Technical Note

New and Simple Equations for Ultimate Bearing Capacity of

Strip Footings on Two-Layered Clays: Numerical study
M. M. Ahmadi1 and B. Mofarraj Kouchaki, S.M.ASCE2

Abstract: In this paper, two very simple and accurate equations are introduced that enable geotechnical engineers to determine the undrained
ultimate bearing capacity of shallow strip foundations resting on two-layered clays. Results of the analyses show that in the case of weak-over-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado State Univ Lbrs on 01/07/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

strong clay, usually general shear failure occurs, and in the case of strong-over-weak clay, the soil will most likely experience punching failure
with a large amount of plastic settlement before it reaches its ultimate bearing capacity. This study applied the finite-difference method using a
computer program to evaluate the undrained bearing capacity for all cases analyzed. The Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion was used for model-
ing the plastic behavior of soil. Simple equations are presented for cases of both strong-over-weak clay and weak-over-strong clay representing
the bearing capacity of shallow foundations resting on two-layered clays. Results of this study are verified by acceptable statistical methods, and
advantages of the presented equations in this paper are discussed. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000615. © 2016 American Society of
Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Bearing capacity; Failure mechanism; Strip footings; Numerical modeling; Two-layered clays; Design.

Introduction capacity of layered soils. Merifield et al. (1999) provided both

The ultimate bearing capacity of shallow strip footings resting on a
single layer of homogeneous soil has been investigated by numer-
ous researchers, with practitioners generally referring to the bearing
capacity equations presented by Terzaghi (1943). However, in real-
ity, soil strength parameters may vary with depth, or two or more
distinct layers of soil may exist beneath the footing. For the case of
layered soils, depending on the depths and strengths of the layers,
the lower layers may affect the ultimate bearing capacity of strip
shallow footings.
Several different approaches have been suggested for the deter-
mination of the ultimate bearing capacity of layered clays. Based on
small-scale model footing tests, Meyerhof and Hanna (1975) and
Brown and Meyerhof (1969) provided empirical and semi-empiri-
cal solutions to the problem of two-layered clays. Reddy and
Srinivasan (1967) calculated an upper bound for the bearing
capacity of anisotropic clays by using limiting equilibrium and
assuming the simple circular failure mechanism employed by
Button (1953). In addition, Chen (1975) provided a formula by
applying the limit analysis theory assuming the same circular failure
mechanism. However, as Davis and Booker (1973) stated, for the
case of nonhomogeneous soil profiles, circular failure mechanisms
tend to overestimate the ultimate bearing capacity of footings in
comparison with plasticity solutions.
In recent years, there has been an increasing interest in employ-
ing numerical methods for determining the ultimate bearing
1
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Sharif Univ. of Technology,
P.O. Box 11365-3913, Azadi Avenue, 11365-8639 Tehran, Iran (corre-
sponding author). E-mail: mmahmadi@sharif.edu
2
B.Sc. in Civil Engineering, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Sharif Univ.
of Technology, P.O. Box 11365-3913, Azadi Avenue, 11365-8639
Tehran, Iran. E-mail: behdad16@hotmail.com
Note. This manuscript was submitted on November 20, 2014;
approved on September 24, 2015; published online on January 4, 2016.
Discussion period open until June 4, 2016; separate discussions must be
submitted for individual papers. This technical note is part of the
International Journal of Geomechanics, © ASCE, ISSN 1532-3641.
upper-bound and lower-bound solutions for the ultimate bearing
capacity of strip footings on two-layered clays. They assumed per-
fectly plastic soil behavior with a Tresca yield criterion, turning the
problem into a large linear programming problem. Their method
searched for a statically admissible stress field for the lower-bound
optimization problem and a kinematically admissible velocity field
for the upper-bound optimization problem. Merifield et al. (1999)
presented their results in the form of charts for various geometries
and layer properties.
Michalowski (2002) obtained upper-bound values for various
degrees of load inclinations on foundations resting on two-layered
clays by employing a numerical limit analysis method while assum-
ing two different failure mechanisms: one with a continually
deforming field similar to Prandtl's (1920) solution and the other
with a rigid-block mechanism separated by velocity discontinuity
surfaces. The upper-bound results were presented in charts for vari-
ous geometries, layer properties, and load inclinations.
Huang and Qin (2009) employed an upper-bound multiple-
rigid-block solution with a modified failure mechanism from
that of Florkiewicz (1989) for cases of both two-layered fric-
tional and frictionless soils. However, they published their nu-
merical results in the form of graphs for only a few cases of
frictionless soils.
In more recent studies (e.g., Merifield and Nguyen 2006; Zhu
and Michalowski 2005), investigators have mainly focused on the
three-dimensional bearing capacity of shallow footings on two-lay-
ered clays by using FEM. In addition, Zhu (2004) and Bandini and
Pham (2011) have studied this subject by using FEM, and presented
their results in charts and figures. Bandini and Pham (2011) mainly
focused on the effect of embedment depth on the ultimate bearing
capacity of strip footings on two-layered clays.
Yu et al. (2011) have also performed large deformation finite-
element analysis of this subject to determine the ultimate bearing
capacity of shallow square and circular footings on two-layered
clays. Their results are based on the density of soil and the width of
footing, and are presented in the form of charts.
As indicated earlier, many investigators have suggested an
upper-bound solution for the ultimate bearing capacity of two-

© ASCE 06015014-1 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 06015014

 layered clays, which may result in an unsafe design because the true
collapse load is unknown. Although Merifield et al. (1999) have
also presented lower-bound solutions to this problem, the uncer-
tainty in determining the safety factor still persists, as the true col-
lapse load is mostly bracketed to 12%, and in some cases it could be
as high as 20%.
The goal of this paper is to present simple and more accurate
equations for determining the bearing capacity of strip footings on
two-layered clays without having the need to consult charts or
figures.
Problem Definition
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado State Univ Lbrs on 01/07/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
This study determined the ultimate bearing capacity of surface strip
footings on two-layered clays with the use of the software program
FLAC 5.0, which is based on the finite-difference method (FDM).
The numerical modeling was carried out for both weak-over-strong
and strong-over-weak clays. In this paper, the word strong refers to
a clay soil that has higher undrained shear strength with respect to
the other weak clay layer that has a lower undrained shear strength.
In all of the analyses involved in this study, the Mohr-Coulomb fail-
ure criterion was employed in solving two-dimensional problems in
plane strain condition.
Fig. 1 shows that the model consists of two layers of clayey soil,
each with their own depth and strength properties. The internal fric-
tion angle for both clay layers is assumed to be zero, and the
undrained shear strength of the top and bottom layers are called cut
and cub, respectively. In the analyses carried out in this study, the ra-
tio of cut/cub varied from 0.2 to 1 for the case of weak-over-strong
clay and 1 to 5 for the case of strong-over-weak clay. In addition,
the ratio of the depth of the top layer to the footing's width (H/B)
varied from 0.15 to 0.8 for the case of weak-over-strong clay and
from 0.15 to 3 for the case of strong-over-weak clays. These values
for the cut /cub and H/B ratios were chosen to ensure that almost all
probable situations encountered in practice were analyzed to better
understand the role of each parameter in determining the ultimate
bearing capacity of two-layered clays, and to propose an accurate
equation for each case.
Fig. 1. Boundary conditions of the symmetrical model used for numerical analyses performed in this study
© ASCE 06015014-2
Int. J. Geomech., 06015014
To model this problem correctly, other parameters, such as
Young's elastic modulus and Poisson's ratio, also needed to be
defined. To this end, several cases of homogeneous and layered
soils were analyzed with various values of Poisson's ratio and
Young's elastic modulus to determine the effect of these two param-
eters on the magnitude of the ultimate bearing capacity of the foun-
dation. Results show that these two parameters only affected the set-
tlement of the footing, and no significant effect on the ultimate
bearing capacity was observed in cases of both single-layered and
two-layered soil. Therefore, to imitate the load-settlement behavior
of the footing in the undrained condition, each layer's Poisson's ratio
was set to 0.5. However, because the bulk modulus approaches in-
finity as Poisson's ratio approaches 0.5, this parameter was set to
0.45. In addition, the elastic modulus of each layer was assumed to
be directly proportional to its undrained shear strength. Assuming a
normally consolidated clay, each layer's elastic modulus was set to
be equal to 500
cu (Bowles 1996), although variations of this pa-
rameter with depth had no effect on the ultimate bearing capacity of
the soil beneath the footing, as discussed earlier.
The analyses performed in this study also indicated that the mag-
nitude of the unit weight of clay soil did not play a role in determin-
ing the bearing capacity of clays, as is supported by literature
(Terzaghi 1943). In this research, the density of each layer was set
to be equal to 1,600 kg/m3 (unit weight = 15.7 kN/m3) because
explicit analysis cannot be carried out for weightless materials. The
last parameter that must be taken into account is the coefficient of
earth pressure at rest (K0) in soil. Several numerical analyses were
carried out in this study, and the results of these analyses also indi-
cated that this parameter slightly affected the settlement of soil
beneath the footing, and had no significant effect on its ultimate
bearing capacity. Because the emphasis in this study is on the bear-
ing capacity, in all analyses performed in this study, the magnitude
of K0 was set to 0.5.
Finally, model size and element dimensions were determined
in a way that the smallest possible model size with the biggest
possible elements were used so that any change in these two pa-
rameters would result in either an unnecessary bigger model
(which demands a greater computational effort) or a numerically
inaccurate model. The analyses indicate that, to obtain accurate
results, the domain of the model should be discretized into square
Int. J. Geomech.
 elements with width equal to B/200 and B/40 for the cases of weak clay in the following subsections. The simple equations used
weak-over-strong and strong-over-weak clays, respectively, where to determine the ultimate bearing capacity of strip footings sug-
B is the width of the footing. For the case of weak-over-strong gested in this study are also discussed.
clay, the width and height of the model domain should be equal
to 8B and 4B, respectively. In this case, failure is generally lim-
ited to the top layer, and the failure surface has smaller dimen- Weak-over-Strong Clay
sions in comparison with the general shear failure mechanism
Fig. 2 shows the results of the analyses for the case of weak-over-
occurring in single-layered homogeneous clays. However, for the
strong clay. Each curve in Fig. 2 represents the bearing capacity fac-
case of strong-over-weak clay, the failure mechanism consists of
tor for a specific value of the H/B ratio, and each point on the curves
the punching shear failure of the top layer and the general shear
represents the result of a single numerical analysis. Fig. 2 shows
failure of the lower layer, and therefore it has considerably bigger
that for a specific value of the H/B ratio, the magnitude of the bear-
dimensions in comparison with the failure mechanism occurring
ing capacity factor (Nc) was maximum for small values of the
in single-layered homogeneous soils. To accommodate the large
cut /cub ratio, and started to decrease when the cut /cub ratio
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado State Univ Lbrs on 01/07/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

size of the failure mechanism in the numerical analyses, the size

increased, until it reached the value of Nc = 5.14 for the cut /cub ratio
of the model domain was chosen to have a width and height of at
equal to 1, which is in complete agreement with the bearing
least 25B and 9B, respectively. The model’s definition is summar-
capacity factor for a single-layered clay soil. Fig. 2 shows that sig-
ized in Table 1.
nificant influence of the strong bottom layer generally occurred
In all of the analyses performed in this study, the symmetry asso-
when H/B  0.5, and that the effect of stronger bottom layer on the
ciated with the problem was considered, and only half of the prob-
ultimate bearing capacity fully disappeared when H/B exceeded 0.8
lem was modeled (Fig. 1). To apply realistic boundary conditions
(i.e., Nc = 5.14 for H/B  0.8).
and ensure the static stability of the model, horizontal movements
Fig. 2 also shows the failure patterns obtained from the nu-
in vertical boundaries were restricted. As for the bottom boundary,
merical analyses performed in this study for three different
movements in both the horizontal and vertical directions were re-
points. Results of the analyses indicate that in this case, gener-
stricted (Fig. 1).
ally two types of failure mechanisms were obtained. For low
The ultimate bearing capacity of strip footings on single-layered
values of the cut /cub ratio, where Nc equals Nc,max, the failure
homogeneous clays was determined using Terzaghi's (1943) equa-
surfaces only occurred in the weaker top layer, and no mani-
tion, as follows:
festation of failure was observed in the strong bottom layer, as
qu ¼ cu Nc þ q (1) depicted in Item A of Fig. 2. This type of failure resembles a
thin layer of weak material being squeezed between two rigid
where qu is the ultimate bearing capacity of the footing; cu is the plates, one being the footing and the other being the stronger
undrained shear strength of the underlying clayey soil; Nc is the bottom layer. However, for higher values of cut /cub where Nc
bearing capacity factor; and q is the overburden pressure. In this pa- is less than Nc,max, the failure surfaces reached the stronger
per, ultimate bearing capacity is determined for the case where there bottom layer, as depicted in Item B of Fig. 2. In these cases,
is no overburden pressure. the top layer could not contain all of the failure surfaces in the
The main objective of this paper is to determine the bearing top layer; failure surfaces also extended into the bottom layer,
capacity factor (Nc), which is a function of both H/B and cut /cub, as and therefore both layers failed simultaneously. It should be
the results of the analyses in this study indicated. noted that as cut /cub approached unity, the size of the failure
surface in the top layer became smaller and the depth of the
failure surface in the bottom layer increased, as depicted in
Results Item C of Fig. 2.
It can be inferred from Fig. 2 that with a decrease in the H/B ratio
The results of the numerical analyses carried out in this study are and/or the cut /cub ratio, an increase in Nc can be expected. For each
presented for each case of weak-over-strong clay and strong-over- specific H/B ratio, Nc will not exceed a maximum value referred to
as Nc,max which is a function of the H/B ratio itself. For example, for
Table 1. Model Definition the case of H/B = 0.15 and for a cut /cub ratio lower than 0.5, Nc
became independent of cut /cub and did not exceed Nc,max = 7.7. A
Weak-over-strong Strong-over-weak
Parameter clay clay
similar trend was observed for other H/B ratios.
To explain the variations of Nc for the case of weak-over-
Uu 0 0 strong clays, an equation must be presented that consists of two
cut/cub 0.2–1 1–5 terms. The first term should determine Nc based on the sloped
H/B 0.15–0.8 0.15–3 portion of each curve, and the second term should determine
Poisson’s ratio 0.45 0.45 Nc,max, which is a function of H/B. Because Nc does not exceed
Young’s elastic modulus (E) 500
cu 500
cu Nc,max, the presented equation should determine Nc as the mini-
Unit weight (kN/m3) 15.7 15.7 mum of the two terms.
K0 0.5 0.5 It can be concluded from Fig. 2 that slope of each curve is a func-
Element dimensions B/200 B/40 tion of H/B, which increases as the H/B ratio decreases. In addition,
Width of the model 8B 25B each curve passes through Nc = 5.14 for cut /cub = 1. Therefore,
Height of the model 4B 9B because one point on each curve is known, by proposing an equa-
Note: Uu = undrained friction angle; cut = undrained shear strength of top tion that determines the slope for a specific H/B ratio, Nc can be
layer; cub = undrained shear strength of bottom layer; cu = undrained shear determined for any other cut /cub ratio. However, Nc must not be
strength of the clay; H = depth of top layer; B = width of footing; K0 = allowed to exceed Nc,max which is considered by the second term in
coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest. Eq. (2), as follows:

© ASCE 06015014-3 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 06015014

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado State Univ Lbrs on 01/07/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 2. Variations of Nc for the case of weak-over-strong clays for various H/B ratios

Fig. 3. Comparison between Eq. (3) and the numerical results for the
parameter slope Fig. 4. Comparison between Eq. (4) and the numerical results for the
parameter Nc,max

8

< cut
5:14 þ slope
1  As mentioned, Fig. 2 shows that the ultimate bearing capacity
Nc ¼ min cub (2)
: for the case of weak-over-strong clays did not constantly increase as
Nc;max
cut /cub decreased. Therefore, another equation with the purpose of
determining Nc,max as a function of H/B is needed. Considering the
The parameter slope is a function of H/B. Considering the slopes Nc,max for each H/B case in Fig. 2, Eq. (4) represents a best-fit curve
of each H/B case in Fig. 2, Eq. (3) represents a best-fit curve for cal- for determining Nc,max, as follows:
culating slope in Eq. (2), as follows:
"
6 #
! H
0:25 Nc;max ¼ 5:14 1 þ 1:25 1  (4)
slope ¼ 5:14   (3) B
H = 0:75
B

2
The coefficient of determination (R ) for Eq. (3) is 0.984. Fig. 3
compares the suggested values for the parameter slope with the nu-
merical results presented in Fig. 2.
R2 for Eq. (4) is 0.996. Fig. 4 shows a comparison between Eq. (4)
and the numerical results of Nc,max obtained in this study.
Finally, substitution of Eqs. (3) and (4) in Eq. (2) results in the
following practical equation, which can be used to determine the

© ASCE 06015014-4 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 06015014

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado State Univ Lbrs on 01/07/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Variations of Nc for the case of strong-over-weak clays for various cut/cub and H/B ratios

ultimate bearing capacity of strip footings for the case of weak- footing in the top layer was less restricted in moving laterally, and
over-strong clays: hence did not act as a rigid column. Nevertheless, a partial punching
8
 shear failure mechanism in the top layer and a large general shear
>
> 0:25 cut
>
> 1 þ   0:75 1  failure mechanism in the bottom layer were still observed (e.g.,
>
< H cub Item B in Fig. 5).
Nc ¼ 5:14
min B

6 (5) Fig. 5 displays the variations of Nc with respect to H/B. Each
>
>
>
> H curve represents variations of this parameter for a specific cut /cub
>
: 1 þ 1:25 1  B ratio. The suggested Eq. (6) has a format similar to Eq. (2). Therefore,
the equation presented for this case should be in the format
According to the comparison made between the prediction of 8
< H
ultimate bearing capacity by Eq. (5) and the numerical results, the cub 5:14 þ slope

Nc ¼
min B (6)
coefficient of determination equals 0.994, which indicates a very cut : N
c;max
good agreement between Eq. (5) and the numerical results for the
case of weak-over-strong clays.
It is obvious that in this case, maximum ultimate bearing
capacity occurred when the failure fully occurred in the top layer,
Strong-over-Weak Clays and the weak bottom layer had no effect on it (Nc = 5.14).

Fig. 5 shows the numerical results of bearing capacity factor ðNc Þ Therefore, Nc;max can be determined using Eq. (7), as follows:
for a series of numerical analyses at different values of H/B and cut

cut /cub ratios. In this case, the parameter Nc is defined as the ratio of Nc;max ¼ 5:14 (7)
cub
the ultimate bearing capacity (qu) to the undrained shear strength of
the weak bottom layer (cub). Variations of Nc with respect to H/B Fig. 5 shows that the parameter slope for this case was a function
are shown in Fig. 5, where each curve represents variations of Nc
of cut /cub and increased as cut /cub increased. To this end, Eq. (8) is
for a specific cut /cub ratio. For example, for the case of cut /cub = 5,
presented as follows:
the detrimental effect of the weak bottom layer on the ultimate bear-
ing capacity persisted for H/B ratios up to 2, whereas for bigger H/B
0:75
cut
ratios, the effect of the weak bottom layer on the bearing capacity slope ¼ 5:14
0:75 1 (8)
cub
disappeared because the failure mechanism was fully contained
within the top layer (Nc = 5.14 or Nc ¼ 5
5:14 ¼ 25:70). Also, it
The coefficient of determination for Eq. (8) is 0.994. A compari-
should be noted that all of the curves in Fig. 5 pass through the com-
son between Eq. (8) and the numerical results carried out in this
mon point of Nc ¼ 5:14 for H/B = 0, which conforms to theoretical
study is presented in Fig. 6.
solutions available for the bearing capacity of single-layered homo-
By substituting Eqs. (7) and (8) in Eq. (6) and converting Nc to
geneous clays (Prandtl 1920).
Nc , the ultimate bearing capacity for the case of strong-over-weak
The results of the analyses indicate that, depending on the value
clays can be determined using Eq. (9), as follows:
of the H/B and cut /cub ratios, full or partial punching shear failure
8"
may occur in the strong top layer. Similar to what is shown in Item >
0:75
#

< cut H cub
A of Fig. 5 for relatively strong, thin crusts (H/B  0.5 and cut /cub 1 þ 0:75 1
Nc ¼ 5:14
min c B cut
 3), full punching shear failure occurred, which was characterized >
:
ub

by the vertical plastic zones on top of the bottom layer. However, as 1

the depth of the strong top layer increased, the soil mass beneath the (9)

© ASCE 06015014-5 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 06015014

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado State Univ Lbrs on 01/07/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. Comparison of Eq. (8) and the numerical results for the param-
eter slope, for strong-over-weak clays

It should be noted that to convert Nc to Nc , both terms of Eq. (6)

were multiplied by cut /cub. Comparison between the numerical
results and Eq. (9) for the case of strong-over-weak clays yielded a
coefficient of determination (R2) of 0.997, which also shows a very
good agreement between the proposed equation and the numerical Fig. 7. Variations of Nc for the case of H/B = 0.125 (cut/cub  1)
results.

Discussion ∂Nc
¼0 (13)
∂r
In this section, a comparison is made between the results obtained
in this study and those from several other researchers: lower- and
upper-bound solutions of Merifield et al. (1999), upper-bound solu- ∂Nc
¼0 (14)
tion of Michalowski (2002), semi-empirical solution of Meyerhof ∂u
and Hanna (1975), upper-bound solution of Chen (1975), and FEM
results of Zhu (2004) and Bandini and Pham (2011). This solution gives Nc = 5.53 for the case of single-layered ho-
It should be noted that Merifield et al. (1999), Michalowski mogeneous clay, which is 8% higher than Prandtl's (1920) solution.
(2002), Zhu (2004), and Bandini and Pham (2011) presented Meyerhof and Hanna (1975) provided semi-empirical solutions
their results in the form of charts and figures for various values for determining the ultimate bearing capacity of two-layered clays
of the H/B and cut /cub ratios. Before continuing with the discus- based on their small-scale model footing tests. Eq. (15) was pro-
sion, other approaches employed in solving this problem are posed as follows for the case of strong-over-weak clay:
reviewed.



qu cub ca H
Chen (1975) presented Eq. (10) by using the theories of limit Nc ¼ ¼ 5:14 þ2 (15)
analysis while assuming a circular failure mechanism for calculat- cut cut cut B
ing an upper bound for the ultimate bearing capacity of two-layered
clays, as follows: The second term in this equation accounts for the effect of the

2 punching shear failure of the stronger top layer, where ca varies from
r u þ nu i 1 (homogeneous soil) to 0.8 (cut /cub = 5). For the case of weak-over-
Nc ðr; u Þ ¼ 2 (10)
B ðr =B Þsin u  1 =2 strong clays, they have proposed the following equation:



qu cub H 2
where Eqs. (11) and (12) give Nc ¼ ¼ 5:14 þ 5:14 1 1  5:14 (16)

 cut cut Hf
H
u i ¼ cos1 cos u þ (11)
r where H is the top layer's depth; Hf is the depth of the failure surface
beneath the footing in the thick bed of upper soil; and the depth ratio
of Hf/B may be set to 1 for clays (Meyerhof 1955).
cub The results of the aforementioned approaches in solving this prob-
n¼ 1 (12)
cut lem are compared graphically in Figs. 7–15. To save space in these
figures, lower-bound and upper-bound solutions are abbreviated as
Finally, by solving Eqs. (13) and (14) simultaneously and substi- LB and UB, respectively, in each figure's legend. Details of expla-
tuting the values for u and r into Eq. (10) the least upper bound for nations for the comparison of the results obtained in this study and
Nc, is as follows: those obtained by other researchers follow in subsequent sections.

© ASCE 06015014-6 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 06015014

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado State Univ Lbrs on 01/07/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 8. Variations of Nc for the case of H/B = 0.25 (cut /cub  1)
Fig. 9. Variations of Nc for the case of H/B = 0.5 (cut /cub  1)
© ASCE
Int. J. Geomech., 06015014
Fig. 10. Variations of Nc for the case of H/B = 0.125 (1  cut =cub  5)
Weak-over-Strong Clays
Comparison is made between the suggested Eq. (5) in this study
and the relationships proposed by other researchers, namely, the
lower- and upper-bound solutions of Merifield et al. (1999), the
upper-bound solutions of Michalowski (2002) and Chen (1975),
the semi-empirical solution of Meyerhof and Hanna (1975), and the
FEM results of Zhu (2004) and Bandini and Pham (2011). The fol-
lowing conclusions are made.
As can be seen in Fig. 2, the ultimate bearing capacity for
this case either solely depended on H/B (Nc,max) or was a func-
tion of both cut /cub and H/B. Figs. 7–9 indicate that for cases
where Nc only depended on H/B, the numerical results obtained
06015014-7 Int. J. Geomech.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado State Univ Lbrs on 01/07/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 11. Variations of Nc for the case of H/B = 0.25 (1  Fig. 12. Variations of Nc for the case of H/B = 0.5 (1  cut =cub  5)
cut =cub  5)

in this study were close to the average of the upper- and
lower-bound solutions of Merifield et al. (1999). However,
because Nc became a function of cut /cub as well (sloped por-
tion of each curve in Fig. 2), the results obtained in this study
were closer to the upper-bound solutions of Merifield et al.
(1999) and Michalowski (2002), especially for smaller H/B val-
ues (Figs. 7 and 8). The graphical comparison in Figs. 7–9
also indicates that the method of Chen (1975) results in the
least accurate upper-bound solution.
As for Meyerhof and Hanna's (1975) semi-empirical solution, it
can be concluded that their solution gives a good approximation of
the ultimate bearing capacity for the sloped portion of Fig. 2.
However, because no maximum limit for Nc [such as Nc,max in Eq.
(4)] was predicted in their equation for the case of weak-over-strong
clays, Nc constantly increased as the cut /cub ratio decreased, and a
high percentage of error was especially produced for cut /cub ratios
less than 0.6.
In comparison with the FEM results, as can be seen in Figs. 7–9,
Zhu (2004) estimated relatively higher values for the ultimate
bearing capacity, which occasionally exceeded the upper-bound
solutions of Merifield et al. (1999). However, the results of
Bandini and Pham (2011) and this study are very close. However,
Bandini and Pham (2011) did not analyze this problem for cut /cub
ratios smaller than 0.5, and this could lead to significant errors in

© ASCE 06015014-8 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 06015014

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado State Univ Lbrs on 01/07/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 13. Variations of Nc for the case of H/B = 1 (1  cut =cub  5) Fig. 14. Variations of Nc for the case of H/B = 1.5 (1  cut =cub  5)

extrapolation, especially for relatively thin top layers (e.g., H/B =

0.125).
Strong-over-Weak Clays
Figs. 10–12 indicate that for small H/B values, as cut /cub increased,
the results of this study were close to the lower-bound solution of
Merifield et al. (1999); however, for higher H/B ratios, as Figs. 13–
15 indicate, the results of this study converged to the average of the
upper- and lower-bound solutions of Merifield et al. (1999). In addi-
tion, comparison between the presented upper-bound solutions
shows that Michalowski's (2002) solution had the best performance
among the three methods for cut /cub ratios close to 1. However, for
higher cut /cub ratios, Michalowski (2002) and Merifield et al.
(1999) produced similar results.
Figs. 10 and 11 show that Meyerhof and Hanna (1975) provided
accurate results, similar to the numerical results for smaller H/B val-
ues. However, their solution lost accuracy for higher H/B ratios by
predicting relatively lower ultimate loads in comparison with other
available solutions, especially for cut /cub ratios higher than 2.5
(Figs. 12–15).
Among the proposed solutions, the FEM results of Zhu (2004)
and Bandini and Pham (2011) were closest to the results of this
study, although their results mostly estimated a slightly higher
undrained bearing capacity. It should also be noted that Bandini and
Pham (2011) did not analyze this problem for H/B > 1.

© ASCE 06015014-9 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 06015014


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado State Univ Lbrs on 01/07/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 15. Variations of Nc for the case of H/B = 2 (1  cut /cub  5)
Numerical Example
In this section, a simple numerical example for the case of
strong-over-weak clay is discussed using Eq. (9). The answer
is also compared with other available solutions mentioned in
this paper.
First, this example determines the ultimate bearing capacity of a
strip footing with a width of 4 m, positioned on top of a two-layered
clayey soil with the following specifications: The soil profile con-
sists of a 4-m-deep top layer with an undrained shear strength of
125 kPa and a weaker bottom layer with an undrained shear strength
of 25 kPa; the angle of internal friction is zero for both layers in the
undrained loading condition.
© ASCE
Int. J. Geomech., 06015014
Because the top layer is stronger than the bottom one, Eq. (9) is
used to determine the ultimate bearing capacity of the strip footing:
("
0:75
#
 )
Nc cut H cub
¼ min 1 þ 0:75 1 ;1
5:14 cub B cut
("
0:75
#
 )
Nc 125 4 25
) ¼ min 1 þ 0:75 1 ;1
5:14 25 4 125
Nc
) ¼ minð0:62; 1Þ
5:14
) Nc ¼ 5:14
0:62 ¼ 3:19
qu ¼ cut
Nc
) qu ¼ 125
3:19 ¼ 398:75 kPa
The proposed equations in this study predict the ultimate bearing
capacity of approximately 399 kPa. Merifield et al. (1999) calcu-
lated an upper bound of 443 kPa for this problem, which is 11%
higher than the result obtained in this study (þ11%), and a lower
bound of 388 kPa (–3%). Michalowski (2002) calculated an upper
bound of 471 kPa (þ18%), whereas Chen (1975) calculated an
upper bound of 487 kPa (þ22%). The semi-empirical solution of
Meyerhof and Hanna (1975) calculated an ultimate bearing capacity
of 326 kPa (–18%), which is even lower than the lower-bound value
calculated by Merifield et al. (1999). Zhu (2004) and Bandini and
Pham (2011) also predicted an undrained bearing capacity of 408
kPa (þ2%) and 424 kPa (þ6%), respectively, which are very close
to the results of this study.
Conclusion
In this paper, the ultimate bearing capacity of strip footings on two-
layered clays was calculated using FDM for various H/B and cut /cub
ratios. Afterward, by analyzing the trend of variations in Nc with
regard to changes in H/B and cut /cub, Eqs. (5) and (9) were proposed
for calculating the ultimate bearing capacity of strip footings on
two-layered clays for cases of both weak-over-strong and strong-
over-weak clays, respectively. An important characteristic of these
two equations is their simple format that enables practitioners to cal-
culate the ultimate bearing capacity of clays with minimal effort
while using a simple calculator, whereas in other solutions, one
may need to consult charts or figures. Comparison of the numerical
results and those obtained by Eqs. (5) and (9) shows a strong agree-
ment between the two, with R2  0:994.
Whereas other researchers, such as Merifield et al. (1999),
Michalowski (2002), and Chen (1975), have proposed approximate
bounds for this problem, Meyerhof and Hanna (1975) presented a
semi-empirical solution, which was only accurate for cut /cub ratios
between 0.6 and 2.5 and lost its accuracy outside of this domain. The
FEM results presented by Zhu (2004) and Bandini and Pham (2011)
were fairly close to the results of this study. In the approach presented
by Zhu (2004) and Bandini and Pham (2011), practitioners are
required to consult charts and figures, whereas in the approach pre-
sented in this study, they can use the proposed equations for deter-
mining the ultimate bearing capacity of two-layered clays.
Another important characteristic of this research is the investiga-
tion of failure modes observed in weak-over-strong and strong-
over-weak clays. It was found that for the case of weak-over-strong
clays, general shear failure of the top layer or both layers is encoun-
tered, whereas strong-over-weak clays experience full or partial
06015014-10 Int. J. Geomech.
 punching shear failure of the stronger top layer accompanied by the
general shear failure of the weaker bottom layer. Moreover, it is
concluded that the depth, width, and type of the failure occurring in
two-layered clay deposits depends on the H/B and cut /cub ratios,
and thus requires careful consideration in the design of footings.
It should be mentioned that the equations presented in this study
are valid for foundations resting on the ground surface, and the
effect of embedment has not been considered.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
B ¼ width of the strip footing;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado State Univ Lbrs on 01/07/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
cub ¼ undrained shear strength of bottom layer;
cut ¼ undrained shear strength of top layer;
H ¼ depth of the top layer;
K0 ¼ coefficient of earth pressure at rest;
Nc ¼ bearing capacity factor for clays (qu divided by cut);
Nc,max ¼ maximum of Nc for each H/B ratio in weak-over-
strong clays;
Nc ¼ factor obtained by dividing qu by cub for strong-
over-weak clays;

Nc;max ¼ maximum of Nc for each cut /cub ratio for strong-
over-weak clays;
q ¼ overburden pressure;
qu ¼ maximum allowable bearing pressure of soil
beneath the footing;
slope ¼ rate of change in Nc or Nc in the sloped portion of
Figs. 2 and 5; and
Uu ¼ undrained friction angle.
References
Bandini, P., and Pham, H. V. (2011). “Bearing capacity of embedded strip
footings in two-layered clay soils.” Proc., Geo-Frontiers Congress,
ASCE, Reston, VA, 332–341.
Bowles, J. (1996). Foundation analysis and design, 5th Ed., McGraw-Hill,
Peoria, IL.
Brown, J. D., and Meyerhof, G. G. (1969). “An experimental study of ulti-
mate bearing capacity of layered clay foundations.” Proc., 7th Int. Conf.
on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Sociedad Mexicana de
Mecanica de Suelos, Mexico City, 45–51.
© ASCE 06015014-11
Int. J. Geomech., 06015014
Button, S. J. (1953). “The bearing capacity of footings on a two-layer cohe-
sive subsoil.” Proc., 3rd Int. Conf. of Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Organizing Committee, Zurich, 332–335.
Chen, W. F. (1975). Limit analysis and soil plasticity, Elsevier, Amsterdam,
the Netherlands.
Davis, E. H., and Booker J. R. (1973). “The effect of increasing strength
with depth on the bearing capacity of clays.” Geotechnique, 23(4),
551–563.
FLAC 5.0 [Computer software]. (2005). Itasca Consulting Group, Inc.,
Minneapolis.
Florkiewicz, A. (1989). “Upper bound to bearing capacity of layered soils.”
Can. Geotech. J., 26(4), 730–736.
Huang, M., and Qin, H. (2009). “Upper-bound multi-rigid-block solutions
for bearing capacity of two-layered soils.” Comput. Geotech., 36(3),
525–529.
Merifield, R. S., and Nguyen, V. Q. (2006). “Two- and three-dimensional
bearing-capacity solutions for footings on two-layered clays.” Geomech.
Geoeng, 1(2), 151–162.
Merifield, R. S., Sloan, S. W., and Yu, H. S. (1999). “Rigorous plasticity
solutions for the bearing capacity of two-layered clays.” Geotechnique,
49(4), 471–490.
Meyerhof, G. G. (1955). “Influence of roughness of base and ground-
water conditions on the ultimate bearing capacity of foundations.”
Geotechnique, 5(3), 227–242.
Meyerhof, G. G., and Hanna, A. M. (1975). “Ultimate bearing capacity of
foundations on layered soils under inclined load.” Can. Geotech. J.,
15(4), 565-–572.
Michalowski, R. L. (2002). “Collapse loads over two-layer clay foundation
soils.” Soils Found., 42(1), 1–7.
Prandtl, L. (1920). “Über die Härte plastischer Körper. Nachrichten von
der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen.” Mathematisch-
Physikalische Klasse, 74–85.
Reddy, A. S., and Srinivasan, R. J. (1967). “Bearing capacity of footings on
layered clays.” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., 93(2), 83–99.
Terzaghi, K. (1943). Theoretical soil mechanics, Wiley, New York.
Yu, L., Liu, J., Kong, X., and Hu, Y. (2011). “Three-dimensional large de-
formation FE analysis of square footings in two-layered clays.” J.
Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000400,
52–58.
Zhu, M. (2004). “Bearing capacity of strip footings on two-layer clay soil
by finite element method.” Proc., ABAQUS Users' Conf., ABAQUS,
Inc., Boston, MA, 777–787.
Zhu, M., and Michalowski, R. L. (2005). “Bearing capacity of rectangular
footings on two-layer clays.” Proc., 16th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics
and Geotechnical Engineering, IOS Press, Osaka, Japan, 997–1000.
Int. J. Geomech.