Technical Note

Circular-Plate Load Tests on Bounded Cemented

Layers above Weak Cohesive-Frictional Soil
Nilo Cesar Consoli 1; Jamile Giriboni Rossi 2; Lucas Festugato 3;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFRGS - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul on 08/05/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Cesar Alberto Ruver 4; Hugo Carlos Scheuermann Filho 5; Diego Foppa 6;

Mariana da Silva Carretta 7; and Helena Batista Leon 8

Abstract: The usage of soil-cement reinforced layers to bear shallow foundations is a viable option in low-bearing-capacity soils. Existing
methodologies that can determine the bearing capacity in such cases tend to consider the cemented layer’s bounds to be infinite, depending solely
on the ratio between the footing width and the layer’s thickness. The present study intends to assess the influence of the reinforcement width on
the load-settlement behavior of a circular steel footing resting on square-edge soil-cement layers bearing on a weak highly porous residual soil.
Static load tests were carried out on footings (diameter of 300 mm) resting on sand-cement reinforced layers with distinct areas (edges of 450,
600, and 900 mm) and constant thickness of 300 mm. The results have shown two distinct failure modes that rely on the cemented layer’s width.
A punching mechanism was observed for the two smaller reinforcement’s layers and they did not fail. The 900-mm square cemented layer, on the
other hand, had a failure that was initiated by the formation of tensile cracks and fissures in the center of its bottommost segment. This study
highlights the importance of considering the soil-cement layer’s width in the bearing capacity estimation of footings resting on treated layers
above weak cohesive-frictional soils. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0002144. © 2019 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Plate load tests; Artificially cemented bounded layer; Cohesive-frictional soil; Lightly bonded soil; Ground
improvement; Failure mechanisms.

Introduction can comprise a significant amount of the budget in low-cost hous-

The use of shallow foundations resting on soil-cement reinforced
layers is a feasible and economical option for use in low-bearing-
capacity soils, rather than more typical deep foundations. The latter
1
Professor, Graduate Program in Civil Engineering, Universidade
Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS 90035-190, Brazil
(corresponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6408-451X.
Email: consoli@ufrgs.br; consoli@pq.cnpq.br
2
M.Sc. Student, Graduate Program in Civil Engineering, Universidade
Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS 90035-190, Brazil. Email:
jamilegr@hotmail.com
3 sider the upper layer to be a cohesive-frictional material. Vésic
Associate Professor, Graduate Program in Civil Engineering, Univer-
sidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS 90035-190, Brazil.
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6710-8927. Email: lucas@ufrgs.br
4
Assistant Professor, Graduate Program in Civil Engineering, Univer-
sidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS 90035-190, Brazil.
Email: cesar.ruver@gmail.com
5
Ph.D. Student, Graduate Program in Civil Engineering, Universidade
Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS 90035-190, Brazil. Email:
hugocsf@gmail.com
6
Engineer and Researcher, Foppa Projetos e Consultoria Geotécnica,
São Francisco St., No. 211, office 702, Canoas, RS 92025-410, Brazil.
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0859-0044. Email: diego@foppageo
.com.br
7 Foppa et al. (forthcoming), who presented a new method for cal-
Ph.D. Student, Graduate Program in Civil Engineering, Universidade
Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS 90035-190, Brazil. Email:
marianacarretta@gmail.com
8
Ph.D. Student, Graduate Program in Civil Engineering, Universidade
Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS 90035-190, Brazil. Email:
helenableon@gmail.com
Note. This manuscript was submitted on December 11, 2018; approved
on May 16, 2019; published online on July 27, 2019. Discussion period
open until December 27, 2019; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This technical note is part of the Journal of Geotech-
nical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241.
ing, temporary structures, and as-like constructions. The efficiency
through load capacity gain and settlement reduction by soil-cement
reinforcement has been demonstrated in recent research (Thomé
et al. 2005; Consoli et al. 2003, 2009) and there are various ap-
proaches to predict the bearing capacity of this sort of foundation.
Those methods are generally based on double-layer systems, in
which the upper stratum is considered stiffer. This is frequently
seen in sedimentary deposits, where it is common to find a dense
sand layer resting on a loose sand or soft clay stratum (e.g., Tcheng
1957; Meyerhof 1974; Burd and Frydman 1997; Kenny and
Andrawes 1997). There are, however, few methodologies that con-
(1975) and Consoli et al. (2008) introduced approaches for the
prediction of bearing capacity of shallow foundations assented
on cemented soil layers that is based on the continuity of these
layers (i.e., layer width is sufficiently larger than the foundation
width), but such methodologies are somewhat flawed since the
cement-treated layer area is considered infinite and only the thick-
ness of said layer is taken into account. The layer’s treated area is
an essential point of the project, especially for economic reasons,
meaning that the simplification of the compacted cemented soil
layers into an infinite area is inadvisable. The lateral reinforce-
ment’s extension started to be addressed by Foppa (2016) and
culating the bearing capacity of shallow strip footings supported
by a soil-cement reinforcement layer bearing on loose sand foun-
dation soils. This research aims to study the pressure-settlement
behavior and the bearing capacity of circular footings [diameter
(D) of 300 mm] resting on sand-cement reinforced layers consid-
ering distinct square treated areas (edges of 450, 600, and 900 mm)
and a constant thickness (H) of 300 mm. A new initial approach is
proposed for the design of shallow foundations overlaying finite
cement-treated areas.

© ASCE 06019011-1 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(10): 06019011

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFRGS - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul on 08/05/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. CPT soil profiles to a depth of 15 m.

Soil Characteristics

Cohesive-Frictional Stratum
The residual soil existing at the experimental field is the product of
in situ weathering processes and exhibits characteristics related to
these processes, such as interparticle bonding and high porosity. As
such, the studied soil possesses a cohesive-frictional behavior and
relatively high permeability (k ¼ 1.1 × 10−5 m=s) when compared
to transported soils with similar grain size distribution. Field and
laboratory tests were employed in order to characterize the soil. The
first encompassed two in situ cone penetration tests (CPTs) per-
formed 10 m away from each other to a depth up to 15 m. Results
are shown in Fig. 1 and reveal the horizontal homogeneity of the
local soil. The soil profile possesses a thin soil crust (depth <0.5 m)
that exhibits a high tip strength (qt ) reaching 4 MPa, followed by a
reduction to 0.8 MPa of the qt in the next 3.0 m. A tip strength gain
is then observed, and it remains at around 1.5–2.0 MPa until the test
limit. The sleeve friction (f s ) followed the same trend as recorded
for the tip. The laboratory tests were carried out on a sample re-
covered from a depth of about 1.0 m, where the average bulk unit
weight was 16.1 kN=m3 , the void ratio (e) was 1.21, and the mois-
ture content was around 33%. The soil presented a liquid limit (LL)
of 42% and a plastic index (PI) of 11%. The grain size distribution
revealed 2.0% medium sand (0.425 mm ≤ diameter ≤ 2.0 mm),
20.0% fine sand (0.075 mm ≤ diameter ≤ 0.425 mm), 22.0% silt
(0:002 mm ≤ diameter ≤ 0.075 mm), and 56.0% clay (diameter ≤
0.002 mm). The soil is thus classified as a lean clay with sand (CL)
according to the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)
(ASTM 2017). Its unit weight of grains is 26.7 kN=m3 . In order to
assess its mechanical behavior, isotropically consolidated drained
triaxial tests were performed in undisturbed specimens under con-
fining pressures of 20, 35, and 50 kPa. The results are presented in
Fig. 2 and yielded an effective peak friction angle (ϕ 0 ) of 30.5° and Fig. 2. Residual cohesive-frictional soil isotropically consolidated
an effective cohesion intercept (c 0 ) of 13.0 kPa. The deviatoric drained (CID) triaxial tests at confining stresses of 20, 35, and
stress–axial strain curves exhibit soil ductile behavior for effective 50 kPa: (a) deviator stress (q); and (b) volumetric strain (εv ) versus
axial strain (εa ).
confining stresses of 20–35 kPa and strain hardening behavior for

© ASCE 06019011-2 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(10): 06019011

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFRGS - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul on 08/05/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. Test setup depicting the improved soil layers.

effective confining stress 50 kPa [Fig. 2(a)]. The axial strain–

volumetric strain curves present contractive behavior [Fig. 2(b)].

Artificially Cemented Layers

The artificially cemented layers were square with 300 mm thick-
ness and 450-, 600-, or 900-mm widths, being composed of Osorio
sand and high early strength portland cement (Type III). Fig. 3
presents the test setups depicting the improved soil layers. The
amount of cement was fixed as 7% (Mitchell 1981; Consoli et al.
2010) and was related to the total mass of solids. The soil was clas-
sified as nonplastic uniform fine sand with rounded-shape particles
mainly composed of quartz and was obtained near Porto Alegre
(southern Brazil). Its mean effective diameter (D50 ) was 0.16 mm
and the uniformity and curvature coefficients were respectively 1.9
and 1.2. The specific gravity was 2.65 and the maximum and mini-
mum void ratios were 0.6 and 0.9. The specific gravity of the ce-
ment grains was 3.15. Prior to the mixture and compaction of the
top cemented layers, a 500-mm-thick layer of the local residual soil
was removed from the testing area and the square was excavated in
accordance with the specified dimensions. Next, the dry materials
(sand + cement) were weighed and mixed until a uniform aspect
was attained. Water was subsequently added to obtain an overall
moisture content of 10% (Consoli et al. 2010) and the mixing con-
tinued until a homogeneous paste was acquired. Each cemented
layer was compacted by manual tamping to the specified dry unit
weight of 17.2 kN=m3 (e ¼ 0.67) and cured for 28 days before the
field load tests. The mechanical parameters of the cemented layers
were obtained through conventional isotropically consolidated
drained triaxial tests on specimens retrieved from the field after
the curing period of 28 days was finished. Confining pressures
of 75, 150, and 225 kPa were employed, in accordance with con-
ventional working pressures reached in the plate load tests. The
consolidated drained triaxial test results are depicted in Fig. 4.
Fig. 4. Sand–portland cement layer CID tests at confining stresses of
The deviatoric stress–axial strain response of cemented sand
75, 150, and 225 kPa: (a) deviator stress (q); and (b) volumetric strain
exhibit brittle behavior at all studied confined stresses [Fig. 4(a)].
(εv ) versus axial strain (εa ).
Peak strength is present associated with a dilative volumetric strain

© ASCE 06019011-3 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(10): 06019011

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFRGS - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul on 08/05/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 5. (a) Load-settlement curves; and (b) pressure-settlement curves of 300-mm-diameter circular plate bearing on natural cohesive-frictional soil,
on 450-, 600-, and 900-mm-edge cemented layer into weak cohesive-frictional soil.
behavior [Fig. 4(b)]. Results led to a peak friction angle of 37.7°
and a cohesion intercept of about 105 kPa.
Field Testing Program
The field testing program was carried out at the experimental
site described previously. Plate load tests were conducted using
rigid circular steel plates 300 mm in diameter and 50.8-mm thick.
The setup used for conducting the plate load tests was in accor-
dance with ASTM D1194 (ASTM 1994). The load was applied
through a system composed of a hydraulic jack, a reaction beam,
a loading platform, and a calibrated load cell. Four dial gauges with
divisions of 0.01-mm and 50-mm travel were used for vertical dis-
placement (δ) measurement. Measurements were made directly on
the plate, as well as on the top of the treated layer adjacent to the
plate. Settlements on the top of the plate were taken at three points,
120° from each other. The gauges were fixed to a reference beam
and supported by external rods. The load was applied in equal in-
crements of not more than one-tenth of the estimated ultimate bear-
ing capacity. For each load increment, measurement of settlements
was made at the following fixed times: 0 s, 15 s, 30 s, 1 min, 2 min,
4 min, 8 min, 15 min, 30 min, and 60 min (ABNT 1991). The fail-
ure load (Qu ) and the limit pressure were established at a relative
settlement (δ=D) of 3%. This failure (limit) criterion was proposed
by Consoli et al. (2009) based on a previous study by Berardi and
Lancellotta (1991) that analyzed the behavior of more than 200
shallow foundations, having found that maximum displacements
at working pressures were generally of the order of 1%. Thus,
the δ=D criterion (3%) used in the present research to define the
maximum (or limit) pressure was three times the value of δ=D ob-
served by Berardi and Lancellotta (1991) at working pressure. Ad-
ditionally, failure was evaluated according to two other approaches.
The tangent intersection method, proposed by Mansur and
Kaufman (1956), was applied to the results to define the failure
loads. The intersection of the tangents of the initial and final portions
of the load-displacement curve defines the failure point. The method
proposed by the Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussées
(Cudmani 1994), which considers a time factor, was used as an
alternative. The method defines the settlement at a given time after
the application of a load increment as the sum of the settlement of
© ASCE
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(10): 06019011
the previous load stage and the logarithm of time multiplied by a
time factor. When this time factor is plotted against the applied load,
two linear portions are observed and failure load is determined by
the point where one portion changes to another.
Test Results and Analysis
Figs. 5(a and b) show plots of applied load-settlement and applied
pressure-settlement curves of 300-mm-diameter steel plate bearing
on the residual cohesive-frictional soil without reinforcement
and on 450-, 600-, and 900-mm square-edge artificially cemented
layers (300-mm thick) built above the same residual soil. It is evi-
dent from Fig. 5 that higher load and pressures at a given settlement
were observed in larger treated areas. Punching failure through the
square edges of the cemented layers occurred for the steel plate
resting on top of the 450-mm and 600-mm layers. As mentioned
previously, the collapse occurred through the edges of the artifi-
cially cemented strata, as though these volumes were part of the
foundation structure. This mechanism of failure was corroborated
by the field analysis of the cemented layers after the test was
completed because no cracks or fractures were observed on the
retrieved layers (Fig. 6). The sand-cement block, when loaded
through the steel plate, suffers soil punching shear failure (Vésic
1975). For punching failure, as the load increases, the compression
of the soil immediately below the footing occurs, and the continued
penetration of the footing is made possible by vertical shear around
the footing perimeter. There is practically no movement of the soil
on the sides of the footing. A continuous increase in the vertical
load is observed to maintain the movement in the vertical direction.
On the other hand, failure started in the cemented layer for the cir-
cular plate resting on the 900-mm square-edge reinforcement. This
failure mode was attested to by the cracks that were found on the
parallelepipedic volume that was vertically cut after the load test
was completed (Fig. 7). Consoli et al. (2009) noticed a similar trend
for infinite layers with unitary H=D ratios (where H ¼ 300 mm
was the thickness of the treated layer and D ¼ 300 mm was the
diameter of the loading circular plate). The authors verified (in
the field and also through finite-element simulations) that tensile
cracks initiated at the bottom of the cemented soil layer, below
the circular plate.
06019011-4 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 Ultimate Bearing Capacity
In agreement with the findings previously presented, two distinct
failure modes can be linked to the artificially cemented soil layer
width. For the smaller widths (450 and 600 mm), the ultimate bear-
ing capacity could be assessed as if the footing was an association
between the circular steel plate and the artificially cemented layer
because no cracks and fissures were observed in the cemented
layer. Yet the artificially cemented sand layer with the larger width
(900 mm) failed due to excessive tensile stresses that developed at
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFRGS - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul on 08/05/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. Parallelepipedic shape of the 450 × 450 × 300 mm improved
sand-cement volume (removed from the field).
its bottom. Hence, the bearing capacity of the circular plate resting
on this layer could be evaluated as if this layer was infinite.
Figs. 8(a and b) present the failure load (Qu ) and the equivalent
limit pressure (σe ) as a function of the relative settlement for the
three tested cemented layers, as well as for the 300-mm-diameter
circular plate resting directly on the natural cohesive-frictional soil.
The 900-mm cemented layer presented a peak valued at 118 kN,
observed in Fig. 8(a), which was considered to be the field failure
load. However, no peak was observed for the smaller treated layer
widths (450 and 600 mm). As such, the methods presented sub-
sequently were used to determine their failure load. For the sake

Fig. 7. (a) General view; and (b) lateral view of failure mechanism of the 900 × 900 × 300 mm improved sand-cement volume (above weak cohesive-
frictional soil) that failed below the vertically loaded steel plate.

Fig. 8. (a) Applied load (Q); and (b) equivalent pressure (σe ) versus relative displacement (δ=D) curves of 300-mm-diameter circular plate resting on
450-, 600-, and 900-mm-wide square cemented layer above a weak cohesive-frictional soil.

© ASCE 06019011-5 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(10): 06019011

 of comparison, values for the 900-mm layer determined through
these methods will also be presented.
The field failure loads [at a relative displacement (δ=D) of
3% (Consoli et al. 2009)] were 50, 86, and 111 kN for the 450-,
600-, and 900-mm cemented layers, respectively. The failure loads
determined through the tangent intersection method (Mansur and
Kaufman 1956) were 46, 85, and 109 kN for the 450-, 600-, and
900-mm cemented layers, respectively. Analogous analysis using
the Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussées method (Cudmani
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFRGS - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul on 08/05/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
soil presented extensive cracking (Fig. 9), thus losing any extra
resistance it possessed [Fig. 8(b)], resulting in all three curves con-
verging. However, the equivalent pressure is much lower in the
900-mm layer that failed due to the formation of tensile cracks.
Fig. 10 shows the observed failure loads (at a relative displace-
ment of 3% and at peak for the widest treated layer), the failure load
(Qu ) obtained through the Hansen (1961) method as a function of
the cemented layer width, and the Qu obtained using the Vésic
(1975) method for double-layer systems for H=D ¼ 1.0 (case stud-

1994) yielded failure loads of 49, 87, and 104 kN for the 450-, ies carried out in the field). The Hansen (1961) method [Eq. (1)]
600-, and 900-mm cemented layers, respectively. The use of these was applied as if the footing was a single element formed by the
distinct methods led to similar failure load values, ranging within circular steel plate with the cemented layer resting on the weak
7% of the average. The different definitions of failure marginally cohesive-frictional residual soil. The strength parameters of the
affected the analysis. The continuity of this study was then devel- weak cohesive-frictional residual soil were reduced to a lower limit
oped considering the failure values determined at the peak for value of two-thirds in order to agree with Terzaghi’s (1943) recom-
widest treated layer and at a relative displacement (δ=D) of 3% mendations for punching failure mechanisms (Consoli et al. 1998)
(Consoli et al. 2009) for the others.
Qu B
The equivalent pressure (σe ) was defined as the applied load ¼ c 0 N c Sc þ γDN q Sq þ r γN γ Sγ ð1Þ
divided by the cemented layer bearing contact area, and similar A 2
behaviors can be noticed between the 450- and 600-mm cemented where A = area of the cemented layer; Br = reinforcement width;
layers. According to Consoli et al. (1998), the curves of equivalent γ = unit weight of soil; N c , N q , and N γ = bearing capacity factors;
pressure (σe ) versus relative displacement (δ=D) of the steel plate and Sc , Sq , and Sγ = shape factors for square foundations, given by
resting on the natural soil and the 450- and 600-mm cemented
layers should stand one on top of the other since the soil profile N c ¼ ðN q − 1Þ cot ϕ 0 ð2Þ
shows homogeneity for the first few meters of depth (Fig. 1).
The curves do not overlap because of the extra resistance in the N γ ¼ 2ðN q þ 1Þ tan ϕ 0 ð3Þ
interface between the cemented soil (which is buried 300 mm)  
and the natural soil. However, it was observed that, at large dis- 0 ϕ0
N q ¼ eπ tan ϕ tan2 450 þ ð4Þ
placements, the interface between the cemented soil and the natural 2
Nq
Sc ¼ 1 þ ð5Þ
Nc
Sq ¼ 1.0 ð6Þ

Sγ ¼ 0.6 ð7Þ

Fig. 10. Bearing capacity prediction considering soil-cement layer as

Fig. 9. Cracking presented at large relative settlements in the cemented a part of the shallow footing (Hansen 1961) and infinite treated layer
soil–natural soil lateral interface. with H=D ¼ 1.0 (Vésic 1975).

© ASCE 06019011-6 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(10): 06019011

 The Vésic (1975) solution [Eq. (8)] establishes the bearing width equal to or greater than the threshold solution by Vésic
capacity of a footing resting on a strong continuous upper layer (1975), the correct result is given by Vésic (1975).
with strength parameters c10 and ϕ10 superposed to a lower (natural
soil) weak layer with strength parameters c20 and ϕ20 as
      Data Availability Statement
Qu 1 0 0 4K tan ϕ10 ðH=DÞ 1 0
¼ q0 þ c cot ϕ1 e − c cot ϕ10 ð8Þ
A K 1 K 1 Some or all data, or models, used during the study are available
from the corresponding author by request.
where A = area of the footing; q0 = bearing capacity as if the footing
was resting on the top of the natural soil, considering the reduction
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFRGS - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul on 08/05/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

in the strength parameters for punching the failure mechanism; and Acknowledgments
K was determined in accordance with Eq. (9)
The authors wish to explicit their appreciation to FAPERGS/CNPq
1 − ðsin ϕ10 Þ2
K¼ ð9Þ 12/2014—PRONEX (Project No. 16/2551-0000469-2), MCT-
1 þ ðsin ϕ10 Þ2 CNPq (Editais INCT-REAGEO, Universal & Produtividade em
Pesquisa), and MEC-CAPES (PROEX) for the support to the
Eq. (8) was presented by Vésic (1975) to address the situations
research group.
where the involved soils present both cohesion and friction. Exper-
imental works (e.g., Tcheng 1957) showed the failure mode under
such conditions was governed by punching mechanisms associated
Notation
with vertical slip lines through the foundation perimeter. Because
the materials involved in the present study present both cohesion The following symbols are used in this paper:
and friction angle and the observed failures exhibited punching A = area of the footing;
mechanisms, the use of Eq. (8) was possible.
Br = reinforcement width;
From Fig. 10, it is possible to detect that the bearing capacity
c 0 = effective cohesion intercept;
prediction considering the soil-cement layer as a part of the shallow
footing (Hansen 1961) is the correct result for edges of the square D = diameter of the loading circular plate;
reinforcement up to about 750 mm, and the infinite cement-treated D50 = mean effective diameter;
layer with H=D ¼ 1.0 (Vésic 1975) solution is the correct result for f s = CPT sleeve friction;
edges of the square reinforcement of 750 mm and greater. As such, H = thickness of the treated layer;
it can be ascertained that for the geometries, materials, and cement K = coefficient of permeability;
content evaluated in this research, the Hansen (1961) and Vésic Q = applied load;
(1975) solutions plotted on a single graph, as presented in Fig. 10, Qu = failure load;
is a useful tool to predict the failure behavior of reinforced layers q = deviatoric stress;
resting above the weak cohesive-frictional soil. qt = CPT tip strength;
γ = natural unit weight;
δ = vertical displacement;
Conclusions δ=D = relative displacement;
This study evaluated field load tests of a circular plate on square εa = axial strain;
bounded sand-cement reinforced layers with three different widths, εv = volumetric strain;
resting above a weak cohesive-frictional soil. The key outcomes are σe = equivalent limit pressure; and
as follows: ϕ 0 = effective friction angle.
• Two distinct failure modes were observed depending on the
soil-cement reinforcement edge width. The sand-cement layer
is kept intact and vertically punches the cohesive-frictional soil References
or the sand-cement layer shows some cracks below the center of
the plate extending upward from its bottom. ABNT (Brazilian National Standards Organization). 1991. Foundations—
• For the smaller reinforcement widths studied (450 and 600 mm), Static loading tests. NBR 12131. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: ABNT.
ASTM. 1994. Standard test method for bearing capacity of soil for static
the ultimate bearing capacity could be assessed as if the footing
load and spread footings. ASTM D1194. West Conshohocken, PA:
was an association between the circular steel plate and the re- ASTM.
inforcement layer because no cracks or fissures were observed. ASTM. 2017. Standard practice for classification of soils for engineering
The reinforcement of 900-mm width failed due to excessive ten- purposes (Unified Soil Classification System). ASTM D2487. West
sile stresses that developed in its bottom. Hence, the bearing Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
capacity of the circular plate resting on this layer could be Berardi, R., and R. Lancellotta. 1991. “Stiffness of granular soil from field
evaluated as if this layer was infinite or continuous. Higher loads performance.” Géotechnique 41 (1): 149–157. https://doi.org/10.1680
and pressures at a given settlement were observed in larger /geot.1991.41.1.149.
treated areas; Burd, H. J., and S. Frydman. 1997. “Bearing capacity of plane-strain foot-
• The plot of the Hansen (1961) and Vésic (1975) solutions in a ings on layered soils.” Can. Geotech. J. 34 (2): 241–253. https://doi.org
/10.1139/t96-106.
single graph was proven to be a useful way to predict the failure
Consoli, N. C., R. C. Cruz, M. F. Floss, and L. Festugato. 2010. “Param-
behavior and bearing capacity of the reinforced layers resting eters controlling tensile and compressive strength of artificially ce-
above a weak cohesive-frictional soil: (1) for soil-cement layer mented sand.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 136 (5): 759–763.
widths below the threshold solution by Vésic (1975), which https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000278.
considers an infinite treated layer for a specific H=D, the correct Consoli, N. C., F. Dalla Rosa, and A. Fonini. 2009. “Plate load tests on
result is given by Hansen (1961); and (2) for soil-cement layer cemented soil layers overlaying weaker soil.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.

© ASCE 06019011-7 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(10): 06019011

 Eng. 135 (12): 1846–1856. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943
-5606.0000158.
Consoli, N. C., F. Schnaid, and J. Milititsky. 1998. “Interpretation of
plate load tests on residual soil site.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
124 (9): 857–867. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1998)
124:9(857).
Consoli, N. C., A. Thomé, M. Donato, and J. Graham. 2008. “Loading tests
on compacted soil, bottom ash, and lime layers.” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng.
Geotech. Eng. 161 (1): 29–38. https://doi.org/10.1680/geng.2008.161
.1.29.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFRGS - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul on 08/05/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Consoli, N. C., M. A. Vendruscolo, and P. D. M. Prietto. 2003. “Behavior
of plate load tests on soil layers improved with cement and fiber.”
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 129 (1): 96–101. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)1090-0241(2003)129:1(96).
Cudmani, R. O. 1994. “Understanding of spread footing tests on residual
soil site.” [In Portuguese.] M.Sc. dissertation, Graduate Program in
Civil Engineering, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul.
Foppa, D. 2016. “A new method for calculating bearing capacity of footings
resting on soil-cement layers.” [In Portuguese.] Ph.D. thesis, Graduate
Program in Civil Engineering, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande
do Sul.
Foppa, D., R. L. Sacco, and N. C. Consoli. Forthcoming. “Bearing capacity
of footings on an artificially cemented layer above weak foundation
soil.” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Ground Improv. https://doi.org/10.1680
/jgrim.18.00089.
© ASCE 06019011-8
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(10): 06019011
Hansen, J. B. 1961. A general formula for bearing capacity. Bulletin
No. 11, 38–46. Copenhagen, Denmark: Danish Geotechnical Institute.
Kenny, M. J., and K. Z. Andrawes. 1997. “The bearing capacity of footing
on sand layer overlying soft clay.” Géotechnique 47 (2): 339–345.
https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1997.47.2.339.
Mansur, C. I., and R. I. Kaufman. 1956. “Pile tests, low-sill structure,
Old River, La.” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. 82 (4): 1–33.
Meyerhof, G. G. 1974. “Ultimate bearing capacity of footings on sand layer
overlying clay.” Can. Geotech. J. 11 (2): 223–229. https://doi.org/10
.1139/t74-018.
Mitchell, J. K. 1981. “Soil improvement—State of the art report.” In Proc.,
10th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
509–565. Rotterdam, Netherlands: A.A. Balkema.
Tcheng, Y. 1957. “Shallow foundations on stratified soil.” In Vol. 1 of
Proc., Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
449–452. London: International Society for Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering.
Terzaghi, K. 1943. Theoretical soil mechanics. New York: Wiley.
Thomé, A., M. Donato, N. C. Consoli, and J. Graham. 2005. “Circular foot-
ings on a cemented layer above weak foundation soil.” Can. Geotech. J.
42 (6): 1569–1584. https://doi.org/10.1139/t05-069.
Vésic, A. S. 1975. “Section 3: Bearing capacity of shallow foundations.”
In Foundation engineering handbook, edited by H. F. Winterkorn, and
H. Y. Fang, 121–147. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.