LOAD DISTRIBUTION BEHAVIOUR OF BORED PILE IN VARIOUS SOIL FORMATION:

ROCK SOCKET IN LIMESTONE, SCHIST AND SANDSTONE

Load Distribution Behaviour of Bored Pile in Various Soil

Formation: Rock Socket in Limestone, Schist and Sandstone
(Date received: 5.10.16/Date accepted: 22.11.16)

Fazela Mustafa1, Yasmin Ashaari2 and Aminuddin Baki3,4

1
Manager, Public Works Department (JKR), Roads Division, JKR Headquarters, Kuala Lumpur50582, Malaysia, (formerly Post
Graduate Student, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia)
Email: fazelam@jkr.gov.my
2
Lecturer, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam 40450, Selangor, Malaysia
E-mail: yasminashaari@yahoo.com
3
Envirab Services, P.O.Box 7866, GPO Shah Alam 40730, Selangor, Malaysia
4
Member AGS
E-mail: aminbaki2@gmail.com

ABSTRACT

Rock socketed bored pile is a solution when the load from the structure is very high and/or accessible bearing surface has
an inadequate bearing capacity. The study is based on instrumented bored pile socketing into different types of rock namely.
limestone, schist and sandstone at three sites. The result for three (3) test piles namely PTP1, UTP-1 and TP2 shows most
of the load are resisted by friction rather than end bearing at the pile working load. The load apportioned to end bearing at
higher loads varies for the three test piles. Comparison of observed mobilised skin friction in the rocks with empirical methods
indicates that prediction values from Williams and Pells [1] over design for two out of the three test piles and that by Hovarth
[2] are under design for two out of the three test piles.

Keywords: Empirical Methods, Instrumented Bored Pile, Rock Socket, Shaft Resistance.

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Pile foundations are used to support heavily loaded structure
such as high rise buildings and bridges. Bored piles are
commonly used in Malaysia due to its low noise, low vibration
and lexibi‘ity “f sizes t“ suit different ‘“ading c“nditi“ns and
subsoil conditions.
Rock socketed bored pile is a solution when the load from
the structure is very high and/or accessible bearing surface has
an inadequate bearing capacity. It may be necessary to drill a
shaft into the underlying rock and construct a socketed pile. The
support provided by socketed bored pile comes from the shear
strength around the shaft and the end bearing at the toe of the
pile. Many researchers have investigated the behavior of rock
s“cketed b“red ”i‘e and re‘ate the uniaxia‘ c“’”ressive strength
(UCS) of intact rock surrounding the pile to the shaft resistance
of the pile without considering the rock mass quality (Rosenberg
and J“urneaux, 1976) [3].
Pile testing is a fundamental part of the pile foundation
design. A pile load test is normally carried out to assess the
geotechnical capacity of piles in the foundation system and as
a tool to check the integrity of constructed pile and prediction Figure 1: Schematic of Pile Instrumentation.
of foundation settlements. In design, the concern is over what
portion of the capacity is obtained at the pile toe and what is foundation then the pile must be instrumented in order to
the shaft resistance in the s”eciic s“i‘ ‘ayers. Theref“re, when determine the load transfer (resistance distribution) such as
the purpose of the test is to provide data for design of a piled sh“wn in Figure 1.

Journal – The Institution of Engineers, Malaysia (Vol. 77, No. 2, December 2016) 33
 FAZELA MUSTAFA1, YASMIN ASHAARI2 AND AMINUDDIN BAKI3,4

The objectives of this study are: -
• To study the behaviour of pile settlement under applied load.
• To determine the bearing capacity of pile and its apportionment
into end bearing and shaft friction.
• To compare the behaviour of piles socketing into different
type of rocks.
The study is based “n case study “f three (3) instru’ented test
bored piles at three actual developments. Data was collected to
analyse and compare the behaviour of test pile socketing into
different type of rocks in Malaysia. Vibrating wire strain gauges
friction with consideration of the strength of intact rock and the
rock mass effect due to the discontinuities.
Fs = α x β x quc (3)
Where quc is the unc“nined c“’”ressive strength “f intact r“ck
α is the reduction factor with respect to quc (Figure 2).
β is the reduction factor with respect to the rock mass effect
(Figure 3).
1.0

Rock socket reduction factor α

were installed in the test piles to reveal the load transfer behaviour Rock socket skin friction
0.8 =ƒs =α β quc
a‘“ng the ”i‘e. Extens“’eter was insta‘‘ed in test b“red ”i‘es t“
observe the pile structural shortening but it is outside the scope Williams and Pells
of this paper. 0.6

1.1 Geotechnical Capacity of Bored Piles Rosenberg and

0.4
Journeaux
The design of bored pile is normally based on the results of
Standard Penetration Test (SPT-N) conducted in the borehole. In 0.2
designing the pile, the empirical approach of unit skin resistance Horvath
(fs) and unit base resistance (fb) is taken as: 0
fs = Ks x SPT-N (in kPa) (1) 1 10 100
fb = Kb x SPT-N (in kPa) (2) Unconfined compression strength quc (MN/m2)
Where Ks is shaft resistance c“eficient and Kb is base
resistance c“eficient which varies acc“rding t“ s“i‘ ty”e. Figure 2: Rock Socket Reduction Factor, α versus Unconined
Compressive Strength. (after Tomlinson, [6]).
In current practice, these empirical formulas have been
widely used for pile capacity calculation. Both the friction
resistance and end bearing resistance are considered in design
with an “vera‘‘ fact“r “f safety 2.0 and 3.0 res”ective‘y. The

Fracture frequency per metre

Rock socket reduction factor β

design is an estimate thus it is important to understand the Values of β

actual mobilisation of skin friction and end bearing with the pile RQD Fracture
frequency j
movement. The data obtained from the instrumented static load % per m
test results can be used to verify the designed piled and the true 0-25
25-50
15
15-8
0.2
0.2
50-75 8-5 0.2-0.5
load transfer behaviour of the bored piles can be observed. 75-90 5-1 0.5-0.8
90-100 1 0.8-1.0
B“red ”i‘e s“cketed in r“cks can be ex”ected t“ have higher
pile capacity due to the higher unit friction resistance between Upper limit
the ”i‘e and the r“ck. Tab‘e 1 su’’arizes the ty”ica‘ design Values of j

socket friction values for various rock formations in Malaysia. Strong rocks

Lower limit
Table 1: Summary of Rock Socket Unit Friction Design Values.
Mass factor j = E m
/E,

Figure 3: Rock Socket Reduction Factor, β, versus Rock Mass

Discontinuity (after Tomlinson [6]).

2.0 SUBSOIL STRATA, PILE INSTALLATION

AND INSTRUMENTATION

2.1 Site A
The site is located at Ipoh, Perak. The area is underlain by
an extensive ‘i’est“ne bedr“ck f“r’ati“n na’e‘y the Kinta
Limestone. The limestone bedrock rises above the alluvial plains
to form limestone hills with steep to vertical slopes. The subsoil
strata based on nearest borehole is shown in Figure 4.
PTP1 test ”i‘e “f 1050’’ dia’eter and 8.8’ ‘“ng is s“cketed
int“ ’“derate‘y str“ng ‘i’est“ne bedr“ck at de”th 4.3’ t“ 8.3’
Various other researchers have also developed more
(4.0’ ‘ength). Based “n the nearest b“reh“‘e data “n site, the
syste’atic a””r“aches in r“ck s“cket design [1,3,6]. The
R“ck Qua‘ity Designati“n (RQD) “f the r“ck is between 54%
f“‘‘“wing ex”ressi“n is used t“ c“’”ute the r“ck s“cket unit

34 Journal – The Institution of Engineers, Malaysia (Vol. 77, No. 2, December 2016)
 LOAD DISTRIBUTION BEHAVIOUR OF BORED PILE IN VARIOUS SOIL FORMATION:
ROCK SOCKET IN LIMESTONE, SCHIST AND SANDSTONE

G.L (RL39.87m) G.L (RL62.5m)

Level 1 (0.5m) Fine to coarse SAND Medium, sandy SILT (N = 5)

(N = 4) Medium stiff, sandy CLAY
Very soft bownish grey CLAY Level 1 (4.0m)
(N = 5)
(N = 2)
Level 2 (2.4m)
Very loose grey silty/clayey Medium, sandy CLAY/SILT
GRAVEL (N = 17 - 50)
Level 2 (9.0m)

16.7m
(N = 6)
8.8m

Level 3 (4.3m)

Level 3 (13.5m)
Level 4 (6.4m) Moderately fractured and Level 4 (14.25m)
weathered LIMESTONE
RQD = 54% - 93%) Level 5 (15.5m) Highly weathered SCHIST
Level 6 (16.5m) (RQD = 7% -17%)
Level 5 (8.3m)
Pile toe
Pile toe

Figure 4: Subsoil Strata and Pile Instrumentation Levels for PTP1. Figure 5: Subsoil Strata and Pile Instrumentation Levels for UTP-1.

t“ 93 % within Unc“nined C“’”ressive Strength (UCS) “f 35
MPa.
Twenty (20) n“s. “f Ge“k“n vibrating wire strain gauges
(VWSGs) were installed in the test pile to measure strain at
n“’inated ‘“cati“ns Fr“’ Leve‘ 1 t“ Leve‘ 5. Each ‘eve‘ c“nsists
“f f“ur (4) n“s. “f VSWG. There were ive (5) n“s. “f te‘‘-ta‘e
extens“’eters insta‘‘ed at the ive (5) ‘eve‘s (“ne f“r each ‘eve‘),
c“rres”“nding t“ Leve‘ 1 t“ Leve‘ 5 fr“’ gr“und res”ective‘y.
A polystyrene foam soft toe was installed at the base to
eliminate end bearing contribution since end bearing was not
considered in the design geotechnical capacity due to uncertainty
of proper base cleaning during construction.
Maintain Load Test (MLT) was proposed to be carried out
in three (3) cyc‘es: irst cyc‘e with w“rking ‘“ad “f 750t“nnes,
sec“nd cyc‘e was twice w“rking ‘“ad “f 1500t“nnes and the
third cyc‘e was 2250t“nnes. H“wever, the third cyc‘e was n“t
completed as the pile failed during the step of loading from
1875t“nnes (2.5 x w“rking ‘“ad) t“ 1950t“nnes (2.6 x w“rking
load).
2.2 Site B
The proposed development is situated at Mukim Setapak, Daerah
Gombak, Selangor where the geological formation consists of
schist, ”hy‘ite s‘ate and sandst“ne. S“i‘ ”r“i‘e based “n nearest
b“reh“‘e is sh“wn in Figure 5.
The test ”i‘e UTP-1 was a 1000’’ dia’eter b“red ”i‘e with
e’bedded ‘ength “f 16.7’ be‘“w gr“und ‘eve‘. The ”i‘e was
debonded by pre-augering the soil surrounding the the pile up to
13.5’ de”th. The deb“nding was c“nducted in “rder t“ “bserve
the load distribution within the socketed depth when no friction
resistance is provided by the upper soil.
At de”th “f 13.5’ t“ 16.5’, the test ”i‘e UTP-1 was
‘“ad was 1300t“nnes (2.0 x w“rking ‘“ad) and during the third
cyc‘e the ’axi’u’ ‘“ad was 1950t“nnes (3.0 x w“rking ‘“ad).
2.3 Site C
The site is ‘“cated at Kua‘a Lu’”ur and is under‘ain by Kenny
Hill Formation which is a sequence of clastic sedimentary rocks
consisting of interbedded shale, mudstone and sandstones The
Kenny Hi‘‘ ’ateria‘ is basica‘‘y a c“’”‘ete‘y dec“’”“sed r“ck
and generally sandy SILT soil. Based on the nearest borehole at
the site, the gr“und ”r“i‘e is sh“wn in Figure 6.
TP2 test ”i‘e (900’’ dia’eter) is s“cketed int“ sandst“ne
bedr“ck at de”th 10.0’ t“ 15.0’ (5.0’ ‘ength). Based “n r“ck
coring and compressive test results from nearest borehole, the
Rock Quality Designation (RQD) of the rock falls between
29.3% t“ 44.6% with UCS “f 20 MPa.
Pi‘e instru’entati“n c“nsisted “f twenty-eight (28) n“s.
VWSG at seven (7) different ‘eve‘s and f“ur (4) n“s. “f te‘‘ta‘e
extens“’eters.
The ‘“ad test was carried “ut in f“ur (4) cyc‘es: irst cyc‘e
with w“rking ‘“ad “f 6000kN, sec“nd cyc‘e with ’axi’u’ ‘“ad
“f 7500kN (1.25 x w“rking ‘“ad). During the third cyc‘e the
’axi’u’ ‘“ad was 9000kN (1.5 x w“rking ‘“ad) and during the
f“urth cyc‘e the ’axi’u’ ‘“ad was 15,000kN (2.5 x w“rking
load).
G.L (RL36.6m)
Level 1 (0.3m)
Medium dense, clayey/fine SAND
(N = 11-17)
Level 2 (4.5m)
Very dense, fine SAND
(N = 50)
15.1m

Slightly weathered, fractured

Level 3 (7.0m)
SANDSTONE (RQD = 0.08%)
s“cketed 3.0’ int“ schist r“ck. The nearest b“reh“‘e data sh“ws Level 4 (8.5m) Hard medium SILT with traces
that RQD “f the r“ck fa‘‘s between 7% t“ 17% and the average of sand (N = 50)
UCS is 17 MPa. Level 5 (10.5m)

Pile instrumentation consisted of twenty-four (24) nos. Level 6 (12.65m) Slightly weathered and
VWSG at six (6) different ‘eve‘s and three (3) n“s. “f te‘‘ta‘e fractured SANDSTONE
(RQD = 29.3% - 44.6%)
extens“’eters. Level 7 (14.85m)

L“ading were carried “ut in three (3) cyc‘es: irst cyc‘e with Pile toe

w“rking ‘“ad “f 650t“nnes, during the sec“nd cyc‘e the ’axi’u’

Figure 6: Subsoil Strata and Pile Instrumentation Levels for TP2.

Journal – The Institution of Engineers, Malaysia (Vol. 77, No. 2, December 2016) 35
 FAZELA MUSTAFA1, YASMIN ASHAARI2 AND AMINUDDIN BAKI3,4

Load (tonne) the whole range of applied load. The small amount of load at
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 the pile base is probably due to the installation of polystyrene
0.0
foam soft toe. The soft toe was installed as to minimise the load
2.0 interference from the pile base (the end bearing was neglected in
design consideration).
Settlement (mm)

4.0
Mobilised Unit Skin Friction (kPa)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000
6.0 0

8.0 2

3
10.0
4

Depth
12.0 5

Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 6 Rock

Socket
Figure 7: Load Settlement Curves for PTP1. 7

8 750 tons
1500 tons
3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 9
1875 tons
10

3.1 Site A Figure 8: Mobilised Unit Skin Friction for PTP1.

Figure 7 sh“ws the L“ad Sett‘e’ent Behavi“ur “f the Pi‘e and
Based “n Figure 8, the chart sh“ws that the ’axi’u’
Table 2 summarises the settlement behaviour.
’“bi‘ised skin fricti“n are at Leve‘ 3 t“ Leve‘ 4 with ’axi’u’
Table 2: Settlement of Pile Top for PTP1. va‘ue “f 689kPa (1st ‘“ading cyc‘e), 1590kPa (2nd ‘“ading
cyc‘e) and 1790kPa (3rd ‘“ading Cyc‘e). Since, this ”i‘e was
tested t“ fai‘, the ’axi’u’ ’“bi‘ised skin fricti“n “f 1790kPa
is considered as ultimate value for the limestone of fair to good
rock quality.

3.2 Site B
It can be seen that ’axi’u’ ”i‘e t“” sett‘e’ent was rec“rded The Load Settlement Behaviour of the Test Pile is shown in
at 8.80’’ during the 3rd ‘“ading cyc‘e when the ’axi’u’ ‘“ad Figure 9 and the sett‘e’ent is su’’arised in Tab‘e 4.
“f 1875t“ns was a””‘ied. It ’ust be n“ted that the fu‘‘ ”r“gra’ UPLIFT VERSUS LOAD (DIAL GAUGE)
“f ‘“ading ste”s f“r 3rd ‘“ading cyc‘e c“u‘d n“t be c“’”‘eted as LOAD IN TON

the ”i‘e fai‘ed during the ste” “f ‘“ading fr“’ 1875t“ns (2.5 x 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

W“rking L“ad) t“ 1950t“ns (2.6 x W“rking ‘“ad). -5

The resu‘ts sh“w that the sett‘e’ent was 2.1’’ (0.2% “f
UPLIFT IN MM

-10
the ”i‘e dia’eter) at ”i‘e w“rking ‘“ad and 6.0’’ (0.57% “f the 1st Cycle
2nd Cycle
pile diameter) at two times working load. It also shows that at -15
3rd Cycle
w“rking ‘“ad the ”i‘e gives an e‘astic reb“und “f 80.95%. -20
Readings from the strain gauges were analysed to determine -25
the load distribution behaviour and the mobilised unit friction
-30
and unit end bearing during the sequence of loading. The results
are sh“wn in Tab‘e 3 and Figure 8. -35

It is n“ted that the r“ck s“cket start fr“’ de”th 4.3’ t“ -40
8.3’. Tab‘e 3 tabu‘ates the ‘“ad distributi“n a‘“ng the ”i‘e shaft
Figure 9: Load Movement Curves for UTP-1.
and ”i‘e base. It sh“ws that “n‘y ab“ut 3t“ns t“ 6t“ns (0.32% t“
0.4%) “f the a””‘ied ‘“ad was carried by end bearing thr“ugh“ut Table 4: Settlement of pile top for UTP-1.

Table 3: Summary of Load Distribution for PTP1.

The test ”i‘e UTP-1 did n“t fai‘ after ‘“ading u” t“ three (3)
times the working load. The pile top settlement was recorded
at 11.95’’ (1.2% “f ”i‘e dia’eter), 30.88’’ (3.1% “f ”i‘e

36 Journal – The Institution of Engineers, Malaysia (Vol. 77, No. 2, December 2016)
 LOAD DISTRIBUTION BEHAVIOUR OF BORED PILE IN VARIOUS SOIL FORMATION:
ROCK SOCKET IN LIMESTONE, SCHIST AND SANDSTONE

dia’eter) and 35.77’’ (3.6% “f ”i‘e dia’eter) at test ‘“ad “f 3.3 Site C
650t“ns, 1300t“ns and 1950t“ns res”ective‘y. Readings from the strain gauges were analysed to determine the
Table 5: Summary of Load Distribution for UTP1.
load distribution behavior and the mobilised unit friction and
unit end bearing during the sequence of loading. The results are
sh“wn in Tab‘e 6 and Figure 11.
18000

16000

14000

Applied Load (kN)

12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

The load transfer distribution and mobilised skin friction 2000

and end bearing is sh“wn in Tab‘e 5 and Figure 10 res”ective‘y. 0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
It is n“ted that the r“ck s“cket start fr“’ de”th 13.5’ t“ 1st Cycle
Average Pilehead Settlement (mm)
2nd Cycles 3rd Cycles 4th Cycles
16.5’. Based “n Tab‘e 5, it can be deduced that fr“’ 0’ t“
13.5’ de”th “f ”i‘e, “n‘y a s’a‘‘ a’“unt “f a””‘ied ‘“ad which Figure 11: Load Movement Curves for TP2.
are 8.3t“ns t“ 27.5t“ns was distributed t“ the surr“unding
soil, due to the debonded section. Therefore, smaller load was Table 6: Settlement of pile top for TP2.
rec“rded at de”th u” t“ 13.5’. At de”th 13.5’ and be‘“w, ’“st
of the load was taken by the rock socket.
It also shows that some percentage of loads was distributed to
the ”i‘e base. The ‘“ad distributi“n f“r end bearing was 18.9t“ns
(2.9%) at n“r’a‘ w“rking ‘“ad, 122.4t“ns (9.2%) at tw“ ti’es
w“rking ‘“ad and 662.2t“ns (34.0%) at three ti’es w“rking
load. The trends of linearly increasing load transfer along the
shaft and base resistance during ’axi’u’ ‘“ading (three ti’es The pile top displacement (settlement) were recorded at
of working load) indicates that ultimate shaft and base resistance 4.74’’ (0.5% “f dia’eter ”i‘e) at test ‘“ad 600t“ns, 5.62’’
were not fully mobilised at working load and that a settlement of (0.6% “f ”i‘e dia’eter) at a””‘ied ‘“ad 750 t“ns, 7.96’’ (0.88%
3.6% ”i‘e dia’eter was required t“ ’“bi‘ised the end bearing t“ “f ”i‘e dia’eter) and 15.07’’ (16.7% “f the ”i‘e dia’eter) at
a signiicant va‘ue. This justify the ”ractice “f ign“ring the end a””‘ied ‘“ad “f 900t“ns and 1500t“ns res”ective‘y. Tab‘e 6
bearing in geotechnical capacity estimation. also shows the higher percentage of elastic rebound is between
Mobilised Unit Skin Friction (kPa) 89.52% (a””‘ied ‘“ad “f 1500t“ns) t“ 97.05% at a””‘ied ‘“ad “f
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 600t“ns. The test ”i‘e TP2 was ‘“aded u” t“ 2.5 ti’es w“rking
0
‘“ad and did n“t fai‘ and the sett‘e’ent was “n‘y 15.07’’. It
2
indicates that the pile still can behave well if imposed load is
4 more than that.
6

8
650 tons
Depth

1300 tons
10
1950 tons
12

14
Rock
16 Socket

18

20

Figure 10: Mobilised Unit Skin Friction for UTP-1.

Figure 10 sh“ws that the ’axi’u’ ’“bi‘ised skin fricti“n

is at 3rd ‘“ading cyc‘e with ’axi’u’ va‘ue “f 1220kPa (Leve‘
3 t“ Leve‘ 4), 1300kPa (Leve‘ 4 t“ Leve‘ 5) and 1320kPa (Leve‘
5 t“ Leve‘ 6). It can be suggested that a va‘ue “f 1300kPa ’ay
be considered as ultimate unit friction value for this very poor
quality schist.

Journal – The Institution of Engineers, Malaysia (Vol. 77, No. 2, December 2016) 37
 FAZELA MUSTAFA1, YASMIN ASHAARI2 AND AMINUDDIN BAKI3,4
It is n“ted that r“ck s“cket is fr“’ 10.5 t“ 14.85’ de”th. As
shown in the table, only a small portion of applied loads about
18.5t“ns t“ 49.6t“ns (3.1% t“ 3.8%) were transferred t“ the ”i‘e
base and most of the load was distributed to the surrounding soil
and rock socket shaft. The ultimate shaft and base resistance
were not fully mobilised at the pile working load as the load
transfer along the shaft and the base still shows the trend of
‘inear‘y increasing during ’axi’u’ ‘“ading (2.5 ti’es w“rking
load).
Mobilised Unit Skin Friction (kPa)
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800
2
4
6
Depth
8 900 tons
10
12
14
16
18
20
Figure 12: Distribution of Mobilised Unit Skin Friction for TP2.
Figure 12 sh“ws that the ’axi’u’ ’“bi‘ised skin fricti“n
is Leve‘ 5 t“ Leve‘ 6 with ’axi’u’ va‘ue “f 338.0kPa (at
600t“ns), 373.0kPa (at 750t“ns), 435.0 kPa (at 900t“ns) and
717.0 kPa (at 1500t“ns). Based “n these resu‘ts it ’ay be taken
that the ultimate unit friction in the poor quality sandstone is
ar“und 700kPa.
3.4 Prediction of Ultimate Unit Skin Friction in
Rock Socket
Various researchers have proposed numbers of empirical and
semi-empirical design methods on rock socketed piles, most of
them compute the ultimate unit skin friction based on average
unc“nined c“’”ressive strength (UCS) “f the r“ck ’ass and
a””‘ying reducti“n and c“rre‘ati“n fact“rs. In “rder t“ exa’ine
the applicability of these methods, their prediction values of
ultimate unit skin friction in the rock socket are compared with
the “bserved ’axi’u’ unit skin fricti“n va‘ues “btained fr“’
Site A (PTP1), Site B (UTP-1) and Site C (TP2).
Therefore, in order to determine the prediction value of
each researchers n“ted in Tab‘e 8, the average R“ck Qua‘ity
Designation (RQD) and UCS from the nearest borehole data
were used in the estimation. The value of Rock Socket Reduction
Factor, α and Rock Socket Correlation Factor, β can be obtained
fr“’ Figure 2 and Figure 3 res”ective‘y. Tab‘e 8 ”resent the
Table 8: Prediction of Ultimate Shaft Friction by
Various Researchers.
38
summary of the comparison between predictions with the
“bserved ’axi’u’ va‘ue “f r“ck s“cket fricti“n “n site.
It can be deduced that f“r test ”i‘e PTP1, the “bserved
’axi’u’ unit shaft fricti“n “f 1790 kPa was an u‘ti’ate
resistance since the pile is loaded to failure. Rosenberg and
J“urneaux [3] ’eth“d gives the nearest u‘ti’ate va‘ue “f 1505
kPa.
With regard t“ UTP-1, ’eth“d ”r“”“sed by Wi‘‘ia’s
and Pe‘‘s [1] gave the nearest accurate u‘ti’ate skin fricti“n
“f 1326.0kPa c“’”ared t“ “bserved va‘ue “f 1320.0kPa. The
other methods, gave quite lower value compared to the observed
skin friction. Since the estimated skin friction is lower than the
actual friction of the in situ rock, it can be assumed that those
600 tons ”redicti“ns by R“senberg and J“urneaux [3], and H“rvath [2]
750 tons
methods are under design of skin friction, fs.
1500 tons
Whi‘st f“r TP2, Wi‘‘ia’s and Pe‘‘s [1] ’eth“d gave an
Rock
Socket u‘ti’ate va‘ue “f 1430.0kPa, and R“senberg and J“urneaux [3]
’eth“d gave a va‘ue “f 1040.0kPa. Meth“d by H“rvath [2] gave
the nearest u‘ti’ate skin fricti“n (780kPa) c“’”ared t“ “bserved
shaft fricti“n va‘ue (717kPa).
It can be seen that for each test pile certain method over
design, under design or predict closely the observed values.
It is noted that the ratio of ultimate mobilised unit friction
f“r TP2 (sandst“ne) “ver ’axi’u’ ‘“ad is ‘“wer than th“se
f“r UTP-1 (schist f“r’ati“n) even th“ugh the RQD and UCS is
much better than those for the schist formation. It indicates that
type of rock affects the friction at the shaft interface.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The ”erf“r’ance “f test ”i‘e PTP1, UTP-1 and TP2 sha‘‘ be
dee’ed t“ have satisied the require’ents “f the JKR Standard
S”eciicati“n f“r ”i‘e head sett‘e’ent where at design w“rking
‘“ad, the t“ta‘ sett‘e’ent “f the test ”i‘es did n“t exceed 12.5’’
and when loaded to twice working load, the total settlement of
the ”i‘e head did n“t exceed 38’’ “r 10% “f the ”i‘e dia’eter
whichever is lower. After removal of the designed working load,
the residua‘ sett‘e’ent did n“t exceed 6.5’’ and after re’“va‘
of the test load at twice working load, the residual settlement did
n“t exceed 20’’.
The test piles mainly utilised the frictional resistance to
support the design capacity of pile with factor of safety at least
2.0. End bearing resistance is “n‘y ’“bi‘ised fr“’ tw“ t“ three
times working load.
In most bored pile design, base resistance of bored pile is
usually ignored due to uncertainties of base cleaning. The results
in this study show that even if base cleaning were properly done
very little end bearing resistance is utilised at pile working load.
This c“u‘d be a technica‘ justiicati“n t“ disregard end bearing
resistance for bored pile.
Comparison of rock skin friction from various methods with
the observed values on site shows that lower value than actual
skin friction is considered as under design. While the higher
value than actual skin friction is considered as over design.
This ’eans that ”redicti“n “f u‘ti’ate va‘ues fr“’ H“rvath [2]
is ’“st c“nservative and that by Wi‘‘ia’ and Pe‘‘s [1] is ’“st
‘ibera‘ f“r th“se three (3) test ”i‘es.
Journal – The Institution of Engineers, Malaysia (Vol. 77, No. 2, December 2016)
 LOAD DISTRIBUTION BEHAVIOUR OF BORED PILE IN VARIOUS SOIL FORMATION:
ROCK SOCKET IN LIMESTONE, SCHIST AND SANDSTONE

The trend of mobilised skin friction and end bearing is
similar for all test piles indicating that it is not affected by type
of geological formation however the magnitude is dependent on
the type of rock, strength and quality.
5.0 REFERENCES
[1] Wi‘‘ia’s, A. F. and Pe‘‘s, P. J. N. (1981) Side Resistance
Rock Sockets in Sandstone, Mudstone, and Shale.” Canadian
Ge“technica‘ J“urna‘, 18, ””.502-513.
[2] H“rvath, R. G. (1978) Fie‘d L“ad Test Data “n C“ncrete t“ R“ck
B“nd Strength. University “f T“r“nt“, Pub‘icati“n N“. 78-07.
[3] R“senberg, P. and J“urneaux, N. L. (1976) Fricti“n and End
Bearing Test on Bedrock for High Capacity Socket Design.”
Canadian Ge“technica‘ J“urna‘, 13, ””. 324-333.
[4] Ne“h, C. A. (1998) Design and C“nstructi“n “f Pi‘e F“undati“n
in Limestone Formation”. Journal of Institution of Engineers,
Ma‘aysia, V“‘. 59, N“. 1, ””.23-29.
[5] Th“rne, C. P. (1977) The A‘‘“wab‘e L“adings “f F“undati“n
“n Sha‘e and Sandst“ne in the Sydney Regi“n. Part 3. Fie‘d
Test Result” Sydney Group of Australia Geomechanics Society,
Institute Engineers Australia.
[6] T“’‘ins“n, M. J. (1995) F“undati“n Design and C“nstructi“n.
5th editi“n. L“ng’an.

PROFILES
IR. FAZELA BINTI MUSTAPA h“‘ds a Master “f Science in Ge“technica‘ Engineering fr“’ Universiti Tekn“‘“gi MARA (2014) which she
”ursued under the Pub‘ic Service De”art’ent (JPA) Award and a degree in Civi‘ Engineering (2000) fr“’ University Techn“‘“gy Ma‘aysia (UTM).
She has w“rking ex”erience with ADJ C“nsu‘tant f“r tw“ years after which she j“ined a c“nstructi“n c“’”any SAJ Sdn. Bhd. Since 2004 she is
attached with Pub‘ic W“rks De”art’ent (JKR) and is res”“nsib‘e f“r ”‘anning, c“nstructi“n, “”erati“n and ’“nit“ring “f r“ad ”r“jects. She a‘s“
has ex”erience designing ge“technica‘, structura‘ and civi‘ w“rks.
She is a registered professional engineer and a corporate member of the Institution of Engineers Malaysia (IEM).

ASSOC. PROF. DR YASMIN ASHAARI started her career as a Lecturer at the Department of Civil and Mining Engineering, University of
W“‘‘“ng“ng, Austra‘ia u”“n c“’”‘eti“n “f her PhD in 1990. She returned t“ Ma‘aysia and j“ined ACP Industries Berhad in 1994 during the
booming period of construction industry. She later joined Terra Geotechnics as Senior Geotechnical Engineer and then Peremba Construction Sdn.
Bhd as Engineering/Design Manager which saw her being involved in the development and construction of Putrajaya and Cyberjaya. A private
h“s”ita‘ ”r“ject in Kua‘a Lu’”ur gave great ex”“sure t“ ”i‘ing in karstic ‘i’est“ne f“r’ati“n and her ‘ast c“nstructi“n ”r“ject Kua‘a Lu’”ur F‘““d
Mitigati“n, Package B which c“vered a vast stretch “f urbanised area gave ex”“sure t“ ’any n“n-technica‘ and technica‘ as”ects “f c“nstructi“n.
She c“nsiders herse‘f very f“rtunate t“ be given the rezeki t“ w“rk with Auth“rities, C‘ients, Pr“ject Managers, C“nsu‘tants and c“‘‘eagues t“
bring to reality some of the biggest projects in the country.
In 2007 her career ca’e fu‘‘ circ‘e when she j“ined the Facu‘ty “f Civi‘ Engineering, Universiti Tekn“‘“gi MARA as a Lecturer. N“w she
enjoys teaching and working with students.

IR. DR AMINUDDIN BAKI graduated with PhD in Civil Engineering from the University of Wollongong, Australia. He has worked several years
in industry including a few construction companies, a few consultancy companies and a utility company. He has also worked as an academician
with universities b“th in Austra‘ia and Ma‘aysia. In 2012, he decided t“ set u” his “wn ”artnershi” c“’”any, ’ain‘y w“rking “n envir“n’enta‘
consultancy works.
He is a registered Professional Engineer with the Board of Engineers Malaysia and a Fellow of the Institution of Engineers Malaysia. He is also
a Member of the Institution of Engineers Australia and a registered EIA Subject Consultant with DOE Malaysia.

Journal – The Institution of Engineers, Malaysia (Vol. 77, No. 2, December 2016) 39