MKAJ 1073

ENGINEERING CHAPTER 9
ROCK FOUNDATION IN ROCK

MECHANICS
DR MUHAMMAD IRFAN BIN SHAHRIN
FOUNDATION IN ROCK
Different type of foundation may be constructed in rock, may be categorized in three groups,

• Shallow foundation
• Deep/Pile foundation
• Rock socketed piers

(a) Footing on rock (b) End bearing piles resting on rock

c) Rock socketed pier

2
 FOUNDATION IN ROCK

• 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.

3
FOUNDATION IN ROCK

• 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

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

(P Capizzi, 2014)
From BH, core samples are recovered at relevant depths for
evaluating the relevant rock properties:
both rock mass & rock material (intact rock)
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 laboratory tests on rock samples
(intact)

However, can the value of UCS (quc) & E

obtained from 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.
Intact rock:
- smaller scale, like rock sample used in laboratory strength tests
- free from large-scale discontinuities (e.g. joints)
- Stronger than rock mass? Why?

Joints (or discontinuities) affect rock mass strengths and

deformation behaviour

The effect becomes more significant as number of joints

increases and spacing between joints decreases.

Rock mass and intact rock (Brady and Brown, 1985)

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!

Modified after Hudson (1989)

Effect of spatial distribution of joints

• Strength of intact rock (no joint) will remain high, and

direction of loading does not affect its strength. For a
single joint, the reduction will depend on direction of
loading, relative to the joint axis.

• When load is perpendicular to the joint, the rock

behaves like a n intact rock. However, the strength will
be reduced when load is applied at an angle to the
joint, but the range of this angle is small
(approximately equals to frictional angle of the rock
material). At other angles of loading the rock remains Effect of one joint on uniaxial
strong. compressive strength (UCS) of rock
Effect of spatial distribution of joints

• With two intersecting inclined joints, the range of angle

of loading which affects the strength becomes larger.
The rock is strong only at a limited range of angle of
loading.

Effect of two incline & intersecting joints

Effect of spatial distribution of joints

• As the number of inclined and intersecting joints

increases indefinitely, the strength remains
consistently low, irrespective of loading direction.
Under this situation, the rock properties approach that
of soils and strength criterion are governed by soil
mechanics principles.

• The effect of spatial distribution and number of joints

on rock mass strength must be considered in any rock
engineering projects associated with rock mass; slope,
Effect of large number of joints – in a
tunnel & foundation. highly fractured rock the strength may
approach that of soil
Besides strength, joints (RQD values) affect other
properties of rock mass, e.g. load bearing capacity,
ultimate skin friction, modulus of deformation etc. RQD = {(Σ Xi ) / (total length of core, L)} x 100%.

Xi = core length ≥ 100 mm

RQD value on its own, cannot reflect the actual rock
L = length of core recovered (1.5m if barrel is full)
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.
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)
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
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 (provided by

the BH) enables for other relevant in situ tests
to be conducted on the bedrock, giving a more
reliable data e.g. Pressuremeter test (PMT) to
determine in situ Em & P-S logging to
determine Em & in situ u.
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
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
underestimated thus, a higher FOS is imposed on the design of the pile (increase in cost).
Static load test on instrumented pile
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.
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)
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.
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 & Idealized displacement behavior of
intact compressive strength (quc) of rock on the socket wall. rock-socketed pile.

Shear behavior of concrete–rock interface: (a) bonded elastic deformation period; (b) dilation period; and
(c) residual friction period
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.
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.

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

1) 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)

2) 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).
 Design of load bearing capability of bored pileis classified
into 4 types (Gunnink & Keinhne, 2002):
3) 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.

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).
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
 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.

 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

Correlation between RQD & allowable shear
resistance (kPa) at socket wall
Rock socket calculation – current practice
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 = a ´ b ´ quc

quc is the unconfined compressive strength of intact rock

a is rock socket reduction factor
b is rock socket correction factor

a & b are estimated from graphs (Tomlinson 2001)

Use lower range curve
(Rosenberg & Journeaux) to
obtain value of a. This is

Based on quc = 10 MPa & by

plotting, a = 0.1

Rock Socket Reduction Factor, α, w.r.t. Unconfined Compressive

Strength (after Tomlinson, 1995)
b 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 b: RQD = 60%, by

interpolation j = 0.3 (see table in
graph).

Using j = 0.3 and the curve for b,

b = 0.72.

(Note: j can be estimated better using

measured values of Ei & Em rather Rock Socket Reduction Factor, β, w.r.t. Rock Mass Discontinuity
than RQD) (after Tomlinson, 1995)
Ultimate shear/skin friction, Fs = a ´ b ´ quc

Fs = 0.1 x 0.72 x 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.
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
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 x A (Q = 3000 kN)

where;
Fs = Allowable shear resistance
A = Surface area of pile socketed into rock
= p x D x L = (360 kPa) x 22/7 x 1.0 x L

3000 kN = 360 kPa x 3.142L m2

L = 3000/1131 m
L = 2.65 m

Take 3.0 m socket length to be safe

With socket length = 3.0 m, lets check the resulting Q:

Q = p x D x L = (360 kPa) x p x 1.0 m x 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
 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 instrumented piles Fs of known pile dimension & rock
conducted in rock of known RQD mass RQD (12-14%, 22-32%, 63%)

Field test: Data collected:

PMT in pre-drilled boreholes in rock Deformation modulus of rock mass
of known RQD of known RQD (0-25, 26-50, 51-75,
76-100 %)
Lab test:
Compression test on intact core samples Data collected:
Data collected: Intact UCS (quc) & E
In situ modulus Em of rock mass
(from PMT) which displays
different RQD value
Deformation
Range of RQD
modulus
(%)
• Modulus of rock mass (Em) (GPa)
increases with higher RQD
(stronger rock), but not linearly. 0-25 0.124

• Even Em for rock with higher RQD 26-50 0.795

is still much lower than avg. intact
modulus Ei obtained from lab (58 51-75 1.179
GPa)
76-100 1.245
• 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
 Range of Modulus E Poisson’s
In situ modulus Em obtained RQD (%) Value (GPa) Ratio u
from PS Logging in rock mass max 0.777 0.492
of different RQD 0-25
min 0.341 0.467

mean 0.558 0.480

Similar trend – Em increases max 2.403 0.489
with RQD, however the 26-50 0.370
min 0.689
value is lower than Em
obtained from PMT, at RQD mean 1.342 0.451

76-100% PMT = 1.245GPa & max 3.156 0.480

51-75
PS logging = 0.839GPa min 0.751 0.407

mean 1.595 0.449

max 1.109 0.484

76-100 0.463
min 0.584
mean 0.839 0.478
Value of ultimate Fs measured
from pile test and calculated
using empirical methods
a, rock socket b, rock socket
reduction factor correction factor Fs = a. b. quc Fs based
Static load RQD Max. Measured quc fromlab (Tomlinson 2001) (Tomlinson 2001) (Tomlinson on RQD
test on trial (%) load In situ Fs test (MPa) 2001) (Neoh
Pile (kN) (kN/m2) (kN/m2) 1998)
• For a given RQD, both TP 1 12.5 3067 1195.2 60.32 0.05 0.65 1960
(kN/m2)
600

empirical methods give (f = 300 mm,

socket 2.2 m) 14 3067 942.0 60.32 0.05 0.65 1960 600

different Fs value compared to TP 3

(f = 300 mm,
22
32
3312
3312
765.1
740.2
60.32
59.45
0.05
0.05
0.65
0.65
1960
1932
600
1200

measured Fs (pile test). socket 2.6 m)

TP 4
32
63
3312
3000
1202.5
390.3
59.45
63.88
0.05
0.05
0.65
0.75
1932
2396
1200
1200
Depending on RQD & (f = 300
mm, socket
63 3000 855.2 63.88 0.05 0.75 2396 1200

empirical method used, Fs is 1.3m)

either under- or over-

estimated….reliability of
empirical method?
 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
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
• 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
 CONCLUSION
• 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