INFLUENCE OFROUGHNESS OFBASEANDGROUND-WATER

CONDITIONSON THE ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITYOF

FOUNDATIONS

Professor

G. G. MEYERHOF,

DSc.,

Ph.D.,

A.M.I.C.E.

SYNOPSIS
Theoretical methods for estimating the effect of
roughness of the base on the bearing capacity are
outlined in the first part of the Paper and compared
with the results of some loading tests on model
footings.
In the second part of the Paper theoretical analyses of the influence of ground-water conditions on
the bearing capacity of cohesionless material are
summarised and compared with the main results of
laboratory and some field loading tests on sand.

Dans la premiere partie du Document Iauteur

expose dans leurs grandes lignes les methodes
theoriques propres a levaluation de leffet de la
rugosite de la base snr la capacite portant et les
compare avec les resultats de certains essais de
charge snr des modeles de semelles.
Dam la seconde partie du Document, des analyses
theoriques de linfluence des conditions avec nappes
deau souterraines snr la capacite portante des
materiaux non coherents sont resumees et comparees
avec les principaux resultats dessais en laboratoire
et de certains essais snr place de charge snr sable.

INTRODUCTION
During the past 15 years studies of the behaviour of foundations at the ultimate load have
clarified the method of estimating the bearing capacity from a soil investigation and theoretical
analysis.
Accordingly, the procedure for simple soil and foundation conditions is now fairly
well established, and sufficiently reliable estimates can be made in many cases in practice.
On the other hand, the methods of analysis for special conditions are still controversial.
Thus, according to Terzaghis method (1943), the bearing capacity of a smooth strip footing
on sand is somewhat greater than that of a rough base, whilst the opposite is suggested for
clay.
According to the Authors analysis (1951), however, the bearing capacity of a perfectly
smooth footing on cohesionless material is one-half that for a perfectly rough base, and the
ultimate load of a strip footing on purely cohesive soil is not affected by roughness of the base.
Further, it has been indicated (Terzaghi, 1925) that the bearing capacity of a footing on sand
below the water-table is about one-half that on dry sand, whilst an investigator
(Eastwood,
1951) concludes from his loading tests with narrow footings on sand that the ultimate bearing
capacity of dry sand is reduced by less than 20% if the sand is submerged.

Part I : Influence of roughness

of base on bearing

capacity

When a foundation is loaded, the condition of equilibrium in the soil in the neighbourhood
of the base is gradually changed from the elastic to the plastic state.
The transition from the
elastic to the plastic state starts at the footing edges from whence the plastic state of equilibrium spreads downwards on a curved surface to meet at some distance below the centre of
On further loading of the foundation the plastic state spreads from this
the foundation.
curved surface upwards towards the base as well as downwards and outwards, until bearing
At the ultimate bearing capacity, the zones of plastic flow
capacity failure of the soil occurs.
reach their maximum extent and cover the whole space between the curved failure surface
and an elastic zone near the centre of the base.
I

227

228

G.

G.

MEYERHOF

THEORY

Weightless material
A complete analysis of the bearing capacity of a perfectly rough strip footing on the surface
of a weightless cohesive material with internal friction was first made by Prandtl (1920).
The corresponding zones of plastic equilibrium in the material satisfy the stress and strainrate equations of plastic theory and are shown in Fig. 1(a). Below the base is a central wedgeshaped zone A-B-C with base angle # = 45 + $12, which remains in a quasi-elastic state of
equilibrium and acts as part of the foundation. On each side of this zone are a radial shear
zone A-C-D and an adjoining zone of plane shear A-D-E.
For a material the shearing strength of which is given by :
where c =
+ =
and p =
(Terzaghi,

r=c+ptan+
. . . . . . . . * (1)
apparent cohesion,
angle of internal friction or shearing resistance,
normal pressure on shear plane, the bearing capacity can be represented by
1943) :
qc = cN,
. . . . . . . . . . (2)

(a

( C)

) WEIGHTLESS

WEIGHTLESS

MATERIAL

(b)

MATERIAL

(d)

MATERIAL

MATERIAL

ontoct

Semi(0)

WEIGHTLESS

Fig. 1.

MATERIAL

WITH

WEIGHT

WITH

WEIGHT

pressure

rough bow
(0

MATERIAL

WITH WEIGHT

Plastic zones for surface strip foundation

FACTORS

INFLUENCING

BEARING

CAPACITY

229

OF FOUNDATIONS

where NC = bearing capacity factor for a surface footing and depends on 4 only (Fig. 2).
The distribution of contact pressure is uniform over the base.
A similar analysis for a perfectly smooth footing on the surface was first given by Hencky
(1923), who showed that two symmetrical plane shear zones with # = 45 + 412 are formed
below the base with adjacent radial and plane shear zones as in Prandtls analysis but onehalf in size (Fig. l(c) ). The small elastic zone near the centre of the base, where a plastic
state cannot possibly develop, and the plastic material (shown dotted in Fig. l(c) ) between
the failure surface and the boundary of overstress, act as part of the foundation (Hill, 1949).
For a material satisfying equation (I), the bearing capacity is also given by equation (2).
The bearing capacity factor NC of a smooth foundation is identical with that of a perfectly
rough foundation, and the contact pressure distribution is also the same.
Based on these limiting zones of plastic equilibrium for a perfectly rough and perfectly
smooth base and the similarity of the corresponding
shear patterns, the probable failure
zones for a surface footing with a semi-rough base can readily be suggested, as shown in Fig.
l(e).
The central elastic zone and the adjacent plastic zones are intermediate in size between
It may be assumed that the dimensions of the zones
those due to Prandtl and Hencky.
increase in direct proportion to the (maximum) degree of mobilization +zof shearing strength
of the soil along the base, i.e., base width of central zone :

b = nB, approximately

(3)

where
7, = maximum

shearing

stress on base,

c, = base adhesion,
and 6 = angle of base friction.
The base shearing stress is zero at the centre of the foundation, increases with distance from
the centre to a maximum at the end of the elastic zone, and then remains constant at this
maximum value over the adjacent plane shear zones below the base (Fig. l(e) ). As before,
the bearing capacity is given by equation (2) and is thus independent of roughness of the base.
The contact pressure distribution is uniform over the base.
In order to simulate the conditions of a perfectly rough strip footing below the surface of
the soil, Reissner (1924) replaced the overburden at base level by a uniform surcharge yD
where y = unit weight of soil,
and
D = depth of foundation
the bearing capacity :

; he made a complete analysis of the corresponding

qp = rDNq

part of

(5)

where N4 = bearing capacity factor for a surface footing and depends on C$only (Fig. 2).
Since the elastic and plastic zones of equilibrium are identical to those due to Prandtl
(Fig. 1 (a) ), the shear pattern for a perfectly smooth footing and a footing with a semi-rough
base below the surface will also be identical to Figs 1 (c) and 1 (e), respectively, and the bearing
capacity is in all cases given by equation (5). The total bearing capacity of a shallow
footing, irrespective of the roughness of the base, can then, in the first instance. be represented by (Terzaghi, 1943) :
4

4c

4P

=cNc+yDNa

- (6)

230

G.

G.

MEYERHOF

from equations (2) and (5), and the corresponding contact pressure on the base is again
uniform.
This method which ignores the shearing strength of the overburden is necessarily conservative and is not in accordance with observed ground movements above base level. A
better approximation to the bearing capacity of foundations below the surface is obtained
by extending to shallow and deep foundations the previous analyses of Prandtl and Reissner
concerning the plastic equilibrium of a surface footing. In this extended theory (Meyerhof,
1951), the zones of plastic equilibrium increase with foundation depth to a maximum for a
deep foundation. For a given depth the size of these zones can be assumed to vary with
the roughness of the base in a similar way to the variation shown in Figs l(a) and l(e), and
for a perfectly smooth foundation two symmetrical shear zones are formed below the base as
in Fig. l(c). On this basis the bearing capacity can be expressed by :
q = Civcq .

(7)

where N,, = resultant bearing capacity factor depending on the foundation depth as well as
4. As before, the bearing capacity is independent of roughness of the base over which the
contact pressure is uniformly distributed.

Material with weight

On account of mathematical difficulties a complete analysis of the bearing capacity of a

foundation on a heavy cohesive material with internal friction is not yet available. The
problem can at present be solved only by assuming that the material is weightless as far as
the influence of cohesion (and surcharge) on the bearing capacity q is concerned, and by
assuming that the material is cohesionless when determining the influence of weight of
material on the bearing capacity 4. Thus the total bearing capacity is, approximately :
q=q+q

(8)

where q is given by equation (6) or (7) ; and for a surface footing (Terzaghi, 1943) :
q+;N,,

. (10)

or more generally for a foundation at any depth (Meyerhof, 1951) :

q=y;N,,p

where B = width of foundation.

In equations (9) and (lo), NY is the surface bearing capacity factor and depends on 4 and
the roughness of the base, and N,, is the resultant bearing capacity factor depending on
foundation depth as well as 4 and roughness of base.
An analysis of the bearing capacity of a perfectly rough strip footing on the surface of
cohesionless material has been made by a numerical step-by-step computation for the special
case of C$= 30 (Lundgren and Mortensen, 1953). This method satisfies the stress equations
of plastic theory but not necessarily the strain-rate equations, and thus may underestimate
the bearing capacity ; the corresponding zones of plastic equilibrium are shown in Fig. l(b).
Below the base is a central quasi-elastic zone which is bounded by two curved surfaces intersecting at an angle of 90 - 4, and being tangential to the base near the edges (# = 0).
The radial shear zones have curved slip lines, but the adjacent plane shear zones are similar
to yet are smaller than Prandtls. The contact pressure on the base increases from zero at

FACTORS

INFLUENCING

BEARING

CAPACITY

231

OF FOUNDATIONS

the edges to a maximum at the centre of the footing, and the average pressure gives a bearing
capacity factor NY = 14% The angle of base friction increases practically uniformly from
zero at the footing centre to 30 close to the edges (Fig. l(b) ).
Pending similar computations for other angles of internal friction, the corresponding
bearing-capacity factors can at present only be found by approximate methods on the assumption that the central zone is bounded by two plane surfaces on which the passive pressure
Pp is then determined either analytically or semi-graphically. On the basis of this assumption, which overestimates the bearing capacity, the base angle 4 of the central zone has
previously been taken either as $ = (b (Terzaghi, 1943) or as 4 = 45 + 4/Z (Meyerhof, 1951).
A more rational method, however, would be to vary the angle I/ so as to make the bearing
capacity a minimum using :
N

tan 4
= 4PP cm 04 - 4)
-2
YB2

. (11)

As a check of the reliability of this latter procedure, the results of some trial computations
are given in Fig. 3 for comparison with previous methods. For 4 = 30 the minimum IV,,
is found to be 16.0, which is within 4% of the correct value of about 15.4 (between the limits
of 14.8 and 16.0). The corresponding base angle $ = 37 is a good approximation to the
average slope of the curved boundary of the actual elastic zone, and the adjacent plastic
zones agree well (Fig. l(b) ). Similar estimates have been made by the Author for other
angles of internal friction, and the minimum factors IV,, are shown in Fig. 2. These factors,
which are up to about 30% less than those published previously for 1/1= + or 4 = 45 + 412,
are likely to be within about 5 oh of the exact values, and correspond to 4 of about l-24. The
corresponding contact pressure distribution is triangular over the base.
A step-by-step computation for a perfectly smooth strip footing on the surface has also
been made for 4 = 30 (Lundgren and Mortensen, 1953), and the corresponding plane and
radial shear zones of the plastic equilibrium are shown in Fig. l(d). The slip lines meet the
base at $J= 45 + +/2 ; the central small elastic and larger plastic zones acting as part of the
footing have been added to the original shear pattern. The contact pressure on the base
increases from zero at the edges to a maximum near the outer quarter points and then

Fig. 2. Bearing capacity factors

for shallow strip foundation
with rough base

Fig. 3. Bearing capacity factor for

rough strip foundation on surface
of cohesionless material

232

G.

G.

MEYERHOF

decreases again to zero at the centre of the base (Fig. l(d) ). The bearing capacity factor
N, is found to be about one-half of that for a perfectly rough base.
According to the suggested
approximate method, the factor N, for the smooth base is exactly one-half that for a rough
base, and the contact pressure distribution is triangular on each half of the base.
The probable shear pattern for a footing with a semi-rough base is shown in Fig. l(f),
where the slip lines meet the base at an angle :
# =45

+f

-f

[s +sin-1

($$)I

obtained from Mohrs diagram.

As was assumed for a weightless material, the central elastic
and adjacent plastic zones may be taken to increase with the maximum base friction 6, i.e.,
base width of central zone :
b = nB, approximately
where

n = tan G/tan +

.
.

.
.

.
.

and the base friction varies along the base, as was suggested above for
The contact pressure increases from zero at the edges to a maximum in
base and then decreases again to a minimum of p = nyN,B at the
(Fig. 1 (f) ). For a linear pressure variation it can then be shown that
factor for a semi-rough base is :

N,=(n+~)N,

.
.

.
.

.
.

(13)

.
.

. (14)

a weightless material.
the middle half of the
centre of the footing
the bearing capacity

(15)

where N,,, = bearing capacity factor for a perfectly rough base (equation 11) and n is given
by equation (14).
On the assumption that the overburden at base level of a footing at a depth D is equivalent
to a uniform surcharge yD, it has been shown (Lundgren and Mortensen, 1953) that the
shear pattern is intermediate between that for a material without and with weight.
With
increasing depth/width of foundation the shear pattern approaches that corresponding to a
weightless material, because the bearing capacity due to surcharge becomes more important,
so that # approaches 45 + 412, irrespective of the roughness of the base.
The size of the
elastic and plastic zones of equilibrium can be assumed to vary with roughness of the base,
as already indicated for a surface footing, and the contact pressure variation is the sum of
that due to the bearing capacity components q and q. According to this analysis the
bearing capacity of a shallow foundation with a perfectly rough base and 4 = 30 increases
with depth, as shown in Fig. 4, which also gives the results of the previous methods, using
either # = 4 or $ = 45 + +/2, as well as the present theory using the worst $ (about 1.24)
for N, and # = 45 + $12 for Np. For very small foundation depths the latter method is
close to the more rigorous analysis, which approaches the previous method using J/J= 45
+ +/2 as the foundation depth increases.
All these methods ignore the shearing strength of the overburden, and a better approximation to the bearing capacity of foundations below the surface is obtained by extending the
present method, using a variable #. In this theory the zones of plastic flow increase with
foundation depth, and for a given depth they vary with roughness of the base, as shown for a
weightless material.
The results of this theory-allowing
for the shear strength of the overburden for a perfectly rough base and 4 = 30 (Fig. 4)-confirm
the previous finding (Meyerhof, 1951) that for shallow foundations
(D/B < 1) the difference between ignoring the
shearing strength of the overburden and taking it into account does not exceed 20% of the
bearing capacity for all practical values of $, and when compared with the more rigorous

FACTORS

INFLUENCING

Fig.

BEARING

CAPACITY

OF FOUNDATIONS

233

Bearing
capacity factor for
4.
shallow
rough
strip foundation
in cohesionless
material-(4
=
30)

analysis, using the exact shear pattern, the difference does not exceed about 10%.
So that
the bearing capacity of shallow foundations in cohesionless soil can, in practice, be determined on the previous assumption of no shearing strength of the overburden
(using the
For
worst # for N, and $ = 45 + $12 for N,J, which considerably simplifies the estimates.
foundation depths D/B > 1, however, the error associated with this procedure increases
rapidly with D/B, and it is suggested that the more elaborate method published previously
That method was based on $ = 45 + 412 (for both N,, and NJ
(Meyerhof, 1951) be used.
which, as already shown, is reasonable for the greater foundation depths considered.
The shear pattern and contact pressure distribution over the base of shallow and deep
foundations with a semi-rough base are similar to those of a foundation,
the overburden
The effect of roughness of the base on the bearing capacity
shear strength of which is ignored.
decreases rapidly with foundation depth, because the degree of roughness only affects the
(smaller) component q of the bearing capacity due to weight of the material, and not the
(larger) component q due to surcharge.

EXPERIMENTS

As a check of the theoretical findings, some loading tests were carried out at the Building
Most of the tests
Research Station on model footings with a base of different roughnesses.
were made with I-in.-wide footings resting on the surface of dense sand, when the effect of
The
roughness is most pronounced, but some exploratory tests were made on model piles.
base of the footings was either covered with sandpaper (perfectly rough), lightly polished
In the latter
brass and oiled brass (semi-rough), or laminated (sensibly, perfectly smooth).
case as many as eight parallel brass strips were loaded separately through steel rollers, to
which the total load was applied by a rigid block to ensure that the laminated footing base
After the tests the width of the observed failure surface at
remained plane during the test.
The angle of internal friction
ground level (measured from the footing edge) was recorded.
of the medium sand (46 < 4 < 48 depending

on normal pressure on shear plane) and the

234

G.

G.

MEYERHOF

skin friction on brass (6 = 26) and oiled brass (6 = 11) were determined in the shear box
for the same density of the sand (porosity 37%) as used in the loading tests. The experimental procedure of the model tests was similar to that described previously (Meyerhof,

1948).
The test results are shown in Fig. 5 (a) and (b) and the average results have been replotted
in Fig. 5 (c) and (d) as ratios of the values for a perfectly rough base, so that they can be compared with the theoretical relationships given by equations (13) to (15). The experimental
results show that both the bearing capacity and the width of the failure surface increase with
base friction roughly in accordance with the present analysis. For a perfectly rough base
the observed and theoretical bearing capacities compare well, but the experimental failure
surfaces are smaller than estimated. In a general way the mode of theoretical ground failure
was also supported by observations of the sand movements at failure below some footings
in a glass-sided box. The few exploratory tests on brass and sanded model piles gave sensibly
the same point resistance as would be expected theoretically.
Although further tests, especially on a large scale, would be useful as a check, it may be
concluded that the proposed methods of analysis are sufficiently accurate for practical purposes. Moreover, it shouId be noted that most foundations in practice have a perfectly
rough base, as shown by direct shear tests between concrete and soil, when the full shearing
strength of the soil was generally mobilized.

Part II : Influence of ground-water

conditions

on bearing capacity

Variation in ground-water conditions affects the bearing capacity of cohesive soils mainly
by changing the cohesion, which has to be determined in every given case. The importance
of the effective unit weight of the soil on the bearing capacity increases with the angle of
internal friction of the material (equations (6) to (10) ). For cohesionless soils + is practically
unchanged by the water conditions, which have, however, a considerable influence on the
effective weight and thus the bearing capacity.
THEORY

Full submergence

An analysis of the influence on the bearing capacity of submergence of sand was first
made by Terzaghi (1925), who showed that for a footing on completely submerged material
below a stationary water-table the bearing capacity is :

$y$N,

. . . . . . . . . . (16)

where y = submerged unit weight.

If water percolates through the soil and the foundation is at a depth D below ground
level it can be shown that :
4 =

(Y- noi) ; Nvg+ y,D

. (17)

where yW = unit weight of water, i = average vertical hydraulic gradient in failure zone
(upward gradient is positive and vice versa) and other symbols as before.

H
*

ON

::p
D\
\

AVERAQE
FAILURE WIDTH
ROUGH FAILURE WIDTH
$

a
. b,

AVERAGE GEARING CAPACITY 1

ROUGH BEARING CAPACITY q_

WIDTH

BEARING

CAPACITY

OF FAILURE SURFACE

ULTIMATE

(LB.&D.

b IIN.)

IN.)

236

G. G.

MEYERHOF

Flow nets for impermeable foundations indicate that large hydraulic gradients occur near
the edges at which the local theoretical gradient is infinity. Analysis shows that under
upward flow of water local piping around the perimeter of the foundation rapidly reduces
the bearing capacity of surface footings for gradients larger than about two-thirds, and for
4 = 30 the average seepage pressure on the theoretical failure surface, especially below the
base, is about 10% greater than corresponds to the hydraulic gradient i at greater distance
from the base. With increasing angle of internal friction and greater foundation depths the
effects of local piping and larger pressure gradient on the failure surface decrease rapidly, so
that the influence on the bearing capacity is generally unimportant in practice.
Partial submergence

If the water-table is located below the ground level, the bearing capacity is between the
limits given by equations (10) and (17). For a foundation on the surface of cohesionless

(01

SURFACE

Fig. 6.

FOUNDATION

(b) SHALLOW

FOUNDATION

Rough foundation on partly submerged

material

material and a stationary water-table at depth d (Fig. 6 (a) ), the total bearing capacity may
be considered as the sum of two components :The first part is due to full submergence (y) of the material to ground level and is
given by equation (16) ; the corresponding contact pressure distribution over the base is
approximately triangular. The second part of the bearing capacity is due to the difference
(y - 7) of the unit weight y between ground level and water-table and y below the watertable. This part can be found semi-graphically by determining the additional passive
pressure AP, on the central zone below the base as indicated above for a material of
uniform weight ; the corresponding contact pressure distribution is trapezoidal. Ignoring
any apparent cohesion above the water-table, the total bearing capacity is then :
q=

y +F(y
[

-y)

;q,

where F is a factor varying between zero for fully submerged material, and unity for a
water-table at or below the depth of the theoretical failure zone.
The factor F has been determined by the Author for a strip foundation with a perfectly
rough base. The results of the analysis (Fig. 7 (a) ) show that the bearing capacity is only
affected by a water-table between base level and a depth of up to about twice the foundation
width, depending on 4. Within this limit the factor F increases almost in direct proportion
to the depth of the water-table (Fig. 7 (b) ). For a circular or square foundation the depth

FACTORS

INFLUENCING

BEARING

CAPACITY

237

OF FOUNDATIONS

of the failure zone does not exceed about the foundation width, even for dense sand (Meyerhof, 1950) ; a linear increase of F within this depth may then be suggested as a safe approximation and the bearing capacity for d < B is :
q =

yB + (y -

y)d

I2

. .

(19)

If the foundation is located at a shallow depth, D/B < 1, and the water-table is between
ground and base levels (Fig. 6 (b) ), the bearing capacity can with sufficient accuracy be
expressed by :
q = y;

yD + (Y - y)d Nq + yw (D - 4

NY +

. (20)

Similarly, for a water-table between base level and depth of failure zone the bearing capacity
is :
q =

y + F (y -y)

; NY + yDNp

. . . . . *(21)

where the factor F is given in Fig. 7 (a) (provided d - D is now substituted for a).

Fig. 7. Influence of depth of watertable on bearing

capacity of
partly submerged cohesionless
material

238

G. G. MEYERHOF

For a foundation with D/B > 1 and a water-table

failure zone, the bearing capacity may be taken as :

2=

B
z

N,,

between

ground

+ym (D -d)

where d, = depth of failure zone below base level ; do can be estimated

d/B for F = 1, shown in Fig. 7 (a).

level and depth of

(22)

from the value of

EXPERIMENTS

Full submergence
Whilst some model experiments
(Luby and Woolf, 1928) show that the bearing capacity
of submerged sand is of the order of one-half that of dry sand, other tests with surface footings
on dense sand (Eastwood, 1951) indicate a difference of only 20% between dry and inundated
sand, or a difference of about one-half the theoretical amount.
At the time of the latter experiments,
a series of loading tests was carried out on model
footings at the Building Research Station to study the influence of ground-water conditions
on the bearing capacity of sand.
The experimental
procedure and results of the first tests
relating mainly to fully submerged material have been described elsewhere (Meyerhof, 1950).
Later, loading tests were made on partly submerged material in which the pore-water stresses
The sand was in a fairly loose state (average porosity of
were measured during the tests.
all tests 425%)
and had an angle of internal friction of 37 to 38, depending on the normal
pressure on fully saturated material in drained tests carried out in a shear box.
The main results of loading tests on the surface of sand with a stationary water-table a
little above ground level compare well with the average results obtained previously on the
same dry material in various states of packing (Meyerhof, 1951), on the basis of direct proSince the experimental
curves
portion to the effective unit weight of the sand (Fig. 8).

Fig. 8. Bearing capacity of model

foundations in fully submerged
sand

FACTORS

INFLUENCING

BEARING

CAPACITY

OF FOUNDATIONS

239

giving the relation between bearing capacity and foundation depth for the same foundation
in sand of various densities were found to be of similar shape, the present tests of shallow
and deep foundations in fully submerged sand can readily be compared with the previous
tests on dry sand by plotting the ratio of the bearing capacity-depth
relations against porosity
of the material.
These observed ratios for submerged sand are consistent with those for dry
In a few tests the skin
sand in proportion to the effective unit weight of the sand (Fig. 8).
friction was measured simultaneously
with the base resistance and was again found to be
directly proportional to the effective unit weight.
Additional tests were carried out with footings on the surface and at depth in fully subMeasurements
of the
merged sand subjected
to various rates of upward flow of water.
pore-water pressure immediately below the footing, within a depth equal to the width, showed
that the pressure gradient was about the same as the average measured outside the footing.
Immediately
around the perimeter of the footings, however, local piping of the sand was
observed at average hydraulic gradients exceeding about one-half on account of local crowding
together of the flow lines.
The results of the seepage tests (Fig. 9) show that the bearing capacity is reduced practically linearly with increasing average hydraulic gradient as would be expected theoretically.
At large gradients, however, when considerable local piping occurred near the perimeter of
the base, the experimental
results are less than those estimated from the average hydraulic
gradient, especially for the surface footings ; in the case of the deep foundations the larger
zone of shear failure reduces the importance of local piping and the observed bearing capacity
is closer to the estimate.
When the critical gradient of about unity was approached, the
bearing capacity of the surface and deep footings was practically zero and quicksand conditions
were produced.

Fig. 9. Bearing
foundations
sand
with
water

capacity of model
submerged
u$ard
flow
of

Partial submergence
The experiments on the effect of partial submergence on the bearing capacity of l-in.wide model footings on the surface of sand (Fig. lo), indicate that the bearing capacity is
almost directly proportional to the depth of the water-table up to a maximum which remains
On account of the small scale of these
sensibly constant for depths greater than about 10 in.
tests, this increase in bearing capacity is only partly due to a greater effective unit weight,
the remaining large increase in resistance being due to a greater apparent cohesion of the sand
This cohesion is caused by capillary stresses or negative pore-water pressures,
near base level.
The pore-water tension was found to
which were measured by piezometers at ground level.

240

G.

G. MEYERHOF

be directly proportional to depth of the water-table up to about 8 in., when the capillaries
began to break ; the maximum pressure deficiency was about 10 in. of water.
On the assumption that the apparent cohesion is c = yuld tan 4 up to the limit of c = 32
lb/sq. ft, determined for the moist sand in the shear box, the theoretical bearing capacity of
the strip footing compares well with that measured (Fig. 10). The bearing capacity of the
square footing is greater than that of the strip.
At the maximum cohesion, the average
ratio of the observed bearing capacity of square to that of strip is 1.6 for 4 = 37, compared

Fig. 10. Bearing capacity

footings
on
surface
submerged sand

of
of

model
partly

It would appear, therefore, that the

with a shape factor of 1.2 for 4 = 0 (Meyerhof, 1951).
shape factor for bearing capacity due to cohesion is not constant, but increases significantly
with the angle of internal friction.
Some experiments were also carried out with a deep strip footing in partly submerged
sand.
The pore-water stresses measured at base level varied with the position of the waterSimilarly, the bearing capacity
table in a similar manner to those observed at ground level.
increased with depth of water-table
from a minimum for fully submerged material to a
maximum which remained practically constant for depths exceeding about 10 in. below base
level.
The observed ultimate loads were in fair agreement with those estimated for a cohesive
material with internal friction, as already mentioned.
Whilst with the loose sand used local shear failure without noticeable rupture surface
occurred in the tests on fully submerged material, lowering of the water-table produced general
The extent of the observed failure zone
shear failure with a well-defined rupture surface.
For the l-in.-wide surface strip, the width of the
increased with depth of the water-table.
failure surface at ground level (measured from the footing edge) was about 2.5 in. for a small
depth of water-table,
and 6.2 in. on the average for great depths at the maximum apparent
cohesion ; in the latter case, the maximum depth of the failure zone was about 2.9 in. These
results may be compared with the extent of the failure zone estimated for 4 = 37, when the

FACTORS

INFLUENCING

BEARING

CAPACITY

OF FOUNDATIONS

241

theoretical width is 3.0 in. for cohesionless material and 6.5 in. for a weightless material for
which the theoretical depth is 3.1 in. With the larger cohesion and smaller importance of
weight, the observed extent of the failure zone approaches, therefore, that estimated for a
weightless material.
Field-loading tests with square plates up to 2 ft wide on fully- and partly-submerged
sand
in a caisson (Meyerhof, 1953), support the small-scale laboratory
investigations
that the
present methods of analysis enable sufficiently reliable estimates to be made in practice.
CONCLUSION

Previous theories of the ultimate bearing capacity of perfectly rough and perfectly smooth
strip footings have been reviewed and combined to suggest a method for estimating the bearing
capacity of a foundation with any degree of roughness of the base.
Whilst the bearing
capacity of a weightless material is independent of base friction, the bearing capacity of a
material with weight increases with roughness of the base.
For a material with weight,
approximate bearing capacity factors have been derived which are less than those commonly
used, even for a rough foundation.
Some loading tests have been carried out on model
footings with different base frictions on sand, and the results are consistent with the proposed
analysis.
Flow-net analysis shows that under upward seepage the bearing capacity of submerged
material is somewhat less than estimated from the average hydraulic gradient on account of
local piping around the foundation edges and a greater seepage pressure on the theoretical
failure surface.
An analysis has been made of the bearing capacity of partly submerged
cohesionless material.
The theoretical bearing capacity increases almost linearly with depth
of water-table
below ground level up to a depth below base level of one-half to twice the
foundation width, depending on + and foundation shape.
Loading tests on model footings at various depths in fully-submerged sand below a stationary water-table
are consistent with the bearing capacity being directly proportional to the
Under upward flow of water the bearing capacity was
effective unit weight of the material.
reduced practically linearly with increasing average hydraulic gradient, the divergence from
theory at larger gradients being due to considerable
local piping around the base.
The
observed bearing capacity of footings on partly submerged sand was largely due to apparent
cohesion on account of the small scale of the experiments.
Nevertheless,
the test results
provide a useful check of bearing capacity theory applied to a cohesive material with large
internal friction.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The laboratory investigations

were carried out at the Building Research Station of the
Department
of Scientific and Industrial
Research,
and the results are published by permission of the Director of Building Research.
The Author is also indebted to his former
colleagues, particularly Dr L. F. Cooling for his encouragement
and interest in the work.
REFERENCES
EASTWOOD, W.,

A Comparison of the Bearing Power of Footings on Dry and Inundated Sand.

Structuval Engineering,
29 : 1 : 29 : 332.
Faelle des Gleichgewichts in plastischen Korpern
HENCKY, H., 1923. Ueber einige statisch-bestimmte
ou some statically determined cases of equilibrium in plastic bodies).
2. ang. Math. und me&., 3 :
&::
t
HILL, R., 1949. The Plastic Yielding of Notched Bars under Tension.
Q. J. Mech. and Appl. Math., 2 :
40.

1951.

An Experimental Investigation of the ReIation between the Bearing

LUBY, J. P., and WOOLF, A., 1928.
Capacity of Dry and Wet Sands. B.Sc. Thesis, Mass. Inst. Tech.

242

MEYERHOF:

FACTORS

INFLUENCING

BEARING

CAPACITY

OF

FOUNDATIONS

LUNDGREN, H., and MORTENSEN, K., 1953. Determination by the Theory of Plasticity of the Bearing
Capacity of Continuous Footings on Sand.
Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. Soil Mech., 1 : 409.
MEYERHOF, G. G., 1948. An Investigation of the Bearin g Capacity of Shallow Footings on Dry Sand.
Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. Soil Mech., 1 : 237.
MEYERHOF, G. G., 1950. The Bearing Capacity of Sand.
Ph.D.(Eng.) Thesis, Univ. of London.
MEYERHOF, G. G., 1951. The Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Foundations.
Gdotechnique, 2 : 301.
MEYERHOF, G. G., 1953. An Investigation for the Foundations of a Bridge on Dense Sand.
Proc. 3rd Int.
Copzf, Soil Mech., 2 : 66.
PRANDTL, L., 1920. Ueber die Haerte plastischer Koerper (On the hardness of plastic bodies).
Nachr.
Kgl. Ges. Wiss. Gottingen, Math.-Phys. Kl., p. 74.
REISSXER, H., 1924. Zum Erddrtickproblem
(Some Earth Pressure Problems).
Proc. 1st Int. Congr.
Appl. Mech.. p. 295.
TERZAGHI, K., 1925. Erdbaumechanik auf bodenphysikalischer Grundlage (Soil mechanics on soil physics
basis).
F. Deuticke, Vienna.
TERZAGHI, K., 1943. Theoretical Soil Mechanics.
J. Wiley, New York.