See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/332819029

Termination Criteria of Bored Pile Subjected to Axial Loading

Article  in  Indian Geotechnical Journal · May 2019

DOI: 10.1007/s40098-019-00359-5

CITATIONS READS

3 895

2 authors, including:

Premalatha Krishnamurthy
Anna University, Chennai
32 PUBLICATIONS   13 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Stone columns View project

Rock Socketed Pile Foundations, Numerical modelling View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Priyadharshini Maniam Rajan on 24 October 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Indian Geotech J
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-019-00359-5
ORIGINAL PAPER
Termination Criteria of Bored Pile Subjected to Axial Loading
Priyadharshini Maniam Rajan1 • Premalatha Krishnamurthy1
Received: 12 September 2018 / Accepted: 27 March 2019
Ó Indian Geotechnical Society 2019
Abstract In this paper, the termination criteria of bored
pile subjected to axial loading are predicted using numer-
ical analysis. The objective of this study is to understand
the influence of thickness and properties of overlay sand
and characteristics of the founding rock strata. The soft-
ware PLAXIS 3D Foundation 1.1 is used for the present
numerical analysis. The axial loads on the pile are calcu-
lated as per IS 14593:1998. From the load–settlement
curves, socket length for different thicknesses and densities
of overlay sand and different types of rocks is predicted.
Influence of pile diameter and interfacial shear strength on
rock socket length is also examined. The predicted rock
socket length is comparable with IS 14593:1998 recom-
mendations. As the conclusions are from numerical anal-
yses, result has to be verified with field test results and it is
the future scope of this study.
Keywords Termination criteria
Rock socket
Pile

PLAXIS 3D
Overlying sand
Introduction
In the present-day scenario, an increase in construction of
heavily loaded structures necessitates transfer of loads to
the underlying rock mass. Rock-socketed piles find its use
& Premalatha Krishnamurthy
kvprema@annauniv.edu
Priyadharshini Maniam Rajan
priyadharshini.civil@gmail.com
1 eted in rock based on the uniaxial compressive strength of
Division of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering
Guindy, Anna University, Chennai 600025, India
in such applications. Rock-socketed piles are commonly
used for the superstructures such as high-rise buildings,
long-span bridges and tower structures. This research has
been started in the late 1960s in Canada, USA, and kindled
the researches in Australia, South Africa and parts of UK in
1970s. Even to this present day, this area of study is still an
interesting field to explore.
Gandhi et al. [1] studied about the load transfer mech-
anism of bored cast in situ pile socketed into hard rock
through soft rock by means of instrumentation. For the
maximum total settlement of 5.58 mm, for 1.5 times the
design load, i.e. 1530 kN, only 60 kN of load transferred
through pile tip and maximum resistance is mobilized only
through frictional resistance from soft rock and overlying
soil. Also, the author commented that the behaviour of
rock-socketed pile is influenced by the presence of ben-
tonite in pile–soil interface. Tomlinson [2] gave guidelines
for the settlement of pile in rock and soil. For the mobi-
lization of skin friction and end bearing resistance of the
pile in soil, the settlement of the pile should be of the order
of 0.3–1% and 10–20% of the diameter, respectively. For
the mobilization of end bearing resistance in rock, settle-
ment of the pile should be 20% of the diameter. Also,
Tomlinson [2] suggested that for 600 mm diameter pile,
the settlement at the working load should not exceed
10 mm.
The load transfer in rock-socketed piles is by end
bearing resistance alone or shaft resistance alone or the
combination of end bearing resistance and shaft resistance
which in turn depends upon the length of the rock socket.
Indian Standard Code [3] provided guidelines for the
estimation of the load carrying capacity of the piles sock-
rock, pressuremeter tests, shear strength parameters of rock
and structural strength of pile. As per the above code, the
123

safe load on single pile shall be the least of the following:
for the initial load test, fifty per cent of the load at 12 mm
settlement unless otherwise required in a given case on the
basis of performance requirement and one-third of the
ultimate failure load. For routine load test, the maximum
settlement should not exceed 8 mm for at least one and half
times the working load. The minimum length of socket for
preliminary design of pile under compression varied from
1D to 4D, with respect to the rock type and its quality,
where D is the diameter of the pile. The code also states
that the partially mobilized frictional resistance offered by
the soil may be neglected.
Long [4] studied about the uncertainties involved in the
empirical methods for the design of rock-socketed piles in
Irish hard rocks. The load test results of twenty-four piles at
twelve sites located throughout Ireland were back-analysed
for different pile diameters and socket lengths. From the
study, the author concluded that rock quality is very
important to determine ultimate shaft resistance and the
shaft resistance was higher for fractured rock than hard
rock. Seidel et al. [5] predicted the shaft resistance of a
rock using a simulation program ROCKET, in terms of
shaft resistance coefficient (SRC). The shaft resistance
coefficient depends upon the factors such as construction
method, rock modulus, unconfined compressive strength,
Poisson’s ratio of the rock, socket roughness and socket
diameter. The SRC was used as a preliminary design tool
for the prediction of shaft resistance. Nam et al. [6] studied
about the effect of drilling tools such as core barrel and
auger on shaft resistance of rock-socketed drilled shafts for
different socket lengths. From the results, the author
reported that socket roughness drilled by core barrel was
about 30% rougher than auger, regardless of the rock type.
Srinivasamurthy et al. [7] reviewed the existing methods
of determination of rock-socketing length in axially loaded
bored piles and attempted to formulate a practical approach
to determine the length of the socket of bored piles in rock.
The author evaluated socket length for a safe load based on
the uniaxial compressive strength of rock, shear strength
parameters of rock and chisel energy criteria. From this
study, it was concluded that the socket length depends upon
the load on the pile and for soft and weathered rocks both
the end bearing resistance and shaft resistance from the
socket length could be considered.
Zhang et al. [8] studied the mechanism of end bearing
resistance of rock-socketed pile. The study was carried out
using the generalized nonlinear unified strength criterion.
The theoretical solutions were compared with the numeri-
cal simulation. From the results, the author concluded that
the ultimate end bearing resistance increases with
123
Indian Geotech J
overburden and decreases with rock damage. Seo et al. [9]
developed an elastic analysis based on the solution of the
governing differential equation for the pile and rock dis-
placements using the principle of minimum potential
energy and calculus of variations. The important observa-
tion made by the author is: the load transfer response of
rock-socketed pile depends upon the RQD of rock. Higher
the RQD, the higher will be the shaft resistance and vice
versa irrespective of the modulus ratio of pile and rock.
Rezazadeh et al. [10] used a database of 106 full-scale
load tests compiled with UCS value, 34 tests with rock
quality designation (RQD) and five tests with rock mass
rating (RMR) to verify the applicability and accuracy of
existing empirical methods for the evaluation of shaft
resistance of rock-socketed piles. The authors proposed a
new relationship between shaft resistance and UCS based
on the type of rock. Since rock-socketed shafts are sup-
ported by non-intact rock, a reduction factor for the com-
pressive strength is suggested and verified with the effect
of discontinuities.
From the above studies, it is clear that the parameters
that affect the capacity of rock-socketing piles are thick-
ness and properties of the overlying soil layer, character-
istics of the founding strata, roughness factor of the rock
socket and socketing length. BIS code [3] recommends the
minimum length of the socket based on rock type and its
quality. The code states that the partially mobilized fric-
tional resistance offered by the overlay soil may be
neglected. Zhang [8] concluded that the influence of the
overburden soil must be considered in the design. Gener-
ally, piles are designed as end bearing pile, but due to the
restriction of the allowable settlement of pile, in reality, the
piles are functioning as frictional pile because the order of
settlement required for mobilization of shaft resistance is
lesser than that required for end bearing resistance mobi-
lization. Based on the guidelines given by Tomlinson [2], a
rough paper work carried out has shown that for restricted
settlement of 8 mm to 12 mm, frictional resistance of soil
or rock may mobilize. There is no possibility of mobi-
lization of end bearing resistance. Hence, there is a
necessity to study the influence of different parameters on
the termination criteria of rock-socketed pile based on
allowable load.
The important objective of the present study is to
understand the influence of thickness and properties of
overlay sand, and characteristics of the founding strata for
the termination of axially loaded bored pile based on
allowable load for 8 mm settlement. The influence of
diameter and rock-pile interfacial strength in the termina-
tion criteria is also examined.
Indian Geotech J
Numerical Analysis
The software PLAXIS 3D Foundation 1.1 is used for the
present numerical analysis. PLAXIS 3D Foundation ver-
sion 1.1 (2004) is a finite element software program, for the
analysis of three-dimensional deformations of foundation
structures. For the ease of understanding and working, 3D
software is chosen for the present analysis. PLAXIS 3D is
preferred over PLAXIS 2D because in 2D the pile is
modelled as plate element, whereas in 3D the pile is
modelled as an explicit pile element. The project geometry
is modelled in top-view approach. From this geometry, a
3D finite element is generated. The soil layers are defined
by means of boreholes, which may be single or multiple
depending up on the nature of the non-horizontal stratig-
raphy of the soil/rock. Quadratic 15-node wedge elements
are used to model the deformations and stresses in soils.
The PLAXIS postprocessor has 3D graphical features for
displaying computational results. Exact values of dis-
placements, stress and strain are extracted from the output
tables.
The finite element mesh generated in the PLAXIS 3D
foundation software has a mesh arrangement of length
40D, width 20D and a depth of ‘Length of the pile ? 10
m’, where D is the diameter of the pile. These dimensions
are arrived at after analysing with number of combinations
of boundaries, till their effect becomes insignificant on the
output values. The soil–rock layers are shown in Fig. 1.
The mesh element comprises quadratic 15-node wedge
elements. The mesh is generated with coarser elements for
restricting the run-time. The soil cluster around the pile is
refined further for better accuracy. The pile is modelled as
linear elastic material. Soil and rock are modelled as
elastic-perfectly plastic material based on Mohr–Coulomb
model. The material type is drained behaviour. Water
table is considered to be at a deeper depth. However, the
P capacity of the pile is 38.11 MN, and water table is at
Sand
5m to 20m Lp
0D to 8D Rock
D -Diameter of the Pile
Fig. 1 Schematic diagram of rock-socketed pile with overlay sand
results are same for both drained and undrained conditions
for dry sand. The analyses are carried out in three phases.
In phase I, stresses in the soil are calculated, and in phase
II, pile installation is simulated. The displacements are
reset to zero at the end of phase I and phase II. In phase III,
axial load is applied on the pile head. In the finite element
program, load is applied in increments up to maximum of
50 iterations. The PLAXIS output program gives the set-
tlement and stresses in terms of tables and contour. From
the PLAXIS 3D analysis, load–settlement curves are gen-
erated using the PLAXIS curves program. From the load–
settlement curves, maximum settlement values are read and
graphs are plotted with respect to the increasing socket
length.
IS code [3] suggests minimum length of socket by
grouping the rock type into three categories. Cole and
Stroud [11] have grouped rocks into five categories based
on the shear strength. They are strong, moderately strong,
moderately weak, weak and very weak rocks. This group is
considered for the present analysis. Rock properties for
very weak rock are referred from the literature [12]. One
more rock type, highly weathered rock, is also considered
from the literature reported by Harry [13]. The details of
different parameters that are considered for the present
analysis are listed in Table 1. The schematic diagram
representing the problem defined is shown in Fig. 1.
Validation of the Numerical Model
Validation 1
For validating the numerical model, a field pile load test is
selected. The pile load test is for bored rock-socketed pile
for the Second Penang Bridge, Malaysia [14]. From the soil
test report, the diameter and length of the pile are observed
as 2100 mm and 115.10 m, respectively. The ultimate load
1.45 m from ground level. For validation, the soil, rock
layers and pile model are simulated using PLAXIS 3D
Foundation software version 1.1. Soil and rock are mod-
elled as Mohr–Coulomb material, and pile is modelled as
linear elastic material. Since the properties of different
layers are not mentioned in the soil report, they are
assumed based on the correlations with N value as rec-
ommended by Bowels [15]. The analyses were done for the
minimum and maximum recommended values. The details
of the input parameters are summarized in Table 2. The
load–settlement curves for the minimum and maximum
input values and the field load–settlement curve are shown
in Fig. 2.
From load–settlement curves, it is observed that the
settlement for minimum and maximum input values was
123
 Indian Geotech J

Table 1 Parameter details

Type of overlying soil Loose sand, medium dense sand and dense sand
Thickness of overlying soil 5 m, 10 m, 15 m and 20 m
Rock type (based on strength) Weak rock, moderately weak rock, moderately strong rock, strong rock,
very weak rock and highly weathered rock
Socket length 1D–8D
Pile diameter 600 mm, 750 mm and 1000 mm
Pile length Vary depending on thickness of overlying sand and socket length
Nature of loading Axial loading

Table 2 Soil and rock properties of the field bore log

Layer Soft mud Loose to medium dense sand Medium dense sand Medium dense to dense sand Granite
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max

Soil layer thickness (m) 0 19.45 19.45 33.45 33.45 55.8 55.8 110.8 110.8 115.1
Average SPT N value \1 10 22 41 –
Unit weight (kN/m3) 17 18 14 16 17 20 18 22 24 27
Cohesion (MPa) \ 0.0125 – – – –
Friction angle, u – 28 34 30 40 33 50 –
Young’s modulus, E (MPa) 4 20 10.5 24 17.25 27.60 34.50 55.20 300 500

Fig. 2 Comparison of load– Load (MN)

settlement response with field 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
test data
0
5
Present analysis
10 Minimum values
Settlement (mm)

15 Field test data [14]

20
25 Present analysis
30 Maximum values

35
40
45

39.9 mm and 31.4 mm, respectively. The field settlement
value was 32.2 mm. The field load–settlement curve and
the load–settlement curve of maximum recommended
values are almost same. From the above analysis, it is
understood that the guidelines used for the selection of
different soil and rock properties for the present study are
also valid.
of the pile is 19.5 mm. The model pile is socketed in the
weathered rock layer for 1D depth. The details of the input
parameters for the numerical model are summarized in
Table 3, and the load–settlement curves are shown in
Fig. 3. The settlement value from the experimental test is
1 mm which is comparable with the numerical analysis
value of 1.12 mm.

Validation 2
For validating the numerical model, an experimental pile
load test is also selected [16]. The laboratory pile load test
is for two-layered system consisting of medium dense sand
overlying weathered rock. For the validation, the soil and
rock layer and the pile are simulated in PLAXIS 3D soft-
ware. Length of the aluminium pile is 350 mm. Diameter
Input Parameters for the Analysis
The properties of soil and rock are selected for the analyses
are given in Tables 4 and 5. The properties such as density,
friction angle and deformation modulus are selected based
on Bowels [15] recommendation, which were used for
validation 1. The properties of rock are assumed based on

123
Indian Geotech J

Table 3 Soil and rock properties of model pile load test

Material (depth) Layer 1 Layer 2 Aluminium pile (350 mm)
Medium dense sand (0–330 mm) Weathered rock (330–400 mm)

Model Mohr–Coulomb Mohr–Coulomb Linear elastic

3
Unit weight, c (kN/m ) 15.30 21 26.00
Young’s modulus, E (kPa) 20E3 25E4 69E6
Poisson’s ratio, t 0.30 0.2 0.32
Cohesion, Cu (kPa) – 450 –
Friction angle, u (8) 36 – –

Fig. 3 Comparison of load– Axial load (N)

settlement response with
experimental test data 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0

0.25
settlement (mm)

Present Analysis
0.5
Model test data [16]

0.75

1.25

Cole and Stroud [11] and also compared with the literature rock. So it is not possible to directly select the rock
[12, 13, 17]. properties from the software. Considering the hardness of
The input parameters for the present analysis are taken dominant rock forming mineral of different types of rock,
from the studies as an average scale. However, the validity Goodman [19] hardness guidelines and Cole and Stroud
of these values is required. Most of the researchers widely guidelines [11], the range of mean compressive strength,
use RocData 5.0 software [18] for properties of rock. This mean tangent modulus and unit weight is obtained from the
software database contains over 700 data for different RocData 5.0 software and is listed in Table 6. For the ease
rocks. There are only 29 Indian rock data. There is no of reference, E, qu and c values from the present analysis
direct classification of rocks in RocData 5.0. Rock prop- are also given in Table 6. Since the values used for the
erties can be selected based on the name of the rock. For present analysis were well within the range, the selection of
the present analysis, rocks are grouped from strong to weak input parameters is valid. There are no data for weathered
rock in the RocData 5.0 software database. Therefore, data
Table 4 Soil properties selected for the analysis
from the literature [13] were used. In IS: 4464-1985 [20], it
is assumed that for highly weathered rock, half of the rock
Parameter Loose sand Medium dense Dense sand material is disintegrated to soil. For this condition,
sand
assumption of 45° angle of internal friction is found to be
Material model Mohr– Mohr–Coulomb Mohr– reasonable.
Coulomb Coulomb
Unit weight, c (kN/ 14 16 18 Axial Load on the Pile
m3)
Young’s modulus, 15 20 45
The axial loads on the piles are calculated as per IS
E (MPa)
14593:1998 [3]. The axial load for moderately strong rocks
Poisson’s ratio, m 0.3 0.3 0.3
and strong rocks is calculated based on the uniaxial com-
Cohesion, Cu (kPa) – – –
pressive strength. For other types of rocks, the load car-
Friction angle, u (8) 30° 34° 40°
rying capacity is calculated based on the shear strength

123
 Indian Geotech J

Table 5 Rock properties selected for the analysis

Parameter Weak rock Moderately weak rock Moderately strong rock Strong rock Very weak rock Highly weathered rock

Material model M–C M–C M–C M–C M–C M–C

Unit weight, c (kN/m3) 20 21.5 25 27 21 20.5
Young’s modulus, E (MPa) 420 700 35,000 50,000 180 150
Poisson’s ratio, m 0.2 0.2 0.15 0.15 0.2 0.3
Cohesion, Cu (MPa) 1.3 3.65 10 30 0.45 0.12
Friction angle, u (8) – – – – – 458

Table 6 Comparison of rock properties from RocData 5.0 software and present analysis
Rock type Range of tangent Present Range of compressive Present analysis Range of unit Present analysis,
modulus, E (MPa) analysis, strength, qu (MPa) qu (MPa) weight, c (kN/m3) c (kN/m3)
E (MPa)

Strong rock 4090–108,000 50,000 12.82–532.96 60 21.68–30.40 27

Moderately 2000–80,000 35,000 5.79–362.97 20 19.60–29.72 25
strong rock
Moderately 500–3600 700 2.23–234.4 7.3 17.85–25.51 21.5
weak rock
Weak rock 260–1520 420 1.25–177.2 2.6 10.90–24.0 20

parameters. The axial load of the pile in granular soil and
the structural capacity of the pile are estimated using the
provisions in IS 456:2000 [21] and IS: 2911 (Part I/Sec 2)
[22], respectively. From the calculations, it is observed that
the design load for weak rock and very weak rocks is due to
the resistance of soil or rock. For the other types of rocks,
the design load is the structural capacity of the pile. Since
the partial mobilization of frictional resistance of soil for
10 m, 15 m and 20 m overlying sand deposit in the load
carrying capacity exceeds the structural capacity of the
pile, the axial load estimated for 5 m overlying thickness of
sand is considered for arriving the load–settlement rela-
tionship. The ultimate axial loads of the pile are summa-
rized in Table 7.
Though the load on the pile decides the socket length,
the present analysis is carried out for ultimate load and
allowable load. Allowable load on the pile is as per IS
14593:1998 clause 9.2.3. Analyses were carried out for
different overlay strata and different types of rock and
different socket lengths. To understand the influence of
interface strength and diameter, analyses were carried out
for medium dense overlying weak rock. Load–settlement
curves were generated for allowable load of 8 mm settle-
ment and also for ultimate load. Though numerical analy-
ses were done for 8 mm settlement and ultimate load as per
Table 6, no difference in the curve is seen up to the
allowable load. The total settlement obtained from curves
includes elastic compression of pile material also.
Results and Discussion
The load–settlement curves are obtained for sand of dif-
ferent densities, thicknesses, different socket lengths and
different types of rocks for ultimate load and allowable
load. Part of the load–settlement curves obtained for the
ultimate load considered in the analyses is shown in
Figs. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9.
In the present analysis, the different types of rock are
considered as Mohr–Coulomb material, but analysis also
done by considering the rock as linear elastic for 600 mm
diameter pile in 5 m loose sand overlying weak rock and
load–settlement curve is shown in Fig. 10. The settlement
for Mohr–Coulomb material model is higher than linear
elastic material model. The difference in the settlement
increases as the loading on the pile increases. Similarly, to
compare the load–settlement curve from PLAXIS 2D and
PLAXIS 3D analyses, the results obtained for 600 mm
diameter pile with 1D socket in loose sand overlying
moderately weak rock are shown in Fig. 11. From the
figure, it can be observed that there is no much difference
in the settlement.
Load–Settlement Behaviour
Load–settlement behaviour is linear for all rocks except in
very weak and highly weathered rock, where curves are
nonlinear for piles with no socket. This nonlinearity

123
Indian Geotech J

Table 7 Applied axial loads on the pile in numerical analysis Maximum Settlement Versus Socket Ratio
Profile Diameter of the Ultimate load
pile (mm) Qu (kN) From load–settlement curve, a graph for socket length/di-
ameter of the pile versus maximum settlement is plotted.
Sand ? weak rock 600 3700 To propose the maximum socket length, a threshold value
Sand ? moderately weak rock 4200 for the difference in the settlement ratio is observed. Set-
Sand ? moderately strong rock 4200 tlement ratio is the ratio between the settlements for nD
Sand ? strong rock 4200 socket length and the settlement for pile resting on rock,
Sand ? very weak rock 1360 where n varies from 1 to 8. The threshold value is assumed
Sand ? highly weathered rock 1360 as 0.03. Double tangent method is also used to determine
Sand ? weak rock 750 5600 the maximum socket length. Both methods give similar
Sand ? weak rock 1000 9200 results. Settlement of the pile versus socket ratio for loose
sand overlying different types of rock is shown in Figs. 12,
13, 14, 15, 16 and 17. The socket length discussed in this
decreases with increasing rock socket length and thickness
paper is based on the allowable settlement of 8 mm or less
of the overlying sand. For all density of overlay sand in
than 8 mm.
weak rock to strong rock, the settlement increases with an
The rock socket length arrived for loose sand, medium
increase in thickness of overlay sand and it decreases with
dense sand and dense sand from the present analyses is
an increase in socket length. Settlement of pile decreases
presented in Tables 8 and 9.
with an increase in the thickness of overlying sand layer of
From the above tables, important observations made are
all densities for very weak rock and highly weathered rock.
given below:
The above observation is more common for rock-socketed
In loose and medium dense sand, socket lengths are
pile because of the influence of increase in frictional
same for different types of rocks. In weak rock, moderately
resistance of sand and rock.

Axial load (kN)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
0
2 (Ls/D) = 0
4 (Ls/D) = 1
Settlement (mm)

(Ls/D) = 2
6
(Ls/D) = 3
8 (Ls/D) = 4
10 (Ls/D) = 5
12 (Ls/D) = 6
(Ls/D) = 7
14
(Ls/D) = 8
16
18

Fig. 4 Load–settlement curve for 600 mm diameter pile in 10 m loose sand overlying weak rock

Axial load (kN)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
0
2 (Ls/D) = 0
Settlement (mm)

4 (Ls/D) = 1
6 (Ls/D) = 2
8 (Ls/D) = 3

10 (Ls/D) = 4
(Ls/D) = 5
12
(Ls/D) = 6
14
(Ls/D) = 7
16 (Ls/D) = 8
18

Fig. 5 Load–settlement curve for 600 mm diameter pile in 15 m loose sand overlying weak rock

123
 Indian Geotech J

Axial load (kN)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
0
2 (Ls/D) = 0
(Ls/D) = 1
Settlement (mm)

4
(Ls/D) = 2
6
(Ls/D) = 3
8
(Ls/D) = 4
10 (Ls/D) = 5
12 (Ls/D) = 6
14 (Ls/D) = 7
(Ls/D) = 8
16
18

Fig. 6 Load–settlement curve for 600 mm diameter pile in 5 m medium dense sand overlying moderately weak rock

Axial load (kN)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
(Ls/D) = 0
0
(Ls/D) = 1
2
4 (Ls/D) = 2
Settlement (mm)

6 (Ls/D) = 3
8 (Ls/D) = 4
10
(Ls/D) = 5
12
(Ls/D) = 6
14
16 (Ls/D) = 7
18 (Ls/D) = 8

Fig. 7 Load–settlement curve for 600 mm diameter pile in 20 m medium dense sand overlying moderately weak rock

Axial load (kN)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
0

2 (Ls/D) = 0
4 (Ls/D) = 1
(Ls/D) = 2
Settlement (mm)

6
(Ls/D) = 3
8 (Ls/D) = 4
10
(Ls/D) = 5
(Ls/D) = 6
12
(Ls/D) = 7
14 (Ls/D) = 8
16

18

Fig. 8 Load–settlement curve for 600 mm diameter pile in 5 m dense sand overlying moderately weak rock

weak rock, very weak rock and highly weathered rock,
socket lengths decrease with an increase in thickness of
overlay sand. In moderately strong and strong rock, influ-
ence of thickness of overlying sand on socket length is
insignificant. From weak to strong rock, socket length is
not influenced by thickness of overlying dense sand. For
moderately strong and strong rock, the influence of overlay
sand density is insignificant. For all cases of rocks, socket
length in dense sand is lesser than loose and medium dense
sand.
Rock socket length predicted from the numerical study
is compared with the Indian Standard Provisions IS
14593:1998 and is presented in Table 10.
For sound, relatively homogenous rock, the socket
length is not influenced by density and thickness of over-
lying sand. For soft rocks and sedimentary rocks, the

123
Indian Geotech J

Axial load (kN)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
0
2 (Ls/D) = 0
(Ls/D) = 1
4
Settlement (mm)

(Ls/D) = 2
6
(Ls/D) = 3
8 (Ls/D) = 4
10 (Ls/D) = 5

12 (Ls/D) = 6
(Ls/D) = 7
14
(Ls/D) = 8
16
18

Fig. 9 Load–settlement curve for 600 mm diameter pile in 20 m dense sand overlying moderately weak rock

Axial load (kN)

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
0

1
settlement (mm)

2
Linear elastic (Ls/D) = 0
3
Mohr-Coulomb (Ls/D) = 0
4

Fig. 10 Comparison of load–settlement response of Mohr–Coulomb and linear elastic material model for 600 mm diameter pile in 5 m loose
sand overlying weak rock

Axial load (kN)

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
0

2
settlement (mm)

(Ls/D) = 1 PLAXIS 3D
3 (Ls/D) = 1 PLAXIS 2D

Fig. 11 Comparison of load–settlement response of PLAXIS 2D and PLAXIS 3D for 600 mm diameter pile with 1D socket length in 5 m loose
sand overlying moderately weak rock

socket length is lesser for increasing thickness of loose and very weak rock, socket length is influenced by increasing
medium dense sand. But for dense sand, socket length is thickness of overlying sand layer, but not by density of
not influenced by the thickness of the overlying sand. For sand. From the present analysis for the highly weathered

123

rock, socket length is influenced by both thickness and
density of the overlying sand layer. From Table 9, it is
observed that the IS code results are comparable with the
results of present analyses. These conclusions are based on
numerical analyses, and these have to be verified with the
field test results.
Influence of Diameter in Ls/D
Load–settlement curve for different diameters of the pile is
shown in Fig. 18.
For 1D socket length in 5 m thick overlying sand, the
percentage increase in settlement with respect to 600 mm
diameter pile is 17% for 750 mm diameter pile and 30%
for 1000 mm diameter pile. For 1D socket length in 20 m
thick overlying sand, the percentage increase in settlement
is 10% and 18% for 750 mm and 1000 mm diameter pile,
respectively. For 8D socket length in 5 m thick overlying
sand thickness, the percentage increase in settlement is 9%
and 24% for 750 mm and 1000 mm diameter pile. For 8D
socket length in 20 m thick overlying sand, the percentage
increase in settlement is 5% and 7% for 750 mm and
1000 mm diameter pile, respectively. Though there is a
variation in settlement due to an increase in the diameter,
there is no change in the socket length.
Influence of Rock–Pile Interface Strength in Ls/D
To understand the influence of the interface strength,
analyses are done for profile of medium dense sand over-
lying weak rock. Analyses are carried out by decreasing the
interface strength from 100 to 25%, i.e. varying the R-inter
values from 1 to 0.25. The values of normal and tangential
stiffness are calculated in PLAXIS 3D software as an in-
built function, based on R-inter value. The graph for socket
Fig. 12 Settlement of 600 mm 9
diameter pile versus socket ratio
in weak rock 8
7
Settlement (mm)
5 Loose sand-10m
4 Loose sand-15m
3 Loose sand-20m
2
0
0 1
123
Indian Geotech J
length versus settlement for different R-inter values is
shown in Fig. 19.
The settlement of the pile increases when the rock–pile
interface strength is reduced and decreases with the
increase in the rock socket ratio. Settlement increment is
higher for 5 m overlay thickness than 20 m overlay
thickness of medium dense sand. For 5 m overlay, this
increment is 25%, and for 20 m overlay thickness, it is 4%.
For higher overburden thickness, the influence of interface
strength reduction on settlement decreases with an increase
in the socket length. Reduction in interfacial shear strength
does not have significant influence in the socket length for
medium dense sand overlay.
Analyses were also carried out using average values of
rock properties obtained from RocData 5.0 software. One
such result is shown in Fig. 20. Comparing results of
Figs. 6 and 20 for medium dense sand overlying moder-
ately weak rock, there is a reduction in settlement, and
thereby a reduction in the socket length in the order of
0.5D–1D. Since the selected rock properties are in the
lower range, the results obtained from the analysis can be
useful in the absence of the field rock properties.
Conclusions
The results presented in this paper are from the numerical
analyses for bored pile subjected to axial. The conclusions
from the results are summarized:
For axial load considered in the present analysis, the
load–settlement behaviour is linear. Load–settlement
behaviour of very weak rock and highly weathered rock is
different from other types of rocks. In these types of rocks,
settlement of pile decreases with an increase in the thick-
ness of the overlying sand, whereas in other types of rocks
the settlement increases with increasing thickness of
Loose sand-5m
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Socket Length / diameter (Ls/d)
Indian Geotech J

Fig. 13 Settlement of the 9

600 mm diameter pile versus
8
socket ratio in moderately weak
rock 7

Settlement (mm)
6
Loose sand-5m
5
Loose sand-10m
4
Loose sand-15m
3
Loose sand-20m
2

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Socket Length / diameter (Ls/d)

Fig. 14 Settlement of 600 mm 9

diameter pile versus socket ratio
in moderately strong rock 8

7
Settlement (mm)

5 Loose sand-5m

Loose sand-10m
4
Loose sand-15m
3
Loose sand-20m
2

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Socket Length / diameter (Ls/d)

Fig. 15 Settlement of 600 mm 9

diameter pile versus socket ratio
in strong rock 8

6 Loose sand-5m
Settlement (mm)

5 Loose sand-10m
Loose sand-15m
4
Loose sand-20m
3

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Socket Length / diameter (Ls/d)

overlying sand layer. For all types of rocks, an increase in Rock socket length depends upon the type of rock,
socket length decreases settlement. density and thickness of overlay sand. Socket criteria are

123
 Indian Geotech J

Fig. 16 Settlement of 600 mm 12

diameter pile versus socket ratio
in very weak rock
10

Settlement (mm)
8 Loose sand-5m

Loose sand-10m
6
Loose sand-15m
4 Loose sand-20m

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Socket Length in diameter

Fig. 17 Settlement of 600 mm 20

diameter pile versus socket ratio
18
in highly weathered rock
16

14
Settlement (mm)

Loose sand-5m
12
Loose sand-10m
10
Loose sand-15m
8
Loose sand-20m
6

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Socket Length in diameter

Table 8 Rock socket length for loose sand and medium dense sand Table 9 Rock socket length for dense sand overlying different rock
overlying different rock strata strata

Type of rock Rock socket length for loose sand/medium Type of rock Rock socket length for dense sand
dense sand
5m 10 m 15 m 20 m
5m 10 m 15 m 20 m
Weak rock 2D 2D 2D 2D
Weak rock 4D 4D 3D 3D Moderately weak rock 2D 2D 2D 2D
Moderately weak rock 3D 3D 2D 2D Moderately strong rock 1D 1D 1D 1D
Moderately strong rock 1D 1D 1D 1D Strong rock 1D 1D 1D 1D
Strong rock 1D 1D 1D 1D Very weak rock 3D 3D 2D 2D
Very weak rock 3D 3D 2D 2D Highly weathered rock 3D 3D 2D 2D
Highly weathered rock 4D 4D 3D 2D

influence is relatively negligible for medium dense sand

same for overlying loose sand and medium dense sand for
different types of rock. For all types of rocks, socket length
in dense sand is lesser than loose and medium dense sand.
Rock socket lengths obtained based on allowable and
ultimate load are found to be almost same. Though an
increase in pile diameter increases settlement, there is no
change in the socket length. Interfacial shear strength
overlay.
Predicted rock socket length is comparable with the IS
14593:1998 recommendations. As these conclusions are
from numerical analyses, the result has to be verified with
field test results and it is the future scope of this study.

123
Indian Geotech J

Table 10 Comparisons between IS 14593:1998 and numerical analysis results

Rock type Rock socket length required as per
IS 14593:1998 Numerical analysis results
Loose sand/medium dense sand Dense sand
5m 10 m 15 m 20 m 5m 10 m 15 m 20 m

Sound, relatively homogenous rock 1D–2D 1D 1D 1D 1D 1D 1D 1D 1D

Soft rocks, sedimentary rocks (sandstone) 3D–4D 4D 4D 3D 3D 2D 2D 2D 2D
Very weak rock 2D–3D 3D 3D 2D 2D 3D 3D 2D 2D
Highly weathered rock – 4D 4D 3D 2D 3D 3D 2D 2D

Fig. 18 Settlement of pile 9

versus socket ratio in 5 m 8
medium dense sand overlying
7
Settlement (mm)

weak rock
6
750mm dia
5
600mm dia
4
1000 mm dia
3
2
1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Ls/D

Fig. 19 Settlement of the pile 7

versus socket ratio for 600 mm
diameter pile in 5 m medium 6
dense sand overlying weak rock
settlement (mm)

5 Rinter= 0.25
Rinter= 0.5
4
Rinter= 0.75
3
Rinter= 1
2

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Ls/D

Axial load (kN)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
0
(Ls/D) = 0
2 (Ls/D) = 1
Settlement (mm)

(Ls/D) = 2
4 (Ls/D) = 3
(Ls/D) = 4
6 (Ls/D) = 5
(Ls/D) = 6
8 (Ls/D) = 7
(Ls/D) = 8
10

Fig. 20 Load–settlement curve for 600 mm diameter pile in 5 m medium dense sand overlying moderately weak rock with input from RocData
5.0 software

123

References
1. Gandhi SR, Raju VS, Rawat PC (1987) Load transfer in piles—
analysis and field test on instrumented pile. In: Indian geotech-
nical conference (IGC-87), vol 1, pp 151–154
2. Tomlinson M (1994) Pile design and construction practice, 4th
edn. E & FN Spon, London
3. IS: 14593 (1998) Indian standard code of practice on design and
construction of bored cast-in situ piles founded on rocks—
guidelines BIS. New Delhi, India
4. Michael L (2000) Skin friction for piles socketed in hard rock. In:
GeoEng 2000, Melbourne, Australia. http://lib.hpu.edu.cn/comp_
meeting/PAPERS/PF/PF0180.PDF. Accessed on 13 Aug 2012
5. Seidel JP, Collingwood B (2001) A new socket roughness factor
for prediction of rock socket shaft resistance. Can Geotech J
38(1):138–153
6. Nam MS, Vipulandan Cumaraswamy (2008) Roughness and Unit
side resistance of drilled shafts socketed in clay shale and lime-
stone. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 134:1272–1279
7. Srinivasamurthy BR, Pujar KL (2009) Socketing of bored piles in
rock. In: Indian geotechnical conference (IGC 2009), Guntur,
pp 678–681
8. Zhang M, Wang X, Wang Y (2011) Ultimate end bearing
capacity of rock socketed pile based on generalized non-linear
unified strength criterion. J Cent South Univ Technol 18:208–215
9. Seo H, Prezzi M, Salgado R (2015) Elastic analysis of rock-
socketed piles. IFCEE 2015, ASCE
10. Rezazadeh S, Eslami A (2017) Empirical Methods for deter-
mining shaft bearing capacity of semi-deep foundations socketed
in rocks. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 9:1140–1151
11. Cole KW, Stroud MA (1977) Rock socketed piles at coventry
point, market way, Coventry. In: Proceedings of piles in weak
rock, Institution of Civil Engineers, London, pp 47–62
123
View publication stats
Indian Geotech J
12. Yi L (2004) Finite element analysis on static pile load testing.
A Thesis, National University of Singapore
13. Tan HSA, Teo AKJ, Chuah SS (2011) Settlement study of a
Singapore 43: Storey tower comparing equivalent block model
with embedded piles model in 3D finite element analyses. In:
PAN-AM geotechnical conference 2011
14. Chiu S-L, Fang Z, Huang K (2011) Design and testing of bored pile
foundation to the 2nd Penang Bridge, Malaysia. www.jambatan
kedua.com.my/webv1/images/stories/seminarTP/TP8.pdf. Acces-
sed 29 Aug 2012
15. Bowles JE (1997) Foundation analysis and design. McGraw-Hill
Companies Inc, Singapore
16. Boopathy (2007) Influence of presence of abandoned and loaded
adjacent pile in the load carrying capacity of existing pile foun-
dation. ME Thesis, Anna University Chennai
17. Jayaganesh K (2007) Prediction of embedment length of pile in
different strata to mobilize maximum resistance. ME Thesis,
Anna University Chennai
18. ROCDATA 5.0 Trial version. www.Rocscience.com/software/
rocdata. Accessed 14 Mar 2019
19. Goodman Richard E (1989) Introduction to rock mechanics.
Wiley, Hoboken
20. IS 4464–1985: Code of practice for presentation of drilling
information and core description in foundation investigation, BIS,
New Dlehi, India
21. IS 456 (2000) Indian standard plain and reinforced concrete—
code of practice. BIS, New Delhi, India
22. IS: 2911 (Part I/Sec 2) (1997) Indian standard code of practice for
design and construction of pile foundations: concrete piles—
bored cast in situ piles. BIS, New Delhi, India
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.