HOSTED BY Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Soils and Foundations 59 (2019) 1241–1259
www.elsevier.com/locate/sandf

A load-transfer function for the side resistance of drilled

shafts in soft rock
Pouyan Asem ⇑, Paolo Gardoni
Department of Civil, Environmental and Geo-Engineering, University of Minnesota, 500 Pillsbury Drive S.E., Minneapolis, MN 55455, United States
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 205 N. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801, United States

Received 6 October 2018; received in revised form 29 March 2019; accepted 26 April 2019
Available online 13 August 2019

Abstract

The shear stress and shear displacement relationship for the rock socket sidewalls is required for the calculation of the drilled shaft
butt settlement under the service loads. This paper first introduces a comprehensive database of in situ axial load tests on drilled shafts,
anchors and plugs that are embedded in different soft rock formations. The database includes measurements of (i) the initial shear stiff-
ness, (ii) the peak shear stress and (iii) the post-peak reduction in shear stresses for the socket sidewalls. In addition to the load test
results, information on soft rock mass mechanical properties and rock socket geometry is also included. It is found that (i) the initial
shear stiffness is directly related to the deformation modulus of the soft rock mass and inversely proportional to the rock socket diameter
and length, (ii) the mobilized peak shear stress is related to the drained friction angle of the rock mass and normal stress on the socket
sidewalls at failure. The rock mass friction angle is related to the rock type and the geological strength index, and the normal stress at
failure is directly related to deformation modulus of rock mass and inversely to the product of rock socket length and diameter, and (iii)
the post-peak brittleness is related to the soft rock type and the post-peak shear displacement. An empirical framework for the prediction
of the load-transfer function for side resistance of sockets in soft sedimentary and fine-grained rock is developed using the load test data-
base introduced herein. The proposed framework accounts for the socket geometrical characteristics, and the rock mass engineering
properties. The pre-peak range in the load-transfer function is modeled using a hyperbolic function, and the post-peak range is modeled
using a brittleness index to account for the reduction in shear stresses with post-peak displacement.
Ó 2019 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of The Japanese Geotechnical Society. This is an open access article under the CC BY-
NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Keywords: Side resistance; Rock socket; Soft rock; Load test database; Load-transfer function; Settlement calculation

1. Introduction
Soft rocks are commonly encountered in the zone
between the residual soils, which are found near the sur-
face, and more competent bedrock typically found at
greater depths. Review of the technical literature suggests
that for soft rocks, the unconfined compressive strength
(qu) ranges from approximately ~0.5 MPa to slightly
Peer review under responsibility of The Japanese Geotechnical Society.
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: pasem@umn.edu (P. Asem), gardoni@illinois.edu
(P. Gardoni).
greater than ~30 MPa (Deere and Miller, 1966; Barton
et al., 1978; Rowe and Armitage, 1987; Cepeda-Diaz,
1987; Kanji, 2014), and the geological strength index
(GSI) is commonly less than 70 (Hoek and Brown, 1997)
that is equivalent to a rock mass rating (RMR) of 40 or less
for Poor to Very Poor rocks (Bieniawski, 1989) because for
such rocks, qu < 30 MPa and it has been observed that the
corresponding rock quality designation (RQD) is less than
~70%.
Fig. 1 shows a schematic for a typical drilled shaft that is
socketed in soft rock. Tip resistance, side resistance, or a
combination of both often contribute to the overall axial

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2019.04.006
0038-0806/Ó 2019 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of The Japanese Geotechnical Society.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
1242 P. Asem, P. Gardoni / Soils and Foundations 59 (2019) 1241–1259
Depth from ground
surface to center of
Drilled shaft
rock socket, D GS
Rock mass
Fig. 1. Schematic of a rock socketed drilled shaft that illustrates the definitions of drilled shaft diameter (B), rock socket length (L), depth from the ground
surface (DGS) and from the top of rock (DTOR).
resistance and stiffness of a rock sockete (Horvath and
Kenney, 1979; Zhang and Einstein, 1998; Seidel and
Collingwood, 2001; Turner, 2006). However, load test mea-
surements and analyses using the theory of elasticity show
that a substantial part of the axial loads, at the service con-
ditions, is carried by the side resistance along the socket
sidewalls (Osterberg and Gill, 1973; Horvath and Kenney,
1979; Goodman, 1980; Seidel and Collingwood, 2001; Seo
and Prezzi, 2008). Therefore, when designing a socketed
drilled shaft, anchor or plug in soft rock, it is necessary to
accurately determine the load transfer to the socket side-
walls and the resulting settlement caused by elastic defor-
mations and slip along the sides of the rock socket.
In this paper, we first develop a comprehensive database
of axial load tests consisting of drilled shafts, anchors and
plugs that are socketed in soft rocks. The load test database
includes information on (i) the rock mass mechanical prop-
erties, (ii) the rock socket geometry, (iii) the rock socket
sidewall initial shear stiffness, (iv) the peak shear stress
and the corresponding shear displacement, and (v) the
post-peak reduction in shear stresses and brittleness, many
of which are missing in the existing load test databases such
as those reported by Rosenberg and Journeaux (1976),
Horvath and Kenney (1979), Williams (1980), Williams
and Pells (1981), Rowe and Armitage (1984), McVay
et al. (1992), Hooley and Brooks (1993), Collingwood
(2000), Serrano and Olalla (2006), Stark et al. (2013), Vu
(2013), Stark et al. (2017) and Baghdady (2018). The load
test database is then used to determine the parameters that
influence the load transfer to the sidewalls of the socket in
soft rock masses in the pre-peak range (i.e., before
Ground surface
Overburden soil
Top of rock
Depth from top
of rock to center
of rock socket,
DTOR
full-slip), and in the post-peak range where the socket slips
relative to the adjacent rock mass. Using the in situ load
tests, a framework is developed for the prediction of the
load-transfer function (shear stress, fs, and shear displace-
ment, d or fs-d relationship) for the socket sidewalls with
particular attention to soft, sedimentary fine-grained rock
masses. The pre-peak range in the proposed load-transfer
function is modeled using a hyperbolic equation
(Kondner, 1963; Clough and Duncan, 1969; Duncan and
Chang, 1970; Hungr and Coates, 1978; Bandis, 1980;
Mesri et al., 1981; Yoshinaka and Yamabe, 1986;
Terzaghi et al., 1996; Gupta, 2012), which depends on the
peak side resistance (fsp), and the initial shear stiffness
(Ksi) of the rock socket sidewalls. The post-peak response
of the rock socket sidewalls is captured using a Brittleness
Index (IB) (after Skempton, 1964). The peak side resistance
(fsp) is the maximum side resistance that is developed on the
shear surfaces mobilized along the socket sidewalls, the ini-
tial shear stiffness (Ksi) defines the variation of the shear
stresses with shear displacements on the same shear surface
at small vertical shear displacements in the pre-peak range,
and IB is the ratio of the shear stress (fsu) at a given post-
peak displacement to the peak shear stress (fsp), i.e., fsu/fsp.
2. Existing models for prediction of the load-transfer
function
2.1. Review of existing models
Several models for the shear stress-shear displacement
(fs-d) relationship for the socket sidewalls have been
 P. Asem, P. Gardoni / Soils and Foundations 59 (2019) 1241–1259
proposed (e.g., Hassan et al., 1997, Collingwood, 2000,
Gupta, 2012). Hassan et al. (1997) recognized the
differences in socket sidewall behavior in the pre- and
post-peak ranges and proposed different equations for side
resistance fs-d relationship in each range. Hassan et al.
(1997) proposed Eq. (1) for the pre-peak range where the
elastic deformations take place (i.e., before full-slip)
f s ¼ Hf f sp ð1Þ
and Eq. (2) for the post-peak range of behavior where the
socket sidewall slips relative to the adjacent rock mass
f s ¼ kf f sp ð2Þ
where fs is the mobilized side shear stress, fsp is the peak
side shear stress, and kf and Hf are the correction factors
that account for the mobilization of the unit side resistance,
which are functions of displacement (downward movement
along the sides of the rock socket) and can be obtained
from Hassan et al. (1997). More recently, Gupta (2012)
proposed a hyperbolic model for the prediction of the
load-transfer function (fs-d relationship) of drilled shaft
foundations, for both the pre-peak and post-peak
responses. The model of Gupta (2012) is
d=B
f s ¼ ln½5Lð1mm Þ=B ðd=BÞR ð3Þ
2Gm
þ f sp f
where mm is the Poisson’s ratio of rock mass, Rf is the Fit-
ting Ratio (after Mesri et al., 1981; Terzaghi et al., 1996)
and Gm is the shear modulus of rock mass (Goodman,
1980; Jaeger et al., 2007). Gupta (2012) recommended that
the values of fsp and Em should be estimated from
AASHTO guidelines.
2.2. Limitations of the exiting models
While the previous studies have contributed to our
understanding of load transfer in socketed foundations, it
is important to recognize the limitations of the existing
methods. Some of the limitations of current methods that
are addressed in this study are discussed below:
1. Most of the existing models are based on a limited
number of drilled shaft load tests that are conducted
at a limited number of load test sites (e.g., Rosenberg
and Journeaux, 1976; Williams, 1980; Abu-Hejleh
et al., 2003; Miller, 2003; Vu, 2013), or are developed
based on numerical analysis in combination with a lim-
ited number of load tests (e.g., Hassan et al., 1997).
Many of these databases lack the information required
for the analysis of shear stress-displacement relation-
ship for the socket sidewalls in soft rock (e.g.,
Rosenberg and Journeaux, 1976; Horvath and
Kenney, 1979; Rowe and Armitage, 1984; McVay
et al., 1992; Collingwood, 2000; Serrano and Olalla,
2006; Stark et al., 2013; Vu, 2013; Stark et al., 2017;
Baghdady, 2018). In this study, a comprehensive
1243
database of in situ load tests is developed that includes
information on soft rock mass, rock socket geometry
and shear stress-shear displacement for socket side-
walls. The load tests were conducted in siltstone, mud-
stone, shale, claystone, sandstone, and limestone in
Australia, United States, Canada, Singapore, Taiwan
and South Africa.
2. Most predictive models and the corresponding data-
bases are rock-type specific (e.g., Williams, 1980; Abu-
Hejleh et al., 2003; Miller, 2003; Vu, 2013). In other
words, they have been developed based on load test data
obtained from a limited number of test sites on similar
rocks. The wide variety of rocks used in this study allow
for analysis of the effect of rock type on the load transfer
to the sidewalls of sockets in soft rocks.
3. Hassan and O’Neill (1997) and Hassan et al. (1997)
related the peak side resistance (fsp) to the initial normal
stress (rno) on the socket sidewalls. Asem and Gardoni
(2019), however, showed that the peak side resistance is
governed by the normal stress at failure (rnp) and the
properties of the rock mass such as the unconfined com-
pressive strength (qu) and deformation modulus (Em).
The peak side resistance in this study is related to the
final normal stress (rnp), rock mass properties (e.g., rock
mass deformation modulus, Em) and socket geometry
(i.e., socket diameter B and socket length L).
4. Some of the existing models for the prediction of the
load-transfer function (e.g., Gupta, 2012) for sockets
use a hyperbolic function for the pre-peak and post-
peak ranges of behavior. The load test data clearly show
that the shear stresses on the socket sidewalls reduce
below the peak shear stress (fsp) in the post-peak range.
The hyperbolic model cannot properly account for this
socket sidewall post-peak brittle response. Additionally,
with the exception of the work presented by Williams
and Pells (1981), most databases do not report any mea-
surements on the post-peak changes in side resistance.
This limitation of the current models (e.g., Gupta,
2012) and databases (e.g., Rosenberg and Journeaux,
1976; Horvath and Kenney, 1979; Rowe and
Armitage, 1984; McVay et al., 1992; Collingwood,
2000; Serrano and Olalla, 2006; Stark et al., 2013; Vu,
2013; Stark et al., 2017; Baghdady, 2018) is addressed
by the implementation of a Brittleness Index (IB) herein
which is based on the post-peak measurements of the
socket sidewall shear stresses.
5. Existing studies (e.g., Gupta, 2012) provide no justifica-
tion for the use of a hyperbolic function to model
pre-peak range. In this study, the Authors have used
transformed fs-d relationships (i.e., plot of d/fs versus
d) to evaluate the suitability of a hyperbolic model to
represent the pre-peak range.
6. The existing models commonly relate the peak side resis-
tance to the unconfined compressive strength (qu) and
initial shear stiffness (Ksi) to deformation modulus (mass
or intact) of rock. The load test database herein is used
1244 P. Asem, P. Gardoni / Soils and Foundations 59 (2019) 1241–1259

to evaluate the effect of different parameters including
rock mass properties, socket geometry and embedment
depth on the load transfer to socket sidewalls.
7. Pells and Turner (1979) developed a method based on
the theory of elasticity for the determination of the set-
tlement of axially loaded sockets, which (i) does not
account for the nonlinear behavior of soft rocks, and
(ii) does not consider the stratification of the rock for-
mation, and the corresponding changes in the character-
istics of the rock mass with depth. The change in the
rock mass characteristics can be accounted for by the
load-transfer approach that is proposed herein.
3. Load test database
The database consists of in situ axial load tests on drilled
shafts, anchors and plugs in soft rock, which are found in
the published literature. The load test database includes
both small and large diameter rock sockets (rock sockets
with B < 400 mm are small diameter and rock sockets with
B > 400 mm are large diameter rock sockets, after Horvath
and Kenney, 1979). The database is summarized in the
Supplemental Data section and is discussed in detail by
Asem (2018). The shear stress and shear displacement rela-
tionship (fs-d relationship) for socket sidewalls is developed
using the measured drilled shaft, anchor or plug
Reaction frame
load-displacement relationships and the distribution of
load versus embedment depth of the foundation in soft
rock. Elastic concrete (or in some cases, reinforced con-
crete) deformations in drilled shafts, anchors and plugs
are considered in the development of the fs-d relationships.
These fs-d relationships are also reported by Asem (2018).
The database is briefly discussed blow.
3.1. Load test method and rock socket geometry
Fig. 2 shows the methods of load testing used in the
database. Fig. 2(a), (b) and (c) represent the top-down
(compression) load test method where loads are applied
to the drilled shaft butt, Fig. 2(d) shows a bi-directional
(e.g., Osterberg) load test method where loads are applied
in two opposite directions using a load cell embedded in
the test shaft at a desired depth, and Fig. 2(e) shows a ten-
sion plug or anchor load test method. In Fig. 2(a), a load
cell is placed at the base of the drilled shaft to separate
the side and base resistances. In Fig. 2(b) and (d), the side
and base resistances are separated using strain gauges that
measure loads in the shaft at different depths. In Fig. 2(c), a
void or a compressible base is provided at the base of the
drilled shaft to eliminate the base resistance to directly
measure the side resistance. Lastly, in Fig. 2(e) the loads
are applied in tension in plug or anchor load tests and
the shear stresses on the socket sidewalls are measured
Reaction frame Reaction frame

Top load Ground

cell Top load cell Ground Top load cell Ground
surface surface
surface

Top of soft Top of soft Top of soft

rock rock rock

Test shaft Reaction

Reaction DGS DTOR
DGS DTOR Test shaft shafts Strain
shafts DGS DTOR Test shaft
gauge

Base load Void or

cell compressible
B
B base
B

Method (a) Method (b) Method (c)

T Reaction frame
Ground surface

Ground surface Note: rock socket is the

Strain gauge
portion of the drilled
shaft, anchor or plug
Top of soft rock
Reaction that is embedded in
shafts
soft rock and is
denoted by DTOR.
DGS DTOR Test shaft Top of soft rock

Plug or anchor
DGS DTOR
O-cell
B

B
Method (d) Method (e)

Fig. 2. Load test methods used in the load test database (After Asem and Gardoni, 2019).
 P. Asem, P. Gardoni / Soils and Foundations 59 (2019) 1241–1259
directly assuming that no base resistance (suction) is
mobilized.
The diameter for each rock socket (B), the depth of
embedment from the ground surface to the center of the
shear profile (DGS), and the length (L) of the shear surface
mobilized along the rock socket sidewalls (Fig. 1) are sum-
marized in the Supplemental Data section.
3.2. Side resistance (fsp and fsu) and initial shear stiffness
(Ksi)
The peak side resistance (fsp) and the ultimate side resis-
tance (fsu), and the corresponding shear displacements
along the mobilized shear surface on the socket sidewalls
(dp and du, respectively) are obtained from the fs-d relation-
ships that are reported in Asem (2018). The definitions of
fsp, fsu, dp, and du are shown in Fig. 3. The ultimate side
resistance (fsu) – and its corresponding displacement – is
achieved after the mobilization of the peak side resistance
(fsp), and commonly corresponds to the lowest value of
the side resistance that is measured at the conclusion of
the load test. The calculated ultimate side resistance (fsu)
is dependent on the wear of the shear surface irregularities.
The wear of the shear surface irregularities, among other
parameters, is related to the post-peak displacement (dpp).
Therefore, it may be preferable to calculate the value of
fsu for a given value of dpp for evaluation of the Brittleness
Index (IB) that is the ratio of the fsu to fsp, which is used to
characterize the post-peak behavior in the rock socks. A
dpp = 15 mm is used in this paper and the corresponding
fsu values are reported in the Supplemental Data section.
The fs-d relationships are used to determine the values of
initial shear stiffness (Ksi) of socket sidewalls, which is
defined as the slope of the tangent line to the initial portion
of fs-d relationship (Fig. 3). The calculated values of Ksi
Fig. 3. Definitions of the peak side resistance (fsp), ultimate side resistance (fsu) and the corresponding displacements (dp and du, respectively) using a
measured fs-d relationship.
1245
represent the rate of increase in the side resistance along
the socket sidewalls at small socket vertical displacements.
The initial shear stiffness (Ksi) represents the shear stiffness
of the rock socket sidewalls during elastic deformation of
the rock socket/rock mass system.
3.3. Modulus of deformation of rock mass (Em)
The values of deformation modulus (Em) are estimated
based on the slope of the tangent line drawn to the initial
part of the calculated fs-d relationship in each load test,
which is represented by the initial shear stiffness (Ksi) (see
Fig. 3). Eq. (4) that is based on the theory of elasticity is
used to estimate Em based on Ksi
P
d¼ I ð4Þ
ðB=2ÞEm
where d < dp is the vertical displacement of the socket, P is
the load on the socket, and I is an embedment influence
factor that is obtained from Pells and Turner (1979). Divid-
ing both sides of Eq. (4) by the circumferential area of the
socket (A ¼ pBL), we obtain Eq. (5) for estimation of Em
based on the in situ axial load tests on the drilled shafts,
anchors and plugs in soft rocks
Em ¼ 2pLKsi I ð5Þ
Fig. 4 shows the estimated Em values that are plotted on
the available data from the published literature, namely (i)
the estimated Em values from the base pressure (q)-base
displacement (d) relationships in sockets (i.e., q-d relation-
ships) that are reported by Asem (2018), and (ii) the results
of plate load tests on soft rocks that are reported by Chern
et al. (2004). Fig. 4 shows that the back-calculated Em val-
ues using Eq. (5) fall within the range of Em values reported
in the published literature for various soft rocks.
1246 P. Asem, P. Gardoni / Soils and Foundations 59 (2019) 1241–1259
Fig. 4. Comparison of the back-calculated modulus of deformation (Em) from side resistance data with the available data in the literature (after Asem,
2018; Asem and Gardoni, 2019).
3.4. Geological strength index (GSI)
The rock masses in the database are assumed to be
undisturbed. Therefore, a disturbance factor D = 0 is used
to simplify the expression proposed by Hoek and
Diederichs (2006), and to obtain Eq. (6)
100; 000
Em ¼ ð6Þ
1þeð75-GSIÞ=11
Eq. (6) and the values of Em calculated for each load test
are used to estimate the geological strength index (GSI) for
the rock formations in the load test database (by solving
Eq. (6) for GSI). The estimated values of GSI are used to
determine the drained rock mass friction angle (/m) for
each rock formation in the load test database.
3.5. Drained friction angle of soft rock mass (/m)
The drained friction angle (/m) for each rock mass forma-
tion is determined using the method of Hoek and Brown
(1997) based on (i) the estimated values of geological
strength index (GSI), and (ii) a material constant (mi), which
reflects the rock type and its mineralogy. The material con-
stant (mi) is selected based on the recommended values
reported in the literature (Hoek and Brown, 1980; Hoek,
1983, 1990; Hoek and Brown, 1997; Marinos and Hoek,
2001). Table 1 shows the typical ranges of mi that are used
to estimate /m.
3.6. Variability and scatter in the database
The following should be noted in relation to the vari-
ability in the database, and the subsequent analyses pre-
sented in this paper:
Table 1
Typical ranges of the material constant (mi) for determination of the
drained rock mass friction angle (/m) (after Hoek and Brown, 1980; Hoek,
1983, 1990; Hoek and Brown 1997; Marinos and Hoek, 2001).
Rock type Observed range of material constant, mi
Schist 4–8
Limestone and dolomite 5–7
Siltstone 9
Mudstone and shale 7–10
Sandstone and quartzite 14–15
Andesite and diabase 17
Granite 25–33
1. The amount of scatter in this database is typical for the
load tests in soft rocks, especially when a large database
such as the one in this study is used. It must be noted
that this database contains load test results from more
than 292 in situ load tests and in each load test, the side
resistance parameters (i.e., Ksi and fsp) were measured at
multiple locations along the socket length, leading to a
significant number of data points that in itself adds to
the variability and scatter.
2. The database includes different load test methods and
different methods that were used to measure rock prop-
erties (e.g., qu). While the different methods of load test-
ing are not expected to affect the measurements
significantly, they contribute to the scatter of the data
presented in the figures used in the subsequent discus-
sions and analyses.
3. In the subsequent sections, the trend lines in most figures
are drawn subjectively for the sole purpose of presenting
the general trends and their discussion.
4. The equations for Ksi and rnp, however, are developed
using the database and the probabilistic regression anal-
ysis framework of Gardoni et al. (2002).
 P. Asem, P. Gardoni / Soils and Foundations 59 (2019) 1241–1259
5. The resulting design equations, therefore, are not devel-
oped subjectively and are based on sound statistical
analysis, and rock mass and foundation behavior
deduced from the in situ load test data.
4. Shear stress-shear displacement relationship
Fig. 3 shows a typical fs-d relationship for a rock socket
in soft shale and is used to discuss the typical characteris-
tics of fs-d relationships in the database of Asem (2018)
and to introduce the framework for prediction of the shear
stress and shear displacement relationships.
4.1. Pre-peak range
Fig. 3 shows that the pre-peak range in fs-d relationships
is non-linear. Therefore, the pre-peak range can be repre-
sented using a hyperbolic model (Kondner, 1963; Clough
and Duncan, 1969; Duncan and Chang, 1970; Hungr and
Coates, 1978; Bandis, 1980; Mesri et al., 1981; Yoshinaka
and Yamabe, 1986; Terzaghi et al., 1996; Gupta, 2012).
To show the suitability of a hyperbolic model to repre-
sent the pre-peak range in the fs-d relationship, the ratios
of the shear displacement (d) to shear stress (fs) (i.e., d/fs)
are plotted versus the corresponding displacements (d) for
the pre-peak range for 340 fs-d relationships for sockets
in soft rocks. This plot is called the transformed relation-
ship for fs and d, and has been used by Kondner (1963),
Duncan and Chang (1970) and Mesri et al. (1981). Fig. 5
shows an example of a transformed fs-d relationship for
drilled shaft load test S3 in Melbourne siltstone from
Fig. 5. Transformed fs-d relationship for the pre-peak range, which is used to evaluate the suitability of the hyperbolic model for representation of the pre-
peak range for the fs-d relationships (data from Williams, 1980, load test S3 in Melbourne siltstone).
1247
Williams (1980). The degree of linearity of the transformed
plot is a measure of the suitability of the hyperbolic model
for the pre-peak range. Asem (2018) showed that the
goodness of fit (R2) of a linear function of the form
d/fs = m  d + c (where m is the slope and c is the intercept)
to the transformed fs-d relationships for load tests reported
herein is commonly greater than 90% that shows a hyper-
bolic model accurately represents the pre-peak range of
the fs-d relationship for socket sidewalls in soft rock.
4.2. Post-peak range
It is often difficult to excavate and inspect the socket
sidewalls after the conclusion of a load test and thus obser-
vations on the condition of the mobilized shear surfaces
along the socket sidewalls are rare. Therefore, the observa-
tions from direct shear tests on rock joints are used to eval-
uate the mechanism responsible for the post-peak behavior
observed in the measured fs-d relationships. The following
observations are noteworthy:
1. Coulson (1970) and Jaeger (1971) attributed the post-
peak reduction in shear stresses in the rock joints to
the changes in the characteristics of the shear surface
irregularities.
2. Jaeger (1971) reported results of direct shear tests on
rough joints that were obtained from the surface of a
tension fracture in Bowral trachyte. Jaeger (1971)
observed that the peak and the ultimate shear stresses
are the same for smooth rock joints, while the shear
stress-shear displacement relationship for a rough sur-
face shows a characteristic peak shear stress after which
1248 P. Asem, P. Gardoni / Soils and Foundations 59 (2019) 1241–1259
the shear stresses reduce with continued post-peak dis-
placement, which was attributed to the destruction of
the surface roughness.
3. Byerlee (1967) tested granite joints and showed that they
contained fine white debris after sliding. The amount of
debris increased with the increase in the roughness of the
interface.
4. Krahn and Morgenstern (1979) observed that the rough-
ness of the interface changes with continued post-peak
displacement.
The inspection of the fs-d relationships reported in the
load test database indicates that the reduction from the
peak (fsp) to ultimate (fsu) side resistance can be as high
as 50% for small diameter rock sockets in siltstone
(Williams, 1980). However, in most cases fsp and fsu are
close and the measured post-peak behavior in the fs-d rela-
tionships shows that the drop in side resistance is typically
less than 15% of the peak side resistance (fsp).
5. Shear stress-shear displacement model
A load-transfer approach (after Seed and Reese, 1957) is
proposed herein that uses the fs-d relationship to model the
development of the side resistance with the socket axial dis-
placement. This approach accounts for (i) the observed
nonlinearity in the fs-d relationships in experiments
(Asem, 2018), (ii) changes in the characteristics of the rock
mass with depth, and (iii) the post-peak softening that is
often observed in sockets in soft rock. Accordingly, a
hyperbolic model (Kondner, 1963; Duncan and Chang,
1970; Mesri et al., 1981; Hirayama, 1990; Gupta, 2012) is
Fig. 6. The proposed model for the side resistance fs-d relationship. The pre-peak portion is represented by the hyperbolic model, and the post-peak
softening is represented using the Brittleness Index (IB) method.
used for the prediction of the pre-peak range of the fs-d
relationship. The general form of the hyperbolic model is
shown in Eq. (7)
d
fs ¼ ð7Þ
1=Ksi þdRf =f sp
where fs is the mobilized side resistance at a given shear dis-
placement d, Ksi is the initial shear stiffness, fsp is the peak
side resistance, and Rf is the Fitting Ratio (after Kondner,
1963; Duncan and Chang, 1970; Mesri et al., 1981). The
reduction in side resistance with the post-peak displace-
ment is characterized using the Brittleness Index (IB) as
f su
IB ¼ ð8Þ
f sp
where fsu is the ultimate side resistance evaluated at a
dpp = 15 mm and fsp is the peak side resistance. Fig. 6
shows a schematic of the proposed model for the entire
shear stress-shear displacement relationship. The compo-
nents of the proposed load-transfer function are discussed
below:
1. Initial shear stiffness (Ksi): the initial shear stiffness is the
slope of the tangent line to the initial portion of the fs-d
relationship. It describes the rate of increase in the side
resistance (fs) at small rock socket vertical
displacements.
2. Peak side resistance (fsp): the peak side resistance is the
shear stress where the slope of the tangent line to fs-d
relationship first approaches zero, i.e., dfdds  0. After
mobilization of the peak side resistance, the shear stress
typically remains constant or decreases.
 P. Asem, P. Gardoni / Soils and Foundations 59 (2019) 1241–1259
3. Fitting ratio (Rf): the Fitting Ratio is the ratio of the
measured peak side resistance to that obtained from
the hyperbolic model (Kondner, 1963; Duncan and
Chang, 1970; Mesri et al., 1981).
4. Brittleness index (IB): the brittleness index is used to
describe the reduction in side resistance of rock sockets
with post-peak displacement (dpp). In this paper, a dpp =
15 mm is used.
6. Initial shear stiffness
The initial shear stiffness (Ksi) is used in the hyperbolic
model for characterization of the pre-peak range of the
fs-d relationship. The in situ load test data are used to
determine the parameters that affect the measured values
of initial shear stiffness (Ksi).
6.1. Analysis of the load test data
6.1.1. Rock mass properties
A rock mass consists of rock blocks that are separated
by discontinuity surfaces (Hoek, 1983). The unconfined
Fig. 7. Variation of the initial shear stiffness (Ksi) with the unconfined compressive strength (qu) and the deformation modulus (Em) of soft rock mass
(data from Asem, 2018).
1249
compressive strength (qu) obtained from representative
specimens characterizes the shear strength of the rock
blocks. Therefore, as qu increases, the shear strength of
the rock mass also increases. The measured values of Ksi
represent the rate of mobilization of the shear strength with
the shear displacement on the shear surfaces that are
formed along the rock socket sidewalls. Therefore, Ksi
and qu are related and Ksi increases with qu (Fig. 7a).
The relationship between the deformation modulus (Em)
and the initial shear stiffness (Ksi) (Fig. 7b) is explained as
follows:
1. The initial shear stiffness (Ksi) may be compared with
the shear modulus of rock mass (Gm). It is well-known
that the shear modulus (Gm) and Em are related as
Gm=Em/[2(1+mm)] (Goodman, 1980; Jaeger et al.,
2007). Therefore, Ksi and Em are also related because
both Em and Ksi are measures of deformability of rock
mass.
2. Deformation modulus (Em) have been related to rock
mass quality (i.e., blockiness or the degree of interlock-
ing of rock pieces and the degree of weathering of the
structural discontinuities), which may be represented
1250 P. Asem, P. Gardoni / Soils and Foundations 59 (2019) 1241–1259

by rock mass rating (RMR) (Bieniawski, 1974) or geo-
logical strength index (GSI) (Hoek and Diederichs,
2006). As Em increases, the degree of weathering of
the joints generally decreases, and the joint spacing
presumably increases (Hoek and Brown, 1997).
This will result in a stiffer rock mass response to
the external loads and greater values of Ksi will
materialize.
6.1.2. Rock socket geometry
Fig. 8 illustrates the influence of the rock socket geome-
try (B and L) (i.e., size effect) on the calculated Ksi. Fig. 8(a)
shows that Ksi initially decreases with increase in the length
(L) of the mobilized shear surface along the socket sidewalls
and later remains more or less constant as L increases
beyond 1 m. As L increases, the volume of surrounding
rock mass that is influenced by the axially loaded socket
increases. Therefore, a greater number of discontinuity sur-
faces such as folds, joints and faults (Goodman, 1993) inter-
act with the rock socket. This results in a decrease in Ksi
(Bandis, 1980; Goodman, 1980), which may be explained
by the well-known size effect in rock masses (Bieniawski
and Van Heerden, 1975; Bandis, 1980; Goodman, 1980;
Baecher and Einstein, 1981; Hoek and Brown, 1997;
Fakhimi and Tarokh, 2013). However, it appears that after
a threshold shear surface length of approximately L = 1 m
is reached, the volumetric density of the discontinuity sur-
faces will no longer increase with L, and thus on average,
Ksi does not decrease any further. Fig. 8(b) shows that the
rock socket diameter (B) have a similar influence on the cal-
culated initial shear stiffness (Ksi).

Fig. 8. Variation of the initial shear stiffness (Ksi) with the shear profile length (L) and diameter (B) of the rock socket (data from Asem, 2018).
 P. Asem, P. Gardoni / Soils and Foundations 59 (2019) 1241–1259
6.1.3. Initial normal stress
High slump concrete is used in most load tests herein,
and therefore the initial normal stress (rno) on the shear
surface may be approximated using the concrete hydro-
static pressure (Bernal and Reese, 1983; Hassan and
O’Neill, 1997)
rno ¼ Khcc
In Eq. (9), K is a conversion factor that relates vertical
stresses to horizontal stresses, h is the head of concrete
above the point of interest that is commonly equal to the
depth of embedment from the ground surface (DGS), and
cc is the unit weight of concrete. The effect of rno may
therefore be approximated by the corresponding values
of DGS in each load test. Fig. 9 shows that the depth of
embedment (and equivalently rno) does not significantly
affect the values of Ksi.
Fig. 10 shows an example of a load test site in Mel-
bourne siltstone where Ksi increases with DGS and
Fig. 11 shows an example where Ksi decreases with DGS.
The variations of Em and fsp with depth are also shown
for both load test sites. Figs. 10 and 11 show that Ksi most
likely follows the variation of the rock mass deformation
modulus (Em) with depth, and does not necessarily increase
with increase in rno.
6.2. Predictive model for initial shear stiffness
The method of Gardoni et al. (2002) is used to develop
the predictive model for the initial shear stiffness (Ksi). The
general form of the predictive model is written as
Cðx; HÞ ¼ cðx; hÞ þ r
where C (x, H) represents the quantity of interest (e.g., Ksi),
cðx; hÞ is a set of terms accounting for the properties of the
rock socket and the rock mass, H = (h, r) is a set of model
Fig. 9. Variation of the initial shear stiffness (Ksi) with the depth of embedment from the ground surface (DGS) (data from Asem, 2018).
1251
parameters used to fit Eq. (10) to the load test data, re is an
additive model error (additivity assumption) where e is
assumed to be a normal random variable (normality
assumption) with zero mean and unit variance and r is
the standard deviation of the model error which is assumed
to be constant (homoskedasticity assumption). Gardoni
et al. (2002) suggested that cðx; hÞ term can be expressed as
ð9Þ
X
n
cðx; hÞ ¼ hj hj ðxÞ ð11Þ
j¼1
The terms hj(x), j = 1,. . .,n are explanatory functions
that capture the rock mass or drilled shaft properties that
control the fs-d response of the rock socket.
The analyses of the load test data show that Ksi is
related to Em, L, B, and qu. Because the deformation mod-
ulus of rock mass (Em) is related to unconfined compressive
strength (qu) (Fig. 4), only Em will be included in the pre-
dictive model, which sufficiently reflects the rock mass
properties. Therefore, the explanatory functions are hj(x)
= Em, L and B. The predictive model for Ksi is written as
0:00056Em
Ksi ¼ 0:47
ð12Þ
ðBLÞ
where Ksi is in units of MPa/mm. In Eq. (12), Em is in units
of MPa, and B and L are in units of m. The standard devi-
ation of the model error (r) is 0.32. The additivity, normal-
ity and homoskedasticity assumptions in Gardoni et al.
(2002) are satisfied by using appropriate variance stabiliz-
ing transformations following the recommendations of
Box and Cox (1964).
ð10Þ
7. Peak side resistance
The peak side resistance (fsp) is used for the construction
of the pre-peak range of the fs-d relationship using a
1252 P. Asem, P. Gardoni / Soils and Foundations 59 (2019) 1241–1259

Fig. 10. Variation of the initial shear stiffness (Ksi), peak side resistance (fsp), and modulus of deformation with the depth of embedment from the ground
surface (DGS) in Melbourne siltstone (data from Williams, 1980). Figure shows that Ksi increases with Em.

hyperbolic model, Eq. (7). Horn and Deere (1962), Patton
(1966), Goodman (1980) and Rabinowicz (1995) showed
that the shear strength along the discontinuity surfaces
and the normal stresses are correlated
correlated
f sp ¼ rnp tan/m ð13Þ
The normal stress on the mobilized shear surface (rnp)
at the instant of mobilization of fsp and the initial normal
stress (rno) are not necessarily equal (Vesic, 1963) that is
a result of the dilation of the rough shear surfaces. The cor-
responding values of rnp and /m should be estimated to
evaluate Eq. (13). The estimation of /m has been discussed.
In the following sections, we will develop an empirical rela-
tionship for estimation of rnp.
7.1. Analysis of the load test data
sp f
The normal stress rnp is calculated as tan/ m
, where /m is
the drained friction angle of rock mass. The corresponding
values of fsp are measured in the load tests, and /m values
are estimated based on the rock type and GSI. The param-
eters affecting rnp are discussed in the following
paragraphs.
7.1.1. Rock mass properties
In situ load test data in Fig. 12(a) show that the normal
stress rnp increases with qu. The rock compressive strength
(qu) represents the compressive strength of the shear
surface walls. Therefore, as qu increases, the asperity
 P. Asem, P. Gardoni / Soils and Foundations 59 (2019) 1241–1259 1253

Fig. 11. Variation of the initial shear stiffness (Ksi), peak side resistance, and modulus of deformation with the depth of embedment from the ground
surface (DGS) in Melbourne siltstone (data from Williams, 1980). Figure shows that Ksi decreases with Em even though embedment depth (DGS) increases.

shattering and damage decreases (Patton, 1966; Goodman,
1980, 1989; Seidel, 1993) as the rock socket is displaced ver-
tically and results in greater dilation (dn), which leads to
generation of larger rnp. Rock mass modulus (Em) also
influences the magnitude of rnp (Fig. 12b). As Em
increases, the normal stiffness of the socket sidewalls
2Em
Kns ¼
ð1 þ mm ÞB
increases, and the socket dilates against a stiffer rock mass
that results in greater changes in the normal stress (i.e.,
Drn = dn Kns) beyond their initial value rno, and thus
greater values of rnp are generated.
7.1.2. Rock socket geometry
Fig. 13 shows that rnp decreases with increase in L and
B. Load test data show that the effect of L on rnp is more
pronounced than B. As B and L increase, the number of
discontinuity surfaces interacting with the socket and the
shear surface increases, which subsequently results in smal-
ler values of Em and Kns, and smaller normal stresses rnp
will mobilize.
ð14Þ
7.1.3. Embedment depth (initial normal stress)
Fig. 14 shows the variation of the values of normal
stress rnp with the corresponding values of DGS for each
load test. Fig. 14 shows that the back-calculated normal
stress rnp is not significantly influenced by embedment
1254 P. Asem, P. Gardoni / Soils and Foundations 59 (2019) 1241–1259

Fig. 12. Variation of the normal stress on the mobilized shear surface at peak condition (rnp) with the unconfined compressive strength (qu) and
deformation modulus of the rock mass (Em) for load tests on rock sockets in soft rock (data from Asem, 2018).

depth from the ground surface (DGS). Because DGS and the 0:15Em 0:37
initial normal stress (rno) are related, it can be concluded rnp ¼ ð15Þ
L0:77 B0:01
that the normal stress rnp does not necessarily increase
The normal stress at the onset of the peak side resistance
with increase in the initial normal stress rno.
(rnp) given by Eq. (15) is in units of MPa. In Eq. (15), Em is
in units of MPa, and L and B are in units of m. The stan-
7.2. Predictive model for normal stress at peak condition dard deviation of model error (r) is 0.65.

The results of in situ load tests on rock sockets in soft
rocks are now used to develop an equation for estimating
the mobilized normal stress rnp using the method of
Gardoni et al. (2002). Based on the analyses of the in situ
load tests, the variables that govern the mobilized normal
stress rnp are qu, Em, B, and L. Because Em and qu are
related and Em is a function of qu, our proposed model will
be a function of hj(x) = Em, B and L. The proposed equa-
tion for normal stress rnp is
8. Fitting ratio and displacement to peak side resistance
8.1. Fitting ratio
The peak side resistance (fsp) in a hyperbolic model is
mobilized at an infinite shear displacement whereas fsp in
measured fs-d relationships is mobilized at a finite shear dis-
placement. Similar observations were made for stress-strain
relationships in soils (Kondner, 1963; Mesri et al., 1981).
 P. Asem, P. Gardoni / Soils and Foundations 59 (2019) 1241–1259 1255

Fig. 13. Variation of the normal stress on the mobilized shear surface at peak condition (rnp) and the length of the shear surface (L) and the rocket
diameter (B) for load tests on rock sockets in soft rocks (data from Asem, 2018).

To empirically account for this limitation of the hyperbolic
model, previous investigators (Kondner, 1963; Duncan and
Chang, 1970; Mesri et al., 1981; Bandis et al., 1983;
Terzaghi et al., 1996) proposed a Fitting Ratio (after
Mesri et al., 1981) (Rf) that is the ratio of the observed peak
shear stress to that predicted by the hyperbolic model. To
solve for Rf, we set fs = fsp and d = dp in Eq. (7). The expres-
sion for Rf can then be written as
f sp =dp
Rf ¼ 1 
Ksi
Mesri et al. (1981) summarized values of Rf from differ-
ent researchers and showed that Rf can range from 0.74 to
1.00 for soils. The hyperbolic model was applied to 340 fs-d
relationships from 292 load tests on rock sockets in soft
rocks. The analyses results show that Rf for rock sockets
studied herein ranges from 0.70 to 1.00.
8.2. Displacement to peak side resistance
Estimates of the displacement (dp) required to mobilize
fsp is necessary for the construction of the fs-d relationship.
The normalized dp values, dp/B, which are obtained from
the in situ load test database are plotted versus the esti-
mated Em values in Fig. 15. Fig. 15 shows that dp/B
ð16Þ
decreases with increase in Em. The trend shown in
Fig. 15 is in general agreement with Vesic (1963) who per-
formed load tests on deep foundations in sand, and
observed that dp decreased with increase in the dry unit
weight and modulus of deformation of sand. The solid line
in Fig. 15 may be used to estimate dp.
1256 P. Asem, P. Gardoni / Soils and Foundations 59 (2019) 1241–1259

Fig. 14. Variation of the normal stress on the mobilized shear surface at the peak condition (rnp) and embedment depth (DGS) of the center of the shear
profile from ground surface for load tests on rock sockets in soft rock (data from Asem, 2018).

Fig. 15. Variation of the normalized shear displacement at peak condition (dp/B) with the modulus of deformation of rock mass (Em) (data from Asem,
2018).

9. Brittleness index

In situ load tests on rock sockets in soft rocks show that

side resistance decreases with the post-peak displacement Table 2
(dpp) to different extents for different rock types, and espe- Recommended values of the brittle index
(IB) for different rock types for a post-
cially for rock sockets in soft siltstone, limestone, and sand- peak shear displacement of 15 mm.
stone when (i) the rock socket diameter (B) is smaller than
Rock type Brittleness index (IB)
0.5 m, and (ii) when the unconfined compressive strength
(qu) of the soft rock is greater than 5 MPa. The reduction Claystone 1
Limestone 0.8
in side resistance with the post-peak displacement is charac- Mudstone 0.81
terized using the Brittleness Index (IB), Eq. (8). The calcu- Sandstone 0.88
lated values of IB for different rock types are summarized Shale 0.92
in Table 2. Because the post-peak displacement (dpp) is a Siltstone 0.95
 P. Asem, P. Gardoni / Soils and Foundations 59 (2019) 1241–1259
parameter that affects the wear of the asperities on the shear
surface, the values of IB are calculated for a dpp of 15 mm.
This means that the reported IB values give the reduction
in side resistance after a dpp of 15 mm has reached.
10. Conclusions
In situ drilled shaft, anchor and plug load tests are used
to develop a framework for the prediction of the shear
stress and shear displacement (fs-d) relationship of drilled
shafts in soft rock. The proposed framework is used to pre-
dict the fs-d relationship for a drilled shaft load test in the
Melbourne siltstone and is included in the Appendix to this
paper. The following provides a brief summary of the find-
ings of this study:
1. The shear surface mobilized on the rock socket sidewalls
is assumed to form inside the rock mass and not strictly
at the rock/concrete interface. This is based on the
observations of Williams (1980) from drilled shaft load
tests in Melbourne siltstone and the recommendations
of Williams and Pells (1981).
2. It is found that the pre-peak range of the fs-d relation-
ship may be suitably represented using the hyperbolic
model.
3. The initial shear stiffness (Ksi) and the peak side resis-
tance (fsp) are used to define the pre-peak range using
the hyperbolic model.
4. It is found that the initial shear stiffness (Ksi) is related
to the rock mass deformation modulus (Em) and inver-
sely related to the rock socket diameter (B) and the
length of the shear profile (L).
5. The peak side resistance (fsp) is related to the normal
stress at the onset of failure (rnp) and the drained fric-
tion angle of the rock mass (/m).
6. The normal stress at failure (rnp) is back-calculated as
the ratio of the measured fsp to the tangent of the /m.
It is found that the back-calculated rnp is related to
Em, and inversely to B and L.
7. The post-peak behavior is modeled using a brittleness
index (IB). The post-peak softening in shale, clay
shale, siltstone and stiff clays is not significant.
Significant post-peak softening, however, is
usually observed in load tests in soft limestone and
sandstone.
Acknowledgements
The Authors acknowledge the University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign for providing access to the technical
and computational resources that were required for com-
pletion of this work. The contributions of Professor Emer-
itus James. H. Long of the University of Illinois to this
manuscript is also acknowledged.
1257
Appendix A. Application and design example
A1 Application and design example
Drilled shaft load test S12 (load test SR4 in Asem 2018
database) was constructed at the Stanley Avenue load test
site in Melbourne, Australia, and is reported by Williams
(1980). This load test was not included in the database
(see Supplemental Data) used to develop the proposed
design framework, and thus provides a means to indepen-
dently evaluate the proposed method.
Rock socket and load test information
The rock socket was excavated using a 335 mm diameter
casing and used water as circulating medium. A 150 mm
thick plug of polystyrene foam was placed at the bottom
of the rock socket before concreting and was later dissolved
using petrol prior to the initiation of the load test
(Williams, 1980) to exclude the effect of tip resistance.
The load test was conducted using a hydraulic jack against
a stationary reaction beam, and was loaded from the top.
The drilled shaft (rock socket) has a diameter (B) of 335
mm and a total shear length (L) of 900 mm that also coin-
cides with the length of the rock socket.
Rock mass information
The drilled shaft was constructed in highly weathered
pink Melbourne siltstone, and the rock mass at the test site
was free of sandstone or clay seams (Williams, 1980). The
unconfined compressive strength (qu) of the rock mass is
0.58 MPa, and the water content (w) is 18%. The rock mass
deformation modulus (Em) is roughly estimated based on
qu = 0.58, and data presented in Fig. 4 that results in an
estimated Em = 150 MPa. The geological strength index
(GSI) is estimated to be 25 (Hoek and Diederichs, 2006).
The method of Hoek and Brown (1997), an mi = 9 and
GSI = 25 are used to estimate a rock mass drained friction
angle, /m = 25 degrees that is in agreement with the
reported drained friction angle of 30 degrees that was mea-
sured by Williams (1980).
Application of the predictive method
The information provided above is now used to predict
the fs-d relationship for the load test S12 as follows:
1. The initial shear stiffness (Ksi) is estimated using Eq.
(12), and is equal to 0.148 MPa/mm.
2. The normal stress on the mobilized shear plane (rnp) is
calculated using Eq. (15), and is equal to 1.05 MPa. A
drained friction angle of /m = 25 is used in the analysis.
Eq. (13) is used to estimate the peak side resistance, fsp =
0.49 MPa.
3. Fig. 15 is used (for an Em = 150 MPa) to obtain a dp/B
= 0.03, and along with a B = 335 mm, a displacement to
peak side resistance of dp = 10 mm is obtained.
4. Eq. (7) is now used to obtain the pre-peak range of stres-
ses for the fs-d relationship. The Fitting Ratio (Rf) was
set equal to 0.66 as discussed in the previous sections.
1258 P. Asem, P. Gardoni / Soils and Foundations 59 (2019) 1241–1259
Fig. A1. Evaluation of the proposed method using drilled shaft load test S12 obtained from Williams (1980).
5. Table 2 is used to obtain a brittleness index (IB) of 0.95
for siltstone for a post-peak displacement of 15 mm.
This means that the side resistance (fs) at a post-peak
displacement of dpp = 15 mm after the attainment of
the fsp is equal to fs = 0.95  0.49 MPa = 0.46 MPa.
The complete predicted fs-d relationship is shown in
Fig. A1 that compares reasonably well with the measured
fs-d relationship that is reproduced in Fig. A1 from
Williams (1980).
Appendix B. Supplementary material
Supplementary data to this article can be found online
at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2019.04.006.
References
Abu-Hejleh, N., O’Neill, M.W., Hanneman, D., Atwooll, W.J., 2003.
Improvement of the geotechnical axial design methodology for
Colorado’s drilled shafts socketed in weak rocks. Colorado Depart-
ment of Transportation, Report No. CDOT-DTD-R-2003-6, Denver,
Colorado, United States.
Asem, P., 2018. Axial behavior of drilled shafts in soft rock. Ph.D. thesis,
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois, United States.
Asem, P., Gardoni, P., 2019. Evaluation of the peak side resistance for
rock socketed shafts in weak sedimentary rock from an extensive
database of published field load tests: a limit state approach. Can.
Geotech. J. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2018-0590.
Baghdady, A.K., 2018. Axial behavior of drilled shafts socketed into weak
Pennsylvanian shales. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Civil and Environ-
mental Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
Urbana, Illinois, United States.
Baecher, G.B., Einstein, H.H., 1981. Size effect in rock testing. Geophys.
Res. Lett. 8 (7), 671–674.
Bandis, S., 1980. Experimental studies of scale effects on shear strength
and deformation of rock joints. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Earth
Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, England.
Bernal, J.B., Reese, L.C., 1983. Study of the lateral pressure of fresh
concrete as related to the design of drilled shafts, Austin, Texas, USA.
Bieniawski, Z.T., 1989. Engineering Rock Mass Classifications. John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.
Bieniawski, Z.T., 1974. Geomechanics classification of rock masses and its
application in tunneling. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ISRM Congress,
Denver.
Bieniawski, Z.T., Van Heerden, W.L., 1975. The significance of in situ
tests on large rock specimens. Int. J. Rock Mech. Mining Sci.
Geomech. Abstr. 12 (4), 101–113.
Bandis, S.C., Lumsden, A.C., Barton, N.R., 1983. Fundamentals of rock
joint deformation. Int. J. Rock Mech. Mining Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 20
(6), 249–268.
Barton, N., Bamford, W.E., Barton, C.M., MacMahon, B., Kanji, M.A.,
Babcock, K., Boyd, J.M., Cruden, D., Franklin, J.A., et al., 1978.
Suggested methods for the quantitative description of discontinuities in
rock masses. Int. J. Rock Mech. Mining Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 15 (6),
319–368.
Box, G.E.P., Cox, D.R., 1964. An analysis of transformations. J. Roy.
Stat. Soc.: Ser. B (Methodol.) 26 (2), 211–252.
Byerlee, J.D., 1967. Theory of friction based on brittle fracture. J. Appl.
Phys. 38 (7), 2928–2934.
Cepeda-Diaz, A.F., 1987. An experimental investigation of the engineer-
ing behavior of natural shales. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Cham-
paign, Urbana, Illinois.
Chern, J.C., Chang, Y.L., Lee, K.R., Yu, C.W., Li, T.J., Li, J.Y.,
Yuan, C.H., 2004. Correlation study on the deformation modulus and
rating of rock mass (R-GT-97-04), Taipei, Taiwan.
Clough, G.W., Duncan, J.M., 1969. Finite element analyses of Port Allen
and Old River Locks: a report of an investigation. College of
Engineering, University of California-Berkeley Report TE 69-3,
Vicksburg, Mississippi, USA.
Coulson, J.H., 1970. The effects of surface roughness on the shear strength
of joints in rock. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana,
Illinois, USA.
Collingwood, B., 2000. The effect of construction practices on the
performance of rock socketed bored piles. Ph.D. thesis, Monash
University, Melbourne, Australia.
Deere, D.U., Miller, R.P., 1966. Engineering classification and index
properties for intact rock. University of Illinois at Urbana-Cham-
 P. Asem, P. Gardoni / Soils and Foundations 59 (2019) 1241–1259
paign/Air Force Weapons Laboratory Report AFWL-TR-65-116,
Urbana, Illinois.
Duncan, J.M., Chang, C.Y., 1970. Nonlinear analysis of stress and strain
in soils. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. 96 (SM5), 1629–1653.
Fakhimi, A., Tarokh, A., 2013. Process zone and size effect in fracture
testing of rock. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 60 (2013), 95–102.
Gardoni, P., Der Kiureghian, A., Mosalam, K.M., 2002. Probabilistic
capacity models and fragility estimates for reinforced concrete columns
based on experimental observations. J. Eng. Mech. 128 (10), 1024–
1038.
Gupta, R.C., 2012. Hyperbolic model for load tests on instrumented
drilled shafts in intermediate geomaterials and rock. J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng. 138 (11), 1407–1414.
Goodman, R.E., 1980. Introduction to Rock Mechanics, first ed. John
Wiley and Sons, New York, USA.
Goodman, R.E., 1989. Introduction to Rock Mechanics, second ed. John
Wiley and Sons, New York, USA.
Goodman, R.E., 1993. Engineering Geology: Rock in Engineering
Construction. John Wiley and Sons Inc, USA, first ed..
Hassan, K.M., O’Neill, M.W., 1997. Side load-transfer mechanisms in
drilled shafts in soft argillaceous rock. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
123 (2), 145–152.
Hassan, K.M., O’Neill, M.W., Sheikh, S.A., Ealy, C.D., 1997. Design
method for drilled shafts in soft argillaceous rock. J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng. 123 (3), 272–280.
Hirayama, H., 1990. Load-settlement analysis for bored piles using
hyperbolic transfer functions. J. Soils Found. 30 (1), 55–64.
Hoek, E., Brown, E.T., 1980. Empirical strength criterion for rock masses.
J. Geotech. Eng. Div. 106 (9), 1013–1035.
Hoek, E., 1983. Strength of jointed rock masses. Géotechnique 33 (3),
187–223.
Hoek, E., 1990. Estimating Mohr-Coulomb friction and cohesion values
from the Hoek-Brown failure criterion. Int. J. Rock Mech. Mining Sci.
Geomech. Abstr. 27 (3), 227–229.
Hoek, E., Brown, E.T., 1997. Practical estimates of rock mass strength.
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 34 (8), 1165–1186.
Hoek, E., Diederichs, M.S., 2006. Empirical estimation of rock mass
modulus. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 43 (2), 203–215.
Hooley, P., Brooks, S.R.L., 1993. The ultimate shaft frictional resistance
mobilised by bored piles in over-consolidated clays and socketed into
weak and weathered rock. In: Proceedings of the 26th Annual
Conference of the Engineering Group of the Geological Society: The
Engineering Geology of Weak Rock, Rotterdam, United Kingdom,
pp. 447–455.
Horn, H.M., Deere, D.U., 1962. Frictional characteristics of minerals.
Géotechnique 12 (4), 319–335.
Horvath, R.G., Kenney, T.C., 1979. Shaft resistance of rock-socketed
drilled piers. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Deep Foundations,
ASCE, New York, NY, USA, pp. 182–214.
Hungr, O., Coates, D.F., 1978. Deformability of joints and its relation to
rock foundation settlements. Can. Geotech. J. 15 (2), 239–249.
Jaeger, J.C., 1971. Friction of rocks and stability of rock slopes.
Géotechnique 21 (2), 97–134.
Jaeger, J.C., Cook, N.G., Zimmerman, R.W., 2007. Fundamentals of
Rock Mechanics. Blackwell Publishing.
Kanji, M.A., 2014. Critical issues in soft rocks. J. Rock Mech. Geotech.
Eng. 6 (3), 186–195.
Kondner, R.L., 1963. Hyperbolic stress-strain response: cohesive soils. J.
Soil Mech. Found. Div. 89 (SM1), 115–143.
Krahn, J., Morgenstern, N.R., 1979. The ultimate frictional resistance of
rock discontinuities. Int. J. Rock Mech. Mining Sci. Geomech. Abstr.
16 (2), 127–133.
Marinos, P., Hoek, E., 2001. Estimating the geotechnical properties of
heterogeneous rock masses such as Flysch. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ.
60, 85–92.
McVay, M.C., Townsend, F.C., Williams, R.C., 1992. Design of socketed
drilled shafts in limestone. J. Geotech. Eng. 118 (10), 1626–1637.
1259
Mesri, G., Febres-Cordero, E., Shields, D.R., Castro, A., 1981. Shear
stress-strain-time behaviour of clays. Géotechnique 31 (4), 537–552.
Miller, A.D., 2003. Prediction of ultimate side shear for drilled shafts in
Missouri shales. M.S. thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Missouri-Columbia, Missouri, United
Stated.
Osterberg, J.O., Gill, S.A., 1973. Load transfer mechanism for piers
socketted in hard soils or rock. In: Proceedings of the 9th Canadian
Rock Mechanics Symposium, Montreal.
Patton, F.D. 1966. Multiple modes of shear failure in rock and related
materials. Ph.D., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
Urbana, Illinois.
Pells, P.J.N., Turner, R.M., 1979. Elastic solutions for the design and
analysis of rock-socketed piles. Can. Geotech. J. 16 (3), 481–487.
Rabinowicz, E., 1995. Friction and Wear of Materials. Wiley, New York.
Rosenberg, P., Journeaux, N.L., 1976. Friction and end bearing tests on
bedrock for high capacity socket design. Can. Geotech. J. 13 (3), 324–
333.
Rowe, R.K., Armitage, H.H., 1984. The design of piles socketed into weak
rock. GEOT-11-84, National Research Council Canada, Ottawa,
Ontario, Canada.
Rowe, R.K., Armitage, H.H., 1987. A design method for drilled piers in
soft rock. Can. Geotech. J. 24 (1), 126–142.
Seidel, J.P., Collingwood, B., 2001. A new socket roughness factor for
prediction of rock socket shaft resistance. Can. Geotech. J. 38 (1), 138–
153.
Seed, H.B., Reese, L.C., 1957. The action of soft clay along friction piles.
ASCE Trans. 122 (2882), 731–754.
Seidel, J.P., 1993. Analysis and design of pile shafts in weak rock Ph.D.
thesis. Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University,
Melbourne, Australia.
Seo, H., Prezzi, M., 2008. Use of micropiles for foundations of
transportation structures. FHWA/IN/JTRP-2008/18, West Lafayette,
United States.
Serrano, A., Olalla, C., 2006. Shaft resistance of piles in rock: Comparison
between in situ test data and theory using the Hoek and Brown failure
criterion. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 43 (5), 826–830.
Skempton, A.W., 1964. Long-term stability of clay slopes. Géotechnique
14 (2), 77–102.
Stark, T.D., Long, J.H., Asem, P., 2013. Improvements for determining the
axial capacity of drilled shafts in shale in Illinois. Illinois Department of
Transportation Report No. FHWA-ICT-13-017, Illinois, USA.
Stark, T.D., Long, J.H., Baghdady, A.K., Osouli, A., 2017. Modified
standard penetration test-based drilled shaft design method for weak
rocks (Phase 2 study). Illinois Department of Transportation Report
No. FHWA-ICT-17-018, Illinois, USA.
Terzaghi, K., Peck, R.B., Mesri, G., 1996. Soil Mechanics in Engineering
Practice, third ed. Wiley-Interscience, New York.
Turner, J., 2006. Rock-socketed Shafts for Highway Structure Founda-
tions. National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Washington,
WA, USA.
Yoshinaka, R., Yamabe, T., 1986. 3. Joint stiffness and the deformation
behaviour of discontinuous rock. Int. J. Rock Mech. Mining Sci. &
Geomech. Abstr. 23 (1), 19–28.
Vesic, A.S., 1963. Bearing capacity of deep foundations in sand. Highway
Res. Rec. 39, 112–153.
Vu, T.T., 2013. Load and resistance factor design of drilled shafts at the
service limit state. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Civil and Environ-
mental Engineering, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia,
Missouri, United States.
Williams, A.F., 1980. The design and performance of piles into weak rock.
Ph.D. thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University,
Melbourne, Australia.
Williams, A.F., Pells, P.J.N., 1981. Side resistance rock sockets in
sandstone, mudstone, and shale. Can. Geotech. J. 18 (4), 502–513.
Zhang, L., Einstein, H.H., 1998. End bearing capacity of drilled shafts in
rock. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 124 (7), 574–584.