com
a
Laboratoire de Génie Civil, ENIT, Tunis, Tunisia
b
Centro de Mecânica Aplicada e Computacional, UFRGS, Porto Alegre, Brazil
c
Laboratoire des Matériaux et Structures du Génie Civil, ENPC, France
Received 27 November 2006; received in revised form 1 June 2007; accepted 5 June 2007
Available online 17 July 2007
Abstract
The bearing capacity of shallow foundations resting on a modified Hoek–Brown rock mass is investigated within the framework of the
kinematic approach of limit analysis theory. At the rock material nivel, closed-form expressions are obtained for the support functions of
the rock failure criterion. These expressions of the P-functions are then applied to derive upper bounds estimates of the load-bearing
capacity by implementing two classes of failure mechanisms. The numerical results are first compared to existing limit analysis solutions,
showing the efficiency of the present approach. The effects of the loading parameters are then discussed at the light of these preliminary
results. The results are compared with finite element limit analysis solutions, emphasizing the efficiency of the present approach. Design
tables are finally presented for practical use in rock engineering.
Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Bearing capacity; Modified Hoek–Brown criterion; Limit analysis; Failure mechanism; Rock
0266-352X/$ - see front matter Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2007.06.003
Z. Saada et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 35 (2008) 144–154 145
Disregarding the rock weight, Serrano and Olalla [8] Hoek–Brown strength criterion are provided in Section 3.
proposed a methodology for the determination of the bear- Section 4 describes two failure mechanisms implemented
ing capacity of a shallow foundation resting on Hoek– for the upper bound estimates of the bearing capacity.
Brown rock type, implementing the characteristics method Numerical results together with some comparisons with
in order to solve the differential equation systems govern- existing solutions are finally given in Section 5.
ing the stress field. The problem of bearing capacity at
the tip of a pile embedded in rock was also analyzed in Ser- 2. Problem description
rano and Olalla [36,37]. The related results proved to be in
accordance with previous experimental and theoretical The plane strains bearing capacity problem under con-
results in the case of soft rocks (uniaxial compressive sideration is described in Fig. 1. A strip footing of width
strength of the rock <20–30 MPa), whereas the ultimate B0 rests upon a homogeneous rock mass of unit weight c.
bearing capacity of hard rocks was overestimated. In Ser- Let Q be the force per unit transversal length exerted
rano and Olalla [9,10], the bearing capacity problem of a through the footing. The loading mode in the considered
strip foundation resting on a weightless rock crossed by a material system is defined by three parameters: the specific
family of joints was studied. The strength properties of weight c, the surface surcharge q0, and the equivalent foot-
the intact rock were modeled by a Hoek–Brown criterion, ing load q = Q/B0. The ultimate value of q will be denoted
while a Mohr–Coulomb strength condition was adopted by qu.
for the joints. In this study, different failure mechanisms As regard the strength capacities of the constitutive rock
were identified depending on the loading conditions and material, isotropy is assumed in the sequel. At the macro-
joints characteristics. scopic scale (i.e. the scale of the structure), this assumption
In a recent paper, Yang and Yin [11] developed an upper may reasonably be adopted for intact rocks or heavily
bound solution for ultimate bearing capacity of a strip jointed rock masses (i.e. sufficiently dense and randomly
footing adopting a modified Hoek–Brown failure criterion. distributed joints). This means in particular that the case
In some extent, the authors extend to the case of non-linear of rocks with few discontinuities cannot be considered in
failure criterion, previous works using the linear Mohr– this framework.
Coulomb failure criterion (Chen [13], Michalowski [16], Moreover, the strength capacity of the rock mass is
Soubra [12], to cite a few). Actually, the idea implemented assumed to be described by a modified Hoek–Brown con-
in [11] consisted in replacing the original Hoek–Brown dition [39,40]:
strength criterion by an ‘optimal’ tangential Mohr–Cou- n
r1
lomb domain. Upper bound estimates for the bearing F ðrÞ ¼ r1 r3 rc m þ s 6 0 ð2Þ
capacity are derived implementing the kinematic approach rc
of limit analysis. The generalized tangential technique is where r1 and r3 denote respectively the major and minor
thus used to evaluate the optimal tangential Mohr–Cou- principal stresses (stresses are counted positive in tensile),
lomb domain and the corresponding upper bound bearing and rc P 0 is the uniaxial compressive strength. The
capacity values. parameters m, s and n depend on the geological strength in-
Unlike the approach developed in [11], the main objec- dex (GSI) [40]:
tive of this paper is to derive upper bound estimate for
the bearing capacity preserving exactly the original modi- m GSI 100
¼ exp ð3Þ
fied Hoek–Brown failure criterion. The closed-form expres- mi 28 14D
sion of the maximum resistant work rate developed in any GSI 100
virtual strain field is derived. It is found in particular that s ¼ exp ð4Þ
9 3D
the obtained results improve those provided by Yang and
1 1 GSI 20
Yin [11]. n ¼ þ exp exp ð5Þ
More recently, Merifield et al. [38] developed a finite ele- 2 6 15 3
ment approach to compute lower and upper estimates of where D is a disturbance coefficient that varies from 0.0 for
the ultimate bearing capacity, based on the implementation the undisturbed in situ rock masses to 1.0 for very dis-
of linear and non-linear programming techniques and turbed rock masses. mi is the value of parameter m for in-
adopting a smooth approximation for the modified tact rock and can be obtained from experiment measures.
Hoek–Brown yield surface. With respect to the numerical One may refer to Hoek [41] where approximate values of
approach developed in [38], the main difference of the pres- parameter mi are given for some typical rocks.
ent work lies on the fact that upper bound solutions are In the rn s stress plane, where rn and s are the normal
derived herein from the direct analysis of failure and shear stresses, the modified Hoek–Brown failure crite-
mechanisms. rion (2) can be drawn as a curve (Fig. 2). The equation of
The paper is organized as follows. Description of the the latter may be derived as the convex envelope of ‘Mohr–
considered problem is detailed in Section 2. After a brief Coulomb’ lines
recall of the kinematic approach of limit analysis, explicit
expressions for the support functions of the modified s ¼ ct rn tan ut ð6Þ
146 Z. Saada et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 35 (2008) 144–154
Q = q B0
q0 q0
B0
γ homogeneous rock
τ W e ðc; q0 ; qu ; U Þ 6 W mr ðU Þ 8U ð8Þ
are functions of the normal stress rn and their expression P½m; ½U ¼ supf½U r mjF ðrÞ 6 0g ð11Þ
may be found in the literature. For instance, the relation- r
^ with 1
3. Limit analysis kinematic approach and support functions P½m; ½U ¼ P½d d^ ¼ ðm ½U þ ½U mÞ ð12Þ
2
of the modified Hoek–Brown criterion
which means that the determination of the P-functions re-
After a brief recall of the upper bound theorem of limit duce to that of P[d], P[m; [U]] being therefore deduced from
analysis, the closed-form expressions for the support func- the latter through (12).
tions of the modified Hoek–Brown convex of admissible Classical results of convex analysis indicate that:
stresses are provided.
P[d] takes a finite value if and only if d belongs to the cone
of outward normals to the yield surface. This condition
3.1. Limit analysis kinematic approach
means that d is necessary of the form d ¼ k oF or
with
Given any kinematically admissible velocity field U k P 0. If a strain rate field d complies with this condition,
(termed failure mechanism in the sequel), the kinematic the- the corresponding velocity U is termed as relevant [42,43].
orem of limit analysis states that a necessary condition for Given any relevant velocity field U, P[d] actually writes
the system under consideration to remain stable under the
external loading (c, q0, qu) reads [42,43] P½d ¼ rH : d ð13Þ
Z. Saada et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 35 (2008) 144–154 147
where rw represents the stress state located on the Since the closed-form expressions of the support function
boundary of the yield surface and where the outward of the modified Hoek–Brown criterion have been deter-
normal is parallel to d (Fig. 3). mined, the maximum resisting work Wmr(U) can be com-
We now apply the above considerations to the case puted in any virtual failure mechanism U. The kinematic
where the strength properties are defined by the modified approach may therefore be implemented to derive upper
Hoek–Brown failure condition (2). As regards the condi- bound estimates for the ultimate bearing capacity.
tion of relevancy, it may be shown that a velocity field U It is worth noting that formulas (15), (16), (18) and (19)
is relevant if the associated strain rate satisfies the following extend the results already obtained by Garnier and Mag-
inequality hous [44] in the particular situation n ¼ 12.
trd > 0 ð14Þ
4. Application to the bearing capacity problem
Furthermore, it is found after mathematical developments
that for such velocity fields The purpose of the following section is to derive upper
!n bound estimates for the bearing capacity of the foundation
src n 1
mMðdÞ 1n by making use of the kinematic approach implemented on
P½d ¼ trd þ rc n1n n1n ð15Þ
m trd the problem sketched in Fig. 1. Two classes of failure
mechanisms will be considered in the subsequent analysis.
where function MðdÞ is defined by the relation
1 4.1. Generalized Prandtl-type failure mechanism
MðdÞ ¼ ½maxð0; d 1 Þ þ maxð0; d 2 Þ þ maxð0; d 3 Þn
ð16Þ Generalizing to the situation of modified Hoek–Brown
criterion, the classical Prandtl’s failure mechanism usually
in which d1, d2 and d3 represent the eigenvalues of d.
considered for soil or rock material with a Mohr–Coulomb
Likewise function P[m;[U]] relative to a velocity discon-
failure criterion, the class of failure mechanisms depicted in
tinuity (Eq. (11)) might be directly computed from (12)
Fig. 4 is analyzed herein. It will be referred to as mecha-
and (14)–(16). The traduction of the relevancy condition
nism (M1).
(14) in terms of velocity jump simply reads
Such a mechanism involves four angular parameters: a
½U m > 0 ð17Þ and a 0 defining the triangular wedge AA 0 B located beneath
If the field U complies with the above inequality every- the foundation, d which is the aperture of the fan zone
where along its discontinuity surface, one gets ABC bounded by the arc of log-spiral BC of focus A,
and u defining the position of the point C
src
P½m; ½U ¼ ½U m
m AC ¼ ABed tan u ð20Þ
n mMðm; ½U Þ1n
n
þ rc n n
1n
1
1n ð18Þ The velocity field is then defined in each zone as follows:
½U m
The triangular wedge AA 0 B is given a uniform transla-
where
tion motion U = u = ct, whose orientation is character-
1 1
ized by angle u with respect to the side A 0 B.
Mðm; ½U Þ ¼ ðj½U j ½U mÞn ð19Þ
21=n The velocity at any point M of the fan ABC is given by
U ðMÞ ¼ vðhÞ ¼ v0 eh tan u eh ð21Þ
where h is the polar orientation of M with respect to AB,
σkl and eh represents the unit orthoradial vector defined
accordingly, so that the velocity profile along any radius
d Π ( d= ) = σ∗
=
: d
= AM is constant;
=
The triangular wedge ACD is also given a uniform
σ∗ translation motion U = w perpendicular to AC and
=
whose magnitude is equal to v0 ed tan u .
The remaining part of the structure is kept motionless.
Q = q B0
q0
A’ A
α’ α δ D
u
θ
ϕ
w
B M v (θ ) ϕ
C
Fig. 4. Generalized Prandtl-type failure mechanism.
p
0 < a; 0 < d; 0<u< ; u < a0 ; a þ a0 < p;
v ( δ) = w 2
p
δ þu<aþd<p ð25Þ
2
θ
ϕ v (0 ) 4.2. Multi-wedge translation failure mechanism
u ϕ
// AC Referred to as mechanism (M2), this failure mechanism
is directly adapted from that originally presented by Sou-
// AB // A’B bra [12] for the calculation of ultimate bearing capacity
Fig. 5. Velocity hodograph for the generalized Prandtl failure mechanism of foundation resting on a Mohr–Coulomb soil. Since this
(M1). failure mechanism is symmetric, only half of the problem
domain is represented in Fig. 6.
Geometrically, the zone in motion is defined by k + 1
triangular wedges. The wedge AA 0 B (wedge (0) in Fig. 6)
which allows to calculate v0 = v(h = 0) and w in function of beneath the strip footing is characterized by the angle h.
u, a, a 0 , d and u. Each wedge (i), i = 1, . . . , k, is characterized by the length
The work performed by the external forces (surcharge of the base di, the angles ai and bi, and the length Li of
q0, rock unit weight c and foundation load q) in such a fail- the interface (i 1)/(i).
ure mechanism write The velocity field U, depicted in Fig. 7, is defined in each
B20 wedge as follows:
W e ðU Þ ¼ qu sinða0 uÞ þ ucF1 þ B0 uq0 F2 ð22Þ
2
The wedge (0) is defined by a downward vertical trans-
where F1 and F2 are non-dimensional functions of the lation v0.
angular parameters a, a 0 , d and u. Their expressions are Each wedge (i), i = 1, . . . , k, moves with a uniform trans-
provided in Appendix A. lation vi inclined at angle ui with respect to the base.
On the other hand, the maximum resisting work writes
by virtue of (15) and (18) Such a velocity field is relevant in the sense of (17) and
W mr ðU Þ ¼ rc B0 uF3 ð23Þ involves discontinuities [U] = vi vi1 across the interface
Li between wedges (i) and (i 1), and [U] = vi along the
where expression of the non-dimensional function F3 is
base di. Furthermore, [U] is inclined at angle ui > 0 with
also given in Appendix A.
respect to the interface Li as well as to the base di. Taking
Finally, one obtains from the fundamental inequality (8)
into account these kinematics considerations, the velocity vj
rc F3 0:5B0 cF1 q0 F2 of each wedge can be expressed as a function of the velocity
qu 6 B0 min ¼ qu1 ð24Þ
0
a;a ;d;u sin ða0 uÞ v0 and the set of angular parameters h, ai, bi, ui
where qu1 denotes the best upper-bound estimate of qu (i = 1, . . . , k).
which can be obtained from exploring the above class of The work done by the external forces writes
failure mechanisms (M1) through a minimization proce- B20
dure with respect to the angular parameters a, a 0 , d and W e ðU Þ ¼ qv0 þ v0 cG1 þ B0 v0 q0 G2 ð26Þ
2
u, which is carried out numerically. It should be pointed
out that these parameters are subjected to the following where expressions of the non-dimensional functions G1 and
constraints: G2 are provided in Appendix B.
Z. Saada et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 35 (2008) 144–154 149
A’ A C
αk
θ
(0) (k)
L1 α1 dk
αi Lk βk
(1)
β1 Li
B
(i)
d1
βi
di
A’ A C
(0) (k)
vk
v0 (1) ϕk
v1 [U]
B ϕi
(i)
ϕ1 vi
ϕi
8
Since the considered velocity field is piecewise uniform, >
> 0 < ai ;bi ; ui < p; 0 < h < p2 ;0 < ai þ bi < p;ui < b2i
the maximum resisting work reduces to the contribution >
<
b1 u1 p2 h < 0; biþ1 ai bi uiþ1 þ ui < 0; h
P[m; [U]] of the velocity jump [U] ð29Þ
>
> Pk
>
: þ ai ¼ p
W mr ðU Þ ¼ rc B0 v0 G3 ð27Þ
i¼1
(expression of G3 is also given in Appendix B).
It comes from the necessary condition We(U) 6 Wmr(U)
5. Numerical results
that
qu 6 B0 min frc G3 0:5B0 cG1 q0 G2 g ¼ qu2 ð28Þ This section provides some numerical results for the
h;ai ;bi ;ui
bearing capacity derived from the failure mechanisms
where qu2 represents the best upper-bound estimate of qu (M1) and (M2). It must be recalled that the upper bounds
which can be obtained from exploring the above class of qu1 and qu2 defined respectively in (24) and (28) are
failure mechanisms (M2) through a minimization proce- obtained through constrained minimization procedures
dure with respect to the angular parameters h, ai, bi and with respect to corresponding failure mechanisms parame-
ui. These parameters must comply with the following ters. In mechanism (M1), they correspond to the four vari-
constraints: ables a, a 0 , d, u associated to the constraints (25). The
150 Z. Saada et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 35 (2008) 144–154
qu (MPa)
optimal failure mechanism geometry obtained when 6
exploring the family of mechanisms (M2).
Combining the two kinematical approaches described in 5
Sections 4.1 and 4.2, the optimal upper bound estimate is
defined as the minimum of qu1 and qu2 4
qu 6 qþ
u ¼ minðqu1 ; qu2 Þ ð30Þ
3
0 10 20 30 40 50
q0 (kPa)
5.1. Effects of the loading parameters
Fig. 9. Ultimate bearing capacity upper bound estimate qu versus
In the approach proposed in [11], the original modified surcharge load q0 (B0 = 1 m, D = 0, mi = 10, GSI = 30, rc = 10 MPa
Hoek–Brown strength criterion is replaced by an ‘optimal’ and c = 0).
tangential Mohr–Coulomb failure condition. The same
type of mechanism (M2) has been considered by the 10
authors for the calculations of upper bound estimates for
q 0 =40 kPa
the bearing capacity.
Adopting the following data: B0 = 1 m, D = 0, mi = 10,
9.5
GSI = 30, rc = 10 MPa and c = 0, Fig. 9 displays the vari- q 0 =30 kPa
ations of the upper bound estimates qu versus the surcharge
qu [MPa]
load q0. This figure shows the results derived from mecha-
9 q 0 =20 kPa
nisms (M1) and (M2) as well as those given in [11].
For the specific data characterized above, mechanism
(M2) leads to estimates lower than mechanism (M1) for q 0 =10 kPa
the whole values of q0, which means that in this case qþ
u ¼ qu2 .
8.5
Fig. 8. Geometry of the optimal failure mechanism (M2) obtained for D = 0, mi = 17, GSI = 60, rc = 10 MPa, c = 0 and q0 = 0.
Z. Saada et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 35 (2008) 144–154 151
Instead of (1), the ultimate bearing capacity qu are some- The latter ones were found to be very close to the numerical
times put in the form [11] average values provided in [38] for almost values of
pffiffi GSI 2 [10, 80] and mi 2 [5, 25] (D has been fixed at zero).
qu ¼ src N r þ q0 N q þ 0:5cB0 N c ð31Þ
This comparison, which is illustrated in Table 1 in the par-
where the non-dimensional parameters Nr, Nq and Nc are ticular case mi = 10, emphasizes the high efficiency of the
bearing capacity factors related to the uniaxial compressive approach described in the present paper.
strength, the surcharge load and the unit weight of the For practical use in rock engineering, several computa-
rock, respectively. The above preliminary results suggest tions of this bearing capacity factor have been performed,
the following comments:
s n 1
n 1sinðuÞ1n 1 v0
þ n1n n1n m1n ð41Þ
m 2sinðuÞ 1 Y i
sin bj
ð49Þ
sinða0 ÞtanðuÞ 0 p cos ðhÞ j¼1 sinðaj þ bj Þ
f33 ¼ sin aþa u
sinðaþa0 Þ 2
" # Xk
s n 1
n 1sin ðuÞ1n 1
g33 ¼
vi
2 sinðui Þ
di
þ n1n n1n m1n ð42Þ v 0 B 0
m 2sin ðuÞ i¼1
" #
sinða0 Þ cos aþa0 u p2 u s n 1
n 1 sinðu Þ1n
1
i
f34 ¼ þ n1n n1n m1n ð50Þ
sinðaþa0 Þ 2 m 2 sinðui Þ
" 1#
s 1sin ðuÞ 1n 2dtanu
þ n n
n
1n
1
1n m
n
1n ðe 1Þ where
m 2sin ðuÞ
B0 sinðai Þ Y i1
sinðbj Þ
ð43Þ di ¼ ð51Þ
2 cosðhÞ sinðai þ bi Þ j¼1 sinðaj þ bj Þ
sinða0 ÞsinðaþdÞ p
0
f35 ¼ cos aþa u u tan ðuÞ
sinðaþa0 ÞcosðaþduÞ 2
" # Appendix C
s n 1
n 1sin ðuÞ1n 1
References [24] Garnier D. Analyse par la théorie du calcul à la rupture des facteurs
de réduction de la capacité portante de fondations superficielles. PhD
[1] Meyerhof GG. The ultimate bearing capacity of foundations. thesis, Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées, France; 1995.
Geotechnique 1951;2(4):301–32. [25] Griffiths DV. Computation of bearing capacity factors using finite
[2] Silvestri V. A limit equilibrium solution for bearing capacity of strip elements. Geotechnique 1982;32(3):195–202.
foundations on sand. Can Geotech J 2003;40(2):351–61. [26] Burd HJ, Frydman S. Bearing capacity of plane-strain footings on
[3] Terzaghi K. Theoretical soil mechanics. New York: Wiley; 1943. layered soils. Can Geotech J 1997;34(2):241–53.
[4] Zhu DY, Lee CF, Jiang HD. A numerical study of the bearing [27] Agar JG, Morgenstern NR, Scott J. Shear strength and stress–strain
capacity factor Nr. Can Geotech J 2001;38:1090–6. behaviour of Athabasca oil sand at elevated temperatures and
[5] Bolton MD, Lau CK. Vertical bearing capacity factors for circular pressure. Can Geotech J 1985;24(1):1–10.
and footing footings on Mohr–Coulomb. Can Geotech J [28] Hoek E, Brown ET. Empirical strength criterion for rock masses.
1993;30(3):1024–33. ASCE J Geotech Eng 1980;106(GT9):1013–36.
[6] Hansen BJ. A general formula for bearing capacity. Bull Dan [29] Hoek E. Strength of jointed rock masses. Geotechnique 1983;33:
Geotech Inst 1961;11:38–46. 187–223.
[7] Sokolovskii VV. Statics of soil media. London: Butterworth Science; [30] Goodman RE. Introduction to rock mechanics. 2nd ed. New York:
1965 (Translator R. Jones and A. Schofield). Wiley; 1989.
[8] Serrano A, Olalla C. Ultimate bearing capacity of rock masses. Int J [31] Baker R. Inter-relations between experimental and computational
Rock Mech Mining Sci Geomech 1994;31(2):93–106. aspects of slope stability analysis. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech
[9] Serrano A, Olalla C. Ultimate bearing capacity of an anisotropic 2003;27:379–401.
discontinuous rock mass. Part I: basic modes of failure. Int J Rock [32] Hoek E, Brown ET. Practical estimates of rock mass strength. Int J
Mech Mining Sci 1998;35(3):301–24. Rock Mech Mining Sci 1997;34(8):1165–86.
[10] Serrano A, Olalla C. Ultimate bearing capacity of an anisotropic [33] Santarelli F. Theoretical and experimental investigation of the
discontinuous rock mass. Part II: determination procedure. Int J stability of the axisymmetric borehole. PhD thesis, University of
Rock Mech Mining Sci 1998;35(3):325–48. London, London; 1987.
[11] Yang XL, Yin JH. Upper bound solution for ultimate bearing [34] Jiang JC, Baker R, Yamagami T. The effect of strength envelope
capacity with a modified Hoek–Brown failure criterion. Int J Rock nonlinearity on slope stability computations. Can Geotech J
Mech Mining Sci 2005;42:550–60. 2003;40:308–25.
[12] Soubra AH. Upper-bound solutions for bearing capacity of founda- [35] Serrano A, Olalla C, Gonzalez J. Ultimate bearing capacity of rock
tions. ASCE J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 1999;125(1):59–68. masses based on the modified Hoek–Brown criterion. Int J Rock
[13] Chen WF. Limit analysis and soil plasticity. Amsterdam: Elsevier; Mech Mining Sci 2000;37:1013–8.
1975. [36] Serrano A, Olalla C. Ultimate bearing capacity at the tip of a pile
[14] Drescher A, Detournay C. Limit load in translational failure in rock-part 1: theory. Int J Rock Mech Mining Sci 2002(39):
mechanisms for associative and non-associative materials. Geotech- 833–46.
nique 1993;43(3):443–56. [37] Serrano A, Olalla C. Ultimate bearing capacity at the tip of a pile
[15] Michalowski RL, Shi L. Bearing capacity of footings over two-layer in rock-part 2: application. Int J Rock Mech Mining Sci
foundation soils. ASCE J Geotech Eng 1995;121(5):59–68. 2002:847–66.
[16] Michalowski RL. An estimate of the influence of soil weight on [38] Merifield RS, Lyamin AV, Sloan SW. Limit analysis solutions for the
bearing capacity using limit analysis. Soil Found 1997;37(4):421–8. bearing capacity of rock masses using the generalised Hoek–Brown
[17] Sarama SK, Iossifelis IS. Seismic bearing capacity factors of shallow criterion. Int J Rock Mech Mining Sci 2006;43:920–37.
strip footings. Geotechnique 1990;40(2):265–73. [39] Hoek E, Brown ET. The Hoek–Brown failure criterion update. In:
[18] Sloan SW. Lower bound limit analysis using finite elements and linear Rock engineering for underground excavation: proceedings of 15th
programming. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 1988;12:61–77. Canadian symposium, Toronto; 1988. p. 31–8.
[19] Sloan SW. Upper bound limit analysis using finite elements and linear [40] Hoek E, Carranze-Torres C, Corkum B. Hoek–Brown failure
programming. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 1989;13:263–82. criterion-2002 edition. In: Proceedings of the North American rock
[20] Sloan SW, Kleeman PW. Upper bound limit analysis using discon- mechanics society meeting, Toronto, July 2002. p. 267–73.
tinuous velocity fields. Comp Meth Appl Mech Eng 1995;127: [41] Hoek E. Estimating Mohr–Coulomb friction and cohesion values
293–314. from the Hoek–Brown failure criterion. Int J Rock Mech Mining Sci
[21] Ukritchon B, Whittle J, Sloan SW. Undrained limit analysis for 1990:227–9.
combined loading of strip footings on clay. ASCE J Geotech [42] Salençon J. Yield design: a general survey of the theory. CISM
Geoenviron Eng 1998;124(1):1–11. courses and lectures No. 332, Berlin: Springer; 1992.
[22] Wang YJ, Yin JH, Lee CF. The influence of a non-associated flow [43] Salençon J. An introduction to the yield theory and its applications to
rule on the calculation of the factor of safety of the soil slopes. Int J soil mechanics. Eur J Mech – A/Solid 1990;9(5):477–500.
Numer Anal Meth Geomech 2001;25:1351–9. [44] Garnier D, Maghous S. Design of high pressure Gas storage in rock
[23] Yin JH, Wang YJ, Selvadurai APS. Influence of non-association on caverns. In: Design and construction in mining, petroleum and civil
bearing capacity of a strip footing. ASCE J Geotech Geoenviron Eng engineering: proceeding of the 5th SARocks’98, São Paulo; 1998. p.
2001;127(11):985–9. 415–19.