See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/270162096

Design of spread foundations on rock masses according to Eurocode 7

Conference Paper · October 2011

DOI: 10.1201/b11646-373

CITATIONS READS

0 1,519

3 authors, including:

Tiago Miranda Francisco Ferreira Martins

University of Minho University of Minho
118 PUBLICATIONS   490 CITATIONS    32 PUBLICATIONS   50 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

JustRest - Development of Alkali Binders for Geotechnical Applications made Exclusively from Industrial Waste View project

NEXT-SEA Next generation monitoring of coastal ecosystems in a scenario of global change View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Tiago Miranda on 29 December 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Harmonising Rock Engineering and the Environment – Qian & Zhou (eds)
© 2012 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-80444-8

Design of spread foundations on rock masses according to Eurocode 7

T. Miranda, F. Martins & N. Araújo

Department of Civil Engineering, University of Minho, Guimarães, Portugal

ABSTRACT: In Eurocode 7 (EC7), some guidelines are provided for the design of spread foundations built on rock masses.
Moreover, a method for the calculation of the bearing capacity for this type of foundations is suggested. However, it does not
take into account important factors that influence the bearing capacity of foundation, which can be an important limitation of
the method. In this work the EC7 method is presented along with two other methods that can be found in literature. They are
applied to two simple examples and the results are analysed. High dispersion was found in the results meaning that the EC7
method should be used with caution even for very simple cases.

Subject: Analysis techniques and design methods

Keywords: rock slopes and foundations

1 INTRODUCTION
The main idea of Eurocode 7 (CEN, 2004) is to have similar
geotechnical rules to be used over all the European space. This
facilitates the understanding both of the used geotechnical
language and the communication between geotechnical and
structural engineers.
Eurocode 7 (EC7) is composed by two parts. The general
rules of geotechnical design are included in Part 1 whereas the
geotechnical investigations and field and laboratory testing
are included in Part 2.
Part 1 includes several subjects. Nevertheless, this paper is
only devoted to spread foundations. According to the EC7 to
design spread foundations it should be used a direct method,
an indirect method or a prescriptive method. In a direct
method checking against each possible ultimate limit state
and serviceability limit state should be carried out. An indi-
rect method is based on comparable experience and the results
of field and laboratory measurements or observations. A pre-
sumed bearing resistance is used in a prescriptive method.
The prescriptive measures allow avoiding the use of calcula-
tion models which cannot be available. In this case the design
is generally conservative.
EC7 presents in Annexes D and G, samples of methods to
design spread foundations on soil and rock, respectively. Both
methods are only informative. A sample analytical method for
bearing resistance calculation is presented for soil, which cor-
responds to a direct method. For rocks the EC7 presents in
Annex G a method of presumed bearing pressures for spread
foundations, which is not referenced. This method has the
characteristics of a prescriptive one where generally conser-
vative rules are used in the design. However, this method is
rather simplified and does not take into account important
issues which influence the bearing capacity of the foundations.
It is not possible to define a universal way to carry out the
design of shallow foundations built on rock masses due to the
different mechanisms that influence its bearing capacity with
main focus for the jointing characteristics of the rock mass
which normally govern the possible failure modes. However,
there are relatively simple analytical methods that can provide
an approximate magnitude of the bearing capacity that can be
useful in many cases. Numerical methods can be applied for
more complex cases and for the ones which involve higher
risks. In the end, the used method depends on the importance
of the work, the inherent risk and the complexity of the in situ
geological structure.
In this work the method proposed by the EC7 for the design
of shallow foundations on rock is presented along with two
more methods that can be found in literature (here used for
comparison sake). The methods are applied to two simple
examples and some conclusions are drawn in the applicability
of the EC7 method.
2 BEARING CAPACITY OF A ROCK FOUNDATION
ACCORDING TO THE EC7
For the design of spread foundations on rock masses the EC7
provides some considerations. It points out to the necessity of
taking into account the following features in the design:
• the deformability and strength of the rock mass and the
permissible settlement of the supported structure;
• the presence of any weak layers, for example solution
features or fault zones, beneath the foundations;
• the presence of bedding joints and other discontinuities and
their characteristics (for example filling, continuity, width
and spacing);
• the state of weathering, decomposition and fracturing of the
rock;
• disturbance of the natural state of the rock caused
by construction activities, such as, for example, under-
ground works or slope excavation, being near the concrete
foundation.
It states also that for intact igneous and gneissic rocks,
limestones and sandstones, the presumed bearing pressure is
limited by the compressive strength of the concrete founda-
tion. Finally, a remark for the necessity of assessment of the
foundation settlement by means of comparable experience.
The method presented in the annex G of the EC7 (CEN
2004) can be used for the calculation of the bearing resis-
tance of spread foundations in weak and broken rocks with
tight joints, including chalk with porosity less than 35%. This
method assumes that the structure can tolerate settlements

1959
Table 1. Grouping of weak and broken rocks.
Group Type of rock
1 Pure limestones and dolomites Carbonate sandstones of
low porosity
2 Igneous Oolitic and marly limestones Well cemented
sanstones Indurated carbonate mudstones Metamorphic
rocks, including slates and schist (flat cleavage/foliation)
3 Very marly limestones Poorly cemented sandstones
Slates and schists (steep cleavage/foliation)
4 Uncemented mudstones and shales
Figure 1. Presumed bearing capacity for square foundations with
settlements not exceeding 0.5% of the foundation width for the four
groups.
equal to 0.5% of the foundation width and that values of the
bearing resistance for other settlements may be derived by
direct proportion. For weak and broken rocks with open or
infilled joints, reduced values of the bearing capacity should
be used.
The application of the method starts with the choice of the
group of the rock considering the classification provided in
Table 1.After the definition of the group, the bearing resistance
of the foundation can be estimated using Figure 1, considering
additional information related with the unconfined compres-
sive strength of the rock and the spacing of the main joint
set.
3 ALTERNATIVE METHODS FOR THE CALCULATION
OF THE BEARING CAPACITY
3.1 Limit equilibrium method (Wyllie, 1992)
The calculation of the bearing capacity in intact and heavily
jointed rocks based on the failure mechanism presented in Fig-
ure 2 can be carried out in a similar way as for soil formations.
1960
Figure 2. Failure mode of a homogeneous rock due to the loading
of a spread footing.
Figure 3. Scheme of the failure wedges in rock.
This is a simplified and conservative methodology based in
active and passive wedges defined by straight lines developing
in the rock beneath the foundation (Figure 3). With the increase
of the applied load, and as it approaches the maximum capacity
of the rock, cracks begin to appear and progressively growing
forming wedges and zones of crushed rock. This condition
result in dilatancy of the rock and in the formation of radial
cracks that expand to the exterior and may reach the surface
For a footing of “infinite” length (L»B) built in a horizontal
rock surface, it is assumed that the rock beneath the foundation
is in a compression state similar to a sample in a triaxial test.
The maximum principal stress in the wedge A (σ1A ) is equal
to the stress transmitted by the foundation (q) if the weight
of the rock is not considered. Wedge B is also under a stress
state similar to the one presented in a triaxial test with the
maximum principal stress (σ1B ) acting horizontally and the
minimum principal stress (σ3B ) acting vertically.
If the footing rests at the surface then σ3B is null, otherwise it
would be equal to the vertical stress correspondent to the dead
load of the rock weight above the base level of the foundation.
When the wedges fail, the minimum principal stress in
wedge A (σ3A ) is the uniaxial compressive strength of wedge
B which corresponds to the uniaxial compressive strength of
the rock mass. Using the Hoek-Brown (HB) (Hoek & Brown,
1980) failure criterion the uniaxial compressive strength of
the rock mass can be determined by the following expression:
where mb , s and a are the parameters for the HB criterion; σ c
is the uniaxial compressive strength of the intact rock and σ 1
and σ 3 are, respectively, the maximum and minimum principal
stresses. The following equation allows computing the maxi-
mum principal stress acting in wedge A (σ1A ). The minimum
principal stress in the same wedge (σ3A ) is the strength of the
rock in wedge B and it is equal to the uniaxial compressive
strength of the intact rock when σ3b is null. In this case, the
uniaxial strength of a jointed rock mass can be approximated
by the following expression:
Table 2. Values of Cf1 .
Shape of the foundation Cf1

Rectangular (L/B > 6) 1.00

Rectangular (L/B = 5) 1.05
Rectangular (L/B = 2) 1.12
Square 1.25
Circular 1.20

and the bearing capacity is equal to the maximum principal

stress in wedge A, which is given by: Figure 4. Determination of Nβ .

base subjected to a vertical load its bearing capacity can be

computed as:
This equation can be rewritten in the following form:

Computation of βn and ζ n :
where,

The formulation presented by equation 4 represents the bear-

ing capacity as a fraction of the uniaxial compressive strength
of the intact rock. The values of Nσ , defined as the bearing
capacity factor, can be computed using equation 5.
The allowable bearing capacity (qa ) is related with the
strength of the rock mass by means of a safety factor (SF)
and a correction factor related with the foundation shape (Cf1 )
(Table 2):
In most of the cases, values between 2 and 3 are considered
for the SF. These values assure a small risk of achieving high
settlements.
In the case of foundations built at a certain depth, equation
6 must be rewritten so that it considers the increase on σ 1 as
a result of the confining stress qs applied at the surface. The
minimum principal stress (σ3B ) is equal to qs and the allowable
bearing capacity is then given by the following equation:
where,
3.2 Método de Serrano et al. (2000)
Serrano and Olalla (1994) presented a method for the calcula-
tion of the bearing capacity of foundations in jointed rocks also
based in the HB failure criterion that can be applied in more
complex situations like the case of eccentric loads and foun-
dations built in the vicinity of slopes. More recently, Serrano
et al. (2000) updated the method taking into consideration the
modifications introduced to the original formulation of the
HB failure criterion.
This method considers the rock mass as homogeneous and
isotropic. In the simple case of a foundation with an horizontal
The determination of Nβ is carried out using Figure 4. The
normalized stress applied at the base level of the foundation
(σ 01 *) is computed using the following equation:
4 EXAMPLES
4.1 Exampe 1
This example is concerned with the computation of the allow-
able bearing capacity of a 2 m width square footing built in
a jointed and weakly cemented sandstone. The weight den-
sity (γ) of the rock was set to 22.5 kN/m3 and the spacing of
the main joint set (s) of 0.2 mm. The following parameters
were also considered: Geological Strength Index (GSI) = 20;
Uniaxial compressive strength (σ c ) = 10 MPa and SF = 3. The
calculation was carried out for the case of the footing built at
the surface and for a depth of 2 m using the three methods
presented before.
The results of this calculation are presented in Table 3:
Concerning Example 1, the results show considerable dis-
persion between the results of the different methods. The
method of Wyllie (1992) provides the lowest values and the
one suggested by the EC7 the highest. One important issue is
the significant increase of qa with depth for two of the meth-
ods which were an expected fact due to the increasing vertical
stress. For a 2 m depth of the foundation base the method of
Wyllie (1992) point out to a double value of qa and the one
by Serrano et al. (2000) to an increase of almost 50%. The
EC7 method (CEN, 2004) does not take into account with the
increase of the bearing capacity due to this fact.

1961
Table 3. Results for example 1.
qa (MPa) qa (MPa)
Method depth = 0 m depth = 2 m
Wyllie (1992) 0.35 0.71
Serrano et al. (2000) 1.01 1.46
EC7 (CEN, 2004) 1.70 1.70
Figure 5. Variation of qa with σ c .
4.2 Example 2
A pillar transmits to a square footing a vertical load of 4 MN.
The geotechnical survey identified a layer of residual soil up
to a depth of about 3 m (γ = 20 kN/m3 ) and below a jointed
weathered granite where the foundation will rest. The design
parameters for this granite were the following: GSI = 40;
γ = 24 kN/m3 ; σc = [20–50] MPa; s = 0.2 m and SF = 3. The
objective is to compute the allowable bearing capacity using
the three methods. Given the uncertainty related to the value
of σc, it was decided to carry out a parametric study to analyse
the importance of this parameter.
The main results of this calculation can be observed in
Figure 5 where the relation between qa and σ c is presented.
In this example the influence of the variation of σ c was
investigated. For all the tested methods, qa increases almost
linearly with σ c with a small exception for the Wyllie (1992)
method where this increase is slightly non-linear. This method
and the one from the EC7 (CEN, 2004) provide similar results
in this case pointing out for a value of qa approximately equal
to 25% of σ c . On the other hand, the method of Serrano et al.
(200) provides values of qa which are about 74% of σ c , almost
three times higher than the previous ones.
1962
View publication stats
5 CONCLUSIONS
For the design of spread foundations in rock masses the EC7
(CEN, 2004) provide some aspects that should be taken into
account and proposes a method for the calculation of the
bearing capacity that can be used in most of the cases.
In this work this method was presented along with two oth-
ers found in literature. The comparison of the three methods
based on two cases allowed concluding that considerable dif-
ferent results can be found even for simple examples. The
method from Wyllie (1992) seems to provide a lower boundary
for the values of the allowable bearing capacity.
The method proposed by the EC7 is rather simplistic and
does not take into account important aspects that influence the
bearing capacity like the depth of the foundation, its shape,
the eccentricity of the loads, the presence of water, etc. In
example 1 it was only confirmed the influence of the depth
on the bearing capacity.
In spite of the suggested EC7 method has been based on
conservative assumptions, it gave the less conservative results
in example 1. However, the results obtained with this method
in example 2 are similar to the lower values obtained using
Wyllie method.
In conclusion the EC7 method for the design of spread foun-
dations should be used with caution and to provide only an
approximate idea of the bearing capacity. The results should
be validated using other analytical procedures or even using
numerical methods.
REFERENCES
CEN 2004. Eurocode 7 Geotechnical Design – Part 1: General Rules.
Hoek, E. and Brown, E. 1980. Underground excavations in rock.
Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, London, 627p.
Wyllie, D. 1992. Foundations on rock. E & FN Spon.
Serrano, A. and Olalla, C. 1994. Ultimate bearing capacity of rock
masses. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 31:93–106.
Serrano, A., Olalla, C. and González, J. 2000. Ultimate bearing
capacity of rock masses based on the modified Hoek-Brown cri-
terion. Int. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 37:
1013–1018.