Scholars' Mine

Masters Theses Student Theses and Dissertations

Summer 1986

Bearing capacity of shallow foundations

Yassin Taissir Al-Kour

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/masters_theses

Part of the Civil Engineering Commons

Department:

Recommended Citation
Al-Kour, Yassin Taissir, "Bearing capacity of shallow foundations" (1986). Masters Theses. 391.
https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/masters_theses/391

This thesis is brought to you by Scholars' Mine, a service of the Missouri S&T Library and Learning Resources. This
work is protected by U. S. Copyright Law. Unauthorized use including reproduction for redistribution requires the
permission of the copyright holder. For more information, please contact [email protected].
 BEARING CAPACITY OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

BY

YASSIN TAISSIR AL~KOUR, 1958-

A THESIS

Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the

UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-ROLLA

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING

1986

Approved by
 i i

ABSTRACT

Several bearing capacity theories have been reviewed in

this analysis. However, only Meyerhof's theory is considered

in great detail. Bearing capacity factors Nc, Nq, and

NY have been computed based on Meyerhof's plasticity

theory and the minimum passive earth pressures have been

found by iterative calculations at all grid locations.

A computer program was developed to run Meyerhof's

analysis on the IBM-Personal Computer. His previous charts

were not totally satisfactory, because certain geometry was

ignored. The computer program considers surface and shallow

foundations with various values of degree of mobilization and

ratios of depth-to-width of footings. The bearing capacity

of foundations placed on the face of a slope or adjacent to a

slope are considered also for different slope inclinations

and ratios of distances from slope to width-of-footing. The

program considers both a purely cohesive and cohesionless

soil in addition to a soil having both cohesion and friction.

Results of bearing capacity factor calculations for

foundations on a horizontal surface are in good agreement

with most published bearing capacity factors and seem to have

values a little less than those obtained by Meyerhof.

Results of bearing capacity factor calculations for

foundations on slopes are greater than those obtained by

Meyerhof and lower than those obtained by Bowles.

 i i i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like first to thank Allah who enabled me to get

this research done despite all of the difficulties I have

encountered. I would like to express my indebedness and

sincere thanks to my family for supporting me and sponsoring

both my education and living expenses for the last six years.

I would like to express my thanks and appreciations to

my principal advisor, Dr. Norbert Schmidt for suggesting this

research and for his keen interest, guidance, and advice

throughout the duration of this research. I would also like

to special thank Dr. Shamshar Prakash for his constructive

suggestions, continuous advice, and for serving as a very

active member of my master of science committee. I would

like to thank Professor Peter Hansen for his suggestions and

criticism. Appreciation is also extended to Professor John

Heagler for his assistance and interest in this research.

Special appreciation goes to Dr. Rodney Lentz for making his

office library available to me at all times.

Special thanks go to my colleagues in the Department of

Civil Engineering for their support and continuous help;

naming some of them: Mr. William H. Bond, Mr. M. Maher

Kassar, and Mr. John A. Sandoval.

 iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • i i

ACKNOWLEDGEM[NTS . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . i i i

TABLE OF COWTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. iv

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... vi

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... ix

I • INTRODUCTION

A• OBJECTIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
B. NATURE OF THE PROBLEM

c. PROPOSED APPROACH 2

I I • LITERATURE REVIEW 3

A• PRANDTL'S THEORY 3

B. TERZAGHI'S THEORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 5

c. MEYERHOF'S THEORY 9

D. JUMIKIS' EXPERIMENTS 13

E. SHIELDS' EXPERIMENTS 16

F• BOWLES' STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . .............. . 17

III• PROCEDURE . . . .. . . . . . . . .. .. . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 20

A. DESCRIPTION OF SOIL-FOUNDATION SYSTEM 20

B. PROGRAM ANALYSIS 21

1 • FOUNDATIONS ON HORIZONTAL SURFACE 24

 v

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Page

2. FOUNDATIONS ON SLOPES •••••••••••••••• 29

3• BEARING CAPACITY FACTORS N

c
AND N
a 34
4• BEARING CAPACITY FACTOR NY •••••••••. 36
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION •••••••••••••••••••••• 41

v. CONCLUSIONS . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 58

BIBLIOGRAPHY ••••. ••••. •••••••••••••••••. •••. •. •••••• 62

VITA •••••. ••. ••. ••. •. ••••••. •. •••••. ••••••••••. ••••• 65

APPENDICES

A• THE LOGARITHMIC SPIRAL . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 66

B. MOHR'S STRESS ANALYSIS . . .. . ... . . . .. .. . . . 69

C. DERIVATION OF BEARING CAPACITY FACTORS •• 72

D. ADDITIONAL RESULTS •••••••••••••••••••••• 78

E. COMPUTER PROGRAM LISTING •••••••••••••••• 87

 vi

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Page
Figure

1 • Prandtl's Sy~tem ............................... . 4

2. Terzaghi'~ Sy~tem . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3. Meyerhof'~ Sy~tem .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

4. Jumiki~' Experiment •••••••••••••••••••••••.••••• 15

5. Bowle~' Study of Footing~ (a) on a slope

(b) adjacent to a slope •.•••••••••••••••••.••••• 18

6. Soil-Foundation Sy~tem Due to Cohe~ion and

Surcharge for Foundation~ on a Horizontal Surface 21

7. Soil-Foundation Sy~tem Due to Weight of Soil for

Foundations on a Horizontal Surface . . . . . ... . . . . . 23

8. Determination of P 0 for Foundation~ on a

Horizontal Surf ace ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••. • 26

9. Soil-Foundation System Due to Soil Cohesion and

Surcharge for Foundations on Slopes: (a) on face

of a slope, (b) adjacent to a slope •••••.••••••• 30

1 0. Determination of P 0 for Foundations on Slopes ••• 31

11• Soil-Foundation System Due to Weight of Soil for

Foundations: (a) on face of a slope, (b) adjacent

to a slope •. ••••. ••. . ••. . . . ••••. . . •. ••. •. . ••. . . . 32

12. Free Body Diagram Due to Soil Cohesion and

Surcharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
 vii

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (continued)

Page

Figure

13. Determination of Bearing Capacity Due to Soil

Cohesion and Surcharge ••••••••• . •••••••••••••••. 36

14 • Free Body Diagram Due to Weight of Soil 38

15. Determination of Bearing Capacity Due to Weight

of Soil . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . 40

16. Bearing Capacity Factor N of Foundations on

c
Slopes for ~ • 10 Degrees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 51

17 • Bearing Capacity Factor N of Foundations on

q
Slopes for ~ • 10 Degrees •••. •••••••••••. •. ••••. 52

18. Bearing Capacity Factor NY of Foundations on

Slopes for ~ • 10 Degrees •. ••••••••••••••••••••. 53

19 Bearing Capacity Factor N of Foundations on

c
Slopes for ~ • 30 Degrees . . .. ... . . . . . ... . .. . . . .. 54

20. Bearing Capacity Factor N of Foundations on

q
Slopes for ~ .. 30 Degrees ••. •••••••••. •••••••••• 55

21. Bearing Capacity Factor NY of Foundations on

Slopes for ~ • 30 Degrees . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . 56

22. A Sector of a Logarithmic Spiral •••••••••••••••• 67

23. Determination of nand P

1
••••••••••••••••••••••• 70

24. Bearing Capacity Factor Nc of Foundations on

Slopes for~ • 20 Degrees ••••••••••••••••••••••• 78

 viii

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (continued)

Page

Figure

25. Bearing Capacity Factor N of Foundations on

c
Slopes for ~ = 40 Degrees . . . . . . ... .... .. . . . .. ... 79

26. Bearing Capacity Factor N of Foundations on

c
Slopes for ~a 50 Degrees ••••••••••••••••••••••• 80

27. Bearing Capacity Factor N

q
of Foundations on

Slopes for~ a 20 Degrees ••••••••••••••••••••••• 81

28. Bearing Capacity Factor N of Foundations on

q

Slopes for~ a 40 Degrees ••••••••••••••••••••••• 82

29. Bearing Capacity Factor N

q
of Foundations on

Slopes for ~ .. 50 Degrees ••••••••••••••••••••••• 83

30. Bearing Capacity Factor NY of Foundations on

Slopes for ~ .. 20 Degrees •••••••••••••••••. ••••• 84

31. Bearing Capacity Factor NY of Foundations on

Slopes for ~ a 40 Degrees ••••••••••••••••••••••• 85

32. Bearing Capacity Factor NY of Foundations on

Slopes for ~a 50 Degrees ••••••••••••••••••••••• 86

 ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

I. Bearing Capacity Factors of Foundations on a

Horizontal Surface (Df/B a 0) ••••••••••••.••••• 46

II. Bearing Capacity Factors of Foundations on a

Horizontal Surface (Df/B a 0.5) ••.••• ••••••. ••• 47

III • Bearing Capacity Factors of Foundations on a

Horizontal Surface (Df/B a 1) •••••••• •••••••••• 49

 I. INTRODUCTION

A. OBJECTIVE:

The purpose of this research is to make a very detailed

analysis of Meyerhof's utltimate bearing capacity theory;

first for shallow footings on a horizontal ground surface,

and second for shallow footings on slopes. It is intended to

provide a computer program that searches for the actual

failure surface by using an iterative technique. Also, a

more realistic approach than Meyerhof's is used to compute

the equivalent free surface stresses (an equivalent free

surface is a surface where the soil above it is replaced by

substitute stresses). Furthermore, Meyerhof's theory is

extended to consider intermediate values for the degree of

mobilization (m) of shear stresses on the equivalent free

surface and ratios of depth-to-width of footings (Df/B).

The bearing capacity of foundations, both on the face of a

slope or adjacent to a slope, with various ratios of

distances from slope-to-width of footing ratios is

considered.

B. NATURE OF THE PROBLEM:

Meyerhof's bearing capacity theory appears to be well

grounded but his charts are not completely useful for the
 2

elementary student because of lack of details in his

publications. Meyerhof did not state all of his assumptions

nor did he explain why he ignored certain geometry.

However, Meyerhof's approach is more realistic than

earlier theories because he included the shear strength of

the soil above the footing base. He did that by introducing

an additonal parameter, angle 8, which made his analysis

laborious. Moreover, Meyerhof had no restrictions on the

location of the center of moments for the calculations of

equilibruim as Terzaghi did.

C. PROPOSED APPROACH:

Solution of the bearing capacity problem is difficult

and time consuming especially because many sets of

computaions must be made to find the geometry of the minimum

passive earth pressure. Repeated calculations are necessary

and a computer program is advantageous to accomplish this

purpose. Three steps are employed. First the properties of

a log spiral must be satisfied within the geometry

conditions, i.e. at any point a tangent to the log spiral

makes an angle equal to 90 degrees plus ~ with its final

radius. Second the orientation of the equivalent free

surface must be determined, and third the above two steps are

repeated for every increment of X and Y coordinates of the

pole of the spiral until the minimum value of passive earth

pressure is found.
 3

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

A. PRANDTL'S THEORY

Prandtl (1920) studied, from the viewpoint of plastic

equilibrium, the process of penetration of a hard body, such

as a metal punch, into a sound soft, homogeneous, isotropic

material. He formulated a two-dimensional penetration

problem in which a vertical punch of width "B" was forced

against the horizontal surface of an infinitely extending

body (Figure 1). The punch is an infinitely long surface

strip loading perpendicular to the plane of the page. The

contact surface between the punch and the soft material is

assumed to be smooth.

A rigid strip foundation, stressed uniformly over the

width "B" of the footing can be considered to be Prandtl's

punch. The softer material into which the punch penetrates

may be the soil. Upon loading the strip footing, three zones

are recognized (Figure 1):

1. zone I: the soil wedge ABC is assumed to be in the

active Rankine state and to be weightless.

2. zone II: two elements, sector ACD and BCE, are in a

state of radial plastic flow. Curves CD and CE are

assumed to be sectors of logarithmic spirals with

origins at A and B respectively. The radii in both or

 4

a=~-<1:_
a=rr
- -<P
- 4 2
4 2

1/ _,_

4
-----
~=..! -~
2

Figure 1. Prandtl's System (after Jumikis, 1984)

rupture surfaces.

3. zone III: two triangles ADF and BEG are in a passive

Rankine state.

Prandtl assumed the base angle between the punch and the

sides of the soil wedge under the footing to be 45+~/2

degrees. From Mohr's stress theory, he obtained a

differential equation of the second order, the solution of

which gives the analytical expression for the ultimate

compressive stress:

c
qu - ( 1)
tan~

Where c is the cohesion of the soil and ~ is the soil

friction angle. The value of Prandtl's ultimate bearing

capacity of a pure, homogeneous, plastic, cohesive soil when

t - 0 is:

q 5.14 c (2)
u -
 5

Terzaghi's correction:

According to Prandtl's ultimate bearing capacity

equation q
u
= 0 when c = o. Terzaghi (1943) suggested an

improvement to account for the weight of the soil. To the

original quantity c in Prandtl's equation a factor c' was

added:

c' = Y t tan¢

area of wedges and sector

t
length of GEC

where Y is unit weight of soil, and t is an equivalent

height of surcharge of soil material.

c + c'
qu - ( 3)
tan¢

Taylor's correction:

Taylor (1948) added a factor to Prandtl's equation to

account for added shearing resistance because of the

overburden pressure:

P - Y b tan(45 + ¢/2)
s
Where b is half the width of the footing. The new form of

Prandtl's equation is:

q a (c cot¢ + p ) (tan 2 (45 + ~12)entan ¢ -1) (4)

u s

B. TERZAGHI'S THEORY:

Based on Prandtl's theory of plastic failure in soil,

 6

Terzaghi (1943) presented a modified system for a shallow

strip foundation as illustrated in figure 2.

When a shallow strip foundation or footing with depth of

surcharge less than the width of the footing (Df ~B),

is loaded to its ultimate capacity with a vertical load:

0 ult = qult* A
Terzaghi's assumptions are: (refer to Figure 2)

1. The base of the foundation is rough, so that

sufficient friction between the base and the soil can fully

develop.

2. Cohesion is accounted for in cohesive soil.

3. The soil above the base of foundation elevation is

considered as a uniformly distributed surcharge load

q - r * Dr
where Df is the depth of footing from the ground level

4. Upon full mobilization of the shear strength of the

soil, ground rupture occurs along a clearly delineated

rupture surface.

a. In figure 2 two symmetrical rupture surfaces CDF

and CD'F' consist of two curved portions CD and CD', and two

straight lines DF and D'F'.

b. The curved parts, CD and CD' are assumed to be a

logarithmic spiral described by its polar equation:

etan~
r • r e (5)
0

where r is the initial radius and r is the radius of the

0

log spiral at any e.

 7

c. AC and BC are assumed to be straight lines at an

angle ~ to the horizontal. Because of the friction and

AB=B
GS
q=yD

o. y=O

Figure 2. Terzaghi's System (after Jumikis, 1984)

adhesion between the soil and the base of the footing, zone I

remains in an elastic state. It acts as if it were part of

the footing and penetrates the soil like a wedge.

d. Two soil triangles ADF and BD'F', are identical

with those for the passive Rankine state.

6. The shearing resistance of the soil above the level

of the base of the footing is disregarded.

The ultimate bearing capacity qult of the shallow

system soil-strip-foundation is derived approximately from

the equiliburium condition of the free body ACDJA (right side

of footing) acted upon by the various forces involved,

acounting separately for the following:

a. For cohesion c when q•O, and Y•O.

b. For surcharge q when c•O, and Y•O.

c. For unit weight of soil Y when c•O, and q•O.

 8

The total ultimate load Qult is obtained from the

summation of all vertical forces which act on the surfaces

AC and BC.

Qult = Qc + Qq + QY
Terzaghi presented his ultimate bearing capacity as follows:

qult (6)
2
Where:

qult c general ultimate bearing capacity of soil for

shallow strip or continous footing (Df ~ B) with rough

base and for general shear in soil. If the load-settlement

curve of a soil has a pronounced peak then it is said that

the soil fails in general shear. On the other hand, if there

is no well-defined break in its load-settlement curve then

the footing sinks into the ground before the state of plastic

equilibrium spreads beyond D and D' (Figure 2) and the soil

fails in local shear.

c = cohesion of soil.

Y a unit weight of soil.

Dr • depth of base of footing below ground surface.

B - width of strip footing.

Nc • and Nq are the so-called Terzaghi's

dimensionless critical bearing capacity factors. These N

factors are function of the angle of internal friction ~ of

soil and are evaluated based on the principle of

superposition. They are given in the equations below:

 9

lT 2
N cot~ [e tan (45 + ~/2)- 1]
c

lT 2
N
q
• e tan (45 + ~/2)

Ny "" COE~('i' - ~)

where:

N : bearing capacity factor due to coheE~ion of E~Oil.

c
Nq : bearing capacity factor due to E~urcharge.

NY: bearing capacity factor due to weight of soil.

~ : angle of friction of soil.

PP minimum passive earth pressure.

Y: soil unit weight.

B: width of footing.

'¥: inclination of the central elastic wedge under the footing

base and is assumed by Terzaghi to be equal to ~.

Terzaghi restricted the movement of the pole of the spiral to

a line passing the corner of footing and rising at 45-~/2

degrees to the horizontal.

C. MEYERHOF'S THEORY:

Meyerhof (1951) extended the method of analysis for

calculating the ultimate bearing capacity of a concentrically

loaded strip footing for any depth of soil and published

pertinent formulas and charts. Meyerhof's results are

 10

presented in a similar manner to those given by Terzaghi,

namely by means of bearing capacity factor N-values.

As shown in figure 3. Meyerhof made use of the soil-

foundation system. From this figure, it can be seen that in

principle, Meyerhof's system, though similar to Terzaghi's,

differs from the latter in several ways. Here one notices

that Meyerhof's assumed rupture surfaces extend above the

base level of the footing up to the ground surface. Thus,

the shear strength of the soil from the base level to the

ground surface is considered and not ignored, as does

Terzaghi.

Meyerhof's assumptions:

1. Like Terzaghi, Meyerhof considered friction between

the base of the footing and soil. This friction prevents the

expansion of the soil laterally from underneath the base of

the footing. This friction increases the bearing capacity of

the soil. It brings about a redistribution of the base

contact pressures towards the middle of the footing and

relieves the edge points A and B of the footing. As known

from Froehlich's critical pressure distribution theory at

edges of the foundation, the plastic flow phenomenon in soil

is initiated, at points A and B and from these points the

plastic flow propagates, inducing plastic zones in the soil.

Friction within the soil mass beneath the footing increases

proportionally to the width B of the footing.

 11

(b) Ny

Figure 3. Meyerhof's System (after Meyerhof, 1951)

2. Cohesive strength of the soil, if applicable, is

included in the analysis.

3. As mentioned, the assumed rupture surfaces, or shear

zones in the soil extend not only to the level of the base of

the footing but are continous up to the ground surface. For

relatively shallow footings, the rupture surface extension in

Meyerhof's bearing capacity analysis yields a larger bearing

capacity than the Terzaghi analysis.

4. The two-sided rupture surface curves CD and CD' are

assumed to be segments of a logarithmic spiral.

5. Lines DE and D'E' of the rupture surface are

straight lines i.e. tangents to the spiral curves at points D

and D' •

6. Lines AC and BC of the elastic wedge ABC are

 12

straight lines.

7. The soil wedge has a self-unit weight Y.

8. The soil wedge BEF is replaced by substitute

stresses Po and S 0 normal and tangential to the side BE

respectively. By this, Meyerhof considered surface BE to be

equivalent to a free ground surface with a uniform

surcharge. This equivalent free surface is inclined at

angle B with the horizontal. Angle 8 has a functional

relationship with the depth-to-width ratio (Df/B).

9. Substitute stresses P 0 and S 0 are assumed to be

uniformly distributed.

10. In order to obtain a minimum value of the NY

factor Meyerhof varied the angle ~ between ~ as used in

Terzaghi's analysis and 45 + ~12 as used by Prandtl.

11. The calculations for qult are repeated for

several assumed rupture surfaces to obtain the position and

size of the most critical rupture surface.

12. The position of the poles of the spirals is

determined by a stepwise approach by the method of trial and

adjustment. Based on these assumptions, Meyerhof arrived at

the ultimate bearing equation as follows:

1
(7)
2

Where:

N : are the bearing capacity factors due to

q
 1 3

weight, cohesion, and surcharge respectively.

D. JUMIKIS' EXPERIMENTS:

Soil bearing capacity problems can also be studied

experimentally from the shape of the rupture surface

developed in the soil at failure, brought about by the

ultimate load of a structure fully developing the shear

strength of the soil. Experimental results may be translated

to prototype, or full-scale, structures by means of the

theory of similitude, that is, by modeling.

In treating these problems of foundations supported on a

level ground surface, the following methods of loading the

foundation footing are usually encountered: a) vertically and

concentrically, b) vertically and eccentrically, and c)

obliquely.

One of the methods for the determination of the

engineering bearing capacity of soils is based on failure

considerations. To avoid failure of the soil, the ultimate

bearing capacity is usually divided by a factor of safety to

yield the mobilized shearing strength of the soil. For this

analysis, the physical properties of the soil must be

determined; in addition, the geometry of the shear failure or

rupture surface in the foundation-supporting soil system must

be known.

To learn this, researchers and engineers have suggested

 14

certain assumed shapes of failure surfaces for such

calculations. As previously noted, it has been the practice

to assume various shapes of rupture surfaces rather than

determine them by experiment, or to base calculations on

experimentally observed rupture surfaces. The reason for

this is that it is difficult to determine the direction of

the principal stresses in a particulated fragmented medium

such as a mass of soil. Because soil is an indeterminate

material and therefore is difficult to study and work with,

researchers usually perform investigations on a small scale

using a cohesionless material, normally, dry sand. This

permits excluding from such a study the effects of moisture

and the apparent, or transitional, cohesion associated with

it. Moisture and its migration with temperature changes

need not be considered.

The shape of the rupture surface in dry sand caused by

vertical concentric and eccentric loads and by obliquely

applied loads was studied by, among others, A.R. Jumikis

(1984). Shown in figure 4 is an example of his experiments

of two sided expansion of a soil wedge from beneath the base

of the rooting of a foundation model.

Jumikis' study revealed that the cylindrical rupture

surface curve coincides remarkably well with the curve of a

logarithmic spiral, with the general equation:

r • r eetan4> (8 )
0

where:
 15

r = radius-vector.

r 0
= reference vector, or a segment on the polar axis from
the pole of the spiral cut by the spiral at 9=0.

e = base of natural logarithms.

8 angle between r and r

0

Figure 4. Jumikis' Experiment (after Jumikis, 1984)

~ = Angle of friction of sand.

in which case the radius-vector r increases as the amplitude

e increases.

The physical, or experimental, equation is obtained by

expressing r as a function of the applied resultant load,

0

width of model, and other experimental parameters. The

equilibrium condition of the soil-foundation-load system is

expressed by comparing the driving and resisting moments.

The application of a logarithmic spiral rupture surface

 16

to ~tability calculation~ ha~ a great advantage: it i~ not

neces~ary to a~sume nor be concerned with the distribution

and magnitude of reaction~ in ~and ~oil along the ~liding

surface. This is so becau~e the logarithmic ~piral possesses

an important property: all radii vectors pas~ through the

pole of the spiral, and the moment arm for reactions i~

zero. Hence the resultant of normal and ~hear force moment~

are automatically excluded from stability calculations by

comparing the active driving and re~isting moments. The

result~ of Jumikis' experimental re~earch are useful in

~tudying the ultimate bearing capacity of sand soil at or

below the ground surface and the nature of the rupture

~urface. Jumikis' experimental research results are also of

~ignificance in checking published theoretical information

and in analyzing the limits of its application.

E. SHIELDS' EXPERIMENTS:

Shields' work (1977) was mainly to find experimentally

the bearing capacity of foundations on slopes. He used

granular soil only and the common slope, two horizontal to

one vertical slope. The significance of Shields' work comes

from the fact that he carried out full scale te~ts.

In a large laboratory, a sand box measuring 50 ft (15 m)

in length, 6.5 ft (2 m) in width, and 7 ft (2.2 m) in height,

a 1 ft (0.3 m) wide footing was placed at the crest
 17

of the 2 to 1 slope and in sussessive tests the footing was

moved horizontally away from the slope and vertically below

the crest. The tests were performed for two different

densities: 95 and 100 pcf (1510 and 1610 kg/m 3 ). These

densities represent relative densities of 70% and 90%

respectively and are referred to as compact and dense sand.

Some 50 tons of specially selected crushed silica sand were

used and the shearing resistance ~ of the sand was measured

in three different ways: in triaxial compression tests, plane

stress tests, and shear box tests. Results from such a test

was reported as a set of contours of bearing stress.

F. BOWLES' STUDY:

Bowles (1982) studied Terzaghi's, Meyerhof's, and

Hansen's bearing capacity theories and recomputed their

values based on a curve-fitting process by back-computing two

values of NY given by Terzaghi. Bowles also studied the

bearing capacity of foundations on slopes (Figure 5) and

published tables showing his factors for various slope

inclinations, depth to width ratios, and distance to width

ratios.

Bowles' method is based on reducing the bearing capacity

factors because of the lack of soil on the slope side of the

footing.
 18

L1
N I
c - N
c * (9)
Lo
where

Lo: i~ the length of spiral curve CD'F' in figure 2 for a

footing on horizontal surface.

L1: is the length of spiral curve adE in figure 5 for a

footing on slope.

N i~ the bearing capacity factor due to cohesion of the

c

/ ', G /
...,, ',' ,,
-- -- - - - l,
,'
a----""'
, /
>.a'

(b)

Figure 5. Bowles' Study of Footings (after Bowles, 1982)

(a) on a slope, (b) adjacent to a slope.

soil for a footing on a horizontal surface.

N' is the reduced bearing capacity factor for a footing

c
on slope.

A1
N' • N * ( 9 a)
q q
Ao

where:
 19

Ao: is the area of surcharge for a plane stress problem above

the failure surface BB'*Df in figure 2 of a footing on a

horizontal surface.

A1: is the area of surcharge above the failure surface Efg in

figure 5a or area Efgh in figure 5b of a footing on a slope.

N is bearing capacity factor due to surcharge of the soil

q
for a footing on a horizontal surface.

N' is the reduced bearing capacity factor for a footing

q
on slope.
 20

I I I. PROCEDURE

A. DESCRIPTION OF SOIL-FOUNDATION SYSTEM:

Analysis of bearing capacity is based on plastic theory

and the corresponding zones of plastic equilibrium in the

soil material are shown in figure 6 for the case of a rough

foundation. Below the base is a central wedge zone ABC,

which remains in the elastic state (Meyerhof, 1951) and acts

as a part of the foundation; on each side of this zone there

are two plastic zones, a zone of radial shear, BCD, and a

zone of plane shear, BDE. At the ultimate bearing capacity

the region above the composite failure surface is, in

general, assumed to be divided into two main zones on each

side of the central zone ABC (Figure 6). One is a radial

shear zone BCD, where CD is curved according to a logarthmic

spiral, and another mixed shear zone BDEF, where DE is

assumed to be a straight line, in which the shear varies

between the limits of radial and plane shear, depending

largely on the depth and roughness of the foundation. The

plastic equilibrium in these zones can be established from

the boundary conditions starting at the foundation shaft. To

simplify the analysis the resultant of the forces on the

foundation shaft BF and soil of the adjacent soil wedge BEF

are replaced by the equivalent stresses P 0 and S 0 , normal

 21

Figure 6. Soil-Foundation Syst~ Due to Soil Cohesion

and Surcharge for Foundations on a Horizontal Surface.

and tangential respectively, to the plane BE. This plane may

then be considered as an "equivalent free surface" subjected

to the "equivalent free surface stresses" P 0 and S 0 •

B. PROGRAM ANALYSIS:

A Fortran computer program called BCSF, Bearing Capacity

of Shallow Foundations, was developed. The program is mainly

based on the theory of ultimate bearing capacity of shallow

foundations developed by G. G. Meyerhof (1948-1951). Results

 22

of the computer analysis have allowed charts to be developed

for a bearing capacity analysis.

The program uses the trial and error process to solve

the implicit equations obtained by Meyerhof in 1951

(equations (44) and (48) Appendix B). Also, BCSF uses an

iterative process to search for the failure surface, to

satisfy an assumed logarithmic spiral curve and to determine

the orientation of the equivalent free surface BE

(Figure 6). The origin of the logarithmic spiral is moved on

a grid to allow finding the minimum passive earth Pressure

P " p.

In order to solve the problem of bearing capacity of a

shallow foundation and to find the bearing capacity factors

N , N , and NY for a specific soil material, whether

c q
cohesive or non-cohesive, some mechanical properties of the

soil must be known:

a- The internal friction angle of the soil, ~.

b- The cohesion ,c, of the soil.

Physical characteristics of the footing foundation must also

be known:

a- Width of foundation, B.

b- Depth of foundation, Df, or Df/B ratio.

c- Shape of foundation (strip, square, etc.).

d- Roughness of the base of the foundation.

In figure 7 the x-axis is at the base level and the

 23

Figure 7. Soil-Foundation System Due to Weight of Soil

for Foundations on a Horizontal Surface.

Y-axis is at the centerline of the foundation. All points

and distances are determined in terms of their X and Y

coordinates; where X and Y are functions of B.

It is necessary to locate the pole of the logarithmic

spiral. Therefore, a grid is prepared taking advantage of

the symmetry of the foundation-soil system, and half of the

system is analyzed, for example the right hand side. The

pole is moved horizontally along the X-axis which is the

footing base level for each vertical increment or decrement

along and parallel to the footing centerline.

 24

1• Foundation~ on Horizontal Surface: The zone~ of

pla~tic equilibrium corre~ponding to the general ca~e are

given in figure 6, where the equivalent free ~urface BE

produced i~ inclined at angle 8 to the horizontal and

~ubjected to the equivalent free surface

~tre~~e~ P0 and S 0 , normally and tangentially, re~pectively.

The~e ~tre~~e~ can be evaluated from the equilibrium of the

~oil mass BEF under the forces shown in figure 8:

a. F , weight of the soil wedge BEF is given by:

w

F ... ( 1 0)
w
2

where 8 is the angle between the horizontal and the

equivalent free surface. The point of application of F is

w

at 1/3 of FE from F.

b. The lateral pressure force between the soil and

the vertical side of the footing Fh, and its soil friction,

F respectively are given by:

v

Fh - 2
K y D2
f
( 11)

and:

1
F = K y D2 tancS ( 1 1 a)
v f
2

Where K is the coefficient of earth pressure at rest or its

active value; and cS is the angle of wall friction. The point

of application of Fh is assumed to act at the lower

 25

third point of FB. By taking moments about point B,

FP is determined. FP acts normally to BE at 1/3 of BE

0 0

from B.

BF FE BE
* -- + Fw * -- *-
3 3 3
But:

BF = Df
FE = Df cotS

Df
BE =
sinS

( 12 )
2

Then dividing Fp by the length BE, P0 is obtained and

0

is assumed to be the average stress acting normally at

midpoint of BE.

But:

BE *
Then equation (12) yields:

( 1 3)
2

Equation (13), shows that P 0 depends on angle B which can

not be determined directly. Thus, a trial and adjustment

procedure is required to determine the actual value of P 0 ;

thus, P 0 may be first assumed. Say:

 26

F E

Figure 8. Determination of P 0 for Foundations on a

Horizontal Surface.

P0 '"" Y * D
f
( 14 )

and the tangential shearing strength S 0 is then obtained

from Mohr's-Columb rupture theory (Appendix B):

S0 z (c + P 0 tan~)m ( 1 5)

Where m denotes degree of mobilization of shearing strength

on the equivalent free surface (0 ~ m ~ 1 ). In the plane

shear zone BDE (Figure 6) with angle n at B, the plastic

equilibrium requires that along BD and DE the shearing

strength s1 , under normal pressure P

1
is fully mobilized

(Meyerhof, 1951) and is equal to:

s1 - c + P
1 tan~ ( 1 6)

Hence from analysis of Mohr's circle (Appendix B):

 27

(c + P 0 tan~)m cos~
cos(2n + ~) (17)

[sin (2n + ~) - sin~] + P0 ( 18 )

cos~

Solving the above two equations n and P can be determined

1
for any given P 0 , S0 , and~.

Now, for a specific location of the pole of the spiral 0

with its coordinates x0 and Y

0
(figure 7), a trial and

error procedure is required to locate the orientaion of the

equivalent free surface (8), angle e, and the size of the log

spiral, namely its final radius r. This involves the

following steps: (refer to figure 7)

a- Angle B is first chosen.

b- An increment ,dB, is also chosen for a.
c- Then B is equal to initial B plus its increment dB.
d- Angle e is first set to zero.

e- An increment, de, is chosen for e.

f- Then e is equal to intial e plus its increment de.

g- The final radius of the log spiral is then computed

according to:

r .. r e a tan~
0

h- T1 is the acute angle between line OC and the

vertical and is equal to 90 degrees minus the slope of line

oc.
1- T2 is the angle between the vertical and line OD and

is equal toe minus T1.

 28

j- The coordinates of point D may be calculated from:

XD x0 + r sin T2

YD Y0 - r cos T2

where xo and Yo are the coordinates of the pole of the

spiral.

k- Angle T3 is equal to the slope of line OD.

1- Angle Tlt is equal to the slope of line DE.

m- Angle T5 is equal to 180 degrees minus the sum of T3

and Tlt.

n- The tangent line drawn from the point of

intersection of the final radius r with the spiral must make

an angle equal to 90 degrees plus ~. Therefore, angle T5 is

now checked against this property of the spiral, if these two

angles are within a specified tolerance then proceed to the

next step; otherwise go back to step f.

o- Slope of Line BD is then computed. This slope is

checked against the difference of the assumed e and the

precalculated value of n (Appendix B). If this difference

is within a specified tolerance then proceed to the next

step, else go back to step c.

p- Output the values of e, e, r, and coordinates of

point D.

Now the actual value of P 0 may be calculated from

equation (13) and consequently the value of S 0 from

equation (15). It should be noted that with the new values of

P0 and S 0 , equations (17) and (18) will be affected

 29

and con~equently the values of n and P • This requires

1
further refinement between P 0 ,S 0 and n,P •
1
2. Foundations on Slopes: When dealing with

foundation~ on slopes, angle S (Figure 9) now is the slope

angle. It is usually known and will be negative. On the

other hand, Meyerhof (1957) introduced another angle a

which is the orientation of the equivalent free surface in

this case. A similar analysis, as before, is required to

derive P 0 acting on the equivalent free surface inclined at

a with the horizontal shown in figure 10:

2
sin Cs - a)
Po - 2
y
Df [K 2
cos s
+
2
cos a] ( 19 )

where s is angle of slope and a the angle of the

equivalent free surface. It should also be noticed from

equation (19) that P 0 depends on angle a which can not

be determined directly. Again, a trial and adjustment

procedure is required to determine the actual P 0 • Thus,

P0 may be first assumed; say:

y * Df

and

S0 • (C + P 0 tan~)m

For a specific location of the pole of the spiral 0 with

its coordinates x0 and Y

0
(Figure 11), a trial and error
 30

(a)

.I a F

I
q'

~
of

( b )

Figure 9. Soil-~oundation System Due to Soil Cohesion

and Surcharge for Foundations: (a) on face of a slope,

(b) adjacent to a slope.

 31

Figure 10. Determination of P 0 for Foundations on

Slopes.

procedure is required to locate the orientaion of the

equivalent free surface (a), angle e, and the size of the

log spiral, namely its final radius r. This involves the

following steps: (refer to Figure 11)

a- Angle a is first set equal to S (S < 0).

b- An increment, da, is chosen for a.

c- Then a is equal to initial a plus its

increment da.

d- coordinates of point E may be obtained by solving

simultaneously the equation of line BE and the equation of

line FE (Figure 11).

e- Angle e is first set equal to zero.

f- An increment ,de, is chosen for e.

 32

I
q''

(a)

B
.I a F

I
Q "

(b)

Figure 11. Soil-Foundation System Due to Weight of Soil

for Foundations: (a) on face of a slope, (b) adjacent to

a slope.
 33

g- Then 8 is equal to initial e plus its increment de.

h- The final radius of the log spiral is then computed

according to:

r
0
e etan¢

i- T1 is the acute angle between line OC and the

vertical and is equal to 90 degrees minus the slope of line

oc.
j- T2 is the angle between the vertical and line OD and
is equal toe minus T1.

k- The coordinates of point D may be calculated

according to:

x 0 = x0 + r sin T2

Y0 • Y - r cos T2
0
where x0 and Y are the coordinates of the pole of the
0
spiral.

1- Angle T3 is equal to the slope of line OD.

m- Angle T4 is equal to the slope of line DE.

n- Angle T5 is equal to 180 degrees minus the sum of T3

and T4.

o- The tangent line drawn from the ponit of intersection of

the final radius r with the spiral must make an angle equal

to 90 degrees plus ¢. Now angle T5 is checked against this

property of the spiral, if these two angles are within a

specified tolerance then proceed to the next step; else go

back to step f.

p- Slope of Line BD is then computed. This slope is

 34

checked against the sum of the assumed a and the

precalculated value of n (Appendix B). If this sum is

within a specified tolerance then proceed to the next step,

else go back to step c.

q- Output the values of a, e, r, and coordinates of

point D.

Now the actual value of P 0 may be calculated from equation

(19) and consequently the value of S 0 from equation (15).

Again with the new values of P 0 and S 0 , equations (17)

and (18) will be affected and consequently the values of P

1
and n. This requires more refinement between P 0 ,S 0 and

3 Bearing Capacity Factors N and N : As it was

0

- .£ .s-
shown earlier, angle n can be obtained from solving

equations (17) and (18) simultaneously, and that the plastic

equilibrium along BD and DE requires that

the shearing strength s1 , under the normal pressure P

1
is

fully mobilized. Bearing capacity factors N and N are

c q
only computed once (Meyerhof, 1951) when the pole of the log

spiral is at point B; this means that angle e may be

determined, in this case, from:

e • 135 + s - n - ~12 ( 2 0)

Along BC in figure 12, the normal and tangential components

of the passive earth pressure are, respectively;

P' p • (S' p - c)cot~ ( 21 )

 35

Figure 12. Free Body Diagram Due to Soil Cohesion and

Surcharge.

and;

( 2 2)

(See appendix C for derivation)

From which the bearing capacity is (Figure 13):

q' = P' p + S' p cot (45- ~12) ( 2 3)

Substituting equations (20),(21) and (22) into (23) yields:

(1 + sin~)e2etan~
q' - c { cot~ [ - 1 J }
1 - sin~sin(2n + ~)

(1 + sin~)e2etan~
+ Po [ J (24 )
1 - sin~s1n(2n + ~)

or:

q' - (25)
 36

q'

c
Figure 13. Determination of Bearing Capdcity Due to

Soil Cohesion and Surcharge.

where N and N are the values given in the square

c q
brackets in equdtion 24 respectively. The values of N and
c
N when ¢ a 0 are, respectively,
q

N ... 1 + 28 + sin2n
c
N • 1
q
(Derivations of the above two expressions are given in

Appendix C)

4. Bearing Capacity Factor NY~ Figure 14 shows

the free body diagram of the soil-foundation system due to

the soil weight. The plastic equilibrium may be found by

balancing the moments about any point, 0, of the pole of the

log spiral of the following forces:

 37

a. Resistance P due to the soil wedge DEG which

r
can be determined from Mohr's diagram (Appendix B) is:

p
r a1 * GD (26 )
2

where

a 1 is the principal stress on face GD (figures 7 and 11 ).

)2 2
GD = SQRT(( XG-XD + ( YG-YD ) )
The point of application of p is the lower third point of
r
segment GD from G.

b. The weight W of the free body BCDGB (Figure 14)

consists of an area of a segment of the logarithmic spiral

and a soil triangle or triangles depending upon the location

of the pole of the log spiral 0. This should be determined

for all possible cases of the location of the spiral. For

example, if the pole is at piont B then the area BCDGB

consists of an area of segment of the spiral BCDB plus the

triangle BDG.

c. The overturning resultant thrust P"p acts at an

angle ~ to the normal on the face BC and at 2/3 BC from B.

Required to balance moments of the above forces are

their corresponding arms:

L : arm of resultant force Pr, is the perpe~adicular

1
distance between point 0 and Pr.

L : arm of net free body BCDGB, is the perpendicular

2
distance between point 0 and the weight of this free body W.
 38

Figure 14. Free Body Diagram Due to Weight of Soil.

It is to be noted that the area of a sector of the log spiral

is calculated by a cumulative process of small angle

triangles of 1/2 of a degree. The associated arm is obtained

by dividing the net total moment by the net total area of the

sector of the log spiral.

L : arm of resultant passive pressure P"p• is the

3
perpendicular distance between point 0 and P " p.

p L + w L2
pn
p - r 1

L3
(27)

This analysis is first repeated for different centers 0 of

the spiral in increments of one fourth of B until the minimum

 39

value of P"p is found, at XOMIN and YOMIN, which represents

the total passive earth pressure. Then a smaller increment

is chosen:

new increment = old increment/2

new starting X = XOMIN - old increment

new starting Y YOMIN - old increment

new ending X XOMIN + old increment

new ending Y = YOMIN + old increment

These calculations are repeated until the desired accuracy is

reached. Projecting the above forces (Figure 15) on the

vertical:

y B ~ P"p sin (45 + ~/2) 1

q" ---- [-------= 2
------ -tan(~5 + ~/2)] (28)
2 y s 2

or:

y B
q" = (29)
2

where NY is the value given in the square brackets above.

(see Appendix C for derivation)

The final bearing capacity equation is given by:

q .. q' + q"

or:

q = B Y Ny + eN c + P 0 Nq ( 3 0)
2
 40

1----- y. ----l

Q "

Figure 15. Determination of Bearing Capacity Due to

Weight of Soil.
 41

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Re~ult~ from each run of BCSF include angle 8 which i~

the orientation of the equivalent free ~urface, angle n,

initial and final radius of log spiral, angle e between r

0

and r, the equivalent free surface stre~~es P0 and S 0 ,

bearing capacity factors N , Nq , and Nv, and finally,

c l

minimum passive earth pre~~ure P"p with the location of the

pole of the log ~piral in terms of its coordinate~ x0 and

Y0 • In the ca~e of footings on ~lopes angle a and

distance b of the edge of the footing from the edge of the

~lope are al~o included.

Becau~e of the large number of calculation~ due to the

trial and error procedure and the iterative technique, the

grid only extends horizontaly from the footing centerline and

to a distance B in the positive direction, and vertically

from a distance of half B in the negative direction to a

distance B in the positive direction. This has been found

sufficient to bracket the minimum pa~~ive earth pressure

P it p. The increment of movement of 0 varies from a maximum

of one fourth of B to a minimum of one thirty-second of B.

Although a smaller step is available it will be shown that a

step of one eighth of B gives reasonably good results for all

practical purposes. Although it appears that angle e is very

sensitive to the increment of X and Y coordinates of the pole

 42

of the spiral, the bearing capacity factors N and N are

c q
computed such that the pole of the log spiral is at the

corner of the footing (Meyerhof, 1951) (point Bin figure

6). Therefore, the pole of the spiral is not moved and the

increment of X and Y coordinates of the pole of the spiral is

not important in this case.

Meyerhof computed the bearing capacity factors N ,

c
Nq, and Nr for the lower limit of zero shearing stress

on the equivalent free surface (m = 0) and for the upper

limit of full mobilization of the shearing strength (m = 1 ).

He also calculated these factors for only two cases Df/B = 0

and Df/B = 1. Intermediate values are considered in this

analysis for both the degree of mobilization and for the

depth to width ratio.

It has been shown in this paper and before this by many

other authors that the principle of superposition is the most

convenient one to derive the bearing capacity factors. This

is due to the relative simplicity of evaluating each of the

factors while the other two are set equal to zero. Then

contributions to the bearing capacity from different soil and

loading parameters, usually soil cohesion, surcharge and soil

unit weight, are summed. Terzaghi first introduced this

method; he considered the soil above the foundation base

level to act as a uniform surcharge when evaluating the

factor Nq. Terzaghi's method is rather conservative

 43

(Scott, 1973) giving rise to computed ultimate footing loads

smaller than those which would actually be obtained from a

more realistic approach (Prakash, 1979) that includes the

resistance to shearing of soil above the failure zone.

Meyerhof considered this problem and introduced the so-called

equivalent free surface inclined at angle 8 to the

horizantal. This method takes advantage of the shearing

resistance of the soil above the base level. The soil wedge

above the equivalent free surface is considered as

surcharge. When evaluating the factor N , P0 is considered

q
a uniform pressure. Meyerhof considered P 0 to be a uniform

surcharge (Y*Df) without considering the equilibrium of the

soil wedge BEF. It is more correct to consider the equilibrium

of the soil mass BEF first and then divide the resultant force

F by the length BE to obtain the average stress P 0 •

Po
P0 should be first assumed and then adjusted once the

inclination of the· equivalent free surface is determined.

Moreover, the surcharge forces of the soil wedge BEF should

not be considered in calcualtions when NY is evaluated.

The surcharge weight is zero as an assumption of the

analysis. This will allow the soil under the equivalent free

surface to be in the Rankine state by which surface GD in

figure 7 has no shearing stresses and the principal stress

can be obtained from Mohr's diagram.

For a foundation on a horizontal surface (Df/B- 0),

 44

and for a soil friction angle of 30 degrees and a degree of

mobilization of 0 (P 0 - 0), calculated values are

Nc = 30.13 Nq- 18.40, and NY is 21.37. Meyerhof's

values are 32.00, 20.00, and 23.00 respectively. For the

same ~ of 30 degrees but for full mobilization of shearing

resistance (m- 1), N - 37.16, Nq - 22.46. and

c
Meyerhof's values are 39.00, 25.00, and

26.00 respectively. It is seen from the above values that

there is an increase in each bearing capacity factor when m

increases from zero to full mobilization. This increase is

small for low soil friction angles (~ < 20), and becomes
great for large soil friction angles (~ > 40). Listed in

table I are values of bearing capacity factors for

(Df/8 = 0), and in table II are values of bearing capacity

factors for (Df/8- 0.5). The soil friction angles ranges

from 0 to 50 degrees, and the degree of mobilization is of

zero and one. For foundations on a horizontal surface

(Df/8 • 0) and for ~ - 10 and m - 0; N • 8.34.

c
Nq - 2.47, and Ny • 1.14, but form • 1; Nc = 9.60.

N
q
• 2.63, and Ny - 1.15 an increase of 15.11%, 6.48%,

and 0.44% respectively. For ~ a 50 and m - 0, Nc • 267,

N
q - 31 9' and NY - 766, but for m - 1, Nc - 348,

N
q - 4 1 5. and NY - 1 1 1 6 ; an increase of 30% for Nc•

30% for Nq' and 46% for NY. It can be deduced that

the degree of mobilization has little or no effect on NY

for low soil friction angles but it certainly has a great

 45

effect for large soil friction angles. The degree of

mobilization has a relatively smaller effect on N and

q
Nc. As a comparison, Vesic in 1973 published Prandtl-

Reissner and Caquot-Kerisel factors; for ~ = 30 they are

Nc 2
30.14, Nq 2
18.40, and NY= 22.40.

This is in agreement with the presently calculated

values. Terzaghi's factors are 31 .00, 17.50, and 18.00

respectively.

For a foundation with depth Df = B (Df/B = 1 ), and

a soil friction angle of 30 degrees and a degree of

mobilization of O, N is 38.78, N = 23.39, and Nv = 40.73.

C q I

Meyerhof's values are 44.00, 25.00, and 41.00 respectively.

For the same ~ of 30 degrees but for full mobilization of

shearing resistance (m a 1), N 2

50.77, N = 30.31, and
c q
Meyerhof's values are 49.00, 30.00, and 48.00

respectively. Listed in table III are values of bearing

capacity factors for foundations with depth D

f
= B.

The effect of the increment of X and Y coordinates of

the pole of the spiral is greatly pronounced in the value of

angle 9; however, the increment has no effect on bearing

capacity factors N and N since they are computed only

c q
once (Meyerhof, 1951) when the pole of the spiral is at point

B.
For a soil friction angle of 40 degrees and shear

resistance fully mobilized, buried at B below horizontal surface

NY • 224 tor an increment of one fourth of B, at x0 • 0.5

 46

TABLE I

BEARING CAPACITY FACTORS OF FOUNDATIONS ON

A HORIZONTAL SURFACE FOR (Df/B ~ 0)

ell m N N NY 8
c q
(degrees) (degrees)

0 0 5. 1 ~ 1 •00 o.oo 0
1 5.71 1 •00 o.oo 0
5 0 6.~9 1 . 57 0.31 0
1 7.3~ 1 • 6~ 0.39 0
10 0 8.3~ 2.~7 1 • 15 0
9.60 2.69 1 • 15 0

15 0 10.98 3.94 2.88 0

1 1 2. 8 6 4.45 2.64 0
20 0 1 4. 81 6.39 5.66 0
1 17.69 7.44 5.60 0

25 0 20.76 10.68 10.86 0

2 5. 1 3 12.72 11 •71 0

30 0 30.14 18.40 21 • 3 7 0
1 37.16 22.46 24.98 0

35 0 46.01 33.21 44.56 0

1 57.75 41 • 44 55.67 0

40 0 7 5. 31 64.20 1 01 • 2 0
1 95.66 81 • 27 133.7 0

45 0 133.9 1 3 4. 9 257.3 0
1 172.3 1 7 3. 3 360.7 0

50 0 266.9 319 • 1 765.6 0

1 347.5 41 5. 1 11 15 0
 47

TABLE II

BEARING CAPACITY FACTORS OF FOUNDATIONS ON

A HORIZONTAL SURFACE (Df/B = 0.5)

¢ m N Nq NY B
c
(degrees) (degrees)

0 0 6. 1 9 1 •00 o.oo 30.00

1 7.28 1 •00 o.oo ~5.00

5 0 7.77 1 • 68 1 • 44 4. 1 9
1 9.24 1 •81 1 • 06 70.97
,0 0 9.95 2.75 1 • 06 1 7. 56
11 • 9 9 3 • 11 2.35 41 • 8 3

15 0 12.97 4.48 4.94 6.47

15.89 5.26 4.72 26.68

20 0 , 7. 3 7 7.32 8.86 6.59

21 • 59 8.86 9. 1 7 20.46

25 0 23.97 1 2 01 8 16 • 14 5.33
1 30.21 1 5. 0 9 1 9 09 7 9.65

30 0 3~-38 20.85 30.71 5.97

43.89 26.34 36.20 11 •30

35 0 51 • 9 5 37.38 50.05 5.38

1 66.88 47.83 72.56 5.71

~0 0 83.32 70.92 1 3 5. 1 4.26

1 1 0 8 04 91 • 9 9 175o2 5.89

45 0 1 4 50 3 1 4 6. 3 250.6 3.03
1 1 9 0. 9 19 1 •9 307.6 2.98

50 0 285.3 3 41 • 0 935.3 2o39

1 376.3 449.5 1332 2o91
 48

and Y0 = 0.0 for a e of 113.1 degrees. For an increment of

one eighth of B, NY = 221, at x0 = 0.5 and Y = -0.25 for

0
a e of 116.8 degrees. For an increment of one sixteenth of

B, NY= 220, at x0 = 0.5 and Y = -0.125 for a

0
e of 114.86

degrees. Finally, For an increment of one thirty-second of

B, NY = 220, at x0 = 0.4375 and Y = -0.125 for a

0
e of

113.5 degrees. Thus, an increment of X and Y coordinates of

the pole of the spiral of one eighth of B results in

sufficient accuracy for all practical purposes. However, all

tabulated results were obtained using the minimum increment

of X and Y of one thirty-second of B.

The orientation of the equivalent free surface is much

steeper for low soil friction angles when m = than that for

m a 0; on the other hand, for very large soil friction angles

the orientation of the equivalent free surface is nearly the

same for both cases of m.

For a surface foundation on a purely cohesive soil

(¢ • 0) and for a degree of mobilization of zero and one, the

value of N is 5.14 and 5.71 respectively. If the above

c
foundation is buried at a depth B below the horizontal

surface, the value of N is 8.28 and 8.85 respectively.

c
The values of Nq and NY when¢~ O, are 1.0 and 0

respectively.

For foundations on slopes, the present results show

bearing capacity factors Nc' Nq, and NY that are a little

greater than those obtained by Meyerhof in 1951.

 49

TABLE Ill
BEARING CAPACITY FACTORS OF FOUNDATIONS ON

A HORIZONTAL SURFACE (Df/B = 1•0 )

~ rn N Nq NY 8
(degrees) c
(degrees)

0.0 8.28 1 •00 o.oo 90.00

0 0.5 8.67 1 •00 o.oo 90.00
1•0 8.85 1 •00 o.oo 90.00
o.o 9.32 1•82 1•70 4.20
5 0.5 10.86 1 •95 2.08 2 1 • 19
1•0 1 2. 4 0 2.09 2. 1 3 83.76
0.0 11 •71 3.06 3.66 11 • 07
10 0.5 1 3. 53 3.39 3.70 20.01
1•0 14.86 3.62 3.78 76.57
o.o 15 • 11 5.05 6.72 11 • 07
15 0.5 1 7. 54 5.70 5.27 30.85
1•0 1 9. 2 3 6. 1 5 7.04 51 • 80
o.o 20.01 8.28 11 • 99 1 1 • 20
20 0.5 23.41 9.52 11 • 46 1 5. 3 4
1•0 25.71 10.36 13 • 19 3 7. 1 4

o.o 27.38 1 3. 7 7 21 • 6 0 9.27

25 0.5 32.18 1 6. 01 20.98 1 2. 9 8
1•0 35.47 1 7. 54 24.95 25.68

o.o 38.78 23.39 40.73 7.97

30 0.5 46.09 27.61 39.76 11 • 43
1•0 50.77 30.31 48.49 19.25

o.o 57.68 41 • 3 9 80.54 7.97

35 0.5 68.81 49~18 79.24 11 • 07
1•0 7 6. 1 3 54.30 99.48 1 5. 1 0

o.o 91 • 6 3 77.89 170.8 7.37

40 0.5 1 09. 7 93.02 1 7 2. 1 9.23
1 .o 1 21 3
0 102o8 219.6 1 1 • 18

OoO 156.8 157o8 403o7 5o78

45 Oo5 188.9 190.0 413o7 6.61
1 0
0 209.6 210o6 542o5 8o22

OoO 303o7 363o0 1110 4o26

50 Oo5 365o8 437o0 11 7 4 4.91
1 0
0 405o2 483o9 1 561 5o22
 50

For a foundation on the face of a slope of 30 degrees

and b/B = 0, where b is the distance of edge of footing from

edge of slope and B is the width of footing, and where the

soil friction angle is 30 degrees with Df/B = 1 and fully

mobilized shear on the free surface, the calculated values

are: N 28.25 and Nq = 17.31. Meyerhof's values are

c
20.0 and 13.00 respectively. For a slope of 10 degrees, and

~ = 10, Nc = 13.71 and N

q
= 3.42. Meyerhof's values are

8.5 and 2.5 respectively. Shown, respectively, in figures 16

and 17 values of N and N for a soil friction angle of

c q
10 degrees and for slope inclinations of 10 through 50

degrees. It is seen from these figures that for b/B greater

than one, all curves coincide and the slope has no effects on

the foundation. This is due to the fact that at ~ 10

degrees, the size of the spiral is very small and it exits at

the crest of the slope.

Figure 18 shows values of NY for a ~ angle of 10

degrees. It is seen that the steepness of the slope has a

great effect on NY up to b/B = 3. All curves coincide

when the ratio b/B exceeds three. In figures 19 and 20

values of N and N are shown for ~ of 30 degrees

c q
respectively. Figure 21 shows values of NY for ~ of 30

degrees. In appendix D are figures of Nc' Nq and NY

for other ~ angles.

Results indicate that in general the bearing capacity is

a function of the size and depth of the footing and the soil
 51

2
10 r--------r------~r-------.-------~------~

0
z
a:
0
~
u
<
~

~
~ 1
~
u 10
<
Q.
<
u
~
z
~
a:
<
~
co

10°~------~--------_.--------~--------~------~
0 1 2 3 4 5

b/8 RATIO

Figure 16. Bearing Capacity Factor N of Foundations

c
on Slopes for t • 10 Degrees.
 52

10 r-------~---------r--------~----------------~
2
•

0'
:z:
a:
0
E-
u
<
tz..

~
1
E-
H
10 .
u
<
0..
<
u
c
:z:
H
a:
<
tzJ
co

10°~---------L----------~·---------L-'---------L--------~
0 1 2 3 4 5

b/B RATIO

Figure 17. Bearing Capacity Factor N of Foundations

q
on Slopes. for t • 10 Degrees.
 53

4
10 ~-------.--------~--------r-------~--------~

3
10
~
z
~
0
~
u 2
<
~
10
~
~
~
u
<
0.
< 1
u 10
0
z
~
~
<
~
~

·1
10 ~----L-~--------~--------~--------~------~
0 1 2 3 4 5

biB RATIO

Figure 18. Bearing Capacity Factor NY of Foundation~

on Slopes for t • 10 Degrees.

 54

4
10 ~-------.--------.-------~--------~------~

3
10
0
:z:
0::
0
f-
u 2
< 10
tz...

>4
f-

-....--
H
u
<
0..
< i
u
10 1-
t.:l
:z
H
0::
<
tzJ
cc
10° ~

10 ~------~--------~--------~--------~------~
1

0 1 2 3 4 5

b/8 RATIO

Figure 19. Bearing Capacity Factor N of Foundations

c
on Slopes for t • 30 Degrees.
 55

•
10 r-------~------~------~------~--------

3
10 ~
0'
z

c::
0
E-
u 2
<
ts..
10 ...
>o
E-
H
u
<
0....
< 1
u 10
t:l
z
H
c::
<
t:J
co
0
10

-1
10 ~--------~--------~--------~·--------~------~
0 1 2 3 5

b/B RATIO

Figure 20. Bearing Capacity Factor Nq of Foundations

on Slopes for t • 30 Degrees.

 56

10 ~-------.--------~------~--------~------~
4

3
10
~
z
a:
0
~
u 2
< 10
~

~
~
~

u
<
0.
<
u
~
z
~
a:
<
~
~

-1
10 ~------~--------~------~------~~----~
0 1 2 3 5

b/B RATIO

Figure 21. Bearing Capacity Factor NY of Foundations

on Slopes for ~ • 30 Degrees.

 57

friction angle ~. It is of interest to know that for a

surface foundation (Dr z 0), the bearing capacity factors

will almost double their values if the footing is buried to a

depth equal to its width. This may be explained by the fact

that soil above the footing base level contributes to the

bearing capacity by its shearing strength. The influence of

the degree of mobilization is more pronounced at greater soil

friction angles than at lower friction angles.

In addition to the above factors that influence a

foundation on horizontal surface, it has been illustrated by

figures 16 through 21 that the bearing capacity of

foundations on slopes is a function of the ratio b/B, where b

is measured (Shields, 1977) from the edge of the footing.

Also, the bearing capacity is a function of the inclination

of the slope. As the slope becomes steeper the bearing

capacity decreases.

It is to be noted that for foundations on a horizontal

surface the minimum passive earth pressures P"p have been

found within the grid boundaries indicated before. On the

other hand for foundations on slopes, for soil friction

angles of 10 through 50 degrees and slope inclinations of 10

through 50 degrees, about 30% out of the above 25 cases have

been found on the grid boundaries. Therefore, the grid must

be extended so that all minimum passive earth pressures are

within the grid.

 58

V. CONCLUSIONS

The objective of this research was to study Meyerhof's

bearing capacity of shallow footings both on a horizontal

surface and on slopes, and to compute precisely the bearing

capacity factors Nc , Nq , and NY using a Fortran computer

program that finds the minimum passive earth pressure. The

grid covers a block, B by B in the positive Y-direction and B

by B/2 in the negative Y-direction, of one side of a footing

of width "B".

Results showed that, for foundations on a horizontal

surface, the calculated values were slightly lower than those

obtained by Meyerhof. Intermediate values were obtained for

both the degree of mobilization and ratios of the depth to

width of footings. The analysis covers, in addition to a

c-~ soil, both purely cohesive material (~ • 0), and purely

cohesionless material (c - 0).

For foundations on slopes it was indicated that the

calculated values were somewhat higher than those obtained by

Meyerhof in 1951, while they were slightly lower than those

obtained by Bowles in 1982. The reason is that for low soil

friction angles, the size of the log spiral is rather small.

Thus, even for a small b/B ratio, b being the distance of the

edge of the footing from the edge of the slope, the failure

surface would exit at top of the crest of the slope rather

 59

than somewhere on the side of the slope. Thi~ means that

angle e is very large and consequently the inclination of the

equivalent free surface (angle a) will be very large and

positive. Bowles (1984} fixed the exit point on the face of

the slope (point E in figure 5}. The face of the slope makes

an angle equal to 45-~/2 degrees with the tangent line drawn

from the point of intersection of the final radius with the

spiral.

The accuracy of the bearing capacity factor~ is

meaningles~ unless the input is accurate. The soil internal

friction angle ~ and the soil cohesion c can often not be

determined accurately and small changes in these values can

dominate the results for almo~t any soil problem.

Cohesion is u~ually measured from a triaxial te~t, or

~ometimes from an unconfined compression test where cohesion

is taken as half the unconfined vertical stress. Soil samples

that are not representative of the field soil and disturbance

of the soil sample may seriously change the field soil

friction angle and its cohesion.

Researchers have found it convenient to use the plane

strain conditions of a strip foundation in their analysis of

predicting allowable loads. Then it was found that there wa~

a tran~ition from an infinite footing (and plane strain) to a

square footing (and triaxial strain). Therefore Terzaghi

(1943) suggested some multiplying factors to use with

foundations other than strip footings; for example, for

 60

a square footing a reduction factor of 0.8 to multiply by

Nr, and 0.6 for a circle. Meyerhof ( 1951) suggested, for

his own bearing capacity factors, 1.0 for square footings and

a 10% reduction for very long strip footings.

Usually, the soil friction angle is obtained from a

triaxial test, ~tx" It is believed that ~ps (measured by

plane strain tests) is somewhat greater than ~tx" Meyerhof

(Bowles, 1982) suggested the following adjustment:

B
~
ps
= ( 1 • 1 - 0.1 -)~
L tx

where B is the width of the footing and L its length.

It was indicated before that the principle of

superposition was employed by most soil theoretians to derive

the three bearing capacity factors. Terzaghi in his quasi-

emperical method, assumed that the effects of cohesion,

surcharge, and weight of soil are directly superposable,

whereas actual soil behavior (Scott, 1973) is nonlinear and

superposition does not hold for general soil bearing

capacities. However, the principle of superposition is

relatively simple and appears to be reasonably acceptable.

Sokolovski (1960) obtained the differential equations

for deriving bearing capacity factors, but there was not

enough data collected to cover all soil friction angles.

Scott (1963) extended Sokolovski's work and obtained a set of

characteristic equations that he claimed were even easier to

 61

use than other classic solutions.

It should always be kept in mind the assumptions that

have been made in this analysis: the footing is continuous

and has a rough base, soil is a homogeneous rigid body and

fails plastically, and deformation at failure is small.

Full scale experiments must be carried out to justify

values obtained by theory since the scale and shape effects

are very important in the science of soil mechanics.

A slope stability analysis should be carried out for a

failure that would involve a larger soil mass than is

considered in the bearing capacity analysis of foundations on

slopes. This was not considered in this study.

As it has been mentioned earlier the movement of the

pole of the log spiral has been restricted to a block that

covers B by B in the positive Y-direction and a B/2 by B in

the negative Y-direction. This can be extended to cover a

larger block than has been considered in the present analysis

to insure that the minimum passive earth pressures fall

within the block and not anywhere on the boundaries. Also,

it is of interest to investigate whether or not the pole of

the spiral need be moved for the case of Nc and Nq in the

same manner it has been carried out for the NY case.

Finally, a slope stability analysis may be coupled with the

analysis of bearing capacity on slopes.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Allouzi, A. 1977, Algebra and Analytical Mathamatics.

Aleppo University Press, Aleppo, Syria.

2. Bowles, J. E. 1982, Foundation Design and Analysis.

McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.

3. Hijab, W. A. 1956, "A Note on The Centroid of A

Logarithmic Spiral Sector," Geotechnique, vol 6, no. 1, pp.

66-69.

4. Jumikis, A. R. 1984, Soil Mechanics. Robert E. Krieger

Publishing Company, Inc., Malabar, Florida.

5. Jumikis, A. R. 1963. Mechanics of Soils, D. Van

Nostrand Company, Inc., Princeton, New Jersey.

6. Ko, H. and R. F. Scott 1973, "Bearing Capacities by

Plasticity Theory," JSMFD, ASCE, vol 93, SM1, pp. 45-69.

7. Lambe, T. W. and R. V. Whitman 1969, Soil Mechanics,

John Wiley and Sons, New York.

8. McCarthy, D. F. 1977, Essential of Soil Mechanics and

Foundations, Prentice Hall Company, Reston, Virgina.

9. Merchant, M. J. 1981, Fortran 77 Language and Style,

Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, CAlifornia.

10. Meyerhof, G. G. 1957, "The Ultimate Bearing Capacity of

Foundations on Slopes," 4th ICSMFE, London, pp. 384-386.

11. Meyerhof, G. G. 1951, "The Ultimate Bearing Capacity of

Foundations," Geotechnlque, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 301-331.

 63

12 • Meyerhof, G. G. 1948, "An Investigation of the Bearing

Capacity of Shallow Footings on sand," 2d ICSMFE, vol.

II, Rotterdam, pp. 237-243.

13. Prandtl, L. 1920, "Uber Die Harte Plastischer Korper,"

Nachr. Kgl. Ges. Wiss. Gottingen, Math. Phys. Klasse.

14. Prakash, S., Ranjan, G. and s. Saran 1973, Analysis and

Design of Foundations and Retaining Structures, Sarita

Prakashan, Meerut, India.

15. Peck, R. B., Hanson, W. E., and T. H. Thoronburn, 1973,

Foundation Engineering, 2d ed., John Wiley and Sons, New

York.

16. Scott, R. F. 1963, Principles of Soil Mechanics, John

wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.

17. Shields, D. H., Scott, J. D., Bauer, G. E., Descheues,

J. H., and A. K. Barsvary 1977, "Foundations in Granular

Slopes," 7th European Conference SMFE.

18. Singh, B., and s. Prakash 1982, Soil Mechanics and

Foundation Engineering, 5th ed., Roorkee Press, Roorkee,

India.

19. Taylor, D. w. 1948, Fundementals of Soil Mechanics, John

Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.

20. Terzaghi, K. and R. B. Peck 1967, Soil Mechanics in

Engineering Practice, 2d ed., John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New

York.

21. Terzaghi, K. 1943, Theoretical Soil Mechanics, John

Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.

 64

22. Vesic, A. S. 1973, "Analysis of Ultimate loads of

Shallow Foundations", ASCE, Vol 93, SM1. pp. 45-69.

23. Winterkorn, H. F. and H. Fang 1975, Foundation

Engineering Handbook, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New

York.

24. Yanni, H. 1977, Soil Mechanics, Damascus University

Press, Damascus, Syria.

 65

VITA

Yassin AL-Kour was born on May 4, 1958 in Damascus,

Syria. He received his primary and secondary education in

Damascus, Syria. His college education was pursued at the

University of Missouri-Rolla, where he received a Bachelor of

Science degree in Civil Engineering from there in December,

1 9 8 3.

Yassin enrolled in the Graduate School of the University

of Missouri-Rolla since August 1984.

 66

APPENDIX A

THE LOGARITHMIC SPIRAL

In calculation of earth pressures in soil mechanics it is

often necessary to consider the equilibrium of sections

consisting wholly or partly of a sector of a logarithmic

spiral.

A logarithmic spiral is defined by the following equation:

where:

r is the initial radius of the sector.

0

r: is the final radius of the sector.

e: is the base of natural logarithms.

e: is the central angle of the sector (between r and r

0
).

~: denotes angle of internal friction of soil.

The centroid of the sector is determined by two

quantities (Figure 22):

a: the perpendicular distance of the centroid from the

initial radius.

b: the perpendicular distance of the centroid from the final

radius.

Hijab (1956) derived formulas for "a" and "b" which are

given by:
 67

a tan~ U (3 tan~ sine - cose) + 1

= ( 32)
r
0
3 9 tan 2 ~ + w- 1

b tan~ U -3 tan~ sine - cose

( 3 3)
2
r
0
3 9 tan ~ + w- 1

where:

U (r /r) 3
0
2
W = (r /r)
0

Also, Terzaghi (1943) derived a formula for finding the area

of any specific sector:

A w- 1
- -2 ( 34 )
r 4 tan~
0

Figure 22. A Sector of a Logarithmic Spiral.

 68

Two main properties of the logarithmic spiral as applied

to 80il mechanics problems are:

1. At any point on the spiral, the resultant of the

soil tangential and the normal pressure alway8 pas8es through

the origin 0. This is very important when balancing moments

of plastic equilibrium of a sector because the reaction of

the soil always passes through point 0 and therefore has no

moment.

2. The external angle between the final radiu8 r and

the tangent of the spiral at the point of intersection with

that radiu8 is 90+~ degrees. This will help to determine the

failure surface for any point 0.

 69

APPENDIX B

MOHR'S STRESS ANALYSIS

From triangle ZOZ' in figure 23 the radius r of Mohr's

circle is given by:

r = ( 3 8)
cos(2n + ~)

where S 0 is the mobilized shearing strength and is defined

by:

S 0 = m S (39)

where m is degree of mobilization and S is c + P 0 tan~

from Coulomb-Mohr's theory of rupture. Then:

S0 = (c + P 0 tan~)m ( 4 0)

From triangle FOF' in figure 23:

s1
r .. (41)
cos~

but:
(42)

then:

c + P tan~
r = - - - -1- - - - ( 4 3)
cos~

From equations (38) and (43):

 70

f
c

Figure 23. Determination of n and P •

1

cos(2n + ~) ==
c P
( 44 )
+
1 tan~

If m a 0, then equation (44) becomes:

cos(2n + ~) ... o
or:
n ... (90- ~)12
( lj 5)
This means that point Z on Mohr's circle will lie on the
minor principal stress o •
3
If m • 1, then Point Z on Mohr's circle will lie on point F
and P 0 .. p and S 0 • s1 •
1 Hence equation (44) yields:
cos(2n + ~) • cos~

or:

n • o
 71

The center of Mohr's circle has the coordinates

(46)

Z'O P - Po z r sin(2n + ~) ( 4 7)
2
Subtracting equation (47) from (46) yields:

p ... [sin(2n + ~) - sin~] + P0 ( 48 )

1
cos~

Equation (48) is implicit in P • This then will require

1
a trial and error process to solve equations (44) and (48)

simultaneously to find angle n and stress P for any given

1

The principal stress cr may be determined as follows:

1

a • P + r sin~ + r
1 1
s ( 4 9)
a
1
- P
1
+
1 [tan~ + sec~]
 72

APPENDIX C

DERIVATION OF BEARING CAPACITY FACTORS

A. Bearing Capacity Factors N and N :

c q

To determine bearing capacity factors N and N , the

c q
moments of the following pressure forces must balance:

1. Normal pressure P (Figure 12) acting on final

1
radius r of the log spiral at a distance r/2 from 0 (point B

in figure 12).

2. Passive earth pressure P'p acting on initial radius

r
0
of the log spiral at a distance r
0
/2 from o.
3. Moment of cohesion Mc , given by:

c
Mc = (50)
2 tan~

Taking moments about 0 (point B in figure 12) of the pressure

forces:

r c 2
(r - r 2) ...
* 2
+
2 tan~
0

r
0
p (51 )
I
p * r
0 * 1 * 2

c
2 2 2
* r - P' p * r02 + (r - r ) - 0
0
tan~
 73

2
dividing both sides of the above equation by r yields:
0
2 2
r c r c
2 - p'
p
+
2
= 0
r tan~ r tan~
0 0

and rearranging:
2
c r c
(p1 + ) --2 p' p +
tan~ ro tan~

but if:
etan~
r = r e (53)
0

then:

r 2
2etan~
(--) = e (53a)
r
0

substituting in (53a) into (52) gives:

c c
+ = p' p +
tan~ tan~

or:
c
p' p +
tan~
2etan~ (53b)
e =
c
+
tan~

Multiplying numerator and denominator by tan~.

c +
2etan~ (54)
e =

The numerator is:

S' p • c + P' p tan~ (55)

or:
(55a)
 74

To find the bearing capacity q' due to cohesion and

surcharge; P'p and S'p are projected on the vertical;

(Figure 13).

q' B/2 = P'psin(45 - ~/2) BC + S'pcos(45 - ~12) BC

But:

B/2
BC =
sin(45 - ~/2)

then:

q' = P'p + S'pcot(45 - ~12) (56)

But:

cos(45 - ~/2)
cot(45 - ~/2) =
sin(45 - ~/2)

Expanding the numerator and the denominator of the above

equation yields:

cos~/2 + sin~/2
cot(45 - ~/2) =
cos~/2 - sin~/2

Applying the double angle identity to the above right hand

side, the above equation will simplify to:

+ sin~
cot(45 - ~/2) = (57)
cos~

Then equation (56) becomes:

+ sin~
q' • P' p + S' p (58)
cos~

Substituting equation (23) and (24) into (58) :

q' - (S'p - c)cot~ + (c + P 1 tan~)e 2 etan~ (58a)

Equation (48)(Appendix B) is implicit in P 1 , the explicit

 75

form i~ a~ follows:

c [sin(2n + ~) - sin~] + P 0 cos~

(59)
cos~ - tan~ [sin(2n + ~) - sin~]

Substituting (59) into (55a) gives:

S' p = { c +

c [sin~ sin(2n + ~) - sin 2 ~J + P 0 sin~ cos~

1 - sin~ sin(2n + ~)

And ~ubstituting the above equation and equation (55a) into

(58a) yields:
(1 + sin~)e2etan~
q' c [cot~( - 1) J +
1 - ~in~ sin(2n + ~)

( 1 +~in ~)e28tan~
p 0 [ -------------- 1 ( 6 0)
1 - ~in~ sin(2n + ~)

or:

q' '"' eN + P0 N ( 61 )
c q
where N and N have the values in the square brackets
c q
of equation (60).

If ~ = o. the value of N in equation

c
(60) becomes:

indeterminate. This require~ applying L'Hopital's rule to

obtain the actual value of N :

c
(1 + sin~)e28tan~
N ,.. 1 i m [cot~ ( - - - ----------- - 1) J
c 1 - sin~ sin(2n + ~)
~-0

cos~(1
+ sin~)e 2 etan~ cos~
]
c • lim [-----------------------------
N
~-0 sint(1 - sin~ sin(2n + ~)) sin~

Simplifying the above expression yields:

 76

cos~ E + sin~ cos~ E - cos~ + sin~ cos~ sin(2n + ~)

2
sin~ cos~ - sin ~ cos~ sin(2n + ~)

where E is e 2 etan~.
Now Applying L'Hopital's rule to the above expression gives:

N
c
= 1 + 28 + sin(2n) ( 6 2)

The value of N when ~ = 0 is:

q
(1 + sin~)e2e tan~
N
q
= lim [ --------------------]
~-o - sin~ sin(2n + ~)

N .. 1 ( 6 3)
q

B. Bearing Capacity factor Nr:

The area of triangle BCC' in figure 15 is given by:

B/2 * B/2tan(45 + ~/2)

or:

tan(45 + ~/2)
8

Then the weight of triangle BCC' is:

B2
tan(45 + ~/2) (64)
8
Projecting P" and weight of triangle BCC' on the vertical:
p
2
B r B
q"*--- • P" sin(45 + ~12) - tan(45 + ~/2)
p 8
2

2 P" sin(45 + ~12) r B

p tan(45 + ~12)
q" ...
B 4
 77

Y B 4 P"psin(45 + t/2)
q" --- [ -----=~-------
2
- - - - tan(45 + t/2)](65)
2 y s 2

where NY has the value in the square brackets above. The

value of NY when t = 0 is 0.
 78

APPENDIX D

<I
10 ~------~------~--------~------~------~

3
tO
C)
:z

0::::
0
..... 2
u
c:( 10
[z...

><
.....
H
u
c:(
::::::;:;;---
0..
c:(
10
1 ....-
u
Cl
:z
H
0::::
c:(
w
co
10°

·1
tO ~------~--------~--------._------~--------~
0 1 2 3 4 5

biB RATIO

Figure 24. Bearing Capacity Factor N of Foundations

c
on Slopes for t • 20 Degrees.
 79

10~c--------.--~---,r-------.-------~------~

3
10
(.)
:z:
c:
0
r--
u 2
< 10
ez..
><
r--
H
u
<
0..
< 1
u 10
t:>
z:
H
c:
<
w
co
10°

-1
10 ~--------~--------~--------~--------~·------~
0 1 2 3 4 5

b/B RATIO

Figure 25. Bearing Capacity Factor Nc of Foundations

on Slopes for t • 40 Degrees.

 80

10
4
. .

3
10
t)
z

0:::
0
E-
u 2
<
tz..
10
~
E-
H
u
<
0..
< 1
u 10 ~ ~

t.:)
z
H
0:::
<
tzJ
co
10° ~

-1
10 _l_ _l_

0 1 2 3 4 5

b/B RATIO

Figure 26. Bearing Capacity Factor N of Foundations

c
on Slopes for t • 50 Degrees.
 81

• .
10 r-------~~--------.--------.--------~---------~

3
10 ~
0'
z
c::
0
!'-<
u 2
< 10
tz..

><
!'-<
1-(
u
<
0..
< 1
u
10
C-' .-
z
1-(
.-
c::
<
[%J
m
10°

·L
10 ~--------~--------~--------~--------~·------~
0 1 2 3 5

b/B RATIO

Figure 27. Bearing Capacity Factor Nq of Foundation~

on Slopes for t • 20 Degrees.

 82

A
10 r-------.--------r------~------~------~

3
10 ~
C1'
:z:
c::
0
E-<
u 2
<
tz..
10 ~

>-1
E-<
.......
u .......
<
~
< 1
u 10 ~
c.,:,
:z:
.......
c::
<
~
co
10°

-~
10 ~------~--------~--------~------~--------~
0 1 2 3 5

b/B RATIO

Figure 28. Bearing Capacity Factor Nc of Foundation~

on Slopes for t • 40 Degree$.

 83

3
10
0"
:z:

a:
0
E-<
u 2
<
b.
10 ~

>I
E-<
-
1-t
u
<
c..
<
u 10t ~

~
:z:
1-t
a:
<
w
co
10° ~ ~

-1
10
0 1 2 3 4 5

b/B RATIO

Figure 29. Bearing Capacity Factor N of Foundations

c
on Slopes for ~ • 50 Degrees.
 84

..
10~------r-------.-------.-------~------~

3
10
~
z
a:
0
f-4
t) 2
<
ts...
10
>-4
f-4
1-1
t)
<
0..
< 1
t)
10
C-'
z
1-1
a:
<
tzJ
co

·1
10 ~------~-------L--------L-------~------~
0 1 2 3 5

b/B RATIO

Figure 30. Bearing Capacity Factor NY of Foundations

on Slopes for t • 20 Degrees.

 85

4
10 c--------.-------.--------.-------~------~

3
10
)-
z

c:::
0
E-<
u 2
< 10
r.s..
><
E-<
H
u
<
0..
<
u
t-'
z
H
c:::
<
tzJ
IXl

10°

-1
10 ~------~--------~------~--------~------~
0 1 2 3 4 5

b/8 RATIO

Figure 31. Bearing Capacity Factor NY of Foundations

on Slopes for ~ • 40 Degrees.

 86

10~

3
10

-
2
--
10
e---------

1 2 3 4 5

b/8 RATIO

Figure 32. Bearing Capacity Factor NY of Foundation~

on Slope~ for ~ • 50 Degrees.

 87

APPENDIX E

COMPUTER PROGRAM LISTING

c BCSF IS A PROGRAM TO SOLVE FOR BEARING CAPACITY FACTORS

c OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS: ON A HORIZONTAL SURFACE AND ON
c SLOPES. DEGREE OF MOBILIZATION AND DEPTH-TO-WIDTH OF
c FOUNDATION RATIO SHOULD BE GIVEN AND CAN BE ANYWHERE FROM
c ZERO TO ONE.
c
c COHESION SHOULD BE GIVEN AND CAN BE EITHER, ONE, FOR
c COHESIVE SOILS OR, ZERO, FOR COHESIONLESS SOILS. THE
c INTERNAL FRICTION ANGLE OF THE SOIL MUST BE GIVEN IN
c DEGREES. IN THE CASE OF FOUNDATIONS ON SLOPES, ANGLE
c OF THE SLOPE MUST BE GIVEN NEGETIVE, AND IN DEGREES.
c DISTANCE b OF THE EDGE OF THE FOOTING FROM THE SLOPE
c SHOULD BE GIVEN.
c
c COORDINATES OF THE ORIGIN (0,0) IS THE POINT OF
c NTERSECTION OF THE FOOTING BASE LEVEL AND THE FOOTING
c ENTERLINE. THE GRID EXTENDS: FOR THE X-AXIS FROM ZERO
c TO TWO (0 TO B), AND FOR THEY-AXIS FROM NEGATIVE ONE TO
c POSITIVE TWO (-B/2 TO B); WHERE B IS THE FOOTING WIDTH
c AND NEED NOT BE GIVEN. IT IS ASSUMED TO BE EQUAL TO TWO
c UNITS. ACCURACY MEANS HOW SMALL THE INCREMENT OF THE
c MOVEMENT OF THE POLE OF SPIRAL SHOULD GET. ACCURACY
c SHOULD BE GIVEN AS THE RECIPROCAL OF THE INCREMENT.
c
c BCSF CONSISTS OF A MAIN PROGRAM AND EIGHT SUBROUTINES.
c HM: IS A SUBROUTINE THAT SEARCHES FOR THE FAILURE
c SURFACE AND ANGLE THETA FOR THE CASE OF
c FOUNDATIONS ON A HORIZONTAL SURFACE WHEN THE
c DEGREE OF MOBILIZATION IS OTHER THAN ONE.
c SM: IS A SUBROUTINE THAT SEARCHES FOR THE FAILURE
c SURFACE AND ANGLE THETA FOR THE CASE OF
c FOUNDATIONS ON SLOPES WHEN THE DEGREE OF
c MOBILIZATION IS OTHER THAN ONE.
c HM1: IS A SUBROUTINE THAT IS SIMILAR TO HM BUT WHEN
c THE DEGREE OF MOBILIZATION IS ONE.
c SM1: IS A SUBROUTINE THAT IS SIMILAR TO SM BUT WHEN
c THE DEGREE OF MOBILIZATION IS ONE.
c ARMS: IS A SUBROUTINE THAT CALCULATES THE AREA OF A
c SECTOR OF THE LOG SPIRAL, THE MOMENT AND THE
c ASSOCIATED ARM.
c SIMEQ: IS A SUBROUTINE THAT SOLVES TWO SIMULTANEOUS
c EQUATIONS.
c AREAS: IS A SUBROUTINE THAT COMPUTES THE AREA OF A
c TRIANGLE BY KNOWING THE COORDINATES OF THE POINTS
c CRI: IS A SUBROUTINE THAT CONVERTS A REAL NUMBER TO AN
c INTEGER.
 88

c FOLLOWING IS A LISTING OF THE PROGRAM.

c
c
$DEBUG
IMPLICIT REAL * 8 ( A-H,O-Z )
REAL * 8 Nc,Nq,Ng,L1 ,L2,L3,M,KO,N~
c
c
GAMMA= 1.0
PI= 3.14159265358979323846DO
WRITE(*,100)
100 FORMAT( I,' ' 'I •
$ II,T20,' 1. FOOTING ON GROUND SURFACE ' •I •
$ I,T20,' 2. FOOTING WITH DEPTH Df ' ' I,
$ I,T20,' 3~ FOOTING ON FACE OF SLOPE ' ' I'
$ I,T20,' 4. FOOTING NEAR EDGE OF SLOPE ' ' I'
$ III,T20,' ENTER CHOICE OF FOUNDATION ~a•=•a) ',\,1)
READ (*,*) K
IF ( K.EQ.3 ) THEN
WRITE(*,102)
102 FORMAT(III,T15,' ENTER INCLINATION OF SLOPE
READ (*,*) BETA
-BETA - '' \)
ELSE IF ( K.EQ.4 ) THEN
WRITE(*,102)
READ (*,*) BETA
WRITE(*,104)
104 FORMAT(I,T15,' ENTER DISTANCE OF FOOTING FROM SLOPE b - ',\)
READ (*,*) Sb
ELSE
GO TO 105
END IF
105 WRITE(*,108)
108 FORMAT(I,T15,' ENTER COHESION OF SOIL 0 OR C • ',\)
READ (*,*) C
WRITE(*,107)
107 FORMAT(I,T15,' ENTER DEGREE OF MOBILIZATION ( 0- 1 ) M s ' , \ )
READ (*,*) M
WRITE(*,109)
109 FORMAT(I,T15,' ENTER SOIL FRICTION ANGLE PHIz ',\)
READ (*,*) PHI
Df = 0.0
GO TO 112
ELSE
WRITE(*,110)
110 FORMAT(I,T15,' ENTER DEPTH TO WIDTH RATIO ( 0- 1 ) DfiB • ',\)
READ (*,*) DfBR
END IF
112 IF ( PHI.EQ.O.O ) GO TO 132
WRITE(*,115)
115 FORMAT(I,T15,' ENTER HORIZONTAL GRID X1, X2 • 0 TO 2 • ',\)
READ(*,*) X1,X2
 89

WRITE(*,120)
120 FORMAT(! ,T15,' ENTER VERTICAL GRID Y1 , Y2 "" - 1 TO 2 ' '\)
READ(*,*) Y1,Y2
WRITE(*,130)
130 FORMAT(/,T15,' ENTER DESIRED ACCURACY 1/2 1/4 1/8 1/16
$ /,T15,' FOR 1/2 ENTER 2, 2 ....
4 8 '
16 == ' '\)
READ (*,*) ACC
c
c ASSUME WIDTH OF FOOTING TO BE 2 UNITS
c ............ STP IS THE RECIPROCAL OF THE INCREMENT OF THE X&Y COORD.
c ............ Pp2MIN IS INITIALIZED
c
132 B = 2.0
STP = 2.0
Pp2MIN = 999999.0
c
c ............ IF PHI = 0, FIX THE MOVEMENT OF THE POLE OF THE SPIRAL
c ... ...... ... OTHERWISE CALL CRI TO CONVERT THE BOUNDARIES OF X & Y
...

c ............ COORDINATES TO INTEGERS SINCE THEY WILL BE THE ARGUMENTS

c ....... ..... OF THE LOOPS •
c
76 IF ( PHI.NE.O.O ) GO TO 77
X1
X2 =
- 1 •0
LO
Y1 - o.o
Y2 ... o.o
77 CALL CRI ( X1 ,STP,I1 )
CALL CRI ( X2,STP,I2 )
CALL CRI ( Y1 ,STP ,J1 )
CALL CRI ( Y2,STP,J2 )
c
I1 ~ I1 + 1
I2 ... I2 + 1
J1 = J1 + ( + STP )
J2 - J2 + ( + STP )
c
c ............ IF Df • 0 IN THE CASE OF FOOTINGS ON SLOPES THEN SET
c
c
........................ WILLTO BE0.1IMPOSSIBLE
....
... Df OTHERWISE SOLVING EQUATIONS OF LINES FE & BE

c
Df ,. DfBR * B
IF ( K.EQ.3.AND.Df.EQ.O.O ) Df = 0.1
IF ( K~EQ~4.AND.Df.EQ~O~O ) Df ~ 0~1
RAD • PI/180.0
DEG "" 180~0/PI
PH • PHI * RAD
XA ,. - B/2.0
YA • 0.0
XB • B/2.0
YB- o.o·
IF ( K.EQ.4 ) THEN
 90

XF = XB + Sb
ELSE
XF = XB
END IF
YF = Df
C1 DTAN ( PH )
C2 = DTAN ( PI/4.0 + PH/2.0 )
XC 0.0
YC = - B/2.0 * C2
c
c ............ INITIALIZE STRESS PO
c ............ DO-LOOP J IS TO INCREMENT Y-COOR OF THE POLE OF THE SPIRAL
c ............ DO-LOOP I IS TO INCREMENT X-COOR OF THE POLE OF THE SPIRAL
c
JJ = 0
PO = GAMMA * Df
DO 50 J = J1 ,J2
JJ = JJ + 1
II "' 0
DO 60 I= I1,I2
xo ... ( I - 1 • 0 )/STP
YO = ( J - ( 1. 0 + STP ))/STP
II = II + 1
150 so ... ( c + PO * C1 ) *" M
c
C •••••••••••• CALL SUBROUTINE ETAS TO SOLVE FOR ANGLE ETA AND P1
c
CALL ETAS(PI,GAMMA,C,PH,DEG,RAD,M,B,Df,ETA,ET,PO,SO,P1 ,S1)
RO = DSQRT(( XO-XC )*( XO-XC )+( YO-YC )*( YO-YC ))
OB = DSQRT(( XO-XB )*( XO-XB )+( YO-YB )*( YO-YB ))
c
IF K.EQ.3.0R.K.EQ.4 ) THEN
IF ( M.EQ.1.0) THEN
CALL SM1 (XO,YO,Df,B;RO,XB,YB,XC,YC,PH,PHI,PI,DEG,RAD,
$ BETA,T,R,XD,YD,BE,BD,DE,BC,XE,YE,XF,YF,
$ BET,SLBD,SLBE,SLOC,ER,ALPHA,ALPH,Sb)
ELSE
CALL SM (XO,YO,Df,B,RO,XB,YB,XC,YC,PH,PHI,PI,DEG,RAD,
$ BETA,ETA,ETTA,T,R,XD,YD,BE,BD,DE,BC,EF,XE,YE,XF,YF,
$ BET,ET,M,SLBD,SLBE,SLOC,ER,ALPHA,ALPH)
END IF
c
ELSE
IF ( M.EQ.1.0) THEN
CALL HM1 (XO,YO,Df,B;RO,XB,YB,XC,YC,PH,PHI,PI,DEG,RAD,
$ BETA,T,R,XD,YD,BE,BD,BC,EF,XE,YE,XF,YF,BET,SLBD,SLBE,SLOC,ER)
ELSE
CALL HM (XO,YO,Df,B,RO,XB,YB,XC,YC,PH,PHI,PI,DEG,
$ RAD,BETA,ETA,ETTA,T,R,XD,YD,BE,BD,DE,BC,EF,XE,YE,XF,YF,
$ BET,ET,M,SLBD,SLBE,SLOC,ER)
c
 91

END IF
END IF
IF ( ER.EQ.9999.0 ) GO TO 75
TT ,. T
CALL ARMS( RO,XO,YO,XC,YC,RAD,PH,PI,SLOC,TT,ALS,XMOM,L2 )
c
c COMPUTE AVERAGE STRESS PO FROM BALANCING MOMENTS
c
KO = 1.0- DSIN ( PH )
DSB2 = DSIN ( BET ) * DSIN ( BET )
DCB2 = DCOS ( BET ) * DCOS ( BET )
DSA2 .,. DSIN ( ALPH ) * DSIN ( ALPH )
DCA2 DCOS ( ALPH ) * DCOS ( ALPH )
DSBA2 = DSIN ( BET - ALPH ) * DSIN ( BET - ALPH )
c
IF ( K.EQ.3 ) THEN
PPO a 0.5 * GAMMA * Df * ( KO * DSBA2/DCB2 + DCA2 )
ELSE IF ( K.EQ.4 ) THEN
XF1 .,. ( XE + XF )/2.0
XFW1 • XB + 1.0/3.0 * Sb
XFW2 • XB + 2~013.0 * { XF1 - XB )
ARFW1 • XFW1 ~ XO
ARFW2 = XFW2 - XO
XQ • XB
YQ • Df
CALL AREAS { XB,YB,XF,YF,XQ,YQ,ABFQ )
CALL AREAS ( XB,YB,XE,YE,XF,YF,ABEF )
FW1 • GAMMA * ABFQ
FW2 • GAMMA * ABEF
IF ( XE.LT.XF ) THEN
PPO • 0~5 * GAMMA * Df * ( KO * DSA2 + DCA2 )
ELSE
FH = 0.5 * GAMMA * Df * Df * KO
PPU • ( 3.0 * FW1 * ARFW1 + 3.0 * FW2 * ARFW2 + FH * Df )
PPD • BE * BE
PPO • PPU/PPD
END IF
ELSE IF ( K.EQ.2 ) THEN
PPO • 0.5 * GAMMA * Df * { KO * DSB2 + DCB2 )
ELSE
PO = 0.0
so - o.o
PPO • 0.0
END IF
IF ( BET.EQ.PI/2.0.0R.ALPH.EQ.PI/2.0 ) PPO • 0.0
c
WRITE(*,2000)XO,YO,PO,PPO
2000 FORMAT{/,20X,'X0 • ',F10.4,10X,'Y0 • ',F10.4,
$ /,20X,'P0 • ',F10.4,10X,'PPO • ',F10~4,/)
 92

c
C •••••••••••• CHECK IF ASSUMED PO IS EQUAL TO COMPUTED PO
c
IF ( DABS ( PPO- PO ).GT.0.05 ) THEN
PO = PPO
GO TO 150
ELSE
GO TO 155
END IF
c
C •••••••••••• COMPUTE Nc AND Nq ONLY IF XO • 1.0 AND YO • 0.0
c
155 THETA = T
T =- T * RAD
IF ( XO.EQ.1.0.AND.YO.EQ.O.O ) THEN
BTCQ = BETA
THCQ .... THETA
ALCQ • ALPHA
IF ( PHI.NE.O.O ) THEN
C3 • DTAN ( BET )
C4 = 1 + DSIN ( PH )
C5 • DSIN ( 2.0 * ET + PH )
CC • C4 * DEXP ( 2.0 * T * C1 )
DD • 1.0- ( DSIN (PH) * C5 )
Nc • ( CC/DD- 1.0 )/C1
Nq • CC/DD
ELSE
c
c ............ COMPUTE Nc AND Nq WHEN PHI z 0.0
c
Nc s 1.0 + 2.0 * T + DSIN ( 2 * ET)
Nq • LO
Ng = 0~0
XOMIN'"' 1.0
YOMIN = 0~0
THMIN • THCQ
BTMIN • BTCQ
POMIN • PO
SOMIN • SO
Q1 • C * Nc + PO * Nq
GO TO 890
END IF
Q1 • C * Nc + PO * Nq
c
c ........... COMPUTE AREAS AND MOMENTS ARMS OF FREE BODY
c
ELSE
GO TO 165
END IF
165 IF ( M.EQ.l.O) THEN
XG • XE
 93

YG • YE
XD = XE
YD ... YE
DE 0.0
GD .. 0~0
GE a 0.0
XT .. 0.0
YT = 0.0
ELSE
XZE = BD * DSIN ( ET )/DE
XDL a ( ( BE *BE- BD * BD- DE *DE )/( - 2 * BD *DE ))
IF ( XZE.GT.1.0) THEN
XZE ... 1.0
ELSE IF ( XDL.GT.1.0 ) THEN
XDL = 1.0·
ELSE
ZET = DASIN ( XZE )
DELT .. DACOS ( XDL )
END IF
ZET • DASIN ( XZE )
DELT • DACOS ( XDL )
D1 a PI/4.0 + PH/2.0
D2 • DELT - D1
G1 • 3.0/4.0 * PI - ( ET + PH/2.0 )
G2 • PI/4.0 + ( ET + PH/2.0 )
ZET • PI ~ D2 - G2
GD D DE * DSIN ( ZET )/DSIN ( G2 )
GE • DE * DSIN ( D2 )/DSIN ( G2 )
BG • BE - GE
XG • XB + BG * DCOS ( BET )
YG = YB + BG * DSIN ( BET )
XT = XG + 2.013.0 * ( XD - XG )
YT • YD + 1.0/3~0 * ( YG- YD)
END IF
D1 • YE - YB
D2 • YO ~ YD
E1 .. XB - XE
E2 • XD - XO
F1 • YE * XB - YB * XE
F2 • YO * XD - YD * XO
CALL SIMEQ ( D1 ,E1,F1 ,D2,E2,F2,XS,YS)
CALL AREAS ( XO,YO,XB,YB,XD,YD,AOBD )
CALL AREAS ( XO,YO,XB,YB,XC,YC,AOBC )
CALL AREAS ( XO,YO,XB,YB,XS,YS,AOBS )
CALL AREAS ( XB,YB,XD,YD,XG,YG,ABDG )
CALL AREAS ( XO,YO,XB,YB,XG,YG,AOBG )
CALL AREAS ( XO,YO,XD,YD,XG,YG,AODG )
CALL AREAS ( XS,YS,XG,YG,XD,YD,ASGD )
c
XI • ( XC + XO )12.0
XH • ( XO + XB )/2~0
 94

XL = ( XG + XO )/2.0
XSGO = xs + 2.013.0 * ( XL - xs )
XOBC ... XI + 1.0/3.0 * ( XB - XI )
XOBS XH + 1 .0/3.0 * ( XS XH )
XOBO "' XH + 1.0/3.0 * ( XO - XH )
XBOG = XB + 2~0/3.0 * ( XL - XB )
XOBG • XH + 1 .0/3.0 * ( XG - XH )
XOOG '"' xo + 2~013.0 * ( XL - xo )
AROBC '"' XOBC - XO
AROBO .. XOBO - XO
AROBG XOBG - XO
AROBS XOBS - xo
ARBOG ,.. XBOG - xo
AROOG ... XOOG .,.. xo
ARSGO .. XSGO - xo
c
c ............ SOLVE EQUATIONS OF LINES OK & KT TO COMPUTE ARM L1
c
01 ,.. YT - YG
02 • XG - XT
E1 • XG - XT
E2 • YG - YT
F1 • YO * ( XG - XT ) + xo * ( YT - YG )
F2 = YT * ( YG - YT ) + XT * ( XG - XT )
c
CALL SIMEQ ( 01,E1,F2,02,E2,F2,XK,YK)
c
L1 • OSQRT{( XO-XK )*( XO-XK )+( YO-YK )*( YO-YK ))
WRITE(*,166)L2,XMOM,II,JJ
166 FORMAT(/,' ••==~> YL2 XMOM I J • ',2F12.2,2I4,/)
c
XJ .. XO + L2
YJ • YO - ( Ra * OCOS ( SLOC ) + OW * OSIN ( SLOC ) )
XV • 1.0/3.0 * B/2.0
YV • 2.013.0 * YC
c
IF ( XV.EQ.XO ) THEN
SLOV .. PI/2.0
ELSE
SLOV • OATAN ({ YV-YO )/{ XV-XO ))
ENOIF
c
c ............ SOLVE EQUATIONS OF LINES Pp2 & OM TO COMPUTE ARM L3
c
01 .. YA - YC
02 • XC - XA
E1 • XC ... XA
E2 • YC - YA
F1 • YV * ( XC - XA ) + XV * ( YA - YC )
F2 • YO * ( YC .... YA ) + XO * ( XC "" XA )
CALL SIMEQ ( D1,E1,F1,D2,E2,F2~XM,YM )
 Dl YA - YC
D2 0.0
El XC - XA
E2 1 •0
F1 YV * ( XC - XA ) + XV * ( YA - YC )
F2 = YO
CALL SIMEQ ( D1 ,E1,F1,D2,E2,F2,XPP2,YPP2)
L3 DSQRT(( XM-XO )*( XM-XO )+( YM-YO )*( YM-YO ))
IF ( XO.GE.XPP2 ) THEN
L3 "' L3
ELSE
L3 = - L3
END IF
c
c ............ COMPUTE PRINCIPAL STRESS SIGMA1 ONLY IF M NOT ZERO
c
IF ( M.EQ.1.0) THEN
SIGMA1 = 0.0
Pr = 0 .o
ELSE
SIGMA1 = P1 + S1 * ( DTAN ( PH ) + 1.0/DCOS ( PH ))
Pr = 0.5 * SIGMA1 * GD
END IF
IF ( XG.EQ.XD.AND.YG.EQ.YD ) THEN
SLGD = 0.0
ELSE IF ( XG.EQ.XD ) THEN
SLGD PI/2.0
ELSE
SLGD = DATAN (( YG-YD )/( XG-XD ))
END IF
c
c ........... SOLVE EQUATIONS OF LINES KT & YO TO DETERMINE THE SIGN
c ........... OF MOMENT OF FORCE Pr
c
D1 "' XG - XT
D2 • 0.0
E1 • YG - YT
E2 • 1.0
F1 • YT * ( YG - YT ) + XT * ( XG - XT )
F2 ,.. YO
IF ( SLGD.EQ.PI/2.0 ) THEN
IF ( YO.LT.YT ) L1 =- L1
ELSE
CALL SIMEQ ( D1 ,E1,F1,D2,E2,F2,XPr,YPr )
IF ( SLGD.LT.O.O ) THEN
IF ( XO.LT.XPr )THEN
L1 • L1
ELSE
L1 • - L1
END IF
ELSE
 96

IF ( XO.GE.XPr ) THEN
L1 = L1
ELSE
L1 .. - L1
END IF
END IF
END IF
c
D1 YC - YB
D2 .. 0.0
E1 '"' XB - XC
E2 1.0
F1 = YC * XB - YB * XC
F2 = YO
CALL SIMEQ ( D1,E1,F1,D2,E2,F2,XBC,YBC
c
D1 • YD - YB
D2 .. 0.0
E1 = XB - XD
E2 • 1.0
F1 '"' YD * XB - YB * XD
F2 • YO
IF Df.EQ.O.O.AND.M.EQ.1.0) THEN
XBD '"' 9999.0
ELSE
CALL SIMEQ ( D1,E1,F1,D2,E2,F2,XBD,YBD
END IF
c
D1 "" YE ""! YB
D2 • 0.0
E1 ... XE - XD
E2 • 1.0
F1 • YE * XB - YB * XE
F2 • YO
IF ( Df.EQ.O.O.AND.M.EQ.1.0) THEN
XBE • 9999.0
ELSE
CALL SIMEQ (D1 ,E1,F1 ,D2,E2,F2,XBE,YBE)
END IF
c
c ........... DETERMINE FREE BODY DEPENDING UPON THE LOCATION OF THE
c ........... POLE OF THE SPIRAL
c
c SLOPES
IF ( ALPHA.LT.O.O.AND.YO.LE.O.O ) THEN
IF ( XO.LE.XBC ) THEN
Pp2 • ( XMOM + AOBD*AROBD + ABDG*ARBDG - AOBC*AROBC + Pr*L1)/L3
ELSE IF ( XO.LE.XBE ) THEN
Pp2 • ( XMOM + AOBD*AROBD·+ ABDG*ARBDG + AOBC*AROBC + Pr*L1)/L3
ELSE
Pp2 • ( XMOM .. AOBD*AROBD + ABDG*ARBDG + AOBC*AROBC + Pr*L1)/L3
 97

END IF
ELSE
IF YO.LE.O.O ) THEN
IF ( YO.LT.O.O ) THEN
IF ( SLBD.LE.O.O ) THEN
IF ( XO.LE.XBC ) THEN
Pp2 ~ XMOM + AOBD*AROBD + ABDG*ARBDG - AOBC*AROBC + Pr*L1 )/L3
ELSE IF ( XO.LE.XBD ) THEN
Pp2 XMOM + AOBC*AROBC + AOBD*AROBD + ABDG*ARBDG + Pr*L1)/L3
ELSE
Pp2 z ( XMOM + AOBC*AROBC + AOBG*AROBG + AODG*ARODG + Pr*L1)/L3
END IF
ELSE
IF ( XO.LE.XBD ) THEN
Pp2 ... ( XMOM - AOBC*AROBC + AOBD*AROBD + ABDG*ARBDG + Pr*L1)/L3
ELSE
Pp2 ( XMOM + AOBC*AROBC + AOBD*AROBD + ABDG*ARBDG + Pr*L1)/L3
END IF
END IF
C YO -= 0
ELSE
IF ( SLBD.LE.O.O ) THEN
IF ( XO.LE.XB ) THEN
Pp2 z ( XMOM + AOBD*AROBD + ABDG*ARBDG- AOBC*AROBC + Pr*L1)/L3
ELSE
Pp2 a ( XMOM + AOBC*AROBC + AOBG*AROBG + AODG*ARODG + Pr*L1)/L3
END IF
ELSE
IF ( XO.LE.XB ) THEN
Pp2 • ( XMOM- AOBD*AROBD- AOBC*AROBC + ABDG*ARBDG + Pr*L1)/L3
ELSE
Pp2 • ( XMOM + AOBD*AROBD + AOBC*AROBC + ABDG*ARBDG + Pr*L1)/L3
END IF
END IF
END IF
C YO > 0
ELSE
IF SLBD.LE.O.O ) THEN
IF ( XO.LE.XBD ) THEN
Pp2 • ( XMOM - AOBC*AROBc·+ AOBD*AROBD + ABDG*ARBDG + Pr*L1)/L3
ELSE IF ( XO.LE.XBC ) THEN
Pp2 • XMOM - AOBC*AROBC- AOBD*AROBD + ABDG*ARBDG + Pr*L1)/L3
ELSE IF ( XO.LE.XBE ) THEN
Pp2 .. ( XMOM + AOBC*AROBC- AOBD*AROBD + ABDG*ARBDG + Pr*L1)/L3
ELSE
Pp2 • ( XMOM + AOBC*AROBC + AOBG*AROBG + AODG*ARODG + Pr*L1)/L3
END IF
ELSE IF ( XO.LE.XBC ) THEN
Pp2 • ( XMOM - AOBC*AROBc·- AOBD*AROBD + ABDG*ARBDG + Pr*L1)/L3
ELSE IF ( XO.LE.XBE ) THEN
Pp2 • ( XMOM + AOBC*AROBC- AOBD*AROBD + ABDG*ARBDG + Pr*L1)/L3
 98

ELSE
Pp2 ~ ( XMOM + AOBC*AROBC + AOBG*AROBG + AODG*ARODG + Pr*L1)/L3
END IF
END IF
c
c ........... IF THE VALUE OF Pp2 IS NEGATIVE THEN SKIP TESTING Pp2MIN
c ........... STORE THE VALUE OF Pp2, XO&YO, ANGLES THETA, AND BETA IF
c ........... Pp2MIN IS FOUND
c
END IF
65 IF ( Pp2.LT.O.O ) GO TO 75
c
c TEST IF Pp2 IS MINIMUM
c
IF ( Pp2.GT.Pp2MIN ) GO TO 60
POMIN .·po
SOMIN • SO
Pp2MIN • Pp2
XOMIN = XO
YOMIN • YO
THMIN = THETA
BTMIN • BETA
ALMIN • ALPHA
GO TO 60
75 WRITE (*,650 )
650 FORMAT (I, 5X, 1 GEOMETRY NOT SATISFIED OR Pp" NEGATIVE 1
,)

60 CONTINUE
50 CONTINUE
WRITE(*,200)XOMIN,YOMIN,STP,Pp2MIN
200 FORMAT(/,5X, 1 XOMIN YOMIN STP Pp"MIN • 1 ,4F10.4,/)
c
c ........... CHECH IF ACURACY OF CALCULATIONS IS REACHED THEN COMPUTE
c
c
............
.......... NG AND OUTPUT FINAL RESULTS, OTHERWISE SET THE BOUNDARIES
. .
. . .
.

. . .
. .
. .
FOR THE NEW GRID AND DIVIDE INCREMENT OF XO&YO BY 2
c
IF ( STP.GE.ACC ) GO TO 78
IF ( XOMIN.LT.( 1.0/STP) ) THEN
X1 • 0.0
ELSE
X1 • XOMIN- 1.0/STP
END IF
X2 • XOMIN + 1.0/STP
IF ( XOMIN.GE.2.0 ) THEN
X2 • 2.0
ELSE
X2 • XOMIN + 1.0/STP
END IF
Y1 • YOMIN- 1.0/STP
IF ( YOMIN.GE.2.0 )·THEN
·y2 -·2.0
ELSE
 99

Y2 = YOMIN + 1.0/STP
END IF
STP = STP * 2.0
GO TO 76
78 C10 4.0 * Pp2MIN * DSIN ( PI/4.0 + PH/2.0 )
G

C11 =GAMMA* B * B
C12 c GAMMA * B/2.0
Ng • C10/C11 - 0.5 * C2
Q2 = C12 * Ng
Pp .. Q1 + Q2
RO = DSQRT(( XOMIN-XC )*( XOMIN-XC )+( YOMIN-YC )*( YOMIN-YC ))
R a RO * DEXP (THMIN * RAD * DTAN ( PH ))
890 WRITE(6,900) B,M,C,PHI,DfBR,GAMMA,
900 FORMAT(/////////,25X,' INPUT DATA AND RESULTS ',///,
$ /,10X,'WIDTH OF FOOTING IN FEET B - I ,F10.4,
$ /,10X,'DEGREE OF MOBILIZATION M - I ,F10.4,
$ /,10X,'COHESION OF SOIL IN LBS/SF c - I ,F10.4,
$ /,10X,'SOIL FRICTION ANGLE IN DEGREES PHI - I ,F10.4,
$ /,10X,'DEPTH TO WIDTH RATIO DIB - I ,F10~4.
$ /,10X,'UNIT WEIGHT IN LBS/CF GAMMA • ',F10.4,)
IF ( PHI.EQ.O.O ) Pp2MIN = 0.0
IF ( Pp2MIN.EQ.999999.0 ) Pp2MIN = 99999.0
WRITE(6,910) XOMIN,YOMIN,ETA,BTCQ,THCQ,ALCQ,BTMIN,ALMIN,Sb,RO,
$ R,POMIN,SOMIN,THMIN,Nc,Nq,Ng,Pp2MIN
910 FORMAT(/,10X,'X-COOR OF POLE OF SPIRAL Xo • ',F10.4,
$ /,10X, 'Y-COOR OF POLE OF SPIRAL Yo • ',F10.4,
$ /,10X,'ANGLE ETA IN DEGREES ETA • ',F10.4,
$ /,10X,'ANGLE BETA IN DEGREES C- Q BTCQ • ',F10~4,
$ /,10X, 'ANGLE THETA IN DEGREES C- Q THCQ • ',F10.4,
$ /,10X,'ANGLE ALPHA IN DEGREES C- Q ALCQ • ',F10.4,
$ /,10X,'ANGLE BETA IN DEGREES BETA • ',F10.4,
$ /,10X,'ANGLE ALPHA IN DEGREES ALPHA • ',F10.4,
$ //,10X,'DISTANCE OF FOOTING FROM SLOPE b • ',F10.4,
$ /,10X,'INITIAL RADIUS OF LOG SPIRAL Ro • ',F10.4,
$ /,10X,'FINAL RADIUS OF LOG SPIRAL Rf • ',F10.4,
$ /,10X,'INITIAL NORMAL STRESS PO • ',F10.4,
$ /,10X,'INITIAL TANGENTIAL STRESS SO • ',F10.4,
$ /,10X,'ANGLE OF LOG SPIRAL THETA • ',F10.4,
$ //,10X,'BEARING CAPACITY FACTOR Nc • ',F10~4,
$ /,10X,'BEARING CAPACITY FACTOR Nq • ',F10.4,
$ /,10X,'BEARING CAPACITY FACTOR Ng • ',F10.4,
$ /,10X,'MINIMUM PASSIVE EARTH PRESSURE Pp" • ',F10.4,
$ /lll/1!1111/l///1/lll/11/,)
c
STOP
END
c
c ............ SUBROUTINES BEGIN BELOW
c
SUBROUTINE ETAS ( PI,GAMMA,C,PH,DEG,RAD,M,B,Df,ETA,ET,PO,SO,
$ P1,S1)
IMPLICIT REAL * 8 ( A-H,o-Z )
 100

REAL * 8 M,J
DIMENSION Y1(50),Y2(50),F(50)
TOL ... 0.001
IF ( M.EQ.O.O ) THEN
ET ~ PI/4.0 - PH/2.0
PN1 =PO* DCOS ( PH ) + C * ( 1.0- DSIN ( PH ))
PD1 m DCOS ( PH ) - ( DTAN ( PH ) * ( 1 - DSIN ( PH )))
PD1 a DCOS ( PH ) - ( DTAN ( PH ) * ( 1 - DSIN ( PH )))
P1 • PN1/PD1
S1 a C + P1 * DTAN ( PH )
ELSE IF ( M.EQ.1.0) THEN
ET a 0.0
P1 .. PO
S1 a C + P1 * DTAN ( PH )
ELSE IF ( PH.EQ.O.O ) THEN
ET a (DACOS ( M ))/2.0
ELSE
J = 0
DX ... 1
90 X • J * RAD
C1 • DSIN ( 2.0 * X + PH )
C2 • DCOS ( 2.0 * X + PH )
C3 • DSIN ( PH )
C4 • DCOS ( PH )
C5 • C3/C4
SO • ( C + PO * C5 ) * M
AA ... SO * C4
88 • C * ( C1 ~ C3 ) + PO * C4
CC • C4 - C5 * ( C1 - C3 )
I • 1
Y1(I) • (SO* C4- C * C2 )/( C2 * C5)
Y2(I) • ( C * ( C1 - C3 ) + PO * C4 )/( C4 - C5 * ( C1 - C3 ))
F(I) s AA/( C + ("88/CC ) * C5 ) - C2
80 J • J + DX
I • I + 1
X • J * RAD
C1 • DSIN ( 2.0 * X + PH )
C2 • DCOS ( 2.0 * X + PH )
C3 • DSIN ( PH )
C4 • DCOS ( PH )
C5 • C3/C4
SO • ( C + PO * C5 ) * M
AA • SO * C4
88 • C * ( C1 - C3 ) + PO * C4
CC • C4- c5·* ( C1- C3)
Y1(I) • (SO* C4 ~ C * C2 )/( C2 * C5 )
Y2(I) • ( C * ( C1 • C3 ) + PO * C4 )/( C4- C5 * ( C1 - C3 ))
F(I) • AA/( C + ( 88/CC ) * C5 ) ~ C2
C WRITE(6,100)J,F(I),Y1(I),Y2(I)
C100 FORMAT(10X,4F12.6)
IF· ( F (I) • EQ. 0. 0 ) GO TO 11 0
IF ( F(I~l) * F(I).GT.o.o·) GO TO 80
 101

C WRITE ( 6,200)
C200 FORMAT(/)
IF (DABS ( Y1(I)-Y2(I) ).LE.TOL ) GO TO 110
J "' J - DX
DX = DX/10
GO TO 90
110 P1=Y1(l)
ETA "" J
ET = ETA * RAD
END IF
ETA = ET * DEG
RETURN
END
c
c ..............
c
SUBROUTINE HM (XO,YO,Df,B,RO,XB,YB,XC,YC,PH,PHI,PI,DEG,RAD,
$ BETA,ETA,ETTA,T,R,XD,YD,BE,BD,DE,BC,EF,XE,YE,XF,YF,
$ BET,ET,M,SLBD,SLBE,SLOC,ER)
IMPLICIT REAL * 8 ( A-H,O-Z )
REAL * 8 M
DIMENSION T5(50),ZZ(200)
TOL • 0. 01
DEF • 5.0
IF ( PHI.EQ.O.O ) THEN
EF • 6.0
ELSE
EF • 51.0
END IF
ET = ETA * RAD
I .. 0
90 EF • EF - DEF
92 IF ( I. GT. 200 ) GO TO 99
91 IF ( EF.LT.O.O ) THEN
EF • 0.0
DEF • DEF/2.0
ELSE
GO TO 93
END IF
93 IF ( DEF.LE.0.000001 ) GO TO 99
IF ( PH.EQ.O.O.AND.Df.LT.DSQRT ( B )) EF • DSQRT (B*B- Df*Df) IF
( EF.NE.O.O ) THEN .
BET • DATAN ( Df/EF )
ELSE
BET • PI/2.0
END IF
BETA • BET * DEG
XE • XF + EF
YE • Of
IF ( XO.EQ.XC ) THEN
· SI:.OC • PI/2.0
ELSE
 102

SLOC = DATAN (( YO~YC )/( XO-XC ))

END IF
T1 s PI/2.0 ~ SLOC
DT • 10.0·
T ,. 0.0
K .. 0
94 T .. T + DT
95 K s K + 1
X ... T * RAD
R • RO * DEXP ( X * DTAN ( PH ))
T2 s X ,. . T1
XD • XO + R * DSIN ( T2 )
YD • YO ~ R * DCOS ( T2 )
IF ( XD.EQ.XB ) THEN
SLBD • PI/2.0
ELSE
SLBD • DATAN (( YD-YB )/( XD-XB ))
END IF
IF ( XD.LT.XB ) SLBD = SLBD - PI
IF ( XB~EQ.XE ) THEN
SLBE PI/2.0
ELSE
SLBE s DATAN (( YE-YB )/( XE-XB ))
END IF
IF ( YD.GT.YE ) THEN
GO TO 90
ELSE IF ( XO.EQ.XD ) THEN
T3 • - PI/2.0
ELSE
T3 • DATAN (( YO-YD )/( XO-XD ))
END IF
IF ( XD.EQ.XE ) THEN
T4 • PI/2.0
ELSE
T4 • DATAN (( YD-YE )/( XD-XE ))
END IF
IF ( XD.LT.XO.OR.T4.LT.O.O ) THEN
T5(K) • T3 -·T4
ELSE
T5(K) • PI ~ T4 + T3
END IF
IF ( K.LT.2 ) GO TO 98
IF ( T5(K).LT.T5(K~1) ) THEN
EF • EF +.DEF
DEF • DEF/2.0
GO TO 92
ELSE
GO TO 98
END IF
98 STRL • 90.0 + PHI
SS • STRL ~ T5(K) * DEG
C WRITE(*,111)SS,DEF,EF,T5(K)*DEG,T
 103

C111 FORMAT(/,5X,'SS DEF EF T5 T',5F10.5)

IF ( DABS(SS).LE.TOL ) GO TO 20
IF ( SS ) 10,20,30
10 T = T- DT
DT = DT/2.0
GO TO 95
30 IF ( SS.GT.DT ) GO TO 94
DT .. DT/10.0
T = T - DT
GO TO 94
20 ETTA = ( SLBE - SLBD ) * DEG
I = I + 1
ZZ(I) • ETTA - ETA
C WRITE(*,112)I,ZZ(I),ETTA,SLBE*DEG,SLBD*DEG,XD,YD,XE,YE,T1*DEG,
C $ T2*DEG,RO,R,XO,YO,TOL
C112 FORMAT(/,5X,'I ZZ ETT BE BD',I4,4F9.4,/,5X,'XD XE ',4F10.4,/,
C $ //,1X,'T1 T2 R0',7F9.4,/)
IF ( DABS(ZZ(I)).LE.0.08 ) GO TO 50
C WRITE(*,113) DABS(ZZ(I))
C113 FORMAT(5X,'***** PASSED TOL ',F10.4,/)
IF ( I.LT.2 ) GO TO 90
IF ( ZZ(I).GT.O.O ) THEN
EF • EF ~-DEF
GO TO 92
ELSE IF (( ZZ(I) * ZZ(I-l)).GT.O.O) THEN
EF • EF + DEF
GO TO 92
ELSE
DEF • DEF/2.0
GO TO 92
END IF
C50 WRITE(*,114)
C114 FORMAT(5X,'•=-•=-- PASSED 50 I,/)
50 OE • DSQRT (( XO-XE ) * ( XO-XE )+( YO-YE )*( YO:-YE ) )
BD • DSQRT ( ( XB.,..XD ) * ( XB-XD )+( YB-YD )*( YB:-YD ) )
DE • DSQRT (( XD-XE )*( XD'-XE )+( YD.,..YE )*( YD:-YE ) )
BC • DSQRT ( ( XB-XC )*( XB-XC )+( YB-YC )*( YB-YC ) )
BE • DSQRT ({ XB-XE )*( XB-XE )+( YB-YE )*( YB,.YE ) )
ER • o.o
GO TO 999
99 ER • 9999.0
999 RETURN
END
c
c ........... THETAM
c
SUBROUTINE HM1 (XO,YO,Df,B,RO,XB,YB,XC,YC,PH,PHI,PI,DEG,RAD,
$ BETA,T,R,XD,YD,BE,BD,BC,EF,XE,YE,XF,YF,BET,SLBD,SLBE,SLOC,ER)
IMPLICIT REAL * 8 ( A-H,O-Z )
DIMENSION ZZ(200)
I • 0
TOL • 0.01
 104

IF ( PHI. EQ. 0. 0 ) THEN

EF..: 11.0
ELSE
EF ,. 51.0
END IF
DEF = 5.0
90 EF = EF - DEF
92 I ... I + 1
IF ( I.GT.200 ) GO TO 99
IF ( EF.GE.O.O ) GO TO 94
EF·· 0.0
EF • EF + 0.1
94 IF ( Df.EQ.O.O.AND.PHI.EQ.O.O ) EF K DSQRT ( B )
IF ( PHI.EQ.O.O.AND.Df.GE.DSQRT(B)) EF • 0.0
IF ( DELLT.0~000001 ) GO TO 99
IF ( EF.NE.O.O ) THEN
BET • DATAN ( DF/EF )
ELSE
BET • PI/2.0
END IF
BETA • BET * DEG
XF ... B/2.0
YF • Df
XE • XF + EF
YE • Df
XD • XE
YD • YE
IF ( PHI.EQ.O.O.AND.Df.GE.DSQRT ( B )) THEN
OE • DSQRT ( B·)
ELSE
OE • DSQRT (( XO-XE )*( XO-XE )+( YO~YE )*( YO-YE ))
END IF
IF ( XO.EQ.XC ) THEN
SLOC • PI/2.0
ELSE
SLOC • DATAN (( YO-YC )/( XO~XC))
END IF
T1 • PI/2.0 - SLOC
IF ( XO.EQ.XD.AND.YD.GT.YO ) THEN
· SLOD • PI/2~0 ·
ELSE IF ( XO.EQ.XD ) THEN
SLOD ··- PI/2.0
ELSE
SLOD • DATAN (( YO~YD )/( XO-XD ))
END IF
T2 • SLOD + PI/2.0
T • T1 + T2
R • RO * DEXP ( T * DTAN ( PH ))
IF ( XB.EQ.XD ) THEN
SLBD ··PI/2.0
ELSE
SLBD • DATAN (( YB-YD )/( XB~XD ))
 105

END IF
IF ( XB.EQ.XE ) THEN
SLBE ,.. PI/2.0
ELSE
SLBE ,.. DATAN (( YB-YE )/( XB-XE ))
END IF
ZZ (I) "' OE - R
C IF ( EF.EQ.0.01.AND.DABS(ZZ(I)).GT.TOL) GO TO 99
IF ( DABS(ZZ(I)).LE~TOL ) GO TO 20
C WRITE(*,111)ZZ(I),EF,DEF,R,OE
C111 FORMAT(/,5X,'ZZ(I) EF DEF R',5F10.4)
IF ( I.LT.2 ) GO TO 90
IF ( ZZ(I).GT.O.O ) THEN
EF = EF i::! DEF
GO TO 92
ELSE IF (( ZZ(I) * ZZ(I-1)).GT.O.O ) THEN
GO TO 90
ELSE
EF "" EF + DEF
DEF • DEF/10.0
GO TO 92
END IF
20 T • T * DEG
OD = DSQRT (( XO-XD )*( XO-XD )+( YO-YD )*( YO-YD ))
BD • DSQRT (( XB~XD )*( XB~XD )+( YB~YD )*( YB~YD ))
BE • DSQRT (( XB~XE )*( XB-XE )+( YB~YE )*( YB-YE ))
BC • DSQRT (( XB-XC )*( XB-XC )+( YB~YC )*( YB~YC ))
ER .. 0.0
GO TO 999
99 ER • 9999.0
999 RETURN
END
c
C SLOPES
SUBROUTINE SM (XO,YO,Df,B,RO,XB,YB,XC,YC,PH,PHI,PI,DEG,RAD,
$ BETA,ETA,ETTA,T,R,XD,YD,BE,BD,DE,BC,EF,XE,YE,XF,YF,
$ BET,ET,M,SLBD,SLBE,SLOC,ER,ALPHA,ALPH)
IMPLICIT REAL * 8 ( A~H,O-Z )
REAL * 8 M
DIMENSION T5(50),ZZ(200)
I • 0
TOL • 0.01
IF ( XB~EQ.XF ) THEN
SLBF·· PI/2.0
ELSE
SLBF • DATAN (( YB-YF )/( XB-XF))
END IF
ET • ETA * RAD
BET • BETA * RAD
IF ( XO.EQ.XC ) THEN
SLOC·· PI/2.0
ELSE
 106

SLOC • DATAN (( YOAYC )/( XO-XC ))

END IF
T1 • PI/2.0 - SLOC
ALPHA • BETA
DALPHA • 2.0
90 ALPHA • ALPHA + DALPHA
91 IF ( I.GT.200 ) GO TO 99
ALPH • ALPHA * RAD
IF ( DALPHA.LT.0.000001.0R.ALPHA.GT.90.0) GO TO 99
IF ( ALPHA.GT.SLBF*DEG ) THEN
QE a Df/DTAN ( ALPH )
XE '"' XB + QE
YE z Df
ELSE
IF ( ALPH.EQ.O.O ) ALPH • PI/720.0
IF ( BET.EQ.O.O ) BET • PI/720.0
D1 • - DTAN·( ALPH )
D2 • - DTAN ( BET )
E1 • 1. 0
E2 • 1~0
F1 • YB - XB * DTAN ( ALPH )
F2 • YF fi XF * DTAN ( BET )
DELTA • ( D1 * E2 ) - ( D2 * E1 )
IF ( DELTA.EQ.O.O ) GO TO 110
XE • (( F1 *"E2 ) - ( F2 * E1 ))/DELTA
YE • (( D1 * F2 ) ,. . ( D2 * F1 ) ) /DELTA
110 ENDIF
DT • 10.0
T • 0.0
K • 0
94 K • K + 1
T • T + DT
X • T * RAD
R • RO * DEXP ( X * DTAN ( PH ))
T2 • X - T1
XD • XO + R * DSIN ( T2 )
YD • YO - R * DCOS ( T2 )
IF ( XD.EQ.XB ) THEN
SLBD • ,.. PI/2.0
ELSE
SLBD • DATAN (( YD~YB )/( XD-XB ))
END IF
IF ( XD.LT.XB ) SLBD s SLBD ~ PI
IF ( XB.EQ.XE ) THEN
SI:.BE • PI/2.0
ELSE
SLBE • DATAN (( YE-YB )/( XE-XB ))
END IF
IF ( YD.GT.YE ) GO TO 90
IF ( XO~EQ.XD ) THEN
· T3 • - PI/2.0
ELSE
 107

T3 • DATAN (( YO~YD )/( XO~XD ))

END IF
C IF ( XD.LT.XO ) T3 • T3 - PI
IF ( XD.EQ.XE ) THEN
Tlt = PI/2.0
ELSE
T4 = DATAN (( YD-YE )/( XD-XE ))
END IF
IF ( XD.LT.XO.OR.T4.LT.O.O ) THEN
T5(K) • T3 - T4
ELSE
T5(K) ~ PI - T4 + T3
END IF
STRL = 90.0 + PHI
SS • STRL - T5(K) * DEG
C WRITE(*,111)SS,DALPHA,ALPHA,T5(K)*DEG,T
C111 FORMAT(/,5X,'SS DALAL T5 T',5F10.5)
IF ( K.LT.2 ) GO TO 98
IF ( T5(K).LT.T5(K~1) ) THEN
ALPHA = ALPHA - DALPHA
DALPHA • DALPHA/2.0
GO TO 91
ELSE
GO TO 98
END IF
98 STRL • 90.0 + PHI
SS • STRL ~ T5(K) * DEG
IF ( DABS(SS).LE.TOL ) GO TO 20
IF ( SS ) 10,20,30
10 T • T ~ DT
DT • DT/2.0
GO TO 94
30 IF ( SS.GT.DT ) GO TO 94
DT • DT/10.0
T ,. T - DT
GO TO 94
20 ETTA • ( SLBE - SLBD ) * DEG
I • I + 1
ZZ(I) • ETTA - ETA
C WRITE(*,112)I,ZZ(I),ETTA,SLBE*DEG,SLBD*DEG,XD,YD,XE,YE,T1*DEG,
C $ T2*DEG,RO,R,XO,YO,TOL
C112 FORMAT(/,5X,'I ZZ ETT BE BD',I4,4F9.4,/,5X,'XD XE ',4F10.4,/, C
$ //,1X, 'T1 T2 RO' ,7F9.4,/)
IF ( DABS(ZZ(I)).LE.TOL ) GO TO 50
IF ( I.LT.2 ) GO TO 90
IF ( ZZ(I).GT.O.O ) THEN
ALPHA·· ALPHA + DALPHA
GO TO 91
ELSE IF ( ZZ(I) * ZZ(I-1).GT.O.O ) THEN
ALPHA • ALPHA ~ DALPHA
DALPHA • DALPHA/2.0
GO TO 91
 108

ELSE
GO TO 90
END IF
50 OE = DSQRT (( XO-XE )*( XO-XE )+( YO-YE )*( YOt\YE ) )
BD • DSQRT (( XB-XD )*( XB-XD )+( YB-YD )*( YB....,YD ) )
DE = DSQRT (( XD.,...XE )*( XD-XE )+( YD-YE )*( YD-YE ) )
BC • DSQRT (( XB-XC )*( XB,...XC )+( YB-YC )*( YB.-.Yc ) )
BE == DSQRT (( XB-XE )*( XB-XE )+( YB-YE )*( YB,...YE ) )
ER .. o.o
GO TO 999
99 ER "" 9999.0
999 RETURN
END
c
c ............... SM1
c
SUBROUTINE SM1 (XO,YO,Df,B,RO,XB,YB,XC,YC,PH,PHI,PI,DEG,RAD,
$ BETA,T,R,XD,YD,BE,BD,DE,BC,XE,YE,XF,YF,
$ BET,SLBD,SLBE,SLOC,ER,ALPHA,ALPH,Sb)
IMPLICIT REAL * 8 ( A-H,O-Z )
DIMENSION ZZ(200)
I • 0
TOL • 0.01
IF ( XB.EQ.XF ) THEN
SLBF • PI/2.0
ELSE
SLBF • DATAN (( YB~YF )/( XB-XF))
END IF
BET • BETA * RAD
ALPHA • BETA
DALPHA • 2.0
90 ALPHA • ALPHA + DALPHA
94 I • I + 1
IF ( I.GT.200 ) GO TO 99
IF ( ALPHA.LE.BETA ) ALPHA • BETA+ 0.1
IF ( DALPHA.LT.0.000001.0R.ALPHA.GT.90.0) GO TO 99
ALPH • ALPHA * RAD
IF ( ALPHA.GT.SLBF*DEG ) THEN
QE • Df/DTAN ( ALPH )
XE • XB + QE
YE • Of
ELSE
IF ( ALPH.EQ.O.O ) ALPH • PI/720.0
IF ( BET.EQ.O.O ) BET • PI/720.0·
D1 • ,... DTAN { ALPH )
02 • - DTAN ( BET )
E1 - 1.0
E2 • 1.0
F1 • YB ~-> XB * DTAN ( ALPH )
F2 • YF ,_ XF * DTAN ( BET )
DELTA • ( 01 * E2 ) - ( 02 * E1 )
 109

IF ( DELTA.EQ.O.O ) GO TO 110
XE "' (( F1 * E2 ) - ( F2 * E1 ) )/DELTA
YE • (( D1 * F2 ) - ( D2 * F1 ))/DELTA
110 ENDIF
IF ( PHI.EQ.O.O.AND.Df.GT.DSQRT(B)) THEN
·xE ,.. XF - Sb
YE ,.. YF
XD ,.. XE
YD ... YE
ELSE
XD = XE
YD • YE
END IF
IF ( PHI.EQ.O.O.AND.Df.GE.DSQRT ( B )) THEN
OE • DSQRT(B)
ELSE
OE • DSQRT (( XO-XE )*( XO-XE )+( YO-YE )*( YO-YE )) ENDIF
IF ( XO.EQ.XC ) THEN
SLOC • PI/2.0
ELSE
SLOC • DATAN (( YO-YC )/( XO-XC))
END IF
T1 • PI/2.0 - SLOC
IF ( XO.EQ.XD.AND.YD.GT.YO ) THEN
· SLOD· ... PI/2~0
ELSE IF ( XO.EQ.XD ) THEN
SLOD .. ·~ PI/2.0
ELSE
SLOD ... DATAN (( YO-YD )/( XO-XD ))
END IF
T2 • SLOD + PI/2.0
T • T1 + T2
R • RO * DEXP ( T * DTAN ( PH ))
IF ( XB.EQ.XD ) THEN
SLBD ··PI/2.0
ELSE
SLBD • DATAN ({ YB~YD )/{ XB,XD ))
END IF
IF ( XB.EQ.XE ) THEN
SLBE ··PI/2.0
ELSE
SLBE • DATAN ({ YB-YE )/{ XB-XE ))
END IF
ZZ(I) • R ,... OE
C WRITE(*,111)I,ZZ(I),ALPHA,DALPHA,R,OE
C111 FORMAT(/,1X,' ZZ AL DAL R',I3,5F10.4)
IF ( DABS(ZZ(I)).LE.TOL ) GO TO 20
 , ,0

IF ( I.LT.2 ) GO TO 90
IF ( ZZ(I).GT.O.O ) THEN
ALPHA • ALPHA ~ DALPHA
GO TO 94
ELSE IF (( ZZ(I) * ZZ(I-1)).GT.O.O) THEN
GO TO 90
ELSE
ALPHA • ALPHA - DALPHA
DALPHA • DALPHA/10.0
GO TO 90
END IF
20 T • T * DEG
OD • DSQRT (( XO-XD )* ( XO,..XD )+( YO-YD )* ( YO-YD ))
BD,. DSQRT (( XB-XD )* ( XB-XD )+( YB.-YD )*( YB-YD ))
BE • DSQRT (( XB-XE )*( XB-XE )+( YB-YE )*( YB-YE ))
BC • DSQRT (( XBqXC )* ( XB-XC )+( YB-YC )*( YB-YC ))
ER • 0.0
GO TO 999
99 ER • 9999.0
999 RETURN
END
c
SUBROUTINE ARMS(RO,XO,YO,XC,YC,RAD,PH,PI,SLOC,TT,ALS,XMOM,AARM)
IMPLICIT REAL * 8 ( A-Z )
T • 0.0
DT • 0.5
R1 • RO
XCC • XC
DL2 • 0.0
ALS • 0.0
ARM • 0~0
XMOM • 0.0
T1 • PI/2.0 - SLOC
90 T • T + DT
X • T * RAD
T2 • X .... T1
RF • R1 * EXP ( RAD/2.0 * TAN ( PH ) )
XDD • XO + RF * SIN ( T2 )
YDD • YO - RF * COS ( T2 )
R • ( R1 + RF )/2.0
BASE • R * RAD/2.0
A • 0.5 * BASE * R
XMID • ( XCC + XDD )/2.0
DL2 • 2.013.0 * ( XMID ~ XO )
IF ( XO~LT.XDD ) THEN
ARM·· ARM + DL2
ELSE
ARM • ARM - DL2
END IF
ALS • A + ALS
XMOM • XMOM + A * DL2
R1 • RF
 111

XCC • XDD
AARM • XMOM/ALS
IF ( T.LT.TT ) GO TO 90
C WRITE {*,lOO)RF,T,ALS,XMOM,ARM,AARM
C100 FORMAT(5X,6F8.3,/)
RETURN
END
c
c
c
SUBROUTINE AREAS (X1,Y1,X2,Y2,X3,Y3,AREA)
IMPLICIT REAL * 8 ( A-H,O-Z )
AREA • DABS ( 0.5 * ( X1 * Y2 + X3 * Y1 + X2 * Y3 - X3 * Y2
$ - X1 * Y3 - X2 * Y1 ) )
c WRITE(6,200) AREA
C200 FORMAT(/,10X,'AREA • ',F10.4,/)
RETURN
END
c
SUBROUTINE CRI ( X,STP,I )
REAL * 8 X,STP
IF ( X.GE.O.O ) THEN
I • X * STP + 0.5
ELSE
I • X * STP ~ 0.5
END IF
WRITE (*,9)I,X
9 FORMAT(/,' I X ',I4,F10.4)
RETURN
END
c