Sustainability 2020, 12, 10063 5 of 21

Thus, expressing Ψ2 (the angle between the major principal stress and the vertical axis in Boundary 2,
as indicated in Figure 1) as a function of ρ2 , it is possible to estimate the ultimate bearing capacity.
Through the analytical method [23], the bearing capacity was obtained by (7).
 
Ph = βa · Nβ − ζa (7)

The resistant parameters βa and ζa were applied to make dimensionless the calculation of the
Modified Hoek and Brown failure criterion. βa represents the characteristic strength, which has the
same units as the UCS and was used to make the pressures dimensionless, while ζa (the “tenacity
coefficient”) is a dimensionless coefficient that, multiplied by βa , corresponds to the tensile strength.

!1
s m·(1 − a) k (1 − a)
βa = Aa ·UCS; ζa = ; Aa = 1
; k= (8)
(m·Aa ) 2 a a

Aa , k and the exponent a are constants for the rock mass and depend on the rock type (m),
UCS and GSI.
Nβ is the bearing capacity factor, and it can be calculated, according to the problem statement,
as follows.
The angle of internal friction (ρ1 ) can be obtained by iteration from the load at Boundary 1.
From the value of ρ1 and by the iteration of (5), the value of the internal friction angle at Boundary 2
(ρ2 ) can be calculated.
Finally, knowing ρ2 , the bearing capacity factor (Nβ ) can be calculated, and using, again, parameters
βa and ζa , the ultimate bearing capacity (Ph ) was estimated as an expression that depended on the
instantaneous friction angle at Boundary 2 (ρ2 ), the inclination of the load on the foundation (i2 ) and
the exponent of the Modified Hoek and Brown criterion (a; k = (1 − a)/a):
1 
1−sin(ρ2 ) a·(1+sin(ρ2 ))

k
Nβ = cos(i2 ) k·sin(ρ2 ) sin(ρ2 )
cos(i2 )
r 2  (9)
a·(1+k·sin(ρ2 ))

+ 1− sin(i2 ) 

sin(ρ2 )

2.2. Consideration of Pseudo-Static Load: Mathematical Transformation

In the pseudo-static approach, static horizontal and vertical inertial forces, which are intended
to represent the destabilizing effects of the earthquake or seepage, are calculated as the product of
the seismic/seepage coefficients and the distributed load applied to the boundaries. In the case of the
rock mass, the weight collaboration is usually negligible compared to the resistance of the ground,
and therefore, the inertial forces are applied both to the foundation and to the free boundary.
The vertical seismic/seepage coefficient kv is supposed to be a fraction of one horizontal kh , and in
particular, the vertical acceleration is thus assumed to be in phase with the horizontal acceleration.
The present study is divided into three parts: (a) The first one considered the horizontal (kh ) and
vertical (kv ) components of the pseudo-static load on both boundaries, with a free boundary inclined
by α at the edge of the foundation, which resembles the hypothesis of a seism. (b) In the second part,
only the horizontal component (kh ) on the foundation boundary was adopted (it being possible to
consider both the horizontal and vertical components on the free boundary depending on the direction
of the seepage), with the free boundary inclined by α at the edge of the foundation. This hypothesis is
more similar to the presence of a seepage (both hypotheses are represented schematically in Figure 2,
and they are solved and shown in new charts including additional horizontal and vertical loads).
(c) The final section is the comparison of the analytical result with that obtained numerically through
the finite difference method.