Bored Sockets in weathered Basalt

L. Maertens
Manager Engineering Department Besix, Belgium – Associate Professor Catholic University Leuven

Keywords: sockets, open-end piles, tensile piles, basalt

ABSTRACT: Offshore structures are often supported by open-end piles installed from marine equipment
such as Self Elevating Platforms (S.E.P.). Depending on the subsoil conditions, the penetration of the driven
piles can be sufficient to resist uplifting forces or not. In the case of very hard-cemented soils or weathered
rocks with underlying sound rock layers, it becomes impossible to install the piles to a depth ensuring suffi-
cient friction to resist uplift forces. It is then needed to install pre-stressed rock anchors inside the open-end
pile or bore sockets beneath the open pile tip and install a reinforced concrete pile in this bored hole. These
sockets can be drilled by rotation or by percussion.
The present paper deals with the installation of 610-mm diameter bored sockets through open-end piles
(dia. 762-mm) in weathered and sound basalt. The working compression loads reach 4000 kN and the tensile
loads 2000 kN.
Design, testing and installation of the sockets will be discussed.

1 INTRODUCTION
The subsoil consists of three subsequent layers:
India’s first L.N.G. Terminal was constructed on
• Soft clay layer with a thickness between 0 and
the western coast along the Arabian Sea, about
6-m.
160-km south of Mumbai. Steel open-end piles
• Weathered Basalt with a thickness between 1
support the 1750-m long jetty, the jetty head, the
and 5-m, and a RQD value varying between 0
berthing and mooring dolphins, the walkways and
to 90%.
the navigation dolphins (see figure 1). All struc-
• Sound basalt with unconfined compression
tures are designed to resist live loads, wave loads
strength between 29 and 115 MPa.
with a significant height of 9-m, currents of 1-
m/sec and earthquake loads with a ground accel-
A significant problem is the definition of the instal-
eration of 0.16-g.
lation procedure for the piles reconciling the re-
quirement to guarantee an adequate bearing capac-
ity and the requirement of limiting the deformation
of the pile tip in such a way that the installation of
the socket through the steel open-end pile remains
possible without damaging the drilling equipment.
This problem will be treated shortly in an adden-
dum.
The design values to be applied for the bond be-
tween the concrete sockets and the (weathered) ba-
salt on one hand and the bond between the sockets
and the steel pile on the other hand are a second
problem.
To better assess both problems, an onshore test
campaign was organized.
Figure 1: General view of the terminal
2 BORING EQUIPMENT

Figure 3: drilling hammer

3 SOIL CONDITIONS AT ONSHORE TEST

LOCATION

Boring at test location

TCR RQD (%)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0

TCR

RQD
DEPTH (m)

Figure 2: RCDS-3 drilling hammer

The drilling equipment used in Dabhol is specially
designed and built for the site by Geotec Interna-
tional (Belgium) and consists of a Numa Reversh 10

Circulation Hammer (Massachusetts, USA) com-

bined by a RCD rotary head (NCB, Italy).
It allows for boring 610-mm diameter sockets in
the weathered and sound basalt trough the 762-mm
diameter pile.

The RCDS-3 drilling equipment consists of (see 15

figure 2): Figure 4: Boring at test location

1. Casing clamp To perform the onshore trial pile test, a series of
2. Working platform onshore borings were carried out in order to find a
3. Raking cylinder location with a geological profile as similar as pos-
4. Mast inclination cylinder sible to the available offshore borings. The aim
5. Rotary head was to find a location with a sufficient thick layer
6. Mast of weathered basalt.
7. Pull-down hydraulic gear motor A typical boring at the test location is given on fig-
8. Suction pipe ure 4.
9. Drill rod
10. Casing Nine unconfined rock core tests were performed,
11. Stabiliser giving an UCS of respectively: 72,5 – 43,1 – 61,6
12. Down-the-hole hammer – 50,8 – 113,3 – 52,6 – 65,1 – 30.0 and 42,8 MPa
4 STATIC TENSILE TESTS:

Pile load test T2 (15-16/09/99) - Interpretation of socket load

Tensile Load (kN)

0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000
0
First Loading Slope

0,1
Load supported by friction on steel pile

0,2
Second Loading Slope

Average uplift (mm)

0,3

0,4

0,5
Unloading
0,6

0,7

0,8

Figure 7 : Test result T2 (2000 KN)

Figure 5: Tensile test
Two static tensile pile tests were performed on pile
T1 with a socket of 6-m and on pile T2 with a T2 - superposition of loading and unloading curves to 2000 kN and 5000 kN
socket of 3-m.
Tensile Load (kN)
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
A tensile test up to 4000 KN was performed on 0

pile T1 and one up to 2000 KN on pile T2. As the 0,5

result of the tensile test on both piles T1 and T1 1

was totally satisfactory, it was decided to carry out

Average uplift (mm)

a pull out test on pile T2 up to 5000 KN (limit due

1,5
Working load

to the strength of the testing frame). The pile char- 2

acteristics are given in Figure 6. 2,5

3,5
Testpiles 762x16 mm
Figure 8: Test result T2 (5000 KN)
Sockets 610 mm
9,59 9,60
T1 T2
Pile load test T1 (10-11/09/1999) - Loading and unloading curves
8,54 8,59 Tensile Load (kN)
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
0,00

First Loading Cycle

0,50

5,95 1,00
Average Uplift (mm)

1,50

Second Loading Cycle

4,35 2,00

2,50

3,00

Figure 9 : Test result T1 (4000 KN)

1,35

Results of the tensile test:

-0,05
Deflec- Deflec-
Wor
Socket tion at Test tion at
king
Pile length working load test
load
(m) load (kN) load
Figure 6: Test piles (kN)
(mm) (mm)
T1 6.0 2000 1.5 4000 2.8
The results of T2-test, T1-test and pullout test are T2 3.0 1000 0.5 2000 0.7
given in figures 7, 8 and 9. T2 3.0 1000 5000 3.4
As pile tensile capacity is not only generated by In the Dabhol case, following parameters are
friction on the socket, but also by friction on the known (Test pile T2):
steel pile, and since the uplift design is neglecting • quc = 36 MPa : this is the characteristic calcu-
the latter, it was advisable to split up both. In Fig- lated from the test values given in § 3 after de-
ure 7 one can distinguish two slopes in the loading leting the highest and lowest value
curve. We assumed that the change in slope corre- • Discontinuities : the boring results given in
sponds to the start of mobilisation of the friction on figure 4 show over the socket length RQD val-
ues between 40 and 95%. This corresponds to
the socket
a number of fractures per meter between 10
and 1.
One can see that the uplift resistance generated by • Socket length: 3m
the dead load together with the friction between the • Rs = 0,305-m (socket radius)
steel pile and the weathered basalt was found to be • Mass of mobilized soil can be calculated from
1250-kN. This corresponds to a bond stress be- the socket depth (7,24-m), socket length (3-m)
tween the steel and the basalt equal to 115 kPa or and the rock density (= 22,5 kN/m³)
0,115 MPa. • Installation method: percussion without use of
drilling fluid. According to Seidel and
According to Hobbs and Healy [1], Tchepak [8] Collingwood [3] a reduction factor ηc on the ul-
and to Tomlinson [2], the ultimate skin friction for timate skin friction is recommended as follows
driven tubular steel piles were published as fol- (table below).
lows:
Type of soil Ultimate skin Construction method Control ηc
friction (MPa) No drilling fluid High level 1.0
Weathered chalk [1] 0,026 No drilling fluid Low level 0.3 – 0.9
Weathered to unweathered chalk [1] 0,010 to 0,100 Bentonite slurry High level 0.7 – 0.9
Weak coral [2] 0,045 Bentonite slurry Low level 0.3 – 0.6
Moderately strong sandstone [2] 0,028 Polymer slurry High level 0.9 – 1.0
Weak calcareous sandstone [2] 0,045 Polymer slurry Low level 0.8
Medium weathered siltstone [8] 3 to 5 Indicative values for reduction factor, ηc

This shows that the uplift resistance due to the fric-

tion between the steel pile and the weathered basalt
is probably over-estimated, but this is on the safe
side for the estimation of the ultimate skin friction
between the socket and the basalt.
The remaining uplift force (3750 kN) was sup-
ported by the socket; the ultimate skin friction be-
tween the concrete of the socket and the basalt was
5.1 Design Method proposed by Tomlinson [2]
This method is based on research by Williams
and Pelles [4], Rosenbergh and Journeaux [5],
and Hobbs [6] and is given in figure 10.
Rock Socket skin friction according to Tomlinson
fs =αβ quc

at least 0,65 MPa. 0,9

β -values by Hobbs
0,8
Fractures β
per meter
0,7
5 CALCULATION OF THE UPLIFT FORCES. 0,6 Williams and Pells
15-20
8-15
0.4
0.6
0.7
α-values 5-8
0,5 1-5 0.8

The calculation of the uplift forces for sockets 1 0.9

α

0,4
bored in rock is complicated since the ultimate skin 0,3
friction and the bond between concrete and rock 0,2
Rosenbergh
and
depends on many factors: 0,1
Journeaux

• quc : unconfined rock strength (MPa)

• Discontinuities and fractions in the rock
0
0,1 1 quc (Mpa) 10 100

• Concrete strength (MPa)

• Socket roughness, expressed by the mean
roughness height Δr (mm) or by the roughness
factor RF (non dimensional)
• Em and ν: rock mass modulus (MPa) and Pois-
sons ration.
• Rs: socket radius (m)
• The length to the diameter ratio of the socket
• The mass of mobilized soil
• Installation method of the socket.
Figure 10
For quc = 36 MPa
α value is between 0,05 and 0,10
β value is between 0,6 and 0,9
An average value for the ultimate skin friction is
given by:
ƒs = 0,75 * 0,75 * 36 = 2,02 MPa
The ultimate uplift force (Fs) is: from the strength of the rock. This is in contradic-
Fs = π * 0,61 * 3 * 2,02 = 11,61 MN tion with the approach given in 5.1.

In case of a low control level during construction, a The graphs in full line are the values that corre-
reduction factor ηc = 0,3 to 0,9 has to be applied. spond to the assumption of one groove each
For an average value of 0,6 the ultimate friction 100 mm, and the graphs in dotted line to one
becomes 1,21 MPa and the ultimate uplift force groove each 300 mm. This shows that increase the
6,97 MN. depth of the grooves is much more efficient than
increase density.
5.2 Design Method proposed by Horvath [7]
Considering for the Dabhol T2 case a Δrh value of
only 3-mm, we find α = 0.14 and fs = 5,04 MN/m²
Horvath et all [7] developed a new factor charac- which gives Fs = 28,98 MN.
terizing the roughness of the socket wall:
Δrh Lt 5.3 Design method proposed by Seidel and
RF = * Collingwood [3]
Rs Ls
Δrh = mean roughness height
The authors consider a coefficient called SRC
Lt = total travel distance along the socket wall pro-
(Shaft Resistant Coefficient):
file
Ls = length of the socket = 3 m n Δ
SRC = η c * * rh
(1 + ν ) d s
According to Seidel and Collingwood [3], the av-
erage value of Δ rh varies between 5 and 10-mm for with n = Em/quc (rock mass modulus to the uncon-
quality boring without producing artificially fined compression strength).
grooves. n ∼ 100
ν = Poisson Ratio
For the ultimate skin friction, one proposes: ν = 0,25
α = 0,8 * (RF)0,45
and fs = α * quc By calculations using the software ROCKET, the
authors conclude as follows:
This means that for a boring without grooves fs = α * quc
(Δ rh = 0), the skin friction becomes zero and thus with α according to figure 12.
no bond between concrete and rock is considered,
which is very conservative.
To better understand the influence of grooves, let’s Adhesion Factor from SRC
consider a triangular groove with a depth d each fs = α x quc
100- mm (see figure 11):
0,40
quc = 0.5 MPa
0,35
Alfa Factor in function of Groove depth
0,30
fs = α x quc quc = 1.0 MPa
0,26 Groove Shape: 0,25
300mm Pile quc > 3.0 MPa
0,24
0,20
α
300 mm (dotted)

0,22
100 mm

0,20 0,15
600mm Pile
0,18 d

0,16 0,10
1200mm Pile
0,14
0,05
α

0,12
0,10 0,00
0,08 0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0 1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8 2,0
0,06 SRC
0,04
0,02 Figure 12
0,00
0 2 4 6 8 10
Groove depth d (mm) In Dabhol T2 case:
Figure 11 ηc = 1 ; n = 100 ; ν = 0,25 ;
Δ rh = 3 mm ; ds = 610 mm
This figure shows that the performance of a socket
can be improved significantly by creating artifi- SRC = 0,38 → α = 0,12
cially grooves in the socket wall. As one can ob- fs = 0,12 * 36 = 4,32 Mpa
serve the skin friction factor α is also independent Fs = 24,83 MN
5.4 The mass of mobilized rock 5.6 Bond stress socket-steel pile

The mass of the mobilized rock depends on the In many cases, stud-bolds are provided to guaran-
shape of the considered rock conus. tee the load transfer from the concrete socket to the
The angle of failure can be considered ϕ1 = 30° for steel pile. According to B.S. 5400, Part 5 shear
weathered basalt and ϕ2 = 45° for sound basalt. connections can be avoided as far as the ultimate
bond stress does not exceed 0,4 MPa in the case of
By limiting the uplift force to the weight of this concrete poured in a cylindrical steel pipe.
rock conus (see formula in figure 13), one neglects In the T2 pile, the length of the socket plug inside
the cohesion or bond stresses at the failure surface, the pile was 2,3-m, giving a bonded surface of
which is conservative. 5,3 -m² and an ultimate bond capacity of 5,3 * 0,4
= 2,12 MN.
The applied force was at least 3,75 MN, giving a
Uplift Conus Test Pile 2 bond stress of 0,71 MPa, or 1,75 times the ulti-
8,59 mate bond stress according to B.S. 5400.

L1 Weathered

30°
Basalt 6 ADDENDUM: INSTALLATION
ϕ1 = 30°
PROCEDURE FOR PILES.
4,35

2,59

45° L2 Basalt
ϕ2 = 45°
1,35

W = π/3*γrock [ tg²ϕ1* ( (L1+L2) * tgϕ2/tgϕ1+L1*(1-tgϕ2/tgϕ1) )³

+ tg²ϕ2 * (L2)³ * (1-tgϕ2/tgϕ1) ]

Figure 13

5.5 Evaluation of the discussed design methods

Build in Safety
Uplift capacity against socket length for testpile T2
Weight of the rock conus: s = 1.2 Figure 15: Damaged pile tip
L1= 6m - Pile embedded over 4.24m
Friction socket-rock: s = 3
30.000
28.000 Damage of pile tip as shown in figure 15 cannot be
26.000
24.000 Socket Friction accepted since excessive damage of pile tip pre-
22.000 (Horvath) Socket Friction
vents the installation of the sockets through the
Uplift force (kN)

20.000 (Seidel)
18.000
16.000
piles.
14.000 Weight of
12.000 rock conus
10.000 Socket Friction Driving analysis by TNO-WAVE (Pdp Wave) can
8.000
6.000
(Tomlinson)
predict for the considered soil profile the SRD
4.000
2.000 (Static Resistance during Driving) as well as the
0
0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0 6,0 7,0 8,0 9,0 10,0
stress in the pile during driving, for different Ham-
Socket length L (m) mer Energy levels and different penetrations per
Figure 14 blow.

In figure 14 the allowed working load of the pile In figure 16, the results of this analysis are shown
T2 is plotted against increasing socket length. A for a compression pile (760 * 16-mm):
safety factor of 3 is applied on the skin friction and
1.2 on the weight of the corresponding rock conus. It shows that the stress during driving decrease
One can see that in this case the governing crite- significantly when the hammer energy is reduced.
rion is the weight of the rock conus, as far as the For a S90 hammer (hydraulic hammer from IHC),
length of the socket is smaller than 3,25-m one can see that for an SRD value of 5250 KN, the
(Tomlinson), 7,50-m (Horvath) and 6,75-m driving stress is 350 MPa for a full energy setting
(Seidel). of 90 KJ and is reduced to 260 MPa when the set-
ting of the energy is reduced to 45 KJ.
On another hand, the number of blows is increased Finally the installation procedure was as follows:
from 28 to 108 blows per 100-mm penetration.
This means that the driving time is almost 4 times Refusal criteria for permanent works
longer as the number of blows remains 50 blows Pile Hammer En- Blows per
per minute. ergy 100-mm
penetra-
Field test shows the following damage: tion
(kj) (% of
Pile Thickness Max Maximum Damage full en-
(mm) blows for Driving at toe ergy)
100-mm Stress (m) Com- 16-mm 45 50 100
penetra- (from output pression 19-mm 67.5 75 100
tion of TNO- Tension 16-mm 45 50 20
(at 90 kJ) wave model) (*)
(MPa) 19-mm 45 50 40
1 16 51 380 0.1 (*)
2 16 50 380 0.5
3 19 57 360 0.5 (*) This criterion was checked by installing two additional
raking piles on the test location onshore. After inspection, no
Definition of refusal for compression pile 16 mm
damage at pile tip was observed as shown below in figure 17.
10000
Maximum SRD = 2 Maximum Working Load
9000 = 2 * 2620 kN = 5250 kN
90 kJ
8000

7000 67,5 kJ

6000
SRD (kN)

5000

4000 45 kJ

3000

2000

1000

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

Blows per 100 mm penetration

450
Maximum Driving Stress (MPa)

400 Yield stress = 415 MPa

350
Figure 17: Pile tip after driving
Allowable stress = 332 MPa
300

7 CONCLUSIONS
250

200

150
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

Blows per 100 mm penetration The most appropriate foundation method for off-
shore structures in cemented soils or weathered
rocks is a foundation on tubular steel pile.
Figure 16
Due to the problem of penetrating the piles to suf-
As one can see, the maximum stresses during driv- ficient depth, bored sockets are often needed to re-
ing were close to the yield stress (415 MPa). In sist uplifting forces.
fact these maximum driving stresses are computed
by the IHC model with the assumption that the This leads to following problems:
stresses are uniformly distributed over the entire 1. Pile driving criteria for piling to guarantee a
cross section. This is of course never true in real- very low damage level on the pile tips. This
ity, and an appropriate safety factor has to be used can be managed by driving analyses using
in the definition of the refusal criteria. appropriate software and in-situ testing.
Final installation criteria to guarantee the required 2. Design methods for sockets are not yet stan-
SRD are governed by in-depth stress and damage dardized and existing methods are giving a
analyses. It was concluded to allow 80% of the large dispersion of results. The weight of
yield stress (= 332 MPa) for compression piles and mobilised rock is often governing the design.
55% (= 225 MPa) for tension piles, since tension In situ tests are needed to confirm the calcu-
piles need a socket. lations.
REFERENCES

[1] HOBBS, N. B. and HEALY, P. R. Piling in chalk, Con-

struction Industry Research and Information Association
(CIRIA), Report PG6, 1979.

[2] TOMLINSON, M. J., Pile design and construction prac-

tice, E & FN Spon, London, 1995.

[3] SEIDEL, J. and COLLINGWOOD, B., The SRC method

for estimating side resistance of drilled shaft, The Maga-
zine of the Deep Foundations Institute, Fall 2002.

[4] WILLIAMS, A. F. and PELLS, P. J. N. Side resistance

rock sockets in sandstone, mudstone and shale, Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 18, 1981, pp. 502-513.

[5] ROSENBERG, P. and JOURNEAUX, N. L. Friction and

end bearing tests on bedrock for high capacity socket de-
sign, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 13, 1976, pp.
324-333.

[6] HOBBS, N. B. Review paper – Rocks, Proceedings of the

Conference on Settlement of Structures, British Geotech-
nical Society, Pentech Press, 1975, pp. 579-610.

[7] HORVATH, R. G., KENNEY, T. C. and KOZICKI, P.

Methods for improving the performance of drilled piers in
weak rock. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 20,
1983, pp. 758-772.

[8] TCHEPAK, S., CHIN, M.C. Statnamic testing of bored

piles socketed into siltstone, BAPIII, Ghent, 1998.

[9] MAERTENS, L. Design and installation of steel open end

piles in weathered basalt, International Deep Foundations
Congress, Orlando, 2002