Kenny, M. J. & Andrawes, K. Z. (1997). GeÂotechnique 47, No.
2, 339±345
TECHNICAL NOTE
The bearing capacity of footings on a sand layer overlying soft clay
M . J. K E N N Y  a n d K . Z . A N D R AW E S 
KEYWORDS: bearing capacity; clays; compressibility;
footings/foundations; laboratory tests; sands.
INTRODUCTION
In practice, the bearing capacity of foundations on
soft clay can be improved by placing a layer of
compacted sand or gravel. The lack of detailed
design information concerning the bearing capacity
of such inhomogeneous soil pro®les is due primar-
ily to the dif®culty in obtaining exact solutions. In
recent years, approximate solutions have been
presented for a number of commonly encountered
inhomogeneous soil pro®les in an attempt to pro-
vide acceptable design data, with methods such as
that of Hanna & Meyerhof (1980) frequently cited
for the case of a sand layer overlying clay.
Based on the data obtained from recent labora-
tory model bearing-capacity testing, this technical
note makes recommendations regarding the use in
practice of currently available solutions of this
problem.
BEARING CAPACITY SOLUTIONS FOR SAND
OVERLYING CLAY
The earliest attempt to calculate the bearing
capacity of a strong layer overlying a weak layer
was that of Terzaghi & Peck (1948). They assumed
that the upper layer served principally to spread
the footing load to a larger area on the lower layer
surface, hence reducing its intensity, as shown in
Fig. 1. Terzaghi and Peck assumed that the load
spreads through an angle corresponding to two
vertical units for every horizontal unit of distance
(i.e., a load spreading angle, á where tan á ˆ 0´5).
The bearing capacity of a surface footing is
therefore given by the expression
qu ˆ qc [1 ‡ 2(H=B) tan á] < qs
Jacobsen et al. (1977) carried out a number of
Manuscript received 6 June 1995; revised manuscript
accepted 18 January 1996.
Discussion on this technical note closes 1 September
1997; for further details see p. ii.
 University of Strathclyde.
B
qu
D
H
α x
1
Sand
Clay
Fig. 1. Load spreading analysis for sand overlying
clay: x ˆ 2 (Terzaghi & Peck, 1948): x ˆ 2/â (Jacobsen
et al., 1977)
model tests using a buried circular footing in a
sand layer overlying clay and attempted to improve
the above analysis by assuming that the load
spreads through an inclination of 2/â vertical units
per horizontal unit, as shown in Fig. 1. The
parameter â was calculated from the model tests
and depends on the ratio of the bearing capacity of
the sand layer alone to the clay layer alone, that is,
the bearing capacity ratio (qs /qc ). The bearing
capacity of a footing is then:
qu ˆ qc (1 ‡ âH=B)(1 ‡ âH=L) ‡ ãD < qs (2)
where
qs ˆ 0
5ãBN ã S 㠇 ãDN q S q (3)
and
⠈ 0
1125 ‡ 0
0344(qs =qc ) (4)
Hanna and Meyerhof (1980) developed a meth-
(1) od, supported by model footing tests, which
assumes that the forces acting on vertical shear
planes are the total passive earth pressure, Pp ,
inclined upwards at an angle ä to the horizontal,
as shown in Fig. 2. Since the actual shear planes
were observed to curve outwards from the footing,
the mobilized angle of friction ä will be less than
ö9 for the sand. In addition, the mobilized passive
earth pressure will decrease as the clay layer
strength decreases. In order to facilitate a solution,
339
340 KENNY AND ANDRAWES

B which is manufactured by mixing a sodium-bento-

nite clay (Fulbent 570) and glycerine, the resulting
qu shear strength depending on the mix proportions.
D
A large number of undrained triaxial tests and
vane shear tests were carried out over the period
Assumed of the study, which demonstrated that Glyben
failure planes
behaved generally as a öu ˆ 0 material under
H quick undrained loading, with an average cu of
δ δ 10´6 kN/m2 . Since Glyben samples are formed by
Pp W P p compaction, the material unavoidably contains a
Sand small proportion of trapped air (approximate air
Clay voids content 8%). However, the material was
qb
completely insensitive to handling and gave excel-
lent repeatability during testing.
The ®ll material used was a uniformly graded
Fig. 2. Bearing capacity analysis for sand overlying coarse Leighton Buzzard sand (Table 1) placed
clay (Hanna & Meyerhof, 1980) using an air-activated spreader (Butter®eld and
Andrawes, 1970) in a dense state, with a mean
a coef®cient of punching shear, Ks , is introduced. porosity of 34´5% (ó ˆ 0´12%).
The solution for a strip footing is given in the
form
TEST PROGRAMME AND RESULTS
qu ˆ qb ‡ ãH 2 (1 ‡ 2D=H)K s tan ö9=B ÿ ãH Clay subgrade alone
< qs (5) The stress±settlement relationship for the clay
subgrade alone is shown in Fig. 4. No peak value
where
qb ˆ qc ‡ ã(D ‡ H) (6) Table 1. Properties of the ®ll material (Leighton
Ks is obtained from charts, and its value depends Buzzard sand)
on the mobilized angle of friction ä, the undrained Property Values
shear strength of the clay cu , the angle of friction of Mineral composition Mainly quartz
the sand, ö9, and the bearing capacity ratio qs /qc . Speci®c gravity 2´65
Particle size range 0´3±2´0 mm
Uniformly coef®cient, d60 /d10 1´22
EXPERIMENTAL SETUP Mean diameter, d50 0´85 mm
A strip footing 0´12 m wide was used in all Porosity limits 34´0% (min.) to
tests. The test tank had inner dimensions of 2´0 m 44´5% (max.)
length, 1´4 m height and 0´3 m width, and parallel
glass sides, as shown in Fig. 3, and contained a
soft clay subgrade overlain by Leighton Buzzard 600
sand.
Sand alone
The soft clay subgrade was simulated by an 500
Clay alone
arti®cal clay known as Glyben (May®eld, 1963),
Applied Stress q : kN/m2

400
Load
Strip footing:
B = 0.12 m
300

H B Sand 0.36 m
200

Ultimate
stress
100
Clay subgrade 0.9 m

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Settlement ratio S/B: %
2.0 m
Fig. 4. Stress±settlement relationships for clay alone
Fig. 3. Experimental setup and sand alone
 BEARING CAPACITY OF FOOTINGS 341
was obtained for the applied stress, but the slope Table 2. Predicted bearing capacity for the clay sub-
of the stress±settlement curve becomes sensibly grade
constant at a settlement ratio (S/B) of 35%, Ultimate stress, qc S/B(%) at
corresponding to an applied stress of 46´6 kN/m2 . (cu ˆ 10´6 kN/m2 , Nc ˆ 5´14) ultimate
This is a commonly applied failure criterion (Vesic, stress
1963). Method qc (Fig. 4)
Since there is no observable post-peak strain (kN/m2 )
softening for the clay, this stress±settlement beha- Prandtl (1920): qc ˆ cu Nc 54´5 53´3
viour is consistent with a local shear failure of the Terzaghi (1943): qc ˆ 23cu Nc 36´5 17´5
subgrade due to the compressibility of the material, Vesic (1973): qc ˆ æcc cu Nc 48´3 38´3
which leads to dif®culty in obtaining an acceptable (æcc ˆ 0´89)
Experimental 46´6 35´0
prediction of the bearing capacity. The bearing
capacities predicted using the measured cu value of
10´6 kN/m2 and Nc of 5´14 and the recommenda-
tions of various authors are given in Table 2. It lity of progressive failure at variable stress levels
can be seen from Fig. 4 that these values are (De Beer, 1965).
accompanied by different footing displacements.

Sand overlying clay

Sand alone
The stress±settlement relationship for the sand
alone is shown in Fig. 4. The ultimate stress of
574 kN/m2 was used in conventional bearing
capacity theory to give an Nã value of 560 which,
from the Nã ±ö relationship proposed by Caquot
& Kerisel (1953), predicts an angle of friction ö9
for the sand of 48´58. However, from conven-
tional triaxial testing, ö9 was found to be 458.
This discrepancy is probably due to the combined
effects of side friction in the test tank, the fact that
ö9 is stress-level dependent (Meyerhof, 1948), that
the plane strain value of ö9 is known to exceed the
triaxial test value (Bishop, 1966), and the possibi-
The stress±settlement relationships for sand
overlying clay are shown in Fig. 5. As expected,
the applied stress increases as the upper sand
thickness increases, for a speci®c settlement ratio,
due to the much higher bearing capacity of the
sand. For depth ratios ( H/B) between 1´0 and 3´0,
the ultimate stress can be identi®ed from the peak
in the stress±settlement curve. For depth ratios of
0´25 and 0´5, the stress±settlement behaviour is
similar to that of the clay alone, so that Vesic's
(1963) failure criterion is more appropriate. The
experimental ultimate stresses qu are given in
Table 3.
The stress±settlement relationships for all tests
on sand overlying clay are presented in non-

160

H/B = 3.0
140
H/B = 3.0
H/B = 2.5
120
H/B = 2.0
Applied stress q : kN/m2

H/B = 1.5
100 H/B = 1.0
H/B = 0.5
80 H/B = 0.25
H/B = 0
60

40
Clay alone

20

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Settlement ratio, S/B: %

Fig. 5. Stress±settlement relationships for sand over clay

342 KENNY AND ANDRAWES

Table 3. Experimental ultimate stresses observed of increasing critical depth ratio with
Depth ratio, Ultimate stress, S/B(%) at
increasing bearing capacity ratio, qs /qc .
H/B qu : kN/m2 ultimate stress
0´0 (clay alone) 46´6 35´0 BEARING CAPACITY PREDICTIONS
0´25 50´0 36´7
0´5 53´6 38´3
In order to assess the ef®cacy of the various
1´0 59´1 25´0 bearing capacity solutions for sand overlying clay,
1´5 73´5 28´3 the bearing capacity predicted using each method
2´0 99´3 31´7 has been compared with the bearing capacity
2´5 123´1 43´3 obtained experimentally, by determining in each
3´0 151´6 50´0 case the ratio, qu predicted /qu experimental . The bearing
3´0 149´6 46´7 capacity of the sand, qs , is taken as 574 kN/m2
Sand alone 574´0 17´0 (ö9 ˆ 48´58). In order to take account of local
shear failure in the clay, the clay bearing capacities
given in Table 2 have been incorporated into each
dimensional form in Fig. 6. For each test, the analysis.
applied footing stress q, is divided by the ultimate
bearing capacity, qu , so that the ratio q/qu equals
unity, the ultimate bearing capacity is reached. For Load spreading methods
settlement ratios in the range 0±20%, which are of The bearing capacities of sand over clay
practical interest for foundation design, the follow- obtained experimentally are compared with those
ing polynomial equation as shown in Fig. 6, has predicted using the load spreading methods as
been ®tted to the test data: follows.
q=qu ˆ ÿ18(S=B)2 ‡ 7
59(S=B) (7) (a) Equation (1) (Terzaghi & Peck, 1948) with qc
ˆ 48´3 kN/m2 (Vesic, 1973, Table 2), tan á ˆ
The results of the present investigation are
0´5.
compared with experimental data reported by other
(b) Equation (2) (Jacobsen et al, 1977) with qc ˆ
researchers in Fig. 7. The bearing capacity of sand
48´3 kN/m2 (Vesic, 1973, Table 2), L/B ˆ 5´0.
over clay, qu , is expressed as a proportion of that
of the sand alone, qs . When the ratio qu /qs equals The results are shown in Fig. 8 in which the bear-
unity, the bearing capacity is equal to that of ing capacities calculated using the Jacobsen et al.
sand alone and a critical depth ratio is reached at method are seen to be in closer agreement with the
which the clay subgrade has no effect on the experimental bearing capacities, with the largest
bearing capacity. A consistent trend can be overestimates (approximately 40%) occurring at

1.2

1
q /qu = −18 (S /B )2 + 7.59(S /B )
Applied stress ratio q /qu

0.8

H/B = 3.0
0.6
H/B = 2.5
H/B = 2.0
H/B = 1.5
0.4
H/B = 1.0
H/B = 0.5
0.2 H/B = 0.25
H/B = 0

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Settlement ratio S /B : %

Fig. 6. Normalized stress±settlement relationship for sand over clay

 BEARING CAPACITY OF FOOTINGS 343
1.2

1
Mysilvec (1971):
strip: qs /qc = 2.3
Ultimate stress ratio qu /qs

0.8 Meyerhof (1974):

circular: qs /qc = 2.0
Tcheng (1957)
0.6 strip: qs /qc = 2.2
Tcheng (1957)
strip: qs /qc = 3.3
0.4
Meyerhof (1974):
strip: qs /qc = 4.0

0.2 Test results

strip: qs /qc = 12.3

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Depth ratio H /B

Fig. 7. Experimental relationship between ultimate stress and depth ratio for surface footings,
after various researchers

2 Table 4. Observed values of tan á at ultimate stress

Terzaghi & Peck:
tan α = 0.5 H/B 0´25 0´5 1´0 1´5 2´0 2´5 3´0
Jacobsen et al.
1.8 Equation (1) using tan á 0´1 0´11 0´25 0´29 0´38 0´34 0´36
Bearing capacity ratio qu predicted /qu experimental

measured tan α

1.6 values were used in equation (1) to predict the

bearing capacities, as shown in Fig. 8, giving
closer agreement with the experimental values than
1.4
the Jacobsen et al. method.

Hanna and Meyerhof's method

1.2
The bearing capacities obtained experimentally,
compared with those predicted using the Hanna &
Meyerhof (1980) method, are shown in Fig. 9.
1
The values of Ks used in equation (5) depend on
the ratio qs /qc . When the full subgrade bearing
capacity is used (qc ˆ cu Nc ), the bearing capacity is
0.8 increasingly overestimated as the depth of sand
0.5 1.5 2.5
0 1 2 3
increases (about 40% greater for D/B ˆ 3´0). When
Depth ratio H /B
local shear failure of the clay is taken into account,
Fig. 8. Comparison of experimental and predicted that is, qc ˆ 23cu Nc (Terzaghi, 1943) or qc ˆ æcc cu Nc
bearing capacities using load spreading methods (Vesic, 1973), the experimental and predicted
bearing capacities are in closer agreement. This is
intermediate sand depths ( H/B ˆ 1´0±2´0). This due to the more accurate bearing capacity estimate
trend is due to the linear relationship between for the clay subgrade. In general, the rate of
bearing capacity and depth of sand assumed by load increase of the bearing capacity with depth of sand
spreading methods. predicted by Hanna & Meyerhof (1980) is greater
From the displacement ®elds recorded at inter- than obtained experimentally, which may lead to
vals during each test, the inclination of the shear signi®cant bearing capacity overestimates for larger
planes in the sand, and hence tan á, for each test sand depths.
was estimated, the value of which remained
reasonably constant when the ultimate stress was
reached. Table 4 shows the measured variation of CONCLUSIONS
tan á with H/B, showing that tan á is not constant In general, bearing capacity analyses are con-
with H/B as assumed by Terzaghi and Peck. These cerned with the ultimate or failure condition and
344 KENNY AND ANDRAWES

1.8 this relationship is speci®c to the soil types used in

the present study and may not be applicable to
qc = cuNc : Ks = 7.6 other combinations of soils.
1.6
Bearing capacity ratio qu predicted /qu experimental

qc = ζcccuNc : Ks = 7.2
qc = 23 cuNc : Ks = 6.1

NOTATION
1.4
B breadth of footing
c soil cohesion
cu undrained cohesion
1.2 D height of surcharge
H depth of upper sand layer
Kp coef®cient of passive earth pressure
1
L length of footing
Nc , Nq , Nã dimensionless bearing capacity factors
n porosity of sand
q experimental applied footing stress
0. 8 qc ultimate bearing capacity of the clay sub-
grade
qs ultimate bearing capacity of the upper sand
0. 6 layer
0 0. 5 1 1. 5 2 2. 5 3 qu ultimate bearing capacity of sand over clay
Depth ratio H /B
S footing displacement
Sc , Sq , Sã dimensionless bearing capacity shape fac-
Fig. 9. Comparison of experimental and predicted tors
bearing capacities using the method of Hanna & á load spreading angle
Meyerhof (1980) ö9 effective angle of friction
ó standard deviation
ã unit weight of soil
the corresponding failure mechanism. Where the æcc compressibility factor (after Vesic, 1973)
subsoil consists of two materials with markedly
different stress±strain behaviour, account should be
taken of the mobilized shear strength for each REFERENCES
material at failure of the foundation. For the case Bishop, A. W. (1966). The strength of soils as engineer-
of a clay subgrade which exhibits the character- ing materials. GeÂotechnique 16, No. 2, 91±128.
istics of local shear failure, the present study Butter®eld, R. & Andrawes, K. Z. (1970). An air-
suggests that use of the Terzaghi or Vesic shear activated sand spreader for forming uniform sand
strength reduction factors will provide a more beds. GeÂotechnique 20, 97±100.
reliable bearing capacity prediction for sand over Caquot, A. & Kerisel, J. (1953). Sur le terme de surface
clay. dans le calcul des fondations en milieu pulverulent,
Proc. 3rd ICSMFE, Vol. 1, pp. 336±337.
Local spreading methods are often considered De Beer, E. E. (1965). Bearing capacity and settlement of
to give a conservative prediction of the bearing shallow foundations on sand. Symp. on Bearing Capa-
capacity, but it is apparent from the present study city and Settlement of Foundations, Duke University,
that this is not the case. Moreover, the method will Durham, USA, pp. 15±33.
only yield reasonable estimates of the bearing Hanna, A. M. & Meyerhof, G. G. (1980). Design charts
capacity if a smaller load spreading angle than for ultimate bearing capacity of foundations on sand
previously proposed is used. Hanna & Meyerhof's overlying soft clay. Can. Geotech. J. 17, 300±303.
method, which does not depend on an assumed load Jacobsen, M., Christensen, K. V. & Sorensen, C. S.
spreading, was found to give reasonably accurate (1977). Gennemlokning af tynde sandlag (penetration
of thin sand layers), Vag-och Vatten Byggaren, Sven-
bearing capacity estimates for smaller sand depths, ska Vag-och Vatten Byggares Riksforbund, Stock-
but overestimated the bearing capacity for larger holm, Sweden, pp. 23±25.
sand depths. However, the accuracy of the predic- May®eld, B. (1963). The performance of a rigid wheel
tion can be improved if local shear failure of the moving in a circular path through clay. University of
clay subgrade is taken into account. Nottingham, PhD thesis.
For footing displacements up to 20% of the Myslivec, A. (1971). Bearing capacity of layered subsoil.
footing width, a relationship is presented (Fig. 6 Proc. 4th Budapest Conf. on Soil Mechanics, pp. 677±
and equation (7)) between the settlement (S/B) and 685.
applied stress (q/qu ), which is very consistent over Meyerhof, G. G. (1948). An investigation of the bearing
capacity of footings on dry sand, Proc. 2nd ICSMFE,
the range of sand depths tested. This can be used Rotterdam, Vol. 1, pp. 237±243.
to estimate the bearing pressure at any footing Meyerhof, G. G. (1974). Ultimate bearing capacity of
displacement provided that the ultimate bearing footings on sand layer overlying clay. Can. Geotech.
capacity is known or can be calculated. However, J. 11, No. 2, 223±229.
 BEARING CAPACITY OF FOOTINGS 345
Prandtl, L. (1920). Uber die harte plasticher korper, engineering practice. New York: Wiley.
Nachr. K. Gess. Wiss. Gott., Math-Phys. K.L., 74±85. Vesic, A. S. (1963). Bearing capacity of deep foundations
Tcheng, Y. (1957). Shallow foundations on a strati®ed in sand. Highway Research Record, No. 39, pp. 112±
soil, Proc. 4th ICSMFE, London, Vol. 1, pp. 449±452. 153.
Terzaghi, K. (1943). Theoretical soil mechanics. New Vesic, A. S. (1973). Analysis of ultimate loads of shallow
York: Wiley. foundations, J. Soil Mech. Fdn Engng Div., ASCE 99,
Terzaghi, K. & Peck, R. B. (1948). Soil mechanics in No. SM1, 45±75.