Bearing Capacity for Rock with Single Cavity

Below Shallow Foundations

A. M. Radwan1, M. H. M. Rabie1, M. A. Atia2, R. Khedr 3
1. Professor of Geotechnical Engineering and Foundation, Faculty of Engineering at
Mataria, Helwan University, Egypt;
2. Lecture of Geotechnical Engineering and Foundation, Faculty of Engineering at Mataria,
Helwan University, Egypt;
3. Doctoral Research in Geotechnical Engineering and Foundation, Faculty of Engineering
at Mataria, Helwan University, Engineer in Housing Department at New Valley, Egypt.

ABSTRACT
The effect of isolated single cavity in rock on mechanical behaviour and failure mechanisms
of shallow foundation was studied under uniaxial compressive conditions. Various variables
were investigated and those were : rock properties, cavity size, and cavity depth. Upper bound
mechanisms had been derived depending on failure mechanisms obtained from experimental
results in this study. Two upper bound mechanisms were made for circular shallow
foundation resting on rock with spherical isolated single cavity and those were : gradually
cavity roof failure mechanism, and punching cavity roof failure mechanism. For each failure
mechanism, the foundation ultimate collapse pressure equation was developed as a function
of rock properties, and the geometry of the mechanism. These equations can be used to
determine the ultimate bearing capacity of shallow foundation resting on rock with cavities.
The equations results were compared with previous works results. There was a good
agreement between the results.

1. Introduction
Rock masses are generally composed of cavities, joints, faults, fractures, and bedding planes.
The presence of cavities in a rock mass may affect on its mechanical behaviour, and failure
mechanism. The correct estimation of the failure mechanisms of rock plays an important role
in the design of foundations in it. The design of rock foundations includes, bearing capacity
and settlement analyses. Bearing capacity of structures founded on rock masses is dependent
upon joint spacing with respect to foundation width, joint orientation, joint condition (open or
closed), and rock type. The bearing capacity equations represent either empirical or semi-

1
 Rock Mass Condition
Failure Illustration Failure Mode
No. Joint Dip Joint Spacing

Brittle Rock :
a Local shear failure caused by
localized brittle fracture.
Intact

N/A S ˃˃ B

Ductile Rock :
b General shear failure along
well defined failure surfaces.

Open Joints :
c Compressive failure of
individual rock columns, near
vertical joint set (s).
Steeply Dipping Joints

S˂ B

Closed Joints :
d o
70 ˂ α ˃ 90 o General shear failure along
well defined failure surfaces
near vertical joint set (s).

Open or Closed Joints :

Failure initiated by splitting
S˃B
e leading to general shear failure
near vertical joint set(s).

Moderately dipping joint

S ˂ B or S ˃ B
Jointed

set(s)
Failure wedge
f 20 o ˂ α ˂ 70 o General shear failure with
can develop
potential for failure along
along joints
joints.

Thick Rigid Upper Layer :

g Failure initiated by tensile
Limiting failure. Caused by flexure of
values of H the thick rigid upper layer .
Layered

with respect to
0 ˂ α ˂ 20 o
B is dependent
upon material Thin Rigid Upper Layer :
properties Failure initiated by punching
h tensile failure of the thin rigid
upper layer .

Two or more closely spaced

Fractured

joint sets :
i N/A S˂˂B General shear failure with
irregular failure surface
through rock mass.
Figure (1) Typical bearing capacity failure modes (after Sowers 1979, Kulhawy and
Goodman 1980).

2
empirical approximations of the ultimate bearing capacity and are dependent on the mode of
potential failure. So that selection of an appropriate equation must anticipate likely modes of
potential failure, (Egyptian Code for Foundation on Rock, 2008). Sowers (1979) and
Kulhawy and Goodman (1980), suggested typical failure modes according to rock mass
conditions, as shown in figure (1). Failure modes were described according to four general
rock mass conditions: intact, jointed, layered, and fractured.
Wang and Hsieh (1987) developed three failure mechanisms that are considered to model the
collapse of strip footing centered above a single circular void by using upper bound theorem
of limit analysis, as shown in figure (2).

Figure (2) Failure mechanisms (after Wang and Hsieh 1987).

Kiyosumi et al. (2011) reported the results of laboratory scale model tests of strip footing on
stiff ground with continuous square voids and stated three upper-bound mechanisms for a
single void from the experiments those were : roof failure, sidewall failure, and combined
failure, as shown in figure (3). The upper-bound solutions of bearing capacity for strip footing
were respectively derived and the parametric study was presented.

Figure (3) Upper-bound mechanisms (after Kiyosumi et al. 2011).

3
The ultimate bearing capacity (qub) for the upper-bound solution is defined by the total rate of
energy dissipation (D) and the total rate of work done ( W ) as
qub = ( D ─ W ) / V0 B
The total rate of energy dissipation (D) and the total rate of work done ( W ) for the roof
failure mode are

Where c and ϕ are strength parameters; γ is unit weight of the soil; B is footing width; lac ~ ldg
are side lengths of the various zones; θ1~4 are angles of zones; θ5 is inclination of VIV; and AI
~ IV are areas of zones.
The expressions for the side lengths of the various zones are obtained from

The expressions for angles of zones and the inclination of VIV are written by

4
The expression for the areas of zones are calculated by

Most of previous studies of the bearing capacity of foundations above cavities have been
investigated the behavior of cavities considering continuous shapes. Although it is recognized
that the cavities exist in nature in continuous and isolated shape. Previous experimental
studies of the bearing capacity of foundations above cavities have been used extremely weak
materials (range from 0.1 to 4.8 Mpa). Although the rocks containing cavities such as
limestone with uniaxial compressive strength can range between 1.5 and more than 150 MPa,
(Sowers 1996 ). The bearing capacity equation presented by previous studies were complex,
very long and very difficult for application. This paper presents results of a series of
laboratory model tests carried out on a circular shallow foundation resting on rock with
isolated spherical cavities, the uniaxial compressive strengths of the tested rock were 6.7 Mpa
and 20.12 Mpa. Simple upper-bound calculations were also presented to interpret the changes
of bearing capacity observed because of the presence of the cavity.

2. Laboratory model tests

2.1 Selected Material
In order to make idealized rock containing cavity, natural materials such as, gypsum, and
limestone powder were used. In order to vary the compressive strength and density of rock,
two mixtures were selected. The first selected mixtures named as group C, and the second
mixture named as group L. All of the samples were cured at a constant temperature and
humidity in a chamber for about 28 days. The properties and classification of the two selected
materials (group C and group L) are summarized in Table (1).

5
Table (1) Properties and classification of selected Rock Like Material
γ qu σt E
Group υ Classification
(KN/m3) (MPa) (MPa) (GPa)
Very Low Density, Low Strength
C 16 6.7 1.27 0.51 0.19
Like to Sedimentary Rocks

Low Density, Moderate Strength

L 19.8 20.12 2.16 0.99 0.25
Like to Sedimentary Rocks

Model tests of cubic blocks are prepared in laboratory from rock like materials to simulate
rock mass containing isolated, empty, spherical cavities. The dimensions of each block are
150 × 150 × 150 mm. The isolated empty spherical cavities is made from plastic. The model
of shallow foundation resting on the block is a circular footing with 20 mm diameter and 10
mm thickness.

2.2 Testing Program

Testing program include two main groups C and L, which simulate two type of rock. Each
group consists of two main test conditions as shown in figure (4) and tables (2) and (3) . The
main test conditions are as follow :-
(1) Circular shallow foundation resting on rock without cavities.
(2) Circular shallow foundation resting on rock with a single isolated cavity at center line
below foundation.

Fig.(4) Model test geometry and boundary conditions.

6
Table (2) Testing Program for group C

Cavity Cavity Single Cavity

Number of
diameter depth
cubic blocks At centerline of
D/B H/B
foundation
3 1 C-1
3 0.5 2 C-2
3 4 C-3
3 1 C-4
3 0.75 2 C-5
3 4 C-6
3 1 C-7
3 1 2 C-8
3 4 C-9
2 1 C-10
2 1.5 2 C-11
2 4 C-12
3 Without Cavities C-w
36 Total number of blocks in 13 model test

Table (3) Testing Program for group L

Cavity Cavity Single Cavity

Number of
diameter depth
cubic blocks At centerline of
D/B H/B
foundation
3 1 L-1
3 0.5 2 L-2
3 4 L-3
3 1 L-4
3 0.75 2 L-5
3 4 L-6
3 1 L-7
3 1 2 L-8
3 4 L-9
2 1 L-10
2 1.5 2 L-11
2 4 L-12
3 Without Cavities L-w
36 Total number of blocks in 13 model test

2.3 Preparation of the model test

72 cubic blocks are prepared in laboratory for 26 model tests of the two groups C and L.
Model tests were characterized as homogenous and isotropic, also arrangement of cavities
inside the blocks are symmetric. Model test preparation procedure are as follow :-

7
(1) Selected materials were mixed and cast manually in steel mould with dimensions of 150 ×
150 × 150 mm.
(2) Empty cavities with different sizes and depths were placed inside mixed materials in the
mould by using steel stamps for detecting location and depth of cavities accurately.
(3) All blocks were stored at laboratory chamber for 28 days after casting.
2.4 Test procedure
Test procedure were as follow :-
(1) All blocks were weighted before testing.
(2) Position of the foundation was detected at the block centerline before testing the models.
(3) All models were tested in uniaxial compression, after 28 days from casting, by using
manual hydraulic jack. The blocks are loaded using a fixed lower platen and model of circular
shallow foundation fixed with upper platen. Circular shallow foundation was situated at the
center of block, the applied load was increased such that failure occurs; the load was recorded
for each 0.25 mm settlement and the failure load “P” is recorded.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1 Shallow foundation resting on rock without cavities
The bearing pressure qb for group C-w is 117.05 Mpa. Also the bearing pressure qb for group
L-w is 195.72 Mpa . Failure mechanism was shown in figure (5), it can be clearly seen that an
irregular longitudinal splitting fracture for the tested blocks, this was due to unconfined
compression for brittle rock . This is confirm with Jaeger and Cook ,1979. The bearing
capacity failure mechanism was a local shear failure initiated at the edge of the foundation as
localized crushing and develops into active wedge below the foundation as a conical rigid
block and slip surfaces. Localized shear failures were generally associated with brittle rock.
This is a good agreement with results of Sowers (1979) and Kulhawy and Goodman (1980).

(a) (b) (c)

Figure (5) Failure mechanism for rock without cavities of group C-w,
(a) brittle rock, a conical active wedge (b) splitting fracture, (c) local shear failure.

8
3.2 Shallow foundation resting on rock with a single cavity
The bearing pressure-settlement curves for model tests of group C presented in figures (6),
(7), and (8). Also the bearing pressure - settlement curves for model tests group L presented in
figures (9), (10), and (11). These curves are compared with groups C-w, and L-w.

Relation Between Bearing Pressure and Settlement / B

at H / B = 1

140
Bearing Pressure (Mpa)

120
100 Without Cavity
D/B = 0.5
80
D/B = 0.75
60
D/B = 1
40 D/B = 1.5
20
0
0 50 100 150 200
Settlement / B ( % )

Figure (6) Bearing pressure-settlement curves (C-w, C-1, C-4, C-7, C-10)

Relation Between Bearing Pressure and Settlement / B

at H / B = 2

140

120
Bearing Pressure (Mpa)

100 Without Cavity

80 D/B = 0.5
D/B = 0.75
60
D/B = 1
40 D/B = 1.5

20

0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Settlement / B (%)

Figure (7) Bearing pressure-settlement curves (C-w, C-2, C-5, C-8, C-11)

9
 Relation Between Bearing Pressure and Settlement / B
at H / B = 4

140

120

Bearing Pressure (Mpa) 100 Without Cavity

80 D/B = 0.5
D/B = 0.75
60 D/B = 1
40 D/B = 1.5

20

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Settlement / B (% )

Figure (8) Bearing pressure-settlement curves (C-w, C-3, C-6, C-9,C-12)

Relation Between Bearing Pressure and Settlement / B

at H / B = 1

250
Bearing Pressure (Mpa)

200 Without Cavity

D/B = 0.5
150
D/B = 0.75
100 D/B = 1
50 D/B = 1.5

0
0 50 100 150 200
Settlement / B ( %)

Figure (9) Bearing pressure-settlement curves (L-w, L-1, L-4, L-7, L-10)

Relation Between Bearing Pressure and Settlement / B

at H / B = 2

250
Bearing Pressure(Mpa)

200 Without Cavity

D/B = 0.5
150
D/B = 0.75
100 D/B = 1
50 D/B = 1.5
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Settlement / B (%)

Figure (10) Bearing pressure-settlement curves (L-w, L-2, L-5, L-8, L-11)

10
 Relation Between Bearing Pressure and Settlement / B
at H / B = 4

250

Bearing Pressure (Mpa)

200 Without Cavity

150 D/B = 0.5

D/B = 0.75
100 D/B = 1
50 D/B = 1.5

0
0 10 20 30 40
Settlement / B (%)

Figure (11) Bearing pressure-settlement curves (L-w, L-3, L-6, L-9, L-12)

According to results, failure mechanisms for shallow foundation resting on rock containing a
single cavity may be classified into three categories as follow :-
3.2.1 Small shallow cavity :
This category include cavity with size of D/B = 0.5, and cavity depths of H/B = 1 , 2, for
groups of (C-1, C-2, L-1,and L-2). For groups C-1, and L-1. Gradually settlement and
collapse are observed. There is a low reduction in bearing pressures range between 18.04 %,
and 13.12 %, for group C, and range between 3.53 %, and 0.98 %, for group L. The reduction
in bearing pressures is happened due to the cavity is located inside the critical region below
foundation. The gradually settlement or collapse are due to the arching effect of small cavity,
where cavity can bridge the load and transfer it into the rock mass that surround its sides.
Failure mechanism is a splitting failure, with gradually cavity roof failure. Local shear failure
initiated at the edge of the foundation as localized crushing and develops into rigid block as a
conical wedge below the foundation. Conical wedge is moving vertically downward and
dissipating the bonds between vertical faces of the conical block and the surrounding rock
mass, then reach to the cavity roof and break it causing block failure as shown in figure (12).

Figure (12) Failure mechanisms for small shallow single cavity, C-1 : ( D/B = 0.5, H/B = 1 )

11
Local shear failure initiated and develops into conical wedge moving vertically downward
and dissipating the bonds between vertical faces of the conical block and the surrounding rock
mass without cavity roof failure. The cavity doesn't fail, because it is located outside the
critical region. Beside of arching effect of small cavity. The rock mass cover over the cavity
acting as rigid beam, that bridging the cavity by transferring the loads to the rock mass
surround the cavity.

3.2.2 Large shallow cavity :

This category include cavity with sizes of D/B = 0.75, 1, 1.5, and cavity depths of H/B = 1, 2,
for groups of (C-4, C-5, C-7, C-8, C-10, C-11, L-4, L-5, L-7, L-8, L-10, and L-11).
Sudden settlement and collapse are observed. There is a high reduction in bearing pressures
range between 84.14 %, and 24.59 %, for group C, and range between 71.41 %, and 9.11 %,
for group L. The reduction in bearing pressures is occurred because of the cavity is positioned
inside the critical region below foundation. large cavity doesn't able to bridge the load, so the
sudden settlement or collapse is happened, especially at shallow depths.
Failure mechanism is a splitting failure, with punching of cavity roof. Punching failure
initiated below the foundation and develops into cylindrical rigid block, moving vertically
downward and dissipating the bonds between vertical faces of the cylindrical block and the
surrounding rock mass, then punching the cavity roof and floor, after that the block is
collapsed as shown in figure (13).

(a) C - 4 (b) L- 7 (c) L - 11

Figure (13) Failure mechanisms for large shallow single cavity, (a) C-4, (b) L-7, (c) L-11.

3.2.3 Small and large deep cavity :

This category include cavity with sizes of D/B = 0.5, 0.75, 1, 1.5, at depth of H/B = 4, for
groups of (C-3, C-6, C-9, C-12, L-3, L-6, L-9, and L-12). Gradually disappear of reduction in

12
bearing pressure is observed. The reduction in bearing pressures is low, it range between 9.18
%, and 24.28 % for group C, and range between 0 %, and 11.27 %, for group L.
Failure mechanism is a splitting failure, without cavity roof failure. Local shear failure
initiated at the edge of the foundation as localized crushing and develops into rigid block as a
conical wedge below the foundation. Conical wedge is moving vertically downward and
dissipating the bonds between vertical faces of the conical block and the surrounding rock
mass. Foundation pressure didn't reach to the cavity, and the cavity didn't affect on the
stability of foundation, it is outside the critical region, as shown in figure (14). This is because
the cavity is located well far from the foundation base, the rock mass thickness under the
foundation can hold more shear strain before failure. Besides, the arching marked shearing
resistance of rock (Terzaghi, 1943).

(a) L - 3 (b) C - 6

(c) L - 9 (d) C - 12
Figure (14) Failure mechanisms for deep single cavity (a) L - 3, (b) C - 6, (c) L - 9, (d) C - 12.

4. Upper Bound Mechanism Analysis

Based on the failure mechanisms, that obtained from experimental results in this study. Two
upper bound mechanisms are made for circular shallow foundation resting on rock containing
spherical isolated cavities as follow :
(1) Gradually cavity roof failure mechanism.
(2) Punching cavity roof failure mechanism.

13
For each failure mechanism, the rate of energy dissipation along active wedge movement, the
rate of work done by foundation pressure, and rock weight are obtained. By equating the rate
of energy dissipated and rate of work done, the equation for foundation collapse pressure as a
function of foundation width, cavity size, cavity depth, and rock properties is formulated.
Each equation contained one or more variables that define the geometry of failure mechanism.
Not that, in the equations, the pressure inside the cavity is assumed to be zero. Also the
external work done by the rock weight is expressed in terms of volume of rock mass involved,
since the three-dimensional analysis is made. Simple mathematical models are used for study
the global equilibrium for summation of vertical forces (external and inner forces). The
collapse load is equal to the difference between plastic power and force power ( Di ─ De). The
three upper bound mechanisms are discussed in the flowing.

4.1 Gradually Cavity Roof Failure Mechanism

This mechanism include small shallow cavity with size of D/B = 0.5, and cavity depths of
H/B = 1, 2, for groups of (C-1, C-2, L-1,and L-2), as shown formerly in figure (12). Figure
(15) indicate the upper-bound mechanism for gradually cavity roof failure mechanism.

Figure (15) Upper-bound mechanism for gradually cavity roof failure mechanism,
(D/B = 0.5, H/B = 1, 2)

The ultimate bearing capacity (qult) for the upper-bound solution is defined by the total rate of
energy dissipation (Di) and the total rate of work done (W). The total rate of energy
dissipation (Di) along active wedge movement for gradually cavity roof failure mechanism is
consider as the result of multiply of uniaxial compressive strength (qu) into surface areas of
conical wedge (a b c ), and part of sphere (a b d e), as shown in figure (12). The total rate of

14
work done (W) by foundation pressure is consider as the result of multiply of rock mass unit
weight (γ ) into volume of active zone (a b d e).
qult = (1/A) { [qu { cos ϴ [ ( π (B/2) ( (B/2)2 + H2 )0.5 ] + [π (H+D) (H+(D/2))] } ]
─ [γ { (π/6) (H + (D/2)) [ 3 (D/2)2 + 3 (B/2)2 + (H + (D/2)2 ] } ] } (1)
Where :
qult = Ultimate bearing capacity.
A = Foundation area.
qu = Uniaxial compressive strength of intact rock core.
B = Foundation width.
H = Cavity depth below foundation.
γ = Density of the rock material
D = Cavity diameter.

4.2 Punching of Cavity Roof Failure Mechanism

This mechanism include large shallow cavity with sizes of D / B = 0.75, 1, 1.5, and cavity
depths of H / B = 1, 2, for groups of (C-4, C-5, C-7, C-8, C-10, C-11, L-4, L-5, L-7, L-8, L-
10, and L-11), as shown in figure (13). Figure (16) show the upper-bound mechanism for
punching cavity roof failure mechanism, at ( D/B = 0.75, H/B = 1, 2 ).

Figure (16) Upper-bound mechanism for punching cavity roof failure mechanism,
(D/B = 0.75, H/B = 1, 2)

qult = (1/A) { [qu { cos ϴ1 [ ( π (B/2) ( (B/2)2 + H2 )0.5 ]

+ cos ϴ2 [π ((B/2) + (D/2)) (((B/2) - (D/2))2 + H2 ) 0.5] } ]
─ [γ { (π/3) (H + (D/2)) [ (B/2)2 + (D/2)2 + (B/2) (D/2) ] }] } (2)

15
Figure (17) show the upper-bound mechanism for punching cavity roof failure mechanism, at
( D/B = 1, H/B = 1, 2 ).

Figure (17) Upper-bound mechanism for punching cavity roof failure mechanism,
(D/B = 1, H/B = 1, 2)

qult = (1/A) { qu [ 2 π (B/2) H ] ─ γ [ π (B/2)2 H ] } (3)

Figure (18) show the upper-bound mechanism for punching cavity roof failure mechanism, at
( D/B = 1.5, H/B = 1, 2 ).

Figure (18) Upper-bound mechanism for punching cavity roof failure mechanism,
(D/B = 1.5, H/B = 1, 2).

qult = (1/A) { qu cos ϴ [ 2 π (B/2) H ] ─ γ [ π (B/2)2 H ] } (4)

16
5. Verification of results
It is important to check the results against those from other previous works where possible.
Figure (19) illustrate a comparison between present study results, and results of Wang and
Hsieh, 1987 for large shallow single cavity with diameter greater than foundation width (D/B
= 2.4). It is seen that the curves are parallel. This is verify the precise of present study results.

D / B = 2.4
70

60

50
qult / qw (%)

40

30

20 Wang and Hsieh, 1987

10 Present Study (Mathematical)

0
0.5 1 1.5 2
H/B

Figure (19) Comparison between present study results, and results of Wang and Hsieh, 1987.

Figure (20) presents a comparison between present study results, and results of Kiyosumie et
al., 20011 for small shallow single cavity at D/B = 0.5, (D/B = 0.5, H/B = 0.5). It is noticed
that the curves are similar, and approach together. The results of Kiyosumie et al., 2011 are
verified the results of present study.

D / B = 0.5

18

16

14

12
qult / qu

10

4 Kiyosumi et al., 2011 (Numerical)

Kiyosumi et al., 2011 (Experimental)
2
Present Study (Mathematical)
0
0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
H/B

Figure (20) Comparison between present study results, and results of Kiyosumie et al., 2011

17
6. Conclusions
1- Failure mechanism for rock without cavity was longitudinal splitting fracture, this is due to
uniaxial compression for brittle rock. This is confirm with Jaeger and Cook ,1979.
2- Bearing capacity failure mechanism for rock without cavity was a local shear failure.
Localized shear failures are generally associated with brittle rock. This is a good agreement
with results that obtained by Sowers (1979) and Kulhawy and Goodman (1980).

Rock Mass Condition

Bearing
Single Failure Capacity
Cavity Cavity Cavity Failure Illustration
Cavity or Mode Equation
No. size depth location
Multiple No.
D/B H/B L/B
Cavities

Gradually
cavity
a 0.5 1
roof
failure

Punching
of cavity
b 0.75 2
roof
failure
H/B ≤ 2

L/B = 0

Single
Cavity
Punching
of cavity
c 1 3
roof
failure

Punching
of cavity
d 1.5 4
roof
failure

Figure (21) Typical bearing capacity failure mechanisms for rock with cavities

18
3- Failure mechanisms for rock containing a single cavity was a splitting Failure, this was due
to uniaxial compression for brittle rock.
4- There are two upper bound failure mechanisms for shallow foundation resting on rock
containing cavities :
(1) Gradually cavity roof failure for small shallow single cavity.
(2) Punching of cavity roof failure for large shallow single cavity.
5- For each failure mechanism, the ultimate collapse pressure estimation equation for shallow
foundation resting on rock containing single cavity was developed as a function of rock
properties, and the geometry of the mechanism. These equations can be used to determine the
ultimate bearing capacity of shallow foundation resting on rock with single cavities.
6- Based on present study results, failure mechanisms for rock with single cavity below
shallow foundation are illustrated in figure (21).

7. References
(1) Egyptian Code for Soil Mechanics and Foundation, Ten part, Foundation on Rock, 2008,
Housing and Building National Research Center Cairo, Egypt.
(2) Jaeger J. C, Cook N. G. W. Fundamentals of rock mechanics [M]. 3rd edition. London:
Chapman and Hall, 1979.
(3) Kiyosumi M, Kusakabe O, Ohuchi M. ,2011. Model tests and analyses of bearing capacity
of strip footing on stiff ground with voids. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering;137, pp. 363 –375.
(4) Kulhawy, F. H. and Goodman, R. E., 1980, Design of foundations on discontinuous rock,
Proc. Int. Conf. Structural Foundations on Rock, Sydney, 1, p.p. 209-220.
(5) Sowers, G. F., 1979, Introductory Soil Mechanics and Foundations: Geotechnical
Engineering (4th edn), MacMillan, New York.
(6) Sowers, G. F. 1996, Building on sinkholes, design and construction of foundations in karst
terrain. ASCE Press, Reston (out of print).
(7) Terzaghi, K., "Arching in Ideal Soils," Chapter 5, Theoretical Soil Mechanics, John Wiley
and Sons, Inc., New York, N. Y., 1943, pp. 66-76.
(8) Wang M. C., Hsieh C. W., 1987. Collapse load of strip footing above circular void. J
Geotech Eng;113, pp. 511– 515.

19
 ‫قذرة التحمل لصخر ري تكهفات فردية أسفل األساسات السطحية‬
‫الملخص بالعربي‬
‫د ممي نم رمسممن ا رمسكيممل كي م ط سمملي رت ةكممل‬ ‫تممإ راممدرا ة رعممي السنكممي تعثيرمملت تممت كد رمثية مملت رمساالحمممي علمثدعممي رم‬
‫م‬ ‫م‬ ‫سملذر رت ثذمل‬ ‫منصخد ذي رمثية لت طع ل رألعلعلت رمسط كي‪ .‬م قم تمإ رامدرا رمث سكمل علماممح رمس م ي نم‬
‫قالةمل من دكمح‬ ‫مد م ح مإ رمثية ملت م ساةمل م‬ ‫رم‬ ‫م ر‬ ‫ن رمسثمكدرت م م‬ ‫رم رعي‪ .‬كسل تإ ة رعي تت كد رمال‬
‫ع مي علمثسل مل حم ك دكمح رمال م ة‪ .‬م علت ثسملة نم‬ ‫س ي من ط عالمي تية ملت‬ ‫ة ل ع را كل ت دة ي طم‬ ‫رمال ة م‬
‫‪-‬‬ ‫كلمثلم‬ ‫ثلئج رم رعي رمسالسنكي تإ رعثاثلر سطكن مال ةكل م‬
‫مساف رمثية لت رم دة ي رمسط كي رمصمكدة طع ل دكح رمال ة‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .1‬سح رت ةكل رمث‬
‫‪ .2‬سح رت ةكل رت ثدرق مساف رمثية لت رم دة ي رمسط كي رميذكدة طع ل دكح رمال ة‪.‬‬
‫كسل تإ رعثاثلر اللةتت حسلب ق ة رمث سل رماص ي منصخد ذي رمثية لت حسب ط سملي رت ةكمل رمسم ك ة لمكم ‪ .‬م منثتكم‬
‫ن ةقي ثلئج رمساللةتت رمسسثاث ي تإ ال ثةل عاثلئج رمذلحثكن رمسلعاكن م تالحظ رمث ر ق رم ك عكن اسكع رماثلئج‪.‬‬

‫‪20‬‬