International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 57 (2013) 34–41
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
International Journal of
Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijrmms
Technical Note
Bearing capacity of circular footings on a Hoek–Brown material
Johan Clausen n
Department of Civil Engineering, Aalborg University, Denmark
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 6 December 2011
Received in revised form
30 July 2012
Accepted 10 August 2012
1. Introduction
A basic step in the design process of footings is to assess the
bearing capacity. For many years this was done exclusively based
on the Mohr–Coulomb material model. But since the advent of the
Hoek–Brown strength criterion for rock masses [1–3], an increas-
ing number of bearing capacities are estimated using this model.
Unfortunately, solutions based on the Hoek–Brown criterion are
more difficult to obtain compared to the Mohr–Coulomb criterion
due to the non-linearity of the former. A proposed bearing
capacity formula similar to the Terzaghi formula for Mohr–
Coulomb materials has been proposed by Saada et al. [4] for strip
footings. No results on the bearing capacity parameters of the
formula for a circular footing has been published yet, so the
present note explores an alternative, namely bearing capacity
charts. As such, this technical note can be seen as an addition to
the paper by Merifield et al. [5], which gives bearing capacity
charts for strip footings based on the GSI system. In fact, the
present paper mirrors Ref. [5] in many aspects, the major
differences being that the present paper is concerned with
circular footings, and the method of calculation is different. In
Ref. [5] finite element limit state calculations are used, whereas
the results of this note are based on the standard displacement
finite element method. Yet another difference is that the present
note employs an exact version of the modified Hoek–Brown
criterion [6] together with a convergence extrapolation, which,
to the authors’ knowledge, has not before been applied in the
calculation of exact bearing capacities. The convergence extra-
polation yields results that are believed to differ less than 1% from
the exact solution, see Section 3.2. Using the standard finite
element method also implies that displacement data are
obtained. Normalised near-failure displacements, also based on
n
Tel.: þ45 99 40 85 37.
E-mail address: jc@civil.aau.dk
1365-1609/$ - see front matter & 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2012.08.004
a convergence analysis, will be given in the charts along with the
bearing capacities.
To the author’s knowledge no systematic results of bearing
capacity of circular surface footings resting on a generalised
Hoek–Brown material have previously been presented in the
literature. The only comparable results are found in the paper
by Serrano and Olalla [7]. This reference treats the bearing
capacities of pile tips in rock materials using the classical Hoek–
Brown model of [1], as opposed to the generalised model [3] used
in the present note. In [7] the rock selfweight below the tip (i.e.
the footing) is ignored, and the derivations are based on a plane
strain scenario and then converted to the axisymmetric case via a
shape factor. This means that the results cannot be considered
exact, as opposed to the results presented here, where axisym-
metry and rock mass selfweight are explicitly accounted for. In
Section 5 results from [7] will be compared with the solutions
from this note.
An often used approximative method of finding bearing
capacities for a rock mass is to fit the Hoek–Brown criterion to
the classical Mohr–Coulomb criterion, based on the expressions
for the cohesion and friction angle as functions of the Hoek–
Brown parameters [3]. The quality of this approximation for
circular footings is examined in Section 5.
Furthermore, results presented in this note can be used as
benchmarks for other researchers when evaluating numerical
methods.
2. The Hoek–Brown model and the GSI system
The modified Hoek–Brown strength criterion, which is used as
a yield criterion in this context, reads
 a
s
s1 ¼ s3 þ sci mb 3 þs ð1Þ
s1
where s1 Z s2 Z s3 are the principal stresses with compression
taken as positive. The strength parameters of the model are intact
 J. Clausen / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 57 (2013) 34–41
rock uniaxial compression strength, sci together with mb, s and a.
The parameters mb, s and a are found from the knowledge of the
parameters GSI, D and mi, where the latter corresponds to mb, but
for the intact rock material.
The geological strength index, GSI, is a system of rock mass
characterisation that makes it possible to put a number to rock
mass qualities, in order to estimate parameters for strength and
deformation analyses [8,3,9]. Also part of the classification system
is an estimate of the damage parameter D, which ranges from
D ¼0 (undisturbed rock masses) to D ¼1 (heavily damaged rock
masses).
The rock mass strength parameters and Young’s modulus can
then be found from expressions which are functions of GSI and D:
mb ¼ mi eðGSI100Þ=ð2814DÞ
s ¼ eðGSI100Þ=ð93DÞ
a ¼ 12 þ 16ðeGSI=15 e20=3 Þ
1D=2
Erm ¼  100 GPa
1þ eð75 þ 25DGSIÞ=11
or, if the intact rock modulus, Ei, is known
 
1D=2
Erm ¼ Ei 0:02 þ 15DGSIÞ=11
1 þeð60 þ
taken from [9]. Examples of Poisson’s ratio, n, for rock masses are
given in [2,10].
In the bearing capacity results that follow, linear elasticity and
perfect, associated plasticity are assumed.
3. Analysis procedure
The problem to be analysed is a circular surface footing resting
on a Hoek-Brown material. The domain geometry and boundary
conditions can be seen in Fig. 1. The modelled domain has a width
b and height h, which will have values that ensure that the
boundaries have no influence on the bearing capacities.
Forced displacement increments are applied to the footing
nodes and the footing pressure, p, corresponding to the footing
displacement, u, is calculated as the sum of vertical footing node
reactions, P, divided by the footing area, A ¼ r 2 p. In the charts the
bearing capacity factor N s ¼ pu =sci is reported, where pu is the
bearing capacity. This definition is identical to the definition for
strip footings utilised in [5].
p
r mi ¼19, sci ¼ 75 MPa and selfweight g ¼ 20 kN=m3 . The elastic
h It is seen that a plateau is reached where the footing under-
CL
b displacement at 0:95pu , termed u95, is also calculated, see Fig. 4.
Fig. 1. Geometry and boundary conditions of the calculation domain. The center-
line, around which the domain is axisymmetric, is denoted CL.
35
p
ð2Þ
ð3Þ
ð4Þ
Fig. 2. Example of a coarse element mesh with h ¼ 14r and b ¼ 19r. The mesh
ð5Þ consists of 612 elements with a total of 2606 degrees of freedom.
Additionally, the vertical displacement when the footing load
has reached 0:95pu , termed u95, is reported. This near-failure
ð6Þ
displacement is normalised as U 95 ¼ ðu95 =rÞErm =sci .
To simulate a rough footing, the footing nodes are fixed in the
horizontal direction. The elements used are standard triangular
six-noded linear strain elements with two displacement degrees
of freedom in each node. The element meshes range from coarse
meshes which are subsequently refined in a consistent manner in
order to ensure a uniform convergence rate towards the exact
result. An example of a coarse mesh is seen in Fig. 2.
The standard displacement finite element method is used in
the elasto-plastic calculations. The stress updates are performed
with the implicit integration procedure of [6] with enhancements
of [11,12]. These procedures take the apex and the corners of the
yield surface explicitly into account, i.e. no rounding is performed
as is the case in other implementations, e.g. [13–15,5].
This explicit treatment of the yield condition ensures that
solutions converge towards the exact results, both in terms of the
bearing capacity and also in terms of the load–displacement curve
of the footing. In axisymmetric cases it is especially important to
treat the yield surface corners without approximations, as most of
the stress points will be located on the compressive meridian.
3.1. Results from a single run
An example of the load–displacement curve of an analysis is
seen in Fig. 3. The finite element mesh used has 15 692 degrees of
freedom, i.e. ndof ¼ 15 692 and the material parameters corre-
spond to those of an undisturbed sandstone with GSI ¼ 50,
parameters are Erm ¼ 93:41 GPa and n ¼ 0:3.
goes displacement without further load increase. The analysis is
continued until the slope of the load–displacement curve has
dropped to 106 relative to the initial elastic slope. The load at the
last load step is taken to be the bearing capacity, pu, and in Fig. 3
this load is found as p15 u
692
¼ 215:48 MPa. To hint the footing
displacement when the load is approaching the ultimate load, the
The displacement increment of the final load step can be seen
in Fig. 5. It is seen that there is an intense deformation near the
footing edge.
36 J. Clausen / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 57 (2013) 34–41

p [MPa]

200

p 15692
u = 215.48 MPa
150

100

50

u/r
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Fig. 3. The load–displacement curve from an analysis run.

p [MPa]
Fig. 6. Contours of the absolute displacements of the final displacement incre-
ment. The red curve signifies the ratio 1/1000 to the footing final displacement
200 increment. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure caption, the
( u 15692
95
; 0.95 p 15692
u ) reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

150

100

50

u/r
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2

Fig. 4. Detail of the load–displacement curve from Fig. 3. Definition of u95.

p15692
u
= 215.48MPa

Fig. 7. Contours of the absolute total displacements at failure. The red curve
signifies the ratio 1/1000 to the footing final total displacement. (For interpreta-
tion of the references to colour in this figure caption, the reader is referred to the
web version of this article.)

dominates, but vertically underneath the footing the elasto-plastic

deformation outside the failure mechanism dominates.

3.2. Convergence analysis

Fig. 5. Detail of the displaced finite element mesh near the footing edge of the
final load step. The displacement shown is the displacement increment, not the
total displacement.
From the displaced element mesh it is not easy to identify the
failure mechanism. In Fig. 6 the contours of the final displacement
increment are seen along with a red curve that shows the position
of the points where the absolute displacement increment is
1/1000 of the footing displacement increment. The failure mechan-
ism is clearly seen.
In order to visualise the difference between the failure mechanism
and the total deformation, the contours of the total final displacement
are shown in Fig. 7. It is seen by comparing Figs. 6 and 7 that at a
horizontal distance from the footing failure mechanism deformation
In order to approach the exact solution a convergence analysis
is carried out. The analysis is rerun with all parameters being
identical except the finite element mesh which is refined in a
consistent manner. The value of the ultimate load, pu, for different
mesh densities, i.e. different number of degrees of freedom, ndof ,
is plotted in Fig. 8. It is clearly seen that the value of the ultimate
load seems to converge as the mesh is refined.
To obtain an estimate of the convergence value as ndof tends
towards infinity, Fig. 9 is plotted according to Cook et al. [16]. The
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
abscissa measures the term h ¼ 1= ndof and the ordinate mea-
sures the ultimate load, pu, and the convergence data from Fig. 8 is
shown as circles. A second order polynomial is fitted to the data
and plotted as a curve. It is seen that the polynomial fits the data
quite well. With the polynomial it is possible to extrapolate to
 J. Clausen / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 57 (2013) 34–41 37

220 214.5

219 p 57944
u

218 214
pu [MPa]

1% gap
217
p 15692

u [MPa]
u
from Figure3
213.5
216

p∞
215
213

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
ndof ×104
212.5
Fig. 8. Final load, pu, versus the number of degrees of freedom, ndof .

0 1 2 3 4 5
Average ndof in convergence extrapolation ×104
220
Fig. 10. Convergence history.
219

218
1.2 100
σci
pu [MPa]

= 125
217 p15692
u
from Figure 3 1.08 2γr 90
250
216 500
0.96 80
1000
215 0.84 2000 70
5000
214 p∞
u
= 213.424 MPa 0.72 10000 60
∞

U95
Nσ

0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.6 50

h= 1
√ndof 0.48 40

Fig. 9. Convergence extrapolation. 0.36 30

Nσ
U95
0.24 20
h¼0, i.e. ndof ¼ 1, to obtain the convergence value for the bearing
capacity, p1 10
u . With the basis parameters used in this example,
0.12
p1 GSI = 10
u ¼ 213:424 MPa is found.
To examine the quality of the convergence value, all the 0 0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
convergence values are plotted versus the average number of
mi
degrees of freedom in all the computations used to obtain that
specific convergence value, p1 u , see Fig. 10. The points on the plot Fig. 11. Variation of bearing capacity and near-failure displacement for GSI ¼ 10.
are found as follows: For example, the leftmost filled circle has
coordinates ð2651; 212:8 MPaÞ. This is the convergence value, p1 u , if
the three rightmost points in Fig. 9 is used in the polynomial fit. The
next blue filled circle ð3129; 213:4 MPaÞ marks the p1 u if the four 4. Bearing capacity charts
rightmost points of Fig. 9 are used. This is continued until all the
analysis results are used in the convergence analysis, which is The bearing capacity charts that follow in Figs. 11–18 are
marked with a hollow circle, ð23632; 213:4 MPaÞ, in Fig. 10. The arranged in the same way as the chart for strip footings in
rightmost square in the figure, ð54087; 213:7 MPaÞ, marks the p1 u if Merifield et al. [5]. This means there are charts for different GSI
only the leftmost three points of Fig. 9 are used in the convergence values. In each chart N s and U95 are given for constant values of
analysis. The square immediately to the left, ð52227; 214:0 MPaÞ, the fraction sci =2gr. A value of sci =2gr ¼ 1 means that the soil is
marks the p1 u if the leftmost four points of Fig. 9 are used and so on. weightless, g ¼ 0.
Fig. 10 shows that the convergence value is stable and does not In all the analyses Poisson’s value of n ¼ 0:3 has been used and
change much when individual analysis results are added or Young’s modulus takes a value corresponding to Eq. (5). Further-
removed. The vertical line in the figure illustrates a gap of 0.5% more the charted results are for an undamaged rock mass D ¼0
spanning either side of the convergence value. It is seen that this and without surcharge load.
span includes almost all the convergence values, and that is only For benchmarking purposes some calculation results are listed
at the extremes at either side that the deviation is more than in Appendix A.
0.25%. This leads to the conclusion that the convergence value, A general observation is that the bearing capacities and the
p1u , is very near the exact value, and certainly within a gap of 1%. near-failure displacements become more and more independent
38 J. Clausen / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 57 (2013) 34–41

2 65.5 4.2 24.5

σci σci
= 125 = 125
2γr 2γr
1.8 250 59 3.8 250 22
500 500
1.6 1000 52.5 3.4 1000 19.5
2000 2000
1.4 5000 46 3 17
5000
10000 10000
1.2 39.5 2.6 14.5
∞ ∞

U95

U95
Nσ

Nσ
1 33 2.2 12

0.8 26.5 1.8 9.5

Nσ Nσ
0.6 U95 20 1.4 U95 7

0.4 13.5 1 4.5

GSI = 20 GSI = 40
0.2 7
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0.6 2
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
mi
mi
Fig. 12. Variation of bearing capacity and near-failure displacement for GSI ¼ 20.
Fig. 14. Variation of bearing capacity and near-failure displacement for GSI ¼ 40.

2.8 40
σci
= 125 6 14
2γr σci
2.5 250 35.5 = 125
500 5.5 2γr 250 12.8

2.2 1000 31 500

5 1.6
2000 1000
5000 4.5 2000 10.4
1.9 26.5
10000 5000
∞ 4 ∞ 9.2
U95
Nσ

1.6 22

U95
Nσ

3.5 8
1.3 17.5
3 6.8
Nσ
1 13
U95 2.5 5.6
Nσ
U95
0.7 8.5 2 4.4
GSI = 30
1.5 3.2
0.4 4 GSI = 50
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
mi 1 2
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Fig. 13. Variation of bearing capacity and near-failure displacement for GSI ¼ 30. mi

of the selfweight when the GSI increases. This is due to the fact
that a larger fraction of the bearing capacity can be attributed to
an apparent cohesion rather than the friction for high GSI
numbers. The results are almost linearly dependent on mi. All
the mentioned tendencies for the presented curves for circular
footings are the same as for the strip footings presented in [5].
5. Comparison with Mohr–Coulomb approximations
Often rock mass bearing capacity problems are solved using a
Mohr–Coulomb approximation to the Hoek–Brown criterion.
Hoek et al. [3] provided expressions for calculating equivalent
Mohr–Coulomb parameters, c and j, based on given Hoek–Brown
parameters. The problem with this approach is to select an
appropriate stress range over which to fit the two material
models. Analogously to Merifield et al. [5], two ranges are
Fig. 15. Variation of bearing capacity and near-failure displacement for GSI ¼ 50.
examined, namely a fit over the range 0 o s3 o 0:25sci and
0 o s3 o0:75sci . The Mohr–Coulomb parameters are fitted to
three different rock mass qualities over the two ranges, and the
result is given in Table 1 which, for most parts, is a repetition of
Table 2 from [5]. This means that the remarks from this reference
regarding the sensitivity of the fitted parameters to the fitting
range also apply here.
It is also examined whether a Modified Mohr–Coulomb model
[17], i.e. a Mohr–Coulomb model with a Rankine tension cut-off at
the value of the Hoek–Brown biaxial strength, will provide better
results than the standard Mohr–Coulomb model. The cut-off
stress is denoted sa and given as
s
sa ¼ sci ð7Þ
mb
see also [12].
 J. Clausen / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 57 (2013) 34–41 39

8.5 9 38 9
σci σci
= 125 = 125
2γr 35 2γr 250 8.3
250
7.5 8
500 ∞
32 7.6
1000
6.5 2000 7 29 6.9
∞
26 6.2
5.5 6

U95
Nσ
23 5.5

U95
Nσ

4.5 5 20 4.8

17 4.1
3.5 Nσ 4 Nσ
U95 U95
14 3.4

2.5 3
11 2.7
GSI = 100
GSI = 60
8 2
1.5 2 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
mi
mi
Fig. 18. Variation of bearing capacity and near-failure displacement for GSI ¼ 100.
Fig. 16. Variation of bearing capacity and near-failure displacement for GSI ¼ 60.

Table 1
Hoek–Brown parameters and equivalent Mohr–Coulomb and Modified Mohr–
6.2 Coulomb parameters for three different rock mass qualities. The selfweight is
17.5
σci taken as g ¼ 20 kN=m3 and Young’s modulus is found by Eq. (5). Poisson’s ratio is
= 125 set at n ¼ 0:3.
2γr
250
15.5 5.5 Rock sci mi GSI sa 0o s3 o 0:25sci 0 o s3 o 0:75sci
500
quality (MPa) (MPa)
∞ c j c j
13.5 4.8 (MPa) (deg) (MPa) (deg)

Very poor 20 8 30 0.0128 0.65 22.8 1.3 15.9

1.51 4.1 Average 80 12 50 0.1537 4.2 32.1 8.55 23.4
Very good 150 25 75 0.9110 14.1 45.8 28.6 36.6
U95
Nσ

9.5 3.4
Table 2
Comparison of ultimate bearing capacities, pu (MPa), for the Hoek–Brown and
2.7 approximated material models, Mohr–Coulomb and Modified Mohr–Coulomb for
7.5 Nσ
very poor quality rock.
U95
Model pu (MPa) u95 =r
5.5 2
Hoek–Brown 11.81 1:72  103
GSI = 80 Ref. [7] 12.87 (þ 9.0%) –
3.5 1.3
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 o s3 o 0:25sci
mi Terzaghi 19.69 (þ 67%) –
Mohr–Coulomb 19.87 (þ 68%) 3:81  103 (þ122%)
Fig. 17. Variation of bearing capacity and near-failure displacement for GSI ¼ 80. Modified M–C 19.19 (þ 62%) 3:72  103 (þ116%)

0 o s3 o 0:75sci
Terzaghi 22.11 (þ 87%) –
Bearing capacities and near-failure displacements are now Mohr–Coulomb 22.10 (þ87%) 4:50  103 (þ162%)
calculated with the material parameters shown in Table 1, based Modified M–C 21.30 (þ80%) 4:59  103 (þ167%)
on the same convergence analysis as the bearing capacity charts,
see [12]. The Mohr–Coulomb and Modified Mohr–Coulomb cal-
culations are performed using the methods from [18,19,12].
The results, bearing capacities and near-failure displacements, are
presented in Tables 2–4. For verification purposes, the numerically Hoek–Brown criterion of [1]. If the overburden pressure
calculated bearing capacities are compared with two different solu- vanishes this solution can be seen as the bearing capacity of
tions from the literature: a surface footing. In this method the rock mass selfweight is
ignored.
2. For the equivalent Mohr–Coulomb parameters the results from
1. The bearing capacity solution by Serrano and Olalla [7] using the Terzaghi bearing capacity formula
the characteristics method and the Meyerhof hypothesis. This
is a solution for pile tip bearing capacities based on the original pu ¼ cN c þ qNq þ r gN g ð8Þ
40 J. Clausen / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 57 (2013) 34–41

Table 3 Table A1
Comparison of ultimate bearing capacities, pu (MPa), for the Hoek–Brown and Benchmark values.
approximated material models, Mohr–Coulomb and Modified Mohr–Coulomb for
average quality rock. GSI sci mi Ns U90 U95 b h
2gr r r
Model pu (MPa) u95 =r
10 125 7.5 0.176 0.38 0.45 10 8
Hoek–Brown 155.7 3:97  103 20 2000 22.5 0.851 1.74 2.03 22 12
Ref. [7] 157.3 (þ 1.0%) – 30 1 22.5 1.381 2.83 3.30 38 35
40 250 35.0 3.544 7.16 8.36 20 11
0 o s3 o 0:25sci 50 5000 10.0 1.678 3.42 4.03 15 12
Terzaghi 330.3 (þ112%) – 60 1 35.0 7.053 14.4 16.8 35 32
Mohr–Coulomb 336.0 (þ116%) 11:4  103 (þ 187%) 80 500 10.0 5.818 11.9 13.9 12 10
Modified M–C 319.7 (þ 105%) 11:4  103 (þ 187%) 100 250 22.5 23.91 48.1 56.3 12 11

0 o s3 o 0:75sci
Terzaghi 272.9 (þ 75%) –
Mohr–Coulomb 274.2 (þ 76%) 8:88  103 (þ 124%) are believed to be well within 1% of the exact solutions. The
Modified M–C 260.3 (þ67%) 9:20  103 (þ132%)
results are presented in bearing capacity charts to facilitate their
use in practical design situations.
For poor quality rock, e.g. with GSI r30 the rock mass weight
Table 4 has a significant impact on the bearing capacity and the near
Comparison of ultimate bearing capacities, pu (MPa), for the Hoek–Brown and
displacement failure, whereas the selfweight has almost no effect
approximated material models, Mohr–Coulomb and Modified Mohr–Coulomb for
very good quality rock.
for higher quality rocks.
A comparison of results based on equivalent Mohr–Coulomb
Model pu (MPa) u95 =r parameters show that there is poor agreement of the parameter
fits that are based on the ranges 0 o s3 o0:25sci and
Hoek–Brown 1432 6:82  103 0 o s3 o0:75sci , whereas the solutions of Serrano and Olalla [7]
Ref. [7] 1438 (þ 0.4%) –
are in good agreement with the solutions obtained in this paper.
0 o s3 o 0:25sci
Terzaghi 8640 (þ 503%) –
Mohr–Coulomb 8501 (þ 494%) 67:7  103 (þ 893%) Acknowledgements
Modified M–C 8118 (þ 467%) 65:6  103 (þ 862%)

0 o s3 o 0:75sci The author would like to acknowledge the great help of

Terzaghi 4095 (þ 186%) – Dr. Kristian Krabbenhøft, University of Newcastle, Australia, and
Mohr–Coulomb 4026 (þ 181%) 26:3  103 (þ 286%)
Modified M–C 3770 (þ 163%) 25:9  103 (þ 280%)
is also shown. Here q is the overburden pressure, q¼0, and Nc,
Nq and Ng are bearing capacity factors for circular footings,
which are functions of the friction angle, j. The values of Nc
and Ng are taken from [20,21]. It should be remarked that
although the individual bearing capacity factors are exact, the
sum of the three terms do not constitute the exact solution
due to the invalidity of the superposition principle in plasticity
calculations.
In the tables the relative difference from the Hoek–Brown
solution is given in parenthesis.
The tables show a very poor validity of the calculations based
on the equivalent Mohr–Coulomb material model. Relative differ-
ences as large as 503% are seen in bearing capacities and even
more in the near failure displacements. So with the proposed
fitting ranges it is out of the question to use equivalent Mohr–
Coulomb parameters in the design of circular surface footings. On
the other hand good agreement is found between the results of
this paper and the method of Serrano and Olalla [7], with relative
differences ranging from 9% to 0.4%.
6. Conclusions
The bearing capacity of a circular surface footing resting on a
rock mass whose behaviour can be described by the generalised
Hoek–Brown model, combined with linear elasticity and perfect
plasticity, has been examined. Also the displacement near failure
is calculated. The results are obtained by use of the standard
displacement finite element method in combination with a
convergence extrapolation scheme. The bearing capacity results
Dr. Jesper Winther Stærdahl, Siemens Wind Power, Denmark, in
making the computer codes used in this paper run substantially
faster.
Appendix A. Benchmark values
For benchmarking purposes some of the calculated results
behind the plots in the note are given in Table A1. A full tabular
listing of the results behind all the plots is available from the
author.
The table presents the domain width, b, and height, h, accord-
ing to Fig. 1. These are supplied in order to make it possible to
reproduce exactly the results given in the tables. In addition to
the near-failure displacement U95 shown in Figs. 11–18, the
normalised displacement at 90 % failure load, U90, is also shown
in Table A1.
References
[1] Hoek E, Brown ET. Empirical strength criterion for rock masses. J Geotech Eng
Div 1980;106:1013–35.
[2] Hoek E, Brown ET. Practical estimates of rock mass strength. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci 1997;34(8):1165–86.
[3] Hoek E, Carranza-Torres C, Corkum B. Hoek-Brown failure criterion - 2002
edition. In: Proceedings of the North American rock mechanics symposium,
Toronto, July 2002.
[4] Saada Z, Maghous S, Garnier D. Bearing capacity of shallow foundations on
rocks obeying a modified Hoek–Brown failure criterion. Comput Geotech
2008;35:144–54.
[5] Merifield RS, Lyamin AV, Sloan SW. Limit analysis solutions for the bearing
capacity of rock masses using the generalised Hoek–Brown criterion. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 2006;43:920–37.
[6] Clausen J, Damkilde L. An exact implementation of the Hoek–Brown criterion
for elasto-plastic finite element calculations. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
2008;45:831–47.
[7] Serrano A, Olalla C. Ultimate bearing capacity at the tip of a pile in rock—Part
2: applicationInt J Rock Mech Min Sci 2002;39:847–66.
 J. Clausen / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 57 (2013) 34–41
[8] Marinos V, Marinos P, Hoek E. The geological strength index: applications and
limitationsB Eng Geol Environ 2005;64:55–65.
[9] Hoek E, Diederichs MS. Empirical estimation of rock mass modulus. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci 2006;43:203–15.
[10] Gercek H. Poisson’s ratio values for rocks. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
2006;44:1–13.
[11] Clausen J. Efficient non-linear finite element implementation of elasto-plasticity
for geotechnical problems. PhD thesis. Esbjerg Institute of Technology, Aalborg
University; 2007 /http://vbn.aau.dk/fbspretrieve/14058639/JCthesis.pdfS.
[12] Clausen J, Damkilde L, Andersen LV. Efficient handling of yield surface
discontinuities in elasto-plastic finite element calculations, in preparation.
[13] Pan XD, Hudson JA. A simplified three dimensional Hoek–Brown yield criterion.
In: Romana M, editor. Proceedings of the international society of rock
mechanics (ISRM) symposium. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema; 1988. p. 95–103.
[14] Wan RG. Implicit integration algorithm for Hoek–Brown elastic–plastic
model. Comput Geotech 1992;14:55.
[15] Abbo AJ, Sloan SW. A smooth hyperbolic approximation to the Mohr–
Coulomb yield criterion. Comput Struct 1995;54(3):427–41.
41
[16] Cook RD, Malkus DS, Plesha ME, Witt RE. Concepts and applications of finite
element analysis. John Wiley and Sons; 2002.
[17] Ottosen NS, Ristinmaa M. The mechanics of constitutive modelling. Elsevier;
2005 ISBN 0-008-044606.
[18] Clausen J, Damkilde L, Andersen L. Efficient return algorithms for associated
plasticity with multiple yield planes. Int J Numer Methods Eng 2006;66(6):
1036–59.
[19] Clausen J, Damkilde L. A simple and efficient FEM-implementation of the
modified Mohr–Coulomb criterion. In: Fuchs L, Persson K, Ristinmaa M,
Sandberg G, Svensson I, editors. Proceedings of the 19th Nordic seminar on
computational mechanics. Lund University; 2006. p. 214–9.
[20] Cox AD, Eason G, Hopkins HG. Axially symmetric plastic deformations in
soils. Philos Trans R Soc London 1961;254(1036):1–45.
[21] Martin CM. User guide for ABC—analysis of bearing capacity, version 1.0.
OUEL Report No. 2261/03. University of Oxford; 2004 /http://www-civil.eng.
ox.ac.uk/people/cmm/software/abc/download/abc_manual.pdfS.