Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 89

See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/275954584

A Literature Review on Behavior of Shallow


Foundations on Jointed Rock Mass
RESEARCH MAY 2015
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4017.2968

READS

124

Available from: Dipaloke Majumder


Retrieved on: 16 October 2015

BEHAVIOUR OF SHALLOW FOUNDATION ON


JOINTED ROCK MASS
A Seminar Report
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
in
Civil Engineering
(with specialization in Geotechnical Engineering)
by

DIPALOKE MAJUMDER
(Enrolment No.: 14910011)

Under the Guidance of


Dr. M. N. VILADKAR

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING


INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ROORKEE
ROORKEE - 247667, UTTARAKHAND, INDIA
MAY, 2015

CANDIDATES DECLARATION

It is certified that the work which is presented in the seminar report entitled Behaviour of
shallow foundation on jointed rock mass has been carried out in Department of Civil Engineering
at Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee under the supervision of Dr. M. N. Viladkar, Professor of
Geotechnical Engineering Group, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology
Roorkee, Roorkee, India.
I further declare that the matter embodied in this seminar report, has not been submitted by me
for the award of any other degree.

Date:

Dipaloke Majumder

Place: IIT Roorkee

Enrolment No.: 14910011

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the above statement made by the candidate is correct to the best of my
knowledge.

Dr. M. N. Viladkar
Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee
Roorkee-247667, Uttarakhand, India

II

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

With immense pleasure, I would like to express my deep sense of gratitude to my supervisor,
Dr. M. N. Viladkar, Professor, Geotechnical Engineering Group, Department of Civil Engineering,
Indian Institute Technology Roorkee, for being the source of inspiration and for providing valuable
advice, resourceful guidance in all respect throughout this work. It is due to his continuous
encouragements for which this report could be brought to the current shape.
My sincere gratitude goes to my Parents for supporting me in my every success and failure in
my life. I would also acknowledge my gratefulness to my friends and seniors for providing their
supports, thoughts and suggestions.

Date:
Place: IIT Roorkee

Dipaloke Majumder

III

ABSTRACT
In last few decades, immense growth in infrastructural development makes the
appropriate available locations scarce for foundation construction of heavy structures like high
rise buildings, bridges, transmission line towers etc. As rocks are inherently stronger and stable
to withstand heavy loads compared to soil, the foundation engineers always prefer rock or rock
mass as a foundation material. However, behaviour of jointed rocks is very complex due to its
non-homogeneity and anisotropy. In order to design foundations on jointed rocks, two criteria
must be fulfilled. One criterion is the shear failure criterion of the ground and other is the
settlement criterion under resultant load.
In the present study, literature on bearing capacity and settlement characteristics of
different types of shallow foundations resting on horizontal or sloping, isotropic or anisotropic
jointed rock mass subjected to different types of loading, has been reviewed. Some accessible
provisions of Indian standard code of practice have been stated in brief. In addition, some
existing analytical (Limit equilibrium, limit analysis and characteristic line method), numerical
(FEM, DEM and ANN), experimental and empirical studies relevant to the problem, have been
discussed. Finally, the report concludes with few useful suggestions.
Exploration of available studies revealed that most of the studies deal with the problem
of bearing capacity of strip footing on horizontal surface of jointed rock mass. However, very
limited number of studies have focussed on bearing capacity of other types of footings
(rectangular, circular, combined or raft) on slopping jointed rock mass and subjected to
eccentric-inclined loading. Moreover, adequate attention has not been paid so far on the
formulation of pressure-settlement and pressure-tilt characteristics of footings on rock mass.
Therefore on a conclusive note, the study finds these as grey areas and further research can be
conducted these areas.

IV

CONTENTS
Title

Page No.

Candidates Declaration

II

Acknowledgement

III

Abstract

IV

Contents

List Of Figures

VI

List Of Tables

Notations

IX

1.0

Introduction

1.1

General

1.2

Objective

1.3

Outline Of Report

2.0

Literature At A Glance

3.0

Codal Provisions

4.0

Limit Equilibrium Method

5.0

Limit Analysis Method

6.0

Characteristics Line Method

28

7.0

Numerical Methods

34

8.0

Experimental Methods

47

9.0

Empirical Methods

50

10.0

Contact Pressure Distribution on Rock Mass

51

11.0

Critical Comments

59

12.0

Conclusions

60

References

61

Appendix I

64

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
No.

Title

Page
No.

Various types of foundations (Wyllie, 2005)

Analysis of bearing capacity of blocks, (A) Failure of small block and (B) Failure
of large block (Meyerhof 1953)

Tangential line to modified Hoek-Brown failure criterion (Yang and Yin 2005)

Symmetrical failure mechanism for bearing capacity (Yang and Yin 2005)

Variation of bearing capacity with surcharge load (Yang and Yin 2005)

10

Failure mechanism for seismic bearing capacity of a footing on a slope (Yang 2009)

11

Problem definition (Merifield et al. 2006)

12

Bearing capacity factor for weightless rock (Merifield et al. 2006)

13

Average finite element limit analysis values for bearing capacity factor N
(Merifield et al. 2006)

14

10

Failure mechanisms, (a) Prandtl-type mechanism, M1 and (b) Multi-wedge


translation mechanism, M2 (Saada et al. 2007)

15

11

Variation of ultimate bearing capacity qu with surcharge load q0 for different


failure mechanisms (Sadda et al. 2007)

16

12

Variation of ultimate bearing capacity qu with unit weight of rock and surcharge

16

load q0 (Sadda et al. 2007)


13

Elements used in lower bound analysis: (a) Four node rectangular extension
element, (b) Three node triangular extension element and (c) Three node triangular
element (Sutcliffe et al. 2003)

17

14

Linearized Mohr-Coulomb yield function ( p 6 )(Sutcliffe et al. 2003)

18

15

Variation of bearing capacity with joint orientation one joint set (Sutcliffe et al.
2003)

19

16

Variation of bearing capacity with joint orientation two joint set (Sutcliffe et al.
2003)

19

17

Bearing capacity against joint set orientation for : (a) one joint set and (b) two joint
set (Sutcliffe et al. 2003)

19

VI

Figure
No.

Page
No.

Title

18

Lower bound capacity model (Bell, 1915) for rock mass with one joint set (Prakoso
and Kulhawy 2004)

20

19

Lower bound bearing capacity of strip footings on jointed rock masses with (a)
One joint set, (b) Two joint sets (Prakoso and Kulhawy, 2004)

22

20

Comparison of Ncs of the proposed lower bound model with other models (Prakoso
and Kulhawy, 2004)

22

21

Bells approach for bearing capacity estimation (Singh and Rao, 2005)

24

22

Parabolic strength criterion (Singh and Rao, 2005)

24

23

Chart for computing (a) joint factor J f and (b) cr (Singh and Rao, 2005)

25

24

Charts for computing (a) average strength enhancement and (b) lower bound
strength enhancement (Singh and Rao, 2005)

26

25

Failure mechanisms and corresponding hodographs: (a) TS1 and (b) OS1 (Imani et
al., 2012)

27

26

Comparison of results among the present upper bound solution, methods of Ausilio
and Conte (2005) and Hansen et al. (1987) (Imani et al. 2012)

28

27

Variation of Quw/Qu with Dw/B for (A) i = j=35o and Ci = 5 MPa and (B) i =
35o, Ci = 0.1 Mpa and Cj = 0 (Imani et al. 2012)

28

28

Shallow footing on horizontal surface subjected to vertical load (Serrano et al.,


1994)

29

29

Characteristic network under the foundation (Serrano et al., 1994)

30

30

Variation of Riemanns invariant with instantaneous friction angle (Serrano and


Olalla 1994)

31

31

*
Variation of load coefficient ( N ) with normalized external load 01

on

32

boundary 1 and inclination of load on boundary 2 (Horizontal surface, 0 )


(Serrano and Olalla, 1994, 1996)
32

Variation of Load Factor N

with Normalized External Load on Boundary 1,

33

with Horizontal Ground and Vertical External Loads (Serrano et al. 2000)
33

Geometry and boundary conditions of the calculation domain (Clausen 2012)

34

34

Variation of final load pu with no. of degree of freedom ndof (Clausen 2012)

34

VII

Figure
No.

Title

Page
No.

35

Variation of bearing capacity and near-failure displacement for GSI 10 (Clausen


2012)

36

36

Dimensions, velocity field and boundary conditions of distinct element model in the
homogeneous medium (Salari-rad et al. 2012)

37

37

Possible anisotropic failure mechanisms depending on dip of joints: MI, M1, M2,
MC, MS and MD (Serrano and Olalla 1998)

38

38

Variation of bearing capacity with dip angle of joint set (Salari-rad et al. 2012)

38

39

Comparison of bearing capacity obtained by DEM and lower bound limit analysis
method by Sutcliffe et al. 2004 (Salari-rad et al. 2012)

39

40

Rock mass specimens (a) Type A and (b) Type B (Bindlish et al. 2013)

40

41

For type-A specimen results obtained from UDEC analysis (a) Load versus
settlement curve and (b) failure mode and major stress contours ( = 45, s = 0)
(Bindlish et al. 2013)

40

42

Comparison of ultimate bearing capacity predicted by UDEC model with


experimental values for (a) type-A specimens and (b) type-B specimens (Bindlish
et al. 2013)

40

43

Finite element model for elasto-plastic analysis of surface strip footing


(Shekhawat and Viladkar 2014)

41

44

Load intensity vs settlement characteristics with respect to load (a)


eccentricity and (b) inclination (Shekhawat and Viladkar 2014)

41

45

Bearing capacity factor N 0 model validation curve (Shekhawat and

42

Viladkar 2014)
46

Schematic illustration of proposed ANN (MLP) network (Ziaee et al. 2014)

43

47

Comparison of measured and predicted qult values using ANN model: (a)

45

training (learning and validation) data and (b) testing data (Ziaee et al. 2014)
48

Comparison of qult values among ANN model predicted, experimental and

46

Goodman (1989) values (Ziaee et al. 2014)


49

The percentage relative importance histogram of each input variable for


predicting qult based on the Garsons algorithm (1991)

VIII

46

Figure
No.

Title

Page
No.

50

Rock mass specimens with 0 90 @15 are: (a) Type A, (b) Type B, (c)
Type C (Bindlish et al. 2012)

48

51

(a) Rock mass specimen with variation in joint set angle and side slope
and (b) Bearing capacity test apparatus for J0090-SL45-ED00 (Shukla et al.
2014)

49

52

Pressure Bulb Resulting From Loading of An Elastic Half Plane By (a) Vertical
Line Load, (b) Shear Line Load and (c) Inclined Line Load (Goodman 1989)

53

53

Two Dimensional Joint Model with (a) Horizontal Major Joints ( 0 ) and (b)
Inclined Major Joints with An Inclination Angle (Gaziev and Erlikhman 1971)

51

54

Stress Concentration Patterns Induced By Partial Surface Loading on 2D Joint


Models with Different Values of (Gaziev and Erlikhman 1971)

54

55

Comparison of Pressure Bulbs Predicted By Anisotropic Continuum Model and


Discrete Joint Model (Singh 1973b)

55

56

Pressure Bulb Under Line Loads in Jointed Rocks Calculated By Bray (1977)
(Goodman 1989)

56

57

Maximum Shear Stress Contours Due To Partial Surface Loading For R = 10


(Oda et al. 1993)

57

58

Stress Distribution Beneath Loaded Area, Estimated By Jointed Rock Model in


Semi-Infinite Model with One Joint Set (Agharazi et al. 2012)

58

IX

LIST OF TABLES
Table
No.

Title

Page
No.

Net allowable bearing pressure qa based on rock material as per IS 12070:1987

Net allowable bearing pressure qa based on RMR as per IS 12070:1987

Maximum and differential settlements of buildings on rock mass (clause 5.2.4; IS


13063:1991)

Ultimate bearing capacity qu of strip footing (Yang and Yin 2005)

10

Comparison of ultimate bearing capacity for various quality of weightless rock


mass (Merifield et al., 2006)

14

Comparison of bearing capacity factor N for weightless rock, D 0 and

16

mi 10 (Sadda et al. 2007)


7

Joint inclination parameter n f , (Ramamurthy 1993)

23

Coefficient a for cj estimation (Singh et al. 2002)

23

Benchmark values (Clausen 2013)

36

10

Weight and bias values between input and hidden layer (Ziaee et al. 2014)

44

11

Weight and bias values between hidden layer and output layer (Ziaee et al. 2014)

45

NOTATIONS

B , B0

= Width of footing or column

= Disturbance factor

Ei , E j

= Modulus of elasticity of intact rock and jointed rock respectively

Em

= Modulus of deformation

Fp , Fm

= Partial safety factors

GSI

= Geological strength index of rock masses

= Thickness of rock block

H1

= Height of wall from foundation footing

= Moment of inertia bd 3 12

I1

= Riemanns invariant

Jf

= Joint factor

Jn

= Joint frequency in loading direction

= Coefficient of buckling or effective length

= Lower limit of normalized variables

Lb

= Buckling length or effective length of column

L1

= Length of deflected part of wall/raft or centre to centre distance between columns

Nc , N q , N , Ncs , N , N 0 = Bearing capacity coefficients


N

= Load factor

Pcr

= Buckling load of column

RMR

= Rock mass rating

S
B

= Ratio of joint spacing to footing width

Sm

= Maximum settlement of strip footing subjected to eccentric inclined load

S ml

= Joint spacing of i th family

S per

= Permissible settlement

S0

= Settlement of strip footing subjected to central vertical load

XI

= Upper limit of normalized variables

Vk

= Hidden layer weights

Wk

= Input layer weights

= Unknown stresses or component of applied load in parallel to joint planes

Xn

= Normalized value of variable X

X max , X min

= Maximum and minimum value of variables

= Empirical coefficient

biask and biash = Input and hidden layer biases respectively


c,cr , S0

= Cohesion of rock-material

c ', '

= Equivalent Mohr-Coulomb parameters

c j and j

= Cohesion and friction angle of joint sets respectively

= Load eccentricity

= Load inclination

i1

= Inclination of load at boundary 1

kh

= Horizontal seismic coefficient

= Number of discontinuity families

mb

= Reduced value of the material constant mi

mi , s

= Hoek-Brown parameters of intact rock

nf

= Modified joint inclination parameter for shallow foundation

p0

= Normal pressure on the equivalent free surface

pt

= Maximum bending tensile stress at point of wedge

= Overburden pressure

q0

= Equivalent surcharge load

qa

= Net allowable bearing pressure

qult , qu , pu , Ph , qult , ANN = Ultimate bearing capacity of rock mass


r

= Joint shear strength parameter / Radius of circular footing

XII

sc , sq

= Shape factors

= Tilt of strip footing

= Inclination of slope / Semi wedge angle 45 2

= Angle between joint and vertical axis

i , i

= Angle of wedge

= Geo-mechanical parameters

= Unit weight of geo-material

'

= Submerged unit weight of rock mass

= Frequency of i th discontinuity family (m)

= Poisons ratio.

= Angle of internal friction of geo-material

= Tangent angle

= Friction angle rock material

= Instantaneous friction angle

o*1

= Normalized major principal stress

= Major effective principal stress

= Minor effective principal stress

'
3max

= Upper limit of confining stress

= Uniaxial compressive strength of rock at failure

cj , ci

= Uniaxial compressive strength of jointed rock mass and intact rock respectively

= Normal stress on plane

= Stress at a distance r from point of application of load

= Tensile strength of rock

= Inclination of major principal stress

= Shear stress on the plane

= Joint set orientation with horizontal plane

XIII

1.0

INTRODUCTION

1.1

GENERAL
A foundation engineer frequently comes across the problem of foundations of heavily loaded

structures like high rise buildings, bridges, transmission line towers etc. As rocks are inherently stronger
and stable to withstand heavy loads, compared to soil, the foundation engineers always prefer rocks or
rock mass as a foundation material.
Shallow foundation is a type of foundation whose depth to size ratio is less than 1.0. The
shearing resistance of soil in the sides of the foundation is generally neglected (IS 6403: 1981).
Rock mass is a non-homogeneous, anisotropic and discontinuous medium. It consists of intact
rocks separated by geological discontinuities such as joints, faults and bedding planes. Generally, the
behaviour of rock mass is governed by the interaction of intact blocks with these discontinuities in the
presence of an applied force. The compressive strength of intact rock is in the range of 1 MPa to 200
MPa. But due to the presence of these weak planes, joints and other discontinuities in the rock mass,
compressive strength and modulus of the mass are significantly lower and the correct assessment of
bearing capacity of foundations on jointed rock mass is a complex problem.
The ability of rock to sustain substantial shear and tensile forces facilitates the engineers to
construct many type of structures on rock mass. Examples of such structures are

Buildings, dams, bridges etc. which produce vertical and inclined loads on the foundation.

Machine foundations which produce vibrating loads on the foundation.

Heavily loaded industrial structures, thermal power plants etc.

The anchorages for suspension bridges, transmission line towers and other tie down anchors
which develop uplift forces.

Rock socketed piers which sustain substantial loads in both compressive and uplift situations.
Depending upon the magnitude, direction of loading and the geotechnical conditions of bearing

area, rock foundations are classified as - spread footings, socketed piers and tension foundations, shown
in Fig. 1 (Duncan C. Wyllie 2005).
1.2

OBJECTIVE
The objective of present study is to review of available literatures on bearing capacity and

settlement characteristics of different types of shallow foundations resting on horizontal or slopping,


isotropic or anisotropic jointed rock mass subjected to different types of loading.

Fig. 1 Various Types of Rock Foundations: (a) Spread Footing Located at Crest of Steep Slope;
(b) Dam Foundation with Resultant Inclined Loading (Spread Footing); (c) Socketed Pier to
Transfer Structural Load to Elevation Below Base of Adjacent Excavation and (d) Tie-Down
Anchors, with Staggered Lengths, to Prevent Uplift of Submerged Structure
(Duncan C. Wyllie 2005).
1.3

OUTLINE OF REPORT
A brief introduction of the problem, necessity and objective of the present study have been

discussed in section 1.
Section 2 contains broad classification of methodologies and appendix I in which all the
literatures are given in tabular form.
Different IS code provisions related to shallow foundation on rock mass have been mentioned
in section 3.
Available literatures corresponding to different analytical and numerical methodologies on
bearing capacity of shallow foundation have been discussed briefly in section 4, 5, 6 and 7.

In section 8 and 9, various experimental and empirical studies on bearing capacity of shallow
foundation on rock mass have been discussed respectively.
Few studies on distribution of contact pressure in rock mass under shallow foundation are
summarised in section 10.
Some critical comments on the reviewed literatures have been made in section 11.
Finally, the report has been concluded in section 11 where few useful suggestions and
conclusions have been discussed.

2.0

LITERATURE AT A GLANCE
The well-established methodologies, used in the solution of ultimate bearing capacity of

shallow foundation resting on jointed rock mass, can be classified into main four groups, namely,
i.

Analytical methods
a. Limit equilibrium analysis
b. Limit analysis

Lower bound

Upper bound

c. Characteristic line method


ii.

Numerical methods

iii.

Experimental methods

iv.

Empirical methods
After discussing the salient features of each technique, detailed review of available literatures

with special reference to foundation on jointed rock masse has been presented briefly in Appendix I.
3.0

CODAL PROVISIONS FOR SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS ON ROCK MASS


According to IS 6403:1981, ultimate bearing capacity is the intensity of loading at the base of

foundation which would cause shear failure of the sub-soil.


Some numerical formulae are provided in this code for calculating the ultimate net bearing
capacity of strip footings. It also provides guidelines to take into account the shape of footing,
inclination of loading, depth of embedment and effect of water table and guidelines about the mode of
failure of footing.
The recommended methods to determine ultimate net bearing capacity for cohesion less soil

c 0 , are established on (a) relative density, (b standard penetration resistance value and (c) static
cone penetration test.
Also, provisions for determination of ultimate net bearing capacity of cohesive soil 0
have been recommended for the three types of soil conditions, viz., homogeneous soil, two layered soil
and desiccated soil.
According to IS 12070:1987, the recommended values of allowable bearing capacity for
various rocks are shown in Table 1 and Table 2. These are conservative values to be adopted when no
field tests data is available for the estimation of allowable bearing pressure and the corresponding
settlement.

A detail guidelines for site investigation and laboratory testing of rock masses for obtaining the
geological and geotechnical data is provided in IS 13063:1991.
The most critical combination of all type of loads acting on the foundations shall be considered
as per the field condition (IS 875: 1987).
Table 1 Net Allowable Bearing Pressure qa Based on Rock Material (IS12070: 1987)

qa (MPa)

Rock Material
Massive crystalline bed rock including granite, diorite, gneiss, trap, hard lime stone
and dolomite
Foliated rocks such as schist or slate in sound condition
Bedded limestone in sound condition
Sedimentary rock, including hard shales and sandstones
Soft or broken bedrock (excluding shale) and soft limestone
Soft shale

10.0
4.0
4.0
2.5
1.0
0.4

Table 2 Net Allowable Bearing Pressure qa Based on RMR (IS12070: 1987)


Classification no.
I
II
Description of rock Very good Good
RMR
100-81
80-61

qa

0.6-4.5

III
Fair
60-41

IV
Poor
40-21

V
Very Poor
20-0

4.5-2.9 2.9-1.5 1.5-0.6 0.6-0.4

Table 3 Maximum and Differential Settlements of Buildings on Rock Mass (IS 13063: 1991)
Sl.
No.

Type of structure

For steel structure

For
reinforced
concrete structures
For plain bricks
block walls in multi
storeyed buildings
(a) For

Maximum
settlement,
mm

Differential
isolated
footing

Settlement
of raft
foundation,
mm

Angular
isolated
footing

Distortion
raft
foundation

12

0.0033L1

0.0033L1

1 300

1 300

12

0.0015L1

0.002L1

1 666

1 500

12

0.00025L1

---

1 400

---

12

0.00033L1

---

1 300

---

12

---

0.0025L1

L1 H 2 3
(b) For

L H 3
1

For water towers and


silos

---

L1 = Length of deflected part of wall/raft or centre to centre distance between columns


H 1 = Height of wall from foundation footing

1 400

The allowable bearing pressure, qa on the rock due to foundation should be less than or equal
to the safe bearing capacity of rock foundation. The effect of eccentricity and foundation interface
should to be considered for qa estimation. The total settlement S of the foundation should be less than
or equal to permissible settlement, S per i.e. S S per . Various permissible limits of total and differential
settlements are given in this code which are shown in Table 3.
Several guide lines for constructing foundations of horizontal and sloping rock/rock mass have
been provided in this code. It also gives some guide lines for the treatment of defects of rock masses
which lies below the foundations.

4.0

LIMIT EQUILIBRIUM METHOD


The limit equilibrium method is a widely known technique for obtaining approximate solution

for stability problems which include bearing capacity of footing, lateral earth pressure of retaining walls
and stability of slopes. Some common assumptions are made in limit equilibrium method, as follows:
i.

The soil/rock mass obeys the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion,

c tan
ii.

(3.a)

A failure surface of simple shape, viz., planar, circular, log spiral or combination of
these is assumed.

iii.

The distribution of stress along the failure surface is also assumed.

iv.

The general shape of different regions in the failure zone remains unchanged (straight slip line
remains straight) irrespective of the consideration of the weight.

v.

Principle of super position holds good.


With the above assumptions, each stability problem is reduced to determining the most critical

location of failure surface of the chosen shape. Although, having a simple formulation, one limitation
of the limit equilibrium method has been the neglect of the stress-strain response of rock mass. As this
method considers the equilibrium conditions only, so the solutions obtained are mostly approximate.
Many researcher (Terzaghi 1943, Meyerhof 1953, Bisnoi 1968, Kulhawy and Goodman 2005, Zhu et
al. 2001, (Silvestri 2003), (Sahu 2009)) have developed bearing capacity solutions using this
methodology.
Meyerhof (1953) proposed a theory for the solution of the problem of bearing capacity of
shallow footing on horizontal rock and concrete blocks using limit equilibrium method. According to
this theory, due to applied vertical loading on rock blocks, a wedge is formed immediately below the
footing at the time of failure. If the block thickness is less and if the applied load exceeds the tensile
strength of rock material, then a tensile crack initiates progressively downwards and splits the block as
6

Fig. 2 Analysis of Bearing Capacity of Blocks, (A) Failure of Small Block and (B)
Failure of Large Block (Meyerhof 1953)
shown in Fig. 2 (A). If the block is large, compared to footing, shearing along rupture surface occurs as
shown in Fig. 2 (B). For the case of splitting failure, Eq. (2), (3) and (4) have been proposed for bearing
capacity calculation of strip footing (Meyerhof 1953).
2

2H

cot cot pt

qu
2c cot
8H

cot

(2)

6H

B cot
pt 1

ph
2 H B cot 2 H B cot

(3)

ph q tan 2 2c tan

(4)

ph = resultant horizontal splitting pressure acting at a depth of 0.25B cot


In shearing failure mode, Eq. (5) and (6) have been proposed for bearing capacity estimation of
strip and circular footing, respectively.

5.0

qu cNc

(5)

qu cNc p0 N

(6)

LIMIT ANALYSIS METHOD


In compare to limit equilibrium method, limit analysis method considers the stress-strain

response of rock mass in an idealized approach. This idealisation, known as normality principle or
plastic flow rule, establishes two limit theorems which forms the foundation of limit analysis. The
plastic limit theorems of Druker, Prager and Greenberg (1952) are conveniently utilized to obtain the
lower and upper bounds of the collapse load. For a body or assemblage of bodies of elastic-perfectly
plastic material, the two theorems have been stated as
(i)

Lower Bound Theorem:

If an equilibrium distribution of stress can be found which

balances the applied load and nowhere violates the failure criterion, the rock mass will not
fail, or will be just on the verge of failure.
(ii)

Upper Bound Theorem:

The rock mass will collapse if there is any compatible pattern

of plastic deformation for which the rate of work of the external loads exceeds the internal
energy dissipation.
According to the above theorems, a stress field which follows the lower bound theorem will
produce a lower bound solution. A compatible failure mechanism (velocity field or flow pattern)
satisfying all conditions of upper bound theorem will produce an upper bound solution. If the upper and
lower bounds provided by the velocity field or stress field coincide, the exact value of collapse or limit
load is determined (Chen and R 1968).
Many researchers (Sutcliffe et al. 2003, Prakoso and Kulhawy 2004, Singh and Rao 2005, Yang
and Yin 2005, Merifield et al. 2006, Sadda et al. 2007, Yang 2009, Imani et al. 2012) utilized the limit
analysis method to obtain the solutions of bearing capacity of shallow foundation on rock masses.
Yang and Yin (2005) studied the upper bound solution of ultimate bearing capacity of a strip
footing using modified Hoek-Brown failure criterion and generalised tangential technique, shown in
Fig. 3.
The rock mass was assumed to be isotropic, homogeneous and idealized as a perfectly plastic
material which followed the associated flow rule. The footing was subjected to central vertical load
8

under plain strain condition. A symmetrical translation failure mechanism composed of rigid triangular
blocks was used in this analysis (shown in Fig. 4).

Fig. 3 Tangential Line to Modified Hoek-Brown Failure Criterion (Yang and Yin 2005)

Fig. 4 Symmetrical Failure Mechanism For Bearing Capacity (Yang and Yin 2005)
Equating the work rates of external loads to the total internal energy dissipation rates the general
equation (7) for the ultimate bearing capacity qu was obtained.

qu 2ct B0 f 4 f5 f 6

B02
2

f1 f 2 q0 B0 f3

(7)

where
n

1 n
mn
1

sin

cos

tan t sin t mn 1 sin t s


t

t
ct c

tan t
1 n 2sin
2 2sin t
m
m

f1, f2 , f3 , f4 , f5 = non-dimensional functions = f i , i , t

i , i = angle of wedge in Fig. 2.5 ( i =1,, n )


t

= tangent angle in Fig. 4

(8)

In this upper bound analysis, the critical value of the ultimate bearing capacity was obtained by
optimizing the above expression (7) with respect to i , i and t . Extending the work of Collins et al.
(1988), bearing capacity factor N was calculated by Eqn. (9) and compared with solution of Eqn. (7)

N N c ct

0.5

(9)

N c tan 2 45 t / 2 exp tan t 1 cot t

where

GSI 100
s exp

9 3D
From the results, it was perceived that the maximum difference between two values were less
than 0.5% which was indicated the efficiency of generalized tangential technique for determining
bearing capacity of a strip footing. Effects of surcharge load and self-weight of rock on bearing capacity
were also investigated, shown in Table 4 and Fig 5. It was concluded, the contribution related to c
can be separated from the qu whereas the contribution related to q0 and cannot be separated from
the qu . Numerical results for five types of rocks were presented for practical use in tabular form.
Table 4 Ultimate Bearing Capacity qu of Strip Footing (Yang and Yin 2005)
Surcharge q0 (kPa)
10
20
30
40

Unit weight (kN/m2)


20
14.352
14.540
14.717
14.888

21
14.367
14.553
14.731
14.901

22
14.383
14.568
14.745
14.914

23
14.399
14.582
14.759
14.927

when, mi 17, D 0, c 10MPa, GSI 30, B0 1.0m. Unit of qu : MPa

Fig. 5 Variation of Bearing Capacity with Surcharge Load for

mi 10, D 0, c 10 Mpa,GSI 30 and 0.0 (Yang and Yin 2005)


10

24
14.413
14.597
14.772
14.940

Yang (2009) investigated the effect of horizontal seismic force on the bearing capacity of a
strip footing on rock slopes using the method of Yang and Yin (2005). An earthquake has two possible
effects on the bearing capacity. One is to increase the driving forces and the other is to decrease the
shearing resistance of the rock mass. In this analysis, only the driving forces during the earthquake was
considered and shearing strength was assumed to be unaffected. The expression for bearing capacity

qu has been presented by Eq. (10).


qu

B
1

g1 kh g 2 0 g3 kh g 4 q0 g5 g 6 ct

sin 1 t kh cos 1 t
2

(10)

where

g1 , g2 ,..., g6 = non-dimensional functions given by Soubra (1999) = f B0 , t , i , t

kh

= horizontal seismic coefficient

Fig. 6 Failure Mechanism for Seismic Bearing Capacity of A Footing on Slope (Yang 2009)
The bearing capacity for static case has been obtained from Eq. (10) by putting kh 0 and by
setting kh 0 in Eq. (10) the seismic bearing capacity has been obtained. Considering the influence of
slope angle and neglecting the effect of surcharge load and self-weight of rock mass, the expression
for N was derived by Eq. (11) compared with solution of Eqn. (10) for the validation of proposed
method. The maximum difference between two values (<0.5%) indicated the effectiveness of
generalized tangential technique for determining bearing capacity of a strip footing resting on slope
for both static and seismic cases also.

N N c ct
where

0.5

N c exp 2 tan t tan 2 45 t


2

11

(11)
1 cot

t

From the results of analysis, it was found that the failure surfaces become shallower as the kh
increases. However, failure surface depth increases with increase in inclination angle. For five types of
rocks and 0 ,5 ,..25 ,30 , the values of N were calculated and presented in tabular form for
practical use.
In this work, it was assumed that the rock mass will follow a specific failure mechanism. In
reality, at time of yielding rock masses do not follow any single failure mechanism. Rocks below footing
was assumed to be isotropic and homogeneous. But in practical, rock masses were highly anisotropic
and non-homogeneous in nature.

Fig. 7 Problem Definition (Merifield et al. 2006)


Merifield et al. (2006) have been applied limit analysis method to evaluate the ultimate bearing
capacity of surface strip footing resting on rock mass (Fig. 7). The generalised Hoek-Brown criterion
(2002) was used to calculate the strength of rock mass. The ultimate bearing capacity solution was
obtained by employing finite elements coupled with the upper and lower bound limit theorems of
classical plasticity.
In this analysis, the rock mass was idealized as a homogeneous and isotropic continuum. The
problem was treated as a plain strain problem. Influence of unit weight, UCS, GSI of rock mass, HoekBrown parameter have been studied.
The results have been presented in terms of a bearing capacity factor N in graphical form.
From the results of upper and lower bound analysis, it was found that the true collapse load was
bracketed to within 2.5% for both weightless and ponderable rock foundations. The effect of ignoring
rock weight can lead to a very conservative estimate of the bearing capacity particularly for the case of

12

poor quality rocks (GSI < 30). Impact of Hoek-Brown parameter mi and weight of rock mass on the
bearing capacity factor N were shown in Fig. 8 and Fig. 9 respectively.

Fig. 8 Bearing Capacity Factor for Weightless Rock (Merifield et al. 2006)
The bearing capacity of rock mass also has been calculated using equivalent Mohr-Coulomb
parameters c ', ' (Hoek et al. 2002) from Eq. (12) and Eq. (13) and compared it with the results of
limit analysis. It was noticed, the former method overestimated the bearing capacity up to 157% for
good quality rocks, shown in Table 5. The results of this finite element limit analysis also has been
compared to the results of Serano et al. (2000) and a close agreement between two results was found.
One of the limitation of this method is that unrealistic values of input parameters were considered in
this analysis.

c'

ci 1 2a s 1 a mb '3n s mb '3n

1 a 2 a

6am s m '
b

3n

1 a 2 a

a 1

a 1

a 1

6amb s mb '3n
' sin
a 1
2 1 a 2 a 6amb s mb '3n
1

13

(12)

(13)

Fig. 9 Average Finite Element Limit Analysis Values for Bearing Capacity Factor N
(Merifield et al. 2006)
Table 5 Comparison of Ultimate Bearing Capacity for Various Quality of Weightless Rock
Mass (Merifield et al. 2006)

Rock quality

qu (MPa) HoekBrown

0 3 0.25 ci
qu (Mpa) Mohr-

0 3 0.75 ci
qu (Mpa) Mohr-

Coulomb

Coulomb

Serrano et al.
(2000)

qu (MPa)

Very poor

6.7

12.0 (+46%)

15.3 (+87%)

6.5 (-3%)

Average

98.2

156.4 (+59%)

161.0 (+63%)

94.4 (-4%)

Very good

886.0

2279.4 (+157%)

1614.6 (+82%)

870.4 (-1%)

Saada et al. (2007) have been investigated the problem of assessing the ultimate bearing
capacity of shallow foundations resting on the rock mass using the kinematical approach of upper bound
limit analysis theory. Closed form solutions of rock failure criterion have been derived and applied for
estimating the bearing capacity.
It has been assumed that the rock mass is isotropic and homogeneous. The strength properties
of rock mass has been defined by the modified Hoek-Brown Criterion (Hoek et al. 1988, 2002). Two
kinds of failure mechanisms of rock mass were considered: (a) generalised Prandlt-type failure
mechanism (M1) with Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion, applicable for soil and rock material and (b)
Multi-wedge translation failure mechanism (M2), presented originally by Soubra (1999) for bearing
capacity calculation of foundations resting on a Mohr-Coulomb soil (Fig. 2.10).

14

Fig. 10 Failure Mechanisms, (a) Prandtl-Type Mechanism, M1 and (b) Multi-Wedge


Translation Mechanism, M2 (Saada et al. 2007)
Influence of HB parameters, disturbance factor, GSI, unit weight, surcharge load have been
considered in this study. The results of this analysis have been compared to the results of Yang and Yin
(2005) and Merifield et al. (2006) and the proposed method was found to be efficient reasonably for
bearing capacity estimation (shown in Fig 11 and Table 6 respectively). The effects of loading
parameters (surcharge load and unit weight of rock mass) on the ultimate bearing capacity have been
shown in Fig. 12. From the results, a linear dependency of bearing capacity qu with unit weight of
rocks has been observed. However, linear dependency of qu with q0 has not been maintained always.
One of the major limitations of this analysis is that the rocks with few discontinuities cant be analysed
with this approach.

15

Fig. 11 Variation of Ultimate Bearing Capacity qu with Surcharge Load q0 for Different
Failure Mechanisms ( B0 1 m, D 0 , mi 10 ,GSI = 30, c 10 Mpa and 0 ),
(Saada et al. 2007)
Table 6 Comparison of Bearing Capacity Factor N for Weightless Rock when D = 0 and
mi = 10 (Saada et al. 2007)
GSI N (Saada Et Al., 2008) N (Merifield Et Al.,2006) Relative Difference (%)
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80

11.561
17.484
19.513
18.582
16.746
14.784
12.977
11.402

11.427
17.796
19.396
18.472
16.678
14.376
12.939
11.376

-1.1
-0.3
-0.6
-0.6
-0.4
-0.3
-0.3
-0.2

Fig. 12 Variation of Ultimate Bearing Capacity qu with Unit Weight of Rock and Surcharge
Load q0 ( B0 1 m, D 0 , mi 17 ,GSI = 30 and c 10 Mpa), (Saada et al. 2007)
16

Sutcliffe et al. (2003) have been carried out rigorous lower bound limit analysis of surface strip
footings to evaluate the bearing capacity of jointed rock mass. In this analysis, linearized MohrCoulomb yield criterion has been used to generate a statically admissible stress field in conjunction
with finite element programming.
The problem has been formulated assuming plain strain conditions. The jointed rock mass has
been treated as homogeneous, anisotropic and perfect plastic material. Only small deformations were
considered in this analysis under limit load. The numerical procedure which has been presented in this
paper is discussed in following six steps.
i)

The problem was defined as a surface strip footing of width B resting on a layer of jointed rock
and bearing capacity qu f (c, , ci , i ,i ) where i joint set number.

ii) Failure criterion of jointed rock material was defined by the Mohr-Coulomb criterion,
expressed by Eqns. (14) and (15).

Fr ( x y ) 2 (2 xy ) 2 (2c cos ( x y ) sin ) 2 0


Fi

(14)

1
sin 2 ( x y ) 2cos 2 xy ci (sin 2 x cos 2 y sin 2 xy ) tan i 0 (15)
2

iii) The lower bound theorem was formulated using three types of linear elements (shown in Fig.
13). Each node was associated with three stresses, x , y and xy .
iv) The equilibrium equations of stresses was satisfied throughout each element and at every point
along joints.
v) At every nodal points, boundary conditions were imposed in following form:

n q constant and t constant.

Fig. 13 Elements Used in Lower Bound Analysis: (a) Four Node Rectangular
Extension Element, (b) Three Node Triangular Extension Element and
(c) Three Node Triangular Element (Sutcliffe et al. 2003)

17

Fig. 14 Linearized Mohr-Coulomb Yield Function ( p 6 )(Sutcliffe et al. 2003)


vi) The Mohr-Coulomb yield criterion i.e. Eq.(14) and Eq.(15) were formulated as linearized yield
function expressed by Eq. (16) and (17).

Ak x Bk y Ck xy E,
Ak x Bk y Ck xy ci ,
where

k 1, 2,..., p,
k p 2i 1, p 2i,

(16)
(17)

A, B, C, E f (k , p, c,i , i )

vii) The collapse load qu was obtained by integrating the normal stresses along boundary.
viii)

The solution of unknown stresses X was obtained from eq. (18) which defines a

statically admissible stress field and the corresponding qu defines a rigorous lower bound
solution on the true collapse load.
Minimise
Subject to

CT X ,
A1 X B1
A2 X B2

(18)

The results of this analysis were represented in graphical form in terms of normalised bearing
capacity q c against joint orientation , shown in Fig, 15, 16 and 17. From the analysis it was
found that presence of one or two joint sets in rock mass can reduce the bearing capacity by up to 60%
or 87% respectively. The inclusion of another third joint, vertically oriented, results in a further loss in
ultimate bearing capacity up to 40% as compared to the results for a rock mass with two joint sets.
However, the overall reduction in strength is significantly affected by the variation of cohesive and
frictional strength of these joints, orientation of joints with horizontal and relative angle between joints,
shown in Fig. 15. When compared, bearing capacity values obtained in this paper, were found to be
18

lower than both the displacement FEM result of Alehossein et al. (1992)(shown in Fig. 17) and the slipline results of Davis (1980). The major limitation of this analysis was the assumption of the linearized
MC yield criterion. Because in practical jointed rocks yields non-linearly.

Fig. 15 Variation Of Bearing Capacity With Dip Angle One Joint Set (Sutcliffe et al. 2003)

Fig. 16 Variation of Bearing Capacity with Dip Angle Two Joint Set (Sutcliffe et al. 2003)

Fig. 17 Bearing Capacity Against Joint Set Orientation For : (a) One Joint Set And (b) Two
Joint Sets (Sutcliffe et al. 2003)
19

Prakoso and Kulhawy (2004) have been presented the bearing capacity solutions for strip
footings on jointed rock masses considering one and two sets of discontinuities. The solutions have
been obtained by using a lower bound bearing capacity model (Bells model, 1915) in conjunction with
a simple discontinuity strength model. A parametric study has been carried out to evaluate the impacts
of strength of rock material and joints, number and orientation of joint sets on the bearing capacity of
rock masses.
It has been assumed that both rock material and joints will follow Mohr-Coulomb failure
criterion and failure will occur along the joints only. For the evaluation of bearing capacity the authors
have been proposed the following Eq. (19) where Ncs is the bearing capacity factor.

qult cr Ncs

(19)

Fig. 18 Lower Bound Capacity Model (Bell, 1915) For Rock Mass with One Joint Set
(Prakoso and Kulhawy 2004)
The Bell model (Bell, 1915) which has been used in this study, is shown schematically in Fig.
18. The procedure for bearing capacity calculation which has been presented in this paper, illustrated
below.
Step I: Strength calculation of zone I
i)

The rock mass strength 1r is calculated using Eq. (20) by considering 3 0 .

1r 2cr tan 45 r 2

ii)

(20)

Discontinuity strength 1 j is calculated with the help of Eq. (20) for j 90 . When

j 90 90 , the strength was calculated by Eq. (21).

20

1 j

2c j

(21)

1 tan j tan 90 sin 2 90

This calculation procedure was repeated for n number of discontinuities.


The strength 1 I of zone I was calculated by Eq. (22).

iii)

1 I min 1r , 1 j1 , 1 j 2 ,..., 1 jn

(22)

Step 2: Strength calculation of zone II


The confining stress 3 II was established as

i)

3II 1I

(23)

The rock material strength 1r was calculated using Eq.(24).

ii)

1r 3 II tan 2 45 r 2 2cr tan 45 r 2

(24)

Discontinuity strength 1 j was calculated with the help of (24) for j . When

iii)

j 90 the strength was calculated using Eq. (25).

1 j 3 II

2c j 2 3 II tan j
1 tan j tan sin 2

(25)

This calculation procedure was repeated for n number of discontinuities.


The strength 1 II (or qult ) of zone I was calculated by Eq. (26).

iv)

qult 1 II min 1r , 1 j1 , 1 j 2 ,..., 1 jn

(26)

The results of the proposed model has been presented in terms of bearing capacity factor Ncs
in graphical form as shown in Fig. 19 and Fig. 20. It has been observed that strength and geometric
parameters have significant influence on bearing capacity of rock mass. The results of proposed model
have been compared with the results of other researchers (Davis 1980, Booker 1991, Alehossein et al.
1992 and Yu and Sloan 1994), shown in Fig. 20. The major limitations of this method are that the effects
of the rock mass weight, embedment and joint set spacing were not considered in bearing capacity
solutions.

21

Fig. 19 Lower Bound Bearing Capacity of Strip Footings on Jointed Rock Masses with (a)
One Joint Set, (b) Two Joint Sets (Prakoso and Kulhawy, 2004)

Fig. 20 Comparison Of Ncs of Proposed Lower Bound Model with Other Models
(Prakoso and Kulhawy, 2004)
Singh and Rao (2005) have been suggested a methodology to evaluate the ultimate bearing
capacity of anisotropic non-Hoek-Brown jointed rock masses on horizontal surface. A Hoek-Brown
rock mass is an isotropic material whereas the non-Hoek-Brown rock mass is an anisotropic material.
It has small joint spacing compared to footing width with few joint sets and strength of all joint sets is
equal.
In this study, the foundation has been assumed to be smooth and shallow. For the applicability
of this method at least two regular and continuous joint sets are necessary and the block size is in the
order of one-fifth or less of foundation width. It has been considered that the bearing capacity is
sensitive to the properties of weakest joint set and is estimated using Bells approach (Jumikis, 1965
and Wyllie, 1992) (Fig. 21). The input parameters have been required for this approach are the number
22

of joint sets, the joint spacing, the friction angle along the joint planes, UCS of the intact rock, depth of
footing and similar moisture condition as in the field.

The concept of joint factor J f

(Ramamurthy and Arora 1994), presented by Eq. (27), has

been modified by Singh and Rao (2005) in order to establish a parabolic strength criterion of rocks for
bearing capacity evaluation (Fig. 22).

Jf

Jn
nf r

(27)

cj ci exp(a J f )

(28)

1 cj 1 2 Aj ci 3 Aj 3 for 3 ci

(29)

Aj ,avg 1.23 ci

(30)

0.77

Aj ,lower_bound 0.43 ci

0.72

(31)

where

1 , 3 = Major and minor principal effective stresses at failure


J n = Joint frequency in loading direction
n f = Modified joint inclination parameter for shallow foundation, obtained from Table 7
r = Joint shear strength parameter tan j

cj , ci = Uniaxial compressive strength of jointed rock mass and intact rock respectively

a = an empirical coefficient, depends on failure mode of rock, obtained from Table 8


Table 7 Joint Inclination Parameter n f (Ramamurthy 1993)
Joint orientation
Inclination parameter

nf

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1.0 0.814 0.634 0.465 0.306 0.071 0.046 0.105 0.460 0.810

Table 8 Coefficient a for cj Estimation (Singh et al. 2002)


Failure mode
Coefficient a

Splitting / shearing Sliding Rotation


-0.0123
-0.0180 -0.0250

23

Fig. 21 Bells Approach for Bearing Capacity Estimation (Singh and Rao, 2005)

Fig. 22 Parabolic Strength Criterion (Singh and Rao 2005)


A step-by-step procedure has been explained for ultimate bearing capacity assessment in this
study, illustrated below.
(i) Element I of fig. 2.22 is considered at first and over-burden pressure is computed using
Bells approach.
(ii) For both joint sets, joint factor J f and cj are calculated using Eq. (27) and (28) in
horizontal direction. The cj of element I is the minimum of cj values of two joint sets.
24

(iii) Assuming 3 equal to over burden pressure, 1 of element one at failure is calculated
using strength criterion Eq. (29).
(iv) Next, considering element II of Fig. 2.22, J f and cj are calculated accordingly in vertical
direction for both joint sets.
(v) Assuming 3, II 1, I , 1,II of element II in vertical direction is calculated using Eq. (29).
Finally, the ultimate bearing capacity qult of rock mass is 1,II of element II.
Also some graphs have been presented for the calculation of bearing capacity by the proposed method,
shown in Fig. 23 and Fig. 24. The major limitations of this method are as follows
(i) It is not applicable to rock blocks with columnar geometry.
(ii) It is not applicable if the block size is large or there is only one joint set.
(iii) The bearing capacity results, obtained by the proposed methodology, is not validated with any
experimental or field data or existing literature.

Fig 23 Chart for Computing (a) Joint Factor J f and (b) cr (Singh and Rao, 2005)

25

Fig. 24 Charts for Computing (a) Average Strength Enhancement and (b) Lower Bound
Strength Enhancement (Singh and Rao, 2005)
Imani et al. (2012) investigated the effect of ground water and joint spacing on the bearing
capacity of submerged jointed rock under strip foundations using upper bound theorem of limit analysis.
In this analysis, rock mass containing two orthogonal joint set was considered. Mohr-Coulomb criterion
was used for both intact rocks and joints. Orientation of joints equal to 15, 30 and 45 were taken into
consideration. The concept of spacing ratio (SR) (Serrano and Olalla 1996) was used to account the
effect of joint spacing.
Shape of four assumed failure mechanisms were obtained by numerical analysis using UDEC.
It was seen that the TS1 and OS1 mechanisms, shown in Fig. 25, were produced the optimum bearing
capacity values. Equating the total external work to the total energy dissipation, the general expression
for the ultimate bearing capacity of submerged jointed rocks ( quw ) was obtained by Eq.(32). Where the
values of Bearing capacity coefficients ( N cj , N ci , N q ) are depends on angles , , i and j and the

submerged bearing capacity coefficient Nsub value is obtained from Eq. (33).
1
quw c j N cj ci N ci qN q BNsub
2

Nsub

d
'
'
N w (1 ) N w

(32)

(33)

The proposed upper bound solution is able to take into account different depths of water
table beneath the footing. From results it was revealed that submergence of rock below footing
reduces the contribution of the rock weight in bearing capacity. The maximum reduction in
26

bearing capacity occurred when dip of joint 15 and the minimum occurred when 45 .
It was also observed that the effect of submergence of rock mass on the bearing capacity
increases with increasing j (Fig. 27). However, this effect decreases with increasing c j ci
ratio. The results of this analysis were compared to the results of Hansen et al. (1987) and
Ausilio & Conte (2005), and good agreements were observed among them, shown in Fig 26.
In this study only two continuous and orthogonal joint sets were considered with
specific orientations. In reality, rock mass containing any number of joint sets with random
orientation may exists in the field.

Fig. 25 Failure Mechanisms and Corresponding Hodographs: (a) TS1 and (b) OS1
(Imani et al., 2012)

27

Fig. 26 Comparison of Results Among The Present Upper Bound Solution, Methods of Ausilio
and Conte (2005) and Hansen et al. (1987) (Imani et al. 2012)

Fig. 27 Variation of Quw/Qu with Dw/B for (a) i = j=35o and Ci = 5 MPa and (b) i = 35o, Ci =
0.1 Mpa and Cj = 0 (Imani et al. 2012)
28

6.0

CHARACTERISTICS LINE METHOD


Serrano and Olalla (1994) have been proposed a methodology for bearing capacity

quantification based on characteristics method (Sokolovskii 1960, 1965) coupled with Hoek and Brown
failure criterion (Hoek and Brown 1980). The rock mass was considered as an ideal homogeneous,
isotropic, continuous, plastic and weightless material. The strip footing was subjected to central vertical
and inclined load on horizontal or on sloping ground. The necessary input parameters were the type of
rock, UCS of intact rock, Bieniawski classification (RMR parameter) and specific unit weight of rock.

Fig. 28 Shallow Footing on Horizontal Surface Subjected to Vertical Load


(Serrano and Olalla 1994)
A step by step procedure for determining ultimate bearing capacity has been described in this
paper for six different cases. Among those cases, case-1 where foundation surface is horizontal (Fig.28)
and normal loads are acting on the two boundaries 1 and 2, is discussed below.
(i) Hoek-Brown parameters are determined using equations (34) and (35).

m m0 exp
s exp

RMR 100
14.45

RMR 100
60.3

(34)

(35)

(ii) Geo-mechanical parameters ( , ) are calculated using equation (36) and (37).

m0 c
RMR 100
exp
8
14.45

(36)

8
RMR 100
exp
2
m0
60.3

(37)

(iii) Boundary 1 conditions: The values of major principal stress ( 1 H ), normalized major
principal stress ( o*1 H ), inclination (i1) of load at boundary 1 are determined.
(iv) Calculation of data at boundary 1: Inclination ( 1 ) of the major principal stress is obtained
from Eq. (38). Instantaneous friction angle ( 1 ) and Riemanns invariant (I1) are calculated
using expressions (39) and (40) respectively.

29

2 i

1 2 *
o1

1 sin 1

1

cot ln cot
2
2

(38)

(39)

(40)

(v) Calculation of data in boundary 2: Inclination 2 of major principal stress and invariants (I2)
is obtained using slope angle ( ) and inclination (i2) of load at boundary 2 from Eq. (38).
Instantaneous friction angle ( 2 ) is calculated from both Fig. 30 and Eq. (39) and the minimum
value of 2 is considered.

Fig. 29 Characteristic Network Under the Foundation (Serrano and Olalla 1994)
(vi) Calculation of ultimate bearing capacity ( Ph ): The ultimate bearing capacity ( Ph ) of rock mass
is obtained using Eq. (41) where the value of N can be obtained from Eq. (42).

Ph ( N )
2

cot

sin

sin
i

1
where N cos i2 cos i2

2
sin
2 tan tan

30

(41)

(42)

Some nomograms have been presented to obtain the value of ultimate bearing capacity factor

N for a strip footing. The major limitation of this method is that the effect of self-weight of rock mass
is not incorporated in solution which is actually affects the bearing capacity.

Fig. 30 Variation of Riemanns Invariant with Instantaneous Friction Angle


(Serrano and Olalla 1994)
Serrano and Olalla (1996) have been extended their theory published in 1994 to consider the
effects of spacing ratio of foundation (SR) and scale effect on ultimate bearing capacity. The SR was
defined by expression (43).
n

SR B
i 1

n
1
B i
Sml
i 1

(43)

where B = foundation width (m); S ml = joint spacing of i th family; i =frequency of i th discontinuity


family (m); n = no. of discontinuity families.
A statistical analysis was carried out to evaluate the partial safety factor (Fp) related to geomechanical parameter variations. Some values of partial safety factor (Fm) was also suggested to
31

consider the uncertainty of brittle failure of rock mass. Finally, the values of proposed allowable bearing
pressures were compared with the values from existing code of practice and a reasonable agreement
was found, depending on some specific situations (Serrano and Olalla 1996).

*
Fig. 31 Variation of Load Coefficient ( N ) with Normalized External Load 01

on

Boundary 1 and Inclination of Load on Boundary 2 (Horizontal Surface, 0 )


(Serrano and Olalla, 1996)
Serrano, Olalla and Gonzalez (2000) have been modified the method of Serrano and Olalla
(1994, 1996), by using the modified Hoek-Brown criterion (1992) which leads to a better assessment
of behaviour of highly fractured rock masses (RMR 25). This method is valid under the assumptions
of plain strain, homogeneity, isotropy and weightless rock media. The bearing capacity of rock mass
has been calculated using the theory of Serrano and Olalla (1994, 1996), but with an exception of using
modified Hoek-Brown criterion (1992) instead of original Hoek-Brown criterion (1980). Expressions
for ultimate bearing capacity ( Ph ) using this approach were given below,

Ph n ( N n )
where

32

(44)

1n
1 sin 2
N cos i02

1 n sin 2
n

1 n sin 2

1 sin 2

sin i02 (45)


n sin cos i02 1 n
sin

m 1 n 1 n
n c 1 n
2

s
m 1 n
m 1 n
2

1 n

(46)

(47)

and n Modified Hoek-Brown parameter ranges from 0.50 to 0.65 (Hoek et al. 2002)
A nomogram was presented for obtaining N factor directly, for the simple case of vertical
loads on horizontal ground, shown in Fig. 32. Self-weight of rock masses was not considered in this
formulation also.

with Normalized External Load on Boundary 1, with

Fig. 32 Variation of Load Factor N

Horizontal Ground and Vertical External Loads (Serrano et al. 2000)

33

7.0

NUMERICAL METHODS
Clausen (2012) has been investigated the problem of bearing capacity of a circular surface

footing resting on horizontal rock mass. The standard displacement finite element method coupled with
a convergence extrapolation scheme have been implemented to develop numerical codes.
The problem has been treated as an axis symmetric. The behaviour of rock mass have been
described by the generalised Hoek-Brown failure criterion (Hoek et al. 2002, 2006) in conjunction with
linear elasticity and perfect plasticity.
The problem geometry (width b and height h) and boundary conditions have been shown in
Fig. 33. The footing nodes have been fixed in the horizontal direction. Triangular six-node linear strain
elements with two degree of freedom in each node has been considered in this analysis. The mesh sizes
have been selected after a detailed sensitivity analysis, shown in Fig. 34.

Fig. 33 Geometry and Boundary Conditions of the Calculation Domain (Clausen 2012)

Fig. 34 Variation of Final Load pu with No. of Degree of Freedom ndof (Clausen 2012)
34

The bearing capacity coefficient N and normalised near failure displacement (U 95 )


corresponding to 0.95 pu are calculated using Eq. (49) and (50).

N pu ci
U 95
where

(48)

0.95 pu Erm

r
ci

(49)

pu = ultimate bearing capacity of rock mass


r = radius of circular footing

Erm

1 D 2
100 GPa
1 exp 75 25D GSI 11

(Hoek et al. 2006)

or if intact rock modulus is known

1 D 2
Erm Ei 0.02
GPa

1 exp 60 15D GSI 11

(Hoek et al. 2006)

D = disturbance factor which was assumed to be = 0

= poisons ratio which was assumed to be = 0.3


The values of GSI , mi and ci 2 r ratio have been varied to study their influence on N and

U 95 . The results have been found to lie within the 1% of the exact solutions. The results have been
presented in the form of charts, for different values of GSI ranges from 10 to 100, to facilitate their use
in practical design. A bearing capacity chart for GSI 30 has been shown in Fig. 35.
It have been found that for poor quality rock GSI 30 the rock mass weight has a significant
impact on the bearing capacity and the near displacement failure. However, the self-weight has almost
no effect for higher quality rocks. A comparison has been made between the results of this analysis and
the results obtained using equivalent Mohr-Coulomb parameters (Hoek et al., 2002) and a very poor
agreement has been observed. However, the bearing capacity solutions of Serrano and Olalla (2002)
has been in good agreement with the proposed solutions. The authors have represented some results in
tabular form of bearing capacity of circular footing as benchmark for other researchers for comparison,
shown in Table 9. One of the limitation is that unrealistic value of disturbance factor (D = 0) is assumed
in this analysis.

35

Fig. 35 Variation of Bearing Capacity and Near-Failure Displacement For GSI 30


(Clausen 2012)
Table 9 Benchmark Values of Different Variables (Clausen 2013)

GSI

ci 2 r

mi

10

125

7.5

0.176 0.38 0.45 10

20

2000

22.5 0.851 1.74 2.03 22

12

30

22.5 1.381 2.83 3.30 38

35

40

250

35.0 3.544 7.16 4.36 20

11

50

5000

10.0 1.678 3.42 4.03 15

12

60

35.0 7.053 14.4 16.8 35

32

80

500

10.0 5.818 11.9 13.9 12

10

100

250

22.5 23.91 48.1 56.3 12

11

U 90

U 95

br

hr
8

Salari-rad et al. (2012) have been investigated the problem of bearing capacity of shallow
foundation rested on anisotropic discontinuous rock mass using a distinct element based software
UDEC. A strip footing of width 5 m has been modelled on rock mass containing single joint set (Fig.
36). The dimension (width 70 m depth 30 m) of the model has been selected by sensitivity analysis.
The rock material has been assumed to be isotropic and homogeneous. Therefore, anisotropy
occurs only due to presence of single joint set in rock mass. The numerical analysis was carried out by
assuming Mohr-Coulomb and Hoek-Brown failure criterion for joints and rock material respectively.
Six failure mechanisms introduced by Serrano and Olalla (1998) were assumed as basic possible failure
36

mechanisms, shown in Fig. 37. Variation of failure mode and bearing capacity with dip angle and shear
strength of joint sets was investigated in this study.
The outcomes of this analysis indicated that the ultimate bearing capacity of rock mass
containing one joint set varies between 27% and 86% of intact rock. MC is the most common failure
mechanism whereas minimum bearing capacity values are obtained in MS mechanism. Variation of
bearing capacity and failure mechanisms of rock mass with joint dip angle is shown in Fig. 38. It was
also observed, the bearing capacity of rock mass decreases with decreasing shear strength of plane of
weakness. The obtained results were compared with the results of Sutcliffe et al. (2004) (Fig. 39). It
was seen that the difference between the two results increases when the footing is prepared to fail along
joint planes. One of the limitation of this analysis is that rock mass containing only single joint set has
been considered which is rarely exists in nature.

Fig. 36 Dimensions, Velocity Field and Boundary Conditions of Distinct Element Model in
Homogeneous Medium (Salari-Rad et al. 2012)

37

Fig. 37 Possible Anisotropic Failure Mechanisms Depending on Dip of Joints: Homogeneous


and Isotropic (MI), Conditioned by Boundary 1 (M1), Conditioned by Boundary 2 (M2), with A
Central Wedge (MC), Simple Mechanism (MS), and Double Mechanism (MD)
(Serrano and Olalla 1998)

Fig. 38 Variation of Bearing Capacity with Dip Angle of Joint Set (Salari-Rad et al. 2012)

38

Fig. 39 Comparison of Bearing Capacity Obtained by DEM and Lower Bound Limit Analysis
Method by Sutcliffe et al. 2004 (Salari-Rad et al. 2012)
Bindlish et al. (2013) simulated the problem of ultimate bearing capacity of a strip footing on
jointed rock mass subjected to central vertical load using distinct element based software UDEC and
compared the results of analysis with the experimental results of Bindlish et al. (2012). A series of
numerical tests were performed in plain strain condition. The behaviour of the foundation, blocks and
joints of rock masses were defined by the elastic model, Mohr-Coulomb model and Coulomb-Slip
model respectively. Two types of rock mass specimens (shown in Fig. 40) were considered in
simulation, viz.,
(i)

Type A: Rock mass contains two perpendicular continuous joint sets with 90 .

(ii)

Type B: Rock mass specimen having two perpendicular joint set, one continuous and
another stepped with 90 .
The load intensity versus settlement graphs were analysed, obtained from the UDEC model, to

evaluate the bearing capacity. Pressure bulb area and ultimate bearing capacity of strip footing for typeA specimen were predicted by the proposed model reasonably well where the failure mechanism was
governed by the pre-existing discontinuities. A typical load intensity versus settlement graph and a
pressure bulb has shown in Fig. 41. Numerical simulation result were appeared to be very similar to the
experimental data, shown in Fig. 42(a). However, this model had failed to anticipate the ultimate bearing
capacity of Type-B specimen where failure had occurred through intact material (Fig. 42(b)) as this
model had failed to simulate the initiation of new fractures. Furthermore, it was perceived that the
governing failure modes are shearing and splitting.

39

Fig. 40 Rock Mass Specimens (a) Type A and (b) Type B (Bindlish et al. 2013)

Fig. 41 For Type-A Specimen Results Obtained From UDEC Analysis (a) Load Versus
Settlement Curve and (b) Failure Mode and Major Stress Contours ( = 45 and s = 0)
(Bindlish et al. 2013)

Fig. 42 Comparison of Ultimate Bearing Capacity Predicted by UDEC Model with


Experimental Values For (a) Type-A Specimens and (b) Type-B Specimens
(Bindlish et al. 2013)
40

Shekhawat and Viladkar (2014) studied the behaviour of shallow strip footing resting on
jointed rock mass using FEM coupled with modified Hoek-Brown failure criterion (2002). The double
tangent method (Lutenegger and Adams 1998) was employed for evaluating the ultimate bearing
capacity. In this analysis, the footing was subjected to eccentric-inclined loading. The jointed rock mass
was treated as isotropic, homogeneous, elasto-plastic continuum. The numerical modelling of the
problem was done using software package PLAXIS-3D. Ten node tetrahedral elements and six node
plate elements were used to discretization the numerical model as shown in Fig. 43.

Fig. 43 Finite Element Model For Elasto-Plastic Analysis of Surface Strip Footing
(Shekhawat and Viladkar 2014)
The effect of eccentricity e , inclination i of load and geological strength index GSI of rock
mass were studied in this analysis. A rigorous parametric analysis was carried out to study the pressuresettlement and pressure-tilt (t ) characteristics of strip footing. Variation of pressure-settlement
behaviour with eccentricity e and inclination angle i parameters were shown in Fig. 44.

Fig. 44 Load Intensity vs Settlement Characteristics with Respect To (A) Load Eccentricity
and (B) Load Inclination (Shekhawat and Viladkar 2014)
41

From the results of numerical simulations non-dimensional correlations were produced to


envisage the ultimate bearing capacity, settlement and tilt of footing. For different values of GSI
different sets of correlations were developed. A set of correlations for GSI = 40 are shown below.

qu
e
e
2
2

0.002i 0.044i 0.181 0.013i 0.12 7 E 05 i 0.105


B
B
ci
(50)
2

Se
e
e
2
2
0.027i 0.282i 5.408 0.011i 0.291i 1.163 0.061i 1.044
B
B
S0
(51)
2

Sm
e
e
2
2
0.005i 0.963i 21.81 0.001i 0.122i 3.605 0.045i 1.108
B
B
S0
(52)
2

and

S S
e

t sin m
B

e
2

(53)

For validation of this numerical model, bearing capacity factor N 0 qu ci was calculated
and compared with the values of N 0 obtained from Kulhawy and Carter (1992) and Serrano (2000).
As shown in Fig. 45, very close agreement was observed among those results.

Fig. 45 Bearing Capacity Factor N 0 Model Validation Curve


(Shekhawat and Viladkar 2014)
42

The major limitations found in this method of analysis were:


(i) Weight of rock mass were not considered in calculation which results in conservative design
(Merifield at al., 2006).
(ii) Jointed rock mass was assumed to be isotropic and homogeneous which rarely exists in nature.
(iii) Unrealistic initial values of various input parameters have been considered in this FEM
modelling like disturbance factor D is equal to zero.
A new model has been proposed by Ziaee et al. (2014) for the prediction of bearing capacity
of shallow foundation on rock mass applying artificial neural network (ANN). Conventional procedure,
based on the fixed connection weights and bias factor of an ANN structure (Multilayer perception
networks), has been carried out for computational purposes. An artificial neural network is a
computational simulated system that follows the neural networks of human brain. The ANN model (Fig.
46) which has been presented in this paper for the formulation of qult , consists of

One invariant input layer, with 4 (n = 4) arguments

One hidden layer having 5 nodes (m = 5)

One invariant output layer with 1 node providing the value of qult

Fig. 46 Schematic Illustration of Proposed ANN (MLP) Network (Ziaee 2014)


In this model, rock mass has been treated as an equivalent continuum medium. Ultimate bearing
capacity ( qult , ANN ) has been assumed to be a function of RMR , UCS ( qu ), ratio of joint spacing to
footing width S B and internal friction angle ( ) of rock mass as shown in Eq. (55).

43

qult , ANN f RMR, qu , ,


B

(54)

A comprehensive data base (49 socket tests, 40 plate load tests and 13 large scale footing load
test results) have been considered for this model development. The database primarily comprises of
results on circular and square footings of various sizes tested on various types of rock masses. All input

( RMR, qu , S B , qu ) values were normalized ( RMRn , qu ,n , S B n , n ) using Eq. (56) such that they
lie in a range of 0.05 - 0.95.

X n U L

X min X
U
X max X min

(55)

where

Xn

= Normalized value of variable X

X max , X min

= Maximum and minimum value of variables

= Upper limit of normalized variables, U 0.95

= Lower limit of normalized variables, L 0.05

An ANN based formulation of qult (MPa) has been presented in this paper using Eq. (57).

qult 0.04788 5.22 1748.59 A 0.95

(56)

Vk
biash
Fj
k 1 1 e

where

(57)

S
Fj RMRn W1k qu ,n W2 k W3k W4 k biask
B n

(58)

In Eq. (58), k has been represented number of hidden layer neurons. Various values of input layer
weights Wk , input layer biases biask , hidden layer weights Vk and hidden layer biases biash
have been presented in Table 10 and Table 11 respectively.
Table 10 Weight and Bias Values Between Input and Hidden Layer (Ziaee et al. 2014)
Number of hidden neurons k

Weights

W1k

1
-4.3660

2
1.2050

3
1.0146

4
-2.3774

5
1.0715

W2k

-5.9392

2.6041

-3.3564

-0.1235

3.7980

W3k

4.4797

1.5636

3.7741

-5.3471

0.3445

W4k

-0.8778

2.2540

0.9362

3.3533

3.6613

biask

-2.8214

-2.5686

1.1696

0.8654

-4.7052

44

Table 11 Weight and Bias Values between Hidden Layer and Output Layer (Ziaee et al. 2014)
Number of hidden neurons k

Weights

Vk

biash

6.3774

9.4936

-2.8366

-0.8674

-1.3602

-4.3811

The methodology for bearing capacity calculation, proposed by the authors, are illustrated below.
Step 1:

Normalization of input data ( RMR, qu , S B and qu ): The normalized input neurons

RMR , q , S B
n

u ,n

& n are calculated with the help of input data base by Eq. (55).

of five neurons in the hidden

Step 2: Calculation of hidden layer: Using Eq. (58), the input values Fj
layer were determined.

Step 3: Prediction of qult : Finally, the ultimate bearing capacity is predicted using Eq. (56).
The proposed model has been predicted the qult values with an acceptable degree of accuracy
(Fig. 47). The obtained results have been compared with results of Goodman model (Goodman R. E.,
1989) and very close agreement has been observed between them (Fig. 48). A parametric study has
been performed to evaluate the sensitivity of this ANN model to the variation of each independent
variable based on Garsons algorithm (Garson D., 1991). The sensitivity analysis indicated that qult is
more sensitive to qu and S B compared to RMR and , as shown in Fig 49. The major limitation of
this method is the negligence of anisotropic behaviour of foundation rock mass in ultimate bearing
capacity formulation as it assumes the rock mass as an equivalent continuum.

Fig. 47 Comparison of Measured and Predicted qult Values Using ANN Model: (a) Training
(Learning and Validation) Data and (b) Testing Data (Ziaee et al. 2014)
45

Fig. 48 Comparison of qult Values among ANN Model Predicted, Experimental and
Goodman (1989) Values (Ziaee et al. 2014)

Fig. 49 The Percentage Relative Importance Histogram of Each Input Variable For Predicting
qult Based on Garsons Algorithm (1991) (Ziaee 2014)

46

8.0

EXPERIMENTAL METHODS
Few investigators have carried out experimental studies of shallow foundations resting

horizontal or sloping jointed rock mass and subjected to central vertical load.
Dunham et al. (2005) have been performed four series of centrifuge tests on using model rock
specimens made from a mixture of sand, bentonite, cement, and water. Tests have been conducted to
determine the effect of horizontal and vertical discontinuities in the bedrock on the load settlement
response of a rigid, shallow footing. A prototype square footing, measuring 1 m 1 m, has been
simulated in the study. Horizontal and vertical joints, in-filled with compressible material, have been
simulated by incorporating thin seams of Styrofoam.
A parametric study was carried out to observe their influence on bearing capacity of rock mass.
Results of this study have been compared to the commonly available methods used to predict the
ultimate bearing capacity of footings on jointed rock mass. It has been concluded that the existing
methods to predict the bearing capacity are conservative for the range of design parameters studied in
this research (Dunham et al. 2005).
Bindlish et al. (2012) has been conducted an experimental study on a rigid footing placed on
top surface (semi-infinite) of confined jointed rock mass and loaded up to failure consequently. The
experiments were carried out under plain strain conditions keeping the size of rock elements one-fifth
times that of the footing width. The footing was assumed to be smooth and shallow. Effect of moisture
was not considered in this test. The influences of intact rock properties, characteristics of joint intensity,
joint orientations, interlocking conditions and type of structure on the bearing capacity of jointed rock
mass were studied.
A series of model tests were performed on synthesized rock mass (Plaster of Paris mixed with
medium sand) specimens of size 750 750 150 mm3. The size of elemental blocks and elemental
plates, used to construct the specimen, were 25 25 75 mm3 and 750 150 25 mm3 respectively.
Three types of jointed blocky specimens (shown in Fig. 50) were prepared, viz., Type A (two sets of
orthogonally intersecting continuous joints), Type B (two orthogonal joint sets, one continuous and
the other stepped) and Type C (one continuous joint set). Size of footing plate was 150 150 mm2.
The tests have been conducted in a specially designed and fabricated bearing capacity test apparatus of
1000 kN capacity.
Based on the experimental results, a methodology (Bindlish et al. 2012) has been suggested to
determine the ultimate bearing capacity of shallow foundation placed on anisotropic rock mass for both
continuous as well as discontinuous joints. This method is basically a modification over the Singh and
Rao (2005) approach which over-estimates the anisotropy of rock mass. The results obtained from this
methodology matched closely with the experimental values. The results of tests indicated that the
47

impact of anisotropy in case of shallow foundations is much less than envisaged in the study of Singh
et al. (2002). Also, stepping of joints significantly enhances the bearing capacity if the dip angle of
continuous joints are less than 45 due to interlocking. Splitting and shearing are the governing failure
mode of the rock mass beneath the footing.

Fig. 50 Rock Mass Specimens with = 0 to 90 are: (a) Type A, (b) Type B and
(c) Type C (Bindlish et al. 2012)
Shukla et al. (2014, 2014) studied the problem of bearing capacity of shallow foundation on
slopping anisotropic rock mass with continuous joints experimentally as well as analytically. The tests
were performed on in plain strain condition. The rock mass was remained unconfined at slopping side.
A series of experiments were conducted on rock mass model of size 750 750 150 mm3,
shown in Fig. 51(a). The rock mass models have constructed using sand stone element of size

25 25 75 mm3. The joint angle and slope angle of rock specimens with horizontal were
varied from 15 to 90 and 30 to 90 , respectively, at an interval of 15 . The footing was placed at the
edge of slope and at a distance of 15 cm from slope edge. Tests were conducted in a specially designed
and fabricated bearing capacity test apparatus of 200 ton capacity, shown in Fig. 51(b).

48

Fig. 51 (a) Rock Mass Specimen with Variation in Joint Set Angle and Side Slope and (B)
Bearing Capacity Test Apparatus For J0090-SL45-ED00 (Shukla et al. 2014a; b)
The bearing capacity of shallow footing were also estimated analytically using Eulers buckling
theory (Cavers 1981). In this analysis, the buckling load Pcr was calculated by Eq. (60) where the value
of modulus of elasticity E j of jointed rock was obtained from Eq. (61) (Ramamurthy and Arora 1994).
2
Pcr K E j I

B
BL2b

Er E j Ei exp 1.15 102 J f


where Pcr

(59)

(60)

= Buckling load of column

Lb

= Buckling length or effective length of column

= Moment of inertia bd 3 12

= Width of column

= Coefficient of buckling or effective length

E j and Ei = Modulus of elasticity of jointed and intact rock respectively


It was observed that joint angle, distance of footing from edge and mode of failure are the
governing parameters in bearing capacity estimation on slope apart from rock mass properties. Buckling
and sliding have been found to be dominant failure mode. For the case of footing on the slope edge,
bearing capacity of jointed rock mass is half of the total buckling load capacity. It was also observed
from experiments, when joint angle 0 ,15 ,30 (buckling failure), average settlement of footings
are less but bearing capacity is higher than the cases when 45 ,60 (combination of sliding and
buckling failure). Buckling resistance has been found to be always greater than sliding resistance for

49

continuous jointed rocks. This method is applicable only for the rock mass with two continuous joint
sets. It is not applicable when the rock mass is heavily fractured or when the joints are not continuous.

9.0

EMPIRICAL METHODS
Several empirical expressions are available in literature for the estimation of bearing capacity

of shallow foundations resting on jointed rock masses.


The following expression (62) was developed by Pauker (1889) for bearing capacity estimation
of shallow strip footing on jointed rock mass. The major limitation of this method is that for D f 0 ,
Eq. (62) gives qult 0 which is unrealistic (Ramamurthy 2011).

qult D f tan 4 45 2

(61)

A rigorous bearing capacity expression (63) was presented by Terzaghi (1943) assuming
general shear failure of jointed rock mass where N c , N q and N are bearing capacity factors. Shape
factors are represented by sc and sq .

qult cNc sc D f Nq 0.5 BN sq

(62)

Bishnoi (1968) has been proposed Eq. (64) for bearing capacity evaluation of shallow
foundation considering the influence of footing size (B) and with respect to the joints spacing (s). It was
found that Eq. (64) overestimated the bearing capacity as it did not consider the rotation and sliding of
rock blocks within the zone of influence.

N 1

N
1
s

qult ci
N
1

N 1

where

N tan 2 45

(63)

(64)

Considering failure along two planes, Coates (1970) developed expression (66) for calculation
of bearing capacity of a strip footing on rock surface.

qult cNc qN q 0.5 BN


where

Nc 5 tan 4 45

50

(65)
(66)

Nq tan 6 45

(67)

N N q 1

and

(68)

Ladanyi and Roy (1971) studied the problem of bearing capacity of shallow strip footing on
rock mass containing two inclined joint sets. Assuming 1 and 2 as the dip angle of steep and shallow
joint sets, expression (70) was proposed for bearing capacity estimation(Ladanyi and Roy 1971).

c
qult pN1 1 N1 1
tan 1
c
p B 2 tan 1 N 2 2 N 2 1
tan 2

where

(69)

(70)

Bowels (1988) suggested expression (72) for bearing capacity evaluation based on RQD
value and unconfined compressive strength of rock ( qr ) (Bowles 1997).

qult qr RQD

(71)

Goodman (1989) developed the following expression (2.75) for estimation of bearing capacity
of strip footing on heavily fractured rock mass ignoring the cohesion of rock mass (Goodman 1989).

2
qult ci

1 sin

ci N 1
10.0

(72)

CONTACT PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION IN ROCK MASS


Distribution of stresses at any point beneath shallow foundation in intact or heavily fractured

rock masses under the loads (concentrated, line or distributed) are analogous to the stress distribution
in soil beneath the shallow footing. This can be evaluated using the method of Boussinesque or
Westergaard by idealizing the intact or heavily fractured rock mass as semi-infinite, homogeneous,
elastic and isotropic medium. On the other hand, distribution of stresses in anisotropic jointed rock mass
is quite different from intact rock due to presence of joints.
Many researcher (Gaziev and Erlikhman 1971, Sauma 1971, Singh 1972, Bray 1977, Oda et al.
1993, Agharazi et al. 2012, Bindlish et al. 2013 and so on) have been studied the distribution of stresses
in rock mass below shallow foundations. For typical loading, the various approaches are discussed in
this section.

51

For a line load acting normal to the surface of an intact or heavily fractured rock mass, the radial
stress at any point is obtained by Eq. (74) and the tangential and shear stresses are zero i.e. 0 and

r 0 .
r
where P

,r

2 P cos
r

(73)

= Load per unit length


= polar co-ordinate of the point under consideration

For a constant load, the graphical representation of Eq.(73), results into a circle tangent to the point of
application of load P and centred at depth P r , known as pressure bulb (Fig. 52.a).
Similarly, for a shearing load Q the stress distribution is entirely radial and it is obtained from
Eq.(75). The Eq. (75) is graphically presented in Fig. 52.b where the left circle represents tensile stress
and the right circle represents compressive stresses.

2Q sin
r

(74)

When the line load R is inclined with vertical axis the radial stress is given by Eq. (76). and
locus of r for constant value of R is shown in Fig. 52.c.

2 R sin 1
r

(75)

Gaziev and Erlikhman (1971) have been conducted a series of model tests on synthesized
rectangular rock specimens to study the distribution of stresses in jointed rock mass under shallow
foundation. The specimens were consisted two orthogonal joint sets one was continuous (set I),
inclined at angle of 0, 30, 45, 60 and 90 with horizontal while the other joint set was stepped
(set II) as shown in Fig. 53. The test specimens were loaded through a flexible footing of width B. The
stress distribution under footing was measured by strain gauges embedded in the plaster blocks in the
specimen. The results have been presented in Fig. 54. From the results it was observed that stress
concentration occurs along parallel and perpendicular to the continuous joints especially for the case of

45 .

52

Fig. 52 Pressure Bulb Resulting From Loading of An Elastic Half Plane By (a) Vertical Line
Load, (b) Shear Line Load and (c) Inclined Line Load (Goodman 1989)
53

Fig. 53 Two Dimensional Joint Model with (a) Horizontal Major Joints ( 0 ) and (b)
Inclined Major Joints with An Inclination Angle (Gaziev and Erlikhman 1971)

Fig. 54 Stress Concentration Patterns Induced By Partial Surface Loading on 2D Joint Models
with Different Values of (Gaziev and Erlikhman 1971)
54

Singh (1973) has been investigated the stress field in jointed rock mass under shallow
foundation using anisotropic continuum model (Singh 1973a) coupled with FEM and compared it with
the results obtained from the discrete joint model as shown in Fig 55. This computations have been
revealed excellent agreement between the FEM predictions of the two models except the regions of
high stress gradients near loaded area. The principal stresses in jointed rock mass were observed to be
distributed to a considerable depth along joints and to some extent across joints. This phenomenon is
more pronounced in a rock mass of joints with low shear stiffness.

Fig. 55 Comparison of Pressure Bulbs Predicted By Anisotropic Continuum Model and


Discrete Joint Model (Singh 1973b)
Bray (1977) has been studied the stress contours beneath a shallow footing for a line load. The
layered rock mass was idealized as a transversely isotropic medium. Expressions (77), (78) and (79)
have been presented for the determination of stress field by assuming 0 and r 0 .

h
X cos Yg sin
r
2
r cos g sin 2 2 h 2 sin 2 cos 2

g 1

1 k S
2

(76)

(77)

E 2 1 1

2 g

2
1 E
ks S
1
55

(78)

where X and Y are the components of load P in the parallel and perpendicular to the joint planes
respectively. The constants g and h are non-dimensional quantities describing the properties of rock
mass. S is the average spacing of between joints. kn and ks are the normal and shear stiffness of joints.
The pressure bulbs obtained though Eqn. (76) for a constant load have been presented in Fig. 56. The
results of this approach were compared with the experimental results of Gaziev and Erlikhman (1971)
and a close aggrement between two results were found.

Fig. 56 Pressure Bulb Under Line Loads in Jointed Rocks Calculated By Bray (1977)
(Goodman 1989)
Oda et al. (1993) have been formulated an elastic stress-strain relation in terms of crack tensor.
Using this stress-strain relation coupled with finite element analysis, the distribution of stress fields
below shallow footing have been investigated. The problem rock mass has been modelled using a finite
mesh of four-node quadrilateral isoperimetric elements. A vertical stress has been realised uniformly
on the rock surface thorough a footing of B = 10 cm. The stress contours obtained applying the proposed

56

method are shown in Fig. 57 in which each contour represents an equivalent line of maximum shear
stress m normalized by the unit surface pressure. Hence, the study found that the stress concentration
pattern in rock mass is governed by the ratio of normal stiffness to shear stiffness (R). The stress
concentration was occurred in two directions; parallel and perpendicular directions to the major joints
for high value of R. However, the stress concentration is restricted to the direction parallel to the major
joints only when R equal to unity.

Fig. 57 Maximum Shear Stress Contours Due To Partial Surface Loading For R = 10
(Oda et al. 1993)
57

Agharazi et al. (2012) formulated a three dimensional constitutive model for stress and
deformation analysis of jointed rock mass containing up to three joint sets with arbitrary spatial
configurations. The model was developed based on superposition of deformations of the representative
elemental volume components. The Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion coupled with this constitutive
model was implemented in FLAC3D to study the stress and deformation behaviour of a plate load test
on an intensely jointed rock mass.

Fig. 58 Stress Distribution Beneath Loaded Area, Estimated by Jointed Rock Model in SemiInfinite Model with One Joint Set (Agharazi et al. 2012)
58

In FLAC3D a semi-infinite body of rock with one joint set was modelled. The dimensions of the
rock model were 262615 m (WLD). A distributed normal stress of P = 10 MPa was realized on
a circular area of diameter d = 1.0 m in diameter, on the top centre of the model. The stress distribution
beneath the loaded area in the model with one joint set is shown in Fig. 58. Although, no discrete
discontinuities was existed the effectiveness of this model in capturing the influence of the joints in
stress distribution is observed in Fig. 58.

11.0

CRITICAL COMMENTS

From the above reviewed literatures following gaps in the study have been observed.
i. Several methods have been proposed for solution of this problem and almost all the methods come
with a set of conventions such as infinite strip footing, plain strain condition, no inertial force,
weightless rock mass, undisturbed rock mass etc. makes the situation impractical or unrealistic.
ii. Almost, all the research works (Serrano and Olalla 1994, Sutcliffe at al. 2003, Merifield et al. 2006,
Ziaee et al. 2014) have been conducted on strip foundations. However, very few researchers have
worked on other type of foundations like square footing (Ziaee et al. 2014, Bindlish et al. 2012,
2013), circular footing (Clausen 2012), and raft footing (Justo et al. 2013).
iii. It has been observed that adequate amount of work (Prakoso and Kulhawy 2004, Saada et al. 2009
and so on) has been carried out on shallow footings on horizontal ground surface. On the other hand,
bearing capacity of footing on slopping rock mass have been investigated by a few investigators
(Serrano and Olalla 1994, Yang 2009, Shukla 2014).
iv. The research works (Meyerhof 1953, Merifield et al. 2006, Imani et al 2012, and so on) have been
mostly conducted on footings subjected to central vertical load. Conversely, very few scientists have
worked on footings subjected to inclined (Serrano and Olalla, 1994) or eccentric-inclined loading
(Shekhawat and Viladkar 2014).
v. The studies are concentrated mainly on the bearing strength of rock mass. Hardly, any (Clausen
2012; Shekhawat and Viladkar 2014) attention has been paid regarding the formulation of pressuresettlement and pressure- tilt characteristics of footing on rock mass.
vi. A very little amount of investigation (Imani et al. 2012) has been conducted on the variation of
bearing capacity due to presence of water table.
vii. The tests, referred in the literature, are mostly laboratory tests so far. Hence, the validation of
analytical or experimental results with field data is necessary before the proposed methods are used
in field.

59

12.0

CONCLUSION
Assessment of behaviour of shallow foundation on jointed rock mass is one of the most classical

problem in the field of geotechnical engineering. Numerous research work have been conducted in this
field which are broadly classified in four categories: (i) Analytical methods, (ii) Numerical methods,
(iii) Experimental methods and (iv) Empirical methods. Few available literatures, relevant to the
problem of ultimate bearing capacity of jointed rock mass and distribution of contact pressure beneath
shallow foundations have been reviewed in this report.
Several IS codeal provisions regarding the construction of shallow foundations on various types
of rocks, permissible settlements and different bearing capacity estimation processes also have been
discussed.
The stress concentration under shallow footing occurs in two directions, parallel and normal to
the major joints. Orientation of joints and joint stiffness governs the stress distribution in rock mass.
The important parameters which governs the behaviour of shallow foundation on jointed rock
mass are internal frictional angle and cohesion of intact rock and joints, quality of rock mass, number
of joint sets, orientation of joints, uniaxial compressive strength of intact rock, joint surface
characteristics, failure mode of rock mass, Hoek-Brown parameters, unit weight of rock, surcharge load
and water table depth.
Therefore, on a conclusive note, the present study finds some fields, mentioned in the previous
section, as grey areas and further research can be carried out in these areas.

60

REFERENCES
1.

Agharazi, A., Martin, C. D., and Tannant, D. D. (2012). A three-dimensional equivalent


continuum constitutive model for jointed rock masses containing up to three random joint sets.
Geomechanics and Geoengineering, 7(4), 227 238.

2.

Bindlish, A., Singh, M., and Samadhiya, N. K. (2012). Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Shallow
Foundations on Jointed Rock Mass. Indian Geotechnical Journal, 42(September), 169178.

3.

Bindlish, A., Singh, M., and Samadhiya, N. K. (2013). Modelling of Ultimate Bearing
Capacity of Shallow Foundations resting on Jointed Rock Mass. Indian Geotechnical Journal,
42(3), 169178.

4.

Bowles, J. E. (1997). Foundation Analysis and Design Fifth Edition. Engineering Geology, The
McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

5.

Chen, W. F., and R, S. C. (1968). Limit Analysis and Limit Equi Librium. Bethlehem.

6.

Clausen, J. (2012). Bearing capacity of circular footings on a Hoek-Brown material.


International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, Elsevier, 57, 3441.

7.

Duncan C. Wyllie. (2005). Foundations on Rock. Taylor & Francis Group.

8.

Dunham, L., Valsangkar, A. J., and Schriver, A. B. (2005). Centrifuge modeling of rigid
square footings on weak jointed rock. Geotechnical Testing Journal, 28(2), 133143.

9.

Gaziev, E., and Erlikhman, S. (1971). Stress and strains in anisotropic foundations Gaziev et
al. Symp. on Rock Fracture, ISRM (Nancy, paper II-1).

10.

Goodman, R. E. (1989). Introduction to Rock Mechanics, 2nd Edition.pdf. Willey and Sons.

11.

Hoek, E., and Brown, E. T. (1980). Empirical Strength Criterion for Rock Masses. Journal
of the Geotechnical Engineering Division.

12.

Hoek, E., Carranza-torres, C., and Corkum, B. (2002). Hoek-brown failure criterion 2002
edition. Narms-Tac, 267273.

13.

Hoek, E., Marinos, P., and Marinos, V. (2006). Variability of the engineering properties of
rock masses quantufied by geological strength index; the case of ophiolities with special
emphasis on tunneling. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, 65(2), 129
142.

14.

Imani, M., Fahimifar, A., and Sharifzadeh, M. (2012). Upper bound solution for the bearing
capacity of submerged jointed rock foundations. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering,
45(4), 639646.

15.

IS 13063: (1991). Structural Safety of Buildings on Shallow Foundations on Rocks. Bureau of


Indian Standards.

16.

IS 6403: (1981). Code of Practice for shallow Foundations. Bureau of Indian Standards, New
Delhi.

17.

IS 875: (1987). Code of Practice for Design Loads ( Other Than Earthquake ) for Buildings
and Structures Code of Practice.

61

18.

IS12070: (1987). Code of Practice for Design and Construction of Shallow Foundations on
Rocks. Bureau of Indian Standards.

19.

Ladanyi, B., and Roy, A. (1971). Some aspects of bearing capacity of rock mass. Proceedings
of the Seventh Canadian Symposium on Rock Mechanics, 161 190.

20.

Lutenegger, A. J., and Adams, M. T. (1998). Bearing Capacity of Footings on Compacted


Sand. Fourth International Conference on Case Histories in Getechnical Engineering, 1216
1224.

21.

Merifield, R. S., Lyamin, a. V., and Sloan, S. W. (2006). Limit analysis solutions for the
bearing capacity of rock masses using the generalised Hoek-Brown criterion. International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 43(6), 920937.

22.

Meyerhof, G. G. (1953). The bearing capacity of concrete and rock*. Magazine of Concrete
Research, 4(12), 107116.

23.

Oda, M., Yamabe, T., and Ishizuka, Y. (1993). Elastic stress and strain in jointed rock masses
by means of crack tensor analysis. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 26(2), 89 112.

24.

Prakoso, W. a., and Kulhawy, F. H. (2004). Bearing Capacity of Strip Footings on Jointed
Rock Masses. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 130(December),
13471349.

25.

Ramamurthy, T. (2011). Engineering in Rocks for Slopes, Foundations and Tunnels. PHI
Learning Private Limited, New Delhi.

26.

Ramamurthy, T., and Arora, V. K. (1994). Strength predictions for jointed rocks in confined
and unconfined states. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences &amp;
Geomechanics Abstracts, 31(I), 922.

27.

Saada, Z., Maghous, S., and Garnier, D. (2007). Bearing capacity of shallow foundations on
rocks obeying a modified Hoek-Brown failure criterion. Computers and Geotechnics,
35(July), 144154.

28.

Sahu, T. (2009). Analysis of Footings on Upper Surface of Slopes Under Eccentric Inclined
Loads. IIT Roorkee.

29.

Salari-Rad, H., Mohitazar, M., and Rahimi Dizadji, M. (2012). Distinct element simulation of
ultimate bearing capacity in jointed rock foundations. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 6(11),
44274434.

30.

Serrano, A., and Olalla, C. (1994). Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Rock Masses. International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, 31(2), 93106.

31.

Serrano, A., and Olalla, C. (1996). Allowable Bearing Capacity of Rock Foundations Using a
Non-linear Failure Criterium. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences
& Geomechanics Abstracts, 33(4), 327345.

32.

Serrano, A., Olalla, C., and Gonza, J. (2000). Ultimate bearing capacity of rock masses based
on the modified Hoek - Brown criterion. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences, 37(6), 10131018.

33.

Shekhawat, P., and Viladkar, M. N. (2014). Behaviour of Shallow Foundations on Jointed


Rock Mass. IIT Roorkee.
62

34.

Shukla, D. K., Singh, M., and Jain, K. K. (2014a). Bearing Capacity Of Footing On Slopping
Anisotropic Rock Mass. IMPACT: International Journal of Research in Engineering &
Technology (IMPACT: IJRET), 2(6(April)), 217232.

35.

Shukla, D. K., Singh, M., and Jain, K. K. (2014b). Variation In Bearing Capacity Of Footing
On Slopping Anisotropic Rock Mass. 2(6 (June)), 8598.

36.

Silvestri, V. (2003). A limit equilibrium solution for bearing capacity of strip foundations on
sand. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 40(Bowles 1988), 351361.

37.

Singh, B. (1973a). Continuum characterization of jointed rock masses Part I- The Constituve
Equations. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics
Abstracts, 10(October), 311335.

38.

Singh, B. (1973b). Continuum Characterization of Jointed Rock Masses, Part II- Significance
of Low Shear Modulus. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences &
Geomechanics Abstracts, 10(4), 337349.

39.

Singh, M., and Rao, K. S. (2005). Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations in Anisotropic
Non-HoekBrown Rock Masses. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 131(August), 10141023.

40.

Singh, M., Rao, K. S., and Ramamurthy, T. (2002). Strength and deformational behaviour of
a jointed rock mass. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 35(1), 4564.

41.

Sutcliffe, D. J., Yu, H. S., and Sloan, S. W. (2003). Lower bound solutions for bearing capacity
of jointed rock. Computers and Geotechnics, 31(1), 2336.

42.

Yang, X. L., and Yin, J. H. (2005). Upper bound solution for ultimate bearing capacity with a
modified Hoek-Brown failure criterion. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences, 42(4), 550560.

43.

Yang, X.-L. (2009). Seismic bearing capacity of a strip footing on rock slopes. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 46(1975), 943954.

44.

Ziaee, A. S. (2014). Explicit formulation of bearing capacity of shallow foundations on rock


masses using artificial neural networks: application and supplementary studies.
Environmental Earth Sciences, Volume 73(Issue 7), pp 34173431.

63

APPENDIX I
Table I.1
S.
No.
1

Literature Review at a Glance

Author /
Year
Pauker

Problem
Statement
BC of shallow strip

Empirical method; failure

(1889)

footing at certain

planes were assumed under

density of rock mass,

depth on heavily

footing

internal friction angle capacity estimation

Methodology

Parameters
considered
Footing depth,

Major Contributions

Limitations

Simple expression

Failed to predict

developed for bearing

bearing capacity at
surface ( D f 0 )

fractured rock mass


2

Terzaghi

BC of shallow strip

(1943)

footing at certain
depth on rock mass

Limit equilibrium method

Cohesion, angle of

Simple expression

Stress-strain response

internal friction, unit

proposed for bearing

of rock mass is

weight of rock, depth

capacity evaluation

neglected

and width of footing,


shape factor
3

Meyerhof

BC of surface strip

Limit equilibrium method;

Footing width, block

Equations presented for BC

Not applicable for

(1953)

footing on concrete

lab experiments on concrete

thickness, cohesion,

estimation of strip and

anisotropic rock mass

and rock blocks

and rock blocks

friction angle

circular footing; splitting


and shearing is dominant
failure mode

Bishnoi

BC of strip footing

Empirical method; footing

Friction angle, UCS,

Expression proposed for

Not considered

(1968)

on heavily

size with respect to joint

ratio of footing width

bearing capacity evaluation

surcharge loading

fractured rock mass

spacing is considered

to joint spacing

considering footing size to

with open vertical

joint spacing ratio

joint set

64

Table I.1
S.
No.
5

Author /
Year
Coates

BC of strip footing on

(1970)

rock surface

Problem Statement

Literature Review at a Glance (contd.)

Failure along two planes

Parameters
considered
Cohesion, friction

Expression proposed for

Provide reasonable

was considered

angle, surcharge,

BC evaluation

results only for friction

Methodology

Major Contributions

Limitations

angle 0 45

footing width, rock


unit weight
6

Gaziev and

Contact pressure

Series of experiments

Erlikhman

distribution in jointed

(1971)

Joint orientation

Produce stress

Only two orthogonal

conducted on rock mass

concentration pattern due to

joint sets were

rock mass below

specimen built with

partial loading for different

considered.

shallow footing

synthesized plaster blocks

joint orientations

Ladanyi and

BC of strip footing on

Assuming the development

Roy (1971)

rock mass with

of active and passive wedge

inclined joint sets

below strip footing

Cohesion and friction Expression proposed for


angle of joints,
footing width, unit

Considered only two

BC evaluation considering

joint sets; effect of

joint dip angle

surcharge load needs

weight of rock

to be considered
separately

Singh (1973)

Analysis of

Anisotropic continuum

deformation and stress

characterization and

in anisotropic jointed
rock mass

Joint stress

Validated the continuum

Failed to predict

concentration factor,

model (Singh 1973b); three

stresses in high stress

discrete joint model

normal and shear

case study were conducted;

gradient regions near

coupled FEM

stiffness of joints,

deformation and stress

loaded area.

joint spacing, joint

contour in jointed rock

orientation

65

mass below strip footing

Table I.1
S.
No.
9

Literature Review at a Glance (contd.)

Author /
Year
Bray

Stress distribution in

Assuming rock mass as

(1977)

jointed rock mass under

equivalent isotropic

surface point load

medium

Problem Statement

Methodology

Parameters considered
Joint orientation, normal
and shear stiffness,
distance of load
application point, E,

10

11

12

UCS and RQD

Not considered no. of

stresses and pressure bulbs

joint set, joint spacing,

in rock mass containing

rock mass quality

one joint set

BC of strip footing

Based of experimental

(1988)

resting on jointed rock

data obtained from

BC evaluation considering

mass

various types of rocks

RQD

Goodman

BC of strip footing on

Assuming crushing of

(1989)

heavily fractured rock

rock below footing with

mass

confining pressure ci

Oda et al.

Analysis of stress fields

Elastic stress strain

Ratio of normal to shear

(1992)

below strip footing in

relation using crack

stiffness, joint

jointed rock mass

tensor; finite element

UCS ( ci ) and friction


angle of intact rock

orientation,

Type of rock, UCS of

Limitations

Provide equations for

Bowles

method
13

Major Contributions

Expression proposed for

Approximate results

Expression proposed for

Cohesion and weight

BC evaluation

of rock is neglected

Provide stress strain

Consider only two

relation using crack tensor;

joint sets; Not consider

stress distribution pattern

stiffness ratio of

in rock mass below footing

natural joints

A new methodology

Considered weight less

proposed for Ultimate BC

rock mass and plane

Serrano

Ultimate BC of spread

BC quantification by HB

and Olalla

foundation on rock

criterion (1980) and

(1994)

masses subjected to

Characteristics method for

parameter, unit weight

estimation. Nomograms

strain condition; Not

central vertical load

resolving differential

of rock, HB parameters

presented for BC factor

validated with

N calculation

experimental data.

intact rock, RMR

equation system

66

Table I.1
S.
No.
14

Author /
Year
Serrano

Allowable BC of spread Application of modified

and Olalla

Foundation

(1996)

masses

Problem Statement

on

Methodology

Parameters considered
Type of rock, UCS of

rock HB criterion (1988).

subjected

to Statistical analysis of exp.

intact rock, RMR


parameter, unit weight

Major Contributions

Limitations

Introduced spacing ratio

Considered weight less

and scale effect parameter;

rock mass and plain

Nomograms prepared to

strain condition;

central vertical/inclined data. Comparison of

of rock, Spacing ratio of

cal. BC for various

Safety factor values

load

foundation, scale effect,

situation; Safety factor

given for limited

values are proposed.

values of RMR and

Using

Non- present results with code

Linear Failure Criterion

15

Literature Review at a Glance (contd.)

values & previous

slope angle, Safety

literature

factor, HB parameters
Type of rock, UCS of

A modified methodology

Plain strain condition,

intact rock, RMR

proposed for ultimate BC

weightless rock mass,

parameter, unit weight,

estimation considering

absence of initial force

subjected to central

Spacing ratio, scale

heavily fractured rock;

vertical/inclined load

effect, slope angle,

Nomograms presented for

Safety factor, HB

BC factor N calculation

Serrano

Ultimate BC of spread

Modified HB criterion

and Olalla

foundation on heavily

(1992) and Characteristics

(2000)

fractured rock mass

line method

UCS

parameters
16

Sutcliffe,

Plane strain BC of

FEM formulation of

Yu, Sloan

surface strip footing on

lower bound limit

(2003)

jointed rock mass with

theorem; Mohr-Coulomb

one, two and three joint

yield criterion

cohesive and frictional

BC solution of rock mass

Linearized yield

with one, two and three

criterion, not

orientation of joints and

joint sets; effect of

applicable for heavily

relative angle between

different parameter on BC

jointed or intact

joints

variation; comparison with

isotropic rock mass.

strength of joint sets,

sets subjected to central


vertical load

Alehossein et al. (1992)


and Davis (1980)
67

Table I.1
S.
No.
17

Literature Review at a Glance (contd.)

Author /
Year
Prakoso,

Problem
Statement
BC of strip footing

Lower bound BC model

Kulhawy

on jointed rock

(Bells model 1915) with

angle of both rock

proposed for BC

embedment and joint

(2004)

mass with one and

Mohr-Coulomb yield

material and joints;

calculation; effect of

set spacing were not

two joint sets

criterion

strength parameters on BC

considered; not

presented; solutions

applicable for heavily

compared with Alehossein

jointed or intact rock

et al. (1992) and Yu &

mass.

Methodology

Parameters
Major Contributions
considered
Cohesion and friction A new methodology

no. and orientation of

subjected to central

joint sets

vertical load

Limitations
Rock mass weight,

Sloan (1994)
18

Singh and

Bearing

capacity Lower bound limit analysis

No of joint sets, joint

A bearing capacity (BC)

Not applicable for

Rao (2005)

(BC)

of

shallow using Bells approach.

spacing, friction

calculation procedure was

columnar blocks or

strip

footing

angle along joint

proposed. Charts presented

blocks with one joint

planes, UCS of intact

to simplify BC

set. Block size < 0.2 of

rock, footing depth

computation.

footing. Not validated

Anisotropic

on Parabolic strength criterion


Non- with modified J f concept

Hoek-Brown (HB)
rock mass subjected

with experimental data

to vertical load
19

Yang and

BC of shallow strip

Upper bound limit analysis

HB parameter, GSI,

Yin (2005)

footing on

with generalized tangential

surcharge load,

horizontal HB rock

technique; HB criterion;

disturbance factor,

mass subjected to

multi wedge translational

unit weight

central vertical load

failure mechanism

BC solution; parametric

Plain strain solution;

study; tables for BC factor

not applicable for

estimation of five rock

anisotropic rock mass

types; solutions compared


with Collins et al (1988)

68

Table I.1
S.
No.
20

21

22

Author /
Year
Merifield,

Problem
Statement
BC of surface strip

Literature Review at a Glance (contd.)

Numerical limit analysis

Parameters
considered
Unit weight, UCS,

Solution are within 2.5% of

Unrealistic values

Lyamin and footings on jointed

with FEM; generalized HB

GSI, footing width,

collapse load; Charts

considered for

Sloan

rock mass

criterion(2002)

presented BC factor N

different parameters in

(2006)

subjected to central

estimation; solutions

yield criterion

vertical load

compared with Kulhawy

approximation; not

and Karter (1992) and

applicable for

Serrano et al. (2000)

anisotropic rock mass

Simple non-linear strength

Effect of intermediate

or failure criterion

principal stress is

presented the strength

neglected; Not

behaviour of isotropic rock

applicable for

mass

anisotropic rock mass

A BC estimation method

Not applicable for

proposed; effect of

anisotropic rock mass


with few joint sets

Methodology

HB parameters

Hoek-Brown

Major Contributions

Hoek and

Non-linear yield

Empirical strength

Marinos

criterion for

envelope originated by

(2007)

isotropic (intact or

linear regression analysis of

heavily fractured)

large number of

rock mass

experimental data

Saada,

BG of shallow strip

Kinematical approach of

Maghous,

foundation on

upper bound limit analysis

Garnier

Hoek-Brown rock

with generalized HB

Disturbance factor,

surcharge and unit weight

(2007)

mass subjected to

criterion; two failure

surcharge load, unit

on BC investigated;

central vertical load

mechanisms: generalized

parameters mb , s and
exponent a , GSI,
disturbance factor
Hoek-Brown
parameters, GSI,

weight

solutions compared with

Prandlt type and multi

Yang and Yin (2005)

wedge translation failure

Merifield et al. (2006)

69

Limitations

Table I.1
S.
No.
23

24

25

Author /
Year
Saada,

Problem
Statement
BC of strip footing

Maghous,

Literature Review at a Glance (contd.)

Kinematical approach of

Parameters
considered
HB parameters, GSI,

Seismic BC solution in

Variation of seismic

on jointed rock

upper bound limit analysis;

surcharge load, unit

terms of BC factors; Tables

force and direction is

Garnier

mass near slopes

HB criterion; pseudo-static

weight, horizontal

for BC factor estimation;

not considered; plain

(2007)

under vertical and

approach for seismic

seismic load, slope

effect of geometric,

strain solution; not

horizontal seismic

analysis; four different

angle, distance from

strength and load

applicable for

load

failure mechanisms used

slope edge

parameters studied;

anisotropic rock mass

Yang

BC of strip footing

Upper bound limit analysis

HB parameter, GSI,

Tables presented for

Plain strain solution;

(2009)

on Hoek-Brown

with generalized tangential

surcharge load, unit

Seismic BC factor

not applicable for

rock mass at slope

technique; HB criterion;

weight, horizontal

estimation for five rock

anisotropic rock mass;

edge under vertical

multi wedge translational

seismic coefficient,

types; effect of seismic

Variation shearing

load and horizontal

failure mechanism; pseudo-

coefficient and slope angle

strength due to earth

seismic load

static seismic analysis

factor for static and

on critical slip surfaces

quake is not

seismic conditions

investigated

considered

Cohesion c and

Simple linear strength or

Intermediate principal

failure criterion; clear

stress is neglected; Not

physical significance of

applicable for

parameters c and

anisotropic rock mass

Methodology

Labuz and

Mohr-Coulomb

Empirical linear strength

Zang

yield criterion for

envelope developed from

(2012)

isotropic rock mass

Mohr (1900) and Coulomb

slope angle, BC

angle of internal

friction

(1776) failure envelopes

70

Major Contributions

Limitations

Table I.1
S.
No.
26

Author /
Year
Imani et al.

Problem
Statement
BC of submerged

(2012)

Literature Review at a Glance (contd.)


Major Contributions

Limitations

Upper bound limit analysis;

Parameters
considered
Joint spacing, c &

Submerged BC equation

Not applicable for

jointed rock

DEM analysis of failure

of rock material and

presented; parametric study

anisotropic or heavily

foundations

analysis; spacing ratio

joints, dry and

conducted; results

fractured rock mass;

submerged unit

compared with Hansen et

weight, water table

al. (1987) and Ausilio and

Methodology

subjected to central
vertical load

27

BC

of No. of experiments

depth, joint dip angle

Conte (2005)

Rock properties,

A modified BC calculation

Not applicable for

procedure was proposed for

columnar blocks or

rock mass with continuous

blocks with one joint

Bindlish,

Ultimate

Singh and

surface

Samadhiya

footing on non-HB mass. Results compared

of structure,

(2012)

rock mass subjected with the method of Singh

Joint

to vertical load

interlocking

footing. Moisture

conditions.

effect of is not

square conducted on synthetic rock joint intensity, type

and Rao (2005)

orientations, & discontinuous joint sets

set. Block size < 0.2 of

accounted
28

Salari-Rad

Modelling

of DEM modelling by UDEC

failure mechanisms,

Due to single joint set BC

2-D modelling

of in plane strain condition.

Dip angle, shear

varies upto 27 - 86 % of

method. Only single

Shallow Footing on Rock material and joint

strength of joint sets

intact rock.

joint set considered.

jointed rock mass modelled by HB and MC

and other properties

BC of rock mass reduces

Not consider joint

containing

of jointed rock mass

with decreasing joint shear

frequency. Not

strength

validated with

et al. (2012) Ultimate

BC

single criterion

joint set subjected


to vertical load

experimental data

71

Table I.1
Sl.
No
29

Literature Review at a Glance (contd.)

Author /
Year
Clausen

Problem
Statement
BC of circular

Numerical coding by

(2012)

surface footings on

displacement FEM with

jointed rocks

convergence extrapolation

subjected to central

scheme; HB failure

vertical load

criterion (2006)

Methodology

Parameters
considered
HB parameters, GSI,
rock mass unit
weight, UCS, radius
of footing, BC
factors

Major Contributions

Limitations

Sensitivity analysis; BC

Not applicable for

equations presented;

anisotropic jointed

parametric study was done;

rock mass; results not

nomograms presented;

compared with any

solutions compared with

field data

Hoek et al. (2002)


Serrano and Olalla (2002)
30

Agharazi et

Stress

al. (2012)

deformation
analysis

and MC criterion, 3D

of

constitutive model based on


rock superposition of REV

mass containing up components deformation;


to three joint sets
31

Joint

orientation, Provide a 3D constitutive

stiffness,

cohesion, model for rock mass up to

model is not applicable

friction angle, shear three joint sets; stress

when footing size is

modulus

distribution in jointed rock

small relative to joint

in plate load test

spacing

FLAC3D

Bindlish,

Modelling

Singh and

Ultimate

Samadhiya

Shallow Footing on FISH. UDEC model results

structure,

(2013)

non-HB rock mass compared with the

Joint

subjected to vertical experimental results of

interlocking

load

conditions

BC

This constitutive

of DEM modelling using

Rock properties, joint UDEC model predicted BC

Failed to predict BC

of UDEC, programming with

intensity,

when failure through

Bindlish et al. (2012)

72

type

of reasonably when failure


through pre-existing

orientations, fractures or continuous


joints

intact rock due to


initiation of new
fractures

Table I.1
S.
No.
32

Author /
Year
Justo

Problem
Statement
Case study of raft

(2013)

Literature Review at a Glance (contd.)

FEM modelling using

Parameters
considered
Rock classification

FEM modelling of raft

foundation of high

PLAXIS 3D; analytical

systems, elasticity

footing; sensitivity analysis

rise building; BM

calculation using rock

modulus, UCS, unit

and deformation

classification systems and

weight, MC

hardening model is most

calculation of the

three material models:

parameters

effective in settlement

raft foundation

elastic, MC and hardening

estimation; variation of BM

model

with elasticity modulus

Methodology

Major Contributions

Limitations

for mess fineness;

---

observed; results compared


with field data
33

Shukla,
Singh

BC of strip footing No. of experiments

Joint angle with

and at edge and at a conducted on synthetic rock principal axis, joint

A new method proposed for

Not applicable for

BC estimation. Joint angle

heavily jointed rock

Jain (2014, distance from edge mass. Results compared

frequency, joint

edge distance and failure

mass or rock mass

2014)

strength, UCS,

mode is dominating

with discontinuous

elasticity modulus

parameter. Resistance of

joints

mass subjected to with modified J f concept

and failure mode of

buckling > sliding for

vertical load

rock masses

continuous jointed rock

of

slopping with the BC obtained by

anisotropic

rock Eulers buckling theory

mass

73

Table I.1 Literature Review at a Glance (contd.)


S.
No.
34

Author /
Year
Ziaee et al.

Problem
Statement
BC of surface strip

Statistical analysis of large

Parameters
considered
RMR, UCS, ratio of

(2014)

foundation on rock

no. of experimental data by

mass with vertical

Methodology

Major Contributions

Limitations

A new BC equation

Effect of shape of

joint to footing

presented; sensitivity and

footing and anisotropic

ANN based on fixed

width, internal

parametric analysis

behaviour of

joint set subjected

connection weights and

frictional angle

conducted; BC is more

foundation rock mass

to central vertical

bias factors; parametric

sensitive to UCS and ratio

was not considered

load

study by Garsons

of joint to footing width;

algorithm

results compared
experimental data and
Goodman (1989)

35

Shekhawat

BC, settlement and

Numerical FEM analysis

HB parameters, GSI,

Pressure-settlement

Not applicable for

and

tilt behaviour of

with modified HB criterion;

characteristics of surface

anisotropic rock mass;

Viladkar

surface strip

double tangent method

factor, load

strip footing studied; Non-

weight of rock mass is

(2014)

footing on HB rock

(Luteneger and Adams

eccentricity and

dimensional correlations

not considered;

mass subjected to

1989)

inclination, UBC,

developed for BC,

unrealistic initial

eccentric and

Settlement and tilt of

settlement and tilt

values of various

inclined load

footing

estimation; results validated

parameters are

with results of Kulhawy &

considered in FEM

Carter (1992) and Serrano

modelling

UCS, Disturbance

(2000)

74

75