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
investigated for the cases of a dense or stiff layer overlying a weak deposit, and a loose or soft
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Queens University on 05/10/13

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

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
and
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Queens University on 05/10/13

[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 Queens University on 05/10/13

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
the circular arc method have shown that the ratios
of the punching shear parameters increase mainly
with the bearing capacity ratio q2/ql of the layers,
where q l and q, are the ultimate bearing capacities
of strip footing under vertical load on the surfaces
of homogeneous thick beds of upper and lower
soil, respectively (Fig. 4 ) . Similar trial calculations
for a sand layer overlying a clay 2eposit have
shown that the average value of the ratio S/+l in
the sand increases mainly with the bearing capacity
ratio q2/ql of the layers and follows a relationship
similar to that of layered sand. As a result, the
corresponding values of the coefficient of punching
shear K, for various friction angles 41 can ap-
proximately be related to the bearing capacity
ratio q2/q, of the layers, as shown in Fig. 2.
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
cylindrical surface through the footing edge (Fig.
1 ) . Thus [ 4 ] becomes
[5] q,, = q b v + 4 c , i ~ ; , H / B 2f y l H 2
x (1 + 2 0 cos w/H)Ksissstan + , / B - y , H
Cltv
where si, and s, = shape factors for punching shear
resistance on cylindrical surface. Although the
values of s;,and s, can be determined from ap-
proximate earth pressure theories and the results
of the model tests given below, they may be taken
as unity for preliminary estimates, especially for
small ratios of H / B .
The ultimate bearing capacities ql,, and q,,. in
[ 4 ] and 151 can be represented by (Meyerhof 1963;
Hansen 1970)
 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
inclined load with an eccentricity of e can be
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Queens University on 05/10/13

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
[71 q,, = ~ , ~ , , i , , s ,+, Y ~ D N , , ~ , ~ ~ , ,
+ 0.5.f,BN.,1i.f,s.fl
where N,., N,,, and N , are bearing capacity factors
for strip footing under vertical load, i and s are
bearing capacity inclination and shape factors,
of 50 and 75 rnrn width under central inclined
loads varying from 0-30' with the vertical were
made on the surface and at shallow depth in dense
sand and stiff clay layers overlying a sand or clay
bed of various strengths at the Nova Scotia
Technical College (Hanna 1978; Kim 1978). The
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 Queens University on 05/10/13

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 Queens University on 05/10/13
For personal use only.
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
LAYER THICKNESS BELOW FOOTING
WIDTH OF FOOTING
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
rapidly with the thickness of the upper dense sand
layer to a maximum value for a thick upper soil
deposit. In order to compare the test results with
the proposed theory, the experimental coefficients
of punching shear Ksisin [4] and K,i,s,in [5] have
been determined for strip and circular footings,
respectively, on upper layers of thicknesses smaller
than the critical values. These critical thickness
ratios of H / B decrease as the load inclination in-
creases. The test results after a small correction
for the effect of footing settlement at failure
(Fig. 7 ) show that the deduced punching coeffi-
cients increase with the embedment ratio D / B of
the footing due to the shear strength of the over-
burden. The deduced punching shear coefficients
decrease rapidly with greater load inclination and
the values of K, and is for strip footings agree fairly
well with the proposed theory (Figs. 3, 7 ) . The
punching coefficients for circles are greater than
-250
For Legend
Width See Fig. 5 a
>-
t Inclination
m
-
H
B
for strips, and the corresponding shape factor s,
decreases somewhat with greater load inclination
and footing depth and has an average value of
about 1.2. However, pending f~irtherinvestigations
for other sand densities a shape factor of unity
should be used.
Good agreement is found between the deduced
and theoretical punching friction ratios of 8/41
for strip footings on layered sand under vertical
load at various bearing capacity ratios of q2/q1
(Fig. 4 ) . A similar analysis has been made of the
results of the present tests and some previousIy
reviewed earlier experiments and field observations
(Meyerhof 1974) on footings resting on a sand
layer overlying a clay deposit with various bearing
capacity ratios of q,/q,. The corresponding de-
duced ratios of 6/+i increase with the value of
q J q , and conform roughly with the theoretical
estimates (Fig. 4 ) . These analyses indicate that
for preliminary bearing capacity estimates in prac-
 MEYERHOF AND HANNA
tice an average value of about = 0.5 may be
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.
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
greater inclination of the load. For a given load
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Queens University on 05/10/13
inclination the ultimate bearing capacity increases
approximately linearly with the thickness of the
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
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
upper layers of thicknesses smaller than the critical
values. These deduced ratios decrease rapidly with
greater load inclination, and the values of cJc,
and i:, for strip footings agree fairly well with the
proposed theory (Figs. 3, 4 ) . Although the punch-
ing shear parameter for circles is found to be
For personal use only.
somewhat smaller than that for strips, the cor-
responding average shape factor s:, of about 0.9
may for practical purposes be taken as unity.
Moreover, for preliminary bearing capacity esti-
mates in practice an average value of about
c,,/cI = 0.75 may be used for footings on layered
clay under vertical load, as suggested previously
(Brown and Meyerhof 1969).
Weak Layer Overlying Strong Deposit
Theory
If the ultimate bearing capacity of the upper soil
stratum (q,) is much smaller than that of the
underlying deposit (q,), the weak soil mass be-
neath a footing on a thin weak layer may fail
laterally by squeezing (Fig. 9). It was shown
(Meycrhof 1974) that the corresponding bearing
capacity of a footing may be estimated by the
approxiniate semi-empirical relationship of
where H f= depth of failure surface beneath footing
in thick bed of upper soil, and the bearing capac-
ities q,,\. and q,\- are given by [6] and [7], respec-
tively. The depth ratio of H,/B for strip footings
under vertical load varies roughly from 1 for clay
and loose sand to 2 for dense sand, whereas for
circular footings a value of 1 may be used for all
soils (Meyerhof 1955). These ratios decrease with
a greater load inclination to a ratio of zero when
57 1
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 10" 20" 30° 40" 50"
INCLINATION OF LOAD or
FIG. 1 1 . Inclination factors f o r bearing capacity.
failure by sliding of the footing is approached
(Meyerhof 1953).
If a uniform load is carried by a flexible founda-
tion, the possibility of a local edge failure has to
be considered by using an effective reduccd width
of the foundation, as shown previously (Meyerhof
1974).
Tests
Model tests as mentioned previously were
carried out on strip and circular footings resting
on loose sand overlying dense sand under various
inclinations of the load. Previously model tests had
been made on footings under vertical load on soft
clay overlying stiff clay (Brown and Meyerhof
1969) and on loose sand overlying stiff clay
(Meyerhof 1974). Typical results of the present
tests (Fig. 10 a, b) show a rapid decrease of the
ultimate bearing capacity with greater upper layer
thickness to a minimum value for a thick upper
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-
tion. The corresponding inclination factors i, and
i,, for strip footings compare well with the theoret-
ical values for homogeneous soils (Fig. I 1) . These
factors are found to be practically independent of
the upper layer thickness, as would be expected
theoretically. The inclination factors for circles are
greater than those for strips, especially the value
of i,, due to the relatively larger passive earth
pressure on the footing sides (Meyerhof 1953).
 572 CAN. GEOTECH. J . VOL. 15. 1978
Conclusions
The ultimate bearing capacity of footings o n a
dense or stiff layer overlying a weak deposit under
inclined load can be expressed by inclination
factors in conjunction with punching shear coeffi-
cients, which depend on the shear strength param-
eters and bearing capacity ratio of the layers under
vertical load. For foundations o n a loose or soft
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Queens University on 05/10/13
layer overlying a firm deposit under inclined load
the previous semi-empirical interaction relationship
can be modified by inclination factors for homo-
geneous soils. Theory and test results show that
the influence of the upper soil layer thickness be-
neath the footing depends mainly on the shear
strength parameters and bearing capacity ratio of
the layers, the shape and depth of the foundation,
and the inclination of the load.
Acknowledgement
The research at the Nova Scotia Technical Col-
lege was carried out with the financial support of
the National Research Council of Canada.
For personal use only.
BROWN,J . D., and MEYERHOF, G. G. 1969. An experimental
study of the ultimate bearing capacity of layered clay founda-
tions. Proceedings, 7th International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Mexico, Vol. 2, pp.
45-5 1.
CAQUOT,A., itnd KERISEL, L. 1949. T ~ a i t ede mecanique des
sols. Gauthier-Villars, Paris, France.
DEMBICKI, E., and ODROBINSKI, W. 1973. A contribution to the
tests on the bearing capacity of stratified subsoil under found-
ations. Proceedings, 8th International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Moscow, Vol. 1, Pt.
3, pp. 61-64.
HANNA, A. M. 1978. Bearing capacity of footings under vertical
and inclined loads on layered soils. Ph.D. thesis, Nova Scotia
Technical College, Halifax, N.S.
HANSEN, J. 1970. A revised and extended formula for bearing
capacity. Danish Geotechnical Institute, Copenhagen, Bulle-
tin, 28, pp. 5-1 1.
K I M ,S. W. 1978. Bearing capacity of footings on two-layered
clay under inclined load. M.Eng. thesis, Nova Scotia Techni-
cal College, Halifax, N.S.
MEYERHOF, G. G. 1953. The bearing capacity of foundations
under eccentric and inclined loads. Proceedings, 3rd Interna-
tional Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation En-
gineering, Zurich, Vol. I, pp. 440-445.
1955. Influence of roughness of base and ground-water
conditions on ultimate bearing capacity of foundations.
Geotechnique, 5, pp. 227-242.
1963. Some recent research on the bearing capacity of
foundations. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 1, pp. 1&26.
1973. Uplift resistance of inclined anchors and piles.
Proceedings, 8th International Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, Moscow, Vol. 2, Pt. 1, pp.
167-172.
1974. Ultimate bearing capacity offootings on sand layer
overlying clay. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 11, pp.
223-229.
1978. Bearing capacity of anisotropic cohesionless soils.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 15,pp. 592-595.
MUHS, H., and WEISS,K. 1975. Die Grenztragfiihigkeit von
flach gegrundeten Streifenfundamenten unter geneigter Be-
lastung nach Theorie und Versuch. Degebo, Berlin, Bulletin
31, pp. 1-97.
TCHENG, Y. 1957. Fondations superficielles en milieu stratifie.
Proceedings, 4th International Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, London, Vol. I, pp. 449-452.
YAMACUCHI, H. 1963. Practical formulaofbearing value for two
layer grotrnd. Proceedings, 2nd Asian Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Tokyo, Vol. 1. pp.
176- 180.