SOME NOTES ON THE DESIGN OF PILE FOUNDATIONS IN

SEDIMENTARY ROCK

Qijing Yang
Regional Technical Director
Level 16, 580 George Street, Sydney, NSW, 2000, Australia

ABSTRACT
This paper presents some technical notes on the design of pile foundations in sedimentary rock based on the author’s
thirty-year research and consulting experiences. Firstly, the fundamental difference between the superseded working
stress method and the current ultimate limit state (ULS) approach within the practicing codes will be discussed from a
geotechnical engineer’s perspective. Then some delusion and confusion encountered by practicing geotechnical engineers
such as rock classification and the characteristics of each rock class will be highlighted. The importance of soil and
structure interaction and establishment of design criteria for structures and substructures will be emphasized. An overview
of the published methods for assessing the pile end bearing capacity and lateral resistance will be carried out to appreciate
some issues that practicing engineers are often required to deal with. For typical bridge pile foundations and piled deep
excavation retention or retaining structures, both serviceability limit state and ultimate limit state assessments are required
to satisfy the requirements set out in current codes of practice. For vertically loaded piles in sedimentary rock it is found
that the serviceability limit state is governing the design rather than the ultimate limit state condition for most road and
railway projects, based on the commonly accepted design parameters. For laterally loaded piles in rock it is noted that the
method based on the lateral force and bending moment equilibrium such as described in Hong Kong Geoguide 1 is
frequently used to determine the pile socket length. The critical input parameter required by this method is the ultimate
lateral resistance of the rock mass, which is often arbitrary with little guidance provided, and a degree of confusion is
often noted by the author. It is proposed to undertake a lateral equilibrium assessment under ULS conditions for a piled
wall along with analysis of the deformation characteristic of the rock mass to come up with the “mobilised” rather than
the ULS lateral pressure for pile socket design. Worked examples will be given to demonstrate how the pile socket in
sedimentary rock can be determined with reasonable confidence for a cantilever piled wall for tunnel projects, and for a
bridge structure.

1 INTRODUCTION
Since the introduction of ultimate limit state (ULS) concept, which is driven by structural engineers, the geotechnical
design approach has been evolved accordingly. There are two streams of the ULS design approaches: One is using
partial load factors on both structural actions and material resistances such as Eurocode (2004) and the other by means
of a “lumped” geotechnical strength reduction factor on the ultimate geotechnical resistance such as Australian Piling
Code AS2159 (2009) and Australian Bridge Code AS5100.3 (2004). The Australian code approach is similar to the
methods outlined in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications by the American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials (2010). The current ULS codes of practice such as AS2159-2009 and AS5100-2004
require serviceability limit state (SLS) checks to ensure the total and differential movement criteria are met, while the
ULS strength requirements are satisfied.
This paper will examine the fundamentals for the pile design under the working stress method (WSM) and ULS design
approach, with an emphasis on the structural design criteria for key structural elements. Some issues experienced by the
author in the reviewing of geotechnical interpretation and design reports are highlighted. Worked examples will be
given to demonstrate the importance of the serviceability design for piles in good quality sedimentary rock. A proposed
method for pile design in good quality sedimentary rock is also presented.

2 WORKING STRESS METHOD VS ULTIMATE LIMIT STATE DESIGN

The Australian piling code AS2159 (1978) was based on the working stress method. The permissible shaft resistance and
the end bearing pressure of a pile in homogeneous bedrock are calculated to be 5% of the UCS and 30% of UCS
respectively, as outlined in A1.1.3 of Appendix A of AS2159-1978. These recommended shaft resistance and end bearing
capacity are generally in line with the recommended values in British Foundations Code BS8004 (1986) and Hong Kong
Geoguide 1 – Retaining Wall Structure (1982, 1993). An extract of permissible stress for concrete piles based on codes
of practice or guidelines around the world is presented in Appendix A. Usually a minimum factor of safety of 1.67 must
be considered on the ultimate geotechnical capacity of a single pile when a static pile load test has been undertaken for
specific site conditions.

168 Australian Geomechanics Society Sydney Chapter Symposium November 2017

SOME NOTES ON DESIGN OF PILE FOUNDATIONS IN SEDIMENTARY ROCK YANG Q J

The ultimate limit state design methodology of pile design, based on Australian codes such as AS2159 (2009) and
AS5100.3 (2004), requires load factors to derive the structural actions on a pile or pile group and a “lumped” geotechnical
strength reduction factor on the ultimate geotechnical resistance to derive the ultimate design geotechnical strength.
The ultimate geotechnical strength in AS2159 (2009) is defined as “The resistance developed by an axially or laterally
loaded pile or pile group at which static equilibrium is lost or at which the supporting ground fails.”. The so-called ultimate
limit state would probably never be realised during the service life of any structures that are properly designed, especially
for superstructures supported by piles in rock, for example, total loss of static equilibrium or ground support.
The serviceability limit state in AS2159 (2009) is defined as “A limit state beyond which specified service criteria are no
longer met, such as unacceptably large displacements, vibrations, cracking, spalling and other local damage.” This is
often the governing case for superstructures supported by piles in rock due to the large deformation required to mobilise
the ULS rock strength. The fundamental philosophy of SLS design is to ensure the structural elements are in an elastic
state during the sustained loading conditions throughout the design life of the structure.
The load factors that should be considered for calculating the ultimate structural actions on a single pile or pile group are
based on AS7110 (2002). For most superstructures, it is found the “lumped” load factor on the vertical structural action
is typically 1.3, with the range being between 1.2 and 1.5. The lowest geotechnical strength reduction factor in AS2159
(2009) is 0.4, which will not require any testing for piles founded in rock or soils. This implies that an equivalent factor
of safety (FoS) for a single pile or pile group is ranging between 2.8 to 3.75. Where a comprehensive geotechnical
assessment including borehole drilling and pile static load testing is conducted, then the geotechnical strength reduction
factor can be increased up to 0.9. This means that an equivalent factor of safety will be ranging between 1.33 to 1.67. It
is noted that the equivalent FoS values are much lower than the recommend value of 2 when pile static load test is carried
out as stated in AS2159 (1978).

3 VERTICALLY LOADED PILES IN SENDMENTARY ROCK

3.1 END BEARING PRESSURES

For vertically loaded pile design, the practicing engineers are frequently referred to the published papers by Pells et al
(1978) and (1998) for the permissible (allowable) and ULS end bearing pressures. The three principal factors that Pells
et al considered in assessing the permissible (allowable) end bearing pressure of a pile founded in rock are the unconfined
compressive strength (UCS), the allowable clay seams and defect spacing. The vertical permissible (SLS) and ULS end
bearing pressures and Young’s modulus for various rock classes based on Pells et al (1998) are reproduced in Table 1
and Table 2.
Table 1: Summary of geotechnical parameters for sandstone
Sandstone UCS Range (MPa) SLS End Bearing Ultimate End Bearing Young’s Modulus
Class Pressure (MPa) Pressure (MPa) (MPa)
I >24 12 >120 >2000
II 12-24 0.5qu max 12 60-120 900-2000
III 7-12 0.5qu max 6 20-60* 350-1200
IV 2-7 0.5qu max 3.5 4-15 100-700
V >1 1 >3 50-100
* The value was modified from 40 MPa to 60 MPa by the Author for consistency with Table 2.
Table 2: Summary of geotechnical parameters for shale
Shale Class UCS Range (MPa) SLS End Bearing Ultimate End Bearing Young’s Modulus
Pressure (MPa) Pressure (MPa) (MPa)
II 7-16 0.5qu max 6 30-120 700-2000
III 2-7 0.5qu max 3.5 6-30 200-1200
IV >1 1.0 >3 100-500
V >1 0.7 >3 50-300

Australian Geomechanics Society Sydney Chapter Symposium, November 2017 169

SOME NOTES ON DESIGN OF PILE FOUNDATIONS IN SEDIMENTARY ROCK YANG Q J

From herein the discussions in this paper will be focused on the sandstone rock. Some observations can be made from
Table 1 as below:
 The SLS and ULS end bearing pressures are for vertical loading conditions only.
 The SLS end bearing pressure is recommended to be 0.5 times UCS, with an expected settlement of
approximately 1% of the pile diameter or less.
 The ULS end bearing capacity of Class III sandstone or shale is approximately 10 times of the corresponding
SLS end bearing pressure. The expected settlement of the pile must be 5% of pile diameter or greater to achieve
the ultimate end bearing capacity.
 The Young’s modulus value for each rock class varies between 50 to 100 times UCS values for sandstone and
100-200 times UCS for shale.
For many design cases reviewed by the author the requirement of the minimum representative UCS value or the point
load value is often not shown for each class of rock. In addition, the allowable percentage of clay seams and minimum
defect spacing are also ignored. Some design drawings are issued showing each class of rock with the upper bound ULS
end bearing pressure being presented. It is important to understand that there is an applicable UCS range for each class
of sandstone or shale, with each class of rock being assessed by a combination of the UCS value, allowable clay seam
percentage and defect spacing. For example, the UCS of intact sandstone bedrock may be greater than 12 MPa, but due
to a higher percentage of clay seams within the influence zone of the pile toe the rock mass is assessed to be Class III.
There are often two schools of thoughts as to if the SLS end bearing pressure of rock should be presented in the design
or not: One is continuing to provide the SLS end bearing pressure together with the ULS end bearing pressure for rock;
the other is only providing the ULS end bearing pressure. It should be noted that the provision of the SLS end bearing
pressure is not required by the current Australian piling code AS2159 (2009) and bridge code AS5100.3 (2004), except
for deformation checks under SLS loads. It is the author’s opinion that the SLS end bearing pressure is critical for pile
foundations in Class III or better sedimentary rock in that it will be demonstrated in the examples that the design of piles
in rock is often governed by the SLS load case. There are a broad range of recommended SLS end bearing pressures but
the correlation factor with the UCS value is typically ranging between 0.2 to 0.4 (e.g. Peck et al 1974, AS2159-1978,
BS8004-1986, Tomlinson-1994 & 2004,ASHTO-2010, Pells et al-1998). Furthermore, the recommended ULS end
bearing pressures vary from project to project and there was no established correlation between the UCS value and the
ULS end bearing pressure. For example, the ultimate end bearing pressure to be 10 times UCS value recommended by
Pells et al (1998) is different from equation of 4.8 times square root of UCS by Zhang and Einstein (1998) which is based
on a best-fit of a set of data.

3.2 PILE SETTLEMENT

The settlement of an end bearing pile without any socket, as shown in Figure 1, can be assessed by the following formulas:

s = q / E d (1- ν2) (1)

where s is the settlement, q is the end bearing pressure at the tip of pile, E is the Young’s modulus of rock mass within
the influence zone, d is the pile diameter, ν is the Poisson’s ratio of rock mass.

When q is equal to 0.5UCS, E is equal to (50-100)UCS; and a Poisson’s ratio of 0.2 is considered, the settlement as shown
in equation (1) can be approximated as follows:

s = (0.005-0.01)d=(0.5%- 1%)d (2)

For typical pile diameters, the estimated settlements are summarised in Table 3.

Table 3: Estimated settlements of piles with different diameters under the SLS end bearing pressure
Pile Diameter (mm) 600 750 900 1050 1200 1500 2000 3000
Estimated pile toe
3-6 3.7-7.5 4.5-9 5.2-10.5 6-12 7.5-15 10-20 15-30
settlement (mm)

170 Australian Geomechanics Society Sydney Chapter, Symposium, November 2017

SOME NOTES ON DESIGN OF PILE FOUNDATIONS IN SEDIMENTARY ROCK YANG Q J

Figure 1: End Bearing Pile on Rock Only Figure 2: Shaft and End Bearing Pile in Rock
It can be observed from Table 3 that the calculated vertical settlement for piles under the recommended SLS end bearing
pressure of 0.5UCS is generally less than 10mm for piles of up to 1 m diameter. Where a larger pile diameter is considered
then the pile settlement will be proportionally greater. As such the debate about what is the appropriate ULS end bearing
value is not critical in the design of pile foundations in Class III or better rock.
Where a pile is designed to take account of both shaft resistance and end bearing capacity the SLS end bearing pressure,
as shown on Figure 2, may not reach the expected end bearing pressures shown on Tables 1 and 2 due to contribution
from shaft adhesion. The corresponding settlement will be lower than those shown in Table 3 under the same vertical
structural load. The settlement calculation of a single pile under vertical loading, considering both shaft and end bearing
pressure, can be referred to from William and Pells (1981) or Rowe and Armitage 91984, 1987).

3.3 CONSTRUCTION VALIDATION

The requirements for construction validation of each class of rock on site are often not clearly defined in either the design
report or on the drawings. It is frequently relied upon the geotechnical engineer’s experience and judgement during
construction. Where there are boreholes at or close to the proposed pile locations then the geotechnical engineer will be
able to use the available information to assess the rock strength and possibly the clay seam content and defect spacing.
However, it is nearly impossible to check the defect spacing during pile shaft excavation. In addition, the rock strength,
i.e. UCS value, can, at most, be only an estimate of rock strength based on the recovered rock chips from the drilling
bucket. It is also important to note that the base of the pile shaft is impossible to be totally cleaned of all debris as compared
to the pad footing considered by Pells et al (1978). To this end the author believes the geotechnical validation of the
design end bearing pressure should be a best estimate rather than a scientific calculation.

3.4 STRUCTURAL CRITERIA

The issue for the SLS check is that the structural engineer needs to provide the design criteria for piles in relation to the
total and differential settlements for the superstructure. Most bridge structures are designed to a differential settlement
limit of 10mm, which is often defined as between two structural elements such as two piers for bridges, with no specific
total settlement described when piles are founded on bedrock.
The differential settlement could occur within a pile group or between pile groups, which is largely dependent upon the
pile spacing within a group or the distance between the two groups. The level of differential settlement for two bridge
piers can be readily satisfied based on the SLS settlements presented in Table 3 when the piles are founded on Class III
sandstone or better quality bedrock.
The other important factor is to assess the SLS bearing pressure based on the deformation limit for the concrete pile. The
American Highway Standard provides a summary of the permissible stresses in a pile, as shown in Appendix A. AS2159

Australian Geomechanics Society Sydney Chapter Symposium, November 2017 171

SOME NOTES ON DESIGN OF PILE FOUNDATIONS IN SEDIMENTARY ROCK YANG Q J

(2009) considered ULS strength check of either reinforced or unreinforced concrete but it is referred to AS3600 (2009)
for the strength reduction factor and for the SLS deformation checks. The fundamental requirement for the concrete piles
under SLS loading is to maintain the stress level within the elastic condition to avoid excessive concrete creep under the
SLS loading during design life. The ratio of permissible stress to the unconfined compression stress of concrete pile is
typically ranging between 0.25 and 0.45 for various codes of practice. In Australia, a ratio of 0.3 has been considered
acceptable as shown in Appendix A. For a pile concrete having a UCS value of 40 MPa, a permissible stress in the pile
will be 12 MPa. This is comparable with the maximum permissible end bearing pressure of 12 MPa for Class I sandstone
recommended by Pell et al (1998).

3.5 WORKED EXAMPLE

A single pile with 40 MPa compressive strength is required to carry a total axial SLS load of 120 MN and a ULS axial
load of 165 MN. The pile is to be founded on Class I sandstone without any shaft socket. If we consider a ULS end
bearing pressure of 120 MPa and a geotechnical strength reduction factor of 0.6 then the pile diameter required is 1.60
m. Should a pile of 1.6 m diameter be adopted then the end bearing pressure under the SLS load is approximately 60
MPa. This stress level is already greater than the 40 MPa concrete, leading to excessive movement of pile itself and the
settlement of the rock mass. Hence this is not an acceptable design. To this end geotechnical and structural engineer
interaction is required to ensure the final design is acceptable.
When an SLS end bearing pressure of 12 MPa is considered for the SLS load of 120 MN then the required pile diameter
is 3.57 m. The stress level within the pile is about 30% of the unconfined compressive strength of concrete, which is
within the elastic limit. As such there will be little plastic long term settlement due to pile concrete movement in the long
term. It can be seen the diameter based on the SLS load condition is 2.22 times that of the diameter derived from the ULS
load condition while the required base area under the SLS condition is about 5 times that under the ULS design case. As
such a design considering both shaft and end bearing pressure a pile shaft with high compressive stress concrete may be
considered to reduce the pile diameter.
The settlement of the pile will be of the order of 0.5% to 1% of pile diameter when the SLS end bearing pressure is
considered. This value also implicitly considers the potential risks of some debris left at the base of the pile that could not
be practically cleaned out prior to pour of concrete.
It could be deduced from this example that great caution should be exercised to determine the pile size when the ULS
load only is considered as it could lead to unsafe design.

4 LATERALLY LOADED PILES IN SEDIMENTARY ROCK

4.1 LATERAL BEARING PRESSURE

The stability of a pile embedded in rock under lateral loads is often checked for both strength and deformation. For the
strength and stability of a pile under lateral loads, the ultimate limit equilibrium method presented in Hong Kong
Geoguide 1- Retaining Structures (1982, 1993), requires two failure mechanism checks: One is the pile lateral stability
by assuming the rock pressure in a rectangular distribution, which requires the ultimate lateral bearing pressure of the
rock mass. The other is the stability of a potential rock wedge on the passive side of the pile. The ULS lateral bearing
pressures are taken by some engineers to be up to 50% of the ULS end bearing pressures under vertical load as presented
in Table 1. The use of these high ULS lateral bearing pressure values is likely to result in two problems:
1. To underestimate the pile socket length to a level that is too short to achieve the practical solution as will be
demonstrated in the later section.
2. Large lateral displacement that will be required to mobilize the ULS lateral bearing capacity, for example, when
the piles are used for cantilever or propped structures.

4.2 LATERAL DISPLACEMENT

As can be estimated the ultimate lateral bearing pressure will require a lateral movement of about 50% of that required
for a pile under same vertical bearing pressure based Pells et al (1998). This means it will require a lateral movement of
22.5 mm for a 900 mm diameter pile to mobilise the ultimate lateral bearing pressure within a rock socket. It can then be
extrapolated that the lateral movement of a cantilever piled wall of 6m height above the socket will yield 62.5 mm
deflection at the top of the wall if an allowable differential of 1/150 of wall height is considered. This level of movement
is considered unacceptable. As such the author, would like to use the terminology of “mobilised” lateral bearing pressure
for the piles under lateral loads.
The testing results in Hong Kong indicated the use of a lateral pressure of 2000 kPa for determining pile socket in slightly
weathered granite was considered conservative. Rather, this lateral bearing pressure was used to achieve an adequate pile

172 Australian Geomechanics Society Sydney Chapter, Symposium, November 2017

SOME NOTES ON DESIGN OF PILE FOUNDATIONS IN SEDIMENTARY ROCK YANG Q J

socket to ensure the lateral movement of cantilever structure was not excessive (personal communication Garth Powell,
1994). Greenway (1986) proposed to use the allowable rather than ultimate bearing pressure in the pile socket calculation
to limit the lateral deflection.
The displacement required to destabilise the potential wedge failure in front of the pile socket is difficult to assess as it is
often along the weak bedding plane or joints. As such stability of the potential wedge will be the key to ensure adequate
passive resistance will be provided for the design socket. Once this stability condition is ensured then the lateral movement
can be calculated in the same manner as normal rock mass.

4.3 STRUCTURAL CRITERIA

The allowable lateral displacement of a single pile is often not specified, though the Australian Piling code AS2159 (1978)
allows a 10 mm limit for lateral pile testing. Often a geotechnical engineer would be informed of what type of structure
will be constructed during the preparation of the geotechnical interpretative report or geotechnical design report. The
author suggests the structural damage criteria for differential movement presented by Poulos et al (2004) be considered
in preparation of the geotechnical interpretative report or geotechnical design report if there is no structural performance
criterion provided. For a piled cantilever wall a permissible lateral deflection of 1 in 150 to 1 in 250 is considered
reasonable. For tall building structures, a vertical deflection criterion of 1 in 1000 to 1 in 2000 may be considered.

4.4 WORKED EXAMPLE

For example, for a 6m high cantilever wall, the lateral deflection at the top of wall is ranging between 24 mm to 40 mm
by allowing a differential lateral deflection of 1/250 to 1/150. If we allow a lateral movement at the top of pile socket of
5 mm then the total lateral deflection at the top of wall will be 29 mm to 45 mm. This, in turn, can be used to assess what
is the ‘mobilised’ lateral bearing pressure for pile socket assessment. To demonstrate this a series of finite element
analyses (FEM) have been undertaken for a typical piled retaining wall, as shown in Figure 3. In the FEM analysis, it was
assumed there are 6 m soil having a stiffness of 20 MPa, friction angle of 30 degrees plus a surcharge of 20 kPa at the
ground surface. The bedrock was assumed to be class II sandstone with a Young’s modulus of 2000 MPa and shear
strength as per Bertuzzi and Pells (2002). It has found that a pile socket embedment of 1.3 times pile diameter is required
to control the lateral deflection to within the limit of 1/150 to 1/250 of the wall height as described in Section 4.3. It is
interesting to note that the lateral bearing pressure distribution against the pile within the rock socket is non-uniform and
may be generalised as a hyperbolic shaped curve with a maximum being about 2000 kPa. This is comparable to Greenway
(1986), indicating that an allowable of 2000 kPa over the upper part of the pile based on Figure 51 of Hong Kong Geoguide
1 (1993), as show in Appendix B, is conservative. It may be concluded that the nominated ULS lateral bearing pressure,
as shown in Figure 51, Appendix B, for pile socket design should be the ‘mobilised’ lateral bearing pressure, that being
approximately 50% of allowable vertical end bearing pressure for socket strength check, plus an appropriate lateral
deformation assessment.

Figure 3 – Lateral bearing pressure distribution for a cantilever piled wall in Class II sandstone

Australian Geomechanics Society Sydney Chapter Symposium, November 2017 173

SOME NOTES ON DESIGN OF PILE FOUNDATIONS IN SEDIMENTARY ROCK YANG Q J

5 RELIABILITY AND CONFIDENCE OF WEDGE FAILURE CHECK

5.1 AVAILABLE DATA AND RISKS

For most of the projects there are limited geotechnical data such as boreholes to characterise the defects in front of the
retaining piled wall. The Australian Bridge code AS5100.3 (2004) specifies that the boreholes shall be drilled at 30m
centres along the retaining wall. In practice, most projects would only provide boreholes at 50m to 100m centres along
the piled wall due to either budget constraints or access to the locations. Furthermore, there is no specific requirement for
the borehole data in the 3D context for defining the potential wedges in front of the wall. As such the reliability of the
possible defects in front of the piled wall can only be assessed by means of available defect data in the proximity of the
proposed piled walls. The designer would have to consider a range of the possible failure mechanisms and carry out
sensitivity analyses to determine the minimum pile socket length below the bulk excavation level. The analysis method
can be based on that shown on Figure 54 of Hong Kong Geoguide 1 in Appendix B.

5.2 CONSTRUCTION VALIDATION AND MINIMUM SOCKET LENGTH

It is often quite difficult for the contractor to fully appreciate the potential risks of wedge failure and the field mapping of
the potential wedge formation is almost impossible. As such the author believes a minimum pile socket depth should be
developed so that the reliability of the wall toe kick out can be enhanced.
Hong Kong Geoguide 1 proposes to have a minimum pile socket of 1m below the bulk excavation level. This is likely to
be reasonable when the pile diameter is less than 1m. However, with the increase of pile diameter the minimum pile
socket may not be valid. As such it is proposed to consider a minimum pile socket length of 1.3 times pile diameter, which
is the low bound for cantilever wall for a 6 m high cantilever retaining wall, based on the as-constructed project database
of the author. Table 4 presents a summary of minimum pile socket length based on previous projects that are in line with
this proposed minimum pile socket length for either cantilever or propped/anchored wall.
Table 4: Recommended minimum pile socket length for 6m high cantilever wall under lateral loading
Pile Diameter (mm) 600 750 900 1050 1200 1500 2000 3000
Minimum Pile Socket
780 980 1170 1370 1560 1950 2600 3900
Length (mm)*
*- The length was rounded to nearest 10mm.
It should be noted that the actual minimum embedment for other retaining wall, cantilever or propped or anchored
retaining walls, will need to be assessed on a project specific case-by-case basis.

6 PROPOSED DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

Based on the assessment and worked examples in the above sections a proposed design approach is summarised below:

6.1 VERTICALLY LOADED PILES

It should be recognised that the pile foundation design is often governed by the SLS condition due to the permissible
deflection for the proposed structures. The ULS end bearing pressure will require large deflection which is often never
realised under most of the structures.
For vertically loaded pile foundations the ULS end bearing pressures recommended by the geotechnical interpretative
report based on Pells et al (1998) should be treated with caution as these high values are often not governing the design
and could lead to unsafe design. The structural capacities of the pile itself under both SLS and ULS loading conditions
should be established as these values are likely to be much lower than the ULS end bearing pressures for Class III
sandstone or better. The ‘mobilised’ end bearing pressure is encouraged for the designer to consider in the SLS checks.
The debris remaining at the base of the pile after cleaning should be considered in the pile design for the ‘mobilised’ end
bearing capacity under SLS checks. This concept of the ‘mobilised’ end bearing pressure would allow a level of risk of
not perfect cleaning of debris at the base of pile.
The settlement of piles under the SLS load can be estimated using the rule of thumb of 0.5% to 1% of the pile diameter
based on the correlations of the monitored results. Consideration of the allowable stress in rock under SLS loading
condition is encouraged for the designer to ensure the pile foundation is to be within the permissible differential settlement
either within a pile group or between the adjacent structural elements.
For the design reporting and documentation on the drawings it should note the practical constraints in assessing the rock
quality by geotechnical engineers on site. The percentage of clay seams and defect spacing are often difficult to quantify

174 Australian Geomechanics Society Sydney Chapter, Symposium, November 2017

SOME NOTES ON DESIGN OF PILE FOUNDATIONS IN SEDIMENTARY ROCK YANG Q J

on site unless there is a borehole immediately next to the pile shaft. These factors should be considered in determining
the “mobilised” end bearing pressure for a vertically loaded pile.

6.2 LATERALLY LOADED PILES

There are no recommended lateral bearing pressures under both SLS and ULS provided by Pells et al (1998). The use of
up to 50% of the ULS end bearing pressure of those corresponding vertical values are over-estimates for determining the
socket length of piles in rock, especially for Class III sandstone or better. Based on analysis of past projects and numerical
analysis of cantilever walls it is recommended that a minimum pile socket length of 1.3 times pile diameter be considered
in the design of 6m high piled retaining structure or similar.
It is recommended that the “mobilised” lateral bearing pressure against the rock pile socket be 50% of the vertical
allowable pressure, which is assumed to be 0.3 times UCS of rock based on AS2159 (1978). That is, the ‘mobilised’
lateral bearing pressure is estimated to be 15% of the UCS value of pile rock socket. Table 5 presented the low bound
‘mobilised’ lateral bearing pressure for each class of sandstone.
Table 5: Mobilised lateral bearing pressure for piles in sandstone
Class I –24 Class II – Class III – Class IV –
Sandstone Class and minimum UCS
MPa 12 MPa 7 MPa 3 MPa
Mobilised lateral bearing pressure (kPa) 3600 1800 1050 450

It is worth noting that for Class I sandstone the mobilised lateral bearing pressure is greater than 2000 kPa, which would
require a deformation check for the pile where lateral deflection is critical, such as in the case of a cantilever wall.
Dependent upon the available defect data and adequacy of the borehole data the pile socket length should be checked
against the minimum calculated length derived from a potential passive wedge sliding failure, using the method described
on Figure 54, Appendix B. It must be recognised that this is only a best estimate, in that it will be nearly impossible for
the geotechnical engineer to confidently assess the potential wedges given the drilled boreholes will be spaced at least 30
m centre to centre along the retaining wall as per AS5100.3 (2004). As such it is prudent to undertake sensitivity analyses
to make a sound judgement for the pile socket based on available data.
The potential over-excavation and temporary trench excavation in front of the pile toe should be considered in the final
pile socket length consideration.

7 CONCLUSIONS
This paper provides some notes on the pile foundation design under vertical and lateral loading conditions. For the vertical
pile foundation design, it has been highlighted that the ULS end bearing only design for pile size could lead to unsafe
design and the deformation check under the SLS load is usually more critical to determine the pile socket. A concept of
the ‘mobilised’ lateral bearing pressure, as shown in Table 5, has been proposed for laterally loaded piles due to the unsafe
design resulting from the misuse of the ULS lateral bearing pressure for lateral pile design. A minimum pile socket length
of 1.3 times pile diameter for typical retaining structures of 6 m height has also been proposed based on the FEM analysis
and the author’s database of the as-built records of previous projects. It must be emphasised that lateral deformation check
under SLS load should be carried out when a ‘mobilised’ lateral bearing pressure is greater than 2000 kPa. The lateral
potential wedge stability check, based on Figure 54 in Appendix B, is onerous due to lack of reliable geotechnical data
on defect details. Therefore it is necessary to undertake a sensitivity analyses to make a reasonable judgement if this is a
governing case or not.

8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author is grateful to the assistance in numerical analysis provided by Mr Adam Miller and the peer reviewer’s
comments.

9 REFERENCES
ASAHTO (2010), AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications by the American Association of State Highway and
Transpiration Officials.
Australian Standard (1978). Rules for the design and installation of piling, ASS piling code. AS2159, Standards
Association of Australia, Standards House, 80 Arthur St, North Sydney, Australia.
Australian Standard (2009). Piling-design and installation. AS2159, Standards Australia Limited, GPO Box 476, Sydney,
NSW 2001, Australia.
Australian Standard (2004). Bridge design, Part 3: Foundations and soil-supporting structures. AS5100.3, Standards
Australia Limited, GPO Box 476, Sydney, NSW 2001, Australia.

Australian Geomechanics Society Sydney Chapter Symposium, November 2017 175

SOME NOTES ON DESIGN OF PILE FOUNDATIONS IN SEDIMENTARY ROCK YANG Q J

British Standard (1986). Code of practice for foundations. BS8004, British standards institute, London. British Standards
(2004), Eurocode 7: Geotechnical Design - Part 1: General Rule, The European Standard EN 1997-1:2004 has the
status of British Standard.
Bertuzzi, R. and Pells P.J.N. (2002), Geotechnical parameters of Sydney sandstone and shale. Australian Geomechanics
Vol 37, No 5, December 2002.
Department for Communities and Local Government, (2005), A designers’ simple guide to BS EN 1997, December 2005,
Department for Communities and Local Government, PO Box 236, Wetherby, West Yorkshire, London.
Greenway, D.R., Powell, G.E. & Bell, G.S. (1986). Rock-socketed caissons for retention of an urban road. Proceedings
of the International Conference on Rock Engineering and Excavation in an Urban Environment, Hong Kong, pp
173-180. (Discussion, pp450-456).
Geotechnical Control Office, Guide to retaining wall design, Geoguide 1, 1st Edition Sept. 1982, 2nd Edition Oct. 1993.
The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China.
Haberfield, C. and B. Collingwood (2006). “Rock-socketed pile design and construction: a better way?” Proc. ICE,
Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 159, No.3, July 2006, pp. 207–217.
Peck, R.B., Hansen, W.E. and Thornburn, T.H. (1974), Foundation engineering. 2nd Edition, John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Pells, P.J.N., Mostyn, G. and Walker, B. (1998), Foundations on sandstone and shale in the Sydney region, Australian
Geomechanics, Dec 1998.
Pells, P.J.N. (1999). “State of Practice for the Design of Socketed Piles in Rock”. Proc. 8th Australia New Zealand Conf.
on Geomechanics: Consolidating Knowledge. Barton, ACT: Australian Geomechanics Society, pp. 307-327
Poulos, H.G., Carter, J.P. Small, J.C. (2004). Foundations and retaining structures – theory and practices.
Powell G. (1994), Personnel communications – unpublished pile load test data.
Rowe, R.K. and H.H. Armitage (1984). “Design of piles socketed into weak rock”. Report GEOT-11-84. London: Univ.
of Western Ontario.
Rowe, R.K.and H.H. Armitage (1987). “A design method for drilled piers in soft rock”. Canadian Geotech. J. 24(1), pp.
126-142.
Tomlinson, M.J (1994). “Pile Design and Construction Practice”. 4th Edition. Taylor &Francis. London.
Tomlinson, M.J and J. Woodward (2008). “Pile Design and Construction Practice”. 5th Edition. Taylor &Francis.
London.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (1983), Allowable stresses in piles, Report No
FHWA/RD-83/059, First Published 1983.
Williams, A. F. and P.J.N Pells. Side resistance rock sockets in sandstone, mudstone and shale, Canadian Geotechnical
J., 18, 1981, pp 502-513.
Zhang, L. and H.H. Einstein (1998). End bearing capacity of drilled shafts in rock. J. Geotech. Eng.(ASCE), 24(7),
pp.574-584.
Zhang, L (2004). Drilled shafts in rock – analysis and design, A.A. Balkema Publishers, Taylor & Francis Group plc,
London, UK, pp381.

176 Australian Geomechanics Society Sydney Chapter, Symposium, November 2017

SOME NOTES ON DESIGN OF PILE FOUNDATIONS IN SEDIMENTARY ROCK YANG Q J

APPENDIX A
Extract from “Allowable Stresses in Piles”, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Report
No FHWA/RD-83/059, First Published 1983.

Australian Geomechanics Society Sydney Chapter Symposium, November 2017 177

SOME NOTES ON DESIGN OF PILE FOUNDATIONS IN SEDIMENTARY ROCK YANG Q J

APPENDIX B
(after Hong Kong Geoguide 1-Guide to Retaining Wall Design, 1993)

178 Australian Geomechanics Society Sydney Chapter, Symposium, November 2017

SOME NOTES ON DESIGN OF PILE FOUNDATIONS IN SEDIMENTARY ROCK YANG Q J

Australian Geomechanics Society Sydney Chapter Symposium, November 2017 179