See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/344024991

Bearing Capacity and Stiffness of Embedded Circular Footings on Stiff-Over-

Soft Clay

Article  in  Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering · August 2020

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0002393

CITATIONS READS
0 77

3 authors:

Q. B. Liu Barry Michael Lehane

University of Western Australia University of Western Australia
34 PUBLICATIONS   189 CITATIONS    179 PUBLICATIONS   3,218 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Y. Tian
University of Western Australia
1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Driven single piles and pile groups: numerical modelling View project

Geotechnical characterisation of agricultural soil constraints View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Q. B. Liu on 16 September 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Technical Note

Bearing Capacity and Stiffness of

Embedded Circular Footings
on Stiff-Over-Soft Clay
Q. B. Liu, Ph.D. 1; B. M. Lehane, Ph.D., CPEng 2; and Y. Tian 3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by China University Of Geosciences, Wuhan on 08/31/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: This technical note presents results from a series of undrained load tests performed at model scale on circular embedded footings
founded in a two-layered stratigraphy, comprising uniform stiff clay overlying soft clay. The observed foundation stiffness and bearing
capacities are compared with available empirical, analytical, and numerical solutions. The dependence of the equivalent linear stiffness
at a settlement ratio of 1% (E0.01 ) and the bearing capacity factor, N c , on the normalized depth to the soft clay (H=B) and strength ratio
of two clay layers (sut =sub ) are presented. A simple expression is developed for N c, which provides a good match to experimental data and is
consistent with numerical predictions. It is also shown that the critical H=B ratio, above which the underlying soft layer does not affect the
footing response, is significantly smaller for E0.01 than for N c at any given sut =sub value. This finding has important practical design
implications for footings on stiff-over-soft clay deposits. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0002393. © 2020 American Society of Civil
Engineers.
Author keywords: Footings and foundations; Model test; Clays.

Introduction settlement under service loads for a foundation in a two-clay-layer

Many analytical and numerical studies have aimed to provide exact
solutions for the undrained bearing capacity (qf ) of a foundation
embedded in a stiff clay layer that is underlain by a soft clay layer.
These studies have included use of the limit equilibrium method
(e.g., Button 1953; Reddy and Srinivasan 1967) and analytical
or numerical limit analysis (e.g., Florkiewicz 1989; Michalowski
2002), often supported by finite-element (FE)–based methods
(e.g., Griffiths 1982; Merifield et al. 1999; Merifield and Nguyen
2006). However, confidence in the application of the published so-
lutions for qf is not high, primarily because of the extreme shortage
of experimental data required for their verification and the critical
effect of the selection of appropriate operational shear strengths, as
noted by Doherty et al. (2018), Lehane (2003), and others. In ad-
dition, although the serviceability limit state (SLS) often governs
the design of shallow foundations, previous studies have focused
on the ultimate conditions and hence no information is available
that can guide designers in a simple assessment of the undrained
1
Research Fellow, Three Gorges Geohazards Research Centre, China
University of Geosciences, 388 Lumo Rd., Wuhan, Hubei Province
430074, China; Visiting Research Fellow, School of Civil, Environmental
and Mining Engineering, Univ. of Western Australia, Crawley, WA
6009, Australia. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5268-4702. Email:
qingbing@cug.edu.cn
2
Professor, School of Civil, Environmental and Mining Engineering,
Univ. of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Hwy., Crawley, WA 6009,
Australia (corresponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003
-0244-7423. Email: Barry.Lehane@uwa.edu.au
3
Research Student, Univ. of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Hwy.,
Crawley, WA 6009, Australia. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5042
-3277. Email: Yishan.Tian@research.uwa.edu.au
Note. This manuscript was submitted on January 23, 2020; approved on
June 26, 2020; published online on August 31, 2020. Discussion period
open until January 31, 2021; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This technical note is part of the Journal of Geotech-
nical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241.
stratigraphy.
Experiments on model footings founded at the surface of a
two-clay-layer stratigraphy have been performed by Brown and
Meyerhof (1969) and Meyerhof and Hanna (1978). This study ex-
tends this small database by presenting a new set of results for em-
bedded model circular footings founded in stiff clay over soft clay.
The combined database is used to assess the relative influence
of embedment depth, upper layer thickness, and strength ratio of
the two clay layers on the footing’s stiffness and capacity. Finite-
element analyses are used to generalize the findings for stiff-over-
soft clay profiles and provide designers with a simple means of
assessing undrained footing stiffness and capacity.
Model Footing Tests
Sample Preparation
Two kaolin profiles with stiff-over-soft layers, referred to as S1 and
S2 , were created by first consolidating four samples within labora-
tory steel chambers with an inner diameter of 495 mm and height of
500 mm. The clay was mixed under a vacuum at a water content of
∼120% to form a fully saturated slurry. Samples for S1 were con-
solidated incrementally to maximum stresses of 32 and 100 kPa,
with the two samples for S2 employing maximum stresses of 20
and 120 kPa. The inner walls of the steel chamber were coated with
Teflon to reduce wall friction. Basic properties of the kaolin em-
ployed are described by Lehane et al. (2009). After full consolida-
tion, the stiff samples were first pushed out from the removable
base of their respective chambers by applying moderate force
onto the top platen and then carried using bolts screwed in the
top platen to the location of the chamber housing the soft clay layer
(noting that sufficient suction existed between the sample and
platen). A steel wire saw was used to detach the upper platen from
the stiff sample and also to reduce its diameter by about 2 mm so
that it would gently slump onto the soft clay layer. The combined

© ASCE 06020020-1 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2020, 146(11): 06020020

 Table 1. Footing test program and results center-to-center spacing was at least two times the diameter of the
Test sut H B D qf larger footing. A clear distance of at least one footing diameter from
series (kPa) sut =sub (mm) (mm) (mm) H=B D=B E0.01 =sut (kPa) the chamber’s inner wall was also maintained. The excavations for
the footings were performed because some softening at the surface
S1-1 19 2 41 40 33 1.02 0.82 113 130
S1-2 19 2 41 60 33 0.68 0.55 113 113
of the stiff clay was envisaged when the surcharge was removed to
S1-3 19 2 41 80 33 0.51 0.41 105 95 facilitate load testing. However, as seen in Fig. 2, no discernible
S2-1 21.5 4.75 77 20 33 3.85 1.65 110 180 softening occurred because the undrained shear strength profiles
S2-2 21.5 4.75 77 40 33 1.92 0.82 110 163 indicated in T-bar and cone penetration tests (CPTs) at the begin-
S2-3 21.5 4.75 77 60 33 1.28 0.55 110 130 ning and completion of the 2-h testing period required for each set
S2-4 21.5 4.75 77 80 33 0.96 0.41 104 112 of tests in a given sample were identical. All footings were load
S2-5 21.5 4.75 30 20 80 1.50 4.0 110 152 tested at a constant (undrained) displacement rate of 0.01 mm=s
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by China University Of Geosciences, Wuhan on 08/31/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

S2-6 21.5 4.75 30 40 80 0.75 2.0 82 103 using an actuator to a settlement-to-footing-diameter ratio (s=B) of
Note: H = distance from the footing base to the top of the underlying soft between 0.15 and 0.25. Experience with the actuator has shown that
clay layer; and D = embedment of the footing below the surface. the displacement measurement has an accuracy of approximately
0.2 mm, which equates to s=B ¼ 0.01 for the smallest footing em-
ployed (B ¼ 20 mm).

Penetrometers Test Results

Actuator
The T-bar undrained shear strengths (suT-bar ) determined from the
penetration resistance of a 5-mm-diameter T-bar using the standard
bearing factor (N T-bar ) of 10.5 (Randolph and Houlsby 1984) are
seen in Fig. 2 to correspond with strengths derived using a CPT
Rigid adaptor cone factor N k of 12 (using a cone of 10 mm in diameter). Both
3D printed dibber sets of in situ tests confirm the thickness of the two-layered profiles
created and the uniformity of strength within each layer. The longer
transition length of the CPT end resistance between the upper and
Load cell lower layers in profile S2 is consistent with the higher ratio of
strengths between the upper and lower clay and the relatively large
Model footing diameter of the cone (Xu and Lehane 2008). The reference un-
Stiff clay
drained strength (su ) employed here is that measured from T-bar
500 mm

tests and the best estimations of su for the upper and lower layer
of S1 are 19 and 9.5 kPa (sut =sub ¼ 2.0), while those for S2 are 21.5
Soft clay
and 4.5 kPa (sut =sub ¼ 4.75). These strength values are consistent
with maximum consolidation pressures experienced by each sam-
Geofabric ple layer.

495 mm Finite-Element Calculations

Fig. 1. Elevation of chamber footing test setup (not to scale).
stiff-over-soft S1 and S2 profiles were then reconsolidated to
stresses of 32 and 20 kPa, respectively, for a period of 1 day prior
to foundation tests. A full description of experimental work is pro-
vided in Tian (2018).
Test Program
Full details of the footing tests undertaken in profiles S1 and S2 are
provided in Table 1 and a schematic of the test setup employed is
shown in Fig. 1. The model duralumin footings had roughened
(shot-blasted) circular bases with diameters (B) varying from 20
to 80 mm and a central connection stem with a 10-mm-diameter
threaded hole at the top end where vertical load was applied.
Special dibbers, illustrated in Fig. 1, were produced by a three-
dimensional (3D) printer to assist with excavation. The helical part
of the dibber was designed to rotate around its axis to remove soil
and form a cylindrical excavation with a flat base. The diameter
of each helix (or cavity) was 5 mm wider than that of the tested
footing to facilitate ease of placement and to avoid side friction.
The footing tests were located in a manner that ensured that their
To assist data interpretation, numerical analyses were performed
using the Plaxis FE program with a two-dimensional (2D) axisym-
metric mesh. The suitability of the FE model was first evaluated
by comparing its predictions with the experimental results. The
mesh was constructed using 15-noded triangular elements with a
concentration of elements within the footing’s zone of influence;
a preliminary iterative study of mesh refinement requirements was
undertaken to enable accurate calculations of foundation bearing
capacity. The footing was represented as a discrete rigid body with
a fully rough base and the soil was modeled as an isotropic linear
elastic-perfectly plastic Tresca continuum with a friction angle of
zero, a Poisson’s ratio (υ) of 0.49, and a cohesion for the upper and
lower clay layers equal to the mean undrained shear strengths mea-
sured in T-bar tests (sut and sub ). A constant ratio of the elastic
modulus to undrained strength (E=su ) was set for both soil layers.
This soil specification is sufficient to represent a fine-grained mate-
rial subjected to a period of loading sufficiently short that no drain-
age will take place.
Preliminary trial analyses indicated that an E=su value of 110
gave reasonable predictions for the initial footing stiffness and that
the selected E=su ratio had little influence on bearing stresses cal-
culated at s=B > 5%. This E=su ratio falls at the lower end of the
range indicated by Atkinson (2000) and Vardanega and Bolton
(2013) and is consistent with the normally consolidated and recon-
stituted unaged nature of the kaolin layers. The calculated q versus

© ASCE 06020020-2 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2020, 146(11): 06020020

 su (kPa) su (kPa)
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
0 0

su =qc /12 20
20 su =qT-bar /10.5
su =qc /12
40

40 60
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by China University Of Geosciences, Wuhan on 08/31/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

80
60
Depth (mm)

Depth (mm)
interface, h=74mm
interface, h=110mm
100

80
120

100 140

160
CPT (before footing tests)
120 CPT_1 (before footing tests)
T-bar_1 (before footing tests)
180 CPT_2 (after footing tests)
T-bar_2 (after footing tests)
Best estimate
s of su profile Best estimate
Best estimate of
of Su
su profile
profile
140 200
(a) (b)

Fig. 2. Best estimate of su profile from CPTs and T-bar tests for (a) S1 ; and (b) S2 .

200 did not permit examination of the highly nonlinear response ex-
sut/sub=4.75
H/B=3.85 pected at s=B < 0.01.
H/B=1.92 The undrained bearing capacity of a footing on clay is calculated
160
routinely using the following equation:
qf ¼ N c dc sc su þ σv0 ¼ N c;c dc su þ σv0 ð1Þ
120 where N c = bearing capacity factor for a surface strip footing
q (kPa)

(5.14); dc = footing depth correction factor; N c;c = bearing capacity

80
40
0 comparison with other experimental data using Eq. (1) and to assist
0 0.04 0.08
s/B
Fig. 3. Comparison of measured loading curves with FE
calculations.
s=B relationships for four footings in profile S2 with the embed-
ment of 33 mm, as an example, are compared with the measured
data in Fig. 3 to examine the suitability of the FE model. It is seen
that a good match between experimental and numerical data is ob-
tained, despite the relative simplicity of the soil’s constitutive
model. It is also observed that none of the tested footings exhibit
a clear collapse load and gains in bearing stresses continue to
at least s=B ¼ 0.1. The resolution of displacement measurement
H/B=1.28 H/B=0.96 factor for a surface circular footing [= 6.05 as shown by Eason and
Shield (1960) and Merifield and Nguyen (2006)]; and sc = shape
correction factor. The surcharge at the footing base level (σv0 ) was
reasonable to be assumed as zero in the experiments (noting that the
σv0 value in footing tests ranges from 0.5 to 1.2 kPa and neglecting
Measured it leads to an error of less than 1%).
FEM Given that the test footings were embedded, to facilitate their
0.12 0.16 0.2
generalization of the findings using the FE model in a self-consistent
manner, further analyses were performed to derive values of dc as
predicted by the same FE model and soil parameters employed for
the predictions shown in Fig. 3. A variety of empirical formulas ex-
press dc as a function of embedment depth normalized by the foot-
ing diameter (D=B). FE calculations were therefore conducted for a
circular footing founded in a uniform clay profile with D=B ratios
ranging from 0 to 3, and the values of dc were derived using Eq. (1)
and assuming qf is the bearing stress at s=B ¼ 0.2. The following
equation was found to provide a good fit to the calculated dc values:
rffiffiffiffi
D
dc ¼ 1 þ 0.3 ; D=B ≤ 3 ð2Þ
B
Eq. (2) is quite similar to the relationship for dc suggested by
Salgado et al. (2004) based on numerical limit analysis and is also

© ASCE 06020020-3 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2020, 146(11): 06020020

 6 sut =sub ¼ 4.75. The average of the upper- and lower-bound N c val-
sut /sub=2.0
ues derived in numerical limit analysis by Merifield et al. (1999) are
5 plotted on Fig. 4 and are seen to be in good agreement with the
experimentally derived values.
4
Nc

3 Proposed Expression for Undrained Bearing

Capacity Factor
Experiment
2 Merifield et al. (1999)
To assist with generalization of the test results, additional FE analy-
Meyerhof & Hanna (1978)
ses of the type described previously were performed employing cir-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by China University Of Geosciences, Wuhan on 08/31/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1 Brown & Meyerhof (1969)

Nc=1.5(H/B)+5.14(sub /sut)
cular footings loaded in two-layered profiles with a number of
sut =sub ratios and a D=B value of 0.5, which is typical of shallow
0
foundations used in practice. A range of repeat analyses indicated
0 1 2 3 4
that N c;c is a function of sut =sub and H=B and is independent of the
H/B
absolute values of sut , sub , H, and B. The results plotted in Fig. 5
show that N c;c increases nonlinearly with H=B up to a critical H=B
6
sut /sub=4.75
value, above which the lower clay layer does not affect the footing
response. It is also evident that the rate of increase of N c;c with H=B
5 increases with sut =sub , which is inconsistent with the following
equation derived by Brown and Meyerhof (1969) from tests on
4 surface circular footings showing a fixed slope of 3.0 regardless
of sut =sub :
Nc

3
   
H s
2
Experiment N c;c ¼ 3.0 þ 6.05 ub ≤ 6.05 ð3Þ
Merifield et al. (1999) B sut
Meyerhof & Hanna (1978)
1 Brown & Meyerhof (1969)
Eq. (3) predicts N c;c values that are in relatively good agree-
Nc=1.5(H/B)+5.14(sub /sut)
ment with experimental and numerical results for the cases
0 of sut =sub ¼ 4.75 and 10, but overestimates N c;c when sut =sub ¼
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
1.25 and 2.
H/B The best-fit equation to the FE calculations, which is consistent
with the experimental data, is as follows:
Fig. 4. Experimentally derived N c values compared with proposals for
surface strip footing. The Merifield et al. (1999) trend line shown for      
sut =sub ¼ 4.75 corresponds to their reported trend for sut =sub ¼ 5. sub s H
N c;c ¼ 1.18N c ¼ 6.05 þ 1 − ub tanh 0.85
sut sut B
ð4Þ

in reasonable agreement with the classical formula proposed by
Brinch Hansen (1970) when D=B < 2.5.
Comparison of Test Results with Other
Experimental Data
Values of N c;c were calculated for all footings tested in the labo-
ratory chamber using Eqs. (1) and (2) and employing the undrained
strength of the upper layer (sut ) with capacity defined at s=B ¼ 0.2.
The N c;c value obtained for the footing with the large H=B ratio
of 3.85 (and D=B ¼ 1.65) is 6.04 and in excellent agreement with
the theoretical N c;c value for a surface circular footing on homo-
geneous clay, indicating that suT-bar (which was assumed for sut )
provides a good measure of the operational undrained shear
strength. To determine values of N c , the shape correction factor, sc ,
for a circular footing in Eq. (1) is taken to be 1.18 (¼ 6.05=5.14),
given that the exact solution for N c for a surface strip footing equals
5.14 and that an N c;c value of ∼6.05 was indicated in the load tests
on an embedded circular footing with large H=B ratios as well as in
the FE analyses of surface circular footings. Fig. 4 compares the
experimental N c values (measured N c;c =1.18) with those reported
in previous studies for surface strip footings. It is clear that the
largely empirical trends proposed by Brown and Meyerhof (1969)
and Meyerhof and Hanna (1978) are conservative, particularly for
Eq. (4) provides a very good match to the numerical and exper-
imental results over a wide range of sut =sub and H=B ratios. This
equation assumes implicitly that the operational undrained shear
strength is that measured in a T-bar test. The underprediction of
N c;c for the 20-mm-diameter footing with D=B ¼ 4 (Fig. 5) arises
because of the overestimation by Eq. (2), compared with Brinch
Hansen (1970), of the dc value at a very large D=B value. On this
basis, it is recommended that dc calculated using Eq. (2) is limited
to a maximum value of 1.5 (i.e., corresponding to a D=B value of
2.5). The suitability of Eq. (4) is further investigated in Fig. 6 em-
ploying the average of upper- and lower-bound N c values reported
by Merifield et al. (1999). It is evident that Eq. (4) can provide
predictions that are in reasonably good agreement with all quoted
data and that the empirical formula for N c derived by Brown and
Meyerhof (1969) from load tests on surface strip footing is too
conservative over a wide range of sut =sub ratios.
Equivalent Linear Stiffness
Because a high factor of safety against ultimate failure of shallow
footings is commonly applied, an important focus of designers is
the assessment of footing settlement under service loads. A simple
approach often used to assess footing settlement (s) under a bearing
stress of q employs the following equation for a rigid punch in an

© ASCE 06020020-4 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2020, 146(11): 06020020

 7 7

6 6

5 5

4 4
Nc,c

Nc,c
3 3
sut /sub=1.25 sut /sub=2.0
2 2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by China University Of Geosciences, Wuhan on 08/31/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FEM FEM
Equation (4) Experiment
1 1 Equation (4)
Equation (3)
Equation (3)
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5
H/B H/B

7 7

6 6

5 5
D/B=4

4 4
Nc,c
Nc,c

3 3
sut /sub=4.75 sut /sub=10
2 FEM 2 FEM
Experiment Equation (4)
1 Equation (4)
1 Equation (3)
Equation (3)

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
H/B H/B

Fig. 5. Comparisons of experimental and numerical N c;c values with Eqs. (3) and (4).

elastic medium, using a single equivalent linear elastic modulus
(Eeq ) to represent the stiffness of the medium (where υ ¼ 0.5
for undrained loading):
s π qð1 − ν 2 Þ
≈ ð5Þ
B 4 Eeq
A typical design undrained s=B ratio is 0.01 and therefore Eeq
values at this ratio were back-figured from the chamber tests using
Eq. (5) and referred to here as E0.01 values. The variations with
H=B of E0.01 normalized by sut for the two sut =sub values inves-
tigated experimentally are presented in Fig. 7(a), which also shows
the results of FE computations at four sut =sub values. It is seen that
the footing stiffness is controlled by the stiffness of the upper clay
layer when H=B is greater than a critical value. Above this critical
value, E0.01 =sut is equal to the best-fit E=su ratio of 110 (as em-
ployed for the FE calculations shown on Fig. 3). The general varia-
tion of E0.01 =sut with H=B is similar to that observed for N c;c in
Fig. 5. However, there is a clear difference between the respective
critical H=B values, designated ðH=BÞcr . This difference is illus-
trated on Fig. 7(b), where it is evident that ðH=BÞcr for E0.01 =sut is
significantly lower than that of N c;c (or N c ) at any given sut =sub
ratio. Therefore, while the underlying soft clay layer can lead to
a large reduction in the bearing capacity of a footing, the impact
of this layer on the footing settlement at service loads is appreciably
less. The E0.01 =su ratios of clays deposits, in general, vary with a
range of factors including overconsolidation ratio. However, Fig. 7
may be used to assess the proportional reduction of E0.01 =su and
hence the relative influence on footing immediate settlement of an
underlying soft clay layer.
Conclusions
This technical note has extended the sparse database of footing tests
on two-layered clay profiles. The model tests were conducted in
two separate soil profiles comprising a stiff clay layer over a soft
clay layer and involved tests with a variety of distances from the
footing bases to the underlying soft clay (H), footing diameters (B),
and footing embedment (D). The experimental observations were
supported by FE analyses and enabled derivation of an improved
formulation for the undrained bearing capacity factor in a two-
layered clay profile that is generally consistent with existing
experimental data and additional FE calculations as well as with
the average of upper- and lower-bound N c values presented by
Merifield et al. (1999). A simple method to estimate the undrained

© ASCE 06020020-5 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2020, 146(11): 06020020

 6 6

5 5

Nc 4 4

Nc
3 3
sut /sub=1.25 sut /sub=2.0
2 2
Merifield et al. (1999) Merifield et al. (1999)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by China University Of Geosciences, Wuhan on 08/31/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Equation (4) Equation (4)

1 Brown & Meyerhof (1969) 1 Brown & Meyerhof (1969)
Nc=1.5(H/B)+5.14(sub/sut ) Nc=1.5(H/B)+5.14(sub/sut )

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
H/B H/B

6 6

5 5

4 4
Nc

3 Nc 3
sut /sub=3.0 sut /sub=4.0
2 Merifield et al. (1999) 2 Merifield et al. (1999)
Equation (4) Equation (4)
1 Brown & Meyerhof (1969) 1 Brown & Meyerhof (1969)
Nc=1.5(H/B)+5.14(sub/sut ) Nc=1.5(H/B)+5.14(sub/sut )

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
H/B H/B

Fig. 6. N c values by Merifield et al. (1999) compared with Eq. (4) and empirical formula proposed by Brown and Meyerhof (1969).

140 3

120 2.5 Nc

100 E0.01 /sut

2

80
(H/B)cr
E0.01 /sut

1.5
sut /sub =1.25, FEM
Sut/Sub=1.25, FEM
60
sut /s ub =2, Experiment
Sut/Sub=2, Experiment
sut /s ub =2, FEM
Sut/Sub=2, FEM 1
40
s ut /sub =4.75, Experiment
Sut/Sub=4.75, Experiment
sut /s ub =4.75, FEM
Sut/Sub=4.75, FEM
20 0.5
sut /s ub =10, FEM
Sut/Sub=10, FEM

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
(a) H/B (b) sut /sub

Fig. 7. (a) Variation of E0.01 =sut with H=B in two-layered clay profile with different sut =sub ratios; and (b) dependence of ðH=BÞcr for capacity and
stiffness on sut =sub .

© ASCE 06020020-6 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2020, 146(11): 06020020

 settlement of footing on a two-layered clay profile is also provided
and shows that the proximity of the underlying soft clay layer has a
lower influence on the footing settlement than on the capacity.
Data Availability Statement
Some or all data, models, or code that support the findings of this
study are available from the corresponding author upon request.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by China University Of Geosciences, Wuhan on 08/31/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Acknowledgments
The first author gratefully acknowledges the financial support pro-
vided by the Chinese Scholarship Council and National Natural
Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 41972298). The authors
also express sincere thanks to staff and students at the University of
Western Australia (UWA) who assisted with the testing program.
References
Atkinson, J. H. 2000. “Non-linear soil stiffness in routine design.” Géotech-
nique 50 (5): 487–508. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2000.50.5.487.
Brinch Hansen, J. 1970. A revised and extended formula for bearing capac-
ity: Bulletin No. 28. Copenhagen, Denmark: Danish Geotechnical
Institute.
Brown, J. D., and G. G. Meyerhof. 1969. “Experimental study of bearing
capacity in layered clays.” In Vol. 2 of Proc., 7th Int. Conf. on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 45–51. Tlalpan, Mexico:
Mexican Society of Geotechnical Engineering.
Button, S. J. 1953. “The bearing capacity of footings on a two-layer co-
hesive subsoil.” In Vol. 1 of Proc., 3rd Int. Conf. Soil Mechanical Foun-
dation Engineering, Zurich, 332–335. London: International Society
for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering.
Doherty, J. P., S. Gourvenec, and F. M. Gaone. 2018. “Insights from a shal-
low foundation load-settlement prediction exercise.” Comput. Geotech.
93 (Jan): 269–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2017.05.009.
Eason, G., and R. T. Shield. 1960. “The plastic indentation of a semi-
infinite solid by a perfectly rough circular punch.” J. Appl. Math. Phys.
(ZAMP) 11 (1): 33–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01591800.
© ASCE 06020020-7
View publication stats J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2020, 146(11): 06020020
Florkiewicz, A. 1989. “Upper bound to bearing capacity of layered soils.”
Can. Geotech. J. 26 (4): 730–736. https://doi.org/10.1139/t89-084.
Griffiths, D. V. 1982. “Computation of bearing capacity on layered soils.”
In Vol. 1 of Proc., 4th Int. Conf. Numerical Methods in Geomechanics,
Edmonton, Canada, 163–170. Rotterdam, Netherlands: A.A. Balkema.
Lehane, B. M. 2003. “Vertically loaded shallow foundation on soft clayey
silt.” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Geotech. Eng. 156 (1): 17–26. https://doi.org
/10.1680/geng.2003.156.1.17.
Lehane, B. M., C. D. O’ Loughlin, C. Gaudin, and M. F. Randolph. 2009.
“Rate effects on penetrometer resistance in kaolin.” Géotechnique
59 (1): 41–52. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2007.00072.
Merifield, R. S., and V. Q. Nguyen. 2006. “Two- and three-dimensional
bearing-capacity solutions for footings on two-layered clays.” Geomech.
Geoeng. Int. J. 1 (2): 151–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/1748602060063
2637.
Merifield, R. S., S. W. Sloan, and H. S. Yu. 1999. “Rigorous plasticity so-
lutions for the bearing capacity of two-layered clays.” Géotechnique
49 (4): 471–490. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1999.49.4.471.
Meyerhof, G. G., and A. M. Hanna. 1978. “Ultimate bearing capacity of
foundations on layered soils under inclined load.” Can. Geotech. J.
15 (4): 565–572. https://doi.org/10.1139/t78-060.
Michalowski, R. L. 2002. “Collapse loads over two-layer clay foundation
soils.” Soils Found. 42 (1): 1–7. https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf.42.1.
Randolph, M. F., and G. T. Houlsby. 1984. “The limiting pressure on a
circular pile loaded laterally in cohesive soil.” Géotechnique 34 (4):
613–623. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1984.34.4.613.
Reddy, A. S., and R. J. Srinivasan. 1967. “Bearing capacity of footings on
layered clays.” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. 93 (2): 83–99.
Salgado, R., A. V. Lyamin, S. W. Sloan, and H. S. Yu. 2004. “Two-and
three-dimensional bearing capacity of foundations in clay.” Géotechni-
que 54 (5): 297–306. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2004.54.5.297.
Tian, Y. 2018. “Stiffness and capacity of foundation on layered clays.”
Master thesis, School of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Western
Australia.
Vardanega, P. J., and M. D. Bolton. 2013. “Stiffness of clays and silts:
Normalizing shear modulus and shear strain.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng. 139 (9): 1575–1589. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943
-5606.0000887.
Xu, X., and B. M. Lehane. 2008. “Pile and penetrometer end bearing re-
sistance in two layered soil profiles.” Géotechnique 58 (3): 187–197.
https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2008.58.3.187.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.