Computers and Geotechnics 114 (2019) 103138

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers and Geotechnics

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

Research Paper

Development of allowable bearing capacity for strip foundations in T

unsaturated soils
Changguang Zhanga,b, , Benxian Gaoa, Qing Yana, Junhai Zhaoa, Lizhou Wub
⁎

a
School of Civil Engineering, Chang'an University, Xi'an 710061, China
b
Stake Key Laboratory of Geohazard Prevetion and Geoenvironment Protection, Chengdu University of Technology, Chengdu 610059, China

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: An allowable bearing capacity formulation of strip foundations is developed for unsaturated soils under the
Allowable bearing capacity non–hydrostatic in–situ stress. Four cases are analyzed according to both in–situ stress states and suction dis-
Strip foundation tributions. The proposed closed–form formulation is easy to use along with non–negative factors as an appli-
Unsaturated soils cation condition. Furthermore, the obtained results are compared against three published results reported in the
Lateral pressure coefficient at–rest
literature, and good agreements between these results are observed. Finally, a parametric study is performed to
Matric suction
present how unsaturated strength characteristics and in–situ stress states affect the allowable bearing capacity.
Over–consolidation ratio

1. Introduction
Strip foundations are one of the most cost–effective methods for
transmitting loads from light superstructures to underlying grounds.
Bearing capacity calculation is a critical part of the design of a strip
foundation. The design bearing resistance of strip foundations is com-
monly quantified by an ultimate bearing capacity of foundation soils
with a factor of safety equal to 3 [3,18], or by an allowable bearing
capacity of foundation soils corresponding with the maximum plastic
distance beneath foundation base equal to a quarter of foundation
width [1,8,25,28]. The ultimate bearing capacity of strip foundations
resting on saturated soils has been studied comprehensively using
various approaches over the past few decades [13,20]. A few interesting
extensions have been made to deal with the ultimate bearing capacity
of unsaturated soils through theoretical analyses within the framework
of the Terzaghi theory [5,15,19,21], the zero extension line method
[10], and the slip line theory [23], respectively. All the above–noted
studies suggest that the ultimate bearing capacity is significantly in-
fluenced by the presence of matric suction for unsaturated soils.
The allowable bearing capacity of a strip foundation, however, is
almost always investigated based on the conventional theory of satu-
rated soils under the hydrostatic in–situ stress (i.e., the lateral pressure
coefficient at–rest k0 = 1) [1,7,8]. It signifies that the contribution of
matric suction to soil strength (and hence also to bearing capacities of
strip foundations) is neglected [2,16,17,22]. Unsaturated conditions of
foundation soils can be maintained during a whole service life of strip
foundations, particularly in arid and semiarid regions [5,12]. Two
simple distributions of matric suction (i.e., uniform and linear suctions
with depth) are normally adopted for engineering practice applications
[26,27]. Besides, the in–situ stress state of foundation soils is generally
not hydrostatic as water pressure but associated with the stress history,
the value of matric suction and the geological process [12,14,28]. The
value of k0 could be either smaller than 1 for normally consolidated and
slight over–consolidated soils or greater than 1 for over–consolidated
soils [3,11]. As a result, it is neither economical to design a strip
foundation nor in consistent with an actual in–situ stress state of
foundation soils using the conventional saturated soil mechanics and
k0 = 1.
The primary objective of this study is to develop an allowable
bearing capacity formulation of strip foundations in unsaturated soils
under the non–hydrostatic in–situ stress. The shear strength of un-
saturated soils is assumed to be described by the theory of two in-
dependent stress state variables. Uniform and linear distributions of
matric suction are considered to derive closed–form equations of the
allowable bearing capacity along with application conditions. Three
types of existing results in the literature are utilized to validate the
proposed allowable bearing capacity. Parametric studies are also car-
ried out to investigate influences of unsaturated strength characteristics
and in–situ stress states on the results. Discussions are provided for
nonlinear strength variations of unsaturated soils in high suction
ranges, different plastic distances with different safety requirements of
superstructures, and the lateral pressure coefficient at–rest in un-
saturated soils.

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: zcg1016@163.com (C. Zhang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2019.103138
Received 15 July 2018; Received in revised form 2 June 2019; Accepted 13 June 2019
Available online 28 June 2019
0266-352X/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C. Zhang, et al. Computers and Geotechnics 114 (2019) 103138

Fig. 1. Stress components at Point Q induced by additional pressure and soil

self–weight under a strip foundation. Fig. 2. Two distributions of matric suction: (a) uniform suction along the depth;
(b) linear suction along the depth.
2. Problem definition and assumptions
3. Allowable bearing capacity of unsaturated soils
Fig. 1 illustrates a rigid strip foundation of the width B and the
buried depth D subjected to centered vertical loads in homogeneous Point Q with a vertical distance Z measured from the foundation
unsaturated soils under the plane strain condition. A uniformly applied base MN is taken to be in a limit state of soil strength. Stresses at Point
pressure p is transmitted from superstructures at the foundation base Q are caused by both the additional pressure (p–γD) and the soil
MN; the additional pressure is p–γD, where γ = unit weight of un- self–weight γ(D + Z). The net principal stress components of Point Q
saturated soils and is independent of matric suction. For simplicity and due to the additional pressure (p–γD) in Eq. (3) with a subscript p are
in accordance with the China national code for foundation deigns [8] as obtained based on the elastic theory [7,11].
well as the Romanian technical regulation of shallow foundations [1],
p D
some assumptions are made in this study: ( 1 u a )p = ( + sin )
p D
( 3 u a )p = ( sin ) (3)
(1) The soil self–weight γD above the foundation base plane is regarded
as an infinitely uniform surcharge pressure q (i.e., q = γD). The where σ1 − ua = net major principal stress; σ3 − ua = net minor prin-
allowable bearing capacity pa of strip foundations is referred to as cipal stress; and θ = included angle between the straight lines QM and
an applied pressure corresponding to the maximum plastic distance QN (see Fig. 1), and the bisector of θ intersects with the foundation base
Zmax beneath foundation base that equals empirically to a quarter of MN at Point O and has an angle β to the vertical. The pore–air pressure
the foundation width (i.e., Zmax = B/4) [1,8,25,28]. The gradual ua is usually considered to be an atmospheric air pressure (i.e., ua = 0)
loading process accompanied by an increasingly elastic–plastic zone for near–surface geotechnical structures such as shallow foundations,
of foundation soils is neglected. retaining walls and infinite slopes [5,12]. Note that compressive stress
(2) The shear strength τf of unsaturated soils is characterized by the two is taken as positive throughout this work.
independent stress state variables theory [4] and is expressed as The net stress components of Point Q due to the soil self–weight
γ(D + Z) are closely related with the lateral pressure coefficient at–rest
f =c +( ua ) tan + (u a u w ) tan b
(1)
k0. Two cases are subsequently discussed at length: the hydrostatic
where c′ and φ′ = effective cohesion and the effective internal friction in–situ stress (i.e., k0 = 1), and the non–hydrostatic in–situ stress (i.e.,
angle of the soil in a fully saturated condition, respectively; k0 ≠ 1).
ua = pore–air pressure; uw = pore–water pressure; (ua–uw) = matric
suction; σ = total normal stress; (σ − ua) = net normal stress; and 3.1. Hydrostatic in–situ stress
φb = friction angle representing the contribution of matric suction. The
value of φb is related to matric suction, which is generally a constant In this case k0 is 1, the net stress components of Point Q generated
not more than φ′ in the studied low suction range. For high suction by the soil self–weight with a subscript γ are equated to γ(D + Z) in all
ranges, φb is decreased with the increase of matric suction and can be directions and are also principal stresses appearing in Eq. (4).
captured by a hyperbolic function (see Section 6 for details).
( 1 ua ) = (D + Z ), ( 3 ua ) = (D + Z ) (4)
(3) Two different distributions of matric suction are considered The total net principal stresses of Point Q are obtained through
[26,27]: the uniform suction (ua − uw) in Fig. 2(a) as a constant adding Eq. (3) with Eq. (4) as
along the depth, and the linear suction in Fig. 2(b) which decreases
linearly with the depth as a first engineering approximation. The 1 ua = ( 1 u a )p + ( 1 ua ) =
p D
( + sin ) + (D + Z )
matric suction (ua–uw)Z at depth of D + Z for linear suction is p D
ua = ( u a )p + ( ua ) = ( sin ) + (D + Z ) (5)
written as 3 3 3

(u a u w )Z = (ua u w )o [1 (D + Z )/ Dw ] (2) Because Point Q is in the limit state, a Mohr circle corresponding
with principal stresses of Eq. (5) is tangent to the shear strength en-
where (ua − uw)o = matric suction at the ground surface and is termed
velope defined by Eq. (1), as shown in Fig. 3. This tangent relationship
as surface suction; and Dw = water table, which is assumed to be lo-
with a given matric suction is written as
cated below more than one foundation width B from the foundation
base MN. [( 1 ua ) ( 3 ua )]/2
= sin
[( 1 ua ) + ( 3 ua )]/2 + ct cot (6)

2
C. Zhang, et al. Computers and Geotechnics 114 (2019) 103138

Mc = 1 ( /2 ) tan
tan
Mq = 1 ( /2 ) tan
+1
[tan (ua uw )o tan b / ( D w )]
M = 2[1 ( /2 ) tan ]

The factor Mγ is formulated to be not only related to φ′, but also

Fig. 3. Mohr circle representation of a failure envelope defined by Eq. (1).
where ct = total cohesion of unsaturated soils (i.e., the effective cohe-
sion c′ plus the apparent cohesion arising from the contribution of
matric suction).
related to (ua − uw)o, φb, γ and Dw, whereas the other two are not al-
tered. With the water table Dw → ∞, the linear suction of Eq. (2) be-
comes to be an uniform suction and Eq. (12) reduces to Eq. (10). When
(ua − uw) = (ua − uw)o = 0, Eqs. (10) and (12) are both degenerated to
those for saturated soils, and thus they have identical values as the same
as that of traditionally saturated soil mechanics adopted by the China
national code for foundation deigns [8].

3.1.1. Uniform suction with depth 3.2. Non–hydrostatic in–situ stress

For this situation the matric suction is constant that is independent
of the depth. The total cohesion ct of unsaturated soils is denoted as In the case of k0 ≠ 1, the horizontal and vertical stress components
ct = c′ + (ua − uw) × tanφb. Then, by substituting Eq. (5) into Eq. (6), of Point Q because of the soil self–weight cannot be added directly with
the vertical plastic distance Z is derived as those of the additional pressure (p–γD) in Eq. (3) for different action
1 directions. The soil self–weight stress components could be at first
uw ) tan b] cos
Z=
sin
{(p D )(sin sin )/ [c + (ua D sin }
(7) changed to the action direction of Eq. (3) with a rotation angle β (see
Fig. 1). The transformed net stress components of the soil self–weight
For known foundation dimensions and soil properties, Eq. (7) shows are derived as
that Z has a unique variable θ. To yield the maximum plastic distance
Zmax, by setting the first–order derivative of Eq. (7) with respect to θ to ( z ua ) =
(D + Z )(1 + k 0 )
+
(D + Z )(1 k0 )
cos 2
2 2
be zero (i.e., dZ/dθ = 0), the corresponding angle θ is determined as (D + Z )(1 + k 0 ) (D + Z )(1 k0 )
( x ua ) = 2 2
cos 2
= /2 (8) (D + Z )(1 k 0 )
( xz ) = 2
sin 2 (13)
When Eq. (8) is substituted into Eq. (7), Zmax is thus obtained and
then the corresponding applied pressure p can be transformed as The total net stress components of Point Q are then obtained
through adding Eq. (3) with Eq. (13) as
tan
p= { Zmax + D + [c + (ua uw ) tan b]/cot } + D
1 ( /2 ) tan (9) p D (D + Z )(1 + k 0 ) (D + Z )(1 k0 )
z ua = ( + sin ) + 2
+ 2
cos 2
By letting Zmax = B/4 and q = γD in Eq. (9), the allowable bearing ua =
p D
( sin ) +
(D + Z )(1 + k 0 ) (D + Z )(1 k0 )
cos 2
x
capacity pa of a strip foundation for uniform suction and k0 = 1 is 2 2
(D + Z )(1 k0 )
presented as xz = 2
sin 2 (14)
1 The net principal stress components of Point Q can be calculated by
pa = [c + (ua u w ) tan b] Mc + qMq + BM
2 (10)
( z ua ) + ( x ua ) ( z ua ) ( x ua ) 2 2
where Mc, Mq and Mγ = allowable bearing capacity factors of the soil 1 ua = 2
+ 2
+ xz
cohesion, surcharge and the unit weight of soils for strip foundations,
( z ua ) + ( x ua ) ( z ua ) ( x ua ) 2 2
respectively; meanwhile, these factors in this situation are merely de- ua = +
(15)
3 2 2 xz
pendent on the effective internal friction angle φ′ and are expressed as
The tangent relationship of Eq. (6) is thus modified by Eq. (15) for
Mc = 1 ( /2 ) tan k0 ≠ 1 as
tan
Mq = 1 ( /2 ) tan
+1 [( 1 ua ) ( 3 ua )]/2
tan [( 1 ua ) + ( 3 ua )]/2 + ct cot
M = 2[1 ( /2 ) tan ] 2
{[( z ua ) ( x ua )]/2} 2 + xz
= = sin
[( z ua ) + ( x ua )]/2 + ct cot (16)
3.1.2. Linear suction with depth Regarding vertical ranges within limits beneath the foundation base
For the matric suction calculated by Eq. (2) that decreases linearly MN, the additional pressure (p–γD) is a dominated load far greater than
along the depth, the total cohesion ct of Eq. (6) is referred to as the soil self–weight γ(D + Z). As a consequence, the relation of
c′ + (ua–uw)o × [1 − (D + Z)/Dw] × tanφb. Substituting Eq. (5) into [(σz − ua) − (σx − ua)]/2 > |τxz| is valid observed from Eq. (14). On
Eq. (6) gives the basis of a mathematical approximation formula [24], (a2 + b2)1/
2
(p D)(sin sin )/ [c + (ua uw )o × (1 D/ D w ) tan b] cos D sin ≈ 0.960a + 0.376b ≈ 1.0a + 0.38b (a > b > 0; the relative error is
Z=
[sin (ua uw )otan b × cos /( D w )] less than 7% when 5b ≥ a > b > 0, while the relative error is less
(11) than 5% when a > 5b > 0), Eq. (16) can be further simplified as

The value of Zmax can also be obtained when θ = π/2 − φ′ de- [( z ua ) ( x ua )]/2 + 0.38 | xz |
= sin
termined from dZ/dθ = 0. By letting Zmax = B/4 and q = γD, the al- [( z ua ) + ( x ua )]/2 + ct cot (17)
lowable bearing capacity pa of a strip foundation for linear suction and
k0 = 1 is presented as
3.2.1. Uniform suction with depth
b] M 1 For this situation, ct = c′ + (ua − uw) × tanφb, substitution of Eq.
pa = [c + (ua u w )o (1 D/ D w ) tan + qMq + BM
c
2 (12) (14) into Eq. (17) yields

3
C. Zhang, et al. Computers and Geotechnics 114 (2019) 103138

2(p D)(sin sin )/ 2[c + (ua u w ) tan b] bearing capacity for saturated soils based on the Terzaghi theory or the
Meyerhof theory [7,11]. Each contribution of the soil cohesion, sur-
cos
charge and the unit weight of soils towards the bearing capacity of strip
D [(1 + k 0 ) sin (1 k 0)(cos 2 + 0.38 sin 2 )] foundations should be non–negative. This implies that the factors Mc,
Z=
[(1 + k 0) sin (1 k 0 )(cos 2 + 0.38 sin 2 )] (18) Mq and Mγ must be greater than or equal to zero. Therefore, application
conditions of the proposed allowable bearing capacity are introduced as
It is indicated from Eq. (18) that Z has two independent variables (θ
follows:
and β) for given foundation dimensions and soil properties. To obtain
For the uniform suction or saturated soils corresponding to Eqs. (10)
the maximum plastic distance Zmax, by setting ∂Z/∂θ = 0 and ∂Z/
and (20),
∂β = 0 simultaneously, the corresponding angles θ and β are de-
termined as ( /2 ) tan <1
1.07 sin
= /2 , 2 = 20. 8o (19) k0 1.07 + sin (23)
When Eq. (19) is substituted into Eq. (18), Zmax is thus obtained.
For the linear suction corresponding to Eqs. (12) and (22),
Then, by letting Zmax = B/4 and q = γD, the allowable bearing capacity
pa of a strip foundation for uniform suction and k0 ≠ 1 is presented as ( /2 ) tan <1
tan (u a u w )otan b /( D )
b] M 1 w
pa = [c + (ua u w ) tan + qMq + BM
c
2 (20) k0
1.07 sin
+
2(ua uw )o tan b
1.07 + sin D w (1.07 + sin ) (24)
Mc = 1 ( /2 ) tan Eqs. (23) and (24) indicate that the lateral pressure coefficient
Mq =
[(1 + k 0)tan 1.07(1 k 0) / cos ]
+1 at–rest k0 has a minimum value requirement for different effective in-
ternal friction angles φ′ and/or specifically linear distributions of ma-
2[1 ( / 2 ) tan ]
[(1 + k 0)tan 1.07(1 k 0) / cos ]
M = 4[1 ( / 2 ) tan ]
tric suction. When φ′ varies from 5° to 45°, the minimum values of k0
(i.e., k0–min) constrained by Eq. (23) are listed in Table 1 for uniform
Two factors (i.e., Mq and Mγ) are shown to be related to k0. In ad- suction or saturated soils. Table 1 illustrates that k0–min is reduced by
dition, Eq. (20) would be identical to Eq. (10) when k0 = 1. increasing φ′ corresponding with broader application ranges. In this
case, k0–min is all smaller than 1 with an upper bound of 1 for φ′ = 0°.
3.2.2. Linear suction with depth Additionally, the application condition for the linear suction of Eq. (24)
In the situation of linear suction, ct = c′ + (ua − is more rigorous than that for the uniform suction of Eq. (23).
uw)o × [1 − (D + Z)/Dw] × tanφb, substitution of Eq. (14) into Eq.
(17) gives 4. Validations of the proposed allowable bearing capacity
2(p D )(sin sin )/ 2[c + (ua uw )o (1 D/ D w ) tan b] cos
D [(1 + k 0) sin (1 k 0)(cos 2 + 0.38 sin 2 )] To evaluate the rationality and validity of the proposed allowable
Z=
[(1 + k 0) sin (1 k 0)(cos 2 + 0.38 sin 2 ) 2(ua uw )otan b /( D w )] (21) bearing capacity for strip foundations, the predictions of this study are
compared against the results of Fredlund and Rahardjo [6] and Martin
The value of Zmax is also obtained from ∂Z/∂θ = 0 and ∂Z/∂β = 0. [13] as well as Mei et al. [14] for unsaturated and saturated soils, re-
By letting Zmax = B/4 and q = γD, the allowable bearing capacity pa of spectively.
a strip foundation for linear suction and k0 ≠ 1 is presented as

pa = [c + (ua u w )o (1 D/ D w ) tan b] M + qMq +

1
BM 4.1. Unsaturated soils under the hydrostatic in-situ stress
c
2 (22)
Based on the conventional Terzaghi theory, the ultimate bearing
Mc = 1 ( /2 ) tan capacity of a strip foundation for saturated soils was extended by
Mq =
[(1 + k 0)tan 1.07(1 k 0) / cos ]
+1 Fredlund and Rahardjo [6] for unsaturated soils under uniform suction.
2[1 ( / 2 ) tan ]
On the other hand, the total cohesion ct of unsaturated soils under
linear suction can be substituted by a linearly varying cohensive
M
strength of saturated soils [20,23]. The numerical program of ABC–a-
nalysis of bearing capacity [13] using the slip line theory is thus
[(1 + k 0 )tan 1.07(1 k 0)/cos 2(ua u w )otan b /( D w )]
=
4[1 ( /2 ) tan ] adopted to compute the ultimate bearing capacity of unsaturated soils
under linear suction as saturated soils with a linear variation of cohe-
The factor Mγ is found to be related with φ′ and k0 as well as
sive strength. The value of (ua − uw)o × tanφb/Dw is taken as the gra-
(ua − uw)o, φb, γ and Dw. With the water table Dw → ∞, Eq. (22) is
dient of cohesive strength variations with depth. Fig. 4 presents the
identical to Eq. (20). What is more, Eq. (22) reduces to Eq. (12) when
comparisons between the ultimate bearing capacity pu of Fredlund and
k0 = 1.
Rahardjo [6] and Martin [13] and the allowable bearing capacity pa of
this study. Eqs. (10) and (12) are used for uniform suction in Fig. 4(a)
3.3. Application conditions and for linear suction in Fig. 4(b), respectively. Two roughness limits of
foundation base–soil interface (perfectly rough and perfectly smooth)
The proposed allowable bearing capacity of strip foundations ex- are considered to determine the ultimate bearing capacity pu. The facor
pressed as Eqs. (10), (12), (20) and (22) has a closed–form formulation of safety is assumed to be 3 as the same as routine foundation designs.
and is readily used to predict an accurate design bearing resistance of These comparisons are conducted for a typical strip foundation with
unsaturated soils in practice. These four equations are divided first into
two categories according to the in–situ stress state, namely, Eqs. (10) Table 1
and (12) for k0 = 1, as well as Eqs. (20) and (22) for k0 ≠ 1; then, each k0–min for typical ranges of φ′.
category is subdivided to that of uniform suction and of linear suction,
φ′ 5° 10° 15° 20° 25° 30° 35° 40° 45°
respectively.
What is more interesting, the proposed allowable bearing capacity k0–min 0.85 0.72 0.61 0.52 0.43 0.36 0.30 0.25 0.20
for unsaturated soils takes the same form as the conventional ultimate

4
C. Zhang, et al.
Fig. 4. Comparisons between the pa of this study and the pu/3 of Fredlund and
Rahardjo [6] and Martin [13] for unsaturated soils: (a) uniform suction; (b)
linear suction.
3
B = 4 m, D = 3 m, Dw = 9 m, γ = 19.5 kN/m , c′ = 20 kPa, φ′ = 22°,
φb = 14° and k0 = 1; and the matric suction (ua − uw) or surface suc-
tion (ua − uw)o ranges from 0 to 100 kPa [6]. The application condi-
tions of Eqs. (23) and (24) are satisfied for these parameters given
herein.
As indicated in Fig. 4, the results of this study are reasonably con-
sistent with those of Fredlund and Rahardjo [6] for uniform suction and
those of Martin [13] for linear suction corresponding to arithmetic
averages of the pu/3 from two roughness limits, respectively. This can
conform suitably to a more realistic roughness condition of foundation
base–soil interface rather than two roughness limits. Moreover, the
bearing capacity ratio of the pu/3 to pa is basically varied from 0.9 for a
perfectly smooth case to 1.1 for a perfectly rough one with the max-
imum relative error being about 10%. Consequently, the pa of this study
is demonstrated to be utilized as the design bearing resistance of strip
foundations in unsaturated soils to a certain extent.
4.2. Saturated soils under the non-hydrostatic in-situ stress
The problem discussed in the present study was addressed similarly
by Mei et al. [14] for saturated soils. The non–hydrostatic in–situ stress
(k0 ≠ 1) was considered, and the tangent relationship of Eq. (16) was
solved using the Matlab software to obtain numerical results without
mathematical approximations. However, application conditions were
not provided by Mei et al. [14]. As shown in Fig. 5, a comparison is
made between the numerical results of Mei et al. [14] and this study
5
Computers and Geotechnics 114 (2019) 103138
Fig. 5. Comparisons between this study and Mei et al. [14] for saturated soils:
(a) different values of c′; (b) different values of φ′.
with Eq. (20) or Eq. (22) for saturated soils. These results are im-
plemented for a benchmark example [14] with B = 3 m, D = 1 m and
γ = 19 kN/m3; and c′ = 10 (constant in Fig. 5(b)), 30 and 50 kPa, as
well as φ′ = 10° (constant in Fig. 5(a)), 20° and 30°. The minimum
values of k0 are 0.72, 0.52 and 0.36 for φ′ = 10°, 20° and 30°, respec-
tively. It means that a higher φ′ corresponds with a wider application
range for the proposed allowable bearing capacity.
Fig. 5 describes that approximate closed–form results of this study
are in good agreement with the numerical results of Mei et al. [14]. The
mean relative errors of these two approaches are 4.7% and 3.9% for
different c′ values in Fig. 5(a) and for different φ′ values in Fig. 5(b),
respectively. Furthermore, the relative error decreases with the increase
of k0. Therefore, this comparison confirms theoretical validity of the
approximate formulation derived in Section 3.2.
5. Parametric studies
The typical example of a strip foundation in Section 4.1 is con-
tinuously employed to study the influences of unsaturated strength
characteristics and in–situ stress states on the allowable bearing capa-
city pa through the proposed closed–form formulation.
5.1. Influence of unsaturated strength characteristics
Unsaturated characteristics of soil strength involve three aspects,
namely, the value of matric suction, specific distributions of matric
suction, and the friction angle related to matric suction. As shown in
C. Zhang, et al. Computers and Geotechnics 114 (2019) 103138

Fig. 6. Influence of matric suction and its distribution on the allowable bearing Fig. 7. Influence of the friction angle related to matric suction on the allowable
capacity pa. bearing capacity pa.

Fig. 6 with k0 = 1, pa increases linearly with matric suction for two

different suction distributions. When matric suction is 100 kPa, pa is
increased by 40.7% and 22.6% for uniform and linear suctions, re-
spectively, in comparison to that of saturated soils. It reveals that more
strength potentialities of unsaturated soils are brought owing to ac-
counting for the influence of matric suction. The pa of saturated soils is
conservative without incorporating strength natures of unsaturated
soils and thus more investments will be generated for larger foundation
dimensions. Moreover, pa is smaller for linear suction than uniform
suction and its increase rate is relatively slower for linear suction as
well. A reasonable estimation of suction distributions should be accu-
rately made with the help from field monitoring of matric suction.
The allowable bearing capacity pa is plotted against the friction
angle φb in Fig. 7 for φb not greater than φ′ and k0 = 1. The matric
suction is assumed to be 100 kPa for unsaturated soils to investigate the
difference from saturated soils (i.e., the matric suction is zero). As can
be seen from Fig. 7, the pa of unsaturated soils increases linearly with
φb, whereas that of saturated soils is a constant as 369.43 kPa in-
dependent of φb. In addition, the influence of φb on the pa of un-
saturated soils is more remarkable for uniform suction than linear
suction. As a result, the discrepancy of pa between uniform and linear
suctions becomes more noticeable with the increase of φb.

5.2. Influence of over–consolidation ratio

The lateral pressure coefficient at–rest k0 is generally not 1 in

practice. For normally consolidated and over–consolidated saturated
soils, k0 can be written as (1 − sinφ′) × OCR1/2 [3], where OCR is an
abbreviation of the over–consolidation ratio. For unsaturated soils, k0 is
still a function of matric suction [12], which is too complicated to de-
rive a closed–form equation of allowable bearing capacity for strip
foundations. The value of k0 for saturated soils is tentatively extended
herein to unsaturated soils for easy applications in practice. When
matric suction is taken as 100 kPa for unsaturated soils, the variations
of pa as OCR changes from 1 to 4 are presented in Fig. 8 for two suction
distributions together with those of saturated soils. The corresponding Fig. 8. Influence of over–consolidation ratio on the allowable bearing capacity
result of k0 = 1 is also included to make a comparison with the pa of pa: (a) uniform suction; (b) linear suction.
routine foundation designs.
Fig. 8(a) shows that pa increases nonlinearly with OCR. The curved routine pa touches at the correspondingly varied one when OCR = 2.56.
lines of the pa for saturated and unsaturated soils are parallel to each Accordingly, the routine pa cannot reflect an actual in–situ stress state.
other, whereas the former is lower than the latter. The routine pa with It then could either be overestimated for normally consolidated and
k0 = 1 (i.e., 369.43 kPa for saturated soils with null matric suction; and some slight over–consolidated soils (1 ≤ OCR < 2.56) or be under-
519.92 kPa for unsaturated soils under uniform suction with the matric estimated for over–consolidated soils with a higher OCR (> 2.56).
suction equal to 100 kPa, which is newly developed by this study) is a The principal difference described by comparing Fig. 8(a and b) is
roughly arithmetic average of the correspondingly varied one. The

6
C. Zhang, et al. Computers and Geotechnics 114 (2019) 103138

that the minimum value of OCR is 1.13 determined from Eq. (24) as an
application condition for the linear suction with surface suction
(ua − uw)o = 100 kPa. The discrepancy of pa between saturated and
unsaturated soils is smaller for linear suction than uniform suction. The
routine pa with k0 = 1 (i.e., 369.43 kPa for saturated soils with null
matric suction) could be equated to that of unsaturated soils for linear
suction when (ua − uw)o = 100 kPa and OCR = 1.53. The newly de-
veloped pa of this study with k0 = 1 (i.e., 453.03 kPa for unsaturated
soils) could be equated to that of saturated soils when OCR = 3.86. It is
found from Fig. 8(b) that the routine pa of saturated soils with k0 = 1
could stand for those of unsaturated soils with certain combinations of
(ua − uw)o and OCR. On the other hand, it further demonstrates that the
routine pa of k0 = 1 is only a roughly average conception, and the ac-
tual in–situ stress state (i.e., k0 or OCR) needs to be reasonably taken
into account.

6. Discussions

Shear strength of unsaturated soils does not generally increase by

increasing matric suction, especially for some kinds of sands. It is at-
tributed to the fact that φb in many soils is close to φ′ in low matric
suctions and gradually decreases by increasing matric suction and even
becomes zero at high suction values. The piecewise hyperbolic function
of φb presented by Houston et al. [9] is introduced as Eqs. (25) and (26)
to capture nonlinear variations of unsaturated soil strength.
b = , when (ua uw) (u a u w ) b for uniform suction (25a)

b (u a u w ) (u a u w ) b
= m + n [(ua uw ) (ua uw ) b ]
when (ua u w ) > (u a u w ) b for uniform suction (25b)
b = , when (ua u w )B /4 (u a u w ) b for linear suction (26a)

b (ua uw )B/4 (ua uw ) b

= m + n [(ua uw )B/4 (ua uw ) b ]
when (ua u w )B /4 > (ua u w ) b for linear suction
where (ua − uw)b = air–entry value of unsaturated soils; (ua–uw)B/
4 = matric suction at depth of D + B/4 in Eq. (2); m and n = intercept
and the slope of the linear equation transformed from Eq. (25b) or Eq.
(26b), respectively. Moreover, the inverse of slope n was fitted as 1/
n = −2.4598 + 1.0225φ′ by Zhang et al. [26].
Substituting the friction angle φb of Eq. (25) into Eqs. (10) and (20)
or of Eq. (26) into Eqs. (12) and (22), a novel allowable bearing ca-
pacity formulation of strip foundations in unsaturated soils is obtained.
The novel formulation can account for strength nonlinearity under high
matric suction greater than the air–entry value (ua − uw)b. It is assumed
that (ua − uw)b = 20 kPa, and other conditions are the same as previous
data in Section 4.1. Fig. 9 presents the allowable bearing capacity pa
versus matric suction in the range of 0–100 kPa with four values of the
intercept m (0, 5, 10 and 50 kPa) and k0 = 1. This can represent dif-
ferent variation rates of the friction angle φb for various kinds of un-
saturated soils. The slope n of 0.0499 is determined from the fitting
equation with φ′ = 22°.
As shown in Fig. 9(a) for the uniform suction with depth, pa is di-
vided into two distinct segments from an inflection point. When
(ua − uw) ≤ (ua − uw)b = 20 kPa, pa corresponds to the left linear seg-
ment and is independent of the intercept m for φb = φ′ = 22°. But once
(ua − uw) > (ua − uw)b = 20 kPa, pa on the right segment is closely
related with the intercept m. For instance, the pa of m = 5 or 10 kPa
continuously increases but at a reduced rate. In addition, the pa of
m = 0 kPa has nearly no any increase, while two segments of the pa for
m = 50 kPa are almost identical (i.e., φb ≈ φ′ = 22° when
(ua − uw) > (ua − uw)b = 20 kPa). Similar variations are depicted in
Fig. 9(b) for the linear suction with depth. The fundamental difference
of Fig. 9(a and b) is that the left linear segment of linear suction is
longer than that of uniform suction, and the inflection point occurs at
(26b)
Fig. 9. Variations of the allowable bearing capacity pa in unsaturated soils for
high suction values: (a) uniform suction; (b) linear suction.
(ua − uw)B/4 = (ua − uw)b = 20 kPa corresponding to the surface suc-
tion (ua − uw)o = 36 kPa. Furthermore, the discrepancy of the pa under
different intercepts m is more obvious for uniform suction than linear
suction.
The preceding analyses are based on the maximum plastic distance
Zmax = B/4 to determine the allowable bearing capacity pa of strip
foundations for a normal service life period of low–rise and multistory
superstructures. The value of Zmax could be adjusted to accommodate
different safety requirements of special superstructures. Fig. 10 depicts
the pa of saturated soils versus the effective internal friction angle φ′ for
Zmax = (0, 1/4, 1/2 and 1) × B and k0 = 1. The lower and upper
bounds of the pa correspond to Zmax = 0 (i.e., a fully elastic state of
foundation soils) and B, respectively. Additionally, the discrepancy of
the pa for different Zmax values becomes more notable for a larger φ′.
The total and relative settlements of a strip foundation are usually
checked on the basis of the design additional load of superstructures at
foundation base after foundation dimensions have satisfied the bearing
capacity performance requirement.
The lateral pressure coefficient at–rest k0 is not equal to 1 in un-
saturated soils. It is a function of matric suction and even can become
negative. A simple formulation of k0 in Eq. (27) was developed by
considering the concepts of both the elasticity theory and the two in-
dependent variable approach [6].
µ E (u a uw )
k0 =
1 µ (1 µ) H ( v ua ) (27)
where μ = Poisson’s ratio; (σv − ua) = net normal stress in the vertical

7
C. Zhang, et al.
Fig. 10. Allowable bearing capacity pa for different maximum plastic distances.
direction; E and H = Young’s modulus with respect to the change in
(σv − ua) and (ua − uw), respectively.
On the other hand, the effective stress approach based on the suc-
tion–stress concept was adopted with an extended Hooke’s law [12],
and k0 is expressed as
µ 1 2µ ( u a uw )
k0 =
1 µ 1 µ ( v ua ) (28)
where χ = effective stress parameter.
From Eq. (27) or Eq. (28), it appears that k0 is also a function of the
depth under consideration due to the net normal stress (σv − ua). Fur-
thermore, the lateral pressure coefficient is easily introduced from Eq.
(27) or Eq. (28) as k0 × OCRα for over–consolidated unsaturated soils,
where α is an exponent larger than zero.
Note that even in an elastic range of soil deformations, the soil
condition is something between the at–rest and the active states. The
assumption of the soil being at the at–rest state (in which k0 is a key
parameter) is a limitation of this study. Additionally, k0 is tentatively
taken as a constant for easy applications in practice.
Matric suction in unsaturated soils has nonlinear variations with
depth and is highly dependent on the soil type, hydrologic and geo–-
hydrologic conditions. In sandy soils or even silty soils, matric suction
may not be taken as a constant or linear changing parameter, since it
exists just in a small depth of the soil. Considering the linear or constant
profile for this parameter provides a very simple approximation in
order to derive closed–form equations of the allowable bearing capa-
city. It is the second limitation of this study to develop an accurate and
general framework. Nonlinear variations of matric suction versus the
depth based on the suction–stress concept incorporating environmental
factors and material factors will be performed in future works.
This study carried out a preliminary investigation on the allowable
bearing capacity of unsaturated soils using the two independent vari-
able approach. More studies will be undertaken to apply the suc-
tion–stress concept and its parameter within the framework of the ef-
fective stress approach to better characterize nonlinear strength
behaviors for unsaturated soils [12].
7. Conclusions
The allowable bearing capacity of strip foundations for saturated
soils under the hydrostatic in–situ stress (k0 = 1) is developed for un-
saturated soils under the non–hydrostatic in–situ stress (k0 ≠ 1). The
proposed formulation of allowable bearing capacity has a closed–form
expression as the same as the conventional ultimate bearing capacity
and thus is readily to be adopted in engineering practice. Application
conditions with non–negative factors are introduced for uniform and
8
Computers and Geotechnics 114 (2019) 103138
linear distributions of matric suction, respectively. The rationality and
validity of the allowable bearing capacity proposed have been de-
monstrated by comparing its predictions with three types of the results
available in the literature.
The allowable bearing capacity of strip foundations is considerably
influenced by unsaturated characteristics of soil strength, including
matric suction and its distribution as well as the friction angle related to
matric suction. The design of a strip foundation based on the saturated
soil mechanics is conservative and then more investments would be
generated. In addition, the influences of matric suction and the friction
angle related to matric suction are more remarkable for uniform suction
than linear suction. The routine allowable bearing capacity with k0 = 1
is found to be only a roughly average conception for both saturated and
unsaturated soils. The allowable bearing capacity of unsaturated soils
increases nonlinearly with the over–consolidation ratio and is parallel
to that of saturated soils. It is significant to reasonably consider un-
saturated strength characteristics and actual in–situ stress states for an
optimal design of strip foundations.
The closed–form formulation proposed in this study provides a
rapid, accurate and reliable hand calculation of allowable bearing ca-
pacity for strip foundations in unsaturated soils, in which the influences
of matric suction, suction distributions with depth, the friction angle
related to matric suction, and the lateral pressure coefficient at–rest or
over–consolidation ratio can be investigated efficiently in the pre-
liminary design of a strip foundation.
Acknowledgements
The financial support provided by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (NSFC) (41202191), the Opening Fund of State
Key Laboratory of Geohazard Prevention and Geoenvironment
Protection (SKLGP2017K025), and the China Scholarship Council (CSC)
(201706565020) is gratefully acknowledged. The authors would like to
thank two anonymous reviewers for their constructive suggestions in
improving the original manuscript.
References
[1] Bejan F, Teodoru IB. Allowable pressure for rigid strip foundations. Buletinul
Institutului Politehnic din lasi Sectia Constructii, Arhitectura 2016;62(4):39–51.
[2] Costa YD, Cintra JC, Zornberg JC. Influence of matric suction on the results of plate
load tests performed on a lateritic soil deposit. Geotech Test J 2003;26(2):219–27.
[3] EC7. Eurocode 7: geotechnical design. London: British Standards Institution; 2004.
[4] Fredlund DG, Morgenstem NR, Widger RA. The shear strength of unsaturated soils.
Can Geotech J 1978;15(3):313–21.
[5] Fredlund DG, Rahardjo H, Fredlund MD. Unsaturated soil mechanics in engineering
practice. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2012.
[6] Fredlund DG, Rahardjo H. Soil mechanics for unsaturated soils. New York: John
Wiley & Sons; 1993.
[7] Gao DZ. Soil mechanics and foundation engineering. Beijing: China Architecture
and Building Press; 1998. in Chinese.
[8] GB50007–2011. China national code for design of building foundation. Beijing:
China Architecture and Building Press; 2012. in Chinese.
[9] Houston SL, Perez-Garcia N, Houston WN. Shear strength and shear–induced vo-
lume change behavior of unsaturated soils from a triaxial test program. J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng 2008;134(11):1619–32.
[10] Jahanandish M, Habibagahi G, Veiskarami M. Bearing capacity factor, Nγ, for un-
saturated soils by ZEL method. Acta Geotech 2010;5(3):177–88.
[11] Knappett J, Craig RF. Craig's soil mechanics. 8th ed. London: Spon Press; 2012.
[12] Lu N, Likos WJ. Unsaturated soil mechanics. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2004.
[13] Martin CM. ABC–analysis of bearing capacity; 2004. < http://www.eng.ox.ac.uk/
civil/people/cmm/software > .
[14] Mei L, Mei GX, Zai JM. Numerical analysis of critical bearing capacity of subsoil
with K0 unequal to 1. In: Ali L, Correia AC, Yang JS, Tao MJ, editors. Recent ad-
vancement in soil behavior, in situ test methods, pile foundations, and tunneling.
Reston: ASCE; 2009. p. 42–8.
[15] Oh WT, Vanapalli SK. Interpretation of the bearing capacity of unsaturated fine–-
grained soil using the modified effective and the modified total stress approaches.
Int J Geomech 2013;13(6):769–78.
[16] Oh WT, Vanapalli SK. Modeling the stress versus settlement behavior of shallow
foundations in unsaturated cohesive soils extending the modified total stress ap-
proach. Soils Found 2018;58(2):382–97.
[17] Oloo SY, Fredlund DG, Gan JKM. Bearing capacity of unpaved roads. Can Geotech J
1997;34(3):398–407.
C. Zhang, et al.
[18] Omar M, Hamad K, Suwaidi MA, Shanableh A. Developing artificial neural network
models to predict allowable bearing capacity and elastic settlement of shallow
foundation in Sharjah, United Arab Emirates. Arab J Geosci 2018;11(16):464.
[19] Tang Y, Vo H, Taiebat HA, Russell AR. Influences of suction on plate load tests on
unsaturated silty sands. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2018;144(8):04018043.
[20] Ukritchon B, Yoang S, Keawsawasvong S. Bearing capacity of shallow foundations
in clay with linear increase in strength and adhesion factor. Mar Georesour Geotec
2018;36(4):438–51.
[21] Vahedifard F, Robinson JD. Unified method for estimating the ultimate bearing
capacity of shallow foundations in variably saturated soils under steady flow. J
Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2016;142(4):04015095.
[22] Vanapalli SK, Mohamed FMO. Bearing capacity of model footings in unsaturated
soils. In: Schanz T, editor. Experimental unsaturated soil mechanics. Berlin:
Springer; 2007. p. 483–93.
Computers and Geotechnics 114 (2019) 103138
[23] Vo T, Russell AR. Bearing capacity of strip footings on unsaturated soils by the slip
line theory. Comput Geotech 2016;74:122–31.
[24] Wang HZ. Handbook of modern mathematics in science and engineering. Wuhan:
Huazhong Institute of Technology Press; 1985. in Chinese.
[25] Zhang CG, Cai MM, Zhao JH, Wu LZ. Application of a unified linear yield criterion
in plane strain to study the strength theory effect in geotechnical engineering.
Environ Earth Sci 2018;77(22):758.
[26] Zhang CG, Chen XD, Fan W. Critical embedment depth of a rigid retaining wall
against overturning in unsaturated soils considering intermediate principal stress
and strength nonlinearity. J Cent South Univ 2016;23(4):944–54.
[27] Zhang CG, Chen XD, Fan W. Overturning stability of a rigid retaining wall for
foundation pits in unsaturated soils. Int J Geomech 2016;16(4):06015013.
[28] Zhu F, Zhang WX, Dong WZ, Sun MZ. A new calculation method for the bearing
capacity of soft soil foundation. Adv Mech Eng 2017;9(10). 1687814017732520.