Skin Friction in Rock Socketed Region

Careful analysis of the distribution of skin friction with depth shows that the high skin
frictional resistance is developed within the residual soil formations. Especially, high skin
friction is observed to be developed in the weathered and fractured rock layers. Osterburg
et al. (1973) investigated the effects of the ratio between the Youngs modulus between
rock and concrete, length to diameter ratio of the socket and the Poisson ratio of the rock
on the distribution of the skin friction within the socketed length. The variation is shown
in Figure 1.16.

Ed Youngs Modulus of
Rock
Ec Youngs Modulus of
concrete
Figure 1.16 The distribution of the skin friction within the socketed length of the pile
shaft (Tomlinson, 1994).
The Figure 1.16 assumes elastic behaviour of the rock, soil and the interface between soil
and the rock. Figure 1.16 clearly shows that in stronger rock formations, the stress
transferred to end bearing is very minimum if the length to diameter ratio of the rock
socket is more than about 4. William et al. (1981) suggested that for piles installed in
sandstone, mudstone or shale, the skin friction (fs) in the rock socketed length of the pile
can be estimated using the relationship given in Equation [1.1]
f s c

[1.1]

Where the factors and can be obtained from the Figures 1.17 and 1.18. The mass
factor j can be obtained from the guidelines proposed by Hobbs (1975) given in Table
1.2.

Figure 1.17 Rock socket reduction factor (Tomlinson, 1994).

Figure 1.18 Mass factor (Tomlinson, 1994).

Table 1.2 Guidelines to estimate the Mass Factor j
RQD (%)
0 25
25 50
50 75
75 90
90 100

Fracture
meter
15
15 8
85
51
1

frequency

per Mass factor j

0.2
0.2
0.2 0.5
0.5 0.8
0.8 1.0

The relationship given by Equation [1.1] assumes that the sides of the rock socket are free
from debris and not smeared with the material wash down the borehole. A conservative
analysis, assuming RQD less than 25% and unconfined strength of 10 MPa, yields and
values 0.65 and 0.13 respectively. The use of the relationship given in Equation [1.1],
results in the ultimate skin frictional resistance of 845 kPa within the rock socket.
However, it should be noted here that the development of the earlier estimated skin
friction depends mainly on the cleanliness of the rock socket just before concreting.
Wyllie (1991) suggested that the use of bentonite during the drilling process reduces the
skin friction and if bentonite is used the skin friction of the rock socket should be taken as
25% of a clean rock socket.
End bearing capacity
There are large number of methods to estimate the ultimate or allowable end bearing
capacity of rock socketed piles. Two methods are discussed here.
Method 1 Method given in the ICTAD guidelines
(ICTAD/DEV/15/1997(Rev 2013) - GUIDELINES FOR INTERPREATION OF SITE
INVESTIGATION DATA FOR ESTIMATING THE CARRYING CAPACITY OF
SINGLE PILES FOR DESIGN OF BORED AND CAST IN-SITU REINFORCED
CONCRETE PILE)
This method makes use of the estimation of allowable carrying capacity of shallow
foundations on rock to estimate the allowable carrying capacity of end bearing bored
piles. The allowable end bearing is estimated from the following chart.

Method 2 Based on the Hongkong Guidelines

It had been shown 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. The strength parameters and allowable bearing pressure for the rock
mass can be determined from rock mass rating (RMR) (Bieniawski, 1974) or the rock
mass quality index Q (Barton et al, 1974).
Several authors have proposed to use RMR for classifying rock mass for engineering
purpose. Bieniawski & Orr (1976) proposed that the RMR values can be adjusted to
account for the effect of joint orientation on the load capacity and settlement of the
foundations. Gannon et al (1999) used RMR to determine the rock modulus for jointed
rock masses. Based on the instrumented pile loading tests for the West Rail project,
Littlechild et al (2000) correlated the deformation modulus of rock masses with a
modified form of RMR termed as RM . The modified form assumed that groundwater and
2

joint orientation are not relevant in the foundation evaluation. Allowable bearing
pressures are prescribed using RMR values in the Standard Specifications for Highway
Bridges (AASHTO, 2002). Kulhawy & Prakoso (1999) also suggested modifying RMR
to exclude the effect of groundwater and the strike and dip of rock joints in assessing the
allowable bearing pressures using RMR.
Table - Rating Assigned to Individual Parameters using RMR Classification
System (Based on
Bieniawski, 1989)

Figure - Relationship between Deformation Modulus and RMR for a Jointed

Rock Mass