Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. Vol. 31, No. 2, pp.

93-106, 1994
Copyright 1994 Elsevier Science Ltd
Pergamon 0148-9062(93)E0003-7 Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
0148-9062/94 $7.00 + 0.00

Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Rock

Masses
ALCIBIADES S E R R A N O f
CLAUDIO OLALLA~
The determination of the ultimate bearing capacity of spread foundations on
rock masses has traditionally been considered taking into account previous
experience, using empirical criteria or applying local or national codes [1].
This paper defines a methodology for bearing capacity quantification based
on the Hoek and Brown [2] rock failure equations and by applying the
characteristics method for resolving the differential equation systems which
govern the stress field.
Reference is made to the works of both Sokolovskii [3] and Serrano [4] in
solving the plasticity problem. Three different regions of the characteristic lines
are considered, two of which are of the Karman type, the third being of the
Prandtl type. The boundary conditions defined by the external load system and
the geometrical configuration are incorporated, allowing for a closed form
solution. In this paper, gravity rock masses will not be considered.
Therefore, the required data are: the type of rock, the uniaxial compressive
strength of the intact rock and the Bieniawski classification (RMR parameter).
To facilitate an overall understanding of the procedure, an example problem
is solved showing how the initial data are used and illustrating the intermediate
steps involved.

1. INTRODUCTION The effect of the scale factor on the behaviour of rock

foundations was pointed out by Jimrnez Salas et al. [1].
The ultimate bearing capacity of foundations on rock
A distinction was made between large and small foun-
masses have not been studied in detail from a theoretical
dations, with a gradual transition from one to the other.
point of view. The reason for this is probably 2-fold: on
The former affected a considerable amount of the rock
the one hand, rock masses have intrinsic characteristics,
mass, and so the stress effect upon the possible flow
as a result of discontinuities, anisotropy, etc. and this
surfaces resulting from gravity is comparable to that part
means that a simple theoretical treatment of the ultimate
of the strength which is due to the rock cohesion. In such
bearing capacity, in the case of a homogeneous isotropic
conditions, the materials behave in a plastic way and can
continuous medium with a failure criterion, would be
be studied using the theories of plasticity. However,
unrealistic: on the other hand, specialists in the Rock
small foundations only affect a small volume and the
Mechanics field have concentrated on these intrinsic
stresses caused by their own weight are negligible when
characteristics, creating a difference with Soil Mechanics
compared to the strength of the rock, which can be
approached.
brittle in nature.
In spite of this, there are times when a rock mass could
When the rock mass is highly fractured, even with
be regarded as a homogeneous isotropic continuous
regard to small foundations, or changes from soil to rock
medium. This would be the case when the rock mass was
[5], the stresses are not insignificant in the face of the
so weak that its behaviour exerted a greater influence
resistance of the rock mass, and can bring about "plas-
than the discontinuity factor, or if the rock mass was
tification". In this case, the rock behaviour can also be
extremely fractured both homogeneously and isotropi-
studied using the theories of plasticity with a suitable
cally. The hypothetical case of a rock mass with few
failure criterion.
defects could also be taken into consideration, when
Hoek and Brown [6] proposed an empirical failure
such defects were of minor importance and not forming
criterion, this being applied to rock masses that simulate
continuous surfaces, critical for stability.
well many of the aspects that appear or which have an
effect upon their behaviour; these include the scale
tUniversidad Polit6cnica, Madrid, Spain. factor, the ratio between both the compression and
~/Laboratorio de Geotecnia, Madrid, Spain. tensile strength, the reduction of the friction angle with
93
94 S E R R A N O and O L A L L A : R O C K MASS B E A R I N G C A P A C I T Y

the confining pressure, etc. In the beginning they applied With these parameters, the Hock and Brown failure
this criterion to an analysis of the classic problem criterion is expressed as follows:
concerning the elastic-plastic behaviour in the opening
of a tunnel. Subsequently, and with a view to solving the -q= 2 +( +1-1 (2)
tunnel problem, Brown et al. [7] extended the application
devised by Hock and Brown [2] to plastic softening that in adimensional and normalized form, with a
media, and found closed form analytical solutions. strength characteristic of fl, is as follows:
Priest and Brown [8] suggested an estimation of the
q* + 1 = x / 2 ( p * + ~) + 1 (3)
parameters which play a part in the criterion defined by
Hock and Brown, as a function of the R M R factor of where fl = mac~8 and ~ = 8s/m 2 are two basic constants
Bieniawski's classification [9], so the usefulness of this of the material which depend upon the uniaxial com-
criterion became much greater. pression strength and the triaxial tension, and p* and q*
Both in large foundations with heavy loads and in are Lambe's normalized and adimensional parameters
many of the cases of small foundations, "plastification" (p* = p / f l and q* = q/fl).
of the rock mass may take place. If it were also possible Figure 1 shows the criterion of Hock and Brown with
to be able to make use of suitable failure criteria, the this formulation. This expression (3) is a parabolic law
parameters of which would be assessed with relative with its focus at point F (coordinates - 1/2, - 1) and the
ease, it would seem appropriate to establish a basic axis p * parallel to the abscissa axis.
theory of the determination of the ultimate bearing The parabolic law (3) can be written in universal form
capacity on rock masses. for all rocks, if p* = p * + ~ is introduced as a variable,
This article analyses the plastification phenomenon giving:
from the theoretical viewpoint of an ideal, homo- q* + 1 = x/2p* + 1. (4)
geneous, isotropic and continuous mass with a failure The specific nature of each rock is introduced by
criterion of the Hoek and Brown type under the appli- displacing in magnitude ( the ordinate axis and by
cation of a strip load. A perfect elastic-plastic medium scaling the stresses using the characteristic strength ft.
is considered without softening. In order to obtain The important concept of "instantaneous friction
simple results that can be applied immediately with angle" is defined, after Serrano [4], by:
closed analytic solutions, the mass forces are not taken
into consideration. This gives rise to conservative sol- dq
sin p = ~p (5)
utions. For "large" foundations, and if a closer tra-
ditional approximation were sought, it would be Using equation (2) the following expressions are ob-
necessary to add a corrective term, analogous to the term tained:
in N.,, used in the classical polynomic formula of the
sin p = - - (5')
ultimate bearing capacity in Soil Mechanics. Consider- q+/~
ation of the mass forces requires a numerical solution to and
the problem, which can be easily tackled using the results q 1 - sin p
set forth in this paper, by means of Sokolovskii type fl sin p
method, just as it was outlined by Serrano [4]. _ cotan2 p
P + ( = - - (6)

2. F A I L U R E CRITERIA The envelope of Mohr's failure circles can be obtained

from:
2.1. A t low confining pressures r + (tr _ p ) 2 = q2
The Hock and Brown [2] criterion for the strength of
a rock mass is as follows: (p - q) = q ~pp . (7)
0.1 -- 0.3 / - - m ~ 3~
= _ _ _ s (1)
q*
O'c '~ 0.c
oll
]
where [ i o.c

a~ = is the major principal stress at failure I [ o..t

0"3 = is the minor principal stress o.2
!
0"c= is the uniaxial compression strength of the o4 P~
: : o :
rock matrix F///o. ~
m, s = are constants that depend on the character-
istics of the rock and the degree of fractur-
ing.
The expression of the Hock and Brown failure cri- 1 -U
i I
i
terion involving the Lambe parameters, p = (at + 0"3)/2 F I I !
and q = (at - 0"3)/2 permits a simplified and normalized Fig. 1. Hock and Brown failure criterion in P0 and q* terms.
treatment o f the rock mass failure phenomenon. F = Focus.
 SERRANO and OLALLA: ROCK MASS BEARING CAPACITY 95
1.8
Eliminating the terms p and q from the resultant system,
with equations (2) and (5), it is possible to obtain:
1.6.-~-\ ! ij !i i
1.4 .... ~
2 ~t: I
a = p - q sinp
1.2.
= q cos p (8)
t.
where p is again the instantaneous frictional angle. The
expression d z / d a = tan p can easily be shown. -~ 0.a. !
The parametric expression for the Mohr's envelope i 0.6___
can be obtained from equations (6) and (8): !
0.4 i
T 1 - sin p
sin 2p
fl 1 - cos 2p
0
tr 1 - sin 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
+ ( = 1 - cos 2p (cos 2p + sin p) (9) instantaneous friction angle

Fig. 3. Shear and normal tension, normalized, at failure, as a function

Normalizing equations (8), the following are obtained: of the instantaneous friction angle.
1 - sin p 1
*= sin 2p -sin;o sin2p (1)
z* =z/fl 1 --COS
1 - cos 2p
1 - sin p *_cr+~_ 1--sinp (cos 2p + sin p) (2)
a * = a* + ~ = (cos 2p + sin p) (9') a - fl 1 - cos 2~
1 -- cos 2p
2. T* is determined as a function of p with equation
Equation (9) is represented in Fig. 3. In Fig. 4 is shown
(9').
Mohr's failure envelope obtained by removing p from
equation (9). The equation of Mohr's envelope is not 2.2. At high confining pressures
shown, given that it is of little interest as it is an implicit Most rocks change their behaviour from brittle to
high degree curve. ductile when their confining pressures are high. Mogi
The following procedure can be used to determine z* [10], found that for most rocks the transition was defined
from Oo*: by means of the relation a: = ~o'3, where ~t = 3.4 was
1. Sin p is obtained as a function of a* from equation: obtained from triaxial tests with intact rock. Hock and
Brown [2] proposed that, in the absence of specific data,
2 sin 3 p - (2a* + 3)sin: p + 1 = 0
the value of~ = 2 should be used as a limit of application
This equation, which is equivalent to equation (9'), can of equation (1) to rock masses.
be solved by iteration: It is possible to obtain a critical plastification pressure
sin p = (2a* + 3 - 2 sin p)-:/: (a*), which discriminates brittle and ductile behaviour,
from Mogi's ductility condition and the Hock and
or directly by: Brown criterion (1), using the following expression:
sin p = 1 + ~ ao* sin(~. - 30) + 4
( _ l ) 2 [l + x / l + (= - 1)2;/2]
with
2 = g2 s i n - iI ( 1 -t- gOo ]
2 -*~-3/21J

= j17-

"7"'~q(Pa.),;
10 ..~
"r,q "r= r ( a ) p = 20* /
t i
/
2-5 t f
1.5 0 /
0 5 10 15 2 0 ~

Ductile
~ I = o
Brittle O" i"

0.5 4

0 0'.s ~ t's ~ 1'5 ~ 3'5 =~'

Go
normalized normal stress

Fig. 4. Hock and Brown failure criterion in terms of normal and shear
stresses.
1 - sin p
~* = T/fl - sin 2p
1 - cos 2p
CIRCLE-ENVELOPE CONTACT POINT
a 1 - sin;p (cos 2p + sin p)
Fig. 2. Mohr's circle envelope at failure. o*=~+~ l-cos
96 SERRANO and OLALLA: ROCK MASS BEARING CAPACITY

Table I. The critical values ofthe different variables, taking into accountthe possible ~ range, when
the value of a = 2 has been chosen
a~ p* q* a* sin pc p
0.00 8 12 4 16 0.2 11.54
0.02 8.0200 12.0300 4.0110 16.0399 0.1996 11.51
0.04 8.0398 12.0597 4.0199 16.0796 0.1992 tl.49
0.06 8.0596 12.0893 4.0298 16.1191 0.1988 11.47
0.08 8.0792 12.1188 4.0396 16.1584 0.1984 11.45
0.10 8.0988 12.1482 4.0493 16.1976 0.1980 11.42
0.12 8.1183 t2.1774 4.0591 16.2365 0.1977 11.40
0.14 8.1376 12.2064 4.0688 16.2753 0.1973 11.38
0.16 8.1569 12.2353 4.0785 16.3138 0.1969 11.36

and the critical values of Lambe's parameters:
_ ~t+l
p8 = 2 ~-~--~ [I + ~ / I +(a - I)2C/2]
2 [1 + ~ / 1 + ( ~ - 1)2C/2].
q*=e-- 1
The instantaneous friction angle (Pc) which is mobilized
at this critical point, is given by:
sin Pc =
+ 1 + 2~/1 + (~ - 1)2C/2
When p * >/p* is verified, then q* = q* and the parabola
that represents the failure criteria is transformed into a
horizontal line.
As can be seen from Fig. 4, and taking into account
the range of values of the instantaneous friction angle
deduced from Table 1, for most practical cases in civil
engineering this situation does not arise.
3. THE CHARACTERISTICS METHOD
The application of the characteristics method to plas-
tiffed masses, was developed for rigid-plastic media with
a Coulomb failure criterion under the plane strain
hypothesis, by Sokolovskii [3, 11].
For the case of a failure criterion, of the most general
Mohr--Coulomb type with a non-linear law, q = q(p),
the stress state of the plastified zone can also be deter-
mined, if the differential system that governs it is hyper-
bolic. Serrano [4] found that the hyperbolicity condition
of this system is:
I dq ~< 1 (lO)
and developed a complete procedure for the character-
istics method and its application to the general Mohr-
Coulomb media.
Condition (I0), is equivalent to sin p being real. This
is always verified for the Hoek and Brown criterion if:
P--+C
b' ~>o. (ll)
This condition limits the validity of the Hoek and Brown
criterion to this range of values of p. For the main
stresses, this results in the condition:
m(al-l-ff3)
1 >1o. (113
2sac
Serrano [4] showed that not only the differential
equations for the two families of characteristic lines, but
also Riemann's invariants which are verified along these
lines, are formally the same as those found by
Sokolovskii for the Coulomb case, if the friction angle
of the material is replaced by the instantaneous friction
angle.
The differential equations of the two characteristic
lines are:
d y = tan(~ + #) (12)
dx
where x and y are the cartesian coordinates of a point
of the characteristic line; ~ is the inclination of the major
principal stress with the axis x and the variable # is
expressed as:
la = -~ -- p /2 (13)

~ y

(xCHARACTERISTIC LINE

'----~ ~ CHARACTERISTIC LINE

Fig. 5. Notations in the real plane.
 SERRANO and OLALLA: ROCK MASS BEARING CAPACITY 97

where:
dI(p)= l+sinPdp. (18)
4" 2 sin 2 p
The following expression is obtained from the inte-
5" gration of equation (18):
l(p) = [cotan p + ln(cotan (p/2))] (19)
Function l(p), referred to here as Riemann's invariant,
(perhaps incorrectly so, because in this case I(p) rep-
b
>
resents only part of the real invariant), plays a very
_c
~n 0
important role in the theory of characteristics. Finding
the ultimate bearing capacity for the different boundary
5.1
E conditions is basically reduced to the evaluation of the
--1" 2.9
\ invariant in the plastified region. Figure 6 is a graphic
2.7

2.S
\ representation of this function.
-2"
\ Equation (19) can be solved in order to determine p
2.3

2.1
\ as a function of I, by means of iterations:
-3 \
1.9
\ x = 2I - ln[x + x/1 + x 2] (20)
1.7
-4
1.5 where x = cotan p. The value x = 21 can be chosen as
10 18 22 26 50
the starting point. The p value can also be obtained in
-5 . , . , . , , , a first approximation using Fig. 6.
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
instontaneous friction ongle

Fig. 6. Riemann's invariant versus instantaneous friction angle. 4. ULTIMATE BEARING LOAD
4. I. Integration
where p, is the angle of instantaneous friction, as is
The general theory of ultimate bearing capacity, in a
already known (see Fig. 5).
medium with a criterion of the q = q ( p ) type, is applied
For Riemann's invariants on the characteristic lines:
here to the specific case of the failure criterion by Hoek
cos p X sin(~U -T-/~)- Y cos(~ ~/~) and Brown, under the forms expressed by equations (2)
-- d p _ dqj = i (14) and (3).
2q 2q cos(~V _+#)
Along the characteristic line of the family 0t (those that
where X and Y are the components of the mass forces. surround the singular point O, see Fig. 7), and whose
If no more than the weight exists, X = ~, where ~ is the differential equation is:
density of the material, and Y = 0.
In contrast to soils, in rock masses the influence of the d_y_y= tan(~V +/~) (12')
dx
mass forces upon small foundations is almost negligible
when compared to the intrinsic resistance of the rock. is verified, if there is no weight:
This influence increases as the rock strength diminishes
dI(p) + d ~ = 0 (21)
and does become an important factor when the strength
of the rock mass is comparable to a soil, or when the size The following expression is a result of the integration of
of the foundations affects an extensive volume of earth this equation between points 1 and 2:
material, as in the case of a dam.
I(pt) + ~f ~= I(p2) + ~2. (22)
When the mass forces are zero, the Riemann's invari-
ants are reduced to: Boundary 2, application zone of the ultimate load, is
assumed to be horizontal. This condition does not
cos p d p + d~P = 0. (15) signify a shortcoming in the weightless case.
2q Equation (22) is the key to finding the ultimate bearing
capacity, because P2 is obtained by knowing the values
Together with equation (12), this forms the basic differ- of variables ~ and p, at Boundary 1 and the angle ~v2
ential system. This equation has to be solved with the at the Boundary 2. This makes it possible to determine
consideration of the boundary conditions. the ultimate bearing capacity by means of equations (8).
If equation (I 5) is only expressed as a function of ~P
and p, taking equation (7) into account, then: 4.2. Boundary conditions
Point M in Fig. 8, represents a given stress condition
1 + s i n p dp +d~P = 0 (16) in a particular boundary. There are two possible Mohr
2 sin 2 p -
circles (1) and (2) in failure which are compatible with
and this can be described in a more compact way: this, (normal stress, a, shear stress, ~).
Sokolovskii [3, 11] and Serrano [4] showed that in the
dI(p) +_ d ~ = 0 (17) case of the ultimate bearing capacity, circles (1) and (2),
98 SERRANO and OLALLA: ROCK MASS BEARING CAPACITY

102

- BOUNDARY 2

POINT 2

BOUNDARY 1

POINT 1

A. io,

CHARACTERISTIC LINE

fl CHARACTERISTIC LINE
Fig, 7. Characteristic network under the foundation: Notations.

called maximum and minimum circles, correspond to the Boundary 1, as a function of parameters fl and ( of the
stress states in Boundaries l and 2, respectively. material and boundary pressures (z, a).
Boundary 1. When z and a are known, i.e. the shear The slope of the major principal stress, ~j, is ex-
and normal stresses in Boundary l, the instantaneous pressed by the following, and is shown in Fig. 8:
friction angle in l is given by the equation which defines
the circle: sin 2(~P + ct) = - (25)
q
( ~ ) 2 + (cotan2 p = ~ ) : _ ( 1 - sin p ) 2 where ct is the boundary slope, or what amounts to the
~np (23)
same, taking into account equations (9) and (24), the
with eo = a + fl#. following expression is also valid:
Taking the solution that corresponds to the maximum
~P + ~ = re/2 - ~ (25')
circle, the following is obtained for Boundary 1:
with
am I ctan2 p 1 - sin p
a* l - fl = C O S / L C O S i ~ sinp
E =sin-I(siniIcsil+sinP2sin p
x /q_(2 sin/ y]
t a n p . tan p/I _] (24) ,in,
tan p tan & / J / (26)
where # = ~r/4- p/2 and i is the "efficient" inclination
of the load in Boundary 1 defined by: This equation can be written as:
i = tan I(Z/ao). = (6 - i) (26')
It should be observed that the real inclination of the load with the same concept of the 6 angle as before equation
is different and equal to: (24a). Equation (26) is represented in Fig. 10. Equation
(26) makes it possible to obtain the inclination of the
iol = tan-I(z/a)l
major principal stress in Boundary 1, as a function of the
The equation (24) can be written as: instantaneous friction now known from equation (24)
aoz _ l - s i n p and the boundary stress. The instantaneous friction
- - cotan i sin(6 - i) (24') angle p, can be determined at a first approximation,
fl sin p using Fig. 10.
if we define sin 6 as: Transmission from Boundary 1 to Boundary 2. The
l +sinp value of the addition of I(P2) + ~2 in Boundary 2, can
sin 6 = sin i - - (24a) be found using Riemann's invariant and equation (22).
2 sin p
Boundary 2. If the ultimate bearing capacity is normal
Figure 9 represents equation (24). It can be seen that a o at Boundary 2, the value of ~2 is necessarily equal to
is hardly dependent upon i values. This equation makes zero, and then the value of p is directly determined from
it possible to find the instantaneous friction angle p, in equations (19) and (22), as has already been pointed out.
 SERRANO and OLALLA: ROCK MASS BEARING CAPACITY 99
(a)
q,q-
q=q(P)

POLE 2

POLE 1
v

P2 Cr, p
2(~, +~)

MINIMUM CIRCLE (2) x~_ MAXIMUM CIRCLE (1)

(b) i T ,q

q2
Pole 1

Pt trz_ o',P L
v

+p

Pole 2
Boundary 1

Boundory 2
Fig. 8 (a) Mohr's circlesfor the same tensional state, (b) Representationof Mohr's circles.

If the ultimate bearing load is inclined, ~u2 ~ 0, and it T

sin 2~ = - (28)
is not determined before and is a result ofthe calculation q
of the ultimate bearing capacity and not preliminary ~2 = ~sin- '(sin /[cos 112+sinPsin
p
data.
The same equation (23), is now valid for Boundary 2,
when the solution corresponding to the minimum circle + Jl _(. 2 sini
is taken:
These equations can be written as:
(~_)
ao
z
[
= (o'o*)2 = c o s i c o s i
cotan: p
2 ('#)1-sinpcotanisin(6+i)2
= - - s i np (27")

~'2 = ~(6 + i) (299

(27)
+ sin-------~ tan p t-an/~ where 6 has the same significance as before.
100 SERRANO and OLALLA: ROCK MASS BEARING CAPACITY
30

0.3 =1. . . . .
~. 25 i .= inclination angte

i--lio
2,5
0.25 . . . . .

i
~ 0.2
! E I
! i l
i ]
i=10
O0.15 I

.N
E
o 0.1 I
L
I

0.05

0 0 I
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
20 30 40 50 60 70 50 90
instantaneous friction a n g l e ins|clntoneous friction (:Ingle
Fig. 9(a) Normalized normal stress (a*) variation as a function of the Fig. 10. Variations of the major principal stress inclination component
instantaneous friction angle, at Boundary I. (E) with the instantaneous friction angle Co), at Boundary 1.

m m m by incorporating P2 and i in equation (29). The process

~ l m m is iterative. Later on, in Section 4.3., when the ultimate
1 E+0;
bearing capacity is dealt with specifically, a graphic
ml
II solution is given for this system for a particular case in
1E+01 E l l e N
which ~ = 0 and i = 0 in Boundary 1.
m l l l n
All these processes can be programmed very easily
1E+O0
into a personal computer, or even into a pocket com-
E . n
lh,,,..~llm n puter. The main equations are (19), (22), (24), (26), (27)
~ 1E-01 m m m
and (29).
L~
N N N I L ~ I
E
t E-..02
4.3. Ultimate bearing capacity
1E-4)3 I a) General case. Once the value o f the instantaneous
friction angle in Boundary 2 has been determined with
1E-04 [ i
,\
1E-05
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 =e,,Leo,ntoa'oon .
instantaneous friction a n g l e

Fig. 9(b) Logaritmic of the normalized normal stress (a*) variation as l

a function of the instantaneous friction langle, at Boundary 1.

Figure 11 shows equations (27), and Fig. 12 represents

equation (29).
5 i=! I i=0
J
!

On the other hand, it is k n o w n from equation (22) I

J
that:
I(P2) + ~2 = I(p,) + ~, (22) io \ 1
E
2"
Once the system formed by equations (29) and (22) has
been solved, it is then possible to find ~2 and P2 as a
function o f /2 (inclination o f the ultimate bearing ca-
pacity defined by tan i2 = r/ao) as well as from the data
p, and ~ej in Boundary 1.
The system can be solved by iteration. The starting 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
point is a value obtained from equation (29) for i = 0. insfanlaneous friction angle
Equation (22) makes it possible to obtain the instan- Fig. 11. Normalized normal stress (a*) at Boundary 2 as a function
taneous friction angle/9 2. A new value o f ~u2 is obtained of the instantaneous friction angle.
 S E R R A N O and OLALLA: ROCK MASS B E A R I N G CAPACITY 101

V~
and Riemann's invariant is then:
0.6

~ --,..,,,...... i=30
l[
I(p,) = ~ cotan Pt + In cotan (34)

i=25 Equation (34) is equation (19) specified for Boundary 1.

1 2. If the ultimate bearing capacity happens to be
0.4 normal at its surface, it turns out that in Boundary 2:

3/\ ~ ~._..__._ i=20 %= 0; so ~s = 0; and ~t = n/2 - e. Then:

1(02) = I ( p , ) + -~ - ~t (35)
i=15

cotan2 P2 1 - sin P2
= - - (36)
0.2 ! -!0 N# 2 4 sin P2
\ which is a simplification of equation (27), and the
0.1
.,--.._... i=5 ultimate bearing capacity (N#) is obtained by
Ph = fl(N# - ~). (37)
i = .qficien inclina mn ang e

0 Equation (33') makes it possible to determine pl directly,

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 g0 as a function of the loads on Boundary 1 and parameters
instantaneous friction angle
fl and ( of the rock.
Fig. 12. Inclination of the major principal stress at Boundary 2 (~2)- Equations (34) and (35) give the value of I(p2).
The solution to equation (34) itself, by replacing 1
the desired approximation, equation (27) gives the ulti- with 2, gives the value of Ps.
mate bearing capacity Ph. In fact, given that: Equation (36) gives the coefficient N# of the ultimate
bearing capacity. The value of the above-mentioned load
Ph = = -
it holds that is obtained using equation (37).
3. If the boundary happens to be horizontal, ~ = 0, as
( [ cotan2p 1--sinp well as the two above-mentioned conditions being ver-
Ph = fl COSi COSi 2 f sin p
ified, the process is simplified. In such a case, Table 2
gives the coefficient Np as a function of a*~. This is the
x ~/1 - ( 2 tan--~an #)21 - ( ) (30) most simplified case.
These results are represented graphically in Fig. 13. It
or what amounts to exactly the same: can be seen that the external pressure at Boundary 1
exerts a great influence on the ultimate bearing capacity.
Ph = fl(Nt~ - ( ) (31) In fact, the derivate in the origin shows that:
with
I ctan2 P l- 1- - - sin p dNp tan2potan2(n 2 )
N~ = cos is cos i2 2 sin p dtr* = tan p 4+ (38)
sin i 2 which is infinite for the case of P0 = re/2.
x X/1 - ( 2 t a n - ~ a n # ) ] (32) Another very interesting case from a practical point of
view, is the foundation of a load with an angle of
here is=tan -~ (z/ao) the efficient inclination of the
inclination of is = t a n - I ( z / a o s ) ; ~t = 0 and a normal load
ultimate bearing capacity and p the instantaneous fric-
for the exterior Boundary 1. In such conditions, it is
tion angle under this load. With Fig. 11 it is easy to
necessary to resort to the general system consisting of
obtain Np. This expression (32) is similar to equation
equations (29) and (22), in order to determine the
(27).
instantaneous friction angle P2 and the inclination of the
b ) S i m p l i f i e d cases.
major principal stress ~s under the ultimate bearing
1. If the load on exterior Boundary 1 is normal on the
capacity. These equations are represented in Fig. 14.
surface, it can then be verified for this boundary that:
i~=0 and then tp~+~=n/2 because E=0. Table 2

The result of introducing this value into equation (24) a o*, N~

is: 0 2.663
( ; )
ctansp' 1 - s i n p t 10 -6 2.885
a*t = + ~ = (33) 10 -5 3.015
t 2 sin p~ 10 -4 3.309
This second grade equation offers a "real" value solution 10 -3 3.863
10 -2 4.996
given by: x 10--' 5.547
1
pl = sin-'(-1 + ~ ) (33') x 10 -2 6.257
10 -I 7.542
102 SERRANO and OLALLA: ROCK MASS BEARING CAPACITY

8
N

t-
O
"6
"6

~J
k.

.cL
o
c
3_
o
E

2
IE-07 IE-06 IE-05 0.0001 0.001
0.01 0.1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
log 6- 01 i n s f o n f a n e o u s f r i c t i o n ongle
Fig. 13. Variation of the load coefficient (N#) as a function of the Fig. 14. G r a p h i c solution with horizontal surfaces (~t = 0) and vertical
external load, for the most simplified case. load at B o u n d a r y 1 (i t = 0).

Equation (29) for the different values of i2, and equation
(22') as a function of the different values of tr*l in the
exterior boundary (upon which Pl depends) and with
tPI = r~/2.
Taking a curve defined by equation (29) that corre-
sponds to a particular value of %, its intersection with a
curve defined by equation (22') corresponds to the value
of a*~ at the exterior Boundary 1, providing the values
of ~2 and P2 are being sought. When P2 has been found
in this same way, equation (32) provides the load
coefficient N~.
4.4. The network of characteristic lines
The network of characteristic lines has a singular
point at the contact point between exterior Boundary 1
and Boundary 2 under the ultimate bearing capacity.
Three regions can be distinguished in the network of
characteristic lines (Fig. 7).
Region l is governed by the conditions of Boundary
1. It is a Karman-type region. If the stresses (z, tr) upon
Boundary 1 are constant, the network of characteristic
lines consists of two families of parallel straight lines
that, together with the major principal stress, form the
angles: --#1 = n/4 - pl/2.
Region 3 is governed by the conditions in Boundary
2 under the ultimate bearing capacity. It is also a
Karman-type region. If not only the stresses in Bound-
ary 1 are constant, but the slope, is, in Boundary 2 is also
constant, the network of characteristic lines in this
region are defined by two families of straight lines,
angled +/h = n/4 - p2/2 to the major principal stress.
Region 2, lying between Regions 1 and 3, is of the
Prandtl type, and means a zone of change and arrange-
ment for the network of characteristics, between the two
Karman-type regions. One of the families of character-
istic lines emerges from the singluar point forming a fan,
and the other family surrounds it.
If the above-mentioned conditions are verified so that
the characteristics of Region 1 are parallel straight lines,
the family of radial lines of the Prandtl-type region, are
straight lines which pass through the singular point 0
(family fl).

~ 0

~ A R A C T E R I S T I C LINE

CHARACTERISTICLINE

Fig. 15. N o t a t i o n s o f the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c lines, in p o l a r c o o r d i n a t e s .
 SERRANO and OLALLA: ROCK MASS BEARING CAPACITY 103

The other family of characteristic lines, the ~t family ,8.C.L. ct .C.L.

which forms an angle # with the major principal stress,

verifies that (Fig. 15):
dr
-- = tan p
r dO
0= ~ - p (39)
The integration of these equations, taking into account
Riemann's invariants, gives the following as parametric
equations of the characteristic lines:

r= /l-sinp: /. t a n p (40)
ro ~a~p2 1 - sin p Fig. 17. Characteristic line families with singularity at Boundary 1.

0 - Oo= (/2 + #2) - (I + #)

When tr is constant and z = 0 in Boundary 1, and

l(
0 - 00 -- ~ cotan P2 - c o t a n p + In - -
cotan P2
+ P --P2
/2 = 0 in Boundary 2, the aforementioned condition is
reduced to:
7Z Pl -- P2
>~-~ + - ~ (41')
P
cotan -
2
(40') The curvature of the characteristic line ~ is:
1 sin p + cos 2p cos p
Figure 16 represents the characteristics curves of the
= (1 + sin p + sin 2 p)r" (42)
Prandtl region, for the different values of P2, by elimi-
nating parameter p from between equations (40) and This is a function which is not cancelled at the interval
(40'). 0 <~p < n/2, so the characteristic line has no inflection.
The Prandtl-type region no longer exists if: When ~ = 0 and there is no load, Boundary 1, is a
singularity (then /x = 0 and the differential system is
t//2 -- i/#1 i> P! -- P2 (41) parabolic, because the two characteristic lines coincide).
2
Similar difficulties arise with the Sokolovskii method, for
In this case, the contact between the two Karman an incoherent medium with no load in the boundary.
regions is made by means o f a non-continuous line. From a practical point of view, the calculation
difficulties can be overcome by including a small ficti-
I0
tious load. The curvature of the characteristic family
is cancelled for p = ~ / 2 , which corresponds to the
singular case referred to before. Karman's Region 1
s
disappears and Region 2 spreads to Boundary 1. Thus

/
the characteristic lines behave parabolically to infinity
(Fig. 17).

\ 4.5. Hypothesis of high confinement pressures

3~ 3~ This section treats the case where the frictional be-

/
haviour change of rock occurs due to high confinement
pressures.
3
When the value P2 of Boundary 2 is P2 < Pc, in a
2
critical point, Ccr, situated on the ~ characteristic line
between points B and C, the value p = Pc is verified and
I is equal to zero (see Fig. 18). It is necessary to rewrite
A 8 the basic equation (22) as:
0
-3 -2 -! 0 1 2

8~ndary 2
I(pt ) + ~, = I(pc) + f f COS
-~q p dp + ~'2. (22a)
Bounclocy i
Between points C . and B of the ~ characteristic line
p = 0 and then cos p = 1 and q = qc. The equation (22a)
becomes:
I(p,)+ ~, = / ( p c ) + P2
~
-- Pc +
~v2 (22b)

The following is obtained, normalizing:

Fig. 16. Representation of the characteristic lines in the Prandtl
region. p*o=2q*[I(p,)+ !Is, - I ( p c ) - ~2]+P*o (22c)
104 SERRANO and OLALLA: ROCK MASS BEARING CAPACITY

The normal component of the ultimate bearing ca- Table 3

pacity on Boundary 2, is determined using equation Type of rock m0
(22c), p,, tg, and ~2 defining the boundary conditions, 1. Carbonate rocks with well developed crystal
and Pz defining the behaviour parameter Pc which, for cleavage 7
dolomite, limestone and marble
= 2, varies as a function of ~, between 11.36~ and
2. Lithified argillaceous rocks 10
11.54 (see Table 2 in Section 2.2). The definition of the mudstone, silstone, shale and slate (normal
boundary conditions is achieved as indicated in Section to cleavage)
4.2, for the general case. In Boundary 2, it is now 3. Arenaceous rocks with strong crystals and
necessary to introduce the purely cohesive behaviour of poorly developed crystal cleavage 15
the rock with q = qc (see Fig. 18). sandstone and quartzite
The ultimate bearing capacity, (Ph) that is given by 4. Fine grained polyminerallic igneous
crystalline rocks 17
equation (27) in Section 4.2, now becomes: andesite, delerite, diabase and rhyolite
Coarse grained polyminerallic igneous and
p* ~ ~a2= ao2"= cos i[cosip~o+x/q*-p*osin2i]. (27a) metamorphic crystalline rocks 25
amphibolite, gabbro, gneiss, granite, norite
Equation (28) becomes: and quartzdiorite
r
sin 2~2 = -- (28a)
q~ with ~ ranging from 0 to 0.016 which implies qc = 4fl and
and equation (29) is replaced by:
Phil -~4kI(P,)+
[ ~t + 2 - / ( P c ) ] .
~2 = sin-'[sin/[cos i . P*o + ~/q,2 _ p~o2sin2 i]]. (29a)
The solution to the system constituted by equations (22c) /(Pc) ranges between 3.595 and 3.643 for ~ between 0 and
and (29a), enables P*o to be found as a function of the 0.16, so simplifying:
inclination angle (i). Finally, equation (27a) gives the
ultimate beating capacity value. The mechanics of the Ph
= 4[I(pl ) - N]
solution are the same as for that indicated in Section 4.2
taking into account boundary conditions. with N ranging from 0.024 to 0.072.
In the specific case of the horizontal ground surface These circumstances only hold for rock masses with
and normal load: low geomechanical properties.
Ph = P2 + qc
5. A S S E S S M E N T O F P A R A M E T E R S
ph = 2qc [I(p,)+ 2 - - I ( p c ) l ~+ o t- 1 Parameters fl and ~, used in this theory, can be
determined by means of constants m, s and ac proposed
for ~ = 2, the following is obtained from Section 2.2:
by Hoek and Brown.
qc = 2(1 + x / l + /2)fl For the rock matrix or intact rock, m = rn0 and m and
ac are obtained by adjusting equation (1) to the triaxial
test results conducted with small diameter samples.
For rock masses, constants rn and s can be estimated
using the expressions:
i I I [ 1 RMR - 100
m = m0 exp 14.45 (43)
Point C
~Olnt B ~ #=0 l/potmt C RMR - 100
Polnt E s = exp 6.45 (43')

which are similar to those proposed by Priest and Brown

[8], with a slight variation of the coefficients.
Per ~ " Point E Therefore parameters fl and ~ are:
I Point C~
mo ac RMR - 1O0

(
Point C

.,,
I
I
I
I
? fl = ---if- exp
8 R M R
14.45
- 100
(44)

t Pc- { = m---~exp 60.3 (44')

t p
At a first approximation, m0 can be taken from Table 3
given by Hoek and Brown, and a~ may be deduced from
the simple compression or point load tests.
Pco - -

Fig. 18. High confining pressures solution. Accepted for publication 24 October 1993.
 S E R R A N O and OLALLA: ROCK MASS BEARING CAPACITY
REFERENCES
1. Jimenez Salas, J. A., Justo J. L. and Serrano A. A. Geotecnia y
Cimientos II. M~canica del Suelo y de Rocas, I st edn, pp. 842-848.
Rueda, Madrid (1976).
2. Hock E. and Brown E. T. (1980) Underground Excavation in Rock,
pp. 137-150. The Institution of Mining and Metalurgy, London
(1980).
3. Sokolovskii V. V. Statics of Soil Media. Butterworth, London
(1960).
4. Serrano A. A. El Solido pl~istico Separata Cap. IV. Geotecnia y
Cimientos IL M~canica del Suelo y de Rocas, 1st edn, pp. 105~,! 3.
Rueda, Madrid (1976).
5. Deere D. U. and Patton F. D. Estabilidad de taludes en suelos
residuales. 4th Congr. Pan. Mec. Suelo, Puerto Rico. 1, 93-185
(1971).
6. Hoek E. and Brown E. T. Empirical strength criterion for rock
masses. Proc. ASCE L Geotechn. Engng Div. 106 (1980).
7. Brown E. T., Bray J. W. and Ladanyi B. Ground response
curves for rock tunnels. Jor. Geotech. Engng ASCE 109, 15-39
(1983).
8. Priest S. O. and Brown E. T. Probabilistic stability analysis of
variable rock slopes. Trans. Inst. Min. Metall. London Sect. A, 92,
1-2 (1983).
9. Bieniawski Z. T. Geomechanics classification of jointed
rock masses. Trans. South Africa lnstit. Civil Engng 15, 335-344
(1973).
10. Mogi K. Pressure dependence of rock strength and transition from
brittle fracture to ductile flow. Bull. Earthquake Resistant Instit.,
Jap. 44, 215-232 (1966).
I 1. Sokolovskii V. V. Statics of Granular Media. Pergamon Press,
London (1965).
APPENDIX I
All the cases shown here dealt with low confining pressures, without
changes in rock behaviour.
Example I (see Fig. 19)
(a) Data: The foundation surface is horizontal. Normal loads acting
for the two boundaries. The foundation's surface affects a rock
mass, is horizontal and liesat a depth of 2 m.
The rock mass has an R M R of 65. The strengthof the rock referred
in simple compression, is 20 M N / m 2. Parameter m0 is 7 and the
specificweight of the rock is 26 k N / m ~.
Ca) Solution
I. Parameters of the Hoek and Brown criterion: according to
equation (43) m = 0.621 and s = 0.0044.
2. Geomechanical parameters: according to equation (44)
/~-- 1.55 M N / m 2 and ( = 0.0914.
3. Boundary I conditions: #t = T H = 52kN/m2; or* =yH/fl =
0.0335; tT*]= a* + ( = 0.0335 + 0.0914 = 0.1249; ia= 0.
4. Calculation data in Boundary I: inclination of the major
principalstress(T~), from i~= 0, ~u = n/2 = 1.5708 isobtained.
Instantaneous frictionangle (p~): according to equation (33')
pt =41.82 . Invariant I~: according to equation (19)
Ii = 1.0399.
5. Calculation data in Boundary 2: inclination of the major
principal stress (?'2), from ~ = 0 , and i2 --0 then ~P2= 0.
Invariant (2): 12 = 11 + ~t - T2 = 2.6107. Instantaneous fric-
tion angle (,2): approximate solution according to Fig. 6,
P2 = 17 results from 12 = 2.6107. Inverting equation (19) by
iteration: P2 = 16.81.
6. Ultimate bearing capacity (Ph): the load coefficient (iV#) is
according to equation (36) which comes from equation (27),
and i2=0; p0=16.81 then N#=7.936. Now the ultimate
bearing capacity is: Ph = fl (N# -- ( = 1.55 x (7.936 -- 0.091) =
12.16 MN/m 2.
Fig. 19. Example problem 1.
I05
I 2~[ 1
iii'i'i'i'iii'ii'i'i'i'i'iiii:iiii'iiiiliiii ~ I
iiiii ii --2,0 ~."
Fig. 20. Example problem 2.
Example 2 (see Fig. 20)
(a) Data: The same data as in Example I. The foundation load is
acting with an inclination of 20 .
Ca) Solution: The solution is the same as for the previous case as far
as point 5.
5. Calculation data in Boundary 2: from i = 20 and a*t = 0.1249
the following is obtained from Fig. 1 4 : p 2 = 2 1 . 5 , Then
W2 = 0.520 tad. from Fig. 12 or from equation (29).
6. Ultimate bearing capacity: the load coefficient, according to
equations (27) and (32), from i2 = 20 and p = 21.5 , is Np =
4.0967. The ultimate bearing capacity: Ph = fl(N~ -- () = 1.55 x
(4.0967-0.0914) =6.21 MN/m 2. It can be shown that the
inclination of the load has caused a reduction in the ultimate
bearing capacity of 49%. In fact the slope:
Th
tan i = - - (45)
~oh
has an unknown value, because initially, only the service load,
a, z in Boundary 2 is known, and so the real inclination is given
by: z
tan io = - .
O
given that
zh rh zh 1 io
tan i tan - -
~o~ ~+/~ ~i+/~ I+~
o"h N# -
i can be determined by iteration. Initially io = i is taken and an
approximate value of N# is obtained. The calculation is repeated
with a new value o f the inclination and defined by equation (45)
and so on.
Example 3 (see Fig. 21)
(a) Data: The same as for Example 1, but Boundary 1 is sloping at
an angle of 30 to the horizontal and with the foundation surface.
Ca).,Solution: Points 1 and 2 as for Example 1.
3. Conditions for Boundary 1: a I = 0, i = 0, ~o*l= al + ( = 0.0914.
4. Calculation data for Boundary 1: inclination o f the major
principal stress: ~v + ~t = n/2 - E ; E = 0 is obtained from i = 0
and then ~v~ = 1.0467 because ~t = n / 6 . The instantaneous
friction angle (Pl) according to equation (33) is: Pl =44-47.
Invariant (It) according to equation (19), from Pl =44.47,
I~ = 0.9566 is obtained.
5. Calculation data for Boundary 2: inclination of the major
principal stress (T2), ~P2= 0 is obtained from i2 = 0. Invariant
(/2): 12 = I~ + ?'l - ~P2 = 2.0036. Instantaneous friction angle
(P2): exact solution according to equation (19). Inverting
equation (19): 12 = 2.0036 then P2 = 22.63. Approximate sol-
ution: P2 = 22.5, a value close to the previous one is obtained
from 12 = 2.0036 according to Fig. 6.
6. Ultimate bearing capacity (Ph): the load coefficient according
to equation (36) N o = 4.4760 is obtained from p = 22.63 and
i2=0. The ultimate bearing capacity is: Ph = [ I ( N a - ( ) =
!.55 + (4.4760 - 0.0914) = 6.80 MN/m 2.
i~i~i~i~i~i~i:~i~i~i~i~i~i~i~i~i~i~i~i~i~i~i~i:~i:~i~i~i~i~i~~ 's~
Fig. 21. Example problem 3.
106 S E R R A N O and OLALLA:
.......... ...... j ..... 1
L-".'.-?''"".'."'."L''.-'.'.'.''.'."5.'.'.'."""5". ". / . " '."" "i~?~.,
Fig. 22. Example problem 4.
Example 4 (see Fig. 22)
(a) Data: As for Example 3, but this time the load has an inclination
o f i = 20
0~) Solmioa: As for the previous case as far as point 5.
5. Calculation data in Boundary 2: unlike Example 2, Fig. 14
cannot be used, because it is only valid for ct = 0. The system
formed by equations (22) and (29) must be solved. Approximate
solution at starting point: from i 2 = 0 then ~2 = 0 and ILO2) =
2.0036. Inverting equation (19) P2 = 22.50 is obtained. With
P2 = 22.5 a n d / 2 = 20 then ~2 = 0.5075 is obtained again.
First iteration: according to equation (22): ILO:)= 2 . 0 0 3 6 -
0.5075 = 1.4961 and then P2 = 30.54. According to equation
(29): with P2 = 30.54 and i2 = 20 the value of ~ = 0.4407 is
obtained.
Second iteration: according to equation (22): I(p2) = 2.0036 -
0.4407 = 1.5629 and then P2 = 29.28, According to equation
(29): with p~ = 29.28 and/2 = 20 the value of ~P~ = 0.4483 is
obtained.
Third iteration: by the same way, according to equation (22)
and according to equation (29) ~P~ = 0.4475 from p~ = 29.42 .
Fourth iteration: again according to equation (22) and accord-
ing to equation (29) then '/Iz = 0.4475 from p2 = 29.41 .
Instantaneous friction angle: Pz = 29.41.
6. Ultimate bearing capacity (P~): the load coefficientis according
to equation (32) N# = 2.2208 and then P~ = fl(N~ - () = 1.55 x
(2.2218 - 0.0914) = 3.302 M N / m 2.
Example 5 (see Fig. 23)
(a) Data: As for Example 4 but, in this case, a normal pressure using
anchors, has been given on the surface of a = 20 k N / m z.
(b) Solution: Points 1 and 2 as for Example 1.
3. Conditions for Boundary 1: a * = o/fl = 20/1550 = 0.0129;
~o*~= a~' + ~ = 0.0129 + 0.0914 = 0.1043.
4. Calculation data for Boundary 1: instantaneous friction angle
(p,): the exact solution, according to equation (24), gives
p~--43.35 . The approximate solution, according to Fig. 9,
Pt = 43- Inclination o f the major principal stress (~'t): accord-
ing to equation (26), from it = 0 and p~ = 43.35 , ~ = 0 and
then ~e, = n / 2 - a - ~ = n / 2 - n / 6 = 1.0472. Invariant ILO,) =
0.9911.
\\
~'////////t/ {////////
.~[~[[~[~..~.~[~~
Fig. 23. Example problem 5.
R O C K MASS B E A R I N G C A P A C I T Y
\zl 1
/ ,%
30'
i i?ii??~
Fig. 24. Example problem 6.
5. Calculation data for Boundary 2: approximate solution: from
iz = 0 and ~2 = 0; 12 = Ii + ~l = 0.9911 + 1.0472 = 2.0383. In-
verting equation (19) P2 = 22.21- With this value and i2 = 20
then ~v2 = 0.5111.
First iteration: according to equation (22): ILO~)= 2 . 0 3 8 3 -
0.5111, 1.5272 and then P2=29.94. According to equation
(29): with P2 = 29.94 and i2 = 20 the value of '/'2 -- 0.4442 is
obtained.
Second iteration: according to equation (22): 1(.o2)=
2.0383 - 0.4442 = 1.5941 and then P2 = 28.71. According to
equation (29): with P2 = 28.71 and i2 = 20 the value of ~'2
= 0.4512 is obtained.
With the third and fourth iterations the following values are
obtained: ILO2)= 1.5871; P2 = 28.84 and ~2 = 0.4512.
6. Ultimate bearing capacity (Ph): load coefficient N~, according
to equation (36) N~=2.3147. Ultimate bearing capacity:
Ph =//(N~ -- () = 1.55 (2.3147 -- 0.0914) = 3.452 M N / m 2.
Example 6 (see Fig. 24)
(a) Data: As for Example 4 but, in this case, a normal pressure using
anchors, has been given on the surface o f a = 20 k N / m 2 with an
inclination of to, = 30 with respect to the normal one.
(b) Solution: Points 1 and 2 as for Example 1.
3. Conditions for Boundary 1: ~r~ = a/fl = 20/1550 = 0.0129;
ao*, = al ~ + ~ = 0.0129 + 0.0914 = 0.1043. Efficient inclination:
i~ = 4.08 due to
z 1
tan i~ tan iol 0.0714.
a +//~ 1 + (/er*
4. Calculation data for Boundary 1: instantaneous friction angle
Lot): the exact solution, according to equation (24), gives
p~ = 43.36 . The approximate solution, according to Hg. 9,
Pt = 43. Inclination of the major principal stress (~'t): accord-
ing to equation (26), from it = 4.08 and Pt = 43.35, ~ = 0.0082
and then ~, = n / 2 - oe - E = n / 2 - n / 6 - 0.0081 = 1.0389. In-
variant 1Lo,) = 0.9910.
5. Calculation data for Boundary 2: approximate solution: from
6 = 0 and ~/'2= 0; /2 = Ij + ~ = 0.9910 + !.0389 = 2.0299. In-
verting equation (19) P2 = 22.31. With this value and i2 = 20
then P2 = 0.5099.
First iteration: according to equation (22): 1 ( o 2 ) = 2 . 0 2 9 9 -
0.5099 = 1.5200 and then P2 = 30.08. According to equation
(29): with P2 = 30 .08 and i2 = 20 the value of W2 = 0.4434 is
obtained.
Second iteration: according to equation (22): ILOz) = 2,0299 -
0.4434 = 1.5865 and then P2 = 28.80. According to equation
20 k N / m 2 (29): with P2 = 28.80 and i2 = 20 the value of ~v, = 0.4512 is
obtained.
With the third and fourth iterations the following values are
obtained: ILO2) = 1.5795; P2 = 28.97 and ~v2 = 0.4503.
6. Ultimate bearing capacity (Ph): load coefficient N# is according
to equation (36) N#=2.2921. Ultimate bearing capacity:
P h = f l ( N a -- () = 1.55 (2.2921 -- 0.0914) = 3.417 M N / m 2.