TABLE 13-3 SIDE RESISTANCE REDUCTION FACTOR FOR ROCK

RQD (%) Joint Modification Factor,

Closed joints Open or gouge-filled joints

100 1.00 0.85

70 0.85 0.55
50 0.60 0.55
30 0.50 0.50
20 0.45 0.45

Considering the most recent research on side resistance in rock, in particular the work cited above by
Kulhawy et al. (2005) that incorporates the original data of Horvath and Kenney (1979) plus additional
data compiled over the ensuing 25+ years, Equation 13-18 with C = 1.0 is recommended for routine
design of rock sockets. For rock that cannot be drilled without some type of artificial support, such as
casing or by grouting ahead of the excavation, the reduction factors given in Table 13-3 based on RQD
are recommended for application to the resistance calculated by Equation 13-19. The resistance factor
recommended with use of Equations 13-18 and 13-19 is = 0.55 based on fitting to ASD with a factor of
safety FS = 2.5, as discussed in Chapter 10 and presented in Table 10-5.

Artificial roughening of rock sockets through the use of grooving tools or other measures can increase
side resistance compared to normal sockets. Regression analysis of the available load test data by
Kulhawy and Prakoso (2007) suggests a mean value of C = 1.9 with use of Equation 13-18 for roughened
sockets. It is strongly recommended that load tests or local experience be used to verify values of C
greater than 1.0. However, the advantages of achieving higher resistance by sidewall roughening often
justify the cost of load tests.

Advanced theoretical models of rock socket behavior that account for the mechanisms of shaft-rock
interaction, such as adhesion, friction, dilatancy, roughness, and rock mass strength and stiffness, can be
applied to socket design. For example, the computer program “ROCKET” developed through research by
Seidel and co-workers (Seidel and Collingwood, 2001) models the complete load-displacement curve of
rock sockets and accounts for the mechanisms of load transfer listed above. Additional rock mass
properties are required as input, including rock mass modulus and socket roughness. For transportation
agencies willing to invest in the required information and software, more advanced models can be a
valuable design tool. However, for many foundation design cases, the only rock strength property
available is the intact rock uniaxial compressive strength (qu), and therefore the foundation resistances
typically are related emprically to qu as presented above.

Base Resistance

Base resistance in rock is more complex than in soil because of the wide range of possible rock mass
conditions. Various failure modes are possible depending upon whether rock mass strength is governed
by intact rock, fractured rock mass, or structurally controlled by shearing along dominant discontinuity
surfaces. In practice, it is common to have information on the uniaxial compressive strength of intact
rock (qu) and the general condition of rock at the base of a shaft. Empirical relationships between
nominal unit base resistance (qBN) and rock compressive strength can be expressed in the form:

q BN N*cr q u 13-20

FHWA-NHI-10-016 13 - Axial Loading

Drilled Shafts Manual 13-21 May 2010
where Ncr* is an empirical bearing capacity factor for rock. Studies relating qBN to qu are reported by
Zhang and Einstein (1998) and Prakoso and Kulhawy (2002). There is overlap in the data used in each
study although the authors used different interpretations of load test results to establish qBN. Prakoso and
Kulhawy used a consistent definition of limiting base resistance, and limited the data to tests that
exhibited failure according to the L1-L2 method as described in Appendix C (see Figure C-4). Results of
the Prakoso and Kulhawy study are shown in Figure 13-7 in which the bearing capacity factor (Ncr*) is
plotted against shaft diameter. The data base included 14 load tests at 9 sites in several rock types, mainly
fine-grained sedimentary rocks. The mean value of Ncr* is 3.38 with a coefficient of variation COV =
35.4%. A lower bound value of Ncr* = 2.5 incorporates most of the points shown in Figure 13-7 and is
consistent with work by Rowe and Armitage (1987) in which a value of Ncr* = 2.5 is recommended for
competent rock. When the data used by Zhang and Einstein are evaluated in the format of Equation
Figure 13-20, they yield a mean value of Ncr* = 3.56 and a COV = 61.0%. Considering these three
studies, a value of Ncr* = 2.5 is recommended for design when qu is the sole parameter used for
establishing qBN and the following conditions are met:
1. The drilled shaft base is bearing on rock which is either massive or tightly jointed
(no compressible seams or joints) to a depth of at least one diameter beneath the base,
2. It can be verified that no solution cavities or voids exist beneath the base, and
3. A clean base can be achieved and verified using conventional clean-out equipment.

Figure 13-7 Base Resistance Factor for Rock (Prakoso and Kulhawy 2002)

Note that the use of Equation 13-20 with the recommended value of Ncr* = 2.5 is consistent with the
previous version of this manual and is based on the original work by Rowe and Armitage (1987). The
more recent research cited above validates the use of this equation for routine design in competent rock.

FHWA-NHI-10-016 13 - Axial Loading

Drilled Shafts Manual 13-22 May 2010
As discussed in Chapter 10, the LRFD resistance factor specified in AASHTO (2007) for use of Equation
13-20 with Ncr* = 2.5 is = 0.55, based on fitting to an ASD factor of safety FS = 2.5. Values of Ncr*
greater than 2.5, which clearly are possible based on Figure 13-7, are justified when they can be verified
by local experience or load testing.

When data are available on the spacing and condition of discontinuities in rock beneath the tip, the
following method, which is covered by AASHTO (2007), can be applied. The method is described in the
Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (Canadian Geotechnical Society, 1995) and provides a more
refined estimate of Ncr* for shafts bearing on sedimentary rock with primarily horizontal discontinuities,
where discontinuity spacing is at least 1 ft, and discontinuity aperture does not exceed 0.25 inch. The
method is given by the following:

q BN 3 qu K sp d 13-21

in which:

sv
3
K sp B
13-22
t
10 1 300 d
sv

Ds
d 1 0.4 3.4 13-23
B
where:
qu = uniaxial compressive strength of the bearing rock,
sv = vertical spacing between discontinuities;
td = aperture (thickness) of discontinuities;
B = socket diameter,
D s = depth of socket (rock) embedment.

In this formulation, the quantity 3Ksp d is equivalent to the base resistance factor Ncr* of Equation 13-20.
For the range of parameters over which this method is applicable, equivalent values of Ncr* range
approximately from 0.4 to 5.1. For rock that does not meet the criterion that vertical join spacing is at
least 1 ft, load testing is recommended to verify base resistance. The resistance factor recommended for
this method is = 0.50 (see Table 10-5) and is based on fitting to ASD as reported by Barker et al.
(1991).

Bearing capacity theory provides a framework for evaluation of base resistance for cases where the
bearing rock can be characterized by its Geological Strength Index (GSI). This applies to intact (massive)
rock or highly fractured rock Massive rock can be defined, for purposes of bearing capacity analysis, as
rock mass for which the effects of discontinuities are insignificant. Practically, if joint spacing is more
than four to five times the shaft diameter, or if jointing is horizontal but the joints are tight (no
compressible or gouge-filled seams) the rock can be treated as massive. Highly fractured rock describes a
rock mass intersected by multiple sets of intersecting joints such that the strength is controlled by the
overall mass response and not by failure along pre-existing structural discontinuities. This generally

FHWA-NHI-10-016 13 - Axial Loading

Drilled Shafts Manual 13-23 May 2010
applies to rock that can be characterized by the descriptive terms shown in Figure 3-10 (e.g., “blocky”,
“disintegrated”, etc.). The approach is summarized from Turner (2006) as follows. Let:

a
vb
A vb q u mb s 13-24
qu

where 'vb = vertical effective stress at the socket bearing elevation (tip elevation). The nominal base
resistance is then given by:

a
A
q BN A q u mb s 13-25
qu

in which the coefficients s, a, and mb are the Hoek-Brown strength parameters for the intact or fractured
rock mass determined as functions of GSI in Equations 3-26 through 3-28 and Table 3-8. An earlier
version of Equation 13-25 is presented in AASHTO (2007) for the case of 'vb = 0 and with the Hoek-
Brown strength parameters based on correlation to Rock Mass Rating (RMR). As described in Chapter 3,
GSI provides an improved correlation for rock mass engineering properties and should be used in place of
RMR as the basis for estimating strength parameters. Equation 13-20 with N*cr equal to 2.5 can be used
as an upper-bound limit to base resistance calculated by Equation 13-25, unless local experience or load
tests can be used to validate higher values. Additional background on the derivation of Equation 13-25
and discussion on the application of this method are presented in Appendix C. Resistance factors have
not been established for this method.

Additional Design Considerations for Rock Sockets:

A design decision to be addressed when using rock sockets is whether to neglect one or the other
component of resistance (side or base) for the purpose of evaluating strength limit states. With regard to
base resistance, AASHTO Article C.10.8.3.5.4a states “Design based on side-wall shear alone should be
considered for cases in which the base of the drilled hole cannot be cleaned and inspected or where it is
determined that large movements of the shaft would be required to mobilize resistance in end bearing”
(AASHTO, 2007). The philosophy embraced in the above comment gives a designer the option of
neglecting base resistance. However, before making this decision, careful consideration should be given
to applying available methods of quality construction and inspection that can provide confidence in base
resistance. A growing body of evidence suggests that good construction practices can result in adequate
clean-out at the base of rock sockets, including those constructed by wet methods. Inspection tools, such
as the Shaft Inspection Device (SID), probing tools, borehole calipers (see Section 19.2.4), and others,
can be applied more effectively to ensure quality of rock sockets prior to concrete placement (Crapps and
Schmertmann, 2002; Turner, 2006). Under most conditions, the cost of quality control and assurance is
offset by the economies achieved in socket design by including base resistance. Several State DOT’s
have utilized load testing to develop confidence in the use of base resistance in rock formations where
base resistance had previously been neglected due to uncertainty.

Reasons cited for neglecting side resistance of rock sockets include (1) the possibility of strain-softening
behavior of the sidewall interface, (2) the possibility of degradation of material at the borehole wall in
argillaceous rocks, and (3) uncertainty regarding the roughness of the sidewall. Brittle behavior along the
sidewall, in which side resistance exhibits a significant decrease beyond its peak value, is not commonly

FHWA-NHI-10-016 13 - Axial Loading

Drilled Shafts Manual 13-24 May 2010
observed in load tests on rock sockets. If there is reason to believe strain softening will occur, laboratory
direct shear tests of the rock-concrete interface can be used to evaluate the load-deformation behavior and
account for it in design. These cases would also be strong candidates for conducting field load tests.
Investigating the sidewall shear behavior through laboratory or field testing is generally more cost-
effective than neglecting side resistance in the design. Application of quality control and quality
assurance through inspection is also necessary to confirm that sidewall conditions in production shafts are
of the same quality as laboratory or field test conditions.

Materials that are prone to degradation at the exposed surface of the borehole and are prone to a “smooth”
sidewall generally are sedimentary rocks such as shale, claystone, and siltstone. Degradation occurs due
to expansion, opening of cracks and fissures combined with groundwater seepage, and by exposure to air
and/or water used for drilling. Hassan and O’Neill (1997) note that in the most severe cases degradation
results in a smear zone at the interface. Smearing may reduce load transfer significantly. As reported by
Abu-Hejleh et al. (2003), both smearing and smooth sidewall conditions can be prevented in cohesive
IGMs by using roughening tools during the final pass with the rock auger or by grooving tools. Careful
inspection prior to concrete placement is required to confirm roughness of the sidewalls. Only when
these measures cannot be confirmed would there be cause for neglecting side resistance in design. When
new tools are introduced for drilling in rock, inspection of the sidewall for roughness is necessary to
confirm that the method results in a rough interface.

Illustrative Example 13-3 demonstrates the calculation of side and base resistances in a rock-socketed
drilled shaft. The example illustrates the large capacity contributed by base resistance in a relatively
small rock socket. In order to take advantage of the available base resistance it would be important to
specify proper base cleanout methods and to verify base conditions through appropriate inspection.

13.3.5.4 Cohesive IGM (Fine-Grained Sedimentary Rock)

Side Resistance

For drilled shafts socketed into argillaceous rock (shale, claystone, siltstone etc.) Hassan et al. (1997)
developed a design methodology based on detailed modeling, observations from load tests, and lab and
field tests commonly used to characterize the compressive strength of weak clay shales that are difficult to
sample and test by conventional means. O’Neill et al. (1996) applied the term “cohesive intermediate
geomaterials” for the purpose of drilled shaft design in these materials. The design calculations are
similar in form to the -method described above for cohesive soils, with modifications. The nominal unit
side resistance is given by:

f SN qu 13-26

where:
qu = compressive strength of intact rock,
= a correction factor to account for the degree of jointing, and
= empirical factor given in Figure 13-9.

FHWA-NHI-10-016 13 - Axial Loading

Drilled Shafts Manual 13-25 May 2010