DISCUSSIONS AND CLOSURES
The total suction of the as-compacted specimen measured
Discussion of “Parameters Affecting
Soil–Water Characteristic Curves
of Fine-Grained Soils”
by Vikas K. S. Thakur, S. Sreedeep,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HOWARD UNIV-UNDERGRADUATE LIB on 02/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
and Devendra N. Singh
April 2005, Vol. 131, No. 4, pp. 521–524.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1090-0241共2005兲131:4共521兲
Setianto Samingan Agus1 and Tom Schanz2
1
Research Assistant. Laboratory of Soil Mechanics. Bauhaus-Univ.
Weimar. Coudraystrasse 11C, Weimar, 99421, Germany. E-mail:
agus-setianto.samingan@bauing.uni-weimar.de
2
Professor. Laboratory of Soil Mechanics. Bauhaus-Univ. Weimar.
Coudraystrasse 11C, Weimar, 99421, Germany. E-mail: tom.schanz@
bauing.uni-weimar.de
The authors have presented an interesting and fast technique 共i.e.,
the chilled-mirror hygrometer technique兲 in determining the soil–
water characteristic curve 共SWCC兲 of fine-grained soils 共i.e., the
silty soil and the white clay兲. The findings presented in the paper
indicate that suction in fine-grained soils 共especially clay soils兲 is
mainly governed by the physicochemical interactions between
water and the clay itself without significant contribution from the
soil pore geometry. This result is particularly true at high suction
values. The consequence of the dominant physicochemical as-
pects in SWCC of fine-grained soils is that the SWCC of fine-
grained soils is not density-dependent, as also concluded by the
authors from the experimental data obtained. This discussion
deals more with the clay soil tested by the authors 共i.e., the white
clay兲.
The authors have not mentioned the time period for which the
specimens were allowed to reach the “true” equilibrium state in
the closed cup used, nor has information on the basic 共and physi-
cochemical兲 properties of the soils been mentioned in the paper.
The information is important, since most of clays exhibit a double
porosity structure and consist of intercluster 共or interaggregate or
macro-兲 pores and intracluster 共or intraaggregate or micro-兲 pores
共Gens and Alonso 1992; Yong 1999兲. In this case, the true equi-
librium state is consequently defined by the hydraulic equilibrium
between the pores of different levels 共Alonso 1998兲.
Fig. 1. Effect of internal water redistribution on total suction
magnitude
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2006 / 1509
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2006.132:1515-1518.
by using the chilled-mirror hygrometer, as in the case of the
white clay, most likely represents the total suction of the
macropores. The value is not the “true” equilibrium total suction,
but rather the total suction at a “quasi” equilibrium state. When
the specimen is kept for some period of time in a closed container
to maintain its water content, an internal redistribution of water
is expected to occur because of an unbalanced total suction be-
tween the micropores and macropores. Fig. 1 shows a possible
mechanism indicating how the total suction of a specimen
changes with time under constant water-content conditions after
the specimen is subjected to a wetting process. In this case, the
internal water redistribution is mainly a process of water move-
ment from the macropores to the micropores. For a drying pro-
cess, the internal water redistribution mechanism decreases the
water volume in the micropores and hence decreases the size of
clay clusters although the total volume of the specimen may re-
main unchanged.
On the basis of the information given by the authors that
total suction of the specimen was measured every 30 min for 2 h
it appears that, at longest, the specimen was allowed to equilibrate
at a certain water content only for 2 h. Sometimes the true equi-
librium state of the specimen may not be able to be judged on the
basis of periodic measurement of specimen mass as per the nor-
mal procedures. Total suction measurement data of bentonite-sand
mixtures presented by Agus and Schanz 共in press兲 indicates that
total suction of the specimens changes with time after being kept
at constant water content for five weeks.
Generally, the time period to reach the true equilibrium state
depends on the magnitude of the total suction gradient between
each level of pores which, by and large, is controlled by the clay
properties and permeability of the specimen at macro and micro
scales. A period of 2 hours may be too short for the true equilib-
rium to be attained by the specimens tested 共i.e., the white clay
specimens兲, since the permeability of clay soils is generally low.
In the discussers’ opinion, the almost identical values of total
suction measured in the four consecutive readings 共i.e., every
30 min for 2 h兲 might not warrant that the true equilibrium state
has been reached, since normally after air-drying, the vapor space
above the specimen might still be influenced by the thermody-
namic nonequilibrium for a certain period of time.
The previously mentioned aspects could have been described
in the manuscript and are, in fact, among the factors affecting the
measured soil-water characteristic curve of fine-grained soils.
Consequently, the fitting parameters obtained from the experi-
mental data will also be affected.
The discussers are also surprised that no significant volume
change was observed in all specimens 共i.e., the silty soil and
white clay specimens兲. It is rather that the measurement of di-
mensions of the specimens was difficult since the specimens’ size
was probably too small. The SWCC data expressed as a relation-
ship between volumetric water content and suction are normally
used in computing, for instance, unsaturated permeability, shear
strength, and compressibility functions 共Fredlund and Rahardjo
1993兲. The discussers would like to suggest that in future re-
search, a separate experiment be performed to establish a relation-
ship between water content and void ratio during drying 共i.e.,
 the shrinkage curve兲 parallel to the determination of the water Table 1. Properties of Soils Used in the Study
content versus suction curve, particularly for clay soils. With the Soil property Silty soil White clay
help of the shrinkage curve, the water content versus suction
curve that can be obtained by using the chilled-mirror hygrometer Specific gravity 2.79 2.65
technique can be converted to the volumetric water content ver- Particle size characteristics:
sus suction curve, which is more meaningful in unsaturated soil Sand 共%兲:
mechanics. Coarse 共4.75– 2.0 mm兲 4 —
Medium 共2.0– 0.425 mm兲 17 —
Fine 共0.425– 0.075 mm兲 28 —
References Fines 共%兲:
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HOWARD UNIV-UNDERGRADUATE LIB on 02/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Silt size 共0.075– 0.002 mm兲 36 39

Agus, S. S., and Schanz, T. . “Comparison of four methods for measuring Clay size 共⬍0.002 mm兲 15 61
total suction.” Vadose Zone J. Consistency limits 共%兲:
Alonso, E. E. 共1998兲. “Modelling expansive soil behaviour.” Proc., 2nd Liquid limit 41 46
Int. Conf. on Unsaturated Soils, Beijing, China, Vol. 2, 37–70. Plastic limit 28 25
Fredlund, D. G., and Rahardjo, H. 共1993兲. Soil mechanics for unsaturated Shrinkage limit 15 17
soils, Wiley, New York. Plasticity index 13 21
Gens, A., and Alonso, E. E. 共1992兲. “A framework for the behaviour of
Activity 0.86 0.34
unsaturated expansive clays.” Can. Geotech. J., 29, 1013–1032.
Yong, R. N. 共1999兲. “Soil suction and soil-water potentials in USCS classification ML CL
swelling clays in engineered clay barriers.” Eng. Geol. (Amsterdam) Minerals Quartz, illite Kaolinite, quartz, illite
54, 3–13. Free swell indexa 共%兲 5 8
a
ASTM D 4546-90 共1994兲.

Mainly because of the size limitations of an ASCE technical

Closure to “Parameters Affecting
Soil–Water Characteristic Curves
of Fine-Grained Soils”
by Vikas K. S. Thakur, S. Sreedeep,
and Devendra N. Singh
April 2005, Vol. 131, No. f4, pp. 521–524.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1090-0241共2005兲131:4共521兲
Vikas K. S. Thakur1; S. Sreedeep2; and
Devendra N. Singh3
1
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay,
Powai, Mumbai 400076, India; formerly, Post Graduate Student.
2 strating its dependence 共if any兲 on various soil properties. How-
Research Scholar, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology, Bombay, Powai, Mumbai 400076, India. E-mail:
p2sree@civil.iitb.ac.in
3
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology,
Bombay, Powai, Mumbai 400076, India. E-mail: dns@civil.iitb.ac.in
The writers thank the discussers for appreciating their research
work and for imparting more insight into the studies that they
conducted. However, the primary aim of the study was to estab-
lish the influence of dry-unit weight and type of the soil on the
SWCC, obtained by employing the “chilled mirror hygrometer
technique” by using a WP4 dewpoint potentiameter. The writers
believe that the comments and concerns raised by the discussers
can be summarized as follows:
1. Lack of presentation of details regarding physicochemical
properties of the soils used in the study and the time required
by the soil 共and in particular, the clay兲 to attain true
equilibrium.
2. True equilibrium versus quasi-equilibrium states of the soil
and the moisture dynamics between different macro- and mi-
cropores present in it.
3. Details of the volume change of clay during suction
measurements.
The authors will try to explain these issues in the following.
note, the physicochemical properties of the soils used in the study,
the detailed testing methodology, and the suction measurement
procedure could not be included in the manuscript. However, for
the sake of completeness and to clarify the previously listed is-
sues, the details of the soils used in the study are presented in
Table 1. The properties of the soils listed in the table indicate that
these soils do not belong to the swelling type and are quite inac-
tive.
The writers subscribe to the idea that efforts should have been
made to study the change in the suction of the soil specimens over
a prolonged duration. This would have helped the writers deter-
mine the equilibration time for different specimens and demon-
ever, such an exercise is a must for highly active soils that exhibit
high swelling characteristics.
For all practical purposes, the water content is considered to be
the bulk property of the soil 共specimen兲, and hence measured
suction corresponds to this particular water content. Also, since
the soil specimens were saturated under a vacuum, the change in
suction of the soil is primarily attributable to the change in the
bulk water content; and hence, internal readjustments and mois-
ture dynamics would not significantly influence soil suction. Also,
during the drying process, water would be lost from the
macropores of the soil first, and migration of water from the mi-
cropores to the macropores would be extremely slow. This out-
come is mainly attributable to a very high water retention prop-
erty of the micropores as compared with the macropores 共Hillel
1998兲. Because the soils used in this study are less active and are
of the nonswelling type, the variation of suction attributable to
moisture dynamics would be negligible.
If the soil specimens were of large size and volume, it would
have been quite difficult to assure the thermal equilibrium at-
tained by them. However, this is not the case in the present study.
Also, suction values of the soil specimens were found to be prac-
tically constant over an observation time of two hours. This out-
come definitely indicates that the soil specimens had attained
thermal equilibrium.

1510 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2006

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2006.132:1515-1518.

 It was observed that the soil specimens do not exhibit any
significant volumetric deformation while drying. This result can
again be attributed to their less active and nonswelling nature.
Fig. 1 in the discussion would have been more meaningful if it
depicted magnitudes of suction and time. However, the writers
thank the discussers for this input, which can certainly be used in
a more effective manner to demonstrate transition of the soil
specimen from a quasi-equilibrium state to a true equilibrium
state. The writers also thank the discussers for drawing their at-
tention toward developing shrinkage curves for the soils used in
this study along with their SWCCs. Incidentally, efforts were
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HOWARD UNIV-UNDERGRADUATE LIB on 02/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

made in this direction by the writers but because of the inactive

type of the soil, the results could not be reported.

References

ASTM. 共1994兲. “Standard test methods for one-dimensional swell or

settlement potential of cohesive soils.” Annual book of ASTM stan-
dards, ASTM D 4546-90, West Conshohocken, Pa., 4.08, 693–699.
Hillel, D. 共1998兲. Environmental soil physics, Academic, San Diego.

Discussion of “Estimation of Bearing

Capacity of Circular Footings on Sands
Based on Cone Penetration Test”
by Junhwan Lee and Rodrigo Salgado
April 2005, Vol. 131, No. 4, pp. 442–452.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1090-0241共2005兲131:4共442兲
Luciano Décourt1
1
Luciano Décourt Engenheiros Consultores Ltda., Av. Brig. Faria Lima,
1616/2nd floor, 01451-910 - Sao Paulo, SP., Brazil. E-mail: decourt@
decourt.com.br
The authors should be commended on their contribution to the
study of shallow foundations.
In the “Summary and Conclusions,” they stated that, “signifi-
cant uncertainties exist in the values of N␥ and the soil friction
angle.” But what is even worse is that the Terzaghi 共1943兲 for-
mula and other similar formulas do not correctly represent what is
observed in almost all load tests on shallow foundations.
These theories presupposed a rigid-plastic behavior of the soil
that has almost never been observed in engineering practice.
Terzaghi himself was the first to recognize the existence of soils
that did not follow such behavior and proposed the concept of
local failure in contraposition to the general failure, which is sup-
posedly adequate for rigid plastic behaviors.
The time has come to recognize that the so-called triple N
formulas do not correctly represent the phenomena of bearing
capacity of shallow foundations on any type of soil. Many authors
have stated that these theories were wrong and that their use
should therefore be discontinued immediately. 共Briaud and
Jeanjean 1994; Décourt 1994, 1999; Fellenius 1999a,b兲.
Because of space limitations, the discusser will focus only on
two aspects of the problem: the influence of the relative density
共Dr兲 and the scale effects.
Fig. 5 of the paper shows clearly that the unit-bearing capacity,
qbL, increases as Dr or footing diameter increases, which, by the
way, is quite obvious. But the authors observe that the limit unit-
bearing capacity, qbL, does not increase linearly with increasing
Fig. 1. qb 共MPa兲 ⫻ s 共mm兲
footing size B, as the bearing-capacity equation states. The rea-
son, in the discusser’s opinion, is that this increase in bearing
capacity is not a function of B. Rather, it is a function of the
ambient stress, ␴oc.
The authors have suggested, and the discusser agrees with
them, that square and circular footings may be considered simi-
larly, provided that the areas are equal.
On analyzing the results of 140 load tests on shallow founda-
tions and on plates, Décourt 共1999兲 concluded that stress-
settlement relationships are independent of the width of the
footings 共square footings have been considered兲, the density of
the sand, and the depth of the footing 共or plate兲, provided that the
stresses, q, are normalized by the stress corresponding to the con-
ventional bearing capacity 共q for s = 0.1B兲 共Terzaghi 1942兲 and
that the settlements be normalized by the width of the square
foundation, B 共or the foundation diameter兲. The stress-settlement
curve is therefore unique. The footing width 共or diameter兲, the
density of the sand, and the depth of the footing do not have any
influence in this normalized curve; so scale effects, density ef-
fects, and depth effects do not exist.
Table 1. Values of N̄60 as a Function of Density of Sand and Depth 共m兲
共Adapted from Décourt 2002兲
Sand density Value of N60
Loose sands
N̄60 = 3.0+ 0.6z
Medium dense sands
N̄60 = 8.4+ 1.2z
Dense sands
N̄60 = 21.6+ 1.8z
Very dense sands
N̄60 = 33+ 3.0z

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2006 / 1511

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2006.132:1515-1518.


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HOWARD UNIV-UNDERGRADUATE LIB on 02/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 2. qbL 共MPa兲 ⫻ depth, z 共m兲
Fig. 1 shows the stress-settlement curves for the load tests
simulated by the author with the finite-element method. The data
were taken from Figs. 4共a兲, 4共b兲, and 4共c兲 of the paper; and their
quality is obviously poor; however, one easily recognizes that qb
is strongly influenced by the relative density of the sand and is
only slightly influenced by the footing diameter.
The discusser has adopted the practice of representing the soil
resistance by establishing the variation of NSPT or qc, CPT values
with depth, by using statistical regressions. The variation of N̄60,
which is the average value of N60 for each depth, with depth for
sands of different densities is shown 共in Table 1兲.
Fig. 3. Normalized plot
1512 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2006
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2006.132:1515-1518.
All these equations have two terms: one, independent of depth,
represents the influence of density on NSPT; and the other repre-
sents the influence of the ambient pressure and therefore, the
depth, z.
The discusser also found that for Gibson soils, the representa-
tive values of NSPT or qc to be used in any bearing-capacity analy-
sis are those corresponding to a depth 0.7B below the level of the
foundations. Such depth was called the characteristic depth, zc. In
the present case, because the footings were placed on the surface
of the soil, the characteristic depths were 0.7 m, 1.4 m, and
2.10 m for footings with diameters of 1.0 m, 2.0 m, and 3.0 m,
respectively.
Fig. 2 shows the stresses corresponding to the conventional
bearing capacity, quc, as a function of depth. The equations relat-
ing quc to depth are similar to those relating N60 to depth.
In Fig. 3, the normalized data from the load tests on footings
with diameters of 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 m placed on the surface of
sands with relative densities of 50%, 70%, and 90% are put to-
gether. All data merge in a single curve, regardless of the footing
dimensions and relative densities of the sand.
The authors also state, “A modern design concept in geotech-
nical engineering is to treat serviceability and ultimate limit states
within the same framework.” The discusser fully agrees with
them. But obtaining the nonlinear normalized stress-settlement
curve does not require the use of complicated mathematical mod-
els, finite element methods, invariant stress tensors, and failure
criteria 共for example, the Drucker-Prager兲—concepts that usually
are not familiar to practicing engineers.
Alternatively, this curve may be easily represented by the fol-
lowing equation 共Décourt 1994, 1999兲:
log q/quc = C + C log s/B
where C is the coefficient of intrinsic compressibility. This coef-
ficient is approximately constant for a given family of soils. For
example, for silica sands, C varies between 0.35 and 0.45, with
C = 0.42 being a value that fits most of the results. For the much
more intrinsically compressible calcareous sands, C is in the
range 0.60ⱕ C ⱕ 0.85. More-precise values may be obtained by
analyzing load test results.
The value of quc may be correlated with penetration test re-
sults, either NSPT, as the discusser has done for the last 30 years,
or qc, as proposed by the authors. As far as sands are concerned,
disregarding the extreme conditions corresponding to very loose
and very dense states, the discusser finds no reasons to consider
separately different Dr and K0 conditions, especially because both
Dr and K0 are often not known in engineering practice. Some
correlations exist for assessing Dr on the basis of NSPT or qc; but
all of them are, at most, only valid for fresh pure sands and are
rarely found in real foundation problems, where sands are aged
and not necessarily pure.
The stress quc 共MPa兲 for natural, aged sands is given approxi-
mately by 0.095N60, 共Décourt 1995兲 or 0.25qc, if one assumes
that qc 共MPa兲 = 0.377N60.
If the values of NSPT or qc corresponding to the characteristic
depths are known and if a value for C is determined or assumed
computing footing settlements for any stress value becomes easy.
The main consequence of this approach is that settlements no
longer have to be limited to 25 mm 共or 1 in.兲. Settlements three or
four times bigger may be considered reasonable provided that
footings with different loads are dimensioned with different
stresses.
The idea is to compute the settlement of one of the largest
footings and impose that value for all the others, obviously vary-
 ing the stresses. In so doing, the differential settlements will be with the ultimate load, qu1t, computed from the BC equations
very close to zero. proposed by Brinch Hansen 共1970兲, Vesic 共1973兲, Bolton and Lau
共1993兲, and Michalowski 共1997兲. The variations observed among
the FE results and the four examined theories were so large
References
that it might be concluded that the use of the BC equations should
be discontinued in the future. In the discusser’s opinion, using
Briaud, J. L., and Jeanjean, P. 共1994兲. “Load-settlement curve method for
experimental data to analyze the validity of the traditional BC
spread footings on sand.” Proc., Settlement’ 94, Vertical and Horizon-
equations is more appropriate than contrasting these equations
tal Deformations of Foundations and Embankments, Vol. 2, ASCE,
with the FE results, since the limit unit BC qbL, obtained by
New York, 1774–1804.
Décourt, L. 共1994兲. “General report—Interaction of foundation and struc-
the authors from their model as the unit load associated with a
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HOWARD UNIV-UNDERGRADUATE LIB on 02/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ture session.” X COBRAMSEF, Vol. IV, After-Congress, Foz de
Iguaçu 共in Portuguese兲, 179–206.
Décourt, L. 共1999兲. “Foundations under working load conditions.” Proc.,
XI Panamerican Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineer-
ing, Foz do Iguaçu, Vol. 4, 453–488.
Décourt, L. 共2002兲. SPT, SPT-T Brazilian practice: Advantages, limita-
tions and critics, ABMS 共in Portuguese兲.
Fellenius, B. H. 共1999a兲. “Bearing capacity of footings and piles—Does
it really exist?” Symp. on Southern Ontario Glacial Soils State of
Practice and Recent Developments, Toronto.
Fellenius, B. H. 共1999b兲. “Bearing capacity of footings and piles—A
delusion?” DFI Annual Meeting, Dearborn, Michigan.
Terzaghi, K. 共1942兲. “Discussion on pile driving formulas.” Proc., ASCE,
68共2兲, 311–323.
Terzaghi, K. 共1943兲. Theoretical soil mechanics, Wiley, New York.
Discussion of “Estimation of Bearing
Capacity of Circular Footings on Sands
Based on Cone Penetration Test”
by Junhwan Lee and Rodrigo Salgado
April 2005, Vol. 131, No. 4, pp. 442–452.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1090-0241共2005兲131:4共442兲
Fernando Rodríguez-Roa1
1
Professor of Geotechnical Engineering, Pontificia Universidad Católica
de Chile, Casilla 306, Santiago 22, Chile. E-mail: frroa@ing.puc.cl
The authors should be congratulated for their excellent work on
the bearing capacity 共BC兲 of circular footings on sands, based on
the use of a simplified nonlinear constitutive model to simulate
the pre- and postfailure behavior of sands. Load-settlement curves
obtained from footing load tests performed at Texas A&M Uni-
versity in 1994 were used for comparison with FE predictions to
validate their numerical model.
The authors used this model to carry out a series of FE
analyses for different circular footings resting on the ground
surface, assuming the Ottawa sand properties for the supporting
soil. The values of the limit unit BC, qbL, obtained from the
numerical analyses, were compared in Fig. 6 of the original paper
settlement equal to 20% of the foundation width, might not
correspond to the ultimate load computed from the BC equations.
Additionally, the use of numerical models tends to overestimate
the BC of a foundation resting on sand with a depth of founda-
tion, D f , equal to zero, if tensile stresses, usually developed
close to the soil surface, are not adequately eliminated
共Rodríguez-Roa 1977, 2000兲. In this discussion, the validity of
the BC equations studied by the authors is analyzed, on the basis
of the aforementioned tests at Texas A&M, as well as other pub-
lished experimental data.
Analyzed Experimental Data
Small and full-scale footing load tests were selected from the
literature to cover a wide range of footing widths.
This analysis involved nine tests performed on five different
sands: Texas A&M, Berlin, Mol, Chattahoochee River, and Maipo
River, as shown in Table 1 of this discussion. All the analyzed
tests, except the tests done at Texas A&M, were selected so that a
clearly defined ultimate load could be observed in the load-
settlement curve.
Bearing-Capacity Equations
The formulations proposed by Brinch Hansen 共1970兲 and Vesic
共1973兲 are among the most commonly used BC equations at
present. The Bolton and Lau 共1993兲 and Michalowski 共1997兲
solutions are less frequently employed because they predict
substantially different ultimate loads, depending on the degree
of roughness of the foundation base. However, experimental
evidence has shown that foundation roughness has little effect on
the BC for vertical loads 共Vesic 1973; Ko and Davidson 1973;
Villalobos 2000兲.
Eq. 共12兲 of the original paper is only valid for ratios
L / B ⱕ 7.0 共Perkins and Madson 2000兲. For L / B = 7, the plane-
strain condition is assumed to be reached.
The iterative procedure employed by the authors to compute
the predicted ultimate load, qu1t, from Eqs. 共10兲, 共11兲, and 共12兲
of the original paper, is limited to analysis of axisymmetric and
plane-strain problems. In this discussion, a similar iterative pro-

Table 1. Analyzed Footing Load Tests

Sand emin emax Gs ␾c References
Texas A&M 0.635 0.925 2.650 32.0° Gibbens and Briaud 共1994兲; Perkins and Madson 共2000兲
Berlin 0.460 0.750 2.655 33.0° Brinch Hansen 共1970兲; De Beer 共1965兲; Bolton 共1986兲
Mol 0.563 0.905 2.650 32.5° Tests 248 & 239 共De Beer 1970兲; Bolton 共1986兲; De Beer 共1965兲
Chattahoochee River 0.615 1.100 2.656 32.5° Test 16 in Table 5, and Tests 81-82 in Table 4 共Vesic 1963兲; Bolton 共1986兲
Maipo River 0.627 1.091 2.700 33.8° Rodríguez-Roa 共2003兲; Villalobos 共2000兲

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2006 / 1513

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2006.132:1515-1518.

 Table 2. Ultimate Loads 共kPa兲 for the Analyzed Footing Load Tests
Predicted qu1t Predicted qu1t
B Foundation Df Dr ␥ Measured Hansen Vesic
Sand 共m兲 L/B shape 共m兲 共%兲 共kN/ m3兲 qu1t 共1970兲 共1973兲
Texas A&M 共c = 2 kPa兲 1.000 1 Square 0.711 55.0 15.46 1452b–1700c 1439 1612
Texas A&M 共c = 4 kPa兲 1.000 1 Square 0.711 55.0 15.46 1452b–1700c 1622 1809
Texas A&M 共c = 2 kPa兲 1.500 1 Square 0.762 55.0 15.46 1490b–1870c 1553 1760
Texas A&M 共c = 4 kPa兲 1.500 1 Square 0.762 55.0 15.46 1490b–1870c 1725 1945
Berlin 0.500 4 Rectangle 0.500 69.4 10.48 1863 1580 1739
Circlea
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HOWARD UNIV-UNDERGRADUATE LIB on 02/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Mol 0.150 1 0.000 67.8 15.53 157 139 173

Mol 0.150 1 Circlea 0.000 82.5 16.01 280 222 271
Chattahoochee 0.203 1 Circlea 0.000 74.1 14.96 338d 203 251
Chattahoochee 0.0508 6 Rectanglea 0.000 78.5 15.15 324 448 522
Maipo 0.100 1 Circlea 0.000 67.0 14.87 179 118 146
Maipo 0.060 5 Rectanglea 0.000 67.0 14.87 170 314 375
a
Rough-plate load test carried out on dry sand.
b
Unit load corresponding to a settlement equal to 0.10· B.
c
Unit load corresponding to a settlement equal to 0.15· B. This value was extrapolated from the load-settlement curve for the 1.5⫻ 1.5 m footing.
d
Mean value obtained from Tests 81 and 82, which were performed with identical characteristics.

cedure was followed to compute qu1t, but the peak dilatancy

angles, ␺ p, were calculated as

␺ p = 6.25IR − 2.50IR · B/L 共1兲

Fig. 1. Comparison of qu1t from tests and Brinch Hansen 共1970兲
bearing-capacity equations
Fig. 2. Comparison of qu1t from tests and Vesic 共1973兲
bearing-capacity equations
Eq. 共1兲 of this discussion fulfils Bolton’s relationships for axi-
symmetric conditions as well as for plane-strain conditions, and it
can also be used for rough calculations of peak dilatancy angles
for rectangular foundations with width B and length L.
The load tests at Texas A&M University were performed on
square footings of four different sizes: 1 ⫻ 1, 1.5⫻ 1.5, 2.5⫻ 2.5,
and 3 ⫻ 3 m. In cases where a peak load is not clearly defined
from the load-settlement curve, as occurred in those tests, Vesic
共1973兲 suggests adopting the value corresponding to a settlement
of 10% of the footing width for the ultimate load. Because the
test footings at Texas A&M were loaded up to 0.15 m of penetra-
tion 共Briaud and Gibbens 1994兲, only the results obtained on the
1 ⫻ 1 and 1.5⫻ 1.5 m footings were included in this discussion.
At the test site, the water table was observed at a depth of 4.9 m;
therefore, the behavior of the test footings was mainly controlled
by the in situ relative density of the sand, Dr, estimated at 55%,
and by its natural moisture content of 5%. Two different values
were assumed for the apparent cohesion of this sand: 2.0 and
4.0 kPa.
The other analyzed full-scale vertical load test was performed
on saturated dense sand by Muhs in Berlin and was reported
by Brinch Hansen 共1970兲. Additional information with regard
to this test was found in a series of triaxial tests carried out on
Berlin sand by De Beer 共1965兲. De Beer obtained empirical rela-
tionships between the triaxial friction angles and various porosi-
ties of this sand for different mean normal stresses. From such
relationships, a relative density of 69.4% was obtained for the
friction angle of 40° measured by Muhs, taking into account a
mean normal stress of 100 kPa. The magnitude of this stress is
very close to the mean normal effective stresses at peak strength,
p⬘p , obtained for the Berlin test by using the Brinch Hansen and
⬘
Vesic BC equations.
The characteristics of all the analyzed tests, as well as the
corresponding measured and predicted ultimate loads, are sum-
marized in Table 2 of this discussion. The results obtained for
both the small and full-scale load tests are illustrated in Figs. 1
and 2 of this discussion, taking into account the unit loads mea-

1514 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2006

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2006.132:1515-1518.

 sured for settlements equal to 0.10· B in the Texas A&M tests and
assuming an apparent cohesion of 4.0 kPa for the existing sand at
that test site. These figures indicate that Brinch Hansen’s equa-
tions give a slightly better prediction than those of Vesic. For the
Brinch Hansen formulation, if the cohesion of Texas A&M sand
is varied from 4 to 2 kPa, the slope ␪ of the best-fit straight line
moves from 45.2° to 43.3°, and the correlation coefficient R2
ranges between 0.944 and 0.965, respectively.
However, if the unit loads measured for settlements equal to
0.15· B in the Texas A&M tests are taken into account, the best
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HOWARD UNIV-UNDERGRADUATE LIB on 02/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
prediction is given by Vesic’s theory. In this case, for apparent
cohesions ranging from 4.0 to 2 kPa, the slope ␪ fitted to Vesic’s
theory moves between 45.4° and 43.5°, and the parameter R2
varies from 0.975 to 0.976, respectively.
In conclusion, both the Brinch Hansen and Vesic equations
give a reasonable estimate of the BC for foundations on sand. The
predicted ultimate loads move between the unit loads correspond-
ing to settlements of 10% and 15% of the foundation width, for
the analyzed load tests performed with ratios D f / B ranging from
0.51 to 0.71 at Texas A&M. It is hoped that additional full-scale
footing load tests will be carried out on sand to confirm the results
presented in this discussion.
References
Bolton, M. D. 共1986兲. “The strength and dilatancy of sands.” Geotech-
nique, 36共1兲, 65–78.
Bolton, M. D., and Lau, C. K. 共1993兲. “Vertical bearing capacity factors
for circular and strip footings on Mohr–Coulomb soil.” Can. Geotech.
J., 30, 1024–1033.
Briaud, J. L., and Gibbens, R. 共1994兲. “Test and prediction results for
five large spread footings on sand.” Predicted and measured behavior
of five spread footings on sand, Geotechnical Special Publication
No. 41, ASCE, New York, 92–128.
Brinch Hansen, J. 共1970兲. “A revised and extended formula for bearing
capacity.” Bulletin No. 28, Danish Geotechnical Institute, Copen-
hagen, Denmark.
De Beer, E. E. 共1965兲. “Influence of the mean normal stress on the shear-
ing strength of sand.” Proc., 6th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. and Found.
Engrg., Vol. 1, 165–169, Montreal, Canada.
De Beer, E. E. 共1970兲. “Experimental determination of the shape
factors and the bearing capacity factors of sand.” Geotechnique,
20共4兲, 387–411.
Gibbens, R., and Briaud, J. L. 共1994兲. “Data and prediction request for
the spread footing prediction event.” Predicted and measured behav-
ior of five spread footings on sand, Geotechnical Special Publication
No. 41, ASCE, New York, 11–85.
Ko, H. Y., and Davidson, L. W. 共1973兲. “Bearing capacity of footings in
plane strain.” J. Soil Mech. and Found. Div., 99共1兲, 1–23.
Michalowski, R. L. 共1997兲. “An estimate of the influence of soil weight
on bearing capacity using limit analysis.” Soils Found., 37共4兲, 57–64.
Perkins, S., and Madson, C., 共2000兲. “Bearing capacity of shallow foun-
dations on sand: A relative density approach.” J. Geotech. Geoenvi-
ron. Eng., 126共6兲, 521–530.
Rodríguez-Roa, F. 共1977兲. “Finite-element analysis of axisymmetric
foundations by using a new elastoplastic stress-strain theory for
cohesionless soil.” Ph.D. thesis, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid,
Spain 共in Spanish兲.
Rodríguez-Roa, F. 共2000兲. “Observed and calculated load-settlement re-
lationship in a sandy gravel.” Can. Geotech. J., 37, 332–342.
Rodríguez-Roa, F. 共2003兲. “Observed and predicted behavior of Maipo
River sand.” Soils Found., Tokyo, 43共5兲, 1–11.
Vesic, A. S. 共1963兲. “Bearing capacity of deep foundations in sand.”
National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Highw.
Res. Rec., 39, 112–153.
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2006 / 1515
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2006.132:1515-1518.
Vesic, A. S. 共1973兲. “Analysis of ultimate loads of shallow foundations.”
J. Soil Mech. and Found. Div., 99共1兲, 45–73.
Villalobos, F. A. 共2000兲. “Análisis teórico-experimental de la capacidad
de soporte de fundaciones superficiales apoyadas sobre suelos areno-
sos.” MSc thesis, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago,
Chile 共in Spanish兲.
Closure to “Estimation of Bearing
Capacity of Circular Footings on Sands
Based on Cone Penetration Test”
by Junhwan Lee and Rodrigo Salgado
April 2005, Vol. 131, No. 4, pp. 442–452.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1090-0241共2005兲131:4共442兲
Junhwan Lee1 and Rodrigo Salgado2
1
Associate Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Yonsei Univ., Seoul, South Korea. E-mail: junlee@yonsei.ac.kr
2
Professor, School of Civil Engineering, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette,
IN 47907-1284. E-mail: Rodrigo@ecn.purdue.edu
We appreciate Décourt’s and Rodríguez-Roa’s interest in our
paper and in the general topic of the load response of foundations
and their design. Empirical considerations have influenced the
development of this topic. The lack of rigor in formulations both
for estimating settlement at a given load and the limit load asso-
ciated with plunging is, in large measure, a result of the difficul-
ties offered by the mechanics of the problem. Advances in recent
years allow us to overcome these difficulties, so research in this
area should proceed until our foundation design methodologies
are firmly based on the underlying physics and until our analyses
produce results with a known level of certainty. The discussers
focused on the following aspects of the foundation analysis and
design problem:
• The adequacy of current forms of the bearing-capacity
equation;
• The proper definition of ultimate load;
• The calculation of settlements and the possible existence of a
unique, nondimensionalized curve for the entire load-spectrum
range for all footings in sand; and
• The choice of parameters to use in bearing-capacity
computations.
We will address each point in turn.
Adequacy of the Bearing-Capacity Equation
The discussers have different views with respect to the bearing-
capacity equation. Rodríguez-Roa expressed some concern that
our results might discredit the bearing-capacity equation as a use-
ful tool and that the conclusion might be reached that it should be
discarded 共it was not the intent and, we believe, it is not a con-
clusion that follows from our results兲, whereas Décourt added his
voice to that of others, which he cites, proposing exactly that. We
take the view that the bearing-capacity equation in the forms that
are emerging from current research should be embraced. We also
believe that it is important to understand what the bearing equa-
tion can do for engineers 共which is to calculate the limit or plung-
ing load of the footing兲, so we do not use it for what it was not
developed to calculate.
The bearing-capacity equation 共the “triple-N” formula, in
 Décourt’s terminology兲 resulted from piecewise aggregation of
terms to solutions initially proposed for the indentation of metals,
followed by modification using shape, depth, base inclination,
ground inclination, and load inclination factors to account for
more realistic problems that would be of interest in practice. The
resulting equation, with its traditional terms, has a high empirical
content, even if, in its beginnings, it was the result of rigorous
analysis.
To understand what is rigorous and what is empirical in the
equation that most engineers use, let us start with the simplest
case—that of an infinite strip footing on the surface of a soil. If
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HOWARD UNIV-UNDERGRADUATE LIB on 02/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
the soil is weightless 共␥ = 0兲 and if there is a surcharge q0 on the
ground surface, the bearing-capacity equation can be derived rig-
orously 共e.g., Bolton 1982, Lyamin et al. 2006, Salgado 2006兲.
The limit unit resistance qbL for that case is given by
qbL = cNc + q0Nq 共1兲
1 + sin ␾ ␲ tan ␾
Nq = e 共2兲
1 − sin ␾
Nc = 共Nq − 1兲cot ␾ 共3兲
This outcome means that the expressions that we have histori-
cally used for Nc and Nq are exact.
If there is no surcharge and if the soil is purely frictional 共i.e.,
c = 0兲, then the following equation is used:
1 lecting a proper method to arrive at a ␾ value to use with the
qbL = ␥BN␥ 共4兲
2
It is not widely recognized that N␥ as expressed by the
equation
N␥ = 1.5共Nq − 1兲tan ␾ 共5兲
due to Brinch-Hansen 共1970兲 is nearly exact for ␾ up 35° 共Sal-
gado 2006兲. A superior solution for N␥, rigorous up to values of ␾
that far exceed practical needs, is given by Martin 共2005兲. Sal-
gado 共2006兲 proposes the following equation to fit that solution:
N␥ = 共Nq − 1兲tan共1.32␾兲 共6兲
which is, for all practical purposes, exact for ␾ values observed in
the entire range of practical problems engineers will face on Earth
共and, indeed, in low-gravity environments as well!兲.
Although the bearing-capacity equation is exact for strip foot-
ings on the surface of either weightless soil or soil with both
nonzero weight and c = q0 = 0, when we combine these two sepa-
rate results in a single equation, as traditionally done, we lose
rigor. When we then try to account for the fact that foundations
come in all shapes 共square, circular, rectangular, etc.兲, are embed-
ded in the ground 共and embedment cannot be modeled by using
an equivalent surcharge兲, may have inclined bases, may be sub-
jected to inclined loads, and may be installed in sloping ground,
all hope is lost for a solution that retains rigor and has an uncer-
tainty that we know and can control, unless modern analytical
tools are used 共as done by Salgado et al. 2004 for clays and
Lyamin et al. 2006 for sands兲. The correction factors in current
use in practice to account for all these deviations from the original
analyses of the pioneers of plasticity theory are semiempirical and
can be improved upon.
So, although we understand Rodriguez-Roa’s desire to attempt
to use experimental results to gauge whether the Vesic 共1973兲 or
Brinch-Hansen 共1970兲 factor is best, we believe that the future
final solution to the bearing-capacity problem will follow from
first establishing the proper analytical basis, which fortunately is
1516 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2006
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2006.132:1515-1518.
possible as a result of recent developments in our ability to rig-
orously calculate limit loads 共e.g., Salgado et al. 2004, Lyamin
et al. 2006, Martin 2005兲, then follow that up with proper valida-
tion against well-performed, well-instrumented load tests on
properly and completely characterized soils. It is also important to
understand that even the traditional forms of the bearing-capacity
equation were developed for calculating limit 共plunging兲 loads for
perfectly plastic materials with an associated flow rule 共this is
what Brinch-Hansen 1970 did, for example兲. They were not in-
tended to compute ultimate loads defined with basis on a specific
relative settlement value. Therefore, comparison between qbL
computed by using these equations and values measured at
s / B = 0.1 or any other value is not indicated.
As to the point regarding the incorrectness of superposition of
the c, q0, and ␥ terms to build the triple-N formula, Lyamin et al.
共2006兲 have proposed an alternative bearing-capacity equation for
sands that does not require separate q0 and ␥ terms. We believe
that a form without the artificial superposition of effects presents
considerable advantages.
A last point that we need to make concerning the bearing-
capacity equation is that it is derived, even in its most evolved
and up-to-date forms, for perfectly plastic materials, typically for
materials that follow an associated flow rule. The perfectly plastic
material has a single ␾ regardless of the strain level, which elimi-
nates the possibility of simulating the progressive mobilization of
different friction angles along the slip mechanism. Progressive
failure should therefore be handled at the design stage, when se-
bearing-capacity equation. The assumption of an associated flow
rule deviates from the reality of sands, which follow a nonasso-
ciated flow rule. The implication of this deviation is the possibil-
ity of overpredicting the limit bearing capacity of real sands by
using the bearing-capacity equation if its terms are developed on
the basis of the assumption of an associated flow rule.
In summary, we know that Brinch-Hansen’s formulation for
N␥ is correct for ␾ up to 35° 共and we know that there is a newer
solution in Martin 2005 that is correct for all ␾ values that we
might need兲, and we know that Vesic’s is not; but the use of all
other modification factors that go into the bearing-capacity equa-
tion obscures the problem considerably. Additionally, we agree
with Décourt’s assertion that the bearing-capacity formula in its
current form has considerable limitations but believe that
Rodríguez-Roa is correct in wishing to retain the concept of the
bearing-capacity equation as a tool for the geotechnical and foun-
dation engineer. In that regard, in the near future, geotechnical
engineers will have access to a version of the bearing-capacity
equation that will be nearly exact 共or at least whose level of
uncertainty will be small and known precisely兲 and that will thus
be extremely useful to them.
Proper Definition of Ultimate Load
Some confusion exists in the foundations’ literature—and is par-
ticularly obvious in the case of pile foundations—regarding the
meaning of the term ultimate load and regarding what exactly is
calculated by the bearing-capacity equation. Let us start by ad-
dressing the term ultimate load. This term is intimately related to
another term, ultimate limit state. An ultimate load is a load that,
once applied to the foundation, will cause it to move in ways that
will lead to an ultimate limit state. An ultimate limit state, in turn,
is a potentially dangerous condition, typically associated with
damage to the superstructure. Structural damage is likely to fol-
low if a footing completely fails 共plunges兲 under an applied load,
which obviously happens if and only if the applied load is equal
 to the limit load for that footing. Classical bearing-capacity fail-
ure is therefore an ultimate limit state. Structural damage may
also be caused by excessive distortion, which results from exces-
sive differential settlement. The differential settlement between a
pair of foundations, in turn, increases as the total settlements of
the foundation elements increase. For this reason, defining an
ultimate load on the basis of foundation settlement is conceptually
appealing and has been done for a long time for piles. The diffi-
culty with this approach for footings is that each structure is
different, has different spans, and has different responses to settle-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HOWARD UNIV-UNDERGRADUATE LIB on 02/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ments. A catch-all criterion could therefore be excessively conser-
vative for many structures. Nonetheless, a quick calculation may
aid in assessing what a reasonable criterion would be.
Let us consider a case with footings with B of the order of 2 m
spaced at approximately 5 m 共a short span, to be conservative兲
and a structure that would be damaged by an angular distortion ␣
of the order of 1 / 150. Let us assume further that the differential
settlement between the two footings would be 75% 共again, on the
high and thus conservative side兲 of the total settlement. Let us see
what this criterion produces in terms of angular distortion if
s / B = 0.1 is used as an ultimate load criterion
0.75 ⫻ 0.1 ⫻ 2 m 0.15 m 1 sizing. Another impediment to implementing this approach is eco-
␣= = ⬇ 共7兲
5m 5m 33
Even the 0.1B criterion corresponds to too large a settlement to
be a catch-all criterion, so anything greater that 0.1B is certainly
excessive. Again, an ultimate load, by definition, is associated
with an ultimate limit state, a state associated with potential struc-
tural damage. In other words, if adjacent footings are subjected to
loads that would produce settlements of 10% of B in each footing
and if the difference of these settlements 共resulting not only from
any difference in footing width, but, more important, from the
spatial variability of the soil兲 divided by the span is equal to or
less than the 1 / 150 required to cause structural damage, then that
definition would be appropriate. We have shown that it is not
appropriate by developing an example in which an s = 0.1B crite-
rion would clearly lead to an angular distortion approximately 5
times greater than 1 / 150. Note also that reducing the angular
distortion to acceptable levels is not an appropriate use of the
factor of safety. The factor of safety is supposed to account for
uncertainties in load and resistance; it reduces an appropriately
defined ultimate load by a sufficient amount so that events that
would cause the ultimate load to be less than the applied load are
sufficiently unlikely. The function of the factor of safety is to
address probabilistic processes, not physical ones. Last, neither
the ultimate load nor the factor of safety is supposed to address
serviceability limit states, which should be checked independently
of ultimate limit states. Serviceability would involve comparing
the angular distortion with an already reduced tolerable angular
distortion 共typically taken as 1 / 500兲. Although the factor of safety
is occasionally used to indirectly account for serviceability limit
states, this use is inappropriate, as pointed out by Becker 共1996兲.
It does not appear helpful, therefore, to define ultimate loads
for footings as a fraction of B, since the purpose is to associate
them with ultimate limit states, unless much smaller numbers—
possibly in the 0.02B to 0.05B range—are used. Additionally, the
large variations in footing size and spans would lead a single,
catch-all criterion to be too conservative in some cases. Proper
interpretation of a load test on a footing should be to establish the
limit load 共if deemed useful and allowed by the reaction system兲
and to define settlements that would be associated with ultimate
and serviceability states for the structure under consideration. A
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2006 / 1517
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2006.132:1515-1518.
final point to make with respect to defining ultimate loads based
on a settlement equal to a set percentage of B is that they yield a
value for the ratio qb / qbL that decreases with increasing relative
density, a point to which we will return subsequently in this clo-
sure. Note that we used s = 0.2B in the paper not to attempt to
define settlement-based ultimate limit states but rather to approxi-
mate the limit load 共which we, of course, do better for the lower
relative densities兲.
With respect to Décourt’s recommendation for shallow foun-
dation design, which is based on the notion that we have suffi-
cient knowledge to adjust footing sizes and have different bearing
pressures if needed to minimize differential settlement 共although,
obviously, zero differential settlement is unachievable兲, it can be
helpful. It is easier to achieve in the context of Brazilian practice,
in which the geotechnical engineer functions more completely as
a foundation engineer, sizing also the footings, than in North
American practice, where there has traditionally been a divide
between the geotechnical and structural engineering components
of foundation design. Although some change has occurred re-
cently in North American practice, the geotechnical engineer’s
work has traditionally ended at supplying an “allowable bearing
pressure” to the structural engineer, who then does the footing
nomics. Ultimately, if the perceived economic advantage of the
approach 共which requires more time from both the structural en-
gineer and the geotechnical engineer兲 is small, it will not be
adopted. Last, optimization of differential settlements at the de-
sign stage should not be confused with eliminating differential
settlements, for the source of these differential settlements is
mostly the uncertainties in the loads and in the soil-foundation
systems.
Calculation of Settlements and Possible Existence
of a Unique, Nondimensionalized Load-Settlement
Curve
Décourt argued the uniqueness of the load-settlement curves for
footings so long as load and settlement are normalized as follows:
qb is divided by qb,ult = qb,10% 共the unit load corresponding to 0.1B
relative settlement兲 and settlement s is divided by B. In addition
to the difficulty of estimating values of qb,ult 共Décourt suggests
that it is roughly equal to 10% of the standard penetration test
共SPT兲 blow count兲, there is a conceptual shortcoming of this ap-
proach: the fact that we are normalizing with respect to something
that does not mean the same thing in different settings. For ex-
ample, for very loose sands, qb,10% ⬇ qbL; but for dense sands, it
may be much less than qbL. For true normalization of qb, one
should therefore use qbL 共or, as an alternative, a quantity com-
pletely independent of the footing, such as cone resistance qc兲,
which has the same meaning no matter what conditions are in
place. Normalization with respect to qc does not lead to a unique
curve, as shown in Fig. 7 of the paper.
Let us explore what happens if we normalize the unit load
versus settlement curve with respect to qbL instead of with respect
to qb,10%. For that, consider a fixed value of B 共so, the same
footing兲 resting on soils with different DR. Since B is always the
same, qbL increases with DR because ␾ increases. As we go from
a relative density DR1 to a greater relative density DR2, the origi-
nal curve therefore tends to translate downward because of the
increase in bearing-capacity and then leftward because of the re-
duction in settlement with the greater stiffness of a higher-DR
sand. For the curve to be unique, the leftward move because of
 the increase in stiffness needs to perfectly compensate for the
drop of qb / qbL. In our view, because of the very precise offsetting
that must occur, it is not possible to make an argument in favor of
uniqueness without high-quality analysis to back it up.
Choice of Parameters to Use in Bearing-Capacity
Computations
The final point that we are required to address regards the deter-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HOWARD UNIV-UNDERGRADUATE LIB on 02/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
mination of suitable parameters to use in limit-bearing capacity
and settlement computations. As previously indicated, the limit
bearing-capacity equation was developed for perfectly plastic
soils following an associated flow rule. Such a soil would, upon
failure, develop the same friction angle throughout. In reality, we
must deal with the following in arriving at suitable values of ␾ to
plug in the bearing-capacity equation:
• Soil is not perfectly plastic. Dilative soils 共far more common
than contractive soils in practice兲 will have a peak friction
angle, which is followed by a gradual drop until a critical-state
friction angle is reached at very large strains. Additionally, this
peak friction angle depends on DR and on the mean effective
stress at failure.
• Sandy soils do not follow an associated but rather a non-
associated flow rule, with the result that there is less constraint
on the slip mechanism in reality than is assumed in deriving
the bearing-capacity equation.
• When we assume perfect plasticity with a set value of ␾, we
also ignore the effects of the loading path on the value of ␾. In
reality, we know that the ␾s in triaxial compression, triaxial
extension, plane-strain compression, simple-shear loading, and
other loading paths are all different and that the stress paths
followed by elements on different portions of the slip mecha-
nism are different.
Although we currently have the knowledge to deal with every
1518 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2006
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2006.132:1515-1518.
one of these deviations in a way that is sufficiently accurate for
practical purposes, we tend to agree with Décourt that, for routine
projects, it is probably better for practicing engineers to have
access to charts or equations that will allow them to arrive at
bearing capacity and settlement results from in situ test measure-
ments, the cone penetration test 共CPT兲 being much superior in
this regard to any other in situ test. Ideally, these charts or equa-
tions would result from full consideration of all the complexities
of soil mechanical response, both at the constitutive model level
and at the level of boundary-value problem solution, some of
which we discussed here in response to points raised by the dis-
cussers. Providing charts that would be of some assistance in the
design of footings that are based on CPT results was one of the
objectives of the paper.
References
Becker, D. E. 共1996兲. “Eighteenth Canadian Geotechnical Colloquium:
Limit states design for foundations. Part I: An overview of the foun-
dation design process.” Can. Geotech. J., 33共6兲, 956–983.
Bolton, M. 共1982兲. “A guide to soil mechanics.” M. D. & K. Bolton.
Brinch Hansen, J. 共1970兲. “A revised and extended formula for bearing
capacity.” Bulletin No. 28, Danish Geotechnical Institute, Copen-
hagen, Denmark.
Lyamin, A. V., Salgado, R., Sloan, S. W., and Prezzi, M. 共2006兲. “Three-
dimensional bearing capacity of footings in sand.” 具http://www.ecn.
purdue.edu/~rodrigo/papers/典.
Martin, C. M. 共2005兲. “Exact bearing capacity calculations using the
method of characteristics.” Proc. 11th Int. Conf., IACMAG, Turin, Vol.
4, 441–450.
Salgado, R. 共2006兲. The engineering of foundations. McGraw-Hill.
Salgado, R., Lyamin, A., Sloan, S., and Yu, H. S. 共2004兲. “Two- and
three-dimensional bearing capacity of footings in clay.” Geotech-
nique, 54共5兲, 297–306.
Vesic, A. S. 共1973兲. “Analysis of ultimate loads of shallow foundations.”
J. Soil Mech. and Found. Div., 99共1兲, 45–73.