Jroc~sa 31 1-e Inr 1 on of ngs : , C ,,-I En? r E .

3 Ge~techn~cal Eynewing 159 IL, 20% 1%-e CE3 Pycs 207-1 ! Paper 14381 ti~r~vrd liOW)b~i k:cptca 03.0412M6

Keyworde
founda0wsfpb -& p s %g

Chrls Habefield Colder Assoc~ates Lta Pty Aunnl~a

Ben Coll~ngwood WagstaK Pclmg Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Aunnl~a

C. Haberfield BE, BSC,

P ~ DFIE(Aust) ,

and B. Collingwo1 d 0

BE. PhD

Piles socketed into rock are often used t o support heavy loads from buildings and infrastructure. Piles typically of up to 18 m diameter carrying safe working loads of up . to 40 MN are utilised in Australia. Their design has traditionally been based on conservative, empirical rules. GARSP (Golder Associates Rocket field Socket Procedure) is a recent design innovation that provides a serviceability approach t o design, and allows socket lengths t o be optimised during the drilling process, often resulting in significant savings. It also provides better control of the risks associated with unexpected ground conditions and with construction of the pile. GARSP has been used in collaboration with Wagstaff Piling on several large-scale socketed pile projects in Melbourne, Australia, including the second hotel for Crown Casino, the new grandstand at the Melbourne Cricket Ground, the redevelopment of Spencer Street Station, and several residential towers. The adoption of this approach for these projects in conjunction with best practice construction techniques has resulted in significant cost savings in terms both of materials and of construction time. This paper briefly describes the traditional design approaches and the basic components of GARSP, and then presents some recent projects where it has been used. I. INTRODUCTION

The performance of rock-socketed piles at serviceability loads is dependent predominantly on the shear resistance developed at the interface between the concrete shaft and the surrounding rock. The resistance developed depends on many factors including the shaft diameter, thc type, stiffness and strength of the rock, and construction effects such as sockct roughness, the thickness of smear zone or residual drilling fluid coating the socket walls, and the pressure imposed onto the socket rock due to fluid concrete placement. Shafi resistance is very sensitive to several of these parameters, and, as a result, socket performance can vary significantly from one site to another, even in the same rock type. Over the last 30 years numerous studies have been made on the performance and design of piles in In many of these studies the importance of construction effects such as roughness and drilling fluid residue and smear on the capacity of drilled shafts has been emphasised. Overall, these studies have greatly improved the knowledge of socketed pile behaviour and the ability to predict their performance. The significant increase in knowledge of rock-socketed pilc performance has led to the development of quite sophisticated computer programs to calculate the load - deformation performance of socketed piles.20125-27 ch of these programs Ea has its relative merits and shortcomings. Major shortcomings of most of the programs are that they rely on properties that are not normally measured as part of a standard site investigation, and they are unable to account for variations in construction methods (e.g. type of drilling tool, cleanliness and roughness of the socket, use of drilling fluids), which may have an impact on socket performance. ROCKET^^^^^^^ is a computer program that addresses these issues. It provides a fundamental and rational approach to the analysis of rock-socketed piles, which relies on basic and commonly measured rock properties and can account for the effects of construction. Although our knowledge of rock-socketed pile performance and our ability to drill larger and deeper sockets have improved, our design methods still rely largely on simple empirical rules and a load-based approach. The inherent conservatism of this approach often results in unnecessarily long sockets and extra cost. The first-named author, with assistance from some colleagues, has recently developed GARSP (Golder Associates Rocket field

Multi-storey buildings, bridges and elevated freeways, facilities for industrial production and offshore oil and gas platforms are all large structures that require stable foundations to ensure safe working conditions with minimal maintenance. In many cases the surface soils are not of adequate strength to provide stable foundations, and instead the large loads imposed by these structures must be carried to stronger rock at depth. One common engineering solution to this problem is to use largediameter concrete piles drilled or socketed into the rock. These rock-socket piles are constructed by drilling through the softer, near-surface soil deposits into the founding rock stratum, placing steel reinforcement into the borehole or socket so formed, and then casting concrete into the socket. Loads are subsequently transferred through the column of the concrete pile and into the surrounding rock. Thc sockct must be designed to cany the imposed loads safely and limit settlements to an acceptable level. Pile lengths in excess of 70 m, diameters up to 3 rn and serviceability loads in excess of 50 MN are possible.

Socket Procedure), a system for the design of socketed piles, which allows socket lengths to be optimised during the drilling process using visual observation of the drilling cuttings. In addition, this system provides better control of the risks associated with unexpected ground conditions and with construction of the pile. It is a serviceability-based approach that often results in reduction in socket lengths and significant cost savings. This new system has been used on more than ten large-scale socketed pile projects in Melbourne, including the new grandstand at the Melbourne Cricket Ground, the redevelopment of Spencer Street Station, and several residential towers. The adoption of this approach for these projects has resulted in significant savings to the client in terms both of materials and of construction time. The primary analysis tool used in GARSP is the computer software ROCKET97.20,28 ROCKET97 can account for rock properties, drilling technique and construction processes, and is based on analysis methods that have been confirmed through extensive large-scale laboratory direct shear testing of concrete-rock interfaces and field testing of side only, base only and complete piles in siltstone. The methods have also been found to be appropriate for other rock types, with assessed performance in weathered granite, basalt, sandstone, conglomerate and calcarenite showing close agreement with field test results. This paper briefly describes current methods of rock socket pile design and analysis. The basis of the new system is then described, and several recent projects where it has been used are presented.
2. A BRIEF HISTORY O F SOCKETED PILE ANALYSIS A N D DESIGN

realised, recommendations were site specific, and unrelated to any design philosophy that would allow these results to be extrapolated to other sites and conditions. Since the mid 1970s there have been numerous attempts to relate pile shaft resistance to the rock strength. The values of shaft resistance initially adopted were extrapolated from the results of field pile tests in clay. Typically, allowable shaft resistance values were limited to 5% of the rock strength in uniaxial compression. '0.'2.33 Numerous investigators have demonstrated the conservatism of such recommendations, especially for soft rocks, but the 5% value is still in common use. By the early 1980s field load testing of pile shafts in rock was possible, and valuable data on shaft resistance became available. Several researchers presented empirical correlations between shaft resistance and the unconfined compressive strength q, of the rock. Fig. 1 shows correlations presented by Rowe and Armitage.14 The adhesion factor a is the ratio of ultimate shaft resistance to q,. Kulhawy and PhoonI8 later presented a more comprehensive database. Fig. I shows that there is almost an order of magnitude variation in backcalculated adhesion factors, confirming that factors other than rock strength also play an important role in defining the shaft capacity of rock-socketed piles. Socket roughness was identified as one of these factors. In particular, through the analysis of field load tests in rock, the capacity of rough shafts was demonstrated to be several times greater than that of smooth shafts in the samr material. Existing correlations with q, were modified to reflect the influence of roughness. Recommendations followed to roughen sockets artificially as a standard construction practice. Williams and Pells2 observed that discontinuities present within the rock mass reduced shaft resistance, and suggested a reduction factor be applied to account for the influence of rock mass stiffness. During the 1970s several researchers presented analytical and finite element solutions for piles in an elastic m e d i ~ m . ~ ~ - ~ ~

The design philosophy for piles socketed into rock has a relatively short history. Initially the tendency was (and still is in some parts of the world) to design these piles allowing for base resistance only. Presumably it was thought that ultimate pile resistance, at least for short sockets, was dominated by end bearing, and that base cleanliness was not considered to be a significant problem. It has since been established that the total response of a pile to axial load is dependent on the development of both side and base resistance, with side resistance generally dominating at serviceability loads, especially for long sockets. This is because shaft resistance in pile sockets is mobilised at much smaller displacements than .~~~~~ base r e s i s t a n ~ e Typically, peak shaft resistance mobilises at displacements of around 0.5- 1% of pile diameter, whereas displacements of around 10-20% of pile diameter may be required to approach ultimate base re~istance.~' developing In the shaft resistance, the pile-rock system initially acts monolithically, and deformations may be considered to be entirely elastic. However, with increased load, additional relative displacement or 'slip' occurs at the pile-rock interface, gradually leading to more load being taken by the base. Specific allowance for shaft resistance in rock sockets started to amear in the mid 1960s. Values of allowable shaft resistance between 100 kPa and 1000 W a were quoted for different rocks.32 Although the importance of shaft resistance was

0.3q,

05

-.

I Leaend A = 0.44q, 0 Mudstone, shale 0 Sandstone 4 Indicates test not to failure '0 Shaded symbol denotes a tension (Pull-out) sockel

Correlation from: Linear regression . . . . . . Horvath et . - - - - - Horvatv* . . . . - - Williams eta/."

0.01 0.2 1.O 10 Unconfined compressive strength, q,: MPa 40

..

These solutions gave engineers a theoretically based method of estimating pile settlements. They also provided a rational method for estimating the relative contributions made by shaft and base resistance. However, as the elastic solutions assume no-slip behaviour at the pile-rock interface they cannot be used to predict ultimate pile performance, and therefore must rely on the empirical correlations with q,, such as shown in Fig. 1, to estimate capacity. Williams et al." used elastic solutions as a starting point for their analyses, but then 'relaxed' side and base resistance according to empirical relationships developed from a comprehensive range of field tests to predict the observed nonlinear characteristics of pile behaviour. Important outcomes from this research were the significance of socket roughness, rock stiffness and the dilation of the socket during axial displacement. The work-hardening aspects of socket behaviour were explained and demonstrated by the development of constant normal stiffness direct shear testing. Improved elasto-plastic theoretical solution^'^,^^^^^ that accounted for pile slip have been developed. The elasto-plastic analyses require a failure criterion and a flow rule to model plastic deformation or 'slip' and dilation at the interface. Rowe and Armitage14 incorporated strain-softening and a variable dilation angle, which they claimed resulted in significantly improved solutions. Nevertheless, they conceded that the use of empirical correlations would be more appropriate given that the model predictions depend heavily on input parameters that are difficult to obtain with sufficient reliability. Carter and Kulhawy4' developed approximate analytical solutions for the load-settlement behaviour of side-only and combined side and base resistance piles. The solutions assume elastic perfectly plastic behaviour and can accommodate a pile response that is purely elastic or has undergone full slip. Partial slip is not accounted for. Average peak shaft resistance is determined from empirical correlations and is assumed to include the effect of rock strength and interface dilation. Pellsz3 reported that the solutions provided by Carter and Kulhawy were in close agreement with the finite element solutions of Rowe and Armitage.14 Since the 1980s researchers have been attempting to improve the ability to predict the performance of pile sockets by conceptualising the pile-rock interface as a form of rock joint. The research has generally been directed at establishing appropriate constitutive laws based on the results of laboratory testing of interface sample^.^^.^'^^^ This work is closely allied to the work of researchers in the field of rock mechanics, who have established similar relationships for natural rock

empirical factors must usually be established. For example, Carter and Ooi2' describe a hardening and softening model (HANSOM) for monotonic loadings of sockets in sandstone that requires 13 input parameters, seven of which are empirically derived from direct shear tests under a range of stress conditions and uniaxial compression tests. Such empirical factors may have to be re-established for other rock strengths, or rock types, or even for other surfaces, if the characterisation of surface roughness is limited. There appear to have been only two attempts to reduce the reliance on empirical factors by modelling the micromechanics of the interface directly. H a ~ s a n ~ ~ developed an elasto-plastic finite element model into which simplistic interface roughness geometries can be input. An alternative approach was adopted by researchers at Monash U n i ~ e r s i t y . ~ 'Their approach has been to study the -~~ micromechanics of interface behaviour carefully through extensive laboratory testing, and to model the observed behaviour using simplified models based on rock mechanics principles. The research has resulted in a theoretical model capable of predicting the full load-displacement behaviour of the pile-rock interface based only on a knowledge of the interface roughness, the relevant boundary conditions (initial normal stress and normal stiffness), and basic rock and concrete properties. These models have been incorporated into a computer program called ROCKET97.21 Comparisons between model predictions and the results of laboratory direct shear tests on concrete-rock (siltstone, sandstone, limestone and basalt] joints show excellent agreement. This fundamental research has also investigated construction effects such as smear, drilling fluid residue, elevated concrete pressures and socket r o u g h n e s ~ . ~ ' ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~
3. AVAILABLE DESIGN METHODS

Of the analysis methods described above, relatively few appear to be commonly used for design (at least in Australia]. PellsZ3 groups the available design methods into three categories: elastic design, I2j4' design for side-slip '4,40 and non-linear analysis. '1*50
3. I. Elastic design

joint^.^^-^^
Most of these finite-element-based 'rock joint' models do not explicitly model the kinematics of the pile-rock interface, but instead treat the interface as a 'black box' and rely on empirically deprived parameters such as strength, dilation, and

Various approaches have been devised in order to translate the elastic solutions into simple design rules. Pells and Turner35 presented a series of elastic solutions for shaft-only, base-only and combined shaft and base resistance piles determined from numerical integration of Mindlin's equations and finite element analyses. Two methods were proposed to account for the combined effect of shaft and base resistance. Both methods make use of simple estimates of limiting shaft adhesion and base resistance (i.e. 0.05 q, and 0.5 q, respectively for the Sydney Sandstone for which the method was specifically developed). Both values are predicated on a criterion of limiting settlements to 1% of diameter. In the first method, for a given load requirement and pile diameter, the developed end-bearing at a displacement of 1% of shaft diameter is assumed to be fully available. Any deficit in capacity is assumed to be carried by the shaft, and the required shaft length is then determined from the shaft circumference and the allowable shaft adhesion. It is assumed that the shaft resistance is 'plastic' (i.e. is constant after

shear and normal stiffness of the interface to make predictions.

Such parameters are usually established through laboratory testing programmes and are used incrementally to relate shear and normal displacements to shear and normal stresses. In order to capture the necessary characteristics, numerous

reaching initial peak), resulting in no transfer of load to the base, and therefore guaranteeing settlements of less than 1% of pile diametrr. This method is not rigorous, because the strain fields from the assumed shaft and end-bearing components will not necessarily be compatible, and in practice the compatibility requirement will force some redistribution of resistance. In the second method the socket length is iteratively designed from charts provided for combined shaft and base resistance, thus taking into account elastic compatibility considerations. This second method results in longer pile sockets. This is essentially the same method as proposed by Horvath et a1. I' Pells2' adapted the second method to the limit state format and provided recommendations with regard to strength reduction factors. He also altered the determination of limiting shaft resistance from 0.05q, to include estimates from existing correlations with q, (e.g. Fig. 1). The input parameters required to cany out an elastic analysis include the Young's modulus of the rock mass around and below the pile, the average peak shaft resistance, and the ultimate base resistance of the pile.
3.2. Design for side-slip Rowe and Armitage, l 4 building on the work of Rowe and ~ells,~' presented design charts for piles including slip. The method is similar to, and requires the same input parameters as, the elastic method described above. The analytical solutions developed by Carter and Kulhawy4' can be used directly to estimate the load - displacement behaviour of the pile. Input parameters are similar to that required for elastic analysis.

the bottom rather than the bottom to the top) is thrn carried out to sum the contributions of each sublayer and of the base. The base response is assumed to be elastic perfectly plastic or hyperbolic, with the ultimate base resistance being input by the user. Base debris and enlarged (or smaller) bases can also be accounted for. The output is in the form of the pile head loaddisplacement response. As with all theoretical techniques, the solutions obtained are dependent on the input parameters. The following parameters are required to determine the t - z curve for each sublayer

(a) pile properties: shaft radius, initial normal stress (b) rock properties: peak intact rock strength parameters: cohesion c' and friction angle, @'; residual friction angle @,: rock mass Young's modulus E and Poisson's ratio, v (c) interface roughness properties: mean asperity height ha, and chord length 1.
As almost all of these parameters can have a significant influence on shaft resistance (the exception being Poisson's ratio), it is imperative that the designer understands the influence that each has on the development of shaft resistance. It is beyond the scope of this paper to describe in detail the impact of these parameters. The reader is referred to Seidel and Haberfield48.49and Haberfield and Seidelso for a full description of the models on which the program is based.
4. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS The analyses and design methods described in Section 3 above provide a rational basis for design of rock sockets. However, all the methods other than ROCKET97 rely on empirical correlations between shaft resistance and rock uniaxial strength (such as that shown in Fig. 1) to assess pile ultimate capacity. The wide scatter in such correlations forces the designer to adopt a conservative approach (e.g. ultimate shaft resistance3 value of 0.05q,).

3.3. Non-linear design Williams et al." developed a non-linear design method by combining empirically measured pile load-displacement response curves with elastic solutions. By implementing a simple iterative procedure they were able to develop loaddisplacement predictions for both side-only and complete (side and base) piles. At the time, the resulting design method provided a significant improvement in design rationale over existing methods, and was quickly accepted by local practitioners for the design of sockets in the Melbourne siltstone. Although still in use, the method has been largely superseded by more recent research work and the development of ROCKET97. The rock joint model developed by Seidel and H a b e r f ~ e l d ~ ~ forms the basis of a pile analysis program called ROCKET97.21 The program allows the designer to divide the socket and overburden into sublayers that might represent different rock and soil types or different weathering conditions within the same rock type. For each sublayer several fundamental input parameters are required. From this input, a t - z (shear stress against displacement) curve for each layer is calculated. These curves represent the behaviour of the concrete-rock interface for each sublayer. To determine the overall pile response, the elastic shortening of the pile shaft and the vertical elastic deformations of the rock mass need to be considered. The elastic deformations of the rock mass are determined using the ~ solution determined by Randolph and W r ~ t h . 'A reverse Coyle and Reese5' analysis (i.e. working from the top of the pile to

As has been intimated earlier, the scatter in Fig. 1 can be explained by considering the impact of pile diameter, rock type properties and characteristics (e.g. fracturing), construction practices, socket roughness and the relative contributions of base and shaft resistance to pile performance. ROCKET97 provides a rational approach for assessing the impact of all of these parameters. For example, the influence of socket diameter, roughness and initial normal stress on the load-displacement response of a pile socketed into highly to moderately weathered siltstone is illustrated in Fig. 2. The siltstone adopted for these analyses has a uniaxial compressive strength of approximately 3 MPa, and the following properties: Young's modulus = 360 MPa, Poisson's ratio = 0.3, drained peak cohesion = 0.75 MPa, drained peak friction angle = 36" and residual friction angle = 24.5'. The reference case adopts a socket diameter of 0.9 m, an initial normal stress of 0.1 MPa, and an absolute mean roughness angle of 10" at a chord length of 30 mm. For simplicity, only the results of the predictions at this chord length have been included. In each of the analyses described below only the relevant parameter (i.e. socket diameter, mean absolute roughness angle, or initial normal stress) has been varied. All

It is unlikely that designers and piling contractors will routinely measure socket roughness. For this reason, 10.0 Seidel and Haberfield20 have -0.9 published recommended 7.5 upper and lower values of 5.0 roughness parameters for as2.5 Annotations denote diameter drilled sockets (i.e. not grooved) as a function of rock strength. These are Shaft displacement: mm Shaft displacement: mm reproduced here in terms of (a) (b) roughness height in Fig. 3. The values correspond to a 50 mm chord length, which should give a reasonable estimate of ultimate resistance and a conservative estimate of displacement. Also shown in Fig. 3 are estimates of socket roughness back-estimated from pile load tests using ROCKET97 and JU recommendations for upper Annotations denote initial normal stress in kPa and lower roughness limits I I proposed by C o l l i n g ~ o o d . ~ ~ Shaft displacement: mm It is interesting to note that (c) the maximum roughness occurs in rocks with a qu of between 2 MPa and 10 MPa, perhaps reflecting the weathering and jointing condition of these rocks. The other parameters have been kept constant at the reference case greater roughness in these materials is also observed in values. The range of parameters considered are reasonably practice. typical of drilled sockets constructed in the siltstone bedrock that underlies much of Melbourne, Australia. C o l l i n g ~ o o d ~ ~ developed a system for characterisation of has roughness that allows designers to assess their sockets visually It should be emphasised that the ensuing discussion is relevant for roughness parameters. It is beyond the scope of this paper only for the parameters stated, and would not necessarily be to describe roughness in further detail. The reader is referred to and appropriate for other cases involving different parameters. Seidel and H a b e r f ~ e l d ~ ~ Haberfield and Seidelso for a more complete description of roughness.
800 T 'OoO

Annotat~ons denote mean absolute asperity angle in degrees

4.1. lnfluence of socket diameter

The influence of varying only socket diameter is shown in Fig. 2(a). An increase in socket diameter results in a decrease in unit shaft resistance and initial stiffness. The decrease becomes less pronounced as the socket becomes larger. The dependence on socket diameter is due to the constant normal stiffness condition:' as socket diameter increases, normal stiffness decreases, resulting in a smaller increase in normal stress with socket dilation, and lower shaft resistance.
4.2. lnfluence of socket roughness Figure 2(b) shows that socket roughness is critical to socket performance. Relatively smooth sockets display a much lower capacity and lower stiffness than relatively rough sockets. Artificial roughening of sockets has a beneficial effect on shaft capacity. Fig. 2(b), however, also suggests that there is an upper limit to socket roughness beyond which very little increase in shaft capacity can be obtained by artificial roughening.

Williams and ~ r v i n extremely jointed rock ~'

+
o

Anchors (D < 450 mrn) Sockets known to contain s~dewall smear Seidel el al.,53-proposed roughness bounds Proposed upper and lower bound roughness guidelines

Unconfined compressive strength: MPa

4.3. Influence of initial normal stress

The influence of initial normal stress on shaft capacity is shown in Fig. 2(c). For the range of initial normal stresses that would normally be expected to be encountered in drilled sockets due to the weight of wet concrete [which ranges from about 75 kPa to 245 kPa), only minor differences in peak resistance are predicted. However, the initial stiffness of the response increases as the initial normal stress is increased. As a result, although a poor estimate of initial normal stress is likely to have only a minor influence on the predicted shaft capacity, it may have a major influence on the predicted displacements at serviceability loads. Figure 2(c) also shows that substantial improvements in prepeak shaft performance can be obtained by artificially generating high initial normal stresses. Such stresses can be generated using expansive cements. Field investigation^^^ have been canied out to see whether this improved performance could be realised in practice. For relatively smooth sockets, significant increases in shaft resistance were achieved (threefold in some cases). However, for very rough sockets, little, if any, increase in socket resistance was observed. In general, initial stiffness increased with initial normal stress level.
4.4. Influence of bonding, smear and drilling fluid residue

pile tests to obtain such correlations is prohibitive, and well beyond the scope of most projects. As a result, designers using these methods will continue to produce overly conservative (and perhaps in some cases, unconservative) designs. Design by elastic or limited slip methods also relies on an appropriate estimate of Young's modulus for the rock. The value of Young's modulus is best achieved through backcalculation of existing field pile tests or pressuremeter tests, but more commonly through representative values learned through experience. Of interest is that in most cases the largest component of settlement at the pile head results from elastic compression of the pile shaft contained within the overburden. For reasonably long sockets this compression can account for more than 90010 of the pile settlement at serviceability loads. It is perhaps not surprising, then, that settlement estimates based on elastic and limited slip methods coupled with conservative estimates of shaft capacity result in overestimates of settlement. The main advantage of theoretical non-linear methods is that through such methods there is potential to make the pile work harder and/or to optimise design. By using such methods the designer can assess the likely benefits to be gained by changing pile diameter and length, socket roughening and socket cleaning. The loss of shaft resistance due to residual drilling fluids can also be investigated. The sensitivity of the pile design to variation in rock properties can be easily assessed. All of the above provide designers with greater confidence in their designs, and provide potential for cost savings and reduction of risk for their clients.

During excavation of rock sockets it is likely that some contamination of the socket wall will occur, either through smearing of the rock while cutting (in dry sockets) or by coating of the socket walls with drilling fluid residue (polymer or bentonite filter cake). Cleaning of the socket wall may remove most of this contamination, but it is likely that some smear or drilling fluid residue will remain-enough to prevent a significant cementitious bond occurring. ChengZ2investigated the effect of smear and drilling fluid residue on the performance of concrete-siltstone interfaces tested in direct shear in the laboratory. He found that polymer drilling fluids effectively precluded bonding, but otherwise did not significantly affect the performance of the interface. However, performance significantly reduced with increasing thickness of smear and bentonite filter cake. Theoretical models22 of performance for contaminated concrete-rock interfaces were subsequently developed. These models are yet to be validated for rock sockets, and have therefore not been incorporated into ROCKET97. However, the program input parameters can be manipulated to approximate the effect of contamination. The effects of smear and bentonite filter cake for a 600 mm diameter socket in moderately to slightly weathered siltstone are shown in Fig. 4. The importance of good construction practice and socket cleaning is clearly illustrated.
5. ADVANTAGES OF A MORE RATIONAL DESIGN APPROACH

6. FROM DESIGN T O CONSTRUCTION

ROCKET97 has been adopted as the analysis tool used with GARSP. GARSP provides a framework that allows the improved understanding of socket performance and construction techniques to be more fully utilised, and which, coupled with observations during pile installation, can reduce the risk and costs associated with the installation of rock-socketed piles. GARSP is a three-stage process comprising (a) geotechnical investigation, (b) analysis and design and (c) pile installation. All three stages are essential parts of the process.

6.1. Geotechnical investigation

All but one of the design methods presented earlier in the paper rely on an empirically based determination of shaft resistance. As has been demonstrated, there are several factors that have a significant influence on shaft resistance. These factors all interact in a very complex way, and, as a result, empirical correlations for shaft capacity that include only one parameter (e.g. q,) will always exhibit a very large scatter. Although site-specific derived correlations may reduce the scatter to some degree, the cost of canying out numerous field

The geotechnical investigation should comprise sufficient boreholes to assess variation of the rock conditions across the site and with depth over the volume of rock affected by the piles. Sufficient field and laboratory tests should be canied out for basic strength and deformation properties to be accurately quantified. In Melbourne, an extensive database of the properties of the Melbourne siltstone, which forms the bedrock for much of Melbourne and its surrounds, has been developed. This database allows a reasonably accurate assessment of the strength and deformation properties of the rock from correlations with the saturated water content of the rock. As a result, field and laboratory testing for piles in Melbourne siltstone would normally comprise:

1400 -

4. .
S
'a

12001000800 600 400 200 -

Clean socket

I4O0 -~nnotationsdenote bentonite thickness m 1200\

hi 1000 o

5 'Z

800 600 400 -

2 mm

%
L

e!

10 mm
Annotations denote smear thickness
I

5
15

200 -

o
0

o
0 5 10
Displacement: mm (b)

10

Displacement: mm (a)

I5

value in assessing the peak strength parameters of the rock. This may be useful in harder rocks, where the strength of the concrete (pile) is less than the rock, and is therefore of more significance with respect to the ~erforrnance the ~ i l e . of
6.2. Analysis and design

(a) saturated water content measurements on core samples at

1 m intervals (b) pressuremeter tests at 2-3 m intervals (c) unconfined compressive strength tests on core samples at pressuremeter test locations.

proriies or rocK qualiry (or weathering condition), strength and deformation parameters with depth. An example of the test data and assumed design profiles for a site in Melbourne is shown in Fig. 5. On the basis of the UCS data, Fig. 3 is used to assess appropriate (and prudent) roughness parameters for each 'layer' in the design profile. In choosing roughness parameters, consideration is given to the type of drilling equipment and the experience of the drilling contractor. In general, a lower quartile value of roughness is adopted and insistence that all sockets be artificially roughened using a roughening tool (e.g. a tooth fitted to a bucket auger). ROCKET97 is then used to assess socket performance for the range of pile diameters to be used at the site. A factor of safety on settlement is applied to the results of these analyses to produce an initial assessment of socket length, as shown in Fig. 6 . This chart can be provided to the client for the purposes of preliminary cost estimation. The choice of factor of safety for serviceability depends on the extent of the site investigation and the knowledge of the rock behaviour and properties. If a comprehensive site investigation (as set out earlier) is canied out, a factor of safety on settlement of 1.5 is usually adopted. A factor of safety of 2 applies for sites where the investigation has been less extensive or where the knowledge of the rock
Uniaxial compressive strength: MPa

The purpose of the pressuremeter and unconfined compressive strength tests is to provide a check on the deformation and intact strength properties assessed from the correlations with water content, and to assess the impact of jointing (especially on rock mass modulus). Peak strength parameters [friction angle and cohesion) of the intact rock can be assessed using the Hoek and Brown failure criterion. The above tests provide data that allow a site-specific assessment of Young's modulus and peak (intact) strength parameters of the rock to be made, together with their variation across the site and with depth. The residual friction angle of the rock is usually assessed on the basis of previous experience. For rocks where few data are available, direct shear tests on smooth interfaces should be camed out to assess residual friction angle. A Poisson's ratio of about 0.3 can be adopted for most rocks. It should be noted that point load strength index is of little
Moisture content: %

Initial Young's modulus, Ei: MPa

10

20

30

1000 2000 3000 4000

10

15

design line

.r
x

- GI' , I
I

X.

50

45 40

I
0

For estimating purposes only. Actual socket lengths to be assessed based on ground conditions at pile locations

6 8 10 Socket length: m

12

14

16

(a) It allows socket lengths to be optimised on the basis of the rock actually encountered in the socket. (b] It confirms design assumptions by observing rock quality, and ensuring that roughening and cleaning of sockets are carried out in an appropriate manner. (c) It allows unexpected and variable ground conditions (e.g. dykes) to be identified, and immediate and appropriate action to be taken (e.g. by lengthening or increasing diameter of the socket) so that the constructed pile satisfies the design requirements. (d) Piling installation techniques (i.e. contractor performance) can be monitored. (e) Drill cuttings can be collected for further assessment and confirmation of socket logging procedures (for internal QA requirements). The logging sheets compiled in the field by the field engineer are reviewed for internal QA requirements, and a pile report setting out the field observations and final socket design is completed, reviewed and sent to the client. ROCKET97 analyses are also carried out on some sockets to verify the field calculation procedures.
7. CASE STUDIES

properties is not as extensive. The choice of factor of safety can have a significant effect on the calculated length of the socket. The extra cost of a comprehensive site investigation is usually more than recovered in cost savings arising from reduced socket lengths. In assessing the values in Fig. 6, the socket lengths assessed from the analysis are increased by 10% to allow for unexpected ground conditions (e.g. dykes or other softer inclusions). It should be noted that these socket lengths are only preliminary, and final socket length is assessed in the field during socket drilling. The results of the analyses are also used to develop site-specific rock socket design sheets, which are subsequently used by field engineers during socket drilling to assess the final length of the sockets.

GARSP has been used by Golder Associates in association with Wagstaff Piling on several major construction projects in Melbourne. The ground conditions for these buildings have varied from 30 m of overburden over variably weathered siltstone, to variably weathered siltstone from the surface, to sites comprising weathered basalt overlying clays and sands overlying siltstone. The following project summaries illustrate the use of this new system to advantage on some recent piling projects.
7.1. Melbourne Central

6.3. Construction

During construction, an appropriately trained and experienced field engineer is on site to observe the pile installation process and to assess final socket lengths. During drilling of the socket, the field engineer observes the drill cuttings and drill penetration rate, and assesses the variation in quality and weathering condition of the rock with depth. The rock socket design sheets are used to assess the variation in shaft resistance along the socket as the depth of socket increases. This calculation is based on the assessed mobilised displacement along the socket, which depends on the 'target' settlement for the top of the socket. The 'target' settlement is calculated by applying a factor of safety of either 1.5 or 2 (as adopted for the project) to the design serviceability requirement. When the depth of the socket is such that the target settlement criterion is met, the ultimate capacity of the socket is checked to ensure that ultimate limit state requirements (with appropriate factors of safety) are also satisfied. Drilling then stops, and socket roughening (to obtain minimum roughness levels) and cleaning (to remove smear and residual drilling fluids) are then carried out. The presence of a field engineer on site achieves several purposes.

Melbourne Central is a commercial tower in Melbourne that is currently undergoing refurbishment. As part of this refurbishment, additional loads were to be placed on the rocksocketed piles supporting the tower structure. An assessment was carried out to determine whether or not strengthening of the foundations was required. On the basis of the information provided, analyses using ROCKET97 indicated that the performance of the pile sockets would be satisfactory under the action of the new loads, and hence the recommendation was made that no strengthening of the foundations was required.
7.2. Royal Domain Tower

Royal Domain Tower is a residential tower development of about 40 levels currently under construction in Melbourne. The subsurface stratigraphy is variable, and comprises extremely weathered to moderately weathered siltstone (unconfined compressive strength (UCS) values of about 0-7- 5 MPa) from the surface. Several dykes were encountered during the site investigation. The strength of the dykes varied from clay to relatively fresh rock, and the occurrence of dykes was difficult to predict. The dykes therefore posed a significant risk to foundation design. The tower is supported on approximately 85 piles, ranging in diameter from 0.75 m to 1.5 m. Serviceability loads ranged between 5 MN and 15 MN, and design pile head settlement is lolo of diameter. A detailed ground investigation was carried out, and GARSP was used to establish pile lengths. The cost of the additional soil and rock testing was about

A$10000. The application of GARSP to this project resulted in reduction in socket lengths of up to 13 m when compared with traditional design approaches. lnstalled socket lengths varied generally between about 5 m and 11 m depending on observed ground conditions and load. Total savings of around 950 m of socket length, 900 m3 of concrete, 1400 m3 reduction in spoil and several weeks in construction time were achieved as a result of the use of this design approach.
7.3. Melbourne Cricket Ground, Northern Stand
Redevelopment

Because of the limited site investigation and the unconventional programming of the works, it was essential that pile design could be adjusted on site by the geotechnical engineer as the piles were drilled. The fured occupation times and the high cost of mobilising piling equipment to poorly accessible locations made GARSP an essential tool on this project. The design efficiencies and flexibility delivered by this approach were an invaluable tool in successful delivery of the piling works, and provided savings estimated to be in the order of hundreds of thousands of dollars and tens of weeks in duration. The first project summary set out above illustrates the use of recent advances in rock socket pile analysis to preclude the need for a costly and difficult foundation upgrade for an existing development. The subsequent three project summaries illustrate the following key advantages of an efficient and flexible design approach provided by GARSP (a) less conservative design outcome than conventional approaches ( b ) cost-effectiveness (c) time saving ( d ) real-time pile design (e) on-site design adjustment. This design approach, coupled with best practice construction practices and management, made a significant contribution to overcoming the challenges faced during these three projects and ensuring their success.
8. SUMMARY A N D CONCLUSIONS

This project involved design and installation of over 300 loadbearing foundation and retention piles of 600- 1800 mm diameter, up to around 25 m depth. Pile loadings varied significantly, with up to 30 MN axial loading, and required socketing into siltstone bedrock, which was found at depths ranging from ground level to 20 m. Limited geotechnical investigation could be carried out prior to the commencement the works because of the presence of an existing grandstand across much of the site. The existing stand was progressively demolished, with piling works following close behind. As a result, the piling works became an ongoing site investigation, with the geotechnical conditions encountered sometimes differing significantly from those found in the nearest borehole. Execution of the works was complicated by the presence of numerous badly decomposed and unpredictable igneous dykes and an ancient riverbed alignment bisecting the site. Preliminary geotechnical design of rock-socketed piles was canied out based on the available geotechnical data, but all sockets were logged and final design lengths assessed using GARSP. The flexibility of this design approach enabled socket design to be adjusted on site, based on the conditions encountered, and allowed socket lengths to be optimised during the course of drilling. Despite the lack of preliminary site investigation, significant cost and time savings were able to be delivered.
7.4. Spencer Street Station Redevelopment This project involved the installation of over 250 bored piles of 600- 1500 mm diameter across an extremely large site (around 75 000 m2) with ground conditions comprising variably weathered basalt rock of unpredictable thickness overlying around 10- 15 m of clays and sands, which were in turn underlain by siltstone rock. The piled foundations were required to carry the supports for the elaborate steel-framed roof structure, which necessitated a stringent differential settlement criterion. Piles were able to be founded in the basalt rock, provided sufficient thickness and quality of rock were available. In the event that this was not the case, the piles were founded in the sands at around 20 m depth, or in some cases drilled to siltstone at around 30 m depth.

This paper briefly provides an o v e ~ e w analysis and design of methods for piles socketed into rock. It demonstrates the weaknesses in the traditional methods of analysis and design, and introduces a new design system called GARSP. This new system couples state-of-the-art analysis techniques with careful field observations and logging during construction to provide significant improvements in pile design, in respect both to optimisation of socket lengths and to reduction of risk. Four case histories, where this new technology has been used, are presented. In three of these, the adopted design system provided significant savings to the client in terms both of material quantities and of construction time. In the first case study, analyses of pre-existing piles using new analysis techniques provided confidence that the existing building foundations were able to carry the additional loads due to refurbishment of the building, and no strengthening of foundations was required, again providing considerable savings to the client.
9. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors gratefully acknowledge Foundation QA Pty Ltd for allowing the use of the program ROCKET97.
REFERENCES

The construction site is an operational train station, in which platforms were progressively closed and occupied for fixed durations for the construction works. Because of the difficulty of accessing the works areas prior to platform occupations, the geotechnical site investigation was again limited. Occupation durations varied from months to as little as 1- 2 days, and much of the work was completed on weekends and night shifts.

1. JOHNSTON Rock-socketing down under. Contract I. W. Journal, 1977, 279, 50-53. 2. WILLIAMS F. and PELLS J. N. Side resistance rock A. P. sockets in sandstone, mudstone and shale. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 1981, 18, No. 4, 502 - 5 13. M. 3. O'NEILL W. and HAssAN K. M. Drilled shafts: effects of

construction on performance and design criteria. Proceedings of the International Conference on Design and Construction of Deep Foundations, Orlando, FL, 1994,pp.
137- 187. C. D. and G. 4. FREEMAN F., KLAJNERMAN PRASAD D. Design of

Christchurch, 1992,pp. 157- 162. 20. SEIDEL P. and HABERFIELD C. M. The axid capacity of pile J. sockets in rocks and hard soils. Ground Engineering, 1995, 28, NO. 2, 38-38. S. 2 1. BAYCAN Improving the Capacity of Bored Piles and Ground Anchors Using Expansive Concretes. PhD thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University, Australia, 1997. F. 22. CHENG K. K. A Laboratory Study of the Influence of Wall Smear and Residual Drilling Fluids on Rock Socketed Pile Performance. PhD thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University, Australia, 1997. P. 23. PELLS J. N. State of practice for the design of socketed piles in rock. In Proceedings of the 8th A N Z Conference on Geomechanics, Hobart, 1999,vol. 1, pp. 307-328. B. The 24. COLLINGWOOD Effect of Construction Practices on the Performance of Rock Socketed Piles. PhD thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University, Australia, 2000. 25. PEASE A. and KULHAWYH. 1984. Behaviour of rock K. F. anchors and sockets. In Proceedings of the 25th US Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Evanston. Society of Mining Engineers of AIME, New York, 1984,pp. 883-890. J. 26. CARTER P. and 001 L. H. Application of a joint model to concrete-sandstone interfaces. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Numerical Methods in Geomechanics, Innsbruck. Balkema, Rotterdam, 1988, pp. 889-893. 27. HASSAN M. Analysis and Design of Drilled Shafts K. Socketed into Soft Rock. PhD thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Houston,
1994. 28. SEIDEL P. ROCKET97 Help Manual. Department of Civil J. Engineering, Monash University, 2000. 29. GILLS. A. 1980. Design and construction of rock caissons. In Proceedings o f the International Conference on

deep socketed caissons into shale bedrock. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 1972,9,No. 11, 105- 114. 5. TOMLINSON J. Pile Design and Construction Practice. M. Viewpoint Publications, Cement and Concrete Association, London, 1977. P. N. 6. ROSENBERGand JOURNEAUX L. Friction and endbearing tests on bedrock for high capacity socket design. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 1976, 13,No. 3,
324-333. C. 7. THORNE P. The allowable loadings of foundations on shale and sandstone in the Sydney region. Part 3: Field test

results. Paper presented to Sydney Group of Australian Geomechanics Society, Institution of Engineers of Australia, 1977 (unpublished report). 8. HORVATH G. Field Load Test Data on Concrete-to-Rock R. Bond Strength for Drilled Pier Foundations. University of Toronto, Department of Civil Engineering, 1978, Publication 78-07. R. 9. HORVATH G. and KENNY T. C. Shaft resistance of rocksocketed drilled piers. Presented at ASCE Annual Convention, Atlanta, GA, 979,Preprint No. 3698. E. 10. Pomos H.G. and DAVIS H. Pile Foundation Analysis and Design. John Wiley 8 Sons, New York, 1980. A. I. I. 11. WILLIAMS F., JOHNSTONW. and DONALD B. The design of socketed piles in weak rock. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Structural Foundations on Rock, Sydney. Balkema, Rotterdam, 1980,pp. 327-347. P. R. R. 12. PELLS J. N., ROWE K. and TURNER M. An experimental investigation into side shear for socketed piles in sandstone. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Structural Foundations on Rock, Sydney. Balkema, Rotterdam, 1980,pp. 291 -302. 13. HORVATH R. G., KENNY T. C and KOZICKI Methods for P. improving the performance of drilled piers in weak rock. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 1983,20, No. 4, 758-772. R. H. 14. ROWE K. and ARMITAGE H. 1984. The Design of Piles Socketed into Weak Rock. University of Western Ontario, Canada, 1984,Report GEOT-11-84. 15. JOHNSTON I. W., LAM T. S. K. and WILLIAMS F. Constant A. normal stiffness direct shear testing for socketed pile design in weak rock. Geotechnique, 1987,37,No. 1,
83 - 89. I. C. 16. JOHNSTONW. and HABERFIELD M. Side resistance of

piles in weak rock. In Piling: European Practice and Worldwide Trends, (SANDS (ed.)). Thomas Telford, M. London, 1992,pp. 52-58. 17. MCVAY C., TOWNSEND C. and WILLIAMS C. Design of M. F. R. socketed drilled shafts in limestone. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 1992, 11 8,No. 10, 1626- 1637. 18. KULHAWY H. and PHOON K. Drilled shaft side resistance F. K. in clay soil to rock. Proceedings of the Conference on Design and Performance of Deep foundations: Piles and Piers in Soil and Soft Rock. ASCE, 1993, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 38,pp. 172- 183. J. 1. C. 19. KODIKARA K., JOHNSTONW. and HABERFIELD M. Analytical predictions for side resistance of piles in rock. Proceedings of the 6th ANZ Conference on Geomechanics,

Structural Foundations on Rock, Sydney. Balkema, Rotterdam, 1980, pp. 241 -252. 30. W H ~ A K E RThe Design of Piled Foundations, 2nd edn. T. Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1976. R. 3 1 WHlTAKER T. and COOKE W. An investigation of the shaft . and base resistances of large bored piles in London Clay. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Large Bored Piles. ICE, London, 1966,pp. 7-49. 32. THORNBURN S. 1966. Large diameter piles founded in bedrock. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Large Bored Piles. ICE, London, 1966,pp. 95- 103. 33. DAYH. B. Rock socketed piles: MMBW Highways Division practice. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Rock Socketed Piles. Australian Geomechanics Society, Victoria Group, 1974. R. 34. HORVATH G. Behaviour of Rock-socketed Drilled Pier Foundations. PhD thesis, University of Toronto, 1982. 35. RANDOLPH F. and WROTH 0. A simple approach to pile M. C. design and the evaluation of pile tests. In Behaviour of Deep Foundations (LUNDGREN(ed.)). American Society for R. Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, 1978, ASTM STP 670,pp. 484-499. P. R. 36. PELLS J. N. and TURNER M. Elastic solutions for the design and analysis of rock socketed piles. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 1979, 16,No. 4, 48 1-487. 37. DONALD B., CHIUH. K. and SLOAN W. 1980.Theoretical I. S.

analyses of rock socketed piles. Proceedings of the International Conference on Structural Foundations on Rock, Sydney. Balkema, Rotterdam, 1980, pp. 303-3 16. H. 38. POULOS G. and DAVISE. H. Elastic Solutions for Soil and Rock Mechanics. John Wiley 8 Sons, New York, 1974. J. 0. S. 39. OSTERBERG and GILL A. Load transfer mechanism for piers socketed in hard soils or rock. In Proceedings of the

based model for rough rock joints. International Journal of

Rock Mechanics, Mining Science and Geomechanics Abstracts, 1994, 3 1, No. 4, 279-292.
C. 48. SEIDEL J. P. and HABERFIELDM. A theoretical model for rock joints subjected to constant normal stiffness direct shear. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 2002, 39, No. 5, 539-554. 49. SEIDEL P. and HABERFIELDM. Laboratory testing of J. C. concrete-rock joints in constant normal stiffness direct shear. Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM, 2002, 25, NO. 4, 39 1-404. C. 50. HABERFIELD M. and SEIDEL J. P. The role of theoretical models in the analysis and design of rock socketed piles. In Proceedings of the John Booker Memorial Symposium [SMITH W. and CARTER P. (eds)).Balkema, D. J. Rotterdam, 2000, pp. 465-488. 5 1. ConE H. M. and REESE C. Load transfer for axially L. loaded piles in clay. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering Division, ASCE, 1966, 92, No. SM2, 1-26. M. 52. WILLIAMS F. and ERVIN C. The design and A. performance of cast-in-situ piles in extremely jointed silurian mudstone. In Proceedings of the 3rd ANZ

9th Canadian Rock Mechanics Symposium, Montreal.

Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, Mine Branch, Quebec, 1973, pp. 235-261. 40. ROWE K. and PELLS J. N. A theoretical study of pileR. P. rock socket behaviour. In Proceedings of the International

Conference on Structural Foundations on Rock, Sydney.

Balkema, Rotterdam, 1980, pp. 253-264. J. F. 41. CARTER P. and KULHAW H. 1987. Analysis and Design of Drilled Shaft Foundations Socketed into Rock. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, 1987, Report 1493-4. 42. LEONG C. and RANDOLPH F. Modelling of sliding E. M. behaviour at rock interfaces. In Proceedings of the 7th

International Conference on Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics, Cairns, Australia. Balkema,
Rotterdam, 1991, vol. 1, pp. 365-369. 43. HEUZE E. and BARBOUR G. New models for rock joints F. T. and interfaces. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 1982, 108, No. 5, 757-776. 44. LIEICHNITZ Q. Mechanical properties of rock joints.

Conference on Geomechanics, Wellington, New Zealand.

New Zealand Institution of Engineers, Wellington, 1980, V O ~ . 1, pp. 115-121. 53. SEIDEL P., GU X. F. and HABERFIELOM. A new factor J. C. for improved prediction of the resistance of pile shafts i n rock. In Proceedings of the 7th ANZ Conference on Geomechanics, Adelaide, Australia. Institution of Engineers Australia, Canberra, 1996, pp. 693-697. 54. SEIDEL P and WERFIELD J. C. M. Towards a n understanding of joint roughness. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineen'ng, 1995, 28, No. 2, 69-92. S. J. 55. HABERFIELDM., BAYCAN and SEIDEL P. Field testing C. of bored piles in weak rock. In Proceedings of the 6th ANZ Conference on Geomechanics, Adelaide. Institution of Engineers Australia, Canberra, 1996, pp. 885-890.

International Journal of Rock Mechanics, Mining Science and Geomechanics Abstracts, 1985, 22, No. 5, 3 13-321.
45. PLESHA E. Constitutive models for rock discontinuities M. with dilatancy and surface degradation. International

Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 1987, 1 1, No. 4, 345-362. 46. JOHNSTONW. and LAMT. S. K. Shear behaviour of regular I. triangular concretelrock joints: analysis. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 1989, 115,
NO. 5, 71 1-727. 47. HABERFIELD C. M. and JOHNSTONW. A mechanistically I.

What do you think? T o comment on this paper, please email up t o 500 words t o the editor at journals@ice.org.uk
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in by civil engineers and related professionals, academics and students. Papers should be 200CL5000 words long, with adequate illustrations and references. Please visit www.thomastelford.comljournalsfor author guidelines and further details.