You are on page 1of 8

Proceedings of Indian Geotechnical Conference

December 22-24,2013, Roorkee

ESTIMATION OF ULTIMATE SOCKET FRICTION CAPACITY FOR MICRO


PILES IN ROCK STRATA
Govind Singh Bisht, Research Scholar, M.S. University of Baroda, Vadodara, govindbisht33@gmail.com
J. C. Shukla,L&T - Sargent & Lundy Ltd., Vadodara, Gujarat,Jaykumar.Shukla@Lntsnl.com
D. L. Shah*, Professor, Applied Mechanics Dept., M.S. University of Baroda, Vadodara, dr_dlshah@yahoo.com
ABSTRACT: In India, rock socketed bored piles are commonly used as foundations for high rise buildings,
bridges and other transportation structures to increase the foundations capacity. However, procedures to quantify
the side resistance capacity of sockets vary considerably. Currently in India, IS: 14593 (1998) and IRC: 78(2010)
are followed for estimation of ultimate side resistance for rock socketed piles. This paper reviews many of the
proposed methods to predict coefficient of side resistance () and critically assess them. Subsequent laboratory
investigation program comprised of 16 foundation model tests and 9 large size direct shear test on rock/concrete
composite specimen to characterize the behaviour of socket friction. The ultimate side resistance (fsu) obtained from
the present study are then compared with the values recommended by various researches. On the basis of
experimental model pile studies and large size shear test, correlations are developed in between coefficient of side
resistance and unconfined compressive strength.

INTRODUCTION
Large diameter rock-socketed bored piles are
commonly used as foundations for multi-storey
buildings in India. Although considerable attention
has been given to the design of rock-socketed piles
in past decades (Carter and Kulhawy, 1988; Cole
and Stroud 1977; Horvath and Kenny 1979;
Rosenberg and Journeaux 1976; Rowe and
Armitage 1987; Williams et al. 1981; Zhang and
Einstein, 1998; for both rough and smooth socket),
the current design procedure is still highly
empirical. In general, research on the shaft friction
and end bearing of piles in rocks lags considerably
behind that of piles in soils. Limited information is
available on the load transfer characteristics of
rock-socketed piles and very little, if any,
published data has been reported on the behaviour
of such piles in service.
Till recent time, it was usual to adopt allowable
bearing pressure of 3.0MPa for sound rocks like
basalt, and 2.5MPa for weaker rocks like volcanic
Breccia and Tuff. During installation, criterion
based on chiselling energy (Datye, 1990) is being
practiced for pile termination in weathered rocks.
These practices appear to be very conservative as
they neglect, or assume very low values of the side

resistance between pile and rock socket interface


(Basarkar, 2004; Basarkar and Dewaikar 2006).
This paper examines the behaviour of axially
loaded piles socketed into rock with different
socket length during the load tests conducted in
laboratory.
Design for Side Resistance carried out globally
A number of empirical relationships have been
published for estimating the capacity of rock
socketed 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 strength than
typical rock types encountered in various places
globally.
The development of empirical design rules for pile
shafts in rock commenced in the 1970s. The shaft
resistances for piles in rock have historically been
related to the unconfined compressive strength, qu.
Pells et al. (1979) recommended allowable
adhesions in Melbourne mudstone and Sydney
sandstone, respectively of 0.05 qu. Ultimate shaft

Page 1 of 8

Govind Singh ,Bisht, Shukla J. C., Shah, D. L.

resistance values published by Thorne (1977), and


reproduced as Figure 1, would suggest that these
recommended values were not necessarily
conservative. This data relates primarily to
unconfined compressive rock strengths in excess of
10 MPa. Williams and Pells(1981), on the basis of
a more comprehensive analysis of pile load tests in
soft rocks proposed the relationship between
adhesion factor and unconfined compressive
strength shown in Figure 2.

Table 1. Roughness Classes (after Pells et al.


(1980)
Roughness
Class
R1

R2

R3

R4

Fig. 1 Achieved skin adhesion vs. rock strength for


pile sockets in rock (after Thorne, 1977)
The importance of roughness in the shaft resistance
of piles in rock was noted by Pells et al. (1980)
who developed a set of four roughness classes
(Table 1) based on observation of sockets drilled in
Sydney sandstone.

Description
Straight,
smooth-sided
socket,
grooves
or
indentations less than 1 mm
deep.
Grooves of depth 1-4 mm,
width greater than 2 mm, at
spacing 50 mm to 200 mm.
Grooves of depth 4-10 mm,
width greater than 5 mm, at
spacing 50 mm to 200 mm.
Grooves or undulations of
depth > 10 mm, width > 10
mm at spacing 50 mm to
200 mm.

Horvath et al. (1983) proposed a relationship


between available shaft resistance and a
quantitative measure of roughness, RF, denoted
roughness factor. Rowe and Armitage (1984)
developed an international data base for drilled
piles in rock, including 67 load tests to failure on
18 sites. The data was separated into two
categories-sockets with roughness classes R1 to
R3, and sockets with roughness R4. Kulhawy and
Phoon (1993) supplemented the data of Rowe and
Armitage with 47 additional load tests in Florida
limestone after Bloomquist and Townsend (1991)
and McVay et al. (1992), as well as that of the pile
load tests in clay reported by Chen and
Kulhawy(1993).
Kulhawy and Poon presented their data both for
individual pile load tests and as site averaged data,
the results of which are shown in Figure 3, in terms
of adhesion factor, , vs. normalized shear
strength, (cu / pa).

Fig. 2 Side resistance reduction factors for pile


sockets in rock (after Williams and Pells, 1981)

Page 2 of 8

Estimation of ultimate socket friction capacity for micro piles in rock strata

Rosenberg & Journeaux (1976)


Horvath (1982)
Williams & Pells (1981)
Zang and Einstein (1998) smooth socket
Zang and Einstein (1998) rough socket
IS: 14593 (1998)
Present research (Basalt)
Box Shear (White Sandstone)
Box Shear (Red Sandstone)
Box Shear (Basalt)
Instrumented pile Gandhi et al. (1981)
Pullout on plugs Gandhi et al. (1981)
Khare and Mhiskar (2010)
Basarkar and Dewaikar (2006) Pile load tests
Basarkar (2004) O-cell tests -Breccia and Tuff
Present Research (Sandstone)

Coefficient of Unit Side Resistance

1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2

Fig. 3 Site averaged adhesion factor vs. normalized


shear strength (after Kulhaway & Phoon, 1993)
INDIAN RECOMMENDATIONS
IS: 14593 (Indian Standard code) suggest unit
shear resistance based on uniaxial compressive
strength of rock to obtain rock socket side
resistance factor. However, the computed rock
socket resistance factor is recommended to correct
for rock mass reduction factor which actually
reduce the computed side socket friction. Figure 4
describes the variation of rock socket side
resistance factor with respect to uniaxial
compressive strength of rocks recommended by IS:
14593. IRC -78 recommends an empirical equation
to estimate the design rock socket side resistance
factor. The recommended equation is presented
Table 2 comparing other popularly available
empirical equation. However it is important to note
that IRC-78 limits the maximum allowable size
resistance to 5 MPa.
EXPERIMENTAL SETUP
Two stage experimental programs are carried out
in the geotechnical testing laboratory at M.S.
University of Baroda, India. In first stage, model of
concrete piles are casted in the rock chunk after
drilling hole of 52 mm of specified socket length.
The model piles are casted using M30 (concrete
compressive strength 30 N/mm2) concrete up to the
depth of 2D to 3D (D = dia of rock core) from the
top.

0.0
0.1

10

Uniaxial Compressive Strength (MPa)

100

Fig. 4 Coefficient of unit side resistance of


socketed piles.
Table 2: Coefficient of unit side resistance of
socketed piles
Sr. Reference
Empirical
No.
Correlations
1
IRC 78
2
Rowe and Armitage
(1987)
3
Horvath et al. (1980)
4
Rosenberg
and
Journeaux (1976)
5
Zang and Einstein
(1998) - smooth
sockets
6
Zang and Einstein
(1998)
rough
sockets
7
Horvath and Kenney
(1979)
8
Carter and Kulhawy
(1988)

The bottom portion of the drilled hole is filled with


soft material or kept open to avoid any end bearing
mobilization. After sufficient curing, the rock
socketed pile model is placed under the load frame
of 250 kN capacity for vertical compression. The
experimental setup is schematically illustrated in
Figure 5.
The load was applied using screw jack and was
measured using 200 kN proving ring. The load was
applied gradually in increment of 25 kN and
corresponding settlements were measured. The
next incremental load was applied after the
settlement ceased under the applied load. The load

Page 3 of 8

Govind Singh ,Bisht, Shukla J. C., Shah, D. L.

increment
and
corresponding
settlement
observation continue till the model pile fails by
loss of friction. Based on observed failure load,
coefficient of unit side resistance is computed for
model pile and summarized in the Table 3.

strength of the rock. The observed coefficient of


unit side resistance is summarized in the Table 3,
and compared with the different correlations
derived by various investigators.

P
Concrete Specimen

Rock

Soft Material

Fig. 5 Schematic laboratory experiment setup to


calculate maximum sock friction capacity
In second stage, the large box shear tests are
carried out in the laboratory in order to characterize
the ultimate socket friction between rock / concrete
interface. The large size direct shear test apparatus
is used for determining the shear strength of
concrete/rock composite samples. Maximum shear
load capacity of the instrument is in the order of
150 kN. It is a constant rate of strain type apparatus
and gives 72 different rates of strain. The samples
of 10cm x 10cm x 10cm are prepared from the
chunks by cutting them with the help of rock
cutting machine. The samples thus prepared are
further sliced into two equal parts. The artificial
asperities were made on the test surface of all cut
sandstone and basalt rock samples. The concrete of
M30 grade were placed on the prepared rock
sample so that total thickness of composite
rock/concrete sample is of 10cm. The prepared
sample is cured for 21 days. The rock/concrete
composite sample (10cmx10cmx10cm) is then
transferred to large size shear test machine such
that rock slice remains in lower half box and
concrete portion remain in upper half box with
centre of joint exactly aligned to the plane of shear.
Normal stress of 0.45 MPa was applied during the
test. The strain rate of 0.502 mm/min was kept
during testing procedure. The ultimate shear failure
(bond failure) load was found out from the test.
Figure 6 shows the box shear test samples before
and after testing. The coefficient of unit side
resistance is evaluated as the ratio of unit ultimate
shear resistance to the unconfined compressive

Fig. 6 Large direct shear test specimen before and


after test, A- Basalt, B- Red sandstone, C- White
sandstone

Fig. 7 Direct Shear apparatus for testing rock


/concrete interface shear.
DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
In present experimental study of model piles, it is
observed that Williams and Pells (1981), Zhang
and Einstein (1998) (rough sockets) predicts the
ultimate unit side friction closely for sandstone
samples (Fig.4). For basalt samples, ultimate unit
Page 4 of 8

Estimation of ultimate socket friction capacity for micro piles in rock strata

side friction estimated through IS: 14593, IRC


78:2000 and values predicted by Horvath et al.
(1980) are in close agreement with the
experimental results.
Based on the results of the large box shear tests, it
is observed that for basalt, IS: 14593 predict the
most conservative ultimate unit side friction among
all the empirical equation compared in Table 3. For
white sandstone, IS: 14593, Horvath and Kenney
(1979) and Carter and Kulhawy (1988) closely
predict the observed ultimate unit side resistance
whereas IRC: 78 under predicts the ultimate
friction load. For red sandstone, IRC 78 and
Horvath et al. (1980) predicts the ultimate unit side
resistance closely compared to others. Overall, for
higher strength class rocks i.e basalt, IS: 14593 and
IRC: 78 predicts the side socked friction more
closely and more variations are observed for the
lower strength class rocks.
On the basis of experimental pile model studies
and large size shear experiments performed on
various rock samples, correlation is developed in
between coefficient of side resistance () and
unconfined compressive strength.

Rock Type
Hard
Soft
Hard +
Soft

Avg. UCS
Value
(MPa)
72-150
30-84
30-150

Equations
fsu = 0.22qu-0.5
fsu = 1.12qu-0.5
fsu =130.66 qu1.847

The present study shows good co-relations with


various authors as well as with code provisions for
certain rock types. Research need more input to
develop still batter correlation.
REFERENCES
Basarkar, S. S. (2004). Analytical and experimental
studies on rock socketed piles in Mumbai region.
Ph D Thesis, IIT-B, Mumbai.
Basarkar, S.S. and Dewaikar, D.M. (2006). Load
transfer characteristics of socketed piles in Mumbai
region. Soils and Foundations, Vol 46(2), 247-257.
Bloomquist, D. & F.C. Townsend. 1991.
Development of insitu equipment for capacity
determinations of deep foundations in Florida

limestone. Report to Florida Dept. of


Transportation. Gainesville: University of Florida.
Carter, J.P. and Kulhawy. F.H. (1988). Analysis
and design of drilled shaft foundations socketed
into rock. Report EL-5918. Palo Alto: Electric
Power Research Institute.
Cole, K.W. and Stroud, M.A. (1977). Rock
socketed piles at Coventry point, Marketway,
Coventry. Proc. Of Piles in Weak Rock,
Institution of Civil Engineers, London, 47-62.
Datye, K. R., (1990). Bored piling in Bombay
region. Proc. Indian Geotechnical Conference
(IGC) 1990, Bombay, 571-588.
Horvath, R.G. and T.C. Kenney. (1979). Shaft
resistance of rock-socketed drilled piers. In
Symposium on Deep Foundations, Atlanta, Oct.
1979, ed. F.M. Fuller, 182-214. New York: ASCE.
Horvath, R.G., T.C. Kenney & P. Kozicki. 1983.
Methods of improving the performance of drilled
piers in weak rock. Canadian Geotech. J. 20(4):
758-772.
Horvath, R. G., Kenney, T. C. and Trow, W. A.
(1980). Results of tests to determine shaft
resistance of rock socketed drilled piers. Proc. Int.
Conf. on Stru. Found. On Rock, 1, 349-361.
IRC: 78 (2000). Standard specifications and code
of practice for road bridges. Section VII.
IS: 14593 (1998). Design and Construction of
bored cast in-situ pils founded on rocks
Guidelines.
Kenny, T. C. (1977). Factors to be considered in
the design of piers socketed in rocks. Conf. on the
design and construction of deep foundations.
Canadian Society for Civil Engg., Sudbury,
Ontario, 11-39.
McVay, M.C., F.C. Townsend & R.C. Williams.
1992. Design of socketed drilled shafts in
limestone. J. Geotech. Eng.(ASCE). 118(10):16261637.
Pells, P. J. N. and Turner, R. M. (1979). Elastic
solutions for the design and analysis of rock
sockted piles. Can. Geotech. Jr., 16, 481-487.
Pells, P.J.N and Turner, R.M (1980). End bearing
of rock with particular reference to sandstone. Int.
Conf. on Structural Foundations on Rock. Sydney.
181-190.
Rosenberg, P. and Journeux, N. L. (1976). Friction
Page 5 of 8

Govind Singh ,Bisht, Shukla J. C., Shah, D. L.

and end bearing tests on bedrock for high capacity


socketed design. Can. Geotech. Jr., 13, 324-333.
Rowe, R. K. and Armitage, H. H. (1987). A design
method for drilled piers in soft rock. Can. Geotech.
Jr., 24, 126-142.
Williams, A. F. and Pells, P. J. N. (1981). Side
resistance rock sockets in sandstone, mudstone and
shale. Can. Geotech. Jr., 18, 502-513.

Thome, C.P. (1980). The capacity of piers drilled


into rock, proceedings of the International
Conference on Structural Foundations on Rock,
Sydney, Australia, pp 223-233
Zhang, L. and Einstein, H. H. (1998). End bearing
capacity of drilled shafts in rock. Jr. of geotech.
and Geoenvr. Engnr., ASCE, Vol. 24(7), 574-584.

Page 6 of 8

Estimation of ultimate socket friction capacity for micro piles in rock strata

Table 3 Estimated and observed coefficient of uniform side resistance for rock plug specimens
Socket

Observed

Unit Side

Unit Side

length

Ultimate

Resistance

Resistance

(mm)

load (kg)

(MPa)

Coefficient

52

104

13200

7.77

0.216

40

52

130

13200

6.21

36

52

104

13200

39.6

52

130

47

52

30

Rock

UCS
of
rock
(MPa)

Socket
Dia
(mm)

36

Horvath

ZA1998

ZA 1998

Smooth

Rough

Sockets

Sockets

IRC
78
:2000

RA1987

0.08

0.037

0.075

0.041

0.062

0.067

0.155

0.075

0.035

0.071

0.039

0.059

7.77

0.213

0.08

0.037

0.075

0.041

13200

6.21

0.157

0.078

0.035

0.071

104

13200

7.77

0.165

0.07

0.032

52

130

13200

6.21

0.207

0.095

32.4

52

130

13200

6.21

0.192

43.2

52

104

13200

7.77

43.2

52

156

12900

104.3

52

130

7500

72

52

104

140

52

156

148

52

84

50

70
52
130
1300
0.612
0.009
0.05 0.027 0.054
0.03
0.045
0.048
0.096
0.08 0.075
A - Gritty Sandstone; B- Cilious & Argillaceous Sandstone; C - Ferruginous & Argillaceous Sandstone; D - Argillaceous Sandstone; E Ortho
Quartzite
Sandstone; F - dark greyish black colour fine grained porphyritic Basalt. G - Fresh pinkish red colour ferrogenous Sandstone RA Rowand Armitage;
RJ
Rosenberg and Journeaux; ZA Zang and Einstein; HK Horvath and Kenney; CK Carter and Kulhawy

Type

IS:
14593

et al. 1980

RJ 1976

HK 1979

CK 1988

0.133

0.111

0.105

0.063

0.126

0.106

0.099

0.062

0.067

0.133

0.111

0.105

0.039

0.059

0.064

0.127

0.106

0.1

0.065

0.036

0.054

0.058

0.116

0.097

0.091

0.041

0.082

0.045

0.068

0.073

0.146

0.122

0.115

0.09

0.039

0.079

0.044

0.065

0.07

0.14

0.118

0.11

0.179

0.072

0.034

0.068

0.038

0.057

0.06

0.121

0.102

0.096

5.06

0.117

0.072

0.034

0.068

0.038

0.057

0.06

0.121

0.102

0.096

3.53

0.034

0.05

0.022

0.044

0.024

0.036

0.039

0.078

0.065

0.061

2400

1.41

0.019

0.06

0.026

0.053

0.029

0.044

0.047

0.094

0.078

0.074

6888

2.703

0.019

0.01

0.019

0.038

0.021

0.032

0.034

0.068

0.057

0.053

130

6750

3.178

0.021

0.01

0.018

0.037

0.021

0.031

0.033

0.066

0.055

0.052

52

104

1500

0.883

0.011

0.04

0.025

0.049

0.027

0.041

0.044

0.087

0.073

0.069

52

130

7500

0.353

0.007

0.08

0.032

0.064

0.035

0.053

0.057

0.113

0.095

0.089

Page 7 of 8

Govind Singh ,Bisht, Shukla J. C., Shah, D. L.

TABLE 4 Observed and Predicted Coefficient of Side Resistance () (Box Shear Test)

Rock Type Description


UCS of rock (MPa)
Dia of Socket (mm)
Observed Ultimate load (kg)
Observed Ultimate unit side
resistance (MPa)
Coefficient of unit side
resistance ()
Specimen Failed (Yes/No)
IS: 14593
IRC 78
Rowe and Armitage (1987)
Horvath et al. (1980)
Rosenberg and Journeaux
(1976)

Experimental Observations (With Roughness)


Fresh pinkish red colour
Fresh dark greyish black
ferruginous Sandstone with Fresh Creamy white colour
colour fine grained
fine to medium grained
Friable sandstone
porphyritic Basalt
cementing material
150
150
150
50.32
50.32
50.32
72.5
72.5
72.5
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
2850
2700
3600
2040
1800
1800
6000
4800
3750

Without Roughness
Porphyritic
Basalt

Ferruginous
Sandstone

150
52
1800

50.32
52
2520

2.85

2.7

3.6

2.04

1.8

1.8

4.8

3.75

1.8

2.52

0.019

0.018

0.024

0.041

0.036

0.036

0.083

0.066

0.052

0.012

0.05

No

No

No

No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Estimation of coefficient of unit side resistance using bored pile analogy

0.018
0.037
0.02

0.0184
0.037
0.02

0.0184
0.037
0.02

0.032
0.063
0.035

0.032
0.063
0.035

0.032
0.063
0.035

0.0264
0.053
0.029

0.0264
0.053
0.029

0.0264
0.053
0.029

0.0184
0.037
0.02

0.032
0.063
0.035

0.031

0.031

0.031

0.053

0.053

0.053

0.044

0.044

0.044

0.031

0.053

Zhang and Einstein (1998) smooth sockets

0.033

0.033

0.033

0.056

0.056

0.056

0.047

0.047

0.047

0.033

0.056

Zhang and Einstein (1998) rough sockets


Horvath and Kenney (1979)
Carter and Kulhawy (1988)

0.065
0.055
0.051

0.065
0.055
0.051

0.065
0.055
0.051

0.113
0.094
0.088

0.113
0.094
0.088

0.113
0.094
0.088

0.094
0.079
0.074

0.094
0.079
0.074

0.094
0.079
0.074

0.065
0.055
0.051

0.113
0.094
0.088

Page 8 of 8