22/4/2015

CHAPTER 4: FOUNDATION IN ROCK

When bedrock is viably shallow and relatively

strong, it may be used as foundation for a
structure. The load induces by the structure can be
partly transferred on to the bedrock using piles,
e.g. bored pile.

A bored pile is a hole drilled into the ground. The

hole is either filled with rebar & concrete/grout, or
is inserted with a precast concrete column. The
designs (load transfer mechanism) vary, depending
on level of loading on the pile & conditions &
strength of the in situ rocks.

Bored piles

1
 22/4/2015

Bored piles

CHAPTER 4
To transfer the load directly onto the bedrock, the
lower portion of the bored pile is socketed into the
rock. Thus, the pile performance (besides its
structural strength) depends on the properties of
the bedrock.
Our focus is on the properties of the bedrock that
affect the load transfer mechanism

2
 22/4/2015

CHAPTER 4
Related site investigations
(borehole & geophysical
methods) must be carried
out to determine the
depth & in situ conditions
of the bedrock.

Most important, is the

depth of sound portion of
the bedrock, where pile is
to be socketed. This depth
varies, depending on
weathering profiles, rock
types & prevailing
discontinuities in the rock

CHAPTER 4
In limestone bedrock, the SI must be thorough as
to identify the size & location of cavities. SI
normally consists of BH, Seismic & Resistivity
survey

3
 22/4/2015

CHAPTER 4
From BH, core samples are recovered at relevant
depths for evaluating the relevant rock properties:
both rock mass & rock material (intact rock)

CHAPTER 4
Parameters for designing the socket length consist
of 2 scales of rock properties:

Rock mass (in situ condition): RQD, fracture

spacing/frequence per m & Em (in situ modulus)

Rock material (intact rock condition): quc (UCS)

& Ei (intact modulus)

Rock mass properties preferably, should be

determined in situ, on the actual rock body (i.e. the
bedrock).

Rock material properties can be evaluated using

lab tests on rock samples (intact)

4
 22/4/2015

Estimation of Fs empirically (Tomlinson 2001)

Mass factor j can be estimated using RQD, data/info

on rock mass condition commonly used.
OR, j can also be estimated using ratio Emass / Ei ,
Emass is measured in the field (PMT or P-S logging) &
Ei obtained in lab. This approach is more reliable
than using RQD….why??

(b) Rock samples in lab test

However, can the value of

UCS (quc) & E obtained from
(a) Rock mass in the field
lab test on small & intact rock
samples, represent the actual
mass properties of the rock
body where the pile is to
socketed – some degree of
uncertainties in the design of
the socket length.

5
 22/4/2015

Features of bored pile

Transfer of load to
the bedrock occurs
mainly at the
interface between
the bored pile and
the surrounding
rock, i.e. the socket
length. Base
resistance is
assumed to be zero

Is RQD a reliable parameter as strength reduction

for the discontinuous rock mass? Joint set & joint
orientation affect strength of in situ rock!

Intact rock Jointed rock

RQD=100% RQD<100%

6
 22/4/2015

UCS @ different
RQD (in situ test), MPa

Lab data
100 Strength of intact rock
(RQD=100%) represents
average UCS from lab tests

Field data
60

Best fit line with

gradient m
Field data
30

Field data Intact rock body (RQD=100%)

or rock with joint spacing >
10
100 mm & FRESH (Grade I)

30 % 60 % 90 % 100 %
Rock Quality Designation, RQD (%)

Difficult to establish correlation between in situ strength &

RQD (the strength & RQD is not linearly correlated!!!)

Besides strength, joints (RQD values) affect other

properties of rock mass, e.g. load bearing capacity,
ultimate skin friction, modulus of deformation etc.

RQD value on its own, cannot reflect the actual

rock mass conditions, although commonly
accepted as a measure or index for describing
quality of rock mass in the field.

RQD does not take into account parameters like

joint sets, inclination of joints & intersecting of
joints, which have significant effect on mass
strength of in situ rock.

7
 22/4/2015

SAFE BEARING PRESSURE – guidance values

100 4 8 12

UCS (MPa) 25 1 3 5 SBP (MPa)

10 0.2 1 2

RQD (%) 25 70 90
Fracture spacing (mm) 60 200 600

Effect of discontinuity (RQD & fracture spacing) on

strength of rock mass, compared to its
intact strength (lab tests)

Allowable bearing
pressure for a jointed
rock mass - RQD
(Peck et al., 1974)

8
 22/4/2015

Net Safe Bearing Pressure for various rock

types (Singh & Goel, 1999)

Rock types Unweathered & Heavily fractured

massive or thinly bedded
Strong igneous rock 10 MPa 6 MPa
& gneisses

Strong limestones & 4 MPa 3 MPa

sandstone

Schists & slate 3 MPa 2 MPa

Strong mudstone & 2 MPa 1 MPa

soft sandstone

Shale, sound chalk & 750 kPa 400 kPa

soft mudstone

Schmertmann & Hayes (1997) → ultimate capacity of in situ

substrata tends to be under-predicted more in rocks than
soils. In rock the underestimate is by a factor of 5 or more.
The contributing factors (uncertainties) is due to
discontinuous, anisotropic & inhomogeneous nature of in situ
rock mass.

9
 22/4/2015

CHAPTER 4
When mass properties of the in
situ bedrock is predicted based on
lab test (using intact & small size
rock samples), uncertainty arise –
higher FOS & over-designed of
pile.

Note that access to the substrata GWL

(provided by the BH) enables for
other relevant in situ tests to be
conducted on the bedrock, giving
a more reliable data e.g. Pressure-
meter test (PMT) to determine in
situ Em & P-S logging to determine
Em & in situ υ.

CHAPTER 4
Field tests undertaken in BH, at depth where bored
pile is to be socketed, give a more reliable data for
the design of the socket length & other component

10
 22/4/2015

CHAPTER 4
Design of piles relies on reliable data on rock
mass properties. This data is costly to measure
(complex, specialised equipments, limited number
of test). For PMT, the probe has limited pressure
(20 MPa) thus may not be effective for sound rock
like granite & limestone. Thus design is often
based on empirical approach (formula & tabulated
parameters derived from pas experience & case
studies).

Field/in situ tests, to determine the rock mass

properties, may not be feasible for every project.
This leads to uncertainties on predicting the
strength of the bedrock & it is often under-
estimated thus, a higher FOS is imposed on the
design of the pile (increase in cost).

CHAPTER 4
It is a procedure that a number of bored piles that
have been installed at the site will be tested for
their performance. These piles will be tested for
its performance (ultimate load bearing capacity)
until failure. This Static Load Test (SLT) verified
the behaviour & performance of the pile under that
geological & rock mass conditions

Compilation of data obtained from the SLT (as

data base), is important in understanding the
performance of bored pile under various
geological & rock conditions. Most importantly
this data help to improve the state-of-art of the
design & help to improve the existing empirical
approach.

11
 22/4/2015

Chapter 4

Static load test on

instrumented pile

CHAPTER 4
Load transfer mechanism, from the structure on to
the bedrock, is via Skin Friction Fs

Fs is shear strength at
the interface between
pile & socket wall.

End bearing is taken to

be zero. At service load,
Fs carries a significant
portion of applied load
(Gunnink & Keinhne,
2002)

12
 22/4/2015

CHAPTER 4
The resulting SKIN FRICTION Fs depends on many
factors.

Fs is function of surface roughness of the socket,

unconfined compressive strength of intact rock,
confining stiffness around the socket (in relation
to fractures of rock mass), socket diameter, and
geometry ratio of socket length (L) to its diameter
(D) (minimum requirement is L/D = 1.5).

Roughness of the socket surface is an important

factor as it controls the level of normal contact
stress at the socket interface, which induces skin
friction during vertical movement of the pile.

CHAPTER 4
The interactions between the shaft and the
surrounding rock mass are relatively complex and
are affected by 3 main factors:

The normal contact stress increases as dilation

occurs at the shearing surface and results in
increase of socket (skin) friction, i.e. higher
dilation, higher skin friction. The level of dilation,
greatly depends on degree of roughness & intact
compressive strength (quc) of rock on the socket
wall.

13
 22/4/2015

CHAPTER 4
The intact rock strength governs the ability of the
irregular asperity (small-scale roughness) on the
socket surface to transfer the resulting shear
force. If this strength is lower than the normal
contact stress, then shearing off of the asperity
will occur, and the induced skin friction will be
lower.

The overall strength and stiffness of the rock

socket in a discontinuous rock mass (jointed &
fractured). This factor is controlled by the profile
of socket friction distribution.

Mechanisms of bonding between pile & socket

Fs is complex, depends on wall roughness, strength & RQD.

Increasing slip/settlement of pile is accompanied by
increase in bond resistance.
For rock with lower RQD (weak) fracture of socket wall can
occur. Rock fragments fill the gap between shaft & socket,
producing a higher Fs due to mechanical interlock.

14
 22/4/2015

CHAPTER 4

Amount of Fs to
sustain the load
structure,
determines the
socket length, i.e.
depth of pile to be
imbedded in the
rock (minimum
socket length = 1

CHAPTER 4
Design of load bearing capability of bored pileis
classified into 4 types (Gunnink & Keinhne, 2002):

Design for end bearing only:

Based on the assumption that entire axial load is
transferred to socket base. This is a conservative
approach as field tests indicate that at service
load levels, skin friction (side resistance) carries a
significant portion of the applied load (Note: it is
difficult to ensure base of the socket is
completely free of rock fragments)
Design for side resistance only:
This approach assumes only the side resistance
supports the applied load, and end bearing
capacity is ignored (zero end bearing).

15
 22/4/2015

CHAPTER 4
Design for allowable end bearing and carrying
remaining load in side resistance:
This approach uses allowable end bearing
capacity for the socket base, and the socket
length is then designed to carry the remaining
load in side resistance. This method does not
properly consider the actual stress transfer
developed in the rock socket.

CHAPTER 4
Designed with estimated developed end bearing
and side resistance:
This method assumes that the applied load is
transferred to the socket through side resistance
and that the remaining load is transferred to the
socket base. A prediction of the load carried by
end bearing is required. The socket depth is then
adjusted so the allowable values for end bearing
capacity and side resistance are not exceeded.

The difference in this method is that it requires

info on the load transfer behaviour at the socket
(as mentioned it is complex).

16
 22/4/2015

DESIGN OF LOAD BEARING CAPABILITY

Value of Fs at interface between pile & wall of rock
socket is estimated using quc & RQD (or mass
factor Emass/Eintact)

quc (intact UCS) is obtained from lab test & RQD is

obtained from drilled cores
D iam ete r of p ile

B ored
Pile
Fs is shear strength at the
interface between pile &
Socket
socket
length Skin friction
(shear strength) End bearing is taken to be
zero. At service load, Fs
carries a significant portion
B ase re sistance of applied load (Gunnink &
Surrounding
rock m ass
Keinhne, 2002)

ROCK SOCKET LENGTH

Parameters for design of ROCK SOCKET LENGTH:

Unconfined compressive strength (quc or UCS) of

intact rock, obtained from lab tests. Stress-strain
curve from the UCT also gives Ei for intact rock.

Consideration on discontinuous state of the rock

mass using mass factor (MF). MF is estimated using
RQD, calculated using drilled cores. Alternatively,
MF can also be estimated using the ratio Em/Ei. Em
is modulus of rock mass measured in situ (PMT) &
Ei is from UCT.

17
 22/4/2015

ROCK SOCKET LENGTH

Reliability of the design parameters:

Data obtained from lab test, quc & Ei – more number

of tests & well distributed sampling locations at
site (depends on cost for SI & test).

Data from field assessments, RQD & Em – acquire

more core samples, preferably at the locations
where piles are to be socketted, so that reliable
value of RQD can be determined.
More field tests (PMT or P-S logging) at locations of
the socket, to give representative Em values
(depends on economic viability of these expensive
field assessments)

Correlation between RQD & allowable

shear resistance (kPa) at socket wall
For limestone
formation,
Neoh (1998)
& BS5930

18
 22/4/2015

Rock socket calculation – current practice

Input parameters (example):

Pile diameter: 1.0 m

Minimum socket length: 1.5 x 1.0m = 1.5m
Maximum load on pile: 3000 kN
Intact UCS of rock quc: 10,000 kPa (10 MPa)
RQD of bedrock: 60 %

Formula:
Rock socket skin friction, Fs = α × β × quc
α is rock socket reduction factor
β is rock socket correction factor

α & β are estimated from graphs (Tomlinson 2001)

Use lower range curve (Rosenberg & Journeaux) to

obtain value of α. This is
Based on quc = 10 MPa & by plotting, α = 0.1

Tomlinson (1995)

19
 22/4/2015

β is based on Mass factor (discontinuous rock) j.

Value of j is obtained using either RQD or Fracture
frequency per m of the bedrock. j can also be
calculated using Em/Ei
Derivation of β :
RQD = 60%, by
interpolation j = 0.3
(see table in graph).

Using j = 0.3 and the

curve for β ,
β= 0.72.
(Note: j can be estimated
better using measured
values of Ei & Em rather
than RQD)

Tomlinson (1995)

Rock socket calculation – current practice

Ultimate shear/skin friction,
Fs = α × β × quc
Fs = 0.1 × 0.72 × 10,000 KPa = 720 kPa

Take FOS = 2.0 (to cater for related uncertainties

in the design parameters):
Fs = 720/2 = 360 kPa.

Note that Fs = 360 kPa is the allowable shear

resistance for the rock mass that displays quc = 10
MPa & RQD = 60%. Different quc and RQD values
will give different Fs.

20
 22/4/2015

Rock socket calculation – current practice

Compare calculated Fs = 360 kPa with the
recommended Fs:
Neoh (1998): RQD 60% Fs = 600 kPa
BS 5930: RQD 60% Fs = 600 – 800 kPa.
Choose the lower Fs, hence allowable shear
resistance 360 kPa

Rock socket calculation – current practice

The designed maximum load of 3000 kN (Q) must
be transferred to the surrounding rock by the
bored pile, via shear strength (skin friction) at the
interface with the rock socket wall.

The required skin friction at wall socket, Q:

Q = Fs × A (Q = 3000 kN)
where;
Fs = Allowable shear resistance
A = Surface area of pile socketed into rock
= π × D × L = (360 kPa) × 22/7 × 1.0 × L
3000 kN = 360 kPa × 3.142L m2
L = 3000/1131 m
L = 2.65 m
Take 3.0 m socket length to be safe

21
 22/4/2015

Rock socket calculation – current practice

With socket length = 3.0 m, lets check the
resulting Q:
Q = π × D × L = (360 kPa) × π × 1.0 m × 3.0 m
Q = 3390 kN (larger than the maximum designed
load on pile, i.e. 3000 kN)

CASE STUDY – MRR II KL

Design of bored-piles is often based on semi-

empirical method (e.g. Tomlinson 2001; Neoh,
1998), this approach leads to some level of
uncertainty in the design → over- or under-
designed of the piles

To verify variation between the ultimate skin

friction (Fs) obtained from semi-empirical
methods and that obtained from field
measurements

Focus is on the effect of joints, how different

rock quality (RQD) affects the Fs

22
 22/4/2015

STUDY SITE

Study was conducted at construction site for
elevated intersection in Pandan Indah (MRR II),
bedrock is limestone

Joint research CTMC/UTM & Cawangan
Geoteknik Jalan, JKR

DATA COLLECTION (field & lab)

Field test: Data collected:

Static load test on Fs of known pile
instrumented piles conducted dimension & rock mass
in rock of known RQD RQD (12-14%, 22-32%,
63%)

Data collected:
Field test:
Deformation modulus of
PMT in pre-drilled boreholes
rock mass of known RQD (0-
in rock of known RQD
25, 26-50, 51-75, 76-100 %)

Lab test: Data collected:

Compression test on intact Intact UCS (quc) & E
core samples

23
 22/4/2015

In situ modulus Em of rock mass (from PMT) which

displays different RQD value
Range of RQD Deformation modulus
(%) (GPa)
0-25 0.124
26-50 0.795
51-75 1.179
76-100 1.245
Modulus of rock mass (Em) increases with higher
RQD (stronger rock), but not linearly.
Even Em for rock with higher RQD is still much
lower than avg. intact modulus Ei obtained from lab
(58 GPa)
Note: the effect of joints on deformation modulus
of rock mass is not linear & difficult to be
determined reliably, in situ measurement of is
highly recommended

In situ modulus Em obtained from PS Logging in

rock mass of different RQD
Range of Value Modulus E Poisson’s
RQD (%) (GPa) ratio υ
max 0.777 0.492
0-25 min 0.341 0.467
mean 0.558 0.480
max 2.403 0.489
26-50 min 0.689 0.370
mean 1.342 0.451
max 3.156 0.480
51-75 min 0.751 0.407
mean 1.595 0.449
max 1.109 0.484
76-100 min 0.584 0.463
mean 0.839 0.478

Similar trend – Em increases with RQD, however the

value is lower than Em obtained from PMT, at RQD
76-100% PMT = 1.245GPa & PS logging = 0.839GPa

24
 22/4/2015

Static load test on piles

Value of ultimate Fs measured from pile test and

α and β obtained
calculated using empirical methods
from graphs

α, rock β, rock
socket socket Fs = α.β. quc Fs based on
Static load Max. Measured quc from
RQD reduction correction (Tomlinson RQD (Neoh
test on trial load In situ Fs lab test
(%) factor factor 2001) 1998)
Pile (kN) (kN/m2) (MPa)
(Tomlinson (Tomlinson (kN/m2) (kN/m2)
2001) 2001)
TP 1 12.5 3067 1195.2 60.32 0.05 0.65 1960 600
(φ = 300 mm,
socket 2.2 m) 14 3067 942.0 60.32 0.05 0.65 1960 600

22 3312 765.1 60.32 0.05 0.65 1960 600

TP 3
(φ = 300 mm, 32 3312 740.2 59.45 0.05 0.65 1932 1200
socket 2.6 m)
32 3312 1202.5 59.45 0.05 0.65 1932 1200
TP 4 63 3000 390.3 63.88 0.05 0.75 2396 1200
(φ = 300 mm,
socket 1.3m) 63 3000 855.2 63.88 0.05 0.75 2396 1200

For a given RQD, both empirical methods give

different Fs value compared to measured Fs (pile
test). Depending on RQD & empirical method used,
Fs is either under- or over- estimated….reliability
of empirical method?

25
 22/4/2015

Fs versus RQD

Contrasting behaviour of Fs compared to Neoh (1998) &

Tomlinson (2001) → rock with lower RQD tends to induce a
higher Fs. Several reasons for such behavior – the trend line is
based on limited field data; and variations on RQD where field
measurements are conducted (static load test & PMT)

Other reason - mechanisms of bonding between

pile & socket

Fs is complex, depends on wall roughness, strength & RQD.

Increasing slip/settlement of pile is accompanied by
increase in bond resistance.
For rock with lower RQD (weak) fracture of socket wall can
occur. Rock fragments fill the gap between shaft & socket,
producing a higher Fs due to mechanical interlock.
The highly jointed rock becomes stronger when joints are
filled of grouts

26
 22/4/2015

EFFECT OF JOINTS ON IN SITU MODULUS

Comparison shows that in situ modulus of jointed rock mass

is much lower than intact (lab) modulus (more than 98 %
lower), although RQD of the in situ rock > 76 %

CONCLUSION FROM THE STUDY

Joints (RQD) affects skin friction Fs. Depends on

RQD of a rock mass & empirical method used,
there are indications on over-estimation of the
rock capability.

A higher Fs in rock with lower RQD can be
attributed to mechanism of bonding between pile
& rock socket. Rock with lower RQD can produce
a higher shear strength due to mechanical
interlock.

Discontinuous rock mass displays very low
deformation modulus, more than 90 % lower than
intact modulus

Number of field data and its reliability dictate the
reliability of correlation obtained

27
 22/4/2015

IMPORTANT POINTS FROM THE STUDY

For discontinuous, anisotropic & inhomogeneous

materials like rock, it is more appropriate to
obtain its relevant properties by in situ
measurement.

Although field/in situ measurements are
expensive, data is more reliable for design
purpose. Under estimation of the rock strength
can be avoided

28