You are on page 1of 13

A comparative review in regards to estimating bearing capacity in jointed rock masses in northeast Jordan

Ali El-Naqa Abstract There are a number of different methods used for estimating the bearing capacity in jointed rock masses. In this paper, the geological strength index (GSI) introduced by Hoek et al. (1995) was used to estimate the bearing capacity of the rock mass via rock mass rating (RMR). An empirical relationship is proposed to estimate the bearing capacity of the rock mass using the GSI-dependent toughness factor (TF). The proposed formula was correlated with bearing capacity equations used in the literature. The regression analyses showed exponential relationships with a high correlation coefcient. sume Il existe de nombreuses me thodes Re rentes pour estimer la capacite portante dun diffe . Dans cet article, on utilise le massif rocheux fracture geological strength index (GSI) introduit par Hoek valuer la capacite portante du et al. (1995) pour e massif rocheux en sappuyant sur le Rock Mass Rating (RMR). On propose une relation empirique portante du massif rocheux pour estimer la capacite ` partir de lindice de te nacite (toughness a pend du GSI. La formule factorTF) qui de e est mise en relation avec les e quations de propose es dans la litte rature. Les analyses de portance donne gression montrent une relation exponentielle avec re lation. un fort coefcient de corre Keywords Bearing capacity Jointed rock mass Geological strength index (GSI) s Capacite portante Massif rocheux Mots cle Fissures Geological strength index GSI

Introduction
Bearing capacity is an important factor for the design of dams, roads, bridges and other engineering structures, particularly when large rock masses are the foundation materials. The prediction of bearing capacity is based on the mechanical behaviour of a rock mass, including the strength and deformability of both the rock mass and the intact rock. Rock masses are inhomogeneous, discontinuous media composed of rock material and naturally occurring discontinuities such as joints, fractures and bedding planes. Bearing capacity failures of structures founded on rock masses are related to joint spacing with respect to foundation width, joint orientation, joint condition (open or closed) and rock type. Figure 1 illustrates typical failure modes associated with different rock mass conditions, modied from those suggested by Sower (1979) and Kulhawy and Goodman (1980). The failure modes can be described for four general rock mass conditions including intact, jointed, layered and fractured: 1. Intact rock refers to a rock mass with a typical discontinuity spacing greater than four to ve times the width of the foundation. Two types of bearing capacity failure modes are possible depending on the rock type: local shear failure and general wedge failure, associated with brittle and ductile rock respectively. 2. Bearing capacity failures in jointed rock masses are dependent on the spacing, orientation and condition of the discontinuities. Two types of bearing capacity failure modes are possible for structures founded on rock masses in which the predominant discontinuities are steeply dipping and closely spaced as illustrated in Fig. 1c, d. Discontinuities that are open (Fig. 1c) offer little lateral restraint hence failure is initiated by the compressive failure of individual rock columns. Tightly closed discontinuities (Fig. 1d) on the other hand, provide lateral restraint such that general shear is the likely mode of failure. In rock masses with steeply dipping joints and a joint spacing greater than the width of the foundation (Fig. 1e), failure is likely to be initiated by splitting, which eventually progresses to the general shear mode. Where the joints are dipping between 20 and 70 with respect to the foundation plane, shear failure is again the most likely mode (Fig. 1f), particularly as a discontinuity is likely to dene at least one surface of the potential shear wedge.

Received: 26 February 2002 / Accepted: 25 February 2004 Published online: 22 June 2004 Springer-Verlag 2004
A. El-Naqa Department of Water Management and Environment, Faculty of Natural Resources and Environment, Hashemite University, 13116 Zarqa, Jordan E-mail: elnaqa@hu.edu.jo

DOI 10.1007/s10064-004-0235-8

Bull Eng Geol Env (2004) 63:233245

233

A. El-Naqa

Fig. 1 Typical bearing capacity failure modes associated with various rock conditions (Sower 1979)

3. In multi-layered rock masses, when each layer has different material properties, the failure modes are more complicated. Two scenarios have been discussed by

Sower (1979), both involving a founding layer of rigid rock underlain by a soft highly deformable layer, with bedding planes dipping at less than 20 with respect to the foundation plane. In the rst case (Fig. 1g), a thick rigid layer overlies the soft layer, while in the second case (Fig. 1h) the rigid layer is thin. In both cases, failure

234

Bull Eng Geol Env (2004) 63:233245

A comparative review in regards to estimating bearing capacity in jointed rock masses in northeast Jordan

Fig. 1 (Contd.)

is initiated by tensile failure. However, in the rst case, tensile failure is caused by exure of the rigid thick layer, while in the second case it results from a punching through of the thin rigid upper layer. The limiting thickness of the rigid layer in both cases is controlled by the consistency of the properties of that layer. 4. A highly fractured rock mass is one which contains two or more discontinuity sets with typical joint spacings that are small with respect to the foundation width (Fig. 1i). It behaves in a manner similar to dense cohesionless sands and gravels and hence the mode of failure is likely to be general shear.

In addition to the failure of the foundation rock, aggressive reactions within the rock mineralogy or with ground water or surface water chemistry can lead to bearing capacity failure. Examples include: loss of strength with time (typical of some clay shales); reduction of load bearing capacity caused by chemical reaction between the foundation element and the ground water or surface water; rock materials susceptible to solution processes and additional stresses imposed by swelling minerals. Potential secondary causes of failure should be identied during the site investigation phase of the project in order that their effects can be minimized. In this paper a simple method to determine the bearing capacity of jointed rock masses has been used, based on

Bull Eng Geol Env (2004) 63:233245

235

A. El-Naqa

Fig. 2 Location map of the study area

the geological strength index (GSI) proposed by Hoek et al. (1995). The index is derived from the rock mass rating of Bieniawski (1989) but includes the rock mass toughness-factor (TF) proposed by El-Mannai Enbaya and Tarhuni (2000). This new empirical relationship can be used to estimate the bearing capacity of the rock mass with a good degree of accuracy.

Site geology
The study area is located a few kilometres to the north of the Zarqa River, 20 km north of Amman City (Fig. 2). The geology of the area consists generally of ne-grained horizontally bedded, marine sediments of Cretaceous age 236

(Table 1). Figure 3 provides a geological map of the study area, which consists of two main rock formations: the Kurnub Sandstone Formation of the Kurnub Group and the Naur Limestone Formation of the Ajlun Group (Bender 1974). The Kurnub Sandstone Formation (Lower Cretaceous) consists predominantly of varicoloured, friable, medium to ne grained, massive to locally thinly bedded sandstones interbedded with siltstones, claystones and shales together with gypsum bands. Figure 4 shows a lithological prole of the Kurnub Group. The upper contact is clearly marked by a change from sandstone to nodular limestone, dolomite and marl containing dark grey or green silty clays. This formation is highly jointed and has three major joint sets oriented NWSE, NESW and NNESSW. The Kurnub Sandstone Group is overlain conformably by a thick sequence of carbonate rocks of Cenomanian to

Bull Eng Geol Env (2004) 63:233245

A comparative review in regards to estimating bearing capacity in jointed rock masses in northeast Jordan

Table 1 Geological classication of the rock units in the study area Epoch Upper Cretaceous Age Holocene Maestrichtain Campanian Santonian Turonian Cenomanian Group Balqa Formation Alluvium Muwaqqar Amman Ghudran Wadi Sir Shueib Hummar Fuheis Naur limestone Lower Cretaceous Albian-Aptian Kurnub sandstone Symbol Qal B3 B2 B1 A7 A56 A4 A3 A12 K Thickness (m) 1040 6070 80120 1520 90110 75100 4060 6080 150220 300 Rock type Soil, sand and gravel Chalk, marl and chalky limestone Chert, limestone with phosphate Chalk, marl and marly limestone Hard crystalline limestone, dolo mitic and some chert Light-grey limestone interbedded with marls and marly limestone Hard dense limestone and dolo mitic limestone Grey and olive green soft marl. Marly limestone and limestone Limestone interbedded with a thick sequence of marl and marly limestone Massive white and varicoloured sandstone with layers of reddish silt and shale

Ajlun

Fig. 3 Geological map of the study area (Bender 1974)

Bull Eng Geol Env (2004) 63:233245

237

A. El-Naqa

238

Bull Eng Geol Env (2004) 63:233245

A comparative review in regards to estimating bearing capacity in jointed rock masses in northeast Jordan

Fig. 4 Columnar section of the Kurnub Sandstone Formation

capacity factors given by the following equations or obtained as a function of the friction angle: Nc 2 N / 0 : 5 N / 1 N c N /0 : 5 N / 1 Nq
2 N/

2a 2b 2c 2d

where /=angle of internal friction for the rock mass. Equation 1 is applicable to failure modes in which both cohesion and frictional shear strength parameters are developed as illustrated in Fig. 1b, d.In cases where the shear failure is likely to develop along planes of discontinuity or through highly fractured rock masses such as Theoretical background illustrated in Fig. 1f and i, cohesion cannot be relied upon to provide resistance to failure. In such cases the ultimate There are a number of techniques available for estimating bearing capacity can be estimated from the following the bearing capacity of rock foundations including ana- equation: lytical methods, traditional bearing capacity equations and q 0:5cBN cDN 3 ult q eld load tests. Two terms are important in bearing capacity analyses: the ultimate bearing capacitydened Local shear failure represents a special case where failure as the average load per unit area required to produce surfaces start to develop but do not propagate to the failure by rupture of a supporting soil or rock massand surface as illustrated in Fig. 1a. In this case, the depth of the allowable bearingdened as the maximum pressure embedment contributes little to the total bearing capacity/ which can be permitted on a foundation soil (rock mass) stability. An expression for the ultimate bearing capacity with an adequate safety against rupture of the soil/rock applicable to localised shear failure can be written as: mass or movement of the foundation of such magnitude qult cNc 0:5cBNc 4 that the structure is impaired. Equations 1, 3 and 4 are applicable to long continuous foundations with length to width ratios (L/B) greater than ten. Table 2 provides correction factors for circular and square foundations, as well as rectangular foundations Methods for computing bearing with L/B ratios less than ten. The ultimate bearing capacity capacity is estimated from the appropriate equation by multiplying the correction factor by the value of the corresponding Analytical method bearing capacity factor. Factors for rectangular foundaThe ultimate bearing capacity may be estimated from a tions with L/B ratios other than 2 or 5 can be estimated by number of analytical methods; the more convenient linear interpolation. include the nite element and limit equilibrium methods. Figure 1c illustrates a case with poorly constrained colA number of bearing capacity equations reported in the umns of intact rock where the failure mode is similar to an literature provide explicit solutions for the ultimate bear- unconned compression failure. The ultimate bearing ing capacity. The equations represent either empirical or capacity may be estimated from Eq. 5 (Sower 1979): semi-empirical approximations of the ultimate bearing q 2c tan 45 /=2 5 ult capacity and are dependent on the mode of potential failure as well as, to some extent, material properties. In For widely spaced and vertically oriented discontinuities, this respect, selection of an appropriate equation must failure generally initiates by splitting beneath the foundation as illustrated in Fig. 1e. In such cases, Bishnoi anticipate the likely mode of potential failure. The ultimate bearing capacity for the general shear mode (1968) suggested the following solutions for the ultimate of failure can be estimated from the traditional Buisman- bearing capacity: Terzaghi (Terzaghi 1943) bearing capacity expression as For circular foundations dened by Eq. 1. This equation is valid for long contin- qult JcNcr 6a uous foundations with length to width ratios in excess of For square foundations ten 6b q 0:85JcNcr qult cNc 0:5cBN cDNq 1 For continuous strip foundations with L/B<32 where qult=the ultimate bearing capacity; c=effective unit 6c weight (i.e. submerged unit weight if below water table) of qult JcNcr =2:2 0:18 L=B the rock mass; B=width of foundation; D=depth of foun- where J=correction factor dependent upon the thickness of dation below ground surface; c=the cohesion intercepts for the foundation rock and the width of the foundation. the rock mass.The terms Nc, Nc, and Nq are bearing L=length of the foundation.
Bull Eng Geol Env (2004) 63:233245

Tournian age (Upper Cretaceous) referred to as the Ajlun Group. The main outcrop is the Naur Limestone Formation, which is composed predominantly of highly jointed well-bedded limestone, dolomitic limestone, medium to thin beds of nodular and fossiliferous limestone and marly limestone intercalated with thick layers of marls (Fig. 5). This formation is intersected at least by three joint sets trending NNWSSE, NNESSW and NWSE.

N/ tan2 45 /=2

239

A. El-Naqa

Fig. 5 Columnar section of the Naur Limestone Formation

240

Bull Eng Geol Env (2004) 63:233245

A comparative review in regards to estimating bearing capacity in jointed rock masses in northeast Jordan

Table 2 Correction factors (after Sower 1979) Foundation shape Circular Square Rectangular L/B=2 L/B=5 L/B=10 Cc Nc correction 1.2 1.25 1.12 1.05 1.00 Cc Nc correction 0.70 0.85 0.9 0.95 1.00

Fig. 7 Bearing capacity factor for open joints: S discontinuity spacing; B breadth of foundation (Kulhawy and Goodman 1980)

mass. Bowles (1988) proposed the following formula, also based on the RQD: qult qr RQD2
Fig. 6 Correction factor for open joints (Bishnoi 1968)

11

where qr=ultimate strength of rock determined by uniaxial compression test and RQD=rock quality designation obtained from core logging. The bearing capacity factor Ncr is given by: Hoek and Brown (1980, 1988) suggested a strength crite  2N /2 1 rion for a jointed rock mass may be used to determine the cot /S=B 1 N /cot / Ncr N/ 1 N/ bearing capacity with the equation: 2 N /0 : 5 7 r r mq r sq2 0:5 12 1 3 c 3 c Graphical solutions for the correction factor (J) and the where r1=major principle effective stress, r3=minor bearing capacity factor (Ncr) are provided in Fig. 6 and principle effective stress, qc=uniaxial compression Fig. 7 respectively. strength of intact rock and, s and m are material constants Goodman (1989) proposed a method to determine the (determined using the rock mass rating of Bieniawski bearing capacity using the triaxial test on highly jointed 1989).Subsequently Hoek et al. (1995) suggested a set of core samples. The bearing capacity of foundations on rock equations to estimate the material constants m and s based can be obtained to give an appropriate factor of safety (F) on the GSI. For the undisturbed rock masses with GSI>25: 100 using Eqs. 8, 9 and 10: 100 m mi exp GSI28 s exp GSI 13 9 qf qu N/ 1 8 where mi is the value of m for the intact rock. The value of 9 the mi can be obtained from Hoek and Brown (1988). Bell N ; tan2 45 /=2 10 (1992) suggests the bearing capacity of the strip footing BC qf =F can be estimated using the Hoek-Brown criterion with where qf=ultimate bearing capacity; /= internal friction (r3=S0.5qu) as follows: h angle of rock mass; BC=allowable bearing capacity, 0: 5 0: 5 i 0: 5 S ms s 14 q qc ult qu=unconned compressive strength. where BC=qult/FS and FS=factor of safety (assumed to be 5). Empirical methods Different empirical equations have been developed to estimate the bearing capacity in jointed rock masses. Peck Proposed methodology et al. (1974) suggested an empirical correlation between the allowable bearing capacity stress and RQD, which has a In the present study 56 rock samples were collected from signicant inuence on the bearing capacity of a rock different carbonate and sandstone rock types along the 241

Bull Eng Geol Env (2004) 63:233245

A. El-Naqa

Amman-Jerash Highway and their uniaxial compressive strength values obtained. In addition, joint surveys were carried out using scan line techniques (Piteau 1973) to determine the joint characteristics and relevant data obtained to determine the geological strength index (GSI) as introduced by Hoek et al. (1995). Examples of the joint surveys are provided in Fig. 8. The GSI can also be estimated based on the 1989 version of Bieniawskis RMR classication (Bieniawski 1989) as follows: GSI RMR89 5 15 The RMR index proposed by Bieniawski (1973, 1974, 1976, 1979, 1989) is the sum of the rates determined for the following rock mass properties: (1) unconned compressive strength of the intact rock; (2) rock quality designation; (3) joint spacing; (4) joint condition; (5) groundwater conditions and (6) adjustment for joint orientation. The rock quality designation (RQD) values were either determined from boreholes or estimated using the empirical formulae proposed by Barton et al. (1974) and Priest and Hudson (1976).

El-Mannai et al. (2000) introduced the rock mass toughness factor (TF), dened as the ratio of the rock mass rating (RMR) to the maximum limit of the RMR for a totally intact rock mass (RMR=100). In a similar way, based on GSI a rock mass toughness factor (TF) has been dened as a ratio of the geological strength index value to the maximum value of GSI of the intact rock mass. TF GSI=100 16 where GSI can be obtained from RMR as mentioned in Eq. 15. Hoek (2002) proposed an equation to estimate the uniaxial compressive strength of the rock mass (rcm) based on the intact rock strength (rci), material constant (mi) and the GSI as follows: GSI :8 rcm 0:0034 m0 17 rci 1:029 0:025e0:1mi i The mi values for the jointed sandstone and limestone were 17 and 12, respectively. The bearing capacity is calculated by multiplying the toughness factor (TF) by the uniaxial compressive strength of the rock mass: BC TF rcm 18 Statistical analysis Regression analysis was used to correlate the bearing capacity and the geological strength index (GSI) obtained from the rock mass rating (RMR). The estimated bearing capacity for the jointed limestone and sandstone samples are summarized in Tables 3 and 4 respectively, and the regression curves obtained between GSI and different bearing capacity values in Figs. 9 and 10. Table 5 summarizes the regression equations obtained between the bearing capacity and GSI. Most of the methods used to determine the bearing capacity were tted to exponential regression models that have the highest correction coefcients. It was found that the bearing capacity value estimated using the suggested empirical formula has a high correlation coefcient and provides a good estimate for bearing capacity compared with the other methods.

Conclusions
The use of the geological strength index (GSI) based on the rock mass rating (RMR) provides an acceptable estimate of the bearing capacity of a rock mass; the highest correlation coefcient being obtained using the exponential model. The use of rock mass strength parameters provides an acceptable estimate of the bearing capacity for jointed rock masses. It is advisable to estimate the rock mass strength from the intact rock strength as the direct use of the intact rock strength results in an over-estimate of bearing capacity. Fig. 8 Joint surveys using scanline technique in a Kurnub Sandstone and The regression analyses carried out between the GSI and b Naur Limestone the bearing capacity indicate that the exponential model 242

Bull Eng Geol Env (2004) 63:233245

A comparative review in regards to estimating bearing capacity in jointed rock masses in northeast Jordan

Table 3 Estimation of bearing capacity values in jointed limestone using different methods Rock type Strong limestone Strong limestone Marly limestone Marl Marl-shale Shale Marly limestone Nodular marl Nodular marl Marl-shale Nodular marl Nodular marl Nodular marl Strong limestone Limestone-marl Limestone-marl Limestone-marl Limestone-marl Nodular marl Limestone-marl Limestone-marl Limestone-marl Limestone-marl Limestone-marl Limestone-marl Marl-shale Strong limestone Limestone-marl GSI 63 61 56 49 44 40 52 48 48 46 50 49 49 62 57 58 58 58 53 59 55 54 52 52 50 44 59 50 m 1.87 1.74 1.45 1.13 0.95 0.82 1.26 1.09 1.09 1.02 1.17 1.13 1.13 1.8 1.51 1.56 1.56 1.56 1.31 1.62 1.4 1.35 1.26 1.26 1.17 0.95 1.62 1.26 s 0.0164 0.0131 0.0075 0.0035 0.002 0.0013 0.0048 0.0031 0.0031 0.0025 0.0039 0.0035 0.0035 0.0147 0.0084 0.0094 0.0094 0.0094 0.0054 0.0105 0.0067 0.006 0.0048 0.0048 0.0039 0.002 0.015 0.0048 rc 3.65 4.01 3.78 2.49 1.54 1.36 2.59 2.4 2 2.09 2.66 2.65 2.49 6.28 4.28 4.7 4.7 5.28 2.88 3.92 2.6 2.8 2.22 2.03 1.72 1.89 4.29 2.96 ri 25 30 35 30 22 24 28 30 25 28 31 32 30 45 40 40 40 45 30 32 25 28 24 22 20 27 37 32 qult 15.85 17.25 15.80 9.74 5.62 5.08 10.44 9.25 7.71 7.87 10.55 10.39 9.74 27.19 18.98 19.91 19.91 22.40 11.76 16.72 10.76 11.49 8.95 8.20 6.81 6.89 21.62 11.93 Bell method 3.17 3.45 3.16 1.95 1.12 1.02 2.09 1.85 1.54 1.57 2.11 2.08 1.95 5.44 3.80 3.98 3.98 4.48 2.35 3.34 2.15 2.30 1.79 1.64 1.36 1.38 4.32 2.39 Goodman method 3.63 3.95 3.61 2.25 1.34 1.15 2.40 2.16 1.80 1.85 2.43 2.40 2.25 6.20 4.10 4.53 5.03 5.09 2.69 3.80 2.46 2.63 2.05 1.88 1.57 1.65 4.16 2.74 Sower method 3.67 4.00 3.81 2.48 1.54 1.37 2.59 2.39 1.98 2.11 2.68 2.67 2.48 6.27 4.28 4.69 5.01 5.28 2.87 3.93 2.59 2.81 2.21 2.02 1.70 1.91 4.28 2.97 Suggested method 3.75 4.05 3.63 2.12 1.16 1.00 2.33 2.00 1.67 1.67 2.31 2.26 2.12 6.40 4.37 4.61 4.61 5.19 2.64 3.89 2.46 2.60 2.00 1.83 1.49 1.43 4.50 2.39

Table 4 Estimation of bearing capacity values in jointed sandstone using different methods Rock type Friable sanstone-shale Friable sandstone Weak marl-shale Weak marl-shale Sandstone-shale Sandstone-shale Friable sandstone-shale Sandstone-shale Sandstone-shale Sandstone-shale Sandstone-shale Sandstone-shale Friable sandstone Sandstone-shale Sandstone-shale Sandstone-shale Friable sandstone Friable sandstone-shale Weak marl-shale Weak marl-shale Weak marl-shale Friable sandstone-shale Friable sandstone-shale Weak marl-shale Weak marl-shale Friable sandstone-shale Weak marl-shale GSI 39 46 48 48 39 39 46 38 46 46 46 46 50 28 26 34 51 39 44 44 44 34 39 44 44 40 44 m 1.698 2.18 2.34 2.34 1.698 1.698 2.18 1.638 2.18 2.18 2.18 2.18 2.515 1.106 1.067 1.42 2.607 1.698 2.03 2.03 2.03 1.42 1.698 2.03 2.03 1.76 2.03 s 0.0011 0.0025 0.0031 0.0031 0.0011 0.0011 0.0025 0.001 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0039 0.0003 0.0003 0.0007 0.0043 0.0011 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.007 0.0011 0.002 0.002 0.0013 0.002 rc 0.2 0.39 0.74 0.74 0.65 0.65 0.87 0.61 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.8 0.2 0.19 0.23 0.97 0.5 0.77 0.77 0.68 0.43 0.51 0.63 0.63 0.57 0.63 ri 12.5 14.1 7.3 7.3 8.1 8.1 9.1 9 7.8 7.5 7 7.2 7.5 3.2 3.3 3.2 8.8 6.8 8.5 8 7.5 6 6.4 7 7.5 6 7 qult. 3.41 5.41 3.07 3.07 2.21 2.21 3.49 2.35 2.99 2.88 2.69 2.76 3.48 0.50 0.51 0.71 4.26 1.85 2.97 2.79 2.62 2.63 1.75 2.45 2.62 1.74 2.45 Bell method 0.68 1.08 0.61 0.61 0.44 0.44 0.70 0.47 0.60 0.58 0.54 0.55 0.70 0.10 0.10 0.14 0.85 0.37 0.59 0.56 0.52 0.53 0.35 0.49 0.52 0.35 0.49 Goodman method 0.21 0.44 0.85 0.85 0.68 0.68 0.37 0.63 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.93 0.19 0.18 0.23 1.15 0.53 0.85 0.85 0.75 0.43 0.54 0.70 0.70 0.60 0.70 Sower method 1.24 0.39 0.74 0.74 0.66 0.66 0.43 0.61 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.79 0.19 0.19 0.24 0.98 0.50 0.77 0.77 0.68 0.44 0.50 0.64 0.64 0.58 0.64 Suggested method 0.58 0.97 0.56 0.56 0.38 0.38 0.63 0.39 0.54 0.52 0.48 0.50 0.64 0.07 0.07 0.11 0.79 0.32 0.52 0.49 0.46 0.21 0.30 0.43 0.46 0.29 0.43

Bull Eng Geol Env (2004) 63:233245

243

A. El-Naqa

Fig. 9 Graphical charts of bearing capacity in jointed Kurnub Sandstone using a suggested method, b Bell method, c Goodman method and d Sower method

Fig. 10 Graphical charts of bearing capacity in jointed Naur Limestone using a suggested method, b Bell method, c Goodman method and d Sower method Table 5 Regression equations obtained between bearing capacity values and GSI Method name Suggested formula Bell Goodman Sower Regression equations in jointed limestone BC=0.0483e0.0725 GSI BC=0.0631e0.0685 GSI BC=0.0816e0.0662 GSI BC=0.1289e0.0589 GSI Correlation coefcient (r) 0.86 0.83 0.82 0.78 Regression equations in jointed sandstone BC=0.0068e0.0982 GSI BC=0.0171e0.0786 GSI BC=0.0319e0.0692 GSI BC=0.0592e0.0543 GSI Correlation coefcient (r) 0.84 0.73 0.67 0.56

244

Bull Eng Geol Env (2004) 63:233245

A comparative review in regards to estimating bearing capacity in jointed rock masses in northeast Jordan

has the highest correlation coefcient and that the Bishnoi BL (1968) Bearing capacity of a closely jointed rocks. PhD graphical charts obtained could be used as design charts Thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, 120 pp for the same rock types. The use of the GSI to estimate the Bowles J (1988) Foundation analysis and design, 4th edn. McGraw Hill, New York, 1,004 pp bearing capacity of the jointed limestone and sandstone El-Manaai M, Enbaya M, Tarhuni M (2000) Suggested empirical samples was proved to be reliable by the correlation method for bearing capacity determination in jointed carbonate coefcient of approximately 0.9. rock masses, vol 2. In: Proc Jordanian Int Mining Conf, Jordanian Engineers Association, Amman, Jordan, pp 512530 Goodman RE (1989) Introduction to rock mechanics. Wiley, New York, 562 pp Kulhawy FH, Goodman RE (1980) Design of foundations on discontinuous rock. Proc Int Conf Structural Foundations on Rock, August 1980, Sydney, pp 209220 Hoek E (1990) Technical note: estimating Mohr-Coulomb friction and cohesion values from the Hoek-Brown failure criterion. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 27(3):227229 Hoek E (2002) Practical rock engineering: an ongoing set of notes. http://www.rocscience.com Hoek E, Brown ET (1980) Empirical strength criterion for rock masses. J Geotech Eng Div Am Soc Civ Eng 106:10131035 Hoek E, Brown ET (1988) The Hoek-Brown failure criterion: a 1988 update. In: Proc 15th Cand Rock Mech Symp, University of Toronto, Toronto, October 1988 Hoek E, Kaiser PK, Bawden WF (1995) Support of underground excavation in hard rocks. Balkema, Rotterdam, 215 pp Peck RB, Hanson WE, Thornburn TH (1974) Foundation engineering. Wiley, New York, 514 pp Priest S D, Hudson J A (1976) Discontinuity spacing in rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 13:135148 Piteau D R (1973) Characterizing and extrapolating rock joint properties in engineering practice. Rock Mech 2:531 Sower GF (1979) Introductory soil mechanics and foundations: geotechnical engineering (4th edn). MacMillan, New York Tezaghi K (1943) Theoretical soil mechanics. Wiley, New York

References
Barton N, Lien R, Lunde J (1974) Engineering classication of rock masses for the design of tunnel support. Rock Mech 6:189236 Bell GF (1992) Engineering in rock masses. Heinemann, London, 359 pp Bender F (1974) Geologie von Jordanian: Beitraege zur regionolen Geologie der Erde. 7 Gebrueder Borntraeger, Hannover, 230 pp Bieniawski Z T (1973) Engineering classication of jointed rock masses. Trans S African Inst Civ Eng 15:335344 Bieniawski Z T (1974) Geomechanics classication of rock masses and its application in tunneling. Proc 3rd Cong Int Soc Rock Mechanics, September 1989, Denver, Colorado, National Academy of Sciences, Washington DC, pp 2732 Bieniawski Z T (1976) Rock mass classication in rock engineering. In: Bieniawski ZT (ed) Exploration for rock engineering. Balkema, Cape Town, pp 97106 Bieniawski ZT (1979) The Geomechanics classication in rock engineering applications. Proc 4th Cong on Rock Mech, October 1979, Balkema, Rotterdam Bieniawski ZT (1989) Engineering rock mass classication. Wiley, Chichester, 251 pp

Bull Eng Geol Env (2004) 63:233245

245