Computers and Geotechnics 38 (2011) 383–392

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers and Geotechnics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compgeo

Parametric analyses of push-out tests and implications for design

of rock-socketed steel H-pile
Y.D. Zhou a,b,⇑, L.G. Tham a, X.W. Tang a, Y.T. Liu a, M.K. Wong c
a
Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, PR China
b
Department of Hydraulic Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing, PR China
c
Architectural Services Department, The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, PR China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The load response of a rock-socketed steel H-pile can be strongly influenced by the nonlinear interfacial
Received 1 June 2010 behavior between the grout and the steel H-pile, and between the pile and the rock mass. This paper
Received in revised form 22 November 2010 focuses on the load-transfer mechanism of the former interface through experimental push-out tests
Accepted 16 January 2011
and numerical simulation of the tests. The study is divided into two parts. In the first part, a series of
push-out tests have been carried out on four types of specimens (with studs + confinement (Case I); no
stud + confinement (Case II); no stud + no confinement (Case III); and studs + no confinement (Case
Keywords:
IV)). The second part is a numerical study based on three-dimensional finite element technique, which
Push-out test
Rock-socketed steel H-pile
takes into account possible damage and cracking in grout, as well as bond-slip along the interface. It is
Steel-grout interface shown that the numerical predictions of the four cases compare favorably with the corresponding test
Finite element technique results, including the load–displacement response and the development of cracks. Furthermore, paramet-
ric study has been carried out to investigate the influence of various factors, including the studs, the cas-
ing confinement, the grout fracture energy, and the dilation property of steel-grout interface. Lastly, some
implications, based on the test and numerical results, on the design of socketed steel H-piles are
discussed.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction reference can be found on the interfacial behavior between the

Rock-socketed piles are one of commonly used pile types in
Hong Kong. As the tips of these piles are embedded in rock, numer-
ous research work has been carried out on the resistance between
the pile shaft and the rock by either experimental and (or) numer-
ical approaches [1–4]. For rock-socketed steel H-piles, there is an
additional interface between the H-pile and the grout, and any dis-
tresses along this interface could be detrimental to the overall
behavior of the piles. To limit the probability of distress along such
interface, it is required in the Hong Kong design guidelines [5], that
the allowable working load is dictated by structural capacity of the
H-section, and the design bond strengths along the steel-grout and
the grout-rock interfaces should not exceed the allowable value of
0.6 MPa and 0.7 MPa respectively. It can be seen that relatively
lower design strength is provided for the steel-grout interface,
which can be a critical factor in determining the load-carrying
capacity of rock-socketed piles [6]. However, only very limited
⇑ Corresponding author at: Department of Hydraulic Engineering, Tsinghua
University, Beijing, PR China. Tel.: +86 6277 3909; fax: +86 6278 2159.
E-mail addresses: zhouyd@mail.tsinghua.edu.cn (Y.D. Zhou), hrectlg@hkucc.
hku.hk (L.G. Tham), tangxinwei@gmail.com (X.W. Tang), abby.liu@arup.com
(Y.T. Liu), wongmk@archsd.gov.hk (M.K. Wong).
grout and the steel H-section.
Push-out tests have been well applied to investigate the
bond-slip behavior of grout or concrete encased steel H-section.
Mullins et al. [7,8] carried out a series of pullout tests to investigate
the bond behavior between the H-sections (W6  15 and W14 
90) and a cast-in-place concrete slab. The results indicated
that the average bond strength decreased with increasing embed-
ment length, and the ultimate bond stress was mobilized at a very
small displacement (<0.05 mm). A series of push-out tests were
conducted on specimens of grout encased H-section (305 
305  149 kg/m) by Lee and Tsui [9], Tsui and Lee [10,11], in which
the grout body was surrounded by a steel casing of 5 mm thick. The
casing was used to simulate the confinement condition in the sock-
et section, where the grout body is mostly confined by moderately
to slightly decomposed rock mass. Their results also indicated that
the controlled displacement at the top of H-section triggering the
maximum bond stress is less than 0.05 mm. The above investiga-
tions demonstrated that the maximum bond stress along the
steel-grout interface can be mobilized by a small relative displace-
ment under the test conditions.
In this paper, a series of push-out tests have been carried out on
grout encased steel H-section specimens, with focus on the
influence of casing confinement and studs on the load capacity of

0266-352X/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2011.01.002
384 Y.D. Zhou et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 38 (2011) 383–392
the composite section. Moreover, three-dimensional finite element
models are established to simulate the push-out tests and the re-
sults are compared with the test results. Furthermore, a series of
parametric analyses have been undertaken for an in-depth study
on the influence of various factors, namely the studs on the flanges
of H-section, the casing confinement, the grout fracture energy, as
well as the interfacial dilation properties, on the behavior of spec-
imens. Lastly, some implications, based on the numerical results,
on the design of socketed steel H-piles are discussed.
2. Push-out tests
2.1. Experimental procedure
The arrangement of the push-out test is shown in Fig. 1. A steel
plate with a matching H-shape opening was placed underneath the
specimen to allow the H-section to move downward freely during
the test. Four linear variable displacement transducers (LVDT)
were mounted on the H-section to measure the vertical displace-
ments relative to the upper grout surface (Fig. 1a). During each
Fig. 1. General arrangement of the push-out test.
test, a compressive force was applied vertically on the top of
H-section, and the force was increased gradually at a rate less than
0.5 kN/s. The loading rate indicates that the slippage rate at the top
of the interface would not exceed 2  107 m/s, which was suffi-
ciently low and can be taken as a quasi-static case as also approved
by former trial testings [9–11]. An automatic data logger was used
to record the readings of LVDT and the corresponding applied load
at every increment. As the maximum test force achievable from
this setup was 2000 kN, the test was terminated slightly below this
maximum force or failure of the specimen whichever came first.
Due to the limitation of the loading frame, the total height of
the test specimen has to be not more than 1.0 m. Herein the height
of the bonded portion was chosen as a half of the specimen, viz.
0.5 m. The diameter of the test section is the same as those of
the actual piles. In preparing the specimens, a 5 mm thick steel cas-
ing, dimensioned as 0.5 m in height and 610 mm in external diam-
eter, was placed and centered on a 30 mm thick steel template
with an H-hole. The steel H-section of 1 m in length was then
placed inside the casing and fitted into the H-hole of the steel tem-
plate. Finally, the space between the H-section and the casing was
filled with cement grout. All specimens were made and cured for
28 days in accordance with CS1: 1990 before delivering to the
laboratory for testing.
The H-sections (305  305  180 kg/m, Grade 55C structural
steel complying with BS4360), were prepared in a similar way as
that for in situ steel H-piles, whilst the steel casing was prepared
from those used as temporary support for the borehole during
construction. The cement grout was a mixed product of ordinary
Portland cement and water with a water/cement ratio of 0.45, also
Cebex 100 non-shrink admixture was applied to minimize the
shrinkage effect of the grout material. It should be noted that all
specimens were dry during the test and the influence of under-
ground water under practical conditions has not been included in
this study.
2.2. Test cases
As shown in Table 1, four types of specimens have been pre-
pared. To examine the effect of different confining conditions pro-
vided by the surrounding soil or rock layers at various depths,
confinement by a steel casing of 5 mm in thickness was applied
in Cases I and II to model the situation of being socketed into rock
layer. On the other hand, the casings were removed in Cases III and
IV to simulate the conditions of almost no confinement near the
ground surface. Furthermore, steel studs were welded onto the
flanges of H-sections (Fig. 1) in Cases I and IV specimens. The studs
(20 mm in diameter and 250 mm in length) were spaced at
300 mm apart. Totally 12 specimens, that is 3 for each test case,
were prepared for the push-out test study.
3. Numerical model
3.1. Finite element mesh and boundary conditions
Three-dimensional numerical analyses have also been carried
out in this paper to study the interaction between the H-section
and surrounding grout during the push-out. The finite element
package ABAQUS [12] is used as a platform for the analyses.
Table 1
Summary of push-out test cases.
Case I Case II Case III Case IV
Casing confinement Yes Yes No No
Stud measure Yes No No Yes
 Y.D. Zhou et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 38 (2011) 383–392
The double symmetry of the test specimens allows only one
quarter of the samples to be modeled. Fig. 2 presents the finite ele-
ment mesh for the specimens with or without studs. The H-section
and the grout body are modeled by 8-node solid elements, and a
layer of 3-D interface elements are defined between the steel and
grout elements to simulate possible slippage along the interface.
For the cases with studs welded on the flanges of H-section (Cases
I and IV), 8-node solid elements are used to model the studs
(Fig. 2a). In Cases I and II, the outer confinement by steel casing
is modeled by a layer of 4-node general-purpose shell elements.
Since the bottom surfaces of both the grout body and the casing
were vertically constrained by a steel plate underneath during
the push-out tests, it is assumed that there is no slippage along
the interface between the grout and the casing.
The steel plate underneath the test specimen was simplified as
a rigid surface constraining the vertical displacement of the bottom
surface of the specimen; also a frictional contact interaction with a
friction coefficient of 0.57 was defined in between allowing lateral
displacement of the grout body. Along the double symmetric sur-
faces of the numerical model, horizontal roller boundary condi-
tions are defined to constrain corresponding translational
displacement.
3.2. Material models and parameters
The steel H-section and the casing are assumed to be linear
elastic. Compressive load tests were conducted to determine the
properties of the H-section. The average uni-axial compressive
strength was determined to be 195.7 GPa. The relevant elastic
parameters are given in Table 2.
The push-out test indicated that severe but localized damage
and fracture developed within the grout body during the push-
out process. A damage-plastic constitutive model by Lee & Fenves
[13], capable of modeling concrete and other similar quasi-brittle
materials, is used to simulate the behavior of the grout. A scalar
variable in the concept of damaged elasticity is applied in combi-
nation with non-associated multi-hardening plasticity to describe
the irreversible damage that occurs during the fracture process. A
Fig. 2. Finite element models of one quarter of the push-out test specimens (a–b).
385
brief description of the damage-plastic model is given below,
whilst further details can be found in Lee and Fenves [13].
The constitutive equation of material with scalar damage vari-
able takes the form:
r ¼ ð1  dÞDel0 : ðe  epl Þ ¼ Del : ðe  epl Þ ð1Þ
where r is Cauchy stress tensor; d is the scalar stiffness degradation
variable; e is the strain tensor; epl is the plastic strain; Del0 denotes
the initial (undamaged) elastic stiffness of the material, while
Del ¼ ð1  dÞDel0 is the degraded elastic stiffness tensor.
The main two failure mechanisms of the grout consist of tensile
cracking and compression crushing. Two uni-axial damage vari-
ables, dt and dc, are introduced to represent the damage states in
tension (with subscript ‘‘t’’) and compression (with subscript ‘‘c’’),
respectively. The damage variables are defined as independent
functions of two hardening (softening) variables ~epl ~pl
t and ec , respec-
tively, which are referred to equivalent plastic strains in tension
and compression, respectively. From the stress–strain relations
under uni-axial tension and compression loadings, two effective
cohesion stresses, tensile and compressive, are defined as r t ¼
E0 ðet  ~epl ~pl
t Þ; rc ¼ E0 ðec  ec Þ, where E0 denotes the undamaged

elastic modulus. These variables control the evolution of the yield
surface and the degradation of elastic stiffness variable.
The yield surface for the damage-plastic model is defined in
effective stress space and takes the form:
1
F¼  þ bð~epl Þhr
3ap
ðq  max i  chr  c ð~epl
 max iÞ  r c Þ ¼ 0
1a
ð2Þ
in which q  and p  denote the Von Mises equivalent effective stress
and effective hydrostatic stress, respectively; a = (fb0/fc0  1)/(2fb0/
fc0  1), where fb0 and fc0 denote the initial equi-biaxial compressive
strength and initial uni-axial compressive strength, respectively;
b ¼ ð1  aÞr c ð~epl  t ð~epl
c Þ=r t Þ  ð1 þ aÞ, where rc and rt are the effective
 
tensile and compressive cohesion stresses, respectively; c is a
parameter controlling the shape of yield surface in the deviatoric
386 Y.D. Zhou et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 38 (2011) 383–392
Table 2
Summary of input parameters for push-out test analyses.
Grout Steel Steel-grout
H-section interface
and casing
Elastic E0 = 16.3 GPa, E0 = 195 GPa, kn = 8  1012 N/m3,
properties m = 0.27 m = 0.3 ks = 4  1012 N/m3
Strength fc0 = 40 MPa, — c = 0.05 MPa,
properties ft0 = 4 MPa, w = 30°, /c = 18°, w0 = 12°,
Gf = 25 N/m edil = 500 le
plane. In the present study, c is taken as 3, a common value for
concrete analyses. r
 max denotes the maximum principal effective
stress; The Macauley bracket hi is defined by hxi ¼ ðjxj þ xÞ=2.
Non-associated potential plastic flow is adopted and the flow
potential function G takes the form:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
G ¼ ðmft0 tan wÞ2 þ q 2  p tan w
where ft0 is the initial uni-axial tensile strength of grout; w is the
dilation angle measured in the p q plane at high confining pres-
sure; while m is an eccentricity of the plastic potential surface.
The m value is chosen as 0.1 in the subsequent calculations, which
implies that the flow potential tends to a straight line over a wide
range of confining pressure stress values.
The push-out test results indicated that tensile cracking is the
dominant failure type in the grout, hence the relationship between
the uni-axial tensile strength ft and ~epl t , which controls the evolu-
tion of failure surface, can greatly influence the initiation and
development of cracking failure. In order to minimize unreason-
able mesh sensitivity in the analysis, the Hillerborg’s fracture en-
ergy approach [14] is adopted to control the degradation of ft,
i.e., the energy required to open a unit area of crack, Gf, is specified
as a material constant. Moreover, a posteriori adaptive technique is
applied during the analysis to ensure that the mesh size is fine en-
ough and desired accuracy can be provided. In the following calcu-
lations, exponential loss of strength is defined with respect to the
cracking strain ~eck ~ck ~ck
t in the form of ft ¼ ft0  expðet =ef Þ, in which
ck
~ef ¼ Gf =ft0 controls the shape of the softening curve. The equiva-
lent tensile plastic strain ~epl t can be determined from ~eck t by
~epl ~ck
t ¼ et  dt =ð1  dt Þ  ft =E0 .
For identification of relevant parameters for the grout material,
cylindrical grout specimens with dimensions of U150 mm 
300 mm were prepared for uni-axial compression test, and the
average Young0 s modulus was determined to be 16.3 GPa, and
the average Poisson0 s ratio was 0.27. The average compressive
strength of the cylindrical specimens was 40.0 MPa. Moreover, to
determine the fracture energy of the grout material, the fracture
toughness test suggested by ISRM [15], which was originally
developed for measuring the fracture toughness of rock materials,
is adopted in this study. A series of fracture toughness tests on
similar grout material, with a bit larger water/cement ratio (1:2),
have been carried out and an average value of fracture energy
Gf = 25 N/m is calibrated from the test results of load versus load
point displacement curves. One can note that the fracture energy
of grout is smaller than that of concrete, which is mostly in the
range of 40 N/m–120 N/m. In the analyses, the uni-axial tensile
strength of the grout material is chosen as one tenth of the uni-
axial compressive strength, following commonly adopted assump-
tion. Also a dilation angle w = 30o is chosen for the grout material
[13,16]. A summary of the input parameters for the grout is also
given in Table 2.
3.3. Modeling of steel-grout interface
In the present study, three-dimensional eight-node interface
elements are used to simulate the steel-grout interfacial behavior.
As in many previous analyses by other researchers (such as [2]),
the elastic stiffness parameters, kn and ks, for the steel-grout inter-
face are defined as Eg/t and G/t respectively, where t is the thick-
ness of interface elements; Eg and G are the Young0 s and shear
moduli of the grout material, respectively. Herein t is chosen to
be 2 mm, that is about 0.3% of the specimen diameter, and it can
be considered to be negligibly small with respect to the specimen
size. The determined interface stiffness is large enough to provide a
reasonable stiffness but small enough to minimize the risk of
numerical problems such as spurious oscillations of the tractions
in an interface element.
The Mohr–Coulomb shear model is taken as the failure criterion
along the steel-grout interface. Tangential slippage will occur when
the mobilized shear stress, s, reaches the shear strength given by
s ¼ c þ rn tan / ð4Þ
ð3Þ where c is the interface cohesion, and / is the friction angle. The off-
diagonal terms in the elastic stiffness matrix are zero, hence no
dilatancy along the interface is considered in the elastic range.
The dilatancy is introduced after the failure criterion has been
reached. The flow potential function is of a similar form as Eq. (4)
with the friction angle replaced by the dilation angle wi. In order
for gradual mobilization of peak friction and dilation, as well as
the strain softening behavior, wi is defined as a linear function of
plastic shear strain magnitude eieff in the following manner:
For eieff 6 edil ,
wi ðeieff Þ ¼ w0 ð1  eieff =edil Þ ð5Þ
and for eieff > edil ,
wi ¼ 0 ð6Þ
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
where eieff is defined as e2ix þ e2iy ; eix and eiy denote the two orthog-
onal plastic shear strain components along the interface tangential
directions, respectively. edil is the plastic shear strain magnitude at
which the interface does not represent the dilation effect any more,
and w0 is the initial value of the dilation angle. The above approach
bears some similarity with Leong and Randolph0 s model [17] for
pile-rock interface, in which wi was defined to decrease exponen-
tially with respect to the relative displacement along the interface.
Based on a series of push-off test results, Rabbat and Russell
[18] recommended an average peak friction angle of about 30o
for the interface between steel plate and grout at a normal com-
pressive stress level of 0.41 MPa. It should be noted that the recom-
mended friction value represents a mobilized angle of shear
resistance incorporating the dilation effect along the interface
[19], i.e., /m, which is defined as follows:
/m ¼ /c þ wi ð7Þ
in which /c denotes the critical state angle of shear resistance and
wi is the dilation angle. Hoek [20] suggested that the friction angle
of grout itself falls within 17–20° for a range of water/cement ratio
of 0.41–0.52. It is generally accepted that a relatively lower friction
parameter should be adopted for steel-grout interface as compared
to that for the grout material itself. From the reported test results,
the present study takes /m = 30° and /c = 18° for the steel-grout
interface. Reasonably a value of w0 = 12° can be inferred from above
Eq. (7). The parameter edil is determined through a series of sensitiv-
ity analyses of the push-out tests, and a value of 500 le is found to
be appropriate for reproducing the test results.
Rabbat and Russell [18] also suggested that the cohesive
strength between rolled steel plate and cast-in-place grout can
be at a negligibly small value of about 50 kPa. The degradation of
 Y.D. Zhou et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 38 (2011) 383–392
c value with respect to the plastic shear displacement is neglected
and maintained as a constant of 50 kPa in this study. A summary of
the above mechanical parameters for the steel-grout interface is
listed in Table 2.
3.4. Analysis programme
Based on the above finite element models and the calibrated
parameters (Table 2), a series of numerical analyses have been car-
ried out to simulate the behavior of the four types of specimens in
the push-out test. Furthermore, parametric study has been carried
out on various factors, including (1) confinement by varying the
thickness of the casing (0–7 mm as well as infinite), (2) the grout
fracture energy Gf (from 15 to 45 N/m as well as infinite), and (3)
the initial dilation angle w0 of the steel-grout interface (from 8°
to 14°). Typical simulation results are given in the following sec-
tions, and comparisons are also made with corresponding test
results.
4. Results and discussions
The load–displacements of the four types of specimens obtained
from the tests are shown in Fig. 3. It can be seen that for each case,
the above finite element models are capable of reproducing the
load–displacement response up to the maximum load. It should
be noted that the analyses of Cases II and III stopped at a displace-
ment of 0.16 mm owing to the convergence problem as the grout
body was broken into blocks after the formation of cracks running
through the whole depth of the specimen. Nevertheless, the pre-
dictions of the push-out capacity of these two cases compare well
with corresponding test results. Moreover, the predicted crack pat-
terns in grout are in agreement with the test observations and it
will be discussed in the subsequent sections. The comparison dem-
onstrates the capability of the above model for simulating the
push-out behavior of the specimens.
1800
1500
1200
Case I
Load (kN)
900
600
Case II
300
0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Displacement (mm)
(a) With casing
(Case I: with studs, and CaseII: no stud)
Fig. 3. Influence of stud measure on load–displacement curves (a–b) (Fill area: test bounds; marked curves: numerical predictions).
387
4.1. Influence of studs
Generally, one can note that for either case with casing confine-
ment or not, there is a significant increase in load capacity if studs
are welded onto the flanges of H-section. The abrupt change in the
slope of each curve was due to the cracking in grout. As shown in
Fig. 3a, the load–displacement curves in Case II quickly level off
with a head displacement greater than 0.5 mm, whilst the studs
in Case I was capable of giving rise to a continuous increase of axial
load with respect to the head displacement. Similar observations
can be also found from the two cases without casing confinement
(Fig. 3b). Furthermore, the test results demonstrate that the studs
contribute to a noticeable increase of the incipient stiffness. For in-
stance, the incipient stiffness dropped by 35% in Case III as com-
pared to the results in Case IV, and a gradual softening behavior
was shown in the former case after severe cracks were mobilized
in the grout portion.
Based on the simulation results, a comparison of the axial load
distribution in H-section, normalized by the corresponding peak
load of each case, is shown in Fig. 4. It is clearly illustrated that
the presence of studs significantly influences the distribution of ax-
ial load in H-section. Without stud, a smooth decay of axial force
with depth is observed (Cases II and III), whereas the axial load
shows abrupt changes at the studs (Cases I and IV).
The stud reinforcement responsible for the increase in load
capacity originates from two perspectives. Firstly, the mechanical
interlock caused by each stud introduces a side-bearing function,
i.e., a resisting force against tangential slippage acting upon the
underside of each stud is given by the grout in continuous contact.
Secondly, the installation of studs roughens the steel-grout
interface as surface asperities that are unlikely to shear off, which
equivalently leads to an increase in the asperity angle of the inter-
face. Consequently, the interfacial shear strength and dilatancy
properties can be considerably influenced, as featured by the mobi-
lization of a larger mobilized friction angle /m (Eq. (7)).
1800
1500
1200
Load (kN)
900
600
Case IV
300
Case III
0.8 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Displacement (mm)
(b) No casing
(Case III: no stud, and Case IV : with studs)
388 Y.D. Zhou et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 38 (2011) 383–392

Normalized force
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0

0.1 Stud location

Case II (no stud

0.2 with casing)
Depth (m)

Case III (no

stud no casing)
0.3

Case I (with studs

and casing)Case I
0.4 Caselocation
Stud II
Case IV (with Case III
studs no casing)Case IV

0.5

Fig. 4. Comparison of axial force normalized by peak load with respect to

embedment depth (for Cases I and II, the corresponding axial load at a top
displacement of 0.8 mm is taken for normalization).

4.2. Influence of confining stiffness

The push-out test results showed that the confinement stiffness

has noticeable influence on the load–displacement relationship
and the cracking pattern. As shown in Fig. 3, for either case with
or without studs, a significant increase of load capacity is caused
by the casing confinement. For instance, the average peak load in
the two cases without studs increased from 180 kN (Case III) to
450 kN (Case II). It can also be observed that in the curves of
Cases II and III, nonlinearity as indicated by the abrupt change in
slope was mobilized at a relatively lower load level as compared
to the results with casing, even though only minor effect on the
incipient stiffness was induced by the casing confinement.
Tensile cracks in the specimens were initiated from the external
corners of the H-section, and propagated along the radial direction
where the covering thickness of grout is the smallest. However, the
difference in casing confinement strongly influences the push-out
induced failure pattern in the grout. Fig. 5 presents typical failure
behavior for specimens with and without casing, respectively. It
was found that only local cracking failure was shown in Cases I
and II specimens (Fig. 5a) as further opening and propagation of
the cracks were restricted by the casing confinement. On the other
hand, global fracture failure was mobilized in Cases III and IV spec-
imens (Fig. 5b), which resulted from cracks running through the
whole depth, as well as the detachment along the outer flange sur-
faces. As a result, the grout body was fractured into a few blocks.
Even though the final failure patterns are similar, the stud mea-
sure, equivalently increasing the interface roughness, can have a
secondary effect on the cracking response. It was observed from
the samples without casing that relatively more branching cracks
were triggered along the major crack when the stud measure
was applied, which can be attributed to the wedging action in-
duced by the stud reinforcement. For the samples encased by steel
casing, the effect of the stud measure on the grout failure pattern
could not be identified due to the cover of the casing.
Fig. 5. Typical cracking patterns of push-out test specimens (a–b).
Furthermore, Fig. 6 presents the load-settlement results from
the modeling with different thicknesses of casing (h). The bounds
of test response are shown together for comparison. It can be ob-
served that the load capacity increases as the thickness increases.
The curves for h = 1, representing the upper bound of the push-
out resistance, indicate a large reserve of capacity beyond the test
conditions. A comparison of the corresponding axial load distribu-
tion in H-section with respect to socket depth is given in Fig. 7. The
increase is due to dilation when the interface is sheared. As the
confinement restricted the dilation, it leads to an increase of inter-
facial shear resistance and effectively an increase in the load
capacity.
From Figs. 6 and 7, one can also note that the increase in load
capacity is more pronounced if the specimens have studs. This
can be explained that the mobilization of side-bearing support
through mechanical interlock between studs and adjacent grout
plays a more significant role as compared to the shaft capacity gi-
ven by the frictional resistance along the interface. Hence, more
notable influence on the load response of this type of specimens
(Figs. 6a and 7a) is caused by increasing the casing thickness.
Moreover, Fig. 8 presents typical predictions of tension crack
pattern in grout by the push-out loading, as indicated by tensile
damage factor (dt). Generally, it is found that the final crack
patterns are basically not influenced by the casing thickness, and
the predicted longitudinal cracks along the radial direction are in
 Y.D. Zhou et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 38 (2011) 383–392 389

1800 1800

h=7mm

1500 h=5mm 1500

h= h=3mm h=

1200 1200

Load (kN)
h=1mm
Load (kN)

900 900
h=7mm
h=5mm
Case I h=3mm
(with studs
600 and casing) 600
h=0 Case II
Case IV (no stud
(with studs with casing)
300 300 h=1mm
no casing) Case III
(no stud
h=0 no casing)
0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)
(a) With stud measure (b) no stud measure

Fig. 6. Influence of different casing thicknesses on load–displacement curves (a–b) (Fill area: test bounds; marked curves: predictions).

Load (kN) Load (kN)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 0 500 1000 1500 2000
0. 0 0.0
h=7mm
h=3mm h=0 h=7mm
h=5mm
0.1 h=1mm 0.1 h=5mm

h=3mm
h=0
0.2 0.2 h=1mm
Depth (m)
Depth (m)

h=

h=
0.3 0.3

0.4 0.4

0.5 0.5
(a) with stud measure (b) no stud measure
Fig. 7. Influence of different casing thicknesses on the axial load distribution in H-section (a–b) (all curves correspond to the results at a top displacement of 0.8 mm except
the curves at h = 0, which shows the results at peak load).

agreement with the test observations (Fig. 5). Moreover, it is
shown by the modeling results that increasing the casing
confinement could be beneficial for retarding the growth and
development of cracking in the surrounding grout. Take the case
without stud for instance, with the casing thickness h increased
from 0 to 7 mm, the top settlement at which a through longitudinal
crack is formed in the grout presents a 67% increase from 0.15 mm
to 0.25 mm.
4.3. Influence of grout fracture property
Fig. 9 presents the load-settlement results based on a series of
analyses by varying the grout fracture energy parameter (Gf)
within the range of 15 N/m–45 N/m. Other parameters are taken
as the calibrated ones. The response of an idealized case with
non-crackable grout material representing the upper bound, i.e.,
Gf = 1, is also carried out. Cases II and III specimens excluding
390 Y.D. Zhou et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 38 (2011) 383–392
Fig. 8. Typical crack patterns smeared in grout elements as indicated by tensile
damage factor (dt) by the push-out process (a–b).
the effect of stud reinforcement were chosen in this study. Gener-
ally it can be observed that the variation of Gf in the selected range
presents only limited influence on the load response of push-out
specimens. However, the upper bound analysis results with infinite
Gf value demonstrate considerable potential for raising the push-
out capacity, which can be achieved if the fracture resistance of
surrounding cementitious material can be increased to a greater
extent.
With confinement (Case II), only a 5% rise in peak load from
640 kN to 670 kN is induced with Gf increased from 15 N/m to
45 N/m, and the curves (Fig. 9a) exhibit fairly flat plateaus at a set-
tlement greater than 0.5 mm. As the grout fracture resistance in-
creases, the curves become nonlinear at a greater settlement and
therefore a larger push-out force is required. Moreover, it is found
that with Gf value increased from 15 N/m to 45 N/m, the top settle-
ment at which a through longitudinal crack is formed in the grout
presents a 53% increase from 0.15 mm to 0.23 mm.
Under the condition lacking casing confinement (Case III), the
results in Fig. 9b again shows that the load capacity can increase
significantly as Gf increases. The push-out resistance increases by
44% from 209 kN to 300 kN in response to the rise of Gf from
15 N/m to 45 N/m. The settlement at which a through longitudinal
crack is formed increases from 0.12 mm to 0.19 mm. It is also
found that with different Gf inputs, the final crack patterns in grout
are basically the same for both Cases II and III specimens.
4.4. Influence of interface dilation property
The load-settlement relationship for different dilation angles w0
(w0 varying from 8° to 14°) are shown in Fig. 10. The casing thick-
ness is 5 mm and the other parameters are defined as given in
Table 2. Generally, the results in Fig. 10 illustrate that the incipient
stiffness and the push-out capacity can be considerably increased
by a rise in w0 value. It appears that adjusting the dilation property
of the steel-grout interface can be an efficient way for controlling
the top settlement and improving the load capacity.
For Case I specimens, each curve in Fig. 10a presents a continu-
ous increase of push-out resistance with respect to the top settle-
ment. Furthermore, the incipient stiffness increases by 24% as w0
increases from 8° to 14°. On the other hand, for Case II specimens,
each curve in Fig. 10b ascends gradually to a flat plateau after the
top settlement exceeds 0.5 mm. Also, it is found that as w0 is in-
creased from 8° to 14°, the incipient stiffness and final load capac-
ity increase by 40% and 61%, respectively. Furthermore, the
interfacial dilative deformation becomes more prominent as w0 in-
creases. As a result, a through crack could be mobilized in the sur-
rounding grout at a relatively smaller slippage, which implies that
the specimens would be more vulnerable to cracking.
4.5. Implications for design of rock-socketed steel H-piles
The above test and simulation results give better insight into
the behavior of grout encased H-section specimens when subjected
to axial loading. Even though the dimensions, embedment ratio,
and working conditions of an in situ socketed H-pile are different
from those of the push-out tests, the findings can still bear some
implications on the design of rock-socketed steel H-pile.
The results in Figs. 3 and 6 demonstrate the effectiveness of
studs in increasing the stiffness and bearing capacity of load-
settlement response. It is inferred from the above results that
installing of studs at the pile top, even though the confinement
from shallow soil layers could be small at that location, is still
capable of improving the load-settlement response.
The present study also sheds light on the significance of con-
finement by surrounding soil and rock layers. The confinement
condition given by the steel casing in the push-out tests can be
simplified as thin-wall cylinder under internal pressure. According
to the elastic theory [21], the normal confinement stiffness pro-
duced by a casing subjected to uniform radial pressure is given by
kr ¼ Es h=r 2 ð8Þ
in which Es is the Young0 s modulus of the casing; h and r denote the
thickness and the internal radius, respectively. On the other hand,
the confining condition of a pile socketed into soil or rock can be
simplified as a borehole of the same diameter surrounded by
semi-infinite solid mass, and the produced confinement stiffness
under uniform internal pressure is defined by
kr ¼ Er =ð1 þ lr Þr ð9Þ
in which Er and lr denote the deformation modulus and Poisson0 s
ratio of surrounding rock mass, respectively.
 Y.D. Zhou et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 38 (2011) 383–392 391

1200 1000

1000
800

800
Gf =
600
Gf =

Load (kN)
Load (kN)

600
Gf =45N/m
Gf =35N/m
400

400

Gf =45N/m
Gf =25N/m
200 Gf =35N/m
200 Gf =15N/m Gf =25N/m
Gf =15N/m

0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)
(a) Case II (no stud with casing) (b) Case III (no stud no casing)
Fig. 9. Influence of different fracture energy values (Gf) of grout material on predicted load–displacement curves (a–b).

2000 800

ψ 0 =14º

1600
ψ 0 =14º
600 ψ0 =12º
ψ 0 =12º

1200 ψ 0 =10º
Load (kN)

Load (kN)

400

ψ0 =10º ψ 0 =8º
800
ψ0 =8º

200
400

0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)
(a) Case I (with studs and casing) (b) Case II (no stud with casing)
Fig. 10. Influence of different dilation angles (w0) of steel-grout interface on predicted load–displacement curves (a–b).

From the above definitions, the normal confinement stiffness
provided by a 5 mm-thick casing (kr = 10.5 MPa/mm), is approxi-
mately equivalent to the confining effect by a rock mass with
Er = 4.2 GPa and lr = 0.3. Based on the rock mass rating system
[22], rocks with such modulus can be considered as ‘‘fair’’ rock.
The results in Figs. 6 and 7 imply that even for the same ‘‘fair’’ rock
socket, a small variation of Er can strongly influence the
confinement effect, and in turn, the load capacity and top
settlement of a socketed H-pile.
The sensitivity analysis results shown in Figs. 9 and 10 also
illustrate the significance of increasing the grout fracture property
Gf and the dilation angle w0of steel-grout interface. The results in
Fig. 9 infer that increasing the grout Gf parameter can improve
the capability of H-pile against cracking. Besides, the confinement
392 Y.D. Zhou et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 38 (2011) 383–392
by intact grout on H-section can sustain a larger slippage and
hence the load capacity of the whole pile can be increased. On
the other hand, the results in Fig. 10 imply that increasing the
dilation angle w0 of the steel-grout interface through surface
treatments on the mild H-section can also be a feasible approach
for increasing the bearing capacity of H-pile in rock socket.
In the design principles for socketed steel H-piles [5,6,23], com-
monly a constant design bond strength is presumed along the
steel-grout or grout-rock interface, or the ultimate bearing capacity
is determined using an average skin friction per unit area of the
shaft at the condition of full mobilization of frictional resistance.
The above test and simulation results provide additional evidence
that for a steel H-section embedded in grout under axial compres-
sion, the mobilization and development of shaft resistance can be
influenced by a wide range of factors, such as the geometric feature
and dilation property of the interface, the fracture property of sur-
rounding cementitious matrix and the external confinement condi-
tion. Hence, a more rational design process should take into
account the detailed confining actions along the steel-grout and
grout-rock interface.
5. Conclusions
This paper presents a series of push-out tests conducted on
grout encased steel H-section specimens, which can be categorized
into four types with respect to the stud measure and casing con-
finement. Also extensive parametric analyses based on three-
dimensional finite element technique have been carried out to
investigate the effects of several influential factors, including the
studs, casing confinement, grout fracture energy (Gf), and interface
dilation angle w0, on the load-head displacement response. The
numerical approach, taking into account possible damage and
cracking behavior of grout material, and bond-slip along steel-
grout interface, is shown to be capable of reproducing the test
results. The present study of the push-out tests provides elemen-
tary indications for the load-transfer mechanism of socketed
H-piles, in particular, the development of side resistance under
top compression during pile load tests. The findings demonstrate
that the bearing capacity of socketed H-piles can be considerably
increased by installing studs on the flanges of H-section and/or
raising the normal confinement stiffness of rock mass around.
Moreover, an increase in the grout fracture property Gf within a
practical range can only result in a limited influence on the
load–displacement response. Raising the w0 value of steel-grout
interface, if achievable through surface treatments, can also be
beneficial for controlling the pile head displacement under top
compression. Correspondingly some measures helpful in design
practice are also presented in accordance with above findings.
Acknowledgement
The authors wish to thank the Director of Architectural Services
Department, the HKSAR Government, China, for supporting the
research project and giving permission to publish the paper. How-
ever, the contents of this paper do not necessarily reflect the views
and policies of the HKSAR Government, China or the University of
Hong Kong.
References
[1] Williams AF, Pells PJN. Side resistance rock sockets in sandstone, mudstone
and shale. Can Geotech J 1981;18(4):502–13.
[2] Leong EC, Randolph MF. Finite element modelling of rock-socketed piles. Int J
Num Anal Methods Geomech 1994;18(1):25–47.
[3] Kulhawy FH, Prakoso WA, Akbas SO. Evaluation of capacity of rock foundation
sockets. In: Proceedings of the 40th United States Symposium on Rock
Mechanics, Anchorage, Paper 05-767, 2005. p. 8 [on CD].
[4] Haberfield C, Collingwood B. Rock-socketed pile design and construction: a
better way? Geotech Eng 2006;159:207–17.
[5] Buildings Department (BD). Code of Practice for Foundations, Hong Kong
Special Administrative Region Government; 2004.
[6] Geotechnical Engineering Office (GEO). Foundation Design and Construction,
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government; 2006.
[7] Mullins G, Sosa R, Sen R, et al. Seal-slab prestressed pile interface bond from
full-scale testing. ACI Struct J 2001;98(5):743–51.
[8] Mullins G, Sosa R, Sen R, et al. Seal slab/steel pile interface bond from full-scale
testing. ACI Struct J 2002;99(6):757–63.
[9] Lee PKK, Tsui Y. Load Distribution Characteristics on Pakt-in-Place Grout Piles
in Tung Chung, Lantau Island, Report No. 98-77, Department of Civil
Engineering, The University of Hong Kong; 1998.
[10] Tsui Y, Lee PKK. Load Distribution Characteristics on Pakt-in-Place Grout Piles
at Area 90, Ma On Shan, Report No. 99-82, Department of Civil Engineering,
The University of Hong Kong; 1999a.
[11] Tsui Y, Lee PKK. Load Distribution Characteristics on Pakt-in-Place Grout Piles
at Area 100, Ma On Shan, Report No. 99-83, Department of Civil Engineering,
The University of Hong Kong; 1999b.
[12] ABAQUS Inc. Analysis user’s manual, Version6.6; 2006.
[13] Lee J, Fenves GL. Plastic-damage model for cyclic loading of concrete
structures. J Eng Mech 1998;124(8):892–900.
[14] Hillerborg A, Modeer M, Petersson PE. Analysis of crack formation and crack
growth in concrete by means of fracture mechanics and finite elements. Cem
Concr Res 1976;6:773–82.
[15] ISRM Testing Commission. Suggested methods for determining the fracture
toughness of rocks. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 1988;25:73–96.
[16] Jankowiak T, Łodygowski T. Identification of parameters of concrete damage
plasticity constitutive model. Found Civil Environ Eng 2005;6:53–69.
[17] Leong EC, Randolph MF. A model for rock interfacial behaviour. Rock Mech
Rock Eng 1992;25(3):187–206.
[18] Rabbat BG, Russell HG. Friction coefficient of steel on concrete or grout. J Struct
Eng 1985;111(3):505–15.
[19] Wood DM. Geotechnical modeling. London, New York: Spon Press; 2004.
[20] Hoek E. Practical rock engineering. 2007 Edition, <http://www.rocscience.
com/hoek/PracticalRockEngineering.asp>.
[21] Timoshenko SP, Goodier JN. Theory of elasticity. New York: McGraw-Hill;
1970.
[22] Bieniawski ZT. Determining rock mass deformability: experience from case
histories. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 1978;15(5):237–47.
[23] British Standards Institution. British standard code of practice for foundations
[R]. London: British Standards Institution; 1986.