 -3 -6 -9 -12 -15
0
6
12
Depth (m)
15
18
21
24
27
Figure 4-21b. Shaft response of PJ2 due to the penetration of PJ4
Pile stress (MPa) Tensile

0 -5 -10 -15 -20
0

9
Depth (m)
12
15
18
21
24
27
Figure 4-21c. Shaft response of PJ2 due to the penetration of PJ3
136
Newly jacked pile

+
Already installed pile

Upward
Downward
Figure 4-22. Schematic explanation for the

influence of neighboring penetration
Compressive Pile load (kN) Tensile

300 200 100 0 -100 -200 -300 -400
0
Penetration=(1/3)L L—pile length
Penetration=(2/3)L 0.1
Penetration=L From Poulos (1994)
0.2
0.3
Depth normalized by L
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Level of pile toe
1.1
Figure 4-23. Numerical simulation on the shaft

response due to adjacent penetration
137
Time (min)
0 20 40 60 80
0
Penetration (m)
10
15
PJ5
20 Jacking force held
25
30
-40
Stress near the pile toe (MPa)
-35
-30
-25
-20 PJ2
-15
-10
-5 0 20 40 60 80
0
5
Time (min)
Figure 4-24. Variation of stress near the pile base of PJ2
during penetration of PJ5
Pile stress (MPa)

0 50 100 150 200 250
0
10
Depth (m)
15 5900 kN, during Stage

2 of the load test
20
7.5 m
25 5900 kN, during reloading
30
Figure 4-25. Stress distribution along PJ2 during reloading
138
Pile stress (MPa)

0 10 20 30 40 50
0
133 days later: G/F 189 days later: 1/F
3 231 days later: 3/F 240 days later: 4/F
9
Depth (m)
12
15
18
21
24
27
Figure 4-26. Stress distribution along PJ2 during construction
Pile stress (MPa)

-30 0 30 60 90 120 150
0
Penetration=5.2m
3 Penetration=10.2m
Penetration=15.8m
Penetration=20.5m
6
Penetration=25.8m
9
Depth (m)
12
0.81×Penetration
15 0.73×Penetration
18
0.79×Penetration
21
24
27
Figure 4-27a. Residual stress along PJ2 during installation
139
Pile stress (MPa)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0
Penetration=34.9m
5 Penetration=38.0m
Penetration=41.5m
10
15
Depth (m)
20
25
0.78×Penetration
30
0.80×Penetration
0.82×Penetration
35
40
Figure 4-27b. Residual stress along PJ8 during installation
Pile stress (MPa)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300
0
PJ2, 5900 kN
3
Residual stress induced
6 by installation
Pile stress induced
9 by applied load
Negative skin friction
Depth (m)
12
generated
15
18
21
24
Actual pile stress
27
Figure 4-28. Effect of residual on load-test result
140
Pile stress (MPa)

-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
0
P=3540 kN
3
Stage 1:
6
Stage 2:
9
12
15
18 Loading to 0.5P
Depth (m)
21
Unloading
24 to zero
27
30 Loading to P
33
36
39
42
Figure 4-29a. Residual stress in PJ1 due to cyclic load test
Pile stress (MPa)

-30 0 30 60 90 120 150 180
0
P=2950 kN
3 Stage 1:
Stage 2:
6 Loading to P
Loading
9 to 0.5P
Unloading
to zero
Depth (m)
12
15
18
Loading to 1.5P
21
24
27
Figure 4-29b. Residual stress in PJ2 due to cyclic load test
141

10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -60
0
PJ5 installed
3 PJ4 installed
PJ3 installed
6 27 days later
12
15
Depth (m)
18
21
24
27
Figure 4-30. Residual stress in PJ2 due to adjacent jacking
Pile stress (MPa)

-30 0 30 60 90 120 150
0
PJ2 installed
3 PJ2 load tested
PJ3 installed
PJ2 reloaded
6
131 days later
9
Depth (m)
12
15
18
21
24
27
Figure 4-31. Residual stress in PJ2 in different tests
142
CHAPTER 5: ANALYSIS ON BEHAVIOR OF PILE BASE
It is important to know the load-deformation behavior at the pile base, hence to

have a better understanding of the overall pile performance using the load-transfer
characteristic obtained from field tests. Theoretical analysis of the pile-end bearing
capacity may be carried out by several approaches. In the method of limit
equilibrium analysis, the soil at the pile-tip is considered as rigid-plastic material
without any volumetric changes and the local shear failure governs the ultimate
resistance (e.g., Meyerhof, 1963). The strain-path method proposed by Baligh (1985)
takes into account the disturbance to soil during installation. Its merit is that the
strain path of soil during penetration can be simulated while the constitutive relation
is not included. Very few articles on these two methods are available. On the other
hand, a wealth of diversified solutions using the cavity expansion theory is available.
The diversification of cavity-expansion solutions is due to the different assumptions
adopted for the deformation, choices of failure models and a variety of types of soil,
etc. The cavity expansion method will be used in this Chapter to predict the pile-end
bearing capacity and the associated settlement.
5.1 Basic Equations
The toe performance of a vertically compressed pile can be simulated by a

spherical cavity expansion while the interpretation of data obtained from the in-situ
pressuremeter tests can be referred to a cylindrical cavity expansion. Experimental
observations of the deformation in soil around the pile toe also supported this view,
such as the model tests done by Yasufuku and Hyde (1995) and Yasufuku et al. (2001)
143
(Figure 5-1). Vesic (1972) presented the spherical-cavity-expansion solutions for

infinite, ideal Mohr-Coulomb soils. Consider a soil mass subjected to an isotropic
effective stress denoted by q’. Expansion of a spherical cavity will satisfy the
equilibrium equation in the whole soil mass:
∂σ r 2(σ r − σ θ )
+ =0 (5.1)
∂r r
where σr and σθ are respectively the radial and circumferential stresses described in
the spherical coordinates. Shear stress equals to zero. The expansion results in a
plastic zone around the cavity. Finally the soil reaches the limiting state and the
radius of cavity is Ru. The limiting pressure at the cavity wall is Pu. An annular
plastic zone having an outer radius Rp is formed and it is all surrounded by an elastic
zone outside, as shown in Figure 5-2. The radial and tangential stress components in
the plastic zone are denoted by σrp and σθp, respectively. The soil with characteristic
parameters c’ and φ’ in the plastic zone also satisfies the Mohr-Coulomb criterion.
(σ rp − σ θp ) = (σ rp + σ θp ) sin ϕ '+2c ' cos ϕ ' (5.2)
By combining Equations (5.1) and (5.2), the radial and circumferential stresses
in the plastic zone can be expressed in terms of the cavity radius and the limit
pressure as follows.
( 4 sin ϕ ') /(1+ sin ϕ ')
⎛R ⎞
σ rp = ( Pu + c' cot ϕ '−γ w hw )⎜ u ⎟ − c' cot ϕ ' (5.3)
⎝ r ⎠
and
1 − sin ϕ ' 2c' cos ϕ '

σ θp = σ rp − (5.4)
1 + sin ϕ ' 1 + sin ϕ '
The term γwhw in Equation (5.3) denotes the static water pressure. The total
volumetric change in the plastic zone and the elastic zone is equal to the volume of
the cavity. That means
4 3 4 4
πRu = π [ R 3p − ( R p − u p ) 3 ] + π ( R 3p − Ru3 )∆ (5.5)
3 3 3
in which ∆ is the mean volumetric strain in the plastic zone. The radial displacement
at r=Rp is denoted by up. Employing the Lamé’s solution, up can be assessed as
144
σ p − q'
up = Rp (5.6)
4G
in which G and σp represent the shear modulus and the radial stress at r=Rp,
respectively. q’ is the isotropic effective stress. The value of σp can be calculated
from Equation (5.3). Combining Equations (5.3), (5.5) and (5.6) leads to the solution
for Pu which can be written in a simple form:
Pu = c ' Fc + q ' Fq + γ w hw (5.7)
3 + 3 sin ϕ '
Fq = ( I rr ) ( 4 sin ϕ ') /(3+ 3 sin ϕ ') (5.8)
3 − sin ϕ '
Fc = ( Fq − 1) cot ϕ ' (5.9)
ηI r (1 + ∆)
I rr = (5.10)
1 + ηI r ∆
3 − sin ϕ '
η= (5.11)
3 cos ϕ '
G
Ir = (5.12)
c'+ q ' tan ϕ '
R p = 3 I rr Ru (5.13)
where Fc and Fq are cavity pressure factors. Ir and Irr are respectively the rigidity
index and the reduced rigidity index. Though the cavity limit pressure is given in
closed-form, the mean volumetric strain ∆ and the cavity radius Ru are unknown
parameters. Solutions for these two parameters will be given in the following
sections.
5.2 Evaluation of Mean Volumetric Strain
Since the cavity limit pressure is sensitive to the mean volumetric strain (Vesic,
1972), it is important to accurately evaluate the value of ∆. Vesic and Clough (1968)
proved through laboratory triaxial tests that the magnitude of ∆ was independent of
the stress path. The mean volumetric strain can thus be experimentally determined
145
from a superposition of the results of isotropic compression test and shear distortion
test. The expression was given by Vesic (1972) in terms of an exponential function of
the octahedral stress. However, this method of evaluating the ∆ is inconvenient for
practical use. A method based on finite-strain theory may be an alternative. The
finite-strain analysis was presented by Gupta (1991) and employed to evaluate ∆
(Gupta, 2002a). The theory is based on that the Eulerian strain tensors are finite, so
that it can describe more accurately the strain field around a penetrating cone or a
pile tip than infinitesimal theory does (Gupta, 1991). Large-strain analysis is
reasonable for the soil mass at the pile toe. The field study of BCP Committee (1971)
proved that sandy soils after the installation of pile were highly compacted with large
volumetric change and accompanied by crushed particles. It further confirmed that
the soil mass surrounding the pile toe should be properly analyzed with
large-deformation theory. When evaluating the mean volumetric strain, it is assumed
that the principle of superposition suggested by Vesic and Clough (1968) is valid.
The components of mean volumetric strain can thus be calculated by the following
procedure. The volumetric strain denoted by εvp1 during isotropic compression can be
calculated by
ε vp1 = 3ε rp1 − 3ε rp2 1 + ε rp3 1 (5.14)
and
⎛ 3 − sin ϕ ' 4c' cos ϕ ' ⎞ 1 − 2υ

ε rp1 = ⎜⎜ σ rp − − q' ⎟⎟ (5.15)
⎝ 3 + 3 sin ϕ ' 3 + 3 sin ϕ ' ⎠ E
in which E is the Young’s modulus and υ is the Poisson’s ratio. The volumetric strain
during shear distortion, εvp2, is expressed by
ε vp 2 = 0.75ε rp2 2 + 0.25ε rp3 2 (5.16)
and
4(1 + υ ) sin ϕ ' 4c' (1 + υ ) cos ϕ '

ε rp 2 = − σ rp − (5.17)
3E (1 + sin ϕ ' ) 3E (1 + sin ϕ ' )
The volumetric strain at any point is the sum of εvp1 and εvp2, and the mean
volumetric strain within the plastic zone can be obtained by
146
3 Rp
∆=
R p − Ru3
3 ∫
Ru
(ε vp1 + ε vp 2 )r 2 dr (5.18)
The strain components in the plastic zone, εrp1 and εrp2, are derived based on
theory of elasticity while the stresses involved are governed by the Mohr-Coulomb
criterion. Therefore εrp1 and εrp2 correspond to the strains at the turning point of the
complete stress-strain curve. The volumetric strains at an arbitrary location are
related to the strain components with respect to the displaced position of soil
particles in Eulerian strain tensors, as expressed by Equations (5.14) and (5.16). It
can be seen that the expression for the mean volumetric strain is associated with the
stress field induced by cavity expansion. The limit pressure is thus difficult to be
obtained and expressed in a closed-form.
5.3 Equation of Energy Conservation
As mentioned above, the cavity radius at limiting state is an unknown parameter.

To obtain the solution for the cavity pressure, the magnitude of Ru is not necessary to
be determined since Pu is only related to the ratio of Ru to Rp. The value of Ru,
however, may be used to correlate the deformation of soil at the pile base. For
elastic-ideally-plastic materials, the cavity radius could increase infinitely while the
cavity pressure approaches to a limiting value. The least magnitude of cavity radius
corresponding to the limit pressure should be a definite value. It can be determined if
the condition of energy conservation is taken into account. The principle of
superposition proposed by Vesic and Clough (1968) is applied to the equation, that is,
the work to expand a cavity amounts to the energy absorbed by the soil mass during
isotropic compression and shear distortion. A general form of the energy
conservation relation can thus be written as
En0 (applied work) = En1 (attained energy due to isotropic compression in the
plastic zone) + En2 (attained energy due to shear distortion in the plastic zone) + En3
(attained energy due to isotropic compression in the elastic zone) + En4 (attained
energy due to shear distortion in the elastic zone) (5.19a)
147
The pile-end bearing behavior is estimated by considering a cavity to be

expanded from zero. Therefore the applied work required to reach the limit state will
be:
4
E n 0 = πRu Pu
3
(5.19b)
3
The soil mass in the plastic zone receives part of the done work during isotropic
compression and the expression is related to the stress-strain field induced by
expansion:
E n1 = ∫∫∫ (σ oct − q ' )ε vp1 dv p (5.20)
where εvp1 is given in Eqation (5.14); σoct denotes the octahedral stress at an arbitrary
location in the plastic zone, and is expressed as
σ rp + 2σ θp
σ oct = (5.21)
3
Substituting Equations (5.3) and (5.4) into Equation (5.21) leads to

( 4 sin ϕ ') /(1+ sin ϕ ')
⎛ 3 − sin ϕ ' ⎞⎛ Ru ⎞ ⎛ cot ϕ '+ cos ϕ ' ⎞
σ oct = ( Pu + c' cot ϕ '−γ w hw )⎜⎜ ⎟⎟⎜ ⎟ − c' ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ 3 + 3 sin ϕ ' ⎠⎝ r ⎠ ⎝ 1 + sin ϕ ' ⎠
(5.22)
Manipulating Equations (5.14), (5.20), (5.21) and (5.22) yields
4πE Rp
E n1 =
1 − 2υ ∫ Ru
(3ε rp2 1 − 3ε rp3 1 + ε rp4 1 )r 2 dr (5.23) ║*
Similarly, the energy due to shear distortion in the plastic zone can be expressed
as
E n 2 = ∫∫∫ (σ rp − σ oct )ε vp 2 dv p (5.24)
Combining Equations (5.3), (5.16), (5.21), (5.22) and (5.24) yields
⎛ 16π sin ϕ ' ⎞ ( 4 sin ϕ ') /(1+sin ϕ ')

E n 2 = ( Pu + c' cot ϕ '−γ w hw )⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ Ru
⎝ 3 + 3 sin ϕ ' ⎠ (5.25) ║*
Rp
× ∫ (0.75ε rp2 2 + 0.25ε rp3 2 )r ( 2− 2 sin ϕ ') /(1+sin ϕ ') dr
Ru
In the elastic zone, the radial stress is subject to the boundary condition:
σ re r =∞
= q' (5.26)
for infinite soil mass. Also considering the stress condition at the plastic-elastic
148
boundary, Yu (2000) derived the stress components in the elastic zone for infinite
Mohr-Coulomb soil at initial yielding as follows.
3
4c' cos ϕ '+4q ' sin ϕ ' ⎛ R p ⎞
σ re = q '+ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ (5.27)
3 − sin ϕ ' ⎝ r ⎠
3
2c' cos ϕ '+2q ' sin ϕ ' ⎛ R p ⎞
σ θe = q '− ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ (5.28)
3 − sin ϕ ' ⎝ r ⎠
where σre and σθe are respectively the radial and circumferential stress components.
It can be shown that the octahedral stress in the elastic zone is zero, i.e., En3=0.
The energy accumulated in the elastic zone during shear distortion can be determined
by
2
E n 4 = ∫∫∫ (σ re − σ θe )ε ve 2 dv e (5.29)
3
in which the volumetric strain εve2 can be calculated by the finite-strain solution.
ε ve 2 = 0.75ε re2 2 + 0.25ε re3 2 (5.30)

3
2(1 + υ )(σ re − σ θe ) ⎛ (1 + υ )(4c' cos ϕ '+4q ' sin ϕ ' ) ⎞⎛ R p ⎞
ε re 2 = = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ (5.31)
3E ⎝ (3 − sin ϕ ' ) E ⎠⎝ r ⎠
Combining Equations (5.27)-(5.31), En4 can be obtained in a closed-form.
8π ∞
En4 =
3 p∫R
(σ re ε ve 2 − σ θe ε ve 2 )r 2 dr
32π (1 + υ ) 2 (c' cos ϕ '+ q ' sin ϕ ' ) 3 R p 256π (1 + υ ) 3 (c' cos ϕ '+ q ' sin ϕ ' ) 4 R p
3 3
= +
(3 − sin ϕ ' ) 3 E 2 9(3 − sin ϕ ' ) 4 E 3
(5.32) ║*
So far, the condition of energy equilibrium can be assessed by Equations
(5.19b), (5.23), (5.25) and (5.32), which are related to the limit pressure, radii of the
cavity and the plastic zone, as well as the mechanical parameters (c’, φ’) for soil. The
conservation of energy can be satisfied given a certain cavity radius in the proposed
solution for limit pressure.
(*) Derivation of the equations is elaborated in Appendix.
5.4 Factors for End-Bearing Capacity
149
Failure of piles may be classified into three types, i.e., general shear failure,
local shear failure and punching shear failure. The first type rarely happens to long
piles while the latter two may be correlated to the problem of spherical cavity
expansion (Hirayama, 1988). The relationships between the pile-end bearing
capacity and the soil characteristics have been proposed in different ways associated
with different assumptions, such as the bearing-capacity theory, cavity-expansion
theory, and the steady-state method. Among them, the cavity-expansion analysis
includes both the elastic and the plastic deformations of soil (Yu and Mitchell, 1998).
The general form of pile-end bearing capacity qp in relation to the cavity limit
pressure can be expressed as (Gupta, 2002b)
q p = c ' N c + q ' N q + γ w hw (5.33)
in which Nc and Nq are the bearing capacity factors. They are related to the factors of
cavity limit pressure Fc and Fq when a pile reaches local shear or punching shear
failure, that is
N q = λFq (5.34)
and
N c = ( N q − 1) cot ϕ ' (5.35)
The factor λ in Equation (5.34) is related to the friction angle of soil but its
formula differs when different assumptions of failure zone at the pile toe are adopted.
Some expressions of λ are listed herein.
exp(0.5π − ϕ ' ) tan ϕ '

λv = (Vesic, 1977; after Gupta, 2002b) (5.36)
1 − sin ϕ '
λ sh = tan 2 (0.25π + 0.5ϕ ' ) (Sayed and Hamed, 1987) (5.37)
λr = 1 + 1.732 tan ϕ ' (Randolph et al., 1994) (5.38)
1
λ yh = ( Ya s u f u k u and Hyde, 1995)
1 − sin ϕ '
( 5 . 3 9 )
150
(1 + C ) (1+ β ) − (1 + β )C − 1
λ s = 2 exp(π tan ϕ ' ) (5.40)
C 2 β (1 + β )
C = tan( 0.25π + 0.5ϕ ' ) exp( 0.5π tan ϕ ' ) (5.41)
1 − sin ϕ '
β= (Salgado et al., 1997) (5.42)
1 + sin ϕ '
It is assumed that a triangular block of soil beneath the pile toe is rigid, as
shown in Figure 5-3. This assumption agreed with the observations of a study on
excavation carried out by BCP Committee (1971). The geometrical relations differ
for the local shear and the punching shear failure. Equations (5.36), (5.39) and (5.40)
were on the basis of local shear failure. Their differences are derived from their
different assumptions for the sliding planes. Equations (5.37) and (5.38) were
derived from the pattern of punching failure, of which the slip surface could not be
observed. Particularly in Equation (5.38), the value 1.732 is actually the value of
tanψ for ψ=60o, which is consistent with that suggested by Ladanyi and Johnston
(1974).
5.5 Load-Settlement Relation at Pile Base
The cavity radius Ru will be certain if the energy conservation is considered.

According to the previous analysis on stress and strain, the determined cavity radius
corresponds to the initial yielding state. It means that the strain in the plastic zone is
minimum under the limit pressure. The strain analysis presented above will not be
valid for the plastic-flow phase. The given cavity radius may be correlated to the
settlement at the pile toe excluding the deformation due to plastic flow. Consider that
the displaced volume of soil due to pile-toe penetration is equal to the volume
change due to cavity expansion. Then, for a cavity expanded from zero radius,
3
4 Ru
st = 2
(5.43)
3Re
in which Re is the radius of circular piles and st is the immediate toe-settlement at
151
limit state. The immediate toe-settlement corresponds to the initial yielding state of
soil that the deformation due to plastic flow has not occurred. The deformation
characteristic of soil at the pile-base is always modeled by hyperbola-typed curves
(e.g., De Nicola and Randolph, 1999). On the basis of the calculated ultimate load
and settlement at the pile toe, the load-settlement relation at the toe can be modeled
by a Kondner-type hyperbolic load-transfer curve, as shown in Figure 5-4. The
hyperbolic curve is defined by two constants: m and n. The values of qp and st can be
determined respectively by Equations (5.33) and (5.43). The initial slope of the
hyperbolic curve is anyhow the same as the ideal soil model. Thus the hyperbolic
curve can be correlated to the ideal constitutive relationship by
qt z =∞
= qp (5.44)
and
dqt qp
= (5.45)
dz z =0 ( s t / De )
where De is the diameter of a circular pile. The expression for qt can be obtained by
determining the values of m and n through Equations (5.44) and (5.45).
(δ t / De )
qt = qp (5.46)
( st / De ) + (δ t / De )
Upon determining the shape parameter n, Hirayama (1990) suggested a

reference settlement, which equals to (0.25De) in accordance with (qp/2). This
method was also followed by Yasufuku et al. (2001). The magnitude of reference
settlement was empirically derived on the basis of a database of load tests on bored
piles in sandy soils. This requirement is discarded in this study because st can be
theoretically assessed. Given st=0.25De, Equation (5.46) becomes the same as the
one proposed by Hirayama (1990).
The dimension of piles, in terms of Re or De, is used in determining the
immediate settlement and consequent load-settlement relation. It is explicit for large
displacement-piles, such as square piles and closed-ended pipe piles, to obtain the
equivalent Re from the enveloping cross-sectional area. However, H-piles are most
152
widely used for foundations in Hong Kong. The equivalent radius of H-pile cannot
be simply derived from its cross-sectional area (A0) if the conditions in Equation
(5.43) are to be satisfied. Since the soil-plugging behavior exists near the end of
H-piles, it is inappropriate to assume that the volumetric change of soil due to
penetration equals to (A0×st). The actual area involved in vertical compression,
denoted by Ae, should be larger than A0 but smaller than the enveloping rectangle. Ae
depends on the soil properties. As pointed out by De Nicola and Randolph (1997),
soil plugging of jacked piles decreased with increasing relative density and
consequently the friction angle of soil. Consider that the actual area of the
end-bearing soil is related to the friction angle for Mohr-Coulomb soil. When the
cross-section of H-piles satisfies a≥(b-t), Ae is equal to A0 plus an extra area, as
shown in Figure 5-5. It can be shown that a larger friction angle for soil results in a
smaller extra area of the end-bearing soil. The equivalent area can be evaluated by
2ϕ '− sin( 2ϕ ' )

Ae = ab − (b − 2t ) 2 (0<φ’<π/2) (5.47)
4 sin 2 ϕ '
Thus, the equivalent area Ae varies with the friction angle and its magnitude lies
between A0 and (a×b). By setting a coefficient ξ for the ratio of Ae to A0, the
equivalent radius for H-piles can be written as
ξA0
Re = (5.48)
π
With respect to the commonly-used steel H-piles in Hong Kong, the magnitude
of ξ can be approximately assessed from Equations (5.49) and (5.50) with adequate
accuracy as follows.
ξ = 4.535 − 0.4908ϕ ' 2 −0.8345ϕ ' (0≤φ’≤ π/2) (5.49)
for the 305×305×180 steel H-piles; and
ξ = 3.859 − 0.414ϕ ' 2 −0.6533ϕ ' (0≤φ’≤ π/2) (5.50)
for the 305×305×223 steel H-piles. The unit for φ’ in Equations (5.47), (5.49) and
(5.50) is radian. From Equation (5.49) and for a typical range for φ’=0.61~0.70 (i.e.,
35o~40o), the value of Ae will lie in the range of 3.84~3.71 times of A0.
153
5.6 Density and Stress-dependent Properties
Soil parameters related to the cavity-expansion solutions are evaluated in this

section. The evaluation procedure is mainly aimed at the CDG soil, which is a kind
of saprolites widely distributed in tropical areas. In Hong Kong, the residual soils
formed from granitic rock cover the major downtown areas, and the CDG soil
usually performs as the bearing stratum for deep foundations in the territory. The
thickness of the granitic saprolite is of the order of 30 m (Lumb, 1965). The
decomposition of acidic, igneous granitic rock caused the formation of thick mantle
of residual soils of which the original rock texture remains. This type of residual soil
is a product of the alteration of feldspar and mica in granite by the chemical action of
water. The chemical reaction is complicated and the transformation of feldspar can
be simply expressed in a general form as follows (Lumb, 1962).
Feldspar + Water → Kaolinite + Silica + Potash
As pointed out by Lumb (1962), the decomposition procedure can be stated in
several stages. Firstly, staining occurs at the joint planes of granite surface. The
above-mentioned hydration procedure degenerates a block of granite into to boulders
surrounded by debris whilst the quartz remains unchanged. Secondly, the rapid
alteration leads to residual soil mainly consisting of coarse sand with little clay. This
stage continues until the coarse feldspar grains reduce to fine sand and silt. Finally,
the boulders will disappear and the decomposition products contain silty coarse sand
with quartz, feldspar and mica grains. The original rock texture is preserved but the
grains are free from each other.
The CDG soils are normally found at shallow depths of residual strata. They are
underlain by highly to slightly decomposed granitic layers arrayed with
decomposition degree and always overlain by alluvium and fill layers. In the
reclaimed area near shallow sea, marine deposit can also be found overlying the
CDG soil. Samples of CDG soils from different sites in Hong Kong are presented in
Table 5-1 and Figure 5-6. The classification of soils is in accordance to the British
154
Standards. The average content of sand reaches nearly 50%, but the content of clay
and gravel was still considerable in the samples. The dominant engineering
properties of CDG soil are close to those for sand or silty sand (Lumb, 1975). Figure
5-7 shows a CDG sample after failure of in a consolidation triaxial test.
Sampling of the CDG soil from different depths exhibits different void ratios
and hence different relative densities. Regardless of the scattering manner shown in
Figure 5-8, the void ratios were found decreased at a rate of 0.02 per meter for
sampling until a minimum void ratio is reached. The engineering properties of CDG
soil are dependent on its texture, grading, void ratio and degree of saturation, etc.
The cohesion of CDG soils is closely related to the degree of saturation (Lumb,
1962). The cohesion may be as high as 200 kPa for highly unsaturated samples but
drops to nearly zero for saturated samples. For a natural deposit of CDG soil below
the water table where the degree of saturation is normally larger than 95%, it is
reasonable to adopt a very small cohesion or regard the soil as a completely
cohesionless material. The elastic modulus of CDG soils can be correlated to the
SPT-N values. As reported by Whiteside (1986), the horizontal elastic moduli were
in the range of 50~90 MPa for N=47. The secant modulus of elasticity and the
Poisson’s ratio measured from triaxial tests depend on the level of confining pressure
as well as the degree of compaction. For CDG soils, the variations of elastic modulus
and Poisson’s ratio against the confining pressure are plotted in Figures 5-9 and 5-10,
respectively.
The above description offers general knowledge of the physical and mechanical
properties of CDG soils. The results are however not easy to apply directly to an
analytical procedure. Some test results on overseas sandy soils may be used as
reference. As the SPT is prevalent for site investigation works in Hong Kong, the
evaluation procedure was aimed to obtain the soil parameters from the SPT-N values.
It will render the application of the model convenient. Also noted that the
dependency of soil properties on the state of pressure and compaction, the general
expression for the mechanical indices of soil is expected to correlate with these two
parameters. As pointed out by Klotz and Coop (2001) as well as Yang and Li (2004),
155
the density and stress level of sands are the controlling factors in determining the
pile’s bearing capacity. Therefore, it is a rational way to include the influence of the
two factors in evaluating the soil parameters. The evaluation procedure is carried out
as follows.
The relative density, as one of the primary indices to describe the physical
properties of sandy soils, offers a better description of sand than the index of void
ratio (Cornforth, 1973; after Bolton, 1986). Its definition is given by (Bolton, 1986)
emax − e
Dr = (5.51)
emax − emin
where the maximum void ratio is achieved by quickly inverting a measuring cylinder
containing dry sand. The minimum void ratio is obtained by optimal vibration under
saturated condition. For the in-situ soil mass surrounding the base of a long pile, its
void ratio is possible to be smaller than emin, indicating Dr could be greater than 1.
Figure 5-8 shows that the void ratio of a natural deposit varies with depth, given
different overburden pressure and soil stiffness. The empirical equation suggested by
Cubrinovski and Ishihara (1999) for a variety of sandy soils can reflect the
dependency of relative density on the depth and soil stiffness, that is
0.25
⎛ 98 N 2 ⎞
Dr = 0.12⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ (5.52)
⎝ σv' ⎠
in which Dr is a scalar. The unit of the effective overburden pressure σv’ is in kPa. N
represents the SPT-N value. The number 0.12 is determined by the range of void
ratio which is also related to the mean grain size D50 (D50=1 mm for the CDG
samples in Figure 5-6). Equation (5.52) expresses the relative density as an
exponential function of the corrected N value. Raw SPT-N value is corrected by a
factor (98/σv’)0.5 which involves the overburden pressure. The correction factor is
very similar to the one proposed by Liao and Whitman (1986).
In the cavity-expansion model, it is assumed that the soil mass is initially
subjected to an isotropic stress q’, which can be obtained by
1 + 2K 0
q' = σv' (5.53)
3
156
where K0 denotes the coefficient of earth pressure at rest. By considering the soil as
normal consolidated soil, K0 can be determined by
K 0 = 1 − sin ϕ ' (5.54)
The effective friction angle depends on a number of factors. It may be in the

range of 35o~40o for CDG soil in natural state. For loose CDG soils, φ’ may be in the
order of 30o (Gan and Fredlund, 1996). Nevertheless, the CDG soil around the pile
toe can be highly compacted during installation and also the loading test. The
effective friction angle of a compacted CDG sample can reach the order of 40o
(Lumb, 1962). It was found that φ’ for high-density sandy soils was in the order of
40o or even larger (Cherubini and Lupo, 2002).
The effective friction angle φ’ is also related to the stress level. Laboratory
triaxial tests for sandy soils revealed that a smaller φ’ was measured under higher
confining pressure (Vesic and Clough, 1968; Yamamuro and Lade, 1996; Maeda and
Miura, 1999a). Furthermore, the centrifugal model-pile test done by Craig and
Sabagh (1994) revealed that an increase of stress level would result in a decrease of
internal friction angle and consequently the pile’s bearing capacity. In the situation of
a full-scale field test, the soil mass near the pile base is subjected to high compaction
and high stress level. The two conditions will lead to opposite effect on the
magnitude of the friction angle.
Test results for sands with the mean normal stresses up to 100 MPa are shown
in Figure 5-11. It should be noted that the effective friction angle is secant angle in
Figure 5-11. Bolton (1986) pointed out that the secant angle rather than the tangent
angle was more proper to describe the soil strength. Approximation of φ’ with the
secant angle is conservative for simulation and design (The tangent angle is derived
from the situation that the failure envelope is a tangent of the Mohr-Coulomb circle.
The secant angle is derived from the situation that the failure envelope intersects the
peak stress-point of the Mohr-Coulomb circle. Therefore, the tangent angle is greater
than the secant angle). Both of their tests showed that the friction angles decreased
almost linearly with the logarithmic mean normal stresses. When the stress levels
157
reached about 10 MPa, the friction angles remained constant and particle crushing
dominated the failure mode for sands. The friction angel under high confining
pressure is approaching towards the critical-state angle φcv (Yang and Li, 2004). The
stress level corresponding to the turning point is dependent on the shape, size
distribution and content of particles. Yasufuku and Hyde (1995) also reported similar
tests for Masado sand. The applied “mean normal stress” was up to 1 MPa. Masado
sand is a kind of residual soil resulting from the weathering of granite. Its physical
and mechanical properties are therefore close to the CDG soil. The empirical
relationship for Masado sand can be applied to determine φ’ of CDG soil.
The empirical expression for Masado sand in Figure 5-11 is suitable for dense
sand (Dr=1.2) only. The expression should be extended to include the influence of
relative density on the effective friction angle. Alhomoud et al. (2004) complied a
43-pile database including the information of friction angles of the soil near the
pile-toe. An obvious tendency was observed that higher relative density led to larger
friction angle at various stress levels. Noticing the work of Maeda and Miura
(1999b), the author proposed a relationship combining the effect of confining
pressure and relative density as follows.
−0.08
⎛ p' ⎞
tan ϕ ' = 0.6336 exp(0.4129 Dr )⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ (5.55)
⎝σ 0 ⎠
where σ0 is a reference stress equal to 100 kPa. The effective mean normal stress is
denoted by p’. Equation (5.55) is the same as the one proposed by Yasufuku and
Hyde (1995) when Dr equals to 1.2. The variations of φ’ vs. Dr are compared to the
test results of Maeda and Miura (1999b) when p’=430 kPa, as shown in Figure 5-12,
in which four groups of sands were tested at three different relative densities. The
proposed relationship falls within the range of the experimental results.
In addition, the crushability under high stress level should be taken into account.
The effective friction angle tends towards a critical state, as shown in Figure 5-11 for
dense sands. Therefore, Equation (5.55) should be supplemented with the condition
of critical state as
158
ϕ ' ≥ ϕ cv (5.56)
The friction angle at critical state (φcv) is certain for a given sand, regardless of
stress level and density. For CDG soil, its common value for φcv is around 32o (Zhai,
2000). Figure 5-13 shows the proposed relationship for CDG soil as defined in
Equations (5.55) and (5.56). The influence of density and stress level can be modeled
fairly well.
The stiffness of soil can also be correlated to the effective mean octahedral
stress and degree of compaction. Regarding the shear modulus, in the design
framework proposed by Randolph et al. (1994), an empirical relation was proposed
for sandy soils (originally by Lo Presti, 1987).
0.43
⎛ p' ⎞
G = 7500 exp(0.7 Dr )⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ (unit: kPa) (5.57)
⎝σ 0 ⎠
in which the number 7500 was related to the particle distribution that the percentage
passing 0.2 mm sieve was about 30% for CDG soils (Figure 5-6). The above
definition is highly correlated to the content of silt. For clean silica sands, Randolph
et al. (1994) suggested the following relation.
0 .5
⎛ p' ⎞
G = 40000 exp(0.7 Dr )⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ (unit: kPa) (5.58)
⎝σ 0 ⎠
The limitation of Equations (5.57) and (5.58) should be pointed out. They
evaluate the shear modulus under the condition of small strain, which differs from
the actual stress-level at pile base. Shear modulus decreases with increasing strain. A
more rational way is to include the influence of strain-level, which is not carried out
in the current model. The Poisson’s ratio υ can be related to the lateral coefficient of
earth pressure as follows (Vesic and Clough, 1968).
K0 1 − sin ϕ '
υ= = (5.59)
1 + K 0 2 − sin ϕ '
Similarly, the elastic modulus can be expressed in terms of Dr and p’ following

Equation (5.57) for CDG soils:
159
0.43
⎛ 3 − 2 sin ϕ ' ⎞ ⎛ p' ⎞
E = 2(1 + υ )G = 15000⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ exp(0.7 Dr )⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ (unit: kPa) (5.60)
⎝ 2 − sin ϕ ' ⎠ ⎝σ 0 ⎠
Upon determining the effective mean normal stress, p’ equals to q’ before a
cavity is expanded. During the cavity expansion, the octahedral stress in the elastic
zone is zero. p’ is regarded as the mean octahedral stress in the plastic zone:
3 Rp
p' =
Rp
3
− Ru
3 ∫
Ru
σ oct r 2 dr (5.61)
in which the octahedral stress σoct can be calculated from Equation (5.22). All soil
parameters used in the cavity-expansion model can now be determined using the
SPT-N value, effective overburden pressure and mean normal stress.
5.7 Solution Procedures
The solutions for cavity limit pressure, mean volumetric strain in the plastic
zone, cavity radius and the expressions for soil parameters are associated with each
other. It is difficult to give the solutions in explicit forms. Alternatively, a numerical
procedure can be adopted as described below.
1. Input the values of σv’, SPT-N, c’ and hw for the selected location.
2. Determine Dr by Equation (5.52). Assume q’=σv’, substitute q’ for p’ and
calculate φ’ by Equations (5.55) and (5.56). Then calculate K0 by Equation
(5.54) and a new value of q’ by Equation (5.53). Repeating the calculation to
obtain q’ until the currently determined value of q’ is close enough to the
previous one. Evaluate the initial magnitudes of φ’, E, G and υ by Equations
(5.55), (5.56), (5.57), (5.59) and (5.60).
3. Input the equivalent radius of piles. For H-piles, Re can be determined by
Equation (5.48).
4. Assume that Ru=Re, p’=q’ and ∆=0, then calculate Pu, Rp and the stress
components in the plastic zone by Equations (5.7), (5.13), (5.3) and (5.4).
5. Evaluate a new value of ∆ by Equation (5.18). Substituting the new ∆ in Step 4
to repeat the calculation until the difference in value between two neighboring
160
steps is small enough.

6. Calculate the mean normal stress p’ by Equation (5.61). Evaluate φ’, E, G and υ
over again. Return to Step 4 to give a new value of p’ and repeat the calculation
if the calculated p’ is not close enough to the one used previously.
7. Calculate the energy components by Equations (5.19b), (5.23), (5.25) and (5.32)
and examine whether Equation (5.19a) is satisfied. If (En0<En1+En2+En4),
increase Ru by an increment. If (En0>En1+En2+En4), reduce Ru slightly. Return to
Step 4 to replace Ru by a new value Ru and then repeat this calculation until
|En0-En1-En2-En4| falls within an allowable range.
8. Use the calculated Fq and Ru to determine qp by Equation (5.33) and st by
Equation (5.43). The ultimate pile-toe load-settlement curve can thus be
determined by Equation (5.46).
5.8 Interpretation of Pile-load Tests
Great uncertainty in field tests for piles leads to the difficulty in properly
estimating the pile’s bearing capacities. It is lucky if the predicted and the measured
values agree well, but it will not be a surprise if they disagree markedly (Poulos,
1989; Randolph et al., 1994; Bowles, 1997; Randolph, 2003). The current model is
an attempt to predict the load-settlement behavior at the base of the tested jacked
piles. The results are shown in Table 5-2. The stresses at the pile base were measured
by strain gauges, which recorded the deformation along the shaft of the piles. In
Chapter 4, the end-bearing resistance of soil was directly regarded as the pile-base
stress for convenience. Under the circumstance that full plug occurs, the base load is
shared by the steel section and the plugging soil, leading to the lower-bound value
for the end resistance (Lehane and Randolph, 2002). That is why so many engineers
adopt the assumption in their design that the base load is sustained by a large zone of
soil. This thesis proposed a friction-angle-dependent method to calculate that
enlarged zone of soil for end-bearing, as detailed in §5.5. Three different patterns are
illustrated in Figure 5-14. Note that adopting different patterns may lead to
161
significant different end-bearing resistance. Apparently, Pattern 2 is an intermediate

and reasonable choice.
The estimated pile-toe settlement is a characteristic parameter for defining the
deformation behavior. It is not equivalent to the measured base settlement. At the
same time, the measured maximum base resistance could be smaller than the
ultimate resistance for most of the failure modes of piles. To verify the consistency
between the measured and the predicted results, it should be better to refer to the
load-settlement curve for the pile base, as shown in Figures 5-15a to 5-15e. It can be
found that the calculated end-bearing capacity is highly sensitive to the choice of the
end-bearing factors. The factors proposed by Randolph et al. (1994) and Salgado et
al. (1997) are the lower and upper limits, corresponding to the punching shear failure
mode and the local shear failure mode, respectively. Noted that the load-distribution
curves for PJ1, PJ8 and PJ9 were more convincing than the other two, the derived
base-resistances for the three piles should be more reliable. Figures 5-15a, 5-15d and
5-15e show that the measured curves all lie between the two predicted curves
defined by λyh and λsh. It seems that the end-bearing factors suggested by Yasufuku
and Hyde (1995) and Sayed and Hamed (1987) can provide better estimation for the
tested H-piles.
Table 5-3 is an attempt to employ the model to predict the end resistance for a
number of reported pile-load tests in various sandy soils. The shear moduli of clean
sands are calculated by Equation (5.59) instead of (5.58). It will lead to larger shear
and elastic moduli. Most of the measured end-resistances fall within the predicted
ranges. The accuracy varies from case to case. Because no literature spells out the
acceptance criteria for determining the ultimate end-bearing resistances, it is
inconclusive whether the measured values of qp listed in Table 5-3 are actually the
end-bearing capacities.
Generally speaking, the current model can provide fairly good estimation of the
end-bearing capacity, as shown in Figure 5-16. The fitted lines for the measured and
the predicted results are very close. The plot of qp against corrected SPT-N is not an
indication of their empirical correlation, since the database contains a variety of pile
162
types and soil conditions. It is well known that the end-bearing capacities of the
jacked piles and the driven piles are larger than that of the bored piles (e.g.,
Meyerhof, 1976). Consistency between the measurement and the prediction may be
achieved, provided that the measured result is the actual limiting resistance. Proper
choice of empirical relations to evaluate the soil parameters is also required. For
example, in the case of clean sand, one may choose Equation (5.59) to account for
higher order of stiffness.
This framework presents a practical and convenient way to estimate the
pile-end behavior. On using the current model, one should pay attention to
applicability with respect to the actual situation. Proper modifications to the
empirical formula are the key to obtain satisfactory simulation results. The
evaluation procedure given in §5.6 is primarily for the CDG soils. For other kinds of
sandy soils, at least the evaluation of soil stiffness should be modified. Further
modifications concerning the grain size distribution and the stress history are
preferred, although it was not carried out herein.
5.9 Influence of Model Parameters
Parametric studies are conducted on a 305×305×180 kg/m H-pile embedded

entirely in a CDG stratum. The factors for cavity limit pressure are listed in Table
5-4 where c’=5 kPa and water table is assumed at the ground level. Both Fc and Fq
increase with SPT-N value and decrease with the embedded pile length. Figure 5-17
shows that the soil stiffness evaluated by the empirical equations falls within a
reasonable range for the CDG soils and increases both with the SPT-N value and the
embedded length of pile (see Figure 5-9 for comparison). Figure 5-18 shows the
variations of rigidity index and the reduced rigidity index, which both increase with
SPT-N value but decreased with pile length. Piles shorter than 10 m seem sensitive to
the rigidity index due to the small overburden pressure present at the pile toe.
In the early cavity-expansion solutions (e.g., Vesic 1972; Baligh 1976; Yasufuku
and Hyde 1995; Gupta 2002a), the plastic zone was normally expressed in terms of
163
Rp/Ru since the magnitude of Ru is uncertain. The current model is able to determine
the value of Rp at initial yielding. The range of yielding soil mass, reflected by Rp, is
in accord with the variations of the reduced rigidity index, while the cavity radius is
not sensitive to the variations of the pile length and also the SPT-N value (Figure
5-19). Figure 5-20 shows that the ratio of initial mean normal stress to the
overburden pressure increases slightly with depth. The magnitude of q’ is about
0.5σv’ and decreases with an increase of SPT-N value. On the other hand, p’
decreases slightly with depth but maintains at about 1.0σv’ at deeper depths. It
implies that the increase in mean normal stress induced by expansion in the plastic
zone is about the same as that in the initial stress levels for long piles. Figure 5-21
shows the changes of K0, υ and φ’ against SPT-N value and the overburden pressure.
An increase of SPT-N value will reduce the magnitude of both K0 and υ but increase
the friction angle. The effect of overburden pressure is reversed, that is, K0 and υ
increase but φ’ decreases with increasing overburden pressure. The range of
Poisson’s ratio agrees with Figure 5-10. The magnitude of φ’ is generally large under
the circumstances of shallow depth and large SPT-N value. This is caused by the
high relative density calculated by Equation (5.52), given the ratio of (N2/σv’) is very
high. In the paper by Cubrinovski and Ishihara (1999), no applicable range of (N2/σv’)
was given. Special caution should be paid on using the current model when handling
short piles embedded in soil stratum with very large N value.
Figure 5-22 implies that both the effective overburden pressure and SPT-N
value significantly affect the mean volumetric strain but their functions are opposite.
An increase of σv’ enhances the magnitude of ∆ while increasing SPT-N value results
in a smaller value of ∆. The variations of Fq and ∆ with depth seem to indicate the
existence of a critical depth for the limit pressure. However, it is not the case as
illustrated by Figure 5-23a. The increase of q’ with depth significantly enhances the
cavity limit pressure. The SPT-N value also has considerable influence on increasing
the cavity limit pressure. The component of limit pressure due to soil cohesion can
be reflected by Figure 5-23b. An increase of cohesion raises the magnitude of limit
pressure slightly. Its contribution will decrease when the overburden pressure
164
increases.
The variations of the base settlement corresponding to the limiting pressure are
plotted against overburden pressure in Figure 5-24. It increases with increasing
embedded length of pile. A large SPT-N value indicates a stiff soil condition and as a
consequence reduces the settlement. The pile-toe settlements seem to approach
towards limiting value when the overburden pressure or the pile length increases,
while the Pu-σv’ curves do not display this tendency. It implies that the ratio Pu/st will
increase with the pile length, as shown in Figure 5-25. It means that the limit
pressure obtained by mobilizing unit toe-settlement is larger for longer piles but
smaller for shorter ones. The ratio Pu/st is in accord with qp/(st/De) as expressed by
Equation (5.45). Piles with larger value of Pu/st can provide larger allowable
end-bearing capacity, given an allowable settlement ratio defined by certain pile
failure criterion. The curves in Figure 5-25 show that longer piles under stiff soil
condition have larger end-bearing capacities.
165
Table 5-1. Physical characteristics of CDG soils

Liquid Plastic Content of particles (%)
limit (%) limit (%) Clay Silt Sand Gravel
Sample 1 39 29 8 14 54 24
Sample 2 78 36 28 9 36 27
Sample 3 59 31 11 7 49 33
Sample 4 N.A. 14 12 53 21
Sample 5 3 12 45 40
Sample 6 3 9 48 40
Sample 7 3 14 38 45
Sample 8 6 22 38 34
Sample 9 5 25 34 36
Average 59 32 9 14 44 33
Data sources: Zhai (2000) for Sample 1-3; Ng and Chiu (2003) for Sample 4; Massey et al.
(1989) for sample 5-9.
166
Table 5-2. Measured and predicted end-resistance and settlement of jacked piles
Pile number PJ1 PJ6 PJ7 PJ8 PJ9
Pile length (m) 40.9 39.0 40.5 41.5 35.5
Pile section H-2 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1
SPT-N at pile toe 200 154 86 98 163
Measured
σv’ at pile toe (kPa) 403 378 392 400 343

Maximum pile toe By Mode 1 41.9 28.0 57.1 14.8 41.3
resistance (MPa) By Mode 2 13.8 8.0 17.7 4.3 11.7
By Mode 3 10.9 6.1 12.5 3.2 9.1
Maximum toe settlement (mm) 37.07 43.43 14.13 8.20 40.32
Relative density of soil 1.19 1.06 0.79 0.84 1.12
Elastic modulus of soil (MPa) 78.80 70.89 60.91 63.30 70.39
Shear modulus of soil (MPa) 31.70 28.29 23.85 24.86 28.23
o o o o
Effective friction angle of soil 42.8 41.4 38.1 38.6 42.3o
Predicted
End-bearing capacity—λr (MPa) 12.25 10.74 9.07 9.51 10.51

End-bearing capacity—λyh (MPa) 14.60 12.49 10.01 10.57 12.42
End-bearing capacity—λsh (MPa) 24.27 20.52 15.96 16.94 20.56
End-bearing capacity—λv (MPa) 30.89 25.99 19.98 21.25 26.13
End-bearing capacity—λs (MPa) 33.62 27.98 21.06 22.46 28.33
Relevant toe settlement (mm) 14.28 13.40 12.46 12.64 13.53
Notice: H-1 and H-2 denote the 305×305×180 kg/m and 305×305×223 kg/m H-piles,
respectively. The end-bearing CDG soil is assumed to have small cohesion (c’=5 kPa).
167
Table 5-3. Database of pile load tests in sandy soils: comparison between measured and predicted results
No. Data source Pile dimensions Soil description Measured Predicted qp (MPa)
De (m) L (m) Soil type σv’ (kPa) SPT-N c’ (kPa) qp (MPa) Maximum Minimum Closest
1 BCP Committee (1971) 0.20 4.0 Fine sand 60 20 0 5.8 13.15 5.21 5.94: λyh
2 0.20 11.0 Dense sand 170 48 0 25.0 27.62 11.31 26.03: λv
3 Kobayashi (1972) 0.20 11.0 Fine sand 90 40 0 12.5 20.61 7.90 15.12: λsh
4 Yamamoto et al. (1974) 0.40 12.0 Gravel sand 160 38 0 12.0 24.44 10.25 11.39: λyh
5 Kishida and Takano (1977) 0.15 N.A. Omoi River 100 31 0 10.0 18.94 7.65 8.65: λyh
6 sand 200 40 0 12.5 27.19 11.71 12.86: λyh
7 300 49 0 19.0 34.49 15.30 16.59: λyh
8 500 63 0 19.0 46.67 21.47 21.47: λr
9 Ogura et al. (1992) 1.20 38.0 Fine sand 300 55 0 10.4 36.19 15.87 15.87: λr
10 JGS (1993) 1.50 22.4 Sand 180 30 5 2.9 10.71 4.76 4.76: λr
11 26.5 212 30 5 4.2 11.46 5.20 5.20: λr
12 32.0 256 30 5 5.7 12.44 5.78 5.78: λr
13 44.5 356 25 5 5.2 13.89 6.80 6.80: λr
14 Ogura et al. (1994) 1.20 38.5 Sand 300 55 5 8.2 16.08 7.15 7.79: λyh
15 Yoshifuku et al. (1994) 1.20 26.5 Fine sand 210 49 5 8.1 13.44 5.76 6.37: λyh
16 Amori (1997) 1.20 41.0 Shirasu sand 280 18 5 4.0 11.59 5.69 5.69: λr
17 Vesic (1970) 0.46 12.0 Ogeechee 134 66 0 12.6 30.32 11.35 13.31: λyh
18 15.0 River Sand 164 51 0 14.6 28.11 11.38 12.86: λyh
19 Arkansas #1 0.37 16.2 Silty sand 151 42 5 7.2 11.23 4.66 8.42: λsh
20 Arkansas #2 0.46 16.1 with clay 148 31 5 7.7 9.99 4.30 7.57: λsh
168
Table 5-3. (Continued) Database of pile load tests in sandy soils: comparison between measured and predicted results
No. Data source Pile dimensions Soil description Measured Predicted qp (MPa)
De (m) L (m) Soil type σv’ (kPa) SPT-N c’ (kPa) qp (MPa) Maximum Minimum Closest
21 Arkansas #3 0.52 16.2 Silty sand 151 42 5 7.0 11.23 4.66 8.42: λsh
22 Arkansas #4 0.46 12.3 with clay 113 37 5 6.1 9.69 3.92 7.22: λsh
23 Arkansas #7 0.41 15.9 147 36 5 13.7 10.50 4.43 10.50: λs
24 Arkansas #10 0.43 16.2 148 31 5 9.0 9.99 4.30 9.48: λv
25 Jonesville #1 0.52 11.6 Silty sand 142 84 5 13.1 15.40 5.56 14.14: λv
26 Jonesville #2 13.7 with clay 163 90 5 8.9 16.55 6.05 7.19: λyh
27 Jonesville #3 16.5 191 97 5 12.2 17.95 6.67 13.04: λsh
28 Low-Sill #2 0.53 19.8 Fine to 190 97 5 7.3 17.96 6.68 7.88: λyh
29 Low-Sill #4 0.43 20.1 medium 193 97 5 13.1 18.03 6.73 13.11: λsh
30 Low-Sill #6 0.46 19.8 sand 189 97 5 8.8 17.94 6.67 7.87: λyh
31 Balakrishnan et al. (1999) 0.60 15.0 Sandy silt 153 52 5 2.4 12.31 4.95 4.95: λr
32 0.75 15.0 Sandy silt 153 60 5 2.6 13.14 5.16 5.16: λr
33 0.69 15.5 Sandy silt 158 125 5 12.1 20.44 6.84 14.37: λsh
Notice: (1) No.1-16 and No.17-30 are extracted from the articles of Yasufuku et al. (2001) and Coyle & Castello (1981), respectively.
(2) SPT-N values of No.17-30 are back-calculated from the available data of Dr by Equation (5.52).
(3) Cohesion of those containing considerable content of silt or clay is assumed to be 5 kPa while others are regarded as clean sand.
(4) The stiffness of clean sand is evaluated by Equation (5.59).
169
Table 5-4. Chart for limit pressure factors

Pile SPT-N value at pile toe
length 30 60 90 120 150 180 210
5m 32.12 35.74 38.59 41.01 43.13 45.03 46.75
30.24 38.20 45.52 52.61 59.59 66.55 73.52
10 m 26.03 28.43 30.33 31.97 33.42 34.73 35.94
22.38 27.13 31.40 35.46 39.42 43.31 47.18
15 m 22.98 24.86 26.35 27.63 28.78 29.82 30.78
18.83 22.34 25.46 28.40 31.24 34.03 36.78
20 m 21.04 22.61 23.86 24.94 25.91 26.79 27.60
16.70 19.54 22.04 24.38 26.63 28.83 30.99
25 m 19.66 21.02 22.11 23.05 23.90 24.67 25.38
15.24 17.65 19.75 21.72 23.60 25.43 27.23
30 m 18.60 19.82 20.79 21.63 22.38 23.07 23.72
14.15 16.26 18.10 19.80 21.43 23.00 24.55
35 m 17.76 18.86 19.75 20.51 21.19 21.82 22.40
13.31 15.20 16.83 18.34 19.78 21.17 22.53
40 m 17.06 18.08 18.89 19.59 20.22 20.80 21.33
12.63 14.34 15.81 17.18 18.47 19.72 20.95
45 m 16.47 17.42 18.17 18.82 19.40 19.94 20.44
12.06 13.63 14.98 16.23 17.41 18.55 19.66
Factors of Fc and Fq are denoted by the upper and lower figures, respectively. Water table is
assumed at the ground surface and c’=5 kPa.
170
Figure 5-1. Deformation of sand around pile base (Yasufuku and Hyde, 1995)
Pu σθp σθe
Rp Ru
σrp σre
Cavity
Plastic zone
Elastic zone
Figure 5-2. Schematic explanation for a spherical cavity

expansion in infinite soil
171
Re 2Re
ψ=45o+0.5φ’
qp
Plastic zone qp
ψ
ψ
σA
Pu
Logarithmic
spiral Pu
ψ=45o+0.5φ’
I. Local shear failure II. Punching shear failure
Figure 5-3. Schematic explanation for failure patterns

associated with spherical expansion
Linearly-elastic-ideally-plastic soil
qp
Kondner-typed hyperbolic curve: qt=z/(n+mz)

Pile toe resistance—qt
st/De
Normalized pile toe settlement (δt/De)—z
Figure 5-4. Generic load-settlement behavior at pile toe
172
A0
Vertical compression
t
t
Extra area Extra area
b
θ
φ'
θ=45o+0.5φ’
t
a
a≥(b-t)
Figure 5-5. Zone of soil embraced in the vertical compression of H-piles
100
Sample 1 (Zhai 2000)
90 Sample 2 (Zhai 2000)
Sample 3 (Zhai 2000)
80 Sample 4 (Ng and Chiu 2003)
Average
Percentage passing (%)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Particle size (mm)
Figure 5-6. Particle-size distribution of CDG soils
173
Figure 5-7. Sample of CDG soil after failure
Void ratio—e
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
0
1 Lumb (1962)
5
Depth—h (m)
10
e=0.704-0.02h
11
12
13
14
15
Figure 5-8. Variations of void ratio with depth for CDG soils
174
45
Secant modulus of elasticity (MPa) 40 Dense, e=0.5

Medium, e=0.9
35 Loose, e=1.3
30
25
20
15
10
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Confining pressure (kPa)

Figure 5-9. Variations of elastic modulus with confining
pressure for CDG soils (Lumb, 1965)
0.4
Dense, e=0.5
0.35
Medium, e=0.9
Loose, e=1.3
0.3
Poisson’s ratio
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Confining pressure (kPa)

Figure 5-10. Variations of Poisson’s ratio with confining
pressure for CDG soils (Lumb, 1965)
175
48
46
Effective friction angle (degree)
44 Masado sand; Yasufuku and Hyde, 1995
42
40
38 Expected line of Masado sand

Cambria sand; Yamamuro
36
and Lade, 1996
34
32
Chatahoochee River sand; Vesic and Clough, 1968
30
0.1 1 10 100
Effective mean normal stress (MPa)
Figure 5-11. Variations of effective friction angle with mean

normal stress for dense sandy soils
50
48 CA sand
CB sand
46 SO sand p’=430 kPa
T O sand
44
Proposed line
42 Masado sand
40
38
36
34
32
30
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3
Relative density
Figure 5-12. Variations of effective friction angle with
relative density for sandy soils
176
45
43
41
Dr=1.0
39
37 Dr=0.7
Dr=0.4
35
Critical state line

33
31
0.1 1 10 100
Effective mean normal stress (MPa)
Figure 5-13. Proposed correlation between effective

friction angle and mean normal stress for CDG soil
Pattern 1: Pattern 2: Pattern 3:

Cross-sectional area Friction-angle-dependent area Enveloping rectangle area
Figure 5-14. Different patterns of area for calculating the

end-bearing resistance of H-pile
177
30
λr λyh
25 λsh λv
λs Mode 2
20
15
10
0
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Base deformation (mm)
Figure 5-15a. Measured and predicted load-settlement

behavior at pile base of PJ1
25
λr λyh
λsh λv
20
λs Mode 2
15
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Figure 5-15b. Measured and predicted load-settlement

178
20
λr λyh
18
λsh λv
16
λs Mode 2
14
12
10
0
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Figure 5-15c. Measured and predicted load-settlement

14
λr λyh
12
λsh λv
10 λs Mode 2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Figure 5-15d. Measured and predicted load-settlement
179
24
λr λyh
21
λsh λv
18 λs Mode 2
15
12
0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Figure 5-15e. Measured and predicted load-settlement

30
Measured
Predicted
25 Measured
End-bearing capacity (MPa)
Predicted
20
qp=0.20N1
15
10
qp=0.19N1
5
0
0 20 40 60 80 10 0
0.5
Corrected N value—N×(98/σv’)
Figure 5-16. Comparison of the measured and

predicted end-bearing capacities of all piles
180
Soil stiffness at pile toe (MPa)

0 20 40 60 80 100
0
E:
5
G:
10
15
Pile length (m)
20
25
30
35
40
45
SPT N-value from left to right: 30, 90, 150 and 210
50
Figure 5-17. Variations of stiffness of soil with pile length and N value
Rigidity index
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
0
5
10
15
Pile length (m)
20
Ir :
25
Irr:
30
35
40
45
50
Figure 5-18. Variations of rigidity index with pile length and N value
181
Radius of cavity and plastic zone (m)

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0
5
10
15
Pile length (m)
20
25 Ru Rp
30
35
40
45
50
Figure 5-19. Variations of Ru and Rp with pile length and N value
Ratio of mean normal stress

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
0
N=30:
5
N=210:
10
15
Pile length (m)
20
25
30
35
40
45
q’/σv’ p’/σv’
50
Figure 5-20. Variations of mean normal stress with pile length and N value
182
0.45 60
N=30:
N=210: K0
0.4
55
Coordinate of φ’ (degree)
Coordinate of υ and K0
0.35
φ’ 50
0.3 υ
45
0.25
K0
υ
40
0.2
φ’
35
0.15
0.1 30
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Effective overburden pressure (kPa)
Figure 5-21. Variations of K0, υ and φ’ vs. effective overburden pressure
0.5
0.45
Mean volumetric strain (%)
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
SPT N-value from upper to lower: 30, 90, 150 and 210
0.05
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Figure 5-22. Variations of mean volumetric strain in plastic zone
183
N=210
5 N=150
Cavity limit pressure (MPa)
N=90
4 N=30
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Figure 5-23a. Variations of cavity limit pressure: effect of N value
5 N=120
Cavity limit pressure (MPa)
c’=30 kPa c’=15 kPa

4
2 c’=0 kPa
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Figure 5-23b. Variations of cavity limit pressure: effect of cohesion
184
16
N=30
Immediate settlement at pile toe (mm)

15 N=90
N=150
14 N=210
13
12
11
10
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Figure 5-24. Variations of immediate settlement at pile base
Pu/st (kPa/mm)
0 100 200 300 400 500
0
10
15
Pile length (m)
20
N=210
25
30
N=30
35
40
45
N=90 N=150
50
Figure 5-25. Ratios of Pu/st versus embedded pile length
185
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUDING REMARKS
6.1 Conclusions
This thesis describes a comprehensive field-test program of jacked steel H-piles

embedded in residual soils. The axial performance of the jacked piles was observed
during the installation stage, adjacent jacking stage, static load-test stage and the
construction stage for superstructure. A number of driven piles in similar soil
condition were also load-tested and the results were compared to the jacked piles.
Attempts were made to simulate the load-settlement behavior at the pile base,
employing the cavity expansion method. The major findings are as follows.
(1) During the installation procedure, persistent increase of jacking load was
required to push the pile to the desired depths. The jacking process was comparable
to that in the static cone-penetration test, thus the variations of jacking load against
penetration could reflect the strength and stiffness of soil deposits.
(2) The upper portion of pile shaft had insignificant decrease in load-sharing
during installation, indicating the shaft resistance was very small within the upper
soil layer. The jacking load is largely used to overcome the base- and shaft-resistance
produced in the underlying CDG soil layer. The pile-end resistance did not increase
persistently with penetration but varied with the characteristic of surrounding soil,
which was represented by the SPT-N value. On the other hand, the unit shaft
resistance continuously increased during the penetration process. A simple prediction
based on the β-method agreed with that trend. The results did not support the concept
of critical depth, which still remains controversial.
(3) Significant excess pore pressure was induced by the penetration in the
186
alluvial and CDG soils. The peak values were up to two times the initial effective
overburden pressure, implying a sharp decrease of effective stress of the soil
adjacent to pile. The excess pore pressure could dissipate rapidly due to the high
permeability of the soils. An approximate evaluation of t90 proved that the time
required for 90% dissipation is smaller than one hour. The initial excess pore
pressure was derived from the measured data and predicted by the cylindrical cavity
expansion solution. Both of the results showed that the initial excess pore pressure
decreased logarithmically with the distance to the pile-toe. Insignificant excess pore
pressure was detected during the subsequent test procedures.
(4) During the load tests, the pile-head load-settlement curves demonstrated that
cyclic loading sequence had little effect on the stiffness. Using the pre-creep
technique for the jacked piles did prove effective on reducing the creep and residual
settlement during the load tests. Piles which had experienced higher holding
jacking-force appeared to be able to bear larger load. It seemed that a pre-creep load
of two times of the working load was not large enough for the jacked piles to satisfy
the local acceptance criteria. A recommended surcharge-load level is at least 2.3
times and preferably 2.5 times of the pile’s design capacity, given the jacking
capacity permits.
(5) Load-transfer characteristic of the jacked piles illustrated that their shaft
resistance was considerable. The shaft resistance exceeded 85% of the applied load,
although the end-resistance increased persistently with increasing load level.
Compared to the jacking process, the shaft resistance during load tests was slightly
larger and less localized at the lower portion. The pile-load was transferred to deeper
depths only when the shaft resistance at the upper portion reached a limit. Though
the jacked piles did not penetrate to soil strata as stiff as the driven piles did, their
bearing capacities defined by the same acceptance criterion were not smaller than
those of the driven piles. Most of the driven piles had large base-resistance, of which
the share was up to 87% of the total load. Their shaft resistance was much localized
in the end-bearing HDG strata.
(6) Considerable stress was induced along the shaft when an adjacent pile was
187
jacked. The stress was small and mainly compressive along the upper portion.
Significant tensile stress was found along the lower shaft. The maximum tensile
stress corresponded to a penetration of 20 m, that is, 78% of the length of the already
installed pile. The manner of the pile’s stress-response to adjacent jacking could be
explained by the soil movement due to cavity expansion.
(7) A reloading test showed that the end resistance got 32% increase under two
times of the working load. The unit shaft resistance within the lower soil layer also
increased slightly, indicating the applied load was transferred to deeper depths. This
tendency was further confirmed during the 8-month period of the construction of
superstructure.
(8) Residual stress was originated during various test stages. Particularly, the
residual stress locked in during the installation stage was significant and mainly
compressive. Cyclic loading test also resulted in similar distribution of residual
stress along the shaft. However, its magnitude is small compared to that due to
installation. The tensile stress induced by adjacent jacking diminished and the
remainder became residual stress. The compressive residual stress was a possible
reason that caused the large share of total resistance to be taken up by the shaft of the
jacked piles.
(9) A semi-analytical framework based on the spherical-cavity-expansion theory
was developed to estimate the pile-base behavior. The volumetric strain in the plastic
zone was analytically evaluated by the large-strain theory. The dependency of soil
properties on stress level and relative density was taken into account. A rational way
to evaluate the friction angle was proposed and an empirical equation combining the
two influence factors was suggested. The cavity radius and subsequently the base
settlement can be calculated by incorporating the principle of energy conversation.
Thus the pile-base load-deformation relation can be simulated by a two-parameter
hyperbolic curve. The model was used to interpret the load-test results for the five
jacked piles and other 33 driven and bored piles in sandy soils. Generally speaking,
the current model can provide fairly good estimation of the pile-base behavior. The
accuracy depends on appropriate evaluation of the measured base resistance as well
188
as the empirical equations to calculate the soil parameters.
6.2 Suggestions for Further Studies
Finally, the author would like to suggest some further studies with similar
background. Instrumentation may be supplemented to observe the field performance
of the soil movement due to the pile-jacking and the load-testing. Measurement of
the radial stress exerting on the shaft of a pile is important for further investigation of
the performance of the pile-shaft. In order to obtain the true pile-end resistance, not
only the strain gauges are required to attach on the H-shaft, feasible instrumentation
installing directly at the H-base is preferable. If possible, four vibrating-wire strain
gauges installed symmetrically at every section would be better. It is very important
to ensure proper measurement of the residual stress due to jacking and long-term
load-transfer behavior. In addition, due to the great uncertainty in large-scale field
test, small-scale field or laboratory tests can be considered to investigate the effect of
the pile-length and the installation method on both the load-transfer characteristic
and the pile’s bearing capacity.
The proposed cavity expansion framework can be further refined and focused
on other particular types of pile and soil conditions. Attention should be paid to
proper determination of the soil parameters. The current model does not consider the
effect of the strain-level of soil on evaluating the shear modulus and the elastic
modulus. Relevant literature has reported some empirical relations between the
stiffness and the volumetric strain of sandy soils. Those findings may be selected and
included in the model to evaluate the soil stiffness more properly. Furthermore,
laboratory tests may be carried out to evaluate the effect of relative density and stress
level for a given sandy soil.
The spherical-cavity-expansion theory can be modified and its applications can
be extended to simulate the stress field induced by the pile-jacking. Noted that the
process of spherical cavity expansion resembles the pile-end performance during a
load-test, the soil’s response to deep penetration can be modeled by a column of
189
spherical cavities expanded at the same time. The number of cavities in the column
may be determined by the dimension of the penetrated shaft. One can also choose an
alternative approach to simulate the jacking procedure other than the cavity
expansion theory, such as the strain-path method.
190
Appendix: Derivation of Equations (5.23), (5.25) and (5.32).
σ rp + 2σ θp 3 − sin ϕ ' 4c' cos ϕ ' Eε rp1

σ oct − q' = − q' = σ rp − − q' =
3 3 + 3 sin ϕ ' 3 + 3 sin ϕ ' 1 − 2υ
Eε rp1
E n1 = ∫∫∫ (σ oct − q' )ε vp1 dv p = ∫∫∫ (3ε rp1 − 3ε rp2 1 + ε rp3 1 )dv p
1 − 2υ
4πE Rp
=
1 − 2υ ∫Ru
(3ε rp2 1 − 3ε rp3 1 + ε rp4 1 )r 2 dr
( 4 sin ϕ ') /(1+ sin ϕ ')

⎛R ⎞ ⎛ 3 − sin ϕ ' ⎞
σ rp − σ oct = ( Pu + c' cot ϕ '−γ w hw )⎜ u ⎟ ⎜⎜1 − ⎟⎟ +
⎝ r ⎠ ⎝ 3 + 3 sin ϕ ' ⎠
( 4 sin ϕ ') /(1+ sin ϕ ')
⎛ cot ϕ '+ cos ϕ ' ⎞ ⎛R ⎞ ⎛ 4 sin ϕ ' ⎞
c' ⎜⎜ − cot ϕ ' ⎟⎟ = ( Pu + c' cot ϕ '−γ w hw )⎜ u ⎟ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ 1 + sin ϕ ' ⎠ ⎝ r ⎠ ⎝ 3 + 3 sin ϕ ' ⎠
Rp
E n 2 = ∫∫∫ (σ rp − σ oct )ε vp 2 dv p = 4π ∫ (σ rp − σ oct )(0.75ε rp2 2 + 0.25ε rp3 2 )r 2 dr
Ru
⎛ 16π sin ϕ ' ⎞ ( 4 sin ϕ ') /(1+sin ϕ ')

= ( Pu + c' cot ϕ '−γ w hw )⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ Ru
⎝ 3 + 3 sin ϕ ' ⎠
Rp
× ∫ (0.75ε rp2 2 + 0.25ε rp3 2 )r ( 2− 2 sin ϕ ') /(1+sin ϕ ') dr
Ru
3
6c' cos ϕ '+6q ' sin ϕ ' ⎛ R p ⎞
σ re − σ θe = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
3 − sin ϕ ' ⎝ r ⎠
3 2 1 3 (1 + υ ) 2 (σ re − σ θe ) 2 2(1 + υ ) 3 (σ re − σ θe ) 3
ε ve 2 = ε re 2 + ε re 2 = +
4 4 3E 2 27 E 3
2
3 ∫∫∫
En4 = (σ re − σ θe )ε ve 2 dve =
8π ∞ ⎡ (1 + υ ) 2 (σ re − σ θe ) 3 2(1 + υ ) 3 (σ re − σ θe ) 4 ⎤ 2
3 ∫R p ⎣
⎢ + ⎥ r dr =
3E 2 27 E 3 ⎦
8π ∞ ⎡ (1 + υ ) 2 (6c' cos ϕ '+6q ' sin ϕ ' ) 3 9 ⎤ 1
3 ∫Rp ⎢⎣ 3E 2 (3 − sin ϕ ' ) 3
R p ⎥ dr +
⎦r
8π ∞ ⎡ 2(1 + υ ) 3 (6c' cos ϕ '+6q ' sin ϕ ' ) 4 12 ⎤ 1
3 ∫Rp ⎢⎣ 27 E 3 (3 − sin ϕ ' ) 4
R p ⎥ 2 dr =
⎦r
32π (1 + υ ) 2 (c' cos ϕ '+ q ' sin ϕ ' ) 3 R p 256π (1 + υ ) 3 (c' cos ϕ '+ q ' sin ϕ ' ) 4 R p
3 3
+
(3 − sin ϕ ' ) 3 E 2 9(3 − sin ϕ ' ) 4 E 3
191
Behavior of Large Capacity Jacked Piles—Reference
REFERENCES
Alhomoud, A. S., Fouad, T. and Mokhtar, A. (2004). “Evaluating accuracy for two
empirical methods in predicting settlement of drilled shafts.” Geotechnical and
Geological Engineering, 22(2), 245-267.
Altaee, A., Fellenius, B. H. and Evgin, E. (1992a). “Axial load transfer for piles in
sand, I: tests on an instrumented precast pile.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
29(1), 11-20.
Altaee, A., Evgin, E. and Fellenius, B. H. (1992b). “Axial load transfer for piles in
sand, II: numerical analysis.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 29(1), 21-30.
Altaee, A., Fellenius, B. H. and Evgin, E. (1993). “Load transfer for piles in sand and
the critical depth.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 30, 455-463.
Azzouz, A. S., Baligh, M. M. and Whittle, A. J. (1990). “Shaft resistance of piles in
clay.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 116(2), 205-221.
Azzouz, A. S. and Morrison, M. J. (1988). “Field measurements on model pile in two
clay deposits.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 114(1), 104-121.
Balakrishnan, E. G., Balasubramaniam, A. S. and Phien-wej, N. (1999). “Load
deformation analysis of bored piles in residual weathered formation.” Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 125(2), 122-131.
Baligh, M. M. (1976). “Cavity expansion in sands with curved envelopes.” Journal
of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 102(GT11), 1131-1146.
Baligh, M. M. (1985). “Strain path method.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
ASCE, 111(9), 1108-1136.
Baligh, M. M. (1986a). “Undrained deep penetration, I: shear stresses.”
Géotechnique, 36(4), 471-485.
Baligh, M. M. (1986b). “Undrained deep penetration, II: pore pressures.”
BCP Committee (1971). “Field tests on piles in sand.” Soils and Foundations, 11(2),
192
29-49.
Blanchet, R., Tavenas, F. and Garneau, R. (1980). “Behaviour of friction piles in soft
sensitive clays.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 17, 203-224.
Bolton, M. D. (1986). “The strength and dilatancy of sands.” Géotechnique, 36(1),
65-78.
Bond, A. J. and Jardine, R. J. (1991). “Effects of installing displacement piles in a
high OCR clay.” Géotechnique, 41(3), 341-363.
Bond, A. J. and Jardine, R. J. (1995). “Shaft capacity of displacement piles in a high
OCR clay.” Géotechnique, 45(1), 3-23.
Bond, A. J., Jardine, R. J. and Dalton, J. C. P. (1991). “Design and performance of
the Imperial College instrumented pile.” Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM,
14(4), 413-424.
Bowles, J. E. (1997). “Foundation analysis and design, Fifth edition.” ISBN
0-07-118844-4, McGraw-Hill Companies, Singapore.
Briaud, J. L. and Tucker, L. M. (1984). “Piles in sand: a method including residual
stresses.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 110(11), 1666-1680.
Briaud, J. L. and Tucker, L. M. (1988). “Measured and predicted axial response of 98
piles.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 114(9), 984-1001.
Broms, B. B. and Hellman, L. (1968). “End bearing and skin friction resistance of
piles.” Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, 94(SM2),
421-429.
Butterfield, R. and Banerjee, P. K. (1971). “The elastic analysis of compressible piles
and pile groups.” Géotechnique, 21(1), 43-60.
Cao, L. F., Teh, C. I. and Chang, M. F. (2001). “Undrained cavity expansion in
modified Cam clay, I: theoretical analysis.” Géotechnique, 51(4), 323-334.
Carter, J. P., Booker, J. R. and Yeung, S. K. (1986). “Cavity expansion in cohesive
frictional soils.” Géotechnique, 36(3), 349-358.
Carter, J. P., Randolph, M. F. and Wroth, C. P. (1979). “Stress and pore pressure
changes in clay during and after the expansion of a cylindrical cavity.”
International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 3,
193
305-322.
Carter, J. P. and Yeung, S. K. (1985). “Analysis of cylindrical cavity expansion in a
strain weakening material.” Computers and Geotechnics, 1, 161-180.
Chadwick, P. (1959). “The quasi-static expansion of a spherical cavity in metals and
ideal soils.” Quarterly Journal of Mechanics and Applied Mathematics, 12(1),
52-71.
Chan, S. F. and Hanna, T. H. (1980). “Repeated loading on single piles in sand.”
Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 106(GT2), 171-188.
Chang, M. F. and Broms, B. B. (1991). “Design of bored piles in residual soils based
on field-performance data.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 28, 200-209.
Chang, M. F. and Goh, A. T. C. (1989). “Design of bored piles considering load
transfer.” Geotechnical Engineering, 20(1), 1-18.
Chang, M. F., Teh, C. I. and Cao, L. F. (2001). “Undrained cavity expansion in
modified Cam clay, II: application to the interpretation of the piezocone test.”
Chen, C. S., Liew, S. S. and Tan, Y. C. (1999a). “Time effects on the bearing capacity
of driven piles.” Proceedings of 11th Asian Regional Conference, August, Korea.
Chen, J. H., Wu, J. and Lei, P. (2001). “The application of silent piling machine in
Wuhan (in Chinese).” Soil Engineering and Foundations, 15(3), 49-51.
Chen, W., Shi, J. Y., Gong, Y. P. and Zhou, L. G. (1999b). “Centrifugal model tests of
piles jacked in saturated clay (in Chinese).” Journal of Hohai University, 27(6),
103-109.
Chin, J. T. and Poulos, H. G. (1996). “Tests on model jacked piles in calcareous
sand.” Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM, 19(2), 164-180.
Chow, F. C. (1995). “Field measurements of stress interactions between
displacement piles in sand.” Ground Engineering, 28(6), 36-40.
Chow, F. C., Jardine, R. J., Brucy, F. and Nauroy, J. F. (1998). “Effects of time on
capacity of pipe piles in dense marine sand.” Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 124(3), 254-264.
Chow, F. C., Jardine, R. J., Nauroy, J. F. and Brucy, F. (1997). “Time-related
194
increases in the shaft capacities of driven piles in sand.” Géotechnique, 47(2),

353-361.
Chow, Y. K. (1986). “Analysis of vertically loaded pile groups.” International
Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 10, 59-72.
Chow, Y. K. and Teh, C. I. (1990). “A theoretical study of pile heave.” Géotechnique,
40(1), 1-14.
Clark, J. I. and Meyerhof, G. G. (1972). “The behavior of piles driven in clay, I: an
investigation of soil stress and pore water pressure as related to soil properties.”
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 9(4), 351-373.
Clark, J. I. and Meyerhof, G. G. (1973). “The behavior of piles driven in clay, II:
investigation of the bearing capacity using total and effective strength parameter.”
Clemente, J. L. M. (1992). “Performance of axially loaded pipe piles in sand.
Discussion.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 118(5), 832-835.
Collins, I. F., Pender, M. J. and Wang, Y. (1992). “Cavity expansion in sands under
drained loading conditions.” International Journal for Numerical and Analytical
Methods in Geomechanics, 16, 2-23.
Cooke, R. W. and Price, G. (1973). “Strains and displacements around friction piles.”
Proceedings of 8th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Moscow.
Cooke, R. W., Price, G. and Tarr, K. (1979). “Jacked piles in London clay: a study of
load transfer and settlement under working conditions.” Géotechnique, 29(2),
113-147.
Cooke, R. W., Price, G. and Tarr, K. (1980). “Jacked piles in London clay: interaction
and group behaviour under working conditions.” Géotechnique, 30(2), 97-136.
Coop, M. R. and Wroth, C. P. (1989). “Field studies of an instrumented model pile in
clay.” Géotechnique, 39(4), 679-696.
Coyle, H. M. and Castello, R. R. (1981). “New design correlations for piles in sand.”
Coyle, H. M. and Castello, R. R. (1982). “New design correlations for piles in sand.
195
Discussion closure.” Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE,

108(GT11), 1519-1520.
Graig, R. F. (1997). “Soil mechanics, Sixth edition.” ISBN 0-419-22450-5, Spon
Press, Great Britain.
Craig, W. H. (1985). “Modelling pile installation in centrifuge experiments.”
Proceedings of 11th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, USA, 1101-1104.
Craig, W. H. and Sabagh, S. K. (1994). “Stress-level effects in model tests on piles.”
Cubrinovski, M. and Ishihara, K. (1999). “Empirical correlation between SPT
N-value and relative density for sandy soils.” Soils and Foundations, 39(5),
61-71.
Cudmani, R. and Osinov, V. A. (2001). “The cavity expansion problem for the
interpretation of cone penetration and pressuremeter tests.” Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 38, 622-638.
Darrag, A. A. and Lovell, C. W. (1989). “A simplified procedure for predicting
residual stresses for piles.” Proceedings of 12th International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Brazil, 1127-1130.
DBJ 08-11-89 (1989). “Shanghai standard foundation design code (in Chinese).”
Shanghai Institute for Civil Building Design, China.
DBJ 10-1-90 (1990). “Zhejiang standard for weak ground and foundation design (in
Chinese).” Zhejiang Institute for Building Design, China.
De Nicola, A. and Randolph, M. F. (1993). “Tensile and compressive shaft capacity
of piles in sand.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 119(12),
1952-1973.
De Nicola, A. and Randolph, M. F. (1997). “The plugging behaviour of driven and
jacked piles in sand.” Géotechnique, 47(4), 841-856.
De Nicola, A. and Randolph, M. F. (1999). “Centrifuge modelling of pipe piles in
sand under axial loads.” Géotechnique, 49(3), 295-318.
Ergun, M. U. and Akbulut, H. (1995). “Bearing capacity of shaft-expanded driven
196
model piles in sand.” Géotechnique, 45(4), 715-718.

Fang, Y. L. and Wen, G. L. (1999). “Application of cone penetration and standard
penetration in geotechnical prospecting in Kaifeng area (in Chinese).” Journal of
Yellow River Conservancy Technical Institute, 11(4), 28-32.
Farrell, E., Lehane, B. and Looby, M. (1998). “An instrumented driven pile in
Dublin boulder clay.” Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers, Geotechnical
Engineering, 131, 233-241.
Fellenius, B. H. (2002a). “Determining the resistance distribution in piles, I: notes on
shift of no-load reading and residual load.” Geotechnical News Magazine, 20(2),
35-38.
Fellenius, B. H. (2002b). “Determining the resistance distribution in piles, II: method
for determining the residual load.” Geotechnical News Magazine, 20(3), 25-29.
Gan, J. K. M. and Fredlund, D. G. (1996). “Direct shear and triaxial testing of a
Hong Kong soil under saturated and unsaturated conditions.” GEO report No. 46,
Geotechnical Engineering Office, Civil Engineering Department, Hong Kong.
Gao, X. N., Wang, F., Xu, X. C. and Dai, Z. Z. (2000). “Bearing structure by static
pressure piling technique in foundation strengthening of multi-storied building (in
Chinese).” Architecture Technology, 31(6), 378-379.
Gavin, K. G. and Lehane, B. M. (2003). “The shaft capacity of pipe piles in sand.”
GEO (1996). “Pile design and construction.” The Geotechnical Engineering Office
of Civil Engineering Department of HKSARG, Hong Kong.
Gong, M. B. and Yang, G. (1998). “Investigation in applicable condition of static
pressure pile (in Chinese).” Journal of Changsha Railway University, 16(4),
108-112.
Gong, Y. L., He, Q. H., Guo, Y. and Zhu, J. X. (1998). “Study on equation for
capacity of single static-driving pile in stratified soil (in Chinese).” Journal of
Central South University of Technology, 29(6), 582-585.
Gue & Partners (2002). “Specification for jack-in-piles.” Internet resources.
Gupta, R. C. (1991). “Finite strain analysis for deep cone penetration.” Journal of
197
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 117(10), 1610-1630.

Gupta, R. C. (2002a). “Finite strain analysis for expansion of cavities in granular
soils.” Soils and Foundations, 42(6), 105-115.
Gupta, R. C. (2002b). “Estimating bearing capacity factors and cone tip resistance.”
Soils and Foundations, 42(6), 117-127.
Han, X. J. (1996). “Experimental research on static pressure and bearing capacity of
statically pressed piles (in Chinese).” Journal of Building Structure, 17(6), 71-77
Hanna, A. and Nguyen, T. Q. (2003). “Shaft resistance of single vertical and batter
piles driven in sand.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE, 129(7), 601-607.
Hanna, T. H. and Tan, R. H. S. (1973). “The behavior of long piles under
compressive loads in sand.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 10, 311-340.
Hatanaka, M. and Uchida, A. (1996). “Empirical correlation between penetration
resistance and internal friction angle of sandy soils.” Soils and Foundations, 36(4),
1-9.
Hirayama, H. (1988). “A unified base bearing capacity formula for piles.” Soils and
Foundations, 28(3), 91-102.
Hirayama, H. (1990). “Load-settlement analysis for bored piles using hyperbolic
transfer functions.” Soils and Foundations, 30(1), 55-64.
Houlsby, G. T. and Hitchman, R. (1988). “Calibration chamber tests of a cone
penetrometer in sand.” Géotechnique, 38(1), 39-44.
Huang, A. B. and Ma, M. Y. (1994). “An analytical study of cone penetration tests in
granular material.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 31, 91-103.
Huang, P. F. (2000). “Application of jacked anchor piles on strengthening bridge
foundations (in Chinese).” Oversea Highways, 20(2), 26-28.
Hunt, C. E., Pestana, J. M., Bray, J. D. and Riemer, M. (2002). “Effect of pile driving
on static and dynamic properties of soft clay.” Journal of Geotechnical and
Jardine, R. J. and Bond, A. J. (1989). “Behaviour of displacement piles in a heavily
overconsolidated clay.” Proceedings of 12th International Conference on Soil
198
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Brazil, 1147-1151.

Jardine, R. J., Overy, R. F. and Chow, F. C. (1998). “Axial capacity of offshore piles
in dense North Sea sands.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
JGJ 94-94 (1995). “Technical code for building pile foundations (in Chinese).”
Chinese Institute of Building Science, China.
Joshi, R. C., Sharma, H. D. and Sparrow, D. G. (1989). “Comparison of pile load test
methods.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 26, 742-744.
Kartuzof, V. V., Galanov, B. A. and Ivanov, S. M. (1999). “Concept of ultimate
fracture velocity in the analysis of spherical cavity expansion in brittle materials:
application to penetration problems.” International Journal of Impact
Engineering, 23, 431-442.
Keer, L. M., Xu, Y. L. and Luk, V. K. (1998). “Boundary effects in penetration or
perforation.” Journal of Applied Mechanics, ASME, 65, 489-496.
Kelley, S. P. and Lutenegger, A. J. (2004). “Unit shaft friction from the standard
penetration test supplemented with the measurement of torque.” Journal of
Kishida, H. and Uesugi, M. (1987). “Tests of the interface between sand and steel in
the simple shear apparatus.” Géotechnique, 37(1), 45-52.
Klotz, E. U. and Coop, M. R. (2001). “An investigation of the effect of soil state on
the capacity of driven piles in sands.” Géotechnique, 51(9), 733-751.
Konrad, J. M. and Roy, M. (1987). “Bearing capacity of friction piles in marine
clay.” Géotechnique, 37(2), 163-175.
Kraft, L. M. J. (1991). “Performance of axially loaded pipe piles in sand.” Journal of
Kraft, L. M. J., Ray, R. P. and Kagawa, T. (1981). “Theoretical t-z curves.” Journal
of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 107(GT11), 1543-1561.
Ladanyi, B. and Foriero, A. (1998). “A numerical solution of cavity expansion
problem in sand based directly on experimental stress-strain curves.” Canadian
199
Ladanyi, B. and Johnston, G. H. (1974). “Behavior of circular footings and plate

anchors embedded in permafrost.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 11, 531-553.
Lee, C. Y. (1993). “Settlement of pile groups—practical approach.” Journal of
Lee, F. H., Juneja, A. and Tan, T. S. (2004). “Stress and pore pressure changes due to
sand compaction pile installation in soft clay.” Géotechnique, 54(1), 1-16.
Lehane, B. M. and Gavin, K. G. (2001). “Base resistance of jacked pipe piles in
sand.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE,
127(6), 473-480.
Lehane, B. M. and Jardine, R. J. (1994a). “Displacement pile behaviour in glacial
clay.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 31(1), 79-90.
Lehane, B. M. and Jardine, R. J. (1994b). “Displacement-pile behaviour in a soft
marine clay.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 31(2), 181-191.
Lehane, B. M., Jardine, R. J., Bond, A. J. and Frank, R. (1993). “Mechanisms of
shaft friction in sand from instrumented pile tests.” Journal of Geotechnical
Lehane, B. M. and Randolph, M. F. (2002). “Evaluation of a minimum base
resistance for driven pipe piles in siliceous sand.” Journal of Geotechnical and
Li, K. S., Ho, N. C. L., Tham, L. G. and Lee, P. K. K. (2003). “Case studies of jacked
piling in Hong Kong.” ISBN 962-86246-6-0, Centre for Research & Professional
Development and The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Li, L. T., Yi, X. H. and Zhao, H. S. (2003). “Analysis on load-settlement behavior
and static load test results of pressure piles (in Chinese).” Building Science, 19(1),
44-47.
Li, Y. J. (2001). “A study on spheric cavity expansion and static piling in soils (in
Chinese).” D.Eng. thesis, Zhejiang University, China.
Li, Y. J., Chen, Y. M. and Ling, D. S. (2001). “Study on the critical depth and
minimal thickness of static piling (in Chinese).” Chinese Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, 23(5), 584-587.
200
Li, Y. J., Chen, Y. M. and Ling, D. S. (2002). “A general solution for the expansion
of cavities in soil mass (in Chinese).” China Civil Engineering Journal, 35(1),
93-98.
Liao, S. S. C. and Whitman, R. V. (1986). “Overburden correction factors for SPT in
sand.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 112(3), 373-377.
Liu, F. C., Sun, X. M. and Wu, F. P. (1996). “Discussion of valuation of the bearing
strength of foundation soil and the standard penetration number (in Chinese).”
Journal of Heilongjiang Hydraulic Engineering College, No. 2, 43-45.
Liu, W. X. and Zhang, P. (2000). “Preliminary discussion of additional settlement
due to static driving pile using anchored piles (in Chinese).” Rock and Soil
Mechanics, 21(1), 88-91.
Lu, Z. T. (1998). “Numerical analysis of compacting effect by static piling in soft
clay (in Chinese).” D.Eng. thesis, Zhejiang University, China.
Lumb, P. (1962). “The properties of decomposed granite.” Géotechnique, 12,
226-243.
Lumb, P. (1965). “The residual soils of Hong Kong.” Géotechnique, 15, 180-194.
Lumb, P. (1975). “Slope failures in Hong Kong.” Quarterly Journal of Engineering
Geology, 8(1), 31-65.
Ma, J. P. (2000). “Underpinning technique by static pressure piling applied to plant
foundation strengthening (in Chinese).” Architecture Technology, 31(8), 548-549.
Mabsout, M. E., Sadek, S. M. and Smayra, T. E. (1999). “Pile driving by numerical
cavity expansion.” International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods
in Geomechanics, 23, 1121-1140.
Maeda, K. and Miura, K. (1999a). “Confining stress dependency of mechanical
properties of sands.” Soils and Foundations, 39(1), 53-67.
Maeda, K. and Miura, K. (1999b). “Relative density dependency of mechanical
properties of sands.” Soils and Foundations, 39(1), 69-79.
Mandolini, A. and Viggiani, C. (1997). “Settlement of piled foundations.”
Massey, J. B., Irfan, T. Y. and Cipullo, A. (1989). “The characterization of granitic
201
saprolitic soils.” Proceedings of 12th International Conference on Soil Mechanics

and Foundation Engineering, Brazil, 533-542.
Meyerhof, G. G. (1963). “Some recent research on the bearing capacity of
foundations.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 1(1), 16-26.
Meyerhof, G. G. (1976). “Bearing capacity and settlement of pile foundations.”
Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 102(3), 195-228.
Meyerhof, G. G. (1983). “Scale effects of ultimate pile capacity.” Journal of
Meyerhof, G. G. and Sastry, V. V. R. N. (1978). “Bearing capacity of piles in layered
soils, part 1, clay overlying sand.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 15, 171-182.
Misra, A. and Chen, C. H. (2004). “Analytical solution for micropile design under
tension and compression.” Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 22(2),
199-225.
Neely, W. J. (1990). “Bearing capacity of expanded-base piles in sand.” Journal of
Ng, C. W. W. and Chiu, A. C. F. (2003). “Laboratory study of loose saturated and
unsaturated decomposed granitic soil.” Journal of Geotechnical and
Ng, C. W. W. and Lei, G. H. (2003). “Performance of long rectangular barrettes in
granitic saprolites.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
ASCE, 129(8), 685-696.
Ng, C. W. W., Rigby, D. B., Ng, S. W. L. and Lei, G. H. (2000). “Field studies of
well-instrumented barrette in Hong Kong.” Journal of Geotechnical and
Ng, C. W. W., Yau, T. L. Y., Li, J. H. M. and Tang, W. H. (2001). “New failure load
criterion for large diameter bored piles in weathered geomaterials.” Journal of
O’Neill, M. W. (2001). “Side resistance in piles and drilled shaft.” Journal of
O’Neill, M. W., Hawkins, R. A. and Mahar, L. J. (1982). “Load transfer mechanisms
202
in piles and pile groups.” Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division,

ASCE, 108(GT12), 1605-1623.
O’Neill, M. W. and Raines, R. D. (1991). “Load transfer for pipe piles in highly
pressured dense sand.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 117(8),
1208-1226.
Ottaviani, M. (1975). “Three-dimensional finite element analysis of vertically loaded
pile groups.” Géotechnique, 25(2), 159-174.
Paik, K., Salgado, R., Lee, J. and Kim, B. (2003). “Behavior of open- and
closed-ended piles driven into sands.” Journal of Geotechnical and
Pan, L. Y. (1999). “Analysis on extrusion effect of static pressure piles by expansion
theory of round holes (in Chinese).” Underground Space, 19(3), 174-177.
Parry, R. H. G. (1977). “Estimating bearing capacity in sand from SPT values.”
Pestana, J. M., Hunt, C. E. and Bray, J. D. (2002). “Soil deformation and excess pore
pressure field around a closed-ended pile.” Journal of Geotechnical and
Poulos, H. G. (1987). “Analysis of residual stress effects in piles.” Journal of
Poulos, H. G. (1989a). “Cyclic axial loading analysis of piles in sand.” Journal of
Poulos, H. G. (1989b). “Pile behaviour—theory and application.” Géotechnique,
39(3), 365-415.
Poulos, H. G. (1994). “Effect of pile driving on adjacent piles in clay.” Canadian
Poulos, H. G. and Chan, K. F. (1986). “Model pile skin friction in calcareous sand.”
Geotechnical Engineering, 17(2), 235-257.
Randolph, M. F. (2003). “Science and empiricism in pile foundation design.”
Randolph, M. F., Carter, J. P. and Wroth, C. P. (1979). “Driven piles in clay—the
203
effects of installation and subsequent consolidation.” Géotechnique, 29(4),

361-393.
Randolph, M. F., Dolwin, J. and Beck, R. (1994). “Design of driven piles in sand.”
Randolph, M. F. and Wroth, C. P. (1978). “Analysis of deformation of vertically
loaded piles.” Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE,
104(GT12), 1465-1488.
Randolph, M. F. and Wroth, C. P. (1979). “An analytical solution for the
consolidation around a driven pile.” International Journal for Numerical and
Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 3, 217-229.
Randolph, M. F. and Wroth, C. P. (1981). “Application of the failure state in
undrained simple shear to the shaft capacity of driven piles.” Géotechnique, 31(1),
143-157.
Rieke, R. D. and Crowser, J. C. (1987). “Interpretation of pile load test considering
residual stresses.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 113(4), 320-334.
Robert, Y. (1997). “A few comments on pile design.” Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 34(4), 560-567.
Robinsky, E. I., Sagar, W. L. and Morrison, C. F. (1964). “Effect of shape and
volume on the capacity of model piles in sand.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
1(4), 189-204.
Roy, M., Blanchet, R., Tavenas, F. and La Rochelle, P. (1981). “Behaviour of a
sensitive clay during pile driving.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 18(1), 67-85.
Roy, M. and Lemieux, M. (1986). “Long-term behaviour of reconsolidated clay
around a driven pile.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 23(1), 23-29.
Russell, A. R. and Khalili, N. (2002). “Drained cavity expansion in sands exhibiting
particle crushing.” International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods
in Geomechanics, 26, 323-340.
Salgado, R., Mitchell, J. K. and Jamiolkowski, M. (1997). “Cavity expansion and
penetration resistance in sand.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
204
Samson, L. and Authier, J. (1986). “Change in pile capacity with time: case
histories.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 23, 174-180.
Sayed, S. M. and Hamed, M. A. (1987). “Expansion of cavities in layered elastic
system.” International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in
Geomechanics, 11, 203-213.
Shen, B. H. (2001). “Lecture 18: statically pressed pile (in Chinese).” Construction
Technology, 30(10), 40-42.
Shi, P. D. (1999). “Practical manual for pile foundations (in Chinese).” ISBN
7-112-03796-4, China Building Industry Press, China.
Skempton, A. W. (1986). “Standard penetration test procedures and the effects in
sands of overburden pressure, relative density, particle size, ageing and
overconsolidation.” Géotechnique, 36(3), 425-447.
Soderberg, L. O. (1962). “Consolidation theory applied to foundation pile time
effects.” Géotechnique, 12(3), 217-225.
Song, R. (2001). “Penetration mechanism of jacked piles and discussion on some
familiar problems (in Chinese).” Internet Resources.
Steenfelt, J. S., Randolph, M. F. and Wroth, C. P. (1981). “Instrumented model piles
jacked into clay.” Proceedings of 10th International Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, Sweden, 857-864.
Tabucanon, J. T., Airey, D. W. and Poulos, H. G. (1995). “Pile skin friction in sands
from constant normal stiffness tests.” Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM, 18(3),
350-364.
Tavenas, F. A. (1971). “Load tests results on friction piles in sand.” Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 8(1), 7-22.
Tavenas, F. A. and Audy, R. (1972). “Limitations of the driving formula for
predicting bearing capacities of piles in sand.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
9(1), 47-62.
Teh, C. I. and Houlsby, G. T. (1991). “An analytical study of the cone penetration test
in clay.” Géotechnique, 41(1), 17-34.
Tu, Y. M. (2002). “Study on the behavior of pile foundation under overload (in
205
Chinese).” China Civil Engineering Journal, 35(1), 79-82.

Vaziri, H. H. and Wang, X. (1993). “Theoretical solutions for the problem of a
cylindrical cavity expansion in a Mohr-Coulomb material.” Computers and
Structures, 48(5), 961-962.
Vesic, A. S. (1970). “Tests on instrumented piles, Ogeechee River site.” Journal of
the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, 96(SM2), 561-584.
Vesic, A. S. (1972). “Expansion of cavities in infinite soil mass.” Journal of the Soil
Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, 98(SM3), 265-290.
Vesic, A. S. (1977). “On the significance of residual loads for load response of
piles.” Proceedings of 9th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Japan, 374-379.
Vesic, A. S. and Clough, G. W. (1968). “Behavior of granular materials under high
stresses.” Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE,
94(SM3), 661-688.
Wang, Q. T., Gong, X. N. and Zeng, G. X. (1992). “Pile jacking in a soil mass with
different elastic moduli in tension and compression (in Chinese).” Journal of
Zhejiang University, 26(6), 678-687.
Wang, Z. Q. (2000). “The Chinese CPT and the prospect of penetration tests (in
Chinese).” Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 22(5), 517-522.
Webb, D. L. (1976). “The behaviour of bored piles in weathered diabase.”
Weber, L. (1989). “Test driving of 75m long H bearing-piles in China.” Geotechnical
Engineering, 20(2), 85-101.
Wei, J. (1994). “Theoretical method for determining the bearing capacity of pile
from static cone penetration (in Chinese).” Chinese Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, 16(3), 103-111.
Whiteside, P. G. D. (1986). “Horizontal plate loading tests in completely decomposed
granite.” Hong Kong Engineer, October, 7-14.
Wu, L., Wen, J. and Yan, J. L. (2001). “Elementary discussion on penetration of
jacked piles (in Chinese).” West China Exploration Engineering, supplement.
206
Yang, J. and Li, X. S. (2004). “State-dependent strength of sands from the

perspective of unified modeling.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Yao, X. Q. and Hu, Z. X. (1997). “Estimating method for excess pore-water pressure
developed during pile driving (in Chinese).” Rock and soil mechanics, 18(4),
30-35.
Yasufuku, N. and Hyde, A. F. L. (1995). “Pile end-bearing capacity in crushable
sands.” Géotechnique, 45(4), 663-676.
Yasufuku, N., Ochiai, H. and Ohno, S. (2001). Pile end-bearing capacity of sand
related to soil compressibility.” Soils and Foundations, 41(4), 59-71.
Yeung, A. T. (2002). “Hydraulic jacking of sheetpiles: a case history.” Proceedings
of the Seminar on Jack Piling in Hong Kong, March, Hong Kong.
Yu, H. S. (2000). “Cavity expansion methods in geomechanics.” ISBN
0-412-79990-1, Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands.
Yu, H. S. and Houlsby, G. T. (1991). “Finite cavity expansion in dilatant soils:
loading analysis.” Géotechnique, 41(2), 173-183.
Yu, H. S. and Houlsby, G. T. (1995). “A large strain analytical solution for cavity
contraction in dilatant soils.” International Journal for Numerical and Analytical
Methods in Geomechanics, 19, 793-811.
Yu, H. S. and Mitchell, J. K. (1998). “Analysis of cone resistance: review of
methods.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE,
124(2), 140-149.
Yu, H. S., Schnaid, F. and Collins, I. F. (1996). “Analysis of cone pressuremeter tests
in sands.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 122(8), 623-632.
Yu, Q. and Hu, K. X. (2000). “Analysis of subsidence of building caused by static
press-in pile with anchor rods on disposing ground (in Chinese).” Industrial
Construction, 30(10), 76-78.
Zeitlen, J. G. and Paikowsky, S. (1982). “New design correlations for piles in sands.
Discussion.” Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE,
108(GT11), 1515-1518.
207
Zhai, Y. (2000). “Fundamental shear behavior of saturated loose fills of completely

decomposed rock.” Ph.D. thesis, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Zhang, J. R. (1994). “Analysis of spherical cavity expansion in sands by energy
conservation and its application (in Chinese).” China Civil Engineering Journal,
27(4), 37-44.
Zhang, J. R. (1995). “Evaluation of excess pore water pressure under cavity
expansion in saturated compact sands (in Chinese).” Journal of Wuhan University
of Technology, 17(2), 94-96.
Zhang, J. R. (2002). “Problem of spherical cavity expansion in granular soil under
high stresses (in Chinese).” Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering,
21(8), 1209-1214.
Zhang, P. and Liu, R. H. (2000). “The additional settlement of anchoring pressure
pile and some preventive measures (in Chinese).” Industrial Construction, 30(1),
31-33.
Zhang, Y., Hou, J. Y. and Hao, J. M. (1998). “An application of static-force for piled
foundation under soft soils (in Chinese).” Journal of Shenyang Architectural and
Civil Engineering Institute, 14(4), 376-379.
Zhou, Y., Rajapakse, R. K. N. D. and Graham, J. (1998). “Coupled consolidation of a
porous medium with a cylindrical or a spherical cavity.” International Journal for
Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 22, 449-475.
Zhu, H. and Chang, M. F. (2002). “Load transfer curves along bored piles
considering modulus degradation.” Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental
208

Pile Jacking FullText

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Pile Jacking FullText

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Behavior of large capacity jacked piles= 大荷載靜壓樁的

Author(s) Yu, Feng; 俞峰

Issue Date 2004

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for

Behavior of Large Capacity Jacked Piles

for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Pile jacking is an environmentally friendly pile-installation system. It was

Word count: 476

I declare that this thesis represents my own work, except

where due acknowledgement is made; and that it has not been

previously included in a thesis, dissertation or report submitted to

this University or to any other institution for a degree, diploma or

I would like to take this opportunity to express sincere appreciation to my

Chapter 2 Literature Review 6

Chapter 3 Test Program 40

Chapter 5 Analysis on Behavior of Pile Base 143

Chapter 6 Concluding Remarks 186

Table 2-1. List of instrumented jacked-piles reported by other researchers 22-23

Figure 1-1. The geological map of Hong Kong 2

1.1 Research Background

Most commercial and residential buildings in Hong Kong are high-rise

Figure 1-1. The geological map of Hong Kong

1.2 Research Objective and Scope

1.3 Layout of This Thesis

The framework of the thesis will be as follows. Firstly, a review on previous

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

Experimental performance of axially compressed piles has been widely studied

2.1 Shaft and Base Capacity of Driven and Bored Piles

Broms and Hellman (1968) introduced a device capable of separating the

under large shear displacement.

2.2 Residual Stress and Critical Depth

2.3 Excess Pore Pressure and Time-related Pile’s Capacity

Observations on excess pore-water pressure and subsequent variation of pile

Weber (1989) reported the time-related performance of H-piles up to 75 m long

2.4 Jacked Piles in Clayey and Sandy Soils

Table 2-1. List of instrumented jacked-piles reported by other researchers

Chin and Poulos (1996) conducted displacement-controlled cyclic tests in

Table 2-1. (Continued) List of instrumented jacked-piles reported by other researchers

As seen above section on the review of technical publications, researches in

2.5 Applications of Pile-jacking in China

Table 2-2. Relevant pile-jacking projects in China (Shen, 2001)

applicable to concrete foundations having short piles or shallow foundations. Anchor

2.6 Jack-piling in Hong Kong

Railway project at Tsim Sha Tsui: Sheetpiles of 24 m long were jacked at a

2.7 Cavity Expansion Theory and Pile’s Behavior

In the past decades, several analytical methods were developed during to

movements due to pile-jacking. The lateral displacement of Tresca soils could be

2.8 Alternative Theoretical Simulation of Pile’s Behavior

In addition to the cavity-expansion theory, numerous methods are available for

2.9 Relation between Penetration Tests and Pile’s Capacity

CHAPTER 3: TEST PROGRAM

3.1 Site Conditions

3.2 Test Setup

Table 3-1. List of steel H-piles involved in the study

Figure 3-1. Location of the three field-test sites

Marine deposit (1.1 m) 6

39 N>200 below this level

Figure 3-2a. Ground profile of BH1 at Site 1

Figure 3-2b. Ground profile of BH2 at Site 1

Figure 3-2c. Ground profile of BH3 at Site 1

N>200 below this level

Figure 3-2d. Ground profile of BH4 at Site 2

N>200 below this level