BEARING CAPACITY OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS ON

NONCOHESIVE SOILS

By Bohdan Zadroga ~

ABSTRACT: A bearing-capacity analysis of shallow footings and strip foundations

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 11/13/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

subjected to axial, eccentric, and inclined loading is presented for noncohesive

soils. The influencesof load eccentricity and inclination, subsoil surface inclination,
and depth and shape of foundation with regard to classical and new calculation
methods are discussed. Comparisons of different formulas of bearing-capacity fac-
tors, shape and depth factors, load and surface inclination factors, as well as values
of these factors are presented. A methodology and analysis of model test results
of both the writer and other authors are also presented and compared with different
calculation methods, which show considerable underestimation of results with re-
spect to classicalcalculation methods and reasonable agreement for new ones. The
results of experiments for strip foundations and footings have been statistically
evaluated and empirical formulas to determine N~ values proposed. The quanti-
tative data presented can be useful for verification of new bearing-capacity cal-
culation methods and practical engineering design.

INTRODUCTION

Bearing-capacity m o d e l tests of shallow footings and strip foundations

being carried out in various geotechnical laboratories clearly showed that
model test results are, in general, much higher than those calculated by
traditional methods (Balla 1962; Bolt 1982; Cichy et al. 1978; Ingra and
Baecher 1983; H a r t i k a i n e n and Z a d r o g a 1994; Milovic 1965; Saran and
Agarwal 1991; Shiraishi 1990; Z a d r o g a 1975). This apparently m o t i v a t e d
investigators to search for new calculation methods based on various ap-
proaches including the following:

9 Kinematically possible circular sliding surface (Balla 1962)

9 Variational m e t h o d ( G a r b e r and B a k e r 1977; L e w a n d o w s k a and
Dembicki 1991)
9 Finite-element m e t h o d ( T a t s u o k a et al. 1991; Siddiquee 1991)
9 Log spiral sliding surface for three-dimensional (3D) p r o b l e m s (Nar-
ita and Yamaguchi 1989, 1992)
9 Limit equilibrium analysis (Saran and A g a r w a l 1991)
9 Statistical analysis of m o d e l test result (Ingra and B a e c h e r 1983)

Bearing-capacity calculation results o b t a i n e d by most of these approaches

are more satisfactory as regards to l a b o r a t o r y - m o d e l test results. H o w e v e r ,
before introducing these m e t h o d s to c o m m o n practice in the form of design
standards, full verification of the m e t h o d s based on both classical and cen-
trifugal model tests, as well as in situ investigations, is required. In the
paper, extensive comparative studies of classical calculation methods have
been used (Balla 1962; G a r b e r and B a k e r 1977; Ingra and B a e c h e r 1983).
~Prof., Fac. of Hydro-Engrg., Geotech. Dep., Tech. Univ. of Gdansk, 80-952
Narutowicza 11, Gdansk, Poland.
Note. Discussion open until April 1, 1995. To extend the closing date one month,
a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The manuscript
for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on April 15, 1993.
This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 120, No. 11,
November, 1994. 9 ISSN 0733-9410/94/0011-1991/$2.00 + $.25 per page.
Paper No. 6004.

1991

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1994.120:1991-2008.

 In addition, comparisons of Polish, Finnish, and Japanese model tests were
made (Bolt 1982; Cichy et al. 1978; Dembicki and Zadroga 1974; Harti-
kainen and Zadroga 1994; Tatsuoka et al. 1991; Siddiquee 1991, respec-
tively).
Comparisons have been carried out for the simplest cases (for E = 0; D
= 0; ct = 0; 13 = 0, defined in Appendix II) and for more complicated
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 11/13/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

cases. In the latter, the influence of eccentricity and inclination of external

load, inclination of subsoil, and depth and shape of foundation on bearing
capacity was analyzed and compared with model test results. The analysis
concerns surface ( D / B = 0) and shallow foundations ( D / B < 1.0) resting
on noncohesive soils only.

ANALYSIS OF CLASSICAL BEARING-CAPACITY FORMULA

The classical formula of bearing capacity of a foundation (q) resting on

noncohesive soil and subjected to a complex state of external load can be
written in the well-known form
Q
q - BL - ~tDNqSqdqiqgq + 0.5"yBNvs.flj.~g v (1)
where B and L = width and length of foundation, respectively; ",/ = unit
weight of soil; D = foundation depth; N~ and Nv = bearing-capacity factors;
Sq and sv. = .foundation-shape factors; a]q and d v = depth factors; iq.and i v
= load-lnchnatlon factors; and gq and gv = ground-surface-mchnatton
factors.
The values of the coefficients in (1) may differ significantly depending
on the formulas r e c o m m e n d e d by various authors or particular standard
regulations. For the sake of comparison in Tables 1-5, commonly used
formulas for those coefficients have been complied where the values of the
coefficients were calculated for an effective friction angle + = 32.5 ~ That
value as an effective friction angle is typical for sand used in the Polish
model tests. It enables estimation of quantitative differences for each of the
coefficients.
The bearing capacity factor Nq can be determined for all classical cal-
culation methods from the following formula (Meyerhof 1951):

TABLE 1. Comparison of Bearing Capacity Factor N

N~" value for

Reference formula + = 32.5 ~
(1) (2) (3)
(EUROCODE 1993) 2(Nq - 1)tan + 30.0
(Brinch-Hansen 1970; Polish Design
Code 1981) 1.5(Nq - 1)tan + 22.5
(API Recommendation 1984; Nor-
wegian Rules 1980) 2(Nq + 1)tan + 32.6
(Meyerhof 1963) (Nq - 1)tan(1.4+) 24.0
(Chen 1975) 2(Nq + 1)tan + tan[45 + (+/2)1 41.0
[Ingra and Baecher (1983) exp(-1.646 + 0.173+) 53.3
(L/B = 6)(L/B) = 1] exp(-2.046 + 0.173+) 35.1
(Feda 1961) 0.01 exp(+/4) 33.8

1992

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1994.120:1991-2008.

 TABLE 2. Comparison of Foundation-Shape Factors Sq and s~ for B/L = 1 and +
= 32.5*

Sq S-t

R~erence formula value formula value

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 11/13/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

EUROCODE 1993) 1 + (B/L)sin d~ 1.53 1 - 0.3(B/L) 0.70

Brinch-Hansen 1970;
(API Recommendation 1984) 1 + (B/L)tan ~b 1.63 1 - 0.4(B/L) 0.60
(Polish Design Code 1981) 1 + (B/L) 2,5 1 - 0.25(B/L) 0.75
(Norwegian Rules 1980) 1 + (B/L)sin + 1.53 1 - O.4(B/L) 0.60

TABLE 3. Comparison of Depth Factor dq for D/B = 1 and ~b = 32.5 ~

a~ a~
Reference formula value
(1) (2) (3)

(Brinch-Hansen 1970;
API Recommendation 1984) 1 + 2(D/B)tan +(1 - sin ~)2 1.27
(Norwegian Rules 1980) 1 + 1.2(D/B)tan +(1 - sin dp)z 1.16
(Meyerhof 1963) 1 + O.l(D/B)tan[45 + (~b/2)]z 1.18

TABLE 4. Comparison of Load-Inclination Factors iq and i.~

iq i'y i"/ i"/ i~/

Reference formula formula a = 10 ~ c~ = 2 0 ~ a = 3 0 ~
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

(EUROCODE 1993) [1 - 0.7(H/Q)] 3 [1 - (H/Q)] 3 0.56 0.26 0.07

(Polish Design Code 0.52 0.22 0.04
1981)
(Brinch-Hansen 1970; [1 - 0.5(H/Q)] 5 [1 - 0.7(H/Q)] 5 0.52 0.23 0.08
Norwegian Rules
1980)
API Recommendation [1 - (H/Q)] 4 [1 - (H/Q)] 5 0.38 0.10 0.01
1984)
(Meyerhof 1963) [1 - (~/90)]~ [1 - (a/+)]a 0.48 0.15 0.06
(Tran-Vo-Nhiem 1971) 0.59 0.19 0.03
(Ingra and Baecher i~ = 1 - 0.61 0.30 0.06
1983)" 2.41(n/o) +
1.36[(H/Q)] 2
(Saran and Agarwal 0.61 0.43 0.09
1991)
alngra and Baecher (1983) give i, value only.

Nq=e . . . . , tan2 ( 4 5 + ~ ) (2)

H o w e v e r , c o n s i d e r a b l e differences occur for the s e c o n d b e a r i n g - c a p a c i t y

factor N~ (see T a b l e 1). It follows f r o m T a b l e 1 that for given s a n d the
values of bearing-capacity factor N~ varies b e t w e e n 24 a n d 55.3 w h e n cal-

1993

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1994.120:1991-2008.

 TABLE 5. Comparison of Ground-Surface Inclination Factor g~
Reference #., formula
(1) (2)
(Brinch-Hansen 1970; API Recommendation 1984) (1 - tan 13)2
(Gamier et al. 1994) 1 - [1.8 tan [3 - 0,9(tan 13)2]
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 11/13/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(Gamperline 1988) 1 - 0.811 - (1 - tan [3)2]

(Weiss 1973) (1 - 0.79 tan [3)2
(Deutsche Norm DIN 1988) [1 - 0.5(tan [3)]2

culated by various classical formulas. Table 2 shows that for square foun-
dations rested on sand of + = 32.5 ~ the values of foundation-shape factors
Sq and sv (excluding Polish Code) may vary by 6% and 16%, respectively.
For shallow foundations (D/B < 1.0) the depth factor d v is equal to unity,
and the second depth factor dq can be determined by formulas given in
Table 3. It can be seen that the values of d o are close to each other and the
difference between them does not exceed 10% for D/B = 1 and + = 32.5 ~
In practical calculations concerning foundations ~subjected to inclined ex-
ternal loads, values of load-inclination factors iq, iv, and load inclination c~
to the vertical play an important role. These values have been specified in
Table 4. The differences of inclination factor i v are approximately 40% and
100% for a/+ = 0.3 and for a/qb > 0.61, respectively. These results were
obtained again for the same friction angle 32.5 ~ Tran-Vo-Nhiem (1971)
takes into account the influence of external-load inclination directly in values
of bearing-capacity factors Nq~, and N w.
The relations determining the ground-surface-inclination factor gv have
been presented in Table 5. As in the previous case, Tran-Vo-Nhiem (1971),
as well as Meyerhof (1957), include the influence of ground-surface incli-
nation 13 directly in bearing-capacity factors Nv~.
The influence of load eccentricity E is classically taken into account by
the assumption of effective foundation width as follows:

= B - 2E (3)

A different relation of effective width is given by Ingra and Baecher (1983)

where

Note that all relations given by Ingra and Baecher (1983) do not follow
from theoretical considerations but from empirical analysis based on statis-
tical evaluation of approximately 450 model test results performed on non-
cohesive soils by independent researchers.
When analyzing values of particular factors in Tables 1 - 5 , one can find
significant quantitative differences, which for extreme cases may reach 100%.
These differences may accumulate when calculating the bearing capacity of
foundations and may produce considerable inaccuracies of final results. To
determine which of the factors analyzed influence the bearing capacity the
most, the appropriate calculations and comparative analyses of the writer's
own model tests have been performed.
1994

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1994.120:1991-2008.

 SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY OF MODEL TESTS

Comparison of calculated and experimental results of bearing capacity of

foundations has been made for Polish, Finnish, and Japanese model tests.
Polish model tests (with the writer's participation) have been performed
in the Geotechnical Laboratory of the Hydro-Engineering Faculty of Gdansk
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 11/13/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Technical University under the supervision of E. Dembicki in the years

1975-90. The scope of experiments and their characteristics are presented
in Fig. 1. Most of model tests were carried out in a plane-strain state and
a few in 3D-strain state. All tests were performed in three different models,
A, B, and C, the dimensions of which are as follow (for length, width, and
height, respectively): Model A is 1.80 • 0.35 • 0.54 m; model B is 2.65
• 0.50 • 1.07 m; and model C is 2.40 • 0.96 • 1.00 m. All experiments
were performed on sand of ~/ = 15.2-17.2 kN/m 3 and ~b = 25~ ~ mostly
on medium dense with average values ~ = 16.2 kN/m 3 and cb = 32.5 ~ at a
standard deviation equal to 0.13 kN/m 3 for -y and 0.40 ~ for (h. The foun-
dations were situated on homogeneous subsoil being prepared by a moving
sand curtain method. In general, over 350 different experiments were per-
formed. Detailed test results can be found in Bolt (1982), Cichy et al. (1978),
Dembicki and Zadroga (1974), and Zadroga (1975).
The Finnish tests were made at the Geotechnical Laboratory at Tampere

I Model tests rype~ofso.ofDimensions

foundation Remarks
l'em medium ( c m )
Shallow foundations A HC B=10,20,30 Vn riob[e:eccenh-idfy
1 ~ ~ NHC L=35,50,96 and
force inclination

Variable :
2 ....... .'::':::":~..;' NH C B=10,15,20 - eccentricity,
-force and slope
inclination.

Ill
.:,:..:-.. I /I
,:::....::::':.': NS Variable:
- eccentricity,
3 ~ ~ B=10,20,30 - force inc[ir~tion,
/.:7.!"-::-:--~.i.:-::.::-,ivT:-.:-!-~ c c~ - depth and thicknes~
weak soil layer or weak soil stratu
@l_El Ns Soil replacement
Variable:
CC1 B=10,15,20 - eccentricity,
weak soil - force inclination

••
5 :-:"...'~.::i~:'!::;!3:.!"
rigid Layer
ASC
NS C B=10.20
VariabLe:
- eccentricity,
- force inclination,
- depth of rigid layer,
Variable :
6 ~ AHC - eccentricity,
- force inclination,
- spacingof foLr~Ore
Footing foundations B= 31, O
VariabLe :
7 ~ ~ N.C B=L=30[] - eccentricity
B=30 [7 - force inclination
L= 50
| A -ano[oque soil H-homogeneous C- cohesionless
N -natural soil S -stratified CF cohesive

FIG. 1. Model Tests Made in Geotechnical Laboratory of Hydro-Engineering De-

partment of Gdansk Technical University in Poland

1995

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1994.120:1991-2008.

 University of Technology in 1992 under the supervision of J. Hartikainen.
The tests were carried out in 3D-strain-state conditions in a box 2.5 • 2.5
• 4.5 m in size. Three kinds of rigid strip foundations were used, namely
B/L = 0.15 x 1.5 m or 0.3 x 1.5 m and a circular foundation with a
diameter equal of 0.3 m. The subsoil was made of sand and gravel with an
optimal moisture content and ",/ = 17.0-21.7 kN/m 3 and qb = 35~ ~ In
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 11/13/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

general, 54 experiments were performed, the methodology and results of

which are presented in Hartikainen and Heinonen (1993) and Hartikainen
and Zadroga (1994).
The Japanese experiments (Tatsuoka et al. 1991; Siddiquee 1991), under
the supervision of F. Tatsuoka, were carried out using standard Toyoura
sand. The rigid foundations, with footing widths of 0.23 and 0.5 m and
lengths of 2.0 m, were rested on homogeneous subsoil in model box di-
mensions equal to 7.0 • 2.0 x 4.0 m.

COMPARISON BETWEEN THEORETICAL AND

MODEL TEST RESULTS

The model test results were the basis of comparative quantitative analysis.
The analysis concerned the influence of the following factors: Load eccen-
tricity E; load inclination to the vertical direction or; ground-surface incli-

TABLE 6. Influence of Eccentricity E/B on Ultimate Bearing-Capacity Reduction

forD=~=6=0
Eccentricity (E/B)
1 1 1
0.0 12 6
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Polish experiment: ~b = 32.5 ~ 10 0.57 0.39 0.21
Polish experiment: ~b = 34.0 ~ 10 0.69 0.52 0.36
Polish Design Code (1981): see Eq. (3) 10 0.69 0.44 0.25
Ingra and Baecher (1983): see Eq. (4) 10 0.73 0.50 0.31

TABLE 7. Influence of Load Inclination c~ on Ultimate Bearing-Capacity Reduc-

tion: B = 0.2 m; D = E = 13 = 0; d~ = 32.5 ~ Values of i~ Factor

Load inclination ~ (degrees)

0 10 20 30
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Polish experiment: L = 0.50 m 1.0 0.72 0.63 0.49
Polish experiment: L = 0.96 m 1.0 0.23
Polish experiment: L = B = 0.30 m 1.0 0.50 0.30
Ingra and Baecher (1983) 1.0 0.61 0.30 0.06
E U R O C O D E (1993) 1.0 0.56 0.26 0.07
Polish Design Code (1981) 1.0 0.52 0.22 0.04
Brinch-Hansen (1970) 1.0 0.52 0.23 0.08
API Recommendations (1984) 1.0 0.38 0.10 0.01
Meyerhof (1963) 1.0 0.48 0.15 0.06
Tran-Vo-Nhiem (1971) 1.0 0.59 0.19 0.03
Saran and Agarwal (1991) 1.0 0.61 0.43 0.09

1996

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1994.120:1991-2008.

 nation to the horizontal [3; and foundation depth (D/B). The influence of
each factor was analyzed independently. For instance, when the influence
of eccentricity was analyzed, other factors were equal to zero (~ = [3 = D
= 0). It must be stressed that only the average values from test series are
presented due to scatter of experimental results. For instance, the average
value of external load for a four times repeated test (B = 0.2 m; L = 0.5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 11/13/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

m; + = 34 ~ was equal to 12.26 kN and the corresponding standard deviation

0.639 kN.
Table 6 shows good conformity between experimental and calculated
values of the eccentricity influence on the bearing capacity of surface foun-
dations. Significant inaccuracies between experiment and calculations are
observed for external load-inclination value c~ presented in Table 7. Those
differences occur for all inclinations (c~/+ = 0.3, 0.61, and 0.92) and increase
rapidly when external load inclination increases. Calculated values of the
load-inclination factor iv are significantly smaller than those obtained from
model tests. On the other hand, the values of load inclination factor i v from
the writer's model tests differ considerably from those calculated in terms
of various calculation methods, as well as from results of other model tests,
e.g., the work of Ingra and Baecher (1983). It was most likely related to
the way the external load was applied on footing in the writer's model tests.
The increase of load inclination caused a decay of the hinge-joint character
of load transmission, particularly for c~ > 20 ~ Thus, the results of these
tests require further, more comprehensive verification and should be treated
very carefully.
Table 8 contains values of ground-surface inclination factors g~. It con-
cerns the case when we are dealing with foundations located on the slope
edge. The test results presented conform well with those calculated (a dif-
ference of 20%) for [3/+ < 0,6 but indicate considerable inaccuracy for [3/+
= 0.9 (over 100%). The best results in this case are given by Gamperline's
(1988) and Weiss's (1973) methods.
More attention has been paid to determine the influence of foundation
depth on bearing-capacity increase. In this case additionally, Japanese and
Finnish experimental results have been applied (Table 9). Analyzing the

TABLE 8. Influence of Slope Inclination 13 on Ultimate Bearing-Capacity Reduc-

tion Values of g~ Factor for D = E = ~ = 0; + = 32.5~ L = 0,5 m

Slope Inclination !3 (degrees)

0 10 20 3O
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Polish experiment: B = 0.20 m 1.0 0.82 0.55 0.47
Polish experiment: B = 0.15 m 1.0 0.30
Polish experiment: B = 0.10 m 1.0 0.75 0.58 0.51
Brinch-Hansen (1970) 1.0 0.67 0.40 0.18
Garnier et al. (1994) 1.0 0.71 0.46 0.26
Gamperline (1988) 1.0 0.74 0.52 0.34
Weiss (1973) 1.0 0.74 0.51 0.29
Deutsche Norm DIN (1988) 1.0 0.63 0.37 0.18
Kovalev (1964) 1.0 0.64 0.38 0.18
Meyerhof (1957) 1.0 0.64 0.40 0.18
Mizuno (1960) 1.0 0.79 0.43 0.23
Tran-Vo-Nhiem (1971) 1.0 0.53 0.31 0.13

1997

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1994.120:1991-2008.

 TABLE 9. Influence of Foundation Depth D/B on Ultimate Bearing-Capacity In-
crease
Foundation Depth D/B
0.0 0.30 0.50 0.60 0.90 1.0
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 11/13/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Polish experiment: B = 0.1 m 1.0 - - 1.6 - - 2.0

Polish experiment: B = 0.15 m 1.0 - - 1.8

Polish experiment: B = 0.2 m 1.0 -- 1.7 - - 2.2

Finnish experiment: B = 0.15 m 1.0 -- 1.8
Finnish experiment: B = 0.30 m 1.0 -- 1.6 --
Japanese experiment: B = 0.23 m 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.8
Japanese experiment: B = 0.50 m 1.0 1.4 2.1
API Recommendations (1984) 1.0 1.3 1.8 1.9 2.2 3.1
Norwegian Rules (1980) 1.0 1.3 1.7 1.8 2.1 2.9

preceeding results indicated, good agreement of the foundation depth in-

fluence on bearing capacity can be noted. However, model test results were
20-40% less than the calculated ones.
The differences between experimental results and calculations for the
complex system of external load (sometimes considerably large) observed
in Tables 6 - 9 prompts a search for the reasons. The differences can be seen
even in the simplest case (D = E = a = [3 = 0) and cumulate for more
complex cases. One can therefore decide to analyze in detail the bearing
capacity of surface foundation subjected to vertical axial load and founded
on homogeneous horizontal subsoil of sand, In the analysis, previous com-
parative results of the same type presented by Balla (1962) and Ingra and
Baecher (1983) and the writer's own have been used. The idea of the com-
parison is to present quantitative relations for N~ = f(qb) following from
classical calculation methods; various model test results; proposals of new
theoretical, and empirical calculation methods.
Balla (1962) made comparisons of bearing capacity factor N~ for the first
two points previously mentioned and additionally for his own method. The
method proposed was based on the assumption of a kinematically possible
circular sliding surface. The results are presented in Fig. 2.
Similar comparisons were made by Ingra and Baecher (1983) for strip
foundations (L/B = 6) and square footings (L/B = 1). The writer's deter-
mined the range of Nv values for both kinds of foundations using classical
calculation methods and model test results. In all, 130 experiments for strip
foundations and 145 experiments carried out on footings have been elab-
orated statistically. The final results are presented in Fig. 3. The regression
line shown in Fig. 3 represents expected values on the ln(N~) function for
the given value of 6. The expected values and variances of N~ are as follow:

9 For footings (L/B = 1):

E[Nv] = e x p [ - 2 . 0 6 4 + 0.173(6)] (5)
VINe] = 0.0902 e x p [ - 4 . 1 2 8 + 0.346(6)] (6)
9 For strip foundations (L/B = 6):
E[Nv] = e x p [ - 1 . 6 4 6 + 0.173(6)] (7)
1998

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1994.120:1991-2008.

 1000

500
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 11/13/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

~200
z

100

D.
8
.~ 50

30

20

30~ 35~ 40o 45~

Ang[e of infernnl friction:

FIG. 2. Comparison between Experimental and Theoretical Results for Bearing-

Capacity Factor N~ Given by Balla (1962)

V[N~] : 0.0429 exp[-3.292 + 0.345(d~)] (8)

The main conclusions arising from the analysis of values of the bearing-
capacity factor Nv presented in Figs. 2 and 3 are as follow: Model test and
calculation results are characterized by a certain scatter, but they can be
grouped visibly into two separated not overlapping intervals; calculated by
classical methods, Nv values are always much lower than those obtained
from model tests; the methods of Nv calculation proposed by Balla (1962)
and Ingra and Baecher (1983) give good predictions of experimental data.
To decrease the differences of Nv values following experiments and cal-
culations some authors recommend the appropriate choice of determination
methodology of internal friction angle. It has been found that the angle of
internal friction from a triaxial test (+t,) is from 1~ to 5~ smaller than that
from the plane-strain test (+pt). A strip foundation is a plane-strain case
versus a triaxial case for a circular footing. Several adjustments have been
proposed to obtain the plane strain value of qb from triaxial values: For
circular or rectangular footings L/B < 2.0 use +,r, and for strip foundations
L/B > 2.0 use qbpt suggested by Meyerhof (1963), Brinch Hansen (1970),
and Lade and Lee (1976), respectively

(9)

+pt = 1.1+,, (10)

1999

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1994.120:1991-2008.

 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 11/13/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

300
500

~" 2O0

lOO
8o
8"
" 60

20

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1994.120:1991-2008.

10
(Or 3Or 3Zv 3gu ~6 o 380 40 ~ 420 l~o 46o
Angte of inferno[ friction

:IG. 3. Comparison between Experimental and Theoretical Results for Bearing-Capacity Factor N. for Strip Foundation (L/B -- 6) Given
)y Ingra and Baecher (1983)
 qbpl = 1.5qb,r -- 17 ~ for qb,r > 34 ~ (11)

In general, it is not r e c o m m e n d e d to adjust qb,r unless it is greater than 32 ~

35 ~ and limit the adjustment to not more than 5 ~. If values are greater,
plane-strain tests should be carried out to determine qb.
It should be added that the progressive failure p h e n o m e n o n , particle-size
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 11/13/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

effect, scale effect, and anisotropy of soil, also influence the bearing capacity
for dense sand, which should be included in further analyses. Such analysis,
taking into account the factors mentioned, was caried out by Tatsuoka et
al. (1991).
Taking into account the friction-angle values according to (9)-(11) de-
crease differences between calculated and experimental results, but the
latter still remain higher. In addition, the writer has made some calculations
of the bearing capacity factor N~ for Polish and Finnish model tests, Z a d r o g a
(1975) and Hartikainen and Z a d r o g a (1994), repectively. The calculations
carried out took into account both classical methods and new approaches.
The final results are presented in Fig. 4. To make comparison of results
easier, Figs. 3 and 4 have been made in the same scale. For the sake of
clarity, Fig. 4 contains the average values of N~ received from Polish and
Finnish model test series, only neglecting model test results of other authors.
The results presented concern different values of the internal friction angle.
The values of N~ are in good agreement with model test results of other
authors. The expected values of bearing capacity factor N~ for own model
test results have been evaluated using the following empirical formulas:

9 For footings
E[N.~] = 0.096 exp[0.188qb] (12)
for the sample size n = 17 and correlation coefficient r =
0.958.
9 For strip foundations
E[N.~] = 0.657 exp[0.141+]
(13)
for n = 33 and r = 0.914.

Values of bearing-capacity factor N~ for Ingra and Baecher (1983) and the
writer's experiments have been shown in Figs. 5 and 6.
To determine actual values of the conformity coefficient m (the ratio of
bearing capacity from model tests to calculated bearing capacity) some
additional comparisons have been made. The results of comparisons con-
cerned Polish experiments (E = D = a = 13 = 0), which were performed
under plane-strain conditions for foundations of L = 0.5 m in length and
changing width, founded on air-dried fine sand of y = 16.2 kN/m 3 and qb
= 32.5 ~ The results are specified in Table 10. The results of comparisons
for Finnish experiments (E = D = a = 13 = 0), performed for the 3D-
strain case for strip foundations of B • L = 0.15 • 1.5 m and 0.3 • 1.5
m, and for circular footings of 0.3 m in diameter have been presented in
Table 11. The foundations rested on dense sand of ~/ = 18.0 kN/m 3, ~btr =
39 ~ qbpt = 41.5 ~ In bearing-capacity calculations shape factor s~ and ap-
propriate internal friction angles were taken into account (qb,r and qbpt for
footing and strip foundations, respectively). Tables 10 and 11 show great
inaccuracy in prediction of model tests by classical calculation methods. The
2001

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1994.120:1991-2008.

 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 11/13/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1000 I
REFERENCE I SYMBOL
,,4
NEW THEORETICAL SOLUTIONS f
600 BALLA (1962)
~ARBER & BAKER (1977)
400 LEWANDDWSKA & DEHBICKI(1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ' , ~
NARITA & YAMAGUCHI (1992)
SARA$1 9 A6ARWAL (1991)
INSRA & BAEEHER (1983) ~
200

xn=S0 foot f. o "

F(NNISH HODEL TESTS fo0f f. ~ ,~ ~*'J~"'~" - /
Z
=_ 100
o 9 ~;"J'V / :...<'~ " .T,c.~\~.v
O
r~ 9~ . ~ ~ ~-~' ~ . ~
e0

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1994.120:1991-2008.

10
28 ~ 30 ~ 32 ~ 3/+~ 36 ~ 38 ~ /+0o /+20 /+/,o /+60
Angle of internal friction r

FIG. 4. Comparison b e t w e e n E x p e r i m e n t a l a n d T h e o r e t i c a l R e s u l t s for B e a r i n g - C a p a c i t y F a c t o r N~ G i v e n b y W r i t e r

 600
I [ I I I J

300. ~ OWN MODELTESTS n=17 r=o.gsB rJ

IN6RA & BAECHER [1983)
J
Z / f + ~
=. 200
.o
u J./ / 1/
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 11/13/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

~ oo

/~/ ..... Nf=0.096 9 exp [0.1B8r ]

/~/ Ni-=exp [-2.06Z,+0.173$]
2O

26 ~ 28~
. . .

30~
. . .

32~
. . . .

3ko
. [ f ...... I r
36~ 38 ~ /+0o /,2 o 440

Angle of interno[ friction r

FIG. 5. Comparison of Bearing-Capacity Factor N~ for Footings Given by Ingra

and Baecher (1983) and by Writer

8oo
7oo~ E
600~-- OWN MODELTESTS n=33 '=0.91' =
500 ~::~____ INfiRA & ~AEOHER(1983) ~

,, I I _ _.~" Nr=~+~..,pI~,,l I I
1 111"..~176 -- ,~.=.xp ,-,.+,6+o.mo~ l I

20
30 ~ 35 ~ L,0o b,5o

Angle of inferno[ friction

FIG, 6. Comparison of Bearing-Capacity Factor N~ for Strip Foundations Given

by Ingra and Baecher (1983) and by Writer

calculations may underestimate the experimental outcome even two or three

times in that case. Similar comparisons of quantitative results together with
comprehensive analysis of reasons for inaccuracies are presented in Garber
and Baker (1979). Much better conformity is obtained using the new cal-
culation proposals. It must be stressed that, for some of model tests, those
methods yield a conformity coefficient less the unity. This means that, in
some cases, bearing-capacity calculation overestimates experimental data,
being on the risky side.
Quantity comparisons presented are valuable experimental verification
2003

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1994.120:1991-2008.

 TABLE 10. Experimental and Calculated Bearing-Capacity Values q (kPa) for
Polish Model Tests
B = 0.1 m B = 0.15m B = 0.20m
Itema Reference q m q m q m
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 11/13/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Model test 44 1.0 73 1.0 100 1.0

(EUROCODE 1993) 24.0 1.83 36.0 2.03 48.0 2.08
(Polish Design Code 1981) 17.5 2.51 26.2 2.78 35.0 2.86
(Terzaghi 1943) 25.9 1.70 38.9 1.87 51.8 1.93
(Meyerhof 1963) 19.2 2.29 28.8 2.53 38.4 2.60
(Tran-Vo-Nhiem 1971) 21.6 2.04 32.4 2.25 43.2 2.31
(Saran and Agarwal 1971) 22.7 1.94 34.0 2.14 45.4 2.20
(Balla 1962) 46.0 0.96 69.0 1.06 92.0 1.08
(Garber and Baker 1977) 49.4 0.89 74.1 0.98 98.8 1.01
(Ingra and Baecher 1983) 43.2 1.02 64.7 1.13 86.4 1.16
(Narita and Yamaguchi 1989, 1992) 51.8 0.85 77.7 0.94 103.6 0.96
(Saran and Agarwal 1991) 36.5 1.20 54.7 1.33 73.0 1.37
(Lewandowska and Dembicki 1991) 47.8 0.92 71.7 1.02 95.6 1.05
[Writer; see Eq. (13)] 52.0 0.84 78.0 0.94 104.0 0.96
a2 = classical calculation methods; 3 = new calculation methods.

TABLE 11. Experimental and Calculated Bearing-Capacity Values q (kPa) for Fin-
nish Model Tests
BxL= BxL= B= L=0.3
0.15 x 1.5 m 0.3 x 1.5 m m circular
Item a Reference q m q m q m
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
Model test 440 1.0 800 t.0 700 1.0
(EUROCODE 1993) 182 2.42 352 2.27 168 4.16
(Polish Design Code 1981) 137 3.21 258 3.10 108 6.48
(Terzaghi 1943) 209 2.10 418 1.91 256 2.73
(Meyerhof 1963) 178 2.47 375 2.14 300 2.33
(Tran-Vo-Nhiem 1971) 250 1.76 487 1.64 263 2.66
(Balla 1962) 383 1.15 767 1.04 334 2.10
(Garber and Baker 1977) 392 1.12 783 1.02 513 1.36
(Ingra and Baecher 1983) 342 1.29 683 1.17 292 2.40
(Narita and Yamaguchi 1989, 1992) 472 0.93 945 0.85 594 1.18
(Saran and Agarwal 1991) 297 1.48 594 1.34 400 1.75
(Lewandowska and Dembicki 1991) 419 1.05 838 0.95 425 1.65
[Writer; see Eqs. (12) and (13)] 308 1.42 617 1.30 396 1.76
aNo. 2 = classical calculation methods; 3 = new calculation methods.

of new b e a r i n g - c a p a c i t y - c a l c u l a t i o n m e t h o d s that h a v e a p p e a r e d in r e c e n t
years. T h e b e a r i n g - c a p a c i t y f a c t o r Nv as a f u n c t i o n o f i n t e r n a l friction a n g l e
s h o w n in Figs. 2 - 4 s h o u l d b e a g o o d s o u r c e f o r p o t e n t i a l m o d i f i c a t i o n o f
e n g i n e e r i n g s t a n d a r d regulations. It s h o u l d also s e r v e as a useful t o o l for
designers in c h o o s i n g t h e a p p r o p r i a t e b e a r i n g - c a p a c i t y - c a l c u l a t i o n m e t h o d .

2004

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1994.120:1991-2008.

 SUMMARY
The main conclusions resulting from general comparison of analyses and
model tests presented in this paper are as follow:
Bearing capacity of surface foundations in model tests for the simplest
case (D = E = c~ = 13 = 0), founded on noncohesive soil is higher than
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 11/13/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

calculated using classical methods.

Much better agreement between experiments and calculations can be
obtained for the new calculation methods indicated in Tables 10 and 11
(third group). However, these methods still need further and more com-
prehensive experimental verification before introducing them to engineering
practice.
For more complex cases, the computational and experimental data differ
for different factors influencing the bearing capacity of the foundation.
Satisfactory agreement between model test results and calculations (20%
difference) can be obtained when the eccentricity influence is taken into
account. Slightly worse results are for the ground-surface-inclination influ-
ence and foundation depth (20-40% difference). The greatest inaccuracies
in Polish model tests are obtained for external load-inclination influence.
Drawing from the foregoing conclusions, the following must be empha-
sized:

9 All model tests considered were performed on dry or moist com-

pacted sands or gravel, which limits the validity of the results pre-
sented to granular soil and surface foundations.
9 It is recommended that comparative analysis be extended for other
kinds of noncohesive soils, as well as cohesive ones.
9 Further theoretical analyses and model tests of the bearing capacity
of foundations will require additional considerations of following
influences: Progressive failure phenomenon; scale effect (i.e. pres-
sure-level and particle-size effect); footing-base roughness; initial
void ratio; and anisotropy of soil.

Such analyses were carried out, for example, by Tatsuoka et al. (1991),
Hetler and Gudehus (1988), and Kusakabe et al. (1992).
Nowadays there exist many possibilities for calculation and analysis of
the ultimate bearing capacity of a foundation. It follows from the quanti-
tative comparisons presented in the paper that it is advisable to calculate
the bearing capacity of foundations for the simplest case (homogeneous
noncohesive soil, D = E = ct -- 13 = 0) according to new calculation
methods (third group in Tables 10 and 12). The values of bearing capacity
obtained by those methods are in good conformity with experiments. For
more complex cases, it is recommended to take the particular factors of (1)
according to the methods in Tables 2 - 5 and (3) and (4).

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The research reported in this paper was carried out in research project
number 70488-91.01, supported by the Polish Research Committee (KBN)
in Warsaw. The writer would like to thank KBN for financing the project.

APPENDIX I. REFERENCES
AP1 RP2A recommended practice for planning, designing and constructing fixed
offshore platforms. (1984). American Petroleum Institute, Dallas, Texas, 43-111.
2005

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1994.120:1991-2008.

 Balla, A. (1962). "Bearing capacity of foundations." J. Soil Mech. and Found. Div.,
ASCE, 88(5), 13-34.
Bolt, A. (1982). "Bearing capacity of a homogeneous subsoil under rigid footing
foundation loaded with inclined and eccentric force." In~ynieria Morska, 3(2),
108-110, (in Polish).
Bowles, J. E. (1968). "Foundation analysis and design." Int. Student Ed., McGraw-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 11/13/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Hill Kogakusha, Ltd., Tokyo, Japan, 1-659.

Brinch-Hansen, J. (1970). "A revised extended formula for bearing capacity." Bull.
No. 28, Danish Geotechnical Institute, Copenhagen, Denmark, 3-11.
Chen, W. F. (1975). Limit analysis and soil plasticity. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands.
Cichy, W., Dembicki, E., Odrobinski, W., Tejchman, A., and Zadroga, B. (1978).
Bearing capacity of subsoil under shallow foundations: study and model tests. Sci-
entific Books of Gdansk Technical University, Civil Engineering XXII, 1-214.
Dembicki, E., and Zadroga, B. (1974). "Model tests on bearing capacity of foun-
dations on slope." Proc., 1Vth Danube-European Conf. SMFE, Bled, 147-153.
DEUTSCHE NORM DIN 4017. (1988). "Berechnung des Grundbruchwiderstands
von Flachgriindungen." Deutches Insitut fiir Normung, Berlin, Germany, 1-11,
(in German).
EUROCODE-7 Part 1. (1993). "Geotechnical design, general rules." CEN European
Committee for Standardization, Delft, The Netherlands, 1-114.
Feda, J. (1961). "Research on the bearing capacity of loose soil." Proc., V ICSMFE,
Paris, France, Vol. 1,635-642.
Garber, M., and Baker, R. (1977). "Bearing capacity by variational method." J.
Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 103(11), 1209-1225.
Garber, M., and Baker, R. (1979). "Closure of bearing capacity by variational
method." J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 105(5), 695-698.
Garnier, J. et al. (1994). "Etude de la portance de foundations en bord de talus."
Proc., XIII ICSMFE, New Delhi, India, Vol. 2, 705-708.
Gamperline, M. C. (1988). "Centrifuge modeling of shallow foundations." Proc.,
ASCE Spring Convention, ASCE, New York, N.Y.
Georgiadis, M., and Butterfield, R. (1988). "Displacement of footings on sand under
eccentric and inclined loads." Can. Geotech. J., Vol. 25, 199-212.
Hartikainen, J., and Heinonen, J. (1993). "Geotechnical dimensioning of footings
using partial safety coefficients." Proc., Int. Symp. Limit State Design in Geotech.
Engrg., Copenhagen, Denmark, 501-511.
Hartikainen, J., and Zadroga, B. (1994). "Bearing capacity of footings and strip
foundations: comparison of model test results with EUROCODE 7." Proc., XIII
ICSMFE, New Delhi, India, Vol. 2, 457-460.
Hettler, A., and Gudehus, G. (1988). "Influence of the foundation width on the
bearing capacity factor." Soils and Found., 28(4), 81-92.
Ingra, S. T., and Baecher, G. B. (1983). "Uncertainty in bearing capacity of sands."
J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 109(1), 899-914.
Kovalev. J. W. (1964). The ultimate bearing capacity of foundations on slopes. Sbornik
Trudow, Wypusk 225, Leningrad (in Russian).
Kumbhojkar, A. S. (1992). ,Numerical evaluation of Terzaghi's Nv." J. Geotech.
Engrg., ASCE, 119(3), 598-607.
Kusakabe, O., Maeda, Y., and Ohuchi, M. (1992). "Large-scale loading tests of
shallow footings in pneumatic caisson." J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 118(11), 1681-
1695.
Leshchinsky, D., and Marcozzi, G. F. (1990). "Bearing capacity of shallow foun-
dations: rigid versus flexible models." J. Geotech. Engrg,, ASCE, 116(11), 1750-
1756.
Lewandowska, J., and Dembicki, E. (1991). "Bearing capacity on noncohesive soil
by variational method." Archive of Hydroengrg., XXXVIII(3/4), 117-126.
Meyerhof, G. G. (1951). "The ultimate bearing capacity of foundations." Geotech-
nique, No. 2,301-331.
Meyerhof, G. G. (1957). "The ultimate bearing capacity of foundations on slope."
Proc., IV ICSMFE, Vol. I, London, England, 384-386.
2006

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1994.120:1991-2008.

 Meyerhof, G. G. (1963). "Some recent research on the bearing capacity of foun-
dations." Can. Geotech. J., 1(1), 16-26.
Meyerhof, G. G. (1978). "Discussion of 'Bearing capacity by variational method,'
by M. Oarber and R. Baker." J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 104(5), 686.
Meyerhof, G. G., and Koumoto, T. (1987). "Inclination factors for bearing capacity
of shallow footings." J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 113(9), 1013-1018.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 11/13/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Milovic, D. M. (1965). "Comparison between the calculated and experimental values

of the ultimate bearing capacity." Proc., 6th ICSMFE, Montreal 1965, Vol. II,
142-144.
Mizuno, T., Tokumitsu, Y., and Kawakami, H. (1960). "On the bearing capacity
of a slope of cohesionless soil." Soils and Found., 1(2), 30-37.
Narita, K., and Yamaguchi, H. (1989). "Analysis of bearing capacity for log-spiral
sliding surfaces." Soils and Found., 29(2), 85-98.
Narita, K., and Yamaguchi, H. (1992). "Three-dimensional bearing capacity analysis
of foundations by use of a method of slices." Soils and Found., 32(4), 143-155.
Norwegian Rules for the design, construction and inspection of offshore structures.
(1980). "Appendix F." Foundations Det Norske Veritas, Oslo, F7-F12.
Polish Design Code PN-81/B-03020. (1981). "Building soils, foundation bases, static
calculation and design." Polish Standardizing Committee, Warsaw, 1-24, (in Pol-
ish).
Prakash, S., and Saran, S. (1971). "Bearing capacity of eccentrically loaded foot-
ings." J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 95(1), 95-118.
Saran, S., and Agarwal, R. K. (1991). "Bearing capacity of eccentrically obliquely
loaded footing." J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 117(11), 1669-1688.
Sastry, V. V. R. N., and Meyerhof, G. G. (1987). "Inclination factors for strip
footings." J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 113(5), 524-527.
Shiraishi, S. (1990). "Variation in bearing capacity factors of dense sand assessed
by model loading tests." Soils and Found., 30(1), 17-26.
Siddiquee, H. S. A. (1991). "Finite-element analysis of settlement and bearing ca-
pacity of footing on sand." Rep. 1-221. Inst. of Industrial Sci., Univ. of Tokyo,
Tokyo, Japan.
Tatsuoka, F. et al. (1991). "Progressive failure and particle size effect in bearing
capacity of a footing on sand." Proc., Geotech. Engrg. Cong., Vol. II, Geotech.
Spec. Publ. No. 27, F. G. McLean, D. A. Campbell, and D. W. Harris, eds.,
788-802.
Terzaghi, K. (1943). "Theoretical soil mechanics." 5th Ed., John Wiley and Sons
Inc., New York, N.Y.
Tran-Vo-Nhiem. (1971). "Force portante limite des fundations superficielles et resis-
tance maximale a l'arrachement des ancrages." Faculte des Sciences de L'universite
de Grenoble, 1-528.
Vesic, A. S. (1973). "Analysis of ultimate loads of shallow foundations." J. Geotech.
Engrg., ASCE, 99(1), 45-73.
Weiss, K. (1973). "Die Formbeiwerte in der Grundbruchgleichung fur nichtbindige
Boden," Degebo Heft, No. 29, (in German).
Zadroga, B. (1975). "Bearing capacity of inclined subsoil under a foundation loaded
with eccentric and inclined forces: Part 1--method review and own model tests."
Archive of Hydroengrg., XXII(3/4), 333-336, (in Polish).

APPENDIX II. NOTATION

The following symbols are used in this paper:

n foundation width (m);

effective foundation width (m);
D= foundation depth (m);
d~, d~ = depth factors;
E= eccentricity (m);
E[N~] = expected value of N~ factor;

2007

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1994.120:1991-2008.

 gq, g~ = ground-surface inclination factors;
H = horizontal load (kN);
i~,i~ = load-inclination factors;
L = foundation length (m);
= effective foundation length (m);
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 11/13/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

m = conformity coefficient;
u~,u~ = bearing-capacity factors;
n = sample size;
Q~ = vertical load from calculations (kN);
Or. = vertical load from model tests (kN);
q = bearing capacity (kPa);
r = correlation coefficient;
Sq~ S.,I = foundation-shape factors;
V[NJ = variances of N~ factor;
Ot = load inclination (degrees);
f~ = ground surface inclination (degrees);
= unit weight of soil (kN/m3);
+ = angle of internal friction (degrees);
= angle of internal friction from triaxial compression tests (de-
grees); and
= angle of internal friction from plane-strain tests (degrees).

2008

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1994.120:1991-2008.