Some Observations on Reliability-Based Design of Rock Footings

Widjojo A. Prakoso, A.M.ASCE 1 and Fred H. Kulhawy, Dist.M.ASCE 2

1

Lecturer, Civil Engineering Department, University of Indonesia, Depok 16424,

Indonesia; email: wprakoso@eng.ui.ac.id
2
Professor Emeritus, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Cornell
University, Ithaca, NY, USA; email: fhk1@cornell.edu
ABSTRACT
This paper continues our development of a simplified reliability-based design
method for rock footings in an LRFD format. Two issues are addressed herein: the
robustness of the empirical model and the proper approach to evaluate the rock
strength variability. Results of simulations using three calculation models indicate
that the empirical model is reasonably conservative and that the strength variability
to be used in the calculations is that of the rock mass, not the intact rock.
INTRODUCTION
The development of a reliability-based design (RBD) method for the ultimate
limit state (ULS) of rock footings in compression, calibrated for transmission line or
similar structures subjected to ASCE wind load provisions (Task Committee 1991),
was described briefly by Prakoso and Kulhawy (2003). The proposed method was in
a Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) format and consisted of two components: an empirical calculation model and the intact rock strength and its variability.
This paper addresses two issues that were not discussed in detail in the 2003
paper: the robustness of the empirical model and the proper approach to evaluate the
rock strength variability. After presenting the proposed LRFD model, the variability
of the rock strength is discussed, and the calculation models are assessed. Recommendations then are given, particularly for evaluating the rock strength variability.
CAPACITY OF ROCK FOOTINGS
The compression capacity of rock footings (Qc) is a function of the tip resistance (Qtc), side resistance (Qsc), and footing weight (W). Because of their relative
magnitude, Qsc and W commonly are neglected in practice, so Qc is given by:
Qc = Qtc + Qsc - W Qtc

(1)

The compression capacity involves a complex interaction among the intact

structure, discontinuities, and imposed stress effects in the rock mass within the
influence zone of the footing. This interaction typically is difficult to measure and
estimate, and consequently the use of theoretical solutions require considerable

judgment. As a practical alternative, it is assumed commonly that Qc can be related

directly to the intact rock uniaxial compressive strength (qu), as follows:
Qc = 0.25 B2 Nc* qu

(2)

in which B = footing diameter and Nc* = empirical bearing capacity or resistance

factor. The inherent assumptions within this model are that Nc* represents the
failure mode and that qu represents the material conditions. It is recognized that
the uncertainties associated with the calculation model and the intact rock strength
should be evaluated at every specific site. However, in the absence of site-specific
data, guidelines on the probable variation resulting from the calculation models are
useful as first-order approximations.
The development of Nc* was described by Prakoso and Kulhawy (2002),
using twelve field axial load tests on circular footings in four fine-grained sedimentary and igneous pyroclastic rock sites. The back-calculated Nc* ranged from 2.40 to
14.8. Three tests yielded very high Nc* values (Nc* = 8.35 14.8) and, to retain some
degree of conservatism, these values were not considered in further statistical and
regression analyses. The remaining nine test data ranged from 2.40 to 5.21, and the
mean of the footing resistance factor (mNc*) and its coefficient of variation (COV) or
COVNc* are 3.46 and 26.8%, respectively, as shown in Figure 1.
LRFD FOR ROCK FOOTINGS
A reliability-based design equation in the following LRFD format was used
in the calibration of the ULS for rock footings:
F50 = Qcn cULS

(3)

in which F50 = 50-year return period wind load (Task Committee 1991) and cULS =
resistance factor for ULS. The nominal compression capacity then is defined as:
Qcn = 0.25 B2 mNc* mqu

(4)

in which mNc* = nominal empirical footing resistance factor and mqu = mean intact
rock uniaxial compressive strength.
The calibration of cULS was performed for three domains of COV of qu
(COVqu) that represent the overall rock strength variability, and each was calibrated
to achieve a target reliability index (T) of 3.2. The results are given in Table 1 and
show that cULS decreases with increasing COVqu. A higher value of COVqu gives a
less reliable capacity estimate, and therefore a lower cULS is required to achieve the
design T. The calibration details are discussed by Prakoso and Kulhawy (2003).
In traditional allowable stress practice, rock footings are designed as follows:
F50 = Qcn / FS

(5)

No. Observations

Mean = 3.46
COV = 26.8%
m=9

Log-Normal
Distribution

2
0

0
0

Bearing Capacity Factor, Nc

6
*

Figure 1. Footing empirical Nc*

(Prakoso & Kulhawy 2002)

Reliability Index,

FS = 2
FS = 3

40

80

COV of qu (%)

Figure 2. Effect of COVqu on

Table 1. Compression resistance factors (Prakoso & Kulhawy 2003)

COVqu (%)
cULS
10 30
0.36
30 50
0.29
50 70
0.23
in which FS = global factor of safety (typically between 2 and 3). However, the
implicit reliability index () in practice is shown in Figure 2. As can be seen for a
wide range of COVqu, the range of is between 2.06 (probability of failure, pf =
1.99%) to 3.44 (pf = 0.03%), and is higher for a higher safety factor. Furthermore,
Figure 2 shows that is influenced significantly by COVqu.
The empirical Nc* might change with a change in the data base, and therefore
the effect of Nc* statistics on also was evaluated. For changes of mNc* from 2.50 to
4.50, changes from 2.752 to 2.726 (empirical mNc* = 3.46, = 2.723). For changes
of COVNc* from 20% to 35%, changes from 2.816 to 2.637 (empirical COVNc* =
26.8%, = 2.796). These results show that the statistics of Nc* do not affect
significantly, specifically compared to the effect of COVqu. Accordingly, the
proposed RBD equations should not change significantly as more data on footing
capacity become available and the statistics of Nc* change.
VARIABILITY OF ROCK MECHANICAL PROPERTIES
The variability of rock mechanical properties can be evaluated in terms of the
intact rock or the rock mass. For the intact rock, the variability has been assessed by
Prakoso and Kulhawy (2011). The COV values for ranges of mean property values
(strength properties qu, qt-Brazilian, and Is, and deformation property Et-50) are shown as
Figure 3. Overall, the mean COV values tend to decrease with increasing mean
property values, from 10 - 45% for weaker rocks to 5 - 15% for stronger rocks.

40
30
20
10
0

Weaker

Stronger

Mean Mech. Property Values (MPa)

Number of Observations

Mean COV of Inherent Var. (%)

50

10
Mean = 47.9 %
S.D. = 21.8 %
m = 14

20

40

60

80

COV of Inherent Variability of Em (%)

60
40
20
0
0
4
8
12 16
Confining Stress, 3 (MPa)

1.0

1.5

0.8
1.0

0.6

SRblock

80

SRblock

COV of (1 - 3)f (%)

Figure 3. Mean and COV mean

Figure 4. Variability of rock mass
of intact rock mechanical properties modulus (Prakoso & Kulhawy 2004b)
(Prakoso & Kulhawy 2011)

0.4
0.2

0.5

0.0
o
o
0
30o
60
90
Discontinuity Angle,

0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Number of Discontinuity

Figure 5. Artificial rock block strength variability (Prakoso & Kulhawy 2004b)
For the rock mass, the property variability has been examined by Prakoso and
Kulhawy (2004b). Two data groups were evaluated: field load tests and laboratory,
artificial rock block tests. For the field tests, fourteen sets of rock mass Youngs
modulus (Em) were back-calculated. The COV of Em (COVEm) ranged from 10 to
80%, and the mean and S.D. of COVEm are 47.9% and 21.8%, respectively, as shown
in Figure 4. For the artificial rock block tests, the effect of rock mass structure on its
strength could be estimated, as shown in Figure 5. These data show: (a) variability is
most significant for rock masses with low confining stress, in which COV varies
from 10 to 75%, (b) variability is most significant for discontinuity angles between
40 and 60, and (c) variability tends to increase with increasing number of
discontinuities.
Overall, the mechanical property variability for intact rock tends to be lower
than that for the rock mass. The bearing capacity is actually controlled by the rock
mass, and therefore the variability of the rock mass should be assessed, in addition to
that of the intact rock, in the determination of the COVqu for cULS.

EVALUATION OF BEARING CAPACITY FACTOR

Forty sets of Monte Carlo simulations were performed on three theoretical
bearing capacity models to evaluate the possible range of Nc* and to evaluate the
significance of variability of strength parameters on Nc*. The models are shown in
Figure 6 and include: (a) the general wedge (Model 1) (Prakoso & Kulhawy 2006),
(b) the rock mass with two ubiquitous, closed discontinuity sets (Model 2) (Prakoso
& Kulhawy 2004a), and (c) the rock mass with open vertical discontinuities that
consists of three transitional failure modes from uniaxial to splitting to wedge
(Model 3) (Prakoso & Kulhawy 2006). Two thousand simulations were performed
for each set, using the parameters given in Table 2. For all three models, the rock
B

Sj
Discontinuity Set 1
m1 = 0

Sj >> B
General Wedge

a) Model 1

Discontinuity
Set 2
m2 = 90

b) Model 2

Sj
Sj < B
Uniaxial Compression

Sj

Sj

Sj > B
Splitting

Sj >> B
General Wedge

c) Model 3
Figure 6. Theoretical models for bearing capacity of rock footings
Table 2. Discontinuity parameters for Monte Carlo simulations
Model
Discontinuities
1. General Wedge
2. Two Ubiquitous,
Orientation of discontinuities
Closed Discontinuity
1 = -10 to 10, 2 = 80 to 100
Sets
Strength of discontinuities
j/r = 0.5-0.7 to 0.8-1.0
cj/cr = 0.05-0.15 to 0.2-0.3
3. Open Vertical
Vertical discontinuity spacing
Discontinuities
Mean Sj/B = 2 to10
COV Sj/B = 20% to 80%

friction angle is characterized by a beta distribution with mean r = 35-50, COV r

= 5-15%, lower bound = 27, and upper bound = 70. The discontinuity properties
for Model 2 follow a uniform distribution, while those for Model 3 follow a lognormal distribution; detailed descriptions of the properties are given in each
respective reference. For each simulation, Nc*sim was calculated using the following:
Nc*sim = qult-sim / qu-sim

(6)

in which qult-sim = simulation bearing capacity and qu-sim = simulation intact rock
uniaxial compressive strength. Subsequently, the mean and COV of Nc* sim (mNc*sim
and COVNc*sim) of each set were evaluated. For Models 2 and 3, each mNc*sim value
represents a different failure mode or, in terms of the proposed RBD method, each
mNc*sim represents a possible mNc*. On the other hand, each COVNc*sim value represents the effect of rock strength variability or, in terms of the proposed RBD method,
each COVNc*sim would represent a possible value of COVqu.
Values of mNc*sim for the models are given in Figure 7, which shows that as
m increases, mNc*sim increases. However, the increase for Model 1 is much more
significant than for the other models, suggesting that, once discontinuities are
considered explicitly, the intact rock properties do not control the behavior too
significantly. The range of mNc*sim shown in Figure 7 is similar to the empirical Nc*
values discussed previously. The results of Models 2 and 3 suggest that mNc* of 3.46
is reasonably conservative for a wide range of rock types and conditions.
The effect of discontinuity properties on mNc*sim was evaluated as well, as
shown in Figure 8 for Model 2 and in Figure 9 for Model 3. These figures show that
the discontinuity properties have a relatively small effect on mNc*sim, which suggests
that mNc* of 3.46 is reasonably conservative for a wide range of rock structures.
The effect of rock friction angle variability (COV) on COVNc*sim is given in

Mean of Nc*sim

20

25

Model 1
Model 2
Model 3

j / r

20
Mean of Nc*sim

25

15
10
5
0

cj / cr

15
10
5

35

40

45

50

Mean Rock Friction Angle, m (o)

Figure 7. Effect of models on mNc*sim

0
j / r = 0.5-0.7

0.6-0.8 0.7-0.9 0.8-1.0

cj / cr = 0.05-0.15 0.1-0.2 0.15-0.25 0.2-0.3
Discontinuity Strength Parameters

Figure 8. Effect of Model 2 discontinuity strength parameters on mNc*sim

20
Change in COVNc*sim (%)

25

Mean of Nc*sim

20
15
10
5
0

-10

-20

10

Model 1
Model 2
Model 3

10

15

20

COV of Rock Friction Angle, COV (%)

Mean Spacing (Sj / B)

Figure 9. Effect of Model 3 discontinuity spacing on mNc*sim

10

Figure 10. Effect of Model 2 discontinuity strength parameters on mNc*sim

100

100

80

COV of Nc*sim (%)

COV of Nc*sim (%)

60
40
20

j / r

80

COVSj

60
40
20

cj / cr

0
0.8-1.0 Model2: 1
=-5o - 5o -10o - 10o -15o - 15o
cj / cr = 0.05-0.15 0.1-0.2 0.15-0.25 0.2-0.3 Model3: COVSj = 20%
40%
80%
Discontinuity Strength Parameters
Disc. Orientation & Spacing Param.
j / r = 0.5-0.7 0.6-0.8 0.7-0.9

Figure 11. Effect of discontinuity

strength parameters

Figure 12. Effect of discontinuity

orientation and spacing parameters

Figure 10 and shows a significant effect for Model 1, but not for Models 2 and 3.
Furthermore, as shown as Figures 11 and 12, the discontinuity properties have
significant effects on COVNc*sim. This observation suggests that, for most cases, the
variability of intact rock strength would not affect significantly the variability of the
bearing capacity or, in terms of the proposed RBD method, the COVqu range to be
used in determining cULS should not be determined solely based on the intact rock
strength variability. On the other hand, the variability of discontinuity properties
would affect the variability of bearing capacity significantly and would have to be
considered in the determination of the COVqu for cULS.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This paper continues our development of a simplified reliability-based design
method for rock footings in an LRFD format. Two issues were addressed herein: the
robustness of the empirical model and the proper approach to evaluate the rock
strength variability. The results of simulations indicate that the empirical calculation model is reasonably conservative. In any case, the footing reliability would
not be influenced significantly by the model statistics. The results of an extensive
evaluation of rock properties, and the simulation results, suggest that the variability of rock mass strength should be used in evaluating the rock variability in the
proposed LRFD format.
REFERENCES
Prakoso, W.A. and Kulhawy, F.H. (2002). Uncertainty in capacity models for foundations in rock. Proc. 5th North American Rock Mech. Symp., Toronto, 12411248.
Prakoso, W.A. and Kulhawy, F.H. (2003). Reliability-based design for rock footings.
Proc. Int. Workshop on Limit State Design in Geotech. Eng. Practice, Cambridge, 23-24 (extended abs) + 5 p (on CD).
Prakoso, W.A. and Kulhawy, F.H. (2004a). Bearing capacity of strip footings on
jointed rock masses. J. Geotech. Eng., ASCE, 130(12), 1347-1349.
Prakoso, W.A. and Kulhawy, F.H. (2004b). Variability of rock mass engineering
properties. Proc. 15th Southeast Asian Geotech Conf., Bangkok, 97-100.
Prakoso, W.A. and Kulhawy, F.H. (2006). Capacity of foundations on discontinuous
rock. Proc. 41st U.S. Symp. Rock Mech., Golden, Paper 06-972, 7 p. (on CD).
Prakoso, W.A. and Kulhawy, F.H. (2011). Variability of intact rock mechanical
properties. (to be submitted)
Task Committee on Structural Loadings. (1991). Guidelines for electrical transmission line structural loading. Manual & Report on Eng. Practice 74. ASCE,
Reston, 139 p.