1071

Prediction of end-bearing capacity of rock-

socketed shafts considering rock quality
designation (RQD)
Lianyang Zhang

Abstract: Existing empirical methods for determining the end-bearing capacity, qmax, use empirical relations between qmax
and the unconfined compressive strength of intact rock, sc. As rock-socketed shafts are supported by the rock mass, not
just the intact rock, one should consider not only the intact rock properties, but also the influence of discontinuities on
rock mass properties when determining qmax. Although semi-empirical and analytical methods have been developed that
can consider the effect of discontinuities, they are more complicated than the empirical relations and require information
about discontinuities that is often not available or difficult to obtain in engineering practice. In this paper, an empirical re-
lation between qmax and the unconfined compressive strength of rock mass, scm, is developed. The new empirical relation
explicitly considers the effect of discontinuities represented by rock quality designation (RQD), which is the parameter
normally obtained in engineering practice. The accuracy of the expression for estimating scm based on RQD is verified by
comparing its estimation values with those from the existing empirical expressions based on rock mass classification. Two
examples are presented to show the application of the newly developed empirical relation between qmax and scm.
Key words: rock-socketed shafts, end-bearing capacity, rock discontinuities, rock quality designation (RQD).
Résumé : Les méthodes empiriques existantes servant à déterminer la capacité portante en pointe qmax utilisent des rela-
tions empiriques entre qmax et la résistance en compression non confinée de roches intactes sc. Puisque les fûts encastrés
dans le roc sont supportés par la masse rocheuse et non pas seulement par la roche intacte, il est plus approprié de consi-
dérer l’influence des discontinuités des propriétés de la masse rocheuse en plus des propriétés de la roche intacte lors de la
détermination de qmax. Malgré le fait que des méthodes semi-empiriques et analytiques capables de considérer l’effet des
discontinuités aient été développées, ces méthodes sont plus compliquées que les relations empiriques et nécessitent des in-
formations sur les discontinuités qui ne sont généralement pas disponibles ou bien difficiles à obtenir dans la pratique.
Dans cet article, une relation empirique entre qmax et la résistance en compression non confinée de la masse rocheuse scm
est développée. Cette nouvelle relation empirique considère explicitement l’effet des discontinuités, représenté par la dési-
gnation de la qualité de la roche (« RQD »), qui est un paramètre normalement obtenu en pratique. La précision de l’ex-
pression permettant d’estimer scm basée sur la RQD est vérifiée en comparant les valeurs estimées aux valeurs obtenues à
l’aide des expressions empiriques existantes basées sur la classification des masses rocheuses. La nouvelle relation entre
qmax et scm est inspirée d’une base de données de 43 puits d’essai ayant une valeur de RQD. Deux exemples sont présentés
pour démontrer l’application de la nouvelle relation empirique. Ces exemples indiquent que la nouvelle relation entre qmax
et scm.
Mots-clés : fûts encastrés dans le roc, capacité portante en pointe, discontinuités des roches, désignation de la qualité de la
roche (« RQD »).
[Traduit par la Rédaction]

Introduction p. 502), the end-bearing resistance is often ignored in cur-

Drill shafts socketed into rock (or rock-socketed shafts)
are currently among the most widely used varieties of deep
foundations. Loads applied to the shafts are supported by the
rock socket through side shear resistance and end-bearing
resistance (Horvath et al. 1983). Although ‘‘there are signifi-
cant advantages in designing to include a base [or end-bear-
ing] resistance component’’ (Williams and Pells 1981,
Received 2 December 2008. Accepted 21 February 2010.
Published on the NRC Research Press Web site at cgj.nrc.ca on
28 September 2010.
L. Zhang. Department of Civil Engineering and Engineering
Mechanics, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA (e-
mail: lyzhang@email.arizona.edu).
rent design practice (Crapps and Schmertmann 2002; Turner
2006). According to Crapps and Schmertmann (2002), the
most common reasons cited by designers for neglecting
end-bearing resistance in design include settled slurry sus-
pension, reluctance to inspect the bottom, concern for under-
lying cavities, and unknown or uncertain end-bearing
resistance. Obviously, neglecting the end-bearing resistance
in design will result in excessive rock socket lengths. Due
to the high cost of shaft construction in rock, an overdesign
of socket length will lead to increased cost. Crapps and
Schmertmann (2002) suggested that accounting for end-
bearing resistance in design and using appropriate construc-
tion and inspection techniques to ensure quality base condi-
tions is a better approach than neglecting end-bearing
resistance. They supported their recommendations with field

Can. Geotech. J. 47: 1071–1084 (2010) doi:10.1139/T10-016 Published by NRC Research Press
1072 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 47, 2010

load test results in which load transferred to the base was Fig. 1. Variation of Qb / Qt with shaft head displacement st (modi-
measured. Their database consisted of 50 Osterberg load fied from Zhang and Xu 2009); Qb, load transmitted to and sup-
cell tests and 22 compression tests in which load was ap- ported by the shaft base; Qt, total load at the shaft head; st, shaft
plied to the top of the shaft. The data showed that the end- head displacement.
bearing resistance represented a significant component of
the overall shaft resistance at downward displacements cor-
responding to typical service loads. Zhang and Xu (2009)
investigated the axial load transfer behavior of rock-sock-
eted shafts based on a database of 99 field test rock-sock-
eted shafts. The results also show that it is important to
account for the end-bearing resistance in the design of rock-
socketed shafts because (i) up to 25% of the shaft head load
on average can be transmitted to and be supported by the
shaft base even at a relatively small shaft head displacement
(see Fig. 1) and (ii) the portion of the shaft head load trans-
mitted to and supported by the shaft base increases with
time due to the effect of creep (see Fig. 2).
To include the end-bearing resistance in design, it is nec-
essary to determine the end-bearing capacity first. Although
different methods are available for predicting the end-bear-
ing capacity of rock-socketed shafts (e.g., CGS 1985; Rowe
and Armitage 1987; AASHTO 1996), they often do not ac-
curately predict the results obtained in field tests, particu- sented to show the application of the newly developed em-
larly in the range of high rock compressive strength (Zhang pirical qmax and scm relation.
and Einstein 1998). The existing empirical methods use em-
pirical relations between the end-bearing capacity and un- Existing methods for determining end-
confined compressive strength of intact rock. As rock-
socketed shafts are supported by the rock mass (both intact bearing capacity of rock-socketed shafts
rock blocks and discontinuities separating them), not just the Different methods have been proposed for predicting the
intact rock, one should consider not only the intact rock end-bearing capacity of rock-socketed shafts (Zhang and
properties, but also the influence of discontinuities on rock Einstein 1998; O’Neill and Reese 1999; Serrano and Olalla
mass properties when determining the end-bearing capacity. 2002a, 2002b; Zhang 2004; Turner 2006). Of these different
Although the effect of discontinuities may have been implic- methods, empirical and semi-empirical relations have been
itly (partially) included in empirical relations derived from used most widely. Therefore, the following text mainly re-
the results of load tests, it is not clear how significant the views and discusses the empirical and semi-empirical rela-
effect is and how much of it has been included. Semi-empir- tions.
ical and analytical methods have been developed that can Many attempts have been made to correlate the end-bearing
consider the effect of discontinuities in the prediction of capacity, qmax, with the unconfined compressive strength of
end-bearing capacity of rock-socketed shafts, but they are intact rock, sc. The empirical relations between qmax and sc
more complicated than empirical relations and require infor- can be presented in the following general form (Serrano and
mation about discontinuities that is often either not available Olalla 2002b):
or difficult to obtain in engineering practice. As rock quality
designation (RQD) is the parameter normally obtained in en- ½1 qmax ¼ Nðs c Þm
gineering practice to quantify the intensity of discontinuities, where N and m are constants. Based on the value of m, the
it would be more appropriate to include the effect of discon- empirical relations for predicting the end-bearing capacity of
tinuities represented by RQD explicitly in a simple empirical rock-socketed shafts can be divided into two categories
expression for determining the end-bearing capacity.
In this paper, the existing methods for determining the (1) m = 1, i.e., the end-bearing capacity is proportional to
end-bearing capacity of rock-socketed shafts are first briefly the unconfined compressive strength of intact rock.
reviewed and discussed. Then a database consisting of 43 (2) m < 1, i.e., there is a nonlinear relationship between the
test shafts with available RQD values is developed by ex- end-bearing capacity and the unconfined compressive
panding the database of Zhang and Einstein (1998) and strength of intact rock.
Zhang (2008). Using the expanded database, a new empiri- Some of the empirical relations in the first category (m =
cal relation between the end-bearing capacity, qmax, and the 1) are
unconfined compressive strength of rock mass, scm, is de-
 Coates (1967)
rived. The new empirical relation explicitly considers the ef-
fect of discontinuities by using scm, which is directly related ½2 qmax ¼ 3s c
to RQD. The accuracy of the expression for estimating scm
based on RQD is verified by comparing its estimation values  Rowe and Armitage (1987)
with those from the existing empirical expressions based on
rock mass classification. Finally, two examples are pre- ½3 qmax ¼ 2:5s c

Published by NRC Research Press

Zhang
Fig. 2. End-bearing resistance increases with time (modified from Ladanyi 1977).
 ARGEMA (1992)
½4 qmax ¼ 4:5s c  10 ðMPaÞ
Based on a database of 39 load test shafts, Zhang and
Einstein (1998) demonstrated that the linear relations (i.e.,
qmax increases linearly with sc) may not be adequate in de-
termining the end-bearing capacity of rock-socketed shafts.
Using the same database, they developed the following non-
linear relation between the end-bearing capacity and the un-
confined compressive strength of intact rock:
½5 qmax ¼ 4:83ðs c Þ0:51
O’Neill and Reese (1999) recommended using this
method when the rock contains mostly closed, horizontal
discontinuities. Using a load test database of 21 shafts, Vi-
pulanandan et al. (2007) developed the following nonlinear
relation in a form similar to that of eq. [5]:
½6 qmax ¼ 4:66ðs c Þ0:56
Different definitions of qmax are used in different empiri-
cal relations. For example, Rowe and Armitage (1987) de-
fined qmax based on the lower bounds of theoretical
predictions and the results of a number of well-documented
field tests. Zhang and Einstein (1998) and Vipulanandan et
al. (2007) used the qmax determined by the original authors
of the field tests who used different interpretation methods
for defining qmax (see more detailed discussion about the in-
terpretation methods in the next section). Therefore it is im-
portant to note the definition of qmax when using a specific
empirical qmax versus sc relation. The empirical relations be-
tween qmax and sc use the unconfined compressive strength
of intact rock. If the unconfined compressive strength of the
shaft concrete, fc0 , is smaller than the unconfined compres-
sive strength of intact rock, sc, then sc needs to be replaced
by fc0 in the qmax versus sc relation to calculate the end-bear-
ing capacity. A rock-socketed shaft, however, is supported
by the rock mass (both intact rock blocks and discontinuities
separating them), not just the intact rock. Thus, one should
consider not only the intact rock properties, but also the in-
1073
fluence of discontinuities on rock mass properties when de-
termining the end-bearing capacity.
Discontinuities can have a significant influence on the
strength of the rock mass depending on their intensity, ori-
entation, and nature of the material within the discontinuities
(Pells and Turner 1980; Zhang 2005). Semi-empirical rela-
tions accounting for the influence of discontinuities have
been developed for estimating the end-bearing capacity of
rock-socketed shafts, including those by Kulhawy and
Goodman (1980), CGS (1985), and AASHTO (1996). Kul-
hawy and Goodman (1980) present the following relation-
ship, originally proposed by Bishnoi (1968):
½7 qmax ¼ JcNcr
where J is a correction factor that depends on the normal-
ized spacing of horizontal joints (ratio of spacing of horizon-
tal joints to shaft diameter), c is the cohesion of the rock
mass, and Ncr is a modified bearing capacity factor, which
is a function of the friction angle of the rock mass and nor-
malized spacing of vertical joints (ratio of spacing of verti-
cal joints to shaft diameter). If the strength parameters, c
and f, of the rock mass are not directly known, Kulhawy
and Goodman (1980) provide a table relating c and f to in-
tact rock properties and RQD. The correction factor, J, ac-
counts for the effect of horizontal joints and a plot relating
J to the normalized spacing of horizontal joints can be found
in Kulhawy and Goodman (1980). To determine the value of
Ncr, the authors consider the joints either open or closed.
According to Goodman (1980), the presence of open joints
would allow failure to occur by splitting (because the joints
are open, there is no confining pressure and failure is likely
to occur by uniaxial compression of the rock columns), and
this mode of failure needs to be included in the calculation
of the end-bearing capacity. Several charts are given by Kul-
hawy and Goodman (1980), following the method of Bish-
noi (1968), to determine Ncr for both open and closed joints.
The Canadian foundation engineering manual (CGS
1985) proposes that the ultimate bearing pressure be calcu-
lated using the following equation developed by Ladanyi
and Roy (1971):
Published by NRC Research Press
1074
½8 qmax ¼ 3s c Ksp D
where Ksp = (3 + s/B)/[10(1 + 300g/s)0.5]is an empirical fac-
tor (s is the spacing of the discontinuities; B is the socket
width or diameter; g is the aperture of the discontinuities)
and D = 1 + 0.4(L/B) £ 3.4 is the depth factor (L is the
socket length). In general the method applies only if the s/B
ratio lies between 0.05 and 2.0 and the value of g/s is be-
tween 0 and 0.02 (CGS 1985).
The Standard specifications for highway bridges adopted
by the American Association of State Highway and Trans-
portation Officials (AASHTO 1996) suggests that the end-
bearing capacity be estimated using the following relation-
ship:
½9 qmax ¼ Nms s c
where Nms is a coefficient relating qmax to sc. The value of
Nms is a function of rock mass quality and rock type, where
rock mass quality, in essence, expresses the degree of joint-
ing and weathering. The rock mass quality has a much
stronger effect on Nms than the rock type does. For a given
rock type, Nms for excellent rock mass quality is over 250
times higher than Nms for poor quality. For a given rock
mass quality, however, Nms changes little with rock type.
For example, for a rock mass of very good quality, the va-
lues of Nms are 1.4, 1.6, 1.9, 2.0, and 2.3 for rock types A
(carbonate rocks with well-developed crystal cleavage), B
(lithified argillaceous rocks), C (arenaceous rocks with
strong crystals and poor cleavage), D (fine-grained igneous
crystalline rocks), and E (coarse-grained igneous and meta-
morphic crystalline rocks), respectively. It should be noted,
however, that rock type is implicitly related to the uncon-
fined compressive strength, sc, of the intact rock. Equation
[9] may thus represent a nonlinear relation between qmax
and sc.
It can be seen that the CGS (1985) and AASHTO (1996)
methods consider the fact that rock mass properties differ
from intact rock properties through coefficients, which de-
pend on discontinuity spacing and other factors related to
rock mass quality. The Kulhawy and Goodman (1980)
method also includes such coefficients, but in addition they
use rock mass strength properties.
Researchers have also developed analytical methods to
determine the end-bearing capacity of rock-socketed shafts,
which can take into account the effect of rock discontinu-
ities. For example, Serrano and Olalla (2002a, 2002b) devel-
oped an analytical method for calculating the end-bearing
capacity of rock-socketed shafts according to the theory of
plasticity. This method uses the nonlinear Hoek–Brown fail-
ure criterion and the characteristic lines method to analyze
the plastified area as a two-dimensional medium. To account
for the three-dimensional effect of the shaft, a shape factor
is adopted to correct the two-dimensional analysis results.
Depending on the socket length and the overburden pressure
acting on the rock surface, four different situations are con-
sidered: deep shafts with minor or major overburden pres-
sures and semi-deep shafts with minor or major overburden
pressures. As this method uses the Hoek–Brown strength
criterion, either rock mass rating (RMR) or geological
strength index (GSI) needs to be known so that the strength
parameters can be determined.
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 47, 2010
In engineering practice, it is often the case that RQD is
the only parameter available that describes discontinuities in
the rock. Clearly, it is desirable to explicitly include the ef-
fect of rock discontinuities represented by RQD when deter-
mining the end-bearing capacity of rock-socketed shafts. In
the following sections, a new simple empirical relation,
which explicitly considers the effect of rock discontinuities,
will be developed based on a new database of rock-socketed
test shafts. The effect of rock discontinuities is included by
considering the effect of RQD on the unconfined compres-
sive strength of jointed rock masses.
Database of rock-socketed test shafts
To develop the new empirical relation that explicitly con-
siders the effect of rock discontinuities on the end-bearing
capacity, a database of 43 test shafts with available RQD
values was developed by expanding the databases of Zhang
and Einstein (1998) and Zhang (2008). Table 1 is a sum-
mary of this new database. In the table, the second column
provides a short description of the type of rock in which the
shaft was socketed. The third column lists the diameter of
the shaft, B, which ranges from 0.61 to 1.94 m. The fourth
column shows the depth of the bottom of the shaft from the
ground surface, L, which ranges from 4.2 to 29.9 m. The
fifth column gives the unconfined compressive strength of
the intact rock, sc, and the sixth column lists the RQD
value. The seventh and eighth columns present the uncon-
fined compressive strength of rock mass, scm, estimated us-
ing the empirical relations considering the effect of rock
discontinuities (see details later). The ninth column shows
the field test method used; either the conventional load test
(applying load at the shaft head) or the bi-directional load
test (using an Osterberg-cell (O-cell)). The 10th column lists
the end-bearing capacity, qmax, given by the original authors.
The 11th column lists the method used, by the authors listed
in the Reference column, to determine the end-bearing ca-
pacity, qmax.
Different interpretations of the load test data will give dif-
ferent capacities. For the test shafts in Table 1, different in-
terpretation methods were used by the original authors (see
the 11th column), where the ultimate bearing capacity was
 taken as the bearing resistance at a certain shaft head dis-
placement, say 10% of the shaft diameter;
 taken as the bearing resistance at a certain shaft base dis-
placement, say 5% of the socket diameter;
 taken as the bearing resistance at the maximum applied
test load;
 inferred by utilizing the hyperbolic load-transfer function
approach to analyze the load–displacement response of
the rock-socketed shaft (the load-transfer function para-
meters are adjusted until the measured load–displacement
curve is matched and then the ultimate bearing capacity
is determined) or
 inferred by using a finite element program (PLAXIS) to
analyze the load–displacement response of the rock-
socketed shaft so that the measured load–displacement
curve is matched.
Because of these different interpretation methods, some un-
certainty and variability are likely to be included in the da-
tabase. It is desirable that a single interpretation method be
Published by NRC Research Press
 Zhang
Table 1. Developed database of rock-socketed shaft tests.

Method for
sc RQD scm = aEsc scm = (aE)0.7sc qmax determining
No. Rock description B (mm) L (m) (MPa) (%) (MPa) (MPa) Test methoda (MPa) qmaxb Reference
1 Gypsum 1064 4.2 2.1 100 2.08 2.09 C 6.51 st/B = 10% Leung and Ko (1993)
2 Gypsum 1064 4.2 4.2 100 4.16 4.17 C 10.9 st/B = 10% Leung and Ko (1993)
3 Gypsum 1064 4.2 5.4 100 5.35 5.36 C 15.7 st/B = 10% Leung and Ko (1993)
4 Gypsum 1064 4.2 6.7 100 6.63 6.65 C 16.1 st/B = 10% Leung and Ko (1993)
5 Gypsum 1064 4.2 8.5 100 8.42 8.44 C 23 st/B = 10% Leung and Ko (1993)
6 Gypsum 1064 4.2 11.3 100 11.2 11.2 C 27.7 st/B = 10% Leung and Ko (1993)
7 Sandstone, horizon- 610 15.6 8.36 74 3.26 4.32 C 10.1 Max(st/B = Glos and Briggs
tally bedded, shaley 2.6%) (1983)
8 Sandstone, horizon- 610 16.9 9.26 88 6.60 7.31 C 13.1 Max(st/B = Glos and Briggs
tally bedded, sha- 2.9%) (1983)
ley, with some coal
stringers
9 Sandstone, fresh, de- —c —c 27.5 100 27.2 27.3 C 50 —c Thorne (1980)
fect-free
10 Siltstone, medium 705 7.3 9.0 55 1.35 2.39 C 13.1 Max(st/B = Radhakrishnan and
hard, fragmented 13.9%) Leung (1989)
11 Marl, intact 1200 18.5 0.9 100 0.89 0.89 C 5.3 B.A. Carrubba (1997)
12 Diabase Breccia, 1200 19.0 15.0 10 2.25 3.98 C 8.9 B.A. Carrubba (1997)
highly fractured
13 Limestone, intact 1200 13.5 2.5 100 2.48 2.48 C 8.9 B.A. Carrubba (1997)
14 Coal bed, limestone 1189 29.9 1.21 100 1.20 1.20 B 5.83 Max(sb/B = Miller (2003)
5.1%)
15 Very hard sandy 1067 7.7 1.96 90 1.49 1.62 B 11.3 sb/B = 5% Abu-Hejleh et al.
claystone (2003)
16 Very hard clayey 1372 14.4 10.5 90 7.98 8.66 B 15.2 sb/B = 5% Abu-Hejleh et al.
sandstone (2003)
17 Blue claystone 787 6.0 1.21 95 1.06 1.10 C 9.48 st/B = 9.7% Abu-Hejleh and Att-
wooll (2005)
18 Weathered claystone 762 6.1 0.48 0 0.07 0.13 C 2.25 st/B = 3.5% Abu-Hejleh and Att-
wooll (2005)
19 Claystone 762 8.53 1.10 43 0.17 0.29 C 5.03 st/B = 3.5% Abu-Hejleh and Att-
wooll (2005)
20 Weathered fossilifer- 1585 25.9 1.5 39 0.23 0.41 B 6.28 sb/B = 3.2% Bullock (2003)
ous limestone
Published by NRC Research Press

21 Weathered fossilifer- 1940 27.3 3.8 35 0.56 1.00 B 6.22 Max(sb/B = Bullock (2003)
ous limestone 2.6%)
22 Weathered fossilifer- 1880 27.2 0.92 12 0.14 0.24 B 3.57 Max(sb/B = Bullock (2003)
ous limestone 3.5%)
23 Clay shale 762 11.2 1.5 85 0.97 1.10 B 3.6 PLAXIS Nam (2004)
24 Gray limestone 762 7.2 10.9 96 9.78 10.1 B 10.5 PLAXIS Nam (2004)
25 Weathered shale 1803 19.2 2.21 79 1.12 1.4 B 10.8 Max(sb/B = Thompson (1994)
1.9%)

1075
 1076
Table 1 (concluded ).

Method for
sc RQD scm = aEsc scm = (aE)0.7sc qmax determining
No. Rock description B (mm) L (m) (MPa) (%) (MPa) (MPa) Test methoda (MPa) qmaxb Reference
26 Greyish jointed basalt 1000 12.7 14.14 51 2.12 3.7 C 11.3 B.A. Basarkar and Dewaikar
(2006)
27 Greyish jointed basalt 1000 14.2 19.43 10 2.91 5.1 C 13.2 B.A. Basarkar and Dewaikar
(2006)
28 Moderately 1000 14.9 11.77 8 1.77 3.1 C 10.3 B.A. Basarkar and Dewaikar
weathered basalt (2006)
29 Weathered basalt 1000 11.9 12.46 0 1.87 3.3 C 10.6 B.A. Basarkar and Dewaikar
(2006)
30 Weathered amygda- 1000 13.8 7.07 30 1.06 1.9 C 8.0 B.A. Basarkar and Dewaikar
loidal basalt (2006)
31 Jointed yellowish tuff 1200 13.2 11.49 37 1.72 3.0 C 10.2 B.A. Basarkar and Dewaikar
(2006)
32 Greyish tuff 1200 11.3 28.50 30 4.28 7.6 C 16.0 B.A. Basarkar and Dewaikar
(2006)
33 Volcanic breccia 1200 19.1 6.40 20 0.96 1.7 C 7.6 B.A. Basarkar and Dewaikar
(2006)
34 Moderately weath- 1200 12.1 39.40 37 5.91 10.4 C 18.8 B.A. Basarkar and Dewaikar
ered amygdaloidal (2006)
basalt
35 Greyish jointed basalt 1200 9.3 28.04 10 4.21 7.4 C 15.9 B.A. Basarkar and Dewaikar
(2006)
36 Jointed basalt 900 10.4 35.7 37 5.36 9.5 C 17.9 B.A. Basarkar and Dewaikar
(2006)
37 Jointed basalt 900 11.1 21.83 27 3.27 5.8 C 14.0 B.A. Basarkar and Dewaikar
(2006)
38 Moderately weath- 1200 22.7 5.36 72 1.84 2.5 C 7.0 B.A. Basarkar and Dewaikar
ered breccia (2006)
39 Jointed amygdaloidal 1100 14.0 40.8 42 6.12 10.8 C 19.1 B.A. Basarkar and Dewaikar
basalt (2006)
40 Greyish basalt 1050 14.0 15.3 43 2.30 4.1 C 11.7 B.A. Basarkar and Dewaikar
(2006)
41 Greyish basalt 600 11.2 11.8 0 1.77 3.1 C 10.3 B.A. Basarkar and Dewaikar
(2006)

Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 47, 2010

42 Greyish basalt 600 10.4 14.24 39 2.14 3.8 C 11.3 B.A. Basarkar and Dewaikar
Published by NRC Research Press

(2006)
43 Granodiorite 1320 23.1 35 49 5.3 9.28 B 16.0 —c GEO (2006)
a
B, bi-directional load test using O-cell; C, conventional load test by applying load at the shaft head.
b
st/B, top settlement to diameter ratio; sb/B, bottom settlement to diameter ratio; Max (*), maximum applied load (settlement to diameter ratio); B.A., back-analysis using load-transfer function approach to
match the test load–settlement curve; PLAXIS, analysis using PLAXIS software to match the test load–settlement curve.
c
No information can be found in the original paper.
Zhang 1077

used to determine the ultimate bearing capacity of each test Fig. 3. End-bearing capacity, qmax, versus unconfined compressive
shaft. As the measured load–displacement curve is not avail- strength of rock mass, scm = aEsc.
able for most of the test shafts in Table 1, however, such an
interpretation cannot be applied. Moreover, even if the mea-
sured load–displacement curve is available for some of the
test shafts, the load transferred to the base cannot be deter-
mined at a different displacement. Because of these difficul-
ties, it is common in engineering practice to use the ultimate
bearing capacity values directly interpreted by the original
authors (Zhang and Einstein 1998; Vipulanandan et al.
2007). One advantage for using the interpretation by the ori-
ginal authors directly is that the original authors have access
to first-hand information, which allows them to determine
the ultimate bearing capacity more accurately than those
with second-hand information.
By examining the 11th column in Table 1, we can see
that the ultimate end-bearing capacity corresponds to st/B =
3.5% to 13.9% or sb/B = 1.9% to 5.1% for the interpreta-
tions based on the specified displacement to diameter ratio
or the maximum applied test load, where st and sb are, the
shaft head and base displacement, respectively. For the in- Fig. 4. Em/Er versus RQD (modified from Coon and Merritt 1970).
terpretations based on back-analysis, the displacement to di-
ameter ratio is expected to be higher. Considering the large
magnitude of st/B and sb/B, the end-bearing resistance values
listed in Table 1 are not expected to be far from the corre-
sponding ‘‘true’’ end-bearing capacity. Therefore, the gen-
eral trend reflected by the database in Table 1 will be
useful for predicting the end-bearing capacity in design
practice.

New relation between end-bearing capacity

and unconfined compressive strength of
rock mass
In this section, a new relation for determining the end-
bearing capacity, qmax, is developed by considering the ef-
fect of discontinuities, represented by RQD, on the uncon-
fined compressive strength of rock masses.
AASHTO (1996) suggests that the unconfined compres-
sive strength of the rock mass, scm, be estimated using the
following relation:
½10 s cm ¼ aE s c
where aE = 0.0231RQD – 1.32 ‡ 0.15 is the reduction fac-
tor. Using eq. [10], scm can be estimated as shown in Ta-
ble 1. Figure 3 shows the log–log plot of the data of qmax
and scm. Based on the least square fit of the 43 data points,
the following relationship between qmax and scm can be ob-
tained:
½11 qmax ¼ 7:68ðs cm Þ0:42 ðMPaÞ
The coefficient of determination, r2, is 0.78.
It is noted that the reduction factor, aE (note the subscript
‘‘E’’), was originally proposed by Gardner (1987) for esti-
mating the rock mass deformation modulus, Em, from the in-
tact rock deformation modulus, Er
½12 Em ¼ aE Er
Figure 4 shows the RQD data versus Em/Er on which the
derivation of aE was based. So is it appropriate to use the
reduction factor, aE, for the deformation modulus to esti-
mate the strength of rock masses? Researchers in rock me-
chanics and rock engineering have studied the relation
between the strength ratio, scm/sc, and the modulus ratio,
Em/Er, and found that they can be related by the following
equation (Ramamurthy 1993; Singh et al. 1998):
 n
s cm Em
½13 ¼ ¼ ðaE Þn
sc Er
in which the power n varies from 0.5 to 1.0 and is most
likely in the range 0.61–0.74 with an average of 0.7. It can
be seen that the AASHTO method (eq. [10]) uses the upper
bound value of n = 1.0 and thus may not be representative
of the average relation between the strength ratio, scm/sc,
and the modulus ratio, Em/Er. If we use the average value
of n = 0.7, the unconfined compressive strength of rock
masses can be obtained using

Published by NRC Research Press

1078 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 47, 2010

Table 2. Empirical correlations based on rock mass classification for estimating unconfined compressive strength, scm, of rock
masses (modified from Zhang 2005).

Author Correlation Equation

Ramamurthy et al. (1985) and s cm [15]
¼ eðRMR100Þ=18:75
Ramamurthy (1996) sc
Trueman (1988) and Asef et al. s cm ¼ 0:5e0:06RMR ðMPaÞ [16]
(2000)
Kalamaras and Bieniawski (1993) s cm [17]
¼ eðRMR100Þ=24
sc
 
Hoek et al. (2002) 1 1 GSI=15 [18]
s cm ½ðGSI100Þ=ð93DÞ þ ðe  e20=3 Þ
¼e 2 6
sc
Bhasin and Grimstad (1996) and s cm ¼ 7g fc Q1=3 ðMPaÞ where fc = sc/100 for Q > 10 and sc > 100 MPa, [19]
Singh and Goel (1999) otherwise fc = 1
Sheorey (1997) s cm [20]
¼ eðRMR100Þ=20
sc
Aydan and Dalgiç (1998) s cm RMR [21]
¼
sc RMR þ 6ð100  RMRÞ
Barton (2002) s cm ¼ 5gðQs c =100Þ1=3 ðMPaÞ [22]
Hoek (personal communication, s cm [23]
¼ 0:036eGSI=30
2004) sc
Note: D, factor indicating the degree of disturbance due to blast damage and stress relaxation; g, unit weight of the rock mass (g/cm3).

½14 s cm ¼ ðaE Þ0:7 s c Table 3. Summary of rock properties (data from El-Naqa and
Kuisi 2002).
The accuracy of eq. [14] for predicting the strength of
jointed rock masses can be checked by comparing its pre- sc RQD
dicted strength values with those from the different empirical No. Rock (MPa) (%) RMR Q GSI
methods based on rock mass classification, such as the RMR 1 Limestone (L1) 31.0 54 57 4.23 52
(Bieniawski 1976, 1989), tunneling quality index, Q, (Barton 2 Limestone (L2) 13.0 50 59 5.29 54
et al. 1974; Barton 2002), and GSI (Hoek et al. 1995, 1998). 3 Limestone (R1) 37.0 48 59 5.29 54
Table 2 lists the empirical methods based on RMR, Q, and 4 Limestone (R2) 27.0 45 54 3.04 59
GSI. Using eq. [14] and the empirical methods listed in Ta- 5 Marl limestone 28.0 44 55 3.39 50
ble 2, the unconfined compressive strength of the five rocks
listed in Table 3 can be estimated as shown in Table 4. It can
be seen that the estimated values from eq. [14] are within the only one of the many factors that affect the strength of
range and close to the average of the estimated values from jointed rock masses. Other factors, such as the discontinuity
the different empirical methods based on rock mass classifi- surface condition and orientation, can have a great effect on
cation, indicating that eq. [14] can provide estimation of rock the strength of jointed rock masses. It is also noted that
mass strength at about the same accuracy as the empirical eq. [24] gives a qmax equal to that of a rock-socketed shaft
methods based on rock mass classification.
in intact rock when RQD = 100%, although there could still
Figure 5 shows the log–log plot of the data of qmax and
be discontinuities in rock masses that lower the bearing ca-
scm, which is estimated from eq. [14]. Based on the least
pacity, if the discontinuities are oriented in unfavorable ori-
square fit of the data, the following relationship between
entations that assist in the failure mechanism. Therefore, the
qmax and scm can be obtained:
new empirical relation may overestimate qmax when RQD =
½24 qmax ¼ 6:39ðs cm Þ0:45 100%. On the other hand, as stated in the previous section,
some of the measured end-bearing resistance values listed in
The coefficient of determination, r2, is 0.81, which is Table 1 may be much smaller than the corresponding ‘‘true’’
larger (although not by much) than that of the qmax and scm end-bearing capacity. Therefore, the new empirical relation,
relation (eq. [11]) in which scm is estimated from eq. [10]. which is based on the data in Table 1, may underestimate
So it is likely more appropriate to use eq. [14] than eq. [10] qmax, especially when the rock is intact.
to estimate the unconfined strength of rock masses. There-
fore, the qmax and scm relation represented by eq. [24] and
Application examples
the corresponding eq. [14] are recommended for predicting
the end-bearing capacity of rock-socketed shafts. In this section, two examples are presented to demonstrate
This new empirical relation has limitations related to us- the application of the developed empirical relation between
ing RQD to represent the effect of discontinuities. RQD is qmax and scm.

Published by NRC Research Press

Zhang 1079

Table 4. Estimated rock mass strength (scm) values for the rocks listed in Table 3 using the present method (eq. [14])
and the empirical methods–based rock mass classification (see Table 2).

scm (MPa)
Method 1a 2a 3a 4a 5a
Present method: eq. [14] 8.22 3.45 9.81 7.16 7.42
Ramamurthy et al. (1985) and Rama- 3.13 1.46 4.15 2.32 2.54
murthy (1996) – eq. [15]b
Trueman (1988) and Asef et al. (2000) – 15.3 17.2 17.2 12.8 13.6
eq. [16]b
Kalamaras and Bieniawski (1993) – 5.17 2.36 6.70 3.97 4.29
eq. [17]b
Hoek et al. (2002) – eq. [18]b 2.10 0.99 2.81 1.53 1.68
Bhasin and Grimstad (1996) and Singh 8.42 3.81 10.8 6.57 7.07
and Goel (1999) – eq. [19]b
Sheorey (1997) – eq. [20]b 3.61 1.67 4.76 2.71 2.95
Aydan and Dalgiç (1998) – eq. [21]b 5.61 2.51 7.16 4.42 4.74
Barton (2002) – eq. [22]b 13.1 10.6 15.0 11.2 11.8
Hoek (personal communication, 2004) – 6.32 2.83 8.06 4.98 5.34
eq. [23]b

Rangec 2.10–15.3 0.99–17.2 2.81–17.2 1.53–12.8 1.68–13.6

Averaged 6.97 4.83 8.52 5.61 6.00
a
Numbers refer to the rock numbers shown in Table 3.
b
See Table 2 for the specific equations.
c
Range is for the empirical methods based on rock mass classification (eqs. [15] to [23]).
d
Average is for the empirical methods based on rock mass classification (eqs. [15] to [23]).

Fig. 5. End-bearing capacity, qmax, versus unconfined compressive
strength of rock mass, scm = (aE)0.7sc.
Example 1
LOADTEST, Inc. (2001) conducted axial load tests of
rock-socketed shafts with the Osterberg method to provide
data for the design of drilled shaft foundations of a cable-
stayed bridge located in Fitchburg, Mass. Figure 6 shows
the geological profile and the schematic section of test shaft
No. 1. The test shaft has a socket length of 3.6 m and a di-
ameter of 1.52 m. The rock is a light brownish-gray to choc-
olate weathered and unweathered, fine-grained, plagioclase–
quartz–biotite granofels and phyllite and it includes thin
beds of quartzite and fine-grained schist. The RQD of the
rock is between 41% and 85% with an average of 56% and
the unconfined compressive strength of the intact rock is
67.6 MPa (Ernst and McGrath 1998).
Figure 7 shows the load–displacement curves for the test
shaft. The maximum downward applied load iss 19.15 MN
and the corresponding average downward movement of the
Osterberg cell base iss 7.17 mm. Considering the side shear
resistance of the shaft section below the cell, the maximum
load held in end bearing is 17.24 MN and the unit end bear-
ing at the base can be calculated to be 9.45 MPa
(LOADTEST, Inc. 2001).
As neither the side nor the base resistance was fully mo-
bilized, Chin’s (1970) hyperbolic equation was adopted to
extrapolate the test curves. There is some skepticism about
estimating the ultimate capacity by extrapolating the load–
displacement curve based on Chin’s procedure. However,
the work of Paikowsky and Tolosko (1999) and Ooi et al.
(2004) indicates that if Chin’s procedure is combined with
other interpretation procedures such as the Davisson (1972)
method, unfailed load tests can be extrapolated to determine
the failure capacity quite reliably. Here, Chin’s procedure is
combined with both the Davisson (1972) method and the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 0.05B (where B
is the shaft diameter) criterion (O’Neill and Reese 1999) to
determine the bearing capacity. After the extrapolated
curves are obtained (see Fig. 7), they are used to construct
the load–displacement curve equivalent to applying the load
at the top of the shaft (see Fig. 8), following the procedure
of LOADTEST, Inc. (2001). With the obtained equivalent
top load displacement curve, the total ultimate load can be
determined using the Davisson (1972) method as 72.0 MN,

Published by NRC Research Press

1080
Fig. 6. Application example 1: geological profile and schematic
section of test shaft No. 1 (modified from LOADTEST, Inc. 2001).
of which 24.2 MN is from the shaft above the cell and 47.8
MN from the shaft below the cell and the base. Using the
FHWA 0.05B criterion (O’Neill and Reese 1999), the total
ultimate load can be determined as 76.3 MN, of which 25.1
MN is from the shaft above the cell and 51.2 MN from the
shaft below the cell and the base. Assuming that the shaft
below the cell has the same unit side shear resistance as the
shaft above the cell, the ultimate load applied to the end
bearing can be determined as 45.4 MN based on the Davis-
son method and 48.7 MN based on the FHWA 0.05B crite-
rion, leading to a unit end-bearing resistance of 24.9 and
26.7 MPa, respectively, which give an average value of
25.8 MPa. The corresponding displacement to diameter ra-
tios are st/B = 4.3% and sb/B = 3.9%, which are within the
range of the displacement to diameter ratios in Table 1.
On the day of the test, the concrete unconfined compres-
sive strength, fc0 , was reported to be 48.0 MPa (LOADTEST,
Inc. 2001). Because sc of the intact rock is greater than fc0 of
the concrete, fc0 should be used in the relations between qmax
and sc to determine qmax. Using eqs. [2] to [7], qmax can be
estimated as shown in Table 5. It can be seen that the pre-
dictions of the linear qmax and sc relations of Coates (1967)
and Rowe and Armitage (1987) are significantly (more than
four times) larger than the test value. Due to the upper limit
assigned, however, the linear qmax and sc relation of AR-
GEMA (1992) underpredicts the end-bearing capacity, the
predicted value being less than half of the test value. The
predictions of the nonlinear qmax and sc relations of Zhang
and Einstein (1998) and Vipulanandan et al. (2007) are bet-
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 47, 2010
Fig. 7. Application example 1: load–displacement curves of test
shaft No. 1 (modified from LOADTEST, Inc. 2001).
Fig. 8. Application example 1: derived equivalent top load–displa-
cement curve of test shaft No. 1.
ter, but are still over the test value by, 35% and 58%, re-
spectively. As stated earlier, the definitions of qmax in
different empirical relations are not identical, which may be
one of the reasons for their different prediction accuracy.
The empirical relations of Zhang and Einstein (1998) and
Vipulanandan et al. (2007) use qmax determined in the same
way as the qmax in Table 1, and the corresponding displace-
ment to diameter ratios at qmax cover a wide range. So they
have better prediction accuracy than the other empirical re-
lations.
As no detailed information about the discontinuities at the
test site (spacing, aperture, and orientation) is available, nei-
ther the method of Kulhawy and Goodman (1980) nor the
relation of CGS (1985) can be used to estimate the end-
bearing capacity. For the method of AASHTO (1996), based
on the rock type (granofels and phyllite) and quality
(RQD = 56%, fair), Nms can be selected to be 0.056 and
qmax can be determined to be 3.8 MPa, which is significantly
smaller than the test value.
Published by NRC Research Press
Zhang
Table 5. Comparison of predicted and measured end-bearing capacity.
Method
qmax versus sc relation
Coates (1967): qmax = 3sc
Rowe and Armitage (1987): qmax = 2.5sc
ARGEMA (1992): qmax = 4.5sc £ 10 (Mpa)
Zhang and Einstein (1998): qmax = 4.83(sc)0.51
Vipulanandan et al. (2007): qmax = 4.66(sc)0.56
Method considering effect of discontinuities
AASHTO (1996): qmax = Nmssc
qmax versus scm relation
This paper: qmax = 6.39(scm)0.45
Field test
For RQD = 56%, aE takes the minimum value of 0.15.
Using eq. [14], scm of the rock mass can be estimated as
17.9 MPa, which is much smaller than fc0 of the shaft con-
crete. Obviously, the end-bearing capacity is controlled by
the rock mass, not by the shaft concrete. So qmax should be
determined using the correlation between scm and qmax. Us-
ing eq. [24], qmax can be determined as 23.4 MPa, which is
close to the test value of 25.8 MPa.
Example 2
LOADTEST, Inc. conducted axial load tests of a rock-
socketed shaft with the Osterberg method in Nashville,
Tenn., for the ADSC SE Chapter Rock Socketed Drilled
Shaft Research Project (Dan Brown and Associates 2008).
Figure 9 shows the geological profile and schematic section
of the test shaft. The test shaft has a socket length of 4.88 m
and a diameter of 1.22 m. The RQD of the rock is 46%–
65% with an average of 55.% and the unconfined compres-
sive strength of the intact rock is 34.5–55.2 MPa with an
average of 44.8 MPa (Dan Brown and Associates 2008).
Figure 10 shows the load–displacement curves for the test
shaft. The maximum downward applied load was 19.37 MN
and the corresponding average downward movement of the
Osterberg cell base was 13.23 mm.
Again, as neither the side nor the base resistance was
fully mobilized, Chin’s (1970) hyperbolic equation was
adopted to extrapolate the test curves and the extrapolated
curves (see Fig. 10) were then used to construct the load–
displacement curve equivalent to applying the load at the
top of the shaft (see Fig. 11). Using the same procedure as
described in example 1, the unit end-bearing resistance can
be obtained as 19.9 and 20.7 MPa, from the Davisson
method and the FHWA 0.05B criterion, respectively, giving
an average of 20.3 MPa. Once more, the corresponding dis-
placement to diameter ratios are st/B = 4.3% and sb/B =
3.9%, which are within the range of the displacement to di-
ameter ratios in Table 1.
The unconfined compressive concrete strength, fc0 , was re-
ported to be 39.8 MPa. Because sc of the intact rock is
greater than fc0 of the concrete, fc0 should be used in the rela-
tions between qmax and sc to determine qmax. Using eqs. [2]
to [7], qmax can be estimated as shown in Table 5. Again,
the predictions of the linear qmax and sc relations of Coates
1081
End-bearing capacity, qmax (MPa)
Example 1 Example 2
144.0 119.4
120.0 99.5
10.0 10.0
34.8 31.6
40.7 36.7
3.8 2.2
23.4 20.5
25.8 20.3
(1967) and Rowe and Armitage (1987) are significantly
(more than four times) larger than the test value and the lin-
ear qmax and sc relation of ARGEMA (1992) underpredicts
the end-bearing capacity (the predicted value being less
than half of the test value). The predictions of the nonlinear
qmax and sc relations of Zhang and Einstein (1998) and Vi-
pulanandan et al. (2007) are better, but are still over the test
value by more than 50%.
Neither the method of Kulhawy and Goodman (1980) nor
the relation of CGS (1985) is used to estimate the end-bear-
ing capacity, because the required information about the dis-
continuities (spacing, aperture, and orientation) is not
available. For the method of AASHTO (1996), based on the
rock type (limestone) and quality (RQD = 55.5%, fair), Nms
can be selected to be 0.049 and qmax can be determined to
be 2.2 MPa, which is significantly smaller than the test
value.
Using eq. [14], with aE = 0.15 for RQD = 55.5%, scm of
the rock mass can be estimated as 11.9 MPa, which is much
smaller than fc0 of the shaft concrete. Again, the end-bearing
capacity is controlled by the rock mass, not by the shaft
concrete. So qmax should be determined using the correlation
between scm and qmax. Using eq. [24], qmax can be deter-
mined as 20.5 MPa, which is almost the same as the test
value of 20.3 MPa.
Summary and conclusions
The findings presented in this paper can be summarized
as follows:
(1) For optimal design of rock-socketed shafts, the end-
bearing capacity, qmax, needs to be determined. Existing
empirical methods relate qmax to the unconfined com-
pressive strength of intact rock, sc, producing results
that often deviate significantly from field test results.
One of the reasons for the significant deviation may be
that the effect of discontinuities is not fully considered.
(2) Based on a newly developed database of 43 load tests
containing RQD values, a new empirical relation be-
tween qmax and the unconfined compressive strength of
rock mass, scm, is derived. The new empirical relation
explicitly considers the effect of discontinuities repre-
sented by RQD. The new empirical relation, however,
Published by NRC Research Press
1082
Fig. 9. Application example 2: geological profile and schematic section (modified from Dan Brown and Associates 2008).
Fig. 10. Application example 2: load–displacement curves (modi-
fied from Dan Brown and Associates 2008).
may overestimate qmax when RQD = 100% because even
at RQD = 100% there could still be discontinuities in
rock masses, which lower the bearing capacity if the dis-
continuities are oriented in unfavorable directions that
assist in the failure mechanism.
(3) Two examples are presented to demonstrate the applica-
tion of the newly derived empirical relation. The results
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 47, 2010
Fig. 11. Application example 2: derived equivalent top load–dis-
placement curve.
indicate that the new empirical relation between qmax and
scm provides more accurate predictions of qmax than the
old empirical relations between qmax and sc.
(4) The developed empirical relation is based on a database
representing relatively weak rock masses (scm is usually
smaller than 20 MPa) and thus should be used accord-
ingly.
(5) The developed empirical relation is based on the end-
bearing capacity, qmax, obtained using different interpre-
tation methods with the displacement to diameter ratio in
Published by NRC Research Press
Zhang
a certain range and thus only reflects the general trend of
the qmax within the specified range of the displacement
to diameter ratio. When using the developed empirical
relation to estimate the end-bearing capacity, one needs
to be aware of the corresponding range of the displace-
ment to diameter ratio. The new empirical relation may
underestimate qmax because some of the end-bearing ca-
pacity values used for deriving the new empirical rela-
tion are much smaller than the corresponding ‘‘true’’
end-bearing capacity.
References
AASHTO. 1996. Standard specifications for highway bridges. 16th
ed. American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, Washington, D.C.
Abu-Hejleh, N., and Attwooll, W.J. 2005. Colorado’s axial load
tests on drilled shafts socketed in weak rocks: Synthesis and fu-
ture needs. Colorado Department of Transportation, Research
Branch, Denver, Colo. Report CDOT-DTD-R-2005-4.
Abu-Hejleh, N., O’Neill, M.W., Hanneman, D., and Attwooll, W.J.
2003. Improvement of the geotechnical axial design methodol-
ogy for Colorado’s drilled shafts socketed in weak rocks. Color-
ado Department of Transportation, Research Branch, Denver,
Colo. Report CDOT-DTD-R-2003-6.
ARGEMA. 1992. Design guides for offshore structures: offshore
pile design. Edited by P.L. Tirant. Éditions Technip, Paris.
Asef, M.R., Reddish, D.J., and Lloyd, P.W. 2000. Rock-support in-
teraction analysis based on numerical modeling. Geotechnical
and Geological Engineering, 18(1): 23–37. doi:10.1023/
A:1008968013995.
Aydan, O., and Dalgiç, S. 1998. Prediction of deformation behavior
of 3-lanes Bolu tunnels through squeezing rocks of North Ana-
tolian fault zone (NAFZ). In Proceedings of the Regional Sym-
posium on Sedimentary Rock Engineering, Taipei, Taiwan, 20–
22 November 1998. pp. 228–233.
Barton, N. 2002. Some new Q-value correlations to assist in site
characterization and tunnel design. International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 39(2): 185–216. doi:10.
1016/S1365-1609(02)00011-4.
Barton, N., Lien, R., and Lunde, J. 1974. Engineering classification
of rock masses for the design of tunnel support. Rock Me-
chanics and Rock Engineering, 6(4): 189–236. doi:10.1007/
BF01239496.
Basarkar, S.S., and Dewaikar, D.M. 2006. Load transfer character-
istics of rocketed piles in Mumbai region. Soils and Founda-
tions, 46(2): 247–257.
Bhasin, R., and Grimstad, E. 1996. The use of stress–strength rela-
tionships in the assessment of tunnel stability. Tunnelling and
Underground Space Technology, 11(1): 93–98. doi:10.1016/
0886-7798(95)00047-X.
Bieniawski, Z.T. 1976. Rock mass classification in rock engineer-
ing. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Exploration for Rock
Engineering, Johannesburg, South Africa, 1–5 November 1976.
Edited by Z.T. Bieniawski. Balkema, Rotterdam, the Nether-
lands. Vol. 1, pp. 97–106.
Bieniawski, Z.T. 1989. Engineering rock mass classification: a
manual. Wiley, New York.
Bishnoi, B.L. 1968. Bearing capacity of a closely jointed rock.
Ph.D. thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Ga.
Bullock, P.J. 2003. A study of the setup behavior of drilled shafts.
Report submitted to the Florida Department of Transportation.
University of Florida, Gainesville, Fla.
Carrubba, P. 1997. Skin friction of large-diameter piles socketed
1083
into rock. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 34(2): 230–240.
doi:10.1139/cgj-34-2-230.
CGS. 1985. Canadian foundation engineering manual. 2nd ed. Ca-
nadian Geotechnical Society, Toronto, Ont.
Chin, F.K. 1970. Estimation of the ultimate load of piles not car-
ried to failure. In Proceedings of the Second South East Asian
Conference on Soil Engineering, Singapore, 11–15 June 1970.
Asian Institute of Technology, Pathum Thani, Thailand. pp. 81–
90.
Coates, D.F. 1967. Rock mechanics principles. Energy Mines and
Resources, Ottawa, Ont. Monograph 874.
Coon, R.F., and Merritt, A.H. 1970. Predicting in situ modulus of
deformation using rock quality indices. In Determination of the
in situ modulus of deformation of rock. ASTM STP 477. Amer-
ican Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), Philadelphia,
Penn. pp. 154–173.
Crapps, D.K., and Schmertmann, J.H. 2002. Compression top load
reaching shaft bottom — theory versus tests. In Proceedings of
the International Deep Foundations Congress, Orlando, Fla.,
14–16 February 2002. Geotechnical Special Publication No.
116. Edited by M.W. O’Neill and F.C. Townsend. Geo-Institute,
American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Va. Vol. 2, pp.
1533–1549.
Dan Brown and Associates. 2008. ADSC SE Chapter research pro-
ject: Drilled shafts socketed into rock – Nashville site. Available
from danbrownandassociates.com/research-projects/
adsc-se-chapter-research-project-drilled-shafts-socketed-into-r
ock/adsc-se-chapter-research-project-nashville-site.
Davisson, M.T. 1972. High capacity piles. In Proceedings of the
Soil Mechanics Lecture Series on Innovations in Foundation
Construction, Chicago, Ill., 22 March 1972. American Society
for Civil Engineers (ASCE) Illinois Section, Chicago, Ill. pp.
81–112.
El-Naqa, A., and Al Kuisi, M. 2002. Engineering geological char-
acterization of the rock masses at Tannur Dam site, South Jor-
dan. Environmental Geology, 42(7): 817–826. doi:10.1007/
s00254-002-0589-9.
Ernst, H., and McGrath, V. 1998. Geotechnical report: Bridge No.
F-4-19, Fifth Street over B&M RR and North Nashua River,
Fitchburg. Massachusetts Highway Department, Boston, Mass.
Gardner, W.S. 1987. Design of drilled piers in the Atlantic Pied-
mont. In Foundations and excavations in decomposed rock of
the Piedmont Province. (Proceedings of a session held in con-
junction with the ASCE Convention in Atlantic City, New Jer-
sey, 28 April 1987.) Edited by R.E. Smith. GSP No. 9.
American Society for Civil Engineers (ASCE), New York. pp.
62–86.
GEO. 2006. Foundation design and construction. Geotechnical
Control Office, Hong Kong. GEO publication No. 1/2006.
Glos, G.H., III, and Briggs, O.H., Jr. 1983. Rock sockets in soft
rock. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 109(4): 525–535.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1983)109:4(525).
Goodman, R.E. 1980. Introduction to rock mechanics. Wiley, New
York.
Hoek, E., Kaiser, P.K., and Bawden, W.F. 1995. Support of under-
ground excavations in hard rock. Balkema, Rotterdam, the Neth-
erlands.
Hoek, E., Marinos, P., and Benissi, M. 1998. Applicability of the
geological strength index (GSI) classification for very weak and
sheared rock masses. The case of Athens Schist Formation. Bul-
letin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, 57(2): 151–
160. doi:10.1007/s100640050031.
Hoek, E., Carranza-Torres, C., and Corkum, B. 2002. Hoek–Brown
failure criterion – 2002 edition. In Proceedings of the 5th North
Published by NRC Research Press
1084
American Rock Mechanics Symposium and 17th Tunneling As-
sociation of Canada Conference, Toronto, Ont., 7–10 July 2002.
Mining Innovation and Technology, Toronto, Ont. pp. 267–273.
Horvath, R.G., Kenney, T.C., and Kozicki, P. 1983. Method of im-
proving the performance of drilled piers in weak rock. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 20(4): 758–772. doi:10.1139/t83-081.
Kalamaras, G.S., and Bieniawski, Z.T. 1993. A rock mass strength
concept for coal seams. In Proceedings of the 12th International
Conference on Ground Control in Mining, Morgantown, W. Va.,
3–5 August 1993.Department of Mining Engineering, College of
Mineral and Energy Resources, West Virginia University, Mor-
gantown, W. Va. pp. 274–283.
Kulhawy, F.H., and Goodman, R.E. 1980. Design of foundations
on discontinuous rock. In Proceedings of the International Con-
ference on Structural Foundations on Rock, Sydney, Australia,
7–9 May 1980. Taylor & Francis, London. Vol. 1, pp. 209–220.
Ladanyi, B. 1977. Friction and end bearing tests on bedrock for
high capacity socket design: Discussion. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 14(1): 153–155. doi:10.1139/t77-013.
Ladanyi, B., and Roy, A. 1971. Some aspects of bearing capacity
of rock mass. In Proceedings of the 7th Canadian Symposium
on Rock Mechanics, Edmonton, Alta., 25–27 March 1971. pp.
161–190.
Leung, C.F., and Ko, H.-Y. 1993. Centrifuge model study of piles
socketed in soft rock. Soils and Foundations, 33(3): 80–91.
LOADTEST, Inc. 2001. Report on drilled shaft load testing (Oster-
berg method): Test shaft #1 – Fifth St. Cable Stayed Bridge,
Fitchburg, Mass. LOADTEST, Inc., Gainesville, Fla. (Project
No. LT-8668-1).
Miller, A.D. 2003. Prediction of ultimate side shear for drilled
shafts in Missouri shafts. M.Sc. thesis, University of Missouri,
Columbia, Mo.
Nam, M.S. 2004. Improved design for drilled shafts in Rock. Ph.D.
thesis, University of Houston, Houston, Tex.
O’Neill, M.W., and Reese, L.C. 1999. Drilled shafts: construction
procedures and design methods. Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Office Implementa-
tion, McLean, Va. FHWA Publication No. FHWA-IF-99–025.
Ooi, P.S.K., Chang, B.K.F., and Seki, G.Y. 2004. Examination of
proof test extrapolation for drilled shafts. Geotechnical Testing
Journal, 27(2): 123–133. doi:10.1520/GTJ10558.
Paikowsky, S.G., and Tolosko, T.A. 1999. Extrapolation of pile ca-
pacity from non-failed load tests. Federal Highway Administra-
tion (FHWA), Washington, D.C. Report No. FHWA-RD-99-170.
Pells, P.J.N., and Turner, R.M. 1980. End-bearing on rock with
particular reference to sandstone. In Proceedings of the Interna-
tional Conference on Structural Foundations on Rock, Sydney,
Australia, 7–9 May 1980. Taylor & Francis, London. Vol. 1,
pp. 181–190.
Radhakrishnan, R., and Leung, C.F. 1989. Load transfer behavior of
rock-socketed piles. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 115(6):
755–768. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1989)115:6(755).
Ramamurthy, T. 1993. Strength and modulus responses of anisotro-
pic rock. In Comprehensive rock engineering. Pergamon Press,
Oxford, UK. Vol. 1, pp. 313–329.
Ramamurthy, T. 1996. Stability of rock mass — Eighth Indian
Geotechnical Society Annual Lecture. Indian Geotechnical Jour-
nal, 16: 1–73.
Ramamurthy, T., Rao, G.V., and Rao, K.S. 1985. A strength criter-
ion for rocks. In Proceedings of the Indian Geotechnical Confer-
ence, Roorkee, India, 16–18 December 1985. Vol. 1, pp. 59-64
Rowe, R.K., and Armitage, H.H. 1987. A design method for drilled
piers in soft rock. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 24(1): 126–
142. doi:10.1139/t87-011.
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 47, 2010
Serrano, A., and Olalla, C. 2002a. Ultimate bearing capacity at the
tip of a pile in rock — part 1: theory. International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 39(7): 833–846. doi:10.
1016/S1365-1609(02)00052-7.
Serrano, A., and Olalla, C. 2002b. Ultimate bearing capacity at the
tip of a pile in rock — part 2: application. International Journal
of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 39(7): 847–866.
doi:10.1016/S1365-1609(02)00052-7.
Sheorey, P.R. 1997. Empirical rock failure criteria. Balkema, Rot-
terdam, the Netherlands.
Singh, B., and Goel, R.K. 1999. Rock mass classifications – a prac-
tical approach in civil engineering. Elsevier Ltd., Amsterdam,
the Netherlands.
Singh, B., Goel, R.K., Mehrotra, V.K., Garg, S.K., and Allu, M.R.
1998. Effect of intermediate principal stress on strength of ani-
sotropic rock mass. Tunnelling and Underground Space Tech-
nology, 13(1): 71–79. doi:10.1016/S0886-7798(98)00023-6.
Thompson, R.W., III. 1994. Axial capacity of drilled shafts
socketed into soft rock. M.Sc. thesis, Auburn University, Au-
burn, Ala.
Thorne, C.P. 1980. The capacity of piers drilled into rock. In Pro-
ceedings of the International Conference on Structural Founda-
tions on Rock, Sydney, Australia, 7–9 May 1980. Taylor &
Francis, London. Vol. 1, pp. 223–233.
Trueman, R. 1988. An evaluation of strata support techniques in
dual life gateroads. Ph.D. thesis, University of Wales, Cardiff,
UK.
Turner, J. 2006. Rock-socketed shafts for highway structure foun-
dations: a synthesis of highway practice. NCHRP Synthesis
360. National Cooperative Highway Research Program
(NCHRP), Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Vipulanandan, C., Hussain, A., and Usluogulari, O. 2007. Para-
metric study of open core-hole on the behavior of drilled shafts
socketed in soft rock. In Contemporary Issues in Deep Founda-
tions: Proceedings of Geo-Denver 2007, Denver, Colo., 18–21
February 2007. Geotechnical Special Publication No. 158. [CD-
ROM]. Edited by W. Camp, R. Castelli, D.F. Laefer, and S. Pai-
kowsky. American Society for Civil Engineers, Reston, Va. pp.
1–10. doi:10.1061/40902(221)6.
Williams, A.F., and Pells, P.J.N. 1981. Side resistance of rock
sockets in sandstone, mudstone, and shale. Canadian Geotechni-
cal Journal, 18(4): 502–513. doi:10.1139/t81-061.
Zhang, L. 2004. Drilled shafts in rock – analysis and design. A.A.
Balkema Publishers, London.
Zhang, L. 2005. Engineering properties of rocks. Vol. 4. Elsevier
Geo-Engineering Book Series. Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Nether-
lands.
Zhang, L. 2008. Predicting the end bearing capacity of rock
socketed shafts. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual and 11th In-
ternational Conference on Piling and Deep Foundations, New
York, 15–17 October 2008. Deep Foundations Institute,
Hawthorne, N.J. pp. 307–316.
Zhang, L., and Einstein, H.H. 1998. End bearing resistance of
drilled shafts in rock. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenviron-
mental Engineering, 124(7): 574–584. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)
1090-0241(1998)124:7(574).
Zhang, L., and Xu, J. 2009. Axial load transfer behavior of rock
socketed shafts. In Contemporary Topics in Deep Foundations,
Selected Papers from the 2009 International Foundation Con-
gress and Equipment Expo, Orlando, Fla., 15–19 March 2009.
Geotechnical Special Publication No. 185. Edited by M. Iskan-
der, D.F. Laefer, and M.H. Hussein. American Society for Civil
Engineers, Reston, Va. pp. 175–182. doi:10.1061/41021(335)22.
Published by NRC Research Press