Proceedings of the Institution of
Civil Engineers
Geotechnical Engineering 159
July 2006 Issue GE3
Pages 207217
Paper 14381
Received 17/08/2005
Accepted 03/04/2006
Keywords: Chris Haberfield
foundations/piles & piling Golder Associates Pty Ltd,
Australia
Rock-socketed pile design and construction: a better way?
C. Haberfield BE, BSc, PhD, FIE(Aust) and B. Collingwood
Piles socketed into rock are often used to support heavy
loads from buildings and infrastructure. Piles typically of
up to 1.8 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 to design, and allows socket
lengths to 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.
1. INTRODUCTION
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 large-
diameter 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. The socket must be
designed to carry the imposed loads safely and limit
settlements to an acceptable level. Pile lengths in excess of
70 m, diameters up to 3 m and serviceability loads in excess of
50 MN are possible.
Geotechnical Engineering 159 Issue GE3
Ben Collingwood
Wagstaff Piling Pty Ltd,
Melbourne, Australia
BE, PhD
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, the type, stiffness and strength of
the rock, and construction effects such as socket 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. 13 Shaft 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 rock. 2,424 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 pile
performance has led to the development of quite sophisticated
computer programs to calculate the loaddeformation
performance of socketed piles. 20,2527 Each of these programs
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. ROCKET97 20,28 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
Rock-socketed pile design and construction: a better way? Haberfield Collingwood 207
 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
concreterock 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 OF SOCKETED PILE ANALYSIS
AND DESIGN
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 resistance. 29,30 Typically, peak shaft resistance mobilises
at displacements of around 0.51% of pile diameter, whereas
displacements of around 1020% of pile diameter may be
required to approach ultimate base resistance. 31 In developing
the shaft resistance, the pilerock 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 pilerock interface,
gradually leading to more load being taken by the base.
Specific allowance for shaft resistance in rock sockets started to
appear in the mid 1960s. Values of allowable shaft resistance
between 100 kPa and 1000 kPa were quoted for different
rocks. 32 Although the importance of shaft resistance was
208 Geotechnical Engineering 159 Issue GE3 Rock-socketed pile design and construction: a better way?
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. 10,12,33 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 qu of the rock. Fig. 1 shows correlations presented by
Rowe and Armitage. 14 The adhesion factor is the ratio of
ultimate shaft resistance to qu . Kulhawy and Phoon 18 later
presented a more comprehensive database. Fig. 1 shows that
there is almost an order of magnitude variation in back-
calculated 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 same material.
Existing correlations with qu 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 medium. 3539
10
05
045qu
043
04qu
Adhesion factor, q
05 2 3
02qu 3
2
2
05
03qu 2
01 044qu
064
Legend
Mudstone, shale
Sandstone
Indicates test not to failure
Shaded symbol denotes a tension (Pull-out) socket
Correlation from:
Linear regression13
Horvath 34et al.
Horvath
Williams et al.11
001
02 10 10 40
Unconfined compressive strength, qu: MPa
Fig. 1. Empirical corrections with Rowe and Armitage 14
Haberfield Collingwood
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 pilerock interface they cannot be
used to predict ultimate pile performance, and therefore must
rely on the empirical correlations with qu , such as shown in
Fig. 1, to estimate capacity.
Williams et al. 11 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 non-
linear 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 solutions 14,37,40 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 Armitage 14 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 Kulhawy 41 developed approximate analytical
solutions for the loadsettlement 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.
Pells 23 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 pilerock 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 samples. 25,26,42 This work is closely allied to
the work of researchers in the field of rock mechanics, who
have established similar relationships for natural rock
joints. 4345
Most of these finite-element-based rock joint models do not
explicitly model the kinematics of the pilerock interface, but
instead treat the interface as a black box and rely on
empirically deprived parameters such as strength, dilation, and
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
Geotechnical Engineering 159 Issue GE3 Rock-socketed pile design and construction: a better way?
empirical factors must usually be established. For example,
Carter and Ooi 26 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 micro-
mechanics of the interface directly. Hassan 27 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
University. 4650 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 loaddisplacement behaviour of
the pilerock 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 concreterock (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 roughness. 21,22,24
3. AVAILABLE DESIGN METHODS
Of the analysis methods described above, relatively few appear
to be commonly used for design (at least in Australia). Pells 23
groups the available design methods into three categories:
elastic design, 12,41 design for side-slip 14,40 and non-linear
analysis. 11,50
3.1. Elastic design
Various approaches have been devised in order to translate the
elastic solutions into simple design rules. Pells and Turner 36
presented a series of elastic solutions for shaft-only, base-only
and combined shaft and base resistance piles determined from
numerical integration of Mindlins 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 qu and 0.5 qu 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
Haberfield Collingwood 209
 reaching initial peak), resulting in no transfer of load to the
base, and therefore guaranteeing settlements of less than 1% of
pile diameter. 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 al. 13
Pells 23 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 0.05qu to include estimates from existing
correlations with qu (e.g. Fig. 1).
The input parameters required to carry out an elastic analysis
include the Youngs 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, 14 building on the work of Rowe and
Pells, 40 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 Kulhawy 41 can be used directly to
estimate the loaddisplacement behaviour of the pile. Input
parameters are similar to that required for elastic analysis.
3.3. Non-linear design
Williams et al. 11 developed a non-linear design method by
combining empirically measured pile loaddisplacement
response curves with elastic solutions. By implementing a
simple iterative procedure they were able to develop load
displacement 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 Haberfield 49
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
z (shear stress
against displacement) curve for each layer is calculated. These
curves represent the behaviour of the concreterock 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 Wroth. 35 A reverse Coyle
and Reese 51 analysis (i.e. working from the top of the pile to
210 Geotechnical Engineering 159 Issue GE3 Rock-socketed pile design and construction: a better way?
the bottom rather than the bottom to the top) is then 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 load
displacement response.
As with all theoretical techniques, the solutions obtained are
dependent on the input parameters. The following parameters
are required to determine the
z curve for each sublayer
(a) pile properties: shaft radius, initial normal stress
(b) rock properties: peak intact rock strength parameters:
cohesion c9 and friction angle, 9; residual friction angle
r : rock mass Youngs modulus E and Poissons ratio, 
(c) interface roughness properties: mean asperity height hav
and chord length .
As almost all of these parameters can have a significant
influence on shaft resistance (the exception being Poissons
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
Haberfield 48,49 and Haberfield and Seidel 50 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
resistance 3 value of 0.05qu ).
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
loaddisplacement 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: Youngs modulus 360 MPa, Poissons
ratio 0.3, drained peak cohesion 0.75 MPa, drained peak
friction angle 368 and residual friction angle 24.58. 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 108 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
Haberfield Collingwood
 It is unlikely that designers
1000
800 Annotations denote mean absolute
and piling contractors will
035 asperity angle in degrees
Shaft resistance: kPa 800 routinely measure socket

Shaft resistance: kPa

600 150 175 roughness. For this reason,
125
06
600 100 Seidel and Haberfield 20 have
400 09 published recommended
15 75
400
20 50
upper and lower values of
200 roughness parameters for as-
200 25
Annotations denote diameter drilled sockets (i.e. not
of shaft in (m)
0 0 grooved) as a function of
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 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
2000
50 mm chord length, which
1200 should give a reasonable
1500 estimate of ultimate
Shaft resistance: kPa

900 resistance and a conservative

estimate of displacement.
1000 600 Also shown in Fig. 3 are
estimates of socket roughness
300 back-estimated from pile load
500 100 tests using ROCKET97 and
30
Annotations denote initial normal recommendations for upper
stress in kPa and lower roughness limits
0
0 5 10 15 proposed by Collingwood. 24
Shaft displacement: mm It is interesting to note that
(c)
the maximum roughness
occurs in rocks with a qu of
Fig. 2. Predicted influence of (a) socket diameter, (b) socket roughness and (c) initial normal
stress on performance 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. Collingwood 24 has developed a system for characterisation of
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
appropriate for other cases involving different parameters. Seidel and Haberfield 54 and Haberfield and Seidel 50 for a more
complete description of roughness.

4.1. Influence 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 Williams and Ervin52 extremely jointed rock
unit shaft resistance and initial stiffness. The decrease becomes 50
Pilesshaft resistance fully mobilised
less pronounced as the socket becomes larger. The dependence Pilesfull shaft resistance not mobilised
Effective roughness height: mm

40 Anchors (D , 450 mm)

on socket diameter is due to the constant normal stiffness Sockets known to contain sidewall smear
Seidel el al.,53proposed roughness bounds
condition: 1 as socket diameter increases, normal stiffness Proposed upper and lower bound roughness guidelines
decreases, resulting in a smaller increase in normal stress with 30
socket dilation, and lower shaft resistance.
20

4.2. Influence of socket roughness

10
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. 0

Artificial roughening of sockets has a beneficial effect on shaft 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5
10 2 3 4 5
100 2 3

capacity. Fig. 2(b), however, also suggests that there is an Unconfined compressive strength: MPa
upper limit to socket roughness beyond which very little
increase in shaft capacity can be obtained by artificial Fig. 3. Variation of socket roughness with rock strength
roughening.

Geotechnical Engineering 159 Issue GE3 Rock-socketed pile design and construction: a better way? Haberfield Collingwood 211
 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 pre-
peak shaft performance can be obtained by artificially
generating high initial normal stresses. Such stresses can be
generated using expansive cements. Field investigations 55 have
been carried 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
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 remainenough to prevent a
significant cementitious bond occurring. Cheng 22 investigated
the effect of smear and drilling fluid residue on the
performance of concretesiltstone 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 models 22 of
performance for contaminated concreterock 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
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. qu ) will always exhibit a very large scatter.
Although site-specific derived correlations may reduce the
scatter to some degree, the cost of carrying out numerous field
212 Geotechnical Engineering 159 Issue GE3 Rock-socketed pile design and construction: a better way?
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 Youngs modulus for the rock. The
value of Youngs modulus is best achieved through back-
calculation 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 90% 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.
6. FROM DESIGN TO 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
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 carried 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:
Haberfield Collingwood
 value in assessing the peak
1400 1400
Annotations denote bentonite thickness strength parameters of the
1200 Clean socket 1200
Shaft resistance: kPa

Shaft resistance: kPa

2 mm rock. This may be useful in
1000 1000 Clean socket
4 mm harder rocks, where the
800 800 2 mm
6 mm strength of the concrete (pile)
600 600 4 mm
8 mm 6 mm is less than the rock, and is
400 400 therefore of more
10 mm 8 mm
200 200 10 mm significance with respect to
Annotations denote smear thickness
0 0 the performance of the pile.
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
Displacement: mm Displacement: mm
(a) 6.2. Analysis and design (b)
The data from the
Fig. 4. Predicted influence of socket wall contamination on socket performance: (a) rock smear; geotechnical investigation are
(b) bentonite filter cake interpreted to provide design
profiles of rock quality (or
weathering condition),
(a) saturated water content measurements on core samples at strength and deformation parameters with depth. An example
1 m intervals of the test data and assumed design profiles for a site in
(b) pressuremeter tests at 23 m intervals Melbourne is shown in Fig. 5.
(c) unconfined compressive strength tests on core samples at
pressuremeter test locations. On the basis of the UCS data, Fig. 3 is used to assess
appropriate (and prudent) roughness parameters for each layer
The purpose of the pressuremeter and unconfined compressive in the design profile. In choosing roughness parameters,
strength tests is to provide a check on the deformation and consideration is given to the type of drilling equipment and the
intact strength properties assessed from the correlations with experience of the drilling contractor. In general, a lower
water content, and to assess the impact of jointing (especially quartile value of roughness is adopted and insistence that all
on rock mass modulus). Peak strength parameters (friction sockets be artificially roughened using a roughening tool (e.g.
angle and cohesion) of the intact rock can be assessed using a tooth fitted to a bucket auger).
the Hoek and Brown failure criterion.
ROCKET97 is then used to assess socket performance for the
The above tests provide data that allow a site-specific range of pile diameters to be used at the site. A factor of safety
assessment of Youngs modulus and peak (intact) strength on settlement is applied to the results of these analyses to
parameters of the rock to be made, together with their produce an initial assessment of socket length, as shown in Fig.
variation across the site and with depth. The residual friction 6. This chart can be provided to the client for the purposes of
angle of the rock is usually assessed on the basis of previous preliminary cost estimation. The choice of factor of safety for
experience. For rocks where few data are available, direct shear serviceability depends on the extent of the site investigation
tests on smooth interfaces should be carried out to assess and the knowledge of the rock behaviour and properties. If a
residual friction angle. A Poissons ratio of about 0.3 can be comprehensive site investigation (as set out earlier) is carried
adopted for most rocks. 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
It should be noted that point load strength index is of little has been less extensive or where the knowledge of the rock

Moisture content: % Initial Youngs modulus, Ei: MPa Uniaxial compressive strength: MPa
0 10 20 30 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 0 5 10 15
0 0 0
Upstream end
2 2 2 design line
Downstream
4 4 4 end design line
Depth below top of siltstone: m

Depth below top of siltstone: m

Depth below top of siltstone: m

6 6 6

8 8 8

10 10 10

12 12 12

14 14 14

16 16 16

18 18 18

Fig. 5. Example of data and resulting design profile adopted for a site in Melbourne

Geotechnical Engineering 159 Issue GE3 Rock-socketed pile design and construction: a better way? Haberfield Collingwood 213

50 For estimating purposes only. Actual
socket lengths to be assessed
45 based on ground conditions at pile
40 locations Socket diameter
Allowable socket load: MN
5 18 m
35 Downstream end
30 Upstream end
25 09 m
20
15
10
5
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Socket length: m
Fig. 6. Example of preliminary socket lengths for estimation
purposes
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.
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.
214 Geotechnical Engineering 159 Issue GE3
(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.
15 m (c) It allows unexpected and variable ground conditions (e.g.
12 m
dykes) to be identified, and immediate and appropriate
18 m
15 m
action to be taken (e.g. by lengthening or increasing
diameter of the socket) so that the constructed pile satisfies
12 m
the design requirements.
09 m (d) Piling installation techniques (i.e. contractor performance)
can be monitored.
12 14 16 (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
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
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 rock-
socketed 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 0.75 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 1% 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
Rock-socketed pile design and construction: a better way? Haberfield Collingwood
A$10 000. The application of GARSP to this project resulted in
reduction in socket lengths of up to 13 m when compared with
traditional design approaches. Installed 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
This project involved design and installation of over 300 load-
bearing foundation and retention piles of 6001800 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
carried 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
6001500 mm diameter across an extremely large site (around
75 000 m2 ) with ground conditions comprising variably
weathered basalt rock of unpredictable thickness overlying
around 1015 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.
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 12 days, and
much of the work was completed on weekends and night shifts.
Geotechnical Engineering 159 Issue GE3 Rock-socketed pile design and construction: a better way?
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 fixed 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 AND CONCLUSIONS
This paper briefly provides an overview of analysis and design
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
1. JOHNSTON I. W. Rock-socketing down under. Contract
Journal, 1977, 279, 5053.
2. WILLIAMS A. F. and PELLS P. J. N. Side resistance rock
sockets in sandstone, mudstone and shale. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 1981, 18, No. 4, 502513.
3. ONEILL M. W. and HASSAN K. M. Drilled shafts: effects of
Haberfield Collingwood 215
 construction on performance and design criteria.
Proceedings of the International Conference on Design and
Construction of Deep Foundations, Orlando, FL, 1994, pp.
137187.
4. FREEMAN C. F., KLAJNERMAN D. and PRASAD G. D. Design of
deep socketed caissons into shale bedrock. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 1972, 9, No. 11, 105114.
5. TOMLINSON M. J. Pile Design and Construction Practice.
Viewpoint Publications, Cement and Concrete Association,
London, 1977.
6. ROSENBERG P. and JOURNEAUX N. L. Friction and end-
bearing tests on bedrock for high capacity socket
design. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 1976, 13, No. 3,
324333.
7. THORNE C. 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 R. G. Field Load Test Data on Concrete-to-Rock
Bond Strength for Drilled Pier Foundations. University of
Toronto, Department of Civil Engineering, 1978,
Publication 78-07.
9. HORVATH R. G. and KENNY T. C. Shaft resistance of rock-
socketed drilled piers. Presented at ASCE Annual
Convention, Atlanta, GA, 979, Preprint No. 3698.
10. POULOS H. G. and DAVIS E. H. Pile Foundation Analysis and
Design. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1980.
11. WILLIAMS A. F., JOHNSTON I. W. and DONALD I. 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. 327347.
12. PELLS P. J. N., ROWE R. K. and TURNER R. 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. 291302.
13. HORVATH R. G., KENNY T. C and KOZICKI P. Methods for
improving the performance of drilled piers in weak rock.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 1983, 20, No. 4, 758772.
14. ROWE R. K. and ARMITAGE H. 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 A. F. Constant
normal stiffness direct shear testing for socketed pile
design in weak rock. Geotechnique, 1987, 37, No. 1,
8389.
16. JOHNSTON I. W. and HABERFIELD C. M. Side resistance of
piles in weak rock. In Piling: European Practice and
Worldwide Trends, (SANDS M. (ed.)). Thomas Telford,
London, 1992, pp. 5258.
17. MCVAY M. C., TOWNSEND F. C. and WILLIAMS R. C. Design of
socketed drilled shafts in limestone. Journal of Geotech-
nical Engineering, ASCE, 1992, 118, No. 10, 16261637.
18. KULHAWY F. H. and PHOON K. K. Drilled shaft side resistance
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. 172183.
19. KODIKARA J. K., JOHNSTON I. W. and HABERFIELD C. M.
Analytical predictions for side resistance of piles in rock.
Proceedings of the 6th ANZ Conference on Geomechanics,
216 Geotechnical Engineering 159 Issue GE3 Rock-socketed pile design and construction: a better way?
Christchurch, 1992, pp. 157162.
20. SEIDEL J. P. and HABERFIELD C. M. The axial capacity of pile
sockets in rocks and hard soils. Ground Engineering, 1995,
28, No. 2, 3838.
21. BAYCAN S. Improving the Capacity of Bored Piles and
Ground Anchors Using Expansive Concretes. PhD thesis,
Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University,
Australia, 1997.
22. CHENG F. 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.
23. PELLS P. J. N. State of practice for the design of socketed
piles in rock. In Proceedings of the 8th ANZ Conference on
Geomechanics, Hobart, 1999, vol. 1, pp. 307328.
24. COLLINGWOOD B. The Effect of Construction Practices on the
Performance of Rock Socketed Piles. PhD thesis,
Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University,
Australia, 2000.
25. PEASE K. A. and KULHAWY F. H. 1984. Behaviour of rock
anchors and sockets. In Proceedings of the 25th US
Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Evanston. Society of
Mining Engineers of AIME, New York, 1984, pp. 883890.
26. CARTER J. P. and OOI L. H. Application of a joint model to
concretesandstone interfaces. In Proceedings of the 6th
International Conference on Numerical Methods in
Geomechanics, Innsbruck. Balkema, Rotterdam, 1988,
pp. 889893.
27. HASSAN K. M. Analysis and Design of Drilled Shafts
Socketed into Soft Rock. PhD thesis, Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, University of Houston,
1994.
28. SEIDEL J. P. ROCKET97 Help Manual. Department of Civil
Engineering, Monash University, 2000.
29. GILL S. A. 1980. Design and construction of rock caissons.
In Proceedings of the International Conference on
Structural Foundations on Rock, Sydney. Balkema,
Rotterdam, 1980, pp. 241252.
30. WHITAKER T. The Design of Piled Foundations, 2nd edn.
Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1976.
31. WHITAKER T. and COOKE R. 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. 749.
32. THORNBURN S. 1966. Large diameter piles founded in
bedrock. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Large Bored
Piles. ICE, London, 1966, pp. 95103.
33. DAY H. B. Rock socketed piles: MMBW Highways Division
practice. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Rock
Socketed Piles. Australian Geomechanics Society, Victoria
Group, 1974.
34. HORVATH R. G. Behaviour of Rock-socketed Drilled Pier
Foundations. PhD thesis, University of Toronto, 1982.
35. RANDOLPH M. F. and WROTH C. O. A simple approach to pile
design and the evaluation of pile tests. In Behaviour of
Deep Foundations (LUNDGREN R. (ed.)). American Society for
Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, 1978,
ASTM STP 670, pp. 484499.
36. PELLS P. J. N. and TURNER R. M. Elastic solutions for the
design and analysis of rock socketed piles. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 1979, 16, No. 4, 481487.
37. DONALD I. B., CHIU H. K. and SLOAN S. W. 1980. Theoretical
Haberfield Collingwood
 analyses of rock socketed piles. Proceedings of the
International Conference on Structural Foundations on
Rock, Sydney. Balkema, Rotterdam, 1980, pp. 303316.
38. POULOS H. G. and DAVIS E. H. Elastic Solutions for Soil and
Rock Mechanics. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1974.
39. OSTERBERG J. O. and GILL S. A. Load transfer mechanism for
piers socketed in hard soils or rock. In Proceedings of the
9th Canadian Rock Mechanics Symposium, Montreal.
Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, Mine Branch,
Quebec, 1973, pp. 235261.
40. ROWE R. K. and PELLS P. J. N. A theoretical study of pile
rock socket behaviour. In Proceedings of the International
Conference on Structural Foundations on Rock, Sydney.
Balkema, Rotterdam, 1980, pp. 253264.
41. CARTER J. P. and KULHAWY F. H. Analysis and Design of
Drilled Shaft Foundations Socketed into Rock. Electric
Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, 1987, Report
1493-4.
42. LEONG E. C. and RANDOLPH M. F. Modelling of sliding
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. 365369.
43. HEUZE F. E. and BARBOUR T. G. New models for rock joints
and interfaces. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering
Division, ASCE, 1982, 108, No. 5, 757776.
44. LIEICHNITZ Q. Mechanical properties of rock joints.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics, Mining Science
and Geomechanics Abstracts, 1985, 22, No. 5, 313321.
45. PLESHA M. E. Constitutive models for rock discontinuities
with dilatancy and surface degradation. International
Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in
Geomechanics, 1987, 11, No. 4, 345362.
46. JOHNSTON I. W. and LAM T. S. K. Shear behaviour of regular
triangular concrete/rock joints: analysis. Journal of the
Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 1989, 115,
No. 5, 711727.
47. HABERFIELD C. M. and JOHNSTON I. W. A mechanistically
What do you think?
To comment on this paper, please email up to 500 words to 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 20005000 words long, with adequate illustrations and references. Please visit www.thomastelford.com/journals for author
guidelines and further details.
Geotechnical Engineering 159 Issue GE3 Rock-socketed pile design and construction: a better way?
based model for rough rock joints. International Journal of
Rock Mechanics, Mining Science and Geomechanics
Abstracts, 1994, 31, No. 4, 279292.
48. SEIDEL J. P. and HABERFIELD C. M. 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, 539554.
49. SEIDEL J. P. and HABERFIELD C. M. Laboratory testing of
concrete-rock joints in constant normal stiffness direct
shear. Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM, 2002, 25,
No. 4, 391404.
50. HABERFIELD C. 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 D. W. and CARTER J. P. (eds)). Balkema,
Rotterdam, 2000, pp. 465488.
51. COYLE H. M. and REESE L. C. Load transfer for axially
loaded piles in clay. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering Division, ASCE, 1966, 92, No.
SM2, 126.
52. WILLIAMS A. F. and ERVIN M. C. The design and
performance of cast-in-situ piles in extremely jointed
silurian mudstone. In Proceedings of the 3rd ANZ
Conference on Geomechanics, Wellington, New Zealand.
New Zealand Institution of Engineers, Wellington, 1980,
vol. 1, pp. 115121.
53. SEIDEL J. P., GU X. F. and HABERFIELD C. M. A new factor
for improved prediction of the resistance of pile shafts in
rock. In Proceedings of the 7th ANZ Conference on
Geomechanics, Adelaide, Australia. Institution of Engineers
Australia, Canberra, 1996, pp. 693697.
54. SEIDEL J. P and HABERFIELD C. M. Towards an understanding
of joint roughness. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 1995, 28, No. 2, 6992.
55. HABERFIELD C. M., BAYCAN S. and SEIDEL J. P. Field testing
of bored piles in weak rock. In Proceedings of the 6th ANZ
Conference on Geomechanics, Adelaide. Institution of
Engineers Australia, Canberra, 1996, pp. 885890.
Haberfield Collingwood 217