Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Evaluation of Capacity of Rock Foundation Sockets KULHAWY AND PRAKOSO PDF
Evaluation of Capacity of Rock Foundation Sockets KULHAWY AND PRAKOSO PDF
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
magnitude, problem geometry, elastic properties of
the rock mass and shaft concrete, ultimate bearing
capacity of the tip, and the side resistance of the
socket. A complete discussion of all of these issues
is well beyond the scope of this paper. Herein the
focus is on the socket side resistance.
In this paper, the basics of socket side resistance are
described first. Then early approaches to evaluating
sockets are discussed briefly. Following then are
discussions of pertinent papers that trace the evolution of methods to evaluate socket side resistance,
leading to the most current thoughts on the subject.
(1)
(2)
(3)
Fig. 3. Bond strength for shafts and anchors from Horvath [9]
(4)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
Fig. 5. Load test evaluations by Carter and Kulhawy [6, 17]
These results were the first to demonstrate the importance of eliminating site bias and were among
the few to use regression analyses for ther data.
The resulting interpretation of the data suggested
using the Rowe and Armitage Eq. (8), which is
appropriate since these data dominate.
4.9. Zhang and Einstein, 1998, 1999
Zhang and Einstein [23, 24] also looked at the
available data and proposed relationships. Their
initial assessment [23] suggested the following:
f / pa = 1.26 (qu / pa)0.50
(10)
manner. However, it was not possible to reevaluate the qu data to ensure consistency in test
conduct and averaging over the shaft depth.
(11)
(12)
or
(13)
or
(14)
or
(15)
Figure 7 shows the results for all of the data, including multiple tests at the same site and results for (a)
shafts in natural and man-made rocks, (b) grouted
piles in natural rocks, and (c) rock anchors in natural rocks. The regression line is given by:
f / pa = 2.00 (qu / pa)0.69
(16)
(17)
r = qL2 / qu = f / qu
0.1
0
0
0.01
0.001
0
I. Intrusive
I. Extrusive
I. Pyroclastic
S. Clastic (fine)
S. Clastic (coarse)
S. Chemical
M. Non-Foliated
Man-Made
0.0001
0
1
10
100
1000
10000
0
0.1
0
0.01
log10 r = - 0.01 - 0.50 log10(qu / pa)
m = 41, r2 = 0.51, S.D. = 0.31
0.001
0
I. Intrusive
S. Clastic (coarse)
I. Extrusive
S. Chemical
I. Pyroclastic
M. Non-Foliated
S. Clastic (fine)
Man-Made
Regression Line for Data with Rock Anchors
0.0001
0
1
10
100
1000
10000
0
0.1
0.001
0
I. Intrusive
I. Extrusive
I. Pyroclastic
S. Clastic (fine)
f / pa = (qu / pa)0.50
S. Clastic (coarse)
S. Chemical
M. Non-Foliated
Man-Made
0.0001
0
1
10
100
1000
(18)
10000
(19)
Side Resistance, f / pa
80
60
S. Clastic (coarse)
S. Chemical
M. Non-Foliated
Man-Made
40
FSlim = 3
fc' / pa = 400
2
20
3
fc' / pa = 200
0
1
10
100
concrete
f 'c / pa
200
400
4
1
(2)
(19)
100
I. Intrusive
I. Extrusive
I. Pyroclastic
S. Clastic (fine)
1000
10000
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Horvath, R.G. 1978. Field load test data on concrete-torock bond strength for drilled pier foundations.
Publication 78-07, Toronto: Univ. of Toronto.