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
76 Leung (1996) ? ? ? ? Granite (granitic) 20 ⌿ 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-