Eur. J. Mech.

, A/So/ids, 14, n 3, 377-396, 1995

Ultimate bearing capacity of shallow

foundations onder inclined and eccentric loads.
Part II: purely cohesive soil without tensile strength
J, SALENON *and A. PECKER

**

ABSTRJ\Cf. - The problem of determining the bearing capacity of a strip footing resting on the surface of a
homogeneous half space and subjectcd to an inclined, eccentrie Joad, is solved within the framework of the yield
design theory assuming thal the soi! is purcly cohesive without tensile strength according to Tresca's strength
eriterion with a tension eut-off. The soi! foundation interface is also purely cohesive, in tenns of the homologous
strength eriterion with a tension eut-off.
As in a eompanion paper [Salenon & Peeker, 1995). both the static and the kinematie approaches of the yicld
design theory are used. New stress fields are eonstrueted, in order to comply with the condition of a tension eut-off
within the soi! medium, and new lower bounds are determined as substitutes to those given in the eornpanion paper.
Veloeity fields taking advantage of the tension eut-off contribution in the expression of the maximum resisting
work arc also implcmented, giving new lower bounds.
As may be expceted from eommon sense and from the general rcsults of the theory, it appears thal the tension
eut-off condition within the soi! medium results in lower values of the bcaring capae ity of the foundation, and that
the grnvity forces acting in the soi! mass have a stabilizing effect.

1. Introduction
The problem solved in the cm-rent study, relates to the ultimate beming capacity of
a strip footing resting on the surface of a homogeneous half space and subjected to an
inclined, eccentric Joad. The foundation , with width B, is assumed to be rigid and to
have an infinite length. It is subjected to uniformly distributed external loads along the
direction Z (Fig. 1). The evaluation of the ultimate bearing capacity is obtained within
the framework of the yield design the01y [Salenon, 1983, 1993 ], as detailed in the
companion paper [Salenon & Pecker, 1995].
In the companion paper, the problem is studied assuming the soit to be plllely cohesive,
in accordance with Tresca's strength condition, white the interface between the soit and
the foundation is also purely cohesive, with a similar cohesion and no normal tensile
strength. In the present case, a tension eut-off condition is added to the soit strength
criterion, describing a pmely cohesive medium with no tensile strength. As in the
companion paper, other interface strength conditi ons can be easily taken into account.

* Laboratoire de Mcanique des Solides,

** Godynamique et Structure,

cole Polytechnique, 91128 Palaiseau Cedex, France.

157, rue des Blains, 92220 Bagneux, France.

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MECHANl CS. NSOLIDS. VOL

0997-7538/95/03/S 4.00/ Gauthier-Villars

14,

3, 1995

378

J. SAI.F.NON AND A. PECKER

y
- ------ - - - ,
\
\

h
x

B
Fig. 1. - Strip foundation undcr inclined , eccentric load.

Under aforementioned assumptions, the problcm can be studied within the framcwork
of the plane s train yield design the01y, as defined in [Salcnon, 1983, 1993].
Nu merous publications (i.e. [Meyerhof, 1953-1963; Hansen, 1961 -1970; Tran Vo
Nhiem, 197 1; Khosravi, 1983; Swami Saran & Argawal, 1991]) deal with the problem
of load inclination and load ecccntricity for a purely cohesive soil; however, to the best
of the authors' knowledge, the problcm for a cohesive soil without !ensile strength has
never been solvcd before.

2. Theoretical framework
The notations, identical to those of the companion paper, are recalled in Figure 1. We
denote 'Y as the unit weight of the soil:

1=-

(1)

"t.y

and

(2)

F = - N _u

+ T __n

= -1\1 _~

arc the force system resultants, computecl at 0, the mid-point of the foundation Ji' Ji; __ro
and .= arc the unit vectors of the cartcsian coorclinate axes Ox, Oy, Oz.

.y

Let S be the point of application of F on O:r and e the algcbraic eccentricity which
is positive along Oa:; it follows that:

(3)

111 =Ne,

l e i ~ B/2

For pratical situatio ns, the load eccentricity onto the foundation may arise duc to an
elcvatcd point of application of the horizontal fo rce componcnt T.. = T __"; hence:

(4)

1H =Th,
EUROPEAN JOURNAl. Or MEC IIA NICS. NSOLIDS. VOL.

14,

3, 1995

UL:rll\lt\TE BEARING CAPACIT Y OF SHAI.I.OW FOUNO/ITIONS. PART Il

379

The soil is assumed to be purely cohesive without !ensile strength . The strength criterion
using Tresca's criterion with tension eut-off is:
(5)

where a1 and a2 are the in-plane principal stresses of the stress tensor g; C designates
the soil shear strength and tensile stresses arc positive.
The strength cri teri on for the interface il' A,
(6)

y = 0, k1:l < n /2 is written as:

(a. 1 y, ayy) = Sup (ia.tyl - C', ayy) :S 0

The halfspace is subjected to the foll owing boundary conditions:

zero di splacement at infinity
(7)

y:=:; 0,

lxi --+ oo : U = 0

stress free boundary surface outside the foundation A' A

(8)

y:=:; 0,

1.'1:1 > B /2 :

rJ.I'.I'

rJ,/'!}

= O.

The external load , in addition to the gravity field , is applied on the upper face of the
interface A' A by the rigicl founclation which enforces the following bounclary condition
for y = o+, l:t:l :=:; lJ /2: the velocity field U must be a rigid body motion in the plane
0:1:y delined by its components in 0: U 0 and ~ = - w ~= .
The loading parameters of the problcm namely N (g), T (g), lvi (g) and 'Y for any
statically admissible stress field, together with the associated kinematic ones for any
kinematically ad missible velocity field have been detailed in the companion paper.
The founclation bearing capacity is given by the boundary of the surface which, in the
space (lV, T, 1\1), given 'Y and C', delincates the set of ali values for the parameters
N, T, 1\1, for which the equilibrium of the foundation is ensurecl without violating the
strength criteria (5) and (6).
In thi s papcr, both the static approach from "insicle" and the kinematic approach are
usccl to determine bounds for the foundation bcaring capacity. The use of the static
approach has been described in detail in the companion paper together with thal of
the kinematic approach, which requires the introduction of the concept of maximum
resisting work.
Tt is recalled that the former approach yields lower bouncl estimates for the bearing
capacity, the latter, upper bouncl estimates.
The ex pression for the maximum resisting work in the soil medium presented in the
companion paper must be changed. Referring to [Salenon, 1983, 1993], the expressions
for the corresponding densities of maximum resisting work, 1r (~) and 1r (!!:, [un. for
EUROPEAN JOURNAL 01' MECHANICS. MSOLII>S. VOL.

14,

3, 1995

380

J. SALENON AND A. PECKER

any plane strain velocity fi eld, in the case of a purcly cohesive sail without tensile
strength , are:

1f

(10)

trd < 0
if trd ~ 0
if

{ w(d) = +oo

(9)

(g) = C IdIl +

ldzl -

tr g)

[U] !.!: < 0

if [U] 1J: ~ 0
if

(!.!:, [UD = +oo

1r (!.!:, [U]) = C (I[U]I- [U] !.!:)

{ 1r

The kinematic approach then states that, if U is a kinematically admissible velocity field
with the kinematic data !.f..o and w, the inequality
( 11)

- N(Uo)v+ T (Uo).r+Mw~

{ 1r(g)dD+ { 7r(1J:, [U])clE

ln

lr:.

+ ;

A'A

?T ( [

U]) eix +

['

"Y Uv rln

yields an upper bou nd for the foundation bearing capacity (N, T , 111).
3. Fundamcntal results
3.1.

STA IJILIZING EFFECT OF T HE GRAYITY FORCES ON THE FOUNDATION BEARING CAPACITY

In the companion paper, it was recalled thal the bearing capacity of the considered
foundation did not depend on the unit weight of the soil medium. This resu lt refers to
a classical proof based upon the fact that Tresca's strength criterion is a function of the
stress deviator only. In the present case, where the strength criterion of the soil exhibits a
tension eut-off, the same reasoning can be followed, but the conclusion will be different.
Let q_0 be a stress field in equilibrium with zero gravity forces in the soil medium
("Y = 6) and complying with the strength criteria (5) and (6), and consider the stress
field q_ defined by:
( 12)

Vy ~ O,

Vx;

g 1 (x , y)= g0 (x , y)+ "Y YJ,, "Y~ O.

It is clcar, from Eq. (12), that g is in equilibrium with the gravity forces 1 = - 1 ~v
Si nee "Y y ~ 0 and sz:0 complies with the strength criterion (5) in the soi! medium, so
does sz:A' . Since q_ (;, 0) = q_0 (x, 0), q_ obviously satisfies the strength criterion (6) in
the irrterface; mK g' and g0- equilibrate the same values of the strength parameters then:
(13)
It follows, from the static approach, that the bearing capacity in the case of non zero

gravity forces is greater than or at !east cqual to the bearing capacity for zero gravity
forces.
EUROI'Er\ N JOURNAL OF ~IECH A NICS. tVSOLIDS, VOL. 14, N 3, 1995

ULTI~lATE

REARING CAI'i\CITY OF S HALLOW FOUNOi\TIONS. PART Il

381

Contrary to the case of the compani on paper, Eq. ( 12) does not provide an exhaustive
construction of ali the stress fields g which comply with the strength criteria (5)
and (6) and are in equilibrium with the gravit y forces 1.. = - "Y ~~r It means that the
beming capacity on a purely cohesive soil without tensile strength may, under certain
circumstances, depend upon the soi l unit weight which acts as a stabilizing factor.
Referring to the kinematic approach, it can also be stated that any upper bound estimate
for the bearing capacity on a purely cohesive soil still remains valid for a soit with the
same shear strength but without tensile strength. It follows that such an upper bound
estimate is valid whatever the gravity forces in the soi! medium.
The derivation of additional (and better) upper bounds for the bearing capacity on a
soi! without !ensile strength will proceed from the implementation of velocity fields in
equality (11) which take advan tage of the new expressions (9) and (1 0) for the maximum
resisting work within the soi!. Such velocity fields exhibit dilation (tr d > 0) and/or uplift
velocity jumps ([U~ TI: > 0): consequently, the work of the gravity forces within the
soi! medium is always negative (the result is established using Stokes' formula) which
proves that the unit weight of the soit acts as a stabili zing factor for the upper bound
estimates (except for the case when the velocity field only exhibits velocity jumps at the
soi! boundary below the interface A' A and is non dilatant anywhere else).
As a consequence of the preceding considerations, the problem will be studied assuming
zero gravity forces, both for the static and the kinematic approaches. Due to the fonn of
the implementee! velocity fields, the computed upper bouncls will prove to be valid, even
without this assumption, while the lower bounds might be conservative.
3.2.

CONVEXITY AND METHOD OF THE REDUCED WIDTH FOUNDATION

The general results regarding the convexity of the lower bound estimates of the bearing
capacity, and the application of the methocl of the reduced width foundation presented in
the companion paper, remain valid without any alteration.
4. Foundation bearing capacity for an inclined cccentric Joad on a pmely cohesive
soi! without tensile strength

Since the strength domain defined by Eq. (5) for a purely cohesive soi! without tensile
strength is contained within the strength domain for a classical purely cohesive soit (as
defined in the companion paper), the following general statement holds [Salenon, 1983]:
-for a given sai l unit weight "f, the foundation bearing capacity (N, T, M) for a
purely cohesive soit with tension eut-off is lower than the founclation bearing capacity
for a classical purely cohesive soi! (the proof is straigthforward and stems from the
static approach from inside).
Moreover, as previously stated, for a soil without !ensile strength, the bearing capacity
may depend upon the soi! unit weight acting as a stabilizing factor: for increasing values
of "f, the bearing capacity increases but remains bounded by the beming capacity of the
foundation for a classical purely cohesive soi!.
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ~IECHANICS . A/SOLIDS. VOL.

14,

3, 1995

382

J. SALENON AND A. PECKER

The obj ect of the following study is twofold.

The kinematic mechanisms described for the purely cohesive soil are reanalyzed to
introduce slight modifications in orcier to take aclvantage of ex pressions (9) and ( 10) for
the maximum resisting work and therefore yield new, better, upper bounds for the bearing
capacity. New mechanisms will subsequently be introduced.
Thereafter, the stress fields of the static approach used for the classical purely cohesive
soi! will be checked with respect to the strength criterion with tension eut-off (5). New
stress fields, compatible with the new criterion, are constructed.
4.1.

KlNE~I ATIC APPROACH

As previously stated, the upper bound estimates described in the companion paper
which were derived from the kinematic mechanisms and do not depend upon the soi!
unit weight, rernain valid for the soi! without tensile strength.
The associated vclocity fields do not imply any volume change within the soi! medium:

( 14)

tr
{

g=

[U] rr = o

The interface A' 1l incorporates, for the mechanisms A and C, an inclined (not tangential)
velocity discontinuity [U] which corresponds to a separation betwecn the two sides, that
is, the soi! and the foundation : the discontinuity takes place within the interface. The
analysis focuses on this specifie aspect.
The new mechanisms Ao and Co are definecl below, given that:
- the velocity is identical to thal of the corresponding mechanisms A or C within
the soit medium;
- the velocity discontinuity, equal to the velocity discontinuity in the interface A' A
for the A or C mechanisms, takes place within th e soi/ immediate/y below the inteJ:face.
Consequently, when the new mechanisms llo and Co , are compared with the original
mechanisms A or C', it is found thal
- the work of the externat loads remains unchanged and independent of the soif unit
weight,
- the maximum resisting work is alterecl using Eq. ( 10) to re flect the contri bution of
the velocity discontinuity along I A (or a A). The maximum resisting work is s maller
than or equal to the values derivccl for the purely cohesive soi!. The llo and Co
mechanisms consequently yield better upper bouncls for the beming capacity than the
A or C' mechanisms.
M echonism Ao

Referring to Figure 2, the velocity discontinuity [U] develops along A' I in the
soi! immediately below the interface. Therefore, the maximu m resisting work in that
mechanism ineludes a contribution along a discontinuity tine within the soif (whose
normal is ~y) insteacl of a contri bution within the interface.
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ~ IEC H i\N I CS , A/SOI.II>S, VOL. 14, N 3, 1995

383

Ul:l'li\I AT E BEARING CAPACITY OF SHALLOW FOUNDATTONS. PART Il

A'
L

1
t

__ ....

.....
Fig. 2.- Mcchanism Ao .

Using the notation presented in the companion paper, the corresponding upper bound
estimate for the bearing capacity is given by:

( 15)

_N_

<

~ + ~ + ( ~ - et)/ cos2 a
}
2
2
2
+_t_a_n_ _o:__[l..,..--,-t_a_n__(--'~':-------;:_~--,
) ,--_L_n:-:(=-t-a_n_ . ,.(.-=~=----=~-)_)_]_/4-''----

___..o._ _

CB -

+ta n 8 tan n) + ef B - 1/2

(1

in which the angle e is clefined by:

tan e =(A' Tjrtl)

(16)

= (1 -

)/tan cr,

The right hand side of inequality ( 15) is minimized, for a fixed 6, with respect to the
parameters ,\ and Cl' under the same constraints that were appliecl to mcchanisms il:

(1/2- efD)/ (1 +tanO' tan )< ::::; 1

( 17)

Meclwnism Co

Referring to Figure 3, the velocity discontinuity [U] for the Co mechanism, devclops
along A' a within the soi/ immediately below the interface. The applicati on of the same
modifications used in mechanisms A leads to the inequ ality

~
+
sm 2
(l'

{
( 18)

<

cn -

[Ln

tan(~:_)/tan(~
4
2
4 - ~)
2

+Arctan (sin e)- Ar<.:tan (sin

)] 2 tan1

}
2

------,--,~---=--:----:----:~-----'------

,\(1+ tan 8/Lan a )+ c/D- 1/2

EUR OPEAN JOURNAL OF ~IECIIANICS. MSOLIOS. VOL.

14, W 3, 1995

384

J. SALENON AND A. PECKER

Fig. 3. - Mechanism Co.

where the ang le t: is defined, using the parameters . and a, by:

(19)

tan t: = (A' I /01) = (1- .>.)j.>. tana,

0 < < 7r/2

The right hand side is minimized, for a fixed 8, with respect to . and a under the same
constraints which were applied to mechanisms C

(20)

0 < Ct< 7r/2

{ 0 < .< 1/2,

(1/2 - e/B)/(1- tano/tana) <

Mechanism Fo
With one exception, the other mechanisms implemented in the companion paper, namely
the B and D mechanisms, do not involve a velocity discontinuity along the interface
A' A. Therefore, they are not affected by the poss ibility of locating this discontinuity
within the soi! medium and consequently of improving the corresponding upper bounds.
The exception concerns the limiting case of the "unilateral mechanism" examined in the
companio n paper, which reduced to a slip in the interface A' A when the velocity V
was tange ntial to the surface (x = 1r /2) and to an uplift velocity jump in the interface
when 7r/2 <
< 1r.
In the present case, the homologous mechanism can be developed, assuming that the
velocity jump takes place within the soil medium immediately below the interface A' A
(Fig. 4):

v
A'

x
Fig. 4. - Mcchanism

1'0.

EUROPEAN JOURNAL 01' MEC HAN ICS. NSOLIDS, VOL.

14, N 3, 1995

385

ULTIMATE IJEi\RING Ci\Pi\CITY OF Slli\LLOW FOUNDATIONS. PART Il

- the foundation follows a translation rigid body motion with the velocity V defined
by its inclination x;
- the velocity is continuons across the interface A' il;
- a constant velocity discontinuity [U] = V develops within the soi! immediately
below the interface A' A;
- the sail medium (y

< 0) is motionless.

The maximum resisting work in the mechanism is obtained through Eq. ( 10). For any
prescribed value of x. the corresponding upper bound for the bearing capacity is given by:

(21)

7r/2 <x< 7r
{ N cos x+ Tsin

x~

CB (1 +cos

x)

The right band side of inequality (21) is minimized for a fixed 8 (0 ~ 8 ~

respect to the parameter x
(22)

1r /2)

with

NjCB ~ (1 + cos x) cos 6/ cos (8- x)

under the constraints:

(23)
The following results are obtained:
- For 1r /4 ~ 6 < 1r /2, the bcst m echanism is obtained for
bound for the bearing capacity is:

(24)

x=

2 8 and the upper

N / C B = ( 1 + cos 2 8)
{ T/CB =tan 8 (1 +cos 28) = sin 28

- For 0 ~ 8 < 1r /4, the best mechanism does not depend on 6 and is obtained for
= 1r /2; it yields the upper bou nd:

(25)

NjCB = 1/tan 6
{ T/CB = 1

In Figure 5, Eqs. (24) represent a quarter of a circle with a unit radius, centered at
(N/CB = 1, T/CB = 0) and Eqs. (25) stand for the vertical tangent at the abscissa
T / C B = 1. T hese upper bounds for the bearing capacity are valid regard Jess of the
Joad eccentricity e.

Swnmary of the results

A summary of the results obtained using the kinematic approach wi th the mechanisms
Ao, B, Co, D and Fo, and their symmetrics B', F0, is presented in Figure 5 for Joad
eccentricities c/ B = 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 and 0.4. The curves delimiting the best upper
bounds for the beming capacity are derived from different mechanisms and the following
EUROPEAN JOURNA L OF MECIIANICS, A/SOLIDS. VOL.

14,

3, 1995

386

J. SALENON AND J\. PECKER

N/CB

T/CB
Fig. 5. - lnclined, cccenlric Joad: kinemalic approaches from
mechanisms Ao, /J , Co, D , Fo and synunctric ones for various ej B values.

comments, suggcsted by a comparison with the results in Figure 16 of the companion

paper, apply:

- e/B = 0: for 0 ~ lc51 ~ 1/4, the best results are obtained from the unilateral
mechanisms of the companion paper (i.e. a degenerated mechanism B with a = {3); for
1 /'1 ~ lc51 ~ 1r /2, the mechanisms Fo and F~ prevail.
- e/B = 0.1: for c5 ~ 0, increasing from the vertical loading (c5 = 0), the same
estimate as for the classical purely cohesive soil is achieved through the mechanisms B
(with {3 = 1 /2); the associated curve is then extended by an arc obtained from the
mechanism s Ao, which is closely concident with the upper bound obtained by the
mechanisms Fo; for c5 ~ 0, decreasing from the vertical loading, the same evaluation
as for the purely cohesive soil is obtained through the mechanisms D, extcnded to
ti = - 1r /2 by the upper bounds from the mechanisms F~.
- efB = 0.2: for c5 ~ 0, the entire curve comes from the mechanisms Ao; for c5 ~ 0,
the curve is first derived from the mechanisms D then extended by an arc following
from the mechanisms Co, which, for c5 values close to 1r /2, al most concides with the
upper bound yielded by the mcchanisms F~ .

- e/B = 0.3 and 0.4: for ~ 0, the curves are generated from the mechanisms Ao;
for ti ~ 0, from the mechanisms Co.
Comparing thcse results with the diagrams of Figure 16 in the companion paper
clearly shows a significant decrease in the bearing capacity for the soil without !ensile
strength. This decrease is more pronounced when the Joad inclination and/or the Joad
eccentricity increases. The curves will then follow from the mechanisms Ao, Co and Fo
EUROPEAN JO URNAL Or MECIIANICS. NSOLIDS. VOl..

14, N 3, 1995

ULTI ~ I ATE

REAKING CAPACITY OF SHALLOW FOUNDAT IONS. PA RT Il

387

which take advant age of the decrease in the maximum resisting work for the sa il without
tensile strength. From thi s point of view, the evolution of the leading mechan isms with
increas ing Joad eccentricity and Joad inclination is in good agreement with what could
be intuitively expectcd.

4.2.

STATIC APPROACH FROM INSIDE FOR i\ CENTERED LOAD

Tt is worth comparing the upper bounds g iven in Figure 5 for the bearing ca pacity of
the foundation o n a cohcsive sail with a tension eut-o ff, with the lower bounds presentee!
in Figure 17 of the companion paper corresponcling to a classical pure ly cohesive soil.
lt appears thal, for high values of Joad eccentricity or o f Joad inclinatio n, the bearing
capacity of the soil with a tensio n eut-off is (signi ficantly) smaller than the bearing
capacity of the classical purely cohesive so il. This proves th at, in those cases, the stress
fields constructecl fo r the classical purely cohesive so i! are definitely not compatible with
the strength criterion (5), due to the presence of " unco nfined" zones where at !east one
of the principal stresses is (positive) !ensile.
Referring to the comments regarding the influence of gravity fo rces, it must be recalled
that those stress fields are in equili brium with zero gravity forces within the sail medium
and may be substituted for g0 in Eq. (12). Assuming that such a stress field, defi ned for
y ::; 0, incorporaies unconfined zones, Eq. ( 12) shows thal, provided that the minimum
depth of those zones is non zero and the tens ion remains fini te, the incorporation of the
sail unit weight 'Y > 0 in 'YY in the expression for q_l may balance the tractions in the
lleld g 0 : the stress field g' will then bccome compaible with the strength criterion (5)
for the sai l with a tensile strength eut-off.
This is the stabilizing effcct of the g ravit y forces stated in Paragraph 3.1, the application
of which requires thal the stress fields for the classical pure! y cohesive sail be reexamined
in o rcier to cletect the presence of unconfined zones. The s tress fields in equili brium with
centered loads will be checkecl fi rsl, before the application of the method of the recluced
width founclatio n and the use of convex ity properti cs.

Stress field in equilibriu11t with

011

oxiol /oad

The stress field [Ls ( 1r /2) in Figure 6 is composee! of the Pra nd tl stress field in the a rea
located above the tine D' C' BC' D and of the Shielcl extension belo w.

x
D'

Fig. 6. - Prand!l 's stress field and Shicld's extension.

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ~1ECHAN1 CS, NSOLIDS . VOL.

14,

3, 1995

388

J. SAI.ENON AND A. PEC KER

The formulation of the first stress field is straightforward and shows that the principal
stresses arc compressive everywhere.
The Shield stress field is detailed in the original publication [Shield, 1954] and in
[Philips, 1956] (see also lSalcnon, 1969, 1973]). It is composed, in the areas located
left of B1t' and right of Bu, of the samc stress fields as in a reas A' DG' and A' C' D',
and ABC and AC'D respectively: the principal stresses are again eithcr positive or nil
everywhere. In the area located in between the !ines of discontinuity Dt/ and Btt, the
principal directions are Ox and Oy; a .r.r (resp. ayy) docs not depend upon :l: (resp. y);
the !ines of discontinuity Bu' and Bu and the stresses a .r .1 and a !1!1 are detennined from
the conti nuit y of the stress vcctor and from the adclitional condition a !I!J - a .r.r = 2 C'
on Du' and fl1t .
Eqs. (26), with o: = 1r /2, are derivcd and indicate thal the stresses a.1-.r and a !J!I are
either compressive or zero everywhere. Consequently, the stress field in Figure 6 which
is in equilibrium with the axial load

NfC'D=1r+2 ,

T/CB = 0,

M =O

and complies with the tension eut-off strength criterion (5).

lt follows thal this Joad is also the exact value for the bearing capacity of an axially
loaded soi! with a tcnsile strcngth eut-off.
Stress field in equilibrium with an inclined centered load

The derivation of the stress field in Figure 7 is basee! on the solution for the bearing

X'

/
/

t / d~ -

o2

fig. 7. - Beari ng capacity under inclincd Joad: static approach.

capacity on an infi nite trapezodal wedge whose stress field gs (a:) is depicted in Figure 8.
1t is composed of the Prandtl stress field whose principal stresses are always either
compressive or nil and of ils extension by Shicld's method , whosc description has becn
given abovc. With the notations of Figure 8, the following expressions are dcrived on
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ~ I EC II ANICS. NSOLI DS, VOL

14,

3, 1995

Ut:ri~IATE

REARING CAPACITY OF S HALLO\V FOUNDATIONS. PART Il

u'!1

389

'.1 u

Fig. 8. - Infinite trapezoida! wedge with apex angle 2 o: Prandtl's stress field and Shicld's extension.

bu' for u.r.1 and uyy (Eq. 26) which determine the stress field g.s (a) in the area
between bn and bn'.

Ill

= 2 C [cos (a - 0)- 0- 1]
uyy = 2 C [cos (a- 0) - 0]
u.r.r

(26)

l n the extended area, the princi pal st resses abovc the !ines of d iscontinuities bu and bu'
are cither compress ive or nil everywhere. In between these lines, Eqs. (26) show thal
u.1.r is always compressive and that:
- if 0

<

< 1, Uyy is everywhere bou nded and

a < 1r /2, rr uu is compressive within a

tensile ( < 2 C),

- if 1 ~
"column" centered o n the Oy ax is
which spreads o ut when o: increases until it occupies the entire area in between bu and
bn' when a = 1r /2. O utside this column , ayy is bounded and tensile ( < 2 C').

It follows thal the stress field

a sail with a tens ion eut- off.

g.s (a),

for 0

<a<

1rj2, is not a valid solution for

Referring now to the stress fields of Figure 7, three a reas must be checked. It turns out
that these stress fields never comply wi th the strength criterion (5):
a) for those associated with the arcs 0 ~ NjCB < 1, ITI/CB = 1 of the lower
bound estimatc in the compan io n paper, the arca 3 is on the w hole unconfi ned, and so
are some subareas of areas 1 and 2;

b) for those assoeiated with the rcmai ning parts of arc A, with arc B and arc C',
areas l and 2 are, in part, unconfi ned.
Conseq uently, the stress fields, of the g0 type, introduced in Paragraph 3. 1 of the
companio n paper, can no longer be used in a static approach. l n the first case, the result
holds fo r any g1 field, as derivecl through Eq. (1 2). In the second one, the stabili zing
cffect of the gravi ty forces can be effective: the stress field {' , derived from a stress
field g 0 , can be used if "Y B/C' is sufficiently large.

Consequences for the bearing capacity

The following conclus ions can be d rawn fro m these results:
- the bearing capacity is exactly detennined in the case of an axial Joad (o = 0), since
bath the kinematic and the static approaches yield the values N /CB = (1r + 2), whatever
the tens io n streng th of the cohesivc soil ;
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ~IECHAN ICS, tVSOLIDS, VOL.

14,

3, 1995

390

J. Si\LENON AND A PECKER

-for 0 < loi :::; 7r/4, although the stress fi elds of Figure 7 arc no longer compati ble
with the strcngth criterion, it is not possible to make a conclusion rcgarcling the instability
of the corresponding loacls for they might be balanccd by other stress fields which comply
with the criterion. Moreover, it has becn proven that thesc stress fields arc stabili zed by the
soit unit weight. Jn the fotlowing, attempts are made to construct new stress fields maki ng
the application of the Jowcr bound approach possible with the strength criterion (5).
For loi > 1r /4, the kinematic approac h of Paragraph 4. 1 proves thal the diagram is
no longer valid.
New stress .field in equilibrium with an inclined centered load
Khosravi and Salenon [Khosravi, 19831 considered the discontinuous stress field with
three zones, presented in Figure 9.

--

\!13
\

\ '\...
\

t' \

\t

Fig. 9. - Stress Jicld in cquilibrium with a ccntcred. incline<.l load.

The angle {3 reprcsents the inclination of the li nes of discontinuity A' t' and 1l t:
0 :::; {3 :::; 7f /2.
In the areas 1 and 3, the principal stresses are:
(27)

0'......

= - 2 c1,

O'yy =

0,

In the area 2, the principal directions arc OX and OY clcfinecl by the incl ination
OX on At; the principal stresses are:

= - p- C2 ,
O')T = -p + c2,

O'XX

(28)

0'

of

0 :::; Cz:::; C

The continuity of the stress vector determines 0' and pas fu net ions of the three inclepcndent
parameters /3, C1 and C2 :
s in 2cr = (C1/C2) sin 2/3
{ p = C1 (1 - cos 2 /3) + C2 cos 2o

(29)

This stress fi eld is in equil ibrium, for the wcightless soit, with the centercd load:
(30)

cn

= (1 - cos 2 {3) ( c2 cos 2 cr - c1 cos 2 !3)1

N1
{ 1'/CB = sin 2 {3 ( C2 cos 2 cr- C1 cos 2 {3)/C

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MECIIAN ICS. AISOLIDS. VOL.

14,

3, 1995

ULT I~I ATF.

BEARING CAPACITY OF SIIALLOW FOUNDATIONS. PART Il

39 1

whose inclination is 6 = (1r /2 - (3), i.e. the force F is parai lei to the li nes of
discontinuity A' t' and At.
ln view of the constraints set on C1 and Cz, these fields obviously comply with the
strength criterion for the purcly cohesive soil.
Using the static approach with thesc stress fields, which depend upon thrce parameters,
leads to the determination of the convex envelope of the loads (30) while the parameters
(3 , Cl/C, Cz / C vary under the constraints alrcady listed:
0 :=:; CJ/C :=:; 1,

This envelope is defi ned by the equations for the arcs il, B and C (see Fig. 10):
Arc A
0 :=:; (J :=:; 7r/4

hence 1rj2 ~ 6 ~ 1rj1l

Cl/C = 0 (a= 0) , Cz/C = 1

{ N / C B = (1 - cos 2 /3) = 1 + cos 2 6
Tf C JJ = sin 2/3 =sin 28

(3 1)

Arc JJ
7r/'1 :=:; /3 :=:; 37r/8

hence 7r/4 ~ 8 ~ 1rj8

CI/C = - 1/tan 2/3

(32)
{

(a= /3 = -1r /4) ,

Cz / C = 1

N ;en= ta n (J

T/CB

=1

Arc C
37r/8 :=:; (3 :=:; 1rj2
(33)

!tence 1rj8 ~ 6 ~ 0

CI/C = 1 (a = 1rj2 - (3) , Cz/C = 1

N 1c n = -2 cos 2 f3 (1 - cos 2 /3) = 2 cos 2 8 (1 + cos 2 8)
{
T/CB = - sin 11/3 = sin 46

When thesc stress fields arc analysed with regards to the strength criterion (5) for a
soil with a tension eut-off, it is found thal the most sensitive stress, in area 2, is an
which vanishes on the arc ;1 and is compressive on the arcs B and C. In contras!, a y y is
always nil in arcas 1 and 3. It follows that the arcs A, Band C in Figure 10 effectively
yield a lower boum! for the bearing capacity of an inclined centric Joad on a soi! with
a tension eut-off.
The accuracy of the lower boum! is improved by taki ng advantagc of convexity
properties using the exact value of the bearing capacity for an axial Joad, yielding the
arc D in Figure 1O.
EUROPEAN JOURNAl. 0 1' ~I ECIIANICS, MSOI.IDS. VOL.

14, N 3, 1995

392

J. SALENON AND A . PECKER

N / CB

T / CB

Fig. 10. - Ccntered, inclined Joad: convex envelopc of the lowcr bound estimates.

Synthesis of the results for a centered load

Comparing these results with thosc using the kinematic approaches presentee! in
Figure 5, il appears that for ef B = 0, with the exception of the case of the ax ial Joad
(8 = 0) which has already been mentioned, both approaches give identical results for
1r /8 ~ 1
81~ 1r /4 in the fonn of the vertical segments:

n/4 ~ N/C'B ~ 1 +

../2,

ITI/C'B = 1

and for 1r / 4 ~ 181 ~ 1r /2 where they both yie ld the sa me quarter o f a circle who se
equation is given by (24) or (31) and its symmetric. The bearing capacity is computed
exactly.
The identity of the two results reveals that the mechanisms Fo consideree! in the
kinematic approach and the stress fields which defi ne the arcs A and B in Figure 10, are
associated with each o ther as shown in Figure 11 . For 1r /4 ~ 181 ~ 1r /2, the foundation
rests on the " soit column" t'A' At (area 2) which is in unconfined compression pmallel
to the fo rce F. The tension eut-off in the strength critcrion makes a velocity discontinuity

- 01

'

'
'

--....

' t'' 0,

A'
1

'

- 0-

' 0

'
1
. . . . _-2C
' ,.
0

t' ,

\ 0
\

'.
t' \

t\

Fig. Il . - Vclocity field F0 and associated slress field.

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ~IECHANICS. NSOLI DS. VOL. 14, N

3, 1995

ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS. PART Il

393

[U] = V possible in the soi! medium immediately below the interface A' A, acting at
an inclination x = 2 5.
For n/8 ::::; 151::::; nf 4, the soi! column parallel to the force F in a rea 2 is laterally
confined by areas 1 and 3; the principal stress directions are inclined at "Tn /4 on Ox ,
and the velocity field is a slipping mechanism within the soit below the interface A' A,
and parallel to A' A.
Referring to Fig me 10 and recalling the stabilizing effccl of the gravity forces within
the soil medium on the stress fields of Figure 7, it also follows that, when 'Y D f C is large
enough, the lower bou nd estimate of the beming capacity for 0 < 5 < n /8 is improved:
the lower bound obtained for the classical purely cohesive soit can then be retained for
the cohesive soit wilh a tension eut-off.
4.3 .

STATIC APPROACHES FOR AN ECCENTRIC LOAD

The lower bounds for eccentric loads are obtained using the reduced width foundation
melhod and taking advantage of the convexity properties in the (JV, T, M) space stated
in Paragraph 3.2.
The results are presented in Figure 12 where it appears that the convexity property,
which has been numerically implemented, does improve the lower bound estimate: this
improvement is particularly noticeable for the maximum value of Tf C B, for a fixed ef D .

N/ CB

T/ CB
Fig. 12. - Dearing capacity undcr inclined eccentric Joad.
Solid !ines: upper bound estimatcs. Dotted !ines: lower bound estimates.
EUROPEA N JOURNAL OF MECIIA NtCS, .VSOLIDS. VOL.

14,

3, 1995

394
4.4.

J. SALENON AND A. PECKER

BEA RING CAPi\CITY FOR AN ECCENTRIC INCLINED LOAD ON A PURELY COHESIVE SOIL \VITH A

'l'ENSILE STRENGTH CUT-OFF

Figure 12 compares the results of both approaches showing the upper and lower bound
estimates for the beming capacity for each indicated value of e/ B. This diagram may be
compared with the corresponding one for the classical purely cohesive soi!.
As statecl previously, for a centered Joad (<!/ B = 0), the foundation bearing capacity
on a soi! with a tension eut-off is determinee! exactly for 6 = 0 and for 1r /8 s; 6 s; 1r /2.
Between 0 and 1r /8, the assessment of the beming capacity is obtained with lcss than a
4% error for 1 B / C' = 0, an accuracy which improves as 1 B / C' increases.
The comparison with the results obtained for the classical purely cohesive sail for
the centered Joad (ej B = 0) shows that, for 6 = 0 and 1r /8 < 6 < 1r /4, the beming
capacities are equal to each other, regardless of the strength criterion , they do not depend
upon the soil unit weight; for 0 < 6 < 1r /8, the difference, if any, between both values,
cloes not exceed 7 to 8% for 1 B /C' = O. The most significant difference appears for
1r /4 < 1
61< 1r /2. As a matter of fact, within this range of 6, the beming capacity diagram
is nothing but the representation, using axes (N/C' B , T/C' fl ), of the comprehensive
criterion for the interface .111 Jl fSalenon , 1983], i. e. of the critcrion expressed in tenns
of ayy and a.,.y which simultaneously takes into account the limitations imposee! by the
interface itself and by the constituent materials on either side of the interface (in the
present case, onl y the soi! is consideree!, since the foundation is assumed to be rigicl).
This is not merely a coincidence since the mechanisms corresponding to the arcs on
the beming capacity diagram (unilateral mechanism with x = 1r /2, and mechani sm Fo)
imply a velocity cliscontinuity across the interface.
Tt must be 110tcd that the most important parameter is the tension eut-off in the soil,
since in both cases, the interface does not present any resistance in tension.
Referring to Figure 9 in the companion paper, where the diagram obtained
from Meyerhof [Meyerhof, 1963], "parabolic" formul a is drawn, it appears thal for
1r /3 < 1
61 < 1r /2, the values obtained using this formula slightly overest imate the
bearing capaeity.
As the Joad eccentricity increases, the difference between both bounds inereases
signiflcantly, despite the slight improvement achieved by utili zing the convexity propertics
in the results obtained from the recluced width founclation mcthod. Comparing these results
with the results for the purely cohesive soi!, it appears thal:
- the beming capacitics are considerably lower for large Joad inclinations,
- for 1r / 12 s; 161s; 1r /6, the lower bounds computecl for the same cf B values are
comparable.
Furthermore, the symmetry of the lower bound diagrams for e/ fl f. 0 is a result of
their construction methods; on the othcr hanc! , it may be observed thal the upper bound
cliagrams appear to be more symmetrical in Figure 12 than they did for the classical
purely cohesive soil ; however, a definite conclusion on thal point would be risky.
Finally, it will aga in be recalled, as explainecl in the companion paper, th at in the
case of the interface which exhibits a strength criterion which cliffers from (6), ali the
EUROPEAN JOURNAL Of' ~ I ECIIANICS . ..VSOI.I I>S. VOL.

14, N 3, 1995

ULTI ~I ATE

REARING Ci\Pi\CITY OF SHAU .OW FOUNO,\TIONS. PART Il

395

cliagrams in Fig me 12 should be truncatcd by the corresponding curvcs which express

the interface strength criterion in tenns of N j C'B and 'J 'jC n insteacl of ayy and a.,.y:
e.g. 1
'1'1 / C 13 ::=; N tan (Pl/ C n for a Coulomb strengh cri terion with a fri ction angle
c/Jt. Obviously, this is in line with what has j ust bcen stnted about the comprehensive
strength criterion of the interface.

5. Conclusions

Within the same framework of the yielcl design thcmy which was adoptcd for the case
of a classical purely cohesive soi! in the companion paper [Salenon & Pecker, 1995],
the ultimate bcaring capncity of n founclation resting on a cohesivc soil with no !ensile
strength has been studied for an inclined eccentric load.
Due to the strength criterion of the soil, the bearing capacity in the general case
of inclination and eccentricity can no longer be proven to be independent from the
gravity forces, whose effcct will nlways be a stabilizing one, and is governcd by the
adimensional factor 1 B / C . However, for the case of a centered load with a small
incl ination, indcpcndence has been proven or may be anticipated.
As a general comment, the effect of the tension eut-off condition can be perceivccl
with in the soit medium and in the interface. Therefore, new stress fields were constructcd
in orcier to comply with the additional tension eut-oiT condition. New velocity fields
were then implementee! which could take advantagc of the expression of the maximum
resisting work associatecl with the comprehensive strength criterion of the interface.
The foundation bearing capacity has bccn computed, exactly or, at least, with a very
high accuracy, for a centered Joad. For an eccentric Joad the bcaring capacity has bccn
brackctecl between lower and upper bounds, as a function of the Joad eccentricity and
Joad inclination. From a practical standpoint, in vicw of the safety factors uscd in the
design of foundations under vertical, centered, loads, the implicati ons of the inclinat ions
and eccentricities are usually small.
The results prcsented herein have bccn used for the seismic analyses of foundations
and arc rcported in LPecker & Salcnon, 199 1J.
Sincc both cases studied in this paper and in the companion one, represent extrcme
conditions for the tensilc resistance for the purely cohcsive soil, it can be statccl thal
the results bracket the variations of the bearing capacity as a function of the soil !ensile
strength.

Acl<nowledgments
This stud y was partially made possible as a result of a grant from the French Ministry
of Rcsearch and Technology (grant 88F02 12) whose support is gratefully ack nowlcdgcd.
EUROPEAN JOUKNAL Or MECII ANICS. A/SOI. IDS. VOl.. 14 , N

3, 1995

396

J. SALENON AND A. PECKER

REFERENCES
HANSEN B. J. , 1961 , A general formula for bearing capacity, Bull. 8, Danish Geotechnicallnstilllte, Copenhagen.
HANSEN B. J. , 1970, A rcvisecl and extemled formula for bearing capacity, Ru//. 28, Danish Gl'otec/micallnstitute,
Copcnhagcn.
KIIOSRAVI Z., 1983, tude thorique et exprimentale de la capacit portante des fondations superficielles. Thse
Dr. lng., cole Nationale des Ponts et Chausses, Paris.
MEYERHOr G. G., 1963, Some recent rcscarch on the bearing capacity of foundations, Canadian Geoteclmical
Jou mal, 1, 1, 16-2 1.
PECKER A., SALEI\'ON J., 1991 a, Dtermination de la capacit portante des fondations superficielles sous
sollicitations dynamiques, C.R. Recherche M.R.E.S., 88-F-0212.
PECKER A., SALEI\'ON J., 1991 b, Seismic bearing capacity of shallow strip foundations on clay soils,
CENAPRED-Proceedings of the lntemational ll'orkslrop on Seismology and Eanhquake Engil1eering, Mexico,
April 1991.
PHILIPS A., 1956, Introdu ction to Plasticity, Ronald Press Cy., New York.
SALENON J., 1969, La thorie des charges limites dans la rsolution des problmes de plasticit en dformation
plane. Thse D. Sc. , Paris.
SALEI\'ON J., 1973, Prolongement des champs de Prandtl dans le cas du matriau de Coulomb, Archives of
Mechanics, 25, 4, 643-648.
SALENON J. 1983, Calcul la mpture et analyse limite, Presses de I'E.N.P.C. , Paris.
SALENON J. 1993, Yield design: a survey of the theory, in Evaluation of the global bearing capacities of
stmctures, G. Sacchi-Landriani, J. Salenon Ed., Springer Verlag, \Vien , New York.
SALENON J ., PECKER A., 1995, Ultimate bearing capacity of shallow foundations un der inclincd and cccentric
Joad; Part !: pu rely cohesive soil, European Jou mal of Meclumics, 1VSolids, 14, 3, 349-375.
SHIEI.D R. T., 1954, Plastic potential theory and Prandtl bearing capacity solution, J. Appl. Mech. , trans. ASME,
21, 193-194.
SWA~Il SARAN, ARGAWAL R. K., 1991 , Bearing capacity of eccentrically oblique) y loaded footing, J. Geoteclmical
Eng., 117, Il , 1669- 1690.
TRAN Vo NHtE~I, 1968, Terme de surface de la force portante limite d' une fondation charge incline excentre
par la mthode du coin triangulaire minimal, C. R. Acad. Sei. Paris, 267, 137- 140.
TRAN Vo NHIEM, 1971 , Force portante limite des fond ations superficielles el rsistance maximale l' arrachement
des ancrages, Thse Dr. lng. , Facult des Sciences de Grenoble.
(Manuscript rcccived Septcmbcr 6, 1993;
rcviscd Marcl1 23, 1994;
accepted May 16, 1994.)

EUROPEAN JOURNAL 01' MECHAN!CS, A/SOLIDS, VOL. 14, N 3, 1995