SHAFT v2012 – Technical Manual

A Program for the Study

of Drilled Shafts
under Axial Loads

by

Lymon C. Reese
Shin Tower Wang
Jose A. Arrellaga
Luis Vasquez

for

ENSOFT, INC.
3003 W. Howard Lane
Austin, Texas 78728
United States of America

(Release Date: November 2012)

 ii

SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT

IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please read the terms of the following license

agreement carefully. You signify acceptance of the terms of this
Agreement by usage of the software.

This software is licensed only to the user (company or individual) whose

name is registered with ENSOFT, INC., or to users at the registered
location, on only one computer at a time for a single user license or on as
many simultaneous users as number of licenses purchased for a site
network license. Additional installations of the software may be made as
desired by the user, but installations will only run in demonstration mode
unless a hardware lock is present in the computer in use or a license
available in the local network.

The user may copy the program or download from the Ensoft website on
the internet ([Link]). The user may not loan, rent, lease, or
transfer the software license to any other person, company, or office
location. This software and documentation are copyrighted materials
and should be treated like any other copyrighted material (i.g. a book or
musical recording). This software is protected by the United States
Copyright Law and International Copyright Treaty.

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

 iii

COPYRIGHT, WARRANTY & DISCLAIMER

Copyright 1987 2012 by ENSOFT, INC.
All rights reserved.

Printed in the Unites States of America. Except as permitted under the

United States Copyright Act of 1976, no part of this publication may be
reproduced, translated, or distributed without the prior written approval
of ENSOFT, INC.

Although the program has been used with apparent success in many
analyses, new information is being developed and new or updated
versions may be written from time to time. All users are requested to
inform ENSOFT, INC. immediately of any possible errors that are found in
the coding of our software. As modifications, updates, or new versions
are produced, notices will be sent to subscribed users that keep their
address current on ENSOFT, INC.’s files.

No warranty, expressed or implied, is offered as to the accuracy of results

from ENSOFT, INC.’s software products. The software products should
not be used for design unless caution is exercised in interpreting the
results and independent calculations are available to verify the general
correctness of the results. Users are assumed to be knowledgeable of
the information in the printed documentation that are distributed with
the digital media. Users are assumed to recognize that the input
parameters, eg., soil and rock properties, shaft length, diameter of rock
socket, and many others, can have a significant effect on the solution and
must be chosen carefully. Users should have a thorough understanding
of the relevant theoretical criteria (appropriate references are suggested
in the software documentation).

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

 iv

Contents
CHAPTER 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 1
CHAPTER 2. Computation Procedures for Clay..................................................................................2 1
2.1 Side Resistance........................................................................................................................... 2 2
2.2 End Bearing ................................................................................................................................2 6
2.3 Settlement..................................................................................................................................2 8
CHAPTER 3. Computation Procedures for Sand.................................................................................3 1
3.1 Side Resistance........................................................................................................................... 3 2
3.2 End Bearing ................................................................................................................................3 6
3.3 Settlement..................................................................................................................................3 7
CHAPTER 4. Computation Procedures for Clay Shale........................................................................4 1
4.1 General Procedures for Clay Shale ............................................................................................4 2
CHAPTER 5. Computation Procedures for Rock.................................................................................5 1
5.1 General Procedures for Rock .....................................................................................................5 2
CHAPTER 6. Computation Procedures for Non Cohesive IGMs.........................................................6 1
6.1 General Procedures for Gravels, Granular Decomposed Rock, or Granular Glacial Till (Non
Cohesive Intermediate Geomaterials) ...................................................................................................6 2
CHAPTER 7. Computation Procedures for Weak Rock (Cohesive IGM).............................................7 1
7.1 Introduction of Procedures for Weak Rock (Cohesive Intermediate Geomaterials).................7 2
7.2 Design Procedure ....................................................................................................................... 7 2
7.3 Commentary on Direct Load Settlement Simulation Method...................................................7 9
CHAPTER 8. Computation Procedures for Gravelly Sand and Gravel ................................................8 1
8.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 8 2
8.2 Side Resistance........................................................................................................................... 8 2
8.3 End Bearing ................................................................................................................................8 6
8.4 Settlement..................................................................................................................................8 7
CHAPTER 9. Considerations for Factor of Safety and LRFD Designs ..................................................9 1
9.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 9 2
9.2 The Allowable Stress Design (ASD) ............................................................................................9 2
9.3 Load and Resistance Factor Design (The LRFD Method) ...........................................................9 3

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

 v

9.4 Loads addressed by the LRFD specifications..............................................................................9 4

9.5 Resistances addressed by the LRFD specifications ....................................................................9 5
9.6 Comments on the LRFD Design..................................................................................................9 6
List of Technical References.......................................................................................................................... 1

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

 vi

List of Figures
Figure 2.1 Exclusion Zones for Straight Shafts ..........................................................................................2 3
Figure 2.2 Exclusion Zones for Belled Shafts.............................................................................................2 3
Figure 2.3 Correlations between and ..........................................................................................2 5
Figure 2.4 Normalized Curves Showing Load Transfer in Side Resistance versus Settlement for Drilled
Shafts in Clay (From Reese and O’Neill, 1988)...............................................................2 9
Figure 2.5 Normalized Curves Showing Load Transfer in End Bearing versus Settlement for Drilled Shafts
in Clay (From Reese and O’Neill, 1988)........................................................................2 10
Figure 3.1 Plot of Experimental Values of ..............................................................................................3 4
Figure 3.2 Plot fsz with Depth (z) for Values of ......................................................................................3 5
Figure 3.3 Normalized Curves Showing Load Transfer in Side Resistance Versus Settlement for Drilled
Shafts in Cohesionless Soil (From Reese and O’Neill, 1988)..........................................3 8
Figure 3.4 Normalized Curves Showing Load Transfer in End Bearing Versus Settlement for Drilled Shafts
in Cohesionless Soil (From Reese and O’Neill, 1988).....................................................3 9
Figure 5.1 Engineering Classification of Intact rock (After Deere, 1968, as presented by Horvath and
Kenney, 1979) ................................................................................................................ 5 2
Figure 5.2 Load Settlement Curves for Test Shafts No. 1 and No. 2, Florida Keys ..................................5 3
Figure 5.3 Load Distribution Curves for Test Shafts No. 1 (43.7 ft rock socket) and No. 2 (7.6 ft rock
socket), Florida Keys ......................................................................................................5 4
Figure 5.4 Elastic Settlement Influence Factor as a Function of Embedment Ratio and Modular Ratio
(After Donald, Sloan, and Chiu, 1980)............................................................................5 8
Figure 5.5 Modulus Reduction Ration as a Function of RQD (From Bieniawski, 1984) ...........................5 9
Figure 6.1 Hypothetical load settlement relationship for method of Mayne and Harris........................6 4
Figure 6.2 Potential soil modulus for computing settlement in granular, decomposed rock (Category 3
IGM) ............................................................................................................................... 6 5
Figure 7.1 Factor for smooth Category 1 or 2 IGM’s................................................................................7 5
Figure 7.2 Factor M vs. concrete slump. ..................................................................................................7 6
Figure 7.3 Factor n for smooth sockets for various combinations of parameters...................................7 7
Figure 8.1 Comparison of values for axial load tests in gravelly sands (from Rollins et al, 2005)........8 3
Figure 8.2 Comparison of b values for axial load tests in gravels (from Rollins et al, 2005)...................8 4
Figure 8.3 Comparison of values for load tests in all soil profiles (from Rollins et al, 2005)................8 5
Figure 8.4 Normalized load versus displacement curves for tests in slightly cemented sand and gravelly
sand (from Rollins et al, 2005) .......................................................................................8 8
Figure 8.5 Normalized load versus displacement curves for tests in slightly cemented sand and gravel
(from Rollins et al, 2005)................................................................................................8 8

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

 vii

List of Tables
Table 3.1 Relationship Between N and and (after Gibbs and Holtz, 1957) ....................................3 6
Table 3.2 Recommended values of unit end bearing for cohesionless soil. ............................................3 7
Table 7.1 Estimation of Em/Ei based RQD and nature of joints (Modified after Carter and Kulhawy, 1988)
........................................................................................................................................7 3
Table 7.2 Adjustment of fa for presence of soft seams............................................................................7 5
Table 8.1 Recommended values of unit end bearing for cohesionless soil. ............................................8 6
Table 9.1 Recommended load factors from ASSHTO...............................................................................9 5
Table 9.2 Strength reduction factors recommended by AASHTO ...........................................................9 6

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

CHAPTER 1. Introduction
 CHAPTER 1 – Introduction – 1 2

As noted in the Introduction, this document and the computer program provide methods for the
computation of the capacity of a drilled shaft under axial loading. The computation procedures are based
principally on the FHWA report previously mentioned. Detailed engineering documentation can be found
in the FHWA manual. All the equations that were employed in programming are presented in the
following paragraphs to give the user essential information on how a solution is obtained by the program.

The assumption is made implicitly in the methods of analysis that excellent construction procedures
have been employed. Some factors of importance are that the excavation remained stable and with the
proper geometry, that the rebar was placed properly, that high-slump concrete was used, that the concrete
was placed in an approved manner, that the concrete was placed the same day that the excavation was
completed, and that any slurry that was used was conditioned before placing the concrete. Much
information on construction methods is given in the FHWA manual (Reese and O’Neill, 1988 and
O’Neill and Reese, 1999). Also, a FHWA publication (LCPC, 1986) that was translated from the French
language gives a considerable amount of useful information.

While the methods of analysis that are presented have proved to be useful, the methods are not
perfect by any means. Research continues to be done on the behavior of drilled shafts and improved
methods of analysis are expected to be developed. An appropriate factor of safety must be employed in
order to arrive at a safe working load. The engineer may elect to employ a factor of safety that will lead to
a conservative assessment of capacity if the job is small. A load test to develop design parameters, or to
prove the design, is strongly recommended for a job of any significance.

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

CHAPTER 2. Computation Procedures
for Clay

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

 CHAPTER 2 – Procedures for Clay – 2 2

2.1 Side Resistance

The basic approach in computing the load transfer in side resistance (skin friction) for drilled shafts
in clay is to employ the so called method. The undrained shear strength, , of the clay is found from
appropriate soil tests and the following equation is employed to compute the ultimate value of unit load
transfer at the depth z below the ground surface.

(2.1)

where
= ultimate load transfer in side resistance at depth z,
= undrained shear strength at depth z, and
= empirical factor that can vary with depth z.

The total load Qs in side resistance can then be computed by use of the following equation:

(2.2)

where
= differential area of the perimeter along sides of drilled shaft over the penetration depth,
= depth to top of zone considered for side resistance, and
= depth to bottom of zone considered for side resistance.
2
A limiting value of 3.2 tons/ft (300 kPa) for load transfer in side resistance was measured on a load
test where ideal construction methods were possible and where a relatively rough borehole was made
(Engling and Reese, 1974). Experimental data are missing for load transfer in side resistance in clay
where the clay has an undrained shear strength greater than about 6 tons/ft2 (575 kPa).

Some exclusion zones are usually considered as non-contributing to side resistance on drilled shafts
in cohesive soils, those are shown graphically in Figure 2.1 for straight shafts and Figure 2.2 for belled or
underreamed shafts. For transfers in side resistance some regard must be given to those cases where there
are seasonal changes of the moisture content of the soil. It is conceivable, perhaps likely, that the clay
near the ground surface will shrink away from the drilled shaft so that the load transfer is reduced to zero
in dry weather over the full depth of the seasonal moisture change.

The computer program SHAFT allows the engineer to select the lengths of exclusion zones for the
cases of seasonal moisture changes. In addition, there may also be other instances where the engineer
may wish to deviate from the recommendations in Figure 2.1 and Figure 2.2 due to special circumstances
at a particular site. A drilled shaft that is subjected to a lateral load is an example of such a circumstance;
if the lateral deflection at the groundline is more than a few hundredths of an inch, the portion of the
drilled shaft above the first point of zero deflection should be discounted in terms of side resistance.

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

 CHAPTER 2 – Procedures for Clay – 2 3

5 ft 5 ft

B B

For uplift there is no

B exclusion zone at base

a) Compression b) Tension
Figure 2.1 Exclusion Zones for Straight Shafts

5 ft 5 ft

Side resistance is
B B omitted if upper and
lower zones overlap

For uplift there is

B 2Bb
no side resistance
above bell
Periphery of bell is
non contributing

Bb
a) Compression b) Tension
Figure 2.2 Exclusion Zones for Belled Shafts

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

 CHAPTER 2 – Procedures for Clay – 2 4

The setting of zero values for side resistance for a distance of one diameter above the base or the
portion just above the underream (bell) of the drilled shaft when loaded in compression needs some
explanation. Experimental results, and theory as well, have shown that the lateral stress against the sides
of the shaft is reduced when the base of the drilled shaft moves downward. Downward movement of the
base generates tensile stresses in the soil that are relieved by cracking of the soil and porewater suction is
relieved by inward movement of groundwater. However, if the shaft is loaded in uplift, the bottom length
without skin friction should not be ignored in straight shafts, since those conditions are no longer present
for tension loads.

In shafts that are built with an oversized base (underream or bell) the side resistance shall be
ignored for the periphery of the bell for cases of compression and tension. This bottom portion of a belled
shaft without skin friction is extended by a shaft diameter for a shaft loaded in compression and usually
considered as twice the base diameter for cases of uplift.

Equation (2.1) indicates that the unit load transfer in skin friction at depth z is a function of and of
the undrained shear strength at depth z. It is evident, actually, from the results of the load tests of
instrumented drilled shafts that is not a constant, but that it varies with the magnitude of undrained
shear strength (which usually varies with depth). In the FHWA manual, O’Neill and Reese (1999)
recommend the following formulations for variations of alpha values

for

(2.3)

and

for

(2.4)

where
= atmospheric pressure (14.7 psi, 2116 psf or 101.3 kPa).

In Equation (2.1) the value of is 0.55 for up to = 1.5 (which corresponds to of about 1.5
tsf). If is very low, it is possible that may be greater than 0.55, but higher values should not be taken
unless proven by load test. From = 1.5 the values of reduces linearly to 0.4 when = 3. It
is considered that a cohesive geomaterial is no longer a cohesive soil when exceeds 2.5. Drilled
shafts in such geomaterials should be designed according the cohesive intermediate geomaterial
(Cohesive IGMs) criteria covered in CHAPTER 4 (Computation Procedures for Clay-Shale). However,
data from load tests on hard clays and weak clay shales in the South and Southwest of the United States
have indicated that remains at about 0.40 in such geomaterials up to = 5. The cohesive soil
method can be used in such geomaterials if the factors are confirmed by load tests. Evidence has
shown that values of are the same for loadings in compression or tension.

The values of that are indicated in Equations (2.3) and (2.4) are principally a result of analyses of
a sizeable amount of data from load tests of instrumented drilled shafts. The performance of a special

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

 CHAPTER 2 – Procedures for Clay – 2 5

direct-shear test in the laboratory may be useful in gaining an insight into the nature of (Chuang, 1968;
O’Neill, 1970). Samples of the clay from the construction site can be obtained. A specimen can be fitted
into the lower half of the specimen holder and mortar, with the same water cement ratio as the concrete
that is to be used, can be poured in the upper half of the specimen holder. Moisture from the mortar can
move into the clay and cause a reduction in the shear strength of the clay. There can be a chemical
combination of the cement in the mortar and the clay particles, with a resulting increase in strength. The
minimum value of can be found and the minimum value of shearing resistance frequently occurs
several hundredths of an inch from the interface. Testing of this nature, in combination with a field test of
an instrumented drilled shaft, can be quite instructive.

Some of the experimental measurements of from instrumented load tests are shown in Figure 2.3,
with references to the relationship with and to soil types.

1.0
“Intermediate
0.8
Geomaterials”
0.6

0.4

0.2 “Cohesive Soils”

0
0 1.5 2.5 3 5.0
cu/pa
Figure 2.3 Correlations between and

When an excavation is made and prior to the placement of concrete, the lateral stress at the sides of
the drilled hole is zero, or small if there is fluid in the excavation. Because of the fluidity of the fresh
concrete as it is placed, lateral stresses will then be imposed on the sides of the excavation. At the ground
surface, the stresses from the concrete will be zero or close to it. It can be expected that the lateral stress
from the concrete will increase almost linearly with depth, assuming that the concrete has a relatively
high slump. Some experiments (Bernal, 1983) show that the assumption of a linear increase of the lateral
stress from fluid concrete for depths of concrete of 10 ft (3.0 m) or more is correct. For greater depths,
the lateral stress is strongly dependent on the character of the fresh concrete. From available
experimental evidence, it follows that a rational recommendation for indicates that it should vary
linearly with depth, starting at zero at the ground line, to its ultimate value at some critical depth below

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

 CHAPTER 2 – Procedures for Clay – 2 6

the ground line. However, data are unavailable for making such a detailed recommendation. The
recommendations in Figure 2.3 generally lead to a reasonable correlation between experimental and
computed results.

There are occasions when it is desirable to make a rough computation of the load-carrying capacity
of a drilled shaft when the only data that are available for soil properties are the nature of the soil and the
results of dynamic penetration tests. Correlations have been made between undrained shear strength of
the clay and the N-value. The following correlations have been established for obtaining approximate
values of undrained shear strength for homogeneous clays from (Quiros and Reese, 1977).

or

(2.5)

where
= undrained shear strength of clay, and
= value in blows per foot from Standard Penetration Test standardized for hammer energy
but uncorrected for overburden stress (sometimes also referenced as ).

Equation (2.5) allows the methods presented previously to be used in computing load transfer in
clay.

2.2 End Bearing

The computation offload transferring end bearing for deep foundations in clays, using the
undrained-strength approach, is much less subject to uncertainty than is the computation of load transfer
in skin friction. Skempton (1951) and other investigators have developed expressions that are fairly
consistent. In addition, the work of Skempton has been confirmed with acceptable accuracy by results
from instrumented drilled shafts where general base failure was observed. Equation (2.6) is employed for
computing the net, ultimate, unit end bearing for drilled shafts in saturated clay.

(2.6)

where

(2.7)

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

 CHAPTER 2 – Procedures for Clay – 2 7

= average undrained shear strength of the clay (the value is computed over a depth of one to
two diameters below the base, but judgment must be used if the shear strength varies
strongly with depth),
= penetration of shaft, and
= diameter of the base of the shaft.

If only standard-penetration-test data are available, the undrained shear strength can be estimated
approximately from Eq. (2.7).

For clays and clay-like soils, the limiting value of shown in Eq. (2.6) is based merely on the
largest value of end bearing that has been measured (Engling and Reese, 1974) and is not a theoretical
limit. A load test is indicated if the designer wishes to use a higher value.

In those instances where the clay at the base is of soft consistency, the value (or ) may be
reduced by about one-third to account for local (high-strain) bearing failure. Furthermore, when the base
of the shaft has a diameter greater than about 75 in. (1.9 m), consideration should be given to reducing ,
because the settlement required to obtain will be so great that applications of factors of safety in the
usual range of 2 to 3 may result in excessive short-term settlement. It is therefore suggested that for
drilled shafts in stiff to hard clay, with exceeding 75 in. (1.9 m), the following expression be used to
reduce to , where is the net reduced ultimate end bearing stress, to which appropriate factors of
safety are to be applied to obtain design loads.

(2.8)

where

(2.9)

in which

(2.10)

(2.11)

where
= diameter of base, units in inches,
= depth to base, inches, and
= undrained shear strength at base, units in ksf.

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

 CHAPTER 2 – Procedures for Clay – 2 8

(NOTE : Eqs. (2.9) and (2.11) are non-homogeneous and the values of and must be
converted to the appropriate values in English units for solutions with SI units. After
obtaining the value of , the solution proceeds with SI units.)

The above expressions are based on load tests of large-diameter underreamed drilled shafts in very
stiff clay and soft clay-shale (O’Neill and Sheikh, 1985; Sheikh, et al, 1985) and restrict to be the net
bearing stress at a base settlement of 2.5 in. (64 mm). When half or more of the design load is carried in
end bearing and a global factor of safety is applied, the global factor of safety should not be less than 2.5,
even if soil conditions are well-defined, unless one or more site-specific load tests are performed.

2.3 Settlement
A number of experiments have been performed where the internal instrumentation in the drilled
shaft allowed the load transfer in side resistance and in end bearing to be determined as a function of
settlement. Curves for a number of cases have been normalized and are presented in Figure 2.4, for side
resistance and in Figure 2.5, for end bearing. As may be seen, there is a considerable amount of scatter in
the results. However, the curves are useful to the designer in estimating the short-term settlement and in
adjusting the allowable load if the total or differential settlement appear to be too great. Normally, if the
procedures for establishing ultimate loads in this manual are followed, short-term settlement should be
restricted to values of less than one inch (25 mm) when appropriate factors of safety are applied.

The t-z and Q-w curves will be developed based on Figure 2.4 and Figure 2.5 for analyses of the
load-settlement curves at the pile head.

The settlement due to long-term loading must be computed site by site using consolidation theory
and cannot be generalized. However, long-term settlement will not be too significant at many sites where
the clays are heavily overconsolidated. Drilled shafts are installed less frequently in normally
consolidated clays where settlement due to consolidation could be significant.

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

 CHAPTER 2 – Procedures for Clay – 2 9

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4 Range of Results

Trend Line

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

Settlement
,%
Diameter of Shaft
Figure 2.4 Normalized Curves Showing Load Transfer in Side Resistance versus
Settlement for Drilled Shafts in Clay (From Reese and O’Neill, 1988)

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

 CHAPTER 2 – Procedures for Clay – 2 10

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

Range of Results

Trend Line
0.2

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Settlement of Base , %
Diameter of Base
Figure 2.5 Normalized Curves Showing Load Transfer in End Bearing versus Settlement
for Drilled Shafts in Clay (From Reese and O’Neill, 1988)

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

CHAPTER 3. Computation Procedures
for Sand

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

 CHAPTER 3 – Procedures for Sand – 3 2

3.1 Side Resistance

The shear strength of sands and other cohesionless soils is characterized by an angle of internal
friction that ranges from about 30° upward, depending on the kinds of grains and their packing. The
cohesion is assumed to be zero. The friction angle at the interface between the concrete and the soil may
be different from that of the soil itself. The unit side resistance, as the drilled shaft is pushed downward,
is equal to the normal effective stress at the interface times the tangent of the interface friction angle.

Excavations in cohesionless soil are made with drilling slurry or with a casing, where the normal
stress at the face of the completed excavation depends on the construction method. The fluid stress from
the fresh concrete will impose a normal stress that is dependent on the characteristics of the concrete.
Experiments have shown that concrete with moderate slump (up to 6 in., 150 mm) acts hydrostatically
over a depth of 10 to 15 ft (3 to 4.6 m) and that there is a leveling off in the lateral stress at greater depths,
probably due to arching (Bernal, 1983). Concrete with a high slump (about 9 in, 230 mm) acts
hydrostatically to a depth of 32 feet (10 m) or more. Thus, the construction procedures and the nature of
the concrete will have strong influence on the magnitude of the lateral stress at the concrete-soil interface.
Furthermore, the angle of internal friction of the soil near the interface will be affected by the details of
construction.

In view of the above discussion, the method of computing the unit load transfer in side resistance
must depend on the results from field experiments as well as on theory. The following equations are
recommended for design. The form of the equations is based on theory but the values of the parameters
that are suggested for design are based principally on the results of field experiments.

(3.1)

(3.2)

where
= ultimate unit side resistance in sand at depth z,
= a parameter that combines the lateral pressure coefficient and a correlation factor,
= vertical effective stress in soil at depth z,
= friction angle at interface of concrete and soil,
L = depth of embedment of drilled shaft, and
dA = differential area of the perimeter along sides of drilled shaft over the penetration depth.

Equations (3.1) and (3.2) can be used in the computations, but simpler expressions can be
developed if the terms for K and are combined. The resulting expressions are shown in Eqs. (3.3)
through (3.6).

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

 CHAPTER 3 – Procedures for Sand – 3 3

(3.3)

(3.4)

(for z in feet), or

(for z in meters) when

(3.5)

A reduction for the values were introduced by O’Neill and Reese (1999) when the
uncorrected SPT resistance, , is less than or equal to 15 blows/ft as shown in
Equation (3.6).

(for z in feet), or

(for z in meters) for

(3.6)

where
z = depth below ground surface, ft.
= uncorrected value in blows per foot from Standard Penetration Test (sometimes also
referenced as ) but not exceeding 50 blows/ft (or the soil shall be considered a
cohesionless intermediate geomaterial – non-cohesive IGM).

Notice that for Sands, = 0.25 for depths (z) larger than 85.7 ft (26.1 m). The values of in
Eq. (3.3) would continue to increase below that depth. However, it is recommended that does not
exceed the value in Eq. (3.3). The limiting value of side resistance shown in Eq. (3.3) is not a theoretical
limit but is the largest value that has been measured (Owens and Reese, 1982). Use of higher values
should be justified by results from a load test.

The parameter takes into account the coefficient of lateral earth pressure and the tangent of the
friction angle. The parameter also takes into account the fact that the stress at the interface due to the
fluid pressure of the concrete may be greater than that from the soil itself. In connection with the lateral
stress at the interface of the soil and the concrete, the assumption implicit in Eq. (3.5) and (3.6) is that
good construction procedures are employed. Among other factors, the slump of the concrete should be 6
in. or more and drilling slurry, if employed, should not cause a weak layer of bentonite to develop at the
wall of the excavation. The reader is referred to the FHWA document (O’Neill and Reese, 1999) for
further details on methods of construction.

Figure 3.1 shows the comparison of values computed from Eq. (3.5) and (3.6) and values
derived from loading tests in sand of fully instrumented drilled shafts. As may be seen, the recommended
expression for yields values that are in reasonable agreement with experimental values.

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

 CHAPTER 3 – Procedures for Sand – 3 4

0 1.0 2.0
0
N60 = 2

9.5
2.5

10

(cemented)

15 Reese & O’Neill, 1988

O’Neill & Reese, 1999, N60 = 10 bpf
From K0 by Withiam
Burch et al.
20 Vrymoed, 30 < N60 < 70
Finno, 10 < N60 < 70
Rollins & Price, gravelly sand
O’Neill & Reese, alluvium, 20 < N60 < 60
25 Hirota, gravel and cobbles
Matsui, sandy gravel, 28 < N60 < 35
O’Neill, N60 = 40
O’Neill, residual weathered rock, N60 = 150
30 Baker, et al., alluvium

Figure 3.1 Plot of Experimental Values of

Equation (3.3) has been employed in computations of and the results are shown in Figure 3.2.
As may be seen, three values of unit weight were selected; two of these are in the range of values of unit
weight for submerged sand and the third is an approximate value of for dry sand. The curves are not
shown below a depth of 60 ft (18 m) because only a small amount of data has been gathered from
instrumented drilled shafts in sand with deep penetrations. Field load tests are indicated if drilled shafts
in sand are to be built with penetrations of over 70 ft (21 m).

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

 CHAPTER 3 – Procedures for Sand – 3 5

Ultimate Unit Resistance In Sand, psf

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
0

10 50 pcf
60 pcf
20 120 pcf

30

40

50

60
Figure 3.2 Plot fsz with Depth (z) for Values of

It can be argued that Eqs. (3.3) and (3.4) are too elementary and that the angle of internal friction,
for example, should be treated explicitly. However, the drilling has an influence on soil properties so that
the true friction angle at the interface is not known. Furthermore, Eqs. (3.3) and (3.4) appear to yield an
adequate correlation with results from field experiments.

The comparisons of results from computations with those from experiment, using the above
equations for sand, show that virtually every computed value is conservative (computed is less than
experimental). However, it is of interest to note that most of the tests in sand are at locations where the
sand was somewhat cemented. Therefore, some caution should be observed in using the design equations
for sand if the sand is clean, loose, and non-cemented.

The computer program SHAFT is designed for use of either Eq. (3.1) or Eq. (3.3), at the user’s
discretion, in computing the skin friction in sand. The angle of internal friction of the soil is generally
used in designs if there is no information on the friction angle at the interface of the concrete and the soil
for use in Eq. (3.1). In some cases, only data from the Standard Penetration Test are available and the
computer program can internally convert the STP blow-count to the equivalent internal friction angle by
using Table 3.1.

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

 CHAPTER 3 – Procedures for Sand – 3 6

N Dr % Dr % Dr %
deg. deg. deg.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 32 45
4 34 55
6 36 65 30 37
10 38 75 32 46 31 40
15 42 90 34 57 32 48
20 45 100 36 65 34 55
25 37 72 35 60
30 39 77 36 65
35 40 82 36 67
40 41 86 37 72
45 42 90 38 75
50 44 95 39 77
55 45 100 39 80
60 40 83
65 41 86
70 42 90
75 42 92
80 43 95
85 44 97
90 44 99

Table 3.1 Relationship Between N and and (after Gibbs and Holtz, 1957)

3.2 End Bearing

Because of the relief of stress when an excavation is drilled into sand, there is a tendency for the
sand to loosen slightly at the bottom of the excavation. Also, there appears to be some densification of
the sand beneath the base of a drilled shaft as settlement occurs. The load-settlement curves that have
been obtained by experiment for the base of drilled shafts are consistent with the above concepts. The
load continued to increase for some of the tests to a settlement of more that 15 percent of the diameter of
the base. Such a large amount of settlement cannot be tolerated for most structures; therefore, it was
decided to limit the values of end bearing for drilled shafts in granular soil to that which would occur at a
downward movement of the base of 5 percent of the diameter of the base.

Values of are tabulated as a function of (uncorrected field values) in Table 3.2. However,
the values in the table may have to be reduced for large-diameter shafts, as shown later by Eq. (3.7).

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

 CHAPTER 3 – Procedures for Sand – 3 7

Range of Value on NSPT Value of qb, tons/ft2

2
tons/ft MPa
0 to 75 0.60 NSPT 0.0575 NSPT
Above 75 45 4.3
Table 3.2 Recommended values of unit end bearing for cohesionless soil.

The computation of tip capacity is based directly on the blow count from the Standard Penetration
Test near the tip of the drilled shaft. Similar recommendations were made by Quiros and Reese (1977).
They recommended no unit end bearing for loose sand ( ) a value of 16 tons/ft2 (1.53 MPa) for
medium-dense sand ( ) and a value of 40 tons/ft2 (3.83 MPa) for very dense sand (
).

Neither of the sets of recommendations involve the stress in the soil outside the tip of the drilled
shaft. This concept is consistent with the writings of Meyerhof (1976) and others. Furthermore, the
values in Table 3.2 are based strongly on experimental results where the drilled shafts had various
penetrations. However, implicit in the values of that are given is that the penetration of the drilled
shaft must be at least 10 diameters below the ground surface. For penetrations less than 10 diameters, it is
recommended (Reese and Quiroz, 1977) that be varied linearly from zero at the groundline to the value
computed at 10 diameters using Table 3.2.

When base diameters exceed 50 in., it is recommended that a reduced ultimate value, , be used,
in which

(3.7)

where
= the diameter of the base of the shaft, in inches.

Table 3.2 suggests that the limiting value of load transfer in end bearing is 45 tsf (4.3 MPa) at a
settlement of 5 percent of the diameter of the base. A value of 58 tsf (5.6 MPa) was measured at a
settlement of 4 percent of the diameter of the base at a site in Florida (Owens and Reese, 1982).

3.3 Settlement
Data from experiments with instrumented drilled shafts have been analyzed, and curves showing
load-transfer as a function of short term settlement have been prepared. Figure 3.3 is for load transfer in
side resistance, and Figure 3.4 is for load transfer in end bearing. As might be expected, there is a
considerable amount of scatter in the results (more so than in clay); however, the curves provide guidance
to the engineer in making designs where total or differential settlement could be a problem. Normally, if
the procedures described in this manual for establishing ultimate loads are followed, short-term settlement
will be restricted to values of less than one inch when appropriate factors of safety are employed.

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

 CHAPTER 3 – Procedures for Sand – 3 8

1.2

1.0

0.8

GRAVELS
0.6

Range of Results for

0.4 Deflection-Softening Response

Range of Results for

Deflection-Hardening Response
0.2
Trend Line

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Settlement
,%
Diameter of Shaft
Figure 3.3 Normalized Curves Showing Load Transfer in Side Resistance Versus
Settlement for Drilled Shafts in Cohesionless Soil (From Reese and O’Neill, 1988)

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

 CHAPTER 3 – Procedures for Sand – 3 9

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

Range of Results
0.6
Trend Line
0.4

0.2

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Settlement of Base , %
Diameter of Base
Figure 3.4 Normalized Curves Showing Load Transfer in End Bearing Versus Settlement
for Drilled Shafts in Cohesionless Soil (From Reese and O’Neill, 1988)

As noted earlier, curves for load transfer in end bearing for a number of field tests show that the
load continues to increase at settlements well beyond the 5 percent of the base diameter, the value that
was selected for defining the ultimate unit end bearing. The engineer may wish to consider this fact as
designs are made.

Aurora and Reese (1977) proposed that the working load be computed by applying a factor of
safety of 2.0 to the ultimate base capacity, , and a factor of safety of 1.0 to the ultimate side
resistance, . This recommendation was suggested for shafts with total lengths under 30 feet (9 m)
and penetrating 5 feet (1.5 m) into clay-shale. The engineer should be aware that such a recommendation
results in an overall factor of safety of less than 2.0 with respect to the total ultimate shaft capacity.
Consequently, suitable adjustments should be made for variability in soil conditions, and to meet
requirements for shaft movement.

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

CHAPTER 4. Computation Procedures
for Clay Shale

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

 CHAPTER 4 – Procedures for Clay Shale – 4 2

4.1 General Procedures for Clay-Shale

Early in 1977, Aurora and Reese published the results of a series of load tests that were performed
on drilled shafts installed in clay-shales. The term “clay-shale” used here is in accordance with the
method of classification suggested by Morgenstern and Eigenbrod (1974). The knowledge obtained from
the study permitted researchers to suggest a rational approach for designing shafts in such soil. However,
because all the shafts tested were less than 30 feet (9 m) long, Aurora and Reese carefully limited the
proposed criteria for drilled shafts of comparable lengths that penetrate approximately 5 feet (1.5 m) into
a shale stratum.

From their studies, Aurora and Reese (1977) concluded that shaft-construction procedures had a
marked effect on the load-transfer characteristics of the deep foundation. The shear strength reduction
factor, , could be as high as 0.75 in shale for drilled shafts installed by the dry method. On the other
hand, this value must be reduced to 0.5 for shafts installed by the casing method or by the slurry
displacement method.

The shear strength of the clay-shale was investigated by in situ methods and by testing
“undisturbed” samples in the laboratory. The undrained shear strength was obtained from laboratory
triaxial tests; however, field tests using the static cone gave results reasonably close to those from
laboratory testing. Because of the difficulty of sampling clay-shale and because it is strongly anisotropic,
the shear strength determinations must be considered to be somewhat uncertain. Therefore, the value of
for clay-shale must be considered as approximate.

A value of 7.0 was suggested for the bearing capacity factor, Nc, for computing end bearing for
shafts built by the slurry-displacement method. This value can be increased to 8.0 when shafts are
constructed by the casing method or by the dry method. The research program on shafts in clay-shales
also resulted in the establishing of correlations between NSPT and the unconsolidated undrained shear
strength of shales, and between NSPT data and unit base resistance. For the shear strength correlation, the
following equation was suggested:

(4.1)

where
= the unconsolidated-undrained shear strength of the clayshale,
= the average number in blows per foot from Standard Penetration Test standardized for
hammer energy but uncorrected for overburden stress (sometimes also referenced as
).

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

 CHAPTER 4 – Procedures for Clay Shale – 4 3

For the bearing capacity correlation, the following equation was suggested:

(4.2)

Where
= unit base resistance,
= the average number in blows per foot from Standard Penetration Test standardized for
hammer energy but uncorrected for overburden stress (sometimes also referenced as
).

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

CHAPTER 5. Computation Procedures
for Rock

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

 CHAPTER 5 – Procedures for Rock – 5 2

5.1 General Procedures for Rock

At the outset, some discussion is necessary concerning the definition of rock. A broad view of the
classification of intact rock can be obtained by referring to Figure 5.1 (Deere, 1968, and Peck, 1976; as
presented by Horvath and Kenney, 1979). The figure shows medium clay at the low range and gneiss at
the high range. Concrete and steel are shown for reference. A number of the categories of rock have
compressive strengths that are in the range of that for concrete or higher. As can be expected, many of
the design procedures for drilled shafts in rock are directed at weak rock because strong rock could well
be as strong or stronger than the concrete in the drilled shaft.

Figure 5.1 Engineering Classification of Intact rock (After Deere, 1968, as presented by
Horvath and Kenney, 1979)

Except for instances where drilled shafts were installed in weak rocks such as shales or mudstones,
there are virtually no occasions where loading has resulted in failure. An example of a field test where it
was not possible to fail the drilled shaft is shown in Figure 5.2 and Figure 5.3. The rock was a vuggy
limestone that was difficult to core without fracture. It was only after considerable trouble that it was

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

 CHAPTER 5 – Procedures for Rock – 5 3

possible to get the strength of the rock. Two compression tests were performed in the laboratory, and in-
situ grout-plug tests were performed under the direction of Schmertmann (1977).

Figure 5.2 Load Settlement Curves for Test Shafts No. 1 and No. 2, Florida Keys

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

 CHAPTER 5 – Procedures for Rock – 5 4

Figure 5.3 Load Distribution Curves for Test Shafts No. 1 (43.7 ft rock socket) and No. 2
(7.6 ft rock socket), Florida Keys

A hole was drilled into the limestone, followed by the placing of a high-strength steel bar into the
excavation, the casting of a grout plug over the lower end of the bar, and the pulling of the bar after the
grout was set up. Five such tests were performed over the top 10 ft of the rock and the side resistance
ranged from 12.0 to 23.8 tons/ft2 (1.15 to 2.28 MPa), with an average of approximately 18.0 tons/ft2 (1.72
MPa). The compressive strength of the rock was approximately 500 psi (3.45 MPa), putting the vuggy
limestone in the lower ranges of the strength of the chalk shown in Figure 5.1.

Two axial-load tests were performed at the site on cylindrical drilled shafts that were 36 in. (914
mm) in diameter (Reese and Nyman, 1978). Test Shaft No. 1 penetrated 43.7 ft (13.3 m) into the
limestone and Test Shaft No. 2 penetrated 7.6 feet (2.32 m). Test Shaft No. 1was loaded first, with the
results shown in the figures, and it was then decided to shorten the penetration and construct Test Shaft
No. 2. As may be seen in Figure 5.2, the load-settlement curves for the two shafts are almost identical,
with Test Shaft No. 2 showing slightly more settlement at the 1000-ton (8.9 MN) load (the limit of the
loading system). The settlement of the two shafts under the maximum load is quite small, and most of the
settlement (about 0.10 in, 2.5 mm) occurred due to elastic shortening of the drilled shafts.

The distribution of load with depth, determined from internal instrumentation in the drilled shafts,
for the maximum load is shown in Figure 5.3 . As may be seen, no load reached the base of Test Shaft
No. 1, and only about 60 tons (530 kN) reached the base of Test Shaft No. 2. The data allowed a design
to be made for the foundations at the site with a considerable amount of security; however, as is indicated,
it was impossible to find the ultimate values of load transfer in side resistance and in end bearing because

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

 CHAPTER 5 – Procedures for Rock – 5 5

of the limitations of the loading equipment as related to the strength of the rock. The results are typical for
drilled shafts that are founded in rock with respect to being unable to develop the ultimate values of load
transfer.

A special program of subsurface exploration is frequently necessary in order to obtain the in-situ
properties of the rock. Not only is it important to obtain the compressive strength and stiffness of the
sound rock but it is necessary to obtain detailed information on the nature and spacing of joints and cracks
so that the stiffness of the rock mass can be obtained. The properties of the rock mass will normally
determine the amount of load that can be imposed on a rock-socketed drilled shaft. The pressure meter
has been used to investigate the character of in-situ rock and design methods have been proposed based
on such results.

An example of the kind of detailed study that can be made concerns the mudstone of Melbourne,
Australia. The Geomechanics Group of Monash University has written a remarkable set of papers on
drilled shafts that give recommendations in detail for subsurface investigations, determination of
properties, design, and construction (Donald, et al, 1980; Johnston, et al, 1980a; Johnston, et al, 1980b;
Williams, 1980;Williams, et al, 1980a;Williams, et al, 1980b;Williams and Erwin, 1980). The Monash
papers imply that the development of rational methods for the design of drilled shafts in a particular weak
rock will require an extensive study and, even so, some questions may remain unanswered. It is clear,
however, that a substantial expenditure for the development of design methods for a specific site could be
warranted if there is to be a significant amount of construction at the site.

Williams, et al (1980b) discussed their design concept and stated: “A satisfactory design cannot be
arrived at without consideration of pile load tests, field and laboratory parameter determinations and
theoretical analyses; initially elastic, but later hopefully also elasto-plastic. With the present state of the
art, and the major influence of field factors, particularly failure mechanisms and rock defects, a design
method must be based primarily on the assessment of field tests.”

Other literature concerning drilled shafts in rock leads to a confirmation of the above statements
about a computation method; therefore, the method that is presented here in must be considered to be
approximate. Detailed studies, including field tests, are needed in many instances to confirm a design.

The procedure recommended by Kulhawy (1983) presents a logical approach. The basic steps are
as follows.
1. The penetration of the drilled shaft into the rock for the given axial load is obtained by using an
appropriate value of side resistance (see later recommendation).
2. The settlement of the drilled shaft in the rock is computed by adding the elastic shortening to the
settlement required to develop end bearing, assuming that the full load is taken by the base of the
drilled shaft. The stiffness of the rockmass is needed for this computation.
3. If the computed settlement is less than about 0.4 in. (10mm), the side resistance will dominate and
little load can be expected to reach the base of the foundation.
4. If the computed settlement is more than about 0.4 in. (10 mm), the bond in the socket may be broken
and the tip resistance will be more important.

Kulhawy (1983) presents curves that will give the approximate distribution of the load for Steps 3
and 4; however, the procedure that is adopted herein is to assume that the load is carried entirely in side

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

 CHAPTER 5 – Procedures for Rock – 5 6

resistance or in end bearing, depending on whether or not the computed settlement is less or more than 0.4
inch.

The recommendations that follow are based on the concept that both side resistance and end
bearing will not develop simultaneously. The concept is conservative, of course, but it is supported by
the fact that the maximum load transfer in side resistance in the rock will occur at the top of the rock
where the relative settlement between the drilled shaft and the rock is the greatest. If the rock is brittle,
which is a possibility, the bond at the top of the rock could fail with the result that additional stress is
transferred downward. There could then be a progressive failure in side resistance.

It is of interest to note that the settlement will be small if the load is carried only in side resistance.
The settlement in end bearing could be considerable and must be checked as an integral part of the
analysis.

The following specific recommendations are made in order to implement the above general
procedure.
1. Horvath and Kenney (1979) did an extensive study of the load transfer in side resistance for rock-
socketed drilled shafts. The following equation is in reasonable agreement with the “best-fit” curve
that was obtained where no unusual attempt was made to roughen the walls.

(5.1)

where
= ultimate side resistance, psi or lb/in2, and
= uniaxial compressive strength of the rock or concrete, whichever is less, psi or .
(NOTE : Equation (5.1) is nonhomogeneous and the value of must be converted to English
units, the equation solved for in English units, and is then converted to SI units
before proceeding in the further computations with SI units.)

It is of interest to note that there was a large amount of scatter in the data gathered by Horvath and
Kenney (1977), but Eq. (5.1) can be used to compute the necessary length of the socket. It is
recommended that if the drilled shaft is installed in clay-shale, the ultimate side resistance may be
predicted more accurately by the procedures described in the previous section for clay-shale rather
than by using Eq. (5.1).
2. The shortening c of the drilled shaft can be computed by elementary mechanics by employing the
dimensions of the shaft and the stiffness of the concrete.

(5.2)

where
L = the penetration of the socket,
= the load at the top of the socket,

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

 CHAPTER 5 – Procedures for Rock – 5 7

A = the cross sectional area of the socket, and

= the equivalent Young’s modulus of the concrete in the socket, considering the stiffening
effects of any steel reinforcement.
3. The settlement of the base of the shaft can be obtained by assuming that the rock will behave
elastically. The following equation will give an acceptable result.

(5.3)

Where
w = settlement of the base of the drilled shaft,
I = influence coefficient,
Bb = diameter of drilled shaft, and
Em = modulus of the in situ rock, taking the joints and their spacing into account.
4. The value of I can be found by using Figure 5.4 (Donald et al, 1980). The symbol in the
figure refers to the Young’s modulus of the concrete in the drilled shaft.
5. The value of the Young’s modulus of the intact rock EL can be obtained by test or by selecting an
appropriate value from Figure 5.1.

The value of the modulus of the in situ rock can be found by test, or the intact modulus can be
modified in an approximate way. Figure 5.5 will allow a modification of the modulus of the intact
rock by making use of the RQD. As may be seen, the scatter in the data is great, but the trend is
unmistakable.

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

 CHAPTER 5 – Procedures for Rock – 5 8

Figure 5.4 Elastic Settlement Influence Factor as a Function of Embedment Ratio and
Modular Ratio (After Donald, Sloan, and Chiu, 1980)

6. The bearing capacity of the rock can be computed by a method proposed by the Canadian
Geotechnical Society (1978).

qa = Ksp qu

(5.4)

3 c s / Bb
K sp
10 1 300 / cs

(5.5)

where
qa = allowable bearing pressure,
Ksp = empirical coefficient that depends on the spacing of discontinuities and includes a factor
of safety of 3,
qu = average unconfined compressive strength of the rock cores,
cs = spacing of discontinuities,
= thickness of individual discontinuities, and
Bb = diameter of socket.

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

 CHAPTER 5 – Procedures for Rock – 5 9

Equation (5.5) is valid for a rock mass with spacing of discontinuities greater than 12 in. (305 mm),
thickness of discontinuities less than 0.2 in. (5 mm) (or less than l in. or 25 mm if filled with soil or
rock debris) and for a foundation with a width greater than 12 inches (30 mm). For sedimentary or
foliated rocks, the strata must be level or nearly so (Canadian Geotechnical Society, 1978). Again, if
the drilled shaft is seated on clay-shale, the procedures described in the previous section should
provide a better prediction.

Figure 5.5 Modulus Reduction Ration as a Function of RQD (From Bieniawski, 1984)

7. If the rock is weak (compressive strength of less than 1000 psi), the design should depend on load
transfer in side resistance. The settlement should be checked to see that it does not exceed 0.4 inch.
8. If the rock is strong, the design should be made on the basis of end bearing. The settlement under
working load should be computed to see that it does not exceed the allowable as dictated by the
superstructure.

For the equations for the design of drilled shafts in rock to be valid, the construction must be
carried out properly. Because the load-transfer values are higher for rock, the details of the construction
require perhaps more attention than does construction in other materials. For example, for the load
transfer in side resistance to attain the allowable values, there must be a good bond between the concrete

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

 CHAPTER 5 – Procedures for Rock – 5 10

and the natural rock. It is an excellent practice to roughen the sides of the excavation if it appears
necessary. There may be occasions when the drilling machine is under-powered and water is placed in
the excavation to facilitate the drilling. In such a case, the sides of the excavation may be “gun-barrel”
slick with a layer of weak material at the sides of the excavation. The roughening of the sides of the
excavation in such a case is imperative.

Any loose material in the bottom of the excavation should be removed even though the design is
based on side resistance.

Another matter of concern with regard to construction in rock is whether or not the rock will react
to the presence of water or drilling fluids. Some shales will lose strength rapidly in the presence of water.

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

CHAPTER 6. Computation Procedures
for Non Cohesive IGMs

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

 CHAPTER 6 – Procedures for Non Cohesive IGMs – 6 2

6.1 General Procedures for Gravels, Granular Decomposed Rock, or

Granular Glacial Till (Non-Cohesive Intermediate Geomaterials)
The theory is based on the original work of Mayne and Harris (1993) and modifications by O’Neill
et al (1996). The theory was proposed for gravelly soils, either transported or residual, with blow counts
(from the Standard Penetration Test) between 50 and 100. The method has been used by Mayne and
Harris to predict and verify the behavior of full-scale, drilled shafts in residual micaceous sands from the
Piedmont province in the eastern United States. Further verification tests were reported by O’Neill et al
(1996) for granular glacial till in the northeastern United States.

The preconsolidation pressure, ’p, of the granular material can be estimated from:

’p = 0.2 N60 Pa

(6.1)

where
N60 = the uncorrected SPT blowcount, in blows per foot (or blows per 300mm) for the
condition in which the energy transferred to the top of the drive string is 60% of the drop
energy of the SPT hammer; or = the corrected blow count N value to N60.
Pa = the atmospheric pressure, in the selected system of units (usually 1 atmosphere, which
converts to 101.3kPa, or 14.7 psi).

The overconsolidation ratio (ratio of maximum past vertical stress to present vertical stress),OCR,
is given by:

OCR = ’p / ’vo

(6.2)

where
’vo = the vertical effective stress (total soil pressure on a horizontal plane minus the water
pressure in the pores) at a horizontal plane in a given depth, usually at middepth of
the drilled-shaft socket in the gravel layer.
’p = the preconsolidation pressure,obtained in Eq. (6.1).

The effective angle of internal friction of the gravel, ’, can be estimated from:

0.34
1 N 60
' tan
12.2 20.3 v / pa

(6.3)

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

 CHAPTER 6 – Procedures for Non Cohesive IGMs – 6 3

The shaft-gravel interface is considered rough but nondilatant unless heavy mudcake buildup has
been allowed during drilling. It is assumed that if concrete is placed rapidly after excavation, the ground
stresses can be assumed to be maintained, fmax is given by the simple friction equation:

f max K 0 tan v

(6.4)

in which the coefficient of horizontal earth pressure remains equal to Ko prior to excavation, which
is given by the correlative expression:

K0 (1 sin ) OCRsin

(6.5)

The use of equations (6.1) to (6.5) assumes that side shear failure occurs under drained conditions.
Below the base, undrained failure can be assumed conservatively. It is assumed that undrained failure
will occur in a full-scale loading test and that it is consistent with present practice to design with values
appropriate for loading tests. In this case:

su 0.23 'v OCR 0.8

(6.6)

where su is the operational undrained shearing strength of the geomaterial beneath the base and ’V
is the value of vertical effective stress at the elevation of the base. Finally, qmax is given by:

qmax 9.33su

(6.7)

The above method is appropriate for N60 values in the range of 100 B/0.3m or less. The method
should be applied with caution for higher values of N60.

Load-deformation behavior of drilled shaft sockets in this type of materials can be computed using
methods similar to those described for drilled shafts in soft rock. A total load-settlement method, as
originally developed by Randolph and Wroth, is recommended.

In the following, only the load-settlement behavior of the socket is described. Elastic shortening in
the overburden (generally 0.25-2.0 mm, depending on load and socket depth) will need to be added to the
computed settlement to obtain the settlement at the shaft head.

As shown in Figure 6.1, the socket load-settlement relation is a three-branched curve. For a given
load Qt at the top of the socket, the corresponding elastic settlement along Segment 1, wt, is computed
from equation (6.8):

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

 CHAPTER 6 – Procedures for Non Cohesive IGMs – 6 4

Qt I
wt
D EsL

(6.8)

Here ,EsL is taken to be the Young’s modulus of the granular geomaterial along the sides
of the socket at the base level (as distinguished from the geomaterial below the base.) I is
the elastic settlement influence factor (equation (6.10)).

Based on correlations between energy-corrected SPT tests and Young’s moduli determined from
dilatometer testing in Piedmont residuum, Mayne and Harris suggest:

ES = 22 Pa N600.82

(6.9)

in which N60 is again in B/0.3 m. If pressure meter, dilatometer or seismic data are
available at the site, more accurate estimates of Es (and Ko) might be possible.

Load
Qt1 Qt,max
Segment 1
wt1
Segment 2

w1+ w

Segment 3

Figure 6.1 Hypothetical load settlement relationship for method of Mayne and Harris.

Mayne and Harris provided a closed-form solution for I for straight sided shafts from the original
solution of Randolph and Wroth, given in equation (6.10):

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

 CHAPTER 6 – Procedures for Non Cohesive IGMs – 6 5

8 tanh( L) L
1
(1 ) ( L) D
I 4(1 )
E
4 sm tanh( L) L
4 EsL
(1 ) ( L) D

(6.10)

Several parameters appearing in equation (6.10) require definition and interpretation:

= Poisson’s ratio of the geomaterial, which can be taken as approximately 0.3 for gravel
unless evidence indicates otherwise.
L = socket length.
L = a lateral extent influence factor for elastic settlement, which can be taken to be
L = 2(2/ )0.5 (L/D), in which
= ln {[0.25 + (2.5 (Esm/EsL) (1 - ) - 0.25) ] (2L/D)}
= 2 (1+ ) Ec/EsL
Ec = Young’s modulus of the composite (steel and concrete) cross section of the drilled shaft.
Esm=Young’s modulus of soil at the mid-depth of the socket. [Where the decomposed rock
becomes stronger with depth (N increases with depth along the socket), Esm/EsL can
ordinarily be taken to be 0.5]
E sL
, in which Eb= Young’s modulus of the granular geomaterial beneath the base of the
Eb
drilled shaft, which can be different from EsL. In modeling drill shaft load tests in
Piedmont residuum in the Atlanta, Georgia, area, Eb must be taken to be about 0.4 EsL to
obtain an optimum match with the measured load-settlement relations. That is, = 2.5.

A schematic of the variation of soil moduli for this method is shown in Figure 6.2.
Ground surface or top of socket

E
Esm
L/2
Eb
L
EsL
L/2 D

Base of socket
Figure 6.2 Potential soil modulus for computing settlement in granular, decomposed
rock (Category 3 IGM)

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

 CHAPTER 6 – Procedures for Non Cohesive IGMs – 6 6

Equation (6.8) is used to model load vs. settlement only until the maximum side resistance, Qs max,
has been reached (segment 1, Figure 6.1).

Qs max = f max ( D L)

(6.11)

and

Qt (end of segment 1) = Qt1

Qs, max
Qt1
I
1
cosh( L) (1 )(1 )

(6.12)

Equation (6.12) is valid approximately for < 20. Wt1, the settlement at the top of the socket at the
end of segment 1, can be determined by letting Qt = Qt1, in equation (6.8).

Equations (6.8) and (6.12) define the end of linear segment 1 and the beginning of linear segment 2.
At this point, the load on the base at the end of segment 1 is

Qb1 = Qt1 – Qs max

The load at the end of segment 2 is the maximum total resistance of the shaft in the given gravel,

Qt,max = Qs, max + Qb, max

If the side resistance is perfectly plastic (no load-softening or hardening after a movement of wt1),
then:

D2
Qt , max f max ( DL) qmax
4

(6.13)

The corresponding settlement at the end of segment 2 is approximately wt1 plus the base settlement,
wb, due to the increment of base load Qt, max – Qt1, which is given by:

(1 )(1 )
wb Qt , max Qt1
Eb D

(6.14)

Finally, the end of segment 2 is defined by Qt, max and (wt1 + wb). Segment 3 is a line defining
continued settlement at no increasing load, which is probably conservative for most decomposed rock.

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

CHAPTER 7. Computation Procedures
for Weak Rock (Cohesive
IGM)

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

 CHAPTER 8 – Procedures for Weak Rock – 7 2

7.1 Introduction of Procedures for Weak Rock (Cohesive Intermediate

Geomaterials)
Weak rock, in this computer program, is the term provided to materials that other authors call
“cohesive intermediate geomaterials.” In general, the soil resistances and settlements computed by this
criteria are considered appropriate for weak rock with compressive strength in the range of 0.5 to 5.0 MPa
(73 to 725 psi). The following intermediate geomaterials (IGMs) are usually within this category:
argillaceous geomaterials (such as heavily overconsolidated clay, hard-cohesive soil, and very soft rock)
or calcareous rock (limestone and limerock, within the specified values of compressive strength).

Drilled shafts are attractive as a reliable foundation system for the use in these type of intermediate
geomaterials at the boundary between soil and rock. These IGMs are not difficult to excavate and provide
good stability and excellent capacity.

O’Neill et al (1995) recommend methods for estimating side and base resistances as well as
settlement of drilled shafts under axial loads in this type of geomaterials. Their primary method, called
direct load-settlement simulation, is used in program SHAFT to compute the axial capacity of drilled
shafts socketed into weak rock.

7.2 Design Procedure

The direct simulation design model, based on an approximation of the broad range of finite element
solutions, proceeds as follows:
1. Decide whether the socket of weak rock in which the drilled shaft is placed requires subdivision into
sublayers for analysis. If the weak rock is relatively uniform, the behavior of axially loaded drilled
shafts can probably be simulated satisfactorily for design purposes using the simple procedure
outlined below. If there is significant layering of the weak rock in the depth range of the socket, a
load transfer function analysis should be modeled by a special finite element method as
recommended by O’Neill et al (1996). Significant layering in this respect would exist if the weak
rock at the base of the shaft is considerably stronger and stiffer than that surrounding the sides and/
or if changes in stiffness and strength of the weak rock occur along the sides of the shaft. Load
transfer function analyses should also be conducted if sockets exceed about 7.6 m in length.
2. Obtain representative values of the compressive strength, qc, of the weak rock. It is recognized in
practice that qu is often used to represent compressive strength. Accordingly, qu will be used to
symbolize qc in this criteria. Whenever possible, the weak rock cores should be consolidated to the
mean effective stress in the ground and then subjected to undrained loading to establish the value for
qu. The validity of this solution is for soft rocks with 0.5< qu < 5.0MPa (73 < qu < 725 psi). The
method also assumes that high-quality samples, such as those obtained using triple-walled, core
barrels, have been recovered.
3. Determine the percentage of core recovery. If the core recovery using high-quality sampling
techniques is less than 50 percent, this method does not apply, and field loading tests are
recommended to establish the design parameters. Determine the RQD (Rock Quality Designation)
of the sample and note the relative nature of the joints.
4. Determine or estimate the mass modulus of elasticity, Em, the weak rock, Em if the Young’s modulus
of the material in the softer seams within the harder weak rock, Es, can be estimated, and if the

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

 CHAPTER 8 – Procedures for Weak Rock – 7 3

Young’s modulus of the recovered, intact core material, Ei, is measured or estimated, then the
following expression, can be used:

Em Lc
Ei Ei
t seams tint act core segments
Es

(7.1)

In equation (7.1), Lc is the length of the core, tseams is the summation of the thickness of all of the
seams in the core, which can be assumed to be (1-r) Lc where r is the core recovery ratio (percent
recovery/ 100), and the core length can be assumed to be r Lc. If the weak rock is uniform and
without significant soft seams or voids, it is usually conservative to take Em = 115 qu. If the core
recovery is less than 100 percent, it is recommended that appropriate in situ tests be conducted to
determine Em. If the core recovery is at least 50 percent, the recovered weak rock is generally
uniform. Once the RQD and the nature of the jointing is known, Table 7.1 can be used, with linear
interpolation if necessary, to estimate Em/Ei.

RQD (%) Em/Ei

Closed Open
Joints Joints

100 1.00 0.60

70 0.70 0.10
50 0.15 0.10
20 0.05 0.05

Table 7.1 Estimation of Em/Ei based RQD and nature of joints (Modified after Carter
and Kulhawy, 1988)

5. Decide on whether the walls in the socket can be classified as “rough.” If experience indicates that
the excavation will produce a borehole that is “rough” according to the definition in FHWA report,
then the drilled shaft maybe designed according to the method for the rough borehole. If not, or if the
designer cannot predict the roughness, the drilled shaft should be designed according to the method
for the smooth borehole.
6. Estimate whether the soft rock is likely to smear when drilled with the construction equipment that is
expected on the job site. “Smear” in this sense refers to softening of the wall of the borehole due to
drilling disturbance and/or exposure of the borehole to free water. If the thickness of the smear zone
is expected to exceed about 0.1 times the mean asperity height, the drilled shaft should be designed
as if it were “smooth.”

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

 CHAPTER 8 – Procedures for Weak Rock – 7 4

7. Determine whether or not the joints are “opened” or “closed.” An “open” joint is a joint that contains
voids or soft materials in the seams, where as a “closed” joint is a joint that contains no voids or soft
material in the seams.
8. The effect of roughness, smear, and joint nature on both resistance and settlement are very
significant, as will be demonstrated in the design examples. As part of the site exploration process
for major transportation projects, full-sized drilled shaft excavations should be made so that the
engineer can quantify these factors, either by entering the bore hole or by using appropriate down-
hole testing tools, such as calipers and sidewall probes. Rough borehole conditions can be assured if
the sides of the borehole are artificially roughened by cutting devices on the drilling tools
immediately prior to concreting such that RF > 0. 15 is attained.
9. Estimate fa, the apparent maximum average unit side shear at infinite displacement. Note that fa is
not equal to fmax which is defined at a displacement defined by the user in this method.

Weak rock, rough borehole, use:

fa = a + n tan r

(7.2)

where a is the adhesion between the concrete and the borehole wall, n is the normal
(horizontal) stress at the borehole wall before loading the shaft and r is the drained angle
of internal friction of the weak rock. Parameters a and r can be evaluated by direct shear
testing of the geomaterial, under drained, constant-normal stress.
If the shear strength parameters of soft rock are not known, use the following
approximation:

qu
fa
2

(7.3)

Weak rock, smooth borehole, use:

fa = qu

(7.4)

where is a constant of proportionality that is determined from Figure 7.1, based on the
finite element simulations. The factor p on Figure 7.1 is the value of atmospheric
pressure in the units employed by the designer. The maximum value of that is permitted
is 0.5. The parameter rc on Figure 7.1 represents the angle of internal friction of the
weak rock at the interface with the concrete. Figure 7.1 is based on the use of rc = 30
degrees, which is a value that was measured at a test site in clay-shale that is believed to
be typical of clay-shales and mudstones in the United States.
If evidence indicates that rc is not equal to 30 degrees, then a should be adjusted to

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

 CHAPTER 8 – Procedures for Weak Rock – 7 5

tan rc
Fig.7.1 or
tan 30
1.73 Fig.7.1 tan rc

(7.5)

Figure 7.1 Factor for smooth Category 1 or 2 IGM’s

10. If Em/Ei is < 1, adjust fa for the presence of soft geomaterial within the SOFT ROCK matrix
using Table 7.2 Adjustment of fa for presence of soft seams define the adjusted value of fa as “faa”.

Em/Ei faa/fa
1 1.0
0.5 0.8
0.3 0.7
0.1 0.55
0.05 0.45
0.02 0.3

Table 7.2 Adjustment of fa for presence of soft seams

11. Estimate n, the normal stress between the concrete and borehole wall at the time of loading. This
stress is evaluated at the time when the concrete is fluid. If no other information is available, general
guidance on the selection of n can be obtained from Eq. (7.6), which is based on measurements of
Bernal and Reese (1983).

n = M c zc

(7.6)

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

 CHAPTER 8 – Procedures for Weak Rock – 7 6

in which
c, is the unit weight of the concrete,
zc, is the distance from the top of the completed column of concrete to the point in the
borehole at which n is desired, usually the middle of the socket, and
M is an empirical factor which depends upon the fluidity of the concrete as indexed by
the concrete slump (obtained from Figure 7.2).
The values in the legend in Figure 7.2 are values of zc. Figure 7.2 may be assumed valid
if the rate of placement of concrete in the borehole exceeds 12m/hour and if the ratio of
the maximum coarse aggregate size to borehole diameter is less than 0.02. Note that n
for slump outside the range of 125 to 225 mm (5 to 9 inches) is not evaluated. Unless
there is information to support larger values of n, the maximum value of zc, should be
taken as 12 m (40 ft) in these calculations. This statement is predicated on the
assumption that arching and partial setting will become significant after the concrete has
been placed in the borehole for more than one hour.
12. Determine the “characteristic parameter” n, which is a fitting factor for the load-settlement syntheses
produced by the finite element analyses. If the weak rock socket is rough:

n n
qu

(7.7)

If the weak rock socket is SMOOTH, estimate n from Figure 7.3. Note that n was determined
in Figure 7.3 for rc = 30 degrees. However, it is not sensitive to the value of rc. On the other hand,
is sensitive to rc, as indicated in equation (7.5).

1.0

0.8

0.6 0m
4m
M 8m
0.4 12 m

0.2

0.0
125 150 175 200 225
Slump of Concrete (mm)

Figure 7.2 Factor M vs. concrete slump.

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

 CHAPTER 8 – Procedures for Weak Rock – 7 7

0.5
rc = 30 deg.
400
0.4

500
0.3
n 600
0.2
1500
1000
0.1
Em/ n = 4000 3000 2000

0
0 10 20 30 40 50

qu/ p

Figure 7.3 Factor n for smooth sockets for various combinations of parameters.

If the weak rock socket is:

relatively uniform, and the soft rock beneath the base of the socket has a consistency
equivalent to that of the soft rock along the sides of the shaft,

2 <L/D<20, D>0.5 m, and

10 < Ec/Em < 500,

then compute the load-settlement relation for the weak rock socket as enumerated as follows.
13. Compute Qt vs. wt (settlement at top of socket) from equation (7.8) or equation (7.9), depending on
the value of n. These equations apply to both rough and smooth sockets.

D2
Qt DL f f aa qb , f n
4

(7.8)

D2
Qt DLK f f aa qb , f n
4

(7.9)

14. Equation (7.8) applies in the elastic range before any slippage has occurred at the shaft-weak rock
interface, and elastic base response, as represented by the last expression on the right-hand side of
the equation, also occurs. Equation (7.9) applies during interface slippage (nonlinear response). In
order to evaluate Qt, a value of wt is selected, and f, which is a function of wt, is evaluated before
deciding which equation to use. If f > n, evaluate Kf and use equation (7.9); otherwise, use
equation (7.8). Equations (7.10) and (7.11) are used to evaluate f and Kf, respectively.

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

 CHAPTER 8 – Procedures for Weak Rock – 7 8

Em
f
L f aa

(7.10)

(H f n)(1 n)
Kf n 1
Hf 2n 1

(7.11)

in which

0.5
L
1.14
D
0.5
L Ec
0.05 1 log10 0.44
D Em

(7.12)

and

0.5
L
0.37
D
0.5
L Ec
0.15 1 log10 0.13
D Em

(7.13)

Finally

qb = wt0.67

(7.14)

in which

L L
200 1 L
D D
0.0134E m D
L L
1
D

(7.15)

15. Check the values computed for qb. If core recovery in the weak rock surrounding the base is 100
percent, qb should not exceed qmax = 2.5 qu. At working loads, qb should not exceed 0.4 qmax
16. Graph the load-settlement curve resulting from the computations. Select ultimate and service limit
resistances based on settlements. For example, the ultimate resistance might be selected as the load

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

 CHAPTER 8 – Procedures for Weak Rock – 7 9

Qt corresponding to a settlement wt of 25 mm (1 in.), while the service limit resistance might be

selected as the load Qt corresponding to a value of wt < 25 mm (wt < 1 in.).

7.3 Commentary on Direct Load-Settlement Simulation Method

This method is intended for use with relatively ductile weak rock’s, in which deformations occur in
asperities prior to shear. If the weak rock is friable or unusually brittle, the method may be
unconservative, and appropriate loading test data should be conducted to ascertain the behavior of the
drilled shaft for design purposes. The method is also intended for use with drilled shafts in weak rock’s
that are produced in the dry. If it is necessary to produce the shaft using water, or with mineral or
synthetic drilling slurries, the shaft should be treated as “smooth” for design purposes unless it can be
proved that “rough” conditions apply. The method also carries the assumption that the bearing surface at
the base of the socket is clean, such that the shaft concrete is in contact with undisturbed weak rock. If
base cleanliness cannot be verified during construction, base resistance (qb) should be assumed to be zero.

The design examples did not consider the effect of a phreatic surface (“water table”) above the base
of the socket. This effect can be handled by computing n assuming that the unit weight of the concrete
below the phreatic surface is its buoyant unit weight:

n = M [ c zw + c’ (zc - zw)]

(7.16)

in which
’c = buoyant unit weight of the concrete and
zw = depth from top of concrete to elevation of water table.

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

CHAPTER 8. Computation Procedures
for Gravelly Sand and
Gravel

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

 CHAPTER 8 – Procedures for Gravelly Sand and Gravel – 8 2

8.1 Introduction
Rollins et al (2005) presented an interesting study for side friction of drilled shafts in gravelly soils.
They mentioned that a series of axial-load tests were conducted by the Utah Department of Transportation
(UDOT) in the mid 1980s. The test results suggested that side friction for drilled shafts in gravelly soils
was significantly higher than in sandy soils. The increased side friction was initially attributed to the
roughness of the soil-shaft interface and the tendency for gravels to dilate during shearing. To evaluate
side friction in gravelly soils, a series of uplift-load tests were performed on drilled shafts in granular soil
profiles, which ranged from uniform sand to sandy gravel as reported by the authors. In addition, an
effort was made by the authors to assemble available load-test data on drilled shafts in gravelly soils in
the technical literature published in the past. The data set collected through their efforts enabled them to
suggest new criteria for computation of side friction of drilled shafts in gravelly sand or gravel.

8.2 Side Resistance

The method, previously described in the FHWA method using Equations (3.5) for side friction in
cohesionless soils, was used as the basis for evaluation of the side resistance in gravelly sand and sand.
Comparisons of the values derived from data from approximately 123 loading tests are presented
in Figure 8.1 and Figure 8.2 for drilled shafts in gravelly sand and gravel, respectively. The best-fit
curves for gravelly sand and gravel in Figure 8.1 and Figure 8.2 are significantly higher than design
curves for sands by Reese and O’Neill recommended by FHWA. These results indicate that skin friction
increases as the gravel content increases. Back-calculated values of from all available load tests are
plotted as a function of depth in Figure 8.3. Although the curve from Reese and O’Neill appears
appropriate for sands, this curve significantly underestimates the measured value of for gravelly sand
and gravels, especially considering that a factor of safety of 2 to 3 is subsequently applied in computing
the loads acceptable for design.

O’Neill and Reese (1999) recommended a design curve ( -values) for use with gravelly soils. The
equation for -values was further correlated for the gravelly sand (25-50% gravel size) by Rollins et al
(2005) as:

fsz = z’

(8.1)

(for z in feet), or

(for z in meters) when

(8.2)

where z = depth below the ground surface, in meters.

The proposed -values for gravel (over 50% gravel size) is:

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

 CHAPTER 8 – Procedures for Gravelly Sand and Gravel – 8 3

, 0.25 < < 3.0

(8.3)

Where
e = natural base (2.718) and
z = depth below the ground surface, in meters.

It should be noted that almost all the gravels in the data base had blow counts (N) greater than 25.
Therefore, the above equations are not recommended for gravelly soils with blow counts less than 25.
For those cases, the -values recommended by Reese and O’Neill for sand should be used.

Figure 8.1 Comparison of values for axial load tests in gravelly sands (from Rollins et
al, 2005)

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

 CHAPTER 8 – Procedures for Gravelly Sand and Gravel – 8 4

Figure 8.2 Comparison of b values for axial load tests in gravels (from Rollins et al,
2005)

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

 CHAPTER 8 – Procedures for Gravelly Sand and Gravel – 8 5

Figure 8.3 Comparison of values for load tests in all soil profiles (from Rollins et al,
2005)

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

 CHAPTER 8 – Procedures for Gravelly Sand and Gravel – 8 6

8.3 End Bearing

Because of the lack of data from field tests for tip resistance in gravelly sand or gravel, the current
recommendation is to use the same criteria recommended by Reese and O’Neill for tip resistance in
cohesionless soils.

In general, the recommendation for the tip resistance of drilled shafts in cohesionless intends to be
conservative because there is a tendency for the soil to loosen slightly at the bottom of the excavation.
The load-settlement curves that have been obtained by experiment for the base of drilled shafts in sand
indicate that the load continued to increase for some of the tests to a settlement of more that 15 percent of
the diameter of the base. Such a large amount of settlement cannot be tolerated for most structures;
therefore, it was decided to limit the values of end bearing for drilled shafts in granular soil to that which
would occur at a downward movement of the base of 5 percent of the diameter of the base. As has been
shown by results of experiments with instrumented shafts, and as is now well known, the side friction will
be fully mobilized at the displacement of 0.5 inches (12.7 mm) or less. The tip resistance may be
relatively small when the side resistance is fully developed; therefore, the user should use load-transfer
concepts in computing the capacity of a drilled shaft that is appropriate for design.

Values of qb are tabulated as a function of NSPT (uncorrected field values) and shown in Table 8.1.
However, the values in the table may need to be reduced for large-diameter shafts, as shown later by
Eq. (8.4).

2
Range of Value on NSPT qb,tons/ft qb,MPa

0 to 75 0.60 NSPT 0.0575 NSPT

Above 75 45 4.3

Table 8.1 Recommended values of unit end bearing for cohesionless soil.

Neither of the sets of recommendations in Table 8.1 involve the stress in the soil outside the tip of
the drilled shaft. The importance of the stress outside the tip of a drilled shaft is consistent with the
writings of Meyerhof (1976) and others. Furthermore, the values in Table 8.1 are based strongly on
experimental results where the drilled shafts had various penetrations. However, implicit in the values of
qb that are given is that the penetration of the drilled shaft must be at least 10 diameters below the ground
surface. For penetrations less than 10 diameters, it is recommended (Quiros and Reese, 1977) that qb be
varied linearly from zero at the groundline to the value computed at 10 diameters using Table 8.1. This
recommendation is implemented in the SHAFT program. In Gravelly Sand and Gravel, this assumption
of linear interpolation from zero at ground surface may be too conservative so designers may choose to
use values from Table 8.1 according to their input and variations of NSPT (Blow Counts) values from
ground surface.

When base diameters exceed 50 in., it is recommended that a reduced ultimate value, qbr, be used,
in which:

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

 CHAPTER 8 – Procedures for Gravelly Sand and Gravel – 8 7

qbr = 50/Bb (qb)

(8.4)

Where
Bb = the diameter of the base of the shaft, in inches.

Based on analysis of available data, Table 8.1 indicates that the limiting value of load transfer in
end bearing is 45 tsf (4.3 MPa) at a settlement of 5 percent of the diameter of the base. Variations in
results from experiments can be expected, for example, a value of 58 tsf (5.6 MPa) was measured at a
settlement of 4 percent of the diameter of the base at a site in Florida (Owens and Reese, 1982).

8.4 Settlement
The characteristics of curves of side-friction versus displacement were presented conveniently
in Figure 3.3 by the normalized load transfer and normalized displacement for cohesionless soil.
Normalized curves of load versus displacement for tests in slightly cemented sand and gravelly sand were
plotted together in Figure 8.4. The load transfer has been normalized by diving by the maximum
(ultimate) load transfer corresponding to a displacement of 0.5 inches (12.7 mm) and the displacement
has been normalized by dividing by the shaft diameter. Similarly, normalized curves of load versus
displacement for tests in sand and gravel were plotted to in Figure 8.5.

The shape of the curves for gravelly sand (Figure 8.4) and gravel (Figure 8.5) are flatter than those
proposed by Reese and O’Neill, suggesting that soils are not cemented and that strength may be
developing due to dilation during shearing for gravelly sand and gravel. A considerable difference in the
shaft-soil-interface roughness was observed during construction. As the percentage of gravel increased,
the shaft-wall roughness also appeared to increase, as reported by Rollins et al. Another interesting
finding is that there was no appreciable difference between the ultimate skin friction measured in tension
or compression. However, differences in stiffness were observed.

Normalized curves of load versus displacement for gravelly sand and gravel can be used to estimate
skin friction development and load-settlement curves. Despite the availability of these recommended
curves, considerable engineering judgment is still necessary with regard to blow-count interpretation,
variation of soil layers and soil properties, and the construction method. Good practice is to analyze the
behavior of drilled shafts in gravelly sand and gravel layers based not only on the trend (averaged) curve,
but also taking into account the upper-bound and lower-bound curves assembled from the test data by
Rollins et al.

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

 CHAPTER 8 – Procedures for Gravelly Sand and Gravel – 8 8

Figure 8.4 Normalized load versus displacement curves for tests in slightly cemented
sand and gravelly sand (from Rollins et al, 2005)

Figure 8.5 Normalized load versus displacement curves for tests in slightly cemented
sand and gravel (from Rollins et al, 2005)

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

CHAPTER 9. Considerations for Factor
of Safety and LRFD Designs

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

 CHAPTER 9 – Considerations for Factor of Safety and LRFD Designs – 9 2

9.1 Introduction
In the United States, many design engineers use a combination of the factor of safety method for
geotechnical analysis of the foundation. The factor of safety method is often referred to as the allowable
stress design (ASD) method is termed the global approach. The engineer will consider all of the factors
at hand, including such things as the quality of the subsurface investigation, the statistical nature of the
loading, and the expected competence of the contractor, and an overall factor of safety is selected for
individual piles and for the group of piles. In recent years the concept of load and resistance factor design
has been used widely in structural engineering (referred to as LRFD method) and is termed the component
approach. The LRFD method was accepted formally in 1994 by the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) as a standard.

The design of a foundation is controlled by geotechnical performance when the soils are weak and
the foundation will failure in a geotechnical mode such as bearing capacity under vertical loading, bearing
failure under lateral loading and/or overturning, or when foundation displacements (vertical, lateral, or
rotational) are larger than tolerably limits for the structure above the foundation. The design of the
foundation is controlled by structural performance (i.e. structural capacity in bending moment and shear)
when the strength of the bearing soils and/or rock are sufficiently high that the foundation will fail under
extreme loading as a structural member before geotechnical failure modes can develop.

Plainly, the engineer aims to prevent a failure of the structure. However, the precise definition of
failure may be difficult, leading to possible misunderstandings in communicating with the owner and
others. Therefore, the need for the structure to perform as expected by the owner over its service life
needs to be understood by all relevant parties. Limit states are defined as those conditions under which a
structure or its components no longer perform an intended function. Whenever a structure or a part of a
structure fails to satisfy one of its designated operational criteria, it is said to have reached a limit state.

The two limit states of interest for most foundations are (1) strength limit state (ultimate limit state),
and (2) serviceability limit state. Strength limit states pertain to structural safety and collapse. For drilled
shafts under the axial load, the strength limit state is typically taken to be the ultimate axial capacity of the
drilled shaft embedded in soil/rock strata. Serviceability limit states pertain to conditions under which
performance requirements under normal service loads are exceeded. Such conditions might include
movement and elastic shortening of drilled shafts. Serviceability limit states are typically checked using
all specified or characteristic service loads (without any factors).

9.2 The Allowable Stress Design (ASD)

Engineers have traditionally used a global factor of safety for the design of drilled shafts, giving
careful consideration to all pertinent parameters influencing behavior. The value in the use of such an
overall factor is that the engineer may use judgment to select relevant parameters. For example, the shear
strength of the soil may be chosen more liberally or more conservatively, depending on the entire
character of the design. Examples of the use of global factors of safety for various geotechnical structures
have been discussed by many geotechnical engineers. One issue on the strength limit state of the ASD
method is the choice of the factor of safety (FS) to be used for the foundation design.

FS = R/Q

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

 CHAPTER 9 – Considerations for Factor of Safety and LRFD Designs – 9 3

(9.1)

where R = mean value of resistance, and Q = the mean value of load (or the nominal
applied load).

The choice of factor of safety for use in foundation design in the United States is usually based on
several factors, including consideration of impact of failure on the public well being, redundancy in the
foundation system, and the availability of information from load tests. Wright(1977) recommended
values of the global factor of safety (FS) for axially loaded drilled shafts for monumental structures (i.e.
major bridges) ranging from 3.5 where “poor” control is exercised over the construction to 2.3 where
“normal” control is exercised over construction. For temporary structures, FS is recommended to be 2.3
where “good” control is exercised over the construction and 1.7 where normal control is exercised. Most
designers select values of FS based on experience, upon a sense of the accuracy of their soil and rock
parameters and upon the perceived accuracy of the method that they are using to compute resistance.

Use of factors of safety in design equal to 2.0 are usually allowed only if a load test of similar
foundation is performed at the project site. If a load test is performed during the design phase of a
project, any questions regarding foundation capacity and stiffness can be answered and the resulting
knowledge be utilized in design.

Serviceability limit states are typically checked using all specified or characteristic service loads
without any factors. The serviceability limit states are typically varied with the functions of the super
structures.

9.3 Load and Resistance Factor Design (The LRFD Method)

The allowable stress design (ASD) is familiar to most foundation designers. However, it suffers
from the shortcoming that all uncertainty is lumped into one global factor of safety that is difficult to
evaluate functionally reliability of the foundation. The functional reliability of the foundation involves
the variability of the soil and rock properties and pattern and quality of soil and rock sampling, as well as
the accuracy of the design model and quality of construction. While it is difficult to arrive at a global
factor of safety that addresses all of these effects, each of the component uncertainties can be analyzed
individually and incorporated into a load and resistance design method, which considers the load and
resistance components separately.

The LRFD specifications of AASHTO present methods of modifying the component loads and the
component resistances. The basic equation is shown below.

i i Qi Rn Rr

(9.2)

Where

i = factors to account for ductility, redundancy and operational importance;

i = load factor;

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

 CHAPTER 9 – Considerations for Factor of Safety and LRFD Designs – 9 4

Qi = force effect, stress or resultant;

= resistance factor;
Rn = nominal (ultimate) resistance; and
Rr = factored resistance.

As may be seen, several features of the LRFD method are similar to the method of partial safety
factors. The engineer, in obtaining a solution to Equation (9.2), must estimate the loads and load
combinations that may be imposed on the structure, and estimate the ultimate resistance available to resist
the loading.

9.4 Loads addressed by the LRFD specifications

A large number of types of loads are considered in the LRFD specifications, including, dead load of
structural components and nonstructural attachments; dead load of wearing surface and utilities;
horizontal load from earth pressure; load from earth surcharge; vertical load from earth fill; load from
collision of a floating vessel; load from collision of vehicles; load from an earthquake; ice load; vertical
load from dynamics of vehicles; load from the centrifugal force of vehicle traveling on a curve; load from
the braking of vehicles; live load from vehicles; live load from surcharge; live load from pedestrians; load
from water pressure in fill; load from currents in stream; loads due to changes in temperature of structure;
wind load on structure; and wind load on vehicles. Each of the types of loads is discussed (NHI, 1998)
and some guidance is given in making the computation of magnitude of the load.

A number of basic load combinations (called limit states) are identified by ASSHTO for use in
design. The combinations are grouped into Strength (I, II, III, IV, V), Service (I, II, III), Extreme Event
(I, II), and Fatigue. Table 9.1 summarizes the recommended load factors, which are directly related to the
drilled shaft.

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

 CHAPTER 9 – Considerations for Factor of Safety and LRFD Designs – 9 5

Table 9.1 Recommended load factors from ASSHTO

9.5 Resistances addressed by the LRFD specifications

The principal emphasis of the LRFD specifications in regard to resistance resides in the
determination of values of geotechnical parameters. The process for planning and executing a program of
surface investigation is described (NHI, 1998); the sources of variability in estimating the properties of
soil and rock are described; and the statistical parameters are identified that can lead to the selection of a
resistance factor. The various items are discussed that pertain to the selection of the magnitude of the
reduction factor, .

The recommended strength reduction factors for drilled shafts under axial loads from the LRFD
specifications of AASHTO Standards are listed in Table 9.2.

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

 CHAPTER 9 – Considerations for Factor of Safety and LRFD Designs – 9 6

Table 9.2 Strength reduction factors recommended by AASHTO

9.6 Comments on the LRFD Design

The AASHTO LRFD Specifications are written based on probabilistic limit state theory with
several listed load combinations. The advantages of a probability-based LRFD specification are:
1. A more uniform level of safety throughout the system will result;
2. Measure of safety will be a function of the variability of loads and resistance;
3. Designers will have an estimate of the probability of meeting or exceeding the design criteria during
the design life;
4. The potential exists to place all structural materials and methods of construction on equal footing;
5. A realistic rational framework for future development of the specification will be available;
6. Proponents of future changes in materials and construction techniques will be asked to provide the
same measure of reliability that all current materials and construction methods will be asked to meet;

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

 CHAPTER 9 – Considerations for Factor of Safety and LRFD Designs – 9 7

7. Designers will have a better understanding of where and how uncertainties of load and resistance
models are accounted for, and will be able to relate past performance.

The disadvantages of basing a specification on this philosophy include an increased design effort,
as it is realistic to expect that a greater number of load and resistance factors will be available. However,
the designer will need little or no knowledge of reliability theory.

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

List of Technical References

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

 List of Technical References – R 2

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), “AASHTO LRFD Bridge
Design Specifications, Customary U.S. Units, 4th Ed., Section 10.” Washington, D.C. 2007.

Aurora, Ravi and L. C. Reese, “Field Tests of Drilled Shafts in Clay Shales.” Ninth International Conference
on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Tokyo, Japan, July, 1977.

Bernal, J. and L. C. Reese, “Study of the Lateral Pressure of Fresh Concrete as Related to the Design of
Drilled Shaft.” A Research Report No. 308 1F, conducted for the Texas Highway Department, in
cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration,
Center for Highway Research, The University of Texas at Austin, November, 1983.

Bieniawski, Z. T., Rock Mechanics Design in Mining and Tunneling, A. A. Balkema: Rotterdam/Boston,
1984, 272 pages.

Brown, D.A., J.P. Turner, and R.J. Castelli, “Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and LRFD Design
Methods,” prepared for U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration,
Publication No. FHWA NHI 10 016, 2010

Canadian Geotechnical Society, Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual, Part 2, Shallow Foundations,
Canadian Geotechnical Society, Montreal, 1978, 99 pages.

Chuang J. W. and L. C. Reese, “Studies of Shearing Resistance between Cement Mortar and Soil,”
Research Report No. 89 3, Project 3 5 65 89, conducted for the Texas Highway Department, in
cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration,
Center for Highway Research, The University of Texas at Austin, October, 1968, 71 pages.

Deere, D. V., “Geological Considerations,” Chapter l in Rock Mechanics in Engineering Practice by K. G.

Stagg and O. C. Zienkiewicz, Wiley, New York, 1968, pp.1 20.

Donald, I. B., S.W. Sloan, and H. K. Chiu, “Theoretical Analyses of Rock socketed Piles,” Proceedings,
International Conference on Structural Foundations on Rock, Sydney, Balkema: Rotterdam,
1980.

Engeling, D. and L. C. Reese, “Behavior of Three Instrumented Drilled Shafts Under Short Term Axial
Loading.” Research Report No. 176 3, Project 3 5 72 176, conducted for the Texas Highway
Department, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration, Center for Highway Research, The University of Texas at Austin, May, 1974, 116
pages.

Horvath, R.G., and T.C. Kenney, “Shaft Resistance of Rock Socketed Drilled Piers,” Proceedings,
Symposium on Deep Foundations, ASCE, Atlanta, Georgia, 1979, pp.182 214.

Johnston, I. W., I. B. Donald, A. B. Bennet, and J. W. Edwards, “The Testing of Large Diameter Pile Rock
Sockets with a Retrievable Test Rig,” Proceedings, Third Australian New Zealand Conference on
Geomechanics,Wellington, 1980a.

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

 List of Technical References – R 3

Johnston, I.W.,A. F. Williams, and H. K. Chiu, “Properties of Soft Rock Relevant to Socketed Pile Design,”
Proceedings, International Conference on Structural Foundations on Rock, Sydney, Balkema:
Rotterdam, l980b.

Kulhawy, F. H., ”Transmission Line Structures Foundations for Uplift Compression Loading,”
Geotechnical Group, Cornell University, Report No. EL 2870, Report to Electrical Power Research
Institute, Geotechnical Group, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, February, 1983.

LCPC (le Laboratoire Centraldes Ponts et Chaussees,) “Bored Piles,” English Translation of Les Pieux
Fores, (FHWA TS 86 206, March, 1986).

Mayne, P.W. and D.E. Harris, “Axial Load Displacement Behavior of Drilled Shaft Foundations in
Piedmont Residuum”. , Georgia Tech Research Corporation, Geotechnical Engineering Division,
Georgia Institute of Technology, School of Civil Engineering, Atlanta, GA, February, 1993.

Meyerhof, G. G., “Bearing Capacity and Settlement of Pile Foundations,” Journal of the SoilMechanics
and Foundation Engineering, Proceedings, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 102, No.
GT3, March, 1976, pp. 197 228.

Mogenstern, N. R. and K. D. Eigenbrod, “Classification of Argillaceous Soils and Rocks,” Journal of the
Geotechnical Engineering Division, Proceedings, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 100,
No. GT10, October, 1974, pp. 1137 1156.

O’Neill M.W. and L.C. Reese, “Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and Design Methods,” prepared
for U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of
Implementation, McLean, Virginia, 1999

O’Neill M.W. and L. C. Reese, “Behavior of Axially Loaded Drilled Shafts in Beaumont Clay.” Research
Report No. 89 8,Project 3 5 65 89, conducted for the Texas Highway Department, in
cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration,
Center for Highway Research, The University of Texas at Austin, December, 1970.

O’Neill, M.W. and S.A. Sheikh, “Geotechnical Behavior of Underreams in Pleistocene Clay,” Drilled Piers
and Caissons II, Ed. by C. N. Baker, Jr., ASCE, May, 1985, pp. 57 75.

O’Neill, M. W., F.C. Townsend, K.M. Hassan, A. Buller, and P.S. Chan, “Load Transfer for Drilled Shafts in
Intermediate Geomaterials”, Report No. FHWA RD 95 172, Federal Highway Administration,
McLean, VA, November, 1996.

Owens,M. J. and L. C. Reese, “The Influence of a Steel Casing on the Axial Capacity of A Drilled Shaft,” A
report to the Texas State Department of Highways and Public Transportation, Research Report
255 1F, Center for Transportation Research, Bureau of Engineering Research, The University of
Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, July, 1982, 204 pages.

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

 List of Technical References – R 4

Peck, R. B., “Rock Foundations for Structures,” Proceedings, Specialty Conference on Rock Engineering
for Foundations and Slopes, Boulder, Colorado, ASCE, 1976.

Quiros, G. W. and L. C. Reese, “Design Procedures for Axially Loaded Drilled Shafts,” Research Report
176 5F, Center for Highway Research, The University of Texas at Austin, 1977.

Randolph, M.F. and C.P. Wroth, “Analysis of Deformation of Vertically Loaded Piles, Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering Division , ASCE, Vol. 104, No. 12, December, 1978.

Reese, L. C., “Analysis of Data from Mustran Cells, Axial Load Test of Caisson CS1, Eugene Talmadge
Memorial Bridge, Chatham Country, Georgia,” an unpublished report to Dames & Moore, Boca
Raton, Florida, 1985.

Reese, L. C. and T. Bowman, “Report on Testing of a Drilled Shaft at Georgetown Steel Company in
Beaumont,” an unpublished report to Tracor, 1975.

Reese, L. C. and K. J. Nyman, “Field Load Tests of Instrumented Drilled Shafts at Islamorada, Florida,” a
report to Girdler Foundation and Exploration Corporation, Clearwater, Florida, February, 1978.

Reese, L. C. and M.W. O’Neill “Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and Design Methods,” prepared
for U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of
Implementation McLean, Virginia, 1988

Reese, L. C., M. W. O’Neill, and S. T. Wang, “Drilled Shaft Tests, Interchange of West Belt Toll Road and
US 290 Harris County, Texas,” an unpublished report to Harris County Toll Road Authority,
Houston, Texas, 1988.

Rollins, K.M.,R. J. Clayton, R.C. Mikesell, and B.C. Bradford, “Drilled Shaft Side Friction in Gravelly Soils,”
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers,
Vol. 131, No. 8, August, 2005, pp. 987 1003.

Schmertmann, J.H., “Report on Development of a Keys Limerock Shear Test for Drilled Shaft Design,” A
Report to Girdler Foundation and Exploration Company, Clearwater, Florida, December, 1977.

Sheikh, S. A., M. W. O’Neill, and K. Kapasi, “Behavior of 45 Degree Underream Footing in Eagle Ford
Shale,” Research Report No. 85 12, University of Houston, University Park, December, 1985.

Skempton,A.W., “The Bearing Capacity of Clays,” Proceedings, Building Research Congress, Division I,
Building Research Congress, London, 1951.

Williams, A. F., “Principles of Side Resistance Development in Rock Socketed Piles,” Proceedings, Third
Australian New Zealand Conference on Geomechanics, Wellington, 1980.

Williams, A. F., I. [Link], and H.K. Chiu, “Stress Distributions in Rock Socketed Piles,” Proceedings,
International Conference on Structural Foundations on Rock, Sydney, Balkema: Rotterdam,
1980a.

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows

 List of Technical References – R 5

Williams, A. F, I. W. Johnston, and I. B. Donald, “The Design of Socketed Piles in Weak Rock,”
Proceedings, International Conference on Structural Foundations on Rock, Sydney, Balkema:
Rotterdam, 1980b.

Williams,A. F., and M. C. Erwin, “The Design and Performance of Cast in situ Piles in Extensively Jointed
Silurian Mudstone,” Proceedings, Third Australian New Zealand Conference on Geomechanics,
Wellington, 1980.

Technical Manual (Rel. Nov/2012) SHAFT for Windows