GSP 171 Advances in Shallow Foundations

A Simple Bearing Capacity Equation

Sherif Elfass1, Gary Norris2 and Panchaligam Vimalaraj3
1
Research Assistant Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, University of
Nevada, Reno, MS 258, Reno NV 89557, Tel: 775-784-6664, elfass@unr.edu
2
Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno, MS 258,
Reno NV 89557, Tel: 775-784-6835, norris@unr.edu
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM on 10/02/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

3
Graduate Assistant, Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno,
MS 258, Reno NV 89557, Tel: 775-784-4215, vimalara@unr.nevada.edu

ABSTRACT

The bearing capacity of a shallow foundation is usually assessed by applying various

correction factors to the classical three-term bearing capacity equation. Correction
factors are typically included to account for foundation shape and embedment, load
inclination and eccentricity, and the inclination of the foundation base. However, the
bearing capacity depends on the evaluation of the bearing capacity factors N , q and
Nc, which differ depending on the source consulted (e.g., Terzaghi, Meyerhof,
Hansen or Vesic). Unfortunately, there have been very few full scale tests that have
documented the accuracy of such equations causing considerable uncertainty in the
mind of the practicing engineer. In addition, complicating factors lead to confusion
regarding the meaning and application of the assessed bearing capacity. Such factors
include the choice of total or effective stress strength parameters, the use of direct
shear, triaxial or plane strain friction angle for cohesionless material, the effect of
confining pressure variation in different zones of the failure mass on the friction
angle, and the effect of apparent cohesion, particularly in the interpretation of plate
load test results. The following paper provides discussion and illustration of these
various matters, including the introduction of a simple bearing capacity equation that
can also a yield load-settlement response.

INTRODUCTION

The bearing capacity of a shallow strip foundation on a c- soil is typically assessed

based on a bearing capacity equation composed of three terms. These terms reflect
the pressure over a depth associated with foundation width, B, and embedment depth,
D, and, separately, the existence of cohesion, c. Each term has its own bearing
capacity factor (N , q and Nc) which is a function of the friction angle, . While
there is agreement on the basic nature of the bearing capacity equation, differences
exist regarding the functional form of the classical bearing capacity factors of
Terzaghi (T), Meyerhof (M), Hansen (H) and Vesic (V). While M, H, and V agree on
q and Nc, they differ on N . The Army Corps of Engineers (republished by ASCE
1993) provides a comprehensive listing of the T, M, H, and V expressions for N , q
and Nc and associated correction factors for foundation shape, strength of the failure
surface over embedment depth D, load inclination and eccentricity, and the
inclination of the foundation base. While such correction factors vary from one term
to another, they also vary from one source (T, M, H and V) to another. For example,
T only provides correction for shape, while M provides correction for shape, depth,

Copyright ASCE 2007 Geo-Denver 2007: New Peaks in Geotechnics

Advances in Shallow Foundations
 GSP 171 Advances in Shallow Foundations

inclination and eccentricity, and H and V provide correction for all effects. The
resulting classical bearing capacity equation is a combination of theoretical bearing
capacity factors and semi-empirical correction factors, the latter, based on lab scale
model tests, where B is usually less than 12 inches. Only a few field tests with more
realistic values of B have been fully documented in the literature (see Bowles 1996).
Furthermore, most other documented published field tests (e.g. Briaud and Gibbins
1994) have been terminated at some arbitrarily determined “failure” criterion based
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM on 10/02/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

on deflection, rather than being carried to “true” ultimate soil failure where no
additional load carrying capacity is observed, regardless of the deflection.
However, even with a factor of safety of three applied to the computed
bearing capacity, the pressure to limit settlement almost always governs the design of
footings. Hence, engineers have been content to accept the differences in capacity
computed by the different methods. Further, engineers are unlikely to accept the
exponential rise in bearing capacity factors for values of friction angle above 40o.
To account for local or punching failure observed in lab tests (but not
necessarily in field tests), Terzaghi (in Bowles 1996) suggested using reduced values
of c and (i.e. 2/3 of the original cohesion c and a friction angle having a slope 2/3 of
the tangent of the original ), which is likely to be too conservative. Vesic (in Das
1998 and Murthy 2003) suggested using a different correction factor for each term of
the bearing capacity equation accounting for the soil’s compressibility at pressures
corresponding to that of field conditions. Others (in Bowles 1996) have suggested
corrections amounting to the same effect attributed to foundation size/scale and/or the
curved nature of the Mohr Coulomb envelope (i.e., the diminishing at higher
pressures). Vesic (in Das 1998 and Murthy 2003) presents results from his cavity
expansion solution to assess compressibility reduction factors.
However, adoption (in the case of footings of greater length to width ratio on
higher strength sands) of this large and unproven latter correction has led to situations
that the capacity divided by a typical factor of safety (i.e. the safe bearing pressure) is
lower than that to cause a permissible settlement. In the past, the allowable pressure
(the lower of the safe versus the pressure to cause a permissible settlement) has
always been the pressure to cause the specified value of permissible settlement,
except for footings of unacceptably narrow dimension. This development makes the
issue of the accuracy of the bearing capacity calculations more important.
This paper deals specifically with the bearing capacity of a c- soil
corresponding to the drained behavior of all soils and short term or undrained
behavior of an unsaturated soil. The capacity for undrained response of saturated
cohesive soils ( =0) is usually handled by factors ( q=1 and N =0) and corrections
that are not necessarily consistent with the c- expressions in which =0. Note that
there may even be an “apparent cohesion”, c, for a cohesionless soil under in situ
moisture conditions due to capillary tension / soil suction. This would show up in the
Mohr-Coulomb envelope established from direct shear or triaxial tests undertaken at
the in situ moisture condition. Such apparent cohesion would disappear if the soil
were flooded before being sheared.
At the same time, the profession has taken note that based on the use of the
same triaxial test friction angle, , the computed ultimate bearing capacity of a
square/circular foundation is larger than that of a long/strip foundation of the same

Copyright ASCE 2007 Geo-Denver 2007: New Peaks in Geotechnics

Advances in Shallow Foundations
 GSP 171 Advances in Shallow Foundations

width B, despite limited experimental evidence which shows the opposite to be true
(Bowles 1996). This has led to the suggestion that the plane strain friction angle is
the most appropriate value to use for a strip foundation. It has been suggested by
Meyerhof (in Bowles 1988) that such a plane strain angle, ps, be taken as 1.1 times
the triaxial value, tr. Using this approximation then causes the calculated capacity of
a strip foundation to surpass that of the square/circular footing of the same width.
This situation is further exasperated by the lack of field test evidence with
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM on 10/02/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

which to compare, and the arbitrary definition of “failure” rather than the attainment
of a “true” ultimate capacity (condition with no greater load carrying capacity) in
tests that have been run. After all, geotechnical engineers assess the factor of safety
against slope stability failure based on the same limit equilibrium concepts assuming
failure corresponds to some catastrophic movement, not some arbitrarily small value
dictated by the limit of travel of a dial gage used to measure such movements in a lab
or field test.
Ideally, what is needed is a means for assessing pressure versus settlement so
that it might be examined and “failure” defined from such evaluation based on
whatever the user would like to employ as a criteria of failure (e.g., 1 inch of
settlement, a settlement of 10% of the foundation width, a specified tangent slope to
the pressure-settlement curve, an offset secant slope intercept, etc.). Such evaluation
should be calibrated against whatever load-settlement test behavior can be found in
the literature or obtained anew. The following is an attempt to provide a simple
pressure-settlement-capacity response evaluation of a footing in uniform cohesionless
or partially saturated cohesive soils based on basic soil input information. Predictions
of the resulting equation are shown to be as accurate as or better than those of the
classical bearing capacity equations relative to readily available results.

PROPOSED SIMPLE BEARING CAPACITY EQUATION

With reference to Fig. 1, consider the mobilized bearing pressure based on the
response of average elements at a depth (0.5Btan m) below foundation level or
(D+0.5Btan m) below ground surface in zones or wedges that transition from high
pressure (qult+0.5 tan m y) under the foundation in wedge/zone III to a value
reflective of the free-field pressure Po=D x+0.5 tan m y at depth (D+0.5Btan m) in
wedge/zone I. When the mobilized friction angle reaches failure ( m= ) the bearing
pressure becomes the ultimate bearing capacity. Note that m (to be evaluated later)
is the corner angle of wedge/zone III that Terzaghi (in Bowles 1998) assumes is equal
to the friction angle of the soil; while Meyerhof, Hansen and Vesic consider it to be
45+ /2. Two Mohr circles for wedges/zones I and III have been drawn, and a dashed
circle added to represent the range in gradual transition in stress state occurring in the
radial shear zone (II) between the stress states/circles of zones I and III. The authors
use a distance between the upper end of circle I (Ph) and the lower end of circle III ( =
Phtan2 m + 2cmtan m), equal to a dashed circle coincident with the ends of circles I
and III and tangent to the same envelope as circles I and III.

Copyright ASCE 2007 Geo-Denver 2007: New Peaks in Geotechnics

Advances in Shallow Foundations
 GSP 171 Advances in Shallow Foundations

qnet

qult at
Failure

x D x D
f
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM on 10/02/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Po=D x+1/2Btan m y m
m 1/2Btan m
Zone III
y Zone II
Zone I

m qult+1/2Btan m y
m=45+ m/2 Log Spiral
f=45+ /2 at failure
m= at failure

Circle III

shifted origin Circle II

c Circle I Phtan2 m+2cmtan m

Ph (from O)

O’ O Ph (from O’) Phtan2 m Pressure

cm / tan m
c / tan
Po=D x+1/2Btan m y

qnet = qult - D x
P*o= c / tan
+ D x+1/2Btan m y

c / tan + (qult+1/2Btan m y)

FIGURE 1: -Method Model of Shallow Foundation

For circle I, the minor principle stress is known and is equal to the vertical stress Po
(= D x+0.5 tan m y ). At a given mobilized state, the major principle stress can be
found based on geometry and knowing the mobilized friction angle ( m) as follows
(see Fig. 1)

Ph = Potan2 m + 2cmtan m ; m= 45+ m/2 ; Po = D x+0.5 tan m y (1)

where Po is the apparent effective stress (overburden pressure – static porewater

pressure) based on values of unit weight of the soil, x, over embedment depth, D, and
y over depth B tan m below the foundation base taken equal to the total unit weight
( ) or buoyant unit weight ( ’) of the soil depending on the position of the
groundwater table (GWT). ( x = y = ’ if the GWT is at soil surface; x = , y = ’ if
the GWT is at foundation base or depth D, and x = y = if the GWT is a depth
D+Btan m below foundation base).
Since the present discussion is for a c- soil, one can argue that c is an
apparent cohesion, the result of capillary tension /soil suction generated by the water
content of the in situ soil. Therefore, at depth (D+0.5Btan m) in zone I, one can treat
the effective stress in the soil as if it were a value Po* where

Po* = cm/tan m + D x + 0.5 B tan m y or cm/tan m + Po (2a)

Copyright ASCE 2007 Geo-Denver 2007: New Peaks in Geotechnics

Advances in Shallow Foundations
 GSP 171 Advances in Shallow Foundations

in which cm/tan m = c/tan so that

Po* = c/tan + D x + 0.5 B tan m y
= c/tan + Po (2b)

The term c/tan is the equivalent effective stress increase that such soil suction
causes. Using Po* as the modified effective stress is equivalent to moving the origin
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM on 10/02/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

of the Mohr-Coulomb figure from point O to point O’ (see Fig. 1).

Note that the Mohr-Coulomb strength parameters correspond to an ever
changing mobilized condition (cm and m) that reflects the mobilized cohesion, cm =
tan m(c/tan ) and friction angle, m (the constant volume value, cv, plus the added
dilatant component m appropriate at the associated value of stress and strain). The
exact association between m and the volumetric strain rate d v/d 1 at the
corresponding stress level (SL) or major principal strain 1 has recently been
established (Yang 2006). Therefore, using a mobilized m is really a limit
equilibrium solution for the specific (SL or 1 dependent) dilatant considered value of
(i.e. m = cv + m ).
Circle II is only an empirical spacer that, as we will see later, yields a
mobilized foundation pressure that can be tied to settlement, all the way up to
complete soil failure (true capacity). Accordingly, based on purely frictional
resistance in association with the origin at O’, one can express vertical stress in the
average element in zone III, (qult+0.5 B tan m y + c/tan ), at failure as

(qult+ 0.5 B tan m y + c/tan ) = Po*tan6 f ; f=45+ /2 (3a)

from which it follows that

qult = 0.5 B tan m yN + D xNq + cNc (3b)

where
N = Nq 1 (3c)
Nc = (Nq 1)/tan (3d)
provided
Nq = tan6 f (3e)

Note that the power, ‘6’, corresponds to the ratio of the pressure of the upper
end of circle III to that of the lower end of circle I for the three circles tangent to the
same mobilized friction ( m) envelope relative to the shifted axis with origin at O’
(see Fig. 1).
Equation 3d is the same as the M, H and V equations while Eq. 3c is the same
as the M and H equations though based on a different expression for Nq (than Eq. 3e).
Equation 3e is an expression for Nq that does not give the exponential rise that the
classical expressions do for angles greater than 40o.
Note that it is often the net ultimate bearing capacity, qnet, rather than qult that
engineers are more interested in. Net ultimate bearing capacity is that part of qult (in

Copyright ASCE 2007 Geo-Denver 2007: New Peaks in Geotechnics

Advances in Shallow Foundations
 GSP 171 Advances in Shallow Foundations

excess of the effective overburden pressure at foundation base, D x) that is available

for new structural load, i.e.

qnet = qult D x (4)

as shown schematically in Fig. 1, whereby

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM on 10/02/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

qnet = 0.5 B tan m y(Nq 1) + D x(Nq 1) + c(Nq 1)/tan

or (5)
qnet = Po*(Nq 1) ; Nq = tan 6
f ; f = 45+ /2

Based on Eq. 5, there is only one bearing capacity factor with which to
contend. While the exponent of 6 might very well be allowed to increase with
above 40o to better match classical values of Nq, the present form compensates for the
greater compressibility of the soil above 40o without the need to introduce Vesic’s
compressibility factors.
One other benefit of Eq. 5 is that it can be shown diagrammatically to be the
horizontal distance (a normal stress) between the lower end of circle I and the upper
end of circle III (Fig. 1). In fact, we can picture the ratio of qnet based on the fully
mobilized to the net working pressure (the applied or mobilized value) or (qnet)m
based on a mobilized m which is the factor of safety, Fbrg, against bearing capacity
failure. See Fig. 2. Therefore, one can assess m from

Fbrg = (tan6 f 1) / (tan6 m 1) ; m = 45+ m/2 (6)

f = 45+ /2
for a specified value of Fbrg.

qnet
FOS=
(qnet)m
m

As with Fig. 1, Fig. 2

c assumes that all three
cm
circles tangent to a m
O’
envelope represent
soils in the three
zones at the same
(qnet)m
stress level.
qnet

FIGURE 2: Ultimate Versus Mobilized Conditions

The reciprocal of Fbrg can be considered the corresponding pressure level, PL, of
loading , i.e.

PL = (qnet) m / qnet (7)

for which we have the mobilized m.

Copyright ASCE 2007 Geo-Denver 2007: New Peaks in Geotechnics

Advances in Shallow Foundations
 GSP 171 Advances in Shallow Foundations

In turn, one could then assess the corresponding factor of safety expressed in terms of
shear strength divided by the mobilized shear stress, i.e.

Fstrength = tan / tan m (8)

Furthermore, if compressibility were not already empirically considered via

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM on 10/02/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the use of the exponent 6 in Eq. 3e, it could be introduced by using the appropriate
secant for each successive Mohr circle starting at I for Po* (minor principal stress
’3I of circle I), using Po* to calculate the upper end of circle I (i.e. Po* tan2 f) which
is the lower end ( ’3II) of circle II for which a II for this new pressure ( ’3II) is
obtained knowing the log cycle decrement in friction angle with pressure. This would
then be repeated to obtain the upper end of circle II/lower end of circle III, from
which a III is then assessed and used to calculate the upper end of circle III. Then
qnet is the difference between this upper end of circle III and Po*. This approach has
been used by the authors (Elfass and Norris 2001) relative to assessing pile tip
capacity in sand for which the greater depth means that the coefficient 6 that is related
to the number of shear zones is increased (to 7.5 corresponding to 3.75 circles).
Given that there is only one bearing capacity factor (tan6 f ), it would seem
that one set of correction factors, not three, should suffice to introduce effects of other
variables. There should not be a different correction factor for different components
of the same effective confining pressure expressed in Po*. Separately, strength of the
shear surface over the embedment depth can be handled knowing the length f of
wedge I (in Fig. 1) times two, plus length L, times depth D, times an average vertical
stress at D/2, times ko, times tangent of a direct shear friction angle ds, divided by
(BL) as an added component of qnet.
Equation 5 reflects the bearing capacity of a footing of dimensions B by L. In
the authors’ opinion, it is only and nothing else that should be employed to account
for the effect of foundation shape (ie. B/L). As per Meyerhof’s suggestion (in Bowles
1988), we take the appropriate friction angle to use in Eq. 5 to be

= tr (1.1 – 0.1 B/L) (9)

The ultimate capacity (if so desired) can then be assessed as

qult = qnet + D x (10)

The advantage of Eqs. 9, 2b, 5 and 10 (with modification for strength along
the failure surface over embedment depth D mentioned above) is its simplicity,
provided, of course, that it yields reasonable results.

STRESS-STRAIN-DEFORMATION CHARACTERIZATION

Originally, tan m in Eqs. 2b and 5 was taken equal to unity by the authors
corresponding to average elements in zones I and III at a depth of (D + 0.5B) in
which components D and 0.5B are in keeping with the separate terms of the classical

Copyright ASCE 2007 Geo-Denver 2007: New Peaks in Geotechnics

Advances in Shallow Foundations
 GSP 171 Advances in Shallow Foundations

bearing capacity equation. However, given the desire to develop an evaluation of

load-settlement response up to and including failure (“true” capacity), tan m was
introduced in the term involving 0.5B with the intent of evaluating m as a function of
m . Using the Schmertmann stress triangle (equal to deviatoric stress, if Poisson’s
ratio =0.5) converted to a strain triangle (in Norris 1994) with its peak at 0.5B for a
square or circular foundation of B/L = 1 (or at B for a strip foundation of B/L = 0),
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM on 10/02/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the immediate settlement (the area of the strain triangle = 1B for B/L = 1) of the
foundation above zone III can be assessed knowing the strain 1 in zone III
corresponding to the deviator stress (the diameter of circle III in Fig.1 associated with
mobilized friction angle m) from a triaxial test at confining pressure ’3III (=
Po*tan4 m) at stress level SL = (tan2 m -1)/ (tan2 f -1), where 1 can be assessed as a
function of SL as

1 = (SL e 3.71 SL 50)/ (12)

50 is
the strain at SL = 0.50 or 50%. Details of such stress-strain-strength
formulation are given elsewhere (Norris 1994 and Ashour and Norris 1999). Note
that as the net mobilized pressure increases, pressure q(net)m = Po*( tan6 m 1)
increases, m increases, as does ’3III (= Po*tan4 m).

CALIBRATION OF m BASED ON LOAD-SETTLEMENT RESPONSE

FROM TEXAS A&M TESTS

Using the evaluation procedure discussed above, the pressure-settlement response for
the five foundation tests (Briaud 1994) performed at Texas A&M were analyzed,
allowing m (taken as a function of m) to be found that yields the best fit with all five
tests taken together (see Fig. 3). Accordingly, m = 0.872 m was adopted. (This
compares with Terzaghi who considered this corner angle of wedge III to be at
failure, and, as the authors would assume, m under mobilized conditions.)

Load (kN)
0 2500 5000 7500 10000 12500 15000 17500
0
With m=0.872 m, 4
50
of the 5 tests are well
100 represented by the
150 predicted response.
Settlem ent(m m )

200
Test 4 conditions are
the same as 5,
250
therefore, the
300 predicted responses’
Predicted-1 M easured-1
350 Predicted-2 M easured-2 are the same, though
400
Predicted-3 M easured-3 observed are different.
Predicted-4 M easured-4
450 Predicted-5 M easured-5

500

FIGURE 3: Texas A&M Tests with Added Predicted Response

Copyright ASCE 2007 Geo-Denver 2007: New Peaks in Geotechnics

Advances in Shallow Foundations
 GSP 171 Advances in Shallow Foundations

COMPARISON WITH MILOVI AND MUHS EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

(AFTER BOWLES)

Table 1 is a summary of eight load tests with supporting soil data from Milovi and
Muhs as reported by Bowles (1996). Bowles computed qult using five different
methods. He used a plane strain ( ps = 1.5 tr – 17) for tests where B/L < 1. The
authors’ used Eq. 10 based on Eqs. 9, 2b and 5. Comparing the computed qult to the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM on 10/02/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

measured values indicates that the authors’ proposed method shows significant
advantage over all of the other methods in terms of best prediction for all of the
rectangular footings and two of the four square footings.

TABLE 1: Comparison of computed theoretical capacities and Milovi ’s and

Muh’s experimental values (Modified from Bowles, 1996)

Bearing- Test
capacity
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
method
D = 0.0 m 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.3
B = 0.5 m 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71
L = 2.0 m 2.0 2.0 1.0 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71
= 15.69
16.38 17.06 17.06 17.65 17.65 17.06 17.06
kN/m3
= 37o 35.5 38.5
38.5 22 25 20 20
(38.5o) (36.25) (40.75)
c = 6.37
3.92 7.8 7.8 12.75 14.7 9.8 9.8
kPa
Milovi qult = 4.1
5.5 2.2 2.6
(tests) kg/cm2
Muhs qult = 10.8
12.2 24.2 33.0
(tests) kg/cm2
Terzaghi qult = 9.4 9.2 22.9 19.7 4.3* 6.5 2.5 2.9
Meyerhof 8.2 10.3 26.4 28.4 4.8 7.6 2.3 3.0
Hansen 7.2 9.8 23.7 23.4 5.0 8.0 2.2* 3.1
Vesi 8.1 10.4 25.1 24.7 5.1 8.2 2.3 3.2
Balla 14.0 15.3 35.8 33.0* 6.0 9.2 2.6 3.8
-Method 10.5* 12.6* 24.6* 17.9 3.7 5.5* 2.0 2.4*

Notes:
1. = triaxial value ( ) = value adjusted as ps = 1.5 tr - 17, except for f-
wedges, adjusted as ps = (1.1 – 0.1 B/L) tr
2. Values to the nearest 0.1
3. , c converted from given units to above values
4. * = best f-wedges = 5; Terzaghi = 1; Hansen and Balla = 1 each; Vesic
and Meyerhof = 0

Copyright ASCE 2007 Geo-Denver 2007: New Peaks in Geotechnics

Advances in Shallow Foundations
 GSP 171 Advances in Shallow Foundations

CONCLUSION

The paper has briefly reviewed the current state of practice relative to bearing
capacity calculation. A new approach for calculating the ultimate bearing capacity of
shallow foundations is presented. The new method, called the -Method, provides a
very simple one-term equation, rather than the classic three-terms, for calculating qnet
(qult = qnet + D x). As shown from the preliminary comparisons, the proposed method
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM on 10/02/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

provides good agreement with readily available experimental results. A significant

advantage of the proposed method is that it can be represented graphically in terms of
Mohr circles (Fig. 1) and be used to calculate load-settlement behavior up to and
including (“true”) capacity (i.e. complete soil failure). Work relative to extending the
proposed methodology to deal with layered soil, inclination of load and eccentricity is
ongoing.

REFERENCES

Ashour, M. and Norris, G., 1999, “Liquefaction and Undrained Response Evaluation
from Drained Formulation,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 125, No. 8, pp649 – 658.
ASCE, 1993, “Bearing Capacity of Soils,” Technical Engineering and Design Guides
As Adopted from The US Army Corps of Engineers, No. 7, ASCE Press.
Bolton, M.D., 1986, “The Strength and Dilatancy of Sands,” Geotechnique, Vol. 36,
No. 1, pp. 65-78.
Bowles, J. E., 1988, “Foundation Analysis and Design,” Fourth Edition, McGraw-
Hill Companies, Inc. New York.
Bowles, J. E., 1996, “Foundation Analysis and Design,” Fifth Edition, McGraw-Hill
Companies, Inc. New York.
Briaud, J. and Gibbens, R., 1994, “Predicted and Measured Behavior of Five Spread
Footings on Sand,” Proceeding s of a prediction Symposium Sponsored by Federal
Highway Administration at the Occasion of the Settlement ’94 ASCE Conference at
Texas University.
Das, B. M, 1998, “Principles of Foundation Engineering,” Fourth Edition,
Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, California.
Elfass, S., and Norris, G., 2001, “A New Look into the Pile Tip Resistance in Sand,”
36th Engineering Geology and Geotechnical Engineering Symposium, pp. 629-
637.
Murthy, V.N.S., 2003, “Geotechnical Engineering: Principles and Practices of Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,” Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York.
Norris, G.M., 1994, "Seismic Bridge Pile Foundation Behavior," S-O-A paper,
Proceedings International Conference on Design and Construction of Deep
Foundations, FHWA, Orlando, Vol. 1, pp. 27-136.
Yang, Horng-Jyh, 2006, “Extension/Compression Test Stress-Strain-Volume Change
Characterization under Drained Conditions”, PhD. thesis, University of Nevada,
Reno.

Copyright ASCE 2007 Geo-Denver 2007: New Peaks in Geotechnics

Advances in Shallow Foundations