Proceedings of the 14th Australia and New Zealand Conference on Geomechanics, Cairns 2023 (ANZ2023)

Laterally loaded rock socket design – A review of the P-y curve design approach

Sarath Somasundaram & Marco Rafanelli

AECOM, Australia, Sarath.somasundaram@aecom.com

ABSTRACT: While laterally loaded piles socketed into bedrock are common, designing them is still an evolving area of geotechnical
engineering. Pile testing for lateral loading is relatively uncommon for rock socketed piles and even when tests are carried out, often
they are terminated once the piles fail structurally; without establishing the ultimate geotechnical capacity of the bedrock. Secondary
structures in rock mass are often not explicitly considered in back-analysing test data to validate design approaches.
This paper briefly reviews available design methods for laterally loaded rock sockets and then discusses the P-y curve approach in
more detail. Limitations of widely used P-y curve models are discussed and an interim approach to using available P-y models
adaptively is presented. Validation of the proposed approach is presented via back analyses of laterally loaded pile tests available
from published literature and parametric studies using 3-Dimensional numerical analyses.

KEYWORDS: lateral loading, piles, rock sockets, p-y curves, secondary structures

1 INTRODUCTION continuum approaches provide a way to consider the effect of

secondary structures but have limitations in their applicability.
Laterally loaded rock sockets are often designed to support Methods that consider secondary structures explicitly are either
structures such as high-rise buildings, overhead wiring too complex (e.g., 3D numerical model) or too simplified (e.g.,
structures, sign structures, wind turbines, and bridge Hong Kong Geoguide Figure 54).
abutments. The design approaches could generally be
classified as: Table 1 presents common methods currently used for the
design of laterally loaded rock sockets.
• Continuum approach | Where the rock mass (or intact
2 THE P-Y CURVE APPROACH
rock) is considered as a homogeneous continuum (e.g.,
Poulos 1971, Carter et.al. 1992, Nyman 1978). For high- The P-y curve approach involves the discretization of a pile
strength rock, this approach may be unconservative into several segments and the modelling of lateral resistance
offered by each segment via an imaginary spring. The load (P)
(particularly if intact rock strength /stiffness is used) as
vs deflection (y) behaviour of each spring is defined by P-y
the effect of secondary structures (such as rock joints, curves assigned to each spring (see Figure 1 below for a
beddings, and weak seams) is not considered. graphical representation).
• Equivalent continuum approach | This approach considers
the presence of secondary structures but assumes that the
rock is adequately fractured such that the load-deflection
behaviour is governed by inter-block shear/rotation (i.e.
Hoek-Brown equivalent continuum, e.g., Zhang et. al.
2000, Liang 2009). However, the Hoek-Brown criterion
was originally developed for materials with intact UCS
(Unconfined Compressive Strength) > 15MPa and a GSI
(Geological Strength Index) between 30 and 75 (Brown.
E.T., 2008). As such, the Hoek-brown model may not be
reliable beyond these limits.
• Explicit consideration of parent rock and secondary
structures | This approach considers secondary structures
explicitly. However, this would require a complex 3-
dimensional numerical analysis (e.g., 3DEC) with
detailed knowledge of joint distribution, strength, and
orientation. This approach is often not practical for Figure 1. Graphical representation of the P-y curve approach (Reese,
1997)
routine designs and is often limited to academic research
(e.g., Chong et al. 2011). Alternatively, some analytical
approaches are available (e.g., Hong Kong Geoguide 1 Table 2 below presents P-y curve models available
Figure 54, To et.al. 2003, etc.); however, often a worst for the design of laterally loaded rock sockets in various
case, ubiquitous design wedge is conservatively assumed, commercial computer programs and their
applicability/limitations. Section 3 discusses salient features of
or their range of application is limited due to
widely used P-y curve models.
simplifications made.
In summary, the continuum approach could be
unconservative for bedrock that has significant secondary
structures (as in the case of most bedrock). Equivalent
 Proceedings of the 14th Australia and New Zealand Conference on Geomechanics, Cairns 2023 (ANZ2023)

Table 1. Summary of current design approaches

Continuum Assumption Failure Mode Description Illustration Analysis Options

Brittle failure Massive rock, initiating brittle

failure at shallow depths P-y curves (Nyman 1978, Abbs
1984, Fragio 1985)

Continuum (Intact Rock

Elasto-plastic Intact rock or rock mass is P-y curves (e.g., Reese Weak
/ Rock Mass)
ductile assumed to act as an elastoplastic Rock, 1997)
continuum similar to soil Elasto-plastic continuum
continua. analysis using Young’s Moduli
and ultimate yield pressures
(e.g. DEFPIG, Oasys ALP)

Multiple joint sets intersect a pile

and the material is approximated P-y curves (e.g., Liang 2009)
Inter-block
Equivalent Continuum shear as an equivalent continuum with Analytical solutions (e.g.,
strength governed by inter-block Zhang and Einstein 2000)
shear and rotation.

Pile intersected by a few joint sets Analytical methods (e.g., Hong

Wedge failure and resistance governed by the Kong Geoguide 1 Figure 54,
along defects strength of the joints To et. al. 2003)
Discontinuum
Programs that model defects
explicitly (e.g., 3DEC)

Table 2. P-y curve models available for laterally loaded rock socket design in commercial computer programs
P-y Curve Available in The guidance provided on Applicability

Weak Rock Model Pygmy, LPILE, RSPile, MPILE, UCS between 0.7 MPa and 3.5 MPa
Reese 1997 PileLAT, Oasys ALP

Massive Rock Model Pygmy, LPILE, RSPile, MPILE, No guidance is provided. However, the Hoek-Brown
Liang 2009 PileLAT, Oasys ALP approach was originally developed for UCSintact greater
than 15MPa and GSI range 30 to 75.

Vuggy Limestone Pygmy, LPILE, RSPile, MPILE, UCSintact between 6.9 MPa and 17.2 MPa
Nyman 1978 PileLAT, Oasys ALP

Abbs 1984 PileLAT Applicable for porous, carbonaceous rocks with brittle
behaviour at small strains and ductile behaviour at large
strains. UCS range between 0.5MPa to 5 MPa

Fragio et.al. Pygmy, PileLAT Brittle failure at shallow depths and ductile behaviour at
1985 deeper depths. UCS Range 9 MPa to 36 MPa. Uses rock
mass shear strength for assessments.

3 COMMONLY AVAILABLE P-Y CURVE MODELS FOR

ROCK AND THEIR LIMITATIONS
Issues observed in using commonly available P-y curve models
in everyday design situations are discussed in the subsections
below:
The following definitions are used in these discussions:
• UCSintact / UCSi or Eintact | Strength or modulus of intact
rock
• UCSmass or Emass | Strength or modulus of rock mass
Where historical test data records have not made a distinction
between UCSmass and UCSintact, the term UCS has been adopted
in this paper (e.g., weak rock models).
3.1 Weak rock model (Reese 1997)
This model is based on back-analyses of two tests (Speer 1992
& Nyman 1978) and the recommended range of applicability
is between Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) values of
0.7 MPa and 3.5 MPa.
Reese 1997 didn’t differentiate between “intact” and “mass”
strengths and described the rock strength as “…compressive
strength, usually lower bound…”.
Key input parameters are UCS, αr (a strength reduction
factor ranging between 1/3 and 1), and Emass.
The Reese 1997 P-y Curve consists of the following three
segments (Figure 2 ):
 Proceedings of the 14th Australia and New Zealand Conference on Geomechanics, Cairns 2023 (ANZ2023)

• A linear segment up to pile deflections y = yA resistance. Typically, ultimate lateral resistance for a
• A non-linear segment from y = yA to y = yrm x 16 given rock strength (UCS) would decrease with RQD.
• A constant resistance of Pur if y > yrm x 16 Therefore, Reese’s relationship is counter-intuitive and
may lead to inconsistent results. For instance, for a given
rock UCS, a rock with a lower RQD will yield more
lateral capacity than a rock with a higher RQD.
• Beyond the recommended strength range (i.e., Reese
originally recommended a strength range of 0.5MPa to
5MPa, and the recent LPILE Manual recommends a range
of 0.7MPa to 3.5MPa); Reese’s weak rock model
y =k b underpredicts pile deflections in many cases as noted by
rm rm
several authors (e.g., Gabr et.al. 2003, Cho et.al. 2001,
krm – constant ( 5e-4 to 5e-5) Yang 2006, Vu 2006). Back-analyses carried out for this
paper (e.g., See Figures 7, 10 & 11) also confirm that the
b - pile diameter
Weak rock model does underpredict the deflections in
several cases.
• Within the recommended range ( 0.7 MPa to 3.5MPa), the
results have been variable. Parametric studies were
carried out using the computer program Plaxis 3D, with
Figure 2. Graphical representation of P-y Curve for Weak Rock (Reese
1997) Mohr-coulomb elasto-plastic models to compare
defection profiles with the weak rock model (for UCS
Reese (1997) alluded to the limitations of this model values 1MPa, 3MPa & 5MPa). For a given rock strength
and referred to this model as an “interim model”. Given the
and stiffness, the results agree reasonably well with
continuing widespread use (or abuse) of this model, some key
limitations discussed by Reese are presented below: Reese’s weak rock model, provided appropriate krm
(Figure 2) values are selected ( See Figure 3 below).
• The model is supported by a limited number of full-scale However, there are other instances where the Weak rock
load tests ( namely two, Speer 1992 and Nyman 1978). In model provided a much stiffer response (e.g., Figures 6
our opinion, these two tests are “non-typical” compared & 9).
to most day-to-day pile designs. For instance, Speer 1992
was done on a 2.25m diameter pile, which may have
resisted the load partly via axial shear caused by the pile
rotation instead of pure bending ( Reese refers to M.W.
O’Neill, 1996 in postulating this as a possible
mechanism). As for Nyman 1978 test, it was done on
Limestone for which estimating mass modulus and mass
strength had been a challenge due to the presence of voids
(Vugs) in the Limestone.
• The model was calibrated using Initial tangent moduli
from pressuremeter tests. Reese (1997) alludes that the
initial modulus may have been underestimated due to the
scale effects (i.e., between the pressuremeter probe and
the 2.25m diameter pile.).
• Reese alludes to the fact that the slope of the initial portion
of the p-y curve (Kir in Figure 2) is “very stiff” compared
to available theories at that time. It is plausible that any
underestimation of modulus, as discussed in the bullet
point above, may have resulted in a high Kir value as data
from this test is principally used to define Kir.
In addition to issues highlighted by Reese, the following issues, Figure 3. Load Deflection Behaviour | Reese Weak Rock Model Vs
principally related to consistency in design, are also Elasto – Plastic (Plaxis 3D)
noteworthy:
• Using this model in combination with other P-y curve
• The Weak Rock model scales down the ultimate lateral
models (for rock) in a project may lead to inconsistent
resistance (Pur) of the rock by applying a strength
design outcomes. For instance, as shown in Figure 4
reduction factor (αr) based on RQD (i.e., αr = 1, if RQD
below, the Weak Rock model for poor-quality Sandstone
is zero and αr =1/3, if RQD is 100). Reese postulates that
(Class V, as per Pells, 1998) provides a stiffer response
when RQD is zero, no further strength reduction is
possible as the rock is already fractured; and when RQD
is high, a reduction factor is warranted due to the
possibility of initial brittle fractures reducing the available
 Proceedings of the 14th Australia and New Zealand Conference on Geomechanics, Cairns 2023 (ANZ2023)
than what Massive Rock model (see Section 3.3)
provides for high-quality (Class II) Sandstone.
Figure 4. Comparing load-deflection behaviour in Weak Rock Model
(Class V Sandstone) and Massive Rock Model ( Class I Sandstone &
Class II Sandstone)
The following approach is suggested in using the weak
rock model:
• Only use when the approach suggested in Section 6
provides unacceptably conservative results.
• Review consistency in pile lengths and deflections, if the
Weak rock model is used in combination with other P-y
curve rock models in a project.
• Only use this model in the UCSintact range of 0.6MPa to 2
MPa. This is based on our back-analyses and parametric
studies.
• Select an appropriate krm value. There is limited guidance
on this from Reese 1997, except that this value shall be
within 0.0005 and 0.00005. Where laboratory
compression tests are available, this value could be taken
as strain at 0.5 x the ultimate load. Where laboratory tests
are not available, as a minimum, adopt a value
proportional to the UCS strength (i.e., assuming that a krm
range of 0.0005 to 0.00005 corresponds to a UCS range
of 0.5MPa to 5MPa).
• Select a UCSmass value (< UCSintact), consistent with other
geotechnical parameters (e.g., rock mass modulus, shaft
adhesion, etc.) nominated for this layer; and use this
UCSmass value with RQD=0 and Emass as inputs. This is
an improvisation to avoid inconsistencies introduced by
RQD.
• Account for pile stiffness reduction associated with pile
bending/deflection.
3.2 Vuggy Limestone Model (Strong rock model)
LPile manual and other references (e.g., Turner 2006), suggest
that this model is recommended to be used within UCSintact
range 6.9MPa to 17.2MPa. However, it appears that the
original work by Nyman & Reese 1978 made no differentiation
between mass and intact strengths. The UCS values adopted
are based on average values from in-situ grout plug pull-out
tests; hence it is assumed that the UCS strengths adopted are
more representative of mass rock strength. This model assumes
a very high rock stiffness at low deflections (i.e., y < 0.0004b,
where b is pile diameter) and a relatively low rock stiffness
beyond 0.0004b (see Figure 5 below).
Figure 5. Vuggy Limestone Model
The following comments are made on this model:
• Based on the available literature, the field test (Nyman
1978, Islamorada) that underpins this model was carried
out in a Vuggy Limestone layer with UCSmass in the order
of 3.5MPa. It is not clear to us, how this model is then
adopted for a UCSintact range of 6.9MPa to 17.2 MPa.
• It appears that pile stiffness reduction associated with pile
bending/deflection has not been considered in formulating
this model.
• Reese uses the same test data to support his Weak Rock
model ( i.e., the same test is used to support a “weak rock
model” as well as a “strong rock” model). Reese attributes
the distinctive “kink” seen in the field load-deflection
curve to a change in pile stiffness, whereas this appears to
be attributed to a transition from “initial brittle” to
“ductile” behaviour in formulating Vuggy Limestone
Model.
In summary, significant application for this model in
everyday design is not envisaged (except in Carbonaceous
Limestone or similar materials where caution is still advised).
3.3 Massive Rock Model (Liang 2009)
This model is based on Liang et. al. 2009 and the ultimate yield
pressure estimate considers both a wedge failure at shallow
depths and a pile shear/compression failure at deeper depths.
This model adopts the “Hoek-Brown” equivalent
continuum approach and has a broader range of applicability
than the other two models discussed in this paper. However,
the Hoek-Brown model inherently assumes that the rock is
significantly fractured to the extent that the strength of the
continuum is governed by inter-block shear and rotation.
The key issue faced in using this model in routine design is
that often (i.e., as compared to other P-y models or elasto-
plastic analyses), more deflection and relatively less strength
are predicted when the GSI values are low (< 30). This is
attributed to the adopted empirical relationships (i.e., Hoek-
Brown for mass strength and Diederichs 2006 for mass
modulus); where rock mass strength and mass modulus
exponentially reduces with lower GSI values. It is our view that
this is a result of forming a mathematical relationship (for mass
strength/modulus) over a large range of UCSintact values (i.e.,
1MPa to 500MPa) and the full range of GSI values (i.e., 0 to
100); with limited data sets in the low UCSintact (<15 MPa) &
low GSI (<30) range. The limited reliability of Hoek-Brown
relationships in low strength / low GSI materials is discussed
in literature by several authors (e.g., Diederichs 2007, Carter
et.al. 2008, Brown 2008, Bertuzzi 2019).
 Proceedings of the 14th Australia and New Zealand Conference on Geomechanics, Cairns 2023 (ANZ2023)
Whilst the original Hoek-Brown criterion was
developed using test data with UCSintact > 15 MPa; Subsequent
researchers (e.g., Carter & Marinos, 2014) suggest that
reasonable results may be obtained up to UCSintact > 5-10 MPa.
As all the six tests considered by Liang (2009) had UCSintact
greater than 15MPa; we have back-analysed two available tests
with UCSintact values 3.26MPa and 5.75MPa to assess how this
model performs in the UCSintact <15MPa range (see Figures 6
& 7 below).
Figure 6. Performance of Massive rock model in UCS<15 MPa zone
(Shale with UCSintact = 3.26MPa)
Figure 7. Performance of Massive rock model in UCS<15 MPa zone
(Sandstone with UCSintact = 5.75MPa)
From the above figures (Figures 6 & 7), in the 2 MPa <
UCSintact < 6 MPa range, the weak rock model provides a stiff
response, whereas the massive rock model provides a softer
response (compared to the field test and the weak rock model).
However, the overprediction of deflections is within an
acceptable range when serviceability loadings are considered.
Another issue with the massive rock model is that for
high strength, high GSI rocks (mi >15, GSI > 65; where mi is
an intact rock constant in the Hoek-Brown relationship), the
actual failure mechanism may be brittle rather than inter-block
shear failure.
The following recommendations are provided in
using the massive rock model based on the back-analyses of
several tests (see Section 5 below for further discussion) and
parametric studies carried out.
• Do not use this model if there are limited joints along the
pile length and the likely failure conditions are dependent
on joint orientation.
• Do not use this model in rocks with strong anisotropy.
• Do not use this model if UCSintact is <2MPa.
• Do not use if UCS intact is between 2MPa and 6MPa and
GSI is < 30. Use this model with caution if GSI is >30 in
this UCS intact range.
• Assess GSI on “pile scale” (i.e. compare graphical
descriptions provided in the GSI charts relative to the pile
dimensions). See Section 4 for further discussion.
• Where possible, use Emass as opposed to Eintact (particularly
for low GSI materials) as an input.
• Caution is advised in using this model where mi >15 and
GSI > 65, where brittle failure mechanism may govern
(i.e. the results may be conservative).
4 ON THE USE OF GSI
Using the massive rock model requires the selection of an
appropriate GSI value and this requires skill and experience.
GSI charts were originally developed to characterize rock mass
from intact rock strength, defect frequency, and defect
conditions. This was originally developed empirically,
considering tunnel scale structures and rock slopes. As there
are several GSI charts available to cover a variety of rock
conditions, an appropriate GSI chart should be selected. In
addition, defect conditions should be assessed relative to the
pile dimensions (i.e. select the GSI value on “pile scale”). The
applicability of the GSI index is limited for low-strength rocks
(i.e., where matrix behaviour governs) and for anisotropic
rocks.
5 BACK-ANALYSIS OF AVAILABLE TEST DATA
More than fifteen tests on laterally loaded rock sockets were
back-analysed as part of this study. Tests with UCSintact >
15MPa will not be further discussed in this paper as the
massive rock model provides reasonable results in this range.
Table 3 below provides a summary of available tests
within the UCSintact < 15 MPa range. Outcomes of assessments
of these tests are presented in Figures 3, 4 & Figures 6 to 11.
Comments on outcomes are included in Table 3.
Based on back analyses and parametric studies, the
following comments are made:
• 0.6MPa <UCSintact < 2MPa Zone | In this zone, the weak
rock model provided close matches (Speer 1992, Nyman
1978) for two tests that were used in the original paper.
However, a stiffer response is noted for some other tests
(See Figure 9). The stiff clay (Reese) soil model provided
a softer response (i.e. overestimated deflections as
compared to field tests) in this zone with strain factors
(i.e., e50, strain at 50% of the failure stress) recommended
for soils. However, a better match could be obtained when
a strain factor consistent with a weak rock is adopted (See
Figures 8 & 9).
• 2MPa <UCSintact < 6MPa Zone | In this zone, the weak
rock model is likely to underpredict deflections and the
 Proceedings of the 14th Australia and New Zealand Conference on Geomechanics, Cairns 2023 (ANZ2023)

massive rock model is likely to provide a conservative

outcome (i.e., underestimation of rock yield capacity and
overestimation of deflections). See Figures 6 and 7.
• 6MPa <UCSintact < 15MPa Zone | In this zone, weak rock
model is likely to underpredict deflections and the
massive rock model provided reasonable matches for
serviceability loadings. See Figures 10 and 11.
• GSI < 30 Zone | If the UCSintact is relatively high (e.g. >
6 MPa) and the GSI is less than 30, then this could imply
a zone of high geological alteration (e.g. shear zones). In
this zone, a massive rock model may be used with caution
(see Figure 12 and Footnote 3). If the UCSintact is relatively
low ( e.g., < 6 MPa), a stiff clay model could potentially
be used when matrix behaviour governs (see Figure 12
and Footnote 3).

Figure 10. Back analysis of Parsons 2012 Load Test

Figure 8. Back analysis of Speer 1992 Load Test

Figure 11. Back analysis of Gabr et.al. 2002 Load Test

6 INTERIM RECOMMENDATIONS
Figure 9. Back Analysis of Seddon 1993 Load Test
Given that laterally loaded rock socket design is still an
evolving field and available design options are limited,
interim recommendations discussed elsewhere in this paper
are graphically summarized in Figure 12 and the
corresponding footnotes.
 Proceedings of the 14th Australia and New Zealand Conference on Geomechanics, Cairns 2023 (ANZ2023)

Table 3. Summary of available test data in UCSintact < 15 MPa range

Test Pile Details Ground Profile Remarks
Speer 1992 Reinforced concrete pile 0-1.24m: Free Length • Weak rock model provides a close match as
Pile length: 13.8m 1.24m – 3.9m: UCSintact = 1.86MPa, expected, particularly when RQD=0 is used as
RQD =0-80, Erm = 186MPa adopted by Reese 1997
Diameter = 2.25m • Stiff clay model provides a softer response;
3.9m – 8.8m: UCSintact = 6.45MPa, RQD =0-80, however, a better match could be obtained using
Initial EI = 35.15 x 106 kN/m2
Erm = 645MPa appropriate e50 values.
A non-linear EI relationship is
adopted Below 8.5m: UCSintact = 16MPa, RQD =0-80, • Not analysed with massive rock model due to lack
Erm = 1600MPa of reliable GSI data

Nyman 1978 Reinforced concrete pile 0-3.51m: Free Length • Weak rock model provides a close match as
Pile length: 15.2m Below 3.51m: UCSintact = 3.45MPa, RQD =0, expected when EI values were reduced as adopted
by Reese 1997
Erm = 7,240MPa
Diameter = 1.2m • Due to lack of information on pile
Initial EI = 3.73 x 106 kN/m2 modulus/reinforcement, non-linear EI values were
not computed independently (i.e. selected to match
A non-linear EI relationship is with the deflections, therefore the “close agreement’
adopted is not surprising.
• Not analysed with massive rock model as GSI is not
meaningful for a Vuggy Limestone. Plot not
included due to space limitations.

Seddon et.al. Reinforced Concrete Pile
Pile length: 0.64m
1993
Pile diameter: 0.3
EI: 1.17 x 104 kN/m2
Constant EI used as the
geotechnical capacity is much
smaller than the structural
capacity
0-0.05m: Free Length • Weak rock model provides a much stiffer response
Below 0.05m: UCS = 2MPa, RQD =0, compared to field test data
• Stiff clay model provides a softer response;
Erm = 260 MPa
however, a better match could be obtained using
appropriate e50 values.
• Pile lateral capacity is underestimated with a stiff
clay model
• Not analysed with massive rock model as the UCS
value was too low

Frantzen Shale Steel hollow section with 0-0.3: Free Length • Weak rock model provides a stiffer response
1987
concrete infill 0.3-0.9: Stiff Clay (Cu=350kPa) • Massive rock model provides a softer response
Pile length: 4.07m compared to field data; however, results are within
0.9-2.1: UCSintact =3.26MPa, GSI=54, mi=6, an acceptable range for serviceability loadings.
Diameter = 0.22m Erm=123MPa, RQD=69, Krm=0.0005
Wall thickness: 9mm Below 2.1m: UCSintact =6.5 MPa, GSI=54, mi=6,
EConcrete: 25 GPa / Esteel: 200GPa Erm=123MPa, RQD=65, Krm=0.0005

Frantzen Steel hollow section with 0-0.3: Free Length • Weak rock model provides a stiffer response
Sandstone 1987
concrete infill 0.3-0.6: Stiff Clay (Cu=350kPa) • Massive rock model provides a softer response
Pile length: 4.57m compared to field data; however, results are within
Below 0.6m: UCSintact =5.75 MPa, GSI=50, an acceptable range for serviceability loadings.
Diameter = 0.22m mi=17, Erm=170MPa, RQD=45, Krm=0.0005
Wall thickness: 9mm
EConcrete: 25 GPa
Esteel: 200 GPa
Gabr et.al. 2002 Reinforced Concrete Pile with 0-0.3: Free Length • Weak rock model provides a stiffer response
I40-Short steel casing 0.3-2.1: UCSintact=11.3MPa, GSI=87, mi=9, • Massive rock model provides a reasonable match.
Pile embedded length: 3.356m Erm=161MPa, RQD=100
Diameter = 0.762m 2.1-3.1: UCSintact=12.2MPa, GSI=74, mi=9,
Wall thickness: 12.7mm Erm=145MPa, RQD=89

EConcrete: 27.6 GPa Below 3.1m: UCSintact=34.9MPa, GSI=76, mi=19,

Erm=437MPa, RQD=89
Esteel: 200GPa
Reinforcement: 12N32 and N16-
127
Parsons 2010 Reinforced concrete pile 0-0.3: Free Length • Parsons, 2010 concluded that the weak rock model
South Shaft Pile length: 2.4m 0.3-0.6: UCSintact=12MPa, GSI=70, mi=10, provided a reasonable match. However, this
Eintact=2551MPa, RQD =70 involved using an upper bound Krm value (0.0005)
Diameter = 1.067m and using Emass = Eintact / 150. These two assumptions
Below 0.6: UCSintact=35MPa, GSI=70, mi=10, are not consistent with rock intact strength and
EConcrete: 28 GPa
Eintact=7170MPa, RQD=70 RQD.
Reinf: 12N11 and N5-300 • The massive rock model provided a better match for
Pile EI was reduced to 0.3 x serviceability deflection.
EIgross
 Proceedings of the 14th Australia and New Zealand Conference on Geomechanics, Cairns 2023 (ANZ2023)

Figure 12. Summary of interim recommendations

Note 1 - Rare in Practice. The massive rock model (with caution) is preferred to the Vuggy limestone model or the weak rock model. Rock failure may
be brittle. Pile capacity may be underestimated, and deflection overestimated with the massive rock model.
Note 2 – Select an appropriate e50 value consistent with material strength. Weak Rock model could also be used in UCS 0.6 MPa to 2MPa range.
However, caution is advised if other models are used for better quality rocks as there could be consistency issues.
Note 3 - Use an elasto-plastic method ( Oasys ALP, DEFPIG, Plaxis 3D) that uses UCSmass and Emass as inputs to verify that results are not overly
conservative. Where appropriate, a granular soil model (e.g. Reese Sand model) could be used with an appropriately high friction angle.
Note 4 – Rock strength descriptions as per Australian Standard AS 1726: 2017

7 CONCLUSIONS
While P-y curves make the assessment of laterally loaded rock
sockets much easier, these models inevitably have limitations.
P-y curves generated with a given pile type, rock strength and
secondary structures, may not be representative at other
locations where these conditions are different. Unfortunately,
the pile test database is not large enough to select appropriate
p-y curves for a variety of ground conditions.
This paper provides interim recommendations on adapting/
improvising existing P-y models over a variety of ground
conditions.
Whilst, factors such as pile ultimate lateral capacity, pile
sectional forces, etc. also matter, the recommendations are
primarily based on getting the serviceability deflections right
due to the following reasons:
• For laterally loaded sockets, pile serviceability deflections
and pile structural strength often govern the design rather
than ultimate geotechnical capacity.
• Variations in bending moment / shear force predictions
are relatively small (i.e. in terms of percentage change)
compared to predicted deflections.
It is acknowledged that when it comes to improvising limited
data, no approach will be universally acceptable and that
opinions may differ. However, the authors have seen
widespread inappropriate use of the P-y rock models and
consider that some guidance is useful in alleviating the
associated risks.
8 REFERENCES
Brown, E.T. SHIRMS 2008. Estimating the mechanical properties of
rock mass. Proceedings of the First Southern Hemisphere
International Rock Mechanics Symposium, Australian Centre for
Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 3-22.
Carter, T.G. and Marinos, V. 2014 Use of GSI for rock engineering
design. Proceeding’s 1st International Conference on Applied
Empirical Design Methods in Mining, Lima, pp. 1–19.
Carter, TG, Diederichs, MS & Carvalho, JL 2008, ‘Application of
modified Hoek–Brown transition relationships for assessing
strength and post-yield behaviour at both ends of the rock
competence scale’, Journal of the Southern African Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy, vol. 108, no. 6, pp. 325–338.
Cho, K.H., Gabr, M.A., Clark,S. and Borden, R.H. 2007. Field P-y
curves in weathered rock. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 44:
753-764(2007).
Chong, W. L., Haque, A., Ranjith, P.G. and Shahinuzamman, A. 2011.
A parametric study of lateral load behavior of single piles socketed
into joint rock mass. Australian Geomechanics Journal, Volume
46.
Chong, W. L., Haque, A., Ranjith, P.G. and Shahinuzamman, A. 2011.
Effect of joints on P-y behaviour of laterally loaded piles socketed
into mudstone. International Journal of Rock Mechanics &
Mining Sciences, 48(2011) 372-379.
 Proceedings of the 14th Australia and New Zealand Conference on Geomechanics, Cairns 2023 (ANZ2023)

Frantzen, J., and Stratton, F.W. 1987. P-y curve data for laterally
loaded piles in shale and sandstone. Kansas Department of
Transport, Report no. FHWA-KS-87-2.
Gabr, M.A., R.H. Borden, K.H. Cho, S. Clark, and J.B. Nixon. 2002.
P-y Curves for Laterally Loaded Drilled Shafts Embedded in
Weathered Rock. North Carolina Department of Transportation.
FHWA/NC/2002-008. 289p.
Hoek, E., and Brown, E.T. 2018. The Hoek-Brown failure criterion and
GSI -2018 edition. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical
Engineering. (2018) 1-19.
Hoek E. and Diederichs, M.S. 2006. Empirical estimation of rock mass
modulus. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences 2006;43(2):203-15.
Hoek, E., Carter, T.G. and Diederichs, M.S. 2013. Quantification of
the geological strength index chart. 47th US rock
mechanics/geomechanics symposium. San Francisco, ARMA 13-
672.
Liang, R., Yang, K. and Nusairat, J. 2009. P-y criterion for rock mass.
Journal of geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering,
ASCE, January 2009.
Isenhower, W.M., Wang, S.T., and Vasquez, L.G. LPILE Technical
Manual, 2016, Ensoft Inc.
Marinos, V., Marinos, P. and Hoek E. 2005. The geological strength
index: applications and limitations. Bulletin of Engineering
Geology and the Environment 2005;64(1):55-65.
Parsons, R.L., I. Willems, M.C. Pierson, and J. Han. 2010. Lateral
Capacity of Rock Sockets in Limestone under Cyclic and
Repeated Loading. Kansas Department of Transportation. 86p.
Reese, L.C. (1997). “Analysis of Laterally Loaded Piles in Weak
Rock.” Journal of Geotechnical and geoenvironmental
Engineering. ASCE. Reston, Virginia. v123 n11. 1010-1017.
Seddon, K.D. and McDonald, P. 1993. Prediction of performance
(laterally loaded socketed piles). Australian Geomechanics
Journal. 1993:115-120
Turner, J. 2006. Rock socketed shafts for highway structure
foundations. NCHRP synthesis 360.
Zhang, L. and Einstein, H. 2000. Nonlinear analysis of laterally loaded
rock-socketed shafts. Journal of Geotechnical and
geoenvironmental Engineering. ASCE. Vol 126. No. 11.
November 2000.