See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/348720212

Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Two Interfering Strip Footings on Sand Overlying

Clay

Article  in  Acta Geotechnica · January 2021

DOI: 10.1007/s11440-021-01153-5

CITATIONS READS

2 208

3 authors, including:

Jiapeng Zhao Haizuo Zhou

Tianjin University Tianjin University
8 PUBLICATIONS   34 CITATIONS    57 PUBLICATIONS   384 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Excavations with inclined retaining piles （基坑倾斜桩支护技术） View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Haizuo Zhou on 13 February 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Acta Geotechnica
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-021-01153-5 (0123456789().,-volV)(0123456789().
,- volV)

SHORT COMMUNICATION

Ultimate bearing capacity of two interfering strip footings on sand

overlying clay
Gang Zheng1,2 • Jiapeng Zhao1,2 • Haizuo Zhou1,2,3

Received: 11 October 2020 / Accepted: 26 January 2021

 The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH, DE part of Springer Nature 2021

Abstract
Foundations may be constructed at close spacings. Prior investigations have presented insights into the interference effect
of two nearby shallow foundations on homogenous soils. However, soils are often deposited in layers, such as a sand layer
overlying clay. Hence, the interference effect of two adjacent foundations on their ultimate bearing capacity for sand
overlying clay has been a relevant topic, which is complex because it is tied to a coupling effect of the geometric
configurations and the soil properties. In this paper, the ultimate bearing capacity of two interfering strip footings on sand
overlying clay is determined using an upper-bound limit state plasticity method known as discontinuity layout optimization
(DLO). The solution is illustrated as design charts constructed through the use of dimensionless parameters. Parametric
studies are performed to explore the influence of geometric and strength parameters on the bearing capacity and the failure
mechanism. A simplified model is developed based on the data obtained from DLO. Validations are carried out to
demonstrate the accuracy of the developed model using various statistical criteria, including coefficient of determination
(R2), arithmetic mean and coefficient of variation.

Keywords Bearing capacity  Clay  Interfering footings  Limit analysis  Sand  Simplified model

1 Introduction decades, various approaches, including the limit equilib-

Determination of the ultimate bearing capacity of shallow
foundations is a classical component of geotechnical
engineering. Most prior investigations addressing the
bearing capacity of footings were performed using Terza-
ghi’s bearing capacity equation, enabling evaluation of the
limit load for a single footing. However, due to rapid
urbanization and population growth, foundations are often
constructed at close spacings [26]. The interference effect
of two closely spaced footings greatly influences the ulti-
mate bearing capacity of a foundation. During the past few
& Haizuo Zhou
hzzhou@tju.edu.cn
1
School of Civil Engineering, Tianjin University,
Tianjin 300072, China
2
Key Laboratory of Coast Civil Structure Safety, Tianjin
University, Ministry of Education, Tianjin 300072, China
3
Key Laboratory of Earthquake Engineering Simulation and
Seismic Resilience of China Earthquake Administration,
Tianjin University, Tianjin 300350, China
rium method [14, 22, 30, 32], the limit analysis method
[10, 12–14], the method of characteristics [7, 11], numer-
ical methods [14, 21] and experimental methods
[2, 7, 9, 28, 32], have been adopted to evaluate the bearing
capacity of two interfering strip footings on a single layer
of homogenous soil.
In practice, soils are often deposited in layers
[1, 20, 36, 39]. This stratification of soils not only stems
from some natural process, but may also be a result of
ground improvement techniques. Replacement of the top of
clay with cohesionless soils artificially forms a sand layer
overlying soft clay. Despite extensive researches on the
bearing capacity of a single isolated strip footing on sand
overlying clay [6, 15, 23, 24, 27, 29, 33], there has been
limited insight into the interfering effect of footings on
sand overlying clay. Das et al. [3] performed laboratory
model tests to study the behaviour of two adjacent strip
footings on dense sand overlying clay, but a limited range
of affecting parameters was considered in their study. Saha
and Deb [26] experimentally studied the interference effect
of adjacent footings on sand overlying clay, with a focus on

123

rectangular foundations. Based on the experimental
observation, they proposed a limit equilibrium model to
estimate the ultimate bearing capacity.
This paper aims to acquire solutions for directly evalu-
ating the bearing capacity of two interfering strip footings
resting on a sand layer overlying clay. A set of design
charts with a wide range of geometric conditions and soil
strength parameters is presented. The influence of various
parameters on the bearing capacity is subsequently
explored in conjunction with fundamental analyses of the
failure mechanism. A simplified empirical model without a
priori assumption or an observation of failure geometry is
developed. The accuracy of the proposed simplified model
is verified by comparison with the solutions attained from
the discontinuity layout optimization (DLO) procedure.
2 Definition of the problem
and comparisons to prior solutions
2.1 Definition of the problem
Two rigid strip footings, each having width B, are situated
in parallel on a sand layer with an internal friction angle u
overlying an infinite deep bed of clay layer with cohesion
c. The two footings are assumed to be simultaneously
loaded to failure with an identical ultimate uniform load
q [13, 14, 21]. On account of the symmetry about the
centreline of the two footings, only half of the total domain
on the right side is considered, as depicted in Fig. 1. Both
vertical and horizontal displacements are restricted for the
right vertical boundary and the bottom horizontal
q tors. The implementation of mathematical optimization
S/2
B
D approaches, DLO does not require special constitutive laws
φ, γ Sand
c Clay
Line of symmetry
Fig. 1 Schematic of the model
123
Acta Geotechnica
boundary, whereas only the horizontal displacements are
restricted for the left vertical boundary. This chosen
domain and associated boundary conditions behave the
same as the total domain in computations [13, 21]. Note
that no embedment is applied in this study. The sand and
clay layers are assumed to be fully drained and undrained,
respectively [6, 19, 29]. Herein, S is the clear distance
between the two footings, D is the depth of the sand, and c
is the unit weight of the sand. A rough soil-footing inter-
face is assumed, i.e. the friction angle at the soil-footing
interface is equal to that of the soil.
In this investigation, the discontinuity layout optimiza-
tion (DLO) procedure, which is employed by the software
LimitState: GEO [18], is adopted as a highly efficient tool
to evaluate the ultimate load of two parallel strip footings.
It is combined with an upper-bound limit analysis method
on the basis of the theorems of plasticity. The upper-bound
limit analysis serves as a rigorous analytical tool to capture
the limit state of the soil masses [38]. It is stated that any
load, obtained by equating the energy dissipation along the
kinematically admissible velocity field to the energy
expended by the external loads, is not lower than the true
limit load in the upper-bound theorem [4]. This approach
treats the soil as a Mohr–Coulomb material that obeys an
associated flow rule. The associated flow rule requires that
all shearing resistance is modelled as dilation. This
assumption may lead to an overestimate of the bearing
capacity, especially for drained problems. However, the
overestimate is minor for most moderately unconstrained
geotechnical problems [18]. By using the upper-bound
limit analysis with an assumption of associated flow rule,
Yang et al. [34, 35] presented a valuable new method to
determine the bearing capacity of shadow foundations,
extending the available solutions of bearing capacity fac-
techniques in DLO helps in identifying a critical layout of
the slip lines in a soil mass without pre-assumptions, as
shown in Fig. 2. Differing from conventional numerical
methods, such as finite element or finite difference
or deal with nonintuitive convergence issues [16]. It has
been successfully adopted to solve bearing capacity prob-
lems in various scenarios [16, 17, 37, 40, 41].
2.2 Comparisons to prior solutions
To demonstrate the accuracy of the established DLO
model, the bearing capacities obtained via the DLO pro-
cedure are compared with solutions from previous studies.
The comparisons include (1) the bearing capacity of a
vertically loaded single strip footing placed on a sand layer
overlying clay and (2) the bearing capacity of two
Acta Geotechnica
(a) (b)
Fig. 2 Basic principles of the DLO procedure: a initial geotechnical problem, b discretization of soil mass with nodes, c interconnection of nodes
by potentially interlinking all nodes, and d identification of critical subset of potential discontinuities by optimization [31]
vertically loaded interfering strip footings on a purely
frictional soil.
For a single strip footing on a sand layer overlying clay,
the bearing capacities calculated by DLO are compared
with the results from previous studies where u = 40 and
D/B = 1, as shown in Fig. 3. The selected references
include the solutions of the upper-bound limit analysis by
Michalowski and Shi [24], the finite element method of
limit analysis theorems by Shiau et al. [29] and the finite
element method by Burd and Frydman [1]. As expected,
the q/cB value increases with c/cB. Michalowski and Shi
[24] yielded the largest bearing capacity by using the
upper-bound limit analysis, especially when c/cB is large.
Combining the limit analysis theorem with the finite ele-
ment method, Shiau et al. [29] produced a more conser-
vative upper-bound solution than the solution of
Michalowski and Shi [24]. The solution from Burd and
Frydman [1], which was based on the finite element
method with a non-associated flow rule, yielded a lower
bearing capacity than the other solutions; this finding
coincides with the conclusions of Hjiaj et al. [8]. A great
convergence is found between the DLO and the rigorous
upper-bound solutions of Shiau et al. [29].
30
This study
Michalowski and Shi [24]
25 Shiau et al. [29]
Burd and Frydman [1]
20
q/γ B
15
10
5
0 1 2 3
c/γ B
Fig. 3 Dimensionless bearing capacity, q/cB, obtained from DLO
compared with solutions from literatures for various values of c/cB
(u = 40; D/B = 1)
(c) (d)
For two interfering footings on a homogeneous cohe-
sionless soil without embedment, the efficiency factor nc,
first proposed by Stuart [32], is commonly used to study the
influence of interference on the ultimate bearing capacity.
The efficiency factor nc is defined as the ratio of the bearing
capacity Nc of an interfering footing to that of an isolated
footing. Based on the predefined Terzaghi’s mechanism,
Stuart [32] adopted the limit equilibrium method to derive
a solution of nc. Kumar and Ghosh [11] used the method of
stress characteristics to determine the efficiency factor nc
based on two different failure mechanisms: Mechanism 1
considers a quadrilateral active trapped wedge below the
two adjacent footings, whereas Mechanism 2 is charac-
terized by an asymmetrical triangular active trapped
wedge. Kumar and Kouzer [13] presented a rigorous upper-
bound solution of nc by using a limit analysis approach in
conjunction with finite element modelling and linear pro-
gramming. Mabrouki et al. [21] studied the ultimate bear-
ing capacity of two closely spaced footings based on the
finite difference method. A comparison is performed
between the efficiency factor nc derived from the DLO
procedure and these solutions obtained previously for
u = 40, as shown in Fig. 4.
4
This study
Stuart [32]
Kumar and Ghosh [11], Mechanism 1
Kumar and Ghosh [11], Mechanism 2
Kumar and Kouzer [13]
3 Mabrouki et al. [21]
ξγ
2
4 1
0 1 2 3 4 5
S/B
Fig. 4 Efficiency factor, nc, obtained from DLO compared with
solutions from literatures for various values of S/B (u = 40)
123

When the spacing between the two footings is zero, the
value of the efficiency factor nc is 2. One notable trend is
an initial increase in nc with increasing S/B and a subse-
quent decrease afterwards, eventually exhibiting a degra-
dation to 1 as S/B becomes sufficiently large. However, this
trend is not present in the solution derived from Mecha-
nism 1 by Kumar and Ghosh [11], in which a monotonic
decrease in nc is observed as S/B increases. All the solu-
tions of nc are lower than the solution of Stuart [32]. In
general, the result of DLO shows excellent agreement with
the solutions of Kumar and Kouzer [13], which are based
on a limit analysis approach, and Mabrouki et al. [21],
which uses a finite difference method. Additionally, the
maximum value of nc obtained from DLO is observed at a
spacing of approximately 0.35B, and the value of the
spacing where the interaction of the two footings disap-
pears is near 3B. This finding also coincides with the
research proposed by Kumar and Kouzer [13] and Mab-
rouki et al. [21].
3 Results
A series of parametric analyses of the ultimate bearing
capacity of two interfering strip footings on sand overlying
clay are performed for a variety of combinations of soil
properties and geometric configurations, as shown in
Table 1. To facilitate the application to Terzaghi’s bearing
capacity theory, the bearing capacity is presented in the
form of a reduction factor (RF), which is defined as
follows:
q bearing capacity. An increase in the depth of the sand layer
RF ¼ ð1Þ
qs
where q is the ultimate bearing capacity of two interfering
footings on sand overlying clay for a given configuration
(i.e. u, c/cB, D/B and S/B) and qs is the ultimate load of the
single isolated footing resting on the sand with the same
internal friction angle, which is obtained from the con-
ventional bearing capacity solution:
1 value becomes significantly small. This behaviour contrasts
qs ¼ cBNc ð2Þ
2 with what occurs for a purely frictional soil. An increase in
Table 1 Summary of parameters influencing the ultimate bearing capacity
Parameter Parameter description
u (8) Sand internal friction angle
c/cB Dimensionless clay cohesion
D/B Dimensionless sand depth
S/B Dimensionless clear distance
123
Acta Geotechnica
where Nc is the bearing capacity coefficient related to the
self-weight of the soil. The Nc value from DLO can be
found in Zheng et al. [40].
A set of design charts containing the bearing capacity
ratio, RF, are illustrated in Fig. 5. The results for two
closely spaced strip footings on a purely frictional soil,
which is equivalent to a sufficiently deep sand layer
overlying clay, are also incorporated.
For purely frictional soils, a piecewise function of RF
versus S/B, comprised of two segments, is observed. The
first segment, starting from a value of 2 at zero spacing,
exhibits a linear behaviour with an increasing trend as the
spacing increases. After the inflection point, the RF value
becomes concave downwards, finally degenerating into a
value of 1. The inflection point is denoted as the critical
spacing Scri, at which RF reaches its peak value. Note that
the slope of the linear segment is independent of the
internal friction angle. In contrast, an increase in u yields
an increase in Scri, further leading to a larger peak value of
RF.
For sand overlying clay, analogously, a typical form of
RF versus S/B is a piecewise function consisting of two
segments (e.g. case A in Fig. 5): a linearly increasing
segment and a subsequent nonlinearly decreasing segment
after the point of Scri/B. In some scenarios, the bearing
capacity of two footings at zero spacing is lower than that
at a sufficiently wide spacing (e.g. case A in Fig. 5). This
phenomenon logically reveals an adverse effect of inter-
ference on the RF value of footings on sand overlying clay.
In contrast, for purely frictional soil, the presence of an
interfering strip footing always facilitates an increase in the
yields a significant increase in RF. This phenomenon may
cause an overlap in the curve of RF versus S/B between a
sand layer overlying clay and a purely frictional soil (e.g.
case B in Fig. 5). The slope of the linear segment of RF
curves is notably insensitive to changes in D/B, whereas it
exhibits an increasing trend with decreasing u or increas-
ing c/cB. There is an increase in the bearing capacity as u
increases. With a normalization process, however, the RF
Range
30, 35, 40
0.5, 1, 2
0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 1.25, 1.5, 1.75, 2, 3, 4
0, 0.1, 0.2, …, 4
Acta Geotechnica
Fig. 5 Design charts of the bearing capacity ratio, RF, for various values of u, c/cB and D/B
c/cB causes an increase in RF and a decrease in Scri. As D/
B increases, an initial increase and a subsequent degrada-
tion of Scri are found.
4 Discussion
For a single layer of frictional soil, two strip footings at a
close spacing may act as a single footing with a width of
2B ? S. This situation is called the blocking effect, which
is related to the formation of an inverted arch between the
footings [2, 21, 32]. The blocking effect leads to a linearly
increasing trend of the efficiency factor nc with an increase
in S/B [14]. However, the blocking effect vanishes once the
spacing exceeds a critical value Scri, which depends on the
internal friction angle of the soil. For sand overlying clay,
the influence of interference on the ultimate bearing
capacity is more complex. The potential failure slip may
either extend through the sand layer into the underlying
clay or develop within the sand layer [1].
Figure 6 schematically shows the effect of S/B on the
bearing capacity ratio RF for various D/B. Similar to a
single layer of cohesionless soil, the blocking effect also
exists for two closely spaced footings on sand overlying
clay. Thus, the curves of RF versus S/B initially exhibit
linearly increasing behaviour. When the two footings
touch, the failure mechanism is equivalent to a single
isolated footing of width 2B [case A in Fig. 6a; case E in
Fig. 6b]. With a wider spacing, the size of the slip surface
increases, while its shape remains unchanged due to the
blocking effect, contributing to a larger bearing capacity
[case B in Fig. 6a; case F in Fig. 6b]. RF eventually
123

(a)
RF 2 Sand
RF
1 1
C
A B D
S/B
AB
D
Sand
Clay
Slip surfaces
Line of symmetry
C D
Fig. 6 Schematic demonstrating the effect of S/B on the bearing capacity ratio RF for a a small D/B and b a large D/B
reaches a peak value at the critical spacing Scri; after this
critical spacing, the trend of RF becomes convex down-
wards. This phenomenon occurs because the interaction
between the footings diminishes as the spacing increases.
When D/B is small, a typical form of a two-segment
piecewise function of RF versus S/B is commonly
observed, where the failure extends into the clay. The slip
surface of each footing begins to separate as the spacing
exceeds Scri, where the passive zones of the two footings
still interpenetrate [case C in Fig. 6a]. With a sufficiently
large spacing, the two slip surfaces are completely sepa-
rated [case D in Fig. 6a], indicating that the bearing
capacity is identical to that of a single footing of width
B. When D/B is large, as the spacing exceeds Scri and
further increases, the slip surface becomes smaller and
eventually changes from a failure penetrating the clay layer
to a failure limited within the sand layer [case G in
123
Acta Geotechnica
(b)
2 Sand
EF G H
S/B
EF
G H
Fig. 6b]. This transition in failure mechanism leads to the
overlap in RF between sand overlying clay and a purely
frictional soil. Finally, the two footings become indepen-
dent of each other [case H in Fig. 6b].
In conventional bearing capacity theories, the bearing
capacity of a strip footing of width 2B on a purely frictional
soil is twice that of a strip footing of width B. This finding
indicates that the bearing capacity of two interfering
footings is larger than that of a single footing [14, 32]. For
sand overlying clay, however, the effect of interference on
the bearing capacity can be adverse [e.g. case A compared
with case D in Fig. 6a] or beneficial [e.g. case E compared
with case H in Fig. 6a]. This phenomenon is caused by the
limited depth of sand. Doubling the footing width enlarges
the size of the failure mechanism; however, a greater
volume of clay is mobilized, resulting in a relatively low
contribution of the frictional resistance of sand to the
Acta Geotechnica
bearing capacity. The final influence of the interference on
the bearing capacity depends on a trade-off between the
increase in bearing capacity resulting from the increase in
the size of the slip surface and the decrease in bearing
capacity due to a reduced contribution ratio of frictional
resistance of sand.
Figure 7 shows the variation in RF versus S/B for var-
ious u and c/cB, where D/B = 1. Previous studies indicate
that a larger u yields an increase in the efficiency factor nc
for a purely frictional soil [11, 13, 21, 32]. For sand
overlying clay, however, the bearing capacity ratio RF
becomes significantly smaller when u increases (Fig. 7).
This phenomenon occurs because, relative to the failure
mechanism with a small u [e.g. Fig. 8a], the size of the slip
surface increases as u increases [e.g. Fig. 8c]. The cohe-
sive component due to the presence of the underlying clay
results in a reduced RF value. For a small c/cB, a punching
failure occurs and a large slip surface develops in the clay
layer [e.g. Fig. 8b]. The slip surface is significantly
reduced as c/cB becomes larger, leading to an increase in
the bearing capacity ratio RF [e.g. Fig. 8a].
For a low u and a large c/cB, the passive zones of the
two footings interpenetrate each other at an adequate
spacing (e.g. S/B = 1), revealing the interference effect
between two footings (Fig. 8a). With an increase in u or a
decrease in c/cB, the failure mechanism changes to a slip
surface that geometrically resembles that of a single iso-
lated footing (Fig. 8b–d), where the blocking effect pre-
dominates. This finding logically indicates an increase in
the critical spacing Scri when u increases or c/cB decreases
(Fig. 7). The reason for this trend is that, with a large u or a
small c/cB, the size of the failure mechanism for an isolated
footing is significantly enlarged, as the slip surface pene-
trates the clay layer more easily. Two footings with a large
failure surface may interfere with each other at a wide
spacing, further resulting in a large Scri.
1.5
c/γ B = 2 c/γ B = 0.5
ϕ = 30°
ϕ = 40°
1.0
A c
RF
0.5
B
C two cases: (1) the case at low spacings where the blocking
0.0 D
0 1 2 3
S/B
Fig. 7 Variation in the curve of RF versus S/B for various values of u
and c/cB (D/B = 1)
5 Simplified model and validations
5.1 Simplified model
The polynomial regression (PR) model is commonly
adopted in a prediction analysis (e.g. [25, 33]). To develop
a reliable PR model, sufficient data with systematically
varying input variables are necessary [33]. In this investi-
gation, these data are obtained from the DLO procedure, as
shown in Fig. 5. As aforementioned, a simplified model for
the bearing capacity of two interfering strip footings on
sand overlying clay should simultaneously consider two
types of failure mechanisms: (1) the surface penetrating the
underlying clay and (2) the failure slip developing within
the sand layer. For the former failure mechanism, the RF
versus S/B tends to be a two-segment piecewise function.
This separately corresponds to the situation where the
blocking effect predominates and the situation where the
blocking effect diminishes. For the latter failure mode, the
RF is identical to the efficiency factor nc for a purely
frictional soil. Considering the both failure modes, a PR
model of the bearing capacity ratio RF, in the form of a
minimum function, is developed as follows:
RF ¼ min
8
> ða X 2 þ a2 X þ a3 ÞY  ðS=BÞ þ RF00
< 1
eðb1 Xþb2 Y þb3 Yþb4 Zþb3 ÞðS=Bðb6 Xþb7 Y þb8 Yþb9 Zþb10 ÞÞ þ RF0
2 2
>
:
nc
ð3Þ
where X = tanu; Y = c/cB; Z = D/B; RF00 is the normalized
bearing capacity of a single strip footing with a width of
2B on sand overlying clay; RF0 is the normalized bearing
capacity of a single strip footing with a width of B on sand
overlying clay; a1, a2, a3, b1, b2, b3, b4, b5, b6, b7, b8, b9 and
b10 are coefficients with values shown in Table 2, which are
determined by the method of least squares.
A simple expression of RF0 with the variables of D/B, u,
and c/cB was developed by Zhou et al. [41]:
RF0 ¼ ða1 X þ a2 Y þ a3 ÞZ ða4 X þa5 Þ
ð1Þ
þ RF00 ð4Þ
cNc
where RF00 ¼ 0:5cBN . The values of the coefficients are
shown in Table 2. With a substitute of the footing width,
the expression of RF00 can be directly developed based on
Eq. (4).
The solution of the efficiency factor nc should consider
effect predominates [14] and (2) the case where the
blocking effect vanishes [13]. The solution for the first case
4
can be directly obtained by regarding the two adjacent
footings as a single unit [14], whereas the solution for the
second case can be derived based on the database from
123
 Acta Geotechnica

φ = 30

(a) (b)

φ = 40

(c) (d)

c/γB = 2 c/γB = 0.5

Fig. 8 Failure mechanisms for various values of u and c/cB (S/B = 1, D/B = 1)

Table 2 Summary of coefficients in the proposed PR model the ratio of the predicted bearing capacity to that of DLO:
coefficient of determination (R2), arithmetic mean and
Equation (3) Equation (4) Equation (5)
coefficient of variation (COV) [5]. Figure 9 presents a
a1 3.0281 - 0.1357 7.7947 comparison between the predicted dimensionless bearing
a2 - 5.2300 0.0111 - 8.4465 capacities (qc/cB) obtained from the proposed model and
a3 2.3094 0.1692 - 1.5174 the measured dimensionless bearing capacity (qm/cB)
a4 – 1.2210 0.7014 obtained from the DLO procedure. Two failure mecha-
a5 – 0.6953 – nisms are considered in the developed approach. For a
b1 - 2.1864 – – failure penetrating the clay layer, a total of 757 data points
b2 - 1.5585 – – are used in the comparison, where u = 30, 35 and 40; c/
b3 3.8670 – – cB = 0.5, 1 and 2; D/B = 0.25 to 4; and S/B = 0 to 4, as
b4 - 0.3823 – – shown in Fig. 9a. Nearly all the estimated values are
b5 1.4799 – – within ± 20% of the 1:1 line. The R2, mean value and
b6 - 7.5376, – – COV of the ratio of the predicted bearing capacity to the
b7 - 1.6762 – – DLO results are 0.9986, 1.003 and 0.028, respectively,
b8 4.9066 – – representing a statistically low prediction error and a high
b9 0.1402 – – predictive ability of the developed model. The comparison
b10 0.3634 – – for a failure confined to the sand layer involves a total of 47
data, where u = 30, 35 and 40, as shown in Fig. 9b. The
mean trend of the DLO results is very close to the 45
trendline, which visually verifies the accuracy of the sim-
DLO. Thus, a simple equation of nc in the form of a plified approach. The R2, mean value and COV of the ratio
minimum function is developed as follows: of the predicted bearing capacity to the DLO results are
 0.9989, 1.010 and 0.030, respectively, further demonstrat-
2ðS=BÞ þ 2
nc ¼ min ða1 Xþa2 ÞðS=Bþa3 Xþa4 Þ ð5Þ ing the effectiveness of the proposed model.
e þ1
where a1 , a2 , a3 and a4 are coefficients, the values of 5.3 Comparison with experimental data
which are listed in Table 2.
Further assessments of the proposed model are performed
5.2 Assessment with DLO results with experimental data in prior studies. To predict the
bearing capacity of a vertically loaded single strip footing
To validate the accuracy, the performance of the proposed placed on sand overlying clay, Eq. (3) degenerates to RF00 .
model is characterized based on the statistical criteria of The reliability and accuracy of RF00 have been validated

123
Acta Geotechnica

(a) 60 200
This study, = 37°
This study, = 38°
n: 757 This study, = 41°
R2: 0.9986 150 Kumar and Saran [9], = 37°
mean: 1.003 +20%
Saran and Agarwal [28], = 38°
40 COV: 0.028 Das and Larbi-Cherif [2], = 41°

q/ B
100
qc/γ B

-20%

20 50

0 1 2 3 4 5
0
0 20 40 60 S/B
qm/γ B
Fig. 10 Comparison between the proposed approach and laboratory
(b) 150 tests in prior investigations for purely cohesionless soils

n: 482
increase of the distance between the two footings. Gener-
120 R2: 0.9998
mean: 0.9993 +20% ally, the results of Eq. (5) show a satisfactory agreement
COV: 0.006 with the experimental data.
90
qc/γ B

-20%

60
6 Conclusions

In this paper, a set of bearing capacity ratios RF of two

30
0 bearing capacity and the variation in the failure mecha-
0 30 60 90
qm/γ B
Fig. 9 Performance of the proposed approach with respect to
solutions of DLO where a the slip surface penetrates the clay and
where b the slip surface develops within the sand
with two centrifuge tests in the work of Zhou et al. [36].
For purely frictional soils, or the failure slip is limited
within the sand layer, Eq. (3) degenerates to the efficiency
factor nc (Eq. (5)) to estimate the bearing capacity. Saran
and Agarwal [28], Das and Larbi-Cherif [2] and Kumar and
Saran [9] used laboratory tests to study the behaviour of
two interfering strip footings on cohesionless soils. The
friction angle of the sand ranged from 37 to 41, and the
dimensionless clear distance between the two footings
ranged from 0 to 5 m. Figure 10 presents a comparison
between the dimensionless bearing capacities (q/cB)
obtained from these experimental studies and the results of
Eq. (5). When S/B is smaller than 0.5B, the results of
Eq. (5) are slightly larger than the experimental data. When
S/B is larger than 0.5B, a convergence is found between the
results of Eq. (5) and the experimental results of Kumar
and Saran [9]; most of the results of Saran and Agarwal
[28] and Das and Larbi-Cherif [2] are larger than the results
of Eq. (5), where the difference is diminishing with the
interfering strip footings placed on sand overlying clay are
presented as design charts. The parameters affecting the
120 150
nisms are discussed. A simplified empirical model is
developed, which is validated with a wide range of results
obtained from DLO. The following conclusions can be
drawn:
1. The geometric configurations and soil properties all
affect the ultimate bearing capacity of two interfering
strip footings on sand overlying clay. Because of the
presence of an underlying clay layer, a larger friction
angle u causes a reduction in the bearing capacity ratio
RF, in contrast to the trend observed for a purely
frictional soil. The value of Scri increases with an
increase in u or a decrease in c/cB, whereas an increase
in D/B causes an initial increase and a subsequent
decrease in Scri. The transition of the failure mecha-
nism from a surface penetrating the underlying clay to
a failure confined to the sand layer leads to an overlap
of RF between sand overlying clay and a single sand
layer, which is prone to a large D/B and a large S/B.
2. At close spacings, the blocking effect governs the
ultimate bearing capacity for sand overlying clay,
which coincides with the phenomenon for a purely
frictional soil. As the spacing increases, the failure
mechanism remains unchanged, while its size becomes
greater, leading to a linearly increasing trend of the

123

bearing capacity. When the spacing exceeds a thresh-
old value Scri, the blocking effect disappears. With a
sufficiently wide spacing, the bearing capacity is
equivalent to that of a single footing, which may be
lower or greater than that for two interfering footings.
This behaviour differs from the exclusively beneficial
effect of interference on the bearing capacity for a
cohesionless soil.
3. A simplified empirical PR model considering two
failure modes (i.e. the failure penetrating the underly-
ing clay layer and the slip surface developing within
the sand layer) is proposed. It is directly developed
using the data generated from DLO with a wide range
of geometric and soil strength parameters. Validations
are performed with respect to the solutions of DLO and
previous experimental data, demonstrating a high
accuracy of the proposed model for the prediction of
the bearing capacity for the both failure modes.
Consequently, this model can be treated as an alterna-
tive approach for preliminary design in engineering
practice.
Acknowledgements This research was funded by the National Nat-
ural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 52078337, 51708405
and 41630641). The authors appreciate the financial support.
References
1. Burd HJ, Frydman S (1997) Bearing capacity of plane-strain
footings on layered soils. Can Geotech J 34(2):241–253
2. Das BM, Larbi-Cherif S (1983) Bearing capacity of two closely-
spaced shallow foundations on sand. Soils Found 23(1):1–7
3. Das BM, Puri VK, Neo BK (1993) Interference effects between
two surface footings on layered soil. Transp Res Rec Transp Res
Board Washington, DC 1406:34–40
4. Drucker DC, Greenberg W, Prager W (1952) Extended limit
design theorems for continuous media. Q J Appl Math
9(4):381–389
5. Ganesh R, Khuntia S, Sahoo JP (2016) Bearing capacity of
shallow strip foundations in sand under eccentric and oblique
loads. Int J Geomech 17(4):06016028
6. Hanna AM, Meyerhof GG (1980) Design charts for ultimate
bearing capacity of foundations on sand overlying soft clay. Can
Geotech J 17(2):300–303
7. Hazell E C J (2004) Interaction of closely spaced strip footings.
Final year project report, Department of Engineering Science,
University of Oxford
8. Hjiaj M, Lyamin AV, Sloan SW (2005) Numerical limit analysis
solutions for the bearing capacity factor Nc. Int J Solids Struct
42(5–6):1681–1704
9. Kumar A, Saran S (2003) Closely spaced footings on geogrid-
reinforced sand. J Geotechn Geoenviron Eng 129(7):660–664
10. Kumar J, Bhattacharya P (2013) Bearing capacity of two inter-
fering strip footings from lower bound finite elements limit
analysis. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 37(5):441–452
11. Kumar J, Ghosh P (2007) Ultimate bearing capacity of two
interfering rough strip footings. Int J Geomech 7(1):53–62
123
Acta Geotechnica
12. Kumar J, Ghosh P (2007) Upper bound limit analysis for finding
interference effect of two nearby strip footings on sand. Geotech
Geol Eng 25(5):499
13. Kumar J, Kouzer KM (2008) Bearing capacity of two interfering
footings. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 32(3):251–264
14. Lavasan AA, Ghazavi M, Blumenthal A, Schanz T (2018)
Bearing capacity of interfering strip footings. J Geotechn
Geoenviron Eng 144(3):04018003
15. Lee KK, Cassidy MJ, Randolph MF (2013) Bearing capacity on
sand overlying clay soils, experimental and finite-element
investigation of potential punch-through failure. Géotechnique
63(15):1271
16. Leshchinsky B (2015) Bearing capacity of footings placed adja-
cent to c0 -/0 slopes. J Geotechn Geoenviron Eng
141(6):04015022
17. Leshchinsky B, Ambauen S (2015) Limit equilibrium and limit
analysis: comparison of benchmark slope stability problems.
J Geotechn Geoenviron Eng 141(10):04015043
18. Limit State (2013) Limit State, Geo manual v 3.0, Sheffield, U.K
19. Liu Q, Lehane B M (2020) A centrifuge investigation of the
relationship between the vertical response of footings on sand and
CPT end resistance. Géotechnique: 1–11
20. Liu QB, Lehane BM, Tian Y (2020) Bearing capacity and stiff-
ness of embedded circular footings on stiff-over-soft clay.
J Geotechn Geoenviron Eng 146(11):06020020
21. Mabrouki A, Benmeddour D, Frank R, Mellas M (2010)
Numerical study of the bearing capacity for two interfering strip
footings on sands. Comput Geotech 37(4):431–439
22. Mandel J (1965) Plastic interference of strip footings in French.
Proc, 6th Int. Conf. Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Vol. II, University of Toronto Press, Toronto:127–141
23. Meyerhof GG (1974) Ultimate bearing capacity of footings on
sand layer overlying clay. Can Geotech J 11(2):223–229
24. Michalowski RL, Shi L (1995) Bearing capacity of footings over
two-layer foundation soils. J Geotechn Eng 121(5):421–428
25. Naghibi F, Fenton GA, Griffiths DV (2014) Prediction of pile
settlement in an elastic soil. Comput Geotech 60:29–32
26. Saha Roy S, Deb K (2018) Interference effect of closely spaced
footings resting on granular fill over soft clay. Int J Geomech
19(1):04018181
27. Salimi Eshkevari S, Abbo AJ, Kouretzis G (2018) Bearing
capacity of strip footings on sand over clay. Can Geotech J
56(5):699–709
28. Saran S, Agarwal VC (1974) Interference of surface footings on
sand. Indian Geotechn J 4(2):129–139
29. Shiau JS, Lyamin AV, Sloan SW (2003) Bearing capacity of a
sand layer on clay by finite element limit analysis. Can Geotech J
40(5):900–915
30. Silvestri V (2003) A limit equilibrium solution for bearing
capacity of strip foundations on sand. Can Geotech J
40(2):351–361
31. Smith C, Gilbert M (2013) Identification of rotational failure
mechanisms in cohesive media using discontinuity layout opti-
mization. Geotechnique 63(14):1194–1208
32. Stuart JG (1962) Interference between foundations with special
reference to surface footings in sand. Geotechnique 12(1):15–22
33. Tang C, Phoon KK, Zhang L et al (2017) Model uncertainty for
predicting the bearing capacity of sand overlying clay. Int J
Geomech 17(7):04017015
34. Yang S, Leshchinsky B, Cui K et al (2020) Influence of failure
mechanism on seismic bearing capacity factors for shallow
foundations near slopes. Géotechnique: 1–46
35. Yang S, Leshchinsky B, Cui K et al (2019) Unified approach
toward evaluating bearing capacity of shallow foundations near
slopes. J Geotechn Geoenviron Eng 145(12):04019110
Acta Geotechnica
36. Yu X, Zheng G, Zhou H, Chai J Influence of geosynthetic rein-
forcement on the progressive failure of rigid columns under an
embankment load. Acta geotechnica (Accepted)
37. Zheng G, Wang E, Zhao J et al (2019) Ultimate bearing capacity
of vertically loaded strip footings on sand overlying clay. Comput
Geotech 115:103151
38. Zheng G, Xia B, Zhou H et al (2020) Seismic bearing capacity of
strip footings on ground reinforced by stone columns using
upper-bound solutions. Int J Geomech 20(9):06020024
39. Zheng G, Yu X, Zhou H et al (2021) Influence of geosynthetic
reinforcement on the stability of an embankment with rigid col-
umns embedded in an inclined underlying stratum. Geotext
Geomembr 49(1):180–187
View publication stats
40. Zheng G, Zhao J, Zhou H, Zhang T (2019) Ultimate bearing
capacity of strip footings on sand overlying clay under inclined
loading. Comput Geotech 10(6):266–273
41. Zhou H, Zheng G, Zhao J (2018) Design charts and simplified
approach for the bearing capacity of strip footings on sand
overlying clay. In: Proceedings of China-Europe conference on
geotechnical engineering. Springer, Cham, pp 1102–1105
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
123