Lecture 4

Design of
Rock-socketed Piles
Rock-socketed piles
P
I
L
E
R
o
c
k

S
o
c
k
e
t
Soil
Rock
Load
In most cases, the lower part of the pile is socketed into rock.
Performance of rock socket
Socket friction
Socket friction increases with socket
roughness
Smooth socket friction fully mobilised
at small pile settlement
(after Horvath & Kenny, 1979)
Performance of rock socket
Socket friction is related to socket
roughness
Horvath et al. (1983) established that
f
s
= 0.8 (RF)
0.45
q
u
where RF = roughness factor = (r L
t
)/(D
L)
r = average height of asperities, L
t
= total
distance along the socket wall profile, D =
socket diameter, L = socket length & q
u
=
fi d i h f k (
Effect of socket diameter
Seidel & Harberfield (1995) found that
as the socket diameter increases, the
effect of dilation is reduced for a given
degree of socket roughness.
The variations in socket friction can
be changed by a factor of up to 3, for
diameters varying between 0.5 m and
2 m.
Rock socket friction
Unit shaft friction f
s
Early days (1960s to early 1970s)
f
s
= 250 kPa for fragmented shale
f
s
= 120 to 180 kPa for weak
mudstone
Rock socket friction
f
s
is related to q
u
Rosenberg & J ourneaux (1976)
f
s
= 0.375 (q
u
)
0.515
Meigh & Wolshi (1979)
f
s
= 0.22 (q
u
)
0.6
Rock socket friction
Williams & Pells (1981)
f
s
= q
u
where and are reduction factors
reflecting rock strength and fracture
state, respectively. See Figures.
Williams & Pells (see next figure for value of )
(after Williams and Pells)
Rock socket friction
Horvath et al. (1983)
f
s
= 0.2 to 0.3 (q
u
)
0.5
Rowe & Armitage (1987)
f
s
= 0.45 (q
u
)
0.5
for a smooth socket
f
s
= 0.60 (q
u
)
0.5
for a rough socket
Rock socket friction
From a large set of field data
(including those of Singapore),
Zhang & Einstein (1998) found that
f
s
= 0.4 (q
u
)
0.5
for a smooth socket
f
s
= 0.8 (q
u
)
0.5
for a rough socket
Rock socket friction
Recommendations for local design
Preliminary design using Horvath
f
s
= 0.2 to 0.3 (q
u
)
0.5
Detail design using Williams & Pells
f
s
= q
u
(All values need to be confirmed by load tests)
Performance of socket base
For the same rock strength, base
resistance increases with overburden
pressure
Shallow embedment: brittle failure
Deep embedment: ductile failure (i.e.
capacity is not a problem, only
settlement is a concern, see figure)
Socket base resistance
Unit base resistance q
b
Early days (60s & 70s)
Weak shale 3 MPa
Moderately strong shale 3.9-4.9
MPa
Weak mudstone 6.8 MPa
Moderately strong mudstone 28-58
MPa
Correlation
between q
b
and RQD
for a jointed
rock mass
(after
Peck et al.,
1974)
Socket base resistance
Teng (1962)
q
b
= 5 to 8 q
u
Coates (1967)
q
b
= 3 q
u
Tomlinson
q
b
= 1 to 6 q
u
(depending on rock fracture state)
Socket base resistance
Recommended approach for design
Rowe and Armitage (1987)
q
b
= 1 q
u
under working stress to
ensure no yielding of rock
q
b
= 2.5 q
u
under ultimate condition
[Values subject to capacity and
settlement verification from load tests]
Socket base resistance
Based on a large number of field data
(including that of Singapore)
Zhang & Einstein (1998) found that
q
b
= 3.0 to 6.6 (q
u
)
0.5
(with a mean coefficient of 4.8)
[Note q
b
is related to square root of
q
u
]
Zhang & Einstein (1998)
Conservative ratio of q
b
upon q
u
(after HK GEO)
(after HK GEO)
Unconfined compressive strength
REMINDER
Use q
uc
(unconfined compressive
strength of concrete) if the rock is
stronger than concrete.
Poser: In view of the above, is it
necessary to socket pile into hard rock?
{Answer can be yes or no!}
Settlement of rock-socketed piles
For socketed piles with long
embedment length, capacity is
normally governed by concrete
strength.
Settlement of pile needs to be
evaluated especially in suspected soft
toe cases.
Rock socket
Under working load, the load-
settlement response of a socketed
piles is fairly linear in most cases.
Elastic theory can be employed to
evaluate the pile settlement
0 4 8 12 16 20
Load (MN)
0
4
8
12
16
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
Load-settlement response is reasonably linear up to working load of 10 MN
Rock socket modulus E
r
Tomlinson
E
r
= j M
r
q
uc
(see tables)
Rowe and Armitage
E
r
= 215 (q
u
)
0.5
Mass factor j (after Tomlinson and BS8004)
Modulus ratio M
r
(after BS8006)
Settlement of rock socket
RECOMMENDED APPROACH
Rowe & Armitage (1987)
Assumptions:
Soil above rock socket has no
significant contribution in resistance
Elastic solutions are developed
assuming a fully bonded socket using a
FEM.
(after
Rowe &
Armitage,
1987)
Rowe and Armitage
Assumptions (continued)
The dimensionless settlement I defined
by I = E
d
D/Q
t
where is the socket settlement, E
d
is
the design socket shaft modulus, D is
socket diameter and Q
t
is the working
load.
Design charts are developed for various
pile geometry and socket/concrete
modulus ratios
Rowe and Armitage
DESIGN CONCEPT
Satisfying a user-specified design
settlement
Ensuring an adequate factor of safety
against failure
Limit state design concept: partial safety
factors applied to deformation and
strength parameters
Rowe and Armitage
DESIGN PROCEDURES
Step 1: Given
design settlement
d
socket diameter D
applied working load Q
t
Concrete modulus E
p
[Factored]
Unconfined compressive strength of
rock q
u
Rowe and Armitage
Step 2 (a): Determine
f
s
= 0.45 (q
u
)
0.5
E
r
= 215 (q
u
)
0.5
Determine E
b
if q
u
at pile base is different
Step 2(b): Apply partial factor of safety
Design unit shaft resistance
d
= f

f
s
Design rock mass modulus E
d
= f
E
E
r
Partial factors f

and f
E
are taken as 0.7 or 0.5
(for probability of 30% and 11% exceeding
d
)
Rowe and Armitage
Step 3: Determine E
p
/E
d
and E
b
/E
r
Step 4(a): Determine maximum
socket length assuming no base
resistance
(L/D)
max
= Q
t
/( D
2

d
)
Step 4(b): Determine the
dimensionless settlement I
I = E
d
D/Q
t
Rowe and Armitage
Step 5(a): Determine (L/D)
d
and
(Q
b
/Q
t
)
d
from the intersection of the
factored design line for (L/D)
max
with
the contour for I
d
using design charts
allowing for slip
Step 5(b): If there is an intersection,
calculation is okay & proceed to step
6.
Q
b =
100%,
I.e.
Full base
resistance
Q
b = 0%, I.e. Full shaft resistance
Intersection
refers to
estimated
Q
b
(after
Rowe &
Armitage,
1987)
Rowe and Armitage
Step 5(C): Determine the value of (L/D)
d
for given I
d
If there is a value of (L/D)
d
can be found,
determine (Q
b
/Q
t
)
d
for the (L/D)
d
and proceed
to step 6
If there is no value, redesign is necessary, go
back to step 1.
Refer to paper for details for design involving
a recessed pile
Determine the
value of (L/D)
d
for given I
d
Elastic
socket
(no slip)
(after Rowe &
Armitage, 1987)
If there is a value of (L/D)
d
can be found,
determine (Q
b
/Q
t
)
d
for the (L/D)
d
(after Rowe & Armitage, 1987)
Rowe and Armitage
Step 6: Check for base condition
q
t
= Q
t
/( D
2
/4)
Under working load
q
b
= (Q
b
/Q
t
)
d
q
t
and need to be < q
u
Under worst condition
q
bu
= q
t
- 4(L/D)
d
(0.3 f
s
) and < 2.5 q
u
assuming only 0.3 f
s
can be mobilised
Summary
of design
curves
(1) Full slip
E
b
/E
r
= 0.5
(after
Rowe &
Armitage,
1987)
Fig. 6.1
Summary
of design
curves
(2) Full slip
E
b
/E
r
= 1.0
(after
Rowe &
Armitage,
1987)
Fig. 6.2
Summary
of design
curves
(3) Full slip
E
b
/E
r
= 2.0
(after
Rowe &
Armitage,
1987)
Fig. 6.3
Summary
of design
curves
(4) Elastic
socket
(No slip)
(after
Rowe &
Armitage,
1987)
Fig. 6.4
Summary
of design
curves
(5) Elastic
socket:
base
resistance
(after
Rowe &
Armitage,
1987)
Fig. 6.5
Axially loaded rock-socketed piles
Examples 4.1[from Rowe & Armitage Page 138 Case
(i)]
Given:
Design settlement
d
= 8.5 mm
Pile diameter D = 0.71 m
Design working load Q
t
= 4.45 MN
Modulus of pile material E
p
= 37,000 MPa
Unconfined compressive strength of rock q
u
= 6.75 MPa
[Rock at pile base is more fractured and E
b
= 0.75 E
r
]
Calculation
Step 2(a): Unit shaft friction f
s
= 0.45 (q
u
)
0.5
= 1.17 MPa
Youngs modulus of rock E
f
= 215 (q
u
)
0.5
= 560 MPa
Step 2(b): Take partial factor of safety f

= f
E
= 0.7
[Probability of 30% not exceeding
d
]
Design unit shaft friction
d
= f

f
s
=0.82 MPa
Design rock mass modulus E
d
= f
E
E
r
= 390 MPa
Step 3: E
p
/E
d
= 95 (therefore use E
p
/E
d
= 100 chart)
E
b
/E
r
= 0.75 (interpolation between E
b
/E
r
=1 [Fig. 6.2]
and = 0.5 [Fig. 6.1])
Step 4(a): Assume no base resistance, maximum socket length
(L/D)
max
= Q
t
/ (D
2

d
) = 3.4
Step 4(b): Dimensionless settlement I = E
d
D/ Q
t
= 0.53
Calculation (cont.)
Step 5(a):
By drawing a line from (Q
b
/Q
t
)
d
= 100 % to (L/D) = 3.4
in Fig. 6.2(d) (i.e. for E
b
/E
r
= 1) show that (Q
b
/Q
t
)
d
=
63 % and the corresponding design socket
length/diameter ratio (L/D)
d
= 1.3 for I
d
= 0.53.
Similarly for E
b
/E
r
= 0.5 from Fig. 6.1(d),
(Q
b
/Q
t
)
d
= 27 %and (L/D)
d
= 2.5
By interpolation, (Q
b
/Q
t
) = 45%and(L/D)
d
= 1.9
Hence design socket length = 1.9 D = 1.35 m
and proceed to Step (6)
Calculation (cont.)
Step (6) Unit loading pressure
q
t
= Q
t
/ (D
2
/4 ) = 11.2 MPa
Under working condition, allowable base pressure
q
b
= (Q
b
/Q
t
)
d
q
t
= 5.1 MPa < q
u
OKAY
Under worst condition where only 0.3 f
s
can be
mobilised q
bu
= q
t
4(L/D)
d
(0.3 f
s
)
= 8.5 MPa < 2.5 q
u
OKAY
Design completed and required socket length is
1.35 m.
Example 4.2
Given:

d
= 5 mm, D = 1 m, Q
t
= 7.8 MN,
E
p
= 34,000 MPa, q
u
= 20 MPa, E
b
= E
r
Calculations:
Step 2(a) & (b):
d
= f

f
s
= 0.7 x 0.45 q
u
= 1.4 MPa
E
d
= f
E
E
r
= 0.7 x 215 q
u
= 673 MPa
Step 3: E
p
/E
d
= 34,000 / 673 = 50
Step 4: (L/D)
max
= Q
t
/ (D
2

d
) = 1.77
I = E
d
D/ Q
t
= 0.43
Calculation (cont.)
Step 5(a): Fig. 6.2(c) No intersection!
Step 5(b): Fig. 6.4(a)
for I = 0.43 & E
p
/E
d
= 50
(L/D) required 1.2
Fig. 6.5(a)
for (L/D) = 1.2 & E
p
/E
d
= 50
(Q
b
/Q
t
) = 30%
Calculation (cont.)
Step 6: q
t
= Q
t
/ (D
2
/4 ) = 9.93 MPa
Under working condition
q
b
= (Q
b
/Q
t
)
d
q
t
= 0.3 x 9.93 MPa = 2.98 < q
u
(20MPa) OKAY
Under worst working condition
q
bu
= q
t
4(L/D)
d
(0.3 f
s
)
= 9.93 4(1.2) (0.3 x 0.45 q
u
)
= 7.03 MPa < 2.5 q
u
OKAY
Required socket length = 1.2 x 1 = 1.2 m
and there is no slip in the socket.
References for
Design of rock- socketed piles
Related publications by C F Leung
1. Leung C F and Radhakrishnan R (1985). Observations of an
instrumented pile-raft foundation in weak rock, Proc. 11
th
Int.
Conf. on Soil Mech. and Fdn. Engr., San Francisco, pp. 1429-
1432.
2. Leung C F, Radhakrishnan R and Wong Y K (1988).
Observations of an instrumented pile-raft foundation in weak
rock, Proc. Instn. Civ. Engrs., Part 1, Vol. 84, pp. 693-711.
3. Leung C F and Radhakrishnan R (1990). Geotechnical
properties of weathered sedimentary rocks, Geotechnical
Engineering, Vol. 21, pp. 29-48.
4. Leung C F, Radhakrishnan R and Tan S A (1991).
Performance of precast driven piles in marine clay, J . of
Geotech. Engr., ASCE, Vol. 117, pp. 637-657.
5. Leung C F (1996). Case studies of rock-socketed piles,
Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 27, pp. 51-67.
Related publications by C F Leung (cont.)
6. Leung C F and Tan G P (1996). Load carrying capacity of spun
piles, Proc. 12
th
Southeast Asian Geotech. Conf., Kuala Lumpur,
Vol. 1, pp. 423-428.
7. Leung C F and Chow Y K (1998). Settlement of rock-socketed
piles, Proc. 5
th
Int. Conf. on Tall Buildings, Hong Kong, Vol. 2, pp.
884-889.
8. Radhakrishnan R, Leung C F and Subrahmanyam R (1985).
Load tests on instrumented large diameter bored piles in weak
rock, Proc. 8
th
Southeast Asian Geotech. Conf., Kuala Lumpur,
Vol. 1, pp. 2.50 2.53.
9. Radhakrishnan R and Leung C F (1989). Load transfer behaviour
of rock-socketed piles, J . of Geotech. Engr., ASCE, Vol. 115, pp.
755-768.
Other publications
1. BSI (1986). British Standard Code of Practice for Foundations
(BS8004:1986), British Standards Institution, London, UK.
2. Cole K W and Stroud M A (1977). Rock socket piles at
Coventry Point, Market Way, Coventry" Piles in Weak Rock,
Instn. of Civil Engrs., UK, pp. 47-62.
3. GEO (1996). Pile Design and Construction, GEO Publication
No. 1/96, Geotechnical Engr. Office, Hong Kong.
4. Horvath R G and Kenny T C (1979). Shaft resistance of rock-
socketed drilled piers, Symp. on Deep Foundations, ASCE,
pp. 182-214.
5. Horvath R G, Kenny T C and Kozicki P (1983). Methods of
improving the performance of drilled piers in weak rock, Can.
Geotech. J ., Vol. 20, pp. 758-772.
6. ISRM (1985). Suggested method for determining point load
strength, Int. J . of Rock Mech. and Mining Sci., Vol. 22, pp.
51-60.
7. Irfan T Y and Powell G E (1991). Foundation Design of
Caissons on Granitic and Volcanic Rocks, GEO Report No. 8,
Geotech. Control Office, Hong Kong.
Other publications (cont.)
8. Lam T S K, Yau J H W and Premchitt J (1991). Side resistance of
a rock-socketed caisson, Hong Kong Engineer, Vol. 19, No. 2,
pp. 17-28.
9. Meigh A C and Wolski W (1979). Design parameters for weak
rock, Proc. 7
th
European Conf. On Soil Mech. and Fdn. Engr.,
Brighton, Vol. 5, pp. 59-79.
10. Osterberg J O and Gill S A (1973). Load transfer mechanism for
piers socketed in hard soils on rock, Proc. 9
th
Canadian Symp. on
Rock Mech., pp. 235-262.
11. Peck R B, Hanson W E and Thornburn T H (1974). Foundation
Engineering, 2nd Edition, J ohn Wiley and Sons, New York, USA.
12. Rosenberg R K and J ourneaux N L (1976). Friction and end
bearing tests on bedrock for high capacity socket design,
Canadian Geotech. J ., Vol. 13, pp. 324-333.
13. Rowe R K and Armitage H H (1987a). Theoretical solutions for
axial deformation of drilled shafts in rock, Canadian Geotech. J .,
Vol. 24, pp. 114-125.
14. Rowe R K and Armitage H H (1987b). A design method for drilled
piers in soft rock, Canadian Geotech. J ., Vol. 24, pp. 126-142.
15. Seidel J P and Harberfield C M (1994). A new approach to the
prediction of drilled pier performance in rock, Proc. Int. Conf. on
Design and Construction of Deep Foundations, Orlando, Vol. 2,
pp. 556-570.
16. Shiu Y K and Chung W K (1994). Case studies in prediction and
modelling of the behaviour of foundation on rock, Proc. 8th Int.
Congress on Rock Mech., Tokyo, Vol. 3, pp. 1243-124.
17. Teng W C (1962). Foundation Design, Prentice-Hall, USA.
18. Tomlinson M J (1995). Foundation Design and Construction, 6th
Edition, Longman, UK.
19. Williams A F and Pells P J N (1981). Side resistance rock
sockets in sandstone, mudstone and shale, Can. Geotech. J .,
Vol. 18, pp. 502-513.
20. Zhang L and Einstein H H (1998). End bearing capacity of drilled
shafts in rock, J . of Geotech. and Geoenvir. Engr., Vol. 124, pp.
574-584.
Other publications (cont.)