753

Field P–y curves in weathered rock

Kook Hwan Cho, Mohammed A. Gabr, Shane Clark, and Roy H. Borden

Abstract: In weathered and decomposed rock profiles, the lack of an acceptable analysis procedure for estimating lat-
eral load–displacement response of drilled shafts is compounded by the unavailability of weathered material properties,
including the material’s lateral subgrade reaction modulus. Such deficiency often leads to the overdesign of the drilled
shaft foundation. Six field tests were conducted on drilled shafts to investigate the shape and magnitude of P–y curves
in weathered rock material at three locations in North Carolina. The tested shafts were instrumented using dial gages,
strain gages, and continuous vertical inclinometers. The measured load versus deflection data are used to study the
stiffness response of weathered rock. Measured lateral responses are compared with the results estimated based on a
“weak rock” model and a stiff clay model. The comparison shows that Reese’s weak rock model overestimated the
resistances of the tested shafts while the stiff clay model consistently underestimated the measured shaft resistances.
The measured and computed results are analyzed and discussed.
Key words: drilled shaft, weathered rock P–y curve, subgrade modulus, ultimate resistances in weathered rock, verifica-
tion tests.
Résumé : Dans les profils de roches décomposées et altérées, l’absence d’une procédure d’analyse pour évaluer la
réaction en déplacement sous une charge latérale de puits forés est compliquée par l’ignorance des propriétés du maté-
riau altéré, incluant le module de réaction latérale du matériau. Une telle carence conduit souvent à une conception
trop sécuritaire de la fondation du puits foré. Six essais sur le terrain ont été réalisés sur des puits forés pour étudier la
forme et la grandeur des courbes P–y pour le matériau rocheux altéré sur trois localisations en Caroline du Nord. Les
puits testés ont été instrumentés au moyen de jauges à cadran, de jauges de déformation, et d’inclinomètres continus
verticaux. Les données de la charge mesurée en fonction de la déformation sont utilisées pour étudier la réponse en ri-
gidité de la roche altérée. Les réponses latérales mesurées sont comparées aux résultats estimés basés sur un modèle de
« roche molle » et un modèle d’argile raide. La comparaison montre que le modèle de roche molle de Reese a sures-
timé les résistances des puits testés alors que le modèle d’argile raide a sous-estimé de façon systématique les résistan-
ces des puits mesurées. On analyse et discute les résultats mesurés et calculés.
Mots-clés : puits foré, courbe P–y de roche altérée, module de réaction, résistances dans la roche altérée, essais de vé-
rification.
[Traduit par la Rédaction] Cho et al. 764

Introduction
In locations where geologic discontinuities have resulted
in relatively soft soils overlying massive hard rock, the ge-
ometry of the soil–rock boundary can be reasonably defined
with existing subsurface exploratory techniques. In areas of
weathered and decomposed rock profiles, however, defini-
tion of the soil–rock boundary is a recurring challenge for
engineers and contractors. In this situation, the subsurface
conditions typically consist of surface soils derived from ex-
Received 22 June 2005. Accepted 15 September 2006.
Published on the NRC Research Press Web site at cgj.nrc.ca
on 31 July 2007.
K.H. Cho,1 M.A. Gabr,2 S. Clark,3 and R.H. Borden.
Department of Civil Engineering, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7908, USA.
1
Present address: Seoul National University of Technology,
172 Gongneung2-dong, Nowon-gu, Seoul, 139-743, Republic
of Korea.
2
Corresponding author (e-mail: gabr@eos.ncsu.edu).
3
Present address: Western Regional Design Group, 5253 Z
Max Boulevard, Harrisburg, NC 28075, USA.
tensive weathering of the parent rock. With depth, the soils
grade into less weathered material and more evidence of the
parent rock features are retained. Quantitative definitions of
the soil–rock interface have been addressed in the literature.
Coates (1970) recommended that the rock quality designa-
tion (RQD) value could be used to estimate the depth of
sound rock. RQD values less than 25% designate very poor
rock quality that could be classified as soil for engineering
purposes. Peck (1976) stated that the distinction between
rock-like and soil-like material in transition zones is usually
unpredictable.
In these types of transitional subsurface profiles, the defi-
nition of soil parameters needed for the analysis and design
of laterally loaded drilled shafts poses a great challenge. The
lack of an acceptable analysis procedure in such profiles is
compounded by the unavailability of means for evaluating the
weathered material properties, including the lateral modulus.
Such deficiencies often lead to the overdesign (conservative)
of the shaft foundation.
Previous work on displacement-based analysis of drilled
shafts in weathered rock profiles is scarce. Notable studies
recently reported in the literature include work by Zhang et
al. (2000), Reese (1997), and Digioia and Rojas-Gonzalez

Can. Geotech. J. 44: 753–764 (2007) doi:10.1139/T07-026 © 2007 NRC Canada

754
(1994). Zhang et al. (2000) considered the nonlinear behavior
of soil and rock by assuming both to be elastic – perfectly
plastic materials. Reese (1997) utilized the P–y concept for
the analysis of a single pile in “weak” rock profile. The
method was termed “interim” principally because of the
dearth of load test data available to validate the proposed de-
sign equations. Digioia and Rojas-Gonzalez (1994, p. 1575)
performed seven tests on drilled shafts supporting transmis-
sion towers in rock profiles and reported the applicability of
their design model (MFAD) in predicting the measured field
behavior. They concluded that “classical methods for pre-
dicting the load–deflection relationship for drilled shafts in
soil consistently over-predict drilled shaft deflection.” They
also stated that additional research is necessary to assist the
designer with various rock types. From an engineering per-
spective, the distinction between transitional material and
rock is important to understand the behavior of the drilled
shaft foundation. The work presented herein includes results
of field load tests performed at three sites in North Carolina
where residual soil profiles were encountered. The shafts
were embedded mostly in weathered and decomposed rock
materials. The results include measured displacement re-
sponse with depth as well as subgrade reaction values back-
calcuated from the field strain measurements. A comparison
of results with data from models reported in the literature is
presented and discussed.
Field load testing
Six tests were performed in three different counties in
North Carolina. Two load tests were performed at each of
the three test sites in Nash, Caldwell, and Wilson counties.
Table 1 presents the underlying rock types at each of the test
sites.
At each site, two 0.762 m diameter shafts were constructed
approximately 7.6 m apart. Figure 1 shows the general layout
of the test shafts. The shafts were drilled using conventional
earth augers, preceded by the insertion (screwed in) of perma-
nent casing to the tip. The 12.7 mm thick permanent casings
were used to make the test shafts stiffer to induce displace-
ment around the tip area embedded in the transitional mate-
rial. A small gap between rock and casing existed in one case
during construction when the permanent casing was installed
even though the casing was carefully installed by a drilled
shafts contractor. The no solid contact problem was inevita-
ble, however, but after loads were applied to the shafts, solid
contact was obtained within 10 mm of lateral deformation as
will be described later in the Results section. The steel rein-
forcement cage, with the sister bars attached, was lowered
into the hole with spacers to ensure proper positioning. The
drilled hole was filled with concrete. Figure 1 also shows the
overlay of the test shafts and the load frame used to apply the
lateral load to both shafts simultaneously. The load frame was
attached to the constructed shafts at a vertical distance of
0.3 m above the excavated ground line. The maximum capac-
ity of the load frame, including a FS of 1.25, was 979 kN for
the Nash County tests. This capacity was increased, through
structural frame modifications, to 1334 kN for the Caldwell
and Wilson counties tests. However, during the last two tests
at Wilson County, higher load (1680 kN) than the maximum
design load was applied to obtain as much as possible of the
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 44, 2007
Table 1. List of test sites and rock types.
Test site Rock type
Nash County Meta-argillite
Caldwell County Gneiss
Wilson County Crystalline granite
nonlinear part of shaft load–deflection response. This was done
with the knowledge that the loading frame had a FS of 1.25.
Test load increments were applied using a hydraulic jack,
which has an approximately 10 inch (254 mm) stroke. The
hydraulic jack was fitted with a pressure gage. This gage was
calibrated to indicate the magnitude of the applied load. In
addition, a load cell was used to monitor the induced loads.
The loading sequence consisted of applying the lateral load
in increments of 45–90 kN, followed by an unloading in
cycles. Each load was held until no further appreciable deflec-
tion at the tops of the test shafts (defined as <0.127 mm/h) was
measured.
Data collected during the field tests include the following:
(i) load–deflection measurements at the top of the shaft;
(ii) deflection versus depth profiles measured by continuous
inclinometer probes; and (iii) strain with depth using vibrat-
ing wire (VW) strain gages mounted on sister bars that were
attached to the shaft reinforcement using steel ties. From the
measured strains, moments were calculated along the depth
of the shafts by piece-wise numerical integration, and then
the soil reaction was back-calculated based on the estimated
moment distribution.
Instrumentation plan
Shaft strains and displacements were monitored during
field testing with dial gages, strain gages, and slope incli-
nometer probes. The positions of these measuring systems
are schematically illustrated in Fig. 1 for the dial gages
and the strain gages. Each shaft was instrumented above
ground with four dial gages to measure surface displace-
ment. A fixed reference beam was used for mounting the
dial gages in accordance with section 5.1.1 of ASTM
D3966-90 (ASTM 1995). Two dial gages were used to
measure shaft vertical deflection. One dial gage was used
to measure lateral movement parallel to the direction of
loading, and the other one was used to measure movement
perpendicular to loading direction.
VW strain gages were attached to the rebar cage along the
shaft length using sister bars (tied to the vertical shaft rein-
forcing bars as previously described). These strain gages
were placed at the elevations shown in Fig. 1 for the Nash
County tests. A CR-10 data logger was used to electroni-
cally acquire strain and temperature data.
Slope inclinometer probes were used to continuously
measure shaft lateral inclination as a function of depth.
Electrolytic vertical in-place inclinometer probes were in-
serted into a plastic inclinometer casing installed during
shaft construction. This plastic inclinometer casing was
tied to the rebar cage prior to construction of the shafts.
The inclinometer instrument consisted of a continuous chain
of probes (sensors with wheels) that are attached to each
other at pivot points approximately 0.50 m apart. These
chains remained inside the casing throughout testing and
© 2007 NRC Canada
Cho et al.
Fig. 1. Layout of the test shafts at the Nash County test site.
were used to collect data along the entire length of each
shaft. A signal cable extended up through the casing for
each sensor, which was then connected to the CR-10 data
acquisition system. The data acquisition system consisted
of an A/D (analog to digital) board and control system run
by a computer program developed by Slope Indicator Co.
Test setting
For each test site, both short and long shafts were con-
structed apart from one another, as schematically illustrated
in Fig. 1. The logic of pushing a short against a long shaft
during testing was to ensure that the short shaft would incur
755
large enough lateral displacement to define the lateral sub-
grade modulus at the depth of the weathered rock layers,
while the long shaft would posses enough capacity to act as
a reaction member. At the Nash County test site, prior to
construction of the shafts, the test area, measuring roughly
10.67 m × 3.05 m, was excavated by removing 0.6–0.9 m of
soil. This excavation eliminated some of the overburden soil
and enabled the applied loads from the frame to be closer to
the weathered rock elevation, thereby inducing movement in
the subsurface layer of interest. The overburden soils were
entirely removed for the Caldwell and Wilson counties tests.
The length of each shaft and the number of strain gages in-
stalled in each shaft are summarized in Table 2.
© 2007 NRC Canada
756
Table 2. Summary of shaft length and number of strain gages.
Nash County test
Short shaft Long shaft
Shaft length (m) 3.35 4.57
No. of strain gages 8.00 9.00
Fig. 2. Test area subsurface cross-section, Nash County site.
Test site characteristics
Nash County
The test site is located in gently rolling terrain along
the easterly edge of the Piedmont physiographic province.
Metamorphosed mudstone, siltstone, and sandstone of the East-
ern slate belt underlie the area. The residual soils in this area
are mostly sandy silt (ML) and silty clay (CL), and are stiff to
hard. The water table is located approximately 2 m below the
ground surface. Residual soils grade with depth from soft (soil-
like) to hard (rock-like) weathered rock, which is derived from
the underlying meta-argillite (refer to the cross-section in Fig. 2).
Two standard penetration test profiles were performed near
the test area. The site’s alluvial soils consist of stiff silty and
sandy clay and soft to very stiff sandy silt. Just below the al-
luvial layers is a thin residual, stiff to hard, silty clay. The
groundwater was present at the interface of the alluvial soil
and residual layers. Beneath the residual clay, a soft weath-
ered meta-argillite rock grades into a hard weathered rock,
and finally into a competent rock around a depth of 6.10 m.
The residual soils were cored from a depth of 2.44 m to
approximately 7.0 m below the surface. The core was “H”
size to increase the potential of sample recovery. Most of the
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 44, 2007
Caldwell County test Wilson County test
Short shaft Long shaft Short shaft Long shaft
4.00 4.80 4.85 5.71
7.00 9.00 7.00 9.00
core was poor RQD rock, which can be classified as soft
weathered rock.
Hard rock core recoveries exceeded 95%, and RQD values
for the lower 4.57 m exceeded 75%. The location of the tip of
the long shaft was approximately at elevation 36 m, near the
bottom of the soft weathered rock zone. All weathered rock
core samples were inspected. Eight samples were chosen for
unconfined compression testing at NCDOT (North Carolina
Department of Transportation) Materials and Tests Unit Soils
Laboratory. Table 3 summarizes the results of this testing.
Caldwell County
Alluvium, sandy saprolite, weathered rock, and hard rock
comprised the foundation materials encountered in the bor-
ings at the Caldwell County test site. The test area is under-
lain by a Cenozoic-age biotite gneiss and schist rock unit of
the Inner Piedmont belt. Core borings revealed that, locally,
much of the rock is granetiferous. Tan to brown, medium
dense silty to fine coarse sand (micaceous residual material)
exists over the weathered rock layer. Figure 3 shows the
cross-section profile at the Caldwell County test site.
Two boring logs were performed in the vicinity of the test
shafts. Data from the boring logs at the locations of the long
© 2007 NRC Canada
Cho et al. 757

Fig. 3. Test area subsurface cross-section, Caldwell County site.

and short shafts, respectively, indicated profiles to be nearly Table 3. Nash County laboratory test results.
identical. No groundwater was encountered during
subsurface investigation. Beneath the residual soil is a Unconfined
weathered gneiss, which grades into a hard weathered rock Unit weight compressive strength,
and finally into a competent high RQD quality rock around Depth (m) (kN/m3) qu (kPa) RQD (%)
a depth of 10.7 m below the ground surface. The core size 4.58–4.76 24.6 33 095 <25
was an “H,” and RQD values ranged from 12% to approxi- 5.27–5.57 26.1 19 305 <25
mately 65%. 5.62–5.92 22.4 31 026 <25
All weathered rock core samples were inspected; however, 6.15–6.35 26.1 126 864 50
few samples were chosen for lab testing. Only two samples 6.64–6.80 25.5 48 263 50
were tested at the Materials and Test Unit Soils Laboratory 6.80–7.00 25.4 55 158 50
owing to poor rock quality. Table 4 summarizes the lab test- 10.42–10.61 27.0 154 443 85
ing results. 12.71–12.94 26.4 135 827 98
14.35–14.58 26.4 50 332 100
Wilson County
Tan brown fine to coarse sand, soft and hard weathered long shaft locations, respectively. Table 5 summarizes the
crystalline rock, and hard rock comprised the foundation lab testing results. The sample from the short shaft location
materials encountered at this site as shown in Fig. 4. Allu- has a higher RQD value (59%) than the relatively low RQD
vial material occurs to a variable extent at the site. Rock was of 13% estimated at the location of the long shaft. This ob-
cored at the two boring locations. Beneath the alluvium soil, servation is manifested in the measured load response to be
the weathered crystalline rock graded into a competent high- presented later in the paper. The groundwater was encoun-
RQD rock around a depth of 9.1 m. This test site provided a tered near the ground surface during the investigation.
subsurface profile for the short shaft that was different from
that for the long shaft. Load test results
The residual soil layer existed from the surface to approx-
imately 2.4 m deep. All weathered rock core samples were Nash County tests
inspected, and specific samples were chosen for lab testing. During testing, the short shaft experienced nearly 0.137 m
Two samples were evaluated, one each from the short and of displacement at an applied lateral load of 534 kN. After

© 2007 NRC Canada

758
Table 4. Caldwell County laboratory test results.
Depth (m) Unit weight (kN/m3)
Long shaft 9.70–9.20 26.67
Short shaft 9.92–10.05 27.01
Fig. 4. Test area subsurface cross-section, Wilson County site.
failure of the short shaft (defined by excessive displacement
under the applied load), a concrete block was installed be-
hind it to add extra resistance, and loading of the long shaft
was continued to a maximum load of 979 kN (the limit ca-
pacity of the testing frame).
The top displacements of the short and long shafts are
shown in Fig. 5. Based on the measured responses, the short
shaft was near its capacity under a lateral load of 534 kN. The
long shaft, however, did not reach its ultimate resistance un-
der an applied lateral load of 979 kN. Lateral displacement
for the long shaft under 534 kN was measured to be 0.017 m
(nearly one order of magnitude less than the 0.137 m mea-
sured for the short shaft).
Based on the inclinometer-measured deflection profile,
the short shaft behaved as a rigid body with a linear dis-
placement profile along the shaft’s full length (Fig. 6a). The
long shaft behaved as a “restrained tip” shaft under the ap-
plied lateral load, as indicated by the nonlinear displace-
ments profile along its length (Fig. 6b).
Caldwell County tests
During testing, the short shaft experienced 0.089 m of dis-
placement, and the long shaft was deflected 0.023 m at a
maximum applied load of 1334 kN. Top displacements of
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 44, 2007
Unconfined compressive
strength, qu (kPa) RQD (%)
59 128 30
61 578 27
the short and long shafts are shown in Fig. 7. The load–
displacement response for the long shaft did not exhibit a
yielding response under the applied maximum load. In the
case of the short shaft, the onset of yield was at a load of
1088 kN. Both shafts did not reach their ultimate lateral
resistance under the maximum applied load of 1334 kN.
Initial large displacements were observed for both shafts,
as shown in Fig. 7. The presence of poor contact between
the augured holes and the shafts was evident by the “con-
cave” shape of the initial part of the load–deflection curves.
Displacement corresponding to no solid contact is readily
identified from the shaft’s load–deflection curve.
The data obtained from the continuous inclinometer mea-
surement system in each shaft during loading are shown in
Figs. 8a and 8b. Similar to results from the Nash County
tests, the short shaft behaved as a rigid body with a linear
displacement profile along the shaft’s full length (Fig. 8a).
The long shaft behaved as an element with a partially re-
strained tip, as indicated by the nonlinear displacement pro-
file along its length (Fig. 8b).
Wilson County tests
Under a maximum applied load of 1681 kN, the short
shaft experienced 0.034 m of top lateral displacement while
© 2007 NRC Canada
Cho et al. 759

Table 5. Wilson County laboratory test results. Fig. 6. Deflection profile from slope inclinometer data, Nash
County.
Unconfined
Unit compressive
Depth weight strength, RQD
(m) (kN/m3) qu (kPa) (%)
Long shaft 3.2–4.7 26.67 57 578 13
Short shaft 3.0–4.5 27.01 62 567 59

Fig. 5. Top displacements measured from dial gages, Nash County.

the long shaft experienced a higher deflection magnitude of

0.055 m. Given the relatively small displacement achieved
for both shafts, it was decided during testing to continue ap-
plying the load past the test frame maximum capacity
(knowing that the test frame was designed with a FS = 1.5).
The top displacements of the short and long shafts are
shown in Fig. 9. The long shaft exhibited a nonlinear deflec-
tion response at the early stage of loading. Top deflection of
the short shaft, however, showed a nearly linear response
with loading. The stiffer response measured for the short
shaft, as compared to the long shaft, is mainly due to the dif-
ferent geological conditions at each location. The short shaft
location has rock with an RQD value of 59% as compared to
13% at the location of the long shaft (see Table 4). Accord-
ing to the inclinometer-measured deflection profile, both
shafts exhibited a nonlinear displacement profile along their
length, as shown in Figs. 10a and 10b.
Back-calculated P–y curves
Strain measurements from the VW strain gages were re-
corded using a CR-10 data logger for the Caldwell and Wil-
son counties tests and a readout box for the Nash County
tests (strain gage numbers and locations were as marked on
Fig. 1). From the measured strains, moments were calculated
along the length of the test shafts by piece-wise numerical
integration. The soil reaction, P, calculated in kN/m, was de-
termined using the calculated moment and the composite EI
(elastic modulus × moment of inertia) of the reinforced con-
crete with a casing of 859 MN·m2. The E value of the com-
posite material (concrete and steel casing) was calculated
using the equation Ec = (E1I1 + E2I2 + E3I3)/Ic, where Ec is
the elastic modulus of the composite material; Ic is the mo-
ment of inertia of the composite material; E1 is the elastic
modulus of the concrete; I1 is the moment of inertia of the
concrete; E2 is the elastic modulus of the steel casing; I2 is
the moment of inertia of the steel casing; E3 is the elastic
modulus of the steel rebar; I3 is the moment of inertia of the
steel rebar. Therefore, the steel casing was included in the
calculations of the EI value of the shafts. The lateral deflec-
tion (y), measured in metres, was obtained from the incli-
nometer data.
Figures 11 and 12 show the P–y curves calculated from
the strain gages for the long and short shafts, respectively, at
the Nash County test site. Best-fit P–y curves are plotted us-
ing the regression curve fitting procedure.
Figures 13 and 14 show the back-calculated P–y curves
for the Caldwell County tests. As observed from the top de-
flection measurement, initial deflection behavior is evident
owing to no solid contact between shafts and surrounding
material. The back-calculated P–y curves from the short

© 2007 NRC Canada

760 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 44, 2007

Fig. 7. Top displacements measured from dial gages, Caldwell Fig. 9. Top displacements measured from dial gages, Wilson
County. County.

Fig. 8. Deflection profile from slope inclinometer data, Caldwell Fig. 10. Deflection profile from slope inclinometer data, Wilson
County. County.

© 2007 NRC Canada

Cho et al.
Fig. 11. Back-calculated P–y curves for the soft weathered rock,
short shaft at the Nash County site.
Fig. 12. Back-calculated P–y curves for the soft weathered rock,
long shaft at the Nash County site.
shaft indicated a full nonlinear range as shown in Fig. 13.
However, the P–y curves in Fig. 14 only show the linear
part of the P–y response, since the maximum applied load
yielded relatively small deflections for the long shaft.
Figures 15 and 16 show the back-calculated P–y curves
for the long and short shafts, respectively, from the Wilson
County tests, as previously mentioned. The resistance val-
ues calculated for the short shaft are higher than those from
the long shaft owing to the difference in geological profiles
at each shaft location (RQD = 13% at the long shaft, and
RQD = 59% at the short shaft). At the Wilson County test
site, most of the back-calculated P–y curves from the short
shaft show a nearly linear response. For the longer shaft,
only P–y curves within the top 1.2 m of the profile show a
nonlinear response. Below this depth, the P–y curves also
plot essentially as a linear function, since the test load did
not produce enough deflection to reach a nonlinear range.
For clarity of presentation, Figs. 15 and 16 have different
scales for the load and deflection axes.
761
Fig. 13. Back-calculated P–y curves for the soft weathered rock,
short shaft at the Caldwell County site.
Fig. 14. Back-calculated P–y curves for the soft weathered rock,
long shaft at the Caldwell County site.
Verification of back-calculated P–y curves
Using back-calculated P–y curves from the field data pre-
sented in Figs. 11–16, analyses were performed using the
computer program BMCOL 76 (Matlock et al. 1981) to esti-
mate the shaft-top deflection and to compare these computed
values with the field measurements obtained from dial gages
mounted at the top of the test shafts. The objective of this
exercise is to discern the adequacy of the P–y curves back-
calculated from field data as computed and measured
responses are compared. As shown in Figs. 17 and 18, the
calculated shaft-top deflection responses determined from
BMCOL 76 are in good agreement with the measured data
for both shafts, with the exception of the Caldwell County
test data. In the Caldwell County comparison, the back-
calculated P–y curves from the short shaft used as input data
for BMCOL 76 analysis were adjusted by removing data
points corresponding to no solid contact, but the measured
load–deflection response at the shaft top was not modified.
© 2007 NRC Canada
762 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 44, 2007

Fig. 15. Back-calculated P–y curves for the soft weathered rock, Fig. 18. Verifying back-calculated P–y curves for long shafts.
short shaft at the Wilson County site.

Fig. 16. Back-calculated P–y curves for the soft weathered rock, Fig. 19. Measured versus estimated top deflection comparisons.
long shaft at the Wilson County site.

Fig. 17. Verifying back-calculated P–y curves for short shafts.

© 2007 NRC Canada

Cho et al.
Table 6. Summary of field load tests data.
Nash County
Short shaft Long shaft
Length (m) 3.35 4.57
Max. load (kN) 534 979
Shaft-top deflection (m) 0.135 0.036
RQD (%) <25 <25
Rock type Meta-argillite Gneiss
In the case of Caldwell County short shaft, it seems that
10–15 mm of lateral movement was needed before lateral re-
sistance was mobilized by the surrounding materials. At dis-
placement levels <50 mm, measured and computed
responses were relatively comparable.
P–y curve model comparison
Lateral resistance analyses for drilled shafts embedded in
weathered rock are regularly performed based on P–y curve
models. Among a few P–y models available in the literature,
weak rock (Reese 1997) and stiff clay (Reese and Welch
1975) models can be used to design drilled shafts embedded
in weathered rock. Reese’s weak rock model was considered
to be “interim” owing to the lack of load tests data to vali-
date it, as stated by Reese (1997). An adjusted stiff clay
model was recommended for use in weathered rock by Gabr
(1993) in the absence of a specific P–y model for weathered
rock at that time.
Figure 19 shows lateral pile-top deflection comparisons
between measured values from field tests and values esti-
mated from LPILE (Reese and Wang 1997) using Reese’s
weak rock model (Reese 1997) and the stiff clay model
(Reese and Welch 1975). For the input values of Reese’s
weak rock model, a shear strength of 30.0 MPa was used,
which is half of the unconfined compressive strength based
on laboratory test results reported by Reese (1997). A value
of 0.0005 for ε50 and a value of 600 MN/m3 for the subgrade
coefficient were also used in the analysis following LPILE
program manual recommendations (Reese and Wang 1997).
The input data for the stiff clay model are 192 kPa for the
shear strength, 0.004 for ε50, and 543 MN/m3 for the subgrade
coefficient. These properties for the stiff clay model are as
recommended by LPILE program manuals (Reese and Wang
1997), and explain the low value of cohesion. It should be
mentioned that the back-calculated subgrade coefficient
from field tests is approximately 40 MN/m3 near the sur-
face and increases to approximately 80 MN/m3 at a depth
of around 2.5 m. The 40 MN/m3 is about 7% of the value
recommended by Reese and Wang (1997). The range of un-
confined compressive strength obtained from the field was
19–154 MPa.
As shown in Fig. 19, the computed shaft-top deflection
from the weak rock model, using design properties reported
in the literature, overestimates the measured response of the
shafts. Although the coefficient of subgrade reaction was
comparable in both cases (600 MN/m3 for the weak rock
model versus 543 MN/m3 for the stiff clay model), the weak
rock model consistently yielded stiffer response.
763
Caldwell County Wilson County
Short shaft Long shaft Short shaft Long shaft
4.00 4.80 4.85 5.71
1334 1334 1681 1681
0.089 0.023 0.034 0.055
<30 <30 ≈60 ≈15
Crystalline granite
The overestimated response yielded by the weak rock
model may be partly due to the recommended distribution of
the soil mudolus, kh, with depth (Reese 1997) in which kh
was multiplied by a factor kir = 100 + 400x/3b; where x is
the depth and b is the shaft diameter. At the ground surface
this factor is equal to 100 and increases to over 500 at 2.5 m
below the surface. Such an increase in modulus created a
stiff layer near the shaft top, which consequently led to the
rather stiff load–deflection response shown in Fig. 19. On
the other hand, at relatively small displacements (correspond-
ing to a load less than 200 kN), the stiff clay model slightly
overpredicts the measured response at the low load levels.
This is a manifestation of the selected value of subgrade
coefficient coupled with the low value of shear strength,
which leads to softer P–y curves. Using the stiff clay model,
and as the displacement level increases, the computed load
response was, however, underestimated because the shear
strength value based on the stiff clay criterion was low. At
relatively large displacement levels, the stiff clay model un-
derestimated the shaft resistance, but such estimation is a
manifestation of the lower input shear strength value used in
the stiff clay model.
It is clear that selection of shear strength and modulus
properties greatly impact the computed lateral response re-
gardless of which P–y approach is taken (stiff clay versus
weak rock). While the values and approach recommended by
Reese (1997) led to good estimation of the load test data re-
ported by Nyman (1980), this approach did not yield good
results for the drilled shafts tested in the Piedmont weath-
ered profile. To obtain shaft-top deflection values similar to
the measured values, one possible combination for input to
Reese’s weak rock model is 600 kN/m3 for the subgrade
coefficient, which is 0.1% of the recommended value; and
0.005 for ε 50, which is 10 times the recommended value
based on shear strength. For the stiff clay model, one possi-
ble combination of input parameters is 300 kPa for shear
strength, which is about twice the recommended value nor-
mally used for stiff clay but 0.1% of the shear strength
value; and 543 MN/m3 back-calculated from the load test
data.
Summary and conclusions
Full-scale lateral load tests were performed on six 0.762 m
diameter drilled shafts embedded in weathered rock at
three different sites. Site characterizations were conducted
and fully instrumented drilled shafts were constructed to
obtain data and to develop P–y curves for these profiles.
© 2007 NRC Canada
764
Table 6 shows a summary of the test results and character-
istics of the test sites.
Deflection characteristics with depth were back-calculated
from inclinometer data. Using the continuous inclinometer
probes, the deflection profile along each shaft was directly
measured without the need for complicated back-calculations.
The lateral soil reaction was, however, back-calculated from
strain measurements with depth.
The measured shaft-top deflections from field load tests
were compared with the estimated values obtained using
two different P–y models: (a) Reese’s weak rock model
and (b) stiff clay model. The weak rock model overesti-
mated the resistance of the test shafts mainly because of
the selection of the analyses parameters in terms of increas-
ing the kh value by a factor of 100 at the ground surface
and by a factor of over 500 at a depth of 2.5 m. The stiff
clay model, with the recommended stiff clay parameters,
underestimated the lateral load–displacement response and
it is considered to be conservative for use in weathered
rock profiles. It is clear that the selection of shear strength
and modulus properties greatly impacts the computed lat-
eral response regardless of which P–y approach is taken
(stiff clay versus weak rock). While the values and ap-
proach recommended by Reese (1997) led to good estima-
tion of the load test data reported by Nyman (1980) in coral
limestone, this approach did not yield reasonable lateral
displacement estimations for the drilled shafts tested in
Piedmont weathered profiles. The authors advocate that
since the lateral resistance of weathered rock under loading
is a function of its shear and compressive strengths, the
level of the groundwater table, and joint spacing and joint
condition, a P–y curve procedure should take the geologi-
cal components into consideration.
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 44, 2007
References
ASTM. 1995. Standard method of testing piles under lateral loads
(ASTM D3966-90). In 1995 Annual Book of ASTM Standards,
Vol. 04.08. American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM), Philadelphia, Penn.
Coates, D.F. 1970. Rock mechanics principles. 3rd ed. Department of
Energy Mines and Resources. Mine Branch Monograph. 874 pp.
Digioia, A.M., Jr., and Rojas-Gonzalez, L.F. 1994. Rock socket
transmission line foundation performance. IEEE Transactions on
Power Delivery, 9(3): 1570–1576.
Gabr, M. 1993. Discussion of “Analysis of laterally loaded shafts
in rock” by John P. Carter and Fred H. Kulhawy. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 119(12): 2015–2018.
Matlock, H., Bogard, D., and Lam, I.P. 1981. BMCOL 76. A com-
puter program for the analysis of beam-columns under static axial
and lateral loading. Documented at Ertec, Inc. Calif.
Nyman, K.J. 1980. Field load tests of instrumented drilled shafts in
coral limestone. M.S. thesis, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Texas at Austin, Tex.
Peck, R.B. 1976. Rock foundations for structures. In Proceeding of
ASCE Specialty Conference on Rock Engineering for Founda-
tions and Slopes, Boulder, Colo., 15–18 August 1976. New
York. Vol. II, pp. 1–21.
Reese, L.C. 1997. Analysis of laterally loaded piles in weak rock.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
ASCE, 123(11): 1010–1017.
Reese, L.C., and Wang, S.T. 1997. LPILE [computer program].
Ensoft, Inc., Austin, Tex.
Reese, L.C., and Welch, R.C. 1975. Lateral loading of deep foun-
dations in stiff clay. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering
Division, ASCE, 101(7): 633–649.
Zhang, L., Ernst, H., and Einstein, H.H. 2000. Nonlinear analysis
of laterally loaded rock-socketed shafts. Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 126(11): 955–968.
© 2007 NRC Canada