Ultimate bearing capacity of foundations on layered soils under inclined load

G.G.MEYERHOF
A N D A . M . HANNA'
Depcirrltzct~rof Civil Et~girrceritrg,N o w Scorirr Tcclrtzictrl Collegc, Hrrlijirs, N . S . , Crrtlrrdcr B S J Z X 4
Received April 5, 1978
Accepted July 12, 1978

The ultimate bearing capacity of footings resting on subsoils consisting of two layers has been
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by CONCORDIA UNIV on 02/12/15

investigated for the cases of a dense or stiff layer overlying a weak deposit, and a loose or soft
layer overlying a firm deposit. The analyses of different modes of soil failure are compared with
the results of model tests on circular and strip footings on layered sand and clay soils.

La force portante des fondations reposant sur des sols bi-couches a ete etudiee pour les cas oil
une couche dense oti raide repose stir une couche molle, et ou une couche llche ou molle repose
sur un dep6t raide. Les analyses theoriques de differents schemns de rupture du sol sont
comparees aux resultats d'essais sur modeles riduits de semelles circulaires et filantes reposant
sur des sols bi-couches de sols sableux et argileux.
Can. Geotech. J.. 15,565-572 (1978)

Introduction c1 and friction angle is pushed into the under-

The ultimate bearing capacity of foundations is lying deposit (unit cohesion c2 and friction angle
usually estimated on the assumption that the soil +.) approximately in the direction of the applied
is relatively uniform within the zones of shear de- load (Fig. 1 ).
formation beneath the foundation. When founda- As in the case of a vertical load, the forces on
For personal use only.

tions are subjected to inclined loads, the influence the actual punching failure surface in the upper
of nonuniformity, including anisotropy of the soil, layer can be taken as equivalent to a total adhesion
becomes more important than under vertical load C,, and a total passive earth pressure P,, inclined
(Meyerhof 1978). The previous methods of esti- at an average angle 6 acting upwards on an
mating the bearing capacity of layered soils assumed plane which passes through the footing
under vertical load (Brown and Meyerhof 1969; edge and is inclined at an angle D to the vertical.
Meyerhof 1974) can readily be extended to cover Hence, for a strip footing of width B and depth D
inclined loading conditions. As before, two main at a distance H above the surface of the weak
cases of subsoils consisting of two layers will be deposit, the vertical component q,,,. of the ultimate
considered, namely a dense or stiff layer overlying bearing capacity q,, in the direction of the load is,
a weak deposit, and a loose or soft layer overlying approximately, given by
a firm deposit. The analyses of different modes of
soil failure will be compared with the results of
model tests on circular and strip footings on
layered sand and clay soils.
Strong Layer Overlying Weak Deposit
Theory
If a footing rests on a relatively thin strong layer
above a weak deposit, it may break through the
strong stratum into the weak soil. An approximate
theory of the ultimate bearing capacity of a footing
under a central load inclined at an angle u to the
vertical and punching through a thin layer into a
thick underlying deposit can be developed by con-
sidering the failure as an inverted uplift problem
under axial load (Meyerhof 1973). Thus, at the
ultimate load, a soil mass of roughly truncated
pyramidal shape of the upper layer (unit cohesion
'Present address: Department of Civil Engineering, FIG. 1. Failure of soil below footing under inclined load
Concordia University, Montreal, P.Q., Canada H3G 1M8. o n strong layer overlying weak deposit.
 566 C A N . GEOTECH J . VOL. I S . 1978

where qI,, and q,, are vertical components of the Test Results Strip Circle
ultimate bearing capacity under inclined loads qi, Layered Sand (Fig.5 ) x o
and q, on thick beds of the lower and the upper Sand Above Clay (Fig. 6 ) * 0
soil, respectively (Meyerhof 1953) and -1, = unit Dto. (Dembicki 1973 ) A
weight of the upper soil.
Further, 1.0

[21 C., = c , H/ cos a

0.8
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by CONCORDIA UNIV on 02/12/15

and
[3] P,, = 0 . 5 y , H q l +2Dcoscc/H)Kp/cos6
0.6
where c,, = unit adhesion and K,, = coefficient
passive earth pressure on an k u m e d inclined
punching shear plane. In practice it is convenient
0.L
to use inclination factors i,, and i, in conjunc-
tion with the adhesion c,, and coefficient of punch-
ing shear K,, respectively, under vertical load
0.2
(Meyerhof 1974). Thus, after substitution of [2]
and 131, eq. [ I ] may be written
PI quv = q,, + 2c,ic,H/B + y, H2(1 + 2 0 cos a / H )
x K,i, tan $ , / B - y, H
5 (I," INCLINLiI7ON OF LOAD
For personal use only.

The punching shear coefficient K, and the in- FIG. 3. Inclination factors for punching shear resistance.

Yamaguchi (1963) 36'

0 . 2 F h i : k I
z
I For Other Symbols
CJ
z
G
\ See Fig. 3
206 0
0 0.2 0.L 0.6 0.8 1.0
BEARING CAPACITY RATIO q 2 / q i
FIG.4. Punching shear parameters under vertical load.

clination factors ill and is have been determined

from the corresponding governing earth pressure
coefficient K,, (Caquot and Kerisel 1949) and are
shown in Figs. 2 and 3, respectively, for various
friction angles and ratios of 6/41. The ratios of
ANGLE OF INTERNAL FRICTION $, the punching shear parameters of cJcl and 6/+1
decrease from about unity near the footing edge
FIG.2. Coeficients of punching shear resistance under to a small value near the weak soil surface. Trial
vertical load. calculations for either layered sand using the
 MEYERHOF AND HANNA

Width B = 5 0 rn
(b)
D/B = 0 Depth Inclination
D/B =1 For Legend Width Of Load
See Fig. 5 a D/B ~c
300,
,'-.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by CONCORDIA UNIV on 02/12/15

no
Bearing Capacity
Ratio q2/q1 = 0.08
For personal use only.

LAYER THICKNESS BELOW FOOTING H LAYER THICKNESS BELOW FOOTING

WIDTH OF FOOTING B WIDTH OF FOOTING 0
FIG.5. Typical results of model footing tests on dense sand overlying loose sand: ( a ) strip footings, ( B )
circular footings.

logarithmic spiral method or for layered clay using cylindrical surface through the footing edge (Fig.
the circular arc method have shown that the ratios 1 ) . Thus [ 4 ] becomes
of the punching shear parameters increase mainly
with the bearing capacity ratio q2/ql of the layers, [5] q,, = q b v + 4 c , i ~ ; , H / B 2f y l H 2
where q l and q, are the ultimate bearing capacities x (1 + 2 0 cos w/H)Ksissstan + , / B - y , H
of strip footing under vertical load on the surfaces Cltv
of homogeneous thick beds of upper and lower
soil, respectively (Fig. 4 ) . Similar trial calculations where si, and s, = shape factors for punching shear
for a sand layer overlying a clay 2eposit have resistance on cylindrical surface. Although the
shown that the average value of the ratio S/+l in values of s;,and s, can be determined from ap-
the sand increases mainly with the bearing capacity proximate earth pressure theories and the results
ratio q2/ql of the layers and follows a relationship of the model tests given below, they may be taken
similar to that of layered sand. As a result, the as unity for preliminary estimates, especially for
corresponding values of the coefficient of punching small ratios of H / B .
shear K, for various friction angles 41 can ap- The ultimate bearing capacities ql,, and q,,. in
proximately be related to the bearing capacity [ 4 ] and 151 can be represented by (Meyerhof 1963;
ratio q2/q, of the layers, as shown in Fig. 2. Hansen 1970)
The analysis for strip footings can be extended
to circular footings by determining the passive
resistance P,, inclined at an angle 6 on an inclined
 568 C A N . GEOTECH J. VOL. 15. 1978

respectively, and the subscripts 1 and 2 refer to

the upper and lower soil, respectively.
The ultimate bearing capacity of rectangular
footings of width B and length L can be obtained
by interpolation between the above-mentioned
bearing capacities of strips and circles, as for
vertical loads (Meyerhof 1974). Further, the
ultimate bearing capacity of footings under an
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by CONCORDIA UNIV on 02/12/15

inclined load with an eccentricity of e can be

estimated by using in the above equations an effec-
tive footing width (Meyerhof 1953) of

The ultimate bearing capacity of a footing group

is the smaller value of either the sum of the
ultimate loads of the individual footings or the
bearing capacity of an equivalent raft foundation
consisting of the footings and enclosed soil mass
of the upper layer on which the punching shear
LAYER THICKNESS BELOW FOOTING -
H resistance acts only on the perimeter of the equiv-
WIDTH OF FOOTING B
alent raft.
FIG.6. Typical results of model footing tests on dense
sand 0verlyir.g soft clay. Tests
For personal use only.

Model tests on rough strip and circular footings

and of 50 and 75 rnrn width under central inclined
[71 q,, = ~ , ~ , , i , , s ,+, Y ~ D N , , ~ , ~ ~ , , loads varying from 0-30' with the vertical were
made on the surface and at shallow depth in dense
+ 0.5.f,BN.,1i.f,s.fl sand and stiff clay layers overlying a sand or clay
where N,., N,,, and N , are bearing capacity factors bed of various strengths at the Nova Scotia
for strip footing under vertical load, i and s are Technical College (Hanna 1978; Kim 1978). The
bearing capacity inclination and shape factors, sand was a well-graded medium to coarse angular

INCLINA-[ION OF LOAD a
FIG.7. Experimental punching shear coefficients for model tests on layered sand and sand overlying clay.
 MEYERHOF AND HANNA

+Strip e Circle Depth E-=

l
Width B=75mm Width B
Average Cohesion
c1=65 KPa , c 2 = 2 0 K P a
Average Bearing Capacity Ratio
42/41 = 0.3
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by CONCORDIA UNIV on 02/12/15

6
1 Inclination Of Load cc
For personal use only.

LAYER THICKNESS BELOW FOOTING H LAYER THICKNESS BELOW F O m H

WIDTH OF FOOTING B WIDTH OF FOOTING B
FIG.8. Typical results of model footing tests on stiff clay overlying soft clay: ((I) strip footings, ( b ) circular
footings.

silica sand which was poured from different heights bearing capacity decreases rapidly with a greater
to relative densities of 0.22 (loose), 0.46 (com- inclination of the load, as had been found in tests
pact), and 0.69 (dense). The inorganic clay of on homogeneous soils (Meyerhof 1953; Muhs and
medium plasticity was made more brittle by the Weiss 1975). On the other hand, for a given load
addition of 2-3% of lime. After being packed into
large footing test boxes, the clay was allowed to cure
for about 1 week before testing. The footings were
loaded to failure within a few minutes to minimize
moisture migration. The ultimate bearing capacity WEAK SOlL
occurred generally at a settlement of 5-25% of the
footing width depending on the bearing capacity
ratio q d q , of the soil layers, and the failure settle- STRONG SOlL 82
ment decreased with an increase of the load in- 4b
clination while the corresponding horizontal footing (42 C2a+2
movement increased.
Typical test results of strip and circular footings
on layered sand (Fig. 5 ri, b ) and on a sand layer FIG.9. Failure of soil below footing under inclined load
overlying clay (Fig. 6 ) show that the ultimate o n weak layer overlying strong deposit.
 570 CAN. GEOTECH I. VOL. 15. 1975

LOO-
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by CONCORDIA UNIV on 02/12/15

-250
For Legend
Width See Fig. 5 a

>-
t Inclination
For personal use only.

0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 m

LAYER THICKNESS BELOW FOOTING -
H
WIDTH OF FOOTING B

FIG.10. Typical results of model footing tests o n loose sand overlying dense sand: (a) strip footings, ( b )
circular footings.

inclination the ultimate bearing capacity increases for strips, and the corresponding shape factor s,
rapidly with the thickness of the upper dense sand decreases somewhat with greater load inclination
layer to a maximum value for a thick upper soil and footing depth and has an average value of
deposit. In order to compare the test results with about 1.2. However, pending f~irtherinvestigations
the proposed theory, the experimental coefficients for other sand densities a shape factor of unity
of punching shear Ksisin [4] and K,i,s,in [5] have should be used.
been determined for strip and circular footings, Good agreement is found between the deduced
respectively, on upper layers of thicknesses smaller and theoretical punching friction ratios of 8/41
than the critical values. These critical thickness for strip footings on layered sand under vertical
ratios of H / B decrease as the load inclination in- load at various bearing capacity ratios of q2/q1
creases. The test results after a small correction (Fig. 4 ) . A similar analysis has been made of the
for the effect of footing settlement at failure results of the present tests and some previousIy
(Fig. 7 ) show that the deduced punching coeffi- reviewed earlier experiments and field observations
cients increase with the embedment ratio D / B of (Meyerhof 1974) on footings resting on a sand
the footing due to the shear strength of the over- layer overlying a clay deposit with various bearing
burden. The deduced punching shear coefficients capacity ratios of q,/q,. The corresponding de-
decrease rapidly with greater load inclination and duced ratios of 6/+i increase with the value of
the values of K, and is for strip footings agree fairly q J q , and conform roughly with the theoretical
well with the proposed theory (Figs. 3, 7 ) . The estimates (Fig. 4 ) . These analyses indicate that
punching coefficients for circles are greater than for preliminary bearing capacity estimates in prac-
 MEYERHOF AND HANNA 57 1

tice an average value of about = 0.5 may be 1.0

used to determine the punching shear coefficient
K, for footings under vertical load on layered sand
or on a sand layer overlying a clay deposit. 0.8
Typical test results of strip and circular footings
on layered clay (Fig. 8 a, b) also show that the
ultimate bearing capacity decreases rapidly with a 0.6
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by CONCORDIA UNIV on 02/12/15

greater inclination of the load. For a given load

inclination the ultimate bearing capacity increases
approximately linearly with the thickness of the 0.4
upper stiff layer to a maximum value for a thick
upper soil deposit. For comparison with the pro-
posed theory the experimental data have been 0.2
analysed to determine the ratios of the punching
shear parameters c,,i,,/cl in 141 and c,,i,,s,,/clin [S]
for strip and circular footings, respectively, on 0
upper layers of thicknesses smaller than the critical 0 10" 20" 30° 40" 50"
values. These deduced ratios decrease rapidly with INCLINATION OF LOAD or
greater load inclination, and the values of cJc,
and i:, for strip footings agree fairly well with the FIG. 1 1 . Inclination factors f o r bearing capacity.
proposed theory (Figs. 3, 4 ) . Although the punch-
ing shear parameter for circles is found to be
For personal use only.

failure by sliding of the footing is approached

somewhat smaller than that for strips, the cor- (Meyerhof 1953).
responding average shape factor s:, of about 0.9 If a uniform load is carried by a flexible founda-
may for practical purposes be taken as unity. tion, the possibility of a local edge failure has to
Moreover, for preliminary bearing capacity esti- be considered by using an effective reduccd width
mates in practice an average value of about of the foundation, as shown previously (Meyerhof
c,,/cI = 0.75 may be used for footings on layered 1974).
clay under vertical load, as suggested previously
(Brown and Meyerhof 1969). Tests
Model tests as mentioned previously were
Weak Layer Overlying Strong Deposit carried out on strip and circular footings resting
Theory on loose sand overlying dense sand under various
If the ultimate bearing capacity of the upper soil inclinations of the load. Previously model tests had
been made on footings under vertical load on soft
stratum (q,) is much smaller than that of the
underlying deposit (q,), the weak soil mass be- clay overlying stiff clay (Brown and Meyerhof
neath a footing on a thin weak layer may fail
1969) and on loose sand overlying stiff clay
laterally by squeezing (Fig. 9). It was shown (Meyerhof 1974). Typical results of the present
tests (Fig. 10 a, b) show a rapid decrease of the
(Meycrhof 1974) that the corresponding bearing
capacity of a footing may be estimated by the ultimate bearing capacity with greater upper layer
thickness to a minimum value for a thick upper
approxiniate semi-empirical relationship of
soil deposit, and the observations support the
parabolic relationship of [9]. Figure 10 also shows
that for a given upper layer thickness the bearing
capacity decreases rapidly with greater load inclina-
where H f= depth of failure surface beneath footing tion. The corresponding inclination factors i, and
in thick bed of upper soil, and the bearing capac- i,, for strip footings compare well with the theoret-
ities q,,\. and q,\- are given by [6] and [7], respec- ical values for homogeneous soils (Fig. I 1) . These
tively. The depth ratio of H,/B for strip footings factors are found to be practically independent of
under vertical load varies roughly from 1 for clay the upper layer thickness, as would be expected
and loose sand to 2 for dense sand, whereas for theoretically. The inclination factors for circles are
circular footings a value of 1 may be used for all greater than those for strips, especially the value
soils (Meyerhof 1955). These ratios decrease with of i,, due to the relatively larger passive earth
a greater load inclination to a ratio of zero when pressure on the footing sides (Meyerhof 1953).
 572 CAN. GEOTECH. J . VOL. 15. 1978

Conclusions HANNA, A. M. 1978. Bearing capacity of footings under vertical

and inclined loads on layered soils. Ph.D. thesis, Nova Scotia
The ultimate bearing capacity of footings o n a Technical College, Halifax, N.S.
dense or stiff layer overlying a weak deposit under HANSEN, J. 1970. A revised and extended formula for bearing
inclined load can be expressed by inclination capacity. Danish Geotechnical Institute, Copenhagen, Bulle-
factors in conjunction with punching shear coeffi- tin, 28, pp. 5-1 1.
K I M ,S. W. 1978. Bearing capacity of footings on two-layered
cients, which depend on the shear strength param- clay under inclined load. M.Eng. thesis, Nova Scotia Techni-
eters and bearing capacity ratio of the layers under cal College, Halifax, N.S.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by CONCORDIA UNIV on 02/12/15

vertical load. For foundations o n a loose or soft MEYERHOF, G. G. 1953. The bearing capacity of foundations
layer overlying a firm deposit under inclined load under eccentric and inclined loads. Proceedings, 3rd Interna-
the previous semi-empirical interaction relationship tional Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation En-
gineering, Zurich, Vol. I, pp. 440-445.
can be modified by inclination factors for homo- 1955. Influence of roughness of base and ground-water
geneous soils. Theory and test results show that conditions on ultimate bearing capacity of foundations.
the influence of the upper soil layer thickness be- Geotechnique, 5, pp. 227-242.
neath the footing depends mainly on the shear 1963. Some recent research on the bearing capacity of
foundations. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 1, pp. 1&26.
strength parameters and bearing capacity ratio of 1973. Uplift resistance of inclined anchors and piles.
the layers, the shape and depth of the foundation, Proceedings, 8th International Conference on Soil Mechanics
and the inclination of the load. and Foundation Engineering, Moscow, Vol. 2, Pt. 1, pp.
167-172.
Acknowledgement 1974. Ultimate bearing capacity offootings on sand layer
overlying clay. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 11, pp.
The research at the Nova Scotia Technical Col- 223-229.
lege was carried out with the financial support of 1978. Bearing capacity of anisotropic cohesionless soils.
the National Research Council of Canada. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 15,pp. 592-595.
For personal use only.

MUHS, H., and WEISS,K. 1975. Die Grenztragfiihigkeit von

BROWN,J . D., and MEYERHOF, G. G. 1969. An experimental flach gegrundeten Streifenfundamenten unter geneigter Be-
study of the ultimate bearing capacity of layered clay founda- lastung nach Theorie und Versuch. Degebo, Berlin, Bulletin
tions. Proceedings, 7th International Conference on Soil 31, pp. 1-97.
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Mexico, Vol. 2, pp. TCHENG, Y. 1957. Fondations superficielles en milieu stratifie.
45-5 1. Proceedings, 4th International Conference on Soil Mechanics
CAQUOT,A., itnd KERISEL, L. 1949. T ~ a i t ede mecanique des and Foundation Engineering, London, Vol. I, pp. 449-452.
sols. Gauthier-Villars, Paris, France. YAMACUCHI, H. 1963. Practical formulaofbearing value for two
DEMBICKI, E., and ODROBINSKI, W. 1973. A contribution to the layer grotrnd. Proceedings, 2nd Asian Conference on Soil
tests on the bearing capacity of stratified subsoil under found- Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Tokyo, Vol. 1. pp.
ations. Proceedings, 8th International Conference on Soil 176- 180.
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Moscow, Vol. 1, Pt.
3, pp. 61-64.
 This article has been cited by:

1. Qiming Chen, Murad Abu-Farsakh. 2015. Ultimate bearing capacity analysis of strip footings on reinforced soil foundation. Soils
and Foundations . [CrossRef]
2. Adel M. Hanna, Mustafa Yulek. 2014. Impact compaction on a subgrade layer overlying deep deposit. International Journal of
Pavement Engineering 15, 742-751. [CrossRef]
3. Kamal Mohamed Hafez Ismail Ibrahim. 2014. Bearing capacity of circular footing resting on granular soil overlying soft clay.
HBRC Journal . [CrossRef]
4. V. D. H. Tran, M. A. Meguid, L. E. Chouinard. 2014. Three-Dimensional Analysis of Geogrid-Reinforced Soil Using a Finite-
Discrete Element Framework. International Journal of Geomechanics 04014066. [CrossRef]
5. Jong-Beom Park, Jae-Woo Ju, Jang-Heung Kim. 2014. Evaluation on Bearing Capacity of Dredging Ground by Field Loading
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by CONCORDIA UNIV on 02/12/15

Test. Journal of the Korean Geosynthetic Society 13, 53-61. [CrossRef]

6. E. T. R. Dean. 2013. Predicting Punchthrough of Jackup Spudcans on Sand over Clay. International Journal of Geomechanics
13, 869-876. [CrossRef]
7. Ahmet Demir, Mustafa Laman, Abdulazim Yildiz, Murat Ornek. 2013. Large scale field tests on geogrid-reinforced granular fill
underlain by clay soil. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 38, 1-15. [CrossRef]
8. Fathi M. Abdrabbo, Khaled E. Gaaver. 2013. Undrained behavior of auger cast-in-place piles in multilayered soil. Alexandria
Engineering Journal 52, 187-195. [CrossRef]
9. G. Madhavi Latha, Amit Somwanshi, K. Hariprasad Reddy. 2013. A Multiple Regression Equation for Prediction of Bearing
Capacity of Geosynthetic Reinforced Sand Beds. Indian Geotechnical Journal . [CrossRef]
10. D.K. Karamitros, G.D. Bouckovalas, Y.K. Chaloulos. 2013. Seismic settlements of shallow foundations on liquefiable soil with
a clay crust. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 46, 64-76. [CrossRef]
11. D.K. Karamitros, G.D. Bouckovalas, Y.K. Chaloulos, K.I. Andrianopoulos. 2013. Numerical analysis of liquefaction-induced
For personal use only.

bearing capacity degradation of shallow foundations on a two-layered soil profile. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 44,
90-101. [CrossRef]
12. QiuGang, GrabeJürgen. 2012. Numerical investigation of bearing capacity due to spudcan penetration in sand overlying clay.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 49:12, 1393-1407. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
13. Sascha Henke, Gang Qiu, Tim Pucker. 2012. Spudcans als Gründungsform für Offshore-Hubplattformen. Bautechnik 89,
831-840. [CrossRef]
14. K. Rajyalakshmi, Madhira R. Madhav, K. Ramu. 2012. Bearing Capacity of Reinforced Strip Foundation Beds on Compressible
Clays. Indian Geotechnical Journal . [CrossRef]
15. S. Benmebarek, S. Benmoussa, L. Belounar, N. Benmebarek. 2012. Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundation on Two Clay Layers
by Numerical Approach. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 30, 907-923. [CrossRef]
16. Dimitrios K. Karamitros, George D. Bouckovalas, Yannis K. Chaloulos. 2012. Insight into the Seismic Liquefaction Performance
of Shallow Foundations. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 120801060815001. [CrossRef]
17. Samrat Mohanty, Tom Vandergrift. 2012. Long term stability evaluation of an old underground gas storage cavern using unique
numerical methods. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 30, 145-154. [CrossRef]
18. Sang-Hyun Jun, Nam-Jae Yoo, Kun-Sun Yoo. 2011. Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundation on a Finite Layer of Sandy Ground
Underlain by a Rigid Base. Journal of the Korean Geotechnical Society 27, 39-48. [CrossRef]
19. Long Yu, Jun Liu, Xian-jing Kong, Yuxia Hu. 2011. Three-Dimensional Large Deformation FE Analysis of Square Footings in
Two-Layered Clays. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 137, 52-58. [CrossRef]
20. K. Ramu, Madhira R. Madhav. 2010. Response of rigid footing on reinforced granular fill over soft soil. Geomechanics and
Engineering 2, 281-302. [CrossRef]
21. Qiming Chen, Murad Abu-Farsakh, Radhey Sharma. 2009. Experimental and Analytical studies of reinforced crushed limestone.
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 27, 357-367. [CrossRef]
22. Y.L. Kuo, M.B. Jaksa, A.V. Lyamin, W.S. Kaggwa. 2009. ANN-based model for predicting the bearing capacity of strip footing
on multi-layered cohesive soil. Computers and Geotechnics 36, 503-516. [CrossRef]
23. Radhey Sharma, Qiming Chen, Murad Abu-Farsakh, Sungmin Yoon. 2009. Analytical modeling of geogrid reinforced soil
foundation. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 27, 63-72. [CrossRef]
 24. Fa-qian Liu, Jian-hua Wang, Lu-lu Zhang. 2008. Axi-symmetric active earth pressure for layered backfills obtained by the slip
line method. Journal of Shanghai Jiaotong University (Science) 13, 579-584. [CrossRef]
25. Adel Hanna, Riad Al-Romhein. 2008. At-Rest Earth Pressure of Overconsolidated Cohesionless Soil. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering 134, 408-412. [CrossRef]
26. M. Donato, N. C. Consoli, J. Graham, A. Thomé. 2008. Loading tests on compacted soil, bottom-ash and lime layers. Proceedings
of the ICE - Geotechnical Engineering 161, 29-38. [CrossRef]
27. A. Kumar, M. L. Ohri, R. K. Bansal. 2007. Bearing capacity tests of strip footings on reinforced layered soil. Geotechnical and
Geological Engineering 25, 139-150. [CrossRef]
28. R. S. Merifield, V. Q. Nguyen. 2006. Two- and three-dimensional bearing-capacity solutions for footings on two-layered clays.
Geomechanics and Geoengineering 1, 151-162. [CrossRef]
29. Arvind Kumar, B. S. Walia. 2006. Bearing capacity of square footings on reinforced layered soil. Geotechnical and Geological
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by CONCORDIA UNIV on 02/12/15

Engineering 24, 1001-1008. [CrossRef]

30. Antônio Thomé, Maciel Donato, Nilo Cesar Consoli, James Graham. 2005. Circular footings on a cemented layer above weak
foundation soil. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 42:6, 1569-1584. [Abstract] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
31. Liling Wu, Dr Jun Liu, Dr Yuxia HuPullout capacity of circular plate anchors in double-layered clays . [CrossRef]
32. Peijun Guo. 2005. Numerical Modeling of Pipe–Soil Interaction under Oblique Loading. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering 131, 260-268. [CrossRef]
33. Nilo Cesar Consoli, Márcio Antonio Vendruscolo, Pedro Domingos Marques Prietto. 2003. Behavior of Plate Load Tests on Soil
Layers Improved with Cement and Fiber. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 129, 96-101. [CrossRef]
34. Special Cases of Shallow Foundations . [CrossRef]
35. . [CrossRef]
36. S.Y. Mhaiskar, J.N. Mandal. 1996. Investigations on soft clay subgrade strengthening using geocells. Construction and Building
For personal use only.

Materials 10, 281-286. [CrossRef]

37. Radoslaw L. Michalowski, Lei Shi. 1995. Bearing Capacity of Footings over Two-Layer Foundation Soils. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering 121, 421-428. [CrossRef]
38. K.H. Khing, B.M. Das, V.K. Puri, S.C. Yen, E.E. Cook. 1994. Foundation on strong sand underlain by weak clay with geogrid
at the interface. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 13, 199-206. [CrossRef]
39. Madhira R. Madhav, J. S. N. Sharma. 1991. Bearing Capacity of Clay Overlain by Stiff Soil. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
117, 1941-1948. [CrossRef]
40. N.D.P. Barltrop, A.J. AdamsFoundations 171-248. [CrossRef]
41. Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations 206-341. [CrossRef]
42. Michael Georgiadis, Alex P. Michalopoulos. 1985. Bearing Capacity of Gravity Bases on Layered Soil. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering 111, 712-729. [CrossRef]
43. K. Schjetne, K. H. Andersen, R. Lauritzsen, O. E. Hansteen. 1979. Foundation engineering for offshore gravity structures.
Marine Geotechnology 3, 369-421. [CrossRef]