FOUNDATIONS ON SHALE AND SANDSTONE - Pelts, Douglas, Radway, Thorne & McMahon

Design Loadings for Foundations on Shale and Sandstone in the

Sydney Region

P.J.N. Pells, D.J. Douglas, F.l.E. Aust., B. Rodway, M.l.E. Aust., C. Thorne, F.l.E. Aust., and
B.K. McMahon, M.l.E. Aust.*

SUMMARY This paper considers the design of vertically loaded, isolated foundations located on or socketed
into the sandstones and shales of the Sydney Basin. Inclined loading and loading near the edge of an
excavation are not considered. A classification scheme for the shales and sandstones is proposed coupled
with suggested allowable values for end bearing pressure and socket shear stress. These recommended
pressures and shear stresses are based on limiting displacements to 1% of the socket or footing diameter.

1 INTRODUCTION which applies throughout New South Wales with the

In May 1976 a sub-committee of the Sydney
Geomechanics group was formed to review the situ-
ation regarding the design of foundations on the
Sydney shales and sandstones. It was decided to
limit the investigation to the bearing capacity and
deformations of vertically loaded, isolated found-
ations that are located on, or socketed into.level
strata; interaction effects and the problems
associated with founding near the edge of an exist-
ing or proposed excavation were thus specifically
excluded. This work was prompted by various crit-
icisms of the existing New South Wales Ordinance
(Ordinance 70) that have been made from time to
time, and by the existence of numerous cases where
substantially higher stresses than those tabled in
the Ordinance have been successfully carried, both
by the Sydney rocks and also by similar or poorer
quality rocks elsewhere.
This paper gives the results of the investigation
and traces the sequence_ of study as follows:
(i) Existing legal requirements and design
methods
(ii) Theoretical studies and laboratory data
related to the bearing capacity of rock
(iii) Field tests on individual foundations on
rock.
Based on these studies the paper culminates with
guidelines for those designers, who, in accordance
with the "let-out" clause in the existing
Ordinance, wish to design for higher foundation
pressures, where these can be justified following
an appropriate site investigation.
exception of a few remote areas. Commonwealth and
State Government Departments are not bound by the
rules but the policy of these Departments is to
endeavour to conform to them unless there ;are
special reasons which justify departures./
Specific criticisms of the Ordinance incluJ~:
(a) It does not acknowledge the dependerice;of
foundation behaviour on footing width ·
(b) The descriptive terms for the different rock
types (e.g. soft shale, weathered rock,
medium sandstone) are not defined
(c) All "defects" in a rock mass are treated
alike, there being no concept of a graded
significance to differentiate between say
a strong shale layer in sandstone and a soft
clay seam
(d) No consideration is given to socket shear.
However, it is clear that for structures whose
foundation costs do not merit special design
consideration, the Ordinance, in essentially its
present form, provides a convenient and conservative
approach, particularly where its provisions are
applied with reasonableness and judgement. Hence
this paper is directed primarily to situations in
which significant financial savings can be made by
increasing the foundation stresses above those
given in the Ordinance 70 table. Ordinance 70 has,
since 1974, made provision for the acceptance of
higher foundation stresses through clause 32.3(i).

2 EXISTING LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AND DESIGN 2.2 Existing Design Methods

ME1HODS
A questionnaire circulated to engineering firms and
2.1 Ordinance Regulations organisations produced the following generalised
picture of the existing design of foundations on
The legal document relevant to foundation loadings Sydney shales and sandstones.
is Ordinance No.70 - Building, a Local Government
ordinance which came into force in July 1974 and Practically all foundation desig~ers recognize
Ordinance 70 as the operative guideline and approx-
* Mr.Pells is a Lecturer in Civil Engg, University of imately 80% "usually" adopt the allowable bearing
Sydney; Mr.Douglas is Managing Director of Ground pressures listed in the Ordinance. Some 30% of
Test Pty.Ltd. Sydney; Mr.Radway is Chief Engineer those surveyed never use design values in excess of
with Dept. of Construction, Sydney; Mr.Thorne is a the Ordinance table even when obviously strong rock
partner in Coffey &Partners, Sydney and Dr. is available but about 15% "frequently" use higher
McMahon is a partner of McMahon, Burgess and values; foundations on uniform Ashfield shale, for
Yeates, Sydney. (Paper S1015, submitted 12 May example, have been designed on the basis of 2000
1978). and 3000 kilopascals on a number of occasions and

Australian Geomechanics Journal, 1978 31

 FOUNDATIONS ON SHALE' AND SANDSTONE~ Pelts, Douglas, Radway, Thorne & McMahon

5000 kilopascals in one instance despite the
Ordinance limit of 960 kPa.
Most designers take into account load carried in
shear on the sides of bored piers but few consider
that such potenrial support should be depended upon
when designing pad foundations. Of those using
"socket design", most regard the socket support as
additional to end bearing capacity rather than in
place of it.
A wide range of socket design stresses is used but
there is considerable inconsistency from designer
to designer and the values are infrequently sub-
stantiated; they range from SO kPa up to 1400 kPa.
Values are usually selected on the basis of rock
type and quality but are sometimes expressed as a
percentage of the allowable end bearing pressure.
For example one designer uses 400 kPa for shale and
700 kPa for sandstone while another uses 25% - 35%
of the allowable end bearing pressure in the case
of shale and 35% - 65% of the end bearing pressure
for sandstone. The Council of the City of Sydney
has approved socket stresses as high as 25% of the
stress taken in end bearing; Some full-scale pile
load tests have also been used to determine design
shear stresses.
One other theoretical aspect that needs consider-
ation is the use of elastic theory to evaluate the
load distribution in rock sockets and also to pre-
dict settlement. Figure 1 gives curves from
elastic theory (Pells and Turner, 1978b) that
enable the determination of the proportion of load
that reaches the base of a socket. Alternatively
these curves can be used to determine when a part-
icular socket design implies possible slip down the
socket side with a redistribution of load into end
bearing. Figure 2 gives curves for the elastic
settlement of a rock socketed pile assuming the rock
to be homogeneous, isotropic and infinitely deep.
The use of these elastic solutions is illustrated
in the worked example at the end of this paper.
4 FIELD DATA
Theoretical methods are of relevance to certain
field situations but in general data on the effects
of jointing and layering on displacement can only
be obtained from field tests conducted on prototype
foundations. These field tests also provide the
60

50

3 1HEORETICAL AND MODEL STUDIES

...
0
40
The review of theoretical and model studies related lL

to load bearing on rock is given elsewhere by Pells

and Turner (1978a) and only the main conclusions
"': 0
30 K = Epfle
.0
lL Erock
are given here. These are:
20
(i) the ultimate bearing capacity of intact
sandstone and good quality shale, for surface 10
loading, is between 6 and 10 times the uni-
axial strength.
0
0 2 3 4 5 7 8
(ii) the ultimate bearing capacity increases L/a
significantly with embedment in the rock. Figure 1 Elastic load distribution in a
Rock Socket
(iii) tight, closely spaced, continuous joints are
unlikely to reduce the bearing capacity to
less than 50% of the value for intact rock.

(iv) the load-penetration curve for bearing on

intact sandstone or shale exhibits a large
"plastic" component and displacements in
excess of 10% of the footing diameter are
required to develop ultimate bearing capacity. 2·0

(v) In model tests the shape of the load-pene-

tration curve, up to a penetration of at
least 8% of the footing diameter, is indep- (
endent of embedment. This is contrary to
elastic theory and is probably due to local- 0·8
ised failure occurring very early. 0·7
0·6
(vi) At working load there may be some fracturing
Ip 0·5
in the rock mass beneath a foundation. This
is considered quite acceptable and is compar- 0·4
able with the localised yield zones that
exist in slopes with factors of safety less 0·3
than about 1. 7 and beneath foundations on
plastic clay.

These conclusions indicate that although the bear-

ing capacity of sandstone or shale may be signif-
icantly greater than the uniaxial strength of the
rock substance, the allowable loadings for most
foundations may best be determined from consider-
ation of allowable structural displacements. It L/a
is suggested that typically a settlement of 1% of Figure 2 Elastic settlement influence
the footing diameter would be acceptable. factors for a rock socket

32 Australian Geomechanics journal, 1978

 FOUNDATIONS ON SHALE AND SANDSTONE - Pelis, Douglas, Radway, Thome & McMahon

only significant source of data regarding the dev-
elopment of shear resistance on the sides of rock
sockets.
Some 30 field tests have been examined even though
a few of these relate to rock quite different from
that found in the Sydney basin. The tests have
been divided into two groups, namely those related
primarily to end bearing (summarised in Table I)
and those related to socket shear (summarised in
Table II). Where tests conducted on complete
sockets were such that virtually all the load was
taken in end bearing the tests are included in
Table I and vice-versa in Table II. Some tests of
this nature could not be used as the load was even-
ly distributed between shear and end bearing.
Very few of the end bearing tests have been taken
to failure. However, it is clear that the field
tests support the laboratory model tests in that
large displacements (greater than 10% of the foot-
ing diameter) were required to develop maximum
bearing capacity. In addition embedment does not
affect the shape of the normalised load-displace-
ment curves until the displacements become very
large (Williams, 1977).
Making the assumption that allowable displacements
are typically 1% or 2% of the footing diameter then
it is possible, from the field tests summarised in
Table I, to abstract the bearing pressures at these
two percentage displacement values. These values
have been used to develop the design tables in the
final section of this paper and are discussed in
more detail at that stage.
Figure 3 shows the average shear stress versus
displacement curves obtained in the various socket
shear tests summarised in Table II. It is import-
ant to note that none of the tests have shown
brittle behaviour and the peak shear resistance is
sustained even up to large displacements.
Again these test data have been used in developing
the design tables and are referred to again later.
5 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Design Philosophy
The basic philosophy that has been adopted here is
that the allowable loadings of rock foundations are
limited by an allowable settlement of 1% of the
footing width or diameter and not by applying some
load factor to the peak side shear or end bearing
capacity. Of course, by choosing a suitable load
factor one can effectively limit displacements but
when the maximum bearing capacity is very difficult
to determine this latter approach is less satisfact-
ory. Typically one would require a load factor on
end bearing in excess of 4.0.
Design tables have thus been prepared with suggested
parameters for footings, piles and piers supported
on rock in the Sydney area. A value of 1 MPa for
the unconfined strength of the material is taken as
the boundary between soil and rock. Foundations on
materials with a lower strength than 1 MPa are best
dealt with using Soil Mechanics principles.

TABLE I

TESTS OF END BEARING ON ROCK

Uniaxial Loaded Depth of

.
No. Material Fracturing Loading below Location Reference
Strength Diameter Surface
MPa
""
l Weathered Highly Highly fractured 760 9 Melbourne Ervin (1976)
~dstone Variable frequent c 1ay (Aust.)
seams
> 2MPa 40 - 120 fract/m

2 Shale No intact Fra!JDented 915 6.3 United Kingdt11 Thorburn (1966)

core
3 Argill ite 18 Fractured 300 Surface Brisbane
(Weathered) (Aust.) Bunnan and
3a Argillite No intact Fragmented 450 Surface Gladstone H._tt (1975)
(Highly Weathered) core (Aust.)
4 Sandstone and 4 - 10 RQO 1060 8 Coventry (U. K.) Cole and Stroud
Siltstone • 301 (1976)

5 Mica schist and 15 - 20 RQO 1000 Surface Jo 1 8urg Pells (1975)

gneiss (weathered) (gneiss) 0 - 251 (Sth. Africa)

6 Shale 21 - 51 Fractured ( spac- 450 6.5 WestMead Thorne ( 1976)

(fresh) x = 34 in9 20 - 100 .. ) (Aust.)

7 Clays tone 1 Est. RQO 670 6 Port Elizabeth Wilson (1976)

> 75% (Sth. Africa)

8 Shale 30 RQO 400 4 Redfern Ground Test (1976)

(fresh) 901 (Aust.)
9 Tuff and 1 - 15 Very widely 500 Surface Napoli (ltaly) Pellegrino (1974)
talcarenites Mean 4 spaced fracture$

10 Hawkes bury 20 - 33 Intact 25 - 150 Surface Sydney Uni.

sandstone (fresh) Pells and Turner
25 Surface Sydney Uni.
(1978)
11 Ashfield 8 Intact
Shale (freMI) Nonnal to (Laboratory)
Bedding
12 Shaley slate Badly sheared, 500 Surface Newfoundland Vogan (1977)
some open
fractures

13 Sandstone and O.B RQO 500 14 Auckland Moss (1971)

Siltstones > 90S (N.Z.)

14 Clay Shale 1.4 Est. RQO 750 7 - 8 Montopolis Aurora and

> 75% (U.S.A.) Reese (1977)

14a Clay Shale 0.6 Est. RQD 890 7 Dallas (U.S.A.)

> 75S

15 Muds tone 0.6 Fractured Various Embedment Melbourne Willia111s (1977)

Ratio l/D D-16 (Aust.)

Australian Geomechanics journal, 1978 33

 FOUNDATIONS ON SHALE AND SANDSTONE - Fells, Douglas, Radway, Thorne & McMahon

TABLE II

IN SITU TESTS OF SOCKET SHEAR

No. Material Un1axial Socket Socket Depth below

Strength Fracturing Location Reference
Diameter Length rock surface
MPa m
"" ~

I Sandstone 30 Intact 267 .58 & .97 Surface Sydney (Aust.) MacKenzie
(1969)
2 Clay Shale 0.6 - 1.4 Not known 740 to 1.35 to 1.52 O to 0.5 Dallas & Montopolis Aurora & Reese
960 (U.S.A.) (1977)
3 Shale (fresh) 30 RQO = 90% 400 1.0 2.9 Redfern Ground Test
Horiz. bedding (Aust.) (1976)
4 Muds tone Highly Highly fractured 1092 1.52 Melbourne Ervin (1976)
Variable frequent c 1ay (Aust.)
> 2MPa seams

5 Andesite 10 Fractured and 457 .56 0 canada

sheared, soft
chlorite on Rosenberg and
surfaces Journeaux
(1976)
6 Shale 21 Spacing 75-150 n111 203 .91 0 Canada
Horiz. bedding
7 Shale/Slate No core Highly fractured 2743 .64 to 1.39 0 Come-by-Chance
obtainable near vertical (Canada) Vogan (1977a,
uncemented 1977b)
fractures
Also
8 Sandstone with 12-24 for Hori zonta 1ly 245 • 64 to .97 O to .5 Lennox Isl . Gibson and
Claystone layers best rock bedded (Canada) Devenny (1973)
(coreable)

9 Shale 48 - 100 Slightly fract- 480 2.1 0 Ottawa ( canada) Seychuk (1970)
ured, calcite Vogan (1977b)
stringers
10 Shaley siltstone Moderately fract- 711 3.35 1.83 Perth (Aust.) Soilmech
and clay shale ured with hi 9h ly (1972)
fractured zones

II Shale 21 - 51 Fractured (spac- 450 and 0,7 and 1.3 0 Westmead - Coffey &
(mean 34) ing 20 - 100 nm) 900 Sydney (Aust.) Partners (1975)

12 Shale No core Fragmented • 914 3.35 0 U.K. Thorburn (1966)

obtainable

13 Sandstone and Highly fractured 508 2.59 0 California Moore (1964)

Shale (U.S.A.)

14 Shale Approx. Massive but with 609 6.0 2 Nova Scotia Matich and
I MPa weathered zones (Canada) Kozicki (1967)

be only slightly fractured and have not more than 3%

defects for the zone in question. If lower than
minimum strength or greater defects are observed,
6 then the rock would be graded at a lower level.

5.2.2 Unconfined compression strength

Noter: ! Numbers refer to rows
in Table II
It is important to ensure that the measured value
relates to the soaked or saturated condition. In
sandstones, saturation is readily achieved by soak-
,, ing prior to testing. Shales may be subject to
significant weathering or breakdown when soaked in
free water and the only really successful procedure
is to test core samples shortly after extraction
with in-situ moisture content being maintained by
appropriate sealing.
9
It is not envisaged that testing of core sample
should be an essential prerequisite in all cases:
Figure 3 Field tests on shear sockets the field guide or the use of point load tests will
often, in the hands of experienced engineers, be
5.2 Design Tables completely adequate for reliable classification and
selection of design values.
The values are given in Tables III and IV and indic-
ate significantly increased design values by com- 5.2.3 Fracturing
parison with Ordinance 70 values, in conditions
where reliable site data indicate this to be app- The concept of degree of fracturing has been used as
ropriate. an index for rock quality, and the terms which
relate to diamond drill cores and the spacing of
The design tables should be read in conjunction natural fractures have the following definitions.
with the following comments and explanations.
Fragmented the core is comprised primarily of
5.2.1 Class nwnber lengths less than 20 mm and mostly
of widths less than the core diameter.
As shown in Tables III and IV a numerical classif-
ication system has been adopted to provide ease of Highly fractured core lengths are generally less
reference, e.g. Class I sandstone, Class III shale. than 20 - 40 mm, with occasional
Thus, for example, a Class II sandstone should have fragments.
a minimum unconfined compression strength of 12 MPa,

34 Australian Geomechanics Journal, 1978

 FOUNDATIONS ON SHALE AND SANDSTONE - Pelis, Douglas, Radway, Thome & McMahon

TABLE III
DESIGN VALUES FOR FOUNDATIONS ON SHALE

General Description Unconfined End Efield Typical Suggested Mfnilfllll1

Allowable Shaft
Class
& Field Guide
Compression
Strength
q •
u
MP a
.
Fracturing
.
Defects
.
Bearing
Pressure
.
Adhesion Eco re Efield
MPa
Investigation or
Proving Techniques

I Strong shale - core > !6 Slightly to 2% Max. 8 MPa 0.05 f'c 0.9 > 2000 Comprehensive site invest-
sections can only be fractured igation sufficient to define
slightly scratched seams & 1ayers of rock -
with steel knife. cored boreholes on a mininun
I 0 metre grid spac f ng OR
cored ho 1es at not 1ess than
5~ of footings. Jackhanmer
holes and spoon testing at
the remainder.

II Medium to strong 7 - 16 Fractured 4% 3.5 MPa OR 350 kPa OR 0.7 700 - Site investigation to
shale - core sections 0.5 qu 0.05 qu 2000 include at least 4 cored
can be scored with boreho 1es with jackhanmer
steel knife. Max. 6 MPa Max. 800 hole• and spoon testing or
kPa cores in at least sen; of
footings.

III Medium strong shale - 2 - 7 Fractured to 8% l MPa OR 150 kPa OR 0.5 200 -
core sections can be highly fractured 0.5 qu 0.05 qu 1200
deeply scored with a
steel knife. Max. 3.5 Max. 350
MPa kPa Engineers site
inspection to
IV Weak shale - core Not nonnally Highly fractured 25% 1.0 MPa 150 t kPa 0.4 100 - include at least
sections can be heav- measurable or fragmented 500 2 cored boreho 1es
ily scored or cut
with steel knife -
alternatively inter-
bedded medium strong
and very weak shale.

v Mainly shaley clay -

hard clay with thin
Not nonnally
measurable
Highly fractured
or fragmented
- 0.7 MPa 50 - t
100 kPa
- 50 -
300
Engineer's site inspection.
zones of weak sha 1es.

* See text for definitions and explanations

t Values may have to be reduced because of smear

TABLE IV
DESIGN VALUES FOR FOUNDATIONS ON SANDSTONE

Saturated End Typical Suggested Minimtn

Class General Description Unconfined Allowable Shaft Efield Investigation or
Fracturing Bearing
& Field Guide Compression
Strength
qu
MPa
. .
Defects
.
Pressure
.
Adhesion Ecore Efield

MP a
Prov 1ng Techniques

I Strong sandstone, > 24 Slightly fractur- 1.5% Max. 12 MPa 0.05 f' c 0.9 > 2000
core sections of 50 inn ed or unbroken
dia. cannot be broken Comprehensive s 1te
by hand and can be investfgatfon sufficient
only slightly scratch- to define seams & layers
ed with a steel knife. of rock - cored boreholes
at not greater than 10
metre grid spacing, OR
II Medium to strong 12 - 24 Slightly 3% 6 MPa OR 600 kPa OR o. 7 900 cored holes at not less
sandstone - core fractured 0.5 qu the lesser -3000 than 50% of footings with
sections can be broken Max. 10 MPa of jackhanwner holes and
by hand with diff- 0.05 f' c OR spoon testing at the
1culty and lightly 0.05 qu remainder.
scored with a steel Max. 1200
knife. kPa

Ill Medium strong sand- 7 - 12 Fractured 5% 3.5 MPa OR 350 kPa OR 0.5 350 Site investigation to
stone - core sections 0.5 qu 0.05 qu -1200 include at least 4 cored
can be broken easily Max. 6.0 boreho 1es with jackhanmer
Max. 600 holes and spoon testing, OR
by hand and readily
scored with a steel
MPa kPa cores in at least of t
knife. footings.

IV Weak sands tone - core 2 - 7 Fractured 10% 1 MPa OR 100 kPa OR 0.4 100
sections break easily 0.5 qu 0.05 qu - 700
and may be heavily Max. 3.5 Max. 350
scored or cut with MP a kPa Engineer's site
a steel knife. inspection with at
1east 2 cored
boreholes.
v Very weak sandstone - Not nonnally Highly fractured - 0.8 - 1.0 75 - 150 - 50
rock structure is measurable or fra!J11ented MP a kPa - 200
evident bl.l.t frequent
zones of sugary sand-
stone - crumbled by
hand.

* See text for definitions and explanations.

Australian Geomechanics Journal, 1978

35
 FOUNDATIONS ON SHALE AND SANDSTONE - Pelfs, Douglas, Radway, Thorne & McA
Fractured core lengths are mainly 30 - 100 mm,
with occasional shorter and longer
sections.
Slightly fractured core lengths are generally
300 - 1000 mm, with occasional longer
sections and occasional sections of
100 - 300 nun.
The rough correlation between these fracturing
definitions and RQD is indicated in Figure 4.
5.2.4 Allowable defects
Defects, in this context, are defined as clay seams,
fragmented zones or highly weathered joints and the
tolerances suggested in the tables relate to a
defined zone of influence. For pad footings, the
zone_ of influence is defined as 1.5 times the least
footing dimension. For socketed footings, the zone
includes the length of the socket plus a further
depth equal to the width of the footing.
In classifying the rock the total thickness of
defects is computed by ·doubling the thickness of
clay seams and adding the thickness -of the remain-
ing defects. For example, when considering a foot-
ing of 2 metres width, twice the total thickness of
clay seams added to any highly weathered or frag-
mented zones over a depth of 3 metres below the
footing should not exceed 150 nun for Class III
sandstone.
5.3 Interpretation of the Design Tables
Allowable values for end bearing pressure and side
adhesion are defined in terms of uniaxial compress-
ive strength. However, the important point is that
should a rock mass be classified in a lower class,
because of fracturing or defects, than indicated by
its substance strength then the allowable pressures
and shear stresses are limited by the maximum uni-
axial strength of that class. The actual substance
strength is not used in such a case.
5.3.1 End bearing pressure
The suggested values here are a minimum for each
class, with a potential for higher values if
strengths are known. Thus, for Class II sandstone
classified by the field guide, a design bearing
pressure of 6 MPa is suggested. Alternatively, if
test data are available which indicate an unconfin-
ed compression strength of 15 MPa, a design bearing
pressure of 7.5 MPa would be appropriate. However,
the maximum allowable value for this class would be
10 MPa even if the measured uniaxial strength was,
for example, 30 MPa.
5.3.2 Shaft adhesion
The recommended values here relate to shaft adhes-
ion where load is transferred in a rock socket. It
is emphasised that shaft adhesion will to some ex-
tent be dependent on construction procedures,
especially since the weaker shales will tend to
weather very quickly after excavation with conse-
quent reduction in shaft adhesion. Where augering
is carried out in weaker materials there is often
a skin of remoulded material left on the walls of
the bore and this will need to be removed if full
adhesion values are to be relied on. A reduction
may be required in the case where concreting is
carried out under bentonite or where there is some
uncertainity as to the cleaning of the socket.
The design values in the table relate to compress-
ive load conditions and where a rock socket is used
36
to resist uplift or tensile load, a reduction of
1/2 is suggested. This is simply to allow a greater
factor of safety because there is no back up from
end bearing.
5.3.3 Modulus values
Suggested elastic modulus values have been included
in the table together with a bulk modulus/core mod-
ulus value for use where core modulus values are
known. Information relating to modulus values is
very limited and the suggested values are accordi~g­
ly pitched at a conservative level (i.e. they will
tend to over-predict deflections). They are includ-
ed to allow an estimate of elastic settlement and
also of the ratio of pile modulus to rock modulus
required in the elastic design method discussed at
the end of this paper.
5.3.4 Investigation techniques
Suggested minimum investigation or proving techni-
ques are included, based on the principle that, as
design bearing pressures are increased, increased
levels of site investigation and proving techniques
are necessary.
5.3.5 General
It is emphasised that the suggested design rules are
intended as a general guide, to be interpreted with
engineering judgement and a modicum of common sense.
Obviously, site conditions will need to be checked
at the time of construction but minor anomalies if
they occur should be considered on the basis of
engineering performance rather than on strict appli-
cation of the design rules. Thus, where seams or
defects are encountered unexpectedly, such factors
as total foundation load, tolerable footing settle-
ment, size of footing, nature of the defect and
depth below the footing will need to be considered
before a decision is made to change the design or to
significantly deepen the footings so as to comply
exactly with the design criteria suggested.
5.4 Justification of Design Values
The design values given in Tables III and IV are
justified in terms of the field tests discussed
earlier. In the case of end bearing, Figure 4 shows
the ratio between actual meaiured bearing pressures,
at displacements of 1% and 2%, and allowable values
from the design tables plotted against the degree of
fracturing. To derive this figure all the cases
given in Table I were classified according to the
system proposed here and design values selected.
It can be seen that in no case would the design
value have been greater than the measured value at
a displacement of 1%. The same process has been
followed for side shear. Table V shows the way the
different field cases were classified and also shows
the ratio between the measured and allowable shear
stress values at displacement ratios of 1% and 2%.
It can be seen that in some cases the values pro-
posed in the design tables are very conservative.
5.5 Use of the Suggested End Bearing and Socket
Shear Values in Design
Once the allowable values for end bearing and socket
shear have been determined there are two approaches
that may be adopted in designing a socketed found-
ation.
(i) Method 1
This approach is based on mobilizing the full
allowable end bearing pressure. The balance
Australian Geomechanics Journal, 1978
 FOUNDATIONS ON SHALE AND SANDSTONE - Pelts, Douglas, Radway, Thorne & McMahon

.
.2
g
TABLE V

COMPARISON BETWEEN ALLOWABLE AND MEASURED SOCKET

SHEAR STRESS
Allowable I' Ratio Mea:sured I'
Case No.
(See Table II)
Table Used for
Classification
Class I Shear
~~~~~:e~ ts~;~: I ~~e~; l ~~~~~~ i
Stress
! MPa I <1t 6/0*

MPa 1% 2%
" I "
Sandstone 1.5 4.5 I s.4 3.1 I 3.6
I
I Numbtirs ria:fg:r to TABLE I
iI Mciasurcid bciaring prossur12 at Shale 0.1 0.27 I 0.28 2.7 2.s I
I
" • 6/o. ,.,.
~
0
o 6/ 0 • 2•1. Shale 1.5 >2.8 >2.8 >l.9 >1.9

~ 0 ., o~~-=20=---"°-:-::-~----::s~o~~-=ao=----:'.100 Shale 0.1 >. 77 >. 77 >7.7 >7.7

Rock Quality Dasignation (ROD) •1.
Sandstone Ill 0.5 1.03 1.12 2.1 2.2
Highly Slightly
Fracturr.rd Fracturad
Fractur11d
Shale II 0.3 1.43 1.76 1.8 2.2
Frogmanttid
Shale IV 0.15 >1.5 >1.5 >10.0 >10.0

Figure 4 Field data on end bearing compared Sandstone Ill 0.6 0.5 0.65 0.8 1.1
with suggested allowable values
Shale l.5 >3.0 >3.0 >2.0 >2.0

of the applied load, if any, is carried out 10 Shale IV 0.15 0.27 0.52 1.8 3.5
on the socket sides assuming full mobiliz-
ation of the allowable socket shear. No II Shale IV 1.5 1.63 2.1 I.l I.4

attempt is made to satisfy the elastic load lib Shale 1.5 >I.5 >1.5 >1.0 >1.0
distribution and it will be found that the
proportion of the applied load required to be 12 Shale IV 0.10 0.10 0.20 1.0 2.0

carried in end bearing is much greater than

the proportion that, according to elastic
13 I Sandstone IV 0.20 0.54 0.82 2.7 4.l

theory, would reach the base. This implies 14 Shale Ill 0.15 0.16 o.25 I l.l 1.7
that, if in the field the actual socket shear
available is no greater than the allowable * D Diameter of pier 6 Vertical settlement
value, slip will occur with load being redis-
tributed into end bearing until the end bear- trate the design process proposed in this paper.
ing pressure reaches the design value. Dis-
placement of the foundation would be greater The site is taken to consist of about 10 m of silty
than indicated by elastic theory but would be clay overlying fractured but relatively fresh sand-
limited to less than 1% of the socket dia- stone. The sandstone has an average Point Load
meter because this is the criterion upon Index of 1. O MPa indicating an unconfined compress-
which the allowable end bearing pressures are ive strength in excess of 20 MPa. Within the top 4
based. metres of sandstone are clay seams with a combined
thickness of 150 mm plus highly weathered layers of
In reality, with the base displacement limit- sandstone of 110 mm combined thickness.
ed to 1%, Table V shows that in the majority
of cases the mobilized socket shear will be Piers are required to carry 4 MN.
greater than the allowable design value.
Hence slip may well not occur or may be lim- 6.1 Classification
ited to the upper portion of a long socket
where the actual shear stresses are the The percentage "defects" in this case is estimated
greatest. by doubling the thickness of the clay seams before
adding the thickness of highly weathered layers.
(ii) Method 2 Initially the zone of influence is not known and so
one may simply consider the percentage of "defects"
This approach is based essentially on satis- over the upper 4 metres of sandstone. This is
fying elastic load distribution. For a given
pier diameter the length of socket is deter- (300 + 110) x 100 10% (Approx.)
mined compatible both with full mobilization 4000
of the allowable socket shear and elastic Thus in spite of the reasonably high strength of
load distribution. This approach does not the sandstone a classification into Class IV is in-
allow for the possibility of side slip and dicated according to Table IV. Hence the allowable
always results in a longer socket and a lower foundation loadings are:
mobilization of end bearing pressure than
yielded by the first method. Displacements end bearing 3.5 MPa
can be determined directly from the elastic
solutions given in Figure 2 and will be less side shear O. 35 MPa
than obtained using the first approach.
6. 2 Design of Sockets
In considering these two methods the present
authors consider that the first approach is quite Method 1
satisfactory for the majority of cases. Only where
very strict limitations are placed on allowable Adopting a pier diameter of 0. 75 metres one
settlement is it necessary to adopt the more has
conservative second method.
load taken in end bearing ic .75 J 2 x 3.5
6 WORKED EXAMPLE
The purpose of this "mythical" example is to illus- 1.55 MN.

Australian Geomechanics Journal, 1978 37

 FOUNDATIONS ON SHALE AND SANDSTONE - Pelts, Douglas, Radway, Thorne & McMahon
length of socket required
say
This design requires that 39% of the applied
load be taken in end bearing. However,
according to elastic theory for a socket of
these dimensions (assuming K = 10) only about
10% of-the load would reach the base of the
socket. Thus if the mobilized socket shear
were really no greater than 0,35 MPa, side
slip would occur with load being transferred
to the base.
The displacement at the top of the socket
would be less than 1% of the. diameter, i.e.
less than 7.5 mm.
Method 2
The first step is to calculate, for differ-
ent assumed pier diameters, the length of
socket required if all load were taken in
side shear. For a 1.0 metre diameter pier
this length is
4 ing near an excavation have not been considered.
3.64 metres
nxl. OxO. 35
i.e. L/ 7.3
a
With such values one can then superimpose
straight lines on the relevant elastic dist-
ribution curve taken from Figure 1. This is
shown in Figure 5 where a value of K (ratio
of pile modulus to rock modulus) of 10 has
been assumed. The intersection points re-
present the values of L/a, for each assumed
pile diameter, that satisfy both elastic load
distribution and the allowable value of side
shear. The required socket lengths and end
bearing pressures can then be calculated as
shown below.
Pier Socket Mobilized End
Diameter Length
m m
0. 75 4.6
1.0 3.3
1. 25 2.5
1.50 1.6
It is readily seen that this design approach
results in a longer socket than the first
method.
Settlements can be calculated using Figure 2.
For example if the 1.25 metre diameter pier
were adopted the "settlement of the socket
would be estimated as (assuming Efield = 2 GPa):
p
4000
2000 x 0.625 x 0 • 21 mm
0.67 mm
38
4.0-1.55
100
TIX,75x. 35
2.97 metres
80
3.0 metres.
;. 60
LL
....
.......
0 40
LL.o
20 Ep
-=10
ER
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
L/a
Figure 5 Elastic design method for a rock socket
7 CONCLUSIONS
An investigation has been conducted into theoret-
ical studies, model studies and field tests related
to the design of isolated foundations located on
or socketed into rock. Inclined loading and load-
On the basis of this investigation it has been con-
cluded that design loadings greater than presently
allowed by N.S.W. Ordinance 70 may often be appro-
priate in the Sydney region. Allowable end bearing
and socket shear stresses are suggested for differ-
ent classes of sandstone and shale together with
guidelines as to appropriate site investigation
techniques necessary to justify these higher load-
ings. Two alternative design methods, for use with
the suggested allowable stresses, are discussed.
The full design process is illustrated by means of
a worked example.
8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
In compiling this paper much unpublished data on
Pressure rock foundation testing has been made available to
MP a the authors. In this regard particular thanks are
extended to Mess rs. Coffey and Partners, Ground
0.5 Test Pty. Ltd. and the Public Transport Commission
of N.S.W.
0.5
0.6
0.8 9 REFERENCES
AURORA, R.P. and REESE, L.C. (1977). Field tests
of drilled shafts in clay-shales. Proc. 9th Int.
Conf. Soil Mech., Tokyo, 2/2, pp.371-376.
BURMAN, B.C. and HAMMETT, R. (1975). Design of
foundations in jointed rock masses. 2nd Aust. N.Z.
Geomechanics Conf., Brisbane, July.
COFFEY and HOLLINGSWORTH PTY. LTD. (1975). ~West­
mead hospital project: Pile load testing. Report
No.5568/3 to Ove Arup & Partners, Sydney.
COLE, K.W. and STROUD, M.A. (1976). Rock socket
piles at Coventry Point, market way, Coventry.
Geotechnique, Vol.16, No.I, pp.47-62.
ERVIN, M. (1976). Yarra River pile tests,
Melbourne. Unpublished Report, Country Roads
Board, Victoria, Australia.
Australian Geomechanics Journal, 1978
 FOUNDATIONS ON SHALE AND SANDSTONE - Pells, Douglas, Radway, Thorne & McMahon
GIBSON, G.L. and DEVENNY, D.W. (1973). Concrete to
bedrock bond testing by jacking from bottom of a
borehole. Canadian Geot. Jnl., 10, pp.304-306.
GROUND TEST PTY. LIMITED (1976). Pile testing,
eastern suburbs railway - Redfern. Report to Pub.
Trans. Commission, N.S.W. Australia, July.
MACKENZIE, I.M. (1969). Foundation load tests on
Sydney sandstone. Rock Mech. Syrop. Univ. Sydney,
pp .132-134.
MATIQf, M.A. and KOZICKI, P. (1967). Some load
tests on drilled cast-in-place concrete caissons.
Canadian Geot. Jnl. Vol.4, pp.357-375.
MOORE, W.W. (1964). Foundation design. Civil
Engineering, ASCE, January, pp.33-35.
MOSS, J.D. (1971). A high capacity load test for
deep bored piles. Proc. 1st Aust.-N.Z. Conf.
Geomechanics, Melbourne, pp.261-267.
PECK, R.B. (1976). Rock foundations for struct-
ures. Rock Engineering for Foundations and Slopes.
Proc. ASCE Specially Conf., Boulder.
PELLEGRINO, A. (1974). Surface footings on soft
rocks. Proc. 3rd Congress, Int. Soc. Rock Mech.,
Denver, Vol.IIB, pp.733-738.
PELLS, P.J.N. and TURNER, R.M. (1978a). Theoret-
ical and model studies related to footings and
piles on rock. Univ. of Sydney Research Report
R314, March.
PELLS, P.J.N. and TURNER, R.M. (1978b). Elastic
solutions for the design and analysis of rock
socketed piles. Univ. of Sydney Research Report
R325, July.
PELLS, P.J.N. (1975). Predicted displacements of
the rock foundations of a major arch bridge. Proc.
Australian Geomechanics journal, 1978
6th Regional Conf. Africa Soil Mech. and Fdn. Eng.,
Durban.
ROSENBERG, P. and JOURNEAUX, N.L. (1976). Friction
and end bearing tests on bedrock for high capacity
socket design. Canadian Geot. Jnl., Vol.13, No.3,
pp.324-333.
SEYQfUK, J.L. (1970). Load tests on bedrock.
Canadian Geot. Jnlo, Vol.7, pp.464-470.
SOILMECH PTY. LTD. (1972). City centre stage II at
Perth, Western Australia. Report to Doust - Vibro-
pile, Perth, Australia.
THORBURN, S. (1966). Large diameter piles founded
on bedrock. Proc. Large Bored Piles Conf. Inst.
Civil Engineers, London, pp.121-129 and pp.152-153.
THORNE, C.P. (1976). Pile test on rock. Presented
to Inst. Engineers, Australia, Melbourne, February.
Unpublished Report, Coffey and Hollingsworth Pty.
Ltd., Sydney.
VOGAN, R.W. (1977a). Friction and end bearing
tests on bedrock for high capacity socket design.
Discussion. Canadian Geot. Jnl., Vol.14, No.I,
pp.156-158.
VOGAN, R.W. (1977b). Private Communication.
WEBB, D.L. (1977). Discussion: Session 2 - Rocks
other than chalk. Piles in weak rock. Inst. Civ.
Eng., London, pp.209-211.
WILLIAMSC, A.F. (1977). The design of piles socket-
ed into rock. The Design of Piled Foundations,
Extension Course, Australian Geomechanics Society,
Melbourne, pp.51-57.
WILSON, L.C. (1975). Tests on bored and driven
piles in cretaceous mudstone at Port Elizabeth,
South Africa. Geotechnique, Vol.16, pp.5-12.
39