See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/300623900

Driven pile design in weak rock

Conference Paper · May 2015

DOI: 10.1201/b18442-73

CITATIONS READS

3 2,948

4 authors, including:

Jamie Irvine Victor Terente

Cathie Associates Cathie Associates
3 PUBLICATIONS   4 CITATIONS    12 PUBLICATIONS   13 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Design of Piles in Weak Rock - follow up paper - SUT conference, London 2017 View project

ammendment of author names (mine was incorrect in the original paper) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jamie Irvine on 22 December 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Driven pile design in weak rock
J. Irvine, V. Terente, L.T. Lee & R. Comrie
Cathie Associates, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom

ABSTRACT: There is currently limited guidance regarding the design of large diameter driven piles in weak
rock and/or very hard clays. The onshore industry tends to use drilled and grouted piles, thereby removing the
potential risks associated with the pile capacity and installability of driven piles in weak rock. However, the
offshore industry still prefers to use driven piles due to the time, cost and complexity of large diameter subsea
drilling and grouting operations. There are an increasing number of offshore energy developments in areas
where weak rocks such as Mercia Mudstone are present at shallow depth. Therefore, developing a better under-
standing of the capacity of driven piles in weak rock has the potential to allow significant optimization of pile
design and reduce installation risk and costs in comparison to drilled and grouted piles. The aim of this paper
is to illustrate current design practise, discuss relevant design parameters, testing, investigation requirements
and risks associated with inadequate or misleading geotechnical survey data.

1 INTRODUCTION investigation best suited to their particular site. This

Offshore renewable energy developments are ex-
panding in size and are being planned in deeper wa-
ters and more challenging ground conditions than
their predecessors, with weak rock being anticipated
near seabed on a number of the future UK develop-
ments including Beatrice, Firth of Forth, Triton Knoll
and the Irish Sea.
There is a great deal of experience in the design
and installation of piles in sands and clays and recog-
nised design guidelines such as DNV (1992) and API
(2000). However, there is very little guidance for
driven pile design in weak rock.
Several oil and gas and recent offshore wind de-
velopments have installed piles in weak rock includ-
ing author experience with Lynn & Inner Dowsing,
Teesside, Gwynt Y Mor and the Narec Offshore Wind
Demonstrator projects.
The mechanics of driven pile foundations in weak
rocks are poorly understood, particularly when mod-
elling pile capacities and pile drivability issues. There
are currently significant differences in the design ap-
proaches used to calculate skin friction and end bear-
ing capacities in weak rock. It is often down to the
designer to adopt the most appropriate design ap-
proach, determine relevant parameters and plan the
situation often leads to overreliance on a particular
testing technique, overdesign of pile lengths, certifi-
cation difficulties and pile refusal during construc-
tion.
2 DESIGN PROCESS
The optimal pile design should rely upon developing
an understanding of rock mass behaviour and the po-
tential risks associated with the design, installation
and operation of driven piles in weak rock.
The following process is recommended based
upon experience designing piles in weak rock:
1. Construct a ground model and geotechnical
risk register.
2. Determine the rock mass properties.
3. Selection of the most appropriate design tech-
nique and associated parameters.
4. Scope and specify appropriate survey.
5. Determine appropriate design parameters.
6. Pile design and drivability assessment.
7. Conduct pile tests and/or pile driving monitor-
ing (PDM) to confirm design.
The following risks should be taken into consider-
ation from the early stages of the project:
  Significant variability of the rock strength.
 Underestimating of capacity and pile driving
resistance resulting in premature pile refusal
and possible drilling requirements.
 Pile damage during installation operations.
3 WEAK ROCK CHARACTERISATION
Weak rocks are part of the continuous spectrum of
materials between soil and rock. In relation to soils,
weak rocks are harder, more brittle, more dilatant and
heterogeneous. In comparison to other rocks, they are
softer, less brittle, more compressible and more sus-
ceptible to weathering. The key characteristics which
can influence the behaviour of weak rocks are consid-
ered to be:
 Uniaxial compressive strength
 Rock mass strength and condition (Geological
strength index (GSI), RQD, Fracture index,
etc)
 Grain size and mineral composition
 Moisture content
The strength of weak rock material can vary sig-
nificantly, which can result in difficulties selecting
appropriate lower and upper bound strength parame-
ters for use in design and driveability assessments.
This disparity can lead to long piles being required for
capacity and yet very demanding installation condi-
tions when the pile design relies solely on rock mate-
rial strength tests.
Weak rocks can be subdivided into three main
types: arenaceous (sandstone), argillaceous (hard
clays, mudstone, siltstone) and calcareous (chalk,
weak limestones, calcarenites) as discussed by Blyth
and de Freitas (1991).
3.1 Arenaceous (Sandstone)
Sandstones can show a wide range of material
strength, rock mass strength and stiffness. Their
strength is particularly sensitive to moisture content.
In general, these materials are generally anticipated to
be brittle and de-structure into sand or gravel sized
sandstone fragments during pile driving.
3.2 Argillaceous (Mudstone, Siltstone)
Mudstones generally exhibit a low material and mass
strength and stiffness and are generally anticipated to
behave as a stiff overconsolidated cohesive material.
As such, mudstones are anticipated to remould simi-
lar to cohesive soils during pile driving.
3.3 Calcareous (Chalk, Limestone, Calcarenite)
These rocks are formed from mineral grains, often of
microscopic sizes, cemented mainly with calcite. In
the case of chalk of low/medium density (CIRIA,
2002), pile driving creates an annulus of remoulded
material around the pile. Higher density chalk and
limestone suffer a complex combination of crushing,
reduction of porosity and remoulding processes dur-
ing driving. Siliceous calcarenites of low carbonate
content have been modelled for pile capacity follow-
ing cohesive approaches (Thomas J. et al., 2011),
however, this approach may not be applicable for all
calcarenite sites; very low frictions can develop in
this type of rocks. Method adopted for those rocks
should be proven with pile load tests. There are also
design recommendations for piles in chalk which ac-
count for the potential crushing and compaction of
rock. A careful assessment of rock characteristics
supported by pile tests should be made to evaluate
probable behaviour during pile installation.
4 DRIVEN PILE DESIGN METHODS
The formulae for calculating the driven pile resistance
in rock is given by the expression:
Qp  Qb  Qs  Wp (1)
where Qp = ultimate bearing capacity, Qb = ultimate
end bearing resistance; Qs = ultimate shaft resistance;
Wp = weight of the pile.
4.1 End Bearing Resistance
The ultimate end bearing resistance, Qb, of a pile is
shown in Equation (2) below:
Qb  N k  q c  Ab (2)
where Nk = bearing resistance factor; qc = uniaxial un-
confined compressive strength; Ab = cross-sectional
area of pile toe.
Various bearing resistance factor have been de-
rived by different authors, as presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Bearing resistance factors for weak rock
___________________________________________________
Method Bearing Factor Comments
___________________________________________________
Fleming et al. (1992) ________________________________
3 For weak rock
0.3 Rock with open joints
or limited penetration
into rock
___________________________________________________
Rehnman et al. (1971) 4 to 6 From tests conducted in
sandstones, limestones
and granites
___________________________________________________
Rowe and Armitage.
(1987) 2.5 Specific to rock sockets
___________________________________________________
Tomlinson 2*tan (45+ϕ/2) Rock with widely
2
& Woodward (2007) spaced joints
___________________________________________________
Williams et al. (1980) 5 Rock socket piles in
mudstone
___________________________________________________
The majority of references recommend a limiting
end bearing resistance value based upon allowable
displacements rather than ‘yielding’, these values
generally range from 2.5 qc to 5 qc, where normalised
displacements are z/D = 0.05 to 0.1 respectively (z =
settlement, D = Pile diameter).
4.2 Shaft Resistance
The nature of the pile-rock interface along the pile
shaft is the most significant uncertainty in terms of
pile design. To calculate the ultimate shaft resistance,
it is necessary to model the interface steel-rock in one
of the following three major categories:
 Complete disaggregation of rock at pile wall
interface resulting in cohesionless behaviour
 Complete remoulding of rock at the pile wall
interface resulting in cohesive behaviour
 Limited disturbance at pile wall and contact
between pile and excavated rock mass, mod-
elled as a drilled socket (including the poten-
tial for an oversized socket resulting in low
stresses and low friction)
4.2.1 Cohesionless Soil Interface
For piles in cohesionless soil, the ultimate shaft re-
sistance, Qs, can be calculated by using Equation (3)
as recommended by API (2000 & 2007).
Q s  K  p ' 0  tan   As  f l  As (3)
where K = coefficient of lateral earth pressure; p’0 =
effective overburden pressure; δ = friction angle be-
tween the soil and pile wall; As = surface area of the
pile shaft; fl = limiting skin friction.
There is a reasonable amount of research available
for assessing K, p’0 and δ as detailed in Tomlinson
and Woodward (2007). However, there are signifi-
cant uncertainties with regards to appropriate limiting
skin friction values, the following examples were ob-
tained from literature:
Table 2. Observed skin friction values in sandstone
___________________________________________________
Reference Observation/Limitation
___________________________________________________
API (2000) 115kPa limit for dense gravel
Rodway & Rowe (1980) >250kPa observed (ob.)
Beake & Sutcliffe (1980) 170-300kPa ob. (carbonaceous)
___________________________________________________
The results show a wide degree of scatter, how-
ever, the limiting values for granular soils recom-
mended by API would be conservative in sandstone.
It is generally recognised that the method detailed in
Equation (3) underestimates pile capacity in dense to
very dense sands, therefore, the suggested limits may
not be appropriate. It is also noted that the latest API
(2007) has removed the recommendations for pile ca-
pacity in gravel due to the lack of pile load tests.
The observations from both the Rodway & Rowe
(1980) and Beake & Sutcliffe (1980) indicate a skin
friction of 5-10% of the rock UCS.
4.2.2 Cohesive Soil Interface
For piles in cohesive soils, the ultimate shaft re-
sistance, Qs, is a function of adhesion factor, α, and
undrained shear strength su as recommended by API
(2000 & 2007).
Q s    s u  As (4)
where = adhesion factor; su = undrained shear
strength; As = surface area of the pile shaft.
The factor α can be related to undrained shear
strength, effective overburden pressure and interface
roughness. However, the API (2007) main text
method has not been verified for high ratios of un-
drained shear strength to overburden pressure, similar
to those anticipated for weak rock.
4.2.3 Chalk
The most widely accepted current guidance on pile
design in chalk is (CIRIA, 2002) and Carrington et al.
(2011) for onshore works.
The limiting skin frictions suggested by CIRIA
(2002) ranges from 30kPa to 50kPa for large dis-
placement pre-formed piles in low to medium density
chalk and up to 120kPa in Grade A (low discontinu-
ity) high density chalk. Carrington et al., (2011) de-
rives limiting skin friction values from the peak post-
cyclic shear strength times an adhesion factor, as
shown in Equation (5):
 tan  
f s. lim it     su (5)
 tan  ' 
where δ = steel-chalk interface friction coefficient; φ’
= post peak internal soil friction coefficient (from
CSS tests); su = undrained shear strength.
4.2.4 Rock Socket Interface
There has been a significant amount of research un-
dertaken regarding the pile-rock interface for rock
socket piles as these are commonly utilised for on-
shore developments.
The rock socket roughness and cleanliness are im-
portant factors in determining the pile-rock adhesion
and have a significant influence on capacity. The lim-
iting skin friction for grouted rock sockets is often
governed by the rock strength as follows:
Qs    qc  As (6)
where = adhesion factor (0.1 to 0.4) depending
upon socket roughness as summarised in CIRIA
(1999), generally taken as 0.1 for a smooth socket.
Studies summarised by Wyllie (2009) indicated
that auger smear (loose drill cuttings / disturbed soils)
on socket walls could reduce shaft friction by up to
50% and by up to 75% if there are significant ‘cakes’
of bentonite. Auger smear could be considered repre-
sentative of highly disturbed material due to pile in-
stallation and it is noted that allowing for this reduc-
tion in Equation (6) above would give an adhesion
value of 0.05, which is similar to the values observed
in the testing discussed in Section 4.2.1.
5 DESIGN PARAMETERS SELECTION
The design parameters should be based upon devel-
oping an understanding of the rock mass behaviour
(Hoek et al.,2005). Authors’ analysis of several pile
installations in mudstone and sandstone indicate that
rock mass properties measured in-situ provide a much
closer correlation with the actual pile capacity and
drivability than the estimates based upon the intact
rock properties derived from laboratory testing.
Geotechnical survey operations have to be appro-
priately scoped and specified to obtain sufficient data
to provide rock mass strength information, as a mini-
mum it should include:
 Appropriate rock logging procedures, for ex-
ample Geological Strength Index (GSI)
 High quality samples of both weathered and
intact rock to facilitate laboratory testing
 In situ testing such as pressuremeter and/or
downhole geophysics such as P-S logging
Due to the current uncertainties regarding pile de-
sign methods, it is therefore recommended that trial
piles and static load testing are considered. Dynamic
Pile Driving Monitoring (PDM) should also be under-
taken during installation operations to confirm as-
built pile capacity.
6 PLANNING THE GEOTECHNICAL SURVEY
The depth to bedrock, weathering profile and ex-
pected rock mass strength range of a site (the ground
model) should be estimated at an early stage in order
to design the sampling and testing regime required.
6.1.1 High quality sampling
The recovery of good quality samples for weak rocks
with the use of triple core barrel systems is clearly
recognized in ISO 22475-1:2006 and BS EN ISO
14689-1:2003. Minimization of drilling induced frac-
tures and high total core recovery (TCR) are key in-
dicators of the success of drilling operations. Recov-
ery is generally maximized with the use of sensitive
triple core barrel drilling methods such as Geobore S
systems, characterized by a high ratio of core diame-
ter over drill bit thickness, which reduces core dis-
turbance.
Representative core sections (avoiding over-sam-
pling of stronger layers) should be identified during
logging and preserved rapidly in waxed samples to
maintain their moisture. Minor fractures and hetero-
geneities in the samples should be logged in detail in
order to single out tests results associated with fail-
ures along pre-formed discontinuities and heteroge-
neities.
6.1.2 In situ testing
In situ testing with pressuremeters provides reliable
in situ measurements in addition to CPT testing in ex-
tremely weak rock when specified correctly (Clarke
and Smith, 1992) and should be factored in the initial
planning of the investigations despite of their higher
costs.
Indirect geophysical methods such as P-S logging
to obtain P and S wave velocities for stiffness meas-
urements and optical or acoustic televiewer methods
for fracture logging can provide additional design in-
formation on the rock masses fracture and deforma-
bility condition.
6.1.3 Laboratory Testing of Intact Rock Samples
Moisture content should be tested immediately after
extrusion of rock coring offshore. Results can later be
compared with moisture results of UCS and UU sam-
ples completed onshore to measure sample degrada-
tion and the effect of moisture content and associated
changes in strength (Hawkins and McConnell, 1992).
The testing strategy and choice of strength testing
including uniaxial compressive strength (UCS), point
load testing (PL), unconfined undrained tests (UU)
or consolidated anisotropic undrained tests (CAU)
should be varied and chosen on the basis of the
strength range, rock type, rock mass quality and po-
tential effects of heterogeneities and discontinuities in
the final test results. UCS tests could underestimate
the strength of rock material due to the presence of
discontinuities and anisotropies within the rock sam-
ple, particularly when testing large diameter speci-
mens Hoek and Brown (1997). Over-reliance on UCS
tests in weak rock is usually associated with an un-
derestimation of rock mass strength. Rode (1990)
completed an extensive study of UCS test results,
which proved that the variability of results increases
significantly with decreasing rock material strength.
In addition, Wu (1993) reported the significant effects
of consolidation pressure in the results of Mohr Cou-
lomb parameters derived from triaxial tests in mud-
stones.
Point load testing (PL), can be completed on frag-
ments of core allowing completion of numerous tests
in a single core run. Specific PL correlation values for
different rock types such as chalk have been sug-
gested by different authors (Bowden et al, 1998),
however, PL should be correlated with adjacent UCS
tests in order to define suitable site specific correla-
tion factors (ISRM, 1981). The effect of bedding ani-
sotropy in sedimentary rocks is well documented
(Wu, 1993) and should be taking into consideration
when analysing test results to derive characteristic de-
sign values.
6.1.4 Rock mass testing 7 DESIGN EXPERIENCE
Rock mass testing methods aimed to obtain infor-
mation on rock mass behaviour are completed off- The authors have design experience at several weak
shore. rock sites. An example of driven pile design in mud-
Pressuremeter and dilatometer testing in weak stone is briefly discussed below.
rock can be very useful when benchmarking rock The Mercia Mudstone at this chosen location was
mass properties such as shear stiffness (relevant for described as extremely weak to weak with strength
the upper sections of rock in monopile design) or rock values ranging from 0.4-7MPa. The UCS testing gen-
mass compressive strength or equivalent su. Specific erally indicated much lower strengths values ranging
considerations to the particular behaviour of weak from 0.4-0.8MPa, with other types of testing exhibit-
rock such as stress history (Stevenson et al., 1990) ing a much larger degree of scatter, and in situ testing
and tensile fracturing (Johnson & Haberfield, 1990) (HPD) generally showing a much higher average
must be considered during the interpretation of the re- strength.
sults. The rock strength profile adopted was significantly
A summary of rock material and rock mass influenced by the UCS and lower bound point load
strength tests required for design characterisation are tests, resulting in a requirement for significant pene-
presented below: tration (>20m) into the mudstone layer.
During installation operations the piles refused
Table 3. Rock material properties and tests some distance short of the target depth and the capac-
Rock Material Properties ity was confirmed from a back analysis of the availa-
Test Type UCS su  c  r E  P0 K ble data and the available PDM results.
Logging * * 
UCS  *   
PL * *   
UU *    
Triaxial  *    
Oedometer       
Shear box     
CSS      
* Indirect measurement/estimate
 Direct Measurement

where UCS is uniaxial compressive strength, PL

Point load, UU Undrained Unconsolidated , CSS cy-
clic simple shear, su undrained shear strength, ϕ fric-
tion angle, r residual friction angle, poissons ra-
tioc cohesion, E young’s modulus, P0 pre-
consolidation pressure, K permeability, δ steel-rock
friction angle, Ko coefficient of horizontal earth pres-
sure at rest, ϕ’m drained friction angle (rock mass), c’m
drained cohesion (rock mass), Em elastic modulus of
the rock mass, Gm shear modulus of the rock mass, Fi
Fracture index and Fo discontinuity orientation, RQD
rock quality designation.
Figure 1. Shaft frictions from design example.
Table 4. Rock mass properties and tests
Rock Mass Properties
Test
The initial shaft friction design values (prepared
K0 'm c'm Em Gm Fi Fo RQD previous to early pile refusal) were based on best es-
Type
Logging         timate material strength profiles from UCS test re-
GSI  * * * *   sults. Less conservative simplistic strength profiles
HPD        were subsequently developed from the GSI logging
P-S log    * *   and HPD testing. The GSI strength profiles were es-
Acous- timated based on the rock mass failure criteria recom-
tic        mended by Hoek et al (2005), which allows the deri-
viewer
vation of a rock mass UCS value. These new rock
strength profiles were then used to estimate pile shaft
Where GSI is Geological Strength Index logging, friction and end bearing capacity using the methods
HPD high pressure dilatometer, P-S log is a downhole for mudstone discussed above to attempt to match the
method for the measurement of shear wave velocity back analysed shaft friction results obtained from
and acoustic viewer is a downhole imaging tool capa- PDM testing (Figure 1).
ble of logging discontinuities.
 Based on this back analysis, strength profiles
based on UCS test result alone, significantly underes-
timate the pile shaft friction, and HPD derived
strength profile gave the closest match with the back
analysed PDM results, however, still tended to under-
estimate shaft friction. The GSI profile gave an esti-
mate that lay between the UCS and HPD results.
8 CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS
The piles for several operational offshore structures
founded in weak rock have been demonstrated to
have acceptable axial capacity indicating that the cur-
rent design methods are sufficiently conservative for
use.
However, to assess pile capacity and pile drivabil-
ity, it is vital to prepare a good ground model, a tai-
lored design approach and to define an investigation
methodology which provides accurate rock material
and rock mass strength profiles. The authors experi-
ence with three sites investigated to date is that rock
mass parameters obtained in situ provide a better fit
to as-built behaviour than designs based on testing
‘intact’ or ‘material’ rock properties alone, however,
additional information and more case studies are re-
quired to confirm this.
An appropriate variety of testing techniques
should be considered to allow rock mass properties to
be characterised with accuracy. In addition, the incor-
poration of pile testing programs including PDM and
where possible, on shore trials in similar rock condi-
tions is strongly recommended.
There are currently several offshore developments
underway installing piles in weak rock, and several
onshore pile testing programs are also planned. A de-
tailed review of the information obtained from these
programs would go a long way towards confirming
and refining the design methods for varying rock
types.
REFERENCES
API, 2000. Recommended Practice RP 2A-WSD, Recommended
Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed
Offshore Platforms – Working Stress Design. American Pe-
troleum Institute.
API, 2007. Errata and Supplement 3 to API RP 2A-WSD (2000).
American Petroleum Institute.
Beake R.H. and Sutcliffe G. 1980. Pipe pile drivability in the
carbonate rocks of the Southern Arabian Gulf, Proceedings
of the International Conference on Structural Foundation on
Rock, Vol 1pp 133-149.
Blyth F. and de Freitas M. (7th Ed.) 1991. A geology for Engi-
neers.
Bowden A. Lamont-Black J. and Ullyott S. 1998. Point Load
testing of weak rocks with particular reference to chalk.
Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology, 31, 95-103.
British Standard BS EN ISO 14689-1:2003. Geotechnical Inves-
tigation and Testing - Identification and classification of
rock. Part 1 - Identification and Description.
View publication stats
Carrington, T.M, Li, G. & Rattley, M.J. 2011. A new assessment
of ultimate unit friction for driven piles. Proc. of the 15th
European Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engi-
neering, pp. 825-830.
CIRIA. 1999. Report 181 - Piled foundations in weak rock. Lon-
don.
CIRIA. 2002. C574 Engineering in chalk. London.
Clarke B. and Smith A, 1992. Self boring pressuremeter in weak
rocks
DNV. 1992. Classification Notes No. 30.4, Foundations. Det
Norske Veritas.
Fleming, W.G.K., Weltman, A.J., Randolph, M.F. & Elson,
W.K. (2nd Ed.) 1992. Piling Engineering. Glasgow and Lon-
don: A & P Blackie.
Hawkins, A. and McConnell, B. 1992. Sensitivity of sandstone
strength and deformability to changes in moisture content.
Q. J. Engineering. Geology., 62, 115-130.
Hoek E. and Brown E. 1997. Practical estimates of rock mass
strength. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Min-
ing Science, Vol 34, No. 8, 1997, 1165-1186
Hoek E. Marinos V. & Marinos , 2005. The geological strength
index: applications and limitations. Bull. Eng. Geol Environ
64:55-65.
International Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM), 1981,Rock
Characterization, ‘Testing and Monitoring, ISRM Suggested
Methods’, Brown, E. T. (Editor). Pergamon Press, Oxford.
ISO 22475-1:2006. Geotechnical investigation and testing –
Sampling methods and groundwater measurements – Part 1:
technical principles for execution’.
Johnson I. and Haberfield C. 1990. Pressuremeter interpretation
in weak rock. Geological Society, London, Engineering Ge-
ology Special Publications V6: p85-90.
Rehnman, S.E. & Broms, B.B. 1971. Bearing capacity of piles
driven in rock. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 8 (2),
pp. 151-162.
Rode J. and Feng H. 1990. Analysis of the variability of uncon-
fined compression tests on rock. Rock Mechanics and Rock
Engineering, 23.
Rodway R.L. and Rowe R.K.1980. The uplift Capacity of Steel
Piles Driven into Hawksebury Sandstone. Proceedings of
3rd Australian and New Zealand Conference on Geome-
chanics, pp. 109-114.
Rowe, R.K. & Armitage, H.H. 1987. A design method for drilled
piers in soft rock. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 24,
pp. 126-142.
Stevenson M., Martin J. and Squire P. 1990. Some recent in situ
stress testing experience with strong clays and weak rocks in
Britain. Geological Society, London, Engineering Geology
Special Publications V6 : p67-75.
Thomas J. et al. 2011. Behaviour of driven tubular steel piles in
calcarenite for a marine jetty in Fujairah, United Arab Emir-
ates. Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics II, London. Taylor
and Francis Group,
Tomlinson, M.J. & Woodward, J. (5th Ed.) 2007. Pile Design
and Construction Practice. London and New York: Taylor
& Francis.
Williams, A.F., Johnston, I.W. & Donald, I.B. 1980. The design
of socketed piles in weak rock. Proc. Int. Conf. on Structural
Foundations on Rock, Sydney, Australia, Vol. 1, pp. 327-
347.
Williams. A F and Pells P J N, 1981, Side resistance rock sockets
in sandstone, mudstone and shale, Canadian Geotechnical
Journal Vol 18, No. 4, pp 502-512.
Wu B., Marsen J. and Hudson J. 1993. Undrained mechanical
behavior of mudstone. The Engineering Geology of Weak
Rock. Balkema, Rotterdam.
Wyllie D C, 2009, Foundations on Rock, E & FN Spon, 2nd
Edition