INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR NUMERICAL AND ANALYTICAL METHODS IN GEOMECHANICS

Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech. 2008; 32:14171426

Published online 28 December 2007 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/nag.677

SHORT COMMUNICATION

Ultimate bearing capacity of equally spaced multiple strip

footings on cohesionless soils without surcharge

K. M. Kouzer and Jyant Kumar, ,

Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560012, India

SUMMARY
The ultimate bearing capacity of a group of equally spaced multiple rough strip footings was determined
due to the contribution of soil unit weight. The analysis was performed by using an upper bound theorem
of limit analysis in combination with finite elements and linear programming. Along the interfaces of all
the triangular elements, velocity discontinuities were considered. The value of
 was found to increase
continuously with a decrease in S/B, where (i)
 is the ratio of the failure load of an interfering strip
footing of a given width (B) to that of a single isolated strip footing having the same width and (ii) S
is the clear spacing between any two adjacent footings. The effect of the variation of spacing on
 was
found to be very extensive for small values of S/B;
 approaches infinity at S/B = 0. In all the cases, the
velocity discontinuities were found to exist generally in a zone only around the footing edge. Copyright
q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 1 May 2007; Revised 1 October 2007; Accepted 19 November 2007

KEY WORDS: bearing capacity; failure load; finite element; foundations; limit analysis

1. INTRODUCTION

A number of theories have been developed in literature to determine the ultimate bearing capacity
for a group of two strip footings. The existing solutions were obtained based on (i) the limit
equilibrium method [1], (ii) the method of stress characteristics [2], and (iii) the upper bound limit
analysis [3, 4]. A few small-scale model tests have also been performed by different researchers

Correspondence to: Jyant Kumar, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560012,
India.

E-mail: jkumar@civil.iisc.ernet.in

QIP Research Scholar.

Associate Professor.

Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1418 K. M. KOUZER AND J. KUMAR

to investigate the interference effect of two closely spaced footings [1, 58]. However, hardly any
information that deals with the determination of the ultimate bearing capacity of a group of closely
spaced multiple foundations is availablefor instance, the foundations of railway sleepers. The
problem of closely spaced multiple strip footings seems to have been undertaken only by Graham
et al. [9]; the theoretical solution was generated with the help of the method of characteristics,
and in addition, a few small-scale model tests were also performed. From available research
studies, dealing with a group of two and multiple strip footings placed on a granular medium,
it was noted that the ultimate bearing capacity of interfering footings becomes invariably greater
than that of a single isolated footing. In this study, the problem of finding the ultimate bearing
capacity of a group of multiple strip rough footings, placed at equal spacing on the surface of
a cohesionless medium, was dealt with the help of a rigorous upper bound limit analysis. This
work is an extension of the previous work of the authors [4] for a group of two footings by
using an upper bound limit analysis in combination with finite elements and linear programming.
Following Sloan and Kleeman [10], velocity discontinuities were employed along all the interfaces
of adjoining elements. The magnitude of the collapse load was computed for different spacings
between adjacent footings. Nodal velocity patterns were also examined. The results were compared
with the available theoretical and experimental data.

2. DEFINITION OF THE PROBLEM

A number of equally spaced rough strip footings are placed on the surface of a semi-infinite
cohesionless medium with horizontal ground surface; each footing is having width B and is
positioned at a clear spacing S from the adjoining footing as shown in Figure 1(a). It is aimed at
determining the magnitude of the ultimate failure load Pu per unit length of the footing on account
of unit weight contribution of soil mass. It is specified that all the footings are loaded to failure
simultaneously at the same magnitude of the failure load.

3. PROBLEM DOMAIN, MESH AND BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

With reference to Figure 1(b), on account of the symmetry about (i) the vertical line OY, passing
through the centre line of a footing, and (ii) the vertical line GX, passing through the middle
point in between the two footings, the rectangular domain OXGFY was chosen. The height (d) of
the domain needs to be suitably specified; it was so chosen such that two basic requirements are
always fulfilled, namely, (i) the velocities of all the elements approaching the horizontal boundary
(OX) remain close to zero and (ii) none of the yielded elements cross the line OX. Computations
have revealed that d = 3B was found to remain generally acceptable for 
45 . The domain
size and the associated finite element mesh for a given S/B were always kept the same for all
values of ; it was found to be acceptable in all the cases. In order to create a uniform mesh
comprising of triangular elements, the domain was first discretized into a number of squares by
drawing horizontal and vertical lines at a uniform spacing. The size of the square grid was kept
equal to 0.05B in all the cases. Next to the vertical line (OY), for very small values of S/B, a
rectangular grid was employed. Each grid, either rectangle or square, was subdivided into four

Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech. 2008; 32:14171426
DOI: 10.1002/nag
 ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY OF EQUALLY SPACED MULTIPLE STRIP FOOTINGS 1419

Pu Pu Pu

B S B S B
(a)

Pu
2
B S
2 2

Y F

u=0 u=0
d =3B

y (v)
x (u)
O X
u=v=0
(b) Line of symmetry
Line of symmetry

Figure 1. (a) Positioning and loading of the footings and (b) chosen domain and boundary conditions.

triangular elements. It should be mentioned that none of the nodes were linked with more than a
single element, and as a result, an interface between adjacent triangles always becomes the line
of velocity discontinuity. In other words, two or more nodes often share the same co-ordinates.
Typical finite element meshes for S/B = 1, 3, and 5 are shown in Figure 2; the size of the square
grid for different S/B was kept the same. It can be noted from these figures that the total numbers
of (i) nodes, (ii) elements, and (iii) discontinuities increase with an increase in S/B.
At each node, there remain two basic unknowns, namely, (i) horizontal velocity (u) and (ii)
vertical velocity (v); Figure 1(b) can be referred for the positive directions of u and v. Within a
given element, a linear variation of the velocities was chosen with the help of shape functions. For
the chosen soil domain as shown in Figure 1(b), the following velocity boundary conditions were
introduced: (i) along OX, u = v = 0 and (ii) along OY and GX, u = 0. Footing itself was assumed
to be perfectly rigid and rough, and at collapse it was assumed to move in the vertical downward
direction (u = 0) with a unit velocity.

Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech. 2008; 32:14171426
DOI: 10.1002/nag
1420 K. M. KOUZER AND J. KUMAR

14400 Nodes, 28800 Nodes, 43200 Nodes,

4800 Triangles & 8500 Triangles & 14400 Triangles &
(a) 7120 Discontinuities (b) 14300 Discontinuities (c) 21480 Discontinuities

Figure 2. Finite element mesh for: (a) S/B = 1; (b) S/B = 3; and (c) S/B = 5.

4. ANALYSIS

Following Sloan and Kleeman [10], an upper bound limit analysis was used by incorporating plastic
strains both within elements and along all velocity discontinuities. It was necessary to express
the yield criterion as a linear function of stresses to ensure that the finite element formulation
leads to a linear programming problem. The MohrCoulomb failure criterion was assumed to
be valid. Following Bottero et al. [11], MohrCoulomb yield surface was linearized by drawing
a symmetric arrangement of planes in stress space. In order that the solution always remains
a rigorous upper bound, the linearized yield surface must remain external to the parent yield
surface. On this basis, the MohrCoulomb yield surface was approximated by an exterior polygon,
having p sides, circumscribing the actual failure surface. The value of p was kept equal to 24
for performing all the computations. The rate of the total work done by the external loads was
equated to the rate of dissipation of the total internal energy dissipated within the elements (due
to body forces and development of plastic strain) along the velocity discontinuities. On this basis,
the magnitude of the collapse load (Pu ) was then expressed as a function of unknown nodal
velocities and plastic multiplier rates [1216]. The upper bound problem can then be formulated
as a linear programming problem in which the magnitude of Pu needs to be minimized subjected
to a number of linear kinematic constraints. Since the footing was assumed to be perfectly rough,
no velocity discontinuity along the interface of footing and underlying soil mass was considered
in the analysis.
All the steps used in this paper for formulating the upper bound analysis as a linear programming
problem and the associated computational procedure are described in the recent publications of

Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech. 2008; 32:14171426
DOI: 10.1002/nag
 ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY OF EQUALLY SPACED MULTIPLE STRIP FOOTINGS 1421

the authors [4, 14]. Linear optimization was carried out by using a linprog library program in
MATLAB as was done in the previous analyses of authors [4, 14].

5. DEFINITIONS

5.1. N or an isolated footing

For a single isolated footing, the magnitude of collapse load Pu , per unit footing length, was
determined in terms of a standard non-dimensional bearing capacity factor (N ) with the help of
the expression, Pu /B = 0.5B N .

5.2. Efficiency factor


The efficiency factor
 is defined as the ratio of the magnitude of the failure load of an interfering
strip footing (in the presence of other footings) of a given width B to that of an isolated strip footing
having the same width (B). On this basis, the magnitude of the collapse load for an intervening
footing was determined with the help of the following expression:
Pu /B = 0.5B N
 (1)

6. RESULTS

Computations were carried out for different values of S/B and by varying  between 20 and 45 .
The variations of the efficiency factor and nodal velocity patterns were examined by varying the
ratio S/B. The values of N obtained from the present computations were found to be exactly
the same as those computed earlier by the authors in their recent studies [4, 14]; the numerical
values of N are, therefore, not provided in this paper. The results only related to the interference
of footings are presented herein.

6.1. Efficiency factor (
 )

The variation of
 with respect to changes in S/B for different values of  is indicated in Figure 3.
The magnitude of
 tends to become infinity for S/B = 0; this finding is similar to the observation
made while performing a typical oedometer test where the magnitude of the compressive load
keeps on increasing continuously without any shear failure. The value of
 decreases with an
increase in S/B till there is no effect of interference (
 = 1). It can be noted that the magnitude of

 increases very sharply with a decrease in S/B for closely spaced footings. The magnitude of

at a given S/B is found to be higher for greater values of ; this observation is on account of
the fact that larger size of the influence zone (the domain in which the soil movement occurs
during failure) is encountered for higher values of . This study, therefore, reveals that the effect
of interference of footings will be much more extensive for dense sand compared with that for
loose sand.

6.2. Nodal velocity patterns

The magnitudes and the directions of the velocities were determined at all the nodes for different
values of S/B with  = 30 ; the corresponding velocity patterns are illustrated in Figure 4. The

Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech. 2008; 32:14171426
DOI: 10.1002/nag
1422 K. M. KOUZER AND J. KUMAR

5
= 45
40
4 35

Efficiency factor,
30
25
20
3

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
S/B

Figure 3. The variation of efficiency factor (
 ) with S/B for  = 2045 .

Figure 4. Nodal velocity patterns for S/B = 1, 3, and 5 with  = 30 .

depth of the influence zone, that is, the zone in which the nodal velocities were found to be
non-zero, increases with an increase in S/B. Along the ground surface, the vertical components
of all the nodal velocities were found to act in the upward direction. It can also be noted that

Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech. 2008; 32:14171426
DOI: 10.1002/nag
 ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY OF EQUALLY SPACED MULTIPLE STRIP FOOTINGS 1423

at the footing edge, the magnitude of the nodal velocity along the ground surface is found to be
much greater than the velocity of the footing itself. The magnitudes of the nodal velocities along
the ground surface were found to gradually reduce with an increase in distance from the footing
edge. The minimum magnitude of the nodal velocity along the ground surface was seen to occur
at the middle point (G in Figure 1(b)) in between the two adjoining footing edges. It was also seen
that the nodal velocity along the ground surface, at a certain fixed distance from the footing edge,
decreases continuously with an increase in the value of S/B. For nodes associated with a common
point, that is, having the same co-ordinates, if the velocities are found to be different for more than
two nodes, it will indicate the existence of the velocity discontinuity at that point in the velocity
field. Such velocity discontinuities can be noted in Figure 4 with the emergence of two or more
arrows from the same point. It can be seen that in a zone around the footing edge such velocity
discontinuity points generally exist. It implies that, although in the original formulation velocity
discontinuities are assumed everywhere along all the interfaces, the final optimized solution yields
velocity discontinuities generally in a region only around the footing edge.

7. COMPARISONS

7.1. With the theory of Graham et al. [9]

The obtained values of
 for multiple strip footings, with various combinations of S/B and
, were compared with the previous theoretical solution of Graham et al. [9] based on the
method of stress characteristics. The comparison is provided in Figure 5. It can be noted that the
present
 values are found to be practically the same as those given by Graham et al. [9] for
values of  between 30 and 45 . It should be mentioned that the numerical solution of Graham
et al. [9], chosen for the purpose of comparison, is based on the assumption of an inclination ()
of the triangular trapped wedge with the footing base. In the present analysis, no such assumption

5
Present analysis
= 45 o Graham et al. [9] (Elastic wedge solution)
4
Efficiency factor,

o
40

3
35o
o
30
2

0
0 1 2 3 4
S/B

Figure 5. A comparison of obtained efficiency factor (
 ) with the elastic

wedge solution of Graham et al. [9].

Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech. 2008; 32:14171426
DOI: 10.1002/nag
1424 K. M. KOUZER AND J. KUMAR

is required; in addition, the present analysis ensures the kinematic admissibility of the obtained
solution.

7.2. With experimental data of Graham et al. [9]

Graham et al. [9] have performed a series of small-scale model tests on multiple strip footings
(38 mm305 mm) placed on crushed silica sand with unit weight () = 16 kN/m3 and  = 36.4
under plane strain condition. The values of
 from this experimental study were compared with
the present numerical solution; the comparison is presented in Figure 6. It can be noted that the
present theoretical solution matches reasonably well with the experimental data.

5
= 36.4
Present analysis
4 Graham et al. [9] (Experimental Data)
Efficiency factor,

0
0 1 2 3 4
S/B

Figure 6. A comparison of obtained efficiency factor (
 ) with the experi-

mental results of Graham et al. [9].

5
Multiple footings : Present analysis
Two footings : Kumar and Kouzer [4]
4
Efficiency factor,

= 45 (Upper most lines)

40
35
3 30 (Lower most lines)

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
S/B

Figure 7. A comparison of the obtained values of
 with those for the two footings case.

Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech. 2008; 32:14171426
DOI: 10.1002/nag
 ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY OF EQUALLY SPACED MULTIPLE STRIP FOOTINGS 1425

7.3. With the previous analysis of authors for two footings

The values of
 for equally spaced multiple strip footings for different combinations of S/B
and  were also compared with the recent solution of authors [4] for determining the ultimate
bearing capacity of two interfering rough strip footings; the solution for the two footings case was
also determined by the authors with the application of the upper bound theorem of limit analysis
in combination with finite elements and linear programming. The comparison of
 values for
the two different cases is provided in Figure 7 for  varying from 30 to 45 . It can be seen
that the value of
 at a given S/B is found to be significantly higher for the multiple footings
case compared with that for the two footings case. The difference between the two solutions
increases very rapidly with a decrease in S/B; it should be mentioned that, irrespective of the
value of , for S/B = 0 the theoretical value of
 was found to be exactly equal to 2.0 for
the two footings case, whereas the corresponding value for the multiple footings case becomes
infinity.

8. REMARKS

1. It should be mentioned that the chosen height of the domain (d = 3B), which was kept
significantly large, does not affect the final results even for smaller values of . To demonstrate
this, the computations were also carried out for  equal to 20 and 30 with two additional
values of d/B, namely, 1 and 2, respectively. The value of S/B was varied between 0.1 and
3.0. The values of
 for different combinations of d/B, S/B and  are presented in Table I.
It can be noted that with a change in d/B, hardly any difference in the values of
 was
noted even up to the third decimal point.
2. In the present analysis, the size of the mesh was taken uniform throughout in the chosen
domain. It has been noted that with the uniform meshing, the upper bound analysis provides
quite acceptable answers, provided a good number of elements are used to discretize the
domain [10, 1416]. In the present case, a large number of elements were used. Therefore,
no attempt was made to reduce the size of the mesh approaching towards the footing
wedge.

Table I. The effect of d/B on
 for different combinations of S/B and .

 values
S/B 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 2.0 2.5 3.0
 d/B
20 1 1.941 1.358 1.177 1.093 1.049 1.024 1.004 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
2 1.941 1.358 1.177 1.093 1.049 1.024 1.004 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
3 1.941 1.358 1.177 1.093 1.049 1.024 1.004 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
30 1 14.471 4.102 2.504 1.892 1.583 1.398 1.203 1.105 1.053 1.025 1.010 1.000 1.000 1.000
2 14.529 4.102 2.504 1.892 1.583 1.398 1.203 1.105 1.053 1.025 1.010 1.000 1.000 1.000
3 14.466 4.103 2.505 1.892 1.583 1.398 1.203 1.105 1.053 1.025 1.010 1.000 1.000 1.000

Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech. 2008; 32:14171426
DOI: 10.1002/nag
1426 K. M. KOUZER AND J. KUMAR

9. CONCLUSIONS

The interference effect due to multiple equally spaced rough strip footings on the ultimate bearing
capacity was examined with the help of a rigorous upper bound limit analysis in conjunction
with finite elements and linear programming; only the component of the failure load due to the
contribution of soil unit weight was considered. The magnitude of
 increases continuously with
a decrease in S/B. The effect of S/B on
 was found to become quite extensive for very small
values of S/B; the magnitude of
 corresponding to S/B = 1 increases from 1.11 for  = 30
to 5.79 for  = 45 . Although velocity discontinuities were considered along the interfaces of all
the elements in the final optimized solution, these velocity discontinuities were found to generally
exist in a zone only around the footing edge.

REFERENCES
1. Stuart JG. Interference between foundations, with special reference to surface footings in sand. Geotechnique
1962; 12(1):1522.
2. Kumar J, Ghosh P. Ultimate bearing capacity of two interfering rough strip footings. International Journal of
Geomechanics (ASCE) 2007; 7(1):5362.
3. Kumar J, Ghosh, P, Upper bound limit analysis for finding interference effect of two nearby strip footings on
sand. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 2007; 25:499507.
4. Kumar J, Kouzer KM. Bearing capacity of two interfering footings. International Journal for Numerical and
Analytical Methods in Geomechanics 2007; DOI: 10.1002/nag.625.
5. West JM, Stuart JG. Oblique loading resulting from interference between surface footings on sand. Proceedings
of the 6th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Montreal, vol. 2, 1965;
214217.
6. Saran S, Agarwal VC. Interference of surface footings on sand. Indian Geotechnical Journal 1974; 4(2):129139.
7. Das BM, Larbi-Cherif S. Bearing capacity of two closely-spaced shallow foundations on sand. Soils and
Foundations 1983; 23(1):17.
8. Kumar A, Saran S. Closely spaced footings on geogrid-reinforced sand. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering (ASCE) 2003; 129(7):660664.
9. Graham J, Raymond GP, Suppiah A. Bearing capacity of three closely-spaced footings on sand. Geotechnique
1984; 34(2):173182.
10. Sloan SW, Kleeman PW. Upper bound limit analysis using discontinuous velocity fields. Computer Methods in
Applied Mechanics and Engineering 1995; 127(1):293314.
11. Bottero A, Negre R, Pastor J, Turgeman S. Finite element method and limit analysis theory for soil mechanics
problem. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 1980; 22(1):131149.
12. Chen WF. Limit Analysis and Soil Plasticity. Elsevier: Amsterdam, 1975.
13. Chen WF, Liu XL. Limit Analysis in Soil Mechanics. Elsevier: Amsterdam, 1990.
14. Kumar J, Kouzer KM. Effect of footing roughness on bearing capacity factor N . Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering (ASCE) 2007; 133(5):502511.
15. Ukritchon B, Whittle AW, Klangvijit C. Calculation of bearing capacity factor N using numerical limit analysis.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering (ASCE) 2003; 129(7):468474.
16. Hjiaj M, Lyamin AV, Sloan SW. Numerical limit analysis solutions for the bearing capacity factor N . International
Journal of Solids and Structures 2005; 42(5):16811704.

Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech. 2008; 32:14171426
DOI: 10.1002/nag