HOSTED BY Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Soils and Foundations 62 (2022) 101125
www.elsevier.com/locate/sandf

Technical Paper

Failure surface for shallow foundations in sand using a classical

bearing capacity
Hiroyoshi Hirai
Applied Geotechnical Institute, Inc., Oizumi, Hokuto, Yamanashi 409-1502, Japan

Received 21 April 2021; received in revised form 2 February 2022; accepted 10 February 2022
Available online 14 March 2022

Abstract

Much effort has been made to elucidate the ultimate capacity of shallow foundations under the general cases of vertical (V), lateral
(H), and moment (M) loads in soils. The nature of the dependency of the ultimate capacity of shallow foundations on the combination of
V, H, and M loads, the ratio of embedment to diameter, and soil properties has has not yet been analytically revealed. In this paper, an
analytical investigation into failure effect of V, H, and M loads applied to shallow foundations in nonhomogeneous sand is made using a
classical bearing capacity theory. Of the bearing capacity equations proposed thus far, the most appropriate bearing capacity equation
which can predict experimental results of shallow foundations in sand is presented. A no-tension interface between a foundation base and
a soil and an effective diameter of the foundation are used to analyze the base failure produced by the vertical stress of the soil below the
foundation base when vertical and moment loads are applied. For shallow foundations with various embedment ratios in sand under the
two different loading ways, the displacement-load curves and failure envelopes in the H-M, H-V, and M
V planes and in the H-M
V
space are presented. For failure envelopes in the H-M plane under a constant vertical load for shallow foundations in sand, the results
obtained from experiments are well predicted by the present method.
Ó 2021 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of The Japanese Geotechnical Society. This is an open access article under the CC BY-
NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Keywords: Bearing capacity; Combined loading; Failure surface; Sand; Shallow foundations

1. Introduction e.g., Yun and Bransby (2007), Achmus et al. (2013),

According to International Geotechnical Classification
(IGC) System, foundations are classified into shallow and
deep foundations. Both shallow and deep foundations are
used to enable many structures to transfer vertical and lat-
eral loads to the ground safely. For shallow foundations
subjected to vertical, lateral, and moment loads simultane-
ously, there is little literature available describing the influ-
ence of the vertical load on the lateral behavior. The
interaction among vertical, lateral, and moment responses
of shallow foundations in soils has been elucidated through
analytical and numerical methods as well as experiments;
Peer review under responsibility of The Japanese Geotechnical Society.
E-mail address: ojiken@eps4.comlink.ne.jp
Hung and Kim (2014), Zhu et a. (2014), Shen et al.
(2016), and Hirai (2020).
In the currently practiced design of shallow foundations,
the interaction effect produced by vertical and lateral loads
is ignored. The deformation of shallow foundations under
combined loading is calculated separately, with the vertical
displacement obtained from the vertical load and the lat-
eral displacement and rotation caused by horizontal and
moment loads. For piles, the characteristics of behavior
under inclined compressive loads consisting of vertical
and lateral loads have been investigated by several
researchers. However, the literature available for this
research is limited due to the complexity involved in the
analysis of piles subjected to inclined compressive loads,
e.g., Meyerhof and Sastry (1985), Sastry and Meyerhof

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2022.101125
0038-0806/Ó 2021 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of The Japanese Geotechnical Society.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
 H. Hirai
(1990), Karthigeyan et al. (2006, 2007), Achmus and
Thieken (2010), and Hazzar et al. (2017).
For the solution of bearing capacity of a strip footing on
clay to general cases of vertical, lateral, and moment load-
ing, it is known that no exact solution can be found, and
indeed no unique solution has been unproven. Further-
more, an assumption that the contact between a founda-
tion and a clay is unable to sustain tension complicates
the solution of problems for foundations under general
loading. For the normality of the associated flow-rule
where the plastic potential is the same function as the yield
surface, Houlsby and Puzrin (1999) reported that a no-
tension interface cannot be properly described by a plastic-
ity model with the normality, and neither the upper nor
lower-bound theorems are valid when a plasticity model
violates the normality. Thus, since a clay is often modeled
as a linear elastic-perfectly plastic material obeying the
Tresca failure criterion with both the associated flow-rule
and unlimited tensile strength, most of the numerical anal-
yses conducted by means of FEM (finite element method)
for shallow foundations in the clay do not adopt a no-
tension interface between the base and the soil, e.g.,
Taiebat and Carter (2000), Gourvenec (2008), and
Gourvenec and Barnett (2011).
Conventional analytical closed-form solutions for the
problem of the failure of a strip foundation on undrained
clay subjected to combined vertical, lateral and moment
loading were provided by Meyerhof (1953) and Hansen
(1961), considering a no-tension interface between the foot-
ing and the soil. Using a semi-analytical approach in FEM
and a no-tension element for a circular footing on cohesive
soils, Taiebat and Carter (2010) reported that the failure
surface obtained using a no-tension interface is consider-
ably different from that given by using unlimited tensile
strength.
In contrast to clay, an analytical closed-form solution
for the problem of failure of a strip foundation on sand
subjected to combined vertical, lateral and moment loading
has not yet been proposed. This may be because the char-
acteristics of the behavior of sand are dependent on the
surrounding stress, e.g., the effective vertical overburden
pressure and the in-situ earth pressure at rest. Using hard-
ening plasticity models where associated and non-
associated flow rules were adopted, Gottardi et al. (1999),
Houlsby and Cassidy (2002), Villalobos et al. (2009),
Ibsen et al. (2014a, b), and Fiumana et al. (2019) investi-
gated the yield surface and the plastic potential related to
the plastic displacements including rotation for shallow
foundations on sand.
The nature of the dependency of the ultimate capacity
and the deformation up to failure of shallow foundations
on the combination of the vertical, lateral, and moment
loads, the ratio of embedment to diameter, and soil prop-
erties has yet to be analytically revealed. In this study, an
analytical investigation into interaction between vertical,
lateral, and moment loads applied to shallow foundations
2
Soils and Foundations 62 (2022) 101125
in nonhomogeneous sand is made using a classical bearing
capacity theory. Among the bearing capacity equations
proposed to date, the most appropriate bearing capacity
equation capable of predicting experimental results of shal-
low foundations in sand is investigated. The vertical load is
specified in the following two different ways: (1) The verti-
cal load is applied first and then lateral and moment loads
are applied. (2) The vertical, lateral, and moment loads are
applied simultaneously. A no-tension interface between a
foundation base and a soil and an effective diameter of
the foundation are used to analyze the base failure pro-
duced by the vertical stress of the soil below the foundation
base. For failure envelopes in the H-M plane under a con-
stant vertical load for shallow foundations in sand, the
results predicted by the present method are compared with
those obtained from experiments. For shallow foundations
with various embedment ratios in sand under general load-
ing, the displacement-load curves and failure envelopes in
the H-M, H-V, and M
V planes and in the H-M
V space
are presented.
The author referred to a shallow foundation investi-
gated now as a suction caisson presented before in Hirai
(2017b). Because a soil plug within a suction caisson is
assumed to be a trapped soil, the ultimate vertical capacity
of the suction caisson under vertical compressive loads can
be determined by summing up two components of the end-
bearing capacity on the base and the vertical yield resis-
tance outside the skirt as well as the shallow foundation.
The determination of the ultimate lateral and moment
capacities under vertical compressive loads for the suction
caisson is the same as that for the shallow foundation.
Houlsby and Byrne (2005) addressed caisson foundations
which have typical diameters and skirt depths adopted
for various projects. Although a caisson foundation is used
either as a shallow foundation or as a suction anchor, sep-
arate calculations are necessary to assess the capacity of the
caisson once installed either as a shallow foundation or as a
suction anchor. The shallow foundation used in this paper
specifies a foundation whose depth is relatively small com-
pared to the diameter. The depth factor in a classical bear-
ing capacity presented by Meyerhof (1963) is suggested for
depths less than the diameter of the foundation. Conse-
quently, it is postulated in this study that analyses of a shal-
low foundation known widely are the same as those of a
suction caisson under vertical compressive loads. The use
for the terminology for shallow foundations is found in
Ibsen et al. (2014a) and Govoni (2018).
Since analytical procedures for shallow foundations sub-
jected to vertical, lateral, and moment loads in soils have
been investigated and published (Hirai, 2017b, 2020), only
new and modified equations are shown below. As with the
hypothesis of a no-tension interface adopted by Houlsby
and Puzrin (1999), one of the important hypotheses in this
study is that the contact between the base and the soil is
assumed to be perfectly bonded in shear, but with no ten-
sile strength.
 H. Hirai Soils and Foundations 62 (2022) 101125

2. Lateral and vertical displacements dation subjected to both lateral and vertical force (traction)
increments, DPH and DPV, along the skirt may be written,
A typical cylindrical shallow foundation is shown in respectively as follows:
Fig. 1(a). The foundation has diameter B, embedment D,
DP H I HV DP V
thickness of lid tL, and thickness of skirt tS. An external Du ¼ þ ð1Þ
KH I VV K V
load applied on the top of the foundation is a combination
of vertical, lateral, and moment loads denoted as V, H, and I VH DP H DP V
Dw ¼ þ ð2Þ
M, respectively. The soil profile consists of the n layers of I HH K H KV
nonhomogeneous soil that has the elastic moduli of
Young’s modulus ESm and Poisson’s ratio mSm in the mth where the lateral and vertical stiffness coefficients, KH
layer with length HSm. Particularly, mb denotes the mb-th and KV, along the skirt are expressed, respectively, as
layer below the foundation base. The rectangular Cartesian follows:
coordinate system (x, y, z) is such that the z-axis is normal K H ¼ ES =I HH ð3Þ
to the soil surface. The c is the depth coordinate of the
point where the vertical or lateral pressure, pV or pH, is K V ¼ pES =I VV ð4Þ
applied and the h is the depth coordinate of the point at where ES is Young’s modulus of the soil and the dis-
which the vertical or lateral displacement is calculated. placement factors IHV, IVV, IVH, and IHH are expressed as
Fig. 1(b) shows discretization in nonhomogeneous soil follows:
under vertical, lateral, and moment loads. Vm, Mm, and Z D Z p=2
Sm are vertical, moment, and shear forces, respectively, at I HV ¼ 2 I Rz sinwdw  dc ð5Þ
the top of the mth discretized element. The vertical and lat- 0 0
eral forces (tractions) along the mth discretized element are Z D Z p=2
denoted as PVm and PHm, respectively. I VV ¼ 2 I zz dw  dc ð6Þ
Hirai (2017a) presented three-dimensional displacement 0 0

solutions employing Mindlin’s solutions (1936) for a cylin- Z D Z p=4

drical pile subjected to vertical and lateral loads in nonho- I VH ¼ 2 I zx cosð2wÞdw  dc ð7Þ
0 0
mogeneous soil. According to Hirai’s solution, the lateral
Z Z
and vertical displacement increments, Du and Dw, at a D p=4

depth of the soil which is adjacent to the cylindrical foun- I HH ¼ 2 I xx cosð2wÞdw  dc ð8Þ
0 0

where IRz, Izz, Izx, and Ixx are Mindlin’s solutions (1936)
defined as follows:
ð1 þ mÞR Z 1 ð3
4mÞZ 1 4ð1
mÞð1
2mÞ
I Rz ¼ f þ

8pð1
mÞ D1 3 D2 3 D2 ðD2 þ z2 Þ
6chZ 2
þ g ð9Þ
D2 5
ð1 þ mÞ Z 1 2 ð3
4mÞ ð5
12m þ 8m2 Þ
I zz ¼ f þ þ
8pð1
mÞ D1 3 D1 D2
ð3
4mÞZ 2 2
2cZ 2 þ 2c2 6chZ 2 2
þ þ g ð10Þ
D2 3 D2 5
ð1 þ mÞX Z 1 ð3
4mÞZ 1 6chZ 2
I zx ¼ f 3þ

8pð1
mÞ D1 D2 3 D2 5
4ð1
mÞð1
2mÞ
þ g ð11Þ
D2 ðD2 þ z2 Þ
ð1 þ mÞ ð3
4mÞ 1 X 2 ð3
4mÞX 2
I xx ¼ ½ þ þ 3þ
8pð1
mÞ D1 D2 D1 D2 3
2ch 3X 2 4ð1
mÞð1
2mÞ
þ ð1
Þþ f1
D2 3
D2 2
D2 þ z2
X2

g ð12Þ
D2 ðD2 þ z2 Þ
Fig. 1. (a) A shallow foundation and (b) discretization in nonhomoge- where
meous soil under vertical, lateral and moment loads.
3
 H. Hirai
Z 1 ¼ h
c; Z 2 ¼ h þ c; R ¼ Bsinw; X ¼ Rsinw; D1 2
¼ R þ Z 1 ; D2 ¼ R þ Z 2
2 2 2 2 2
ð13Þ
where w is an angle shown in Fig. 1(b).
When no allowance is made for interaction effect on dis-
placements due to vertical and lateral forces in Eqs. (1) and
(2), the lateral and vertical displacement increments, DuH
and DwV, which are produced by the lateral and vertical
force increments, DPH and DPV, respectively, are repre-
sented as follows:
DP H
DuH ¼ ð14Þ
KH
DP V
DwV ¼ ð15Þ
KV
For the vertical and lateral displacements responding to
the vertical and lateral forces along skirt produced by the
vertical, lateral, and moment loads, the interaction rela-
tionship of the stiffness coefficients was shown in Eqs. (1)
and (2). Since the horizontal displacement and the rotation
of a shallow foundation can be represented by horizontal
and moment loads applied at the reference point on the
top of the foundation, this coupling stiffness was presented
by Hirai (2020).
3. Yield resistance along skirt
Considering the pile-soil shear strength presented by
Poulos and Davis (1980), the vertical yield resistance PVy(z)
for a cylindrical foundation in sand under a vertical force is
expressed as
P Vy ðzÞ ¼ pK S tandrz B
0
ð16Þ
where KS is the coefficient of lateral pressure; d is the
interface friction angle between the soil and the skirt; and
rʹz is an effective vertical overburden pressure.
Taking into account the equation proposed by Broms
(1964), the lateral yield resistance PHy(z) for a cylindrical
foundation in sand subjected to a lateral force may be rep-
resented as
0
P Hy ðzÞ ¼ xK p rz B ð17Þ
where x is a factor; and Kp is the coefficient of the Rank-
ine passive pressure defined as (1 + sinu)/(1
sinu) and u
is the angle of internal friction of sand.
Regarding the reduced values Ky for vertical and lateral
stiffness coefficients in post-yield, it was found from exper-
imental results of shallow foundations mentioned below
that it is reasonable to assume the modification factor
defined as Ky/K to be 0.001, where K is each stiffness in
pre-yield. Thus, the lateral and vertical stiffness coefficients,
KHy and KVy, for the soil along the skirt in post-yield are
assumed in the following forms, respectively:
K Hy ¼ 0:001K H ; K Vy ¼ 0:001K V ð18Þ
4
Soils and Foundations 62 (2022) 101125
4. Base response for failure
All loads acting on a shallow foundation are transferred
to the base. The vertical (V), lateral (H), and moment (M)
loads specified on the top of the shallow foundation are
transferred to the vertical (Vmb), lateral (Smb), and moment
(Mmb) forces on the base, respectively, as shown in Fig. 1.
It is assumed that the failure mechanisms for the soil below
the base are categorized into the two types of compression
and shear failures produced by vertical stress and shear
force, respectively. The compression failure of the soil
below the base is the state where the compressive vertical
stress rzc of the soil below the base reaches the ultimate
base resistance of the vertical stress rzu. The shear failure
of the soil below the base is the state in which the shear
force Smb of the soil below the base reaches the ultimate
base resistance of the shear force Su.
For sand, the ultimate base resistance of vertical stress
(bearing capacity) and that of shear force for a circular
foundation were conventionally written as follows (e.g.
Hansen, 1961):
0 0
rzu ¼ 0:5c Be N c sc d c ic þ rbz N q sq d q iq ð19Þ
0
S u ¼ tanu  V mb ð20Þ
where cʹ is the soil buoyant unit weight; Be is an effective
diameter to be determined; Nc is a bearing capacity factor
and Nq = Kp exp(ptanu) is that presented by Reissner
(1924); sc and sq are shape factors; dc and dq are depth fac-
tors; ic and iq are inclination factors; rʹbz is the effective ver-
tical stress in the soil at the level of the foundation base;
and Vʹmb is a vertical force below the foundation base com-
prising the weight of the foundation, that of the internal
soil plug, and the live vertical force Vmb.
A circular base of a shallow foundation subjected to ver-
tical and moment loads, V and M, is shown in Fig. 2. A
load system equivalent to the vertical and moment loads
applied is given by the vertical load with the eccentricity
e = M/V. When the base of the foundation is subjected
to the vertical force V’mb and moment force Mmb, assuming
a no-tension interface between the base and the soil, the
compressive uniform vertical stress rzc of a soil below the
base of the foundation is written as follows:
0
V mb
rzc ¼ ð21Þ
Ae
where Ae is an effective base area and xn defined as the
distance between the neutral axis and the edge of the base
can be obtained from the following equation:
 
sin2a sin3a
4 p
aþ e þ Bð
sinaÞ ¼ 0 ð22Þ
2 3
where a is defined as follows:
cosa ¼ 2xn =B
1 ð23Þ
Therefore, the effective diameter shown in Eq. (19) can
be obtained from the effective base area as follows:
 H. Hirai Soils and Foundations 62 (2022) 101125

1 þ ð1:5sinu þ 3tan3 uÞ BL
Baars (2014)
–

–
–

–
–
–

1 þ ð1:3tan2 u
0:5ÞðBLÞ e
L=B for u > 30
Michalowski (1997), Zhu et al. (2005)

1:5
eð0:66þ5:11tanuÞ tanu
Fig. 2. Vertical and moment loads applied on a circular base, an

qffiffiffi
1 þ 1:9tan2 u BL
equivalent loading system, an effective base area, and an effective diameter.

pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

Summary of a bearing capacity factor and shape, depth, and inclination factors for sand in the bearing capacity given by Eq. (19).
Be ¼ 2 Ae =p ð24Þ

–
–
–
k ¼ tan
1 ðD=BÞ for D=B > 1
Table 1 shows the summary of a bearing capacity
factor and shape, depth, and inclination factors for

k ¼ D=B for D=B  1

sand in the bearing capacity given by Eq. (19) and the

1 þ 2tanuð1
sinuÞ2 k
following symbols are used: B = width of foundation,
D = depth of foundation, and L = length of founda-
2ðN q þ 1Þtanu

þ1
Vesic (1973)
tion. Comparing the characteristics of the bearing

2þB=L
H 1þB=L
2þB=L
ð1
HV Þ1þB=L
capacity equations proposed to date, it was found that 1 þ BL tanu

1
0:4 BL

VÞ
the most appropriate bearing capacity equation capable

ð1

of predicting the experimental results of shallow foun-

1
dations in sand is composed of the following factors:

<1
Nc is the bearing capacity factor given by
<1

ð1
90h Þ h ¼ tan
1 ðHV Þ

D
Michalowski (1997); sq and sc are the shape factors pre- B
D
B

1 þ 0:1 K p DB for
sented by Baars (2014) and by Meyerhof (1963), respec-
ðN q
1Þtanð1:4uÞ

1 þ 0:1 K P DB for
Meyerhof (1963)

tively; dq and dc are the depth factors proposed by

pffiffiffiffiffiffi

Meyerhof (1963); and iq and ic are the inclination fac-

pffiffiffiffiffiffi
1 þ 0:1K P BL

1 þ 0:1K P BL

tors proposed by Hansen (1961, 1970). Thus, the

2
ð1
uh Þ

numerical results shown below are obtained from the

combination of the factors mentioned above.
The vertical, lateral, and rocking stiffness coefficients
k ¼ tan
1 ðD=BÞ for D=B > 1

KVB, KHB, and KRB of nonhomogeneous soil below a

foundation base were presented by Hirai (2017b).
k ¼ D=B for D=B  1

Regarding the reduced values Kf for each of vertical,

1 þ 2tanuð1
sinuÞ2 k
Hansen (1961, 1970)

lateral, and rocking stiffness coefficients in post-

1:5ðN q
1Þtanu

failure, it was found from experimental results of shal-

low foundations mentioned below that it is reasonable
1 þ BL sinu

to assume the modification factor defined as Kf/K to

1
0:4 BL

4
ð1
HV Þ
ð1
HV Þ

be 0.001, where K is each stiffness in pre-failure. There-

fore, the lateral, rocking, and vertical stiffness coeffi-
1

cients, KHBf, KRBf, and KVBf, for the soil below the
Bearing capacity Nc

base in post-failure are assumed, respectively, as

follows:
Inclination iq
Inclination ic
Depth dq

Depth dc

K HBf ¼ 0:001K HB ; K RBf ¼ 0:001K RB ; K VBf

Shape sq

Shape sc
Table 1

Factors

¼ 0:001K VB ð25Þ
5
 H. Hirai Soils and Foundations 62 (2022) 101125

In this paper, the tensile capacity is not taken into ered under tensile loading. When a foundation with skirt in
account because the formulation of tensile capacity is dif- sand is subjected to vertical compressive loads after instal-
ferent from that of compressive capacity in that a sand lation, a sand within the skirt is assumed to be a trapped
within the skirt as well as a sand outside the skirt is consid- soil. In this case, the ultimate vertical capacity of the foun-

Fig. 3. Vertical displacement produced by vertical load for shallow foundations in sand.

Fig. 4. Lateral displacement produced by lateral and moment loads under a constant vertical load for a shallow foundation of D/B = 1.0 in sand.

6
 H. Hirai
Fig. 5. Failure envelope in H-M plane for a shallow foundation of D/B = 1.0 under a constant vertical load in sand.
dation with skirt in sand can be determined by summing up
two components of the end-bearing capacity on the base
and the vertical yield resistance outside the skirt as well
as piles. For installation and pullout of a foundation with
skirt in sand, since sands both inside and outside the skirt
are considered, the ultimate vertical capacity of the founda-
tion can be determined by summing up three components
of the end-bearing capacity and the vertical yield resis-
tances of each side of the skirt.
5. Numerical results
To certify the usefulness of the present method for shal-
low foundations, an example is investigated in the follow-
ing. Ibsen et al. (2014a, b) presented the ultimate
capacities of cylindrical shallow foundations in a dense
sand using experimental results and the hardening plastic-
ity model. The dimensions and parameters of the cylindri-
cal shallow foundation in the present prediction are
specified by referring to those employed in Ibsen et al.
(2014a, b) as follows: the diameter and thicknesses of the
lid and skirt are B = 0.2 m and tL = tS = 0.003 m, respec-
tively; the Young’s moduli of the lid and skirt are
EL = E = 210 GPa; and the steel buoyant unit weight is
cʹ = 68.0 kN/m3. Since the shear modulus of the sand pre-
sented by Ibsen et al. (2014a, b) is dependent on the effec-
7
Soils and Foundations 62 (2022) 101125
tive vertical stress, the elastic property of the sand is
assumed to be nonhomogeneous. The soil parameters for
a dense sand are specified as follows: the buoyant unit
weight cʹ = 11.0 kN/m3; Poisson’s ratio ms = 0.25; the inter-
nal friction angle u = 42.5°; Young’s modulus of sand is
expressed by Es = jrat(rm /rat)k, where the oedometric
stiffness parameter j = 600, the oedometric stiffness param-
eter k = 0.55, rat = 100 kN/m2 is the atmospheric pressure
as the reference stress, rm = (1 + 2 K0)rʹz/3 is the mean
principal stress and K0 = 1
sinu is the in-situ coefficient
of earth pressure at rest; and the parameter KS tand shown
in Eq. (16) is assumed to be 1.0 (Poulos and Davis, 1980).
The form of Young’s modulus with the oedometric stiffness
parameters j and k shown above was presented by Achmus
et al. (2013). The factor x in Eq. (17) for sand may be
assumed to be equal to Kp and Kp2 which are presented
by Fleming et al. (1985) and Reese et al. (1974), respec-
tively. Therefore, it is assumed in this study that the factor
x is taken to be an intermediate value of 1.43Kp between Kp
by Fleming et al. and Kp2 by Reese et al. The cylindrical
shallow foundation is divided into 21 elements.
Taking into account the criteria of bearing capacities
indicated by Villalobos et al. (2009) and Hung and Kim
(2014), it is assumed for a shallow foundation that (1)
The vertical load causing the compression failure of the soil
below the base is taken to be the ultimate vertical capacity,
 H. Hirai Soils and Foundations 62 (2022) 101125

Fig. 6. Failure envelopes in H-M plane for shallow foundations of D/B = 0.0 and 0.25 under constant vertical loads in sand.

Fig. 7. Failure envelopes in H-M plane for shallow foundations of D/B = 0.5 and 0.75 under constant vertical loads in sand.
8
 H. Hirai
Fig. 8. Failure envelopes in H-V plane for shallow foundations in sand.
and (2) The lateral and moment loads corresponding to the
point of the maximum curvature on a curve which repre-
sents the relationship between lateral displacement and
lateral-moment load are adopted as the ultimate lateral
and moment capacities, respectively.
Fig. 3 shows the vertical displacement produced by ver-
tical load for shallow foundations in sand. The vertical dis-
placement w is calculated at the reference point with the
coordinates x = y = z = 0. In this study, a sand has been
assumed to be an elastic–plastic material. As mentioned
above, the vertical load causing the compression failure
of the soil below the base is taken to be the ultimate vertical
capacity. The ultimate vertical capacity increases under
increased embedment ratio D/B. The ultimate vertical
capacity Vult is obtained as follows: Vult = 9.98, 17.7,
26.3, 35.6, and 45.8 kN, according to D/B = 0.0, 0.25,
0.5, 0.75, and 1.0, respectively.
Fig. 4 shows the lateral displacement produced by lateral
and moment loads under a constant vertical load V = 11.85
kN for a shallow foundation D/B = 1.0 in sand. The load
paths are represented using a gradient parameter M/(HB)
9
Soils and Foundations 62 (2022) 101125
in the H-M plane. As mentioned above, the lateral and
moment loads corresponding to the point of the maximum
curvature on a curve which represents the relationship
between lateral displacement and lateral-moment load are
adopted as the ultimate lateral and moment capacities,
respectively. It is found that it is reasonable to determine
the ultimate point by using the load–displacement curve.
Fig. 5 shows failure envelopes in the H-M plane for a
shallow foundation D/B = 1.0 in sand under a constant
vertical load V = 11.85 kN. The ultimate lateral and
moment capacities presented are obtained from the results
shown in Fig. 4. The maximum ultimate capacity combined
with ultimate lateral and moment capacities occurs in the
second and fourth quadrants in the H-M plane. Quantita-
tive agreement between the experimental results given by
Ibsen et al. (2014a, b) and the predicted results for the fail-
ure envelope is observed in all quadrants on the H-M
plane. The failure surface in the H-M plane may be approx-
imately assumed to be an ellipse.
Fig. 6 shows failure envelopes in the H-M plane for the
two shallow foundations of D/B = 0.0 and 0.25 in sand
 H. Hirai
Fig. 9. Failure envelopes in M
V plane for shallow foundations in sand.
under constant vertical loads V = 3.12 and 5.25 kN, respec-
tively. The failure surface for D/B = 0.0 is almost symmet-
rical and is approximately assumed to be a rhombus. The
failure surface for D/B = 0.25 is approximately assumed
to be an ellipse. Qualitative and quantitative agreement
between the experimental results and the predicted results
is observed overall.
Fig. 7 shows failure envelopes for D/B = 0.5 and 0.75
under constant vertical loads V = 7.55 and 9.75 kN, respec-
tively. The characteristics of the ultimate capacity for the
two embedment ratios are analogous to the results for D/
B = 1.0 shown in Fig. 5. Overall, a good agreement is
found between the experimental results and the predicted
results.
Fig. 8 shows failure envelopes in the H-V plane for shal-
low foundations in sand. The vertical load is specified in
the following two different ways: (1) The vertical load is
applied first and then the lateral load is applied, e.g., first
from the point 0 to the point a and then from the point a
to the point b; (2) The vertical and lateral loads are applied
10
Soils and Foundations 62 (2022) 101125
simultaneously, e.g. from the point 0 to the point b. The
failure surfaces obtained from the two different ways take
the same form. For the vertical load V = 0, the ultimate lat-
eral capacity Hult is obtained as follows: |Hult| = 0, 0.029,
0.112, 0.167, and 0.256 kN, according to D/B = 0.0, 0.25,
0.5, 0.75, and 1.0, respectively. The failure envelopes are
symmetrical about the H = 0 plane and are comprised of
two parabola-shaped curves when H is both positive and
negative. When the embedment ratio D/B increases, the
ultimate vertical and lateral capacities expand with the fail-
ure surface.
Fig. 9 shows failure envelopes in the M
V plane for
shallow foundations in sand. The vertical load is specified
in the following two different ways: (1) The vertical load
is applied first and then the moment load is applied, e.g.,
first from the point 0 to the point a and then from the point
a to the point b; (2) The vertical and moment loads are
applied simultaneously, e.g., from the point 0 to the point
b. The failure surfaces obtained from the two different ways
take the same form. For the vertical load V = 0, the ulti-
 H. Hirai
Fig. 10. Failure envelope schematically illustrated in H-M
V space for a
shallow foundation of D/B = 0.5 in sand.
mate moment capacity Mult is obtained as follows: |Mult|/
B = 0, 0.021, 0.04, 0.078, and 0.144 kN, according to D/
B = 0.0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, and 1.0, respectively. The failure
envelopes are symmetrical about the M = 0 plane and com-
prises two parabola-shaped curves when M is both positive
and negative. When the embedment ratio D/B increases,
the ultimate vertical and moment capacities expand with
the failure surface.
Fig. 10 shows a failure envelope schematically illustrated
in the H-M
V space for a shallow foundation of D/B = 0.5
in sand. Failure envelopes in the H-M, H-V, and M
V
planes for the shallow foundation are presented in
Figs. 7-9, respectively. For the hardening plasticity
approach, a failure surface in the H-M
V space for a shal-
low foundation in sand has often been approximately
assumed to be a parabolic ellipsoid, e.g., Nova and
Montrasio (1991), Butterfield and Gottardi (1994), and
Gottardi et al. (1999). A form of the failure surface is first
assumed in the hardening plasticity approach. In contrast
to this, the failure surface is not initially assumed and
can be obtained from the classical elastoplasticity theory
11
Soils and Foundations 62 (2022) 101125
using a bearing capacity in the present method. The failure
surface obtained is represented as a 3-D curved surface
consisting of curves approximated by an ellipse in the H-
M plane and parabolas in H-V and M
V planes.
The load–displacement response of a foundation has
been theoretically described mainly by two different meth-
ods, i.e., the strain hardening plasticity theory and the clas-
sical approach. The former needs yield surface, plastic
potential, and a failure surface which are to be assumed
first. However, the latter does not need these functions
and the failure surface can be determined last. A coupling
effect on ultimate capacities among vertical (V), lateral (H),
and moment (M) loads was represented by the failure sur-
face in the H-M
V space shown in Fig. 10.
6. Conclusions
The present study analytically revealed the failure
response produced by vertical, lateral, and moment loads
of shallow foundations in sand as follows:
1) Of the bearing capacity equations proposed to date, it
was found that the most appropriate bearing capacity
equation which can predict experimental results of
shallow foundations in sand comprises the following
factors: Nc is the bearing capacity factor given by
Michalowski (1997); sq and sc are the shape factors
presented by Baars (2014) and by Meyerhof (1963),
respectively; dq and dc are the depth factors proposed
by Meyerhof (1963); and iq and ic are inclination fac-
tors proposed by Hansen (1961, 1970).
2) A no-tension interface between a foundation base
and a soil and an effective diameter of the foundation
were used to analyze the base failure produced by the
vertical stress of the soil below the foundation base
when vertical and moment loads are applied.
3) For failure envelopes in the H-M plane under a con-
stant vertical load for shallow foundations in sand,
the results obtained from experiments were well pre-
dicted by the present method.
4) For shallow foundations with various embedment
ratios in sand under general loading, the
displacement-load curves and failure envelopes in
the H-M, H-V, and M
V planes and in the H-
M
V space were presented.
References
Achmus, M., Akdag, C.T., Thieken, K., 2013. Load-bearing behavior of
suction bucket foundations in sand. Appl. Ocean Res. 43, 157–165.
Achmus, M., Thieken, K., 2010. On the behavior of piles in non-cohesive
soil under combined horizontal and vertical loading. Acta Geotech. 5,
199–210.
Baars, S.V., 2014. The inclination and shape factors for the bearing
capacity of footings. Soils Found. 54, 985–992.
Broms, B.B., 1964. Lateral resistance of piles in cohesionless soils. J. Soil
Mech. Found. Div., ASCE. 90 (SM3), 123–156.
 H. Hirai
Butterfield, R., Gottardi, G., 1994. A complete three-dimensional failure
envelope for shallow footings on sand. Géotechnique 44 (1), 181–184.
Fiumana, N., Bienen, B., Gavoni, L., Gourvenec, S., Cassidy, M.J.,
Gottardi, G., 2019. Combined loading capacity of skirted circular
foundations in loose sand. Ocean Engrg. 183, 57–72.
Fleming, W.G.K., Weltman, A.J., Randolph, M.F., Elson, W.K., 1985.
Piling Engineering. John Wiley and Sons, New York, pp. 147–149.
Gottardi, G., Houlsby, G.T., Butterfield, R., 1999. The plastic response of
circular footings on sand under general planar loading. Géotechnique
49 (4), 453–469.
Gourvenec, S., 2008. Effect of embedment on the undrained capacity of
shallow foundations under general loading. Géotechnique 58 (3), 177–
185.
Gourvenec, S., Barnett, S., 2011. Undrained failure envelope for skirted
foundations under general loading. Géotechnique 61 (3), 263–270.
Govoni, L., 2018. A numerical investigation on the yield surface for
shallow foundations embedded in sand. Comp. Geotech. 94, 83–94.
Hansen, B., 1961. A general formula for bearing capacity. Geoteknisk
institut. Bulletin 11, Copenhagen.
Hansen, B., 1970. A revised and extended formula for bearing capacity.
Geoteknisk institut. Bulletin 28, Copenhagen.
Hazzar, L., Hussien, M.N., Karray, M., 2017. Influence of vertical loads
on lateral response of pile foundations in sands and clays. J. Rock
Mech. Geotech. Engrg. 9, 291–304.
Hirai, H., 2017a. A three-dimensional displacement approach for analysis
of laterally loaded piles in nonhomogeneous soil. Int. J. Numer. Anal.
Meth. Geomech. 41 (16), 1605–1635.
Hirai, H., 2017b. Evaluation of pullout load capacity of suction caissons
in sand using a three-dimensional displacement approach. Marine
Geores. Geotech. 35 (8), 1121–1134.
Hirai, H., 2020. Analysis of cylindrical and rectangular bucket founda-
tions subjected to vertical and lateral loads in sand using a three-
dimensional displacement approach. Soils Found. 60, 45–62.
Houlsby, G.T., Byrne, B.W., 2005. Design procedures for installation of
suction caissons in clay and other materials. Proc. ICE, Geotech.
Engrg. 158 (2), 75–82.
Houlsby, G.T., Cassidy, M.J., 2002. A plasticity model for the behaviour
of footings on sand under combined loading. Géotechnique 52 (2),
117–129.
Houlsby, G.T., Puzrin, A.M., 1999. The bearing capacity of strip footing
on clay under combined loading. Proc. Royal Soc. London 455A
(1983), 893–916.
Hung, L.C., Kim, S.R., 2014. Evaluation of undrained bearing capacities
of bucket foundations under combined loads. Marine Geor. Geotech.
32, 76–92.
Ibsen, L.B., Barari, A., Larsen, K.A., 2014a. Adaptive plasticity model for
bucket foundations. J. Engrg. Mech., ASCE. 140 (2), 361–373.
Ibsen, L.B., Larsen, K.A., Barari, A., 2014b. Calibration of failure criteria
for bucket foundations on drained sand under general loading. J.
Geotech. Geoenv. Engrg., ASCE. 140(7), 04014033, 1–16.
Karthigeyan, S., Ramakrishna, V.V.G.S.T., Rajagopal, K., 2006. Influ-
ence of vertical load on the lateral response of piles in sand. Comp.
Geotech. 33 (2), 121–131.
12
Soils and Foundations 62 (2022) 101125
Karthigeyan, S., Ramakrishna, V.V.G.S.T., Rajagopal, K., 2007. Numer-
ical investigation of the effect of vertical load on the lateral response of
piles. J. Geotech. Geoenv. Engrg. ASCE. 133 (5), 512–521.
Meyerhof, G.G., 1953. The bearing capacity of foundations under
eccentric and inclined loads. Proc., 3rd Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found.
Engrg. Zurich 1, 440–445.
Meyerhof, G.G., 1963. Some recent research on the bearing capacity of
foundations. Can. Geotech. J. 1 (1), 16–26.
Meyerhof, G.G., Sastry, V.V.R.N., 1985. Bearing capacity of rigid
piles under eccentric and inclined loads. Can. Geotech. J. 22,
267–276.
Michalowski, R.L., 1997. An estimate of the influence of soil weight on
bearing capacity using limit analysis. Soils Found. 37 (4), 57–64.
Mindlin, R.D., 1936. Forces at a point in the interior of a semi-infinite
solid. Physics 7, 195–202.
Nova, R., Montrasio, L., 1991. Settlements of shallow foundations on
sand. Géotechnique 41 (2), 243–256.
Poulos, H.G., Davis, E.H., 1980. Pile foundation analysis and design.
John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Reese, L.C., Cox, W.R., Koop, F.D., 1974. Analysis of laterally loaded
piles in sand. Proc. 6th Annual Offshore Tech. Conf. 2, Houston, 473–
483.
Reissner, H. 1924. Zum Erddruckproblem. Proc. 1st Int. Congress for
Applied Mechanics, C.B. Biezeno and J.M. Burgers, eds., Delft, The
Netherland, 295–311.
Sastry, V.V.R.N., Meyerhof, G.G., 1990. Behaviour of flexible piles under
inclined loads. Can. Geotech. J. 27, 19–28.
Shen, Z., Feng, X., Gourvenec, S., 2016. Undrained capacity of surface
foundations with zero-tension interface under planar V-H-M loading.
Comp. Geotech. 73, 47–57.
Taiebat, H., Carter, J.P., 2000. Numerical studies of the bearing capacity
of shallow foundations on cohesive soil subjected to combined loading.
Géotechnique 50 (4), 409–418.
Taiebat, H., Carter, J.P., 2010. A failure surface for circular footings on
cohesive soils. Géotechnique 60 (4), 265–273.
Vesic, A.S., 1973. Analysis of ultimate loads of shallow foundations. J.
Soil Mech. Found. Div., ASCE. 99 (SM1), 45–73.
Villalobos, F.A., Byrne, B.W., Houlsby, G.T., 2009. An experimental
study of the drained capacity of suction caisson foundations under
monotonic loading for offshore applications. Soils Found. 49 (3), 477–
488.
Yun, G., Bransby, M.F., 2007. The horizontal-moment capacity of
embedded foundations in undrained soil. Can. Geotech. J. 44 (4), 409–
424.
Zhu, M., Michalowski, R.L., 2005. Shape Factors for Limit Loads on
Square and Rectangular Footings. J. Geotech. Geoenv. Engrg. ASCE.
131 (2), 223–231.
Zhu, B., Zhang, W.L., Ying, P.P., Chen, Y.M., 2014. Deflection-based
bearing capacity of suction caisson foundations of offshore wind
turbines. J. Geotech. Geoenv. Engrg. 140 (5), 1–12.