ANNOTATED DATA COLLECTION
BIBLIOGRAPHY  Six cases were analyzed with two probabilistic methods (MCS and PEM)
NO. 3
Tolentino, RIO MITZI A. ENGR. Renato B. Cubilla
201510465 December 11, 2018 Soil Mechanics
THE EFFCT OF SOIL VARIABILITY ON THE
ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY OF SHALLOW
FOUNDATION
*Y. M. Chew, K. S. Ng, S. F. Ng. Special Issue on ACEE 2015 Conference August (2015) 1-13
Department of Computer and Mathematical Sciences. Journal of Engineering Science and
Technology.
INTRODUCTION
 The design of shallow foundation has to fulfill two design criteria, namely
the ultimate bearing capacity (i.e., limit state or safety) and the tolerable
settlements (i.e., serviceability).
 Conventional design adopts deterministic analyses that normally use
representative soil parameters to determine the ultimate bearing capacity.
 These analyses are based on the assumption of uniformity: properties of soils
are isotropic and homogenous. However, natural soil properties exhibit
inherent spatial variability and this can significantly influence the failure
mechanisms and the collapse load. The inherent variability of geotechnical
parameters as one of three main sources of uncertainty (other two sources are
measurement errors and transformations uncertainty.
 Over the years, different attempts have been made to evaluate the safety of
shallow foundation using the probabilistic approaches by assessing certain
level of reliability, identified numerically by reliability index or probabilistic
failure.
 This study aims to investigate the impact of variations in soil properties on
the ultimate bearing capacity of a square shallow foundation. The two
deterministic analyses: Terzaghi theory and Vesic theory; and two
probabilistic methods were adopted: Monte Carlo simulation (MCS) and
point estimate method (PEM) to compare the results. The assumptions made
in this study are that there is no cross-correlation (independent) in soil
properties and the spatial variability of data can be presented by a normal
distribution.
METHODOLOGY
 Two hypothetical problems for foundations on clayey and sandy soils are
presented. The foundation geometry for both problems is the same.
 The effects of the variations are studied through three cases each for both
types of soils with the maximum, median and minimum coefficient of
variations.
 For clayey soil, the expected value of the unit weight, friction angle and
cohesion are 19 kN/m3, 25o, and 5 kN/m2, respectively. While for sandy soil,
the expected value of the unit weight, friction angle and cohesion are 20
kN/m3, 30o, and 3 kN/m2, respectively. The standard deviations are
calculated accordingly based on the COVs. The footings are designed to
carry 1000 kN column load or equivalent to 250 kPa.
 In Monte Carlo simulation, the random number generator can be generated
using formula = rand() while the normal distributed random variable is
simulated by entering NORMINV(rand(), mu , sigma) in the formula cell. To
produce a reliable result for MCS, many trials were repeated several times
with different seeds and the optimum number of trials, Nopt = 18000, was
obtained which the result did not display any discernible change compared
to the larger number of trials. Hence, for the six studied cases, the number of
trials fixed at 18000.
 In this study, the ultimate bearing capacity was computed using Eq. (1) with
both the Terzaghi and Vesic theory. In the next section, the effects of the
normal random variables are discussed in terms of the mean and standard
deviation of ultimate bearing capacity, factor of safety, and probability of
failure. The factor of safety, FS is defined as the ratio of ultimate bearing
capacity to the bearing stress. In this study, the probability of failure Pf is
defined as the ratio of the frequency of FS less than unity to the total number
of FS.
 In civil engineering reliability analysis, there are basically three categories
of methodologies used in different probabilistic methods to yield measures
of the distribution of functions of random variables.
using two bearing capacity formulas (Terzaghi theory and Vesic theory). The
first three cases are of clayey soils while the last three cases are of sandy
soils. The results of clayey soils are discussed first, followed by the sandy
soils.
 The mean qult for the case with max COV (i.e., Case 1) is higher than the
cases with median COV and min COV (Cases 2 and 3). This indicates larger
COV in the soil properties seems to offer greater resistance to the foundation
load. In other words, the mean factor of safety for soils with higher variability
is greater than soils with low variability.
 Based on this result, one might think that by adopting mean value as a
deterministic value of the material properties for soils with high variability
is a correct approach in foundation design. However, this is incorrect. The
reason is that with larger COV, the standard deviation or the range of the
values of qult or FS are also larger. The probability of failure for Cases 1, 2,
and 3 (results of Terzaghi theory) are 26.8%, 14.6% and 0%, respectively.
This denotes that the probability of failure of the soils with high variability
is actually higher than the soils with lower variability albeit their mean values
are larger in terms of ultimate bearing capacity or factor of safety. Hence, in
designing a foundation system, the act of ignoring the variability of the soil
properties can be dangerous and unsafe.
ANALYSIS
 Therefore, the larger the variability in soil properties, the higher the values
for skewness and kurtosis. Therefore, engineers should be careful when
dealing with clayey soils of high variability during the design of shallow
foundation. Histograms in Fig. 4 are the results of Terzaghi theory, however,
a similar conclusion can be made to Vesic theory.
 In general, the results obtained from Vesic theory are higher than Terzaghi
theory for both the ultimate bearing capacity and the factor of safety.
 However, PEM gives ultimate bearing capacity values that are 18.0%,
12.4%, and 1.3% higher than MCS results for Cases 1-3 (results of Terzaghi
theory). Moreover, the probability of failure with PEM is significantly higher
than MCS especially in Cases 1 and 2. For Case 3, both probabilistic
approaches produce zero percentage of failure.
 Sandy soils exhibit lower variability compare to clayey soils, especially on
the value of friction angle where the COV for friction angle is 5-15%. The
small differences in friction angle, therefore result in small differences in
terms of mean values for the ultimate bearing capacity and the factor of safety
for Cases 4-6 8 using Monte Carlo simulation.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
 The mean ultimate bearing capacity or factor of safety is higher when the
coefficients of variations of soils properties are larger.
 The higher the coefficient of variation of soil properties, the larger the
skewness and kurtosis value for the ultimate bearing capacity.
 Point estimate method estimates higher ultimate bearing capacity than Monte
Carlo simulation.
 Vesic theory yields a higher mean value than Terzaghi theory while PEM
yields a higher mean value than MCS.
 Two generalizations can be made: (1) the influence of theory adopted
(Terzaghi or Vesic) on the value of ultimate bearing capacity is more
significant in sandy soils than clayey soils due to small variability in sandy
soils; (2) the impact of probabilistic approach (MCS or PEM) adopted to the
value of ultimate bearing capacity is larger in clayey soils than in sandy soils.
REACTION AND COMMENTS
 Probability of failure is higher when the coefficient of variation is larger.
 The influence of theory adopted on the value of ultimate bearing capacity is
more significant in sandy soils than clayey soils.
 The impact of probabilistic approach adopted to the value of ultimate bearing
capacity is larger in clayey soils than in sandy soils.
 Therefore, the choice of different theory adopted in design of shallow
foundation on sandy soils has greater impact on the ultimate bearing capacity
compared to the effect of variability of soil properties that may found on the
sandy soils.