SIDE RESISTANCE OF LARGE DIAMETER BORED PILES SOCKETED

INTO DECOMPOSED ROCKS

By Charles W. W. Ng,1 Member, ASCE, Terence L. Y. Yau,2 Jonathan H. M. Li,3

and Wilson H. Tang,4 Fellow, ASCE

ABSTRACT: The design of large diameter bored piles socketed into rock has received considerable attention
in sedimentary rocks but has only occasionally been addressed in igneous and metamorphic rocks. Design
methods based on the performance of sockets in sedimentary rocks have been proposed in literature, but it is
uncertain how applicable they are to other rock types. Large diameter (>600 mm) rock-socketed piles were used
in several recent developments in Hong Kong, which involved 13 large-scale pile-load tests in various decom-
posed rocks. The test piles varied in length from 20 to 60 m and in diameter from 1.0 to 1.3 m. The test loads
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

were as high as 30 MN. This provides a golden opportunity for a study of the performance of piles socketed
in igneous, volcanic, and metasedimentary rocks decomposed as a result of subtropical weathering. In total, 35
pile tests (including 13 in Hong Kong) in decomposed rocks together with 44 other tests in sedimentary rocks
are reviewed. Side resistance is analyzed with regard to rock type and is compared to the findings and correlations
published by others. The rate of mobilization of side resistance was generally scattered in the test results, as
were the general shapes of the resistance-displacement relationships. A trend line was established relating the
unconfined compressive strength to side resistance for granitic rocks. During bidirectional multistage tests, a
reduction in the socket stiffness was observed with the second test stage. For a given displacement, the side
resistance mobilized in the second stage was less than in the first.

INTRODUCTION
Development in Hong Kong has been characterized by high
density building works and large infrastructure projects con-
centrated on small areas of flat reclaimed lands. Deep piled
foundations are commonly required to support high vertical
dead and live loads and lateral wind loads imposed by these
structures. Large diameter circular bored piles (drilled caissons
or piers >600 mm and up to 2.5 m in diameter) constructed
using rope operated grabs and reverse circulation drilling
(RCD) techniques have often been used in Hong Kong. Pile
depths may exceed 80 m and working loads can reach as high
as 20 MN. In the past, the use of rock sockets has been infre-
quent, with most large diameter bored piles founded at rock
head level or in soil. However, the need to improve the effi-
ciency of pile designs and higher design loads is providing an
increasing requirement for rock-socketed piles. Design loads
are limited for piles relying upon end bearing in rock, even if
the measured rock strength is higher than the pile concrete
strength. This is due to uncertainty about the rock quality over
the whole pile diameter, which may be lower than expected
because of weathering or construction effects.
In Hong Kong, the number of large diameter rock socket
pile designs undertaken to date has been relatively small, and,
in practice, rock socket friction designs are verified by field
load testing. The writers were recently involved with six large-
scale loading tests on large diameter bored piles socketed into
weathered rocks in Hong Kong. Rock socket ‘‘side resistance’’
or ‘‘friction’’ was back-analyzed from the test results. In this
paper, the objectives are to
1
Assoc. Prof., Hong Kong Univ. of Sci. and Technol., Clear Water Bay,
Kowloon, Hong Kong. E-mail: cecwwng@ust.hk
2
Formerly, Postgrad. Student, Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Hong Kong Univ.
of Sci. and Technol., Clear Water Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong.
3
Formerly, Postgrad. Student, Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Hong Kong Univ.
of Sci. and Technol., Clear Water Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong.
4
Prof., Hong Kong Univ. of Sci. and Technol., Clear Water Bay, Kow-
loon, Hong Kong.
Note. Discussion open until January 1, 2002. To extend the closing
date one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager
of Journals. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and
possible publication on February 22, 2000; revised April 11, 2001. This
paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, Vol. 127, No. 8, August, 2001. 䉷ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/
01/0008-0642–0657/$8.00 ⫹ $.50 per page. Paper No. 22286.
642 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / AUGUST 2001
• Review the existing design practice for rock socket side
resistance, particularly in decomposed rocks.
• Examine the suitability of existing methods of predicting
rock socket side resistance using loading tests from the
literature and a number of tests presented in this paper,
including the six carried out recently.
• Identify trends in behavior based on the potential contrib-
uting factors of rock type and unconfined compressive
strength (UCS).
• Examine the effects of multistage bidirectional loading on
rock sockets.
In total, 35 pile tests (including 13 in Hong Kong) in de-
composed rocks together with 44 other tests in sedimentary
rocks are reviewed. The Kong Kong tests were predominantly
carried out in igneous rocks including granitic and volcanic
types, whereas most of the tests in the literature were in sed-
imentary rocks. The Hong Kong tests also tended to be on
piles of larger diameter (all >1.0 m) and in rock of higher
UCS than the cases reported in the literature. They were pri-
marily intended to investigate the feasibility of using rock
socket side resistance in design rather than using the presumed
end-bearing stresses detailed in PNAP 141 [Building Ordi-
nance Office (BOO) 1990] and to establish design rock socket
side resistance values.
The focus of this paper is on the prediction of socket side
resistance rather than toe-resistance (end-bearing) or pile-head
settlement. Side resistance is analyzed with respect to the em-
pirical correlations of Horvath et al. (1983) recommended by
the Geotechnical Engineering Office (GEO) (1996) in Hong
Kong and with other correlations proposed in the literature.
Both side resistance capacity and, where possible, the ‘‘mo-
bilization’’ of side resistance is considered. ‘‘Mobilization’’ re-
fers to the progressive development of side resistance with
local displacement of the pile in the socket. The methods ex-
amined for predicting the magnitude of socket side resistance
all relate side resistance to the UCS of the rock or concrete
(generally whichever is weakest). Rowe and Pells (1980) sug-
gested that side resistance capacity and the nature of the side
resistance-displacement relationship are influenced by the
socket stress distribution, which is complex, being influenced
by the development of toe resistance, socket dimensions, and
elastic parameters. Horvath et al. (1983) and others demon-

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2001.127:642-657.

 strated that such factors as socket roughness could also have
an effect on side resistance. However, generally, information
of this detail is not available for analysis in this paper and an
emphasis is placed upon UCS and rock type.
TYPICAL GROUND CONDITIONS IN HONG KONG
The geology of Hong Kong is influenced heavily by sub-
tropical weathering. Typically, superficial deposits of fill, al-
luvium, and marine deposits overlie decomposed rocks of var-
ied depth or colluvium on hillsides, beneath which lies fresh
rock. Rock material weathering in Hong Kong rarely produces
a homogeneous weathered rock mass where all rock material
is decomposed to the same degree, or even in simple weath-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ered profile where the degree of decomposition decreases pro-
gressively with depth and core stone-bearing profiles may be
encountered. Table 1 sets out the classification of rock decom-
position grades used in Hong Kong [Geotechnical Control Of-
fice (GCO) 1988]. Generally the term ‘‘rock’’ refers to material
of decomposition Grades I–III; therefore, ‘‘rock socket’’ refers
mainly to sockets in this material. The common rock types in
Hong Kong include granites and granodiorites, volcanic tuffs,
rhyolites, breccia, metasiltstones, and marbles.
CONSTRUCTION OF ROCK SOCKETS
Rock-socket friction may be affected by the method of con-
struction with regard to the socket wall roughness, which can
vary with the method of excavation. In Hong Kong, currently
most rock sockets in bored piles are excavated by RCD under
water or bentonite. However, in the past, hand-dug methods
have also been used. Chisels tend to be used for break through
thin layers of hard rock, cobbles, and obstructions. RCDs
(Tomlinson 1994) consist of a series of hollow drill rods and
stabilizers leading to a drill head having a number of roller
cutters. The type and arrangement of the cutters can be ad-
justed depending on ground conditions. In Hong Kong, the
drive engines and control platform are normally fixed on the
temporary casing above ground level, although mobile units
mounted on crawler cranes can also be used. RCDs continu-
ously remove soil and broken rock while drilling by airlifting
the material upward through the hollow drill rods. After ex-
cavation by RCD, the pile bore and base are usually cleaned
by airlifting and concrete is placed by tremie pipe under water
or bentonite. Enlarged bases may be formed using a bell-out
tool. As far as the writers are aware, no information on the
wall roughness achieved using an RCD has been published in
the literature. For excavation by hand-dug methods, measure-
ments of wall roughness have been recorded to be around 7
mm in Hong Kong (Lam et al. 1991).
In other countries, rock augers, flight augers, percussion
drills, core barrels, and shot barrels (Williams and Pells 1981;
Reese and O’Neill 1988) are also under water or bentonite and
within dry bores. In Australia, for sockets drilled by bucket
auger and short flight auger, measurements of wall roughness
in mudstone were reported by Williams and Pells (1981). The
asperity heights generally were from 15 to 20 mm. Pells et al.
(1980) reported far lower asperity heights of around 2 mm for
sockets in sandstone excavated by various techniques. A pos-
sible reason given for the difference in roughness between the
mudstone and sandstone sockets is that the sandstone was gen-
erally harder than the mudstone and involved slower drilling
rates (Williams and Pells 1981). Horvath et al. (1983) reported
the results of load tests carried out in weak shale in Canada.
Excavation was by auger and the average asperity height mea-
sured in a conventionally drilled socket was around 13 mm.
It is likely that asperity height is dependent on rock type and
strength in addition to the method of excavation.
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / AUGUST 2001 / 643
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2001.127:642-657.
TABLE 1. Classification of Rock Material Decomposition Grades of
Hong Kong [Simplified from GCO (1988)]
General characteristics for granite and
Descriptive Grade volcanic rocks and other rocks of equivalent
term symbol strength in fresh state
Residual soil VI Original rock texture completely destroyed
Can be crumbled by hand and finger pressure
into constituent grains
Completely V Original rock texture preserved
decomposed Can be crumbled by hand and finger pressure
into constituent grains
Easily indented by point of geological pick
Slakes when immersed in water
Completely discolored compared with fresh
rock
Highly IV Can be broken by hand into smaller pieces
decomposed Makes a dull sound when struck by geologi-
cal hammer
Not easily indented by point of geological
pick
Does not slake when immersed in water
Completely discolored compared with fresh
rock
Moderately III Cannot usually be broken by hand; easily
decomposed broken by geological hammer
Makes a dull or slight ringing sound when
struck by geological hammer
Completely stained throughout
Slightly II Not broken easily by geological hammer
decomposed Makes a ringing sound when struck by geo-
logical hammer
Fresh rock colors generally retained but
stained near joint surfaces
Fresh I Not broken easily by geological hammer
Makes a ringing sound when struck by geo-
logical hammer
No visible signs of decomposition (i.e., no
discoloration)
DESIGN FOR ROCK-SOCKET FRICTION WORLDWIDE
A number of empirical relationships have been published
for estimating the capacity of rock-socket side resistance. All
are based on studies of field load test results and laboratory
tests and relate socket friction capacity to the UCS of rock or
concrete, generally whichever is weakest. Most of the load
tests considered were carried out in sedimentary rocks having
lower strengths than typical rock types encountered in Hong
Kong.
Research in North America
Rosenberg and Journeaux (1976) studied the results of a
limited number of field load tests on small diameter piles
(200–610 mm). They proposed a tentative relationship be-
tween the UCS of rock ␴r (MPa) and the ultimate side resis-
tance qs (MPa) as follows:
qs = 0.375(␴r)0.515 (1)
Horvath and Kenney (1979) reviewed the results of load
tests on rock-socketed piles and anchors from, mainly, Austra-
lia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States, in-
cluding 49 tests on piles with diameters between 410 and
1,220 mm. The majority of the piles were socketed into sed-
imentary rock types, mostly shale or mudstone. They reported
socket friction to generally become fully mobilized at a dis-
placement of around 6 mm (0.5–1.5% of the pile diameter).
A correlation was suggested between qs (MPa) and the com-
pressive strength of the weaker socket material (concrete or
rock) ␴rc (MPa) for the piles given by
qs = b兹␴rc (2)
 where b = 0.2 to 0.25 for piles >410 mm in diameter. Horvath
et al. (1983) later revised b to be equal to 0.2–0.3 for ‘‘large’’
diameter piles, presumably >410 mm, and proposed a method
for estimating the effects of socket wall roughness on the ca-
pacity of side resistance using a ‘‘roughness factor,’’ which is
dependent on asperity height, socket radius, and socket length.
However, in practice it is difficult to determine the roughness
factor in the field accurately, particularly for piles constructed
under water or bentonite.
Rowe and Armitage (1987b) recommended a correlation of
qs = 0.45兹␴rc for regular ‘‘clean’’ sockets and qs = 0.6兹␴rc
for clean ‘‘rough’’ sockets for an initial estimate of side resis-
tance from the results of a large number of field load tests.
‘‘Rough’’ sockets were defined as having grooves or undula-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
tions of depth and width >10 mm at a spacing of 50–200 mm.
A more detailed design procedure taking into account socket
dimensions was provided to refine the prediction. Rowe and
Pells (1980) studied theoretical considerations of rock-socket
behavior. That paper is significant in that it predicted variations
in side resistance capacity as a result of varying stress distri-
butions, related to varying ratios of socket length to diameter
and pile modulus to rock modulus.
Reese and O’Neill (1988) recommended that the first of the
following equations be used for side resistance for rock (or
concrete) with a UCS up to 1.9 MPa and the second equation
be used for higher strengths (MPa):
qs = 0.15␴rc (3)
qs = 0.2兹␴rc (4)
The first equation was taken from Carter and Kulhawy (1987)
and the second equation from Horvath and Kenney (1979).
The recommendations are adopted by the U.S. Department of
Transportation. Recently, Zhang and Einstein (1998) suggested
relationships based on a review of the results of Rosenberg
and Journeaux (1976), Meigh and Wolski (1979), Williams and
Pells (1981), Horvath (1982), and Kulhawy and Phoon (1993).
These are as follows for ‘‘smooth’’ and ‘‘rough’’ sockets
(MPa), respectively:
qs = 0.4兹␴rc (5)
qs = 0.8兹␴rc (6)
Research in Australia
In Australia, most experience in the design of rock-socket
piles has been gained in mudstone, shale, and sandstone. One
example is the Melbourne mudstone, which Chiu and Johnston
(1980) described as having characteristics very similar to over-
consolidated clays. Williams et al. (1980b) described the re-
sults of a number of field load tests in Melbourne mudstone.
The socket friction-displacement relationships exhibited peak,
followed by residual friction behavior, although the residual
values were only around 5% less than the peak values for
‘‘rough’’ sockets. ‘‘Rough’’ sockets were defined by minimum
statistical requirements for asperity height and angle and were
achieved with excavation by conventional bucket augers. Wil-
liams et al. (1980a) also described the results of tests in Mel-
bourne mudstone of which at least one reached peak friction
at a displacement of 6 mm.
Williams and Pells (1981) suggested a design method based
on the results of Williams et al. (1980b), Pells et al. (1980),
and Horvath (1978) but with emphasis placed on test results
in Australia. For cases in which the socket wall is sufficiently
rough to prevent brittle side shear behavior, a curve for the
ratio of qs to ␴rc termed the ‘‘side resistance reduction factor’’
␣ is used. The side resistance factor decreases with increasing
␴rc. A further factor ␤ is applied to take into account a vari-
644 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / AUGUST 2001
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2001.127:642-657.
ation of side resistance with the rock mass factor (ratio of
jointed rock modulus to intact rock modulus) giving
qs = ␣␤␴rc (7)
As mentioned above, Rowe and Pells (1980) predicted the
relationship between socket side resistance capacity and the
socket dimensions and modulus ratio.
Design Practice in Hong Kong
In Hong Kong design practice, for large diameter bored
piles bearing on granitic and volcanic rocks, allowable values
of toe resistance may be used as specified in PNAP 141 (BOO
1990). The presumptive end-bearing values range from 3 to
7.5 MPa, depending on the rock ‘‘category.’’ The category is
defined in terms of the rock decomposition grade, strength
(UCS), and total core recovery. Generally, the presumed values
may be used without a settlement check for structures, which
are not unduly sensitive to settlement. The details of the pre-
sumed end-bearing values from PNAP 141 are summarized in
Table 2. Presumptive values of rock-socket side resistance are
not defined. However, PNAP 141 allows the use of a ‘‘rational
design’’ approach and rock-socket side resistance can generally
be incorporated in a design, provided that the parameters and
assumptions are verified by field testing.
For caissons in granite, the GEO (1991) reported various
findings from studies including those by Ladanyi (1977), Pells
and Turner (1979), and Horvath et al. (1980) and acknowledge
that socket shaft resistance can account for a significant por-
tion of the load support capacity. For the preliminary design
of side resistance in widely jointed rock, the GEO (1996) sug-
gested the use of the empirical correlation proposed by Hor-
vath et al. (1983) to estimate side resistance capacity. The
reader should be reminded that Horvath’s correlation was de-
veloped using the results of load tests in mostly sedimentary
rocks whereas Hong Kong conditions are dominated by gra-
nitic, volcanic, and metasedimentary rocks. The GEO (1996)
also suggested that the allowable working load should be es-
timated using a minimum mobilization factor of 1.5 on the
ultimate side resistance. The mobilization factor is intended to
take into account debris left at the base of the rock socket,
which would cause the base resistance to be unreliable at
working load. It is implicit in the GEO’s recommendation that
TABLE 2. Presumed Safe Vertical Bearing Stress for Foundations on
Horizontal Ground in Hong Kong [Simplified from PNAP 141 (BOO
1990)]
Presumed
bearing
stress
Category Granitic and volcanic rock (kPa)
1(a) Fresh to slightly decomposed strong rock of 7,500
material weathering grade II or better, with
total core recovery of >95% of grade and
minimum uniaxial compressive strength of
rock material ␴r not less than 50 MPa
(equivalent point load index strength PLI50a
not less than 2 MPa)
1(b) Slightly to moderately decomposed moderately 5,000
strong rock of material weathering grades II
or III or better, with total core recovery of
>85% of grade and minimum uniaxial com-
pressive strength of rock material ␴r not less
than 25 MPa (PLI50a not less than 1 MPa)
1(c) Moderately decomposed moderately strong to 3,000
moderately weak rock of material weathering
Grades III or IV or better, with total core re-
covery of >50% of grade
a
Point load index strength (i.e., PLI50 values) of rock quoted is equiv-
alent value for 50-mm-diameter cores (ISRM 1978).
 the contribution of toe resistance is only taken into account at
the ultimate limit state. Therefore the contribution of toe re-
sistance may potentially become irrelevant altogether if the
working load requirement governs the design.
TYPICAL INSTRUMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS AND
LOAD TEST PROCEDURES (IN HONG KONG)
Instrumentation Arrangement
In Hong Kong, for instrumented load tests, strain gauges
and extensometers are installed within the pile shaft in addition
to devices installed at the pile head to measure displacement.
Strain gauges such as vibrating wire type gauges provide an
estimation of vertical strain at points along the pile shaft. By
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
estimating the pile shaft modulus of deformation, each strain
measurement can be transformed to a normal stress and then
to a force. The load-depth distribution in the pile shaft is cal-
culated from where the ‘‘load transfer’’ due to skin friction is
deduced. In Hong Kong, gauges are usually positioned around
the shaft perimeter in sets of two, three, or four at designated
levels and the average reading of each set is used for calcu-
lations. The vertical spacing of each set may vary from 500
mm to 5 m. For rock-socketed piles, strain gauges are nor-
mally spaced at around 500 mm within the socket. For shorter
rock sockets, the stress distribution across the pile shaft may
be nonlinear; therefore, there is uncertainty as to the accuracy
of the measurement of the average stress by strain gauges po-
sitioned around the shaft parameter.
Extensometers are used to measure shortening over speci-
fied lengths of the pile shaft. These may be single mechanical
rods anchored at a designated level to measure shortening from
the pile top. Also, retrievable extensometers, extracted after
testing and using a single rod anchored at a number of levels,
and multipoint borehole extensometers, which have a number
of separate rods each with its own anchor, have been used.
Alternatively, or in addition to these instruments, one may opt
for embedded extensometers. These consist of single rods an-
chored at each end and installed at various levels within the
shaft.
Dial gauges or electronic displacement transducers are used
to measure the pile-head deflection with respect to reference
beams installed at ground level. Optical leveling of the pile
cap and the reference beams is also carried out. In the cases
in which the writers were involved, during load testing, the
reference beams moved between 1 and 5 mm. Ideally, precise
levels should be used, but ordinary levels are often chosen
instead.
For the compressive static load testing of bored piles, hy-
draulic jacks are commonly used to apply load to the pile head
whereas kentledge is used as the reaction system. The kent-
ledge is normally comprised of stacked concrete blocks, steel
billets, or Universal steel sections. The measurement of the
applied load is achieved using load cells positioned under each
hydraulic jack. Occasionally, an additional hydraulic jack will
be installed at the base of the pile. This may be an Osterberg-
type load cell (Osterberg 1989) and is used to apply load di-
rectly to the pile at its base while applying an uplifting force
to the pile shaft. The cell will normally be of a similar di-
ameter to the pile shaft and is pressurized using hydraulic lines
leading up to ground level. A third method of loading is the
uplift test. The pile is jacked upward against a reaction system
supported on reaction pads/piles installed on either side of the
test pile.
Procedures of Load Testing
In Hong Kong, tests are generally maintained-load tests in
which the load is applied in increments, each being held until
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / AUGUST 2001 / 645
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2001.127:642-657.
the rate of movement has reduced to an acceptably low value
before the next load increment or decrement is applied. Two
to five loading and unloading cycles are commonly used in
each test, each consisting of a number of increments or dec-
rements. The loading procedures and acceptance criteria de-
pend on the type of project being undertaken. Generally, a
minimum rate of settlement of approximately 0.05 mm in 10
min is required before the application of further load incre-
ments or decrements (BOO 1980). The maximum test load is
often around twice the design working load, although the ul-
timate pile capacity may not necessarily be reached.
Frequently, rock-socketed test piles are sleeved over their
upper sections to minimize shaft friction in the upper soil lay-
ers and maximize the load applied to the top of the rock
socket. This reduces the requirements of the loading reaction
system and improves the possibility of mobilizing substantial
socket resistance. In the cases in which the writers were in-
volved, the sleeves consisted of bitumen-coated steel liners
surrounded by a soft grout annulus.
Tests having load applied using varying methods between
two or more stages are referred to as ‘‘multistage tests.’’ An
example may be a pile having an Osterberg cell installed at
the pile base. During the first test stage, loading may be ap-
plied at the pile head by hydraulic jacks and kentledge only,
and during the second stage, the Osterberg cell may be pres-
surized to apply a downward load to the pile base and an
upward load to the pile shaft.
ROCK-SOCKET PILES UNDER REVIEW
Table 3 summarizes details of the 13 tests of Hong Kong.
The tests were generally carried out in the preliminary stages
of the respective projects. They were intended to investigate
the feasibility of using rock-socket side resistance in design,
rather than using the presumed end-bearing stresses detailed
in PNAP 141 (BOO 1990), and to establish design rock-socket
side resistance values. Also, some of the rock types tested were
not volcanic or granitic rocks and therefore could not be de-
signed using the presumed values in PNAP 141. The chosen
methodology falls under the PNAP 141 clause permitting the
use of a ‘‘rational’’ approach to foundation design. Based on
the loading test results, the use of rock-socket side resistance
in design for each of the specific projects was approved by the
relevant checking bodies and detailed design and construction
proceeded accordingly. Of the buildings being supported by
the piles, the settlements at this stage are, to the writers’
knowledge, within acceptable structural limits.
With the exception of the hand-dug caisson reported by Lam
et al. (1991), excavation was by RCD under water or benton-
ite. The geological descriptions including the rock decompo-
sition grade and the rock quality designation (RQD) were as-
signed by geologists. Rock types have also been classified
generally as being granitic, volcanic, or metasedimentary. The
USC ␴¯ r values were either measured directly by laboratory
tests or estimated from a correlation with the point load index
test (PLIT) results. In the PLIT, rock specimens in the form
of core, cut blocks, or irregular lumps are broken by appli-
cation of a concentrated load through a pair of spherically
truncated conical platens with a tip radius of 5 mm. Little or
no specimen preparation is needed [International Society for
Rock Mechanics (ISRM) 1985]. A factor of 24 was applied to
the PLIT result, as suggested for weathered granite by the
GEO (1991). The suggestions of the ISRM Commission on
Testing Methods were adopted for the PLIT tests (ISRM 1985)
and also the UCS tests (ISRM 1978). In the cases in which
the writers were involved, the UCS values reported in Table
3 are the average values over the depth of the rock socket.
Generally three or four tests in total were performed for each
socket. It is suggested that, for purposes of comparison, the
 TABLE 3. Database of Hong Kong Load Tests under Review

Pile Socket Socket Average

Pile length diameter length Method of UCS RQD q̄max q̄1%
number Reference (m) (mm) (m) excavation Rock type (MPa) (%) (kPa) (kPa) DI
1 This studya 29.2 1,200 2.0 RCD under water Grade II fine ash tuff (volcanic) 105 (50)b 92 2,900 — C
2 This studya 32.5 1,060 6.0 RCD under water Grades II–V fine ash tuff (vol- 156 (50)b 64 1,740 — C
canic)
3 This studya 35.6 1,020 2.0 RCD under water Grade III coarse ash tuft (vol- 40 68 2,860 — B
canic)
a
4 This study 40.3 1,200 1.5 RCD under water Grade III metasandstone (meta- 28.8 41 5,100 — C
sedimentary)
5 This studya 25.1 1,320 2.1 RCD under water Grade IV/III granodiorite (gra- 6 3 480 420 A
nitic)
c b
6 This study 38.6 1,200 1.2 RCD under bentonite Grade II granite (granitic) 82.5 (50) 100 1,700 1,700 B
7 This studyc 60.2 1,200 3.6 RCD under bentonite Grade III/II granite (granitic) 10 69 610 500 A
studyc 125 (50)b
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

8 This 41.7 1,000 0.9 RCD under bentonite Grade II granite (granitic) 90 2,865 — C
9 This studyc 48.3 1,000 2.5 RCD under water Grade III granite (granitic) 28.8 83 960 730 B
10 This studyc 24.2 1,200 1.5 RCD under bentonite Grade III/II granite (granitic) 230 (50)b ? 1,000 1,000 B
11 This studyc 23.9 1,200 3.0 RCD under water Grade III granite (granitic) 38 ? 1,210 — C
12 This studya 30.2 1,200 1.1 RCD under water Grade IV/III breccia (volcanic) — 20 360 — A
13 Lam et al. (1991) 38.0 1,000 0.8 Hand-dug caisson Grade III/II granite (granitic) 120 (7)b 88 695 695 A
Note: q̄max = mean maximum rock-socket side resistance, averaged over socket length. q̄1% = rock-socket side resistance at 1% of socket displacement.
a
Tests carried out and data interpreted by writers.
b
Value in parentheses is approximate concrete UCS (only cases with concrete UCS less than rock UCS are shown).
c
Test data interpreted by writers.

same or similar testing methods should be adopted in the fu-
ture by other researchers. An anomaly may be observed in the
results in Table 3. Pile 12 was tested in rock, which was too
decomposed to allow a UCS test to be conducted, and the test
may be considered to be nontypical of the remaining tests in
Table 3; the differences should be kept in mind in the analyses
to follow.
In the load tests with the writers’ involvement, the axial load
distribution in the rock socket was determined using strain
gauges installed within the pile shaft and by estimating the
pile shaft modulus. The average strain across the socket was
taken to be equal to the average reading of the gauges at each
level. For the piles with which the writers were directly in-
volved, the average strain gauge readings were checked by
calculating the total socket shortening from the readings and
comparing these with the shortening measured by rod exten-
someters. The difference in the results varied between 5 and
13%. The modulus was generally deduced using laboratory
test results on concrete core samples taken from the pile shaft
and by considering the variation of modulus with strain over
the duration of the loading test using gauges located near the
top of each pile. With the axial load distribution known, the
unit socket side resistance was calculated accordingly. For
most of the piles with which the writers were involved, the
calculated toe resistance accounted for only up to 17% of the
socket side resistance. The side resistance value q̄max shown is
the maximum recorded or extrapolated for each test and is the
‘‘mean’’ value, averaged over the whole socket length. For the
multistage tests, only the first stage results are shown because
of uncertainty over rock socket behavior during reloading un-
der altered socket conditions and using varying loading meth-
ods. The results of the successive test stages are covered later.
In Fig. 1, side profiles of Piles 1–5, obtained using Koden
echo sounding devices, are shown. Profiles for the other piles
were not available. Only one section is shown for each pile
and the accuracy of the measurements was insufficient to allow
wall roughness to be measured precisely (i.e., to the precision
of a few millimeters). However, with the exception of Pile 4,
the socket dimensions of the piles are clearly irregular. Pos-
sibly this was a result of the drill head ‘‘flapping’’ (moving
and vibrating laterally) within the socket. This was found to
produce rougher sockets in excavation by auger in sandstone
646 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / AUGUST 2001
in Australia (Pells et al. 1980). In Table 3, average socket
diameters have been reported and are used for calculations.
Table 4 summarizes key details of the 66 other tests from
the literature. Some contributed to the various empirical cor-
relations for side resistance in the literature detailed earlier.
The details and measurements shown in Table 4 are consistent
with Table 3, although the level of detail is generally lower.
The RQD is not shown and whether or not the excavation was
‘‘dry’’ or ‘‘wet’’ (constructed under bentonite or water) is un-
known in many cases. For a number of tests in granitic rock
in Singapore, the pile diameters are also unknown. Possibly
some of these tests were on small diameter rather than large
diameter piles. Note that, in a few cases, the sockets were
artificially roughened. The UCS values shown were obtained
using a range of methods, including empirical correlations
with PLIT results and standard penetration test results.
DISPLACEMENT INDEX (DI)
The database contains side resistance values recorded at
varying displacements and degrees of mobilization. Therefore,
a DI is assigned. This is an approximate measure of the pile
‘‘local’’ displacement and degree of mobilization of side re-
sistance for a given maximum side resistance value. The ‘‘lo-
cal’’ displacement is the pile displacement deduced at the ver-
tical center of the rock socket using the measured pile-head
movement and shaft shortening at the rock socket midpoint.
The DI values are assigned by observation of the field side
resistance-displacement relationships. An index A is assigned
to test results, which are observed to be close to the fully
mobilized value, and is defined by the displacement reaching
a minimum of 1% of the socket diameter and the gradient of
the resistance-displacement relationship becoming <30 kPa/
mm at the end of the curve (at the completion of the test).
An index B is assigned to test results not achieving an index
of A but recorded at a displacement of at least 0.4% of the
pile diameter and for which the gradient of the resistance-
displacement relationship is <200 kPa/mm at the end of the
curve. An index C is assigned to the remaining results. The
various proposed displacement indices are illustrated graphi-
cally in Fig. 2.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2001.127:642-657.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 1. Measured Wall Profiles of Hong Kong Rock-Socket Piles (Constructed by RCD): (a) Pile 1; (b) Pile 2; (c) Pile 3; (d) Pile 4; (e) Pile 5

MOBILIZATION OF ROCK-SOCKET FRICTION
The available side resistance-displacement relationships for
the tests being studied are shown in Fig. 3. For tests in which
the peak load was reached after a succession of loading and
unloading cycles, the curve shown is the virgin loading line
(this connects the results for load increments greater than all
previous loads when applied). Displacement ␦¯ is the mean lo-
cal displacement (at the vertical center of the rock socket). For
multistage tests, only the results for the first loading stage are
shown. The successive loading stages will be covered in detail
in later sections.
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / AUGUST 2001 / 647
The results with a DI of A are shown in Fig. 3(a). Four of
the tests in the figure were in sedimentary rock and were on
piles with diameters of approximately 700 mm. The three re-
maining tests were in volcanic and granitic rock with pile di-
ameters of 1,200–1,320 mm. The tests have been labeled and
further details may be found in Tables 3 and 4. When classified
as DI = A rock sockets, the degree of mobilization and final
displacement of each curve in the figure are high. However,
the shapes of the curves are highly varied. The initial mobi-
lization of side resistance occurs at varying rates between
piles. The displacements at which noticeable yielding occurs
generally range between 4 and 10 mm. Three of the piles-

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2001.127:642-657.

 TABLE 4. Database of Non-Hong Kong Load Tests under Review

Pile Socket Socket Average

Pile length diameter length UCS q̄max
number Reference (m) (mm) (m) Method of excavation Rock type (MPa) (kPa) DI
14 Leung (1996) 30 1,000 1.0 Flight auger and chisel; wet bore Granite (granitic) 12.5 800 B
15 Leung (1996) 12.4 810 10.0 Flight auger and chisel; dry bore Siltstone (sedimentary) 6 560 C
16 Leung (1989) 14 1,350 6.8 Flight auger and chisel; dry bore Siltstone (sedimentary) 7 600 C
17 Leung (1989) 11.5 1,500 11.5 Flight auger and chisel; dry bore Siltstone (sedimentary) 9 800 C
18 Leung (1989) 7.3 710 7.3 Flight auger and chisel; dry bore Siltstone (sedimentary) 9 700 C
19a Leung (1996) 16 1,400 2.5 Flight auger and chisel; dry bore Siltstone (sedimentary) 3.5 390 C
19b Leung (1996) 16 1,400 3.0 Flight auger and chisel; dry bore Siltstone (sedimentary) 6.5 620 C
20 Carrubba (1997) 18.5 1,200 7.5 Drilling bucket and rock bit; Marl (sedimentary) 0.9 140 B
casing
21 Carrubba (1997) 19 1,200 2.5 Drilling bucket and rock bit; Diabasic breccia (volcanic) 15 490 B
casing
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

22 Carrubba (1997) 37 1,200 11.0 Drilling bucket and rock bit; Gypsum (sedimentary) 6 120 C
casing
23 Carrubba (1997) 20 1,200 2.0 Drilling bucket and rock bit; Diabase (sedimentary) 40 890 C
casing
24 Carrubba (1997) 13.5 1,200 2.5 Drilling bucket and rock bit; Limestone (sedimentary) 2.5 400 B
casing
25a Walter et al. (1997) 22.0 900 1.0 Downhole jack Mudstone (sedimentary) 3.2 600 B
25b Walter et al. (1997) 22.0 900 2.1 Downhole jack Siltstone (sedimentary) 8.9 1,110 B
25c Walter et al. (1997) 22.0 900 2.2 Downhole jack Sandstone (sedimentary) 11.6 2,160 B
26 Horvath et al. 1.97 710 1.4 Auger Shale (sedimentary) 5.4 1,110 A
(1983)
27 Horvath et al. 1.97 710 1.4 Auger Shale (sedimentary) 11.1 1,110 A
(1983)
28 Horvath et al. 1.97 710 1.4 Augera Shale (sedimentary) 5.6 2,000 A
(1983)
29 Horvath et al. 1.97 710 1.4 Augera Shale (sedimentary) 5.5 1,750 B
(1983)
30 Horvath et al. 1.97 710 1.4 Auger Shale (sedimentary) 10.4 1,090 B
(1983)
31 Horvath and 1.97 635 0.9 ? Shale (sedimentary) 15.2 830 B
Kenney (1979)
32 Vogan (1977) ? 610 2.9 ? Shale (sedimentary) 7 932 C
33 Osterberg and Gill ? 1,220 1.2 ? Shale (sedimentary) 11.1 1,040 B
(1973)
34 Mason (1960) ? 610 1.8 ? Shale (sedimentary) 1.5 417 B
35 Horvath and ? 1,070 3.2 ? Shale (sedimentary) 22.1 2,600 C
Kenney (1979)
36 Pells et al. (1978) ? 1,090 1.5 ? Mudstone (sedimentary) 2.3 800 B
37 Buttling (1976) 27.3 1,050 8 Bored under bentonite Chalk (sedimentary) 1.0 190 B
38 Davis (1974) ? 760 4 ? Marl (sedimentary) 1.3 230 B
39 Webb (1976) ? 615 12.2 ? Diabase (sedimentary) 0.4 122 B
40 Williams et al. ? 660 1.8 Bucket auger Mudstone (sedimentary) 2.3 965 A
(1980a)
41 Johnstone and ? 1,200 1.0 ? Mudstone (sedimentary) 3.1 1,050 B
Donald (1979)
42 Johnstone and ? 1,200 1.0 ? Mudstone (sedimentary) 1.9 940 B
Donald (1979)
43 Williams (1980) ? 660 1.5 ? Mudstone (sedimentary) 0.8 660 B
44 Williams (1980) ? 1,120 2.6 ?a Mudstone (sedimentary) 0.6 510 B
45 Williams (1980) ? 1,220 2.0 Bucket auger Mudstone (sedimentary) 2.5 600 B
46 Williams (1980) ? 1,300 2.0 Bucket augera Mudstone (sedimentary) 2.3 640 B
47 Williams (1980) ? 1,230 2.0 Bucket auger Mudstone (sedimentary) 2.3 710 B
48 Williams (1980) ? 1,350 2.0 Bucket augera Mudstone (sedimentary) 2.3 620 B
49 Williams (1980) ? 750 2.0 ? Claystone (sedimentary) 5.5 1,300 B
50 Matich and 13.6 610 6.0 Augera Shale (sedimentary) 0.48 310 C
Kozicki (1967)
51 Williams and Pells ? 690 3.4 Drilled, cast under bentonite Shale (sedimentary) 3.1 1,100 B
(1981)
52 Williams and Pells ? 6,600 5.2 Drilled, cast under bentonite Shale (sedimentary) 0.5 300 B
(1981)
53 Williams and Pells ? 790 8.9 Drilled, cast under bentonite Shale (sedimentary) 2.7 720 B
(1981)
54 Thorne (1980) 7 900 1.3 Flight auger Shale (sedimentary) 21 1,260 C
55 Pells et al. (1980) ? 710 0.9 Auger Sandstone (sedimentary) 6 650 B
56 Thorburn (1966) 5.75 915 3.35 Bucket augera Shale (sedimentary) 12.2 242 C
57 Wilson (1976) 4 900 1.0 Hochstasser rig Mudstone (sedimentary) 1.1 120 B
58 Wilson (1976) 4 900 1.0 Hochstasser rig Mudstone (sedimentary) 1.1 184 B
59 Buttling (1976) 31 900 10.0 ? Chalk (sedimentary) 2.4 120 C
60 Leung (1996) ? ? ? ? Granite (granitic) 1.1 ⌿ 180 ⌿ C
61 Leung (1996) ? ? ? ? Granite (granitic) 1.1 ⌿ 80 ⌿ C
62 Leung (1996) ? ? ? ? Granite (granitic) 1.3 ⌿ 260 ⌿ C
63 Leung (1996) ? ? ? ? Granite (granitic) 1.3 ⌿ 130 ⌿ C
64 Leung (1996) ? ? ? ? Granite (granitic) 1.3 ⌿ 90 ⌿ C

648 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / AUGUST 2001

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2001.127:642-657.

 TABLE 4. (Continued )

Pile Socket Socket Average

Pile length diameter length UCS q̄max
number Reference (m) (mm) (m) Method of excavation Rock type (MPa) (kPa) DI
65 Leung (1996) ? ? ? ? Granite (granitic) 2⌿ 600 ⌿ C
66 Leung (1996) ? ? ? ? Granite (granitic) 2⌿ 400 ⌿ C
67 Leung (1996) ? ? ? ? Granite (granitic) 2⌿ 125 ⌿ C
68 Leung (1996) ? ? ? ? Granite (granitic) 2.3 ⌿ 375 ⌿ C
69 Leung (1996) ? ? ? ? Granite (granitic) 2.8 ⌿ 210 ⌿ C
70 Leung (1996) ? ? ? ? Granite (granitic) 4⌿ 60 ⌿ C
71 Leung (1996) ? ? ? ? Granite (granitic) 4.1 ⌿ 310 ⌿ C
72 Leung (1996) ? ? ? ? Granite (granitic) 4⌿ 250 ⌿ C
73 Leung (1996) ? ? ? ? Granite (granitic) 5⌿ 1,250 ⌿ C
74 Leung (1996) ? ? ? ? Granite (granitic) 13 ⌿ 300 ⌿ C
75 Leung (1996) ? ? ? ? Granite (granitic) 14 ⌿ 525 ⌿ C
20 ⌿ ⌿
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

76 Leung (1996) ? ? ? ? Granite (granitic) 725 C

77 Leung (1996) ? ? ? ? Granite (granitic) 40 ⌿ 500 ⌿ C
78 Leung (1996) ? ? ? ? Granite (granitic) 45 ⌿ 900 ⌿ C
79 Leung (1996) ? ? ? ? Granite (granitic) 50 ⌿ 625 ⌿ C
Note: ⌿ = scaled-off figure in publication.
a
Socket was artificially roughened.

database, as it was installed in volcanic breccia, which was

FIG. 2. Proposed Criteria for Displacement Index (DI)
(Piles 7, 12, and 40) display peak behavior with a drop in side
resistance after the peak is reached. Pile 5 shows only a slight
drop in resistance after the peak, which occurs at a displace-
ment of 45 mm, whereas the remaining piles do not show a
drop in resistance or do not reach a peak value before a dis-
placement of 20 mm. The results of Pile 26 and 27 are almost
bilinear in shape and it is unclear at what displacement ulti-
mate side resistance will be reached. A large number of factors
are likely to contribute to the differences between the curves
in Fig. 3(a), and with reference to Tables 3 and 4, it is difficult
to relate the results with the available information on the tests.
In particular, no strong correlation can be drawn between the
shapes of the relationships and the socket length and diameter,
which theoretically have been shown to be important in con-
trolling the shape of the resistance-displacement relationship
as reported by Rowe and Pells (1980).
A clear distinction can be observed between the results in
Fig. 3(a) of the piles tested in granitic and volcanic rocks with
the piles tested in sedimentary rocks. The piles in sedimentary
rocks achieve higher side resistance in all cases. The behavior
is difficult to relate to rock strength due to the rocks tested all
having similar UCS values (refer to Tables 3 and 4) with the
exception of Pile 12. Possibly the behavior is related to other
rock properties or was caused by the differences in the drilling
methods. The piles in sedimentary rocks were drilled with au-
gers and with artificial roughening in one case, whereas the
piles in granitic rocks were drilled by RCD, which may result
in a smoother socket. Pile 12 is nontypical of the tests in the
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / AUGUST 2001 / 649
too decomposed to allow UCS tests to be carried out. This
explains it achieving the lowest side resistance of all the tests
in Fig. 3(a). The breccia was characterized by corestones of
sound rock interlayered by seams of Grade V and IV material
and with voids caused by the dissolution of marble.
In Fig. 3(b) the results with a DI of B are shown. Note that
the scale of the horizontal axis of Fig. 3(b) is only half that
of Fig. 3(a). Similar to Fig. 3(a), the shapes of the curves are
scattered and significant yielding appears to occur at varying
displacements. The piles in granitic rocks display noticeable
yielding at displacements <8 mm, whereas the tests in sedi-
mentary rocks in some cases do not display noticeable yielding
at displacements up to 14 mm. In most cases, side resistance
is still increasing at the termination of the test, indicating work
hardening behavior. This is most obvious in the curve for Pile
3, which displays a continuing increase in resistance at a dis-
placement of 25 mm. The results in Fig. 3(c) are difficult to
interpret due to the general lack of mobilization of resistance.
The stiff responses of the sockets are likely to be related to
the rocks having high UCS values (refer to Table 3).
Generally, in Figs. 3(a)–(c) there is scatter in the rate of
mobilization and in the shape of the resistance-displacement
relationship. The ultimate side resistance is reached at different
displacements in different sockets. There is insufficient evi-
dence to suggest that the ultimate resistance is mobilized at a
single common displacement, such as the displacement of 6
mm observed by Horvath and Kenney (1979), Horvath et al.
(1983), and Williams et al. (1980a). In the case of Horvath et
al. (1983), the apparent difference is the part due to varying
methods used to define ‘‘ultimate side resistance.’’ In fact,
Horvath et al. (1983) more precisely used the phrase ‘‘essen-
tially mobilized’’ and implemented a graphical double-tangent
method to define this point. The writers have used the maxi-
mum achieved side resistance for all tests, which in some cases
is significantly higher than the resistance interpreted using the
double tangent method. However, in the case of the load-dis-
placement relationship published by Williams et al. (1980a),
clearly peak side resistance occurred at a displacement of 6
mm (0.9% of the pile diameter). The pile in question is re-
ferred to as Pile 40 in this paper (Table 4).
For design purposes, if the intention is to maintain an elastic
socket response at working load, it is unclear as to what value
the displacement should be confined. From the results in gra-
nitic rock, a displacement of approximately 4 mm or 0.4% of
the pile diameter (for piles constructed by RCD) may be ac-

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2001.127:642-657.


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
FIG. 3. Side Resistance-Displacement Relationships: (a) DI = A; (b)
DI = B; (c) DI = C
ceptable, below which the socket behavior appears to be
largely elastic.
CAPACITY OF SIDE RESISTANCE
Relationship with UCS
All of the various empirical relationships reviewed in the
literature relate rock-socket side resistance to the UCS of rock
or concrete, generally whichever is weakest. In Fig. 4(a) the
mean maximum socket side resistance q̄max has been plotted
against the mean UCS ␴¯ rc for all test results. Also shown are
650 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / AUGUST 2001
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2001.127:642-657.
the suggested correlations of Horvath et al. (1983), Rowe and
Armitage (1987b), and Zhang and Einstein (1998). Overall,
almost all the results lie below the correlation of Zhang and
Einstein (1998) for ‘‘rough’’ sockets but with a high degree of
scatter. None of the correlations from the literature appear to
be particularly suitable for predicting side resistance for all
results. However, if the results in only sedimentary rock are
examined, these are mostly higher in magnitude than results
produced by the correlation of Horvath et al. (1983) for b =
0.2. Generally the results in granitic rock are lower than in
sedimentary rock and tend to be lower than the empirical cor-
relations. However, the UCS is also generally higher for these
tests. The results in volcanic rock are few and scattered. The
single result in metasedimentary rock indicates extremely high
side resistance.
In Fig. 4(b) only the results with DI equal to A or B are
shown. For sedimentary rock, most of the results still appear,
with the exception of a few results with lower side resistance.
Consequently, the scatter in the sedimentary rocks is less and
almost all of the results lie above the correlation of Horvath
et al. (1983) for b = 0.2. This is not surprising, given that a
number of the results in sedimentary rock were also reviewed
by Horvath et al. (1983). However, the results also provide a
clear picture of the difference in side resistance between sed-
imentary and granitic rock. The results in granitic rock still
are lower than those in sedimentary rock and tend to follow
the lower bound of the empirical design range of Horvath et
al. (1983) for b = 0.2. In fact, if a power series is adopted and
a trend line is adopted for granitic rock, by applying a power
of 0.5 to ␴¯ rc, a value of 0.2 is also obtained for b. Therefore,
the trend line for the results in granitic rock is identical to the
lower bound of the design range given in Horvath et al.
(1983); i.e., qs = 0.2(␴¯ rc)0.5.
By taking the lower UCS of rock or concrete, it is implied
that failure is governed by the weaker material. Furthermore,
in verifying (4) for granitic rocks, it could be implied that the
concrete and granite have a similar relationship of UCS to
shear strength. In instances where the UCS of concrete is less
than the UCS of rock, it could be tempting to regard the ge-
ological origins of the rock as being irrelevant. However, the
relationship is essentially empirical and other factors that may
be particular to a given rock type are still likely to influence
side resistance capacity. For example, the wall roughness after
drilling could be expected to vary in sockets drilled in granite
with those drilled in sandstone. Therefore, correlations such as
(4) should be confined to the specified rock type only, if the
concrete is weaker than the rock. Note also that the use of (4)
should be limited to sockets with a length-to-diameter ratio of
<3.5, as this was the maximum ratio of the piles in the data-
base in granite.
The correlations in the literature were established using re-
sults in mostly sedimentary rocks, which achieved generally
higher side resistance than the granitic rocks. Hence it is not
surprising that the correlations are not well suited to granitic
and volcanic rocks. More specifically, this may be related to
geological properties and also to the fact that the granitic rocks
are generally harder, as indicated by the higher UCS values.
Harder rock requires more energy during excavation and
slower excavation rates. Possibly this produces a smoother
socket than in softer rocks and therefore a lower side resistance
capacity as suggested previously by Williams and Pells (1981).
The results in granitic rock with DI equal to A or B only
are shown in Fig. 5(a). The trend line for granitic rocks is
included [equal to the lower bound line of Horvath et al.
(1983)] and two additional lines are also drawn, which were
obtained by calculating the 95% confidence limits of b. The
confidence limits provide some measure of the scatter and re-
liability of the results.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
FIG. 4. Maximum Achieved Side Resistance versus UCS: (a) All Results, DI = A, B, or C; (b) DI = A or B only
Structural requirements for foundations are given in terms
of maximum settlements and do not take into account the rate
of mobilization of side and base resistance. Therefore, it would
be useful to also consider the resistance obtained at limiting
displacements in addition to the maximum resistance. In Fig.
5(b), the results in granitic rock for piles in Hong Kong are
shown as recorded at a displacement of 1% of the pile diam-
eter (approximately 10 mm). The general trend of behavior is
similar to that identified in Fig. 5(a), and the trend line is given
by the equation
¯ rc)0.5
qs = 0.19(␴ (8)
It should be noted that (4) and (8) are only based on socket
length-to-diameter ratios of <3.5.
Side resistance normalized by UCS is plotted against UCS
for granitic rocks in Fig. 6. This demonstrates the nature of
the correlation between the two variables by a rapid drop in
the normalized resistance with increasing UCS. In Fig. 6(a),
the results in granitic rock with DI equal to A or B only are
shown, and in Fig. 6(b), the results are as recorded at a dis-
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / AUGUST 2001 / 651
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2001.127:642-657.
placement of 1% of the pile diameter. The trend lines estab-
lished above are also included, together with 95% confidence
limits.
Relationship with Decomposition Grade
The Hong Kong tests were conducted in rocks varying from
decomposition Grade IV/III to II. From the descriptions of the
rock decomposition grades in Table 1, it would be expected
that rock strength and hence side resistance would decrease
with the decomposition grade increasing from II to IV/III. Fig.
7 shows the relationship between decomposition grade and
side resistance. The side resistance results are as recorded at
a displacement of 1% of the pile diameter in granitic and vol-
canic rocks. Each increment of decomposition grade is spaced
evenly along the horizontal axis, and materials having two
decomposition grades (identified by geologists) are shown
halfway between the two increments. It is recognized that the
evaluation of decomposition grade is subjective and is by no
means accurate enough to provide rock strength, particularly
between various rock types. Not surprisingly for some of the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 5. Maximum Achieved Side Resistance versus UCS for Granitic Rocks: (a) DI = A or B; (b) at Socket Displacement of 10–13.5 mm (1% of
Socket Diameter)

decomposition grades, there is a range of results. This may be
due to a variation in the UCS, rock type, and construction
method. However, a trend line can be drawn as shown in the
figure. This could be used for preliminary prediction of side
resistance capacity without having information such as UCS
available. The 95% confidence limits of the trend line are also
included. Side resistance capacity in rock of higher decom-
position grades is particularly useful to designers if there is
uncertainty over rock quality over the whole socket length and
diameter.
Construction Effects
Up to now, little has been mentioned on the effects of var-
ious methods of construction on side resistance capacity. Fig.
8 shows the maximum side resistance plotted against UCS for
piles in granitic rock in Hong Kong with DI equal to A or B.
The piles constructed under bentonite (by RCD) are distin-
guished from the piles constructed under water (by RCD) or
652 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / AUGUST 2001
dry (by hand-dug methods). In the limited data in Fig. 8, there
is no obvious variation in capacity as a result of construction
under bentonite in Hong Kong.
MULTISTAGE TESTS
Six of the Hong Kong tests were multistage tests and only
the results of the first stage have been studied to this point in
the paper. Four tests were multistage tests incorporating Os-
terberg cells and the side resistance-displacement relationship
of each is shown in Fig. 9. Both ‘‘positive’’ and ‘‘negative’’
local displacement and side resistance are shown, which are
defined as being in the downward and upward directions, re-
spectively. In Fig. 9(a)–(c), the first loading stage was a con-
ventional downward loading test with load applied by kent-
ledge and hydraulic jacks at the pile head only. The pile was
then unloaded by removing the kentledge, and the pile was
loaded again by activating the Osterberg cell installed near the

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2001.127:642-657.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 6. Maximum Achieved Side Resistance Normalized by UCS versus UCS for Granitic Rocks: (a) DI = A or B; (b) at Socket Displacement of
10–13.5 mm (1% of Socket Diameter)

base of the pile. This pushed the pile upward against the
socket.
Pile 1 [Fig. 9(a)] and Pile 4 [Fig. 9(b)] behaved similarly.
The displacement and degree of mobilization is low in the first
stage, due in part to the displacement being restricted by end
bearing on rock, and ultimate side resistance is not reached.
The socket response is less stiff in the second stage, particu-
larly for Pile 1, and for any given displacement, the measured
side resistance is less than in the first stage. For Pile 1, at a
displacement of 0.03% of the pile diameter in Stage 1, the
normalized side resistance is 0.7, but it is only 0.1 for the
same displacement during Stage 2. A possible explanation for
the behavior is that the first loading stage caused a loss of
bond or ‘‘true cohesion’’ in the socket and broke off asperites
at the pile-socket wall interface. This apparently occurred even
though significant yielding is not observed during the first
stage. The effect in Stage 2 is more pronounced in Pile 1. The
socket then regained some stiffness with further displacement.
This may be due to broken rock fragments being pushed along
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / AUGUST 2001 / 653
the interface, tending to cause dilation and leading to an in-
crease in normal horizontal stresses and hence an increase in
side resistance.
The socket of Pile 5 [Fig. 9(c)] clearly reached the capacity
of side resistance during the first test stage, although prior to
this the response was stiff. The residual pile displacement of
the end of the stage is high, being around 4% of the pile
diameter, and a considerable amount of side resistance is pro-
duced in pushing the pile back to its original position. This is
in fact greater in magnitude than the first stage capacity. Sim-
ilar to Piles 1 and 4, the stiffness during the second stage is
lower than the first stage. If the displacement were rezeroed
at the start of the second stage, initially for a given displace-
ment, the measured second stage side resistance would be less.
However, the side resistance continues to rise rather than peak
and the pile eventually achieves far higher side resistance than
in the first stage. At the first stage, the normalized capacity is
only 0.4 or 40% of the third stage maximum value. In the first
stage, it is likely that extensive bond loss occurred in the

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2001.127:642-657.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 7. Maximum Achieved Side Resistance versus Decomposition Grade for Hong Kong Granitic and Volcanic Rocks

FIG. 8. Effects of Construction Method on Maximum Side Resistance versus UCS Relationship for Granitic Rocks in Hong Kong (DI = A or B)

socket. The work-hardening behavior of the second and third
stages may be related to broken rock fragments tending to
cause dilation with continued displacement, increasing the side
resistance in a similar way to Pile 1.
Pile 6 [Fig. 9(d)] differs from Piles 1, 4, and 5 in that the
first stage was an Osterberg cell loading stage and loading by
kentledge came second. It appears that the capacity of side
resistance may have been reached during the first stage and
some residual displacement occurred. The initial socket stiff-
ness cannot be clearly defined during the second stage because
of some missing data points. However, considerable side re-
sistance is produced as the pile is displaced to its original
position, the normalized side resistance being around 0.6 or
60% of the first stage capacity at zero displacement. At this
point, clearly yielding occurs with a considerable loss of stiff-
ness. The first stage capacity is reached at a displacement of
1.0%. If the second stage side resistance is read off at the same
displacement, it is similar in magnitude, being around 0.9.
654 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / AUGUST 2001
However, if the second stage displacement were rezeroed at
the start of the stage, the measured side resistance would be
around 0.7. Generally Pile 6 is consistent with the previous
three cases, having a stiffer first stage and a lower side resis-
tance for a given displacement during the second stage. A loss
of bond during the first stage was likely to have occurred.
Fig. 10 shows the multistage side resistance-displacement
relationships for Pile 9. The first test stage was a pullout test
and the second was a conventional downward loading test. The
second test stage had a slightly stiffer response than the first
stage, which may be due to Poisson’s ratio effects. During a
pullout test, the pile shaft would contract, whereas for a down-
ward loading test, the shaft would expand. A contraction
would decrease the normal stresses on the pile-socket inter-
face, possibly decreasing the friction capacity, whereas the op-
posite would occur for the compression test.
Pile 7, shown in Fig. 11, was also tested using a multistage
test with the two stages both being downward loading tests.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2001.127:642-657.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 9. Side Resistance-Displacement Relationships for Multistage Osterberg Cell Tests: (a) Pile 1 (Volcanic Tuff ); (b) Pile 4 (Metasedimentary); (c)
Pile 5 (Granodiorite); (d) Pile 6 (Granite)

FIG. 10. Side Resistance-Displacement Relationships for Pile 9 (Mul- FIG. 11. Side Resistance-Displacement Relationships for Pile 7 (Mul-
tistage Pullout Test) tistage Soft-Toe Test)

The first stage had a void located at the pile toe, and this was
then grouted for the second stage. During the second stage,
the pile clearly achieved a far higher capacity of side resistance
(a difference of approximately 50%). This may be due to two
reasons. Possibly, during the first stage there was an ingress
of grout into existing or new cracks or fractures opened during
the first stage loading. Also, varying stress distributions in the
pile shaft as a result of the differing toe conditions may have
affected the capacity of side resistance. With a grouted or solid
toe, the pile shaft stresses would generally be higher for a
given side resistance because of the mobilization of base re-
sistance simultaneously with side resistance. Therefore greater
compression of the pile shaft would be expected, and because
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / AUGUST 2001 / 655
of Poisson’s ratio effects, higher normal stresses and hence
higher side resistance capacity may be achieved. Using finite-
element models, Rowe and Armitage (1987a) observed that
for perfectly smooth sockets the difference in average side
resistance between tests with a void at the pile base and tests
with a solid base may be as much as an order of magnitude.
Generally, for the multistage tests, two phenomena are ob-
served. First, for the bidirectional loading tests, a reduction in
the socket stiffness occurs with the second test stage, which
is likely to be due to a loss of bond or ‘‘true cohesion’’ in the
first stage. For a given displacement, the side resistance mo-
bilized in the second stage is less than in the first. However,
with continued displacement, resistance continues to increase

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2001.127:642-657.

 in the second test stage, exhibiting work hardening behavior.
Higher side resistance may even be reached in the second stage
at larger displacements than the side resistance capacity proven
in the first test stage. The phenomenon was observed for both
tests in which positive side resistance is mobilized in the first
stage (a downward loading stage) and negative side resistance
is mobilized in the second stage (an upward loading stage) and
tests in which the order of loading is reversed. The results
suggest that the application of a second stage of loading in the
opposite direction to the first stage has greater significance
than the direction of loading specifically. In fact, there is no
evidence to suggest that the direction of loading significantly
affects side resistance. This phenomenon should be considered
in design, particularly when live and cyclic loading conditions
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
are prominent. At working load, a lower stiffness should be
considered than that indicated by the results of compression
loading tests only. The results also have implications to the
general understanding of the behavior of rock sockets, as they
suggest that some amount of damage (loss of bond) to the
socket occurs in the first stage, even if yielding is not obvious.
Therefore, yielding of a socket may actually occur at a lower
displacement than suggested by the resistance-displacement re-
lationship for a conventional single stage test. This aspect of
pile behavior clearly deserves further research.
The second phenomenon is that a variation in the pile toe
conditions can affect the capacity of a socket in side resistance.
The results with ‘‘soft toe’’ considered in this paper are limited
to one pile only and the results should be treated with caution.
Possibly the behavior is related to a variation in the mobilized
stress distribution around the toe and socket, as discussed by
Rowe and Armitage (1987a). From the available information
in this paper most were tests on piles with solid toes. However,
variations in the socket stress distribution may be expected as
a result of varying socket dimensions and elastic parameters,
as suggested by Rowe and Pells (1980). A study of the effects
of such parameters was not possible in this paper because of
a lack of available information. However, caution should be
exercised in applying the observed relationships for side re-
sistance capacity in this paper to the design of sockets with
length-to-diameter ratios varying significantly from those pre-
sented in this paper. The variation in rock elastic properties is
taken into account to some degree by specifying a relationship
for a given rock type only. The same applies in general to
other design correlations and methods that are empirically
based and do not include socket dimensions or elastic prop-
erties as variables. The writers intend to pursue this research
through the use of finite-element modeling in the future.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A database of large-scale field load tests on rock-socketed
piles was reviewed with regard to rock-socket side resistance.
In total, 35 tests in decomposed rock, of which 13 were tests
on piles of diameter greater than or equal to 1 m in Hong
Kong, and 44 tests in sedimentary rock were studied. Obser-
vations were made on the mobilization and capacity of socket
resistance and were compared with design formulas proposed
in the literature. Capacity was reviewed predominantly in re-
lation to the unconfined compressive strength of rock or con-
crete (whichever is weakest) and rock type. Other, more de-
tailed information such as socket roughness, which may have
allowed further analysis, was generally not available. The
Hong Kong tests were in decomposed granitic, volcanic, and
metasedimentary rocks, whereas the tests from the literature
were predominantly in sedimentary rocks. To categorize re-
sults of side resistance based on degree of mobilization, a DI
was defined and applied to the database. Results were studied
in relation to variables such as rock type and the unconfined
656 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / AUGUST 2001
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2001.127:642-657.
compressive strength of rock or concrete. The major conclu-
sions from the study are as follows:
• In all rocks studied in the paper, the rate of mobilization
of side resistance and the shapes of the resistance-dis-
placement relationships were generally scattered. The ul-
timate side resistance was reached at different displace-
ments in different sockets. No strong correlation can be
drawn between the shapes of the relationships and the
socket length and diameter.
• By studying maximum side resistance against the uncon-
fined compressive strength, generally the results in sedi-
mentary rocks were higher than those in granitic and vol-
canic rocks. The sedimentary rock results were scattered
above the lower bound of the suggested design range of
Horvath et al. (1983). The limited data for piles in granitic
rocks indicated lower side resistance than predicted by
some equations published in the literature. An average
trend line was established for the available data in granitic
rocks, which is consistent with the curve of the lower
bound of Horvath et al. (1983).
• An average trend line together with 95% of confidence
limits for the correlation of the capacity of side resistance
with rock decomposition grade was identified for results
in granitic and volcanic rocks in Hong Kong encompass-
ing data points from Grades II to IV/III rocks. This cor-
relation may be useful for a fast estimation of side resis-
tance in different decomposed rocks. The correlation
should not be used for sockets >3 m in length or for
sockets being designed for uplift capacity.
• In the limited available data, there is no observed signif-
icant difference in the capacity of side resistance for pile
sockets constructed under bentonite or under water/day in
granitic rocks in Hong Kong.
• During bidirectional multistage tests, a reduction in the
socket stiffness was observed with the second test stage,
which is likely to be due to a loss of bond or ‘‘true co-
hesion’’ in the first stage. For a given displacement, the
side resistance mobilized in the second stage was less than
in the first. However, with greater displacement, work
hardening behavior was evident in the second test stage.
• There is no evidence to suggest that the direction of load-
ing significantly affects side resistance. Instead, the results
suggest that the application of a second stage of loading
in the opposite direction to the first stage has greater sig-
nificance than the direction of loading specifically.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research project is supported by a research grant CRC96/99.EG04
from the Cooperative Research Center scheme of the Research Grant
Council of the Hong Kong Government of the Special Administrative
Region. The writers would like to acknowledge the contributions pro-
vided by the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corp., Mass-Transit Railway
Corp., Ove Arup and Partners Hong Kong Ltd., Gammon Construction
Ltd., and the Geotechnical Engineering Office of the Hong Kong Gov-
ernment of the Special Administrative Region, all of which provided
some of the test data analyzed in this paper. In particular, the help of
Messrs D. Gerken, I. Thomas, S. C. Lee, and J. Blake of the Kowloon-
Canton Railway Corp., John Sekula of the Mass-Transit Railway Corp.,
D. Symth of Gammon Construction Ltd., Drs. S. Hill, B. Littlechild, and
G. Plumbridge of Ove Arup and Partners Hong Kong Ltd., and Prof. C.
K. Shen and Dr. D. Rigby, former Hong Kong University of Science and
Technology members, are highly appreciated.
REFERENCES
Buildings Ordinance Office (BOO). (1980). ‘‘Pile foundations.’’ Prac.
Note for Authorised Persons and Registered Struct. Engrs., No. 66,
1997 Revision, Buildings Department, Hong Kong.
Buildings Ordinance Office (BOO). (1990). ‘‘Foundation design. Building
(construction) regulations 1990—Part VI.’’ Prac. Note for Authorised
 Persons and Registered Struct. Engrs., No. 141, 1995 Revision, Build-
ings Department, Hong Kong.
Buttling, S. (1976). ‘‘Estimates of shaft and end loads in piles in chalk
using strain gauge instrumentation.’’ Géotechnique, 26, 133–147.
Carrubba, P. (1997). ‘‘Skin friction of large-diameter piles socketed into
rock.’’ Can. Geotech. J., Ottawa, 34, 230–240.
Carter, J. P., and Kulhawy, F. H. (1987). ‘‘Analysis and design of foun-
dations socketed into rock.’’ Res. Rep. 1493-4, Geotech. Engrg. Group,
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
Chiu, H. K., and Johnston, I. W. (1980). ‘‘The effects of drainage con-
ditions and confining pressures on the strength of Melbourne mud-
stone.’’ Foundations on Melbourne Mudstone, Rock Socketed Piles,
Monash University, Melbourne.
Davis, A. G. (1974). ‘‘Contribution to discussion IV, Rocks.’’ Proc., Cam-
bridge Conf. Settlement of Struct., 757–759.
Geotechnical Control Office (GCO). (1988). Guide to rock and soil de-
scriptions. Geoguide 3. 1994 Ed., Hong Kong.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Geotechnical Engineering Office (GEO). (1991). ‘‘Foundation design of
caisson on granitic and volcanic rocks.’’ GEO Rep. No. 8, Civil En-
gineering Department, Hong Kong.
Geotechnical Engineering Office (GEO). (1996). ‘‘Pile design and con-
struction.’’ GEO Publ. 1/96, Civil Engineering Department, Hong
Kong.
Horvath, R. G. (1978). ‘‘Field load test data on concrete-to-rock bond
strength for drilled pier foundations.’’ Publ. 78/07, Dept. of Civ. Engrg.,
University of Toronto, Toronto.
Horvath, R. G. (1982). ‘‘Drilled piers socketed into weak shale—Methods
of improving performance.’’ PhD thesis, University of Toronto, To-
ronto.
Horvath, R. G., and Kenney, T. C. (1979). ‘‘Shaft resistance of rock-
socketed drilled piers.’’ Proc., Symp. on Deep Found., ASCE, New
York, 182–214.
Horvath, R. G., Kenney, T. C., and Kozicki, P. (1983). ‘‘Methods of
improving the performance of drilled piers in weak rock.’’ Can. Geo-
tech. J., Ottawa, 20, 758–772.
Horvath, R. G., Trow, W. A., and Kenney, T. C. (1980). ‘‘Results of tests
to determine shaft resistance of rock-socketed drilled piers.’’ Proc., Int.
Conf. on Struct. Found. on Rock, 349–361.
International Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM). (1978). ‘‘Suggested
method for determining the uniaxial compressive strength and deform-
ability of rock materials.’’ Int. J. Rock Mech. Mining Sci. and Geo-
mechanics Abstracts, 16(2), 135–140.
International Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM). (1985). ‘‘Suggested
method for determining point load strength.’’ Int. J. Rock Mech. and
Mining Sci., 22, 51–60.
Johnston, I. W., and Donald, I. B. (1979). ‘‘Final report on rock socket
pile test.’’ Contract No. 703 Flinders St.–Spencer St. Overpass. Mel-
bourne underground rail loop project. Dept. of Civ. Engrg. Rep. No.
78/6/G, Monash University, Melbourne.
Johnston, I. W., Williams, A. F., and Chiu, H. K. (1980). ‘‘Properties of
soft rock relevant to socketed pile design.’’ Proc., Int. Conf. on Struct.
Found. on Rock, 55–64.
Kulhawy, F. H., and Phoon, K. K. (1993). ‘‘Drilled shaft side resistance
in clay soil to rock.’’ Proc., Conf. on Des. and Perf. of Deep Found.:
Piles and Piers in Soil and Soft Rock, Geotech. Spec. Publ. No. 38,
ASCE, New York, 172–183.
Ladanyi, B. (1977). ‘‘Discussion on friction and end bearing tests.’’ Can.
Geotech. J., Ottawa, 14, 153.
Lam, T. S. K., Yau, J. H. W., and Premchitt, J. (1991). ‘‘Side resistance
of a rock-socketed caisson.’’ Hong Kong Engr., February, 17–28.
Leung, C. F. (1996). ‘‘Case studies of rock-socketed piles.’’ Geotech.
Engrg., Bangkok, Thailand, 27, 51–67.
Mason, R. C. (1960). ‘‘Transmission of high loads to primary foundations
by large diameter shafts.’’ Proc., ASCE Convention, ASCE, New York.
Matich, M. A. J., and Kozicki, P. (1967) ‘‘Some load tests on drilled cast-
in-place concrete caissons.’’ Can. Geotech. J., Ottawa, 4, 367–375.
Meigh, A. C., and Wolski, W. (1979). ‘‘Design parameters for weak
rocks.’’ Proc., 7th Eur. Conf. on SMFE, Vol. 5, Brighton, U.K., 59–79.
Monash University. (1979). ‘‘Final report on rock socket pile test.’’ Con-
tract No. 703 Flinders St.–Spencer St. Overpass. Melbourne under-
ground rail loop project. Dept. of Civ. Engrg. Rep. No. 79/1/G, Mel-
bourne.
Osterberg, J. (1989). ‘‘New device for load testing driven piles and drilled
shafts separates friction and end bearing.’’ Proc., 3rd Int. Conf. on
Piling and Deep Found., Vol. 1, 421–428.
Osterberg, J. O., and Gill, S. A. (1973). ‘‘Load transfer mechanism for
piers socketed in hard soils or rock.’’ Proc., 9th Can. Rock Mech.
Symp., 235–262.
Pells, P. J. N., Douglas, D. J., Rodway, B., Thorne, C., and McManhon,
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / AUGUST 2001 / 657
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2001.127:642-657.
B. K. (1978). ‘‘Design loadings for foundations on shale and sandstone
in the Sydney region.’’ Res. Rep. No. R315, University of Sydney,
Sydney, Australia.
Pells, P. J. N., Rowe, R. K., and Turner, R. M. (1980). ‘‘An experimental
investigation into side shear for socketed piles in sandstone.’’ Proc.,
Int. Conf. on Struct. Found. on Rock, Vol. 1, 291–302.
Pells, P. J. N., and Turner, R. M. (1979). ‘‘Elastic solution for the design
and analysis of rock-socketed piles.’’ Can. Geotech. J., Ottawa, 16,
481–487.
Reese, L. C., and O’Neill, M. W. (1988). ‘‘Drilled shafts: Construction
procedures and design methods.’’ Publ. No. FHWA-HI-88-042, Federal
Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.; Publ. No. ADSC-TL-4, In-
ternational Association of Foundation Drilling.
Rosenberg, P., and Journeaux, N. L. (1976). ‘‘Friction and end bearing
tests on bedrock for high capacity socket design.’’ Can. Geotech. J.,
Ottawa, 13, 324–333.
Rowe, R. K., and Armitage, H. H. (1987a). ‘‘Theoretical solution for axial
deformation of drilled shaft in.’’ Can. Geotech. J., Ottawa, 24, 114–
125.
Rowe, R. K., and Armitage, H. H. (1987b). ‘‘A design method for drilled
piers in soft rock.’’ Can. Geotech. J., Ottawa, 24, 126–142.
Rowe, R. K., and Pells, P. J. N. (1980). ‘‘A theoretical study of pile-rock
socket behaviour.’’ Proc., Int. Conf. on Struct. Found. on Rock, 253–
264.
Thorburn, S. (1966). ‘‘Large diameter piles founded on bedrock.’’ Proc.,
Symp. on Large Bored Piles, Institution of Civil Engineers, London,
120–129.
Thorne, C. P. (1980). ‘‘The capacity of piers drilled into rock.’’ Proc.,
Int. Conf. on Struct. Found. on Rock, Vol. 1, 223–233.
Tomlinson, M. J. (1994). Pile design and construction practice, E & FN
Spon, Chapman & Hall, London.
Vogan, R. W. (1977). ‘‘Friction and end bearing tests on bedrock for high
capacity socket design: Discussion.’’ Can. Geotech. J., Ottawa, 14,
156–158.
Walter, D. J., Burwash, W. J., and Montgomery, R. A. (1997). ‘‘Design
of large-diameter drilled shafts for Northumberland Strait bridge
project.’’ Can. Geotech. J., Ottawa, 34, 580–587.
Webb, D. L. (1976). ‘‘The behaviour of bored piles in weathered dia-
base.’’ Géotechnique, London, 26, 63–72.
Williams, A. F. (1980). ‘‘The design and performance of piles socketed
into weak rock.’’ PhD thesis, Monash University, Melbourne.
Williams, A. F., Donald, I. B., and Chiu, H. K. (1980a). ‘‘Stress distri-
butions in rock socketed piles.’’ Proc., Int. Conf. on Struct. Found. on
Rock, 317–326.
Williams, A. F., Johnston, I. W., and Donald, I. B. (1980b). ‘‘The design
of socketed piles in weak rock.’’ Proc., Int. Conf. on Struct. Found. on
Rock, 327–347.
Williams, A. F., and Pells, P. J. N. (1981). ‘‘Side resistance rock sockets
in sandstone, mudstone, and shale.’’ Can. Geotech. J., Ottawa, 18, 502–
513.
Wilson, L. C. (1976). ‘‘Tests of bored and driven piles in cretaceous
mudstone at Port Elizabeth, South Africa.’’ Géotechnique, London, 26,
5–12.
Zhang, L., and Einstein, H. H. (1998). ‘‘End bearing capacity of drilled
shafts in rock.’’ J. Geotech. and Geoenvir. Engrg., ASCE, 124(7), 574–
584.
NOTATION
The following symbols are used in this paper:
d = pile diameter;
f ⬘c = UCS of concrete;
pa = atmospheric pressure;
q̄ = mean rock-socket side resistance, averaged over socket
length;
q̄max = mean maximum rock-socket side resistance, averaged
over socket length;
qs = rock-socket ultimate side resistance;
␣ = side resistance reduction factor for UCS defined by Wil-
liams and Pells (1981);
␤ = side resistance reduction factor for mass factor defined by
Williams and Pells (1981);
␦¯ = local pile displacement at center of rock socket;
␴r = UCS of rock;
␴rc = UCS of rock or concrete, whichever is lowest; and
␴
¯ rc = mean USC of rock or concrete, whichever is lowest, av-
eraged over socket length.