Proceedings of the Institution of

Civil Engineers
Geotechnical Engineering 160
October 2007 Issue GE4
Pages 237–242
doi: 10.1680/geng.2007.160.4.237

Paper 14833
Received 26/06/2006
Accepted 04/04/2007
Keywords: field testing &
monitoring/foundations/piles &
piling
Guo Hui Lei
Associate Professor,
Department of Civil
Engineering, Hohai University,
Jiangsu, P. R. China
Charles W. W. Ng
Professor, Department of Civil
Engineering, The Hong Kong
University of Science and
Technology, Kowloon, Hong Kong

Rectangular barrettes and circular bored piles in saprolites

G. H. Lei MPhil, PhD and C. W. W. Ng MSc, PhD, CEng, MICE, MHKIE, MASCE

In the last two decades, many full-scale compression
loading tests have been performed to verify the design
parameters of the shaft resistance of rectangular
barrettes and large-diameter bored piles founding in
deep-seated thick saprolites in Hong Kong. In this study,
comparisons are made between the results from the
investigations of the behaviour of the mobilised shaft
resistance with respect to the relative pile–soil
movements (i.e. local displacements), the in situ soil
properties (i.e. standard penetration test values), and
the effective stress principle (with which the â values are
estimated). Also, the behaviour of the mobilised shaft
resistance for the barrettes and bored piles in Hong
Kong is compared with that elsewhere.
NOTATION
COV coefficient of variation
Ñ mean SPT value estimated over the whole saprolite
layer
â Bjerrum–Burland coefficient ¼ ôs =ó9v
ó9v mean effective vertical stress of saprolite layer
ôs maximum unit shaft resistance at pile–saprolite
interface
1. INTRODUCTION
In Hong Kong, excavated rectangular barrettes and large-
diameter bored piles are commonly adopted as the foundations
for tall buildings and heavy infrastructure projects. The
founding strata for these piles are usually sound rocks, because
current design procedures assume a heavy reliance on end-
bearing. Where competent rock is too deep to reach
economically, floating piles, founding in the overlying deep-
seated thick saprolites and relying on shaft resistance, are
designed. However, design parameters for the shaft resistance
must be verified by full-scale pile loading tests before they are
used in the final design. Without performing at least a test on
site, unit shaft resistance (i.e. side shear stress) in excess of
10 kPa is not normally permitted by the local regulations. 1
In the last two decades, many full-scale compression loading
tests on instrumented barrettes and bored piles have been
performed in Hong Kong to verify design parameters. The
authors were heavily involved with the construction, testing
and analyses of three barrettes and 12 bored piles. Among
these, one barrette was tested at Kowloon Bay for purely
research purposes, 2 and the remainder were tested for the West
Rail Project. In addition to these pile loading tests with which
the authors were involved, another 12 barrette and 16 bored
pile loading tests performed in Hong Kong were also critically
reviewed and analysed. Details of the construction, load testing
and interpreted test results of the 15 barrettes are reported by
Lei 3 and Ng and Lei.4 For the 28 bored piles, shaft resistance
was analysed by Li5 and Ng et al.,6 and capacity and failure
load criteria were studied by Yau 7 and Ng et al.8
In this study, rectangular barrettes and circular bored piles,
which have their shaft resistance either fully mobilised (rating
A, as explained later) or substantially mobilised (rating B), are
further reviewed, with the emphasis on a comparison of their
behaviour in terms of shaft resistance in Hong Kong saprolites
themselves and in soils elsewhere.
2. TYPICAL GEOLOGICAL CONDITIONS IN HONG
KONG
The predominant rock types in Hong Kong are granitic,
volcanic and sedimentary rocks. 9 Because of the subtropical
climate, with high temperature and heavy rainfall in the
summer, chemical and physical weathering processes have
been very active and have resulted in the formation of mantles
of alluvial, residual and saprolitic soils, which are up to 50 m
thick underlying, typically, fill and marine deposits and
overlying fresh rocks. The saprolites are also known locally as
the Grade IV and V weathered rocks, which have decomposed
to soil-like materials, but which retain the original texture,
fabric and structure of the parent rocks. 10,11 For a relatively
detailed description of the geological formations of urban
Hong Kong and the geotechnical phenomena associated with
piling in the various geological formations, see Malone. 12
3. INTERPRETATION OF TEST DATA
3.1. Unit shaft resistance
Static maintained compression loading tests were carried out
on all the above-mentioned database barrettes and bored piles.
For details of the site locations, ground conditions,
instrumentation and loading test procedures for these piles, see
the source references.
In order to investigate the shaft resistance behaviour at the
pile–saprolite interface, unit shaft resistance was interpreted
from the test data using a consistent method. The unit shaft
resistance is defined as the side shear stress acting on the pile

Geotechnical Engineering 160 Issue GE4 Rectangular barrettes and circular bored piles in saprolites Lei • Ng 237

Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF EXETER] on [11/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 shaft. For a pile segment in saprolite, the unit shaft resistance
was calculated by dividing the axial load difference between
the two ends of the segment by the perimeter surface area of
the segment. The axial load distribution along the depth of a
pile was obtained by multiplying the average vertical strain
measured from readings of the strain gauges at each level by a
derived pile modulus. The vertical strains were calculated as
the differences between the readings and the initial readings
taken just before the loading test. The derived pile modulus is a
composite axial rigidity of pile concrete and steel. The Young’s
modulus of the pile concrete was obtained by calibration
against the applied load at the pile head and the average
vertical strain at the top set of gauges. A best-fitting
correlation between the Young’s modulus of pile concrete and
the measured vertical strains at the virgin loading was applied
to derive the pile modulus for calculating the axial load
distribution. The virgin loading is one in which the applied
loads are greater in magnitude than all previous loads at the
time at which the load was applied during testing. In deriving
the unit shaft resistance, the actual as-built cross-sectional area
of the piles from the concreting record was considered.
In order to investigate the degree of mobilisation of the pile
shaft resistance in saprolites, local displacement (i.e. relative
pile–soil movement) was also interpreted from the test data.
The local displacement is that deduced at the vertical centre of
the pile segment in the saprolite layer. It was calculated by
subtracting the measured pile head movement from the
shortening between the pile head and the mid-height of the
segment. The shortening was estimated using measured vertical
strains.
3.2. Mobilisation rating system
Among many other factors, it is well recognised that the
magnitude of the shaft resistance mobilised along the pile–soil
interface is also a function of the local displacement. A
minimum amount of local displacement is needed to mobilise
the shaft resistance fully. In many circumstances, full capacity
of the shaft resistance may not necessarily be achieved in full-
scale pile loading tests. In order to compare the interpreted
values of the shaft resistance among the reviewed test piles at
similar degrees of mobilisation, a simple three-grade
mobilisation rating (MR) system 6 is adopted to classify the
degree of mobilisation of the shaft resistance.
Mobilisation rating A (i.e. MR ¼ A) is assigned to test results
that fall within 10% of the ultimate unit shaft resistance
determined using the Brinch Hansen 80% criterion. 13 This
defines failure as the stress (or the unit shaft resistance) at
which the strain (or the local displacement) is equal to four
times the strain at 20% smaller stress. The criterion assumes a
hyperbolic relationship between stress and strain.
Rating B is assigned to results that do not achieve a rating of A
but which achieve or have been extrapolated to a local
displacement of at least 1% of the diameter of a bored pile or
equivalent diameter of a barrette assessed on an equal area
basis. A displacement of 1% of the pile diameter is used as a
benchmark because of the availability of test results recorded
at and extrapolated to this displacement in the literature. It is
also defined by GEO1 as corresponding to ‘substantial’
mobilisation of the shaft resistance capacity, although not
238 Geotechnical Engineering 160 Issue GE4 Rectangular barrettes and circular bored piles in saprolites
Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF EXETER] on [11/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
necessarily full mobilisation of the capacity. Rating C is
assigned to results in which the degree of mobilisation is
unknown, or the local displacement is less than 1% of the
diameter of the pile.
The mobilisation ratings assigned to the test piles have been
shown in Ng et al.6 and Ng and Lei.4 Of the reviewed piles,
seven barrettes (identified as B6–B9, B12, B13 and G2 in the
source reference) and 11 bored piles (P1–P3, P18, P20, P22,
P23a, P23b and P26–P28) were assigned rating A, and seven
barrettes (B1, B3–B5, B10, B11 and G1) and five bored piles
(P4, P5, P8, P9 and P14) were assigned rating B. These barrettes
and bored piles have their shaft resistance fully or substantially
mobilised at the pile–saprolite interface. All of the barrettes
were founded in granitic saprolites, and they were constructed
under bentonite slurry using either hydraulic/mechanical grab
or hydrofraise. Two barrettes (G1 and G2) were post-grouted at
the shaft in the granitic saprolites. Of the 11 bored piles with
rating A, four were founded in granitic saprolite, four in
volcanic saprolite, and three in metasedimentary saprolite. The
bored piles were constructed using rope-operated grab and/or
reverse circulation drill (RCD). Stability of the excavated pile
bores was maintained by the use of either temporary casings or
bentonite slurry. Piles P18, P20 and P23 were post-grouted at
the shaft in the granitic, volcanic and metasedimentary
saprolites respectively. A summary of these barrettes and bored
piles is given in Table 1. It should be noted that the results for
the bored piles constructed under bentonite slurry are very
limited and generally of poor quality. 5–8
4. MOBILISATION OF SHAFT RESISTANCE
Figure 1 shows the mobilisation of the unit shaft resistance
with local displacement for the barrettes and for the bored piles
constructed under water, with MR ¼ A and B: that is, with the
mobilised maximum unit shaft resistance greater and less than
90% of the ultimate unit shaft resistance respectively. As
expected, a fairly high degree of scatter of the mobilisation
curves is observed. From the shapes of the shaft resistance
mobilisation curves, no dilative soil behaviour can be
identified, as otherwise it would be expected to produce a peak
value of unit shaft resistance followed by strain-softening
rather than unit shaft resistance gradually increasing towards
an asymptote. The observed behaviour may be due to the
method of testing. Dilative and strain-softening behaviour may
be more easily identified if displacement-controlled tests are
carried out rather than maintained loading (i.e. stress-
controlled) procedures.
For nearly all of the barrettes and bored piles with MR ¼ A, at
least 90% of the ultimate unit shaft resistance was mobilised at
an average value of local displacement equal to about 20 mm
(see Fig. 1). However, for most of the barrettes and bored piles
with MR ¼ B, the unit shaft resistance still tends to increase
with increasing local displacement after 20 mm. Therefore, in
general, a moderately conservative local displacement for the
mobilisation of the ultimate shaft resistance of the barrettes
and bored piles in saprolites can be identified to be about
20 mm.
In Singaporean and Malaysian residual soils, the shaft
resistance of the bored piles was observed to be fully mobilised
at local displacements of 4–10 mm 14 and 4–7 mm 15
Lei • Ng
 Pile type Method of Saprolite type Sample size Ñ ôs /Ñ â ¼ ôs =ó9v
construction
95% Average COV 95% Average COV
confidence confidence
range range

Deep Construction by grab= Granitic 6A 24–119 1.18–1.42 1.30 0.12 0.16–0.36 0.26 0.49
rectangular hydrofraise under 6B 50–132 0.91–1.59 1.25 0.34 0.22–0.38 0.29 0.37
barrettes 3,4 bentonite slurry 6 A + 6 B 24–132 1.11–1.45 1.28 0.24 0.21–0.34 0.27 0.41
Shaft-grouted after Granitic 1A+1B 77 1.88 1.64 – 0.47 0.50 –
construction by 166 1.40 0.52
hydrofraise under
bentonite slurry
Large- Construction by RCD Granitic 1 A + 3 B 77–200 0.00–1.30 0.70 1.00 0.10–0.20 0.20 0.50
diameter under bentonite slurry
(1.0–1.5 m) Construction by grab/ Granitic 3 A + 3 B 65–140 0.60–1.30 1.00 0.40 0.20–0.40 0.30 0.33
bored RCD under water All saprolites: 8 A + 5 B 35–140 0.80–1.60 1.20 0.67 0.20–0.40 0.30 0.67
piles 5–7
with/without granitic, volcanic,
temporary casing metasedimentary
Shaft-grouted after construction by grab 3A 44–131 0.60–4.10 2.30 0.70 0.40–0.80 0.60 0.33
under water with temporary casing (all
saprolites)

Note: RCD ¼ reverse circulation drilling technique; A denotes MR ¼ A; B denotes MR ¼ B.

Table 1. Statistical results of maximum unit shaft resistance of barrettes and bored piles in Hong Kong saprolites

Kulhawy 18 suggest that the mobilisation of ultimate shaft

250
B Granitic resistance occurs at local displacements of 5–10 mm for piles
Unit shaft resistance: kPa

200 Granitic (shaft-grouted) in general. Generally speaking, compared with the cases
elsewhere, in Hong Kong larger local displacement is required
150 for full mobilisation of the shaft resistance capacity of barrettes
B
and bored piles. In other words, the ‘rate’ of shaft resistance
100 B BB B
mobilisation for these piles in Hong Kong is slower. The
50 B variation of local displacement may be due to the soil type, the
varying density and confining pressure, or the construction
0 workmanship, involving unknown levels of disturbance.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Local displacement: mm
(a) It is also shown in Fig. 1 that, compared with plain barrettes
and bored piles, shaft-grouted barrettes and bored piles show a
250 Granitic
Granitic (shaft-grouted) relatively stiffer unit shaft resistance response to local
Volcanic
Unit shaft resistance: kPa

Volcanic (shaft-grouted) displacement and a higher ultimate unit shaft resistance. This is
200
Metasedimentary because grouting increases both the lateral pressure (i.e. normal
Metasedimentary (shaft-grouted)
150 stress) on the pile–soil interface and the shear strength of the
interface.
100
B
5. MAXIMUM UNIT SHAFT RESISTANCE
50
Figure 2 shows the relationship between the maximum
0 mobilised unit shaft resistance, ôs , and the interpreted mean
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 uncorrected standard penetration test (SPT) values, Ñ, of
Local displacement: mm
saprolites for the barrettes and for the bored piles constructed
(b)
under water, with MR ¼ A and B. For plain barrettes (see Fig.
Fig. 1. Mobilisation of unit shaft resistance with local 2(a)), the maximum unit shaft resistance generally lies between
displacement: (a) for barrettes; (b) for bored piles 1.0Ñ and 1.5Ñ (kPa), with an average value of 1.28Ñ, a 95%
constructed under water (B denotes MR ¼ B, otherwise confidence range of 1.11Ñ to 1.45Ñ, and a coefficient of
MR ¼ A) variation (COV) of 0.24. The 95% confidence range of the
average value, used for assessing the precision and reliability
of the interpreted results from field measurements, is the
respectively. From three bored piles in sand constructed using interval for which there is a 95% chance that the average value
slurry, Touma and Reese 16 observed that failure of the sides of falls within the range. 19 The COV value, defined by the
the pile shaft takes place at a local displacement of about reciprocal of the ratio of the average value to its standard
10 mm. The Canadian Geotechnical Society 17 (CGS) and deviation, is an estimate of the scatter of the interpreted results

Geotechnical Engineering 160 Issue GE4 Rectangular barrettes and circular bored piles in saprolites Lei • Ng 239

Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF EXETER] on [11/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Maximum unit shaft resistance, τs: kPa
bored piles in Hong Kong is generally low. It was observed that
300
τs/Ñ ⫽ 3·0 2·5 2·0 τs/Ñ ⫽ 1·5 τs/Ñ ⫽ 1·0 the maximum unit shaft resistance can be as high as 2.0Ñ (kPa)
250 for a barrette in weathered granite in Singapore, 24 and 2.7Ñ for
B
bored piles normally constructed by rotary drilling rigs and
200
short-flight augers in the same soil; 25 2.0Ñ for bored piles
τs/Ñ ⫽ 0·5
150 constructed generally dry in residual soils derived from
B
sedimentary rocks (consisting mainly of mudstone and
100 B B B
B sandstone) of the Jurong Formation in Singapore; 15 and 2.3Ñ
B Granitic
50 for bored piles constructed under both dry and wet conditions
Granitic (shaft-grouted)
0
in residual soils of weathered metasedimentary rocks of the
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Kenny Hill Formation in Malaysia. 14 From loading tests on two
Mean SPT value, Ñ
barrettes in Singapore, 26,27 it was observed that the maximum
(a)
unit shaft resistance in old alluvium is also greater than 1.0Ñ.
Maximum unit shaft resistance, τs: kPa

300 The lower maximum mobilised unit shaft resistance obtained in

τs/Ñ ⫽ 3·0 2·5 2·0 τs/Ñ ⫽ 1·5 τs/Ñ ⫽ 1·0
Hong Kong may be caused by the difference in construction
250
practice.
200

150 τs/Ñ ⫽ 0·5 Figure 3 shows the relationship between the maximum
Granitic mobilised unit shaft resistance, ôs , and the mean effective
100 B Granitic (shaft-grouted)
B B Volcanic vertical stress, ó9v , at the mid-height of the corresponding
B Volcanic (shaft-grouted)
50 Metasedimentary
saprolite layer for the barrettes and for the bored piles
B
Metasedimentary (shaft-grouted) constructed under water, with MR ¼ A and B. For plain
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 barrettes, the Bjerrum–Burland â values 28–30 lie between 0.11
Mean SPT value, Ñ and 0.44, with an average value of 0.27, a 95% confidence
(b) range of 0.21–0.34, and a COV value of 0.41 (see also Table 1).
For the bored piles in granitic saprolites (as shown by the
Fig. 2. Relationship between maximum unit shaft resistance closed circles in Fig. 3(b)), the â values lie between 0.11 and
and mean SPT value, Ñ: (a) for barrettes; (b) for bored piles
constructed under water (B denotes MR ¼ B, otherwise 0.49, with an average value of 0.3, a 95% confidence range of
MR ¼ A) 0.2–0.4, and a COV value of 0.33. For all the bored piles in
granitic, volcanic and metasedimentary saprolites, the â values
lie between 0.11 and 0.66, with an average value of 0.3, a 95%
from the field measurements. The larger the COV value, the
more scattered are the results. These statistical results for
Maximum unit shaft resistance, τs: kPa

maximum unit shaft resistance for the barrettes and bored piles 300 β ⫽ 0·6 β ⫽ 0·5 β ⫽ 0·4
Granitic
with MR ¼ A and/or B are presented in Table 1. 250
Granitic
B β ⫽ 0·3
(shaft-grouted)
200 β ⫽ 1·0
The lower-bound value of the maximum unit shaft resistance
β ⫽ 0·2
for the barrettes (see Fig. 2(a)) is identical to the lower-bound 150
value of 1.0Ñ for bored piles in sand by Meyerhof 20 and B
B
100 B B β ⫽ 0·1
CGS. 17 However, this is different from the cases for bored piles B
B
constructed under water. For bored piles in granitic saprolites 50
(as shown by the closed circles in Fig. 2(b)), the maximum unit
0
shaft resistance lies in a relatively wide range of 0.5Ñ to 1.5Ñ 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
(kPa), with an average value of 1.0Ñ, a 95% confidence range Mean effective vertical stress: kPa
(a)
of 0.6Ñ to 1.3Ñ, and a COV value of 0.4. For all of the bored
Granitic
Maximum unit shaft resistance, τs: kPa

piles in granitic, volcanic and metasedimentary saprolites, the 300 Granitic (post-grouted) β ⫽ 0·5 β ⫽ 0·4
maximum unit shaft resistance generally lies between 0.5Ñ and Volcanic
250 Volcanic (post-grouted) β ⫽ 0·3
3.0Ñ (kPa), with an average value of 1.2Ñ, a 95% confidence Metasedimentary
range of 0.8Ñ to 1.6Ñ, and a COV value of 0.67. Clearly the 200 Metasedimentary (post-grouted)
β ⫽ 1·0 β ⫽ 0·6 β ⫽ 0·2
results for the bored piles are more scattered than those for the 150
barrettes, and the lower-bound value of the maximum unit
shaft resistance is smaller. Generally, the average value of 100 B B β ⫽ 0·1
B
ultimate unit shaft resistance mobilised with respect to the 50 B
B
mean SPT value for the barrettes is comparable to that for
0
bored piles constructed under water. This is consistent with the 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
results from various comparative studies performed Mean effective vertical stress: kPa
elsewhere, 21–23 which report no significant difference in (b)
performance with the use of bentonite slurry.
Fig. 3. Relationship between maximum unit shaft resistance
and mean effective vertical stress: (a) for barrettes; (b) for
However, compared with the barrettes and bored piles in
bored piles constructed under water (B denotes MR ¼ B,
tropically weathered soils in other Asian countries, the otherwise MR ¼ A)
maximum mobilised unit shaft resistance of the barrettes and

240 Geotechnical Engineering 160 Issue GE4 Rectangular barrettes and circular bored piles in saprolites Lei • Ng

Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF EXETER] on [11/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 confidence range of 0.2–0.4, and a COV value of 0.67.
Generally, similar to the ôs /Ñ value, the results for the bored
piles are more scattered than those for the barrettes, and the
average â value (¼ 0.27) for the barrettes is close to the
average â value (¼ 0.3) for the bored piles constructed under
water.
From a loading test on a barrette in a residual soil named
Guadalupe Tuff in the Philippines, a relatively low â value of
about 0.2 was back-calculated by Fellenius et al. 31 For the
design of bored piles in loose sand, Davies and Chan 32
recommend â values of 0.15–0.3, and for the design of cast-in-
place piles in loose sand, CGS 17 recommend â values of 0.2–
0.4. For the design of drilled shafts in sands, O’Neill and
Reese 33 recommend that â values decrease with the square root
of depth (< 26 m), but that a constant minimum â value of
0.25 for deeper levels be applied. This minimum â value would
be implemented over the lower sections of the deep barrettes
and bored piles in Hong Kong. Compared with these
recommended â values, the range of the â values for the
barrettes and bored piles in saprolites in Hong Kong is
comparable only to the â values for the design of bored piles in
loose sand overseas.
For the shaft-grouted barrettes G1 (Ñ ¼ 166) and G2 (Ñ ¼ 77),
the â values are 0.52 and 0.47 respectively, giving an average
value of about 0.5, which is about 1.34 times the average â
value of 0.37 for the plain barrettes in granitic saprolites with
Ñ values greater than 77. The increase in the â value due to
shaft grouting is consistent with the increase in the ôs /Ñ value,
because the average ôs /Ñ value for the shaft-grouted barrettes
is about 1.28 times that for the plain barrettes (see Table 1). In
general, the average â and ôs /Ñ values for shaft-grouted
barrettes are about 1.3 times those for plain barrettes. However,
according to the limited data, the grouting effect on improving
the shaft resistance for the barrettes is not as effective as that
for the bored piles in saprolites in Hong Kong (see Table 1) and
in clay and sand in Bangkok, 34 because the measured
maximum mobilised unit shaft resistance of the shaft-grouted
bored piles is approximately double that of the non-grouted
bored piles. From loading tests on a bored pile and a deep
barrette in Egypt, Hamza and Ibrahim 35 also observed that the
unit shaft resistance derived in the grouted sand segment is
about 1.5 times that derived in the non-grouted sand segment.
6. CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions can be drawn from the comparisons
of the interpreted shaft resistance behaviour for barrettes
constructed under bentonite and bored piles under water in
Hong Kong and barrettes and bored piles elsewhere.
(a) For the barrettes and bored piles in saprolites in Hong
Kong, a moderately conservative local displacement can be
identified to be approximately 20 mm for the mobilisation
of the shaft resistance capacity. This local displacement in
Hong Kong is relatively larger than that elsewhere,
according to the limited number of documented case
histories.
(b) The average ôs /Ñ and â values for barrettes are 1.28 and
0.27, and for bored piles 1.2 and 0.30 respectively. The
mobilised shaft resistance for the barrettes is comparable to
Geotechnical Engineering 160 Issue GE4 Rectangular barrettes and circular bored piles in saprolites
Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF EXETER] on [11/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
that for bored piles in Hong Kong, although the results for
bored piles are more scattered than those for barrettes.
(c) Compared with barrettes and bored piles in old alluvium,
residual soils and weathered granites in Singapore and
bored piles in residual soils in Malaysia, the ôs /Ñ values for
barrettes and bored piles in saprolites in Hong Kong are
generally low. The range of â values for barrettes and
bored piles in Hong Kong is comparable only to the â
values recommended for the design of bored piles in loose
sand elsewhere.
(d ) Compared with non-grouted barrettes and bored piles,
shaft-grouted barrettes and bored piles show a relatively
stiffer unit shaft resistance response to local displacement
and a higher ultimate unit shaft resistance.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research project is supported by a research grant (HIA96/
97.EG03) from the Hong Kong University of Science and
Technology and a research grant (CRC96/99.EG04) from the
Research Grant Council of Hong Kong.
REFERENCES
1. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING OFFICE (GEO). Pile Design and
Construction. Geotechnical Engineering Office, Department
of Civil Engineering of the Hong Kong Government of the
Special Administrative Region, China, 1996, GEO
Publication No. 1/96.
2. NG C. W. W., RIGBY D. B., NG S. W. L. and LEI G. H. Field
studies of well-instrumented barrette in Hong Kong.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
ASCE, 2000, 126, No. 1, 60–73.
3. LEI G. H. Behaviour of Excavated Rectangular Piles
(Barrettes) in Granitic Saprolites. PhD thesis, Hong Kong
University of Science and Technology, 2001.
4. NG C. W. W. and LEI G. H. Performance of long rectangular
barrettes in granitic saprolites. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 2003, 129, No. 8,
685–696.
5. LI J. H. M. Side shear resistance of large diameter bored
piles in weathered geomaterials. MPhil thesis, Hong Kong
University of Science and Technology, 2000.
6. NG C. W. W., LI J. H. M. and YAU T. L. Y. Behaviour of large
diameter floating bored piles in saprolitic soils. Soils and
Foundations, 2001, 41, No. 6, 37–52.
7. YAU T. L. Y. Capacity and Failure Criteria of Bored Piles in
Soils and Rocks. MPhil thesis, Hong Kong University of
Science and Technology, 2000.
8. NG C. W. W., YAU T. L. Y., LI J. H. M. and TANG W. H. New
failure load criterion for large diameter bored piles in
weathered geomaterials. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 2001, 127, No. 6,
488–498.
9. ALLEN P. M. and STEPHENS E. A. Report on the Geological
Survey of Hong Kong, 1967–1969. Hong Kong
Government Press, 1971.
10. BRAND E. W. Written discussion: evolution of a
classification scheme for weathered rock. Proceedings of
the 2nd International Conference on Geomechanics in
Tropical Soils, Singapore, 1988, vol. 2, pp. 515–518.
11. GEOTECHNICAL CONTROL OFFICE (GCO). Guide to Rock and Soil
Descriptions (Geoguide 3). Geotechnical Control Office,
Department of Civil Engineering of the Hong Kong
Lei • Ng 241
 Government of the Special Administrative Region, China,
1988.
12. MALONE A. W. Geotechnical phenomena associated with
piling in Hong Kong. Quarterly Journal of Engineering
Geology, 1990, 23, No. 4, 289–305.
13. BRINCH HANSEN J. Discussion on ‘Hyperbolic stress–strain
response: cohesive soil’, by R. L. Kondner. Journal of Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, ASCE, 1963, 89,
No. SM4, 241–242.
14. BALAKRISHNAN E. G., BALASUBRAMANIAM A. S. and PHIEN-
WEJ N. Load deformation analysis of bored piles in residual
weathered formation. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 1999, 125, No. 2,
122–131.
15. CHANG M. F. and BROMS B. B. Design of bored piles in
residual soils based on field-performance data. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 1991, 28, No. 2, 200–209.
16. TOUMA F. T. and REESE L. C. Behaviour of bored piles in
sand. Journal of Geotechnical Division, ASCE, 1974, 100,
No. 7, 749–761.
17. CANADIAN GEOTECHNICAL SOCIETY (CGS). Canadian
Foundation Engineering Manual, 4th edn. Technical
Committee on Foundations, Canadian Geotechnical
Society, Bitech Publishers, Richmond, BC, 1995.
18. KULHAWY F. H. Limiting tip and side resistance: fact or
fallacy? Proceedings of the Symposium on Analysis and
Design of Pile Foundations, ASCE, New York, 1984, pp.
80–98.
19. RAWLINGS J. O., PANTULA S. G. and DICKEY D. A. Applied
Regression Analysis: A Research Tool, 2nd edn. Springer-
Verlag, New York, 1998.
20. MEYERHOF G. G. Bearing capacity and settlement of piled
foundations. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division,
ASCE, 1976, 102, No. GT3, 197–228.
21. BURLAND J. B. Discussion (Session 4: Drilling muds). In
Proceedings of the Symposium on Grouts and Drilling Muds
in Engineering Practice. Butterworths, London, 1963, pp.
223–225.
22. KIENBERGER H. Diaphragm walls as load bearing
foundations. In Proceedings of the Conference on
Diaphragm Walls and Anchorages. Institution of Civil
Engineers, London, 1975, pp. 19–21.
23. FLEMING W. G. K. and SLIWINSKI Z. J. The Use and Influence
of Bentonite in Bored Pile Construction. Construction
Industry Research and Information Association, London,
1977, CIRIA Report No. PG3.
What do you think?
To comment on this paper, please email up to 500 words to the editor at journals@ice.org.uk
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in by civil engineers and related professionals, academics and students. Papers
should be 2000–5000 words long, with adequate illustrations and references. Please visit www.thomastelford.com/journals for author
guidelines and further details.
242 Geotechnical Engineering 160 Issue GE4 Rectangular barrettes and circular bored piles in saprolites
Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF EXETER] on [11/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
24. HO C. E. Deep barrette foundation in Singapore weathered
granite. Proceedings of the 11th Southeast Asian
Geotechnical Conference, Singapore, 1993, pp. 529–534.
25. CHANG M. F. and WONG I. H. Axial load test behaviour of
bored piles in weathered granite. Proceedings of the 10th
Asian Regional Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Beijing, 1995, vol. 1, pp.
185–188.
26. HO C. E. and TAN C. G. Barrette foundation constructed
under polymer slurry support in old alluvium. Proceedings
of the 12th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference,
Kuala Lumpur, 1996, pp. 379–384.
27. HO C. E. and LIM C. H. Barrettes designed as friction
foundations: a case history. Proceedings of the 4th
International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical
Engineering, St Louis, MO, 1998, pp. 236–241.
28. BJERRUM L. and JOHANNESSEN I. J. Measurements of the
compression of a steel pile to rock due to settlement of the
surrounding clay. Proceedings of the 6th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Montreal, 1965, vol. 2, pp. 261–264.
29. BJERRUM L., JOHANNESSEN I. J. and EIDE O. Reduction of
negative skin friction on steel piles to rocks. Proceedings of
the 6th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Mexico City, 1969, vol. 2, pp.
27–34.
30. BURLAND J. B. Shaft friction of piles in Clay. Ground
Engineering, 1973, 6, No. 3, 30–42.
31. FELLENIUS B. H., ALTAEE A., KULESZA R. and HAYES J. O-cell
testing and FE analysis of 28-m-deep barrette in Manila,
Philippines. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE, 1999, 125, No. 7, 566–575.
32. DAVIES R. V. and CHAN A. K. C. Pile design in Hong Kong.
Hong Kong Engineer, 1981, 9, No. 3, 21–28.
33. O’NEILL M. W. and REESE L. C. Drilled Shafts: Construction
Procedures and Design Methods. US Department of
Transportation, 1999, Federal Highway Administration
Publication No. FHWA-IF-99-025.
34. LITTLECHILD B. D., PLUMBRIDGE G. D. and FREE M. W. Shaft
grouted piles in sand and clay in Bangkok. Proceedings of
the 7th International Conference and Exhibition on Piling
and Deep Foundations, DFI, Vienna, 1998, 1.7.1–1.7.8.
35. HAMZA M. and IBRAHIM M. H. Base and shaft grouted large
diameter pile and barrettes load tests. Proceedings of
Geotech: Year 2000, Developments in Geotechnical
Engineering, Bangkok, 2000, vol. 2, pp. 219–228.
Lei • Ng