FOUNDATIONS ON SHALE AND SANDSTONE Pells, Douglas, Rodway, Thorne =r'McMa/Lon
Design Loadings for Foundations on Shale and Sandstone in the
Sydney Region
P.J.N. Pells, D.J. Douglas, F.|.E. Aust., B. Rodway, M.|.E. Aust., C. Thorne, F.|.E. Aust., and
B.K. McMahon, M.l.E. Aust.*
SUMARY This paper considers the design of vertically loaded, isolated foundations located on or socketed
into the sandstones and shales of the Sydney Basin. Inclined loading and loading near the edge of an
excavation are not considered. A classification scheme for the shales and sandstones is proposed coupled
with suggested allowable values for end bearing pressure and socket shear stress.
These recommended
pressures and shear stresses are based on limiting displacements to 1% of the socket or footing diameter.
INTRODUCTION
In May 1976 a sub-committee of the Sydney
Geomechanics group was formed to review the situation regarding the design of foundations on the
Sydney shales and sandstones. It was decided to
limit the investigation to the bearing capacity and
deformations of vertically loaded, isolated foundations that are located on, or socketed into level
strata; interaction effects and the problems
associated with founding near the edge of an existing or proposed excavation were thus specifically
excluded. This work was prompted by various criticisms of the existing New South Wales Ordinance
which applies throughout New South Wales with the
exception of a few remote areas.
endeavour to conform to them unless therejare
special reasons which justify departures.H
Specific criticisms of the Ordinance include:
(3)
It does not acknowledge the dependenceof
foundation behaviour on footing widthi
(b)
The descriptive terms for the different rock
the Ordinance have been successfully carried, both
(C)
by the Sydney rocks and also by similar or poorer
quality rocks elsewhere.
This paper gives the results of the investigation
and traces the sequence of study as follows:
Existing legal requirements and design
(i)
methods
(ii) Theoretical studies and laboratory data
related to the bearing capacity of rock
(iii) Field tests on individual foundations on
rock.
Based on these studies the paper culminates with
guidelines for those designers, who, in accordance
with the "letout" clause in the existing
Ordinance, wish to design for higher foundation
pressures, where these can be justified following
an appropriate site investigation.
2
EXISTING LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AND DESIGN
METHODS
2.1
Ordinance Regulations
The legal document relevant to foundation loadings
is Ordinance No.70 Building, a Local Government
ordinance which came into force in July 1974 and
*
Mr.Pells is a Lecturer in Civil Engg, University of
Sydney; Mr.Douglas is Managing Director of Ground
Test Pty.Ltd. Sydney; Mr.Rodway is Chief Engineer
with Dept. of Construction, Sydney; Mr.Thorne is a
partner in Coffey S Partners, Sydney and Dr.
McMahon is a partner of McMahon, Burgess and
(Paper S1015, submitted 12 May
Yeates, Sydney.
1978).
types (e.g. soft shale, weathered rock,
medium sandstone)
(Ordinance 70) that have been made from time to
time, and by the existence of numerous cases where
substantially higher stresses than those tabled in
Commonwealth and
State Government Departments are not bound by the
rules but the policy of these Departments is to
are not defined
All "defects" in a rock mass are treated
alike, there being no concept of a graded
significance to differentiate between say
a strong shale layer in sandstone and a soft
clay seam
(d)
No consideration is given to socket shear.
However, it is clear that for structures whose
foundation costs do not merit special design
consideration, the Ordinance, in essentially its
present form, provides a convenient and conservative
approach, particularly where its provisions are
applied with reasonableness and judgement. Hence
this paper is directed primarily to situations in
which significant financial savings can be made by
increasing the foundation stresses above those
given in the Ordinance 70 table. Ordinance 70 has,
since 1974, made provision for the acceptance of
higher foundation stresses through clause 32.3(i).
2.2
Existing Design Methods
A questionnaire circulated to engineering firms and
organisations produced the following generalised
picture of the existing design of foundations on
Sydney shales and sandstones.
Practically all foundation designers recognize
Ordinance 70 as the operative guideline and approximately 80% "usually" adopt the allowable bearing
pressures listed in the Ordinance. Some 30% of
those surveyed never use design values in excess of
the Ordinance table even when obviously strong rock
is available but about 15% "frequently" use higher
values;
foundations on uniform Ashfield shale, for
example, have been designed on the basis of 2000
and 3000 kilopascals on a number of occasions and
FOUNDATIONS ON SHALE'AND SANDSTONE Pells, Douglas, Rodway, Theme E9McMahon
5000 kilopascals in one instance despite the
Ordinance limit of 960 kPa.
Most designers take into account load carried in
shear on the sides of bored piers but few consider
that such potential support should be depended upon
when designing pad foundations.
Of those using
"socket design, most regard the socket support as
additional to end bearing capacity rather than in
place of it.
A wide range of socket design stresses is used but
there is considerable inconsistency from designer
to designer and the values are infrequently substantiated;
they range from 50 kPa up to 1400 kPa.
Values are usually selected on the basis of rock
type and quality but are sometimes expressed as a
percentage of the allowable end bearing pressure.
For example one designer uses 400 kPa for shale and
700 kPa for sandstone while another uses 25% 35%
of the allowable end bearing pressure in the case
of shale and 35% 65% of the end bearing pressure
for sandstone.
The Council of the City of Sydney
has approved socket stresses as high as 25% of the
stress taken in end bearing. Some fullscale pile
load tests have also been used to determine design
One other theoretical aspect that needs consideration is the use of elastic theory to evaluate the
load distribution in rock sockets and also to predict settlement. Figure l gives curves from
elastic theory (Pells and Turner, 1978b) that
enable the determination of the proportion of load
that reaches the base of a socket. Alternatively
these curves can be used to determine when a particular socket design implies possible slip down the
socket side with a redistribution of load into end
bearing. Figure 2 gives curves for the elastic
settlement of a rock socketed pile assuming the rock
to be homogeneous, isotropic and infinitely deep.
The use of these elastic solutions is illustrated
in the worked example at the end of this paper.
4
FIELD DATA
Theoretical methods are of relevance to certain
field situations but in general data on the effects
of jointing and layering on displacement can only
be obtained from field tests conducted on prototype
foundations. These field tests also provide the
70
shear stresses.
60
50
THEORETICAL AND MODEL STUDIES
The review of theoretical and model studies related
to load bearing on rock is given elsewhere by Pells
and Turner (l978a) and only the main conclusions
are given here. These are:
(i)
the ultimate bearing capacity of intact
sandstone and good quality shale, for surface
loading, is between 6 and 10 times the uniaxial strength.
(ii)
the ultimate bearing capacity increases
significantly with embedment in the rock.
(o/)
/F
Fbasz
20
Figure 1
(iii) tight, closely spaced, continuous joints are
unlikely to reduce the bearing capacity to
less than 50% of the value for intact rock.
(iv)
intact sandstone or shale exhibits a large
excess of 10% of the footing diameter are
required to develop ultimate bearingcapacity.
-.E. x
-ERG
elastic theory and is probably due to localised failure occurring very early.
At working load there may be some fracturing
in the rock mass beneath a foundation. This
is considered quite acceptable and is comparable with the localised yield zones that
exist in slopes with factors of safety less
than about 1.7 and beneath foundations on
plastic clay.
These conclusions indicate that although the bearing capacity of sandstone or shale may be significantly greater than the uniaxial strength of the
rock substance, the allowable loadings for most
foundations may best be determined from consider-
ation of allowable structural displacements.
It
is suggested that typically a settlement of 1% of
the footing diameter would be acceptable.
Ip
2.01
ED
..
In model tests the shape of the load-penetration curve, up to a penetration of at
least 8% of the footing diameter, is independent of embedment.
This is contrary to
(vi)
the load-penetration curve for bearing on
"plastic" component and displacements in
(v)
L/o
Elastic load distribution in a
Rock Socket
..
$0.2
1-0-4
o-9/
0-6 -I
O5
o~7
0'6 t
[D o~5
04
03 ~
o 2 -
10
50
X
0.1
6
L/o
Figure 2
w
'
Elastic settlement influence
factors for a rock socket
FOUNDATIONS ON SHALE AND SANDSTONE Pells, Douglas, Radway, T/Lorne C=rMcMahan
Figure 3 shows the average shear stress versus
only significant source of data regarding the development of shear resistance on the sides of rock
sockets.
displacement curves obtained in the various socket
It is importshear tests summarised in Table II.
ant to note that none of the tests have shown
brittle behaviour and the peak shear resistance is
Some 30 field tests have been examined even though
a few of these relate to rock quite different from
that found in the Sydney basin. The tests have
sustained even up to large displacements.
Again these test data have been used in developing
been divided into two groups, namely those related
primarily to end bearing (summarised in Table I)
the design tables and are referred to again later.
and those related to socket shear (summarised in
Table II). Where tests conducted on complete
sockets were such that virtually all the load was
taken in end bearing the tests are included in
Table I and viceversa in Table II. Some tests of
this nature could not be used as the load was even
Very few of the end bearing tests have been taken
to failure. However, it is clear that the field
tests support the laboratory model tests in that
large displacements (greater than 10% of the foot-
5.1
Design Philosophy
when the maximum bearing capacity is very difficult
ing diameter) were required to develop maximum
to determine this latter approach is less satisfactory. Typically one would require a load factor on
end bearing in excess of 4.0.
In addition embedment does not
affect the shape of the normalised load-displacement curves until the displacements become very
large (Williams,
DESIGN RECOMENDATIONS
The basic philosophy that has been adopted here is
that the allowable loadings of rock foundations are
limited by an allowable settlement of 1% of the
footing width or diameter and not by applying some
load factor to the peak side shear or end bearing
capacity. Of course, by choosing a suitable load
factor one can effectively limit displacements but
ly distributed between shear and end bearing.
bearing capacity.
1977).
Design tables have thus been prepared with suggested
parameters for footings, piles and piers supported
on rock in the Sydney area. A value of 1 MPa for
the unconfined strength of the material is taken as
the boundary between soil and rock. Foudations on
materials with a lower strength than 1 MPa are best
dealt with using Soil Mechanics principles.
Making the assumption that allowable displacements
are typically 1% or 2% of the footing diameter then
it is possible, from the field tests summarised in
Table I, to abstract the bearing pressures at these
two percentage displacement values. These values
have been used to develop the design tables in the
final section of this paper and are discussed in
more detail at that stage.
TABLE I
TESTS OF END BEARING ON ROCK
No.
Depth of
Material
MPa
Heathered
Highly
Highly fracturmi
frequent clay
seams
III!
In
760
Melbourne
[run (1976)
6.3
United Klngdan
Thorhurn (1966)
(Aust.)
Mudstone
Variable
Shale
No intact
Fragnented
915
Argl l l ite
(Heathered)
18
Fractured
300
Surface
Brl sbane
(Aust.)
Argilllte
No intact
Fragmented
450
Surface
Gladstone
Sandstone and
Siltstone
Rob
- 301
1060
Mica schist and
15 - 20
R00
1000
Surface
Shale
(fresh)
2; - 51
in = 34
Fractured (spacin; 20 - xoo nun)
050
Claystone
Est. R00
> 751
Shale
Tuff and
calcarenites
10
Naukesbury
11
Ashfield
)2
Shaley slate
> 2HPa
(Highly weathered)
gneiss (weathered)
(fresh)
S"dst" ("'5")
Shale (fresh)
core
core
40 - 120 fract/In
(Aust.)
nun M
H"''" (1975)
Coventry (U.K.)
tale and Stroud
(1976)
JoBurg
Fells (1975)
6.5
blestnead
(Aust.)
Thorne (1976)
670
Port Elizabeth
(5th. Africa)
Hilson (1976)
ROD
400
Redfern
Ground Test (1976)
1 - 15
Mean 4
Very widely
spaced fractures
500
Surface
Napoll (Italy)
Pellegrlno (1974)
20 - 33
Intact
25 - 150
Surface
Sydney Unl.
Intact
25
Surface
Sydney uni.
500
Surface
Newfoundland
Vogan (1977)
Auckland
Moss (1971)
Montopolis
(U.S.A.)
Aurora and
Reese (1977)
4 - 10
(gnelss)
1
30
Normal to
Bedding
0 - 25%
90%
Badly sheared.
some open
(5th. Africa)
(Aust.)
(Laboratory)
Fells and Turner
(1978)
fractures
13
Sandstone and
0.8
ROD
500
14
Clay Shale
1.!
Est. R00
> 751
750
7 - 8
Na
Clay Shale
0.6
Est. ROD
> 751
890
15
Mudstone
0.6
Fractured
Various
Siltstones
> 901
7
Enbectnent
Ratio L/D 0-16
(ILL)
Dallas (U.S.A.)
Melbourne
Must.)
Hillians (1977)
FOUNDATIONS ON SHALE AND SANDSTONE Pells, Douglas, Rodway, T/zome &rMcMah0n
TABLE II
IN SITU TESTS OF SOCKET SHEAR
.
No.
Uniaxial
Material
Fracturing
Stung".
Socket
Sock t
Lmgih
Depth b low
rock surece
In
an
In
267
.58 I
meter
HPa
1
Sandstone
30
Clay Shale
0.6 - 1.4
Shale (fresh)
Mudstone
Andesite
Intact
30
Not known
750 to
960
1.35 to 1.52
R00 = 90%
400
1.0
1092
1.52
Fractured and
sheared, soft
557
.56
Spacing 75-150 an
Moriz. bedding
203
Moriz. bedding
Highly
Variable
Highly fractured
frequent clay
> 2 MN
.97
Location
Surface
Sydney (Aust.)
Hacxenzie
(1969)
O to 0.5
Dallas I Hontopolis
(U.S.A.)
Aurora I Reese
(1977)
Redfern
Ground Test
Melbourne
(Aust.)
Ervin (1976)
2.9
Must.)
seals
10
Shale
21
Shale/Slate
Rosenberg and
Journeaux
Highly fractured
No core
obtainable near vertical
uncenented
2N3
.91
Canada
.64 to 1.39
Colueby-Chance
Sandstone with
Shale
12-2! for
Claystone layers
best rock
(coreable)
Vogan (1977a,
1977b)
Lennox Isl.
Gibson and
Ottawa (Canada)
Seychuk (1970)
1.83
Perth (Aust.)
Soiluuech
Hestliead Sydney (Aust.)
Coffey &
Partners (1975)
n so
Horizontally
245
.64 to
Slightly fract-
480
2.1
711
3.35
bedded
#8 - 100
ured, calcite
.97
0 to .5
(Canada)
stringers
10
ured with highly
fractured zones
Devenny (1973)
Vogan (1977b)
(1972)
11
Shale
21 - 51
(mean 34)
Fractured (spacing 20 - 100 mi)
12
Shale
No core
obtainable
Fragnented .
914
3.35
U.K.
Thorburn (1966)
Highly fractured
508
2.59
California
Moore (1964)
Massive but with
weathered zones
609
6.0
Nova Scotia
(Canada)
Hatich and
Kozicki (1967)
13
Sandstone and
Shale
Approx,
1 MPa
Shale
14
Moderately fract-
Shaley siltstone
and clay shale
(1976)
(Canada)
fractures
(1976)
Canada
chlorite on
surfaces
6
Reference
0.7 and
1.3
.S.A.
be only slightly fractured and have not more than 3%
defects for the zone in question. If lower than
minimum strength or greater defects are observed,
then the rock would be graded at a lower level.
5.2.2 Unconfined compression strength
__ 5-
450 and
900
II.
5
|
5'
Iiata! Nurnbcrs refer to
h lhbk I
z
:
rtnws
en
2 3
0)
(ll
E
21
socket oaspoacun-cm/Diameter of scam 5/0 (-4.)
Figure 3
5.2
B busts)
Field tests on shear sockets
Design Tables
The values are given inlables III and IV and indicate significantly increased design values by comparison with Ordinance 70 values, in conditions
where reliable site data indicate this to be appropriate.
The design tables should be read in conjunction
with the following comments and explanations.
5.2.1 Class number
As shown in Tables III and IV a numerical classification system has been adopted to provide ease of
reference, e.g. Class I sandstone, Class III shale.
Thus, for example, a Class II sandstone should have
a minimum unconfined compression strength of 12 MPa,
It is important to ensure that the measured value
relates to the soaked or saturated condition. In
sandstones, saturation is readily achieved by soaking prior to testing. Shales may be subject to
significant weathering or breakdown when soaked in
free water and the only really successful procedure
is to test core samples shortly after extraction
with insitu moisture content being maintained by
appropriate sealing.
It is not envisaged that testing of core sample
should be an essential prerequisite in all cases:
the field guide or the use of point load tests will
often, in the hands of experienced engineers, be
completely adequate for reliable classification and
selection of design values.
5.2.3 Fracturing
The concept of degree of fracturing has been used as
an index for rock quality, and the terms which
relate to diamond drill cores and the spacing of
natural fractures have the following definitions.
Fragmented
the core is comprised primarily of
lengths less than 20 mm and mostly
of widths less than the core diameter.
Highly fractured
core lengths are generally less
than 20 40 mm, with occasional
fragments.
FOUNDATIONS ON SHALE AND SANDSTONE Pells, Douglas, Rodway, Thorne &IMcMahon
TABLE III
DESIGN VALUES FOR FOUNDATIONS ON SHALE
Class
Ge":r:}e?5g$$:1"
Unconfined
Compression
strength
qua
MPa
5t'"9 Shale - COVE
59Ctl0"5 C3" Only be
> 16
slightly scratched
End
Fracturing
A|])l:"";]e
EC 5
1-
Pressure
e
2%
Max. 8 MPa
Sli 9 htl y to
fractured
Bearing
M$':'f.t
eS"
{ii
core
0.05 f C
0.9
Suggested Miniunun
Typical
Investigation or
Ef.e M
Proving Techniques
"pa
Comprehensive site investigation sufficient to define
> 2000
seams 8 layers of rock -
cored boreholes on a minimal:
with steel knife.
ll
Medium to strong
shale - core sections
OR
10
netrelgrid
not ess than
ho es at spacing
cored
501 of footings. Jackhannler
holes and spoon testing at
the remainder.
7 - 16
Fractured
4%
can be scored with
3.5 MPa OR
0.5 qu
n' 5 MP
steel knife.
350 kPa OR
0.7
0.05 qu
700 -
Site investigation to
include at least 4 cored
2000
boreholes with jackhanlner
Na
cores in at least 501 of
footings.
III
Medium strong shale -
core sections can be
:::}k:$;d- ""' "
Heak shale - core
IV
2 - 7
Fractured to
highly fractured
8%
1 MPa OR
0.5 q
Max. 3.5
"P3
150 kPa OR
0.5
0.05 qu
Max. 350
200 -
1200
we
sections can be heavily scored or cut
with steel knife -
measurable
Not normally Highly fractured
or fragmented
251
1.0 MPa
150 + m
Mainly shaley clay hard clay with thin
zones of weak shales.
Not normally
measurable
Highly fractured
or fragmented
0.7 MPa
50 - +
100 kPa
0.1
100 -
500
Engineers site
inspection to
;";"e
:3 re'3?55
C '
alternatively interbedded medium strong
and very weak shale.
V
SO 300
Engineer; site inspection.
' See text for definitions and explanations
i Values may have to be reduced because of shear
TABLE IV
DESIGN VALUES FOR FOUNDATIONS ON SANDSTONE
mm
General Description
& Field Guide
Saturated
unconfined
.
Cogltprr-ee"sstl'on
g
q
F racturing
0
Allowable
Shaft
Defects
Bearing
Pressure
Adhesion
Efield
-
Eco"
Strong sandstone,
core sections of 50 Ill!
> 24
dia. cannot be broken
field
Slightly fractur-
ed or unbroken
L51
Max. 12 MPa
0.9
0.05 fc
> 2000
90-nprehensive site
investigation sufficient
to define seams in lay!
of rock n
er
at not greaci;l'edt:!'e?<o>l2S
by hand and an be
only slightly scratched with a steel knife.
11
Medium to strong
sandstone - core
12 - 24
sections can be broken
by hand with difficulty and lightly
:31);-:d'
Ill
3%
Slightly
fractured
Max 10 "Pa
stone - core sections
can be broken easily
Heak sandstone - core
sections break easily
7 - 12
51
Fractured
2 - 7
101
Fractured
5C'ed r 9" It
rock structure is
evident but frequent
zones of sugary sandstone - crumbled by
1 MPa OR
0-5 an
0.7
of
0.05 f'c OR
0.05 qu
Not normally Highly fractured
measurable
or fragmented
350 kPa
0.05 on
Max 600
900
-3000
100 kPa
0.05 qu
Hax_ 350
0.8 - 1.0
75 - 150
MPa
OR
0.5
350
-1200
metre grid spacing. OR
cored holes at not less
than 501 of footings with
jackhalnner holes and
spoon testing at the
remainder.
Site investigation to
include at least 4 cored
boreholes with jackhalnner
holes and spoon testing, OR
cores in at least - of
ftl"95-
H,
Ha. 3_5
MP3
3 steel kf?'
v
3.5 MPa OR
0.5 qu
H ' 6 0
Hf,
and may be heavily
Very weak sandstone -
600 kPa OR
the lesser
H". 1200
kPa
by hand and readily
scored with a steel
knife.
IV
6 HPa OR
0.5 on
with a steel
Mediun strong sand-
5"9'-" '""""""
Investigation or
Proving Techmq s
MP3
MPa
I""
E
OR
0.4
100
700
Engineer: site
kPa
kPa
hand.
See text for definitions and explanations.
inspection with at
so
- 200
least 2 cored
""""
FOUNDATIONS ON SHALE AND SANDSTONE Pells, Douglas, Rodway, Thorne c"9McA
Fractured
core lengths are mainly 30 - 100 mm,
with occasional shorter and longer
sections.
Slightly fractured core lengths are generally
300 1000 mm, with occasional longer
sections and occasional sections of
100 - 300 mm.
The rough correlation between these fracturing
definitions and RQD is indicated in Figure 4.
5.2.4 Allowable defects
Defects, in this context, are defined as clay seams,
fragmented zones or highly weathered joints and the
tolerances suggested in the tables relate to a
defined zone of influence.
For pad footings, the
zone of influence is defined as 1.5 times the least
footing dimension. For socketed footings, the zone
includes the length of the socket plus a further
depth equal to the width of the footing.
In classifying the rock the total thickness of
defects is computed by doubling the thickness of
clay seams and adding the thickness of the remain-
ing defects.
For example, when considering a footing of 2 metres width, twice the total thickness of
clay seams added to any highly weathered or fragmented zones over a depth of 3 metres below the
footing should not exceed 150 mm for Class III
sandstone.
5.3
Interpretation of the Design Tables
to resist uplift or tensile load, a reduction of
1/2 is suggested. This is simply to allow agreater
factor of safety because there is no back up from
end bearing.
5.3.3 Modulus values
Suggested elastic modulus values have been included
in the table together with a bulk modulus/core modulus value for use where core modulus values are
known. Information relating to modulus values is
very limited and the suggested values are accordingly pitched at a conservative level (i.e. they will
tend to over-predict deflections).
They are includ-
ed to allow an estimate of elastic settlement and
also of the ratio of pile modulus to rock modulus
required in the elastic design method discussed at
the end of this paper.
5.3.4 Investigation techniques
Suggested minimum investigation or proving techniques are included, based on the principle that, as
design bearing pressures are increased, increased
levels of site investigation and proving techniques
are necessary.
5.3.5 General
It is emphasised that the suggested design rules are
intended as a general guide, to be interpreted with
engineering judgement and a modicum of common sense.
Obviously, site conditions will need to be checked
at the time of construction but minor anomalies if
they occur should be considered on the basis of
Allowable values for end bearing pressure and side
adhesion are defined in terms of uniaxial compressive strength. However, the important point is that
engineering performance rather than on strict appli-
because of fracturing or defects, than indicated by
its substance strength then the allowable pressures
ment, size of footing, nature of the defect and
depth below the footing will need to be considered
before a decision is made to change the design or to
strength is not used in such a case.
exactly with the design criteria suggested.
5.3.1 End bearing pressure
5.4
The suggested values here are a minimum for each
class, with a potential for higher values if
strengths are known. Thus, for Class II sandstone
classified by the field guide, a design bearing
pressure of 6 MPa is suggested. Alternatively, if
test data are available which indicate an unconfined compression strength of 15 MPa, a design bearing
pressure of 7.5 MPa would be appropriate. However,
the maximum allowable value for this class would be
10 MPa even if the measured uniaxial strength was,
for example, 30 MPa.
The design values given in Tables III and IV are
justified in terms of the field tests discussed
should a rock mass be classified in a lower class,
and shear stresses are limited by the maximum uniaxial strength of that class.
The actual substance
5.3.2 Shaft adhesion
The recommended values here relate to shaft adhesion where load is transferred in a rock socket.
It
is emphasised that shaft adhesion will to some extent be dependent on construction procedures,
especially since the weaker shales will tend to
weather very quickly after excavation with conse-
quent reduction in shaft adhesion.
Where augering
is carried out in weaker materials there is often
a skin of remoulded material left on the walls of
the bore and this will need to be removed if full
adhesion values are to be relied on.
A reduction
cation of the design rules.
Thus, where seams or
defects are encountered unexpectedly, such factors
as total foundation load, tolerable footing settle-
significantly deepen the footings so as to comply
Justification of Design Values
earlier.
In the case of end bearing, Figure 4 shows
the ratio between actual measured bearing pressures,
at displacements of 1% and 2%, and allowable values
from the design tables plotted against the degree of
fracturing. To derive this figure all the cases
given in Table I were classified according to the
system proposed here and design values selected.
It can be seen that in no case would the design
value have been greater than the measured value at
a displacement of 1%. The same process has been
followed for side shear. Table V shows the way the
different field cases were classified and also shows
the ratio between the measured and allowable shear
stress values at displacement ratios of 1% and 2%.
It can be seen that in some cases the values pro-
posed in the design tables are very conservative.
5.5
Use of the Suggested End Bearing and Socket
Shear Values in Design
may be required in the case where concreting is
Once the allowable values for end bearing and socket
shear have been determined there are two approaches
that may be adopted in designing a socketed foundation.
uncertainity as to the cleaning of the socket.
(1)
carried out under bentonite or where there is some
The design values in the table relate to compressive load conditions and where a rock socket is used
Method 1
This approach is based on mobilizing the full
allowable end bearing pressure.
The balance
FOUNDATIONS ON SHALE AND SANDSTONE Pells, Douglas, Rodway, Thome =JMcMahon
TABLE V
Value
13
/Al owable
4A
0:0
~9
oil0
COMPARISON BETWEEN ALLOWABLE AND MEASURED SOCKET
SHEAR STRESS
111
1
.1
...:::..":-.., 5121:.-52.12:
Bearirg
I
il
llll
Number:
Measured
0.1
20
Rock
Highly
reler to TABLE 1
bearing pressure at
0 5/D - 1'1.
o /9 . 2-1.
1
1
1
1
40
Ouollty
Fracl urea
1111
60
100
60
Designation (ROD) I.
Fractured
Slightly
Fractured
Fragmented
Figure 4
MPa
1:13?
Pres ure
Measured
Field data on end bearing compared
with suggested allowable values
of the applied load, if any, is carried out
on the socket sides assuming full mobilization of the allowable socket shear. No
attempt is made to satisfy the elastic load
distribution and it will be food that the
proportion of the applied load required to be
carried in end bearing is much greater than
the proportion that, according to elastic
theory, would reach the base.
This implies
that, if in the field the actual socket shear
available is no greater than the allowable
at 6/0
HP:
1%
2%
I1
2%
4.5
5.4
3.1
3.6
Sandstone
1.5
sum
0.1
0.27
>2.5
0.20
>2.a
2.7
2.0
>1.9
>1.9
>7.7
sum
1.5
Shale
0.1
>.77
>.77
>7.7
Sandstone
111
0.5
1.03
1.12
2.1
2.2
Shale
11
1.76
1.1
2.2
Shale
1v
0.5
4;
0.15
1.43
>10.0
>10.0
Sandstone
111
Shale
10
Shale
1v
>1.5
0.6
0.5
1.5
>3.0
0.15
0.27
11
sum
1v
1.5
111.
Shale
1.5
12
Shale
IV
0.10
0.10
13
Sandstone
IV
0.20
14
Shale
111
0.15
' D
Diameter of pier
1.53
0.55
>3.0
0.52
0.3
1.1
>2.o
>2.0
1.8
3.5
2.1
1.1
1.4
>1.-3
>1.0
>1.0
0.20
1.0
2.0
0.54
0.82
2.7
4.1
0.16
0.25
1.1
1.7
>1.s
>1.5
Vertical settlement
value, slip will occur with load being redis-
tributed into end bearing until the end hear-
trate the design process proposed in this paper.
placement of the foundation would be greater
than indicated by elastic theory but would be
limited to less than 1% of the socket diameter because this is the criterion upon
which the allowable end bearing pressures are
based.
The site is taken to consist of about 10 m of silty
clay overlying fractured but relatively fresh sandstone. The sandstone has an average Point Load
Index of 1.0 MPa indicating an unconfined compressive strength in excess of 20 MPa. Within the top 4
metres of sandstone are clay seams with a combined
thickness of 150 mm plus highly weathered layers of
sandstone of 110 mm combined thickness.
ing pressure reaches the design value.
Dis-
In reality, with the base displacement limited to 1%, Table V shows that in the majority
of cases the mobilized socket shear will be
greater than the allowable design value.
Hence slip may well not occur or may be limited to the upper portion of a long socket
where the actual shear stresses are the
greatest.
(ii)
Method 2
This approach is based essentially on satis-
fying elastic load distribution. For a given
pier diameter the length of socket is determined compatible both with full mobilization
of the allowable socket shear and elastic
load distribution. This approach does not
allow for the possibility of side slip and
always results in a longer socket and a lower
mobilization of end bearing pressure than
yielded by the first method. Displacements
can be determined directly from the elastic
solutions given in Figure 2 and will be less
than obtained using the first approach.
In considering these two methods the present
authors consider that the first approach is quite
satisfactory for the majority of cases. Only where
very strict limitations are placed on allowable
settlement is it necessary to adopt the more
conservative second method.
6
Piers are required to carry 4 MN.
6.1
Classification
The percentage "defects" in this case is estimated
by doubling the thickness of the clay seams before
adding the thickness of highly weathered layers.
Initially the zone of influence is not known and so
one may simply consider the percentage of "defects"
over the upper 4 metres of sandstone. This is
(300
"
' + 110)
"4000
x 100
10% (Approx.)
Thus in spite of the reasonably high strength of
the sandstone a classification into Class IV is indicated according to Table IV. Hence the allowable
foudation loadings are:
6.2
end bearing
3.5 MPa
side shear
0. 35 MPa
Design of Sockets
Method 1
Adopting a pier diameter of 0.75 metres one
has
load taken in end bearing
I!
%{.75)2 x 3.5
WORKED EXAMPLE
The purpose of this "mythical" example is to illus-
1.55 MN.
FOUNDATIONS ON SHALE AND SANDSTONE Pells, Douglas, Rodway, T/Lorne C:McMah0n
-
length of socket required
4.0~1.SS
E;7;
2.97 metres
say
3.0
metres.
(-1.)
This design requires that 39% of the applied
load be taken in end bearing. However,
according to elastic theory for a socket of
these dimensions (assuming K = 10) only about
10% ofrthe load would reach the base of the
socket. Thus if the mobilized socket shear
were really no greater than 0.35 MPa, side
Fm/F
slip would occur with load being transferred
to the base.
The displacement at the top of the socket
L/a
would be less than 1% of the diameter, i.e.
less than 7.5 mm.
Figure 5
Elastic design method for a rock socket
Method 2
The first step is to calculate, for different assumed pier diameters, the length of
socket required if all load were taken in
side shear. For a 1.0 metre diameter pier
this length is
4
3.64 metres
'
i.e.
L/a
7.3
With such values one can then superimpose
straight lines on the relevant elastic distribution curve taken from Figure 1. This is
shown in Figure 5 where a value of K (ratio
of pile modulus to rock modulus) of 10 has
been assumed. The intersection points represent the values of L/a, for each assumed
pile diameter, that satisfy both elastic load
distribution and the allowable value of side
shear. The required socket lengths and end
bearing pressures can then be calculated as
shown below.
Pier
Diameter
Socket
Length
Mobilized End
Pressure
MPa
0.75
4.6
0.5
1.0
3.3
0.5
1.50
1.6
0.8
1.25
2.5
CONCLUSIONS
An investigation has been conducted into theoret-
ical studies, model studies and field tests related
to the design of isolated foundations located on
or socketed into rock.
Inclined loading and loading near an excavation have not been considered.
On the basis of this investigation it has been concluded that design loadings greater than presently
allowed by N.S.W. Ordinance 70 may often be appropriate in the Sydney region. Allowable end bearing
and socket shear stresses are suggested for different classes of sandstone and shale together with
guidelines as to appropriate site investigation
techniques necessary to justify these higher loadings._ Two alternative design methods, for use with
the suggested allowable stresses, are discussed.
The full design process is illustrated by means of
a worked example.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
In compiling this paper much unpublished data on
rock foundation testing has been made available to
the authors. In this regard particular thanks are
extended to Messrs. Coffey and Partners, Ground
Test Pty. Ltd. and the Public Transport Commission
of N.S.W.
0.6
9
REFERENCES
It is readily seen that this design approach
results in a longer socket than the first
method.
AURORA, R.P. and REESE, L.C. (1977). Field tests
of drilled shafts in claysha1es. Proc. 9th Int.
Conf. Soil Mech., Tokyo, 2/2, pp.371-376.
Settlements can be calculated using Figure 2.
For example if the 1.25 metre diameter pier
were adopted the settlement of the socket
would be estimated as(assuming
2GPa)
Efie1d=
BURMAN, B.C. and HAMMETT, R. (1975). Design of
foundations in jointed rock masses.
2nd Aust. N.Z.
Geomechanics Conf., Brisbane, July.
4000
2000 x 0.625 X 0'21 mm
0.67 m
COFFEY and HOLLINGSWORTH PTY. LTD. (1975).x Westmead hospital project: Pile load testing. Report
No.5568/3 to Ove Arup 6 Partners, Sydney.
COLE, K.W. and STROUD, M.A. (1976).
Rock socket
piles at Coventry Point, market way, Coventry.
Geotechnique, Vol.16, No.1, pp.47-62.
ERVIN, M. (1976).
Melbourne.
Yarra River pile tests,
Unpublished Report, Coutry Roads
Board, Victoria, Australia.
FCUNDATIONS ON SHALE AND SANDSTONE Pells, Douglas, Rodway, T/Lorne &7'McMt1h0n
GIBSON, G.L. and DEVENNY, D.W.
(1973).
Concrete to
bedrock bond testing by jacking from bottom of a
borehole. Canadian Geot. Jnl., 10, pp.304306.
GROUND TEST PTY. LIMITED (1976). Pile testing,
eastern suburbs railway - Redfern. Report to Pub.
Trans. Commission, N.S.W. Australia, July.
MACKENZIE,
I.M.
(1969).
Sydney sandstone.
pp.132134.
Foundation load tests on
Rock Mech. Symp. Univ. Sydney,
MATICH, M.A. and KOZICKI, P. (1967). Some load
tests on drilled castin-place concrete caissons.
Canadian Geot. Jnl. Vol.4, pp.357375.
MOORE, W.W.
(1964).
Foundation design.
Engineering, ASCE, January, pp.33-35.
Civil
MOSS, J.D. (1971). A high capacity load test for
deep bored piles. Proc. lst Aust.-N.Z. Conf.
Geomechanics, Melbourne, pp.26l-267.
PECK, R.B.
(1976).
Rock foundations for struct-
6th Regional Conf. Africa Soil Mech. and Fdn. Eng.,
Durban.
ROSENBERG, P. and JOURNEAUX, N.L. (1976).
Friction
and end bearing tests on bedrock for high capacity
socket design.
pp.324333.
Canadian Geot. Jnl., Vol.13, No.3,
SEYCHUK, J.L. (1970).
Load tests on bedrock.
Canadian Geot. Jnl., Vol.7, Db/464-470.
SOILMECH PTY. LTD. (1972).
Perth, Western Australia.
pile, Perth, Australia.
City centre stage II at
Report to Doust Vibro-
THORBURN, S. (1966). Large diameter piles founded
on bedrock. Proc. Large Bored Piles Conf. Inst.
Civil Engineers, London, pp.l2l-129 and pp.152153.
THORNE, C.P. (1976). Pile test on rock. Presented
to Inst. Engineers, Australia, Melbourne, February.
Unpublished Report, Coffey and Hollingsworth Pty.
Ltd., Sydney.
ures. Rock Engineering for Foundations and Slopes.
Proc. ASCE Specially Conf., Boulder.
VOGAN, R.W. (l977a). Friction and end bearing
tests on bedrock for high capacity socket design.
PELLEGRINO, A. (1974). Surface footings on soft
rocks. Proc. 3rd Congress, Int. Soc. Rock Mech.,
pp.lS6-158.
PELLS, P.J.N. and TURNER, R.M. (1978a).
WEBB, D.L. (1977). Discussion: Session 2 Rocks
other than chalk. Piles in weak rock. Inst. Civ.
Denver, Vol.IIB, pp.733738.
Theoret-
ical and model studies related to footings and
piles on rock. Univ. of Sydney Research Report
R314, March.
PELLS, P.J.N. and TURNER, R.M. (l978b).
Elastic
solutions for the design and analysis of rock
socketed piles. Univ. of Sydney Research Report
R325, July.
PELLS, P.J.N. (1975). Predicted displacements of
the rock foundations of a major arch bridge. Proc.
Discussion.
Canadian Geot. Jnl., Vol.14, No.1,
VOGAN, R.W. (l977b).
Private Communication.
Eng., London, pp.2092l1.
WILLIAMS, A.F.
ed into rock.
(1977).
The design of piles socket-
The Design of Piled Foudations,
Extension Course, Australian Geomechanics Society,
Melbourne, pp.5l57.
WILSON, L.C. (1975).
Tests on bored and driven
piles in cretaceous mudstone at Port Elizabeth,
Geotechnique, Vol.16, pp.S-12.
South Africa.
