FrontiersinGeotechnicalEngineering(FGE)Volume2Issue3,September2013www.seipub.

org/fge

ACriteriontoDistinguishContinuityofRock
Foundations
AhmadFahimifar1,MeysamImani*2,MostafaSharifzadeh3
DepartmentofCivilandEnvironmentalEngineering,AmirkabirUniversityofTechnology,Tehran,Iran.
DepartmentofMiningandMetallurgyEngineering,AmirkabirUniversityofTechnology,Tehran,Iran.

1,2
3

Fahim@aut.ac.ir;*2Imani@aut.ac.ir;3Sharifzadeh@aut.ac.ir

Abstract
To estimate the ultimate bearing capacity of rock
foundations,onecanusetheanalyticalmethodsordifferent
building codes. In the case of a discontinuous rock mass,
discontinuityspacingplaysanimportantroleinthebearing
capacity of rock foundation. In this paper, ultimate bearing
capacity(UBC)ofarockfoundationcontainingonetothree
joint sets was determined using distinct element method
(DEM). Different values of joint spacing were taken into
accountandthebearingcapacityvariationswereexamined.
The discontinuity spacing in which the bearing capacity
variation is not considerable was determined and reported
as the boundary between continuous and discontinuous
behaviorofrockfoundations.Theresultswerepresentedas
the spacing ratio (SR) in which both the foundation width
and joint set spacing are considered. It was concluded that
the magnitude of SR=30 may be taken into account as the
limit value between the continuousdiscontinuous rock
foundations. Finally, extensive sensitivity analyses were
performed and it was shown that the proposed limit value
SRisnotsusceptibletodifferentrockandjointparameters.
Keywords
Bearing Capacity; Rock Foundations; Continuity; Settlement;
ContinuousDiscontinuous

Introduction
Topredictthestrengthoflargescalerockmasses,two
analytical approaches are normally used. In the first
one(namedthedirectapproach),thejointedrockmass
is regarded as an assemblage of intact rock and joint
sets,andtheeffectofjointsisexplicitlyaccountedfor.
In the second one (named the homogenization
approach), the jointed rock mass is treated as a
continuum with equivalent material properties, while
theeffectofjointsisimplicitlyconsidered.
A number of solutions to determining ultimate
bearing capacity (UBC) of rock foundations, such as
thosepresentedbyMerifieldetal.(2006),Saadaetal.
(2008),SerranoandOlalla(1998a,b)andYangandYin
(2005), are based upon the HoekBrown failure
criterion in which the prerequisite of the

homogenization approach is satisfied. In some other

methods, like Prakoso and Kulhawy (2004) and
Sutcliffe et al. (2004), the rock material and
discontinuity properties, number and orientation of
discontinuities are explicitly taken into account,
however, by making the assumption of ubiquity for
discontinuities and considering small spacing, the
conditionofhomogenizationapproachissatisfied.
Considerablenumbersofresearchworksarefoundin
theliteraturetodistinguishcontinuityanddiscontinuity
ofrockmassesintunnelengineering.DeereandMiller
(1966) and KiBok Min (2004) have suggested some
guidelines in this respect. Maghous er al. (2008) have
shown that a continuum approach can be applied in
tunneling when e/D0.1, in which, e represents the
spacingofdiscontinuitiesandDisthetunneldiameter.
Stille and Palmstrom (2008) have proposed the
continuity factor (CF) for the case of a tunnel, as
CF=tunnel diameter/block diameter. For CF=615, a
discontinuous(blocky)behaviormaytakeplace.
Whileseveralsuggestionsarefoundtodistinguishthe
boundary of continuity and discontinuity behavior in
thefieldoftunneling,therehaveveryfewinthefield
of rock foundation. One of the most appropriate may
beofSerranoandOlalla(1996)as:
n
1
SR B
(1)
i 1 S mi
Where SR is the spacing ratio; B is the foundation
width; Smi is the joint spacing of the ith discontinuity
set; and n is the number of discontinuity sets. As an
initial and crud proposal, Serrano and Olalla (1996)
suggested that a relatively small spacing can be
attributed to the rock mass foundation when SR is
greaterthan60.Thiswouldimplythatforthecasesof
SR<60, using the continuum approach determining
UBCofrockfoundationsisnotappropriate.
ThesuggestionproposedbySerranoandOlalla(1996)
for the limit between continuous and discontinuous
behavior of rock foundations seems to be quite

53

www.seipub.org/fgeFrontiersinGeotechnicalEngineering(FGE)Volume2Issue3,September2013

conservative,andbecauseoflackofotherpropositions
forrockfoundations,determininganexactvalueofSR
asthelimitvalueisverysignificant.Thisnecessitywill
become more important when dealing with a rock
foundation containing a large number of rock blocks
with different geometries, in which using a
discontinuousapproachwillbeverydifficultandvery
timeconsuming.
In this work, the SR value proposed by Serrano and
Olalla (1996) was investigated through extensive
analyses performed using distinct element method
(DEM).Inthisway,theUBCofarockmass(whichis
shownbyquinthispaper)containedone;andtwoand
three joint sets were calculated using the distinct
element based software, UDEC (2000) and the results
were compared to the results obtained using the
existinganalyticalmethods.Intheconstructedmodels,
for various joint set orientations, the effect of joint
spacing was examined using different SR values. The
particular SR value, in which the rate of variation of
theUBCbecomesnegligible,wasselectedasthelimit
between the continuous and discontinuous behavior.
Anextensivesensitivityanalyseswerealsoperformed
todeterminetheeffectsofdifferentparametersonthe
proposedSRvalue.
Basis of the Bearing Capacity Estimation
The loadsettlement curve is the most popular tool in
estimatingUBCofthegroundbeneaththefoundation.
There are currently four published methods for
evaluating the ultimate capacity from the load
settlement curves. Lutenegger and Adams (1998)
discussed these methods, including the 0.1B, the
TangentIntersection,theLogLogandtheHyperbolic
methods.
If a marked change of settlement occurs in the load
settlement curve, the tangent intersection method is
proper to estimate UBC. This type of loadsettlement
curve is usually obtained when the shear surfaces in
thematerialbeneaththefoundationreachtheground
surface.Butinsomecases,theseshearsurfacesdonot
reach the ground surface and no marked change in
settlement takes place. As mentioned by Frank et al.
(2004), one of the different types of limit state for a
foundationistheexcessivedeformationoftheground
inwhichthestrengthofsoilorrockissignificant.This
recommendation can be used to determine UBC in
casesthattheloadsettlementcurvedoesnotpresenta
distinct peak value, because of high resistance
providedbythesoilorrockformation.Insuchcases,

54

thesettlementofthesoilorrockformationwillgovern
the ultimate pressure and the 0.1B method is
appropriatefordeterminingtheUBC.Inthismethod,
the footing stress corresponding to the settlement
equalto10percentoffoundationwidthisproposedas
theUBC.Maghousetal.(2008)showedthatforarock
foundationwithonejointset,atasettlementequalto
10 percent of foundation width, failure due to
excessivesettlementwilloccur.
Parameters Used for Distinct Element
Modeling
Modeling of the bearing capacity problem was
performed for a flexible foundation with one meter
width. To minimize the effect of each model
boundaries on the results, the boundaries were
considered seven times of the foundation width in
eachside.Thebaseofthemodelwaskeptfixed,while
the vertical sides were left free to displace in vertical
direction.Therockblockswereassumedtobeflexible
and the Mohr Coulomb failure criterion was used for
therockmaterialandthejointsets.Theanalyseswere
performed for a kind of sandstone whose properties
arepresentedinTable1.
TABLE1ROCKMATERIALANDJOINTSETSPROPERTIES

Parameter
Magnitude
Density(kN/m3)
27
BulkModulus,K(GPa)
26.8
Intact
ShearModulus,G(GPa)
6.99
Rock
IntactRockFrictionAngle,i(degree)
35
IntactRockCohesion,ci(MPa)
20
100
JointNormalStiffness,Kn(GPa/m)
JointShearStiffness,Ks(GPa/m)
100
Joint
Sets
JointSetsFrictionAngle,j(degree)
35
JointSetsCohesion,cj(MPa)
2

InTable1,KnandKsarenormalandshearstiffnesses
of each joint set. The values of these parameters are
very variable for a specific kind of rock and a wide
rangeofthemcanbefoundintheliterature.Published
dataontheseparametersareverylimited,soselecting
proper values for them is difficult in the absence of
test results. In distinct element models, using a low
value of normal stiffness leads to overlapping of the
adjacent rock blocks, while for a large stiffness, the
running time will be significantly long. The values of
KnandKspresentedinTable1arefortightjointsand
were selected in accordance to the UDEC (2000)
manual. Sensitivity analyses performed in this
researchshowedminoreffectsofrockmassproperties
onthelimitvaluesofSRobtainedasthelimitbetween
continuousdiscontinuous approaches in jointed rock
foundations.

FrontiersinGeotechnicalEngineering(FGE)Volume2Issue3,September2013www.seipub.org/fge

Numerical Analyses
Extensive numerical analyses were performed for the
casesofjointedrockmasseswithonetothreejointsets
as depicted in Fig. 1. In the analyses, different SR
values,between2to50,wereexamined.Inthemodels
containingonejointset,thejointorientationangles()
equal to 15, 30 and 45 were considered. In the
modelswithtwojointsets,orientationangleofoneof
thejointsets()variedfrom15to45instepsof15,
while the other joint set was considered to be
perpendicular to the first joint set. The models with
three joint sets were similar to the models with two
joint sets, for the first two sets, but the third set was
considered in vertical direction (Fig. 1, third row). It
should be mentioned that for the cases of SR having
decimal magnitudes, they were rounded to integer
values.

method for prediction of the UBC was used in this

regard. Figs. 2 and 3 show settlement contour and
displacement vectors for the models with two joint
setsinwhich=45andtheSRvaluesweretakeninto
account equal to 6 and 40, respectively. The
foundationloadforwhichthesefigureswereobtained
correspondstothesettlementof0.1B.

FIG.2ROCKMASSCONTAININGTWOJOINTSETS,=45AND
SR=6.a)SETTLEMENTCONTOUR(m)ANDb)DISPLACEMENT
VECTORS

FIG.1STRIPFOUNDATIONSONROCKMASSESWITHONETO
THREEJOINTSETS

According to the analyses performed in this work, in

most cases, the loadsettlement curve did not show a
distinctmarkedchangeinsettlement,becauseofhigh
strength of the rock formation. Therefore, the 0.1B

FIG.3ROCKMASSCONTAININGTWOJOINTSETS,=45AND
SR=40.a)SETTLEMENTCONTOUR(m)ANDb)DISPLACEMENT
VECTORS

FIG.4VARIATIONOFqu/ciWITHSRANDFORONEJOINTSET

55

www.seipub.org/fgeFrontiersinGeotechnicalEngineering(FGE)Volume2Issue3,September2013

FIG.5VARIATIONOFqu/ciWITHSRANDFORTWOJOINTSETS

FIG.6VARIATIONOFqu/ciWITHSRANDFORTHREEJOINTSETS

Thequ/civariationsversusSRandfordifferentjoint
set numbers are shown in Figs. 4 to 6. According to
these figures, for SR larger than 30, variation of the
bearingcapacityisnotsignificantanditisimpliedthat
bearingcapacityoftherockfoundationisnotaffected
bythejointsets.
The variation of qu/ci versus in Figs. 4 to 6 also
verifiesthisconclusion.Inthesefigures,itisclearthat
for SR larger than 30, variation in rock bearing
capacity is not significant for various orientations of
joint sets. As a consequence, the discontinuous rock
mass can be treated as a continuous medium.
Therefore, in the rock foundations with one to three
jointsets,itcanbeconcludedthatSRequalto30isthe
limit or boundary value between the continuous and
discontinuous behaviors. If the joint spacing is such
that the corresponding SR is less than 30, the rock
mass will behave as a discontinuum and the joint
patternwillaffecttheUBCsignificantly.Therefore,in
analyzingsucharockmass,adiscontinuousapproach
like DEM should be used. In contrast, for SR greater
than30,therockmassbehavesasacontinuumandthe
jointspacingdoesnotaffecttheUBCsignificantly.As
aresult,acontinuousapproachwillbeadequateandit
is not necessary to use cumbersome and time

56

consuming methods in which, rock blocks are

consideredexplicitly.
Verification of the 0.1B Method for Rock
Foundations
The 0.1 B method proposed by Briaud and Jeanjean
(1994)initiallywasusedtodeterminetheUBCofsoil
formations. Although, for a rock mass with one joint
set, a settlement equal to 10 percent of foundation
widthisthelimitcondition(Maghousetal.,2008),itis
important to investigate further the accuracy of this
methodinrockformations.
A quick review of the loadsettlement curve obtained
fromDEMfordifferentvaluesofSRandrevealsthat
infewcases,theshapeofthecurveissuchthatusing
the tangent intersection method, proposed by
Trautmann and Kulhawy (1988), is appropriate and
possible. In this method, the footing stress,
corresponding to a marked change in settlement is
introduced as the UBC. Fig. 7 shows the load
settlement curve for the case of one joint set with
=45 and SR= 4 and 10. In this figure, the UBC (qu)
wasobtainedusingboth0.1Bandtangentintersection
(TI) methods. The same comparisons were made for

FrontiersinGeotechnicalEngineering(FGE)Volume2Issue3,September2013www.seipub.org/fge

thecasesoftwoandthreejointsets,andtheresultsare
presented in Table 2. The values obtained show that
the differences between the two methods are not
significantfortheseparticularcases.

results and the results of solutions proposed by

Sutcliffeetal.(2004)andPrakosoandKulhawy(2004)
forarockfoundationcontainingonejointset.

FIG.8COMPARISONOFDEMWITHTHEANALYTICAL
METHODSFORONEJOINTSET

Asstatedbefore,themagnitudesofUBC(shownhere
by qu) obtained from the distinct element models are
based upon the values of settlement at ultimate state,
whichwasconsideredequalto0.1B.Inadditiontothe
rockandjointcohesionsandfrictionangles,thevalues
ofbulkandshearmoduluscorrespondingtotherock
mass deformation, also affect the UBC in DEM. The
UBCsobtainedfromSutcliffeetal.(2004)andPrakoso
and Kulhawy (2004) methods are only based on the
rock and joint cohesions and friction angles, and
variation of rock deformation does not affect directly
theUBCsobtainedfromthesemethods.
FIG.7THELOADSETTLEMENTCURVEFORTHECASEOFONE
JOINTSET,a)SR=4ANDb)SR=10
TABLE2COMPARISONBETWEEN0.1BANDTANGENTINTERSECTION
METHODS

NumberofJointSets SR Method qu(MPa) Difference(%)

4
One

45
10
3

Two

30
10
4

Three

30
12

0.1B
TI
0.1B
TI
0.1B
TI
0.1B
TI
0.1B
TI
0.1B
TI

332
310
303
280
261
253
196
201
220
219
138
143

TwoandThreeJointSets
Figs. 9 and 10 represent a comparison between the
DEMresultsandthesolutionsproposedbySutcliffeet
al. (2004) and Prakoso and Kulhawy (2004) for UBC
magnitudes of rock foundations containing two and
threejointsets.

8
3
3
0.5
4

Comparison with the Existing Solutions

OneJointSet
Fig. 8 represents a comparison between the DEM

FIG.9COMPARISONOFDEMWITHTHEANALYTICAL
METHODSFORTWOJOINTSETS

57

www.seipub.org/fgeFrontiersinGeotechnicalEngineering(FGE)Volume2Issue3,September2013

pertinentinthiscase.Intheotherway,byvariationof
deformation modulus of rock mass, the settlement
magnitude obtained from DEM will vary and shear
failure may take place prior to failure induced by
excessivedeformationofrockmass.

FIG.10COMPARISONOFDEMWITHTHEANALYTICAL
METHODSFORTHREEJOINTSETS

Similar to Fig. 8, in Figs. 9 and 10, the Sutcliffe et al.

(2004)andPrakosoandKulhawy(2004)resultslayin
differentpositionswithrespecttothedistinctelement
results. Also, in the case of two and three joint sets,
variationofbulkandshearmodulusofrockmasswill
tend to variable UBCs obtained by DEM, while it has
noeffectontheUBCvaluesobtainedbySutcliffeetal.
(2004)andPrakosoandKulhawy(2004)methods.

Thedifferencesbetweentheresultsobtainedusingthe
solutions discussed in this paper and the results
obtained using DEM do not reject the application of
the analytical methods, but it emphasizes the
importance of considering the induced failure due to
excessive deformation that may take place prior to
shearfailurewhichbeingfocusedinthispaper.
Therefore, in practical applications, allowable bearing
capacity could be determined using the following
procedure:

Determination of UBC using the methods

which are based on shear failure of the rock
massandapplyinganappropriatesafetyfactor.

Determination of UBC using the methods

which are capable of taking into account the
failure induced by excessive deformation (like
DEM), and applying an appropriate safety
factor.

Determination of the foundation pressure

pertinenttoallowablesettlement.

DiscussionoftheResults
A quick review of Figs. 8 to 10 reveals some
differences between the existing analytical and DEM
solutions, however, the overall trend of variation of
the results are similar to each other. As discussed
earlier, the UBCs obtained from DEM in this paper,
arebasedonfailureinducedbyexcessivedeformation,
while in analytical methods like those presented by
Sutcliffeetal.(2004)andPrakosoandKulhawy(2004),
the shear failure of rock mass has been used as the
basis of developing bearing capacity equations. So,
variation of the deformation characteristics of rock
massresultsinvariousUBCsobtainedbyDEM,while
it has no effect on the UBC magnitudes obtained by
Sutcliffeetal.(2004)andPrakosoandKulhawy(2004)
methods.
The Sutcliffe et al. (2004) method has been proposed
for a rock foundation with small spacing of joints,
however,fortherockmasspropertiesassumedinthis
work,theresultsobtainedbythismethoddonotlayin
therangeofsmallspacingofjoints(SR>30).Thisresult
reveals that in the selected rock mass, the failure will
occur due to excessive deformation prior to shear
failure. Thus, the UBC magnitudes obtained using
distinct element models for the case of small joint
spacing (SR>30) are lower than those obtained by
Sutcliffeetal.(2004).Therefore,theshearfailurebased
methods like that of Sutcliffe et al. (2004) is not

58

Theminimumpressureamongthethreeabovestages
maybeusedasthefinalallowablebearingcapacity.
Sensitivity Analyses
ItisobviousthatDEMresultsarehighlydependenton
the selected rock parameters. Taking into
consideration the effect of rock material and joint
parameters on the proposed limit value of SR,
sensitivity analyses were performed. Because of the
large number of models, the orientation of equalto
30wasonlypresentedhere.
EffectofCohesion
Toexaminetheeffectofcohesionoftherockmaterial
and the joint sets, analyses were performed for the
cases in which ci was kept constant, as depicted in
Table 1, while cj was increased to reach the ratios of
cj/ci=0.3 and 0.5. In all the analyses, it was assumed
that i=j=35. The results of qu/ci versus SR are
presentedinFig.11.Forbettercomparison,theresults
forcj/ci=0.1arealsoshown.Thefigurerevealsthatthe
valueofSRequalto30proposedinthisresearchasthe
limit value between continuousdiscontinuous rock
foundations, does not change with changes in the

FrontiersinGeotechnicalEngineering(FGE)Volume2Issue3,September2013www.seipub.org/fge

cohesionofjointsfordifferentnumberofjointsets.
EffectofFrictionAngle
Again,analyseswerecarriedouttoexaminetheeffect
of friction angle for both rock material and joint sets.
Theanalyseswereperformedforthecasesofi=j=25,
35 and 45, ci=20 MPa and cj=6 MPa (cj/ci=0.3). The
resultsarepresentedinFig.12.Thefigurerevealsthat
theproposedlimitvalueforSRdoesnotchangewith
changesinthefrictionanglesofrockmaterialandjoint
sets.
EffectofJointStiffness
Toexaminetheinfluenceofvariationofjointstiffness,
analyseswereperformedusingjointnormalandshear

stiffnesses equal to 25 and 50 percent smaller and

largerthantheinitialvaluesasinTable1.Theresults
are shown in Fig. 13. It is clear that the stiffness
properties of joints do not change the proposed limit
valueofSR.
EffectofFoundationWidth
Asstatedbefore,alltheanalyseswereperformedfora
foundation with one meter width. To investigate the
effectoffoundationwidthontheproposedlimitvalue
of SR, two other widths, say B=2 and 3 meters were
examined,withthepropertiesofrockmasssimilarto
thevaluesinTable1.TheresultsarepresentedinFig.
14whichrevealsthattheproposedlimitvalueforSR
doesnotchangewithchangingthefoundationwidth.

FIG.11EFFECTOFCOHESIONONTHEqu/ciVERSUSSRFORa)ONE,b)TWOANDc)THREEJOINTSETS

FIG.12EFFECTOFFRICTIONANGLEONTHEqu/ciVERSUSSRFORa)ONE,b)TWOANDc)THREEJOINTSETS

FIG.13EFFECTOFJOINTSTIFFNESSONTHEqu/ciVERSUSSRFORa)ONE,b)TWOANDc)THREEJOINTSETS

59

www.seipub.org/fgeFrontiersinGeotechnicalEngineering(FGE)Volume2Issue3,September2013

FIG.14EFFECTOFFOUNDATIONWIDTHONTHEqu/ciVERSUSSRFORa)ONE,b)TWOANDc)THREEJOINTSETS

FIG.15EFFECTOFSETTLEMENTLIMITONTHEqu/ciVERSUSSRFORa)ONE,b)TWOANDc)THREEJOINTSETS

EffectofSettlementMagnitudeatUltimateState
The present work is based on the hypothesis that the
UBC of rock foundation is obtained at a settlement
equal to 0.1B. To investigate the effect of this
hypothesisonthelimitvalueofSR,settlementsequal
to0.08Band0.13Bwerealsoexamined,andtheresults
areshowninFig.15.Itisclearthatthesettlementlimit
does not have significant effect on the proposed limit
valueofSR.
Summary and Conclusion
Ultimate bearing capacity of rock foundations has
been always a difficult task due to the presence of
discontinuities in the rock formations. Analysis of
discontinuous rock foundations is also very time
consumingandsevere.Asaconsequence,introducing
a criterion to distinguish the boundary between
continuous and discontinuous behaviors of rock
formations beneath foundations is of paramount
importance.Thisproblemwouldbemoresevereifthe
degreeofjointingistoolarge.Resultsofthisresearch
have shown that for rock foundations, the spacing
ratio (SR) is a proper criterion for this purpose. A SR
value approximately equal to 30 is the limit value
betweencontinuousdiscontinuousbehaviorsofrocks.
ForSRsmallerthan30,adiscontinuousapproachlike
DEM should be used in determining the ultimate
bearing capacity. In contrast, for SR larger than 30, a

60

continuousapproachwillbeadequateindetermining
the UBC. This limit value is independent of the
parameterssuchascohesionandfrictionangleofrock
materialandjointsets,stiffnesspropertiesofjointsets,
foundation width and settlement value at ultimate
state.
Also,ithasbeenshownthatdeterminingtheultimate
bearingcapacityofrockfoundationsonlybyusingthe
equations which are based on shear failure of rock
foundation, may lead to unrealistic results and in
practical purposes, the possibilities of occurrence of
failure induced by excessive deformation should be
considered.
REFERENCES

Briaud, Jean L., and Philippe Jeanjean, Load Settlement

Curve method for Spread Footings on Sand, Vertical
and Horizontal Deformations of Foundations and
Embankments,ASCE2(1994):17741804.
Deere, Don U. and R. P. Miller, Engineering Classification
and Index Properties for intact Rock, Technical Report
AFWLTR116,UniversityofIllinois,1966.
Frank,R.etal.,DesignersGuidetoEN19971,Eurocode7:
Geotechnical Design General Rules. 1st edn. London:
ThomasTelford,2004.
Lutenegger, Alan J. and Michael T. Adams, Bearing

FrontiersinGeotechnicalEngineering(FGE)Volume2Issue3,September2013www.seipub.org/fge

Capacity of Footings on Compacted Sand, Proceeding

MechanicsandMiningSciences33,4(1996):327345.

of the 4th International Conference on Case Histories in

Serrano, Alcibiades, and Claudio Olalla. Ultimate bearing

Geotechnical Engineering, St. Louis, Missouri, (1998):

capacityofananisotropicdiscontinuousrockmass,Part

12161224.

I: Basic modes of failure, International Journal of Rock

Maghous,Samiretal.,Elastoplasticbehaviorofjointedrock

MechanicsandMiningSciences35,3(1998a):301324.

masses as homogenized media and finite element

Serrano, Alcibiades, and Claudio Olalla. Ultimate bearing

analysis, International Journal of Rock Mechanics and

capacityofananisotropicdiscontinuousrockmass,Part

MiningSciences45,8(2008):12731286.

II: Determination procedure, International Journal of

Merifield,RichardS.etal., Limit analysissolutions for the

bearing capacity of rock masses using the generalised
HoekBrown criterion, International Journal of Rock

Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 35, 3 (1998b): 325

348.
Stille, Hakan, and Arild Palmstrom, Ground behavior and

MechanicsandMiningSciences43,6(2006):920937.

rock mass composition in underground excavations,

Min, KiBok. Fractured Rock Masses as Equivalent

Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 23, 1

Continua A Numerical Study, PhD diss., Royal

(2008):4664.

InstituteofTechnologyinStockholm,KTH,Department

Sutcliffe, D. J. et al., Lower bound solutions for bearing

ofLandandWaterResourcesEngineering,Sweden,2004.

capacityofjointedrock,ComputersandGeotechnics31,

Prakoso, Widjojo P. and Fred H. Kulhawy, Bearing

Capacity of Strip Footings on Jointed Rock Masses,
Journal

of

Geotechnical

and

Geoenvironmental

Engineering130,2(2004):13471349.
Saada,Ziedetal.,Bearingcapacityofshallowfoundations
on rocks obeying a modified HoekBrown failure
criterion,ComputersandGeotechnics35,2(2008):144
154.

1(2004):2336.
Trautmann,CharlesH.,andFredH.Kulhawy,Upliftload
displacement behavior of spread foundations, Journal
ofGeotechnicalandGeoenvironmentalEngineering114,
2(1988):168183.
Universaldistinct element code, UDEC, Version 4.00, Itasca
ConsultingGroupInc.Minneapolis,MN,2000.
Yang,XiaoLi,andJianHuaYin,Upperboundsolutionfor

Serrano,Alcibiades,andClaudioOlalla.AllowableBearing

ultimate bearing capacity with a modified HoekBrown

Capacity of Rock Foundations Using a Nonlinear

failure criterion, International Journal of Rock

Failure Criterium, International Journal of Rock

MechanicsandMiningSciences42,4(2005):550560.

61