Issues in Evaluating Capacity of Rock Socket Foundations

F. H. Kulhawy
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA fhk1@cornell.edu

W. A. Prakoso
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia wprakoso@eng.ui.ac.id

Abstract: Drilled foundations often are socketed into rock to increase the capacity. However, procedures to quantify the socket side and tip resistance vary considerably. This paper reviews methods to predict socket capacity and critically assesses them. One method for side resistance is recommended, and several approaches are suggested to assess tip resistance, depending on the degree of geologic data available. Statistics for the methods are given, where available, and design and construction implications are noted.

INTRODUCTION

ROCK MASS ENGINEERING PROPERTIES

Drilled shafts (bored piles) are a common foundation selection for all types of structures. When the structure loads are relatively large or where the soil is of relatively poor quality, the shafts often are drilled through the soil to the underlying rock mass. These shafts could be founded or seated on the rock mass surface, or they could be drilled into the rock mass to form a rock socket, as shown in Fig. 1. The applied butt load or stress is supported by the socket through both tip and side resistances, assuming for illustration that the soil is non-contributory. How the loads are distributed between the tip and side is a function of the loading magnitude, problem geometry, properties of the rock mass and shaft concrete, ultimate bearing capacity of the tip, side resistance of the socket, and butt displacement. Discussion of all of these issues is well beyond the scope of this paper. Herein, the basics of socket capacity are addressed. Key rock mass property issues are discussed first. Then methods are given to calculate the socket capacity. The side resistance can be quantified well, and various approaches are described to assess the tip resistance. Some simple observations are made regarding displacement limits. The paper concludes with general observations on construction and field acceptance criteria.

The capacity of foundations in rock is a function of the rock mass strength, which often is estimated, at least partially, from the intact rock strength, which in turn often is estimated from the intact rock index properties. However, several key issues need to be addressed during property evaluation, as described below. If these testing issues are not addressed properly, then the subsequent capacity predictions are likely to be in error. 2.1 Intact Rock: Effect of Testing Parameters Fig. 2 illustrates a very important testing issue, which is the influence of sample diameter on the resulting uniaxial compressive strength (qu). Most standards specify a sample diameter on the order of 50 to 54 mm. As can be seen, non-standard samples tend to give strengths that decrease with increasing sample diameter. Similar trends were noted with other strength measures as well (Prakoso 2002). Note that, in this figure and others herein, a wide variety of igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic (primarily non-foliated) rock types are included. These data were collected from the literature but were included only if both high-quality foundation load tests and physical property tests were conducted. In Fig. 2, the solid line represents the regression for the entire data population. When these data were examined by separate rock type family, it was found that each rock type gave results that were very similar to the entire population. For example, the dashed line represents the results for all carbonate rock types. As can be seen, the results are very similar. Fig. 3 illustrates the importance of testing at the field water content. As can be seen, the saturated qu is only about 0.79 of the dry value. Although not shown, comparable data for the point load index (IS) give a value of 0.84, while data for the Brazilian tensile strength (qt-Brazilian) give a value of 0.89. Therefore, testing samples that have been allowed to dry clearly will overestimate the actual in-situ strength.

Fig. 1. Illustrative rock socket.

2.0
I. Intrusive I. Pyroclastic S. Clastic S. Chemical M. Non-Foliated

4000
I. Intrusive I. Extrusive I. Pyroclastic S. Clastic S. Chemical M. Foliated M. Non-Foliated

Strength Ratio, SRqu

1.5

3000 Mean qu / pa

1.0

2000

qu / pa = 143.1 exp (0.048 R) m = 78, r2 = 0.57

0.5

SRqu = [50 / Bsample] 0.25

1000

0.0 0 50 100 150 200 Diameter, Bsample (mm)

0 0 20 40 Mean R 60 80

Fig. 2. Effect of sample size on uniaxial compressive strength qu (Kulhawy & Prakoso 2001).
300
I. Intrusive I. Extrusive S. Clastic S. Chemical M. Non-Foliated

Fig. 4. Relationship between qu and R for Bsample = 50 - 58 mm (Kulhawy & Prakoso 2003; Prakoso & Kulhawy 2004b).
2.02000 106
I. Intrusive I. Extrusive I. Pyroclastic S. Clastic S. Chemical M. Foliated M. Non-Foliated

Mean qu-saturated (MPa)

1.51500 106 Mean Et-50 / pa

200

1.0 1000 106

100

qu-sat = 0.79 qu-dry m = 67, r2 = 0.92 S.D. / pa = 165

0.5500 106
Et-50 / pa = 5280 (qu / pa)0.62 m = 100, r2 = 0.57

0 0 100 200 300

0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

Mean qu-dry (MPa)

Mean qu / pa

Fig. 3. Effect of water content on qu (Kulhawy & Prakoso 2001). 2.2 Intact Rock: Index Property and Strength Correlations For small projects, and for general correlation studies, various quick and simple index tests have been used to estimate the intact rock uniaxial compressive strength (qu), including the Schmidt Lhammer rebound hardness (R), Shore scleroscope hardness (Sh), and point load index (IS). Many correlations among these parameters have been proposed. Fig. 4 shows our relationship between qu and R, as normalized by the atmospheric stress, pa. Although not shown, the Sh and IS correlations are as follows: qu (MPa) = 7.57 exp (0.064 Sh) [m = 30, r2 = 0.77] and qu = 23.3 IS [m = 43, r2 = 0.77]. Other useful correlations are summarized by Prakoso (2002). It should be noted that these correlations are not deterministic; there is always a transformation uncertainty associated with them. Using any of these correlations implies that the COV of qu will be larger than that of R, Sh, or IS.

Fig. 5. Relationship between Et-50 and qu. 2.3 Intact Rock: Strength and Modulus Correlation The intact rock Youngs modulus often is represented by the tangent Youngs modulus at 50% of the uniaxial compressive strength (Et-50). This value commonly is estimated from the uniaxial compressive strength (qu), as shown in Fig. 5. The regression equation in Fig. 5 is comparable to, and a bit less than, the typical modulus correlation for concrete, which is given by E = 5000 (fc in MPa)0.5. Note that Et-50 / qu varies from about 500 or more at low strength to about 200 at very high strength. 2.4 Intact Rock: Weathering The deleterious effect of weathering on intact rock properties is well-recognized, but quantifying this effect is more difficult. Fig. 6 shows various mean correlations between the properties of unweathered rock and rock weathered to varying degrees. These

Mean Property Ratio (Weathered / Unweathered)

1.0

SRblock = (1-3)f-block / (1-3)f-intact

0.8

(1)

0.6

in which (1-3)f-block and (1-3)f-intact = deviator stresses at failure of the rock mass and intact rock, respectively. The results from several sets of tests, with typical confining stress (3) for foundations (3 < 1 MPa), are plotted versus in Fig. 7, and they can be fitted by the following: < 40 SRblock = - 0.02 + 0.9 40 < < 60 SRblock = 0.1 > 60 SRblock = 0.02 - 1.1 (2a) (2b) (2c)

0.4

0.2

R qu qt-Brazilian Is Et-50 Slight Moderate Weathering Conditions High

0.0

Fig. 6. Effect of weathering on rock properties (Kulhawy & Prakoso 2001, 2003). degrees are somewhat subjective, as given by the source authors. This database is dominated by igneous intrusive rocks, followed by igneous extrusive and sedimentary clastic rocks. However, the general rock type is not expected to have a significant effect on the overall results. All properties decrease with increasing weathering. The unit weight () decreases only a modest amount, to about 90% of the unweathered value. However, all other properties decrease substantially, with the R value decreasing to about 40% of the unweathered value. The strength and modulus values decrease even more, to about 15 to 25% of the unweathered values. These decreases should be addressed in engineering evaluations. Furthermore, these decreases are not deterministic; there is always some uncertainty in the data. The standard deviation (S.D.) for is about 0.04 for all degrees of weathering, but the S.D. of the other properties is about 0.11. Therefore, the coefficient of variation (COV = S.D. / mean) increases substantially as the weathering increases, from about 15% for slightly weathered to 50% or more for highly weathered. These substantial variations need to be addressed cautiously. 2.5 Rock Mass: Strength of Artificial Rock Blocks In bearing capacity calculations, it is necessary to estimate the rock mass strength, which is difficult to do because of the need to assess the in-situ rock mass structure. Instead, researchers have conducted artificial rock block tests to estimate the effect of rock mass structure on its strength (e.g., Brown 1970; Brown & Trollope 1970; Ladanyi & Archambault 1972; Einstein & Hirschfeld 1973; Kulatilake et al. 1997; Yang et al. 1998). Herein, these test results were compiled and re-analyzed to evaluate the rock mass strength relative to the intact rock strength and to estimate the variability of the rock mass strength. In general, the rock mass strength is dependent on the primary discontinuity orientation. However, the results of artificial block tests are not always in agreement with theoretical solutions. Therefore, a simplified approach was adopted in evaluating the effect of discontinuity angle relative to a horizontal plane () on the strength. This effect is represented by a strength ratio (SRblock), which is given by:

The S.D. of Eqs. 2a and 2b is 0.09, while that of Eq. 2c is 0.10. It can be inferred that the variability of rock mass strength, as represented by the COV, is maximum for between 40 and 60. The effect of number of discontinuities, typically assessed by using different block sizes, also was evaluated using the strength ratio (SRblock) approach. The results from blocks with three different discontinuity orientations (vertical only, horizontal only, and vertical and horizontal) were considered. Only three numbers of discontinuities were available for evaluation. As shown in Fig. 8, SRblock decreases only slightly with increasing number of discontinuities. However, the variability of SRblock appears to increase with increasing number of discontinuities. In addition, for vertical and horizontal discontinuities, the effect of discontinuity orientation appears to be minimal. These test results also were used to estimate the variability of rock mass strength, which is defined as the deviator stress at failure [(1-3)f]. The results were separated based on the discontinuity angles ( = 0-25 and 70-90, and = 25-70) to consider the effect of on the strength. The results are plotted versus the confining stress (3) in Fig. 9 and show that the COV of (1-3)f
1.0 SRblock = (1 - 3)f-block / (1 - 3)f-intact
1: SRblock = -0.02 + 0.9; S.D. = 0.09 2: SRblock = 0.1; S.D. = 0.09 3: SRblock = 0.02 - 1.1; S.D. = 0.10
*

0.8

0.6 3 0.4 1
*

0.2 2 0.0 0 30o 60o

90o

Discontinuity Angle to Horizontal Plane,

Einstein et al. (1969, 1973), 3 = 0 Ladanyi & Archambault (1972), 3 = 0.35 MPa Ladanyi & Archambault (1972), 3 = 0.70 MPa Kulatilake et al. (1997), 3 = 0, symm. Kulatilake et al. (1997), 3 = 0, asymm. Yang et al. (1998), 3 = 0

Fig. 7. Effect of discontinuity angle on rock block strength (Prakoso & Kulhawy 2004b).

1.5 SRblock = (1 - 3)f-block / (1 - 3)f-intact

80
Discontinuity Angle to Horizontal Plane,

1.0

COV of (1 - 3)f (%)

60

0o - 25o 25o-70o 70o - 90o Einstein & Hirschfeld (1973) Brown & Trollope (1970), Brown (1970) Ladanyi & Archambault (1972)

40

0.5
Vertical Discontinuities Horizontal Discontinuities Vertical & Horizontal Discontinuities No. Discontinuity = 2: Mean = 0.98; S.D. = 0.12 No. Discontinuity = 4: Mean = 0.92; S.D. = 0.10 No. Discontinuity = 8: Mean = 0.92; S.D. = 0.17

20

0.0 0 2 4 6 8 10

0 0 4 8 12 16 Confining Stress, 3 (MPa)

Number of Discontinuities

Fig. 8. Effect of number of discontinuities on rock block strength (Prakoso & Kulhawy 2004b). decreases with increasing 3 but, for typical 3 values for foundations (3 < 1 MPa), the COV range still is wide, from 10 to 75%. In addition, the prior group of discontinuity angles ( = 0-25 and 70-90) tends to yield a lower COV of (1-3)f. 2.6 Rock Mass: Modulus A realistic rock mass Youngs modulus (Em) is required in any foundation displacement analysis, but typically it is obtained by conducting field load tests, which are rather expensive. Alternatively, Em can be estimated from the intact rock uniaxial compres-sive strength (qu) or the intact rock modulus (Et-50). A modulus ratio can be defined as follows: Modulus Ratio = Em / qu (3)

Fig. 9. Effect of confining stress on COV of rock block strength (Prakoso & Kulhawy 2004b).
10000
log10(Em / qu) = 2.73 - 0.49 log10(qu / pa) m = 71, r2 = 0.48, S.D. log(Em / qu) = 0.26

Modulus Ratio, Em / qu

1000

100

10

Mudstone Shale Sandstone Others

Using mainly the data base developed by Rowe and Armitage (1984), this ratio is plotted versus qu in Fig. 10. Note that the exclusion of some data in Fig. 10 was based on a further detailed statistical analysis (Prakoso 2002). Em also can be estimated from Et-50 using a modulus reduction factor defined as follows: E = Em / Et-50 (4)

1 1 10 100 1000

Uniaxial Compressive Strength, qu / pa

Fig. 10. Rock Mass Youngs Modulus from Load Tests (Filled symbols excluded from statistical analysis).
10

In this form, E is a lumped parameter that includes the intact rock properties and the discontinuity frequencies and properties. Using the data base developed by Heuze (1980), the distribution of E is shown in Fig. 11. In addition, geomechanical models have been proposed to estimate Em. The orthogonal model proposed by Kulhawy (1978) incorporates key physical properties of the intact rock and the rock discontinuities, as well as the mean discontinuity spacing, as given by:

No. Observations

8 6 4 2 0 0.0 0

Mean = 0.32 S.D. = 0.26 m = 27

Log-Normal Distribution

Em

1 1 = + Er Sj Kn

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

E = Em / Et-50

(5)

Fig. 11. Distribution of E from plate bearing tests.

0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2

Er / Kn (m) = 0.5 Simulation Results Negative Exponential Log-Normal (COV = 50%) Log-Normal (COV = 100%) Kulhawy (1978)

QL2

Final linear region Transition region

Load

QL1

Mean E

0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 20 40 60 80 100

Simulation Results Negative Exponential Log-Normal (COV = 100%) Kulhawy (1978) Er / Kn (m) = 0.1

Initial linear region

Displacement
Er / Kn (m) = 1.0

Fig. 13. Generalized load-displacement behavior. (absolute and percent of diameter), graphical constructions, and mathematical functions. These also reflect a mix of what actually are both ultimate limit state and serviceability limit state criteria. Our detailed studies (e.g., Hirany & Kulhawy 1988; Prakoso 2002) indicate that a consistent and reasonable method for defining the "interpreted failure load" is to use QL2, which is the load at L2. Similarly, QL1 is the load at L1, which represents the "elastic limit". The L1 and L2 points are determined graphically from a plot at a scale similar to that of Fig. 13. As can be seen, QL2 always follows the nonlinearity, sometimes represents the actual curve peak where there is little or no dilation, and can be evaluated from virtually all quality test data. Once the "capacity" is defined, then the tip and side resistances can be evaluated based on measurements made in compression tests of full sockets. In uplift tests, and in compression tests with a void or frangible material beneath the tip, the evaluation is straightforward and only requires consideration of the shaft weight. Most often, the tip and side resistances then are compared to one of the simpler rock material indices, such as the uniaxial compressive strength (qu). The qu tests should all be done in accordance with proper test procedures, such as those given by ASTM, ISRM , or others. Estimating qu from simpler tests such as the point load index, Schmidt hammer, or others, may be inappropriate, as shown by the variability in the correlations shown previously. Strictly speaking, any comparison also should be with the average qu over the depth of the socket. Most studies conducted to date have not met these criteria, based on the documentation presented or stated. This statement is not intended to fault the authors, who undoubtedly presented the best information they could. It is intended to point out that we are frequently dealing with imperfect and sometimes poor data, and therefore our expectations should be tempered accordingly. 3.2 Calculation Model In general, foundation capacity is a function of the tip resistance (Qt), side resistance (Qs), and foundation weight (W). By force equilibrium, the compression capacity (Qc) is given by: Qc = Qtc + Qsc W (6)

Mean RQD (%)

Fig. 12. Relationship between Rock Mass Modulus and RQD. in which Er = intact rock modulus (typically given by Et-50), Sj = discontinuity spacing, and Kn = discontinuity normal stiffness. This Em also can be correlated to Er = Et-50, as in Eq. 4, to define the modulus reduction factor E. The discontinuity spacing (Sj) is not obtained routinely in foundation practice, but the Rock Quality Designation (RQD) is used commonly to characterize the rock mass. Kulhawy (1978) used a simple geometric model to relate Si to RQD; others have used statistical or random number-generated relationships. In any case, as shown in Fig.12, the effect of different Sj-RQD relationships is minor, compared to that of the properties of the rock and discontinuities. 3 ROCK SOCKET CAPACITY 3.1 Generalized Socket Behavior Fig. 13 depicts the generalized load-displacement behavior of drilled shafts under axial load. This general pattern holds in both soil (Hirany & Kulhawy 1988) and rock (Carter & Kulhawy 1988), as shown in many load tests that were carefully conducted and well-documented. There is essentially a linear response from the origin to L1, followed by a nonlinear transition region to L2, after which there is a final linear region. In rock masses, these regions correspond to initial linear elastic behavior, followed by bond breakage and progressive slip, and then full frictional slip with dilation. The same general pattern holds for both compression and uplift tests, although the relative sizes and importance of the regions differ somewhat. In all cases, the occurrence of a clearly defined peak to the curve is infrequent. With nonlinear curves such as these, there is always a major question about how to define the foundation "capacity" for subsequent design use. Examination of the literature (Hirany & Kulhawy 1988) reveals at least 41 different methods used for the interpretation of axial load tests, including displacement limits

in which the subscript c refers to compression. The uplift capacity (Qu) is given by:
Bearing Capacity Factor, Nc*

10 Nc* = 3.38, S.D. = 1.20 8

Qu = Qtu + Qsu + W

(7)

in which the subscript u refers to uplift. In most design cases, only limited information is available on the rock mass properties and in-situ conditions, and consequently the use of theoretical solutions is difficult. More often, the only rock strength property available is the intact rock uniaxial compressive strength (qu), and therefore the foundation resistances typically are related to qu. In simplified fashion, the tip (or base) resistances of circular footings and drilled shafts in compression can be estimated by: Qtc = 0.25 B2 Nc* qu (8)

in which B = foundation diameter and Nc* = empirical tip resistance factor. Information on the tip resistance in uplift is very limited, so this resistance is not discussed herein. The side resistance of drilled shaft foundations socketed in rock involves a complex interaction among the adhesion, friction, dilatancy, and normal stress effects along the socket wall. These effects are difficult to measure or estimate, and therefore they often are lumped into an average unit side resistance (f). Using this simplification, the side resistance (Qs) can be estimated by: Qs = B D f (9)

0 0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

Socket Diameter, B (m)

Fig. 14. Drilled socket tip resistance factor (Prakoso & Kulhawy 2002).
8 No. Observations 6 4 2 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Tip Resistance Factor, Nc* Log-Normal Distribution Mean = 3.38 COV = 35.4% m = 14

in which B = foundation diameter and D = foundation socket depth. It is assumed commonly that f can be related directly to the intact rock uniaxial compressive strength (qu), and therefore the side resistance is given by: Qs = B D r qu in which r = empirical side resistance factor = f / qu. 3.3 Tip Resistance The tip resistance for tests conducted on the socket tip and on complete sockets was evaluated to assess the range of the tip resistance factor (Nc*). The data base developed for this study included 9 sites with 14 field load tests conducted in several rock types, mainly in fine-grained sedimentary rocks, and 2 centrifuge laboratory tests. All of the load tests had qu, and all were conducted on straight-sided rock sockets. Axial compressive loading was applied in all cases, with 7 tests performed on socket tips and 7 tests performed on complete sockets. For the complete sockets, the tip resistance was determined from the reported tip and side resistance load distribution. The tip resistance factor (Nc*) was evaluated using Eq. 8, and these values are plotted versus the corresponding socket diameter (B) in Fig. 14, in which Nc* appears to be independent of B. The mean of the tip resistance factor (mNc*) and its COV (COVNc*) are given by mNc* = 3.38 and COVNc* = 35.4%. The distribution of Nc* is shown in Fig. 15, and it resembles a log-normal probability distribution with the same mNc* and COVNc*. Furthermore, Nc* appears to be independent of the rock type. 3.4 Side Resistance Carter & Kulhawy (1988) reviewed the Rowe & Armitage (1984) (10)

Fig. 15. Distribution of drilled socket tip resistance factor (Prakoso & Kulhawy 2002). data and noted that there is an approximate lower bound to side resistance that is given by: f / pa = 0.63 (qu / pa)0.50 (11)

in which f = average unit side resistance. To link the f / pa format with the r format, the equations are given by: log10 r = A B log10 (qu / pa) f / pa = 10A (qu / pa)B (12a) (12b)

After examination of these data, they also made two important design check recommendations. First, values of f in excess of 0.15 qu, over the full range of expected values, should be used only when they are demonstrated to be reasonable by a load test, local experience, or adequate in-situ testing. And second, after obtaining the design value of f, typically from Eq. 9, and applying a factor of safety to this value, a check should be made against the concrete bond value of 0.05 f'c. The lower value should be used unless load test data show otherwise. More recently, Prakoso (2002) re-examined the data available and attempted to evaluate them in a more consistent manner.

Side Resistance Factor, r

First, the only data used were those that had load-displacement curves to failure so that the "interpreted failure load" could be determined for all the data and therefore the "capacities" were evaluated in a consistent manner. However, it was not possible to reevaluate the qu data to ensure consistency in test conduct and averaging over the shaft depth. An initial assessment of additional Asia data (e.g., Ng et al. 2001) indicates that they fall in the data range as above. Fig. 16 shows the results for all of the data, including multiple tests at the same site and results for (a) shafts in natural and manmade rocks, (b) grouted piles in natural rocks, and (c) rock anchors in natural rocks. The regression line is given by: f / pa = 2.00 (qu / pa)0.69 (13)

0 0.1

0 0.01

0.001 0

log10 r = 0.24 - 0.67 log10(qu / pa) m = 52, r2 = 0.69, S.D. = 0.30

I. Intrusive I. Extrusive I. Pyroclastic S. Clastic (fine) S. Clastic (coarse) S. Chemical M. Non-Foliated Man-Made

Fig. 17 shows the results of the data averaged per test site. The regression line is given by:
0.0001 0

f / pa = 1.74 (qu / pa)0.67

(14)

10

100

1000

10000

Careful examination of these results indicates that the rock anchor data are clustered in the lower portions of the figure, especially in the lower right. Setting these data aside gives the results for drilled shafts and grouted piles as shown in Fig. 18 by the solid line. The regression line corresponds to: f / pa = 0.98 (qu / pa)
0.50

Uniaxial Compressive Strength, qu / pa

Fig. 17. r vs. qu for all data, averaged per site (Kulhawy et al. 2005).
1

(15)
Side Resistance Factor, r 0 0.1

which can be conveniently rounded to f / pa = (qu / pa)

0.50

(16)

The lower bound 10A value of 0.63 that was cited previously actually represents the lower bound for 90% of the data in Fig. 18. To capture 100% of the data, the absolute lower bound would be about 0.5. It should be noted in Fig. 18 that the regression is altered significantly when the rock anchor data are included. Clearly these data constitute a separate population. In addition to the general relationships described above, there have been a number of studies that have focused exclusively on
1

0 0.01
log10 r = - 0.01 - 0.50 log10(qu / pa) m = 41, r2 = 0.51, S.D. = 0.31

0.001 0

I. Intrusive S. Clastic (coarse) I. Extrusive S. Chemical I. Pyroclastic M. Non-Foliated S. Clastic (fine) Man-Made Regression Line for Data with Rock Anchors

0.0001 0 1 10 100 1000 10000

Uniaxial Compressive Strength, qu / pa Side Resistance Factor, r 0 0.1

Fig. 18. r vs. qu for drilled shafts and grouted piles, averaged per site (Kulhawy et al. 2005). localized rock units, such as the chalks of southern England and the limerocks of Florida. These studies are of local importance and are too specialized to be discussed herein. When these are addressed, they should be considered within the broad framework described above. 3.5 Effect of Socket Roughening
10000

0 0.01

0.001 0

log10 r = 0.30 - 0.69 log10(qu / pa) m = 104, r2 = 0.72, S.D. = 0.29

I. Intrusive I. Extrusive I. Pyroclastic S. Clastic (fine) S. Clastic (coarse) S. Chemical M. Non-Foliated Man-Made

0.0001 0 1 10 100 1000

The values of r for roughened drilled foundations are plotted versus their corresponding qu/pa in Fig. 19. The r decreases with increasing qu/pa, and the regression equation is given by: f / pa = 1.91 (qu / pa)0.46 (17)

Uniaxial Compressive Strength, qu / pa

Fig. 16. Non-roughened side resistance of drilled foundations (Kulhawy et al. 2005).

The side resistance factor (r) differs with socket roughening.

1
Side Resistance, f / pa

100 80 60 40 20 0
I. Intrusive I. Extrusive I. Pyroclastic S. Clastic (fine) 0.05 FSlim (fc' / pa) fc' / pa = 400 2 3 fc' / pa = 200 2 S. Clastic (coarse) S. Chemical M. Non-Foliated Man-Made FSlim = 3

Side Resistance Factor, r

0.4

0 0.1

0.04

log10 r = 0.28 - 0.46 log10(qu / pa) m = 43, r2 = 0.67, S.D. = 0.16 S. Clastic S. Chemical Man-Made

10

100

1000

10000

Uniaxial Compressive Strength, qu / pa

0.01 0 1 10 100 1000 10000

Fig. 20. Socket side resistance versus concrete bond strength (Kulhawy et al. 2005). Table 1. Comparison of Side Resistance and Concrete Bond Strength (Kulhawy et al. 2005). Rock Socket % socket fallow > 0.05 f'c FSlim = 2 FSlim = 3 Non-Roughened f'c / pa = 200 16% 4% 2% 0% f'c / pa = 400 Roughened 40% 14% f'c / pa = 200 9% 0% f'c / pa = 400 Concrete bond strength = 0.05 FSlim (f'c / pa) variation (r = j) on Ncs is shown in Fig. 21. As r increases, the maximum and minimum Ncs increase, 1 for the minimum Ncs decreases, and the ratio of maximum to minimum Ncs increases slightly. Also, the range of 1 affecting Ncs decreases, and the shape of the line of Ncs changes with increasing r. The effect of discontinuity cohesion, given by cj / cr, is shown in Fig. 22. As cj / cr increases, the minimum Ncs increases, and the range of 1 affecting Ncs decreases. The effect of discontinuity friction angle (r j) is shown in Fig. 23. As j increases, the minimum Ncs increases, and 1 for the minimum Ncs changes. Also, the range of 1 affecting Ncs decreases, and the shape of the line of Ncs changes significantly with increasing j. Ncs for rock masses with two discontinuity sets is given in Fig. 24. As shown, Ncs is influenced significantly by 1 and the angle between the discontinuity sets (). The minimum Ncs and 1 for this minimum differ for different values. Also, the range of 1 affecting Ncs varies, and the shape of the line of Ncs changes significantly with different values. The results for both one and two discontinuity sets suggest that the strength of both the rock material and the discontinuities, and the number and orientation of the discontinuity sets, all have significant effects on Ncs. Prakoso & Kulhawy (2006) provide an update of the Kulhawy & Goodman model for foundations on rock with vertical discontinuities. For a rock mass with open vertical discontinuities, where the discontinuity spacing (Sj) is less than or equal to the foundation width (B), the likely failure mode is uniaxial compression of rock columns. The ultimate capacity based on the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion then is given by: qult = qu = 2 c tan (45 + / 2) (18)

Uniaxial Compressive Strength, qu / pa

Fig. 19. Roughened side resistance of drilled foundations. For non-roughened sockets, r is lower than that for roughened sockets. The overall trend of both data sets and the regression lines is similar. Both regression lines are close for lower qu, suggesting that the nominal side resistances are about the same. 3.6 Rock Socket Side Resistance and Concrete Bond Strength Carter & Kulhawy (1988) recommended a design check to compare the allowable side resistance of the rock socket (f / FS) to the concrete bond strength, given by 0.05 f'c. The lower value would control, unless field testing showed otherwise. By using typical safety factors of 2 and 3, the ultimate side resistance can be compared with the factored concrete bond strength, as given in Fig. 20. Typical ranges of concrete strength, f'c / pa = 200 400, were used for comparison. Fig. 20 shows that most side resistances are below the lower concrete strength and factor of safety. All of these cases showed acceptable behavior when the bond strength of the concrete was exceeded. Clearly the concrete behaves better when it is confined in a socket and reinforced than when it is unconfined and unreinforced. The percentages are given in Table 1, which shows that there are more cases of sockets exceeding the concrete bond strength with lower concrete strength and factor of safety. Again, all of these cases showed acceptable behavior when the bond strength of the concrete was exceeded. 4 ROCK MASS CONDITIONS & ROCK FOUNDATION BEARING CAPACITY: THEORETICAL RELATIONSHIPS Prakoso & Kulhawy (2004a) proposed a lower bound bearing capacity model, coupled with a simple discontinuity strength model, for strip footings on jointed rock masses. The strength of both the rock material (r and cr) and the discontinuities (j and cj), and the number and orientation of the discontinuity sets (1n), are considered explicitly in the model. The lower bound bearing capacity factor (Ncs) for strip footings on rock masses with a single discontinuity set is given in Figs. 21 through 24. The uniaxial compressive strength (qu) of the rock material, normalized by cr, also is given. In all figures, Ncs is related to the discontinuity orientation angle (1). The effect of friction angle

in which qu = uniaxial compressive strength, c = cohesion, and = friction angle. The qu, c, and are rock mass properties.

60 cj / cr = 0.3 Bearing Capacity Factor, Ncs 50 40 45o 30 40o 20 10 0 0 30 60 90 Discontinuity Angle to Horizontal Plane, 1 (o) 35o
r = j = 30o

30
r = 40o; cj / cr = 0.3

Bearing Capacity Factor, Ncs

50o

40o 35o

20

10 30o 25o
j = 20o

qu /cr

0 0 30 60 90 Discontinuity Angle to Horizontal Plane, 1 (o)

Fig. 21. Lower bound bearing capacity of strip footings on jointed rock masses - one discontinuity set (Prakoso & Kulhawy 2004a).
30

Fig. 23. Effect of discontinuity friction angle on lower bound bearing capacity (Prakoso & Kulhawy 2004a).
30
r = j = 40o; cj / cr = 0.3 1

Bearing Capacity Factor, Ncs

Bearing Capacity Factor, Ncs

2 = 1 +

0.9 20 0.7 0.5

1

20

10

0.3

r = j = 40o

10
= 30o = 60o = 90o

qu /cr

cj / cr = 0.1

qu /cr 0 0

0 0 30 60 90 Discontinuity Angle to Horizontal Plane, 1 (o)

30

60

90

Discontinuity Angle to Horizontal Plane, 1 (o)

Fig. 22. Effect of discontinuity cohesion on lower bound bearing capacity (Prakoso & Kulhawy 2004a). For a rock mass with vertical discontinuities spaced wider than the foundation width (B), the likely failure mode is splitting of the rock mass. Bishnoi (1968) proposed the following format to evaluate this failure mode: qult J c Ncr (19)

Fig. 24. Lower bound bearing capacity of strip footings on jointed rock masses - two discontinuity sets (Prakoso & Kulhawy 2004a). in which Sj = spacing between vertical discontinuities and N = bearing capacity factor given by: N = tan2 (45 + / 2) (21)

in which J = correction factor, c = intact rock cohesion, and Ncr = bearing capacity factor. The J factor is later. The bearing capacity factor (Ncr) is given by Goodman (1980):

As the spacing between a pair of vertical discontinuities (Sj) increases, the failure mode changes, from splitting of the rock mass to general shear failure. For general shear, the modified solution proposed by Bell (1915) can be used: qult = c Nc cs cd + 0.5 B N s d + q Nq qs qd (22)

N cr =

2 N

N N 1
0.5

Sj B

(11 N )

(20)

in which c = rock mass cohesion, B = foundation diameter or width, = rock mass effective unit weight, q = D = overburden stress at tip, D = foundation depth, and Nc, N, and Nq = bearing

Bearing Capacity Factor, Ncr

capacity factors. The factors cs, cd, s, d, qs, and qd are modifiers for square or circular foundations; the second subscript s denotes the shape factor and the second subscript d denotes the depth factor. For shallow foundations, D is very small, and the 0.5 B N term normally is very small compared to the c Nc term, and therefore Eq. 22 often is simplified as: qult = c Nc cs qult = 2 c [tan(45 + / 2) + tan3(45 + / 2)] cs The modifying factor cs is given by: cs = 1 + N1.5 / [2 (N + 1)] (24) (23a) (23b)

1000

60o 100 Ncr Equation 50o 40o Uniaxial Compression 10 30o 20o
= 10o

Bell Solution Limit for Sj > B 1 0 0.1 1 10 100

The results of Eqs. 18-23 are shown in Fig. 25 for a range of rock mass friction angles. Note that, as the results are given in terms of Ncr, for the uniaxial compression failure mode, Ncr is given by: Ncr = 2 tan (45 + / 2) For the general wedge failure mode, Ncr is given by: Ncr = Nc cs (26) (25)

Discontinuity Spacing, Sj / B

Fig. 25. Capacity factor for vertical open discontinuities (Prakoso & Kulhawy 2006).
2.0

DEFORMATION OF ROCK SOCKETS

Correction Factor, J

The changes in failure modes in Fig. 25 are identified by the dashed lines. The correction factor (J), based on Bishnoi (1968), also was updated. Contrary to Bishnois suggestions, the results show no apparent trend, as can be seen in Fig. 26. The mean and COV of J are 1.14 and 33.3 percent, respectively.

1.5

1.0

Carter and Kulhawy (1988) suggested that the displacement of a rigid shear socket under uplift loading can be evaluated by:
yu = 2 1 F Gm D u

0.5
Igneous Intrusive Sedimentary Chemical Concrete

(27)

0.0 0 5 10 15 20

in which = ln[5 (1-) D/B], = rock mass Poissons ratio, Gm = rock mass shear modulus, D = shaft depth, and Fu = applied uplift load. This equation also is used for a single anchor in uplift. Carter and Kulhawy (1988) also suggested that the elastic displacement of a rigid complete socket can be evaluated by: yc = Fc Eb B + 1 2 b Em D 1+

Thickness of Rock Layer, H/B

Fig. 26. Correction factor J (Prakoso & Kulhawy 2006). These equations are valid up until L1, at which displacements typically are on the order of 10-15 mm. Beyond L1, nonlinearity and load transfer must be addressed.

(28)

in which Fc = applied compressive load, Eb = rock mass Youngs modulus below the tip, b = rock mass Poissons ratio below the tip, and B = socket diameter. Note that, because the typical values of and b are low and Eb = Em is commonly assumed, Eq. 28 can be simplified as follows:
yc Fc E m D B 1+ 1+

6 CONSTRUCTION CRITERIA

AND

FIELD

ACCEPTANCE

(29)

In general, when constructing a rock socket, it is necessary to ensure that the rock mass is of sufficient quality to carry the load without adverse behavior. To achieve this goal, it is common to set exploration and/or construction criteria that must be met. First and foremost, there must be sufficient exploration data to define the rock materials present and to delineate the rock mass structure and discontinuities. These data should be of sufficient depth beneath the tips of the rock sockets to define the rock mass well enough so that the bearing capacity and settlement can be computed with some confidence. In particular, it is necessary to

define the layering and/or soft seams that can be present in many types of stratified rock masses and the voids that can be present in certain types of volcanic rocks and in the carbonate rock family. If these features are not defined with some confidence during exploration, then it usually will be necessary to do so during construction. Second, the socket must be constructed to give a nominally "clean" socket. The tip should be cleaned out as best as possible using conventional clean-out tools. Only in extraordinary cases should any special procedures be used. If side resistance is being considered in the design, then the sides of the socket must be clean as well, again using conventional tools. There is no need to resort to special procedures for removing any light drilling muds, because they will be displaced by proper tremie placement of high-slump concrete. However, in some softer or weathered rocks, for example compaction clay-shales, softening of the socket side may occur. Special clean-out procedures and socket roughening or grooving may be considered in these cases. Third is the issue of socket use and design. Where there is rock surface uncertainty and therefore a need to ensure a quality bearing surface, "seating" sockets can be considered. These types of sockets minimally penetrate the rock surface, usually to a depth less than one socket diameter, and provide little, if any, side resistance. For these sockets, only tip clean-out is necessary. When the sockets are deeper, they will be "load-carrying" sockets. These sockets can be used and designed in several ways. If "tip resistance only" sockets are designed, then there is no rationale to prescribe acceptance criteria for the rock along the socket sides. If "side resistance only" sockets are designed, then there is no rationale to prescribe acceptance criteria for the rock quality beneath the socket tips. However, if both side and tip resistances are included in the design, then acceptance criteria for both are appropriate. For the side, criteria sometimes are suggested that relate to the percent of soil surface area or number of seams present along the surface of the socket. These may or may not be realistic, depending on the actual geologic details. For the tip, criteria sometimes are suggested for probe holes drilled beneath the tip to determine the frequency and thickness of soil seams in the rock within a depth beneath the tip equal to a shaft diameter or sometimes more. These types of criteria are based on settlement limitations and must be evaluated as such, considering stress distribution models for sockets in layered media. Guidelines are warranted to adjust these criteria if deepening is needed because the acceptance criteria are not met. In this case, more load is transferred through the socket side as the socket deepens. How the field acceptance criteria are implemented is an issue of potentially significant economic concern, in the same category as the evaluation of rock characteristics. If the rock characteristics are defined well during the investigation, then there should be few, if any, surprises during construction. If the investigation is minimal, the opposite is likely. To minimize surprises, some even note that probe holes be drilled prior to construction at each shaft location to establish the final shaft depth before construction. This important economic issue needs to be assessed carefully and delineated clearly prior to construction. 7 CONCLUDING COMMENTS

First, several methods are presented to estimate key rock material and rock mass properties needed for socket design. Then one method for evaluating side resistance is presented, after a detailed evaluation. Several possible approaches are suggested to assess the tip resistance, depending on the degree of geologic data available. Where available, statistics are given for the properties and the methods. Some design and construction implications are noted as well. Detailed load-settlement-load transfer evaluations are beyond the scope of this paper. REFERENCES Bell, A.L. 1915. Lateral Pressure & Resistance of Clay, & Supporting Power of Clay Foundations. Minutes of Proc. of Institution of Civil Engineers: 199: 233-336. Bishnoi, B.L. 1968. Bearing Capacity of Closely Jointed Rock. PhD Thesis. Atlanta: Georgia Institute of Technology. Carter, J.P. & Kulhawy, F.H. 1988. Analysis & Design of Drilled Shaft Foundations Socketed into Rock. Report EL-5918. Palo Alto: Electric Power Research Institute. Goodman, R.E. 1980. Introduction to Rock Mechanics. New York: Wiley Heuze, F.E. 1980. Scale Effects in Determination of Rock Mass Strength & Deformability. Rock Mechanics, 12(3-4): 176-92. Hirany, A. & Kulhawy, F.H. 1988. Conduct & Interpretation of Load Tests on Drilled Shafts. Report EL-5915. Palo Alto: Electric Power Research Institute. Kulhawy, F.H. 1978. Geomechanical Model for Rock Foundation Settlement. J. Geotech. Eng. Div., ASCE, 104(2): 211-27. Kulhawy, F.H. & Prakoso, W.A. 2001. Foundations in Carbonate Rocks & Karst. Foundations & Ground Improvement (GSP 113), Ed. T.L.Brandon. Reston: ASCE: 1-15. Kulhawy, F.H. & Prakoso, W.A. 2003. Variability of Rock Index Properties. Proc. Soil & Rock America, Ed. P.J.Culligan et al. Cambridge (MA): 2765-70. Kulhawy, F.H., Prakoso, W.A., & Akbas, S.O. 2005. Evaluation of Capacity of Rock Foundation Sockets. Proc. 40th U.S. Symp. Rock Mechanics, Ed. G.Chen et al. Anchorage: paper 05-767 CDROM. Ng, C.W.W., Yau, T.L., Li, J.H.M., & Tang, W.H. 2001. Side Resistance of Large Diameter Bored Piles Socketed into Decomposed Rocks. J. Geotech. Eng., ASCE, 127(8): 642-57. Prakoso, W.A. 2002. Reliability-Based Design of Foundations on Rock for Transmission Line & Similar Structures. PhD Thesis. Ithaca: Cornell University. Prakoso, W.A. & Kulhawy, F.H. 2002. Uncertainty in Capacity Models for Foundations in Rock. Proc. 5th North Amer. Rock Mechanics Symp., Ed. R.Hammah et al. Toronto: 1241-48. Prakoso, W.A. & Kulhawy, F.H. 2004a. Bearing Capacity of Strip Footings on Jointed Rock Masses. J. Geotech. Eng., ASCE, 130(12): 1347-49. Prakoso, W.A. & Kulhawy, F.H. 2004b. Variability of Rock Mass Engineering Properties. Proc. 15th SE Asian Geotech. Conf.(1), Ed. S.Sambhandharaksa et al. Bangkok: 97-100. Prakoso, W.A. & Kulhawy, F.H. 2006. Capacity of Foundations on Discontinuous Rock. Proc. 41st U.S. Symp. Rock Mechanics, Ed. D.P.Yale et al. Golden: paper 06-972 CDROM. Rowe, R.K. & Armitage, H.H. 1984. Design of Piles Socketed into Weak Rock, Report GEOT-11-84, London: University of Western Ontario.

Drilled foundations often are socketed into rock to increase the capacity. However, procedures to quantify the socket side and tip resistance vary considerably. In this paper, a critical assessment is made of some key aspects of rock socket behavior.