Computers and Geotechnics 126 (2020) 103734

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers and Geotechnics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compgeo

Research Paper

Formulation of ultimate bearing capacity for strip foundations based on the T

Meyerhof theory and unsaturated soil mechanics
Changguang Zhanga,b, , Qing Yana, Junhai Zhaoa, Jintai Wangc
⁎

a
School of Civil Engineering, Chang'an University, Xi'an 710061, China
b
Stake Key Laboratory of Geohazard Prevetion and Geoenvironment Protection, Chengdu University of Technology, Chengdu 610059, China
c
Geosyntec Consultants, 9211 Arboretum Pkwy., Suite 200, Richmond, VA 233236, USA

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: This study presents an ultimate bearing capacity formulation of strip foundations in unsaturated soils within the
Strip foundations framework of the Meyerhof theory. The flowchart of calculation steps for this formulation is provided with a trial
Unsaturated soils method according to suction distributions. The validity of the formulation obtained is demonstrated by two
Ultimate bearing capacity available theoretical solutions and experimental data. Comparisons are also performed between the results from
The Meyerhof theory
the Meyerhof and the Terzaghi theories. It is found that the effects of matric suction and its distribution are
Matric suction
significant; strength nonlinearity generates three types of the ultimate bearing capacity variation with respect to
matric suction.

1. Introduction
Bearing capacity of shallow foundations is an important issue for
classical soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering (Meyerhof, 1951;
Terzaghi, 1943; Vesić, 1973); and its reasonable determination is cri-
tical for the safety and cost of engineering projects. Due to the wide
application of waterproof-drainage measures in practice, the soil sur-
rounding shallow foundations is mostly unsaturated. A shallow foun-
dation can be in unsaturated conditions during the whole service life,
particularly in arid and semi-arid areas. Yet, routine design of a shallow
foundation is based on conventional saturated soil mechanics. Notice-
able contributions from matric suction towards shear strength of un-
saturated soils (and thus to the bearing capacity of shallow foundations
resting on unsaturated soils) are then neglected (Costa et al., 2003;
Garakani et al., 2020; Rojas et al., 2007; Tang et al., 2018; Vanapalli
and Mohamed, 2013).
As matric suction was not explicitly considered in conventional
bearing capacity theories, adjustments of overburden pressures or soil
unit weight were made to reflect the influence of water table (Ausilio
and Conte, 2005; Bowles, 1996; Meyerhof, 1955; Terzaghi and Peck,
1948; Vesić, 1973). Only a few investigations to date have been un-
dertaken to address the ultimate bearing capacity of shallow founda-
tions in unsaturated soils through theoretical analyses. For instance, the
ultimate bearing capacity equation of strip foundations for saturated
soils based on the Terzaghi theory was extended for unsaturated soils
using the shear strength theory of two independent stress state variables
(Fredlund and Rahardjo, 1993; Oloo et al., 1997; Xu, 2004). Within the
framework of the Terzaghi theory, Oh and Vanapalli (2013) modified
the total stress and the effective stress approaches for saturated soils to
unsaturated soils considering the influence of matric suction.
Vahedifard and Robinson (2016) and Tang et al. (2017) derived for-
mulations of ultimate bearing capacity for strip foundations using the
effective stress shear strength theory of unsaturated soils along with a
complex numerical integration of average matric suction and a simply
linear variation of the suction stress, respectively. On the other hand,
Zhao et al. (2009) proposed the upper-bound solution for the ultimate
bearing capacity of strip foundations in unsaturated soils in conjunction
with the sequential quadratic program comprising many mathematical
and geometrical restrictions. Jahanandish et al. (2010) introduced the
zero extension line method to study the effect of matric suction on the
ultimate bearing capacity of strip foundations for both associative and
non-associative problems, whereas a computer code was required to
solve complicated plasticity equations. Vo and Russell (2016) presented
the ultimate bearing capacity equation of strip foundations in un-
saturated soils based on the slip line theory by approximating the
contribution of matric suction to the effective stress as a linearly varied
function with depth, yet this equation was expressed in dimensionless
forms rather than conventional superposition ones of three compo-
nents.
Nonetheless, the soil weight above the foundation base level would
be overestimated as an infinitely uniform surcharge by the Terzaghi
theory. It may lead to an unsafe foundation design. Meanwhile, the

⁎
Corresponding author at: School of Civil Engineering, Chang'an University, Xi'an 710061, China.
E-mail address: zcg1016@chd.edu.cn (C. Zhang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2020.103734
Received 16 January 2020; Received in revised form 16 May 2020; Accepted 1 July 2020
0266-352X/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C. Zhang, et al.
results from the upper-bound theorem of plasticity, the zero extension
line method, and the slip line theory, are too complicated or not in
ordinary superposition forms for geotechnical engineers in practice. In
fact, the Meyerhof theory of ultimate bearing capacity for saturated
soils is commonly recommended by many regulations (Bowles, 1996;
Motra et al., 2016). This is because the Meyerhof theory rationally
makes use of the stress on an equivalent free surface to indirectly reflect
the soil weight above the foundation base level. Accordingly, the clas-
sical Meyerhof theory should be extended for unsaturated soils to im-
prove the infinitely uniform surcharge assumption of the Terzaghi
theory. Two acquainted suction distributions (i.e., uniform suction with
depth and linear suction with depth) are adopted to present a relatively
simple approach in familiar superposition forms of three components
for engineering applications.
This study aims to derive an ultimate bearing capacity formulation
of strip foundations in unsaturated soils by extending the classical
Meyerhof theory with an equivalent free surface. Some assumptions are
made in consistent with the Meyerhof theory as well as the shear
strength theory of two independent stress state variables. The limit
equilibrium method and the superposition principle are employed in
the derivation process of this conventional-form ultimate bearing ca-
pacity formulation. Calculation steps for the proposed formulation are
discussed under uniform and linear suction distributions. Validations
and comparisons are carried out between the formulation obtained and
the results from the upper-bound theorem of plasticity, the effective
stress shear strength theory, experimental researches, and the Terzaghi
theory. A parametric study is also conducted to investigate the effects of
matric suction and the friction angle related to matric suction in high
suction regions.
2. Problem definitions and assumptions
According to the Meyerhof theory (Meyerhof, 1951), the sliding
surface of a general shear failure mode for strip foundations with a
width B and buried depth D under plane strain conditions is illustrated
in Fig. 1. For simplicity and in accordance with the Meyerhof theory,
some assumptions are made as follows:
(1) Based on the limit equilibrium method and the superposition
principle (Motra et al., 2016; Terzaghi, 1943), the ultimate bearing
capacity qu of strip foundations is calculated from the soil cohesion,
surcharge and the unit weight of soils. The symmetric semi-sliding
surface on the right side is to derive the ultimate bearing capacity
qu1 corresponding to the soil cohesion and surcharge, while the
other on the left side is to obtain the ultimate bearing capacity qu2
corresponding to the unit weight of soils. The superposition
Fig. 1. General shear failure mode of strip foundations based on the Meyerhof theory and two distributions of matric suction.
2
Computers and Geotechnics 126 (2020) 103734
principle using an approximate “all-minimum” procedure is pru-
dent and appropriate for shallow foundation design (Michalowski,
1997).
(2) The plane FI is regarded as an equivalent free surface. Equivalent
stresses (the normal stress σ0 and the shear stress τ0) on this plane
represent the resultant acting on the foundation side FJ and the
gravity W1 of the adjacent soil body FIJ. The foundation base EF is
perfectly rough, and GH is a log-spiral surface.
(3) The soil surrounding strip foundations is homogeneous and un-
saturated. The unit weight γ of unsaturated soils is independent of
matric suction. The shear strength τf of unsaturated soils is based on
the two independent stress state variables theory (Fredlund et al.,
1978) and is expressed as
=c +( ua ) tan + (u a u w ) tan b
(1)
f
where c′ and φ′ = effective cohesion and the effective internal friction
angle for saturated soils, respectively; ua = pore-air pressure and is
usually taken to be an atmospheric air pressure (i.e., ua = 0 kPa) for
shallow foundations; uw = pore-water pressure; (ua − uw) = matric
suction; σ = total normal stress; (σ − ua) = net normal stress; and
φb = friction angle because of the contribution of matric suction.
The angle φb is usually a constant not more than φ′ in low suction
regions and changes with matric suction in high suction regions.
Nonlinear variations of the angle φb will be discussed in great details in
a subsequent section.
(4) The water table Dw in Fig. 1 is below the theoretical failure zone of
strip foundations. Two distributions of matric suction are assumed
(Fredlund and Rahardjo, 1993; Lu and Likos, 2004; Zhang et al.,
2016; Zhang et al., 2019): the uniform suction (ua − uw), and the
linear suction with the surface suction (ua − uw)o at the ground
surface.
3. Ultimate bearing capacity of strip foundations in unsaturated
soils
The limit equilibrium method of a rigid-plasticity body is adopted to
present the ultimate bearing capacity formulation. The formulation has
two parts. One is the ultimate bearing capacity qu1 due to the soil co-
hesion and surcharge. The other is the ultimate bearing capacity qu2 due
to the unit weight of soils.
3.1. Uniform suction with depth
In this case, the matric suction is constant and independent of the
depth. The total cohesion ct of unsaturated soils is defined as
C. Zhang, et al. Computers and Geotechnics 126 (2020) 103734

ct = c′ + (ua − uw)tanφb, and then Eq. (1) can be rewritten as

f = ct + ( ua ) tan (2)

Note that Eq. (2) takes an identical form as the shear strength
equation for saturated soils. Hence, available derivations of ultimate
bearing capacity for strip foundations with the Meyerhof theory using
the conventional saturated soil mechanics can be readily modified for
unsaturated soils.

3.1.1. Ultimate bearing capacity qu1

The ultimate bearing capacity qu1 is derived with 'the symmetric
semi-sliding surface on the right side in Fig. 1′ for weightless un-
saturated soils. The normal stress on the foundation side FJ is the lateral
earth pressure at rest (Meyerhof, 1951), thus the average normal stress
σa and the average shear stress τa acting on this side can be expressed as
Fig. 3. Mohr stress circle.
1
a = 2 k0 ( D ua )
= a tan
1
= 2 k0 ( D ua ) tan Then, a straight line from Point S parallel to the plane FI with a hor-
a (3)
izontal dip angle β is achieved intersecting with the Mohr stress circle at
where k0 = coefficient of earth pressure at rest; and δ = interfacial Point V. Therefore, the line TV represents the plane FH in Fig. 1, and the
friction angle between the foundation side and unsaturated soils. A angle between two straight lines SV and TV is η. Moreover, SCT = 2η,
typical δ value is in the range of (1/2–2/3)φ′ for most practical situa- since a circular center angle is twice the corresponding circumference
tions. angle.
The gravity W1 of the adjacent soil body FIJ is As shown in Fig. 1, the angle between the plane EG and the foun-
1 dation base EF is π/4 + φ′/2. The length of FG is
W1 = ( D ua ) D cot
2 (4) ¯ = B
FG
2 sin( /4 /2) (9)
Fig. 2 depicts force analysis of the isolator FIJ. Force equilibrium of
the isolator FIJ in the direction perpendicular to the plane FI is written Since GH is a log-spiral surface, the length of FH is
as
¯ exp( tan
¯ = FG B
FH )= exp( tan )
¯
0 FI = a D sin + a D cos + W1 cos (5) 2 sin( /4 /2) (10)

With the geometrical relationship of FI

¯ = D/sinβ, Eq. (5) can be For the triangle FHI, the law of sines is expressed as
rewritten as ¯ ¯
FH FI
=
= sin2 +
W
+ 1 sin cos
sin[ /2 ( + )] sin( /2 + ) (11)
a sin cos
0 a
D (6)
Substituting Eq. (10) and FI
¯ = D/sinβ into Eq. (11) yields
Substituting Eqs. (3) and (4) into Eq. (6), the normal stress σ0 on the
2D sin( /4 /2) cos( + )
plane FI is obtained as sin =
B cos exp( tan ) (12)
1 1
0 = ( D ua ) k 0 sin2 + k 0 tan sin 2 + cos2 where θ = 3π/4 + β − η − φ′/2 is the central angle of the log-spiral
2 2 (7)
surface GH; and β = angle between the plane FI and a horizontal plane,
Similar to the derivations of Eqs. (5)–(7), the shear stress τ0 can be which can be solved by a trial method.
derived from force equilibrium of the isolator FIJ in the direction par- As Point T is on the shear strength envelope (see Fig. 3), the cor-
allel to the plane FI and is expressed as relation of the normal stress σb and the shear stress τb on the plane FH in
1 1 Fig. 1 satisfies Eq. (2) and can be expressed as
0 = ( D ua ) (1 k 0) sin 2 + k 0 tan sin2
2 2 (8) b = ct + b tan (13)
If σ0 and τ0 are known, the angle η between the planes FH and FI The correlation of τ0 and τb, shown in Eq. (14), is obtained from
(see Fig. 1) can be calculated from the Mohr stress circle in Fig. 3. The ¯ = CT
CS ¯ in Fig. 3.
specific procedures are as follows: Firstly, Point S (σ0, τ0) is fixed on the
0 b
normal stress σ – shear stress τ coordinate plane. Next, a Mohr stress =
cos(2 + ) cos (14)
circle tangential to the shear strength envelope defined by Eq. (2) at
Point T (σb, τb) is drawn with the Center C and passes through Point S. Furthermore, σb can be derived as

b = 0
¯
+ eC fC̄ = 0
¯ sin(2 +
+ CS ) ¯ sin
CT
b
= 0 + [sin(2 + ) sin ]
cos (15)
Substituting Eq. (13) into Eq. (15), σb can be rearranged as
2
0 cos + ct cos [sin(2 + ) sin ]
b =
cos2 sin [sin(2 + ) sin ] (16)
Fig. 4 shows force analysis of the isolator FGH, where Z1 = resultant
of radial reactions on the log-spiral surface GH passing through Point F.
Letting FG¯ = r0 and FH ¯ = r1, moment equilibrium acting on the iso-
Fig. 2. Force analysis of the isolator FIJ. lator FGH with respect to Point F is written as

3
C. Zhang, et al. Computers and Geotechnics 126 (2020) 103734

Fig. 4. Force analysis of the isolator FGH.

r12 r02 r12 r02 ct Fig. 6. Force analysis of the isolator EFG considering the unit weight of soils.
MF = b c + r (ct ds ) = b c + (r12 r02) = 0
2 2 0 2 2 2 tan
(17) written as

Substituting r1 = r0exp(θtanφ′) into Eq. (17), the normal stress σc MO = Pp L3 P1 L1 W2 L 2 = 0 (24)

on the plane FG can be expressed as
where Pp = total passive earth pressure on the plane EG with a distance
c = [(ct + b tan ) exp(2 tan ) ct] cot (18)
of 2EG¯ /3 from Point E; W2 = gravity of the sliding soil body EGNM,
The shear stress τc on the plane FG is obtained as whose action point is the corresponding geometrical center; P1 = total
resistance owing to the soil wedge MNQ acting on the plane NQ with a
c = ct + c tan = (c t + b tan ) exp(2 tan ) (19)
distance of NQ
¯ /3 from Point N; and L1, L2, L3 = moment arms of P1, W2
Fig. 5 presents force analysis of the triangular wedge EFG. Vertical and Pp with respect to Point O, respectively.
force equilibrium of the triangle wedge EFG is written as The total passive earth pressure Pp is obtained as
B P1 L1 + W2 L 2
Bqu1 = 2 c sin( /4 /2) Pp =
2 sin( /4 /2) L3 (25)
B
+2 c cos( /4 /2) In the case of unsaturated soils only with unit weight, force analysis
2 sin( /4 /2) (20)
of the triangular wedge EFG is shown in Fig. 6. Vertical force equili-
The ultimate bearing capacity qu1 is reduced from Eq. (20) to brium of the triangle wedge EFG is written as
qu1 = c + c cot( /4 /2) (21) Bqu2 + W3 = 2Pp cos( /4 /2) (26)
Substituting Eqs. (16), (18) and (19) into Eq. (21), the ultimate where W3 = (γB − ua)Btan(π/4 + φ′/2)/4 is the gravity of the tri-
bearing capacity qu1 can be transformed as angular wedge EFG.
qu1 = ct NcM + M b] N M M The ultimate bearing capacity qu2 is reduced from Eq. (26) to
0 Nq = [c + (ua u w ) tan c + 0 Nq (22)
1
(1 + sin ) exp(2 tan ) qu2 = ( B ua ) N M
NqM = 2 (27)
1 sin sin(2 + )
NcM = (NqM 4Pp sin( /4 + /2) 1
1) cot (23) NM = tan( /4 + /2)
( B ua ) B 2 (28)
where NcM and NqM = bearing capacity factors of the cohesion and
surcharge based on the Meyerhof theory, respectively. where N M = bearing capacity factor of the unit weight of soils based on
the Meyerhof theory.
3.1.2. Ultimate bearing capacity qu2 Note that the Pp in Eq. (25) varies due to changing Point O, and its
'The symmetric semi-sliding surface on the left side in Fig. 1′ is minimum value is not readily to be found. A semi-empirical formulation
utilized to present the ultimate bearing capacity qu2 resulting from the for the N M value proposed by Meyerhof, 1963) is then adopted as
unit weight of soils. Moment equilibrium with respect to any Point O is N M = (NqM 1) tan(1.4 ) (29)

3.1.3. Ultimate bearing capacity qu

Superposing the qu1 of Eq. (22) and the qu2 of Eq. (27), the ultimate
bearing capacity qu of strip foundations based on the Meyerhof theory
for the matric suction distributed uniformly with depth is presented as

b] N M M 1
qu = [c + (ua u w ) tan + 0 Nq + ( B ua ) N M
c
2 (30)

From Eq. (30), the effect of matric suction as one component of total
cohesion is taken into account. Three bearing capacity factors expressed
as Eqs. (23) and (29) are different from those of the Terzaghi theory,
although the conventional form of Eq. (30) is similar to the ultimate
bearing capacity equation proposed by Terzaghi (1943). These three
Fig. 5. Force analysis of the isolator EFG considering the cohesion and sur- factors are not only related to φ′, but also to the angles β and η cal-
charge. culated by a trial method.

4
C. Zhang, et al. Computers and Geotechnics 126 (2020) 103734

Fig. 7. Determination of an average matric suction value under the linear

suction with depth.

3.2. Linear suction with depth

In the case of the linear suction with depth shown in Fig. 7, the
concept of an average (or representative) matric suction value
(ua − uw)m at the centroid of the zone corresponding to the bulb zone of
stress concentration within a depth of 1.5B beneath the foundation base
EF is adopted. The depth of 1.5B for the bulb zone of stress con-
centration is introduced based on the fact that the stress increment in
soils due to strip loads applied on a shallow foundation is predominant
in this range of depth (Oh and Vanapalli, 2011; Poulos and Davis,
1974). The average matric suction value can reliably represent the
contribution of matric suction to the ultimate bearing capacity of strip
foundations without a significant error (Oh and Vanapalli, 2013; Oh
and Vanapalli, 2018; Vo and Russell, 2016). The zone is a trapezoid
with height of 1.5B, and its centroid is located at a distance of h from
the bottom side. The value of matric suction at the top side is (1 − D/
Dw)(ua − uw)o, while the one at the bottom side is (1 − (D + 1.5B)/
Dw)(ua − uw)o. Consequently, h can be derived from the theorem of
area moment and is expressed as
Fig. 8. Flowchart summarizing calculation steps of the proposed formulation.
3B (D w D 0.5B )
h=
4(D w D 0.75B ) (31)
3.3. Calculation steps
Then, (ua − uw)m is obtained as
The ultimate bearing capacity of strip foundations proposed in Eqs.
D + 1.5B h (30) and (33) has broad applicability. This is because Eqs. (30) and (33)
(u a u w ) m = (u a u w )o 1 can account for comprehensive effects of matric suction and its dis-
Dw (32)
tribution by means of (ua − uw), or (ua − uw)o and Dw. The ultimate
bearing capacity for other types of suction distribution could be easily
The total cohesion ct in Eq. (2) is redefined as
addressed in a similar conception stated in the present study.
ct = c′+(ua − uw)mtanφb. By conducting similar derivations of the
In engineering practice, a strip foundation of the width B and buried
uniform suction with depth, the ultimate bearing capacity of strip
depth D resting on homogeneous unsaturated soils with mechanical
foundations based on the Meyerhof theory for the matric suction dis-
parameters (i.e., γ, c′, φ′ and φb) is analyzed. The coefficient k0 and the
tributed linearly with depth is presented as
interfacial friction angle δ are based on empirical values. For the uni-
b] N M M 1 form suction (ua − uw) with depth, the angle β is determined by the
qu = [c + (ua u w )mtan + 0 Nq + ( B ua ) N M trial method from Fig. 8. The specific procedures are as follows: Firstly,
c
2 (33)
an initial value of β (e.g., β = β1 = φ′/2) is given. Next, σ0 and τ0 are
In Eq. (33), the effect of linear suction is considered through the calculated by Eqs. (7) and (8), respectively. Then, η can be identified via
surface suction (ua − uw)o and the water table Dw. With the water table drawing the Mohr stress circle of Fig. 3, and one value of β (=β2) can be
Dw → ∞, linear distribution of matric suction becomes uniform and Eq. calculated by Eq. (12). Finally, a proper value of β is achieved when the
(33) reduces to Eq. (30). When (ua − uw) = (ua − uw)o = 0, Eqs. (30) discrepancy between values of β2 and β1 meets the required accuracy Δ
and (33) are both degenerated to those for saturated soils and have an (e.g., Δ = 0. 01°). In the calculation process, σ0, τ0 and η are updated
identical value equal to the result of the conventional Meyerhof theory simultaneously, and their final values are used for the ultimate bearing
(Meyerhof, 1951). It should be kept in mind that the formulations of capacity calculation from Eq. (30). Similar calculation processes are
three bearing capacity factors in Eqs. (30) and (33) for two suction carried out iteratively for the linear suction with (ua − uw)o, Dw and Eq.
distributions have the same expressions, but their values may be not (33). In the following applications of Fig. 8, the proposed iterative
equal under different distributions of matric suction due to different procedure is found to have high efficiency since the number of itera-
angles β and η. tions is no more than 5.

5
C. Zhang, et al.
Fig. 9. Comparisons between this study and Zhao et al. (2009).
4. Validations of the proposed formulation
The proposed formulation expressed as Eqs. (30) and (33) for the
ultimate bearing capacity of strip foundations with the Meyerhof theory
is validated by comparing with the results of Zhao et al. (2009) based
on the upper-bound theorem of plasticity and Vahedifard and Robinson
(2016) using the suction stress, as well as the experimental data (Oh
and Vanapalli, 2011, 2013; Rojas et al., 2007; Vanapalli and Mohamed,
2013).
4.1. A comparison with the result of Zhao et al. (2009)
The same problem discussed in this study was addressed by Zhao
et al. (2009) based on the upper-bound theorem of plasticity and the
sequential quadratic program. As presented in Fig. 9, a comparison is
made between the result of Zhao et al. (2009) and this study with Eqs.
(30) and (33). The parameters used in the comparison are: B = 0.5 m,
D = 0.5 m, Dw = 4 m, γ = 18.3 kN/m3, c′ = 5 kPa, φ′ = 20°, φb = 15°,
k0 = 0.45, and δ = 10°.
Fig. 9 indicates the result from Eqs. (30) and (33) of this study is
reasonably consistent with that of Zhao et al. (2009). The mean relative
errors of these two approaches are 3.6% and 4.1% for uniform and
linear suctions, respectively. Therefore, this comparison confirms the-
oretical validity of the proposed formulation. Additionally, the ultimate
bearing capacity of strip foundations is larger for uniform suction than
linear suction, and the discrepancy of the ultimate bearing capacity
under two suction distributions becomes more obvious with the in-
crease of matric suction.
4.2. A comparison with the result of Vahedifard and Robinson (2016)
The ultimate bearing capacity for rectangular foundations of a
width B and length L resting on unsaturated soils under nonlinear
suction of a steady flow was formulated by Vahedifard and Robinson
(2016) using the concept of suction stress and the effective stress shear
strength. Eqs. (30) and (33) presented in this study for strip foundations
are demanded to make a modification for rectangular ones with the
shape factors as given in Eq. (34).
M tributed to different settlement criteria or shear failure modes for
B Nq
c =1+
L NcM
B
= 1 + tan
q
L
B
= 1 0.4 0.6
L (34)
where ξc, ξq and ξγ = shape factors of the soil cohesion, surcharge and
the unit weight of soils from Vesić (1973), respectively.
6
Computers and Geotechnics 126 (2020) 103734
Fig. 10. Comparisons between this study and Vahedifard and Robinson (2016).
Fig. 10 describes a comparison between the result of Vahedifard and
Robinson (2016) with null infiltration and this study with Eq. (33) for a
rectangular foundation resting on the ground surface. These calcula-
tions are conducted with B = 1 m, D = 0, L = 1 m, γ = 18 kN/m3,
c′ = 10 kPa, φ′ = 25°, φb = 25°, k0 = 0.45, and δ = 13°; and Dw ranges
from 3 to 10 m. The hydrostatic suction as one linear distribution (i.e.,
(ua − uw)o = γwDw) is adopted for Eq. (33), wherein γw = 9.8 kN/m3 is
the unit weight of water. The (ua − uw)m value of nonlinear suction
with depth is obtained from a numerical integration.
This comparison with a mean relative error of 4.5% demonstrates
the result from Eq. (33) of this study under hydrostatic suction agrees
well with that of Vahedifard and Robinson (2016) under nonlinear
suction of null infiltration. Note that the result predicted by Eq. (33) is
slightly larger than that of Vahedifard and Robinson (2016). This is
because nonlinear suction with depth yields a smaller (ua − uw)m value
from the lower centroid of the zone in Fig. 7.
4.3. A comparison with experimental data
A few of model footing and field plate-load tests were carried out to
investigate the contribution of matric suction to the ultimate bearing
capacity of shallow foundations (Oh and Vanapalli, 2011, 2013; Rojas
et al., 2007; Vanapalli and Mohamed, 2013; Wuttke et al., 2013). The
shapes of these shallow foundations were square, circular, or strip, and
the soils considered were coarse sand or fine grained clay. Specific re-
lated parameters of model footing and field plate-load tests with respect
to shear strength of unsaturated soils, the dimensions of shallow
foundations, and the values of matric suction or water table, can be
available in Oh and Vanapalli (2011, 2013), Rojas et al. (2007),
Vanapalli and Mohamed (2013), Wuttke et al. (2013).
The performance of the proposed formulation expressed as Eqs. (30)
and (33) along with Eq. (34) in predicting the ultimate bearing capacity
of shallow foundations is evaluated with the measured ones from model
footing and field plate-load tests, as shown in Fig. 11. The 1:1 line
corresponds to perfect agreement between the prediction of this study
and the experimental data. This evaluation validates the suitable
functionality of the proposed formulation since the relative errors as-
sociated are less than 20% for all cases. The errors may be partly at-
identifying the ultimate bearing capacity in experimental researches, as
well as inherent limitations and simplifying assumptions of the pro-
posed formulation.
5. Comparisons with the Terzaghi theory
The ultimate bearing capacity equation of strip foundations based
on the Terzaghi theory is very popular in practical engineering design,
C. Zhang, et al. Computers and Geotechnics 126 (2020) 103734

50

40 The Terzaghi theory

Bearing capacity factors

The Meyerhof theory

30

Nc
20
Nq

10
N

0
20 22 24 26 28 30
' deg
Fig. 11. Comparisons between this study and experimental data.
Fig. 12. Comparisons of the bearing capacity factor between the Terzaghi and
the Meyerhof theories.
in part owing to its applications with ease. For a general shear failure
mode of strip foundations, main differences between the Terzaghi and
smaller. However, regarding the ultimate bearing capacity owing to the
the Meyerhof theories are that the soil weight above the foundation
surcharge, 0 NqM = 733.8 kPa using the Meyerhof theory, is remarkably
base level was regarded as an infinitely uniform surcharge by Terzaghi
smaller than, (γD − ua)NqT = 1313.7 kPa using the Terzaghi theory,
(1943). The sliding surface was then assumed to only reach a horizontal
when φ′ = 30°. It manifests that γD − ua taken as the surcharge (q) in
plane at the foundation base level (Terzaghi, 1943). These differences
the Terzaghi theory is significantly greater than the equivalent normal
may cause different results of ultimate bearing capacity for strip
stress (σ0) in the Meyerhof theory.
foundations in unsaturated soils. Based on the shear strength of two
As shown in Fig. 13, the ultimate bearing capacity is greater for the
independent stress state variables expressed as Eq. (1), Fredlund and
Terzaghi theory than the Meyerhof theory. It seems that foundation
Rahardjo (1993) extended the Terzaghi theory to unsaturated soils for
design using the overestimated ultimate bearing capacity from the
the uniform suction with depth, and the ultimate bearing capacity of a
Terzaghi theory could be unsafe, compared with that from the
perfectly rough strip foundation is written as
Meyerhof theory. In addition, the influence of suction distribution be-
b] N T 1 comes more significant with increasing the value of matric suction.
qu = [c + (ua u w ) tan + qNqT + ( B ua ) N T
c
2 (35) With the increase of matric suction, the ultimate bearing capacities of
the Terzaghi and the Meyerhof theories have similar variations, but
NqT =
exp[(3 /2 ) tan ] their discrepancies gradually diminish (i.e., calculations using the
2cos2 ( /4 + /2) Terzaghi theory and the Meyerhof theory become closer), in particular
NcT = (NqT 1) cot for the uniform suction with depth. It implies that a higher suction (i.e.,
a higher suction-induced cohesion) makes more contributions to the
T
N = 1.8(NqT 1) tan (36) ultimate bearing capacity. These more contributions then take up a
higher percentage of the ultimate bearing capacity in terms of three
where NcT , and N = bearing capacity factors of the soil cohesion,
NqT T

surcharge and the unit weight of soils with the Terzaghi theory, re-
spectively; and q = (γD − ua) is the surcharge arising from the unit
weight of soils above the foundation base level.
As the same to that for the linear suction with depth, Eq. (35) is
transformed as
components. In this case, the surcharge-induced bearing capacity is
relatively smaller with a lower percentage. This illustrates a higher
suction will reduce the influence of surcharge above the foundation
base level on the ultimate bearing capacity.

b] N T 1
qu = [c + (ua u w )mtan + qNqT + ( B ua ) N T
c
2 (37)
6
A typical strip foundation in homogeneous unsaturated soils with The Terzaghi theory
B = 4 m, D = 3 m, Dw = 12 m, γ = 19.5 kN/m3, c′ = 20 kPa, 5 Uniform suction
φ′ = 30°, φb = 20°, k0 = 0.45, and δ = 18° is taken to make com- The Meyerhof theory

parisons between the Terzaghi and the Meyerhof theories. The bearing
4
capacity factors of these two theories are summarized in Table 1.
qu (MPa)

Fig. 12 shows that bearing capacity factors increase nonlinearly with φ′

ranging from 20° to 30°. In comparison to the Terzaghi theory, two 3
theoretical bearing capacity factors of the Meyerhof theory (i.e., NqM Linear suction

and NcM ) are larger, and only the empirical one (i.e., N M ) is a bit 2 Saturated soils

Table 1 1
Bearing capacity factors of the Terzaghi and the Meyerhof theories.
Theories Nq Nc Nγ 0
0 30 60 90 120 150
Terzaghi (T) exp[(3 / 2 ) tan ] (NqT 1) cot 1.8(NqT 1) tan Matric suction (kPa)
2 cos2 ( / 4 + / 2)
Meyerhof (M) (1 + sin ) × exp(2 tan ) (NqM 1) cot (NqM 1) tan(1.4 ) Fig. 13. Comparisons of the ultimate bearing capacity between the Terzaghi
1 sin sin(2 + )
and the Meyerhof theories.

7
C. Zhang, et al. Computers and Geotechnics 126 (2020) 103734

5 ultimate bearing capacity for strip foundations in unsaturated soils. The

Uniform suction piecewise hyperbolic function of the angle φb is expressed as

4 Linear suction
b = when (ua uw) (u a u w ) b for uniform suction (38a)

b (u a u w ) (u a u w ) b
= when (ua
3 m + n [(ua u w ) (ua u w ) b ]
qu (MPa)

o
'=30
u w ) > (u a u w ) b for uniform suction (38b)
2 b = when (ua u w )m (u a u w ) b for linear suction (39a)
Saturated soils

1 =
'=20
o m + n [(ua u w ) m (ua u w ) b ]
0
0 30 60 90 120
Matric suction (kPa)
Fig. 14. Effect of matric suction on the ultimate bearing capacity.
6. Parametric studies
The typical strip foundation in Section 5 is employed to discuss the
effects of matric suction and strength nonlinearity on the ultimate
bearing capacity through the proposed formulation with the Meyerhof
theory.
6.1. Effect of matric suction
The magnitude and distribution are two fundamental aspects of
matric suction corresponding with different physical properties. As il-
lustrated in Fig. 14, the ultimate bearing capacity has an obviously
linear increase with matric suction for both uniform and linear dis-
tributions. More potentialities of soil strength are achieved attributed to
incorporating the matric suction effect. The ultimate bearing capacity is
smaller for linear suction than uniform suction. It embodies the ne-
cessity of accurately modeling suction variations with depth. Accord-
b (u a u w ) m (u a u w ) b
when (ua u w )m
> (u a u w ) b for linear suction (39b)
150 where (ua − uw)b = air-entry value of unsaturated soils; m and
n = intercept and the slope of the linear equation transformed from Eq.
(38b) or Eq. (39b), respectively. Furthermore, the inverse of slope n was
fitted as 1/n = −2.4598 + 1.0225φ′ by Zhang et al. (2016, 2019).
Substituting the angle φb of Eq. (38) into Eq. (30) and that of Eq.
(39) into Eq. (33), the novel ultimate bearing capacity formulation of
strip foundations in unsaturated soils is then obtained. The novel for-
mulation can account for strength nonlinearity under high matric suc-
tion greater than the air-entry value (ua − uw)b. It is assumed that
(ua − uw)b = 90 kPa, and other conditions are the same with previous
data. Fig. 15 presents the ultimate bearing capacity versus matric suc-
tion in the range of 0–300 kPa for three values of the intercept m (1, 5
and 10 kPa) to characterize different variation rates of the angle φb for
various unsaturated soils. The slope n of 0.0354 is determined from the
fitting equation with φ′ = 30°.
(a) 8
Uniform suction
m=1 kPa
m=5 kPa
6
m=10 kPa
qu (MPa)

ingly, specific distributions of matric suction in engineering practice

should be reasonably supposed. 4
If the contribution arising from matric suction to the strength of
unsaturated soils is ignored (i.e., the soil is assumed to be fully satu-
rated in routine foundation design), the ultimate bearing capacity is the 2 Saturated soils High suction regions

minimum, and the design of strip foundations using the saturated soil
mechanics becomes too conservative. The ultimate bearing capacity of Low suction regions

unsaturated soils with the suction value of 150 kPa and φ′ = 30° is 0
increased by 94.1% and 50.9% for uniform and linear suctions, re- 0 60 90 120 180 240 300
spectively. An identical factor of safety is provided for strip foundations (ua-uw) (kPa)
in both unsaturated soils and saturated soils, the magnitude of con-
servatism in design without taking into account the contribution from
(b) 8
matric suction is 94.1% and 50.9% for this case. Significant waste
would be reduced by considering unsaturated natures of soil strength. Linear suction
m=1 kPa
As might be expected for φ′ = 20°, a smaller ultimate bearing capacity
6 m=5 kPa
is obtained than that for φ′ = 30°, and the discrepancy of ultimate m=10 kPa
bearing capacity between uniform and linear suctions also diminishes.
qu (MPa)

6.2. Effect of strength nonlinearity 4

In the preceding analyses completed, the friction angle φb related to

matric suction is taken as a constant not more than the effective internal 2 Saturated soils High suction regions
friction angle φ′. It may be not the case over a wider suction range. In
general, the strength of unsaturated soils versus matric suction is non- Low suction regions
linear (Escario and Sáez, 1986; Houston et al., 2008; Ng et al., 2017;
0
Rassam and Cook, 2002; Zhang et al., 2014), and the angle φb is a 0 60 120 166.2180 240 300
decreasing function of matric suction in high suction regions. The (ua-uw)o (kPa)
piecewise hyperbolic function of the angle φb presented by Houston
et al. (2008) as one representative nonlinear strength model is in- Fig. 15. Effect of strength nonlinearity on the ultimate bearing capacity: (a)
troduced herein to capture the effect of strength nonlinearity on the uniform suction; (b) linear suction.

8
C. Zhang, et al. Computers and Geotechnics 126 (2020) 103734

As shown in Fig. 15(a) for the uniform suction with depth, the ul- h ( h ua ) + s
k0 = = =
timate bearing capacity versus matric suction is divided into two dis- v ( v ua ) + s 1 (41)
tinct segments from a demarcation point. When
where σh' = effective horizontal stress, σv' = effective vertical stress,
(ua − uw) ≤ (ua − uw)b = 90 kPa, the results correspond to the left
σs = χ(ua − uw) = suction stress, and χ = effective stress parameter.
linear segment and are independent of the intercept m due to the fact
A relationship between the net normal (or total) stress-based k0 and
that φb = φ′ = 30°. But once (ua − uw) > ua − uw)b = 90 kPa, the
the effective stress-based k0′ is established from Eqs. (40) and (41) as
results on the right segment are closely related with the intercept m. It is
because high matric suction has a dual-effect on the ultimate bearing s (u a uw )
k 0 = k0 + (1 k0 ) = k 0 + (1 k0 )
capacity. This dual-effect lies in two aspects (Zhang et al., 2016, 2019): ( v ua ) ( v ua ) (42)
a strengthening effect with increasing matric suction, and a weakening
effect by decreasing the angle φb. These two aspects have opposing Eqs. (40) and (42) indicate that the coefficient k0 is a function of not
effects on the change of the ultimate bearing capacity. only overburden stress, but also matric suction or suction stress, but the
There are three cases of the dual-effect. Case 1: the strengthening coefficient k0′ in Eq. (41) remains constant. Some empirical functions to
effect by increasing matric suction is greater than the weakening effect evaluate the mobilized earth pressure with lateral deformation are
by decreasing the angle φb, and the ultimate bearing capacity con- proposed for saturated soils (Chen, 2014; Ni et al., 2018; Zhang et al.,
tinuously increases but at a reduced rate with an increase of matric 1998). Future works will be done to extend these functions to the
suction. The result of m = 10 kPa is consistent with Case 1. Case 2: the mobilized earth pressure of unsaturated soils and then apply them to
strengthening effect is less than the weakening effect, and the ultimate analyze the ultimate bearing capacity of strip foundations in un-
bearing capacity gradually decreases with matric suction and ap- saturated soils with the Meyerhof theory.
proaches a smaller stable value. For instance, the result of m = 1 kPa The interfacial friction angle δ between the foundation side FJ and
belongs to Case 2. Besides, the ultimate bearing capacity of m = 5 kPa unsaturated soils is controlled by similar influencing variables to the
referred to as Case 3 has nearly no any increase, and Case 3 corresponds earth pressure coefficient at the same location and cannot be de-
with that the strengthening effect is approximately equal to the weak- termined explicitly. For most practical situations, the interfacial friction
ening effect. As a result, the ultimate bearing capacity increases or angle δ is obtained empirically and falls in the range of (1/2–2/3)φ′. In
decreases dependent on which aspect of the dual-effect is predominant. the current study, the assumption of using a constant interfacial friction
It is without doubt that the relative size of these two aspects for the angle is made for simplicity. Table 2 shows the ultimate bearing ca-
dual-effect is also a dynamic adjustment associated with specific mag- pacity qu versus the interfacial friction angle δ = (1/2–2/3)φ′ for the
nitudes of matric suction. preceding typical strip foundation in Section 5 with a suction value of
Similar variations of the ultimate bearing capacity versus matric 150 kPa and φ′ = 30°.
suction are depicted in Fig. 15(b) for the linear suction with depth. The It is found from Table 2 that the interfacial friction angle has a
principal difference by comparing Fig. 15(a) and (b) is that the left negligible influence on the ultimate bearing capacity. As a result, a
linear segment of linear suction is longer than that of uniform suction, typical interfacial friction angle (e.g., δ = 1/2φ′) is suggested for the
and the demarcation point occurs at (ua − uw)m = (ua − uw)b = 90 kPa preliminary design of strip foundations without empirical evidences.
corresponding to the surface suction (ua − uw)o of 166.2 kPa. More studies will be performed to explore how the interfacial friction
angle changes with the depth and is altered by the degree of saturation
as well as whether a constant interfacial friction angle causes con-
7. Discussions servative analyses or not.
The design of shallow foundations does not only concern the
Meyerhof (1951) pointed out that: (i) the earth pressure coefficient bearing capacity, and the serviceability in terms of settlement should
on the foundation side FJ depends mainly on the density, strength, also be considered. The settlement of a shallow foundation is usually
deformation characteristics of foundation soils, the stress–strain history approximated using an elasticity-based method (Ni et al., 2018;
of the ground, the method of installing, and physical characteristics of Schmertmann et al., 1978) or accurately predicted using an elastic–-
shallow foundations; and, (ii) the realistic value of this coefficient lies plastic finite element method (Foye et al., 2008; Jeong et al., 2018; Oh
between the appropriate active (minimum) and passive (maximum) and Vanapalli, 2011, 2018) with the knowledge of the modulus of
earth pressure coefficients, which can be represented by the coefficient elasticity and Poisson’s ratio for foundation soils. It is necessary to ac-
of earth pressure at rest, k0. These two conditions justify that the earth count for the modulus of elasticity and Poisson’s ratio of unsaturated
pressure coefficient on the foundation side when a shallow foundation soils with respect to matric suction in assessing the settlement of
settles to the ultimate state is difficult to quantify from a theoretical shallow foundations.
point of view, and it could only be obtained from field tests or empirical A semi-empirical equation was developed by Oh et al. (2009) in Eq.
values. (43) to evaluate the modulus of elasticity for unsaturated soils using the
Regarding the strip foundation in unsaturated soils, this coefficient soil–water characteristic curve (SWCC) and the modulus of elasticity
is more complicated to accurately calculate. However, considerations of under a saturated condition.
elastic equilibrium within an unsaturated soil stratum can provide in-
sights into the at rest earth pressure condition. The coefficient k0 for (u a u w )
E unsat = Esat 1 + S
unsaturated soils in Eq. (3) (Fredlund and Rahardjo, 1993) is estimated (Patm/101.3) (43)
in terms of net normal (or total) stress above the water table using an where Esat and Eunsat = elastic modulus of soils under saturated and
elastic equilibrium analysis as unsaturated conditions, respectively; Patm = atmospheric pressure (i.e.,
( h ua ) E (u a uw )
k0 = = Table 2
( v ua ) 1 (1 )H ( v ua ) (40)
Variations of the ultimate bearing capacity with the interfacial friction angle.
where σh = normal (or total) horizontal stress, σv = normal (or total) Suction qu (MPa)
vertical stress, ν = Poisson’s ratio; E and H = elastic modulus with distributions
respect to the change in (σv − ua) and (ua − uw), respectively. δ = 15° δ = 16° δ = 17° δ = 18° δ = 19° δ = 20°
The coefficient k0′ for unsaturated soils (Lu and Likos, 2004) can
Uniform suction 4.651 4.652 4.653 4.654 4.655 4.656
also be defined in terms of effective stress from the elastic equilibrium Linear suction 3.617 3.618 3.619 3.620 3.621 3.622
analysis as

9
C. Zhang, et al.
101.3 kPa); S = degree of saturation; and α, β = two fitting parameters.
On the other hand, the variation of Poisson’s ratio with matric
suction is similar to that of the SWCC behavior. However, no function is
currently available in the literature to describe this variation. Hence,
various values of constant Poisson’s ratio are adopted for unsaturated
soils.
The modulus of elasticity for unsaturated soils in Eq. (43) can be
substituted into the elasticity-based method or the elastic–plastic finite
element method to estimate the settlement. The influence of matric
suction on the settlement of shallow foundations is accomplished, and
the settlement of shallow foundations in unsaturated soils decreases
because of the higher modulus of elasticity in comparison to that in
saturated soils.
To present a simply conventional-form ultimate bearing capacity
formulation of three components for the strip foundation in unsaturated
soils under two distributions of matric suction, the shear strength
theory of two independent stress state variables is principally adopted
in this study to extend the Meyerhof theory of shallow foundations from
saturated soils to unsaturated soils. The suction stress-based effective
stress approach of shear strength to better capture the hydro-mechan-
ical behavior of unsaturated soils surrounding a strip foundation will be
focused on in the future work with more complicated mathematical
operations or an elastic–plastic finite element method.
8. Conclusions
Through this study, the primary conclusions can be drawn as fol-
lows:
(1) The proposed formulation of ultimate bearing capacity for strip
foundations in unsaturated soils is applicable for both uniform and
linear suctions with depth, and it can smoothly reduce to that for
saturated soils with null suction. Within the framework of the
Meyerhof theory, calculation steps for this proposed formulation
are provided with a trial method according to suction distributions.
(2) The proposed formulation agrees reasonably well with the results of
the upper-bound theorem of plasticity and the effective stress
strength theory using the concept of suction stress, as well as the
experimental data. The ultimate bearing capacity of strip founda-
tions is greater for the Terzaghi theory than that obtained in this
study, and their discrepancies decrease with the increasing value of
matric suction.
(3) The ultimate bearing capacity of strip foundations is noticeably
influenced by matric suction and its distribution. The design of a
strip foundation using the saturated soil mechanics not in-
corporating the contribution from matric suction is conservative for
unsaturated soils. Strength nonlinearity caused by the dual-effect of
high matric suction generates three types of the ultimate bearing
capacity variation with different intercepts.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Changguang Zhang: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing -
original draft, Investigation, Validation, Project administration,
Funding acquisition. Qing Yan: Methodology, Investigation, Writing -
original draft, Validation, Data curation. Junhai Zhao: Supervision,
Resources, Writing - review & editing. Jintai Wang: Validation,
Writing - review & editing, Formal analysis.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
10
Computers and Geotechnics 126 (2020) 103734
Acknowledgements
The financial support provided by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (NSFC) (41202191), the Opening Fund of State
Key Laboratory of Geohazard Prevention and Geoenvironment
Protection (SKLGP2020K022), the Fundamental Research Funds for the
Central Universities, CHD (300102280108), and the China Scholarship
Council (CSC) (201706565020) is gratefully acknowledged.
References
Ausilio, E., Conte, E., 2005. Influence of groundwater on the bearing capacity of shallow
foundations. Can. Geotech. J. 42 (2), 663–672.
Bowles, J.E., 1996. Foundation Analysis and Design, fifth ed. McGraw–Hill, New York.
Chen, L., 2014. Active earth pressure of retaining wall considering wall movement. Eur. J.
Environ. Civ. Eng. 18 (8), 910–926.
Costa, Y.D., Cintra, J.C., Zornberg, J.C., 2003. Influence of matric suction on the results of
plate load tests performed on a lateritic soil deposit. Geotech. Test. J. 26 (2),
219–227.
Escario, V., Sáez, J., 1986. The shear strength of partly saturated soils. Géotechnique 36
(3), 453–456.
Foye, K.C., Basu, P., Prezzi, M., 2008. Immediate settlement of shallow foundations
bearing on clay. Int. J. Geomech. 8 (5), 300–310.
Fredlund, D.C., Morgenstem, N.R., Widger, R.A., 1978. The shear strength of unsaturated
soils. Can. Geotech. J. 15 (3), 313–321.
Fredlund, D.G., Rahardjo, H., 1993. Soil Mechanics for Unsaturated Soils. John Wiley &
Sons, New York.
Garakani, A.A., Sadeghi, H., Saheb, S., Lamei, A., 2020. Bearing capacity of shallow
foundations on unsaturated soils: analytical approach with 3D numerical simulations
and experimental validations. Int. J. Geomech. 20 (3), 04019181.
Houston, S.L., Perez-Garcia, N., Houston, W.N., 2008. Shear strength and shear–induced
volume change behavior of unsaturated soils from a triaxial test program. J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng. 134 (11), 1619–1632.
Jahanandish, M., Habibagahi, G., Veiskarami, M., 2010. Bearing capacity factor, Nγ, for
unsaturated soils by ZEL method. Acta Geotech. 5 (3), 177–188.
Jeong, S., Kim, Y., Park, H., Kim, J., 2018. Effects of rainfall infiltration and hysteresis on
the settlement of shallow foundations in unsaturated soil. Environ. Earth Sci. 77 (13),
494.
Lu, N., Likos, W.J., 2004. Unsaturated Soil Mechanics. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Meyerhof, G.G., 1951. The ultimate bearing capacity of foudations. Géotechnique 2 (4),
301–332.
Meyerhof, G.G., 1955. Influence of roughness of base and ground water conditions on the
ultimate bearing capacity of foundations. Géotechnique 5 (3), 227–242.
Meyerhof, G.G., 1963. Some recent research on the bearing capacity of foundations. Can.
Geotech. J. 1 (1), 16–26.
Michalowski, R.L., 1997. An estimate of the influence of soil weight on bearing capacity
using limit analysis. Soils Found. 37 (4), 57–64.
Motra, H.B., Stutz, H., Wuttke, F., 2016. Quality assessment of soil bearing capacity factor
models of shallow foundations. Soils Found. 56 (2), 265–276.
Ng, C.W.W., Sadeghi, H., Jafarzadeh, F., 2017. Compression and shear strength char-
acteristics of compacted loess at high suctions. Can. Geotech. J. 54 (5), 690–699.
Ni, P.P., Song, L.H., Mei, G.X., Zhao, Y.L., 2018. Predicting excavation–induced settle-
ment for embedded footing: case study. Int. J. Geomech. 18 (4), 05018001.
Ni, P.P., Mangalathu, S., Song, L.H., Mei, G.X., Zhao, Y.L., 2018. Displacement–dependent
lateral earth pressure models. J. Eng. Mech. 144 (6), 04018032.
Oh, W.T., Vanapalli, S.K., 2011. Modelling the applied vertical stress and settlement re-
lationship of shallow foundations in saturated and unsaturated sands. Can. Geotech.
J. 48 (3), 425–438.
Oh, W.T., Vanapalli, S.K., Puppala, A.J., 2009. Semi–empirical model for the prediction of
modulus of elasticity for unsaturated soils. Can. Geotech. J. 46 (8), 903–914.
Oh, W.T., Vanapalli, S.K., 2013. Interpretation of the bearing capacity of unsaturated
fine–grained soil using the modified effective and the modified total stress ap-
proaches. Int. J. Geomech. 13 (6), 769–778.
Oh, W.T., Vanapalli, S.K., 2018. Modeling the stress versus settlement behavior of shallow
foundations in unsaturated cohesive soils extending the modified total stress ap-
proach. Soils Found. 58 (2), 382–397.
Oloo, S.Y., Fredlund, D.G., Gan, J.K.M., 1997. Bearing capacity of unpaved roads. Can.
Geotech. J. 34 (3), 398–407.
Poulos, H.G., Davis, E.H., 1974. Elastic Solutions for Soil and Rock Mechanics. John Wiley
& Sons, New York.
Rassam, D.W., Cook, F., 2002. Predicting the shear strength envelope of unsaturated soils.
Geotech. Test. J. 25 (2), 215–220.
Rojas, J.C., Salinas, L.M., Seja, C., 2007. Plate–load tests on an unsaturated lean clay. In:
Schanz, T. (Ed.), Experimental Unsaturated Soil Mechanics. Springer, Berlin, pp.
445–452.
Schmertmann, J.H., Hartman, J.P., Brown, P.R., 1978. Improved strain influence factor
diagrams. J. Geotech. Eng. Div. 104 (8), 1131–1135.
Tang, Y., Taiebat, H.A., Senetakis, K., 2017. Effective stress based bearing capacity
equations for shallow foundations on unsaturated soils. J. GeoEng. 12 (2), 59–64.
Tang, Y., Vo, H., Taiebat, H.A., Russell, A.R., 2018. Influences of suction on plate load
tests on unsaturated silty sands. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 144 (8), 04018043.
Terzaghi, K., 1943. Theoretical Soil Mechanics. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
C. Zhang, et al.
Terzaghi, K., Peck, R.B., 1948. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice. John Wiley &
Sons, New York.
Vahedifard, F., Robinson, J.D., 2016. Unified method for estimating the ultimate bearing
capacity of shallow foundations in variably saturated soils under steady flow. J.
Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 142 (4), 04015095.
Vanapalli, S.K., Mohamed, F.M.O., 2013. Bearing capacity and settlement of footings in
unsaturated sands. Int J Geomate 5 (1), 595–604.
Vesić, A.S., 1973. Analysis of ultimate loads of shallow foundations. J. Soil Mech. Found.
Div. 99 (1), 45–73.
Vo, T., Russell, A.R., 2016. Bearing capacity of strip footings on unsaturated soils by the
slip line theory. Comput. Geotech. 74, 122–131.
Wuttke, F., Kafle, B., Lins, Y., Schanz, T., 2013. Macroelement for statically loaded
shallow strip foundation resting on unsaturated soil. Int. J. Geomech. 13 (5),
557–564.
Xu, Y.F., 2004. Bearing capacity of unsaturated expansive soils. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 22
(4), 611–625.
11
Computers and Geotechnics 126 (2020) 103734
Zhang, C.G., Chen, X.D., Fan, W., 2016. Overturning stability of a rigid retaining wall for
foundation pits in unsaturated soils. Int. J. Geomech. 16 (4), 06015013.
Zhang, C.G., Chen, X.D., Fan, W., 2016. Critical embedment depth of a rigid retaining
wall against overturning in unsaturated soils considering intermediate principal
stress and strength nonlinearity. J. Cent. South Univ. 23 (4), 944–954.
Zhang, L.L., Fredlund, D.G., Fredlund, M.D., Wilson, G.W., 2014. Modeling the un-
saturated soil zone in slope stability analysis. Can. Geotech. J. 51 (12), 1384–1398.
Zhang, C.G., Gao, B.X., Yan, Q., Zhao, J.H., Wu, L.Z., 2019. Development of allowable
bearing capacity for strip foundations in unsaturated soils. Comput. Geotech. 114,
103138.
Zhang, J.M., Shamoto, Y., Tokimatsu, K., 1998. Evaluation of earth pressure under any
lateral deformation. Soils Found. 38 (1), 15–33.
Zhao, L.H., Li, L., Yang, F., Luo, Q., Dan, H.C., Zou, J.F., 2009. Ultimate bearing capacity
calculation of strip foundation on unsaturated soil with upper bound theorem and
SQP method. Chin. J. Rock Mech. Eng. 28 (supp. 1), 3021–3028 (in Chinese).