Unified Method for Estimating the Ultimate Bearing

Capacity of Shallow Foundations in Variably

Saturated Soils under Steady Flow
Farshid Vahedifard, M.ASCE 1; and Joe D. Robinson, S.M.ASCE 2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 12/28/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: This study presents a unified method for estimating the ultimate bearing capacity of shallow foundations resting on variably
saturated soils under a steady flow. The effective stress approach originally employed for predicting the bearing capacity of saturated soils
is extended by incorporating a suction stress-based representation. A closed-form equation is used to define the suction stress characteristic
curve, capturing changes in the effective stress because of varying soil saturation and matric suction. The proposed method uses the classic
effective shear strength parameters and two fitting parameters to represent the soil water characteristic curve. The method can be used for
different soil types, various degrees of saturation, and different surface flux boundary conditions. The results from the proposed formulation
were compared, and good agreement was observed against three sets of experimental results from model footing and plate load tests. A
parametric study was performed, and the ultimate bearing capacity profiles are presented for various surface flux boundary conditions and
depths of the water table. It is shown that different flow conditions can significantly affect the ultimate bearing capacity of clay. However,
different flow conditions have negligible effects on the ultimate bearing capacity of sand. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001445.
© 2015 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Variably saturated soil; Bearing capacity; Effective stress; Suction stress.

Introduction Fig. 1 demonstrates the influence of environmental factors on

Bearing capacity is an ultimate limit state and, along with settle-
ment, constitutes the two key components in the design of a foun-
dation. Historically, and in the context of classic soil mechanics,
conventional bearing capacity theories do not explicitly consider
the role of matric suction and only attempt to indirectly address
the influence of the water table through adjustments. These adjust-
ments include modifying the overburden pressure when the water
table is above the foundation level or adjusting the unit weight of
soil when the water table is within the zone of influence below the
foundation level. However, several numerical, experimental, and
field investigations have demonstrated the significant influence
of matric suction on the bearing capacity of unsaturated fine- and
coarse-grained soils (e.g., Oloo et al. 1997; Costa et al. 2003;
Vanapalli and Mohamed 2007; Oh and Vanapalli 2011, 2013;
Wuttke et al. 2013). Matric suction contributes to the shear strength
of unsaturated soils and, consequently, it improves the bearing
capacity of foundations resting on unsaturated soils. However,
depending on the soil type and flow boundary conditions, matric
suction can vary significantly under a different surface flux (q),
such as infiltration, i.e., downward flow, hydrostatic, i.e., no flow,
or evaporation, i.e., upward flow (Lu and Likos 2004, 2006).
1
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Mississippi State Univ., Starkville, MS 39762 (corresponding author).
E-mail: farshid@cee.msstate.edu
2
Graduate Student, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Mississippi State Univ., Starkville, MS 39762. E-mail: jdr418@msstate
.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on March 31, 2015; approved on
October 5, 2015; published online on December 17, 2015. Discussion per-
iod open until May 17, 2016; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241.
the distribution of matric suction profiles with depth for a homo-
geneous unsaturated soil stratum. As shown, the unsaturated zone
is separated into an unsteady (active) zone and a steady zone. Soil
suction in the active zone tends to fluctuate as a function of time-
dependent factors, such as relative humidity, temperature, evapora-
tion, and precipitation. Beneath the active zone, i.e., steady zone,
soil suction is relatively independent of time (Lu and Likos 2004).
In Fig. 1, the infiltration profile, i.e., downward flow, shows that an
increase in the rate of infiltration leads to a decrease and increase in
matric suction and water content, respectively, as the height above
the water table increases. Conversely, the evaporation profile,
i.e., upward flow, shows that an increase in the rate of evaporation
typically leads to an increase and decrease in matric suction and
water content, respectively, as the height above the water table in-
creases (Lu and Likos 2004).
Incorporating the role of matric suction into bearing capacity
calculations primarily depends on how the shear strength or effec-
tive stress variations of unsaturated soil have been characterized.
Terzaghi (1943) proposed a method for estimating the bearing
capacity of coarse- and fine-grained soils under saturated condi-
tions by extending the effective stress approach (ESA). Shortly
after, Skempton (1948) suggested that the bearing capacity of
fine-grained soils is better represented by extending the total stress
approach (TSA), i.e., ϕu ¼ 0. Each of these methods suggests that
the bearing capacity of saturated soils should be estimated on the
basis of the soil type and loading conditions, i.e., drained or un-
drained. Attempts have been made to incorporate the role of matric
suction into Terzaghi’s classic bearing capacity formulation by em-
ploying unsaturated soil mechanics concepts (e.g., Oloo et al. 1997;
Mohamad and Vanapalli 2006; Oh and Vanapalli 2011). Oloo et al.
(1997) used the independent stress state variable approach
pioneered by Fredlund and Morgenstern (1977) and extended
Terzaghi’s (1943) bearing capacity theory to estimate the bearing
capacity of unsaturated soils in the following form:

© ASCE 04015095-1 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 04015095


w included in Eq. (2). However, the limitations of using Eq. (2) are
(-) q
(+) q
z No Flow
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 12/28/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
w
Fig. 1. Matric suction profiles under various surface flux boundary
conditions (adapted from Fredlund 1996)
qult ¼ ½c 0 þ ðua − uw Þ tan ϕb N c ξ c þ qo N q ξ q þ 0.5BγN γ ξ γ ð1Þ
where qult = ultimate bearing capacity of unsaturated soils; c 0 =
effective cohesion; (ua − uw ) is the matric suction; ϕb = internal
friction angle because of the contribution of matric suction; N c ,
N q , and N γ = bearing capacity factors; ξ c , ξ q , and ξ γ = shape fac-
tors; qo = overburden pressure; B = width of foundation; and γ =
unit weight of soil. Many researchers have recognized that ϕb is
not a constant value, is highly dependent of matric suction, and
could be negative (e.g., Vanapalli et al. 1996). Additional studies
(e.g., Costa et al. 2003; Oh and Vanapalli 2013) have shown
that estimating the bearing capacity of unsaturated soils using
the independent stress state variable approach can result in signifi-
cant discrepancies for matric suction values greater than the air-
entry value of soils.
To address the aforementioned limitations associated with
the independent stress state variable approach, some studies
(e.g., Vanapalli et al. 1996; Lu and Likos 2006) characterized
the shear strength change because of matric suction by using the
soil water characteristic curve (SWCC) and the classic effective
shear strength parameters. Vanapalli and Mohamed (2007) adopted
the shear strength model proposed by Vanapalli et al. (1996) and
proposed the following semiempirical bearing capacity equation
for surface foundations, i.e., qo ¼ 0:
qult ¼ ½c 0 þ ðua − uw Þb ð1 − Sψ Þ tan ϕ 0
þ ðua − uw ÞAVR Sψ tan ϕ 0 N c ξ c þ 0.5BγN γ ξ γ ð2Þ
where ðua − uw Þb is the air-entry value; S = degree of saturation;
ψ = fitting parameter with respect to bearing capacity, where ψ ¼ 1
for coarse-grained soils; ðua − uw ÞAVR is the average matric suction
value; N c , N q , and N γ = bearing-capacity factors from Terzaghi
(1943) and Kumbhokjar (1993), respectively; and ξ c , ξ q , and
ξ γ = Vesic’s (1973) shape factors, which are defined as follows:
ξ c ¼ 1.0 þ ðNq=NcÞðB=LÞ ð3aÞ
ξ q ¼ 1.0 þ ðB=LÞ tan ϕ 0 ð3bÞ
ξ γ ¼ 1.0 − 0.4ðB=LÞ ð3cÞ
© ASCE 04015095-2
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 04015095
where ϕ 0 = effective internal friction angle.
In comparison to Eq. (1), the effect of ðua − uw Þb is explicitly
that it requires additional laboratory tests, e.g., direct shear, to
estimate the ψ parameter, and it underestimates the bearing capacity
for soil suctions greater than the residual soil suction (Oh and
Vanapalli 2013). Moreover, Eq. (2) was developed on the basis
of the shear strength model proposed by Vanapalli et al. (1996),
which considers the shear strength change because of soil suction
as a product of matric suction and saturation. Matric suction is an
independent stress state variable; however, matric suction is not a
stress quantity (Lu 2008). Thus, defining matric suction as a stress
quantity in any shear strength criterion is mechanically unsound
(Lu et al. 2010). In addition to the abovementioned limitations,
Eq. (2) estimates the average matric suction within the stress bulb
zone by considering only a hydrostatic suction profile. Theoreti-
cally, matric suction varies as the height of the water table increases
below the ground surface. Moreover, it has also been shown
that matric suction profiles tend to deviate from hydrostatic condi-
tions in soils under various steady-state flow rates (Lu and Likos
2004, 2006).
This study presents a unified framework for estimating the
ultimate bearing capacity of shallow foundations resting on varia-
bly saturated soils subjected to a steady flow. Terzaghi’s (1943)
bearing capacity theory is extended to estimate the ultimate bearing
capacity of variably saturated soils by incorporating a suction
stress-based representation (e.g., Lu and Likos 2004, 2006).
A closed-form equation proposed by Lu et al. (2010) is used to
define the suction stress characteristic curve (SSCC), representing
changes in the effective stress because of varying soil saturation and
matric suction. This closed-form definition requires only two con-
trolling parameters, namely, the inverse of the air-entry pressure (α)
and the pore size spectrum number (n), to accurately describe the
state of effective stress for various soil types. A soil’s hydraulic
conductivity function (HCF) and soil water retention curve
(SWRC) are also governed by these two parameters. By taking into
account variations in the depth of the water table and various sur-
face flux boundary conditions, the proposed method uses the
numerical integration of differential elements to calculate the aver-
age matric suction within the stress bulb zone below a foundation.
Using the numerical integration technique allows one to accurately
determine the average matric suction, which is particularly impor-
tant for nonlinear matric suction profiles as the depth of the water
table increases beneath the depth of the foundation. Moreover, the
proposed method modifies the ultimate bearing capacity terms, qo
and γ, to account for variations in the depth of the water table above
and below a foundation. The results from the proposed method
were compared against three sets of experimental results from
model footing tests (MFTs) and plate load tests (PLTs) and the con-
ventional bearing capacity equation developed by Terzaghi (1943).
Suction Stress-Based Effective Stress
Representation
Suction stress-based effective stress is an extension of Bishop’s
(1959) effective stress model, which considers physicochemical in-
terparticle forces, leading to the use of the effective degree of sat-
uration (not the degree of saturation) and the SWRC. This
difference results in a realistic nonzero suction stress for clayey
and silty soils. Lu and Likos (2006) and Lu et al. (2010) provide
further discussion, along with verification through the experimental
results for clayey and silty soils. Under the suction stress-based ef-
fective stress representation, Lu and Likos (2004, 2006) defined the
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 unified effective stress for both saturated and unsaturated condi-
tions as
σ 0 ¼ σ − ua − σ s
where σ 0 represents the effective stress; and σs represents the suc-
tion stress. The interparticle forces for unsaturated soils include
physicochemical forces, i.e., van der Waals forces, electrical
double-layer forces, and chemical cementation forces at the grain
contacts, surface tension forces, and forces arising from negative
pore-water pressure (Lu and Likos 2006). Lu et al. (2010) estab-
lished closed-form equations for σs as a singular function of matric
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 12/28/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
suction using the van Genuchten (1980)—Mualem (1976) SWCC
parameters as follows:
σs ¼ −ðua − uw Þ ðua − uw Þ ≤ 0
σs ¼ −Se ðua − uw Þ ðua − uw Þ ≥ 0
where Se represents the effective degree of saturation. The effective
degree of saturation is calculated as
S − Sr
Se ¼
1 − Sr
where S = pore-water degree of saturation; and Sr = residual
saturation (e.g., Lu and Likos 2004).
Implementing Se captures the contribution of σs in an unsatu-
rated soil matrix because of the combined effects of negative pore-
water pressure or matric suction and surface tension. Several
researchers (e.g., Sheng 2011; Zhou et al. 2012a, b; Zhou and
Sheng 2015) have shown that the behavior of unsaturated soils
is governed not only by matric suction, but also by Se, for it de-
scribes the behavior of unsaturated soils well. The interparticle
capillary stresses occurring at the air-water interfaces are the only
suction stress components in sand where surface tension exists.
Lu and Likos (2006) conducted a series of particle-scale force
analyses to distinguish and conceptualize the various force compo-
nents in unsaturated soils. Their analyses showed that the air-water
interfaces are the only suction stress component in sand, and
the physicochemical forces, such as the double-layer forces, are
essentially nonexistent. It is critical to capture changes in the inter-
particle capillary stresses because too dry or too wet conditions will
diminish air-water interface areas, resulting in infinitesimal or no
capillary stresses. This uniqueness is not fully examined when em-
ploying the product of the average matric suction and degree of
saturation (not an effective degree of saturation) because conditions
vary between the saturated and unsaturated conditions (e.g., Lu
et al. 2010).
Using the van Genuchten–Mualem’s model, Se can be expressed
as a function of matric suction by employing a two parameter equa-
tion in the following form (Lu et al. 2010):

ðn−1Þ=n
1 suction within the stress bulb zone. Fig. 2 demonstrates the normal-
Se ¼
1 þ ½αðua − uw Þn
where α and n = fitting parameters. That is, α approximates the
inverse of the air-entry pressure and n is directly related to the
distribution of the soil’s pore size. Lu et al. (2010) validated
the definitions of σs and Se in Eqs. (5) and (7), respectively, with
the experimental data attained from 20 different soils that were
studied in the existing literature.
© ASCE
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 04015095
Suction Profiles under Various Surface Flux
Boundary Conditions
ð4Þ Gardner’s (1958) model can be used to derive one-dimensional
analytical solutions of matric suction profiles under steady-state
vertical infiltration or evaporation rates. After determination of
the α parameter, Gardner’s (1958) model defines the HCF as
k ¼ ks e−αðua −uw Þ ð8Þ
where ks = saturated hydraulic conductivity (m=s). Because Gard-
ner’s model defines one parameter, α, which is consistent with van
Genuchten–Mualem’s model, it simplifies the means of finding a
one-dimensional analytical solution. Application of Darcy’s law
and Gardner’s (1958) model, coupled with imposition of zero ma-
tric suction boundary conditions at the water table, i.e., z ¼ 0,
ð5aÞ where z is the height above the water table, and an assumed con-
stant infiltration or evaporation rate q at the ground surface allows
the one-dimensional matric suction profile with depth to be
ð5bÞ obtained as (Yeh 1989; Lu and Likos 2004)
  
1 q −γw αz q
ðua − uw Þ ¼ − ln 1 þ e − ð9Þ
α ks ks
where γ w = unit weight of water. Mathematically, the bracketed
ð6Þ term must be greater than 0 to be satisfied and should be less than
or equal to 1 in order to ensure that matric suction is 0 or positive.
Substituting Eq. (9) into Eq. (7) defines Se versus z under vertical
unsaturated seepage conditions as
0 1ðn−1Þ=n
1
Se ¼ @ n h ion A ð10Þ
1 þ − ln 1 þ kqs e−γ w αz − kqs
The σs that directly contributes to the effective stress versus z
under vertical unsaturated seepage conditions can be obtained by
combining Eqs. (9) and (10) as follows:
h i
ln 1 þ q
e −γ w αz
− q
1 ks ks
σs ¼ −  n h io ð11Þ
α 1 þ − ln 1 þ q e−γ w αz − q n ðn−1Þ=n
ks ks
The closed-form equation for the suction stress profile has
been successfully employed in classic geotechnical engineering
problems, such as active earth pressures (e.g., Vahedifard et al.
2015a) and slope stability (e.g., Griffiths and Lu 2005; Vahedifard
et al. 2015b). However, none of the current bearing capacity meth-
ods provides a quantitative means to directly implement surface
flux boundary conditions when analyzing the ultimate bearing
capacity with respect to matric suction. As illustrated in Fig. 2,
matric suction varies not only with the depth of the water table,
but also under different flow conditions. Hence, this necessitates
that the average matric suction value within the stress bulb zone
below a foundation be estimated for soils under various flow rates.
As previously discussed, Eq. (2) considers a linear, i.e., hydrostatic
condition, matric suction profile to estimate the average matric
ð7Þ
ized matric suction profiles under different flow conditions,
i.e., q ¼ −3.14 × 10−8 , 0, and 1.14 × 10−8 m=s, for three hypo-
thetical soil types, i.e., clay, silt, and sand, at two different depths
of water table, i.e., Dw ¼ 1 and 10 m. Input parameters for the
hypothetical soils and different flow rates were selected on the basis
of values reported by Lu and Likos (2004, 2006). As shown for
both fine- and coarse-grained soils, the matric suction profiles be-
gin to deviate from the hydrostatic curve as the height above the
04015095-3 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 1.0
Normalized Distance above Water Table, z/Dw

Dw = 10 m
1m

0m
0m

1m
m

m
m
0m
m

1m

m
1

10

10
=1

0
10
=

=1
Dw = 1

=1
=1

w =
Dw =

=
Dw

w =
Dw =
=
w

Dw

D
D

m
w

m
m

D
D

=1
=1
=1
0.8

w
w
w

D
D
D
Clay Silt Sand
α = 0.01 (kPa )
-1 -1 -1
α = 0.005 (kPa ) α = 0.1 (kPa )
0.6
γ = 18 kN/m
3
γ = 18 kN/m
3
γ = 18 kN/m3
-8 -7 -5
ks = 5 x 10 m/s ks = 1 x 10 m/s ks = 3 x 10 m/s

0.4

-8
q = -3.14 x 10 m/s
0.2 q = 0 m/s
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 12/28/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

-8
q = 1.15 x 10 m/s

0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Normalized Matric Suction, (ua-uw)/γ Dw
(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 2. Normalized suction profiles under various flow conditions for three hypothetical soils: (a) clay; (b) silt; (c) sand

water table increases (z > 0 m). Consequently, the hydrostatic case used for estimating qult for both fine- and coarse-grained soils
for nonzero flow conditions will underestimate the matric suction under various surface flux boundary conditions and with different
value as the depth of the water table increases beneath a foundation. degrees of saturation.
In Figs. 2(a and b), the influence of one-dimensional steady flow As demonstrated in Fig. 3, different cases are considered in this
conditions on the matric suction profiles for clay and silt is signifi- study to appropriately account for the depth of the water table and,
cant, with the greatest effect corresponding to the infiltration case consequently, various degrees of saturation. Changes in qult asso-
(q ¼ −3.14 × 10−8 m=s). Conversely, Fig. 2(c) shows that the ciated with variations in the depth of the water table have typically
steady-state flow rates only begin to influence the behavior of suc- been accounted for by modifying qo and γ (Bowles 1996). Terzaghi
tion in sands at a height of approximately z=Dw ¼ 0.3 above the and Peck (1948) first showed that the qult of shallow foundations
water table. could be reduced by approximately 50% when the depth of the
water table is approximately one footing width beneath the ground
surface. This necessitates modifications to qo and γ when Dw varies
Unified Bearing Capacity Formulation above and below the foundation, as exemplified in Fig. 3. As a re-
sult, Eq. (12) adjusts qo and γ as Dw varies above the foundation,
In this study, the suction stress-based effective stress approach is within the stress bulb, and below the stress bulb, as illustrated in
incorporated in Terzaghi’s (1943) bearing capacity equation Fig. 3 for Cases 1–4, respectively.
through the total cohesion concept. The total cohesion approach • Case 1: The water table is above the foundation, i.e., Dw;1 < Df .
has been extensively used in unsaturated slope stability methods For this case, (ua − uw ) and ðua − uw ÞAVR are 0 within the stress
(e.g., Fredlund and Rahardjo 1993; Springman et al. 2003; Gavin bulb. However, qo needs to be modified to account for the depth
and Xue 2010). A term referred to as total cohesion is introduced by of the water table above the foundation as
adding the apparent cohesion to the effective stress cohesion,
i.e., total cohesion ¼ c 0 þ capp . The total cohesion is then used qo ¼ H 1 γ þ H2 γ 0 ð13Þ
in Terzaghi’s bearing capacity equation to compute the ultimate
bearing capacity of variably saturated soils. In the unified effective where γ 0 = buoyant unit weight defined as the difference
stress theory, the apparent cohesion is defined as the shear strength between the saturated unit weight of soil (γ sat ) and γ w . Conse-
mobilized by σs through the internal friction angle capp ¼ quently, for this case, the proposed equation smoothly degener-
−σs tan ϕ 0 (Lu et al. 2009). Following this approach, the ultimate ates to Terzaghi’s classic bearing capacity formulation.
bearing capacity of variably saturated soils can be estimated as
follows: B

0 0 0
qult ¼ fc þ að1 − Se;AVR Þ tan ϕ þ ½ðua − uw ÞSe AVR tan ϕ gN c ξ c z1
Dw,1 Case 1 H1
~ γ ξγ
þ qo N q ξ q þ 0.5γBN ð12Þ Df
Dw,2 H2

z2
where a represents the air-entry pressure, i.e., inverse of α, in kPa; Dw,3
Case 2
and Se;AVR represents the average effective degree of saturation, 1B
Dw,4
which is a function of the average matric suction ðua − uw ÞAVR , z3
1.5B

within the proximity of the stress bulb zone, i.e., 0 to 1.5B, Case 3
below a shallow foundation. In Eq. (12), the second term,
að1 − Se;AVR Þ tan ϕ 0 , embodies the contribution of matric suction z4
Case 4
up to the air-entry pressure. Additionally, the third term,
½ðua − uw ÞSe AVR , i.e., σsAVR , delineates the contribution of the
Fig. 3. Different cases for estimating the ultimate bearing capacity on
average suction stress beyond the air-entry pressure. By selecting
basis of depth of water table
the appropriate input parameters, the proposed formulation can be

© ASCE 04015095-4 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 04015095

 B B B

Δx Δx
z b b
x x d x d
Δy
1.5B Dwu (xc, yc) 1.5B Δy 1.5B
z
(xc, yc) c
y = f(x); Dwu a
x = f(y)
y = f(x); Dwl
z x = f(y)

y y y
(a) (b) (c)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 12/28/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Integration of average matric suction within stress bulb: (a) Case 1; (b) Cases 2 and 3; (c) Case 4

• Case 2: The water table is between the bottom of the foundation
and a depth equal to the width of the foundation below that,
i.e., 0 < ðDw;2 − Df Þ < B. For Case 2, ðua − uw ÞAVR and the
related terms are calculated by considering the matric suction
profile from the base of the foundation, i.e., Df , down to
(Dw;2 − Df ). Moreover, qo and γ should be modified as
~ f
qo ¼ γD
γ~ ¼ γ 0 þ fðγ − γ 0 Þ
where γ~ represents the modified average unit weight; and f
represents the ratio of (Dw;2 − Df ) and B, varying from 0,
i.e., fully saturated, to 1, i.e., water table at the depth of
Dw;2 − Df ¼ B.
• Case 3: This case represents a condition where B < ðDw;3 −
Df Þ < 1.5B. As a result, Eq. (12) analyzes ðua − uw ÞAVR
and the related terms by considering the matric suction profile
from the base of the foundation, i.e., Df , down to (Dw;3 − Df ).
No modification is needed for qo and γ in this case.
• Case 4: The water table is very deep in this case,
i.e, ðDw;4 − Df Þ ≥ 1.5B. In such a case, the water table will have
no effect on the depth of the stress bulb zone, and Eq. (12) ana-
lyzes ðua − uw ÞAVR and the pertinent terms by considering the
profile from Df down to 1.5B.
The modifications proposed for qo and γ are consistent with
those suggested in classic bearing capacity studies, which account
for variations in the depth of the water table (e.g., Terzaghi and
Peck 1948).
Z Z Z
1 1 d 1 Duw
ȳ ¼ yc dA ¼ yfðyÞdy ¼ yfðyÞdy ð15bÞ
A A A c A Dlw
where x̄ = horizontal coordinate of the centroid of the matric suc-
tion profile and characterizes the average matric suction within the
stress bulb; ȳ defines the vertical coordinate of the centroid of the
matric suction profile within the stress bulb, A defines the area of
ð14aÞ the stress bulb bounded by the horizontal and vertical limits a − d,
on x̄ and ȳ, respectively; and xc and yc = horizontal and vertical
‘moment arms’ (or coordinates), respectively, of the differential
ð14bÞ elements, as illustrated in Fig. 4.
In Eq. (15a) and Fig. 4, ðua − uw Þu , i.e., horizontal limit b, char-
acterizes the upper limit of integration, which is the matric suction
at the depth of the foundation for Cases 1–4. In Eq. (15a), the lower
limit of the integral, i.e., horizontal limit a, is defined as ðua − uw Þl .
In Eq. (15b) and Fig. 4, Duw , i.e., vertical limit d, is the upper limit of
integration and represents the distance from the water table to the
depth of the foundation. Similarly, Dlw , i.e., vertical limit c, repre-
sents the lower limit of integration. As previously demonstrated in
Cases 1–4, the limits of the integrals in Eqs. (15a) and (15b) are
defined as follows:
• For Case 1 [Fig. 4(a)], the upper and lower limits in both
equations coincide, representing a saturated case; therefore,
the average suction is 0.
• For Cases 2 and 3 [Fig. 4(b)] ðua − uw Þl is equal to the matric
suction calculated at (Dw − Df ), Duw ¼ Dw − Df , and Dlw ¼ 0.
• For Case 4 [Fig. 4(c)], ðua − uw Þl is the matric suction calcu-
lated at the base of the stress bulb, i.e., 1.5B, Duw ¼ Dw − Df ,
and Dlw is nonzero and is equal to the distance between the depth
of the water table and the base of the stress bulb.

Calculating the Average Matric Suction within the Parametric Analysis and Examples
Stress Bulb
A set of parametric studies was performed to investigate the varia-
By taking into account variations in the depth of the water table and tion in qult for hypothetical fine- and coarse-grained soils under
various surface flux boundary conditions, the proposed method various surface flux boundary conditions. Because of a space limi-
uses numerical integration of differential elements to calculate tation, the results are presented for only two hypothetical soil types,
the average matric suction, i.e., abscissa of the centroid, within namely, clay and sand, with variations in the depth of the water
the stress bulb zone below a foundation. As demonstrated in Fig. 2, table, i.e., 0 ≤ Dw ≤ 10 m, beneath the depth of the foundation.
as the depth of the water table increases beneath a foundation, the Input parameters for the hypothetical soils and different flow rates
matric suction profile becomes nonlinear for fine- and coarse- were selected on the basis of values reported by Lu and Likos
grained soils under various surface flux boundary conditions. As (2004, 2006).
a result, the geometric center, i.e., centroid, of the matric suction
profile within the stress bulb can be calculated as Effect of Soil Types and Flow Rates on the Ultimate
Z Z Z Bearing Capacity
1 1 b 1 ðua −uw Þu
x̄ ¼ xc dA ¼ xfðxÞdx ¼ xfðxÞdx ð15aÞ The results shown in Figs. 5–8 demonstrate the effect of Dw , q,
A A A a A ðua −uw Þl
and ϕ 0 on ðua − uw ÞAVR , Se;AVR , and qult in clay and sand.

© ASCE 04015095-5 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 04015095

 Average Effective Degree of Saturation, Se,AVR (%)
160 105 5000
Average Matric Suction, (ua-uw)AVR (kPa)

Ultimate Bearing Capacity, qult (kPa)

100 4000
120

95 3000 o
25
c' = 10 kPa φ'=
80 o
α = 0.005 (kPa )
-1
25
φ' =
90 n = 1.8 2000
3
γ = 18 kN/m o
0
-8
ks = 5 x 10 m/s φ' = 2 o
40 -8 φ' = 20
85 q = -3.14 x 10 m/s 1000 o
q = 0 m/s φ' = 25
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 12/28/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

-8
q = 1.15 x 10 m/s o
φ' = 20
0 80 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Depth of Water Table, Dw (m)
(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 5. Results for surface foundation (Df ¼ 0) on hypothetical clay under various flow rates: (a) ðua − uw ÞAVR ; (b) Se;AVR ; (c) qult
Average Effective Degree of Saturation, Se,AVR (%)

160 105 5000

Average Matric Suction, (ua-uw)AVR (kPa)

o
25

Ultimate Bearing Capacity, qult (kPa)

φ' =
100 4000 o
120 25
φ' =

95 3000
o
80 c' = 10 kPa 20
-1 φ' =
α = 0.005 (kPa )
90 n = 1.8 2000 o
γ = 18 kN/m
3 φ' = 25
-8 o
ks = 5 x 10 m/s φ' = 2
0
40 -8
85 q = -3.14 x 10 m/s
1000 o
q = 0 m/s φ' = 20
-8
q = 1.15 x 10 m/s

0 80 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Depth of Water Table, Dw (m)
(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 6. Results for embedded foundation (Df ¼ 1.5 m) on hypothetical clay under various flow rates: (a) ðua − uw ÞAVR ; (b) Se;AVR ; (c) qult
Average Effective Degree of Saturation, Se,AVR (%)

120 120 4000

Average Matric Suction, (ua-uw)AVR (kPa)

c' = 0 kPa
Ultimate Bearing Capacity, qult (kPa)

α = 0.1 (kPa )
-1
100 100
n=4
γ = 18 kN/m
3
3000
-5
ks = 3 x 10 m/s
80 80 -8
q = -3.14 x 10 m/s
q = 0 m/s
-8
60 60 q = 1.15 x 10 m/s 2000 o
φ' = 35 (x 1.1)

40 40
1000 o
φ' = 30 (x 1.1)
20 20

0 0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Depth of Water Table, Dw (m)
(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 7. Results for surface foundation (Df ¼ 0) on hypothetical sand under various flow rates: (a) ðua − uw ÞAVR ; (b) Se;AVR ; (c) qult

© ASCE 04015095-6 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 04015095

 Average Effective Degree of Saturation, Se,AVR (%)
120 120 4000
o
Average Matric Suction, (ua-uw)AVR (kPa) φ' = 35

Ultimate Bearing Capacity, qult (kPa)

c' = 0 kPa
100 100 α = 0.1 (kPa )
-1

n=4 3000
3
γ = 18 kN/m
80 80 -5
ks = 3 x 10 m/s
-8
q = -3.14 x 10 m/s
q = 0 m/s o
60 60 -8 2000 φ' = 30
q = 1.15 x 10 m/s

40 40
1000
20 20
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 12/28/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0 0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Depth of Water Table, Dw (m)
(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 8. Results for embedded foundation (Df ¼ 1.5 m) on hypothetical sand under various flow rates: (a) ðua − uw ÞAVR ; (b) Se;AVR ; (c) qult

In Figs. 5 and 7, the results are representative of the surface 1% for up to Dw ¼ 10 m for the evaporation, hydrostatic, and
foundations, i.e., Df ¼ 0, in clay and sand, respectively, with a infiltration conditions, respectively. A lower value for Se;AVR com-
width, B, of 1 m. Figs. 6 and 8 show the counterpart results in clay pliments higher values for ðua − uw ÞAVR and σsAVR , leading to a
and sand, respectively, for an embedded foundation with Df ¼ larger qult. Specifically, the 15% drop in Se;AVR under the evapo-
1.5 m and B ¼ 1 m. The following parameters were used for ration condition contributes to more than a 50% increase in qult
the hypothetical clay: γ ¼ 18 kN=m3 , n ¼ 1.8, α ¼ 0.005 kPa−1 , [Fig. 5(c)] under the same condition.
ks ¼ 5 × 10−8 m=s, c 0 ¼ 10 kPa, and two values of ϕ 0 (20 and As it is shown in Fig. 5(c), qult shows a similar bilinear trend for
25°); and for the hypothetical sand, the parameters were: γ ¼ fine-grained soils, with the intersection point equal to the depth of
18 kN=m3 , n ¼ 4.0, α ¼ 0.1 kPa−1 , ks ¼ 3 × 10−5 m=s, c 0 ¼ 0, the stress bulb, i.e., 1.5B. By incorporating the effect of q in Eq. (12),
and two values of ϕ 0 (30° and 35°). A total of three flow rates qult at each ϕ 0 value varies by approximately 70, 65, and 45% for up
of q, 3.14 × 10−8 (infiltration), 0 (hydrostatic), and 1.14 × to Dw ¼ 10 m for the evaporation, hydrostatic, and infiltration con-
10−8 m=s (evaporation), were used for both soil types in the ditions, respectively. More specifically, qult at ϕ 0 ¼ 25° decreases
parametric study. from approximately 2,700 kPa for the evaporation condition q ¼
The effect of dilation for the surface foundations, i.e., Df ¼ 0, 1.15 × 10−8 m=s to approximately 950 kPa for the infiltration con-
in sand (e.g., Fig. 7) was considered by increasing ϕ 0 by 10%, dition q ¼ −3.14 × 10−8 m=s. Likewise, qult at ϕ 0 ¼ 20° decreases
i.e., 1.1ϕ 0 , as recommended by Steensen-Batch et al. (1987) and from approximately 1,450 to 550 kPa for the evaporation and infil-
Oh and Vanapalli (2011). However, as the depth of a foundation tration conditions, respectively. This shows that the infiltration rate
increases below the ground surface, i.e., Df > 0, the overburden q ¼ −3.14 × 10−8 m=s results in the largest effect on qult in variably
pressure acts as a confining pressure, therefore decreasing the in- saturated clayey soils. However, the effect of q on qult is not as
fluence of dilation. For that reason, the dilatancy effect was not pronounced for lower values of Dw , which corresponds to minimal
considered when predicting qult in sand at Df > 0. It has been values for ðua − uw ÞAVR, Se;AVR , and σsAVR .
noted in the literature (e.g., Oh and Vanapalli 2013) that the effect The results in Figs. 6(a–c) characterize ðua − uw ÞAVR , Se;AVR ,
of dilation is not as pronounced for foundations in fine-grained and qult , with the variables Dw , q, and ϕ 0 for an embedded foun-
soils. Thus, the original ϕ 0 value was employed in this study for dation with Df ¼ 1.5 m and B ¼ 1 m. The shift away from the
calculating qult , as shown in Figs. 5 and 6, for foundations resting ordinate, i.e., Dw ¼ 1.5B, represents the increase in Dw that is re-
on fine-grained soils. quired to achieve the same equilibrium conditions as presented in
The values shown in Fig. 5(a) represent ðua − uw ÞAVR at the Figs. 5(a–c). For an increase in Df , it is shown that the intersection
limit state versus Dw . The trend in Fig. 5(a) is almost identical to point in each curve shifts to Dw ¼ 1.5B þ Df . As demonstrated,
the matric suction profile presented in Fig. 2(a). Such behavior is qult at Df ¼ 1.5 m, in comparison to qult at the surface, is increased
expected when implementing numerical integration to calculate by approximately 60% under each surface flux boundary condition.
ðua − uw ÞAVR . As it is shown, ðua − uw ÞAVR exhibits a bilinear trend More specifically, qult at ϕ 0 ¼ 25° for the embedded foundation
for fine-grained soils, with the intersection point equal to the depth of descends from approximately 4,450 kPa for the evaporation
the stress bulb, i.e., 1.5B, as represented by the gray vertical refer- condition q ¼ 1.15 × 10−8 m=s to approximately 2,000 kPa for
ence axis. Beyond this particular point, ðua − uw ÞAVR for each flow the infiltration condition q ¼ −3.14 × 10−8 m=s. Likewise, qult
condition increases roughly 90% for up to Dw ¼ 10 m. It is apparent at ϕ 0 ¼ 20°, relative to qult at ϕ 0 ¼ 25°, decreases by approximately
that the most significant effect of q on ðua − uw ÞAVR in clay takes 50% from 2,400 to 1,100 kPa for the evaporation and infiltration
place under infiltration conditions. However, the effect of q on the conditions, respectively. As seen in Fig. 6(c), qult at each flow con-
rate of change in ðua − uw ÞAVR is more pronounced, i.e., sharper dition begins to depart from one another as Dw increases past the
slope, under the evaporation condition as Dw increases from 0 to stress bulb zone, i.e., Dw > 1.5B þ Df . With an increase in Dw ,
10 m below the depth of the foundation. the largest effect of q on qult is observed under the evaporation
Fig. 5(b) illustrates the relationship between Se;AVR and Dw . As condition, i.e., steepest slope.
desaturation commences (Se;AVR < 100%) near the intersection The results in Fig. 7 demonstrate the effect of Dw , q, and ϕ 0
point in Fig. 5(b), Se;AVR varies by approximately 15, 10, and on ðua − uw ÞAVR , Se;AVR , and qult for a surface foundation in sand.

© ASCE 04015095-7 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 04015095

 The relationship between ðua − uw ÞAVR and Dw is represented in
Fig. 7(a). As expected, the trend in Fig. 7(a) is similar to the profile
presented in Fig. 2(c). The intersection point in Fig. 7(a) is equal to
the depth of the stress bulb below the depth of the foundation,
i.e., Dw ¼ 1.5B. Beyond this particular point, ðua − uw ÞAVR in-
creases approximately 85% for each flow condition for up to
Dw ¼ 10 m. Additionally, it can be seen that q has no effect on
ðua − uw ÞAVR until Dw ¼ 6 m, and for Dw > 6 m, the increase
in ðua − uw ÞAVR for the infiltration condition begins to diminish.
Fig. 7(b) embodies the association between Se;AVR and Dw . It is
shown that Se;AVR decreases somewhat linearly just beyond
Dw ¼ 0.5 m. Such behavior results in a similar linear increase
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 12/28/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
in qult up to Dw ¼ 1.5B [Fig. 7(c)]. As discussed, a lower value
for Se;AVR compliments a larger qult. For example, as desaturation
begins near Dw ¼ 0.5 m in Fig. 7(b), a greater contribution to shear
strength is achieved, which results in a higher qult. More specifi-
cally, Se;AVR in Fig. 7(b) decreases approximately 30% up to
the maximum value of qult at Dw ¼ 2B [Fig. 7(c)].
As shown in Fig. 7(c), the effect of q on qult in sand is incom-
parable in relation to the effect of q on qult in clay. In other words,
the effect of q in sand shows little to no effect on qult . This behavior
is directly related to the amount of suction stress that can be de-
veloped in sand. In Fig. 7(c), the relationship between qult and
Dw is presented for different values of ϕ 0 and various surface flux
boundary conditions for foundations with Df ¼ 0 and B ¼ 1 m.
The behavior of qult in sand appears to be serpentine in nature
[Fig. 7(c)], with a linear increase up to the base of the stress bulb
at Dw ¼ 1.5B. This loci corresponds to a maximum σsAVR of
approximately −6.0 kPa, i.e., ðua − uw ÞAVR and Se;AVR equal
9.8 kPa and 60%, respectively. Such behavior is anticipated in var-
iably saturated sands because the effect of suction stress is limited,
i.e., approaches a maximum, to only a small portion above the
water table (Lu and Likos 2004). Specific to this case, the contri-
bution of the interparticle capillary stress begins to diminish once
Dw supersedes 1.5B. Beyond the linear portion of the curve
(Dw > 1.5B) in Fig. 7(c), qult reaches a global maximum of approx-
imately 1,800 kPa at ϕ 0 ¼ 35° and Dw ¼ 2B. Equally for ϕ 0 ¼ 30°
and Dw ¼ 2B, qult reaches a maximum of almost 700 kPa. Vana-
palli and Mohamed (2013) observed similar behavior in their pre-
dicted and measured values for qult from model PLTs in sands of
analogous c 0 and ϕ 0 . Beyond Dw ¼ 2B in Fig. 7(c), qult at each ϕ 0
value decreases approximately 6% and approaches a residual value
at approximately Dw ¼ 5B.
The results in Figs. 8(a–c) illustrate ðua − uw ÞAVR , Se;AVR , and
qult , with variations in Dw , q, and ϕ 0 , for an embedded foundation
with Df ¼ 1.5 m and B ¼ 1 m in the hypothetical sand. As it was
previously demonstrated for clay, the shift away from the ordinate,
i.e., Dw ¼ 1.5B, represents the increase in Dw that is required
to achieve similar conditions, as presented in Figs. 7(a–c). In
Fig. 8(a), it is shown that ðua − uw ÞAVR varies under different q val-
ues as Dw ranges between 6 and 10 m. However, it is apparent that
qult in sand [Fig. 8(c)] is somewhat similar under each flow condi-
tion. As illustrated in Fig. 8(c), qult at Df ¼ 1.5 m, in comparison to
qult at Df ¼ 0, increases by more than 100%. Although the mag-
nitudes of ðua − uw ÞAVR , Se;AVR , and qult vary for the surface
(Fig. 7) and the embedded (Fig. 8) foundations in sand, the overall
effect of q on ðua − uw ÞAVR , Se;AVR , and qult is relatively similar.
Validation against Experimental Tests
To investigate the validity of the proposed method for estimating
the qult of shallow foundations in variably saturated soils, the fol-
lowing section associates the predicted versus the measured values
© ASCE 04015095-8
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 04015095
for qult. The values for qult from the proposed method are compared
against three sets of experimental results from MFTs (Set 1) and
PLTs (Sets 2 and 3) after Mohamed and Vanapalli (2006) and
Vanapalli and Mohamed (2013), respectively. The difference be-
tween the predicted and measured qult values for each set is evalu-
ated in terms of the normalized root-mean-square error (NRSME).
The experimental results for the MFTs and PLTs (Mohamed and
Vanapalli 2006; Vanapalli and Mohamed 2013) were obtained us-
ing the original University of Ottawa bearing capacity equipment
(UOBCE) developed after Mohamed and Vanapalli (2006) and
later modified by Oh and Vanapalli (2011), respectively. Mohamed
and Vanapalli (2006), Oh and Vanapalli (2011), Vanapalli and
Mohamed (2013), and Mohamed (2014) provide further discussion
on the specifics, e.g., dimensions and material, of the UOBCE.
Soil Properties
The soil used for the MFTs and PLTs is characterized as poorly
graded Unimin sand. The average water content, moist unit weight,
and void ratio of the Unimin sand were approximately 20%,
19 kN=m3 , and 0.63, respectively. The classical effective shear
strength parameters were obtained through a series of laboratory
direct shear tests conducted following ASTM D3080 (Mohamed
2014). The effective cohesion and internal friction angle of the
Unimin sand were found to be 0.6 kPa and 35.3°, respectively.
Mohamed and Vanapalli (2006) tested the foundations under
different suction values by lowering the depth of the water table
every 48 h or until equilibrium conditions were achieved for the
given condition. For each depth of the water table, Mohamed
and Vanapalli (2006) used a hydrostatic approximation to calculate
the average matric suction within the stress bulb. In the current
study, the reported depth of the water table (Mohamed 2014)
was used along with Eq. (15a) to determine the ðua − uw ÞAVR .
A surface flux of approximately q ¼ 4.8 × 10−9 m=s and ks ¼
4.3 × 10−2 m=s were used to match the measured matric suction
values for each test, as reported by Mohamed and Vanapalli
(2006) and Vanapalli and Mohamed (2013). Furthermore, the val-
ues representing q and ks were selected based off of the ranges
provided for the tested soil after Lu and Likos (2004, 2006).
Fig. 9(a) presents the predicted and measured SWCC of the
Unimin sand. The data points for establishing the measured SWCC
were obtained by positioning a Tempe cell apparatus at various
depths within the UOBCE (Mohamed and Vanapalli 2006). In
the current study, the data points for establishing the predicted,
i.e., best fit, SWCC and corresponding fitting parameters, α and
n, were obtained using van Genuchten–Mualem’s model. More-
over, Figs. 9(b and c) were obtained using Eqs. (5) and (9), respec-
tively. As illustrated in Fig. 9, a decrease and increase in Se and
(ua − uw ), respectively, leads to an momentary increase in σs . More
specifically, the rate of change in σs with Se significantly increases
for a higher Se. For example, a 10% change in Se for soil with an
initial Se of 20% will make a relatively insignificant change in the
value of σs . However, for the same amount of change (10%) in soil
with an initial Se of 80%, σs will decrease significantly. In Fig. 9(c),
σs is approximately 0 for a Se close to 100% and increases with a
decrease in Se until it reaches a maximum value of approximately
−4 kPa at Se ¼ 80%. Beyond this point, σs decreases rapidly and
again approaches 0 at Se ¼ 0%. This behavior is because the capil-
lary interparticle tractions, which occur at the air-water interfaces
where surface tension exist, are the only suction stress component
in sand (Lu and Likos 2006). Too dry or too wet conditions
will diminish air-water interface areas or will result in very minor
capillary stresses.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 -5
100 100
-1
α = 0.176 kPa , n = 7.7

Effective Degree of Saturation, Se (%)

-4
Degree of Saturation, S (%)

80 80

Suction Stress, σ s (kPa)

60 60 -3

40 40 -2

best - fit -1
20 20
Measured
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 12/28/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

-1
α = 0.176 kPa , n = 7.7

0 0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Matric Suction, (ua - uw) (kPa)
(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 9. (a) Measured (Mohamed and Vanapalli 2006) and predicted (van Genuchten 1980; Mualem 1976) SWCC for Unimin sand and corresponding;
(b) effective degree of saturation (Se ); (c) suction stress (σs )

Set 1: Surface MFTs value of qult under saturated conditions. As shown in Fig. 10(a)
for Set 1, the proposed method could predict the measured qult , with
Mohamed and Vanapalli (2006) conducted several surface MFTs, a NRMSE of 4%.
i.e., Df ¼ 0 m, to observe the variation of qult in sand for various
values of ðua − uw ÞAVR . The tests were conducted under two differ-
ent conditions, i.e., saturated and unsaturated, with four different Set 2: Surface PLTs
depths of the water table below the model footing of size 0.1 × Vanapalli and Mohamed (2013) conducted several surface PLTs,
0.1 m for B and length (L), respectively. i.e., Df ¼ 0 m, to assess the variation of qult beneath the surface
The relationship between the predicted qult and ðua − uw ÞAVR plate with B ¼ 0.15 m and L ¼ 0.15 m. The PLTs were conducted
for Set 1 is demonstrated in Fig. 10(a). For comparison purposes, at two different conditions, i.e., saturated and unsaturated, with four
the results are also presented for the qult estimated using Terzaghi’s different depths of the water table below the surface plate.
classic bearing capacity formulation. As previously noted, by con- The variation in the proposed qult and Terzaghi’s classical qult ,
sidering the effect of dilatancy, the corrected value for ϕ 0, with respect to ðua − uw ÞAVR is illustrated for Set 2 in Fig. 10(b).
i.e., 1.1ϕ 0 , was considered for computing the qult for surface MFTs Similar to Set 1, 1.1ϕ 0 was used in the calculation to account for
and PLTs. The values for ðua − uw ÞAVR were obtained through the effect of dilatancy in sand. Fig. 10(b) shows that the predicted
Eq. (15a), with variations in the depth of the water table below values for ðua − uw ÞAVR varying between 2 to 6 kPa increase qult
the depth of the foundation. The upper and lower limits were ob- by more than 6 times the value of qult at ðua − uw ÞAVR equal to 0.
tained by Eq. (5) following the discussion pertaining to Cases 1–4. Further, qult expresses a linear demeanor with ðua − uw ÞAVR for up
The predicted values for ðua − uw ÞAVR, ranging between 2 and to 6 kPa. The NRMSE for this set is 4%, and the predicted values
6 kPa, contribute to an increase in qult of more than 5 times the from the proposed method are almost identical to the measured

1400
Ultimate Bearing Capacity, qult (kPa)

1200

1000

800

600 Measured
Proposed Method
Terzaghi
400
NRMSE (Proposed) = 4% NRMSE (Proposed) = 4% NRMSE (Proposed) = 10%
NRMSE (Terzaghi) = 18% NRMSE (Terzaghi) = 18% NRMSE (Terzaghi) = 17%
200

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Average Matric Suction (ua - uw)AVR (kPa)
(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 10. Variation in predicted and measured ultimate bearing capacity (qult ) versus average matric suction ðua − uw ÞAVR for (a) Set 1, B ¼ 0.1 m,
Df ¼ 0 m; (b) Set 2, B ¼ 0.15 m, Df ¼ 0 m; (c) Set 3, B ¼ 0.15 m, Df ¼ 0.15 m

© ASCE 04015095-9 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 04015095

 values. In comparison to Set 1, the trend in Fig. 10(b) (Set 2) sug- the true behavior of foundations and back-analysis of current foun-
gests that Eq. (12) provides a slightly better prediction for qult as the dations. In the design of new foundations, despite the potentially
width of the foundation increases. significant effects of matric suction, it is strongly recommended
to discount this factor in consideration of safe design. It is difficult
to accurately predict matric suction under extreme conditions,
Set 3: Embedded PLTs e.g., earthquakes, which is the moment that a given foundation
Vanapalli and Mohamed (2013) conducted a series of PLTs would exhibit its lowest stability.
embedded at a depth of 0.15 m, i.e., Df ¼ 0.15 m, with three The correlation between the proposed predicted and measured
different depths of the water table beneath the embedded plate. values of qult is illustrated for 11 data points in Fig. 11, along with
The size of the model plate was 0.15 × 0.15 m for B and L, respec- the corresponding NRMSE for Sets 1–3. The overall trend indicates
tively. As previously discussed, by considering the effect of con- that the proposed method, on average, tends to predict values of qult
finement, the original value for ϕ 0 was considered for calculating quite well for surface model footings. Furthermore, the trend
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 12/28/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

qult at Df ¼ 0.15 m. between the proposed predicted and measured values for the em-
Fig. 10(c) embodies the relationship between the predicted, bedded PLTs indicates that the proposed method may slightly
i.e., proposed and Terzaghi’s methods, and measured values for underpredict qult for Df > 0 m under unsaturated conditions.
qult with respect to ðua − uw ÞAVR . The value of NRMSE ¼ 10%
for Set 3 in Fig. 10(c) indicates that the goodness of fit in the pro-
posed qult , in comparison to Sets 1 [Fig. 10(a)] and 2 [Fig. 10(b)], is Summary and Conclusions
not as close to the qult measured. However, the accuracy is still
sensible considering inherent limitations and simplifying assump- A unified method for estimating the ultimate bearing capacity of
tions associated with an analytical closed-form solution. Moreover, shallow foundations in variably saturated soils under numerous sur-
the proposed predicted values of qult for ðua − uw ÞAVR equal to 2 face flux boundary conditions was presented. Terzaghi’s equation
and 6 kPa are merely 1.1 times smaller than the measured values. was extended by implementing a suction stress-based effective
Conversely, the predicted qult under the saturated condition is stress. A total of three independent sets of experimental results
approximately 2.1 times greater than the measured value, which from model footing and plate load tests were used to validate
indicates that Eq. (12), in addition to Terzaghi’s qult , has a tendency the proposed method. Soil suction and its variation with different
to overpredict qult under saturated conditions when Df > 0. As flow conditions, the effective degree of saturation, and the suction
is shown in Fig. 10, qult becomes nonlinear for a greater range stress were demonstrated to have a significant effect on the ultimate
of matric suction. bearing capacity of shallow foundations.
This comparison illustrates the significant effect of matric suc- Values of the normalized root-mean-square error were provided
tion in estimating the ultimate bearing capacity of shallow founda- to evaluate the variation between the predicted and measured
tions resting on variably saturated soils. Specifically, the results ultimate bearing capacities for Sets 1–3. The overall trends and cor-
from Sets 1–3 indicate that qult can be significantly underestimated responding values of the normalized root-mean-square error sug-
by not considering the effect of matric suction. However, great cau- gest that the proposed method forecasts the ultimate bearing
tion must be taken in counting on suction for design purposes. It is capacity rather well for the surface model footings, i.e., Sets 1
because of uncertainties associated with and a huge variation of and 2, of various sizes. Specifically, the proposed method appeared
matric suction during the life span of a foundation (e.g., Vahedifard to predict the ultimate bearing capacity slightly better for Set 2,
et al. 2015a). Moreover, the range of possible matric suction values whereas the predicted ultimate bearing capacity values for the em-
can be quite large depending on the SWCC parameters used in the bedded case, i.e., Set 3, were not as accurately predicted. Further-
analysis. The proposed method presents a useful tool for explaining more, the results from Sets 1–3 indicate that the ultimate bearing
capacity can be significantly underestimated by not considering the
effect of matric suction.
1200 The effect of flow rates, q, on the ultimate bearing capacity
for hypothetical clay and sand was studied. For each soil type,
Measured Ultimate Bearing Capacity, qult (kPa)

the values for the ultimate bearing capacity were compared under
1000
infiltration (q < 0), hydrostatic (q ¼ 0), and evaporation (q > 0)
conditions. As expected, the ultimate bearing capacity under var-
800 iably saturated and various flux boundary conditions significantly
dominated the ultimate bearing capacity under saturated conditions
as much as 5–7 times. Studying the effect of q for each soil type
600 showed that the use of different q values can significantly affect the
ultimate bearing capacity of shallow foundations in clay. However,
the effect of q on the ultimate bearing capacity diminished sand.
400 1:1 line
Set 1, B=0.1 m, Df = 0 m In summary, the study showed that the ultimate bearing capacity
NRMSE = 4% for shallow foundations in variably saturated soils under different
Set 2, B=0.15 m, Df = 0 m
200
flow conditions could be estimated rather well when taking into
NRMSE = 4%
Set 3, B=0.15 m, Df = 0.15 m account the role of matric suction. The new analytical approach
NRMSE = 10% only requires two controlling parameters, i.e., α and n, and can
0 be implemented to provide an accurate and practical framework
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 to analyze the ultimate bearing capacity for shallow foundations
Predicted Ultimate Bearing Capacity, qult (kPa) resting on various soil types at different degrees of saturation.
The proposed method presents a useful tool for explaining the true
Fig. 11. Predicted versus measured ultimate bearing capacity (qult ) for
behavior of foundations and the back-analysis of current founda-
Sets 1–3
tions. However, great caution must be taken in counting on suction

© ASCE 04015095-10 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 04015095

 for design purposes because of uncertainties associated with and
a huge variation of matric suction during the life span of a foun-
dation.
References
Bishop, A. W. (1959). “The principle of effective stress.” Tek. Ukeblad,
106(39), 859–863.
Bowles, J. E. (1996). Foundation analysis and design, 5th Ed.,
McGraw-Hill, New York.
Costa, Y. D., Cintra, J. C., and Zornberg, J. C. (2003). “Influence of matric
suction on the results of plate load tests performed on a lateritic soil
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 12/28/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
deposit.” Geotech. Test. J., 2(2), 219–226.
Fredlund, D. G. (1996). “The scope of unsaturated soil mechanics: An over-
view.” Proc. 1st Int. Conf. on Unsaturated Soils, E. E. Alonso and
P. Delage, eds., Vol. 3, Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 1155–1177.
Fredlund, D. G., and Morgenstern, N. R. (1977). “Stress state variables for
unsaturated soils.” J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., 103(5), 447–466.
Fredlund, D. G. and Rahardjo, H. (1993). Soil mechanics for unsaturated
soils, Wiley, New York, 517.
Gardner, W. R. (1958). “Some steady state solutions of the unsaturated
moisture flow equation with application to evaporation from a water
table.” Soil Sci., 85(4), 228–232.
Gavin, K. and Xue, J. (2010). “Design charts for the stability analysis of
unsaturated soil slopes.” Geotech. Geolog. Eng., 28(1), 79–90.
Griffiths, D. V., and Lu, N. (2005). “Unsaturated slope stability analysis
with steady infiltration or evaporation using elasto-plastic finite
elements.” Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech., 29(3), 249–267.
Kumbhokjar, A. S. (1993). “Numerical evaluation of Terzaghi’s.” J. Geo-
tech. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1993)119:3(598), 598–607.
Lu, N. (2008). “Is matric suction a stress variable?” J. Geotech. Geoen-
viron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2008)134:7(899), 899–905.
Lu, N., Godt, J. W., and Wu, D. T. (2010). “A closed-form equation for
effective stress in unsaturated soil.” Water Resour. Res., 46(5),
W05515.
Lu, N., Kim, T.-H., Sture, S., and Likos, W. J. (2009). “Tensile strength of
unsaturated sand.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 135(12), 1410–1419.
Lu, N., and Likos, W. J. (2004). Unsaturated soil mechanics, Wiley,
New York.
Lu, N., and Likos, W. J. (2006). “Suction stress characteristic curve for
unsaturated soil.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)
1090-0241(2006)132:2(131), 131–142.
Mohamed, F. M. O. (2014). “Bearing capacity and settlement behaviour of
footings subjects to static and seismic loading conditions in unsaturated
sandy soils.” Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of Ottawa, Ottawa.
Mohamed, F. M. O. and Vanapalli, S. K. (2006). “Laboratory investigations
for the measurement of the bearing capacity of an unsaturated coarse-
grained soil.” Proc., 59th Canadian Geotechnical Conf., Canadian
Geotechnical Society, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 219–226.
Mualem, Y. (1976). “A new model for predicting hydraulic conductivity of
unsaturated porous media.” Water Resour. Res., 12(3), 513–522.
Oh, W. T., and Vanapalli, S. K. (2011). “Modelling the applied vertical
stress and settlement relationship of shallow foundations in saturated
and unsaturated sands.” Can. Geotech. J., 48(3), 425–438.
Oh, W. T., and Vanapalli, S. K. (2013). “Interpretation of the bearing capac-
ity of unsaturated fine-grained soil using the modified effective and the
© ASCE 04015095-11
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 04015095
modified total stress approaches.” Int. J. Geomech., 10.1061/(ASCE)
GM.1943-5622.0000263, 769–778.
Oloo, S. Y., Fredlund, D. G., and Gan, J. K. M. (1997). “Bearing capacity of
unpaved roads.” Can. Geotech. J., 34(3), 398–407.
Sheng, D. (2011). “Review of fundamental principles in modelling unsatu-
rated soil behaviour.” Comput. Geotech., 38(6), 757–776.
Skempton, A. W. (1948). “The ϕu ¼ 0 analysis for stability and its theo-
retical basis.” Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Vol. 1, International Society for Soil Mechanics and
Geotechnical Engineering, London, 72–77.
Springman, S. M., Jommi, C., and Teysseire, P. (2003). “Instability on
moraine slopes induced by loss of suction: A case history.” Geotechni-
que, 53(1), 3–10.
Steensen-Bach, J. O., Foged, N., and Steenfelt, J. S. (1987). “Capillary
induced stresses—Fact or fiction?” Proc., 9th European Conf. on
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Balkema, Rotterdam,
Netherlands, 83–89.
Terzaghi, K. (1943). Theoretical soil mechanics, Wiley, New York.
Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R. B. (1948). Soil mechanics in engineering prac-
tice, Wiley, New York.
Vahedifard, F., Leshchinsky, B., Mortezaei, K., and Lu, N. (2015a). “Active
earth pressures for unsaturated retaining structures.” J. Geotech. Geo-
environ. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001356, 04015048.
Vahedifard, F., Leshchinsky, D., Mortezaei, K., and Lu, N. (2015b).
“Effective stress-based limit equilibrium analysis for homogenous
unsaturated slopes.” Int. J. Geomech., 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-
5622.0000554, in press.
Vanapalli, S. K., Fredlund, D. G., Pufahl, D. E., and Clifton, A. W. (1996).
“Model for the prediction of shear strength with respect to soil suction.”
Can. Geotech. J., 33(3), 379–392.
Vanapalli, S. K., and Mohamed, F. M. O. (2007). “Bearing capacity of
model footings in unsaturated soils.” Experimental unsaturated soil
mechanics, T. Schanz, ed., Springer, Berlin, 483–493.
Vanapalli, S. K., and Mohamed, F. M. O. (2013). “Bearing capacity and
settlement of footings in unsaturated sands.” Can. Geotech. J., 5(1),
595–604.
van Genuchten, M. Th. (1980). “A closed-form equation predicting the hy-
draulic conductivity of unsaturated soils.” Soil Sci. Soc. Am., 44(5),
892–898.
Vesic, A. B. (1973). “Analysis of ultimate loads of shallow foundations.”
J. Soil Mech. and Found. Div., 99(1), 45–73.
Wuttke, F., Kafle, B., Lins, Y., and Schanz, T. (2013). “Macroelement
for statically loaded shallow strip foundation resting on unsaturated
soil.” Int. J. Geomech., 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000254,
557–564.
Yeh, T.-C. (1989). “One-dimensional steady state infiltration in hetero-
geneous soils.” Water Resour. Res., 25(10), 2149–2158.
Zhou, A., and Sheng, D. (2015). “An advanced hydro-mechanical constit-
utive model for unsaturated soils with different initial densities.”
Comput. Geotech., 63, 46–66.
Zhou, A.-N., Sheng, D., Sloan, S. W., and Gens, A. (2012a). “Interpretation
of unsaturated soil behaviour in the stress-saturation space. I: Volume
change and water retention behaviours.” Comput. Geotech., 43,
178–187.
Zhou, A.-N., Sheng, D., Sloan, S. W., and Gens, A. (2012b). “Interpretation
of unsaturated soil behaviour in the stress-saturation space. II: Constit-
utive relationships and validations.” Comput. Geotech., 43, 111–123.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.