Chapter (6)

Axial Pile Capacity

6.1 Correlations based on soil shear strength parameters

The ultimate load-

carrying capacity ( QU )
of a pile is given by a
simple equation as the
sum of the load carried
at the pile point (pile tip)
( qb ) plus the total
frictional resistance (skin
friction) ( τs ) derived
from the soil-pile
interface.

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version [Link]

 6.1 Correlations based on soil shear strength parameters

6.1 Correlations based on soil shear strength parameters

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version [Link]

 6.1 Correlations based on soil shear strength parameters

Qu = Ultimate Bearing Capacity

Qs = fAs

f = Unit Frictional
Embedded Resistance
=D
Length AS = Shaft Area
qP = Unit Bearing
Capacity
AP = Area of Point
QP = qPAP

6.1 Correlations based on soil shear strength parameters

For compression, the ultimate load capacity, Quc , is :

Quc = fb Ab + Σ fs C dz − W
where fs = ultimate shaft friction in compression,
C = pile perimeter
dz = layer depth
fb = ultimate base pressure in compression
Ab = area of pile base
W = pile own weight

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version [Link]

 6.1 Correlations based on soil shear strength parameters

For uplift, the ultimate load capacity, Qut , is :

Qut = fbt Abt + Σ fst C dz + W

Where;
fst = ultimate shaft friction in uplift
fbt = ultimate base pressure in uplift.
• Unless the pile has an enlarged base, the uplift
resistance of the base is disregarded.

6.1 Correlations based on soil shear strength parameters

In general, pile ultimate axial load is the summation of the

friction and end bearing strength;

Qult = Qs + Qt = fs As + qt At

Qult = ultimate pile capacity.

Qs = shaft resistance of the pile due to skin friction.
Qt = tip resistance of the pile due to end bearing.
fs = average unit shaft resistance.
As = surface area of the shaft in contact with the soil.
qt = unit tip-bearing capacity.
At = effective (gross) area of the tip of the pile in contact
with soil.

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version [Link]

 6.1 Correlations based on soil shear strength parameters

• For simplicity, calculations of the ultimate load

capacity are divided into 4 categories :
1) Piles in cohesive soil. (Clay)
2) Piles in cohesionless soil. (Sand)
3) Piles in silty soil. (Silt)
4) Piles in multi-layered soil.

In each of the previous categories, calculations are

divided into two steps :
a. Calculation of ultimate shaft resistance
b. Calculation of ultimate base resistance.

6.1 Correlations based on soil shear strength parameters

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version [Link]

 6.1 Correlations based on soil shear strength parameters

6.1.1) Piles in Cohesive soil

A) Shaft Resistance (friction) Qs :
• The shaft resistance for piles in cohesive soil is based
on estimating the adhesion between the material of the
pile and the surrounding cohesive soil.
• Adhesion between the pile and the surrounding soil is
taken as a factor of soil cohesion

ca = α cu
where α = adhesion factor.

6.1.1) Piles in Cohesive soil

• Shaft resistance is calculated as follows:

Qs = fs As

ca = f s & ca = α cu
Ca = adhesion between the clay and the pile
α = adhesion factor
Cu = undrained shear strength
Ca for driven piles from table (6-1)
Ca for bored piles = ( 0.3 – 0.4 ) Cu & Cu ≤ 100 kPa
As surface area of the shaft in contact with the soil.

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version [Link]

 6.1.1) Piles in Cohesive soil

For driven Piles Ca could be directly taken as mentioned

in the following table (6-1):
Cohesion Cu Adhesion Ca
Pile Type
(kN/m2) (kN/m2)
0-12.5 0-12.5
Timber 12.5-25 12.5-24
or 25-50 24-37.5
concrete 50-100 37.5-47.5
100-200 47.5-65
0-12.5 0-12.5
12.5-25 12.5-23
Steel
25-50 23-35
50-100 35-36

• For bored Piles α = 0.3 - 0.4

6.1.1) Piles in Cohesive soil

Adhesion Values for Piles in Cohesive Soils

(after Tomlinson, 1979).

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version [Link]

 6.1.1) Piles in Cohesive soil

6.1.1) Piles in Cohesive soil

α factor for side-friction computations in drilled shafts

(after O’Neill and Reese, 1999)

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version [Link]

 6.1.1) Piles in Cohesive soil
B) Base resistance Qt :
Base resistance is generated due to end bearing pressure
generated at the pile tip, this is similar to the case of
shallow foundations. The ultimate end bearing resistance fb
= qt is given by:

qt = Nc Cu & qt = 9 Cu
Qt = qt At
Where
Nc = bearing capacity factor = 9.
Nc = 6.75 for fissured clay
Cu = undrained shear strength at pile tip
(1.5 r above and below pile tip – r is the pile radius)

6.1.1) Piles in Cohesive soil

• The Ultimate load is then equal to the summation of

the friction and end bearing resistances:

Qult = Qs + Qt
= fs . A s + qt . At
Qult = α Cu . As + Nc Cu At
in which:
At = area of pile tip
qt = bearing capacity at pile tip
As = surface area of pile shaft
f s = ultimate skin resistance per unit area of shaft

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version [Link]

 6.1.2) Piles in Cohesionless soil

6.1.2) Piles in Cohesionless soil

Method of calculation:
• The effective stress (“beta”) method is applied to
estimate the axial bearing capacity of piles in
cohesionless soil.
• Both of the shaft resistance and the base resistance are
related to the effective stress.
• Due to arching effect, it is assumed that the vertical
stress will become constant after reaching a certain
depth called, critical depth Dc.

6.1.2) Piles in Cohesionless soil

Arching at Pile Tip Ground Surface

B
Arching Action

Df
Zone of
Shear & PO = α γ Df γ Df
Volume
Decrease

١٠

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version [Link]

 6.1.2) Piles in Cohesionless soil

The critical depth DC

DC = 5 D for very loose sand
= 10 D for loose sand
= 15 D for medium dense sand
= 20 D for dense sand
D = pile diameter or width

6.1.2) Piles in Cohesionless soil

‫أوﺿﺤﺖ ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ اﻷﺑﺤﺎث وﺗﺠﺎرب اﻟﺘﺤﻤﯿﻞ ﺑﺎﻟﻤﻮﻗﻊ أن ﻛﻼ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻘﺎوﻣﺔ ارﺗﻜﺎز‬

‫اﻟﺨﺎزوق واﻻﺣﺘﻜﺎك اﻟﺠﺎﻧﺒﻰ ﯾﺰﯾﺪان ﻣﻊ زﯾﺎدة اﻟﻀﻐﻂ اﻟﺮأﺳﻰ اﻟﻔﻌﺎل ﺣﺘﻰ ﻋﻤﻖ‬
:‫ﻣﻌﯿﻦ داﺧﻞ اﻟﻄﺒﻘﺔ اﻟﺤﺎﻣﻠﺔ ﯾﻄﻠﻖ ﻋﻠﯿﮫ اﻟﺤﻤﻞ اﻟﺤﺮج ﻛﻤﺎ اﻟﺸﻜﻞ اﻵﺗﻰ‬

١١

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version [Link]

 6.1.2) Piles in Cohesionless soil

Sand Type

6.1.2) Piles in Cohesionless soil

Critical depth concept

The shaft resistance and end-bearing resistance in
a uniform soil may generally be expected to be
directly proportional to vertical effective stress.
Based on model tests on piles in granular
materials, Vesic (1967) suggested that beyond a
critical depth there will be little increase in both
shaft resistance and end-bearing resistance.

١٢

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version [Link]

 6.1.2) Piles in Cohesionless soil

6.1.2) Piles in Cohesionless soil

σν΄= γ΄ d for d < DC

σν΄ = γ ΄ DC for d ≥ DC
K = lateral earth pressure coefficient
( Kc for compression piles) and
(Kt for tension piles),
σν΄ = effective overburden pressure,
δ = angle of friction between the soil and the pile,
γ ΄ = effective unit weight of soil,
d = depth along the pile at which the effective overburden
pressure is calculated.

١٣

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version [Link]

 6.1.2) Piles in Cohesionless soil

A) Shaft Resistance (friction) Qs :

The shaft resistance is related to the effective stress as follows:

f s = K σ v′ tanδ
Qs = fs As
where
K = Lateral stress coefficient ( KC or Kt )
δ = Pile-soil friction angle
σ′v= Effective vertical stress at level of point
under consideration.

6.1.2) Piles in Cohesionless soil

Lateral stress coefficient values (K ) :

Driven piles Bored piles

Soil
type Kc Kt Kc Kt

Sand 2.0 0.67 1.50 0.5

Silt 1.25 0.5 1.0 0.35

Clay 1.25 0.9 1.0 0.7

١٤

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version [Link]

 6.1.2) Piles in Cohesionless soil

‫( ﻃﺒﻘﺎ ﻟﻠﻜﻮد اﻟﻤﺼﺮى‬Kt) & (KC ) ‫ﻗﯿﻢ اﻟﻤﻌﺎﻣﻼت‬

Kt KC ‫ﻧﻮع اﻟﺨﺎزوق‬

٠٫٥ – ٠٫٣ ١٫٠ – ٠٫٥ H ‫ﺧﺎزوق ذو ﻗﻄﺎع‬

١٫٠ – ٠٫٦ ١٫٥ – ١٫٠ ‫ﺧﺎزوق إزاﺣﺔ‬

١٫٣ – ١٫٠ ٢٫٠ – ١٫٥ ‫ﺧﺎزوق إزاﺣﺔ ﻣﺘﻐﯿﺮ اﻟﻘﻄﺎع‬

٠٫٦ – ٠٫٣ ٠٫٩ – ٠٫٤ ‫ﺧﺎزوق إزاﺣﺔ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪام اﻟﻨﻔﺎﺛﺎت‬

١٫٠ – ٠٫٤ ١٫٥ – ٠٫٧ (‫ ﻣﺘﺮ‬٠٫٦٠ ‫ﺧﺎزوق ﺗﺜﻘﯿﺐ اﻋﺘﯿﺎدى )ﻗﻄﺮ أﻗﻞ ﻣﻦ‬

6.1.2) Piles in Cohesionless soil

Pile-Soil friction angle (δ ) :
δ/ Φ δ
Pile
Egyptian Code
Material
Steel 0.67 to 0.83 20º

Concrete 0.9 to 1.0 0.75 Φ

Timber 0.8 to 1.0 0.75 Φ

Recommended Interface Friction Angle for Sand (Kulhawy, 1984)

١٥

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version [Link]

 6.1.2) Piles in Cohesionless soil

B) Base Resistance Qt :
• The base resistance is related to the effective stress as
follows:
qt = σ v′ .N q
Qt = qt At
Where,
σ′v= Effective vertical stress at level of point under
consideration.
Nq = Terzaghi factor which could be estimated from the
following table:

6.1.2) Piles in Cohesionless soil

Values of Nq for Cohesionless soil :
Φ ο 25 30 35 40
Nq 15 30 75 150

٢ / (ο٤٠ + (‫ ) ﻗﺒﻞ اﻟﺘﻨﻔﯿﺬ‬Φ ) = ‫ ﻟﺨﻮازﯾﻖ اﻻزاﺣﺔ‬Φ

(ο٣ - (‫) ﻗﺒﻞ اﻟﺘﻨﻔﯿﺬ‬ Φ ) = ‫ ﻟﺨﻮازﯾﻖ اﻟﺘﺜﻘﯿﺐ اﻟﻌﺎدﯾﺔ‬Φ

• The Ultimate load for piles in cohesionless soil is

then equal to :
Qult = Qs + Qt
= fs . As + qt . At
Qult = K σ′v tan δ As + σ′v Nq At

١٦

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version [Link]

 6.1.2) Piles in Cohesionless soil
Values of Nq for Cohesionless soil :

6.1.3) Piles in Silty soil

Piles in silty soil:

• The ultimate axial load for piles installed in silty soil is
derived from that installed in clay and sand.
• The shaft resistance results from the combination of
the resistance of cohesive and cohesionless soil.
However, the base resistance results ONLY from that of
cohesionless soil.

١٧

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version [Link]

 6.1.3) Piles in Silty soil
A) Shaft Resistance:
Qs = As fs
fs = K σ′v tan δ + α Cu
σ′v = γ΄D for D < DC
σ′v = γ ΄ Dc for D ≥ DC

α = adhesion factor shown in graphs

B) Base resistance:
qt = σ′v Nq
Qt = qt At
σ′v = γ ΄D for D < DC
σ′v = γ ΄ Dc for D ≥ DC
Nq = Terzaghi bearing capacity factor

6.1.3) Piles in Silty soil

1.5

α = adhesion factor
α 1
24 kPa
24

71.8 kPa
71.8

0.5

0
0 24 48 72 96 Cu (KPa) 120

Cu (kPa)

١٨

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version [Link]

 6.1.3) Piles in Silty soil

• The Ultimate load for piles in silty soil is then equal to:

Qult = Qs + Qt
= fs . As + qt At
Qult = K σ′v tan δ As + α Cu As + σ′v Nq At

6.1.4) Piles in multi-layered soil

6.1.4) Piles in multi-layered soil:

• For piles in multi-layered soil, shaft resistance is
generated in each layer and accumulated till the end of
the pile length.
• Base resistance is generated only from the layers on
which the pile is placed.

‫ﻴﻜﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﺤﻤل ﺍﻷﻗﺼﻰ ﻟﻠﺨﺎﺯﻭﻕ ﻤﺴﺎﻭﻴﺎﹰ ﻟﻤﺠﻤﻭﻉ ﺠﻬﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﻭﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻰ ﺴﺘﺒﺩﻴﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻜل ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻘﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻤﻠﺔ ﻟﻠﺨﺎﺯﻭﻕ ﺒﺎﺴﺘﺜﻨﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻘﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻀﻌﻴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻰ ﺴﺘﺘﻀﺎﻏﻁ‬
‫ﻭﺴﺘﺘﻼﺸﻰ ﻤﻘﺎﻭﻤﺘﻬﺎ ﺇﺯﺍﺀ ﺤﺭﻜﺔ ﺠﺫﻉ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺯﻭﻕ ﺃﻭ ﺴﻴﺘﻭﻟﺩ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﺇﺠﻬﺎﺩﺍﺕ‬
.‫ﻗﺹ ﺴﺎﻟﺒﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺠﺫﻉ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺯﻭﻕ‬

Qult = Σ Qs + Qt

١٩

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version [Link]

 6.1.4) Piles in multi-layered soil
Qu

∆z1 QS1 Layer 1

∆z2 QS2 Layer 2

∆z3 QS3 Layer 3

∆z4 Layer 4
QS4

Qt

Qult = Σ Qs + Qt

6.1.4) Piles in multi-layered soil

Qu

∆z1 RS1 Layer 1

∆z2 RS2 Layer 2

∆z3 RS3 Layer 3 Qu = RSN + RT

∆z4 RS4 Layer 4

RT

٢٠

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version [Link]

 6.1.4) Piles in multi-layered soil

END BEARING FRICTION

LOAD LOAD

SANDS SANDS
L SANDS
L L
O O
O
A A
D A
SOFT D
D CLAYS
CLAYS
CLAYS

ROCK SAND

6.1.4) Piles in multi-layered soil

Qult = Σ Qs + Qt

• The Ultimate load for piles in Clay:

Qult = α Cu . As + Nc Cu At
• The Ultimate load for piles in Sand:

Qult = K σ′ v tan δ As + σ′ v Nq At
• The Ultimate load for piles in silt :

Qult = K σ′v tan δ As + α Cu As + σ′v Nq At

٢١

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version [Link]

 6.1.4) Piles in multi-layered soil

Piles bearing on a firm stratum overlying a weaker layer

may punch into the lower stratum as shown in figure below.
Meyerhof (1976) suggested that if the distance between the
pile tip and the weak deposit (H) is less than 10 pile
diameter, the ultimate point resistance will be :

Where q1 is the limiting unit tip

resistance in the upper stratum
and qo is the limiting unit tip
resistance in the lower stratum

Axial Pile Capacity

The following three methods are usually used to determine

the ultimate shaft resistance:
a. Total Stress Approach ( α –Method ) :

Qs = As * α * Cu
b. Effective Stress Approach ( β-Method ) :

Qs = As * K * σv’ * tan δ’ = As * β * σv’

c. In-Situ Test Results ( SPT-N or CPT ) :
Qs = As * X * SPT-N or f (qu, fs)

٢٢

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version [Link]

 Axial Pile Capacity

The following three methods are usually used to determine

the ultimate tip (toe) ( pile base ) resistance :

a. Total Stress Approach ( α –Method ) :

Qt = At * x α * Cu
b. Effective Stress Approach ( β-Method ) :

Qt = At * σz=D’ * Nq
c. In-Situ Test Results ( SPT-N or CPT ) :
Qt = At * X * SPT-N or f (qu , fs)

Axial Pile Capacity

• In normal case, the β -method is the more relevant

approach as effective stress approach is often associated
with consolidation process of the subsoil.
• There are always disputable arguments on whether
the unit shaft resistance is the same for both the upward
and downward resistance at the same depth.
• Some researchers advocate that the confining stiffness
in the embedded subsoil and the vertical effective stress
will be reduced in the event of upward resistance from
the pile to the soil and therefore reducing the unit shaft
resistance.

٢٣

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version [Link]

 Axial Pile Capacity

• From the logical point of view, such arguments have

the supporting evidence from the model tests. In the
pile group model test in consolidating subsoil, the
“hanging effect” of the centre pile due to the support
from the perimeter piles is obvious (clear).
• Therefore, the normal way of computing the unit
shaft resistance based on the effective overburden
stress ( β -method ) with the lateral earth pressure
coefficient is not appropriate for the centre pile.
Nevertheless, the assumption of same positive and
negative resistance is a conservative approach and will
not lead to a unsafe pile design.

Axial Pile Capacity

Total Stress Analysis

Shaft Resistance
The ultimate skin resistance per unit area of shaft is
calculated as follows:

fs = ca + σ h * tan (δ) [1]

in which:
ca = pile soil adhesion
σh = normal component of stress at pile-soil interface
δ = pile-soil friction angle
The normal stress σh is related to the vertical stress σv as
σh = k*σv, where K is a coefficient of lateral stress.

٢٤

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version [Link]

 Axial Pile Capacity

For a φ= 0 or total stress analysis, equation [1] reduces as

follows:
fs = c a
where the adhesion ca is usually related to the undrained
shear strength Cu in the following way:

Ca = α * Cu
where α is an empirical adhesion coefficient that depends
mainly upon the following factors: nature and strength of
the soil, type of pile, method of installation, and time effects.
Figures 6-3 and 6-4 present the α values as suggested by
Tomlinson (1979, 1980).

Axial Pile Capacity

Figure 6-3 Adhesion Values for Piles in Cohesive Soils

( α method, after Tomlinson, 1979).

٢٥

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version [Link]

 Axial Pile Capacity

Figure 6-4. Adhesion factors for driven piles in clay

( α method, after Tomlinson 1980).

Axial Pile Capacity

Effective Stress Analysis

Equation [1] reduces to:

fs = ca + k σ′v * tan (δ) ≈ k σ′v * tan (δ)
Because Ca is either zero or small compared to K * σ′v *tan(δ)
The main difficulty in applying the effective stress approach
lies in having to predict the normal effective stress on the
pile shaft
σ′h = k σ′v

٢٦

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version [Link]

 Axial Pile Capacity
Geotechnical Resistance Factors Drilled Shafts

Method φComp φTen

α - Method (side) 0.55 0.45
β - Method (side) 0.55 0.45
Clay or Sand (tip) 0.5
Rock (side) 0.55 0.45
Rock (tip) 0.55
Group (sand or clay) 0.55 0.45
Load Test 0.7
AASHTO Table [Link].3-1

Axial Pile Capacity

Total and Effective

Stress Analysis

٢٧

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version [Link]

 ‫‪6.1.5) Piles with Large Diameter > 60 cm‬‬

‫ﻗﺪرة ﺗﺤﻤﻞ اﻟﺨﺎزوق ﻛﺒﯿﺮ اﻟﻘﻄﺮ اﻟﻤﻨﻔﺬ ﺑﺎﻟﺤﻔﺮ واﻟﻤﺼﺒﻮب ﻓﻲ ﻣﻜﺎﻧﮫ ‪:‬‬
‫ﯾﻌﺘﻤﺪ ﺗﺼﻤﯿﻢ اﻟﺨﻮازﯾﻖ اﻟﺘﻰ ﯾﺰﯾﺪ ﻗﻄﺮھﺎ ﻋﻦ ‪ ٦٠‬ﺳﻢ واﻟﻤﻨﻔﺬة ﺑﻮاﺳﻄﺔ اﻟﺘﺜﻘﯿﺐ‬
‫اﻹﻋﺘﯿﺎدي واﻟﻤﺼﺒﻮﺑﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻜﺎﻧﮭﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻘﺪار اﻟﮭﺒﻮط ﺣﯿﺚ ﯾﺘﻢ ﺗﻘﺪﯾﺮ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ اﻟﺤﻤﻞ‬
‫ﻣﻊ اﻟﮭﺒﻮط ﻣﻦ ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﺗﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺗﺤﻤﯿﻞ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺮﺣﻠﺔ اﻟﺘﺼﻤﯿﻢ‪.‬‬
‫وﻓﻲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﻋﺪم ﺗﻮاﻓﺮ ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﺗﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺗﺤﻤﯿﻞ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺮﺣﻠﺔ اﻟﺘﺼﻤﯿﻢ ﺗﻘﺪر اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫اﻟﻨﺤﻮ اﻟﻮارد ﻓﻲ ﺷﻜﻞ رﻗﻢ )‪ ، (١-٥-١-٦‬ﻓﯿﺘﻢ ﺣﺴﺎب اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ‪ OBH‬ﻟﺤﻤﻞ‬
‫اﻹرﺗﻜﺎز ﺑﺈﻋﺘﺒﺎر أن اﻟﻨﻘﻄﺔ ‪ B‬ﺗﻨﺎﻇﺮ ھﺒﻮﻃﺎً ﻣﻘﺪاره ‪١٥‬ﺳﻢ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺮﺑﺔ ﻏﯿﺮ‬
‫ﻣﺘﻤﺎﺳﻜﺔ اﻟﺤﺒﯿﺒﺎت و ‪ % ٥‬ﻣﻦ ﻗﻄﺮ اﻟﺨﺎزوق ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺮﺑﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﻤﺎﺳﻜﺔ‪.‬‬
‫واﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ‪ OAG‬ﻟﻺﺣﺘﻜﺎك اﻟﺠﺎﻧﺒﻰ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺟﺬع اﻟﺨﺎزوق ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎر أن اﻟﻨﻘﻄﺔ ‪A‬‬
‫ﺗﻨﺎﻇﺮ ھﺒﻮﻃﺎً ﯾﺼﻞ إﻟﻰ ﺣﻮاﻟﻰ ‪ ١٠-٥‬ﻣﻠﻠﯿﻤﺘﺮاً )ﻓﻲ ﺣﺪود ‪ %١‬ﻣﻦ ﻗﻄﺮ‬
‫اﻟﺨﺎزوق(‬
‫وﺑﺠﻤﻊ اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺘﯿﻦ ﺗﻨﺘﺞ اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ‪ OKCJ‬ﻟﻠﺤﻤﻞ اﻟﻜﻠﻰ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺨﺎزوق ﺣﯿﺚ ﯾﻜﻮن‬
‫اﻟﺤﻤﻞ اﻟﺘﺼﻤﯿﻤﻲ اﻟﻤﺴﻤﻮح ﺑﮫ ھﻮ ذﻟﻚ اﻟﺤﻤﻞ اﻟﻤﻨﺎﻇﺮ ﻟﻠﮭﺒﻮط اﻟﻤﺴﻤﻮح ﺑﮫ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺨﺎزوق اﻟﻤﻔﺮد ﺑﺈﺳﺘﺨﺪام اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ‪OKCJ‬‬

‫‪6.1.5) Piles with Large Diameter > 60 cm‬‬

‫ﺷﻜﻞ رﻗﻢ )‪(١-٥-١-٦‬‬

‫‪٢٨‬‬

‫‪PDF created with pdfFactory trial version [Link]‬‬

 ‫‪6.1.5) Piles with Large Diameter > 60 cm‬‬

‫ﻭﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﻋﻥ ﻁﺭﻴﻕ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎﺕ ‪ OBH , OAG‬ﺘﺤﺩﻴﺩ ﻗﻴﻤﺔ ﻜل ﻤﻥ ﺤﻤل ﺍﻹﺭﺘﻜﺎﺯ‬

‫ﻭﺤﻤل ﺍﻹﺤﺘﻜﺎﻙ ﺍﻟﺠﺎﻨﺒﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺎﻅﺭﻴﻥ ﻟﻘﻴﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻬﺒﻭﻁ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﻤﻭﺡ ﺒﻪ ﻭﻴﻜﻭﻥ‬
‫ﻤﺠﻤﻭﻋﻬﻤﺎ ﻤﺴﺎﻭﻴﺎ ﻟﻠﺤﻤل ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻤﻲ ﻟﻠﺨﺎﺯﻭﻕ‪.‬‬

‫ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺘﻌﻴﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ‪ OBH‬ﻟﺤﻤل‬

‫ﺍﻻﺭﺘﻜﺎﺯ ﻤﻊ ﺍﻟﻬﺒﻭﻁ ﺒﺎﺴﺘﺨﺩﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﺠﺩﻭل ﺭﻗﻡ‬
‫)‪ (١‬ﻟﻠﺨﻭﺍﺯﻴﻕ ﺍﻟﻤﺭﺘﻜﺯﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺘﺭﺒﺔ ﻏﻴﺭ‬
‫ﻤﺘﻤﺎﺴﻜﺔ ﺍﻟﺤﺒﻴﺒﺎﺕ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺠﺩﻭل ﺭﻗﻡ )‪(٢‬‬
‫ﻟﻠﺨﻭﺍﺯﻴﻕ ﺍﻟﻤﺭﺘﻜﺯﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺘﺭﺒﺔ ﻁﻴﻨﻴﺔ ﺼﺭﻓﺔ‬
‫ﻗﻭﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺎﺴﻙ ﻭﻴﺘﻡ ﺍﻟﺤﺼﻭل ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﻴﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺤﻤل ﻋﻨﺩ ﻗﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﻬﺒﻭﻁ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﺒﻀﺭﺏ‬
‫ﻗﻴﻤﺔ ﻤﻘﺎﻭﻤﺔ ﺍﻻﺭﺘﻜﺎﺯ ﺍﻟﻤﻭﻀﺤﺔ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺠﺩﻭﻟﻴﻥ ﺭﻗﻤﻰ )‪ (٢) ، (١‬ﻓﻲ ﻤﺴﺎﺤﺔ‬
‫ﻤﻘﻁﻊ ﻜﻌﺏ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺯﻭﻕ‪.‬‬

‫‪6.1.5) Piles with Large Diameter > 60 cm‬‬

‫ﺠﺩﻭل ﺭﻗﻡ )‪(١‬‬

‫ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺇﺠﻬﺎﺩ ﺍﻻﺭﺘﻜﺎﺯ ﻤﻊ ﺍﻟﻬﺒﻭﻁ ﻟﻠﺘﺭﺒﺔ ﻏﻴﺭ ﻤﺘﻤﺎﺴﻜﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺤﺒﻴﺒﺎﺕ ﻟﻠﺨﻭﺍﺯﻴﻕ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﻁﺭ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﻴﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺼﺒﻭﺒﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻤﻜﺎﻨﻬﺎ‬

‫ﺍﻟﻬﺒﻭﻁ‬
‫)‪(MN / m2‬‬ ‫ﺇﺠﻬﺎﺩ ﺍﻹﺭﺘﻜﺎﺯ‬ ‫)ﺴﻡ(‬
‫ﻟﻠﺨﻭﺍﺯﻴﻕ ﺒﺩﻭﻥ‬ ‫ﻟﻠﺨﻭﺍﺯﻴﻕ ﺫﺍﺕ ﻨﻬﺎﻴﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻨﻬﺎﻴﺎﺕ ﻤﺘﺴﻌﺔ‬ ‫ﻤﺘﺴﻌﺔ‬
‫‪٠,٥٠‬‬ ‫‪٠,٣٥‬‬ ‫‪١‬‬
‫‪٠,٨٠‬‬ ‫‪٠,٦٥‬‬ ‫‪٢‬‬
‫‪١,١٠‬‬ ‫‪٠,٩٠‬‬ ‫‪٣‬‬
‫‪٣,٤٠‬‬ ‫‪٢,٤٠‬‬ ‫‪*١٥‬‬

‫* ﻗﯿﻤﺔ اﻟﮭﺒﻮط اﻟﻤﻔﺘﺮض ﻋﻨﺪ ﺣﻤﻞ اﻹرﺗﻜﺎز اﻷﻗﺼﻰ‬

‫‪٢٩‬‬

‫‪PDF created with pdfFactory trial version [Link]‬‬

 6.1.5) Piles with Large Diameter > 60 cm

(٢) ‫ﺠﺩﻭل ﺭﻗﻡ‬

‫ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺇﺠﻬﺎﺩ ﺍﻹﺭﺘﻜﺎﺯ ﻤﻊ ﺍﻟﻬﺒﻭﻁ ﻟﻠﺘﺭﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻤﺎﺴﻜﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺨﻭﺍﺯﻴﻕ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﻁﺭ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﻴﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺼﺒﻭﺒﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻤﻜﺎﻨﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺇﺠﻬﺎﺩ ﺍﻻﺭﺘﻜﺎﺯ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻬﺒﻭﻁ‬
( MN / m2 ) (‫)ﺴﻡ‬
٠٫٥٠ Sg × ٠٫٢٠
٠٫٧٠ Sg × ٠٫٣٠
١٫٢ *Sg

‫ ﻤﻥ ﻗﻁﺭ ﺇﺭﺘﻜﺎﺯ‬%٥ ‫* ﻗﻴﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻬﺒﻭﻁ ﺍﻟﻤﻔﺘﺭﺽ ﻋﻨﺩ ﺤﻤل ﺍﻹﺭﺘﻜﺎﺯ ﺍﻷﻗﺼﻰ ﻭﻴﺴﺎﻭﻯ‬
(٢‫ ﺴﻡ‬/‫ﻜﺠﻡ‬١٠ = ٢‫ ﻡ‬/ ‫ ﻤﻴﺠﺎﻨﻴﻭﺘﻥ‬١) ‫ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺯﻭﻕ‬

6.1.5) Piles with Large Diameter > 60 cm

§ Table (3) Friction stress for cohesionless soil:

Depth from Ultimate friction stress
Number of blows
ground level (kN/m2)
<10 - 0
0-2.0 0
10-20 2.0-5.0 3
>5.0 50
0-2.0 0
20-30 2.0-7.5 45
>5.0 75
0-2.0 0
>30 2.0-10.0 60
>10.0 100

٣٠

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version [Link]

 ‫‪6.1.5) Piles with Large Diameter > 60 cm‬‬

‫‪§ Table (4) Friction stress for cohesive soil:‬‬

‫‪Soil Cohesion‬‬ ‫‪Ultimate friction stress‬‬

‫)‪(kN/m2‬‬ ‫)‪(kN/m2‬‬

‫‪0‬‬ ‫‪0‬‬
‫‪25‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪40‬‬
‫‪200‬‬ ‫‪50‬‬

‫‪6.1.5) Piles with Large Diameter > 60 cm‬‬

‫أﻣﺎ اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ‪ OAG‬ﻟﺤﻤﻞ اﻹﺣﺘﻜﺎك‬

‫اﻟﺠﺎﻧﺒﻰ ﻣﻊ اﻟﮭﺒﻮط ﻓﯿﺘﻢ ﺗﻌﯿﯿﻨﮭﺎ‬
‫ﺑﺈﺳﺘﺨﺪام اﻟﺠﺪول رﻗﻢ )‪ (٣‬ﻷﺟﺰاء‬
‫اﻟﺨﻮازﯾﻖ اﻟﻤﺎرة ﻓﻲ اﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ ﻏﯿﺮ‬
‫ﻣﺘﻤﺎﺳﻜﺔ اﻟﺤﺒﯿﺒﺎت أو اﻟﺠﺪول رﻗﻢ‬
‫)‪ (٤‬ﻷﺟﺰاء اﻟﺨﻮازﯾﻖ اﻟﻤﺎرة‬
‫ﺧﻼل ﺗﺮﺑﺔ ﻃﯿﻨﯿﺔ ﺻﺮﻓﺔ وﯾﺘﻢ‬
‫اﻟﺤﺼﻮل ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﯿﻢ اﻟﺤﻤﻞ اﻷﻗﺼﻰ‬
‫ﻟﻸﺟﺰاء اﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﺑﻀﺮب ﻗﯿﻤﺔ‬
‫إﺟﮭﺎد اﻹﺣﺘﻜﺎك اﻟﺠﺎﻧﺒﻰ اﻟﻤﻮﺿﺤﺔ‬
‫ﻓﻲ اﻟﺠﺪوﻟﯿﻦ رﻗﻤﻰ )‪(٤) ، (٣‬‬
‫ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﺴﺎﺣﺔ اﻟﺠﺎﻧﺒﯿﺔ ﻟﻠﺠﺰء‬
‫اﻟﻤﻨﺎﻇﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺟﺬع اﻟﺨﺎزوق‪.‬‬

‫‪٣١‬‬

‫‪PDF created with pdfFactory trial version [Link]‬‬

 ‫‪6.1.5) Piles with Large Diameter > 60 cm‬‬
‫ﻭﻴﻜﻭﻥ ﺤﻤل ﺍﻹﺤﺘﻜﺎﻙ ﺍﻟﺠﺎﻨﺒﻲ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻰ ﻤﺴﺎﻭﻴﺎﹰ ﻟﻤﺠﻤﻭﻉ ﺃﺤﻤﺎل ﺍﻹﺤﺘﻜﺎﻙ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺴﻭﺒﺔ‬
‫ﺨﻼل ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻘﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻤﻊ ﺇﻫﻤﺎل ﻗﻴﻤﺔ ﺍﻹﺤﺘﻜﺎﻙ ﺨﻼل ﻤﺴﺎﻓﺔ ﺘﺴﺎﻭﻱ ‪ 1.5‬ﻤﺘﺭﺍﹰ‬
‫ﺃﺴﻔل ﺴﻁﺢ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻴﻌﻴﺔ ﻤﺒﺎﺸﺭﺓ ﻭﻜﺫﻟﻙ ﻤﺴﺎﻓﺔ ﺘﺴﺎﻭﻯ ﻗﻁﺭ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺯﻭﻕ ﺃﻋﻼ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻌﺏ ﻭﺘﻌﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ‪ OAG‬ﺒﺎﻓﺘﺭﺍﺽ ﺃﻥ ﺤﻤل ﺍﻹﺤﺘﻜﺎﻙ ﺍﻷﻗﺼﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺴﻭﺏ‬
‫ﺒﺎﻟﻁﺭﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺒﻘﺔ ﻴﻨﺎﻅﺭ ﻫﺒﻭﻁﺎﹰ ﻤﻘﺩﺍﺭﻩ ‪ %١‬ﻤﻥ ﻗﻁﺭ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺯﻭﻕ )ﻨﻘﻁﺔ ‪ A‬ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺤﻨﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺫﻜﻭﺭ(‪.‬‬

‫وﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ إﻟﻰ اﻟﺘﺤﻘﻖ ﻣﻦ أن‬

‫ﻗﯿﻤﺔ اﻟﮭﺒﻮط اﻟﻤﻨﺎﻇﺮة ﻟﻠﺤﻤﻞ‬
‫اﻟﺘﺼﻤﯿﻤﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺣﺪود ﻣﺴﻤﻮح ﺑﮫ‬
‫ﻓﯿﺠﺐ اﻟﺘﺄﻛﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻮاﻓﺮ ﻣﻌﺎﻣﻞ‬
‫أﻣﺎن ﻻ ﯾﻘﻞ ﻋﻦ ‪ ٢.٠‬ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺤﻤﻞ اﻷﻗﺼﻰ اﻟﻜﻠﻰ )اﻟﻘﯿﻤﺔ‬
‫‪ CJ‬ﺑﺎﻟﺸﻜﻞ رﻗﻢ )‪.((1-5-1-6‬‬

‫‪6.1.6) Piles on Rock‬‬

‫‪Mall of the Emirates in Dubai‬‬

‫‪٣٢‬‬

‫‪PDF created with pdfFactory trial version [Link]‬‬

 6.1.6) Piles on Rock

Mall of the Emirates in Dubai

The site is underlain by a variable sequence of very
loose/loose silty sands, which in turn overlie solid geology
comprising very weak/weak carbonate sandstone. It has
been considered that the most appropriate foundation
option to support the structure safely is a piled foundation.
Bored and cast-in-place piles socketed into the rock were
proposed.

6.1.6) Piles on Rock

For a short rigid pile founded on top of rock surface, it is

acceptable to neglect the insignificant adhesion along its
sides in the soil layers and assume that the applied load is
transferred to the base. For piles socketed in rock, the shaft
resistance of the rock socket could be significant and
should be taken into account in the design

For a long pile constructed through soil and founded on

rock, the degree of load transfer in the portion of the pile
shaft embedded in soil will depend on the amount of
relative movement arising from base deflection and elastic
compression of the shaft, i.e. it will be a function of the
relative shaft and base stiffness. In a corestone-bearing
weathering profile, the distribution of load in the pile is
likely to be complex and may be highly variable.

٣٣

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version [Link]

 6.1.6) Piles on Rock

The settlement of piles founded on rock which have been

designed on the basis of bearing capacity theories should
always be checked as this is generally the governing factor
in, for example, weak rocks, closely-fractured rocks and
moderately to highly decomposed rocks.

In the past the capacity of concrete piles in rock was

generally limited by the strength of the concrete. With the
use of high strength concrete, the capacity of piles in rock
may now be controlled by the strength as well as the
compressibility of the rock mass which needs to be assessed
more accurately.

6.1.6) Piles on Rock

The following factors affect the bearing capacity and
settlement of piles in rock :
1. the ratio of the depth of embedment of the pile to its
diameter;
2. the relationship between the elastic modulus of the
concrete in the pile and the compression modulus of the
rock mass around the pile and in its bed;
3. the strength of the rock mass around and below the lower
end of the pile;
4. the roughness of the walls of the hole;
5. the condition of the face of the hole: existence of drilling
mud and other debris;

٣٤

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version [Link]

 6.1.6) Piles on Rock

6. lamination of the rock mass, if the layers have different

strengths and compression moduli; and,
7. creep of the rock in the zone of contact between the
concrete of the pile and rock mass.

Pile lengths at any site would vary depending upon the rock
type, core recovery, rock quality designation and uniaxial
compressive strength of rock and also due to presence of
non-uniform weathering of Khondalite / Granitic rock.

6.1.6 ) Piles on Rock

Driven Piles in Rock

Where the joints are widely-spaced and closed, very high loads
can be sustained by the rock mass and the design is unlikely to
be governed by bearing capacity of the ground. In such
ground conditions, piles driven to refusal can be designed
based on permissible structural stresses of the pile section.
The pile penetration at the final set should not be more than
10 mm for the last 10 blows and the peak driving stress should
be monitored by Pile Driving Analyzer.
Piles may be considered as founded on rock when driven to
refusal by using sufficient driving energy. Driven to refusal
means the actual penetration of a pile is not more than 10mm
per 10 blows. To avoid overdriving of piles, monitoring of the
peak driving stress by using Pile Driving Analyzer or other
suitable method should be carried out as appropriate;

٣٥

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version [Link]

 6.1.6 ) Piles on Rock

Bored Piles in Rock

The methods of designing bored piles founded on rock may be
broadly classified as rational methods based on :
(a) semi-empirical methods,
(b) bearing capacity theories, and
(c) insitu tests.

6.1.6 ) Piles on Rock

(a) semi-empirical methods

Peck et al (1974) suggested a semi-empirical correlation between
allowable bearing pressure and Rock Quality Designation (RQD)
as shown in Figure

Notes :
(1) If qa > σc (uniaxial compressive strength of rock), use σc instead of qa.
(2) If RQD is fairly uniform, use average RQD within db = Db where db =
depth below base of foundation and Db = width of foundation.
(3) If RQD within db = 0.25 Db is lower, use the lower RQD.
Correlation between Allowable Bearing Pressure and RQD
for a Jointed Rock Mass (Peck et al, 1974)

٣٦

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version [Link]

 6.1.6 ) Piles on Rock

The use of RQD as the sole means of determining founding

level can lead to erroneous results because it does not take
into account the condition of joints, such as the presence of
any infilling material.
Also, RQD value is sensitive to joint spacing. The RQD
value of a rock mass with a joint spacing slightly below the
threshold value of 100 mm can differ significantly from a
rock mass with a joint spacing slightly above 100 mm.
Irfan & Powell (1985) concluded that the use of a rock mass
weathering classification system, in conjunction with simple
index tests, will be superior to the use of RQD or total core
recovery alone, and can enable limited engineering data to
be applied successfully over a large site area.

6.1.6) Piles on Rock

• Pile tips should not be placed over shallow caves or other large
voids. Geologic literature for the area should be reviewed and a
detailed field inspection should be performed in areas underlain
by limestone.
• Rock Quality Designation (R.Q.D.) values can provide a
qualitative assessment of rock mass as shown in Table 1. The RQD
is computed by summing the length of all pieces of core equal to
or longer than 100 mm (4 in.), dividing by the total length of the
coring run and multiplying by one-hundred per cent (100 %).

Engineering Classification For In-Situ Rock Quality Using The Rock

Quality Designation (RQD)

٣٧

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version [Link]

 6.1.6) Piles on Rock

Unconformity

6.1.6) Piles on Rock

RQD is defined as the percentage of intact core pieces longer
than 100 mm (4 inches) in the total length of core. The core
should be at least NW size (54.7 mm in diameter) and should
be drilled with a double-tube core barrel. The correct
procedures for measurement of the length of core pieces and
the calculation of RQD are summarized in Figures :

Procedure for measurement and calculation of RQD (After Deere, 1989).

٣٨

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version [Link]

 6.1.6 ) Piles on Rock

An alternative semi-empirical method of assessing the

allowable bearing pressure of piles founded in a rock mass
has been proposed in the Canadian Foundation
Engineering Manual (CGS, 1992).
This method, described in Figure 6.6, assumes that the
allowable bearing pressure is equal to the product of the
average unconfined compressive strength and modification
factors which account for spacing and aperture of
discontinuities in the rock mass, width of the foundation
and effect of socket depth.
In practice, it is suggested that both semi-empirical
methods should be used to determine the allowable bearing
pressure, and the lower bound value adopted for design.

6.1.6 ) Piles on Rock

Figure 6.6 – Determination of Allowable Bearing Pressure on Rock

(CGS, 1992)

٣٩

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version [Link]

 6.1.6 ) Piles on Rock
Notes :
(1) Allowable bearing pressure may be estimated from the strength of rock cores as follows :

where
qa = allowable bearing pressure
qu-core = average unconfined compressive strength of rock core
D = depth factor
Ksp = bearing pressure coefficient
Cd = spacing of discontinuities
ad = aperture of discontinuities
Db = base diameter
(2) The equation is valid for 0.05 < cd / Db < 2.0 and 0 < ad /cd ≤ 0.02; and
cd > 300 mm; Db > 300 mm and ad < 5 mm or 25 mm if infilled with debris.
(3) The coefficient Ksp takes into account size effects and presence of discontinuities and
contains a factor of safety of at least ten against general shear failure.
(4) Depth factor (Ladanyi & Roy, 1971) can be applied to the allowable bearing pressure
computed as
Figure 6.6 – Determination of
Where
Allowable Bearing Pressure on
Ls = depth of socket in rock
Ds = diameter of rock socket Rock (CGS, 1992)

6.1.6 ) Piles on Rock

(b) bearing capacity theories

Sowers (1979) proposed that the failure modes shown in
Figure (A) should be considered in design. For a thick rigid
layer overlying a weaker one, failure can be by flexure, with
the flexural strength being approximately twice the tensile
strength of the rock. For a thin rigid layer overlying a weak
one, failure can be by punching, i.e. tensile failure of the
rock mass. For both cases, bearing failure of the underlying
weak layer should be checked.
Failure in a rock mass with open joints is likely to occur by
uniaxial compression of the rock columns. For rock mass
with closed joints, a general wedge shear zone will develop.
Where the rock mass is widely jointed, failure occurs by
splitting of the rock beneath the foundation which
eventually leads to a general shear failure.

٤٠

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version [Link]

 6.1.6 ) Piles on Rock

Notes :
(1) The ultimate end-bearing capacity (qb) of foundations on jointed rock may be calculated as follows :
(a) For a thick rigid rock layer overlying a weaker rock, the flexural strength of the rock slab can be taken as equal to twice
the tensile strength of the upper rock material.
(b) For a thin rigid rock layer overlying a weaker one, the ultimate end-bearing capacity is equal to the tensile strength of
the upper rock material.
(c) For open joints and cd < Bf, qb = sum of unconfined compressive strength of affected rock columns.
(d) For closed joints, the ultimate end-bearing capacity is given by the Bell solution :
qb = c' Nc + 0.5Bf γr' Nγ + γr' dr Nq
where Bf = width of foundation
dr = foundation depth below rock surface
γr' = effective unit weight of rock mass
Nc = 2 √ Nφ (Nφ + 1)
Nγ = √ Nφ (Nφ 2 – 1)
Nq = Nφ2
Νφ = tan2 (45 + φ'/2)

Fig.(A) Determination of Allowable Bearing Capacity on Rock (Based on Sowers, 1979)

6.1.6 ) Piles on Rock

Notes :
(2) For case 1(d), c' and φ' are the shear strength parameters for the rock mass. These should be
evaluated from insitu tests or estimated on the basis of semi-empirical failure criterion such as the
modified Hoek-Brown criterion (Hoek et al, 1992). The following correction factors should be applied to
Nc and Nγ for different foundation shapes :
Foundation Shape Correction Factor for Nc Correction Factor for Nγ

Lf = length of foundation
(3) The load acting on a pile in rock should be proportioned between the base and shaft based on Section
of Rock Sockets. The ultimate shaft resistance may be estimated τs = 0.2 σc 0.5 for preliminary design
purposes. The allowable bearing capacity can be determined using factor of safety given in Table:
Minimum Global Factors of Safety for Piles in Soil and Rock

Fig.(A) Determination of Allowable Bearing Capacity on Rock (Based on Sowers, 1979)

٤١

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version [Link]

 6.1.6 ) Piles on Rock

(c) insitu tests.

The load-deformation characteristics of the base of a rock
foundation may be evaluated by insitu tests such as plate
loading tests, Goodman Jack, pressuremeter or full-scale
loading tests. Littlechild et al (2000) determined the
modulus of rock mass by various insitu tests and compared
them with full-scale pile loading tests. They concluded that
results of Goodman Jack tests were more comparable to
the modulus derived from full-scale pile loading tests. The
modulus determined by cross-hole seismic geophysics was
generally an order of magnitude higher. Tests using high
pressure dilatometer were not successful, as the stiffness of
the strong rocks exceeded the capacity of the dilatometer.

6.1.6 ) Piles on Rock

Rock Sockets
A range of methods has been proposed in the literature for
designing rock sockets (Irfan & Powell, 1991). Assuming full
contact between the pile and the rock, the load distribution in a
rock socket is primarily a function of its geometry, and the
relative stiffness of concrete and the rock mass. As a first
approximation, the load on the pile may be apportioned
between end-bearing and shaft resistance due to bond in
accordance with Pells & Turner (1979). This solution can be
used when displacement at the socket is small and bond
rupture has not occurred. The solution by Pells & Turner
(1979) indicated that the percentage of pile load transmitted to
the pile base is roughly constant for a pile with a 'socketed
length to diameter' ratio (Ls/Ds) greater than 3. It may be
prudent to carry out more detailed analyses for piles with a
greater Ls/Ds ratio

٤٢

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version [Link]

 6.1.6 ) Piles on Rock
Kulhawy & Goodman (1987) proposed an analytical design
approach to determine the load distribution along a rock socket.
The method assumes an elastic shaft expanding into an infinitely
thick hollow cylinder under an axial compressive load. The shaft
resistance is based on an elastic-frictional model. The change in
load transfer in the rock socket can be estimated by reducing the
friction angle, as the shaft resistance goes from elastic to
intermediate and to residual stages.
The latter stages, i.e. intermediate and residual, are generally only
relevant where significant movement at pile toe can be tolerated.
Figures 6.10 and Figure 6.11 show the load distribution in rock-
socketed piles with different friction angles.

However, the current conservative design practices are based on

the performance of Rock Socketed Drilled Shafts in soft rock
formations. The current design practice for axial capacity often
neglects one of the two resisting forces, usually end bearing.

6.1.6 ) Piles on Rock

Most empirical methods relate the shaft resistance to the

uniaxial compressive strength of intact rocks, σc.

Kulhawy et al (2005) summarised the evolution of methods for

evaluating shaft resistance in rock sockets. They also observed
that there are some cases where the shaft resistance in the rock
socket is greater than the concrete bond strength. The concrete
behaves better when it is confined and reinforced in a socket
than it is unconfined and unreinforced.

Serrano & Olalla (2004) developed a theoretical basis for

computing the ultimate shaft resistance in rock sockets using
the Hoek & Brown (1980) failure criterion for rock masses.
This is expressed as τs = α σc 0.5, and the coefficient α ranges
from 0.1 to 0.8, depending on the type of rock masses.

٤٣

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version [Link]

 6.1.6 ) Piles on Rock

Figure 6.10 – Load Distribution in Rock Socketed Piles, φ' = 70°

(Based on Kulhawy & Goodman, 1987)

6.1.6 ) Piles on Rock

Figure 6.11 – Load Distribution in Rock Socketed Piles, φ' = 40°

(Based on Kulhawy & Goodman, 1987)

٤٤

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version [Link]

 6.1.6) Piles on Rock

On the basis of the length of the rock core obtained from

each run, the following quantities can be obtained for
evaluation of the quality of rock:

Table 1.3 Classification of rocks based on RQD

6.1.6) Piles on Rock

What are socketed piles?
Socketed piles are usually end bearing piles which are socketed
What is weathered rock?
• Soil consolidates to Rock
• Rock weathers to Soil
The in between phase of the above two is called as weathered
rock /soft rock
Why socketing?
The common belief is socketing pile into a soft or weathered
rock will improve the capacities of piles to lateral loads when
the surrounding soil above the rock is weak.
The depth of socket is designed based on:
• Local experience/empirical formulae: Usually a socket of
depth varying from 2 to 5 times the diameter of the pile.
• By a more systematic approach called COLE and
STROUD approach

٤٥

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version [Link]

 6.1.6) Piles on Rock

Rock socketed pile

6.1.6) Piles on Rock

Pile Socketed into weathered rock

٤٦

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version [Link]

 6.1.6) Piles on Rock

Using Cole & Stroud approach, capacity of bored piles in

weathered and soft rock is given by:

Qap = [ (Cu . Nc . Ap) + α . Ca. π . D . L ] / FS

Cu = Cohesion value at Pile tip = 100 T/m2

Nc = = 9
D = Pile diameter = 0.6 m
Ap = C/s area of pile = 0.28 sqm
α = Reduction factor = 0.30
Ca = Cohesion along socketed length = 100 T/m2
L = Socketted length of pile (3 times of dia) = 1.8 m
F.S = For end bearing = 2.5
F.S = For skin friction = 3.5

٤٧

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version [Link]