Undrained Bearing Capacity of Square

and Rectangular Footings

Susan Gourvenec1; Mark Randolph2; and Oliver Kingsnorth3

Abstract: The uniaxial vertical bearing capacity of square and rectangular footings resting on homogeneous undrained clay is investi-
gated with finite element analyses, using both Tresca and von Mises soil models. Results are compared with predictions from conventional
bearing capacity theory and available analytical and numerical solutions. By calibrating the finite element results against known exact
solutions, best estimates of bearing capacity for rough-based rectangular footings are derived, with the shape factor fitted by a simple
quadratic function of the footing aspect ratio. For a square footing, the bearing capacity is approximately 5% lower than that based on
Skempton’s shape factor of 1.2.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1532-3641共2006兲6:3共147兲
CE Database subject headings: Shallow foundations; Numerical analysis; Analytical techniques; Bearing capacity; Vertical loads;
Footings.

Introduction and is independent of footing roughness. For circular geometry

Traditional bearing capacity theory, developed based on condi-
tions of plane strain 共Terzaghi 1943兲, is appropriate for strip foot-
ings where the length of the footing is “long” relative to its
breadth. Many shallow foundations, particularly those used off-
shore, have a lower aspect ratio with a rectangular or square foot-
print. Edge effects improve bearing capacity 共per unit area兲 of a
three-dimensional footing compared to a strip footing as slip
planes must develop around the perimeter of the three-
dimensional footing as opposed to only adjacent to the “long”
edge under conditions of plane strain.
Edge effects are typically accounted for in bearing capacity
calculations by an empirical shape factor applied to the basic
equation for conditions of plane strain 共Terzaghi 1943兲. The most
widely adopted shape factor is that proposed by Skempton
共1951兲, which adjusts bearing capacity linearly with the aspect
ratio; for a square footing the ultimate limit state is taken as 20%
higher than for a strip footing. Skempton’s expression was re-
tained for the undrained case in later work by De Beer 共1970兲 and
Hansen 共1970兲.
The vertical bearing capacity of a strip footing resting on a
homogeneous Tresca material is given by Vult = 5.14Asu 共Prandtl
1921兲, where A⫽area of the footing and su the soil shear strength,
1
Senior Lecturer, Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems, Univ. of
Western Australia, Crawley, Perth, WA 6009, Australia 共corresponding
author兲. E-mail: susan@civil.uwa.edu.au
2
Professor, Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems, Univ. of Western
Australia, Crawley, Perth, WA 6009, Australia. E-mail: randolph@
civil.uwa.edu.au
3
Student, Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems, Univ. of Western
Australia, Crawley, Perth, WA 6009. E-mail: plopdiact@hotmail.com
Note. Discussion open until October 1, 2006. Separate discussions
must be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing
Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and pos-
sible publication on January 31, 2005; approved on April 28, 2005. This
paper is part of the International Journal of Geomechanics, Vol. 6, No.
3, May 1, 2006. ©ASCE, ISSN 1532-3641/2006/3-147–157/$25.00.
the corresponding bearing capacity factor, Nc = Vult / Asu, lies be-
tween 5.69 and 6.05 for smooth and rough footings respectively
共Cox et al. 1961兲.
No exact solution exists for the bearing capacity of a square
footing, even for the simple case of a surface footing resting on an
isotropic, homogeneous deposit obeying an undrained failure cri-
terion. However, the bearing capacity factors for square and rect-
angular footings are expected to be bracketed by those for strip
and circular geometries 共Levin 1955兲.
Few analytical or numerical studies of the bearing capacity of
square and rectangular footings have been carried out. Shield and
Drucker 共1953兲 proposed an upper bound solution for the ultimate
limit state under uniaxial vertical loading for smooth rectangular
footings, which gave a bearing capacity factor for a square foot-
ing of Nc = 5.71. Some 5 decades later, Michalowski and Dawson
共2002兲 proposed a lower bearing capacity factor of Nc = 5.43,
based on finite-difference analyses using FLAC 共Itasca 1997兲.
This is in line with the suggestion by Levin 共1955兲, that the bear-
ing capacity of a square footing should be slightly less than that
of a circular footing of equivalent area.
Michalowski 共2001兲 proposed an upper bound solution for a
rough square footing, giving a bearing capacity factor of
Nc = 6.56; this is approximately 10% higher than the bearing ca-
pacity factor for a rough circular footing, contrary to Levin’s sup-
position. Salgado et al. 共2004兲 presented results of numerical limit
analyses, which indicate lower and upper bounds to the bearing
capacity factor Nc of 5.52 and 6.22 for a rough square footing.
The corresponding bound solutions given by Salgado et al. for the
circular case were 5.86 and 6.23, which is a narrower range than
for the more difficult square geometry and spans the exact solu-
tion of Nc = 6.05 for a rough circular footing. Comparing the
lower and upper bounds for the two cases suggests that the true
capacity for a square foundation is lower than for the equivalent
circular case, as supposed by Levin 共1955兲.
This paper presents finite element results for smooth and rough
square footings, and proposes best estimates of the bearing capac-
ity factors for rough rectangular footings of varying aspect ratio.
The kinematic mechanisms accompanying failure of the

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2006 / 147

 Fig. 1. Finite element meshes: 共a兲 square footing L = B; 共b兲 rectangular footing with L = 5B
square and rectangular footings observed in the finite element
analyses are also presented. The mechanism for a square footing
indicates fourfold symmetry, with displacements orthogonal to
the edges but also symmetric about the diagonals; this contrasts
with the optimal upper bound solutions of Shield and Drucker and
Michalowski, where the deformation fields along parallel edges of
the footing differ from those along the orthogonal edges. It is
hoped that the mechanisms observed in the finite element analy-
ses may provide a useful starting point for an alternative upper
bound solution.
Finite-Element Model
All the finite element analyses were carried out using the software
ABAQUS 共HKS 2002兲.
Mesh
The three-dimensional finite-element mesh used for analysis of a
square footing of width, B, and equal length, L, is shown in Fig.
1共a兲. It represents a half-footing cut through one of the orthogonal
planes of symmetry. The mesh extends 3B from the edges of the
footing and 2.5B beneath the footing. Zero-displacement bound-
ary conditions prevent out-of-plane displacements of the vertical
boundaries, and the base of the mesh is fixed in all three coordi-
nate directions.
A number of different mesh densities were investigated to
achieve a time-efficient model without compromising accuracy.
The mesh shown in Fig. 1共a兲 comprises approximately 12,000
first order fully integrated hexahedral hybrid elements.
The hybrid element formulation uses a mixture of displace-
ment and stress variables 共as opposed to solely displacement兲 to
approximate the equilibrium equations and compatibility condi-
tions. Hybrid elements are recommended for modeling the re-
sponse of near incompressible materials 共such as is appropriate
for undrained soil conditions兲.
Six three-dimensional models were created to investigate the
effect of varying footing length to breadth aspect ratio on bearing
capacity 关L / B = 1 共square兲, 1.5, 2, 3, 5, and 10兴. Each mesh rep-
resents a half-footing, measured along the longitudinal axis, and
maintains the same geometry and discretization on the front face
of the mesh as for the square footing shown in Fig. 1共a兲. For the
longer footings more elements were used in the longitudinal di-
148 / INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2006
rection to maintain uniform element size across the models and
the rear mesh boundary was positioned sufficiently remote not to
affect footing behavior. For example the mesh for the L = 5B foot-
ing 关shown in Fig. 1共b兲兴 comprises 18,000 elements, and the mesh
for the L = 10B footing comprises 25,000 elements 关more than
twice as many as the square footing mesh shown in Fig. 1共a兲兴.
A plane strain mesh was also constructed using first order fully
integrated quadrilateral hybrid elements. The same geometry and
discretization as the front face of the three-dimensional mesh was
used and equivalent boundary conditions, soil conditions, and
analysis procedures were modeled.
A vertical bearing capacity factor of Nc = 5.31 was obtained
from the plane strain finite element analysis, over predicting the
exact solution by just 3%. A much finer plane strain mesh was
also constructed using 1,500 elements, two and a half times as
many elements as the coarser mesh. The finer mesh gave a verti-
cal bearing capacity factor Nc = 5.27, only a 0.5% increase in ac-
curacy, indicating that the coarser mesh was sufficiently fine.
Material Properties
Simple soil conditions were modeled representing an isotropic
linear elastic-perfectly plastic material failing according to a
Tresca flow rule with uniform undrained shear strength with
depth, su. The conditions considered are intended to represent a
fine grained material subjected to a period of loading sufficiently
short that no drainage will take place. Constant stiffness index
Eu / su = 1,000, Poisson’s ratio ␯ = 0.49, and buoyant unit weight
␥⬘ = 8 kN/ m3 were prescribed. Although soil self-weight was
used in the analysis, the nature of the problem considered, i.e., a
surface footing resting on an isotropic homogeneous soil without
drainage, leads to the calculated bearing capacity being unaf-
fected by the value of ␥⬘.
A Tresca soil model was adopted in order to allow direct com-
parison with other published solutions based on the same failure
criterion. However, for completeness, solutions are also provided
for rough rectangular footings resting on soil modeled using a von
Mises failure criterion.
The footing was represented as a discrete rigid body resting on
the surface of the soil. Most of the analyses considered a fully
rough interface on the underside of the footing, but a frictionless
interface was also modeled for a square footing for comparison.
Load Paths
Analyses were carried out to investigate the ultimate limit state
under uniaxial vertical loading. The foundation was subjected to
controlled displacements, as opposed to directly applied loads, to
enable postfailure conditions to be observed. The reference point
for the applied displacement was taken as the midpoint of the
foundation base.
Results
Accuracy of Finite Element Analyses
Before presenting results for rectangular footings, the accuracy of
the finite element analyses is explored with reference to capacities
computed for smooth- and rough-based circular footings. Finite
element analyses of a rough-based circular footing on a Tresca
material were reported by Gourvenec and Randolph 共2003兲 and
Taiebat and Carter 共2000兲. In both cases the bearing capacity
factor Nc was underpredicted compared to the exact solution of
Nc = 6.05 共Cox et al. 1961兲, by 2.3% by Gourvenec and Randolph,
and by 6% by Taiebat and Carter.
Gourvenec and Randolph 共2003兲 note that the slight underpre-
diction in the finite element calculation of the bearing capacity of
the rough circular footing may have been due, at least in part, to
larger distortion of the elements local to the footing in the three-
dimensional analysis. Element distortion in the three-dimensional
mesh is greater than in the two-dimensional mesh because of the
different kinematic mechanisms under vertical loading: in-plane
for the strip footing and axisymmetric for the circular footing.
There is also evidence that underprediction of vertical bearing
capacity in three-dimensional analyses may be due to rounding
the vertices of the hexagonal Tresca yield surface in finite-
element software 共Taiebat 2005兲. Rounding at the vertices is nec-
essary as the point of the vertex causes a discontinuity of the yield
surface, causing a singularity and resulting in computational dif-
ficulties. Conventionally the vertices of the surface are smoothed
by an arc taken 5° either side of the point. The vertices of the
hexagonal Tresca surface represent conditions where two of the
principal stresses are equal 共such as in triaxial compression and
extension兲 and rounding of the vertex causes an underprediction
of vertical load capacity as the modified yield surface falls inside
the true Tresca surface. The larger the arc angle the further within
the vertex the modified surface lies and the greater the underpre-
diction of vertical capacity. Taiebat 共2005兲 has observed a 1.5%
increase in bearing capacity by decreasing the arc angle from 5
to 0.5°.
For the element type and mesh density adopted in this study,
the bearing capacity factors computed using the ABAQUS imple-
mentation of the Tresca failure criterion are 5.31 for a strip foot-
ing, and 5.58 and 5.96, respectively, for smooth- and rough-based
circular footings. These values represent overprediction for the
strip footing by 3.3%, and underprediction by 1.9 and 1.5% for
the smooth- and rough-based circular footings. These results sug-
gest that the finite element results of bearing capacity of square
footings would be similarly underpredicted, but that the reverse
may be true for rectangular footings of high aspect ratio. In arriv-
ing at a best estimate of shape factors for rectangular footings, it
is necessary to adjust the finite element results to reflect the vary-
ing error, which has been estimated here as varying linearly with
the aspect ratio, L / B, of the footing.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2006 / 149
Square Footings
Bearing capacity factors 共Nc兲 and corresponding shape factors
共sc = Nc / Nc-strip兲 from Skempton’s empirical expression, other
available analytical and numerical solutions for square footings,
and those from this study are compared in Table 1. The shape
factors are also presented graphically in Fig. 2. Bearing capacity
and shape factors for circular geometry are presented for
completeness.
For plane strain conditions the bearing capacity is not affected
by the interface condition between the foundation and the soil,
with Nc = 5.14 an exact solution for any roughness. For three-
dimensional footing geometries interface roughness does affect
the bearing capacity. Exact solutions for circular geometry 共Cox
et al. 1961兲 give bearing capacity shape factors sc 共=Nc / Nc-strip兲
= 1.11 and 1.18 for smooth and rough footings, respectively,
marking the upper limit to the expected bearing capacity factor
for equivalent square footings 共Levin 1955兲.
Skempton’s empirical shape factor does not distinguish be-
tween a smooth or rough footing interface, suggesting a bearing
capacity factor of Nc = 6.17 共corresponding to a shape factor
sc = 1.2兲 for either case. Skempton’s factor is therefore non-
conservative by at least 2% for a rough square footing 共assuming
the true bearing capacity is at most equal to that for a circular
foundation兲, and by more than 9% if applied, incorrectly, to a
smooth-based footing.
Smooth Footing Interface
For a smooth square footing on a Tresca soil Shield and Drucker
共1953兲 proposed an upper bound solution suggesting a bearing
capacity factor Nc = 5.71. Michalowski and Dawson 共2002兲 report
finite difference results obtained with FLAC 共Itasca 1997兲 of a
smooth square footing on a Tresca material suggesting a bearing
capacity factor Nc = 5.43, approximately 5% lower than the Shield
and Drucker solution. No bearing capacity for the strip footing
case, or for a circular foundation, is presented so the accuracy of
the FLAC model cannot be assessed. The shape factor relative to
a strip footing is sc = 1.06.
The lower bearing capacity reported by Michalowski and
Dawson is attributed to a failure mechanism that takes advantage
of diagonal symmetry, i.e., planes of symmetry from corner to
corner as well as orthogonal to the edges of the footing. This is in
contrast to Shield and Drucker’s mechanism, which involves only
two planes of symmetry, running orthogonal to the footing edges,
and constraining all soil displacements to be normal to the rel-
evant edge.
The finite element analysis for a smooth-based square footing
carried out in this study also indicates fourfold symmetry of the
deformation mechanism 共that is, including diagonal symmetry兲. A
slightly higher bearing capacity factor of Nc = 5.56 was obtained
compared with the value of 5.43 from Michalowski and Dawson,
giving a shape factor of 1.08. A corresponding analysis for a
smooth-based circular foundation gave Nc = 5.58, suggesting that
square and circular bearing capacities are extremely close, and in
line with Levin’s suggestion that the bearing capacity of a square
footing would lie slightly below that for an equivalent circular
footing 共Levin 1955兲.
Rough Footing Interface
Michalowski 共2001兲 proposed an upper bound solution for a
rough square footing on Tresca soil, which gives a bearing capac-
Table 1. Comparison of Undrained Bearing Capacity and Shape Factors; Square and Circular Footings 共Tresca Soil兲
Reference Analysis type Smooth/rough Nc s ca
Strip Prandtl 共1921兲 Exact 5.14 1.0
Circle Cox et al. 共1961兲 Exact Smooth 5.69 1.11
Rough 6.05 1.18
Salgado et al. 共2004兲 Numerical limit analysis Rough 5.86 LB 1.14
6.23 UB 1.21
Plane strain 5.13 LB
5.20 UB
This study Finite element analysis Smooth 5.58 1.09
Rough 5.96 1.16
Plane strain 5.27 1.03
Square Skempton 共1951兲 Empirical — 6.17 1.2
Shield and Drucker 共1953兲 Upper bound Smooth 5.71 1.11
Michalowski and Dawson 共2002兲 Finite difference Smooth 5.43 1.06
This study Upper bound Roughb 6.41 1.25
Michalowski 共2001兲 Upper bound Rough 6.56 1.28
Salgado et al. 共2004兲 Numerical limit analysis Rough 5.52 LB 1.07
6.22 UB 1.21
Plane strain 5.13 LB
5.20 UB
This study Finite element analysis Smooth 5.56 1.08
Rough 5.91 1.15
Plane strain 5.31 1.03
a
Indicates shape factor calculated assuming exact plane strain Nc = 5.14.
b
See Appendix.

ity factor of Nc = 6.56. The solution is based on a different mecha- eled with similar mesh density and element type 共Nc = 5.96兲, but
nism to that proposed by Shield and Drucker for a smooth square lower than the exact solution for a circle of 6.05. The finite-
punch, with a 共Prandtl-type兲 central pyramid moving downward element results for the rough footings are in line with Levin’s
as opposed to a Hill-type double-wedge mechanism with soil di- suggestion, as were the results from the smooth footing analyses,
rectly beneath the footing sliding laterally outwards. Additionally that the bearing capacity of a square footing would lie slightly
the central downward moving block in Michalowski’s mechanism below that for an equivalent circular footing 共Levin 1955兲. The
is flanked by multiple sliding blocks with shearing taking place shape factor relative to the plane strain solution is sc = 1.15, which
between each of the blocks. is lower than Skempton’s proposed factor of 1.2. However, it is
It is possible to modify Shield and Drucker’s upper bound not possible to gauge the extent of potential underprediction by
mechanism to a Prandtl-type with a central pyramid, but retaining
the other features of their mechanism. The details are given in the
Appendix, and the modified mechanism leads to an upper bound
for a rough-based square footing of Nc = 6.41, slightly below
Michalowski’s value.
Numerical limit solutions for a rough square footing on a
Tresca soil were obtained by Salgado et al. 共2004兲, identifying
lower and upper bounds for the bearing capacity factor in the
range 5.52艋 Nc 艋 6.22, an envelope of 12%. Lower and upper
bounds for plane strain conditions from the same limit solutions
gave a range of bearing capacity factor of 5.13艋 Nc 艋 5.20. Al-
though the Salgado et al. upper bound gives a lower bearing ca-
pacity than the Michalowski or 共equivalent兲 Shield and Drucker
upper bound solutions, it is still on the high side compared with
the bearing capacity for a rough circular footing 共Nc = 6.05兲 and
the range is relatively wide.
Salgado et al.’s investigation addressed a broader range of
conditions than this study, considering effects of footing embed-
ment as well as plan aspect ratio. Interestingly they found that, as
the depth of embedment increased, coupling of conventional
shape and depth factors often led to conservative estimates of
bearing capacity compared to their limit solutions.
The finite element results from this study gave a bearing ca- Fig. 2. Comparison of shape factors for square footings from finite-
pacity factor for a rough square footing Nc = 5.91, slightly less element analyses and available published data 共all Tresca soil兲,
than the finite element solution for a rough circular footing mod- compared with exact solutions for circular footings

150 / INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2006

 Table 3. Adjusted Shape and Bearing Capacity Factors for Undrained
Vertical Loading of Rectangular Footings
L/B 1 1.5 2 3 5 10 ⬁
sc 1.15 1.11 1.09 1.06 1.04 1.02 1.00
Nc 5.91 5.72 5.61 5.47 5.36 5.26 5.14

overprediction for the square footing 共at least, relative to the

Fig. 3. Bearing capacity factor as function of footing aspect ratio.
Finite element results compared with available published data 共all
Tresca soil兲.
the finite element analysis, as occurred for the circular footing. A
possible indication is to take the average of the Salgado et al.
bounds, which leads to an excellent estimate of 6.04 for the bear-
ing capacity factor of a circular footing 共bounds of 5.86⬍ Nc
⬍ 6.23兲. This approach would give 5.87 for a square footing,
which is within 1% of the finite element value of 5.91, supporting
a bearing capacity factor close to 5.9 for a rough-based square
foundation.
Rectangular Footings
In addition to the square footing analyses, six analyses were car-
ried out on rectangular footings to investigate the effect of aspect
ratio 共length to breadth, L / B兲 on uniaxial vertical bearing capac-
ity. All the rectangular footing analyses modeled a rough interface
on the underside of the footing.
Fig. 3 compares bearing capacities as a function of aspect ratio
for square and rectangular footings with a rough interface from
the finite element results from this study with Skempton’s empiri-
cal expression and other available bound solutions. As would be
expected, there is a clear trend in each case of increasing bearing
capacity as the aspect ratio of the footing increases towards unity.
For aspect ratios 共L / B兲 less than 5, the finite element results ap-
pear approximately midway between the bounds of Salgado et al.
共2004兲, but the trend of the results gives increasing overprediction
as the footing tends toward a strip. By contrast, the upper bound
results give the correct solution for a strip footing, but up to 8%
finite- element result兲. The upper bound results from Michalowski
共2001兲 are somewhat irregular in their trends, and mostly lie
above the upper bound based on Shield and Drucker 共Appendix兲.
An exception is the point for L / B = 10, where the Michalowski
共2001兲 upper bound is surprisingly low, with Nc = 5.20.
Discrete values of the calculated bearing capacity factors and
shape factors are presented in Table 2, together with the average
of the numerical lower and upper bounds from Salgado et al.
共2004兲. Tentatively, taking the finite element result of 5.91 for a
square footing as “correct” 共being consistent with Levin’s hypoth-
esis that it should be just less than the value for a circular foot-
ing兲, the finite element results can be adjusted so as to eliminate
the gradual overprediction as the footing tends toward a strip,
reducing them by a factor of 0.032共1 − B / L兲. This leads to the
corrected shape and bearing capacity factors given in Table 3. A
consistent adjustment of the upper bound results, ranging from
zero adjustment for a strip footing, up to 8% adjustment for a
square footing, leads to virtually identical shape factors, as shown
in Fig. 4.
The relationship between shape factor and footing aspect ratio
obtained from the finite element and upper bound results adjusted
in this way can be accurately expressed by the simple quadratic
function
sc = 1 + 0.214B/L − 0.067共B/L兲2 共1兲
This gives marginally higher shape factors for very slender foot-
ings than Skempton’s original recommendation 共a linear variation
with coefficient of 0.2兲, but with reduced shape functions for
square and rectangular footings of low aspect ratio.
Comparison of Bearing Capacity Predictions
with Tresca and von Mises
All the previous studies discussed in this paper 共Terzaghi 1943;
Shield and Drucker 1953; Levin 1955; Cox et al. 1961; Taiebat
and Carter 2000; Michalowski 2001; Michalowski and Dawson
2002; Gourvenec and Randolph 2003; Salgado et al. 2004兲 as
well as the present study, are based on a Tresca failure criterion,
therefore neglecting the intermediate principal stress component.

Table 2. Comparison of Undrained Bearing Capacity and Shape Factors for Rough-Based Rectangular Footings 共Tresca Soil兲
Skempton 共1951兲 Michalowski 共2001兲 Salgado et al. 共2004兲 This study

Nc Nc Nc Nc Nc s ca
L/B Nc sc Nc 共LB兲 共UB兲 共average兲 共UB兲 共FE兲 共FE兲
1 6.17 1.20 6.56 5.52 6.22 5.87 6.41 5.91 1.15
1.5 5.83 1.13 6.19 — — — 6.03 5.78 1.12
2 5.65 1.10 6.06 5.36 6.02 5.57 5.83 5.69 1.11
3 5.48 1.07 5.64 5.25 5.89 5.51 5.62 5.58 1.09
5 5.35 1.04 5.49 5.17 5.78 5.47 5.44 5.49 1.07
10 5.24 1.02 5.20 — — — 5.30 5.41 1.05
⬁ 5.14 1.00 5.14 5.13 5.20 5.17 5.14 5.31 1.03
a
sc calculated assuming plane strain Nc of 5.14.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2006 / 151


Fig. 4. Best-estimate shape factors for square and rectangular
footings on Tresca soil. Comparison with uncorrected finite element
results and Skempton’s empirical shape factor expression.
Additional finite element analyses were carried out with a von
Mises failure criterion to assess the effect on bearing capacity of
including the intermediate principal stress. Table 4 compares the
finite element bearing capacity and shape factors calculated using
both Tresca and von Mises failure criteria. The von Mises bearing
capacity factors have been calculated based on the shear strength
in plane strain 共where su is equal to the von Mises parameter, k兲,
rather than the shear strength under triaxial conditions which is
13% lower. It can be seen that at the limit when B / L = 1 the
Tresca analysis predicts a bearing capacity 3% higher than using
von Mises 共based on plane strain shear strength兲, the disparity
diminishing as the footing length increases until the solutions
converge for plane strain conditions.
Randolph 共2000兲 suggested that bearing capacity factors for
three-dimensional problems should be expressed in terms of an
average of triaxial compression 共suC兲, triaxial extension 共suE兲, and
simple shear 共suSS兲 strengths; for the von Mises failure criterion
the average strength may be expressed as
suC + suE + suSS 冑3 + 1
suAV = = suSS = 0.91suSS 共2兲
3 3
While this might be an appropriate choice for square 共or circular兲
footing geometry the applicability breaks down for gradually
more slender rectangles as they tend to plane strain. A comparison
of the various bearing capacity factors calculated using the Tresca
failure criterion and the von Mises criterion, normalizing the bear-
ing capacity by either the plane strain, triaxial compression 共and
extension兲 or the average shear strength, is shown in Fig. 5. It is
clear that use of the plane strain, or simple shear, strength with the
von Mises failure criterion gives the closest agreement with the
Tresca results, and even for a square footing is better than using
the average shear strength. This implies that only a small propor-
tion of the soil is loaded under 共quasi-兲 triaxial conditions for the
vertical bearing capacity problem.
Table 4. Undrained Bearing Capacity Factors for Rectangular Footings from Finite Element Analyses Using Tresca and von Mises Failure Criteria
L/B 1 1.5
Tresca Nc 5.91 5.78
von Mises 共plane strain su兲 Nc 5.74 5.68
152 / INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2006
Fig. 5. Comparison of calculated bearing capacity factors; Tresca
and von Mises
Kinematic Mechanisms at Failure
The upper bound solutions based on the mechanisms proposed by
Shield and Drucker 共1953兲 and Michalowski 共2001兲 lead to rela-
tively high bearing capacities. Intriguingly, the optimum mecha-
nisms for a square footing turn out to have only twofold symme-
try, with four plane strain regions where movement is orthogonal
to the edges of the footing, but lacking diagonal symmetry. By
contrast, the finite element results for square footings indicate a
failure mechanism that has fourfold symmetry, including being
symmetric about the diagonals of the footing. The kinematic fail-
ure mechanisms observed in the finite element analyses from this
study are discussed in more detail below, in the hope that they
may form the basis of improved upper bound solutions.
Rough Footing Interface
Fig. 6 shows contours of resultant soil displacement at failure for
each of the footings modeled. Under plane strain conditions a
distinct Prandtl-type mechanism is observed in the finite element
analyses 关Fig. 6共a兲兴, of the form illustrated schematically in the
left side of Fig. 7 共Prandtl 1921兲. Angles ABC, EBD, and BED
are 45°, wedge ABC moves downward as a rigid block, equalized
by lateral and upward movement of rigid wedge BDE, separated
by a 90° slip fan zone DBC, where surface CD is a circular arc.
A plane strain Prandtl-type mechanism is also observed at the
midline cross section of the footings with aspect ratios L / B of 10
and 5 关Figs. 6共b and c兲兴. As the footing becomes shorter the soil
wedge underneath the footing becomes shallower and an addi-
tional sliding wedge develops 关Fig. 6共d兲兴. The observed mecha-
nism is illustrated schematically in the right side of Fig. 7 in the
form proposed by Kusakabe et al. 共1986兲. Angle AB⬘C⬘ decreases
as wedge AB⬘C⬘ becomes shallower. A new rigid wedge B⬘C⬘F,
traveling at an angle ␣ to the horizontal, develops between the
central downward moving wedge of soil and the 90° slip fan zone
D⬘B⬘F. The displacement of the sliding rigid wedges beneath the
footing are equalized by lateral and upward movement of rigid
wedge B⬘D⬘E⬘ similar to the plane strain mechanism. Note that
for ␤ = ␲ / 4 the general mechanism reverts to a Prandtl-type
mechanism, while for ␤ = 0, a Hill-type mechanism is obtained. In
2 3 5 10 ⬁
5.69 5.58 5.49 5.41 5.31
5.60 5.51 5.44 5.38 5.31
 Fig. 8. Extent of failure mechanisms as function of footing aspect
ratio

Fig. 6. Kinematic failure mechanisms of footings of various aspect

ratio 共rough interface兲

the present case, for the square footing, a wedge angle ␤, 共i.e.,
AB⬘C⬘兲 of approximately 23° is observed 共compared with 45° in
the classical Prandtl plane strain mechanism兲.
Fig. 8 presents graphically the zone of influence of the failure
mechanisms at the midpoint cross section, in terms of lateral ex-
tent, i.e., to either side of the footing, and depth beneath the
footing. A linear relationship is evident between the extent of the
failure zone and the aspect ratio of the footing.
Consideration of the regions of displaced soil, viewed in plan
as illustrated in Figs. 9共a–f兲, shows the extent of the failure
mechanism in the longitudinal direction 共i.e., along the long axis兲
is independent of footing aspect ratio, and equal to approximately
0.6B. Diagonal symmetry of the failure mechanism for the square
footing is also clearly illustrated by the displacement contours
shown in Fig. 9.
It could also be surmised from the displacement contours in
Fig. 9 that plane strain conditions prevail approximately 1.5B
from the end of the footing, measured along the long axis.

Smooth Footing Interface

Fig. 9. Plan view of failure mechanisms 共rough footings兲
The kinematic mechanism at failure observed in the finite-
element analysis for the smooth square footing is illustrated in
Fig. 10, indicating a double wedge Hill-type mechanism. No cen-
tral wedge is evident 共i.e., ␤ = 0, Fig. 7兲, with slip taking place on
the underside of the footing with the soil beneath the footing

Fig. 7. Plane strain and 3D failure mechanisms Fig. 10. Kinematic failure mechanisms of smooth square footing

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2006 / 153

 Fig. 11. Displacement vectors at failure for square footings: 共a兲 rough 共Prandtl-type兲; 共b兲 smooth 共Hill-type兲
moving out toward the edge of the footing 共at an angle ␣, Fig. 7兲.
Some soil movement directly below the center of the footing, to a
depth of approximately 0.18B, is evident. Displacement vectors
from the finite element analyses for rough and smooth square
footings are shown in Fig. 11 and clearly indicate the different
direction of soil movement directly below the footing.
The mechanism accompanying failure of the smooth footing,
seen in Fig. 10, is much shallower than the Prandtl-type mecha-
nism observed with the rough footing, as seen in Fig. 7共a兲. The
deepest part of the failure mechanism observed for the smooth
square footing taking place at 0.28B, compared with a maximum
depth of 0.53B for the rough square footing failure mechanism.
Contours of resultant displacement viewed in plan over the
rough and smooth square footings are shown in Fig. 12. These
also illustrate the variation in nature of the soil displacement de-
pending on interface roughness. The footings are subjected to a
uniform vertical displacement; the contours of resultant displace-
ment beneath the rough footing show that the soil moves uni-
formly vertically downwards with no relative soil movement on
the underside of the footing. The contours beneath the smooth
footing show a variation of soil displacement across the footing
area, the maximum soil movement occurring at the footing pe-
riphery with less displacement beneath the center. Fig. 12 also
shows the mechanism accompanying failure of the smooth square
footing exhibited diagonal symmetry similar to the rough square
footing 关as seen in Fig. 9共a兲兴.
Conclusions
The results presented in this paper address the uniaxial vertical
bearing capacity of square and rectangular footings under
undrained conditions on a uniform soil. Best-estimate bearing ca-
pacity factors for square and rectangular footings are presented.
Key findings of this study are:
Fig. 12. Plan view of displacement contours at failure for square footings: 共a兲 rough; 共b兲 smooth
154 / INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2006
1. Bearing capacity of a square footing on a Tresca soil is ap-
proximately 3% less than the bearing capacity of an equiva-
lent circular footing. This study suggests a bearing capacity
factor of Nc = 5.9, equivalent to a shape factor sc = 1.15,
would be appropriate for a rough square footing and
Nc = 5.56, sc = 1.08 for a smooth square footing.
2. Bearing capacity of a rough square footing on a von Mises
soil assuming plane strain shear strength calculated in the
finite element analyses is 3% less than a rough square footing
on a Tresca soil. The choice of shear strength to use in con-
junction with a von Mises model can lead to a difference in
bearing capacity of up to 15%.
3. If a “rounded” Tresca flow potential were used in the devia-
toric plane 共as opposed to the von Mises circle used in
ABAQUS兲 a slightly higher value of bearing capacity would
be expected. It would be interesting to see the results pre-
sented in this study compared with results from numerical
software that employs a rounded Tresca flow potential.
4. Comparison of the conventional linear expression to account
for three-dimensional footing geometry sc = 1 + 0.2B / L
共Skempton 1951兲 with the finite element results from this
study suggest that the former might overpredict bearing ca-
pacity for a square footing on a Tresca soil by up to 5% or
12% depending on interface roughness.
5. The finite element results from this study suggest the rela-
tionship between shape factor and footing aspect ratio for
rough rectangular footings can be accurately predicted by a
quadratic polynomial
sc = 1 + 0.214B/L − 0.067共B/L兲2
共Rectangular footings with a smooth interface were not con-
sidered in this study.兲
6. Available upper bounds of rough square and rectangular
footings by Michalowski 共2001兲 and Salgado et al. 共2004兲,
and with the upper bound solution presented in this paper
 based on Shield and Drucker’s mechanism, overpredict bear-
ing capacity. Taking the bearing capacity of a circular footing
as an upper limit to the expected bearing capacity of a square
footing 共after Levin 1955兲, the available upper bound solu-
tions overpredict capacity by at least 3–10% 共depending on
the study兲. Alternatively, comparison with the bearing capac-
ity factors recommended by this study suggests an overpre-
diction of 6–13% 共depending on the study兲.
7. The numerical results from this study, and those presented by
nism comprises a plane strain Hill-type mechanism over the cen-
tral part of the longer sides. At the ends of the longer sides, and
over the shorter side, the size of the mechanism gradually reduces
as the corner is approached although the soil motion remains
normal to each corresponding side. The sections MTUV and
MQRX are parts of right circular cones, with M the apex and
TUV 共or QRX兲 the base of the cone, perpendicular to the axes MT
or MX.
Shield and Drucker state the upper bound bearing factor, Nc as

冋
Michalowski and Dawson 共2002兲, show failure mechanisms
for square footings exhibit fourfold symmetry 共i.e., deforma- c
Nc = 2共␣2 + ␤2兲 + cot ␣2 + cot ␤2 + ␣1 + ␤1 + 共␣1 + ␤1
tion about planes orthogonal to the edges and corner to cor- 2a
ner兲. In contrast, existing upper bound solutions are based on
mechanisms with only two planes of symmetry 共orthogonal
to the edges兲.
+ cot ␣1 + cot ␤1兲 冑
1+
c2
b2 sin2 ␤1
+ 共␣2 + ␤2 + cot ␣2

8. Considering the geometry of the kinematic mechanisms ac-

companying failure in the finite element analyses of rough
rectangular footings various observations were made: 共1兲 A
+ cot ␤2兲 冑
1+
b2
c2 sin2 ␤2
− 3共␣2 + ␤2兲 − 2 cot ␣2 − 2 cot ␤2 册
classic Prandtl-type mechanism, characteristic of plane strain which may be minimized in terms of the defining angles 共␣1, ␤1,
conditions, prevailed approximately 1.5B from the ends of ␣2, and ␤2兲 and the dimension c. For a square foundation, the
the footings. 共2兲 The zone of influence of the failure mecha-
nism beyond the end of the footing was independent of the
footing aspect ratio and equal to approximately 0.6B. 共3兲 The
zone of influence of the failure mechanism to either side of
and beneath the footing varied linearly with footing aspect
ratio. 共4兲 Beyond the region where the plane strain mecha-
nism prevailed the lateral extent of the soil affected by fail-
ure reduced, i.e., tending towards the mechanism observed at
the cross section of the square footing.
9. A comparative analysis of a square footing modeling a
smooth interface showed a distinct Hill-type mechanism, as
opposed to the Prandtl-type observed for the footing with the
rough interface.
10. The mechanisms associated with failure of the rough and
smooth square footings and the rough rectangular footings,
of all aspect ratios, suggested diagonal symmetry.
Extension of this work to address the effect of varying interface
roughness as a function of footing aspect ratio, as well as the
effect of other variables such as nonuniform soil strength profile,
footing embedment 共to complement Salgado et al. 2004兲 and con-
sideration of footing response to more complex loading condi-
tions would be useful. Some of these issues are currently under
investigation at the Centre for Offshore Foundations Systems.

Acknowledgments

The work described here forms part of the activities of the Special
Research Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems, established
and supported under the Australian Research Council’s Research
Centres Program. This support is gratefully acknowledged.

Appendix. Upper Bound Solution for Rectangular

Foundations

An upper bound solution for smooth-based rectangular founda-

tions was described by Shield and Drucker 共1953兲. This Appendix
documents that solution and also a corresponding one for rough-
based foundations.
The mechanism for smooth-based foundations is shown in Fig. Fig. 13. Mechanism for smooth-based rectangular foundation 共after
13, following the notation of Shield and Drucker. The rectangular Shield and Drucker 1953兲: 共a兲 overall schematic; 共b兲 plan and
foundation has width 2b, and length 2a 共with b 艋 a兲. The mecha- elevation views

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2006 / 155

Table 5. Optimum Upper Bound Solution for Smooth-Based Square
Foundation
Smooth-based Rough-based

Parameter Shield and Drucker 共1953兲 Optimum Optimum

c/a 0.707 0.686 0.585
␣1 共°兲 46.3 46.2 48.3
␤1 共°兲 39 38.0 49.7
␣2 共°兲 47.1 47.0 50.6
␤2 共°兲 34 34.0 63.6
Nc 5.711 5.710 6.411

Fig. 15. Upper bound bearing capacity factors for smooth- and
rough-based rectangular foundations

minimum Nc is 5.71, which is obtained with the parameters tabu-

lated in Table 5. Note that the optimum solution is marginally
lower than for the parameters suggested by Shield and Drucker
共1953兲—before the modern computer age! The optimum upper
bound for a square foundation based on this mechanism has c / a
less than unity, hence giving a mechanism that does not have
diagonal symmetry, as might have been assumed intuitively.
For the rough-based foundation, the mechanism switches to a
Prandtl-style, with a central wedge of soil moving down with the
foundation, as indicated in Fig. 14. In other respects, the mecha-
nism is similar to that for the smooth-based foundation, except
that there is a constraint on one of the angles, since the depth of
point T below the foundation is equal to c cot ␤1 and also
b cot ␤2.
It may be shown that the upper bound bearing factor is given
by

Nc = 2共␣2 + ␤2兲 + cot ␣2 + cot ␤2 +

c
2a
冋
␣1 + ␤1 + 冋冉 冊
c
b
共␣1 + ␤1

+ cot ␣1兲 + ␣2 + ␤2 + cot ␣2 册冑 1+

b2
c sin2 ␤2
2 + cot ␤1

− 3共␣2 + ␤2兲 − 2 cot ␣2 − cot ␤2 册

The optimal parameters for a square foundation are given in Table
5, resulting in a bearing factor of Nc = 6.41. Upper bound values
of Nc for rectangular foundations of aspect ratio, b / a, are shown
in Fig. 15 for smooth- and rough-based conditions.

References

Cox, A. D., Eason, G., and Hopkins, H. G. 共1961兲. “Axially symmetric

Fig. 14. Corresponding mechanism for rough-based rectangular
foundation: 共a兲 overall schematic; 共b兲 plan and elevation views
plastic deformation in soils.” Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A, 254, 1–45.
De Beer, E. E. 共1970兲. “Experimental determination of the shape factor
and the bearing capacity factors for sand.” Geotechnique, 20共4兲,
387–411.
Gourvenec, S. M., and Randolph, M. R. 共2003兲. “Effect of strength non-
homogeneity on the shape and failure envelopes for combined loading
of strip and circular foundations on clay.” Geotechnique, 53共6兲, 575–
586.
Hansen, B. J. 共1970兲. “A revised and extended formula for bearing ca-

156 / INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2006

 pacity.” Bulletin 28, Danish Geotechnical Institute Copenhagen,
Denmark.
Hibbit, Karlsson and Sorensen, Inc. 共HKS兲. 共2002兲. ABAQUS users’
manual, version 6.1.
Itasca Consulting Group 共1997兲. FLAC3D users’ manual, Minneapolis.
Kusakabe, O., Susuki, H., and Nakase, A. 共1986兲. “An upper bound cal-
culation on bearing capacity of a circular footing on a nonhomoge-
neous clay.” Soils Found., 26共3兲, 143–148.
Levin, E. 共1955兲. “Indentation pressure of a smooth circular punch.” Q.
Appl. Math., 13共2兲, 133–137.
Michalowski, R. L. 共2001兲. “Upper bound load estimates on square and
rectangular footings.” Geotechnique, 51共9兲, 787–798.
Micahlowski, R. L., and Dawson, E. M. 共2002兲. “Three-dimensional
analysis of limit loads on Mohr–Coulomb soil.” Foundations of civil
and environmental engineering, Vol. 1, Poznan University of Technol-
ogy Press, Poland, 37–147.
Prandtl, L. 共1921兲. “Eindringungsfestigkeit und festigkeit von schneiden.”
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2006 / 157
Angew. Math. U. Mech, 1:15–20.
Randolph, M. F. 共2000兲. “Effect of strength anisotropy on capacity of
foundations.” Proc., Booker Memorial Symp., Sydney, Australia,
313–328.
Salgado, R., Lyamin, A. V., Sloan, S. W., and Yu, H. S. 共2004兲. “Two-
and three-dimensional bearing capacity of foundations in clay.” Geo-
technique, 54共5兲, 297–306.
Shield, R. T., and Drucker, D. C. 共1953兲. “The application of limit analy-
sis to punch indentation problems.” J. Appl. Mech., 20, 453–460.
Skempton, A. W. 共1951兲. “The bearing capacity of clays.” Proc., Building
and Research Congress, Vol. 1, London, 180–189.
Taiebat, H. A. 共2005兲. “Effects of flow rules on the prediction of Tresca
model.” submitted to Geotechnique.
Taiebat, H. A., and Carter, J. P. 共2000兲. “Numerical studies of the bearing
capacity of shallow foundations on cohesive soil subjected to com-
bined loading.” Geotechnique, 50共4兲, 409–418.
Terzaghi, K. 共1943兲. Theoretical soil mechanics, Wiley, New York.