See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/240641022

Issues in Evaluating Capacity of Socketed Rock Foundations

Article · January 2008

CITATIONS READS
5 193

2 authors, including:

Widjojo Prakoso
University of Indonesia
37 PUBLICATIONS   208 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Sunda Strait Bridge View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Widjojo Prakoso on 07 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 th
The 12 International Conference of
International Association for Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics (IACMAG)
1-6 October, 2008
Goa, India

Issues in Evaluating Capacity of Socketed Rock Foundations

F. H. Kulhawy
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, U.S.A.

W. A. Prakoso
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia

Keywords: foundations, rock masses, rock properties, sockets, bearing capacity

ABSTRACT: This extended abstract highlights key issues made by the first author in an invited Theme Paper
presentation at the 12th IACMAG. It summarizes extensive work by the authors in a series of recent papers,
given in the reference list, that address the capacity and behavior of socketed rock foundations. Illustrative points
are noted and pertinent references are cited that elucidate these points further. Readers need to consult these
works for the complete details.

1 Introduction
Drilled shafts (bored piles) are a common foundation option when the structure loads are large or where the soil is
of relatively poor quality. The shafts are drilled through the soil to the underlying rock mass, where they are either
founded on the rock mass surface or are drilled into the rock mass to form a socket, as shown in Fig. 1. The
applied butt stress is supported by the socket through both tip and side resistances, assuming that the soil is
relatively non-contributory. How the loads are distributed between the tip and side is a function of the loading
magnitude, problem geometry, properties of the rock mass and shaft concrete, ultimate bearing capacity of the
tip, side resistance of the socket, and butt displacement. Discussion of all of these issues is beyond the scope of
this paper. Herein, the basics of socket capacity are addressed, including rock mass property issues, methods to
calculate the socket capacity, and general observations on construction and field acceptance criteria.

Figure 1. Illustrative rock socket.

2 Rock mass engineering properties

The capacity and displacement of foundations in rock are functions of the rock mass strength and modulus, which
often are estimated, at least partially, from the intact rock strength and modulus, which in turn often are estimated
from the intact rock index properties. However, several key issues need to be addressed during property
evaluation, including testing of “standard” size samples, testing at field water content, and assessing the effect of
weathering on the test properties. These factors are discussed in detail by Kulhawy and Prakoso (2007), and the
variability of these properties is discussed by Kulhawy and Prakoso (2003) and Prakoso and Kulhawy (2004a). If
these testing issues are not addressed properly, then the subsequent capacity predictions

3297
 are likely to be in error.

3 Rock socket capacity

Socket capacity is a function of the tip resistance (Qt), side resistance (Qs), and foundation weight (W). Unfortu-
nately, in many design cases, only limited information is available on the rock mass properties and in-situ condi-
tions, and consequently the use of theoretical solutions is difficult. More often, the only rock strength property
available is the intact rock uniaxial compressive strength (qu), and therefore the foundation resistances typically
are related to qu.

3.1 Side resistance

The side resistance of socketed shafts in rock involves a complex interaction among the adhesion, friction,
dilatancy, and normal stress effects along the socket wall. These effects are difficult to assess, and therefore they
often are lumped into an average unit side resistance (f), which has been reviewed in detailed by Kulhawy and
Prakoso (2007) and Kulhawy et al. (2005). The most recent data suggest the following mean relationship:
0.50
f / pa = (qu / pa) (1)

These data also suggest that the side resistance can be substantially larger than the conventional concrete bond
strength, primarily bacause of confinement and axial reinforcement.

3.2 Tip resistance

Tip resistance (Qt) is a basic bearing capacity problem. Many useful models have been suggested for Qt, but they
all require detailed geologic characterization before they can be used properly. When these data are not
available, simple empirical models may be employed. These are all described in detail by Kulhawy and Prakoso
(2007) and Prakoso and Kulhawy (2004b, 2006).

4 Construction and field acceptance criteria

When constructing a rock socket, it is necessary to ensure that the rock mass is of sufficient quality to carry the
load without adverse behavior. To achieve this goal, it is common to set exploration and/or construction criteria
that must be met. First, there must be sufficient exploration data to define the rock materials present and to
delineate the rock mass structure and discontinuities. Second, the socket must be constructed to give a nominally
"clean" socket. Third is the issue of socket use and design, and related acceptance criteria. If "tip resistance only"
sockets are designed, then there is no rationale to prescribe acceptance criteria for the rock along the socket
sides. If "side resistance only" sockets are designed, then there is no rationale to prescribe acceptance criteria for
the rock quality beneath the socket tips. However, if both side and tip resistances are included in the design, then
acceptance criteria for both are appropriate.

5 Concluding comments
Drilled foundations often are socketed into rock to increase the capacity. However, procedures to quantify the
socket side and tip resistance vary considerably. This paper critically assesses available methods and suggests
sound approaches to socket design based on available geologic data, including construction implications. See
Kulhawy and Prakoso (2007) for further details.

6 References
Kulhawy, F.H. & Prakoso, W.A. 2003. "Variability of Rock Index Properties", Soil & Rock America 2003 (Proc. 12th Pan-Am
Conf. Soil Mech. & Geotech. Eng. / 39th US Rock Mech. Symp.), Ed. PJ Culligan, HH Einstein & AJ Whittle, Cambridge
(MA), 2765-2770.
Prakoso, W.A. & Kulhawy, F.H. 2004a. "Variability of Rock Mass Engineering Properties", Proc. 15th Southeast Asian Geotech.
Conf. (1), Ed. S. Sambhandharaksa, DT Bergado & T Boonyatee, Bangkok, 97-100.
Prakoso, W.A. & Kulhawy, F.H. 2004b. "Bearing Capacity of Strip Footings on Jointed Rock Masses", J. Geotech. Eng. (ASCE),
130(12), 1347-1349.
Kulhawy, F.H., Prakoso, W.A. & Akbas, S.O. 2005. "Evaluation of Capacity of Rock Foundation Sockets", Alaska Rocks 2005
(Proc. 40th US Symp. Rock Mech.), Ed. G Chen, S Huang, W Zhou & J Tinucci, Anchorage, Paper 05-767, 8 p. (on CD)
Prakoso, W.A. & Kulhawy, F.H. 2006. "Capacity of Foundations on Discontinuous Rock", Golden Rocks 2006 (Proc. 41st US
Symp. Rock Mech.), Ed. DP Yale, SC Holtz, C Breeds & U Ozbay, Golden, Paper 06-972, 7 p. (on CD)
Kulhawy, F.H. & Prakoso, W.A. 2007. "Issues in Evaluating Capacity of Rock Socket Foundations", Proc. 16th Southeast Asian
Geotech. Conf., Ed. K Yee, TK Ooi, WH Ting & SF Chan, Kuala Lumpur, 51-61.

3298

View publication stats