Computers and Geotechnics 115 (2019) 103151

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers and Geotechnics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compgeo

Technical Communication

Ultimate bearing capacity of vertically loaded strip footings on sand T

overlying clay
Gang Zhenga,b,c, Enyu Wanga,b, Jiapeng Zhaoa,b, Haizuo Zhoua,b,c, , Dongqing Nied
⁎

a
School of Civil Engineering, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China
b
Key Laboratory of Coast Civil Structure Safety, Tianjin University, Ministry of Education, Tianjin 300072, China
c
State Key Laboratory of Hydraulic Engineering Simulation and Safety, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China
d
Shanghai Municipal Engineering Design Institute (Group) Co., Ltd., Shanghai 200092, China

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Conventional methods toward addressing the bearing capacity of strip footings on sand overlying clay may yield
Bearing capacity unreliable solutions. In this technical note, the bearing capacity of footings on sand overlying clay is evaluated
Regression-based approach using discontinuity layout optimization (DLO). A set of design charts that can be directly applied to the classical
Sand overlying clay bearing capacity formulation is developed. Subsequently, a simplified regression-based approach, relevant to a
Strip footings
wide range of geometric and strength parameters, is proposed. The model uncertainty for the proposed method is
characterized. Validations are performed with the results of centrifuge tests and previously proposed analytical
solutions.

1. Introduction to tan−1(1/3) are recommended. Arbitrary determination of αp may

Establishing the ultimate bearing capacity of shallow foundations
has long been an important component of geotechnical engineering.
The bearing capacity theory developed by Terzaghi [1] is usually used
in a single layer of homogeneous soil.
However, native soils are often deposited in layers. In addition, the
replacement of the top layer of soft clay with cohesionless soil artifi-
cially forms a sand layer overlying clay [2]. The failure mechanisms of
such ground are complex because the failure slip may break through the
sand layer into the clay [3] or may be limited within the sand layer [4].
It is commonly acknowledged that the bearing capacity of foundations
is governed by the failure mechanism [5,6]. Therefore, Terzaghi’s
theory based on Prandtl’s failure mechanism cannot be used for sand
overlying clay. Investigations of experimental tests [7–12], numerical
models [4,13–16], and limit analysis [17,18] were carried out to
evaluate the bearing capacity of various foundation types on sand
overlying clay.
Semiempirical methods based on the limit equilibrium concept for
estimating the ultimate bearing capacity of sand overlying clay are
often used in practice. The load-spread method [19] assumes that the
footing load develops at a certain dispersion angle αp from the sand
layer to the underlying clay stratum, and the shear resistance of the
sand is neglected. The value of αp is a determinant factor [4], but ap-
propriate αp values are debatable. A range of αp values from tan−1(1/5)
result in an unreliable solution. The bearing capacity is underestimated
for large sand thicknesses and is overestimated for large clay cohesion
[4,20]. The punching-shear method [21,22] provides useful insight into
the contributions of sand. This method assumes that the failure slip
occurs along a vertically sided block that punches into the clay. The
frictional resistance is considered by the punching shear coefficient
(Ks), which is determined by a chart or an interpolation method.
However, this method yields a conservative solution for a footing
without embedment, whereas an overestimate is yielded for a great
sand thickness [20]. Therefore, both semiempirical approaches provide
oversimplified solutions [15]. Tang et al [23] modified the mentioned
semiempirical methods and focused on the bearing capacity associated
with onshore foundations (e.g., flat footings and spudcan footings). For
strip footings, Eshkevari et al. [24] proposed an analytical model for
directly estimating the bearing capacity. In their study, the failure
mechanism is assumed a priori.
The main objective of this technical note is to acquire a simplified
regression-based model without a priori assumption of the failure
geometry. A rigorous analysis in the framework of the upper-bound
limit state plasticity is used. Based on the presented design charts, a
simplified model for the bearing capacity of strip footings on sand
overlying clay is developed. The accuracy of the developed approach is
validated with results attained from discontinuity layout optimization
(DLO) technique and prior literature.

⁎
Corresponding author at: School of Civil Engineering, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China.
E-mail address: hzzhou@tju.edu.cn (H. Zhou).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2019.103151
Received 31 May 2019; Received in revised form 23 June 2019; Accepted 26 June 2019
Available online 25 July 2019
0266-352X/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
G. Zheng, et al. Computers and Geotechnics 115 (2019) 103151

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Fig. 1. Basic principles of the DLO procedure [30].

2. Problem definition and validations

This investigation adopts the software program LimitState: GEO

[25] that employs DLO to evaluate the limit state of soils. The DLO
procedure is combined with upper-bound limit analysis [26,27]. It
treats the soil as a perfectly plastic material that obeys the associated
flow rule. The upper-bound theorem states that the rate of work attri-
butable to the force on foundations and the soil weight is greater than
or equal to the work done by internal stresses along a kinematically
admissible velocity field [28]. Thus, DLO provides a solution that is
greater than the true value. This procedure allows for directly de-
termining the critical layout of discontinuities and the associated ulti-
mate load of complex geotechnical stability problems. The critical
layout of slip lines in a soil mass is automatically identified. The basic
principles of DLO are shown in Fig. 1. With the establishment of the
model (Fig. 1(a)), spaced nodes are assigned to the soil mass (Fig. 1(b)).
After interlinking all nodes with lines to form potential slip surfaces
(Fig. 1(c)), the critical failure mechanism is identified using optimiza- Fig. 3. Comparison of DLO with the results obtained in the literature (φ = 40°;
tion (Fig. 1(d)) [29]. This approach has been successfully used to H/B = 1).
evaluate the bearing capacity of strip footings on various types of
ground [5,29–32]. To verify the accuracy of the established model, the bearing capa-
Fig. 2 shows a schematic of the model. A strip footing of width B is city of strip footings placed on a sand layer overlying clay predicted by
constructed on a sand layer overlying clay. H is the thickness of the DLO is compared with prior literature. Fig. 3 shows a normalized
sand, and γ is the unit weight of the sand. A rough interface was as- bearing capacity q/γB for a sand thickness of H/B = 1 and sand friction
sumed between the footing and soil. To ensure the accuracy of the re- angle of 40°. Compared with the upper-bound solution of Michalowski
sults, an appropriate model geometry, mainly depending on the fric- and Shi [17], a more conservative kinetic solution was obtained by
tional angle of the sand, is adopted. An adequate and equal node Shiau et al. [13]. Burd and Frydman [4], using the finite element
density is used to ensure the consistency of the solutions. The side and method, yielded the lowest result. Generally, the DLO results show
bottom boundaries are horizontally and vertically fixed, respectively. In agreement with the rigorous upper-bound solutions of Shiau et al. [13].
engineering practice, the cohesion of soils can be true or apparent. The For further validation, the Nγ values of a single layer of cohesionless
true cohesion exists when the soil is cemented and overconsolidated. soil estimated by DLO are compared with previous studies. Bolton and
The apparent cohesion may result from soil matric suction in partially Lau [33] used the slip line method to provide a greater Nγ value than
saturated soils [28], and the apparent cohesion value tends to vanish the solutions of Meyerhof [34] on the basis of the limit equilibrium
with a change in the degree of saturation [39]. Thus, the soil para- method. The finite element limit analysis [35–37] yielded a better
meters must be used with judgment. In this study, fully undrained and upper-bound solution in comparison to that of Chen [38]. The Nγ values
drained conditions are assumed for the clay and sand layers, respec- obtained by DLO are nearly identical to those of the upper-bound so-
tively. In Fig. 2, c represents the cohesion of the soil; and φ is the lution given by Lyamin et al. [36], in which the true limit load was
friction angle of the sand. bracketed to within 7.07%. The coincidence of the DLO solution with
the advanced numerical limit analysis results demonstrates the accu-
racy of the established model.

2.1. Design charts

A reduction coefficient R is introduced to present design charts. R is

expressed as
R = qu,soc / qu,s (1)
where qu,soc is the bearing capacity of footings on sand overlying
clay obtained from DLO, and qu,s is the bearing capacity of a none-
mbedded footing on cohesionless soils obtained from the classical
bearing capacity solution:
1
qu,s = BN
2 (2)
Fig. 2. Schematic of the DLO model. where Nγ is the bearing capacity factor related to self-weight. The Nγ

2
G. Zheng, et al. Computers and Geotechnics 115 (2019) 103151

Table 1
Comparison of Nγ values for rough strip footings.
φ (°) This study Chen [38] Meyerhof [34] Bolton and Lau [33] Ukrichon et al. [37] Hjiaj et al. [35] Lyamin et al. [36]

UB LB UB LB UB LB

5 0.12 0.38 0.07 0.62 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.12 – –

10 0.47 1.16 0.37 1.71 0.47 0.41 0.46 0.43 – –
15 1.28 2.30 1.13 3.17 1.31 1.13 1.24 1.18 – –
20 3.10 5.20 2.87 5.97 3.27 2.67 2.96 2.82 – –
25 7.05 11.40 6.77 11.60 7.52 5.95 6.74 6.43 7.09 6.44
30 16.09 25.00 15.67 23.60 17.4 13.2 15.24 14.57 15.90 14.57
35 34.77 57.00 37.15 51.00 42.4 29.3 35.65 33.95 36.98 33.81
40 89.82 141.00 93.69 121.00 111 69.9 88.39 83.33 91.86 82.29
45 260.20 374.00 263.74 324.00 315.00 165.00 240.88 224.95 255.44 221.71

Table 2 2.2. Simplified model

Parameters used in bearing capacity analysis.
Parameter Values
Shear strength ratio, c/γB 0.50, 0.75, 1.0, 1.25, 1.50, 1.75, 2.00
Frictional angle, φ (°) 34, 36, 38, 40, 42, 46, 48, 50
Sand thickness, H/B 0, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0
value from DLO is provided in Table 1. The bearing capacity ratio R is a
function of the abovementioned parameters listed in Table 2.
Fig. 4 illustrates the design charts of the bearing capacity ratio R for
a strip footing on sand overlying clay. The R value increases with H/B,
finally converging to 1.0 for most scenarios. For a sand layer with a thin
thickness, a large amount of radial shear strain develops in the clay
layer (Fig. 5(a)). With an increase in H/B, the failure surface in the clay
layer is greatly reduced, as shown in Fig. 5(b). The corresponding R
value increases as the sand contributes to a greater bearing capacity.
When H/B is sufficiently large, the failure surface is completely con-
fined within the sand layer (Fig. 5(c)). The corresponding ultimate
bearing capacity becomes independent of any further increases in H/B,
representing a final transition to the Prandtl-type failure mode. The
minimum depth at which the failure surface develops completely
within the sand layer is denoted as the critical sand thickness (H/B)cri.
A higher R is observed for a greater c/γB. For a small c/γB, a
punching failure occurs in the sand layer, as the underlying soil is re-
latively weak (Fig. 5(d)). The failure slip develops vertically from the
edge of the footings, and a large amount of failure slip occurs in the clay
layer. As c/γB becomes greater, the failure surface in the clay layer is
considerably reduced in size and a greater slip surface forms within the
sand layer, contributing to a larger bearing capacity (Fig. 5(e)). Finally,
the transition of the failure mode to a slip surface completely within the
sand layer may occur (Fig. 5(f)). This logically shows a decrease in (H/
B)cri as c/γB increases.
In contrast, a greater friction angle yields an increase in (H/B)cri as
the slip surface is enlarged. Thus, the R value cannot approach 1.0 for
φ > 48°, indicating that the corresponding (H/B)cri value exceeds 4.
When the friction angle is small, a Prandtl-type failure surface within
the sand layer is observed (Fig. 5(g)). The slip surface is greatly en-
larged as φ increases (Fig. 5(h)). For a further increase in the friction
angle, the failure surface extends through the sand layer and penetrates
the underlying clay (Fig. 5(i)). Interestingly, the design charts show that
an increase in φ leads to a large decrease in R. In the classical bearing
capacity theory for footings on homogeneous cohesionless soils, the
bearing capacity increases nonlinearly with the increasing φ because of
the presence of passive earth pressures at the rigid wedge beneath the
footings. When an underlying clay layer is present, the contribution of
the passive earth pressures decreases because of the absence of the
passive wedge, which leads to a reduced R value when φ is large.
Number
The design charts show a nonlinearly increasing relationship be-
tween the bearing capacity ratio R with the sand layer thickness H/B;
7 this relationship is described by a power function. The intercept in
8 Fig. 4 represents the ratio of the bearing capacity of the sand and clay
9
layers. Thus, the following regression-based equation of the bearing
capacity ratio R is developed:
R = ( 1 X 0.2 Y + 0.3 ( X 6 Y 7 + 8)
(3)
2X + 3X + 4Y + 5)Z + R0
where X = tan φ; Y = c/γB; Z = H/B; R0 = cNc
; and the values of the
0.5 BN
coefficients are: α1 = 0.0359, α2 = −7.6656, α3 = 1.9548,
α4 = −0.0339, α5 = 5.7711, α6 = 0.0950, α7 = −0.25, α8 = 2.5334.
2.3. Comparison with DLO results
To validate the accuracy and reliability of the proposed model, the
results generated by DLO are first used. The bearing capacity qu,s oc
from the simplified model is shown as follows
qu,soc = R· qu,s (4)
Fig. 6 illustrates a comparison of the dimensionless bearing capacity
between the proposed model against DLO. The accuracy of the sim-
plified model is reflected by the coefficient of determination R2, which
is found to be 0.991. All the estimated values are within ± 20% of the
1:1 line. This demonstrates that the regression-based equation can give
a relatively accurate prediction of the bearing capacity for sand over-
lying clay.
A bias factor (BF), defined as follows, is introduced to evaluate the
uncertainty of the proposed simplified model:
qu,soc
BF =
qu,soc (5)
The probability distribution function (PDF) and the cumulative
distribution function (CDF) of the BF are shown in Figs. 7 and 8, re-
spectively. The PDF and CDF approximatively match those of the fitted
lognormal distribution. The p value from the Kolmogorov-Smirnov
goodness-of-fit test (KS test) [40] is 0.467, which is much higher than
0.05, demonstrating that the lognormal random variable model for BF
appears to be reasonable. The mean, coefficient of variation (COV) and
standard deviation (SD) of the BF are 0.986, 0.066 and 0.065, respec-
tively, showing a statistically low error for the proposed model.
2.4. Assessment with centrifuge tests
Further validations of the developed model are performed with
centrifuge tests [8,41]. Das and Dallo [41] used centrifuge modelling to
evaluate the bearing capacity of strip footings on sand overlying clay.
The footing width B was 0.076 m, and the sand thickness ranged from
0.076 m to 0.152 m. The friction angle of the sand was φ = 43.5°. The

3
G. Zheng, et al. Computers and Geotechnics 115 (2019) 103151

Fig. 4. Design charts of the bearing capacity ratio R for strip footings on sand overlying clay.

normalized shear strength of the clay was c/γB = 9.29. In the cen- layer was 1.12–2.36.
trifuge tests of Okamura et al. [8], the normalized geometric condition Figs. 9 and 10 show comparisons between the calculated results (qc/
H/B was 1.0–4.0 m. The soil weight was 9.74 kN/m3. The friction angle γB) from Eq. (3), Okamura et al. [20] and Eshkevari et al. [24] and the
of the sand was 47°, and the dimensionless shear strength of the clay measured results (qm/γB) of Das and Dallo [41] and Okamura et al. [8],

Fig. 5. Transition of failure mechanisms for (a–c) increasing H/B for φ = 40°, c/γB = 1; (d–f) increasing c/γB for φ = 40°, H/B = 2.5; (g–i) increasing φ for c/γB = 1,
H/B = 3.
4
G. Zheng, et al.
Fig. 6. Performance of Eq. (3) with respect to solutions of DLO.
Fig. 7. Probability distribution function (PDF) of model bias.
Fig. 8. Cumulative distribution function (CDF) of model basis.
5
Computers and Geotechnics 115 (2019) 103151
Fig. 9. Comparison between Eq. (3), Okamura et al. [20] and Eshkevari et al.
[24] for the centrifuge tests of Das and Dallo [41].
Fig. 10. Comparison between Eq. (3), Okamura et al. [20] and Eshkevari et al.
[24] for the centrifuge tests of Okamura et al. [8].
respectively. Based on the observation of centrifuge tests, Okamura
et al. [20] developed a limit equilibrium solution in which the influence
of a positive dispersion angle αp and the shear resistance of the sand
were simultaneously taken into account. Based on a similar mechanism
of Okamura et al. [20], Eshkevari et al. [24] adopted the limit equili-
brium method to develop a new model, in which the dispersion angle αp
can be negative or zero. The αp value and the resistance coefficient
along the slip surface in the sand were determined by the observations
of finite element limit analysis [42,43]. As shown in Figs. 9 and 10, all
of the estimated values exhibit an error of less than 20% from the 1:1
line. Okamura et al. [20] provided a reasonable prediction for the
centrifuge tests of Okamura et al. [8], as shown in Fig. 10. However, an
overestimate on the measured results of Das and Dallo [41] is observed
in Fig. 9. This is because a positive dispersion angle αp was assumed in
Okamura et al. [20], which is inconsistent with the results of Das and
Dallo [41]. The regression-based method is slightly greater than that of
Eshkevari et al. [24] because the current approach is developed based
on the upper bound solution. Generally, Eshkevari et al. [24] and the
proposed regression-based method provide reliable predictions for both
G. Zheng, et al.
centrifuge tests.
3. Conclusions
In this technical note, a set of reduction coefficients R for the
bearing capacity of strip footings on sand overlying clay is presented in
design charts. Increases in H/B and c/γB yield a large R, whereas an
increase in φ leads to a decrease in R. A simplified regression-based
model, relevant to wide ranges of geometric and soil strength para-
meters, is developed. This model is directly developed with the results
attained from DLO. Compared with analytical solutions using various
limit equilibrium methods, it does not require assumptions about the
formulation of static equilibrium or a priori failure mechanism.
The model uncertainty of the proposed approach is characterized
using the results attained from DLO. The validations with centrifuge
tests further demonstrate the accuracy and reliability of the developed
model. Thus, the developed model can be treated as an alternative
approach for preliminary design in engineering practice. Note that the
current model is derived from the upper bound solutions of DLO;
however, a new model with different coefficients can be obtained based
on the solutions of other numerical methods.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (Nos. 51708405 and 51378345).
References
[1] Terzaghi K. Theoretical soil mechanics. New York: Wiley; 1943.
[2] Zheng G, Zhao J, Zhou H, et al. Ultimate bearing capacity of strip footings on sand
overlying clay under inclined loading. Comput Geotech 2019;106:266–73.
[3] Vesic AS. Analysis of ultimate loads of shallow foundations. J Soil Mech Found Div
1973;99(sm1).
[4] Burd HJ, Frydman S. Bearing capacity of plane-strain footings on layered soils. Can
Geotech J 1997;34:241–53.
[5] Zhou H, Zheng G, Yin X, et al. The bearing capacity and failure mechanism of a
vertically loaded strip footing placed on the top of slopes. Compu Geotech
2018;94:12–21.
[6] Rao P, Liu Y, Cui J. Bearing capacity of strip footings on two-layered clay under
combined loading. Compu Geotech 2015;69:210–8.
[7] Kenny MJ, Andrawes KZ. The bearing capacity of footings on a sand layer overlying
soft clay. Geotechnique 1997;47:339–45.
[8] Okamura M, Takemura J, Kimura T. Centrifuge model tests on bearing capacity and
deformation of sand layer overlying clay. Soils Found 1997;37:73–88.
[9] Teh KL, Cassidy MJ, Leung CF, et al. Revealing the bearing capacity mechanisms of
a penetrating spudcan through sand overlying clay. Geotechnique
2008;58(10):793–804.
[10] Teh KL, Leung CF, Chow YK, et al. Centrifuge model study of spudcan penetration in
sand overlying clay. Geotechnique 2010;60(11):825.
[11] Hu P, Stanier SA, Cassidy MJ, et al. Predicting peak resistance of spudcan pene-
trating sand overlying clay. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2013;140(2):04013009.
[12] Hossain MS, Hu Y, Ekaputra D. Skirted foundation to mitigate spudcan punch-
through on sand-over-clay. Géotechnique 2014;64(4):333.
[13] Shiau JS, Lyamin AV, Sloan SW. Bearing capacity of a sand layer on clay by finite
Computers and Geotechnics 115 (2019) 103151
element limit analysis. Can Geotech J 2003;40(5):900–15.
[14] Qiu G, Grabe J. Numerical investigation of bearing capacity due to spudcan pene-
tration in sand overlying clay. Can Geotech J 2012;49(12):1393–407.
[15] Lee KK, Cassidy MJ, Randolph MF. Bearing capacity on sand overlying clay soils,
experimental and finite-element investigation of potential punch-through failure.
Géotechnique 2013;63(15):1271.
[16] Hu P, Wang D, Cassidy MJ, et al. Predicting the resistance profile of a spudcan
penetrating sand overlying clay. Can Geotech J 2014;51(10):1151–64.
[17] Michalowski RL, Shi L. Bearing capacity of footings over two-layer foundation soils.
J Geotech Eng 1995;121(5):421–8.
[18] Huang M, Qin HL. Upper-bound multi-rigid-block solutions for bearing capacity of
two-layered soils. Comput Geotech 2009;36:525–9.
[19] Terzaghi K, Peck RB, Mesri G. Soil mechanics in engineering practice. New York:
John Wiley and Sons Publication; 1948.
[20] Okamura M, Takemura J, Kimura T. Bearing capacity predictions of sand overlying
clay based on limit equilibrium methods. Soils Found 1998;38:181–94.
[21] Meyerhof GG. Ultimate bearing capacity of footings on sand layer overlying clay.
Can Geotech J 1974;11(2):223–9.
[22] Hanna AM, Meyerhof GG. Design charts for ultimate bearing capacity of founda-
tions on sand overlying soft clay. Can Geotech J 1980;17(2):300–3.
[23] Tang C, Phoon KK, Zhang L, et al. Model uncertainty for predicting the bearing
capacity of sand overlying clay. Int J Geomech 2017;17(7):04017015.
[24] Salimi Eshkevari S, Abbo AJ, Kouretzis G. Bearing capacity of strip footings on sand
over clay. Can Geotech J 2019;999:1–11.
[25] Limit State. Limit state, Geo manual v 3.0. Sheffield (UK); 2013.
[26] Zhao LH, Huang S, Zhang R, et al. Stability analysis of irregular cavities using upper
bound finite element limit analysis method. Comput Geotech 2018;103:1–12.
[27] Zhao LH, Li DJ, Li L, et al. Three-dimensional stability analysis of a longitudinally
inclined shallow tunnel face. Comput Geotech 2017;87:32–48.
[28] Leshchinsky B, Xie YG. Bearing capacity for spread footings placed near c-ϕ′ slopes.
J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2016;143(1):06016020.
[29] Leshchinsky B. Bearing capacity of footings placed adjacent to c′-ϕ′ slopes. J
Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2015;141(6):04015022.
[30] Smith C, Gilbert M. Identification of rotational failure mechanisms in cohesive
media using discontinuity layout optimization. Geotechnique
2013;63(14):1194–208.
[31] Zhou H, Zheng G, He X, et al. Bearing capacity of strip footings on c–φ soils with
square voids. Acta Geotech 2018:1–9.
[32] Wang L, Leshchinsky B, Evans TM, et al. Active and passive arching stresses in c′-φ′
soils: a sensitivity study using computational limit analysis. Comput Geotech
2017;84:47–57.
[33] Bolton MD, Lau CK. Vertical bearing capacity factors for circular and strip footings
on Mohr-Coulomb soil. Can Geotech J 1993;30(6):1024–33.
[34] Meyerhof GG. Some recent research on the bearing capacity of foundations. Can
Geotech J 1963;1(1):16–26.
[35] Hjiaj M, Lyamin AV, Sloan SW. Numerical limit analysis solutions for the bearing
capacity factor Nγ. Int J Solids Struct 2005;42:1681–704.
[36] Lyamin AV, Salgado R, Sloan SW, Prezzi M. Two- and three-dimensional bearing
capacity of footings in sand. Geotechnique 2007;57:647–62.
[37] Ukritchon B, Whittle AJ, Klangvijit C. Calculations of bearing capacity factor Nγ
using numerical limit analyses. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2003;129(5):468–74.
[38] Chen WF. Limit analysis and soil plasticity. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1975.
[39] Vahedifard F, Leshchinsky B, Sehat S, et al. Impact of cohesion on seismic design of
geosynthetic-reinforced earth structures. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
2014;140(6):04014016.
[40] Corder GW, Foreman DI. Nonparametric statistics: a stepby-step approach. 2nd ed.
Hoboken NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2014.
[41] Das BM, Dallo KF. Bearing capacity of shallow foundations on a strong sand layer
underlain by soft clay. Civ Eng Pract Des Eng 1984;3:417–38.
[42] Lyamin AV, Sloan SW. Lower bound limit analysis using non-linear programming.
Int J Numer Methods Eng 2002;55:573–611.
[43] Lyamin AV, Sloan SW. Upper bound limit analysis using linear finite elements and
non-linear programming. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 2002;26:181–216.