Journal of

Marine Science
and Engineering

Article
The Bearing Capacity Evaluations of a Spread
Footing on Single Thick Stratum or Two-Layered
Cohesive Soils
Chao-Ming Chi * and Zheng-Shan Lin
Department of Civil Engineering, Feng Chia University, Taichung 4072, Taiwan; d0436180@mail.fcu.edu.tw
* Correspondence: cmchi@mail.fcu.edu.tw; Tel.: +886-4-2451-7250 (ext. 3120)




Received: 6 September 2020; Accepted: 24 October 2020; Published: 29 October 2020


Abstract: Nowadays many countries plan to increase the percentages of renewable energies by
developing offshore wind power. Due to the large sizes of offshore foundations, such as spudcan
footings of jack-up barges or pile anchors of wind turbines, the affected soil depth range caused by the
foundation under loading can be relatively deep, so the affected range may include a single thick layer or
stratified soils. This paper utilizes limit analysis and FLAC numerical simulation to investigate the bearing
capacity of a footing on single thick stratum or two-layered cohesive soils. Under nature deposition
condition, the undrained shear strength of most cohesive soil approximately increases linearly as the
depth increases. The closed-form upper bound solutions of fully rough or fully smooth footings on thick
cohesive soils are provided, for the purpose of fast evaluations in practical engineering, and the outcomes
are within the results from the FLAC simulation and slip circle method. The problems of punch-through
shear failure or soil squeezing could be critical for two-layered soils under some conditions, and the
associated bearing factors and the failure mechanisms from different methods are demonstrated and
discussed in the article.

Keywords: offshore wind power; jack-up barges; bearing capacity of foundations; cohesive soil squeezing;
punch-through shear failure; FLAC numerical simulation

1. Introduction
The ultimate bearing capacity of strip foundations on a homogeneous and isotropic soil layer is
generally estimated by using Terzaghi’s [1] expression. The exact solution of the bearing capacity factor,
Nc = π + 2, for perfectly rough surface footing resting on homogeneous and isotropic undrained cohesive
soils is proposed by Prandtl [2] and for perfectly smooth footing is estimated by Hill [3]. However,
in reality, the undrained shear strength profile of cohesive soils usually does not satisfy the homogeneous
and isotropic conditions. Under nature deposition conditions, the strength profile of cohesive soils might
vary with depth. For example, the self-weight of the soil causes a decrease in void ratio with depth,
and this decrease often causes an approximately linear increase in strength with depth, particularly in
normally-consolidated clays (Figure 1) [4,5].
There are several on-going offshore wind farm constructions in Taiwan Strait. The in-situ soil
conditions of Taiwan offshore wind farm locations are complicated, and it is common that the affected soil
depth range caused by the foundation contains different soil types strata, such as clay, silt or sand layers.
Because the silty soils exhibit the undrained behavior during shear, they could be regarded as cohesive
soils in the analysis of foundation bearing capacity [6]. Brown and Meyerhof [7], Merifield et al. [8],

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 853; doi:10.3390/jmse8110853 www.mdpi.com/journal/jmse

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 853 2 of 19

and SNAME [9] indicate that there are at least three basically different foundation failure mechanisms that
should be considered in layered cohesive soils: (I) General shear failure occurs if the soil strengths of the
following layers do not vary significantly; (II) Squeezing should be considered if the footing is placed on a
soft cohesive soil layer overlying a strong layer; (III) Punch-through failure must be of particular note if
the footing is placed on a strong layer that overlies a weak layer.
To estimate the ultimate bearing capacity of strip footings resting on non-homogeneous cohesive
soils, Reddy and Srinivasan [10], Brown and Meyerhof [7], Davis and Booker [11], Chen [12],
and Merifield et al. [8] developed different analysis models and methods. Davis and Booker [11] provided
the exact solutions of bearing capacity of foundations on cohesive soils with the undrained shear strength
increasing with the depth (Figure 1) based on the method of characteristics. Brown and Meyerhof [7]
proposed semi-empirical bearing capacity factors for layered clay by conducting a series of model tests.
Merifield et al. [8] applied numerical limit analysis to evaluate the bearing capacity for layered clay and
Reddy and Srinivasan [10] and Chen [12] calculated upper bound solutions assuming a simple circular
failure surface (Figure 2).
The plastic collapse load of the foundations can be solved by the upper bound method or the
lower bound method, and the upper bound method is much easier to apply than the lower bound
method and widely used. To study the ultimate bearing capacity of a strip footing on the surface of
a cohesive soil with strength increasing with depth and stratified cohesive soils, this paper applies
the upper bound method and FLAC numerical simulation. The geometric (top layer thickness H and
footing width B) and soil strength (top layer undrained shear strength Su,top and bottom layer undrained
shear strength Su,bot ) parameters used in FLAC analysis cover most of the possible ranges. Brown
and Meyerhof [7], Meyerhof and Hanna [13], and Merifield et al. [8] indicate the bearing capacity of a
foundation on two-layered cohesive soils is the function of the normalized layer thickness (H/B) and
strength ratio (Su,bot /Su,top ). Furthermore, the bearing capacity is not affected by subsequent layers
for a weaker layer overlying a stronger layer system (Su,bot > Su,top ) when H/B ≥ 0.7, or stronger
layer overlying softer layer system (Su,bot < Su,top ) when H/B ≥ 3.0 according to the laboratory testing
study by Brown and Meyerhof [7]. In summary, the properties applied in FLAC numerical simulation,
0.125 ≤ H/B ≤ 2.0 and 0.2 ≤ Su,bot /Su,top ≤ 2.0, cover most problems of practical interest.

Figure 1. Soil profile of the strength increasing with depth linearly.

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 853 3 of 19

Figure 2. Two-layered cohesive soil strength profile.

2. Background
Reddy and Srinivasan [10] and Chen [12] employed the slip circle method (Figure 3) to compute the
ultimate bearing capacity (qult ) of a strip footing on two-layered cohesive soils by Equation (1)

qult ( r )2
Nc = = r B × (2θ + 2nθ1 ) (1)
Su,top ( B )sinθ − 0.5
where B is width of foundation, r is the radius of the slip circle, θ is an angle, n is the relative strength and
could be given by

Su,bot
n= −1 (2)
Su,top
and θ1 could be expressed as
 
H
θ1 = cos−1 cosθ + (3)
r
where H is the distance from the bottom of the footing to the interface of the two cohesive soil layers.

Figure 3. Sketch of failure surface of two-layered slip circle method (modified from [10]).

For a least upper bound value of Equation (1) corresponding to the circle, the following conditions
must be satisfied

∂Nc

 =0
∂θ (4)
 ∂Nc = 0

∂r
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 853 4 of 19

The bearing capacity factors, Nc , of layered cohesive soils could be computed by Equations (1) and (4),
and the values of Nc with various normalized layered thicknesses (H/B) and the relative strength (n)
are given in Figure 4a. It can be seen from this figure that if H/B remains a constant value, the value
of Nc increases as the relative strength (n) increases until reaching a critical relative strength (ncritical ).
For example, the critical relative strength is 0.07 for H/B = 0.5 and the Nc value would be a plateau value
after n ≥ ncritical . On the other hand, the critical relative strength decreases as H/B increases. When H/B
is 0.66, the critical relative strength is 0.0 or Su,bot /Su,top = 1.0 and the plateau value of Nc is 5.52. It can
be inferred that the bearing capacity would not be affected by the subsequent layer after n ≥ ncritical .
Additionally, the value of Nc for the n < 0 side should be less or equal to 5.52, the bearing factor of the
foundation on the top stronger layer, and it decreases to 5.52 for the n > 0 side once the normalized
layered thickness is greater than 0.66. Therefore, all the curves in Figure 4a should be bounded and the
corrected results are shown in Figure 4b. It can be further seen in this figure that the foundation failure
mechanism changes with varying n value. For instance, as n value increases for H/B = 0.25, it could be
inferred that the foundation failure mode transfers from punch-through shear failure, general shear failure,
to squeezing while the value of Nc reaches the plateau value (7.97).

(a) Nc Uncorrected (b) Nc Corrected

Figure 4. Bearing capacity factor Nc of various relative strength and normalized layered thickness for
strip footings.

Considering only single cohesive stratum with undrained shear strength varying linearly with depth
(Figure 1) can be given by

Su = Su0 + kz (5)

the expression for Nc is shown as the following equation

( r )2
 
qult kB r
Nc = = r B × 2θ + 2 × × (sinθ − θcosθ ) (6)
Su0 ( B )sinθ − 0.5 Su0 B
where Su0 is the soil strength at the surface, and k is the rate of increase in undrained strength with depth.

3. Numerical Verification and Comparison to Traditional Limit Analysis

This paper applies the upper bound method and FLAC numerical simulation to analyze the ultimate
bearing capacity of a rigid strip footing resting on: (I) a cohesive soil layer with increasing undrained shear
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 853 5 of 19

strength with depth; (II) two-layered cohesive soil profiles. In the FLAC simulation, a constant downward
velocity applied on the footing and the foundation-soil-interface being perfectly rough or smooth are
imposed. Reddy and Srinivasan [10], Chen [12], and Merifield et al. [8] considered the undrained bearing
capacity of a rigid surface footing and the Poisson’s ratio (ν) of undrained behavior of cohesive soils
approaches 0.5 [14]. Therefore, the value ν = 0.49 is imposed in FLAC to avoid Bulk Modulus of Elasticity
(K) approaching infinity. Finally, the Mohr–Coulomb Yield Criteria with plane-strain conditions are applied
in the upper bound method and FLAC simulation.

3.1. A Strip Footing on the Surface of a Clay Layer with Increasing Strength with Depth

3.1.1. Slip Circle Method

When the soil strength gradient k = 0, the condition represents a homogeneous case and the geometric
solutions are
(
r = 1.088B
(7)
θ = 66.782◦
and the associated bearing factor

Nc = 5.52 (8)

The results (5.52) obtained in this study are slightly lower than that (5.53) from Chen [12] and
Merifield et al. [8]. Figure 5 illustrates the slip circle surfaces and associated centers of various
non-homogeneity factors. It can be seen from this figure that if the value of non-homogeneity factor
(kB/Su0 ) increases, the zone of the soil failure surface shrinks to the foundation and the shrinkage would
become more gentle and denser. Furthermore, the center of soil slip arc locates exactly above the edge
of the footing for the homogeneous case (kB/Su0 = 0). As the value of non-homogeneity factor (kB/Su0 )
increases, the center of soil slip arc gradually approaches the centric axis of the footing and associates the
Nc value increases rapidly. Obviously, the center of soil slip circle has a vertical asymptote with kB/Su0
value increasing, and the (r, θ ) satisfied the following equation leads to the denominator of Equation (6)
approaching zero and the corresponding Nc value approaching infinity.

rsinθ − 0.5B → 0 (9)

Figure 5. Slip circle surfaces and associated centers of various non-homogeneity factors.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 853 6 of 19

3.1.2. New Upper Bound Plasticity Solutions

Davis and Booker [11] employed slip line analysis to obtain the exact solutions of bearing factors of
footings, including fully rough and fully smooth conditions, on cohesive soil with the undrained shear
strength increasing with the depth. The studies indicated the bearing factor curves increase rapidly for
low non-homogeneity factor but slowly after kB/Su0 ≥ 4.0. Both the velocity and stress fields vary with
the non-homogeneity factor, so considerable complicated numerical calculations are expected. It could
be inferred that the failure mechanisms of the foundation on the small non-homogeneity cohesive soils
are close to that on homogeneous soils; therefore, the formula upper bound solutions are helpful for
the purpose of fast evaluations in practical engineering since the non-homogeneity factor of most soils
is limited.
Figures 6 and 7 illustrate the velocity fields for a fully rough footing and a fully smooth footing,
respectively, on homogeneous cohesive soils. However, the linearly increasing undrained shear strength
profile is employed in the upper bound solution calculations. The external work done by normal force F
equates the total internal energy dissipation:

ẆE = F · v0 = 2 × Ḋ | AC + Ḋ |CD + Ḋ | AD + Ḋ | ACD (10)

Figure 6. Velocity field with a radial zone for a perfectly rough footing on homogeneous cohesive soil [2].

Figure 7. Velocity field with a radial zone for a perfectly smooth footing on homogeneous cohesive soil [3].

The energy dissipation along line AC and line AD are

Z R
Ḋ | AC = Ḋ | AD = Su vt dr
0
Z R
= [Su0 + krsinα] v0 sinαdr (11)
0
 
v B kB
= 0 Su0 + f or rough
2 4
 
v B kB
Ḋ | AC = Ḋ | AD = 0 Su0 + f or smooth (12)
2 8
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 853 7 of 19

along arc CD is
Z π +α
2
Ḋ |CD = Su vn dθ
α
Z π +α
2
= [Su0 + krsinθ ] vn Rdθ (13)
α
v Bh π i
= 0 Su0 × + kB f or rough
2 2
 
v B π kB
Ḋ |CD = 0 Su0 × + f or smooth (14)
2 2 2
The energy dissipation in zone ACD is calculated as
Z π +α Z R
2
Ḋ | ACD = 2Su r |ėshear | Max drdθ
α 0
π +α Z R
v0 cosα
Z
2
= × 2Su r ×
drdθ (15)
2 r
α
 0 
v B π kB
= 0 Su0 × + f or rough
2 2 2
 
v B π kB
Ḋ | ACD = 0 Su0 × + f or smooth (16)
2 2 4
Therefore, the bearing factor of the rough footing can be expressed as

F 2kB
Nc,Rough = = ( π + 2) + (17)
Su0 B Su0
Referring to the mechanism and velocity diagram given in Figure 7, the expression of the bearing
factor for a smooth punch is

F kB
Nc,Smooth = = ( π + 2) + (18)
Su0 B Su0

3.1.3. FLAC Simulation Results

A constant downward velocity is imposed on the foundation and the following equation is used to
calculate the soil reaction forces at footing grid points in FLAC analysis [15]:

(y)
∑ fi
Nc,FLAC = (19)
BSu0
(y)
where f i is the reaction force in the vertical direction at footing joint i. Figure 8 demonstrates that the
Prandtl mechanism and the FLAC numerical determined velocity field are similar in the case which is
a perfectly rough footing on homogeneous cohesive material under collapse load. Furthermore, with
the circular mechanism it is assumed that the circular failure surface of the plastic collapse load slides
or rotates, and the result estimated by circular mechanism is also given in Figure 8 for reference. On the
other hand, Hill-type failure mechanism is utilized to estimate the bearing capacity of perfectly smooth
footing. Figure 9 illustrates the velocity field of a cohesive soil with non-homogeneity factor 1.6 from FLAC
simulation, and the range of the field is slightly smaller than that of the homogeneous Hill mechanism.
It is obvious that the roughness of foundation affects the failure mechanism according to the results of
numerical simulation.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 853 8 of 19

Figure 8. Perfectly rough footing velocity field at the numerical limit load (kB/Su0 = 0.0).

Figure 9. Perfectly smooth footing velocity field at the numerical limit load (kB/Su0 = 1.6).

The value of Nc of both fully rough and fully smooth footing on cohesive soils with the undrained
shear strength increasing with the depth increases as the non-homogeneity factor (kB/Su0 ) value raising
(Figure 10); furthermore, the results of all methods have the same trend. Consider the perfectly rough
footing case, Figure 10a, it shows: (I) when kB/Su0 = 0.0, the bearing factors obtained from Equation (17)
or Davis and Booker [11] are equal to the Prandtl’s solution, π + 2, and the FLAC numerical solution,
Nc,FLAC = 5.17, is approximately 0.6% higher than the exact solution; (II) the Nc values estimated by
circular mechanism are the highest, for 0 ≤ kB/Su0 ≤ 2.5, in all analysis methods used in this study,
but the upper bound solutions are getting closer to the slip circle solutions as non-homogeneity factor
(kB/Su0 ) value rises; (III) the FLAC numerical simulation results indicate that the bearing factor (Nc ) has
a similar trend to Davis and Booker [11] solutions, and both of them show that the Nc value increases
rapidly for a lower non-homogeneity factor. Similar phenomena for the fully smooth footing are shown
in Figure 10b. For homogeneous material, the bearing factors obtained from Equation (18) or Davis and
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 853 9 of 19

bnnmjnm Booker [11] are equal to the Hill’s solution, π + 2, but the FLAC result (Nc,FLAC = 5.10) is
about 0.8% below the exact solution. However, it seems the non-homogeneity factor (kB/Su0 ) plays a less
important role to the bearing factor for fully smooth footing, and the differences among FLAC, Davis and
Booker, and the upper bound solution are smaller. The range of the non-homogeneity factor is not wide
for most practical engineering; for instance, the seafloor cohesive soil strength of western Taiwan offshore
wind farms is more than 10-kPa and the strength gradient is around 1 to 2 kPa/m, so the non-homogeneity
factor is expected to be lower than 2 for most of the engineering cases. Since the actual roughness of
a footing is between perfect rough and smooth, the upper bound solutions provide fast and reliable
evaluations for foundation bearing capacity in practical engineering.

(a) Perfect rough footing (b) Perfect smooth footing

Figure 10. Roughness effect to bearing capacity factor Nc .

3.2. A Strip Footing on the Surface of Two-Layered Cohesive Soils

3.2.1. Slip Circle Method

• Su,bot /Su,top > 1 (n > 0) and H/B > 0.66

Considering a foundation on two-layered cohesive soils, the bearing factor could be computed by
Equations (1) and (4). The failure mechanism of the footing on a thick weaker top stratum of a two-layered
system is similar to that on a single layer homogeneous (n = 0) cohesive soil. Therefore, the expression of
Nc could be reduced from Equation (1) to

( Br )2
Nc = r × 2θ (20)
( B )sinθ − 0.5
By using Equation (4), the minimum Nc with associated geometric conditions can be obtained as

r = 1.08B


θ = 66.81◦ (21)


 N = 5.52
c
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 853 10 of 19

It could be inferred that the Nc value should be a constant and would not vary with the thickness (H) of
the upper thick layer. Nevertheless, the soil failure surfaces obtained by a slip circle mechanism (Figure 3)
must go through the subsequent layer or be tangent to the strata line; hence, the geometric conditions in
slip circle analysis of a footing on a thick weaker top soil should be bounded by the following restriction
   
H H r
= = × (1 − cosθ ) ≈ 0.66 (22)
B bound B homo B
The center of the slip circle of the homogeneous case is right above the edge of the footing as
well as the bearing factor Nc = 5.52 (Figure 11). When the normalized layer thickness (H/B) is large,
H/B > ( H/B)homo , the failure surfaces are tangent to the strata line and the corresponding bearing factor
values are overestimated (Nc > 5.52). Moreover, the center of the slip circle is gradually away from
the edge of the foundation and approaching to the ground surface as the normalized layer thickness
(H/B) is increasing. The bearing capacity results, from the evaluation by Equation (1), could be seriously
overestimated for foundations on a thick weaker top layer, without the restriction of Equation (22).

Figure 11. Slip surfaces enlarge with the increasing H/B for a thick upper layer.

• Su,bot /Su,top > 1 (n > 0) and H/B ≤ 0.66

Once the normalized layer thickness H/B ≤ 0.66, the stronger bottom stratum soil strength may
contribute to the entire foundation bearing capacity. The higher bearing factor is expected (Nc > 5.52)
because the failure surface passes through the stronger bottom stratum (Figure 12). It is obvious that the
failure surface shrink as the relative strength increases and the center moves toward the central line of
the footing. In addition, all centers are above the foundation for Su,bot /Su,top > 1 and it exists a minimum
slip circle for each H/B with associated maximum bearing factor, such as Nc = 6.29 for H/B = 0.375
in Figure 12. The required minimum relative strength is 0.23, ncritical = 0.23, for H/B = 0.375 and the
bearing factor is not affected by the bottom stronger soil once n > ncritical . The soil failure surface is
constrained in the top weaker soil layer and this is so-called soil squeeze. Figure 13 demonstrates the
required relative strength ncritical of various H/B for soil squeeze. As mentioned earlier, the depth of the
slip circle for homogeneous soil (n = 0) is about two thirds (0.66) of the foundation width, and the value
of ncritical increases as H/B decreases. It should be noted that the evaluation results of soil squeeze the
bearing factor from the slip circle method for a smaller normalized layer thickness is higher than those
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 853 11 of 19

from finite element analysis. The slip circle failure mechanism may not describe the actual soil squeezing
phenomenon well once the H/B is small.

Figure 12. Slip surfaces shrink with the increasing n for Su,bot /Su,top > 1.

Figure 13. Required relative strength ncritical of various H/B for soil squeeze.

• Su,bot /Su,top < 1 (n < 0)

The slip circles tend to enlarge when the bottom stratum soil strength is lower than the top layer
soil strength, as shown in Figure 14, but the corresponding bearing factor decreases with the circle size
growing. It is obvious that the failures may cause catastrophic disasters because the bearing factor drops
rapidly for small H/B with a huge soil strength difference between the two layers (Figure 4). This is
so-called punch-through shear failure and more likely to happen for jack-up barges since their jumbo
foundation dimensions make the normalized layer thickness smaller. The ground surface is the horizontal
asymptote and centers of slip circles move away from the edge of the footing with the soil strength
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 853 12 of 19

difference of two layers increasing. Additionally, the spacing of adjacent centers becomes larger as the
relative strength decreases.

Figure 14. Slip surfaces shrink with the increasing n for Su,bot /Su,top < 1.

3.2.2. FLAC Simulation Results

Merifield et al. [8] apply Finite Element Method to compute the numerical upper bound and lower
bound solutions to the undrained bearing capacity of a surface foundation on a two-layer clay deposit,
and results are compared with those from the slip circle method and FLAC analysis in this study.
The following are some important points imposed in FLAC simulation: (I) the foundation-soil-interface is
fully rough and there is not any relative slide; (II) the foundation is applied a constant downward velocity;
(III) the boundaries of a numerical model system are velocity or displacement boundary conditions;
(IV) the Mohr–Coulomb Yield Criteria with plane-strain conditions are applied; (V) the associated flow
rule is used. Additionally, the numerical simulation method applied in this article is close to the upper
bound method, so the value of the bearing factor of a footing on homogeneous soil obtained from FLAC is
Nc,FLAC = 5.17 > Nc,exact , for example. The plastic collapse load of a foundation is associated with the
type of the steady-state velocity field, based on the numerical simulation from FLAC.
Figure 15a–h show that the results of all methods have similar trends, which the bearing factor
of a foundation on two-layered cohesive soils increases as the strength ratio (Su,bot /Su,top ) increases,
and the corresponding failure mode transfers from punch-through shear failure to squeezing or general
shear failure. Even though the strength ratio plays the primary role in the determination of the failure
mode, its importance is less prominent for the larger normalized layer thickness (H/B) soil conditions.
According to the FLAC simulations, the results could be generalized as: (I) Su,bot /Su,top = 1, the bearing
factor is independent with H/B and maintains at the value around 5.17 (5.32 for Merifield FEM Upper
Bound as reference). This is the case of a footing on homogeneous cohesive soils so the results are not
affected by the normalized layer thickness; (II) Su,bot /Su,top > 1, the soil squeezing is more likely to
occur for a higher strength ratio for the same normalized layer thickness. The bearing factor increases
(Nc > 5.17) as the strength ratio increases until reaching a plateau value in which the associated failure
surface is fully constrained in the upper softer stratum (soil squeezing shown in Figure 16). However,
the bearing factor maintains at the minimum plateau value (5.17) for H/B ≥ 0.7, and these results imply
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 853 13 of 19

that the corresponding failure modes are general shear failure. It is worth noticing that the laboratory
tests from Brown and Meyerhof [7] suggested the bearing factor of a strip footing sustains at π + 2 for
H/B ≥ 0.7, and this recommendation coincides with the result mentioned above. Additionally, the range
of the minimum plateau reaches to Su,bot /Su,top = 1 when the normalized layer thickness H/B = 0.7;
(III) Su,bot /Su,top < 1, the punch-shear failure is more probable to occur and the bearing factor reduces
(Nc < 5.17) rapidly for smaller normalized layer thickness, such as H/B ≤ 0.375. With the normalized
layer thickness increasing, the range of the minimum plateau extends to this zone when H/B ≥ 0.7,
and the following bearing factor even diminishes slightly for H/B = 2. Therefore, it could be inferred that
the full punch-through failure is unlikely to happen for high normalized layer thickness. Although the
partial punch-through shear failure is between the general shear failure and the full punch-through shear
failure [16], depending on the strength ratio and the normalized layer thickness, the features of this failure
mode are not apparent from the variations of bearing factor figures.

(a) H/B = 0.125 (b) H/B = 0.25

(c) H/B = 0.375 (d) H/B = 0.5

(e) H/B = 0.7 (f) H/B = 1.0

Figure 15. Cont.

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 853 14 of 19

(g) H/B = 1.5 (h) H/B = 2.0

Figure 15. Comparison of bearing factors from various methods.

Figure 16. Deflected mesh and zone of plastic yielding (H/B = 0.5, Su,bot /Su,top = 5).

4. Discussion
SNAME [9] proposed three different types of failure mechanisms, including general shear, squeezing,
and punch-through, for a foundation rested on a two-layered cohesive soil profile. When a footing is placed
on a cohesive layer with increasing strength with depth, the behavior of the soil under ultimate loading is
similar to that on a softer stratum overlaying a stronger layer cohesive soil system (Su,bot /Su,top > 1).
According to the figures in previous sections, the trend of the rotation block shrinking due to the
non-homogeneity factor (kB/Su0 ) increasing is pretty close to the slip circle shrinking because of the
strength ratio (Su,bot /Su,top ) raising.
The soil failure mechanism varies with the non-homogeneity factor and foundation roughness for a
footing on a cohesive layer with increasing strength with depth, on the basis of numerical simulation results.
It is expected that complicated math skills and numerical procedures are necessary to obtain the exact
solutions for both fully rough and fully smooth footings, so the new upper bound plasticity closed-form
solutions provide the fast “upper estimation” and “lower estimation” for foundation capacity calculation
in practical engineering. The users could employ the closed-form solutions with their engineering
judgements for specific problems. According to the geotechnical investigation data of western Taiwan
offshore wind farms, most of the in-situ soil strength descriptions of seabed cohesive soils are very soft and
soft. Additionally, Lunne et al. [17], Quirós and Little [18], Randolph [19], and Hossain and Randolph [20]
suggested typical strengths at a seabed level of Su0 = 2–10 kPa and k in the range of 0–2 kPa/m. The results
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 853 15 of 19

of proposed formula upper bound solutions, Equations (17) and (18), are within the calculations from other
methods in most of the possible soil properties ranges, so they provide fast and reliable evaluations in
practical engineering. Furthermore, in reality, the foundation-soil-interface is neither fully rough nor fully
smooth. The actual bearing capacity factor falls in the region bracketed by these two extreme interface cases.
Prandtl [2], Hill [3], Davis and Booker [11], and Chen [12] indicated that the effect of footing roughness has
no influence on the estimated bearing capacity of a footing on isotropic and homogeneous cohesive soil,
but the soil failure surfaces shrink as the non-homogeneity factor (kB/Su0 ) increases. Figure 17 shows the
maximum shear strain rate at the numerical collapse loading corresponding to the different soil-foundation
interface roughness. By comparing Figure 17a,b, it could be seen that the shape of the shear failure plane of
perfectly smooth footing is more relatively flat and the zone of soil shear failure of the fully rough footing
is larger than the other one.
The bearing capacity of the foundation placed on two-layered cohesive soil profiles is affected by the
normalized layer thickness and the strength ratio, H/B and Su,bot /Su,top , and the associated foundation
failure mechanism also varies with the those parameters. The failure surface in the slip circle method is
assumed to be an arc but it may not be able to represent the actual failure mechanism well, especially for the
case of top layer soil strength much greater than bottom stratum soil strength. Figures 18 and 19 illustrate
the soil shear strain rate for Su,bot /Su,top = 5.0 and Su,bot /Su,top = 0.4, respectively, but the soil plastic flow
in the latter figure behaves differently from what the slip circle does. The failure planes in the top soil layer
extend downward vertically from the footing base to the strata interface, and then the pattern of soil plastic
flow in the bottom layer is similar to the failure mechanism of shallow foundation. Actually, this simulation
result is very close to the theoretical model proposed by Meyerhof [21] for the punch-through shear failure
of a foundation on two-layered soil. Furthermore, the effect of footing roughness is considered and the
results are also presented in these figures. By comparing Figures 18 and 19, it could be seen that the effect
of footing roughness is less significant for the footing on a stronger top stratum of two-layered system
condition (Su,bot /Su,top < 1) because the maximum shear strain rate patterns of both footing conditions
are pretty similar.

(a) Smooth footing (b) Rough footing

Figure 17. Maximum shear strain rate at the numerical limit load (kB/Su0 = 6.4).
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 853 16 of 19

(a) Smooth footing (b) Rough footing

Figure 18. Maximum shear strain rate at the numerical limit load (H/B = 0.375, Su,bot /Su,top = 5.0).

(a) Smooth footing (b) Rough footing

Figure 19. Maximum shear strain rate at the numerical limit load (H/B = 0.75, Su,bot /Su,top = 0.4).

5. Conclusions
Estimating the ultimate bearing capacity of a foundation on non-homogeneous soil is one of the
critical issues in geotechnical engineering. The bearing factor and associated failure mechanism vary
with the soil and foundation conditions, such as non-homogeneity factors, normalized layer thickness,
and the soil-footing interface roughness. This article discusses the foundation failure mechanism and the
bearing capacity factor of a foundation on the surface of a non-homogeneous soil layer (Figure 1), and a
two-layered cohesive soil profile (Figure 2). Based on the analysis of the upper bound methods and FLAC
numerical simulation, the results and highlights of the foundation on the surface of a cohesive soil with
increasing strength with depth, Figure 1, are as follows:

1. The bearing factor of a footing on homogeneous soil, Nc = 5.52, obtained by the slip circle method
in this article is slightly lower than that, Nc = 5.53, from Chen [12] and Merifield et al. [8].
As the non-homogeneity factor (kB/Su0 ) increases, the zone of the soil failure surface shrinks to
the foundation and the shrinkage would become more gentle and denser. Furthermore, the center of
the soil slip arc locates exactly above the edge of the footing for the homogeneous case (kB/Su0 = 0).
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 853 17 of 19

2. The results of proposed formula upper bound solutions, Equations (17) and (18), are within the
calculations from other methods in most of the possible soil properties ranges, so they provide fast
and reliable evaluations in practical engineering. Furthermore, in reality, the foundation-soil-interface
is neither fully rough nor fully smooth. The actual bearing capacity factor falls in the region bracketed
by these two extreme interface cases.
3. Consider the homogenous material case, the bearing factors computed from FLAC simulation are
5.17 and 5.10 for fully rough and smooth footing, respectively, and both values are close to the
exact solutions of two footing types. Furthermore, the Prandtl mechanism and the FLAC numerical
determined velocity field are similar in the case which is a perfectly rough footing on homogeneous
cohesive material under collapse load. On the other hand, Hill-type failure mechanism is utilized
to estimate the bearing capacity of perfectly smooth footing. It is obvious that the roughness of
foundation affects the failure mechanism according to the results of numerical simulation.

The plastic collapse load of a strip footing resting on a two-layered cohesive soil profile (Figure 2) has
been investigated and the following conclusions can be drawn from the results of the slip circle method
and FLAC numerical simulation:

1. Based on the circular mechanism, the center of the slip circle of homogeneous case is right above the
edge of the foundation as well as the bearing factor Nc = 5.52. However, when the normalized layer
thickness (H/B) is large, H/B > ( H/B)homo , the failure surfaces are tangent to the strata line and the
corresponding bearing factor value would be overestimated (Nc > 5.52). Therefore, the geometric
conditions in slip circle analysis of a footing on a thick weaker top soil should be bounded by the
restriction condition, ( H/B)homo ≈ 0.66.
2. Consider the footing on a thin weaker top stratum of two-layered system condition (Su,bot /Su,top > 1
or n > 0), the stronger bottom stratum soil strength may contribute to the entire foundation bearing
capacity. The soil squeezing is more likely to occur for higher strength ratio for the same normalized
layer thickness. The bearing factor increases (Nc > 5.52 and Nc,FLAC > 5.17) as the strength ratio
increases until reaching a plateau value in which the associated slip circular failure surface or the
soil plastic flow zone is fully constrained in the upper softer stratum. However, the bearing factor
maintains at the minimum plateau value (5.17) for H/B ≥ 0.7, and these results imply that the
corresponding failure modes are general shear failure. It is worth noting that the laboratory tests
from Brown and Meyerhof [7] suggested the bearing factor of a strip footing sustains at π + 2 for
H/B ≥ 0.7, and this recommendation coincides with the result mentioned above.
3. While the foundation is placed on a strong layer overlying a weak layer (Su,bot /Su,top < 1 or n < 0),
a rapid reduction in bearing capacity (Nc < 5.52 or Nc,FLAC < 5.17) might occur for small normalized
layer thickness. Additionally, the slip circular failure surface or the soil plastic flow zone tends
to enlarge for decreasing relative strength or strength ratio, and hence affected soil ranges extend
to deeper depths of the weaker bottom deposit. With the normalized layer thickness increasing,
the range of the minimum plateau (Nc,FLAC = 5.17) extends to Su,bot /Su,top < 1 side when H/B ≥ 0.7,
and the bearing factor even diminishes slightly as the strength ratio increases for H/B = 2. Therefore,
it could be inferred that the full punch-through failure is unlikely to happen for high normalized
layer thickness. Although the partial punch-through shear failure is between the general shear failure
and the full punch-through shear failure [16], depending on the strength ratio and the normalized layer
thickness, the features of this failure mode is not apparent from the variations of bearing factor figures.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 853 18 of 19

Author Contributions: C.-M.C. conceived the study; C.-M.C. and Z.-S.L. carried out the bearing capacity curves
analysis; C.-M.C. supervised the study and edited the manuscript, and is the principal investigator of project
“The Ultimate Bearing Capacity Evaluation of Spread Foundations in Layered Soils of Jack-Up Barges (Project
No. MOST 108-2218-E-035-016-MY2)”. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) of Taiwan, grant number
“MOST 108-2218-E-035-016-MY2”.
Acknowledgments: This research presented here was supported by the grants “The Ultimate Bearing Capacity
Evaluation of Spread Foundations in Layered Soils of Jack-Up Barges (Project No. MOST 108-2218-E-035-016-MY2)”,
the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Terzaghi, K. Theoretical Soil Mechanics; OCLC: 802546718; John Wiley and Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1943.
2. Prandtl, L. Hauptaufsätze: Über die Eindringungsfestigkeit (Härte) plastischer Baustoffe und die Festigkeit von
Schneiden. ZAMM J. Appl. Math. Mech./Z. Für Angew. Math. Mech. 1921, 1, 15–20. [CrossRef]
3. Hill, R. The Mathematical Theory of Plastic; Clarendon Press: Oxford, UK, 1950.
4. Skempton, A.W. A study of the geotechnical properties of some post-glacial clays. Géotechnique 1948, 1, 1–16.
[CrossRef]
5. Raymond, G.P. The bearing capacity of large footings and embankments on clays. Géotechnique 1967, 17, 1–10.
[CrossRef]
6. Chi, C.M.; Lin, Z.S. The footing size effect on punch-through bearing capacity assessment of jack-up barges in
western Taiwan offshore layered soil. In Proceedings of the 30th International Ocean and Polar Engineering
Conference, Shanghai, China, 11–16 October 2020; The International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers:
Shanghai, China, 2020.
7. Brown, J.; Meyerhof, G.G. Experimental study of bearing capacity in layered clays. In Proceedings of the 7th
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Mexico City, Mexico, 25–29 August 1969;
International Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering: Mexico City, Mexico, 1969; Volume 2,
pp. 45–51.
8. Merifield, R.S.; Sloan, S.W.; Yu, H.S. Rigorous plasticity solutions for the bearing capacity of two-layered clays.
Géotechnique 1999, 49, 471–490. [CrossRef]
9. SNAME. Guidelines for Site Specific Assessment of Mobile Jack-Up Units; Technical Report; Technical and Research
Bulletin 5-5A; The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers: Jersey City, NJ, USA, 2008.
10. Reddy, A.S.; Srinivasan, R.J. Bearing capacity of footings on layered clays. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. 1967, 93, 83–99.
11. Davis, E.H.; Booker, J.R. The effect of increasing strength with depth on the bearing capacity of clays. Géotechnique
1973, 23, 551–563. [CrossRef]
12. Chen, W.F. Limit Analysis and Soil Plasticity; Number v. 7 in Developments in Geotechnical Engineering;
Elsevier Scientific Pub. Co.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands; New York, NY, USA, 1975.
13. Meyerhof, G.G.; Hanna, A.M. Ultimate bearing capacity of foundations on layered soils under inclined load.
Can. Geotech. J. 1978, 15, 565–572. [CrossRef]
14. Lambe, T.W.; Whitman, R.V. Soil Mechanics; Series in Soil Engineering; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1969.
15. FLAC—Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua, Ver. 8.0; Itasca Consulting Group, I: Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2016.
16. Merifield, R.S.; Nguyen, V.Q. Two- and three-dimensional bearing-capacity solutions for footings on two-layered
clays. Geomech. Geoeng. 2006, 1, 151–162. [CrossRef]
17. Lunne, T.; Myrvoll, F.; Kjekstad, O. Observed settlements of five north sea gravity platforms. In Offshore
Technology Conference; Offshore Technology Conference: Houston, TX, USA, 1981. [CrossRef]
18. Quirós, G.; Little, R. Deepwater soil properties and their impact on the geotechnical program. In Offshore
Technology Conference; Offshore Technology Conference: Houston, TX, USA, 2003. [CrossRef]
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 853 19 of 19

19. Randolph, M. Characterisation of soft sediments for offshore applications. In Proceedings of the 2nd International
Conference on Site Characterization, Porto, Portugal, 19–22 September 2004; Da Fonseca, A., Mayne, P., Eds.;
Millpress Science: Porto, Portugal, 2004; Volume 1, pp. 209–232.
20. Hossain, M.S.; Randolph, M.F. New mechanism-based design approach for spudcan foundations on single
layer clay. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2009, 135, 1264–1274. [CrossRef]
21. Meyerhof, G.G. Ultimate bearing capacity of footings on sand layer overlying clay. Can. Geotech. J. 1974, 11,
223–229. [CrossRef]

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.

c 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).