International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

ISSN: 1938-6362 (Print) 1939-7879 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yjge20

Analysis of rock-socketed piles loaded in axial

compression in Mumbai region based on load
transfer characteristics

R. U. Kulkarni & D. M. Dewaikar

To cite this article: R. U. Kulkarni & D. M. Dewaikar (2019) Analysis of rock-socketed piles loaded
in axial compression in Mumbai region based on load transfer characteristics, International Journal
of Geotechnical Engineering, 13:3, 261-269, DOI: 10.1080/19386362.2017.1343262

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2017.1343262

Published online: 09 Jul 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 82

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=yjge20
Materials research innovations
2019, Vol. 13, No. 3, 261–269
https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2017.1343262

Analysis of rock-socketed piles loaded in axial compression in Mumbai region based

on load transfer characteristics
R. U. Kulkarni and D. M. Dewaikar
Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay, Mumbai, India

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Existing methods consider the intact rock properties for the analysis of rock-socketed piles. In the present Received 10 February 2017
analysis, a new method is proposed incorporating rock mechanics principles to study the load-settlement Accepted 31 May 2017
response of rock-socketed piles of Mumbai region using load transfer technique. As a rock-socketed pile
KEYWORDS
is supported by the rock mass, it would be more realistic to consider rock mass properties in lieu of intact Load transfer technique;
rock properties. The database of sixty cases depicting response of varying pile diameters is analysed rock-socketed piles; axial
and presented in this paper. Further, a full-scale pile load test case conducted in Mumbai region using load distribution
O-Cell technology is analysed to study the performance of the proposed model. The method is capable of
separating the contribution of skin friction from the weathered stratum and socket material and the point
resistance.

Introduction it is to be noted that the discontinuities have a significant influ-

ence on compressive strength of the rock mass and in turn, the
In Mumbai region, lying in the western part of India, rock-sock-
load carrying capacity based on their intensity, orientation and
eted piles constructed as bored cast-in-situ type, are generally
nature of material within the discontinuities (Pells and Turner
preferred to transmit load to the sound stratum. The load is
1980; Zhang 2010). Hence, in the present analysis, a method is
designed to be carried by the weathered stratum, the socket mate-
proposed considering the rock mass properties in lieu of the
rial and the rock at the pile base. It therefore becomes necessary
intact rock properties for deriving limit rock socket friction and
to estimate the load transferred to the surrounding materials for
point resistance from modified unconfined compressive strength
an optimal pile design.
of the rock mass (Zhang 2010).
Several approaches are proposed for analysing the load trans-
The load-settlement response in the current study is predicted
fer characteristics. Some methods consider series of disjointed
using Kiousis and Elansary’s (1987) method. This method, is
springs in which, the load transfer functions are integrated over
similar to the Coyle and Reese’s (1966) method with one main
the entire length of a pile (Coyle and Reese, 1966; Randolph
difference that, the equilibrium iterations are satisfied for the
and Wroth 1978; Pells and Turner 1979; Kraft, Ray, and Kagawa
whole pile; whereas, segment-wise equilibrium is satisfied in the
1981; Kiousis and Elansary 1987; Kulhawy and Goodman 1987;
latter. Further, for optimised pile design, it is beneficial to sep-
Basarkar and Dewaikar 2006) and some others use continuum
arate the contribution of load shared by the weathered stratum,
approach based on numerical techniques such as boundary inte-
the socket material and the rock at the pile base.
gral method, finite element method (Poulos and Davis 1968;
In view of the above, a load transfer method is used to analyse
Mattes and Poulos 1969; Butterfield and Banerjee 1971; Poulos
the rock-socketed piles of Mumbai region using the database of
1979; Rajapakse 1990; Lee and Small 1991) to derive the solu-
60 non-failed tests and one full-scale load test are reported in
tions. However, these methods, being site-specific, lead to large
this paper to attain the following objectives:
errors (Nanda and Patra 2014).
A few shear load transfer (t–z) functions are also proposed (1) prediction of load-settlement response
for rock-socketed piles (Baguelin 1982; O’Neill and Hassan 1994; (2) validation of limit skin friction in socket portion and
Carrubba 1997; Kim et al. 1999). Zhang (2004) recommends point resistance
application of O’Neill and Hassan’s (1994) criterion for the devel- (3) separation of contribution of skin friction in the socket
opment of non-linear hyperbolic t–z curves and extend its appli- material and the weathered stratum and the point
cation to base transfer (q–z) function for the non-linear range. resistance
Existing methods consider intact rock properties for analysing (4) validation of proposed analysis using pile load test data
the axially loaded rock-socketed piles in compression. However, conducted up to failure

CONTACT  R. U. Kulkarni  rkulkarni@noblegeostructs.com, renurmahuli@gmail.com

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
262   R. U. KULKARNI AND D. M. DEWAIKAR

(1) Discretise pile into n elements as shown in Figure 1.

(2) Assume a small displacement, wn, at the tip of the nth
element.
(3) Estimate unconfined compressive strength, σcm of the
rock mass (Zhang 2010).

𝜎cm = 𝜎c × 100.013RQD−1.34 (MPa) (1)

where σc = unconfined compressive strength of intact rock (MPa)
(4) Obtain the modulus of elasticity, Ep of rock mass using
the following expression (Basarkar, 2004).

Em = Ce 𝜎c0.5 (MPa) (2)

Rowe and Armitage (1987) reported the value of Ce to be 215. In
the present analysis, Ce is varied in the range of 110–350 to closely
Figure 1. Proposed model to simulate load-settlement behaviour for a typical case.
simulate the load-settlement response. Ramamurthy (2010) has
reported the range of Ce between 50 and 500.
Load transfer method
(5) Estimate the limit point resistance, qmax using the fol-
In Figure 1, an axially loaded pile is shown which is discretised
lowing relationship (Kulkarni and Dewaikar 2016).
into n number of elements. The t–z curve for the weathered
stratum and the socket material and the q–z curve for the rock 0.5
qmax = 3𝜎cm (MPa) (3)
base are derived based on O’Neill and Hassan’s (1994) non-linear
hyperbolic criterion (Zhang 2004). The empirical relationships (6) Obtain the non-linear hyperbolic q–z curve as per
for limit point resistance and socket skin friction are adopted O’Neill and Hassan’s (1994) criterion represented
using Kulkarni and Dewaikar’s (2016) criteria. The chart reported in Equation (4). A typical q–z curve is shown in
by Cole and Stroud (1977) is adopted to estimate limit side Figure 1.
shear in the weathered stratum. The load-settlement response is
wn
obtained based on the following step-by-step procedure (Kiousis qp = (MPa)
and Elansary 1987).
2.5D
+
wn (4)
Em qmax

Figure 2. Relationship between SPT (N) and shear strength of the weathered stratum (modified after Cole and Stroud 1977).
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING   3

∫ (9)
P= 0.5Π(Z)t(Z)dZ + Q
Z=0
where L = length of pile (m), Π(Z) = perimeter of the pile at
depth Z (m), t(Z) = shear stress distribution in the pile for the
respective stratum (MPa)
(12) For the pile with modulus of elasticity, Ep of the con-
crete material the elastic compression, δi is computed
as per Eq. (10) for the ith element along depth Z.
L

∫ 2Ab Emp
P
𝛿i = dZ (10)
Zi

(13) Estimate the vertical displacement, w(Z) at the mid-

height of each element.
Figure 3. Typical profile of a rock-socketed pile in Mumbai region.
L L

∫ ∫
where wn = vertical displacement at the tip of the nth element w(Z) = wn + wi (Z)dZ + 𝛿i (Z)dZ (11)
(m), qp = unit point resistance at the pile base and, D = diameter 0 0
of pile (m) (14) Run iterations till the convergence occurs.
(7) Estimate the tip load, Q corresponding to the element (15) Completion of steps (3) to (13) yields one point of the
n. pile top load-settlement response.
(16) Repeat this procedure for obtaining load-settlement
Q = Ab × qp (MN) (5) response for the desired range of loads.
where Ab = cross-sectional area of pile (m ) 2
Further, the axial load distribution is analysed to separate the
(8) Estimate the limit skin friction, fmax in the pile socket contributions resulting from side shear in the weathered stratum,
using the following relationship (Kulkarni and socket material and the point resistance. The load, Fw resisted by
Dewaikar 2016). the weathered stratum acting on its surface area, Aw is estimated
using the following expression.
(6)
0.5
fmax = 0.2𝜎cm (MPa)
n
∑
(9) Obtain the non-linear hyperbolic t–z curves for shear- Fs = fwi Awi (12)
i=1
ing stress distribution along the element for the socket
material as per O’Neill and Hassan’s (1994) criterion The load, Fs resisted by the socket material acting on its sur-
using the following expression. face area, As is estimated using the following expression.
w(Z) n
fs = (MPa) (7)
∑
2.5D
+ w(Z) Fs = fsi Asi (13)
Em fmax i=1

where fs = unit skin friction in the pile socket and, w(Z) = vertical The percentage load, P shared by the point resistance for the
displacement at depth Z (m) applied test load is computed by the following equation.
Obtain the non-linear hyperbolic t–z curves for
(10)  Q
shearing stress distribution along the element for the
P=
PT
× 100 (14)
weathered stratum as per O’Neill and Hassan’s (1994)
where PT = test load as obtained by proposed analysis (MN).
criterion using the following expression.
The percentage load, S shared by the socket skin friction for
w(Z) the applied test load is computed by the following equation.
fw = 2.5D w(Z)
(MPa) (8)
+ Fs
Em fw max S= × 100 (15)
PT
where fw = unit skin friction in the weathered stratum and,
The percentage load, W shared by the skin friction for the applied
fwmax = limit skin friction in the weathered stratum (MPa), Cole
test load resulting from the weathered stratum is computed by
and Stroud (1977) recommend fwmax to be 0.3 times the shear
the following equation.
strength; as obtained from Figure 2.
Fw
(11) Compute the axial load, P at the mid-height of each W= × 100 (16)
PT
element.
264 R. U. KULKARNI AND D. M. DEWAIKAR

Geology of Mumbai
The geology of the Mumbai region made of the Deccan Trap
formation is primarily composed of basalts. Sethna (1999) clas-
sified the Deccan basaltic flow and associated pyroclastic and
plutonic rocks as Sahyadri Group. The rock type Basalt exists in
two variations; compact and amygdaloidal basalt.
The geology of the Mumbai region is composed of consid-
erable amounts of evolved rock types such as Basalts, Breccias,
Rhyolites, Trachytes and Felsic and basic Tuffs. They are formed
as sub-aerial eruption and are all Basaltic in composition. The
different types of formation processes have led to different types
of rocks. Some rocks are formed from magmatic gases that pro-
Figure 4a.  Comparison between measured (PLT) and predicted using Load
duce gas cavities. This sometimes chemically alters the basalts Transfer (LT) characteristics of load-settlement response for pile diameters 150 and
and the rendered Hydrothermal Alterations (HTA) are poor in 400 mm.
quality. Tachylitic basalts are formed as very fine grained variety,
since their degree of crystallisation is very low and they consist
mostly of basalt glass. Tuff is formed by the process of ejection
of consolidated volcanic ash ejected from vents during the vol-
canic eruption.
A typical profile of Mumbai region is shown in Figure 3. The
thicknesses of the soft marine clay, weathered stratum and the
socket length are indicated as Lc, Lw and Ls, respectively, as shown
in the same figure.

Pile load test database

The load-settlement data of the pile load tests is collected from
Basarkar (2004), and from various pile testing agencies namely, Figure 4b.  Comparison of load-settlement response for pile diameter 400 mm.
M/S. Composites Combine Technocrats Pvt. Ltd., M/S. STUP,
M/S. MMRDA, M/S. Stephon, M/S. SAFE and M/S. Marina Pile
Foundation. In Table 1, second column represents the site loca-
tion, where the pile load tests are conducted. The pile diameter,
σc of rock in socket portion, the concrete grade, σcc of the pile
material and the Rock Quality Designation (RQD) of the rock in
socket portion are reported in the third, fourth, fifth and sixth
columns, respectively.

Load transfer program

A spreadsheet is developed incorporating load transfer method
described previously using iteration method. The program uses
built-in functions of EXCEL. The results obtained are compared
for data-set of sixty cases reported in this paper. The engineer- Figure 4c.  Comparison of load-settlement response for pile diameter 400 mm.
ing properties such as Em and fwmax are back-calculated from
curve-fitting.

Results and discussions

Prediction of load-settlement response
Figure 4(a)–(r) present the load-settlement responses for various
cases, predicted using the proposed method and are compared
with the load-settlement response, obtained from the pile load
tests. The comparisons are grouped under varying pile diame-
ters. The results indicate that, the proposed model is capable of
predicting the general trend of the load-settlement response and
shows a close agreement with the field results. This is achieved
Figure 4d.  Comparison of load-settlement response for pile diameter 500 mm.
by choosing appropriate values of the material parameters such
as fwmax and Ce. The close agreements that are obtained confirm

Figure 4e.  Comparison of load-settlement response for pile diameter 500 mm.
Figure 4f.  Comparison of load-settlement response for pile diameter 500 mm.
Figure 4g.  Comparison of load-settlement response for pile diameter 500 mm.
Figure 4h.  Comparison of load-settlement response for pile diameter 500 mm.
appropriateness of the chosen non-linear transfer function
adopted in the present study. It is evident that, with the selec-
tion of appropriate engineering parameters, the field simulation
is possible.
Table 2 gives a summary of the selected and derived param-
eters. It is seen that, Ce varies in the range of 110 to 350, thereby
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 265
Figure 4i.  Comparison of load-settlement response for pile diameter 600 mm.
Figure 4j.  Comparison of load-settlement response for pile diameter 600 mm.
Figure 4k.  Comparison of load-settlement response for pile diameter 600 mm.
Figure 4l.  Comparison of load-settlement response for pile diameter 600 mm.
indicating that it is in close agreement with the Ce values reported
by Ramamurthy (2010).
Table 2 shows an average Ce value of about 267 for sixty cases
reported in this paper. Hence, in the absence of load-settlement
data, this value is recommended for Mumbai region. It is further
seen that, the average value of Ce proposed in the analysis is
266 R. U. KULKARNI AND D. M. DEWAIKAR
Figure 4m.  Comparison of load-settlement response for pile diameter 600 mm.
Figure 4n.  Comparison of load-settlement response for pile diameters 650, 750
and 800 mm.
Figure 4o.  Comparison of load-settlement response for pile diameter 900 mm.
Figure 4p.  Comparison of load-settlement response for pile diameters 1000, 1100
and 1200 mm.
Figure 4q.  Comparison of load-settlement response for pile diameters 1000, 1100
and 1200 mm.
Figure 4r.  Comparison of load-settlement response for pile diameters 1000, 1100
and 1200 mm.
Figure 5. Comparison of load-settlement response for Case O-Cell-2113-4.
approximately equal to those obtained using Rowe and Armitage
(1987) method.
Validation of fmax and qmax
The parameters, fmax and qmax need proper consideration for an
optimised pile design. The results shown in Figure 4(a)–(r) also
indicate appropriateness of Equations (3) and (6). Existing meth-
ods derive fmax and qmax from the intact rock properties and tend
to deviate from the measured test results. The present analysis
employs rock mass properties in terms of RQD and confirms its
appropriateness.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 267

Table 1. Pile load test data from Mumbai region for pile diameters 400–2000 mm.

Sr. No. Site D (mm) σc (MPa) σcc (MPa) RQD (%) L (m) Lw (m) Ls (m)
1 Tardeo 150 44.2 25 100 10.9 5.5 1.0
2 Ghatkopar 400 9.2 25 0 18.9 2.1 1.2
3 Anik Junction 1200 54.7 40 59 16.6 2.0 7.5
4 Kalina 1000 12.7 25 90 9.1 0.0 2.5
5 Ghatkopar 400 9.2 25 11 14.3 3.0 2.0
6 Ghatkopar 400 9.2 25 8 16.1 1.5 1.5
7 Ghatkopar 400 9.2 25 11 15.2 2.0 3.8
8 Nerul 400 57.1 25 21 10.0 1.5 2.0
9 Nerul 400 57.1 25 35 10.0 1.5 1.6
10 Ghatkopar 400 9.2 25 20 14.0 2.0 2.0
11 Ghatkopar 400 9.2 25 21 14.0 1.5 2.0
12 Ghatkopar 500 14.6 25 21 13.4 1.0 2.0
13 Belapur 500 28.4 25 50 11.0 1.5 0.5
14 Ghatkopar 500 35.62 25 66 14.0 0.0 1.5
15 Ghatkopar 500 9.2 25 11 14.0 2.0 3.2
16 Ghatkopar 500 9.2 25 11 15.3 0.4 5.3
17 Ghatkopar 500 9.2 25 8 15.4 2.0 5.3
18 Gorai 500 11 30 50 9.9 1.0 2.0
19 Gorai 500 16.47 30 30 10.0 3.0 2.0
20 Gorai 500 64.7 30 85 8.6 2.0 1.4
21 Sewri 500 3.7 25 63 16.0 2.0 2.0
22 Sewri 500 3.7 25 63 16.0 6.0 3.9
23 Sewri 500 3.7 25 63 16.0 1.0 3.0
24 Sewri 500 3.68 25 63 16.0 6.0 2.5
25 Versova 570 1.81 25 50 14.2 5.0 5.4
26 Ghatkopar 600 9.2 25 8 15.6 5.0 3.0
27 Ghatkopar 600 9.2 25 8 15.6 5.0 3.0
28 Belapur 600 35.62 25 9 10.8 2.3 1.0
29 Ghatkopar 600 43.7 25 12 15.6 5.0 3.0
30 Ghatkopar 600 9.2 25 20 18.9 3.0 3.2
31 Ghatkopar 600 43.7 25 12 15.7 5.0 3.0
32 Ghatkopar 600 9.2 25 20 15.6 5.0 3.0
33 Ghatkopar 600 8.7 25 15 15.7 5.0 3.0
34 Ghatkopar 600 9.2 25 20 15.6 5.0 3.0
35 Ghatkopar 600 9.2 25 20 15.6 5.0 3.0
36 Ghatkopar 600 9.2 25 9 15.5 5.0 3.0
37 Ghatkopar 600 9.2 25 20 15.6 5.0 3.0
38 Gorai 600 64.7 30 25 10.0 2.0 2.5
39 Bhayander 600 64.6 30 24 13.8 3.0 1.0
40 Sanpada 600 12.3 25 0 9.9 5.0 1.0
41 Uran 650 22.1 35 15 16.0 3.0 4.0
42 Belapur 750 57.1 25 50 11.8 1.5 2.0
43 Belapur 750 28.3509 25 59 11.9 1.5 2.0
44 Cuffe Parade 800 12.7 40 89 18.0 3.0 6.0
45 Charkop 900 14.6 30 66 16.3 3.0 3.0
46 Charkop 900 14.6 30 66 16.3 1.5 3.5
47 Kandivli 900 60.7239 30 52 8.2 2.0 1.8
48 Aarey 900 14.9 35 38 10.2 4.0 3.5
49 Aarey Goregaon 900 42.7 35 43 11.1 0.0 2.3
50 Taloje LR 1000 35.7 35 10 10.4 2.3 3.3
51 JVLR Kanjurmarg 1000 9.2 35 15 14.9 1.0 8.9
52 Chhedanagar 1100 40.8 25 42 14.0 1.0 5.8
53 JVLR Jaicoach 1200 64.7 25 65 7.2 1.0 4.0
54 JVLR Jaicoach 1200 24.7 35 30 19.1 2.8 3.6
55 Thane 1200 39.4 25 34 12.1 0.0 3.0
56 Thane 1200 35.7 25 65 8.5 0.7 0.6
57 Kurla 1200 40.8 35 45 22.6 13.0 1.5
58 JVLR Jaicoach 1200 13.8 45 65 13.2 4.0 6.0
59 Thane 400 11.9 35 45 6.7 1.0 1.5
60 Anushaktinagar 750 35.71 25 25 7.2 1.0 1.2
Ocell 2113-4 Bandra-Worli 2000 65.6 60 100 14.7 3.4 7.7

Axial load distribution stratum. It is further observed that, the percentage of load shared
also depends upon D, Ls and σcm.
The proposed analysis is capable of separating the contributions
From Table 2, it is observed that for the applied test load,
of skin friction from the weathered stratum, socket friction and
the average P is about 13%, the average S is about 67% and the
the point resistance. Table 2 presents the values of Fw, Fs, Q, per-
average W is about 20%. The value of S of 67% reflects the ratio
centage of load shared by the weathered stratum (W), socket
of Ls/D provided as a major contributing factor. This also implies
material, (S) and the point resistance, (P). It is seen that, a large
a significant reserve capacity in the point resistance. There is a
amount of load is shared by the socket friction and the weathered
general apprehension to increase the socket length to ensure that
268 R. U. KULKARNI AND D. M. DEWAIKAR

Table 2. Summary of parameters adopted in the analysis and load shared by each stratum.

Sr. No. fwmax (MPa) Fw (MN) Ce fmax (MPa) Fs (MN) qmax (MPa) Q (MN) Test Load (MN) W (%) S (%) P (%)
1 0.30 0.41 350 0.95 0.41 14.32 0.09 0.89 45.51 44.94 9.54
2 0.12 0.10 350 0.13 0.39 1.95 0.18 0.74 14.70 58.57 26.73
3 0.30 11.94 350 0.65 0.31 9.81 1.06 13.85 2.36 89.70 7.94
4 0.30 2.61 250 0.59 0.00 8.79 0.52 3.43 0.00 83.46 16.54
5 0.12 0.37 250 0.15 0.19 2.29 0.14 0.74 26.95 53.34 19.71
6 0.12 0.43 350 0.15 0.07 2.19 0.20 0.74 9.60 62.11 28.29
7 0.12 0.61 350 0.15 0.06 2.29 0.06 0.74 7.88 83.39 8.74
8 0.18 0.66 110 0.29 0.14 4.39 0.16 1.25 14.35 68.75 16.90
9 0.12 0.57 110 0.36 0.10 5.41 0.12 1.25 12.36 72.38 15.26
10 0.12 0.39 350 0.17 0.09 2.62 0.09 0.74 15.41 68.01 16.58
11 0.12 0.40 350 0.18 0.08 2.66 0.11 0.59 12.87 68.74 18.39
12 0.12 0.65 350 0.22 0.10 3.36 0.24 1.27 10.35 65.55 24.09
13 0.06 0.30 350 0.45 0.04 6.78 0.35 0.96 5.48 43.92 50.60
14 0.06 0.98 110 0.57 0.01 8.61 0.24 1.27 0.60 79.58 19.82
15 0.12 0.78 350 0.15 0.18 2.29 0.29 1.27 14.52 62.08 23.40
16 0.12 1.10 350 0.15 0.03 2.29 0.11 1.27 2.81 88.27 8.92
17 0.06 0.99 350 0.15 0.20 2.19 0.16 1.36 14.84 73.41 11.75
18 0.06 0.76 110 0.30 0.05 4.50 0.18 1.00 4.87 76.77 18.36
19 0.12 0.62 350 0.27 0.05 4.08 0.11 1.00 6.04 79.30 14.66
20 0.30 0.79 110 0.84 0.13 12.54 0.11 1.25 12.76 76.31 10.93
21 0.12 0.73 350 0.21 0.17 3.17 0.42 1.50 12.86 55.35 31.79
22 0.18 0.83 350 0.21 0.24 3.17 0.06 1.21 20.92 73.81 5.27
23 0.12 0.97 300 0.21 0.12 3.17 0.32 1.40 8.57 68.87 22.56
24 0.12 0.66 200 0.21 0.33 3.16 0.12 1.20 29.86 59.59 10.55
25 0.12 1.34 350 0.12 0.55 1.82 0.13 2.21 27.40 66.17 6.43
26 0.12 0.96 350 0.15 0.39 2.19 0.37 1.76 22.76 55.89 21.35
27 0.14 0.83 350 0.15 0.49 2.19 0.37 1.76 29.00 49.08 21.92
28 0.06 0.41 110 0.24 0.10 3.67 0.32 1.02 12.57 49.14 38.29
29 0.12 1.06 220 0.21 0.33 3.09 0.30 1.76 19.47 62.87 17.66
30 0.12 1.03 250 0.17 0.29 2.62 0.37 1.76 17.03 60.95 22.02
31 0.12 1.13 350 0.26 0.15 3.84 0.19 1.76 10.30 76.55 13.15
32 0.06 0.96 350 0.17 0.25 2.62 0.43 1.76 15.44 58.62 25.94
33 0.12 0.86 350 0.16 0.44 2.37 0.30 1.76 27.46 53.76 18.78
34 0.12 0.95 250 0.17 0.42 2.62 0.34 1.76 24.65 55.33 20.02
35 0.06 0.94 250 0.17 0.32 2.62 0.33 1.76 20.26 59.11 20.63
36 0.12 0.82 350 0.15 0.45 2.23 0.31 1.76 28.62 51.92 19.46
37 0.12 0.94 350 0.17 0.44 2.62 0.32 1.76 25.88 55.39 18.73
38 0.12 1.51 110 0.50 0.12 7.50 0.21 1.84 6.46 81.89 11.64
39 0.30 0.58 110 0.34 0.57 5.03 0.47 1.69 35.10 35.90 29.00
40 0.18 0.41 110 0.22 0.80 3.32 0.42 1.96 49.13 25.02 25.85
41 0.12 1.53 110 0.25 0.19 3.77 0.19 1.98 9.84 80.29 9.87
42 0.12 2.61 200 0.68 0.17 10.24 0.96 3.72 4.42 69.83 25.75
43 0.06 1.74 110 0.55 0.08 8.26 0.42 2.23 3.56 77.54 18.89
44 0.30 6.00 350 0.58 0.43 8.66 0.50 7.34 6.18 86.61 7.21
45 0.30 3.28 350 0.44 0.03 6.58 0.18 3.78 0.97 93.86 5.17
46 0.30 3.10 350 0.44 0.18 6.58 0.56 3.78 4.60 80.87 14.53
47 0.12 2.90 350 0.73 0.16 10.88 1.32 4.20 3.69 66.26 30.05
48 0.12 2.02 110 0.29 0.34 4.37 0.35 2.84 12.63 74.57 12.80
49 0.12 2.11 300 0.48 0.02 7.22 0.53 2.84 0.65 79.32 20.03
50 0.12 2.48 250 0.30 0.15 4.45 0.73 3.46 4.47 73.73 21.80
51 0.12 3.21 130 0.16 0.14 2.44 0.24 3.66 3.92 89.43 6.65
52 0.12 5.30 250 0.51 0.05 7.68 0.45 5.64 0.90 91.41 7.69
53 0.12 3.61 150 0.57 0.08 8.48 0.43 4.27 1.82 87.69 10.48
54 0.12 3.23 300 0.33 0.16 4.99 0.78 4.27 3.83 77.55 18.62
55 0.12 3.30 350 0.36 0.03 5.33 1.34 4.99 0.63 70.73 28.64
56 0.30 0.98 350 0.57 0.11 8.48 1.64 2.81 3.86 35.92 60.22
57 0.12 1.95 350 0.50 0.67 7.44 1.09 5.05 18.15 52.55 29.30
58 0.12 5.21 350 0.42 0.20 6.30 0.50 6.91 3.31 88.21 8.48
59 0.12 0.43 110 0.29 0.14 4.34 0.17 0.80 18.95 58.35 22.71
60 0.12 0.87 350 0.31 0.15 4.66 1.42 2.65 6.08 35.85 58.06
Ocell 2113-4 0.30 4.64 150 1.38 66.84 20.66 51.91 130.00 3.76 54.17 42.07

no load or a least amount of load reaches the pile tip. Thus, if
appropriate pile tip cleaning is ensured, pile may be designed to
carry higher load at the base.
Application of the proposed analysis for full-scale load
test
Basarkar (2004) has reported a case study, which is considered
here for validation of the proposed methodology. Loadtest Asia
Pte Ltd conducted a full-scale load test at Rajiv Gandhi (Bandra–
Worli) sea link in Mumbai. Table 1 provides the engineering
properties and strata details. The succession comprises uneven
foundation bedrock of basalt, tuff and breccia which is overlain
by completely weathered rock and river sediments (Ayithi et al.
2013).
The maximum applied load is 132 MN. For pile 2113-4, the
O-cell was installed near pile tip. The mobilised side shear for
the applied load was measured as 1.85 MPa and mobilised point

resistance for the applied load was measured as 16.9 MPa. Table
2 shows a close agreement of the axial load distribution from
proposed analysis with the field full-scale load test. The values
of Q, Fs and Fw as computed by the proposed analysis are 51.9
MN, 66.eight MN and four.6 MN, respectively, and the values of
P, S and W are 42.1, 54.2 and 3.8%, respectively. The mobilised
side shear for the applied load using Equation (6) is estimated
as 1.38 MPa and mobilised point resistance using Equation (3)
for the applied load is measured as 16.522 MPa. The ratios of
predicted to measured value of side shear and point resistance
are 0.944 and 0.74, respectively. This confirms the appropriate-
ness of the proposed relationships for the limit socket friction
and point resistance.
Figure 5 shows a good agreement between the load-set-
tlement response of the predicted and measured results. This
further confirms the appropriateness of O’Neill and Hassan’s
(1994) non-linear hyperbolic criterion. Thus, it is seen that, the
proposed model is capable of predicting the load-settlement
response of rock-socketed piles up to failure.
Conclusions
The following main conclusions are drawn from this study.
(1) The load-settlement response of axially loaded
rock-socketed piles in Mumbai region is predicted with
a reasonable accuracy using load transfer approach.0.5
(2) The empirical equations of fmax = 0.2σcm0.50.2𝜎 cm and
qmax = 3𝜎 cm0.5 are validated for the rock-socketed piles
applicable for the geology of Mumbai region and are
recommended for the prediction of load-settlement
response.
(3) The skin friction from the socket material and the weath-
ered stratum is the major contributing factor in the pile
capacity for most of the cases. The percentage of load
shared depends upon the length of socket, pile diameter
and unconfined compressive strength of the rock mass.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
Ayithi, A., P. J. Bullock, H. S. Khoo, and G. V. Ramana. 2013. “Technical
and Economic Benefits of O-cell Load Testing for Deep Foundations in
India.” In Proceedings of Indian Geotechnical Conference, 1–9. Roorkee.
Baguelin, F. 1982. “Rules for the Structural Design of Foundations Based
on the Self-boring Pressuremeter Test.” Proceedings Symposium on the
Pressuremeter and its Marine Application, IFP, 347–362. Paris.
Basarkar, S. S. 2004. “Analytical and Experimental Studies on Rock-
socketed Piles in Mumbai Region.” PhD thes., Mumbai: IIT-Bombay.
Basarkar, S. S., and D. M. Dewaikar. 2006. “Load Transfer Characteristics
of Rock-socketed Piles in Mumbai Region.” Soils and Foundations 46
(2): 247–257. doi:https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf.46.247.
Butterfield, R., and P. K. Banerjee. 1971. “The Elastic Analysis of
Compressible Piles and Pile Groups.” Geotechnique 21: 43–60.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 269
Carrubba, P. 1997. “Skin Friction on Large-diameter Piles Socketed into
Rock.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal 34: 230–240.
Cole, K.W., and M. A. Stroud. 1977. “Rock Socketed Piles at Coventry
Point, Marketway, Coventry.” Proceedings of Piles in Weak Rock, 47–62.
London: Institution of Civil Engineers.
Coyle, H. M., and L. C. Reese. 1966. “Load Transfer for Axially Loaded
Piles in Clay.” Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Div. 92 (2):
1–26.
Kim, S., S. Jeong, S. Cho, and I. Park. 1999. “Shear Load Transfer
Characteristics of Drilled Shafts in Weathered Rocks.” Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 125 (11): 999–1010.
Kiousis, P. D., and A. S. Elansary. 1987. “Load Settlement Relation for
Axially Loaded Piles.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 113 (6): 655–
661.
Kraft, L. M., R. P. Ray, and T. Kagawa. 1981. “Therotical t–z Curves.” Journal
of Geotechnical Engineering, Division, ASCE 107 (GT11): 1453–1561.
Kulhawy, F. H., and R. E. Goodman. 1987. “Foundations in Rock.” Ground
Engineers Reference Book, edited by F. G. Bell, Chap. 55, 55/1–13.
London: Butterworth.
Kulkarni, R. U., and D. M. Dewaikar. 2016. “An Empirical Approach to
Assess Socket Friction and Point Resistance of Axially Loaded Rock-
socketed Piles of Mumbai Region.” International Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering 1–8, doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2016.1237607
Lee, C. Y., and J. C. Small. 1991. “Finite-Layer Analysis of Axially Loaded
Piles” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 117 (11): 1706–1722.
Mattes, N. S., and H. G. Poulos. 1969. “Settlement of Single Compressible
Pile.” Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division 95 (SM1):
189–207.
Nanda, S., and N. R. Patra. 2014. “Theoretical Load-transfer Curves
along Piles Considering Soil Nonlinearity.” Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering 140 (1): 91–101.
O’Neill, M. W., and K. M. Hassan. 1994. “Drilled Shaft: Effects of
Construction on Performance and Design Criteria.” Proceedings
International Conference on Design and Construction of Deep
Foundations, Washington DC, 137–187.
Pells, P. J. N., and R. M. Turner. 1979. “Elastic Solutions for the Design
and Analysis of Rock-socketed Piles.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal
16: 481–487.
Pells, P. J. N., and R. M. Turner. 1980. “End-bearing on Rock with Particular
Reference to Sandstone.” Proceedings of the International Conference on
Structural Foundations on Rock, Sydney, 181–190.
Poulos, H. G., and E. H. Davis. 1968. “The Settlement Behaviour of Single
Axially Loaded Incompressible Piles and Piers.” Geotechnique 18: 351–
371.
Poulos, H. G. 1979. “Settlement of Single Piles in Nonhomogeneous Soil.”
Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE 105 (GT5): 627–
641.
Rajapakse, R. K. N. D. 1990. “Response of an Axially Loaded Elastic Pile in
a Gibson Soil.” Géotechnique 40 (2): 237–249.
Ramamurthy, T. 2010. Engineering in Rocks for Slopes, Foundations and
Tunnels. 2nd ed. Delhi: PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd.
Randolph, M. F., and C. P. Wroth. 1978. “Analysis of Deformation of
Vertically Loaded Piles.” Joumal of Geotechnical Engineering Division,
ASCE 12: 1465–1488.
Rowe, R. K., and H. H. Armitage. 1987. “A Design Method for Drilled Piers
in Soft Rock.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal 24: 126–142.
Sethna, S. F. 1999. “Geology of Mumbai and Surrounding Areas and its
Position in the Deccan Volcanic Stratigraphy, India.” Journal of the
Geological Society of India 53: 359–365.
Zhang, L. 2004. Drilled Shafts in Rock – Analysis and Design. London: A.A.
Balkema Publishers.
Zhang, L. 2010. “Prediction of End-Bearing Capacity of Rock
Socketed Shafts Considering Rock Quality Designation (RQD).”
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 47 (10): 1071–1084. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1139/T10-016.