Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Strip

Footings on Multi-layered Clayey Soils

Yang Liu1, Qi-shuang Zhan1, Yun-gang Zhan2*

1: Undergraduate student; 2: Associate professor
School of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, Jiangsu University of
Science and Technology, Zhenjiang, Jiangsu, China
*Corresponding author; e-mail: zygseastar@163.com

ABSTRACT
The bearing capacity of multi-layered foundations is a key issue for coastal and offshore
engineering. Lots of studies have been made on this to provide a practical calculation method for
geotechnical engineers. Based on studies on two-layered foundations, SNAME (Society of Naval
Architects and Marine Engineers) recommends a method to estimate the bearing capacity of three-
layered foundations. This study examines the validity of the SNAME method extended to
foundations with more than three soil layers through finite element analysis. It turns out that the
extended SNAME method provides slightly conservative results and can be used to estimate the
bearing capacity of multi-layered foundations quickly.
KEYWORDS: Bearing capacity; multi-layered clayey soils; finite element analysis.

INTRODUCTION
Footings resting on layered soils are often encountered in coastal and offshore engineering.
Estimating the ultimate bearing capacity of the underlying layered soils is a key issue for the
safety of superstructures. Many researchers have investigated this problem and proposed
calculation methods, however, most of the studies focused on two-layered soils, such as sand
overlying soft clay, stiff clay overlying soft clay, or weaker soil overlying stronger soil.
The widely accepted calculation methods in practice are proposed by Brown & Meyerhof
(1969), Meyerhof (1974) and Meyerhof & Hanna (1978), based on a series of model footing tests.
As for strip footings on two-layered clays with upper layer stiffer than underlying layer, Brown
and Meyerhof (1969) expressed the ultimate bearing capacity via a non-dimensional bearing
capacity factor, N c* as below:

H   cu1 
N c*  1.5    5.14    5.14 for cu 2 / cu1  1 (1)
B   cu 2 
where B is the width of the strip footing; H is the thickness of the upper layer; cu1, cu2 are the
undrained shear strength of the upper and underlying layers, respectively.
A more general method suggested by Meyerhof and Hanna (Meyerhof, 1974; Meyerhof &
Hanna, 1978), based on a punch shear failure mechanism illustrated in Figure 1, can deal with a

- 4181 -
 Vol. 20 [2015], Bund. 10 4182

two-layered c   soil profile with stronger layer overlying weaker layer. The ultimate bearing
capacity, qu of the footing on the upper layer can be presented as:

qu  qb  2ca H B   1 H 2 (1  2 D H ) k s tan 1 B   1 H  qt (2)

1
qb  c2 N c   1  D  H  N q   2 BN  (3)
2
1
qt  c1 N c   1 DN q   1 BN  (4)
2
where ca= unit adhesion;  = the angle of inclination of the passive force of Pp; ks = coefficient of
punching shear, which is presented in the form of charts by Hanna and Meyerhof (1980); Nc, Nq,
Nγ = bearing capacity factors; the other parameters are as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Punching shear models on layered soil (After Meyerhof, 1974)

Merifield et al (1999) examined the ultimate bearing capacity of a footing on a two-layer

undrained clay profile employing numerical limit analysis. The upper and lower bound limit
results were presented in the form of bearing capacity factors in terms on the depth ratio and
strength ratio, which can be used in designing of foundation on soft-over-strong or strong-over-
soft clay deposit.
For coastal or offshore foundations with a larger size, howere, three layered even more than
three layered deposit should be considered in estimating the bearing capacity. One reason is the
influence zone of soils beneath footings increases with the size of footings; the other is subsoils in
coastal and offshore areas usually consist of very thin layered deposites. Based on the traditional
method of estimating bearing capacity of footings on two-layered subsoils, SNAME (2002)
recommends that the bearing capacity for a three-layered soils can be computed, in turn,
assuming footings on top of the middle soil layer and then on top of the top soil layer. In other
words, the lower two soil layers are viewed as a two-layered subsoil to compute its bearing
capacity and then the lower two soil layers as one layer together with the top layer are viewed as
a two-layered subsoil, too.
 Vol. 20 [2015], Bund. 10 4183

In this paper, the method of SNAME (2002) to estimate the bearing capacity of footings on
three-layered subsoils is extended to the scenario of strip footings on multi-layered subsoils. Its
validity, taking clayey soil foundations as examples, was examined by finite element analysis.
Commercial finite element analysis software, ABAQUS (Abaqus, 2010) was used to carry out the
study.

FINITE ELEMENT MODEL FOR MULTI-LAYERED

FOUNDATIONS
Geometry and material model
The geometry of a strip footing on a multi-layered subsoil is shown in Figure 2, of which
each clayey soil layer is assumed to be homogeneous with thichness Hi and undrained shear
strength cui, where i = 1, 2, …, n. The soils were modeled as elasto-perfectly plastic materials
obeying Tresca failure criterion. Young’s modulus was taken as 1000 times as many as undrained
shear strength cui. A Poisson’s ratio   0.49 was used to simulate the undrained deformation
conditions of the clayey soils. The footing is regarded as a rigid body, for it is stiffer than the
soils.

Layer-1 cu1 , H1

Layer-2 cu2 , H2

Layer-3 cu3 , H3

Layer-n cun , Hn

Figure 2: Strip footing on multi-layered subsoils

Finite element model

A typical mesh of this plane strain problem is presented in Figure 3. The footing was meshed
with rigid body element (R2D2) and the soils were discretized by 4-node bilinear hybrid element
with reduced integration and hourglass control (CPE4RH). A “Tie” constraint was set at the
footing-soil interface to simulate rough contact between the footings and soils. No vertical and
horizontal displacements were allowed for the base of soils, which was assumed not more than
10B below the base of footings. In addition, horizontal movements were prevented on both sides
of soils with distance of 10B from the edge of the footing.
 Vol. 20 [2015], Bund. 10 4184

Figure 3: Finite element mesh of a strip footing on layered subsoils

Validity of the finite element model

The numerical model for a multi-layered foundation was regressed to a homogeneous one,
setting each soil layer with a same undrained shear strength cu  10kPa , to examine its validity.
Figure 4 presents the normalised curve of vertical load ( V / Bcu ) versus vertical displacement
( v / B ) and the contour of equivalent plastic strain (PEEQ) from the numerical analysis. It can be
seen the ultimate vertical bearing capacity estimated by using finite element method is very close
to that from analytical equation developed by Prandtl (in Fundamentals of soil mechanics, Taylor,
1948), and the filaure mechanism consiting of active zone, passive zone, and radial transition
zone agrees well with Prandtl’s mechanism. This trial analysis verified the reliability of the
numeirical model established for estimating bearing capacity of homogenous strip foundations,
which can be easily and resonably extended to multi-layered foundations just through changing
the material parameters of soil layers.
 Vol. 20 [2015], Bund. 10 4185

Active Zone Passive Zone

Radial Zone

(a) The normalized load-settlement curve (b) Contour of equivalent plastic strain
Figure 4: Numerical results for strip footing on homogenous undrained clay under
vertical load

BEARING CAPACITY FOR EXAMPLES OF MULTI-

LAYERED FOUNDATIONS
In this section, several multi-layered undrained clayey foundations with different layer
properties and geometries were taken as trial examples for estimating the ultimate bearing
capacity. Examples from H1 to M6 are listed in Table 1, in which “H” means homogeneous
foundation, “M” means multi-layered foundation, and cu (=10kPa) is the undrained shear strength
of weak layer. The layer thickness from soil layer 1 to soil layer 8 is 0.25m and that is 8.0m for
layer 9, i.e. the total thickness of subsoils is 10.0m.

Table 1: Soil strength profile for homogeneous and multi-layered foundations

Soil layer H1 H2 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6
1 cu 4cu 4cu 4cu 4cu 4cu 4cu 4cu
2 cu 4cu cu cu cu cu cu cu
3 cu 4cu cu 4cu 4cu 4cu 4cu 4cu
4 cu 4cu cu cu cu cu cu cu
5 cu 4cu cu cu 4cu 4cu 4cu 4cu
6 cu 4cu cu cu 4cu cu cu cu
7 cu 4cu cu cu 4cu cu 4cu 4cu
8 cu 4cu cu cu 4cu cu 4cu cu
9 cu 4cu cu cu 4cu cu 4cu 4cu

Results from SNAME method

The method of two-layered foundation model recommended by SNAME, in conjunction with
the study of Merifield et al (1999), was employed to predict the non-dimensional bearing capacity
factor N c* . The bearing capacity factor, N c* for example H1, H2, and M1 was determined directly
following the study of Merifield et al (1999), which is 5.13, 5.13, and 1.99, respectively. Example
M2 is a four-layered foundation, for the shear strength of soil layer 4 to soil layer 9 are same.
According to the study of Merifield et al (1999), the bearing capacity factor, N c* is 1.99 when a
strip footing resting on top of soil layer 3, then in this case, the equivalent undrained shear
 Vol. 20 [2015], Bund. 10 4186

strength of soil layers underlying soil layer 2 is 1.99  4cu / 5.13  1.55cu . The bearing capacity
factor, N c* for a strip footing on top of soil layer 2 is 6.01, for the strength ratio of soil layer 2 to
the underlying layers is cu / 1.55cu  0.65 . Similarly, the strength ratio of soil layer 1 to the
underlying layers is 4cu /  6.01cu / 5.13  3.41 and the bearing capacity factor, N c* for a strip footing
on top of soil layer 1 is 2.22. The bearing capacity factor, N c* for the other examples was estimated
following the process of determing N c* of example M2. All the bearing capacity factors are listed
in Table 2.

Results from finite element analysis

Examples were also analyzed based on the finite element model established for multi-layered
foundations, assuming the width of the strip footing is 1.0m. Figure 5 and 6 present the results of
finite element analyses (FEA) example M3 and M4, which are 5-layered foundation and 6-
layered foundation, respectively. It can be seen that the failure mechanism for multi-layered
foundations are complicated, and the general shear failure mode is not occurred in the lowest soil
layer and the punch-through failure mode is not clear in the top stronger soil layers. The bearing
capacities and bearing capacity factors from FEA are listed in Table 2 as well.

(a) Mises stress (b) Equivalent plastic strain (c) Displacement

Figure 5: Numerical results of example M3

(a) Mises stress (b) Equivalent plastic strain (c) Displacement

Figure 6: Numerical results of example M4
 Vol. 20 [2015], Bund. 10 4187

Table 2: Bearing capacity factor N c*

Foundation example H1 H2 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6
Bearing capacity from
52.05 208.50 79.94 97.07 107.20 104.40 106.40 106.40
FEA (kN)
N c* from FEA 5.21 5.21 2.00 2.43 2.68 2.61 2.66 2.66
*
N from extended
c
5.13 5.13 1.99 2.22 2.29 2.28 2.31 2.31
SNAME method
Difference (%) 2 2 1 9 17 14 15 15

Discussion
From the bearing capacities listed in Table 2, one can deduced that the depth of influence
zone of soils for these specific multi-layered foundations is about 1.75B (7 soil layers), because
the bearing capacity predicted for example M5 and M6 is the same, no matter which analysis
method is adopt. Although the difference of bearing capacity between non-homogeneous
foundations is small, it will have important significance for jack-up barge or jack-up platform
with large-size spudcan, which need to determine the penetration depth in terms of the bearing
capacity. Taking foundation M3 and M5 as contrastive examples, the penetration depth will
increase by 0.5m when the load increased by 0.8%, if ignoring the weight of soils above the base
of the footing. The extended SNAME method predicts a conservative result than that of finite
element analysis, and the difference increases with the increase of soil layers within the influence
zone.

SUMMARY
Estimating bearing capacity of multi-layered foundations is often needed in costal and
offshore engineering practices, and has been studied continuously so far. This study extends the
calculation method for estimating the bearing capacities of 3-layered foundations, recommended
by SNAME, to foundations with more than three soil layers. Its validity was tested by finite
element analysis, taking clayey soil foundations as examples. The comparison between bearing
capacities predicted by the finite element method and the extended SNAME method shows that
the latter method provides a slightly conservative result for multi-layered foundations and is
appropriate for quickly and roughly estimating the bearing capacities due to its simplicity.

REFERENCES
1. ABAQUS (2010). User’s Manual. Version 6.10.
2. Brown, J. D., and Meyerhof, G. G. (1969). Experimental study of bearing capacity in
layered clays. Proceedings, 7th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Mexico, vol. 2, pp. 45-51.
3. Hanna, A. M., and Meyerhof, G. G. (1980). Design charts for ultimate bearing
capacity of foundations on sand overlying soft clay. Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
17, pp. 300-303.
4. Meyerhof, G. G. (1974). Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Footings on Sand Layer
Overlaying Clay. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 11(2), pp. 223-229.
Vol. 20 [2015], Bund. 10 4188

5. Meyerhof, G. G, and Hanna, A. M. (1978). Ultimate bearing capacity of foundations

on layered soils under inclined load. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 15, pp. 565-572.
6. 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), pp. 471-490.
7. SNAME (2002). Guidelines for Site Specific Assessment of Mobile Jack-up Units,
Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Technical & Research Bulletin 5-
5A, New Jersey.
8. Taylor, D. W. (1948). Fundamentals of soil mechanics. John Wiley and Sons, New
York, pp. 700.

© 2015 ejge