See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/237152426

Comparative study on the behavior of square foundations resting on confined

sand

Article  in  Canadian Geotechnical Journal · April 2009

DOI: 10.1139/T08-134

CITATIONS READS
34 544

5 authors, including:

Hisham Eid Abdelfattah Odeh

Qatar University Qatar University
45 PUBLICATIONS   1,179 CITATIONS    2 PUBLICATIONS   35 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Husam Sadek
Louisiana State University
25 PUBLICATIONS   113 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Evaluation of Asphalt Mixtures' Resistance to Cement-Treated Base (CTB) Reflective Cracking in Laboratory Using Texas Overlay Tester View project

Probabilistic Analysis for Flow Number Test Results View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Husam Sadek on 28 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 438

Comparative study on the behavior of square

foundations resting on confined sand
Hisham T. Eid, Omar A. Alansari, Abdelfattah M. Odeh, Mohannad N. Nasr, and
Husam A. Sadek

Abstract: The behavior of shallow foundations resting on laterally and (or) vertically confined sand has been investigated
using physical and numerical modeling. The models were designed to simulate the frequently constructed raft foundations
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 74.121.191.133 on 06/05/13

that are surrounded by sheet-pile walls to support excavation sides of sand underlain by a rock bed. Laboratory tests were
carried out utilizing a square foundation model surrounded by rigid steel walls with different depths, resting on sand that
was underlain by a rough rigid layer. Varying sand-layer thicknesses and relative densities were utilized. A three-
dimensional finite element analysis was conducted to verify the physical-model test results and to infer the performance of
full-scale foundations. Based on the results of the experimental and numerical analyses, charts are presented to estimate
the enhanced bearing capacity of square foundations resting on confined sand. These charts are presented in terms of bear-
ing capacity of the surface foundation resting on extended sand, sand relative density, wall width to foundation width ratio,
and rigid layer depth. Charts are also presented to estimate settlement reductions due to the bearing sand lateral and (or)
vertical confinement.
Key words: sand confinement, shallow foundation, bearing capacity, settlement, relative density.
Résumé : Le comportement de fondations peu profondes placé sur du sable confiné latéralement et/ou verticalement est
généralement investigué à l’aide de la modélisation physique et numérique. Les modèles ont été conçus pour simuler les
For personal use only.

radiers qui sont entourés de murs en palplanche pour supporter les bords d’une excavation de sable au-dessus du roc. Des
essais en laboratoire ont été effectués à partir d’un modèle de fondations carrées, entourée de murs d’acier rigides à diffé-
rentes profondeurs, déposé sur du sable placé sur une surface rugueuse rigide. Différentes épaisseurs de la couche de sable
et densités relatives du sable ont été utilisées. Une analyse d’éléments finis en trois dimensions a été réalisée pour vérifier
les résultats de du modèle physique et pour déduire la performance des fondations pleines grandeur. À partir des résultats
expérimentaux et des analyses numériques, des graphiques servant à estimer l’augmentation de la capacité portante de fon-
dations carrées déposées sur du sable confiné sont présentés. Ces graphiques sont présentées en termes de la capacité por-
tante d’une fondation de surface placée sur du sable, la densité relative du sable, le ratio de la largeur du mur sur la
largeur de la fondation, et la profondeur de la couche rigide. Les graphiques servent aussi à estimer les réductions de tasse-
ment dues au sable latéral portant et/ou au confinement vertical.
Mots-clés : confinement du sable, fondation peu profonde, capacité portante, tassement, densité relative.
[Traduit par la Rédaction]

Introduction confined and works as a unit with the overlain foundation to

Significant change is expected in the behavior of shallow
foundations due to confinement of the bearing sand. Foot-
ings with rigid sheet piles fixed at their circumference (i.e.,
skirted foundations) and rafts surrounded by sheet-pile walls
(called walled foundations in this paper) constructed on a
deep sand layer are common types of foundations resting on
laterally confined sand. Examples of foundations on verti-
cally confined sand include foundations on sand of limited
thickness underlain by a rough rigid stratum. For skirted
foundations, skirts form an enclosure in which soil is strictly
Received 14 November 2006. Accepted 17 December 2008.
Published on the NRC Research Press Web site at cgj.nrc.ca on
3 April 2009.
H.T. Eid,1 O.A. Alansari, A.M. Odeh, M.N. Nasr, and
H.A. Sadek. Civil Engineering Department, College of
Engineering, Qatar University, P.O. Box 2713, Doha, Qatar.
1Corresponding author (e-mail: heid@qu.edu.qa).
transfer superstructure loads to the soil at the level of the
skirt tip. Results of physical model testing showed that skirt-
ing leads to settlement reduction and bearing-capacity en-
hancement of shallow foundations on sand (e.g., Villalobos
et al. 2003). Similar behavior was reported for walled foun-
dation models that resemble raft foundations surrounded by
walls to support excavation sides (El Sawwaf and Nazer
2005). Bearing-capacity enhancement was also reported for
foundation models due to sand vertical confinement result-
ing from the existence of a rough rigid stratum (e.g., Cerato
and Lutenegger 2006).
Results from studies similar to those described above
should have a significant potential in the Arabian Gulf coun-
tries, especially with the announcement of several giant
projects that involve unprecedented construction activities
near the coastline and the building of man-made peninsulas.
The near-shore surface soil as well as soil used for forming
the peninsulas mainly consists of sea-bed cohesionless de-
posits that are underlain by fractured limestone or sandstone.

Can. Geotech. J. 46: 438–453 (2009) doi:10.1139/T08-134 Published by NRC Research Press
 Eid et al.
A typical example of such stratification is shown in Fig. 1.
Construction of high-rise buildings with basements resting
on such a soil profile requires using raft foundations that are
surrounded by secant pile walls to support excavation sides.
This foundation – rigid wall system confines the foundation
soil laterally. Vertical confinement of such soil can be also
developed due to bed rock existence within the raft effective
zone. Considering the effect of this three-dimensional con-
finement on increasing bearing capacity, reducing settlement
of raft foundations may lessen the need for using piles to
support rafts of high-rise buildings.
The work presented in this paper includes an extensive lab-
oratory testing program accompanied by a three-dimensional
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 74.121.191.133 on 06/05/13
finite element analysis (FEA) utilizing axially loaded
square-foundation models resting on laterally and (or) ver-
tically confined sand. This work is different from previous
studies that dealt with foundations resting on confined sand
in three main aspects: (i) investigating the separate and
combined effect of lateral and vertical confinement of
sand; (ii) using three-dimensional numerical simulation to
verify the physical-model test results; and (iii) utilizing rel-
ative densities of sands to reflect their shear strength, in-
stead of friction angles, in developing bearing capacity
and settlement charts.
Previous work
For personal use only.
The effect of sand confinement on the behavior of shallow
foundations has been investigated through loading confined-
sand specimens, testing foundation models resting on later-
ally or vertically confined sand, and conducting theoretical
analyses. One of the early studies on the effect of lateral
confinement on compressibility of sand was undertaken by
Hendron (1963) through loading a specimen of laterally con-
fined, moderately coarse uniform sand under drained condi-
tion. The measured strains or settlements were considerably
less than those predicted for unconfined sand utilizing phys-
ical and mathematical models (Nova and Montrasio 1991)
and commonly used equations based on results of standard
penetration (e.g., Meyerhof 1965; Burland and Burbidge
1985) or cone penetration tests (e.g., Schmertmann 1970;
Schmertmann et al. 1978). Similar behavior was reported by
Rajagopal et al. (1999) based on results of triaxial compres-
sion tests on sand specimens confined with geocells.
Several investigators have reported a significant increase
in bearing capacity of foundation models on sand confined
by placing layers of geogrids horizontally (e.g., Binquet and
Lee 1975; Fragaszy and Lawton 1984; Mahmoud and Ab-
drabbo 1989; Khing et al. 1993; Das et al. 1996; Dash et al.
2001a) or vertically (e.g., Mandal and Manjunath 1995,
Dash et al. 2001b). Using more-rigid confining elements,
such as metal skirts fixed to the edges or the circumferences
of foundation models resting on sand, resulted in consider-
able improvement in their bearing capacity and stress–strain
behavior (Al-Aghbari 1999, 2002; Villalobos et al. 2003;
Al-Aghbari and Mohamedzein 2004).
Studies on the effect of lateral soil confinement due to
wall existence on the behavior of the surrounded foundation
are limited in published literature. For foundations resting
on cohesive soil, Salencon (2003) concluded that the in-
crease in bearing capacity due to the presence of rigid walls
439
is small. On the other hand, El Sawwaf and Nazer (2005)
showed a significant increase in bearing capacity and im-
provement in settlement behavior of a circular foundation
model resting on sand due to the existence of unplasticized-
polyvinyl chloride surrounding cylinders.
The effect of locating the foundation in sand underlain by
a rough rigid stratum, i.e., vertically confined sand, was also
investigated using laboratory model testing (e.g., Comis-
siong 1968; Milovic and Tournier 1971; Meyerhof 1974;
Pfeifle and Das 1979; Siraj-Eldine and Bottero 1987; Cerato
and Lutenegger 2006)). In each study, enhancement in bear-
ing capacities was reported when the rigid layer depth to
foundation model-width is less than a critical value. The en-
hancement magnitudes were presented in terms of increas-
ing the classical bearing capacity factors and correlated to
the sand-layer thickness to foundation-width ratio and sand-
friction angle. Results were compared with those yielded
from theoretical studies presented by Mandel and Salencon
(1972) and Meyerhof (1974).
Scale effects
Physical models have been commonly used to study bear-
ing capacity and settlement behavior of foundations because
of the difficulties associated with loading full-scale proto-
types to failure. Foundation models on sand involve a small
quantity of grains and low soil pressures compared with
those involved with the prototype. Considering the nonli-
nearity of the sand shear-strength failure envelope, soil pres-
sures developed in testing models should lead to mobilizing
higher friction angles. This source of scale effect was re-
viewed and discussed by several researchers (e.g., De Beer
1965; Kutter et al. 1988; Kusakabe et al. 1992). In addition,
Yamaguchi et al. (1976, 1977) indicated that for soil of a
given relative density, progressive failure becomes more
prominent with increasing footing width or soil confinement.
Through studying the behavior of surface foundations,
Habib (1974) and Steenfelt (1977) related the magnitude of
scale effect to the ratio between the foundation width and
grain size. Other researchers (e.g., Hettler and Gudehus
1988; Shiraishi 1990; Ueno et al. 1998, 2001; Zhu et al.
2001; Cerato and Lutenegger 2003, 2007) attributed such an
effect to the absolute width of the foundation.
Sources of the scale effect described above can be signifi-
cant, especially in case of testing foundation models sur-
rounded by walls where the rigidity and roughness may not
develop sand confinement similar to that generated by the
prototype. As a result, bearing capacity and settlement values
measured in the present study were compared with the corre-
sponding values predicted using existing theories and (or)
laboratory modeling, not with those measured for full-scale
foundations. The analysis of test results and their applica-
tions is focused on quantifying the effects of lateral and (or)
vertical sand confinement through comparing the behaviors
of modeled walled foundations with those of modeled con-
ventional ones rather than determining specific bearing ca-
pacity or settlement values. Consequently, such effects were
presented using bearing capacity and settlement ratios. In ad-
dition, a three-dimensional numerical analysis utilizing foun-
dation and wall prototype dimensions and properties was
conducted to verify the physical-model test results.
Published by NRC Research Press
 440
Fig. 1. Typical stratification of Doha coastal area. W.L, water level.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 74.121.191.133 on 06/05/13
Theoretical consideration
For a foundation resting on extended sand and subjected
to axial loading, the theoretical ultimate bearing capacity,
qult, can be estimated from the following classical formula:
½1 qult ¼ gDNq sq dq þ 0:5gBNg sg dg
in which g is the unit weight of soil; D is the foundation
depth; Nq and Ng are the bearing capacity factors depending
on soil friction angle (f); sq and sg and dq and dg are shape
and depth factors, respectively; and B is the foundation
width.
For personal use only.
Considering these bearing capacity parameters, the
studied lateral and vertical confinement of sand beneath a
shallow foundation should enhance its bearing capacity be-
cause of an increase in the total depth and a change in the
failure pattern. Such change is presented in Fig. 2 for a sur-
face foundation. Boundaries of failure zones for a founda-
tion resting on extended sand are shown in Fig. 2a.
Dragging these zones down near the wall tip and changing
their shape and boundaries due to the existence of a rough
rigid stratum near such a tip are shown in Fig. 2b. The fail-
ure pattern shown in Fig. 2b for a foundation resting on
three-dimensionally confined sand is a combination of two
simplified failure patterns. The first was presented by sev-
eral researchers (e.g., Meyerhof 1974; Pfeifle and Das
1979) for strip, circular, and rectangular foundations resting
on a thin sand layer underlain by a rigid stratum. The sec-
ond was described by other investigators (e.g., Al-Aghbari
1999; Villalobos et al. 2003; El Sawwaf and Nazer 2005)
for strip, circular, and square foundations resting on sand
that is laterally confined by rigid elements, such as skirts or
walls. Effects of changing the failure pattern on the bearing
capacity of shallow foundations were investigated as shown
in subsequent sections.
As mentioned previously, it was shown experimentally
that lateral confinement significantly reduces compression
of sand. As a result, part of the walled foundation settlement
that is due to compression of sand confined by walls can be
minor compared with the total settlement. On the other
hand, the existence of walls may lead to a transfer of the
foundation loads to the laterally confined sand and then to
deeper sand layers that are more confined than shallow
layers due to an increase in overburden pressures and (or)
the existence of a rigid stratum. This may cause a further re-
duction in total settlement. The effect of the described lat-
eral and vertical confinement of sand on the settlement of
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 46, 2009
shallow foundations was also experimentally and numeri-
cally investigated in this study.
Testing program
Apparatus and foundation models
Bearing capacity and settlement of foundation models
resting on sand overlying rock were determined using a lab-
oratory set up consisting of a test tank, sand-raining hopper,
and loading system (Fig. 3). The test tank was made of glass
and stiffened with steel frames to have an internal dimen-
sion of 80 cm  80 cm in cross section and 100 cm in
height. The loading system consisted of a hydraulic jack
fixed to a beam that can slide over a stationary frame during
sand raining. Loads were transferred to the foundation
model through a loading rod. Stresses were measured using
proving rings, capacities of which were chosen based on
bearing-capacity values estimated utilizing eq. [1] and the
factors presented by Meyerhof (1974) to account for the ef-
fect of rock existence beneath the bearing sand. As a result,
three proving rings with capacities of 5, 10, and 15 kN were
used throughout the testing program. Two dial gauges with
an accuracy of 0.002 mm placed on the top surface of the
tested foundation model were used to measure settlements.
The dial gauges were fixed to a beam that can slide to one
of the tank ends during placement of rock fragments, sand
raining, and foundation-model installation. A third gauge
was used to monitor settlement of the walls (Fig. 3).
Tests were conducted on square foundation models with
a width (B) of 12 cm. The rigid walls were modeled by
open-ended steel square prisms with outside base width
(B’) of 14.4 cm and different heights or depths (D). Figure
4 shows the ranges of model-foundation geometrical param-
eters and rock depth (H) utilized in this study. It should be
noted that the ratio (B’/B) was chosen to be 1.2 to prevent
direct contact between the foundation and the surrounding
wall models as well as to prevent trapping of sand particles
between them. Wall depth to the surrounded foundation-
model width ratios (D/B) ranging between 0 and 1.0 were
used. In addition, foundation-embedment depth to wall
depth ratios (De /D) of 0, 0.25, and 0.5 were utilized. These
ratios were selected to simulate the relative dimensions of
raft foundations surrounded by walls that support basement
excavation sides.
As shown in Fig. 4, the upper 2 cm thick part of the foun-
dation model was made of steel, whereas the lower 1.5 cm
thick part was made of concrete to simulate the field condi-
Published by NRC Research Press
 Eid et al.
Fig. 2. Simplified shear failure pattern beneath (a) a surface foundation on extended sand and (b) a walled foundation on sand underlain by
rough rigid stratum. B, foundation width; B’, outside base width; f, friction angle.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 74.121.191.133 on 06/05/13
Fig. 3. Schematic drawing of the testing apparatus.
For personal use only.
tion in which foundations are made from concrete resting on
soil. A naturally rough bottom was created for the model
base through casting wet concrete into the lower 1.5 cm
thick open steel cavity of the model. To allow for founda-
tion-tilting, the middle of foundation model surface was
carved to create a small spherical recess on which the load-
ing rod rounded tip was placed. Four plates of smooth steel
with a modulus of elasticity of 2  108 kPa and a thickness
of 0.2 cm were welded to form a rigid open-ended steel
square prism and to model the walls. Based on the stiffness
analysis presented by Al-Aghbari and Mohamedzein (2004),
the deflection of plates with the selected thickness would be
too small to affect the measured bearing capacity of founda-
tion models utilized in this testing program.
441
Rock and sand preparation and testing procedure
Limestone fragments were used to form the rigid-layer
surface on which sand was placed. The gradation of such
fragments is shown in Fig. 5. Intact specimens of the lime-
stone have an unconfined compressive strength and modulus
of elasticity of 25 MN/m2 and 3 GN/m2, respectively. Rock
fragments were placed into the empty tank to prepare beds
of specific depths (Figs. 3 and 4). Before sand raining, sur-
faces of such beds were leveled horizontally using a water
scale. It should be noted that foundation models resting di-
rectly on layers of rock fragments placed in the tank were
loaded to stresses up to 1000 kN/m2 without measurable set-
tlements. As a result, these layers were considered rigid rel-
ative to the sand used in this study.
Published by NRC Research Press
 442
Fig. 4. Walled square-foundation model and ranges of studied parameters. Rd, relative density; Z, depth of rock below the wall tip.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 74.121.191.133 on 06/05/13
Fig. 5. Gradation of sand and rock fragments used in the testing program.
For personal use only.
Beach fine sand was used as the foundation soil in this
testing program. The sand has a mean grain size of
0.21 mm, a coefficient of uniformity of 2.3, and a coeffi-
cient of curvature of 0.9 (Fig. 5). It is classified as poorly
graded uniform sand (SP) according to the ‘‘Unified Soil
Classification System’’ (ASTM 2006). The specific gravity
of the sand particles is 2.66. The maximum and minimum
dry unit weights were measured to be 17.5 and 15.6 kN/m3,
respectively. Sand raining was used to achieve uniform unit
weight across the tank depth above the rock surface. Sand
raining is a known technique to form uniform sand at a cer-
tain relative density (Rd) by controlling rate and height of
the fall (Walker and Whitaker 1967; Butterfield and An-
drawes 1970; Hanna 1981). In this testing program, sand
was placed in 10 cm thick layers by raining from a hopper
to achieve a relative density of 0.44. A manual tamping was
needed to compact each sand layer after raining to attain rel-
ative densities of 0.57 and 0.71. The appropriate relative
density for each layer was reached through adjusting its final
height before placement of the subsequent layer. Foundation-
model testing was carried out on sand at these three relative
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 46, 2009
densities to simulate field conditions of the natural deposits
and compacted sand layers as existing at the construction
projects referred to earlier.
Taylor (1939), Nash (1953), and Rowe (1969) presented
results obtained using direct shear and triaxial compression
apparatuses for sands with different relative densities. For
sands at medium densities, the results from these two appa-
ratuses were similar. In a dense or dilative state, the direct-
shear apparatus yields friction angles that are on average 38
greater than those measured in the triaxial device. Sample
preparation and testing procedure of the direct-shear test are
simpler than those of the triaxial test. As a result, the shear
strengths of sand at the relative densities utilized in this
study were measured using the direct-shear apparatus know-
ing that the mode of shear developed in the soil beneath
square foundations is closer to the stress state in a triaxial
test and only the measured friction angles of sand at Rd of
0.71, i.e., in a dense state, should be reduced to represent
the triaxial mode of shear. Normal stresses ranging between
10 and 200 kN/m2 were used in the direct-shear tests that
yielded nonlinear shear strength envelopes with peak friction
Published by NRC Research Press
 Eid et al. 443

angles varying from 408 to 378, from 428 to 38.58, and from Table 1. Ranges of parameters considered in the testing
468 to 43.58 for sand at a Rd of 0.44, 0.57, and 0.71, respec- program (total of 91 tests).
tively. It should be noted that shearing the sand in its loos-
Parameter Range
est state yielded an approximately linear failure envelope
and a friction angle of 358 that can be considered as the D/B (0, 0.5, 1)a, (0.25, 0.75)b
sand critical-state friction angle. De/D (0, 0.25, 0.5)a
H/B (0.5, 0.75, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 6)a,c
Care was taken during installation of foundation models in
sand to minimize changing its relative density before load- a
Tested for sand at Rd = 0.44, 0.57, and 0.71.
b
ing. For surface foundation models (i.e., in the case of De = Tested for sand at Rd = 0.57 only, except in the case of H/B = 6.
c
D = 0), the foundation base was placed directly onthe top Tests were carried out only in cases of H > D.
surface of the sand that was prepared as described above.
The total depth of open-ended square prism walls was first Fig. 6. Typical stress–settlement relationships for foundation mod-
forced into the sand followed by centering the associated
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 74.121.191.133 on 06/05/13

els.
foundation model on the sand surface. In modeling walled
embedded foundations (i.e., in the case of De > 0), excava-
tion was needed inside the inserted model walls to a depth
of De before placement of the foundation model (Fig. 4). No
heave was noticed during wall installation. This may be at-
tributed to the relatively small thickness, smoothness, and
low depth to width ratios of the steel wall models. Subse-
quent to wall installation and placement of the foundation
model, the data recording was set to zero prior to starting
load-application and foundation-settlement measurements.
It should be noted that the effect of pushing walls on
changing the relative density of sand was investigated by
carrying out some tests on foundation models where walls
For personal use only.

were first positioned and then sand was placed between and
around them. Bearing capacities of such models were com-
pared with capacities yielded from testing models of similar
dimensions installed using the procedure described first, i.e.,
by pushing walls into a pre-prepared sand. The differences
in capacities measured using the two procedures were found
to be less than 4%. Considering this slight difference and the
difficulties associated with the second installation procedure,
wall installation into a pre-prepared sand was followed in
the rest of the testing program.
Table 1 shows the ranges of different parameters consid-
ered in this testing program. A total of 91 tests were con-
ducted, 37 of which utilized sand at a Rd of 0.57 and 27 at
each of the other two Rd values. In each test, the foundation
model was incrementally loaded to failure. Following the
end of each test, surface sand that was involved in failure
was removed and replaced by fresh sand using the technique
the stress–settlement curves. Such a definition has been fre-
described above. The depth of this replacement was esti-
quently utilized to determine bearing capacities of founda-
mated to extend 2B’ below the walls’ tip level or to the
tion models resting on confined sand (e.g., Narahari and
rock surface, whichever was smaller.
Singh 1964; Pfeifle and Das 1979; Andrawes et al. 1996;
Al-Aghbari 1999; El Sawwaf and Nazer 2005). Table 2
Test results summarizes the ultimate bearing capacities for the tested
Foundation model tests conducted in this study showed that foundation models resting on sand at different Rd values.
the presence of confining walls and (or) bed rock improves Comparisons were made between the measured bearing
bearing capacity and settlement behavior of a shallow foun- capacities of surface foundation models resting on a sand
dation resting on sand. The improvement magnitude increases layer of different thicknesses and those estimated utilizing
with increasing wall height and (or) decreasing depth of rock the modified-bearing-capacity factor (Ng0 ) and shape factor
surface. Figure 6 shows typical stress–settlement relation- (sg0 ) to account for the effect of the rigid layer existence be-
ships yielded from testing the foundation models. It can be neath the bearing sand. Those factors were suggested by
noticed that stress–settlement curves exhibit a peak at which Meyerhof (1974) to estimate bearing capacities of rectangu-
stresses slightly decrease with further settlement. The ulti- lar footings resting on sand underlain by a more rigid stra-
mate bearing capacity was defined in this study — following tum based on the theoretical analysis presented by Mandel
the criterion presented in Lambe and Whitman (1969) — as and Salencon (1972). Peak friction angles of 408, 428, and
the stress corresponding to the ‘‘knee’’ or the distinct peak of 438 estimated based on results of shear tests at low normal

Published by NRC Research Press

 444 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 46, 2009

stresses were used to determine bearing capacity factors for

0.71

978
722
301
285
qult (kN/m2), De/D =

—
—
—
sand at a Rd of 0.44, 0.57, and 0.71, respectively. These low
Rd, D/B = 1.0 stresses were utilized because they fall in the range of the
at-failure mean effective stresses estimated for the surface
0.57

762
597
302
313
—
—
—
foundation model using the formula suggested by Horvath
(2000). The measured bearing capacities of models on sand
at a Rd of 0.57 and the trend line representing the theoreti-
0.44

439
261
255
268
0.5

—
—
— cally determined bearing capacities for a friction angle of
1076 428 are shown in Fig. 7. It can be seen that there is a reason-
able agreement between the estimated and measured bearing
0.71
qult (kN/m2), De/D =

750
304
277
—
—
—

capacities. For sands at the other two relative densities, sim-

ilar agreement was observed between the measured and esti-
Rd, D/B = 1.0
0.57

865
587
299
309
mated bearing capacities. Such agreements confirm the
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 74.121.191.133 on 06/05/13

—
—
—

reliability of the testing apparatus and procedure.

In all of the foundation model tests, the walls and sur-
0.25

0.44

459
254
236
267

rounded foundation settled together as one unit after reaching

—
—
—

a certain applied stress. This stress varied from 0 to 75 kN/m2

when testing walled foundations with depth to width ratios of
1088
0.71

793
276
288

0.5 to 2.0, respectively. Similar behavior was reported by El

—
—
—

Sawwaf and Nazer (2005) for circular-model footings resting

on sand and surrounded by confining cylinders. Comparison
Rd, D/B = 1.0
0.57

785
546
283
303
—
—
—

and quantification of changes in bearing capacities and settle-

ments measured in this testing program for square-foundation
models resting on laterally and (or) vertically confined sand
0.44

450
270
246
254
—
—
—

are presented in subsequent sections.

For personal use only.

0.71

237

Numerical simulation
—
—
—
—
—
—

A numerical analysis was carried out using Plaxis 3D

Rd, D/B = 0.75

Foundation version 2.0 (Plaxis BV, Delft, the Netherlands)

0.57

818
591
256
224
244
—
—

three-dimensional finite element (FE) software package to

verify the physical model test results and to infer the per-
formance of full-scale foundations. A square 1.0 m thick
0.44

202
—
—
—
—
—
—

concrete raft foundation of 10 m width resting on sand

Table 2. Measured ultimate bearing capacities, qult, for foundations of different sizes.

underlain by rock and surrounded by 0.8 m thick concrete

0.71

walls with an outside width of 12 m was considered in the

935
782
477
262
184
198
—

analysis. Fifteen-node isoparametric wedge elements were

used to represent sand and rock, while raft and walls were
Rd, D/B = 0.5
0.57

754
605
229
205
171
185

composed of six-node triangular plate elements that are

—

compatible with the triangular side of the degenerated soil

elements. Figure 8 shows an isometric view and cross sec-
0.44

407
277
175
162
145
157

tion of the FE mesh used in the analysis.

—

The raft, walls, and rock were considered as linear elastic

materials with a unit weight, Young’s modulus, and Pois-
0.71

170
—
—
—
—
—
—

son’s ratio of 25 kN/m3, 20 GN/m2, and 0.20 for the raft

and walls, and 20 kN/m3, 1.0 GN/m2, and 0.25 for the rock,
Rd, D/B = 0.25
0.57

respectively. An elastoplastic strain-hardening model was

595
357
237
166
135
148
148

used to represent the behavior of sand that was assigned

unit weight, Young’s modulus, Poisson’s ratio, friction an-
0.44

gle, and dilatancy angle values of 18 kN/m3, 0.06 GN/m2,

121
—
—
—
—
—
—

0.3, 358, and 58, respectively. The rock and concrete surfa-
ces were considered to be rough. As a result, no reduction
qult (kN/m2), De/D = 0

0.71
372
230
204
149
105
136
118

was assigned to the sand interface strength.

Figure 9 presents samples of the total displacement dia-
grams obtained from the numerical analysis utilizing a raft
0.57
Rd, D/B = 0

205
141
101

foundation resting on extended, laterally confined, vertically

94
83
99
97

confined, and three-dimensionally confined sand. A compar-

ison of these diagrams shows the changes in the displace-
0.44
94
68
60
65
63
56
60

ment patterns due to restricting sand deformation in

different directions. The effects of these changes on the
foundation bearing capacity and settlement are presented in
0.75
H/B
0.5

1.0
1.5
2.0
3.0
6.0

the following section.

Published by NRC Research Press

 Eid et al. 445

Fig. 7. Comparison of measured bearing capacities with those estimated using modified bearing capacity and shape factors suggested by
Meyerhof (1974). gsand, unit weight of sand.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 74.121.191.133 on 06/05/13

Fig. 8. Finite element mesh used in the analysis: (a) isometric Fig. 9. Displacement diagrams obtained from finite element analy-
view; (b) cross section. sis at the same stress for raft resting on: (a) extended sand; (b) ver-
tically confined sand; (c) laterally confined sand; (d ) three-
dimensionally confined sand.
For personal use only.

Analysis and discussion

Approaches of analyzing the results
Results of the physical-model testing and numerical simu-
lation were analyzed to show the separate effects of sand lat-
eral confinement (or wall existence) and vertical confinement
(or bed-rock existence) on the bearing capacity and settle-

Published by NRC Research Press

 446
ment behavior of shallow foundations, and then present the
effects of the combined or three-dimensional confinement.
Bearing capacities of surface, unwalled foundation models
were compared with those of walled, surface foundation
models and walled, embedded foundation models resting on
vertically extended sand (qsu, qwl, and qwle, respectively).
Sand was considered to be vertically extended in this study
when H/B = 6. Values of qsu were also compared with bear-
ing capacities of surface and walled foundation models rest-
ing on a sand layer underlain by a rock layer or a rough rigid
layer (qsur and qwlr, respectively).
Dimensionless charts for estimating bearing capacity of
walled foundations were developed in terms of the bearing
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 74.121.191.133 on 06/05/13
capacity ratios qwl/qsu, qsur/qsu, and qwlr/qsu. The developed
charts can be used for estimating bearing capacities of sur-
face and walled foundations resting on a thin layer of sand
underlain by a rough rigid stratum as a function of the bear-
ing capacity of a surface foundation of the same width. The
bearing capacity of a surface foundation type can be deter-
mined utilizing any of the commonly used semi-empirical
equations based on laboratory or field testing results. Rela-
tive densities of sand utilized in this study and those re-
ported in similar studies were used to reflect sand shear
strengths when developing such charts. This was done to
avoid utilizing friction angles that are usually reported using
different shear-testing apparatuses and without specifying
For personal use only.
the corresponding effective normal stress ranges. Friction
forces along the surface area of foundation models were not
considered in bearing capacity analyses presented in this
study because of their insignificant magnitude compared
with the end bearing resistance. This was proved theoreti-
cally and experimentally by Byrne et al. (2003) for skirted
foundations.
Ratios between settlements of walled foundation models
(Swl) and those of surface foundation models (Ssu) at an ap-
plied stress of 30 kPa were considered in this analysis. The
settlement ratio Swl/Ssu represents the improvement in stress–
settlement relationships resulting from sand confinement due
to the existence of walls and (or) a rigid layer. Settlements
at an applied stress of 30 kPa are not too small to affect the
accuracy of calculating the corresponding settlement ratios.
In addition, utilizing settlement at such a stress, which is
equal to half of the lowest bearing capacity measured for
foundation models (Table 2), minimizes the sensitivity of
the calculated settlement ratios to the increased nonlinearity
of the stress–settlement relationships at higher applied
stresses. Settlement values at such stress better represent
those yielded at working stresses that are usually taken in
practice between one third and half of the ultimate bearing
capacities. In the FEA, the same concept was followed.
Considering settlement reductions due to the existence of
walls and (or) a rigid stratum is especially beneficial for
foundations resting on sand as their allowable bearing capaci-
ties are usually restricted by avoiding excessive settlements
not shear failure. Charts for estimating these settlement re-
ductions were developed based on the model testing results
and numerical analysis. Settlement results other than those
determined in this study were not used to develop the charts
because settlement values for foundation models resting on
sand underlain by a more-rigid layer and (or) confined by
rigid walls are not reported in the literature. Settlement re-
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 46, 2009
ductions are represented in the charts by the ratio of walled
foundation settlements to the settlement of a surface founda-
tion of the same width resting on laterally and vertically ex-
tended sand. Such settlements can be determined utilizing
one of the commonly used semi-empirical equations based
on field-testing results.
Lateral confinement
As mentioned above, sand lateral confinement simulated
in this study was developed because of the walls that sup-
port the sides of sand excavated for raft embedment. The ef-
fect of the embedment depth on bearing capacities of such
walled rafts was studied by comparing capacities yielded
from testing embedded and surface foundation models of
the same D/B value. Test results showed that varying the
embedment depth has an insignificant effect on the meas-
ured bearing capacities of walled foundations. As shown in
Fig. 10, this conclusion is supported by results from the
FEA conducted in this study as well as data presented by El
Sawwaf and Nazer (2005) for walled, circular foundation
models with a B’/B value of 1.33 and De/D values up to
0.67 resting on extended sand. This behavior may be related
to having the same overburden pressure for the walled foun-
dations of equal wall depth regardless of the value of the
embedded depth, consequently yielding similar measured
bearing capacities.
Variation in the normalized bearing capacity ratio, (B/B’)
qwl/qsu, with D/B values for sand at the three relative den-
sities utilized in this study are shown in Fig. 11. It can be
seen that wall existence increases bearing capacity of the
surrounded foundation. This enhancement is directly propor-
tional to wall depth and reflects the increase in sand con-
finement in case of higher D/B values. In addition, the
efficiency of such wall existence on enhancing bearing ca-
pacity of foundations increases with decreasing sand relative
density. Similar behavior is expected for walled foundations
with a B’/B of less than 1.2.
The trend lines shown in Fig. 11 exhibit upward curvature
that is more pronounced for high values of D/B and Rd. This
may be interpreted in terms of an enhancement of sand con-
finement with increasing D/B values. In case of high D/B
and Rd values, such confinement may make the foundation
and the sand contained by the walls act as one unit and con-
sequently develop bearing capacity that is approximately
equal to that of a pier foundation of the same total depth.
It should be noted that the increases in bearing capacities
of surface foundation models measured in this study due to
the presence of rigid walls and those reported in published
literature due to skirting are considerably less than the in-
creases presented by El Sawwaf and Nazer (2005). El Saw-
waf and Nazer utilized a base-roughened 7.5 cm diameter
steel model footing resting on sand at a relative density of
0.76 that is confined by 0.25 cm thick unplasticized poly-
vinyl chloride cylinders with different diameters and heights.
As a typical testing result, a 10.5 times increase in bearing
capacity was reported for the surface footing model due to
the use of a confining cylinder with an outer diameter and
depth of 8 and 15 cm, respectively. A walled footing model
of these dimensions approximately resembles a skirted foot-
ing model with a depth to diameter ratio of 2.0. For the
same skirting ratio, and utilizing sands at relative densities
Published by NRC Research Press
 Eid et al.
Fig. 10. Effect of embedment depth on bearing capacities of walled foundation models.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 74.121.191.133 on 06/05/13
Fig. 11. Effect of sand relative density on the relation between the ultimate bearing-capacity ratio and the depth to width ratio of walled
foundation models resting on extended medium and dense sands.
For personal use only.
varying from 0.74 to 0.88, increases in bearing capacity of
less than half that reported by El Sawwaf and Nazer (2005)
were presented by Villalobos et al. (2003) and Al-Aghbari
and Mohamedzein (2004) for circle and strip surface foun-
dation models with smooth bases, respectively. Reasons for
this inconsistency need to be investigated.
Values of the normalized settlement ratios, (B/B’)Swl/Ssu,
for walled foundation models resting on vertically extended
sand at different relative densities were plotted against the
corresponding wall depth to width ratios (Fig. 12). It can be
seen that the existence of walls surrounding a surface foun-
dation significantly reduces its settlement. The reduction is
directly proportional to the wall depth to foundation width
ratio. Measured values of Swl/Ssu that reflect the magnitudes
of such a reduction are in good agreement with those deter-
mined using the FEA. Such agreement may indicate that the
447
difference in rigidity of wall models utilized in laboratory
testing and the rigidity used in FEA to represent the full-
scale behavior has an insignificant effect on the predicted
settlement ratios. The settlement reduction can also be repre-
sented by an exponential correlation (Fig. 12). Such a corre-
lation and (or) the trend lines shown in Fig. 12 can be used
to estimate settlements of walled foundations resting on ver-
tically extended sand and having B’/B and D/B values of less
than or equal to 1.2 and 1.0, respectively.
Vertical confinement
Variation in the measured bearing capacity of surface foun-
dation models due to the existence of a rock layer beneath the
bearing sand is presented in Fig. 13 in terms of qsur/qsu and the
rock depth to foundation width ratio (H/B). Figure 13 also in-
cludes test results presented in a study by Pfeifle and Das
Published by NRC Research Press
 448
Fig. 12. Effect of wall existence on settlement of surface foundation models.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 74.121.191.133 on 06/05/13
(1979) for a base-roughened square-foundation model resting
on sand at a Rd of 0.78 underlain by a rough rigid stratum. It
can be seen that the change in measured bearing capacity due
to the existence of a rigid stratum almost vanishes when H/B
exceeds a critical value (Hc /B, where Hc is the critical height)
that increases with increasing sand relative density. Results
presented by Pfeifle and Das (1979) show that such a critical
For personal use only.
value does not depend on the foundation width to length ratio
(B/L).
The critical values shown in Fig. 13 and those determined
using bearing capacity data presented in published literature
for surface foundation models resting on sand underlain by a
rough rigid stratum are plotted in Fig. 14 against the corre-
sponding Rd values. The critical value determined based on
data presented by Andrawes et al. (1996) for a base-rough-
ened strip foundation model resting on sand underlain by a
smooth rigid stratum iss also included in Fig. 14. The figure
shows that the value of Hc is directly proportional to founda-
tion width and sand relative density or shear strength. Such
a dependency can be interpreted in terms of the depth
needed to freely develop the failure zones or slip lines
where the vertical extension is directly proportional to foun-
dation width and sand friction angle or relative density
(Vesič 1963, 1973). Contrarily, the efficiency of sand verti-
cal confinement in enhancing bearing capacity of surface
foundation models is insensitive to the sand relative density.
This conclusion is drawn based on having parallel qsur/qsu
trend lines for sands of different Rd values underlain bya
rough rigid layer located at depths less than the critical
ones (Fig. 13). It should be noted that results of testing
foundation models on sand underlain by a rigid layer other
than those shown in Figs. 13 and 14 were not considered in
developing such figures because of two main reasons. The
first is the lack in reporting relative densities of the utilized
sands (e.g., Kananyan 1971; Meyerhof 1974). The second
reason relates to the adoption of an arbitrary failure criterion
of defining the ultimate bearing capacity as the stress corre-
sponding to a fixed settlement to foundation width ratio (e.g.,
Cerato and Lutenegger 2006) that is inconsistent in concept
with the criteria followed to determine the considered results
depending only on the shape of the stress–settlement curve.
Other data such as those resulting from testing foundation
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 46, 2009
models on a sand layer underlain by a denser one (e.g.,
Hanna 1982) were also not considered because of the de-
pendency of the measured bearing capacities on the relative
strength of the two sands (Hanna 1981).
Figure 15 shows the effect of sand vertical confinement on
settlement of the overlying surface foundation model in
terms of the normalized settlement, Ssur/Ssu, values measured
for different H/B ratios and sand relative densities. It can be
seen that confining the bearing sand because of the existence
of the rough rigid stratum significantly reduces settlement of
shallow foundations. This reduction tends to vanish (less
than 5%) in cases where the rigid stratum is at a depth of
more than three times the foundation width. Figure 15 also
shows that sand does not behave elastically at stresses equal
to or higher than half of the bearing capacities of the over-
laying surface foundations. At such a stress range, assuming
an elastic behavior leads to underestimating the settlement of
shallow foundations on sand. Results of the FEA are also
plotted in Fig. 15 showing a reasonable agreement with the
laboratory results. This agreement supports using such a fig-
ure in estimating the settlement of foundations resting on
sand that is vertically confined by a rough rigid stratum.
Three-dimensional confinement
Testing results of surface and walled foundation models
resting on sand layers of different thicknesses underlain by
rock were used to develop charts that present the effect of
three-dimensional sand confinement on the measured bearing
capacities. In each of these charts, the normalized bearing ca-
pacity ratios, (B/B’)qwlr/qsu, were plotted against the corre-
sponding Z/B’ values for different wall depth to foundation
width ratios, where Z is the depth of rock below the wall tip.
The charts quantify the enhancement in measured bearing ca-
pacity of surface foundations due to increasing D/B and (or)
decreasing Z/B’ for values of B’/B less than or equal to that
used in this study (Fig. 16). Figure 16 shows that, for each
relative density, the critical value of Z/B’, i.e., the Z/B’ value
less than which the existence of rigid stratum affects the
measured bearing capacities, is almost constant regardless of
the D/B value. This conclusion is supported by the results of
the failure mode analysis presented by Vesič (1963) showing
no change in this mode with changing depth to width ratios
Published by NRC Research Press
 Eid et al. 449

Fig. 13. Effect of rigid layer depth on measured bearing capacities of surface square-foundation models resting on sand of different relative
densities. Hc, critical height.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 74.121.191.133 on 06/05/13

Fig. 14. Relation between the critical rigid-layer depth to foundation width ratio and sand relative density.
For personal use only.

Fig. 15. Effect of rough rigid layer existence on settlement of surface foundation models.

of shallow foundations resting on sand at a given relative Fig. 16 increases with increasing Rd and (or) decreasing D/B
density. Such insensitivity to the shallow foundation depth to values. This can be attributed to the previously described de-
width ratio can also be observed in data presented by An- pendency of sand confinement efficiency on these two pa-
drawes et al. (1996). The closeness of trend lines shown in rameters in enhancing bearing capacities (Fig. 11).

Published by NRC Research Press

 450
Fig. 16. Relation between the normalized bearing capacity ratio for walled foundation models resting on sand and depth of the rigid layer:
(a) Rd = 0.57; (b) Rd = 0.44 and 0.71.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 74.121.191.133 on 06/05/13
For personal use only.
It should be noted that charts similar to that shown in
Fig. 16 can be developed for the rough estimation of bearing
capacities of square foundations resting on three-
dimensionally confined sand at any medium or dense rela-
tive density using trend lines presented in Figs. 11, 13, and
14. In such development work, Fig. 11 would be used to es-
timate bearing capacity ratios for different wall depth to
foundation width ratios and Z/B’ values greater than the crit-
ical one. The critical Z/B’ value, which is independent of D/B
and is consequently equal to Hc/B’, can be estimated using
Fig. 14. The horizontal trend lines developed based on
these two steps can then be smoothly connected to the cor-
responding inclined and almost-parallel lines that represent
bearing capacity ratios at Z/B’ values equal to or less than
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 46, 2009
the critical one to develop a group of bent trend lines sim-
ilar to those shown in Figs. 13 and 16.
Normalized settlement ratio values, (B/B’) Swl/Ssu, calcu-
lated for different wall and rigid layer depths and sand rela-
tive densities are plotted in Fig. 17. These ratios reflect the
effect of sand confinement due to both wall and rock exis-
tence for values of B’/B less than or equal to 1.2. It can be
seen that, for the three utilized relative densities of sand, one
trend line can be drawn to represent the change in settlement
reduction due to rock existence at different depths of foun-
dation with a specific D/B value. Trend lines that represent
the normalized settlement ratios determined from the FEA to
reflect the effect of such combined confinement are also
shown in Fig. 17. They are in agreement with the corre-
Published by NRC Research Press
 Eid et al.
Fig. 17. Relation between the normalized settlement ratio for walled foundation models resting on sand and depth of the rough rigid layer.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 74.121.191.133 on 06/05/13
sponding lines resulting from testing the physical models.
Such agreement supports the reliability of using Fig. 17 in
quantifying the expected reduction in settlement of rafts due
to consideration of the effects of the three dimensional con-
finement of the bearing sand.
For personal use only.
Conclusions
The main objective of this research was to study the
change in behavior of shallow foundations due to lateral
and (or) vertical confinement of the bearing sand. Physical
and numerical modeling was used for this purpose. The
models were designed to simulate square raft foundations
that are surrounded by sheet-pile walls to support excavation
sides of medium or dense sand underlain by a rock bed. The
following conclusions were drawn from this study:
(1) Sand lateral confinement due to wall existence enhances
the foundation bearing capacity. The level of enhance-
ment increases with increasing wall depth to foundation
width ratio and decreasing sand relative density. How-
ever, the capacity is insensitive to the foundation embed-
ment depth.
(2) For surface and walled foundations resting on sand, the
increase in bearing capacities due to existence of a rough
rigid stratum diminishes when the stratum depth exceeds
a critical value. This value is independent of the wall
depth to foundation width ratio. However, it increases
with increasing sand relative density or shear strength.
A correlation was developed to estimate this critical
depth.
(3) Bearing capacities of walled foundations can be esti-
mated in terms of the capacity of a surface foundation
on extended sand, sand relative density, wall depth to
foundation width ratio, and depth of the rigid stratum.
Charts were presented to estimate these capacities.
(4) Existence of the walls and (or) rigid stratum can signifi-
cantly reduce settlement of shallow foundations resting
on sand. Charts were presented to estimate this settle-
ment reduction as a function of the settlement of a sur-
451
face foundation on extended sand, wall depth to
foundation width ratio, and depth of the rigid stratum.
Acknowledgments
The work described in this paper forms part of an applied
research project jointly funded by Qatar University and Qatar
Foundation, Grant No. QNRF-UREP-2–35–6. This support is
gratefully acknowledged. The review comments provided by
Dr. Youssef Hashash of the University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign are appreciated. The authors also acknowledge
Dr. Byron W. Byrne of the University of Oxford for provid-
ing experimental data of testing-scale skirted footings.
References
Al-Aghbari, M.Y. 1999. Bearing capacity of shallow strip founda-
tion with structural skirts resting on dense sand. Ph.D. thesis,
University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK.
Al-Aghbari, M.Y. 2002. Settlement of shallow square foundation
with structural skirting on sand. In Proceedings of the 2nd Inter-
national Conference on Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental En-
gineering in Arid Lands, Riyadh, KSA, 6–9 October 2002.
Balkema, Lisse, the Netherlands. pp. 189–193.
Al-Aghbari, M.Y., and Mohamedzein, Y.E.-A. 2004. Bearing capa-
city of strip foundations with structural skirts. Geotechnical and
Geological Engineering, 22(1): 43–57. doi:10.1023/B:GEGE.
0000013997.79473.e0.
Andrawes, K.Z., Al-Omari, R.R., and Kirkpatrick, W.M. 1996.
Bearing capacity of a strip foundation on a sand layer overlying
a smooth rigid stratum. Geotechnical and Geological Engineer-
ing, 14(3): 227–236. doi:10.1007/BF00452949.
ASTM. 2006. Standard practice for classification of soils for engi-
neering purposes (Unified Soil Classification System). ASTM
standard D2487. American Society for Testing and Materials,
West Conshohocken, Pa.
Binquet, J., and Lee, K.L. 1975. Bearing capacity tests on rein-
forced earth slabs. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
101(12): 1241–1255.
Burland, J.B., and Burbidge, M.C. 1985. Settlement of foundations
on sand and gravel. Proceedings – Institution of Civil Engineers,
78(6): 1325–1381.
Published by NRC Research Press
 452
Butterfield, R., and Andrawes, K.Z. 1970. An air activated sand
spreader for forming uniform beds. Géotechnique, 20(1): 97–100.
Byrne, B.W., Villalobos, F., Houlsby, G.T., and Martin, C.M. 2003.
Laboratory testing of shallow skirted foundations on sand. In
Proceedings of the British Geotechnical Association (BGA) In-
ternational Conference on Foundations, Innovations, Observa-
tions, Design and Practice, Dundee, Scotland, 2–5 September
2003. Edited by T.A. Newson. Thomas Telford, London.
pp. 161–174.
Cerato, A.B., and Lutenegger, A.J. 2003. Scale effects of shallow
foundation bearing capacity on granular material. In Proceedings
of the British Geotechnical Association (BGA) International
Conference on Foundations, Innovations, Observations, Design
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 74.121.191.133 on 06/05/13
and Practice, Dundee, Scotland, 2–5 September 2003. Edited by
T.A. Newson. Thomas Telford, London. pp. 217–226.
Cerato, A.B., and Lutenegger, A.J. 2006. Bearing capacity of
square and circular footings on a finite layer of granular soil un-
derlain by a rigid base. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenviron-
mental Engineering, 132(11): 1496–1501. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)
1090-0241(2006)132:11(1496).
Cerato, A.B., and Lutenegger, A.J. 2007. Scale effects of shallow
foundation bearing capacity on granular material. Journal of Geo-
technical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 133(10):
1192–1202. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2007)133:10(1192).
Comissiong, D.M. 1968. The ultimate bearing capacity of surface
footings on dry sand overlying saturated clay. M. Eng. thesis,
Nova Scotia Technical College, Halifax, N.S.
For personal use only.
Das, B.M., Puri, V.K., Omar, M.T., and Evgin, E. 1996. Bearing
capacity of strip foundation on geogrid-reinforced sand-scale ef-
fects in model tests. In Proceedings of the 6th International Off-
shore and Polar Engineering Conference, Los Angeles, Calif.,
26–31 May 1996. Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers,
Golden, Colo. Vol. 1. pp. 527–530.
Dash, S., Krishnaswamy, N., and Rajagopal, K. 2001a. Bearing ca-
pacity of strip footings supported on geocell-reinforced sand.
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 19(4): 235–256. doi:10.1016/
S0266-1144(01)00006-1.
Dash, S., Rajagopal, K., and Krishnaswamy, N. 2001b. Strip foot-
ing on geocell reinforced sand beds with additional planar rein-
forcement. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 19(8): 529–538.
doi:10.1016/S0266-1144(01)00022-X.
De Beer, E.E. 1965. Bearing capacity and settlement of shallow
foundations on sand. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Bear-
ing Capacity and Settlements of Foundations, Duke University,
Durham, N.C., 5–6 April 1965. pp. 15–33.
El Sawwaf, M., and Nazer, A. 2005. Behavior of circular footings
resting on confined granular soil. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 131(3): 359–366.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:3(359).
Fragaszy, R.J., and Lawton, E. 1984. Bearing capacity of reinforced
sand subgrades. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 110(10):
1500–1507. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1984)110:10(1500).
Habib, P.A. 1974. Scale effect for shallow footings on dense sand.
Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE,
100(1): 95–99.
Hanna, A.M. 1981. Experimental study on footings in layered soil.
Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE,
107(8): 1113–1127.
Hanna, A.M. 1982. Bearing capacity of foundations on a weak
sand layer overlying a strong deposit. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 19(3): 392–396. doi:10.1139/t82-043.
Hettler, A., and Gudehus, G. 1988. Influence of the foundation
width on the bearing capacity factor. Soils and Foundations,
28(4): 81–92.
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 46, 2009
Hendron, A.J. 1963. The behavior of sand in one-dimensional
compression. Ph.D. thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign, Urbana-Champaign, Ill.
Horvath, J.S. 2000. Rational selection of Ø for drained-strength
bearing capacity analysis. Manhattan College, New York. Re-
search Report No. CE/GE-00–1.
Kananyan, A.S. 1971. Experimental investigation of the stability of
foundation beds of finite thickness. Soils and Foundations, 5:
61–80.
Khing, K.H., Das, B.M., Puri, V.K., Cook, E.E., and Yen, S.C.
1993. The bearing capacity of a strip foundation on geogrid re-
inforced sand. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 12(4): 351–361.
doi:10.1016/0266-1144(93)90009-D.
Kusakabe, O., Maeda, Y., and Ohuchi, M. 1992. Large-scale load-
ing tests of shallow footings in pneumatic caisson. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, 118(11): 1681–1695. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9410(1992)118:11(1681).
Kutter, B.L., Abghari, A., and Cheney, J.A. 1988. Strength para-
meters for bearing capacity of sand. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, 114(4): 491–497. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9410(1988)114:4(491).
Lambe, T.W., and Whitman, R.V. 1969. Soil mechanics. John Wi-
ley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Mahmoud, M.A., and Abdrabbo, F.M. 1989. Bearing capacity tests
on strip footing on reinforced sand subgrade. Canadian Geotech-
nical Journal, 26(1): 154–159. doi:10.1139/t89-015.
Mandal, J.M., and Manjunath, V.R. 1995. Bearing capacity of strip
footing resting on reinforced sand subgrades. Construction &
Building Materials, 9(1): 35–38. doi:10.1016/0950-0618(95)
92858-E.
Mandel, J., and Salencon, J. 1972. Force portante d’un sol sur une
assise rigide (étude théorique). Géotechnique, 22(1): 79–93.
Mayne, P.W., and Poulos, H.G. 1999. Approximate displacement
influence factors for elastic shallow foundations. Journal of Geo-
technical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 125(6):
453–460. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1999)125:6(453).
Meyerhof, G.G. 1965. Shallow foundations. Journal of the Soil Me-
chanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, 91(2): 21–31.
Meyerhof, G.G. 1974. Ultimate bearing capacity of footings on
sand layer overlying clay. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 11:
223–229.
Milovic, D.M., and Tournier, J.P. 1971. Comportement de fonda-
tions reposant sur une couche compressible d’epaisseur limitée.
In Proceedings of Conference Le comportement des sols avant
la rupture, Paris, France, pp. 303–307.
Narahari, D.R., and Singh, A. 1964. Effect of stratification on the
bearing capacity of footings on sand. Journal of the Indian Na-
tional Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 4:
228–237. doi:10.1139/t74-018.
Nash, K.L. 1953. The shearing resistance of a fine closely graded
sand. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Zurich, Switzer-
land, 16–27 August 1953. Swiss Organizing Committee, Zurich.
Vol. 1. pp. 160–164.
Nova, R., and Montrasio, L. 1991. Settlement of shallow founda-
tions on sand. Géotechnique, 41(2): 243–256.
Pfeifle, T.W., and Das, B.M. 1979. Bearing capacity of surface
footings on sand layer resting on a rigid rough base. Soils and
Foundations, 19: 1–11.
Rajagopal, K., Krishanaswamy, N., and Latha, G. 1999. Behavior
of sand confined with single and multible geocells. Geotextiles
and Geomembranes, 17(3): 171–184. doi:10.1016/S0266-
1144(98)00034-X.
Rowe, P.W. 1969. The relation between the shear strength of sands
Published by NRC Research Press
 Eid et al.
in triaxial compression, plane strain, and direct shear. Géotech-
nique, 19(1): 75–86.
Salencon, J. 2003. Bearing capacity of strip footings with horizon-
tal confinement. Comptes Rendus Mécanique, 331(5): 319–324.
doi:10.1016/S1631-0721(03)00071-8.
Schmertmann, J.H. 1970. Static cone to compute static settlement
over sand. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Divi-
sion, ASCE, 96(3): 1011–1043.
Schmertmann, J.H., Hartman, J.P., and Brown, P.R. 1978. Im-
proved strain influence factor diagrams. Journal of the Geotech-
nical Engineering Division, ASCE, 104(8): 1131–1135.
Shiraishi, S. 1990. Variation in bearing capacity factors of dense
sand. Soils and Foundations, 30(1): 17–26.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 74.121.191.133 on 06/05/13
Siraj-Eldine, K. 1982. Contribution a l’étude de l’équilibre des fon-
dations superficielles soumise à des charges inclinés et excen-
trées sur une couche d’épaisseur limitée et sur multicouche.
Ph.D. thesis, Grenoble University, Grenoble, France.
Siraj-Eldine, K., and Bottero, A. 1987. Étude expérimentale de la
capacité portante d’une couche de sol pulverulent d’épaisseur
limitée. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 24(2): 242–251.
Steenfelt, J.S. 1977. Scale effect on bearing capacity factor Ng. In
Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Soil Me-
chanics and Foundation Engineering, Tokyo, 10–15 July 1977.
Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineer-
ing, Tokyo, Japan. Vol. 1. pp. 749–752.
Taylor, D.W. 1939. A comparison of results of direct shear and cy-
lindrical compression tests. In Proceedings of the American So-
ciety for Testing and Materials, Conshohocken, Pa.
For personal use only.
Tournier, J.P., and Milovic, D.M. 1977. Étude expérimentale de la
capacité portante d’une couche compressible d’épaisseur limitée.
Géotechnique, 27(2): 111–123.
Ueno, K., Miura, K., and Maeda, Y. 1998. Prediction of ultimate
View publication stats
453
bearing capacity of surface footings with regard to size effects.
Soils and Foundations, 38(3): 165–178.
Ueno, K., Miura, K., Kusakabe, O., and Nishimura, M. 2001. Re-
appraisal of size effect of bearing capacity from plastic solu-
tion. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 127(3): 275–281. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-
0241(2001)127:3(275).
Vesič, A.S. 1963. Bearing capacity of deep foundations in sand.
Highway Research Record, 39: 112–153.
Vesič, A.S. 1973. Analysis of ultimate loads of shallow founda-
tions. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division,
ASCE, 99(1): 45–73.
Villalobos, F., Byrne, B.W., Houlsby, G.T., and Martin, C.M. 2003.
Bearing capacity tests of scale suction caisson footings on sand:
Experimental data. Department of Engineering Science, The
University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. Data Report FOT005/1.
Walker, B.P., and Whitaker, T. 1967. An apparatus for forming
uniform beds of sand for model foundation tests. Géotechnique,
17(2): 161–167.
Yamaguchi, H., Kimura, T., and Fujii, N. 1976. On the influence of
progressive failure on the bearing capacity of shallow founda-
tions in dense sand. Soils and Foundations, 16(4): 11–22.
Yamaguchi, H., Kimura, T., and Fujii, N. 1977. On the scale effect
of footings in dense sand. In Proceedings of the 9th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, To-
kyo, 10–15 July 1977. Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Tokyo, Japan. Vol. 1. pp. 795–798.
Zhu, F., Clark, J.I., and Phillips, R. 2001. Scale effect of strip and
circular footings resting on a dense sand. Journal of Geotechni-
cal and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 127(7): 613–
621. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2001)127:7(613).
Published by NRC Research Press