L O A D TRANSFER BEHAVIOR

OF R O C K - S O C K E T E D P I L E S
By R. R a d h a k r i s h n a n 1 and C h u n F . Leung 2

ABSTRACT: The research reported is concerned with the load transfer behavior of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 08/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

rock-socketed bored piles. Several large-diameter instrumented piles were load tested
to at least twice their working/design loads. The piles were observed to behave
in an elastic manner when tested to normal working loads. Much of the applied
loads was transferred through the pile shaft especially when the socket length was
in excess of twice the pile diameter, while relatively little load was transferred to
the pile base. The observed mobilized unit shaft friction values compared well with
those reported by other researchers. Instrument readings continued to be monitored
throughout the superstructure construction period. It has been found that static load
tests carried out within a short term showed significantly different load distribution
along the pile shaft compared with that in service. The differences in the load
transfer behavior may be attributed to the creep between pile body and soil/rock,
group interaction, and the presence of pile cap.

INTRODUCTION

Large-diameter rock-socketed bored piles are commonly used as founda-

tions for multistory buildings in many countries. Although considerable at-
tention has been given to the design of rock-socketed piles recently (Cole
and Stroud 1977; Horvath and Kenny 1979; Rosenberg and Journeaux 1976;
Rowe and Armitage 1987; Williams et al. 1980, 1981), 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 behavior of such piles in service.
This paper describes in detail the load transfer behavior of several full-
scale instrumented rock-socketed bored piles. The piles were installed as the
foundation for two blocks of 10-story warehouse structures. The instruments
were frequently monitored during the pile load tests and subsequently
throughout the superstructure construction period. The load transfer char-
acteristics of the piles under short-term test loading and long-term in-service
loading conditions are presented and examined in detail.

FIELD STUDY

The case study presented herein is on the construction of two 10-story

warehouse blocks. This project, undertaken by the Port of Singapore Au-
thority, provides about 126,000 m 2 of covered warehousing space. Construc-
tion of the blocks commenced in mid-1981 and took 3 yr to complete. A
'Sr. Civ. Engr., Geotech. and.Hydr. Dept., Engrg. Div., Port of Singapore Au-
thority, Singapore 0511.
2
Sr. Lect., Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Nat. Univ. of Singapore, Singapore 0511.
Note. Discussion open until November 1, 1989. 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 June
9, 1988. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 115,
No. 6, June, 1989. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9410/89/0006-0755/$l .00 + $.15 per page.
Paper No. 23535.
755

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1989.115:755-768.

 252 m

66°'67
E
BLOCK B
•317

E
m
•TP1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 08/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

430
E
BLOCK A 5

18m 45 m 18m 90m Jl8m 45m 18m

• Location of instrumented pile

FIG. 1. General Layout of Site

total of 792 bored piles with diameters varying from 0.7 to 1.5 m were
installed as foundation for the blocks. The piles acting singly or in groups
were designed to support column loads ranging from 2.1 to 27.0 MN. The
general layout of the site is shown in Fig. 1.
During the site investigation 19 boreholes were made, and it was observed
that hard sedimentary rocks consisting of highly weathered sandstone, silt-
stone, and shale were encountered over most of the site. The degree of
weathering of the sedimentary deposits was noted to be variable within the
site and throughout the depth of drilling. The sedimentary rock formations
were noted to be very close to the ground surface, having numerous closely
spaced joints and no major discontinuities such as faults or cleavage planes.
The rock formations are termed locally as the Jurong Formation and its ge-

SPT v a l u e : Penetration (cm)/100 blows

BH8
,0 3 6 9 12 15
Om
-S-W.T.
Dense sandy
clayey silt
2 X
2-1m X
X
E
Weathered 4
77 ////A
fractured
siltstone
•s
> *
aj RQ0
6m
_j
-o 6
///
C
Z3
O x SPT

^ 8 X
Heavily 3
weathered
& highly
fractured
m 10 V//X <
siltstone X

14 X

0 10 20 30 40 50
R0.D (%)

FIG. 2. Typical Subsurface Profile and Properties

756

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1989.115:755-768.

 60

t 50

I 40
C
en
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 08/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1 30
~ 20
a
d
^ 10

"0 10 20 30
Unconfined Compressive Strength (MPa)

FIG. 3. Unconfined Compressive Strength versus Rock Quality Designation Re-

lationship

ology has been described by Pitts (1984), who reported that the joints gen-
erally have a bearing of strike in the NW-SE direction with dip angles vary-
ing from a few degrees to vertical over short distances. In-situ tests such as
standard penetration, pressuremeter, and plate bearing tests were conducted
during the site investigation. Typical subsurface profile and properties are
shown in Fig. 2. Standard unconfined compression tests were performed on
some 38-mm diameter rock core samples obtained from the boreholes. The
results indicated that an approximate linear relationship between the uncon-
fined compressive strength and the rock quality designation (RQD) could be
established, as shown in Fig. 3.

PILE DESIGN AND INSTALLATION

The piles were designed to be keyed into the fractured rock stratum to a
minimum length of 2 m and the ultimate pile resistance was designed con-
sidering both base resistance and pile socket friction. In the initial design
stage, Tomlinson's (1975) suggested values of allowable socket skin friction
and end bearing pressure of 0.45 MPa and 3.25 MPa were adopted. The
minimum center-to-center spacing of all piles was twice the pile diameter
and no reduction in pile capacity due to pile group effect was considered.
All the pile shafts were formed by auger boring. Temporary steel casings
were used in a few bored holes to avoid collapse of the soft soil as well as
to prevent ingress of water into the shaft. On the other hand, some of the
pile shafts had to be installed in chiseled holes to reach the founding layer
due to hardness of the rock. The weight of the chisels for different diameter
holes varied from about 40 to 80 kN. It was observed that chiseling of the
hole had produced highly roughened walls and larger shaft diameter than
actually required. In all bored holes, a cleaning bucket was used to clean
and remove cuttings from the bottom of the holes before concreting to ensure
good end bearing of the piles.
Due to variation in the subsurface condition, the installed pile lengths var-
ied from 2.8 to 14.0 m. The average actual installed pile length, 6.1 m, was
much shorter than expected mainly due to the harder ground conditions ac-
757

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1989.115:755-768.

 tually encountered at the site. Even though a high water table existed at the
site it was noted that water seepage into the boreholes was very slow, in-
dicating very low permeability of the ground. A majority of the piles could
therefore be concreted in the dry.

PRELIMINARY TEST PILE

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 08/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

In the early stage of foundation construction, a preliminary pile TP1, 0.81-

m diameter and 12.4-m long, was installed through highly weathered and
fragmented siltstone. The rock formation was observed to be about 1 m be-
low the pile top [Fig. 4(a)]. Two types of instruments, namely, vibrating
wire strain gages and Carlson reinforced concrete meters (Carlson meters),
were installed along the pile shaft to determine the load transfer character-
istics.
The pile was load tested by the maintained load method. Load was applied
by a conventional dead-weight reaction system, and the loading was carried
out in three cycles: working (design) load, twice the working load, and the
maximum load the reaction system would permit. Dial gauges with a sen-
sitivity of 0.01 mm/division were mounted on an independent support sys-
tem to monitor the pile top movement. Dial gauge and instrument readings
were taken at regular intervals during the test.
The average load distribution along the pile shaft under test loads is shown
in Fig. 4(b). In general, most of the load transfer occurred within the upper
6 m of the pile. However, more load was observed to be transferred to the
lower part of the pile shaft when the applied load exceeded 6 MN. In ad-
dition, not more than four percent of the applied load appears to have been
transferred to the pile base. The unit shaft friction versus pile depth rela-
tionship is shown in Fig. 4(c). A maximum unit shaft resistance of 0.56
MPa was observed to develop around the upper part of the pile shaft under
the maximum applied load of 10 MN. The unit shaft friction/shaft move-
ment relationship for the same pile is shown in Fig. 5, which suggests that
only a small portion of the unit shaft friction was mobilized in the lower

Unit Shaft Friction (MPd)

-0-9
dense sandy
silt 0

medium dense E
heavily weathered — 2
& fragmented cu
siltstone o
t—
lasing

medium hard
fragmented 6
siltstone 3

CO 6
pth

hard highly
fractured & 10
siltstone
11-5

(b) (c)

FIG. 4. Load Distribution and Unit Shaft Friction versus Depth Relationship for
Preliminary Test Pile

758

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1989.115:755-768.

 05 PILE TP1

0-4 y ^ - ^ ^ ^
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 08/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

03 — 6m

02 /. ^ — - 8fn

01 y\om

I , I

Shaft Movement (mm)

FIG. 5. Unit Shaft Friction/Shaft Movement Relationship for Preliminary Test Pile

part of the pile shaft, as the friction/movement relationships remain fairly

linear.
The load/settlement curve is shown in Fig. 6(a). It is noted that the set-
tlement, at working load of 2.8 MN and maximum test load of 10 MN was
1.5 and 5.75 mm, respectively, while the corresponding residual settlement,
was 0.25 and 1.4 mm, respectively. These values indicate that the design
parameters were chosen rather conservatively. Due to the relatively strong
subsoil condition, the pile failure load is estimated to be well above the
maximum test load of 10 MN. The load/settlement curve is observed to be
linear and thus it represents only the initial elastic portion of the load/set-
tlement relationship. Using conventional elastic theory (Poulos and Davis
1980), the average modulus of elasticity of the rock mass is computed to be

10
* (b) PILE 430

Dia. 0-705m

20 tO 60 80 100
Settlement (mm) Settlement (mm)

(c) PILE 67 (d) PILE 317

Dia. l-35n Dia.1-5m 2/

'

1/7

/[ J 5 10
Settlement (mm) Settlement (mm)

FIG. 6. Load/Settlement Curves: (a) Preliminary Test Pile TP1; (b) Pile 430; (c)
Pile 67; (d) Pile 317

759

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1989.115:755-768.

 500 MPa. This value is about twice the average modulus values obtained
from pressuremeter tests carried out at depths up to 12 m during the site
investigation. Similar observations have been reported by Glos and Briggs
(1983), who have noted that pressuremeter tests tend to underestimate rock
stiffness. Based on the data from the nearest borehole, the average rock
quality designation was noted to be about 24% and the corresponding un-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 08/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

confined compressive strength of the rock mass, qu, is hence estimated to

be about 6 MPa from Fig. 3. Rowe and Armitage (1987) suggested that the
rock mass modulus may be given by 2 1 5 V ^ MPa. Based on this relation-
ship, the computed rock mass modulus value of 527 MPa is very close to
that obtained from the load test.

LOAD TESTS ON INSTRUMENTED WORKING PILES

The preliminary pile load test results indicated that the design socket lengths
based on assumed shaft friction values were very conservative. A more re-
alistic procedure, which was based on the load transfer behavior of the pre-
liminary test pile, was subsequently adopted for the determination of pile
socket length during the foundation construction period. Depending on the
subsurface condition, most of the working piles were terminated at a shal-
lower depth, enabling substantial savings in the cost of foundation construc-
tion. Three more working piles of various diameters were later load tested
by the maintained load method using the conventional dead-weight reaction
loading system.

Pile 430
Working pile 430 is a 0.705-m-diameter pile that was purposely termi-
nated at a depth of 7.3 m in completely weathered and fragmented siltstone
to determine its performance in the absence of a good rock socket. A steel
casing was installed around the pile circumference up to 2.1 m below the
pile top in order to reduce shaft friction down to the ultimate pile cut-off
level. The strata below the level of the casing toe consisting of 3.2 m of
dense sandy silt followed by medium hard fragmented siltstone [Fig. 7(a)].
The socket length was approximately twice the pile diameter. Fig. 6(b) shows
the load/settlement curve under test load condition. The third cycle of load-
ing was performed with a constant rate penetration at a rate of 0.03 mm/
min. The pile was subsequently reloaded again to twice the working load
to ensure that pile settlement will be within acceptable limit. The resulting
total settlement was observed to be 8 mm with no residual settlement after
unloading. On the basis of this result, the pile was accepted as a working
pile. Three Carlson meters and five vibrating wire strain gauges were in-
stalled in the pile as shown in Fig. 7(a). The load distribution along the pile
shaft is shown in Fig. 1(b). It was noted that about 50% of the applied
maximum load of 10 MN was transmitted to the pile base. The unit shaft
friction versus depth relationship is shown in Fig. 7(c). A maximum unit
shaft friction of 0.7 MPa was observed at the lower part of the pile.

Pile 67
Working pile 67 was 1.35 m in diameter, 14-m long, and belonged to a
group of three piles. The upper soil strata consisted of medium dense to
dense clayey silt, while the socket length was about five times the pile di-
760

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1989.115:755-768.

 Pile Top Load (MN) Unit Shaft Friction (MPa)
•5.2 m medium dense 0 0-2 0-4 0-6
silty fine 2-1r
\ sand

2 - 1 MN
z
soft silty E
clay with 2
decomposed
vegetation PILE 430

JJ
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 08/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

dense sandy
silt with
siitstone
fragments A/
/
V
medium hard
fragmented
siltstone

Oia. 0-705 m
'(a) (b) (c)

FIG. 7. Load Distribution and Unit Shaft Friction versus Depth Relationship for
Pile 430

ameter [Fig. 8(a)]. The top 3.4 m were steel cased in order to reduce side
friction up to final pile cut-off level. The pile was instrumented with eight
vibrating wire strain gauges, the top one installed within the steel-cased sec-
tion to check the applied test load during load test. The pile was loaded to
approximately twice the working load in two cycles. The load/settlement
curve is shown in Fig. 6(c). The load distribution curve along the pile shaft
is shown in Fig. 8(fo). Load transferred to pile base was very small, only
about 12% of applied load. The upper clayey silt layer offered little friction
resistance compared to the siltstone founding layer. The unit shaft resistance
versus depth relationship is shown in Fig. 8(c). It appears that shaft friction

Load (MN) Unit Shaft Friction (MPa)

„ Q.L 5-8m 2 4 6 8 10 12, ,0 0-2 04 06
-3.4
MN

medium dense
8-1 MN
4-2 MN

to dense
114

sandy clayey B
! silt
S o
H
*| "S \—
ms

i
re

2 dense clayey
3 -E silt a

* • 3 <•
br

£
> > dense to
very dense 6
adid

silt and
fragmented
siitstone / PILE 67
> S 8

^•Anchor for 10
toe movement
10-6
Dia.1-35m

(a
FIG. 8. Load Distribution and Unit Shaft Friction versus Depth Relationship for
Pile 67
761

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1989.115:755-768.

 Load (MN) Unit Shaft Friction ( MPa)
08
1
z ' ' ' z

7-8 MN
firm to £ 0
stiff sandy <u
clayey silt t—
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 08/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

J
very dense
clayey silt
with shale

very hard ^ / P I L E 317

shale

Dia. 1.5 m
(a) (b) (c)

FIG. 9. Load Distribution and Unit Shaft Friction versus Depth Relationship for
Pile 317

had been fully mobilized in the upper half of the pile shaft and the peak unit
shaft friction mobilized was about 0.2 MPa, corresponding to a shaft move-
ment of 4 mm. Most of the load transfer appears to have occurred within
the socket and a movement of 5.5 mm was necessary to mobilize unit shaft
resistance of 0.6 MPa.

Pile 317
Working pile 317 was a 1.5-m diameter pile founded on a shale stratum
at 11.5-m depth. The socket length was approximately twice the pile di-
ameter. Three vibrating wire strain gages and one Carlson meter were in-
stalled at elevations shown in Fig. 9(a). The load/settlement curve is shown
in Fig. 6(d). The load distribution along the pile shaft is shown in Fig. 9(b).
The base load was observed to be about 18% of applied load at maximum
test load. The unit shaft friction versus depth relationship shown in Fig. 9(c)
indicates that very little load transfer occurred at the top while substantial

(a) PILE 67 (b) PILE 317

/ ? - 5 n t below
/ casing foe

7.5m

5.5m

/ ^ ^ 3.5m
V*" , . . - . ,

Shaft Movement (mm) Shaft Movement (mm)

FIG. 10. Unit Shaft Friction/Shaft Movement Relationship for: (a) Pile 67; (b) Pile
317

762

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1989.115:755-768.

 shaft friction was realized within the socket of hard shale. The maximum
unit shaft friction was noted to be about 0.8 MPa. The unit shaft friction/
shaft movement curves for both piles 67 and 317 are shown in Fig. 10,
which clearly show that the pile socket had developed substantially higher
resistance than the overlying soil.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 08/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

BEHAVIOR OF PILES UNDER CONSTRUCTION LOADS

Construction of the superstructure commenced in mid-1982 and instru-

ments installed in the three test piles and pile 66 were monitored throughout
and after the construction period. It is worthy to note that zero drift was
observed for all the Carlson meters and vibrating wire gauges under no-load
condition for the period between completion of load tests and commence-
ment of superstructure construction. Readings started to stabilize only when
the superstructure loads began to be felt. Similar problems have also been
reported by Green and Hight (1976). The problems of zero drift was tackled
by selecting the datums of instrument readings at a date when the readings
started to stabilize and respond to structural loadings. Any errors caused by
this selection procedure were considered to be minor, as the loadings were
relatively light at this stage. In general, magnitude of pile loads obtained
from instruments increased steadily as the construction of superstructure pro-
gressed.
Working piles 66 and 67, which are both 1.35 m in diameter and instru-
mented with vibrating wire strain gages, are part of an equidistant three-pile
group with a rigid pile cap. The pile center line spacing/diameter ratio is
about two and the length/diameter ratio is about eight. Although a few strain
gages did not give sensible readings during the construction period, a rea-
sonable trend could still be derived. Similar readings were obtained from
the strain gages installed at the same elevation in the two piles. The average
load distribution along the two pile shafts under construction load levels of
five-story, 10-story, and full structural dead loads including all the archi-
tectural finishes, brickwalls, etc., is shown in Fig. 11(a). Under full dead
load condition, the total load carried by the pile as indicated by the top strain
gage was observed to be about 4.5 MN, which is about 70% of the working
load.

Load (MN) Unit Shaft Friction (MPa)

0 1 2 3 t 5 0 005 0-10 0-15 0-20

FIG. 11. Comparison of Load Distribution and Unit Shaft Friction versus Depth
under Test and Construction Load Conditions for Pile 67

763

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1989.115:755-768.

 For comparison purposes, the load distribution under test loads as well as
under construction load condition is plotted in Fig. 11(a). Significant vari-
ations of load transfer behavior between the two loading conditions were
noted as much less shaft friction was developed over the upper part of the
pile shaft under construction load when compared to the test load condition.
This phenomenon appears to be more prominent as the loading progressed.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 08/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

This could be due to the fact that the presence of the rigid pile cap con-
necting the pile heads inhibits the development of friction over the upper
parts of the pile shafts, as reported by Cooke et al. (1981). The base resis-
tance mobilized under construction loads is observed to be significantly higher
than that under test loads. Fig. 11 (b) shows the unit shaft friction versus
depth under the two loading conditions. In general, higher shaft friction was
developed along the upper part of the shafts during load test and the region
of highly mobilized shaft friction shifted downwards under construction loads.
The magnitudes of unit shaft friction were noted to have decreased consid-
erably under construction loading. This suggests that under long-term struc-
tural loads, some creep between pile and soil/rock and/or group interaction
between piles could have occurred, resulting in higher load being transferred
to the pile base.
Unfortunately, only two instruments installed in each of the piles 430 and
317, which are isolated single piles with rigid cap, gave sensible readings
during the construction period. However, comparison of construction load
data with test load data indicated that the pile toe load during construction
was higher than that under corresponding equivalent test loads similar to
those observed in Piles 66/67. The total pile loads at full dead load condition
were noted to be 1.2 and 6.5 MN for piles 430 and 317, respectively, and
this works to be about 60 and 70% of respective working loads.

ANALYSIS

From the load/settlement curves (Fig. 6) of the four test piles, it can be
deduced that the behavior of the piles is reasonably elastic under normal
working loads. This observation tends to support Osterberg and Gill's (1973)
postulation that the shear stresses between the concrete and the rock at work-
ing loads are below allowable value and remain in the elastic range.
The socket length of the four test piles in the present case study varies
from a low of two pile diameters for pile 430 to a high of 13 diameters for
pile TP1. The effect of socket length can be examined using the average
mobilized unit shaft friction along the socket that is taken as the ratio of
total mobilized socket friction upon total socket perimeter area. The varia-
tions of the end bearing, average, and maximum mobilized unit shaft friction
of the rock socket with socket lengths are given in Table 1. It can be deduced
that only a small degree of end bearing has been mobilized for all the piles,
except pile 430, which has the shortest socket length and highest loading
pressure. It appears that increasing the socket length beyond two diameters
does not substantially increase the total shaft resistance. Unless the specified
settlement can not be satisfied, it is therefore not effective to have a socket
length in excess of two pile diameters for the given loading range. This
observation agrees with the recommendation made by Glos and Briggs (1983)
who performed tests on two specially built sockets in soft rock.
The values of mobilized unit shaft friction in the fractured rock were noted
764

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1989.115:755-768.

 TABLE 1. Summary of Observations
Stress at Average Maximum Maximum
Pile Socket maximum unit shaft unit shaft end bearing
Pile diameter length (pile test load friction friction pressure
number (m) diameters) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 08/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

TP1 0.810 13.0 19.4 0.30 0.56 0.97

430 0.705 2.0 25.6 0.71 0.70 13.10
67 1.350 5.0 8.0 0.26 0.60 1.05
317 1.500 2.3 7.9 0.58 0.80 1.36

to be about 0.56 to 0.8 MPa. This range of values is comparable with those
reported earlier by the writers (1985) on piles supporting a 42-story office
building with similar subsurface condition in close proximity to the 10-story
warehouse site. The maximum unit shaft friction was observed to be about
0.7 to 1.0 MPa in the 42-story building project. Tomlinson (personal com-
munication, March 1984) also noted a maximum unit shaft friction of 0.55
MPa for caissons installed in similar sedimentary rock formations in Sin-
gapore. The observed socket friction is also comparable with 0.5 MPa re-
ported by Moss (1971), who carried out load test on piles in similar sub-
surface conditions under working load condition, and lower than the value
of 1.2 MPa quoted by Pells et al. (1978) on piles tested to ultimate failure.
Based on the nearest borehole data for the four test piles, the average rock
quality designation can be obtained and hence the average unconfined com-
pressive strength of the rock mass can be deduced from Fig. 3. Recently a
number of empirical and semi-empirical design methods on rock-socketed
piles have been proposed by various researchers; a majority of them compute
the ultimate unit shaft friction based on the average unconfined compressive
strength of the rock mass. In order to examine the validity of these methods,
their predicted ultimate shaft friction values are compared with the observed
maximum unit shaft friction values obtained from the present case study. A
summary of the comparison is given in Table 2, which indicates that the

TABLE 2. Prediction of Ultimate Unit Shaft Friction by Various Methods

Ultimate Unit Shaft Friction/, (MPa)
Average Observed
unconfined Rosenberg Horvath Williams maximum
compressive and et al." and Pells0 Rowe and unit shaft
Pile strength q„ Journeaux3 (1979, (1980, Armitaged friction
number (MPa) (1976) 1980) 1981) (1987) (MPa)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
TPl 6.0 0.84 0.61 0.68 1.10 0.56
430 9.0 1.05 0.75 0.86 1.35 0.70
67 7.0 0.91 0.66 0.76 1.19 0.60
317 9.0 1.05 0.75 0.86 1.35 0.80
a
/j obtained directly from given chart.
h
fs = 0.25\/^.
c
f, = a$q„ where a is obtained from chart and (3 = 0.6 for closely spaced jointed rock.
"fs = 0.45VF»-

765

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1989.115:755-768.

 TABLE 3. Relative Load Transfer in Overburden and Rock between Load Testing
and In-Service Loading Condition for Pile 67
Five-Story 10-Story Full Dead Loads
Test Service Test Service Test Service
loads loads loads loads loads loads
Stratum (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 08/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(D (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

Soil (0-3.8 m) 53 29 42 27 42 24
Rock (3.8-6.8 m) 41 62 50 62 50 62
End bearing 6 9 8 11 8 14

method proposed by Rowe and Armitage (1987) gave the highest values,
followed by, in descending order, those proposed by Rosenberg and Jour-
neaux (1977), Williams and Pells (1981), and Horvath et al. (1979, 1980).
Horvath et al. suggested that the degree of roughness of pile wall has a
significant influence on the magnitude of shaft friction being mobilized and
found that rock-socketed bored piles with shaped and rough walls have the
highest mobilized shaft friction. It is felt that piles installed in the present
project fell in this category as the piles were formed by chiseling and were
observed to be roughened and enlarged after boring. As none of the load
tests was carried out to failure, the ultimate unit shaft friction values should
hence be significantly higher than the observed maximum values of 0.56 to
0.8 MPa. Thus, values predicted by Horvath et al., and William and Pells
appear to be rather conservative, and based on the limited test data, it is
likely that the ultimate unit shaft friction values would be in the order of
those predicted by Rosenberg and Journeaux, and Rowe and Armitage.
Significant differences in the pile load transfer behavior under short-term
test load and long-term construction load conditions were observed. The rel-
ative load transfer, expressed in terms of percentage of total applied load,
in the overburden and rock between load testing and in-service loading con-
ditions for pile 67 is shown in Table 3. In general, less shaft friction was
developed along the upper part of the shaft and significantly higher socket
and end bearing loads were noted under the in-service loading condition. At
the end of construction period, the percentage end bearing load carried by
pile 67 increased from 8% under load testing condition to 14% under the
in-service loading condition. Furthermore, it is expected that this percentage
would continue to increase even when the applied load remained practically
constant after the end of construction, as reported by Ladanyi (1977). Very
similar observations were also noted by Leung and Radhakrishnan (1985) in
the 42-story building project mentioned earlier. These differences are due to
the presence of rigid pile cap, the effects of pile creep, and group interaction
under long-term loading condition, as suggested by Cooke et al. (1980) and
O'Neill et al. (1982) on piles in other types of soil. Hence, necessary caution
should be taken when interpreting the results of pile load tests for the pre-
diction of load transfer behavior of piles in service.

CONCLUSION

The load transfer behavior of several instrumented rock-socketed bored

piles have been studied in detail. The observations appear to lead to the
following findings:
766

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1989.115:755-768.

 1. The behavior of the piles was elastic under normal working loads.
2. It was not beneficial to have a socket length in excess of two pile diameters
for the given loading range, unless pile settlement criteria could not be satisfied.
3. The design methods proposed by Horvath et al. and Williams and Pells
gave a rather conservative estimation of ultimate unit shaft friction of the rock
sockets.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 08/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

4. The empirical relationship given by Rowe and Armitage gave a reasonable

estimation of modulus of elasticity of rock sockets.
5. Differences in the load transfer behavior under short-term test load and
long-term construction load conditions have been observed. The differences may
be attributed to the presence of rigid pile cap, the effects of pile creep, and group
interaction for the piles under service loading condition.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors express their gratitude to the Port of Singapore Authority for
permission to publish this paper. The effort and assistance of the staff of
the Geotechnical and Hydraulics Department, Port of Singapore Authority
in preparing this paper is gratefully acknowledged. Thanks are also due to
Mr. M. J. Tomlinson, Consulting Engineer, United Kingdom, for the fruitful
discussions the authors had with him.

APPENDIX. REFERENCES

Cole, K. W., and Stroud, M. A. (1977). "Rock socket piles at Coventry Point,
Market Way, Coventry." Piles in weak rock. Instn. of Civil Engrs., London, En-
gland, 47-62.
Cooke, R. W., Price, G., and Tarr, K. (1980). "Jacked piles in London clay: in-
teraction and group behaviour under working conditions." Geotechnique 30(2),
97-136.
Cooke, R. W., et al. (1981). "Some observations of the foundation loading and
settlement of a multi-storey building on a pile raft foundation at London clay."
Proc, Inst. Civ. Engrs., 1, 70, 433-460.
Glos, G. H., and Briggs, O. H., Jr. (1983). "Rock sockets in soft rock." J. Geotech.
Engrg., ASCE, 109(4), 523-535.
Green, P. A., and Hight, D. W. (1976). "The instrumentation of Dashwood House,
London." Tech. Notes 78, Construction Industry Res. Information Assoc, Lon-
don, England.
Horvath, R. G., and Kenny, T. C. (1979). "Shaft resistance of rock-socketed drilled
piers." Symp. on Deep Foundations, ASCE, 182-214.
Horvath, R. G., Trow, W. A., and Kenny, T. C. (1980). "Results of tests to de-
termine shaft resistance of rock-socketed drilled piers." Proc. Int. Conf. on Struct.
Foundation on Rock, 1, 349—361.
Ladanyi, B. (1977). Discussion of "Friction and end bearing tests on bedrock for
high capacity socket design," by P. Rosenberg and N. L. Joumeaux. Can. Geo-
tech. J., 13, 324-333.
Leung, C. F., and Radhakrishnan, R. (1985). "The behaviour of a pile-raft foun-
dation in weak rock." Proc. llthlnt. Conf. on Soil Mech. and Foundation Engrg.,
4, 1429-1432.
Moss, J. D. (1971). "A high capacity load test for deep bored piles." Proc. 1st
Australia-New Zealand Conf. on Geomech., 1, 261-267.
O'Neill, M. W., Hawkins, R. A., and Mahar, L. J. (1982). "Load transfer mech-
anisms in piles and pile groups." J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., ASCE, 109(2), 1605-
1623.
Osterberg, J. O., and Gill, S. A. (1973). "Load transfer mechanism for piers sock-

767

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1989.115:755-768.

 eted in hard soils or rock." Proc, 9th Canadian Symp. on RockMech., 235-262.
Pells, P. J. N., et al. (1978). "Design loadings for foundations on shale and sand-
stone in the Sydney region." Res. report No. R315, School of Civ, Engrg., Univ.
of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Pitts, J. (1984). "A review of geology and engineering geology in Singapore." Q.
J. Eng. Geol., 93-101.
Poulos, H. G., and Davis, E. H. (1980), Pile foundation analysis and design. John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, N.Y.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 08/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Radhakrishnan, R., Leung, C. F., and Subrahmanyam, R. V. (1985). "Load tets on

instrumented large diameter bored piles in weak rock." Proc. 8th Southeast Asian
Geotech. Conf, 1, 2.50-2.53.
Rosenberg, P., and Journeaux, N. L. (1976). "Friction and end bearing tests on
bedrock for high capacity socket design." Can. Geotech. J., 13, 324-333.
Rowe, R. K., and Armitage, H. H. (1987). "A design method for drilled piers in
soft rock." Can. Geotech. J., 24, 126-142.
Tomlinson, M. J. (1975). Pile design and construction practice. Pitman Publishing
Ltd., London, England.
Williams, A. F., and Pells, P. J. N. (1981). "Side resistance rock sockets in sand-
stone, mudstone and shale." Can. Geotech. J. 18, 502-513.
Williams, A. F., Johnston, I. W., and Donald, I. B., (1980). "The design of sock-
eted piles in weak rock." Proc. Int. Conf. on Struct. Found., on Rock, 1, 327-
348.

768

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1989.115:755-768.