Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute of Technology - Agartala on 03/03/14. Copyright ASCE.

For personal use only; all rights reserved.

APPENDIX I.

comparison made by the authors with other authors' results;

and (2) to present some results obtained by the discussers.
Comparison of the authors' results with those of the upperbound solution given by Garber and Baker shows significant
differences between the results. The difference exceeds 100%
for <I> = 45. The solution given by Garber and Baker (1977)
is based on a variational limit equilibrium method, which is
equivalent to an upper-bound method of the limit analysis theory for a rotational log spiral failure mechanism. On the other
hand, Chen (1975) considered three symmetrical failure mechanisms, referred to as Prandtll, Prandtl2, and Prandt13, and
gave rigorous upper-bound solutions for the three mechanisms
in the framework of the limit analysis theory. Prandt1l is composed of a triangular active wedge under the footing, two radial log-spiral shear zones, and two triangular passive wedges.
Prandtl2 differs from Prandtll only in that an additional rigid
body zone has been introduced. Prandtl3 closely resembles the
Prandtll mechanism; however, each Prandt13 shear zone is
bounded by a circular arc. Finally, Soubra (1997a) considered
translational nonsymmetrical log-sandwich and arc sandwich
mechanisms and gave upper-bound solutions of the bearing
capacity factors Ny, N c' and N q Another translational failure
mechanism has been recently investigated by Soubra (1997b):
a general translational failure mechanism composed of several
triangular rigid blocks that allows the rupture surface to develop more freely.
As is well-known in the framework of the limit analysis
theory, the exact solution of the bearing capacity problem can
be bracketed by the minimal upper-bound solution and the
maximal lower-bound solution. Therefore, one must consider
the minimum values obtained by the available different mechanisms. Table 7 presents the bearing capacity factor Ny given
by these upper-bound solutions (Garber and Baker, 1977;
Chen 1975; Soubra 1997a,b). It is clear that the solution by
Garber and Baker (1977) gives the greatest upper-bound solution and that Soubra's (1997b) solution gives the lowest upper-bound solution. Therefore, better comparison of the authors' results may be made with the upper-bound solution
given by Soubra (1997b). Comparison of the authors' finite
difference results with those of Soubra (1997b) shows that the
difference is smaller than 23% for <I> = 45.
On the other hand, the finite element method has been used
by the discussers to compute the bearing capacity factor Ny
for rigid rough strip footings. The calculation has been made
using the finite element program CESAR, developed at the
LCPC in Paris. The hypothesis used in the present finite element analysis assumes that B/2 = 0.5 m, G = 100 MPa, "y =
18 kN/m3 , v = 0.2, and c = O.
The present mesh is composed of 98 eight-noded elements,
or 337 nodes in total (Fig. 16). This mesh is constructed in a
manner that permits study of three-dimensional problems with
complex loading. An elastic perfectly plastic model, based on
the Mohr-Coulomb and the Drucker-Prager criterion was used
to model the soil.
The results obtained in the case of an associated flow rule

REFERENCES

Bowles, J. E. (1996). Foundation analysis and design, 5th Ed., McGrawHill, Inc., New York, N.Y.
Clough, W. G., Smith, E. M., and Sweeney, B. P. (1989). "Movement
control of excavation support systems by iterative design." Foundation
engineering, current practices and principles. ASCE Geotech. Spec.
Pub/. No. 22, F. H. Kulhawy, ed., ASCE, New York, N.Y., 869-884.
Mana, A. I., and Clough, W. G. (1981). "Prediction of movements for
braced cuts in clay." J. Geotech. Div., ASCE, 107(6), 756-777.
National Coal Board. (1975). Subsidence engineers handbook. National
Coal Board Production Department, London, England.
Peck, R. B. (1984). "State of the art: Soft-ground tunnelling." Tunnelling
in soil and rock, K. Y. Lo, ed., ASCE, New York, N.Y., 1-11.

APPENDIX II.

NOTATION

The following symbols are used in this paper:

Dr

= distance from edge of excavation relative to excavation

depth;

D ri = relative distance at any point at distance i from edge of

excavation;

D rm4X
Sr
Sri

Srm4X

= maximum relative distance from edge of excavation;

= settlement relative to excavation depth;
= relative
=

settlement at any point at distance i from edge

of excavation; and
maximum relative settlement at edge of excavation.

NUMERICAL STUDIES OF
BEARING-CAPACITY FACTOR N . /

Discussion by Abdul-Hamid Soubra/

Christelle Bay,4 and Jean-Georges SiefTert5
The bearing capacity problem is a matter of interest to the
discussers. The authors presented the bearing capacity factor
Ny based on both the finite difference program FLAC and the
finite element program OXFEM. The authors then compared
their results to those given by Garber and Baker (1977) and
those given by Bolton and Lau (1993).
The aim of this discussion is: (I) to comment upon the
"January 1997, Vol. 123, No. I, by Sam Frydman and Harvey J. Burd
(Paper 11594).
'Lect., ENSAIS, 24 Bid de la victoire, 67084 Strasbourg cedex, France.
'Doctoral Student, ENSAIS, 24 Bid de la victoire, Strasbourg.
'Prof., ENSAIS, 24 Bid de la victoire, Strasbourg.

TABLE 7.

Bearing Capacity Factor Ny for 15 ~

q. <-

45

Chen (1975)

4>0
(1 )

15
20
25
30
35
40
45

Garber and Baker

(1977)
(2)

16.5
38.1
92.5
243.9
536

Prandtl 1 (M1)
(3)

Prandtl 2 (M2)
(4)

Prandtl 3 (M3)
(5)

min
(M1, M2, M3)
(6)

Soubra
(1977a)
(7)

Soubra
(1977b)
(8)

2.7
5.9
12.4
26.7
60.2
147.0

2.3
5.2
11.4
25.0
57.0
141.0

2.1
4.6
10.9
31.5
138.0
1,803.0

2.1
4.6
10.9
25.0
57.0
141.0

2.1
4.8
11.1
25.0
57.1
140.5

1.9
4.5
9.8
21.5
49.0
119.8
326.6

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / MAY 1998/465

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 1998.124:465-466.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute of Technology - Agartala on 03/03/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Concerning the authors' results obtained by the finite difference analysis (FLAC), Fig. 17 shows that for <I> < 35, there
is good agreement with the discussers' results using both the
finite element method and the limit analysis theory. The difference increases with <1>. The maximum percent difference is
about 16% with the discussers' finite element solution and
does not exceeds 23% with the discussers' limit analysis solution.
Calculations performed by means of the finite-element program CESAR become more difficult for great <I> values or
when the difference between <I> and 1\1 increases. The number
of increments must be large for a cohesionless soil (c = 0).
The discussers' conclusions conform to the authors' results.
APPEN~X

FIG. 16.

Finite-Element Mesh for CESAR-LCPC Runs

TABLE 8. OXFEM and CESAR-LCPC Finite-Element Results

for a Rough Strip Footing (~= 1/1 = 35)
Finite element
program
(1 )

Number of steps

OXFEM
CESAR

600

Ny

(2)

(3)

5,000
5,000

48.4
47.4

-r----.....,...----r------,

500 +-------1f-----+-------F-I
400

+------+------+----r---I

300

+-------1f-----+-/------,I'~

200

+-------1r--~--r--+-~~'___I

100

t - - - - -....." - - - - - : : : z J $ ; : I F ' - - - - - 1

0'4'-----+-----+-------1
30

40

35

,(deg)

45

..... Garber & Baker

...... discussers' results (Limit Analysis)
....- discussers' results (Finite Elements)

""'*"" authors' results (Finite Difference)

FIG. 17.

Variation of Ny with

for Rough Strip Footing

Coulomb material (1\1 = <I> = 35) are presented in Table 8.

There is good agreement with the authors' results using
OXFEM: The difference does not exceed 2%, although the
mesh used by the discussers is less refined. The Ny values
obtained by the discussers using the Drucker-Prager soil behavior model are identical to those obtained using the MohrCoulomb model.

REFERENCES

Chen, W. F. (1975). Limit analysis and soil plasticity. Elsevier Scientific,

London, U.K.
Soubra, A. H. (1997a). "Seismic bearing capacity of shallow strip footing
in seismic conditions." Proc., Instn. Civ. Engrs. Geotech. Engrg.
Soubra, A. H. (1997b). "Upper-bound solutions of the bearing capacity
of strip footings." Internal report.

Closure by Sam Frydman6 and

Harvey J. Burd'
The authors thank the discussers for their contribution. The
authors are aware of the upper-bound nature of Garber and
Baker's variational approach and note with interest the alternative solutions given in Table 7. Soubra's 1997a solutions
have N-y values similar to those reported by Chen (1975).
Soubra's 1997b solutions, however, are somewhat lower, particularly for cases where the friction angle is large. If these
solutions satisfy the necessary conditions to be kinematically
admissible, then they represent a significant improvement over
the other solutions given in Table 7. Unfortunately, the procedures used to obtain these solutions have not yet been published, so it is not possible to comment on their admissibility.
The authors note that Soubra's 1997b solutions are significantly lower than the .finite difference results obtained for the
case of full association, particularly for the higher friction angles. This unexpected trend deserves further investigation.
The limit theorems may be applied rigorously only to associated materials. Solutions obtained using limit-state approaches should therefore be applied with some caution to
non-associated materials, such as sands. In such cases, it
cannot be proven that kinematically admissible solutions are
necessarily upper bounds. The comparison given in Fig. 17,
then, is potentially misleading. The authors' numerical results
were obtained using a non-associated flow rule, whereas Soubra's 1997b results were obtained on the assumption of normality. Fig. 17 also shows additional finite element results obtained by the discussers. The discussion does not make it clear
whether these were based on an associated flow rule (to compare directly with the limit state solutions) or on a non-associated flow rule.
"Prof., Facu. of Civ. Engrg., Technion-Israel Inst. of Technol., Haifa,
Israel.
7LeCt., Dept. of Engrg. Sci., Univ. of Oxford, England.

466/ JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / MAY 1998

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 1998.124:465-466.