ARMA/USRMS 05-669

An Experimental and Numerical Study for the Resistance Behavior of

Rock Socket Shaft Model
Wang, Y. H Tham, L. G. Lee, P. K. K. Tsui, Y.
Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

Copyright 2005, ARMA, American Rock Mechanics Association

This paper was prepared for presentation at Alaska Rocks 2005, The 40th U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics (USRMS): Rock Mechanics for Energy, Mineral and Infrastructure
Development in the Northern Regions, held in Anchorage, Alaska, June 25-29, 2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by a USRMS Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted earlier by the author(s). Contents of the paper,
as presented, have not been reviewed by ARMA/USRMS and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of USRMS,
ARMA, their officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of ARMA is prohibited.
Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgement of where
and by whom the paper was presented.

ABSTRACT: Prediction of rock socket shaft resistance is a complex problem, but seldom could rock socket piles be loaded to
failure in field load tests due to their high ultimate load capacity. The laboratory study of resistance behavior of rock socket is
usually based on shear box test, however, the rock concrete interface prepared in shear box test is planar but the actual surface of
rock socket is circular. To achieve a more reasonable simulation, two rock socket shaft models were constructed and tested in this
research. In these tests, two concrete shafts models with diameter of 160mm were constructed in rock blocks, and vertical load
tests were performed on them. The axial force in shaft models at different depth were recorded during the tests. The test results are
evaluated by numerical calculation, and the failure process and mechanism at rock concrete interface are studied in this paper.

1. INTRODUCTION adopted in shear box tests by Lam and Johnston in

theoretical study for the rock concrete interface with
Rock socket piles are widely adopted in Hong Kong different roughness profiles[1]. In direct shear tests,
area, as high load capacity can be achieved by them CNL(constant normal load) and CNS(constant
at a very low displacement. The shaft resistance at normal stiffness methods were both employed [2][3]
rock socket length is usually considered as the to simulate the different boundary stress conditions.
major or the only one resistance in load capacity The effects of interface profiles were often focused
calculation. The resistance behavior of the rock in study, and the rock concrete interface is usually
socket dominates the working performance of the prepared as a planar interface with some
piles. prefabricated roughness[4][5]. However, different
from those prepared surfaces, the actual rock
The resistance characteristic of rock socket is concrete interface of rock socket piles is circular.
influenced by many factors, such as the strength and Under an actual working situation, the mobilized
deformation properties of rock and concrete, the resistance is distributed on a circular shaft but not a
roughness of the interface, the original lateral stress planar surface, much difference between the
existing in rock mass, and the construction method working characteristics of these two kinds of
used to build the pile. The prediction of rock socket surfaces may be caused by their geometric
shaft resistance is a complex problem, but seldom difference. A shear test with geometric
could rock socket piles be loaded to failure in field characteristics more close to the actual situation will
tests due to their high ultimate capacity. Laboratory give us further information about the resistance
tests were widely employed as a practical way for behavior of rock socket piles under working
this purpose. The original and some derivative shear conditions.
box tests had been adopted by many researchers to
simulate the shear resistance behavior at rock To achieve a more reasonable simulation, two rock
concrete interface. Artificial rock material were socket shaft models were constructed in the
laboratory of Hong Kong University. For this void space is built under the shaft bottom, in other
construction, two rock blocks were prepared to words, there is no contact between the concrete and
simulate the rock mass for pile to socket in. A rock at the bottom surface of the shaft. In order to
vertical hole was firstly drilled on each block, then measure the axial strains in load tests, electric
an instrumented steel pipe was lowered down into resistance strain gauges were pre-installed on the
the hole and positioned, after that, concrete was surface of steel pipe at different depths before
pumped into the space between the steel pipe and construction.
rock to form the rock/concrete socket shaft. When
curing was finished, vertical load tests were carried
out on these two model shafts to evaluate their The rock blocks used for construction are slightly
vertical load capacity. The space under the shaft weathered granite, which were excavated at East
bottom was built as a void to ensure that only shaft Kowloon, Hong Kong. The dimension of the blocks
resistance would be mobilized during the tests. is about 1.8m×1.0m×0.6m. Based the dimension
Strain gauges were installed on the steel pipes to of the rock blocks and the capacity of the loading
measure the axial strains along the shaft at different machine, the diameter of the socket shafts was
depths in load tests. designed as 162mm, and the length is 500mm, as
that shown in Fig.1.
One shaft was loaded to an ultimate load at which
an abrupt failure occurred. For the other one, no
evident failure could be observed, and the loading
process was stopped at the capacity limit of the
loading machine. The axial load, the settlement at
shaft top, and the axial strains along the shaft were
recorded during the test.

Flac2D program is employed for the numerical

analysis of the test results, and the resistance
behavior and the failure process at rock concrete
interface are studied in numerical simulation.

2. LOAD TEST OF SHAFT MODELS

2.1. Model Design and Construction
Two rock socket shaft models were constructed in
this study for load test. In order to simulate the
actual situation in pile construction, the adopted
construction process for model shaft is similar to
that used for pile construction in site. In the Fig.1 Setup plan of socket shaft model
construction of rocks socket piles in Hong Kong, a
The diameter of the steel pipe used for shaft is
hole with designed diameter is usually bored at first
116mm outside and 110mm inside, the total length
to a designed depth, and then a steel section, or
of steel pipe is 550mm, with 500mm in the hole and
reinforcement casing is lowered down into the hole
50mm outside. Totally 14 strain gauges are installed
and positioned, finally, concrete is pumped into the
on the surface of steel pipe at 7 different levels, two
hole to fill the place between the hole and steel
for each level, 6 levels are in the hole and the top
section or reinforcement casing and then curing is
level is outside. In order to strengthen the bond
processed. In the model shaft construction, a
strength between steel pipe and concrete, steel studs
vertical hole was firstly drilled on rock block by
are welded on the surface of steel pipe at different
boring machine, and then, an instrumented steel
levels, as that shown in the figure.
pipe was lowered down into the hole, which is
followed by concrete grouting. To ensure that only
shaft resistance will be mobilized during the test,
As the first step for construction, the rock block was evaluated by uniaxial compression test, the results
placed on a horizontal plate, and positioned to make are tabulated in Table1.
the top surface horizontal. When position is finished, Table 1. Strength and deformation parameters of rock and
the rock block was fixed with reinforcements, and concrete
then a box was built with wood board around the
Specimen Uniaxial Young's Poisson's
rock block, at last, concrete was cast into the box to Compressive Modulus (Gpa) Ratio
fill the space between rock block and wood board Strength (MPa)
concrete. Concrete 48.4 19.165 0.25

After one week curing of the concrete, a vertical Rock 221 57.94 0.26
through hole with diameter of 162mm was drilled at
the center of rock block by boring machin, then the
2.2. Loading Test and Results
hole was cleaned and washed. When hole drilling
Load tests were carried out after a 28 days curing. A
was finished, fined sands were placed on the bottom
loading machine with capacity of 1000kN was
of hole, and a plastic foam plate with same diameter
employed for the tests. The model shaft was placed
of the hole was placed on the sands. The location of
under the machine and then positioned to make the
the plastic foam plate was adjusted to the depth of
shaft top surface horizontal, and the shaft is
500mm by sands increasing and reducing. And then
concentric with the axis of loading axis, as that
the instrumented and bottom sealed steel pipe was
shown in Fig.3. The axial strains were recorded by a
lowered down into the hole and placed on the
data logger in the whole process. The relative
plastic foam plate. When steel pipe was positioned
displacement between the top surface of the steel
at the hole center and fixed, concrete grout was
pipe and the rock block under different loads were
pumped into the hole to fill the space between steel
also monitored and recorded during the tests. The
pipe and rock, as that shown in Fig.2. When curing
loading rate adopted in these tests is 0.5kN per
process is finished, the sands and plastic foam plate
second.
were removed from the hole to ensure that no end
bearing would be mobilized during the test.

Fig.3 Loading Setup Plan

An abrupt failure occurred at 935kN in the test for

shaft A, accompanied by a huge noise and a
Fig.2 Steel pipe cast in hole suddenly increase of settlement. However, for shaft
B, the loading process was stopped at 985kN due to
The water cement ratio of the concrete for shaft the capacity limit of the loading machine. The load-
grouting is 0.43, and the deformation and strength settlement curves for them are plotted in Fig.4.
properties for the concrete and the rock were
 As the strain gauge cables were damaged when
failure occurred in test for shaft A, only the axial
strains before failure were recorded. The axial
strains for shaft B were recorded till the stop of
loading. Axial force profiles are calculated by
multiplying the axial strains by section area and
modulus, the calculated axial force profiles are
plotted in Fig.6.a and Fig.6.b for shaft A and B
respectively.

Fig.4 Load settlement curves

The load settlement curves for these two shafts are

similar. The curves are almost linear at first and
then their slope is gradually reduced when
displacement is higher than 0.5mm. The failure of
shaft A occurred at a very low displacement, which
is about 1.4mm. Although no obvious failure could
be observed in the test for shaft B, it can be
speculated that the resistance behavior of shaft B is
close to that of shaft A.
Fig.6a Axial force profiles for shaft A
The observation for shaft A after load test indicates
that there is no obvious breakage in the internal
body of both concrete and rock block, and no
slippage occurred at steel concrete interface. Axial Force(kN)
However, evident slippage can be observed at 0 200 400 600 800 1000
concrete rock interface, as that shown in Fig.5. 0
According to this observation, it can be concluded
100
that the failure of shaft A is caused by the slippage
at rock concrete interface but not the breakage in 200
Depth(mm)

concrete or rock block. 300

400
100kN 200kN 300kN
500 400kN 500kN 600kN
700kN 800kN 900kN
600

Fig.6b Axial force profiles for shaft B

The axial force profiles illustrate that all the applied

vertical load is supported by shaft resistance and no
end bearing was mobilized during the test.
The average shaft resistance corresponding to the
maximum testing load is about 3.8MPa. This value
is relatively high compared with the direct shear
results with smooth planar surface[3]. The shaft
Slippage at
Interface
resistance are derived from the axial force profiles
and plotted in Fig.7a and Fig.7b for shaft A and B
respectively.
Fig.5 The bottom view of shaft A after load test The shaft resistance profiles plotted in Fig.7a and
Fig.7b indicate that the shaft resistance increased
with the applied vertical load during the test. For
shaft A, the shaft resistance was mainly mobilized
at the upper area, with a maximum value of 7.3MPa
near to the top surface of the rock block. The
mobilized shaft resistance at lower length is
relatively low, with a minimum value of 2.0Mpa
near to the shaft bottom, at the load of 900kN which
is close to the failure point(935kN).

Groove

Fig.8 Groove on hole surface of shaft B

Although the hole surface for shaft A is smooth and

no groove or step can be found in drilling process,
the shaft resistance is not equally distributed along
the length of the shaft. This uneven distribution may
be caused by the normal stress at rock concrete
Fig.7a Shaft resistance profiles for shaft A
interface that produced in loading process due to the
elastic deformation of rock mass. This will be
studied in the following numerical analysis.
Shaft Resistance(kPa)
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
0 3. NUMERICAL ANALYSIS
100 As discussed above, for the shaft A, the shaft
resistance was mainly mobilized at the upper area of
Depth(mm)

200
the shaft, and only relatively low resistance was
300 mobilized near the bottom, even under the
maximum load. In order to make a further analysis
400 100kN 200kN 300kN
of these results, numerical simulating is employed
400kN 500kN 600kN
500 in this study.
700kN 800kN 900kN

Fig.7b Shaft resistance profiles for shaft B 3.1. Numerical Method

FLAC-2D program is employed for numerical
However, the maximum shaft resistance mobilized calculation. In the calculations, axisymmetric
for shaft B is located at the depth of 370mm, this configuration is adopted. As mentioned above, there
location is very close to a groove which was is no obvious breakage in the internal body of
produced during drilling process due to tool concrete and rock block, and there is no slippage
replacement, the width of the groove is about 1mm, between steel and concrete, the failure of the shaft is
and a little step with 1mm height is also located at caused by the slippage at concrete rock interface, so
this place, as that shown in Fig.8. It can be the steel concrete shaft is considered as one
speculated that as the rock concrete interface is equivalent composite elastic column, and the rock
much rougher than other areas, the mobilized shaft block is also considered as elastic material. The
resistance will also be much higher than that concrete rock interface is simulated by joint
mobilized at other areas where the interface is elements, which are governed by Mohr-Coulomb
relatively smooth. This may also explain that why criteria,
the ultimate load capacity of shaft B is higher than τ = c + σ nTan(φ ) (1)
that of shaft A.
where, τis the maximum shear stress at concrete tensile failure at interface is considered in this
rock interface, σn is the normal stress at interface, calculation.
c and φ are cohesion and friction angle of the
interface.
The deformation parameters for rock and concrete
are defined according the test results tabulated in
Table 1. Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ration are
56GPa and 0.26 for rock and 20Gpa and 0.25 for
concrete
Vertical displacement is applied on the top of
concrete shaft, and gradually increased. The
displacement, shaft resistance along rock concrete Fig.9 Calculated and measured axial force profiles
interface are calculated for different loads. The
cohesion and friction angle for concrete rock
interface are adjusted in calculation, in order to
simulate the test results.
3.2. Results of Calculation
The whole process of the load test is simulated, and
the back evaluated cohesion and friction angle for
concrete rock interface are 2MPa and 40 °
respectively, these back evaluated results is related
to the best fit axial force and shaft resistance
profiles to the measured ones, as those plotted in
Fig.10 Calculated and measured shaft resistance profiles
Fig.9 and Fig.10. The calculated curves are very
close to the measured ones. According the discussion mentioned above, it can
The numerical simulating indicates that the be concluded that the magnitude and distribution of
interface near to the top surface reached plastic the shaft resistance at rock concrete interface will
state at early stage, when the mobilized shear stress greatly influenced by the normal stress generated
is equal to Mohr-Coulomb criteria, and then the due to rock deformation. With a high generated
plastic zone developed towards depth gradually. normal stress, the apparent average shaft resistance
However, although these areas are in plastic state, is very high, although the interface is apparently
the mobilized resistance at these area is till smooth, and the shaft resistance mobilized at the top
increasing with the applied load, this is because the length of the socket shaft will be much higher than
deformation of the rock mass is increasing with the that mobilized near to the shaft bottom.
vertical load, and consequently the produced normal
stress at interface is also increasing which will
increase the resistance force at interface .
According to the numerical calculation, the 4. CONCLUSIONS
maximum shaft resistance is at the top area of the The load test results of the two socket shaft models
interface, where the maximum normal stress is indicated that, very high shaft resistance(with an
generated at this place due to the elastic average value of 3.8MPa) can be produced by rock
deformation of the rock mass. The ultimate shaft socket along the rock socket interface at a very low
resistance near to the bottom is relatively low, displacement(about 1.4mm in), even the interface is
which is close to the cohesion value, this is because apparently smooth. If the roughness of the interface
the generated normal stress at this area is tensile increases, the ultimate shaft resistance will
stress, and only cohesion component will make potentially increase, as that illustrated by shaft B.
contribution to the shaft resistance. It should be
The test results also show that the shaft resistance is
noted that although tensile stress is existing, no
mainly mobilized at the upper area of the interface,
and the ultimate shaft resistance at the upper area is
much higher than that at the lower area. Numerical
simulation indicates that this is because, due to the
deformation of rock block, high compressive stress
is generated at upper area due to the deformation of
rock mass, and tensile stress is generated at the
interface near to the shaft bottom. The generated
normal stress plays an important role for the shaft
resistance behavior of concrete rock interface, if the
generated normal stress is significant, the apparent
shaft resistance at rock socket shaft will be greatly
increased, especially at the top area of the socket.
However, the tensile stress should also be
considered, as the existing tensile stress will reduce
the shaft resistance, especially near to the shaft
bottom. And the ultimate shaft resistance value may
not be a constant distribution along the shaft length.
However, the generated normal stress will be
influenced by the diameter and length of the rock
socket, and the deformation properties of rock and
concrete. More evaluation and calculation should be
performed if this component is introduced to the
resistance calculation for rock socket piles.

REFERENCES
1. Lam,T.S.K. and Johnston,I.W., “Shear Behavior of
Regular Triangular Concrete/Rock Joint-Evaluation”,
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division,
American Society of Civil Engineers, 1989,Vol.115,
pp.728-740.
2. B.Indraratna, A. Haque and N. Aziz, “Laboratory
modelling of shear behaviour of soft joints under
constant normal stiffness conditions”, Geotechnical and
Geological Engineering, 1998, 16 , pp 17–44
3. Seidel,J.P. and Haberfield,C.M.2002, “Laboratory
Testing of Concrete-rock Joints in Constant Normal
Stiffness Direct Shear”, Geotechnical Testing Journal.
Dec.2002,Vol.25,No.4,pp.1-14..
4. Seidel,J.P. and Haberfield,C.M.2002, “Atheoretical
Model for Rock Joints Subjected to Constant Normal
Stiffness Direct Shear”, International Jounal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences,(39)2002,pp.539-553.
5. Rowe,R.K. and Pells,P.J.N. “A Theoretical Study of
Pile-rock Socket Behavior”, International Conference
on Structural Foundation on
Rock,Sydney,May,1980,pp.253-264.