Table 3.2. Bearing capacity cases for soils with three layers.

Layer 1 Layer 2 Layer 3

Case (Top) (Middle) (Bottom)
Cl 0. Yi Cl 02 Yi Cl <h r>
(kj>a) (°) (kN/m3) (kPa) o (kN/m3) (kPa) (°) (kN/m3)
Clay “Sandwich” - Soft Cl 0 0 < c. 0 0 = C| 0 0
Centre
Clay “Sandwich” - Stiff Cl 0 0 >C | 0 0 = Cl 0 0
Centre
Clay - Strengthening With Cl 0 0 = 2c, 0 0 = 4ci 0 0
Depth
Clay - Weakening With Cl 0 0 = 0.5c, 0 0 = 0.25c, 0 0
Depth
Clay “Sandwich" - Sand 100 0 20 0 30 20 100 0 20
Centre
Sand “Sandwich” - Clay 0 30 20 100 0 20 0 30 20
Centre

It is instructive to investigate whether the solutions presented 3.3.6 Sand "sandwich" - clay centre
by Davis and Booker (1973) for strengthening soil profiles can For this case the finite element prediction of the ultimate capac­
provide reasonably accurate predictions in this case. Two of the ity. <7u> was approximately 98 kPa. This can be compared with
most obvious idealizations of the strength profile are: the prediction of the bearing capacity for a uniform sand of
86kPa, obtained using Equation (3.1) and the bearing capacity
= 0.5c, +| (3.28) factors given in Table 3.1. It can be deduced from these results
that the presence of the stiff clay beneath the sand has made a
small contribution to the bearing capacity, taking it slightly
and above the value for sand alone.
for z < B /2
For this case, it is also instructive to calculate what the ca­
pacity would be if the two-layer method proposed by Okamura
2c, (3.29) et al.. Equation (3.21), were to be used. Application of Equation
z for z> B /2 (3.21), which in this case is inappropriate, produces an ultimate
B
capacity of 812 kPa., clearly far in excess of the values quoted
Equation (3.28) is an approximation assuming strength increas­ previously for this problem. The reason for this discrepancy was
ing linearly with depth from a finite value at the surface, while explained by Okamura et al. themselves, when they pointed out
Equation (3.29) is the most obvious approximation for the case that values estimated by their method must always be compared
of a crust of constant strength overlying material whose strength with predictions for a sand layer alone, and the smaller value
increases linearly with depth. These profiles are illustrated in should be chosen as the bearing capacity of the layered subsoil.
Figure 3.24. This case therefore highlights the necessity of being aware of the
For the strength profile indicated in Equation (3.28), Figure limitations of all design methods, if very substantial errors in es­
3.14a together with Equation (3.17a) indicates an average value timating the bearing capacity are to be avoided.
of the average bearing pressure at failure for a smooth strip
footing, lm wide, of approximately 4.1c!. This estimate is well
below (approximately 80% of) the value predicted by the finite 3.4 Summary
element analysis. A much closer match to the finite element pre­ From the preceding discussion of the bearing capacity of shallow
diction is given by the case depicted in Figure 3.14b, viz. ap­ foundations, the following conclusions can be drawn.
proximately 5.15ci, indicating the dominant influence of the 1. The use of conventional theory, based on the original ap­
strength of the uppermost crustal layer and the relative insignifi­ proach suggested by Terzaghi and extended by others such as
cance in this case of the increase in strength beneath the crust. Vesic, to calculate the bearing capacity of a foundation on
homogeneous soil has stood the test of time, and is generally
3.3.4 Clay - weakening with depth regarded as being reliable for use in engineering practice.
In this slightly unusual case, which could correspond in practice Although this approach is approximate and makes a number
to a clay deposit with a thick desiccated or weathered crust of simplifying assumptions, as identified above, it is consid­
overlying weaker but probably overconsolidated clay, the ulti­ ered acceptable for most practical problems of shallow foot­
mate capacity predicted by the finite element analysis is ap­ ings on relatively homogeneous soils. However, the use of the
proximately 3.lei. This is more than 20% less than the finite outdated and inaccurate information regarding some of the
element prediction for the case of a soft centre layer discussed in bearing capacity factors, particularly the factor should be
section 3.3.1. It is also approximately 10 to 15% less than the discontinued. The factors set out in Table 3.1 are the most re­
predictions by Brown and Meyerhof and Merifield et al. for a liable values available, at least from a theoretical standpoint,
two-layered clay deposit. Clearly, in this case the weaker bottom and their use is therefore recommended.
layer has a significant influence on the overall capacity, but it is 2. Significant developments have been made in recent times
difficult to devise a simple approach for estimating the capacity concerning methods for estimating the ultimate load capacity
of the footing for this type of strength variation. of footings subjected to combinations of vertical, horizontal
and moment loading. Failure loci such as those expressed by
3.3.5 Clay "sandwich " - sand centre Equation (3.9) have been proposed, and should see increasing
In this case the ultimate capacity computed by the finite element use in geotechnical practice. However, although some ex­
model is not much less than for a uniform clay layer with perimental justification has been provided for them, there is a
undrained shear strength of 100 kPa. The sand layer has only a need for more work of this type.
small influence of the overall capacity of the footing. 3. The effective width method, commonly used in the analysis
of foundations subjected to eccentric loading, provides good

2547