Copyright © 2023 by American Scientific Publishers

All rights reserved.

Science of
Printed in the United States of America
Advanced Materials
Vol. 15, pp. 176–186, 2023
www.aspbs.com/sam

An Application of Spherical Cavity Expansion

Theory in Soft Rock Pile-Base Resistance
Shiqian Cai1, 2 , Bin Huang1, ∗ , Xi Zhao1 , and Jingjing Li3
1
School of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Huizhou University, Huizhou 516007, China
2
State Key Laboratory of Subtropical Building Science, Guangzhou 510640, China
3
Library, Huizhou University, Huizhou 516007, China

ABSTRACT
The failure mode should be taken into account in the analytical solution for pile base resistance. In order to
determine the pile’s failure pattern in soft rock, the graphical model test method is used. That the compression
zone below the pile base in soft rock is compatible with the spherical cavity expansion is shown. An improved
calculation model for the ultimate base resistance may be developed by considering the force balance of the
rigid cone under the pile-end in the ultimate stress state and the limit pressure required to expand a spherical
cavity. To account for the influence of socket length, the limiting pressure for the spherical cavity expansion
in infinite space is adjusted to that in semi-infinite space. The ultimate resistance of a base is computed by
factoring in the length effect. The normalization of the base resistance-displacement relation is provided based
ARTICLE

on the findings of pressure chamber experiments on pile load-settlement, which are independent of socket
length and overburden pressure. This semi-empirical technique is verified via the use of pressure chamber
experiments and field testing of piles in soft rock.
KEYWORDS: Rock-Socketed Pile, Failure Mode, Soft Rock, Spherical Cavity Expansion, Base Resistance.

1. INTRODUCTION In order to understand the base resistance of piles in

The construction of large structures and bridges often calls
for rock-socketed piles, which are subject to extreme loads
and need precise settlement. Rock-socketed piles are a
widespread form of pile in soft rock, which is found in
many locations across the globe. Soft rock typically has
a modulus between 100 and 1000 MPa [1] and a uniaxial
compressive strength between 0.6 and 12.5 MPa. Ones in
soft rock are not the same as piles in soil. Soft rock is
particularly susceptible to the effects of interface dilatation
and gradual deterioration, whereas soil pile shaft resis-
tance lacks this trait or has much less significance. When
compared to the strength of the pile material, soft rock
often has less of a strength. Compared to the elastic mod-
ulus of regular pile concrete, the modulus of rock mass
is very low. Pile performance in soft rock is determined
by the rock mass rather than the pile material, in contrast
to medium and strong rock. Not only is the mobilisation
of shaft and base resistance and the mode of pile failure
distinct for soft rock compared to soil and medium/strong
rock, but the two are also fundamentally different.
∗
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Email: huangbin@hzu.edu.cn
Received: 20 October 2022
Accepted: 20 December 2022
soft rock, a variety of papers have been published. Most of
these studies [2–4] spoke about the empirical connection
between base resistance and uniaxial compressive strength
for a certain settlement ratio. Utilizing the Hoek-Brown
strength criteria, Zhang and Einstein [5] calculated an
equation for the end bearing capacity that factors in the
effect of the overburden stress. Using the Meyerhof failure
hypothesis and the Hoek-Brown or the modified Hoek-
Brown criteria, Serrano et al. [6, 7] developed procedures
for determining the ultimate base resistance of piles in
rock.
Researchers [8–13] thought the spherical cavity expan-
sion mode was a reasonable assumption for analysis of
the bearing mechanism of a pile in sand, apart from the
assumptions of slip surfaces. The pile end’s spherical cav-
ity growth mode in sand has been confirmed. However,
there is insufficient research about whether the pile in soft
rock also displays this failure mode. CT scanning can be
very intuitive to reflect the progressive failure of the pile,
which can obtain the bearing mechanism of pile in soft
rock. Huang et al. [14] and Xu et al. [15] applied the CT
scanning technique to reveal the spherical distribution fail-
ure mode of pile in soft rock.
Using cavity expansion theory and the Hoek-Brown fail-
ure criteria, Gharsallaoui et al. [16] established a tech-
nique for determining the bearing capacity of pile ends in

176 Sci. Adv. Mater. 2023, Vol. 15, No. 2 1947-2935/2023/15/176/011 doi:10.1166/sam.2023.4408
Cai et al.
rock mass. Theory models for base resistance were con-
structed using the spherical cavity expansion theory in infi-
nite space, analogous to the way piles in soil are formed.
The theoretical solution of spherical cavity expansion in
infinite space and in semi-infinite space should be same
due to the enormous length-to-diameter ratio of piles in
soil. However, soft rock has restrictions on the length of
the pile socket. This work provides a semi-empirical solu-
tion to depth effect and explains the failure mechanism of
piles in soft rock. The novel design technique of pile base
resistance in soft rock is validated with certain examples.
2. SOFT ROCK SIMULATED AND PRESSURE
CHAMBER TESTING FOR MODEL PILE
2.1. Material Properties and Testing Apparatus
In order to get the necessary strength and modulus value
for the soft rock simulation sample, a mix ratio test of
cement, gypsum, medium sand, early strength agent, and
water is conducted. Additionally, it is more practical for
modelling testing of the rock-socketed pile in soft rock
with the need for consistent strength after 7 days. When
testing piles, use a simulated soft rock with a uniaxial
compressive strength of 1.5 MPa. Cement-to-water ratio of
0.50, early strength agent-to-cement ratio of 0.23, and den-
sity of 1.80 g/cm3 make up the material mix ratios. Table I
and Figure 1 show the results of triaxial tests conducted
on model soft rock with a uniaxial compressive strength
of 1.5 MPa.
For instrumented pile testing, a 40 mm diameter model
pile is used. Model pile, nylon model cylinder, pile top-
loading system, pile-surrounding soil/rock loading system,
response system, and measurement system are all part of
the pressure chamber used for single pile testing, as illus-
trated in Figure 2. The equivalent modulus of the solid
model pile is 11.4 GPa, and it is based on a cylindrical
aluminum tube with an outside diameter of 40 mm and a
wall thickness of 2 mm. In order to measure shaft friction
and base resistance, strain gauges are fastened to the inte-
rior of a 40 mm model pile. CT scanning was utilized to
observe the deformation around the pile and disclose the
failure mode of the pile, allowing for direct acquisition of
the bearing mechanism of the rock-socketed pile in soft
rock. The pile employed in CT scanning was 24 mm in
diameter and was made of solid aluminum. The CT scan-
ner can X-ray the whole chamber, including the nylon and
aluminum testing pile, with no problems [14].
Table I. Triaxial test results for soft rock simulation samples.
Specimen 3 : 1 − 3 f : Ei :
no. MPa MPa 1f : % vmax : % MPa
1 0.01 1.51 1.13 0.33 162
2 0.10 2.12 1.55 0.42 174
3 0.30 3.13 1.92 0.53 231
4 0.50 3.61 2.20 0.72 243
Sci. Adv. Mater., 15, 176–186, 2023
An Application of Spherical Cavity Expansion Theory in Soft Rock Pile-Base Resistance
2.2. Instrumented Model Pile Test Results
The model pile tests were carried out on the seventh day
after sample preparation. The parameters of model pile
tests in soft rock are depicted in Table II. The relation-
ships between pile base resistance and displacement in
instrumented pile tests are shown in Figure 3. The basic
response curves are obviously work-hardening. As the set-
tlement advances, the base resistance first rises dramati-
cally, but then its rate of increase begins to reduce, and it
eventually tends to level out.
Figure 4 depicts the averaged connection between base
resistance and motion. It seems that normalizing base
resistance and displacement for a variety of overburden
pressures and rock socket depths is a smart idea. The anal-
ogous pile base displacement at 50% mobilization of base
resistance is about 0.04 d, and a pile tip displacement up
to about 0.25 d is required for full mobilization of base
resistance.
As a point of comparison, the comparable displacement
in soft rock at 50% and 100% mobilization of base resis-
tance is much greater than that in clay or sand, which is
suggested by the American API Specification [17] to be
ARTICLE
0.013 d and 0.1 d, respectively. The two ratio values in soft
rock obtained in pressure chamber tests are in rough agree-
ment with the field experiment outcomes [3], in which
the displacement ratios are 0.035 and 0.20, respectively,
and quite close to displacement ratios of 0.04∼0.06 and
∼0.25, respectively [18, 19]. The maximum base resis-
tance is mobilized at a settlement exceeding 25% of the
diameter [20].
2.3. The Failure Mode of Pile in Soft Rock
Ladanyi [9] pointed out that the deformation bubble
beneath the pile base following loading in sandy soil was
comparable to the spherical cavity expansion in the infinite
medium. The identical finding was uncovered by Shaaban
et al. [10] using excavation methods. The failure mech-
anism of the pile foundation in soft rock is explored by
CT, and Figure 5 displays several scanning photographs of
pile testing with and without markers in soft rock. Defor-
mation distribution around the pile base cannot be iden-
tified in unmarked soft rock, as illustrated in Figure 5(a),
although a lighter color may be observed at around 1.2–
1.3 d beneath the pile base. A higher density, represented
by a lighter color, suggests that the soft rock in this loca-
tion has been crushed and densified. For the identical test
settings, as shown in Figure 5(b), only the marked layers
are positioned in a predetermined range at the base of the
pile, with no markers present on the pile side. Deforma-
c:

tion of the soft rock close to the pile base is seen to be
MPa :
spherical, with an effect radius of about 1.2–1.3 d and a
0.34 43.4 little lighter color, as shown in Figure 5(a). By comparing
Figures 5(a) and (b), we can infer that the indicated layers
are arranged in a way that is conducive to studying the
deformation distribution and failure mechanism of the pile
177
 An Application of Spherical Cavity Expansion Theory in Soft Rock Pile-Base Resistance Cai et al.
ARTICLE

Fig. 1. Triaxial test results for soft rock simulation samples: (a) Deviator stress-axial strain curve, (b) Volumetric strain-axial strain curve and (c)
Mohr envelope.

Fig. 2. Pressure chamber for single pile testing.

178 Sci. Adv. Mater., 15, 176–186, 2023

Cai et al. An Application of Spherical Cavity Expansion Theory in Soft Rock Pile-Base Resistance

Table II. The parameters of model pile tests in soft rock. The photos show that soft rock under the pile base was
compressed due to the pile penetration and then crushed
Test c : c: Em : Ec : v :
no. MPa MPa : 
MPa K0  GPa kPa L: mm d: mm and denser rock area resembles a hemisphere. The spher-
ical cavity expansion under the pile base reflected by the
T1 1.5 0.34 43.4 206 0.31 0.24 11.4 300 120 40 disassembly photos of the pile end and the CT scanning
T2 1.5 0.34 43.4 184 0.31 0.24 11.4 100 200 40
T3 1.5 0.34 43.4 184 0.31 0.24 11.4 100 240 40
photos of the modelling test are consistent.
T4 1.5 0.34 43.4 218 0.31 0.24 11.4 500 240 40 The CT scanning model experiments of rock-socketed
pile in soft rock in diverse load pressure, different rock-
socketed depth and different pile roughness were also
36 carried out [14]. There is no heave deformation and slip
32 surface appearing, which is different from the failure mode
28 of shear slip surface put forward by Terzaghi, Vesic [21]
24
and Meyerhof [22]. The process of failure of a model pile
socketed into simulated soft rock was studied by Johnston
qb: MPa

20
and Choi [23] using stereophotogrammetric methods. The
16
research reveals that a fan-shaped wedge eventually forms
12 beneath the pile base with a ring fracture developing from
8 Embedment=3d, overburden=300kPa the margins of the pile. The shape of the wedge would
Embedment=5d, overburden=100kPa
4 Embedment=6d, overburden=100kPa
be spheric while the pile is actually axisymmetric. Around
0
Embedment=6d, overburden=500kPa 40% settlement ratio was recorded by Radhakrishnan and
0 3 6 9 12 15 Leung and Ko [19], at which point a conspicuous failure
s : mm
bulb/stress plug was seen at the pile base. Deformation of

ARTICLE
Fig. 3. The relation between the base resistance and the displacement. soft rock beneath the pile foundation is the spherical out-
ward expansion, according to CT scanning data. To accu-
1.0 rately determine the base resistance of rock-socketed piles
in soft rock, the spherical cavity expansion theory should
0.8 be used.
qb s/d
=
qb,ult 0.81·(s / d)+0.048
0.6
3. BASE RESISTANCE DESIGN APPROACH
qb/qb,ult

FOR SOFT ROCK PILE

0.4
Embedment=3d, overburden=300kPa 3.1. Base Resistance Calculation Based on Spherical
Embedment=5d, overburden=100kPa Cavity Expansion Theory
0.2
Embedment=6d, overburden=100kPa This relationship between cavity expansion limit pressure
Embedment=6d, overburden=500kPa and deep foundation end bearing pressure was initially
0.0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
established by Gibson [8]. A formula for the bearing
s /d capacity of the pile end may be derived in either per-
Fig. 4. Normalized base resistance versus normalized displacement. mafrost [11, 12] or sand [24] based on the force or bending
moment balance for the sphere under the pile base. The
force analysis diagram of the pile base’s spherical cavity
base, and that the arrangement does not alter the mode of
expansion is shown in Figure 9. If the resistance at the pile
operation of the base resistance.
ends is completely activated, a stiff cone will be present at
Figure 6 shows that the spherical cavity under the pile-
the pile foundation. The soil/rock mass outside of the cone
end, which is a compressed region in soft rock, steadily
is in an isotropic stress state with friction equal to the
grows as the penetration of the pile rises. The deformation
limit pressure for the expansion pu of the spherical cavity.
of the markers at the end of pile penetration in chamber
The Mohr-Coulomb linear failure rule may be applied to
testing is at the ultimate limit state. Figure 7(b) is cross
soft rock since it has many characteristics with hard soil.
section of the pile bottom extracted from the CT scan with
Since the cone is statically balanced in the vertical direc-
the pile penetration of 2 d at the ultimate limit state (the
tion, there is
layout of the cross section is shown in Fig. 7(a)). The black
   
concentric circles highlight the areas where the pile and 1 2 1 d
the soft rock around it have been penetrated and sheared, qb,ult d = pu · d· · cos
4 2 2 cos
and they also represent the failure mechanism of cavity  
1 d
growth near the pile end. + c + pu · tg · d· · sin
Figure 8 is the photos of the spherical denser body of 2 2 cos
soft rock below the pile base after sample disassembling. (1)

Sci. Adv. Mater., 15, 176–186, 2023 179

 An Application of Spherical Cavity Expansion Theory in Soft Rock Pile-Base Resistance Cai et al.

Fig. 5. CT scanning photos of pile testing under the overburden pressure of 300 kPa, (a) without the marker and (b) with the markers.
ARTICLE

Fig. 6. CT scanning photos of pile at different penetration depth: (a) Pile penetration of 0.4 d and (b) pile penetration of 2 d.

Fig. 7. CT scanning photos of cross section beneath pile end: (a) The layout of cross Section 1 and (b) cross Section 1.

180 Sci. Adv. Mater., 15, 176–186, 2023

Cai et al. An Application of Spherical Cavity Expansion Theory in Soft Rock Pile-Base Resistance

Fig. 8. Spherical denser body of soft rock under pile base.

Upon the simplification of the formula (1), there is: The limit pressure pu can be calculated by the equations
deduced by the Mohr-Coulomb plastic yield model [25]:
qb,ult = pu 1 + tg · tg  + c · tg (2) 31 + sin
pu = q + c · ctan I 4 sin /31+sin 
3 − sin  rr
where c and  are the cohesion and friction angle of
soil/rock respectively; is the horizontal angle of rigid − c · ctan (4)
cone under pile base; pu is the limit/ultimate pressure for Ir 1 + 

ARTICLE
the spherical cavity expansion. Irr = (5)
1 + Ir 
Figure 5 depicts CT scanning images showing that when
3 − sin 
the pile is under its ultimate weight, a sphere expands = (6)
3 cos 
below the pile base, with an influence depth of 1.2∼1.3 d.
Em
The cone depth beneath the pile foundation is 1.2 d when Ir = (7)
the horizontal angle of the rigid cone is equal to 66.7. 21 + c + q · tan 
This demonstrates that the following connection holds true where Em and  are soil/deformation rock’s modulus and
for the rock-socketed pile in soft rock, just as it does for Poisson’s ratio, respectively; Mean initial stress in the soil
the stiff cone in soil [12]: or rock, denoted by q; The index of stiffness, or Ir ; Com-
pressibility owing to compression and shear is reflected in
 the reduced rigidity index Irr ,  is the average volumetric
= + (3)
4 2 strain in plastic zone.
Ladanyi and Johnston [24] summed up the test data of
sand in different places and with various density, and sug-
gested a relationship between  and Ir :
 = 50Ir −18 (8)

1.0
0.9 PMT method (CGS)
0.8
Socket depth factor λ

0.7
0.6
0.5
Cavity expansion method
0.4 y = 0.7737ln(x) - 0.5807
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Socket ratio L/d

Fig. 10. Relationship between the factor  of socket depth and the
Fig. 9. Relation of cavity expansion limit pressure end-bearing capacity. socket ratio L/d.

Sci. Adv. Mater., 15, 176–186, 2023 181

 An Application of Spherical Cavity Expansion Theory in Soft Rock Pile-Base Resistance Cai et al.

The average volumetric strain of the plastic zone calcu-
lated through Eq. (8), is 0.41%∼0.63% under the vertical
stress of 100∼500 kPa. From the triaxial test depicted in
Table I and Figure 1, it is known that the volumetric strain
due to plastic yielding, i. e., maximum shearing volumetric
change, under confining pressure of 54∼270 kPa (corre-
sponding to the vertical stress of 100∼500 kPa in chamber
test) is 0.37%∼0.53%, which is consistent with the calcu-
lated value. Thus, the empirical proposed Eq. (8) is also
applicable to soft rock [26].
3.2. Socket Depth Modification
Williams et al. [3] found that the base resistance does
not rise indefinitely with the rock-socketed depth. There
is a depth effect and depth limit. Equation (2) of pile
base resistance based on spherical cavity expansion the-
ory does not take into account the influence of socket
depth, but from the test results, the influence is greater
when the socket depth is less than 6 d. This is due to
the fact that the rock-socketed pile in soft rock, in actu-
ality, has a specific socket depth, i.e., the rock is not of
infinite space (Eq. (4)), and therefore the limit pressure
ARTICLE
pressure between semi-infinite space and infinite space or
equivalent to the semi-infinite space. The cavity expansion
in the half-space is only limited to the analytical solu-
tion of the elastic problem, but the elastoplastic analytical
solution in the soft rock half-space is very complicated.
The limit pressure for spherical cavity expansion in infinite
space may be changed using the semi-empirical technique.
A socket depth factor  is required in front of the pu in
Eq. (2). This factor is certainly less than or equal to 1.
The equation of the pile base resistance can be obtained
by taking into account the modification factor :
qb,ult = pu 1 + tg · tg  + c · tg (9)
Calculate the socket length factor  by substituting the
pile base resistance qb,ult measured by the chamber tests
and the limit pressure pu for spherical cavity expansion
calculated through Eq. (4) into Eq. (9). As the deduced
results are seen in Figure 10, the socket depth factor can
be expressed in the following equation:
 = 07737 · lnL/d − 05807 (10)

for spherical cavity expansion cannot be determined. How- Equation (10) is applicable to the socket depth of 3∼6 d
ever, the effect of the soil above should mean that it is not and the appropriate extrapolation. The limit pressure for
entirely semi-infinite. It can be regarded as the overburden spherical cavity expansion is changed from infinite space

(a) (b)
14 25

12
20
10 Measured
15 FHWA method
qb: MPa

qb: MPa

8
Williams, Johnston & Donald
Cavity expansion method
6
10
Measured
4
FHWA method
5
2 Williams, Johnston & Donald
Cavity expansion method
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10
s: mm s: mm
(c) 35 (d)
40

30 35

25 30

Measured 25
20 Measured
qb: MPa

qb: MPa

FHWA method
20 FHWA method
15 Williams, Johnston & Donald Williams, Johnston & Donald
Cavity expansion method 15 Cavity expansion method
10
10
5
5

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
s: mm s: mm

Fig. 11. Measured and calculated base resistance versus displacement in pressure chamber tests: (a) T1; (b) T2; (c) T3; (d) T4.

182 Sci. Adv. Mater., 15, 176–186, 2023

Cai et al. An Application of Spherical Cavity Expansion Theory in Soft Rock Pile-Base Resistance

Table III. The parameters of field pile tests (Williams et al., 1980; Pells & Turner, 1980).

Rock type Test no. c : MPa c: MPa : : kN/m3 Em : MPa K0  Ec : GPa L: mm d: mm Ref.

Mudstone M14 1.83 0.47 36 20 291 0.41 0.29 30 2000 100 Williams et al., 1980
Mudstone M16 2.12 0.54 36 20 313 0.41 0.29 30 3000 1000
Mudstone M18 1.53 0.39 36 20 266 0.41 0.29 30 2000 1000
Sandstone D3 6 1.40 40 21 527 0.36 0.26 30 530 290 Pells & Turner, 1980
Sandstone E1 6 1.40 40 21 527 0.36 0.26 30 500 290
Sandstone E2 6 1.40 40 21 527 0.36 0.26 30 370 710

Notes: c = c (1 − sin )/2cos, and Em = 680 pa (c /pa )05 (Rowe and Armitage, 1987) [4].

to semi-infinite space, and the value of the factor will
certainly decrease. Therefore, when  is greater than 1.0,
take 1.0. The Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual
(CGS-1985) [27] proposed a PMT technique to evaluate
the base resistance of rock socketed pile, giving an equiv-
alent socket depth factor of 0.15∼1.0 while socket ratio
is 0∼7 (Fig. 10). For the rock-socketed depth less than
2.5 d, the factor is smaller than 0.15, which is the lower
limit referring to CGS. Therefore, a factor value of 0.15 is
taken during socket depth of 0∼2.5 d.
The relationship between the socket depth factor  and
no changes with the depth, which implies that the small
socket depth has little effect on the maximum pressure for
spherical cavity expansion. As socket depth is over 2.5 d,
the factor increases significantly with the depth, suggesting
that the socket depth has a great effect. However, when
the rock socket depth is over 8 d, the factor reaches the
maximum value of 1.0, reflecting the limit pressure’s depth
effect. The maximum depth is similar to that proposed by
CGS.
It is worth mentioning that the empirical relation-
ship between socket depth factor and socket ratio con-

ARTICLE
the socket ratio L/d is depicted in Figure 10. It shows that tains the influence of pile diameter, implying size-effect
when the socket depth is small, the socket depth factor has of pile diameter. Since the ultimate base resistance is

(a) (b)
35 14

30 12

25 10

20 8
qb: MPa

qb: MPa

Measured
15 FHWA method 6
Williams, Johnston & Donald
10 Cavity expansion method 4 Measured
FHWA method
5 2 Williams, Johnston & Donald
Cavity expansion method
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 50 100 150 200
s: mm s: mm

(c) 12

10

8
qb: MPa

4
Measured
FHWA method
2
Williams, Johnston & Donald
Cavity expansion method
0
0 50 100 150 200
s: mm

Fig. 12. Measured and calculated base resistance versus displacement in mudstone: (a) M14; (b) M16; (c) M18; open symbols in the plot from
Williams et al. (1980).

Sci. Adv. Mater., 15, 176–186, 2023 183

 An Application of Spherical Cavity Expansion Theory in Soft Rock Pile-Base Resistance Cai et al.

approximatively proportional to the socket depth ratio dur- 4. CASE ANALYSIS

ing socket depth of 2.5∼8 d, increasing the diameter of
the pile reduces the ratio and hence decreases the resis-
tance. This size impact is accounted for in Eq. (9) of pile
base resistance using spherical cavity expansion theory.
However, it is difficult to mobilize the bearing capacity
corresponding to the final limit state owing to the large
capacity of piles in soft rock. Therefore, in the context of
performance-based design, it is critical to determine the
end bearing capacity of a pile at a certain settlement level.
Because of this, calculating piles’ load-settlement behavior
will be critical [28, 29].
As seen in Figure 4, the relationship between base resis-
tance and displacement of the pile end could be described
as follows:
qb s/d
= for s/d < 025
qb,ult 081 · s/d + 0048
qb
=1 for s/d ≥ 025
qb,ult
Equations (9)∼(12) are named cavity expansion method
for end bearing capacity and deformation design of pile in
ARTICLE
4.1. Pressure Chamber Test
Figure 11 shows the comparisons between calculated and
measured base resistance versus displacement in pressure
chamber tests. The parameters of model pile tests are given
in Table II. The FHWA and other method [3, 30] are also
included in Figure 11 to compare with the cavity expan-
sion method. It is noted that Williams et al.’s method only
gives the design curves when the displacement ratio s/d is
smaller than 0.05. The cavity expansion method provided
a good agreement with the base resistance-displacement
relation measured. When the socket ratio L/d is larger
than 5, the FHWA method and Williams et al.’s methods
give much lower base resistance, and especially the FHWA
method’s ultimate base resistance is only 30% of the
measured.
(11)
4.2. Field Test
(12) Mudstone field tests were made in the vicinity of Mel-
bourne and moderately weathered mudstone (Williams
et al.) [3]. Sandstone field tests were conducted in the
northern suburb of Sydney and moderately weathered,

soft rock. fine to medium-grained and fractured sandstone (Pells and

(a) (b)
16 16

14 14

12 12

10 10
qb: MPa

qb: MPa

8 8

6 6
Measured Measured
4 FHWA method 4 FHWA method
2 Williams, Johnston & Donald 2 Williams, Johnston & Donald
Cavity expansion method Cavity expansion method
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
s: mm s: mm
(c) 7

4
qb: MPa

2 Measured
FHWA method
1 Williams, Johnston & Donald
Cavity expansion method
0
0 3 6 9 12 15
s: mm

Fig. 13. Measured and calculated base resistance versus displacement in sandstone: (a) D3; (b) E1; (c) E2; open symbols in the plot from Pells &
Turner (1980).

184 Sci. Adv. Mater., 15, 176–186, 2023

Cai et al. An Application of Spherical Cavity Expansion Theory in Soft Rock Pile-Base Resistance

Turner) [2]. The parameters of field pile tests are given
in Table III. The test results and the comparisons between
calculated and measured base resistance versus displace-
ment in mudstone and sandstone field tests are displayed
in Figures 12 and 13, respectively.
In Figure 12, The cavity expansion and Williams et al.’s
methods provided a relatively close match with the base
resistance-displacement relation obtained experimentally
with the socket ratio L/d of 20, but the FHWA method
gives much lower base resistance which ultimate base
resistance is less than 30% of the measured. While the
socket ratio L/d is no more than 3, all methods give
lower base resistance than the measured, and the cav-
ity expansion and FHWA methods’ results are more con-
servative. It is clear in Figure 13 that both the cavity
expansion and FHWA methods provide curves close to
the base resistance-displacement relation obtained in sand-
stone field tests (Pells & Turner, 1980). However, Williams
et al.’s method gives a much higher base resistance which
is about 1.5 times the measured. The cavity expansion
method appears to be relatively moderate based on obser-
vations of the measured and calculated base resistance-
socket length empirical factor approach. Comparing
observed and computed base resistance-displacement
relations reveals the cavity expansion approach is milder
and more reasonable than the FHWA and Williams et al.
methods.
(f) Triaxial tests are straightforward to perform and pro-
vide the ultimate base resistance model values. The
model is more sensitive to deformation modulus, socket
length ratio, and friction angle. Base resistance design
considers pile size.
Ethical Compliance
Research experiments conducted in this article with
animals or humans were approved by the Ethical Com-
mittee and responsible authorities of our research organi-
zation(s) following all guidelines, regulations, legal, and
ethical standards as required for humans or animals.
Conflicts of Interest
There are no conflicts to declare.
Acknowledgments: The first author gratefully

ARTICLE
displacement relations discussed above, while the FHWA
method is slightly underestimated when the socket ratio acknowledges the State Key Laboratory of Subtropical
L/d is greater than 5, and Williams et al. method’s is occa- Building Science (Grant No. 2018ZB08). The work is
sionally risky and uncertain. also supported by Undergraduate Online Courses Com-
mittee of University in Guangdong Province (Grant No.
2022ZXKC437).
5. CONCLUSIONS
In this study, a base resistance design approach is sug-
gested in a semi-infinite area, and the failure mechanism NOTATION
of the pile in soft rock is disclosed by CT visualization. c Cohesion
Results show: d Diameter of pile
(a) Base resistance and displacement may be normalized Ec Young’s modulus of pile
under various overburden pressures and socket lengths. Ei Initial tangent modulus
Hyperbolic functions fit normalizing curves. At 50% and Em Deformation modulus
100% of ultimate base resistance, pile base displacement Ir Rigidity index
is 0.04 d and 0.25 d. I rr Reduced rigidity index
(b) CT scanning in pressure chamber testing proves K0 Coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest
spherical cavity expansion for piles in soft rock inde- L Socket length
pendent of overburden pressure, socket length, or shaft pu Limit pressure for the spherical cavity expan-
roughness. The compression zone below the pile base is sion
1.2∼1.3 d with no heave deformation or slip surface. q Mean initial stress
(c) The spherical cavity expansion hypothesis, which qb Base resistance of pile
matches the collapse mechanism, should calculate pile qbult Base resistance of pile in ultimate stress state
base resistance in soft rock. For socket lengths more than s Displacement of pile end
8 d, ultimate base resistance is calculated using the limit  Unit weight
pressure based on spherical cavity expansion and friction  Average volumetric strain of the plastic zone
that follows the Mohr-Coulomb failure criteria. v Volumetric strain
(d) Depth impact affects ultimate base resistance for vmax Maximum volumetric strain
sockets under 8 d. In semi-infinite space, the spherical 1 Axial strain
cavity expansion theory solution of ultimate base resis- 1f Axial strain at failure
tance must be adjusted. The socket length factor is semi-  Socket length factor
empirical.  Poisson’s ratio
(e) Pressure chamber and field experiments verify the c Uniaxial compressive strength
semi-empirical spherical cavity expansion theory and v Overburden pressure

Sci. Adv. Mater., 15, 176–186, 2023 185

 An Application of Spherical Cavity Expansion Theory in Soft Rock Pile-Base Resistance
1 Major principal stress
3 Minor principal stress
Friction of the rigid cone
 Friction angle
Horizontal angle of the rigid cone
References and Notes
1. Luo, Y.P., Yan, Z.X., Deng, Y.J. and Lu, X.C., 2017. Application
of charge coupled device spectrometer in oil-bearing rock detection.
Journal of Nanoelectronics and Optoelectronics, 12(12), pp.1391–
1396.
2. Pells, P.J. and Turner, R.M., 1980. Endbearing on Rock with Partic-
ular Reference to Sandstone. International Conference on Structural
Foundations on Rock, Sydeney, Australia, 1, pp.181–190.
3. Williams, A.F., Johnston, I.W. and Donald, I.B., 1980. The Design
of Socketed Piles in Weak Rock. International Conference on Struc-
tural Foundations on Rock, Sydeney, Australia, 1, pp.327–347.
4. Rowe, R.K. and Armitage, H.H., 1987. A design method for drilled
piers in soft rock. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 24(1), pp.126–
142.
5. Zhang, L. and Einstein, H.H., 1998. End bearing capacity of drilled
shafts in rock. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engi-
neering, 124(7), pp.574–584.
6. Serrano, A. and Olalla, C., 2002. Ultimate bearing capacity at the
tip of a pile in rock—Part 1: Theory. International Journal of Rock
ARTICLE
Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 39, pp.833–846.
7. Serrano, A., Olalla, C. and Galindo, R.A., 2014. Ultimate bearing
capacity at the tip of a pile in rock based on the modifed hoek-brown
criterion. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sci-
ences, 71, pp.83–90.
8. Gibson, R.E., 1950. Discussion of “the bearing capacity of screw
piles and screwcrete cylinders” by G. wilson. Journal of the Institu-
tion of Civil Engineers, 34, pp.382–383.
9. Ladanyi, B., 1961. Discussion. Proc. 5th Int. Conf. Soil Mech., Paris,
3, pp.270–271.
10. Shaaban, I.E., Samra, A.S., Yousif, B. and Alghamdi, N.A., 2021.
Cavity design and optimization of hybrid quantum dot organic light
emitting devices for blue light emission. Journal of Nanoelectronics
and Optoelectronics, 15(11), pp.1364–1373.
11. Randolph, M.F., Dolwin, J. and Beck, R., 1994. Design of driven
piles in sand. Geotechnique, 44(3), pp.427–448.
12. Yasufuku, N. and Hyde, A.F.L., 1995. Pile end-bearing capacity in
crushable sands. Geotechnique, 45(4), pp.663–676.
13. Kuwajima, K., Hyodo, M. and Hyde, A.F., 2009. Pile bearing capac-
ity factors and soil crushabiity. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoen-
vironmental Engineering, 135(7), pp.901–913.
14. Huang, B., Zhang, Y., Fu, X. and Zhang, B., 2019. Study on visual-
ization and failure mode of model test of rock-socketed pile in soft
rock. Geotechnical Testing Journal, 42(6), pp.1624–1639.
15. Xu, J., Haque, A., Gong, W., Gamage, R.P., Dai, G., Zhang, Q.
and Xu, F., 2020. Experimental study on the bearing mechanisms
186
Cai et al.
of rock-socketed piles in soft rock based on micro X-ray CT
analysis. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 53(8), pp.3395–
3416.
16. Gharsallaoui, H., Jafari, M. and Holeyman, A., 2020. Pile end bear-
ing capacity in rock mass using cavity expansion theory. Journal
of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 12(5), pp.1103–
1111.
17. API, 2007. API RP 2A-WSD: Recommended Practice for Planning,
Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platform-Working Stress
Design. 21st Edition, Washington, DC, API, Errata and Supplement
3.
18. Radhakrishnan, R. and Leung, C.F., 1989. Load transfer behavior of
rock-socketed piles. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 115(6),
pp.755–768.
19. Leung, C.F. and Ko, H.Y., 1993. Centrifuge model study of
piles socketed in soft rock. Soils and Foundations, 33(3),
pp.80–91.
20. Yang, Q., Cheng, S. and Zhou, B., 2020. Monitoring study on verti-
cal bearing capacity of pile foundation in soft rock of Lhasa human
settlements. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 38(6), pp.7639–
7650.
21. Vesic, A.S., 1967. Ultimate loads and settlements of deep foun-
dations in sand, edited by, A.S. Vesic, Bearing Capacity and Set-
tlement of Foundations. Durham, North Carolina, Duke University,
pp.53–68.
22. Meyerhof, G.G., 1976. Bearing capacity and settlement of pile
foundation. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, 102,
pp.1973–228.
23. Johnston, I.W. and Choi, I.K., 1985. Failure mechanism of founda-
tions in soft rock. Proc. 11st Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. and Found.
Engrg., San Francisco, 3, pp.1397–1400.
24. Ladanyi, B. and Johnston, G.H., 1974. Behavior of circular footings
and plate anchors embedded in permafrost. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 11(4), pp.531–553.
25. Vesic, A.S., 1972. Expansion of cavities in infinite soil mass. Journal
of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, 98, pp.265–
290.
26. Yasufuku, N., Ochiai, H. and Ohno, S., 2001. Pile end-bearing capac-
ity of sand related to soil compressibility. Soils and Foundations,
41(4), pp.59–71.
27. CGS, 1985. Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual. Part 2.
2nd edition, Vancouver, Canada, Canadian Geotechnical
Society.
28. Chen, X.Y., Zhang, M.Y. and Bai, X.Y., 2019. Axial resistance of
bored piles socketed into soft rock. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineer-
ing, 23, pp.46–55.
29. Huang, B., Zhang, Y., Lv, B., Yang, Z., Fu, X. and Zhang, B., 2021.
Vertical bearing characteristics of rock-socketed pile in a synthetic
soft rock. European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineer-
ing, 25(1), pp.132–151.
30. O’Neill, M.W., Townsend, F.C., Hassan, K.M., Buller, A. and Chan,
P.S., 1996. Load transfer for drilled shafts in intermediate geomate-
rials (No. FHWA-RD-95-172).
Sci. Adv. Mater., 15, 176–186, 2023