872

Design load of rigid footings on sand

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV OF BIRMINGHAM on 11/10/14

For personal use only.

Edgar G. Diaz and Fernando Rodrguez-Roa

Abstract: Experimental evidence has shown that most current methods are not able to predict design loads of footings on
cohesionless soil with an acceptable degree of accuracy. In the present study, a simple and realistic settlement-based
method is proposed to estimate the design load of rigid footings on sand subjected to static vertical loading. The design
criterion based on restricting the end-of-construction settlement to 16 mm because of the inherent variability of the real
soil deposits is herein adopted. A series of finite-element analyses based on an advanced constitutive model were carried
out to study the loadsettlement response of footings supported on 14 sandy soils. Routine design charts were developed
to predict the net allowable soil pressure of footings on normally consolidated and overconsolidated sands. These charts
consider footing shape, embedment depth, grain diameters D10 and D60, particle shape, unit weight (or submerged unit
weight for saturated sands), and indirect measurements of the shear strength derived from in situ tests, such as relative
density, standard penetration test (SPT) or cone penetration test (CPT). As shown, the proposed charts match well with
available experimental data.
Key words: footing design, Lade model, finite-element method, sand, footing settlement, shallow foundations.
Resume : Selon des evidences experimentales, les methodes les plus courantes de prediction ne peuvent pas predire avec
un degre de certitude acceptable les chargements de conception sur des semelles placees sur un sol sans cohesion. Dans
cette etude, une methode simple basee sur des tassements realistes est proposee pour estimer le chargement de conception
de semelles rigides sur du sable, soumises a` un chargement vertical statique. Le crite`re de conception adopte est base sur
un tassement maximal de 16 mm a` la fin de la construction en raison de la variabilite inherente des sols reels. Une serie
danalyses par elements finis, basees sur un mode`le constitutif avance, ont ete effectuees dans le but detudier le comportement en chargement-tassement de semelles supportees sur 14 sols sablonneux. Des chartes de conception ont ete developpees afin de predire la pression nette acceptable du sol sur des semelles placees sur des sables consolides normalement et
surconsolides. Ces chartes conside`rent la forme de la semelle, la profondeur denfouissement, les diame`tres des grains D10
et D60, la forme des particules, le poids unitaire (ou le poids unitaire submerge pour les sables satures), ainsi que des mesures indirectes de la resistance au cisaillement derivees dessais in situ, tels que la densite relative, lessai de penetration
standard (SPT) ou lessai de penetration dun cone (CPT). Larticle demontre que les chartes proposees correspondent bien
avec les donnees experimentales disponibles.
Mots-cles : conception de semelles, mode`le Lade, methode delements finis, sable, tassement de semelle, fondations peu
profondes.
[Traduit par la Redaction]

Introduction
The design load of footings on sand has been based on
limiting the maximum settlement to a value of 25 mm, except in narrow and shallow footings, in which case the
bearing capacity of the sand may lead to a lower allowable
footing unit load. Several methods have been proposed to
predict settlements of footings on sand based on in situ
tests, such as the standard penetration test (SPT) and the
cone penetration test (CPT) (Terzaghi and Peck 1948;
Meyerhof 1965; Peck and Bazaraa 1969; Schmertmann
1970; Peck et al. 1974; Burland and Burbidge 1985). HowReceived 24 January 2009. Accepted 15 December 2009.
Published on the NRC Research Press Web site at cgj.nrc.ca on
19 July 2010.
E.G. Diaz and F. Rodrguez-Roa.1 Department of Structural
and Geotechnical Engineering, Pontificia Universidad Catolica
de Chile, Av. Vicuna Mackenna 4860, Codigo Postal 782-0436,
Santiago, Chile.
1Corresponding

author (e-mail: frroa@ing.puc.cl).

Can. Geotech. J. 47: 872884 (2010)

ever, footing load tests performed on sand at Texas A&M

University (Briaud and Gibbens 1999) and the field data
obtained from a research project on 30 bridge footings in
Ohio (Sargand et al. 1999) showed that most current methods are unable to predict design loads of footings on cohesionless soil with an acceptable degree of accuracy. In the
present study, a simple and realistic settlement-based
method is proposed to estimate the design load of rigid
footings on sand.
There are several advanced constitutive models available
today. A comparison of their capabilities and limitations
was reported by Lade (2005a). In this research, the single
hardening (SH) model proposed by Lade and Kim (1995)
was selected. This is an elastoplastic model that represents
the real nonlinear stressstrain behavior of the soil before
failure, at failure, and after failure. In addition, the SH
model only involves 11 parameters for cohesionless soils
that can be derived from results of isotropic compression
and conventional drained triaxial tests.
The commercial finite element (FE) program ABAQUS
was selected to perform the numerical analyses. This

doi:10.1139/T09-145

Published by NRC Research Press

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV OF BIRMINGHAM on 11/10/14

For personal use only.

Diaz and Rodrguez-Roa

program provides a subroutine for users to add any

constitutive law not included in the standard library. Thus, a
three-dimensional (3D) SH-model interface was coded by
the authors, using the incremental form of the SH model
developed by Lade and Jakobsen (2002) and Jakobsen and
Lade (2002) and a subroutine for two-dimensional (2D)
problems coded by Jakobsen (1999).
The capability of the SH model to capture the real soil
response was examined by comparing the predicted response
with experimental data derived from drained triaxial
compression tests performed on loose and dense Maipo
River (MR) sand (Rodrguez-Roa 2003).
As mentioned above, the design load of footings on
sand has usually been based on limiting the settlement
to a value of 25 mm, on the premise that if the maximum settlement is restricted to this amount the angular
distortion among the footings of a typical building would
be within tolerable values (Terzaghi and Peck 1948). On
the other hand, field observations of footings on sands
indicate quite clearly an increase of settlements with
time because of the creep phenomenon (Schmertman
1970; Burland and Burbidge 1985; Briaud and Gibbens
1999). A settlement found 30 years after the end of construction may range between 1.5 and 2.5 times the immediate settlement for static and heavily fluctuating
loads, respectively (Burland and Burbidge 1985). To
limit the settlement of the largest footing to a value of
25 mm, Terzaghi et al. (1996) suggested a design criterion based on restricting the end-of-construction
settlement to 16 mm because of the inherent variability
of real soil deposits. This criterion, which is herein
adopted, may also be regarded as an additional safety
margin to compensate for the anticipated long-term settlement of buildings on sand.
A series of FE analyses were carried out to study the
loadsettlement response of square and strip footings on
sands subjected to a static central vertical load. Fourteen
dry and saturated sands were analyzed to develop charts to
predict the net allowable soil pressure of footings on normally consolidated (NC) and overconsolidated (OC) sands.
These charts consider footing shape, embedment depth,
grain diameters D10 and D60 (grain size at which 10% and
60%, respectively, of the sample is finer), particle shape,
unit weight (or submerged unit weight for saturated sands),
and indirect measurements of the shear strength of soils derived from in situ tests as relative density (Dr), SPT or CPT.
It is shown that the proposed design charts match well with
available experimental data derived from several footing
load tests.
For footing widths smaller than *1.0 m, the allowable
soil pressure should also be checked against a bearingcapacity failure to ensure a factor of safety of at least 3.0
(Peck et al. 1974). This verification can be done by using
standard bearing-capacity methods, such as those proposed
by Brinch Hansen (1970) or Vesic (1973), in which the
peak friction angle may be estimated in terms of the
critical-state friction angle, relative density, and footing
shape (Rodrguez-Roa 2006). The critical-state friction
angle is mainly a function of mineralogy and can be
determined experimentally (Bolton 1986).

873

SH model
The SH model is an elastoplastic hardening constitutive
model with a single isotropic yield surface. It can be applied
to sand, clay or any cemented soil. This model uses a nonassociated plastic flow rule and can include both a workhardening and a work-softening law. Anisotropic and timedependent behavior cannot be incorporated in the model.
The total stress increments are divided into elastic and
plastic components, which are computed separately. The
elastic strain increments are calculated by using Hookes
law with a Youngs modulus, E, expressed as
" 

 #l
I1 2
1 y J2
6
pa
1
EM
pa
1  2y p2a
where n is Poissons ratio; pa is atmospheric pressure; M and
l are dimensionless constants; and I1 and J2 are the first invariant of the stress tensor and the second invariant of the
deviatoric stress tensor, respectively, given by
2

I1 s 1 s 2 s 3

3

1
J2 s 1  s 2 2 s 2  s 3 2 s 1  s 3 2 
6

where s1, s2, and s3 are the principal stresses. The failure
criterion is defined as
3
 m
I1
I1
 27
h1
4
I3
pa
where m and h1 are dimensionless constants, and I3 is the
third invariant of the stress tensor
5

I3 s 1 s 2 s 3

A typical failure surface in the principal stress space for

cohesionless soils is shown in Fig. 1. An additional parameter must be incorporated in the model to allow the inclusion
of the soil cohesion. For this purpose, a translation of the
principal stress space along the hydrostatic axis is performed, i.e., a constant stress apa is added to the normal
stresses before substitution in eq. [4], where a is a dimensionless constant. The stress apa is slightly greater than the
uniaxial tensile strength of the material (Lade 1982).
The plastic strain increments are computed by applying
the normality rule to the following potential function:

 m
I13 I12
I1
6
g j1  j 2
I3 I2
pa
where m and j2 are dimensionless constants, I2 is the second
stress invariant of the stress tensor
7

I2 s 1 s 2 s 2 s 3 s 1 s 3

and the dimensionless parameter j1 is computed in terms of

m as follows:
8

j1 0:00155 m1:27

A typical plastic potential surface in the principal stress

space is shown in Fig. 2. It is seen that the pointed apex of
Published by NRC Research Press

874

Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 47, 2010

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV OF BIRMINGHAM on 11/10/14

For personal use only.

Fig. 1. Failure surface in the principal stress space for a cohesionless soil.

Fig. 3. Yield surface in the principal stress space.

Fig. 2. Plastic potential surface in the principal stress space.

Table 1. SH-model parameters required for a
cohesionless soil.
Components of the model
Elastic strains
Failure criterion
Plastic potential
Yield criterion
Hardening function

this surface is located behind the origin of the coordinates

for cohesionless soils.
The yield criterion, fp, is associated with surfaces of constant plastic work, and it is expressed as
9

fp fp0 s  fp00 Wp 0

where s is the stress state, fp00 is a function defined below,

Wp is plastic work, and the function fp0 is defined as

 h
I13 I12
I1
0
10
fp j1 
eq
I3 I2
pa
where h is a dimensionless constant and q varies from zero
to unity. If the stress level, S, is expressed as

 m
1 I13
I1
 27
11
S
pa
h1 I3
the value of q in eq. [10] is given by the relationship
12

aS
1  1  a S

Parameters
M, l, n
m, h1
j2, m
h, a
C, p

where a is a dimensionless constant.

For isotropic-hardening behavior, the function fp00 in
eq. [9] increases with plastic work, Wp, as follows:

h
Wp p
00
13
fp 27j1 3
Cpa
where the parameters C and p are dimensionless constants.
These parameters are related to the plastic work done during
an isotropic compression test, according to the following relationship:
 p
Wp
I1
C
14
pa
pa
Thus, both parameters C and p can be computed by plotting
Wp/pa versus (I1/pa) on a loglog scale.
For isotropic-softening behavior, the function fp00 in eq. [9]
is given by an exponential decay expression in terms of the
plastic work. The transition from hardening to softening
takes place abruptly when the current stress point reaches
the failure surface, i.e., when S = 1.
A typical yield surface in the principal stress space is
shown in Fig. 3. For a more detailed description of the SH
model, the reader is referred to Lade (2005b). A summary
of the parameters required by this model for a cohesionless
soil is given in Table 1.
Published by NRC Research Press

Diaz and Rodrguez-Roa

875

m
2.41
2.20
2.00
2.27
2.20
2.07
2.50
2.30
2.36
2.01
2.06
2.20
2.29
2.22
j2
4.50
3.34
3.16
3.62
3.34
3.16
3.60
3.38
3.72
3.09
3.15
3.06
4.07
3.51
The parameters of MR sand presented herein were derived from Rodrguez-Roa (2003) experimental data.
Lade (2005b).
c
Voyiadjis et al. (2005).
d
Yamamuro and Lade (1999).
e
Dakoulas and Sun (1992).
b

Note: gd, dry unit weight; gw, unit weight of water.

l
0.31
0.28
0.24
0.26
0.24
0.23
0.26
0.33
0.28
0.28
0.41
0.25
0.25
0.32

m
0.05
0.17
0.18
0.11
0.17
0.25
0.12
0.16
0.09
0.23
0.29
0.37
0.07
0.12

h1
39.0
70.0
108.0
37.7
59.1
107.0
36.0
104.0
28.0
80.0
70.2
84.1
20.0
18.0

h
0.66
0.62
0.58
0.58
0.57
0.56
0.43
0.49
0.53
0.77
0.55
0.95
0.85
0.49

a
0.56
0.49
0.45
0.68
0.58
0.49
0.58
0.90
0.79
0.23
0.62
0.30
0.58
0.51

Numerical modeling of drained triaxial

compression tests

M
757
860
940
820
1050
1270
800
1120
510
900
460
293
371
590
gd/gw
1.40
1.47
1.55
1.52
1.58
1.65
1.49
1.69
1.43
1.66
1.59
1.63
1.54
1.44
Dr
0.35
0.55
0.75
0.39
0.65
0.89
0.27
0.98
0.38
1.00
0.73
0.55
0.35
0.30
Sand
MRa
MRa
MRa
Santa Monica Beachb
Santa Monica Beachb
Santa Monica Beachb
Monterrey No. 0b
Monterrey No. 0b
Sacramento Riverb
Sacramento Riverb
Eastern Scheldtb
F-Sandc
Nevadad
Ottawae

Table 2. SH-model parameters of study sands.

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV OF BIRMINGHAM on 11/10/14

For personal use only.

C ( 104)
5.60
3.10
2.80
2.26
2.12
1.44
2.14
0.27
1.27
0.40
1.27
0.70
2.20
5.00

p
1.40
1.47
1.49
1.42
1.37
1.39
1.26
1.44
1.65
1.82
1.61
2.60
2.63
1.39

Fig. 4. Axisymmetric FE mesh for triaxial compression tests.

The measurements derived from isotropic compression and

conventional drained triaxial tests performed on MR sand
(Rodrguez-Roa 2003) were used to evaluate the accuracy of
the model on the basis of laboratory tests. The SH-model parameters fitted to the experimental data by following the
method proposed by Lade (2005b) are included in Table 2
for relative densities equal to 0.35, 0.55, and 0.75. The value
of Poissons ratio is usually close to 0.2 in cohesionless soils
(Lade 2005b). Therefore, this Poissons ratio was adopted for
all the numerical calculations performed in the present study.
An axisymmetric finite-element mesh composed of fournode elements was selected for modeling the triaxial tests
(Fig. 4). After applying an equal all-around confining pressure to the specimen (initial stress state), the top cap was
subjected to successive incremental vertical displacements
for modeling the loading process. Stress, strain, and volume
changes, computed at the centroid of the marked element in
Fig. 4, did not vary significantly when smooth and rough interface elements were inserted between the soil and the cap.
As shown in Figs. 5a and 5b, the observed stressstrain
and volume-change curves under an effective confining
pressure of 80 kPa are accurately predicted by the SH model
for both loose and dense MR sand.

Footings on normally consolidated sands

Relative density approach to net allowable soil pressure
A series of FE analyses were carried out to examine the
loadsettlement response of square and strip footings on
NC sands. Three-dimensional FE fine meshes composed of
eight-node elements were used for modeling rigid square
footings. Because of symmetrical conditions, only onequarter of the footing was modeled. A typical 3D FE
mesh is illustrated in Fig. 6. After preliminary analyses,
the final extension adopted for the mesh was 10 times the
footing width in both the vertical and horizontal directions.
Two-dimensional FE meshes subdivided into four-node
rectangular elements were employed for the analyses of
rigid strip footings under plane strain conditions. The 2D
meshes kept the geometry and extension that were used for
the 3D meshes.
Published by NRC Research Press

876

Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 47, 2010

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV OF BIRMINGHAM on 11/10/14

For personal use only.

Fig. 5. Stressstrain and volume-change curves for triaxial compression tests performed with s3 = 80 kPa: (a) MR loose sand (Dr = 0.35);
(b) MR dense sand (Dr = 0.75).

Fig. 6. Typical 3D FE mesh for square footings.

Fourteen dry and saturated NC sands, whose geotechnical

properties are given in Tables 2 and 3, were considered in
the numerical analyses. In the cases of footings on saturated
sands, the submerged unit weight was used instead of the
dry unit weight, and it was assumed that loading was applied under drainage conditions. For most NC sands, the coefficient of earth pressure at rest, K0, ranges from 0.35 to
0.45. Thus, a mean value of 0.40 was assumed.
Several square and strip footings supported on the study
sands were modeled by considering different widths and em-

bedment depths (Table 4) to involve usual cases of footings

encountered in practice.
Because of the usual construction method of pouring the
concrete directly against the surrounding soil, no interface
element was inserted between the footings and the surrounding soil. All footings were subjected to successive incremental vertical displacements up to a maximum settlement of
25 mm for modeling the load sequence.
Experimental evidence has shown that the loadsettlement
response of footings on sand depends on several variables
related to the stressstrain behavior of the soil as well as
the foundation type. Therefore, if the net soil pressure at a
given settlement is expressed as a function of a unique relative density factor, FDr, for the sake of simplicity, such a
factor should depend on both soil properties and footing
characteristics. Thus, different expressions for FDr were tried
for including not only Dr, but also the effects of other parameters, such as grain diameter; particle shape, Ps; unit
weight of the sand; footing geometry; and embedment
depth. As shown in Table 5, from this trial and error process
based on the numerical analyses of 168 square footing cases
(six foundation types on 14 dry and saturated sands), a high
value of the correlation coefficient (R2 = 0.93) was obtained
by expressing FDr as
 0:5
p  s 0:3
g
Ps log500 D10 D60
15
FDr Dr
gw
B


Df 0:2
 1 0:6
B
where Dr is the relative density in decimal form, D10 and D60 are
grain diameters in millimetres, s is the settlement (= 16 mm), B
is the footing width, Df is the embedment depth, g is the unit
weight of the sand (or submerged unit weight for saturated
sands), gw is unit weight of water, and Ps is the dimensionless
Published by NRC Research Press

877

References
Rodrguez-Roa (2003)
Lade and Boonyachut (1982)
Lade and Duncan (1973)
Lee and Seed (1967)
Jakobsen et al. (1999)
Alshibli and Sture (2000)
Yamamuro and Lade (1999)
Dakoulas and Sun (1992)

Table 4. Width, B, and embedment

depth, Df , of the square and strip
footings analyzed.

D50 (mm)
0.34
0.27
0.43
0.21
0.17
0.22
0.16
0.09

D10 (mm)
0.205
0.18a
0.32a
0.15
0.12a
0.13
0.05
0.08

Particle shape
Subangular
Subangularsubrounded
Subangularsubrounded
Subangularsubrounded
Subroundedrounded
Rounded
Angular
Subroundedb

B (m)
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
4.0

Estimated value from reported data.

Assumed particle shape.
b

Note: Gs, specific gravity; D50, average grain size.

D60 (mm)
0.390
0.284a
0.500a
0.220
0.180a
0.240
0.180
0.092
Gs
2.70
2.66
2.65
2.68
2.65
2.65
2.68
2.65
Sand
MR
Santa Monica Beach
Monterrey No. 0
Sacramento River
Eastern Scheldt
F-Sand
Nevada
Ottawa

Table 3. Index properties of study sands.

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV OF BIRMINGHAM on 11/10/14

For personal use only.

Diaz and Rodrguez-Roa

Df (m)
0.25
0.50
1.00
0.50
1.00
1.00

constant fitted to particle-shape effect, as illustrated in Table 6.

Units used for s, B, and Df, must be consistent.
The numerical analyses of the strip-footing cases also led
to a correlation coefficient of R2 = 0.93.
The charts obtained for the net soil pressure at 16 mm settlement are given in Figs. 7a and 7b for square and strip
footings, respectively, on NC sands. An extension of this
method to footings on unsaturated sand deposits is a conservative approach, because no apparent cohesion was included
in the SH model.
It can be noted from Figs. 7a and 7b that the net allowable soil pressure for a given square footing on NC sands
may vary from 1.21 to 1.66 times the predicted value for a
strip footing with the same width. These results are consistent with the value 1.57, reported by Burland and Burbidge
(1985), for the ratio of strip-footing settlement to squarefooting settlement when both types of shallow foundations
have the same width and are subjected to the same unit load.
The proposed charts were developed on the assumption of
a very rough sandconcrete contact. To evaluate the effect
of this simplification on the predicted net allowable soil
pressures, a conservative smooth sandconcrete interface
was assumed between the foundation walls and the surrounding soil. Then, two square prisms with B = 1.0 m and
Df/B ratios equal to 1.0 and 2.0, on a medium-dense dry MR
sand (Dr = 55%), were analyzed. A decrease was found in
the net allowable soil pressure, ranging from 2% to 7%
when the obtained results were compared with those given
by the charts. Despite the fact that these differences are not
considered large, it is suggested to limit the use of the proposed charts to a maximum Df/B value of 2.0 for the most
general case.
To verify the proposed charts on the basis of the experimental evidence, load tests performed on six square footings
at Labenne were studied (Lehane et al. 1993; Mestat and
Berthelon 2001). The tested soil was composed of a dune
sand about 10 m thick. An overburden of 1.5 m was removed previous to the execution of the load tests. At the
site, the water table ranged from 3.0 to 4.3 m deep.
Geotechnical properties of this sand and a summary of the
footing sizes and the measured unit loads corresponding to
a settlement of 16 mm are given in Tables 7 and 8,
respectively. It can be seen in Fig. 8 that the predicted soil
pressures for square footings on NC sands match well with
the response of the tested footings on the Labenne slightly
OC sand.
Published by NRC Research Press

878

Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 47, 2010

Table 5. Some examples of expressions tried for the relative density factor FDr.

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV OF BIRMINGHAM on 11/10/14

For personal use only.

Relative density factor FDr =

Dnr 1
Dr s=Bn2
p
Dr logn3 n4 D10 D60 s=B0:3
p
Dr log500 D10 D60 s=B0:3 1 n5 Df =Bn6
p
Dr g=g w n7 log500 D10 D60 s=B0:3 1 0:6Df =B0:2
p
Dr g=g w 0:5 Ps log500 D10 D60 s=B0:3 1 0:6Df =B0:2

Best-fit set of parameters

n1 = 1
n2 = 0.3
n3 = 0; n4 = 500
n5 = 0.6; n6 = 0.2
n7 = 0.5

R2
0.663
0.833
0.906
0.915
0.925
0.932

Note: R2, correlation coefficient.

Table 6. Particle-shape effect, Ps.

Particle shapea
Angular
Subangular
Subrounded
Rounded

Ps
1.00
0.95
0.90
0.85

Typical shapes of coarse particles (Peck et al. 1974).

Standard penetration approach to net allowable soil

pressure
The SPT is one of the most widely used in situ tests on
sandy soils in engineering practice. Although the SPT does
not directly measure the shear strength of soils, it does provide a good correlation with it. Thus, several empirical expressions have been suggested for correlating the SPT Nvalue and the relative density (Skempton 1986; Tokimatsu
and Seed 1987; Kulhawy and Mayne 1991). The expression
proposed for sands by Kulhawy and Mayne (1991), based on
extensive field data, is given by
16

D2r

N1 60
CP CA OCR0:18

where Dr is the relative density in decimal form; (N1)60 is

the normalized SPT N-value; Cp = 60 + 25 logD50; D50 is
the grain diameter in millimetres; CA = 1.2 + 0.05 log(t/
100); t is the age of the soil in years; and OCR is
the overconsolidation ratio. The expression for the aging
factor, CA, is not very sensitive to the chosen value for t.
Thus, it would be sufficient to use a value of t = 1000 years
for most practical cases (Coduto 2001), which is the value
of t used in the present study.
The (N1)60 value can be obtained from the expression
(Skempton 1986; Youd et al. 2001)
17

N1 60 N CN CE CS CB CR

where N is the measured value; CN is the overburden pressure correction; CE is the hammer energy ratio correction;
CS is the correction for a sampler without liner; CB is
the correction factor for a borehole diameter larger than
115 mm; and CR is the rod length correction. According to
ASTM D4633-05 (ASTM 2005), it must be pointed out that
the correction for short rods of less than 10 m should be discontinued, i.e., it is suggested to use CR = 1. In Japan, the
correction for short rods is not used (Ishihara 1996). Equation [16] can be used for analyses of unsaturated or saturated sands (P.W. Mayne, personal e-mail communication,

2008). Therefore, in the case of saturated sands no water table correction for the SPT N-value is required.
On the basis of eqs. [15] and [16] and considering OCR =
1, the following factor FSPT-NC is proposed to provide a
standard penetration approach to net allowable soil pressure

  
p
N1 60 0:5 g 0:5
Ps log 500 D10 D60
18
FSPT-NC
Cp
gw

 s 0:3 
Df 0:2

1 0:6
B
B
By considering the FE results used for developing Figs. 7a
and 7b and assuming that CA = 1.25 in eq. [16], charts in terms
of the standard-penetration factor, FSPT-NC, were obtained for
the design of square and strip footings on NC sands, as shown
in Fig. 9. Footing load tests performed at six sites in Kuwait
(Ismael 1985; Ismael and Jeragh 1986) were studied for comparison purposes. The tested soil was composed of fine to medium sand with little nonplastic silt. Mean values of index
properties of Kuwait sand and representative geotechnical
properties of the test sites are given in Tables 9 and 10, respectively. Values of N and cone tip resistance, qc, included in Table 10 correspond to reported average values between depths
of 0.5 and 2.0 m. Standard penetration tests were performed
by means of a donut hammer, using two turns of the rope
around the cathead system. Thus, an energy-correction factor
of CE = 0.75 was adopted to normalize the standard-penetration resistance (Skempton 1986). On the other hand, the following expression proposed by Liao and Whitman (1986) was
used for the overburden pressure correction
 0:5
pa
19
CN
s v0
where s v0 is the effective vertical overburden pressure. This
correction factor, CN, should not exceed a value of 1.7
(Youd et al. 2001).
The effective vertical overburden pressure, s v0 , was calculated at a depth equal to B/2 below the level of the base of
the footings tested in Kuwait. The water table at the site remained below a depth (Df + B) beneath the ground surface
surrounding the tested square footings (Tables 10, 11).
There is no information with regard to the type of SPT sampler used for the subsoil exploration performed in Kuwait in
the early 1980s. According to Kovacs (1994), SPT samplers
with liners were used until approximately 1980. Thus, it was
assumed that a sampler with liner was used in Kuwait. The
computed values of (N1)60 and the measured unit loads correPublished by NRC Research Press

Diaz and Rodrguez-Roa

879

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV OF BIRMINGHAM on 11/10/14

For personal use only.

Fig. 7. Net allowable soil pressure as a function of factor FDr for (a) square footings on NC sands and (b) strip footings on NC sands.

Table 7. Geotechnical properties of Labenne sand.

Dr
0.43

gd /gw
1.60

Moisture content
(%)
5

D60
(mm)
0.34

Table 8. Unit load at 16 mm settlement for footings tested at Labenne.

B (m)
1.00
1.00
0.71
0.71
0.71
0.71

Df (m)
0.20
1.00
0.10
0.20
0.80
1.10

D50
(mm)
0.32

D10
(mm)
0.18

Particle shape
Subangularsubrounded

Fig. 9. Net allowable soil pressure as a function of factor FSPT-NC

for square and strip footings.

Unit load/pa
4.10
4.15
4.12
4.24
4.95
5.60

Fig. 8. Predicted and measured unit load at 16 mm settlement for

square footings tested at Labenne.

Cone tip resistance approach to net allowable soil

pressure
The CPT is another common in situ test. It can also be
used to estimate the engineering properties of soils through
the use of empirical correlations. For sands, Kulhawy and
Mayne (1991) proposed the following expression between
Dr and the normalized cone tip-resistance:
qc1
20
D2r
305 CA Qc OCR0:18 pa
sponding to a settlement of 16 mm are given in Table 11. As
shown in Fig. 10, there is good agreement between the proposed chart for square footings on NC sands and the experimental data obtained from the Kuwait tests. The Burland and
Burbidge (1985) predictions, also included in this figure, tend
in general to underestimate the measured footing unit loads.

where Dr is the relative density in decimal form; qc1 is

the normalized cone tip resistance; CA = 1.2 + 0.05 log(t/
100); t is the age of soil in years (as mentioned above, a value of t = 1000 years was used in the present study); and
Qc is a dimensionless constant equal to 0.91 for highly compressible sands, 1.0 for moderately compressible sands, and
1.09 for slightly compressible sands. Equation [20] can be
Published by NRC Research Press

880

Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 47, 2010

Table 9. Mean values of index properties of Kuwait sand.
D60 (mm)
0.33
a

D50 (mm)
0.31

D10 (mm)
0.08

Particle shape
Subroundeda

Assumed particle shape.

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV OF BIRMINGHAM on 11/10/14

For personal use only.

Table 10. Reported geotechnical properties for test sites at Kuwait.

Test site
KISR
Sabah Hospital
Ahmadi
Abra Kheitan
Rumaithiyah
Shuwaikh industrial area

Depth of water
table (m)
2.8
10

2.6
2.0

gd /gw
1.577
1.588
1.429
1.485
1.553
1.406

Moisture content
(%)
3.0
2.6
3.5
2.4
4.9
6.3

N-value
20
25
15
12
10
10

qc/pa
94.0
118.0
71.0
56.0
47.0
47.0

Table 11. Normalized SPT and CPT resistances and unit load measured at 16 mm settlement for
footings tested at Kuwait.
Test site
KISR
KISR
KISR
KISR
Sabah Hospital
Ahmadi
Abra Kheitan
Rumaithiyah
Shuwaikh industrial area

B (m)
1.00
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50

Df (m)
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

N60
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
18.7
11.2
9.0
7.5
7.5

(N1)60
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
31.9
19.1
15.3
12.8
12.8

qc1/pa
159.8
159.8
159.8
159.8
200.6
120.7
95.2
79.9
79.9

Unit load/pa
4.1
5.0
5.9
7.7
9.4
6.9
4.8
5.6
5.3

Note: qc1, normalized cone tip resistance.

Fig. 10. SPT-based prediction and measured unit load at 16 mm

settlement for nine square footings tested at Kuwait.

used for analyses of unsaturated or saturated sands (P.W.

Mayne, personal e-mail communication, 2008).
The normalized cone tip resistance, qc1, can be calculated as
 n
pa
21
qc1 qc 0
sv
where qc is the measured value, n is a nondimensional exponent, typically equal to 0.5 for sands (Robertson and Wride

1998; Ishihara 1996). The overburden correction factor (pa/

s v0 )n in eq. [21] should not exceed a value of 1.7 (Youd et
al. 2001).
On the basis of eqs. [15] and [20] and considering
OCR = 1, the following factor FCPT-NC is proposed to provide
a cone tipresistance approach to net allowable soil pressure
 0:5  0:5
p
qc1
g
Ps log500 D10 D60
22
FCPT-NC
pa
gw

 s 0:3 
Df 0:2
1 0:6

B
B
By considering the FE results used for developing Figs. 7a
and 7b and assuming CA = 1.25 and Qc = 1.0 in eq. [20],
charts in terms of the cone resistance factor FCPT-NC were
obtained for the design of square and strip footings on NC
sands, as shown in Fig. 11. To support these results, the representative values of qc1 and the measured unit loads corresponding to a settlement of 16 mm at Kuwait footing load
tests, included in Table 11, were considered. As shown in
Fig. 12, the predicted soil pressures closely match the measured values. The predicted soil pressures obtained by the
Schmertmanns method (Schmertmann 1970; Schmertmann
et al. 1978) for the Kuwait tests have also been included in
Fig. 12. As noted, this method tends to slightly underestimate the observed footing unit loads.
Published by NRC Research Press

Diaz and Rodrguez-Roa

881

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV OF BIRMINGHAM on 11/10/14

For personal use only.

Fig. 11. Net allowable soil pressure as a function of factor FCPT-NC

for square and strip footings.

Fig. 12. CPT-based prediction and measured unit load at 16 mm

settlement for nine square footings tested at Kuwait.

Table 12. Values of OCR

corresponding to K0 = 1 for
different values of f (eq. [23]).
f (8)
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
45

OCR
4.1
4.2
4.4
4.6
4.8
5.1
5.4
5.7

Footings on overconsolidated sands

The coefficient of lateral earth pressure must be estimated
previously to analyze the behavior of footings on OC sands.
Available experimental evidence has shown that K0 increases with an increase in OCR. Several empirical correlations have been proposed to predict K0 as a function of
OCR. The well-known K0OCR relationship proposed by
Mayne and Kulhawy (1982) was used herein. This relationship is expressed as
23

K0 1  sinf OCR sinf

where f is the peak friction angle obtained from triaxial

compression tests.

Values of OCR corresponding to K0 = 1.0 were computed

from eq. [23] for typical friction angles for dry sands. As shown
in Table 12, OCR varied between 4.1 and 5.7, with an average
OCR equal to *5. This average OCR may be regarded as a medium degree of overconsolidation (Kulhawy and Mayne 1991).
By using a mean value of K0 = 1.0 in the present study for simplicity, design charts were developed for the net allowable soil
pressure for footings supported on the study sands. The FE results obtained were plotted in Figs. 13a and 13b for square and
strip footings, respectively, in terms of the relative-density factor,
FDr. These charts were developed considering both dry and saturated sands. In the case of footings on saturated sands, the submerged unit weight was used instead of the unit weight, and it
was assumed that loading was applied under drainage conditions.
From these charts it can be seen, as expected, that for any
given value of the relative-density factor, the net allowable
soil pressures for footings on OC sands are higher than those
predicted for identical footings on NC sands. The overconsolidation effect produces an increase of 13%32% over the
predicted soil pressure for footings on NC sands.
It was also found that the predicted net allowable soil
pressure for a given square footing on OC sands may vary
between 1.30 and 1.78 times the predicted value for a strip
footing with the same width.
By considering the FE results used for developing
Figs. 13a and 13b and assuming CA = 1.25 and Qc = 1.0 in
eqs. [16] and [20], design charts were developed for the net
allowable soil pressure for square and strip footings in terms
of results of SPT and CPT, as shown in Figs. 14 and 15, respectively. In these figures, the standard penetration and
cone resistance factors for OC sands with K0 = 1.0 and average OCR = 5 are given by

  
N1 60 0:5 g 0:5
24
FSPT-OC
1:34 Cp
gw


p  s 0:3
Df 0:2
 Ps log500 D10 D60
1 0:6
B
B


25

  
0:75qc1 0:5 g 0:5
pa
gw


p  s 0:3
Df 0:2
 Ps log500 D10 D60
1 0:6
B
B

FCPT-OC

Four footing load tests performed at Texas A&M University were examined (Briaud and Gibbens 1997). The soil is a
medium-dense fine silty silica sand and the water table was
observed at a depth of 4.9 m. Mean values of index properties of this sand are presented in Table 13. According to
several authors, the sand is apparently OC (Altaee and Fellenius1994; Deschamps and Ludlow 1994; Mayne 1994).
Energy measurements conducted during the execution of the
standard penetration tests led to an average energy efficiency
of 53%. Consequently, corrections for energy (CE = 0.88) and
for overburden pressure were used to obtain the (N1)60 values.
The sizes and embedment depths of the tested square footings,
the average values of (N1)60, qc1 between the level of the base
of the footing and a depth B below that level, and the measured
footing unit loads corresponding to a settlement of 16 mm are
illustrated in Table 14. It can be noted that the normalized cone
Published by NRC Research Press

882

Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 47, 2010

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV OF BIRMINGHAM on 11/10/14

For personal use only.

Fig. 13. Net allowable soil pressure as a function of factor FDr for (a) square footings on OC sands and (b) strip footings on OC sands.

Fig. 14. Net allowable soil pressure as a function of factor FSPT-OC

for square and strip footings (K0 = 1.0, OCR = 5.0).

Fig. 15. Net allowable soil pressure as a function of factor FCPT-OC

for square and strip footings (K0 = 1.0, OCR = 5.0).

tip resistance related to the 1.5 m footing is apparently low and

not consistent with the rest of the available experimental data.
As shown in Figs. 16a and 16b, the proposed chart for square
footings on OC sands underestimates the measured soil pressures in a mean value of 24%, without considering the 1.5 m
footing in the CPT-based predictions (unfilled point in
Fig. 16b). These results suggest that the tested sand at Texas
A&M University is overconsolidated with an average OCR
somewhat higher than 5, which is a conclusion that is consistent with the average OCR & 6 estimated by Mayne (1994).

Conclusions
To limit the settlement of the largest footing to a value of
25 mm, Terzaghi et al. (1996) suggested a design criterion
based on restricting the end-of-construction settlement to
16 mm because of the inherent variability of the real soil deposits. This criterion, which was herein adopted, may also be
regarded as an additional safety margin to compensate for the
anticipated long-term settlement of buildings on sand.
Design charts based on the SH model were developed to
predict the net allowable soil pressure for rigid footings on
NC and OC sands subjected to static vertical loading. The
supporting soils can be unsaturated or saturated sands. These
charts consider footing shape, embedment depth, grain diameters D10 and D60, particle shape, unit weight (or submerged unit weight for saturated sands), and indirect
measurements of the shear strength derived from in situ
tests, such as relative density, SPT or CPT.
As shown, the proposed design charts match well with available experimental data. It is suggested to limit the Df/B ratio to
a maximum value of 2.0 because the charts were developed on
the assumption of a very rough concretesand contact.
The SPT-based approach proposed by Burland and
Burbidge (1985) gives acceptable predictions for the
response of square footings on NC sands, but it tends to
underestimate the soil pressures.
The CPT-based procedure proposed by Schmertmann
(1970) and Schmertmann et al. (1978) also gives acceptable
predictions for the response of square footings on NC sands,
and it tends to slightly underestimate the soil pressures. For
routine design, the proposed charts are easier to use and
more accurate than Schmertmanns method (Schmertmann
1970; Schmertmann et al. 1978).
It was found that the predicted net allowable soil pressure
for a given square footing on NC sands varies between 1.21
and 1.66 times the predicted value for a strip footing with
the same width. Such a variation was found to be in the
range 1.301.78 in the case of footings on OC sands.
Footings on OC sands with K0 = 1 show an increase in
the net allowable soil pressure ranging from 13% to 32%
over the value predicted for identical footings on NC sands.
The analysis performed for OC sands, based on both SPT
and CPT data, suggests that the tested sand at Texas A&M
University is overconsolidated with an average OCR somewhat higher than 5.
Published by NRC Research Press

Diaz and Rodrguez-Roa

883

Table 13. Mean values of index properties of Texas A&M sand (Briaud and Gibbens
1997).
gd/gw
1.472

Moisture
content (%)
5

D60
(mm)
0.25

D50
(mm)
0.22

D10
(mm)
0.11

Fine content
(%)
11

Particle shape
Subroundeda

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV OF BIRMINGHAM on 11/10/14

For personal use only.

Assumed particle shape.

Table 14. Normalized SPT and CPT resistances and unit

load measured at 16 mm settlement for footings tested at
Texas A&M University (Briaud and Gibbens 1997).

The authors also thank the anonymous reviewers for their

useful comments. The license for using the program ABAQUS
was purchased from Dassault Syste`mes Simulia Corporation.

B (m)
1.0
1.5
2.5
3.0a

References

Df (m)
0.71
0.76
0.76
0.76

(N1)60
27.77
25.24
25.73
27.20

qc1/pa
145.88
89.03
121.96
162.03

Unit load/pa
7.00
5.40
4.60
4.50

Note: SPT and CPT resistances shown in this table were obtained from the SPT-boring and CPT-sounding close to the location of each footing.
a

North footing.

Fig. 16. Predicted and measured unit load at 16 mm settlement for

square footings tested at Texas A&M: (a) SPT-based prediction
and (b) CPT-based prediction.

Acknowledgments
The authors thank the Chilean National Council for Science and Technology Research (CONICYT) and the School
of Engineering of the Pontificia Universidad Catolica de
Chile, Santiago, Chile, for the financial support given to the
first author during the development of his doctoral thesis.

Alshibli, K.A., and Sture, S. 2000. Shear band formation in plane

strain experiments of sand. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 126(6): 495503. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)1090-0241(2000)126:6(495).
Altaee, A., and Fellenius, B.H. 1994. Prediction of settlement for
five footings. American Society of Civil Engineers, Geotechnical Special Publication 41. pp. 206209.
ASTM. 2005. Standard test method for energy measurement for dynamic penetrometers. ASTM standard D4633-05, American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, Pa.
Bolton, M.D. 1986. The strength and dilatancy of sands. Geotechnique, 36(1): 6578. doi:10.1680/geot.1986.36.1.65.
Briaud, J.L., and Gibbens, R.M. 1997. Large scale load tests and
data base of spread footings on sand. US Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. Report RD-97-068.
Briaud, J.L., and Gibbens, R.M. 1999. Behavior of five spread
footings in sand. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE, 125(9): 787797. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)10900241(1999)125:9(787).
Brinch Hansen, J. 1970. A revised extended formula for bearing capacity. Danish Geotechnical Institute Bulletin, 28: 511.
Burland, J.B., and Burbidge, M.C. 1985. Settlement of foundations
on sand and gravel. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 78(1): 13251381.
Coduto, D.P. 2001. Foundation design: Principles and practices.
2nd ed. PrenticeHall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, N.J.
Dakoulas, P., and Sun, Y. 1992. Fine Ottawa sand: Experimental
behavior and theoretical predictions. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE, 118(12): 19061923. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9410(1992)118:12(1906).
Deschamps, R.J., and Ludlow, S.J. 1994. Prediction of vertical load
on spread foundations at small and large deflections. In Predicted
and Measured Behavior of Five Spread Footings on Sand, Proceedings of a Prediction Symposium at the Settlement 94 ASCE
Conference, College Station, Tex., 1618 June 1994. Geotechnical
Special Publication 41. Edited by J.L. Briaud and R.M. Gibbens.
American Society of Civil Engineers, New York. pp. 202205.
Ishihara, K. 1996. Soil behaviour in earthquake geotechnics. Clarendon, Oxford, UK.
Ismael, N.F. 1985. Allowable pressure from loading tests on Kuwaiti soils. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 22(2): 151157.
doi:10.1139/t85-021.
Ismael, N.F., and Jeragh, A.M. 1986. Static cone test and settlement of calcareous desert sands. Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
23(3): 297303. doi:10.1139/t86-043.
Jakobsen, K.P. 1999. Application of the single hardening model in
the finite element program ABAQUS. Geotechnical Engineering
Papers, Aalborg Universitet, Aalborg, Denmark.
Jakobsen, K.P., and Lade, P.V. 2002. Implementation algorithm for
Published by NRC Research Press

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV OF BIRMINGHAM on 11/10/14

For personal use only.

884
a single hardening constitutive model for frictional materials. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in
Geomechanics, 26(7): 661681. doi:10.1002/nag.217.
Jakobsen, K.P., Praastrup, U., and Ibsen, L.B. 1999. The influence
of stress path on the characteristic stress state. In Proceedings of
the 2nd International Symposium on Pre-Failure Deformation
Characteristics of Geomaterials, Torino, Italy, 2830 September
1999. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. pp. 659666.
Kovacs, W.D. 1994. Effects of SPT equipment and procedures on the
design of shallow foundations on sand. In Proceedings of Settlement
1994: Vertical and Horizontal Deformations of Foundations and Embankments, College Station, Tex., 1618 June 1994. Edited by A.T.
Yeung and G.Y. Felio. Geotechnical Special Publication 40. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York. Vol. 1, pp. 121131.
Kulhawy, F.H., and Mayne, P.W. 1991. Relative density, SPT, and
CPT interrelationships. In Proceedings of the First International
Symposium on Calibration Chamber Testing/ISOCCT1, Potsdam, New York, 2829 June 1991. pp. 197211.
Lade, P.V. 1982. Three-parameter failure criterion for concrete. Journal
of the Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE, 108(5): 850863.
Lade, P.V. 2005a. Overview of constitutive models for soils. In
Soil Constitutive Models: Evaluation, Selection, and Calibration:
Proceedings of the Geo-Frontier Conference, Austin, Tex., 24
26 January 2005. Geotechnical Special Publication 128. Edited
by J.A. Yamamuro and V.N. Kaliakin. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York. pp. 134.
Lade, P.V. 2005b. Single hardening model for soils: Parameter determination and typical values. In Soil Constitutive Models: Evaluation, Selection, and Calibration: Proceedings of the Geo-Frontier
Conference, Austin, Tex., 2426 January 2005. Geotechnical Special Publication 128. Edited by J.A. Yamamuro and V.N. Kaliakin.
American Society of Civil Engineers, New York. pp. 290309.
Lade, P.V., and Boonyachut, S. 1982. Large stress reversals in
triaxial test on sand. In Proceedings of the 4th International
Conference on Numerical Methods in Geomechanics, Edmonton, Alta., 31 May 4 June 1982. Vol. 1, pp. 171182.
Lade, P.V., and Duncan, J.M. 1973. Cubical triaxial tests on cohesionless soil. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, 99(10): 793812.
Lade, P.V., and Jakobsen, K.P. 2002. Incrementalization of a single
hardening constitutive model for frictional materials. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 26(7): 647659. doi:10.1002/nag.216.
Lade, P.V., and Kim, M.K. 1995. Single hardening constitutive model
for soil, rock and concrete. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 32(14): 19631978. doi:10.1016/0020-7683(94)00247-T.
Lee, K.L., and Seed, H.B. 1967. Drained strength characteristics of
sands. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division,
ASCE, 93(6): 117141.
Lehane, B.M., Jardine, R.J., Bond, A.J., and Frank, R. 1993. Mechanisms of shaft friction in sand from instrumented pile tests.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 119(1): 1935.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1993)119:1(19).
Liao, S.S.C., and Whitman, R.V. 1986. Overburden correction factor
for SPT in sand. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE,
112(3): 373377. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1986)112:3(373).
Mayne, P.W. 1994. CPT-based prediction on footing response. In Proceedings of a Prediction Symposium at the Settlement 94 ASCE
Conference, College Station, Tex., 1618 June 1994. Geotechnical
Special Publication 41. Edited by J.-L. Briaud and R.M. Gibbens.
American Society of Civil Engineers, New York. pp. 214217.
Mayne, P.W., and Kulhawy, F.H. 1982. K0OCR relationships in

Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 47, 2010

soils. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE,
108(6): 851872.
Mestat, P., and Berthelon, J.P. 2001. Finite element modelling of
shallow foundation tests at the Labenne site. Bulletin des Laboratoires des Ponts et Chaussees, 234: 5374.
Meyerhof, G.G. 1965. Shallow foundations. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 91(2): 2131.
Peck, R.B., and Bazaraa, A.R.S. 1969. Discussion of Settlement
of spread footings on sand, by D.J.D. Appolonia, E.D. Appolonia, and R.F. Brissette. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, 96(3): 905909.
Peck, R.B., Hanson, W.E., and Thornburn, T.H. 1974. Foundation
engineering. 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Robertson, P.K., and Wride, C.E. 1998. Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential using the cone penetration test. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 35(3): 442459. doi:10.1139/cgj-35-3-442.
Rodrguez-Roa, F. 2003. Observed and predicted behavior of
Maipo River sand. Soils and Foundations, 43(5): 111.
Rodrguez-Roa, F. 2006. Discussion of Estimation of bearing capacity of circular footings on sands based on cone penetration
test, by Junhwan Lee and Rodrigo Salgado. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 132(11):
15131515. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2006)132:11(1513).
Sargand, S.M., Masada, T., and Engle, R. 1999. Spread footing
foundation for highway bridge applications. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 125(5): 373
382. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1999)125:5(373).
Schmertmann, J.H. 1970. Static cone to compute static settlement
over sand. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, 96(3): 10111043.
Schmertmann, J.H., Brown, P.R., and Hartman, J.P. 1978. Improved strain influence factor diagrams. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 104(8): 11311135.
Skempton, A.W. 1986. Standard penetration test procedures and the
effects in sands of overburden pressure, relative density, particle
size, ageing and overconsolidation. Geotechnique, 36(3): 425
447. doi:10.1680/geot.1986.36.3.425.
Terzaghi, K., and Peck, R.B. 1948. Soil mechanics in engineering
practice. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Terzaghi, K., Peck, R.B., and Mesri, G. 1996. Soil mechanics in engineering practice. 3rd ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Tokimatsu, K., and Seed, H.B. 1987. Evaluation of settlements in
sands due to earthquake shaking. Journal of the Geotechnical
Engineering Division, ASCE, 113(8): 861878. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9410(1987)113:8(861).
Vesic, A.S. 1973. Analysis of ultimate loads of shallow foundations. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division,
ASCE, 99(1): 4573.
Voyiadjis, G.Z., Alsaleh, M.I., and Alshibli, K.A. 2005. Evolving
internal length scales in plastic strain localization for granular
materials. International Journal of Plasticity, 21(10): 2000
2024. doi:10.1016/j.ijplas.2005.01.008.
Yamamuro, J.A., and Lade, P.V. 1999. Experiments and modeling
of silty sands susceptible to static liquefaction. Mechanics of
Cohesive-Frictional Materials, 4(6): 545564. doi:10.1002/
(SICI)1099-1484(199911)4:6<545::AID-CFM73>3.0.CO;2-O.
Youd, T.L., Idriss, I.M., Andrus, R.D., Arango, I., Castro, G., Christian,
J.T., et al. 2001. Liquefaction resistance of soils; summary report from
the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of
liquefaction resistance of soils. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 127(10): 817833. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)
1090-0241(2001)127:10(817).

Published by NRC Research Press