COBRAMSEG 2010: ENGENHARIA GEOTÉCNICA PARA O DESENVOLVIMENTO, INOVAÇÃO E SUSTENTABILIDADE. © 2010 ABMS.

Upper Bound Solutions for Seismic Bearing Capacity of Shallow

Foundations near Rock Slopes
Samir Maghous
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre-RS, Brasil,
samir.maghous@ufrgs.br

Denise Bernaud
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre-RS, Brasil,
denise.bernaud@ufrgs.br

Zied Saada
Ecole Nationale des Ingénieurs de Tunis, Tunisia, zied_saada@yahooo.fr

Denis Garnier
Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées, Marne-la-Vallée, France,
samir.maghous@ufrgs.br

ABSTRACT

The seismic 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.
The analysis focuses on evaluating the reduction in bearing capacity induced by seismic loading
and the proximity of a rock slope. A pseudo-static approach is adopted to account for the
earthquake effects for the seismic bearing evaluations. At the rock material level, the closed-form
expressions previously obtained for the support functions of the rock failure criterion allow the
implementation of different failure mechanics families, and thus to derive rigorous upper bounds
estimates of the load-bearing capacity in both static and seismic conditions.
The effects of geometrical, strength and loading parameters are assessed through a large
number of parametric computations, providing some guidelines for the optimal design of
reinforcement pattern.

KEYWORDS: Seismic bearing capacity, Modified Hoek-Brown criterion, Limit analysis, Failure
mechanism, Rock slope.

1 I NTRODUCTION or excavation. The stability of the slope and the

Evaluating the bearing capacity of shallow strip
foundations on horizontal soil or rock masses is
one of the most classical problems in civil
engineering, which has been widely
investigated with fully satisfactory solutions.
There are, however, many situations where the
foundation is located in the vicinity of a slope
bearing capacity of a foundation built close to
the edge of a slope are important features in the
performance of the supported structure. When
the foundation is constructed on sloping
ground, the bearing capacity of the foundation
is likely to be significantly reduced. Several
works have been devoted to this question: see

1
COBRAMSEG 2010: ENGENHARIA GEOTÉCNICA PARA O DESENVOLVIMENTO, INOVAÇÃO E SUSTENTABILIDADE. © 2010 ABMS.

for instance de Buhan and Garnier (1998) for a formally considered as infinite along the
review of works on this topic. analysis.
More recently, the problem of ultimate As regards the loading mode, the system is
bearing of strip footings on a horizontal rock basically submitted to the action exerted
mass, obeying a modified Hoek-Brown failure through the footing and surface surcharge, as
criterion, has been investigated in several works well as to gravity and inertial forces developed
(Xang and Ying, 2005; Saada et al., 2008). in the rock mass by the passage of seismic
On the other hand, sudden ground motion waves.
during an earthquake can induce in the rock
mass significant inertia forces which alternate
in direction and magnitude, leading to a
reduction in terms of bearing load of the system
footing/rock mass/slope. In most conventional
engineering stability analyses, the concept of
pseudo-static inertia force, presumably
generated by the earthquake ground motion, is
classically adopted to evaluate the ultimate
bearing load.
The question under concern herein is related
to the assessment of seismic bearing capacity of
a shallow foundation lying at the proximity of a
rock slope, using a generalized Hoek-Brown
strength criterion. In this investigation, the
kinematic approach of limit analysis is used as
the theoretical framework to derive upper Figure 1: Problem geometry and loading mode.
bound solutions for the seismic bearing capacity
of shallow strip foundations near rock slopes. In the sequel, the bearing capacity of the
Taking advantage on the closed-form foundation will be characterized through the
expressions of support functions associated ultimate value of the equivalent footing load
with the modified Hoek-Brown, several failure q = Q / B0 .
mechanisms are analyzed.
The analysis is based on the pseudo-static 2.2 Strength properties
method and dynamic effects of earthquake
motions on the variations of the material rock As regards the strength properties of the
strength properties are disregarded. constitutive rock material, it is first assumed
that the rock is isotropic. At the microscopic
2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM AND scale, this assumption appears as reasonable
FRAMEWORK ANALYSIS when the rock is intact or heavily jointed.
Furthermore, the strength capacity of the
2.1 Geometry of the structure and basic rock mass is modeled by a modified Hoek-
assumptions Brown failure condition (Hoek et al., 2002)
F (σ ) = σ 1 − σ 3 − σ c ( s − m σ 1 / σ c ) n ≤ 0 , where
The plane strains seismic bearing capacity to be
σ 1 and σ 3 are respectively the major and minor
analyzed is idealized as shown in Fig.1. A strip
footing of width D0 rests on a homogeneous principal stresses. Parameters m, s and n depend
on the geological strength index GSI and on the
rock mass of unit weight γ at a distance
disturbance coefficient D . The value of
D0 (0 ≤ D0 ≤ ∞) from the edge of a slope which parameter m for intact rock is denoted by mi .
inclination is defined by angle β . The high of Regarding the strength condition at the
the slope is assumed to be large enough to be interface footing/rock, perfect bonding is

2
COBRAMSEG 2010: ENGENHARIA GEOTÉCNICA PARA O DESENVOLVIMENTO, INOVAÇÃO E SUSTENTABILIDADE. © 2010 ABMS.

assumed in the subsequent analysis.
An earthquake has two possible effects on
the mechanical system under consideration.
First is the increase in the driving forces, and
the second is the decrease in shearing resistance
of the rock material. In the subsequent analysis,
the fundamental assumption is made that
dynamic effects of earthquake motions on the
variations of the strength properties can be
disregarded.
2.3 Method of analysis: kinematic approach of
limit analysis
The seismic bearing capacity problem is
investigated within the framework of limit
analysis theory (Salençon, 1990; Salençon,
1992). More precisely, we shall resort to the
kinematic approach order to obtain upper
estimate of the ultimate seismic bearing
capacity of the strip footing. The
implementation of the kinematic approach of
limit analysis relies on the fundamental
inequality:
We first focus on the evaluation of the seismic
bearing capacity of a strip footing without
considering the effect induced by the proximity
of a rock slope.
3.1.1 Multi-wedge translation failure
mechanism (M2)
The geometry of this class of failure
mechanisms, depicted in figure 2, is inspired
from that originally proposed by Soubra (1999)
for the analysis of ultimate bearing capacity of a
foundation resting on a Mohr-Coulomb soil.
This failure mechanism involves k
triangular wedges moving with a translation
motion. The geometry of the wedge (i ),
i = 1,..., k , is characterized by angles αi and β i ,
the length di of this base, and the length Li of
the interface (i ) /(i + 1) .

Pe (U ) ≤ Pmr (U ) ∀U (1)

expressing a necessary condition for the

structure to remain stable under the external
load defined by: Figure 2: Geometry of the multi-wedge failure
(γ e1 , Qe1 , q0 e1 , khγ e2 , kh Qe2 , kh q0 e 2 ) . mechanism (Soubra,1999).
In the above inequality (1), U is any virtual
kinematically admissible velocity field (referred
to as failure mechanism in the sequel),
Pe (U ) denotes the work done by the external
forces, whereas Pmr (U ) represents the
maximum resisting work developed in the
failure mechanism U .

3 FAILURE MECHANISMS

The purpose of this section is to derive upper

bound estimates for the seismic bearing
capacity of the foundation by implementing the
kinematic approach of limit analysis.

3.1 Strip footing lying far from the rock slope Figure 3: Kinematics description of failure mechanism
(M2)
( D0 → ∞)
The velocity field and hodograph of two

3
COBRAMSEG 2010: ENGENHARIA GEOTÉCNICA PARA O DESENVOLVIMENTO, INOVAÇÃO E SUSTENTABILIDADE. © 2010 ABMS.

adjacent wedges are shown in figure 3.
It follows from the kinematical inequality (1)
of limit analysis that:
σ cG1 − 0.5B0γ G 2 − q0G3
q ≤ qu 2 = min
α i , βi ,ϕi sin( β1 − ϕ1 ) + kh cos( β1 − ϕ1 )
where G1 , G2 , G3 depend of the geometrical
characteristic of the failure mechanism.
qu 2 represents the best upper-bound estimate
of qu which can be obtained from exploring the
above class of failure mechanisms (M2)
through a minimization procedure with respect
to the angular parameters α i , βi and
φi , i = 1,..., k . These angular variables have
to comply with the following constraints:
slope. In such mechanism a volume of rock
mass is rotating about a point Ω with angular
velocity ω . The curve I1 I 2 separating this
volume from the rest of the structure which is
kept motionless is an arc of logspiral of angle
(2)
ϕ and focus Ω . It follows necessary that the
velocity jump at any point of this line is
inclined at angle ϕ with respect the tangent at
the same point.
Such mechanism involves four parameter:
three angles θ1 ,θ 2 , ϕ and the distance r0 = ΩI1
defining the radius of the logspiral curve for
θ = θ1 .

0 < α i , β i , ϕi < π ; α i + β i < π

ϕ1 < β1
β
ϕi < i for i ≥2 (3)
2
k
βi +1 − α i − βi − ϕi +1 + ϕi < 0; ∑α
i =1
i =π

sin( β1 − ϕ1 ) + kh cos( β1 − ϕ1 ) > 0

3.2 Strip footing foundation lying at a finite

distance from the rock slope

We move now to the analysis of the effect

induced by the proximity of a rock slope on the
seismic bearing capacity of the strip footing.
For this purpose, two classes of failure
mechanisms are investigated within the
framework of kinematic approach of limit Figure 4: Rotational failure mechanism (M3).
analysis.
The strip footing is resting at a finite distance It follows from the fundamental inequality
D0 from the top of the slope (fig. 1). For sake (1) of limit analysis that the best upper bound
estimate derived from the class (M3) of
of simplicity, the subsequent analysis is
rotational failure mechanisms is obtained by
restricted to the situation with q0 = 0 .
minimization with respect to the set of variables
θ1 ,θ 2 , ϕ , r0 :
3.2.1 Rotational failure mechanism (M3)
σ c r0 H1 − r0 2γ H 2 1
q ≤ qu 3 = min
θ1 ,θ 2 ,ϕ , r0 TI1 D0 + 0.5B0
The rotational failure mechanism, shown in cos θ1 − + + kh sin θ1 B0
r0 r0
figure 4, considered in the analysis is a direct (4)
transposition of those usually employed for
where H1 , H 2 depend of the geometrical
homogeneous Mohr-Coulomb soil or rock
characteristic of the failure mechanism.

4
COBRAMSEG 2010: ENGENHARIA GEOTÉCNICA PARA O DESENVOLVIMENTO, INOVAÇÃO E SUSTENTABILIDADE. © 2010 ABMS.

The minimization parameters are subjected to π

0 < α; 0<ϕ < ; ϕ < α ,; α +α, < π ;
the following constraints: 2
π 3π
0<ϕ <
π
, 0 < θ1 < θ 2 < π − β
α +δ < π; < α + δ + β −ϕ < ; (7)
2 2 2
D0 + B0 sin(θ1 + β ) − e (θ2 −θ1 ) tan ϕ sin(θ 2 + β )
D0 +
B0 (5) sin(α − ϕ ) + kh cos(α , − ϕ )
,

≤ < 2 + cos θ
sin β
1
r0 r0
0<e (θ 2 −θ1 ) tan ϕ
sin θ 2 − sin θ1 4 COMPUTATIONAL RESULTS

This section provides numerical results for the

3.2.2 Prandtl-type failure mechanism (M4)
seismic bearing capacity derived from the
failure mechanism (M2), (M3) and (M4). The
The generalized Prandtl failure mechanism
corresponding upper bound estimates qu 2 , qu 3
investigated herein is simply obtained by
extending the class of failure mechanism and qu 4 are defined by equations (2), (4) and
presented in section 3.1.1 to the situation of a (6). For each selected model data, the numerical
strip footing lying near a rock slope. This class values of upper bound solutions have been
of failure mechanisms, referred to as M4 is obtained through constrained minimization
depicted in figure 5. procedures based on the non-linear sequential
quadratic programming algorithm. The
numerical analysis undertaken herein consists
in selected examples of rocks and focuses on
the effects of the strength, loading and
geometry parameters on the ultimate seismic
bearing capacity.

4.1 Strip footing lying far from the rock slope

( D0 → ∞ )

For the mechanism M2, both effects of the

loading parameters q0 and γ are examined
herein. Firstly the model data are fixed to
B0 = 1m , D = 0, mi = 10 , GSI = 30 ,
σ c = 10MPa and γ = 0 whereas q0 is lying in
Figure 5: Generalized Prandtl-type failure mechanism the range 0 − 50kPa . Figure 6 displays the
(M4).
variations of the upper bound estimates qu
Applying the upper bound inequality (1) versus the surcharge load q0 for both static case
leads to the condition: ( kh = 0 ) and seismic case kh = 0.1 . As
expected, the results indicate a significant
σ c I1 − 0.5B0γ H 2
q ≤ qu 4 = min (6) reduction in the bearing capacity during the
,
α ,α ,δ ,ϕ sin(α , − ϕ ) + k cos(α , − ϕ )
h earthquake.

where I1 , I 2 depend of the geometrical

characteristic of the failure mechanism.
The variables of minimization procedure
involved in (6) should comply with the
following constraints:

5
COBRAMSEG 2010: ENGENHARIA GEOTÉCNICA PARA O DESENVOLVIMENTO, INOVAÇÃO E SUSTENTABILIDADE. © 2010 ABMS.
Figure 6: Ultimate bearing capacity versus surcharge
load.
Secondly, calculations have been performed
varying both parameters q0 and γ . Figure 7
presents the values of the seismic bearing
capacity corresponding to B0 = 1m , D = 0 ,
mi = 17 , GSI = 30 , σ c = 30MPa and kh = 0.1 .
Figure 7: Effect of rock specific weight on the ultimate
bearing capacity for k h = 0.1 .
4.2 Seismic conditions and proximity to a rock
slope
Combined effects of the earthquake induced
solicitation and the proximity of a rock slope on
the bearing capacity of a strip footing are
investigated in the subsequent numerical
6
simulations. The upper bounds estimates are
based on the implementation of two families of
failure mechanisms (M3) and (M4) described
before. For each problem configuration, defined
by the geometry, loading parameters and
strength properties of the rock, the optimal
upper bound is:
qu ≤ min(qu 3 , qu 4 ) (8)
4.2.1 Effects of distance D0 to slope edge
Figure 8 represents the results obtained for a
particular data. The dashed lines separate the
prevailing failure mechanisms. These results
illustrate:
* the important reduction in bearing capacity
due to rock slope up 2B0 distant from the
foundation. Beyond this distance, the rock slope
is no more affecting the bearing capacity of the
foundation;
* the change in optimal failure mechanism as
D0 increases. Failure mechanism (M4) prevails
for small values of D0 , whereas failure
mechanism (M2) takes place when the effects
of slope proximity are no more captured by
(M3) or (M4).
Figure 8: Effect of rock slope proximity on the ultimate
bearing capacity upper bound estimate ( B0 = 1m , D = 0 ,
β = 30 , mi = 17 , GSI = 30 , σ c = 10MPa ,
o
γ = 20kN/m ).
3
COBRAMSEG 2010: ENGENHARIA GEOTÉCNICA PARA O DESENVOLVIMENTO, INOVAÇÃO E SUSTENTABILIDADE. © 2010 ABMS.
4.2.2 Effects of slope inclination
Fixing the rock material parameter as well as
the distance to the rock slope, the impact of
slope inclination on the upper bound estimates
of bearing capacity is investigated in this
section. Figure 9 shows the variation of qu+ as a
function of angle β , along with the associated
failure mechanism. The curves qu+ = qu+ ( β )
exhibit a horizontal part indicating that below a
critical value β cr of slope inclination, the rock
slope does not affect the bearing capacity of the
foundation.
It should be emphasized that this critical
inclination might simply express that the
kinematic approach described in Section 3.2 is
not appropriate to account for the reduction in
bearing capacity induced by the proximity of
slope with low inclination. The question related
to the existence of such a critical inclination is
still to be investigated by implementing a more
improved kinematic approach. This may be
achieved by extending the multi-wedge failure
mechanism to the situation of strip footing near
the rock slope.
Figure 9: Variations of the ultimate bearing capacity
upper bound estimate with the slope inclination
( B0 = 1m , D0 = 2m , D = 0 , mi = 17 , GSI = 30 ,
σ c = 10MPa , γ = 20kN/m ).
3
7
( B0 = 1m, D0 = 2m, γ = 20kN / m3 )
4.2.3 Effects of horizontal seismic coefficient
Figure 10 displays the variations of obtained
bearing capacity upper bound estimate as a
function of the horizontal seismic coefficient
kh . As it could be expected, the reduction in
bearing capacity is significant during the
earthquake. To illustrate how qu+ is sensitive to
variations of kh , it is found for the considered
data of figure 10 that:
qu+ (kh = 0.2) / qu+ (kh = 0) = 0.6 .
However, and as mentioned previously, the
proposed upper bound estimates are likely to be
improved for small values of kh , where failure
mechanism (M2) is prevailing in the present
kinematic approach.
Figure 10: Variations of ultimate bearing capacity upper
bound estimate as a function of horizontal seismic
coefficient ( B0 = 1m , D0 = 2m , β = 30 , D = 0 ,
o
mi = 17 , GSI = 30 , σ c = 10MPa , γ 3
= 20kN/m ).
5 CONCLUSION
The kinematic approach of limit analysis
theory implemented within the framework of
the pseudo-static method has been used to
assess the seismic bearing capacity of shallow
foundations lying near rock slopes. At the rock
material level, the strength properties are
COBRAMSEG 2010: ENGENHARIA GEOTÉCNICA PARA O DESENVOLVIMENTO, INOVAÇÃO E SUSTENTABILIDADE. © 2010 ABMS.

modelled by a modified Hoek-Brown failure modified Hoek-Brown failure criterion. Computers

condition. From a practical viewpoint, the and Geotechnics, Vol. 35, p.144-154.
Salençon J. (1990) An introduction to the yield design
ability to express closed-form expressions of theory and its applications to soil mechanics.Three
support functions for such a criterion makes it dimensional bearing capacity analysis of a foundation
possible to derive rigorous upper bound near a slope. European Journal of Mechanics,
solutions for the bearing capacity problem. At A/Solids,,Vol. 9, p. 477-500.
the structure level, effects of earthquake Salençon J. (1992) Yield design: a general survey of the
theory. CISM courses and lectures, Springer, Berlin,
induced inertia forces are accounted for by No.332.
means of an equivalent pseudo-static horizontal Soubra A.H. (1999) Upper-bound solutions for bearing
seismic coefficient. capacity of foundations, Journal of Geotechnical and
Several types of failure mechanisms have Geoenvironnemental Engineering, Vol. 125, p.59-68.
been implemented to investigate the Yang X.L., Ying J.H. (2005) Upper bound solution for
ultimate bearing capacity with a modified Hoek-
destabilizing effects due to seismic loadings Brown criterion, International Journal of Rock
and/or to the proximity of slope. As regards the Mechanics and Mining Sciences, Vol. 42, p. 550-560.
evaluation of static and seismic bearing Yang X.L. (2009) Seismic bearing capacity of a strip
capacity, an intensive parametric study has been footing on rock slopes. Canadian Geotechnical
performed which intended to give insight on the Journal, Vol. 46, p. 943-954.
influence of relevant geometrical, strength or
load parameters. It has been found in particular
that for a foundation lying far from a rock
slope, a linear dependence of the static or
seismic ultimate bearing capacity qu with
respect to the surcharge load , as suggested in
some works (Yang and Ying, 2005; Yang,
2009), may prove questionable. More
investigations should thus be undertaken to
assess the nature of the dependence qu = qu (q0 ) .
Numerical applications have been performed
in order to assess the destabilizing effects
induced by the seismic loading and the
proximity of a rock slope.
As straightforward extension to be study in
the future will consist in implementing the
multi-wedge failure mechanism in the situation
where the foundation is near a rock slope. As
previously pointed out, it is expected from this
implementation an effective improvement of the
upper bound estimates of the bearing capacity.

REFERENCES

de Buhan P., Garnier D. (1998) Three dimensional

bearing capacity analysis of a foundation near a slope.
Soils and foundations, Vol. 38, p. 153-163.
Hoek E., Carranza-Torres C., Corkum B. (2002) Hoek-
Brown failure criterion- 2002 Edition. Proceedings of
the North American Rock Mechanics Society Meeting,
Toronto, p.267-273.
Saada Z., Maghous S., Garnier D. (2008) Bearing
capacity of shallow foundations on rocks obeying a