Geotech Geol Eng (2007) 25:499–507
DOI 10.1007/s10706-007-9124-9
ORIGINAL PAPER
Upper bound limit analysis for finding interference effect of
two nearby strip footings on sand
Jyant Kumar Æ Priyanka Ghosh
Received: 3 February 2006 / Accepted: 7 April 2007 / Published online: 11 May 2007
Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007
Abstract The ultimate bearing capacity of two
closely spaced strip footings, placed on a cohesion-
less medium and loaded simultaneously to failure at
the same magnitude of failure load, was determined
by using an upper bound limit analysis. A logarithmic
spiral radial shear zone, comprising of a number of
triangular rigid blocks, was assumed to exist around
each footing edge. The equations of the logarithmic
spiral arcs were based on angles /L and /R rather
than soil friction angle /; the values of /L and /R
were gradually varied in between 0 and /. The
ultimate bearing capacity was found to become
maximum corresponding to a certain critical spacing
between the footings. For spacing greater than the
critical, the bearing capacity was found to decrease
continuously with increase in the spacing. The extent
of the spacing corresponding to which the ultimate
bearing capacity becomes either maximum or equal
to that of a single isolated footing increases with
increase in /. The results compare reasonably well
with the available theoretical and experimental data.
J. Kumar (&)
Civil Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Science,
Bangalore 560012 Karnataka, India
e-mail: jkumar@civil.iisc.ernet.in
P. Ghosh
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology, Kharagpur 721 302, India
e-mail: priyog@iitkgp.ac.in
Keywords Bearing capacity
Failure
Flow rule

Foundations
Plasticity
1 Introduction
In many cases foundations encountered in practice
are not isolated and these foundations interfere with
each other on account of their close spacing. The
interference effect of two strip footings on their
ultimate bearing capacity was studied theoretically by
Stuart (1962) on the basis of the limit equilibrium
method. For the problem of three closely spaced strip
footings on sand, Graham et al. (1984) have
employed the method of characteristics so as to
obtain the solution for determining the interference
effect on the central footing (not the two outer
footings). This theory was meant for obtaining the
interference effect due to a number of strip footings,
for instance the foundations of railway sleepers. In
order to study the effect of the interference of the two
footings a number of experiments have also been
conducted by various researchers (Stuart 1962; West
and Stuart 1965; Saran and Agarwal 1974; Das and
Larbi-Cherif 1983; Kumar and Saran 2003). From
available experimental and theoretical studies it is
understood that the ultimate bearing capacity, due to
the unit weight component, increases on account of
the interference of the other footing. The aim of the
present study was to examine further, with the help of
123
500
an upper bound limit analysis, the effect of the
variation of the spacing between two rough surface
footings on the bearing capacity. It is known that an
upper bound limit analysis ensures the kinematic
admissibility of the chosen collapse mechanism. An
upper bound analysis based upon finite elements, in
conjunction with optimization, provides a rigorous
numerical solution and this approach does not require
any assumption regarding the geometry of the
collapse mechanism (Anderheggen and Knöpfel
1972; Sloan 1989). However, such an exercise is
quite cumbersome and it often requires considerable
computational time and memory especially when the
size of the domain is large and the soil friction angle
becomes high. The upper bound analysis in this study
was carried out by assuming the geometry of the
collapse mechanism. The work is an extension of the
recent analysis of the first author (Kumar 2004) for an
isolated footing. The boundary of the radial shear
zone emerging from each edge of the footing was
assumed to be bounded by an arc of the logarithmic
spiral; the equations of the logarithmic spiral arcs
were, however, based on angles /L and /R rather
than / and the values of /L and /R were varied in
between 0 and /. In addition, the focus of the
logarithmic spiral arc was also varied rather than
keeping fixed at the edge of the footing. The results
obtained from the analysis were compared with the
available experimental and theoretical data.
2 Definition of the problem
Two rough strip footings, each of width B, are placed
on a cohesionless medium at a clear distance s as
shown in Fig. 1. The magnitude of the ultimate
collapse load Pu (per unit length) for each footing has
to be computed. Both the footings are assumed to fail
simultaneously at the same magnitude of the failure
load.
3 Collapse mechanism
A non-symmetrical triangular trapped wedge ABC,
as shown in Fig. 1, was considered to be a part of the
footing itself; it is known that for a perfectly rough
footing such a non-plastic trapped wedge forms
below the footing base (Terzaghi 1943; Chen 1975;
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2007) 25:499–507
Michalowski 1997; Soubra 1999; Zhu 2000; Kumar
2004). On account of the symmetry about the centre
line OEQ between the two footings, only one footing
on the right side of OEQ was chosen for carrying out
the analysis. The boundary of each radial shear zone,
comprising of a number of adjoining rigid triangular
blocks, was assumed to be bounded by an arc of the
logarithmic spiral. The equations for the logarithmic
spiral arcs were based upon on angles /L and /R; the
values of /L and /R were varied from 0 to /. It
should be mentioned that in Fig. 1, FL E ¼
FL CehL tan /L , and FR R ¼ FR CehR tan /R ; where hL and
hR are the values of angles \EFLC and \RFRC,
respectively. The positions of the focus of the
logarithmic spiral arcs, CE and CR, were varied
along the lines FLBE and FRAR, respectively. The arc
CE of the logarithmic spiral was joined tangentially
to the boundary of the triangular symmetrical rigid
block in between the two footings; therefore, the
value of the angle \OEB becomes equal to p/4 + /L/
2. Likewise, the logarithmic spiral arc CR was joined
tangentially to the line RG; consequently, the angle
\ARG becomes equal to p/4 + /R/2. The chosen
collapse mechanism can be completely defined with
the help of six independent input variables, namely,
hL, lL, /L, lR, /R and gR; where gR = \RAG, lL and
lR are the distances FLB and FRA, respectively. When
the spacing between the footings becomes very small,
there will be a possibility that the logarithmic arc CR
of the rupture surface may intersect the vertical centre
line OEQ; a number of collapse mechanisms in such
cases will become inadmissible. As a result, the
magnitude of the failure load will become higher. If
the magnitude of the total collapse load due to the
two interfering footings becomes greater than that of
a single isolated footing of width (2B + s), the
collapse mechanism associated with the single iso-
lated footing having width (2B + s) was chosen to be
applicable.
4 Velocity hodographs
At collapse, it was assumed that the footing and the
underlying block ABC move as a single rigid unit in
the vertical direction with a velocity V0. The zones
BCE and ACR were divided into n and m number of
triangular blocks, respectively; the value of both n
and m was kept equal to 700. For the purpose of
Geotech Geol Eng (2007) 25:499–507 501

s/ 2 B
Pu
FL FR
lL θL θR lR
O B A G
ηR
U4 U43 V0 φ
φ U10 φ φ V43
(π/4+φL/2) U32 V10 φ V4 φ
U21 V21
φ φ
φ
V32 V4 3
E U1 C (π/2+φR) V4
U3
φ
U2 V1
φ V3
E1 φ
E2 φ V3 R
R1 V2 φ
φ R2
V3
Q V3 2
Footing is defined by line AB
V2
V2
U4 3 V1 V2 1
U3 2 U1 V1
U3 U2
U2 1 V0 V0
U4 U1 U1 0 V1 0
U2
Pu Pu

U3
B s B

Fig. 1 Velocity hodographs and the chosen collapse mechanism

illustrations, however, only three such blocks and the U10, U21, U32 and U43 are also inclined at an angle /
associated velocity hodograph triangles are illustrated with the lines AC, AR1, AR2, AR, BC, BE1, BE2 and
in Fig. 1. In this figure, V1, V2, V3 and V4 are the BE, respectively. It should be mentioned that the
respective absolute velocities of the blocks ACR1, central block (BOE) in between the two footings, due
AR1R2, AR2R and ARG. Similarly, U1, U2, U3 and to symmetry, was permitted to move only in the
U4 are the respective absolute velocities of the blocks vertically upward direction with a velocity U4. The
BCE1, BE1E2, BE2E and BOE. V10 is the velocity of directions of the velocities V0, V1, V2, V3, V4, U1, U2,
the block ACR1 relative to the block ABC; V21 is the U3, U4, V10, V21, V32, V43, U10, U21, U32 and U43 are
velocity of the block AR1R2 relative to the block all fixed. Therefore, by using the velocity hodograph
ACR1; V32 is the velocity of the block AR2R relative triangles, the values of the velocities V1, V2, V3, V4,
to the block AR1R2; V43 is the velocity of the block U1, U2, U3, U4, V10, V21, V32, V43, U10, U21, U32 and
ARG relative to the block AR2R. Likewise, U10 is the U43 can all be computed in terms of V0.
relative velocity of the block BCE1 with respect to It should be mentioned that the velocity hodog-
the block ABC; U21 is the relative velocity of the raph triangles were based on the consideration of
block BE1E2 with respect to the block BCE1; U32 is velocity discontinuities along the interfaces of
the relative velocity of the block BE2E with respect to various rigid blocks not along the radial lines
the block BE1E2; and U43 is the relative velocity of joining the focus (FL and FR) to any point on the
the block BOE with respect to the block BE2E. The logarithmic spiral arc.
interfaces of all the triangular blocks were treated as
velocity discontinuity lines. The soil mass was
assumed to obey Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion 5 Analysis
and an associated flow rule, the directions of veloc-
ities V1, V2, V3, V4, U1, U2, and U3 make an angle / Since the soil mass was considered to be cohesion-
with the corresponding rupture lines. Likewise, the less, the rate of the total work done by all the body
directions of the relative velocities V10, V21, V32, V43, and external forces should become equal to zero. The

123
502
collapse load Puc per unit length of the footing due to
the component of soil unit weight for a single footing
can be expressed by using the following expression.


m
P
n P
WiL Ui;v þ L
Wnþ1 Unþ1  W 0 V0 þ
i¼1
Puc ¼
V0
where W0 is the weight of the block ABC; WiL is the
weight of the ith block in the radial shear zone BCE;
WiR is the weight of the ith block in the radial shear
L
zone ACR; Wnþ1 is the weight of the block BOE;
R
Wmþ1 is the weight of the block ARG. Also, Ui,v is
the vertical component of the velocity of the ith block
in the zone BCE (upward positive); Vi,v is the vertical
component of the velocity of the i-th block in the
zone ACR (upward positive); Un+1 is the velocity of
the block BOE (upward positive); Vm+1,v is the
vertical component of the velocity of the block ARG
(upward positive). Therefore, for a chosen collapse
mechanism by using Eq. 1 the magnitude of Puc can
be determined. Subsequently, the magnitude of Puc
can be minimized with respect to independent
variation of six variables namely, hL, lL, /L, lR, /R
and gR. It was always assured that the collapse
mechanism remains always kinematically admissible.
A mechanism is kinematically admissible if the
magnitudes of all the velocities V1, V2,..., Vm+1, U1,
U2,..., Un+1, V10, V21,..., Vm+1,m, U10, U21,..., Un+1,n in
terms of V0 remain always positive; the directions of
the velocities V1, V2,..., Vm+1, U1, U2,..., Un+1, V10,
V21,..., Vm+1,m, U10, U21,..., Un+1,n are indicated in
Fig. 1 for n = m = 3.
6 Definitions of bearing capacity factor Nc and
efficiency factor nc
6.1 Bearing capacity factor Nc for an isolated
footing
For an isolated footing placed on ground surface
without any surcharge pressure, the bearing capacity
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2007) 25:499–507
factor Nc was defined by using the following standard
expression:

WiR Vi;v þWmþ1
R
Vmþ1;v
i¼1
ð1Þ
Puc =B
Nc ¼ ð2Þ
0:5cB
It may be noted that Puc in the above equation is
the magnitude of the failure load per unit length (due
to soil unit weight) for a single isolated footing of
width B.
6.2 Efficiency factor nc
The efficiency factor nc is the ratio of the failure load
for a single footing of width B in the presence of the
other footing to the corresponding magnitude of the
failure load for a single isolated footing of the same
width B.
7 Results and comparisons
For doing the optimization (i) hL and gR were varied
from 0 to 908 with an interval of 18, (ii) /L and /R
were varied from 0 to / with an interval of 18, (iii)
distances lL and lR were varied with an interval of
0.05B. The results were obtained for different spacing
between the two footings by changing the varying /
in between 0 and 508. The results are presented
below.
7.1 Nc for an isolated rough strip footing
The obtained variation of Nc for a single isolated
rough strip footing is given in Table 1. The values of
Nc were compared with the upper bound limit
analysis solutions of Chen (1975), Michalowski
(1997), Soubra (1999), Zhu (2000) and Kumar
(2004). The comparison of all these results is
Geotech Geol Eng (2007) 25:499–507 503

Table 1 A comparison of Nc values for an isolated rough strip footing using the upper bound limit analysis
/ Present analysis Chen (1975) Michalowski (1997) multi- Soubra (1999) multi- Zhu (2000) multi-blocks
and Kumar logarithmic spiral blocks symmetrical blocks symmetrical symmetrical mechanism
(2004) mechanism mechanism mechanism

108 0.74 1.16 0.71 – 0.71

208 4.47 5.87 4.47 4.49 4.47
308 21.42 26.7 21.39 21.51 21.38
408 119.14 147.0 118.83 119.84 118.75
508 1030.12 – 1025.98 1042.48 1025.06

presented in Table 1. It should be mentioned that the 6

analysis of Chen (1975) was based on the logarithmic

5 ξγ = ( 2 + s / B ) / 2
2

spiral rupture surface with its focus at the footing

Efficiency factor, ξγ
edge; and the equation of the spiral arc was based on φ= 5 0o
4 45 o
soil friction angle /. On the other hand, the analyses 40 o
35 o
of Michalowski (1997), Soubra (1999) and Zhu 30 o
3 25o
(2000) were all based on multi-blocks collapse 20 o
15 o
mechanism, whereas the collapse mechanism of 10o
2
Kumar (2004) considers the employment of a loga-
rithmic spiral rupture surface. The equation of the 1
spiral arc in this analysis was based on an angle /L 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
s/B
which varies in between 0 and /, and the focus of the
logarithmic spiral was varied rather than keeping Fig. 2 The variation of nc with s/B and /
fixed at the edge of the footing. It should be noted
that the present Nc values are exactly the same as
given by Kumar (2004) and compare very favourably especially for values of / greater than 208. The
with the existing results of Michalowski (1997), variation of smax/B and scr/B with / is shown in
Soubra (1999), and Zhu (2000). The Nc values of Fig. 3. The values of both smax/B and scr/B increase
Chen (1975) have been generally found to be the with increase in /.
highest.

7.2 The variation of efficiency factor (nc) 7.3 Comparison of the efficiency factor

The variation of nc with respect to changes in the
values of s/B and / is shown in Fig. 2. The magnitude
of nc becomes equal to 2.0 and 1.0 for s/B = 0 and s/
B = smax/B, respectively; where smax is the value of s
beyond which the two footings can be assumed
isolated. It can also be noted that starting from s/
B = smax/B, the value of nc increases continuously
with decrease in s/B up to a value of s/B = scr/B.
Corresponding to s/B = scr/B, the value of nc becomes
maximum. For values of s/B < scr/B, the magnitude of
nc decreases with decrease in s/B; the expression of
the efficiency factor between s/B = 0 and s/B = scr/B
is defined by the expression, nc = (2 + s/B)2/2. The
maximum value of nc was found to be greater than 2
For / = 308 and 408, the nc values of Stuart (1962)
were compared with the present solution. The
comparison of the two theories is shown in Fig. 4a.
For s/B > scr/B, the values of nc obtained in
the present analysis were found to be smaller
than those provided by Stuart (1962). For a given
value of /, the values of scr/B of Stuart (1962)
were seen to be a little higher. The values of smax/
B from both the analyses compare well with each
other.
The values of nc were also compared with the
experimental data of Saran and Agarwal (1974),
Das and Larbi-Cherif (1983) and Kumar and Saran
(2003). The experimental results are for values of /

123
504 Geotech Geol Eng (2007) 25:499–507

in between 378 and 418. The theoretical results were
obtained for / = 408. The comparison of all these
results is shown in Fig. 4b. It can be seen that the
results from the present approach compare reasonably
well with the experimental data. However, the peak
values of nc, associated with scr/B, predicted from the
present theory were found to be generally greater
than the experimental data.
10
8
smax/B, scr/B
7.4 Failure pattern and critical collapse
mechanisms
By varying the spacing between the two footings, the
failure patterns were drawn for / = 308 and 408. The
value of s/B was varied from 0.5 to 1.5 for / = 308. On
the other hand, for / = 408, the value of s/B was varied
in between 1.5 and 3.5. The failure patterns have been
illustrated in Figs. 5 and 6; it should be mentioned that
in drawing the failure patterns, the horizontal and the
vertical scales were kept always the same. It can be
noted that the size of the radial shear zone BCE
around the interior edge of the footing, as compared to
the size of the radial shear zone ACR around the

6
exterior footing edge, decreases continuously with
sma x/B
4
decrease in the value of s/B.
For / varying from 108 to 508, the values of the
2 input parameters hL, lL, /L, lR, /R and gR associated
scr/B with the critical collapse mechanisms are also
0 presented in Table 2. The value of s/B lies in
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
between (i) 0.10 and 0.25 for / = 108, and (ii) 3.0 and
φ
7.0 for / = 508. It may be noted that the values of
Fig. 3 The variation of smax/B and scr/B with / /L and /R remain generally different from /.
The critical values of /L and /R lie in the range of

Fig. 4 A comparison of (a) 4

obtained nc with (a) Stuart
(1962)’s theory and (b) φ = 40o
Stuart (1962)
Efficiency factor, ξγ

experimental data 3 Present Analysis

2
φ = 30o

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
s/B
(b) 4
Present analysis, = 40o
Das and Larbi-Cherif (1983), 38
Efficiency factor, ξγ

3 Saran and Agarwal (1974), 41

Kumar and Saran (2003), 37
Present study,
2

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
s/B

123
Geotech Geol Eng (2007) 25:499–507 505

Fig. 5 The variation of the φ = 30o

failure pattern with spacing
for / = 308 O
B A G

C
E

s/B = 0.5
φR = 23o, φL = 0o, lR/B = 0.155, lL/B = 0.005, θL = 89o, ηR = 37o

O
B A G

C
E
R

s/B = 1.0
φR = 24o, φL = 10o, lR/B = 0.155, lL/B = 0.055, θL = 89o, ηR = 36o

O
B A G

C
E
R
Q

s/B = 1.5
φR = 25o, φL = 20o, lR/B = 0.155, lL/B = 0.155, θL = 89o, ηR = 35o

0.0–0.9/ and 0.8/–/, respectively. The values of the 9 Conclusions

lL/B and lR/B were found to lie in between 0.005 and
0.355. The critical values of hL were found to be
close to 908 for most of the cases. However, no clear
trend was observed for the variation of gR with
respect to the change in s/B.
8 Remarks
The extent of dilation experienced during the shear
failure for most of the cohesionless soils is generally
greater than that predicted on the assumption of the
associated flow rule. Since non-associated flow rule
generally results in smaller values of failure load
(Frydman and Burd 1997), the collapse load pre-
dicted on the basis of the present upper bound
analysis will be a little greater than the true failure
load.
By using the upper bound limit analysis, the variation
of the efficiency factor nc with change in the spacing
between two closely spaced rough strip footings was
obtained. It was noticed that the magnitude of nc
becomes maximum corresponding to s/B = scr/B. For
s/B > scr/B, the value of nc decreases with increase in
the spacing between the two footings. When the
spacing between the two footings becomes equal to
zero, the value of nc becomes exactly equal to 2.0.
The size of the radial shear zone at the interior
footing edge, in relation to the size of the radial shear
at the exterior edge of the footing, reduces continu-
ously with the decrease in the spacing. The values of
nc were found to be generally lower as compared to
the analysis of Stuart and match reasonably well with
the available experimental data. The peak values of
nc associated with scr/B for a given value of / were

123
506 Geotech Geol Eng (2007) 25:499–507

Fig. 6 The variation of the φ = 40o

failure pattern with spacing
for / = 408 O B A G

C
E

s/B = 1.5
φR = 34o, φL = 17o, lR/B = 0.105, lL/B = 0.005, θL = 89o, ηR = 31o

O B A G

C
E
R

s/B = 2.5
φR = 34o, φL = 26o, lR/B = 0.105, lL/B = 0.055, θL = 89o, ηR = 31o

O B A G

C
E R

s/B = 3.5
φR = 34o, φL = 32o, lR/B = 0.105, lL/B = 0.105, θL = 89o, ηR = 31o

Table 2 The values of /L, /R, lL/B, lR/B, hL, gR and nc associated with the critical collapse mechanism
/ s/B /L /R lL/B lR/B hL gR nc

108 0.10 0.0 10.0 0.205 0.255 89.0 9.0 1.473

0.25 3.0 10.0 0.255 0.205 89.0 14.0 1.189
208 0.25 0.0 20.0 0.105 0.305 89.0 26.0 1.358
0.50 5.0 20.0 0.155 0.255 89.0 28.0 1.114
308 0.25 4.0 25.0 0.055 0.205 81.0 35.0 2.042
1.00 10.0 24.0 0.055 0.155 89.0 36.0 1.152
1.50 20.0 25.0 0.155 0.155 89.0 35.0 1.035
408 1.50 17.0 34.0 0.005 0.105 89.0 31.0 1.409
2.50 26.0 34.0 0.055 0.105 89.0 31.0 1.098
3.50 32.0 34.0 0.105 0.105 89.0 31.0 1.014
508 3.00 31.0 44.0 0.005 0.055 86.0 26.0 1.690
5.00 36.0 44.0 0.005 0.055 89.0 26.0 1.172
7.00 41.0 44.0 0.055 0.055 89.0 26.0 1.034

123
Geotech Geol Eng (2007) 25:499–507
seen to be generally greater than the experimental
data.
References
Anderheggen E, Knöpfel H (1972) Finite element limit anal-
ysis using linear programming. Int J Solid Struct 8:
1413–1431
Chen WF (1975) Limit analysis and soil plasticity. Elsevier,
Amsterdam
Das BM, Larbi-Cherif S (1983) Bearing capacity of two clo-
sely-spaced shallow foundations on sand. Soils Found
23(1):1–7
Frydman S, Burd HJ (1997) Numerical studies of bearing
capacity factor Nc. J Geotechnical Geoenviron Eng ASCE
123(1):20–29
Graham J, Raymond GP, Suppiah A (1984) Bearing capacity of
three closely-spaced footings on sand. Géotechnique
34(2):173–182
Kumar J (2004) Effect of footing-soil interface friction on
bearing capacity factor Nc. Géotechnique 54(10):677–680
Kumar A, Saran S (2003) Closely spaced footings on geogrid-
reinforced sand. J Geotechnical Geoenviron Eng ASCE
129(7):660–664
507
Michalowski RL (1997) An estimate of the influence of soil
weight on bearing capacity using limit analysis. Soils
Found 37(4):57–64
Saran S, Agarwal VC (1974) Interference of surface footings
on sand. Indian Geotechnical J 4(2):129–139
Sloan SW (1989) Upper bound limit analysis using finite ele-
ments and linear programming. Int J Numer Anal Meth-
ods Geomechanics 13:263–282
Soubra AH (1999) Upper-bound solutions for bearing capacity
of foundations. J Geotechnical Geoenviron Eng ASCE
125(1):59–68
Stuart JG (1962) Interference between foundations, with spe-
cial reference to surface footings in sand. Géotechnique
12(1):15–22
Terzaghi K (1943) Theoretical soil mechanics. Wiley, New
York
West JM, Stuart JG (1965) Oblique loading resulting from
interference between surface footings on sand. Proceed-
ings of the 6th international conference on soil mechanics
and foundation engineering, Montreal, vol. 2, pp. 214–217
Zhu D (2000) The least upper-bound solutions for bearing
capacity factor Nc. Soils Found 40(1):123–129
123