Indian Geotech J (January–March 2012) 42(1):49–55

DOI 10.1007/s40098-012-0003-9

ORIGINAL PAPER

Influence of Rock Socketing on the Lateral Response of Single Pile

S. Karthigeyan • K. Rajagopal

Received: 30 July 2009 / Accepted: 4 March 2012 / Published online: 5 April 2012
Ó Indian Geotechnical Society 2012

Abstract This paper examines the influence of rock Es Young’s modulus of soil
socket lengths on the lateral response of piles embedded in Gs Shear modulus of soil
homogeneous sandy soil overlying rock. A 3-D finite ele- Er Young’s modulus of rock
ment based numerical analysis has been used to investigate EpI p Flexural rigidity of the pile
the performance of piles due to socketing into the rock. PH Lateral load
Parametric studies have been carried out for understanding Hs Sandy soil length
the behaviour of piles in a continuum consisting of a sandy H0 Rock socket length
soil layer overlying a rock mass layer. The numerical H0/B Normalized rock socket length
results are discussed in terms of the lateral load–deflection K0 Coefficient of earth pressure in at rest condition
relationships and bending moments along the length of the L Pile length in soil
pile with reference to pile head fixity conditions and rock LP Total length of pile
socket lengths, which are of prime interest to designers. M Bending moment
The limiting rock socket lengths for achieving the maxi- ux Lateral deflection of pile
mum beneficial effect is found to be equal to the width of lp Poisson’s ratio of pile
the pile for both free and fixed head piles. ls Poisson’s ratio of soil
lr Poisson’s ratio of rock
Keywords Pile foundation  Finite element method  / Angle of internal friction
Numerical analysis  Lateral load  Lateral deflections  w Dilation angle
Bending moments

List of Symbols Introduction

B Pile width
c Cohesive strength of soil The pile foundations are usually socketed into rock layer
cr Compressive strength of rock for increasing their resistance against large lateral loads.
Ep Young’s modulus of pile Example situations include pile foundations for high-rise
buildings, long-span bridges, transmission line towers and
retaining walls. Accordingly, the socketing length is rec-
S. Karthigeyan (&) ommended to be one to four times the pile diameter
Geotechnical Engineering Group, CSIR – Central Building
Research Institute, Roorkee 247 667, India
depending on the rock quality at the site [8]. However,
e-mail: mahamaha2001@yahoo.com when the end bearing is in hard rock formations, drilling
the large diameter holes for such long lengths may involve
K. Rajagopal considerable time and expenses. It is noted from the earlier
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology,
Madras, Chennai 600 036, India
literature [5] that the design criteria for rock-socketed piles
e-mail: gopalkr@iitm.ac.in to resist lateral loads are mainly governed by the lateral

123
50
deflection rather than the ultimate lateral load capacity of
pile. The response of such piles socketed to optimum
lengths in rock is of interest to design engineers; the
quantities such as the maximum lateral deflection and the
bending moment along the pile section are of interest to the
designer. Hence, it is imperative for studying the influence
of rock socketing on the response of piles to lateral loads in
detail to come out with suitable recommendations for faster
and economical pile installation in rock.
The behaviour of piles under lateral loads in a homo-
geneous soil continuum itself is a complex soil-structure
interaction phenomenon by virtue of asymmetric loading.
In general, the methods of analysis commonly used in
predicting the behaviour of piles under lateral load could be
categorized into: (i) limit state method [3]; (ii) subgrade
reaction method [12]; and (iii) elastic continuum approach
[2, 11, 14, 21].
The response of piles under lateral loads in layered soils
further gets complicated due to socketing of piles into the
rock mass layer. The literature available in this field is very
scanty. A few researchers [1, 6] reported that in practice it
has been customary to use the techniques developed for
laterally loaded piles in homogeneous soil [12] and [3] to
solve the problem of rock-socketed shafts under lateral
loads also. Although, these were published many years ago,
these methodologies are still popular among design engi-
neers due to the complexity involved in analyzing the rock
socketed piles under lateral load. However, the response of
piles socketed into the rock is different from the pile
embedded in homogeneous soil because of the difference
in the possible failure mechanisms. Reese [16] developed a
p–y curve method of analysis for single pile in a weak rock
subjected to lateral load considering the non-linearity of the
rock surrounding the pile by assuming a series of soil/rock
springs along the length of the pile. However, the p–y curve
method uses empirically computed spring constants, which
are not reliable material properties and also ignores the
interaction between pile-rock/soil-rock as well as rock–
rock contacts in soil and rock continua. Only a few
investigators [5, 22] have proposed methods of analyses
and design of laterally loaded rock-socketed shafts treating
the rock layer as an elastic continuum. However, these
analyses are based on simplified two-dimensional models.
The behaviour of piles under lateral load in homogeneous
soils itself is a three-dimensional phenomenon and the
behaviour of soils under this loading condition is elastic–
plastic in nature. Only a few investigators [4, 9–11, 18, 19]
have attempted to study the behaviour of piles in homo-
geneous soils using 3-D models and behaviour of soils
were considered as elastic–plastic in their analyses.
In view of the above, a comprehensive 3-D finite ele-
ment based numerical model studies have been taken up to
investigate the influence of rock socketing on the response
123
S. Karthigeyan, K. Rajagopal
of single pile under lateral loads. The response of a single
pile under lateral loads in layered soil has been studied by
varying the different parameters such as the height of rock
socket (H0) and pile head fixity conditions, free and fixed
head. The details of the numerical model, its verification
against published works and the results with respect to key
parameters are discussed in the following sections.
Numerical Model
In the present analysis, an in-house developed Geotechni-
cal 3-D Finite Element analysis program (GEOFEM3D by
Rajagopal [15]) was used to analyze the performance of
single pile due to socketing into rock and their influence on
the response of the pile by varying the socket lengths. The
program is supported by a pre-processor to develop 3-D
meshes consisting of 8- or 20-node isoparametric brick
elements, 8 or 16-node zero thickness interface elements as
well as a post-processing facility that is capable of plotting
the original mesh, deformed mesh, extracting nodal dis-
placements and element stresses along a line/selected plane
etc.
Finite Element Mesh Details
The schematic definition of the problem of single pile
socketed into rock is shown in Fig. 1. A typical 3-D finite
element mesh used for analyzing the problem is shown in
Fig. 2. The interface between the pile and the soil/rock has
been modelled using 16-node joint elements of zero
thickness. The nodes on the four vertical side faces of the
mesh boundaries were allowed to move in the respective
normal directions. The nodes at the bottom surface were
restrained in all the three directions representing rough,
rigid surface. The finite element mesh was discretised
finely around the pile to account for the steep stress gra-
dients near the pile–soil/rock interface. All the numerical
computations were performed using reduced numerical
integration.
PH
Homogeneous Pile
Hs B
Sandy soil
LP
Ho - Rock Ho Foundation Rock
socket length
Fig. 1 Schematic definition of rock socketed pile under lateral load
Influence of Rock Socketing
Loading direction
Pile
z
Z
L+20B
x
X Analysis Scheme
y
Y The finite element analyses were performed in two stages.
L = Pile length
40B B = Pile width
20B
Fig. 2 Schematic of 3-D finite element mesh
Pile–Soil/Rock Details
The pile was assumed to be made of M25 grade concrete
and modeled as linear elastic material in the analysis. The
lengths of square concrete piles embedded in soils were
taken as 6.0 m overlying the rock mass. The width of the
pile was taken as 1 m. The thickness of the soil strata
assumed in the analysis corresponds to the situations
encountered at several sites in the Delhi metro project.
Both free head and fixed head conditions were considered
at the pile head. The fixed head piles will not rotate at the
pile head because of the stiff pile cap. The same was
simulated in the analysis by enforcing equal vertical
deformation of all the nodes at the pile head while they
move freely in the lateral direction. On the other hand, the
nodes on the free head pile were left free to move in the
vertical direction so that the pile head can undergo rota-
tional deformations under the lateral loads.
The elastic–plastic stress–strain behaviour of the soil
and rock has been idealized using the Drucker–Prager
constitutive model with non-associated flow rule. This
model has been preferred in view of its adaptability to
define the failure criterion using the conventional shear
strength properties of the soil (c, /). Similar model has
successfully been used in the past for analysis of pile
foundations by Yang and Jeremic [21], Wang and Sitar
[20]. The yield surface for this model has the form
pffiffiffiffiffiffi
F ¼ aJ1 þ J2d  k, in which J1 is the first invariant of the
stress tensor, J2d is the second invariant of the deviatoric
stress tensor and a, k are the material constants related to
the angle of internal friction (/) and the cohesive strength
of the materials (c).
During the plastic flow, the constitutive matrix was first
formed based on the current tangent modulus and Poisson’s
51
ratio for elastic state and then a correction was applied to
obtain the elastic–plastic constitutive matrix. The stresses
are corrected back to the yield surface along the flow
direction (normal to the potential surface defined by the
dilation angle ‘w’) as described by Nayak and Zienkiewicz
[13]. The resulting plastic volumetric strains are more
realistic than those computed using the associated flow
rules (/ = w).
In the first stage, the in situ stresses were initialized in the
soil and rock by performing a dummy analysis using a
modified Poison’s ratio (l0 ) expressed in terms of the at rest
earth pressure coefficient K0 as l0 = K0/(1 ? K0). The
value of K0 it self was obtained as K0 = 1 - sin/. During
this stage of analysis, both the pile, soil and rock elements
were assigned the same material properties (Young’s
modulus, Poisson’s ratio and unit weight) so as not to
generate any extraneous shear stresses. At the end of this
stage of analysis, all the deformations and strains were set
to zero to define the datum level for further analysis.
During the second stage of analysis, the actual proper-
ties of the soil, rock and the pile elements were assigned to
them. The set of pile, soil and rock properties considered in
the analyses are summarized in Table 1.
The shear strength of the interfaces was defined with
zero cohesive strength and 2/3rd the friction angle of the
surrounding soil or rock surface. The normal and shear
stiffness of the interface elements were initially set to
106 kN/m2/m. These values were decided after performing
several analyses with different interface stiffness values.
After the shear failure of the interface, the shear stiffness
was set to 0.1 % of the initial value to permit the relative
slip between different materials. The normal stiffness of the
interface was set to 0.1 % of the initial value when tensile
normal stresses develop in order to permit the separation
between the pile and the soil.
The external loads were applied in small increments
with several iterations at each load step to satisfy the
equilibrium of the system. The iterations were continued at
each load step until the norms of out-of-balance force and
the incremental displacements were \0.5 % or until 50
iterations are completed. The analyses were performed
using partial Newton–Raphson scheme by updating the
stiffness matrix only at the first iteration of each load step.
Validation of the Numerical Model
The validity of the numerical model employed in the
program was verified by predicting the pile load test data
reported by Suresh [17].
123
52 S. Karthigeyan, K. Rajagopal

Table 1 The set of pile, soil and rock properties considered in analyses
Pile details Soil and rock details
Sand Foundation rock

Size ‘B’: 1,000 9 1,000 mm Angle of internal / = 40°

Length ‘LP’: 6 m in soil ? 0 to 3B depth in rock Friction (/) = 30° w = 0°
Type of pile: Concrete Dilation angle (w) = 0° Er = 50,000 MPa
Grade of concrete: M25 Young’s modulus lr = 0.24
Young’s modulus Ep: 25,000 MPa (Es) = 20 MPa cr = 5,000 kPa
Poisson’s ratio lp: 0.15 Poisson’s ratio (ls) = 0.30

Fig. 3 Comparison of predicted 30

load–deflection response with m
field test data 0.0
25 φ = 33˚
γ = 19.5 kN/m3
E = 45 MPa
lateral load on pile (kN)

Medium
μ = 0.31
20 sand

4.0
c = 28 kPa
15 γ = 18.0 kN/m3
Silty clay E = 15 MPa
μ = 0.31
5.9
10 φ = 42˚
Weathered γ = 21.0 kN/m3
coral rock E = 150 MPa
Test pile (Suresh 1989) μ = 0.25
5
Present FEM analysis 6.5
Soil properties
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
lateral deflection (mm)

Suresh [17] reported the response of 6.5 m long, 0.3 m
diameter precast driven concrete pile under lateral loads.
The subsoil at the site consists of upper 4 m medium sand
followed by the middle 1.9 m silty clay and the bottom
layer was made up weathered coral rock. 3-D finite element
analyses have been performed using the modelled geome-
try and material properties follow closely the same as that
of [17]. In the analysis, the behaviour of pile was idealized
as linear elastic material and the elastic–plastic stress–
strain behaviour of soils and rock has been idealized using
the Drucker–Prager constitutive model with non-associated
flow rules. The pile, soil and rock were modeled using
20-node brick elements and the interface between them
using 16-node joint element with zero thickness. Using
symmetry, only half of the pile was considered in the
analysis. The same sequence of load application followed
in the field test was used in the present finite element
analysis. The comparison between the present predictions
with measured results is shown in Fig. 3. It could be
observed that the comparison is very good both at small
and higher load levels. The percentage difference is less
than 10 % at all load levels which are within the limits or
error in the material properties.
Parametric Studies
A series of 3-D finite element analyses have been carried
out on rock-socketed single pile under pure lateral loads.
The analyses were performed mainly to investigate the
influence of rock socket length (HB0) on the response of
piles under pure lateral loads. Figure 1 shows the sche-
matic definition of the problem considered for the analysis.
The pile has been assumed to pass through a homogeneous
sandy soil layer followed by a rock layer. The properties of
the rock shown in Table 1 correspond to an RQD value
[75 % [7]. The following parameters have been consid-
ered in this study: (i) rock socket length (H0) and (ii) pile
head fixity. The results obtained from numerical analyses
have been discussed in details in the following section.
Influence of Rock Socketing
Series of numerical analyses have been performed for piles
embedded in rock layer to varying H0 from zero (pile just
resting on rock) to three times the width (B) of the pile.
Figures 4 and 5 show the lateral load–deflection curves of
both the free and fixed head piles with respect to various

123
Influence of Rock Socketing 53

0.06 0.06

Normalized lateral load (P H/GsB2)

Normalized lateral load (P H/GsB2)

0.05 0.05

Free Head Pile 0.04

0.04
Ho/B = 3.0
0.03
0.03 Ho/B = 2.0
Ho/B = 1.2
0.02
0.02 Ho/B = 0.8
Fixed head - 0.5%B
Ho/B = 0.5 Fixed head - 1%B
0.01
0.01 Ho/B = 0.25 Free head - 0.5%B
Free head - 1%B
Ho/B = 0.0 0.00
0.00 0 1 2 3 4
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 Rock socket length (H o/B)
Normalized lateral deflection (u xGsL4/BEpIp)
Fig. 6 Influence of rock socket length on the lateral load capacity of
Fig. 4 Normalized lateral load versus deflection for free head piles piles
with rock socketing
head cases have been assessed for specific lateral deflection
levels of 5 and 10 mm. Figure 6 shows the lateral load
0.06
capacities of both the free and fixed head piles at deflection
levels of 0.5 and 1 % of the width of the pile (5 and
Normalized lateral load (P H/GsB2)

0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.00 0.01
Normalized lateral deflection (u xGsL4/BEpIp)
Fig. 5 Normalized lateral load versus deflection for fixed head piles
with rock socketing
normalized rock socket lengths (H0/B). It can be seen from
the figure that the lateral pile head deflections for a specific
lateral loading decreases with the increase in rock socket
length. Also, for a specified lateral deflection, piles sock-
eted into the rock layer carry greater lateral loads when
compared to the same piles embedded in homogeneous
sandy soils or resting in rock layer i.e. without socketing in
rock (H0/B = 0.0). Similar trends have been observed for
both the free and fixed head pile cases. However, it may be
noted that the lateral deflections at the same lateral load
levels are much lower for fixed head piles as compared to
free head piles.
For quantifying the influence of rock socket length, the
lateral load capacities of piles for both the free and fixed
10 mm). It can be seen from the figure that the lateral load
capacity for both the free and fixed head pile cases are
Fixed head pile
increasing with increase in socket length up to a certain
Ho/B = 3.0 limiting length and beyond which no significant improve-
Ho/B = 2.0 ment occurs. This limiting socket length is observed to be
Ho/B = 1.2 almost 1.0 B for both the free and fixed head pile
Ho/B = 0.8 conditions.
Ho/B = 0.5 This phenomenon has been further examined through
Ho/B = 0.25 the lateral deflections corresponding to maximum applied
Ho/B = 0.0
loads of both the free and fixed head pile conditions as
illustrated in Fig. 7. The maximum lateral deflection of a
0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 free head pile under 450 kN load has reduced from 60 to
23 mm by socketing the pile for a length of about 0.8 B.
There is no further reduction in deflection with the addi-
tional length of pile socketing into the rock layer. Simi-
larly, in the case of fixed head pile, there is hardly any
reduction in lateral deflections beyond a socket length of
0.5 B.
The bending moments developed in the pile section have
been estimated by using the well known flexural equation.
Figures 8 and 9 show the variation of bending moment
along the length of the free and fixed head piles. It can be
noted from Fig. 8 that the bending moments are almost the
same in the top 4 m for the piles with free head. Beyond
this depth, the bending moments are higher for piles with
shorter socket lengths. This is mainly attributed to the
interaction between the pile section and the relatively
stiffer rock layer. Bending moments in the pile section are
more or less the same for pile socket length beyond 2 B.
The depths of maximum bending moment were observed to
be at points nearer to the soil-rock interface, which is

123
54 S. Karthigeyan, K. Rajagopal

Normalized lateral deflection (u xGsL4/BEpIp)

0.35 Normalized bending moment (M/G sB3)
Free head pile -0.12 -0.10 -0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0.00 0.02
0.30
Fixed head pile 0.0
Fixed head pile
0.25
Ho/B = 0.0
0.3

Normalized pile length (Z/L)

Ho/B = 0.25
0.20
Ho/B = 0.5
0.5 Ho/B = 0.8
0.15
Ho/B = 1.2
0.8 Ho/B = 2.0
0.10
Ho/B = 3.0

0.05 1.0

0.00
1.3
0 1 2 3 4
Rock socket length (H o/B)
1.5

Fig. 7 Influence of rock socket length on the deflections at maximum Fig. 9 Bending moment distribution along the length of fixed head
lateral loads pile

The lateral deflections of rock socketed piles decrease

Normalized bending moment (M/G sB3) with increase in rock socket lengths only up to a certain
0.05 0.00 -0.05 -0.10 -0.15 -0.20 -0.25 limit of socketing. Beyond this depth of socketing, there is
0.0 no further improvement in the pile response. These limiting
Free head pile
depths of socket lengths are 0.8 B for free head piles and
Ho/B = 0.0
0.3 0.5 B for fixed head piles from maximum deflection point
Ho/B = 0.25
Normalized pile length (Z/L)

of view. These limiting lengths are almost 1.0 B for both

Ho/B = 0.5
0.5 the free and fixed head pile conditions from lateral load
Ho/B = 0.8
Ho/B = 1.2
capacity point of view.
0.8 Ho/B = 2.0
The results from these analyses clearly illustrate that the
Ho/B = 3.0 piles need not be socketed to a length of 3 B in hard rock.
1.0
Even a small length of socketing of around 0.5–1.0 B is
sufficient to cater for the lateral loads and deflections.
The influence of rock-socket lengths on the bending
1.3
moments of piles is significant both for free and fixed head
piles. The depth of maximum bending moment of piles
1.5
from the pile heads were moving closer to bed rock layer
Fig. 8 Bending moment distribution along the length of free head and this indicate the higher restraint offered by rock against
pile lateral load.

around 5.6 to 6.2 m from the pile head. Similar trends were
also observed from Fig. 9 for fixed head piles with refer-
References
ence to various socket lengths. Besides, two points of
contraflexure were observed in the case of fixed head pile, 1. Amir JM (1986) Piling in rock. Balkema, Rotterdam
which is mainly attributed to the pile head fixity conditions 2. Banerjee PK, Davis TG (1978) The behaviour of axially and
both at the top as well as at the bottom of the pile. laterally loaded single piles embedded in non-homogeneous soils.
Geotechnique 28(3):309–326
3. Broms B (1964) Lateral resistance of piles in cohesionless soil.
J Soil Mech Found Div 90(3):123–156
Conclusions 4. Brown DA, Shie CF (1991) Some numerical experiments with a
three-dimensional finite element model of a laterally loaded pile.
This paper has presented some numerical results from 3-D Comp Geotech 12:149–162
5. Carter JP, Kulhawy FH (1992) Analysis of laterally loaded shafts
finite element analysis of single laterally loaded pile in rock. J Geotech Eng 118(6):839–855
socketed into the rock. The following conclusions are 6. Gabr MA (1993) Discussion on analysis of laterally loaded shafts
drawn from the results obtained. in rock. J Geotech Eng 119(12):2015–2018

123
Influence of Rock Socketing
7. Goodman RE (1989) Introduction to rock mechanics, 2nd edn.
Wiley, New York
8. IS: 14593 (1998) Indian standard code of practice on design and
construction of bored cast-in situ piles founded on rocks-guide-
lines. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India
9. Karthigeyan S, Ramakrishna VVGST, Rajagopal K (2006)
Influence of vertical load on the lateral response of piles in sand.
Comput Geotech l33(2):121–131
10. Karthigeyan S, Ramakrishna VVGST, Rajagopal K (2007)
Numerical investigation of the effect of vertical load on the lat-
eral response of piles. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 133(5):512–521
11. Kimura M, Adachi T, Kamei H and Zhang F (1995) 3-D finite
element analyses of the ultimate behaviour of laterally loaded
cast-in-place concrete piles. In: Pande GN, Pietruszczak S (eds)
Proceedings of 5th international symposium on numerical.
Models in geomechanics, NUMOG V.A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam,
pp 589–594
12. Matlock H, Reese LC (1960) Generalized solutions for laterally
loaded piles. J Soil Mech Found Div 86(5):63–91
13. Nayak GC, Zienkiewicz OC (1972) Elasto-plastic stress analysis,
generalization for various constitutive relations including strain
softening. Int J Numer Methods Eng 5:113–135
14. Poulos HG (1971) Behaviour of laterally loaded piles: I-single
piles. J Soil Mech Found Div 97(5):711–731
55
15. Rajagopal K (1998) Users Manual for the finite element program
GEOFEM-3D. Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute
of Technology Madras, Chennai
16. Reese LC (1997) Analysis of laterally loaded piles in weak rock.
J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 123(11):1010–1017
17. Suresh PK (1989) Analysis of piles subjected to lateral load. A
thesis submitted for the award of MS degree, Indian Institute of
Technology, Madras
18. Trochanis AM, Bielak J, Christiano P (1991) Three-dimensional
nonlinear study of piles. J Geotech Eng 117(3):429–447
19. Wakai A, Gose S, Ugai K (1999) 3-D elasto-plastic finite element
analyses of pile foundations subjected to lateral loading. J Soils
Found 39(1):97–111
20. Wang G, Sitar N (2004) Numerical analysis of piles in elasto-
plastic soils under axial loading. In: Proceedings of the 17th
ASCE Engineering Mechanics Conference, University of Dela-
ware, Newark, pp 1–8
21. Yang Z, Jeremic B (2005) Study of soil layering effects on lateral
loading behaviour of piles. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 131(6):
762–770
22. Zhang L, Helmut E, Herbert HE (2000) Nonlinear analysis of
laterally loaded rock-socketed shafts. J Geotech Eng 126(11):
955–968
123