9480 JANUARY 1973 sMt JOURNAL OF THE SOIL MECHANICS AND FOUNDATIONS DIVISION Analysis of Ultimate Loads of Shallow Foundations By Aleksandar S. Vesi¢,! F. ASCE INTRODUCTION The analysis of ultimate foads represents an important step for evaluation of the stability and economy of shallow foundations. Along with analysis of settlements which is made to ascertain whether the foundations can fulfill their intended function from the structural and utilitarian point of view, the computation of ultimate loads constitutes the primary framework for éesi While the introduction of rational criteria of foundation design represents 4 relatively recent development in engineering practice, the interest in analysis of ultimate loads of foundations can be traced back in literature at least 100 yr. A brief review of the early work on the subject, initiated by Rankine in 1857, can be found in the well-known Terzaghi's first treatise on soil mechanies 7. Modern:esearch on this problem started with Prandtl’s paper on the indentation of metals (60), which was extended to the case of weightless materials with infernal friction by Reissner (62) and to the axially-symmetrical case by Hencky (G4), First applications of their solutions to foundation snalysis are attributed to Caquot (10) and Buisman (8). The latter inspired the frst attempts to extend the plasticity analyses to soils with weight (61) and suggested the superposition of the weight term with the other two terms of the bearing capacity equation. This approach figures prominently in the almost concurrent work of Terzaghi (73), which has made a lasting impact on the coming generation. A list of the ‘major contributions to the subject since 1940 is presented in Tables 1, 2, and 3 The purpose of this paper is to present to the practicing engineer as well Note—Diseussion open until June 1, 1973, Ta extend the closing date one month, 2 written request must be filed with the Fultor of Technical Pubicstions, ASCE. Ths ‘Paper is part of the copyrighted Journal of the Soil Mechanies an Foundations Division, Proceedinas of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 9, No. SMI, January, 1973, Manuscript was submitted for review for possible publication on October 18, 1971 "5. A. Jones Prof. and Chmn., Dept. of Civ. Erte. Duke Univ, Duthamn, N.C. 68 JANUARY 1973 M1 ‘Table 1.—Principal Contributions to Subject Since 1940-—Theoretiel Solutions Plane-strsin case Axialiy-symmetrcal case _ liste 2 Sokolovaki, 1942, 1960 (69) Ishlinski, 1948 (96) Terzaghi, 1943 (73) Borezantsov, 1962 (1) ‘Mizuno, 1948 (61) Mizuno, 1959 (52) Meyerhof, 1948, 51,56 (46,478) Shiold, 1955 (65) Caquot ond Kérisel, 1949, 63,56 (11,12) | Eason and Shield, 1960 (25) Lundgren ané Mortensen, 1953 (43) Cox et al, 1961 (14) Sorounow-Possndov, 1953, 6528 Cox, 1962 (13) ant H Table 2Principal Contributions to Subject Since 1940—Experimental Studies | Static leading sient loading en) 2 Meishoider, 1940 (45) De Beer end Vesié, 1968 (20) Meyer, 1948 (46) Cunny and Siosn, 1961 (15) | Davis and Woodward, 1949 (16) Seilig and MeKee, 1961 (64) ‘Mune and Kahl, 1954,57, 61 (64) Fisher, 1962 (26), De Beer and Ves, 1958 (21) ‘Jackson and Hac a, 1964, (98) De Beer end Ladanyi, 961 (22) | Write, 1964 tas) Bent Hansen, 1961 (20) Ves, et al, 1965 (82) Fe Poplin, 1967 (59) ‘een Cerna eos area) | vb to Does tee Table 3—Other Principal Contributions to Subject Since 1940 State-of-the-art reviews. Case histories a a TTerzaghi, 1943 (73) Terzaghi and Pack, 1988 (74) De Beer, 1949, 1965 (17,18) Skompton, 1951 (67), | Meyerhof, 1951, 1963 (47,50) Brinch Hansen, 1987, 61, 706.67) | De Beer end Vesic, 1958 (21), Naujoks, 1963 (66) Lambe, 1965 (40) De Mello, 1969 (23) Whitman, 1970 (7) Hvorsiav, 1970 (35) Weiss, 1970 (63) ‘Skompton, 1842 (6) Tschebotaritt, 1951 (75) Peck end Bryant, 1953 (58) White, 1953 (85), Bjerrum snd Overland, 1957 (3) Nordlund and Deere, 1970 (57), Mt ‘SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS. 7 fs t0 a scholar just entering this field, a modern outlook of the considered problem, incorporating, ina general sense, all major contributions on the subject, To keep the paper length within the prescribed limits, the presentation will be restricted to the basic case of a footing on homogeneous soil, loaded by central, vertical load. The effects of eccentricity and inclination of loads, base tlt, inclination of ground surface or nonhomogencous soil conditions. will be treated in two subsequent papers. MODES OF FAILURE It is known from the observation of the behavior of foundations subjected to foad that bearing capacity failure usually occurs as a shear failure of the soll supporting the footing. The three principal modes of shear failure under foundations have been described in literature as general shear failure (8,10,73), local shear failure (21,73), and punching shear failure (21,76), General shear failure is characterized by the existence of a well-defined failure Pattern, which consists of a continuous slip surface from one edge of the footing 'o the ground surface [Fig. 1(«)]. In stress-controlled conditions, under which most foundations operate, failure is sudden and catastrophic, Unless the structure prevents the footings from rotating, the failure is also accompanied by substantial ‘iting of the foundation. In strain-controlled conditions, (occurring, e.g, when the load is transmitted by jacking) a visible decrease of load necessary to produce footing movement after failure may be observed [Fig. I(a)]. A tendency toward bulging of adjacent soit can be recorded through most of the loading process ‘on both sides of the footing, although the final soil collapse occurs only on one side In contrast to the preceding failure mode, the punching shear failure mode is characterized by a failure pattern that isnot easily observed (Fig. 1Cc)] As the load increases the vertical movement of the footing is accompanied by a compression of the soil immediately underneath, Continued penetration ‘of the footing is made possible by vertical shear around the footing perimeter ‘The soil outside the loaded area remains relatively uninvolved and there are practically no movements of the soil on the sides of the footing. Both the vertical and the horizontal equilibrium of the footing are maintained. With the exception of small sudden movements (jerks) of the foundation in the vertical sirection, there is neither visible collapse nor substantial tilting. Continuous increase in vertical load is needed to maintain footing movement in the vertical direction. Finally, the focal shear failure is also characterized by a failure pattern which is clearly defined only immediately below the foundation [Fig. 1(b)]. This pattern consists of a wedge and slip surfaces which start at the edges of the footing just as in the case of general shear failure. There is a visible tendency toward Soil bulging on the sides of the footing. However, the vertical compression under the footing is significant and the slip surfaces end somewhere in the soll mass. Only after a considerable vertical displacement of the footing, e.g up to a half of the width or diameter of the footing, may the slip surfaces Appear at the ground surface, Even then there is no catastrophic collapse or tilting of the footing which remains deeply embedded, mobilizing the resistanceJANUARY 1873 Mt — Fig, 1.—Modes of Bearing Capacity Failure (76) Fig. 2-—Modes of Failure of Model Footings in Chattahoochee Sand (20,76) sm ‘SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS ry ‘of deeper soil strata. Thus, the local shear failure retains some characteristics oof both general shear and punching modes of failure, representing truly a transitional mode, ‘The mode of failure that can be expected in any particular case of a foundation Sepends on a number of factors that have been partially explored so far. Tt ean be said generally thatthe failure mode depends on the relative compressibility of the soil in the particular geometrical and loading conditions. If the soil is practically imeompressible and has a finite shearing strength, it will {ai in general shear. On the other hand, if the soil is very compressible for its strength, it will ail in ponching shear. Thus, as shown in Refs. 21 and 76, a footing fon the surface of very dense sand Will normally fail in general shear, while the same footing on the surface of very loose sand wil. fail in punching shear However, itis important to understand that the sol type alone does not determine the mode of failure. For example, the mentioned footing on very dense sand ccan fail also in punching shear if the footing is placed at greater depth (76) (see Fig, 2) or if itis loaded by a transient, dynamic load (33,64,82). Similarly, the same footing will fail in punching shear if the very dense sand below is underlain by any compressible stratum such as loose sand of soft clay. Also, 4 footing on saturated, normally consolidated clay will fal in general shewr if it is loaded so that no volume change can take place, while it may fail in punching shear if itis loaded slow enough so that all yolume change ean take place in the soil under load. While the foregoing differences in failure modes are now reasonably well lunderstood, there are at present no general numerical criteria that can be used for prediction of the mode of shear failure of soils loaded by footings. The ‘only rational parameter proposed so far for the evaluation of relative compre: ibility of soil masses under load is the rigidity index, I,,defined as c ee quné o in which G = the shear modulus and c = @ strength parameters of the soil (77,18). This index, appearing in solutions of the problem of expansion of cavities in an infinite solid, is associated with the assumed elastic-ideal plastic behavior of soil, To take care also of the average volumetric strain, A, in the plastic zone, it has been suggested (78) that the value given by Eq. I should be reduced to 1, = 1, in which 1 1+ Ta It is known that the rigidity index varies with the stress level and with the character of loading. A high value of I,,, ef. over 250, definitely implies a relatively incompressible soil mass, whereas a low value, e.g., 10, implies @ relatively compressible soil mass. Nevertheless, in absenceof theoretical solutions for an elastic-plastic solid, there is noway as yet, other than semi-empirical, to make use of index I, in predicting the failure mode of shallow footings, Some possibilities along these lines are outlined later herein in analyses of the influence of soil compressibility, @50 JANUARY 1873 sma ULTIMATE LOAD CRITERION From the preceding analysis it is apparent that the failure of a loaded footing is clearly defined only in the ease of the general shear failure. In such a case the peak. ultimate load is reached simultaneously with the appearance of slip lines at the ground surface, which is followed by foundation collapse and a considerable bulging of the soil mass on the side of the footing. In contrast to this, in the case of two other failure modes, local and punching shear, the point of failure is less clearly defined and often difficult to establish. In the case of punching or local shear failure of footings on sand surface it has been observed QI) that a first failure characterized by a sudden, large plastic deformation of the soil under the footing, may occur rather early in the loading stage. However, to observe this first Failure it is essential to have a stress-controlled loading. AS most loading tests are performed by the use of hydraulic jacks, this first failure cannot be noticed with any certainty and has, therefore, limited the practical value ‘A versatile ultimate load criterion, that ean be recommended for general use, defines the ultimate load us the point at which the slope of the load-settlement curve first reaches zero or a steady, minimum value (76) (see Fig. 1). Another very consistent ultimate load criterion defines the ultimate load at the point of break of the load-seitlement curve in a log/log plot (20) (see Fig. 3). Both criteria require, however, that the loading test be carried to very large displace- ments, preferably of the order of $0 % of the foundation size. Thus, from the practical point of view, it may be preferable to establish some other criterion of critical settlement. Such x criterion is, no doubt, justified by the basie philosophy of foundation design, which considers excessive settlement as failure of the foundation, Itis thus of special interest to know the magnitude of settlements of footings needed to mobilize utlimate loads. Observations in saturated clays (67) indicate that these seitlements may be about 3 % to 7 % of the footing width for surface footings, increasing up 10 15 % for deep footings. Somewhat higher valves are found for footings in sand: they range from $ % to 15 % for surface footings. land may be as high as 25 % for deep footings (20,21,47,54,76). There appears tobe a general tendency toward the increase of ultimate Setilements with increased size of the footings (18,20), Considering these facts it is advisable to carry load tests on footings and Plates on loose and compressible soils to settlements equal to at least 25 of the footing width, unless a clearly defined ultimate load can be observed earlier. In cases where a peak load cannot be established with certainty, it is expedient for the practice to adopt a limit of critical settlement, such as 10 % of the footing depth. The same limit has been often proposed and used for driven piles (79) COMPUTATION OF ULTIMATE LOAD ‘The computation of ultimate boad for a shallow footing resting on soil represents «problem of elastic-plastic equilibrium which can, in principle, be solved for atleast the plane-sirain and the axilly-symmetrical case, The foremost difficulty smi SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS: st t Fig, 3—Utimate Load Criterion Based on Log Loed/Log Settioment Plat (20) ei Fig, 4—Problem of Bearing Capacity of Shallow Footings82 JANUARY 1973 SM {in finding acceptable solutions lies undoubtedly inthe selection of a mathematical model of soil behavior or its constitutive (stress-strain-time) relationships. Despite greatly improved capabilities for the solution of boundary value problems of this kind, the theory of beating capacity stil is limited almost exclusively to Solutions developed for the rigid-plastc solid of the classical Theory of Plasticity AAs presently known, this solid is assumed to exhibit ro deformation whatsoever prior to shear failure and a plastic flow at constant stress after failure. Thus. the capabilities of theoretical prediction of the ultimate load are, strictly speaking, limited at present to relatively incompressible soils or to the general shear failure mode, However, it is @ rather common practice to use the available solutions for compressible soils as well, with possible reduction for the effects of compressibility. ‘The problem generally is posed as follows [Fig 4(a)]. The rectangular foundation of widih B and length L., rests in a soil mass at a depth. D. The soil mass is of semi-infinite extent and homogeneous. It has an effective unit ‘weight, 7 and shear strength properties defined by a straighlline Mohr envelope, with strength characteristics cand &, and a stress-strain curve of a rigid-plastic body, shown in Fig. 4(6). To be determined is the maximum unit load, 4, = Q,/BL, which this foundation can support. Te’ solve this problem, the following simplifications are usually made: () ‘The shearing resistance of the overburden soil [along be, Fig. (a) is neglected (2) the friction berween the overburden soil und the foundation (along ad, Fig. 4(a)] as well as between the overburden snd supporting soil [along ab, Fig, -4(a)) is neglected; and (3) the length, L, is assumed to be large in comparison with the width, B, of the foundation In other words, the overburden soil is replaced by a uniformly distributed surcharge q = yD. At the same time plane strain conditions are assumed ‘Simplifications | and 2, always on the safe side, are justified in most cases. ‘The overburden soil is usually weaker or cracked, while the foundation is placed by excavation and backiiling. Simplification 3, equivalent to assuming the foundation to be an infinite strip of width B is justified, strictly speaking for L/B > 5, The corrections to be introduced for L/B < $ and shapes other than a rectangle will be presented later. ‘The problem, formulated as shown in Fig. 4(¢), has been solved by the methods ‘of the Theory of Plasticity. The basic solution available (60,62) indicates that the failure pattern should consist of three zones. Zone I is an active Rankine zone, which pushes the radial Prandtl zone II sideways and the passive Rankine zone Ill in an upward direction, The lower boundary, ACDE, of the displaced soil mass is composed of two straight lines AC and DE, inclined at 45 + 4/2, respectively: 45 — 6/2 to the horizontal. The shape of the connecting curve, CD, depends on angle @ and on the ratio, yB/q. For yB/q — 0 (weightless soil) the curve becomes a logarithmic spiral which for y = 0 degenerates into a circle. In a general case (yB # 0) the curve lies between a spiral and a circle, as long as ¢ # 0. For a frictionless soil ( = 0) the curve is always. 4 circle, All these Findings have been confirmed experimentally by De Beer ‘and Vesié (21) and others, though the angle, J, was found to be slightly larger than 4S + 4/2, a least for long rectangular footings on the surface of sand, ‘A closed analytical solution of this problem, 2s posed, has not been found Smt ‘SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS: 53 yet and probably will not be found, except for special cases. For weightless soil ( ~ 0), Prandtl and Reissner have found that G2 N, + aN, @ in which Nand NY ate diaensionles bearing capacity factor, defined by = erin (Z ‘) | ica) : : The numerical values of these factors are given in Table 4 For cohesionless soil without overburden (c that 0, q = 0) it can be shown 6 in which N, is aguin a dimensionless bearing capacily factor which can be evaluated only qumerically. This factor varies sharply with angle. The eumerieal values taken from an analysis made by Caquot and Kérisel (12) under the csumption thal # = 45-4 6/2 can be approximated with an error on the safe side (not exceeding 10 % for 15* < g & 45" and not exceeding 8 % for 20° < ¢ < 40") by the equation Nye UNH NE veces sea o ‘The N,-values according to Eq. 6 are given in Table 4. For all intermediate cases, in which ¢ # 0, q # O and y # 0, Eqs. 3 and 5 are combined into 1 4,2 ON, + aN, + YBN, 0 known as the Terzaghi equation (9,73). Refined plasticity analyses show that this superposition is not strictly correct; however, it leads to errors which are fon the safe side, nat exceeding 17% to 20 % for & = MP to 40°, while equal to 0 for b = 32,53) It should be mentioned herein that there exists in literature a great variety of proposed solutions to this problem. While the variations in N, and N,-values proposed remain relatively insignificant, the differences in N,values, ‘coming primarily from the mentioned sharp variation of N, with gare substantial, ranging from about one-third to double the values shows in Table 4. Despite the intensified experimental work on this subject, the question of correct N,-values has for some time remained unsettled, because of difficulties in selecting a representative value of angle of shearing resistance & for the bearing capacity computations. Some authors (7,50) use the plane-strain value ‘of & which, according to their views, may be up to 10 % higher than the ‘corresponding conventional triaxial test value. This can help explain the results of tests with long rectangular plates on soil surface; however, it only contributes to difficulties in interpreting the results of tests with circular plates placed at6a JANUARY 1973 Table 4—Bearing Capacity Factors win. | a a0 020 21 022 024 025 026 027 028 030 031 oa 033 035 038 oar 0.85 smi M1 ‘SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS 55 Table 4—Comtinued 0 2 ‘31 o o @ a To5.17 99.02 786.58 O98 093) aa 11837 11831 22464 097 037 5 13388 13488 276 101 10 as | 15210 188.51 33035 1.04 108 a 17364 18721 409.67 1108 197 a | 198.26 231 496.01 az un 4s | 22333 26551 613.16 118. 115 so | 256.80 318.07 76289 | 120 138 4 certain depth. (It can be questioned to what degree the conditions of soil elements slong a slip surface under a circular footing are closer 10 ¢; = &y than to plane-strain conditions.) Much stronger is the argument that @ shear failure in soil under the footing isa phenomenon of progressive rupture at quite variable stress levels (18,20,53) Consequently when the slip fine, ACDE, in Fig. 4(c) reaches E, just mobilizing the peak shearing strength at that point, the soil strength at the beginning of the slip line, point A, must be well below the peak. In addition, the stress level at A is higher than at E. Thus, in view of the known curvature of Mohe's envelope in the low stress range, the dangle at A must be lower than at E. A representative g-value must be sought with due consideration to these facts, Working along these lines, it has been suggested by De Beer (18) that the bearing capacity evaluations should be made using strength characteristics corresponding to an average mean normal stress equal to 1 ; = 7 (dat Bait ~ sin 8) @ While the analyses and investigations of these and other questions associated with the evaluation of the bearing capacity continue, thete is an increased trend. among both practicing engineers and researchers to retain the Prandtl-Reissner and Caquot-Kérisel factors given in Table 4 as the most reliable factors available at present. The widely used Terzaghi factors, though not substantially different numerically, are being abandoned gradually, as they are based on obviously incorrect failure patterns. EFFECT OF FOUNDATION SHAPE For foundation shapes other than the long rectangle, the mathematical difficul- ties in obtaining solutions are considerable. Only the axally-symmetrical case of a circular footing has been solved so far (J,13,14,25,52). The proposed solutions. ‘make use of some assumptions about soil behavior that remain to be proven experimentally (e.g. complete plasticity.) and their resus are, at least in part, at some variance with observations (32), In view of the aforementioned facts, the engineering approach to evaluation56 JANUARY 1973 M1 of the effect of foundation shape has been mostly semi-empirical. On the basis fof comparative loading tests with footings of different shapes, including long rectangles, the following modification of Eq. 7 has come into general use 1 FONE HAN Set SBN sO In Eg. 9 N., Ny. and N, are, as before, bearing capacity factors for an infinite strip of long rectangle aid ¢. ¢,, {, ate dimensionless parameters called shape factors ‘Table Shape Factors for Shallow Foundations Shape of the baso be te Oo a Bo Rectangle Ta tB/LANSN) | 1 RL) nd Cirle and square Lt INY/ND fer) L = +4 ma Peper Btu t Heh 18, ant Fig. 5 ~Etfect of Size on Bearing Capacity of Surface Footings in Sand (18) ‘Shape factors also depend on the angle of shearing resistance, &, of the soil, as well as some other parameters. However, many of them are taken to be constants or simply functions of the geometzical form of the foundation, Recommended equations of shape factors based primarily on extensive exper iments at Ghent (20,22) are given in Table 5. Numerical values of N,/N, and tan 6, appearing in these equations are given in Table 4 EFFECT OF SHEARING RESISTANCE OF OVERBURDEN In the consideration of the computation of ultimate load it was mentioned Smt ‘SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS, 57 that the analyses presented neglect the shearing resistance of the overburden, This is normally justified by the fact that the overburden soil is weaker than the bearing stratum. There are, however, cases where the expected increase of bearing capacity due to shearing resistance of the averburden is of interest and nceds to be evaluated. The problem may be formulated, as before, as the plane-strain problem of general shear failure of a rigid-plastic solid, with the difference that the solid extends above the level of the foundation base [ Fig. 4(]. The exact solution of this problem is, again, not known. Approximate solutions have been found by Meyerhof (47) and others. The results are often presented for analysis in the form of depth factors {, (6,67). These are dimensionless parameters, analogous to factors, in Eq. 9, indicating the increase in individual terms of the bearing capacity due to the shearing strength of the overburden. Their values are given by the following approximate formulas proposed by Brinch Hansen (7) and valid for D/B = 1. Thus bartering sing? | wt 2 | « bar j Term 64m ound rom th following sorespondece formu Lt From Eas. 10 and 1. for = > cunt 048 : 0 is obtained. For D/B > 1 the calculations of depth factors are fraught with uncertainty, requiring rather arbitrary assumptions about stress conditions in the overburden soil. Experimental data are difficult w interpret properly, a the scale and compressibility effects (examined herein) intervene along with ‘uncertainties about exact stress conditions in the surrcunding soil. To provide & transition to deep foundations Brinch Hansen (7) tentatively proposed the following for D/B > 1 als bya 1+ 2tan (1 ~ sing) tan ( = \ Combined with Eq. 11, Fq. 13 yields for § = 0 aay 3 cart o4en(2) “an These equations, combined with shape factors from Table 5 give for very deep sae oy cclr foundations in xtra cay (¢ = 8) he weltinown ret 9.28¢ + q. In cohesionless soils these equations give q, = 3.18 q N, for 6 = 0 and qe = 368 q Ny for @ = 45" in which N, is given by Eq? nl88 JANUARY 1973 sm 4, These results are in fair agreement with observed point bearing capacities of driven piles in sand in conditions where q could be determined with some certainty (78,79) Note, however, that this increase of bearing capacity due to depth effect ‘occurs in conditions where the method of placement of the foundation (driving) causes significant lateral compression. There exists good evidence that this effect is practically nonexistent if the foundations are drilled-in or buried and backfilled (76), or if the overburden strata are relatively compressible. For this reason, itis advisable not to introduce depth factors in the design of shallow foundations. INFLUENCE OF SOIL COMPRESSIBILITY AND SCALE EFFECTS It has been emphasized previously that all preceding analyses of ‘ultimate Toad are based on the assumption of incompressibilty of soil and that they should be applied, strictly speaking, only to cases where general shear failure cf the soil is expected. There exists a lack of rational methods for analyzing bearing capacity failures in the two other modes, characteristic for compressible soil. To satisfy the immediate needs of the engineering practice, Terzaghi (73) proposed the use of the same bearing capacity equation and factors with reduced strength characteristics ¢* and 6 defined as ot = 0676 } 4 = tan“! 67 tan 6) Such an approach may give satisfactory answers in some soils, although it is not always on the safe side (81). For sands, a flat reduction of & in the case of local and punching shear failures is probably too conservative, It also suggests a jump in bearing capacity on transition to general shear failure, @ phenomenon which, of course, does not occur. The writer's observations of failure loads of small footings on at least four sands suggest that the factor 0.67 in Eqs. 15 should be replaced by a correction factor varying with relative density D,, such as 0.67 + D, ~ 0.75 D}, applicable in the range 0 = D, = 067 Proposals of this kind may be useful forthe practice: however, their ultimate value is quite limited as they are based on a doubtful premise that the relative compressibility of a soil under different geomettical and loading conditions is related exclusively to its strength characteristics ¢ and 6. In other words, the philosophy of this approach ignores the eaistence of scale effects other than those expressed by Eq. 7. Scale effects differing from those pregicted by the classical earth pressure theories have been known in bearing capacity and earth pressure phenomena for quite some time, Yet, the understanding of the variety of reasons for their existence has come only in very recent years, mostly in connection with studies of shallow and deep foundations (19,39,78). These studies indicate that, in case of shallow foundations, the average shear strength mobilized along a slip line under the foundation decreases with foundation size. There are actually three independent reasons for this decrease of strength with foundation size: (1) The curvature of Mohr envelope; (2) progressive rupture along the slip line; and as) sM1 ‘SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS 59 3) presence of zones ot seams of weakness in all soil deposits. The relative contribution of exch of the reasons varies with soil type and the range of footing size; their total effect being discernible in practically all sos, The aforementioned studies also show clearly that the relative compressibility of soils, both with {Sacre} [Sasi eee : I ity stare FOOTNG RESISTANCE, Tootoot® a J Fig. 6 Variation of Ultimate Resistance of Footings with Size (80) Fig. 7—Ve tion of Compressibiity Factor with and 1, respect to gravity forces and wi the foundation size In view of these facts a decrease in apparent values of bearing capacity factors with size should be expected, to a certain degree, in all soils. The Tespect to the soil strength, increases with See eee RRRRRRMARMMMMMMMMMMMNNNNMMAAAAA60 JANUARY 1973 sM1 most conspicuous of all is probably the decrease in N,-values with an increased size of surface footings on sand. Fig. 5, taken from Ref. 18, shows that this decrease has been apparent in all major experimental studies of the problem of bearing capac been only of the size of 1 m (3.3 ft) sq, there is a great practical, as well as theoretical interest in possibly establishing whether the N,-values shown in Fig. $ tend asymptotically some minimum. Recent studies by the writer on this subject (80), seem to indicate that the N -values for arbitrarily large footings may be much smaller than conventionally assumed, This is shown in Fig. 6, which presents a comparison of measured ‘ultimate resistances of small surface footings with those of deep footings, showing. also the predicted bearing capacities of large footings according to conventional theory. Its postulated that the bearing capacity of large surface footings cannot be greater than the resistance of deep footings on the same soil. This postulate ssurmises that very large footings should fail exclusively in punching shear, as apparently all deep footings do. This should not be surprising, if the aforemen: tioned fact that the relative compressibility of soils increases with footing size is considered. In other words, there should be an upper limit of bearing capacity of all footings which may be related to the void ratio of the soil at failure. To arrive at an adequate assessment of the influence of soil compressibility and related scale effects, it would be necessary to have a bearing capacity theory based on some more realistic soil models, e-g., an elastic-plastic solid. In the absence of needed exact solutions for this class of problem, it may be proposed to use the presently available theory based on solutions for igid-plastic solid, along with some compressibility factors, ¢., analogous to Jefactors in Eq. 9 ‘To find tentative equations for compressibility factors it may be assumed that the ukimate normal pressure on the sides of the wedge under the footing. [AC and CB, Fig. 4(c)] is equal to the pressure needed to expand a cylindrical, respectively, spherical cavity ip the same soil mass. This assumption, first used by Skempton, Yassin, and Gibson (68), was found to be reasonable for deep foundations, at least under certain conditions. Combining this assumption with the writer's solutions for cavity expansion in an elastic-plastic solid (77), bearing capacity factors for comparison with those given by Tables 4 and 5 can be obtained. In this way the following equation for compressibility factor L, is obtained: B 2.01 sin 6Mlon 21 ie so {(-44+062)ian + [SOmnenee tT} 218) L Ve ing f,. for any 4 and T, can be found again from the correspondence formula, Eg. 1 For 6 = 0 B 3240127 +0.60l08 1... cece un is found. Considering Eq. 6 it may be speculated that, forall practical purposes sm SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS. or The use of Eqs. 16 and 17 makes sense, obviously, only as long as the compressibility factors remain smaller than 1, For soil, that exhibit volume change in the plastic zone, the reduced rigidity index, 1, Eq. 2, should be used in liew of 1,. Numerical values of the compressibiliy factors, ¢,., for two extreme cases, B/L = 0 (infinite strip) and B/L ~ 1 (square) are" given in Fig. 7 From Eq. 16, the magnitude of rigidity index can be found for any angle, @, and any particular foundation shape below which it becomes necessary 10 reduce the bearing capacity because of compressibility effects, This critical rigigity index is given by ~‘forbw- v8} efo-2) : Numerical values of the critical rigidity indexes corresponding to different angles of shearing resistance ¢ are given, for the two extreme cases B/L = 0 (strip) and B/L = | (square), in Table 6 ‘Table 6—Values of Critical Rigidity index ena sus critical igi index fr: ing resistance ‘Strip foundstion, Square foundation, ° B/L=0 B/L=1 _f @ @ 8 n 8 20 The concepts and analyses developed in the preceding analysis have been confirmed so far by a limited number of small scale model tests (37) and need verification infield conditions. For this resson the proposed approximate analysis ist be treated as tentative and, in some senses, qualitative in nature. The purpose of publishing Eqs. 16 and 17 at this time is 10 allow the designer, in the absence of any other rational method, to assess sumerically the order ‘of magnitude of the expected reduction of bearing capacity caused by the ‘compressibility effects. It is hoped that further development of the ability t0 treat analytically the complex elastic-plastic behavior of soils by aumerical methods such as finite-element technique will allow a more accurate prediction of compressibility effects (24).e JANUARY 1973, Mt INFLUENCE OF ROUGHNESS OF FOUNDATION BASE thas been contended often in literature thatthe failure pattern of the Prandtl solution, Fig, 4(b}, and subsequent extensions require perfect roughness of the foundation base. The argument has been that the original Prandtl solution does not satisfy the strain rate compatibility equations and that the Hencky (Ga) pattern should be used instead, at least for smooth footings. The latter pattern, used by Meyerhof (48) 10 evaluate the effects of base smoothness, suggests that the bearing capacity of 2 smooth footing on the surface of a 1. Similarly, the compressibility of soils reduces and may eliminate completely the interference effects. There are practically no such effects in the case of Punching shear failure. For these and other reasons it is not recommended to consider interference effecis in bearing capacity computations. A designer should be aware, however, of the possibility of their existence in some special circumstances. INFLUENCES OF GROUND-WATER TABLE The position of # ground-water table may have @ significant effect on the bearing capacity of shallow foundations. Generally the submergence of soils will cause the loss of all apparent cohesion, coming from capillary stresses or from weak cementation bonds. At the same time, the effective unit weight of submerged soils will be reduced to about half of the weight of the same soils above the water table, Thus, through submergence, all three terms of the bearing capacity equation may become considerably smaller. For this reason, it is essential that the bearing capacity analyses be made assuming the highest possible ground-water level at the particular location fo: the expected lifetime of the structure in question. The assessment of this highest possible level must bbe made taking into consideration the probability of temporary high levels that could be expected in some locations during heavy rainstorms or floods, although they may not appear in the official records. ‘the highest ground-water levelis within the depth z, = Below the foundation level the effective unit weight of the soil below the foundation base (y in Ea. 5 or 7) should be taken to equal: res (S)oa-v aaeaee Seer in which ' = the submerged unit weight and ,, = the moist unit weight of soil, corresponding to the minimum moisture content of the soil above the water table (48), If the water table is permanently below the depth, 2, = B, ¥y should be taken to equal q. For a water table at or above the level of the foundation base, submerged unit weight y' should be used. All preceding considerations are based on the assumption that the seepage forces acting on the soil skeleton are negiigible. Should there be significant ‘ground-water seepage in any direction, it may have an effect on the bearing capacity. In addition to possible internal erosion of the soll (undermining, piping,6 JANUARY 1973 swt and similar phenomena), the seepage force adds a component to the body forces caused by gravity. This component, acting in the direction of stream tines, {S equal to y,/, in which i= the hydraulic gradient causing seepage. simplified analysis of this effect of seepage force on the bearing capacity can be made ‘assuming that the seepage through the soil zone directly involved in potential ‘sheat failure is parallel and homogeneous. In such a case the vectorial sum ‘of effective soil weight and seepage force defines the direction ané magnitude of a fictitious to be used in Eqs. 5, 7, or 9, with possible base tilt and ‘ground-slope factors, as defined in Ref. 7. EFFECT OF RATE OF LOADING {All the analyses of beating capacity presented in preceding paragraphs are conceived for static loading conditions, It is assumed, tacitly, that footing load Q (Fis. 4(a)] is increased gradually until failure at a loading rate slow enough so that no viscous or inertia effects are felt. This assumption applies to conditions ff most ordinary footings, which carry a certain dead load and are presumed to fail by a single application of excessive static live load, The rate of application of these loads affects, under these conditions, the bearing capacity only to the extent that it may be related to the rate of drainage of excess pore-water pressures created in the supporting soil by the application of the loads. Tc is Understood that the selection of shear strength parameters ¢, @ to be introduced in the analysis will be made so as to take care of that effect. For example, if the degree of consolidation of the soil corresponding to the time of load ‘pplicationis very low or zero, itis reasonable to assume that undrained conditions will prevail and that undrained tests will furnish appropriate strength parameters Similarly, if the load application, drained conditions prevail then drained strength parameters should be used in analysis. However, some footings, such as those supporting missile-launching or blast resistance structures, are subjected t0 high live loads of very short duration. ‘The high rates of strain associated with these impulsive loads may induce viscous and inettia effects in the soil mass. The related phenomena have been the object of extensive study, mostly by load tests on model footings on sand fand clay ($3,63,82,87). The findings of these studies can be summarized as follows: 1. As the rate of loading is incteased from about 10-* in./see (static loading conditions) to about 10 in./sec (impact loading conditions) the mode of failure ‘of model footings on both dense sand and compacted clay changes from general Shear to punching shear (82). This change is explained by the fact that the inertia effects in the soil mass have a similar effect as overburden pressure Ge, 2. In the aforementioned range of loading rates, from 10~* in./see to 10 in./see, footings on dense sand show a slight drop of bearing capacity with increased loading rate, followed by a steady, slow increase, which is extended fill the way into the impact velocities range. This trend in variation of the beating capacity is analogous to the observed trend of variation of shear strength of dry sands (88). From the practical point of view, this means that the static smi SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS: cy Dearing capacity analyses may be applicable also in the ease of footings subjected to moderately rapid loads, provided that the strength parameters are determined by tests at appropriate loading rates. In absence of equipment for transient tests, a reduction of dangle of up to 2 may be in order for dense sand. It is highly questionable, however, what to expect in the case of loose, submerged sand, because of the transient liquefaction effects 3. Footings on compacted clay all show a considerable increase in bearing ‘capacity as the rate of loading changes trom static to impact loading conditions. No direct information about the behavior in the intermediate range of loading rates exists. However, it may be expected, on the basis of strength tests on clay samples at variable loading rates, that bearing capacity of footings on clay exhibit, contrary to sand, only an increase with an increased loading rate ‘This conclusion is supported by the finding that a good prediction of not only ultimate bearing capacity but aso of lozd-displacement behavior of small footings subjected 0 transient loads can be obtained by mubiplying the siress loads, corresponding to any particular displacement by appropriate str factors @8,58). The latter is defined as the ratio of undrained soil strength ata specified strain rate to the undrained soil strength at the standard laboratory In summary, it appears thatthe conventional, static analyses of bearing capacity ‘can be used for footings subjected to moderately rapid loadings, ifthe strength parameters, c, 6 introduced in the analysis are modified for strain rate effects. ‘The footings subjected to impact and vibratory loads still require a dynamic approach for analysis. The details about the analysis 9f such footings can be found in Ref. 63 CONCLUSIONS cr ree icon lm Contin oe aes hs ten el ng wit Bestavalable scltons and appropriate numerical values of earng capac factors and coefficients, nt soaesuneeusctiee itis shown thet the letest shortcoming of avai theories es i ther Coser eocareg eee Sa emee rt to formule tational compresiy criteria for soit subjected to foundation ae are eee eer aang ea of fogs on compressibe sl, ako made aval forthe APPENDIX |—EXAMPLES. Example 1—A rectangular footing 28 ft wide and 86 ft long is to be placed ata depth of 10 ft in a deep stratum of soft, saturated clay (bulk unit weight 105 tb/eu f1). The water table is at 8 ft below ground surface. Find the ult bearing capacity in the following two conditions: 1, Assumetattherateofaplieatnof dad andliveleadsisfastn comparison with the ri te of dissipation of excess pore-water pressures caused by loads,66 JANUARY 1873 smi so that undrained conditions prevail at failure. 2. Assume, as the other extreme, that the rate of loading is slow enough <0 that no excess pore water pressures are introduced in the foundation so. ‘The strength parameters of the soil, obtained from unconsolidated, undrained tests are ¢, = 0.22t/sf, 4,, = 0. Consolidated, drained tests give cy = 0.04t/ sf, 6,= 23°. The modulus of deformation of the soil in the undrained condition is F, = 24.1 t/sf. The modulus of confined compression (in drained conditions) increases with pressure q according to M, = 12.6 4. Condition 1.—Submerged unit weight of soil: y' = 105 ~ 62 = 43 Ib/eu 4k; overburden stress: q = [(8)(105) + @X43)]/(2,000) = 0.4634/f; bearing .N, = 0; shape factors (Table capacity factors (Table 4): N, = 5.14, N 5): , = 1 + (1/3)(0.20) = 1.067, {4 = 1.00; and ultimate bearing pressure (Eq. 9) 44, = (0.22M5.14)(1.067) + (0.463)(1)1,00) = 1.21 + 0.46 = 1.67 t/sf 20) ‘The critical rigidity index (Eq. 18) is ; ’ Lan f0-09(2)]o wa “ap {fum oa (2) oso} = ‘The rigidity index (Eq. 1) is (ere 4.0) 21 + 0.50.22) ‘The assumption of soil incompressibility is justified. The computed value of ultimate bearing pressure can be used without redu Condition 2.—For § = 23° N, = 18.08; N, = 866; N, = 8.20: ¢, = 1 + (1/3X0.48) = 1.165 Gy = 1 + (4/3N0.42) = 1.44; f= "1 - (0.40173) = 087; and g, = (0.64)18.05)1.16) + (0.463)(8.60)(1.1 + (1/2443) (28)8.20)0.87)/(2,000) = 0.72 + 4.357 + 2.14 = 7.434/sf (assuming incom- pressibility). The average overburden pressure in the expansion zone (taken fs pressure at the depth, B/2, below the base of the footing): 37> 12 2) [ago + 2+ 19439] om = 0.764 t/sf 023) M, = (12.6)0.168) = 962/56... ie (aay For Poisson's ratio _ f= sin. 208)) oy [2 = sin 1.2039) ‘The modulus of deformation in drained condition is swt SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS @ 1-035 - ay0.3s? B= (9462 198 210.55) 035) ‘The critical rigidity index is Ler{fpm-wen(2) Juss}... co {2(1 + 0.35) [0.04 + (0.764)(0.42)]} Thus, the assumption of soil iacompressibilty is not jusiled. The compressibility factors (Eqs. 16, and 11) are 1 ce se=vef[- 44000 (2) Joey [22% Pe, bee O44 DB t/sf 26) <9 i 8) bee = O48 09) ‘The ultimate bearing pressure is (0.72N0.37) + (4.571044) + (2.14.48) 27 +201 +098 =3.221/5f beens G0) ‘This pressure is considerably lower than 7.43 1/sf obtained for incompressible soil and slightly lower than 3.45 ¢/sf obtained by Terzaghi's empirical reduction (Ea, 13), Example 2.—Solve the problem described in Example | if the footing is placed at the same depth, 10 ft, in a deep stratum of medium dense sand, Assume for the sand a saturated unit weight of 118 Ib/cu ft and an average moist lunit weight above the water table of 100 Ib/eu ft, Drained triaxial tests on sand samples show that the angle of shearing resistance of sand, 6, varies with mean normal stress ¢, according to 88, - OSG covets Gn) in which ¢, = 38 = the angle of shearing resistance at mean norm stress ©; = 1 1/36 In the low and elevated pressure range the modulus of deform: of sand increases with the mean normal stress accordiag to: E = E, Vo jo in which E, = 364 1/sf = the modulus at the mean normal stress of 0 = Vafsf. Solution.—Submerged unit weight of sand: 9" = 118 ~ 62 = 56 Ib/eu ft; and overburden stress: q = (8X100) + (2(56)/(2,000) = 0.456 #/sf. To find the mean normal stress, according to Eq. 8, 2 preliminary estimate of the bearing ‘capacity is needed. Tt is assumed, for this preliminary analysis that @ — 24°, Bearing capacity factors (Table 4): N, = 29.44; N, = 41.06; shape factors: f, = 1+ (1/3K0.67) = 1.2254, = 10.4 (1/3) = 0.87; and ultimate bearingCI JANUARY 1973 sm pressure (Eq, 9): cso ae an + (1) SOmnonrom a OAS6H29.54K0.22) + o 2. (2,000) 64+ 140 = 304 t/ 5h 2) ‘The mean normal stress along the slip surface (Eq. 8) is ‘The representative angle of shearing resistance is = 38" = 0.548) = 3 Gh ‘The analysis is now repeated with @ = 35°. Thus N, = 33.3; N, = 48.0; Sq = 1 + C/3N0.70) = 1.235 6, = 0.87; gy, =" (0.456)33.510.23) + (1/2 6)(28)648.090.87)/2,000) = 1817 + 16.4'= 35.1 4/sf. In view of small change in mean normal stress from the previously found value, this answer js retained for incompressible sol. To check whether the assumption of incompressibility is justified the average ‘mean normal stress in the expansion zone is taken as the initial mean normal stress at a depth, B/2, below the base of the footing. With $ = 38° for the sand in elastic zone the coefficient of earth pressure at rest i K = 1 ~ sin (1.2938) = 0.29 2.89) ‘The mean normal stress at a depth of 24 fis 1+ 2N0.299) } ([8100) + G6XS6) of! ox i fe ) + U6 OD} oasury on 3 (2.000) “The modulus of deformation is B= (364) VORB = 244 e/sf : en Poisson's ratio is 0.29 = 0.23 38) (+029) ‘The representative angle of shearing resistance for the plastic zone is taken again to be 35°. “The critical rigidity index (Ea. 18) is l [Neglecting the volume change in the plastic zone a rigidity index of Mt SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS, 6 4) [2 (1 + 0.23)0.45)0.709} is found. Thus, the assumption of incompressibilty appears to be just Assuming an average volumetric strain of 1% in the plastic zone would ity index to (Eqs. 1 and 2) 16 > 278 40) he aH = 152 an, ; cataren{f-e1so(2)Jom 4, = G5.1K0.607) = 21.3 t/ sf 43) However, because the sand in question is of medium density, it is considered that the assumption of average volume compression of 1 % in the plastic zone is unfavorable. It is believed that the actual ultimate bearing capacity of this Footing on sand would be close to the upper value of 35.1 t/ sf. The allowable bearing pressure may be controlled by maximum toletable settlement for the structure in question, APPENDIX Il REFERENCES, 1. Berezantsev, ¥. G., Osesimetrichnata zadacha teri predelnogo ravnovestasypuckel sredy, Gostechiedat, Moskva, 1982, pp. 81-120 ire, J, Burel, M., and Wack, B., “Contribution 4 Pétude de le force portante ‘des Tonations,” Proceedings, Fifth International Confereace on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineeting. Paris, France, Vol. 1.1961, pp. 3-609 4. Bjerrum, L., and Overland, A, “Foundation Failure of a3 Oil Tank in Fredrikstad, Norway,” Proceedings, Fourth international Conference on Soil Mechanics, London gland. Vol. 1, 1987, pp. 287-290. 4, Brinch Hansen, J. 'Simpel berezning af fundamentersbaereevne," Ingeniren, Vel 66, No. 4, 1985, pp. 95-100. 5, Brinch Hansen, J, "General Report,” Division Il, Proceaings, Fourth International Conference on Soil Mechanics snd Foundation Engineering, London, England, Vo 1, 1957, pp. 441-487 6. Brinch Hansen, J.. “A General Formula for Beating Cepacity,” Bulletin No. 11 Danish Technical institute, Copentagen, Denmark, 1961, pp. 38-46 7. Brinch Hansen, J., "A Revised and Extended Formula for eating Capacity.” Bulletin No, 28, Danish Geotechnical Insitute, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1970, pp. 5-11 8, Buisman, A'S, K., “De weerstand van paaipunten in zand," De Tngenicar, Vol 50, 1958, pp. BU. 28228, 31-35,JANUARY 1973, sMt Buisman, A. S, K., Grondmechanica, Waltman, Delft, The Netherlands, 1940, pp 190. Coat, A. Equilibre des massifs a frottement Interne, Gauhier-Vlrs, Pars, France 1988, pp. 91 agit, A., and Ker aris France, 1956, Caguot, A. and Kérisel J., “Sur le terme de surface dans le caleul des fondations ten milieu pulvérulent, "Proceedings, Third International Conference on Sol Mechanics find Foundation Engineeting, Zutich, Switzerland, Vol. 1.1953, pp. 336-337 Cox, A Day “Axillysymmotis Plastic Deformation in Soil—IL, Indentation of Ponderable Soil,” Intemational Journal of Mechanical Sciences, Val. 4, 1962, pp. J, Jo, Trait de Mécanique des Sols, rl ef, Gasthir-Vilars Cox, A. D., Eason, G., and Hopkins, H. G.,“Axially Symmetric Plastic Deformations in Soils, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series A. Vol 25, 1961. pp. 1-45 Gunny, Wand loon, R,C., "Dynamic Loading Machine and Results of Preininary Snail Seale Footing Tess," Ssmposium on Soil Dynamics, Special Technical Publicu tion No, 33, American Society for Testing and Materials. 1961, pp. 65-77, Davis. ILE, and Woodward, R,J., "Some Laboratory Studies of Factors Pertining to the Bearing Capacity of Soi” Proceedings of the Highway Rescarch Board, Vo. 28, 1949, pp. 467-476, De Beer, E. E-, Grondmrchanica, Deel I, Funderingen N. V. Standard Boskhunde! ‘Antwerp, Belgium, 1949, pp. 41-51 DerBecr, EE. "Bearing Capacity and Setlement of Shallow Foundations on Sand, Bearing Capacity and Settlement af Foundations,” Proceedings of «Symposium held ‘a Dake University, 1968, pp. 15-34 De Besr, E- Ey “The Scale Effect on the Phenomenon of Progressive Rupture in CCohesinless Soils,” Proceedings, Sixth Internation Conference on Soil Mechanics {nd Foundation Engineering, Monttes, Canada, Vol IL, 1968, pp. 13-17 De Beer, E. Ea." Proctondervindelife bjdrage ft ée stiie van het gransdreagvermo: fea van zand onder fundevingen op sta,” Bepaling von der vormfactors,x Annales {Tes Travaux Publics de Belgique, 1967, No.6 pp 481-506; 1968, No. 1. pp. 31-88; No. 4, pp. 321-440; No. 5, pp. 398-442; No, 6, pp. 495-522; abbreviated Elis Vetsion in Geotechnique, Vol. 20, London, Englands 1970. No. 4, pp. 387-811 De Beer, EE. and Vesic, A., “Etude experimentale de ia capacité portant du fable sous des fondations diectes établies en surface,” Annales des Travaux Publics tde Belgique, Val $9, No.3, 1958. pp. 5-56 De Beer, . E., and Ladanyi, B. "Etude expérimentale de la capacité portants Gu sable’ sous des fondations citculaires elablies on surface, Proceedings, Fifth International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Paris, France, Vol. 1, 1961, pp. S77-$81 De Moll, VFB. “"Foundations of Buildings in Clay.” State-of-the-art Volume, Proceedings, Seventh International Conference on Siil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Mexico City. Mexico, 1969, pp. 49-136. Desai, Ss, and Reese, L. C., “Analysts of Circular Fookings on Layered Soils. Jourtalof the Soll Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 96, No. SMa Proc. Paper 2408, July. 1970, pp. 1289-1510, Eason, Gov and Shild, R. Te The Plastic Indentation of a Semi-tnfnite Solid by 2 Perfectly Rough Circular Punch,” Zeitschrift fur Angewandte Mathematik und Ph3sh, Basel, Switzerland, Vol. 11, 1980, pp. 33 den, W., and Bozozuk, Mi. "Foundation Failure of 2 Silo on Varved Clay.” The Engineering Journal, Montreal, Canada, 1962, p. 54 Fada, "Research on Bearing Capacity of Loose Soi” Proceedings, Filth toterna- tional Conference on Soil Mechanics amd Foundation Engineering, Pati, France Vol, 196, pp. 635-642 Fisher, W. E “Experimental Studies of Dynamically Loaded Footings on Sand" JASTIA Technical Buletin No, AD-290731, 1962, 43 pp, also US. Army Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss. Gorbunov-Possadov. M, I, "Calculations forthe Stability of « Sand Bed by a Solution sma ‘SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS. n 40. 31 2 x, M 3s ”, 38 8. 4. 4 2. 48 ‘Combining the Theories of Elasticity and Plasticity.” Proceedings, Sixth Internationa Conference on Soll Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Montreal, Canada, Vol 21965, pp. S185, Hanson, B., “The Bearing Capacity of Sand, Tested by Loading Circular Plate Proceedings, Fifth International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engi neering, Pars, France, Val. I, 1961. pp. S39. Hansen, B., "Bearing Cagacty of Shallow Strip Footings in Clay." Proceedings, Seventh International Conference on Soll Mechanics aad Foundation Engineering, Monico City, Mexico, Vol. 2, 1969, pp. 107-113, Hansen, B., and Chistensen, N. H-, discussion of “Theoretical Beating Capacity of Very Shallow Footings." by Lawrence A. Larkin, Jourcal of the Soil Mechanics ‘and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 95, No. SMG, Proc. Paper 6288, Nov., 198, Dp. 1968-72. Heller, I. W., "Failure Modes of Impact-Loaded Footings o3 Dense Sand," Technical Repo 28, U8, Neva Ci oginerng Laboratory, Part Hueneme Cl, BS, pp. 13h Hencky, H., “Uber einige statisch bestimmte Falle des Glechgewichts in plastischen Korpern," Zeitschrift fur Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik, Basel, Switcisnd Vol 3, 1928, pp. 261-246, Hivorslev, MJ». "The Basie Sinkage Equations and Beaing Capacity Theories, ‘Technical Report M-70-1, U.S, Army Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mis., Mar, 1970, 33-55 pp. Ishlinskit, A. Ty “Ose simmosichnaia zadacha tori plastichnosti | proba Briel, Prikladnata matemartha 1 mekhonika, Vol 8, NO. 8, 198, pp. 201-208. Ismacl, N. F., “Effect of Compressitiity on Uitimate Beating Capacity of Shallow Foundations,” thesis to be presented to Duke University, Durham. N.C., in patil fulfdlment of the requitement fr the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Jackson, J.G._ Jr, and Hadala, P. F., “The Application of Similinde to Small-Scale Fooling Tests,” Technical Report 3-599 Report, U.S, Army Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss, 1964. 195 pp Keérisel, J, "Scaling Laws in Soil Mechanics," Proceedings, Til Panamerican Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Caracas, Venezuela, Vol TH, 1967, pp. 69-92. Lambe, 1 W., “Shallow Poundations on Clay.” Bearing Capacity snd Settement, Proceedings of © Sympostun hed at Dube University, Apel 8-6, 1988, pp. 35~ Llerminer, et al, “Fondations supericieles,"” Proceedings, Fatt International Conference om Soil’ Mechanics tnd Foundation Engineering, Pati, France, Vol 1961, pp. 713-717 LHerminierct a, “Experimentation en aboratoire de la capacitéportante es sols,” Proceedings, Sth International Conference on Soll Mechanies and Foundation Engl: neesing, Monteal. Canada, Vol. 2.1965, np. 117-121 Lundgeen. H., and Mortensen, K., “Determination by the Theory of Plasticity of the Beating Capacity of Continuous Footingson Sand,” Proceedings, Third Interational ‘Conference on Soi Mechanics snd Foundation Engineering, Zrich, Switzerland, Vol 1.1953, pp. 09-412 Mandel, “Tnterfézence plasiquede semellesfiantes, Proceedings Sixth International CConfergace on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Morireal, Canada, Vol, "965, pp. 127-13 Meischeider, H. "Uber den Einfluss der Flichenform aut die Tragfahigkeit von Fundamentpiatien,” Der Bauingenier. Vol. 21, 1940, pp. 83-92 -Meverhor, ©, G., “An Tavestigtion of the Bearing Capscty of Shallow Footings ton Dry Sind,” Proceedings, Second International Conference 9a Soil Mechanics ard Foundation Engineering, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, Val 11948, pp. 287-248, Meyethof..G. G.. “The Ukimate Bearing Capacity of Foundations,” Geotechnique, London, England, Vol 2, 1851. pp, 301-392, Meyerhof, G-G., “influence of Roughness of Base_and Ground Water Conditions fon the Ullimate Bearing Capacity af Foundations,” Geotedhague, London, England, Val. §, 1985, No. 3, pp. 2 Meyethot, 6.6. “The Uitimate Bearing Capacity of Weige-Shaped Foundations,”