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

net/publication/254541973

Evaluation of Capacity of Rock Foundation Sockets

Article · January 2005

CITATIONS READS
7 1,424

3 authors, including:

Widjojo Prakoso Sami Oguzhan Akbas

University of Indonesia Gazi University
37 PUBLICATIONS   212 CITATIONS    53 PUBLICATIONS   306 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE 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 Sami Oguzhan Akbas on 01 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ARMA/USRMS 05-767

Evaluation of Capacity of Rock Foundation Sockets

Kulhawy, Fred H.
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA
Prakoso, Widjojo A.
University of Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia
Akbas, Sami O.
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA
Copyright 2005, ARMA, American Rock Mechanics Association

This paper was prepared for presentation at Alaska Rocks 2005, The 40th U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics (USRMS): Rock Mechanics for Energy, Mineral and Infrastructure
Development in the Northern Regions, held in Anchorage, Alaska, June 25-29, 2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by a USRMS Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted earlier by the author(s). Contents of the paper,
as presented, have not been reviewed by ARMA/USRMS and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of USRMS,
ARMA, their officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of ARMA is prohibited.
Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgement of where
and by whom the paper was presented.

ABSTRACT: Drilled foundations often are socketed into rock to increase the foundation capacity. However, procedures to
quantify the side resistance capacity of sockets vary considerably. This paper reviews many of the proposed methods to predict
this capacity and critically assesses them. One method then is recommended, based on the currently available data. Statistics for
this method are presented, and design implications are noted.

1. INTRODUCTION
Drilled shafts are a common foundation selection
for all types of structures. When the structure loads
are relatively large or where the soil is of relatively
poor quality, the shafts often are drilled through the
soil to the underlying rock mass. These shafts then
could be founded or seated on the surface of the
rock mass, or they could be drilled into the rock
mass to create a rock socket, as shown in Figure 1.
In this figure, the load or stress applied at the butt is
supported by the socket through both tip and side
resistances, assuming for illustration that the soil is
non-contributory. How the loads are distributed
between the tip and side is a function of the loading
Fig. 1. Illustrative rock socket.
magnitude, problem geometry, elastic properties of
the rock mass and shaft concrete, ultimate bearing
The paper concludes with final recommendations
capacity of the tip, and the side resistance of the
for use in design.
socket. A complete discussion of all of these issues
is well beyond the scope of this paper. Herein the 2. EARLY APPROACHES
focus is on the socket side resistance.
In early literature on the subject, the socket side
In this paper, the basics of socket side resistance are resistance was commonly called the socket bond or
described first. Then early approaches to evaluating the bond stress, using the common analogy of bond
sockets are discussed briefly. Following then are between concrete and reinforcing bars. This analogy
discussions of pertinent papers that trace the evolu- is useful conceptually, but it is not strictly correct
tion of methods to evaluate socket side resistance, and it negatively influenced some later develop-
leading to the most current thoughts on the subject. ments, as will be discussed.
Examination of earlier foundations texts indicates a
relative lack of sophistication in addressing rock
socket design, although it is frequently mentioned
that load tests can and should be done because of
this lack of knowledge.
In the 1961 Chellis text [1], there is an illustration
and discussion of a test method for rock bond. But
he also states that, on work designed and built to
date, a bond stress of 200 psi (1.38 MN/m2) has
been used on the socket wall. Considering his cal-
culation example, this value likely comes from 0.05
times f 'c, for 4,000 psi (27.6 MN/m2) concrete.
In his 1962 text, Teng [2] differentiates between
hard and soft rocks. In hard rock, he suggests taking
the side resistance as the bond value between con- Fig. 2. Generalized load-displacement behavior [5, 6]
crete and reinforcing bars. In soft rock, he says the
side resistance "is governed by the shear strength of regions correspond to initial linear elastic behavior,
the rock which must be determined by test of rock followed by bond breakage and progressive slip,
samples". and then full frictional slip with dilation. The same
general pattern holds for both compression and up-
In their 1972 text, Woodward, et al. [3] stress that lift tests, although the relative sizes and importance
strength reduction factors (α) have not been devel- of the regions differ somewhat. In all cases, the
oped for rock and the side resistance can only be occurrence of a clearly defined peak to the curve is
determined from load tests. They also note, from a infrequent.
sampling of typical design practice, that the side
resistance is seldom more than 1/5 or less than 1/10 With nonlinear curves such as these, there is always
the allowable tip resistance. Values they tabulated a major question about how to define the foundation
from practice were ≤ 7.5 tsf (104 psi or 720 kN/m2), "capacity" for subsequent design use. Examination
except in one locale where values to 250 psi (1.72 of the literature [5] reveals at least 41 different
MN/m2) were used. They further noted that, in some methods for the interpretation of axial load tests,
areas of practice, the side resistance in relatively including displacement limits (absolute and percent
strong and sound rock is considered to be controlled of diameter), graphical constructions, and mathema-
by the strength of the shaft concrete, using 0.04 to tical functions. These also reflect a mix of what
0.05 f 'c but not exceeding 200 psi (1.38 MN/m2). actually are both ultimate limit state and service-
ability limit state criteria.
In their 1974 text, Peck, et al. [4] do not discuss the
design of rock sockets. Our detailed studies [5, 7, and many others] indicate
that a consistent and reasonable method for defining
It is clear that, as of the mid-1970s, our collective the "interpreted failure load" is to use QL2, which is
knowledge of the behavior of rock sockets was lim- the load at L2. The L1 and L2 points are determined
ited, and our ability to predict the side resistance graphically from a plot at a scale similar to that of
was rudimentary. Figure 2. [Note that L1 represents the "elastic
limit".] The QL2 value always follows the nonlin-
3. GENERALIZED SOCKET BEHAVIOR
earity, sometimes represents the actual curve peak
Figure 2 depicts the generalized load-displacement where there is little or no dilation, and can be evalu-
behavior of drilled shafts under axial load. This ated from virtually all quality test data.
general pattern holds in both soil [5] and rock [6],
Once the "capacity" is defined, then the side resis-
as shown in many load tests that were carefully con-
tance (QsL2) can be evaluated from measurements
ducted and well-documented. There is essentially a
that separate the tip and side resistances in compres-
linear response from the origin to L1, followed by a
sion tests of full sockets. In uplift tests, and in
nonlinear transition region to L2, after which there
compression tests with a void or frangible material
is a final linear region. In rock masses, these
beneath the tip (i.e., shear tests), the evaluation is
straightforward and only requires consideration of
the shaft weight.
Using this side resistance and the actual as-built
socket side area (As), the average or unit side resis-
tance (f) can be computed as follows:
f = QsL2 / As (1)
This value then is most often compared to one of
the simpler rock material indices, such as the uniax-
ial compressive strength (qu). The qu tests should
all be done in accordance with proper test proce-
dures, such as those given by ASTM, ISRM , or
others. Estimating qu from simpler tests such as
point load index, Schmidt hammer, or others, is
inappropriate. Strictly speaking, any comparison
also should be with the average qu over the depth of
the socket.
Most of the studies conducted to date have not met
these criteria, based on the documentation presented
or stated. This statement is not intended to fault the
authors, who undoubtedly presented the best infor-
mation they could. It is intended to point out that
we are frequently dealing with imperfect and some-
times poor data, and therefore our expectations
should be tempered acccordingly.
4. SOCKET SIDE RESISTANCE MODELS
Beginning in the mid-1970s, a number of models
were proposed to compute the socket side resis-
tance. To compare these models, they have been re-
written in consistent form as follows:
f / pa = C (qu / pa)n (2)
in which pa = atmospheric pressure in the desired
units (1 atm = 1.058 tsf = 101.3 kN/m2 = 14.7 psi)
to make the relationships dimensionless, C = con-
stant, and n = exponent.
4.1. Rosenberg and Journeaux, 1976
Perhaps the first relationship for socket side resis-
tance was given by Rosenberg and Journeaux [8].
They presented a relationship between f and qu that
can be approximated by:
f / pa = 1.09 (qu / pa)0.52 (3)
Unfortunately, their plot was based on only six data
points, with qu / pa between 5 and 340. Of these six
points, two were not conducted to failure, and two
only had estimated qu values. There were no appa-
rent consistencies in evaluating the capacity and qu.
4.2. Horvath, 1978
The first systematic attempt to assess the socket side
resistance was by Horvath [9] and was subsequently
described by Horvath and Kenney [10]. Their data-
base included large and small scale drilled shafts in
the field, rock anchors in the field, and small scale
shafts in the laboratory, with multiple tests at some
sites. Of the 87 field tests reported [10], 75 were in
sedimentary rock (with 50 in the shale family).
Apparently, the capacity was defined as the maxi-
mum applied test load, while qu was reported as
given in the original source or was estimated. They
also suggested that the weaker of the concrete or
rock would control the side resistance, so therefore
their property range was for the lesser of f 'c / pa or
qu / pa between 1 and 400. It should be noted that
no other researcher has adopted this convention.
All others use qu /pa. Horvath [9] plotted his data as
shown in Figure 3.
Fig. 3. Bond strength for shafts and anchors from Horvath [9]
The regression equation given by Horvath [9] for all
of his data is as follows (f = τbond):
f / pa = 1.04 (lesser of f'c / pa or qu / pa)0.5 (4)
For larger field scale drilled shafts (B > 400 mm),
Horvath and Kenney [10] gave the following:
f / pa = 0.65 to 0.78 (lesser of f'c / pa or qu / pa)0.5(5)
and then recommended using C = 0.65.
Horvath, et al. [11] subsequently discussed the
improvement of shaft capacity by roughening the
socket. This technique can increase the capacity
significantly in softer rock. However, a detailed
discussion on quantifying roughness effects is
beyond the scope of this paper.
4.3. Meigh and Wolski, 1979
Meigh and Wolski [12] reviewed the Rosenberg and
Journeaux and the Horvath and Kenney relation-
ships, and they compared them to some 13 drilled
shaft tests. Of these 13 tests, several were used in
the prior relationships, and about half were consid-
ered to have "uncertain" data. The range of qu / pa
was from 2 to 200. They suggested a lower bound
for weak rock (qu / pa = 7 to 125) that can be ap-
proximated as follows:
f / pa = 0.55 (qu / pa)0.6 (6)
For qu / pa between 4 and 7, they recommended a
constant lower bound at f = 0.25 qu.
4.4. Williams, et al., 1980
Williams, et al. [13] focused on some 18 field load
tests they conducted at four sites in Melbourne
mudstone. They supplemented their data with
results of some 18 tests by others at several sites in
the same mudstone and in Sydney shale. The range
of qu / pa was from 5 to 800. For their tests, they
achieved peak values of side resistance from the
load-displacement curves. However, the qu values
were determined from correlations between the in-
situ water content and the drained strength para-
meters.
The resulting relationship they developed can be
approximated by:
f / pa = 1.84 (qu / pa)0.37 (7)
They also addressed many issues of socket rough- Fig. 4. Side resistance from Rowe and Armitage [14]
ness.
They also conducted a more sophisticated
4.5. Rowe and Armitage, 1984 evaluation of 12 of the field load tests, with the
Another comprehensive summary was done by results shown in Figure 5. Basically these analyses
Rowe and Armitage [14, 15], with more than 80 confirmed Eq. (8) for the suggested correlation and
tests from over 20 sites. The range of qu / pa was Eq. (9) for the lower bound.
from over 4 to under 400. Foundation capacity was
largely as defined by the original authors, as was the
rock strength. The resulting data plot is given in
Figure 4, which also shows that a substantial per-
centage of the tests did not reach failure. From
these data, the following suggested correlation was
given (f = τmax):
f / pa = 1.42 (qu / pa)0.50 (8)
They further suggested a higher value of C for
roughened sockets.
4.6. Carter and Kulhawy, 1988
Carter and Kulhawy [6, 16, 17] examined the Rowe
and Armitage data further and noted that there is an
approximate lower bound to these data that is given
conveniently by:
f / pa = 0.63 (qu / pa)0.50 (9)
Fig. 5. Load test evaluations by Carter and Kulhawy [6, 17]
After examination of these data, they also made two
important design check recommendations. First,
values of f in excess of 0.15 qu, over the full range
of expected values, should be used only when they
are demonstrated to be reasonable by a load test,
local experience, or adequate in-situ testing. And
second, after obtaining the design value of f, typi-
cally from Eq. (8), and applying a factor of safety to
this value, a check should be made against the con-
crete bond value of 0.05 f 'c. The lower value should
be used unless load test data show otherwise.

4.7. Reese and O'Neill, 1988 and 1999

Reese and O'Neill [18] used some of the relation-
ships described previously and have suggested
design recommendations based on them for geo-
materials they define as rock, with qu / pa > 17.
For qu / pa > 19, they recommend the Horvath and
Kenney Eq. (8) with C = 0.65. This recommenda-
tion is very conservative since others have shown
this to be a lower bound value.
For qu / pa from 17 to 19, they recommend taking
the Carter and Kulhawy design check of f versus
0.15 qu and turning it into a design recommendation
to evaluate f = 0.15 qu. This unintended usage
actually gives values that are even lower than the Fig. 6. Side resistances by Kulhawy and Phoon [20]
lower bound by Meigh and Wolski.
In 1999, O'Neill and Reese [19] revised the above These results were the first to demonstrate the im-
recommendations. Rock is now defined by qu / pa > portance of eliminating site bias and were among
50, and they still recommend the Horvath and the few to use regression analyses for ther data.
Kenney Eq. (8) with C = 0.65. The resulting interpretation of the data suggested
using the Rowe and Armitage Eq. (8), which is
appropriate since these data dominate.
4.8. Kulhawy and Phoon, 1993
Kulhawy and Phoon [20] used the database devel- 4.9. Zhang and Einstein, 1998, 1999
oped by Rowe and Armitage [14], as described pre- Zhang and Einstein [23, 24] also looked at the
viously, and a database for drilled shafts in Florida available data and proposed relationships. Their
limerocks developed by Bloomquist and Townsend initial assessment [23] suggested the following:
[21] and McVay et al. [22]. For the Florida data, f / pa = 1.26 (qu / pa)0.50 (10)
there were 47 tests from 23 sites. These data had
essentially the same limitations as the other data. However, their subsequent assessment [24] gave the
same as the Carter and Kulhawy lower bound, given
Figure 6 shows these integrated results, along with by Eq. (9), with C = 0.63, which is 1/2 Eq. (10).
those for shafts in clay. Figure 6a shows all of the
data, and Figure 6b shows the data averaged per 4.10. Prakoso, 2002
site. The second case essentially eliminates the site More recently, Prakoso [25] re-examined the data
bias caused by multiple tests at one site. In both of available and attempted to evaluate them in a more
these figures, there are regression lines shown (for consistent manner. First, the only data used were
a, r2 = 0.46 and standard deviation = 0.25, and for b, those that had load-displacement curves to failure
r2 = 0.71 and standard deviation = 0.17). so that the "interpreted failure load" could be deter-
mined for all the data. Therefore, at least all the
load test "capacities" were evaluated in a consistent
manner. However, it was not possible to re- 1
evaluate the qu data to ensure consistency in test
conduct and averaging over the shaft depth.

Side Resistance Factor, αr

The results were presented in terms of the side 0.1
0
resistance factor (αr), which is given by:
αr = qL2 / qu = f / qu (11)
0
0.01
in which qL2 is the stress at L2. To link the prior
formats with this one, note that the equations for
these formats are given by: log10 αr = 0.24 - 0.67 log10(qu / pa)
0.001
0 m = 52, r2 = 0.69, S.D. = 0.30
log10 αr = A - B log10 (qu / pa) (12) I. Intrusive S. Clastic (coarse)
I. Extrusive S. Chemical
or αr = 10A (qu / pa)-B (13) I. Pyroclastic
S. Clastic (fine)
M. Non-Foliated
Man-Made

or f / pa = 10A (qu / pa)B (14) 0.0001

0
1 10 100 1000 10000
or log10 (f / pa) = A + B log10 (qu / pa) (15)
Uniaxial Compressive Strength, qu / pa
Figure 7 shows the results for all of the data, includ-
Fig. 8. αr vs. qu for all data, averaged per site [25]
ing multiple tests at the same site and results for (a)
shafts in natural and man-made rocks, (b) grouted
1
piles in natural rocks, and (c) rock anchors in natu-
ral rocks. The regression line is given by:
f / pa = 2.00 (qu / pa)0.69 (16)
Side Resistance Factor, αr

0
0.1
Figure 8 shows the results of the data averaged per
test site. The regression line corresponds to:
f / pa = 1.74 (qu / pa)0.67 (17) 0
0.01

Careful examination of these results indicates that

log10 αr = - 0.01 - 0.50 log10(qu / pa)
the rock anchor data are clustered in the lower por- m = 41, r2 = 0.51, S.D. = 0.31
tions of the figure, especially in the lower right. 0.001
0 I. Intrusive S. Clastic (coarse)
Setting these data aside gives the results for drilled I. Extrusive
I. Pyroclastic
S. Chemical
M. Non-Foliated
shafts and grouted piles as shown in Figure 9 by the S. Clastic (fine) Man-Made
Regression Line for Data with Rock Anchors
0.0001
0
1 1 10 100 1000 10000

Uniaxial Compressive Strength, qu / pa

Fig. 9. αr vs. qu for drilled shafts and grouted piles, averaged

Side Resistance Factor, αr

0
0.1
per site [25]

solid line. The regression line corresponds to:

0
0.01
f / pa = 0.98 (qu / pa)0.50 (18)
which can be conveniently rounded to
log10 αr = 0.30 - 0.69 log10(qu / pa)
0.001
0 m = 104, r2 = 0.72, S.D. = 0.29 f / pa = (qu / pa)0.50 (19)
I. Intrusive S. Clastic (coarse)
I. Extrusive S. Chemical This value is on the order of about 70% of the value
I. Pyroclastic M. Non-Foliated
S. Clastic (fine) Man-Made from Eq. (8), which was the recommended value
0.0001
0 when the capacity definitions were unknown or un-
1 10 100 1000 10000
controlled. Now, when the "interpreted failure load"
Uniaxial Compressive Strength, qu / pa is given at L2, Eq. (19) is the more appropriate one
to use. The lower bound C value of 0.63 that was
Fig. 7. αr vs. qu for all data [25]
cited previously actually represents the lower bound
for 90% of the data in Figure 9. To capture 100%
of the data points, the absolute lower bound would
be about 0.25.
It should be noted in Figure 9 that the regression is
altered significantly when the rock anchor data are
included. Clearly these data constitute a separate
population.
5. LOCALIZED RELATIONSHIPS
In addition to the general relationships described
above, there have been a number of studies that
have focused exclusively on localized rock units,
such as the chalks of southern England and the
limerocks of Florida. These studies are of local
importance and are too specialized to be discussed
herein. When these are addressed, they should be
considered within the broad framework described
above.
6. ROCK SOCKET SIDE RESISTANCE AND
CONCRETE BOND STENGTH
Carter and Kulhawy [6] made a design check re-
commendation to compare the allowable side resis-
tance of the rock socket (f / FS) to the concrete
bond strength, given by 0.05 f 'c. The lower value
would control, unless field testing showed other-
wise. By using typical safety factors of 2 and 3, the
ultimate side resistance can be compared with the
factored concrete bond strength, as given in Figure
10. Typical ranges of concrete strength, f 'c / pa =
200 - 400, were used for comparison.
As can be seen, most side resistances are below the
limiting concrete values. The percentages are given
in Table 1, which shows that there are more cases of
sockets exceeding the concrete bond strength with
100
I. Intrusive
Side Resistance, f / pa
I. Extrusive
80 I. Pyroclastic
S. Clastic (fine)
60 0.05 FSlim (fc' / pa)
40 fc' / pa = 400
20 fc' / pa = 200
0 confined in a socket and reinforced than when it is
1 10
Uniaxial Compressive Strength, qu / pa
Fig. 10. Socket side resistance versus concrete bond strength
lower concrete strength and factor of safety. It must
be noted that all of these cases showed acceptable
behavior when the concrete bond strength was
exceeded. Clearly the concrete behaves better when
it is confined in a socket and reinforced than when it
is unconfined and unreinforced.
Table 1. Socket side resistance exceeding concrete bond
concrete % socket fallow > 0.05 f 'c
f 'c / pa FSlim = 2 FSlim = 3
200 16 4
400 2 1
7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The behavior of normal rock sockets for drilled
shafts has been reviewed, and a survey has been
conducted of various proposals to estimate the
socket side resistance. In general, the side resis-
tance can be estimated from the following:
f / pa = C (qu / pa)n (2)
in which C = constant and n = exponent.
The databases used by different authors have varied
widely, as have the controls on the data type and
quality. However, for all practical purposes, nearly
all authors have shown that n = 0.50. On the other
hand, values of C have varied depending on the
author and database. The most recent evaluation,
apparently the only one in which all the load test
data were interpreted in the same manner, gave a
mean value of C equal to 0.98, which is convenient-
ly rounded to 1.0. Therefore, the recommended
equation for predicting the side resistance of normal
rock sockets for drilled shafts is as follows:
f / pa = (qu / pa)0.50 (19)
For a lower bound to 90% of the data, the value of
S. Clastic (coarse) C is equal to 0.63. For roughened sockets, C will be
S. Chemical
M. Non-Foliated larger than 1, but this evaluation is beyond the
Man-Made
scope of this paper.
FSlim = 3
Finally, the data show that, in a small percentage of
2
the cases, the allowable socket side resistance is
3 larger than the concrete bond strength. This point
2 illustrates that the concrete behaves better when it is
100 1000 10000 unconfined and unreinforced.
REFERENCES 17. Kulhawy, F.H. & J.P. Carter. 1992. Socketed
foundations in rock masses. In Engineering in Rock
1. Chellis, R.D. 1961. Pile Foundations. 2nd ed. New Masses, ed. F.G. Bell, 509-529. Oxford: Butterworth-
York: McGraw-Hill. Heinemann.
2. Teng, W.C. 1962. Foundation Design. Englewood 18. Reese, L.C. & M.W. O'Neill. 1988. Drilled shafts:
Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. construction procedures and design methods. Report
3. Woodward, R.J., Jr., W.S. Gardner & D.M. Greer. FHWA-HI-88-042. McLean: Federal Highway
1972. Drilled Pier Foundations. New York: McGraw- Administration.
Hill. 19. O'Neill, M.W. and L.C.Reese. 1999. Drilled shafts:
4. Peck, R.B., W.E. Hanson & T.H. Thornburn. 1974. construction procedures and design methods. Report
Foundation Engineering. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley. FHWA-IF-99-025. McLean: Federal Highway
Administration.
5. Hirany, A. & F.H. Kulhawy. 1988. Conduct &
interpretation of load tests on drilled shafts. Report EL- 20. Kulhawy, F.H. & K.K. Phoon. 1993. Drilled shaft side
5915. Palo Alto: Electric Power Research Institute. resistance in clay soil to rock. In Design and
Performance of Deep Foundations: Piles and Piers in
6. Carter, J.P. & F.H. Kulhawy. 1988. Analysis and Soil and Soft Rock (GSP 38), ed. P.P. Nelson, T.D.
design of drilled shaft foundations socketed into rock. Smith & E.C. Clukey, 172-183. New York: ASCE.
Report EL-5918. Palo Alto: Electric Power Research
Institute. 21. Bloomquist, D. & F.C. Townsend. 1991. Development
of insitu equipment for capacity determinations of deep
7. Hirany, A. & F.H. Kulhawy. 2002. On the foundations in Florida limestone. Report to Florida
interpretation of drilled foundation load tests. In Deep Dept. of Transportation. Gainesville: University of
Foundations 2002 (GSP116), ed. M.W. O'Neill & F.C. Florida.
Townsend, 1018-1028. Reston: ASCE.
22. McVay, M.C., F.C. Townsend & R.C. Williams. 1992.
8. Rosenberg, P. & N.L. Journeaux. 1976. Friction and Design of socketed drilled shafts in limestone. J.
end bearing tests on bedrock for high capacity socket Geotech. Eng.(ASCE). 118(10):1626-1637.
design. Canadian Geotech. J. 13(3): 324-333.
23. Zhang, L. & H.H. Einstein. 1998. End bearing capacity
9. Horvath, R.G. 1978. Field load test data on concrete-to- of drilled shafts in rock. J. Geotech. Eng.(ASCE).
rock bond strength for drilled pier foundations. 124(7):574-584.
Publication 78-07, Toronto: Univ. of Toronto.
24. Zhang, L. & H.H. Einstein. 1999. Closure to "end
10. Horvath, R.G. & T.C. Kenney. 1979. Shaft resistance bearing capacity of drilled shafts in rock". J. Geotech.
of rock-socketed drilled piers. In Symposium on Deep Eng.(ASCE). 125(12):1109-1110.
Foundations, Atlanta, Oct. 1979, ed. F.M. Fuller, 182-
214. New York: ASCE. 25. Prakoso, W.A. 2002. Reliability-based design of
foundations in rock masses. PhD Dissertation. Ithaca:
11. Horvath, R.G., T.C. Kenney & P. Kozicki. 1983. Cornell University.
Methods of improving the performance of drilled piers
in weak rock. Canadian Geotech. J. 20(4): 758-772.
12. Meigh, A.C. & W. Wolski. 1979. Design parameters
for weak rock. In Proceedings, 7th European
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Brighton, Sep. 1979, 5: 59-79. London:
British Geotechnical Society.
13. Williams, A.F., I.W. Johnston & I.B. Donald. 1980.
Design of socketed piles in weak rock. In Structural
Foundations on Rock, ed. P.J.N. Pells, 327-347.
Rotterdam: Balkema.
14. Rowe, R.K. & H.H. Armitage. 1984. Design of piles
socketed into weak rock. Report GEOT-11-84. London:
Univ. of Western Ontario.
15. Rowe, R.K. & H.H. Armitage. 1987. A design method
for drilled piers in soft rock. Canadian Geotech. J.
24(1): 126-142.
16. Kulhawy, F.H. & J.P. Carter. 1992. Settlement and
bearing capacity of foundations on rock masses. In
Engineering in Rock Masses, ed. F.G. Bell, 231-245.
Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

View publication stats