Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 170e177

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Rock Mechanics and

Geotechnical Engineering
journal homepage: www.rockgeotech.org

Full length article

Seismic bearing capacity of strip footings on rock masses using the

HoekeBrown failure criterion
Amin Keshavarz*, Abdoreza Fazeli, Siavosh Sadeghi
School of Engineering, Persian Gulf University, Bushehr, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this paper, the bearing capacity of strip footings on rock masses has been studied in the seismic case.
Received 21 July 2015 The stress characteristics or slip line method was used for analysis. The problem was analyzed in the
Received in revised form plane strain condition using the HoekeBrown failure criterion. First, the equilibrium equations along the
10 September 2015
stress characteristics were obtained and the rock failure criterion was applied. Then, the equations were
Accepted 6 October 2015
Available online 1 December 2015
solved using the nite difference method. A computer code has been provided for analysis. Given the
footing and rock parameters, the code can calculate the stress characteristics network and obtain the
stress distribution under the footing. The seismic effects have been applied as the horizontal and vertical
Keywords:
Rock mass
pseudo-static coefcients. The results of this paper are very close to those of the other studies. The
Bearing capacity seismic bearing capacity of weightless rock masses can be obtained using the proposed equations and
Strip footings graphs without calculating the whole stress characteristics network.
Stress characteristics 2016 Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Production and hosting by
HoekeBrown failure criterion Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Bearing capacity of strip footings is an old geotechnical problem.
Several equations and graphs have been proposed to calculate the
bearing capacity of strip footings on soils. Because the behaviors of
soil and rock are different, these equations or graphs have some
limitations in calculating the bearing capacity of rock masses.
Serrano and Olalla (1994) studied the bearing capacity of strip
footings on weightless rock masses using the HoekeBrown failure
criterion (Hoek and Brown, 1980). Using the slip line method, they
presented some equations and graphs to compute the static bearing
capacity of strip footings. To consider the HoekeBrown failure cri-
terion into analysis, they also proposed a parameter named instan-
taneous friction angle. Later, they developed a method to calculate
the bearing capacity of strip footings on rock slopes (Serrano and
Olalla, 1996). In their studies, rock mass was weightless and the
surcharge was considered. Serrano et al. (2000) used the modied
HoekeBrown failure criterion (Hoek et al., 1992) to evaluate the
static bearing capacity of strip footings on weightless rock masses.
Yang et al. (2003) employed the lower bound limit analysis
method to calculate the bearing capacity of strip footings on rock
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 98 7733440376.
E-mail addresses: keshavarz@pgu.ac.ir, amin_keshavarz@yahoo.com
(A. Keshavarz).
Peer review under responsibility of Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics,
Chinese Academy of Sciences.
1674-7755 2016 Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy
of Sciences. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2015.10.003
masses. They used the HoekeBrown failure criterion and neglected
the weight of the rock mass. Using the limit analysis method and
the generalized HoekeBrown failure criterion, Merield et al.
(2006) assessed the bearing capacity of strip footings on rock
masses. They employed the nite element method with the lower
and upper bound theorems of limit analysis and proposed some
graphs to determine the bearing capacity. They also considered the
rock mass weight to calculate the bearing capacity.
Yang (2009) used the upper bound theorem of limit analysis and
the modied HoekeBrown criterion to calculate the seismic
bearing capacity of strip footing on rock slopes. He employed the
optimization method to compute the upper bound solution. Using
the slip line method and the HoekeBrown, modied HoekeBrown
and nonlinear twin-shear criteria, Zhou et al. (2009) evaluated the
effect of the intermediate principal stress on the ultimate bearing
capacity of strip footings. Saada et al. (2011) assessed the seismic
bearing capacity of strip footings near rock slopes. They used the
limit analysis method and proposed graphs to obtain the bearing
capacity in static and pseudo-static cases.
Stress characteristics or slip line methods introduced by
Sokolovski et al. (1960) has been successfully used to solve many
geotechnical problems, including the bearing capacity of founda-
tions (Veiskarami et al., 2014; Serrano et al., 2015), lateral earth
pressure (Peng and Chen, 2013), bearing capacity of pipelines (Gao
et al., 2015), unsaturated soils (Vo and Russell, 2014) and reinforced
soil structures (Jahanandish and Keshavarz, 2005; Keshavarz et al.,
2011). In this method, equilibrium equations along the slip lines are
solved, and thus the stress state is known at any point in the failure
zone.
 A. Keshavarz et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 170e177 171

In this paper, the seismic bearing capacity of strip footings on

z
rock masses is evaluated using the stress characteristics method.
xz
The HoekeBrown failure criterion (Hoek and Brown, 1980) is used. z
As explained below, using this criterion instead of modied Hoeke x
Brown simplies the equations and the closed form solutions can
be obtained for weightless rock masses. However, the parameters
of the HoekeBrown failure criterion can be obtained from the
x
modied HoekeBrown criterion using the empirical relationships.
Seismic effects are considered in the analysis as the pseudo-static
earthquake coefcients. Surcharge effects are considered in the
calculation as well. Also, three examples are presented to illustrate
the usage of proposed graphs and equations. However, in this study,
it is assumed that the rock mass is not highly fractured, the footing
base and ground surface are horizontal and the surcharge is applied
vertically on the ground surface.
1

2. Theory
+

2.1. The HoekeBrown failure criterion

Hoek and Brown (1980) introduced a rock mass failure criterion as Fig. 1. The stress components.

r
s1  s3 s
mb 3 s (1) directions, respectively, then, X gKh and Z g(1Kv), where g is
sc sc
the unit weight of the rock mass.
where s1 and s3 are the major and minor principal stresses at The yield condition for a homogeneous medium can be written
failure, respectively; sc is the uniaxial compressive strength of the as (Booker and Davis, 1972):
rock; mb and s are constant parameters that depend on the char-
f sx ; sz ; sxz R  Fp; j 0 (5)
acteristics and degree of fracturing of the rock mass. In Mohr circle
of stress, s1pR, s3pR, where p is the average stress
where j is the angle between the positive x axis and the direction of
(p (s1 s3)/2) and R is the radius of the Mohr circle. Eq. (1) can be
s1 (Fig. 1). The stress components can be derived from the Mohr
re-written as
circle as
s
  9
p sx p R cos2j =
R b 2 z 1b (2)
b sz p  R cos2j (6)
;
sxz R sin2j
where bmbsc/8 and z8s/m2b (Serrano and Olalla, 1994). Therefore,
Using Eqs. (4) and (6), two stress characteristics directions can
the rock mass strength can be dened with b and z. These pa-
be found. The equilibrium equations of stress along these two di-
rameters can be determined as (Hoek and Brown, 1997):
rections can be written as (Jahanandish and Keshavarz, 2005;
 9 Keshavarz et al., 2011):
RMR  100 >
>
mb m0 exp >
=
a
  (3) (1) Along the s direction, we have
RMR  100 >
>
s exp >
; 9
b dz >
>
tanj  m m >
>
dx >
>
>
=
where a 28 and b 9 for undisturbed rock mass, and a 14 and
b 6 for disturbed rock mass; m0 and RMR are HoekeBrown sin 2m m 2F
dp dj dx sin2m  dz cos2mX >
>
parameter for sound rock and Bieniawskis rock mass rating index, cos2m cos2m >
>
>
>
respectively. >
;
dx cos2m dz sin2mZ
(7)
2.2. Stress equilibrium equations

Under plane strain conditions in the x-z plane, the unknown (2) Along the s direction, we have
stress components at any point in the rock mass are sx, sz and sxz
(Fig. 1). The equilibrium equations are 9
dz >
>
9 tanj  m  m >
>
vsx vsxz >
X> >
> dx >
= =
vx vz
(4) sin2m  m 2F
vsz vsxz >
> dp dj dx sin2m dz cos2mX >
>
Z; cos2m cos2m >
>
>
vz vx >
>
;
dx cos2m  dz sin2mZ
where X and Z are the body and/or inertia forces in x and z di-
(8)
rections, respectively. Assuming that Kh and Kv are the pseudo-
static earthquake coefcients in the horizontal and vertical
172 A. Keshavarz et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 170e177

where 9
zA  zB  xA tmm xB tmp >
9 xC >
>
tmp  tmm >
>
1 vF >
> >
>
tan2m >
= >
>
2F vj zC zB xC  xB tmp >
>
(9) =
vF >
> A3 (13)
cos2m cos2m > ; jC >
>
vp A4 >
>
>
>
>
>
Serrano and Olalla (1994) proposed the concept of instanta- A1  Bmp jC  jB >
>
>
pC pB ;
neous friction angle, r, which can be expressed as Smp

vR where
sin r (10)
vp

9
tmp 0:5tanjC mC tanjB mB  >
>
tmm 0:5tan jC  mC tanjA  m >
>

A 
> >
>
A1 X Smp xC  xB  Cmp zC  zB Z Cmp xC  xB Smp zC  zB >
>
>
>
A2 XS mm xC  xA Cmm zC  z  ZC x  x  S z  z 
A >
>
 A
mm C A mm C >
=
A3 Amm pB  pA A 1 j B B mp Amp  B mm j A  A2
(14)
A4 Amm Bmp Amp  Bmm >
>
>
>
Amp 0:5cos rC cos rB ; Amm 0:5cos rC cos rA >
>
>
>
Bmp FB FC ; Bmm FA FC >
>
>
>
Cmp 0:5sin rB sin rC ; Cmm 0:5sin rA sin rC >
>
;
Smp 0:5cos rB cos rC ; Smm 0:5cos rA cos rC

Using Eqs. (9) and (10) the following equations can be obtained: The trial and error procedure is used to compute the properties
of point C using Eq. (13). For the rst try, the properties of point C
are assumed to be equal to those of points B and A in the positive
m 0; cos2m sin r (11) and negative directions, respectively. Then the new properties are
obtained for point C. This procedure is continued until the differ-
Also from Eqs. (2) and (10) we have ences between the calculated properties of point C in the last two
steps are small enough.

  9
1  sin r >
R b =
sin r 2.3. Boundary conditions
 (12)
 >
;
p b 0:5 cot2 r  z To solve any problem with the stress characteristics method, the
boundary conditions must be rstly obtained. Fig. 3 shows a typical
In the stress characteristics method, each point in the medium is stress characteristics network. The zone OABCD is the failure zone
described with four parameters: x, z, p and j, where x and z are the which will be obtained after solving the problem. OD is the ground
coordinates of the point. Writing Eqs. (7) and (8) in nite difference surface and vertical surcharge q is applied on this boundary. OA is
form, the unknown information at any point C can be found from the footing boundary with length equal to the footing width, B. The
points A and B, where BC is the positive and AC is the negative stress ultimate bearing capacity is the applied vertical pressure on this
characteristics (Fig. 2): boundary.

B 2.3.1. Boundary conditions along the ground surface

A On the boundary OD (Fig. 3), x and z are known, and p and j are
unknown. Shear stress (s0) and normal stress (s0) on this boundary
are equal to:
+
s0 q1  Kv ; s0 qKh (15)
The angle j0 on this boundary can be obtained as (Keshavarz
et al., 2011):
   
p0 sin d
j0 0:5 sin1 d (16)
C R0

Fig. 2. The unknowns at point C can be found from points A and B where BC is the where p0 and R0 are the average stress and radius of the Mohr circle
positive and AC is the negative stress characteristics. on this boundary, respectively, and
 A. Keshavarz et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 170e177 173

B
q (1 K v) qu (1 K v )

qK h q
O u h
0 A
D

0.5
c / ( B) = 1000
z (m)

B
Kh = v=0, q=0
1
C
m b = 13.07, s=0.6

1.5
7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
x (m) .

Fig. 3. A sample of stress characteristics network.

where
 
d tan1
Kh     9
s
1  Kv
(17) 2 AC  24 1 D0 > >
>
>
S 0:5  Q >
3 A2 3A Q > >
>
>
>
For the static case, a more general equation for j0 is proposed by v
q >
>
u >
=
Serrano and Olalla (1994). Considering the Mohr circle of stress and u 2 3
tD1 D1  4D0
3
(24)
using Eq. (12), R0 can be written as Q >
>
2 >
>
>
>
q   >
>
1  sin r0
2
D0 C 12A >
>
>
>
R0 p0  s0 2 s20 b (18) >
;
sin r0 3
D1 2C  72AC 1728
If s0 0, then the solution to Eq. (21) is
where r0 is the instantaneous friction angle on the ground. 0 1
Employing Eq. (12) one can have
r0 sin1 B C
1
@ qA (25)
 1 2s0 *
p0 b 0:5 cot2 r0  z (19)

Substituting Eq. (19) into Eq. (18) and after some algebraic 2.3.2. Boundary condition along the footing-rock interface
simplication, the following equation can be obtained: Along the footing-rock interface, i.e. the boundary OA (Fig. 3), z is
known but x, p and j are unknown. The normal and shear stresses
2   along this boundary are
s20 1  sin r0 2
0:5 cot2 r0  s*0 (20) 
b2 sin r0 sf qu Kh
(26)
sf qu 1  Kv
where s*0 z s0 =b. To calculate r0, Eq. (20) must be solved. If it is
Similar to boundary OD, the angle jf of this boundary is
assumed that wsinr0, then Eq. (20) can be written in the following
form: " ! #
pf sin d
jf 0:5 p  sin1 d (27)
Rf
4 3 2
Aw 8w Cw 1 0 (21)
where pf is the average stress along the footing-rock interface. For
where the static case (d 0), Eq. (27) would be a special case of the
equation proposed by Serrano and Olalla (1994). Using the Mohr
9 circle of stress, the ultimate bearing capacity can be calculated as
s2 >
A 3 4 02 4s*0 s*0 1 >
= r

b (22) pf R2f R2f  p2f tan2 d
>
>
;
C 6  4s*0 qu (28)
1  Kv tan2 d

The solution to Eq. (21) is

s
 
2 AC  24 64  4AC 2.4. Bearing capacity of weightless rock mass
w sin r0  S  0:5 4S2  2 2

A A A3 S
The bearing capacity of strip footings on rock masses can be
(23)
written as (Kulhawy and Carter, 1992; Merield et al., 2006):
174 A. Keshavarz et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 170e177

j) are known at these points. The network at zone OCD can be

qu sc Ns
where Ns is the bearing capacity factor for rock mass. For weight-
less rock mass (g 0), the stress distribution beneath the footing is
uniform, and the bearing capacity can be obtained by solving the
singularity point without calculating the whole stress characteris-
tics network.
At the singular point (Point O, Fig. 3), dx dz 0. Therefore, for
this point, Eq. (8) is written in the following form:
sin2mdp 2Rdj 0
Using Eq. (12), the solution to Eq. (30) is (Serrano and Olalla,
1994):
j 0:5cot r  ln tan0:5r C0
where C0 is the integration constant. The following nonlinear
equation can be obtained by integrating from the ground surface to
the footing-rock interface:
h
i
ln tan 0:5rf  cot rf 2jf lntan0:5r0   cot r0 2j0
(29) solved using the information on line OD. Point C is the last point of
this zone to be solved.
Because the values of p and j are different at the left and right
sides of point O, this point is a singular point. To solve the
network in the zone OCB, this point must be considered rst.
Trial and error procedure is needed to solve this singularity
problem. First a value of j is assumed at the footing-rock inter-
face (jf). Then the Goursat zone is divided into a number of nite
sections, and using Eq. (30), the values of j at these points are
calculated and a new value of jf is obtained. This process is
(30)
repeated until the differences between the values of jf in the last
two steps are small enough. Getting the information at point O
and line OC, the zone OCB can be computed. The zone OAB is
calculated using the information along the line OB. At boundary
(31) OA, j depends on p and the stress distribution beneath the
footing can be calculated based on the information on negative
characteristics. The ultimate bearing capacity is considered as the
average of the normal stress along the footing-rock interface. In
this manner, assuming the length OD, the characteristics network
is solved and the length OA, which is the footing width, is ob-
tained. Therefore, for a nite width B, the required length of OD
(32) must be selected using trial and error method.

Substituting jf into Eq. (32) we have

h i 3. Results and discussion
ln tan 0:5rf  lntan0:5r0   cot rf
! Using the procedure mentioned above, a computer code is
2
1 0:5 cot rf  z
 sin sin rf sin d p cot r0 written to solve the problem and compute the network. If the
1  sin rf weight of the rock mass is ignored, as discussed in the previous
  section, the ultimate bearing capacity can be obtained without
0:5 cot2 r0  z
 sin1 sin r0 sin d solving the whole characteristics network.
1  sin r0
Serrano and Olalla (1996) used the stress characteristics method
0 (33) to compute the static ultimate bearing capacity of weightless rock
It can be seen that Eq. (33) is a nonlinear equation for rf. This masses. The results of this paper for the static case and weightless
equation can be solved using the FZERO function in Matlab or Excel rock are the same as the results of these researchers.
SOLVER. Yang et al. (2003) applied the lower bound limit analysis
The bearing capacity factor for weightless rock mass can be method to evaluate the bearing capacity of the weightless rock
obtained using Eqs. (12), (28) and (29) as masses. Table 1 shows the results of this paper together with the
results of Yang et al. (2003) for sc 35 MPa. As can be seen, the
v
!2
u results of two methods agree well with each other.
u 2
2
0:5 cot rf  z t 1sin rf
 0:5 cot2 rf  z tan2 d Kulhawy and Carter (1992) proposed the following equation to
sin r cos d
mb f
compute the bearing capacity coefcient for weightless rock
Ns0 masses (Ns0) using a simple lower bound analysis:
8 1  Kv tan2 d
(34) p q
p
Ns0 s s mb s (35)
The bearing capacity coefcient of weightless rock mass can be
computed in the following way. Firstly, according to the geometry Table 2 presents a comparison between the results of Ns0 in this
properties, surcharge and other parameters, r0 is computed from paper and other studies. It can be seen from Table 2 that the results
Eq. (23). Then Eq. (33) is used to obtain rf. Finally, Ns0 is calculated of this study are very close to those of Serrano et al. (2000) and
using Eq. (34). These calculations can be done by hand or using Merield et al. (2006). Kulhawy and Carter (1992) assumed a very
Excel. simple stress eld for the lower bound method. Therefore, their
results are very conservative.

2.5. Solution procedure for the stress characteristics network

Table 1
Comparison of the results of this study with those of Yang et al. (2003) for weightless
To consider the weight of the rock mass in analysis, the whole
rock masses (sc 35 MPa).
stress characteristics network must be solved. The solution proce-
dure is similar to the conventional stress characteristics or slip line s qu (MPa)

method. As shown in Fig. 3, the network includes three zones: OCD, Yang et al. (2003) This study
OCB and OAB, namely, passive, Goursat and active zones, respec- 0.0001 6.16 6.16
tively. First the passive zone and then the Goursat and active zones 0.001 19.58 19.58
are computed. Solution starts from the ground surface boundary 0.01 57.54 57.54
(OD). This boundary is divided into a nite number of points. 0.1 158.08 158.08
1 411.4 411.42
Having the boundary condition, the network properties (x, z, p and
 A. Keshavarz et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 170e177 175

The variation of static bearing capacity factor Ns0 for different 10

Kv=Kh=0
values of s and mb is shown in Fig. 4. As can be expected, the
9 Kh=0.1, Kv=0 mb=10, q=20 kPa
bearing capacity increases with increasing s and mb. This gure
can be used as a design chart to easily determine the bearing Kh=Kv=0.1 c=35 MPa
8 Kh=0.2, Kv=0
capacity factor Ns0.
Fig. 5 shows the effect of horizontal and vertical seismic co- Kh=Kv=0.2
7
efcients on Ns0. The horizontal and vertical seismic coefcients Kh=0.3, Kv=0
can be positive or negative, and the worst case that produces 6 Kh=Kv=0.3

N0
smaller Ns0 is selected here. It is obvious that the bearing capacity Kh=0.4, Kv=0
decreases with increasing seismic coefcients. As can be seen, Kv 5 KhKv=0.4
has a lower effect on Ns0 than Kh.
4
Fig. 6 demonstrates the effects of the surcharge and unit weight
on Ns. The bearing capacity increases with increasing g. The higher
3
the surcharge, the greater the value of Ns0. For the selected pa-
rameters in Fig. 6, when g changes from zero to 20 kN/m3, the 2
bearing capacity coefcient increases by about 19% and the average
value of Ns/Ns0 is about 1.2. 1
The results of the bearing capacity factor Ns for different values 1E-4 1E-3 0.01 0.1 1
of Kh, s and mb are shown in Table 3. This table can provide a s
reference for design.
Fig. 5. Effects of horizontal and vertical pseudo-static coefcients on the bearing ca-
As mentioned above, for weightless rock mass, the load distri-
pacity factor Ns0.
bution beneath the footing is uniform and footing width (B) does
not have any effect on the bearing capacity. However, in the case of
5.0
gs0, Ns depends on B. Fig. 7 shows the effects of B on the bearing
capacity factor, Ns. It can be seen that increasing B leads to increase 4.8 =0
in Ns, but this effect is minor and can be ignored. For the parameters =10 kN/m
4.6 =20 kN/m
indicated in Fig. 7, if B increases from 0.5 m to 4 m, the average of Ns
for all values of mb will increase by about 7%.
4.4
To better understand how to use the proposed gures and ta-
bles, some examples are provided as follows. When the surcharge is 4.2
N

4.0

3.8
Table 2 B=1m, mb=10, s=4e-4
Comparison of the bearing capacity coefcient for weightless rock mass Ns0 3.6 c=10MPa, Kh=0.1, Kv=0
(q Kh Kv 0, s 1).
3.4
mb Ns0

Merield Kulhawy and Carter Serrano This study 3.2

et al. (2006) (1992) (Eq. (35)) et al. (2000) 0 10 20 30 40 50

1 3.461 2.414 3.449 3.45 q (kPa)

5 6.124 3.449 6.114 6.111
10 8.896 4.317 8.857 8.879 Fig. 6. Effects of unit weight and surcharge on the bearing capacity factor Ns.
20 13.847 5.583 13.809 13.816
30 18.444 6.568 18.39 18.396
35 20.668 7 20.628 20.609
zero, the static bearing capacity can be found from the proposed
gures (Example 1). But if the surcharge and/or pseudo-static co-
efcients are not zero, the bearing capacity of the weightless rock
mass can be obtained from the presented equations in the previous
14 sections (Examples 2 and 3).
q=0, Kh=Kv=0 m =25
12
Table 3
20
The bearing capacity factor Ns for different parameters (sc 10 MPa, B 1 m,
10 15 g 20 kN/m3, q 0, Kv 0).
Kh s Ns
8 10
mb 0.01 mb 1 mb 10 mb 20 mb 30 mb 40
N0

6 0 0.00001 0.0191 0.618 4.894 9.291 13.462 17.494

5 0.0001 0.036 0.627 4.902 9.302 13.483 17.519
4
0.001 0.091 0.681 4.937 9.334 13.534 17.573
0.01 0.267 0.91 5.168 9.544 13.804 17.86
1
0.1 0.823 1.579 6.166 10.648 14.898 19.092
2 1 2.581 3.452 8.906 13.888 18.524 22.980
0.01
0.2 0.00001 0.013 0.418 3.327 6.32 9.226 12.083
0 0.0001 0.026 0.425 3.33 6.322 9.228 12.083
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 0.001 0.068 0.47 3.36 6.346 9.25 12.103
0.01 0.021 0.65 3.553 6.525 9.417 12.262
s
0.1 0.621 1.156 4.338 7.388 10.307 13.162
1 1.948 2.566 6.408 9.877 13.086 16.16
Fig. 4. Variation of the bearing capacity factor Ns0 with s and mb.
176 A. Keshavarz et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 170e177
s=4e-4, c=10 MPa, Kh=0.1, Kv=0, q=50 kPa, =20 kN/m3
12
mb=25
10
mb=20
8 cording to Eq. (34), Ns0 0.56, and therefore qu0 11.2 MPa.
mb=15
N
6
mb=10
4
mb=5
2 In this paper, the stress characteristics method has been
mb=1
0 the rock mass in the seismic case. The HoekeBrown criterion has
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
B (m)
Fig. 7. Effects of B on Ns.
(1) Example 1
A strip footing is located on a disturbed rock mass with
sc 20 MPa, RMR 65, m0 12 and g 25 kN/m3. The static
bearing capacity of this footing without consideration of the weight
of rock mass (qu0) and with consideration of the weight (qu) can be
calculated as follows.
Using Eq. (3) and assuming a 14 and b 6, the values of mb
and s would be 0.821 and 0.0029, respectively. If mb is assumed
approximately to be 1, according to Fig. 4, Ns0 would be about 0.71.
Therefore, qu0 Ns0sc 14.2 MPa.
When the weight of the rock mass is considered, assuming
B 1 m, from Table 3, Ns can be approximated to be 0.73 (although
the unit weight is different) and thus qu 14.6 MPa.
In this example, after solving the whole stress characteristics
network using the developed program, qu0 14.04 MPa, and
qu 14.63 MPa. Therefore, in this example, the bearing capacity of
the weightless rock mass is 4% smaller than the rock mass with
g 25 kN/m3.
(2) Example 2
Similar to Example 1, but assuming that the footing is located at
depth 2 m below the ground surface, the static bearing capacity of
the rock mass can be computed as follows.
The effect of the depth can be considered as a surcharge equal to
q 2  25 50 kPa. Therefore, b mbsc/8 2.46 MPa and
2 8s=m2b 0:0241. Using Eq. (15), s0 50 kPa and s0 0. Thus,
s*0 z s0 =b 0:0444. From Eq. (25), r0 0.879. Substituting
these parameters into Eq. (33), the following nonlinear equation is
obtained:
h
i
ln tan 0:5rf  lntan0:5r0   cot rf p cot r0 0
After solving this nonlinear equation, rf would be equal to
0.3291. Therefore, from Eq. (34), Ns0 0.7827 and qu0 15.65 MPa.
In this example, it is impossible to calculate the bearing capacity
of the rock mass with weight without solving the whole network.
Using the computer program, qu0 and qu would be equal to
15.66 MPa and 16.07 MPa, respectively.
(3) Example 3
Same as Example 2, this example assumes that Kh 0.2 and
Kv 0, and the seismic bearing capacity is obtained as follows.
From Eq. (15), s0 50 kPa and s0 10 kPa. Using Eq. (23), r0
would be equal to 0.8794. After solving Eq. (33), rf 0.3807. Ac-
Using the developed computer program and solving the whole
network, the values of qu0 and qu are 11.15 MPa and 11.35 MPa,
respectively.
4. Conclusions
employed to evaluate the bearing capacity of the strip footing on
4.0 been used for the rock mass. Earthquake effects have been
considered in the analysis as the pseudo-static horizontal and
vertical coefcients. A computer program has been developed, and
it can solve the problem and compute the stress characteristics
network. The stress distribution in the footing-rock interface is
obtained after solving the problem.
The effects of several parameters on the bearing capacity have
been evaluated. Furthermore, some equations, tables and graphs
are provided, and can be used to compute the bearing capacity of
the weightless rock masses.
The comparisons between the results of this study with those in
the literature show the accuracy of the proposed method. The effect
of the horizontal earthquake coefcient on the bearing capacity is
signicant, but the vertical pseudo-static coefcient has a minor
effect. If the rock mass unit weight is considered in the analysis, the
bearing capacity increases. This increase depends on the values of
the parameters and the errors induced by neglecting the rock unit
weight can change from 1% to 20%. It is obvious that neglecting the
unit weight of the rock mass is conservative. The ultimate seismic
bearing capacity of the weightless rock mass can be computed
using the introduced equations in the paper.
Conict of interest
The authors wish to conrm that there are no known conicts of
interest associated with this publication and there has been no
signicant nancial support for this work that could have inu-
enced its outcome.
References
Booker J, Davis E. A general treatment of plastic anisotropy under conditions of
plane strain. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 1972;20(4):239e50.
Gao FP, Wang N, Zhao B. A general slip-line eld solution for the ultimate bearing
capacity of a pipeline on drained soils. Ocean Engineering 2015;104:405e13.
Hoek E, Brown ET. Practical estimates of rock mass strength. International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 1997;34(8):1165e86.
Hoek E, Brown ET. Underground excavations in rock. London: The Institution of
Mining & Metallurgy; 1980.
Hoek E, Wood D, Shah S. A modied HoekeBrown failure criterion for jointed rock
masses. In: Proceedings of the international ISRM symposium on rock charac-
terization. American Society of Civil Engineers; 1992. p. 209e14.
Jahanandish M, Keshavarz A. Seismic bearing capacity of foundations on reinforced
soil slopes. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 2005;23(1):1e25.
(36)
Keshavarz A, Jahanandish M, Ghahramani A. Seismic bearing capacity analysis of
reinforced soils by the method of stress characteristics. Iranian Journal of Sci-
ence and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering 2011;35:185e97.
Kulhawy F, Carter JP. Settlement and bearing capacity of foundations on rock
masses and socketed foundations in rock masses. In: Engineering in rock
masses. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd.; 1992. p. 231e45.
Merield RS, Lyamin AV, Sloan SW. Limit analysis solutions for the bearing capacity
of rock masses using the generalised HoekeBrown criterion. International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 2006;43(6):920e37.
 A. Keshavarz et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 170e177 177

Peng MX, Chen J. Slip-line solution to active earth pressure on retaining walls. Yang X, Yin JH, Li L. Inuence of a nonlinear failure criterion on the bearing capacity
Gotechnique 2013;63(12):1008e19. of a strip footing resting on rock mass using a lower bound approach. Canadian
Saada Z, Maghous S, Garnier D. Seismic bearing capacity of shallow foundations Geotechnical Journal 2003;40(3):702e7.
near rock slopes using the generalized HoekeBrown criterion. International Yang X. Seismic bearing capacity of a strip footing on rock slopes. Canadian
Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics 2011;35(6): Geotechnical Journal 2009;46(8):943e54.
724e48. Zhou XP, Yang HQ, Zhang YX, Yu MH. The effect of the intermediate principal stress
Serrano A, Olalla C. Ultimate bearing capacity of rock masses. International Journal on the ultimate bearing capacity of a foundation on rock masses. Computers
of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts 1994;31(2): and Geotechnics 2009;36(5):861e70.
93e106.
Serrano A, Olalla C. Allowable bearing capacity of rock foundations using a non-
linear failure criterium. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts 1996;33(4):327e45.
Serrano A, Olalla C, Gonzalez J. Ultimate bearing capacity of rock masses based on
Dr. Amin Keshavarz is currently an assistant professor of
the modied HoekeBrown criterion. International Journal of Rock Mechanics
Civil Engineering at School of Engineering of Persian Gulf
and Mining Sciences 2000;37(6):1013e8.
University, Iran. He received his BSc degree in Civil En-
Serrano A, Olalla C, Jimenez R. Analytical bearing capacity of strip footings in
gineering from Persian Gulf University in 1997 and his
weightless materials with power-law failure criteria. International Journal of
MSc and PhD degrees in Civil Engineering (Soil Me-
Geomechanics 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000465.
chanics and Foundations) from Shiraz University, Iran in
Sokolovski VV, Jones D, Schoeld AN. Statics of soil media. Butterwooths Scientic;
2000 and 2007, respectively. His research interests cover
1960.
stress characteristics and zero extension line (ZEL)
Veiskarami M, Kumar J, Valikhah F. Effect of the ow rule on the bearing capacity of
methods, soil dynamics and geotechnical earthquake
strip foundations on sand by the upper-bound limit analysis and slip lines.
engineering and stability analysis of reinforced and un-
International Journal of Geomechanics 2014;14(3). 04014008.
reinforced soil slopes and retaining walls.
Vo T, Russell AR. Slip line theory applied to a retaining walleunsaturated soil
interaction problem. Computers and Geotechnics 2014;55:416e28.