International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

ISSN: 1938-6362 (Print) 1939-7879 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yjge20

Settlement of shallow footings on layered soil:

state-of-the-art

Priti Maheshwari

To cite this article: Priti Maheshwari (2015) Settlement of shallow footings on layered
soil: state-of-the-art, International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 9:1, 42-48, DOI:
10.1179/1939787914Y.0000000065

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1179/1939787914Y.0000000065

Published online: 24 Dec 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 219

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=yjge20
 Settlement of shallow footings on layered soil:
state-of-the-art
Priti Maheshwari*
Shallow footings form the foundations of conventional structures like residential as well as industrial
framed buildings and also other industrial structures like silos, chimneys, cooling towers, overhead
tanks, etc. The foundations are checked both for shear failure and settlement criterion. Most of the
conventional analyses consider the soil to be homogeneous, however, soil strata comprise of
different soil layers with inherent variability. Several analytical, numerical, and experimental research
works are available for the analysis of shallow footings on layered soil system. This paper presents
comprehensive overview of literature pertaining to the settlement analysis of shallow foundations on
layered soil system. It was aimed to provide all the references at one place to facilitate the research
workers in this area. Deterministic as well as probabilistic studies have been compiled and it is felt
that deterministic methods should be used in conjunction with the stochastic approaches for more
rational analysis of shallow foundations on layered soils.
Keywords: Shallow foundations, Settlement, Layered soil, Deterministic analysis, Soil variability

Introduction stiff clay (about 2–3 m thick) formed due to deposition of

In practical life, soil is never homogeneous. This non-
homogeneity can be natural as well as man-made. There
are various factors that cause natural soil to be non-
homogeneous, such as removal of overburden due to
erosion, chemical bonding, and modifications in static
ground water level. Layered soil can be formed by the
change of sea level in the past (Hanzawa and Adachi,
1983). There are many sites with layered soil profile, which
are investigated and analyzed (Hanzawa and Adachi,
1983; Cao et al., 2001). Many earthworks, such as fills or
pavements, consist of horizontal layers of soil of different
types. Apart from non-homogeneity resulting into layered
soil, the properties of soil may vary within each layer due
to its inherent variability. This inherent variability may
not be ignored at all the sites depending upon the geology
and therefore should be considered in the analysis.
Many sites consisting of different soil layers have been
reported in the literature. One such case has been
presented in Fig. 1 which depicts typical soil profile of
Singapore clay divided into upper and lower layers
separated by stiff clay and is a representative of highly
plastic marine clay widely found in Southeast Asia. The
soil strata comprise of the top stiff clay layer (about 27 m
thick) below which lies a thin desiccated layer of relatively
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee,
Roorkee 247 667, India
*Corresponding author, email priti_mahesh2001@yahoo.com
chemicals as the ground water gets evaporated in the dry
season as the level goes down gradually to its minimum
level. A typical normally consolidated alluvial deposit of
thickness of about 30 m is present below this thin layer.
Figure 2 depicts the Khor Al-Zubair clay which is medium
plastic clay found on the flood plain produced by Tigris
and Euphrates rivers in the Arabian Gulf. Cemented clays
as shown in figure were probably formed by carbonate
cementation, when the sea level was lowered in the past
because of the carbonate property of the deposits in the
Arabian Gulf. Singapore clay (Fig. 1) is located about
10 m below the sea level while on the other hand Khor Al-
Zubair clay (Fig. 2) is located on land. Typical soil profile
at another site in Singapore is depicted in Fig. 3. The
marine clay consists of two distinct layers separated by an
intermediate layer of stiff silty clay and with sand seam in
between as shown in figure.
Layered profiles of alluvial soil are also encountered in
the Indo-Gangetic region where the top soil layer is a
relatively stiff desiccated layer below which a thin and very
stiff kankar layer gets formed due to chemical deposition.
In view of the above, it is important to study various
methods proposed by different research workers for the
analysis of foundations on layered soil system. Analysis
incorporates aspect related to both bearing capacity and
settlement. However, this paper presents the state-of-the-
art dealing with settlement aspect of foundations on
layered soil system. This has been presented in two parts.
First section deals with the studies related to deterministic
analysis while the other presents the literature pertaining

ß 2015 W. S. Maney & Son Ltd

Received 11 April 2014; accepted 11 May 2014 International Journal of
42 DOI 10.1179/1939787914Y.0000000065 Geotechnical Engineering 2015 VOL 9 NO 1

1 Consolidation critical stress and overconsolidation ratio v. effective overburden stress and ground elevation, Singapore
clay (adapted from Hanzawa and Adachi, 1983)
to probabilistic/stochastic analysis of shallow foundations
on layered soil medium.
Deterministic analysis
In the conventional analysis of foundations, the properties
of soil are considered to possess one value. For the
determination of soil properties, laboratory and field tests
are conducted and mean value of the test results is taken in
the analysis. Various numerical and experimental studies
are available in the literature dealing with prediction of
settlement of shallow foundations on layered soil system
which have been presented in chronological order, in the
subsequent paragraphs.
One of the earlier works relevant to the analysis of
shallow foundations on layered soil includes Burmister
(1945a). The general theory of stresses and displacements
in a two-layer soil system was developed and numerical
evaluation of surface settlement equation was presented in
the form of influence curves which can be directly used for
the analysis of practical problems. The two soil layers were
assumed to be continuously in contact with shearing
resistance fully active between them ensuring full con-
tinuity of stress and displacement across the interface
between the layers. This work was extended to take care of
a frictionless soil interface (Burmister, 1945b) and subse-
quently, the theory was extended for the case of three-
layer soil system with full continuity across the interfaces
between soil layers (Burmister, 1945c). Settlement equa-
tion at the surface of ground was derived which finds
direct application to the problems of foundation and
airport engineering.
Davis and Poulos (1972) presented a series of solutions
for the rate of settlement of circular and strip footings on a
soil layer employing simple diffusion theory of consolida-
tion. Theoretical examination was conducted to study the
International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
Maheshwari Settlement of shallow footings
influence of soil anisotropy and a sand layer overlying the
clay layer. Based on these, the solutions were corrected
due to these factors and could be applied to the case of
layered soil system.
Davies and Banerjee (1978) obtained displacements in
both layers of a two-layered elastic half-space by
integrating infinite series solutions derived by integral
transform technique. The horizontal and vertical loads
were applied at the layer interface. Solution was converged
rapidly assuring accurate and efficient evaluation of
displacements.
Gazetas (1980) presented an analytical–numerical
method for static and dynamic analysis of strip founda-
tions on elastic isotropic medium consisting of hetero-
geneous layers. Figure 4 depicts the problem geometry,
soil profile comprising of horizontal layers with an
arbitrary variation of S wave velocity with depth. It was
concluded that for low frequency factors, homogeneous
and heterogeneous media yield displacements or rotations
of about the same average level.
Rowe and Booker (1984) developed a technique for the
analysis of periodically layered soil. This analytical
approach involved numerical inversion of the Fourier
transforms. The influence of layer thickness and elastic
properties upon vertical and the lateral deformations
beneath a circular loading was examined.
Small and Booker (1984) analyzed a horizontally
layered elastic material using an exact finite-layer flex-
ibility matrix. This method was found to be useful in
overcoming the difficulty which can arise due to incom-
pressible behavior in undrained conditions.
Maier and Novati (1986) employed boundary element
method (BEM) for analysis of layered soil domain. A
numerical procedure was incorporated using transfer
matrix method to reduce the unknowns for top and
2015 VOL 9 NO 1 43
Maheshwari Settlement of shallow footings
2 Cone resistance v. depth of Khor Al-Zubair clay (adapted
from Hanzawa and Adachi, 1983)
bottom surface and eliminating the interface nodes. Main
advantage of this procedure was the significant reduction
in number of unknowns. Total mathematical operations in
this procedure were in good comparison with direct BEM
approach.
Chow (1987) described a numerical procedure for the
analysis of vertical deformation of smooth, rigid founda-
tions of arbitrary shape on homogeneous and layered soil
media. For a layered soil medium, the flexibility coeffi-
cients were determined from an axisymmetric finite
element analysis which is essentially two-dimensional
(2D). Parametric solutions were presented for the response
of rectangular foundations on some typical soil profiles.
The use of a simplified method to estimate the settlement
of rectangular foundations on a layered soil medium by
superposing solutions for homogeneous, elastic strata was
also discussed.
Leonards and Frost (1988) developed a procedure for
prediction of settlement of footings on cohesionless soils
based on the parameters like preconsolidation pressure,
modulus of elasticity obtained from cone penetration test
(CPT), and dilatometer test (DMT) results. The procedure
proposed by Schmertmann (1970) for estimating settle-
ment of footings on granular soils was the basis of
proposed method. The proposed method was general
44 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 2015
3 General soil stratification and density of soil at a site in
Singapore (adapted from Cao et al., 2001)
enough to deal with normal and overconsolidated soils,
isolated footings or rafts, deposits of limited thickness,
variability in soil profile, depth of embedment of footing,
and the fluctuations in water table.
An approach based on boundary integral equation was
described by Jommi and Novati (1989) for a rough and
rigid footing resting on layered soil considering 2D plane
strain assumption. Infinite domain of the lateral boundary
was modeled by introducing an infinite boundary element.
Successive stiffness solution procedure was adopted for
the evaluation of response. Results obtained from
proposed algorithm were compared with standard finite
element and boundary element analyses with finite
boundary. A considerable saving in the computational
efforts without reducing accuracy was observed with
introduction of the infinite elements compared to that of
side boundaries. More realistic and accurate response may
be obtained with the incorporation of infinite boundary
elements in single and multi-layered soil domains.
Ahmad and Bharadwaj (1991) studied the dynamic
response to the horizontal excitation of an embedded rigid
strip footing on layered soil using the BEM incorporating
isoparametric boundary elements consisting of higher-
order quadratic elements. Effect of key parameters like
foundation depth, contact height of foundation, and top-
layer thickness on response was examined. It was observed
that with increase in foundation depth and contact height
of foundation additional damping was introduced result-
ing in attenuation of vibration amplitudes. However, the
effects of foundation depth and contact height of
foundation on the horizontal impedance in a layered soil
were observed to be considerably altered from that of a
VOL 9 NO 1

4 Problem geometry and shear-wave velocity profile
(adapted from Gazetas, 1980)
half-space problem. Bharadwaj and Ahmad (1992) further
extended study to consider the rocking impedance. It was
concluded that layered nature of soil affect rocking
impedance only in case of smaller thickness of top soil
layer and for larger thickness it can be approximated with
half-space domain.
Azam et al. (1991) employed plane strain 2D finite
element analysis to investigate the behavior of strip
footings on a homogeneous soil and two-layered soil.
Effect of continuous void was examined by considering
both soil domains, with and without void. The influence of
bedrock on footing response was found to be negligible
when the depth of bedrock was equal to or greater than six
times width of footing. In a two-layered soil, the thickness
of top-layer and the strength ratio of two layers were
found to be crucial parameters controlling response of the
footing. The degree of void influence on the response of
footing was dependant on location of void, depth to
bedrock, layer thickness ratio, and layer strength ratio.
Conte and Dente (1993) proposed a numerical proce-
dure to predict the behavior of layered soils for plane
strain condition employing stiffness method. It was
applied to examine the effect of inclusion of a soft/stiff
layer within homogeneous soil strata on the behavior of
strip footings. The results were compared with those from
earlier literature employing other numerical methods for
multi-layered soil domain subjected to uniform intensity
and these were found to be in close agreement. This
procedure provided precise results with less computational
effort hence can be used in place of other numerical
methods like finite element method (FEM) and BEM.
Parametric study revealed that inclusion of a soft/stiff
layer within homogeneous soil strata altered the deforma-
tions of footing which was significant when layer was soft
and close to the surface.
Analysis based on FEM was presented by Zhu and Yin
(1999) to simulate one-dimensional consolidation phenom-
enon of clay layers. Time dependent elastoplastic behavior
was considered in the analysis. It was found that creep
parameters significantly influence the deformations. Change
International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
Maheshwari Settlement of shallow footings
5 Discretization of soil and boundary conditions (adapted
from Maheshwari and Madhav, 2006)
of parameters in one layer affected the consolidation
behavior of another layer due to different consolidation
rates.
Shvets et al. (2003) presented a solution to determine the
stresses in a foundation bed, which was represented by a
linearly deformable half-space and intended for founda-
tions with circular or square lower surfaces extending
beyond the limits of the loaded area. The experiments were
conducted on cohesive and non-cohesive soils of homo-
geneous and layered beds to investigate the formation of
the settlement funnel. The settlement funnels calculated in
accordance with the proposed method were found to be
sufficiently close to experimental values for the types of
multi-layered beds tested.
Thomé et al. (2005) suggested a method for evaluating
response of shallow footing on layered soil which
consisted of cemented soil overlying loose residual soil.
A series of field plate load tests and finite element
simulations were conducted. The results of these led to a
semi-empirical design method for shallow foundations on
two-layer soil media.
Maheshwari and Madhav (2006) proposed a method for
the analysis of strip footings on three-layered soil media
employing theory of elasticity. Response of footing was
obtained by solving the governing differential equations
along with appropriate boundary and continuity condi-
tions using finite difference method (Fig. 5). Parametric
study revealed that a thin and very stiff layer in between
the two softer layers act as a plate and helps in
redistribution of stresses on lower soil layer. Further, the
settlement was also found to be significantly reduced with
the presence of such a layer sandwiched between two
softer soil layers. Maheshwari and Viladkar (2007) further
extended parametric study to observe the influence of
relative thicknesses and relative elastic moduli of soil
layers on response of soil-foundation system. Effect was
2015 VOL 9 NO 1 45
Maheshwari Settlement of shallow footings
quantified for all possible range of physical parameters
relevant to the study.
Anderson et al. (2007) conducted in situ tests on a
circular foundation (radius 0?9 m) subjected to static load
to obtain its deformation characteristics. Before any
construction, in situ tests like standard penetration test
(SPT), CPT, DMT, pressuremeter (PMT), and some
laboratory tests were performed to evaluate the properties
of soil. These properties were employed to conventional as
well as finite element analysis. It was observed that all the
methods provided conservative estimate of settlement as
compare to that from field test. However, the conventional
methods using N value from penetration tests predicted
reasonable settlements. Similarly, FEM with model vari-
ables obtained from DMT and CPT provided reasonable
predictions. Finite element analysis employing soil proper-
ties obtained from SPT and PMT yielded poor settlement
prediction. Predictions with Mohr–Coulomb yield criter-
ion were found to be better than those with hyperbolic-cap
model considered for overconsolidation/hardening beha-
vior for properties of soil obtained from all in situ tests.
An equivalent elastic method was proposed by Hirai
(2008) to estimate settlements and stresses in layered and
improved earth beds. The proposed method considered non-
homogeneous elastic properties of different soil layers in
both directions by introducing equivalent elastic modulus
and the equivalent thickness. A comparative study between
available solutions and simulation of analytical models
proved advantages of the proposed method.
Dhar and Tarefder (2011) developed a new simplified
method to predict the stress redistribution in two-layer
systems with soil modulus reducing along the depth. The
concept of ‘‘equivalent depth’’ and the Boussinesq
solution for calculating the stresses was combined for a
two-layered medium using a spread sheet calculation
under strip loads. In this method, vertical strains at mid-
layers were determined using soil elastic constitutive
relations, which were integrated over the layer depths to
determine layer settlements. It was observed that the
Table 1 Summary of literature pertaining to deterministic analysis of shallow foundations on layered soil
Research study
Burmister (1945a, 1945b, 1945c)
Davis and Poulos (1972)
Davies and Banerjee (1978)
Gazetas (1980)
Rowe and Booker (1984)
Small and Booker (1984)
Maier and Novati (1986), Ahmad and Bharadwaj
(1991), Bharadwaj and Ahmad (1992)
Chow (1987), Azam et al. (1991), Zhu and Yin (1999)
Leonards and Frost (1988)
Jommi and Novati (1989)
Conte and Dente (1993)
Shvets et al. (2003)
Thomé et al. (2005), Anderson et al. (2007)
Maheshwari and Madhav (2006), Maheshwari and Viladkar (2007)
Hirai (2008)
Dhar and Tarefder (2011)
46 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 2015 VOL
traditional Boussinesq solution using elastic properties of
the soil layers overestimates the foundation settlement,
which increases with the increase in layer stiffness and
thickness of the upper layer.
Table 1 summarizes the literature related to determinis-
tic studies relevant to the analysis of shallow foundations
on layered soil system.
Stochastic analysis
Soil has inherent variability and therefore its properties
cannot be determined uniquely. However, most of the
analyses consider a particular value of soil parameter
which emanates from averaging of results from multiple
tests for its determination. This requires incorporation of
large factor of safety in the design of foundation. In view
of this, stochastic methods provide more rational value of
factor of safety in the design of foundations as soil
variability is included in the analysis. Many methods have
been developed for probabilistic/stochastic analysis of
foundations on soils employing various techniques. Some
of these are Monte Carlo simulation, first order reliability
method (FORM), second order reliability method
(SORM), Perturbation theory, etc. These are clubbed
with numerical methods (finite difference, FEM, etc.) to
obtain the response of soil–foundation system giving rise
to methods like stochastic finite difference method
(SFDM), stochastic finite element method (SFEM), etc.
Many studies are available considering soil variability in
the settlement analysis of foundations. Some of these
include Vanmarcke (1977), Baker (1984), Righetti and
Harrop-Williams (1988), Baker et al. (1989), Baker and
Zeitoun (1990), Zeitoun and Baker (1991), Mahmoud and
El Tawil (1992), Paice et al. (1996), Yeh and Rahman
(1998), Phoon and Kulhawy (1999a, 1999b), Bauer and
Pula (2000), Guo and Weitsman (2002), Fenton and
Griffiths (2002), Sivakugan and Johnson (2004), Fenton
and Griffiths (2005), Fenton et al. (2005), Niandou and
Breysse (2007), Maheshwari and Kashyap (2008, 2009),
Griffiths and Fenton (2009), Jimenez and Sitar (2009),
Method adopted
Theory of elasticity
Diffusion theory of consolidation
Theory of elasticity, integral transform technique
Analytical–numerical method for static and dynamic analysis
Numerical inversion of the Fourier transforms
Exact finite-layer flexibility matrix
Boundary element method
Finite element method
Experimental results and Schmertmann (1970) method
Approach based on boundary integral equation
Stiffness method
Boussinesq’s method and experimental study
Experimental study and finite element analysis
Theory of elasticity and finite difference method
Equivalent elastic method
Equivalent depth and Boussinesq’s solution
9 NO 1

Sheu (2011), Maheshwari and Kashyap (2011), etc. In
view of non-negativity in the values of soil parameters,
most of the studies considered soil parameters to follow
lognormal distribution.
Das and Sivakugan (2007) summarized available
literature pertaining to prediction of response of shallow
foundations in cohesionless soils. Significance of prob-
abilistic approaches in the analysis of foundations was
also discussed. As such, many studies are available for
probabilistic/stochastic analysis of foundations. However,
very few studies have been encountered which deal directly
with the analysis of foundations resting on layered soil
system. These have been presented below.
Brzakala and Pula (1996) suggested an approach for the
settlement analysis of shallow footings resting on layered
subsoil considering randomness in shape of interface of two
soil layers, material constants, and loads. Finite element
method combined with stochastic interpretation of pertur-
bation and the Neumann expansion methods was employed
for the numerical analysis. Evaluation of response varia-
bility for foundation settlements was found to be in terms
of mean value and the covariance matrix. Effect of scale of
fluctuations in soil parameters and loads on scale of
fluctuations of footing settlement was addressed.
Study employing deterministic FEM combined with
Monte Carlo simulations was conducted by Nour et al.
(2002) to predict settlement and differential settlement of a
pair of footings on heterogeneous soil, where elastic
modulus and Poisson’s ratio were considered as random
variables. Statistics for settlement and the differential
settlement were found to increase with increase in
variability of elastic modulus. However, settlement statis-
tics were found to reduce with an increase in Poisson’s
ratio variability and differential settlement statistics were
unaffected by its variability. Significant influence of
correlation length was observed both on settlement and
the differential settlement statistics.
Suchomel and Mašı́n (2011) analyzed a strip footing on
horizontally stratified sandy deposits using an advanced
hypo plastic constitutive model considering the spatial
variability in soil properties. An elaborative experimental
data on layered sand was used to calibrate horizontal and
vertical correlation lengths. It was observed that model
parameters followed normal and lognormal distributions.
The random field Monte Carlo analyses suggested that the
vertical correlation length had marginal effect on the mean
value but considerable influence on its standard deviation.
Maheshwari and Kumar (2011) employed the model, as
proposed by Maheshwari and Kashyap (2009), to analyze
a strip footing resting on three-layered elastic soil medium.
Moduli of elasticity of soil layers were considered to be
lognormally distributed random variable with infinite
autocorrelation distance. Monte Carlo simulations were
conducted on the deterministic model presented by
Maheshwari and Madhav (2006) resulting in probabilistic
finite difference analysis. State variables were settlement of
footing and vertical stresses at soil interfaces. Ready to use
tables were presented to obtain desired factor of safety
corresponding to the risk level that may be associated with
the structure. This was extended by taking care of finite
autocorrelation distance by Kumar and Maheshwari
International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
Maheshwari Settlement of shallow footings
(2013). Results from the study suggested that while
designing the footing, larger factor of safety with respect
to its settlement should be assigned when the random soil
is known to display low frequency (macro level) varia-
tions. A larger factor of safety with respect to the vertical
stress was necessary when the random soil possesses low
frequency (micro-level) variations.
Conclusion
In this paper, available literature pertaining to both
deterministic and probabilistic/stochastic settlement ana-
lysis of shallow foundations on layered soil system has
been presented. The studies employ various numerical
methods for the analysis which include finite difference
method, FEM, BEM, integral transform method, Monte
Carlo simulation, FORM, SORM, SFDM, SFEM,
perturbation theory, etc. Some of the studies use theory
of elasticity along with the experimental results. Review of
the literature suggests that deterministic analysis should be
used along with the probabilistic one for more rational
analysis of foundations. In view of limited studies related
to probabilistic analysis of shallow foundations on layered
soil medium, it requires more attention specially to take
care of non-linear and elastoplastic behavior of soils, etc.
The aim of this paper was to provide a comprehensive
state-of-the-art relevant to settlement determination of
shallow foundations on layered soil media at one place to
facilitate future research in this area by various research
workers.
References
Ahmad, S. and Bharadwaj, A. 1991. Horizontal impedance of embedded
strip foundations in layered soil, J. Geotech. Eng., 117, (7), 1021–
1041.
Anderson, J. B., Townsend, F. C. and Rahelison, L. 2007. Load testing
and settlement prediction of shallow foundation, J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng., 133, (12), 1494–1502.
Azam, G., Hsieh, C. W. and Wang, M. C. 1991. Performance of strip
footing on stratified soil deposit with void, J. Geotech. Eng., 117, (5),
753–772.
Baker, R. 1984. Modeling soil variability as a random field, Math. Geol.,
16, (5), 435–448.
Baker, R. and Zeitoun, D. G. 1990. Application of Adomian’s
decomposition procedure to the analysis of a beam on random
Winkler support, Int. J. Solids Struct., 26, (2), 217–235.
Baker, R., Zeitoun, D. G. and Uzan, J. 1989. Analysis of a beam on
random elastic support, Soils Found., 29, (2), 24–36.
Bauer, J. and Pula, W. 2000. Reliability with respect to settlement limit-
states of shallow foundations on linearly-deformable subsoil,
Comput. Geotech., 26, (3–4), 281–308.
Bharadwaj, A. and Ahmad, S. 1992. Rocking impedance of embedded
strip foundations in layered soil, J. Geotech. Eng., 118, (5), 796–813.
Brzakala, W. and Pula, W. 1996. A probabilistic analysis of foundation
settlements, Comput. Geotech., 18, (4), 291–309.
Burmister, D. M. 1945a. The general theory of stresses and displacements
in layered systems. I, J. Appl. Phys., 16, (2), 89–94.
Burmister, D. M. 1945b. The general theory of stresses and displacements
in layered systems. II, J. Appl. Phys., 16, (3), 126–127.
Burmister, D. M. 1945c. The general theory of stresses and displacements
in layered systems. III, J. Appl. Phys., 16, (5), 296–302.
Cao, L. F., Chang, M. F., The, C. I. and Na, Y. M. 2001. Back-
calculation of consolidation parameters from field measurements at
a reclamation site, Can. Geotech. J., 38, (4), 755–769.
Chow, Y. K. 1987. Vertical deformation of rigid foundations of arbitrary
shape on layered soil media, Int. J. Num. Anal. Methods Geomech.,
11, (1), 1–15.
2015 VOL 9 NO 1 47
Maheshwari Settlement of shallow footings
Conte, E. and Dente, G. 1993. Settlement analysis of layered soil systems
by stiffness method, J. Geotech. Eng., 119, (4), 780–785.
Das, B. M. and Sivakugan, N. 2007. Settlements of shallow foundations
on granular soil – an overview, Int. J. Geotech. Eng., 1, (1), 19–29.
Davies, T. G. and Banerjee, P. K. 1978. The displacement field due to a
point load at the interface of a two layer elastic half-space,
Geotechnique, 28, (1), 43–56.
Davis, E. H. and Poulos, H. G. 1972. Rate of settlement under two and
three-dimensional conditions, Geotechnique, 22, (1), 95–114.
Dhar, A. S. and Tarefder, R. A. 2011. An approximate spreadsheet
integration method for foundation settlements in two-layered
medium, Int. J. Geotech. Eng., 5, (4), 437–446.
Fenton, G. A. and Griffiths, D. V. 2002. Probabilistic foundation
settlement on spatially random soil, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
128, (5), 381–390.
Fenton, G. A. and Griffiths, D. V. 2005. Three-dimensional probabilistic
foundation settlement, J. Geotech. Geoenviron Eng., 131, (2), 232–
239.
Fenton, G. A., Griffiths, D. V. and Cavers, W. 2005. Resistance factors
for settlement design, Can. Geotech. J., 42, (5), 1422–1436.
Gazetas, G. 1980. Static and dynamic displacements of foundations on
heterogeneous multilayered soils, Geotechnique, 30, (2), 159–177.
Griffiths, D. V. and Fenton, G. A. 2009. Probabilistic settlement analysis
by stochastic and random finite-element methods, J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng., 135, (11), 1629–1637.
Guo, Y.-J. and Weitsman, Y. J. 2002. Solution method for beams on
nonuniform elastic foundations, J. Eng. Mech., 128, (5), 592–594.
Hanzawa, H. and Adachi, K. 1983. Overconsolidation of alluvial clays,
Jpn. Soc. Soil Mech. Found. Eng., 23, (4), 106–118.
Hirai, H. 2008. Settlements and stresses of multi-layered grounds and
improved grounds by equivalent elastic method, Int. J. Numer. Anal.
Methods Geomech, 32, (5), 523–557.
Jimenez, R. and Sitar, N. 2009. The importance of distribution types on
finite element analyses of foundation settlement, Comput. Geotech.,
36, (3), 474–483.
Jommi, C. and Novati, G. 1989. On the use of infinite elements in the
analysis of two-dimensional layered elastic systems via discretized
integral equations, Comput. Geotech., 8, (4), 269–288.
Kumar, P. P. and Maheshwari, P. 2013. Stochastic analysis of strip
footings on elastic layered soil, KSCE, J. Civil Eng., 17, (7), 1621–
1629.
Leonards, G. A. and Frost, J. D. 1988. Settlement of shallow foundations
on granular soils, J Geotech. Eng., 114, (7), 791–809.
Maheshwari, P. and Kashyap, D. 2008. Rationalization of factors of
safety in analysis of beams on geosynthetic reinforced random earth
beds by Monte Carlo simulation, Int. J. Geotech. Eng., 2, (3), 277–
284.
Maheshwari, P. and Kashyap, D. 2009. Stochastic design of beams on
reinforced random earth beds in deterministic mode, Georisk Assess.
Manage. Risk Eng. Syst. Geohazards, 3, (4), 224–231.
Maheshwari, P. and Kashyap, D. 2011. Stochastic analysis of beams on
reinforced earth beds, Georisk Assess. Manage. Risk Eng. Syst.
Geohazards, 5, (3–4), 207–217.
Maheshwari, P. and Kumar, P. P. 2011. Probabilistic analysis and design
of a strip footing on layered soil media, Geotech. Geol. Eng., 29, (6),
1099–1108.
48 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 2015 VOL 9 NO
Maheshwari, P. and Madhav, M. R. 2006. Analysis of a rigid footing
lying on three-layered soil using the finite difference method,
Geotech. Geol. Eng., 24, (4), 851–869.
Maheshwari, P. and Viladkar, M. N. 2007. Strip footings on a three layer
soil system: theory of elasticity approach, Int. J. Geotech. Eng., 1,
(1), 47–59.
Mahmoud, A. A. and El Tawil, M. A. 1992. Beams on random elastic
supports, Appl. Math. Modelling, 16, (6), 330–334.
Maier, G. and Novati, G. 1986. On boundary element-transfer matrix
analysis of layered elastic systems, Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods
Geomech., 3, (4), 208–216.
Niandou, H. and Breysse, D. 2007. Reliability analysis of a piled raft
accounting for soil horizontal variability, Comput. Geotech., 34, (2),
71–80.
Nour, A., Slimani, A. and Laouami, N. 2002. Foundation settlement
statistics via finite element analysis, Comput. Geotech., 29, (8), 641–672.
Paice, G. M., Griffiths, D. V. and Fenton, G. A. 1996. Finite element
modeling of settlements on spatially random soil, J. Geotech. Eng.,
122, (9), 777–779.
Phoon, K.-K. and Kulhawy, F. H. 1999a. Characterization of geotechni-
cal variability, Can. Geotech. J., 36, (4), 612–624.
Phoon, K.-K. and Kulhawy, F. H. 1999b. Evaluation of geotechnical
property variability, Can. Geotech. J., 36, (4), 625–639.
Righetti, G. and Harrop-Williams, K. 1988. Finite element analysis of
random soil media, J. Geotech. Eng., 114, (1), 59–75.
Rowe, R. K. and Booker, J. R. 1984. Deformation analysis for
periodically layered soil, J. Geotech. Eng., 110, (2), 217–230.
Schmertmann, J. H. 1970. Static cone to compute settlement over sand, J.
Soil Mech. Found. Eng, 96, (SM3), 1011–1043.
Sheu, G. Y. 2011. Prediction of probabilistic settlements via spectral
stochastic meshless local Petrov–Galerkin method, Comput.
Geotech., 38, (4), 407–415.
Shvets, V. B., Khalaf, K. h, Sal’kha, Z. and Gorlach, S. N. 2003.
Experimental investigation and analysis of the settlement funnel in
beds supporting different types of foundations, Soil Mech. Found.
Eng, 40, (6), 215–219.
Sivakugan, N. and Johnson, K. 2004. Settlement predictions in granular
soils: a probabilistic approach, Geotechnique, 54, (7), 499–502.
Small, J. C. and Booker, J. R. 1984. Finite layer analysis of layered elastic
materials using a flexibility approach. Part 1-strip loadings, Int. J.
Numer. Methods Eng., 20, (6), 1025–1037.
Suchomel, R. and Mašı́n, D. 2011. Probabilistic analyses of a strip footing
on horizontally stratified sandy deposit using advanced constitutive
model, Comput. Geotech., 38, (3), 363–374.
Thomé, A., Donato, M., Consoli, N. C. and Graham, J. 2005. Circular
footings on a cemented layer above weak foundation soil, Can.
Geotech. J., 42, (6), 1569–1584.
Vanmarcke, E. H. 1977. Probabilistic modeling of soil profiles, J. Geotech.
Eng. Div., 103, (GT 11), 1227–1246.
Yeh, C. H. and Rahman, M. S. 1998. Stochastic finite element methods
for the seismic response of soils, Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods
Geomech., 22, (10), 819–850.
Zeitoun, D. G. and Baker, R. 1991. Wave-number domain approach for
soil variability analysis, J. Geotech. Eng., 117, (7), 1061–1079.
Zhu, G. and Yin, J.-H. 1999. Finite element analysis of consolidation of
layered clay soils using an elastic visco-plastic model, Int. J. Numer.
Anal. Methods Geomech., 23, (8), 355–374.
1