INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR

SOIL MECHANICS AND

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

This paper was downloaded from the Online Library of

the International Society for Soil Mechanics and
Geotechnical Engineering (ISSMGE). The library is
available here:

https://www.issmge.org/publications/online-library

This is an open-access database that archives thousands

of papers published under the Auspices of the ISSMGE and
maintained by the Innovation and Development
Committee of ISSMGE.

The paper was published in the proceedings of the 7th

International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical
Engineering and was edited by Francesco Silvestri, Nicola
Moraci and Susanna Antonielli. The conference was held
in Rome, Italy, 17 – 20 June 2019.
 Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering for Protection and Development of
Environment and Constructions – Silvestri & Moraci (Eds)
© 2019 Associazione Geotecnica Italiana, Rome, Italy, ISBN 978-0-367-14328-2

Seismic bearing capacity of shallow strip footing resting on two

layered sands

P. Kumar & M. Chakraborty

Indian Institute of Technology (BHU), Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India

ABSTRACT: The objective of this article is to estimate quantitatively the improvement in

pseudostatic bearing capacity of a rough strip footing by inclusion of a dense sand layer
between the footing and the existing loose sand. The analysis is being performed by using
lower and upper bound limit analysis in conjunction with finite elements and nonlinear opti-
mization. The results are presented in the form of an efficiency factor (η). The solutions are
obtained for different combinations of horizontal and vertical seismic acceleration corres-
ponding to varying strength ratios and dense (top) layer thickness. From the analysis, it is
observed that the value of η increases significantly with the overlaying of dense sand layer.
However, there is a certain optimum thickness of the dense sand layer beyond which there is
no further increment. The effects of the seismic coefficients and the shear strength of sand
layers on the optimum thickness are established.

1 INTRODUCTION

For the past few decades, many studies were conducted for determining the seismic bearing cap-
acity of shallow foundations. Meyerhof (1951, 1953) and Shinohara et al. (1960), adopted a
pseudo-static approach to estimate seismic bearing capacity of foundation placed on weightless
soil medium. Sarma & Iossifelis (1990) estimated the seismic bearing capacity on the basis of
limit equilibrium principle and method of slices. It was assumed that soil fails along log-spiral
surface and the center of log spiral is at the edge of the foundation. Budhu & Al-Karni (1993)
used limit equilibrium technique to obtain the seismic bearing capacity for both horizontal and
vertical seismic coefficients. An asymmetrical failure surface obtained by clockwise rotation of
the modified failure surface of Vesic (1973) was used for the analysis. Richards et al. (1993)
solved the same problem by considering Coulomb failure mechanism. By using Prandtl failure
mechanism, Dormieux & Pecker (1995) obtained the upper bound limit load for strip founda-
tion subjected to horizontal seismic acceleration. Soubra (1997) investigated the static and seis-
mic bearing capacity by upper bound limit theorem considering two completely different failure
mechanism. By using method of characteristics, several researchers (Kumar & Rao 2002, Mau-
geri & Castelli 2008, Cascone & Casablanca 2016) computed the bearing capacity of strip foot-
ing resting on homogenous soil and subjected to seismic loading. Ghosh (2008) obtained the
upper bound values of Nγ for different angle of friction of soil by considering soil amplification,
horizontal and vertical seismic acceleration coefficient. Saha & Ghosh (2014) analyzed the bear-
ing capacity for c-ϕ soil by limit equilibrium method and Coulomb failure mechanism. Jadar &
Ghosh (2016) solved the same problem by using horizontal method of slices along with limit
equilibrium technique for a nonlinear failure surface. Pane et al. (2016) used finite difference
based software FLAC 7.0 to estimate the seismic bearing capacity.
These analytical studies on homogenous soil medium clearly show that the presence of seis-
mic acceleration reduces the bearing capacity of strip foundation in comparison to its static
counterpart. Few analytical and numerical studies (Meyerhof & Hanna 1978, Farah 2004) are
also available for estimating the bearing capacity for shallow foundation resting over layered
sands. However, these studies are carried out only for the static case.

3474
 No rigorous solutions seem to be available for estimating the seismic bearing capacity of strip
foundation resting on two layered sands. This motivates the present study. In the present paper,
by using lower and upper bound limit theorem, an attempt has been made to quantitatively esti-
mate the improvement in pseudo-static bearing capacity due to an insertion of a dense sand
layer for a strip footing lying over fully loose sands. Lower and upper bound theorem when
used together, brackets the true collapse load from both the extremities. Unlike the limit equilib-
rium technique, the limit theorem does not need any assumption regarding the failure surface or
failure mechanism. Failure surface and nodal velocity contour are drawn for several few cases.

2 PROBLEM STATEMENT

A rough strip footing of width b, is rested over two layered sands; where, the angle of internal
friction of the top and the bottom layers are considered to be ϕ1 and ϕ2, respectively. The soil
domain and the foundation are subjected to horizontal (kh) and vertical (kv) pseudo static
loadings. The two-dimensional nature of the strip footing problem is modelled with plane
strain condition. Due to the incorporation of the horizontal pseudo-static acceleration the fail-
ure surface will not be symmetric, hence complete soil domain has been considered while esti-
mating the bearing capacity. The boundary conditions for lower and upper bound cases are
depicted in Figure 1. The boundary conditions for upper bound has been written in paren-
thesis to differentiate it from lower bound.
The length and the depth of the domain are chosen to be sufficiently large so that the failure
zone is confined well within the domain. For the present case a domain of length equal to 50b
and depth of 7.5b has been chosen; where, b is the width of foundation. Both the sand layers
are assumed to be perfectly plastic and governed by the Mohr-Coulomb yield criterion and
associated flow rule. It is intended to calculate the bearing capacity of the foundation for dif-
ferent combinations of: (a) thickness of the top layer (t), represented as non-dimensional
ratios of t/b,(b) strength of the top and bottom layers (ϕ1, ϕ2) and, (iii) seismic loadings (kh
and kv). The range of ϕ1 and ϕ2 for the present analysis has been chosen from 30° to 36° and
40° to 46°, respectively. From the results of Richards et al. (1990), it is evident that the phe-
nomenon of shear fluidization in sands takes place if the magnitude of kh/(kv-1) exceeds the
value of tanϕ. To avoid fluidization, in the present analysis, the range of kh and kv has been
chosen from 0 to 0.6 and 0 to 0.4, respectively. The results are presented in the form of effi-
ciency factor (η) which is defined as the ratio of the bearing capacities with an inclusion of the
dense sand layer to that for a footing lying directly over loose sand deposits subjected to the
same pseudo-static acceleration.

Figure 1. Problem domain and boundary condition

3475
3 METHODOLOGY

To obtain the lower bound solution a statically admissible stress field is constructed in the
domain. Three noded triangular elements are used to model the considered domain. Each
node of the plane strain triangular element is subjected to three nodal stresses (σx, σy and ιxy)
which are considered as basic unknowns. In limit analysis, each node is unique to a particular
element and, hence, two different elements do not share the same node number. However, the
normal and shear stresses remain continuous along the chosen stress discontinuity. The equi-
librium conditions are satisfied within the entire domain. The predefined normal and shear
stresses on the boundaries are also maintained in the analysis. Each of these conditions
imposes a set of linear equality constraint on the nodal stresses. In the present analysis, the
strength of soil medium is governed by Mohr Coulomb yield criterion which generates a set of
non-linear inequality constraints. The collapse load is computed by maximizing the normal
stress along the soil-footing interface subjected to the set of equality and inequality con-
straints. The interface roughness angle between the footing and the soil is kept equal to the
friction angle for ensuring perfect roughness condition.
To obtain the upper bound solution a kinematically admissible velocity field is constructed in
the domain. For the upper bound analysis, the horizontal (u) and vertical velocities (v) are taken
as basic unknown. The velocity field is subjected to set of compatibility and velocity boundary
constraints along with associated flow rule. The objective function for the collapse load is for-
mulated by equating the rate of the total work done by the external loads with the total internal
power dissipation. The upper bound solution is obtained by minimizing the collapse load.
The lower and upper bound analysis, in the present work, have been performed using
Optum G2 (a PC based software package) along with adaptive mesh refinement based on plas-
tic shear dissipation. An academic version of the software has been used for this research
work. Mesh refinement based on shear dissipation is considered most efficient and reliable for
limit analysis. For optimization, Optum G2 uses Sonic which is a nonlinear optimizer.

4 RESULTS

The limiting solutions are presented in graphical forms. The graphs are plotted in terms of effi-
ciency factor for various combinations of (a) top layer thickness, (b) strength properties of the top
and the bottom layers(ϕ1 and ϕ2) and (c) applied pseudo-static earthquake forces (kh and kv). The
solutions for both the extremities seem to be quite closer to each other. Except for very few cases,
the difference between the lower and upper bound values from the average collapse load is within
the bracket of 10%. It becomes very difficult to present both the solutions together in one graph.
Hence the results have been presented by averaging out the lower and upper bound solutions.
Figures 2–4 represent the efficiency factor with respect to t/b ratio for different values of ϕ1,
ϕ2, kh, and kv. Due to inclusion of dense layer the bearing capacity raises manifold. It is observed
that there is a certain magnitude of t/b ratio (which is termed as ‘optimum t/b ratio’ and indi-
cated as ‘topt/b’) up to which η increases appreciably with increase in t/b ratio. Beyond topt/b,
there is no further improvement in η with increase in t/b ratio. Table 1 shows the magnitude of
topt/b for different combinations of seismic loadings and layer properties. It can be observed that
for constant kv the magnitude of topt/b decreases with increase in kh. The value of topt/b increases
as the strength of the top layer increases. There are some cases for which results did not con-
verge. The reason for this may be attributed to the shear fluidization of soil even before applica-
tion of load. In these cases, tangent of internal friction angle is smaller than kh/(1-kv).
Figures 2 and 3 further indicate that the improvement of η is significantly higher as the
strength of the top layer increases. The graphs also suggest that for fixed values of ϕ1, ϕ2 and
t/b ratio, η increases with increase in kh. This can be interpreted as that placing of dense layer
on the top of loose layer improves the load carrying capacity predominantly for the seismic
cases than compare to its non-seismic counterpart. The effectiveness of inclusion of the dense
sand layer is observed to be more as the magnitude of kh lies in the higher range. Similar
observations are made for kv, though the number of cases for kv are limited.

3476
Figure 2. The variation of efficiency factors
with t/b for various stronger layer placed on
ϕ=30° and ϕ=34° soil subjected to different
combinations of seismic coefficients: (i) kh =0,
kv=0; (ii) kh =0.2, kv=0; (iii) kh =0.4, kv=0; (iv)
kh =0.2, kv=0.2; (v) kh =0.4, kv=0.2.
Figure 3. The variation of efficiency factors with t/b
for various stronger layer placed on ϕ=32° and ϕ=36°
soil subjected to different combinations of seismic
coefficients: (i) kh =0, kv=0; (ii) kh =0.2, kv=0; (iii) kh
=0.4, kv=0; (iv) kh =0.2, kv=0.2; (v) kh =0.4, kv=0.2.
3477
Figure 4. The variation of efficiency factors with t/b for various stronger layer placed on ϕ=34° and
ϕ=36° soil subjected to different combinations of seismic coefficients: (i) kh =0.4, kv=0.4; (ii) kh =0.2,
kv=0.

Table 1. The magnitude of topt/b for various combinations of ϕ1 and ϕ2 subjected to different seismic
loading conditions
30° 32° 34° 36°
ϕ2
kv kh ϕ1 40° 42° 44° 46° 40° 42° 44° 46° 40° 42° 44° 46 ° 40° 42° 44° 46°

0.0 0.0 1.75 1.75 2.50 3.00 1.75 2.00 2.50 2.75 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.50
0.2 1.50 1.75 2.25 2.75 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 1.50 1.25 1.50 1.75
0.4 1.00 1.25 1.25 1.50 1.25 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.25 1.25 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.25
0.6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.50 0.75 0.75 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.75 1.00
0.2 0.2 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 1.75 1.50 1.75 2.00 1.25 1.25 1.50 1.75 1.00 1.75 1.50 1.75
0.4 1.50 1.25 1.00 1.25 0.75 0.75 1.25 1.25 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.25 0.75 0.75 1.25 1.00
0.4 0.4 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.38 0.50 0.75 0.75 0.50 0.50 0.75 0.75

Note:‘--’ represents the cases for which solutions could not be computed.

4.1 Failure surfaces and nodal velocity contours

In order to reduce the difference between the two extreme solutions, the mesh in the soil
domain was continuously rearranged on the basis of shear dissipation. This rearranged mesh
in a way replicate the failure surface. Figure 5 shows the failure surface based on shear dissipa-
tion for ϕ1=44°, ϕ2=34°, and t/b =1. The failure surfaces are shown for four different values of
kh(= 0, 0.2, 0.4 and 0.6) and constant value of kv (=0). It is noticed that the symmetric failure
surface for the seismic case becomes non-symmetrical with the application of kh. Similar
observations were reported earlier by few researchers(Richard 1993, Soubra 1997) for the case
of homogeneous soil. It can be further observed that with increase in kh, the failure surface
becomes shallower and for kh =0.6, the inelastic regime is confined in the top layer only.
Figures 6 depicts the failure surface for a certain soil stratum (ϕ1=44°, ϕ2=34°, t/b =0.375)
subjected to similar value of kh (= 0.4) but two different values of kv (= 0.2 and 0.4). It can be
inferred from the figures that as the vertical seismic force become stronger, the horizontal
extent of the failure surface increases.
After constructing the velocity field that provides the upper bound collapse load, the nodal
velocity contours are drawn for few cases. In comparison to the entire chosen domain, the
area which encompasses the noticeable movement of soil lies near the strip footing (termed as
‘zone of influence’) and is quite limited. For better visualization, only the portion near the
zone of influence is presented. Figure 7 presents the velocity contour by varying the upper

3478
Figure 5. Failure surface for ϕ1 =44°, ϕ2 =34°, t/b = 1, kv=0 and kh equals to(i) 0, (ii) 0.2, (iii) 0.4, and,
(iv) 0.6.

Figure 6. Failure surface for ϕ1 =44°, ϕ2=34°, t/b = 0.375, kh=0.4 and kv equals to(i) 0.2, and,(ii) 0.4.

layer thickness. For each case, the material properties (ϕ1=42°, ϕ2=32°) and the applied seis-
mic loadings (kh=0, kv=0.2) are kept the same. It is observed that with increase in t/b, the
volume of failure zone increases. This increase in volume takes place upto topt/b after which
the size of the failure zone starts reducing. For higher values of t/b, the failure surface gets
contained in the top layer itself.

3479
Figure 7. Velocity Contour for ϕ1=42°, ϕ2 =32°, kh=0.2, kv =0 and t/b (i) 0.125, (ii) 0.5, (iii) 1.5, and, (iv)
2.25

Figure 8. Velocity Contour for ϕ1=42°, ϕ2 =32°, t/b = 0.25, kv =0 and kh (i) 0.2, and, (ii) 0.6.

Figure 8 shows the comparison of the nodal velocities for two different values of kh (= 0.2
and 0.6). It is observed from the zone of influence, that the velocity direction of the soil par-
ticles at the ground surface near the footing edge become inclined at kh = 0.6, unlike the hori-
zontal flow at kh = 0.2.

4.2 Comparison of results

As the literature for the bearing capacity of strip foundation resting on two layered sand subjected
to seismic acceleration is limited, the comparison has been made for seismic bearing capacity of
homogenous soil. The results have been compared in terms of Nγ. Table 2 depicts the comparisons
of the present limiting solutions for ϕ=30° soil subjected to various values of kh. The solutions are
compared with the (a) limit equilibrium solutions of Sarma & Iossifelis (1990), (b) upper bound
solutions of Dormieux & Packer (1995), Soubra (1997), Ghosh (2008) and, (c) the solutions of
Kumar & Rao (2002) obtained by method of characteristics. The present solutions seem to be
significantly lower than the previously obtained upper bound solutions. This can be attributed to
the fact that the assumptions of failure mechanism in the previous upper bound method predict

3480
Table 2. Comparison of present solutions (Nγ) with the available literatures for homogenous soil with
ϕ=30°
Present Kumar Soubra Dormieux Sarma Kumar Hjiaj et al.
kh solution Ghosh (2008) & Rao (1997) & Pecker & Iossifelis & Khatri (2005)
LB UB UB (2002) M1 M2 (1995) (1990) (2008) LB LB UB

0 13.9 15.1 36.3 7.6 25.0 31.5 22.7 24.0 13.7 14.6 15.2
0.1 9.7 10.4 20.3 6.9 15.6 18.9 16.2
0.2 6.0 6.3 11.1 4.7 8.9 10.3 7.1 9.5
0.3 3.2 3.4 5.3 2.5 4.5 4.9 4.7
0.4 1.4 1.4 2.0 1.0 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.2

Note: (i) LB denotes lower bound and UB denotes upper bound solutions, respectively.
(ii) M1 and M2 indicate two different mechanisms.
(iii) Hjiaj et al. (2005) and Kumar & Khatri (2008) have present the value of Nγ for static case only.

quite higher collapse loads. The present solutions are bit closer to the solutions obtained by the
method of characteristics. Although the present solutions are on the lower side, they follow the
same trends as expected from the literature. For further validation, the obtained numerical solu-
tions (Nγ) for homogeneous sand of ϕ=30° is compared with the finite element limit analysis solu-
tions of Kumar & Khatri (2008) and Hjiaj et al. (2005). The matching of the solutions gives a
confidence on the prepared design charts from the present analysis.

5 CONCLUSIONS

In the present analysis, the improvement in the bearing capacity of a rough strip foundation
resting over two layered sand has been estimated for different combination of horizontal and
vertical seismic accelerations. The design charts are presented for several cases. It is observed
that due to the inclusion of dense layer there is a significant improvement in bearing capacity
especially for the case where seismic loading is being applied. It is further observed that there
is an optimum thickness of top dense layer beyond which there is hardly any improvement on
the bearing capacity. This optimum thickness of the top layer is a function of the layer proper-
ties and the applied seismic conditions. The failure patterns and nodal velocity contours are
drawn for few cases. If the thickness of the top layer exceeds the optimum layer thickness the
failure zone remains contained within the top layer alone. It is well observed that with the
increase in kh value, the size of the failure zone contracts and becomes shallower. The design
charts provided in this article may be useful for practicing engineers.

REFERENCES

Budhu, M. & Al-Karni, A. 1993. Seismic bearing capacity of soils, Geotechnique. 43:181-187.
Cascone, E. & Casablanca, O. 2016. Static and seismic bearing capacity of shallow strip footings, Soil
Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 84:204–223.
Dormieux, L. & Pecker, A. 1995. Seismic bearing capacity of foundation on cohesionless soil, J. Geotech.
Eng., 121(3):300-303.
Farah, C. A. 2004. Ultimate bearing capacity of shallow foundations on layered soils. M.Sc. thesis, Civil
and Enviro. Eng., Concordia Univ., Quebec
Ghosh, P. 2008. Upper bound solutions of bearing capacity of strip footing by pseudo-dynamic
approach, Acta Geotech., 3(2):115-123.
Hjiaj, M., Lyamin, A. V. & Sloan, S. W. 2005. Numerical limit analysis solutions for the bearing capacity
factor Nγ, Int. J. Solids Struct., 42(5):1681-1704.
Jadar, C. & Ghosh, S. 2016. Seismic bearing capacity of shallow strip footing using horizontal slice
method, Int. J. of Geotech. Eng., 11:38-50.

3481
Kumar, J. & Khatri, V. N. 2008. Effect of footing roughness on lower bound Nγ values, Int.J. Geomech.,
8:176-187.
Kumar, J. & Rao, V.B.K.M. 2002. Seismic bearing capacity factors for spread foundations, Geotechni-
que, 52(2):79–88.
Maugeri, M. & Castelli, F. 2008. Adeguamento e miglioramento sismico delle fondazioni di edifici esis-
tenti. MIR-Opere geotecniche in condizioni sismiche. Turin, 207-239
Meyerhof, G.G. 1951. The ultimate bearing capacity of foundations, Geotechnique, 2(4): 301-332
Meyerhof, G.G. 1953. The bearing capacity of foundations under eccentric and inclined loads, Proc. of
the3rd Int.Conf. on Soil Mech. and Found.Eng., Zurich, 1: 440-445.
Meyerhof, G.G. Hanna, A.M. 1978. Ultimate bearing capacity of foundations on layered soils under
inclined load, Can. Geotech. J. 15:565-572.
Optum G2, Version: 2018.06.08 (academic license) Optum Computational Engineering, Denmark.
Pane, V., Vecchietti, A. & Cecconi, M. 2016. A numerical study on the seismic bearing capacity of shal-
low foundations, Bull Earthq.Eng. 14: 2931-2958
Richards, R. Jr, Elms, D.G. & Budhu, M. 1990. Dynamic fluidization of soils, J. Geotech. Eng.116:5(740).
Richards, R. Jr, Elms, D.G. & Budhu, M. 1993. Seismic bearing capacity and settlement of foundations,
J. Geotech. Eng.119:662-674
Saha, A. & Ghosh, S. 2014. Pseudo-dynamic analysis for bearing capacity of foundation resting on c–ϕ
soil, Int. J. Geotech. Eng. 9:379-387
Sarma, S.K. & Iossifelis, I.S. 1990. Seismic bearing capacity factors of shallow strip footings, Geotechni-
que. 40:265-273.
Shinohara, T., Tateishi, T. & Kubo, K. 1960. Bearing capacity of sandy soil for eccentric and inclined
load and lateral resistance of single piles embedded in sandy soil, Proc. of the 2nd world Conf. on
Earthq.Eng., Tokyo,1:265-280.
Soubra, A.H. 1997. Seismic bearing capacity of shallow strip footings in seismic conditions, Proc. of the
Inst. of Civil Eng., Geotech. Eng., 125:230-241
Vesic, A. S. 1973. Analysis of ultimate loads of shallow foundation, J. Soil Mech. and Found. Div.,
ASCE, 99 (1):43-45.

3482