NATIONAL

NCHRP SYNTHESIS 360

COOPERATIVE
HIGHWAY
RESEARCH
PROGRAM

Rock-Socketed Shafts
for Highway Structure
Foundations

A Synthesis of Highway Practice

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 2006 (Membership as of April 2006)
OFFICERS
Chair: Michael D. Meyer, Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology
Vice Chair: Linda S. Watson, Executive Director, LYNX—Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority
Executive Director: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board
MEMBERS
MICHAEL W. BEHRENS, Executive Director, Texas DOT
ALLEN D. BIEHLER, Secretary, Pennsylvania DOT
JOHN D. BOWE, Regional President, APL Americas, Oakland, CA
LARRY L. BROWN, SR., Executive Director, Mississippi DOT
DEBORAH H. BUTLER, Vice President, Customer Service, Norfolk Southern Corporation and Subsidiaries, Atlanta, GA
ANNE P. CANBY, President, Surface Transportation Policy Project, Washington, DC
DOUGLAS G. DUNCAN, President and CEO, FedEx Freight, Memphis, TN
NICHOLAS J. GARBER, Henry L. Kinnier Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville
ANGELA GITTENS, Vice President, Airport Business Services, HNTB Corporation, Miami, FL
GENEVIEVE GIULIANO, Professor and Senior Associate Dean of Research and Technology, School of Policy, Planning,
and Development, and Director, METRANS National Center for Metropolitan Transportation Research, USC, Los Angeles
SUSAN HANSON, Landry University Professor of Geography, Graduate School of Geography, Clark University
JAMES R. HERTWIG, President, CSX Intermodal, Jacksonville, FL
GLORIA J. JEFF, General Manager, City of Los Angeles DOT
ADIB K. KANAFANI, Cahill Professor of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley
HAROLD E. LINNENKOHL, Commissioner, Georgia DOT
SUE MCNEIL, Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Delaware
DEBRA L. MILLER, Secretary, Kansas DOT
MICHAEL R. MORRIS, Director of Transportation, North Central Texas Council of Governments
CAROL A. MURRAY, Commissioner, New Hampshire DOT
JOHN R. NJORD, Executive Director, Utah DOT
SANDRA ROSENBLOOM, Professor of Planning, University of Arizona, Tucson
HENRY GERARD SCHWARTZ, JR., Senior Professor, Washington University
MICHAEL S. TOWNES, President and CEO, Hampton Roads Transit, Hampton, VA
C. MICHAEL WALTON, Ernest H. Cockrell Centennial Chair in Engineering, University of Texas at Austin

MARION C. BLAKEY, Federal Aviation Administrator, U.S.DOT (ex officio)

JOSEPH H. BOARDMAN, Federal Railroad Administrator, U.S.DOT (ex officio)
REBECCA M. BREWSTER, President and COO, American Transportation Research Institute, Smyrna, GA (ex officio)
GEORGE BUGLIARELLO, Chancellor, Polytechnic University of New York, and Foreign Secretary, National Academy of Engineering
(ex officio)
SANDRA K. BUSHUE, Deputy Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, U.S.DOT (ex officio)
J. RICHARD CAPKA, Acting Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, U.S.DOT (ex officio)
THOMAS H. COLLINS (Adm., U.S. Coast Guard), Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard (ex officio)
JAMES J. EBERHARDT, Chief Scientist, Office of FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies, U.S. Department of Energy (ex officio)
JACQUELINE GLASSMAN, Deputy Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S.DOT (ex officio)
EDWARD R. HAMBERGER, President and CEO, Association of American Railroads (ex officio)
WARREN E. HOEMANN, Deputy Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S.DOT (ex officio)
JOHN C. HORSLEY, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (ex officio)
JOHN E. JAMIAN, Acting Administrator, Maritime Administration, U.S.DOT (ex officio)
J. EDWARD JOHNSON, Director, Applied Science Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (ex officio)
ASHOK G. KAVEESHWAR, Research and Innovative Technology Administrator, U.S.DOT (ex officio)
BRIGHAM MCCOWN, Deputy Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S.DOT (ex officio)
WILLIAM W. MILLAR, President, American Public Transportation Association (ex officio)
SUZANNE RUDZINSKI, Director, Transportation and Regional Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (ex officio)
JEFFREY N. SHANE, Under Secretary for Policy, U.S.DOT (ex officio)
CARL A. STROCK (Maj. Gen., U.S. Army), Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ex officio)

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM

Transportation Research Board Executive Committee Subcommittee for NCHRP
MICHAEL D. MEYER, Georgia Institute of Technology (Chair) ROBERT E. SKINNER, JR., Transportation Research Board
J. RICHARD CAPKA, Federal Highway Administration C. MICHAEL WALTON, University of Texas at Austin
JOHN C. HORSLEY, American Association of State Highway LINDA S. WATSON, LYNX—Central Florida Regional
and Transportation Officials Transportation Authority
JOHN R. NJORD, Utah DOT
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM

NCHRP SYNTHESIS 360

Rock-Socketed Shafts
for Highway Structure
Foundations

A Synthesis of Highway Practice

CONSULTANT
JOHN TURNER
University of Wyoming
Laramie, Wyoming

S UBJECT A REAS
Bridges, Other Structures, and Hydraulics and Hydrology and Soils, Geology, and Foundations

Research Sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
in Cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD

WASHINGTON, D.C.
2006
www.TRB.org
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM NCHRP SYNTHESIS 360

Systematic, well-designed research provides the most effective Price $39.00

approach to the solution of many problems facing highway
administrators and engineers. Often, highway problems are of local Project 20-5 (Topic 36-12)
interest and can best be studied by highway departments ISSN 0547-5570
individually or in cooperation with their state universities and ISBN 0-309-09768-1
others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transportation Library of Congress Control No. 2006925246
develops increasingly complex problems of wide interest to
© 2006 Transportation Research Board
highway authorities. These problems are best studied through a
coordinated program of cooperative research.
In recognition of these needs, the highway administrators of the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation COPYRIGHT PERMISSION
Officials initiated in 1962 an objective national highway research Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for
program employing modern scientific techniques. This program is obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the
supported on a continuing basis by funds from participating copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein.
member states of the Association and it receives the full cooperation Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce
and support of the Federal Highway Administration, United States material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes.
Department of Transportation. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be
The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FMCSA, FTA, or Transit
was requested by the Association to administer the research Development Corporation endorsement of a particular product, method, or
program because of the Board’s recognized objectivity and practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document
for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment
understanding of modern research practices. The Board is uniquely
of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the
suited for this purpose as it maintains an extensive committee material, request permission from CRP.
structure from which authorities on any highway transportation
subject may be drawn; it possesses avenues of communications and
cooperation with federal, state, and local governmental agencies,
universities, and industry; its relationship to the National Research NOTICE
Council is an insurance of objectivity; it maintains a full-time The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the National
research correlation staff of specialists in highway transportation Cooperative Highway Research Program conducted by the Transportation
matters to bring the findings of research directly to those who are in Research Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the National
a position to use them. Research Council. Such approval reflects the Governing Board’s judgment that
The program is developed on the basis of research needs the program concerned is of national importance and appropriate with respect
identified by chief administrators of the highway and transportation to both the purposes and resources of the National Research Council.
departments and by committees of AASHTO. Each year, specific The members of the technical committee selected to monitor this project and
to review this report were chosen for recognized scholarly competence and
areas of research needs to be included in the program are proposed
with due consideration for the balance of disciplines appropriate to the project.
to the National Research Council and the Board by the American The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied are those of the research
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. agency that performed the research, and, while they have been accepted as
Research projects to fulfill these needs are defined by the Board, and appropriate by the technical committee, they are not necessarily those of the
qualified research agencies are selected from those that have Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, the American
submitted proposals. Administration and surveillance of research Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, or the Federal
contracts are the responsibilities of the National Research Council Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.
and the Transportation Research Board. Each report is reviewed and accepted for publication by the technical
The needs for highway research are many, and the National committee according to procedures established and monitored by the
Cooperative Highway Research Program can make significant Transportation Research Board Executive Committee and the Governing
Board of the National Research Council.
contributions to the solution of highway transportation problems of
mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program,
however, is intended to complement rather than to substitute for or
duplicate other highway research programs.

Published reports of the

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM

are available from:

Transportation Research Board

Business Office
500 Fifth Street, NW
NOTE: The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the
Washington, DC 20001
National Research Council, the Federal Highway Administration, the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and the individual and can be ordered through the Internet at:
states participating in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore
not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear
herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of this report. Printed in the United States of America
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished schol-
ars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology
and to their use for the general welfare. On the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in
1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and techni-
cal matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Acad-
emy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration
and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for
advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs
aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achieve-
ments of engineers. Dr. William A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the
services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining
to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of
Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, on its own initiative,
to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the
Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate
the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and
advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Acad-
emy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences
and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the
scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both the Academies and
the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. William A. Wulf are chair and vice chair,
respectively, of the National Research Council.
The Transportation Research Board is a division of the National Research Council, which serves the
National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. The Board’s mission is to promote
innovation and progress in transportation through research. In an objective and interdisciplinary setting,
the Board facilitates the sharing of information on transportation practice and policy by researchers and
practitioners; stimulates research and offers research management services that promote technical
excellence; provides expert advice on transportation policy and programs; and disseminates research
results broadly and encourages their implementation. The Board’s varied activities annually engage more
than 5,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and
private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is
supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of
the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the
development of transportation. www.TRB.org

www.national-academies.org
NCHRP COMMITTEE FOR PROJECT 20-5 COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM STAFF
ROBERT J. REILLY, Director, Cooperative Research Programs
CHAIR CRAWFORD F. JENCKS, Manager, NCHRP
GARY D. TAYLOR, CTE Engineers EILEEN DELANEY, Director of Publications

MEMBERS NCHRP SYNTHESIS STAFF

THOMAS R. BOHUSLAV, Texas DOT STEPHEN R. GODWIN, Director for Studies and Information
DONN E. HANCHER, University of Kentucky Services
DWIGHT HORNE, Federal Highway Administration JON WILLIAMS, Manager, Synthesis Studies
YSELA LLORT, Florida DOT DONNA L. VLASAK, Senior Program Officer
WESLEY S.C. LUM, California DOT DON TIPPMAN, Editor
JAMES W. MARCH, Federal Highway Administration CHERYL KEITH, Senior Secretary
JOHN M. MASON, JR., Pennsylvania State University
CATHERINE NELSON, Oregon DOT TOPIC PANEL
LARRY VELASQUEZ, New Mexico DOT DAN A. BROWN, Auburn University
PAUL T. WELLS, New York State DOT JOHN G. DELPHIA, Texas Department of Transportation
LEO FONTAINE, Connecticut Department of Transportation
FHWA LIAISON G.P. JAYAPRAKASH, Transportation Research Board
WILLIAM ZACCAGNINO PAUL PASSE, PSI, Inc.
TOM SHANTZ, California Department of Transportation
TRB LIAISON DARIN SJOBLOM, Utah Department of Transportation
STEPHEN F. MAHER JERRY A. DIMAGGIO, Federal Highway Administration (Liaison)
BEN RIVERS, Federal Highway Administration (Liaison)

Cover photograph: Bridge with surface

exposures of foundation rock.
FOREWORD Highway administrators, engineers, and researchers often face problems for which infor-
By Staff mation already exists, either in documented form or as undocumented experience and prac-
Transportation tice. This information may be fragmented, scattered, and unevaluated. As a consequence,
Research Board full knowledge of what has been learned about a problem may not be brought to bear on its
solution. Costly research findings may go unused, valuable experience may be overlooked,
and due consideration may not be given to recommended practices for solving or alleviat-
ing the problem.
There is information on nearly every subject of concern to highway administrators and
engineers. Much of it derives from research or from the work of practitioners faced with
problems in their day-to-day work. To provide a systematic means for assembling and eval-
uating such useful information and to make it available to the entire highway community,
the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials—through the
mechanism of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program—authorized the
Transportation Research Board to undertake a continuing study. This study, NCHRP Proj-
ect 20-5, “Synthesis of Information Related to Highway Problems,” searches out and syn-
thesizes useful knowledge from all available sources and prepares concise, documented
reports on specific topics. Reports from this endeavor constitute an NCHRP report series,
Synthesis of Highway Practice.
This synthesis series reports on current knowledge and practice, in a compact format,
without the detailed directions usually found in handbooks or design manuals. Each report
in the series provides a compendium of the best knowledge available on those measures
found to be the most successful in resolving specific problems.

PREFACE During the past 25 years, much knowledge and experience has been acquired by the engi-
neering and construction industries on the use of rock-socketed shafts for support of trans-
portation structures. This synthesis collected, reviewed, and organized the most salient
aspects of this knowledge and experience to present it in a form useful to foundation design-
ers, researchers, contractors, and transportation officials. The objectives of this report were
to collect and summarize information on current practices pertaining to each step of the
design process, along with the limitations; identify emerging and promising technologies;
determine the principal challenges in advancing the state of the practice; and provide sug-
gestions for future developments and improvements in the use and design of rock-socketed
shafts.
For this TRB synthesis report a literature review was conducted on all topics related to
drilled shaft in rock or intermediate geomaterials. A questionnaire was developed and dis-
tributed to the principal geotechnical and structural engineers of U.S. state and Canadian
provincial transportation agencies. Questions were grouped into the following categories:
use of rock-socketed shafts by the agency, evaluation of rock and intermediate geomateri-
als, design methods for axial loading, design methods for lateral loading, structural design,
construction, and field load and integrity testing.
John Turner, Professor of Civil and Architectural Engineering, University of Wyoming,
Laramie, collected and synthesized the information and wrote the report, under the guid-
ance of a panel of experts in the subject area. The members of the topic panel are acknowl-
edged on the preceding page. This synthesis is an immediately useful document that records
the practices that were acceptable within the limitations of the knowledge available at the
time of its preparation. As progress in research and practice continues, new knowledge will
be added to that now at hand.
CONTENTS

1 SUMMARY

3 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

Background, 3
Problem Definition, 3
Scope and Objectives, 3
Methodology, 4
Organization of Synthesis, 4
Design Process, 5

8 CHAPTER TWO SITE AND GEOMATERIAL CHARACTERIZATION

Scope, 8
Site Geology, 8
Field Investigations, 10
Geologic and Index Properties of Rock, 16
Engineering Properties of Rock, 20
Intermediate Geomaterials, 29
Summary, 31

33 CHAPTER THREE DESIGN FOR AXIAL LOADING

Scope, 33
Relationship to Geomaterial Characterization, 33
Load Transfer Behavior of Rock Sockets, 33
Capacity Under Axial Loading, 37
Axial Load-Displacement Behavior, 47
Current AASHTO Practice, 51
Summary, 52

54 CHAPTER FOUR DESIGN FOR LATERAL LOADING

Scope, 54
Design Process, 54
Rock-Socketed Foundations for Lateral Loading, 54
Analytical Methods, 55
Structural Issues, 66
Summary, 70

71 CHAPTER FIVE CONSTRUCTION AND FIELD TESTING

Scope, 71
Construction of Rock Sockets, 71
Field Load Testing, 74
Constructability, Inspection, and Quality Assurance, 88
Examples of Difficult Geologic Conditions, 93
Summary, 95
97 CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSIONS
Site and Geomaterial Characterization, 97
Design for Axial Load, 98
Design for Lateral Load, 99
Load Testing, 99
Constructability and Inspection, 99
Research Needed to Advance State of Practice, 100

102 EQUATION SYMBOLS

104 REFERENCES

110 APPENDIX A SURVEY RESPONDENTS

111 APPENDIX B SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE AND RESPONSES

 ROCK-SOCKETED SHAFTS
FOR HIGHWAY STRUCTURE FOUNDATIONS

SUMMARY Drilled shafts are one of the few structural foundation types that can be built directly into
rock. Foundations in rock are attractive because high load carrying capacities are possible
and foundation displacements can be limited to acceptable levels more readily than through
foundations in soil. Over the past 25 years, much knowledge and experience has been gained
by the engineering and construction industries with the use of rock-socketed drilled shafts
for support of transportation structures. The goal of this synthesis is to collect, review, and
organize the most salient aspects of that knowledge and experience and to present it in a form
that is useful to foundation designers, researchers, contractors, and transportation officials.

Challenges faced by foundation designers when considering rock-socketed drilled shafts

include: (1) characterizing the nature of the rock mass or intermediate geomaterial, (2) select-
ing appropriate design methods for analysis of axial load carrying capacity and axial load-
deformation response, (3) analysis and design for lateral loading, and (4) assessing issues of
constructability and their influence on foundation performance and costs. Each of these issues
is considered in the synthesis within the context of the overall foundation design process as
practiced by transportation agencies.

A survey questionnaire was developed and distributed to the principal geotechnical and
structural engineers of 52 U.S. transportation agencies (including Puerto Rico and the Dis-
trict of Columbia) and Canadian provinces. The purpose of the survey was to define the cur-
rent state of practice for rock-socketed drilled shafts. Thirty-two U.S. transportation agencies
and one Canadian provincial transportation agency responded to the questionnaire.

Innovative methods for field load testing of drilled shafts, including the Osterberg Cell
and Statnamic methods, have contributed to advances in design and construction of shafts in
rock. Load testing is shown to be an integral part of several state department of transporta-
tion programs that have led to increased use of rock-socketed drilled shafts and improved de-
sign methods. These and other load testing methods for rock-socketed shafts are reviewed.
 3

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND PROBLEM DEFINITION

Highway bridges represent a large investment in the U.S. The engineering problem addressed by this synthesis is
transportation infrastructure, and structural foundations shown in Figure 1. A drilled shaft foundation is to be de-
account for a significant percentage of total bridge costs. signed and constructed for support of a bridge structure. Sub-
Current foundation engineering practice in the transporta- surface conditions may consist of soil underlain by rock.
tion industry represents a dramatic advancement compared Upper portions of the rock may be partially to highly weath-
with 25 years ago. Development of this topic is illustrated ered, giving these materials engineering properties that are
by considering that NCHRP Synthesis 42: Design of Pile transitional between soil and rock, sometimes referred to as
Foundations (Vesic 1977) does not mention rock-socketed intermediate geomaterials, or IGM. Loads to be considered
drilled shafts. At the time of its publication, NCHRP Syn- for design typically are determined by AASHTO Bridge
thesis 42 was the most comprehensive study extant on Design Specifications, with proper consideration of load
the use of deep foundations for transportation structures. combinations and load factors. For foundation analysis, de-
According to DiMaggio (2004), in 1980, driven piles sign loads may be resolved into vertical (P), horizontal (H),
accounted for more than 95% of transportation market and moment (M) components at the head of the shaft. A sub-
share, based purely on repeating previous practice. Today, surface investigation is required to provide information on all
the practice is oriented toward matching the foundation of the geomaterials through which the shaft must be con-
type to project conditions. This has led to a wider variety structed and from which the foundation will derive its resis-
of deep foundation types selected on the basis of subsur- tance to the design loads. The foundation designer then must
face conditions, structural behavior, constructability, envi- determine the required dimensions (depth and diameter)
ronmental constraints, and cost. A foundation type that has and structural properties of drilled shafts that will provide
steadily increased in use over this time is the drilled shaft, adequate resistance and will limit vertical and horizontal
a deep foundation constructed by placing fluid concrete in deformations to a level that provides adequate service per-
a drilled hole. formance of the bridge. Trial designs are developed and
evaluated with respect to: (1) cost, (2) performance, and
A potentially effective way to use a drilled shaft is by (3) constructability. A major factor in all three criteria is
bearing on, or extending into, rock. To achieve the perfor- whether the shaft needs to be extended into the rock or
mance and economy potentials of rock-socketed shafts, de- IGM layers. Rock sockets will generally increase costs,
signers must be aware of the many issues that affect both improve load-carrying and load-displacement perfor-
cost and performance. Drilling and excavation in rock is mance, and make construction more challenging.
generally more expensive and time consuming than in soil.
Construction of a rock socket poses challenges and difficul-
ties that are unique and may require specialized techniques, SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES
equipment, and experience. The first issue confronted by a
foundation designer is to determine whether a rock-socketed The overall objectives of this synthesis study are to
foundation is necessary for bridge support. Factors to con-
sider include the nature and magnitude of structural loads • Collect and summarize information on current practices
and factors related to rock mass characteristics, including pertaining to each step of the process described pre-
depth to rock, rock type, rock mass engineering properties, viously, along with their limitations and sources of
and constructability. The additional costs and effort of con- uncertainty;
struction in rock must be offset by its benefits. The princi- • Identify emerging and promising technologies in each
pal benefits normally are higher load-carrying capacity and of these areas;
the ability to limit deformations, compared with foundations • Identify the principal challenges in advancing the state
not founded in rock. To make the appropriate cost compar- of the practice; and
isons, rock-socket design must be based on rational models • Provide suggestions for future developments and im-
of behavior that reliably predict the capacity and load- provements in the use and design of rock-socketed
deformation behavior. shafts.
4

P shaft design were consulted. These include Drilled Shafts:

M Construction Procedures and Design Methods by O’Neill
H
and Reese (1999) and the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications (3rd ed. 2004). In addition, a draft version of
Section 10, “Foundations,” of the 2006 Interim AASHTO
LRFD Bridge Design Specifications was reviewed.

A questionnaire was developed and sent to the principal

SOIL geotechnical and structural engineers of 52 U.S. transportation
agencies (including Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia)
and the Canadian provinces. The primary purpose of the survey
was to define the current state of practice for rock-socketed
shafts. Questions were grouped into the following categories:
WEATHERED ROCK OR IGM

• Use of rock-socketed shafts by the agency,

• Evaluation of rock and IGM properties,
ROCK • Design methods for axial loading,
• Design methods for lateral loading,
• Structural design,
FIGURE 1 Rock-socketed shaft designed for highway bridge • Construction, and
structure. • Field load and integrity testing.
The major challenges faced by U.S. transportation agencies
Thirty-two U.S. and one Canadian provincial transporta-
in the use of rock-socketed drilled shafts for highway bridges
tion agencies responded to the questionnaire, completely or
were identified by NCHRP Topic Panel 36-12 as follows:
in part. A list of responding agencies and a summary of re-
sponses to the questions are given in Appendix A. The ques-
• The first challenge is characterizing the nature of the
tionnaire was also sent to several consulting firms and drilled
rock or IGM. By its nature, rock and IGM are highly
shaft contractors. Two contractors responded to the survey.
variable and difficult to characterize for engineering
Based on responses to the questionnaire, selected state
purposes. To effectively design drilled shafts in rock and
agency personnel and contractors were interviewed.
IGM, engineers must accommodate high levels of un-
certainty. Issues to be addressed include quantifying
material characteristics, rock mass behavior, and appro-
priate application of laboratory and field test methods. ORGANIZATION OF SYNTHESIS
• The second challenge is determination of the axial load
The synthesis is presented in six chapters and two appendixes.
capacity of rock-socketed shafts. Rock-socketed shafts
Chapter one defines the problem, objectives, scope, and
resist axial load in both side shear and end bearing. De-
methodology of the study. This chapter also provides an
signers need well-documented methods for assessing
overview of the foundation design process used by state de-
side shear and end bearing. Different methods are ap-
partment of transportation (DOT) agencies. This overview
propriate for different types of geology. There are many
provides a framework for understanding the interrelationships
issues related to characterizing the rock and construc-
between site characterization, material property evaluation,
tion that affect design for axial loading.
geotechnical and structural design, load testing, and con-
• The third challenge is analysis and design of rock-
struction of rock-socketed shafts. Each of these topics is con-
socketed shafts under lateral loading. It has been a cus-
sidered in subsequent chapters. Chapter two reviews methods
tomary practice to adopt the techniques developed for
of site characterization and material property evaluation that
laterally loaded piles in soil to solve the problem of
are applicable to rock-socketed shafts. Chapter three is a com-
rock-socketed shafts under lateral loading. There exist
pilation and critical review of methods used for analysis and
several analysis and design methods specifically for
design of rock sockets for axial loading. Chapter four reviews
rock-socketed shafts under lateral loading; their appli-
and summarizes analysis methods for rock sockets under lat-
cation in practice remains limited.
eral and moment loading and discusses structural design is-
sues relevant to rock sockets. Chapter five provides an
METHODOLOGY overview of current technologies for rock-socket construction
and considers some of the construction issues identified by
A literature review was conducted on all topics related to the survey. This chapter also covers field load testing of rock-
drilled shafts in rock or IGM. To assess current practice, the socketed shafts and the role of load testing within the context
primary manuals used by transportation engineers for drilled of state DOT foundation engineering programs. Chapter six
 5

is a summary of the principal findings of this study and pre- Structures Office (Bridge). Information provided includes a
sents steps that can lead to more effective use, design, and brief description of the anticipated site conditions, conceptual
construction of rock sockets for bridge foundations. In each foundation types considered to be feasible, and conceptual
chapter, significant findings derived from the survey are iden- evaluation of potential geotechnical hazards such as lique-
tified and discussed. Appendix A provides a list of survey re- faction. The purpose of these recommendations is to provide
spondents and Appendix B presents the questionnaire and a sufficient geotechnical information to allow a bridge prelim-
compilation of the responses to each question. inary plan to be produced.

DESIGN PROCESS Develop Site Data and Preliminary Plan

Structural foundation design within state DOTs is typically a Bridge obtains site data from the regional office and devel-
joint effort between the structural and geotechnical divisions. ops a preliminary bridge plan (or other structure) adequate
The geotechnical group may include engineering geologists for GD to locate borings in preparation for final design of the
and both groups may operate under the supervision of a chief structure. Bridge would also provide the following informa-
bridge engineer. As a starting point, consider Figure 2, which tion to GD to support development of the preliminary foun-
shows a flow chart of the overall foundation design process. dation design:
The chart is from the Washington State DOT Geotechnical
Design Manual (2005). Based on responses to Question 4 of • Anticipated structure type and magnitudes of tolerable
the survey questionnaire (Appendix B) and interviews with settlement (total and differential).
DOT personnel, Figure 2 typifies the process followed by • At abutments, the approximate maximum elevation fea-
many states. A summary of each step, also based on the sible for the top of the foundation.
Washington State DOT manual (2005), is as follows.
• For interior piers, the number of columns anticipated
and, if there will be single foundation elements for each
Conceptual Bridge Foundation Design column or if one foundation element will support mul-
tiple columns.
An informal communication/report is produced by the Geo- • At stream crossings, the depth of scour anticipated, if
technical Division (GD) at the request of the Bridge and known. Typically, GD will pursue this issue with the
Hydraulics Office.
• Known constraints that would affect the foundations in
Bridge and Structures Office
(Bridge) requests conceptual terms of type, location, or size, or any known con-
foundation recommendations
from Geotechnical Division
straints that would affect the assumptions made to de-
(GD) termine the nominal resistance of the foundation (e.g.,
utilities that must remain, construction staging needs,
excavation, shoring and falsework needs, and other
GD provides conceptual
foundation recommendations constructability issues).
to Bridge

Preliminary Foundation Design

Bridge obtains site data, GD provides preliminary
develops draft preliminary foundation design
plan, and provides initial recommendations A memorandum is produced by GD at the request of Bridge
foundation needs input to GD
that provides geotechnical data adequate to conduct struc-
iterate
tural analysis and modeling for all load groups to be consid-
Bridge performs structural GD performs final
ered. The geotechnical data are preliminary and not in final
analysis and modeling and geotechnical design and form for publication and transmittal to potential bidders. At
provides feedback to GD provides final geotechnical
regarding foundation loads, report for the structure this stage, foundation recommendations are subject to
type, size, depth, and change, depending on the results of structural analysis and
configuration needed for
structural purposes modeling and the effect that modeling and analysis has on
foundation types, locations, sizes, and depths, as well as any
design assumptions made by the geotechnical designer. Pre-
liminary foundation recommendations may also be subject
Bridge performs final structural to change based on construction staging needs and other
modeling and develops final
PS&E for structure constructability issues discovered during this phase. Geotech-
nical work conducted during this stage typically includes com-
FIGURE 2 Design process for Load and Resistance Factor pletion of the field exploration program to the final PS&E
Design (Washington State DOT 2005). PS&E = Plans, level (Plans, Specifications, & Estimates), development of
Specifications, & Estimates. foundation types and feasible capacities, foundation depths
6

needed, p-y curve data and soil spring data for seismic mod- • Anticipated foundation loads (including load factors
eling, seismic site characterization and estimated ground and load groups used),
acceleration, and recommendations to address known con- • Foundation size/diameter and depth required to meet
structability issues. A description of subsurface conditions structural needs,
and a preliminary subsurface profile would also be provided • Foundation details that could affect the geotechnical
at this stage; however, detailed boring logs and laboratory design of the foundations, and
test data would usually not be provided. • Size and configuration of deep foundation groups.

Structural Analysis and Modeling Final Foundation Design

Bridge uses the preliminary foundation design recommenda- This design step results in a formal report produced by GD
tions provided by GD to perform structural modeling of the that provides final geotechnical recommendations for the
foundation system and superstructure. Through this model- subject structure. This report includes all geotechnical data
ing, Bridge determines and distributes the loads within the obtained at the site, including final boring logs, subsurface
structure for all appropriate load cases, factors the loads as profiles, laboratory test data, all final foundation recommen-
appropriate, and sizes the foundations using foundation nom- dations, and final constructability recommendations for the
inal resistances and resistance factors provided by GD. Con- structure. At this time, GD checks the preliminary foundation
structability and construction staging needs continue to be design in consideration of the structural foundation design
investigated during this phase. Bridge provides the following results determined by Bridge, and makes modifications as
feedback to GD to allow them to check their preliminary needed to accommodate the structural design needs provided
foundation design and produce the Final Geotechnical Re- by Bridge. Some state DOTs may also make this report avail-
port for the structure: able to potential bidders.

FIGURE 3 Design and construction process for drilled shaft foundations (adapted from Paikowsky et al. 2004a). QA/QC =
quality assurance/quality control; NDT/NDE = nondestructive testing/evaluations.
 7

Final Structural Modeling and Development Design Process in Relation to the Synthesis
of Plans, Specifications, and Estimates
Based on the process described previously and followed by
Bridge makes the required adjustments to the structural model most state DOTs, Figure 3 is a flowchart of the design and
to accommodate changes in the geotechnical foundation construction process for drilled shaft foundations that pro-
recommendations as transmitted in the final geotechnical vides a framework for the topics addressed by this synthesis.
report. From this, the bridge design and final PS&E are In each subsequent chapter, the topics being covered are con-
completed. A similar design process is recommended if a con- sidered within the context of the overall process as shown in
sultant or design–builder is performing one or both design Figure 3. This includes site investigation, geomaterial prop-
functions. erty evaluation, and design for axial and lateral loading.
8

CHAPTER TWO

SITE AND GEOMATERIAL CHARACTERIZATION

SCOPE SITE GEOLOGY

This chapter describes site investigation methods, classifica- Understanding the geologic environment provides informa-
tion systems for intact rock and rock masses, and field and tion used to plan the more detailed, subsequent phases of ex-
laboratory tests used to determine rock engineering proper- ploration. Site geology refers to the physiography, surficial
ties. The focus is limited to information relevant to the design geology, and bedrock geology of the site. The starting point
and construction of rock-socketed drilled shafts. Several is a thorough survey of existing information. In many cases,
references are available that provide guidance on strategies existing data will enable identification of geologic features
and methods of site characterization and material property that will determine the feasibility of rock-socketed founda-
evaluation for geotechnical practice, with a focus on trans- tions or will have a major impact on their design or con-
portation facilities. These include the FHWA Manual on struction. The amount and quality of information gathered
Subsurface Investigations (Mayne et al. 2001), “Evaluation can then be used to establish the type and extent of additional
of Soil and Rock Properties,” Geotechnical Engineering data that will be required. General knowledge of the site
Circular No. 5 (Sabatini et al. 2002), and the AASHTO Man- geology is required in the first phase of the design process
ual on Subsurface Investigations (1988). In addition, the U.S. outlined in chapter one, Conceptual Bridge Foundation
Army Corps of Engineers has published several manuals rel- Design, to establish anticipated site conditions, feasibility of
evant to this topic (Rock Testing Handbook 1993; Rock rock sockets, and conceptual evaluation of potential geo-
Foundations 1994; “Geotechnical Investigations” 2001). technical hazards.

The purpose of site characterization is to obtain the infor- Sources of existing data include: geologic and topographic
mation required to develop a model of the site geology and to maps, publications, computer databases, aerial photographs,
establish the required engineering properties of the geomateri- and consultation with other professionals. Many references
als. The information obtained is used for two general purposes: are available that provide detailed information on sources and
(1) analysis of capacity and load-deformation response, which applications of existing data to geotechnical site characteriza-
determines the foundation overall design; and (2) construction tion (e.g., Mayne et al. 2001). A detailed treatment of the topic
feasibility, costs, and planning. Once the site for a bridge or is beyond the scope of this report and only the general aspects
other transportation structure has been established, all aspects of such data sources will be summarized.
of the site and material characterization program are focused
on the soil and rock conditions as they exist at that site. Geologic maps are used to transmit information about geo-
Geologic conditions and rock mass characteristics can exhibit logic features at or near the earth’s surface. Maps are pre-
such a wide degree of variability that it is not possible to estab- pared at various scales and for a variety of purposes (Varnes
lish a single standardized approach. The scope of the program 1974). A geologic map may be prepared to depict the general
is determined by the level of complexity of the site geology, geology of a large region, for example bedrock geology of an
foundation loading characteristics, size, configuration, and entire state, or it may cover a relatively small area and con-
structural performance of the bridge, acceptable levels of risk, tain detailed information about specific geologic features, for
experience of the agency, and other factors. Some of the infor- example engineering geology of a single quadrangle. A good
mation needed to establish the scope of site characterization starting point is the geologic map of the state. These maps are
may only be known following a preliminary study of the site. produced at a scale that makes it possible to identify the
underlying bedrock formations in a general area. Often this
Rock and IGM exhibit behaviors that are unique and is sufficient to know immediately whether a bridge is located
require special techniques for application to engineering where bedrock conditions are favorable or unfavorable for
problems. Two aspects of rock behavior that are paramount foundations in rock, or even whether bedrock exists at rea-
are: (1) natural rock masses may exhibit a high degree of sonable depth. Most state DOT geotechnical engineers and
variability and (2) properties of a rock mass are determined geologists with experience have familiarity with the geology
by the combined properties of intact rock and naturally of their state and incorporate this step unconsciously. The
occurring discontinuities, such as joints, bedding planes, next logical step is to determine if more detailed geologic
faults, and other structural features. maps or reports are available for the particular area in which
 9

the bridge is located. Sources of such maps and publications of shafts in the Eagle Ford Shale, a rock unit commonly
include U.S. Geological Survey and state Geological Sur- encountered in north-central Texas, most notably in the
veys, university libraries, and Soil Conservation Service. The Dallas area. Results of load tests on drilled shafts in mica
use of Internet search engines has added a powerful tool for schist of the Wissahickon Formation, commonly encoun-
locating such information and most governmental geologic tered in Philadelphia and other parts of eastern Pennsylvania,
publications can now be identified and obtained on-line. are given in Koutsoftas (1981) and Yang et al. (2004). Turner
Detailed geologic maps normally provide useful information et al. (1993) and Abu-Hejleh et al. (2003) consider side re-
on characteristics of bedrock and, in some cases surficial, sistance from load tests on shafts socketed into Pierre and
geology relevant to foundation engineering. These maps pro- Denver Formation shales. McVay et al. (1992) present a thor-
vide descriptions of rocks in terms of lithology (rock type, ough study on the design of shafts in Florida limestone.
mineralogy, and genesis), age, and structure (strike and dip Numerous other examples could be cited. Whenever such
of sedimentary rocks). In addition, major structural features publications are available they should be used as a source of
are identified, such as faults, folds, and contacts between background information during the planning phase of any
rock units (formations or members). Geologic maps prepared project where the same rock units are present. Results of load
specifically for engineering purposes may include data on tests at different locations, but in the same rock unit, cannot
discontinuity patterns and characteristics, rock material be applied without judgment and site-specific considera-
strength, Rock Mass Ratings (RMRs), groundwater condi- tions, but they do provide a framework for considering
tions, and depth to bedrock (Radbruch-Hall et al. 1987). design issues and may provide insight on expected perfor-
Many will identify geologic hazards such as swelling soils mance. Similarly, publications describing construction chal-
or rock, landslides, corrosion potential, karst, abandoned lenges in certain geologic environments and strategies for
mines, and other information of value. If engineering geo- addressing them can be useful. Schwartz (1987) described
logic maps are available they are an essential tool that construction problems and recommended solutions for rock-
should be used. socketed piers in Piedmont formations in the Atlanta area.
Brown (1990) identified problems involved in construction
The most practical aerial photographs for geotechnical of drilled shafts in the karstic limestone of northern Alabama
purposes are black and white photographs taken with stereo and suggests methods and approaches that have been suc-
cessful for dealing with such challenges. A literature review
overlap and with panchromatic film, from heights of between
often is all that is necessary to locate this type of useful
500 m and 3,000 m, at scales of about 1:10,000 to 1:30,000.
information.
The higher level photographs provide a resolution most use-
ful for larger-scale features such as topography, geology, and
landform analysis, whereas the lower-level photographs pro- Where bedrock is exposed in surface outcrops or exca-
vide more detail on geologic structure. Landslides and debris vations, field mapping is an essential step to obtaining in-
flows, major faults, bedding planes, continuous joint sets, formation about rock mass characteristics relevant to design
rock outcrops, and surface water are some of the features and construction of foundations. A site visit is recom-
that can be identified and are relevant to the siting of bridge mended for reconnaissance and field mapping following a
structures. review of existing information. A competent engineering
geologist or geotechnical engineer can make and record ob-
A potentially valuable source of existing data may be servations and measurements on rock exposures that may
consultation with other geoprofessionals with design or con- complement, or in some cases exceed, the information ob-
struction experience in the same rock units. Geotechnical tained from borings and core sampling. Rock type, hard-
engineers, geologists, groundwater hydrologists, contrac- ness, composition, degree of weathering, orientation and
tors, mining company personnel, well drillers, etc., may be characteristics of discontinuities, and other features of a
able to provide geotechnical engineering reports from rock mass may be readily assessed in outcrops or road cuts.
nearby projects, photographic documentation of excavations Guidance on detailed geologic mapping of rock for en-
or other construction works, and unpublished reports or test- gineering purposes is given in Murphy (1985), Rock
ing data. In addition, such individuals are often willing to Slopes . . . (1989), and ASTM D4879 (Annual Book . . .
share relevant experience. Bedian (2004) describes a case 2000). Photography of the rock mass can aid engineers and
history in which experience at an adjacent site was used to contractors in evaluating potential problems associated with
develop a value engineer proposal for the design of rock- a particular rock unit. The major limitation lies in whether
socketed foundations for a high rise building. the surface exposure is representative of the rock mass at a
depth corresponding to foundation support. When rock cor-
The geotechnical literature contains many useful papers ing and surface mapping demonstrate that surface exposures
describing design, construction, and/or load testing of rock- are representative, the surface exposures should be ex-
socketed drilled shafts in which the focus is on a particular ploited for information. Figure 4 shows a bridge site where
type of rock or a specific formation. For example, Hassan mapping of rock exposures could provide much of the rele-
and O’Neill (1997) present correlations for side resistance vant data for design of foundations.
10

NCHRP Synthesis 357: Use of Geophysics for Trans-

portation Projects (Sirles 2006) provides a comprehensive
overview of the topic and additional survey data relevant to
this study. Table 1 identifies the primary and secondary
methods used to investigate selected subsurface objectives.
The table is an abridged version from the Sirles report (2006)
in which only objectives pertaining to foundation investiga-
tions are included. The survey of transportation agencies
for this project identified “seismic” as the most widely used
geophysical methods and “mapping rock” as the most widely
used application of geophysics. Mapping karst or other voids
was also identified as a major objective.

FIGURE 4 Bridge site with surface exposures of foundation Results of the survey for this study are consistent with
rock. those of Sirles (2006). The most frequently applied method
is seismic refraction, which is based on measuring the travel
time of compressional waves through the subsurface. Upon
FIELD INVESTIGATIONS striking a boundary between two media of different proper-
ties the direction of travel is changed (refraction). This
Field methods for characterization of rock include geophys-
change in direction is used to deduce the subsurface profile.
ical methods, rock core drilling, and in situ testing. These
Figure 5a illustrates the basic idea for a simple two-layer
activities normally are carried out during the Preliminary
profile in which soil of lower seismic velocity (Vp1) overlies
Foundation Design phase of the design process as described
rock of higher seismic velocity (Vp2). A plot of distance from
in chapter one, and would be used to provide a description
the source versus travel time (Figure 5b) exhibits a clear
of subsurface conditions and a preliminary subsurface pro-
change in slope corresponding to the depth of the interface.
file. The detailed results of field investigations, including
The equipment consists of a shock wave source (typically a
detailed boring logs, in situ testing results, and interpreta-
hammer striking a steel plate), a series of geophones to mea-
tion, would be included in the final geotechnical report pre-
sure seismic wave arrival, and a seismograph with oscillo-
pared during the Final Foundation Design phase of Figure 2.
scope. The seismograph records the impact and geophone
signals in a timed sequence and stores the data digitally. The
Geophysical Methods technique is rapid, accurate, and relatively economical when
applied correctly. The interpretation theory is relatively
Geophysical methods, in conjunction with borings, can pro- straightforward and equipment is readily available. The most
vide useful information in areas underlain by rock. The most significant limitations are that it is incapable of detecting
common application of geophysics is to determine depth to material of lower velocity (lower density) underlying higher
bedrock. When correlated with data from borings, geophys- velocity (higher density) and that thin layers sometimes are
ical methods provide depth to bedrock information over a not detectable. For these reasons, it is important not to rely
large area, eliminating some of the uncertainty associated exclusively on seismic refraction, but to verify depth to rock
with interpolations of bedrock depths for locations between in several borings and correlate the seismic refraction signals
borings. to the boring results. Seismic velocity, as determined from
seismic refraction measurements, can be correlated to small-
Geophysical methods are based on measuring the trans- strain dynamic modulus of soil and rock by the following
mission of electromagnetic or mechanical waves through the relationships:
ground. Signal transmission is affected by differences in the
physical properties of geomaterials. By transmitting electro- Ed = 2 (1 + vd ) ρVs2 (1)
magnetic or seismic signals and measuring their arrival at
other locations, changes in material properties can be located. (1 − 2 v ) (1 + vd ) 2
Ed = ρVp (2)
In some cases, the material properties can also be quantified. (1 − vd )
For foundation site characterization, geophysical methods can
be placed into two general categories, those conducted from in which Ed = small-strain dynamic modulus, vd = small-
the ground surface (noninvasive) and those conducted in strain dynamic Poisson’s ratio, ρ = mass density, Vs = shear
boreholes (invasive). When grouped according to method, the wave velocity, and Vp = compressional wave velocity. Eqs. 1
six major categories are: seismic, electromagnetic, electrical, and 2 are based on the assumption that the rock mass is a
magnetic, radar, and gravity. Basic descriptions of geophysi- homogeneous, isotropic, elastic solid. Because most rock
cal methods and their application to geotechnical engineering masses depart significantly from this assumption, elastic
are given by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“Geophysi- modulus values calculated from seismic wave velocities are
cal Exploration . . . .” 1995) and Mayne et al. (2001). normally larger than values measured in static field load
 11

TABLE 1
GEOPHYSICAL METHODS AND APPLICATIONS (after Sirles 2006)
Techniques
Methods Seismic Electromagnetic Electrical Other

EM61—Time–Domain Metal Detector

Electrical Resistivity Tomography/P

Surface Wave (SASW, MASW, &

Time–Domain EM Soundings
EM31—Terrain Conductivity

EM34—Terrain Conductivity

Ground Penetrating Radar

Electrical Resistivity/P
Seismic Tomography
Seismic Refraction

Seismic Reflection

Shear Wave

Magnetics
Passive)

Gravity
Investigation Objectives
Bedrock Depth P P P P S S S
Rippability P P P
Lateral & Vertical
Variation in Rock or Soil P P P P
Strength
Location of Faults and
P P P P S S S S S S S
Fracture Zones
Karst Features P P S S P P
Notes: P = primary; S = secondary; blank = techniques should not be used; EM = electromagnetic; SASW = spectral analysis of surface
waves; MASW = multi-channel analysis of surface waves.

tests, such as plate bearing or pressure chamber tests. Alter- material properties with depth (layering) can be determined.
natively, a method that correlates rock mass modulus to shear The second method is a profiling survey in which the elec-
wave frequency has been shown to provide a reasonable first- trode spacing is fixed but the electrode group is moved
order estimate of modulus. Figure 6 shows the relationship horizontally along a line (profile) between measurements.
between in situ modulus and shear wave frequency using a Changes in measured apparent resistivity are used to deduce
hammer seismograph, as described by Bieniawski (1978). lateral variations in material type. Electrical resistivity
The data can be fit to a straight line by methods are inexpensive and best used to complement seis-
mic refraction surveys and borings. The technique has ad-
EM = 0.054f – 9.2 (3) vantages for identifying soft materials in between borings.
Limitations are that lateral changes in apparent resistivity
where EM = rock mass static modulus (GPa) and f = shear can be interpreted incorrectly as depth related. For this and
wave frequency (hertz) from the hammer blow received at other reasons, depth determinations can be in error, which
distances of up to 30 m on a rock surface. is why it is important to use resistivity surveys in conjunc-
tion with other methods.
Resistivity is a fundamental electrical property of geo-
materials that varies with material type and water content. To The use of multi-electrode resistivity arrays shows promise
measure resistivity from the ground surface (Figure 7), elec- for detecting detailed subsurface profiles in karst terranes, one
trical current is induced through two current electrodes (C1 of the most difficult geologic environments for rock-socketed
and C2), while change in voltage is measured by two poten- foundations. Dunscomb and Rehwoldt (1999) showed that
tial electrodes (P1 and P2). Apparent electrical resistivity is two-dimensional (2-D) profiling using multi-electrode arrays
then calculated as a function of the measured voltage differ- provides reasonable resolution for imaging features such as
ence, the induced current, and spacing between electrodes. pinnacled bedrock surfaces, overhanging rock ledges, frac-
Two techniques are used. In a sounding survey, the center- ture zones, and voids within the rock mass and in the soil
line of the electrodes is fixed while the spacing of the elec- overburden. Hiltunen and Roth (2004) present the results of
trodes is increased for successive measurements. The depth multiple-electrode resistivity surveys at two bridge sites on
of material subjected to current increases with increasing I-99 in Pennsylvania. The resistivity profiles were com-
electrode spacing. Therefore, changes in measured apparent pared with data from geotechnical borings. Both sites are
resistivity with increasing electrode spacing are indicative located in karst underlain by either dolomite or limestone.
of a change in material at depth. In this way, variations in The resistivity profiles provided a very good match to the
12

(a)

FIGURE 6 Rock mass modulus versus shear wave frequency

by Bieniawski (Goodman 1980).

at the ground surface. Crosshole seismic involves measur-

ing travel times of seismic waves between boreholes. Both
methods provide depth to rock, and s-wave velocities,
dynamic shear modulus, small-strain Young’s modulus, and
Poisson’s ratio. Crosshole tomography is based on computer
analysis of crosshole seismic or resistivity data to produce a
3-dimensional (3-D) representation of subsurface conditions.
These techniques are more expensive and require specialized
(b) expertise for data interpretation, but may be cost-effective for
large structures where the detailed information enables a
FIGURE 5 Seismic refraction method (Mayne et al. 2001): more cost-effective design or eliminates uncertainty that may
(a) field setup and procedures; (b) data reduction for depth to
hard layer.
otherwise lead to construction cost overruns.

All geophysical methods have limitations associated with

stratigraphy observed in borings, particularly for top-of- the underlying physics, the equipment, and the individuals
rock profile. Figure 8 shows a resistivity tomogram at one running the test and providing interpretation of the data. The
of the bridge pier sites, in which the top-of-rock profile is study by Sirles (2006) includes several informative case his-
well-defined by the dark layer. Inclusions of rock in the tories from state DOTs of both successful and unsuccessful
overlying soil are also clearly defined. This technology projects. The single case history related to a bridge founda-
should be considered for any site where a rock surface pro- tion investigation is one of a failure to provide accurate
file is required and would provide valuable information for
both design and construction of rock-socketed founda-
tions. Table 1 identifies electrical resistivity tomography Battery Current meter
profiling as a primary method for investigating karstic con-
ditions and as a secondary method for measuring depth to
bedrock. Volt meter
Other geophysical methods have potential for rock sites, P1 P2
but have yet to be exploited specifically for applications to V
foundations in rock. These include downhole and crosshole C1 Spacing, A Spacing, A Spacing, A C2
seismic methods. Downhole seismic p-wave is based on mea-
suring arrival times in boreholes of seismic waves generated FIGURE 7 Field configuration for resistivity test.
 13

Resistivity Test #7 rotated and forced downward to form an annular ring while
East West preserving a central rock core. Standard core barrel lengths
are 1.5 m and 3 m (5 ft and 10 ft). Fluid, usually water but
Depth (feet)

-10
possibly drilling mud, is circulated for cooling at the cutting
interface and removal of cuttings. Selecting the proper tools
-20 and equipment to match the conditions and the expertise of
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 an experienced drill crew are essential elements of a suc-
Distance (feet) cessful core drilling operation. Once rock is encountered,
coring normally is continuous to the bottom of the hole.
0

12

25

50

100

200
Where the rock being sampled is deep, wire line drilling,
Resistivity (Ohm-feet) in which the core barrel is retrieved through the drill stem,
FIGURE 8 Resistivity tomogram at Pennsylvania bridge site in
eliminates the need to remove and reinsert the entire drill
karst (Hiltunen and Roth 2004). stem and can save considerable time. If sampling is not con-
tinuous, drilling in between core samples can be accom-
plished using solid bits.
depths to bedrock in a river channel using both seismic
refraction and an electrical resistivity sounding survey. Rea-
Rock coring bits and barrels are available in standardized
sons cited for the failure include loss of geophones owing
sizes and notations. Important considerations in core barrel
to running water and ice, instrumentation malfunctions, ex-
selection are: (1) core recovery and (2) the ability to deter-
cessive background noise, differences of opinion between
mine the orientation of rock mass structural features relative
consultants on data interpretation, and discrepancies between
to the core. Core recovery is most important in highly frac-
top of rock from geophysical results and borings. Although
tured and weak rock layers, because these zones are typically
this is not believed to be a typical case, it demonstrates some
critical for evaluation of foundation–rock load transfer.
real world lessons.
For sampling of competent rock, bits and core barrels that
provide a minimum of 50-mm-diameter (nominal) core are
Additional findings by Sirles (2006) are that “in-house
adequate for providing samples required for index tests, rock
geoscientists and engineers do not understand the value, the
quality designation (RQD), laboratory specimens for
benefit, or the science of geophysics for their projects.” How-
strength testing, and evaluating the conditions of discontinu-
ever, several factors point to geophysics becoming more
ities. For example, NWM (formerly NX) diamond bit and
widely accepted and implemented as a tool in the transporta-
rock core equipment drills a 76-mm (3-in.) diameter hole and
tion industry. These include a manual published by FHWA
provides a 54-mm (2.125-in.) diameter rock core. When weak,
and available on-line (http://www.cflhd.gov/geotechnical),
soft, or highly fractured rock is present, it may be necessary
additional programs aimed at training of agency personnel,
to use larger diameter bits and core barrels to improve core
and increasing levels of experience.
recovery and to obtain samples from which laboratory strength
specimens can be prepared. Coring tools up to 150 mm
Borings (6 in.) in diameter are used. A highly recommended practice
for best core recovery is to use triple-tube core barrels. The
Borings provide the most direct evidence of subsurface con- inner sampling tube does not rotate during drilling and is
ditions at a specific site. They furnish detailed information removed by pushing instead of hammering; features that
on stratigraphy and samples of soil and rock from which minimize disturbance. Thorough descriptions of coring
engineering properties are determined. Borings also provide equipment and techniques are given in Acker (1974),
the means for conducting in situ tests, installation of instru- AASHTO Manual on Subsurface Investigations (1988),
mentation, and observing groundwater conditions. Conven- Mayne et al. (2001), and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
tional soil boring and testing equipment is used to drill (“Geotechnical Investigations” 2001).
through overlying soil deposits and to determine depth to
bedrock. Once encountered, the most widely used technique Steeply dipping or near-vertical bedding or jointing may
for investigating rock for the purpose of foundation design go undetected in holes drilled vertically (Terzaghi 1965).
is core drilling. Samples are obtained for rock classification Such features can significantly influence the strength and de-
and determining rock properties important to both design and formability of rock foundations. Inclined (nonvertical)
construction. A core sample can be examined physically and drilling provides the opportunity to detect the orientation and
tested, providing information that is hard to obtain by any characteristics of near-vertical features. Oriented core refers
other methods. to any method that provides a way to determine the geomet-
rical orientation of planar structural features, such as bed-
Rock core drilling is accomplished using rotary drill ding, joints, fractures, etc., with respect to the geometrical
equipment, usually the same truck- or skid-mounted rigs orientation of the core. One approach is to mark the core with
used for soil drilling and sampling. A hollow coring tube a special engraving tool so that the orientation of the discon-
equipped with a diamond or tungsten–carbide cutting bit is tinuity relative to the core is preserved and the orientation of
14

the discontinuity (strike and dip) can be determined accu- For shafts supported on or extending into rock, a minimum of
rately (Goodman 1976). A method used with wire line 3 m of rock core, or a length of rock core equal to at least three
times the shaft diameter for isolated shafts or two times the max-
drilling involves making an impression of the core in clay. imum shaft group dimension, whichever is greater, shall be
The combination of inclined and oriented coring techniques extended below the anticipated shaft tip elevation to determine
can provide an effective tool for characterizing orientation of the physical characteristics of rock within the zone of foundation
discontinuities in complexly fractured rock masses. Rock influence.
core orienting methods are covered in more detail in the
AASHTO Manual on Subsurface Investigations (1988) and If the tip elevation changes at some point during the project,
are also reviewed and compared with borehole televiewer additional drilling may be required to meet this recommenda-
methods by Eliassen et al. (2005). tion. O’Neill and Reese (1999) provide the following guidance
on boring depth. When the RQD is less than 50%, extend bor-
ing depths to at least 125% of the expected depths of the drilled
Depth and Spacing of Boreholes shaft bases plus two base diameters. If RQD values are greater
than approximately 50% at the planned base elevation, borings
O’Neill and Reese (1999) recommend the number of borings
only need be extended to the expected base elevation plus two
to be made per drilled shaft location at bridge sites when the
base diameters as long as the RQD remains above 50%. The
material to be excavated is unclassified (Table 2). Unclassi-
rationale is that it is not likely the shafts will need to be deep-
fied means the contractor is paid by the unit of excavation
ened once the actual strata are exposed. This approach requires
depth (meters or feet) regardless of the material encountered.
that foundation diameters and depths be estimated before the
For rock sites, these recommendations should be considered
boring program and that RQD be determined during drilling.
a minimum. If possible, it is recommended to locate one
The approach described is only a general suggestion and local
boring at every rock-socketed shaft. In practice, this is not
geologic conditions may dictate other criteria for boring depths.
always possible and factors such as experience, site access,
If in the course of design or construction it becomes necessary
degree of subsurface variability, geology, and importance
to deepen the shafts, supplementary borings should be taken.
of the structure will be considered. If materials are classi-
fied for payment purposes, it becomes more important to
An available, but not widely used tool for subsurface inves-
locate a boring at every drilled shaft location for the purpose
tigation is to drill one or more large-diameter borings or to have
of making accurate cost estimates and for contractors to
a drilled shaft contractor install a full-sized test excavation.
base their bids on knowledge of the materials to be exca-
Large-diameter borings can be made with augers in soft rock
vated. Where subsurface conditions exhibit extreme varia-
and with core barrels in hard rock. The sidewalls of the boring
tions over short distances, multiple borings at each shaft
or shaft can be examined directly (with appropriate safety mea-
location can reduce the risk of founding a shaft on soil in-
sures) or with downhole cameras. Observations can then be
stead of rock. For example, large-diameter, nonredundant
made of rock mass features, including degree of roughness and
shafts in karstic limestone may require multiple borings at
general quality of the drilled surfaces, and fracture patterns.
each shaft location to determine that the entire base will be
Large-diameter holes provide access for obtaining high-quality
founded in rock and to identify voids or zones of soil
undisturbed samples and may be used for performing in situ
beneath the base that may affect load-settlement behavior
plate load tests to measure rock mass modulus. If a full-size
of each shaft.
excavation is made by a drilled shaft contractor, information of
value to both engineers and contractors is obtained. In Fig-
The draft 2006 Interim AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
ure 3, “constructability” is one of the items to be determined
Specifications recommends the following for depth of borings
during the site characterization. A full-sized excavation is the
below anticipated tip elevations:
most direct method for obtaining this information.

TABLE 2 Downhole devices are available for borehole viewing and

RECOMMENDED FREQUENCY OF BORINGS, photography, including borescopes, photographic cameras, and
DRILLED SHAFT FOUNDATIONS FOR television cameras. A visual image of rock in the sidewalls of
BRIDGES, UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION a boring provides information on structural features that may
Shaft add significantly to the overall picture of subsurface geology.
Redundancy Diameter
Condition (m) Guideline
Advantages and disadvantages of some remote viewing
Single-column, single One boring per devices are discussed in “Geotechnical Investigations” (2001);
All shaft however, the technologies for borehole imaging are advancing
shaft foundations
Redundant, multiple- >1.8 m One boring per rapidly and the user should consult commercial providers for
shaft foundations (6 ft) shaft the most up-to-date information. These devices are effective
Redundant, multiple- 1.2–1.8 m One boring per for examining soft zones for which core may not have been
shaft foundations (4–6 ft) two shafts
<1.2 m
recovered, determination of dip and strike of important struc-
Redundant, multiple- One boring per
shaft foundations (4 ft) four shafts tural features, and viewing of cavities such as solution voids,
Source: OíNeill and Reese 1999. open joints, and lava tunnels in volcanic rocks.
 15

Borehole televiewers provide high-resolution images

showing rock mass structural and textural features and ac-
curate measurement of dip and dip direction of structural
features without the use of oriented core. Optical teleview-
ers (OTV) generate a high-resolution digital color image of
the inside of the borehole wall and are capable of resolving
fractures as narrow as 0.1 mm with a radial resolution of
1 degree (Eliassen et al. 2005). The OTV can be operated in
air- or fluid-filled boreholes; however, fluid requires thor-
ough flushing before image acquisition is undertaken.
Acoustic televiewers (ATV) produce images of the borehole
wall based on the amplitude and travel time of acoustic signals
reflected from the borehole wall. A portion of the reflected
energy is lost in voids or fractures, producing dark bands on
the amplitude log. Travel time measurements allow recon-
struction of the borehole shape, making it possible to generate
a 3-D representation of a borehole.

Both types of televiewers orient their image data using

a three-component fluxgate magnetometer and a three-
component tilt meter incorporated into the tool. Before inter-
pretation, the image is rotated to a common reference direction,
either magnetic north or the high side of the borehole. Planar
features that intersect the borehole wall produce sinusoidal
traces in the “unwrapped,” or 2-D, televiewer image. Using
the reference direction recorded during logging, sinusoids can
be analyzed to produce dip and dip directions of structural
features. Figure 9 shows OTV and ATV images of the same
FIGURE 10 An acoustic television log (Caltrans 2005).
borehole and illustrates some advantages of each device. The
OTV is able to provide a color image of the dike and excel-
lent imaging of the texture of the granite. The ATV highlights According to Eliassen et al. (2005), use of optical and
fracturing within the diorite. The California DOT (Caltrans) acoustic televiewer equipment is gaining popularity over
reports using the ATV to provide very-high-resolution sonic oriented coring techniques because it is generally less labor
images in the format of a 3-D “pseudo-core,” as illustrated in intensive and is particularly useful where access or ability to
Figure 10. drill inclined holes is limited or where local drilling compa-
nies lack the equipment necessary to collect oriented cores.
However, to date, this technology is being applied to site char-
acterization for rock slope engineering and underground
openings, and is not being used in foundation investigations.
Eliassen et al. (2005) note further that televiewer logs are best
used to supplement data obtained from quality rock coring,
which provides samples for laboratory testing, assessment of
joint and discontinuity planes, and correlation of lithologic
and geologic boundaries with geophysical data. The authors
suggest that drilling time and costs can be optimized with ap-
propriate combinations of coring and less expensive air rotary
boreholes logged with OTV and ATV equipment. Borehole
televiewing may be most useful in rock-socket applications at
sites where the structural orientation of discontinuities is a
significant factor in foundation stability. For example, some
modes of bearing capacity failure (described in chapter three)
depend on the orientation of discontinuities in the rock mass
below the socket base. LaFronz et al. (2003) describe use of
OTV as part of the subsurface investigation for the Colorado
River Bridge at Hoover Dam. The primary purpose was to
FIGURE 9 Optical and acoustic televiewer images of a 50-cm obtain structural data to develop recommendations for exca-
diorite dike in granite (Eliassen et al. 2005). vation of cut slopes at the abutment foundations.
16

GEOLOGIC AND INDEX PROPERTIES OF ROCK TABLE 3

ROCK GROUPS AND TYPES
The most basic characterization of rock for engineering Igneous
purposes is a description of rock core based on visual and Intrusive Extrusive
physical examination. The International Society of Rock (coarse-grained) (fine-grained) Pyroclastic
Granite Rhyolite Obsidian
Mechanics (ISRM) proposed a standardized method for Syenite Trachyte Pumice
descriptions of rock masses from mapping and core logging Diorite Andesite Tuff
(“Basic Geotechnical Description of Rock Masses” 1981). A Diabase Basalt
Gabbro
summary of the ISRM method as given by Wyllie (1999) is Peridotite
adopted in the FHWA manuals on subsurface investigations Pegmatite
and soil and rock properties (Mayne et al. 2001; Sabatini Sedimentary
et al. 2002) and is summarized here. Clastic (sediment) (chemically formed) (organic remains)
Shale Limestone Chalk
Mudstone Dolomite Coquina
A rock mass is described in terms of five categories of Claystone Gypsum Lignite
properties, as follows: Siltstone Halite Coal
Conglomerate
Limestone, oolitic
1. Rock Material Description—a. Rock type, b. Wall Metamorphic
strength, c. Weathering Foliated Nonfoliated
2. Discontinuity Description—d. Type, e. Orientation, f. Slate Quartzite
Roughness, g. Aperture Phyllite Amphibolite
Schist Marble
3. Infilling—h. Infilling type and width Gneiss Hornfels
4. Rock Mass Description—i. Spacing, j. Persistence, k.
Number of sets, l. Block size/shape
5. Groundwater—m. Seepage.
rock types listed in Table 3 based on lithologic characteristics
that include color, fabric (microstructural and textural fea-
Each of the 13 parameters listed (a through m) is assigned
tures), grain size and shape (Tables 4 and 5), and mineralogy.
a description using standardized terminology. Descriptive
Sedimentary rock descriptions should include bedding thick-
terms are given in Tables 3 through 6 and in Figure 11, which
ness (Table 6). The rock unit name, which may be a formal
is an example of a Key used for entering rock descriptions on
name of a formation or an informal local name, should be
a coring log and includes details of several categories.
identified; for example, Bearpaw Shale or Sherman Granite.

Rock Material Descriptors Compressive strength of rock core can be evaluated us-
ing simple field tests with equipment commonly available
Rock type is defined in terms of origin (igneous, sedimentary, (knife, rock hammer, etc.) and summarized in the Key of
or metamorphic) and then further classified into one of the Figure 11 (“Rock Strength”) or evaluated from point load

TABLE 4
TERMS TO DESCRIBE GRAIN SIZE OF SEDIMENTARY ROCK
Description Diameter (mm) Characteristic
Very coarse grained >4.75 Grain sizes are greater than popcorn kernels
Coarse grained 2.00–4.75 Individual grains can be easily distinguished by eye
Medium grained 0.425–2.00 Individual grains can be distinguished by eye
Fine grained 0.075–0.425 Individual grains can be distinguished with difficulty
Very fine grained <0.075 Individual grains cannot be distinguished by unaided eye

TABLE 5
TERMS TO DESCRIBE GRAIN SHAPE (for sedimentary rocks)
Description Characteristic
Angular Showing very little evidence of wear. Grain edges and corners are sharp. Secondary
corners are numerous and sharp.
Subangular Showing definite effects of wear. Grain edges and corners are slightly rounded off.
Secondary corners are slightly less numerous and slightly less sharp than in angular
grains.
Subrounded Showing considerable wear. Grain edges and corners are rounded to smooth curves.
Secondary corners are reduced greatly in number and highly rounded.
Rounded Showing extreme wear. Grain edges and corners are smoothed off to broad curves.
Secondary corners are few in number and rounded.
Well-rounded Completely worn. Grain edges and corners are not present. No secondary edges or
corners are present.
 17

TABLE 6 tests or uniaxial compression tests conducted on specimens.

TERMS TO DESCRIBE STRATUM The rock strength descriptions given at the bottom of the
THICKNESS
second page of the Key correspond to the seven categories
Descriptive Term Stratum Thickness of rock strength, R0 through R6, of the ISRM (“Basic Geo-
Very thickly bedded >1 m
Thickly bedded 0.5 to 1.0 m technical Description of Rock Masses” 1981), with R0 cor-
Thinly bedded 50 mm to 500 mm responding to extremely weak rock and R6 corresponding
Very thinly bedded 10 mm to 50 mm to extremely strong rock. The degree of physical disinte-
Laminated 2.5 mm to 10 mm
Thinly laminated <2.5 mm gration or chemical alteration of rock can be described by the
terms and abbreviations given in the Key. Weathering and
alteration reduces shear strength of both intact rock and
discontinuities.

FIGURE 11 Key for rock core description (sheet 1).

18

FIGURE 11 (continued ) (sheet 2).

Discontinuity Descriptors to the core. Roughness and surface shape of joint surfaces is
best measured in the field on exposed surfaces at least 2 m in
A discontinuity is defined as any surface across which any me- length and can be described using the terms in the Key or
chanical property of a rock mass is discontinuous. Discon- quantified in terms of a Joint Roughness Coefficient (Barton
tinuity descriptors are summarized in Figure 11 (Key), items a 1973). Aperture is the width of a discontinuity with no infill-
through g. Types of discontinuities include faults, joints, shear ing and can be classified according to Box c of the Key.
planes, foliation, veins, and bedding. Orientation refers to the
measured dip and dip direction of the surface (or dip and
strike). Dip is defined as the maximum angle of the plane to Infilling
the horizontal and dip direction (strike) is the direction of the
horizontal trace of the line of dip measured clockwise from Infilling is the term for material separating adjacent rock
north, in degrees. Determination of dip and dip direction from walls of discontinuities. Infilling is described in terms of its
core samples is possible using oriented coring techniques, type, amount, and width (Key). Additional laboratory testing
borehole televiewers, downhole cameras, or other devices may be conducted to determine soil classification and shear
capable of establishing orientation of the discontinuity relative strength of infilling materials. Direct shear tests provide a
 19

means to measure shear strength of joints with infilling, as

described by Wyllie and Norrish (1996). Infilling properties LENGTH OF SOUND
L = 250 mm
∑ CORE > 100 mm
vary widely and can have a significant influence on rock RQD =
PIECES
TOTAL CORE RUN LENGTH
mass strength (RMS), compressibility, and permeability.
L=0 250 + 190 + 200
HIGHLY WEATHERED RQD = × 100%
1200
DOES NOT MEET
SOUNDNESS REQUIREMENT
Rock Mass Descriptors RQD = 53% (FAIR)

L=0
Spacing is the perpendicular distance between adjacent dis- CENTER LINE

CORE RUN TOTAL LENGTH = 1 2 0 0 m m

PIECES < 4"
& HIGHLY WEATHERED
continuities. Spacing has a major influence on seepage and
mechanical behavior and can be described using the terms in
Figure 11 (Key). Persistence refers to the continuous length L = 190 mm

or area of a discontinuity and requires field exposures for its

determination. L=0
< 4"

MECHANICAL
BREAK CAUSED
The number of sets of intersecting discontinuities has a BY DRILLING L = 200 mm
PROCESS
major effect on RMS and compressibility. As the number of
sets increases, the extent to which the rock mass can deform
without failure of intact rock also increases. Field mapping L=0
NO RECOVERY

or observations made in exploratory pits or large excavations

provide the best opportunity to map multiple sets of discon- FIGURE 12 RQD determination of rock core (after Deere and
tinuities. Block size and shape is determined by spacing, per- Deere 1989).
sistence, and number of intersecting sets of discontinuities.
Descriptive terms include blocky, tabular, shattered, and measured along the centerline or axis of the core, as shown
columnar, while size ranges from small (<0.0002 m3) to very in Figure 12.
large (>8 m3).
Only natural fractures such as joints or shear planes
should be considered when calculating RQD. Core breaks
Seepage
caused by drilling or handling should be fitted together and
Field observations of seepage from discontinuities should the pieces counted as intact lengths. Drilling breaks may be
be described whenever it can be observed. The presence identified by fresh surfaces. For some laminated rocks it may
and type of infilling controls joint permeability and should be difficult to distinguish natural fractures from those caused
be described wherever seepage is observed. Seepage can by drilling. For characterization of rock mass behavior rele-
range from dry to continuous flow under high pore water vant to foundation design it is conservative to not count the
pressure length near horizontal breaks. RQD should be performed as
soon as possible after the core is retrieved to avoid the effects
of deterioration, which may include slaking and separation of
Rock Quality Designation core along bedding planes, especially in moisture-sensitive
rocks like some shales. It is also desirable because RQD is a
A simple and widely used measure of rock mass quality is quantitative measure of core quality at the time of drilling
provided by the RQD (rock quality designation, ASTM when the rock core is “fresh” and most representative of in
D6032). RQD is equal to the sum of the lengths of sound situ conditions.
pieces of core recovered, greater than 100 mm (4 in.) in
length, expressed as a percentage of the length of the core Rock assigned a weathering classification of “highly weath-
run. Originally introduced by Deere (1964), the RQD was ered” or above should not be included in the determination of
evaluated by Deere and Deere (1989), who recommended RQD. RQD measurements assume that core recovery is at or
modifications to the original procedure after evaluating its near 100%. As core recovery varies from 100%, explanatory
field use. Figure 12 illustrates the recommended procedure. notes may be required to describe the reason for the variation
Several factors must be evaluated properly for RQD to pro- and the effect on RQD. In some cases, RQD will have to be
vide reliable results. determined on the basis of total length of core recovered, rather
than on the length of rock cored. One state (Florida) uses per-
RQD was originally recommended for NX size core, but cent core recovery as an index of rock quality in limestone.
can also be used with the somewhat smaller NQ wireline
sizes and with larger wire line sizes and other core sizes A general description of rock mass quality based on RQD
up to 150 mm (6 in.). RQD based on the smaller BQ and is given here. Its wide use and ease of measurement make it
BX cores or with single-tube core barrels is discouraged an important piece of information to be gathered on all core
because of core breakage. Core segment lengths should be holes. Taken alone, RQD should be considered only as an
20

approximate measure of overall rock quality. RQD is most account for the effects of discontinuities, rock quality, and
useful when combined with other parameters accounting for other factors.
rock strength, deformability, and discontinuity characteris-
tics. As discussed in subsequent sections of this report, many Table 7 lists the laboratory tests for intact rock most com-
of the rock mass classification systems in use today incorpo- monly done for foundation design and gives the ASTM
rate RQD as a key parameter. Standard Designation for each test. More thorough coverage
of laboratory testing of intact rock is given by Mayne et al.
Rock Mass Description RQD (2001), the Rock Testing Handbook (1993), and the
Excellent 90–100 AASHTO Manual on Subsurface Investigations (1988).
Good 75–90
Fair 50–75 Engineering properties of intact rock that are used most
Poor 25–50 often for foundation design are uniaxial compressive
Very Poor <25 strength (qu) and elastic modulus (ER). The compressive
strength of intact rock is determined by applying a vertical
ENGINEERING PROPERTIES OF ROCK compressive force to an unconfined cylindrical specimen
prepared from rock core. The peak load is divided by the
Laboratory Tests on Intact Rock cross-sectional area of the specimen to obtain the uniaxial
compressive strength (qu). The ASTM procedure (D2938)
Intact rock refers to the consolidated and cemented assem- specifies tolerances on smoothness over the specimen
blage of mineral particles forming the rock material, ex- length, flatness of the ends, the degree to which specimen
cluding the effects of macro-scale discontinuities such as ends are perpendicular to the length, and length-to-diameter
joints, bedding planes, minor faults, or other recurrent pla- ratio. Uniaxial compressive strength of intact rock is
nar fractures. The term rock mass is used to describe the sys- used in empirical correlations to evaluate ultimate side
tem comprised of intact rock and discontinuities. The char- and base resistances under axial loading; ultimate limit
acteristics of intact rock are determined from hand pressure under lateral loading; and, by contractors, to as-
specimens or rock core. Properties of intact rock required for sess constructability.
proper characterization of the rock mass and that are rele-
vant to foundation design include strength and deformabil- Elastic modulus of intact rock is measured during conduct
ity. For some rock types, the potential for degradation on ex- of the uniaxial compression test by measuring deformation as
posure to atmospheric conditions may also need to be a function of load. It is common to measure both axial and di-
evaluated. Some design methods incorporate properties of ametral strain during compression to determine elastic mod-
intact rock directly; for example, correlations between ulti- ulus and Poisson’s ratio. Test procedures are given in ASTM
mate unit side resistance and uniaxial compressive strength. Standard (D3148) and discussed further by Wyllie (1999). It
However, most analytical treatments of foundation capacity is important to note that the ASTM procedure defines several
and load-deformation response incorporate the strength and methods of determination of modulus, including tangent
deformability of intact rock into rock mass models that also modulus at a specified stress level, average modulus over the

TABLE 7
COMMON LABORATORY TESTS FOR INTACT ROCK
Test
Category Name of Test and ASTM Designation Comments
Uniaxial Unconfined compressive strength of intact Primary test for strength and deformability
compression rock core specimen (D2938) of intact rock; input parameter for rock mass
classification systems
Split tensile Splitting tensile strength of intact rock core Splitting tensile strength of a rock disk under
specimens (D3967) a compression line load

Point load Determination of the point load strength index Index test for rock strength classification;
strength of rock (D5731) can be performed in field on core pieces
unsuitable for lab testing
Direct shear Laboratory direct shear strength tests for rock Applies to intact rock strength or to shear
specimens under constant normal stress strength along planes of discontinuities,
(D5607) including rock–concrete interface
Strength- Elastic moduli of intact rock core specimens in Young’s modulus from axial stress–strain
deformation uniaxial compression (D3148) curve; Poisson’s ratio can also be
determined
Durability Slake durability of shales and similar weak Index test to quantify the durability of weak
rocks (D4644) rocks under wetting and drying cycles with
abrasion
 21

linear portion of the stress–strain curve, and secant modulus C is a correlation factor that should be established on a site-
at a fixed percentage of maximum strength. For rocks that specific basis by conducting a limited number of uniaxial
exhibit nonlinear stress–strain behavior, these methods may compression tests on prepared core samples. If a site-specific
provide significantly different values of modulus and it is value of C is not available, the ASTM Standard recommends
important to note which method was used when reporting val- approximate values based on core diameter. For a 54 mm
ues of modulus. core (NX core size), the recommended value of C is 24. The
principal advantages of the point load test are that it can
The point load test is conducted by compressing a core be carried out quickly and inexpensively in the field at the
sample or irregular piece of rock between hardened steel site of drilling and that tests can be conducted on irregular
cones (Figure 13), causing failure by the development of ten- specimens without the preparation required for uniaxial com-
sile cracks parallel to the axis of loading. The uncorrected pression tests.
point load strength index is given by
Split tensile strength (qt) of rock (ASTM D4644) is deter-
Is = P/D2 (4) mined by compressing a cylindrical disk under a compressive
line load. Split tensile strength has been correlated with unit
where P = load at rupture, and D is the distance between the side resistance; for example, by McVay et al. (1992) for
point loads. The point load index is reported as the point load drilled shafts in Florida limestone.
strength of a 50 mm core. For other specimen sizes a correc-
tion factor is applied to determine the equivalent strength of Direct shear testing is applicable to determination of the
a 50 mm specimen. The point load index is correlated to uni- Mohr–Coulomb shear strength parameters cohesion, c, and
axial compressive strength by friction angle, φ, of discontinuity surfaces in rock (ASTM
D5607). Shear strength of discontinuities may govern capac-
qu = C Is(50) (5) ity in certain conditions; for example, base capacity of sock-
eted foundations when one or two intersecting joint sets are
where qu is the unconfined compressive strength, Is(50) is the oriented at an intermediate angle to horizontal. The other no-
point load strength corrected to a diameter of 50 mm, and table application of this test is in simulating the shear
strength at the rock–concrete interface for evaluation of side
resistance of socketed shafts under axial loading. However,
for this application, the constant normal stiffness (CNS) di-
rect shear test described by Johnston et al. (1987) is more ap-
plicable. Instead of a constant normal load, normal force is
applied through a spring that increases or decreases the ap-
plied force in proportion to the magnitude of normal dis-
placement (dilation). Dilatancy of the interface is a major
factor controlling strength and stiffness of socketed shafts
under axial load.

The slake durability test (ASTM D4644) provides an index

for identifying rocks that will weather and degrade rapidly.
The test is appropriate for argillaceous sedimentary rocks
(mudstone, shale, clay–shales) or any weak rock. Representa-
tive rock fragments are placed in a wire mesh drum and dried
in an oven to constant weight. The drum is partially sub-
merged in water and rotated at 20 revolutions per minute for
a period of 10 min. The drum and its contents are then dried a
second time and the loss of weight is recorded. The test cycle
is repeated a second time and the slake durability index, ID, is
calculated as the ratio (reported as a percentage) of final to ini-
tial dry weights of the sample. Rocks with ID < 60 are consid-
ered prone to rapid degradation and may indicate a suscepti-
bility to degradation of the borehole wall when water is
introduced during drilling, potentially leading to formation of
a “smear zone.” Hassan and O’Neill (1997) define the smear
zone as a layer of soil-like material along the socket wall and
demonstrate that smearing can have a significantly negative
FIGURE 13 Point load test setup. effect on side load transfer of shafts in argillaceous rock.
22

In Situ Tests for Rock rock modulus from laboratory uniaxial compression tests.
The borehole jack was recommended as a field test that, with
In situ testing can be used to evaluate rock mass deformation proper analysis (Heuze 1984), yields values of rock mass
modulus and, in some instances, RMS. In situ testing meth- modulus that are consistent with results from large plate bear-
ods with potential applications to rock-socket design are ing tests. The borehole jack designed for NX sized borings
presented in Table 8. In situ testing of rock is not performed (75 mm or 3 in. diameter) affects a “test volume” of approxi-
routinely for rock-socket design by most of the agencies mately 0.14 m3 (5 ft3). Borehole jack devices are available
surveyed for this study. The survey responses indicate that commercially with limit pressures of up to 69 MPa, allowing
five state DOTs currently use the pressuremeter test (PMT) the test to reach stress levels beyond the elastic limit and, for
to obtain design parameters. Of these, all five use the test some weak rock masses, to ultimate strength.
to obtain rock mass modulus. One state reported the use of
PMT to evaluate RMS in weak rocks. Four states use the Studies on the use of PMTs for determination of rock mass
PMT for correlating test results with the parameters that de- modulus include those of Rocha et al. (1970), Bukovansky
fine p-y curves for analysis of shafts under lateral loading (1970), Georgiadis and Michalopoulos (1986), and Littlechild
(chapter four). The term dilatometer is also used to describe a et al. (2000). Results have been mixed, with some research-
pressuremeter intended for use in rock but should not be con- ers indicating a high degree of agreement between PMT
fused with the flat plate dilatometer used for in situ testing of modulus and other in situ tests (e.g., Rocha et al. 1970) and
soil. One state (Massachusetts) reported using the borehole others reporting PMT modulus values significantly lower
jack to measure rock mass modulus. No states reported using than modulus measured by plate-load and borehole jack tests
the plate load test for rock-socket design. Information on (e.g., Bukovansky 1970). Littlechild et al. (2000) concluded
conduct and interpretation of the tests identified in Table 8 that PMTs, using the Cambridge High Pressure Dilatometer,
and other in situ tests for rock are given in the relevant were not useful for determination of rock mass modulus for
ASTM standards, Rock Testing Handbook (1993) and Mayne design of deep foundations in several rock types in Hong
et al. (2001). Kong. In strong and massive rocks such as metasiltstone and
tuff, the device did not have sufficient capacity to measure
Heuze (1980) investigated the effect of test scale on the modulus, which typically was around 10 GPa. In highly frac-
modulus of rock masses. Several types of field tests, includ- tured granodiorite, membrane failures were problematic.
ing borehole jack and plate load tests at different scales, were Commercially available pressuremeter devices for rock are
included and results were compared with those of laboratory currently limited to maximum pressures of around 30 MPa.
compression tests. It was observed that in situ rock mass Additional discussion of rock mass modulus is presented
modulus values generally range from 20% to 60% of intact later in this chapter.

TABLE 8
IN SITU TESTS WITH APPLICATIONS TO ROCK-SOCKET DESIGN
Method Procedure Rock Properties Limitations/Remarks
Pressuremeter Pressuremeter is lowered to the Rock mass modulus; Test affects a small area of rock
(includes devices test elevation in a prebored rock mass strength mass; depending on joint
referred to as hole; flexible membrane of in weak rocks spacing, may or may not
rock dilatometer) probe is expanded exerting a ASTM D4719 represent mass behavior; limited
uniform pressure on the to soft or weak rocks
sidewalls of the borehole
Borehole jack Jacks exert a unidirectional Rock mass modulus; Measured modulus value must
pressure to the walls of a rock mass strength be corrected to account for
borehole by means of two in weak rocks stiffness of steel platens; test
opposed curved steel platens ASTM D4971 method can be used to provide
an estimate of anisotropy
Plate load test Load is applied to a steel plate Rock mass modulus; Loaded area is limited, so may
or concrete foundation using a rock mass strength not be effectively testing rock
system of hydraulic jacks and a in weak rocks mass if joints are widely spaced;
reaction frame anchored to the modulus values corrected for
foundation rock plate geometry, effect of rock
breakage, rock anisotropy, and
steel plate modulus; not common
for deep foundations
Texas cone Steel cone is driven by a drop Correlated to Limitations similar to those of
penetration test hammer; number of blows per compressive strength Standard Penetration Test;
300 mm of penetration is TCPT of weak rocks currently used by Texas and
N-value; depth of penetration encountered in Oklahoma DOTs for direct
per 100 blows is penetration Texas and Oklahoma correlation to side and base
resistance (PR) resistance of shafts in weak rock
Notes: Adapted from Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 5 (Sabatini et al. 2002).
TCPT = Texas Cone Penetration Test.
 23

An example of an in situ test that is used in a specific re- described by Bieniawski (1976, 1989) and the Rock Quality
gion of the country is the Texas Cone Penetration Test Tunneling Index described by Barton et al. (1974). Both sys-
(TCPT). A 76-mm-diameter solid steel cone is driven by a tems were developed primarily for application to tunneling
77 kg (170 lb) drop hammer. The number of blows required in rock, but have been extended to other rock engineering
to drive 300 mm (12 in.) is recorded and the results are given problems. The application of classification systems to rock-
in one of two ways: (1) number of blows per 300 mm of pen- socket design has been limited to correlations between clas-
etration or TCPT N-value, or (2) the depth of penetration per sification parameters and RMS and deformation properties.
100 blows, referred to as the penetration resistance or PR. To facilitate such correlations, Hoek et al. (1995) introduced
The Texas and Oklahoma DOTs use empirical correlations the GSI. Relationships were developed between GSI and the
between the TCPT parameters and drilled shaft side and base rock mass classifications of Bieniawski and Barton et al. The
resistances in soil and soft rock. The test procedure and principal characteristics of the two classification systems are
correlations are available in the Texas DOT Geotechnical summarized, followed by a description of their relationship
Manual, which can be accessed online. Some researchers to GSI. For more detailed discussion, including limitations
have developed empirical correlations between TCPT mea- and recommended applications, consult the original refer-
surements and properties of soft rock. For example, Cavu- ences and Hoek et al. (1995, 2002).
soglu et al. (2004) show correlations between compressive
strength of upper Cretaceous formation clay shales (UU tri- The Geomechanics Classification is based on determina-
axial tests) and limestone (unconfined compression) and PR tion of the RMR, a numerical index determined by summing
measurements conducted for Texas DOT projects. The cor- the individual numerical ratings for the following five cate-
relations are highly formation-dependent and exhibit a high gories of rock mass parameters:
degree of scatter, but provide first order estimates of rock
strength based on TCPT resistance in formations where sam- • Strength of intact rock,
ple recovery is otherwise difficult. • Drill core quality (in terms of RQD),
• Spacing of discontinuities,
In addition to the tests identified as being applicable to • Condition of discontinuities, and
rock, it is common practice to use in situ tests for soil to • Groundwater conditions.
define the contact boundary between soil and rock. Of the
agencies surveyed, 21 reported using the Standard Penetra- An adjustment is made to the RMR for the degree to
tion Test (SPT) and 3 reported using the Cone Penetration which joint orientation may be unfavorable for the problem
Test (CPT) to define the top-of-rock elevation. “Refusal” of under consideration. The classification system is presented in
the SPT or CPT penetration is the method most often used to Table 9. Based on the RMR value, a rock mass is identified
identify rock. Limitations of this approach include the possi- by one of five rock mass classes, ranging from very poor rock
bility of mistaking cobbles or boulders for the top-of-rock to very good rock. The draft 2006 Interim AASHTO LRFD
and the lack of consistency in SPT blowcounts in weak or Bridge Design Specifications recommends determination of
weathered rock. RMR for classification of rock mass in foundation investiga-
tions. Seventeen states reported using RMR either always or
Six states reported using the SPT in soft or weak rock to sometimes for rock mass classification associated with
obtain rock properties (unconfined compressive strength) or drilled shaft design.
for correlating SPT N-values directly to design parameters,
principally unit side resistance. For example, the Colorado Barton and co-workers at the Norwegian Geotechnical In-
SPT-Based Method is used by the Colorado DOT to estab- stitute proposed a Tunneling Quality Index (Q) for describing
lish design values of both unit side resistance and base resis- rock mass characteristics and tunnel support requirements
tance for shafts socketed into claystones when the material (Barton et al. 1974). The system is commonly referred to as
cannot be sampled in a way that provides intact core speci- the NGI-Q system or simply the Q-system. The numerical
mens adequate for laboratory uniaxial compression tests value of the index Q varies on a log scale from 0.001 to 1,000
(Abu-Hejleh et al. 2003). O’Neill and Reese (1999) correlate and is defined as:
unit side resistance with N-values for shafts in cohesionless
IGMs, defined as materials with N > 50. Direct correlations RQD J r J
Q= × × w (6)
between design parameters and N values are considered fur- Jn J a SRF
ther in chapter three.
where
RQD = rock quality designation,
Rock Mass Classification Jn = joint set number,
Jr = joint roughness number,
Several empirical classification systems have been proposed Ja = joint alteration number,
for the purpose of rating rock mass behavior. The most Jw = joint water reduction factor, and
widely used systems are the Geomechanics Classification SRF = stress reduction factor.
24

TABLE 9
GEOMECHANICS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR DETERMINATION OF ROCK MASS RATING (RMR)
A. Classification Parameters and Their Ratings (after Bieniawski 1989)
Parameter Ranges of Values
1 Strength For this low
of Point load range, uniaxial
intact strength >10 4–10 2–4 1–2
rock index, MPa comp. test is
material preferred
Uniaxial
comp.
strength, >250 100–250 50–100 25–50 5–25 1–5 <1
MPa
Rating 15 12 7 4 2 1 0
2 Drill core quality, RQD (%) 90–100 75–90 50–75 25–50 <25
Rating 20 17 13 8 3
3 Spacing of discontinuities >2 m 0.6–2 m 200–600 mm 60–200 mm <60 mm
Rating 20 15 10 8 5
4 Condition of discontinuities Slightly
Slickensided
Very rough rough Slightly rough
surfaces or Soft gouge >5
surfaces, surfaces, surfaces,
gouge <5 mm mm thick or
not continuous, separation separation <1
thick or separation >5
no separation, <1 mm, mm, highly
joints open 1 to mm
unweathered slightly weathered
5 mm continuous
wall rock weathered walls
continuous
walls
Rating 30 25 20 10 0
5 Ground-
water Inflow per 10 m None <10 10–25 25–125 >125
tunnel length
Ratio: Joint
water pressure/
major principal 0 <0.1 0.1–0.2 0.2–0.5 >0.5
stress
General
Completely dry Damp Wet Dripping Flowing
conditions
Rating 15 10 7 4 0
B. Rating Adjustment for Joint Orientations
Strike and dip Very Very
orientations favorable Favorable Fair Unfavorable Unfavorable
Ratings Foundations 0 –2 –7 –15 –25
C. Rock Mass Classes Determined from Total Ratings
RMR 100 to 81 80 to 61 60 to 41 40 to 21 <20
Class Number I II III IV V
Very good
Description rock Good rock Fair rock Poor rock Very poor rock

Three states reported using the Q-system in connection GSI = 9LogeQ' + 44 (9)
with rock-socket design. A modified Tunneling Quality In-
dex (Q') is utilized to determine the GSI, as described Table 10 gives the values of the parameters used to evaluate
subsequently. Q' by Eq. 8.

The Geomechanics Classification can be used to estimate

the value of GSI for cases where RMR is greater than 23, as Engineering Properties of Rock Mass
follows:
Shear Strength
GSI = RMR89 – 5 (7) Geotechnical evaluation of foundation ultimate capacity un-
der axial and lateral loading is calculated on the basis of shear
in which RMR89 is the RMR according to Bieniawski (1989) strength along assumed failure surfaces in the rock or at the
as presented in Table 9. For RMR89 values less than 23, the concrete–rock interface. Depending on the failure mode, the
modified (Q′) is used to estimate the value of GSI, where: strength may need to be defined at one of three levels: (1) in-
tact rock, (2) along a discontinuity, and (3) representative of
RQD Jr a highly fractured rock mass. Figure 14 illustrates these cases
Q' = × (8)
Jn Ja for a socketed foundation in rock. For example, bearing
 25

TABLE 10
JOINT PARAMETERS USED TO DETERMINE Q'
1. No. of Sets of Discontinuities = Jn 3. Discontinuity Condition & Infilling = Ja
Massive 0.5 3.1 Unfilled cases
One set 2 Healed 0.75
Two sets 4 Stained, no alteration 1
Three sets 9 Silty or sandy coating 3
Four or more sets 15 Clay coating 4
Crushed rock 20 3.2 Filled discontinuities
Sand or crushed rock infill 4
2. Roughness of Discontinuities = Jr Stiff clay infilling <5 mm 6
Noncontinuous joints 4 Soft clay infill <5 mm thick 8
Rough, wavy 3 Swelling clay <5 mm 12
Smooth, wavy 2 Stiff clay infill >5 mm thick 10
Rough, planar 1.5 Soft clay infill >5 mm thick 15
Smooth, planar 1 Swelling clay >5 mm 20
Slick and planar 0.5
Filled discontinuities 1
*Note: Add +1 if mean joint spacing > 3 m. Modified from Barton et al. (1974).

capacity at the base of a socketed foundation in massive rock most common test for intact rock is the uniaxial (unconfined)
would be evaluated in terms of the strength of the intact rock. compression test, which can be considered a special case of
If the rock has regular discontinuities oriented as shown in triaxial testing with zero confining stress. The strength pa-
level 2, base capacity may be controlled by the strength along rameter obtained is the uniaxial compressive strength, qu,
the joint surfaces. If the rock is highly fractured (level 3), which is related to the Mohr–Coulomb strength parameters by
bearing capacity would have to account for the overall
strength of the fractured mass. qu = 2c tan (45º + 1⁄2 φ) (11)

For each of the three cases, shear strength may be ex- However, the strength of intact rock is normally given simply
pressed within the framework of the Mohr–Coulomb failure in terms of qu. Stability analyses of rock sockets governed by
massive rock are normally evaluated directly in terms of qu.
criterion, where shear strength (τ) is given by
When rock core is not sufficient for uniaxial compression
τ = c' + σ' tan φ' (10) testing, or sometimes for convenience, qu is correlated to re-
sults of point load tests. Uniaxial compressive strength is also
in which c' = effective stress cohesion intercept, φ' = effec- one of the parameters used for evaluating the strength of
tive stress angle of friction, and σ' = effective normal stress highly fractured rock masses, as discussed later.
on the failure plane. Evaluation of shear strength for each of
the three cases is summarized as follows. Shear strength of discontinuities can be determined using
laboratory direct shear tests. The apparatus is set up so that
For intact rock the parameters c' and φ' can be determined the discontinuity surface lies in the plane of shearing between
from laboratory triaxial shear tests on specimens prepared the two halves of the split box. Both peak and residual val-
from core samples. Triaxial testing procedures are given by ues of the strength parameters (c' and φ') are determined.
ASTM D2664 and AASHTO T226. The survey of state Discussion of direct shear testing of discontinuities, includ-
DOTs indicates that triaxial testing is not used routinely. The ing its limitations, is given by Wyllie and Norrish (1996).

For a planar, clean fracture (no infilling), the cohesion is

zero and the shear strength is defined only by the friction angle.
The roughness of the surface has a significant effect on the
value of friction angle. If the discontinuity contains infilling,
the strength parameters will be controlled by the thickness and
properties of the infilling material. Compilations of typical
representative ranges of strength parameter values for discon-
tinuities are summarized in Mayne et al. (2001). The survey re-
sults indicate that direct shear testing of joints is not conducted
routinely by DOT agencies for rock-socket design.
Shear failure
along joint

For intact rock masses and for fractured or jointed rock

(a) Massive rock (b) Jointed rock (c) Highly fractured rock
masses, Hoek and Brown (1980) proposed an empirical crite-
FIGURE 14 Base failure modes illustrating different operational rion for characterizing RMS. Since its appearance, this criterion
shear strength conditions. has been applied widely in practice and considerable experience
26

has been gained for a range of rock engineering problems. Based (1988) suggested that the constants mb, s, and a could be related
on these experiences, the criterion has undergone several stages empirically to the RMR described previously. Hoek et al. (1995)
of modification, most significantly by Hoek and Brown (1988), noted that this process worked well for rock masses with RMR
Hoek et al. (1995, 2002), and Marinos and Hoek et al. (2000). greater than about 25, but not well for very poor rock masses.
The nonlinear RMS is given by: To overcome this limitation, the GSI was introduced. Sug-
a
gested relationships between GSI and the parameters mb/mi, s,
⎛ σ' ⎞ and a, according to Hoek et al. (2002) are as follows:
σ1' = σ 3' + qu ⎜ mb 3 + s⎟ (12)
⎝ qu ⎠
GSI − 100 ⎞
= exp ⎛
mb
⎝ 28 − 14 D ⎠ (13)
where mi
σ'1 and σ'3 = major and minor principal effective stresses,
GSI − 100 ⎞
respectively; s = exp ⎛ (14)
qu = uniaxial compressive strength of intact rock; ⎝ 9 − 3D ⎠
and
mb, s, and a are empirically determined strength parame- 1 1 ⎛ −15
GSI −20
⎞
a= + ⎜e −e 3 ⎟ (15)
ters for the rock mass. 2 6⎝ ⎠

The value of the constant m for intact rock is denoted by in which D is a factor that depends on the degree of disturbance
mi and can be estimated from Table 11. Hoek and Brown to the rock mass caused by blast damage and stress relaxation.

TABLE 11
VALUES OF THE CONSTANT mi BY ROCK GROUP (Hoek et al. 1995)
Rock Class Group Texture
Type Coarse Medium Fine Very fine
Conglomerate Sandstone Siltstone Claystone
(22) 19 9 4
Clastic
<------------ Graywacke -------------->
(18)
<--------------- Chalk ----------------->
Sedimentary

7
Organic
<----------------- Coal ----------------->
(8–21)
Non-clastic Sparitic Micritic
Breccia
Carbonate limestone limestone
(20)
(10) 8
Gypstone Anhydrite
Chemical
16 13
Marble Hornfels Quartzite
Non-foliated
9 (19) 24
Metamorphic

Migmatite Amphibolite Mylonites

Slightly foliated
(30) 31 (6)
Gneiss Schists Phyllites Slate
Foliated*
33 (10) (10) 9
Granite Rhyolite Obsidian
33 (16) (19)
Granodiorite Dacite
Light
(30) (17)
Diorite An desite
Igneous

(28) 19
Dark Gabbro Dolerite Basalt
27 (19) (17)
Norite
22
Agglomerate Breccia Tuff
Extrusive pyroclastic type
(20) (18) (15)

*These values are for intact rock specimens tested normal to foliation. The value of mi will be significantly different if failure occurs
along a foliation plane.
Note: Values in parentheses are estimates.
 27

The damage factor D ranges from zero for undisturbed in situ Kulhawy (1978), Wyllie (1999), and the AASHTO LRFD
rock masses to 1.0 for very disturbed rock masses. Hoek et al. Bridge Design Specifications (2004). These values should
(2002) provide guidance on values of D for application to tun- be considered as general guidelines to expected ranges of
nel and rock slope problems, but no work has been published values for different rock types and serve to illustrate the
relating D to drilled shaft construction. magnitude of variation that is possible. Rock mass modulus
can vary from less than 1 MPa to greater than 100 GPa and
Some problems involving fractured rock masses (e.g., bear- depends on intact rock modulus, degree of weathering, and
ing capacity) are more readily analyzed in terms of the characteristics of discontinuities. Compiled values provide
Mohr–Coulomb strength parameters than in terms of the guidance for very preliminary evaluations, but should not be
Hoek–Brown criterion. Hoek and Brown (1997) noted that relied on for final design. Values of Poisson’s ratio exhibit a
there is no direct correlation between the two sets of strength narrow range of values, typically between 0.15 and 0.3.
parameters. However, they describe a procedure that involves
simulating a set of triaxial strength tests using the Hoek–Brown Various authors have proposed empirical correlations
criterion (Eq. 12) then fitting the Mohr–Coulomb failure en- between rock mass modulus and other rock mass proper-
velope to the resulting Mohr’s circles by regression analysis. ties. Table 12 presents, in chronological order, some of the
Values of the strength parameters c' and φ' defining the in- most widely cited expressions found in the literature. The
tercept and tangent slope of the envelope (which is nonlin- earliest published correlations (expressions 1 and 2 of
ear) can thus be determined. Hoek et al. (2002) presented the Table 12) relate EM to modulus of intact rock, ER, and RQD.
following equations for the angle of friction and cohesive In subsequent correlations (expression 3), RQD is replaced
strength of fractured rock masses: by RMR, providing a more comprehensive empirical ap-
proach because six rock mass parameters (including RQD)
6amb ( s + mb σ '3n )
a −1
⎡ ⎤ are incorporated to evaluate the RMR. This was followed
φ' = sin −1 ⎢ a −1 ⎥ (16)
⎣ 2 1 + a 2 + a + 6amb ( s + mb σ '3n ) ⎦
( ) ( ) by correlations relating EM directly to rock mass indexes,
including RMR and Q (expressions 4, 5, and 6). Hoek et al.
(1995) show the graph given in Figure 15 with curves given
qu [(1 + 2a ) s + (1 − a ) mb σ '3n ]( s + mb σ '3n )
a −1
c' = by expressions 4, 5, and 6 of Table 12, along with case his-
a −1
(1 + a ) ( 2 + a ) 1 + 6amb ( s + mb σ '3n )
(17) tory observations. The figure suggests that expression 4 of
(1 + a ) ( 2 + a ) Table 12 provides a reasonable fit to the available data and
offers the advantage of covering a wider range of RMR val-
Applications of the Hoek–Brown criterion to rock-socket ues than the other equations. The draft 2006 Interim
design are discussed further in chapter three (bearing AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications recommend
capacity) and chapter four (lateral capacity). The draft 2006 use of either expression 4 of Table 12 or a method recom-
mended by O’Neill et al. (1996) based on applying a mod-
Interim AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications rec-
ulus reduction ratio (EM/ER) given as a function of RQD in
ommend the Hoek–Brown strength criterion for RMS char-
Table 13.
acterization, but the earlier version (Hoek and Brown 1988)
is presented rather than the updated version based on GSI.
Beginning with Hoek and Brown (1997), proposed corre-
lation equations have been based on relating EM to GSI and
Deformation Properties properties of intact rock, either uniaxial compressive strength
(qu) or intact modulus (ER). In expression 7, EM is reduced
Rock mass deformation properties are used in analytical progressively as the value of qu falls below 100 MPa. This re-
methods for predicting the load-deformation behavior of duction is based on the reasoning that deformation of better
rock-socketed foundations under axial and lateral loads. The quality rock masses is controlled by discontinuities, whereas
parameters required by most methods include the modulus of for poorer quality rock masses deformation of the intact
deformation of the rock mass, EM, and Poisson’s ratio, v. rock pieces contributes to the overall deformation process
Methods for establishing design values of EM include: (Hoek and Brown 1997). The version given in Table 12 is
updated by Hoek et al. (2002) to incorporate the damage
• Estimates based on previous experience in similar rocks factor, D.
or back-calculated from load tests,
• Correlations with seismic wave velocity propagation The final correlation (expression 8) in Table 12 was pro-
(e.g., Eqs. 1–3), posed based on analyses by Yang (2006). Figure 16 shows a
• In situ testing, and comparison of the regression equation (expression 8) to data
• Empirical correlations that relate EM to strength or mod- from field observations of Bieniawski (1978) and Serafim and
ulus values of intact rock (qu or ER) and/or rock mass Pereira (1983), as well as modulus values measured by PMTs
characteristics. reported by Yang (2006). Expression 8 was applied to der-
ivation of p-y curves for analysis of laterally loaded rock
Compilations of typical values of rock mass modulus sockets, described further in chapter four. Additional discus-
and Poisson’s ratio are given in several sources, including sion of empirical equations for rock mass modulus and their
28

TABLE 12
EMPIRICAL METHODS FOR ESTIMATING ROCK MASS MODULUS

Expression Notes/Remarks Reference

Reduction factor on intact Coon and Merritt
1. EM = ER[0.0231(RQD) – 1.32] rock modulus; (1969); LRFD Bridge
EM/ER > 0.15 Design . . . (2004)
2. For RQD < 70: EM = ER (RQD/350) Reduction factor on intact
Bieniawski (1978)
For RQD > 70: EM = ER [0.2 + (RQD – 70)/37.5] rock modulus

RMR Reduction factor on intact

3. E = E 0.1 + rock modulus; Kulhawy (1978)
M R
1150 11 .4RMR EM/ER < 1.0
RMR 10 Serafim and Pereira
4. E M (GPa ) = 10 40 0 < RMR < 90
(1983)
5. EM (GPa) = 2 RMR – 100 45 < RMR < 90 Bieniawski (1984)
6. EM (GPa) = 25 log10 Q 1 < Q < 400 Hoek et al. (1995)
GSI 10
7. E (GPa ) = 1 D qu for qu < 100 MPa
10 40 Adjustment to Serafim
M
2 100 Hoek and Brown
and Pereira to account for
(1997); Hoek et al.
D
GSI 10 rocks with qu < 100 MPa;
E M (GPa ) = 1 10 40 for qu > 100 MPa (2002)
note qu in MPa
2
8. E = E R e 21.7 Reduction factor on intact
GSI
M Liang and Yang (2006)
100 modulus, based on GSI
Notes: ER = intact rock modulus, EM = equivalent rock mass modulus, RQD = rock quality designation, RMR =
rock mass rating, Q = NGI rating of rock mass, GSI = geological strength index, qu = uniaxial compressive strength.

application to foundation engineering is given by Littlechild jack test. At least three other states using PMT for rock did
et al. (2000), Gokceoglu et al. (2003), and Yang (2006). not respond to the survey. The principal limitation of in situ
testing is whether the volume of rock being tested is represen-
Rock mass modulus is a key parameter for rock-socket tative of the in situ rock mass. Factors such as degree of rock
load-deformation analysis, which is a key step in the design disturbance, anisotropy, and spacing of discontinuities relative
process depicted in Figure 3. Several methods are identified in to the dimensions of the apparatus will determine the degree
this chapter for establishing values of EM. These include geo- to which test results represent the response of rock mass to
physical methods based on p-wave and s-wave velocities (Eqs. foundation loading. As noted earlier in this chapter, rock mass
1 and 2) or shear wave frequency (Eq. 3), in situ testing meth- modulus measured by pressuremeter shows varying levels of
ods (Table 8), and the correlation equations given in Table 12. agreement with other in situ testing methods. The full range of
The survey shows that correlation equations are the most application and limitations of PMTs for rock mass modulus
widely used method for estimating modulus for rock-socket and its application to rock-socket design have yet to be deter-
design, followed by in situ testing. The most common in situ test mined. Correlation equations for rock mass modulus have
(used by five states) is pressuremeter (rock dilatometer), with evolved over the years as illustrated by the relationships sum-
a single state (Massachusetts) reporting use of the borehole marized in Table 12. Correlations are attractive because they
are based on more easily measured properties of intact rock
and rock mass indexes, but caution must be exercised because
most of the correlations were developed specifically for appli-
cations to tunneling. Calibration studies aimed at the applica-
tion of correlation equations for rock mass modulus to load-
deformation analysis of rock-socketed foundations are largely
lacking at the present time. Studies by Littlechild et al. (2000)
and Liang and Yang (2006) are exceptions and illustrate the
type of additional work that is needed.

TABLE 13
ESTIMATION OF MODULUS RATIO (EM /ER)
BASED ON RQD (O’Neill et al. 1996)
EM/ER
RQD (percent) Closed Joints Open Joints
100 1.00 0.60
70 0.70 0.10
50 0.15 0.10
FIGURE 15 Rock mass modulus versus rock mass rating 20 0.05 0.05
(Hoek et al. 1995). RQD = rock quality designation.
 29

values. A low-strain modulus derived from downhole seis-

Bieniawski (1978) mic measurements was used as a reasonable upper-bound
Serafim and Pereira (1983) check on the rock mass modulus. The modulus of intact rock
Ironton-Russell from laboratory uniaxial compression tests on core samples
Regression is consistent with the observation of Heuze (1980) that field
rock mass modulus values range from 20% to 60% of intact
rock modulus and serve as an additional upper-bound check.

INTERMEDIATE GEOMATERIALS

A persistent challenge to the geotechnical engineer, and one

that pertains directly to design and construction of drilled
shafts, is defining the boundary between soil and rock. Dif-
ferent approaches to site characterization and evaluation of
geomaterial properties and different design methods are used
when the geomaterial involved is clearly defined as soil or as
rock. However, many geomaterials encountered in practice
FIGURE 16 Ratio of rock mass modulus to modulus of intact
exhibit properties that make it difficult to define them clearly
rock versus Geological Strength Index (Yang 2006). as being soil or rock within the context of standardized clas-
sification systems. Geologic processes provide us with a con-
tinuum of geomaterial properties and characteristics, some of
which defy simplified categorization.
A case history described by LaFronz et al. (2003) illustrates
the use of multiple methods for establishing design values of
The term intermediate geomaterial (IGM) has been ap-
rock mass modulus. Site characterization for the Colorado
plied recently to earth materials with properties that are at
River Bridge (Hoover Dam Bypass Project) included borehole
the boundary between soil and rock (O’Neill et al. 1996).
jack, downhole seismic (compression wave velocity), and lab-
The criteria are based on (1) whether the material is cohe-
oratory uniaxial compression tests. The major rock unit for the
sionless or cohesive and (2) some index of material strength.
abutment foundations on the Arizona side of the bridge is
Cohesionless IGMs are defined by O’Neill et al. (1996) as
Hoover Dam tuff (welded volcanic ash). Results of field and
very dense granular geomaterials, such as residual, completely
laboratory tests used to establish rock mass modulus in the tuff
decomposed rock and glacial till, with SPT N60-values
are summarized in Table 14. Values given for the correlation
between 50 and 100. Cohesive IGMs are defined as materials
with GSI reflect two values of GSI for the tuff, one corre-
that exhibit unconfined compressive strengths in the range
sponding to fracture conditions of width = 1 to 5 mm with soft
of 0.5 MPa ≤ qu ≤ 5 MPa. Specific materials identified
filling (GSI = 45) and the other corresponding to fracture width
by O’Neill et al. (1996) as being cohesive IGMs include
of 0.1 to 1 mm and no filling (GSI = 52). Modulus values based
(1) argillaceous geomaterials, such as heavily overconsoli-
on downhole p-wave velocities were calculated using equa-
dated clays, clay shales, saprolites, and mudstones that are
tions given by Viskne (1976), described by LaFronz et al.
prone to smearing when drilled; and (2) calcareous rocks such
(2003) as valid at the rock mass scale.
as limestone and limerock and argillaceous geomaterials that
are not prone to smearing when drilled. The term IGM as used
Results were applied as follows. Borehole jack measured
by O’Neill et al. (1996) and subsequently adopted in O’Neill
values at stress ranges representative of expected footing
and Reese (1999) and in the draft 2006 Interim AASHTO
bearing pressures were taken as reasonable values for de-
LRFD Bridge Design Specifications has been limited specif-
veloping foundation load-deflection curves. Deformation
ically to design of drilled shafts and has not been adopted in
modulus predicted by the correlation to GSI (Table 12, Hoek
the general geotechnical literature. For example, the term
and Brown 1997) provided a cross-check on the borehole
IGM is not used in the FHWA Manual on Subsurface Inves-
jack measured values. The mean value of modulus from
tigations (Mayne et al. 2001) or in “Evaluation of Soil and
the borehole jack tests is in the range of the GSI-predicted
Rock Properties,” Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 5
(Sabatini et al. 2002). Responses to Question 8 of the survey
TABLE 14 show that most responding states (23) define IGMs for drilled
MODULUS VALUES, HOOVER DAM TUFF
(LaFronz et al. 2005) shaft design according to the criteria of O’Neill et al. (1996).
Method Mean Modulus (GPa) However, six states responded that geomaterials are classified
Borehole jack 2.83 as either soil or rock and IGM is not used.
Correlation to GSI 2.34, 3.52
Downhole seismic 3.31 According to O’Neill and Reese (1999) cohesionless
Uniaxial compression 13.79 IGMs may be treated, for practical purposes, in the same
30

manner as coarse-grained (cohesionless) soils. They are as- There is no simple answer to the problem of classifying
sumed to respond to loading by rapid dissipation of excess cohesive materials at the soil–rock boundary. Various classi-
pore water pressure (fully drained response) and are analyzed fications that distinguish geomaterials on the basis of com-
within the context of effective stress. For strength analysis, pressive strength of unweathered rock material are summa-
cohesionless IGMs are characterized in terms of the effective rized in Figure 18, which includes a proposed classification
stress angle of friction φ'. It should be noted that some by Kulhawy et al. (1991) in which rock strength is defined
empirical correlations that apply to cohesionless soils, such relative to that of concrete used in construction, which is as-
as friction angle estimated from SPT N-values, may not be sumed to range from 20 kN/m2 (3 ksi) to 100 kN/m2 (15 ksi).
applicable to cohesionless IGMs. Specific approaches for Rock at the high end of the strength scale (>100 kN/m2) is
estimating design parameters of shafts in cohesionless IGM classified as strong and in most cases would be expected to
are covered in chapter three. be an excellent founding material, except that it would be ex-
pensive to excavate. Rock with compressive strength falling
The definition of cohesive IGMs given earlier is based within the range of concrete strength is classified as medium
on a single index, the unconfined compressive strength. Al- and the rock mass could be either weaker or stronger than
though this categorization may be useful to identify mate- concrete, depending on weathering and structural features.
rials falling into a defined range of intact strength, it does For rock classified as weak (<20 kN/m2) foundation capacity
not necessarily provide the distinction between soil and is expected to be governed by the strength of the rock mass.
rock most relevant to behavior of drilled shafts. To illus- Materials defined as cohesive IGMs by O’Neill et al. (1996)
trate, consider Figure 17 from Kulhawy and Phoon (1993). fall into this strength range. To account properly for the be-
This figure shows the relationship between unit side resis- havior of weak rock in engineered construction, the follow-
tance determined from field load tests on drilled shafts and ing additional factors must be considered carefully: geologic
one-half of the unconfined compressive strength. Both pa- origin, in situ weathering profile, state of stress, ground-
rameters are normalized by atmospheric pressure pa. Two water, and construction practices.
categories of load tests were defined; those conducted on
shafts in fine-grained soils (clay) and those in rock. Kul- A defining characteristic of geomaterials at the soil–rock
hawy and Phoon relied on the judgment of the original boundary may be whether or not the in situ material was at one
authors and the database compilers to establish whether the time rock (geologic origin). This is probably the distinguish-
material was soil or rock. For convenience, the range of ing feature between clay and rock in Figure 17. The next geo-
normalized strength that defines cohesive IGM is superim- logic consideration is the in situ weathering profile. Igneous,
posed on Figure 17. It can be seen that the soil and rock data sedimentary, or metamorphic rocks subjected to in-place
constitute apparently different populations, including over weathering result in geologic profiles that may exhibit the full
the range of strength that defines cohesive IGM. For pur- range of characteristics, for example, as described in Figure 11
poses of drilled shaft side resistance, therefore, the classifi- (Key), Sheet 2, under “Rock Weathering—Alteration.” The
cation of IGM does not provide a smooth transition from descriptive terms are based on recommendations for describ-
soil to rock. It may be more meaningful to define the mate- ing degree of weathering and alteration by the ISRM. One of
rial as being one or the other on the basis of additional the criteria for distinguishing between residual soil and com-
geologic information. pletely weathered or altered rock is whether the original rock

IGM

FIGURE 17 Side resistance versus geomaterial strength FIGURE 18 Classification for unweathered rock material
(Kulhawy and Phoon 1993). strength (Kulhawy et al. 1991).
 31

fabric is still apparent. The highest degree of weathering ap- soil and rock properties. Wider use of RMR or GSI classifi-
plies to materials derived from rock but for which the rock cation of rock mass is one way that state DOT agencies can
fabric is not apparent. In this case, the material behavior is use the most up-to-date methods for characterizing RMS and
controlled by soil fabric and the material should be classified deformation properties.
as residual soil, even though it may contain fragments of
weathered rock. Materials in which the original minerals have In situ testing methods that provide information on rock
been completely decomposed to secondary minerals but mass modulus include PMT and borehole jack. Five states
where the original fabric is intact may exhibit rock material reported using these tests to obtain modulus values for rock-
behavior governed by rock mass features, including both rock socket design. To use the best available analytical models for
material and discontinuities. The material should be consid- axial and lateral loading, as well as for effective interpretation
ered to be rock mass, even though it may be highly weathered of load test results, rock mass modulus is a required parameter.
or altered and exhibit low compressive strength. Judgment Currently, it is noted that there is no definitive in situ method
is always required in assessing whether material behavior is or empirical equation for rock mass modulus that has been cal-
governed by soil fabric or by rock mass fabric; however, this ibrated specifically for application to design of rock sockets.
is a key factor to be assessed in a design approach. Whether a A case history example is presented in this chapter illustrating
geomaterial is assigned the term “IGM” or “weak rock” is not the beneficial use of both in situ testing (borehole jack) and
as important as understanding the geologic processes that give empirical correlations with GSI to establish representative val-
the material its characteristics and engineering properties. ues of rock mass modulus for foundation design.

Site and geomaterial characterization are interrelated with

SUMMARY design, construction, and load testing of drilled shafts in
rock. For design, Figure 3 shows that rock mass engineering
In this chapter, site characterization methods used to define properties required for analysis of rock-socket capacity and
subsurface conditions at bridge sites underlain by rock were load-deformation response are obtained through field and
reviewed. The survey shows that eight states currently use geo- laboratory testing. Table 15 is a summary of rock mass char-
physical methods to determine depth to bedrock and that acteristics used in design methods for axial and lateral load-
seismic refraction is the method used. The literature review ing. A large X indicates the property is used directly in
suggests that resistivity methods based on the use of multi- design equations that are currently applied widely in practice,
ple arrays can provide detailed profiles that may be useful whereas a small x indicates that the characteristic is used
for both design and construction. Karstic areas in limestone indirectly in the design or that it is required for a proposed
or dolomite terranes with irregular, pinnacled rock surfaces design method that is not used widely. For example, intact rock
or solution cavities are examples of sites where recent de- modulus ER is not used directly to analyze load-displacement
velopments in geophysical methods could be applied. response of socketed shafts, but may be used to estimate the
rock mass modulus EM, which is used directly in the analytical
Every agency responding to the survey uses rock core equations.
drilling as the primary method of subsurface investigation for
rock sockets. Current practice for description and classifica- Information obtained through the site investigation
tion of rock core is reviewed. The survey shows that most process will be used not only by design engineers but by
states routinely determine the RQD of rock core and that contractors who will bid on the work and construct the foun-
the uniaxial compressive strength of intact rock (qu) is also dations. As indicated in the flowchart shown in Figure 3,
measured by one of the standardized methods. Also from the a goal of site characterization is to obtain information on
survey, it was determined that five states currently classify constructability. O’Neill and Reese (1999) point out that con-
all rock mass according to the Geomechanics Classification tractors will be most interested in knowing the difficulties
System, in which rock mass is assigned a RMR. Twelve that might be encountered in drilling the rock. Specific in-
states use RMR occasionally, whereas 14 states indicated formation that is useful in assessing the difficulty of drilling
that RMR is never used. Some of the analytical methods de- in rock includes loss or gain of drill water; rock type with
veloped in recent years and described in subsequent chapters lithological description; rock strength; characteristics of
of this report require the rock mass classification in terms of weathering; and rock mass characteristics such as the pres-
RMR. Specifically, RMR can be used to evaluate strength ence, attitude, and thickness of bedding planes, foliation,
parameters according to the Hoek–Brown failure criterion, a joints, faults, stress cracks, cavities, shear planes, or other
useful approach to quantifying strength of intact or highly discontinuities. Boring logs, containing most of the informa-
fractured rock masses. RMR is used to establish GSI, which tion determined by the site investigation, are incorporated
is required to use the most up-to-date version of the directly into the construction plans by most state DOTs. Any
Hoek–Brown criterion. RMR and/or GSI are useful for esti- of the above information not given in the boring logs should
mating rock mass modulus using the empirical correlations be made available to bidders to facilitate informed decisions.
given in Table 12. The RMR is also recommended in current The same information will be used by the design engineer to
FHWA manuals on site characterization and evaluation of forecast potential construction methods and construction
32

TABLE 15
ROCK MASS ENGINEERING PROPERTIES REQUIRED FOR ROCK-SOCKET DESIGN
Design Applications
Axial Loading Lateral Loading
Load-Displacement
Unit Side Unit Base Axial Load- Ultimate Continuum p-y Curve
Rock Mass Characteristic Resistance Resistance Displacement Resistance Methods Parameter
Compressive strength, intact rock, qu X X X x X
Split tensile strength, intact rock, qt X
Rock mass strength by Mohr–
Coulomb or Hoek and Brown X x X
Shear strength of joint surfaces X x
Elastic modulus, intact rock, ER x x x x
Elastic modulus, rock mass, EM x X X X
Rock quality designation (RQD) x X x x
Rock Mass Rating (RMR) X x x
Geological Strength Index (GSI) X x x X

Notes: X = property is used directly in equations that are currently applied widely in practice.
x = characteristic is used indirectly in the design or it is required for a proposed design method not
widely used.

problems to develop specifications for the project and to load-deformation response. Results of field load testing
make cost estimates. Rock cores should be photographed also provide the basis for many of the design methods dis-
and, when practical, retained for examination by prospective cussed in the next two chapters. For correct interpretation
bidders. of load test results, it is imperative that subsurface conditions
and soil–rock engineering properties be evaluated as care-
Field load testing, shown in the flowchart of Figure 3 fully as possible. The properties required for design and
and described in chapter five, provides direct verification of listed in Table 15 are also required for load test interpretation
design assumptions regarding axial and lateral capacity and and for proper extrapolation of load test results to design.
 33

CHAPTER THREE

DESIGN FOR AXIAL LOADING

SCOPE Several methods proposed in recent years for analysis of

both axial and lateral load response of rock sockets require, as
A rock-socketed drilled shaft foundation must be designed so an input parameter, the GSI proposed by Hoek et al. (1995,
that the factored axial resistance is not less than the effects of 2002). GSI is also correlated to the parameters that establish
the factored axial loads. At the strength limit state, side and the Hoek–Brown strength criterion for fractured rock masses.
base resistances of the socketed shaft are taken into account. Although GSI is not widely used in foundation engineering
Design for the service limit state accounts for tolerable practice at the present time, it likely will become a standard
movements of the structure and requires analysis of the axial rock mass characteristic for rock-socket design.
load-deformation response of the shaft. In this chapter, cur-
rent understanding of rock socket response to axial loading
is summarized, based on a literature review. Analysis LOAD TRANSFER BEHAVIOR
methods for predicting axial load capacity and axial load- OF ROCK SOCKETS
displacement response of shafts in rock and IGM are then Compression Loading
reviewed and evaluated for their applicability to highway
bridge practice. A compressive force applied to the top (head) of a rock-
socketed drilled shaft is transferred to the ground through
(1) shearing stress that develops at the concrete–rock inter-
RELATIONSHIP TO GEOMATERIAL
CHARACTERIZATION face along the sides of the shaft and (2) the compressive nor-
mal stress that develops at the horizontal interface between
Design for axial loading requires reliable site and geoma- the base of the shaft and the underlying rock. A conceptual
terial characterization. Accurate geometric information, model of the load transfer can be illustrated by considering a
especially depth to rock and thickness of weathered and generalized axial load versus displacement curve as shown in
unweathered rock layers, is essential for correct analysis of Figure 19 (Carter and Kulhawy 1988). Upon initial loading,
axial resistance. This information is determined using the shearing stress develops along the vertical shaft–rock inter-
tools and methods outlined in the previous chapter, princi- face. For a relatively small load, displacement is small and
pally core drilling supplemented by geophysical methods. the stress–strain behavior at the shaft–rock interfaces is
Rock mass characterization using the Geomechanics System linear (line OA). There is no relative displacement (“slip”)
(Bieniawski 1989) provides a general framework for assess- between the concrete shaft and surrounding rock and the sys-
ing the overall quality of the rock mass and its suitability as a tem may be modeled as being linearly elastic. With increas-
foundation material. Engineering properties of the intact rock ing load, the shear strength along some portion of the shaft
and the rock mass are used directly in the analysis methods sidewall is exceeded, initiating rupture of the “bond” and rel-
described in this chapter. For example, empirical relation- ative slip at the shaft–rock interface. The load-displacement
ships have been derived between rock-socket unit-side resis- curve becomes nonlinear as rupture, and slip progress and a
tance and uniaxial strength of intact rock. Base capacity, greater proportion of the applied load is transferred to the
analyzed as a bearing capacity problem, may require uniax- base (line AB). At some point, the full side resistance is
ial compressive strength of intact rock, shear strength of mobilized, and there is slip along the entire surface (“full
discontinuities, or the Hoek–Brown strength parameters of slip” condition), and a greater proportion of the applied load
fractured rock mass, depending upon the occurrence, orien- is transferred to the shaft base (beyond point B in Figure 19).
tation, and condition of joint surfaces in the rock mass below If loading is continued to a displacement sufficient to cause
the base. For analysis of axial load-displacement response, failure of the rock mass beneath the base, a peak compressive
the rock mass modulus is required. Modulus may be deter- load may be reached. In practice, design of drilled shafts
mined from in situ testing, such as pressuremeter or borehole in rock requires consideration of (1) deformation limits and
jack tests, or estimated from rock mass classification param- (2) geotechnical and structural capacity (strength limit
eters as summarized in Table 12. Engineering properties of states). Geotechnical capacity in compression is evaluated in
rock mass used in conjunction with LRFD methods should terms of limiting side and base resistances. Load transfer
be mean values, not minimum values sometimes used in geo- in uplift involves the same mechanisms of side resistance
technical practice. mobilization as described previously for compression.
34

asperities from the direction of shear displacement. The in-

terface shear strength (τ) is then given by

τ = c + σn tan (φ + ψ) (18)
Full slip
Load, Qc

in which σn = interface normal stress. Physically, all three

B components of strength (c, φ, ψ) may vary with displace-
Progressive slip ment. The initial shear strength may have both cohesive and
A frictional components. Following rupture, the cohesion is
probably decreased and dilation is mobilized. With further
displacement, dilation may cease and resistance may be
Linear elastic purely frictional and correspond to the residual friction angle.
In addition, field conditions of construction can significantly
O
affect the nature of the sidewall interface and, in practice,
Settlement, wc will determine the relative contributions of cohesion, fric-
FIGURE 19 Idealized load-displacement behavior. tion, and dilatancy to shearing resistance. For example, the
bond (adhesion) may be partially or completely prevented
by the presence of drilling slurry, or by “smearing,” which
occurs in some argillaceous rocks or in rocks that are sensi-
A rigorous model for the behavior of a rock-socketed
tive to property changes in the presence of water. Dilatancy
drilled shaft under axial compression would provide a pre-
is a function of interface roughness and shear strength of
diction of the complete load-displacement curve. In reality,
the intact rock forming the asperities. Sidewall roughness is
the mechanisms of side and base load transfer are complex
determined in part by rock type and texture, but can also be
and can only be modeled accurately through the use of so-
affected by construction tools and practices. Practices that
phisticated numerical methods, such as finite-element or result in a “smooth” sidewall will reduce dilatancy compared
boundary-element methods. Input parameters required for with practices that provide a “rough” sidewall (Williams and
accurate modeling are not normally available for design. In Pells 1981; Horvath et al. 1983).
recent years, several researchers have presented simplified
methods of analysis that provide bounds on the expected and Johnston and Lam (1989) made detailed investigations of
observed behaviors for shafts that fall within the range of the rock–concrete interface with the goal of better under-
conditions typically encountered in practice. Methods most standing the factors that determine interface roughness and
relevant to rock-socketed bridge foundations are presented in its influence on side-load transfer. Figure 20a shows an ide-
this chapter. Some of the more important behavioral aspects alized section of a rock socket following construction. An
pertaining to side and base resistance and their mobilization initial normal force exists between the rock and concrete.
are described first. When the shaft is loaded vertically, the shearing resistance
develops and the rock mass will deform elastically until slip
Side Resistance Mechanisms occurs. Figure 20a and b show the positions of the shaft
before and after slip displacement. These two conditions are
The conditions of the sidewall interface determine the represented by 2-D models in Figure 20c and d, respectively.
strength and load transfer in side resistance. Side resistance Figure 20d illustrates the dilation that occurs as a result of geo-
often exhibits a “bond” component that may exist physically metrical constraints. Dilation occurs against the surrounding
as a result of the cementation between the concrete and rock rock mass, which must deform to compensate for the increase
and from mechanical interlocking between asperities along in socket diameter, resulting in an increase in the interface
the interface. If the shearing strength of the interface is mod- normal stress. The average normal stress increase (Δσn) can be
eled as a Mohr–Coulomb material, the bond component can approximated using the theoretical solution that describes
be considered as the interface adhesion, c. If displacements expansion of an infinite cylindrical cavity, as follows:
are sufficient, the interface bond is ruptured and the cohesion
component of resistance may be diminished. The second EM Δ r
Δσ n = (19)
mechanism of resistance is frictional. Physically, the fric- 1+ ν r
tional resistance can have two components. The first is the
sliding friction angle of the interface, φ. The second is where EM and ν are the rock mass modulus and Poisson’s ra-
mechanical dilatancy, which can be described as an increase tio, respectively; Δr is the dilation, and r is the original shaft
in the interface normal stress in response to the normal radius. A normal stiffness K can be defined as the ratio of
displacement (dilation) required to accommodate shear dis- normal stress increase to dilation, as follows:
placement of a rough surface. For mathematical simplicity,
dilatancy can be quantified in terms of the angle of dilation Δσ n EM
K= =
Δ r r (1 + ν )
(ψ), where ψ corresponds to the average angle of triangular (20)
 35

FIGURE 21 Theoretical base load transfer (Rowe and

Armitage 1987b).

of modulus ratio is more significant at lower embedment

ratios and, in general, base load transfer increases with in-
creasing modulus ratio. Cases that result in the most base
load transfer correspond to low embedment ratio with high
modulus ratio (shaft is rigid compared to rock mass);
whereas the smallest base load transfer occurs at higher em-
bedment ratios and low modulus ratio (stiff rock mass).

The proportion of load transferred to the base will also

vary with the stiffness of the rock mass beneath the base of
FIGURE 20 Idealized rock–concrete interface under axial the shaft relative to the stiffness of the rock along the side. In
loading (Johnston and Lam 1989).
many situations, a rock socket is constructed so that the base
elevation corresponds to relatively “sound” or “intact” rock,
and it may be necessary to excavate through weathered or
Assuming the deformation Δr is small compared with r, and fractured rock to reach the base elevation. In that case, the
EM and v can be considered to be constant for the stress range modulus of the rock mass below the base may be greater than
considered, it follows that the behavior of the rock–concrete that of the rock along the sidewall of the socket. Osterberg
interface is governed by CNS conditions. This concept forms and Gill (1973) demonstrate the difference in load transfer in
the basis of the CNS direct shear test, in which the normal side and base resistances for two conditions, one in which the
force is applied through a spring (Johnston et al. 1987; Ooi base modulus is twice that of the sidewall rock modulus and
and Carter 1987). one where the base rock has a much lower modulus than that
of the rock surrounding the shaft side. Their results show
that base load transfer increases as the ratio Eb/Er increases
Shaft Geometry and Relative Rigidity (Figure 22).

Load transfer in a rock socket depends on the geometry, Load transfer is affected significantly by the roughness of
expressed by the embedment ratio (depth/diameter), and the the sidewall interface. Fundamentally, this can be explained
stiffness of the concrete shaft relative to stiffness of the sur- by the higher load transfer in side shear reducing the propor-
rounding rock mass. Figure 21, based on finite-element tion of load transferred to the base. Because side resistance
analysis, illustrates this behavior for the initial (no slip) part increases with interface roughness, rock sockets with higher
of the load-displacement curve. In Figure 21, L = socket interface roughness will transfer a higher proportion of load
length, D = shaft diameter, Ep = modulus of the shaft, Er = in side resistance than smooth sockets. The complex interre-
modulus of rock mass above the base, Eb = modulus of rock lationships between load transfer, interface roughness, mod-
mass below the base, Qb = load transmitted to the base, and ulus ratio, and embedment ratio have been studied by several
Qt = load applied to the head of the shaft. The portion of ap- researchers, and the reader is referred to Pells et al. (1980),
plied axial compressive load that is transferred to the base is Williams et al. (1980), Rowe and Armitage (1987a), and
shown as a function of embedment ratio and modulus ratio. Seidel and Collingwood (2001) for more detailed discus-
With increasing embedment ratio, the relative base load sions. Six state DOTs indicated the use of grooving tools or
transfer decreases. For embedment ratios of 10, less than other methods to artificially roughen the sidewalls of rock-
10% of the applied load is transferred to the base. The effect socketed shafts.
36

tion and inspection techniques to ensure quality base condi-

tions is a better approach than neglecting base resistance. The
authors support their recommendations with field load test
results in which load transferred to the base was measured.
The database consisted of 50 Osterberg load cell (O-cell)
tests and 22 compression tests in which the load was applied
to the top of the shaft. Of those, 30 of the O-cell tests and 4
of the top load tests were conducted on rock-socketed shafts.
Eight of the O-cell tests (27%) showed evidence of bottom
disturbance in the O-cell load-displacement curves. Results
from the 34 tests are plotted in Figure 23 in terms of base load
ratio (Qb = base load, Qt = actual top load or top load inferred
from the O-cell test) versus socket-effective depth-to-diameter
ratio (L/B). For some of the shafts, multiple measurements
are included at different values of load and displacement.
However, all of the base load ratio values correspond to
downward displacements at the top of the shaft that range
FIGURE 22 Effect of rock mass modulus at base on axial load from 2.5 mm to 25.4 mm, with most in the range of from 3
transfer (Wyllie 1999, based on Osterberg and Gill 1973). to 15 mm. These values are within the service limit state for
most bridge foundations. Additional details regarding the test
Base Condition shafts, subsurface profiles, and load test interpretation are
given in Crapps and Schmertmann (2002).
In many cases encountered in practice there is uncertainty
about conditions at the base of the shaft. Most transporta- Several important observations arise from the data shown in
tion agencies include, in their drilled shaft specifications, Figure 23. First, base resistance mobilization represents a sig-
limits on the amount of drill cuttings, water, or slurry that is nificant contribution to overall shaft resistance at downward
permissible at the base before concrete placement (Survey displacements corresponding to typical service loads. Second,
Question 34). However, compliance is not always verified the magnitude of base resistance is generally greater than pre-
and in some cases there is a perception that it is not practical dicted by elasticity-based numerical solutions (e.g., compare
to clean or inspect the base of the socket. In these cases, the with Figure 21). The dashed lines in Figure 23 represent ap-
designer may assume that base resistance will not develop proximate upper and lower bounds to the data from top load
without large downward displacement and for this reason tests and O-cell tests without bottom disturbance. For the most
base resistance is sometimes neglected for design purposes. part, O-cell tests that exhibited bottom disturbance fall below
Ten states indicated in their responses to Question 14 of the lower-bound curve. Although the data are not sufficient to
the survey that rock-socketed shafts are sometimes designed provide design values of base load transfer in advance for a
under the assumption of side resistance only. The draft given situation, they provide compelling evidence that shaft
Interim 2006 AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications design in rock should account properly for base resistance, and
state that “Design based on side-wall shear alone should that quality construction and inspection aimed at minimizing
be considered for cases in which the drilled hole cannot base disturbance can provide performance benefits.
be cleaned and inspected or where it is determined that
large movements of the shaft would be required to mobilize
resistance in end bearing.” Table 16 lists the most common Time Dependency
reasons cited by foundation designers for neglecting base
resistance in design, along with actions that can be taken to Time-dependent changes in load transfer may occur in rock-
address the concern. socketed shafts under service load conditions. Ladanyi (1977)
reported a case in which the bearing stress at the base of an in-
Crapps and Schmertmann (2002) suggest that accounting strumented rock socket increased, at a steadily decreasing
for base resistance in design and using appropriate construc- rate, over a period of 4 years; although the total applied head

TABLE 16
REASONS FOR NEGLECTING BASE RESISTANCE AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS (after
Crapps and Schmertmann 2002)
Reason Cited for Neglecting Base Resistance Correction
Settled slurry suspension Utilize available construction and inspection methods
Reluctance to inspect bottom Utilize available construction and inspection methods
Concern for underlying cavities Additional inspection below base
Unknown or uncertain base resistance Load testing
 37

1
Qs = ∫ fsu dA = πB ∫ fdz (21)
0.9 O-cell, good base
surface L

0.8 O-cell, base disturbed

0.7 top load test in which Qs = total side resistance (force), fsu = unit side resis-
0.6 tance (stress), A = surface area along the side of the socket, B =
socket diameter, and L = socket length. In practice, socket side
Qb/Qt

0.5
0.4 resistance capacity is calculated by assuming that a single av-
0.3 erage value of unit side resistance acts along the concrete–rock
0.2 interface, for each rock layer. This value of f is multiplied by
0.1 the area of the interface to obtain total side resistance Qs, or
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Qs = fsu × πBL (22)
L/B
Methods for predicting socket side resistance are, therefore,
FIGURE 23 Base load transfer interpreted from load tests focused on the parameter fsu.
(data from Crapps and Schmertmann 2002).
The interaction between a rock mass and drilled shaft that
determines side resistance is complex. The principal factors
controlling this interaction include:
load remained essentially constant. However, the percentage
of total load carried by the base after this period was still less
• Rock material strength;
than 10% of the applied load and agreed quite well with pre-
• Rock mass structure (discontinuities);
dictions based on elastic theory. Tang et al. (1994) described
• Modulus of the concrete relative to modulus of the rock
a similar monitoring program on a shaft socketed into karstic
mass;
dolomite supporting a building on the University of Ten- • Shear strength mobilized by dilatancy;
nessee campus. Some change in load transfer occurred fol- • Confining stress; and
lowing the end of construction; however, most of the change • Construction-related factors, including roughness of
was from side resistance in the overlying soil (decreased) to shaft–rock interface.
side resistance in the rock socket (increased). Neither case
would suggest changes in design of rock sockets to account Geomechanical models that account for these factors (to
for the time dependency of load transfer mechanisms. varying degrees) are described in the literature (e.g., Rowe
and Pells 1980); however, the methods required to obtain the
necessary input parameters normally fall outside the scope of
CAPACITY UNDER AXIAL LOADING a typical investigation conducted for the design of highway
bridge foundations. More realistically, methods based on the
The factored axial resistance of a drilled shaft in compres- strength of intact rock, in some cases with modifications to
sion is the sum of the factored side resistance and the fac- account for one or more of the other factors, have been used
tored base resistance. The factored resistances are calcu- successfully and are more rational than some of the strictly
lated by multiplying appropriate resistance factors by the empirical methods or presumptive values. This approach rep-
nominal resistances, which are generally taken as the ulti- resents a practical compromise between oversimplified em-
mate values. One approach to the design process depicted pirical methods and more sophisticated numerical methods
in Figure 3 of chapter one is to size the foundation initially that might be warranted only on larger projects. The methods
to achieve a factored resistance that exceeds the factored are summarized here.
loads. The trial design is then analyzed to predict load-
displacement response. If necessary, revised trial dimen-
sions can then be analyzed until all of the design criteria are Methods Based on Rock Compressive Strength
satisfied, including the movement criteria associated with
the service limit state. In the case of axial loading, the ultimate A practical approach to evaluating average unit side resis-
side and base resistances are required to establish the initial tance is to relate fsu to the strength of the intact rock material.
trial design. The rock material strength parameter most often measured is
the uniaxial compressive strength (qu). In this approach, val-
ues of fsu are determined from full-scale field load tests in
Side Resistance which ultimate side resistance (Qs) has been determined.
This value is divided by the socket side area (As) to obtain an
The ultimate side resistance of a rock socket is the summa- average value of unit side resistance at failure:
tion of peak shearing stress acting over the surface of the
socket, expressed mathematically by fsu = Qs/As (23)
38

Early studies relating fsu to qu include those by Rosenberg AASHTO refers to this as the Horvath & Kenney method. A
and Journeaux (1976) and Horvath (1978, 1982). Other re- socket that is not specified to be artificially roughened by
searchers have continued to expand the available database grooving is considered “smooth” and side resistance is gov-
and propose equations relating unit side resistance to rock erned by Eq. 25. If the socket is artificially roughened, Eq. 26
strength on the basis of statistical best-fit analyses. Notable is recommended; however, this requires estimation or mea-
studies include those of Williams and Pells (1981), Rowe and surement of roughness as defined by Eq. 27.
Armitage (1984, 1987b), Bloomquist and Townsend (1991),
McVay et al. (1992), and Kulhawy and Phoon (1993). These Rowe and Armitage (1987b) summarized the available
studies, including the proposed equations relating unit side data on side resistance of rock sockets, including the data-
resistance to rock strength are reviewed briefly. bases used by Williams et al. (1980), Williams and Pells
(1981), and Horvath (1982). The suggested correlation for
Horvath and Kenney (1979) proposed the following cor- regular clean sockets, defined as roughness classes R1, R2,
relation between side resistance and compressive strength: and R3 in Table 17, is given as

fsu = b qu (24) fsu = 0.45 qu (28)

in which fsu = ultimate unit side resistance, qu = compressive

To account for rough sockets, defined as category R4, side
strength of the weaker material (rock or concrete), and where
resistance is increased and the following is recommended:
b ranges from 0.2 (smooth) to 0.3 (rough). Both fsu and qu in
Eq. 24 are in units of MPa. Eq. 24 can be expressed in nor-
malized form by dividing both unit side resistance and com- fsu = 0.6 qu (29)
pressive strength by atmospheric pressure (pa = 0.1013 MPa).
This results in the following expression, which is equivalent The correlation suggested by Horvath and Kenney (1979)
to Eq. 24 with b = 0.2: as given by Eq. 25 represents a lower bound to the data used
by Rowe and Armitage (1987b)
fsu q
= 0.65 u (25)
pa pa Kulhawy and Phoon (1993) incorporated the database
compiled by Rowe and Armitage, which included more than
A modified relationship was recommended by Horvath et al. 80 load tests from more than 20 sites, and the data reported
(1983) to account for shafts with artificially roughened by Bloomquist and Townsend (1991) and McVay et al.
(grooved) sockets. The suggested relationship is given by (1992) consisting of 47 load tests to failure from 23 different
Florida limestone sites. Linear regression was conducted on
fsu = 0.8 [ RF ]0.45 × qu (26) two sets of data, one consisting of all data points and the
Δrh Lt other using data that were averaged on a per-site basis. Av-
RF = (27) eraging eliminates the bias associated with multiple load
rs Ls
tests conducted at many of the sites. All stresses are normal-
ized by atmospheric pressure, pa (0.1013 MN/m2) and nor-
in which RF = roughness factor, Δrh = average height of as-
malized values of one-half of the uniaxial compressive
perities, rs = nominal socket radius, Ls = nominal socket
length, and Lt = total travel distance along the socket wall strength were plotted against normalized values of average
profile. A device (caliper) was used to measure field rough- unit side resistance on a log–log plot as shown in Figure 24
ness for determination of the parameters needed in Eq. 27, as (shown previously as Figure 17).
described by Horvath et al. (1993).
The following exponential expression provides a best-fit
The FHWA Drilled Shaft Manual (O’Neill and Reese 1999) to the available data for rock:
and the draft 2006 Interim AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications have adopted Eqs. 24 to 27 as a recommended fsu qu
=C× (30)
method for selection of design side resistance for shafts in rock. pa 2 pa

TABLE 17
SHAFT ROUGHNESS CLASSIFICATION (after Pells et al. 1980)
Roughness
Class Description
R1 Straight, smooth-sided socket; grooves or indentations less than 1 mm deep
R2 Grooves 1–4 mm deep, >2 mm wide, spacing 50–200 mm
R3 Grooves 4–10 mm deep, >5 mm wide, spacing 50–200 mm
R4 Grooves or undulations >10 mm deep, >10 mm wide, spacing 50–200 mm
 39

capture all of the mechanisms affecting unit side resistance

and because the database incorporates load test results for
many different rock types. Use of these empirical correla-
tions for design should therefore be conservative (i.e., C = 1)
unless a site-specific correlation has been developed that jus-
tifies higher values. Research on development of methods
that account for these additional factors affecting peak side
resistance is summarized here.

Methods Based on Additional Rock

Mass Parameters

Williams et al. (1980) and Rowe and Armitage (1987a) point

FIGURE 24 Unit side resistance versus strength (Kulhawy and out that unit side resistance determined strictly by empirical
Phoon 1993). correlations with uniaxial compressive strength does not ac-
count explicitly for the degree of jointing in the rock mass.
Figure 25 shows the potential influence on average side re-
where values of the coefficient C = 1 represents a reasonable sistance (denoted by τ in the figure) of jointing in terms of
lower bound, C = 2 represents the mean behavior, and C = 3 the ratio of rock mass modulus to modulus of intact rock.
corresponds to an upper bound for artificially roughened Both theoretical and experimental curves show substantially
sockets. Kulhawy and Phoon (1993) noted that the expres- reduced side resistance for rock that may have high intact
sions and variations are consistent with those reported by strength and stiffness but low mass modulus.
Rowe and Armitage (1987b). Values of fsu obtained using
Eq. 30 with C = 2 (mean) are identical to the values obtained The draft Interim 2006 AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
using Eq. 28 (Rowe and Armitage) corresponding to the mean Specifications adopt the Horvath and Kenney method de-
trend for smooth sockets. The expression of Rowe and Ar- scribed earlier (Eqs. 25–27), with the following modification
mitage for rough sockets (Eq. 29) corresponds to Eq. 30 with as recommended O’Neill and Reese (1999). Values of unit
C = 2.7. side resistance calculated by either Eq. 25 or Eq. 26 are mod-
ified to account for rock mass behavior in terms of RQD,
Kulhawy et al. (2005) recently reexamined the data avail- modulus ratio (EM/ER), and joint condition using the factor α
able and attempted to evaluate them in a more consistent as defined in Table 18. In Table 18, fdes is the reduced unit
manner. Only data showing load-displacement curves to fail-
ure were incorporated into the analysis, so that the “inter-
preted failure load” could be established in a consistent man-
ner. Based on the updated analysis, the authors recommend
the use of Eq. 30 with C = 1 for predicting side resistance of
normal rock sockets for drilled shafts. The authors also note
the importance of using compressive strength values (qu)
obtained from laboratory uniaxial compression tests, not
from point load tests.

In summary, Eq. 30 with C = 1 provides a conservative

estimate of design ultimate side resistance, based on the most
up-to-date analysis of the available data. Use of C values
greater than 1 for design should be verified by previous ex-
perience or load testing. Load test results that exhibit values
of C in the range of 2.7 to 3 demonstrate the potential in-
crease in side resistance that is possible if the sidewalls of the
socket are roughened. These upper-bound values of fsu should
only be considered when they can be validated by field load
testing.

The methods described rely on empirical relationships

between side resistance and a single parameter, uniaxial com-
pressive strength, to represent the rock mass. There is signif- FIGURE 25 Effect of rock mass modulus on average unit side
icant scatter in the database because the relationships do not resistance (Rowe and Armitage 1987a).
40

TABLE 18 in which ηc = construction method reduction factor, as de-

SIDE RESISTANCE fined in Table 19; n = ratio of rock mass modulus to uniaxial
REDUCTION BASED ON
MODULUS REDUCTION compressive strength of intact rock (EM/qu); v = Poisson’s
(O’Neill and Reese 1999) ratio; Δr = mean roughness height; and ds = socket diameter.
EM/ER α = fdes/fsu Implementation of the SRC in design requires an estimate
1.0 1.0 of socket roughness in terms of Δr. As noted by the authors,
0.5 0.8 reliable measurements of roughness are not undertaken in
0.3 0.7
routine design. However, the SRC factor incorporates many
0.1 0.55
0.05 0.45 of the significant parameters that influence side resistance,
including rock mass modulus, Poisson’s ratio, and intact rock
strength, and provides a framework for taking into account
socket roughness and construction effects.
side resistance recommended for design. The modulus re-
duction ratio (EM/ER) is given in Table 13, in chapter two,
The SRC method represents the type of approach that
based on RQD. However, application of the α-factor may be holds promise for improved methods for selecting design side
questionable because the RQD and rock mass modulus were resistance. Although more detailed guidance is required for
not accounted for explicitly in the original correlation analy- determination of socket roughness and construction effects,
sis by Horvath and Kenney (1979). Because the load test data improvements in reliability of design equations are possible
included sites with RQD less than 100 and modulus ratio val- only if the relevant factors controlling side resistance are in-
ues less than one, it would appear that these factors affected corporated properly. Advancement of the SRC or other robust
the load test results and are therefore already incorporated methods can be facilitated by promoting the awareness of
into the resulting correlation equations. engineers involved in field load testing of the importance of
collecting appropriate data on rock mass characteristics. Docu-
Interface roughness is identified by all researchers as hav- mentation of RMS and modulus along with careful observation
ing a significant effect on peak side resistance. Pells et al. and documentation of construction procedures would allow
(1980) proposed the roughness classification that assigns a these methods to be evaluated against load test results. The key
rock socket to one of the categories R1 through R4 as defined parameter that is currently missing from the database is socket
in Table 17. The criteria are based on observations of sock- roughness. O’Neill et al. (1996) point out that roughness can be
ets drilled in Sydney sandstone and the classification report- quantified approximately by making electronic or mechanical
edly forms the basis for current practice in that city (Seidel caliper logs of the borehole, and that such borehole calipers are
and Collingwood 2001). The Rowe and Armitage (1987b) available commercially. Seidel and Collingwood (2001) de-
correlation equations were developed by distinguishing be- scribe a device called the Socket-Pro that is operated remotely
tween roughness classes R1–R3 (Eq. 28) and roughness class and records sidewall roughness to depths of 60 m.
R4 (Eq. 29). Horvath et al. (1983) proposed the roughness
factor (RF) defined in Eqs. 26 and 27 as presented earlier.
Despite these efforts, selection of side resistance for rock-
Geomaterial-Specific Correlations
socket design in the United States is done mostly without
considering interface roughness explicitly. Correlations between unit side resistance and intact rock
strength that are based on a global database (e.g., Figure 24,
Seidel and Haberfield (1994) developed a theoretical model Eq. 30) exhibit scatter and uncertainty because the results
of interface roughness that accounts for the behavior and char- reflect the variations in interface shear strength of different
acteristics of socket interfaces under CNS conditions. Rough- rock types, interface roughness, and other factors that control
ness is modeled using a quasi-probabilistic approach that side resistance. For this reason, selection of design side re-
involves fractal geometry to predict the distribution and char- sistance values based on such correlations should be consid-
acteristics of asperities. Results of the interface model and ered as first-order estimates and the philosophy underlying
laboratory CNS testing are incorporated into the computer pro- their use for design is that a lower-bound, conservative rela-
gram ROCKET that predicts the axial load-displacement curve, tionship should be used (e.g., C = 1 in Eq. 30). Alternatively,
including post-peak behavior. Extending this work, Seidel and correlations have been developed for specific geomaterials.
Collingwood (2001) proposed a nondimensional parameter Correlations identified by the literature review and the survey
defined as the shaft resistance coefficient (SRC) to account for are summarized here.
the factors that influence side resistance, as follows:
Florida Limestone Limestone formations in Florida are
n Δr characterized by highly variable strength profiles, the pres-
SRC = ηc (31) ence of cavities that may be filled with soil, and interbedding
1 + ν ds
of limestone with sand and marine clay layers (Crapps 1986).
fsu = (SRC) qu (32) Locally, geotechnical engineers distinguish between “lime-
 41

TABLE 19
CONSTRUCTION METHOD REDUCTION FACTORS, ηc (Seidel and Collingwood 2001)
Construction Method ηc
Construction without drilling fluid
Best practice construction and high level of construction control (e.g., socket
1.0
sidewalls free of smear and remolded rock)
Poor construction practice or low-quality construction control (e.g., smear or
0.3–0.9
remolded rock present on rock sidewalls)
Construction under bentonite slurry
Best practice construction and high level of construction control 0.7–0.9
Poor construction practice or low level of construction control 0.3–0.6
Construction under polymer slurry
Best practice construction and high level of construction control 0.9–1.0
Poor construction practice or low level of construction control 0.8

rock” and “limestone”; the former defined informally as used for design should be limited to the design strength of the
material with qu less than approximately 13.8 MN/m2 (2,000 shaft concrete.
psi). McVay et al. (1992) conducted a study of design meth-
ods used to predict unit side resistance of drilled shafts in Side resistance values in Florida limestone have also been
Florida limestone. Based on a parametric finite-element evaluated using a small-scale field pullout test devised by
study and a database of 14 case histories consisting of full- Schmertmann (1977) for the Florida DOT and shown
scale load tests and field pullout tests, the following expres- schematically in Figure 26. A grout plug is placed into a 140-
sion was found to provide a reasonable estimate of ultimate mm-diameter cored hole at the bottom of a 165-mm-diameter
unit side resistance: hole drilled to the test depth in rock. Overburden soils are
supported by a 200-mm-diameter casing. The grout plug is
1 reinforced with a wire cage and a threaded high-strength steel
fsu = qu qt (33)
2 bar extends from the bottom of the plug to the ground sur-
face. A center hole jack is used to apply a pullout force to the
In which qu = uniaxial compressive strength and qt = split ten- bar. The grout plug is typically 610 mm (2 ft) in length, but
sile strength. To account for the effect of material strength other lengths are also used. The average unit side resistance
variability on side resistance, the authors recommend a min- is taken as the measured pullout force divided by the sidewall
imum of 10 (preferably more) core samples be tested in un- interface area of the plug (Eq. 23). Results of pullout tests
confined compression and splitting tensile tests. The mean were included in the database of McVay et al. (1992) that
values of qu and qt are used in Eq. 33. The standard error forms the basis of Eq. 33, and McVay et al. recommend the
of the mean from the laboratory strength tests can be used to test as an alternative method for estimating side resistance for
estimate the expected variation from the mean side resis- design.
tance, for a specified confidence level.
Cohesionless IGM The FHWA Drilled Shaft Manual
According to Lai (1998), design practice by the Florida (O’Neill and Reese 1999) recommends a procedure for cal-
DOT is based on a modified version of the McVay et al. culating unit side resistance specifically for cohesionless
relationship in which spatial variations in rock quality are IGM. These are granular materials exhibiting SPT N60-values
incorporated by multiplying the unit side resistance, accord- between 50 and 100. The method follows the general
ing to Eq. 33, by the average percent recovery (REC) of rock approach for calculating side resistance of drilled shafts in
core expressed as a decimal, or: granular soils, given by

fsu = σ v' K o tan φ ' (35)

REC(%) ⎡ 1
( fsu )design = qu qt ⎤⎥ (34)
100% ⎢⎣ 2 ⎦ in which fsu = ultimate unit side resistance, σv' = vertical effec-
tive stress, Ko = in situ coefficient of lateral earth pressure, and
Lai (1998) also recommends using larger diameter double- φ' = effective stress friction angle of the IGM. The modifica-
tube core barrels (61 mm to 101.6 mm inner diameter) for ob- tions to account for cohesionless IGM behavior are incorpo-
taining samples of sufficient quality for laboratory strength rated into empirical correlations with the N-value as follows:
tests. Analysis of the laboratory strength data involves dis-
carding all data points above or below one standard deviation σ 'p = 0.2 N 60 pa (36)
about the mean, then using the mean of the remaining values
as input to Eq. 34. Crapps (2001) recommends using RQD in σ 'p
OCR = (37)
place of REC in Eq. 34 and points out that values of qu and qt σ v'
42

nut
plate

steel bearing centerhole

plate jack timber

35 mm dia
200-mm dia threaded bar
casing

top of rock

drilled
hole,
165 mm dia

0.61 m grout plug 0.76 m cored FIGURE 27 Factor α for cohesive IGM (O’Neill et al. 1996).
w/ #9 wire cage hole, 140 mm dia

different value of interface friction applies, then the parame-

FIGURE 26 Small-scale pullout test used in Florida limestone ter α can be adjusted by
(after Crapps 1986).
tan φ rc
α = α 26 (41)
0.34 tan 30 o
⎡ ⎤
⎢ N ⎥
φ ' = tan −1 ⎢ 60
⎥ (38) The method is based on work reported by Hassan et al.
⎢ 12.2 + 20.3 ⎛ σ 'v ⎞ ⎥ (1997) in which detailed modeling and field testing were
⎢⎣ ⎜⎝ p ⎟⎠ ⎥ conducted to study side resistance of shafts in clay–shales
a ⎦
of Texas. O’Neill and Reese (1999) provide additional equa-
K o = (1 − sin φ ')OCR sin φ' (39) tions for modifying side resistance for roughness, the pres-
ence of soft seams, and other factors, and the reader is
where σp' = preconsolidation stress, σ'v = average vertical advised to consult their work for these additional details.
effective stress over the layer, N60 = SPT N-value corre-
sponding to 60% hammer efficiency, and OCR = overconsoli-
dation ratio. O’Neill et al. (1996) reported good agreement Correlations with In Situ Tests
with results of load tests on shafts in residual micaceous sands
The survey responses indicate that several states use mea-
in the Piedmont province (Harris and Mayne 1994) and gran-
surements from field penetration tests to estimate unit side
ular glacial till in the northeastern United States.
resistance in weak rock. As an example, consider the Texas
cone penetration test (TCPT) described in chapter two. The
Soft Argillaceous Rock Side resistance in weak shales and
Texas DOT Geotechnical Manual, which is accessible on-
claystones can be approximated for design using the relation-
line (2005), presents graphs for estimating design values of
ships given previously for rock. Alternatively, a procedure
allowable unit side and base resistances as a function of the
for evaluating unit side resistance specifically in argillaceous
penetration resistance (millimeters of penetration per 100
(containing clay) cohesive IGMs is presented in the FHWA
blows), for materials that exhibit TCPT blowcounts of
Drilled Shaft Manual (O’Neill and Reese 1999). The ulti-
greater than 100 blows per 300 mm. For materials exhibiting
mate unit side resistance is given by
fewer than 100 blowcounts, separate graphs are provided for
allowable values of unit side and base resistances. The Mis-
fsu = αqu (40)
souri DOT also reports using the TCPT to correlate allow-
able side and base resistances in weak rock.
where qu = compressive strength of intact rock and α = em-
pirical factor given in Figure 27. In Figure 27, σn = fluid pres-
sure exerted by the concrete at the time of the pour and σp = Base Resistance
atmospheric pressure in the same units as σn. As indicated
in Figure 27, the method is based on an assumed value of Load transmitted to the base of a rock-socketed shaft, ex-
interface friction angle φrc = 30 degrees. If it is known that a pressed as a percentage of the axial compression load applied
 43

at the head, can vary over a wide range at typical working Rock Mass Conditions Failure

loads. Several authors suggest a typical range of 10% to 20% Joint Dip
Angle, from Joint
Bearing
Capacity
horizontal Spacing Illustration Mode Equation No.
of the head load (Williams et al. 1980; Carter and Kulhawy B (a) Brittle Rock:
Local shear failure caused
1988), and some authors suggest that base resistance should by localized brittle fracture

INTACT / MASSIVE
Eq. 43
be neglected entirely for rock-socket design (Amir 1986).
Elasticity solutions show that base load transfer depends on N/A S>>B
(b) Ductile Rock:
General shear failure along
the embedment ratio (L/B) and the modulus ratio (Ec/Er). The well-defined shear surfaces
Eq. 43
ratio of base load to applied load (Qb/Qc) decreases with in-
creasing L/B (see Figure 21) and increases with increasing (c) Open Joints:
Compression failure of
modular ratio. As discussed previously, there is ample evi- individual rock columns
Eq. 44

STEEPLY DIPPING JOINTS

α
dence that base resistance should not be discounted in most s
S<B
cases (Figure 23), and that construction and inspection meth- (d) Closed Joints
General shear failure along
well defined failure
ods are available to control base quality. Load tests, described 70 ° < α < 90 ° surfaces; near vertical Eqs. 45–52
s joints
in chapter five, provide a means to determine the effects of
(e) Open or Closed Joints:
construction on base load transfer. Failure initiated by splitting
leading to general shear
S>B failure; near vertical joints Eqs. 53–54

The ultimate base resistance of a rock-socketed drilled s

(f) General shear failure
shaft, Qb, is the product of the limiting normal stress, or bear- S < B or

JOINTED
S > B if with potential for failure
failure along joints; moderately
ing capacity, qult, at the base and the cross-sectional area of °
20 < α < 70 °
we dge can dipping joint sets. Eqs. 45–52
de ve lop
the shaft base (Ab): along joints
(g) Rigid layer over weak
H compressible layer:
rigid Failure is initiated by
Qb = qult Ab = qult [1/4 πB ]
2
(42) LAYERED Limiting
va lue of H weak, compressible
tensile failure caused by
flexure of rigid upper layer
N/A

w/re to B is
0 < α < 20 ° dependent
upon (h) Thin rigid layer over
Analytical solutions for bearing capacity of rock are based material H
rigid
weak compressible layer:
Failure is by punching
properties N/A
on the general bearing capacity equation developed for soil, weak, compressible
shear through upper layer

with appropriate modifications to account for rock mass

FRACTURED

(g) General shear failure

characteristics such as spacing and orientation of discontinu- with irregular failure
surface through fractured
N/A S << B rock mass; two or more Eq. 57
ities, condition of the discontinuities, and strength of the rock closely spaced joint sets

mass. Typical failure modes for foundations bearing on rock

are shown in Figure 28. The failure modes depicted were in- FIGURE 28 Bearing capacity failure modes in rock (after Rock
tended to address shallow foundations bearing on rock (Sow- Foundations 1994).
ers 1976); however, the general concepts should be applica-
ble to bearing capacity of deep foundations. The cases shown
can be placed into four categories: massive, jointed, layered, is either intact or tightly jointed (no compressible or gouge-
and fractured rock. filled seams) and there are no solution cavities or voids below
the base of the pier. O’Neill and Reese (1999) recommend
limiting base resistance to 2qu if the embedment into rock is
Massive Rock less than one diameter. In rock with high compressive
strength, the designer also must determine the structural ca-
For this case, the ultimate bearing capacity will be limited to pacity of the shaft, which may govern the allowable normal
the bearing stress that causes fracturing in the rock. An intact stress at the base.
rock mass can be defined, for purposes of bearing capacity
analysis, as one for which the effects of discontinuities are
insignificant. Practically, if joint spacing is more than four Jointed Rock Mass
to five times the shaft diameter, the rock is massive. If the
base is embedded in rock to a depth of at least one diame- When discontinuities are vertical or nearly vertical (α > 70°),
ter, the failure mode is expected to be by punching shear and open joints are present with a spacing less than the socket
(Figure 28, mode a). In this case, Rowe and Armitage diameter (S < B, Figure 28, mode c), failure can occur (theo-
(1987b) stated that rock fracturing can be expected to occur retically) by unconfined compression of the poorly con-
when the bearing stress is approximately 2.7 times the rock strained columns (Sowers 1979). Bearing capacity can be
uniaxial compressive strength. For design, the following is estimated from
recommended:
qult = qu = 2c tan (45° + 1⁄2 φ) (44)
qult = 2.5 qu (43)
where qu = uniaxial compressive strength and c and φ are
Other conditions that must be verified are that the rock to Mohr–Coulomb strength properties of the rock mass. If the
a depth of at least one diameter below the base of the socket nearly vertical joints are closed (Figure 28, mode d), a gen-
44

eral wedge failure mode may develop and the bearing ca-
pacity can be approximated using Bell’s solution for plane
strain conditions:

B
qult = cN c sc + γN γ sγ + γDN q sq (45)
2

in which B = socket diameter; γ = effective unit weight of the

rock mass; D = foundation depth; Nc, Nγ, and Nq are bearing
capacity factors; and sc, sγ, and sq are shape factors to account
for the circular cross section. The bearing capacity factors
and shape factors are given by:

Nc = 2 Nφ ( N φ + 1) (46)

Nγ = Nφ ( N φ2 − 1) (47)
Nq = N 2
φ (48)
⎛ φ⎞
N φ = tan 2 ⎜ 45ο + ⎟ (49)
⎝ 2⎠
FIGURE 29 Correction factor for discontinuity spacing
Nq (Kulhawy and Carter 1992a).
sc = 1 + (50)
Nc
sγ = 0.6 (51) velop along the discontinuity planes. Eq. 45 can be used,
sq = 1 + tan φ (52) but with strength parameters representative of the joints.
Rock Foundations (1994) recommends neglecting the first
In these equations (46–52), the values of c and φ are RMS term in Eq. 45 based on the assumption that the cohesion
properties, which may be difficult to determine accurately for component of strength along the joint surfaces is highly
rock mass beneath the base of drilled shafts. uncertain.

If joint spacing S is greater than the socket diameter

(Figure 28, mode e), failure occurs by splitting, leading Layered Rocks
eventually to general shear failure. This problem has been
evaluated by Bishnoi (1968) and developed further by Sedimentary rock formations often consist of alternating
Kulhawy and Goodman (1980). The solution can be hard and soft layers. For example, soft layers of shale in-
expressed by: terbedded with hard layers of sandstone. Assuming the base
of the shaft is bearing on the more rigid layer, which is un-
qult = J c Ncr (53) derlain by a soft layer, failure can occur either by flexure if
the rigid layer is relatively thick or by punching shear if the
in which J = a correction factor that depends on the ratio of rigid layer is thin (Figure 28, modes g and h). Both modes are
horizontal discontinuity spacing to socket diameter (H/B) as controlled fundamentally by the tensile strength of the intact
shown in Figure 29, c = rock mass cohesion, and Ncr = a bear- rock, which can be approximated as being on the order of
ing capacity factor given by 5% to 10% of the uniaxial compressive strength. According
to Sowers (1979) neither case has been studied adequately
and no analytical solution proposed. The failure modes de-
2 N φ2 S⎛ 1 ⎞
N cr = ( cot φ ) 1− − N φ ( cot φ ) + 2 N φ (54) picted in Figure 28 merely suggest possible methods for
1 + Nφ B ⎜⎝ N φ ⎟⎠ analysis.
where Nφ is given by Eq. 49. If the actual RMS properties are
not evaluated, Kulhawy and Carter (1992a) suggest that rock Fractured Rock Mass
mass cohesion in Eq. 53 can be approximated as 0.1qu, where
qu = uniaxial compressive strength of intact rock. Rock mass A rational approach for calculating ultimate bearing capac-
cohesion can also be estimated from the Hoek–Brown ity of rock masses that include significant discontinuities
strength properties using Eq. 17 given in chapter two. (Figure 28, mode g) is to apply Eq. 45 with appropriate
RMS properties, c' and φ'. However, determination of c' and
For the case of moderately dipping joint sets (Figure 28, φ' for highly fractured rock mass is not straightforward
mode f, 20° < α < 70°), the failure surface is likely to de- because the failure envelope is nonlinear and there is no stan-
 45

dard test method for direct measurement. One possible ap- where σH' = horizontal stress in Zone 2. To satisfy equilibrium,
proach is to employ the Hoek–Brown strength criterion the horizontal stress given by Eq. 56 is set equal to σ3' in
described in chapter two. The criterion is attractive because Zone 1. Substituting σ3' = qu s0.5 into Eq. 55 and considering that
(1) it captures the nonlinearity in the strength envelope that σ1' = qult yields
is observed in jointed rock masses and (2) the required para-
qult = qu ⎡ s a + ( mb s a + s ) ⎤
a
meters can be estimated empirically using correlations to (57)
⎣ ⎦
GSI and RMR, also described in chapter two. To use this
approach, it is necessary to relate the Hoek–Brown strength The assumption of zero vertical stress at the bearing ele-
parameters (mb, s, and a) to Mohr–Coulomb strength pa- vation may be overly conservative for many rock sockets. A
rameters (c' and φ'); for example, using Eqs. 16 and 17 in similar derivation can be carried out with the overburden
chapter two. stress taken into account, resulting in the following. Let

⎡ ( σ 'v ,b ) ⎤
a
Alternatively, several authors (Carter and Kulhawy 1988;
Wyllie 1999) have shown that a conservative, lower-bound A = σ 'v ,b + qu ⎢ mb + s⎥ (58)
⎣ qu ⎦
estimate of bearing capacity can be made directly in terms
of Hoek–Brown strength parameters by assuming a failure where σ'v,b = vertical effective stress at the socket bearing
mode approximated by active and passive wedges; that is, elevation, which is also the minor principal stress in Zone 2.
the Bell solution for plane strain. The failure mass beneath Then
the foundation is idealized as consisting of two zones, as
shown in Figure 30. The active zone (Zone 1) is subjected a
⎡ ⎛ A⎞ ⎤
to a major principal stress (σ1') coinciding at failure with the qult = A + qu ⎢ mb ⎜ ⎟ + s ⎥ (59)
⎣ ⎝ qu ⎠ ⎦
ultimate bearing capacity (qult) and a minor principal stress
(σ3') that satisfies equilibrium with the horizontal stress in A limitation of Eqs. 57–59 is that they are based on the
the adjacent passive failure zone (Zone 2). In Zone 2, the assumption of plane strain conditions, corresponding to
minor principal stress is vertical and conservatively as- a strip footing. Kulhawy and Carter (1992a) noted that for
sumed to be zero, whereas the major principal stress, acting a circular foundation the horizontal stress between the two
in the horizontal direction, is the ultimate strength accord- assumed failure zones may be greater than for the plane
ing to the Hoek–Brown criterion. From chapter two, the strain case, resulting in higher bearing capacity. The analy-
strength criterion is given by sis is therefore conservative for the case of drilled shafts.
a
⎛ σ' ⎞ Eqs. 57–59 require determination of a single rock strength
σ '1 = σ '3 + qu ⎜ mb 3 + s⎟ (55)
⎝ qu ⎠ property (qu) along with an approximation of the Hoek–Brown
strength parameters. In chapter two, the Hoek–Brown strength
where σ1' and σ3' = major and minor principal effective parameters are correlated to GSI by Eqs. 12–15. This allows a
stresses, respectively; qu = uniaxial compressive strength of correlation to be made between the GSI of a rock mass; the
intact rock; and mb, s, and a are empirically determined value of the coefficient mi for intact rock as given in Table 11
strength parameters for the rock mass. For Zone 2, setting the (chapter two), and the bearing capacity ratio qult/qu by Eq. 57.
vertical stress σ3' = 0 and solving Eq. 55 for σ1' yields The resulting relationship is shown graphically in Figure 31.
The bearing capacity ratio is limited by an upper-bound value
σ '1 = σ ' H = qu s a (56) of 2.5, corresponding to the recommendation of Rowe and
Armitage (Eq. 43).

Qult maximum qult/qu = 2.5

2.5
m i = 33
25
20
15
2.0
qult 10
qult/qu

1.5
4

qusa 1.0

0.5

Zone 1
Zone 2 (active Zone 2 0.0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
(passive wedge) wedge) (passive wedge)
Geological Strength Index (GSI)

FIGURE 30 Bearing capacity analysis. FIGURE 31 Bearing capacity ratio versus GSI.
46

Alternatively, the bearing capacity ratio can be related ap- 1000

Ultimate Unit Base Resistance,

proximately to the rock mass description based on RMR qmax = 2.5
(Table 9) using an earlier correlation given by Hoek and
Brown (1988). The resulting Hoek–Brown strength parame- 100
ters (m, a, and s) are substituted into Eq. 57 to obtain the bear-

qult (MPa)
ing capacity ratio as a function of RMR. This relationship qult = a (qu)0.5
is shown graphically in Figure 32. Both figures are for the
10
case of zero overburden stress at the bearing elevation. To ac-
count for the depth of embedment and resulting surcharge a = 6.6
4.8
stress, Eqs. 58 and 59 can be used. 3.0
1
0.1 1 10 100
Method Based on Field Load Tests Uniaxial Compressive Strength qu (MPa)

Zhang and Einstein (1998) compiled and analyzed a database FIGURE 33 Unit base resistance versus intact rock strength
of 39 load tests to derive an empirical relationship between (derived from Zhang and Einstein 1998).
ultimate unit base resistance (qult) and uniaxial compressive
strength of intact rock (qu). Reported values of uniaxial com-
pressive strength ranged from 0.52 MPa to 55 MPa, although
most were in the range of relatively low strength. The authors with due consideration of the limitations associated with pre-
relied on the interpretation methods of the original references dicting a rock mass behavior on the basis of a single strength
to determine ultimate base capacity and acknowledge that parameter for intact rock. Rock mass discontinuities are not
some uncertainties and variabilities are likely to be incorpo- accounted for explicitly, yet they clearly must affect bearing
rated into the database as a result. The results are shown capacity. By taking this empirical approach, however, rock
on a log–log plot in Figure 33. The linear relationship mass behavior is accounted for implicitly because the load
recommended by Rowe and Armitage (1987a) is shown for tests on which the method is based were affected by the char-
comparison. Based on statistical analysis of the data, the fol- acteristics of the rock masses. Additional limitations to the
lowing recommendations are given by the authors: approach given by Zhang and Einstein are noted in a discus-
sion of their paper by Kulhawy and Prakoso (1999).
Lower bound: qult = 3.0 qu (60)
None of the analytical bearing capacity models described
Upper bound: qult = 6.6 qu (61) above by Eqs. 44 through 59 and depicted in Figure 28 have
been evaluated and verified against results of full-scale field
Mean: qult = 4.8 qu (62)
load tests on rock-socketed drilled shafts. The primary rea-
son for this is a lack of load test data accompanied by suffi-
Eqs. 60–62 provide a reasonably good fit to the available cient information on rock mass properties needed to apply
data and can be used for estimating ultimate base resistance, the models.

3.0
maximum qult/qu = 2.5 Canadian Geotechnical Society Method
2.5
The Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual [Canadian
2.0
Geotechnical Society (CGS) 1985] presents a method to es-
E
timate ultimate unit base resistance of piles or shafts bearing
qult/qu

1.5 D
C
B
on rock. The CGS method is described as being applicable to
1.0 A sedimentary rocks with primarily horizontal discontinuities,
0.5
where discontinuity spacing is at least 0.3 m (1 ft) and dis-
continuity aperture does not exceed 6 mm (0.25 in.). The
0.0
method is given by the following:
POOR

GOOD
VERY POOR

VERY GOOD
FAIR

INTACT

qult = 3qu K sp d (63)

A. Carbonate rocks with well-developed cleavage: dolomite, limestone, marble.
B. Lithified argillaceous rocks: mudstone, siltstone, shale, and slate. in which
C. Arenaceous rocks with strong crystals and poorly developed crystal cleavage: sandstone and
quartzite.
D. Fine-grained polyminerallic igneous crystalline rocks: andesite, dolerite, diabase, and rhyolite. sv
E. Coarse-grained polyminerallic igneous and metamorphic crystalline rocks: amphibolite, gabbro, 3+
gneiss, quartz, norite, quartz-diorite.
K sp = B (64)
td
FIGURE 32 Bearing capacity ratio as a function of rock type 10 1 + 300
and RMR classification (see Table 9). sv
 47

Ls
d = 1 + 0.4
B
(65) Qc
where
sv = vertical spacing between discontinuities,
td = aperture (thickness) of discontinuities,
B = socket diameter, and
Ls = depth of socket (rock) embedment.

A method to calculate ultimate unit base resistance from νc

Ec,ν Er,νr
PMT is also given by CGS as follows:
L
qult = K b ( p1 − po ) + σ v (66)

where
p1 = limit pressure determined from PMT tests averaged
over a depth of two diameters above and below
socket base elevation,
po = at-rest total horizontal stress measured at base
elevation, Eb, νb
σv = total vertical stress at base elevation; and B
Kb = socket depth factor given as follows:
FIGURE 34 Axially loaded rock socket, elastic analysis.

H/D 0 1 2 3 5 7
Kb 0.8 2.8 3.6 4.2 4.9 5.2
shaft is subjected to a vertical compressive force Qc as-
sumed to be uniformly distributed over the cross-sectional
The two CGS methods described earlier are adopted in the
area of the shaft resulting in an average axial stress σb =
draft 20006 Interim AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifi-
4Q/(πB2).
cations (2006).
Early solutions to the problem of a single compressible
AXIAL LOAD-DISPLACEMENT BEHAVIOR pile in an elastic continuum were used primarily to study
the response of deep foundations in soil (e.g., Mattes and
Analysis of the load-displacement behavior of a drilled shaft Poulos 1969; Butterfield and Banerjee 1971; Randolph and
is an essential step in a rational design. Design of most sock- Wroth 1978). In most cases, the solutions were not directly
ets is governed by the requirement to limit settlement to a applicable to rock sockets because they did not cover the
specified allowable value. The problem of predicting verti- typical ranges of modulus ratio (Ec/Er) or embedment ratio
cal displacement at the top of a rock socket has been studied (L/B) of rock sockets, but they did provide the basic
through theoretical and numerical analyses along with lim- methodology for analysis of the problem. Osterberg and
ited results from full-scale field load testing. Methods that Gill (1973) used an elastic finite-element formulation to an-
appear to have the most application to design of highway alyze rock sockets with D/B ranging from zero to 4 and the
bridge foundations are summarized in this section. modulus ratios ranging from 0.25 to 4. Their analysis also
considered differences between the modulus of the rock be-
The basic problem is depicted in Figure 34 and involves neath the base (Eb) and that along the shaft (Er). Results
predicting the relationship between an axial compression showed the influence of these parameters on load transfer,
load (Qc) applied to the top of a socketed shaft and the in particular the relative portion of load carried in side re-
resulting axial displacement at the top of the socket (wc). The sistance and transmitted to the base, but did not provide a
concrete shaft is modeled as an elastic cylindrical inclusion method for predicting load-displacement behavior for de-
embedded within an elastic rock mass. The cylinder of depth sign. Pells and Turner (1979) and Donald et al. (1980) con-
L and diameter B has Young’s modulus Ec and Poisson’s ducted finite-element analyses assuming elastic and elasto-
ratio vc. The rock mass surrounding the cylinder is homoge- plastic behaviors. Their numerical results were used to
neous with Young’s modulus Er and Poisson’s ratio vc, determine values of the dimensionless influence factor (Iρ)
whereas the rock mass beneath the base of the shaft has that can be used to predict elastic deformation using the
Young’s modulus Eb and Poisson’s ratio vb. (Note: some general equation
authors use Er to denote modulus of rock in elasticity solu-
tions; elsewhere in this report, Er denotes modulus of intact Qc
wc = Iρ (67)
rock and EM is the rock mass modulus of deformation.) The Er B
48

Values of the influence factor were presented in the form

of charts for a range of modulus and embedment ratios com-
mon for rock sockets. Graphs are also provided showing
the ratio of applied load transferred to the base (Qb/Qc). These
studies provided the first practical methods for predicting the
load-displacement response of rock sockets. Their principal
limitation lies in the assumption of a full bond between the
shaft and the rock; that is, no slip. Observations from load
tests; for example, Horvath et al. (1983), show that peak side
resistance may be reached at displacements on the order of
5 mm. Rupture of the interface bond begins at this point, re-
sulting in relative displacement (slip) between the shaft and
surrounding rock. Under service load conditions, most rock
sockets will undergo displacements that reach or exceed the
full slip condition and should be designed accordingly.
Analyses that account for both fully bonded conditions and
full slip conditions provide a more realistic model of load-
displacement response.

Rowe and Pells (1980) conducted a theoretical study

based on finite-element analyses of rock-socketed shafts that
accounts for the possibility of slip at the shaft–rock interface.
The analysis treats the shaft and rock as elastic materials, but
provides for plastic failure within the rock or the concrete FIGURE 35 Design chart for shaft displacement and base load
shaft and for slip at the cohesive-frictional and dilatant rock– transfer, complete socket (Rowe and Armitage 1987a).
shaft interface. At small loads, the shaft, rock, and interface
are linearly elastic and the shaft is fully bonded to the rock.
Armitage solutions represent a standard against which
Slip is assumed to occur when the mobilized shear stress
approximate methods can be compared and verified.
reaches the interface strength, assumed to be governed by a
Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion: Rowe and Armitage (1987a,b) developed design charts for
two contact conditions at the base of the socket: (1) a “com-
τ = cpeak + σn tanφpeak (68) plete socket,” for which full contact is assumed between the
base of the concrete shaft and the underlying rock; and (2) a
where cpeak = peak interface adhesion, σn = interface normal shear socket, for which a void is assumed to exist beneath the
stress, and φpeak = peak interface friction angle. Once slip oc- base. These conditions are intended to model the socket
curs, it is assumed that c and φ degrade linearly with relative arrangements and methods of loading used in field load test-
displacement between the two sides of the ruptured interface ing. When clean base conditions during construction can be
from the peak values to residual values (cresidual, φresidual) at a verified and instrumentation is provided for measuring base
relative displacement δr. Roughness of the interface is mod- load, a complete socket is assumed. Frequently, however, base
eled in terms of a dilatancy angle ψ and a maximum dilation, resistance is eliminated by casting the socket above the base of
and strain softening of the interface is considered. Modeling the drilled socket, in which case the test shaft is modeled as a
of the interface in this way provides a good mechanistic rep- shear socket. The boundary condition at the base of a shear
resentation of the load-displacement behavior of a rock- socket under axial compression is one of zero stress. The charts
socketed shaft, as described in the beginning of this chapter given in Rowe and Armitage (1987a,b) provide a rigorous
(Figure 19). method for analyzing rock-socket load-displacement behavior.

From these studies, Rowe and Armitage (1987a,b) pre-

Closed Form Solutions
pared design charts that enable construction of a theoretical
load-displacement curve in terms of (1) the influence factor An approximate method given by Kulhawy and Carter
Iρ used to calculate axial displacement by Eq. 67 and (2) the (1992b) provides simple, closed-form expressions that are at-
ratio of load Qb/Qt transmitted to the socket base, where Qb = tractive for design purposes and yield results that compare
base load and Qt = total load applied to the top of the shaft. well with those of Rowe and Armitage. For axial compres-
Figure 35 is an example of the chart solution for a complete sion loading, the two cases of complete socket and shear
socket. The charts offer a straightforward means of calculat- socket are treated. Solutions were derived for two portions of
ing load-displacement curves and have been used by practi- the load-displacement curve depicted in Figure 19; the initial
tioners for the design of bridge foundations. The Rowe and linear elastic response (OA) and the full slip condition (re-
 49

gion beyond point B). The closed-form expressions cannot 2. For the full slip portion of the load-displacement curve.
predict the load-displacement response between the occur- (a) Shear socket:
rence of first slip and full slip of the shaft (AB). However, the
nonlinear finite-element results indicate that the progression ⎛ Q ⎞
wc = F1 ⎜ c ⎟ − F2 B (78)
of slip along the socket takes place over a relatively small ⎝ πEr B ⎠
interval of displacement. Comparisons of the bilinear curve
given by the closed-form expressions with results of Rowe in which F1 = a1(λ2BC2 − λ1BC1) – 4a3 (79)
and Armitage (1987b) indicated that this simplification is ⎛ c ⎞
F2 = a2 ⎜ ⎟ (80)
reasonably accurate for the range of rock-socket conditions ⎝ Er ⎠
encountered in practice.
C1,2 = exp[λ2,1L]/(exp[λ2L] − exp[λ1L]) (81)
The closed-form expressions for approximating the load- −β ± ( β 2 + 4 α )
1
2
displacement curves for complete and shear socket are given λ1,2 = (82)
here. For a full description of the assumptions and deriva- 2α
tions the reader is referred to Carter and Kulhawy (1988) and ⎛ E ⎞ ⎛ B2 ⎞
α = a1 ⎜ c ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ (83)
Kulhawy and Carter (1992b). ⎝ Er ⎠ ⎝ 4 ⎠

⎛E ⎞
1. For the linearly elastic portion of the load-displace- β = a3 ⎜ c ⎟ B (84)
ment curve. ⎝ Er ⎠
(a) Shear socket (zero stress at the base): a1 = (1 + vr)ζ + a2 (85)

Er Bwc ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 2 ⎞ ⎛ Er ⎞ ⎛ cosh [μL ] ⎞ ⎡ ⎛E ⎞ ⎤⎛ 1 ⎞

= a2 = ⎢(1 − νc ) ⎜ r ⎟ + (1 + νr ) ⎥ ⎜ ⎟ (86)
⎝ π ⎠ ⎜⎝ μB ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ Ec ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ siinh [μL ] ⎟⎠
(69)
2Qc ⎣ ⎝ Ec ⎠ ⎦ ⎝ 2 tan φ tan ψ ⎠
⎛ νc ⎞ ⎛ Er ⎞
a3 = ⎜
in which wc = downward vertical displacement at ⎝ 2 tan ψ ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ Ec ⎟⎠
(87)
the butt (top) of the shaft and where μ is defined
by:
(b) Complete socket:
⎛ 2 ⎞ 2L
2
( μL )2 = ⎜ ⎟ ⎛⎝ ⎞⎠ (70) ⎛ Q ⎞
wc = F3 ⎜ c ⎟ − F4 B
⎝ ζλ ⎠ B ⎝ πEr B ⎠
(88)
ζ = ln [5(1 − vr)L/B] (71)
λ = Ec/Gr (72) in which
Gr = Er / [2(1 + vr] (73)
F3 = a1(λ1BC3 − λ2BC4) – 4a3 (89)
where Gr = elastic shear modulus of rock mass. ⎡ ⎛ λ − λ2 ⎞ ⎤ ⎛ c ⎞
F4 = ⎢1 − a1 ⎜ 1 ⎟⎠ B ⎥ a2 ⎜⎝ ⎟⎠ (90)
⎣ ⎝ D4 − D3 ⎦ Er
(b) Complete socket: D3,4
C 3 ,4 = (91)
D4 − D3
⎛ 4 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 2 L ⎞ ⎛ tanh [μL ] ⎞
1+ ⎜
Gr Bwc ⎝ 1 − νb ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ πλξ ⎟⎠ ⎝ B ⎠ ⎜⎝ μL ⎟⎠ ⎡ ⎛E ⎞ ⎤
D3,4 = ⎢ π (1 − ν2b ) ⎜ r ⎟ + 4 a3 + a1λ 2,1 B ⎥ exp [ λ 2,1 L ] (92)
= (74) ⎝ Eb ⎠
2Qc ⎛ 4 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 2 π ⎞ ⎛ 2L L ⎞ ⎛ tanh [μL ] ⎞ ⎣ ⎦
⎜⎝ ⎟ + ⎜ ⎟
1 − νb ⎠ ⎜⎝ ξ ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ ζ ⎟⎠ ⎝ B ⎠ ⎝ μL ⎠
The magnitude of load transferred to the base of
where the shaft (Qb) is given by

ξ = Gr /Gb (75) Qb ⎛ πB 2 c ⎞
= P3 + P4 ⎜ (93)
Gb = Eb/ [2(1 + vb] (76) Qc ⎝ Qc ⎟⎠

The magnitude of load transferred to the base of in which

the shaft (Qb) is given by
P3 = a1(λ1 − λ2) B exp[(λ1 + λ2)L]/(D4 – D3) (94)
⎛ 4 ⎞ ⎛ 1⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞ P4 = a2(exp[λ2D] − exp[λ1L])/(D4 – D3) (95)
⎜⎝ ⎟
Qb 1 − νb ⎠ ⎜⎝ ξ ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ cosh [μL ] ⎟⎠
= (77)
Qc ⎛ 4 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 2 π ⎞ ⎛ 2 L ⎞ ⎛ tanh [μL ] ⎞ The solutions given previously (Eqs. 69–95) are easily
⎜⎝ ⎟ + ⎜ ⎟
1 − νb ⎠ ⎜⎝ ξ ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ ζ ⎟⎠ ⎝ B ⎠ ⎝ μL ⎠ implemented by spreadsheet, thus providing designers with
50

a simple analytical tool for assessing the likely ranges of be- mobilized at the strength limit state. As stated by O’Neill and
havior for trial designs. A spreadsheet solution provides the Reese (1999), “the issue of whether ultimate side resistance
opportunity to easily evaluate the effects of various input pa- should be added directly to the ultimate base resistance to ob-
rameters on load-displacement response. When combined tain an ultimate value of resistance is a matter of engineering
with appropriate judgment and experience, this approach judgment.” Responses to Question 20 of the survey (Appen-
represents a reasonable analysis of rock-socketed drilled dix A) show a wide range in the way that side and base
shafts. The method of Carter and Kulhawy presented herein resistances are combined for design of rock sockets. Several
is also adopted in the FHWA Drilled Shaft Manual (O’Neill states indicated that they follow the guidelines given by
and Reese 1999) for analysis of load-displacement response O’Neill and Reese in the FHWA Drilled Shaft Manual
of single drilled shafts in rock (see Appendix C of the Man- (1999). Three possible approaches are described here. The
ual). Reese and O’Neill also present methods for predicting first applies to the case where load testing or laboratory shear
load-displacement response of shafts in cohesive IGMs and strength tests prove that the rock is ductile. In this case, the
cohesionless IGMs. The equations are not reproduced here, ultimate values of side and base resistance are added directly.
but are given as closed-form expressions that can be imple- If no field or lab tests are conducted, a “fully reduced fric-
mented easily using a spreadsheet. tional shearing resistance at the interface” is used to compute
side resistance and this value is added to the ultimate base re-
sistance. The fully reduced strength is taken as the residual
Other Methods shear strength of the rock = σ'htanφrc, where σ'h = horizontal
effective stress normal to the interface and φrc = residual
A computer program that models the axial load-displacement angle of interface friction between rock and concrete. A
behavior of a rock-socketed shaft, based on the methods de- value of 25 degrees is recommended in the absence of mea-
scribed by Seidel and Haberfield (1994) and described surements and σ'h is assumed to be equal to the vertical
briefly earlier, has been developed. The program ROCKET effective stress σ'v. A second approach is recommended for
requires the following input parameters: cases in which base resistance is neglected in design. In this
case, the ultimate side resistance is recommended for design
• Drained shear strength parameters of the intact rock, at the strength limit state, unless “progressive side shear fail-
• Rock mass modulus and Poisson’s ratio, ure could occur,” in which case the resistance should be
• Foundation diameter, reduced “according to the judgment of the geotechnical
• Initial normal stress, and engineer.”
• Mean socket asperity length and mean socket asperity
angle. Several states indicate in their response to Question 20
that load testing, especially using the Osterberg load cell, is
Although some of these parameters are determined on a one of the ways in which the issue is addressed. Load tests
routine basis for the design of rock-socketed foundations, that provide independent measurements of side and base
asperity characteristics are not typically evaluated. Drained resistance as a function of displacement and that are carried
triaxial tests are also not considered routine by most trans- to large displacements provide the best available data for es-
portation agencies in the United States. However, this ap- tablishing resistance values. When testing is not conducted,
proach is promising because it provides a theoretical basis the major uncertainty (i.e., judgment) is associated with the
for predicting rock-socket behavior that encompasses more question of whether or not side shear behavior will exhibit
of the important parameters than the empirical approaches significant strain softening. Research is needed to provide
now available to predict side resistance. guidance on what conditions are likely to produce a “brittle”
response of the side resistance. Most load test data in which
Combining Side and Base Resistances
side resistance is measured independently do not exhibit a se-
vere decrease in side resistance with large displacement. A
A fundamental aspect of drilled shaft response to axial com- study with the objective of identifying the factors that con-
pression loading is that side and base resistances are mobilized trol stress–strain behavior at the shaft–rock interface at large
at different downward displacements. Side resistance typi- displacement is needed. A large amount of data have been
cally reaches a maximum at relatively small displacement, produced in recent years from load tests using the Osterberg
in the range of 5 to 10 mm. Beyond this level, side resis- cell (O-cell) and such data would be useful for a study of
tance may remain constant or decrease, depending on the post-peak interface behavior. The results would be most
stress–strain properties of the shaft-rock interface. Ductile useful to practitioners if guidance could be provided on spe-
behavior describes side resistance that remains constant or cific rock types, drilling methods, construction practices,
decreases slightly with increasing displacement. If the inter- and ranges of confining stress that are likely to cause strain
face is brittle, side resistance may decrease rapidly and softening at the interface. These factors could then be used
significantly with further downward displacement. One as indicators of cases for which further field or laboratory
question facing the designer is how much side resistance is testing is warranted.
 51

A promising technique for improving base load- recommendations given by Allen (2005). Rock mass proper-
displacement response of drilled shafts involves post-grouting ties used with LRFD resistance factors should be based on
at the base (base grouting). The technique involves casting average values, not minimum values.
drilled shafts with a grout delivery system incorporated into
the reinforcing cage capable of placing high pressure grout Three methods are cited for predicting ultimate unit side
at the base of the shaft, after the shaft concrete has cured. The resistance in rock. The first is identified as Horvath and Ken-
effect is to compress debris left by the drilling process, thus ney (1979). However, the equation given in the AASHTO
facilitating mobilization of base resistance within service or Specifications is actually the original Horvath and Kenney
displacement limits. According to Mullins et al. (2006), base recommendation (Eq. 25), but with unit side resistance mod-
grouting is used widely internationally, but its use in North ified to account for RQD. A reduction factor, α, is applied,
America has been limited. An additional potential advantage as determined by Table 13 and Table 18 of this report. This
is that the grouting procedure allows a proof test to be con- approach was recommended by O’Neill and Reese (1999).
ducted on the shaft. Base grouting warrants further consider- The second method is identified as Carter and Kulhawy
ation as both a quality construction technique and a testing (1988). The draft 2006 Interim AASHTO LRFD Bridge De-
tool for rock-socketed shafts. sign Specifications does not state explicitly the equation to
be used in connection with the Carter and Kulhawy method.
For evaluation of service limit states, both side and base However, in the calibration study by Paikowsky et al. (2004a)
resistances should be included in the analysis. Analytical the expression used for all evaluations attributed to Carter
methods that can provide reasonable predictions of axial and Kulhawy is
load-deformation response, for example the Carter and Kul-
hawy method described in this chapter or similar methods fsu = 0.15 qu (96)
given by O’Neill and Reese (1999), provide practical tools
for this type of analysis. All of these methods require evalu- in which qu = uniaxial compressive strength of rock. In their
ation of rock mass modulus. original work, Carter and Kulhawy (1988) proposed the use
of 0.15 qu as a design check, whereas the AASHTO Specifi-
CURRENT AASHTO PRACTICE cations treat it as a design recommendation. This unintended
usage is inappropriate and does not adequately represent the
The draft 2006 Interim AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design most up-to-date research based on regression analysis of the
Specifications recommends specific methods and associated available data on socket-side resistance. The third method
resistance factors for evaluating side and base resistance of given by AASHTO is O’Neill and Reese (1999). It is not
rock-socketed shafts under axial load. These are summarized clear how this differs from the Horvath and Kenney (1979)
in Table 20. The resistance factors are based on a calibration method because the equations given by AASHTO are all
study conducted by Paikowsky et al. (2004a) and additional taken directly from O’Neill and Reese (1999). The equations

TABLE 20
SUMMARY OF CURRENT AASHTO METHODS AND RESISTANCE FACTORS
Resistance
Method/Condition Factor
Nominal Axial Compressive Side resistance in 1. Horvath and Kenney (1979) 0.55
Resistance of Single-Drilled rock 2. Carter and Kulhawy (1988) 0.50
Shafts 3. OíNeill and Reese (1999) 0.55

Tip resistance in rock 1. Canadian Geotechnical Society 0.50

(1985)
2. PMT Method (Canadian 0.50
Geotechnical Society 1985)
3. O’Neill and Reese (1999) 0.50

Side resistance, IGMs 1. O’Neill and Reese (1999) 0.60

Tip resistance, IGMs 1. O’Neill and Reese (1999) 0.55

Static load test <0.70*

Compression, all
materials

Nominal Uplift Resistance of Rock Horvath and Kenney (1979) 0.40

Single-Drilled Shaft Carter and Kulhawy (1988) 0.40
Load Test 0.60
*
Depends on the number of load tests and site variability.
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 2006 Interim.
52

presented in the draft 2006 Interim AASHTO LRFD Bridge deformation. Research published over the past 25 years has
Design Specifications are not the same as those originally resulted in methods for predicting ultimate side resistance of
proposed by Horvath and Kenney (1979) and by Carter and shafts in rock that can be selected by a designer on the basis
Kulhawy (1988), but are nonetheless attributed to those stud- of commonly measured geomaterial properties and that ac-
ies. Furthermore, both studies have been superseded by more count for levels of uncertainty associated with the project.
recent research. In future calibration studies for LRFD For example, Eq. 30 with C taken equal to 1.0 provides a con-
applications and for updates of AASHTO specifications, servative estimate of side resistance for preliminary design
consideration of alternative design equations for side resis- or for final design of small structures or at sites where no
tance should be considered and the most up-to-date research additional testing is planned. If laboratory CNS testing is
should be referenced. conducted to measure rock–concrete interface strength,
higher values of side resistance can be justified for design. If
The draft 2006 Interim AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design field load tests are conducted, they normally result in higher
Specifications allow the use of methods other than those side resistance values than given by Eq. 30 (with C = 1.0) and
given in Table 20, especially if the method is “locally recog- higher resistance factors are allowed by AASHTO for results
nized and considered suitable for regional conditions . . . based on load tests. If field load testing demonstrates that a
if resistance factors are developed in a manner that is consis- particular construction technique; for example, artificial
tent with the development of the resistance factors for the roughening the walls of a socket, can increase side resistance,
method(s) provided in these Specifications.” then it may be possible to justify the use of Eq. 30 with val-
ues of C higher than 1.0.
AASHTO specifies resistance factors for base resistance
based on the two methods given by the Canadian Geotechni- Rational methods are available for estimating ultimate
cal Society (Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual base resistance of rock sockets. A first order approximation
1985). The first is according to Eqs. 63–65 and is a straight- based on strength of intact rock is given by Zhang and
forward method to apply, provided the rock satisfies the cri- Einstein (1998) (see Figure 33). For fractured rock, a rea-
teria of being horizontally jointed and the appropriate para- sonable estimate can be made if the GSI (or RMR) is evalu-
meters can be determined. Standard logging procedures for ated (see Figures 31 and 32). Although most states surveyed
rock core would normally provide the required information. do not currently use GSI and RMR, the parameters required
The second method is based on PMT and is given by Eq. 66. for its implementation can be obtained during the course of
As noted in chapter two, only a few states reported using the standard core logging procedures. The method recom-
PMT in rock. The third method for base resistance is O’Neill mended by CGS and adopted by AASHTO is applicable to
and Reese (1999) and the two equations given by AASHTO moderately jointed sedimentary rocks, which is the most
correspond to Eq. 43 of this report for massive rock and Eq. commonly encountered rock type for rock-socketed founda-
57 of this report for highly fractured rock. tions. A method based on PMT provides another practical
approach for calculating base resistance.
AASHTO also allows higher resistance factors on both
side and base resistances when they are determined from a
A source of uncertainty in rock-socket design stems from
field load test. The cost benefits achieved by using a load test
attempting to combine side and base resistances at a specific
as the basis for design can help to offset the costs of con-
value of downward displacement; for example, at the speci-
ducting load tests. This issue is considered further in chapter
fied limiting value of settlement or at the strength limit state.
five. Finally, AASHTO recommends that all of the resistance
A relatively straightforward analysis based on elastic contin-
factors given in Table 20 be reduced by 20% when used for
uum theory, as given by Carter and Kulhawy (1988), is pre-
the design of nonredundant shafts; for example, a single shaft
sented in the form of closed-form expressions that predict
supporting a bridge pier.
axial load-deformation and base load transfer for typical
conditions encountered in practice. Similar analytical ap-
SUMMARY
proaches for IGMs are given by O’Neill and Reese (1999).
These equations are easily implemented in spreadsheet or
The principal factors controlling the behavior of rock-socketed other convenient form and allow designers to make rational
foundations under axial loading are identified and discussed. estimates of load carried by both side and base at specified
It is concluded from this study that sufficient tools are cur- displacements. The survey questionnaire shows that this
rently available for transportation agency personnel to design method is used by some state DOTs. The approach should be
rock-socketed shafts for axial loading conditions that provide evaluated further against field load test measurements and, if
adequate load carrying capacity without being overly con- verified, used more widely. Alternatively, the design charts
servative. given in Rowe and Armitage (1987a,b) provide a rational
means of estimating axial load-displacement behavior and
The principal performance design criteria for axial load- base load transfer. The charts are based on rigorous numeri-
ing are (1) adequate capacity and (2) ability to limit vertical cal modeling and are the benchmark against which the Carter
 53

and Kulhawy closed-form expressions were evaluated. How- Methods for calculating nominal (ultimate) unit side and
ever, the charts are more cumbersome to use. A computer base resistances and associated resistance factors according
program that models the full load-displacement curve, to the Interim 2006 AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifi-
ROCKET, is available, but requires input parameters that cations are summarized in Table 20. Considering the infor-
normally are not determined by transportation agencies, such mation identified by the literature review, in particular recent
as triaxial strength properties and socket roughness param- studies on correlation equations for unit side resistance, a
eters. However, for agencies interested in obtaining the suggested improvement in future specifications would be to
required material properties, this program offers an effective consider design methods recommended by the more recent
method for axial load-deformation analysis. studies for inclusion and calibration to LRFD.
54

CHAPTER FOUR

DESIGN FOR LATERAL LOADING

SCOPE that are then used by GD to perform revised lateral load

analyses. In addition, the Bridge Office may conduct their
Twenty-two states indicated in the survey that lateral own analyses using soil and rock-structure interaction mod-
loading considerations govern the design of drilled shafts els with soil and rock properties provided by GD. The
in rock or IGM on at least some of their projects. Several Bridge Office uses the modeling results to establish design
states responded that lateral loading governs 100% of parameters for drilled shaft reinforced concrete. According
their designs. The survey also demonstrated that the most to the 2006 Interim AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Speci-
widely used analysis is the p-y method, although other fications, the strength limit state for lateral resistance of
methods are also used. In this chapter, analytical models deep foundations is structural only. The basic assumption
identified by the literature search and by the survey are re- is that “failure” of the soil/rock does not occur; instead, the
viewed and evaluated for their applicability to rock sock- geomaterials continue to deform at constant or slightly
ets. Structural issues associated with rock-socketed shafts increasing resistance. Failure occurs when the foundation
are considered. reaches the structural limit state, defined as the loading at
which the nominal combined bending and axial resistance is
reached.
DESIGN PROCESS
Axial loading in both compression and uplift requires struc-
Deep foundations supporting bridge structures may be sub- tural analysis and reinforced-concrete design for drilled shafts.
jected to lateral loading from a variety of sources, including When lateral loading is not significant, structural design is rea-
earth pressures, centrifugal forces from moving vehicles, sonably straightforward. When lateral loading is significant,
braking forces, wind loading, flowing water, waves, ice, seis- the combined effects of lateral and axial loading are analyzed
mic forces, and impact. Reese (1984) describes numerous using models described in this chapter, which account for the
examples of bridges, overhead sign structures, and retaining effect of axial load by treating the shaft as a beam column. For
structures as typical examples of transportation facilities that this reason, structural design issues associated with rock-
must sustain significant lateral loading. Drilled shafts are of- socketed shafts are addressed in this chapter.
ten selected for such structures because they can be designed
to sustain lateral loading by proper sizing of the shaft and by
providing a sufficient amount of reinforcing steel to resist the ROCK-SOCKETED FOUNDATIONS
resulting bending moments. FOR LATERAL LOADING

Design for lateral loading of drilled shafts requires sig- Rock-socketed shafts provide significant benefits for car-
nificant interaction between geotechnical and structural rying lateral loads. Embedment into rock, in most cases,
engineers. As described in chapter one, the Bridge Office reduces the lateral displacements substantially compared
(structural) is responsible for structural analysis and design with a deep foundation in soil. To take full advantage of
of the superstructure and the foundations. However, to model rock-socketed drilled shafts, designers must have confi-
foundation response to lateral loading it is necessary to ac- dence in the analytical tools used for design. The survey
count for soil/rock-structure interaction. The Geotechnical questionnaire shows that traditional methods of analysis
Division (GD) normally conducts foundation analysis using for lateral loading of piles and drilled shafts in soil are the
the models described in this chapter. For preliminary foun- most widely used methods currently employed for rock
dation design, geotechnical modeling of foundation re- sockets. Recent research has led to some advancements for
sponse by the GD is used to provide the Bridge Office with applying these methods to rock. In addition, several re-
information such as depth of fixity, trial designs (diameter searchers have proposed new analytical methods that provide
and depth) of drilled shafts, and equivalent lateral spring designers with useful tools for predicting load-displacement
values for use in seismic analysis of the superstructure. The response and/or structural response of the reinforced-
Bridge Office conducts analyses of the superstructure based concrete shaft. Each method has advantages and disadvantages
on models that include fixed-end columns at the depth of for design purposes and these are discussed in the following
fixity. The structural analysis may result in revised loads sections.
 55

ANALYTICAL METHODS actual soil/rock reaction. In practice, a great deal of effort and
research has been aimed at developing methods for selecting
A laterally loaded deep foundation is the classic example of a appropriate p-y curves. All of the proposed methods are em-
soil–structure interaction problem. The soil or rock reaction pirical and there is no independent test to determine the rel-
depends on the foundation displacement, whereas displace- evant p-y curve. The principal limitations of the p-y method
ment is dependent on the soil or rock response and flexural normally cited are that: (1) theoretically, the interaction of
rigidity of the foundation. In most methods of analysis, the soil or rock between adjacent springs is not taken into ac-
foundation is treated as an elastic beam or elastic beam- count (no continuity), and (2) the p-y curves are not related
column. The primary difference in analytical methods used to directly to any measurable material properties of the soil or
date lies in the approach used to model the soil and/or rock rock mass or of the foundation. Nevertheless, full-scale load
mass response. Methods of analysis fall into two general cate- tests and theory have led to recommendations for estab-
gories: (1) subgrade reaction and (2) elastic continuum theory. lishing p-y curves for a variety of soil types (Reese 1984).
The method is attractive for design purposes because of the
Subgrade reaction methods treat the deep foundation an- following:
alytically as a beam on elastic foundation. The governing dif-
ferential equation (Hetenyi 1946) is given by • Ability to simulate nonlinear behavior of the soil or
rock;
d4y d2y • Ability to follow the subsurface stratigraphy (layering)
EI 4
+ Pz 2 − p − w = 0 (97)
dz dz closely;
• Can account for the nonlinear flexural rigidity (EI) of a
in which EI = flexural rigidity of the deep foundation, y = reinforced-concrete shaft;
lateral deflection of the foundation at a point z along its length, • Incorporates realistic boundary conditions at the top of
Pz = axial load on the foundation, p = lateral soil/rock reac- the foundation;
tion per unit length of foundation, and w = distributed load • Solution provides deflection, slope, shear, and moment
along the length of the shaft (if any). In the most commonly as functions of depth;
used form of subgrade reaction method, the soil reaction–- • Solution provides information needed for structural de-
displacement response is represented by a series of indepen- sign (shear and moment); and
dent nonlinear springs described in terms of p-y curves • Computer solutions are readily available.
(Reese 1984). A model showing the concept is provided in
Figure 36. The soil or rock is replaced by a series of discrete Boundary conditions that can be applied at the top of the
mechanisms (nonlinear springs) so that at each depth z the foundation include: (1) degree of fixity against rotation or
soil or rock reaction p is a nonlinear function of lateral de- translation and (2) applied loads (moment, shear, and axial).
flection y. Ideally, each p-y curve would represent the With a given set of boundary conditions and a specified
stress–strain and strength behavior of the soil or rock, effects family of p-y curves, Eq. 97 is solved numerically, typically
of confining stress, foundation diameter and depth, position using a finite-difference scheme. An iterative solution is
of the water table, and any other factors that determine the required to incorporate the nonlinear p-y curves as well as
the nonlinear moment versus EI relationship (material and
geometric nonlinearities) for reinforced-concrete shafts.

The elastic continuum approach for laterally loaded deep

foundations was developed by Poulos (1971), initially for
analysis of a single pile under lateral and moment loading at the
pile head. The numerical solution is based on the boundary
element method, with the pile modeled as a thin elastic strip
and the soil modeled as a homogeneous, isotropic elastic ma-
terial. This approach was used to approximate socketed piles
by Poulos (1972) by considering two boundary conditions at
the tip of the pile: (1) the pile is completely fixed against ro-
tation and displacement at the tip (rock surface) and (2) the
pile is free to rotate but fixed against translation (pinned) at
the tip. The fixed pile tip condition was intended to model a
socketed deep foundation, whereas the pinned tip was in-
tended to model a pile bearing on, but not embedded into,
rock. Although these tip conditions do not adequately model
the behavior of many rock-socketed shafts, the analyses
FIGURE 36 Subgrade reaction model based on p-y curves served to demonstrate some important aspects of socketed
(Reese 1997). deep foundations. For relatively stiff foundations, which
56

applies to many drilled shafts, considerable reduction in dis- have been conducted and published to date. This lack of
placement at the pile head can be achieved by socketing, verification can be viewed as a limitation on use of the p-y
especially if the effect of the socket is to approximate a method for rock-socketed drilled shafts. A single study by
“fixed” condition at the soil/rock interface. Reese (1997) presents the only published criteria for selec-
tion of p-y curves in rock. A few state DOTs have developed
The elastic continuum approach was further developed by in-house correlations for p-y curves in rock.
Randolph (1981) through use of the finite-element method
(FEM). Solutions presented by Randolph cover a wide range
of conditions for flexible piles and the results are presented in Reese (1997)
the form of charts as well as convenient closed-form solutions
for a limited range of parameters. The solutions do not ade- Reese proposed interim criteria for p-y curves used for
quately cover the full range of parameters applicable to rock- analysis of drilled shafts in rock. Reese cautions that the
socketed shafts used in practice. Extension of this approach recommendations should be considered as preliminary be-
by Carter and Kulhawy (1992) to rigid shafts and shafts of cause of the meager amount of load test data on which they
intermediate flexibility, as described subsequently, has led to are based. The criteria are summarized as follows. For
practical analytical tools based on the continuum approach. “weak rock,” defined as rock with unconfined compressive
strength between 0.5 MPa and 5 MPa, the shape of the p-y
Sun (1994) applied elastic continuum theory to deep foun- curve, as shown in Figure 37, can be described by the
dations using variational calculus to obtain the governing dif- following equations. For the initial linear portion of the
ferential equations of the soil and pile system, based on the curve
Vlasov model for a beam on elastic foundation. This approach
was extended to rock-socketed shafts by Zhang et al. (2000), p = Kiry for y ≤ yA (98)
and is also described in this chapter.
For the transitional, nonlinear portion
0.25
pur ⎛ y ⎞ for y ≥ yA, p ≤ pur
p-y Method for Rock Sockets p= (99)
2 ⎜⎝ yrm ⎟⎠
The p-y method of analysis, as implemented in various com- yrm = krmB (100)
puter codes, is the single most widely used method for
design of drilled shafts in rock. Responses to the survey ques- and when the ultimate resistance is reached
tionnaire for this study showed that 28 U.S. state transportation
agencies (of 32 responding) use this method. The analytical p = pur (101)
procedure is dependent on being able to represent the re-
sponse of soil and rock by an appropriate family of p-y where
curves. The only reliable way to verify p-y curves is through Kir = initial slope of the curve,
instrumented full-scale load tests. The approach that forms pur = the rock mass ultimate resistance,
the basis for most of the published recommendations for p-y B = shaft diameter, and
curves in soil is to instrument deep foundations with strain krm is a constant ranging from 0.0005 to 0.00005 that serves
gages to determine the distribution of bending moment over to establish the overall stiffness of the curve.
the length of the foundation during a load test. Assuming that
the bending moment can be determined reliably from strain
gage measurements, the moment as a function of depth can
be differentiated twice to obtain p and integrated twice to
obtain y. Measured displacements at the foundation head
provide a boundary condition at that location. The p-y curves
resulting from analysis of field load tests have then been cor-
related empirically to soil strength and stress–strain proper-
ties determined from laboratory and in situ tests.

An alternative approach for deducing p-y curves from load

tests is to measure the shape of the deformed foundation; for
example, using slope inclinometer measurements and fitting
p-y curves to obtain agreement with the measured displace-
ments. This approach is described by Brown et al. (1994).

Very few lateral load tests on drilled shafts in rock, with

the instrumentation necessary to back-calculate p-y curves, FIGURE 37 Proposed p-y curve for weak rock (Reese 1997).
 57

The value of yA corresponding to the upper limit of the initial weak rock. The first load test was located at Islamorada,
linear portion of the curve is obtained by setting Eq. 98 equal Florida. A drilled shaft, 1.2 m in diameter and 15.2 m long,
to Eq. 99, yielding was socketed 13.3 m into a brittle, vuggy coral limestone. A
1.333 layer of sand over the rock was retained by a steel casing and
⎡ pur ⎤ lateral load was applied 3.51 m above the rock surface. The
yA = ⎢ ⎥ (102)
⎢⎣ 2 ( yrm ) K ir ⎥⎦
0.25
following values were used in the equations for calculating
the p-y curves: qu = 3.45 MPa, αr = 1.0, Eir = 7,240 MPa, krm =
The following expression is recommended for calculating 0.0005, B = 1.22 m, L = 15.2 m, and EI = 3.73 × 106 kN-m2.
the rock mass ultimate resistance: Comparison of pile head deflections measured during the
load test and from p-y analyses are shown in Figure 38. With
pur = α r qu B ⎛ 1 + 1.4 r ⎞
x a constant value of EI as given above, the analytical results
⎝ for 0 ≤ xr ≤ 3B (103)
B⎠ show close agreement with the measured displacements up
pur = 5.2αrquB for xr ≥ 3B (104) to a lateral load of about 350 kN. By reducing the values of
flexural rigidity in portions of the shaft subject to high mo-
in which qu = uniaxial compressive strength of intact rock, ments, the p-y analysis was adjusted to yield deflections that
αr = strength reduction factor, and xr = depth below rock agreed with the measured values at loads higher than 350 kN.
surface. Selection of αr is based on the assumption that frac- The value of krm = 0.0005 was also determined on the basis
turing will occur at the surface of the rock under small deflec- of establishing agreement between the measured and pre-
tions, thus reducing the rock mass compressive strength. The dicted displacements.
value of αr is assumed to be one-third for RQD of 100 and to
increase linearly to unity at RQD of zero. The underlying as- The second case analyzed by Reese (1997) is a lateral load
sumption is that, if the rock mass is already highly fractured, test conducted on a drilled shaft socketed into sandstone at a
then no additional fracturing with accompanying strength site near San Francisco. The shaft was 2.25 m in diameter
loss will occur. However, this approach appears to have a with a socket length of 13.8 m. Rock mass strength and mod-
fundamental shortcoming in that it relies on the compressive ulus values were estimated from PMT results. Three zones of
strength of the intact rock and not the strength of the rock rock were identified and average values of strength and mod-
mass. For a highly fractured rock mass (low RQD) with a ulus were assigned to each zone. The sandstone is described
high-intact rock strength, it seems that the rock mass strength as “medium-to-fine-grained, well sorted, thinly bedded, very
could be overestimated. intensely to moderately fractured.” Twenty values of RQD
were reported, ranging from zero to 80, with an average of
The initial slope of the p-y curve, Kir, is related to the ini- 45. For calculating p-y curves, the strength reduction factor
tial elastic modulus of the rock mass as follows: αr was taken as unity, on the assumption that there was “lit-
tle chance of brittle fracture.” Values of the other parameters
K ir ≅ kir Eir (105)
where Eir = rock mass initial elastic modulus and kir = di-
mensionless constant given by

⎛ 400 xr ⎞
kir = ⎜ 100 + for 0 ≤ xr ≤ 3B (106)
⎝ 3 B ⎟⎠
kir = 500 for xr > 3B (107)

The expressions for kir were determined by fitting a p-y

analysis to the results of a field load test (back-fitting) in
which the initial rock mass modulus value was determined
from PMTs. The method recommended by Reese (1997) is
to establish Eir from the initial slope of a pressuremeter curve.
Alternatively, Reese suggests the correlation given by Bieni-
awski (1978) between rock mass modulus, modulus of intact
rock core, and RQD, given as expression 2 in Table 12 (chap-
ter two) of this report. According to Reese (1997), rock mass
modulus EM determined this way is assumed to be equivalent
to Eir in Eq. 105.

Results of load tests at two sites are used by Reese (1997) FIGURE 38 Measured and analytical deflection curves for shaft
to fit p-y curves according to the criteria given previously for in vuggy limestone (Reese 1997).
58

used for p-y curve development were: krm = 0.00005; qu = range of 0.5–5 MPa. The user assigns a value to krm. The doc-
1.86 MPa for depth of 0–3.9 m, 6.45 MPa for depth of umentation (Ensoft, Inc. 2004) recommends to:
3.9–8.8 m, and 16.0 MPa for depth of more than 8.8 m; Eir =
10qu (MPa) for each layer, B = 2.25 m, and EI = 35.15 x 103 . . . examine the stress–strain curve of the rock sample. Typi-
MN-m2. The value of krm was adjusted to provide agreement cally, the krm is taken as the strain at 50% of the maximum
between displacements given by the p-y method of analysis strength of the core sample. Because limited experimental data
are available for weak rock during the derivation of the p-y
and measured displacements from the load test. criteria, the krm from a particular site may not be in the range
between 0.0005 and 0.00005. For such cases, you may use the
Figure 39 shows a comparison of the measured load- upper bound value (0.0005) to get a larger value of yrm, which in
displacement curve with results produced by the p-y turn will provide a more conservative result.
method of analysis, for various methods of computing the
flexural rigidity (EI) of the test shaft. Methods that account The criteria recommended for p-y curves in the LPILEPLUS
for the nonlinear relationship between bending moment and users manual (Ensoft Inc. 2004) for “strong rock” is illus-
EI provide a better fit than p-y analysis with a constant vale trated in Figure 40. Strong rock is defined by a uniaxial
of EI. The curve labeled “Analytical” in Figure 39 was ob- strength of intact rock qu ≥ 6.9 MPa. In Figure 40, su is
tained using an analytical procedure described by Reese to defined as one-half of qu and b is the shaft diameter. The p-y
incorporate the nonlinear moment–EI relationships directly curve is bilinear, with the break in slope occurring at a
into the numerical solution of Eq. 97, whereas the curve la- deflection y corresponding to 0.04% of the shaft diameter.
beled “ACI” incorporates recommendations by the Ameri- Resistance (p) is a function of intact rock strength for both
can Concrete Institute for treating the nonlinear moment–EI portions of the curve. The criterion does not account explic-
behavior. itly for rock mass properties, which would appear to limit its
applicability to massive rock. The authors recommend veri-
Fitting of p-y curves to the results of the two load tests as fication by load testing if deflections exceed 0.04% of the
described previously forms the basis for recommendations shaft diameter, which would exceed service limit state crite-
that have been incorporated into the most widely used com- ria in most practical situations. Brittle fracture of the rock is
puter programs being used by state DOTs for analysis of lat- assumed if the resistance p becomes greater than the shaft
erally loaded rock-socketed foundations. The program diameter times one-half of the uniaxial compressive strength
COM624 (Wang and Reese 1991) and its commercial version, of the rock. The deflection y corresponding to brittle fracture
LPILE (Ensoft, Inc. 2004), allow the user to assign a limited can be determined from the diagram as 0.0024 times the shaft
number of soil or rock types to each subsurface layer. One of diameter. This level of displacement would be exceeded in
the options is “weak rock.” If this geomaterial selection is many practical situations. It is concluded that the recom-
made, additional required input parameters are unit weight, mended criteria applies only for very small lateral deflections
modulus, uniaxial compressive strength, RQD, and krm. The and is not valid for jointed rock masses. Some practitioners
program then generates p-y curves using Eqs. 98–107. The apply the weak rock criteria, regardless of material strength,
program documentation recommends assigning “weak rock” to avoid the limitations cited earlier. The authors state that
to geomaterials with uniaxial compressive strengths in the the p-y curve shown in Figure 40 “should be employed with

FIGURE 39 Measured and analytical deflection curves, socket FIGURE 40 Recommended p-y curve for strong rock (Ensoft,
in sandstone (Reese 1997). Inc. 2004).
 59

caution because of the limited amount of experimental data

and because of the great variability in rock.” p ult

The survey questionnaire for this study found that 28

agencies use either COM624 or LPILEPLUS for analysis of
rock-socketed shafts under lateral loading.

p
The following observations are based on a review of the
literature:

• Existing published criteria for p-y curves in rock are

based on a very limited number (two) of full-scale field kh
load tests,
• Recommendations for selecting values of input param-
y
eters required by the published criteria are vague and
unsubstantiated by broad experience, and FIGURE 41 Hyperbolic p-y curve.
• The p-y method of analysis is being used extensively
despite these sources of uncertainty.

It is therefore concluded that research is needed and should be model. Tests were performed on shafts in Piedmont weath-
undertaken with the objective of developing improved criteria ered profiles of sandstone, mica schist, and crystalline rock.
for p-y curves in rock. The research should include full-scale Finite-element modeling was used to calibrate a p-y curve
field load tests on instrumented shafts, much in the same way model incorporating subgrade modulus as determined from
that earlier studies focused on the same purpose for deep foun- PMT readings and providing close agreement with strains
dations in soil. The p-y curve parameters should be related to and deflections measured in the load tests. The model was
rock mass engineering properties that can be determined by then used to make forward predictions of lateral load re-
state transportation agencies using available site and material sponse for subsequent load tests on socketed shafts at two
characterization methods, as described in chapter two. locations in weathered rock profiles different than those used
to develop the model.

The procedure for establishing values of subgrade modulus

Current Research by State Agencies
Kh involves determination of the rock mass modulus (EM) from
The literature review and the survey identified two state trans- PMT measurements. The coefficient of subgrade reaction is
portation agencies (North Carolina and Ohio) with research in then given by:
progress aimed at improving the methodology for construct- 1
0.65E M ⎡ E M B 4 ⎤ 12
⎛ F⎞
ing p-y curves for weathered rock. The North Carolina study kh = ⎜⎝ units : l 3 ⎟⎠ (109)
is described in a draft report by Gabr et al. (2002) and the B (1 − vr2 ) ⎢⎣ Es I s ⎥⎦
Ohio study is summarized in a paper that was under review
at the time of this writing, by Liang and Yang (2006). Both in which B = shaft diameter, EM = rock mass modulus, vr =
studies present recommendations for p-y curves based on a Poisson’s ratio of the rock, and Es and Is are modulus and mo-
hyperbolic function. Two parameters are required to charac- ment of inertia of the shaft, respectively. A procedure is
terize a hyperbola, the initial tangent slope and the asymptote. given by Gabr et al. (2002) for establishing the point of rota-
For the proposed hyperbolic p-y models, these correspond to tion of the shaft. For p-y curves above the point of rotation,
the subgrade modulus (Kh) and the ultimate resistance (pult), subgrade modulus is equal to the coefficient of subgrade re-
as shown in Figure 41. The hyperbolic p-y relationship is then action times the shaft diameter or
given as
Kh = kh B (110)
y
p=
1 y (108) For depths below the point of rotation, a stiffer lateral sub-
+
K h pult grade reaction is assigned and the reader is referred to Gabr
et al. (2002) for the equations. An alternative procedure is
A summary of the two studies, including recommenda- presented for cases where rock mass modulus is determined
tions for selection of the required parameters (Kh and pult), using the empirical correlation given by Hoek and Brown
is presented. (1997) and presented previously as expression 7 in Table 12
of chapter two. In that expression, rock mass modulus is cor-
In the North Carolina study, results of six full-scale field related with GSI and uniaxial compressive strength of intact
load tests, at three different sites, were used to develop the rock (qu).
60

The second required hyperbolic curve parameter is the ior of the concrete shaft, which reduces the predicted deflec-
asymptote of the p-y curve, which is the ultimate resistance tions more significantly than the p-y criteria. One of the lim-
pult. The proposed expression is given by itations of the p-y criterion proposed by Gabr et al. (2002) is
that it is based on analyses in which EI is taken as a constant.
pult = (pL + τmax)B (111) For proper analysis of soil–rock–structure interaction during
lateral loading, the nonlinear moment–EI relationship should
where pL = limit normal stress and τmax = shearing resistance be modeled correctly.
along the side of the shaft. Gabr et al. adopted the following
recommendation of Zhang et al. (2000) for unit side resistance: The North Carolina DOT also reports using the program
LTBASE, which analyzes the lateral load-displacement
τ max = 0.20 qu ( MPa) (112) response of deep foundations as described by Gabr and
Borden (1988). The analysis is based on the p-y method, but
The limit normal stress is estimated on the basis of Hoek– also accounts for base resistance by including a vertical
Brown strength parameters as determined through correla- resistance component mobilized by shaft rotation and hori-
tions with RMR and GSI, and is given by zontal shear resistance, as illustrated in Figure 43. Base re-
a
sistance becomes significant as the relative rigidity of the
⎛ γ 'z ⎞ shaft increases and as the slenderness ratio decreases. For
pL = γ 'z + qu ⎜ mb + s⎟ (113)
⎝ qu ⎠ relatively rigid rock sockets, mobilization of vertical and
shear resistance at the tip could increase overall lateral ca-
in which γ ' = effective unit weight of the rock mass, z = depth pacity significantly, and base resistance effects should be
from the rock mass surface, and the coefficients mb, s, and a considered. Gabr et al. (2002) stated that the hyperbolic WR
are the Hoek–Brown coefficients given by Eqs. 12–15 in p-y curve model is now incorporated into LTBASE, but no
chapter two. results were given.

Results of one of the field load tests conducted for the pur- In the Ohio DOT study, Liang and Yang (2006) also pro-
pose of evaluating the predictive capability of the proposed pose a hyperbolic p-y curve criterion. The derivation is based
weak rock (WR) model is shown in Figure 42. The analyses on theoretical considerations and finite-element analyses.
were carried out using the program LPILE. Analyses were also Results of two full-scale, fully instrumented field load tests
conducted using p-y curves as proposed by Reese (1997), de- are compared with predictions based on the proposed p-y
scribed previously, as well as several other p-y curve recom- curve criterion. The initial slope of the hyperbolic p-y curve
mendations. The proposed model based on hyperbolic p-y is given by the following semi-empirical equation:
curves derived from PMT measurements (labeled dilatometer 0.284
in Figure 42) shows good agreement with the test results. The ⎛ B ⎞ −2 v ⎛ Es I s ⎞
K h = EM ⎜ ⎟⎠ e
r
⎜⎝ E B 4 ⎟⎠ (114)
authors (Gabr et al. 2002) attributed the underpredicted dis- ⎝ Bref M
placements obtained using the Reese criteria to the large values
of the factor kir predicted by Eqs. 106 and 107. However, the
analysis did not incorporate the nonlinear moment–EI behav-

FIGURE 42 Measured lateral load deflection versus predicted FIGURE 43 Base deformation as a function of shaft rotation
(Gabr et al. 2002). (Gabr and Borden 1988).
 61

in which Bref = a reference diameter of 0.305 m (1 ft) and all analysis of full-scale field load tests on instrumented shafts.
other terms are as defined above for Eq. 109. Liang and Yang However, the proposed equations for generating p-y curves
(2006) recommend modulus values EM from PMTs for use in differ between the two proposed criteria and both models will
Eq. 114, but in the absence of PMT measurements they pre- result in different load-displacement curves. It is not clear if
sent the following correlation equation relating EM to modu- either model is applicable to rock sockets other than those
lus of intact rock and GSI: used in its development. Both sets of load tests add to the
database of documented load tests now available to re-
GSI
Er 21 searchers. A useful exercise would be to evaluate the North
EM = e .7 (115) Carolina proposed criteria against the Ohio load test results
100
and vice versa.
where Er = elastic modulus of intact rock obtained during
uniaxal compression testing of core samples. Eq. 115 is also Florida Pier
expression 8 of Table 12 in chapter two. Liang and Yang
(2006) present two equations for evaluating pult. The first cor- Several states reported using other computer programs that
responds to a wedge failure mode, which applies to rock are based on the p-y method of analysis. Seven agencies re-
mass near the ground surface. The second applies to rock port using the Florida Bridge Pier Analysis Program
mass at depth and is given by (FBPIER) for analysis of rock-socketed shafts. Of those
seven, six also report using COM624 and/or LPILE. The
⎛π 2 ⎞ FBPIER, described by Hoit et al. (1997), is a nonlinear, finite-
pult = ⎜ pL + τ max − pA ⎟ B (116)
⎝4 3 ⎠ element analysis program designed for analyzing bridge pier
substructures composed of pier columns and a pier cap sup-
where pL = limit normal stress, τmax = shearing resistance along ported on a pile cap and piles or shafts including the soil (or
the side of the shaft, and pA = horizontal active pressure. rock). FBPIER was developed to provide an analytical tool
Eq. 116 is similar to Eq. 111 (Gabr et al. 2002), but accounts allowing the entire pier structure of a bridge to be analyzed
for active earth pressure acting on the shaft. Both methods in- at one time, instead of multiple iterations between foundation
corporate the Hoek–Brown strength criterion for rock mass to analysis programs (e.g., COM624) and structural analysis
evaluate the limit normal stress pL, and both rely on correla- programs. Basically, the structural elements (pier column,
tions with GSI to determine the required Hoek–Brown cap, pile cap, and piles) are modeled using standard structural
strength parameters. In the Liang and Yang (2006) approach, finite-element analysis, including nonlinear capabilities
pult at each depth is taken as the smaller of the two values (nonlinear M–EI behavior), whereas the soil response is
obtained from the wedge analysis or by Eq. 116. modeled by nonlinear springs (Figure 44). Axial soil re-
sponse is modeled in terms of t-z curves, whereas lateral
A source of uncertainty in all of the proposed p-y criteria response is modeled in terms of p-y curves. The program has
derives from the choice of method for selecting rock mass built-in criteria for p-y curves in soil, based on published
modulus when more than one option is available. For exam- recommendations and essentially similar to those employed
ple, using the pressuremeter and GSI data reported by Gabr in LPILE. User-defined p-y curves can also be specified. To
et al. (2002) significantly different values of modulus are ob- simulate rock, users currently apply the criteria for either soft
tained for the same site. In some cases, the measured shaft clay (Matlock 1970) or stiff clay (Reese and Welch 1975)
load-displacement response (from load testing) shows better but with strength and stiffness properties of the rock, or user-
agreement with p-y curves developed from PMT modulus, defined curves are input. Research is underway to incorpo-
whereas another load test shows better agreement with p-y rate improved p-y curve criteria into FBPIER, specifically for
curves developed from GSI-derived modulus. Proper selec-
tion of rock mass modulus for foundation design is one of
the challenges for design of rock-socketed shafts, as pointed
out in chapter two. This issue becomes most important when
p-y curves for lateral load analysis are based on rock mass
modulus. Both the Reese (1997) criteria and the hyperbolic
criteria require rock mass modulus to determine the slope of
p-y curves.

The North Carolina and Ohio programs provide examples

of state DOT efforts to advance the state of practice in design
of rock-socketed foundations. The programs incorporate
careful site investigations using available methods for char-
acterizing rock mass engineering properties (RMR, GSI) as FIGURE 44 Florida pier model for structure and foundation
well as in situ testing (PMT). Both programs are based on elements (Hoit et al. 1997).
62

Florida limestone, as described by McVay and Niraula (2004). Continuum Models for Laterally Loaded Sockets
Centrifuge tests were conducted in which instrumented model
shafts embedded in a synthetic rock (to simulate Florida Carter and Kulhawy (1992)
limestone) were subjected to lateral loading. Strain gage
measurements were used to back-calculate p-y curves, Carter and Kulhawy (1988, 1992) studied the behavior of flex-
which are presented in normalized form, with p normalized ible and rigid shafts socketed into rock and subjected to lateral
by shaft diameter and rock compressive strength (p/Bqu) and loads and moments. Solutions for the load-displacement rela-
y normalized by shaft diameter (y/B). There is no analytical tions were first generated using finite-element analyses. The
expression recommended for new p-y curve criteria and the finite-element analyses followed the approach of Randolph
report recommends that field testing be undertaken on full- (1981) for flexible piles under lateral loading. Based on the
size drilled shafts to validate the derived p-y curves estab- FEM solutions, approximate closed-form equations were
lished from the centrifuge tests before they are employed in developed to describe the response for a range of rock-socket
practice. parameters typically encountered in practice. The results pro-
vide a first-order approximation of horizontal groundline dis-
placements and rotations and can incorporate an overlying soil
layer. The method is summarized as follows.
Strain Wedge Model

The strain wedge (SW) model has been applied to laterally Initially, consider the case where the top of the shaft cor-
loaded piles in soil, as described by Ashour et al. (1998). The responds to the top of the rock layer (Figure 45). The shaft is
2006 Interim AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications idealized as a cylindrical elastic inclusion with an effective
identify the SW model as an acceptable method for lateral Young’s modulus (Ee), Poisson’s ratio (vc), depth (D), and di-
load analysis of deep foundations. The 3-D soil–pile interac- ameter (B), subjected to a known lateral force (H), and an
tion behavior is modeled by considering the lateral resistance overturning moment (M). For a reinforced-concrete shaft
that develops in front of a mobilized passive wedge of soil at having an actual flexural rigidity equal to (EI)c, the effective
each depth. Based on the soil stress–strain and strength prop- Young’s modulus is given by
erties, as determined from laboratory triaxial tests, the hori-
zontal soil strain (ε) in the developing passive wedge in front ( EI )c
Ee =
of the pile is related to the deflection pattern (y) versus depth. πB 4 (117)
The horizontal stress change (ΔσH) in the developing passive 64
wedge is related to the soil–pile reaction (p), and the nonlin-
ear soil modulus is related to the nonlinear modulus of sub- It is assumed that the elastic shaft is embedded in a ho-
grade reaction, which is the slope of the p-y curve. The SW mogeneous, isotropic elastic rock mass, with properties Er
model can be used to develop p-y curves for soil that show and vr. Effects of variations in the Poisson’s ratio of the rock
good agreement with load test results (Ashour and Norris mass (vr), are represented approximately by an equivalent
2000). Theoretically, the SW model overcomes some of the shear modulus of the rock mass (G*), defined as:
limitations of strictly empirically derived p-y curves because
the soil reaction (p) at any given depth depends on the re- ⎛ 3v ⎞
G ∗ = Gr ⎜ 1 + r ⎟ (118)
sponse of the neighboring soil layers (continuity) and prop- ⎝ 4 ⎠
erties of the pile (shape, stiffness, and head conditions).
Ashour et al. (2001) proposed new criteria for p-y curves in in which Gr = shear modulus of the elastic rock mass. For an
weathered rock for use with the SW model. The criteria are isotropic rock mass, the shear modulus is related to Er and vr by
described by the authors as being based on the weak rock
criteria of Reese (1997) as given by Eqs. 98-104, but modi-
fied to account for the nonlinear rock mass modulus and the
strength of the rock mass in terms of Mohr–Coulomb
strength parameters c and φ. Ashour et al. (2001) reported
good agreement between the SW analysis and a field load
test reported by Brown (1994). One state DOT (Washington)
reports using the computer program (S-Shaft) based on the
SW model that incorporates the p-y curve criteria for weath-
ered rock. However, the program has not yet been used for
design of a socketed shaft (J. Cuthbertson, personal com-
munication, Sep. 30, 2005). The SW model and proposed
p-y criteria of Ashour et al. (2001) warrant further consider-
ation and should be evaluated against additional field load
test results (e.g., the tests reported by Gabr et al. 2002 and FIGURE 45 Lateral loading of rock-socketed shaft (Carter and
Liang and Yang 2006). Kulhawy 1992).
 63

Er The accuracy of Eqs. 125 and 126 has been verified for the
Gr = (119)
2 (1 + vr ) following ranges of parameters: 1 ≤ D/B ≤ 10 and Ee/Er ≥ 1.

Based on a parametric study using finite-element analysis, Shafts can be described as having intermediate stiffness
it was found that closed-form expressions could be obtained whenever the slenderness ratio is bounded approximately as
to provide reasonably accurate predictions of horizontal dis- follows:
placement (u) and rotation (θ) at the head of the shaft for two 1 2
⎛E ⎞ 2 D ⎛E ⎞ 7
limiting cases. The two cases correspond to flexible shafts and 0.05 ⎜ e∗ ⎟ < < ⎜ e∗ ⎟ (127)
rigid shafts. The criterion for a flexible shaft is ⎝G ⎠ B ⎝G ⎠

2/7
D ⎛ Ee ⎞ For the intermediate case, Carter and Kulhawy suggested
≥ (120)
B ⎜⎝ G ∗ ⎟⎠ that the displacements be taken as 1.25 times the maximum
of either (1) the predicted displacement of a rigid shaft with
the same slenderness ratio (D/B) as the actual shaft or (2) the
For shafts satisfying Eq. 120, the response depends only
predicted displacement of a flexible shaft with the same mod-
on the modulus ratio (Ee/G*) and Poisson’s ratio of the rock
ulus ratio (Ee/G*) as the actual shaft. Values calculated in this
mass (vr) and is effectively independent of D/B. The follow-
way should, in most cases, be slightly larger than those given
ing closed-form expressions, suggested by Randolph (1981),
by the more rigorous finite-element analysis for a shaft of in-
provide accurate approximations for the deformations of termediate stiffness.
flexible shafts:
−1 −3 Carter and Kulhawy next considered a layer of soil of
⎛ H ⎞⎛E ⎞ 7
⎛ M ⎞⎛E ⎞ 7
thickness Ds overlying rock, as shown in Figure 46. The
u = 0.50 ⎜ ∗ ⎟ ⎜ e∗ ⎟ + 1.08 ⎜ ∗ 2 ⎟ ⎜ e∗ ⎟ (121)
⎝ G B⎠ ⎝ G ⎠ ⎝G B ⎠⎝G ⎠ analysis is approached by structural decomposition of the
−3 −5
shaft and its loading, as shown in Figure 46b. It was assumed
⎛ H ⎞⎛E ⎞ 7
⎛ M ⎞⎛E ⎞ 7
that the magnitude of applied lateral loading is sufficient to
θ = 1.08 ⎜ ∗ 2 ⎟ ⎜ e∗ ⎟ + 6.40 ⎜ ∗ 3 ⎟ ⎜ e∗ ⎟ (122)
⎝G B ⎠⎝G ⎠ ⎝G B ⎠⎝G ⎠ cause yielding within the soil from the ground surface to the
top of the rock mass. The portion of the shaft within the soil
in which u = groundline deflection and θ = groundline rota- is then analyzed as a determinant beam subjected to known
tion of the shaft. loading. The displacement and rotation of point A relative to
point O can be determined by established techniques of struc-
Carter and Kulhawy (1992) reported that the accuracy of tural analysis. The horizontal shear force (Ho) and bending
the above equations is verified for the following ranges of pa- moment (Mo) acting in the shaft at the rock surface level can
rameters: 1 ≤ Ee/Er ≤ 106 and D/B ≥ 1. be computed from statics, and the displacement and rotation
at this level can be computed by the methods described pre-
The criterion for a rigid shaft is viously. The overall groundline displacements can then be
calculated by superposition of the appropriate parts.
1
D ⎛E ⎞ 2
≤ 0.05 ⎜ e∗ ⎟ (123)
Determination of the limiting soil reactions is recom-
B ⎝G ⎠
mended for the two limiting cases of cohesive soil in
and undrained loading (φ = 0) and frictional soil (c = 0) in drained
loading. Ultimate resistance for shafts in cohesive soils is
Ee based on the method of Broms (1964a), in which the undrained
G ∗ ≥ 100
(124)
( )
2
B
2D

When Eqs. 123 and 124 are satisfied, the displacements of

the shaft will be independent of the modulus ratio (Ee/Er) and
will depend only on the slenderness ratio (D/B) and Poisson’s
ratio of the rock mass (vr). The following closed-form expres-
sions give reasonably accurate displacements for rigid shafts:
1 7
2D ⎞ − 2D ⎞ −
u = 0.4 ⎛ ∗ ⎞ ⎛ + 0.3 ⎛ ∗ 2 ⎞ ⎛
H 3 M 8
(125)
⎝ G B⎠ ⎝ B ⎠ ⎝G B ⎠⎝ B ⎠
−7 −5
⎛ H ⎞ ⎛ 2 D⎞ 8 ⎛ M ⎞ ⎛ 2 D⎞ 3
θ = 0.3 ⎜ ∗ 2 ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ + 0.8 ⎜ ∗ 3 ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ (126) FIGURE 46 Rock-socketed shaft with overlying
⎝G B ⎠ ⎝ B ⎠ ⎝G B ⎠ ⎝ B ⎠ layer (Carter and Kulhawy 1992).
64

soil resistance ranges from zero at the ground surface to a soil and/or rock mass behaves linearly elastically at small
depth of 1.5B and has a constant value of 9su below this depth, strain levels and yields when the soil and/or rock mass reac-
where su = soil undrained shear strength. For socketed shafts tion force p (force/length) exceeds the ultimate resistance pult
extending through a cohesionless soil layer, the following lim- (force/length).
iting pressure suggested by Broms (1964b) is assumed:
Analysis of the loaded shaft as an elastic continuum is ac-
pu = 3K p σ 'v (128) complished using the method developed by Sun (1994). The
numerical solution is by a finite-difference scheme and in-
1 + sin φ '
Kp = (129) corporates the linear variation in soil modulus and linear
1 − sin φ ' variation in rock mass modulus above the base of the shaft.
Solutions obtained for purely elastic responses are compared
in which σv' = vertical effective stress and φ' = effective with those of Poulos (1971) and finite-element solutions by
stress friction angle of the soil. For both cases (undrained and Verruijt and Kooijman (1989) and Randolph (1981). Rea-
drained) solutions are given by Carter and Kulhawy (1992) sonable agreement with those published solutions is offered
for the displacement, rotation, shear, and moment at point O as verification of the theory, for elastic response.
of Figure 46. The contribution to groundline displacement
and rotation from the loading transmitted to the rock mass The method is extended to nonlinear response by account-
(Ho and Mo) is determined based on Eqs. 121 and 122 or ing for local yielding of the soil and rock mass. The soil and
Eqs. 125 and 126 and added to the calculated displacement rock mass are modeled as elastic, perfectly plastic materials,
and rotation at the top of the socket to determine overall and the analysis consists of the following steps:
groundline response.
1. For the applied lateral load H and moment M, the shaft
Application of the proposed theory is described by Carter
is analyzed by assuming the soil and rock mass are
and Kulhawy (1992) through back-analysis of a single case in-
elastic, and the lateral reaction force p of the soil and
volving field loading of a pair of rock-socketed shafts. The
rock mass along the shaft is determined by solution of
method has not been evaluated against a sufficient database
the governing differential equation and boundary con-
of field performance, and further research is needed to assess
ditions at the head of the shaft.
its reliability. The analysis was developed primarily for ap-
plication to electrical transmission line foundations in rock, 2. The computed lateral reaction force p is compared
although the concepts are not limited to foundations support- with the ultimate resistance pult. If p > pult, the depth of
ing a specific type of structure. The approach is attractive for yield zy in the soil and/or rock mass is determined.
design purposes, because the closed-form equations can be 3. The portion of the shaft in the unyielded soil and/or
executed by hand or on a spreadsheet. rock mass (zy ≤ z ≤ L) is considered to be a new shaft
and analyzed by ignoring the effect of the soil and/or
Carter and Kulhawy (1992) stated that the assumption of rock mass above the level z = zy. The lateral load and
yield everywhere in the soil layer may represent an oversim- moment at the new shaft head are given by:
plification, but that the resulting predictions of groundline zy
displacements will overestimate the true displacements, giv- Ho = H − ∫ pult dz (130)
0
ing a conservative approximation. However, the assumption
pult ( z y − z ) dz
zy
that the limit soil reaction is always fully mobilized may lead M o = M + Hz y − ∫ (131)
0
to erroneous results by overestimating the load carried by the
soil and thus underestimating the load transmitted to the 4. Steps 2 and 3 are repeated and the iteration is continued
socket. Furthermore, groundline displacements may be un- until no further yielding of soil or rock mass occurs.
derestimated because actual soil resistance may be smaller 5. The final results are obtained by decomposition of
than the limiting values assumed in the analysis. the shaft into two parts, which are analyzed sepa-
rately, as illustrated previously in Figure 46. The sec-
tion of the shaft in the zone of yielded soil and/or
Zhang et al. (2000) rock mass is analyzed as a beam subjected to a dis-
tributed load of magnitude pult. The length of shaft in
Zhang et al. (2000) extended the continuum approach to pre- the unyielded zone of soil and/or rock mass is ana-
dict the nonlinear lateral load-displacement response of rock- lyzed as a shaft with the soil and/or rock mass behaving
socketed shafts. The method considers subsurface profiles elastically.
consisting of a soil layer overlying a rock layer. The defor-
mation modulus of the soil is assumed to vary linearly with Ultimate resistance developed in the overlying soil layer
depth, whereas the deformation modulus of the rock mass is is evaluated for the two conditions of undrained loading
assumed to vary linearly with depth and then to stay constant (φ = 0) and fully drained loading (c = 0). For fine-grained
below the shaft tip. Effects of soil and/or rock mass yielding soils (clay), undrained loading conditions are assumed and
on response of the shaft are considered by assuming that the the limit pressure is given by
 65

Discussion of Analytical Models for Laterally

pult = N p cu B (132) Loaded Sockets
γ' J
Np = 3 + z+ z≤9 (133) Each of the analytical methods described above has advan-
cu 2R
tages and disadvantages for use in the design of rock-socketed
shafts for highway bridge structures. The greatest need for
in which cu = undrained shear strength, B = shaft diameter, γ ' = further development of all available methods is a more thor-
average effective unit weight of soil above depth z, J = a coef- ough database of load test results against which existing
ficient ranging from 0.25 to 0.5, and R = shaft radius. For theory can be evaluated, modified, and calibrated.
shafts in sand, a method attributed to Fleming et al. (1992)
is given as follows: The simple closed-form expressions given by Carter and
Kulhawy (1992) represent a convenient, first-order approxi-
pult = K p2 γ 'zB (134) mation of displacements and rotations of rock-socketed
shafts. Advantages include the following:
where Kp = Rankine coefficient of passive earth pressure de-
fined by Eq. 129. Ultimate resistance of the rock mass is • Predicts lateral displacements under working load
given by conditions,
• Requires a single material parameter (rock mass
pult = ( pL + τ max ) B (135) modulus),
• Provides reasonable agreement with theoretically
where τmax = maximum shearing resistance along the sides of rigorous finite-element analysis, and
the shaft (e.g., Eq. 30 of chapter three) and pL = normal limit • Is the easiest method to apply by practicing design
resistance. The limit normal stress pL is evaluated using the engineers.
Hoek–Brown strength criterion with the strength parameters
determined on the basis of correlations to GSI. The resulting Limitations include:
expression was given previously as Eq. 113.
• Does not predict the complete lateral load-displacement
According to Zhang et al. (2000), a computer program was
curve,
written to execute this procedure. Predictions using the pro-
• Elastic solution does not provide shear and moment dis-
posed method are compared with results of field load tests re-
tribution for structural design,
ported by Frantzen and Stratten (1987) for shafts socketed into
• Does not account for more than one rock mass layer,
sandy shale and sandstone. Computed pile head deflections
• Does not account directly for nonlinear M–EI behavior
show reasonable agreement with the load test results. The
of reinforced-concrete shaft, and
method appears to have potential as a useful tool for founda-
• Does not account for interaction between axial and lateral
tions designers. Availability of the computer program is un-
loading and its effects on structural behavior of the shaft.
known. Programming the method using a finite-difference
scheme as described by Zhang et al. (2000) is also possible.
The method can be best used for preliminary design; for
example, establishing the initial trial depth and diameter of
Discontinuum Models rock-socketed shafts under lateral and moment loading. For
some situations, no further analysis may be necessary. Final
A potential mode of failure for a laterally loaded shaft in rock design should be verified by field load testing.
is by shear failure along joint surfaces. To et al. (2003) pro-
posed a method to evaluate the ultimate lateral-load capacity The method of Zhang et al. (2000) provides a more rigorous
of shafts in rock masses with two or three sets of intersecting continuum-based analysis than that of Carter and Kulhawy.
joints. The analysis consists of two parts. In the first part, the The tradeoff is that more material parameters are required as
block theory of Goodman and Shi (1985) is used to deter- input. Variation of rock mass modulus with depth is required.
mine if possible combinations of removable blocks exist that To fully utilize the nonlinear capabilities, the Hoek–Brown
would represent a kinematically feasible mode of failure. yield criterion parameters are required, and these are based on
In the second part, the stability of potentially removable establishing the RMR and/or GSI. The method is best applied
combinations of blocks or wedges is analyzed by limit equi- when a more refined analysis is required and the agency is will-
librium. Both steps in the analysis require careful evaluation ing to invest in proper determination of the required material
of the joint sets, in terms of their geometry and strength prop- properties. Advantages include:
erties. Although the method is based on some idealized
assumptions, such as equal joint spacing, and it has not been • Predicts the full, nonlinear, lateral load-deformation re-
evaluated against field or laboratory load tests, it provides a sponse;
theoretically based discontinuum analysis of stability in • Accounts for partial yield in either the rock mass or the
cases where this mode of failure requires evaluation. overlying soil (more realistic);
66

• Is based on well-established rock mass and soil properties; Considering that the p-y method is currently being used
• Is verified against rigorous theory, for elastic range; and extensively by most state DOTs, effort should be made to
• Provides shear and moment distribution for structural address its present limitation by research aimed at better es-
design. tablishing methods to specify appropriate p-y curves in rock.
Full-scale field load testing with instrumentation is the only
Limitations include: known method to verify p-y curves. Research conducted for
this purpose would provide an opportunity to evaluate and
• Requires numerical (computer) solution, not currently calibrate other proposed analytical methods; for example,
available commercially; those of Carter and Kulhawy (1992) and Zhang et al. (2000)
• Requires a larger number of rock mass material para- and for development of new models. Recommendations for
meters; research are discussed further in chapter five. The research
• Currently is limited to two layers (one soil and one rock programs sponsored by the North Carolina and Ohio DOTs
mass layer, or two rock mass layers); and illustrate the type of approach that is useful for advancing all
• Nonlinear M–EI behavior of reinforced-concrete shaft of the available methods of analysis. In addition to providing
is not accounted for explicitly; requires iterative analy- improved criteria for p-y curve modeling, the load test results
ses with modified values of EI. reported by Gabr et al. (2002) and Liang and Yang (2006)
can be used to evaluate each other’s models and the SW and
The most rigorous analytical methods based on a continuum continuum models described in this chapter.
approach are FEM. When implemented by competent users,
FEM analysis can account for the shaft, soil, and rock mass In summary, a range of analytical tools are available to
behaviors more rigorously than the approximate methods de- foundation designers to consider rock sockets under lateral
scribed herein, but FEM analyses are not suitable for routine and moment loading. These include simple, closed-form
design of foundations in most cases. First, the results are only equations requiring a small number of material properties
as reliable as the input parameters. In most cases the material (Carter and Kulhawy 1992). A more rigorous model that
properties of the rock mass are not known with sufficient reli- predicts the complete nonlinear response but requires more
ability to warrant the more sophisticated analysis. Second, the material properties is also available (Zhang et al. 2000).
design engineer should have the appropriate level of knowledge Highly sophisticated numerical models requiring extensive
of the mathematical techniques incorporated into the FEM material properties and appropriate expertise (FEM analysis)
analyses. Finally, the time, effort, and expense required for exist and may be appropriate for larger projects. The p-y
conducting FEM analyses are often not warranted. For very method of analysis is attractive to designers, as evidenced by
large or critical bridge structures, sophisticated FEMs may be its wide use; however, considerable judgment is required in
warranted and the agency might benefit from the investment selection of p-y curve parameters. All of the currently avail-
required in computer codes, personnel training, and field and able methods suffer from a lack of field data for verification
laboratory testing needed to take advantage of such techniques. and are best applied in conjunction with local and agency ex-
perience, thorough knowledge of the geologic environment,
Subgrade reaction methods, as implemented through the and field load testing.
p-y curve method of analysis, offer some practical advantages
for design. These include:
STRUCTURAL ISSUES
• Predicts the full, nonlinear lateral load-deformation
response; Twenty of the questionnaire responses indicated that struc-
• Can incorporate multiple layers of soil and/or rock; tural design of drilled shaft foundations is carried out by en-
• Accounts for nonlinear M–EI behavior of reinforced- gineers in the Bridge Design or Structures Division of their
concrete shaft; state DOTs. Three states indicated that structural design is a
• Provides structural analysis (shear, moment, rotation, joint effort between the Geotechnical and Structural/Bridge
and displacement) of the drilled shaft; Divisions. One DOT indicated that structural design is done
• Accounts for the effects of axial compression load on by the Geotechnical Branch. All of the states responding to
the structural behavior of the shaft; and the structural design portion of the questionnaire stated that
• Can be implemented easily on a desktop computer with the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications are fol-
available software. lowed for structural design of drilled shafts. Three states also
cited the ACI Building Code Requirements for Structural
The principal limitations are: Concrete.

• Lack of a strong theoretical basis for p-y curves and Barker et al. (1991) discussed the structural design of
• Requires back analysis of instrumented load tests to reinforced-concrete shafts and have several design examples
verify and validate p-y curves; such verification is cur- illustrating the basic concepts. O’Neill and Reese (1999) also
rently lacking or limited to a few cases. covered the general aspects of reinforced-concrete design for
 67

drilled shafts, for axial compression loading and flexure, P P

citing as primary references the 1994 AASHTO LRFD Bridge
Design Specifications (1st edition) and the 1995 ACI Building M M
Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-94). V V
Both the AASHTO and ACI codes have since been revised
(AASHTO in 2004 and ACI in 2002); however, there are no Top of
Column y y
major differences that would change the structural design of
drilled shafts. According to the survey, all of the states are
designing in accordance with the AASHTO LRFD Bridge
Design Specifications. At the time of this writing, Section 10
(Foundations) of the draft 2006 Interim AASHTO LRFD Equivalent
Bridge Design Specifications was available for reference. Fixed-end
Deep
However, the other sections of the 2006 Interim specifica- Column
Foundation
tions were not available and so comments pertaining to Sec-
tion 5 are referenced to the 2004 edition. Only issues of struc- depth of fixity
tural design pertaining specifically to rock-socketed drilled
shafts are addressed here.
FIGURE 47 Depth of fixity for equivalent fixed-end column.

General Issues

Section 10.8.3.9 (“Shaft Structural Resistance”) of the 2006 depth of fixity based on the depth of the foundation and a
Interim AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications states relative stiffness factor that depends on the flexural rigidity
that of the pile and the subgrade modulus of the soil or rock. In-
terviews with state DOT engineers indicated that different
The structural design of drilled shafts shall be in accordance with criteria for establishing depth of fixity are being applied. One
the provisions of Section 5 for the design of reinforced concrete.
state DOT defines fixity as the depth at which LPILE analy-
sis shows the maximum moment, whereas another defines
This language makes it clear that drilled shaft structural
fixity as the depth at which LPILE shows zero lateral deflec-
design is subject to the same provisions as other reinforced-
tion. In Section 12 of Bridge Design Aids (1990), the Massa-
concrete members. The designer must then determine
chusetts Highway Department) describes a rigorous ap-
whether the shaft is a compression member or a member sub-
proach involving use of the program LPILE (or other p-y
jected to compression and flexure (beam column). Article
analysis) to establish a depth of fixity as defined in Figure 47.
10.8.3.9.3 states the following:
For the given soil/rock profile, approximate service loads
are applied to the “Top of Column” (Figure 47). Shear and
Where the potential for lateral loading is insignificant, drilled
shafts may be reinforced for axial loads only. Those portions of moment are applied as separate load cases and the resulting
drilled shafts that are not supported laterally shall be designed as lateral deflections and rotations at the top of the column are
reinforced-concrete columns in accordance with Article 5.7.4. designated as follows:
Reinforcing steel shall extend a minimum of 10 ft below the
plane where the soil provides fixity.
δV = deflection due to shear (V)
δM = deflection due to moment (M)
The commentary accompanying Article 10.8.3.9.3 states fur-
θV = rotation due to shear (V)
ther that:
θM = rotation due to moment (M).
A shaft may be considered laterally supported: below the zone
of liquefaction or seismic loads, in rock, or 5.0 ft below the Equivalent column lengths are then calculated using the
ground surface or the lowest anticipated scour elevation. . . . . following analytical expressions for each loading case. The
Laterally supported does not mean fixed. Fixity would occur four resulting values of L should be approximately equal and
somewhere below this location and depends on the stiffness of
the supporting soil.
the average value can be taken as a reasonable approxima-
tion of the equivalent fixed-end column length. Depth of fix-
The language in this provision could be improved by pro- ity corresponds to the portion of the fixed-end column below
viding a definition of “fixity.” Fixity is defined by Davisson groundline.
(1970) for piles under lateral loading as the depth below
⎡ 3δV ( EI ) ⎤
1
3
groundline corresponding to the fixed base of an equivalent LδV =⎢ (136)
⎥
free-standing column; that is, a column for which the top ⎣ V ⎦
deflection and rotation would be the same as that of a column
⎡ 2δ M ( EI ) ⎤
1
2
supported by the embedded deep foundation (Figure 47). LδM = ⎢ (137)
Approximate equations are given by Davisson for establishing ⎥
⎣ M ⎦
68

Moment Transfer
⎡ 2θV ( EI ) ⎤
1
2
LθV =⎢ ⎥ (138)
Rock sockets subjected to high lateral and/or moment loading
⎣ V ⎦
require a minimum depth of embedment to transfer moment
θ M ( EI ) to the rock mass and to satisfy minimum development length
LθM = (139)
requirements for reinforcing steel. The mechanism of moment
M
transfer from a column to the rock is through the lateral
The principal use of depth of fixity is to establish the resistance developed between the concrete shaft and the rock.
elevation of equivalent fixed-end columns supporting the The resistance depends on many of the factors identified
superstructure, thus enabling structural designers to uncou- previously, primarily strength and stiffness of the rock mass
ple the foundations from the superstructure for the purpose of and flexural rigidity of the shaft. When the strength and mod-
structural analysis and design of the bridge or other structure. ulus of the rock mass are greater than that of the concrete
Structural modeling of the superstructure with equivalent shaft, the question may arise, why excavate such high qual-
fixed-end columns is also used to establish the column loads. ity rock and replace it with lower strength concrete? The only
These column loads are then used to analyze the drilled shaft means to transfer moment into the rock mass is through a
foundations by applying them to the top of the actual col- properly designed shaft with the dimensions, strength, and
umn, which is continuous with the foundation (left side of stiffness to transmit the design moment by the assumed
Figure 47) using p-y analysis. As described at the beginning mechanisms of lateral resistance. In some situations where
of this chapter, these analyses may be done by either the GD high strength rock mass is close to the ground surface, shaft
or Bridge offices, but the soil and rock parameters are pro- size may be governed by structural considerations rather than
vided by GD. The p-y analysis gives the maximum moment by geotechnical capacity.
and shear that are used in the reinforced-concrete design. Use
of software such as LPILE, COM624, or other programs For some relatively short, stubby shafts in hard rock,
is thus seen to be an integral tool in both the geotechnical socket length could be governed by the required develop-
and structural design of drilled shafts for bridges or other ment length of longitudinal reinforcing bars. Article 5.11 of
transportation structures. As noted previously, AASHTO the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (2004)
specifications define the strength limit state for lateral load- specifies basic tension development lengths for various bar
ing only in terms of foundation structural resistance. Lateral sizes as a function of steel and concrete strengths. Because
deflections as predicted by p-y analyses are used as a design the bars will be stressed to their maximum values at the
tool to satisfy service limit state criteria. points where maximum moments occur, the distance between
the point of maximum moment and the bottom of the socket
The concept of fixity also has implications for reinforcing must be at least equal to the required development length.
steel requirements of drilled shafts. According to Article As an example, for No. 18 bars, assuming fy = 414 MPa
10.8.3.9.3, as cited earlier, if a drilled shaft designed for axial (60 ksi) and fc' = 27.6 MPa (4 ksi), basic development length
compression extends through soil for a distance of at least is 267 cm (105 in. or 8.75 ft). Although this is not often the
3 m (10 ft) beyond fixity before entering into rock, the rock- governing factor for socket length, it should be checked.
socketed portion of the shaft does not require reinforcement.
This provision would also limit the need for compression
steel in rock sockets to a maximum depth of 3 m below fix- Shear
ity. Exceptions to this are shafts in Seismic Zones 3 and 4,
for which Article 5.13.4.6.3d states that “for cast-in-place Some designers commented on cases where p-y analysis of
piles, longitudinal steel shall be provided for the full length laterally loaded rock-socketed shafts resulted in unexpectedly
of the pile.” high values of shear and whether the results were realistic.
In particular, when a rock socket in relatively strong rock is
Some state DOTs use permanent steel casing in the top por- subjected to a lateral load and moment at its head, values of
tion of drilled shafts or, in many cases, down to the top of rock. shear near the top of the socket may be much higher than the
Permanent casing is not mentioned in the 2006 Interim speci- applied lateral load. This result would be expected given the
fications, but the 2004 specifications included the following mechanism of moment load transfer. When the lateral load
statement: “Where permanent steel casing is used and the shell has a high moment arm, such as occurs in an elevated struc-
is smooth pipe greater than 0.12 in. thick, it may be considered ture, the lateral load transmitted to the top of the drilled shaft
to be load-carrying. Allowance should be made for corrosion.” may be small or modest, but the moment may be relatively
large. The principal mechanism of moment transfer from the
A few states indicated that questions arise in connection shaft to the rock mass is through the mobilized lateral resis-
with relatively short sockets in very hard rock. The questions tance. If a large moment is transferred over a relatively short
pertain to moment transfer, development length of steel re- depth, the lateral resistance is also concentrated over a rela-
inforcing, and apparently high shear loads resulting from tively short length of the shaft and results in shear loading
high moment loading. that may be higher in magnitude than that of the lateral load.
 69

There is some question, however, whether high values of where Avs = area of shear reinforcement, s = longitudinal (ver-
shear predicted by p-y methods of analysis for such cases tical) spacing of the ties or pitch of the spiral, and d = effective
exist in reality or are artifacts of the analysis. One designer sug- shear depth. For a circular cross section this can be taken as
gested that the structural model of the shaft does not account
properly for shear deformation, resulting in unrealistically high ⎡B B ⎤
d ≈ 0.9 ⎢ + ls ⎥
shear values. The topic requires further investigation. ⎣2 π ⎦ (146)
In some cases, the magnitude of shear must be addressed The need for additional transverse reinforcement, beyond
in the reinforced-concrete design, primarily in the use of that required for compression, can be determined by Eq. 141.
transverse reinforcement. According to AASHTO LRFD For the majority of rock-socketed shafts, the transverse rein-
Bridge Design Specifications (2004), the minimum amount forcement required to satisfy compression criteria (Eq. 140)
of spiral reinforcement to satisfy the requirements for com- combined with the shear resistance provided by the concrete
pression is governed by (Eq. 142) will be adequate to resist the factored shear load-
ing without the need for additional transverse reinforcement.
⎛ Ag ⎞ f ' However, in cases where high lateral load or moment are to
ρs = 0.45 ⎜ − 1⎟ c (140)
⎝ Ac ⎠ f y be distributed to the ground over a relatively small distance;
for example, a short stubby socket in high-strength rock,
in which ρs = ratio of spiral reinforcement to total volume of factored shear forces may be high and the shaft dimensions
concrete core, measured out-to-out of spirals; Ag = gross and reinforcement may be governed by shear. In these cases,
(nominal) cross-sectional area of concrete; and Ac = cross- the designer is challenged to provide a design that provides
sectional area of concrete inside the spiral steel. When shear adequate shear resistance without increasing the costs exces-
occurs in addition to axial compression, the section is then sively or adversely affecting constructability by constricting
checked by comparing the factored shear loading with the the flow of concrete.
factored shear resistance, given by
To handle high shear loading in the reinforced-concrete
Vr = φVn = φ (Vc + Vs ) (141) shaft, the designer has several options: (1) increase the shaft
diameter, thus increasing the area of shear-resisting concrete;
in which Vr = factored shear resistance, Vn = nominal shear (2) increase the shear strength of the concrete; or (3) increase
resistance, Vc = nominal shear resistance provided by the the amount of transverse reinforcing, either spiral or ties, to
concrete, Vs = nominal shear resistance provided by the trans- carry the additional shear. Each option has advantages and
verse steel, and φ = resistance factor = 0.90 for shear. The disadvantages.
nominal shear strength provided by the concrete is given (in
U.S. customary units) by: Two variables that can be adjusted to increase shear re-
sistance are concrete 28-day compressive strength, f c' , and
⎛ Pu ⎞ shaft diameter, B. Increasing the concrete strength can be a
Vc = 2 ⎜ 1 + f c' Av (142)
⎝ 2, 000 Ag ⎟⎠
cost-effective means of increasing shear strength. For exam-
ple, increasing fc' from 27.6 MPa to 34.5 MPa (4000 psi to
or, when axial load is zero, 5000 psi) yields a 12% increase in shearing resistance. In-
creasing the diameter of a rock socket can add considerably
Vc = 2 f c' Av (143) to the cost, depending on rock type, drillability, socket depth,
etc. Rock of higher strength, which is likely to coincide with
the case when shear is critical, can be some of the most ex-
where Pu = factored axial load and Av = area of concrete in the
pensive rock to drill. However, increasing the diameter can
cross section that is effective in resisting shear. For a circular
provide other benefits that may offset additional costs, such
section this can be taken as
as reducing the congestion of reinforcement steel (improved
constructability), increasing axial and bending capacity, and
⎡B B ⎤
Av = 0.9 B ⎢ + ls ⎥ (144) further limiting displacements.
⎣2 π ⎦
Shear strength of the shaft can also be increased by
in which B = shaft diameter and Bls = diameter of a circle providing additional transverse reinforcement in the form of
passing through the center of the longitudinal reinforcement. either spiral or ties. From Eq. 145, this can be achieved by in-
creasing the size of transverse reinforcement or by decreas-
The nominal shear strength provided by transverse rein- ing the pitch(s). Constructability can be affected when bar
forcement is given by spacings are too small to allow adequate flow of concrete.

Avs f y d One aspect of reinforced-concrete behavior in shear that

Vs = (145)
s is not taken into account in any building code is confining
70

stress. Shear capacity of concrete is increased at higher field. However, the ability of analytical methods to account
confining stress and deep foundations are subjected to sig- properly for rock mass response and rock–structure interac-
nificant confinement, especially when they are embedded tion has not developed to the same level as methods used for
in rock. This is a topic that warrants research but has yet to deep foundations in soil.
be investigated in a meaningful way that can be applied to
foundation design. The survey shows that most state DOTs use the program
COM624 or its commercial version LPILE for design of
rock-socketed shafts. Review of the p-y curve criteria cur-
Axial rently built into these programs for modeling rock mass re-
sponse shows that they should be considered as “interim” and
When lateral loading is not significant, structural design of
that research is needed to develop improved criteria. Some of
concrete shafts must account for axial compression or ten-
this work is underway and research by North Carolina (Gabr
sion (e.g., uplift) capacity. For shafts designed for signifi-
et al. 2002), Ohio (Liang and Yang 2006), Florida (McVay
cant load transfer at the base, compression capacity of the
and Niraula 2004), and Ashour et al. (2001) is described. All
reinforced-concrete shaft could be less than that of the rock
of these criteria are in various stages of development and are
bearing capacity. In high-strength intact rock, compressive
not being applied extensively.
strength of the shaft may be the limiting factor. For design of
reinforced-concrete columns for axial compression, the
Models based on elastic continuum theory and developed
AASHTO-factored axial resistance is given by
specifically for rock-socketed shafts have been published.
Pr = φ0.85 [ 0.85 f c' ( Ag − Ast ) + f y Ast ]
Two methods reviewed in this chapter are the models of
(147)
Carter and Kulhawy (1992) and Zhang et al. (2000). Advan-
tages and disadvantages of each are discussed and compared
in which Pr = factored axial resistance, with or without flex-
with p-y methods of analysis. These models are most useful
ure; φ = resistance factor (0.75 for columns with spiral trans-
as first-order approximations of shaft lateral displacements
verse reinforcement, 0.70 for tied transverse reinforcement);
for cases where the subsurface profile can be approximated
fc' = strength of concrete at 28 days; Ag = gross area of the
as consisting of one or two homogeneous layers. For exam-
section; Ast = total area of longitudinal reinforcement; and
ple, when a preliminary analysis is needed to develop trial
fy = specified yield strength of reinforcement. One source of
designs that will satisfy service limit state deflection criteria,
uncertainty is that the design equations given here are for
the method of Carter and Kulhawy can provide convenient
unconfined reinforced-concrete columns. The effect of con-
solutions that can be executed by means of spreadsheet
finement provided by rock on the concrete strength is not
analysis. A disadvantage of these methods is that they do not
easy to quantify, but increases the strength compared with
directly provide solutions to maximum shear and moment,
zero confinement, and warrants further investigation.
parameters needed for structural design, and they do not in-
corporate directly the nonlinear properties of the reinforced-
SUMMARY concrete shaft.

Lateral loading is a major design consideration for trans- Structural issues associated with rock-socketed shafts are
portation structures and in many cases governs the design of reviewed. The concept of depth of fixity is shown to be a use-
rock-socketed drilled shafts. Design for lateral loading must ful analytical tool providing a link between geotechnical and
satisfy performance criteria with respect to (1) structural re- structural analysis of drilled shafts. A method for establish-
sistance of the reinforced-concrete shaft for the strength limit ing depth of fixity is presented and its use in the design
state and (2) deflection criteria for the service limit state. process is described. Other issues identified by the survey,
Analytical methods that provide structural analysis of deep including high shear in short sockets subjected to high
foundations while accounting for soil–structure interaction moment loading and its implications for reinforced-concrete
have, therefore, found wide application in the transportation design, are addressed.
 71

CHAPTER FIVE

CONSTRUCTION AND FIELD TESTING

SCOPE truck-mounted or attached to a crane (Figure 48). Hydraulic

drilling rigs are equipped with hydraulic motors that can be
Construction, inspection, post-construction integrity testing, moved up and down the mast and are usually truck or crawler
and load testing of drilled shafts are related directly to de- mounted. Smaller hydraulic units can be mounted on an exca-
sign and performance. These activities are carried out in the vator. Hydraulic drilling rigs with significantly increased
field and depend on the skill and experience of contractors, power have appeared in the North American market in recent
technicians, inspection personnel, and engineers. In this years. Drilling in rock, especially hard rock, generally requires
chapter an overview is presented of construction methods for machines with more power than for drilling in soil. Equipment
rock sockets. Methods for load testing of rock-socketed with higher torque ratings and additional power has given
shafts are reviewed, including several innovative methods more contractors the capability to install rock-socketed shafts
that have made load testing more accessible to state trans- than existed previously. This is a positive development for the
portation agencies. Illustrative examples demonstrate how U.S. market in that it promotes competition and expands the
load testing can contribute to the economical design of rock base of experienced contractors for rock-socket construction.
sockets. Constructability issues identified by the survey ques-
tionnaire are discussed, and practices that can lead to quality Equipment developed in Europe and now being used by
construction are identified. Current practice for inspection some North American contractors uses hydraulic rams con-
and quality assurance methods for rock-socketed shafts are figured to rotate or oscillate (rotate back and forth) a steel
also reviewed and discussed. Finally, special geologic condi- casing into the ground (Figure 49). Soil or rock is excavated
tions that pose unique challenges for design and construction from inside the casing using a hammergrab, a percussion tool
of rock sockets are described, and approaches for using rock that breaks and removes soil or rock. In most cases the rota-
sockets successfully in such environments are identified. tor or oscillator is bolted to a crane for stability under the
large torque that must be developed. The crane can also pro-
vide hydraulic power to operate the rams that turn the casing.
CONSTRUCTION OF ROCK SOCKETS
Rotators have the capability to cut through high-strength
The art and science of drilled shaft construction are as im- rock in the range of 100–150 MPa (15–22 ksi) depending on
portant to the success of a bridge foundation project as are the degree of fracturing (J. Roe, Malcolm Drilling, personal
the analytical methods used to design the shafts. Construc- communication, Oct. 3, 2005). A 3-m-diameter oscillator such
tion of shafts in rock can be some of the most challenging and as the one shown in Figure 49 is generally limited to cutting
may require special expertise and equipment. Experience through weaker rock with strength less than 100 MPa. The
demonstrates that the key components of success are: (1) ad- lead casing on the oscillator must have teeth set in opposite
equate knowledge of the subsurface conditions, for both directions to cut back and forth. Both methods are efficient
design and construction; (2) a competent contractor with the in penetrating large cobbles and boulders, a situation com-
proper equipment to do the job; and (3) a design that takes mon to glacial till deposits and cemented sands and gravels.
into account the constructability of rock sockets for the par-
ticular job conditions. Publications that cover drilled shaft
construction methods include Greer and Gardner (1986) and Rock Cutting Tools
O’Neill and Reese (1999). Aspects of construction that are
related to rock sockets are reviewed herein. Selecting the proper cutting tool depends on many variables,
including rock mass properties (strength, hardness, and struc-
ture), type of drilling machine, socket depth and diameter, con-
Drilling Methods and Equipment dition and cost of the tools, operator skill, previous experience
in similar conditions, and judgment. There are no absolute
Most rock-socketed shafts are excavated using rotary drilling rules and different contractors may take a completely different
equipment. A rotary drill may be mechanically driven or use approach when faced with similar conditions. New tools and
hydraulic motors. Mechanically driven rigs deliver power to a innovations are constantly being introduced. Following is a
stationary rotary table that rotates a kelly bar to which exca- summary of some of the most common cutting tools used for
vation tools are attached. Mechanically driven rigs can be rock-socket construction.
72

FIGURE 50 Rock auger with drag bit and bullet-shaped cutting

teeth.

of cutting and crushing. Rock augers may be stepped or

tapered so that the initial penetration into rock requires less
torque and crowd, or the socket may be drilled first by
FIGURE 48 Intact rock core removed using crane-mounted a smaller diameter tool such as the one shown in Figure 51,
rotary drill and core barrel. followed by a larger diameter auger. This releases some of
the confinement and causes less wear and tear on the drilling
tools. Replacement or reconditioning of rock auger teeth can
When relatively stiff soil or weak rock cannot be pene- be a major contractor cost, especially in highly abrasive rock.
trated efficiently with typical soil drilling tools (e.g., open
helix augers), most contractors will attempt to use a rock Self-rotating cutter bits combine a highly efficient cutting
auger. Rock augers are manufactured from thicker metal mechanism with the durability of some conical bits. A rock
plate than soil augers and have cutting teeth. The teeth may auger with self-rotating cutters, for excavating the face of the
be of the drag bit type, which are effective in cutting rock but socket, and conical bits directed outward is shown in Figure
wear rapidly and must be replaced frequently. As a rule of 52. A contractor using this auger reported penetration rates
thumb, these types of teeth are limited to cutting rock of com- two to three times higher than with conventional rock augers
pressive strength up to approximately 48 MPa (7,000 psi), at and in very hard (100 MPa or 15,000 psi) rock.
which point they dull quickly. Conical-shaped teeth made of
tungsten carbide or other alloys depend on crushing the rock At some combination of rock strength and socket diame-
and are more durable than drag bits, but require considerable ter rock augers are no longer cost-effective. One contractor
downward force (crowd) to be effective. Figure 50 shows a
rock auger with both types of teeth, to exploit both mechanisms

FIGURE 49 Casing oscillator and hammergrab tool. FIGURE 51 Small diameter rock auger for creating a pilot hole.
 73

FIGURE 54 Welding roller bits on a 4-m-diameter double-

FIGURE 52 Rock auger with conical teeth and rotating cutters walled core barrel.
(Courtesy : V. Jue, Champion Equipment, Inc.).

chisel, a metal tool that is wedged between the barrel and the
interviewed for this study stated that, for socket diameters up rock to fracture the core. The core will usually jam into the
to approximately 1.8 m and rock strength up to 70 MPa barrel and can be lifted out of the hole and then removed by
(10,000 psi), initial cost estimates are based on the assump- hammering the suspended barrel (see Figure 48). If the rock is
tion that rock augers will be used. If the combination of highly fractured, the core barrel may be removed, followed by
socket diameter and rock strength exceeds those values, the excavation of the fractured rock from the hole. For deep sockets
job is bid on the assumption that rock will be cored. Of or for harder rock, double wall core barrels may be used. The
course, these rule-of-thumb criteria are subject to change on outer barrel is set with teeth, typically roller bits (Figure 54),
the basis of rock mass characteristics, experience, etc., and while the core is forced into the inner barrel. Compressed air
will vary between contractors. Use of a single parameter, is circulated between the barrels to remove cuttings.
such as uniaxial compressive strength of rock, does not cap-
ture all of the variables that determine penetration rates for a For very high strength rock (qu ≥ 100 MPa) there are few
given set of conditions. tools that will excavate efficiently. In these rocks, however,
even a small penetration can provide high axial, and in some
Coring is a widely used method when rock augers are no cases lateral, resistance. A shot barrel, in which hard steel
longer feasible. The basic concept is that coring reduces the shot is fed into the annular space between the double walls
volume of rock that is actually cut by the teeth. A simple con- of the core barrel, may work in such conditions. Grinding ac-
figuration consists of a single cylindrical barrel with cutting tion of the shot excavates the rock and water is circulated for
teeth at the bottom edge (Figure 53). The teeth cut a clearance cooling the shot.
on the inside and outside of the barrel that is sufficient for re-
moving cuttings and extraction of the core barrel. The core Excavation rates with core barrels are typically slow. Al-
may break off at a discontinuity or it may require use of a rock though coring may be cost-effective because of the founda-
tion performance benefits achieved, careful attention should
be given to avoiding overly conservative designs that signif-
icantly increase the cost of drilled shafts made by unneces-
sary coring into rock.

Hard rock can also be excavated using downhole hammer

bits. The tool shown in Figure 55 has an array of button-bit
hammers (called a cluster drill) operated independently by
compressed air. Air pressure also lifts the cuttings which are
collected in a calyx basket. On the tool shown in Figure 55,
some of the bits can be rotated outward to create a larger
diameter socket (under reaming) than the casing, and then
retracted to remove the bit. This allows a casing to be installed
directly behind the bit during drilling. Downhole hammers and
cluster drills are generally expensive and require large air com-
pressors to operate. Most contractors will rent this equipment
FIGURE 53 Typical single wall core barrel. when needed, which is only cost-effective in very hard rock.
74

hydraulically through lines extending from the top unit

(sometimes called a rodless drill), which is fixed to the top of
the casing. Alternatively, a drill rod may be used to transmit
torque from the top unit to the bit. The bit has a central hol-
low orifice connected to a flexible line extending back up to
the top unit. During drilling, a vacuum pump or air lift is used
to draw the drilling fluid with the cuttings upward to a clean-
ing plant, from where it is circulated back into the hole. The
unit shown in Figure 56 was used to drill 3.35-m-diameter
rock sockets in Franciscan Formation sandstone and ser-
pentinite. Some manufacturers are now producing reverse
circulation units that can be installed on a conventional rotary
hydraulic drilling rig to provide similar capability, at a
smaller diameter. It is likely that these units will become
more common in North America for rock-socket drilling
FIGURE 55 Downhole hammer tool for drilling in hard rock. (D. Poland, Anderson Drilling, personal communication,
Aug. 2, 2005). Reverse circulation drilling can also be car-
A technique used for drilling large rock sockets at the ried out with any type of rotary drill rig equipped with a hol-
Richmond–San Rafael Bridge (Byles 2004) is reverse circu- low Kelly bar (drill stem) that allows circulation of the
lation drilling with a “pile top” rig. The unit consists of two drilling fluid from the cutting surface up through the bar.
main components. A top unit (Figure 56) is fixed to the top
of a steel casing. The “bottom hole assembly” (Figure 57) is
a drill bit lowered to the bottom of the hole through a casing, FIELD LOAD TESTING
submerged in water or other drilling fluid. The bit is operated
The most direct method to determine the performance of full-
scale rock-socketed drilled shafts is through field load test-
ing. Clearly there have been advances in engineers’ ability to
predict rock-socket behavior. However, there will always be
sources of uncertainty in the applicability of analysis meth-
ods, in the rock mass properties used in the analysis, and with
respect to the unknown effects of construction. Load testing
provides direct measurement of load displacement response
for the particular conditions of the test foundation, and can
also provide data against which analytical models can be
evaluated and calibrated.

Objectives

Field load testing may be conducted with different objectives

and this should determine the scope of testing, type of tests,
and instrumentation. A partial listing of valid reasons for
transportation agencies to undertake load testing of rock-
socketed shafts includes:

• Confirm design assumptions,

• Evaluate rock resistance properties,
• Evaluate construction methods,
• Reduce foundation costs, and
• Research aimed at evaluating or improving design
methods.

More than one of these objectives can sometimes be

achieved. For example, load tests conducted primarily for
FIGURE 56 Toredo T40-4 pile top unit being placed over
confirmation of design assumptions (proof test) for a partic-
casing for reverse circulation drilling, Richmond–San Rafael ular project can be useful to researchers by contributing ad-
Bridge (California) (Byles 2004). ditional data for evaluating empirical correlations proposed
 75

FIGURE 57 Shrouded bottom hole assembly lifted for placement through

the top unit (Byles 2004).

for design. Load tests carried to ultimate capacity of the shaft as the basis for design of productions shafts. Items such as
are especially valuable not only to the agency conducting the construction method (casing, slurry, dry), type of drilling
test or for the specific bridge project, but to the entire deep fluid, cleanout techniques, and others may have influenced
foundation engineering community. the behavior of the test shaft. If possible, the construction
methods anticipated for production shafts should be used to
The costs of conducting field load tests should be offset construct test shafts.
by its benefits. The most obvious costs include the dollar
amount of contracts for conducting testing. Other costs that
are not always as obvious include construction delays, delays Axial Load Testing
in design schedule, and DOT person hours involved in the
testing. Direct cost benefits may be possible if the testing Conventional Axial Load Testing
leads to more economical designs. This requires testing prior
to or during the design phase. Numerous case histories in the Until the early 1990s the most common procedure for con-
literature show that load testing almost always leads to ducting a static axial compression load test on a deep founda-
savings. Lower factors of safety and higher resistance factors tion followed the ASTM Standard Method D1143, referred to
are allowed by AASHTO for deep foundation design when herein as a conventional axial load test. Several load applica-
a load test has been conducted. tion methods are possible, but the most common involves
using either (1) a hydraulic jack acting against a reaction
Other benefits may not be so obvious or may occur over beam that is anchored against uplift by piles or (2) a loading
time. Construction of the test shaft provides the DOT and platform over the pile top on which dead load is placed. Six
all subsequent bidders with valuable information on con- states indicated that they have conducted conventional axial
structability that can result in more competitive bids. Refine- load tests on rock-socketed shafts. Conduct and interpretation
ment in design methods resulting from information gained by of axial compression and uplift load tests specifically for drilled
load testing has economic benefits on future projects. shafts is discussed in detail by Hirany and Kulhawy (1988).

Load test results provide the most benefit when they are Axial load tests may be conducted for the purpose of con-
accompanied by high-quality subsurface characterization. firming the design load for a specific project, in which case
Knowledge of site stratigraphy, soil and rock mass properties, it is typical to load the shaft to twice the anticipated design
site variability, and groundwater conditions are essential for load to prove the shaft can support the load with an accept-
correct interpretation of load test results. The ability to apply able settlement (a proof load test). This type of test is nor-
load test results to other locations is enhanced when subsur- mally conducted under the construction contract and does not
face conditions can be compared on the basis of reliable data. yield a measured ultimate capacity, unless the shaft fails, in
which case the design must be adjusted. Proof tested shafts
Construction factors and their potential effects on shaft normally are not instrumented except to measure load and
behavior should be considered when using load test results displacement at the head of the shaft. When the objective of
76

testing is to gain information on behavior of the shaft in terms The following case illustrates effective use of conven-
of load transfer, the shaft should be instrumented to deter- tional axial load test on rock sockets. Zhan and Yin (2000)
mine the distribution of axial load as a function of depth and describe axial load tests on two shafts for the purpose of con-
as a function of axial deformation. firming design allowable side and base resistance values in
moderately weathered volcanic rock for a Hong Kong tran-
Common types of instrumentation for measuring axial sit project. The proposed design end bearing stress (7.5 MPa)
load and deformation at specific points along the length of exceeded the value allowed by the Hong Kong Building
the shaft include sister bars and telltales. A sister bar is a sec- Code (5 MPa). One of the objectives of load testing was,
tion of reinforcing steel, typically 1.2 m in length, with a therefore, to demonstrate that a higher base resistance could
strain gage attached in the center. Either vibrating wire or be used. The project involved 1,000 drilled shafts; therefore,
electrical resistance-type gages can be used. The sister bar is proving the higher proposed values offered considerable
tied to steel of the reinforcing cage and its lead wires are potential cost savings.
routed to the surface, where they are monitored by a com-
puter-controlled data acquisition unit. The gage signals are Figure 58 shows the load test arrangement, consisting of
converted to strain, which is assumed to be equal to the a loading platform for placement of dead load. Figure 59
strain in the concrete and can be used to estimate load using shows details of one of the instrumented shafts. Strain gages
the appropriate elastic modulus and section properties of the were provided at 17 different levels, including 4 levels of
shaft. A telltale is a metal rod installed within a hollow tube gages in the rock socket. Two telltales were installed, one at
embedded in the shaft. The bottom end of the rod is fixed at the base of the socket and one at the top of the socket. Shafts
a predetermined depth in the shaft and is the only point on the were excavated through overburden soils using temporary
rod in physical contact with the shaft. By measuring vertical casing to the top of rock. When weathered rock was encoun-
deformation of the upper end of the telltale during loading, tered, a 1.35-m-diameter reverse circulation drill (RCD) was
deformation of the shaft is determined for the depth at which used to advance to the bearing rock, followed by a 1.05-m-
the telltale is fixed. By measuring the relative displacement diameter RCD to form the rock socket. For the shaft shown
between two successive rods and distance between their in Figure 59, the socket was 2 m in length. A permanent,
bottom ends, the average strain in the shaft between the two bitumen-coated casing (to reduce side resistance in the over-
telltales can be determined. Further information on these and burden materials) was placed to the top of the socket. The
other types of instrumentation is given by Hirany and bottom was cleaned by airlift and concrete placed by tremie
Kulhawy (1988) and O’Neill and Reese (1999). (wet pour).

FIGURE 58 Axial load testing setup (Zhan and Yin 2000).

 77

FIGURE 60 Unit side and base resistance versus axial load

(Zhan and Yin 2000).

Testing Systems” was undertaken to evaluate these and other

methods for deep foundations and to recommend interim
procedures for their use and interpretation. A draft final
report by Paikowsky et al. (2004b) describes these methods
in detail. The role of each of these tests for rock-socketed
shafts is described here.
FIGURE 59 Details of instrumented rock-socketed shaft (Zhan
and Yin 2000).
Osterberg Load Cell

Figure 60 shows the results in terms of mobilized unit side The O-cell is a hydraulically operated jacking device that can
and base resistances versus load applied at the head of the be embedded in a drilled shaft by attachment to the reinforc-
shaft. Unit side resistance reached a value of 2.63 MPa, well ing cage (Figure 61). After concrete placement and curing, a
exceeding the proposed design allowable value of 0.75 MPa. load test is conducted by expanding the cell against the por-
Zhan and Yin noted that this value agrees well with Eq. 30 in tions of the shaft above and below it (Osterberg 1995). The
chapter three. Load transfer to the base was mobilized im- load is applied through hydraulic piston-type jacks acting
mediately upon loading, indicating excellent base conditions, against the top and bottom cylindrical plates of the cell. The
and reached a value exceeding 10 MPa. In the other shaft (not
shown) a unit base resistance of 20.8 MPa was reached with
no sign of approaching failure.

The case presented by Zhan and Yin demonstrates how a

set of well-instrumented conventional axial load tests can be
used to (1) achieve cost savings on a project with a large
number of shafts, (2) confirm design allowable values of
socket resistance, (3) demonstrate suitability of the construc-
tion method, and (4) provide data against which design meth-
ods can be evaluated.

Conventional axial load testing has largely been replaced

by methods that are easier to set up and conduct, require less
equipment and space, are safer, less time consuming, and
usually less expensive, especially in rock. These methods
include the O-cell, Statnamic (STN), and dynamic impact FIGURE 61 O-cell at bottom of reinforcing cage ready for
load tests. NCHRP Project 21-08, entitled “Innovative Load placement in a drilled shaft. (O’Neill and Reese 1999).
78

maximum test load is limited to the ultimate capacity of hydraulic lines

either the section of shaft below the cell, the section above placement channel
the cell, or the capacity of the cell.

Pressure transducers are used to monitor hydraulic jack dial gages

pressures and converted to load. Linear vibrating wire dis-
placement transducers (LVWDTs) between the two plates
measure total expansion of the cell and telltales are installed
to measure vertical movements at the top and bottom of the
test sections. The downward movement of the bottom plate Test shaft
is obtained by subtracting the upward movement of the top
test section from the total extension of the O-cell as deter- SOIL
mined by the LVWDTs. Telltale deformations are monitored
with digital gages mounted on a reference beam. All of the
instrumentation is electronic and readings are collected by a
data acquisition unit.

The O-cell testing method provides some important ad-

vantages. There is no structural loading system at the ground
surface. Load can be applied at or very close to the base of a
socket for measurement of base resistance. In conventional
top load testing, most or all of the side resistance must be mo- ROCK
bilized before there is significant load transfer to the base.
Some of the cited disadvantages are that the O-cell is sacri-
O-cell
ficial and requires prior installation, so it is not useful for test-
ing existing foundations. Using a single O-cell, it is possible
to mobilize the ultimate capacity of one portion of the shaft
only, so that other sections of the shaft are not loaded to their
ultimate capacity. FIGURE 62 Shaft and O-cell test setup (adapted from
Gunnink and Kiehne 2002).
According to DiMillio (1998), the majority of load tests
on drilled shafts are now being done with the O-cell. This is
supported by results of this study, in which 17 of 32 states re- tain or increase load without continuous upward deflection
sponding to the survey reported using the O-cell for axial of the top of the shaft, whereas the average base displacement
load testing of rock-socketed shafts. Of these, 13 stated that did not change. From these tests, it is not possible to deter-
ultimate side resistance was determined and 7 reported that mine ultimate base resistance values. The base load dis-
the ultimate base resistance was determined. Five states in- placement curves show an interesting difference. For Shaft
dicated the test was used for proof load testing, in which de- No. 1, the downward base movement is small (around 1 mm)
sign values of shaft resistance were verified. These responses up to the maximum test load, suggesting a very stiff base and
show that the O-cell has become a widely used method for good contact between the concrete and underlying rock.
axial load testing of rock sockets. However, the curve for Shaft No. 3 shows downward move-
ment approaching 10 mm upon application of the load, fol-
A set of O-cell tests reported by Gunnink and Kiehne lowed by a flattening of the curve. This behavior suggests the
(2002) serves to illustrate the type of information that is ob- presence of a compressible layer between the concrete and
tained from a typical test in which a single O-cell is installed underlying rock, possibly the result of inadequate cleanout of
at the base of a rock socket. Figure 62 shows the test setup the hole before pouring concrete. Both shafts were poured
for three test shafts socketed into Burlington limestone. As under dry conditions and both were cleaned using the same
shown, the shafts extended through soil before being sock- method, reported as “rapidly spinning the auger bit after the
eted into limestone. All shafts were 0.46 m in diameter and addition of water and then lifting out the rock cuttings.”
socket lengths ranged from 3.45 m to 3.85 m. Depth of soil
was approximately 4 m. Figure 63 shows test results for two Gunnink and Kiehne (2002) reported that it is common
of the shafts (Shaft Nos. 1 and 3), respectively. Each graph practice to design drilled shafts founded in sound Burlington
shows two curves, one of the O-cell load versus average mea- limestone for base resistance only, using a presumptive al-
sured uplift of the upper portion of the shaft, and the other of lowable unit base resistance of 1.9 MPa. Side resistance is of-
the O-cell load versus downward displacement of the base of ten neglected for design. Even the lowest observed base re-
the cell. Both figures are typical of failure of the shaft in up- sistance measured by the O-cell tests yielded an allowable
lift. At the maximum test load, it was not possible to main- unit base resistance of 5 MPa, assuming a factor of safety
 79

30 30

25 25
upward displacement

Average displacement (mm)

of shaft above O-cell upward displ of shaft above O-cell
20
Average Displacement (mm)

20

15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0

-5 -5
downward displacement
of O-cell base plate
-10 -10
downward displ of O-cell base plate
-15 -15

-20 -20
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

Load (kN) Load (kN)

FIGURE 63 Results of single O-cell load tests: (left) Shaft No. 1; (right) Shaft No. 3 (Gunnink and Kiehne 2002).

of 3. The tests shown in Figure 63 yield ultimate unit side testing results make it possible to achieve more economical
resistances of 2.34 and 2.28 MPa, respectively. These tests designs. The O-cell tests also identify construction deficien-
illustrate a typical outcome when field load testing is con- cies, such as inadequate base cleanout (Figure 63 left).
ducted; that is, measured unit side and base resistances
exceed presumptive values, sometimes significantly. Load The tests reported by Gunnink and Kiehne also illustrate
a limitation of testing with a single O-cell at the bottom of
the socket. The values of ultimate unit side resistance re-
ported by the authors are based on the assumption that all
of the load was resisted by the rock socket, neglecting any
contribution of the overlying soil. It is not known how sig-
nificant the error is for this case, but testing with multiple
O-cells makes it possible to isolate the section of shaft in rock
for evaluation of average side resistance (however, multiple
O-cells increase the cost of load testing). For example, if
a second O-cell is located at the top of the rock socket, a test
conducted with that cell can be used to determine the com-
bined side resistance of all layers above the rock. An innova-
tive approach based on this concept is illustrated in the testing
sequence shown in Figure 64. The figure and description are
from O’Neill et al. (1997) based on tests conducted by
LOADTEST, Inc., for the Alabama DOT. Arrangement of the
O-cells and the 4-step testing sequence depicted in the figure
made it possible to measure ultimate base resistance, side re-
sistance of the socket (in both directions), and side resistance
of the cased portion of the shaft above the socket. It is noted
that this arrangement made it possible to measure a total
foundation resistance of 80 MN, compared with approxi-
mately 11 MN for the largest standard surface jacks. Instal-
lation of multiple O-cells makes it necessary to provide a
tremie bypass line to facilitate placement of concrete below
and around the upper cells.

Interpretation of O-cell tests in rock sockets is typically

based on the assumption that total applied load at the ultimate
condition is distributed uniformly over the shaft/rock side
interface, and used to calculate an average unit side resis-
tance by
Qoc
FIGURE 64 Test setup and loading sequence with two O-cells fs = (148)
(O’Neill et al. 1997). πBD
80

where added to obtain the equivalent top load for a downward dis-
fs = average unit side resistance (stress), placement of 10 mm and plotted on a load-displacement
QOC = O-cell test load, curve as shown in Figure 65b. This procedure is used to
B = shaft diameter, and obtain points on the load-displacement curve up to a displace-
D = socket length. ment corresponding to the least of the two values (side or
base displacement) at the maximum test load. In Figure 65a,
The degree to which this average unit side resistance is valid this corresponds to side displacement. Total resistance cor-
for design of rock sockets loaded at the head depends on the responding to further displacements is approximated as fol-
degree to which side load transfer under O-cell test condi- lows. For the section of shaft loaded to higher displacement,
tions is similar to conditions under head loading. Detailed the actual measured load can be determined for each value of
knowledge of site stratigraphy is needed to interpret side load displacement up to the maximum test load (in Figure 65a this
transfer. is the base resistance curve). The resistance provided by the
other section must be estimated by extrapolating its curve
O-cell test results typically are used to construct an equiv- beyond the maximum test load. In Figure 65a, the side resis-
alent top-loaded settlement curve, as illustrated in Figure 65. tance curve is extrapolated. The resulting equivalent top-
At equivalent values of displacement both components of loaded settlement curve shown in Figure 65b is therefore
load are added. For example, in Figure 65a, the displacement based on direct measurements up to a certain point, and par-
for both points labeled “4” is 10 mm. The measured upward tially on extrapolated estimates beyond that point.
and downward loads determined for this displacement are
According to Paikowsky et al. (2004b), most state DOT
80
geotechnical engineers using O-cell testing tend to accept
12
the measurements as indicative of drilled shaft performance
60
11
under conventional top-down loading. O-cell test results are
40
10
applied in design by construction of an equivalent top-load
9
side load-deformation
curve is measured
8 settlement curve, as illustrated earlier, or by using the
6 7
Movement (mm)

20
3 4
5 measured unit side and base resistances as design nominal
2
1 side resistance curve values. However, some researchers (O’Neill et al. 1997;
0 is extrapolated
1 2
3
Paikowsky et al. 2004b) have pointed out differences be-
-20
4
5
6
tween O-cell test conditions and top loading conditions that
7
8 may require interpretation. The most significant difference is
-40 9
measured base load- 10 that compressional loading at the head of a shaft causes com-
deformation curve
-60
11
pression in the concrete, outward radial strain (Poisson’s
12
effect), and a load transfer distribution in which axial load in
-80
the shaft decreases with depth. Loading from an embedded
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0
O-cell also produces compression in the concrete, but a load
O-Cell Load (MN)
transfer distribution in which axial load in the shaft decreases
(a)
upward from a maximum at the O-cell to zero at the head of
the shaft. It is possible that different load transfer distribu-
30
tions could result in different distributions of side resistance
with depth and, depending on subsurface conditions, differ-
25
ent total side resistance of a rock socket.
Equivalent Top Load (MN)

12
10 11
9
20 8
6
7 In shallow rock sockets under bottom-up (O-cell) loading
5 base resistance measured,
conditions, a potential failure mode is by formation of a con-
15 side resistance extrapolated ical wedge-type failure surface (“cone breakout”). This type
4
3
of failure mode would not yield results equivalent to a shaft
10 2 loaded in compression from the top. A construction detail
noted by Crapps and Schmertmann (2002) that could poten-
5 1 tially influence load test results is the change in shaft diame-
ter that might exist at the top of a rock socket. A common
0 practice is to use temporary casing to the top of rock, fol-
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
lowed by a change in the tooling and a decrease in the diam-
Downward Displacement (mm) eter of the rock socket relative to the diameter of the shaft
(b) above the socket. Top-down compression loading produces
FIGURE 65 Construction of equivalent top-loaded settlement
perimeter bearing stress at the diameter change as illustrated
curve from O-cell test results (a) O-cell measured load- in Figure 66, whereas loading from an O-cell at the bottom
displacement; (b) equivalent top-load settlement results. of the socket would lift the shaft from the bearing surface.
 81

compression

SOIL
change in diameter at
soil/rock interface

ROCK
FIGURE 67 Comparison of load-displacement curves; O-cell
versus FEM (Paikowsky et al. 2004b).
FIGURE 66 Perimeter bearing stress at diameter change
under top loading.

equivalent top-load settlement curve derived from an O-cell

Paikowsky et al. (2004b) reviewed the available data that load test may underpredict side resistance for higher dis-
might allow direct comparisons between O-cell and conven- placements; that is, the O-cell derived curve is conservative.
tional top-down loading tests on drilled shafts. Three sets of Further FEM analyses reported by Paikowsky et al. (2004b)
load tests reported in the literature and involving rock sockets suggest that the differences between loading from the bot-
were reviewed. However, in two of the cases the test sequence tom (O-cell) and loading in compression from the top are the
involved conventional top-down compression loading (Phase result of differing normal stress conditions at the interface,
1) followed by O-cell testing from the bottom up (Phase 2). and that these differences become more significant with in-
Mobilization of side resistance in Phase 1 is believed to have creasing rock mass modulus and increasing interface friction
caused a loss of bond, thereby influencing results of the O-cell angle.
tests and precluding any direct comparison. The third case in-
volved STN and O-cell tests of shafts in Florida limestone. These numerical analyses suggest that differences in the
Paikowsky et al. stated that several factors, including highly response of rock sockets to O-cell test loading and top-down
variable site conditions and factors related to the tests, pre- compression loading may warrant consideration in some
vented a direct comparison of results. cases. Ideally, side-by-side comparisons on identical test
shafts constructed in the same manner and in rock with sim-
FEM reported by Paikowsky et al. (2004b) suggests that ilar characteristics and properties are needed to assess differ-
differences in rock-socket response between O-cell testing ences in response. However, it is expected that the potential
and top-load testing may be affected by (1) modulus of the differences, if any, will eventually be identified and incorpo-
rock mass, EM, and (2) interface friction angle, φi. Paikowsky rated into interpretation methods for O-cell testing. In the
first calibrated the FEM model to provide good agreement meantime, the O-cell test is providing state transportation
with the results of O-cell tests on full-scale rock-socketed agencies with a practical and cost-effective tool for evaluat-
shafts, including a test shaft socketed into shale in Wilsonville, ing the performance of rock sockets and it is expected that
Alabama, and a test shaft in claystone in Denver, Colorado, the O-cell test will continue to be used extensively.
described by Abu-Hejleh et al. (2003). In the FEM, load was
applied similarly to the field O-cell test; that is, loading from Instrumentation such as sister bars with strain gages
the bottom upward. The model was then used to predict be- makes it possible to better determine the load distribution and
havior of the test shafts under a compression load applied at load transfer behavior during an O-cell load test. This infor-
the top and compared with the equivalent top-load settlement mation can then be used to make more refined predictions of
curve determined from O-cell test results. Figure 67 shows a load transfer behavior under head load conditions.
comparison of the top-load versus displacement curves for
the Alabama test, one as calculated from the O-cell test and In summary, some of the advantages of the O-cell for ax-
the other as predicted by FEM analysis. The curves show ial load testing of rock-socketed shafts include:
good agreement at small displacement (<0.1 in. or 2.5 mm);
however, the curve derived from FEM analysis is much • Ability to apply larger loads than any of the available
stiffer at higher displacement. This exercise suggests that the methods (important for rock sockets) and
82

• With multiple cells or proper instrumentation, it can an overall program leading to increased use and improved de-
isolate socket base and side resistances from resistance sign methods for rock-socketed foundations. The Colorado
of other geomaterial layers. DOT has also used O-cell testing to improve its design
procedures for rock-socketed shafts, as documented by Abu-
Limitations of the O-cell test for use by state DOTs include: Hejleh et al. (2003).

• Shaft to be tested must be predetermined, because it is

not possible to test an existing shaft; Statnamic
• For each installed device, test is limited to failure of one
part of the shaft only; The STN load test was developed in the late 1980s by
• There are possible concerns using test shaft as a pro- Berminghammer Foundation Equipment of Hamilton, On-
duction shaft; tario. Its use in the U.S. transportation industry has been
• Interpretation methods that account for differences in supported by FHWA through sponsorship of load testing
loading mode are not yet fully developed; and programs, as well as tests conducted with an STN device
• There are currently no ASTM or AASHTO standards owned by FHWA for research purposes.
specifically for O-cell load tests.
In this test, load is applied to the top of a deep foundation
Interviews with state DOT engineers for this study show by igniting a high-energy, fast-burning solid fuel within a
that the O-cell test has been an integral tool in advancing the pressure chamber. As the fuel pressure increases, a set of re-
understanding and use of rock-socketed drilled shafts. The action masses is accelerated upward, generating a downward
Kansas DOT (KDOT) experience is representative of several force on the foundation element equal to the product of the
other states. The following is based on an interview with reaction mass and the acceleration. Loading occurs over a
Robert Henthorne, KDOT Chief Geologist. The geology period of approximately 100 to 200 ms, followed by venting
of the western half of Kansas, located in the High Plains of the pressure to control the unloading cycle. Load applied
physiographic province, is dominated by thick sequences of to the foundation is monitored by a load cell and displace-
sedimentary rocks, mostly sandstone, shale, and limestone. ment is monitored with a photovoltaic laser sensor. The con-
Until approximately 1995, virtually all highway bridges were cept is illustrated schematically in Figure 68. STN equipment
founded on shallow foundations or H-piles driven to refusal is available for test loads as high as 30 MN.
on rock. Drilled shafts were not considered a viable alterna-
tive because of uncertainties associated with both design and Processing of the load and displacement time histories is
construction. With encouragement from FHWA, KDOT required to convert the STN measurements into an equivalent,
engineers and geologists initiated a long-term program of static load-displacement curve. The analysis accounts for
training, education, and field load testing to better match dynamic effects that may include damping and inertial
foundation technologies with subsurface conditions. Work- effects. The unloading-point method as reported by Horvath
shops on drilled shaft design, construction, inspection, and et al. (1993) provides a relatively straightforward method for
nondestructive testing (NDT), sponsored by FHWA and the determining static resistance using measurements made at the
International Association of Foundation Drilling (ADSC), top of the shaft during a STN test. Test interpretation is also
were conducted at the invitation of KDOT. KDOT began us- discussed by Brown (1994) and El Naggar and Baldinelli
ing drilled shafts as bridge foundations where appropriate. (2000).
Several bridge sites in western Kansas were designed with
rock-socketed shafts. To address the lack of experience with
these conditions, O-cell testing was incorporated into the larger
bridge projects. In almost every case, the O-cell test results
showed side and base resistances considerably higher than
the values used for preliminary sizing of the shafts, and valuable
experience was gained with construction methods, effective
cleanout strategies, NDT methods, etc. KDOT now has O-cell
test results on rock-socketed shafts from nine projects and has
developed in-house correlations between rock mass properties
and design parameters for commonly encountered geological
formations. Drilled shafts now comprise approximately 70%
to 80% of new bridge foundations, and shaft designs are
more economical because there is a high level of confidence in
capacity predictions, based directly on the load tests.

The approach taken by KDOT illustrates how field load

testing, in this case with the O-cell, can be incorporated into FIGURE 68 Schematic of STN load test (O’Neill et al. 1997).
 83

Mullins et al. (2002) recently introduced the segmental Derived Static = REF*UP-derived capacity
unloading point method, which uses top and toe measure- REF = 0.96 for rock
ments as well as strain measurements from along the length 0.91 for sand
of the foundation. The segmental unloading point method 0.69 for silt
enables determination of load transfer along various seg- 0.65 for clay.
ments of the foundation, an advantage for rock-socketed
shafts to separate resistance developed in rock from that
developed in portions of the shaft embedded in soil. The analy- Dynamic Impact Testing
sis is automated using software provided by the testing firm
and equivalent static load-displacement graphs are produced A dynamic compression load test can be carried out by drop-
immediately for evaluation. All data are stored for future ping a heavy weight onto the head of the shaft from various
analysis and reference. heights. The shaft is instrumented with strain gages and
accelerometers to measure the force and impact velocity of
During the 1990s, FHWA performed or funded STN and the stress wave generated by the dynamic impact. The mea-
correlation studies with conventional static load tests to surements are correlated to driving resistance to predict load
develop standardized testing procedures and data interpreta- capacity. A review of various available drop weight systems
tion methods (Bermingham et al. 1994). Numerous other and evaluation of the method is given by Paikowsky et al.
studies have further expanded the database of case histories (2004c). A typical drop weight system consists of four
and performance studies. The result is that STN testing is components: (1) a frame or guide for the drop weight, (2) the
now a well-developed technology that is highly suitable for drop weight (ram), (3) a trip mechanism to release the ram, and
use by state DOTs for axial load testing of rock-socketed (4) a striker plate or cushion, as shown in Figure 69. Various
shafts. STN advantages identified by Brown (2000) include: configurations of modular weights can be used to provide
ram weights as high as 265 kN (Hussein et al. 2004) and drop
• Large load capacity, applied at top of shaft; heights are adjustable up to 5 m (Paikowsky et al. 2004c). A
• Can test existing or production shaft; rule of thumb given by Hussein et al. is that a ram weight of
• Economies of scale for multiple tests; 1% to 2% of the expected shaft capacity be available on site.
• Amenable to verification testing on production shafts;
and Drop weight load testing interpretation relies on analysis
• Reaction system not needed. methods similar to those used in standard dynamic pile test-
ing. Strain gage and accelerometer measurements at the top
Disadvantages include: of the pile are used to evaluate characteristics of stress wave
propagation. If sufficient shaft resistance is mobilized, it is
• Capacity high, but still limited (30 MN); possible in theory to relate the stress wave characteristics to
• Rapid loading method, as rate effects can be significant shaft capacity using available PDA (Pile Driving Analyzer)
in some soils (less in rock); technologies. Drop weight testing of drilled shafts has not
• Mobilization costs for reaction weights; and been used extensively on bridge foundations in the United
• Not currently addressed by ASTM or AASHTO stan- States, in part because other available methods (e.g., O-cell
dards. and STN) provide a more direct measurement of static resis-
tance. According to DiMillio (1998), test results on FHWA
Mullins, as reported in Paikowsky et al. (2004b), analyzed projects have not demonstrated sufficiently good agreement
a database of 34 sites at which both STN and static load tests between drop weight and other tests. The drop weight tests
were conducted on deep foundations. The data included load reportedly overpredicted measured capacities.
tests on four drilled shafts in rock at two sites, one site each
in Florida and Taiwan. The objective of the study was to Drop weight testing for rock sockets is suitable for post-
develop recommendations for LRFD resistance factors when construction tests at bridge sites where questions arise during
axial compression capacity is based on STN testing. The au- construction regarding the performance of as-built founda-
thors recommend a resistance factor of 0.74 for all deep foun- tions. This application is illustrated by the case of the Lee
dation types in rock (not specific to drilled shafts) when Roy Selmon Crosstown Expressway, in Tampa, Florida.
tested by STN. In addition, a rate effect factor (REF) is rec- The columns supporting an elevated section of roadway are
ommended to account for rate effects when using STN founded on drilled shafts socketed into limestone. During
results by the unloading point method. The REF varies with construction of the superstructure, one of the columns sud-
soil or rock type and recommendations are given here. If the denly underwent more than 3 m (11 ft) of settlement as a
segmental unloading point method is used (requiring strain result of the failure of the drilled shafts. Subsequent investi-
gages), separate REF factors can be applied to each seg- gations determined that the failed shafts were not founded
ment to account for different soil or rock types. This analy- in sound limestone as believed, raising questions about the
sis addresses the disadvantage cited previously regarding rate capacity of all 218 drilled shafts supporting the elevated
effects. roadway. As part of an investigation to determine how many
84

FIGURE 69 Schematic of drop weight system (Paikowsky et al. 2004c).

shafts might need remediation, dynamic load tests were con- applicable to shafts that satisfy the criteria for rigid behavior,
ducted on 12 of the shafts supporting existing columns using given as
the pile driving hammer shown in Figure 70. Testing proved
the design capacity of 11 of the 12 shafts tested. This case 2
⎡ Ec ⎤
also illustrates the need for thorough subsurface investiga- ⎢ Er ⎥ ≥ 1 (149)
tion when socketing into limestone. In this case, rock eleva- ⎢ 2D ⎥
tions were found to be highly variable. Seismic methods ⎢⎣ B ⎥⎦
used in combination with borings in the post-failure inves-
tigation provided a more detailed geologic model of site in which Ec = modulus of the reinforced-concrete shaft, Er =
conditions. rock mass modulus, D = socket length, and B = socket
diameter.

Interpretation Framework for Static Axial The analysis is applied to two cases: (1) shear socket un-
Load Tests der compression or uplift and (2) complete socket under
compression. The shape of a load-displacement curve from a
Carter and Kulhawy (1988) and Kulhawy and Carter (1992b) load test is modeled in terms of constant slopes (S), which are
proposed a method for interpretation of static axial load tests related mathematically to the model parameters described in
on rock-socketed shafts. The method involves analyzing a chapter three. Consider the load-displacement curve for a
static axial load-displacement curve from a load test accord- shear socket loaded in compression, as shown in Figure 71.
ing to the analytical closed-form solutions presented in chap- Three parameters are required to idealize the geometry of
ter three (Eqs. 69–95). The parameters back-calculated from the curve. S1 is the slope of the initial portion, S2 is the
the load test could then be used to evaluate effects of various approximated slope of the full-slip portion of the curve, and
design parameters on the load-displacement behavior of trial Qi is the intercept on the vertical axis (wc = 0) of the line with
designs that differ from that of the test shaft. The method is slope S2. For a rigid shaft, the measured curve parameters
 85

theoretically are related to the elastic model parameters by

the relationships given here (a):

(a) Shear Socket — Compression or Uplift

⎡(1 + νr ) ς ⎤
Er = ⎢ ⎥ S1
⎣ πD ⎦
⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ S2 ⎞
tanφ • tanψ = ⎜ ⎟ ⎜
⎝ 2ς⎠⎠ ⎝ S1 − S2 ⎟⎠
c = ( 2ς tanφ • tanψ + 1) i
Q
πBD

with

ς = ln ⎡⎢5 (1 − νr ) ⎤⎥
D
(150)
⎣ B⎦

in which νr = Poisson’s ratio of the rock mass, φ = interface

friction angle, and ψ = interface angle of dilation, and c = in-
terface cohesion.

For a complete socket under compression in which the base

load-displacement is determined (Figure 72), the load-
displacement curve is approximated by S1, S2, Qi, and S3, the
slope of the base load-displacement curve. The curve parame-
ters are related to the elastic model parameters as given in (b),

(b) Complete Socket — Compression

⎡(1 + νr )ς ⎤
Er = ⎢ ( S1 − S3 )
⎣ π D ⎥⎦
FIGURE 70 Dynamic load testing of shaft-supported column in Eb = ⎢
( )
⎡ 1 + νb 2 ⎤
⎥ S3
Tampa, Florida. ⎢⎣ B ⎥⎦
⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ S − S3 ⎞
tanφ • tanψ = ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ 2
⎝ 2ς ⎠ ⎝ S1 − S2 ⎟⎠
c = ( 2ς tanφ tanψ + 1) i
Q
πBD

in which Eb = modulus of the rock mass beneath the shaft base.

Carter and Kulhawy (1988) applied the technique described

to 25 axial load tests reported in the literature by back-
calculating values of the model parameters Er, Eb, c, and (tanφ
tanψ) from load-displacement curves using the equations
given previously. A limitation of the model described earlier
is that the assumption of rigidity may be less acceptable for
shafts in harder rocks where the modulus values for the rock
mass and the shaft material are closer. The reader is advised to
review the original publications for further assumptions and
derivations of the equations.

Lateral Load Testing

FIGURE 71 Interpretation of a side-shear-only test (Carter and A significant number of states indicated in the questionnaire
Kulhawy 1988).
that lateral loading governs the design of rock-socketed
86

depths corresponding to approximately the first 10 diameters

of the shaft. Other important points to consider when con-
ducting conventional lateral load tests, as pointed out by
O’Neill and Reese (1999) are summarized as follows.

The test site conditions and test shaft should be selected

and built to match as closely as possible the actual conditions
to which they will be applied. Items such as overburden
stresses acting in the resisting soil and rock layers, ground-
water and surface water conditions, shaft dimensions and re-
inforcing, and construction methods all can have a significant
influence on the lateral load response of a drilled shaft. To
the extent possible, these conditions should be matched by
those of the load test.

Analysis of the load test results will be interpreted using

the analytical methods presented in chapter four. The most
widely used method is the p-y curve method, in which p-y
curves are fit to obtain agreement with the load test mea-
surements. As a minimum, it is therefore necessary to have
reliable measurements of ground line shear load, ground line
FIGURE 72 Interpretation of a complete socket test (Carter and
Kulhawy 1988).
deflection, and rotation (requires two deflection points sepa-
rated by a known vertical distance). To define p-y curves ac-
curately over the length of the shaft requires measurements
of the deflected shape of the shaft, which can be done using
shafts for a significant percentage of projects (Question 25). slope inclinometer measurements. A more accurate method
However, as noted in chapter four, very few lateral load tests to determine p-y curves (or to evaluate any analytical
have been conducted on rock-socketed shafts. Methods for method) is to establish bending moment as a function of
conducting lateral load tests on deep foundations include depth, which can be done by installing a steel tube with
conventional methods, Osterberg load cell, and STN.
closely spaced strain gages along the length of the shaft. This
approach is most appropriate for tests conducted for applied
Conventional Lateral Load Test research; for example, to develop new methods for estab-
lishing p-y curves in rock.
The conventional method for conducting a lateral load test is
given in ASTM D3966 and involves pushing or pulling the Boundary conditions must be considered carefully when
head of the test shaft against one or more reaction piles or back-fitting analytical models and then applying the model
shafts. A variety of arrangements for the test shaft and reac- for design. In a lateral load test, the boundary conditions at
tion shaft are possible and these are given in detail in Reese the head of the shaft will normally be free of any rotational
(1984) and Hirany and Kulhawy (1988). One approach is to restraint and have zero applied moment and zero axial load.
use two shafts and apply the load such that both shafts are Service boundary head conditions are likely to include some
tested simultaneously, providing a comparison between two head restraint and possibly axial load and moment. Also, the
shafts. A load cell is used to measure the applied lateral load nonlinear moment–EI relationships must be accounted for
and dial gages or displacement transducers attached to a ref- both in the load test and in the analysis.
erence beam can be used to monitor lateral deformation.
Thorough treatment of instrumentation for lateral load tests Four states (California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and
can be found in Reese (1984) and Hirany and Kulhawy North Carolina) reported the use of conventional lateral load
(1988). tests on rock-socketed shafts. Although lateral load testing is
not as common as axial testing, conventional testing has been
Drilled shafts are often used where the designer wishes to the method of choice for lateral. Other methods have, so far,
take advantage of their large lateral load capacity, especially been used on a limited basis. These include lateral O-cell
that of large-diameter shafts. Analysis often shows that the tests (at least two states, South Carolina and Minnesota) and
geomaterials in the upper part of the ground profile have the lateral STN (Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, North Carolina,
most significant influence on lateral deformations and lateral South Carolina, and Utah). Several states that did not respond
load transfer. A critical part of lateral load testing is to have to the survey are known to have conducted lateral STN (Ohio
detailed knowledge of the site stratigraphy, particularly at the and Virginia).
 87

Lateral Osterberg Load Test allowing the reaction masses to slide on rails, as shown in
Figure 74. The lateral STN test can simulate lateral impact
The O-cell can be embedded in a drilled shaft and oriented loading such as might occur against a bridge pier from a
such that the load is applied in the horizontal direction. The vessel.
method is described by O’Neill et al. (1997) for a case in
which the Minnesota DOT required representative p-y curves The lateral STN test can also be used to derive the static
for a stratum of friable sandstone situated beneath a thick lateral response, but requires appropriate instrumentation
layer of normally consolidated clay. Shafts socketed into the and correct analysis of the test results. In tests described by
sandstone were to support a bridge undergoing ice loading. Brown (2000), the following instrumentation was used:
The test was conducted at a nearby location in which a 26.7
MN O-cell was positioned vertically within a 1.22-m-diameter • Load cell,
socket, as depicted in Figure 73, and used to thrust the two • Displacement transducers,
halves of the socket against the rock. Lateral force and de- • Accelerometers on top of cap or shaft,
flection measurements were used to derive p-y curves. The • Downhole motion sensors,
authors point out that care must be taken in interpreting • Resistance-type strain gages, and
the results, because the stress–strain conditions created by • Megadac Data Acquisition System.
the test are not the same as in a laterally loaded socketed shaft
that is loaded at its head and not split. Figure 75a shows the measured dynamic response of the
shaft in terms of force, acceleration, and lateral displacements
Lateral O-cell testing of rock sockets offers some of the versus time. The curves showing measured lateral displace-
same advantages as for axial O-cell load testing, namely the ment from three measurements are identical and cannot be
elimination of a structural loading system at the ground level. distinguished in the figure. Dynamic response is separated
Also, the test provides the ability to apply lateral loading at pre- into static, inertial, and damping components. A p-y analysis
determined depths, such as within the rock socket. Further re- (using LPILE or FBPIER) is fit to obtain a reasonable match
search is needed to establish guidelines for proper procedures between the measured load-displacement response for each
and to define correct analyses that account for the differences component of force (static, inertial, and damping). Load ver-
in boundary conditions, load transfer, and soil and rock resis- sus displacement curves derived are shown in Figure 75b
tance, compared with a shaft loaded at its head. It is also worth based on analysis of the dynamic response in Figure 75a.
noting that the lateral split socket test may provide a means to
measure the in situ rock mass modulus of deformation (EM). The lateral STN test is reported as to be safe, controlled,
and economical. Its principal advantage lies in the ability to
measure directly the dynamic lateral response and to provide
Lateral Statnamic a derived static response. This test is a valuable tool for the
design of bridge foundations to withstand dynamic lateral
The STN load test has also been adapted for lateral loading.
loading from earthquakes, wind, and vessel impacts. The test
The device is mounted on steel skids supported on the ground
may also be used in place of a conventional static test. Lateral
loads up to 18 MN may be possible.

FIGURE 73 Top view of O-cell arrangement for lateral split

socket test (O’Neill 1997). FIGURE 74 Lateral STN load test (Courtesy: L. Fontaine).
88

Shaft Group, Load 5 (E-W)

2.5 1000

2 800

1.5 600

Displacement / Acceleration
1 400 Load, tons

inches / g's
Statnamic Acceleration
0.5 200
Lateral Translation, Top West

Load
tons
0 0
Lateral Translation, Top East

-0.5 -200 Lateral Translation, Top Center

-1 -400

-1.5 -600

-2 -800
0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
seconds
Time

(a)

Lateral Load versus Translation

Static & Derived Statnamic - Shaft Group

700 140

600 120

500 100
Static

% Damping
400 80
Load

Derived Statnamic
tons

300 60 % Damping
Total Resistance (Static + Damping)
200 40

100 20

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
inches
Tlti

(b)

FIGURE 75 Results of lateral STN test: (a) measured dynamic

response; (b) derived static response.

CONSTRUCTABILITY, INSPECTION, AND sociation of Foundation Drilling (ADSC). The FHWA

QUALITY ASSURANCE Drilled Shaft Manual (O’Neill and Reese 1999) addresses
constructability and its role in drilled shaft design. The man-
These topics are considered together because they encom-
ual also forms the basis of a National Highway Institute (NHI)
pass activities having a single objective: construction of
course on drilled shafts that is available through FHWA. A
a high-quality, rock-socketed drilled shaft foundation that
separate NHI course that certifies inspectors for drilled shaft
performs in accordance with the design assumptions. As
illustrated in the flow chart diagram of Figure 3, chapter one, construction (Williams et al. 2002) also has a strong empha-
the final design is based on input from three general sources: sis on constructability and was developed with significant
(1) site characterization, (2) geotechnical analysis, and contractor input. ADSC provides short courses, workshops,
(3) structural analysis and modeling. Plans and specifications and a library of publications focused on construction-related
are developed that reflect generally accepted practices based issues for drilled shafts. ADSC also provides “constructabil-
on the collective experience of the construction and engi- ity reviews” of individual projects in which independent con-
neering communities. Examples of model specifications tractors review the project plans and specifications and offer
include those given in Chapter 15 of the FHWA Drilled Shaft advice on its constructability. This step could be incorporated
Manual (O’Neill and Reese 1999), ACI Standard Specifica- into the overall process depicted in Figure 3, as denoted in the
tion for the Construction of Drilled Piers, ACI 336.1-98 flow chart by “constructability review.”
(1998), and specifications developed by state and federal
transportation agencies with extensive experience in drilled Integrating constructability into a drilled shaft project
shaft use. In addition, effective specifications will address involves taking a common sense approach to design that
issues that are unique to the specific conditions that determine accounts for the methods, tools, and equipment used by con-
the final design, including constructability issues which, ide- tractors to build the shafts. No attempt will be made here to
ally, are accounted for in all three of the input categories iden- identify all of these issues, but items identified by the survey
tified previously. In the following paragraphs, these topics are and that relate specifically to rock sockets are discussed.
discussed individually, but in practice they must be integrated
into the design concepts discussed in this synthesis. Schmertmann et al. (1998) and Brown (2004) present
guidelines for ensuring quality in drilled shaft construction
Constructability and some recent advances in materials that have applications
in both soil and rock. The key elements to be considered to
Much emphasis has been placed on constructability of drilled avoid the most commonly observed construction problems
shafts by FHWA and through efforts of the International As- are:
 89

• Workability of concrete for the duration of the pour; almost certainly reduce side resistance compared with a shaft
• Compatibility of congested rebar and concrete; drilled and poured under dry conditions, in either soil or rock.
• Control of stability of the hole during excavation and However, if sound practices are followed by an experienced
concrete placement, especially with casing; contractor and there is proper inspection, slurry drilling for
• Proper consideration and control of hydrostatic balance rock sockets can be an effective construction method, assum-
and seepage; ing the slurry is handled in a manner that avoids contamina-
• Bottom cleaning techniques and inspection; and tion of the interface bond or excessive suspended sediment.
• Drilling fluid that avoids contamination of the bond
between concrete and bearing material or excessive In certain rock types, there is evidence that use of polymer
suspended sediment. slurry may be beneficial to rock-socket side resistance. The
Kentucky DOT requires polymer slurry for drilling in rock
New developments in concrete mix design, in particular that exhibits low values of slake durability index. Typically,
mixes described as self-consolidating concrete (SCC), can this is the case in certain shale formations in Kentucky. Slak-
provide benefits for drilled shaft construction. The charac- ing occurs when the shale is exposed to water, and can cause
teristic of SCC that is most beneficial is very high slump formation of a smear zone, reducing side resistance consid-
flow. Reinforcement cages with a high density of steel bars, erably, as demonstrated by Hassan and O’Neill (1997).
often necessary especially for seismic design, make it diffi- Apparently, the polymer slurry prevents softening and the
cult to provide the necessary clear spacing between bars that resulting smear zone, although there have not been load tests
will ensure flow of concrete to the outside of the cage. The in which a direct comparison has been made. This issue
flow properties of SCC have been shown to reduce potential deserves further research.
defects associated with incomplete cover or voids caused by
inadequate flow of concrete. One state DOT identified the following as a problematic
construction issue: “various methods used to force a dry
Prompt placement of concrete is another construction pour,” indicating that some measures taken to avoid placing
practice that promotes quality in the as-built shaft. Delay in concrete under water or slurry are more detrimental than
concrete placement increases the potential for slump loss allowing a wet pour. Both Schmertmann et al. (1998) and
and, in some cases, has been identified as a cause of reduced Brown (2004) describe a case that seems to contradict some
side resistance (Schmertmann et al. 1998). commonly held ideas about casing versus wet hole construc-
tion of rock sockets. A drilled shaft installed through 12 m
Several states identified problematic construction issues of soil and socketed into rock was constructed using a full-
when the slurry method of construction is used in rock sock- length casing (to provide downhole visual inspection). A
ets. One issue is whether slurry has a detrimental effect on load test using the Osterberg load cell indicated a mobilized
side resistance of rock sockets. Thirteen states indicated that side resistance in the socket of 0.5 MN, much less than
they restrict the use of slurry in rock sockets and one state expected. A second shaft was constructed, but using a wet
expressed “concerns with use of drilling fluids instead of cas- hole method with tremie placement of concrete and without
ing.” In many situations, if casing is used to support the hole, casing into the rock. Load testing of this shaft indicated more
the need to use slurry is eliminated. Typically, casing need than 10 MN of side resistance in the socket. The difference
only extend to the top of rock if the rock-socket portion of is attributed to a decrease in concrete workability during the
the hole will remain open without caving. If there is water time required to remove the casing after concrete placement,
in the overburden, the casing can be sealed into the rock, preventing formation of a good bond along the socket inter-
dewatered, and the socket can then be excavated without sup- face. Trapping of debris between the casing and rock could
port. However, there are situations where a contractor may also have occurred and may have smeared cuttings along the
deem it necessary to introduce slurry. For example, when sidewalls. The lesson of this case is that the construction
rock is highly fractured it may not be possible to seal the cas- method should be selected to provide the best product for the
ing sufficiently to prevent water inflow, and a contractor may given conditions, and that in many situations a wet hole
elect to use slurry. In this case, slurry may be used to balance method is the most effective and will not adversely affect
the hydraulic head to prevent seepage into the hole that can shaft behavior if done properly. Forcing a dry pour may
disturb the material at the base of the shaft, an issue related cause more problems than it solves.
directly to design decisions on whether to include base resis-
tance in the design. For reverse circulation drilling, slurry Another good reason to review the ground conditions care-
may be used as the circulating fluid (e.g., the Richmond–San fully before allowing “dry hole” construction is identified
Rafael Bridge shown in Figure 56). by Schmertmann et al. (1998). If the groundwater elevation
is above the base of the hole, dry conditions inside the socket
There are few data showing the effects of properly mixed result in a hydraulic gradient causing inward seepage as
and handled slurry on rock-socket side or base resistances. illustrated in Figure 76. They describe several cases where
Slurry that does not possess the appropriate viscosity, density, seepage degraded side resistance and base resistance. Main-
and sediment content, or that is allowed to remain in the hole taining a slurry or water level inside the hole sufficient to bal-
(and not agitated) long enough to form a thick filter cake, will ance the groundwater pressure eliminates the inward gradient
90

casing tional information could improve their ability to perform the

work. Another contractor interviewed for this study stated
that the rock classification system of the ISRM is useful to
determine what type of tool (rock auger, core barrel, or
downhole hammer) will be most effective. The ISRM system
places rock into one of seven categories (R0 through R6)
based on strength, as described in chapter two (see Rock
Material Descriptors).
Zone of disturbed material at
base caused by inward seepage An issue identified by several states is the discrepancy
that sometimes occurs between the elevation corresponding
to top of rock as shown in boring logs and as encountered
during construction. The Washington State DOT uses lan-
guage in their special provision for rock sockets that report-
edly works well and is summarized as follows. For shafts
with a specified minimum penetration into the bearing layer
and no specified base elevation, the contractor furnishes each
FIGURE 76 Development of disturbed base caused by high reinforcing cage 20% longer than specified in the plans. The
seepage gradient toward bottom of a cased hole.
increased length is added to the bottom of the cage. The con-
tractor then trims the reinforcing cage to the proper length
and prevents base and side disturbance. The authors cite before placement. The DOT assumes the cost of the excess
several cases in which comparisons of Osterberg load cell test steel, but believes that cost is offset by avoiding construction
results on shafts poured both wet and dry show this effect. delays, disputes, and claims that may occur otherwise.

The most common factor cited in construction claims asso- Other specific issues identified by states in the questionnaire
ciated with rock-socketed shafts is “differing site conditions,” pertain to inadequate cleanout buckets, improper placement
that is, the subsurface conditions actually encountered during of concrete with pump trucks, and a case in which temporary
construction are claimed to be materially different from those casing to support the overburden with the same diameter as the
shown in boring logs. Responses to the questionnaire did not rock socket resulted in the casing being dragged down into
indicate that claims were a major obstacle to the use of drilled the socket, requiring additional socket drilling. There is a
shafts for most states. However, one state DOT gave the fol- constructability lesson in each of these cases.
lowing response when asked to comment on issues “pertain-
ing to the use of rock-socketed drilled shafts by your agency” Certain geologic conditions are associated with more
(Question 6): “Most result in claims due to the requirement to challenging construction and may require more detailed in-
include ‘Differing Site Conditions’ on all contracts.” vestigation and flexibility in the approach to construction.
Some of the more notorious of these include: (1) karstic con-
The same agency responded as follows to Question 36 ditions associated with limestone and other rocks susceptible
pertaining to perceptions of construction problems: to solution, (2) rock with steeply dipping discontinuities,
(3) well-developed residual soil deposits grading into partially
We design for low bidding contractors to get the contract and the weathered rock and then unweathered bedrock, (4) alternat-
construction problems that will result. Rock may be harder than
the contractor thought when bidding and planning the job. Thus
ing hard and soft layers of rock, and (5) glacial till. Each of
the drilling equipment brought out is often unable to drill or very these conditions presents its own unique set of construction
slow to drill the rock. This results in costly contractor claims. challenges and different approaches are required to address
them successfully. A question that often arises in some of
Claims for differing site conditions are part of the geo- these environments is “what is rock?,” or perhaps more im-
technical construction field, but measures can be taken to portantly, “what is not rock?” On some projects, certain geo-
minimize them. For example, one contractor interviewed for materials may be rock for pay purposes, but not for design.
this study noted that geotechnical reports often place strong If these issues can be addressed before construction and there
emphasis on rock of the lowest strength, because these lay- is good communication between owners and contractors, a
ers may control side or base resistances for design. However, reasonable approach that results in a successful project can
for estimating drilling costs, contractors need information on usually be developed. When the difficulties are not antici-
rock layers of the highest strength, because that will dictate pated but are encountered during construction, the likelihood
the type of drilling and tools needed to bid the job accurately of claims and disputes is much higher. Drilling of a trial in-
and to carry out the construction properly. Transportation stallation shaft (also referred to as a “method” or “technique”
agencies might consider surveying contractors to find out shaft) before bid letting can identify many of the problems
exactly what information contained in their boring logs is that will be encountered during production drilling and
most helpful for bidding on rock-socket jobs, and what addi- should be considered whenever there are major questions
 91

about the subsurface conditions and what is required to con- include the geotechnical report, boring logs, and communi-
struct rock sockets successfully. cation with the design engineer. For rock sockets, inspectors
should be trained to understand the information presented in
boring logs pertaining to rock. This includes being familiar
Inspection and Quality Assurance with the site and geomaterial characterization methods de-
scribed in chapter two. Inspectors require basic training in
Inspection is the primary method for assuring quality in the rock identification, testing, and classification, and should be
construction of drilled shafts. The philosophy and methods familiar with rock coring procedures, the meaning of RQD,
of drilled shaft inspection are covered in Chapter 16 of the compressive strength of intact rock, and terminology for
FHWA Drilled Shaft Manual (O’Neill and Reese 1999) and describing characteristics of discontinuities, degree of weath-
are the subject of a video and a Drilled Shaft Inspector’s ering, etc. Inspectors should be aware of design issues such
Manual (Baker 1988) available from the ADSC. A certifica- as whether the shaft is designed for side resistance, base re-
tion course for drilled shaft inspectors is offered by the NHI sistance, or lateral resistance, and in which rock layers the
of FHWA, and a Participants Manual was developed as part various components of resistance are derived.
of the course (Williams et al. 2002). Table 21 is a partial list-
ing of inspection issues pertaining specifically to rock-socket Before construction, inspectors should know how the con-
construction. tractor plans to construct the shafts. This requires knowledge
of the tools and methods used for construction in rock. A
Special emphasis is required in making a strong connec- valuable aid is the Drilled Shaft Installation Plan, a document
tion between drilled shaft design and inspection. Practically, describing in detail the contractor’s tools and methods of
this involves providing inspection personnel with the knowl- construction. O’Neill and Reese (1999) describe the mini-
edge and tools required to verify that drilled shafts are con- mum requirements of an installation plan and recommend
structed and tested in accordance with the design intent. The that it be a required submittal by the contractor.
starting point for inspection personnel is to have a thorough
understanding of (1) subsurface conditions, (2) the intent of A fundamental design issue is the degree to which the
the design, and (3) how items 1 and 2 are related. The in- rock mass over the depth of the socket coincides with the
spector’s sources of information for subsurface conditions conditions assumed for design. Therefore, some type of

TABLE 21
INSPECTION ITEMS FOR ROCK SOCKETS
Inspection Responsibility Primary Items to Be Addressed Required Skills or Tools
Knowledge of site Rock types, depths, thicknesses, engineering Competency in rock identification and
conditions properties (strength, RQD); groundwater classification; ability to read and interpret
conditions core logs

Knowledge of design Rock units providing side, base, and lateral Basic understanding of design philosophy
issues resistances for drilled shafts under axial and lateral
Design parameters: shaft locations, socket loading
depths and diameters, reinforcement details Familiarity with standard specifications,
plans, special provisions, shop drawings,
and contractor submittals

Knowledge of contractor’s Rock excavation tools (augers, coring, hammers, Review of Drilled Shaft Installation Plan
plan for socket other) and methods (e.g., casing, slurry)
construction Classification of rock for pay purposes

Observations and record Identification and logging of excavated rock Competency in field identification of
keeping during socket Tools used by contractor for each geomaterials;
excavation geomaterial (tool description, diameter, rate Appropriate forms*, including:
of excavation) Rock/Soil Excavation Log
Occurrence of obstructions, removal method Rock Core Log
Depth to top of rock Inspection Log
Sidewall conditions (roughness, smearing) Construction and Pay Summary
Roughening or grooving of sidewalls
Use and handling of slurry and casing
Inspection methods and devices (e.g., SID)
Coring at the base
Cleanout specs., verification method

Sampling and testing Sampling of rock for lab tests; Proper sampling/testing equipment and
Field tests on rock; e.g., point load, hardness; knowledge of procedures
NDT/NDE
*See Williams et al. (2002) for descriptions of inspection forms.
Notes: RQD = rock quality designation; SID = shaft inspection device; NDT = nondestructive testing; NDE =
nondestructive evaluation.
92

downhole inspection is needed. Responses to Question 11 Most states include specifications for conditions at the
of the survey reveal a wide variety of methods used for this bottom of the hole that must be satisfied before pouring
purpose. Nine states reported that coring is required into rock concrete. Some distinguish between shafts designed for base
below the bottom of the shaft after the excavation to base resistance and those designed under the assumption of zero
elevation is complete. Typical required depths range from base resistance. A very typical specification (five states)
1.5 m to 10 m, three diameters, etc., although one state re- is “minimum 50% of the base area to have less than 12 mm
quires coring 15 m below the bottom of the shaft. Coring be- (0.5 in.) and maximum depth not to exceed 38 mm (1.5 in).”
low the base during construction allows a determination to Some states allow up to 300 mm (6 in.) of loose material
be made of the adequacy of rock below the base to (1) pro- when base resistance is neglected.
vide the base resistance assumed in the design; (2) ensure
that the base is bearing on bedrock and not an isolated boul- When sockets are poured under dry conditions, common
der (“floater”); and (3) detect the presence of seams, voids, inspection methods to verify bottom conditions are either
or other features that would require changes in the base visual inspection or downhole cameras. For wet pours (under
elevation or other remedial actions. slurry or water) the most common method is to lower a
weighted tape (e.g., a piece of rebar on the end of a tape mea-
Five states reported using a probing tool to inspect core sure) to the bottom of the hole and “feel” the bottom condi-
holes at the bottom of the completed excavation (Figure 77). tions by bobbing the weight against the bottom. Although
This method, which in most cases requires downhole entry somewhat subjective, an experienced inspector can differen-
by the inspector, is most useful for detecting seams of soft tiate between clean water or slurry and contaminated condi-
material in discontinuities. It is most applicable in limestone tions. Downhole cameras are available that permit viewing
and dolomite where the bedrock surface is highly weathered, of conditions under water or slurry. A device used by the
irregular, and filled with slots and seams of clayey soil. Florida DOT referred to as a shaft inspection device or SID
has been used successfully in slurry shafts (Crapps 1986).
Proper safety measures are paramount for downhole entry.
The device, shown in Figure 78, has a color television cam-
Five states reported using fiber optic cameras for inspection
of core holes, which is safer and provides visual evidence of
seams, cavities, and fractures, but does not provide the “feel”
of probing that may be useful in karstic formations. Four of
the states reporting use of probe rods are in the Southeast
where karstic conditions are most common.

Base of
Socket

Probe
Rod

FIGURE 77 Rock probing tool (after Brown 1990). FIGURE 78 Shaft inspection device or SID.
 93

era encased in a watertight bell and equipped with a light that may be of a smaller diameter than the shaft above the
source and a water jet for clearing sediment to provide clear socket.
pictures of the shaft sides and base. The SID was developed
in Australia specifically for inspection of rock sockets under
bentonite slurry. North Carolina also reported using a SID, EXAMPLES OF DIFFICULT GEOLOGIC
CONDITIONS
and several other states use downhole cameras to inspect
sockets under water or slurry.
Some of the most difficult conditions for drilled shaft con-
struction and inspection are karstic limestone and residual
The survey shows that some states neglect socket-base re- profiles that grade from soil to weathered rock to intact rock.
sistance altogether if concrete is placed under slurry or water Experiences and approaches to these conditions identified by
(Question 14). The rationale is that base conditions cannot be the literature review are summarized here.
verified with sufficient reliability to be sure that a poor base,
or “soft bottom,” condition is avoided. This refers to a layer
of disturbed soil, slurry, or contaminated concrete at the base, Shafts in Limestone
which may allow excessively large downward movement be-
fore the resistance of the underlying rock can be mobilized. Use of drilled shafts in karstic terrain is considered by Knott et
These concerns may be justified under some conditions. al. (1993), Sowers (1994), and others. Brown (1990) describes
However, as described in chapter three (see Table 16 and design and construction challenges of using drilled shafts in hard
Figure 23), there are good reasons to account for base resis- pinnacled limestones and dolomites encountered in the Valley
tance even for shafts constructed under wet-hole conditions. and Ridge and Cumberland Plateau physiographic provinces.
Construction and inspection practices that can be taken to Subsurface conditions are highly irregular owing to extensive
avoid poor base conditions include appropriate specifications weathering. Although intact rock strengths may be high (up to
70 MPa or 10,000 psi), numerous seams, slots, and cavities
and quality control on properties of slurry at the bottom of the
are typically filled with residual clayey soils (see Figure 79).
hole prior to concrete placement, cleanout of slurry contam-
Boulders and chert nodules are often embedded in the soils.
inated with cuttings or suspended particles before concrete
Drilling through soil is often performed in the dry soil and then
placement, use of a weighted tape to “feel” the bottom of the
a casing set when rock is encountered. Drilling in the rock is
hole as an inspection tool, downhole viewing devices for in-
difficult and can involve a combination of rock augers, drill
spection of bottom conditions (e.g., SID), and proper use of
and shoot methods, and core barrels. Sudden groundwater in-
a pig or other device in the tremie pipe to prevent mixing flow is common upon encountering soil seams and slots.
of concrete and slurry. Post-grouting of the shaft base is a
measure that could be incorporated into design and con- In this environment of extreme variability the actual soil
struction to provide quality base conditions in drilled shafts. and rock conditions for a specific drilled shaft cannot be
determined with any degree of accuracy before construction.
It is instructive to observe that most states that have Design, construction, and inspection have to be flexible
incorporated field load testing of rock sockets into their foun- enough to adjust to conditions actually encountered. For
dation programs, using a method that allows measurement example, where shafts can be shown to bear at least partially
of base load-displacement, now include both side and base on sound rock, base resistance is assumed, but highly
resistances in their design calculations. This is based on load
test results that show, when proper quality control is applied,
that base resistance is a significant component of shaft resis-
tance at service loads.

Nondestructive Testing and Evaluation

Field tests to evaluate the integrity of as-built drilled shafts are

now used widely in the industry as part of overall quality
assurance. Nondestructive methods for testing (NDT) and
evaluation (NDE) are covered in Chapter 17 of the Drilled
Shaft Manual (O’Neill and Reese 1999) and in several other
publications. The survey for this study included a question
asking respondents to identify any issues pertaining to NDT
and NDE that are unique or important specifically for rock-
socketed drill shafts. No issues were identified, other than the
need to consider locating NDT access tubes in the reinforcing
cage so that the entire assembly is able to fit into a socket FIGURE 79 Features of karstic terrain (Knott et al. 1993).
94

(a) (b) (c)

FIGURE 80 Commonly encountered conditions for shafts in pinnacled limestone (Brown 1990).

conservative values are used to account for the presence of by decomposed metamorphic rocks and a weathering profile
seams at the base. This case is illustrated in Figure 80a, in characterized by unpredictable variability in the thickness and
which a probe rod placed down one or more probe holes quality of the weathered materials. Drilled shafts are used ex-
drilled into the base can be used to determine the extent and tensively for major structures in this region, primarily because
nature of the seam. One criterion for acceptance is rock cov- it has been recognized that large axial loads can be supported if
erage of 75% or more of the base area and vertical seams. a shaft is extended to either decomposed or intact rock.
Figure 80b shows a nonvertical seam, which should be
detectable by one of the probe holes and might necessitate Gardner (1987) identified three general weathering hori-
additional drilling to preclude shear failure along the seam. zons in the Piedmont: (1) residual soil, representing advanced
Alternatively, the seam could be excavated and grouted. This chemical alteration of the parent rock; (2) highly altered and
technique would not be recommended if seepage is expected leached soil-like material (saprolite) retaining some of the
into the excavated seam. Where shafts are bearing on a sec- structure of the parent rock; and (3) decomposed rock (locally
tion of rock bounded by vertical seams or slots and the pos- referred to as partially weathered rock), which is less altered
sibility of fracturing exists, rock anchors are sometimes used but can usually be abraded to sand- and silt-sized particles.
to transfer load across potential fracture planes, as illustrated The underlying intact rock is typically fractured near its sur-
in Figure 80c. Rock anchors or micropiles are also used to face but increases in quality with depth. The thickness and
transfer load across horizontal seams filled with soft soil and characteristics of each zone vary considerably throughout the
detected by probing beneath the base. region and may vary over short horizontal distances, and
boundaries between the horizons may not be distinct. Figure
To provide the flexibility needed for design, inspection, 81 shows a typical profile based on borings at one site. Factors
and construction, creative contracting approaches are also that make drilled shafts challenging to design and build in the
needed. Brown (1990) reported that contracting such work Piedmont are:
on a unit cost basis provided the flexibility needed to deal
with the unknown quantities of soil versus rock drilling, con- • Highly variable subsurface profiles,
crete overpours, rock anchoring, drilling of probe holes, etc. • Presence of cobbles and boulders,
The engineer estimates the unit quantities, but actual pay- • Steeply dipping bedrock surfaces, and
ment is based on unit costs of material quantities actually • Difficulties in distinguishing between soil, partially
used. This requires careful inspection and record keeping. weathered rock, and intact rock for pay purposes.

The first of these makes it difficult to determine ahead of

Drilled Shafts in the Piedmont time what the final base elevation will be for shafts required
to reach intact rock. At least one boring at each drilled shaft
The Piedmont Physiographic Province of the eastern United location can help to address this issue. Figure 82 illustrates
States, extending from Alabama to New Jersey, is characterized two conditions that can cause “refusal” before the shaft
 95

HORIZONTAL SCALE (FT)

0 100 200 300 400 500

930 B3
B1 B2
10
10 31 PARTIAL LEGEND
920 10
8 ZONE I 8 C.T. CORING TERMINATED
6 11
12 17
910 11 -10 PENETRATION RESISTANCE
18
18 NX-18% CORE RECOVERY
55 ZONE II 12
50/3" 16
900 RQD-82 ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION
16
NX-18% 10
24 ZONE I FILL
RQD-0 19
890 50/5" ZONE II RESIDUAL SOIL
NX-95% 53
RQD-82 NX-15% ZONE III 50/3"
ZONE III PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK
880 RQD-0
C.T. 50/4" ZONE IV ROCK
NX-90% 50/5" GROUNDWATER, TIME OF BORING
870 RQD-79
C.T. NX-87%
RQD-10 24-HR GROUNDWATER
860 ZONE IV
NX-95%
RQD-51
850
C.T.
ELEVATION (FT)

FIGURE 81 Typical Piedmont subsurface profile (after Schwartz 1987).

is drilled to its design base elevation. When refusal is en- These examples illustrate the challenges that can be en-
countered on a boulder that is “floating,” questions may countered in the design and construction of rock-socketed
arise concerning whether the boulder is an obstruction or drilled shafts as a result of certain geologic conditions, as
constitutes drilling in rock. Similarly, when sloping bedrock well as approaches that others have found successful for
is first encountered, the volume of material excavated to addressing such challenges. Every foundation site is unique
reach base elevation may be disputed as to whether it is soil geologically, and successful design and construction ap-
or rock, and drilling into sloping rock can be difficult. One proaches are those that are adapted to fit the ground condi-
approach is to install casing until one edge of the casing hits tions. Mother Nature is quite unforgiving to those who behave
rock, then drill a smaller diameter pilot hole into the rock otherwise.
followed by drilling to the design diameter and advancement
of the casing.
SUMMARY
Gardner (1987) reviews design methods for axial load-
ing of drilled shafts in Piedmont profiles, including recom- Construction and issues related to constructability are inte-
mendations for design side and base resistances in rock and gral parts of drilled shaft foundation engineering. A review
methods used to determine relative load transfer between of rock drilling technologies is presented and shows that a
side and base. Harris and Mayne (1994) describe load tests wide variety of equipment and tools is available to contrac-
in Piedmont residual soils. O’Neill et al. (1996) used the tors for building drilled shafts in rock. The design, manufac-
tests of Harris and Mayne to develop the recommendations turing, and implementation of rock drilling tools is a field
for side resistance in cohesionless IGM from Standard Pen- unto itself and it is important for foundation designers to be
etration Test results, as presented in chapter three. Both knowledgeable about the availability and capability of tools
Gardner (1987) and Schwartz (1987) outline measures that and drilling machines. Constructability issues are interrelated
can be taken to minimize construction delays and contract with all of the steps shown in the flowchart of Figure 3, de-
disputes when building rock-socketed shafts in Piedmont picting the design and construction process for rock-socketed
profiles. The principal requirements are: (1) thorough site shafts. Beginning with site characterization and continuing
investigation, (2) design and construction provisions that through final inspection, constructability is taken into ac-
can accommodate the unpredictable variations in subsur- count in foundation selection, in design methods through the
face materials and final base elevations, and (3) construc- effects of construction on side resistance, in critical design
tion specifications and contract documents that facilitate decisions such as whether base resistance will be included,
field changes in construction methods and shaft lengths. in writing of specifications pertaining to use of slurry and
Successful construction also depends on highly qualified bottom cleanout, and in matching inspection tools and pro-
inspectors and clear communication between design engi- cedures to construction methods. The literature review iden-
neers, contractors, and inspectors. tified many aspects of constructability pertaining to rock
96

sockets and these are summarized. Practices that can improve

constructability; for example, the use of SCC and installation
of method shafts are identified.

Field load testing of rock sockets has increased since the

advent of innovative load testing methods, especially the
O-cell and the STN. The basic mechanics of these and other
tests are described, followed by a review of current applica-
tions of each to testing of rock-socketed shafts. The survey
shows that many states are using the O-cell to verify, and also
to improve, design methods of rock sockets. A description of
the KDOT experience with O-cell testing in rock is presented
as an example. Load testing is also shown to be a factor in
increased use of rock-socketed drilled shafts by transporta-
tion agencies. Finally, load testing with the O-cell has been
a useful tool for identifying and evaluating poor versus good
construction practices. The report by Schmertmann et al.
(1998), referenced several times in this chapter, is a particu-
larly useful source for that information.

Inspection and field quality control are recognized in the

drilled shaft industry as the critical link between design and
construction. Excellent sources of information on inspection
are available and these are identified. The NHI inspector
certification course is highly recommended for all inspec-
tion personnel. Some of the tools identified by the survey
and literature review that can be most effective for rock-
socket inspection are the SID, coring of rock beneath the
socket-base, use of probing tools, and downhole fiber optic
cameras.

Two geologic environments in which rock-socket con-

struction poses special challenges, karstic limestone and
Piedmont residual profiles, are presented to illustrate some
of the practices that lead to successful projects. Matching of
FIGURE 82 Typical drilling in Piedmont soils and rock design and construction strategies to ground conditions is the
(Schwartz 1987). essence of constructability.
 97

CHAPTER SIX

CONCLUSIONS

This synthesis identified technologies and practices available to and rock mass, and baseline information needed to assess
transportation agencies for utilization of rock-socketed drilled constructability. Drilling also provides the means to conduct
shafts as reliable and cost-effective structure foundations. All in situ tests. Every transportation agency that responded to
thirty-two of the state transportation agencies responding to the the survey currently relies on rock coring as the primary source
survey are currently using rock-socketed shafts, some quite ex- of design and construction information for rock-socketed
tensively (more than 20 projects per year). The single Canadian shafts.
agency responding to the survey has not used drilled shafts
extensively to date. Use of rock-socketed drilled shafts for Geophysical methods can provide additional valuable in-
transportation structures has increased significantly over the formation when applied appropriately by competent users.
past 25 years and technologies applied to design, construction, NCHRP Synthesis 357: Use of Geophysics for Transporta-
and testing have advanced considerably. tion Projects (Sirles) identifies the major geophysical methods
that are applicable to geotechnical investigations and found
The design process for structural foundations by state that overall use of geophysics by transportation agencies is ex-
transportation agencies is outlined in chapter one. Responsi- panding. Seismic refraction for establishing depth to bedrock
bilities typically are separated into geotechnical and struc- is the most common use of geophysics for drilled shafts in
tural categories. Site characterization, geomaterial property rock. However, of 33 responding agencies, only 8 (24%) re-
evaluation, and design issues related to geotechnical capac- ported using geophysics, including 7 that use seismic refrac-
ity or load-deformation analysis are normally addressed as tion and 1 that uses electrical resistivity. These data suggest
geotechnical issues, whereas structural modeling and rein- that geophysical methods are not used widely for investiga-
forced-concrete design are normally carried out by structural tions related specifically to foundations in rock. Survey
engineers. Design for lateral loading requires significant input results from the Sirles study show that agency experience is
and analysis by both geotechnical and structural personnel. mixed, with both successful and unsuccessful cases being
cited. Factors associated with successful cases (for depth to
The overall process of design and construction (i.e., engi- bedrock) are: sufficient number of borings to validate and
neering) is shown to consist of highly interrelated factors, correlate the seismic results, interpretation by qualified geo-
requiring an integrated approach to drilled shaft foundations. physicists, and clear understanding of the capabilities and
Figure 3 in chapter one illustrates the process in the form of limitations of the technology.
a flowchart. Adequate site characterization is needed to
obtain the basic information required for both geotechnical Geophysical methods that show potential for rock site in-
analysis and construction. Constructability issues are best vestigations include electrical resistivity tomographic profil-
addressed during the design process, when decisions such as ing and borehole televiewers. Multi-array resistivity methods
whether to include side resistance, base resistance, or both have shown the ability to provide accurate images of subsur-
must be made on the basis of anticipated subsurface condi- face profiles in karstic terrains when used in conjunction
tions, construction methods, load testing, inspection meth- with borings. Borehole televiewers, both acoustic and opti-
ods, and experience. cal, may have limited applicability to rock foundations. They
are primarily useful for providing detailed information on
structural discontinuities. For large or critical rock-socket
SITE AND GEOMATERIAL CHARACTERIZATION projects, where the orientation and condition of discontinu-
ities in situ is a critical concern, these devices can supplement
The most valuable and reliable information for rock-socket information obtained from more conventional core logging.
design is obtained by drilling and taking core samples of the Other potentially useful methods are downhole seismic and
rock at the location of each structural foundation. Careful crosshole seismic. A case described by LaFronz et al. in
logging of rock core, photographic records, and proper han- 2004, “Geologic Characterization of Bridge Foundations,
dling of core to obtain samples for laboratory testing provide Colorado River Bridge, Hoover Dam Bypass Project,” showed
the basic information that will be used for rock mass classi- good correlation between rock mass modulus from downhole
fication, evaluation of engineering properties of intact rock seismic testing and rock mass modulus from correlations to
98

the Geological Strength Index (GSI). This approach warrants DESIGN FOR AXIAL LOAD
further consideration.
Methods for predicting the behavior of rock sockets under
The laboratory test most widely applied to foundation axial loading have developed considerably since the 1970s.
design is uniaxial compression of intact rock. Properties The literature review showed that axial load transfer is rea-
obtained are uniaxial compressive strength (qu) and elastic sonably well understood in terms of its basic mechanisms.
modulus of intact rock (ER). Poisson’s ratio may also be Effects of interface roughness, socket-length-to-diameter
determined. Uniaxial compressive strength is used directly ratio, modulus ratio, and other variables have been studied
in the most widely applied design methods for evaluating analytically and experimentally, providing a broad under-
unit side resistance, unit base resistance, and limiting pres- standing of the underlying concepts. Although design meth-
sure under lateral loading. Modulus of intact rock is not ods do not incorporate all of the governing parameters
used directly, but rather with other rock mass characteris- explicitly, understanding the underlying mechanics is useful
tics to evaluate rock mass deformation modulus (EM). in many ways, including to provide a framework for under-
Other laboratory tests applicable to rock-socket design in- standing the limitations of empirical design methods.
clude the splitting tensile strength (used for side resistance
in limestone) and the point load strength (an index of com- Specific methods for predicting side and base capacities
pressive strength). Direct shear testing is used to assess must be in a form that matches the level of knowledge of the
shear strength of rock mass discontinuities and can be used ground conditions and that is based on commonly measured
to test shear strength of rock/concrete interfaces. Slake rock and intermediate geomaterials (IGM) properties. Chap-
durability is used to assess potential for rapid degradation ter three of this synthesis provides a summary and review of
and smearing of weak rocks during construction of rock available methods and it is shown that conservative, reliable,
sockets. first-order estimates can be made for design values of side
resistance on the basis of uniaxial strength of intact rock.
Rock mass classification systems have useful applications Geomaterial-specific methods are presented for Florida lime-
in foundation design. The Rock Mass Rating (RMR) as given stone, residual Piedmont soils (cohesionless IGMs), and
by Bieniawski in Engineering Rock Mass Classifications weak argillaceous rocks (cohesive IGMs). A method based
(1989) incorporates the most important rock mass character- on direct correlation to Texas Cone Penetration Test results
istics (including rock quality designation) that control the illustrates how some agencies use in-house methods.
strength and deformability of a rock mass. The RMR is use-
ful as an overall indicator of rock quality and suitability as a For base capacity, a variety of methods have been pro-
founding material, and is the basis for correlations to rock posed in the literature. Because several modes of failure
mass strength and modulus. Approximately one-half of the are possible depending on structural characteristics of the
states responding to the survey reported using RMR in con- rock mass, no single equation is applicable to all conditions.
nection with rock-socket projects. The GSI introduced by Furthermore, few studies have been conducted comparing
Hoek et al. in Support of Underground Excavations in Hard proposed bearing capacity models with measured base ca-
Rock (1995) can be evaluated on the basis of RMR and is pacities on socketed shafts loaded to failure. A 1998 study by
also correlated directly with rock mass strength, through the Zhang and Einstein provided a first-order approximation of
Hoek–Brown strength criterion, and rock mass modulus of unit base resistance from uniaxial strength of intact rock,
deformation. GSI is now being used in geomechanical based on a limited database of field load tests. For intact rock,
models for bearing capacity in rock and for evaluation of a conservative upper-bound unit base resistance can be taken
limiting lateral pressure for shafts in rock under lateral as 2.5 times the uniaxial compressive strength. Two methods
loading. given in the Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual
and incorporated into current AASHTO specifications are
In situ testing in rock is used primarily to obtain rock mass recommended for horizontally jointed sedimentary rocks.
modulus (EM). Pressuremeter (PMT) and borehole jack are For highly fractured rock masses, a lower-bound estimate
the methods being used. Modulus values obtained by PMT of ultimate bearing capacity can be made in terms of RMR
are affected by the scale of the test relative to the scale of or GSI.
rock mass features (discontinuity spacing and orientation)
and may or may not be representative for the purpose of Analytical methods for predicting axial load-displacement
foundation analysis. The principal use of rock mass modulus of rock sockets are needed to design shafts to limit settlement
is in analyzing axial and lateral load deformation response of and to determine the percentage of load carried by base resis-
rock sockets. There are several published p-y curve criteria tance under service load conditions. Methods based on elas-
for laterally loaded shafts that incorporate modulus as deter- tic and elastoplastic finite-element modeling are available in
mined by PMT. The issue of whether the modulus values the form of charts. Although these methods are useful, they
from PMT are the most appropriate requires further research. are cumbersome. Simple closed-form solutions that are
Table 15 in chapter two summarizes the rock mass properties implemented easily on a spreadsheet are presented. Both
required for design of rock-socketed shafts. approaches require knowledge of the rock mass modulus.
 99

DESIGN FOR LATERAL LOAD design of rock-socketed shafts. O-cell testing almost always
demonstrates that base resistance provides a significant por-
Methods for analysis of rock sockets under lateral loading are tion of total axial resistance under service load conditions.
readily available to foundation designers, but currently are Data from Crapps and Schmertmann in Figure 23, chapter
subject to uncertainties regarding their reliability. The survey three, show direct evidence of significant base load transfer
shows that all states currently use the p-y method of analysis. when appropriate construction and inspection methods are
Criteria for p-y curves in rock have been proposed and these applied to base conditions. Furthermore, O-cell and STN
are the most widely used at the current time. However, the testing often result in higher values of allowable side resis-
proposed criteria were described as “interim” when they first tance than would be calculated using the recommended
appeared, because of the insufficient field load test data avail- prediction equations, which are intended to be conservative.
able for validation. Research aimed at improving p-y curve
criteria for rock has been described. The proposed methods Lateral load testing of rock sockets can be conducted
also require additional verification by comparisons with field using O-cell and STN methods. The STN method may be
load testing. A major feature of p-y methods of analysis is that particularly applicable for design of shafts subject to
they provide structural analysis of the reinforced-concrete dynamic lateral loading, such as impact and seismic. Lateral
shaft that incorporates the nonlinear moment–EI relationship. O-cell testing has been demonstrated successfully, although
This feature provides a useful interface between geotechnical research is suggested to develop procedures to relate lateral
and structural design. O-cell test results to p-y curve criteria and to parameters used
in other analytical methods. Conventional static lateral load
Analysis methods based on elastic continuum theory have testing is still the most common method and is a proven
been developed for lateral loading. The Carter and Kulhawy approach to verifying performance and studying load trans-
method (1992) requires a minimal number of parameters and fer behavior. Lateral load testing on instrumented shafts is
is easy to implement by hand or spreadsheet, but is applica- the only reliable method for validating p-y curves for design.
ble only over the range of elastic response. The Zhang et al.
method (2000) provides the complete nonlinear response, but
requires more input parameters and relies on a finite-difference CONSTRUCTABILITY AND INSPECTION
computer solution. These methods may be useful in the Pre-
liminary Foundation Design phase (Figure 2, chapter one), Issues of constructability and inspection are related directly
for making first-order assessments of trial designs to satisfy to rock-socket design and performance. Load testing, espe-
service limit state criteria for lateral displacements. They are cially with O-cell methods, has helped to identify the effects
most applicable when the ground profile can be idealized as of various construction methods on rock-socket perfor-
consisting of one or two homogeneous layers; for example, mance. For example, the perception that construction of rock
soil over rock. sockets is best facilitated by using full-depth casing and tak-
ing measures to permit a “dry” pour has been shown to have
detrimental effects on side and base resistances. Use of water
LOAD TESTING or slurry, when subjected to appropriate quality control, pro-
vides better performance by eliminating inward seepage,
A positive development for drilled shaft design has been the trapping of cuttings behind casing, and potential for smear-
introduction of several innovative field load testing methods. ing as the casing is removed.
The Osterberg Cell (O-cell) and Statnamic (STN) tests can
be conducted in less time, at lower cost, and with less equip- Tools available for incorporating constructability into
ment than conventional axial load testing methods. This has rock-socket design through specifications, plans, and inspec-
given transportation agencies the option of incorporating tion procedures are identified in several publications, includ-
load testing into the design process on individual projects ing the FHWA Drilled Shaft Manual and the Participants
and developing databases of shaft performance in specific Manual for the National Highway Institute Inspectors Certi-
geologic environments. The experience of the Kansas De- fication Course. Several state agencies have developed
partment of Transportation is described as a model example model drilled shaft specifications that incorporate proven
for incorporating O-cell testing into a comprehensive pro- constructability practices (see for example, Washington State
gram that has resulted in more efficient use and design of DOT Geotechnical Design Manual 2005). Recent develop-
rock-socketed shafts. Many of the states surveyed have taken ments in concrete mix design, such as self-consolidating
advantage of O-cell and STN testing and this has resulted in concrete, are expected to provide improved constructability.
a significant increase in load test data. It is suggested that a Inspection tools such as the shaft inspection device used
database of load test results be developed, analyzed, main- by Florida and North Carolina have direct implications for
tained, and made available to the wider research community. design. By providing a means to verify base conditions un-
der water or slurry construction, designers are better prepared
The survey shows that states using the O-cell for axial to include base resistance in socket design. Construction of
load testing are less likely to neglect base resistance for “technique” or “method” shafts and contractor constructability
100

reviews before publication of the final design and bidding proposed by several researchers. These design methods are
phases are additional tools for incorporating constructability. limited because roughness is not a commonly measured pa-
rameter in the field. Construction techniques are constantly
under development and innovative methods that can lead to
RESEARCH NEEDED TO ADVANCE improved quality should be encouraged and, where appro-
STATE OF PRACTICE
priate, developed further through research.
Information gathered for this study suggests that develop-
ment of improved practices for design and construction • Consider developing a manual or design circular fo-
of rock-socketed drilled shafts might be achieved through cused specifically on drilled shafts in rock.
the following research or wider dissemination of existing • Research is needed for axial load tests on instrumented
information. shafts for the purpose of evaluating prediction equa-
tions for base resistance in rock; O-cell and STN tests
are ideal for this purpose.
Site Characterization • Identify efficient and inexpensive field roughness mea-
surement methods that can be incorporated into design
• Studies are needed to better define the best methods for equations; correlate roughness parameters to rock type,
determination of rock mass deformation modulus specif- drilling tools, groundwater conditions, etc.
ically for use in rock-socket design. In situ methods, • Investigate the potential of base grouting as a quality
including borehole jack and PMT, may yield different assurance tool for rock-socketed shafts.
results and both could be compared with the most up-to-
date correlations with RMR and GSI.
• A survey of contractors could be conducted to identify Design for Lateral Loading
the rock mass information most useful for evaluating
construction in rock; avoiding overemphasis on “weak- Methods developed for analysis of deep foundations in soil,
est” materials. especially the p-y curve method, are the methods of choice
• Application of geophysical methods to rock-socket for laterally loaded rock sockets. The principal limitation lies
design requires further research and development. in the lack of proven p-y curve criteria for rock and IGM.
Guidelines are needed for matching appropriate meth- This problem could be addressed by first conducting a com-
ods to site conditions. Case histories of successes and prehensive analysis of all existing load test results to evaluate
limitations could be published and distributed. proposed models, followed by research involving additional
• Research is needed relating rock drillability to rock mass field load testing against which p-y curve criteria can be eval-
characteristics; correlations to RMR or GSI warrant uated and calibrated.
investigation.
• Relationships between the reliability of rock and IGM • Conduct research to collect and analyze all existing
engineering properties and resistance factors used in lateral load test results, with the goal of establishing
load and resistance factor design could be investigated uniform criteria for p-y curve development.
and quantified sufficiently to support the resistance val- • Transportation agencies could undertake research in-
ues recommended in AASHTO specifications; this volving lateral load tests on properly instrumented
topic could be the subject of ongoing research. rock-socketed shafts, designed specifically for testing
and calibration of p-y criteria for rock and IGM.

Design for Axial Loading Structural Design

Sufficient analytical tools exist for the reliable design of Structural issues of concern to foundation designers, as iden-
sockets under axial loading. However, much of this informa- tified by the survey, included uncertainty regarding appar-
tion is widely scattered in the literature. The FHWA Drilled ently high shearing forces in shafts analyzed using p-y curve
Shaft Manual and the 2006 Interim AASHTO LRFD Bridge analyses and questions pertaining to moment capacity of
Design Specifications include some available methods, but short, rigid sockets. These issues can best be addressed by
are not concise and clear in the presentation, and include rigorous analytical methods in conjunction with load tests on
some out-of-date methods. Numerous equations are presented carefully instrumented shafts in rock. A structural issue that
in the literature for estimating base resistance of drilled shafts has yet to be investigated as it pertains to deep foundations is
in rock. Surprisingly, very little data are available by which the effect of confining stress on the strength and stiffness of
proposed methods can be evaluated. Studies are needed in- reinforced concrete. It may be that concrete strength could be
volving field axial load testing in which rock mass properties significantly increased under confining stresses typically en-
are well-documented and design equations for base resis- countered over the subsurface depths of many bridge foun-
tance can be evaluated. Equations for incorporating rough- dations. More economical structural designs may be possible
ness as a design parameter for unit side resistance have been if this issue is investigated and applied in practice. Permanent
 101

steel casing contributes to the structural capacity of drilled Management of Load Test Data
shafts. Design methods that account explicitly for the steel
casing are lacking in current design codes. Large amounts of data from load tests on rock-socketed
shafts, conducted for the purpose of research or for specific
• Consider fundamental research with the goal of quantify- transportation projects, have been acquired, especially since
ing the effects of geologic confining stress on reinforced- the development of new testing methods. These data can
concrete shear, moment, and compression behavior. be used most effectively if they are made available from a
Incorporate the results into structural design of drilled single source and organized in a systematic manner.
shafts.
• Conduct research and development of methods that ac- • Investigate placing those into a national database of
count for permanent steel casing in the structural design load test results for rock-socketed drilled shafts, for use
of drilled shafts. by transportation agencies and researchers.
102

EQUATION SYMBOLS

ENGLISH LETTERS—UPPERCASE Jn = joint set number.

Jr = joint roughness number.
Ab = cross-sectional area of the foundation base. Jw = joint water reduction factor.
Ac = cross-sectional area of concrete inside of spiral K = normal stiffness of rock-concrete interface.
steel. Kb = socket depth factor.
Ag = gross cross-sectional area of concrete shaft. Kir = initial slope of p-y curve.
As = surface area of the side of the foundation. Ko = in situ coefficient of lateral earth pressure.
Ast = total cross-sectional area of longitudinal rein- Kp = coefficient of passive earth pressure.
forcement. L = socket length.
Av = area of concrete in the cross section that is effec- LδM = length of equivalent fixed-end column consider-
tive in resisting shear. ing lateral deflection owing to moment.
Avs = cross-sectional area of shear reinforcement. LδV = length of equivalent fixed-end column consider-
B = foundation diameter. ing lateral deflection owing to shear.
Bls = diameter of a circle passing through the center of LθM = length of equivalent fixed-end column consider-
the longitudinal reinforcement. ing rotation owing to moment.
C = correlation factor relating point load strength to LθV = length of equivalent fixed-end column consider-
uniaxial compressive strength of rock; ing rotation owing to shear.
correlation coefficient relating uniaxial compres- Ls = nominal socket length.
sive strength to ultimate unit side resistance. Lt = total travel distance along socket wall profile for
D = foundation depth; distance between point loads roughness determination.
in point load test; rock-socket diameter. M = bending moment.
D s = depth of embedment in rock; thickness of soil N = standard penetration test value.
layer overlying rock. N60 = corrected N for field procedures corresponding to
E = elastic modulus; modulus of deformation. 60% hammer efficiency.
Eb = elastic modulus of rock mass below the shaft Nc = bearing capacity factor.
base. Ncr = bearing capacity factor.
Ec = elastic modulus of the concrete shaft. Nq = bearing capacity factor.
Ed = small-strain dynamic modulus. Nγ = bearing capacity factor.
Ee = effective elastic modulus of concrete shaft. Nφ = bearing capacity factor.
Eir = initial elastic modulus of rock mass. OCR = overconsolidation ratio.
EM = rock mass modulus of deformation. P = axial load acting on a drilled shaft; load at rupture
Ep = elastic modulus of the pile (shaft) material. in a point load test.
Er = elastic modulus of intact rock; modulus of rock Pr = factored axial resistance.
mass above the base. Pu = factored axial load.
ER = elastic modulus of intact rock. Pz = axial load on a deep foundation.
Es = elastic modulus of the shaft. Q = Tunneling Quality Index.
G* = equivalent shear modulus of rock mass. Q' = modified Tunneling Quality Index.
Gr = shear modulus of the elastic rock mass. Qb = load transmitted to the base of a rock socket; ul-
GSI = Geological Strength Index timate resistance at the socket base.
H = horizontal load acting on a drilled shaft. Qc = compressive force applied to the top of a drilled
ID = slake durability index. shaft.
IGM = intermediate geomaterial. Qi = intercept on the vertical axis (wc = 0) of axial
Is = uncorrected point load strength index; moment of load-displacement curve.
inertia of reinforced-concrete shaft. QOC = Osterberg cell test load.
Is(50) = point load strength corrected to a diameter of Qs = total side resistance (force).
50 mm. Qt = total compressive load applied to the top of the
Iρ = dimensionless influence factor for elastic shaft.
deformation. REC = average percent recovery of rock core.
J = coefficient used to evaluate ultimate lateral resis- RF = roughness factor.
tance in soil; bearing capacity correction RMR = rock mass rating.
factor that depends on the ratio of horizontal dis- RQD = rock quality designation.
continuity spacing to socket diameter. SRF = stress reduction factor.
Ja = joint alteration number. S = joint spacing.
 103

S1 = slope of the initial portion of axial load-displace- u = lateral displacement at the groundline of socketed
ment curve. shaft.
S2 = slope of the full-slip portion of axial load-dis- w = distributed load along the length of the shaft.
placement curve. wc = axial displacement at the top of a socketed shaft.
Vc = nominal shear resistance provided by concrete. xr = depth below rock surface.
Vn = nominal shear resistance of reinforced concrete. y = lateral deflection of a deep foundation.
Vp = compressional wave velocity. z = depth below rock mass surface.
Vr = factored shear resistance of reinforced concrete. zy = depth of yielding in soil and/or rock mass.
Vs = shear wave velocity; nominal shear resistance
provided by transverse steel.
GREEK SYMBOLS—UPPERCASE

ENGLISH LETTERS—LOWERCASE Δr = dilation or increase in shaft radius.

Δr = mean roughness height.
a = empirical constant in Hoek–Brown strength cri- Δrh = average height of asperities.
terion for rock mass.
b = empirical factor to account for effect of rough-
GREEK SYMBOLS—LOWERCASE
ness on side resistance.
c = rock mass cohesion; soil cohesion. α = ratio of design to ultimate unit side resistance; ratio
cpeak = peak interface adhesion. of rock mass modulus to modulus of intact rock;
cresidual = residual interface adhesion. empirical adhesion factor relating unit side resis-
cu = undrained shear strength. tance to uniaxial strength of intact rock.
d = effective shear depth of reinforced concrete.
γ = total unit weight of rock or soil.
ds = socket diameter.
γ' = effective unit weight of rock or soil.
f = shear wave frequency (hertz).
δr = relative shear displacement between concrete and
fc' = compressive strength of concrete at 28 days.
rock.
fdes = design unit side resistance.
δM = lateral deflection owing to moment.
fsu = ultimate unit side resistance.
δV = lateral deflection owing to shear.
fy = yield strength of reinforcing steel.
ε = strain.
kir = dimensionless constant used in p-y curve
υ = Poisson’s ratio.
criterion.
υc = Poisson’s ratio of concrete.
krm = constant used to establish the overall stiffness of
υb = Poisson’s ratio of rock mass beneath the base of
a p-y curve.
mb = empirical constant in Hoek–Brown strength cri- a rock socket.
terion for rock mass. υr = Poisson’s ratio of rock mass.
n = ratio of rock mass modulus to uniaxial compres- ηc = construction method reduction factor.
sive strength of intact rock. ρ = mass density.
p = lateral soil or rock reaction per unit length of ρs = ratio of spiral steel reinforcement volume to vol-
foundation. ume of concrete core.
p1 = limit pressure determined from a pressuremeter σ'1, σ'3 = major and minor principal effective stresses.
test. σ'h = horizontal effective stress.
pa = atmospheric pressure. σn = interface normal stress; fluid pressure exerted by
pA = horizontal active earth pressure. concrete at the time of placement.
pL = limit normal stress. σp' = preconsolidation stress.
po = at-rest total horizontal stress. σv = vertical total stress.
pur = rock mass ultimate lateral resistance. σv' = vertical effective stress,
pult = ultimate lateral resistance of soil or rock mass. τ = shear strength.
qu = uniaxial compressive strength of intact rock. τmax = shearing resistance at shaft-rock interface.
qult = ultimate bearing capacity. θ = shaft rotation.
qt = split tensile strength. θM = rotation owing to moment.
r = radius of drilled shaft. θV = rotation owing to shear.
rs = nominal socket radius. φ = friction angle; resistance factor.
s = empirical constant in Hoek–Brown strength cri- φ' = effective stress friction angle.
terion for rock mass; vertical spacing of the ties φpeak = peak interface friction angle.
or pitch of the spiral for shear reinforcement. φrc = residual angle of interface friction between rock
sc, sγ, sq = shape factors used in bearing capacity analysis. and concrete.
sv = vertical spacing between discontinuities. φresidual = residual friction angle.
td = aperture (thickness) of discontinuities. ψ = angle of dilation.
104

REFERENCES

Abu-Hejleh, N., M.W. O’Neill, D. Hanneman, and W.J. At- tions Institute Conference, Bruges, Belgium, 1994, pp.
wooll, Improvement of the Geotechnical Axial Design 616–630.
Methodology for Colorado’s Drilled Shafts Socketed Bieniawski, Z.T., “Geomechanics Classification of Rock
in Weak Rocks, Report No. CDOT-DTD-R-2003-6, Masses and Its Application in Tunnelling,” Proceedings,
Colorado Department of Transportation, Denver, 2003, Symposium on Exploration for Rock Engineering,
192 pp. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 1976, pp. 97–106.
Acker, W.L., III, Basic Procedures for Soil Sampling and Bieniawski, Z.T., “Determining Rock Mass Deformability—
Core Drilling, Acker Drill Company, Inc., Scranton, Pa., Experience from Case Histories,” International Journal
1974, 246 pp. of Rock Mechanics and Mineral Science, Vol. 15, 1978,
Allen, T.M., “Development of Geotechnical Resistance Fac- pp. 237–247.
tors and Downdrag Load Factors for LRFD Foundation Bieniawski, Z.T., Rock Mass Design in Mining and Tunnel-
Strength Limit State Design,” Publication FHWA-NHI- ing, Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 1984, 272 pp.
05-052, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, Bieniawski, Z.T., Engineering Rock Mass Classifications,
D.C., Feb. 2005. Wiley, New York, 1989.
Annual Book of ASTM Standards, American Society for Bishnoi, B.W., “Bearing Capacity of Jointed Rock,” Ph.D.
Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, Pa., 2000. thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Ga.,
Amir, J.M., Piling in Rock, Balkema, Rotterdam, The 1968.
Netherlands, 1986. Bloomquist, D. and F.C. Townsend, “Development of In Situ
Ashour, M., G. Norris, and P. Pilling, “Lateral Loading of a Equipment for Capacity Determinations of Deep Founda-
Pile in Layered Soil Using the Strain Wedge Model,” tions in Florida Limestones,” Report to Florida Depart-
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engi- ment of Transportation, University of Florida, Gainesville,
neering, Vol. 124, No. 4, 1998, pp. 303–315. 1991.
Bridge Design Aids, Massachusetts Highway Department,
Ashour, M. and G. Norris, “Modeling Lateral Soil-Pile Re-
Boston, 1990.
sponse Based on Soil-Pile Interaction,” Journal of Geo-
Broms, B.B., “Lateral Resistance of Piles in Cohesive Soils,”
technical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 126,
Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division,
No. 5, 2000, pp. 420–428.
Vol. 90, No. SM2, 1964a, pp. 27–63.
Ashour, M., G. Norris, S. Bowman, H. Beeston, P. Pilling,
Broms, B.B., “Lateral Resistance of Piles in Cohesionless
and A. Shamabadi, “Modeling Pile Lateral Response in
Soils,” Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations
Weathered Rock,” Proceedings, Symposium on Engi-
Division, Vol. 90, No. SM3, 1964b, pp. 123–156.
neering Geology & Geotechnical Engineering, Univer-
Brown, D.A., “Construction and Design of Drilled Shafts in
sity of Nevada, Las Vegas, 2001, pp. 639–649. Hard Pinnacled Limestones,” Transportation Research
Barker, R.M., J.M. Duncan, K.B. Rojiani, P.S.K. Ooi, C.K. Record 1277, Transportation Research Board, National
Tan, and S.G. Kim, NCHRP Report 343: Manuals for the Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1990, pp.
Design of Bridge Foundations, Transportation Research 148–152.
Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., Brown, D.A., “Evaluation of Static Capacity of Deep Foun-
1991, 308 pp. dations from Statnamic Testing,” Geotechnical Testing
Barton, N., “Review of a New Shear Strength Criterion for Journal, Vol. 17, No. 4, 1994, pp. 404–414.
Rock Joints,” Engineering Geology, Vol. 7, 1973, pp. Brown, D.A., “Load Testing for Drilled Shaft Foundations,”
287–332. Lecture Notes, Faculty Workshop 2000, International
Barton, N., R. Lien, and J. Lunde, “Engineering Classifi- Association of Foundation Drilling, Dallas, Tex., 2000.
cation of Rock Masses for the Design of Tunnel Sup- Brown, D.A., “Zen and the Art of Drilled Shaft Construction:
port,” Rock Mechanics, Vol. 6, No. 4, 1974, pp. The Pursuit of Quality,” Geotechnical Special Publica-
183–236. tion No. 124: Geo-Support 2004, J.P. Turner and P.W.
“Basic Geotechnical Description of Rock Masses,” Interna- Mayne, Eds., 2004, pp. 19–33.
tional Journal Rock Mechanics, Mineral Science and Geo- Brown, D.A., S.A. Hidden, and S. Zhang, “Determination of
mechanics Abstracts, Vol. 18, No. 1, 1981, pp. 85–110. p-y Curves Using Inclinometer Data,” Geotechnical Test-
Bedian, M.P., “Value Engineering During Construction,” ing Journal, Vol. 17, No. 2, 1994, pp. 150–158.
Geotechnical Special Publication No. 124: Geo-Support Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete,
2004, 2004, pp. 52–69. ACI318-94, American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Bermingham, P., C.D. Ealy, and J.K. White, “A Comparison Hills, Mich., 1985.
of Statnamic and Static Field Tests at Seven FHWA Bukovansky, M., “Determination of Elastic Properties of
Sites,” Proceedings, Fifth International Deep Founda- Rocks Using Various Onsite and Laboratory Methods,”
 105

Proceedings, 2nd Congress of the International Society of U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Rock Mechanics, Belgrade, Yugoslavia, Vol. 1, 1970, pp. Vicksburg, Miss., 1989.
329–332. DiMaggio, J.A., “Developments in Deep Foundation High-
Butterfield, R. and P.K. Banerjee, “The Elastic Analysis of way Practice—The Last Quarter Century,” Foundation
Compressible Piles and Pile Groups,” Geotechnique, Vol. Drilling, Vol. 24, No. 2, International Association of
21, No. 1, 1971, pp. 43–60. Foundation Drilling, Dallas, Tex., 2004, pp. 16–30.
Byles, R., “AGRA Foundations and Seacore Combine to DiMillio, A.F., “A Quarter Century of Geotechnical
Strengthen Major US Bridge,” Foundation Drilling, Vol. Research,” Report FHWA-RD-98-13X, Federal Highway
25, No. 7, International Association of Foundation Administration, Washington, D.C., 1998, 160 pp.
Drilling, Dallas, Tex., 2004, pp. 10–13. Donald, I.B., S.W. Sloan, and H.K. Chiu, “Theoretical
Caltrans, Sacramento, Calif., 2005 [Online]. Available: Analyses of Rock Socketed Piles,” Proceedings, Interna-
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/geotech/gg/atv_log.htm tional Conference on Structural Foundations on Rock,
[June 2005]. Vol. 1, Sydney, Australia, 1980, pp. 303–316.
Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual, 2nd ed., Dunscomb, M.H. and E. Rehwoldt, “Two-Dimensional Pro-
Canadian Geotechnical Society, Ottawa, Canada, 1985, filing: Geophysical Weapon of Choice in Karst Terrain
456 pp. for Engineering Applications,” Hydrogeology and Engi-
Carter, J.P. and F.H. Kulhawy, “Analysis and Design of neering Geology of Sinkholes and Karst—Proceedings of
Drilled Shaft Foundations Socketed into Rock,” Report the Seventh Multidisciplinary Conference on Sinkholes
EL-5918, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, and the Engineering and Environmental Impacts of Karst,
Calif., 1988, 188 pp. Hershey, Pa., 1999, pp. 219–224.
Carter, J.P. and F.H. Kulhawy, “Analysis of Laterally Eliassen, T., D. Richter, H. Crow, P. Ingraham, and T. Carter,
Loaded Shafts in Rock,” Journal of Geotechnical Engi- “Use of Optical Televiewer and Acoustical Televiewer
neering, Vol. 118, No. 6, 1992, pp. 839–855. Logging Methods in Lieu of Oriented Coring Methods,”
Cavusoglu, E., M.S. Nam, M.W. O’Neill, and M. McClel- Preprint, TRB Workshop on Geotechnical Methods
land, “Multi-Method Strength Characterization for Soft Revisited, Kansas City, Mo., Sep. 7, 2004, 2005.
Cretaceous Rocks in Texas,” Geotechnical Special El Naggar, M.H. and M.J.V. Baldinelli, “Interpretation of
Publication No. 124: Geo-Support 2004, J.P. Turner and Axial Statnamic Load Test Using an Automatic Signal
P.W. Mayne, Eds., 2004, pp. 199–210. Matching Technique,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
Cokceoglu, C., H. Sonmez, and A. Kayabasi, “Predicting the Vol. 37, 2000, pp. 927–942.
Deformation Moduli of Rock Masses,” International Engineering Manual EM 1110-1-2908, Rock Foundations,
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, Vol. 40, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C., 1994.
2003, pp. 701–710. Fleming, W.G.K., A.J. Weltman, M.F. Randolph, and W.K.
Coon, R.F. and A.T. Merritt, “Predicting In Situ Modulus of Elson, Piling Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New
Deformation Using Rock Quality,” Special Technical York, N.Y., 1992.
Publication No. 477, American Society for Testing and Frantzen, J. and W.F. Stratton, Final Report—p-y Curve
Materials (ASTM), Philadelphia, Pa., 1969. Data for Laterally Loaded Piles in Shale and Sandstone,
Crapps, D.K., “Design, Construction, and Inspection of Report FHWA-KS-87-2, Kansas Department of Trans-
Drilled Shafts in Limerock and Limestone,” Proceedings, portation, Topeka, 1987.
35th Annual Geotechnical Conference, ASCE/AEG, Uni- Gabr, M.A. and R.H. Borden, “LTBASE: A Computer Pro-
versity of Kansas, Lawrence, 1986, 38 pp. gram for the Analysis of Laterally Loaded Piers
Crapps, D.K., “Proposed Improvements for Drilled Shaft Including Base and Slope Effects,” Transportation
Design in Rock,” Prepared for the Florida Department of Research Record 1169, Transportation Research Board,
Transportation by Schmertmann & Crapps, Inc., National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1988,
Gainesville, Fla., 2001, 37 pp. pp. 83–93.
Crapps, D.K. and J.H. Schmertmann, “Compression Top Gabr, M.A., R.H. Borden, K.H. Cho, S. Clark, and J.B. Nixon,
Load Reaching Shaft Bottom—Theory Versus Tests,” P-y Curves for Laterally Loaded Drilled Shafts Embedded
Proceedings, International Deep Foundations Congress, in Weathered Rock, Report FHWA/NC/2002/08, North
Orlando, Fla., Feb. 14–16, 2002. Carolina State University, Raleigh, 2002, 289 pp.
Davisson, M.T., “Lateral Load Capacity of Piles,” Highway Gardner, W.S., “Design of Drilled Piers in the Atlantic
Research Record 333, Highway Research Board, Piedmont,” Geotechnical Special Publication No. 9:
National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1970, pp. Foundations and Excavations in Decomposed Rock of the
104–112. Piedmont Province, 1987, pp. 62–86.
Deere, D.U., “Technical Description of Rock Cores for “Geophysical Exploration for Engineering and Environmen-
Engineering Purposes,” Rock Mechanics and Engineer- tal Investigations,” Engineering Manual EM 1110-1-1802,
ing Geology, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1964, pp. 17–22. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C., 1995.
Deere, D.U. and D.W. Deere, Rock Quality Designation Georgiadis, M. and A.P. Michalopoulos, “Dilatometer Tests
(RQD) After Twenty Years, Contract Report GL-89-1, for the Design of Grouted Piles in Rock,” Proceedings, In
106

Situ ’86, Use of In Situ Tests in Geotechnical Engineer- Detailed Guidelines, Report EL-5915, Electric Power
ing, Blacksburg, Va., 1986, pp. 560–568. Research Institute, Palo Alto, Calif., 1988, 374 pp.
Geotechnical Design Manual, Washington State Department Hoek, E. and E.T. Brown, “Empirical Strength Criterion for
of Transportation, Olympia, 2005 [Online]. Available: Rock Masses,” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/fasc/EngineeringPublications/ Vol. 106, No. GT9, 1980, pp. 1013–1035.
Manuals/2005GDM/GDM.htm [Oct. 2005]. Hoek, E. and E.T. Brown, “Practical Estimates of Rock Mass
“Geotechnical Investigations,” Engineering Manual EM Strength,” International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
1110-1-1804, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, Mineral Science, Vol. 34, No. 8, 1997, pp. 1165–1180.
D.C., 2001. Hoek, E. and E.T. Brown, “The Hoek–Brown Failure
Geotechnical Manual, Texas Department of Transportation, Criterion—A 1988 Update,” Rock Engineering for Under-
Austin, 2000 [Online]. Available: http://manuals.dot.state. ground Excavations, Proceedings 15th Canadian Rock
tx.us/dynaweb/colbridg/geo [June 2005]. Mechanics Symposium, Toronto, ON, Canada, 1988,
Goodman, R.E., Methods of Geological Engineering in Dis- pp. 31–38.
continuous Rock, West Publishing Company, St. Paul, Hoek, E., P.K. Kaiser, and W.F. Bawden, Support of Under-
Minn., 1976. ground Excavations in Hard Rock, A.A. Balkema, Rot-
Goodman, R.E., Introduction to Rock Mechanics, John Wiley terdam, The Netherlands, 1995, 215 pp.
& Sons, New York, N.Y., 1980, 478 pp. Hoek, E., C. Carranza-Torres, and B. Corkum, “Hoek–Brown
Goodman, R.E. and G.-H. Shi, Block Theory and Its Appli- Failure Criterion—2002 Edition,” Proceedings, North
cation to Rock Engineering, Prentice–Hall, Englewood American Rock Mechanics Society Meeting, July 8–10,
Cliffs, N.J., 338 pp. 1985. 2002, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Greer, D.M. and W.S. Gardner, Construction of Drilled Pier Hoit, M., C. Hays, and M.C. McVay, “The Florida Pier
Foundations, John Wiley & Sons, New York, N.Y., 1986, Analysis Program—Methods and Models for Pier Analy-
246 pp. sis and Design,” Transportation Research Record 1569,
Gunnink, B. and C. Kiehne, “Capacity of Drilled Shafts in Transportation Research Board, National Research
Burlington Limestone,” Journal of Geotechnical and Council, Washington, D.C., 1997, pp. 1–8.
Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 128, No. 7, 2002, Horvath, R.G., “Field Load Test Data on Concrete-to-Rock
pp. 539–545. Bond Strength for Drilled Pier Foundations,” Department
Harris, D.E. and P.W. Mayne, “Axial Compression Behav- of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto Publication
ior of Two Drilled Shafts in Piedmont Residual Soils,” 78/07, ON, Canada, 1978.
Proceedings, International Conference on Design and Horvath, R.G., “Drilled Piers Socketed into Weak Rock—
Construction of Deep Foundations, Vol. 2, Orlando, Fla., Methods of Improving Performance,” Ph.D. thesis,
1994, pp. 352–367. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto,
Hassan, K.M. and M.W. O’Neill, “Side Load-Transfer ON, Canada, 1982.
Mechanisms in Drilled Shafts in Soft Argillaceous Rock,” Horvath, R.G. and T.C. Kenney, “Shaft Resistance of Rock
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engi- Socketed Drilled Piers,” Proceedings, Symposium on
neering, Vol. 123, No. 2, 1997, pp. 145–152. Deep Foundations, ASCE, New York, N.Y., 1979, pp.
Hassan, K.M., M.W. O’Neill, S.A. Sheikh, and C.D. Ealy, 182–214.
“Design Method for Drilled Shafts in Soft Argillaceous Horvath, R.G., T.C. Kenney, and P. Kozicki, “Methods of
Rock,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Improving the Performance of Drilled Piers in Weak
Engineering, Vol. 123, No. 3, 1997, pp. 272–280. Rock,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 20, 1983,
Hetenyi, M., Beams on Elastic Foundation, The University pp. 758–772.
of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Mich., 1946. Horvath, R.G., P. Bermingham, and P. Middendorp, “The
Heuze, F.E., “Scale Effects in the Determination of Rock Equilibrium Point Method of Analysis for Statnamic Load-
Mass Strength and Deformability,” Journal of Rock ing Test with Supporting Case Histories,” Proceedings,
Mechanics, Vol. 12, No. 3–4, 1980, pp. 167–192. Deep Foundations Conference, Pittsburgh, Pa., 1993.
Heuze, F.E., “Suggested Method for Estimating the In-Situ Hussein, M., B. Robinson, and G. Likens, “Application of a
Modulus of Deformation of Rock Using the NX-Borehole Simplified Dynamic Load Testing Method for Cast-in-
Jack,” Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 7, No. 4, 1984, Place Piles,” Geotechnical Special Publication No. 124,
pp. 205–210. Geo-Support 2004, 2004, pp. 110–121.
Hiltunen, D.R. and M.J.S. Roth, “Investigation of Bridge Johnston, I.W., T.S.K. Lam, and A.F. Williams, “Constant
Foundation Sites in Karst Terrane Via Multi-Electrode Normal Stiffness Direct Shear Testing for Socketed Pile
Resistivity,” Proceedings, Geotechnical and Geophysical Design in Weak Rock,” Geotechnique, Vol. 37, No. 1,
Site Characterization, A.V. da Fonseca and P.W. Mayne, 1987, pp. 83–89.
Eds., Millpress Science Publishers, Rotterdam, The Johnston, I.W. and T.S.K. Lam, “Shear Behavior of Regular
Netherlands, 2004, pp. 483–490. Triangular Concrete/Rock Joints–Analysis,” Journal of
Hirany, A. and F.H. Kulhawy, Conduct and Interpretation of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 115, No. 5, 1989, pp.
Load Tests on Drilled Shaft Foundations, Volume 1: 711–727.
 107

Knott, D.L., L.F. Rojas-Gonzales, and F.B. Newman, Cur- LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 3rd ed., American
rent Foundation Engineering Practice for Structures in Association of State Highway and Transportation Offi-
Karst Areas, Report FHWA-PA-91-007+90-12, Federal cials, Washington, D.C., 2004.
Highway Administration and Pennsylvania Department LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 2006 Interim, Section
of Transportation, Harrisburg, Pa., 1993. 10, Foundations, American Association of State Highway
Koutsoftas, D.C., “Caisson Socketed in Sound Mica Schist,” and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C., 2005.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 107, No. GT6, Manual on Subsurface Investigations, American Association
1981, pp. 743–757. of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washing-
Kulhawy, F.H., “Geomechanical Model for Rock Founda- ton, D.C., 1988.
tion Settlement,” Journal of the Geotechnical Engineer- Marinos, P. and E. Hoek, “GSI: A Geologically Friendly
ing Division, Vol. 104, No. GT2, 1978, pp. 211–227. Tool for Rock Mass Strength Estimation,” Proceedings,
Kulhawy, F.H. and J.P. Carter, “Settlement and Bearing Geo-Engineering 2000, International Conference on
Capacity of Foundations on Rock Masses,” In Engineering Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, Melbourne,
in Rock Masses, F.G. Bell, Ed., Butterworth–Heinemann, Australia, 2000, pp. 1422–1440.
Oxford, England, 1992a, pp. 231–245. Matlock, H., “Correlations for Design of Laterally Loaded
Kulhawy, F.H. and J.P. Carter, “Socketed Foundations in Piles in Soft Clay,” Proceedings, 2nd Offshore Technol-
Rock Masses,” In Engineering in Rock Masses, F.G. Bell, ogy Conference, Vol. 1, 1970, pp. 577–594.
Ed., Butterworth–Heinemann, Oxford, England, 1992b, Mattes, N.S. and H.G. Poulos, “Settlement of Single Com-
pp. 509–529. pressible Pile,” Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Founda-
Kulhawy, F.H. and R.E. Goodman, “Design of Foundations tions Division, Vol. 95, No. SM1, 1969, pp. 189–207.
on Discontinuous Rock,” Proceedings, International Mayne, P.W., B. Christopher, R. Berg, and J. DeJong,
Conference on Structural Foundations on Rock, Vol. 1, Manual on Subsurface Investigations, Report FHWA
Sydney, Australia, 1980, pp. 209–220. NHI-01-031, National Highway Institute, Federal
Kulhawy, F.H., C.H. Trautmann, and T.D. O’Rourke, “The Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 2001, 301
Soil-Rock Boundary: What Is It and Where Is It?” Geo- pp.
technical Special Publication No. 28: Detection of and McVay, M.C., F.C. Townsend, and R.C. Williams, “Design
Construction at the Soil/Rock Interface, 1991, pp. 1–15. of Socketed Drilled Shafts in Limestone,” Journal of
Kulhawy, F.H. and K.-K. Phoon, “Drilled Shaft Side Resis- Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 118, No. 10, 1992,
tance in Clay Soil to Rock,” Geotechnical Special pp. 1226–1237.
Publication No. 38: Design and Performance of Deep McVay, M.C. and L. Niraula, “Development of P-Y Curves
Foundations, 1993, pp. 172–183. for Large Diameter Piles/Drilled Shafts in Limestone for
Kulhawy, F.H. and W.A. Prakoso, “Discussion of ‘End Bear- FBPIER,” Final Report to Florida Department of Trans-
ing Capacity of Drilled Shafts in Rock,’” Journal of portation, Tallahassee, 2004, 158 pp.
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. Mullins, G., C.L. Lewis, and M.D. Justason, “Advancements
125, No. 12, 1998, pp. 1106–1109. in Statnamic Data Regression Techniques,” Geotechnical
Kulhawy, F.H., W.A. Prakoso, and S.O. Akbas, “Evaluation Special Publication No. 116: Deep Foundations 2002: An
of Capacity of Rock Foundation Sockets,” Alaska Rocks International Perspective on Theory, Design, Construc-
2005, Proceedings, 40th U.S. Symposium on Rock tion, and Performance, Vol. 2, 2002, pp. 915–930.
Mechanics, G. Chen, S. Huang, W. Zhou, and J. Tinucci, Mullins, G., D. Winters, and S. Dapp, “Predicting End
Eds., Anchorage, Alaska, June 2005, 8 pp. (CD-ROM). Bearing Capacity of Post-Grouted Drilled Shaft in Cohe-
Ladanyi, B., “Friction and End Bearing Tests on Bedrock sionless Soils,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenviron-
for High Capacity Rock Socket Design: Discussion,” Cana- mental Engineering, Vol. 132, No. 5, 2006, pp. 478–487.
dian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 14, 1977, pp. 153–155. Murphy, W.L., “Geotechnical Descriptions of Rock and
LaFronz, N.J., D.E. Peterson, R.D. Turton, and S. Anderson, Rock Masses,” Technical Report GL-85-3, U.S. Army
“Geologic Characterization for Bridge Foundations, Col- Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station,
orado River Bridge, Hoover Dam Bypass Project,” 54th Vicksburg, Miss., 1985.
Highway Geology Symposium, Burlington, Vt., 2003. O’Neill, M.W., F.C. Townsend, K.H. Hassan, A. Buller, and
Lai, P., “Determination of Design Skin Friction for Drilled P.S. Chan, Load Transfer for Drilled Shafts in Intermedi-
Shafts Socketed in the Florida Limestone,” Notes of ate Geomaterials, Report FHWA-RD-95-171, Federal
Florida DOT Design Conference, Florida Department of Highway Administration, McLean, Va., 1996, 184 pp.
Transportation, Tallahassee, 1998, pp. 140–146. O’Neill, M.W., D.A. Brown, F.C. Townsend, and N. Abar,
Littlechild, B.D., S.J. Hill, I. Statham, G.D. Plumbridge, and “Innovative Load Testing of Deep Foundations,” Trans-
S.C. Lee, “Determination of Rock Mass Modulus for portation Research Record 1569, Transportation
Foundation Design,” Geotechnical Special Publication Research Board, National Research Council, Washing-
No. 97: Innovations and Applications in Geotechnical ton, D.C., 1997, pp. 17–25.
Site Characterization, P.W. Mayne and R. Hryciw, Eds., O’Neill, M.W. and L.C. Reese, Drilled Shafts: Construction
2000, pp. 213–228. Procedures and Design Methods, Report FHWA-IF-99-
108

025, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, Reese, L.C., “Analysis of Laterally Loaded Piles in Weak
D.C., 1999, 758 pp. Rock,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Ooi, L.H. and J.P. Carter, “Direct Shear Behavior of Con- Engineering, Vol. 123, No. 11, 1997, pp. 1010–1017.
crete–Sandstone Interfaces,” Proceedings, 6th Interna- Reese, L.C. and R.C. Welch, “Lateral Loading of Deep
tional Conference on Rock Mechanics, Montreal, ON, Foundations in Stiff Clay,” Journal of the Geotechnical
Canada, 1987, pp. 467–470. Engineering Division, Vol. 101, No. 7, 1975, pp.
Osterberg, J.O., The Osterberg Cell for Load Testing Drilled 633–649.
Shafts and Driven Piles: Final Report, Report FHWA- Rocha, M., A. Silveirio, F.P. Rodrigues, A. Silverio, and A.
SA-94-035, Federal Highway Administration, Washing- Ferreira, “Characterization of the Deformability of Rock
ton, D.C., 1995, 92 pp. Masses by Dilatometer Tests,” Proceedings, 2nd Con-
Osterberg, J.O. and S.A. Gill, “Load Transfer Mechanism for gress of the International Society of Rock Mechanics,
Piers Socketed in Hard Soils or Rock,” Proceedings, 9th Belgrade, Yugoslavia, Vol. 1, 1970, pp. 509–516.
Canadian Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Montreal, ON, Rock Slopes: Design, Excavation, Stabilization, Circular
Canada, 1973, pp. 235–262. FHWA-TS-89-045, Federal Highway Administration,
Paikowsky, S.G., et al., NCHRP Report 507: Load and Washington, D.C., 1989.
Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) for Deep Foundations, Rock Testing Handbook, Technical Information Center, U.S.
Transportation Research Board, National Research Coun- Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Sta-
cil, Washington, D.C., 2004a, 85 pp. tion, Vicksburg, Miss., 1993.
Paikowsky, S.G., et al., Innovative Load Testing Systems, Rosenburg, P. and N.L. Journeaux, “Friction and End Bear-
Draft Final Report NCHRP 21-08, Transportation ing Tests on Bedrock for High Capacity Socket Design,”
Research Board, National Research Council, Washing- Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 13, 1976, pp.
ton, D.C., 2004b. 324–333.
Paikowsky, S.G., I. Klar, and L.R. Chernauskas, “Perfor- Rowe, R.K. and H.H. Armitage, “The Design of Piles Sock-
mance Evaluation of Continuous Flight Auger (CFA) vs.
eted into Weak Rock,” Report GEOT-11-84, University
Bentonite Slurry Drilled Shafts Utilizing Drop Weight
of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada, 1984, 365 pp.
Testing,” Geotechnical Special Publication No. 124:
Rowe, R.K. and H.H. Armitage, “Theoretical Solutions for
Geo-Support 2004, J.P. Turner and P.W. Mayne, Eds.,
Axial Deformation of Drilled Shafts in Rock,” Canadian
2004c, pp. 637–652.
Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 24, 1987a, pp. 114–125.
Pells, P.J.N. and R.M. Turner, “Elastic Solutions for the
Rowe, R.K. and H.H. Armitage, “A Design Method for
Design and Analysis of Rock-Socketed Piles,” Canadian
Drilled Piers in Soft Rock,” Canadian Geotechnical Jour-
Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 16, 1979, pp. 481–487.
nal, Vol. 24, 1987b, pp. 126–142.
Pells, P.J.N., R.K. Rowe, and R.M. Turner, “An Experimen-
Rowe, R.K. and P.J.N. Pells, “A Theoretical Study of Pile-
tal Investigation into Side Shear for Socketed Piles in
Sandstone,” Proceedings, International Conference on Rock Socket Behaviour,” Proceedings, International
Structural Foundations on Rock, Vol. 1, Sydney, Aus- Conference on Structural Foundations on Rock, Vol. 1,
tralia, 1980, pp. 291–302. Sydney, Australia, 1980, pp. 253–264.
Poulos, H.G., “Behavior of Laterally Loaded Piles: I-Single Sabatini, P.J., R.C. Bachus, P.W. Mayne, J.A. Schneider, and
Piles,” Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations T.E. Zettler, “Evaluation of Soil and Rock Properties,”
Division, Vol. 97, No. SM5, 1971, pp. 711–731. Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 5, Federal High-
Poulos, H.G., “Behavior of Laterally Loaded Piles: III- way Administration, Washington, D.C., 2002, 385 pp.
Socketed Piles,” Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foun- Schmertmann, J.H., J.A. Hayes, T. Molnit, and J.O. Oster-
dations Division, Vol. 98, No. SM4, 1972, pp. 341–360. berg, “O-Cell Testing Case Histories Demonstrate the
Radbruch-Hall, D.H., K. Edwards, and R.H. Batson, “Ex- Importance of Bored Pile (Drilled Shaft) Construction
perimental Engineering–Geologic and Environmental– Technique,” Proceedings, Fourth International Confer-
Geologic Maps of the Conterminous United States,” U.S. ence on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering,
Geological Survey Bulletin 1610, U.S. Government Print- St. Louis, Mo., 1998, pp. 1103–1115.
ing Office, Washington, D.C., 1987, 7 pp. Schwartz, S.A., “Drilled Piers in the Piedmont—Minimizing
Randolph, M.F., “The Response of Flexible Piles to Lateral Contractor–Engineer–Owner Conflicts,” Geotechnical
Loading,” Geotechnique, Vol. 31, No. 2, 1981, pp. Special Publication No. 9: Foundations and Excavations
247–259. in Decomposed Rock of the Piedmont Province, ASCE,
Randolph, M.F. and C.P. Wroth, “Analysis and Deformation New York, N.Y., 1987, pp. 87–102.
of Vertically Loaded Piles,” Journal of the Geotechnical Seidel, J.P. and C.M. Haberfield, “A New Approach to the
Engineering Division, Vol. 104, No. GT12, 1978, pp. Prediction of Drilled Pier Performance in Rock,” Pro-
1465–1488. ceedings, International Conference on Design and
Reese, L.C., Handbook on Design of Piles and Drilled Shafts Construction of Deep Foundations, Vol. 2, Orlando, Fla.,
Under Lateral Loading, Report FHWA-IP-84-11, Federal Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.,
Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 1984, 386 pp. 1994, pp. 556–570.
 109

Seidel, J.P. and B. Collingwood, “A New Socket Roughness poses,” USGS Professional Paper 837, U.S. Government
Factor for Prediction of Rock Socket Shaft Resistance,” Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1974.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 38, 2001, pp. Verruijt, A. and A.P. Kooijman, “Laterally Loaded Piles in a
138–153. Layered Elastic Medium,” Geotechnique, Vol. 39, No. 1,
Serafim, J.L. and J.P. Pereira, “Considerations of the Geo- 1989, pp. 39–46.
mechanics Classification of Bieniawski,” Proceedings, Vesic, A.S., NCHRP Synthesis 42: Design of Pile Founda-
International Symposium on Engineering Geology and tions, Transportation Research Board, National Research
Underground Construction, Lisbon, Portugal, 1983, pp. Council, Washington, D.C., 1977, 68 pp.
1133–1144. Viskne, A., Evaluation of In Situ Shear Wave Velocity Mea-
Sirles, P.C., NCHRP Synthesis 357: Use of Geophysics for surement Techniques, REC-ERC-76-6, Division of De-
Transportation Projects, Transportation Research sign, Engineering and Research Center, U.S. Dept. of the
Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colo., 1976.
2006, 108 pp. Wang, S.-T. and L.C. Reese, “Analysis of Piles Under Lat-
Sowers, G.G., “Foundation Bearing in Weathered Rock,” eral Load—Computer Program COM624P for the Micro-
Rock Engineering for Foundations and Slopes, ASCE, computer,” Report FHWA-SA-91-002, Federal Highway
New York, N.Y., 1976, pp. 32–42. Administration, Washington, D.C., 1991, 229 pp.
Sowers, G.F., Introductory Soil Mechanics and Foundations, Williams, A.F., I.W. Johnston, and I.B. Donald, “The Design
4th ed., Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., New York, N.Y., of Sockets in Weak Rock,” Proceedings, International
1979, 621 pp. Conference on Structural Foundations on Rock, Vol. 1,
Sowers, G.F., “Correction and Protection in Limestone Ter- Sydney, Australia, 1980, pp. 327–347.
rain,” Proceedings, First Multi-Disciplinary Conference Williams, A.F. and P.J.N. Pells, “Side Resistance Rock
on Sinkholes, B. Peck, Ed., Balkema, Rotterdam, The Sockets in Sandstone, Mudstone, and Shale,” Canadian
Netherlands, 1994, pp. 373–378. Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 18, 1981, pp. 502–513.
Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 16th ed.,
Williams, R., D. Burnett, and J. Savidge, “Participant Work-
American Association of State Highway and Transporta-
book—Drilled Shaft Foundation Inspection,” Publication
tion Officials, Washington, D.C., 1996.
FHWA NHI-03-018, U.S. Federal Highway Administra-
Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and
tion, Washington, D.C., 2002, 776 pp.
Methods of Sampling and Testing, Part II, Tests, Ameri-
Wyllie, D.C., Foundations on Rock, 2nd ed., E&FN Spon,
can Association of State Highway and Transportation Of-
New York, N.Y., 1999, 401 pp.
ficials, Washington, D.C., 1992.
Wyllie, D.C. and N.I. Norrish, “Rock Strength Properties and
Sun, K., “Laterally Loaded Piles in Elastic Media,” Journal
Their Measurement,” In TRB Special Report 247: Land-
of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 120, No. 8, 1994, pp.
1324–1344. slides—Investigation and Mitigation, A.K. Turner and L.R.
Tang, Q., E.C. Drumm, and R.M. Bennett, “Response of Shuster, Eds., Transportation Research Board, National
Drilled Shaft Foundations in Karst During Construction Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1996, pp. 372–390.
Loading,” Proceedings, International Conference on Yang, K., “Analysis of Laterally Loaded Drilled Shafts in
Design and Construction of Deep Foundations, Vol. 3, Rock,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Akron, Akron,
Orlando, Fla., Federal Highway Administration, Wash- Ohio, 2006, 291 pp.
ington, D.C., 1994, pp. 1296–1309. Yang, M.Z., M.Z. Islam, E.C. Drumm, and G. Zuo, “Side
Technical Manual for LPILEPLUS 5.0 for Windows, Ensoft, Resistance of Drilled Shaft Socketed into Wissahickon
Inc., Austin, Tex., 2004. Mica Schist,” Geotechnical Special Publication No. 124:
Terzaghi, R., “Sources of Error in Joint Surveys,” Geotech- Geo-Support 2004, J.P. Turner and P.W. Mayne, Eds.,
nique, Vol. 15, 1965, p. 287. 2004, pp. 765–777.
To, A.C., H. Ernst, and H.H. Einstein, “Lateral Load Capac- Zhan, C. and J.-H. Yin, “Field Static Load Tests on Drilled
ity of Drilled Shafts in Jointed Rock,” Journal of Geo- Shaft Founded on or Socketed into Rock,” Canadian Geo-
technical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 129, technical Journal, Vol. 37, 2000, pp. 1283–1294.
No. 8, 2003, pp. 711–726. Zhang, L. and H.H. Einstein, “End Bearing Capacity of
Turner, J.P., E. Sandberg, and N.N.S. Chou, “Side Resis- Drilled Shafts in Rock,” Journal of Geotechnical and
tance of Drilled Shafts in the Denver and Pierre Forma- Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 124, No. 7, 1998,
tions,” Geotechnical Special Publication No. 38: Design pp. 574–584.
and Performance of Deep Foundations, 1993, pp. Zhang, L., H. Ernst, and H.H. Einstein, “Nonlinear Analysis
245–259. of Laterally Loaded Rock-Socketed Shafts,” Journal of
Varnes, D.J., “The Logic of Geologic Maps, with Reference Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol.
to Their Interpretation and Use for Engineering Pur- 126, No. 11, 2000, pp. 955–968.
110

APPENDIX A
Survey Respondents

Alabama Missouri
Arizona Montana
Arkansas New Brunswick
California New Hampshire
Colorado New Jersey
Connecticut New Mexico
Florida North Carolina
Georgia Oregon
Hawaii Puerto Rico
Idaho South Carolina
Illinois South Dakota
Iowa Tennessee
Kansas Texas
Kentucky Utah
Massachusetts Vermont
Michigan Washington
Minnesota
 111

APPENDIX B
Survey Questionnaire and Responses

The survey questionnaire is presented in the following pages. Responses to each question are summarized below each ques-
tion. Some agencies did not respond to every question.
112

QUESTIONNAIRE

NCHRP TOPIC 36-12

USE OF ROCK-SOCKETED DRILLED SHAFTS

FOR HIGHWAY STRUCTURE FOUNDAT IONS

Background and Purpose

Drilled shafts socketed into rock are widely used as highway bridge foundations and can provide high load capacity
while controlling displacements when designed and constructed appropriately. However, several challenges for
design engineers have been identified in the use of shafts socketed into rock and intermediate geomaterials. These
can be grouped into three categories:

• Geotechnical characterization of the rock or intermediate geomaterial

• Analysis and design for axial loading
• Analysis and design for lateral loading.

The purpose of Synthesis Topic 36-12 is to gather information on how these issues have been addressed in the
design of highway structures. To accomplish the objective, there will be a literature review, survey of bridge owners
from state departments of transportation (DOTs) and toll authorities, and interviews.

This questionnaire is designed to be completed by the state DOT Geotechnical Engineer, assuming that individual
has the most knowledge regarding the issues identified above. However, it is recognized that practice varies
between states and that other branches within a state DOT may have considerable involvement in drilled shaft
engineering. In particular, structural (bridge) engineers responsible for superstructure design may also be involved
in foundation design. Therefore, it is recommended that Part V of this questionnaire (Structural Analysis) be
completed by the state Bridge Engineer. In addition, it is recommended that Part IV (Design for Axial and Lateral
Load) be reviewed by the state Bridge Engineer.

Several questions refer to intermediate geomaterials (IGM) as distinguished from rock. For purposes of this survey,
these two materials are defined as follows:

IGM = cohesive earth material with unconfined compressive strength between 0.5
MPa and 5.0 MPa (5 to 50 tsf) or cohesionless material with SPT N-value
(N60) greater than 50.

Rock = highly cemented geomaterial with unconfined compressive strength

greater than 5.0 MPa (50 tsf).

Part I: Respondent Information

Geotechnical Engineer
Name:
Title:
Agency:
Address:
City: State: Zip:
 113

Phone: Fax: e-mail:

Structural or Bridge Engineer

Name:
Title:
Agency:
Address:
City: State: Zip:
Phone: Fax: e-mail:

Please return the completed questionnaire to:

John P. Turner
Professor, Civil & Architectural Engineering
Department 3295
University of Wyoming Phone: 307-766-4265
1000 E. University Ave. Fax: 307-766-2221
Laramie, WY 82071 e-mail: turner@uwyo.edu

After completing the survey, if there are issues pertaining to rock-socketed drilled shafts that you believe are
important but that are not addressed adequately by the questionnaire, please feel free to contact the author directly.

Part II: Defining the Use of Rock-Socketed Drilled Shafts by Your Agency

1. On approximately how many projects per year (average) does your agency deal with drilled shaft
foundations socketed into rock or IGMs?

None* (1) New Brunswick

1–10 (19) AZ, AL, AR, CT, HI, ID, IL, KY, ME, MI, MN, NH, NJ, NM, SD, TN,
UT, VT, WA

10–20 (7) GA, IA, MO, MT, OR, PR, SC

More than 20 per year CA, FL, KS, MA, NC, TX

* If you answered “None,” skip to Question 5

2. Please indicate the types of rock or intermediate geomaterials that your agency has dealt with when using
rock-sockets. (Check all that apply.)

Igneous rock types Sedimentary rock types Metamorphic rock types

Granite 13 Conglomerate 13 Slate 8

Rhyolite 5 Sandstone 25 Phyllite 5
Obsidian 0 Mudstone/Shale 24 Schist 12
Diorite 7 Limestone 21 Amphibolite 3
114

Andesite 7 Dolomite 15 Gneiss 12

Gabbro 5 Chalk 4 Marble 2
Basalt 11 Other (describe) 3 Quartzite 6
Diabase 4 Serpentinite 3
Peridotite 1 Other (describe) 2
Other (describe) 0

Intermediate Geomaterials:

Alabama clay-shale Montana claystones, siltstones,

Arkansas hardclay (8 tsf) uncemented sandstones
California mudstone, sandstone, siltstone, New Jersey v. dense sands with N > 50
phyllite, slate, and weathered rock New Hampshire glacial till
Colorado claystone, siltstone, weakly cemented sandstone New Mexico Santa Fe Formation
Florida weathered limestone (N > 75), of the Rio Grand
Georgia partially weathered rock Rift (indurated, cemented,
Illinois weathered limestone, hard clay/shale, sands, silts, clay)
cemented sand/sandstone North Carolina weathered rock
Iowa shale, siltstone, sandstone, limestone, dolomite Oregon very soft mudstones,
Kentucky weathered shale highly weathered
Massachusetts till sandstones, weakly
Michigan soft shale, hardpan cemented conglomerates
Minnesota noncemented sandstone, Texas clay/shales
highly weathered granite Utah: weak shales and
Missouri softshale mudstones
Vermont: glacial till
Washington Has significant deposits of glacial origin. Many have been overridden and overconsolidated by
continental glaciation turning them into IGMs by the definition on page 1. A figure, which can be
accessed at http://www.dnr.wa.gov/geology/pdf/ri33.pdf contains the unit descriptions. The first four
units are encountered in 75% of our shafts.

Other Rock Type Descriptions:

Hawaii: tuff Minnesota: meta-graywacke

Kentucky: interbedded limestone/shale New Mexico: gypsum
Massachusetts: argillite North Carolina: partially cemented rock
Michigan: iron ore, coal Oregon: diatomaceous siltstone

3. Indicate the range of rock-socket diameters and lengths used on your agency's projects.

Range of socket diameters:

Alabama (3.5–12 ft) Missouri (3–10 ft)
Arizona (2–6 ft) Montana (3.5–10 ft)
Arkansas (4–9 ft) New Hampshire (3–7.5 ft)
California (2–4 ft) New Jersey (4–6 ft)
Connecticut (2.5–7.5 ft) New Mexico (2.5–6 ft)
Florida (3–12 ft) North Carolina (3 ft min. to 12 ft max.)
Georgia (4.5–9.5 ft) Oregon (3–8 ft)
Hawaii (3–5 ft) Puerto Rico (3–4.5 ft)
Idaho (3.5–5 ft) South Carolina (2–8 ft)
Illinois (2–7 ft) South Dakota (2.5–10 ft)
Iowa (2–10 ft, usually 3.5–4.5 ft) Tennessee (3–8 ft)
Kansas (3–8 ft) Texas (1.5–8 ft)
Kentucky [Typically 4–7 ft (12 ft max.)] Utah (2.5–4 ft)
 115

Maine (4.5–7.5 ft) Ver mont (5–10 ft)

Massachusetts (Typical 2.5–4 ft; extreme case10 ft) Washington (3–10 ft, with understanding that 6 ft
Michigan (3–5 ft) and greater may need specialized equipment
Minnesota (3–10 ft) or methods)

Range of socket lengths:

Alabama (Geotechnical Foundation Design generally recommends 1 diameter into competent rock. Bridge
structures personnel generally drop this tip elevation to 1.5–2 diameters.)
Arizona (10–30 ft) Montana (5–50 ft)
Arkansas (8–30 ft) Missouri (15–120 ft)
California (15 ft to >300 ft) New Hampshire (3–30 ft)
Connecticut (5–15 ft) New Jersey (8–16 ft)
Florida (3–30 ft) New Mexico (6–30 ft)
Georgia (5–15 ft) North Carolina (10–120 ft)
Hawaii (5–10 ft) Oregon (up to 120 ft)
Idaho (5–12 ft) Puerto Rico (10–20 ft)
Illinois (Typically 5–10 ft, range 3–40 ft) South Carolina (2–25 ft)
Iowa (up to 30 ft) South Dakota (30–90 ft)
Kansas (4.5–20 ft) Tennessee (10–30 ft)
Kentucky (Typically 6–15 ft, approx. 30 ft max.) Texas (1–3 shaft diameters)
Maine (5–23 ft) Utah (2–10 ft)
Massachusetts (Typically 6 ft; several ft extr. case >50 ft) Vermont (5–22 ft)
Michigan (5–17 ft) Washington (Usually 2 shaft diameters, so 6–20
Minnesota (5–160 ft) ft depending on shaft size)

4. What group or person in your agency has primary responsibility for design of rock-socketed drilled shafts?
(If more than one group within your agency is responsible, please describe briefly the division of tasks
below.)

Geotechnical Branch (30)

AL, AZ, CA, CO, CT, GA, HI, ID, IL, IA, KS, KY, ME, MA, MI, MN, MO, MT, NH, NJ, NM,
NC, OR, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, WA

Geology Branch (4)

AZ, CA, KS, MN

Bridge Engineering (structural) (20)

AL, AR, CA, CO, CT, GA, ID, IA, KS, KY, MA, MI, MN, MO, NH, OR, SD, TN, UT, VT

Outside Consultant (11)

CT, FL, HI, ID, IL, IA, KY, MA, NB, NM, PR

Other (explain): Iowa (Input from FHWA)

Division of tasks (if applicable):

AL: Geotechnical is responsible for axial capacity. Bridge is responsible for lateral stability.
CT: All our drilled shaft projects to date have been designed by outside consultants. If we were doing the
design in-house, the responsibility would be shared between the geotech and bridge designer.
CO: Geotech provides geotechnical design parameters. Bridge performs design.
FL: Axial—Geotechnical; Lateral—Structural.
GA: Geotechnical—Selection of shafts is recommended foundation type or alternate; bearing pressures, rock-
socket length, and tip elevations. Bridge—Selection of shaft diameters, lateral analysis, and possible revision
of tip elevations.
KS: Geotechs set base of shaft elevation and recommend side shear and end bearing strengths.
116

KY: Geotechnical Branch and/or Geotechnical Consultant—Geotech investigation, axial capacities, tip
elevations. Division of Bridge Design and/or Structures Consultant—Structural design and detailing, structure
plans.
MA: Geotechnical—Dimensions and capacities based on loadings and soil/rock properties. Structural—rebar,
concrete, connection designs.
MI: Geotechnical characterizes rock formation and determines rock-socket diameter and length. Bridge
Design determines shaft location, shaft loading, and sizes reinforcement.
MN: Geotech determines design bearing capacities and soils and rock properties with consultation with
geology. Structures designs final shaft dimensions.
MO: Geotechnical Office provides design criteria and evaluates shaft design based on materials encountered
and proposed shaft configuration. Bridge Engineering proposes the layout of foundation units and designs the
shaft itself (size, steel configuration, etc.).
NM: Geotechnical Section approves outside consultant designs.
UT: Geotech Branch—rock resistance, L-pile; Structures—structural design.
VT: Geotechnical capacity and lateral analysis is done by the geotechnical branch and structural design is
done by the structures group.
WA: Geotechs assess capacity and settlement and provide p-y input parameters to bridge office. The
structural designer in the bridge office performs the structural design of the shaft assessing shear, moments,
and rebar/concrete requirements. They also perform the seismic design using the geotech’s p-y parameters.

5. In the next 3 years, do you anticipate that the use of rock-socketed drilled shafts by your agency will:

Increase (8)
ID, KS, MA, MO, NB, PR, SC, TN
Remain approximately the same (25)
AL, AZ, AR, CA, CT, FL, GA, HI, IL, IA, KY, ME, MI, MN, MT, NH, NJ, NM, NC, OR, SD,
TX, UT, VT, WA
Decrease (none)

6. Please add any comments you feel would be useful, pertaining to the use of rock-socketed drilled shafts by
your agency.

CA: Most result in claims due to the requirement to include “Differing Site Conditions” on all contracts.
IA: Use of drilled shafts has been more frequent in past 2–3 years (above historic use), but may fall off
again within next 2–3 years.
KS: Used on high tower lighting and sign structure footings. Used as a contractor’s option on some
structures. Ease of construction around highway and railway facilities.
MS: Combination of new codes and loadings, issues of scour, and extreme events, are driving the use of
deep and/or rock-socketed shafts.
MO: Use is increasing in part due to more consultant bridge design and MoDOT bridge designers gaining
more experience in shaft design. Shaft design is cost-competitive with driven pile in many cases and
construction in urban areas causes less noise and vibration than driven pile.
New Brunswick: We are beginning to recognize the potential of this type of foundation as an option for
bridge foundations in our province. We currently have two projects in the design stage that will use drilled
shaft foundations. Where we have limited design experience in-house; most of the questions in the survey
are left unanswered. We look forward to reviewing the results as a way to see how other agencies approach
these designs, as we move toward the consideration of drilled shafts as an option in the future.
NH: Emphasize that the design of drilled shafts should include consideration of the drilled shaft
construction methods and constructability issues.
OR: Most of our shafts are socketed into bedrock, either with or without end bearing resistance. Many
times we need rock embedment to resist high lateral loads associated with high seismic loading conditions,
sometimes coupled with soil liquefaction.
SC: Finding some way to equate different rock drilling rigs/equipment capabilities to varying rock
strengths.
SD: 99% of the drilled shafts done in this state are done in shale bedrock.
 117

WA: When we want to have a rock socket of a certain length and recognize that the rock may be variable
in elevation we include the following provision in our shaft special provision. With this special in place,
the contractor can tie the reinforcing cage prior to excavating, excavate to rock, construct the rock socket,
and trim the cage to fit. Excavation to tip elevation, cage placement, and the concrete pour can be complete
in one shift this way. We pay for the steel that is cut off from the bottom of the cage, but feel that it is well
worth the investment by lowering our risk of a blow-in or caving as the shaft does not have to sit open for
days while the cage is tied. When the contract requires a minimum penetration into a bearing layer, as
opposed to a specified shaft tip elevation, and the bearing layer elevation at each shaft cannot be accurately
determined, add subsection 3.05.E as follows: For those shafts with a specified minimum penetration into
the bearing layer and no specified tip elevation the Contractor shall furnish each shaft steel reinforcing bar
cage, including access tubes for cross-hole sonic log testing in accordance with subsection 3.06 of this
Special Provision, 20% longer than specified in the plans. The Contractor shall add the increased length to
the bottom of the cage. The contractor shall trim the shaft steel reinforcing bar cage to the proper length
prior to placing it into the excavation. If trimming the cage is required and access tubes for cross-hole
sonic log testing are attached to the cage, the Contractor shall either shift the access tubes up the cage or cut
the access tubes provided that the cut tube ends are adapted to receive the watertight cap as specified.

Part III: Characterization of Rock or Intermediate Geomaterial (IGM)

7. Check the methods used by your agency to determine depth to bedrock for the purpose of drilled shaft
foundation engineering.

Standard Penetration Test (SPT) refusal (22) AR, CA, CO, FL, GA, HI, IL, IA, KS, MA,
MI, MN, MO, MT, NJ, NM, NC, OR, PR, SC, UT, VT

Cone Penetration Test (CPT) refusal: (3) KS, MN, MO

Coring and inspection of core samples (30) AL, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, FL, GA, HA, ID,
IL, IA, KS, KY, ME, MA, MI, MN, MO, NH, NJ, NM, NC, OR, PR, SC, TN, UT, VT, WA

Geophysical methods (specify)

AZ, CA, ID (seismic refraction), KS, KY (currently using resistivity and microgravity on a project
where we are considering drilled shaft foundations. We have not previously used geophysical
methods for drilled shaft investigations), MT, UT, (seismic refraction), WA

Other (specify—provide details if possible)

CA (2.25 in diameter terry cone driven to refusal. Please note that no one method is solely relied
upon), IL, IA (laboratory UC or other tests), MN (pressuremeter), NJ (point load strength test),
NM (RQD/RMR/joint orientation/water/polymer slurry only), SD (California retractable plug
sampler to extract samples), TX (Texas Cone Penetrometer—for information see the following
websites: http://txdot-manuals/dynaweb/colbridg/geo—go to Chapter 2, Section 4, Field Testing
for Design Charts—go to Chapter 4, Design Guidelines: http://txdot-
manuals/dynaweb/colmates/soi/@Generic__BookView;cs=default;ts=default; go to Section 32
Tex—132-E Texas Cone Penetration Test).

8. How does your agency distinguish between rock, soil, and intermediate geomaterials?

Defined in the same way as stated on page 1 of this questionnaire (24) AL, AR, CA, CO,
FL, HI, ID, IL, KS, KY, ME, MI, MN, MO, MT, NM, OR, PR, SC, SD, TN, UT, VT, WA

Other: summarize below

AZ: Typically, we classify as either soil or rock only by the use of test borings.
118

CT: We generally do not try to quantify IGMs. We may have some glacial tills/weathered
bedrocks overlying a hard bedrock that would be an IGM, but we do not usually spend much time
defining its’ engineering properties for the design of drilled shafts.
CO: Some very weathered claystone is classified as rock even if it is weaker than IGM, as
described in the background and purpose section above.
GA: Soil-drilled and sampled with earth augers, SPT < 50±, drilled shaft bearing pressure < 30–
40 ksf; IGM-drilled with earth and/or rock augers, SPT > 50±, drilled shaft bearing pressure >
40 ksf, < 75 ksf; rock material below auger refusal sampled with diamond core drilling, drilled
shaft bearing pressure > 75 ksf.
IL: Experience combined with field observation of drilling operation (difficulties, change of
drilling tools, etc.)
IA: Classify as IGM? Rock if of “sedimentary rock” geologic origin. Classify as soil if of
glacial, alluvial, similar deposition.
KY: We have very few IGMs and if we have them, they are typically a weathered zone of shale in
a transition from residual soil to interbedded limestone and shale. This material is typically
neglected for drilled shaft design.
MA: We have a clear distinction between rocks and soils, based on coring use.
ME:
NH: For classification purposes on test boring logs, differentiation of bedrock vs. IGM or soil
based on geologic interpretation of boring samples. For drilled shaft analysis, would generally use
the definitions on page 1 (e.g., weathered bedrock would be classified on the boring log as
bedrock, but would be analyzed as an IGM).
NJ: Based on the coring results, RQD and recovery, and engineering judgment; e.g., RQD < 30%
may be considered as IGM not sound rock.
NC: Definition of Rock—SPT and refusal—“Rock” is defined as a continuous intact natural
material in which the penetration rate with a rock auger is less than 2 in. (50 mm) per 5 min of
drilling at full crowd force. This definition excludes discontinuous loose natural materials such as
boulders and man-made materials such as concrete, steel, timber, etc.
TX: Our design methodology does not require specific designation of rock, soil, or IGM. Design
is generally based on the strength testing, regardless of material designation.

The following is a list of rock properties that may be required or recommended to apply design methods specified in
the FHWA Drilled Shaft Manual, as well as for other published design methods used for rock-socketed drilled
shafts:

qu = unconfined compressive strength (units of F/L2)

RQD = Rock Quality Designation
φRC = effective stress angle of friction between the rock or IGM and concrete
Ecore = Young's modulus of rock or IGM core (units of F/L2)

Rock Mass Quality as defined in terms of:

RMR = Rock Mass Rating (Bieniawski 1974)
Q = Norwegian Geotechnical Institute rating (Barton 1974)
c'i and φ'i = instantaneous values of cohesion and friction angle for Hoek–Brown
nonlinear strength criteria of fractured rock masses

9. For each rock property, check the appropriate box indicating whether your agency determines this property
for rock-socket design and, if so, the method used to determine the property:

qu Always Never Varies

Always: (23) AL, AZ, CT, FL, HI, ID, IL, KS, ME, MA, MI, MN, MO, MT, NJ, NM, OR, SC, SD, TN,
UT, VT, WA
Never: (0)
Varies : (10) AR, CA, CO, GA, IA, KY, NH, NC, PR, TX
 119

Method:
ASTM D2938 or AASHTO T-226: Uniaxial Compressive Strength (14)
AL, AZ, IA, KY, MN, MO, NH, NM, OR, SC, TN, TX, UT, VT
Point Load Tests and/or Uniaxial Compression of intact core: (3)
MA, MI, WA
Maine (ASTM D7012-04) ??

RQD Always Never Va ries

Always: (28) AL, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, GA, HI, ID, IL, IA, KS, ME, MA, MI, MN, MO, MT, NH, NJ,
NC, OR, PR, SC, TN, UT, VT, WA
Never: (1) SD
Varies: (3) FL, KY, TX

φRC Always Never Va ries

Always: (2) KS, MT

Never: (23) AL, AR, CT, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, KY, ME, MA, MI, MN, NH, NM, NC, OR, PR, SC, SD,
TX, UT, VT
Varies: (7) AZ, CA, CO, IA, NJ, TN, WA

Method: AL (Relies on charts), AZ (Estimate from AASHTO Manual), IA (theoretical),

WA (Usually use published textbook values based on rock type)

Ecore Always Never Va ries

Always: (5) KS, ME, MN, UT, VT

Never: (11) AL, AR, CA, HI, ID, MT, NM, PR, SC, SD, TX

Varies: (16) AZ, CO, CT, FL, GA, IL, IA, KY, MA, MI, NH, NJ, NC, OR, TN, WA

Method:
AL: Correlation charts between qu and E
IA: Theoretical
KY: Correlation with UC strength
ME: ASTM 7012-04
MA: Goodman, Jack, and tables/charts
MI: Calculated from Ultrasonic Velo city test (ASTM D2845) or approximated from figures and
tables in section 4 of the AASHTO Standard Specs
MN: ASTM D3148
NH: Eintact determined from qu test, then correlated to Ein situ through RMR or other methods
OR: From ASTM D2938 results with measured strains
UT: either unconfined compression test or from AASHTO table
VT: ASTM D3148
WA : Usually use published textbook values based on rock type

RMR Always Never Va ries

Always: (5) MA, NH, NM, TN, UT

Never: (15) AL, AR, FL, HI, IL, KY, ME, MI, MN, MT, NJ, PR, SC, SD, TX

Varies: (12) AZ, CA, CO, CT, GA, ID, IA, KS, NC, OR, VT, WA
120

Q Always Never Varies

Always: none

Never: (29) AL, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IA, KY, ME, MA, MI, MN, MT, NH, NJ,
NM, OR, PR, SC, SD, TX, UT, VT, WA

Varies : (3) KS, NC, TN

c'i and φ'i Always Never Varies

Always: none

Never: (24) AL, AR, CT, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IA, KS, KY, ME, MA, MI, MN, MT, PR, SC, SD, TN,
TX, UT, VT, WA

Varies : (8) AZ, CA, CO, NH, NJ, NM, NC, OR

10. List below any in situ test methods that are used by your agency to correlate with rock or IGM properties or
to correlate directly to rock-socket design parameters (e.g., side or end bearing resistance).

In Situ Test State Property or Design Parameter

Standard Penetration Test (SPT) CA not stated
HI strength
IL inch penetration per 100 blows (no property stated)
MO correlation to qu
NH side and end bearing resistances
WA friction angle for IGMs
FL strength
Pressuremeter Test (PMT) AZ shear values
CA rock mass modulus
MN stiffness (rock mass modulus)
OR correlation with p-y curves
Borehole (Goodman) Jack MA rock mass modulus
Dilatometer CA rock mass modulus
TxDOT Cone Penetrometer TX correlate to side and tip resistances

11. Indicate by marking the boxes whether your agency uses any of the following tools for evaluating
characteristics of rock below base elevation:

Coring into the rock below the bottom of the shaft after the excavation to base
elevation is complete; if so, to what depth?

AZ: 3B or minimum of 10 ft
AL: typically 10 ft unless specified otherwise
FL: >10 ft
GA: 6 ft
MO: 10 ft below the bottom of the shaft for end bearing design; not required when designed for side
friction only
MT: 50 ft
NJ: not stated
NM: 3 diameters
NC: 5 ft
TX: at least 5 ft deep or a depth equal to the shaft diameter, whichever is greater.
 121

Coring into rock below bottom elevation prior to excavating the shaft.

(27) AL, AZ, AR, CA, CT, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IA, KS, KY, MA, MI, MN, MO, NH, NJ, NM,
NC, OR, PR, TN, UT, VT, WA

Inspection of core holes at the bottom of the socket using “feeler rods.”

(5) AL, GA, MA, NC, TN

Inspection of core holes using fiberoptic cameras.

(5) AZ, NJ, NM, NC, UT

Other: CA: Visually inspect drilled hole and cores and/or cuttings that are removed.
IL: Visual inspection and classification of rock core by an experienced geologist.
ME: Camera inspection of rock-socket base and extending borings during design stage to depth
below expected bottom of rock socket.
NC: 10 lb weight, SID camera, or use temporary casing to inspect the base by the engineer or the
contractor.
SC: Corings into rock below shaft bottom during design represent expected rock below base.
UT: Visual inspection; many times, the rebar cage is designed to go to the bottom of the boring (in
shorter shafts)—this verifies depth.

12. If your agency has experience in the design and construction of rock sockets with any of the materials listed
below, please check the appropriate box and provide information on test methods (field or laboratory) that
you have used to characterize the material properties

Weak lime rock (11) AZ, FL, GA, IA, KS, MN, MO, NC, SC, TX, UT

State: Property; Test Method; Correlations Used

AZ: This applies to all rock types listed below: shear and end bearing; unconfined compressive strengths
and RQD; AASHTO Guidelines
FL: Coring, qu, qt, RQD, Recovery (%), SPT
GA: Coring, RQD, compressive tests, split tensile
IA: Strength, skin friction/end bearing; lab UC on cores, O-cell tests
KS: Core, RQD RMR qu
MN: Strength and stiffness; unconfined compression
MO: Compressive strength; qu on core sample
NC: Typically we core the rock and perform unconfined compression tests
SC: Unconfined; load test
TX: qu, skin friction, point bearing; ASTM, Tex-132-E; TxDOT Geotechnical Manual correlations
UT: Same mentioned in Question 9

Soft shales or marls (14) AL, AZ, CA, GA, IA, KS, KY, MI, MO, NM, SC, SD, TX, UT

State: Property; Test Method; Correlations Used

AL: Rock strength, thickness and spacing of discontinuities; unconfined compression testing where
possible, logged by a professional geologist from the cored rock (for all rock types checked)
CA: Unconfined strength; triaxial test
GA: Coring, RQD, compression tests
IA: Strength skin friction/end bearing; lab UC on cores and O-cell tests
KS: As above
KY: Unconfined compression, slake durability index
MI: Unconfined compressive strength; ASTM D2166
MO: Compressive strength; qu on core and correlations with SPT; Texas DOT correlations modified by
122

MoDOT
NM: qu/triax shear; AASHTO T296; Alpha method
SC: Triaxial; load tests
SD: Soil strengths; unconfined compression test; skin resistance compared to pull test on steel pk rod
TX: qu, skin friction, point bearing; ASTM, Tex-118-E, Tex-132-E; TxDOT Geotechnical Manual
correlations
UT: Same as mentioned in Question 9

Weathered and highly fractured rock (20)

AL, AZ, CA, GA, HI, IA, KS, KY, MA, MI, MN, MO, NM, NC, OR, SC, SD, TX, UT, WA

State: Property; Test Method; Correlations Used

AR: Visual observations of rock condition
GA: Coring, RQD, compression tests
HI: Strength; unconfined compression
IA: Strength skin friction/end bearing; lab UC on cores and O-cell tests
KS: As above
KY: We may use Slake Durability Index in shale and sometimes sandstone
MA: RMR/qu
MI: Unconfined compressive strength; Point Load Test ASTM D5731; correlations included in test
procedure
MN: Strength and stiffness; SPT or pressuremeter
MO: RQD
NM: phi'; N60; Mayne and Harris
OR: Shear strength; SPT, judgment based on experience, often treated as very dense granular soil;
Meyerhof or Peck, Hanson, Thornburg
SC: SPT
SD: Soil strengths; unconfined compression test; skin resistance compared to pull test on steel pk rod
TX: qu, skin friction, point bearing; ASTM, Tex-132-E; TxDOT Geotechnical Manual correlations
UT: Same mentioned in Question 9
WA: RQD and unconfined compressive strength; drilling and Point Load

Karst (9) AL, AZ, FL, GA, KS, KY, MI, NM, TX

State: Property; Test Method

AZ: Core into rock after the excavation to check for voids
FL: Coring, qu, qt, SPT
GA: Coring, RQD, compressive tests, split tensile
KS: Seismic
KY: Rock Core Recovery
NM: Discontinuities; test pits/seismic shear wave
TX: qu, skin friction, point bearing; TxDOT Geotechnical Manual correlations

Rock with steeply dipping discontinuities (7) AL, AR AZ, CA, GA, NM, WA

State: Property; Test Method; Correlations

AR: Visual observations of rock condition
AZ: Down-the-hole camera to check for poorly oriented joint sets
GA: Coring, RQD, compressive tests
NM: Modulus; RMR
WA: RQD and unconfined compressive strength; drilling and Point Load

Interbedded rock with alternating strong and weak strata (11)

AL, AR, AZ, CA, GA, IA, KS, KY, MO, NM, TX

State: Property; Test Method

 123

AR: Visual observations of rock condition

GA: Coring, RQD, compressive tests
IA: Strength skin friction/end bearing; lab UC on cores, O-cell tests
KS: Core, qu, RMR, RQD
KY: Unconfined compression, Slake Durability Index
MO: Compressive strength; qu from representative core samples
NM: Side shear/modulus; Rowe and Armitage
TX: qu, skin friction, point bearing; ASTM, Tex-118-E, Tex-132-E

Hard, intact rock (22) AL, AZ, CA, CT, GA, HI, ID, IA, KY, ME, MA, MI, MN,
MO, NH, NM, NC, OR, SC, TX, VT, WA

State: Property; Test Method; Correlations

AL:
AZ:
CA:
CT: Unconfined compressive strength
GA: Coring, RQD, compressive tests
HI: Strength; unconfined compression
ID: Unconfined compressive strength; ASTM D2938
IA: Strength skin friction/end bearing; Lab UC on cores O-cell tests
KY: Unconfined compression
ME: qu and E; D 7012-04
MA: qu; point load: Ip; 25 Ip = qu
MI: Unconfined compressive strength; ASTM-C42
MN: Strength and stiffness; unconfined compression test
MO: Compressive strength; qu from core samples
NH: Intact compressive strength; unconfined compression test
NM: qu; RMR
NC:
OR: Unconfined compressive strength; ASTM D2938
SC: Unconfined; FHWA methodology
TX: qu, skin friction, point bearing; ASTM, Tex-132-E; TxDOT Geotechnical Manual correlations
VT: qu; ASTM D2938; FHWA IF-99-025
WA: RQD and unconfined compressive strength; drilling and point load

13. Identify any other issues pertaining to IGM or rock characterization that you think should be addressed by
the Synthesis.

MO: Limited Osterberg load cell testing has indicated that we significantly overdesign shafts in IGMs
based on compressive strength values from qu testing. We need low cost in situ or other test methods for
obtaining ultimate capacities in IGMs.
NC: NCDOT and the NC State University conducted research to determine p-y curves for soft weathered
rock loaded horizontally.
OR: In Question 9, is anyone actually measuring or estimating the “s” and “m” dimensions of the rock
mass for the Carter and Kulhawy equation? Also, is anyone estimating borehole “roughness” and using the
Horvath (1983) equation? We are not because we have no real way of knowing if this can be accomplished
in the field.
UT: How are states handling discontinuities in design; how are strength values of the discontinuities being
determined, etc.?
WA: In Washington State, our shaft lengths are rarely designed to carry the applied axial loads. Most
shafts have very significant lateral capacity demand owing to earthquake loading. Tip elevations are often
set to meet lateral capacity requirements. Very little information is available on the lateral capacity or
lateral behavior of shafts in IGMs subjected to lateral loads. The effects of group loading in IGMs are also
not well-documented.
124

Part IV: Design for Axial and Lateral Load

Note: The terms “base resistance,” “tip resistance,” and “end-bearing resistance” are used by various agencies; all
refer to the resistance developed beneath the tip of a deep foundation.

14. When designing for axial load of rock-socketed shafts, does your agency account for:

Both side and base resistances (25) AL, AZ, CA, CO, CT, FL, GA, IA, KS, KY, ME, MI,
MN, MO, MT, NM, NC, OR, PR, SC, TN, TX, UT, VT, WA

Side resistance only (10) CA, HI, ID, MA, MN, MO, NH, NJ, SD, TN

Base resistance only (7) AR, CA, ID, ME, MA, MO, TN

Comments:

AZ: Rely mainly on side resistance with reduced end bearing.

CA: Depends on anticipated methods of construction.
IL: Depends on the elastic deformation. Generally, not both side and end.
MO: Evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Typically end bearing only in hard rock and side resistance only
in alternating hard and soft rock layers.
NH: Rock-socket lengths typically controlled by lateral load with sufficient geotechnical capacity provided
by side shear only. Would consider using a portion of the end bearing geotechnical capacity in
combination with full side shear, if needed, to avoid extending socket length beyond what may be
needed for lateral loads.
NC: Depends on our design; we might use base or side resistance but most of the time we use both.
OR: Combine side and base resistance only in very ductile rock formations as described in the FHWA
Drilled Shaft Design Manual.
TN: Geotech Section provides parameters for both. Structure designer decides which to use.
UT: In wet conditions we will, many times, discount base resistance; with the current LRFD code we have
been using either side resistance only (most of the time) or base resistance, based on deflection.

15. For calculating side resistance of rock sockets, please indicate the reference(s) associated with the
method(s) used by your agency (mark all that apply):

O'Neill and Reese (1999) Publication No. FHWA-IF-99-0 25, Drilled Shafts: Construction
Procedures and Design Methods
(26) AL, AZ, CA, CT, GA, HI, ID, IA, KS, KY, MA, MI, MN, MO, MT, NH, NJ, NM, NC,
OR, PR, SC, TN, UT, VT, WA

Horvath and Kenney (1979)

(8) CA, HI, ID, IL, ME, OR, SC, TN

Rowe and Armitage (1984)

(1) NM

Carter and Kulhawy (1988)

(6) CA, IL, ME, NC, SC, WA

Other (please cite reference or provide a brief description)

(6) AZ: (AASHTO 2002)
KS: (Results from O-cell tests)
FL: McVay et al. (1992)
NH: (2002 AASHTO bridge code)
 125

OR (not stated)
TX (TxDOT Design Method—See Chap. 4 of the Geotechnical Design Manual (website)

16. What, if any, computer programs are used by your agency for analysis of rock-socket response to axial
loading?

SHAFT (14) AL, AZ, CA, GA, KS, MN, MT, NJ, NM, NC, OR, PR, SC, UT
FBPIER (6) CT, FL, MN, NC, TN, VT
ROCKET (0)
CUFAD (0)
Other (name of program) (4)
FL: FB Deep
IL: In-house spreadsheet based on Pells and Turner
KY: In-house spreadsheets
TX: WinCore–TxDOT program for the design of drilled shafts

17. Specify the range of values used by your agency for either Factor of Safety (FOS) or Resistance Factor (φs)
applied to rock-socket ultimate side resistance in design (if applicable, specify by rock type).

AL: FOS 3.0 MI: All, FOS 3

AZ: All, FOS 2.5 NH: All, FOS 2.5
CA: Hard rock, FOS 2.0–2.5 or φs 1 or 0.75 NJ: All rocks, FOS 2
CT: AASHTO ASD, LFD, or LRFD recommended NM: All, FOS 2.0
values regardless of rock type NC: All, FOS 2.5–3.00, We reduce the
FL: By AASHTO LRFD FOS if we perform a load test
GA: Weak IGM or hard granite FOS 2.5 OR: All, FOS 2.5
HI: Tuff, φs 0.65 SC: All, FOS 2–3, φs 0.4–0.7
ID: Igneous (basalt), φs 0.55–0.65 SD: Shale, FOS 2.0?
IL: All, FOS 2.5 TX: All, FOS 3
IA: IGM and “Rock,” FOS 2–2.5 UT: All types, φs 0.55
KY: All, FOS 2 (if load tested) to 3 VT: All, FOS 2.5
MA: All, FOS 2–2.5 or φs 0.55–0.65 WA: All, FOS 3.0 Static, 1.65 Seismic
ME: Schist, FOS 2.5

18. For calculating base resistance of rock sockets, please indicate the reference(s) associated with the
method(s) used by your agency (mark all that apply):

O'Neill and Reese (1999) Publication No. FHWA-IF-99-025, Drilled Shafts:

Construction Procedures and Design Methods
(24) AL, AR, CA, CT, GA, ID, IA, KS, KY, ME, MA, MI, MN, MO, MT, NH, NJ, NM, NC,
OR, PR, UT, VT, WA

Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (1979)

(3) CA, IL, ME

Zhang and Einstein (1998)

(2) ID, MA

Carter and Kulhawy (1988)

(3) AR, CA, WA

Other (please cite reference or provide a brief description)

AZ: AASHTO 2002
KS: O-cell tests results
KY: Experience and judgment
126

NH: 2002 AASHTO Bridge code

NM: Rowe and Armitage
TN: Use Soils and Geology Allowables and Section 4 of AASHTO Specs.
TX: TxDOT Design Method—See Chap. 4 of the Geotechnical Design Manual (website)
WA: AASHTO LRFD Manual

19. Specify the range of values used by your agency for either Factor of Safety (FOS) or Resistance Factor (φs)
applied to rock-socket ultimate base resistance in design:

AL: FOS 3.0 MI: All, FOS 3

AR: Sandstone or shale, FOS 2.5 MN: FOS 2.5
AZ: All, FOS 2.5 NH: All, FOS 2.5
CA: All, FOS 2.0 or φs 1 or 0.75 NJ: All rocks, FOS 2
CT: AASHTO ASD, LFD, or LRFD recommended NM: All, FOS 2.0
values regardless of rock type NC: All, FOS 2.5–3.0
FL: Side/end: 0.55; side only: 0.60 OR: All, FOS 2.5
GA: Weak IGM or hard granite, FOS 2.5 SC : All, FOS 2–3, φs 0.4–0.7
ID: Igneous (basalt), φs 0.5 SD : Shale, FOS 2.0?
IL: All, FOS 2.5 TN: All, FOS 2.5
IA: IGM and “rock,” FOS 2–2.5 TX: All, FOS 2
KY: All, FOS 2 (if load tested) to 3 UT: All types, φs 0.5
MA: All, FOS 2–2.5 or φs 0.5 VT: All, FOS 2.5
ME: Schist, FOS 2.5 WA: All, FOS 3.0 Static, 1.65 Seismic

20. If you include both side and base resistances in design of rock sockets, explain briefly how you account for
the relative contribution of each to the socket axial resistance

CA: Must determine the amount of each that can be mobilized at our allowable movement at the top of the
pile.
CT: The relative contributions would be based on the computed displacement/strain of the drilled shaft. If
load test data were available, the strain compatibility would be validated or refined based on the
actual test data.
FL: Based on compatibility.
IL: For weak IGM.
IA: Both are typically limited by settlement criteria for both allowable and ultimate loads.
KS: In good hard rock most of the load is stripped off in side shear. In shales, we assume that side shear
and end bearing act together; either O-cell testing at site or extrapolation of previous testing.
KY: Evaluate strain compatibility if O-cell load test is run. If no load test, use higher FS (3).
ME: Two projects were designed in accordance with AASHTO 4.6.5.3, assuming that axial loads are
carried solely by end resistance, as the strains required for full mobilization of both end and side
resistance is incompatible. This design approach was later altered on one project to assume
conservative, simultaneous mobilization of both end and side frictional resistance. That design
approach ignored side resistance in the upper 5 to 15 ft may (based on a minimum required value of
RQD and qu, determined by the geotechnical engineer). For the remainder of the side walls, partial
contribution is assumed, in addition to partial mobilization of full end bearing.
MI: Seek to design socket to have side friction capacity 2.0 to 2.5 times applied load. When end bearing
contribution is added, seek to show FS greater than or equal to 3.0.
NM: Osterberg and Gill (length/modulus ratio).
NC: This assumption will depend on engineering judgment and the method of construction.
OR: According to methods described in FHWA manual; determine the resistance available from the side
and base independently based on a given relative shaft settlement and then add them together.
SC: Assume side fully mobilized and 5% diameter settlement not necessary to mobilize end resistance in
rock.
TN: Geotech Section opinion is that with the rock type and strength we have and using a safety factor of
2.5, a relatively small mobilization of side and end bearing occurs; therefore, it is okay to use a
combination of both. Structures Designer typically uses just one or the other.
 127

TX: TxDOT Design Method—See Chap. 4 of the Geotechnical Design Manual (website cited above).
WA: See the attached pdf discussing WSDOT procedures for designing drilled shafts in rock and IGMs.

21. When a bridge is supported on a shallow footing that is supported on a rock-socketed drilled shaft (as
opposed to a mono shaft), does your design procedure account for the contribution of the footing to the
foundation capacity?

Ye s (none)

No (25) AL, AR, CA, CT, FL, GA, HI, IL, IA, KS, KY, MA, MI, MN, MT, NH, NM,
NC, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, WA

Not applicable (6) AZ, ID, ME, NJ, OR, PR

If you answered “Yes,” please provide a brief description of your analysis to account for the footing
contribution: (none)

22. For analysis of rock-socketed shafts under lateral loading, please indicate the methods and/or references
associated with methods used by your agency (mark all that apply).

Equivalent Cantilever Method (Davisson 1970) (5) KS, MA, NH, NC, SC

Broms Method (Broms 1964) (5) KY, MT, OR, SC, TN

p-y method of analysis (26) AZ, AR, CA, CT, FL, GA, HI, IL,
IA, KS, KY, MA, MI, MN, NH, NJ, NM, NC, OR, PR, SC, TN, TX, UT, VT, WA

Characteristic Load Method (Duncan et al. 1994) (none)

Zhang, Ernst, and Einstein (2000) “Nonlinear Analysis of Laterally Loaded Rock-Socketed
Shafts” (1) MA

Reese, L.C. (1997) “Analysis of Laterally Loaded Piles in Weak Rock”

(8) GA, ID, MI, MT, NJ, NC, OR, TX

Carter and Kulhawy (1992) “Analysis of Laterally Loaded Shafts in Rock”

(1) NJ

Other (please cite reference or provide a brief description)

ME: FB Pier evaluation
SC: Some lateral load resisting
WA: S-Shaft Program developed by M. Ashour and G. Norris of UNR along with J.P. Singh of
J.P. Singh & Associates. Model is based on strain wedge theory

23. What, if any, computer programs are used by your agency for analysis of rock-socket response to lateral
loading?

LPILEPLUS (23) AL, AZ, CA, GA, HI, ID, IA, KY, MA, MI, MN, MT, NH, NJ, NM,
NC, OR, PR, SC, TX, UT, VT, WA

COM624P (17) AR, CA, CT, GA, ID, IL, IA, KS, KY, ME, MA, NJ, NC, OR, PR, TX, VT

FBPIER (8) FL, MI, MN, NJ, NC, TN, TX, VT

Finite-Element Method (specify program)

NC: Flac
128

Other (provide name of program)

NH: Group 6.0
WA : S-Shaft Program developed by M. Ashour and G. Norris of UNR along with J.P. Singh of
J.P. Singh & Associates. Model is based on strain wedge theory

24. If you use the p-y method of analysis, describe briefly how you determine the p-y relationships for rock

Published correlations between rock properties and p-y curve parameters

(4) CA, KY, NJ, VT

Reference(s): CA: LPILE Manual

Correlations built into computer code (specify program)

(22) AZ, AR, CA, CT, FL, GA, HI, IL, IA, MA, MI, MN, NH, NM, NC, OR, PR, SC, TN,
TX, UT, VT (all of the above states use LPILE)

In-house correlations based on agency experience

(2) NC, OR

Educated guess
(2) MA, OR

Other (describe)
CA: Pressuremeter Testing
MN: in situ test
NC: Research
OR: Limited pressuremeter data in soft rocks
WA: Reese p-y curves for vuggy limestone are derived using elastic theories. For basalt, using
engineering judgment, we typically define y as 0.01B, assuming 0.5% strain is the typical
range over which basalt behaves linearly and that is the rock within 2B that resists the load.
Therefore, y = 0.005(2B) or 0.01B. We then use correlations or published values to determine
Young’s modulus E. Typically, this is about 10,000 ksi for basalt. We then use the
unconfined compressive strength from point load tests along with E to define the curve. For
example, if qu is 22.8 ksi we would take the 10,000 ksi (E) value and divide by the qu to get
about 440. The p-y curve would then be defined by a straight line beginning at the origin with
a slope of 440 qu. In highly fractured rock, the engineer would use judgment to change strain
that defines y1, thus flattening the p-y curve.

25. On projects completed by your agency, which of the following design considerations control rock-socket
length (approximately)?

Axial capacity

AL Not really KS 50% NJ 65%

AZ 99% KY 30% NM 80%
CA 70% ME 100% NC 30%
CT 50% MA 30% OR 35%
HI 100% MI 50% SC 40%
ID 100% MN 90% SD 100%
IL 50% MT 50% TX 95%
FL 70% UT 80%

Lateral load response

AL: KY: 60% NC: 70%

 129

AZ: 1% MA: 60% OR: 60%

AR: 100% MI: 50% SC: 60%
CA: 20% MN: 10% TN:
CT: 50% MT: 50% TX: 5%
GA: 10% NH: 90% UT: 20%
IL: 40% NJ: 35% VT: 100%
KS: 50% NM: 10% WA : 100%
FL: 30%

Construction-related

CA: 10% IL: 10% MA: 10%

GA: 90% KY: 10%

Sharing of load between drilled shaft and footing

Puerto Rico: 100%

Other (explain)
IA: No information available
KS: Minimum of 1.5 x shaft diameter
NM: 10% scour
OR: 5% scour
TN: 1.5 x socket diameter

26. Please identify any other issues pertaining to rock-socket analysis/design that you feel should be addressed
in this synthesis.

FL: In karst, check for voids below tip.

IL: Bureau of Bridges and Structures, and consultants.
KS: Pertaining to Question 17, at the LFD load, the settlement should be less than some acceptable value.
We are using an arbitrary value of approximately 1⁄4 in. This will vary depending on the bridge type
and span length.
MA: The design/analysis of highway structures foundation (traffic signals, etc.). Construction practices
and QA/QC and their influences on design assumptions.
NH: Provide additional guidance for using side shear and end bearing in combination and provide
simplification of side resistance equations for cohesive soils contained in FHWA-IF-99-025.
OR: What agencies are using the AASHTO methods for drilled shaft design in rock?
UT: Concerns with appropriate lateral analysis methods; that is, is LPILE appropriate to be using with rock
sockets?

Part V: Structural Analysis

27. What branch or group within your agency is responsible for structural design of rock-socketed drilled
shafts?

AL: Bridge Bureau ME: Bridge Program

AZ: Bridge Group MN: Bridge Office
AR: Bridge Design MT: Bridge
CA: Division of Engineering Services/ NH: Bridge and Geotechnical Sections
Structure Design NJ: Structural and Geotechnical Engineering Units
CT: No drilled shaft design has been done NM: Bridge Section
with in-house engineering staff OR: Technical Services, Region Technical Centers
GA: Office of Bridge Design PR: None, done by consultants
HI: Bridge Design Section or Structural Consultants SC: Bridge Design Section
ID: Bridge Design SD: Bridge Design
130

IA: Office of Bridges and Structures TN: Division Structures

KS: Bridge Design Section TX: Geotechnical Branch
KY: Division of Bridge Design UT: Structures Division
MA: Bridge Designer (either in-house or consultant) WA: Bridge and Structures Office
after consultation with Geotechnical Section FL: Geotech for resistance; Structures for structure
design

28. Mark all of the applicable references/codes used by your agency in the structural design of rock-socketed
drilled shafts:

O'Neill and Reese (1999) Publication No. FHWA-IF-99-0 25, Drilled Shafts:
Construction Procedures and Design Methods
(15) AR, CA, CT, FL, ID, IA, KS, KY, MA, NH, NJ, NC, OR, PR, VT

ACI 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete

(3) IL, NJ, WA

AASHTO, Bridge Design Specifications

(26) AZ, AR, CA, CT, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IA, KS, KY, MA, MN, NH, NJ, NM, NC, OR,
SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, WA

ACI 336, Design and Construction of Drilled Piers

(2) NJ, WA

29. For structural design of drilled shafts, does your agency currently use Load Factor Design (LFD), Load and
Resistance Factor Design (LRFD), or Allowable Stress Design (ASD)?

SLD (allowable stress, or Service Load Design) LRFD (Load and Resistance Factor Design)
LFD (Load Factor Design)
Mixed approach (SLD for foundation capacity and LFD or LRFD for load calculation)

SLD: (7) AZ, AR, GA, NM, NC, PR, TX

LRFD: (8) CT, FL, HI, ID, ME, SC, UT, WA

LFD: (6) CA, KS, MA, KS, NC, WA

Mixed: (10)
(a) stated “mixed” only, no explanation: MN, NH, OR, SD, VT
(b) SLD for foundation capacity and LFD or LRFD for load calculation: KY, IL, IA, NJ, TN

30. For structural design purposes, how would you best describe the analysis method used to obtain the
distribution of moment and shear with depth?

A “point of fixity” is assumed; shaft is then treated as a structural beam-column.

(11) CT, KS, KY, MA, NJ, NM, NC, SD, TN, TX, UT

Soil/Structure Interaction analysis is conducted using one of the following computer codes:

p-y method by COM624 or LPILEPlus

(21) AZ, AR, CA, GA, HI, ID, IL, IA, KS, ME, MA, MN, NJ, NM, OR, PR, SC, TX, UT, VT, WA

FBPIER (5) FL, ME, MN, NC, VT

 131

Other (2) NH, WA (S-Shaft Program see above)

Elasticity solution (1) KS

Numerical methods such as finite element, boundary element, or finite difference specify
computer program: none

Other method (explain briefly).

NM: Interaction with Geotechnical Section.

TN: Triangular stress distribution limited to side bearing capacity of rock and McCorkle side resistance
equations.
TX: Point of fixity is used for simple, “typical” structures. P-y method is used for more complex
structures.

31. Please indicate whether you have encountered difficulties associated with the design or analysis issues
listed below and, if so, summarize the circumstances (shaft dimensions, depth of soil over rock, rock or
IGM type):

Unexpectedly high computed shear in the rock socket when using the p-y method of analysis.

CA: “When the moments go from a maximum to zero over a relatively short length, then the
corresponding shear demands that are reported are large.”

Difficulties or questions in applying p-y analysis to relatively short socket lengths

CA, IA, NM
NH: “One question is whether the drilled shaft length can be terminated even though the p-y
analysis indicates some minor shear, moment, or deflection at the base of the shaft.”

Questions regarding transfer of moment to the rock socket or development length

for reinforcing bars extending into the rock socket.

IA, MA

32. Please identify any other issues pertaining to structural analysis/design that you feel should be addressed in
this synthesis.

MA: “Should seismic design of rock-socket length be adequate to develop full plastic hinge moment
in reinforced concrete shaft?”
OR: “Not specifically related to rock sockets, but a design with about 60–70 ft of overlying silt was
difficult to analyze. Resulting moments at superstructure were opposite direction of what would
be expected, did not tend to converge on a solution during seismic modeling runs. I chased it all
over the place (using LPILE, WinSTRUDL, ODOT BRIG2D software).”

Part VI: Construction and Field Testing of Rock-Socketed Drilled Shafts

33. Indicate whether the measures described below are included in construction specifications for rock or IGM
sockets designed by your agency:

Roughening of the sides of the socket by grooving or rifling (6) AZ, IA, KS, ME, MA, MN

Restrictions on the use of slurry in sockets (14)

132

CA, FL (no polymer), GA, HI, KS, KY, ME, MA, MN, NM, NC, TX, UT, VT

Specifications for rock excavation by blasting (4) CA, ME, NC, OR

34. Does your agency specify requirements for cleanliness at the bottom of the excavation prior to
concrete placement?

Ye s (28) AL, AZ, AR, CA, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IA, KS, KY, ME, MA, MN, MT, NH, NJ,
NM, NC, OR, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, WA

No (1) CT

If you answered “Yes,” please provide a brief summary of the following:

Requirements for cleanliness:

Six states (FL, HI, IL, NH, NC, and SC) gave the following: “minimum 50% of base area to have
less than 0.5 in. and maximum depth not to exceed 1.5 in.”
AR: No more than 1 in. of loose material.
CA: Specification simply states that the contractor verifies that the bottom is clean.
CT: Not written into specification, but generally following recommendations in FHWA Drilled Shaft
Manual.
GA: No loose sediment or debris.
ID: Less than 2 in. thick for end bearing shafts; less than 6 in. for side friction shafts.
IA: Minimum 50% of base to have less than 0.5 in. and maximum depth not to exceed 1 in.
KS: Just prior to placing concrete, a minimum of 75% of the base must have less than 0.5 in. of
sediment; CSL also used for wet pours.
KY: Maximum 0.5 in. of sediment.
MA: End bearing <1 in., skin friction <3 in.
ME: Minimum of 50% of the base of shaft should have <0.5 in. of sediment at time of concrete
placement.
MN: From our drilled shaft special provision: loose material shall be removed from drilled shafts
prior to placement of reinforcement. After the shafts have been cleaned, the engineer will inspect the
shafts for conformance to plan dimensions and construction tolerances. If permanent casing is
damaged and unacceptable for inclusion in the finished shaft, the casing shall be replaced at the
contractor’s expense. If a portion of a shaft is underwater, the contractor shall demonstrate that the
shaft is clean to the satisfaction of the Engineer. This shall include inspection by a diver, at no cost to
the department, if considered necessary by the Engineer. Dewatering of the drilled shafts for
cleaning, inspection, and placement of reinforcement and concrete will not be required. If the drilled
shaft contractor chooses to dewater the shafts for convenience of construction, this work shall be done
at the contractor’s expense.
NJ: Less than 0.5 in. of sediment.
NM: <1 in. of loose material.
OR: No more than 2 in. of loose material for end-bearing; no more than 6 in. of loose material for
friction shafts. Assume end-bearing if not specified.
SD: Make sure the bottom of the shaft is free of loose material.
TN: No loose soil or rock cuttings allowed.
TX: From Specification 416 Drilled Shafts—“remove loose material and accumulated seep water
from the bottom of the excavation prior to placing the concrete.”
UT: Remove all lose material from the bottom of drilled holes before placing concrete.
WA: The contractor shall use appropriate means such as a cleanout bucket or air lift to clean the
bottom of the excavation of all shafts. No more than 2 in. of loose or disturbed material shall be
present at the bottom of the shaft just prior to placing concrete for end bearing shafts. No more than 6
in. of loose or disturbed material shall be present for side friction shafts. End bearing shafts shall be
assumed unless otherwise noted in the contract. Shafts specified as both side friction and end bearing
shall conform to the sloughing criteria specified for end bearing shafts.
 133

Method(s) and tools used to verify cleanliness requirement:

AZ: Visual and hand probe.

AR: Video equipment or person in hole with suitable lighting and ventilation.
CA: Contractor submits a concrete placement plan for approval. Usually, they will use a clean out
bucket to clean the bottom of hole. There is inspection of the drilling slurry at bottom of the shaft
prior to placing concrete. Caltrans occasionally will verify the bottom of end bearing shafts with a
camera.
CT: Probing of the rock-socket bottom.
FL: Probing, sometimes use SID.
GA: Hand cleaned and inspected.
HI: Weighted tape.
ID: Cleaning buckets or air lift.
IA: Weighted tape, camera inspection (rare), sediment deposition “trial run” in open-top clean-out
bucket.
KS: Visual on dry pours, sounding (using probes) underwater.
KY: Judgment of inspector.
MA: Weighted rods, visual check by use of cleaning equipment spoils.
ME: Weighted tape and remotely operated cameras.
MN: See above.
NH: Weighted tape or solid rod.
NJ: Sounding by weighted tape.
NM: Weighted tape/sounding.
NC: 1. Visual Inspection. 2. Steel Probe (10 lb weight). 3. SID shaft inspection device.
OR: Weighted tape, rod probe or visual.
SD: Visual inspection if the shaft is dry, otherwise use a clean-out bucket.
TN: Visual inspection.
TX: Visual, clean-out bucket.
UT: Visual.
WA: The excavated shaft shall be inspected and approved by the Engineer prior to proceeding with
construction. The bottom of the excavated shaft shall be sounded with an airlift pipe, a tape with a
heavy weight attached to the end of the tape, or other means acceptable to the engineer to determine
that the shaft bottom meets the requirements in the contract.

35. Does your agency use construction specifications or special provisions that account for construction of
sockets in a particular rock type? Ye s No

Yes: (3) AZ, ID, KY

No: (25)

If “Yes,” please provide a brief description.

Rock type and special provision:

AZ: Limestone; drill below tip elevation to check for karst conditions.
ID: Special provisions for IGMs and hard rock.
KY: Soft shale; sometimes require contractors to use polymer slurry in wet holes with soft shales
subject to slaking in the presence of water.
CA: Different pay items for Cast-in-Drilled-Hole concrete piling and Cast-in-Drilled-Hole (Rock
Socket) concrete piling.

36. Have you observed any methods, equipment, or materials used for socket construction that you believe are
a source of construction problems?

Ye s No
134

Yes : (10) CA, FL, KS, KY, NH, NC, SD, TN, UT, VT

No: (16) AL, AZ, AR, CT, GA, HI, ID, IL, IA, ME, MA, MN, OR, SC, TX, WA

If yes, please explain:

CA: We design for low bidding contractors to get the contract and the construction problems that will
result. Rock may be harder than the contractor thought when bidding and planning the job. Thus, the
drilling equipment brought out is often unable to drill or very slow to drill the rock. This results in
costly contractor claims.
FL: Improper equipment or size; full-length casing reduces skin friction.
KS: In wet pours, inadequate sealed tremie or no pig in the concrete pump supply line. Loss of
slump in the concrete during placement. Dirty bottoms were observed with Sonic testing.
KY: Reverse circulation drilling methods used in conjunction with polymer slurry when used as
described in Question 35.
NH: Certain clean-out buckets cannot always meet the cleanliness requirements.
NC: Various methods used to force a dry pour.
SD: If not done properly using pump trucks to place concrete can cause soft bottoms in the shafts.
TN: We have significant depths of interlayered rock layers and soil that makes it difficult to use
either an auger or a core barrel.
UT: Concerns with use of drilling fluids instead of casing.
VT: In holes cased through the overburden soils into bedrock we have had problems seating the
casing into rock. This was true when the contractor used a casing diameter that was essentially the
same as the rock-socket diameter. The casing was vibrated into the rock-socket hole, which resulted
in more rock drilling than expected, because the casing “followed” the socket. This resulted in longer
overall shaft lengths than planned, particularly when the upper portion of the rock was fractured or
weathered.

37. Please identify any other construction-related issues for rock or IGM sockets that you believe should be
addressed in this synthesis.

FL: What is rock, where does it start, quality.

KS: Pertaining to Question 35—Our special provision accounts for a wet or dry pour (cased or
uncased) rather than rock type.
MA: Define “Top of Rock,” which generally can be a discrepancy between borings and
construction drilling.
NH: Effect of slurry on side friction.
OR: If during construction the top of rock elevation is found to be different than what was
assumed in design, what is the effect? How different does it have to be to have a significant effect
on design?

38. Indicate whether your agency has used any of the following field load testing methods on rock-socketed
drilled shafts.

Conventional static axial load test (7) CA, FL, GA, IA, NC, TX, UT

Conventional lateral load test (5) CA, FL, MA, NJ, NC

Osterberg Cell for axial load test (18) CA, CT, FL, GA, HI, IL, IA, KS, KY, ME,
MA, MN, NJ, NM, NC, PR, SC, TX

Osterberg Cell for lateral load test (1) SC

Statnamic test for axial load (6) CT, FL, IA, NC, PR, SC

Statnamic test for lateral load (3) AL, FL, SC

 135

High strain impact (3) FL, KS, MA

If your agency has used the Osterberg Cell (O-cell) for axial load tests on rock-socketed shafts, please answer the
following:

39. Were you able to measure both side and tip resistances of the socket independently?

Ye s No

Yes: (17) CA, CT, FL, GA, HI, IL, IA, KS, KY, ME, MA, NJ, NM, NC, PR, SC, TX
No: (1) MN

40. Was the test used to determine

Ultimate side resistance (of socket)

(14) CA, CT, FL, GA, IA, KS, KY, ME, MA, MN, NM, NC, SC, TX

Ultimate base resistance

(8) IL, FL, IA, KS, KY, NC, SC, TX

Proof load only

(4) HI, NJ, PR, SC

41. Additional comments regarding use of O-cell for load testing of rock sockets.

IL: Too expensive.

IA: None.
KY: We have typically failed shafts in side resistance and mobilized enough base movement to extrapolate
the ultimate base resistance.
ME: Did not mobilize ultimate base resistance on either project.
MN: Was also used to develop p-y curve.
NM: Use was for IGM Santa Fe Formation.
TX: For information on recent O-cell testing in rock contact Dr. Vipu and University of Houston.

If your agency has experience with Statnamic testing of rock-socketed drilled shafts please answer the following:

42. Which of the following performance parameters were determined by the test? (Check all that apply.)

Socket side resistance Socket base resistance

(5) FL, AL, IA, NC, SC (5) CT, FL, IA, NC, SC
Total socket resistance (side and base) Axial load displacement response
(4) FL, NC, PR, SC (5) AL, FL, NC, PR, SC
Lateral load-displacement response
(3) FL, NC, SC

43. Additional comments regarding Statnamic testing of rock-socketed drilled shafts.

FL: Limit on size that can be tested.

NC: Test is very expensive; we need to find another method with less cost.

44. Do you have results of load tests on rock-socketed drilled shafts and, if so, are you willing to receive
follow-up contact regarding the possibility of using your results for the synthesis?

Yes, I have previously unpublished load test results

(9) CA, GA, IA, KS, KY, ME, MA, NC, SC
136

Yes, I am willing to receive follow-up contact

(11) CA, CT, GA, IA, KS, KY, ME, MA, NM, NC, PR

If previously published, please give a reference:

ME: Loadtest, Inc., performed all O-cell tests on the Bath–Woolwich and Hancock–Sullivan
bridges in Maine.
MN: Transportation Research Record 1633.

45. Indicate which of the following nondestructive testing methods are used on a regular basis by your agency
for rock-socketed shafts.

gamma-gamma (3) AZ, AR, CA

crosshole sonic logging (20) AZ, AR, CA, CT, HI, ID, IA, KS, KY, ME, MA, MN, NJ, NM,
NC, OR, PR, SC, SD, VT
sonic echo (1) AR
impulse response (1) AR
parallel seismic
other (3) CA (downhole camera), NC (Osterberg load cell), VT (CSLT—
one project)

46. Based on your experience, are there any special considerations or issues related to the use of NDT-NDE,
specifically for rock-socketed shafts? If so, explain.

FL: Results are iffy.

IA: None.
KY: No.
MA: The configuration of the test pipes within the socket (if diameter is smaller than shaft) and
the possible influence of rock material properties on the data results.
NM: Sonic echo not utilized.
NC: Technology is not 100% accurate.
PR: We bought the equipment (CSL) last month.

47. Do you have case histories of design, construction, or testing of rock-socketed drilled shafts that, in your
opinion, could provide useful information to your colleagues and, if so, are you willing to be contacted by
the author of the synthesis to discuss your case histories further?

Yes, I have useful case histories (9) CA, CT, IA, KS, KY, ME, NM, NC, WA

Yes, I am willing to receive follow-up contact (8) CA, CT, GA, IA, KS, KY, ME, NM
Abbreviations used without definitions in TRB publications:

AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
APTA American Public Transportation Association
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ATA American Trucking Associations
CTAA Community Transportation Association of America
CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DOE Department of Energy
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
FRA Federal Railroad Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program
NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NTSB National Transportation Safety Board
SAE Society of Automotive Engineers
SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:
A Legacy for Users (2005)
TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program
TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998)
TRB Transportation Research Board
TSA Transportation Security Administration
U.S.DOT United States Department of Transportation