Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
R. K. ROWE
Geotechnical Research Centre, Faculty of Engineering Science, The University of Western Ontario, Lonrlon, Ont.,
Canada N6A 5B9
AND
H. H. ARMITAGE
Golder Associates, 500 Nottirzghill Road, Lonrlon, Ont., Can~zdaN6K 3PI
Received May 20, 1986
Accepted October 16, 1986
A theoretical examination of a number of factors affecting the behaviour of drilled piers in soft rock is presented. Firstly,
the fundamental difference between tests commonly used for determining the peak average side shear resistance along a
socketed pier is discussed. Secondly, the effect of interface strength parameters, dilatancy, and the relative Young's modulus
of the pier and rock upon the average mobilized side shear resistance is examined. Thirdly, a series of theoretical solutions
are presented in the form of design charts to provide a simple means of estimating the load-deflection response of piers both
before and after full slip has developed along the pier shaft. Finally, the effect of weak horizontal seams adjacent to the pier
is considered.
Key words: drilled shafts, piers, piles, rock, theory, settlement, displacement, analysis.
Un examen thtorique d'un certain nombre de facteurs influen~antle comportement de pieux forts dans la roche molle est
prisenti. Premikrement, la difference fondamentale entre les essais utilists couramment pour dtterminer le pic moyen de
risistance au cisaillement latiral le long de I'enveloppe d'un pieu est discutte. Deuxikmement, l'effet des paramktres de
risistance a I'interface, de la dilatance, et du module de Young du pieu et de la roche, sur la moyenne de la rtsistance au
cisaillement mobiliste sur les cBtts est examink. Troisikmement, une strie de solutions thCoriques est prtsentte sous la forme
d'abaques de calcul pour fournir un moyen simple d'estimer la rtaction charge-dtflexion des pieux tant avant qu' aprks qu'un
glissement complet se soit produit le long du ftit. Finalement, I'effet de couches faibles horizontales adjacentes au pieu est
considirte.
Mots clPs : puits forks, piles, pieux, roche, thtorie, tassement, diplacement, analyse.
[Traduit par la revue]
Can. Geotech. J. 24, 114-125 (1987)
Socket --
w
D - Diameter of Socketed
Pier
FIG.1. Notation: rock-socketed pier.
1
m M W - Moderately Weolhered
2 0,6
\
\<F
J
Correlol~onbosed on an exomination of 2 0 0 terlr
("owe n s fimitoge 19.4, TI = o 45-
The shear strength, T , at a point along the interface was
modelled in terms of a Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion:
[ I ] T = e + u, tan $
where a, is the normal stress at the interface, c is the interface
"adhesion", and $ is the interface friction angle. It was as-
sumed that c and tan $ degrade linearly with relative displace-
0 I I I , I I I I I 1 I I I ! ment between two sides of the rupture from peak values (c,, tan
0.2 0.4 0.60.81.0 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 100
+,) to residual values (c,, tan $,) at a relative displacement 6,.
Unioxiol Compressive Strength. uc (MPa
Roughness of a socket was modelled in terms of a dilatancy
FIG. 3. Variation in average side shear with unconfined com- angle $ (Davis 1968) and a maximum dilation 6,~.
pressive strength.
Effect of roughness, modulus ratio, and geometry
at the interface (e.g. as the concrete-rock bond is broken). The
Considering firstly the Hawkesbury sandstone examined by
reduction in applied load reduces the normal stress along the
Pells (1977) and Pells et 01. (1980), analyses were performed
interface, which, in turn, also reduces the frictional component
for the interface strength parameters determined by Pells (viz.
of the shear resistance, resulting in a very brittle response.
cP =4MPa,+,=39",cr=0,+,=36",6,=0.003D)forboth
In a load-defined analysis on a relatively smooth end-bearing
a perfectly smooth socket ($ = 0) and a moderately rough
socket, the applied load remains constant or increases as soft-
socket (IJ = 20°, 6d = 0.0010). The theoretical results are
ening occurs at the concrete-rock interface, with the addi-
summarized in Fig. 4 for a typical range of modulus ratio
tional load being carried in end bearing. This maintenance or
E,/E,. The experimental results obtained by Pells et al. for
increase in applied load maintains, or increases, the normal
straight smooth-sided sockets (grooves or indentations less than
stress along the interface thereby increasing the frictional com-
1 mm deep) are also shown in Fig. 4a while the two results for
ponent of-the available shear resistance and reducing the
slightly rougher sockets (grooves of depth 1-4 mm, width
brittleness of the response.
greater than 2 mm at spacing 50-200 mm) are shown in Fig.
The greatest discrepancy between the peak and residual side
shear resistance deduced from different tests will occur for very 4b.
The response of the smooth-sided sockets is quite brittle and
smooth sockets. Increasing roughness of the socket (reducing
the residual average side shear values are considerably lower
brittleness) will reduce this discrepancy.
than the peak values. The calculated and observed peak average
A theoretical studv of the effects of a number of fundamental
shear values are in generally good agreement. The calculated
parameters upon the response of side shear sockets subjected to
residual average shear values are less than the observed values,
a displacement-defined loading has been reported by Rowe and
Pells (1980). In this paper, attention will be primarily directed probably because the actual sockets were not perfectly smooth.
to the behaviour of complete socketed piers in a load-defined Although there was some variation with the LID ratio, the
effect was not particularly significant for these smooth sockets.
test.
Increasing roughness of the socket increases both the peak
and residual average side shear values and reduces the brittle-
Fundamental factors influencing side shear resistance ness of the response. The stiffer the rock (i.e., the lower the
The average side shear resistance values T ( deduced from a ratio E,/Er), the larger will be the normal stress developed at
series of tests in Melbourne mudstone (Williams et 01. 1980) a given level of dilation of the interface. Thus, the effect of
and Hawkesbury sandstone (Pells et a/. 1980) are summarized roughness is considerably greater for E,IE, = 25 than it is for
in Fig. 3. Also shown is the best-fit correlation between side E,/Er = 100. For similar reasons, the effect of the length-to-
shear-resistance and uniaxial compressive strength deduced by diameter ratio (LID) is also more significant for lower values
Rowe and Armitage (1984) from an examination of over 200 of E,/Er (i.e., stiffer rock).
load tests. From the data points shown, it is evident that there In general, relatively little is known about the relationship
is a wide scatter of resu~tskvenfor a particular test method and between rock mass modulus, roughness, and dilatancy at the
rock type. Some statistical variation in results is to be expected; interface. However, the work by Williams (1980) does provide
however, it is the objective of this section to illustrate that there some guidance regarding the parameter for very soft rock (silu-
are also deterministic factors contributing to this variability in rian mudstone). Considering a rock with an uniaxial com-
mobilized side shear resistance. These factors include the stiff- pressive strength of 0.72 MPa, c, = 0.2 MPa, and +, = 32',
ness of the pier relative to the rock (E,IE,), the length-to- analyses were performed for a range of modulus ratios (E,,/E,)
diameter ratio of the pier (LID), the initial stresses in the rock, corresponding to different levels of weathering and jointing in
the rock-concrete interface strength properties, and the socket weak rock. The interface strength parameters (c,, = 0.2 MPa,
roughness. To examine the effect of these parameters, analyses +p = 32O, c, = 0, +, = 21') were taken to be independent of
were performed using fundamental rock properties appropriate rock stiffness. The roughness ($, 6,, 6,) parameters were se-
for Sydney sandstone and Melbourne mudstone. Although lected from consideration of the experimental data and varied
these fundamental parameters are usually not available for the with rock stiffness as indicated in Fig. 5.
ROWE A N D ARMITAGE: I 117
v=l
This result serves as a warning that empirical correlations de-
0.3- 6, = 0.001 D veloped for tightly jointed rock cannot be used directly for
T
- highly jointed rock, which may have a high intact strength but
'Jc
0.2 - '--25 -_ --- - low mass modulus.
0
'. --- -----__ The irzfluence of high horizontal rock stress
In the foregoing analyses, it was assumed that the initial
horizontal stresses at the pier-rock interface were negligible
relative to the normal stresses due to Poisson's effect and di-
lation of the interface. The assumption is likely to be valid for
most practical cases; however, stress measurements around the
world have indicated that high horizontal stresses may be en-
countered near the surface of a rock mass (see e.g. Palmer and
FIG.4. Variation in average side shear with L I D (c, = 4 MPa, +, Lo 1976). Under certain circumstances, involving a time-
= 39", c, = 0 MPa, +,
= 36", u, = 16.8 MPa). dependent rock mass subjected to high horizontal stresses, one
may expect the development, with time, of appreciable hori-
zontal stresses between the pier and the rock after casting of the
1.0
socket. Analyses performed for this case indicate that, as might
be expected, increasing horizontal stress increases the mag-
(this study nitude of the peak and residual mobilized shear. The magnitude
0.8 @From
Zxperimental :
Williams (1980)
of this effect depends on the time between excavation, con-
creting, and testing of the socket, and the initial horizontal
0.6
Roughened Socket
1 stresses within the strata. Thus, the effect of high horizontal
stresses upon the mobilized side shear resistance may be quite
'(intact)
0.4
~intoct D * 6d
I variable and should not be relied upon unless the horizontal
stresses and time effects are well known. Similarly, values of
side shear resistance deduced from load tests in rocks with high
horizontal stresses should be used with caution unless these
stresses are accounted for properly.
0
Settlement factors and load distribution
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.O
Elastic solutions (e.g. Pells and Turner 1979; Donald et al.
Emass
1980) currently used to estimate socket settlement and the
Eintoct
proportion of load carried to the base of the socketed pier were
FIG.5 . Reduction in peak side shear due to decreasing mass mod- developed assuming full bond between the pier and the rock
ulus(L/D = 2;cP=0.2MPa,+,= 32",c,= 0 , + , = 2l0,u, =0.72 (i.e., no slip). An examination of the elastic stress distribution
MPa). along the socket for typical situations indicates that in many
cases the elastic shear stress exceeds the available interface
The calculated ratio of average peak shear resistance to uni- shear strength and slip would be expected along the socket. In
axial compressive strength (TJu,) varied between 0.8 and 0.5 fact, this type of behaviour has long been recognized in the
for a typical range of values of E,/E, (100 5 E,,/E, 5 500) and design of piers in clay (see e.g. Whitaker and Cooke 1966;
LID = 2.2. (The geometry LID = 2.2 corresponds to that of Burland et al. 1966; Poulos 1972; Poulos and Davis 1980)
the sockets tested by Williams in this highly weathered mud- where the deformations required to mobilize base resistance
stone.) This variation in T ~ / U , is generally consistent with the may be sufficient to cause full slip along the pier at working
observed variation shown in Fig. 3. The calculated ratio of loads. This has also been recognized by Kulhawy and Good-
residual to peak average side shear resistance ranges from 0.9 man (1980), who show full bond and frictional transfer curves
118 CAN. GEOTECH. J. VOL. 24. 1987
Qb/Ql is a linear function of LID. The optimal pier length is When considering the results given in Figs. 6 and 7 (and the
that which satisfies [lo] and gives a dimensionless Appendix), it should be recognized that the equilibrium condi-
displacement tions for full slip are defined by [lo]. Thus, for any specified
applied load and rocklpier parameters, there is a unique (or no)
value of I = pE,D/Q, corresponding to this particular geometry
and load. Thus, the contours of I, the influence factor, do not
This may be determined graphically by plotting the straight line correspond to a variation in displacement for a given load but
given by [lo] on the appropriate design chart and finding the rather to a variation in both and displacement where the actual
intersection between this line and the contour corresponding to load at any point along the contour must be determined using
the dimensionless displacement 1,; this then gives the required [lo]. These contours reflect both the compressibility of the pier
pier length. This pier automatically satisfies condition (a). The and rock, and the distribution of load along the pier. Con-
value of Qb/Q, for this pier is read from the chart, and the base sequently, the shape of the contours varies with modulus ratio
pressure, q,, can then be calculated, viz., EpIEr.
Figures 8 and 9 show the variability in load distribution
(Qb/Ql) as a function of modular ratios Ep/Er and E,/E,, re-
spectively, for a range of influence factors I. The load carried
and compared with the allowable end-bearing pressure. to the base of the pier for a given value of LID and 1 increases
Provided that condition (b) is satisfied, the optimal pier length significantly with increasing pier modulus (Ep/E,) and in-
has been determined. The selection of design parameters and creasing base modulus (Eb/Er). These charts may be used to
the use of these theoretical results to develop a design pro- estimate the value of the dimensionless displacement I (for
cedure are described by Rowe and Armitage (1987a, b). given Q,/Qt) when the modulus ratios E,,/E, or Eb/Er do not
ROWE AND P
;\ Qb
i $;,75
: PSI
: b\.5
+ +\\
S= 0.2 0.1 s =0.2 0.1
From Eq. [15] From ~~.[15]
0.8 * I . 1.2
-
1 -
I
Id Id
FIG. 10. Effect of seam properties upon displacement ratio for
given Qb/Q, (full-slip) ( L I D = 2, E,/E, = 10).
correspond directly to the results given by the design charts in
the Appendix.
The results presented in this section (and the Appendix) were
obtained for the case where there is no strain softening at the
interface (i.e., T~ = -rFal,= T,~,~~,,~,I).
The charts may be approx-
imately used for the case where T ~ ~ is greater ~ ~ than
/ one
T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
by taking TI = T~~~~~~~in the full-slip range. This approach is
conservative since full slip may not actually occur if the mobi-
lized shear is less than the peak value.
Effect of horizontal seams on socketed pier behaviour
The behaviour of piers socketed into rock that is tightly
jointed may be approximately predicted using the theory of the
previous section in conjuntion with an appropriate mass modu- FIG. I I. Effect of seam properties upon displacement ratio E,/E,
lus. However, if the joints are filled with weathered material, = 100: ( a ) L I D = 2; (b) L I D = 10.
particular consideration must be given to the effect of these
weaker zones on the pier response. and hence the influence factor which reflects the effect of
In this section, the effect of contiguous horizontal seams seams, is related to the "design" influence factor Id (i.e., ne-
located above the bottom of the socket will be examined. It is glecting seams) by
assumed that these seams have a modulus E, and a shear re-
sistance 7,at the pier-seam interface. The effect of the seam
on pier head settlement and load distribtuion might be expected The charts given in Figs. 6 and 7 (and the Appendix) can then
to be a function of the percentage of seams and their distribu- be used together with T: I*, and [9] as described in the pre-
tion along the pier, the relative seam modulus Es/Er, and rela- vious section.
tive T,/T, (where T, is the average shear resistance of the To assess the potential errors associated with this simplified
pier-rock interface). Seams may be evenly distributed or may approach, a seriks of finite element analyses were conducted
be concentrated over some portion of the pier. However, it is where various proportions of seams along the socket (with
generally conservative to restrict attention to the situation specified properties T,/T,, E,/E,) were directly modelled and
where the seam is concentrated just above the base of the pier. the results of some of these analyses have been summarized in
Figs. 10 and 11 in terms of the ratio I*/I, deduced from the
Results of the finite elernetzt analysis finite element analysis for different influence factors Id. (In
For a given geometry and load, the proportion of base load these figures, I, is the influence factor deduced from a homoge-
(Qb/Q,) and the settlement factor I will both increase due to the neous analysis for a given load level and 1:"s the influence
presence of soft seams adjacent to the pier. Taking S to be the factor corresponding to the same proportion of load carried to
proportion of seam along the socket length, experimental evi- the base of the socket from an analysis that directly considers
dence (see e.g. Pells et al. 1980; Thorne 1980) would suggest
that the effect of seams on the side shear resistance can be
seams.)
An inspection of Figs. 10 and 11 shows that for a given
considered by geometry and seam distribution, the ratio I*/I, in fact varies
with load level (and hence I,). For 20% (or less) seams along
the socket, comparison of the results from a full seam analysis
where, in many cases, the shear resistance along the seam (7,)
with the approximate relationship given by [IS] indicates that
may be neglected altogether. In determining the effect of seams
for the short piers considered (LID = 2) the approximate ap-
on the mass modulus E: two approaches will be considered.
proach gives values of I* typically within 15% of the values
The simplest approach is to calculate an equivalent modulus
deduced from a full finite element analysis. For long piers, the
~ ; j where
' error associated with the approximate approach (1151) can be
somewhat greater (up to 25% for the very highly loaded piers
122 C A N . GEOTECH. J. VOL. 21. 1987
considered); however, even for long piers, at typical load lev- Acknowledgements
els, the error associated with the approximate approach is less The research described in this paper was supported by the
than 20%. Department of Supply and Services Canada and the National
The value of I'Vo be used in association with [9], [ 131, and Research Council of Canada under contract no. 1SU83-00082.
Figs. 6 and 7 can be estimated from Figs. 10 and 11 and Many thanks are due Dr. M. Bozozuk, of the National
additional charts given by Rowe and Armitage (1984); however Research Council, who acted as Scientific Advisor on this
the results presented here suggest that for many practical situ- project. Thanks are also due Mr. P. J. N. Pells for many useful
ations it may be adequate to use the approximate approach discussions over many years.
([15]) to determine 1".
BURLAND, J. B., BUTLER,F. G., and DUNICAN, P. 1966. The
Conclusion behaviour and design of large-diameter bored piles in stiff clay.
A theoretical approach for the prediction of the behaviour of Proceedings, Symposium on Large Bored Piles, Institution of Civil
piers socketed into soft rock has been described. This approach Engineering, London, pp. 5 1-7 1.
allows consideration of plastic failure within the rock, as well DAVIS,E. H. 1968. Theories of plasticity and failure of soil masses.
as slip, strain softening, and dilatancy at the pier-rock inter- In Soil mechanics-Selected topics. Edited by I. K. Lee
face. Butterworths, London, England, Chap. 6
The fundamental difference between tests commonlv used DONALD, I. B., SLOAN, S. W., and CHIU,H. K. 1980. Theoretical
analyses of rock socketed piles. Proceedings of the International
for determining average side shear resistance has been dis- Conference on Structural Foundations on Rock, Sydney, Vol. I ,
cussed. It was suggested that there will generally be a pp. 303-316.
discrepancy between the average side shear obtained from HORVATH, R. G. 1980. Research project report on load transfer sys-
displacement-controlled tests on side shear only sockets and tem for rock-socketed drilled pier foundations. For the National
that obtained from load-defined tests on end-bearing piers. This Research Council of Canada, DSS file no. 10x5.31155-9-4420,
discrepancy is small for moderately long and rough sockets; contract serial no. IS X79.00053 I.
however the results obtained from side shear sockets may HORVATH, R. G., KENNEY, T. C., and KOZICKI, P. 1983. Methods of
underestimate the available residual side shear resistance of improving the performance of drilled piers in weak rock.
end-bearing piers. The magnitude of this discrepancy will Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 20(4), pp. 758-772.
depend upon the relative stiffness of the pier and rock as well KULHAWY, F. H., and GOODMAN, G. E. 1980. Design of
foundations on discontinuous rock. Proceedings of the International
as the length and roughness of the socket. In theory, the Conference on Structural Foundations on Rock, Sydney, Vol. 1,
discrepancy may be more than an order of magnitude for typi- pp. 209-222.
cal parameters and a perfectly smooth socket, although, in LADANYI, B. 1977. Friction and end bearing tests on bedrock for high
practice, this variation would not be expected because of the capacity socket design: Discussion. Canadian Geotechnical Jour-
roughness of even relatively "smooth" sockets. nal, 14, pp. 153-155.
The effect of a number of fundamental parameters upon the MATTES,N. S., and P o u ~ o s ,H. G. 1969. Settlement of a single
average peak and residual side shear values was examined for compressible pile. ASCE, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and
end-bearing piers subjected to a load-defined test. It was shown Foundations Division, 95, (SM I), pp. 189-207.
that the magnitude of the average side shear depends not only OSTERBERG, J. O., and GILL,S. A. 1973. Load transfer mechanisms
upon the strength parameters, but also upon dilatancy at the for piers socketed into hard soils or rock. Proceedings, 9th Canadian
Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Montreal, Que. pp. 235-262.
interface, the length-to-diameter ratio, and the relative modulus PALMER, J. H. L., and Lo, K. Y. 1976. In situ stress measurements
of the pier and rock. The average side shear deduced using in some near-surace rock formations-Thorold, Ontario. Canadian
typical values of the fundamental parameters for two types of Geotechnical Journal, 13(1), pp. 1-7.
rock compared reasonably well with field values. These results PELLS,P. J. N. 1977. Measurement of engineering properties of
suggest that the apparent scatter of results obtained from differ- Hawkesbury sandstone. Australian Geomechanical Journal, G5,
ent field tests on rock with apparently the same strength charac- pp. 10-20.
teristics may be partly due to the effect of parameters such as PELLS,P. J. N., and TURNER, R. M. 1979. Elastic solutions for the
socket length, modulus ratio, and variable roughness of the design and analysis of rock-socketed piles. Canadian Geotechnical
socket walls. Journal, 16(3), pp. 481 -487.
A series of solutions as presented for a pier socketed into a PELLS,P. J. N., ROWE,R. K., and TURNER, R. M. 1980. An experi-
mental investigation into sideshear for socketed piles in sandstone.
homogeneous rock and for a pier end bearing on rock that is Proceedings of the International Conference on Structural Founda-
either stiffer or weaker than that along the shaft. In addition to tions on Rock, Sydney, Vol. 1, pp. 29 1-302.
the elastic response, these solutions provide a means of esti- POULOS, H. G. 1972. Load-settlement prediction for piles and piers.
mating the load at which full slip occurs and the corresponding ASCE Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division,
pier head settlement, as well as the pier head displacement for 98(SM9), pp. 879-897.
any given load following full slip. Nonlinearity of the bearing Pou~ous,H. G., and DAVIS,E. H. 1980. Pile foundation analysis and
strata may be approximated by the selection of an appropriate design. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
secant modulus. ROWE,R. K., and ARMITAGE, H. H. 1984. The design of piles
Finally, the effect of weak horizontal seams along the pier socketed into weak rock. Faculty of Engineering Science, The
shaft was examined and theoretical solutions for assessing the University of Western Ontario, London, Ont., Research Report
GEOT- I 1-84.
significance of these seams upon the pier response were 19870. A design method for drilled piers in soft rock.
presented. It is shown that an approximate approach that uses Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 24, this issue.
an equivalent modulus will give reasonable results for many 19876. Design method for drilled piers in soft rock evaluated
situations where seams represent less than 20% of the socket for 3 case histories. 6th International Congress on Rock Mechanics.
length. To appear.
ROWE AND ARMITAGE: 1
100
Eb/ -05
E,
90
80
70
60
Qb
- PIo)
0t
50
40
30
20
10
O 1 2 3 4 5 , 6 7 8 9 1 0
FIG. 12. Design charts for a complete socketed pier (Eb/E, = 0.5; E,/E, = 10.0, 25.0, 50.0, and 100.0).
ROWE,R. K., and PELLS,P. J . N. 1980. A theoretical study of Journal, 18(4), pp. 502-5 13.
pile-rock socket behaviour. Proceedings of the International Con- WILLIAMS,
A. F., JOHNSTON,
I. W., and DONALD,
I. B. 1980. The
ference on Structural Foundations on Rock, Sydney, Vol. 1, pp. design of sockets in weak rock. Proceedings of the International
253-264. Conference on Structural Foundations on Rock, Sydney, Vol. 1,
ROWE,R. K., BOOKER, J. R., and BALAAM, N. P. 1978. Application pp. 327-347.
of the initial stress method to soil-structure interaction. Inter-
national Journal of Numerical Methods in Engineering, 12(5), pp. Appendix
873-880. Figures 12- 14 provide design curves for values of E,/E,
THORNE, C. P. 1980. The capacity of piers drilled into rock. Pro- ranging from 10 to 250 for values of E,/E, of 0.5, 1.O, and 2.0.
ceedings of the International Conference on Structural Foundations The use of these charts for the design of piers socketed into
on Rock, Sydney, Vol. 1, pp. 223-233. rock is described by Rowe and Armitage (1987n). However, it
WHITAKER, T., and COOKE, R. W. 1966. An investigation of the shaft should be noted here that the effect of increasing pier length
and base resistances of large bored piles in London clay. Pro-
ceedings, Symposium on Large Bored Piles, pp. 7-49.
beyond that required to give a design settlement p, depends on
WILLIAMS, A. F. 1980. 'The design and performance of piles socketed the relative stiffness of the concrete and rock. For modulus
into weak rock. Ph.D. thesis, Monash University, Melbourne, Aus- ratios E,/E, > 25 increasing pier length will result in a decrease
tralia. in settlement for a given load. However, in some cases in-
WILLIAMS, A. F., and PELLS,P. J. N. 1981. Side resistance rock volving stiffer rock (particularly when E,/E, 5 lo), increasing
sockets in sandstone, mudstone, and shale. Canadian Geotechnical the length of the socketed pier may in fact increase settlement
CAN. GEOTECH. J. VOL. 24, 1987
-
Eb/Er = 1.0
, .,
,-
.- .25
-
- -- - --
70"s
lo - -<------=-==
-TI ---z->-----
-. 1
- Elastic /'"".9 -
0 I I I I I ) I 1 I I
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0
- -
D D
I I l l I 1 1 1 1 1
100 -
Eb/E, = 1.0 -
60
40
20
.
,-.
-, 20 .
lo - 10 -
- ELASTIC
0 0 b ' 8 ' 8 f % , , ,
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0
-
D
13. Design charts for a complete socketed pier (E,/E, = 1.0; E,/E, = 10.0, 25.0, 50.0, 100.0, and 250).
ROWE A N D ARMITAGE: I
O
50
1 2 3 4 5 L 6 7 8 9 D O i 2 3 4 5 L 6 7 8 9 1 0
- -
D D
FIG. 14. Design charts for a complete socketed pier (Eb/E, = 2.0; E,/E, = 10.0, 25.0, 50.0, and 100.0).
for high levels of load! This result arises from the fact that if settlement once slip is induced at the interface. Clearly, if this
the rock and concrete have comparable stiffnesses, and a bored is the case, then it is better to have a larger end-bearing pier at
pier is placed in the rock, then the interface between the rock the surface of the rock (or perhaps socketed to a nominal LID
and concrete represents a plane of weakness; the longer the = 1) than to try and design a socketed pier.
pier, the more the rock is weakened and the larger will be the