NOTE,

Friction and end bearing tests on bedrock for high capacity socket design
A N D NOELL. JOURNEAUX
PETERROSENBERG
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Texas A&M University on 11/14/14

Geotechniccrl Depcrtment, Professionul Services Division, Warnock Her-sey Professional Services Ltd.,
128 Elmslie Street, LaSnlle, P.Q., Crrnrrda H8R I V8
Received October 22, 1975
Accepted May 4, 1976

Rock sockets are used to transfer axial loads to bedrock by a combination of periferal contact
bond and end bearing. The load distribution with embedded depth in relation to rock properties
actually measured is discussed. Case histories are presented.
The results of full scale and bearing and friction tests carried out on various rock types are
given. A relation between the unconfined compression strength of rock and the developed
concrete to rock bond value is reported.

Les emboitures dans la roche servent a transmettre les charges verticales a la roche par le
frottement lateral et la resistance a la pointe combines. Des cas types de la ripartition de la charge
selon les proprietes de la roche en place sont decrits.
On prtsente les resultats d'essais en vraie grandeur de la capacite portante a la pointe et en
For personal use only.

frottement lateral effectuis sur differents types de roche.

Une relation est proposee entre la resistance a la compression simple de la roche et la valeur
ultime du frottement entre le biton de I'emboiture et la roche.
[Traduit par la revue]
Can. Geotech. J . . 13,324(1976)

Introduction Moore (1974), Thorburn (1966), Matich

A rock socket consists of a hole churned or
drilled into bedrock and filled with concrete.
The function of the socket is to transfer struc-
tural loads through upper non-competent strata
to the bedrock. The load is transmitted to
the bedrock along the contact surface between
the concrete and the rock and by end bearing
on the rock surface. Such a method of support
is frequently used, especially for heavy high-
rise structures and large bridges. In spite of
the increasing use of rock sockets, very little
information is available regarding their design.
The meager amount of work reported is prob-
ably due to the high cost involved in obtaining
full scale field test results.
The diameter of the sockets vary from 12
up to 120 in. (0.3 up to 3.0 m). The diameter
associated with most building construction is
of the order of 24 to 60 in. (0.6 to 1.5 m).
The sockets supporting the Pont Bisson Bridge
which crosses the Rivikre des Prairies in Mont-
real are 120 in. (3.0 m) in diameter (Heavy
Construction News 1974).
and Kozicki (1967), and Seychuck (1974)
have reported the results of field test on sockets
embedded in bedrock. Freeman et al. (1972)
reviewed design criteria, and gave range of
bond values presently used in shale bedrock.
Few field evaluations of actual measured bond
and developed end bearing stresses in instru-
mented sockets are available with the excep-
tion of the results given by Jackson et al.
(1974).
Osterberg and Gill ( 1973) have carried out
theoretical studies concerning stress transfer
of axially loaded concrete sockets embedded
in rock of varying stiffness.
This note briefly reviews the various methods
used to design rock sockets. The results of end
bearing and bond values determined by field
tests are examined, as are data reported in the
literature. On the basis of limited data a tenta-
tive correlation between bond and rock pro-
perties is presented. A design method based
on predicted end bearing and bond mobilized
on a rock socket is given.
 NOTE
Present Design Methods
Freeman et al. (1972) reviewed methods of
socket design and gave the various assumptions
made. Four basic socket design methods may
be considered.
( 1) Design For End Bearing Only
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Texas A&M University on 11/14/14
This method requires that the socket base
be extended to a depth sufficient so that the
stress does not exceed the allowable end bear-
ing capacity of the rock.
The effect of bond between the concrete
and the surrounding rock is ignored. In this
method the assumption made that all the axial
stress is transmitted to the socket base. Since
the load transferred to the rock by bond is
ignored, the result is that actual stresses on
the rock at the socket tip may be significantly
lower than assumed, since actual field tests
indicate that even in fractured rock the con-
crete to rock bond is significant.
For personal use only.
( 2 ) Design on Concrete-Rock Bond Only
This technique assigns an average concrete
to rock bond value for the socket periphery
and any contribution to the capacity derived
from end bearing is ignored. Designs based on
average concrete to rock bond values are given
by Moore (1964) and Matich and Kozicki
(1967); socket lengths of the order of 15 to
30 ft (4.57 to 9.1 m) were required. Under
extremely poor rock conditions or if the bottom
of the socket cannot be cleaned out properly,
this technique may be advantageous. Under
most conditions it will result in extremely long
sockets.
( 3 ) Design on Allowable End Bearing and
Carry Remaining Load in Bond
This procedure assigns an allowable end
bearing value for the socket base area and
subtracts this value from the axial load. The
socket length is made long enough to carry the
remaining load by bond. This method does not
consider the actual stress develo~ed at the
socket end and as shown by ~ a c k s o net al.
(1974) on an instrumented rock socket, the
stresses actually developed may be at variance
with the assumptions made, in this case the
socket base unit stress were lower and the
bond stress higher than anticipated.
325
( 4 ) Design on Estimated Developed End
Bearing and Bond
This method assumes that the applied load
is transferred by bond and by end bearing ac-
tually developed at the base. A prediction of
the load reaching the base of the socket is
required. Based on this prediction an allowable
end bearing value is assigned and it is assumed
that the rest of the stress is carried by bond.
The socket length is adjusted so that the allow-
able end bearing and bond values are not ex-
ceeded.
The main difference between this and the
other methods is that the relation between ap-
plied axial stress and actual developed end
bearing stress for various socket embedments
and rock properties is required.
Load Transfer
Finite element studies by Osterberg and Gill
(1973) indicate that the percentage of load
transferred to the base for a given socket ge-
ometry is dependent on the relative stiffness
of the concrete socket with respect to the sur-
rounding rock.
Figures 1 and 2, taken from Osterberg and
Gill (1973) give theoretical load transfer
curves for sockets embedded 1.5 to 2 diameters
into rock of varying moduli ratios. The results
show that as the relative stiffness of rock to
concrete increases the proportion of load car-
ried by the socket base decreases.
For most practical purposes concerning
sockets in sound hard rock such as massive
granites and limestones the modulus ratio (Er/
Ec) may be considered to be close to 1, for
medium sound rock the ratio would be expected
to be of the order of 1/5 and for highly frac-
tured and weathered rock the ratio would be
expected to be in excess of 1/50.
With a reasonable assessment of the rock
modulus a prediction of the proportion of the
load transferred to the base may be made.
Allowable End Bearing
Most work carried out to determine the
bearing capacity of rock relates the ultimate
bearing capacity to the unconfined compressive
strength. The unconfined compressive strength
is based on laboratory tests of intact rock cores
 CAN. GEOTECH. J. VOL. 13, 1976
PERCENT OF APPLIED AXIAL LOAD
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Texas A&M University on 11/14/14
For personal use only.
FIG. 1. b a d transfer curves for varying moduli ratio computed for embedment ratio of
3.0 (adapted from Osterberg and Gill 1973).
and does not reflect the zones of weakness in
the rock mass; such as clay filled joints, soft
layers, or the pattern of jointing. Any relation
between the ultimate bearing capacity based
on measured laboratory strengths can be used
only after the laboratory strength test results
have been reduced to represent the average
in situ strength of the rock mass within the
zone stressed by the socket. Such reductions
may be based on experience with the local
rock types and with the degree and nature of
jointing known to exist.
Teng (1962) reports that the ultimate bear-
ing capacity of rock varies from five to eight
times the unconfined compressive strength of
intact cores. Coates (1967) considers that the
ultimate bearing capacity is about three times
the unconfined compressive strength; this theory
is based on the Griffith Fracture Theory which
concerns the initiation of cracking.
Research by Rehman and Broms (1971)
determined that the ultimate surface bearing
capacity of solid rock varies from about four to
POISSON'S RATIO -0.26
six times the unconfined compressive strength
of the rock material. It was also determined
that as the depth of embedment increased up
to 1.0 the ultimate bearing capacity also in-
creased from 25 to 70% depending on the rock
tYPe-
Based on the bearing capacity theories re-
viewed, it would appear that the ultimate
bearing capacity of rock as obtained from the
above is in excess of any allowable bearing
values presently recommended in building
codes. For example, the National Building
Code of Canada (1970) permits for footing
design an allowable pressure of 10 ton/ft2
(9.7 kg/cm2) on the surface of limestone.
This value is intended to allow for the existence
of voids, open joints, and soil filled seams be-
low the selected bearing level. The Chicago
Building Code as quoted by Baker and Khan
(1971 ) allows end bearing pressures of 100
ton/ft"97.6 kg/cm2) on 'sound' limestone
with a 20% increase for each foot of con-
finement up to a maximum of 200 ton/ft2
 NOTE

PERCENT OF APPLIED A X I A L LOAD

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Texas A&M University on 11/14/14
For personal use only.

FIG. 2. Load transfer curves for varying moduli ratio computed for embedment ratio of
4.0 (adapted from Osterberg and Gill 1973).

(195.2 kg/cm" at a 5 ft (1.5 m) depth. The
higher values may be used provided the rock
is core drilled and inspected to insure its
quality.
Freeman et al. (1972) based on in situ pres-
suremeter tests on shale with a lower bound
unconfined compressive strength of about 1350
psi (94.9 kg/cm2) allowed a bearing value of
50 ton/ft"48.8 kg/cm2) for embedded cais-
sons.
Plate bearing tests carried to failure on the
surface of bedrock are costly to perform and
therefore only a few are published and readily
available for review. There are, however, tests
available which although not carried to failure
are of interest. Table 1 presents the results of
such plate load tests, included are tests carried
out by the authors.
It would appear from the results of limited
data presented that the range in allowable end
bearing values for design of sockets would be
from about 15 ton/ft2 (14.6 kg/cm2) in poor
rock, 25 to 75 ton/ft2 (24.4 to 73.2 kg/cm2)
in medium rock and 100 ton/ft2 (97.6 kg/cm2)
in sound rock. These values are realistic pro-
vided adequate drilling below the fourdation is
done to insure that no voids exist below the
socket tip.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Texas A&M University on 11/14/14

TABLE
1. Results of plate and pile load tests on bedrock

Maximum load or
Reference Rock type failure in tons/ftz (kg/cm2) Remarks
For personal use only.

Seychuck (1) Ottawa Shale, core 260 No failure, linear elastic

(1970) lengths. 3 to 10 in. (76.2 to 254 mm), (254) to maximum load
qu = 5000 psi (351 kg/cm2)
(2) Cherty limestone; 0
q, = 8000 psi (562 kg/cm2) b
(a) sound limestone 204 No failure, linear to maximum 2:
(199) load; settlement 0.08 in. (2.03 mm) 8
0
(b) slightly weathered 204 No failure, linear to maximum -I
limestone (199) load; settlement 0.08 in. (2.03 mm) m
0
3:
(c) slightly weathered 204 No failure, linear to maximum
limestone (199) load; settlement 0.10 in. (2.54 mm)
C
Halifax Steeply dipping weathered 32 No failure, linear to maximum 0
r
(WHI* Report 1968a) slates; core recovery BX size 65% (31) load; settlement 0.025 in. (0.6 mm) -
Northern Quebec Sound granite; core recovery 230 No failure, linear to maximum -
W

(WHI Report 1967) AXT size 95% (225) load; settlement 0.02 in. (0.5 mm) Aw
.
0\

Tavenas (1971) Quebec City sandstone 250 Practically linear to 250 ton/ft2
RQD < 10% (244) (244 kg/cm2) then failure defined
Labrador Friable iron formations similar to 50 Linear to 45 ton/ft2 (44 kg/cm2)
(WHI Report 1968b) weathered and friable sandstone (49) then failed; settlement 0.5 in.
(12.7 mm)
*Wornock Hersey International Ltd.

LOAD
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Texas A&M University on 11/14/14
'I
T F
For personal use only.
FIG.3.. Load test on concrete socket.
Bond Value
Sockets in bedrock are designed to transfer
the total load by bond or adhesion along the
cylindrical concrete to bedrock contact and by
end bearing. Bond is that portion of the total
resistance developed on the surface between
the concrete and rock contact. The bond value,
required in the design of sockets, is difficult as
well as expensive to evaluate.
Common practice used to arrive at an allow-
able concrete to rock bond is to use the results
of pullout or isolated plug load tests. The
results of two such tests carried out by the
authors are given in Figs. 3 and 4, the pertinent
NOTE
IN P S I (kg/crn2)
I I I I
F ! EARS '
surfaces;
rock properties are also summarized on the
figures.
The test shown on Fig. 3 was performed on
an 18 in. (0.45 m) diameter by 22 in. (0.56
m) long concrete socket. In order to eliminate
the effect of end bearing the concrete socket
was poured on a 4 in. (0.1 m ) styrofoam
isolating pad. A closed end 12 in. (0.3 m) pipe
pile was set on the concrete surface. The test
was carried at a depth of 40 ft (12.2 m) below
ground level.
Loading was applied to the pile tops by a
hydraulic jack reacting against a timber frame
filled with steel bars. The test socket was
 CAN. GEOTECH. J. VOL. 13, 1976
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Texas A&M University on 11/14/14
For personal use only.
FIG.4. Pullout test on concrete socket.
loaded to a maximum stress of 170 psi (1 1.9
kg/cm". As shown on Fig. 2 the socket move-
ment at 160 psi (1 1.2 kg/cm" defined as
failure, was 0.25 in. (6.35 mm); no drop in
bond with further movement was observed.
The test shown on Fig. 4 was performed on
an 8 in. (0.20 m ) diameter, 36 in. (0.91 m)
long concrete socket formed at the bottom of
a test pile. The socket was grouted onto a
steel anchor block through which steel cables
were strung to the surface. Two tell-tales for
deflection measurements were installed in the
plug. Loading was by means of a hollow stem
jack, reacting against the pile casing. The test
was carried out at a depth of 55 ft (16.7 m)
below ground level. Failure was taken at 245
ROCK TYPE Hot~zofltolly bedded shale
core lengths 3 t o 5 inches ( 7 8 to 130MM )
qu: 3000 psi I211 kg /cm2)
psi (17.22 kg/cm" and further movement
indicated no drop in strength.
The tcst results show that even in poor
rock the bond value is significant, that it is
mobilized at small movements and that it re-
mains fairly constant after failure.
Examination of these figures as well as
other published data show that, the ultimate
bond strength is developed with very little
movement usually less than 0.25 in. (6.35 mm)
after the peak strength has been obtained the
strength does not drop off but tends to remain
constant even with further movement. This
was also observed in an instrumented caisson
by .Jackson et al. (1974).
A list of observed values of bond between
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Texas A&M University on 11/14/14

TABLE2. Observed values of bond resistance between concrete and rock

Bond resistance
Reference Rock type in psi (kg/cm2) Remarks

Moore (1964) Weathered fractured 140 Concrete 5000 psi (351.5 kg/cm2)
interbedded sandstones and shales (9.8) 20 in. (508 mm) diameter by 8.5 ft
(2.59 m) long plug; n o failure
For personal use only.

established
Matich and Weathered shales, 45 Concrete 5000 psi (351.5 kg/cm2).
Kozicki (1967) q, = 70 psi (49 kg/cm2) (3.2) Test on 24 in. (609.6 mm) diameter
by 13.5 ft (4.1 m) long plug; no
failure
Thorburn (1966) Weathered and fragmented shales; 35 Test on 3 in. (76.2 mm) diameter
joints spaced 0.5 to 1 in. (12.7 to (2.5) by 12 ft (3.65 m) long plug; 2
25.4 mm) ultimate bond obtained 0
1
Test on 19 in. (482.6 mm) diameter
rn
Seychuck (1970) Shale, joints spaced 3 in. to 10 in. 440
(76.2 to 254 mm), q, = 5000 psi (351 kg/cm2) (31) by 36 in. (914.4 mm) long plug;
no failure
Gibson and Deveny Sandstone 120 Failure defined
(1973) (8.4)
Jackson et al. (1974) Cherty limestone 235 Failure interpreted by authors
RQD 50 (16.5)
This paper Fig. 3 Highly fractured hard, Andesite core rec. Test on 18 in. (457.2 mm) diameter
in BXL core 33 to 75%, q. = 1500 psi by 22 in. (558.8 mm) long plug.
(105 kg/cm2) Concrete 3000 psi (21 1 kg/cm2)
This paper Fig. 4 Shale, joints spaced 2 in. (50.8 mm), 245 Test on 8 in. (203.2 mm) diameter
q, = 3000 psi (21 1 kg/cm2) (17.2) by 36 in. (914.4 mm) long concrete
plug. Concrete 5000 psi (351.5
kg/cm2)
 CAN. GEOTECH. J. VOL. 13, 1976
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Texas A&M University on 11/14/14
For personal use only.

L E G E N D
REF. REMARKS
0 THORBURN(1966) qu -
eat.
0 MATICH A N D KOZICKl(1967)No t a i l m .
A T H l S PAPER Fig.4
V THlS PAPER F i g . 3

+-
X SEYCHUCK(1970)
GIBSON AND DEVENNY
( 1973)
No faihrb
qu -
eat.

10

M E A S U R E D BOND VALUE ( psi)

FIG.5. Tentative relation between bond and unconfined compression strength of rock.

concrete and rock is given in Table 2. Although
these observations reveal a wide range of
values, and the precise data with respect to
the rock properties are not available for each
case, the data have nevertheless been plotted
on Fig. 5 using an estimate of rock compressive
strengths and give a tentative relation between
compressive strength and the ultimate bond
which may be used to estimate a preliminary
bond value.
The bond value actually developed will also
depend on such factors as, socket wall rough-
ness, concrete strength, cleanliness of sides,
and groundwater conditions. The effect of water
in sockets was particularly pointed out by
Baker and Khan (1971).
Rock Socket Design
Based on the information presented a pro-
posal for the design of rock sockets is given
for consideration. This is as follows:
( a ) On the basis of field and laboratory
 NOTE
investigation estimate an allowable end bearing
capacity for the rock.
( b ) Estimate a bond value to be used. This
selection may be based on the tentative rela-
tion given in Fig. 5 or on the results of field
tests.
(c) Estimate the ratio of the rock to con-
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Texas A&M University on 11/14/14
crete modulus.
(d) Predict the developed end bearing for
various socket geometries. Select the socket
length in which the ultimate bond is mobilized
and the allowable end bearing value assigned
is not exceeded.
The procedure given can be used only if
close inspection is available during the con-
struction. This should include drilling at the
base of the sockets, .examination of the rock
in the socket, ensuring proper cleaning.. and
"7
concreting of the socket.
Conclusions
For personal use only.
The following conclusions are drawn from
the information ~resented.
( a ) Bond strength is significant, even in
poor rock it is mobilized at small movements
and remains reasonably constant after initial
failure.
(b) The bond strength can be tentatively
correlated with the compressive strength of
rock provided the lowest compression strength
is used.
(c) The ultimate end bearing capacity of
rock is significantly higher than is usually
allowed by the various building codes.
(d) A reasonable estimate of the devel-
oped end bearing for various socket embed-
ments can be obtained using Fig. 1 and 2.
(e) Rock sockets can be designed using
the ultimate bond strength and applying the
333
factor of safety against overall failure against
the end bearing value chosen.
BAKER,C. N. and KAHN,F. 1971. Caisson construction
problems and correction in Chicago. ASCE, J. Soil
Mech. Found. Div. 97 (SM2), pp. 417-440.
COATES,D. F. 1967. Rock mechanics principles. Mines
Branch Monogr. 874, Dep. Energy, Mines, and Res.
Ottawa, Can.
FREEMAN, C. F., KLAJNERMAN, D., and PRASAD, G. D.
1972. Design of deep socketed caissons into shale bed-
rock. Can. Geotech J. 9, pp. 105-1 14.
GIBSON,G. L. and DEVENNY, D. W. 1973. Concrete to
bedrock bond testing by jacking from bottom of a
borehole. Can. Geotech. J. 10, pp. 304-306.
HEAVYCONSTRUCTION NEWS. 1974. Big caissons are
socketed 35 feet into rock. Heavy Construction News,
September 16, 1974.
JACKSON, W. T., PEREZ,J. Y., and LACROIX, Y. 1974.
Foundation, construction and performance for a
34storey building in St. Louis, Geotechnique 24, pp.
63-90.
MATICH, M. A. and KOZICKI, P. 1967. Some load tests on
drilled cast-in-place concrete caissons. Can. Geotech. J.
4, pp. 357-375.
MOORE,W. W. 1964. Foundation design. ASCE,Civ. Eng.
34(1), pp. 33-35.
NATIONAL BUILDING CODEOF CANADA. 1970. Nat. Res.
Counc. Can., Ottawa, Can.
OSTERBERG. J. 0 . and GILL. S. A. 1973. Load transfer
mechanism for piers socketed in hard soils or rock. Proc.
9th Can. Symp. on Rock Mechanics, Montreal, Que.
REHMAN, S. and BROMS,B. B. 1971. Bearing capacity of
piles driven into rock. Canadian Geotech. J. 8, pp. ..
151-162.
SEYCHUCK. J. L. 1970. Load tests on bedrock. Can.
~ e o t e c h . ' J7,
. pp. 464-470.
TAVENAS, F. 1971. ContrBle du roc de fondation de pieux
forks a haute capaciti. Can. Geotech. J. 8, pp. 400-416.
TENG,W. C. 1962. Foundation design. Prentice-Hall Inc.,
Englewood Cliffs, N.J., pp. 260-261.
THORBURN, S. 1966. Large diameter piles founded on bed-
rock. Proc. Large Bored Piles Conf. Inst. Civ. Eng.,
London, Engl.
WARNOCK HERSEY INTERNATIONAL LTD. 1967. Report on
pile load test, Grand'Mkre, Quebec. unpubl. rep.
1968a. Report on slate load test proposed develop-
ment, Halifax, Nova Scotia. unpubl. rep.
1968b. Report on plate load test proposed building,
Labrador City, Newfoundland. unpubl. rep.