International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yjge20

Depth factors for ring foundations in cohesive soil

using numerical analysis

Kedar Birid & Deepankar Choudhury

To cite this article: Kedar Birid & Deepankar Choudhury (2021): Depth factors for ring foundations
in cohesive soil using numerical analysis, International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, DOI:
10.1080/19386362.2021.1921435

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2021.1921435

Published online: 05 May 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=yjge20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2021.1921435

Depth factors for ring foundations in cohesive soil using numerical analysis
a,b a
Kedar Birid and Deepankar Choudhury
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai, India; bDepartment of Civil Engineering, Toyo Engineering India
Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai, India

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Shallow foundations are seldom rested on the ground surface and are often embedded below the Received 9 June 2020
surface. The undrained bearing capacity of embedded footings and the depth factors associated with Accepted 20 April 2021
it for circular and strip foundations were extensively studied in the past. However, the effect of embed­ KEYWORDS
ment on the undrained bearing capacity of ring foundations has not received much attention. In this Ring foundation; depth
paper, the results of numerical analysis to study the effect of embedment of ring foundations resting on factor; numerical analysis
cohesive soil are presented. The influence of variation in the geometry of the ring foundation, the footing
side roughness coefficients, and the increasing shear strength of cohesive soil has also been studied. The
results show a variation in the depth factors by varying the inner and outer diameter of the ring
foundation, footing side roughness coefficient, embedment depth, and increasing shear strength of
the soil. Based on the results of the analysis, the authors have proposed an equation to evaluate the
depth factors for embedded ring foundations in cohesive soil. The failure pattern of subsoil has also been
presented and discussed. The depth factors obtained from this study can be used by practicing engineers
to evaluate the bearing capacity of onshore and offshore ring foundations in cohesive soils.

1. Introduction Nguyen and Merifield (2012) studied the undrained bearing

capacity for the strip, square, and circular embedded footings
Ring foundations are circular foundations with annular space
resting on layered clays. The bearing-capacity factors were
at the centre. The analysis of embedded ring foundations has
given for various cases involving a range of layer thicknesses
not been studied much in the past on contrary to circular and
and properties of the two clay soil layers. Kumar and
strip foundations. The undrained vertical bearing capacity of
Chakraborty (2015) provided the bearing capacity factors Nc,
embedded circular and strip foundations on cohesive soil has Nq, and Nγ for smooth and ring footing by employing the
been extensively studied. The various studies involved experi­ lower and upper bound theorems of the limit analysis with
mental analyses (Terzaghi 1943; Meyerhof 1951; Skempton finite elements and linear optimization. Naseri and
1951; Hansen 1970; Tani and Craig 1995; Martin 2001; Hosseininia (2015) carried out numerical computations using
Houlsby and Martin 2003) and numerical analyses. the finite difference method to investigate the settlement of
Numerical analysis has been carried out by Hu, Randolph, ring foundations resting over an elastic half-space. Hosseininia
and Watson (1999) for offshore skirted foundations using the (2016) evaluated bearing capacity factors Nc, Nq, and Nγ for
h-adaptive finite element method. Salgado et al. (2004) studied ring footings by numerical simulation using the finite differ­
the bearing capacity of the embedded strip, square, circular ence method for different inner to outer ring radii ratios.
and rectangular foundations in clay using finite element limit Gholami and Hosseininia (2017) calculated the bearing capa­
analysis. The results were used to propose shape and depth city factors Nc, Nq, and Nγ for ring footings using a written
factors for foundations in clay. Benmebarek, Saifi, and code based on the method of characteristics. Gholami and
Benmebarek (2017) evaluated the undrained bearing capacity Hosseininia (2017) determined the bearing capacity for differ­
of a circular foundation using FLAC code for different embed­ ent conditions of soil and different ratios of radii in compar­
ment ratios and varying base and side foundation roughness. ison with the principle of superposition results. Chavda and
Taiebat and Carter (2010) presented results of three- Dodagoudar (2019) studied the variation of bearing capacity
dimensional finite element analyses of circular footings under factors N’c, N’q, and N’γ of smooth and rough base ring
combinations of vertical load, horizontal load, and moment. footings from axisymmetric solutions (Ri/Ro = 0 to 0.95) to
Edwards, Zdravkovic, and Potts (2005) suggested depth factor the plane strain solutions (Ri/Ro = 1) using finite element (FE)
for a circular foundation in clay using the Imperial College analysis. Based on the observations from the FE results,
Finite Element Program. Gourvenec and Mana (2011) evalu­ the guidelines were provided regarding the proper choice of
ated bearing capacity factors using finite element and finite the equation for ultimate bearing capacity of ring footing, the
element limit analysis for rigid strip and circular foundations effect of variation of the Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio
for varying foundation embedment ratio, foundation–soil on the ultimate bearing capacity, and the dependency of N’γ
interface roughness, and soil shear strength heterogeneity. on the width of ring footing. Sharma and Kumar (2019)

CONTACT Kedar Birid [email protected] Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai 400076, India
© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 K. BIRID AND D. CHOUDHURY

performed a numerical study for the ring and circular footings 2.1. Boundary conditions
resting on unreinforced and fibre-reinforced layered sand
Due to the symmetry in the geometry of the ring foundation,
beds. Empirical expressions (using regression technique)
only a quarter of the problem domain was discretized as shown
were also developed to assist the practicing engineers in
in Figure 1. To avoid boundary effect, the radial boundary was
designing the ring and circular footings resting on fibre-
placed 2B (or 4Ro) away from the centre of the foundation and
reinforced sand.
the vertical boundary was placed 5B away from the ground
Due to the increasing demand for cost-optimized construc­
surface based on various trials, with radially constrained nodes
tion of circular foundations, ring foundations are frequently
at the sides and fully constrained nodes at the base. Here B is the
adopted for structures like chimneys, circular storage tanks,
outer diameter and Ro is the outer radius of the ring foundation.
silos, stacks, and so on due to their low cost. Such a foundation
is also adopted for an offshore axisymmetric structure such as
wind farm. It is often required to rest the foundations on
2.2. Material properties
cohesive soil with increasing shear strength, especially for off­
shore structures. In the past, the undrained vertical bearing The soil was modelled as a linear elastic perfectly plastic material
capacity of ring foundation has been restricted to very few according to the Mohr-Coulomb yield criterion. Bulk unit weight
studies by Lee, Jeong, and Lee (2016a) and Lee, Jeong, and γ and soil stiffness Eu/Su was set to be 16 kN/m3 and 500,
Shang (2016b). Lee, Jeong, and Lee (2016a) examined the respectively, at the surface and at various embedding depths,
undrained vertical bearing capacity of a ring rough footing which was similar as considered by Gourvenec and Mana
embedded in heterogeneous soil using the finite element (2011) and Hu, Randolph, and Watson (1999). Poisson’s ratio,
method. However, a relationship between embedment ratio, µ = 0.495 was prescribed. The undrained shear strength (Sum)
D/B, and depth factor, dc for a circular footing buried in was considered as 5 kPa at the soil surface and friction angle,
homogeneous soil has been proposed based on this study ϕ = 0° was prescribed to simulate the undrained soil response.
without any emphasis on depth factors for ring foundation. The soil was considered as isotropic with homogeneous as well as
Lee, Jeong, and Shang (2016b) presented the results of heterogeneous as the undrained shear strength Su specified as
a numerical investigation into the undrained vertical bearing varying linearly with depth as mentioned in Equation (1).
capacity of rough ring foundations resting on two-layered
4Q
clays of both homogeneous and linearly increasing shear NC ¼ (1)
strength profiles. πðR20 R2i Þ:c
The geometry (varying ratio of inner to outer diameters) of where Sum is the undrained shear strength at the surface and
the ring foundation varies depending on the type of structure k is the strength gradient with depth z as shown in Figure 2.
that it supports. Often the construction activity of an onshore
ring foundation involves forming an open circular trench of
a little larger size to facilitate the formwork preparation and
casting of the ring foundation. The extra space that remains
after the concreting of the foundation is then backfilled with
either excavated or other suitable soil. Such sequence of con­
struction activity, variation in backfilled soil type, and probable
non-uniform compaction of backfilled soil develop a varying
degree of roughness between the soil and the outer or inner
wall of the ring foundation. As these parameters together with
footing embedment depth and shear strength of soil affect the
load carrying capacity most, attempts have been made in this
paper to study the variation in depth factors for ring founda­
tions in cohesive soil considering the effect of ring geometry,
footing side roughness coefficient and soil heterogeneity using
three-dimensional finite element analysis. Such variation in
depth factor can be further helpful to evaluate the bearing
capacity of embedded ring foundation for practicing
engineers.

2. Finite element analysis

FE analyses were performed using commercially available soft­
ware PLAXIS 3D to study the problem of ring foundation
considering that solid elements in 3D gives most accurate Figure 1. Numerical Model for embedded ring foundation
stresses in each direction and as three-dimensional solution
regarding the bearing capacity of cohesive soil is not available
in the literature.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 3

Figure 2. Undrained shear strength gradient with depth

The degree of soil heterogeneity beneath the footing was repre­ option as shown in Figure 1. The meshing was selected by
sented by dimensionless quantity kB/Sum. The value of kB/Sum carrying out various trials with varying meshing options and
was considered as 0 (homogeneous soil), 2, 5, 10, and 30. varying numbers of the elements in order to validate the out­
Isotropic initial stress was adopted, with the coefficient of lateral come with the known solutions for a circular foundation. Once
earth pressure K0 of unity. The foundation was modelled as validated, a similar mesh size was continued for the analysis of
weightless using non-porous linear elastic material having the ring foundation.
0.6 m thickness and Young’s modulus for concrete, Ec = 27.38
GPa for M30 grade concrete. The foundation bottom was
idealized as perfectly rough. In order to simulate different side 2.4. Bearing capacity factor from load–settlement curve
roughness conditions of the footing, the side interface coeffi­
A uniform vertical displacement was applied to the founda­
cient (α) of 1 (fully rough), 0.5 (intermediate rough), and 0.2
tion, resulting in a uniform vertical motion of the entire
(almost smooth) have been introduced. The minimum value of
foundation. The collapse mechanisms and failure modes of
α was selected as 0.2 as it is practically not possible to have
soft soils reinforced by a group of floating stone columns
footing with sides as perfectly smooth (i.e. α = 0). The analyses
have been discussed by Zhou et al. (2017). Zheng et al.
have also been carried out by considering both outer inner
(2021) also discussed the collapse of embankments reinforced
footing edges as rough, only outer edge as smooth with the
with columns on weak soil. A similar but rather simpler
inner edge as rough, and both outer inner edges as smooth by
collapse mechanism was observed in the present study.
varying roughness coefficients of 0.5 and 0.2.
Figure 3 shows the load–settlement curve for Ri/Ro = 0.4, D/
The external radius (Ro) was kept constant at 5 m and the
B = 0.50 and kB/Su = 0, 2, 5, 10 and 30. The limit load was
internal radius (Ri) of the ring foundation was varied to
clearly observed from the load–settlement curve. The ultimate
achieve the ratio of inner to outer radii (Ri/Ro) of 0.2, 0.4,
failure was considered based on the limit load and the bearing
0.6, 0.7, and 0.8. The interface between the foundation and soil
capacity factor, Nc was calculated using Equation (2).
was fully bonded, preventing slip or separation occurring
under tension, as would be proper for concrete foundations NcD
under short-term loading. dc ¼ (2)
Ncsu
The D/B ratio, i.e. foundation embedment depth (D) to
foundation diameter (B) ratio varied from zero (footing resting where,
on the ground surface) to 1 (embedded footing) as the founda­ Q = limit load for quarter model of footing,
tions were placed at 0 m, 1.25 m, 2.5 m, and 5 m beneath the Ro = outer radius of ring foundation,
surface so that D/B = 0, 0.25, 0.5, and 1. Here D is the depth of Ri = inner radius of ring foundation,
the footing beneath the soil surface and B is the outer diameter c = undrained cohesion of soil at respective founding depth
of the ring foundation. The depth factor has been evaluated as
rffiffiffi
2.3. Mesh size D D
dc ¼ 1 þ þb (3)
B B
Both soil and footing were discretized with coarseness factors
as 1 and 0.1, respectively, and by considering medium meshing where,
4 K. BIRID AND D. CHOUDHURY

Figure 3. Typical load-settlement curve

NcD = bearing capacity factor for embedded footing at embedded ring foundations. To the author’s knowledge, no
depth D, analytical or experimental solution is available for ring foun­
Ncsu = bearing capacity factor for surface footing dation resting on cohesive soil.

2.5 Validation of model 3. Results and discussions

The depth factors, dc for a circular footing in homogeneous soil The variation of Nc with footing embedment depth expressed
were compared with known solutions by Skempton (1951), in terms of D/B, side interface coefficient (α), varying founda­
Hansen (1970), Salgado et al. (2004), Edwards, Zdravkovic, tion geometry (Ri/Ro), and varying soil heterogeneity
and Potts (2005), Lee et al. (2016a), Meyerhof (1951), Houlsby expressed in terms of dimensionless factor kB/Su is illustrated
and Martin (2003), Gourvenec and Mana (2011), and in Figures 5(a-f).
Nguyen and Merifield (2012) to establish the accuracy of FE The relationship between the bearing capacity factor and
model in Plaxis 3D. Figure 4 shows the comparison between interface roughness is almost linear across various values of
depth factors with rough base and perfectly smooth sides (α = 0) soil heterogeneity and foundation embedment. It can be
based on the past and the present analyses. observed from these figures that, bearing capacity factor, Nc
As the dc values for circular embedded footing in the pre­ increases with an increase in embedment depths. This beha­
sent study were very close to that obtained by the past viour was generally observed up to kB/Su = 5 for footings with
researchers, this model was used for the further analysis of rough sides and up to kB/Su = 2 for footings with smooth sides.

Figure 4. Figure 3Comparison of depth factors dc for embedded circular footing in homogeneous soil
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 5

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

Figure 5. Variation in Nc with footing embedment depth (D/B) for different soil heterogeneity (kB/Su)

For soil with kB/Su > 5 there was a drastic decrease in Nc from 10, & 30 and under varying Ri/Ro and side interface factor (α)
Ri/Ro = 0 up to 0.2 but minor increase in Nc for Ri/Ro > 0.2. It have been illustrated in Figure 6.
can also be observed that there was almost a merging of Nc for It can be observed from this variation that there is an increase
different soil heterogeneity (kB/Su) at D/B greater than 0.5 for in depth factor with the increase in foundation embedment
all the combinations of Ri/Ro. depth (D/B). Such an increase is substantial up to kB/Su = 5.
For higher heterogeneity beyond this, a reverse trend is
observed as there is a decrease in dc from surface footing to
3.1. Depth factors
embedded footing up to D/B = 0.25. Further footing embed­
Based on the results, depth factors were established for homo­ ment (D/B > 0.25) does not have a significant effect on dc as it
geneous and heterogeneous soil conditions using Equation (3). remains almost uniform as can be observed from Figure 6(j-o).
The depth factors for footing with rough base and rough sides It can also be observed that dc values reduced with a reduction
in homogeneous and heterogeneous soil with kB/Su = 0, 2, 5, in footing side roughness coefficient for all ranges of soil
6 K. BIRID AND D. CHOUDHURY

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

(g) (h) (i)

(j) (k) (l)

(m) (n) (o)

Figure 6. Variation in Nc with footing embedment depth (D/B) for different foundation geometry (Ri/Ro)

heterogeneity. The depth factors based on a variation on Nc for in Tables 1–5 and Figures 7(a-e) as a ready reference for
ring foundations are represented by a nonlinear relationship as the practicing engineers.
follows;

Su ¼ Sum þ kz (4) 3.2. Failure pattern

The failure pattern of subsoil below and around the surface
The values of constants ‘a’ and ‘b’ have been evaluated ring foundation has been presented in Figures 8(a-d) for
using the function ‘SOLVER’ in MS Excel and tabulated extreme cases with Ri/Ro = 0.2 and 0.8 and kB/Su = 0 and 30.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 7

Table 1. Depth factor constants for ring foundation in homogeneous soil (kB/Su Table 5. Depth factor constants for ring foundation in heterogeneous soil (kB/Su
= 0). = 30).
Ri/Ro α=1 α = 0.5 α = 0.5 (O & I) α = 0.2 α = 0.2 (O & I) Ri/Ro α=1 α = 0.5 α = 0.5 (O & I) α = 0.2 α = 0.2 (O & I)
Values of constant ‘a’ Values of constant ‘a’
0.2 0.606 0.595 0.631 0.412 0.294 0.2 −1.130 −1.272 −1.294 −1.401 −1.409
0.4 0.597 0.646 0.594 0.551 0.224 0.4 −1.302 −1.410 −1.449 −1.510 −1.551
0.6 0.729 0.600 0.514 0.529 0.047 0.6 −1.102 −1.259 −1.330 −1.380 −1.472
0.7 0.812 0.825 0.571 0.509 −0.017 0.7 −0.903 −1.141 −1.202 −1.245 −1.351
0.8 0.964 0.666 0.196 0.543 −0.150 0.8 −0.242 −0.758 −0.863 −0.875 −1.088
Values of constant ‘b’ Values of constant ‘b’
0.2 0.636 0.256 0.105 0.357 0.312 0.2 0.761 0.829 0.828 0.944 0.913
0.4 0.501 0.112 −0.005 0.019 0.235 0.4 0.867 0.910 0.922 0.989 0.994
0.6 0.163 0.076 −0.052 −0.068 0.302 0.6 0.761 0.805 0.829 0.896 0.939
0.7 0.081 −0.216 −0.166 −0.116 0.310 0.7 0.646 0.726 0.730 0.797 0.817
0.8 −0.065 −0.089 0.256 −0.225 0.328 0.8 0.323 0.517 0.492 0.535 0.623
O & I = outer and inner surfaces of ring foundation. O & I = outer and inner surfaces of ring foundation.

Table 2. Depth factor constants for ring foundation in heterogeneous soil (kB/Su
= 2).
Ri/Ro α=1 α = 0.5 α = 0.5 (O & I) α = 0.2 α = 0.2 (O & I) The soil failure pattern of surface footing with Ri/Ro
Values of constant ‘a’ = 0.2 and kB/Su = 0 indicates a settlement of soil beneath
0.2 0.685 0.451 0.438 0.275 0.228 and at immediate proximity of the foundation. The bulging
0.4 0.711 0.473 0.296 0.213 −0.003 of soil mass was observed little away from the edge of the
0.6 0.722 0.446 0.229 0.288 −0.085
0.7 0.896 0.494 0.125 0.280 −0.231 footing. This behaviour was observed near the inner and
0.8 1.025 0.385 0.084 0.305 −0.361 the outer edge of the ring foundation. With an increase in
Values of constant ‘b’ soil heterogeneity, there was a gradual decrease in the
0.2 −0.003 0.047 −0.032 0.147 0.066 bulging of the soil. Similar behaviour was observed for
0.4 −0.153 −0.091 0.026 0.112 0.236
0.6 −0.108 −0.130 −0.025 −0.069 0.150 the entire range of Ri/Ro.
0.7 −0.186 −0.140 0.092 −0.043 0.291 The failure pattern of subsoil below and around the
0.8 −0.102 0.048 0.159 −0.066 0.412 embedded ring foundation with D/B = 1 has been presented
O & I = outer and inner surfaces of ring foundation. in Figures 9(a-d) for extreme cases with Ri/Ro = 0.2 and 0.8 and
kB/Su = 0 and 30.
The soil failure pattern of subsoil below and around the
Table 3. Depth factor constants for ring foundation in heterogeneous soil (kB/Su embedded footing indicated a settlement of soil near the
= 5).
inner edge of the footing and bulging at some distance
Ri/Ro α=1 α = 0.5 α = 0.5 (O & I) α = 0.2 α = 0.2 (O & I) away from the edge within the annular zone. As an effect
Values of constant ‘a’
0.2 −0.028 −0.070 −0.237 −0.273 −0.028
of footing embedment with surcharge around the outer
0.4 0.050 0.013 −0.128 −0.237 0.050 edge of footing, soil near to this indicated no signs of
0.6 −0.126 −0.295 −0.299 −0.539 −0.126 bulging, and only settlement took place along with the
0.7 −0.243 −0.379 −0.378 −0.666 −0.243
0.8 −0.222 −0.377 −0.268 −0.758 −0.222
settling foundation.
Values of constant ‘b’
0.2 0.116 0.185 0.178 0.352 0.309
0.4 −0.086 0.051 0.007 0.185 0.187 4. Conclusions
0.6 0.035 0.106 0.193 0.240 0.355
0.7 0.133 0.227 0.265 0.311 0.452 In the present study, the effect of embedment of ring founda­
0.8 −0.170 0.363 0.323 0.241 0.571 tion in cohesive soil on the bearing capacity factors, Nc and the
O & I = outer and inner surfaces of ring foundation. depth factors, dc was studied using FE-based computer soft­
ware Plaxis 3D. The influence of other parameters such as ring
geometry, footing side roughness, and soil heterogeneity were
Table 4. Depth factor constants for ring foundation in heterogeneous soil (kB/Su
= 10). also analysed.
Ri/Ro α=1 α = 0.5 α = 0.5 (O & I) α = 0.2 α = 0.2 (O & I) The depth factors obtained from this study can be used to
Values of constant ‘a’ evaluate the bearing capacity of embedded ring foundation in
0.2 −0.458 −0.677 −0.704 −0.836 −0.857 cohesive soil. The designer can have more flexibility while
0.4 −0.536 −0.725 −0.758 −0.860 −0.918 optimizing the ring geometry, though it primarily depends
0.6 −0.357 −0.574 −0.717 −0.760 −0.900
0.7 −0.251 −0.600 −0.726 −0.732 −0.931 on the type of superstructure but equally depends on the
0.8 0.410 −0.375 −0.528 −0.470 −0.803 available bearing capacity for specific geometry and embed­
Values of constant ‘b’ ment depth.
0.2 0.391 0.501 0.495 0.637 0.597 The factors Nc and dc are observed to be increasing with
0.4 0.446 0.510 0.489 0.614 0.601
0.6 0.303 0.347 0.424 0.512 0.543 footing embedment depth for homogeneous and heteroge­
0.7 0.249 0.388 0.437 0.471 0.562 neous soil up to kB/Su = 5. For higher heterogeneity, these
0.8 −0.162 0.326 0.319 0.301 0.477 factors do not have significant variation with embedment
O & I = outer and inner surfaces of ring foundation. depths beyond D/B = 0.25.
8 K. BIRID AND D. CHOUDHURY

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e)

Figure 7. Depth factor constants “a” and “b”

In the case of homogeneous soil, dc values are decreasing ring foundation with varying embedment depth, ring geome­
with an increase in Ri/Ro. These values are almost uniform for try, and soil heterogeneity.
higher embedment beyond D/B = 0.25 irrespective of soil The effect of foundation embedment and soil heterogeneity
heterogeneity for the common value of Ri/Ro. Hence, soil can be clearly observed on the failure pattern of the ring
heterogeneity has very less influence on dc and Nc for foundations. The failure of surface foundation in homoge­
embedded ring foundations with D/B > 0.25. neous clayey soil is characterized by bulging of the soil along
Depth factors are observed to be reduced with a decrease in the outer periphery of the foundation, which reduces with an
footing side roughness coefficient such that higher values are increase in soil heterogeneity. Such phenomenon is not
obtained for footing with rough sides and lesser values for observed for the embedded footings. However, the space
footing with smooth sides. within the inner diameter in the case of ring foundations has
A simplified equation with proposed values of constants ‘a’ undergone bulging in all the cases of footing embedment and
and ‘b’ can be used for quick estimation of depth factors for soil heterogeneity.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 9

Figure 8. Soil failure pattern below surface ring foundations

Figure 9. Soil failure pattern below embedded ring foundations

10 K. BIRID AND D. CHOUDHURY

List of notations Springer and Journal of Institution of Engineers (India)-Series A of

Springer. Prof. Choudhury supervised 26 PhDs and many of his students'
thesis received Best Ph.D. thesis awards of various professional societies.
a is the depth factor constant In addition to extensive outstanding research contributions having far
α is footing roughness coefficient reaching societal impact, a recipient of both Best Teacher Award and Best
b is the depth factor constant Researcher Award, Prof. Choudhury contributes significantly as an
B is the outer diameter of footing
administrator of his institute at IIT Bombay and for his country India
Ri is the inner radius of ring foundation
Ro is the outer radius of ring foundation in his domain of academia.
D is the depth of foundation
Su is the undrained shear strength of soil
Sum is the undrained shear strength of soil at surface
c is the undrained cohesion of soil ORCID
Eu is the elastic modulus of soil
Ec is the elastic modulus of concrete Kedar Birid http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2503-7454
μ is the Poisson's ratio Deepankar Choudhury http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2331-7049
Ø is the angle of internal friction
Q is the limit load for quarter model of footing
NcD is the bearing capacity factor for embedded footing at depth D
Ncsu is the bearing capacity factor for surface footing
References
k is the shear strength gradient
Benmebarek, S., I. Saifi, and N. Benmebarek. 2017. “Depth Factors for
z is the depth for shear strength gradient
Undrained Bearing Capacity of Circular Footing by Numerical
Approach.” Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering
9: :761–766. doi:10.1016/j.jrmge.2017.01.003.
Chavda, J. T., and G. R. Dodagoudar. 2019. “On Vertical Bearing Capacity
of Ring Footings: Finite Element Analysis, Observations and
Disclosure statement
Recommendations.” International Journal of Geotechnical
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). Engineering 1–13. doi:10.1080/19386362.2019.1648737.
Edwards, D. H., L. Zdravkovic, and D. M. Potts. 2005. “Depth Factors for
Undrained Bearing Capacity.” Geotechnique 55: :755–758. doi:10.1680/
geot.2005.55.10.755.
Notes on contributors Gholami, H., and E. S. Hosseininia. 2017. “Bearing Capacity Factors of Ring
Footings by Using the Method of Characteristics.” Geotechnical and
Kedar Birid has a master’s degree in geotechnical engineering and has
Geological Engineering 35: 2137–2146. doi:10.1007/s10706-017-0233-9.
more than two decades of industrial experience in the geotechnical engi­
Gourvenec, S. M., and D. S. K. Mana. 2011. “Undrained Vertical Bearing
neering field. He has been associated with various multinational geotech­
Capacity Factors for Shallow Foundations.” Géotechnique Letters 1:
nical contractors, consultants, and owners and handles large-scale
101–108. doi:10.1680/geolett.11.00026.
industrial projects all over the world. His research areas include numerical
Hansen, J. B. 1970. A Revised and Extended Formula for Bearing Capacity.
modeling of shallow foundations, foundation engineering, ground
Danish Geotechnical Institute. Copenhagen, Bulletin No. 28.
improvement, study about the feasibility and applications of in situ and
Hosseininia, E. S. 2016. “Bearing Capacity Factors of Ring Footings.”
laboratory testing, and site characterizations. Kedar Birid is a member of
Iranian Journal of Science and Technology Transactions of Civil
TC102, a technical committee of the International Society of Soil
Engineering 40: 121–132. doi:10.1007/s40996-016-0003-6.
Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering (ISSMGE) on Ground
Houlsby, G. T., and C. M. Martin. 2003. “Undrained Bearing Capacity
Property Characterization from In situ Tests. He is also a member of
Factors for Conical Footings on Clay.” Géotechnique 53 (5): 513–520.
Indian Geotechnical Society (IGS). He serves as a reviewer of three peer
doi:10.1680/geot.2003.53.5.513.
reviewed journals namely, ASCE International Journal of Geomechanics,
Hu, Y., M. F. Randolph, and P. G. Watson. 1999. “Bearing Response of
Journal of Institution of Engineers (India)-Series A of Springer and
Skirted Foundation on Nonhomogeneous Soil.” Journal of
Journal of Marine Georesources & Geotechnology of Taylor & Francis.
Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering 125 (11): 924–935.
Prof. Deepankar Choudhury is Prof. T. Kant Chair Professor and Head of doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1999)125:11(924).
Civil Engineering department of IIT Bombay, Mumbai, India. He is an Kumar, J., and M. Chakraborty. 2015. “Bearing Capacity Factors for Ring
elected fellow of National Academy of Sciences India (FNASc), a fellow of Foundations.” Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental
ASCE, USA (F.ASCE), a fellow of the Institution of Engineers, India Engineering 141 (10): 1–7. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001345.
(FIE), a fellow of the Indian Geotechnical Society, and a fellow of Lee, J. K., S. Jeong, and S. Lee. 2016a. “Undrained Bearing Capacity
Indian Society of Earthquake Technology. Prof. Choudhury is the reci­ Factors for Ring Footings in Heterogeneous Soil.” Computers and
pient of the prestigious Alexander von Humboldt fellowship of Germany, Geotechnics 75: :103–111. doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2016.01.021.
JSPS Fellowship of Japan, TWAS-VS fellowship of Italy, BOYSCAST Lee, J. K., S. Jeong, and J. Q. Shang. 2016b. “Undrained Bearing Capacity
fellowship of India. His research area includes Geotechnical Earthquake of Ring Foundations on Two-layered Clays.” Ocean Engineering 119:
Engineering, Foundation Engineering, Computational Geomechanics, 47–57. doi:10.1016/j.oceaneng.2016.04.019.
Soil Dynamics, and Seismic Hazards. He has authored over 300 technical Martin, C. M. 2001. “Vertical Bearing Capacity of Skirted Circular
publications among which over 160 are in peer-reviewed journals. His co- Foundations on Tresca Soil.” Proc Int Conf Soils Mech Geotech Eng
authored textbook on 'Foundation Systems for High Rise Structures' (ICSMGE) Part 1, Istanbul, 743–746.
published by CRC Press is highly popular worldwide in addition to his Meyerhof, G. G. 1951. “The Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Foundations.”
video lecture courses on 'Soil Dynamics' and 'Geotechnical Earthquake Géotechnique 2 (4): 301–332. doi:10.1680/geot.1951.2.4.301.
Engineering' developed under NPTEL, Govt. of India. Prof. Choudhury Naseri, M., and E. S. Hosseininia. 2015. “Elastic Settlement of Ring
was invited and worked as Visiting Fellow/Professor at NUS Singapore, Foundations.” Soils and Foundations 55 (2): 284–295. doi:10.1016/j.
University of Wollongong Australia, UC Berkeley USA, Kagoshima sandf.2015.02.005.
University Japan, Technical University Darmstadt Germany, Incheon Nguyen, V. Q., and R. S. Merifield. 2012. “Two- and Three-dimensional
National University South Korea. He has executed several national and Undrained Bearing Capacity of Embedded Footings.” Australian
international projects of repute in his area of expertise. He served as Geomechanics Journal 47 (2): 25–40.
committee members of various design codes of India and USA. He Salgado, R., A. V. Lyamin, S. W. Sloan, and H. S. Yu. 2004. “Two-and
serves as Associate Editor of three peer reviewed journals namely, ASCE Three-dimensional Bearing Capacity of Foundations in Clay.”
International Journal of Geomechanics, Indian Geotechnical Journal of Geotechnique 54: 297–306. doi:10.1680/geot.2004.54.5.297.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 11

Sharma, V., and A. Kumar. 2019. “Numerical Study of Ring and Circular Terzaghi, K. 1943. Theoretical Soil Mechanics. New York: Wiley.
Foundations Resting on Fibre-reinforced Soil.” International Journal of Zheng, G., X. Yu, H. Zhou, X. Yang, W. Guo, and P. Yang. 2021.
Geotechnical Engineering 1–13. doi:10.1080/19386362.2019.1603680. “Influence of Geosynthetic Reinforcement on the Stability of
Skempton, A. W. 1951. “The Bearing Capacity of Clays.” In Proc., Building Research Embankments with Rigid Piles Embedded in an Inclined Underlying
Congress, 180–189. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1477-8696.1951.tb01280.x Stratum.” Geotextiles and Geomembranes 49: 180–187. doi:10.1016/j.
Taiebat, H. A., and J. P. Carter. 2010. “A Failure Surface for Circular Footings geotexmem.2020.10.002.
on Cohesive Soils.” Geotechnique 60: 265–273. doi:10.1680/geot.7.00062. Zhou, H., Y. Diao, G. Zheng, J. Han, and R. Jia. 2017. “Failure Modes and
Tani, K., and W. Craig. 1995. “Bearing Capacity of Circular Foundations Bearing Capacity of Rigid Footings on Soft Ground Reinforced by
on Soft Clay of Strength Increasing with Depth.” Soils and Foundations Floating Stone Columns.” Acta Geotechnica 12 (5): 1089–1103.
35 (4): 21–35. doi:10.3208/sandf.35.4_21. doi:10.1007/s11440-017-0535-3.