PROCEEDINGS, 8TH AUSTRALIA NEW ZEALAND CONFERENCE ON GEOMECHANICS.

HOBART

State of Practice For the D e s i g n

of Socketed P i l e s in Rock

P.J.N. Pells

BSc (Eng), MSc (Eng), DIC, DSc(Eng)

Partner, Pells Sullivan Meynink Pty. Ltd., Australia

Summary Development over the past three decades in design methods for axial and lateral loads on rock

socketed piles are summarised. The key factors which influence design for axial loading are presented and

detailed descriptions are given of three appropriate design methods, together with worked examples. The

implementation of Limit State design concepts for socketed piles is described. The writer concludes that the

method by Rowe and Armitage is currently the most satisfactory design tool, although it is acknowledged that

methods based on fundamental parameters controlling side shear have substantial value in assessing socketed pile

behaviour.

The state of practice in regard to lateral loading of rock sockets is substantially less satisfactory than for axial

loading. Calculation of elastic displacements and rotations can be made using equations developed by Carter and

Kulhawy. However, methods for assessing ultimate strength capacity for lateral loading are poorly developed.

1. INTRODUCTION some pants of the UK. Early work in the bearing

capacity of rock was done by Ladanyi (Ref 8) and

The design of bored piles socketed into rock has Bishnoi (Ref 2), while Gill (Ref 4) produced the

developed from the situation in the late 1960's of first detailed study of the load distribution in a rock

"no satisfactory basis for design" (Tomlinson as socketed pile using linear and non-linear finite

quoted in Gill, 1970) t0 the point that good design element analyses

methods are now available which properly take in

to account the applied mechanics of the problem To a substantial extent workers in Australia at

and the properties of rock masses. Monash University and Sydney University picked

up the baton in the late 1970'$ and undertook

The objectives of this article are to provide an substantial field and laboratory testing and

overview of developments in the past three decades, theoretical studies (Refs 9, 10, 16, 17 and 18). In

to provide a guide to the plethora of publications on Canada, Horvath (Ref 6) undertook similar field

the subject and to set out the design methods which and laboratory testing. Interaction continued with

the writer considers may now be adopted within the north American workers (cg Kulhawy, Ref 7 and

framework of limit state design. Rowe, Ref 12) and culminated in three key

publications, namely:

Structural Foundation on Rock

2. A BRIEF HISTORY OF

DEVELOPMENTS (International Conference held in Sydney

in 1980).

The developments discussed here relate primarily

to the parts of the world which use English as the The Design of Piles Socketed into weak

Rock (National Research Council, Ottawa,

basis of technical communication. This covers

North America, Great Britain, Australasia, much of 1984).

Africa and parts of South America. However, it

Analysis and Design of Drilled Shaft

does not cover most of Europe, the middle East,

Foundations Socketed into Rock (Cornell

China and Japan. The writer admits to ignorance in

University, 1987).
relation to developments and current design

methods used in these "non-English" regions.

It appears to have been in Canada, and patches of

the USA, in the late 1960's and early 1970's that

serious research started which ignited interest in

Australia, South Africa, other parts of the USA and

1-307
PROCEEDINGS, 8TH AUSTRALIA NEW ZEALAND CONFERENCE ON GEOMECHANICS, HO&AT

The writer believes that these three publications If both of these requirements cannot be achieved,

contain all that is required for proper design of rock and confirmed by inspection (Ref 5), then the pile

socketed piles. They contain several different should be designed for side-shear only, This has

design methods but all include the essential imponant implications in regard to the design

features for appropriately including rock mass safety factor because without the "back-up" of end

properties and the applied mechanics of bearing total reliance rests on the side shear

pile/ground interaction. In essence there are three strength.

methods incorporated in these publications,

namely: The second construction issue relates to sidewall

cleanliness and roughness. The design parameters

Elastic design (Pells et al, Ref9, 10) and methods discussed here presume that the

socket sidewalls will be free of crushed and

Side Slip design (Rowe & Armitage, Ref smeared rock. They also presume a knowledge of

12 and Carter and Kulhawy, Ref 3) the sidewall roughness. Ensuring clean sidewalls

of appropriate roughness is not a trivial

Non-Linear design (Williams et al, Ref 17, construction problem. The writer's experience

Seidel & Haberfield, Ref 1 4 ) with Sydney sandstones and shales, and with the

sedimentary foundation rocks of Brisbane's

Since the peak period of the 1980's research and Gateway Bridge, suggests that the easiest way to

field testing work has continued particularly at ensure clean sidewalls is for the socket to be drilled

Monash University (Ref 13 and 14) where a under water. Alternatively the socket hole can be

commercial computer program, ROCKET, has filled with water after drilling and then stirred

been developed which provides a design tool based using the drilling bucket or auger. Another

on analyses incorporating a detailed understanding alternative is to use a special tool fitted with

of the role of sidewall roughness on the sidewall cleaning teeth which is passed up and

performance of socketed piles. down the socket a few times after completion of

drilling. This latter approach has to be used in

rocks which soften or slake significantly when

3. IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS IN exposed to free water.

THE DESIGN PROCESS

Before leaving this topic of construction it must be

There are some simple but key matters which, at noted that a great number of socketed piles are

the outset, must be clearly understood. These fall installed using simple auger drilling equipment and

Into three categories namely. under conditions where there is insufficient

attention given to adequate base or sidewall

I. Construction methodology and quality cleanliness., For such foundations the modern

control. design parameters and methods for socketed piles

are inappropriate and one can simply hope that

2 Knowledge of the rock mass properties. those responsible for such work assume very

conservative allowable loads.

3. Applied mechanics of socket behaviour.

3.2 Knowledge of Rock Mass Parameters

3.1 Construction Methodology and Quality

Control In essence all the modern design methods require

good knowledge of:

The over-riding question is whether the socketed

pile is to be designed for load sharing between side I. The equivalent Young's moduli of the

and base or whether it is to be a side-shear only rock adjacent to the sidewalls and the rock

design. This decision depends entirely on whether beneath the base (E, and E,)

the construction method is to be such that

2. The average unconfined compressive

the base of the socket will be clean; this is strength of the rock adjacent to the

taken to mean less than 10% of the base sidewalls and beneath the base (q, 9a)

area covered by loosened material and

construction debris, and ). The average roughness of the socket

sidewalls.

placement of concrete will be by methods

which ensure high quality concrete at the Assessment of Items l and 2 are a basic part of

base of the pile. rock mechanics and there are good guides in many

texts for measuring and assessing these parameters.

1 - 308
 PROCEEDINGS, 8TH AUSTRALIA NEW ZEALAND CONFERENCE ON GEOMECHANICS, HOBART

The publication by Rowe and Armitage (Ref 12) is allowable end bearing stresses are not additative.

an excellent source of information. For example in a 5m long, 0.6m diameter socket in

good quality sandstone it is probable that > 95% of

There is no universal classification of roughness. the load will be taken by side shear.

A simple classification system for socket sidewalls,

given by Pells, Rowe and Tumer (Ref 10), is The second is that provided sidewall roughness is

reproduced in Table l. It has been found that R2 or better (see Table I) the sidewall stress­

sockets in sandstone need to be R2, or rougher, to displacement behaviour will be non-brittle. Peak

preclude brittle failure of the interface. Sockets of shear strength will be mobilised at a small

R4 roughness may, in principle, be designed for displacement and will then " hang in there" e
(i

higher side shear stresses than those of R2 or R3. plastic behaviour).

Table I. Roughness Classification The third point is that peak side-shear resistance i
s

usually mobilised at much smaller displacements

ROUGHNESS DESCRIPTION than peak end bearing pressures.

CLASS

These three points mean that i

n order to mobilise
RI Straght, smooth sided socket,
significant base resistance it is necessary to invoke
grooves or indentations less than

1.00mm deep sidewall slip. In other words one has to mobilise

full sidewall resistance if one is to make use of the

Grooves of depth I-4mm, width substantial capacity which may be available in end
R2
bearing. In turn this means that all the safety
greater than 2mm. at spacing
margin will be in end bearing.
50mm to 200mm

If there is uncertainty as to the ultimate capacity in

R3 Grooves of depth 4-10mm,
end bearing then mobilization of full side slip is not
width greater than 5mm. at
appropriate.
spacing 50mm to 200mm

In regard to sidewall slip it should be noted that the

R4 Grooves or undulations of depth
progression from first slip, at the location of
> 0mm, width > 10mm at
highest shear stress, to complete slip, takes place
spacing 50mm to 200mm
over a small interval of displacement (Refs 7 and

12). Therefore for most practical purposes it is

Substantial work on the fundamental influence of
appropriate to ignore the small region of load
roughness on socket behaviour has been done at
displacement behaviour representing progressive
Monash University in the past decade. Seidel and
slip and to assume the relationship to be bilinear
Haberfield (Refs 13 and 14) have developed a
(see Figure D)
roughness model based on the mean asperity angle

and the scale (chord length) at which the mean

angle is measured. Their research has shown that,

4. DESIGN PARAMETERS
at a given displacement, the shear resistance is

controlled by the angles of asperities with chord

4.1 Sidewall Shear Resistance
lengths of twice this displacement. Thus if one

wishes to compute the likely shear resistance at a

Two paths have been taken in regard to the
displacement of 10mm the key parameter is the
development of sidewall shear strength parameters.
average angle of asperities with a chord length of

about 20mm
By far the most commonly used approach is the

development of empirical relationships between

3.3 Applied Mechanics of Socket Behaviour
sidewall shear strength (r, %) and the rock

substance unconfined compressive strength (q,),

There are three very important matters of which
see Williams & Pells (Ref 18), Horvath (Ref 6) and
engineers need to be aware when designing
Rowe & Armitage (Ref 12). The relationship is
sockets.
simply:

The first is that load will be shared between the

................................... (1)
sidewall and base according to the relative

stiffnesses of pile, sidewall rock and toe rock. It i

s

Figure 2 gives the results of field and laboratory

simply not tenable to arbitrarily ascribe certain

tests on mudstones and sandstones as evaluated by

portions of load carrying capacity to the sidewalls

Williams & Pells (Ref 18). These data were

and the base in accordance with notional allowable

included in a comprehensive review by Rowe &

values. In other words allowable side shear and

1 - 309
PROCEEDINGS. 8TH AUSTRALIA NEW ZEALAND CONFERENCE ON GEOMECHANICS, HOBART

ELASTIC BASE,
FULL SLIP
SIDEWALL 'ave peak = 0.6J¾ (MPa) (4)

..
It should be noted that the above equations do not
COMPLETE represent lower bounds to all data points but are
ALL
1~cKET
ELASTIC close to the best fit equations and represent

correlation coefficients of greater than 80%.

\ FULL SLIP
One of the problems with putting test data from all

over the world in one basket is that there is a large

scatter; geological differences and differences in

construction methodology are lost. For example

PROGRESSIVE SLIP
Figure 3 shows the relationship between ,% and

q, for sockets in the Hawkesbury Sandstone of the

Sydney region. It can be seen that for sockets of

SIDEWALL ONLY
roughness R2 or better, a 2 0.2. This means that

=r r
,
for

20
typical

MPa

= 4000 kPa.
fresh

the
sandstone

peak side
with

shear

Equation 3 gives a value of 2000 kPa

q, (saturated) of

resistance is

and Equation 4 gives 2700 kPa. Therefore, the

writer strongly recommends that, when available,

site or geology specific data be used for assessing

Displacement

Figure E : Simplified Load - Displacement Curves

0
09 Legend
0
0 2 --
o Mudstone
0 0
08
x Shale

07 • Sandstone
6 •
06 Line of Best Fit
-
2
c
05
P • 0 01i

e
04
2
t
2
-
03
0

•
or
0 2
0

0
0l 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 1 20 30 40 5060

Unconfined Congessivs Strength (Pe.

0
10 0O

Unconfined Compressive Strength MPa Figure 3: Side Shear Reduction Factor for

Hawkesbury Sandstone

Figure 2: Side Shear Reduction Factor (Williams

Williams & Pells (Ref 18) noted that the stiffness
& Pells, Ref 18)
of the surrounding rock mass affects the side shear

resistance and proposed a modification to Equation

Armitage (Ref 12) and they proposed two
I to include a reduction factor for the influence of
relationships for a, namely:
rock mass stiffness. Hence:

Sockets of roughness < R3:

ea0pq,.....a.ooo.a..........(5)

where
'ave pea = 045,[,, 0Ma)....(3)

g= modulus reduction factor which

Sockets of roughness R,
can be estimated from Figure 4.

1-310
 PROCEEDINGS, 8TH AUSTRALIA NEW 2ZEALAND CONFERENCE ON GEOMECHANICS, HOBART

designer to have a good feel for the relative

importance of the parameters.

0·8

To assess these matters the writer has used

ROCKET to predict load-displacement curves for

< 06
� three of the side shear only tests conducted in

9 Hawkesbury sandstone for the work reported in

u
« Reference 10, The details of the test sockets are
� 04
given in Table 2. The first time predicted and

measured side shear stress versus displacement

curves are given in Figures 5, 6 and 7. The

02
predictions range from being very good to poor.

0
0 02 0·4 0·6 0·8 l·O

Best Fit
Emass/ E intact
O
Measured

0
\ ...
I
Figure 4· Reduction Factor for Rock Mass
& 0s

Stiffness • Fiest Orf Prediction

•
s 0·6

The second path which is being taken comes out of

work at Monash University, Melbourne. Seidel

0

'
c
l
/
and Haberfield (Refs 13 and 14) consider that e• 04
/
0 SOCKET 83
. /
sidewall shear stress versus displacement behaviour
• / (Side Shear only)
should be computed from fundamental parameters, 8 0·2
·7
these being:
•
>
:/
<T

0
I. Initial normal stress. 0 5 0 5 20 25 30
2. Intact rock strength (expressed as cohesion,
Settlement mm

c , a n d friction, d, of the rock substance at

the appropriate stress level).

Figure 5: Comparison of measurement and
3. Residual friction angle of the rock.
ROCKET predictions, Socket B3, 0.32m diameter
4. Diameter of the pile (which influences the

effective boundary normal stiffness).

5 Rock mass modulus and Poisson's ratio (also

influence the normal stiffness).

6. Socket roughness (including effects of smear

and drilling fluid). 2·0

Fist Orf Prediction

They point out that of these six factors (which 75

involve 8 parameters), the initial normal stress and c

the

They
rock mass

argue
Poisson's

that working
ratio play

with
a minor

fundamental
role.
a
2
5

�
­
parameters

factors

ambiguities
allows

controlling

in the
due cognisance

sidewall

grey area
to

behaviour,

between
be taken

weak
avoids
of

rock
%
•
•
•

%
25

1·0
T
­ Measured

and strong soil (Ref 13), removes uncertainties in £

I
0075
the empirical correlations (Equations I to 4) and
d I
should result in cheaper designs.
£ % . I SOCKET A3
g
q I (Side Shear oiy )
As pointed out by Seidel and Haberfield (Ref 13)
025 I
their analytical model, which incorporates the six

factors listed above, is of such complexity that

0
manual solution is precluded and use has to be
0 5 I0 I5 20 25 30 35 40
made of their program ROCKET. It is at this point
Settlement mm
that the writer feels some disquiet. Firstly one has

to have a sound knowledge of the 8 input

parameters. Secondly it is necessary for the

Figure 6: Comparison of measurement and

ROCKET prediction, Socket A3, 0.32m diameter

1-311
 PROCEEDINGS, 8TH AUSTRALIA NEW ZEALAND CONFERENCE ON GEOMECHANICS, HOBART

Table 2

Parameters in Predictions Using ROCKET

PARAMETER TEST SOCKET

A3 B3 D2

FIRST-OFF BEST FIT FIRST-OFF BEST FIT FIRST-OFF BEST FIT

E, (MPa) 360 360 350 900 400 1300

o, 0. 2 0.2 0.2 0. 2 0. 2 0. 2
c, (Pa) 1300 1300 1300 1300 1300 1300

¢, 42° 42° 42° 45° 42° 40°

, 32° 32° 32° 32° 32° 32°

Segment Length - mix 25 25 25 25 75 30

Segment Height -mm 4.5 4. 5 1.5 135 6.0 L.6

Length-m 0. 4 0.4 0.52 0.52 0.9

0. 9
Dameter-m 0 31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.71 0.71

on quite substantial knowledge of the Hawkesbury

Sandstone and actual measured roughnesses. Of

particular concern is that very different Young

modulus values had to be used even though all

three sockets were in the same rock mass. The

rO

parameters used for the first pass predictions are

compared with the 'best fit' parameters in Table 3.

8
08
2 Measured

g
It is clear from the Users Manual for ROCKET.
•
$

0
06 \ and the relevant papers (eg

the program has been

Refs

primarily
13 and

calibrated
14), that

for

5 . . . . i
Melbourne Mudstone. Seeing as the writer had
q

� 04 Best Fit mixed success with the program in predicting

�

--- --
socket side shear behaviour in Hawkesbury
•
�
.' ­ Sandstone, a material whose engineering properties
9
02
9
«T
- First-Ort
\ are reasonably well quantified, it would seem that

.. ,,.,. significant development work is required before

0 designers will be confident of the appropriate 8

0 2 4 6 8 I
O
parameters to use for rocks other than those similar

Settlement mm to the Melbourne mudstone, This is in no way

intended t
o denigrate the value of the Seidel­

Haberfield approach, it simply means that, in the

writer's opinion, it is o
to soon to categorise the

Figure 7: Comparison of measurement and ROCKET approach as a geographically broad

ROCKET predictions, Socket D2, 0. 7 1 m diameter based State of Practice.

Seidel and Haberfield (Ref 14) suggest that 4.2 End Bearing

roughness is a critical factor with which designers

have most difficulty. However, the writer had Detailed discussions of the bearing capacity of rock

good data in this regard, although it did take a are given in References 2, 3, 8, 1H and 19. It has

while to come to grips with the fact that to obtain been shown that:

an accurate computation of the shear strength

mobilised at a particular displacement one has to L. For intact rock the ultimate bearing

use the asperity height for a chord length of twice capacity is many times greater than the

the displacement. In further exploring the unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of

predictions given in Figures 5 to 7 it transpired that the rock (see Tables 3 and 4 for example

the computed shear stress-displacement curves of theoretical calculations and field

were sensitive to the rock mass modulus, The measurements).

combination of parameters which gave the best

predictions were in some cases significantly

different from those the writer first adopted based

1 - 3 1 2
 PROCEEDINGS, 8TH AUSTRALIA NEW ZEALAND CONFERENCE ON GEOMECHANICS, HOBART

Table 3 Theoretical Bearing

settlement
s -
apaci of Rock
C ty
N, . tan 45+6/,

b,= residual friction angle

Method
Bearing Capacity as m
Poissons Ratio
M u lt iple of U nc o nfined

Compression Strength
4. Ultimate bearing capacities for intact and
b.=40° b =45°
jointed rock are attained at large

Ladanyi expanding
11 1 3 displacements, typically > 5% of the

sphere
footing diameter (ie > S0mm for a Im

M odifi ed B e ll
9 12 diameter pile).

(brittle)

Classical plasticitv 34
56 s The load-deflection behaviour of a jointed

rock mass is nearly linear up to pressures

Table 4. Measured Bearing Capacities­ at which significant cracking propagates

Model and Field Tests through inter-joint blocks. Based on the

work of Bishnoi (Refs 2 and see Reference

Material Test Type Substance Bearing 7) such cracking may be expected at

Unconfined Capacity between about 75% and 125% of the UCS .

Strength as Multiple

(UCs) of UCS
The above points mean that for socket design in
1MP

many rock masses the base behaviour can be

Sandstone ( ) Laboratory 20-33 II modelled as linearly elastic up to Serviceability

...... (vet3e).. Limits.

Sandstone.(2) .Laboratory > 10
.
. ... 193

Limestone 75 7toll
.... .Laboratory. .......... . ..........
Class 2 Field 14 5. 5
5. DESIGN SAFETY FACTORS- LIMIT
!takesbur,_
STATE DESIGN
Class 4 Fveld 6 21025
Hawkesbury
............

Melbourne Field 3 6 (brittle To date most design methods for rock sockets have
Mudstone failures) been based on working loads coupled with
(Surface) .......... ...... ..... . ... .... conventional geotechnical engineering safety
Melbourne Field 1 >125
factors. Thus, for example, Williams & Pells (Ref
Mudstone (work
(D>3 18) propose a working load Safety Factor of2.5 for
hardening)

side shear only sockets.

2 The load-displacement behaviour for a

Unfortunately geotechnical engineers are being

massive (intact) rock is nearly inear up to

dragged, kicking and screaming, into the structural

bearing pres sures of between 2 and 4 engineer's world of Limit State Design. The

mes the UCS. current Australian Piling Code (AS2159-1995)is a

Limit State document and therefore, reluctantly, the

3 The ultimate bearing capacity of a jointed writer accepts that socket design must follow the

rock mass beneath the toe of a socketed same path. An interpretation of what this means is

as follows.
pile can be approximated by Ladanyi's

spherical expansion theory which is:

5.1 Loads and Load Combinations

According to A S 1 1 7 0 . 1 - 1 9 8 9 (Australian Loading

Code) there are 6 basic combinations (plus 3

optional extras) of dead load, live load, wind load

and earthquake load which have to be considered

for assessment of the strength limit state. There are

a further 5 different combinations for assuming

where
short term serviceability limit states and a further 3

for long term serviceability limit states. In the

writer's opinion this is a rather ridiculous state of

affairs when it comes to foundation design but one

with which we are stuck. In practice it is the

q = bearing pressure

writer's experience that the following combinations

0, unconfined compressive strength
often govem designs of socketed piles.
E equivalent Young's Modulus

B diameter of the footing

1-313
PROCEEDINGS, 8TH AUSTRALIA NEW ZEALAND CONFERENCE ON GEOMECHANICS, HOBART

lateral movements. For some unknown reason this

Strength Limit Stat¢
Load (S) = 1.25G + 150.......a............(6) limit state is not given a sub and superscripted

Load ( S ' ) = 1 . 25G +W, +.0... ... .. .. . .. ... . ( 7 ) symbol).

5.2.1 Strength
Long Term Serviceability
Load = G + ,Q............000.........(8)

The design geotechnical strength R, is simply a

where
factored down version of the calculated ultimate
G dead load
geotechnical strength, ie:
Q = live load

W , = wind load

• 0. 4 (except for storage facilities

where , = 0 . 6 )

The design requirement is R,>S.

Earth pressure and liquid loads are considered as

Various values of ¢, are given in Table 4.1 of
dead loads (part of G) for long term serviceability.
A S 21 5 9 but none cover the methods used for
For strength limit state, earth pressures are
calculating the ultimate capacity of rock sockets.
equivalent to live loads and liquid loads are
In the writer's opinion the following values are
equivalent to dead loads.
appropriate for calculations of complete sockets

(side shear and end bearing) using any of the

Note that in the jargon of Limit State design, the
methods given in Section 6 of this Paper.
writer should have used the term 'Design Action

Effect' rather than 'Load' in Equations 5 t o 7 . This

(i) Geological environments
obfuscation is unnecessary.
where there are substantial

field testing data (in Australia

5.2 Strength and Serv iceability
this would at least include

Melbourne mudstone and

According to AS2159.1995 (Piling Code) the key
Hawkesbury sandstone) d, =0.75
definitions are:

(ii) Geological environments

Ultimate Strength
similar to (i) but where no

specific field testing data are

The limit state at which static equilibrium
available ¢, =0.65
ts lost or at which there is failure o
f the

supporting ground or structural elements.

(iii) Geological environments not

covered by the world wide

This covers four calculated values,
data base on side shear and
namely:
end bearing properties , =0.5

R Design geotechnical
8
For side shear only sockets the recommended
strength of pile
values for the categories listed above are:

R, Ultimate geotechnical
() • 0.6
strength of pile
(ii) 0.5

(ii) 0.35
Design structural

strength of pile
The above recommendations presume that

construction quality control of appropriate sidewall

R. Ultimate structural
and base cleanliness is assured. If this is not the
strength of pile
case then the Designer should be very conservative

and it is not appropriate to give prescriptive design

Serviceability
criteria.

The limit state at which deformation o

f the
Calculation of R, is discussed in Section 6.
piles will cause loss o
f serviceability o
f the

structure

(In ordinary English this means the pile loading

which is constrained by allowable settlements, or

1-314
 PROCEEDINGS, 8TH AUSTRALIA NEW ZEALAND CONFERENCE ON GEOMECHANICS, HOBART

5.2.2 Serviceability gives the settlement influence factor for the

equation:

Deflection limits (settlements and lateral

movements) are constraints imposed by the

structure and have to be provided by the Structural ov =lI6, (9)

E,D
Engineer. In the absence of specific requirements

it is usually reasonable to design for settlements, at

pile head. of between 5m and 15mm. where

6, • vertical settlements at top of

Interestingly AS2159 provides for no "safety socket

factor" in design for serviceability. In fact Clause E, rock mass modulus

4 . 4. 4 states "calculations o
f settlement, differential P, = total load on pile

a
settlement shall be carried out using I, dimensionless settlement

geotechnical parameters which are appropriately influence factor

selected and t
o which no reduction factor i
s

1
00
applied" Apart from this clause being primarily a

motherhood' statement, the writer considers that it

90

_oo
is wrong. This is because, as is discussed in

Section 6. socket design is often govemed by

\ \ Line for worked

80
serviceability. Yet no allowance is made for the

substantial uncertainty in assessing ground

70
deformation parameters.
\
60
It is recommended that modulus reduction factor \
should be applied for calculations relating to long Pb e, 50

term serviceability. Suggested values are: p+

\ [es/s, =+]

40 \
(a) Mean in situ deformation

properties assessed from

30
\
pressuremeter testing or

other large scale in situ

20
\
measurements 0. 7 5 Ep/E+
d%.
\
I
O

(b) Mean in situ deformation

propertes assessed by 0

correlation with rock

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0
mechanics mndices such
L/D
as RQD or RMR a
0.5
h%,
Figure 8: Elastic Load Distribution

Figures 8 and 9 are for a rock mass of uniform

6. DESIGN METHODS modulus. Similar charts are available for cases

where the rock mass beneath the pile toe has a

As set out in Section 2, the writer considers that different modulus to that around the pile shaft.

there are three design methods which may be used Such solutions are included in the solutions for

with confidence, These are summarised in the sidewall slip given in Section 6.2. Charts are also

following sub-sections. Particular attention is available for a socket recessed below the rock

given to Method 2 (Rowe and Armitage, Ref 12) surface (Ref 12)

because it is considered that this method allows the

designer to fully appreciate the applied mechanics The elastic procedure requires the designer to

of the design process, the relative importance of firstly assess:

geometric and gcotechnical parameters and to

produce an efficient, cost effective design. • the strength limit state loads (S) as per

equations 6 and 7 (or others in AS 1170.1)

6.1 Elastie Design

• the long term serviceability load as per

The elastic design method requires the use of the equation 8 (or others in AS 1170.1)

charts given in Figures 8 and 9. Figure 8 shows the

proportion of load taken on the base (P,) of the

• serviceability settlement Limit

socket as a function of geometry and the ratio of

socket stiffness to rock mass stiffness. Figure 9

1-315
•

PROCEEDINGS, 8TH AUSTRALIA NEW ZEALAND CONFERENCE ON GEOMECHANICS, HOBART

09
• the ultimate side shear stress (%e %a) as

per equation 5
08 . P I ,
o, --­
the end bearing stress up to which end Er D
•
0·7
bearing behaviour is effectively linearly
Y p =+ 015
elastic (q.)
0·6
V e = 030

• the ultimate end bearing stress (qsad

15 05

Ee/Er
• the effective Young's modulus of the pile
04
base (E,) and of the surrounding rock (E,)

The procedure is then as follows:

02
1 Select a pile diameter (D).

2 Using the strength limit state load (S)

calculate the length of pile required if all

f)
the load were taken in side shear(L,~).
D 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1I0

L/o
3. Calculate L~,ID and then draw a straight
Figure 9: Elastic Settlement Influence Factors
line on Figure 8 from P,/P, = 100% to the

point L,ID; this straight line represents

6. Check that under serviceability the socket
all pile lengths which satisfy t,ca. The
base load is less than the limit of linear
dotted line on Figure 8 gives this solution
elastic behaviour.
for

7. Calculate the ultimate geotechnical

s = 18000 kN
strength (R,) using the ultimate side shear
1000 kPa
and ultimate end bearing stresses. For the
0.75m
example presented here q, a = 50 MPa,

therefore R, = 38 MN.
4 The intersection of the straight line from

Step 3 with the relevant curve of E,/E,

•
giwes a design solution. This step should 8. Check that R, = ( Rag) is greater

use the assessed mean rock mass modulus.

than S. In the example, as in many cases,
For the example shown in Figure 8 the
this is easily achieved.
design socket has L/D = 9.2 ie L = 6.9m,

and only7% of the applied load would be

The above process can be repeated for different
taken on the base.
diameters quite rapidly allowing selection of an

appropriate socket diameter.

5 Figure 9 is then used to check the

serviceability limit state by reading the

6.2 Design for Side Slip
settlement influence factor (l) and

calculating the predicted settlement using:

Rowe and Armitage (Ref 12)

• mass modulus E, multiplied by an The substantial capacity which is typically

appropriate reduction factor b,, and available in end bearing cannot be mobilised unless

sidewall slip is invoked. The method of Rowe and

• the long term serviceability load. Armitage (Ref 12), which is the culmination of

work first presented by Rowe and Pells (Ref 9),

For the example provides a chart-based method explicitly allowing

1, + 91, E , = 3500, 4, = 0.75 for non-brittle sidewall slip.

3? e·3¥
The design procedure is quite similar to the elastic
s.. o j6 ;1..
method described in Section 6 . L . The procedure is
3500 X 0.75 x 0.75
described in some detail in Ref 12 and for case of

presentation here use is made of the same example

presented for the elastic design method in Section

6.1.

1-316
 PROCEEDINGS, 8TH AUSTRALIA NEW ZEALAND CONFERENCE ON GEOMECHANICS, HOBART

It can be seen that in the above example the design

The required parameters are the same as for the solution has been constrained by the linearity limit

elastic design method. In the example these are: for end bearing and not by either the ultimate limit

state or the serviceability limit state. The design

• s 18000 kN could be pushed into the area of non-linear base

response but the writer believes this to be unwise

• Serviceability load = 13000 kN
unless there are very good reasons to do so (eg like
• Serviceability settlement = 8mm
site specific test data and major economic benefits).
• e pea
1000 kPa

• he
15 MPa
In the example the side slip design gave a socket
• at = 50MPa
length of 4.7m compared with 6.9m for the more
• E, 35000 MPa
conservative elastic design, This is a worthwhile
• E, = 3500 MPa
saving for a trivial extra design effort.

The Rowe and Armitage charts, all of which are

Carter and Kulhawy (Ref 3]
reproduced at the end of this paper allow for

differences between rock mass stiffness below the

The Rowe & Armitage method is based on the
socket base and around the sidewall. For this
assumption of elasto-plastic side shear behaviour.
example it is assumed thatE, = E,
The parameter 1,e ea (equation 5) is taken as

including effects of adhesion, friction and interface

The x and y axes of the charts are the same as the
dilatancy. Slip initiates once this shear stress is
chart for elastic design, Therefore once one has
attained at any point down the socket. In effect
selected the appropriate chart (in this case Figure
sees is equivalent to a purely cohesive interface.
A$/the same straight line can be drawn for a

selected socket diameter (in this case 0.75m) as for

Field tests on side shear only sockets indicate that
the elastic procedure. This is shown as a dotted
the purely cohesive (elasto-plastic) assumption is
line in Figure A,82All points along this line satisfy
safe provided the sidewall roughness is R, or better
the limit imposed by t,ea 1000 kPa
(ie brittle shear-displacement behaviour does not

occur). However, as discussed in Section 4.I, real

The next step is to determine the maximum base
sidewall behaviour is a complex function of
load at the limit of linearly elastic behaviour. In
interface stiffness, adhesion, friction and dilatancy.
this case:

Carter and Kulhawy (Ref 3) provided approximate

, _. x 0 7 5 , 1 0 0 0 (but accurate) generalised analytical equations for

load-displacement behaviour of complete, and side

- 66o~'av shear only sockets, under axial compression and

uplift for sideshear being a function of cohesion

Therefore the maximum value of P/P, = 0.37 (c), friction (¢) and interface dilatancy (). Their

(where P, = ultimate load, S), This provides a calculations cover elastic behaviour and full slip,

horizontal line on the Chart (see dashed line in the small region of progressive slip is not modelled.

Figure A6). The intersection of the two lines

provides a design solution with The equations for a complete socket with c, ¢ and

LID = 6 . 3 ( L = 47m) and for which the settlement parameters are quite complex but could be easily

influence factor is about 0

1. .g dealt with using a program such as MATHCAD

However, the writer is of the opinion that if a

Therefore under serviceability load the predicted designer wishes to invoke fundamental side shear
settlement is (from Equation 9). parameters he or she would be better off using the

program ROCKET.
13000 0.g 43
5, = 0l e= m m
' 3500 0 7 5 x 0 7 5 For the simplifying assumption of elasto-plastic

behaviour, as made by Rowe and Armitage, the

equations are as follows:

Checking for the ultimate geotechnical strength is

the same as for the elastic method and is now:

1x0.752
Ra =rx0.75x4.7x10 + x 50.0
4
= 33MN
R; = 0.65x33 = 21MN

1 - 3 1 7
PROCEEDINGS, 8TH AUSTRALIA NEW ZEALAND CONFERENCE ON GEOMECHANICS, HOBART

Elastic Phase equations is that one does not have to have access

to all the charts. They also allow consideration of

properties outside the range covered by the charts.

However, in the writer's opinion the major

4 M i
{ . )( " )("""'"-') l ,(to)y disadvantage is the loss of the simple graphical
« - v , - v . p o ut
analysis procedure outlined above which allows the
[,D ( ol ) 4oLUolo(.,L)
[ .
l+% ipDL designer to readily appreciate the relative influence

of geometrical and gcotechnical parameters on the

design

where
The application of the Carter & Kulhawy equations
L
6, settlement at top of socket
to a design example is presented in Section 6.3.
P,
- load on socket
However, before leaving, it is worth drawing the
E rock modulus around shaft
'
- readers attention to the fact that equation 13 is the
Poisson's ratio around shaft
v,
- same equation as used for drawing the straight line
, e
Poisson's ratio of rock
on the design charts for the elastic and Rowe &
beneath base
Armitage design methods.
D • diameter of socket

L length of socket
6.3 Non-Linear Analysis
2E.(1+v,)
}
- E, Following extensive field testing as part of Adrian

Williams' doctoral thesis, workers at Monash

E, modulus of rock beneath base
University developed an empirical design method
E ¢
modulus of concrete shaft
me which included the non-linear behaviour of a
k, G,/G, (ratio of shear moduli of
complete rock socket (Ref 17). Te method could,
sidewall and base rock) may
in principle, be used for any geological
be taken as = E/E,
environment but required good field test data to

provide the empirical parameters. It became quite

k,
[{«-»] widely used

other areas,
in Melbourne mudstone, and n
i some

The method was a little laborious and

it is understood (Seidel, personal communications)

that the advent of the computer program ROCKET

k
has largely lead to the demise of the Williams'
D k,3
method.

As already discussed in Section 4.1, ROCKET

ulL Ship Phase models non-linear sidewall shear behaviour. This

is coupled with an assumption of linear load­

displacement behaviour of the base in order to

C ["•
. g t IL1,.,.,..,i] •D(l•v:)[ Pt Lt,.opu\l fit

Ee +pl D f «pt D predict load displacement behaviour of a complete

socket.

Equations are also available for calculating the

As set out in Ref 14 (Part 3) ROCKET essentially

proportion of load reaching the base of the pile.

addresses vertical slip displacements between

These are:

concrete shaft and rock. To calculate total

displacements of a complete socket additional

Elastic Phase
calculations are made of:

P» DL
-" = ] ; 0 2 • vertical elastic deformation of the rock
P cosh(Ly k2DL + k 1 ( I - v)rL tanh(L)

mass, and

• elastic shortening of the shaft.

FulL Ship Phase

The writer, as with all other users, has no

P, DLr,a.so
knowledge of the inner workings of ROCKET. I
- • )-----'="' (!))
P, P, is a reasonably user-friendly program which

clearly, in principle, allows a designer to explore

the sensitivity of a design to the 8 input parameters

The above equations give good agreement with the
which affect sidewall behaviour. However, a
Rowe & Armitage charts which were based on
proper parametric study of 8 parameters is not a
finite clement analyses. The advantage of the
trivial undertaking. In this regard the full explicit

1-318
 PROCEEDINGS, 8TH AUSTRALIA NEW ZEALAND CONFERENCE ON GEOMECHANICS, HOBART

equations of Carter and Kulhawy (Ref 3) for

sidewall behaviour as a function of c, b and are The computed ultimate capacity using the hand

attractive. With MATHCAD, or similar software, a method is = 120 MN. It was found to be difficult

user can vary rapidly conduct a complete to compute the ultimate capacity using ROCKET

sensitivity analysis. because the program truncates computations at a

displacement of half the chord length specified for

As an assessment of ROCKET, and the other roughness. The asperity height can be factored by

design methods discussed in Section 6.I and 6.2

2 6 /3 tor doubling and quadrupling the
the writer has reviewed the design of a recently
chord lengths but the rogram
p does not accept
completed socket for a 22500 KN working load
chord lengths > 10% of the socket diameter.
column in the Sydney CBD. The geotechnical
However, using the computed side shear stresses
model for the socket is g iven in F igure JO. A 1.3 m
the ultimate capacity was estimated as > 130 MN.
diameter socket was adopted for structural reasons

and was constructed with a length of 2.4m.

This example showed that in analysing an existing

socketed pile the different methods, which

incorporate side slip, ga ve similar results.

Basement However, the writer has found that for design work
Floor
the chart based system of Rowe and Armitage is

Sandstooe,Class III quicker and gives a better "feel" for the problem
UCS= 2 MPa
l than the numerical methods.
a . . Ee1200MP
. . . .

Sandstone, Closs II
7. DESIGN FOR LATERAL LOADS

UCS = 1 8 MP

E z 2000 MPo
Design methods for lateral loading are not nearly as
2 m-
. {soc@Ef sis£] well researched and established as for axial

compression and tension. Solutions developed for

. . .

laterally loaded piles in soil do not cover relatively

/sandstone, Closs IE
re . . . . .
short sockets in stiff rock.
UCS < 2 M P o , E = 300MP0

4m-
Class II , a s above Carter and Kulhawy (Ref 3) present finite element

and approximate closed form elastic solutions for

IO mm .. . ..
Class I , as above
lateral movements and pile head rotations. Two

situations are considered as shown in Figure 1H

The closed form solutions for no overlying soil are

6m- Sandstone, Class II
as follows.
UCS = 14 MPa

£ � 1600MPa

A A
M M
. ..

0_-e / .- ,

- p

..
Figure 10: Profile for Sydney CBD Building
', . 0

..
Rock Soil

The socket was

using the Rowe and Armitage method.

originally designed for side

The elastic
slip L

Fe
, '

method would have required a socket length of

"%
6

4.8m (ie double the actual design). For the

4 '
"
•
4/A
purposes of this paper settlements were calculated
,
«
K
using the different methods outlined above, with
Lo,
the following results:
' A

Rock
•
Rowe and Armitage 6mm

Carter and Kulhawy 6mm b

ROCKET 8mm to 10mm,

depending on roughness

characterisation

Figure H: Geometric Conditions for Elastic

From the practical viewpoint the above answers are
Solutions by Carter and Kulhawy (Ref 3)
essentially the same.

1-319
I

PROCEEDINGS, 8TH AUSTRALIA NEW ZEALAND CONFERENCE ON GEOMECHANICS. HOBART

Flexible Pile

For the second situation shown in Figure ll an

assumption is made about the distribution of soil

reactions on the shaft. The problem is then

decomposed into two parts with the shaft in the soil

analysed as a determinant beam with known

0=
yg"" 7 • +
sag(gy""
• 57 .(15) •
loading. The horizontal

rock head can then be calculated.

forces and moments

Equations 14 to
at

G ' D' G G' D G

1 7 c a n then be invoked.

Rigid Piles
As an alternative to the above approach Wyllie

(Ref 19) recommends using computer programs

, =ow,gag" GB D
+
gg"
•
G'D' D
(16)
based on

method
the

are
p-y method.

discussed by
The

Carter
limitations

& Kulhawy
of this

(Ref

3)

= OJPL ('L)-0875+ 0.8M ( 2L ) - 1 66 7

The only project on which the writer has worked
8 + ..(17)
GD D G'D' D which has required serious consideration of lateral

loading was the Sydney Monorail. This was

where: analysed using linearly elastic finite element

methods which are effectively encapsulated in the

P, lateral load equations of Carter and Kulhawy.

M moment at head of pile

L length

D diameter 8. CONCLUSIONS

G G,(1+0.75,)

shear modulus of rock mass I. The design parameters for rock socketed

piles depend substantially on construction

E,/2(-,)
techniques and quality, particularly in
64(EI),
E regard to sidewall cleanliness and
'
nD roughness, and base cleanliness.

(ED, bonding rigidity of shaft

2 Well established design methods exist for

The conditions for which equations 14 to 17 are rock sockets loaded axially in compression

valid are shown in Figure 12. For intermediate but these methods can only be applied

stiffness shafts Carter and Kulhawy show, from with confidence where sockets are

finite element analyses, that displacements may be constructed with appropriate roughness

taken as 1 . 2 5 times the maximum of: and cleanliness

• the values from equations 14 and 15 with 3. Sockets should be designed using a Limit

E/G as for the actual shaft, or State approach.

• the values from equation 16 and 17 with 4 The substantial capacity normally

LID as for the actual shaft. available in base resistance can usually

only be mobilised by invoking sidewall

0
slip but sidewall roughness of R, or better
u/D+005/Ee/G
should be available to ensure non-brittle

o°
Rigid sidewall behaviour.

( E4 1 6 € 1 7 ) l
5. The elastic design method is conservative
Se 10o°

Er and should be adopted if sidewall slip is

not to be mobilised.

10?

Flexible
6. The method of Rowe & Armitage (Ref 12)

Io \10 • ( Ee/G,.) o-2es

is recommended for design of sockets with

sidewall slip.

7. Fundamental parameters controlling side

0 2 4 6 8 I
o 2
shear behaviour may be used in design via

L/D programs such as ROCKET provided the

Figure 12: Criteria for Equation Selection designer has good knowledge of the

1 - 320
 PROCEEDINGS, 8TH AUSTRALIA NEW ZEALAND CONFERENCE ON GEOMECHANIS, HOBART

parameters and the sensitivity of the design behaviour. Int. Conf. Structural

to uncertainties in these parameters. Foundations on Rock, Sydney, Balkema.

10. Pells, P.J.N., Rowe, R.K. and Turner,

8. Additional research work is required to R.M. (1980). An Experimental

provide design guidelines in relation to Investigation into Side Shear for Socketed

lateral loads on rock sockets. Elastic Piles in Sandstone. Int. Conf. Structural

displacements and rotations can be Foundations on Rock, Sydney, Balkema.

calculated using equations developed by 1L. Pelis, P.J.N. and Turner, R.M. (1980) End

Carter and Kulhawy but at this time there bearing on Rock with Particular Reference

is little basis for rational assessment of to Sandstone. Int. Conf. Structural

ultimate capacity. Foundations on Rock, Sydney, Balkema.

12. Rowe, R.K . and Armitage, H.H. (1984).

The Design of Piles Socketed Into Weak

9. REFERENCES Rock, Geotechnical Research Report

GEDT-11-84, University of Western

I. American Society of Civil Engineers Ontario.

(1996). Rock Foundations. Technical 13. Seidel, JP. and Haberfield, C.M. (1995).

Engineering and Design Guides As The Axial Capacity of Pile Sockets in

Adapted from US. Corps of Engineers No Rocks and Hard Soils. Ground

I6, ASCE Press, New York. Engineering, March 1995.

2 Bishnoi, B.L. (1968). Bearing Capacity of 14. Seidel, J and Haberfield, C.M. (in Press).

Closely Jointed Rock. PhD Thesis The Shear Behaviour of Concrete - Soft

Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Rock Joints. Part E: Experimental

3. Carter, JP. and Kulhawy, F.H. (1987). Investigations; Part 2: Theoretical

Analysis and Design of Drilled Shaft Analysis; Part 3: Performance of Drilled

Foundations Socketed into Rock. Report Shafts. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical

1493.4 for Electric Power Research Engineering.

Institute, Palo Alto, California 15. Webb, D.L. and Davies, P. (1980).

4. Gill, S.A. (1970). Load Transfer Ultimate Tensile Loads of Bored Piles

Mechanism for Caissons Socketed into Socketed into Sandstone Rock. Inst. Conf

Rock. PhD Thesis, Northwestern of Structural Foundations on rock, Sydney,

University. Balkema.

5. Holden, J.C. (1984) Construction of 16 Willams, A.F. (1980). The Design and

Bored Piles in Weathered Rocks. Road Performance of Piles Socketed into Weak

Construction Authority of Victoria, Rock. PhD Thesis, Monash university.

Technical Report No 69. 17 Williams, A.F, Johnston, I.W. and Donald,

6. Horvath, R. G. (1982). Behaviour of Rock­ 1.8. ( 1980). The Design of Socketed Piles

Socketed Drilled Pier Foundations. PhD in Weak Rock. Int. Conf. Structural

Thesis, University of Toronto. Foundations on Rock, Sydney Balkema.

7. Kulhawy, F and Carter, JP. (1988). 18. Williams, A.F and Pells, P.J.N. (1981)

Design of Drilled Shaft Foundations. Side Resistance Rock Sockets in

Univ. Sydney, Short Course Lecture Sandstone, Mudstone and Shale. Canadian

Notes, Sydney. Geotechnical Journal, Vol 18, p 502-513.

8. Ladanyi, B. and Roy, A. (1972). Some I9. Wyllie, D.C. (1992). Foundations on

Aspects of Bearing Capacity of Rock Rock. Spon.

Masses. Proe. 7th Canadian Symposium

on Rock Mechanics, Edmonton.

9. Rowe, R.K. and Pells, PJN. (1980). A

theoretical study of pile-rock socket

1-321
 PROCEEDINGS. 8TH AUSTRALIA NEW ZEALAND CONFERENCE ON GEOMECHANICS, HOBART

1
0o 'we,1o

we·o
90
90
+. {%

80 po
80
·
70

60

3%
p
+ 1
' 50

fut

40

'"" u

'
·to
' ,

30 •
0.9
•
08

20
W'
;,: '
el4ti '
' 0
Io ' '
'

0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0
;
%
o ;3 ±
%
b

Figure A I C E / E , = I) Figure A3 (E/E,= 1)

0o 6%, + + o
,.

f%, + «0 ¢
e, 1

80+
1
4

40

' ' '

1 J
3 4 7 8 9 0

Figure A2 (EWE, = 1) Figure A4 (E/E,= 1)

REPRODUCTION OF ROWE AND ARMITAGE CHARTS

1-322
 PROCEEDINGS, 8TH AUSTRALIA NEW ZEALAND CONFERENCE ON GEOMECHANICS, HOBART

eon

,·1o
we·o
, · 00 0 90
90

5
'

70

I
O

0
2 8 9 0

Figure A5(E/E, = 1I) Figure A7 (E/E, = 0.5)

00
/E,·IO

€%/£,· 250 f

90
50

I
C

Figure A6 (E/E,= 1) Figure A8 (E/E, = 0.5)

REPRODUCTION OF ROWE AND ARMITAGE CHARTS

1 - 323
PROCEEDINGS, 8TH AUSTRALIA NEW ZEALAND CONFERENCE ON GEOMECHANICS. HOBART

90

'

"

Figure A5(E/E, = I) Figure A7 (E,/E, = 0.5)

1
00
0o
,/E,· 1o

&/E,· 25o I

90 50

40 j

'
3

.3o

Jo

IO

;;
±
;;;;u
o; 0
2 4 7 6 9 0

Figure A6 (E/E, = 1) Figure A8 (E/E, = 0.5)

REPRODUCTION OF ROWE AND ARMITAGE CHARTS

1 - 324
 PROCEEDINGS, 8TH AUSTRALIA NEW ZEALAND CONFERENCE ON GEOMECHANICS, HOBART

1
0o

90 90

80

70

I
o
o

;
±
o;
}
d'
$ ±
o;
d
3
%
¢
k
% 0

Figure A9 (E/E, = 0.5) Figure A I 1 (E/E, = 0.5)

00 ,,os

} o

90 90

80 80

70 70

60

%
' 50

40

30 30 »
et
i

20 20
"'
,,

ts'

I
o 0

0 0
7
2 2 3
• 8 9 0

+'

Figure A I O (E/E, = 0.5) Figure A I 2 (E/E, = 2)

REPRODUCTION OF ROWE AND ARMITAGE CHARTS

1-325
PROCEEDINGS, 8TH AUSTRALIA NEW ZEALAND CONFERENCE ON GEOMECHANICS, HOBART

I00

90
5 , + o

eo
80

70

60
P.
%
"

50
%4 a .,

' ,
,
",,
40
I
• I,
,,
\
j
JO
'

\\,
�
,
0
20 '
7 8 9 IO '

Figure A 1I 3 (EWE,= 2)

,·+
Figure A I S (E/E, = 2)

1
eoo

90
j

40 j

'
cone,

1
20

'

+l 20

•
•
:t Io
2 4 7 s %

Figure A I 4 (E,/E, = 2) Figure A16 (E/E, = 2)

REPRODUCTION OF ROWE AND ARMITAGE CHARTS

 PROCEEDINGS, 8TH AUSTRALIA NEW ZEALAND CONFERENCE ON GE0MECHANICS, HOBART

I
0o

90

I
o

Figure A I 7 (E/E, = 2) Figure A I 9 (EWE, = 5)

I.
0o ·so

" · o o

90

80

70

t, + 0

60

%
'
o

40

30

20

Figure A I 8 (E/E, = 5)

REPRODUCTION OF ROWE AND ARMITAGE CHARTS

1-327