Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile

Composite Default screen

138

A new socket roughness factor for prediction of

rock socket shaft resistance
J.P. Seidel and B. Collingwood

Abstract: Prediction of rock socket shaft resistance is a complex problem. Conventional methods for predicting the
peak shaft resistance are typically empirically related to unconfined compressive strength through the results of pile
load tests. It is shown by reference to international pile socket databases that the degree of confidence which can be
applied to these empirical methods is relatively low. Research at Monash University has been directed at understanding
and then modelling the complex mechanisms of shear transfer at the interface between the socketed piles and the sur-
rounding rock. Important factors that affect the strength of pile sockets have been identified in laboratory and numeri-
cal studies. With a knowledge of the effect of these factors, the reasons for the large scatter around traditional
empirical correlations can be deduced. A computer program called ROCKET has been developed which encompasses
all aspects of the Monash University rock socket research. This program has been used to develop design charts for
rock-socketed piles based on unconfined compressive strength and a nondimensional factor which has been designated
the shaft resistance coefficient (SRC). Implementation of the SRC method in design requires an estimate of the likely
socket roughness to be made. Very few researchers or practitioners have measured socket roughness, so there is little
available guidance in selection of appropriate values. Although many socket load tests are described in the technical lit-
erature, the physical parameter which is regularly missing is the socket roughness. With a knowledge of the shaft resis-
tance, and an estimate of all other relevant parameters, the authors have been able to back-calculate the apparent socket
roughness using the SRC method. Based on the back-calculated roughness data, socket roughness guidelines for use in
analysis and design of rock sockets have been proposed. Using these roughness guidelines, it is shown that the SRC
method is able to predict the scatter observed in previously published international load test databases.

Key words: rock socket, drilled shaft, shaft resistance, roughness, shaft resistance coefficient.

Résumé : La prédiction de la résistance du fût encastré dans le roc est un problème complexe. Les méthodes
conventionnelles pour prédire la résistance de pic du fût sont typiquement reliées empiriquement à la résistance en
compression simple par l’intermédiaire des résultats d’essais de chargement sur pieu. Il est démontré en se référant aux
bases de données internationales de pieux encastrés que le degré de confiance que l’on peut accorder à ces méthodes
empiriques est relativement faible. La recherche au Monash University a été dirigée vers la compréhension et ensuite la
modélisation des mécanismes complexes du transfert de cisaillement à l’interface entre les pieux encastrés et le roc
environnant. Les facteurs importants qui affectent la résistance des pieux encastrés ont été identifiés en laboratoire et
par des études numériques. Avec une connaissance de l’effet de ces facteurs, les raisons pour cette grande dispersion
dans les corrélations empiriques traditionnelles peuvent être déduites. Un programme d’ordinateur appelé ROCKET a
été développé comprenant tous les aspects de la recherche de Monash sur l’encastrement dans le roc. Ce programme a
été utilisé pour développer des abaques de calcul pour les pieux encastrés basées sur la résistance en compression sim-
ple et sur un facteur non dimensionnel qui a été appelé le coefficient de résistance du fût, SRC. La mise en application
de la méthode SRC dans la conception requiert une estimation de la rugosité probable de l’encastrement à réaliser. Très
peu de chercheurs ou de praticiens ont mesuré la rugosité de l’encastrement, de sorte qu’il y a peu de règles de
conduite disponibles pour la sélection des valeurs appropriées. Quoique plusieurs essais de chargement d’encastrement
sont décrits dans la littérature technique, le paramètre physique qui est régulièrement manquant est la rugosité de
l’encastrement. Avec la connaissance de la résistance du fût et une estimation des autres paramètres pertinents, les
auteurs ont pu calculer à rebours la rugosité apparente de l’encastrement en utilisant la méthode SRC. Basées sur les
données de rugosité calculées à rebours, des règles pour la rugosité de l’encastrement ont été proposées pour l’analyse
et la conception des encastrements dans le roc. En utilisant ces règles de rugosité, on montre que la méthode SRC peut
prédire la dispersion observée dans les bases de données internationales des essais de chargement publiées.

Mots clés : encastrement dans le roc, puits foré, résistance du fût, rugosité, coefficient de résistance du fût.

[Traduit par la Rédaction] Seidel and Collingwood 153

Received April 29, 1999. Accepted August 17, 2000.

Published on the NRC Research Press Web site on
February 20, 2001.
J.P. Seidel and B. Collingwood. Department of Civil
Engineering, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
1. Introduction
The use of large-diameter socketed piles to carry high and
concentrated loads is widespread internationally. The design
of such piles socketed into rock is traditionally based on lo-
cal knowledge derived from observation of full-scale static

Can. Geotech. J. 38: 138–153 (2001) DOI: 10.1139/cgj-38-1-138 © 2001 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\Cgj38\Cgj01\T00-083.vp
Thursday, February 15, 2001 12:08:58 PM
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen

Seidel and Collingwood 139

load tests, empirical factors related to the unconfined com- Table 1. Empirical factors for shaft resistance design.
pressive strength of intact rock, or conservative city or state
Design method α β
ordinances (Seidel and Haberfield 1994). However, it is a
truism, confirmed by Osterberg (1998) on the basis of nu- Horvath and Kenney 1979 0.21 0.50
merous static load tests on rock sockets, that the design of Carter and Kulhawy 1988 0.20 0.50
this type of pile is generally overconservative, by as much as Williams et al. 1980 0.44 0.36
an order of magnitude. Rock-socketed piles may be designed Rowe and Armitage 1984 0.40 0.57
to carry their load by shaft resistance only, by base resis- Rosenberg and Journeaux 1976 0.34 0.51
tance only, or by both shaft and base resistances. There are Reynolds and Kaderbeck 1980 0.30 1.00
significant advantages in the design of piles which carry Gupton and Logan 1984 0.20 1.00
their load by both shaft and base resistances. However, utili- Reese and O’Neill 1988 0.15 1.00
sation of the base resistance component requires a construc- Toh et al. 1989 0.25 1.00
tion and inspection technique which guarantees the
cleanliness of the pile base. This may be difficult and expen-
sive to achieve, particularly for sockets in weak rock, deep Table 2. Shaft roughness classifications (after Pells et al. 1980).
sockets in general, or sockets which cannot be readily or
safely inspected. In addition, because shaft resistance is gen- Roughness
erally mobilised at significantly smaller displacements than class Description
base resistance, piles typically carry most of their working R1 Straight, smooth-sided socket; grooves or
load in shaft resistance. As a consequence, there is a particu- indentations less than 1 mm deep
lar design interest in shaft resistance. This paper will focus R2 Grooves 1–4 mm deep, >2 mm wide, spacing 50–
only on the shaft resistance component of pile socket capac- 200 mm
ity. R3 Grooves 4–10 mm deep, >5 mm wide, spacing
50–200 mm
1.1. The empirical basis of shaft resistance design R4 Grooves or undulations >10 mm deep, >10 mm
Empirical correlations between uniaxial compressive wide, spacing 50–200 mm
strength of weak rock and unit shaft resistance of socketed
piles measured in load tests have been proposed by many re-
searchers. The form of these empirical correlations can be
generalized as factor, α. For the purpose of clarity in this paper, the adhe-
sion factor, αq, is defined as follows
[1] fsu = α quβ f su
[2] αq =
where qu
fsu is the ultimate socket shaft resistance; Equations [1] and [2] can then be combined and rewritten as
qu is the uniaxial compressive strength of the
weaker material (rock or concrete); and [3] α q = α quβ – 1

α and β are factors determined empirically from
load tests.
The empirical factors proposed by a number of research-
ers have been summarised by O’Neill et al. (1995) and are
shown in Table 1.
Most of these empirical relationships were developed for
specific and limited data sets, which may have correlated
well with the proposed equations. However, O’Neill et al.
(1995) compared the nine empirical shaft resistance design
methods listed in Table 1 with an international database of
137 pile load tests in intermediate-strength rock. O’Neill et
al. concluded that none of the methods could be considered
a satisfactory predictor for the database.
Two other significant database studies on the shaft resis-
tance of piles socketed into rock have been conducted by
Rowe and Armitage (1984) and Kulhawy and Phoon (1993)
and will be summarised hereafter. These studies included
pile sockets drilled with different equipment at many sites
and in a range of rock types.
1.2. Significant database studies of shaft resistance
Rowe and Armitage (1984) undertook a comprehensive
review of correlations between strength, qu, and the adhesion
Rowe and Armitage (1984) separated their data into those
tests with roughness classes R1–R3 and tests on sockets with
roughness R4, as defined in Table 2 (after Pells et al. 1980).
The data included sockets loaded both in tension and com-
pression. Figure 1 shows the data of Rowe and Armitage for
class R1 to R3 roughness for sockets of all diameters. They
also plotted data for sockets with class R4 roughness and for
sockets greater than 350 mm in diameter, which was chosen
as an arbitrary limit separating small and large sockets.
Rowe and Armitage (1987) do not distinguish between the
available side shear resistance of small- and large-diameter
sockets.
It is evident from Fig. 1 that there is wide scatter in the
computed adhesion factors. Reasonable upper- and lower-
bound limits suggest a possible factor of 5 variation in αq for
any value of qu. Some of this difference may be attributable
to the database including both sockets in tension and com-
pression. Nevertheless, Rowe and Armitage (1984) superim-
posed the empirical relationships of Williams et al. (1980)
and Horvath (1982) on the data and undertook a linear re-
gression to determine a best-fit correlation for R1 to R3
roughness (all sockets) as follows:
[4] α q = 0.4qu–0.43

© 2001 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\Cgj38\Cgj01\T00-083.vp
Thursday, February 15, 2001 12:08:59 PM
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen
140
Fig. 1. Shaft resistance correlations for roughness classes R1–R3 of Pells et al. (1980) (after Rowe and Armitage 1984).
The database for R4 roughness was very limited, but the in-
terpreted adhesions were generally higher than those for R1
or R3 roughness. The following correlation was proposed by
Rowe and Armitage (1984) for R4 roughness (all sockets):
[5] α q = 0.55qu–0.389
Kulhawy and Phoon (1993) evaluated the unit shaft resis-
tance for 127 load tests in soil and 114 load tests in rock
covering a very wide spectrum of geomaterial strengths.
Their rock data included that of Rowe and Armitage (1984),
supplemented with additional load test results. As their data
set included sockets in both soil and rock, they elected to de-
fine their adhesion factor, α, in relation to undrained shear
strength, cu, rather than unconfined compressive strength, qu.
This paper defines this adhesion factor as αc, i.e.,
f su
[6] αc = = 2α q
cu
The data of Kulhawy and Phoon are plotted as adhesion fac-
tor, αc, versus normalized shear strength, defined as either
cu /pa or qu /2pa, where pa is the atmospheric pressure (ap-
proximated as 100 kPa).
Kulhawy and Phoon (1993) presented their data both for
individual pile tests and as site-averaged data. The latter pre-
sentation is shown in Fig. 2. Despite being site-averaged, the
data still exhibit significant scatter, particularly for the sock-
ets in rock. Nevertheless, significant trend lines were inter-
I:\cgj\Cgj38\Cgj01\T00-083.vp
Thursday, February 15, 2001 12:08:59 PM
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 38, 2001
preted by Kulhawy and Phoon, and these are superimposed
on the data. The authors explained the trend lines by noting
that sockets in soil are generally very smooth, whereas sock-
ets in rock exhibit larger variations in roughness. On the ba-
sis of the load test data, Kulhawy and Phoon proposed the
following general equations for sockets in soil and rock:
− 0.5
 q 
[7] αc = ψ  u 
 2 pa 
Kulhawy and Phoon proposed the factor ψ to be 0.5 for piles
in soil and to vary between 1.0 and 3.0 (average 2.0) for pile
shafts in rock.
The site-averaged data suggest variations in interpreted
adhesion factor for rock sockets of at least a factor of 3 and
as much as 5. For the individual pile test data presented by
Kulhawy and Phoon (1993) (shown later in Fig. 13), varia-
tions of up to an order of magnitude are observed, as in the
study of Rowe and Armitage (1984).
It is evident from the studies of O’Neill et al. (1995),
Rowe and Armitage (1984, 1987), and Kulhawy and Phoon
(1983) that for any given rock strength, very large variations
in adhesion factor are possible. Design based entirely on em-
pirical correlations with rock strength should therefore be
very conservative unless site-specific correlations are devel-
oped which validate a more optimistic approach.
© 2001 NRC Canada
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen
Seidel and Collingwood
Fig. 2. Adhesion factor versus normalized shear strength (after Kulhawy and Phoon 1993).
The wide scatter of adhesion values observed in correla-
tions with unconfined compressive strength of rock suggests
that there are other factors which significantly influence the
shaft resistance achieved. If design is based on rock strength
alone, without any opportunity to take these other factors
into account, then a conservative design approach must be
taken. Any other approach would risk an unsafe design. By
contrast, if the design approach incorporates these other fac-
tors, a less conservative and hence more cost efficient design
should result.
1.3. Socket roughness
One of the physical factors which has a significant influ-
ence on shaft resistance is socket roughness. The importance
of socket roughness to shaft resistance has been well recog-
nised by a number of researchers (e.g., Pells et al. 1980;
Rowe and Armitage 1984; Johnston 1977; Horvath and
Kenney 1979; Williams 1980; Johnston and Lam 1989). In
all three database studies discussed, the effect of socket
roughness on shaft resistance has been noted by the authors.
The roughness classes of Pells et al. (1980) shown in Ta-
ble 2 were based on observation of sockets drilled using var-
ious techniques in Sydney sandstone. Although subjective,
this classification system has proven useful in practice for
broadly categorising socket conditions in the field. However,
it cannot adequately characterise the full range of roughness
types which may be prevalent. Therefore, the roughness
classes of Pells et al. are unlikely to form the basis of a uni-
versally satisfactory system of socket categorisation for de-
sign purposes. Nevertheless, it is noted that they do form the
basis for current practice in Sydney, Australia, and are incor-
porated into the design method by Rowe and Armitage
(1987).
Significant research into the influence of socket roughness
was reported by Williams (1980) and Johnston and Lam
(1989). Williams recorded socket roughness profiles and de-
I:\cgj\Cgj38\Cgj01\T00-083.vp
Wednesday, February 21, 2001 12:25:47 PM
141
veloped statistical parameters for their description, and
Johnston and Lam used interface roughness as a key param-
eter affecting normal stress in their constant normal stiffness
direct shear tests. The work of Johnston and Lam underlies
the fundamental approach used in the authors’ research.
The research of Horvath and Kenney (1979) and Horvath
et al. (1983) into the effect of socket grooving on the shaft
resistance in Queenston shale was particularly significant,
since it led to a proposed method to quantitatively incorpo-
rate socket roughness into socket design. On the basis of this
work, Horvath et al. proposed a roughness factor, RF, which
was determined as a function of socket length, Ls, socket ra-
dius, rs, mean roughness height, rh, and the traversed length
of the socket, Lt, as follows:
∆rh L t
[8] RF =
rs L s
In addition, they proposed an empirical equation for shaft re-
sistance based on socket roughness:
qs
[9] = 0.8(RF) 0.45
σ cw
where qs is the shaft resistance, and σcw is the unconfined
compressive strength of the rock or the concrete shaft,
whichever is smaller.
The two quotients in eq. [8] which are multiplied to deter-
mine the roughness factor are both measures of roughness in
their own right. The first quotient is the roughness of the
socket wall normalized by the socket radius. The second
quotient is the basis for determination of another roughness
parameter, the fractal dimension, by the so-called compass
stepping method (Mandelbrot 1977). Horvath et al. (1983)
possibly introduced both parts of the roughness factor to
© 2001 NRC Canada
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen
142
Fig. 3. Roughness profile idealized as a series of interconnected chords of equal length.
account for the difference in socket groove shapes, which
was a particular focus of their research.
Despite the efforts of researchers such as Pells et al.
(1980), Horvath and Kenney (1979), Horvath et al. (1983),
and Rowe and Armitage (1984, 1987) to incorporate socket
roughness into design, the majority of socket design is still
done in the absence of any consideration of this factor. This
is possibly for two reasons: (i) the incorporation of socket
roughness is, of itself, insufficient to significantly improve
the prediction of shaft resistance; and (ii) the reliable mea-
surement of socket roughness is not necessarily trivial, and
hence is not undertaken in routine design.
2. The factors influencing rock socket
behaviour
A large fundamental research program into the behaviour
of rock-socketed piles has been conducted at Monash Uni-
versity for many years. This program has been based on ob-
servation of large-scale direct shear tests, which simulate the
concrete–rock interface. These laboratory tests have led to
the development of analytical techniques which simulate the
observed interface behaviour. Some of the important pro-
cesses simultaneously occurring at the interface which are
modelled include sliding on irregular surfaces, progressive
shearing of overstressed asperities, elastic redistribution of
stresses, and the shear behaviour of failed asperities. The an-
alytical techniques have been modified to account for the
differences in boundary conditions between shear box tests
and rock sockets (Seidel 1993; Seidel and Haberfield 1994,
1995b).
The research results have been incorporated in a computer
software program called ROCKET for design of rock-
socketed piles in compression or tension. This program has
been validated against full-scale socket load tests. Using
ROCKET, it is possible to estimate the complete pile-top
load–displacement behaviour of a pile socketed into single
or multilayered rock strata. Calibration of the model is not
required, as the approach is theoretically, not empirically
based.
It is common practice in the design of piles in soil to re-
duce the computed shaft capacity by between 20 and 50%
for tension loading. Although ROCKET does not differenti-
ate between compression and tension loading, the engineer
may wish to impose such a reduction factor on the computed
results. For short sockets in jointed rock, failure modes other
than shear at the pile–rock interface may be more critical
and also need to be investigated.
Research at Monash University has confirmed the findings
of others which show that pile shaft resistance is influenced
by the following parameters: (i) rock strength (drained intact
and residual strength parameters are generally used),
(ii) socket roughness, (iii) rock mass modulus (and Poisson’s
ratio), (iv) socket diameter, (v) initial normal stress between
I:\cgj\Cgj38\Cgj01\T00-083.vp
Thursday, February 15, 2001 12:09:00 PM
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 38, 2001
concrete and rock prior to loading; and (vi) construction
practices. These parameters influence the shaft resistance of
a rock-socketed pile and should therefore be taken into ac-
count in the pile design process. The interaction of these fac-
tors in determining the performance of socketed piles has
been previously recognized (e.g., Rowe and Armitage 1984);
however, the complexity of this interaction has been difficult
to implement reliably using empirical methods.
3. Elements of a new shaft resistance
factor
In the preliminary stages of rock-socketed pile design, it
is rarely necessary to predict a full load–displacement pile
response. Estimation of ultimate pile capacity is usually suf-
ficient at this stage. The authors have developed simple
charts based on a nondimensional parameter known as the
shaft resistance coefficient (SRC). The SRC, which is de-
fined in section 4, accounts for the most critical factors in-
fluencing rock socket shaft resistance. It is incorporated into
a new method of estimating ultimate shaft resistance which
offers an alternative to empirical formulae. The SRC ap-
proach is based on a parametric study using the ROCKET
computer program. The elements which make up the SRC
are outlined in the following sections.
3.1. The Monash socket roughness model
The Monash University approach to predicting rock-
socket behaviour is based on idealizing rough rock surfaces
as a series of interconnected chords of a constant length
(Seidel and Haberfield 1995a). Consider a joint profile of
unit length. The profile can be characterised by N line seg-
ments or chords of a constant length, la, as shown Fig. 3.
The slope of each chord relative to the mean orientation of
the profile can be determined and a frequency distribution of
chord angles produced.
It is assumed that the distribution of chord angles, θ, is
Gaussian with a mean, µθ, and standard deviation, sθ. If the
profile is oriented such that the line joining the two end
points is horizontal, the mean, µθ, will equal zero. The stan-
dard deviation of chord angles, sθ, is then a statistical mea-
sure of roughness at the scale dictated by the chosen chord
length, la. The asperity heights, ha, will vary with a distribu-
tion which can be approximated as Gaussian for reasonable
socket roughnesses (Seidel 1993).
Referring to the geometry of a single chord shown in
Fig. 4, the standard deviation of asperity height, sh, is given
by
[10] sh = la sin(sθ)
Consequently, the height and angle statistics are directly re-
lated and cannot be considered independent variables, as has
been assumed previously by some researchers. Collingwood
(2000) has shown by detailed analysis of sockets for which
© 2001 NRC Canada
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen
Seidel and Collingwood
Fig. 4. Geometry of a single asperity.
accurate roughness profiles are available that the assumption
of a Gaussian roughness distribution is reasonable for nor-
mally drilled sockets and some roughened sockets but inap-
propriate for most sockets with distinctive grooving.
As the distribution of asperity angles is assumed
Gaussian, the mean absolute asperity angle may be calcu-
lated from the standard deviation of asperity angles as
2
[11] θ = sθ
π
Then by once again considering the relationship between as-
perity angle and asperity height, as illustrated in Fig. 4, the
mean of absolute asperity heights, ha, can also be calculated
as
[12] h a = l a sin ( θ ) = ∆r
The mean absolute asperity height represents the mean sca-
lar height of all asperities. For simplicity, the mean absolute
asperity height is hereafter referred to as the mean roughness
height and is denoted by the symbol ∆r.
By contrast, the mean roughness height used by Horvath
et al. (1983) is defined as the mean of the “distances from
the socket profiles to the surface of the largest imaginary
cylinder which would fit into the socket.” It should be noted
that, as illustrated in Fig. 5, this is fundamentally different
from the Monash University definition of mean roughness
height, and the two are not interchangeable.
The Monash University roughness model has also been
extended using the concepts of fractal geometry to relate
roughness statistics at different scales (Seidel and Haberfield
1995a). However, such aspects of the model are beyond the
scope of this paper.
3.2. Roughness and the constant normal surface
boundary condition
The following analysis is based on the assumption that the
preferred mechanism for failure at the concrete–rock inter-
face is initially by slip rather than shear through the intact
rock or concrete. In cases where asperity angles are very
large (e.g., grooved sockets) or where direct bonding across
the interface is dominant, this assumption may not be valid.
However, direct bonding can often be compromised by
smearing of the socket wall, and in most cases it is believed
that the following analysis will be valid.
The beneficial effect of socket roughness is a combined
consequence of the dilational nature of a rough concrete–
I:\cgj\Cgj38\Cgj01\T00-083.vp
Thursday, February 15, 2001 12:09:02 PM
143
Fig. 5. Comparison of Monash University and Horvath roughness
definitions.
rock joint and the constant normal stiffness (CNS) boundary
condition which governs the normal stress at the concrete–
rock interface. Figure 6 shows a rock socket in cross section.
The pile is shown schematically to have a rough interface,
which in its unloaded state is in intimate contact with the
rock against which it was cast. Loading of the pile will ini-
tially result in elastic movements of the mated pile–rock sys-
tem, and no relative movement at the concrete–rock
interface.
At a critical axial load, the pile will undergo slip relative
to the rock. Due to the rough socket surface, compatibility
requires that this slip be accompanied by dilation at the in-
terface. This is resisted by the surrounding rock by increas-
ing the normal stress at the interface. The dilation of the
socket interface can be approximated as an expanding cylin-
der in an elastic space, from which a relationship between
the increase in normal interface stress and dilation can be
found. This so-called constant normal stiffness, K, was de-
fined by Johnston and Lam (1989) as a function of rock
mass modulus, Em, Poisson’s ratio, ν, and pile radius, rs:
Em
[13] K=
(1 + v) r s
Clearly, greater socket roughness will result in larger dila-
tion for any given pile settlement once sliding at the pile–
rock interface has commenced. The CNS boundary condi-
tion produces an increase in stress normal to the interface
and a corresponding increase in the frictional resistance be-
tween pile and rock. The change in normal stress, ∆σn, is re-
lated to the dilation of the concrete–rock interface, ∆rs, as
follows:
[14] ∆σ n = K ∆ rs
© 2001 NRC Canada
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen
144
Fig. 6. Pile rock socket idealization (after Johnston and Lam 1989).
It should be noted that the stiffness, K, is inversely propor-
tional to the pile radius, rs.
Therefore, for a given socket roughness, the beneficial ef-
fect of the normal stress increase resulting from dilation is
inversely proportional to the socket radius.
Consequently, the shaft resistance available for a pile
socket will be a function not of roughness alone, but of
roughness normalized against pile radius (or diameter). This
is reflected in the Horvath roughness factor which is normal-
ized against pile radius.
3.3. Rock mass elastic parameters
As noted in the previous section, socket roughness is re-
sponsible for causing socket dilation after slip has occurred
at the pile–socket interface. The increase in normal stress at
the pile–socket interface is a linear function of the constant
normal stiffness, K, as shown in eq. [14]. Equation [13]
shows that K is a linear function of the rock mass modulus,
Em, and is inversely related to (1 + ν), where ν is the Pois-
son’s ratio of the surrounding rock.
The rock mass elastic parameters are not only responsible
for deflection predictions, but also directly influence the
available shaft resistance. Indeed, this was recognised by
Williams et al. (1980), who proposed a reduction factor to
account for the reduction in rock mass modulus caused by
frequent discontinuities. Any method of shaft resistance esti-
mation should therefore incorporate the rock mass modulus
and Poisson’s ratio.
3.4. Rock strength
To generate a complete load–settlement prediction for a
rock socket using ROCKET, both intact and residual rock
strength parameters are required. However, where only the
peak shaft resistance or adhesion factor is required, it may
be sufficient to characterise rock strength by the intact
strength alone. The unconfined compressive strength, qu, is
the most commonly available measure of rock strength and
is incorporated in the proposed shaft resistance coefficient
for this reason.
I:\cgj\Cgj38\Cgj01\T00-083.vp
Thursday, February 15, 2001 12:09:02 PM
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 38, 2001
3.5. Initial normal stress
A normal stress is imposed on the sidewall of a rock
socket by the head of wet concrete as it is placed. Research
by Bernal and Reese (1983), Clear and Harrison (1985), and
Lings et al. (1994) indicates that, for sockets varying in
depth from 5 to 30 m, a variation in normal stress from 50 to
500 kPa could be anticipated. Only in the case of expansive
concretes could substantially larger normal stresses be ex-
pected. It is not possible to conveniently incorporate this
“initial normal stress” in the proposed coefficient. However,
it is noted that parametric studies using ROCKET have
shown that for most piles and anchors, the peak shaft resis-
tance is not particularly sensitive to such variations in initial
normal stress.
3.6. Construction effects
Research is currently being undertaken by the authors into
the effects of construction practices on pile socket shaft re-
sistance. This research is expected to provide guidance on
typical values of socket roughness (as a function of drilling
tools and rock type or strength) and on the effect of drilling
fluids, smear, and remoulded rock on the available shaft re-
sistance. The socket roughness recommendations will be in-
corporated into the roughness component of the proposed
coefficient. The effect of drilling fluids, smear, and
remoulding will be incorporated into a separate construction
method reduction factor, ηc. Indicative values for ηc based
on the recommendations of Williams and Pells (1981),
Holden (1984), O’Neill and Hassan (1994), Hassan and
O’Neill (1997), and Cheng (1997) are shown in Table 3. Se-
lection of a construction method reduction factor for a par-
ticular project should be based on an understanding of
prevailing ground conditions, construction techniques, and
the level of supervision and quality assurance during con-
struction. Guidelines for selection of appropriate construc-
tion method reduction factors are currently being developed.
It will be shown that the construction method reduction
factor is applied to the SRC and will not always necessarily
© 2001 NRC Canada
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen
Seidel and Collingwood
Table 3. Indicative construction method reduction factors ηc.
Construction method
Construction without drilling fluid
Best practice construction and high level of construction control (e.g., socket sidewalls free of smear and remoulded rock)
Poor construction practice or low-quality construction control (e.g., smear or remoulded rock present on socket sidewalls)
Construction under bentonite slurry
Best practice construction and high level of construction control
Poor construction practice or low level of construction control
Construction under polymer slurry
Best practice construction and high level of construction control
Poor construction practice or low level of construction control
have a proportional influence on the predicted shaft resis-
tance.
4. The shaft resistance coefficient
The shaft resistance coefficient (SRC) is a nondimensional
parameter which incorporates all the important factors influ-
encing shaft resistance. The formulation of the SRC is pro-
posed as follows:
n ∆r
[15] SRC = η c
1 + v ds
where
∆r is the mean roughness height (either assessed
directly by estimation or measurement, or
computed as the product of asperity length, la,
and the sine of the mean asperity angle, θ );
ds is the socket diameter;
ηc is the construction method reduction factor
and will be assumed as 1 for all further analyses
in this paper (also see Table 3); and
n is the ratio of rock mass modulus to the
unconfined compressive strength of the rock
(Em/qu), known as the modular ratio.
In a study of the deformation of shallow footings on rock,
Hobbs (1974) suggested rock mass modular ratios varied
from 50 to 200 and averaged 100 for many different soils
and rocks varying from normally consolidated clays, weath-
ered and unweathered argillaceous rocks, and arenaceous
sedimentary rocks, and covering a wide range of compres-
sive strengths.
The similarities of the roughness component of the SRC
to the roughness factor (RF, see eq. [8]) proposed by
Horvath et al. (1983) are noted. The SRC factor, however,
also incorporates other significant parameters that influence
shaft resistance, namely rock mass modulus and Poisson’s
ratio and intact rock strength. Of the list of influencing pa-
rameters given in section 2, only the initial hydrostatic con-
crete stress is not incorporated. However, as previously
noted, this parameter only has a second-order influence on
shaft resistance.
The significance of the SRC is demonstrated by reference
to the following two sets of parametric variations shown in
Figs. 7 and 8.
Figure 7 shows the shear stress – displacement responses
predicted by ROCKET for an assumed 900 mm diameter
I:\cgj\Cgj38\Cgj01\T00-083.vp
Thursday, February 15, 2001 12:09:03 PM
145
ηc
1.0
0.3–0.9
0.7–0.9
0.3–0.6
0.9–1.0
0.8
Table 4. Chord lengths and mean asperity angles
used in ROCKET analysis for Fig. 7.
Mean asperity angle, Chord length,
θ (°) la (mm)
5 75.3
7.5 50.3
10 37.8
12.5 30.3
15 25.3
pile socketed into rock with an unconfined compressive
strength of 5.0 MPa and a modular ratio of 100. A mean
roughness height of 6.56 mm has been assumed, giving
100 6.56
[16] SRC = 1.0 = 0.583
1 + 0.25 900
For each of the analyses in ROCKET, however, the chord
length and corresponding asperity angle have been adjusted
to maintain the roughness height of 6.56 mm, as given in Ta-
ble 4.
All sockets, despite the varying roughness, have the same
SRC of 0.583 and develop a peak shear stress at the inter-
face of approximately 760 kPa. This analysis suggests that
roughness height, rather than roughness angle, influences
available shaft resistance. Nevertheless, increasing the angle
of the roughness significantly increases the stiffness of the
socket response. Evidently, if the socket has distinct grooves,
the failure mechanism at the socket wall may be quite differ-
ent to that assumed in this model. Further work is required
to extend the Monash University approach to sockets with
distinct grooves.
Figure 8 shows the shear stress – displacement responses
for 450 and 900 mm diameter piles socketed into rock with
an unconfined compressive strength of 20 MPa and assumed
modular ratios of between 50 and 200. The mean roughness
angle has in this case been held constant at 5°; however, as-
perity lengths have been adjusted accordingly from la =
20 mm to la = 80 mm depending on the particular diameter
and modular ratio. For all sockets, the SRC is 0.311, and the
peak interface shear stress is approximately 2500 kPa.
These two analyses demonstrate that for any given SRC
and uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) value, the shear
strength of a socket with any combination of Em, ν, qu, ∆r,
and ds will be constant (within normal engineering toler-
ances).
© 2001 NRC Canada
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen

146 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 38, 2001

Fig. 7. Peak shear resistance for shafts with varying roughness but constant shaft resistance coefficient (SRC) and uniaxial compressive
strength (UCS).

Fig. 8. Peak shear resistance for shafts with varying diameter, asperity length, and modular ratio but constant SRC.

4.1. Shaft resistance design chart
The SRC has been incorporated in a shaft resistance chart
(Fig. 9) which allows preliminary estimation of peak shaft
resistance for rock sockets in tension or compression over a
wide range of rock strengths. This is based on the results of
a parametric study using ROCKET. To develop this chart,
intact rock strength parameters were related to unconfined
compressive strength using the Hoek-Brown rock failure cri-
terion (Hoek and Brown 1980). Mohr-Coulomb strength pa-
rameters adopted in the analyses were determined after the

© 2001 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\Cgj38\Cgj01\T00-083.vp
Thursday, February 15, 2001 12:09:03 PM
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen

Seidel and Collingwood 147

Fig. 9. Effect of SRC on socket adhesion factor.

Fig. 10. Socket adhesion factor versus SRC.

method of Hoek (1990) using only the unconfined compres-
sive strength of the rock and appropriate values of the pa-
rameters s and m.
Figure 9 shows the predicted variation in adhesion factor,
αq, with rock strength for SRC values ranging from 0.10 to
2.1. This plot indicates a significant range of possible shaft
resistance for any given rock strength, dependent on the fac-
tors that make up the SRC value.
In Fig. 10, the adhesion factor, αq, is plotted against SRC
for constant values of UCS. The data for all uniaxial com-
pressive strengths greater than or equal to 3.0 MPa can be
approximated by a single line of best fit. As rock strength

© 2001 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\Cgj38\Cgj01\T00-083.vp
Thursday, February 15, 2001 12:09:05 PM
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen
148
decreases from 3.0 MPa, the adhesion factor for any given
value of SRC increases. Figure 10 also shows a comparison
between the SRC design data and the roughness factor corre-
lation developed by Horvath et al. (1983) which is given in
eq. [9]. For this comparison, an approximate relationship be-
tween the roughness factor and the SRC was evaluated
based on measured roughness profiles taken from a number
of the rock sockets of Horvath et al. A modular ratio, n, of
100 and a Poisson’s ratio of 0.25 were adopted. Adhesion
factors predicted by the SRC method for UCS greater than
3.0 MPa follow a general trend similar to that of the rough-
ness factor correlation.
It will be shown in subsequent sections that the adhesion
factors predicted using suitable input parameters with the
SRC design charts are in good general agreement with the
range of socket load tests observed in practice. The major
benefit of the SRC is to allow the design engineer to account
for the parameters which influence shaft resistance and to
incorporate these in a realistic, rather than unnecessarily
conservative design.
It is anticipated that the SRC approach can be used in any
one of the following ways: (i) for preliminary design, in
which only the peak shear resistance is required and sensi-
tivity analyses can be conducted to assess the effect of dif-
ferent design decisions or assumptions; (ii) for strength
design of pile sockets in which base resistance is neglected
due to concerns about base cleanliness; and (iii) combined
with an existing pile socket design method such as that of
Williams et al. (1980) or Rowe and Armitage (1987). The
shaft adhesion determined using the SRC approach can be
substituted for the peak shaft resistance values otherwise
used in these methods.
5. Estimation of socket roughness
Application of the SRC method in preliminary design re-
quires estimation of likely socket roughness height. Little at-
tention has been given to socket roughness in most studies
of rock-socketed piles and case study reports of socket load
tests. Consequently, the available quantitative data on socket
roughness are extremely limited.
5.1. Socket roughness data
Williams and Pells (1981) carried out a study of bored
pile behaviour in low- to moderate-strength sandstone,
mudstone, and shale. They reported that in the higher
strength rocks, the slower drilling rate necessary typically
produced a smooth socket wall. By contrast, in the softer
rocks, in which the drilling rate increased and where jointing
is often more frequent, sockets were generally rougher.
Kulhawy and Phoon (1993) similarly reported that sockets
drilled in hard rock as well as in soils are generally quite
smooth, whereas roughness in sockets of intermediate-
strength rock is more pronounced and variable.
A small number of studies have produced actual rough-
ness profiles which enable quantitative analysis. Detailed
studies have been carried out into sockets in Melbourne
mudstone (Williams 1980; Holden 1984; Kodikara et al.
1992; Baycan 1996). The results confirm that roughness in
this low- to medium-strength argillaceous rock can vary con-
siderably and appears to be influenced by rock discontinu-
I:\cgj\Cgj38\Cgj01\T00-083.vp
Thursday, February 15, 2001 12:09:05 PM
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 38, 2001
Table 5. Proposed upper- and lower-bound mean
socket roughness heights hmax and hmin (Seidel et al.
1996).
qu (MPa) hmin (mm) hmax (mm)
0.5 1.7 3.5
1 2.6 7.9
3 5.3 16.2
5 3.5 13.4
10 2.2 6.6
30 1.3 3.5
50 1.1 2.6
100 0.9 2.2
ities, drilling technique, and rate of advance. Roughness pro-
files in medium-strength shale were also recorded by
Horvath et al. (1983), but most of their sockets were artifi-
cially roughened by grooving. Other measurements have
been reported in clay shale, argillite, and sandstone by
O’Neill and Hassan (1994) and O’Neill et al. (1995).
On the basis of the observations by Kulhawy and Phoon
(1993), and roughness recommendations by Pells et al.
(1980) and Kodikara et al. (1992), Seidel et al. (1996) con-
cluded that at either end of the spectrum of geomaterial
strength, sockets generally exhibit minimal roughness,
whereas in the intermediate portion of the spectrum socket
roughness can be highly significant. They proposed the up-
per- and lower-bound mean roughness heights which are
shown numerically in Table 5 and graphically in Fig. 11.
The roughness bounds given in Table 5 were based on
limited quantitative data. Subsequent research at Monash
University has aimed to develop more substantive roughness
guidelines for use in design.
The authors have developed a broadly applicable rough-
ness measurement tool. The Monash University socket
profiler, known as the Socket-Pro, is remotely operable and
can accurately record the sidewall roughness of sockets at
depths of up to 60 m (Collingwood et al. 1999). This equip-
ment is being used in field investigations of socket rough-
ness within Australia and overseas. In addition, historical
load test data have been reanalysed to produce a more com-
prehensive socket roughness database. The latter study is de-
scribed in subsequent sections.
5.2. Back-calculated socket roughness
As previously discussed, few of the many load test results
published include direct information on socket roughness.
Nevertheless, given a reported or computed socket adhesion
factor, αq or αc, and values or estimates of the parameters
Em, ν, qu, and ds, it is possible to infer the SRC and hence
the socket roughness height ∆r from the following equation:
(1 + v) SRC ds
[17] ∆r =
η cn
Thus, a quantitative assessment of the socket roughness can
be inferred from existing load test results, for which socket
roughness observations were not originally recorded.
In the case of a pile for which the concrete–rock interface
is clean and unbonded (ηc = 1), evaluation of ∆r by the SRC
© 2001 NRC Canada
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen
Seidel and Collingwood
Fig. 11. Back-calculated effective roughness height for rock sockets (D ≥ 450 mm) and rock anchors (D < 450 mm).
method should provide a reasonable estimate of the magni-
tude of socket roughness.
However, if the shaft resistance was adversely influenced
by construction procedures, ∆r would be underestimated if
ηc was assumed to be 1. In this case the inferred roughness
could be considered an effective roughness height, ∆re. If an
appropriate value of ηc were adopted, a true estimate of
roughness height ∆r could be inferred.
6. Socket roughness database
As part of research into the effect of construction prac-
tices on the capacity of rock-socketed piles at Monash Uni-
versity, a load test database has been compiled. Unlike
databases previously published by Williams and Pells
(1981), Rowe and Armitage (1984), and Kulhawy and Phoon
(1993) which are primarily concerned with shaft resistance
as a function of rock strength, the Monash University study
aims to consider the full range of parameters that affect shaft
resistance. The database contains all available details of rock
properties, construction techniques, socket roughness (where
measured or observed), and cleanliness and load test results
for 162 records of load tests carried out worldwide. Not sur-
prisingly, many of these have been included in previous
studies. Piles constructed in a variety of rock types are rep-
resented, including shale, mudstone, sandstone, chalk, lime-
stone, and schist. The database includes nine sockets
constructed under bentonite and 15 roughened sockets, but
the latter are not included in this study. These very important
construction practices have been the subject of further re-
search at Monash University and will be addressed in subse-
quent publications.
I:\cgj\Cgj38\Cgj01\T00-083.vp
Thursday, February 15, 2001 12:09:06 PM
149
The development of the SRC design method has allowed
the reanalysis of these load tests, considering all the relevant
parameters. Using the method detailed in section 5.2, the ef-
fective roughness height apparent in each socket was back-
calculated, and a database of inferred socket roughness has
been compiled.
6.1. Socket roughness versus rock strength
Figure 11 shows effective roughness heights back-
calculated from 133 load tests on rock-socketed piles and
rock anchors. Sockets of greater than 450 mm diameter have
been categorised as piles, and sockets of smaller diameter
are shown as rock anchors. It is important to note that the
data for rock anchors are not exclusive to this database.
Most of the rock anchor data are derived from load tests that
have been included in previous database studies as rock-
socketed piles.
Data points shown as triangles in Fig. 11 represent load
tests in which failure was not achieved. The effective rough-
ness height in these sockets is therefore greater than or equal
to the value plotted.
The roughness bounds proposed by Seidel et al. (1996)
and given in Table 5 are shown in Fig. 11 as broken lines.
Although many data points lie outside these bounds, they are
in good agreement with the general distribution of data.
Revised upper- and lower-bound socket roughness guide-
lines are proposed and shown as solid lines in Fig. 11. These
are based on the data for pile sockets only. Although the
data for rock anchors follow the same general trend as that
for piles, they appear to have a greater tendency to produce
very smooth sockets. This is presumably due to the limiting
influence of smaller diameter boreholes on roughness
© 2001 NRC Canada
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen
150
Fig. 12. Upper- and lower-bound SRC limits for typical pile sockets.
production, and the type of equipment and drilling methods
used to construct anchors.
A number of data points lie well above the new upper-
bound roughness envelope. In many of these cases, little de-
tail is reported in relation to construction techniques and ge-
ology. The most extreme outlier shown in Fig. 11 represents
a socket in extensively jointed Silurian siltstone, which is
described in detail by Williams and Ervin (1980). The pre-
vailing joint frequency of 10–100 joints per metre caused
significant overbreak which was noted to have produced an
extremely rough socket. For this socket, the parameters αq,
Em, qu, and ds were carefully evaluated by Williams and
Ervin. The extremely high back-calculated mean roughness
height obtained for this socket during this study demon-
strates the ability of the SRC approach to isolate the contri-
bution of a particular parameter to shaft response.
As previously mentioned, the roughness data shown in
Fig. 11 have been back-calculated using a construction
method reduction factor, ηc, of 1.0. Although sockets con-
structed under bentonite have been eliminated from this
study, it was not possible to identify sockets which were af-
fected by remoulded rock or geomaterial smear on the
socket sidewalls. Field observations suggest that smear is
common in sockets drilled in low-strength argillaceous ma-
terials and has been observed in some arenaceous forma-
tions. It has been shown to have a detrimental effect on pile
performance (Pells et al. 1980; O’Neill and Hassan 1994;
Baycan 1996). At present, however, the conditions which
lead to the production of smear are not more than generally
understood.
Data points representing two sockets in which smear was
observed and was allowed to remain are shown in Fig. 11.
I:\cgj\Cgj38\Cgj01\T00-083.vp
Thursday, February 15, 2001 12:09:07 PM
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 38, 2001
Both sockets exhibit effective roughness height which is
well below average for their UCS. It is reasonable to assume
that the results of a number of other load tests plotted, par-
ticularly in rock of less than 10 MPa, have been similarly af-
fected. Consequently, the lower-bound roughness curve in
Fig. 11 may reflect the performance of smeared sockets,
rather than a representing a true lower bound to socket
roughness levels.
It is the aim of the current research program at Monash
University to provide more detailed guidance to designers on
appropriate socket roughness on the basis of construction
methods and rock properties. Laser-based socket profiling
equipment has been developed and is currently being used in
a program of roughness measurement in the field. Future ex-
pansion of the socket roughness database, based on actual
measurements of socket roughness, is expected to allow
identification of the parameters which influence socket
roughness and the development of more detailed guidelines.
6.2. Comparison with existing rock socket databases
On the basis of the proposed upper- and lower-bound
roughness limits, upper- and lower-bound values of SRC can
be defined for the spectrum of rock strengths. In developing
these SRC limits, the following socket dimensions and pa-
rameters have been adopted: (i) diameter 450–1500 mm,
(ii) modular ratio 50–200, (iii) Poisson’s ratio 0.25, and
(iv) construction method reduction factor 0.75–1.0 The up-
per- and lower-bound SRC limits are shown graphically in
Fig. 12. Extreme upper and lower limits are shown based on
best- and worst-case combinations of the above parameters.
Figure 12 also shows “effective” upper and lower SRC lim-
its. These represent the 98% confidence limits for SRC
© 2001 NRC Canada
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen
Seidel and Collingwood
Fig. 13. Variation of predicted adhesion factors compared with data of Kulhawy and Phoon (1993).
values within the extreme upper and lower limits, based on
an assumed normal distribution of all SRC values.
Using both the extreme and effective SRC limits and the
design chart reproduced in Fig. 9, the variation of maximum
and minimum shaft adhesion factor, αq, with UCS can be
computed. Figure 13 shows the expected range of socket ad-
hesion factors for typical pile sockets. The individual pile
test data used by Kulhawy and Phoon (1993) are also shown
in Fig. 13, taking due account for the different definitions of
αq and αc. Note that Fig. 9 includes curves for SRC values of
up to 2.1. Where the upper limits of SRC are greater than
2.1, the upper limits on the adhesion factor have been pre-
dicted using ROCKET.
It is clear from Fig. 13 that the variations in SRC which
result from typical values of socket roughness, pile diameter,
modular ratio, and construction effects simulate the range of
socket adhesion factors measured in practice.
7. Summary and conclusions
Current design practice for predicting the peak shear re-
sistance of socketed piles is often based on empirical meth-
ods which only take rock strength into account. These
methods may be reliable if site-specific correlations are de-
veloped. Even so, their reliability may be questionable, be-
cause they may not account for important variables that may
vary across a site such as pile diameter or rock jointing.
None of the empirical formulations based on rock strength
alone can satisfactorily estimate peak shear resistance over
the full spectrum of rock types and rock strengths because
they exclude many variables that affect the shaft resistance
of rock sockets.
The design method proposed by Rowe and Armitage
(1987) recommends that peak shear resistance is roughness
I:\cgj\Cgj38\Cgj01\T00-083.vp
Thursday, February 15, 2001 12:09:08 PM
151
dependent. They propose a larger peak shear strength for
class R4 roughness sockets than for class R1–R3 sockets.
Horvath et al. (1983) propose that the shaft resistance is a
function of the roughness factor, RF, raised to the power
0.4. The derivation of RF has been discussed earlier. Socket
roughness is an important factor governing peak shaft resis-
tance; however, previous empirical methods which have in-
corporated roughness as a factor have not enjoyed wide use.
They have also excluded other factors that affect shaft resis-
tance.
Research which has led to the development of a
micromechanical simulation approach for pile socket behav-
iour has confirmed that pile shaft resistance is a function of
the following parameters: rock strength (drained intact and
residual strength parameters are used), socket roughness,
rock mass modulus (and Poisson’s ratio), socket diameter,
initial normal stress between concrete and rock prior to load-
ing, and construction practices. These factors (with the ex-
ception of the initial normal stress) have been incorporated
into a nondimensional parameter called the shaft resistance
coefficient (SRC). Using the computer program ROCKET,
design charts have been developed which relate socket adhe-
sion factor to SRC and rock strength. These design charts
are in good agreement with international databases on pile
shaft behaviour.
Design methods which estimate peak shaft resistance
based on rock strength alone predict a unique shaft resis-
tance corresponding to any given rock strength. The method
by Rowe and Armitage (1987) allows two discrete values for
each rock strength, with a factor of 1.3 difference. The
method of Horvath and Kenney (1979) and Horvath et al.
(1983) allows a range of shaft resistances based on the mea-
sured RF. For the range of RF values indicated by Horvath
and Kenney and Horvath et al. for field sockets in their
© 2001 NRC Canada
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen
152
studies (0.035–0.095), the predicted peak shaft resistances
would vary by a factor of 1.6, based on the power law pro-
posed. By contrast, empirical evidence from the large data-
bases of socket tests is that peak shaft resistances vary by a
factor of approximately 5 for any given rock strength. It has
been shown that the SRC method predicts a similar range of
possible shaft resistances, based on realistic upper- and
lower-bound input parameters.
The SRC provides designers with an opportunity to ex-
plicitly take into account the parameters which most signifi-
cantly influence peak shaft resistance. Of course, there is a
corresponding responsibility to determine the appropriate in-
put parameters. The SRC can be used directly in the prelimi-
nary design stage as a tool which allows the sensitivity of
shaft adhesion to influencing factors to be determined. Alter-
natively, it can be used directly in a socket capacity analysis
based on shaft resistance alone. The adhesion factor esti-
mated using SRC can also be incorporated into other design
methods such as those by Williams et al. (1980) or Rowe
and Armitage (1987).
To apply SRC in design, a prediction of borehole rough-
ness characteristics must be made. Roughness is primarily
influenced by rock strength and discontinuities, and the drill-
ing technique used. The present understanding of borehole
roughness is insufficient to ensure accurate predictions can
be made on a site-specific basis. However, upper- and lower-
bound limits for general site conditions and construction
methods have been identified. These limits are consistent
with the quantitative data which are currently available. De-
tailed measurements are being made by the authors as part
of an ongoing research program. Designers are encouraged
to measure socket roughness during socket construction
wherever possible.
The SRC approach has also been used to back-calculate
socket roughness for a database of 138 pile load tests re-
ported in the literature. The inferred socket roughnesses are
in good general agreement with the earlier recommendations
of Seidel et al. (1996), based on earlier work of Pells et al.
(1980), Kodikara et al. (1992), and Kulhawy and Phoon
(1993).
Further research is being undertaken by the authors to
quantify the effects of construction practices on the shaft re-
sistance of piles socketed into rock. More detailed guidance
on the effect of drilling slurries, geomaterial smear, bonding,
and drill type will follow.
References
Baycan, S. 1996. Field performance of expansive anchors and piles
in rock. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering,
Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Bernal, J.B., and Reese, L.C. 1983. Study of the lateral pressure of
fresh concrete as related to the design of drilled shafts. Research
Report 308-1F, Center for Transportation Research, The Univer-
sity of Texas, Austin, Tex.
Carter, J.P., and Kulhawy, F.H. 1988. Analysis and design of
drilled shaft foundations socketed into rock. Electric Power Re-
search Institute Report EL 5918, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.
Cheng, F.K.K. 1997. Laboratory study of bonding and wall smear
in rock socketed piles. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Civil
Engineering, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
I:\cgj\Cgj38\Cgj01\T00-083.vp
Thursday, February 15, 2001 12:09:08 PM
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 38, 2001
Clear, C.A., and Harrison, T.A. 1985. Concrete pressure on
formwork. Report 108, Construction Industry Research and In-
formation Association, London.
Collingwood, B. 2000. The effect of construction practices on the
performance of rock socketed piles. Ph.D. dissertation, Depart-
ment of Civil Engineering, Monash University, Melbourne, Aus-
tralia.
Collingwood, B., Seidel, J.P., and Haberfield, C.M. 1999. Laser
based roughness measurement for design and verification of
rock socketed piles. In Proceedings of the 8th ANZ Conference
on Geomechanics, Institution of Engineers, 15–17 Feb. 1999,
Hobart, pp. 375–382.
Gupton, C., and Logan, T. 1984. Design guidelines for drilled
shafts in weak rock in South Florida. Preprint, Annual Meeting
of South Florida Branch of the American Society of Civil Engi-
neers, Miami, Fla.
Hassan, K.M., and O’Neill, M.W. 1997. Side load-transfer mecha-
nisms in drilled shafts in soft argillaceous rock. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE,
123(2): 145–152.
Hobbs, N.B. 1974. Settlement of foundations on rock. General Re-
port. In Proceedings of the British Geotechnical Society Confer-
ence on Settlement of Structures, Cambridge, pp. 498–529.
Hoek, E. 1990. Estimating Mohr-Coulomb friction and cohesion
values from the Hoek-Brown failure criterion. International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences and
Geomechanics Abstracts, 27(3): 227–229.
Hoek, E., and Brown, E.T. 1980. Empirical strength criterion for
rock masses. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division,
ASCE, 106: 1013–1035.
Holden, J.C. 1984. Construction of bored piles in weathered rocks.
Technical Report 69, Road Construction Authority of Victoria,
Melbourne, Australia.
Horvath, R.G. 1982. Behaviour of rock-socketed drilled pier foun-
dations. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.
Horvath, R.G., and Kenney, T.C. 1979. Shaft resistance of rock-
socketed drilled piers. In Proceedings of the American Society
of Civil Engineers Annual Convention, 25 Oct. 1979, Atlanta,
Preprint 3698.
Horvath, R.G., Kenney, T.C., and Kozicki, P. 1983. Methods for
improving the performance of drilled piers in weak rock. Cana-
dian Geotechnical Journal, 20: 758–772.
Johnston, I.W. 1977. Rock-socketing down-under. Contract Jour-
nal, 279: 50–53.
Johnston, I.W., and Lam, T.S.K. 1989. Shear behaviour of regular
triangular concrete/rock joints—analysis. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 115(5): 711–727.
Kodikara, J.K., Johnston, I.W., and Haberfield, C.M. 1992. Analyt-
ical predictions for side resistance of piles in rock. In Proceed-
ings of the 6th Australia – New Zealand Conference on
Geomechanics, Christchurch, pp. 157–162.
Kulhawy, F.H., and Phoon, K.K. 1993. Drilled shaft side resistance
in clay soil to rock. In Proceedings of the Conference on Design
and Performance of Deep Foundations: Piles and Piers in Soil
and Soft Rock. American Society of Civil Engineers,
Geotechnical Special Publication 38, pp. 172–183.
Lings, M.L., Ng, C.W.W., and Nash, D.F.T. 1994. The lateral pres-
sure of wet concrete in diaphragm wall panels cast under ben-
tonite. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers,
Geotechnical Engineering, 107: 163–172.
Mandelbrot, B.B. 1977. Fractals: form, chance and dimension.
W.H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco.
O’Neill, M.W., and Hassan, K.M. 1994. Drilled shafts: effects of
construction on performance and design criteria. In Proceedings
© 2001 NRC Canada
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen
Seidel and Collingwood
of the International Conference on Design and Construction of
Deep Foundations. Vol. 1. Federal Highways Administration,
Washington, D.C., pp. 137–187.
O’Neill, M.W., Townsend, F.C., Hassan, K.M., Buller, A., and
Chan, P.S. 1995. Load transfer for drilled shafts in intermediate
geomaterials. U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA-RD-
95-172, Draft report.
Osterberg, J. 1998. The Osterberg load test method for bored and
driven piles the first ten years. In Proceedings of the 7th Interna-
tional Conference on Piling and Deep Foundations, 15–17 June,
Vienna, pp. 1.28.1–1.28.11.
Pells, P.J.N., Rowe, R.K., and Turner, R.M. 1980. An experimental
investigation into side shear for socketed piles in sandstone. In
Proceedings of the International Conference on Structural Foun-
dations on Rock, Sydney, pp. 291–302.
Reese, L.C., and O’Neill, M.W. 1988. Drilled shafts: construction
procedures and design methods. Publication FHWA-HI-88-042,
Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.
Reynolds, R.T., and Kaderbeck, T.J. 1980. Miami limestone foun-
dation design and construction. Preprint 80-546, Annual Meet-
ing of South Florida Branch of the American Society of Civil
Engineers, Miami.
Rosenberg, P., and Journeaux, N. 1976. Friction and end bearing
tests on bedrock for high capacity socket design. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 13(3): 324–333.
Rowe, R.K., and Armitage, H.H. 1984. The design of piles sock-
eted into weak rock. Report GEOT-11-84, University of Western
Ontario, London, Ont.
Rowe, R.K., and Armitage, H.H. 1987. A design method for drilled
piers in soft rock. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 24: 114–125.
Seidel, J.P. 1993. The analysis and design of pile shafts in weak
rock. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering,
Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Seidel, J.P., and Haberfield, C.M. 1994. A new approach to the pre-
diction of drilled pier performance in rock. In Proceedings of
I:\cgj\Cgj38\Cgj01\T00-083.vp
Thursday, February 15, 2001 12:09:09 PM
153
the U.S. Federal Highways Administration International Confer-
ence on Design and Construction of Deep Foundations, Decem-
ber 1994, Orlando, Fla., pp. 556–570.
Seidel, J.P., and Haberfield, C.M. 1995a. Towards an understand-
ing of joint roughness. International Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Rock Engineering, 28(2): 69–92.
Seidel, J.P., and Haberfield, C.M. 1995b. The axial capacity of pile
sockets in rocks and hard soils. Ground Engineering, 28(2): 33–
38.
Seidel, J.P., Gu, X.F., and Haberfield, C.M. 1996. A new factor for
improved prediction of the resistance of pile shafts in rock. In
Geomechanics in a Changing World, Proceedings of the 7th
ANZ Conference on Geomechanics, Adelaide, July, Institute of
Engineers, Australia, pp. 693–697.
Toh, C.T., Ooi, T.A., Chiu, H.K., Chee, S.K., and Ting, W.H. 1989.
Design parameters for bored piles in weathered sedimentary
formations. In Proceedings of the International Conference on
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Rio de Janeiro,
pp. 1073–1078.
Williams, A.F. 1980. The side resistance of piles socketed into
weak rock. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering,
Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Williams, A.F., and Ervin, M.C. 1980. The design and performance
of cast-in-situ piles in extensively jointed Silurian mudstone. In
Proceedings of the 3rd ANZ Conference on Geomechanics, 12–
16 May 1980, Wellington, pp. 115–121.
Williams, A.F., and Pells, P.J.N. 1981. Side resistance rock sockets
in sandstone, mudstone, and shale. Canadian Geotechnical Jour-
nal, 18: 502–513.
Williams, A.F., Johnston, I.W., and Donald, I.B. 1980. The design
of socketed piles in weak rock. In Proceedings of the Interna-
tional Conference on Structural Foundations on Rock. A.A.
Balkema, Sydney, pp. 327–347.
© 2001 NRC Canada