Yield loci for shallow foundations by “swipe” testing

G. Gottardi & L. Govoni

University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
R.Butterfield
University of Southampton, Southampton, UK

ABSTRACT: It is now well established that the load-displacement response of a shallow foundation can be
modelled as a work-hardening system in a three-dimensional (V,M/B,H) load space. Nevertheless,
establishing the form of a representative set of yield-loci from physical experiments, using load-controlled
tests, is a formidable task. The paper presents results from, and analytically justifies, a displacement
controlled ‘swipe’ testing technique that generates a complete yield locus from a single test. Such tests are
simple to simulate numerically and results are shown which closely replicate the experimentally determined
yield loci for surface footings. Preliminary results are also presented from an extension of the numerical
‘swipe’ test modelling to investigate buried footings.

1 INTERACTION DIAGRAMS FOR
PREDICTING LOAD CAPACITY OF
FOOTINGS
The shortcomings of conventional bearing capacity
analyses based on Brinch Hansen’s well-known
equation, (i.e the need for the fundamental ‘centre-
line load’ capacity to be modified by empirical
multiplication factors for each of its terms to allow
for footing shape, load inclination, eccentricity and
so on) led to a proposal (Butterfield & Ticof 1979;
Butterfield 1980) that a better solution might be
possible using the concept of an interaction diagram
- a well-established procedure in structural
engineering.
The idea, applied initially to shallow foundations
on dense sand, was that all load combinations
leading to failure of such a foundation, when plotted
in a three-dimensional load space (V,M/B,H) - i.e.
vertical, moment/footing-breadth and horizontal
loads – will define a ‘failure surface’ for a specific
soil-footing system (Butterfield 1980).
Early experiments, using footings with different
aspect ratios, bearing on dense sand and brass-rod-
model material (Butterfield 1981), established that
both the (V,H) and (V,M/B) sections of this surface
were remarkably close to simple parabolas of the
form,
H / H max  M / M max  4V / Vmax 1  V / Vmax  (1a)
or h / h0  m / m0  4v1  v  (1b)
where: h = H/Vmax, m = M/BVmax, v = V/Vmax and h0
= Hmax/Vmax and m0 = Mmax/BVmax.
In these dimensionless equations Vmax is the
vertical, central-load capacity of the footing, which
therefore automatically takes account of its shape.
The values of (m0, h0), established from these
tests and from very many more sophisticated ones
on dense sand (Ticof 1977, Gottardi 1992, Gottardi
& Butterfield 1993), loose sand (Nova & Montrasio
1991) and a Kaolin clay (Martin & Houlsby, 2000),
are consistently about (0.09, 0.123).
The form of the full three-dimensional surface
(sketched in Figure 3) was explored by Butterfield &
Gottardi (1994). Longitudinal sections of this figure
are parabolas and transverse sections geometrically
similar, inclined ellipses.
The equation to the complete surface is:
m / m0 2   h / h0 2  2 amh  4v1  v 2  0 (2)
m0.h 0
in which a = -0.22, corresponding to a 12.7 degree
rotation of the ellipse.
It is interesting to note that essentially identical
parabolic and elliptical yield loci have been obtained
(Zdravkovic et al. 2002) from finite element
modelling of strip footings on sand.

1
 2 DEVELOPMENT OF A WORK-HARDENING
MODEL
Since the failure-load points for footings on dense
sand identified accurately the onset of a work-
softening process, it was also hypothesised
(Butterfield 1980, 1981) that all such points might
lie on the outermost yield-surface of a work-
hardening system and, furthermore, that the yield-
surfaces of the system might be a family of
geometrically similar figures with the maximum
previous vertical centreline-load serving as the
hardening parameter (i.e. that the yield surfaces
might be a nested set of surfaces described by
suitably scaled versions of equations (1) and (2)).
The key ingredients of such a model are (Nova &
Montrasio 1991): (a) the nested family of yield–
surfaces; (b) the work-hardening process (e.g. by
using the results of a vertical centreline-load test, w
versus V – analogously to the role of an e-p’ curve in
Critical State soil models) and (c) a set of plastic
potentials. A successful model of this kind would
enable plastic displacement increments, vertical,
rotational and horizontal (δwp, δBθp, δup),
corresponding to load increments (δV,δM/B,δH), to
be predicted for any loading programme applied to
the footing. The total displacement increments are
then the sum of the plastic and the associated elastic
components (e.g. for the vertical displacement, δw =
δwe + δwp).
3 EXPERIMENTAL DETERMINATION OF
YIELD-LOCI
3.1 Load controlled tests
Identification of yield-loci lying on the (V,M/B,H)
yield surface is clearly a task of paramount
importance in validating such models.
One method of doing so, used by Gottardi (1992)
is to load the footing to V0, unload it to a lower
vertical load followed by reloading to yield along a
selected load-path. For example, Figure 1 shows a
number of his load-paths in the (V/V0-H/V0) plane.
0.2
H/V0
M2 A3
0.1
D4
D3
X D1
B6 Y Z
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Figure 1. Experimental load-paths in load-controlled tests
(from Gottardi & Butterfield 1993).
2
This is clearly a very arduous process in which a
sophisticated load-controlled test and a laboriously
prepared soil bed are needed in order to establish a
single point on a yield-locus passing through the
selected value of V0.
3.2 Displacement controlled tests
Fortunately, there is an alternative method,
whereby a single displacement-controlled test (a
‘swipe’ test) can generate a yield locus, embedded in
the 3D yield-surface corresponding to any value of
V0. The idea of a ‘side-swipe’ test was first mooted
by Tan (1990) based on an analogy between (a) an
undrained (zero volume change) triaxial test on a
saturated soil sample, consolidated to p0’, say,
compressed axially to failure and interpreted in a
CSM framework and (b) a horizontal-displacement
test to failure of a footing (preloaded to V0) under
conditions of zero vertical displacement and zero
rotation.
Tan concluded that, if the elastic displacements in
both tests were essentially zero, the load–paths
generated in the tests would trace the associated
yield-loci. He was, in fact, using the previously
mentioned analogy between “specific volume versus
p’ ” work-hardening in CSM and “w versus V”
work-hardening for a centrally loaded footing.
Figure 2 illustrates a ‘side-swipe’ test which
generates an approximate yield locus for a soil-
footing system.
Martin & Houlsby (2000) extended the analogy to
encompass a rotation-controlled ‘swipe’ test; one
carried out, from a specific V0 value, under
conditions of zero vertical and horizontal
displacement. A general ‘swipe’ test on a footing
(Gottardi et al. 1999) then becomes one in which no
vertical displacement is allowed (w = w0 = constant)
but any specified (Bθ, u) displacement regime may
be imposed throughout the test (Figure 3).
A method of establishing a formally correct
yield–locus from any swipe test is presented in
Section 4.
H H
V u
G2
V u
w w
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
V/V0
Figure 2. Output from a horizontal ‘swipe’ test on a footing.
3.3 Test results 0, which is derived from equation (2) (Butterfield
and Gottardi, 1996) by defining q as,
The validity of the swipe-testing process was
investigated by Gottardi et al (1999) using a 100 mm m2 h2 hm
diameter, rigid, circular footing on dense sand. q 2
 2
 2a (3)
m0 h0 h0 m0
The key results from this work were that, for
footings preloaded to a vertical load V0: (b) Alternatively, by dividing equation (2)
(a) There was indeed a family of nested yield- throughout by 4v 1  v 2 and defining (mn, hn) = (m,
surfaces of the same form as equations (1) and (2), h)/[4v(1-v)], all points on the ‘cigar’ can be reduced
with (V0, H0) replacing (Vmax, Hmax) in (h, m, h0, m0). to a single, central ellipse (Gottardi et al. 1999).
The values of (m0, h0, a0), obtained from a Figure 5 shows their data plotted this way, together
statistically best-fitted ‘cigar’ to the swipe- with the best-fit ellipse. Points inside the ellipse
determined yield–loci, were (0.09, 0.121, -0.223), belong to elastic reloading paths for footings which
values essentially identical to those that described had been loaded to V0 and partially unloaded before
the failure envelope. Figure 4 shows a normalised swiping to yield (see Section 5).
plot of a set of parabolic yield-loci in the (v, q) (c) The simple, one-degree-of-freedom,
plane. hardening model could provide reasonable
predictions of plastic displacement increments.
(d) The ‘flow’ was approximately associated in
H (M/B,H) planes (i.e. the plastic potential and the
yield surface could be assumed identical), but this
was not so for load-paths along which V did not
remain constant. An adequate plastic potential is still
to be defined for such cases.
M/2R
hn
0.15
Best fit
V GG03
0.10 GG04

Swipe paths GG05

GG06
0.05
Figure 3. Sketch of load paths followed in ‘swipe’ tests (from GG28

Gottardi et al. 1999). GG29

0.00 mn GG07
-0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15
GG08

1.2 GG10
-0.05
q GG12

1.0 -0.10

-0.15
0.8

Figure 5. Dimensionless elliptical section of yield surface

(from Gottardi et al. 1999).
0.6

0.4
4 JUSTIFICATION AND INTERPRETATION OF
‘SWIPE’ TESTING

0.2 If, in a classical work-hardening plasticity model of

the soil-footing system, hardening were controlled
solely by V0, which in general might be a function of
0.0 the three plastic displacement components (wp, Bθp,
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 v 1.0
up), then V0 would change according to:
Figure 4. Dimensionless parabolic sections of yield surface. V0 V0 V0
V0  w p   p  u p (4)
w p
 p
u p
These cover a range of swipe tests (e.g.
increasing u only; increasing θ only and increasing In the model being considered hardening only occurs
both u and θ in a fixed ratio) for V0 = 4/5 Vmax. The as a result of increasing δwp. Hence, to avoid
normalised parabolas have the equation q - 4v(1-v) = hardening, and thereby, ensure no change of yield-

3
locus, any displacement path imposed on the footing geometrically similar then the succession of points
must ensure that δwp = 0 (i.e. that the vertical plastic {…(H1/V01, V1/V01), (H2/V02,V2/V02), ….} will trace
displacement component does not change during the out the generic yield locus in a dimensionless (H, V)
process). Since, in a swipe test, the footing is driven plane.
along an arbitrary, extensive horizontal and/or Figure 7 shows the output of a horizontal swipe
rotational displacement path this will necessarily test corrected this way.
impose plastic deformations – there can be no Figure 7
1
question of such a process being one of simple
H
locus 2
elastic-unloading, even though the vertical load may 0.8

H2 locus 1 b2
decrease. 0.6
'swipe' test
The differential form of a yield surface load-path
f(V,M,H,V0) is, 0.4
H1
b1

f f f f
0.2

V  M  H  V0  0 (5) V2 V1
V M H V0 0
V01 V02
0.6 0.7 0.8 V 0.9 1

Since a perfect swipe test ensures δV0 = 0, then

equation (5) requires the two vectors, w = w0 a1

 f f f  a2
 , ,  and V , M , H  (6)
 V M H  w

to be orthogonal. The first of these is normal to f

and, therefore, the second, the load increment vector, Figure 6. Correction procedure for a horizontal swipe test.
is locally tangential to f, i.e. the load path in any
perfect swipe test necessarily traces a curve 0.20

embedded in the three-dimensional yield-surface h=H/Vo Uncorrected

corresponding to V0 (Butterfield & Gottardi 2003). Corrected for rig flexibility

Unfortunately, from an experimental point of 0.15 Corrected for rig flexibility and soil elasticity

view, it is very much simpler to impose the

condition δw = 0 rather than the formal requirement
δwp = 0. Therefore, due to the decrease in V, which 0.10

occurs in a swipe test, the associated elastic vertical

displacement recovery of the soil means that δwp ≠
0. A similar error can develop in a practical swipe 0.05
test due to the elastic deformation of the loading
frame. In their experiments using dense sand,
Gottardi et al. (1999) found the latter to be much the 0.00
more significant source of error. Both of these 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80
v=V/Vo
1.00

errors, if small, can be corrected if reasonable values

of the vertical elastic compressibility of the soil- Figure 7. Swipe test output (w = constant) corrected to provide
a wp = constant locus.
footing system and the loading frame are known.
The remaining source of error, which cannot be
corrected directly, is that the hardening parameter V0
5 NUMERICAL MODELLING
may depend on (δθp, δup) in addition to wp. Unless
such dependence is also small, as it appears to be
Even with the improved efficiency of yield–curve
from the results of Gottardi et al. (1999), the concept
determination provided by swipe testing, it is still a
of δwp = 0 swipe testing is clearly no longer valid.
formidable experimental task to verify a three-
The ‘correction’ procedure for a δw = 0
dimensional yield surface in an adequate way,
horizontal swipe test is illustrated in Figure 6. At
especially when investigating embedded footings
any stage in the test, the load point b1 will lie on a
(Bransby & Randolph, 1999). One possible
yield locus, defined here by V01. In the ‘hardening
approach is to use numerical modelling for this
plane’ it will lie on an elastic unloading line at a1,
purpose. In principle, swipe tests can be performed
with w = w0, say. A small horizontal swipe
with wp = constant and the problems of soil bed
increment generates a load path increment b1 to b2
replication and rig stiffness eliminated. Constructing
and a2 will be the point in the V – w plane
sets of yield loci this way would be particularly
corresponding to b2 (since δw = 0 throughout the
convenient.
test). If the unloading line through a2 intersects the
A preliminary numerical investigation, using a
‘virgin’ V – w curve at V02 then b2 lies on the yield
2D finite-difference code (ITASCA, 2002), was
locus corresponding to V02. If all the yield loci are

4
carried out to establish whether the geometrical form
of the curves already determined experimentally
could be replicated. The soil bed (18 m wide x 8 m
deep) was modelled as a standard elastic, perfectly
plastic, Mohr-Coulomb frictional material (φ = 30°;
ψ = 15°) and the footing (breadth B = 2 m) as a rigid
structural beam, initially laying on top of it, with a
fully rough interface (Figure 8).
w
u q

footing paths from rotational swiping proceed only
in a clockwise direction, those from horizontal
swiping move in either direction.
Figure 12 shows the Gottardi et al (1999)
horizontal and rotational swipe data from their
experiments, which is clearly very similar to the
computer model output.
The buried footing swipe tests also generated
essentially parabolic load paths. Embedment of the
footing caused not only an approximate doubling of
its vertical load capacity (Figure 9), but also a small
expansion of its (V/V0,H/V0) yield envelope (from
about V0/8 to V0/7) and, in the case of the physically
buried footing, a small lateral shift towards the
origin of its peak load point. The (V/V0,M/BV0)
envelope also expanded, but its peak load point
shifted slightly away from the load origin.

1800

Load V [KN]
1600
w = applied constant vertical rate 1400
u = applied constant horizontal rate
 = applied constant rotation
1200
Figure 8. Geometry of the finite difference numerical model. 1000

800
A buried footing was then modelled in two ways:
(1) a 1 m deep soil surcharge (i.e. 17.6 kPa) was 600 Surface footing
added before displacements start and (2) the footing 400 Surface footing with surcharge
was physically buried at 1 m depth (D/B = 0.5) and 200
Embedded footing
the bed depth increased to 9 m. Load capacity according toTerzaghi
Horizontal and rotational swipe tests were 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
performed as follows. In all tests a vertical Displacement w [m]
downward movement sufficient to impose a specific Figure 9. Vertical load (V) versus displacement (w) curves.
V0, 80% of Vmax, was applied; in some cases the
footing was unloaded to about V0/8 before swipe H/Vo
testing (preloaded footings). In all tests swiping was 0.16

continued until a steady state, at which all loads 0.14

remained constant, was achieved. 0.12
The vertical load test curves for the three cases 0.1
mentioned (Figure 9) show that: values of Vmax are 0.08
very close to the Terzaghi predicted values; there is Surface footing
0.06
Surface footing with surcharge
no work softening (since the M/C model does not 0.04
allow it); the difference between the first loading Embedded footing
0.02
and unload-reload slopes is much smaller than those 0
measured in experiments. Since the M/C model has 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 V/Vo
not generated wp = constant loci the following Figure 10. Horizontal swipe test load paths.
comparisons relate only to the form of the swipe
curves themselves. M/BVo
The load paths for the three horizontal swipe tests 0.16
are shown in Figure 10 (each curve has been 0.14
normalized by the V0 value specific to each test). 0.12
Results for both normally loaded and preloaded 0.1
footing tests converge satisfactorily.
0.08
In the rotational swipe tests a tensile bond Surface footing
0.06
strength of 10 kPa was included at the footing-soil
0.04 Surface footing with surcharge
interface. The bonded and unbonded swipe curves
(not shown) were almost identical. 0.02 Embedded footing

Figure 11 shows the output from these tests and it 0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
V/Vo
is interesting to note that whereas the preloaded
Figure 11. Rotational swipe test load paths.

5
 250
H (N)
200
GG03
150
100
GG07
50
0 centrifuge rotational swipe testing may well be a
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
200
M/B (N)
GG04
150
GG08
100
50
0 Géotechnique, ENTPE, Lyon, France, 128-137.
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Figure 12. Experimental data, horizontal and rotational swipe
tests on surface footing (from Gottardi et al. 1999).
6 FINAL REMARKS
There is now a considerable body of evidence that
the response of shallow, rigid foundations to either
changes (δV, δM/B, δH) in the applied load or
changes in the associated displacements (δw, δBθ,
δu) can be modelled, with reasonable accuracy, as a
work-hardening plastic system with a single
hardening parameter V0 dependent only on the
vertical plastic displacement component wp.
The determination of yield-loci (defining in
aggregate a three-dimensional yield-surface for the
foundation-soil system) from experiments is a
crucial part of the validation of such models. A
technique for doing this efficiently, a displacement-
controlled ‘swipe’ test, has been described and,
when corrected for soil compressibility, formally
shown to generate the correct yield locus, if soil
hardening is governed solely by the plastic
component of the V – w curve for the system. The
results obtained replicated very closely those
obtained from vastly more laborious load-controlled
tests.
A preliminary numerical investigation, using a
well established constitutive model, has been able to
reproduce the key features of experimental results
for surface footings with surprising accuracy.
Encouraged by these results, the analysis was
extended to include embedded footings (D/B = 0.5).
The dimensionless load paths generated were again
of parabolic form with, as expected, peak values
increasing to around 0.14 for both horizontal and
rotational swipe tests with w = constant. The
analysis is currently being refined to perform
‘perfect’ swipe tests throughout which wp =
constant, in order to provide yield loci directly.
Scale effects, if any, between model and
prototype foundations have yet to be fully
determined, although, since they will be reflected in
the centreline-load capacity of the system, the
dimensionless equations to the yield loci from model
tests may still be applicable. Large-scale or
1400 1600
V (N)
practical proposition.
REFERENCES
Bransby M.F., Randolph, M.F 1999. The effect of embedment
depth on the undrained responde skirted foundations.to
combined loading. Soils and foundations 39(4), 19-33.
Butterfield R. 1980. A simple analysis of the load capacity of
rigid footings on granular materials. Journée de
1400 1600 Butterfield R. 1981. Another look at gravity platform
V (N) foundations. SMFE in Offshore Technology, CISM, Udine,
Italy.
Butterfield R., Gottardi G. 1994. A complete three–
dimensional failure envelope for shallow footings on sand.
Géotechnique, 44(1), 181-184.
Butterfield R., Gottardi G. 1996. Simplified failure envelopes
for shallow foundations on dense sand. Int. Jour. Offshore
and Polar Engineering, 6(1),58-64.
Butterfield R., Gottardi G. 2003. Determination of yield curves
for shallow foundations by “swipe” testing. Proc. 1st
International symposium on shallow foundation,
FONDSUP, Paris, France, 1, 111-118.
Butterfield R., Ticof J. 1979. The use of physical models in
design (discussion). Proc.7th ECSMFE, Brighton, UK, 4,
259-261.
Gottardi G. 1992. Modellazione del comportamento di
fondazioni superficiali su sabbia soggette a diverse
condizioni di carico. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Padova,
Italy.
Gottardi G., Butterfield R. 1993. On the bearing capacity of
surface footings on sand under general planar loads. Soils
and Foundations, 33(3), 68-79.
Gottardi G., Houlsby G.T., Butterfield R. 1999. The plastic
response of circular footings on sand under general planar
loading. Géotechnique,49(4),453-469.
ITASCA Consulting Group (2002) FLAC: Fast Lagrangian
Analysis of Continua. Minneapolis, USA.
Martin C.M., Houlsby G.T. 2000. Combined loading of
spudacan foundations on clay: laboratory test.
Géotechnique 50(4), 325-338.
Nova R., Montrasio L. 1991. Settlements of shallow
foundations on sand. Géotechnique 41(2), 243-256.
Tan K. 1990. Centrifuge and theoretical modelling of footings
on sand. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Cambridge, UK.
Ticof J. 1977. Surface footings on sand under general planar
loads. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Southampton, UK.
Zdravkovic L., Ng P. M. and Potts D. M. 2002. Bearing
capacity of surface footings on sand subjected to combined
loading. Proc. Int, Conf. on Num. Methods in Geotech.
Eng., NUMGE V, 323-330.