Hong Kong Housing Authority Structural Design Practice Optimization

Hong Kong Housing Authority
Structural Design Practice SDP-1109
First published: September 2011
Prepared by the Development & Construction Division (DCD) of Housing

Department (HD)
Working Group:
Chairman : Ir Joseph Mak CSE/DC&ICU

Members : Ir Mike Fung SSE/2
Ir KS Kwan SSE/4
Ir WC Keung SSE/Lab1 (ex-SSE/10)
Ir Sherman Chang SE/17
Ir Duncan Law SE/23
Ir KS Mak SE/94
Ir Yolanda Wong SE/103
Ir Rayson Wong SE/127
Ir TC Szeto SE/149
Ir Wilson Cheng SE/156
-1-
CONTENTS
Page
CHAPTER 1 - GENERAL
1.1 Introduction 4
1.2 Control of Document 4
1.3 Design Synopsis 5
1.4 Structural Optimization 5
1.5 Risk Mitigation 7
CHAPTER 2 - GRAVITY MODEL

2.1 Design Contingency 8
2.2 Design Loading Intensities 8
2.3 Modeling of Transfer Beam/Plate 8
2.4 Reducible and Non-reducible LL 9
CHAPTER 3 - WIND MODEL

3.1 Design Contingency 10
3.2 Modeling Approach 10
3.3 Wind Tunnel Test 11
3.4 Modeling of Upper Roof (U/R) and Ground Floor (G/F) 11
3.5 Review the Use of Column and Wind Resisting Beams 11
3.6 Lintel Beam Stiffness 12
3.7 Elastic Modulus of Concrete 13
3.8 Corridor Slab/Beam Modeling 14
CHAPTER 4 - DESIGN AND DETAILING OF FOUNDATION

4.1 Design and Planning of LDBP 15
4.2 Design Pile Capacity of Socketed Steel H-Piles 18
4.3 Eliminate Drop in Pile Cap at Lift Pit Location 18
4.4 Bottom Profile of Pile Cap 19
4.5 Reduce Lap Length at the Top of Pile Cap and Footing 19
-2-
CONTENTS
Page
CHAPTER 5 - DESIGN AND DETAILING OF SUPERSTRUCTURE
5.1 Zoning of Concrete Grade 20
5.2 Zoning of Wall reinforcement 20
5.3 Torsional Links at Transfer Girder 21
5.4 Laps in Column Contributing in Lateral Load Resisting System 23
5.5 Slenderness of Walls and Columns 24
5.6 Movement at Base Restrained Walls 24
5.7 Beam-Column Joint Design 26
5.8 Expansion Joint Spacing 27
5.9 Good Detailing Practice 29
REFERENCES 30
APPENDICES
Appendix A Templates for Design Synopsis 31
Appendix B Efficiency Indicator 54
Appendix C Optimization Design Tools 58
Appendix D Commonly Used Design Loading Intensities 60
Appendix E Template for Determining Founding Level of LDBP 62
Appendix F Design Chart for Shrinkage & Creep Stress 64
Appendix G Good Detailing Practice 68
-3-
CHAPTER 1 - GENERAL
1.1 INTRODUCTION
This document provides advisory guides to the general structural design
practice in the Development and Construction Division (DCD), but it is
important to recognize that the appropriate practice to be adopted may be
different from projects to projects. The users should exercise their own
judgment and make adjustment as necessary to suit their projects’ specific
needs on a case by case basis.
SE Sections in DCD each has developed practices and materials for

structural design. In September 2010, SE Section 1 documented and
published their structural design practice which was revisited in late 2010
by the working group with a view to unifying the design practice among SE
Sections in DCD by a structured whole discipline approach. The advisory
guides given develop from our years of collective practical design
experiences or specific studies of relevant technical literature on a subject
needed to solve our design problems. However, the reference guides
remain advisory in nature and should not be taken to override mandatory
requirements in DCD’s instructions or manuals. The users should ensure
their design is ultimately in compliance with the Buildings Ordinance, all
relevant Building Regulations, Codes of Practices and PNAPs issued by
Buildings Department. When in doubt, users should seek advice and
approval from the appropriate authority.
Where available and useful, the advisory guides may mention some figures
to assist or control our design. If the figures are sensitive or susceptible to
changes with time, they will not be stated explicitly in the reference guides
but will be issued separately as restricted information for users’ reference.
1.2 CONTROL OF DOCUMENT

The document is issued and reviewed under the authority of AD(P)1 and
CSE/DC&ICU respectively. Feedback on this document is welcome and
should be addressed to the Contact Points (SSE/2, SSE/4 and SSE/10). This
document will be annually reviewed by a team of SE representatives from
SE Sections in DCD.
-4-
1.3 DESIGN SYNOPSIS

To ease independent check and cross reference between individual projects,
presentation format of design synopsis has been aligned in all three SE
Sections in DCD as depicted in Appendix A.
1.4 STRUCTURAL OPTIMIZATION

PSE/DSE should carry out structural optimization to achieve an economical
design balanced for buildability considerations. Some basic principles
include:
Basic Principles Remarks
Avoid inefficient structural Buildings of different structural form can
form respond differently under applied loads. A good
structural form enhances structural efficiency
and reduces cost. As a general rule, high aspect
ratio in ‘height/width’ (e.g. linear block) and
‘perimeter/floor area’ (e.g. blocks with more
re-entrant corners or recessed bays) should be
avoided
Maximize coupling of walls Continuity of walls can have a significant effect
on the overall stiffness of building, which in turn
influence the material quantities and costs
Minimize transfer structures Optimum G/F layout with walls/columns carried
down to G/F as far as possible; optimum façade
design with minimal transfer system required at
G/F
Rotational symmetry Minimize system formwork required; minimize
% of formwork to be temporarily delivered to
ground level
Achieve economy of scales of Repetition and standardization are the
precast elements fundamental keys to lower costs in precast
construction. The more standardized the precast
component is, the lower is its basic cost due to
reduction in set-up and mould costs. Effort
should be made to achieve repetition and
economy of scale through standardization and
repetition of identical / similar components
-5-
Basic Principles Remarks

Minimize number of Removal of non-essential structural walls or
non-essential structural walls replacing them by non-structural walls not only
saves cost, but also provides flexibility for
change in future use
Simplification of design and Ease of dismantling and re-assembly of large
ease of construction panel formwork to avoid many numbers of
turns, zigzags and acute angle corners etc.
Align flat entrance opening Staggered wall openings require longer lintel
beam rebars; aligned flat layout enables better
planning of spaces/circulation at G/F and
requires less transfer elements
Provide greatest possible Balance the building stiffness to minimize the
symmetry of building eccentricity between the shear centre and the
stiffness with respect to the points of wind load application
wind load
Enhance torsional stiffness of Disposition of stair core or longer shear walls
the building coupled by deep beam at the ends of the
building can effectively enhance the torsional
stiffness of the whole building or at the
strategically placed location
Minimum bottle neck Avoid abrupt change of floor plan section along
the wings, which would induce stress
concentration
Maximize the use of on-grade Use of on-grade slab can reduce reinforcement
slab at G/F and improve the buildability of works. Ground
settlement is not anticipated following the use of
reinforced concrete screen walls at perimeter of
the building footprint between footings/pile caps
and the underside of suspended ground floor
slabs of the domestic blocks. This does not
apply for areas where accessibility for
maintenance may be a concern (e.g. lift lobby
and office etc)
Structural design review/forum should be conducted preferably before BC

and piling tender out. The structural design review/forum is considered as
-6-
an objective third party scrutiny to ensure that the structural scheme is

safe, cost-effective, practical and easily buildable, including design works
performed by Professional Services Providers (PSP). All design review
meetings/forums should be conducted in a formal way. The comments
from the reviewers are recorded and related actions are tracked.
Cost-effective structural designs should be reasonably achieved by
comparing the Efficiency Indicators (EI) of various design alternatives
against the criteria for function and quality. A summary of EI given in
Appendix B should be tabled for discussion during the Structural Design
Review.
PSE/DSE is encouraged to make use of the optimization design tools (See

Appendix C for details of the commonly used optimization design tools e.g.
CESD/SDMS) to carry out structural optimization and enhance process
efficiency and design reliability.
1.5 RISK MITIGATION

To enhance the design reliability of projects with increasingly complex
site-specific designs and frequent updating of more and more powerful
software, PSE/DSE should conduct independent checks on structural
design in a rational and effective manner. Before foundation tender out,
the computer models and loading schedule should be checked by an
independent checking engineer assigned by the PSSE/DSSE. For the
superstructure, a more comprehensive checking should be conducted
shortly after ICU submission according to the “Guidelines for Independent
Check of Structural Design” which can be downloaded from the Knowledge
Management Portal. Working drawings should be counterchecked by
counterchecking SSE appointed by the CSE within the same SE section
prior to issuance.
For projects involving design by PSP, it is necessary to ensure that the PSP
have their own independent auditing system for prevention of design
deficiency and sub-standard works. PSP should provide CM with their
independent checking plan and make all checks as reasonable as to the
adequacy of the design and implementation, pointing out any errors or
areas of uncertainty.
-7-
CHAPTER 2 - GRAVITY MODEL
2.1 DESIGN CONTINGENCY
Design contingency may be allowed to cater for minor design changes or

scope increases required as the design evolves. It is not intended to cover
extensive design changes or significant scope increases, in which case the
design should be revised and new design parameters should be established
and approved as necessary. The design contingency may be different for
different projects depending on the complexity and maturity of the projects
at the time of consideration.
2.2 DESIGN LOADING INTENSITIES
With the increasing use of modular flat design (MFD), a list of commonly
used design loading intensities is complied at Appendix D for reference.
2.3 MODELING OF TRANSFER BEAM/PLATE
As a conventional design method, it is generally acceptable to carry

out structural design of the transfer beam/plate without consideration
of the stiffening effects by the walls. However, it is prudent to check
the interaction effect (e.g. horizontal stress) in designing the wall
above the transfer member, which may be assessed and design for by
including the wall/column at least one storey above and below the
transfer member into sub-model. Alternatively, a full model with all
transfer members, full-height walls above and supporting columns
below may be considered to analyze the interactive effect.
Beam elements instead of plate elements (finite element method)
should preferably be used to model transfer beams in mathematical
models which is more realistic. If plate elements are used, care should
be taken to cater for the twistings.
When walls/columns do not align with the centre line of transfer beam,
rigid arms of large stiffness are often used (e.g. rigid arm property can
be taken as 1m x 1m with Elastic Modulus (Ec) x 1000 times).
Mitigate torsional effect by the methods discussed in Chapter 5.3.
-8-
2.4 REDUCIBLE AND NON-REDUCIBLE LL
Provisions in the Code of Practice for Dead and Imposed Loads (HKLC)
2011 should be followed in live load reduction. Except those at Plant
Rooms/Meter Rooms and the floor loads from partitions (the positions of
which are not indicated on building plan), all live loads at typical floor
should be reducible.
Pattern loads with alternate spans loaded with maximum design load and
all other spans loaded with minimum design load should also be considered
for continuous beam and slab design in accordance to Section 5.1.3.2 of
Code of Practice for Structural Use of Concrete 2004 (hereafter referred to
as “the Code”).
-9-
CHAPTER 3 - WIND MODEL
3.1 DESIGN CONTINGENCY
Design contingency may be allowed to cater for minor design changes or

scope increases required as the design evolves. It may be different for
different projects depending on the complexity and maturity of the projects
at the time of consideration.
3.2 MODELING APPROACH
Exclude non-essential elements in the wind model as far as possible to

minimize number of elements subject to detailing for ductility.
Torsional stiffness of beams may be neglected in the case of
compatibility torsion, but should be considered for cases involving
equilibrium torsion. It must be able to distinguish between equilibrium
torsion and compatibility torsion in reinforced concrete structures.
Equilibrium torsion or statically determinate torsion exists when the
external load has no alternative load path but must be supported by
torsion. Compatibility torsion or statically indeterminate torsion arises
from the requirements of continuity, i.e., compatibility of deformation
between adjacent parts of a structure. Examples of equilibrium torsion
and compatibility torsion are shown in Fig. 3.2.
Equilibrium torsion at a cantilevered slab Compatibility torsion at an edge beam
Figure 3.2 Torsional Effect in Reinforced Concrete
Rigid diaphragm is normally modeled for the slabs except at those

bottleneck floor areas where flexible diaphragm or split diaphragm
would be considered to assess the local effect, as well as the global
effect in wind load distribution.
- 10 -
3.3 WIND TUNNEL TEST
For buildings of an unusual shape (e.g. H/B aspect ratio > 5) or buildings
situated at locations where complicated local topography adversely affects
the wind directions, PSE/DSE should seek CSE’s direction for the necessary
provisions of wind tunnel test.
3.4 MODELING OF UPPER ROOF (U/R) AND GROUND FLOOR (G/F)
Minimize number of U/R wall elements in wind model to alleviate the

implication of possible future change in U/R layout.
Minimize number of ground beams to allow trenches, openings,
box-out etc. which may be required by other parties.
Exclude G/F beams of relatively small bending stiffness in wind
resisting system to alleviate the difficulty of lapping column bars at
middle quarter of the storey height (See Figure 5.4).
3.5 REVIEW THE USE OF COLUMNS AND WIND-RESISTING BEAMS
Review the need of columns and wind-resisting beams to address the more
stringent detailing rules. For example:
To design element as wall instead of column

For columns of relatively high aspect ratio (e.g. D/B>3), adjusting the
ratio to slightly greater than 4, if practicable, to turn the column into a
wall may escape the ductility requirements in detailing for columns.
To align the depth of floor beams with corridor slab
Aligning the depth of floor beams with that of the corridor slab can
escape the minimum support width requirement.
Fig. 3.5 Aligning soffit of floor beams and corridor slab
- 11 -
To provide lateral stability solely by walls in low-rise buildings

As wind effects on low-rise buildings are usually insignificant, provide
lateral stability solely by wall elements to avoid the more stringent
detailing rules for columns and wind-resisting beams, if possible. In
this regard, the transfer mechanism of wind loads to the walls should
be justified and validated. The lateral stiffness due to walls should be
compared to the lateral stiffness due to beam-column frames to justify
that the overall lateral stability is dominated by walls.
3.6 LINTEL BEAM STIFFNESS
As the ductility requirement at Section 9.9 of the Code assumes the

formation of plastic hinge at critical sections of beams, the estimated
value of EI should be that for the stage just before the onset of
yielding. The Code requires that the methods of analysis used should
be based on as accurate a representation of the behaviour of the
structure as is reasonably practicable, but does not provide explicit
guidance on the realistic stiffness values to be used under different
loading conditions. Reference is therefore made to Section 8.7 and
8.8 of ACI 318-08 which provides explicit recommendations to assist
engineers in the selection of appropriate effective stiffness for
reinforced concrete frame members. The following recommendations,
which have been referred to BD for consideration, are pending BD’s
acceptance: -
- Use of any set of reasonable assumptions shall be permitted for

computing relative flexural and torsional stiffnesses of columns,
walls, floors, and roof systems. The assumptions adopted shall be
consistent throughout analysis.
- Lateral deflections of reinforced concrete building systems
resulting from factored lateral loads can be computed by linear
analysis with the use of half the gross EcI of the beam stem for
beams and the gross EcI for the columns for concrete building
systems subjected to gravity and wind loads.
To simulate structural walls coupled by lintel beams in finite element

method, the use of wall shell elements with coarse mesh would tend
to be relatively stiff in bending and attract more stresses to the lintels.
- 12 -
Wall shell elements with finer mesh would attract less stresses to the
lintels. However, finer mesh of finite element formulation of wall joined
to beam line elements often lead to "high concentration of stresses" in
the wall elements, which makes local design difficult.
Save for stability requirement, torsional stiffness of lintel beams can be
ignored (Also refer to Chapter 3.2).
3.7 ELASTIC MODULUS OF CONCRETE
For estimating the design forces under normal conditions, the elastic
modulus corresponding to the characteristic concrete strength should be
used, but for estimating the overall response of building to wind loads,
including checking against the H/500 criteria for deflection at the top of a
building, the elastic modulus corresponding to the mean concrete strength
(instead of characteristic strength) may be used. The mean concrete
strength may be referred to Table 3.1 of BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, which is
derived from the characteristic compressive strength ƒck by the following
relationship:
ƒcm,cyl = ƒck,cyl + 8 [N/mm2]
Where ƒck,cyl = characteristic compressive cylinder strength of concrete

ƒcm,cyl = mean value of concrete cylinder compressive strength
Since characteristic cylinder strength ~ 0.8 x characteristic cube strength

according to Cl. 4.3.1 of BS EN 206-1:2000, hence
ƒcm,cube ~ ƒck,cube + 10 [N/mm2]
Where ƒck,cube= characteristic compressive cube strength of concrete

ƒcm,cube= mean value of concrete cube compressive strength
If mean value of elastic modulus is adopted, checking should be carried out

to ensure the mean strength of the concrete is actually achieved. Based on
the concrete cube test results of three concrete mixes used in a recent
housing project including a Grade 35 concrete and two Grade 45 concrete,
their mean cube strength are 56.8MPa, 62.2MPa and 61.2MPa
respectively. Hence, they all exceed the characteristic strength by more
than 10MPa. The above formula thus gives relatively conservative
estimates of mean cube strength and should be reasonably safe for use in
design. Typical values of elastic modulus corresponding to the mean
concrete strength as derived from the above formula are:
- 13 -
Characteristic cube Mean cube strength, Mean value of elastic

strength, ƒcu (N/mm2) ƒcm (N/mm2) modulus, Ecm (kN/mm2)
35 45 26.4
40 50 27.7
45 55 28.9
The use of mean strength in checking the overall response of building to

wind loads was proposed by the Author (Prof. Albert Kwan) of the
Concrete Code Handbook and also supported by Members of the Technical
Committee for the Code of Practice for Structural Use of Concrete in
Meeting No. 3. Nonetheless, the exact method of deriving and verification
of the mean value may be agreed with ICU on a case by case basis, and
endorsement from BD Structural Engineering Committee (SEC) may also
be required.
3.8 CORRIDOR SLAB/BEAM MODELING
Allow services zone of preferably minimum 250mm width along centre of

corridor for conduit and junction boxes laying at scheme design sage. In
practice, we should keep narrower services zone at the congested lintel
beam rebar areas to allow adequate width of structural zone in wind model,
while providing wider services zone at other areas to facilitate installation
of junction boxes. Exact location and width of services zone should be
agreed with BSE at early design stage.
Fig. 3.8 Illustrative diagram showing the suggested arrangement of E & M services zone
and structural zone along the corridor
- 14 -
CHAPTER 4 - DESIGN AND DETAILING OF FOUNDATION
4.1 DESIGN AND PLANNING OF LDBP
4.1.1 Effective shaft diameter of LDBP

The effective shaft diameters for the design of bored piles are: -
Nominal Effective Shaft Diameter for Design (m)
Diameter of
Steel L < 16m 16m < L ≤ 30m 30m < L ≤ 60m 60m < L ≤ 70m 70m < L ≤ 80m
Casing Without With Without With Without With Without With Without With
Available in Permanent Permanent Permanent Permanent Permanent Permanent Permanent Permanent Permanent Permanent
the Market Liner Liner Liner Liner Liner Liner Liner Liner Liner Liner
(m) ∅ (∅-0.3) ∅ (∅-0.3) ∅ (∅-0.3) ∅ (∅-0.3) ∅ (∅-0.3)
0.8 0.8 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
1.0 1.0 0.7 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
1.5 1.5 1.2 1.5 1.2 -- -- -- -- -- --
1.8 1.8 1.5 1.8 1.5 -- -- -- -- -- --
2.0 2.0 1.7 2.0 1.7 2.0 1.7 -- 1.7 -- 1.7
2.5 2.5 2.2 2.5 2.2 2.5 2.2 -- 2.2 -- --
2.8 2.8 2.5 2.8 2.5 2.8 2.5 -- -- -- --
3.0 3.0 2.7 3.0 2.7 3.0 2.7 -- -- -- --
Legends:
L = Gross length of bored piles (m)
∅ = Nominal diameter of steel casing available in the market (m)
-- = Effective shaft diameter not recommended for initial design (m)
Notes:
(i) The recommended effective shaft diameters are based on the
assumption that no boulder layer will be encountered. Such
design diameters should be further reduced to suit the
presence of single or multiple boulder layer(s).
(ii) For the selection of steel casing with nominal diameters in the
lower range (i.e. 0.8m to 1.0m), special consideration shall be
given to: -
a) the practicality of installing sonic tubes for sonic coring
and concrete/rock interface coring tests; and
b) the inclusion/exclusion of permanent liners.
- 15 -
(iii) The selection of steel casing with nominal diameter of 3.2m is

only feasible when L < 10m with vibrator at shallow ground
with soft soil stratum and no boulder.
(iv) For bored piles with L > 60m, special care should be taken in
the selection of effective shaft diameters with ample
consultation with specialist contractors (e.g. HKCAPCC) for the
constructability and with full consideration of ground geology
and value engineering against other pile types.
4.1.2 Founding Level

In determining founding level of LDBP, the following criteria are to
be met:-
- Total Core Recovery (TCR) is based on 1.5m core run.

- Founding level should have at least 5m thick of competent rock
below the pile base in accordance with the pre-drill information.
- Pile base is at least 0.8m deep into bedrock for LDBP with bell-out,
but maximum 30 degree bell-out angle will control the socket
length when bell-out diameter exceeds shaft diameter by more
than 0.92m. Besides, to avoid collapse of the bell-out under
unstable weathering rock, bell-out should normally be completely
embedded into the bedrock. As such, the minimum socket length
may be governed by the socket length of bell-out tool at open
position.
- Minimum rock socket depth of 0.5m for categories 1(a) and 1(b),
and 0.3m for categories 1(c) and 1(d) along the pile perimeter is
required.
- To avoid possible settlement problem, there should have no weak
seams within the depth of 0.5 times bell-out diameter below the
founding level, even if the TCR required within the 1.5m core run
is satisfied.
PSE should complete the template for determining founding level of

LDBP at Appendix E for discussion in the Design Review / Forum
meeting.
- 16 -
Fig. 4.1.3 Illustrative Diagram of the Founding Level Criteria
4.1.3 Design Pile Length

In order to minimize the pile re-design works due to small change in
actual founding level, the effective design length of LDBP in pile
analysis can be taken as the pile length measured from the cut-off
level down to the inferred rockhead level plus half of pile shaft
diameter instead of the founding level.
4.1.4 Pile Capacity Based on Combined Frictional and End Bearing

Resistance
The use of combined capacity may be considered in the following
situations to increase the load-carrying capacity for piles socketed in
rock: -
- When a particularly short pile exists in a large pile group, it tends

to attract more axial load due to the relative high stiffness. To
compensate for the increase in attracted forces, the pile capacity
can be enhanced by shaft friction with socket into rock.
- When Cat. 1(b) rockhead can be reached within short distance

below inferred Cat. 1(c) rockhead, it may be advantageous to
eliminate the bell-out by utilizing the combined capacity of shaft
friction at Cat. 1(c) rock and end-bearing at Cat. 1(b) rock to
save cost and/or time in construction.
- 17 -
However, it must be noted that the bond length in rock should not
exceed 2D or 6m with reference to 5.3.2(2) of the Foundation Code.
The inclined faces of bell-out and the minimum socket depth
stipulated in Note (3) of Table 2.1 of the Foundation Code should be
ignored in the calculation of bond resistance
4.2 DESIGN PILE CAPACITY OF SOCKETED STEEL H-PILES
As the Code permits a maximum working stress of steel pile up to 50% of

the yield stress, the test pile would be load tested to its yield strength (i.e.
2 times the maximum working stress). This could be critical and may lead
to failure of load test. It is advisable to limit the maximum working stress to
slightly below the 50% of the yield stress (e.g. 0.45fy) in the pile design.
Another likely reason for “unexpected” failure of socketed H-piles is

sometimes due to inadequate bond strength between steel and cement
grout. Shear bars should be provided above and below the top of the rock
socket to enhance the bond strength and inhibit bond slip from propagating
into the rock socket [15].
4.3 ELIMINATE DROP IN PILE CAP AT LIFT PIT LOCATION
Eliminating the drop in pile cap at lift pit location by desired planning of pile
layout can save time and cost in construction. This is particularly practical
in the design of H-pile or raft footing foundation. The lift pit base will then
be designed as thin slab subjected to upthrust and lift impact load.
Normally the thin slab will be omitted in the analytical model.
- 18 -
4.4 BOTTOM PROFILE OF PILE CAP
The bottom profile of pile cap should preferably be 90 degrees in lieu of 45

degrees for ease of construction.
4.5 REDUCE LAP LENGTH AT THE TOP OF PILE CAP AND FOOTING
Increasing the concrete cover at the top of pile cap/ footing slightly to 2 x
bar diameter (e.g. from 75mm to 80mm for ∅40 bar) can escape the
requirement of Clause 8.7.3.2 of Concrete Code and effectively reduce the
lap length from 1.4TL to 1.0TL
- 19 -
CHAPTER 5 - DESIGN AND DETAILING OF SUPERSTRUCTURE
5.1 ZONING OF CONCRETE GRADE
Using higher concrete grade at lower floors generally can save cost. The
optimum floor for change of concrete grade to achieve the maximum
saving can be determined by comparing alternative models with cost
analysis. As a quick reference, the optimum floor may be assumed at
about 1/3 of the building height for a 40-storey building based on previous
experience.
Structural Cost of Walls Vs Floor

Structural Cost of Walls Vs Floor
$850,000
$850,000
$800,000
$800,000
$750,000
$750,000
$700,000
$700,000
$650,000
$650,000
C35
$600,000
$600,000
$550,000
$550,000
$500,000
Cost
$500,000
Cost
$450,000
$450,000
$400,000
$400,000
$350,000
$350,000
$300,000
$300,000
$250,000 C45 Optimum floor for change of
$250,000
$200,000
concrete grade to achieve the
$200,000
$150,000 maximum saving
$150,000
$100,000
F9F10
F10F11
F11F12
F12F13
F13F14
F14F15
F15F16
F16F17
F17F18
F18F19
F19F20
F20F21
F21F22
F22F23
F23F24
F24F25
F25F26
F26F27
F27F28
F28F29
F29F30
F30F31
F31F32
F32F33
F33F34
F34F35
F35F36
F36F37
F37F38
F38F39
F39F40
F40 RF
F2
F2 F3
F3 F4
F4 F5
F5 F6
F6 F7
F7 F8
F8 F9
$100,000
RF
Floor
Floor
Option 1 Option 2
(Total)
Option 1 (Total)
Option 2
(Total) (Total)
Fig. 5.1 Structural Cost of Walls of Different Concrete Grades
Similarly, grade 35 concrete should be used throughout shorter building

structures of less than 27 storeys (i.e. 2/3 of 40 storeys).
5.2 ZONING OF WALL REINFORCEMENT
Wall rebar quantities tend to drop sharply at the lower floors and flatten out
at about 1/3 of the building height. For economical design, more zoning
at the lower floors is recommended. For example: -
- 20 -
Zone 1 F1 - F3
Zone 2 F3 - F5
Zone 3 F5 – F10
Zone 4 F10 - F18
Zone 5 F18 and above
The bar spacing at the floor of new zoning should preferably be the same
as that of preceding floor by modifying the bar diameter only, if possible, to
ease construction or avoid confusion.
5.3 TORSIONAL LINKS AT TRANSFER GIRDER
The diameter of torsional links should be preferably not greater than T16.
Transfer girders subjected to larger torsional effect are mainly those around
the re-entrant bay. Some suggested ways to minimize torsional effect to
ease the site fixing problem are:
(a) To model the wall above the transfer girder in gravity model
Modeling the wall above the transfer girder and restraining its top
horizontal translation in the minor axis direction can reduce the
torsional effect considerably in some case studies. Ensure that the
induced stresses on the wall element as a result of the interaction
effect, especially the shear stress, are designed for.
Restrain the
horizontal
translation at the
top
Off-set
Wall above
Transfer
girder
- 21 -
(b) To add tie beam

Adding tie beams to restrain the rotation degree of freedom of the
transfer girder can reduce the torsional effect considerably depending
on the beam sizes and positions. Prior agreement with the project
team to allow sufficient space below the beam soffit for the passage
of drainage pipes is required.
Re-entrant
Passage for Additional tie-beam

drainage pipes
(c) To align transfer girder with the wall above

Aligning the centre line of the girder with the wall above is the most
effective way in lessening the torsional effect. However, it should be
noted that the clear column spacing at the re-entrant area at ground
floor will be reduced, and additional bends of drainage downpipes are
required to avoid possible physical conflict with the protruded portion
of the transfer girder into the re-entrant.
Protrusion into re-entrant

obstructing the passage of
downpipe
Transfer girder
Clear column
spacing at G/F
Column reduced
- 22 -
5.4 LAPS IN COLUMN CONTRIBUTING IN LATERAL LOAD RESISTING SYSTEM
Notwithstanding that the centre of the splice could be located at a height

not below 1/4 storey height as recently confirmed by ICU, PSE should still
try to avoid laps of column bars at middle half of the storey height. Except
for columns terminated at pile cap as well as above and below transfer
plate, Clause 9.9.2.1(d) of the Concrete Code may be waived if it can be
shown that a column plastic hinge adjacent to the beam face cannot occur
by satisfying the following condition:
ΣMc ≥ 1.2ΣMb
where
ΣMc is the sum of the moment capacities under the appropriate axial
load of the column sections above and below the joint; and
ΣMb is the sum of the bending strengths of the beams on both side of
the joint when they are both clockwise or both anticlockwise and the
smaller sum should be used.
For G/F columns terminated at pile cap/footing, the storey height may be
measured from the top of pile cap (instead of G/F level) to the 1/F provided
that the G/F beams are of relative small bending stiffness in wind resisting
system. Column bars can be lapped at G/F level just as the normal
practice. This helps alleviate the difficulty of lapping column bars at
middle quarter of the storey height.
Fig. 5.4 Lapping position of column bar based on different measured storey height
- 23 -
5.5 SLENDERNESS OF WALLS AND COLUMNS
Slenderness of walls and columns especially those from foundation level to

transfer level should be checked. Design the walls and columns as stocky
members or provide additional reinforcement against local buckling.
In checking wall slenderness, wall return in flanged or core walls can be

used to stabilize the edge of the adjacent planar wall. If the outstand
length of a wall is less than 6t, it may be considered to be fully restrained
against out-of-plane movement, independent of the distance between floor
restraints.
Fig. 5.5 Slenderness reduction for non-planar walls
5.6 MOVEMENT AT BASE RESTRAINED WALLS
Cracking is often observed in base restrained concrete walls. It occurs for

a number of reasons, which may or may not be predictable, including:
(a) Movement induced or restrained by neighboring construction

consisting of rigidly connected parts but concreted at different times
A typical example is in the case of walls cast against previously
constructed pile caps. Because of the construction sequence, the
wall and its base are out-of-phase in terms of shrinkage and early age
thermal movement, giving rise to differences in deformations and thus
cracking due to restraining action of the rigid connection.
Fig. 5.6(a) Typical crack pattern for base restrained walls
- 24 -
Fig. 5.6(b) Cracks at a G/F wall
The subsequent floors poured will shrink at a greater rate than the
pile caps concreted at earlier times. The out-of-phase shrinkage will
be further aggravated if large concrete pour (e.g. massive transfer
structures) is involved on subsequent floors. The contraction and
hence inward movement of which can exert a horizontal movement
thus inducing shear cracking at base restrained walls.
Fig. 5.6(c) Cracks at a G/F wall as a result of movement restraint
(b) Differential vertical movement along the wall base

Differential vertical movement along the wall base can occur under
load leading to shear cracks due to two major action effects. The first
is the relative vertical deflection of the horizontal elements supporting
the wall (e.g. cap and transfer structure etc). The second is the
differential movement of the foundations (e.g. footing, pile).
- 25 -
Mitigation Measures
It should be prudent to observe the above movement at base restrained
wall, especially for those with high length/height (L/H) ratio. Transverse
reinforcement of wall above footing/cap/transfer structure should be
enhanced to cater for the shrinkage cracks and/or deep beam effect in wall.
Based on the Australian Standard for Concrete Structures AS 3600, the
amount of reinforcement to control shrinkage crack should vary from about
0.25% of the concrete area for a minor degree of crack control to 0.60%
for a strong degree of crack control. For deep beam effect, the horizontal
stresses should be assessed and design for, with the use of a sub-model if
necessary.
5.7 BEAM-COLUMN JOINT DESIGN
Design force at beam-column joint stipulated in Cl 6.8.1.2 of Concrete

Code, as confirmed by ICU in SLG Meeting No. 14, should be based on
the area of steel provided as suggested in the HKIE Handbook except
that the overstrength factor can be taken as 1.0 instead of 1.25 (i.e.
T=C=1.0Asfy);
Cl. 6.8 of Concrete Code applies to all beam-column joints in both

lateral load resisting frames and non-lateral load resisting frames alike;
For beam-column joint without upper column, it would have axial force
varying from zero at top to the axial reaction from lower column at
bottom of the joint arising from the beam loads. Hence, average of
axial force across the joint (i.e. half of the axial force of lower column)
may be taken for calculation of horizontal and vertical joint
reinforcement in accordance with Equation 6.72 and 6.73 of Concrete
Code respectively.
Zero Load
Beam Beam
Reaction from
Column
lower column
- 26 -
5.8 EXPANSION JOINT SPACING
There is often a great divergence of opinion concerning the use of

expansion joints in concrete construction. Provision of an expansion joint
increases initial construction cost and subsequent maintenance expenses,
while omitting it where it is needed can result in cracking due to volume
change effects. Therefore, optimizing the expansion joint spacing is
considered critical for structures particularly with large plan area exposed
to seasonal and ambient weather. Typical ranges of joint spacing for
concrete structures recommended by various authorities are listed below
for reference: -
Published by Recommendations
Construction Industry It is generally considered that overall movement

Research and joints should be provided at plan lengths in the
Information range of 60 to 70m
Association (CIRIA)
[8]
The Institution of In the majority of cases, movement joints should

Structural Engineers be provided at not more than 100m centres, and
and the Institutions one joint at least should be placed between any
of Highways and two rigid restraints. It is prudent to provide
[9]
Transportation additional partial movement joints in the roof
deck at no more than 50m centres unless extra
reinforcement is placed
Concrete If a structure is much longer than 60m, and no

[10]
International expansion joint has been included, serious
cracking due to restraint of drying shrinkage and
thermal movements may have developed
Portland Cement 60m maximum building length without joints

[11]
Association (PCA)
- 27 -
Published by Recommendations
Structure Magazine In order to optimize the expansion joint spacing,

[12]
the criteria below should be used as a first
rudimentary step.
As indicated in these references, a spacing of about 60m is normal. This

somewhat echoes the advisory guidance given in DSEG-512 which
recommends a spacing of 50m for building roof subjected to direct sun
exposure. With the use of late-pour strips to control early-age shrinkage,
the spacing could be further increased (e.g. to 84m) [12]. If a wider spacing
is necessary, it is prudent to provide additional reinforcement to control
both shrinkage and thermal cracking.
On top of the above, restrained shrinkage and creep effects between rigid
restraints (e.g. stair towers) should also be considered in the determination
of expansion joint spacing. It is advisable to balance the stiffness of
building elements in the structural layout to minimize possible restraints, or
- 28 -
isolate the structural frame from the stiff elements by providing either a
permanent or temporary isolation joint. Reference may be made to the
design charts in Appendix F [16] which give the stresses due to shrinkage
and creep taking not only the floor structure, but the magnitude of
restraints into account.
5.9 GOOD DETAILING PRACTICE
The purpose of good detailing is to assist in achieving sound construction

and a buildable structure that will perform well in service. Some examples
of good detailing practice are illustrated in Appendix G for reference.
- 29 -
REFERENCES
1. SE1 Structural Design Practice, September 2010, SE1, HKHA

2. Guidelines for Design and Planning of LDBP, July 2009, SE1, HKHA
3. Guidelines for Smart Detailing, May 2009, SE1, HKHA
4. Guidelines for Independent Check of Structural Design, November 2006,
SE1, HKHA
5. Code of Practice for Structural Use of Concrete 2004 (Second Edition),
August 2008, BD
6. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-08), 2008,
ACI
7. Report 102: Design of Shear Wall Buildings, 1984, CIRIA
8. Cracks in Buildings, March 2000, SIU, HKHA
9. Technical Note 107 Design for Movement in Buildings, 1981, CIRIA
10. Design Recommendations for Multi-storey and Underground Carparks,
1984, IStructE and IHT
11. The Condition Survey, 1989, Concrete International
12. Building Movements and Joints, 1982, PCA
13. Design of Expansion Joints in Parking Structures, 2010, Structure
Magazine
14. Code of Practice for Dead and Imposed Loads 2011, BD
15. Design of Rock-socketed Piles, 2005, Victor Li
16. Estimation of Shrinkage with Creep Effects on R.C. Multi-storey Buildings
in accordance with the Code of Practice for the Structural Use of Concrete
2004, S.C. Lam and C.W. Law, HKHA
- 30 -
APPENDIX A
TEMPLATES FOR DESIGN SYNOPSIS
- Design Synopsis for Foundation

- Design Synopsis for Superstructure
- 31 -
Structural Design Practice Appendix A - Design Synopsis for Foundation
DESIGN SYNOPSIS FOR FOUNDATION
- Guidelines
- Example
- 32 -
GUIDELINES
Introduction
1.1 Description of the Project

Include a general description of the site and the development
1.2 [Status and]* Scope of submission

Describe scope of submission [including submission history and identifying
major design changes for amendment submission]*
* for amendment submission only
Describe relevant referrals to and comments from other departments and

organizations, if appropriate.
1.3 Site Characteristics and Geological Information

Include:
a. A general description of the characteristic features of the site and
surrounding environment, including slopes, existing foundations and
retaining walls etc.
b. Summary of geological information, including results of necessary field and
laboratory test reports etc.
Design Approach
1.4 Foundation System and Design Assumptions

Include:
a. A general description of the foundation system
b. Methods and assumptions used on the design of foundation system
Appraisal on the Effects of Foundation Works on Adjacent Lands and

Structures
1.5 Effects of foundation works on adjacent slopes and retaining wall

/adjoining buildings /existing utilities within the site etc
Describe the assessment of the foundation works on adjacent lands and
structures at both construction and permanent stages.
Design Information
1.6 Design Code and Reference

List the design codes and sources of reference
1.7 Design Data

Provide essential information on material properties, geotechnical design
parameters, covers, design loadings, load cases and combinations, design pile
capacities and computer program etc
- 33 -
EXAMPLE

The proposed site of the [Project Name] is located at ……………….. The proposed development
comprises one domestic block of 35 storeys and other associated external works.

For first submission
This submission covers the design of the piling foundation system for the domestic block. Pile
cap is not covered in this submission and will be submitted separately.
For amendment submission*
1.2.1 The foundation submission for the design of piling system was approved by ICU on
XX.XX.2010.
1.2.2 This amendment submission covers mainly the following: -
(a) ……………………………..; and
(b) Other minor amendment.
1.3 Site Characteristics and Geological Information
According to “Geotechnical Report (FDN) No. S34/08” at Appendix C, the Site was formed by
reclamation in late 1970s with average ground level at about +5.5mPD. The Site is generally
underlain in succession by fill with average 4m thickness, marine deposits with thickness ranged
from 1m to 6m, in-situ decomposited Granite with thickness ranged from 0m to 8m and then
bedrock level may vary between -3mPD to -39mPD dipping from northwest to southeast in
generally.
Architectural Services Department (ArchSD) has demolished the existing buildings except the
existing piles, pile caps and footings below ground levels, special care and provisions will be
allowed for overcoming possible obstructions of the abandoned piles, pile caps and footings for
construction of a new foundation system.
Settlement due to the marine deposits is insignificant as the consolidation process should have
been completed after the reclamation works in late 1970s. Allowance for negative skin friction in
the pile foundation design is thus not necessary. The ground water table is at about +3.5mPD
i.e. 2m below existing ground level.
The inferred rockhead contours of Category 1(c) Grade III or better rock with a total core
recovery of more than 85% of the grade shown on dwg no. STXX/SITE/G/RC-01 for the
domestic block are based on ground investigation final fieldwork report no. (HKHA contract no.
XXXXXXXX – works order no. XX) (4 volumes) which was submitted to ICU previously.
- 34 -
1.4 Foundation System and Design Assumption
The foundation system adopts large diameter bored pile (LDBP) of 2.2m and 2.5m effective
shaft diameter with bell-out diameter 3.45m and 3.9m respectively bearing on and/or socketted
into Category 1(c) rock (i.e. Grade III or better rock with total core recovery of not less than 85%
and min. uniaxial compressive strength of rock material (UCS) not less than 25 MPa (equivalent
point load index strength PLI50 not less than 1MPa)). The pilecap is 2.5m thick and is designed
to be one continuous single mass covering the whole footprint of the building and supported by
15 nos. LBBPs.
All vertical loads are taken by end bearing and/or socket of LDBPs founding on Cat 1(c) rock
with allowable bearing capacity of 5000kPa for end bearing and 700kPa for bond of the socket.
All horizontal loads are resisted by the bored piles and cap through subgrade reaction.
Allowable horizontal movement at the pile cap bottom level is to be 25mm.
The foundation design is based on the following assumptions:

Negative skin friction on pile is not applicable.
Design water table is assumed to be at about +3.5 mPD i.e. 2m below existing ground level.
Self-weight of the bored pile embedded is not included in the calculation of bearing capacity
of pile.
Design length of the bored pile to be counted from cut-off level to inferred rockhead plus
half of the effective shaft diameter or actual rock socket length, whichever is shorter.
Piles are assumed to be fixed to the pile caps at the top and pinned at the toe.
A reduction factor of 0.8 was applied to concrete stress of piles to account for concreting
under water.
Allowable bearing capacity of pile to be increased by 25% solely due to wind forces.
In-plane moment acting on walls is converted to equivalent up and down axial point loads
for SAFE input.
All forces in the loading schedule are calculated down to the pile cap top level only, To cater
for the difference in levels between the top of pile cap and the pile cut-off, additional
moments are computed by multiplying the shear forces of individual columns/walls at the
top of the cap by cap thickness for analysis in the SAFE model.
Wind shear is entirely resisted by both LDBPs and pile cap. Moment induced on the pile
head is input as loading for SAFE analysis.
Shear at the pile toe is resisted by the allowable lateral resistance of rock which is 1/3 of the
allowable vertical bearing pressure of rock (i.e. 1/3 x 5000 kPa = 1667 kPa).
The pile cap is assumed to be flexible. Finite element approach is adopted to analyze the
pile cap under gravity and wind loads using “SAFE v8.0.6”. To cater for the twisting moment
- 35 -
in the pile cap, Wood Armer Method is selected for the analysis in SAFE v8.0.6. Piles are
modeled as spring supports with the use of rigid arms to simulate the pile rigid zone.
1.5 Appraisal on the Effects of Foundation Works on Adjacent Lands and Structures
No slope, retaining walls and adjoining buildings are within or around the subject site.
A 6-m wide drainage reserve (DR) transverses the Site at the northwest and is about 30m
away from the nearest LDBP. To ensure the stability of DR, settlement markers &
piezometers will be installed as shown in the “Drainage Reserve Area and Monitoring Plan"
Code of Practice for Foundations

Code of Practice for the Structural Use of Concrete 2004
Code of Practice for Dead and Imposed Loads 2011
Hong Kong Building (Construction) Regulations
1.7 Design Data

1.7.1 Concrete and Reinforcement Properties
a. Concrete for all LDBPs to be Grade 45/20D with a minimum crushing strength of
fcu = 45 N/mm2 at 28 days.
b. As LDBPs are cast under water, design concrete strength=0.8 x 45 N/mm2 = 36
N/mm2
Young’s Modulus of Concrete E = 23970 N/mm2 (Short Term)
E = 11985 N/mm2 (Long Term)
c. Concrete for pile cap to be Grade 40/20D with a minimum crushing strength of fcu
= 40 N/mm2 at 28 days
Young’s Modulus of Concrete E = 25100 N/mm2 (Short Term)
E = 12550 N/mm2 (Long Term)
d. Concrete density = 24.5 kN/m3 and Poisson ratio = 0.2
e. Concrete cover to all reinforcement of LDBPs to be 75mm
f. All reinforcement to be Grade 460 high yield deformed bars to CS2 with fy =
460N/mm2
1.7.2 Soil/Rock Properties
Soil/fill density = 20 kN/m3 and Poisson ratio = 0.3; and Compacted Fill/Marine
Deposits: E = 10 MPa; nh = 1300 kN/m3;
Alluvium: E = 25MPa; nh = 3000 kN/m3;
C/HDG: E= 50 MPa; nh = 5000 kN/m3
- 36 -
1.7.3 Characteristic Load Cases
Dead load (DL), live load (LL), Obtained from loading schedule of drawing Nos.
wind load (WL) from blocks XXX/BLK1/S/EF003
4 wind load cases are considered.
Soil load (SL) on top of cap Soil thickness = 1.5m
Soil unit weight= 20kN/m3
Self-weight of cap Cap thickness =2.5m
Concrete unit weight= 24.5kN/m3
Stud wall Obtained from loading schedule
Lift impact load Impact load= 290 kN/ lift for Pilecap Design only
Mass concrete fill to pits of Lift Mass Concrete thickness = 1m

No. 1 & 2 Concrete unit weight= 24.5kN/m3
Transformer room loading at G/F LL= 65 kN/m2
1.7.4 Design Load Cases and Load Combinations

1.7.4.1 Load Combination for Pile Bearing/Socket Capacity and Stability Checking
1.0(DL+LL) < Ground bearing-capacity of compression pile without wind
1.0(DL+LL+/-WL) < Ground bearing-capacity of compression pile with

wind
1.0(DL+/-WL+U*+ Ia#) < Ra Ground bearing-capacity of tension pile
1.0DL+/-1.5WL+1.5U*+2.0Ia# < 0.9Ru (Stability Checking against Uplift,

Overturning and Buoyancy) or check global stability in accordance with Cl
2.5.3 of the Foundation Code.
*Where U is the buoyancy to the pile cap due to highest possible water level
assumed at ground level.
#Where Ia is the adverse imposed load including live and soil loads.
Where Ra is the allowable uplift resistance of pile shaft + effective self weight of
pile
Where Ru is the ultimate anchoring resistance of the pile
1.7.4.2 ULS Load Combination for R.C. Design of Pile
Load Type
Load Combination Dead Imposed Earth and Wind

Water
Adverse Beneficial Adverse Beneficial Pressure
Dead and imposed
(and earth and water 1.4 1.0 1.6 0 1.4 --
pressure)
Dead and wind
(and earth and water 1.4 1.0 -- -- 1.4 1.4
pressure)
Dead, imposed and
wind (and earth and 1.2 1.0 1.2 0 1.2 1.2
water pressure)
- 37 -
1.7.5 Computer Programs
Structural Engineering BD Approval Expiry

Computer Programme Reference No. Date
Foundation Analysis & Design
SAFE Version S0608 20/05/2011

8.0.6
R.C. Design for LDBP
Oasys-ADSEC Version 8.0 S0697 19/08/2010
- 38 -
Structural Design Practice Appendix A - Design Synopsis for Superstructure
DESIGN SYNOPSIS FOR SUPERSTRUCTURE
- Guidelines
- Example
- 39 -
GUIDELINES
Introduction

Include a general description of the site and the development

Describe scope of submission [including submission history and identifying
major design changes for amendment submission]*
* for amendment submission only
Describe relevant referrals to and comments from other departments and

organizations, if appropriate.
1.3 Description of the Building Structures

Include:
a. A general description of the building structure and foundation system
b. Structural form and material (e.g. irregular in plan configuration, precast
elements etc)
c. Highlights of unusual areas
- Structural form (e.g. truncated storeys, split level)
- Elements (e.g. transfer plate, large cantilever)
- Loads (e.g. soil, collision load), and
- Materials (e.g. concrete grade over C45) etc
Design Approach
1.4 Structural Concept

Include:
a. A general description of the structural system
b. The basic anatomy of stability by which the applied loads are transferred to
the foundation
1.5 Design Methods and Assumptions

Include:
a. Gravity Model Analysis
b. Wind Model Analysis
c. Transfer Beam Design
d. Precast Element Design
Design Information

List the design codes and sources of reference
1.7 Design Data

Provide essential information on material properties, covers, design loadings,
load cases and combinations, computer program etc
- 40 -
EXAMPLE

The proposed site of the [Project Name] is located at ……………….. The proposed development
comprises one domestic block of 40 storeys and other associated external works.

For first submission
This submission covers the design of the superstructure from Ground Floor upto one floor below
the Main Roof.
For amendment submission*

1.2.1 The superstructure submission for the design of the superstructure from Ground Floor
upto one floor below the Main Roof was approved by ICU on XX.XX.2010.
1.2.2 This amendment submission covers mainly the following: -
(c) ……………………………..; and
(d) Other minor amendment.
1.3 Description of the Building Structures

The domestic block is a Y-shaped reinforced concrete building with 40 storey domestic floors
and the building height is 114.9m upto the Main Roof level. Most service rooms are located at
G/F and the ground floor slabs are suspended. 1.5m service zone is allowed between top of
pilecap and G/F level. The lift shafts for the low-zone lifts would be terminated at 20/F with the
provision of a lift machine room. A transfer plate is provided above this lift machine room just
below 22/F to accommodate a 1-P flat from 22/F and above. Because of the architectural and
functional requirements, part of the structural layout at Ground floor is changed to beam and
column structures, with the use of transfer beams. Precast concrete structural elements
including façade, half-landing and staircase are adopted at the typical floors.
The block sits on a pilecap resting on a system of LDBP piles which are founded on slightly to
moderately decomposed, moderately strong rock of material weathering grade III or better with
a total core recovery of more than 85%.
1.4 Structural Concept

1.4.1 The building is a reinforced concrete structure designed to act as a fully integrated unit
when subjected to gravity and lateral wind loads.
1.4.2 Floor slabs to the domestic units are uniformly 160mm thick designed as one-way or
two-way spanning plates being supported by shear walls. The slab edge at the façade
side is considered as a free edge. Floor slabs at common area are designed as one
way or two way plates supported by the load-bearing walls and structural walls.
1.4.3 At the lowest domestic floor level, transfer girders are provided to support those shear
walls being truncated to some extent at the ground floor. Induced stress concentrations
in walls in the load transfer mechanism are catered for in the strength design of the
walls, column and the transfer beams. Shear walls at ground floor attract loads from
walls at upper floors partly by direct dispersion and partly from first floor transfer beams
- 41 -
1.4.4 Lateral stability should be provided by shear walls and cores acting in conjunction with
the floor slabs and tie beams which act as a rigid diaphragm to distribute the wind load
horizontally. The wind force is progressively distributed to the shear walls and cores on
each floor via the floor diaphragm and subsequently transmitted to the foundations.
1.4.5 Where walls are linked by lintel beams or floor slabs, these walls are treated as
coupled shear walls and the developed coupling effects in the structural members are
designed for accordingly. The applied-moments due to the wind forces are resisted by
a combination of moments in the walls and the couple arising from the axial forces in
the walls. The bending action of walls induced shears in the lintel beams, which exert
bending moments, of the opposite sense to the applied wind moments.
1.4.6 The robustness of the blocks is in compliance with the Code of Practice for Structural
Use of Concrete 2004 (HKCC) in consideration of the following:
The layout of the buildings are checked to avoid any inherent weakness;
The building is designed to resist a higher horizontal load due to wind load than
the notional horizontal load;
the buildings are provided with effective horizontal ties
i. around the periphery by precast façade & slab ;
ii. internally by slab & beam ;
iii. to column and wall by slab & beam.
1.5 Design Methods and Assumptions
1.5.1 Gravity Model Analysis
To estimate the loading effect of the gravity load, the whole building is sliced into different
layers and each layer is analyzed using the ETABS software. The major modelling
assumptions are:
1.5.1.1 The whole building is inputted as five separate models in the gravity analysis.
Five ETABS models are:
1. Upper Roof to Main Roof
2. Typical Truncated Floor (representing 39/F to 33/F)
3. Truncated Roof Floor (representing 32/F)
4. Typical Floor (representing 31/F to 2/F)
5. 1/F and Below
1.5.1.2 The effect of the gravity load at any level would be the summation of the
reaction forces extracted from the gravity models of the floors above it.
1.5.1.3 Self-weight and finishes of walls on typical floor are not considered in ETABS
models and are separately calculated and added to the pier load output from
ETABS as shown in Appendix IV Load rundown calculation.
1.5.1.4 Live load reduction factor in compliance with HKLC 2011 Cl. 3.7 is adopted.
1.5.1.5 Beams, slabs, columns and walls are all included in each model. Weight of
precast façade and partitions are simulated by virtual beams with line load.
Architectural fins connected to the structural wall are modeled as a point load as
- 42 -
well as a moment at the wall edge.

1.5.1.6 The architectural concrete thickening at external walls is catered for by
assuming a finishing thickness of 30mm.
1.5.1.7 Beam element is simulated as “FRAME” member including the transfer beam at
1/F.
1.5.1.8 Wall element is modeled as “SHELL’ element”
1.5.1.9 Slab element is modeled as “SHELL” element to simulate the gravity load.
1.5.1.10 Center of column and central line of wall are used in ETABS model for simplicity.
The eccentricity on plan between the centerline of wall and transfer beam at 1/F
is modeled with the use of a number of rigid linking beams having the span
length equal to the eccentricity.
1.5.1.11 Transfer beams are modeled as frame members connecting walls from upper
level to ensure the compatibility between walls and beams.
1.5.1.12 Connection between the base of column and the top of foundation is assumed
to be fixed.
1.5.1.13 Only the internal forces of wall, column and transfer girder elements will be
extracted from the gravity model for element design. Other elements (beams,
slabs, stairs) will be designed by separate calculation.
1.5.1.14 The graphical layout of the various ETABS model, input files and output files are
attached in Appendix I, III and VI respectively. Only the output data for pier force
are extracted in the following sections for further calculation purpose.
1.5.2 Wind Model Analysis
For resisting wind load, the domestic blocks are simulated in ETABS/ORION model. The
modeling assumptions are:
1.5.2.1 A full building structure from the base to top roof level is simulated in the model.
1.5.2.2 The floor slabs are considered as a rigid diaphragm in the wind analysis.
1.5.2.3 Beam elements including the transfer girder at 1/F are simulated as “FRAME”
members.
1.5.2.4 Wall elements are modeled as “SHELL” element” with bending stiffness at minor
axis set as zero.
1.5.2.5 Slab element are modeled as “SHELL” element without considering the bending
and membrane stiffness
1.5.2.6 In simulating the beam across corridor and lift core, the corridor slab is
simulated as a virtual rectangular beam with effective slab width. (the effective
slab thickness are assumed to be 2 x slab + wall thickness)
- 43 -
1.5.2.7 The core portion walls are extended to the upper roof level receiving the lateral
wind loads.
1.5.3 Transfer Beam Design

Except Beam of TFBC27, transfer beams at 1/F are designed by means of manual
computation in accordance with the analysis results extracted from the gravity and wind
ETABS models. Certain amount of loading contingency (8% for DL & LL) for the
transfer girder design is applied to the dead and live loads to facilitate future amendment.
Transfer Beam of TFBC27 is designed by SAFE v8.06. It is assumed to be flexible and

supported by walls. To cater for the twisting moment, Wood-Armer Method is selected for
the analysis. The flexural and shear reinforcements are designed by considering the plate
as several strips as rectangular beam in both X and Y directions. The strip width is
assigned to be approximately twice of effective depth of plate thickness. The flexural
reinforcement is designed by the built-in design function in SAFE model. The shear
reinforcement is designed by means of manual computation in accordance with the
analysis results extracted from the SAFE models.
The reinforcement requirements for beam-column joint are considered in Section 9.4 of
Volume 3: Part II Submission.
The following is the conversion table for beam marks and spandrel mark in ETABS
models:
Beam Mark in Spandrel Label in

Framing Plan ETABS
TFBB7A
TFBB7
TFBB7B
TFBB8A
TFBB8
TFBB8B
TFBC10A
TFBC10
TFBC10B
TFBC11A
TFBC11
TFBC11B
L2000BA1 1LBA1
L2000BA2 1LBA2
L2000BB1 1LBB1
L2000BB2 1LBB2
- 44 -
1.5.4 Precast Façade
1.5.4.1 Unless otherwise shown on drawings, precast concrete facade units are
provided as a mandatory generally one-piece element in living room, kitchen
and bedrooms.
1.5.4.2 They are designed to support their own weight spanning between two adjacent
structural walls as well as to transmit the wind load acting on the building
envelope in two principal directions to the supporting structural walls. No
transfer of vertical load to the façade on the lower floor is allowed to avoid
accumulation of vertical load.
1.5.4.3 The precast facades are designed in accordance with the Code of Practice on
Precast Construction 2003 and the Code of Practice for Structural Use of
Concrete 2004 to support the loadings at the various construction stages
including production, storage, lifting, erection, and the permanent loading based
on the concrete strength at the age of the corresponding stages of construction.
1.5.4.4 Permanent structural connections are of insitu cast method by which the facade
units are joined monolithically with the building structure.
1.5.4.5 Concrete grade C45 is used to enhance durability as well as to reduce the
required cover to reinforcements improving buildability.
1.5.4.6 The FRP of the precast façade is 1 hour and the beams spanning between the
structural walls are designed with minimum width of 200mm to satisfy the Code
of Practice for Fire Resisting Construction 1996.
1.5.4.7 Structural analyses for all stages are carried out by using ETABS programme.
1.5.4.8 The facades are modeled as a 3D frame composing line members representing
the beams and posts; and rectangular elements representing the walls. The
parapet walls are analyzed and designed as wall beams. The end supports at
the two ends of the top beam and the bottom wall beam are assumed to be
moment released but fixed for torsion to simulate the monolithic connection
between the façade and the supporting walls. This assumption is compatible
with the general assumption for shear wall design that the out-of-plane stiffness
of the wall is negligible.
1.5.4.9 The a/c hood and the overhang are not modeled as members in the façade
frame but considered as loadings on it. They are then designed by hand
calculation as cantilever slabs.
- 45 -
1.5.5 Precast/Semi-precast Concrete Slab
1.5.6.1 Unless otherwise shown on drawings, in the domestic flats, semi-precast

concrete slab composing 70mm thick precast concrete slab and 90mm thick
insitu concrete topping is used except that 185mm thick precast concrete slab
with 55mm trough forming the sunken shower tray is used in the thicken slab
proportion as shown the building layout plan.
1.5.6.2 The slabs are designed as simply supported on the walls and beams with a free
unsupported edge along the façade.
1.5.6.3 The joints between the precast and/or semi-precast slab panels are considered
as continuous and checked for the reduced effective depth in the design.
1.5.6.4 Permanent structural connections are of insitu cast method by which the
precast/semi-precast units are joined monolithically with the building structure.
1.5.6.5 The precast/semi-precast concrete slabs are designed in accordance with the
Code of Practice on Precast Construction 2003 and the Code of Practice for
Structural Use of Concrete 2004 to support the loadings at the various
construction stages including production, storage, lifting, concreting, and the
permanent loading based on the concrete strength at the age of the
corresponding stages of construction.
1.5.6.6 Concrete grade C45 is used for precast/semi-precast slabs partially or fully
laying within the kitchen/bathroom area to reduce the required cover to
reinforcements to enhance buildability but concrete grade C35 is assumed in the
element design to simplify the design calculation. Concrete grade C35 is used
for precast/semi-precast slabs laid wholly within the living/bedroom area as well
as the insitu concrete.
1.5.6.7 When a semi-precast slab panel is laid across areas of different required
concrete cover, the greatest concrete cover is used throughout the semi-precast
slab panel to simplify the detailing.
1.5.6.8 The FRP of the slab design is 1 hour.
1.5.6.9 Structural analyses for all stages are carried out by using SAFE programme.
The sunken shower tray is modeled as an opening and designed by hand
calculation as a slab panel simply supported on four edges. The area load on
the shower tray is applied to the adjacent mesh element through a virtual plate
of negligible modulus of elasticity.
1.5.6.10 Slab reinforcements are calculated by SAFE programme using Wood-Armer
method.
- 46 -
1.6 Design Standards and Sources of Reference

The following Codes of Practice and Standards are adopted for the design of this project:
(a) Hong Kong Building (Construction) Regulations 1990
(b) Code of Practice for Dead and Imposed Loads 2011
(c) Code of Practice on Wind Effects in Hong Kong 2004
(d) Code of Practice for Structural Use of Concrete 2004
(e) Code of Practice for Precast Concrete Construction 2003
(f) PNAP APP-68 for cantilever structures
(g) BS8007 - Water Retaining Structures 1987
1.7 Design Data
1.7.1 Reinforced Concrete - Materials
1.7.1.1 Concrete
The concrete grades adopted in the design are as follows:

Characteristic
Concrete
Element Level Strength fcu
Grade
(N/mm²)
Pilecap 40/20 D 40
G/F, F2–F40,
35/20 D 35
Slab & Floor Beam above Roof
F1 and Roof 45/20 D 45
F1 to F20 45/20 D 45
Corridor slab (300mm thk)
F21 to F40 35/20 D 35
Transfer Beam F1 45/20 D PFA 45
Transfer Plate F22 45/20 D 45
F1 to F20,
45/20 D 45
Lintel Beam & Tie Beam Roof
F21 to F40 35/20 D 35
Foundation
45/20 D 45
Wall and Column Level to F20
above F20 35/20 D 35
Precast Façade All 45/20 D 45
Parapet and In-situ 35/20 D 35
All
Staircase
Precast Staircase All 35/20 D 35
Water Retaining
Water 45D/20(W) 45
Structures
D : Normal Design Mix, (W) : With Waterproof concrete
Concrete Grade 35 45
Evalue short term (kN/mm²) 23.7 26.4
Evalue long term including creep (kN/mm²) 11.9 13.2
Poisson ratio of 0.2 is taken for all concrete grades.
- 47 -
1.7.1.2 Reinforcement
All reinforcement should be in compliance with Construction Standard 2 (CS2)
and have the following properties:
Type II deformed bars to CS2 fy = 460 N/mm2

Mild steel bars fy = 250 N/mm2
Modulus of elasticity of reinforcement Es = 200 kN/mm2
The minimum size of bars should be 10mm unless otherwise specified.

All reinforcement for water tanks should be epoxy coated bars.
1.7.2 Cover to Reinforcement
Cover to reinforcement refers to:
(i.) Code of Practice for Fire Resisting Construction – 1996 (HKFC)
(ii.) Code of Practice for Structural Use of Concrete – 2004 (HKCC)
(iii.) HD Structural Engineering Technical Guide – (DSEG-104)
FRP of the various compartments in the building is stipulated in the approved general
building plan and its requirement on concrete cover and element size are tabulated for
comparison with the HKCC. The more stringent requirement governs the design. The
cover refers to the distance of all reinforcement to the surface unless otherwise stated.
Cover (c), min. Cover,

& size (s), min. nominal for
for FRP Durability to
FRP
Storey Usage Element to HKFC HKCC or for
(hr.)
Durability
and FRP to
DSEG-104
Below G/F
Below Pile cap NA
G/F -All parts 50
except
bottom
surface
-Bottom 75
NA
surface
Footing 50
Column 50
& wall
* for continuous beam only. For simply supported beam, cover should be 50mm with
expanded metal lath.
# cover for member exposed to weather is shown in bracket.
^ cover to main bars.
_Item underlined indicates the design figure adopted.
- 48 -
Storey Usage Element Cover (c), min. Cover,

FRP
to HKFC HKCC or for
(hr.)
Durability
and FRP to
DSEG-104
G/F – 20/F, R/F Grade 45/20
G/F MAC Room, EMO, Slab c: 20 40 for slab
Storerooms, Cleansing s: 100 only
contractor’s workshop,
Maintenance services Beam c: 30^
workshop, Lobby, Staircase s: 200 width
(except next to transformer
room); Column c: 25^
1 s: 200 35 for toilet
1/F – Domestic, Telecom Room,
/kitchen
20/F Electric meter room,
Wall c: 15^ 35 for others
Staircase
s: 120
Staircase c: 20
s: 95
G/F – 20/F, R/F Grade 45/20

G/F Transformer Room, Main Slab c: 35 50
Switch Room, FS meter s: 125
room, TBE room, Pump
rooms, Electric meter room, Beam c: 40*^ 50
JCP, Refuge s: 200 width
Storage/Material Recovery
Room (RS/MR), 2 Column c: 35^ 35
1/F – RS/MR s: 300
20/F
19/F FS booster pump room Wall c: 25^ 35
s: 160
1/F, Floor
R/F
G/F Transformer room adjacent c: 25^ 35
4 Wall
to Staircase No. 1 s: 180
- 49 -
Storey Usage Element Cover (c), min. Cover,

FRP
to HKFC HKCC or for
(hr.)
Durability
and FRP to
DSEG-104
21/F – 40/F, above R/F Grade 35/20
21/F– Domestic, Telecom Room, Slab c: 20 35 for toilet
40/F Electric meter room, s: 100 /kitchen and
Staircase 25 for others
Beam c: 30^
s: 200 width
Column c: 25^
1
s: 200
Wall c: 15^
s: 120
Staircase c: 20
s: 95
21/F– RS/MR Slab c: 35 25
40/F s: 125
Beam c: 40*^ 30
s: 200 width
2
above Fresh water pump room, Column c: 35^ 30
R/F Vent duct room, Lift machine s: 300
room, Emergency Generator
room Wall c: 25^ 35
s: 160
All Cantilever exposed to Slab/beam 45
weathering
All Water tanks, fountain, flower Slab 40

bed and planter
Beam
Wall
- 50 -
1.7.3 Design Loading

1.7.3.1 Gravity Load
Dead and imposed loads should be in accordance with the Hong Kong
Building (Construction) Regulations (B(C)R) 1990 and the Code of Practice for
Dead and Imposed Loads 2011 (HKLC).
Floor slabs should be designed for loads imposed by partitions at the
particular locations indicated on Architectural drawings. Where partition details
are not given on the Architectural drawings, allowance for partition loadings
should be made in accordance with Clause 3.6.1 of HKLC.
(a) Dead Load

Plain concrete = 23.60 KN/m³
Reinforced concrete = 24.50 KN/m³
Brick work = 21.70 KN/m³
Concrete blocks = 20.60 KN/m³
Cement mortar = 23.00 KN/m³
(b) Imposed Loads and Finishes:-
Level Elements Finishes Imposed Load

KN/m² KN/m²
Upper Roof General Roof Top Area 2.0 2.0
Lift Machine Room 1.0 7.5*
Lift Shaft Top Slab 1.0 26*
Main Roof Refuge Area/Raised deck passageway 4.0 5.0
Emergency Generator Room 1.0 7.5*
Booster Pump Room 2.2 7.5*
Typical Floor Living/Bedroom 0.84 2.0
Kitchen/Bathroom/Utility 1.5 2.0
Lift Lobby/Refuse Room/ Corridor 1.7 3.0
Elect. Meter/Telecom/Pipe Duct Room 1.0 3.0*
Partition load on Living/Dining Room -- 2.15*
First Floor Canopy (Accessible) 2.0 2.0
(Others same as typical floor)
Podium Floor Landscape Areas 4.0 11.5
Others 4.0 5.0
Ground Floor Lift lobby/Security Guard/Mail Room 2.0 5.0
Refuse Chamber 1.7 5.0
Transformer/Switch Room 1.0 20*
Pump Room 2.2 7.5*
Meter/Cable/Store/Pipe Duct/MDF Room 1.0 3.0*
MAC Office 1.0 3.0
Main TBE Room 1.0 7.5*
Staircase/ Landings 1.92 5.0
Lift Pit/ Impact Load -- 290KN/Lift
Water Tank Potable 1.4 wt. of water*
Others 1.0
All loads indicated above are ‘Characteristic Loads”. Live loads with asterisk *
are non-reducible.
- 51 -
(c) Construction Load Finishes Imposed load

G/F – designated area 0 20
1.7.3.2 Wind Load
Design wind loads should be in accordance with the Code of Practice on Wind
Effect in Hong Kong 2004 (HKWC).
The building height (upto Main Roof) = 114.95m

The least building horizontal dimension = 54.9m (Wind direction = 105o)
Aspect ratio of the least dimension = 2.09 < 5
As the building height is greater than 100m, the resonant dynamic response
of the building should be considered in the design in accordance with Section
7 of HKWC.
6 nos. of reversible wind directions of 0o, 33o, 90o, 105o, 123o and 165o are
considered to be critical for the building. A loading contingency (5%) is applied
to facilitate the future submission.
The maximum lateral deflection due to wind forces has been checked not to
exceed 1/500 of the building height.
1.7.4 Design Load Cases and Combinations
ULS Load Combination
Load Type
Load Combination Dead Imposed
Adverse Beneficial Adverse Beneficial Wind
1. Dead and imposed 1.4 1.0 1.6 0.0 --
2. Dead and wind 1.4 1.0 -- -- 1.4
3. Dead, imposed and wind 1.2 1.0 1.2 0.0 1.2
- 52 -
1.7.5 Computer Programs
Structural Engineering BD Approval Expiry

Computer Programme Reference No. Date
Framework
Analysis
ETABS PLUS Version 9.1.0 S0672 02/11/2012

Tall Building static analysis
R.C. Design
SADS Version 2.0

SADS 11 Module (Wall design) S0704 23/09/2010
SADS 11 Module (Column design) S0703 23/09/2010
SADS 11 Module (Beam design) S0702 23/09/2010
SAFE Version 8.0.6 S0608 20/05/2011

Analysis and Design of Slab type
member (including Fexible Cap)
ADSEC Version 8.0 S0697 19/08/2010

Design of general R.C. section
Intelligent Version 7.1- Release 2 S0505 15/04/2011

Drafting
System
- 53 -
Structural Design Practice Appendix B - Efficiency Indicator
APPENDIX B
EFFICIENCY INDICATOR
- 54 -
Efficiency Indicator (EI) for Structural Design
To enhance cost-effectiveness in structural design, a series of EIs have been

developed, comparing the structural efficiency of various design alternatives
against the criteria for function and quality. These EIs greatly facilitate design
team to arrive at fully optimized and highly cost-effective structural designs.
Typical tables of comparison of EI for foundation and building are attached

below for reference.
- 55 -
Summary for Foundation Design Efficiency of Domestic Blocks (As at XX.XX.2011)
No. of Total Net Pile Steel Ratio [1] of Total D+L[2] Total Reinf. of Total Concrete Cost of Reinf. of Cost of Conc. of Total Cost of
Block Block Total CFA
Project Domestic Pile Type Total Pile No. Cap/Footing Thickness (m) Capacity[3] Cap/Footing per CFA Cap/Footing per of Cap/Footing Cap/Footing per Cap/Footing per Cap/Footing per Remark
Type No. (m2)
Storey per CFA (kN/m2) (kg/m3) (kN/m2) CFA (kg/m2) per CFA (m3/m2) CFA [4] ($/m2) CFA [4] ($/m2) CFA [4] ($/m2)
+
B
Y
PILING BENCHMARK [5]
[1] ^ denoted As-Built Figure
[2] Total D+L is the total load at top of pile cap from loading schedule excluding self-weight of pile cap and the fill above the cap.
[3] Total Net Pile Capacity should deduct any NSF.

2 2
For LDBP, Total Net Pile Capacity (kN) = [Total Shaft Area (m2) x 9000 (kN/m ) - Total NSF (kN)] where 9000kN/m is allowable direct compression of 45D/20 concrete concreting under water. As a general guideline, LDBP shaft diameter should be 2.7m and 2.75m for L>20m and L<=20m respectively.
For 223 H-Pile, Total Net Pile Capacity (kN) = [Total Pile No. x 3016 (kN) - Total NSF (kN)] where 3016kN is allowable bearing capacity of pile with group reduction factor 0.85.
For Footing, Total Net Pile Capacity (kN) is not applicable.
[4] The estimated cost to be referred to the latest returned tenders.

Unit Rate of Material
$ per kg for Reinf.
3
$ per m for Conc.
[5] Piling Benchmark is applied to piling design of 40 domestic storey blocks.
- 56 -
- 57 -
Structural Design Practice Appendix C – Optimization Design Tools
APPENDIX C
OPTIMIZATION DESIGN TOOLS
- 58 -
Structural Design Practice Appendix C – Optimization Design Tools
Cost Efficient Structural Design (CESD)
The CESD is a software package developed by SE2 to optimize structural

layout for high-rise residential blocks. It comprises a series of programs
that can be used for adjustment of elements size to fully utilize the capacity
of each individual element by iteration and comparing the total estimated
cost until the optimized structural layout is achieved. In addition, the CESD
can be used for detailed design of new buildings as well as for appraisal of
existing buildings.
Programs of the software package are accessible at the webpage of

e-housing portal. For more information about the CESD, please contact
SE/133.
Semi-automated Data Management System (SDMS)
The SDMS, comprising a series of data processors, has been developed by

SE1 to automate design activities across the range of common software in
use. It is a multi-functional tool facilitating the design processes from
foundation to superstructure, including loading plan preparation, SAFE
modeling, pile schedule generation to detailed design of walls, lintel and
transfer beams etc.
PSE may make use of the SDMS to enhance process efficiency and design
reliability. With the use of SDMS, the entire design process is automated
with less risk of computing error, leading to savings in time and resources
for counter-checking, and expediting optimization cycles, thus enabling
reliable, confident, functional and cost-effective structural design to be
carried out.
User Guides of each data processor of SDMS are accessible at the SE1
Sectional Share Drive. For details, please contact SE/127.
- 59 -
Structural Design Practice Appendix D– Commonly Used Loading Intensities
APPENDIX D
COMMONLY USED DESIGN LOADING INTENSITIES
- 60 -
Structural Design Practice Appendix D– Commonly Used Loading Intensities
Summary of Commonly Used Design Loading Intensities:
Elements Screed Unit Remarks

/Finishes
/Imposed
loads
Roof
150 parapet, 1775 high 7.8 KN/m (24.5x0.15+0.69)x1.775=7.75
Domestic Floor
Wall / Partition
2x15 plaster to all walls 0.69 KN/m² 23x0.015x2=0.69
85 panel wall partition 6.4 KN/m (20.6x0.085+0.69)x(2.75-0.16)=6.33
100 concrete wall partition 8.2 KN/m (24.5x0.1+0.69)x(2.75-0.16)=8.13

(domestic area)
100 concrete wall partition 7.7 KN/m (24.5x0.1+0.69)x(2.75-0.3)=7.69
(common area) (for 300 corridor slab)
150 concrete wall at flat 10.7 KN/m (24.5x0.15+0.69) x(2.75-0.3)=10.7
entrance (for 300 corridor slab)
200 infill wall at lift opening 13.7 KN/m (24.5x0.2+0.69)x(2.75-0.3)=13.7
(for 300 corridor slab)
Imposed partition LL (location 2.15 KN/m² (24.5x0.075+0.69)x(2.75-0.16)/3=2.15
not specified in domestic area)
Note 1
Precast Façade (MFD)
Façade T1 28.30 KN
Façade T2 21.50 KN
Façade T2A 20.60 KN

D&S Design Calculation, Design Refinement to
Façade T3 33.10 KN Modular Flat Design (2010 Revision)
Maximum reaction due to dead load of the
Façade T4 12.20 KN façade on each supporting wall
Façade T5 13.90 KN
Façade T6 25.30 KN
Miscellaneous
50 wooden door 0.4 KN/m² 7x0.05=0.35
Aluminum window, 6mm glass 0.2 KN/m² 27.2x0.006=0.2

pane
Note 1 Decoration Handbook (DCMB D01/09) specifies that all partitions should be 75mm thick solid concrete
blockworks.
- 61 -
Structural Design Practice Appendix E - Determining Founding Level of LDBP
APPENDIX E
TEMPLATE FOR DETERMINING FOUNDING LEVEL OF LDBP
- 62 -
Structural Design Practice Appendix E - Determining Founding Level of LDBP
Project Name
Contract No. ????????
Rockhead (Grade III or Better) Level And Founding Level for LDBPs
Advised By PGE Length of Rock Socket (See Note 4c)

Extra Rock Socket Rough Estimation
Thickness of
Inferred Bottom Level of Settlement Pile Length Required Of Total Rock Additional
Inferred Inferred Tentative Competent Rock
Rockhead Lowest Bedrock (Grade Concern Due To Founding Level From Cut-off [I.e I > 0.8m AND Excavation (Grade Stress
Pre-drill Shaft Bellout Cut-off Lowest Rockhead Suggested Level To To Pile J > (0.8m &
Below Founding
IV or Better) From From Other
LDBP Level At Rockhead III or Better) Weak Seams To Pre-Drill To Pile Shaft
Drillhole Dia. Dia. Level Rockhead Inclination Founding Level In Piling Design
Founding Bellout Bellout Length)
Level From The
Pre-drill Drillhole Piles Due to Remarks
No. Pre-drill Level At From The Pre- Below The (See Notes 2 & 4) Rockhead Rockhead Pre-drill Drillhole
No. Level At θ > 45O If Applicable Level Rockhead AND K > 0.3m] (Indication Figure 45O Rule
Drillhole Pile drill Drillhole Founding Level (See Notes 2 & 4b)
Pile Shaft (See Note 3) (See Notes 4c & 5) Only)
Bellout (See Note 1) (See Note 6)
(m) (m) A (mPD) B (mPD) C (mPD) D (mPD) (Y/N) E (mPD) F (mPD) (Y/N) G (mPD) H = A - G (m) I = B - G (m) J = C - G (m) K = D - G (m) (Y/N) L = G - E (m) M (m) (Y/N)
Notes : 1. Legend in Column E : ⊗ denotes the level as indicated is the bottom of the pre-drill drillhole. @ denotes 'weak seams' of considerable thickness (I.e. >225mm Thk.) exist below the level as indicated. Grade III/IV or Better Rock
Rockhead Level
2. Highlighted figures represent : Column G "Tentative Founding Level In Piling Design" ≠ "PGE's Suggested Founding Level" (ACTION : Reason(s) should be provided in "Remark" for such decision.) At Pre-Drilling (B) Bedrock (Grade III or Better with TCR > 85%)
Inferred Lowest Rockhead Level At Pile

Column L "Length of Competent Bedrock Below Founding Level From The Pre-drill Drillhole" < 6m (ACTION : Stringent site control to avoid over-excavation is required) Shaft (C) Inferred Lowest Rockhead
Level At Pile Bellout (D)
θ
I
J
(800 MIN.)
(800 MIN. OR
H1 K
Governed By 30O
3. If inferred rockhead inclination θ > 45O, the very steep rockhead may required further investigation such as additional drillholes to avoid over excavation in rock. Bellout Angle)
(300 MIN.)
Founding Level (G)
30O MAX.
Pre-Drill Drillhole
L
4. In determination of founding levels, the following criteria are considered :- (5000 MIN.)
Bottom Level of Bedrock
from Pre-Drill Drillhole (E)
(a) Total Core Recovery (>85%) for grade III or better rock is based on 1.5m core run (Table 2.1 Note (4) of HKCC).
(b) Founding levels should satisfy the HD practice to achieve at least 5m thick of competent rock (Grade III or better of allowable bearing capacity 5000kPa) below the founding level in accordance with the pre-drill drillhole information.
(c) Nominal rock socket length in HD is 0.8m but maximum 30O bellout angle may control the socket length [I.e. (Bellout Dia. - Shaft Dia.) > 0.92m]. Minimum 0.3m long rock socket is required by BD (PNAP141). The rock socket requirements are illustrated in the above diagram.
(d) To avoid possible settlement problem, there should have no weak seams within the depth of 0.5 times bellout diameter below the founding level.
(e) To avoid possible borehole collapse during bellout construction, the socket length (H1) of the bellout bit should be within Grade III/IV or better rock.
5. If extra rock socket is required, reason(s) should be provided in "Remark" for such decision.
6. If there is any settlement concern due to weak seam(s) below the founding level, piling design checking result should be reported in "Remark" .
- 63 -
Structural Design Practice Appendix F – Design Chart for Shrinkage & Creep Stress
APPENDIX F
DESIGN CHART FOR SHRINKAGE & CREEP STRESS
- 64 -
Design Charts for Estimating Stress Due To Shrinkage and Creep
The total stress due to shrinkage and creep at 480 days are worked out and
plotted against effective thicknesses for concrete grades 30, 35, 40 and 45
(common concrete grades used in floor structures in Hong Kong) for various K r
values which are displayed in Figures APP-F2(a), (b), (c) and (d). The reason
why the 480 days stress is chosen for presentation is that the 480 days strengths
should be reasonably close to the final stress at time at infinity. For general
purpose, the steel ratio in the floor structure is taken as zero. It should be noted
that the strongest stress for a structure of pre-determined effective thickness is
at where K r = 0 , i.e. perfectly rigid restraint by supports.
 1 1  AE
In the application of the charts, K r = f r = K b  + where K b = is
K 
 sup1 K sup 2  L
the axial stiffness of the floor structure (as inverses to the floor flexibility) and
K sup 1 , K sup 2 as the support stiffness of supports 1 and 2 (again inverses of f sup 1
and f sup 2 respectively defined as the force required to produce unit
displacement at supports 1 and 2 at the floor level). In Figure APP-F1 in which

the floor structure is assumed to be hinged to the walls which practically act as
3EI
vertical cantilevers, the stiffness of each can be taken as K sup = where
H3
EI is the flexural rigidity of the wall.
Floor structure of cross sectional area A and axial flexibility fb
H
Supporting members Supporting member
providing lateral providing lateral
restraints of flexibility restraints of flexibility
fsup1 fsup2
L
Figure APP-F1 – One storey One Bay Concrete Floor Structure for Shrinkage and
Creep Stress Estimation
- 65 -
Variation of Stress of grade 30 Concrete Floor Structure due to Shrinkage &

Creep with Effective Thickness and Floor End Restraint Ratios at 480 Days
Kr=0 Kr=0.25 Kr=0.5 Kr=1.0 Kr=1.5
Kr=2.0 Kr=3.0 Kr=5.0 Kr=7.5 Kr=15
5.5
5  1 1 
Concrete stress at 480 days (MPa)
K r = Kb  +
K K 
4.5  sup 1 sup 2 
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800
Effective thickness (mm)
Figure APP-F2(a) – 480 days stress due to shrinkage and creep of concrete floor
(grade 30) in one bay one storey structure

Kr=0 Kr=0.25 Kr=0.5 Kr=1.0 Kr=1.5
Kr=2.0 Kr=3.0 Kr=5.0 Kr=7.5 Kr=15
5.5
5  1 1 
K r = Kb  +
K 
4.5  sup 1 K sup 2 
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800
Figure APP-F2(b) – 480 days stress due to shrinkage and creep of concrete floor
- 66 -

Kr=0 Kr=0.25 Kr=0.5 Kr=1.0 Kr=1.5
Kr=2.0 Kr=3.0 Kr=5.0 Kr=7.5 Kr=15
5.5
5  1 1 
K r = Kb 
+
K K 
4.5  sup 1 sup 2 
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800
Figure APP-F2(c) – 480 days stress due to shrinkage and creep of concrete floor

Kr=0 Kr=0.25 Kr=0.5 Kr=1.0 Kr=1.5
Kr=2.0 Kr=3.0 Kr=5.0 Kr=7.5 Kr=15
5.5
5  1 1 
K r = Kb 
+
K 
4.5  sup 1 K sup 2 
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800
Figure APP-F2(d) – 480 days stress due to shrinkage and creep of concrete floor
- 67 -
Structural Design Practice Appendix G – Good Detailing Practice
APPENDIX G
GOOD DETAILING PRACTICE
- 68 -
Contents
Page
G-1 Minimize Transverse Links for Columns/Walls 70
G-2 Minimum Spacing of Column Vertical Bars 71
G-3 Spacing Intervals of Wall Reinforcements and Beam Stirrups 71
G-4 Minimum Support Width 71
G-5 Use of Epoxy Coated Bars 71
G-6 Waterstop at expansion joint 72
G-7 Lapping of heavy bottom bar at column face 73
- 69 -
G-1 Minimize Transverse Links for Columns/Walls
For columns, only each alternate bar should be supported by a link.

Limiting the maximum vertical bar spacing of columns to 150mm from a
restrained bar can substantially reduce transverse link as illustrated below:
9 bars @ 159 c/c
Option 1: Re-arrange the bars Option 2: Replace 2T32 by 4T25
10 bars @ 141 c/c 10 bars @ 141 c/c
5 bars @ 6 bars @
167 c/c 134 c/c
Option 3: Uneven spacing along short side Option 4: Diagonal link
10 bars @ 141 c/c 10 bars @ 141 c/c
This, however, is not applicable to the ‘critical regions’ of columns in

accordance with Cl. 9.9.2.2(b) of the Concrete Code, where each
longitudinal bar or bundle of bars should be laterally supported by a link
passing around the bar and having an included angle of not more than
135 .
- 70 -
Similarly, limiting the maximum vertical bar spacing of walls to 200mm

from a restrained bar can reduce transverse link (when Asc > 2%).
< 200 (typ.)
G-2 Minimum Spacing of Column Vertical Bars
The minimum bar spacing of column vertical bars should preferably be at

least 130mm to ease horizontal reinforcement fixing.
G-3 Spacing Intervals of Wall Reinforcements and Beam Stirrups
To balance buildability and material optimization, the following spacing

increments for wall reinforcement and beam stirrup are recommended:
Spacing (mm) Increment (mm) Spacing Example (mm)

<=150 10 100, 110, 120, 130, 140 & 150
>150 25 175, 200, 225, 250, 300
G-4 Minimum Support Width
The minimum support width specified in the Code will limit the maximum
size of re-bar. Use splay or stud beam at support if larger diameter of
re-bar is required.
G-5 Use of Epoxy Coated Bars
Epoxy-coated bars are mandatory to be used in all water-retaining

structures except in external works. The maximum bar size used in
design should be ET16. PSE/DSE should check the availability of bar size
in local market when a greater bar size is proposed. The maximum bar
diameter available in the market as reported in some projects is ET20.
- 71 -
G-6 Waterstop at expansion joint
In installing waterstop along expansion joint (EJ), rebar interference

problems are occasionally spotted especially at thin structural members
with heavy reinforcement. Some good typical details to house the
waterstop at EJ are suggested below:
- 72 -
G-7 Lapping of heavy bottom bar at column face
When heavy bottom bars are required at beam-column joint, lap the
bottom bar at the column face as illustrated below. Beams should be as
wide as or wider than the column into which they frame, if practicable. In
addition to formwork economy, this alleviates reinforcement congestion.
In general, wide flat beams are easier to form than deep beams.
- 73 -

Hong Kong Housing Authority Structural Design Practice Optimization

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hong Kong Housing Authority Structural Design Practice Optimization

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hong Kong Housing Authority

Structural Design Practice SDP-1109

First published: September 2011

Prepared by the Development & Construction Division (DCD) of Housing

Chairman : Ir Joseph Mak CSE/DC&ICU

CHAPTER 2 - GRAVITY MODEL

CHAPTER 3 - WIND MODEL

CHAPTER 4 - DESIGN AND DETAILING OF FOUNDATION

SE Sections in DCD each has developed practices and materials for

1.2 CONTROL OF DOCUMENT

1.3 DESIGN SYNOPSIS

1.4 STRUCTURAL OPTIMIZATION

Basic Principles Remarks

Structural design review/forum should be conducted preferably before BC

an objective third party scrutiny to ensure that the structural scheme is

PSE/DSE is encouraged to make use of the optimization design tools (See

1.5 RISK MITIGATION

CHAPTER 2 - GRAVITY MODEL

2.1 DESIGN CONTINGENCY

Design contingency may be allowed to cater for minor design changes or

2.2 DESIGN LOADING INTENSITIES

2.3 MODELING OF TRANSFER BEAM/PLATE

As a conventional design method, it is generally acceptable to carry

2.4 REDUCIBLE AND NON-REDUCIBLE LL

CHAPTER 3 - WIND MODEL

3.1 DESIGN CONTINGENCY

Design contingency may be allowed to cater for minor design changes or

3.2 MODELING APPROACH

Exclude non-essential elements in the wind model as far as possible to

Equilibrium torsion at a cantilevered slab Compatibility torsion at an edge beam

Figure 3.2 Torsional Effect in Reinforced Concrete

Rigid diaphragm is normally modeled for the slabs except at those

3.3 WIND TUNNEL TEST

3.4 MODELING OF UPPER ROOF (U/R) AND GROUND FLOOR (G/F)

Minimize number of U/R wall elements in wind model to alleviate the

3.5 REVIEW THE USE OF COLUMNS AND WIND-RESISTING BEAMS

To design element as wall instead of column

Fig. 3.5 Aligning soffit of floor beams and corridor slab

To provide lateral stability solely by walls in low-rise buildings

3.6 LINTEL BEAM STIFFNESS

As the ductility requirement at Section 9.9 of the Code assumes the

- Use of any set of reasonable assumptions shall be permitted for

To simulate structural walls coupled by lintel beams in finite element

3.7 ELASTIC MODULUS OF CONCRETE

Where ƒck,cyl = characteristic compressive cylinder strength of concrete

Since characteristic cylinder strength ~ 0.8 x characteristic cube strength

Where ƒck,cube= characteristic compressive cube strength of concrete

If mean value of elastic modulus is adopted, checking should be carried out

Characteristic cube Mean cube strength, Mean value of elastic

The use of mean strength in checking the overall response of building to

3.8 CORRIDOR SLAB/BEAM MODELING

Allow services zone of preferably minimum 250mm width along centre of

CHAPTER 4 - DESIGN AND DETAILING OF FOUNDATION

4.1 DESIGN AND PLANNING OF LDBP

4.1.1 Effective shaft diameter of LDBP

(iii) The selection of steel casing with nominal diameter of 3.2m is

4.1.2 Founding Level

- Total Core Recovery (TCR) is based on 1.5m core run.

PSE should complete the template for determining founding level of

Fig. 4.1.3 Illustrative Diagram of the Founding Level Criteria

4.1.3 Design Pile Length

4.1.4 Pile Capacity Based on Combined Frictional and End Bearing

- When a particularly short pile exists in a large pile group, it tends