Bearing Capacity of Interfering Strip Footings

Arash Alimardani Lavasan 1; Mahmoud Ghazavi 2;

Achim von Blumenthal 3; and Tom Schanz 4

Abstract: In this paper, the ultimate bearing capacity of two closely spaced rigid strip footings with rough base on granular soil is examined
based on enhanced limit equilibrium, plastic limit analyses, and finite-difference solutions. The enhanced limit equilibrium and plastic limit
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Adelaide on 01/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

analyses are developed on the basis of two proposed failure mechanisms in association with an optimization algorithm. The limit analysis is
conducted by using the kinematic element method (KEM), and finite-difference package is used for numerical simulations. The efficiency
factors of bearing capacity are calculated at various spacings between two neighboring footings for practical range of friction angles
(25° ≤ ϕ ≤ 40°) in accordance with different solutions. Thereafter, the results obtained from the proposed solutions are compared with those
reported from existing experimental, theoretical, and numerical studies. In addition, the reliability of the proposed mechanisms is justified
through a series of comparisons with the failure patterns and the shear bands obtained from numerical simulations at different spacings. These
comparisons indicated that despite the relative simplicity of proposed solutions, bearing capacities and failure patterns are in excellent accor-
dance with numerical, analytical, and experimental results. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001824. © 2018 American Society of
Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Failure mechanism; Finite-difference analysis; Limit equilibrium; Kinematical element method; Limit analysis;
Interfering footings.

Introduction
In practice, foundations may be constructed at close spacings.
This results in an interaction between the footings that significantly
affects the ultimate bearing capacity, settlement, and tilt of adjacent
footings (Lavasan and Ghazavi 2012). In last several decades, differ-
ent approaches, such as limit equilibrium, method of characteristics,
lower- and upper-bound limit analysis, and numerical approximation
methods, have been adopted to predict the bearing capacity of single
footings. Although most of these techniques concur on bearing
capacity factors because of cohesion and surcharge (N c and N q ),
the debate on appropriate establishment of N γ for rough and smooth
footings is still disputable, even for single footings (Harr 1966;
Sloan 1988; Michalowski 1997; Soubra 1999; Yin et al. 2001;
Kumar 2003; Martin 2005; Kumar and Kouzer 2007). Despite the
advancements in limit equilibrium, limit analysis, and numerical
approximation techniques to fit the geotechnical problems, each
of these approaches has apparent limitations with different levels
of complexity and sophistication. For instance, the conventional
limit equilibrium solution mainly uses an a priori–assumed slip
1
Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Chair of Foundation Engineering,
Soil and Rock Mechanics, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, 44801 Bochum,
Germany (corresponding author). E-mail: arash.alimardanilavasan@rub.de;
a_alimardani@dena.kntu.ac.ir
2
Professor, Faculty of Civil Engineering, K.N. Toosi Univ. of Technol-
ogy, 1996715433 Tehran, Iran. E-mail: ghazavi_ma@kntu.ac.ir
3
Ph.D. Candidate, Chair of Foundation Engineering, Soil and Rock
Mechanics, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, 44801 Bochum, Germany. E-mail:
achim.vonblumenthal@rub.de
4
Professor, Chair of Foundation Engineering, Soil and Rock Mechanics,
Ruhr-Universität Bochum, 44801 Bochum, Germany. E-mail: tom.schanz@
rub.de
Note. This manuscript was submitted on January 25, 2016; approved on
August 3, 2017; published online on January 4, 2018. Discussion period
open until June 4, 2018; separate discussions must be submitted for indi-
vidual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241.
surface shape that allows purely static determination of the stability
of an extremely complex geotechnical structure (neither upper
bound nor lower bound) in terms of a possibly unrealistic failure
mechanism while the plastic flow rule (stress-strain relations) is
neglected; however, limit equilibrium solutions are widely appre-
ciated as the mainstream and satisfactory methods of determining
the bearing capacity of shallow footings that can be simply ex-
tended to justify more complex arrangements (e.g., soil hetero-
geneity, eccentric loading). Alternatively, limit analysis (LA)
solutions are developed to assess the stability and bearing capacity
problems without a need to predefine the exact slip surface geom-
etry, and the critical results can be obtained even for complex sys-
tems. Nevertheless, advanced tools are required either to discretize
the domain, such as finite-element limit analysis (Sloan 2013), or
to develop a graphical approach (with associated loss of accuracy)
in order to predict the ultimate load. In addition, more advanced
and sophisticated numerical packages such as finite-element and
difference methods were developed in last decades to find an
approximate solution for more complex systems. However, knowl-
edge of computational techniques and their limitations are required
to confidently use the procedures in practical applications (Potts
2003).
Within this framework, the present research proposes different
methods with different levels of sophistication and complexity
on the basis of enhanced limit equilibrium and limit analyses as
well as finite-difference solutions to adequately address the bearing
capacity of interfering footings. These solutions are aimed to over-
lap the limitations involved in similar but convenient solutions
without imposing further computational complications.
Review of Previous Works
Stuart (1962) and Mandel (1965) were the first who studied the
influence of interference on the ultimate bearing capacity of neigh-
boring strip footings. Stuart (1962) used a simple limit equilibrium
solution (based on a predefined Terzaghi’s mechanism) to analyze

© ASCE 04018003-1 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2018, 144(3): 04018003

 the system and presented the efficiency factors ξ γ and ξ q resulting
from interference. The efficiency factors were defined as the ratio
of the interfering to isolated coefficients of the bearing capacity
(N γ and N q ). The variation of efficiency factors was expressed
in terms of spacing between two adjacent footings. More recently,
methods of stress characteristics have also been employed to
address the bearing capacity of adjacent footings (Hazell 2004;
Kumar and Ghosh 2007). Kumar and Kouzer (2008) carried out
an upper-bound limit analysis along with a finite-element solution
and linear programming to study the ultimate bearing capacity of
closely spaced footings. Mabrouki et al. (2010) investigated the
efficiency factors by the finite-difference approximation method.
Kumar and Bhattacharya (2011) offered a rigorous lower-bound
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Adelaide on 01/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
accurately predict the ultimate bearing capacity of adjacent strip
footings.
In the present study, two possible failure mechanisms are pro-
posed to investigate the behavior of closely spaced strip footings
in accordance with optimization-based limit equilibrium and kin-
ematical element limit analyses. To overcome the overestimation of
the collapse loads in the limit equilibrium solution by Stuart (1962),
the Prandtl-type mechanism with triangular rigid active, logarith-
mic spiral shear, and passive Rankine zones is assumed to incor-
porate with an enhanced limit equilibrium solution in which the
size of the slip surface in accordance with the shape of the elastic
active wedge is determined on the basis of an optimization algo-
rithm to minimize the ultimate load that satisfies the equilibrium

in the system (Silvestri 2003; Zhu et al. 2001). Table 1 presents an

solution based on the finite-element limit analysis approach. The
behavior of interfering footings has also been experimentally
examined (Stuart 1962; Das and Larbi-Cherif 1983; Kumar and
Saran 2003; Hazell 2004; Lavasan and Ghazavi 2012). Results
of these studies showed that the efficiency factor ξ γ obtained from
experiments is considerably less than in the theoretical solutions.
Das and Larbi-Cherif (1983) compared their test results with the
theory of Stuart (1962), showing an approximate 50% overestima-
tion in efficiency factors by Stuart’s method. Comparison of results
by Kumar and Saran (2003) with Stuart (1962) led to the same con-
clusion. As mentioned by Das (1999), it is more likely that the base
angle of the elastic wedge in the failure mechanism is different than
what was assumed by Terzaghi (1943). The influence of the size of
the elastic wedge in Prandtl’s mechanism on the overestimation of
bearing capacity of single footings is later proven by Hjiaj et al.
(2005), Silvestri (2003), Zhu et al. (2001), and Das (1999). Accord-
ingly, considering Terzaghi’s mechanism in conjunction with the
preassumed size of the slip lines that incorporates the shape of a
rigid active wedge that differs from the true mechanism might be
the most probable reason for overestimation made upon using
Stuart’s method. Furthermore, a comparison of the Kumar and
Ghosh (2007) efficiency factor ξ γ with the experiments demon-
strates that the method of characteristics in conjunction with the
mechanism based on quadrilateral wedge underestimates the ulti-
mate bearing capacity, whereas a nonsymmetrical triangular wedge
mechanism overestimates the bearing capacity. Therefore, it can be
concluded that existing theoretical solutions are not capable to
overview of the literature on bearing capacity of interfering foot-
ings in order to distinguish between different solutions.
Methodology
In the present study, the limit equilibrium, plastic limit, and finite-
difference analyses have been conducted by assuming that two
footings are rigid with rough base and are loaded identically and
simultaneously. The cohesionless soil with two identical parallel
strip footings, each of width B, horizontally placed at depth Df
with center-to-center spacing of Δ, is assumed to have a friction
angle and unit weight of ϕ and γ, respectively. To examine the
bearing capacity due to surcharge (N q ), the shear resistance of soil
above the footing base is neglected. The limit equilibrium (LE) and
kinematic element method (KEM) solutions assume the applicabil-
ity of the superposition rule in which the ultimate bearing capacity
of footings on cohesionless soil is determined as
qu ¼ qq þ qγ ð1Þ
where qq and qγ depict the contributions of surcharge pressure q
(or embedment depth Df ) and soil weight γ to the ultimate bearing
capacity, respectively.
Enhanced Limit Equilibrium Analysis
In this solution, the domain is defined as a semi-infinite medium.
The schematic shape and geometry of Mechanism I (which consists

Table 1. Model Parameters Used for Finite-Difference Simulations

Research Solution method Theorem Associativity Base friction
Stuart (1962) Limit equilibrium — — Smooth
Rough
Das and Larbi-Cherif (1983) Experiment, small-scale test — — Rough
Kumar and Saran (2003) Experiment, small-scale test — — Rough
Hazell (2004) Stress characteristics and experiment, small-scale test Upper bound ψ¼ϕ Smooth
— — Rough
Martin and Hazell (2005) Stress characteristics Upper bound ψ¼0 Smooth
Rough
Kumar and Ghosh (2007) Stress characteristics — ψ¼ϕ Rough
Kumar and Kouzer (2008) FEM + linear programming Upper bound ψ¼ϕ Rough
Ghazavi and Lavasan (2008) Stress-strain analysis (FDM) + Mohr-Coulomb — ψ ≈ 2=3ϕ Rough
Mabrouki et al. (2010) Stress-strain analysis (FDM) + Mohr-Coulomb Approximation ψ¼0 Smooth
ψ¼ϕ Rough
Kumar and Bhattacharya (2011) FEM + linear programming Lower bound ψ¼ϕ Smooth
Rough
Lavasan and Ghazavi (2012) Experiment, large-scale test — — Smooth
Rough
Present study (LE) Enhanced limit equilibrium — — Rough
Present study (KEM) Limit load analysis — ψ¼0 Rough
Present study (FDM) Stress-strain analysis Approximation ψ¼0 Rough

© ASCE 04018003-2 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2018, 144(3): 04018003


Fig. 1. Schematic geometry of problem and shape of proposed
mechanism
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Adelaide on 01/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
of a nonsymmetrical triangular elastic wedge) used in the proposed
enhanced LE solution is illustrated in Fig. 1. The deficiency of
conventional LE solutions is on specification of the bearing capac-
ity based on a predefined single failure mechanism; however, the
proposed LE solution overcomes this limitation by integrating an
optimization algorithm to determine the size of failure mechanism
that corresponds to a minimum collapse load at various spacings for
any given friction angle. The other assumptions made in order to
conduct an LE solution based on a nonsymmetrical elastic wedge
(Mechanism I) are as follows:
1. For large spacing between two footings, no interaction occurs,
and the proposed solution reverts back to a single footing.
2. The shear forces acting on the contact planes between the elastic
trapped wedge and the transient zone (ab and bc) as well as
the slip surface (bd and bf) are determined based on the
Mohr-Coulomb shear failure theory for noncohesive materials
(σs ¼ σn : tan ϕ).
3. The slip lines that bound the radial shear zones obey a logarith-
mic spiral arc (r ¼ r0 etanϕ ).
4. Based on Fig. 1, the values of α1 , β 1 , α2 , and β 2 vary with
spacing (S) between footings.
5. At close spacings, blocking effect governs the solution.
To conduct a limit equilibrium analysis in accordance with a
minimization of the collapse load, two different approaches can be
addressed as (1) independent minimization of bearing capacity
terms qq and qγ in Eq. (1), where the size and shape of the slip
surface for qq differ from qγ for identical friction angles; and
(2) consistent minimization of bearing capacity terms qq and qγ ,
where the minimum bearing capacity corresponds to an identical
failure pattern for both terms. For the latter, the shape and size of
Fig. 2. Free body diagram in LE solution and Mechanism I for soil with weight
© ASCE 04018003-3
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2018, 144(3): 04018003
the slip line are primarily obtained by minimization of qγ , and there-
after, the identical slip line is consistently considered in determina-
tion of qq . This procedure was proposed and investigated for a
single strip footing by Silvestri (2003) who illustrated that even
though bearing capacity on the basis of the second approach is
not the mathematical minimum of Eq. (1), it satisfies the consistency
of failure mechanisms for both bearing capacity terms. Silvestri
(2003) concluded that this modification in specifying the bearing
capacity results in a slight change in the bearing capacity coefficients
for single footings; however, the applicability of this concept for in-
terfering footings will be evaluated in the present study.
Determination of Efficiency Factor ξγ
Considering the superposition rule, the soil is assumed to have a
unit weight of γ and a friction angle of ϕ with no surcharge. The
free body diagram and acting forces on faces are illustrated in Fig. 2.
As shown, the poles (points o1 and o2 ) of radial shear zones are
assumed to lie on extensions of the af and cd lines. Accordingly,
the shape of the slip line along with the location of poles are
determined based on the limit equilibrium solution in which the
passive forces Ppγ 1 and Ppγ 2 are calculated through optimization
of the proposed mechanism to minimize qγ in Eq. (1).
In the calculation of efficiency factor ξ γ , as shown in Fig. 2, the
triangular side of the radial shearing zones (o1 bc and o2 ab) never
form in the soil, but they should be known to determine the weight
of radial zones cbd and abf (W 1 and W 10 ). Considering the geom-
etry of triangular wedges o1 bc and o2 ab, the weight of radial shear
zones cbd and abf can be determined in terms of θm1 , θm2 , β 1 , β 2 ,
and ϕ. Regarding the geometry of the mechanism for the inner and
outer sides, parameters lR , lR0 , lw2 , lw20
, lp , lp0 , L2 , and L20 can be
defined to be proportional with S, β 1 , β 2 , θm1 , θm2 , and ϕ. By taking
the moments about points o1 and o2 , the values of Ppγ 1 and Ppγ2 for
given S and ϕ can be determined in terms of four unknown param-
eters: θm1 , θm2 , β 1 , and β 2 . Therefore, an optimization procedure is
carried out to find the minimum values of Ppγ1 and Ppγ 2 that satisfy
the moment equilibrium at any given spacing between footings.
Based on the experience of the authors, the particle swarm opti-
mization algorithm (Kennedy and Eberhart 1995), which is effi-
cient for discrete and large nonlinear problems with low risk of
divergence (Zhao et al. 2015), is chosen.
Determination of Efficiency Factor ξq
In this section, the efficiency factor ξ q is specified in accordance
with two different approaches, namely, independent and consistent
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 solutions. In the first approach, the term qq in Eq. (1) is minimized
as an independent function, whereas the second approach uses the
shape and size of the slip surface obtained from the minimization of
ξ γ in the determination of ξ q . Both methods assume that the embed-
ment depth is replaced with an equivalent uniform surcharge q.
1. Independent minimization of ξ q
Because the soil is assumed to be weightless, the radial
shearing zones are rigid, and therefore, their poles coincide with
the footing edges. The geometry of the slip surface corresponds
to independent minimum bearing capacity because of surcharge
and is shown in Fig. 3. According to the geometry of wedges
and the radial shear zone in each side of the footing, the calcu-
lations can be solved in terms of β 1 , β 2 , ϕ, and S, where the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Adelaide on 01/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
passive forces Ppð1Þ and Ppð2Þ , as shown in Fig. 3, are deter-
mined based on Rankine’s theory (Rankine 1857). Afterwards,
the moments are taken about points a and c and the optimization
algorithm was adopted to find the minimum qq while the equi-
librium of rigid active wedge abc and the geometrical restric-
tions are satisfied.
Because the surcharge bearing capacity qq is minimized
independently, the shape and size of the slip line for bearing
capacity components qq and qγ are slightly different. This sol-
ution offers the minimum overall value of qu in Eq. (1) while
both qq and qγ terms are separately minimized.
2. Consistent minimization of qq
The second approach deals with the calculation of bearing
capacity because of surcharge (qq ) in accordance with the col-
lapse mechanism for minimum qγ . Thus, the bearing capacity
term qq is determined based on the failure mechanism used to
determine ξ γ . Consequently, the poles of transient shear zones
are assumed to be set on points o1 and o2 ; however, because the
slip line is defined for the soil with a unit weight of γ, this
Fig. 3. Free body diagram in LE solution and Mechanism I for weightless soil
Unit vertical
displacement
6 11
KEM Element 9 5
4 3 2
7 8
KEM node 10
Fig. 4. Failure mechanism for a single shallow footing in KEM
© ASCE
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2018, 144(3): 04018003
process does not necessarily satisfy the equilibrium of forces
in the horizontal direction when the soil is assumed to be
weightless.
Limit Load Analysis (Kinematic Element Method)
The KEM, developed by Gussmann (1982, 1986, 2000), is an ad-
vanced and computationally inexpensive method for solving geo-
technical stability problems and is used to perform plastic limit
load analysis. The concept of KEM is explained very briefly in the
following, whereas a more extensive description is provided in
the aforementioned references. The KEM solution essentially con-
sists of three parts: kinematic analysis, static analysis, and optimi-
zation process.
The geometry of ultimate collapse in soil is modeled through a
mechanism formed by a number of rigid blocks called kinematical
elements. Sliding on contact surfaces of elements is considered by
separating plastic zones that satisfy Mohr-Coulomb shear failure.
The shape of the failure surface is represented by a combination of
borders and nodes in the form of predefined rigid elements. The
nodes represent the coordinates of the elements. The kinematics
of the mechanism that consists of a number of elements is initiated
by the user; however, the final failure mechanism and the force act-
ing on the elements are identified through an optimization analysis.
In KEM calculation, a unit vertical displacement is applied to
the rigid element beneath the footing that induces further rigid
translations in the neighboring elements along their sliding boun-
daries within the permissible velocity field, as shown in Fig. 4. The
compatible sliding along the boundaries of the elements follows the
frictional shearing, but the normality rule does not hold (ψ ¼ 0).
The kinematic equation is obtained as ½Kv fVg þ fV n g ¼ 0,
where ½Kv  is the unsymmetrical kinematic coefficient matrix
N21
Q21
Q23 C21
r
1 rde 2 R21
bo
K EM
W2
Fixed velocity field
Q2
04018003-4 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 for the geometry, and fVg and fV n g are the vectors of unknown
and known displacements of elements, respectively.
Through the solution of the kinematic equations, the direction of
shear forces at the sliding faces of every single kinematical element
is calculated, and the equilibrium on the stress discontinuities is
satisfied. According to Fig. 4, the forces acting on element i are
N ij (normal force) and Cij (cohesion force), Rij (force correspond-
ing to friction of the soil), Qij (resultant of N ij , Cij , and Rij forces),
and W i (weight of element i), where index j represents the number
of the neighbor element with a shared border. As seen in Fig. 4,
the contact forces between the element and the fixed velocity field
are represented by Qi. The statically admissible KEM solution
satisfies the equilibrium of forces on each rigid element in the hori-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Adelaide on 01/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
zontal and vertical, and the normal forces applied on the boundaries
of the element are taken as unknowns. By assembling the equilib-
rium equations over all elements in a matrix form, the static equa-
tion is formulated as ½Ks fQg þ fFg ¼ 0, where ½Ks  is the
unsymmetrical static coefficient matrix, fQg is the vector of un-
known forces, and fFg is the vector of known forces.
To identify the critical geometry of the failure mechanism that
offers the limit collapse load, an optimization is carried on in KEM
calculations on the basis of a particle swarm optimization algorithm
(Kennedy and Eberhart 1995) in which the normal force acting at
the bottom surface of the footing is considered as the objective
function, and the coordinates of the nodes of the kinematical ele-
ments defining the failure surface are taken as the control variables.
The shape of the failure mechanism proposed for the KEM limit
analysis and its discretization into 11 rigid elements for the closely
spaced footings problem are shown in Fig. 5.
Similar to the limit equilibrium solution, Mechanism II consists
of two sectors (e.g., inner and outer parts). In contrast to the non-
symmetrical triangular Mechanism I, in which the inner and outer
parts of the failure mechanism were geometrically dependent upon
each other, the inner and outer parts can evolve independently in
Mechanism II. This is assured by defining a quadrilateral-shaped
trapped nonplastic wedge beneath the footings. Such mechanism
was first proposed by Kumar and Ghosh (2007) who assumed that
the vertical side of the quadrilateral wedge always remains vertical;
however, this might induce an excessive restriction to the solution.
Thus, to avoid applying such restriction to the shape of the quadri-
lateral wedge, a number of trial analyses were conducted to assess
the development of a failure mechanism at different spacings. The
KEM results revealed that nodes b and c (Fig. 5) remain vertically
aligned after optimization, whereas the length of plane bc that gov-
erns the size of the slip lines between two footings is defined
by an optimization algorithm. Consequently, increasing the spac-
ing (S) to infinity will automatically transform the mechanism to a
symmetrical mechanism with a triangular wedge below the footing
(Lbc ¼ 0). Conversely, the quadrilateral wedges beneath adjacent
footings almost merge at very close spacings. In addition, Kumar
and Ghosh (2007) conservatively neglected the shear resistance on
g q= Df
Fig. 5. KEM-discretization in Mechanism II for interfering strip footings
© ASCE 04018003-5
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2018, 144(3): 04018003
the vertical side of the trapped wedge. Although such an assump-
tion is not necessarily valid, the analyses in accordance with the
KEM solution yielded the same conclusion.
Finite-Difference Analysis
In the literature, a series of numerical analyses were conducted to
determine the bearing capacity of interfering footings (Kumar and
Bhattacharya 2011; Mabrouki et al. 2010; Lavasan and Ghazavi
2008). The results of these studies indicated that the numerical
solutions provide a good estimation of bearing capacity and failure
kinematics for interfering footings. Accordingly, the numerical
analysis is carried out to firstly analyze the evolution of the effi-
ciency factors ξ q and ξ γ with the spacing between footings and sec-
ondly to assess the accordance of failure mechanisms proposed in
the present study with the shear bands from numerical calculations.
The finite-difference package FLAC is employed based on widely
referred elastoplastic Mohr-Coulomb along with a nonassociative
flow rule. Prior to performing a parametric study to examine the
bearing capacity of footings, the initial and boundary conditions,
discretization, and constitutive parameters should be precisely
specified in a verified model. To briefly recall, discretization shape
and predefined velocity significantly affect the model responses for
single and interfering footings (Mabrouki et al. 2010; Ghazavi and
Lavasan 2008; Lee and Salgado 2005; Lee et al. 2005; Frydman
and Burd 1997). These studies demonstrated that a uniform mesh
beneath the footing along with a finer mesh at the footing edges
lead to a more accurate prediction of ultimate bearing capacity. The
fixities are assigned to the boundaries by restricting the out-of-
plane movements. The system was generally discretized to the finer
mesh at the influencing zone of the footings to avoid a need for
adaptive mesh refinement in order to tackle the numerical instabil-
ities because of strain localization during plastic flow (Sloan 2013).
To overcome the dependency of results on the applied velocities
(predefined displacements per step), the applied downward velocity
is assumed to be less than 1 × 10−6 m=step (Ghazavi and Lavasan
2008). As mentioned previously, the KEM follows a nonassociated
flow rule (ψ ¼ 0), whereas LE accounts for frictional sliding (no
flow rule). Therefore, a nonassociated flow rule in conjunction with
ψ ¼ 0 is used for all friction angles. The elastic parameters of soil,
namely, bulk and shear moduli, are assumed to be equal to K ¼
62.5 MPa and G ¼ 34.6 MPa, respectively. Nevertheless, the elas-
tic parameters play an insignificant role in the determination of
limit collapse load but mainly control the deformability of soil
(Vakili et al. 2014). The parameters of the materials used in the
present finite difference simulations are shown in Table 2.
Results and Discussion
In this section, the results obtained from different solutions are pre-
sented. Beginning with the proposed mechanisms, these solutions
B S/2
qu Line of
a d Symmetry
c i
quadrilateral
f wedge
b
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 Table 2. Model Parameters Used for Finite-Difference Simulations
Research γ d (kN=m3 ) K (MPa) G (MPa) ϕ (degrees) ψ (degrees) c (kPa)
Das and Larbi-Cherif (1983) 15.9 62.5 34.6 38 0 0
Kumar and Saran (2003) 16 62.5 34.6 37 0 0
Present study 18 62.5 34.6 20–40 0 0

are validated by comparing their results for a single footing with
other existing methods in the literature. Afterward, the results for
the interfering footings will be presented and interpreted.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Adelaide on 01/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
the trial analyses on closely spaced footings indicated that the
maximum difference between ξ q obtained from these two methods
is approximately 7% (at Δ=B ≤ 2). Therefore, the independent
minimization scheme was considered as the mainstream method

to determine the efficiency factor ξ q as represented in Fig. 6(a).

Results of Proposed Mechanisms for Single Strip
Footings
As the preliminary step, the consistency of bearing capacity factors
obtained from the proposed failure mechanisms and existing solu-
tions for an ordinary single footing is investigated. The compari-
sons of bearing capacity factors N q and N γ based on different
approaches are shown in Tables 3 and 4, respectively. As seen,
the proposed solutions in conjunction with suggested mechanisms
offer reasonable results for single footings.
Results of Proposed Mechanisms for Interfering
Strip Footings
The bearing capacity of interfering strip footings on cohesionless
soils in terms of efficiency factors ξ q and ξ γ is given by
qu ¼ qN q ξ q þ 0.5BγNγξγ
Results of former studies indicate that at very close spacings,
two adjacent footings act as a single unit by forming an invert arch
in the confined soil beneath the footings (Das and Larbi-Cherif
1983; Lavasan and Ghazavi 2012). Accordingly, the entire unit
can be considered as a single footing with the width of 2B þ S.
This eventually leads to an increase in the ultimate bearing capacity
with an increase in the spacing between the footings; however, the
invert arch vanishes beyond a certain spacing that depends on the
friction angle of soil. The variation of ultimate collapse load due to
the blocking effect at low spacings between footings can be pre-
sented by ξ q;Blocking ¼ ðΔ þ BÞ=2B and ξ γ;Blocking ¼ ðΔ þ BÞ2 =2B2 .
The variation of efficiency factors ξ q and ξ γ with a spacing ratio
based on the proposed limit equilibrium solution along with
Mechanism I is presented in Fig. 6. As previously mentioned,
two different approaches, namely, independent and consistent min-
imization methods, are employed for determination of the bearing
capacity because of surcharge. As shown in Table 3, the maximum
difference between N q for a single footing is less than 5%, whereas
According to Fig. 6(a), for a given spacing between footings, the
efficiency factor increases markedly by an increase in the friction
angle. In addition, the blocking line shows the range in which the
footings act as a single unit. As seen in Fig 6(b), the blocking effect
does not occur for friction angles less than 35°, and the efficiency
factor ξ γ obtained from the proposed mechanism remains below the
blocking line at all spacings. For sand with ϕ > 35°, the blocking
occurs, and thus a single system with a width of 2B þ S, which is
equal to B þ Δ is formed. As expected, the maximum value of ξ γ is
directly related to the soil friction angle. The spacing ratio that cor-
responds to the peak efficiency factor [Fig. 6(b)] is defined as the
critical spacing ratio. As shown in Fig. 6, the critical spacing
ratioðΔ=BÞcr that corresponds to peak efficiency factor ξ γ is equal
to 1.0 for ϕ < 35°. In other words, the proposed solution logically
reveals that the invert arch is not formed in soft sands; however, for
ð2Þ higher friction angles, the value of ðΔ=BÞcr increases to 1.05 and
1.4 for ϕ ¼ 35° and 40°, respectively.
Fig. 7 illustrates the variation of efficiency factors ξ q and ξ γ
versus spacing ratios Δ=B (for 25° ≤ ϕ ≤ 40°) obtained from the
KEM solution (Mechanism II). As seen, the nature of the variation
of the efficiency factors with the spacing ratio is identical to what is
obtained by the proposed enhanced limit equilibrium solution;
however, the magnitudes of the efficiency factors differ. A compari-
son between Figs. 6 and 7 shows that the KEM solution (Mecha-
nism II) leads to lower efficiency factors than the limit equilibrium
method (Mechanism I). Despite lower bearing capacity factors by
the KEM solution, the blocking occurs for all friction angles in the
range of 25° ≤ ϕ ≤ 40°. The efficiency factors obtained from the
finite-difference method (FDM) numerical solution is illustrated
in Fig. 8. As seen, the blocking does not occur at low friction angles
(ϕ ≤ 30°), and the peak bearing capacity occurs when the footings
are in contact. This is in good agreement with the results obtained
from the proposed enhanced LE solution. A general comparison
shows that for friction angles less than 35°, the KEM results are
higher than the others.

Table 3. Comparison of Bearing Capacity Factor N q for Single Rough Footing

Vesic (1973), Present study
ϕ Soubra Terzaghi Meyerhof (1963), Silvestri Silvestri Bolton and Smith
(degrees) (1999)a (1943)b Hansen (1970)b (2003)b,c (2003)b,d Lau (1993)e (2005)e LEb,c LEb,d KEMa,d FDM
20 6.4 7.4 6.4 6.4 6.6 6.4 5.5 6.4 6.5 6.5 6.6
30 18.5 22.5 18.4 18.4 18.9 18.4 15.8 18.7 18.9 19.0 18.2
40 64.6 81.3 64.1 64.2 66.3 64 59.6 64.2 67.2 66.8 63.7
a
Upper-bound method + limit analysis.
b
Limit equilibrium method.
c
Independent minimization.
d
Consistent minimization.
e
Stress characteristics method.

© ASCE 04018003-6 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2018, 144(3): 04018003

 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Adelaide on 01/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 4. Comparison of Bearing Capacity Factor N γ for Single Rough Footing

Kumar and Ukritchon Ukritchon Hjiaj Hjiaj Zhu Zhu Dewaikar and

© ASCE
ϕ Khatri et al. et al. et al. et al. Kumar Soubra et al. Zhu et al. et al. Bolton and BSI Smith Mohapatro
(degrees) (2008)a (2003)a (2003)b (2005)c (2005)d (2003)e (1999)f (2001)g,h (2001)g,i (2001)j,k Lau (1993)g (1995)g (2005)e (2003)g
20 2.7 2.7 3.3 2.8 3.0 3.4 4.5 3.5 5.3 3.4 5.9 3.93 2.8 —
30 13.6 13.2 17.4 14.6 15.2 15.6 21.5 17.7 22.9 17.6 23.6 20.1 14.8 21.4
40 77.9 69.9 111.1 83.3 88.4 85.7 119.8 101.6 118.8 97.9 121 106 85.6 141.3
Ueno Yin LE KEM FDM
ϕ et al. Chen Terzaghi Vesic Meyerhof Hansen Martin Silvestri Frydman and et al. Michalowski (present (present (present
(degrees) (2001)e (1975)f (1943)g (1973)e (1963)l (1970)g (2005)e,m (2003)j Burd (1997)n (2001)n (1997)f study)j study)o study)n
20 3.3 5.9 5.0 5.4 2.9 2.9 2.8 4.9 — — 4.5 4.3 4.7 3.2
30 17.7 26.7 19.7 22.4 15.7 15.1 14.7 19.7 21.7 — 21.4 22.5 19.9 17.4
40 101.0 147.0 100.4 109.4 93.6 79.4 85.6 107.6 147.0 105 119.0 93.8 71.4 79.4
Note: α = base angle of trapped elastic wedge.
a
Lower-bound method + FEM + linear programming.
b
Upper-bound method + FEM + linear programming.
c
Lower-bound method + FEM + nonlinear programming.
d
Upper-bound method + FEM + nonlinear programming.
e
Characteristics method.
f
Upper-bound method + limit analysis.
g
Limit equilibrium method.
h
α ¼ ϕ.
i
α ¼ 45 þ ϕ=2.
j
Limit equilibrium + optimization.
k
α ¼ minðN γ Þ.
l
Semiempirical solution.

04018003-7
m
Exact solution.
n
Numerical method.
o
Limit analysis.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2018, 144(3): 04018003

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 1.6 3.0
φ =40° (upper line) φ =40° (upper line)
Blocking line φ =35° Blocking line φ =35°
φ =30° φ =30°
2.5
φ =25° (lower line) φ =25° (lower line)
1.4

2.0
ξq

ξγ
1.2
1.5

1.0 1.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(a) Δ/Β (b) Δ/Β
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Adelaide on 01/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. Variation of efficiency factors with Δ=B for different values of ϕ (LE solution and Mechanism I): (a) efficiency factor ξ q ; (b) efficiency
factor ξ γ

1.6 3.0
φ =40° (upper line) φ =40° (upper line)
Blocking line φ =35° Blocking line φ =35°
φ =30° φ =30°
2.5
φ =25° (lower line) φ =25° (lower line)
1.4

2.0
ξq

ξγ
1.2
1.5

1.0 1.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(a) Δ/Β (b) Δ/Β

Fig. 7. Variation of efficiency factors with Δ=B for different values of ϕ (KEM solution and Mechanism II): (a) efficiency factor ξ q ; (b) efficiency
factor ξ γ

1.6 3.0
φ =40° (upper line) φ =40° (upper line)
Blocking line φ =35° Blocking line φ =35°
φ =30° φ =30°
2.5
φ =25° (lower line) φ =25° (lower line)
1.4

2.0
ξq

ξγ

1.2
1.5

1.0 1.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(a) Δ/Β (b) Δ/Β

Fig. 8. Variation of efficiency factors with Δ=B for different values of ϕ (FDM solution): (a) efficiency factor ξ q ; (b) efficiency factor ξ γ

Comparison of Results with Existing Researches
Comparison of Efficiency Factor ξq
Efficiency factor ξ q obtained from the present study have been
compared with the results of analytical, experimental, and numeri-
cal studies from literature (Stuart 1962; Das and Larbi-Cherif 1983;
Mabrouki et al. 2010). The comparison of efficiency factor ξ q for
ϕ ¼ 30°, 35°, 38°, and 40° is shown in Fig. 9. According to Fig. 9,
the difference between the values of ξ q from different analytical and
numerical approaches is insignificant; however, the experimental
results of Das and Larbi-Cherif (1983) for ϕ ¼ 38° show signifi-
cantly scattered data. Such discrepancies can be attributed to the
deficiency of small-scale tests in measuring the effect of embed-
ment depth because of irrelevant stress distribution and the sample
disturbance close to the surface in test preparation. In small-
scale tests, the sand is stressed in layers only a few inches deep,

© ASCE 04018003-8 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2018, 144(3): 04018003

 1.6
LE (Mechanism I)
KEM (Mechanism II)
FDM (Present study)
Stuart (1962)
1.4 Mabrouki et al. (2010)
ξq
1.2
1.0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Adelaide on 01/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
1 2 3 4 5 6
(a) Δ/Β
1. 6
1.4
ξq
1.2
1.0
1 2 3 4
(c)
Fig. 9. Variation of efficiency factor ξ q with Δ=B for different values of ϕ: (a) ϕ ¼ 30°; (b) ϕ ¼ 35°; (c) ϕ ¼ 40°
and there are some difficulties in controlling the density of soil in
the test box. Thus, the real soil parameters obtained from shear tests
may differ from the small-scale test setup. In addition, Hanna
(1963) revealed that the surface heave that takes place in the experi-
ments can reduce the efficiency factor ξ q for very shallow founda-
tions (depth/width less than 0.5).
Comparison of Efficiency Factor ξγ
The values of efficiency factor ξ γ based on the proposed solu-
tions are compared with other experimental, analytical, and nu-
merical results. Stuart (1962), Kumar and Ghosh (2007), Kumar
and Kouzer (2007), Mabrouki et al. (2010), and Kumar and
Bhattacharya (2011) have reported the variation of efficiency fac-
tor ξ γ with respect to the spacing between footings for ϕ ¼ 30°,
35°, and 40°. Furthermore, the results of experimental studies con-
ducted by Das and Larbi-Cherif (1983) and Kumar and Saran
(2003) on sands with friction angles of 38° and 37° are presented
in this section. The comparison of efficiency factor ξ γ from liter-
ature and solutions proposed in the present study is shown in
Fig. 10. As seen, the results obtained from various experimental,
analytical, and numerical approaches are upper bounded by the
results of Stuart (1962) and Mechanism 2 (nonsymmetrical tri-
angular active trapped wedge) by Kumar and Ghosh (2007)
whereas the efficiency factor ξ γ from different methods is lower
bounded by the solution of Kumar and Bhattacharya (2011). The
results obtained from the LE and KEM solutions are found to be
less than those expressed by Mechanism 1 (quadrilateral active
trapped wedge) suggested by Kumar and Ghosh (2007) for
© ASCE 04018003-9
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2018, 144(3): 04018003
1.6
LE (Mechanism I)
KEM (Mechanism I)
FDM (Present study)
Stuart (1962)
Mabrouki et al. (2010)
1.4
ξq
1.2
1.0
7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(b) Δ/Β
LE (Mechanism I)
KEM (Mechanism II)
FDM (Present study)
Stuart (1962)
Das and Larbi-Cherif (1983)
Mabrouki et al. (2010)
5 6 7
Δ/Β
ϕ < 35°; nevertheless, the KEM results are in a closer agreement.
For higher friction angles, the LE solution based on Mechanism I
trends to Kumar’s first mechanism (for ϕ ¼ 35°), whereas for
ϕ > 35°, Mechanism I results in a higher efficiency factor that bet-
ter fits experimental observations. According to Figs. 10(b and c),
the proposed LE and KEM solutions bound the experimental mea-
surements by Kumar and Saran (2003) and Das and Larbi-Cherif
(1983). Despite the similarities of Mechanism II for the KEM
solution and Mechanism I for the method of characteristics by
Kumar and Ghosh (2007), such as ignoring the shear resistance
on the vertical side of the quadrilateral wedge, the obtained results
vary differently with spacing, whereas the KEM solution success-
fully captures the peak efficiency factor ξ γ . In general, comparing
the results of mechanisms for the proposed LE and KEM solutions
with other approaches indicates that the proposed solutions do
not overestimate the efficiency factor ξ γ at close spacing (Δ=B ≤
1.5), whereas they capture the impact of interference on bearing
capacity at larger spacings as observed in experiments [dots in
Figs. 10(b and c)]. The experimental results in Figs. 10(b and c)
correspond to ϕ ¼ 37° and ϕ ¼ 38°, respectively, and the LE,
KEM, and FDM approaches are reconducted for the exact friction
angles reported in the experiments, with the results presented in
Fig. 11. According to Fig. 11, the results from the proposed so-
lutions in combination with Mechanisms I and II successfully
bound the experimental results for ϕ ¼ 37−38° (typical friction
angles for sand in practice), in which the fundamental aspects
(e.g., blocking and degradation of the efficiency factor) are log-
ically captured.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 3.5 3.5 LE (Mechnaism I)
LE (Mechanism I)
KEM (Mechanism II) KEM (Mechanism II)
FDM (present study) FDM (present study)
3.0 3.0 Stuart (1962)
Stuart (1962)
Kumar and Ghosh (2007) Mechanism 1 Kumar and Saran (2003)
Kumar and Ghosh (2007) Mechanism 2 Kumar and Ghosh (2007) Mechanism 1
2.5 2.5
Kumar and Kouzer (2008) Kumar and Ghosh (2007) Mechanism 2
ξγ

ξγ
Mabrouki et al. (2010) Kumar and Kouzer (2008)
Kumar and Bhattacharya (2011) Mabrouki et al. (2010)
2.0 2.0
Kumar and Bhattacharya (2011)

1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
(a) Δ/Β (b) Δ/Β
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Adelaide on 01/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

3.5
LE (Mechanism I)
KEM (Mechanism II)
FDM (present study)
3.0 Stuart (1962)
Das and Larbi-Cherif (1983)
Kumar and Ghosh (2007) Mechanism 1
2.5 Kumar and Ghosh (2007) Mechanism 2
Kumar and Kouzer (2008)
Mabrouki et al. (2010)
2.0 Kumar and Bhattacharya (2011)

1.5

1.0
1 2 3 4 5 6
(c)

Fig. 10. Variation of efficiency factor ξ γ with Δ=B for different values of ϕ: (a) ϕ ¼ 30°; (b) ϕ ¼ 35°; (c) ϕ ¼ 40°

2.5 2.5
LE (Mechanism I) LE (Mechanism I)
KEM (Mechanism II) KEM (Mechanism II)
FDM (Present study) FDM (Present study)
[φ =37°] Kumar and Saran (2003) [φ =38°] Das and Larbi-Cherif (1983)
2.0 2.0
ξγ
ξγ

1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
(a) Δ/Β (b) Δ/Β
Fig. 11. Comparison of efficiency factor ξ γ from experiments and proposed solutions: (a) ϕ ¼ 37°; (b) ϕ ¼ 38°

Comparison of Failure Mechanism with Shear Strain
Mobilization Pattern
In the previous section, it is shown that the proposed solutions
offer a reliable estimation on bearing capacity of interfering foot-
ings; however, because the size of the slip surface in both the
LE and KEM methods is determined by an optimization, it is
essential to assess the feasibility of the slip line at the ultimate
load. Accordingly, the evolution of proposed Mechanisms I and II
at different spacings is compared with the progressive develop-
ment of shear bands obtained from the FDM analysis for experi-
ments conducted by Das and Larbi-Cherif (1983) on sand with
ϕ ¼ 38°.
The comparison of shear bands and failure mechanisms for the
LE, KEM, and FDM solutions is shown in Fig. 12. As seen, the
FDM shear bands are in fairly good agreement with Mechanism I
in conjunction with the proposed LE solution. Apparently, the
KEM solution offers larger slip surfaces at close spacing, which
can be attributed to the upper-bound nature of the proposed KEM
solution; however, at higher spacings, the LE, KEM, and FDM so-
lutions converge. This justifies the fair agreement between the
bearing capacity factor N γ obtained from the proposed solutions
for single footings as previously shown. Because the stability anal-
ysis is interrelated with the deformation in the FDM analysis, the
numerical solution illustrates slightly tighter failure mechanisms

© ASCE 04018003-10 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2018, 144(3): 04018003

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Adelaide on 01/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 12. Comparison of shear strain rate contours for interfering strip footings at various spacings for ϕ ¼ 38° from FDM, limit equilibrium
(Mechanism I), and KEM (Mechanism II) solutions: (a) Δ=B ¼ 1; (b) Δ=B ¼ 1.5; (c) Δ=B ¼ 2; (d) Δ=B ¼ 3; (e) Δ=B ¼ 4; (f) Δ=B ¼ 4.8
because of the dissipation of the energy with the deformation.
Accordingly, it can be concluded that the proposed mechanisms
in conjunction with the assumptions made to address the failure
mechanisms are robust enough to capture phenomenological as-
pects of interference such as blocking, peak bearing capacity, criti-
cal spacings, and realistic shear strength mobilization.
Conclusions
The effect of interference on bearing capacity of two closely spaced
strip footings placed on sand has been evaluated in this paper.
The system of interfering footings is analyzed based on two dif-
ferent failure mechanisms along with enhanced LE, KEM limit
load analysis, and FDM. The enhanced limit equilibrium solution
in conjunction with a nonsymmetrical triangular elastic wedge
(Mechanism I) is based on minimizing the bearing capacity while
the equilibrium of load and momentum in the system is satisfied.
The KEM limit load analysis is carried out in accordance with
a quadrilateral elastic wedge (Mechanism II). Furthermore, a
deformation-stability analysis was performed to identify the effi-
ciency factors of bearing capacity for interfering footings. Results
of this study showed that at close spacing between the footings, an
invert arch can form beneath the footings, leading to an increase in
the bearing capacity with spacing up to a certain distance; however,
such an incident does not take place for low friction angles. The
proposed solutions were shown to agree remarkably well with the
experiments. The comparison of the proposed mechanism with
numerical shear bands indicated a satisfactory agreement.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Prof. Peter Gussmann and
Dr. Diethard König for their helpful discussions and advice on
using KEM software. The first author would like to express his
gratitude for the financial support offered by Alexander von
Humboldt Foundation, Germany.
References
Bolton, M. D., and Lau, C. K. (1993). “Vertical bearing capacity factors for
circular and strip footings on Mohr-Coulomb soil.” Can. Geotech. J.,
30(6), 1024–1033.
© ASCE
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2018, 144(3): 04018003
BSI (British Standards Institution). (1995). “Geotechnical design. I:
General rules (together with the United Kingdom National Application
Document).” DD ENV 1997–1:1995-Eurocode 7, Elsevier, Amsterdam,
Netherlands.
Chen, W. F. (1975). Limit analysis and soil plasticity, J. Ross Publishing,
Plantation, FL.
Das, B. M. (1999). Shallow foundations: Bearing capacity and settlement,
CSR Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Das, B. M., and Larbi-Cherif, S. (1983). “Bearing capacity of two closely
spaced shallow foundations on sand.” Soils Found., 23(1), 1–7.
Dewaikar, D. M., and Mohapatro, B. G. (2003). “Computation of bearing
capacity factor Nγ—Terzaghi's mechanism.” Int. J. Geomech., 3(1),
123–128.
FLAC [Computer software]. ITASCA Consulting Group, Inc.,
Minneapolis.
Frydman, S., and Burd, H. J. (1997). “Numerical studies of bearing
capacity factor N γ .” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)
1090-0241(1997)123:1(20), 20–29.
Ghazavi, M., and Lavasan, A. A. (2008). “Interference effect of shallow
foundations constructed on sand reinforced with geosynthetics.”
Geotext. Geomembr., 26(5), 404–415.
Gussmann, P. (1982). “Kinematical elements for soils and rocks.” Proc.,
Int. Conf. on Numerical Methods in Geomechanics, A.A. Balkema,
Rotterdam, Netherlands, 47–52.
Gussmann, P. (1986). Die Methode der kinematischen Elemente [Kinemati-
cal elements method], Institut für Grundbau und Bodenmechanik,
Stuttgart, Germany.
Gussmann, P. (2000). “Effective KEM solutions for the limit load and
the slope stability problem.” Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech.,
24(14), 1061–1077.
Hanna, T. H. (1963). “Model studies of foundation groups in sand.”
Geotechnique, 13(4), 334–351.
Hansen, J. B. (1970). “A revised and extended formula for bearing
capacity.” Geoteknisk Inst. Bull., 28, 5–11.
Harr, M. E. (1966). Foundations of theoretical soil mechanics, McGraw-
Hill, New York.
Hazell, E. C. J. (2004). “Interaction of closely spaced strip footings.” Final
Year Project Rep., Univ. of Oxford, Oxford, U.K.
Hjiaj, M., Lyamin, A. V., and Sloan, S. W. (2005). “Numerical limit analy-
sis solutions for the bearing capacity factor N γ .” Int. J. Solids Struct.,
42(5), 1681–1704.
Kennedy, J., and Eberhart, R. (1995). “Particle swarm optimization.”
Proc., Int. Conf. on Neural Networks, Vol. 4, IEEE, Piscataway, NJ,
1942–1948.
Kumar, A., and Saran, S. (2003). “Closely spaced footings on geogrid-
reinforced sand.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)
1090-0241(2003)129:7(660), 660–664.
Kumar, J. (2003). “N γ for rough strip footing using the method of
characteristics.” Can. Geotech. J., 40(3), 669–674.
04018003-11 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 Kumar, J., and Bhattacharya, P. (2011). “Bearing capacity of two interfer-
ing strip footings from lower bound finite elements limit analysis.”
Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech., 37(5), 441–452.
Kumar, J., and Ghosh, P. (2007). “Ultimate bearing capacity of two
interfering rough strip footings.” Int. J. Geomech., 10.1061/(ASCE)
1532-3641(2007)7:1(53), 53–62.
Kumar, J., and Khatri, V. N. (2008). “Effect of footing width on N γ .”
Can. Geotech. J., 45(12), 1673–1684.
Kumar, J., and Kouzer, K. M. (2007). “Effect of footing roughness on bear-
ing capacity factor N γ .” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)
1090-0241(2007)133:5(502), 502–511.
Kumar, J., and Kouzer, K. M. (2008). “Ultimate bearing capacity of equally
spaced multiple strip footings on cohesionless soils without surcharge.”
Int. J. Num. Anal. Methods Geomech., 32(3), 251–264.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Adelaide on 01/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Lavasan, A. A., and Ghazavi, M. (2008). “Influence of interference on
failure mechanism of closely constructed circular footings on rein-
forced sand.” Proc., 4th Asian Conf. on Geosynthetics, Springer, Berlin,
311–317.
Lavasan, A. A., and Ghazavi, M. (2012). “Behavior of closely spaced
square and circular footings on reinforced sand.” Soils Found., 52(1),
160–167.
Lee, J., and Salgado, R. (2005). “Estimation of bearing capacity of circular
footings on sands based on cone penetration test.” J. Geotech. Geoen-
viron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:4(442), 442–452.
Lee, J., Salgado, R., and Kim, S. (2005). “Bearing capacity of circular foot-
ings under surcharge using state-dependent finite element analysis.”
Comput. Geotech., 32, 445–457.
Mabrouki, A. D., Benmeddour, R. F., and Mellas, M. (2010). “Numerical
study of the bearing capacity for two interfering strip footings on
sands.” Comput. Geotech., 37(4), 431–439.
Mandel, J. (1965). “Plastic interference of strip footings (in French).” Proc.,
6th Int. Conf. Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. II,
University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 127–141.
Martin, C. M. (2005). “Exact bearing capacity calculations using the
method of characteristics.” Proc., IACMAG, CRC Press, London,
441–450.
Martin, C. M., and Hazell, E. C. J. (2005). “Bearing capacity of parallel
strip footings on non-homogeneous clay.” Proc., Int. Symp. on Fron-
tiers in Offshore Geotechnics, CRC Press, London, 427–433.
Meyerhof, G. G. (1963). “Some recent research on the bearing capacity of
foundations.” Can. Geotech. J., 1(1), 16–26.
Michalowski, R. (1997). “An estimate of the influence of soil weight on
bearing capacity using limit analysis.” Soils Found., 37(4), 57–64.
© ASCE 04018003-12
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2018, 144(3): 04018003
Potts, D. M. (2003). “Numerical analysis: A virtual dream or practical
reality?” Geotechnique, 53(6), 535–573.
Rankine, W. J. M. (1857). “On the mathematical theory of the stability of
earthwork and masonry.” J. Franklin Inst., 63(2), 84–85.
Silvestri, V. (2003). “A limit equilibrium solution for bearing capacity of
strip foundations on sand.” Can. Geotech. J., 40(2), 351–361.
Sloan, S. W. (1988). “Lower bound limit analysis using finite elements
and linear programming.” Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech.,
12(1), 61–77.
Sloan, S. W. (2013). “Geotechnical stability analysis” Geotechnique, 63(7),
531–571.
Smith, C. C. (2005). “Complete limiting stress solutions for the bearing
capacity of strip footings on a Mohr-Coulomb soil.” Géotechnique,
55(8), 607–612.
Soubra, A.-H. (1999). “Upper-bound solutions for bearing capacity
of foundations.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)
1090-0241(1999)125:1(59), 59–68.
Stuart, J. G. (1962). “Interference between foundations with special refer-
ence to surface footings in sand.” Geotechnique, 12(1), 15–22.
Terzaghi, K. (1943). Theoretical soil mechanics, Wiley, New York.
Ueno, K., Miura, K., Kusakabe, O., and Nishimura, M. (2001).
“Reappraisal of size effect of bearing capacity from plastic solution.”
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2001)
127:3(275), 275–281.
Ukritchon, B., Whittle, A. J., and Klangvijit, C. (2003). “Calcula-
tions of bearing capacity factor N γ using numerical limit analyses.”
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2003)129:
6(468), 468–474.
Vakili, K., Lavasan, A. A., Schanz, T., and Datcheva, M. (2014). “The
influence of the soil constitutive model on the numerical assessment
of mechanized tunneling.” Proc., 8th European Conf. on Numerical
Methods in Geotechnical Engineering, CRC Press, London, 889–894.
Vesic, A. S. (1973). “Analysis of ultimate loads of shallow foundations.”
J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., 99(1), 45–73.
Yin, J. H., Wang, Y. J., and Selvadurai, A. P. S. (2001). “Influence of
nonassociativity on the bearing capacity of a strip footing.” J. Geo-
tech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2001)127:11(985),
985–989.
Zhao, C., Lavasan, A. A., Barciaga, T., Zarev, V., Datcheva, M., and
Schanz, T. (2015). “Model validation and calibration via back analysis
for mechanized tunnel simulations—The Western Scheldt tunnel case.”
Comput. Geotech., 69, 601–614.
Zhu, D. Y., Lee, C. F., and Jiang, H. D. (2001). “A numerical study of the
bearing capacity factor Nγ.” Can. Geotech. J., 38(5), 1090–1096.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.