Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations on

Unsaturated Soils: Analytical Approach with 3D Numerical

Simulations and Experimental Validations
Amir Akbari Garakani 1; Hamed Sadeghi 2; Soheil Saheb 3; and Amin Lamei 4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology, Indore on 01/16/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: The ultimate bearing capacity of shallow foundations on unsaturated soils is investigated through the concept of suction-
dependent effective stress. The first approach is a new analytical solution considering the influence of matric suction on ultimate bearing
capacity by extending Vesic’s solution for saturated soils. Accordingly, a modification factor has been introduced as a nonlinear function of
matric suction for tuning the cohesion-dependent component in the bearing capacity equation. The second approach is incorporating the
unsaturated effective stress state in conjunction with the suction-dependent cohesion into a three-dimensional (3D) finite-difference code.
In developing the 3D simulations, the variation in matric suction versus the depth of the soil was considered as well as the dependency of the
degree of saturation on the soil suction. In addition, in three-dimensional numerical analyses, the input material parameters were modified to
take into account the suction-stress concept in unsaturated soils. To assess the validity of the analytical and numerical approaches, four series
of experimental data from physical plate load tests conducted under different matric suctions and embedment depths of the footing were
selected. Accordingly, water retention curves of different test materials were considered as key input parameters used in both approaches to
improve model predictions. Results from the analytical approach show the dependency of the presented correction factor on the soil proper-
ties, geometrical aspects of the foundation, and its embedding depth. In addition, the 3D numerical simulation revealed the suitable func-
tionality of the effective stress approach on predicting the load-displacement behavior of shallow foundations on unsaturated soils.
Moreover, the comparison between analytical, numerical, and experimental data shows a good conformance between the experimental
test results, analytical solutions, and numerical predictions, especially for sandy soils. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0001589.
© 2019 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Ultimate bearing capacity; Unsaturated soils; Effective stress; Analytical solution; 3D numerical modeling;
Plate load tests.

Introduction and Background
Shallow foundations are generally designed so that the loads from the
superstructure can be safely transferred to the soil underneath in such a
way to ensure the settlement criteria enacted by the design and con-
struction codes are met. The design of this category of structures,
being widely used in buildings, retaining walls, power plants, bridges,
antenna towers, and silos, needs to be not only safe but also economi-
cal. Regarding the latter aspect, less attention has yet been given to the
strengthening role of interparticle capillary forces in unsaturated states
on enhancement of bearing capacity, for the sake of a conservative
design. However, groundwater tables are located tens of meters below
1
Assistant Professor, Structural Research Dept., Niroo Research Insti-
tute, Tehran 1468617151, Iran (corresponding author). ORCID: https://
orcid.org/0000-0002-9696-3455. Email: aakbari@nri.ac.ir
2 ally determined assuming fully saturated conditions, shallow foun-
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Sharif Univ. of Tech-
nology, Tehran 1458889694, Iran. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002
-3453-9309. Email: hsadeghi@sharif.edu
3
Master of Geotechnical Engineering, Dept. of Civil Engineering,
Sharif Univ. of Technology, Tehran 1458889694, Iran. ORCID: https://
orcid.org/0000-0003-2574-2847. Email: ingssaheb@gmail.com
4
Master of Geotechnical Engineering, Dept. of Civil Engineering,
Sharif Univ. of Technology, Tehran 1458889694, Iran. Email:
aminlamei94@gmail.com
Note. This manuscript was submitted on December 20, 2018; approved
on July 25, 2019; published online on December 17, 2019. Discussion per-
iod open until May 17, 2020; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the International Journal of Geo-
mechanics, © ASCE, ISSN 1532-3641.
the surface in some semiarid to arid areas, implying that the shallow
load-bearing soil layers may never become fully saturated.
Due to its utmost importance, the bearing capacity of shallow
foundations has received a great deal of attention from numerous
investigators over the last century. By loading a strip footing until
it penetrates into the underneath soil, Prandtl (1921) first investi-
gated the bearing capacity of soils. As a result, the ultimate bearing
capacity qu was defined as the applied stress at which stability
failure occurs. After Prandtl’s pioneering work, several researchers
investigated the bearing capacity of soils and tried to provide com-
prehensive understanding about it (e.g., Terzaghi 1943; Terzaghi
and Peck 1948; Meyerhof 1951, 1956; Larkin 1968; Vesic 1973;
Bolton and Lau 1993). The focus of all these studies was on satu-
rated soils considering the shape, dimension, inclination, and depth
of the footing. Although the bearing capacity of soils is convention-
dations in many cases are located above the groundwater table
where the soil is mostly in unsaturated conditions. About 33% of
the earth’s surface is considered to have arid and semiarid climatic
conditions where the soil is unsaturated (Vanapalli et al. 2010).
Therefore, design and construction of shallow foundations in these
vast areas require an understanding of bearing capacity and settle-
ment behavior of soils in unsaturated states.
Ignoring the unsaturated state of soil leads to conservative
and costly designs of shallow footings because unsaturated soils
tend to have greater bearing capacity in comparison to saturated
ones. Terzaghi (1943) reported that the bearing capacity of a shal-
low foundation in sand that is embedded below the groundwater

© ASCE 04019181-1 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(3): 04019181

 table equals approximately one-half of that in dry sand. Moreover,
several researchers have stated that the bearing capacity of soils
increases due to the contribution of matric suction ψ to shear
strength (e.g., Broms 1963; Steensen-Bach et al. 1987; Fredlund
and Rahardj 1993; Schnaid et al. 1995; Miller and Muraleetharan
1998; Oloo et al. 1997; Costa et al. 2003; Xu 2004). However, the
role of matric suction in the bearing capacity of unsaturated soils
has not been fully addressed yet and is therefore neglected. Regard-
less, neglecting the contribution of matric suction in the bearing
capacity of unsaturated soils would be similar to not considering
the effect of reinforcement in the design of reinforced concrete
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology, Indore on 01/16/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(Steensen-Bach et al. 1987).
More than five decades ago, Meyerhof (1956) stated that there
was a lack of information regarding the influence of matric suction
on the bearing capacity of unsaturated coarse-grained soils; how-
ever, as time passed, several field and laboratory investigations
were carried out to address this issue. For example, in-situ plate
load tests were conducted to investigate the influence of matric suc-
tion on the bearing capacity of coarse-grained and fine-grained
soils (e.g., Steensen-Bach et al. 1987; Costa et al. 2003; Xu 2004;
Oloo 1994; Larson 1997; Conciani et al. 1998; Consoli et al. 1998;
Rojas and Salinas 2002; Rojas et al. 2007; Mohamed and Vanapalli
2012, 2015). These experiments have shown the notable contribu-
tion of matric suction ψ to the ultimate bearing capacity of unsatu-
rated soils qu . The effects of plate dimensions, variation in soil
stiffness, and loading rate, as well as the definition of ultimate
load are mainly discussed in these studies. Mohamed and Vanapalli
(2015) carried out in-situ plate load tests (plate dimensions of
0.2 × 0.2 m) on an unsaturated poorly graded sand (SP). It was
concluded that the bearing capacity of unsaturated sand at a matric
suction of 8 kPa is approximately 3.5 times greater in comparison
to its bearing capacity in saturated (i.e., zero suction) conditions.
In addition to the in-situ plate load experiments, the effect of
matric suction on the bearing capacity of unsaturated soil has been
studied through conducting model-footing tests (e.g., Mohamed
and Vanapalli 2006; Vanapalli and Mohamed 2007; Vanapalli
et al. 2007, 2010; Lins et al. 2009; Vanapalli and Oh 2010;
Mohamed et al. 2011; Vanapalli and Mohamed 2013). In these
studies, square or circular model footings simulating the in-situ plate
load tests were loaded in unsaturated coarse-grained or fine-grained
soils with different matric suctions to evaluate the ultimate bearing
capacity. According to the results, a notable contribution of matric
suction to the bearing capacity of the studied soils was observed and
reported. For instance, Mohamed and Vanapalli (2006) conducted
laboratory tests to understand the bearing capacity of surface model
footings on unsaturated sandy soil. It was revealed that even a small
increase of matric suction to 2 and 6 kPa could enhance the bearing
capacities to five and seven times greater, respectively, in comparison
to the corresponding value in the saturated state. Results also indi-
cated that there is a nonlinear increase in the bearing capacity of
unsaturated soils with respect to matric suction. In effect, the
follow-up study of Mohamed et al. (2011) showed that there is a
linear increase in the bearing capacity of unsaturated sandy soils
up to the air entry suction ψa followed by a nonlinear trend in
the transition zone, that is, the range of suction from the air entry
value to the residual suction. Finally, the bearing capacity decreases
with respect to matric suction in the residual zone.
In addition, Oh and Vanapalli (2013) pointed out that using the
modified effective stress approach in the interpretation of bearing
capacity of unsaturated fine-grained soils may not be the best
choice because the drained conditions for both the pore air and
water phases are not valid for this category of soils. Therefore, they
interpreted the results of model-footing tests on unsaturated fine-
grained soils following a modified total stress approach. It was
© ASCE 04019181-2
Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(3): 04019181
eventually suggested that a modified total stress approach can
be effectively used if the unconfined compression test is conducted
on specimens with average suction within the influence depth of
the foundation. Based on several model-footing tests conducted on
sand with varying depths of water table, Shahriar et al. (2015) in-
troduced a new correction factor to the method of strain influence
factor to account for the extra settlement induced by groundwater
rise. The proposed correction factor, however, was dependent on
soil type, and the amount of capillary force for the tested sand
was measured to be insignificant.
In spite of several experimental field and laboratory investiga-
tions on the bearing capacity of unsaturated soils, less attention has
been given to theoretical, analytical, and numerical modeling of
this phenomenon to be used effectively in practice. Recently, some
analytical models have been proposed to predict the bearing capac-
ity of sandy and silty soils using the saturated strength parameters
and soil-water retention curve (e.g., Oloo et al. 1997; Mohamed and
Vanapalli 2006; Vanapalli and Mohamed 2007; Oh and Vanapalli
2008; Vahedifard and Robinson 2015). An analytical solution was
derived to consider suction as an independent stress state variable in
calculation of Rankin’s earth pressure (Zhang et al. 2016). Based on
a parametric study, it was concluded that the factor of safety against
overturning is too conservative if the wall is designed based on the
saturated soil assumption, though it may not be the case for most
retaining walls constructed. Despite the fact that the proposed
model is quite straightforward, no comparisons were made with
field or laboratory data to validate it. The influences of hydraulic
hysteresis and drainage conditions on unsaturated soil bearing
capacity were numerically investigated through an effective stress-
based finite-element formulation (Tang et al. 2017). The notable
role of both suction and hydraulic hysteresis on bearing capacity
was highlighted. More importantly, it was concluded that consid-
ering a constant contribution of suction to the shear strength com-
pared with constant water and suction conditions results in a better
approximation of bearing capacity. However, the outcome may not
be conclusive for different types of soil possessing different water
retention capabilities.
Complementary to the previous works, this study aims to
present a new closed-form solution for predicting the bearing
capacity of unsaturated coarse-grained and fine-grained soils for
the design of both surficial and embedded shallow foundations
based on the effective stress approach for unsaturated soils. More-
over, the bearing capacity of soil is determined using numerical
analyses implementing the finite-difference method (FDM). The
proposed formulation and numerical simulations are eventually
verified against experimental results of in-situ plate load tests
and model footings from the literature.
Theoretical Considerations
Bearing Capacity Formulations for Saturated Soils
Bearing capacity equations have traditionally been developed
for saturated soils based on saturated shear strength parameters.
Terzaghi’s widely used equation assumes a rigid strip foundation
under vertical load sitting on a homogeneous soil and eventually
reaches general failure along a predetermined failure surface
qu ¼ c 0 N c þ qN q þ 0.5BγN γ ð1Þ
where qu = ultimate bearing capacity; c 0 = effective soil cohesion;
q = surcharge; B = width of foundation; γ = bulk unit weight of the
soil; and N c , N q , and N γ are the bearing capacity factors as func-
tions of the soil internal friction angle ϕ 0 . Several limitations of his
Int. J. Geomech.
 pioneering work, including footing shape, buried depth, load incli-
nation, and failure surface, were later overcome (e.g., Meyerhof
1951, 1956; Vesic 1973; Hansen 1970; Hanna and Meyerhof 1981).
Meyerhof (1956) proposed the general bearing capacity equation to
account for all the shortcomings mentioned previously
qu ¼ c 0 N c sc dc ic þ qN q sq dq iq þ 0.5BγN γ sγ dγ iγ
This was achieved by multiplying several shape (sc , sq , and sγ ),
depth (dc , dq , and dγ ), and inclination factors (ic , iq , and iγ ) by
each bearing component. The bearing capacity equation generally
includes three components standing for the contributions of soil
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology, Indore on 01/16/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
cohesion, surcharge, and foundation width to the ultimate capacity
(Das 2015). In addition, the internal friction angle affects all three
bearing capacity factors.
Transition from Saturated to Unsaturated States
in Previous Research
The classical bearing capacity relationships do not take into ac-
count the unsaturated state of soils except some minor corrections
of surcharge and soil unit weight based on the location of the water
table (Bowles 1996). In fact, the major role of matric suction in the
enhancement of shear strength is totally ignored. To cope with this
limitation, some modifications were applied to the conventional
bearing capacity equations in the last decades. Broms (1963), who
investigated the behavior of flexible pavements on saturated soils,
observed that any rise in saturation degree would decrease the bear-
ing capacity of soil. A similar conclusion was drawn for the bearing
capacity of shallow foundations on two types of sand at saturated as
well as unsaturated states (Steensen-Bach et al. 1987). Capillary
forces were reported to be responsible for a higher capacity of
unsaturated soil compared with the saturated one. Oloo et al. (1997)
considered the influence of matric suction on the ultimate bearing
capacity in a systematic manner by modifying Terzaghi’s equation.
The concept of two stress state variables introduced by Fredlund
and Morgenstern (1977) was used to modify the cohesion term
in the first component of the equation as follows:
0
qu ¼ ½c þ ðua − uw Þ tan ϕ N c þ qN q þ 0.5BγN γ
b
where (ua −uw ) = matric suction; ψ = difference between pore air
and pore water pressure; and ϕb = parameter describing the rate of
increase in shear strength with matric suction under constant net
stress. The major limitation of Eq. (3) is the monotonic increase
of shear strength with matric suction because of the planar failure
surface of extended Mohr-Coulomb (Fredlund et al. 1978). Indeed,
ϕb is not constant and varies with matric suction (Vanapalli et al.
1996). According to Oh and Vanapalli (2008), the assumption of
linear increase in shear strength with matric suction can result in
misleading predictions, especially for suction values beyond the
air entry value. Therefore, Vanapalli and Mohamed (2013) pro-
posed a new equation for estimating the bearing capacity of foun-
dations on the ground surface (i.e., q ¼ 0) based on the modified
shear strength models of Vanapalli et al. (1996) and Fredlund et al.
(1996)
qu ¼ fc 0 þ ψb ½tan ϕ 0 − SF tan ϕ 0  þ ðua − uw ÞAVE SF tan ϕgN c ξ c
þ 0.5BγN γ ξ γ
where ψb = air entry suction; ðua − uw ÞAVE = average matric suc-
tion below foundation; S = degree of saturation; F = fitting param-
eter; and N c and N γ = bearing capacity factors (Terzaghi 1943;
Kumbhojkar 1993). In addition, ζ c and ζ γ are the shape factors that
were chosen from Vesic (1973). As mentioned, the bearing capacity
© ASCE
Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(3): 04019181
factors were adopted from different sources because better math
was observed between the predictions and experimental results.
However, each bearing capacity equation was developed based
on specific assumptions varying from one model to another. As
a result, combining various bearing capacity factors in this equation
can cause major concern. Terzaghi’s equation has recently been de-
ð2Þ veloped as an unsaturated version, based on the concept of effective
stress (Vahedifard and Robinson 2015)
qu ¼ fc 0 þ ψb ð1 − Sw;AVE Þ tan ϕ 0 þ ½ðua − uw ÞSe AVE tan ϕ 0 gN c ξ c
þ qN q ξ q þ 0.5BγN γ ξ γ ð5Þ
where ψb = air entry suction; Se = effective saturation; and Sw;AVE =
average degree of saturation, which is a function of average matric
suction in the stress bulb from the bottom of the foundation up to a
depth of 1.5B below it. Eq. (5) has been used to predict the results
of laboratory and field tests conducted by Vanapalli and Mohamed
(2007, 2013). Comparisons revealed that predictions are satisfac-
tory for foundations on the ground surface (i.e., q ¼ 0), though dis-
crepancies between physical measurements and model predictions
increased for foundations buried under the ground (i.e., q > 0).
Moreover, the model was introduced to be used for different soil
types, whereas comparisons were simply limited to unsaturated
sand.
Concept of Effective Stress in Unsaturated Soils
There has been an extensive debate on the concept of effective
stress in unsaturated soils for decades, and a consensus has not
yet been reached. Research in this regard has mainly been con-
ducted following either the two independent stress state variable
approach (Fredlund et al. 1978) or the single effective stress ap-
proach, also known as Bishop’s effective stress (Bishop 1959).
The second approach states the effective stress in terms of the
net stress (σ − ua ), matric suction (ua − uw ), and effective stress
parameter χ
σ 0 ¼ ðσ − ua Þ þ χðua − uw Þ ð6Þ
ð3Þ Because of the simplicity of this approach as well as the fact that
the effective stress can easily be used for prediction of shear
strength, Bishop’s effective stress has received much attention in
practical geoengineering (e.g., Khalili and Khabbaz 1998; Lu
and Likos 2004; Garakani 2013; Haeri et al. 2014, 2016, 2019;
Garakani et al. 2015, 2018, 2019). Shear strength can indeed be
expressed in terms of saturated shear strength parameters of c 0
and ϕ 0 in addition to the effective stress parameter χ, accordingly
τ ¼ c 0 þ χðua − uw Þ tan ϕ 0 þ ðσ − ua Þ tan ϕ 0 ð7Þ
However, there has been a long-running debate on the nature
and determination of χ. This parameter is a function of soil satu-
ration and reflects the contribution of matric suction to effective
stress. Although χ is a simplified parameter, it is an average weigh-
ing factor reflecting the attractive interparticle capillary as well as
physicochemical forces. Khalili and Khabbaz (1998) introduced χ
as a function of suction ratio
8 −0.55
ð4Þ < ua − uw ua − uw > ψ b
χ¼ ψb ð8Þ
:
1 ua − uw ≤ ψ b
where ψb = air entry suction along the drying path and the air ex-
pulsion value during the wetting process. An alternative definition
of χ by Lu and Likos (2004) was put forward as
04019181-3 Int. J. Geomech.
 S − Sr
χ ¼ Se ¼ ð9Þ
1 − Sr
where Se = effective saturation; and Sr = residual degree of satu-
ration. The value of Se can be expressed as a function of matric
suction (van Genuchten 1980) as:
 m
1
Se ¼ ð10Þ
1 þ ½αðua − uw Þn
where α, n, and m = fitting parameters. The value of α is almost
equal to the inverse of air entry suction, n depends on the pore size
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology, Indore on 01/16/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
distribution in the soil, and m is a parameter that controls the gen-
eral symmetry of the soil water retention curve (SWRC). In sum-
mary, the shear strength of unsaturated soils can be expressed by
using Bishop’s effective stress approach [Eq. (7)]. The effective
stress parameter χ is also related to the retention characteristic
of different soil types through the suction-dependent effective de-
gree of saturation [Eq. (10)]. The relationships derived previously
are the basis for development of a new analytical model for the
bearing capacity of unsaturated soils.
Development of a New Analytical Solution
The general bearing capacity formulation of Vesic (1973), developed
for saturated soil, is selected in the current study for further develop-
ment. The formulation is updated and modified to account for extra
suction stress arise from capillary forces [Eq. (11)]. Matric suction is
included in the basic formulation through an effective stress ap-
proach in which suction contribution is added to net stress through
a weighing factor χ. This weighing factor is directly correlated to
the water retention characteristic of any specific soil with random
distribution of pores through the effective degree of saturation, Se
qu ¼ ½c 0 þ χðua − uw Þ tan ϕ 0 Cf N c ξ c þ qN q ξ q þ 0.5BγN γ ξ γ
ð11Þ
where Cf = correction factor for tuning the cohesion-dependent
component in the bearing capacity equation. The unsaturated state
is also considered in the other components by modifying the sur-
charge and soil unit weight, as suggested by Bowles (1996) and
Vahedifard and Robinson (2015). The correction factor is introduced
as a nonlinear function of matric suction and can be determined by
back analysis of experimental results, accordingly
aχðua − uw Þ þ b
Cf ¼ ð12Þ
χðua − uw Þ þ b
where a and b = fitting parameters depending on the soil type,
geometrical aspects, and embedment depth of the foundation and
loading conditions. At two extreme states of the soil saturation,
namely fully saturated or completely dry conditions, Cf becomes
unity because χðua − uw Þ ¼ 0. Accordingly, for the two states of
dry or fully saturated soil, Eq. (12) turns into the conventional form
of Vesic’s formula. The procedure for determining fitting parameters
a and b is explained in the next sections.
Field and Laboratory Data Set
In general, experimental results on the bearing capacity of unsatu-
rated soils are divided into two main categories, model-footing tests
and in-situ plate load tests. Regarding the first category, Vanapalli
and Mohamed (2007) evaluated the bearing capacity of an unsatu-
rated sand by loading a square plate with dimension of 0.1 m on soil
© ASCE
Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(3): 04019181
1.0
Degree of saturation, Sr
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
After Rojas et al. (2007)
After Vanapalli & Mohamed (2007, 2013)
0.0
1 10 100 1000 10000
Matric suction, (kPa)
Fig. 1. SWRC of the tested soil materials.
surface in a model box to failure (Test #1). Four tests under matric
suctions of 0, 2, 4, and 6 kPa were conducted on a poorly graded
sand (SP) with a bulk unit weight of 16 kN=m3 , and the water level
was adjusted to change the unsaturated state of the soil and matric
suction. Four tensiometers were installed along the depth to mea-
sure the soil suction. In this study, the average suction values within
the stress bulb below the model footing were considered the cor-
responding matric suction that is shown in the form of a dashed line
in Fig. 1. In addition, the saturated shear strength parameters of the
test material were determined from direct shear tests as c 0 ¼
0.6 kPa and ϕ 0 ¼ 35.5°. As presented by Eq. (10), the SWRC
has three fitting parameters, namely α, m, and n. For the data pre-
sented in Fig. 1, the fitting parameters α, m, and n have been cal-
culated as α ¼ 0.15, m ¼ 2.1, n ¼ 4.9, and α ¼ 0.08, m ¼ 0.12,
n ¼ 1.5 for the data reported by Vanapalli and Mohamed (2007,
2013) and Rojas et al. (2007), respectively.
Vanapalli and Mohamed (2013) conducted several other
model-footing tests on both the surface of a soil (Test #2) and
at the depth of 0.15 m below the soil surface (Test #3) to evaluate
the bearing capacity of an unsaturated sand under four different
matric suctions of 0, 2, 4, and 6 kPa. Tests were carried out using
a 0.15-m-wide square footing inside a chamber box with dimen-
sions of 0.9 × 0.9 × 0.75 m3 . Soil water characteristics and
physical-mechanical parameters of the tested soil were identical
to those reported by Vanapalli and Mohamed (2007).
The last set of laboratory data was obtained from Rojas et al.
(2007), who conducted a series of in-situ plate load tests regarding
ASTM D1194 (ASTM 1994) to study the bearing capacity of an
unsaturated clayey soil (Test #4) under six matric suctions of 0, 10,
48, 56, 60, and 63 kPa. For this purpose, test pits 1.2 m in width and
3.0 m in length were excavated to the depth of 1.4 m. Test pits were
instrumented with four tensiometers at 0.1, 0.3, 0.6, and 0.9 m
down to the bottom to capture the induced matric suction (as shown
in Fig. 1) underneath the loading plate. Two pits were filled with
water to a specific level until all the tensiometers read zero suction
for the simulating bearing capacity test under the fully saturated
state. The rest of the pits were watered until the target matric suc-
tion was attained, followed by the loading test. A standard steel
disk [in accordance with ASTM D1195 (ASTM 1993)] 31 mm
in diameter was used, and the ultimate bearing capacity was
assumed once settlement became 3.1 mm or 10% of diameter.
In addition, another criterion (namely the yield stress) was consid-
ered for estimating the ultimate bearing capacity. Based on the cone
penetration test (CPTu) test results, soil parameters were evaluated
as c 0 ¼ 3 kPa, ϕ 0 ¼ 26.0°, and γ d ¼ 16 kN=m3 . Physical model-
ing and in-situ tests properties are summarized in Table 1 for four
sets of tests (i.e., Test #1 to Test #4).
04019181-4 Int. J. Geomech.
 Table 1. Physical modeling and in-situ test properties
Property Test #1a
Shape and size of the loading area Square 10 × 10 cm2
Depth of testing (m) 0 0
Soil type Sand
Soil density, γ (kN=m3 ) 16
Soil suctions below the loading area, ψ (kN=m2 ) 0, 2, 4, 6
Soil cohesion, c 0 (kPa) 0.6
Soil friction angle, ϕ 0 (degrees) 35.3
a
Data from Vanapalli and Mohamed (2007).
b
Data from Vanapalli and Mohamed (2013).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology, Indore on 01/16/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
c
Data from Rojas et al. (2007).
d
Test was carried out at the depth of 1.40 m below the ground surface. However, the edge of loading area was far enough from the test pit perimeter, and it was
modeled as a surface test in numerical simulation.
Numerical Modeling
The finite-difference method has been implemented in this study
for numerical investigation of the bearing capacity of unsaturated
soils. For this purpose, FLAC3D software (version 5.00; 2012)
from Itasca Consulting Group Inc. was implemented as the numeri-
cal modeling toolbox.
FLAC3D is a three-dimensional explicit finite-difference pro-
gram for computational mechanics. It can simulate the behavior
of three-dimensional structures built of soil, rock, or other materials
that undergo plastic flow when their yield limits are reached.
Materials in FLAC3D are represented by polyhedral elements
within a three-dimensional grid that is adjusted to fit the shape
of the object to be modeled. Each element behaves according to
a prescribed linear or nonlinear stress-strain law in response to ap-
plied forces or boundary restraints. The material can yield and flow,
and the grid can deform (in large-strain mode) and move with the
material that is represented. The explicit Lagrangian calculation
scheme and the mixed-discretization zoning technique used in
FLAC3D ensure that plastic collapse and flow are modeled accu-
rately (FLAC3D 2012).
The main advantage of implementing FLAC3D in modeling
unsaturated soil behavior is its capability of defining any state
variables such as stress and suction tensors by the user. Accord-
ingly, the effective stress tensor for an unsaturated soil element
can be defined in terms of the mechanical and hydraulic variables
(i.e., net stress, matric suction, and degree of saturation), and
the coupled hydromechanical behavior of the unsaturated soils
can be simulated by considering the proper constitutive function.
On this basis, many researchers have implemented FLAC3D
to simulate different engineering problems dealing with soil behav-
ior under unsaturated conditions (e.g., Wu and Huang 2006;
Rajeev and Kodikara 2011; Rutqvist et al. 2011; Li et al. 2012;
Ni et al. 2018).
In this study, the following steps were conducted during the
numerical simulations:
1. The matric suction profile in the depth of the soil was calculated
on the basis of the water table level and the data provided in
experimental cases (Tests #1 to #4).
2. The profile of the degree of saturation in the depth of the soil
was calculated following the corresponding SWRC.
3. The primary geometry of the problem was constructed in
FLAC3D by taking into account the initial considerations for
the size of the elements and domain and applying the proper
fixities at the boundaries of the domain.
4. By preparing the suitable FISH code in FLAC3D, the tensors for
the matric suction, degree of saturation, effective stress, and
suction-dependent soil cohesion were introduced to all elements
© ASCE
Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(3): 04019181
Test #2b Test #3b Test #4c
Square 15 × 15 cm2 Square 15 × 15 cm2 Circle D ¼ 31 cm
0.15 0d
Sand Sand Clay
16 16 16
0, 2, 4, 6 0, 2, 6 0, 10, 48, 56, 60, 63
0.6 0.6 3.0
35.3 35.3 26.0
of the constructed domain, as well as the soil properties and
water table level.
5. An initial rate of loading (in terms of the displacement rate) was
selected.
6. The foundation area on the constructed domain was loaded until
the soil reached its yielding state. Then, the load-displacement
curve was obtained.
7. On the basis of the obtained results from step 6, sensitivity and
convergence analysis on the constructed model was carried out
as follows:
• The mesh size was changed (especially under the loading
area) to ensure reaching the highest possible accuracy within
a rational time for running the model.
• The size of the domain was changed to ensure that boundaries
were far enough from the interactions of the loading area.
• The rate of loading was changed so that convergence could
be achieved in a suitable running time.
• During all analyses, the obtained profiles for the matric suc-
tion, degree of saturation, and effective stress in the depth of
the soil were checked and controlled to be consistent with the
initial calculations.
8. The optimized conditions for the mesh size, domain size, and
rate of loading were selected regarding data from step 7.
9. The optimized model was simulated to obtain the load-
displacement curves.
To build up the numerical domain for Tests #1 to #3, “Radial
Brick elements” were used and cubic domains were constructed.
For Test #4, a cylindrical domain was constructed because a plate
disk was used in the experiments for loading. In addition, a quarter
of the geometry from the center of loading only was modeled
because the axisymmetric conditions are valid for all four sets of
experiments. In order to avoid boundary effects on the results, nu-
merical model boundaries were considered far enough from the
center of loading. In this regard, a distance in excess of 3–5 times
the disk diameter or dimension was taken into account from the
corner of the foundation to the boundaries for different model foun-
dations. Actually, model dimensions were selected such that the
maximum possible accuracy was reached with the minimum pos-
sible required time to run the models. Fig. 2 demonstrates the
geometrical aspects of the constructed domains, along with three-
dimensional perspective views for each numerical model used.
The soil parameters used in numerical modeling were the same
as those reported by Vanapalli and Mohamed (2007, 2013) and
Rojas et al. (2007) for laboratory Tests #1 to #4 (as presented in
Table 1). In numerical modeling, some parameters, like internal
friction angle, cohesion, and unit weight, have been chosen as di-
rectly reported in the aforementioned references, whereas some
others (e.g., dilation angle and modulus of elasticity) have been
04019181-5 Int. J. Geomech.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology, Indore on 01/16/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 2. Geometrical aspects of the 3D numerical models: (a) Test #1; (b) Test #2; (c) Test #3; and (d) Test #4.
estimated. For instance, dilation angle was considered to be 0.1ϕ 0 ,
and the modulus of elasticity was determined from load-settlement
curves reported for the conducted tests. In addition, reported
SWRC data (Fig. 1) in conjunction with a hydrostatic distribution
of matric suction with depth have been considered to define the
matric suction and soil saturation relationship in all numerical sim-
ulations. Although a nonlinear suction distribution is closer to real-
ity, assuming a linear trend is beneficial in the following ways:
1. Direct or indirect measurements of suction in soil are expensive.
2. Under zero water infiltrations or evaporations and the existence
of a steady water table condition, the assumption of linear suc-
tion change along the soil profile is accurate enough, specifi-
cally in sandy soils (Lu and Likos 2004).
3. According to the concept of cohesion in the effective stress the-
ory for unsaturated soils, suction increase has a limiting effect
on the increase of cohesion. In other words, cohesion increases
with suction to a peak and falls afterward. Therefore, a nonlinear
assumption for suction distribution results in overestimation of
soil cohesion, especially near the ground surface.
4. For conditions where the ground water table is located very
deep, nonlinear distribution of suction makes the modulus of
elasticity unrealistically large.
Fig. 3 shows sample pore pressure contours for the numerical
models at the matric suction of 2 and 15 kPa for Tests #1 to #3 and
#4, respectively. In Fig. 3, negative pore pressure values stand for
the associated matric suction within the soil regions.
In the current numerical study, the effective stress tensor in each
soil element was defined by considering Eq. (6). It was also as-
sumed that the pore air phase was continuous and connected to
the atmosphere, so the atmospheric pressure was assumed for ua.
In addition, the cohesion was numerically modeled for each soil
© ASCE 04019181-6
Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(3): 04019181
element based on its current suction and degree of saturation.
The following equation by Lu and Likos (2004) was used to ex-
press the suction-dependent cohesion cunsat for unsaturated cases:
cunsat ¼ c 0 þ χðua − uw Þ tan ϕ 0 ð13Þ
According to Eq. (13), cohesion takes constant values for
the soil under the ground water table (i.e., zero matric suction)
and, for conditions above the water table, increases to a peak, fol-
lowed by a reduction with a further increase of suction. Fig. 4
shows sample unsaturated cohesion contours for the numerical
models at the matric suction of 2 and 15 kPa for Tests #1 to #3
and #4, respectively. Table 2 summarizes parameters considered
in numerical simulations.
Interpretation of the Results
Results are explained for the four tests described in the previous
sections. Comparisons are made between physical measurements
and predictions of both the analytical model and numerical simu-
lations, accordingly.
Test #1 [Performed by Vanapalli and Mohamed (2007)]
Analytical and numerical results of Test #1 reported by Vanapalli
and Mohamed (2007) are discussed in this part. Contours of effec-
tive vertical stress, maximum shear strain rate, and total displace-
ments are plotted in Figs. 5(a), 6(a), and 7(a), respectively, for
matric suction of 2 kPa at the ultimate shear failure state. Regarding
data presented in these figures, generation of the shear failure
wedge below the loading area is obvious, implying the soil has
Int. J. Geomech.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology, Indore on 01/16/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. Sample contours of pore water pressure (positive values, N=m2 ) and matric suction (negative values, N=m2 ) in soil profile for (a) Test #1;
(b) Test #2; (c) Test #3; and (d) Test #4.

reached its ultimate bearing capacity. Numerical simulation for the
variations in loading with settlement is compared with experimen-
tal records in Fig. 8(a) for a matric suction of 2 kPa. This suction
value was modeled by lowering the water table from the initial fully
saturated state so that the target suction was obtained [Fig. 3(a)]. As
shown in Fig. 8(a), a monotonic rise can be observed for the bearing
capacity as settlement increases until the ultimate bearing capacity
is reached at a pick point and then descends. Fig. 8(a) shows good
conformance between the numerical and experimental data. The
ultimate bearing capacity, in fact, corresponds to the maximum co-
hesion. In addition to numerical modeling, Eqs. (11) and (12) were
implemented along with the experimental data to calculate the
analytical correction factor Cf for different matric suctions.
Accordingly, a back calculation on the in-situ recorded bearing
capacity values in conjunction with Eq. (11) was performed to ob-
tain the exact values of Cf , and results were compared to those
obtained from Eq. (12) for different matric suctions [Fig. 9(a)].
Fig. 9(a) shows a very good conformance between the exact values
of Cf (obtained from field test data) and those evaluated from the
analytical solution for Test #1. The corresponding ultimate bearing
capacities are also predicted implementing Eq. (12) and consider-
ing the predicted Cf values. The best estimated fitting parameters
of the correction factor function (i.e., a and b) were calculated, as
shown in Table 3. The correction factor Cf is physically dependent

© ASCE 04019181-7 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(3): 04019181

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology, Indore on 01/16/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Sample contours of cohesion (N=m2 ) in soil profile for (a) Test #1; (b) Test #2; (c) Test #3; and (d) Test #4.

Table 2. Numerical modeling parameters

Property Test #1 Test #2 Test #3 Test #4
Domain size (cm3 ) 15 × 15 × 30 25 × 25 × 50 25 × 25 × 50 D ¼ 77.5 and H ¼ 77.5
Soil density, γ (kN=m3 ) 16 16 16 16
Saturated soil cohesion, c 0 (kPa) 0.6 0.6 0.6 3.0
Soil friction angle, ϕ 0 (degrees) 35.3 35.3 35.3 26.0
Soil dilation angle, Ψd (degrees) 3.53 3.53 3.53 0
Soil suction below the loading area, ψ (kPa) 0, 2, 4, 6 0, 2, 4, 6 0, 2, 4, 6 0, 10, 15, 48, 63

on the soil type, geometrical aspects, and embedment depth of the Similar numerical analyses to that explained for matric suction
foundation and loading conditions. Accordingly, the corresponding of 2 kPa have been run for other matric suctions, and the variations
fitting parameters (a and b) can be different for different aforemen- in the ultimate bearing capacity with matric suction are shown in
tioned conditions. Fig. 10(a). In Fig. 10(a), experimental test data along with the

© ASCE 04019181-8 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(3): 04019181

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology, Indore on 01/16/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Sample contours of effective vertical stress (N=m2 ) at ultimate state in soil profile obtained from numerical simulations for (a) Test #1;
(b) Test #2; (c) Test #3; and (d) Test #4.

results of analytical modeling are also plotted for comparison.
According to the results, the maximum bearing capacity is achieved
at matric suction between 4 and 6 kPa. Afterward, a further increase
in suction results in a reduction in bearing capacity as water me-
niscus vanishes and capillary forces reduce. There is a qualitative
good agreement between numerical simulations, analytical model-
ing, and physical measurements. However, there is a maximum of
19% difference between the numerical and experimental results at
4 kPa matric suction. The measured bearing capacity at this suction
was 715 kPa, whereas the computed value of numerical analysis
was 850 kPa. Nevertheless, analytical and numerical predictions
were better at other suctions within the studied range of suction.
Test #2 [Performed by Vanapalli and Mohamed (2013)]
The second validation tests were the physical model tests carried
out by Vanapalli and Mohamed (2013) on a model footing on
soil surface (Test #2). The same soil as the one used in Test #1
was used in their follow-up study. Contours of effective vertical
stress, maximum shear strain rate, and total displacements are plot-
ted in Figs. 5(b), 6(b), and 7(b), respectively, for a matric suction of
2 kPa at the ultimate shear failure state, which shows the soil has
reached its ultimate bearing capacity. The variations in loading with
settlement were compared with experimental measurements in
Fig. 8(b) for a matric suction of 2 kPa, which follows a monotonic
rise as settlement increases until the steady state corresponding to

© ASCE 04019181-9 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(3): 04019181

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology, Indore on 01/16/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. Sample contours of the maximum shear strain rate at ultimate state in soil profile obtained from numerical simulations for (a) Test #1;
(b) Test #2; (c) Test #3; and (d) Test #4.

the ultimate bearing capacity is reached. Exact and predicted values
of the analytical correction factor Cf were calculated as explained
before and compared for different matric suctions in Fig. 9(b).
Fig. 9(b) shows very good conformance between the exact values
of Cf (obtained from field test data) and those evaluated from the
analytical solution, for Test #2. The corresponding ultimate bearing
capacities were also predicted implementing Eq. (12) and consid-
ering the predicted Cf values. The best estimated fitting parameters
of the correction factor function (i.e., a and b) were calculated, as
shown in Table 3.
Field measurements and analytical and numerical values of the
ultimate bearing capacity for Test #2 are plotted in Fig. 10(b).
Comparisons reveal that in this case, the maximum difference is
between measurements and analytical results at a matric suction
of 0 kPa (fully saturated condition). The measured ultimate bearing
capacity of 180 kPa was 70 and 47 kPa higher than the numerical
and analytical predictions, respectively. However, the differences
significantly decreased at the other three suction levels of 2, 4,
and 6 kPa. More importantly, it can be inferred from the analytical
results that bearing capacity descends with suction after 6 kPa. In
other words, the influence of matric suction on shear strength and
hence bearing capacity decreases as suction goes beyond 6 kPa,
which is possibly within the residual domain of the water retention
curve for the test material. At residual water contents, the degree

© ASCE 04019181-10 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(3): 04019181

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology, Indore on 01/16/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 7. Sample contours of total displacements (m) at ultimate state in soil profile obtained from numerical simulations for (a) Test #1; (b) Test #2;
(c) Test #3; and (d) Test #4.

of saturation of the soil is low, leading to significant reduction
in the effective stress parameter χ. Thus, despite the fact that
the matric suction is significant in this region, the suction stress
ðPs ¼ χ½ua − uw Þ can be small and consequently reduce the effec-
tive stress, shear strength, and soil bearing capacity.
Test #3 [Performed by Vanapalli and Mohamed (2013)]
In the third series of tests, also reported by Vanapalli and Mohamed
(2013), model-footing loading was conducted at 0.15 m depth.
Because the distance between footing corner and soil face was
less than four times that of the plate diameter, the influence of soil
surcharge should be considered in numerical modeling. To achieve
that, the complete soil block was first modeled and reached equilib-
rium under body weight. Thereafter, soil elements up to 0.15 m
depth were removed, according to Fig. 2, to reach the level of foun-
dation base and loading. The final soil model was brought to equi-
librium again before proceeding to the loading stage. Similar to
previous tests, numerical results for bearing capacity under suction
of 2 kPa are presented in Figs. 5(c), 6(c), 7(c), and 8(c) for the sake
of completeness. Fig. 8(c) compares the load-settlement curves
obtained from experimental and numerical data sets. As illustrated
in Fig. 8(c), compared to the previous model test without the
surcharge effect (i.e., D=B = zero in Test #2), a significant increase

© ASCE 04019181-11 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(3): 04019181

 1500 1500
Laboratory tests by Vanapalli and Mohamed (2007) Field tests by Vanapalli and Mohamed (2013)
(Surface tests)
1200 1200
Matric suction just Matric suction just
at the level of the at the level of the

Load (kPa)

Load (kPa)
900 loading area 2kPa 900 loading area 2kPa

600 600

300 Lab test data 300 Field test data

Numerical data Numerical data
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
(a) Displacement (mm) (b) Displacement (mm)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology, Indore on 01/16/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1500 1500
Field tests by Vanapalli and Mohamed (2013) Field tests by Rojas et al. (2007)
(Embedded tests)
1200 1200 Field test data
Matric suction just
at the level of the Numerical data
Load (kPa)

Load (kPa)
900 loading area 2kPa 900 Matric suction just at
the level of the
600 600 loading area 10kPa

300 Field test data 300

Numerical data
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
(c) Displacement (mm) (d) Displacement (mm)

Fig. 8. Sample load-displacement curves obtained from numerical simulations for (a) Test #1; (b) Test #2; (c) Test #3; and (d) Test #4.

6.0 6.0
Laboratory tests by Vanapalli and Mohamed (2007) Field tests by Vanapalli and Mohamed (2013)
(Surface tests)
Correction Factor, CF
Correction Factor, CF

4.0 4.0

2.0 2.0

Lab test data Field test data

Analytical data Analytical data
0.0 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
(a) Matric suction, (kPa) (b) Matric suction, (kPa)
6.0 6.0
Field tests by Vanapalli and Mohamed (2013) Field tests by Rojas et al. (2007)
(Embedded tests)
Correction Factor, C F
Correction Factor, C F

4.0 4.0

2.0 2.0
Field test data Field test data
Analytical data Analytical data
0.0 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 20 40 60 80 100
(c) Matric suction, (kPa) (d) Matric suction, (kPa)

Fig. 9. Variation of the correction factor Cf versus matric suction for (a) Test #1; (b) Test #2; (c) Test #3; and (d) Test #4.

can be observed in ultimate bearing capacity by burring the foun- shown in Table 2. Comparisons between calculated, computed,
dation at D=B ¼ 1. In addition to the numerical results, the changes and measured data are made in Fig. 10(c). An excellent match be-
of the correction factor Cf against matric suction are depicted for tween calculated and measured data can be found at the three suction
Test #3 in Fig. 9(c), which shows an excellent conformance between levels considered. However, the computed data deviated from the
the real and predicted values. In spite of the previous tests, this series measured at 6 kPa suction, though the agreement is very good at
of tests was only conducted at three different suction states, as 2 kPa suction. The variations in bearing capacity with suction

© ASCE 04019181-12 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(3): 04019181

 Table 3. Analytical solution parameters
Property Test #1 Test #2 Test #3 Test #4
Soil suction below the loading area, ψ (kPa) 0, 2, 4, 6 0, 2, 4, 6 0, 2, 4, 6 0, 10, 15, 48, 63
Correction factor parameter, a 1.72 1.80 5.70 1.40
Correction factor parameter, b 1.05 0.90 1.40 −0.85
Shape and size of the loading area Square 10 × 10 cm2 Square 15 × 15 cm2 Square 15 × 15 cm2 Circle D ¼ 31 cm
Depth of testing (m) 0 0 0.15 0
Soil type Sand Sand Sand Clay

1500 1500
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology, Indore on 01/16/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Laboratory tests by Vanapalli and Mohamed (2007) Field tests by Vanapalli and Mohamed (2013)
Bearing capacity, q u (kPa)

Bearing capacity, qu (kPa)

(Surface tests)
1200 1200

900 900

600 600
Lab test data Field test data
300 Analytical data 300 Analytical data
Numerical data Numerical data
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
(a) Matric suction, (kPa) (b) Matric suction, (kPa)

1500 1500
Field tests by Vanapalli and Mohamed (2013) Field tests by Rojas et al. (2007)
Bearing capacity, q u (kPa)

Bearing capacity, qu (kPa)

(Embedded tests)
1200 1200

900 900

600 600
Field test data Field test data
300 Analytical data 300 Analytical data
Numerical data Numerical data
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 20 40 60 80 100
(c) Matric suction, (kPa) (d) Matric suction, (kPa)

Fig. 10. Comparison between analytical and numerical solutions with test data for (a) Test #1; (b) Test #2; (c) Test #3; and (d) Test #4.

followed a monotonic trend and seemed to become close to its maxi-
mum value at suction of 6 kPa. However, more measurements be-
yond this suction value are required to justify this postulation.
In the three series of verification tests explained so far, similar
patterns of stress bulbs were developed beneath the foundation
base, according to Figs. 5(a–c). In addition, relatively good matches
were observed between computed and calculated data and mea-
sured experimental values for different suctions and test conditions.
In terms of failure mode, all of the computed results follow a
slightly strain-hardening mode corresponding to a medium dense
state of relative density in sands.
Test #4 [Performed by Rojas et al. (2007)]
The last series of field tests conducted on an unsaturated clay by
Rojas et al. (2007) was chosen for verification of analytical and
numerical modeling, namely Test #4. Although the field experi-
ments were carried out at 1.4 m depth, the influence of soil surcharge
should be ignored because the distance between the foundation cor-
ner and soil face is large enough. Therefore, the numerical model
was constructed so that loading was applied on the ground surface.
Fig. 2(d) shows the numerical model as a quarter of a solid soil
cylinder because the axisymmetric assumption is valid. Because
loading was applied at the model centerline, the mesh dimensions
enlarged as they became farther apart from the center. Results of
the numerical analysis for bearing capacity at 15 kPa suction are
depicted in Figs. 5(d), 6(d), 7(d), and 8(d). In Fig. 8(d), the load-
settlement curves for experimental and numerical data sets are com-
pared at the matric suction of 10 kPa because the field data at ψ ¼
15 kPa were not presented in Rojas et al. (2007). The correction
factor change with matric suction is also shown in Fig. 9(d) for
both real and predicted values. As shown in Fig. 9(d), the predicted
and real Cf values show fair agreement. Both analytical and numeri-
cal analyses were run for four other suctions, namely 0, 10, 48, and
63 kPa, and results are superimposed on field data in Fig. 10(d).
Comparing the results with measurements reveals that both predic-
tive methods deliver satisfactory results for all suction levels but
zero. In fact, measurements are significantly higher than predictions
for the saturated state. More importantly, measured data indicate an
increase in bearing capacity with suction, but the amount is not so
significant compared with the observed trends for the previous tests
[Fig. 10(a–c)]. In other words, this comparison with other physical
measurements casts some doubt on measured bearing capacity at the
saturated state because the field data at zero suction show diversity
from those obtained from a conventional Vesic’s formulation
[Eq. (11), χ ¼ 1 and ua − uw ¼ 0]. Nevertheless, predictions were
much improved by shifting from fully saturated to unsaturated
conditions.
Data presented in Table 3 show that the a and b parameters are
highly dependent on the soil type, depth of embedment, and shape
or size of the loading area.

© ASCE 04019181-13 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(3): 04019181

 Table 4. Quantitative comparison between experimental and predicted (analytical or numerical) values of the ultimate bearing capacity on Tests #1 to #4
Comparison Parameter
Experimental and analytical data RMSE (kPa)
NRMSE (%)
Experimental and numerical data RMSE (kPa)
NRMSE (%)
Table 5. Quantitative comparison between experimental and predicted
(analytical or numerical) values of the ultimate bearing capacity on
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology, Indore on 01/16/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
different soil types
Comparison Parameter Sandy soil
Experimental and RMSE (kPa) 68.1
analytical data NRMSE (%) 6.9
Experimental and RMSE (kPa) 68.5
numerical data NRMSE (%) 7.1
For a more precise quantitative comparison of the data presented
in Fig. 10, the root-mean-square error (RMSE) and normalized
root-mean-square error (NRMSE) of the experimental and pre-
dicted ultimate bearing capacity values (obtained from analytical
or numerical analyses) were calculated as presented by Eqs. (14)
and (15) and shown in Table 4
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Pk
2
i¼1 ðquexperimental − qupredicted Þ
RMSE ¼ i i
k
RMSE
NRMSE ¼
Maxðquexperimental Þ − Minðquexperimental Þ
where quexperimental and qupredicted = experimental and predicted values of
the ultimate bearing capacity, respectively; k = number of exper-
imental data; and i = numeral parameter.
Referring to Fig. 10 and considering the RMSE and NRMSE
values presented in Table 4, it is evident that the ultimate bearing
capacity values calculated using the analytical and numerical analy-
ses compare very well with the experimental ones, specifically for
sandy soils (the cases of Tests #1, #2, and #3), for which the
NRMSE values for both analytical and numerical solutions vary
between 2.8% to a maximum of 13.3%. However, for clayey soil
types (Test #4), the deviation between the measured and predicted
values is higher (i.e., 24.0% and 22.9% for analytical and numerical
analyses, respectively).
In addition, from another point of view, the magnitudes of the
RMSE and NRMSE parameters were calculated by considering all
data on sandy soils (i.e., Tests #1, #2, and #3 together) and all data
on clayey soil (i.e., Test #4) to make a comparison for the function-
ality of the proposed analytical and numerical approaches on differ-
ent soil types (Table 5). In accordance with the information reported
in Table 5, one can postulate that for sandy soils, the predicted data
obtained by implementing the suggested analytical and numerical
solutions in this study are more accurate than those calculated for
clayey soils because the NRMSE values for the analytical and
numerical approaches have been calculated as 6.9% and 7.1%
for sandy soil, respectively, and 24.0% and 22.9% for clayey soil,
respectively. This can be attributed to the suction regime in fine
soils that is completely different from sandy soils. In fine soils, ma-
tric suction does not only originate from capillary mechanisms; the
short-range interactions between soil particles play a governing role
© ASCE
Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(3): 04019181
Test #1 Test #2 Test #3 Test #4
69.9 86.5 25.7 176.3
10.3 13.3 2.8 24.0
80.3 42.8 78.5 168.7
11.8 6.6 8.5 22.9
in interparticle interactions, especially at high suctions. Therefore,
the linear assumption for variation of the matric suction along the
fine soil profile may not be as accurate as for coarse-grained soils.
Clayey soil
176.3
24.0 Limitations of the Current Study
168.7 Similar to any research, this study is subjected to some limitations;
22.9 among them the following seem to be more important:
1. The modification factor in the analytical approach Cf has been
considered in the form of a simple mathematical equation. By
considering more complicated function for Cf with more fitting
parameters, the accuracy of the model in prediction may in-
crease, but the complexity of model will increase as well.
2. In analytical and numerical solutions, implementing a more ad-
vanced constitutive relationship for defining the shear strength
can improve the accuracy of the predictions. For example, con-
sidering suction-induced dilation (Ng et al. 2019) can give more
realistic values for peak shear strength.
3. It is needed to consider more experimental data for verification
ð14Þ of the proposed analytical and numerical approaches, which is
suggested to be performed in future studies.
4. The effects of infiltration and evaporation of the water phase in
ð15Þ unsaturated soil conditions and changing the soil temperature
can considerably affect the suction profile beneath the founda-
tion and consequently change the bearing capacity of the soil.
Considering the aforementioned factors for future studies is
highly suggested.
Conclusions
In this paper, the bearing capacity of shallow foundations on
unsaturated strata was investigated via a new simple analytical
solution and a series of three-dimensional numerical simulations.
To validate the presented analytical solution and corresponding
numerical modeling, four sets of experimental results obtained
from both physical modeling and in-situ plate loading tests on
unsaturated soils were implemented. In this research, Vesic’s equa-
tion for calculating the ultimate bearing capacity of the foundation
laid on saturated soil was modified for unsaturated soil conditions
by using a suction-dependent correction factor and implementing
the suction-dependent cohesion parameter. It was found that the
introduced simple analytical solution could predict the ultimate
bearing capacity of shallow foundations laid on unsaturated soils
with an appropriate level of accuracy, especially for sandy soils. In
addition, studies show that the correction factor is generally depen-
dent on the soil type and geometrical aspects of the loading area
(i.e., foundation).
In addition to analytical studies and to provide a prospective
ground for simulating more complex unsaturated bearing capacity
problems beyond the analytical scope, three-dimensional numerical
simulations on the studied experimental data sets were performed
using a finite-difference code by applying conceptual modifications
to the input material parameters. To this end, the stress tensors
04019181-14 Int. J. Geomech.
 were defined in accordance with the effective stress approach in ua = pore air pressure;
unsaturated soil condition, and the SWRC of the soil was intro- uw = pore water pressure;
duced to the model by considering the simple hydrostatic variation ðua − uw ÞAVE = average matric suction (Vanapalli and
of the pore water pressure in conjunction with the experimental Mohamed 2013);
data. Moreover, the shear strength parameters of the soil were de- α; n, and m = fitting parameters of van Genuchten (1980)’s
fined in terms of the matric suction. Accordingly, variations of the model;
suction-dependent soil parameters and state variables were inves-
γ = bulk unit weight of soil;
tigated. As a result, experimental trends for variations in bearing
γ d = dry unit weight of soil;
capacity with suction and load-settlement behavior were reason-
ably captured. ζ c and ζ γ = shape factors proposed by Vesic (1973);
To make a better investigation on the functionality of the ϕ 0 = effective friction angle;
ϕb = parameter describing rate of increase in shear
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology, Indore on 01/16/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

presented solutions, quantitative comparisons were performed be-

tween the experimental and predicted results. Studies showed that strength with matric suction;
deviations in analytical and numerical predications from physical σ = total stress;
measurements were below 13.3% for three sets of experimental σ 0 = effective stress;
data conducted on sandy soils, but it was about 24.0% for clayey ðσ − ua Þ = net stress;
soil, suggesting that more studies are still necessary for this field of τ = shear strength;
research to be conducted on fine soil materials. χ = effective stress parameter;
Ψd = dilation angle;
ψ = matric suction; and
Data Availability Statement ψa = air entry suction.
Some or all data, models, or code generated or used during the
study are available from the corresponding author by request, as:
• Generated codes with FLAC3D. References
• Constructed models with FLAC3D.
ASTM. 1993. Standard test method for repetitive static plate load
tests of soils and flexible pavement components, for use in evaluation
and design of airport and highway pavements. ASTM D1195. West
Acknowledgments Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 1994. Standard test method for bearing capacity of soil for static
This research has been financially supported by Sharif University load and spread footings. ASTM D1194. West Conshohocken, PA:
of Technology, which is greatly acknowledged. In addition, the first ASTM.
author would like to appreciate the Niroo Research Institute for Bishop, A. W. 1959. “The principle of effective stress.” Teknisk Ukeblad
providing him with the opportunity to contribute in this research. 106 (39): 859–863.
Bolton, M. D., and C. K. Lau. 1993. “Vertical bearing capacity factors for
circular footings on Mohr-Coulomb soil.” Can. Geotech. J. 30 (6):
Notation 1024–1033. https://doi.org/10.1139/t93-099.
Bowles, J. E. 1996. Foundation analysis and design. 5th ed. New York:
The following symbols are used in this paper: McGraw-Hill Companies.
a and b = fitting parameters of correction factor Cf ; Broms, B. B. 1963. “The effect of degree of saturation on the bearing
B = width of foundation; capacity of flexible pavements.” Highway Res. Rec. 71 (1): 1–14.
Conciani, W., M. M. Soares, J. M. Naime, and S. Crestana. 1998.
Cf = correction factor;
“Plate load test with CT.” In Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on Unsaturated Soils,
c 0 = effective cohesion; 333–337. Beijing: International Academic Publishers.
cunsat = suction-dependent cohesion; Consoli, N. C., F. Schnaid, and J. Milititsky. 1998. “Interpretation of plate
D = depth of foundation; load tests on residual soil site.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 124 (9):
dc , dq , and dγ = depth factors; 857–867. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1998)124:9(857).
F = fitting parameter proposed by Vanapalli and Costa, Y. D., J. C. Cintra, and J. C. Zornberg. 2003. “Influence of matric
suction on the results of plate load tests performed on a lateritic soil
Mohamed (2013);
deposit.” Geotech. Test. J. 26 (2): 219–227.
i = numeral; Das, B. M. 2015. Principles of foundation engineering. 8th ed. Boston:
ic , iq , and iγ = inclination factors; CENGAGE Learning.
k = number of experimental data in each test set; FLAC3D. 2012. User’s guide. Minneapolis, MN: Itasca Consulting Group.
N c , N q , and N γ = bearing capacity factors in terms of ϕ 0 ; Fredlund, D. G., and N. R. Morgenstern. 1977. “Stress state variables for
Ps = suction stress; unsaturated soils.” J. Geotech. Eng. Div. 103 (GT5): 447–466.
Fredlund, D. G., N. R. Morgenstern, and R. A. Widger. 1978. “Shear
q = surcharge load;
strength of unsaturated soils.” Can. Geotech. J. 15 (3): 313–321.
qu = ultimate bearing capacity; https://doi.org/10.1139/t78-029.
quexperimental = experimentally measured qu ; Fredlund, D. G., and H. Rahardj. 1993. Soil mechanics for unsaturated
qupredicted = predicted qu ; soils. 1st ed. New York: Wiley.
S = the degree of saturation; Fredlund, D. G., A. Xing, M. D. Fredlund, and S. L. Barbour. 1996. “The
Se = effective saturation; relationship of the unsaturated soil shear to the soil-water characteristic
curve.” Can. Geotech. J. 33 (3): 440–448. https://doi.org/10.1139/t96
Sr = residual degree of saturation; -065.
Sw;AVE = average degree of saturation (Vahedifard and Garakani, A. A. 2013. Laboratory assessment of the hydro-mechanical
Robinson 2015); behavior of unsaturated undisturbed collapsible soils—Case study:
sc , sq , and sγ = shape factors; Gorgan loess. Tehran, Iran: Sharif Univ. of Technology.

© ASCE 04019181-15 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(3): 04019181

 Garakani, A. A., S. M. Haeri, D. Y. Cherati, F. A. Givi, M. K. Tadi, A. H.
Hashemi, N. Chiti, and F. Qahremani. 2018. “Effect of road salts on
the hydro-mechanical behavior of unsaturated collapsible soils.”
Transp. Geotech. 17 (Dec): 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2018
.09.005.
Garakani, A. A., S. M. Haeri, C. S. Desai, S. M. Hosein Seyed Ghafouri,
B. Sadollahzadeh, and H. Hashemi Senejani. 2019. “Testing and con-
stitutive modeling of lime-stabilized collapsible loess. II: Modeling and
validations.” Int. J. Geomech. 19 (4): 04019007. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0001386.
Garakani, A. A., S. M. Haeri, A. Khosravi, and G. Habibagahi. 2015.
“Hydro-mechanical behavior of undisturbed collapsible loessial soils
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology, Indore on 01/16/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
under different stress state conditions.” J. Eng. Geol. 195 (Sep): 28–41.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2015.05.026.
Haeri, S. M., A. A. Garakani, A. Khosravi, and C. L. Meehan. 2014.
“Assessing the hydro-mechanical behavior of collapsible soils using
a modified triaxial test device.” Geotech. Test. J. 37 (2): 20130034.
https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ20130034.
Haeri, S. M., A. A. Garakani, H. R. Roohparvar, C. S. Desai, S. M. H.
Seyed Ghafouri, and K. Salemi Kouchesfahani. 2019. “Testing and con-
stitutive modeling of lime-stabilized collapsible loess. I: Experimental
investigations.” Int. J. Geomech. 19 (4): 04019006. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0001364.
Haeri, S. M., A. Khosravi, A. A. Garakani, and S. Ghazizadeh. 2016.
“Effect of soil structure and disturbance on hydromechanical behavior
of collapsible loessial soils.” Int. J. Geomech. 17 (1): 04016021. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000656.
Hanna, A. M., and G. G. Meyerhof. 1981. “Experimental evaluation
of bearing capacity of footings subjected to inclined loads.” Can.
Geotech. J. 18 (4): 599–603. https://doi.org/10.1139/t81-072.
Hansen, B. J. A. 1970. Revised and extended formula for bearing capacity.
Bulletin No. 28. Copenhagen, Denmark: Danish Geotechnical Institute.
Khalili, N., and M. H. Khabbaz. 1998. “A unique relationship for the
determination of the shear strength of unsaturated soils.” Géotechnique
48 (5): 681–687. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1998.48.5.681.
Kumbhojkar, A. S. 1993. “Numerical evaluation of Terzaghi’s Nγ.” J. Geo-
tech. Eng. 119 (3): 598. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410
(1993)119:3(598).
Larkin, L. A. 1968. “Theoretical bearing capacity of very shallow
footings.” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. 94 (6): 1347–1360.
Larson, L. 1997. Investigations and load tests in silty soils. Rep. No. 54.
Linköping, Sweden: Swedish Geotechnical Institute.
Li, Y., J. Wu, and K. Li. 2012. “Saturated-unsaturated seepage analysis
based on FLAC3D.” Rock. Soil. Mech. 33 (2): 617–622.
Lins, Y., T. Schanz, and S. K. Vanapalli. 2009. “Bearing capacity and set-
tlement behavior of a strip footing on an unsaturated coarse-grained
soil.” In Unsaturated soils, edited by O. Buzzi, S. Fityus, and
D. Sheng. London: CRC Press.
Lu, N., and W. J. Likos. 2004. Unsaturated soil mechanics. New York:
Wiley.
Meyerhof, G. G. 1951. “The ultimate bearing capacity of foundations.”
Géotechnique 2 (4): 301–332. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1951.2.4
.301.
Meyerhof, G. G. 1956. “Penetration tests and bearing capacity of cohesion-
less soils.” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. 82 (1): 1–19.
Miller, G. A., and K. K. Muraleetharan. 1998. “In situ testing in unsaturated
soil.” In Vol. 1 of Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on Unsaturated Soils, 416–421.
Beijing: International Academic Publishers.
Mohamed, F. M. O., and S. K. Vanapalli. 2006. “Laboratory investigations
for the measurement of the bearing capacity of an unsaturated coarse-
grained soil.” In Proc., 59th Canadian Geotechnical Conf. Richmond,
Canada: Canadian Geotechnical Society.
Mohamed, F. M. O., and S. K. Vanapalli. 2012. “Estimation of bearing
capacity of saturated and unsaturated sands from the SPT and CPT cor-
relations.” In Proc., 2012 World Congress on Advances in Civil, Envi-
ronmental, and Materials Research (ACEM’ 12). Daejeon, Korea:
Techno-Press.
Mohamed, F. M. O., and S. K. Vanapalli. 2015. “Bearing capacity of shal-
low foundations in saturated and unsaturated sands from SPT–CPT
© ASCE 04019181-16
Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(3): 04019181
correlations.” Int. J. Geotech. Eng. 9 (1): 2–12. https://doi.org/10.1179
/1939787914Y.0000000082.
Mohamed, F. M. O., S. K. Vanapalli, and M. Saatcioglu. 2011. “Bearing
capacity and settlement behavior of footings in an unsaturated sand.”
In Proc., 14th Pan American on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical
Engineering, and the 64th Canadian Geotechnical Conf. Richmond,
Canada: Canadian Geotechnical Society.
Ng, C. W. W., H. Sadeghi, F. Jafarzadeh, M. Sadeghi, C. Zhou, and S.
Baghbanrezvan. 2019. “Effect of microstructure on shear strength
and dilatancy of unsaturated loess at high suctions.” Can. Geotech.
J. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2018-0592.
Ni, P., G. Mei, and Y. Zhao. 2018. “Influence of raised groundwater level
on the stability of unsaturated soil slopes.” Int. J. Geomech. 18 (12):
04018168. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0001316.
Oh, W. T., and S. K. Vanapalli. 2008. “Modeling the stress versus settle-
ment behavior of model footings in saturated and unsaturated sandy
soils.” In Proc., 12th Int. Conf. of Int. Association for Computer Meth-
ods and Advances in Geomechanics (IACMAG). Red Hook, NY: Curran
Associates, Inc.
Oh, W. T., and S. K. Vanapalli. 2013. “Interpretation of the bearing capacity
of unsaturated fine-grained soil using the modified effective and the
modified total stress approaches.” Int. J. Geomech. 13 (6): 769–778.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000263.
Oloo, S. Y. 1994. “A bearing capacity approach to the design of low volume
traffic roads.” Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of
Saskatchewan.
Oloo, S. Y., D. G. Fredlund, and J. K. M. Gan. 1997. “Bearing capacity of
unpaved roads.” Can. Geotech. J. 34 (3): 398–407. https://doi.org/10
.1139/t96-084.
Prandtl, L. 1921. “Über die eindringungsfestigkeit (härte) plastischer baus-
toffe und die festigkeit von schneiden.” [In German.] Z. Angew. Math.
Mech. 1 (1): 15–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/zamm.19210010102.
Rajeev, P., and J. Kodikara. 2011. “Numerical analysis of an experimental
pipe buried in swelling soil.” Comput. Geotech. 38 (7): 897–904.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2011.06.005.
Rojas, J. C., and L. M. Salinas. 2002. “Bearing pressure and settlement for a
lean clay in saturated and unsaturated conditions.” In Vol. 2 of Proc.,
3rd Unsaturated Soils Conf., 703–708. Rotterdam, Netherlands: A.A.
Balkema.
Rojas, J. C., L. M. Salinas, and C. Sejas. 2007. “Plate-load tests on an
unsaturated lean clay.” In Experimental unsaturated soil mechanics,
edited by T. Schanz. Berlin: Springer.
Rutqvist, J., Y. Ijiri, and H. Yamamoto. 2011. “Implementation of the
Barcelona basic model into TOUGH–FLAC for simulations of the geo-
mechanical behavior of unsaturated soils.” Comput. Geosci. 37 (6):
751–762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2010.10.011.
Schnaid, F., N. C. Consoli, R. Cumdani, and J. Milititsky. 1995. “Load-
settlement response of hallow foundations in structured unsaturated
soils.” In Proc., 1st Int. Conf. on Unsaturated Soils, 999–1004. Rotter-
dam, Netherlands: A.A. Balkema.
Shahriar, M. A., N. Sivakugan, B. M. Das, A. Urquhart, and M. Tapiolas.
2015. “Water table correction factors for settlements of shallow foun-
dations in granular soils.” Int. J. Geomech. 15 (1): 06014015. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000391.
Steensen-Bach, J. O., N. Foged, and J. S. Steenfelt. 1987. “Capillary in-
duced stresses—Fact or fiction?” In Proc., 9th ECSMFE, Groundwater
Effects in Geotechnical Engineering, 83–89. Rotterdam, Netherlands:
A.A. Balkema.
Tang, Y., H. A. Taiebat, and A. R. Russell. 2017. “Bearing capacity of shal-
low foundations in unsaturated soil considering hydraulic hysteresis and
three drainage conditions.” Int. J. Geomech. 17 (6): 04016142. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000845.
Terzaghi, K. 1943. Theoretical soil mechanics. New York: Wiley.
Terzaghi, K., and R. B. Peck. 1948. Soil mechanics in engineering practice.
New York: Wiley.
Vahedifard, F., and J. D. Robinson. 2015. “Unified method for esti-
mating the ultimate bearing capacity of shallow foundations in vari-
ably saturated soils under steady flow.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
142 (4): 04015095. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606
.0001445.
Int. J. Geomech.
 Vanapalli, S. K., K. D. Eigenbrod, Z. N. Taylan, C. Catana, W. T. Oh, and
E. Garven. 2010. “A technique for estimating the shaft resistance of test
piles in unsaturated soils.” In Vol. 2 of Proc., 5th Int. Conf. Unsaturated
Soils, UNSAT 2010, 1209–1216. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Vanapalli, S. K., D. G. Fredlund, D. E. Pufahl, and A. W. Clifton.
1996. “Model for the prediction of shear strength with respect to soil
suction.” Can. Geotech. J. 33 (3): 379–392. https://doi.org/10.1139/t96
-060.
Vanapalli, S. K., and F. M. O. Mohamed. 2007. “Bearing capacity of model
footings in unsaturated soils, experimental unsaturated soil mechanics.”
In Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on Unsaturated Soils, 483–493. Weimar,
Germany: Springer.
Vanapalli, S. K., and F. M. O. Mohamed. 2013. “Bearing capacity and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology, Indore on 01/16/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
settlement of footings in an unsaturated sand.” Int. J. Geomate 5 (1):
595–604.
Vanapalli, S. K., and W. T. Oh. 2010. “Mechanics of unsaturated soils for
the design of foundation structures.” In Proc., 3rd WSEAS Int. Conf. on
Engineering Mechanics, Structures, Engineering Geology, 363–377.
Stevens Point, WI: World Scientific and Engineering Academy and
Society.
© ASCE 04019181-17
Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(3): 04019181
Vanapalli, S. K., W. T. Oh, and A. J. Puppala. 2007. “Determination of
the bearing capacity of unsaturated soils under undrained loading con-
ditions.” In Proc., 60th Canadian Geotechnical Conf. & 8th Joint
CGS/IAH-CNC Groundwater Conf. Richmond, Canada: Canadian
Geotechnical Society.
van Genuchten, M. T. 1980. “A closed-form equation for predicting the
hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils.” Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
44 (5): 892–898. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1980.03615995004400
050002x.
Vesic, A. S. 1973. “Analysis of ultimate loads of shallow foundations.”
J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. 99 (SM1): 45–73.
Wu, L. Z., and R. Q. Huang. 2006. “Numerical simulation and optimum
design of anchor frame beam strengthening expansive soil road cut
slope.” Rock Soil Mech. Wuhan 27 (4): 605.
Xu, Y. 2004. “Bearing capacity of unsaturated expansive soils.” J. Geotech.
Geol. Eng. 22 (4): 611–625. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:GEGE
.0000047043.29898.17.
Zhang, C., X. Chen, and W. Fan. 2016. “Overturning stability of a rigid
retaining wall for foundation.” Int. J. Geomech. 16 (4): 06015013.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000613.
Int. J. Geomech.