Ultimate bearing capacity of shallow strip and

circular foundations by using limit analysis,

finite elements, and optimization
Jagdish Prasad Sahoo1 and Jyant Kumar*2
This paper presents a review of the works done mainly at Indian Institute of Science on the
determination of the ultimate bearing capacity of shallow strip and circular foundations with the
usages of lower and upper bound theorems of the limit analysis. After providing an outline of
the historical developments in the field of limit analysis, a few important problems, illustrating the
recent advancements in determining the bearing capacity of shallow foundations, have been
addressed. The effects of (i) footing–soil interface roughness, (iii) size of footing, (iii) seismic forces,
and (iv) interference of two closely spaced footings, on the bearing capacity have been presented.
Keywords: Bearing capacity, Earthquakes, Foundations, Interference, Limit analysis, Roughness, Optimization

Introduction and stress boundary conditions without the violation of

The computation of the bearing capacity of foundation
always forms an important design task. The ultimate
bearing capacity of shallow foundations is usually
calculated by using the standard bearing capacity equation
(Terzaghi, 1943). This equation is based on the principle of
superposition to combine independently the effects of soil
cohesion, surcharge pressure, and soil unit weight. This
equation is expressed in the form as
1 admissible velocity field. As compared to the upper bound
qu ~cNc zqNq z cBNc (1)
2
where qu is the ultimate bearing capacity, Nc, Nq, and Nc
refer to the bearing capacity factors due the contribution
of soil cohesion c, surcharge pressure q, and soil unit
weight c, respectively, and B defines either the width of a
strip footing or the diameter of a circular footing. Davis
and Booker (1971) theoretically justified the application of
the principle of superposition since it provides a con-
servative estimate of the ultimate bearing capacity and it
often leads to a safer design. Following an associated flow
rule, Drucker et al. (1951) developed lower and upper
bound limit theorems for elastic–perfectly plastic materi-
als, which were later extended for a perfectly plastic
material (Drucker et al., 1952) to estimate the collapse
loads within two extreme limits. The lower bound theorem
of the limit analysis, which intends to satisfy equilibrium
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee
247667, India
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore
560012, India
*Corresponding author, email jkumar@civil.iisc.ernet.in
yield criterion in a statically admissible stress field,
provides the magnitude of the collapse load either smaller
or at the most equal to the magnitude of the true collapse
load. Whereas, by using an upper bound theorem of the
limit analysis, the magnitude of the collapse load can be
determined by equating the rate of work done by external
and body forces to the rate of dissipation of total internal
energy with the satisfaction of velocity boundary condi-
tions and an associated flow rule in a kinematically
solution, a lower bound solution becomes more important
in engineering practice since it generally provides a
conservative estimate of the collapse load. By using the
limit analysis and with an assumption of a suitable failure
mechanism, a number of investigations have been carried
out by different researchers to solve various geotechnical
stability problems (Chen, 1975; Murray and Geddes,
1989; Michalowski, 1997; Soubra, 1999; Kumar, 2002).
However, the application of such an analysis becomes
limited to solve only simple problems, and moreover, the
accuracy of the results depends on the assumptions
involved in defining the failure mechanism. To overcome
these limitations, more robust numerical formulations
have been developed by using finite elements and
mathematical programing while using the theorems of
the limit analysis. The advantage of using a numerical
formulation for the bound theorems is that it can handle
complex loading, complicated geometries, and a variety of
material failure conditions. Further, there is no need to
assume any collapse mechanism in such a numerical
technique. With the application of the limit analysis in
combination with finite elements and linear/non-linear
programing, different stability problems in geomechanics

ß 2014 W. S. Maney & Son Ltd

Received 7 May 2014; accepted 1 June 2014 International Journal of
DOI 10.1179/1939787914Y.0000000070 Geotechnical Engineering 2014 VOL 0 NO 0 1
Sahoo and Kumar Bearing capacity of strip and circular foundations
1 A diagram of a strip footing placed over sand
have been solved by a number of researchers (Lysmer,
1970; Bottero et al., 1980; Sloan, 1988, 1989; Sloan and
Kleeman, 1995; Lyamin and Sloan, 2002a, 2002b;
Ukritchon et al., 2003; Hjiaj et al., 2004, 2005; Kumar
and Kouzer, 2007; Kumar and Khatri, 2011).
In the present paper, by employing lower and upper
bound theorems of the limit analysis, a review has been
provided for the methods adopted to formulate the
different bearing capacity problems involving only strip
and circular foundations; it needs to be mentioned that the
limit analysis has also been successfully used to deal with
the three-dimensional problems as well (Merifield et al.,
2003; 2006; Krabbenhoft et al., 2008; Li et al., 2010). The
solutions of different relevant foundation problems
obtained mainly at Indian Institute of Science have been
covered.
Effect of footing–soil interface roughness
on the bearing capacity of footings
Strip footings
For a strip footing, the magnitudes of the bearing capacity
factors Nc and Nq, because of the contribution of cohesion
and surcharge, respectively, become almost independent
with respect to change in the roughness of the footing–soil
interface (Meyerhof, 1957, 1963; Bolton and Lau, 1993).
However, a considerable difference does exist between the
values of Nc for perfectly smooth and perfectly rough
foundations (Meyerhof, 1957, 1963; Bolton and Lau,
1993; Michalowski, 1997). A footing–soil interface is
considered perfectly smooth when a free relative move-
ment occurs between the footing and underlying soil mass
without the development of any interface shear stress. By
contrast, the perfectly rough interface does not allow any
relative movement along the footing–soil interface. From
the available works, the magnitude of Nc can be
determined for both perfectly smooth and perfectly rough
foundations (Terzaghi, 1943; Meyerhof, 1957, 1963;
Bolton and Lau, 1993; Michalowski, 1997; Soubra, 1999;
Kumar, 2004; Ukritchon et al., 2003; Hjiaj et al., 2005).
The variation of Nc with changes in the footing–soil
interface friction angle (d) for different values of internal
frictional angle of soil (w) has been studied by Kumar
(2004) and Martin (2005) by using (i) the upper bound
limit analysis based on logarithmic spiral rupture surface
and (ii) the slip line method, respectively. In order to
examine the effect of footing–soil interface friction angle
(d) on the value of Nc in a more rigorous fashion, Kumar
2 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 2014
and Kouzer (2007) and Kumar and Khatri (2008a) have
performed upper and lower bound limit analysis in
combination with finite elements and linear programing.
In the studies of Kumar and Kouzer (2007) and Kumar
and Khatri (2008a), a rigid strip footing having width B is
placed on a cohesionless ground surface as shown in
Fig. 1. The footing is subjected to vertical downward load
with its point of application coinciding with the center line
of the footing. The soil mass is assumed to be perfectly
plastic, and it obeys an associated flow rule and Mohr–
Coulomb’s failure criterion. The magnitude of Nc for
different values of footing–soil interface friction angle (d)
was determined. Kumar and Khatri (2008a) performed the
lower bound finite element limit analysis by following the
method as described by Sloan (1988). In this method, three
noded triangular finite elements are used in conjunction
with linear programing for obtaining the magnitude of the
collapse load. The nodal stresses sx, sy, and txy are treated
as basic unknown variables; where sx and sy are the
normal stresses along the directions of x and y axes,
respectively, and txy is the shear stress acting on the x–y
plane. The element equilibrium conditions are satisfied
everywhere in the problem domain. Statically admissible
stress discontinuities are permitted along the common
edges shared by any two adjacent elements, and the shear
and normal stresses remain always continuous along any
stress discontinuity line. In addition, it is ensured that the
Mohr–Coulomb yield condition is nowhere violated in the
domain. Following Bottero et al. (1980), the original non-
linear Mohr–Coulomb yield function is linearized by a
regular polygon of sides p inscribed into the parent yield
surface. With the satisfaction of the stress-boundary
conditions, equilibrium equations, and linearized yield
criterion, the basic expression for finding the magnitude of
the total collapse load is generated from the integration of
the normal stresses along the footing–soil interface. The
magnitude of the collapse load is then maximized subject
to a number of equality and non-equality linear con-
straints on the nodal stresses. With the incorporation of
the plastic strains both within the elements and along the
velocity discontinuities, Kumar and Kouzer (2007) carried
out an upper bound limit analysis in combination with
finite elements and linear programing by following Sloan
and Kleeman (1995). Three noded triangular finite
elements are used to perform the analysis. An interface
between two adjacent elements is always taken as the line
of the velocity discontinuity in the upper bound analysis.
The horizontal velocity u and vertical velocity v are treated
as two basic unknown variables at each node. Following
Bottero et al. (1980), the non-linear Mohr–Coulomb yield
criterion is linearized by drawing a regular p-sided polygon
which is circumscribed to the parent yield circle so that the
numerical solution remains always a rigorous upper
bound on the exact solution. The upper bound problem
is formulated as a linear programing problem in which the
magnitude of the collapse load needs to be minimized
subjected to a number of equality linear constraints
satisfying (i) compatibility conditions, (ii) kinematically
admissible velocity discontinuities, and (iii) velocity
boundary conditions. In order to determine the magnitude
of the collapse load, the rate of total work done by the
VOL 0 NO 0
 Sahoo and Kumar Bearing capacity of strip and circular foundations

interface, by employing lower and upper bound finite

element limit analysis with non-linear programing (i) Hjiaj
et al. (2004) determined the bearing capacity factor Nc due
to cohesion component of a cohesive-frictional soil, and
(ii) Hjiaj et al. (2005) obtained the values of Nc for a
cohesionless soil due to the contribution of self-weight of
soil mass.
It is known that for saturated normally consolidated
and lightly over consolidated clays, the cohesion of soil
mass under undrained condition increases almost linearly
with depth (Bishop, 1966). Following the computational
procedure described in Sloan and Kleeman (1995) and
Kumar and Kouzer (2007), by using the upper bound limit
analysis in combination with linear programing, Kumar
2 The variation of Nc with d/w for different values of w
and Sahoo (2013) computed the bearing capacity factor Nc
for a purely cohesive soil where the cohesion of soil mass
external and body forces is equated to the rate of total
Table 2 The values of Nq for a strip footing
internal energy dissipation within the elements and along
all the velocity discontinuities. The variation of Nc with d/ Nq
w for different values of w ranging from 5u to 45u and d/w
varying from 0 to 1 is provided in Fig. 2. It can be noticed Chakraborty and Kumar (2013a) (I) Soubra (1999) (II)
that the value of Nc increases continuously with increase in
d/w. It should be noted that the effect of d/w on Nc is found w LB UB
to be more extensive for greater values of w.
5 1.57 1.57
In order to determine the magnitudes of the ultimate 10 2.47 2.47
bearing capacity of smooth and rough strip footings, the 15 3.93 3.95
bearing capacity factors Nc, Nq, and Nc obtained by 20 6.37 6.41
different researchers (Soubra, 1999; Hjiaj et al., 2004, 25 10.57 10.69
2005; Kumar and Kouzer, 2007; Kumar and Khatri, 30 18.13 18.46
35 32.55 33.43
2008a; Kumar and Sahoo, 2013; Chakraborty and Kumar, 40 62.61 64.55
2013a) with help of the limit analysis have been provided 45 130.08 135.91
in Tables 1–3. Soubra (1999) has obtained solutions in
LB: lower bound; UB: upper bound.
determining the bearing capacity factors of strip founda-
(I): lower bound limit analysis with finite elements and non-linear
tions with a rough footing–soil interface based on the programing.
upper bound limit analysis with the usage of triangular (II): upper bound limit analysis with the usage of triangular rigid
rigid block collapse mechanism. For a rough footing–soil blocks having common vertex at the footing edge.

Table 1 The values of Nc for a strip footing

Nc

Chakraborty and Kumar (2013a) (I) Kumar and Sahoo (2013) (II) Hjiaj et al. (2004) (III) Soubra (1999) (IV)

w m LB UB LB UB UB

0 0 5.12 5.18 – – 5.15

0.5 – 6.05 – – –
1 – 6.71 – – –
5 0 6.46 – 6.47 6.56 6.50
10 0 8.30 8.52 8.31 8.46 8.36
15 0 10.90 – 10.90 11.15 11.00
20 0 14.71 15.33 14.70 15.13 14.87
25 0 20.45 – 20.47 21.19 20.78
30 0 29.65 31.17 29.74 30.88 30.25
35 0 45.02 – 45.50 47.28 46.35
40 0 73.00 – 74.35 77.23 75.80
45 0 128.22 – 131.56 137.69 135.09
LB: lower bound; UB: upper bound.
(I): lower bound limit analysis with finite elements and non-linear programing.
(II): upper bound limit analysis with finite elements and linear programing.
(III): limit analysis with finite elements and non-linear programing.
(IV): upper bound limit analysis with the usage of triangular rigid blocks having common vertex at the footing edge.

International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 2014 VOL 0 NO 0 3

Sahoo and Kumar Bearing capacity of strip and circular foundations

Table 3 The values of Nc for a strip footing

Nc Nc

Smooth footing Rough footing

Kumar and Kumar and Hjiaj et al. Kumar and Kumar and Hjiaj et al. Soubra
Khatri (2008a) (I) Kouzer (2007) (II) (2005) (III) Khatri (2008a) (I) Kouzer (2007) (II) (2005) (III) (1999) (IV)

w LB UB LB UB LB UB LB UB UB

5 0.08 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.11 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.25

10 0.27 0.31 0.28 0.30 0.40 0.49 0.43 0.46 0.85
15 0.67 0.78 0.70 0.74 1.09 1.32 1.18 1.24 2.10
20 1.51 1.74 1.58 1.67 2.65 3.16 2.82 2.96 4.67
25 3.31 3.82 3.45 3.65 6.02 7.26 6.43 6.74 10.06
30 7.26 8.47 7.62 8.08 13.65 16.54 14.57 15.24 21.88
35 16.53 19.68 17.46 18.51 31.90 38.99 33.95 35.65 49.62
40 39.91 50.38 42.77 45.42 77.88 98.53 83.33 88.39 120.96
45 105.19 141.93 115.62 123.25 204.53 280.36 224.95 240.88 328.88
LB: lower bound; UB: upper bound.
(I): lower bound limit analysis with finite elements and linear programing.
(II): upper bound limit analysis with finite elements and linear programing.
(III): limit analysis with finite elements and non-linear programing.
(IV): upper bound limit analysis with the usage of triangular rigid blocks having common vertex at the footing edge.

linearly increases with depth. The cohesion of soil mass at Kumar (2013a) computed the values of the bearing
any depth (h) is defined by the following expression capacity factors for both smooth and rough soil–footing
  interface by applying the lower bound finite element limit
h analysis in conjunction with non-linear optimization that
c~co 1zm (2)
B was described by Krabbenhoft and Damkilde (2003). In
this non-linear optimization technique, similar to Sloan
where (i) c and co. refer to the values of cohesion at a (1988), (i) three noded triangular elements are used to
depth h and at ground surface, respectively and (ii) m is a discretize the stress field, (ii) the element equilibrium
non-dimensional factor which defines the rate at which the conditions are satisfied everywhere in the domain, (iii)
cohesion increases linearly with depth. Chakraborty and along the interfaces of all the adjacent elements, stress

Table 4 The values of Nc for a circular footing

Nc

Smooth footing Rough footing

Kumar and Chakraborty Kumar and Chakraborty

Chakraborty and Kumar Kumar and Khatri and Chakraborty and Kumar Kumar and Khatri and
(2013a) (2013b) Khatri (2011) Kumar (2009) (2013a) (2013b) Khatri (2011) Kumar (2009)

w m LB UB LB LB LB UB LB LB

0 0 – – – 5.63 – – – 6.00
1 – – – 6.19 – – – 6.88
2 – – – 6.66 – – – 7.55
3 – – – 7.08 – – – 8.12
4 – – – 7.47 – – – 8.64
5 – – – 7.84 – – – 9.11
5 0 7.52 7.58 7.31 – 8.10 8.16 8.00 –
10 0 9.90 10.18 9.78 – 10.87 11.14 10.99 –
15 0 13.41 14.10 13.51 – 15.04 16.04 15.66 –
20 0 18.83 20.42 19.38 – 21.64 23.67 23.22 –
25 0 27.77 30.84 29.06 – 32.70 36.30 36.17 –
30 0 43.77 50.11 47.10 – 52.80 62.13 61.48 –
35 0 – – 81.47 – – – 112.47 –
40 0 – – 153.94 – – – 224.27 –
45 0 – – 324.85 – – – 501.74 –
LB: lower bound; UB: upper bound.

4 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 2014 VOL 0 NO 0

 Sahoo and Kumar Bearing capacity of strip and circular foundations

Table 5 The values of Nq for a circular footing

Nq

Smooth footing Rough footing

Kumar and Chakraborty and Kumar and Kumar and Chakraborty and Kumar and
Chakraborty (2013a) Kumar (2013b) Khatri (2011) Chakraborty (2013a) Kumar (2013b) Khatri (2011)

w LB UB LB LB UB LB

5 1.66 1.71 1.64 1.70 1.77 1.70

10 2.75 2.91 2.72 2.95 3.11 2.94
15 4.59 5.02 4.62 5.03 5.54 5.20
20 7.86 8.93 8.05 8.87 10.22 9.45
25 13.95 16.49 14.55 16.24 19.98 17.87
30 26.27 34.15 28.20 31.48 41.64 36.50
35 – – 58.04 – – 79.75
40 – – 130.17 – – 189.19
45 – – 325.85 – – 502.74
LB: lower bound; UB: upper bound

discontinuities are permitted; along any stress discontinu-
ity line, normal and shear stresses are, however, always
kept continuous, and (iv) at all the nodes, it is ensured that
the yield conditions are nowhere violated. The formula-
tion provided by Krabbenhoft and Damkilde (2003), for
obtaining the lower bound solution by using the non-
linear programing, requires that the yield function to be
smooth as well as convex. The solution algorithm involves
the computation of first and second order derivatives of
the yield function with respect to stresses. The smooth
hyperbolic approximation of the Mohr–Coulomb yield
criterion is made as described in Lyamin and Sloan
(2002a, 2002b). Similar to the findings of Meyerhof (1957,
1963) and Bolton and Lau (1993), the factors Nc and Nq
also become the same for both smooth and rough footing
base as determined by Chakraborty and Kumar (2013a).
Circular footings
For circular footings, the bearing capacity factors Nc, Nq,
and Nc corresponding to different values of w are provided
in Tables 4–6 for smooth and rough interface from (i) the
lower bound solutions of Khatri and Kumar (2009),
Kumar and Khatri (2011), and Kumar and Chakraborty
(2013a) and (ii) the upper bound solutions of Chakraborty
and Kumar (2013b). The magnitudes of all the bearing
capacity factors for a rough footing are found to be
greater than that with the smooth footing base; the
difference between the bearing capacity factors associated
with the two different footing–soil interface condition
increases with an increase in w. As compared to the factors
Nc and Nq, the difference between the smooth and rough
footings becomes much more extensive in the case of Nc.
By using the assumption of the Harr–Von Karman
hypothesis, that is, the magnitude of the hoop stress (sh)
remains closer to the least compressive normal stress (s3),
Khatri and Kumar (2009) proposed a formulation for
solving an axisymmetric problem in a purely cohesive soil,
by extending the formulation of Sloan (1988) for the plane
strain problem with the help of lower bound limit analysis
in conjunction with finite elements and linear programing.

Table 6 The values of Nc for a circular footing

Nc

Smooth footing Rough footing

Kumar and Chakraborty and Kumar and Kumar and Chakraborty and Kumar and
Chakraborty (2013a) Kumar (2013b) Khatri (2011) Chakraborty (2013a) Kumar (2013b) Khatri (2011)

w LB UB LB LB UB LB

5 0.08 0.10 0.09 0.11 0.13 0.12

10 0.27 0.31 0.28 0.40 0.49 0.43
15 0.67 0.78 0.70 1.09 1.32 1.18
20 1.51 1.74 1.58 2.65 3.16 2.82
25 3.31 3.82 3.45 6.02 7.26 6.43
30 7.26 8.47 7.62 13.65 16.54 14.57
35 16.53 19.68 17.46 31.90 38.99 33.95
40 39.91 50.38 42.77 77.88 98.53 83.33
45 105.19 141.93 115.62 204.53 280.36 224.95
LB: lower bound; UB: upper bound.

International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 2014 VOL 0 NO 0 5

Sahoo and Kumar Bearing capacity of strip and circular foundations
3 The variation of wtr with sm and sc for Toyoura sand and
Hostun sand
By employing the proposed formulation, Khatri and
Kumar (2009) obtained the bearing capacity factor Nc
for piles in undrained clays (w50). The computations were
made for different embedment ratio (H/B) of the pile,
where H and B are the length and diameter of the pile,
respectively. A pile with H/B50 becomes simply the case
of a circular footing placed on the ground surface. In this
analysis, the increase in the undrained shear strength of
clay with depth, which is given in equation (2), was taken
in to account. Kumar and Khatri (2011) extended the
axisymmetric formulation proposed by Khatri and Kumar
(2009) for obtaining solutions to axisymmetric problems in
a general c–w soil. By using this formulation, Kumar and
Khatri (2011) provided the bearing capacity factors of a
circular footing for both smooth and rough footing–soil
interface. With the usage of lower bound finite element
limit analysis in combination with linear programing,
Kumar and Chakraborty (2013a) have also proposed a
formulation in order to solve axisymmetric problems by
extending the formulation of Sloan (1988). The work of
Kumar and Chakraborty (2013a) deals with the Drucker–
Prager yield criterion, whereas the earlier works of Kumar
and Khatri (2011) are based on the Mohr–Coulomb yield
criterion. On the basis of Drucker–Prager yield criterion,
Chakraborty and Kumar (2013b) proposed a formulation
to obtain solutions to axisymmetric problems with the
help of upper bound finite element limit analysis in
combination with linear optimization by extending the
formulation of Sloan (1988) and Sloan and Kleeman
(1995).
Effect of footing width/diameter on the
bearing capacity of foundations
It is known that the bearing capacity factor Nc decreases
with an increase in footing size. This was perhaps first
reported by Golder (1941) and later extensively reviewed
by De Beer (1965, 1970). Experiments carried out in a
centrifuge demonstrate that the magnitude of Nc increases
almost linearly with a decrease in the footing size on a log–
log plot (Ovesen, 1979; Kutter et al., 1988; Kusakabe
et al., 1991; Ueno et al., 1994; Clark, 1998). As a result,
6 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 2014
model footings always try to overpredict the bearing
capacity factor Nc as compared to field footings. The
dependence of Nc on footing width (B) was found to be
primarily because of the fact that the friction angle (w) of
the soil mass decreases with increases in confining pressure
(sc) (Fukushima and Tatsuoka, 1984; Hettler and
Gudehus, 1989; Maeda and Miura, 1999; Zhu et al.,
2001; Ueno et al., 2001; Cerato and Lutenegger, 2007).
For a strip footing, Shiraishi (1990) developed the
following expression for determining Nc
 {b
B
Nc ~Nc  (3)
B
where Nc 5 reference bearing capacity factor;
B*5reference footing width; and b is a non-dimensional
factor to account for the dependence of Nc on the
confining stress level. Shiraishi (1990) found b values
from a limited number of in situ loading tests. When B*
was set to 1?40 m, the value of b was found to be equal to
0?2. The insight into the physical meaning of parameters b
and B* in equation (2) has been given in Ueno et al. (2001).
Note that equation (2) provides a linear decrease of Nc
with an increase in B when plotted on a log–log scale. This
is in accordance with the centrifuge experimental data of
Kusakabe et al. (1991) and Ueno et al. (1994).
With the usage of the lower bound theorem of limit
analysis in conjunction with finite elements and linear
programing, by taking into account dependence of friction
angle (w) of soil on mean principal stress level (sm), the
variation of Nc (i) with the width of strip footing was
examined by Kumar and Khatri (2008b, 2008c) and (ii)
with the diameter of circular footing was examined by
Chakraborty and Kumar (2013c). In order to numerically
study the effect of footing size on Nc, two friction angle
curves for granular material available from literature
based on triaxial shear tests, providing the relationship
between friction angle (wtr) and effective confining
pressure (sc), for Toyoura sand (taken from Fukushima
and Tatsuoka, 1984) and Hostun sand (Lancelot et al.,
2006) corresponding to relative densities of 74?5 and 18%,
respectively, were employed; the symbol wtr was used to
represent friction angle corresponding to triaxial shear
tests. The variation of wtr with sc and sm is shown in
Fig. 3; where sm is the mean effective principal stress, that
is, (s1zsc)/2 and (s1z2sc)/3 for the strip and circular
footing, respectively. The magnitude of the major princi-
pal stress (s1) is computed by using the expression
s15sctan2(p/4zwtr/2) applicable for a granular medium.
The friction angle corresponding to sm50 was obtained
by extrapolating each of the two curves linearly to
intersect the wtr axis. For the strip footing, it can be
observed that (i) for Toyoura sand, wtr varies from 42?6u at
sm50 to 38?44u at sm51208 kPa, whereas (ii) for Hostun
sand, wtr changes from 40?2u at sm50 to 32?4u at
sm5858 kPa. For the circular footing, it can be observed
that (i) for Toyoura sand, wtr varies from 42?6u at sm50 to
38?44u at sm5957?8 kPa, whereas (ii) for Hostun sand, wtr
changes from 40?2u at sm50 to 32?4u at sm5704?7 kPa. In
order to approximately obtain the friction angle w of the
soil mass associated with plane strain conditions (strip
VOL 0 NO 0

4 The variation of Nc with cB/sa for a strip footing
footing), the magnitude of wtr is simply increased by 10%
(Hansen, 1970); it should be mentioned that when
performing the numerical analysis for the strip footing,
w–sm curves are being used.
Effect of footing width on Nc for strip footings
Kumar and Khatri (2008b) and Kumar and Khatri
(2008c) computed the effect of footing width on the Nc
for smooth and rough strip footing, respectively, by using
the numerical lower bound limit analysis procedure that
was described by Sloan (1988) for the case where the
friction angle is considered to be independent with respect
to changes in the stress level. Note that the parameter w
itself depends on sm. As the value of sm varies with
respect to horizontal and vertical direction within the
problem domain, the magnitude of w will be, therefore, no
longer constant within the chosen domain. In order to
obtain the solution, a trial and iterative procedure was
adopted. In the beginning, the value of w was assumed to
be constant throughout the chosen domain. The magni-
tude of the collapse load, along with the variation of the
nodal stresses everywhere within the chosen domain, was
then determined. In the next calculation, from the
computed values of sm at all the nodes, based on
correlation between sm and w, the new values of w were
then assigned at all the nodes. Subsequently, a new
solution was again obtained and the magnitude of the
collapse load was again computed from the optimized
solution. This magnitude of collapse load was then
compared with that obtained from the previous calcula-
tion. This procedure was continued until the new
magnitude of the collapse did not change compared to
that obtained from the previous calculation. In order to
present all the results, the magnitude of the footing width
was normalized with respect sa/c, where sa is the absolute
value of the atmospheric pressure (98 kPa). The variation
of Nc with cB/sa for the strip footings with smooth and
rough base is shown in Fig. 4. It can be seen that the
magnitude of Nc increases continuously with a decrease in
cb/sa.
Following Shiraishi (1990), the variation of Nc =Nc with
B/B* is plotted on a log–log scale and this variation is
shown in Fig. 5a and b for the strip footing with smooth
International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
Sahoo and Kumar Bearing capacity of strip and circular foundations
5 The variation of log Nª =Nª  with log(B/B*) for a strip foot-
ing with a smooth footing base and b rough footing base
and rough footing–soil interface. The values of Nc was
computed from the analysis by using a constant value
of w5w* throughout the soil domain, that is, the effect of
sm on w was not incorporated. For the smooth strip
footing, it has been found that (i) the value of Nc is 126?46
for Toyoura sand and 47?12 for Hostun sand; (ii) the value
of w* (associated with sm5sa) is found to be 46?02u for
Toyoura sand and 40?89u for Hostun sand; and (iii) the
value of B*, corresponding to which the magnitude of Nc,
considering the effect of sm on w becomes equal to Nc , is
found to be 0?391 m for Toyoura sand and 1?065 m for
Hostun sand. It should be mentioned that for values of B
approximately greater than 0?4 m, for both the sands, the
variation of Nc =Nc with changes in B/B* is found to be
almost linear on a log–log scale and the negative slopes of
these two straight lines, except for the negative values of
log (B/B*) as shown in Fig. 5a become simply the
magnitude of b as defined in equation (3). The value of
b is found to be 0?17 for Toyuora sand and 0?29 for
Hostun sand. For the rough strip footing, it has been
found that (i) the value of Nc ~250:74 and 91?13 for
Toyoura and Hostun sand, respectively; (ii) the value of
w*546?02u and 40?89u for Toyoura and Hostun sand,
respectively; and (iii) the value of B* is found to be
0?198 m for Toyoura sand and 0?612 m for Hostun sand.
For B approximately greater than 0?2 m, for both the
sands, the variation of Nc =Nc with B/B* was found to be
almost linear on a log–log scale and the value of b was
2014 VOL 0 NO 0 7
Sahoo and Kumar Bearing capacity of strip and circular foundations
6 The variation of Nc with cB/sa for a circular footing
found to be 0?158 for Toyuora sand and 0?267 for Hostun
sand. For both smooth and rough strip footing, the
observed values of b were seen to be within the range of
0–0?6 as was earlier observed by Ueno et al. (2001).
Effect of footing diameter on Nc of circular
footings
For determining the effect of diameter of circular footing
on the values of Nc, Chakraborty and Kumar (2013c) have
used the axisymmetric lower bound limit analysis for-
mulation in combination with finite elements and linear
programing as proposed by Kumar and Khatri (2011).
Since sm varies in the radial and vertical directions within
the chosen domain, the magnitude of w will also change
within the problem domain. The solution has been
obtained by following trial and iterative procedure of
Kumar and Khatri (2008b, 2008c), which has already been
discussed in section ‘‘Effect of footing width on Nc for
strip footings.’’ In order to present all the results, the
magnitude of the footing diameter was normalized with
respect to sa/c, where sa is the absolute value of the
atmospheric pressure (98 kPa). The variation of Nc with
cB/sa for the smooth and rough circular footing is shown
in Fig. 6. It can be seen that the magnitude of Nc increases
continuously with a decrease in cb/sa.
Similar to the strip footing, the variation of Nc =Nc with
changes in B/B* is plotted on a log–log scale for both
smooth and rough circular footings. The associated plots
are provided in Fig. 7a and b. For the smooth circular
footing, (i) the value of Nc was found to be 64?90 for
Toyoura sand and 25?06 for Hostun sand; (ii) the value of
w* corresponds to sm5sa was found to be 41?75u for
Toyoura sand and 37?11u for Hostun sand; (iii) the value
of B* becomes 0?691 m for Toyoura sand and 2?286 m for
Hostun sand. Note that the value of B* for a circular
footing can be simply determined by using Fig. 6 for
Nc ~Nc : It was seen that for the value of B approximately
greater than 0?7 m, for both the chosen sands, the
variation of Nc =Nc with B/B* becomes almost linear on
a log–log scale and the negative slopes of these two
straight lines as shown in Fig. 7a become simply the
magnitude of b as defined in equation (2). The value of b
has been found to be (i) 0?17 for Toyuora sand and (ii)
8 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 2014
7 The variation of Nª =N ª  with B/B* for a circular footing
with a smooth footing base and b rough footing base
0?30 for Hostun sand. For the rough circular footing, (i)
the value of Nc was found to be 163?01 and 59?58 for
Toyoura and Hostun sand, respectively and (ii) the value
of B* was noted to be 0?321 and 1?037 m for Toyoura and
Hostun sand, respectively. For B approximately greater
than 0?35 m, for both the sands, the variation of Nc =Nc
with changes in B/B* becomes almost linear on a log–log
scale. The value of b has been found to be 0?16 for
Toyuora sand and 0?28 for Hostun sand. For all the cases,
the observed values of b has been found to be within the
range of 0–0?6 as was earlier observed by Ueno et al.
(2001).
Effect of seismic forces on the bearing
capacity of strip foundations
Many catastrophic foundation failures have been reported
in the past on account of earthquakes. It is not an easy
task to perform a rigorous computational analysis to
determine the bearing capacity of foundations in the
presence of true dynamic seismic forces. A simple
approach, which has been followed by a number of
researchers, is to determine the reduction in the ultimate
bearing capacity by incorporating pseudostatic seismic
forces (Sarma and Iossifelis, 1990; Budhu and Al-Karni,
1993; Dormieux and Pecker, 1995; Soubra, 1999; Kumar
and Rao, 2002; Kumar and Kumar, 2003; Kumar and
Ghosh, 2006; Kumar and Chakraborty, 2013b). The lower
bound results of Kumar and Chakraborty (2013b) and the
VOL 0 NO 0
 Sahoo and Kumar Bearing capacity of strip and circular foundations

8 A schematic diagram of a strip footing placed on sloping

ground and subjected to pseudostatic horizontal earth-
quake body forces

upper bound solutions of Kumar and Ghosh (2006) have

been provided in this paper. A strip footing of width B is
placed over a slope making an angle b with the horizontal
as illustrated in Fig. 8. The foundation is subjected to
horizontal pseudostatic earthquake body forces. Kumar
and Chakraborty (2013b) have performed the lower
bound finite element limit analysis with non-linear
programing by following Krabbenhoft and Damkilde
(2003), which is similar to Chakraborty and Kumar
(2013a) as described in section ‘‘Strip footings.’’ Kumar
and Ghosh (2006) obtained the solutions by employing
upper bound limit analysis based on logarithmic spiral
collapse mechanism. The variation in the bearing capacity
factor Nc with the changes in the coefficient of horizontal
earthquake acceleration (kh) and angle of slope (b) for
different values of w for a rough strip footing is presented
in Fig. 9a–c. It can be noted that, irrespective of the
magnitudes of b and w, the value of Nc decreases quite
extensively with an increase in kh. The reduction of Nc
with kh tends to increase with increases in the values of kh.
In the presence of kh, the ground itself remains stable only
up to a maximum value of kh5kh2kh-max; where
kh-max5tan(w2b). As expected, the magnitude of Nc
reduces continuously with an increase in b but increases
with an increase in w. 9 The variation of Nc with kh and b for a w520u, b w530u,
and c w540u
Effect of interference on the bearing Kumar and Kouzer (2008) and Kumar and Bhattacharya
capacity strip foundations (2013) on the basis of upper and lower bound limit
On account of limited available space, foundations of analysis in conjunction with finite elements and linear
different structures are often located near to each other. programing. In this review, the works of Kumar and
As a result of close spacing, the behavior of interfering Kouzer (2008) and Kumar and Bhattacharya (2013) have
footings becomes different from that of a single isolated been presented. In the studies carried out by Kumar and
footing. Stuart (1962) was perhaps the first who examined Kouzer (2008) and Kumar and Bhattacharya (2013), two
exclusively the effect of interference on the ultimate strip footings, each having width B, are spaced at a clear
bearing capacity of two closely spaced strip footings. distance S as shown in Fig. 10. The footings are placed
With the help of the limit equilibrium technique, Stuart over a cohesionless medium with horizontal ground
indicated that an interference of two footings leads to an surface. Both the footings are loaded to failure simulta-
increase in their ultimate bearing capacity. In addition, neously at the same magnitude of the failure load. For
Stuart also demonstrated that there exists a certain critical different clear spacings (S) between the two footings, the
spacing between two footings for which the ultimate efficiency factor jc was determined, where jc is defined as
bearing capacity becomes the maximum. Similar theore- the ratio of the failure load for a strip footing of given
tical observations were also made by (i) Kumar and width in the presence of the other footing to that of a
Ghosh (2007) using the method of characteristics and (ii) single isolated strip footing having the same width.

International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 2014 VOL 0 NO 0 9

Sahoo and Kumar Bearing capacity of strip and circular foundations

10 A schematic diagram of two interfering strip footings

From the lower bound analysis of Kumar and

Bhattacharya (2013), the variations of the efficiency
factor, for different values of w, with changes in S/B for
interfering footings with smooth and rough footing base
are shown in Fig. 11a and b. For smooth footings, the
values of jc increase invariably with a decrease in S/B and
the maximum magnitude of jc always occurs at S/B50; for
different chosen values of w, the value of jc is seen to vary
between 1?00 and 1?78. For rough footings, except for
w540u, the variation of jc with S/B has been found similar
to that for the smooth footings. Kumar and Kouzer (2008)
have provided the variation of efficiency factor with
respect to changes in S/B for different values of w only for
rough footing base, which is provided in Fig. 11c. For a
rough footing, it can be noted that the value of jc increases
continuously with S/B; the value of S/B corresponding to
which the magnitude of jc becomes maximum is termed as
Scr/B. For S/B.Scr/B, the value of jc decreases gradually
till it becomes 1?0 at S/B5Smax/B, where Smax is the value
of S beyond which the two footings can be assumed
isolated again. It should be noted that the maximum value
of jc was generally found to be much greater than 2?0
especially for higher values of w. It is noteworthy that the
value of jc at a given spacing is found to be higher for
greater values of w. From the results, it was noticed that
the value of jc between S/B50 and S/B5Scr/B can be
approximately defined by the expression, jc5(2zS/B)/2,
which implies that for S/B,Scr/B, the ultimate failure load 11 The variation of jc with S/B for a smooth footing base
for an intervening footing (having width B) becomes (lower bound); b rough footing base (lower bound); and
almost half the failure load of a single isolated footing c rough footing base (upper bound)
with width (2B z S). It needs to be mentioned that in the
lower bound analysis, the values of jc corresponding to S/
B50 remain smaller than 2?0 for (i) w#25u with a rough Conclusion
footing base and (ii) all values of w with a smooth footing In this review paper, the developments in the limit analysis
base. For w530u, the minimum value of jc for S/B50 has and the corresponding results associated with the bearing
been found to be 1?78 and 1?99 for smooth and rough capacity of shallow foundations by using limit analysis
footings, respectively. On account of the presence of the under different conditions have been discussed. For both
free surface between the two footings, at the edge of the strip and circular foundations, the bearing capacity factor
footings, the magnitude of the normal stress drops to zero Nc has been found to increase quite extensively with
for all the values of S/B. For the two footings to have jc52 increase in footing–soil interface friction angle d. In the
corresponding to S/B50, the normal stress at the edge of case of a strip footing, the bearing capacity factors Nc and
the footing needs to become (i) maximum for a smooth Nq become independent of the footing–soil interface
base and (ii) marginally smaller than the maximum for a friction angle. Whereas the factors Nc and Nq are
rough base. However, because of the release of the normal dependent on the roughness of soil–footing interface for
pressure to zero at the edge of the footings for the two a circular footing. The magnitude of Nc decreases quite
interfering footings, the value of jc drops smaller than 2?0 considerably with an increase in the size of footings. The
at S/B50. bearing capacity reduces extensively with an increase in

10 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 2014 VOL 0 NO 0


the magnitudes of horizontal earthquake acceleration
coefficient (kh). The ultimate bearing capacity of two
interfering footings becomes always greater than that for a
single isolated footing having exactly the same width. As
compared to smooth footings, the effect of the interference
becomes quite substantial for rough footings. The effect of
footings’ interference increases further with an increase in
the values of internal friction angle of soil mass.
References
Bishop, A. W. 1966. The strength of soils as engineering materials,
Geotechnique, 16, 89–128.
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.
Bottero, A., Negre, R., Pastor, J. and Turgeman, S. 1980. Finite element
method and limit analysis theory for soil mechanics problem,
Comput. Methods. Appl. Mech. Eng., 22, (1), 131–149.
Budhu, M. and Al-Karni, A. 1993. Seismic bearing capacity of soils,
Geotechnique, 43, (1), 181–187.
Cerato, A. B. and Lutenegger, A. J. 2007. Scale effect of shallow
foundation bearing capacity on granular material, J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng., ASCE, 133, (10), 1192–1202.
Chakraborty, D. and Kumar, J. 2013a. Bearing capacity of foundations
on slopes, Geomech. Geoeng., 8, (4), 297–303.
Chakraborty, D. and Kumar, J. 2013b. Solving axisymmetric stability
problems by using upper bound finite elements limit analysis and
linear optimization. J. Eng. Mech., ASCE, 140(6), 14004–1 –
014004–9.
Chakraborty, D. and Kumar, J. 2013c. Dependency of Nc on footing
diameter for circular footings, Soils Found., 53, (1), 173–180.
Chen, W. F. 1975. Limit analysis and soil plasticity, Amsterdam, Elsevier.
Clark, J. I. 1998. The settlement and bearing capacity of very large
foundations on strong soils, Can.Geotech. J., 35, (1), 131–145.
Davis, E. H. and Booker, J. R. 1971. The bearing capacity of strip
footings from the standpoint of plasticity theory, Proc. 1st
Australia–New Zealand Conf. on Geomech., Melbourne, 275–282.
De Beer, E. E. 1965. Bearing capacity and settlement of shallow
foundations on sand. Proc. Symp. on Bearing Capacity and
Settlement of Foundations, Duke University, Durham, 15–34.
De Beer, E. E. 1970. Experimental determination of shape factors and
bearing capacity factors of sand, Geotechnique, 20, (4), 387–411.
Dormieux, L. and Pecker, A. 1995. Seismic bearing capacity of
foundation on cohesionless soil, J. Geotech. Eng. Div., ASCE, 121,
(3), 300–303.
Drucker, D. C., Greenberg, H. J. and Prager, W. 1951. The safety factor
of an elastic–plastic body in plane strain, J. Appl. Mech., ASME, 51,
371–378.
Drucker, D. C., Prager, W. and Greenberg, H. J. 1952. Extended limit
design theorems for continuous media, Q. Appl. Math., 9, (4), 381–
389.
Fukushima, S. and Tatsuoka, F. 1984. Strength and deformation
characteristics of saturated sand at extremely low pressure, Soils
Found., 24, (4), 30–48.
Golder, H. Q. 1941. The ultimate bearing pressure of rectangular footing,
J. Inst. Civil Eng., 17, (2), 161–174.
Hansen, J. B. 1970. A revised and extended formula for bearing capacity,
Bulletin No. 28, Danish Geotechnical Institute, Copenhagen,
Denmark.
Hettler, A. and Gudehus, G. 1989. Influence of the foundation width on
the bearing capacity factor, Soils Found., 38, (4), 81–92.
Hjiaj, M., Lyamin, A. V. and Sloan, S. W. 2004. Bearing capacity of a
cohesive- frictional soil under non-eccentric inclined loading,
Comput. Geotech., 31, 491–516.
Hjiaj, M., Lyamin, A. V. and Sloan, S. W. 2005. Numerical limit analysis
solutions for the bearing capacity factor Nc, Int. J. Solids Struct., 42,
(5), 1681–1704.
Khatri, V. N. and Kumar, J. 2009. Bearing capacity factor Nc under w50
condition for piles in clay, Int. J. Num. Anal. Methods Geomech., 33,
1203–1225.
International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
Sahoo and Kumar Bearing capacity of strip and circular foundations
Krabbenhoft, K. and Damkilde, L. 2003. A general nonlinear optimiza-
tion algorithm for lower bound limit analysis, Int. J. Num. Methods
Eng., 56, 165–184.
Krabbenhoft, K., Lyamin, A. V. and Sloan, S. W. 2008. Three-
dimensional Mohr–Coulomb limit analysis using semidefinite
programming, Commun. Num. Methods Eng., 24, (11), 1107–1119.
Kumar, J. 2002. Seismic horizontal pullout capacity of vertical anchors in
sands, Can. Geotech. J., 39, 982–991.
Kumar, J. 2004. Effect of footing–soil interface friction on bearing
capacity factor Nc, Geotechnique, 54, (10), 677–680.
Kumar, J. and Bhattacharya, P. 2013. Bearing capacity of two interfering
strip footings from lower bound finite elements limit analysis, Int. J.
Num. Anal. Methods Geomech., 34, 441–452.
Kumar, J. and Chakraborty, D. 2013a. Linearization of Drucker–Prager
yield criterion for axisymmetric problems: implementation in lower
bound limit analysis, Int. J. Geomech., ASCE, 13, (2), 153–161.
Kumar, J. and Chakraborty, D. 2013b. Seismic bearing capacity of
foundations on cohesionless slopes, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
ASCE, 139, (11), 1986–1993.
Kumar, J. and Ghosh, P. 2006. Seismic bearing capacity for embedded
footings on sloping ground, Geotechnique, 56, (2), 133–140.
Kumar, J. and Ghosh, P. 2007. Ultimate bearing capacity of two
interfering rough strip footings,Int. J. Geomech., ASCE, 7, (1), 53–
62.
Kumar, J. and Khatri, V. N. 2008a. Effect of footing roughness on lower
bound Nc values,Int. J. Geomech., ASCE, 8, (3), 176–187.
Kumar, J. and Khatri, V. N. 2008b. Effect of footing width on bearing
capacity factor Nc for smooth strip footing, J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., ASCE, 134, (9), 1299–1310.
Kumar, J. and Khatri, V. N. 2008c. Effect of footing width on Nc, Can.
Geotech. J., 45, 1673–1684.
Kumar, J. and Khatri, V. N. 2011. Bearing capacity factors for circular
foundations for a general c-w soil using lower bound finite elements
limit analysis, Int. J. Num. Anal. Methods Geomech., 35, 393–405.
Kumar, J. and Kouzer, K. M. 2007. Effect of footing roughness on
bearing capacity factor Nc,J. Geotech. Geoenvirn. Eng., ASCE, 133,
(5), 502–511.
Kumar, J. and Kouzer, K. M. 2008. Bearing capacity of two interfering
footings, Int. J. Num. Anal. Methods Geomech., 32, 251–264.
Kumar, J. and Kumar, N. 2003. Seismic bearing capacity of rough
footings on slopes using limit equilibrium, Geotechnique, 53, (3),
363–369.
Kumar, J. and Rao, V. B. K. M. 2002. Seismic bearing capacity factors
for spread foundations, Geotechnique, 52, (2), 79–88.
Kumar, J. and Sahoo, J. P. 2013. Bearing capacity of strip foundations
reinforced with geogrid sheets by using upper bound finite-element
limit analysis, Int. J. Num. Anal. Methods Geomech., 37, (18), 3258–
3277.
Kusakabe, O., Yamaguchi, H. and Morikage, A. 1991. Experiment and
analysis of scale effect of Nc for circular and rectangular footings.
Proc. Int. Conf. on Centrifuge, Boulder, Colorado, 179–186.
Kutter, B. L., Abghari, A. and Cheney, J. A. 1988. Strength parameters
for bearing capacity of sand, J. Geotech. Eng., ASCE, 114, (4), 491–
498.
Lancelot, L., Shahrour, I. and Al Mahmoud, M. 2006. Failure and
dilatancy properties of sand at relatively low stresses, J. Eng. Mech.,
ASCE, 132, (12), 1396–1399.
Li, A. J., Merifield, R. S. and Lyamin, A. V. 2010. Three-dimensional
stability charts for slopes based on limit analysis methods, Can.
Geotech. J., 47, (12), 1316–1334.
Lyamin, A. V. and Sloan, S. W. 2002a. Upper bound limit analysis using
linear finite elements and nonlinear programming, Int. J. Numer.
Anal. Methods Geomech., 26, (2), 181–216.
Lyamin, A. V. and Sloan, S. W. 2002b. Lower bound limit analysis using
nonlinear programming, Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng., 55, (5), 573–
611.
Lysmer, J. 1970. Limit analysis of plane problems in soil mechanics,
J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., ASCE, 96, 1311–1334.
Maeda, K. and Miura, K. 1999. Confining stress dependency of
mechanical properties of sands, Soils Found., 39, (1), 53–67.
Martin, C. M. 2005. Exact bearing capacity calculations using the method
of characteristics. Proc., 11th Conf. of IACMAG, Turin, Vol. 4,
441–450.
2014 VOL 0 NO 0 11
Sahoo and Kumar Bearing capacity of strip and circular foundations
Merifield, R. S., Lyamin, A. V. and Sloan, S. W. 2006. Three dimensional
lower bound solutions for stability of plate anchors in sand,
Geotechnique, 56, (2), 123–132.
Merifield, R. S., Lyamin, A. V., Sloan, S. W. and Yu, H. S. 2003. Three
dimensional lower bound solutions for stability of plate anchors in
clay, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., ASCE, 129, (3), 243–253.
Meyerhof, G. G. 1957. The ultimate bearing capacity of foundations on
slopes. Proc., 4th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, London, Vol. 1, 384–386.
Meyerhof, G. G. 1963. Some recent research on the bearing capacity of
foundations, Can. Geotech. J., 1, (1), 16–26.
Michalowski, R. L. 1997. An estimate of the influence of soil weight on
bearing capacity using limit analysis, Soils Found., 37, (4), 57–64.
Murray, E. J. and Geddes, J. D. 1989. Resistance of passive inclined
anchors in cohesionless medium, Geotechnique, 39, (3), 417–431.
Ovesen, N. K. 1979. The use of physical models in design. Proc., 7th Int. Conf.
on Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Brighton, Vol. 4, 319–323.
Sarma, S. K. and Iossifelis, I. S. 1990. Seismic bearing capacity factors of
shallow strip footings, Geotechnique, 40, (2), 265–273.
Shiraishi, S. 1990. Variation in bearing capacity factors of dense sand
assessed by model loading tests, Soils Found., 30, (1), 17–26.
Sloan, S. W. 1988. Lower bound limit analysis using finite elements and
linear programming, Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech., 12,
61–77.
12 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 2014 VOL
Sloan, S. W. 1989. Upper bound limit analysis using finite elements and
linear programming, Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech., 13,
263–282.
Sloan, S. W. and Kleeman, P. W. 1995. Upper bound limit analysis using
discontinuous velocity fields, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng,
127, (1), 293–314.
Soubra, A. H. 1999. Upper bound solutions for bearing capacity
of foundations, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., ASCE, 125, (1),
59–68.
Stuart, J. G. 1962. Interference between foundations, with special
reference to surface footings in sand, Geotechnique, 12, (1), 15–22.
Terzaghi, K. 1943. Theoretical soil mechanics, New York, Wiley.
Ueno, K., Miura, K., Kusakabe, O. and Nishimura, M. 2001. Reappraisal
of size effect of bearing capacity from plastic solution, J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng., ASCE, 127, (3), 275–281.
Ueno, K., Nakatomi, T., Mito, K. and Kusakabe, O. 1994. Influence of
initial conditions on bearing characteristics of sand, Proc., Int. Conf.
on Centrifuge, Singapore, 541–546.
Ukritchon, B., Whittle, A. W. and Klangvijit, C. 2003. Calculation of
bearing capacity factor Nc using numerical limit analysis, J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng., ASCE, 129, (7), 468–474.
Zhu, F., Clark, J. I. and Phillips, R. 2001. Scale effect of strip and circular
footings resting on dense sand, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., ASCE,
127, (7), 613–621.
0 NO 0