Soils and Foundations 2013;53(2):349–356

The Japanese Geotechnical Society

Soils and Foundations

www.sciencedirect.com
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/sandf

Influence of model footing diameter and embedded depth

on particle size effect in centrifugal bearing capacity tests
Y. Toyosawaa, K. Itoha, N. Kikkawaa, J.-J. Yangb,n, F. Liuc
a
Construction Safety Research Group, National Institute of Industrial Safety and Health, 1-4-6, Kiyose, Tokyo 204-0024, Japan
b
Key Laboratory of Marine Environment and Ecology, Ocean University of China, Ministry of Education, Qingdao 266100, PR China
c
Beijing Municipal Engineering Research Institute, Beijing 100037, PR China
Received 5 July 2010; received in revised form 12 October 2012; accepted 8 November 2012
Available online 11 March 2013

Abstract

The influence of the model footing diameter and embedded depth on the bearing capacity of circular shallow footings was studied by
centrifugal model testing in order to determine a model footing size and embedded depth against particle size in a model ground. In
the series of 37 tests, the ground was made by river sand whose particle size was adjusted by sieving to a mean particle size of 0.6 mm.
The diameter of the model footing and the embedded depth were considered as influential parameters in this study. The diameter of the
model footings varied from 5 to 40 mm and the ratio of the footing diameter to the mean particle size was calculated as 8.3–66.7.
The ratio of the embedded depth to the footing diameter was 0, 0.5 and 1.0. As a result, the bearing capacity in the same equivalent
diameter of footing was not dependent on the diameter of model footing when the ratio of footing diameter to particle size is more than
50 with any ratio of embedded depth to footing diameter. Our results that the proposed relationship between the ratio of footing
diameter to the particle size and the ratio of the embedded depth to the footing diameter can be used to choose a reasonable model
footing diameter, embedded depth and the particle size of ground material for centrifugal model tests.
& 2013 The Japanese Geotechnical Society. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Centrifugal model test; Particle size effect; Bearing capacity; Footing diameter; Embedded depth; IGC: E-3/E-14

1. Introduction prototype soil. Therefore, often the same soil as in prototype

In centrifugal model tests, the footing and soil particles
should be modeled in size by a factor of N under N–g
centrifugal acceleration. However, if the size of soil particles
are reduced by a factor of N, the model soil will have very
different stress–strain characteristics compared with the
n
Corresponding author. Tel./fax: þ86 0532 667 81773.
E-mail addresses: toyosawa@s.jniosh.go.jp (Y. Toyosawa),
k-ito@s.jniosh.go.jp (K. Itoh), kikkawa@s.jniosh.go.jp (N. Kikkawa),
jjyang@ouc.edu.cn (J.-J. Yang), liufeidada2012@163.com (F. Liu).
Peer review under responsibility of The Japanese Geotechnical Society.
is used, and only the model footings are made smaller by a
factor of N (Kusakabe, 1993; Okamura et al., 2004). In such
cases, the particle size of soil used will be significant
compared with the dimensions of the model footing. That
is, the effect of particle size in centrifugal bearing capacity
tests raises doubts as to the reliability of such tests. Therefore,
it is necessary to investigate how particle size affects the
bearing capacity of the centrifugal model tests in terms of
various model footing diameter, Dm, and different embedded
depth of footing, dm.
The effect of particle size on bearing capacity is due to the
shear band thickness (Okamura et al., 2004; Tatsuoka et al.,
1992, 1991, 1997; Siddiquee et al., 1992), since the shear band
thickness is proportional to the particle size, D50. When the
particle size is sufficiently small compared with the model

0038-0806 & 2013 The Japanese Geotechnical Society. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2012.11.027
350 Y. Toyosawa et al. / Soils and Foundations 53 (2013) 349–356
footing size, the bearing capacity in a centrifugal model
ground should be the same as that in the prototype ground.
However, when the particle size is not so small in comparison
with the model footing size, the bearing capacity in a
centrifugal model ground can be affected by the shear band
formation. This is called the ‘‘particle size effect’’. In addition,
if the model ground is loose, the shear band cannot be
observed clearly. The footing shape, i.e. whether it is rectan-
gular or circular, also affects the bearing capacity since
rectangular footings are usually used in plane-strain problems,
with the effect that the movement of soil particles is con-
strained in 2 dimensional directions and the shear band
formation is more affected than when circular footings are
used. The embedded depth is also an important factor for the
bearing capacity of shallow footing, since the shear bands do
not generate large confining pressure. Thus, the particle size
effect is less obvious with increasing embedded depth. Gen-
erally, the particle size effects are obvious under conditions in
which a shear band can easily be generated in the ground
(Tatsuoka et al., 1997) and the ratio of the footing size to
particle size is small (Okamura et al., 2004). Therefore, the
ratio of the footing size to particle size, the embedded depth of
footing, the density of sandy model ground and the footing
shape are considered to be factors that influence the bearing
capacity of the model ground in the centrifugal model tests.
Gemperline (1988) and Okamura et al. (2004) reported
that the particle size effects became less obvious as the
density of sand decreased. Okamura et al. (1993) showed
that particle size has a smaller effect on circular footings
than on strip footings. However, previous research only
qualitatively described this phenomenon and did not
Fig. 1. Test container (diameter: 500 mm and depth: 300 mm).
Table 1
Properties of the river sand after sieving.
Soil particle Maximum dry Minimum dry Water Mean particle
density, rs density, rdmax density, rdmin content, w size, D50
(g/cm3) (g/cm3) (g/cm3) (%) (mm)
2.692 1.585 1.296 0.13 0.6
quantitatively study the relationship between the influence-
able factors and the particle size effects. In the research
reported in the literature on circular footings, by Ovesen
(1975, 1979) and Xu and Zhang (1996), the particle size
effect was evaluated by merely comparing the load-
settlement curves from a few experimental cases under
conditions of no embedment. In this research, the particle
size effect has been investigated using quantitative indicators
for 37 cases of various diameters and depth of embedment.
Gemperline and Hon (1988), Kimura et al. (1985), Pu and
Hao (1988), Pu and Ko (1988), and Yamaguchi et al. (1976)
researched the influence of embedment on bearing capacity by
centrifugal model tests. Liu et al. (2007) carried out bearing
capacity tests using a centrifuge for several densities of sand,
footing shapes and embedment while the particle size effects
on bearing capacity were studied. However, few studies have
been done on the influence of embedment on the bearing
capacity with the particle size effect.
Yang et al. (2007) studied the particle size effects in the
case of no embedment and introduced the index which was
used to quantify the particle size effects for rectangular
footing.
In this paper, a series of 37 bearing capacity tests with
circular footing was conducted on dense sand by centrifuge
and the effects of model footing diameter and embedded
depth of footing on the bearing capacity are discussed in
detail using quantitative indexes (such as Dqu, Dm/D50,
dm/Dm, etc.). The relationship of both ratios well expressed
the extent and degree in the bearing capacity.
100
90
80
Percent finer by weight (%)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Grain (mm)
Fig. 2. Curve of grain size distribution of river sand after sieving.
Table 2
Properties of sandy ground in the gravity field.
Relative density, Dr (%) Dry density, rd (g/cm3) Void ratio, e
98–99 1.578–1.582 0.702–0.706
 Y. Toyosawa et al. / Soils and Foundations 53 (2013) 349–356 351

2. Design of tests the increase of the density was insignificant, so its effect on the
test results was neglected if the relative density was high and
The model footing tests were conducted in the JNIOSH close to the maximum density (Ueno, 2001; Yang and
NIIS Mark-II Centrifuge at the National Institute of Occu- Toyosawa, 2003; Toyosawa et al., 2004). To understand the
pational Safety and Health, Japan, which was described in
detail by Yang et al. (2007). The rigid cylinder soil container
had an inner diameter of 500 mm and a depth of 300 mm as
shown in Fig. 1. River sand from Japan was used. On
delivery, the material was washed, dried, and made free of
silt, clay and organic matter. The grading chosen contained
only those particles that passed through a 2.0-mm opening
sieve and were retained on a 0.25-mm opening sieve. The
sand was spread on the clean floor and dried naturally in the
room for several days. The water content of the sand was
confirmed constant throughout the series of the tests. The
physical properties and grain size distribution were as shown
in Table 1 and Fig. 2. Strength parameters of this sand, under
almost same condition of the centrifuge tests, obtained from
direct shear tests are f0 ¼ 371 and c0 ¼ 2 kPa.
The depth of the model ground was 240 mm and was
divided into 12 sublayers, each of which weighed 6.1 kg. Hand
tamping was used to densify the sand. For each sublayer,
predetermined quantities of sand were spread, trimmed and Fig. 4. Model circular footings.
tamped by hand to produce a final sublayer thickness of about
20 mm. The operation was repeated and the ground was
made. The properties of the sandy ground in the gravity field
Table 3
are given in Table 2. Under centrifugal acceleration, the sandy Test programs.
ground was densified, but previous researchers showed that
Model footing Embedded Centrifugal Equivalent footing
diameter, depth, acceleration, diameter,
Dm (mm) dm/Dm N (g) NDm (mm)

5 0/0.5/1.0 40/60 200/300

10 0/0.5/1.0 20/50 200/500
20 0/0.5/1.0 10/25/50 200/500/1000
30 0/0.5/1.0 6.7/16.7/33.3/50 200/500/1000/1500
40 0 5/12.5/25/37.5 200/500/1000/1500

footing diameter
Dm

footing embedded depth

dm

model ground

centrifugal acceleration
Ng

Fig. 5. Symbols of the footing diameter, embedded depth and centrifugal

Fig. 3. Model sandy ground and the loading system. acceleration.
352 Y. Toyosawa et al. / Soils and Foundations 53 (2013) 349–356

particle size effect, a high relative density condition, which is
strongly dilative, was adopted for these experiments.
In cases where the embedded depth was not zero, after the
ground was completed, the loading system was mounted onto
the test container and the footing was adjusted to just touch
the ground. Then, predetermined quantities of sand were
weighed, spread on the ground and tamped by the same
method described above. The footing was rigidly connected to
the loading jack through a load cell as shown in Fig. 3. The
self-weight of the model footing and the loading jack was
taken into account when processing the test data.
As shown in Fig. 4, aluminous (duralumin) circular footings
were used in the tests, and were of diameter Dm ¼ 5 mm,
10 mm, 20 mm, 30 mm and 40 mm. In the model, because
the diameter of the container was 12.5 times or more that of
the footing and the depth of the ground was 6 times or more

900 1600 3000

800 D =40mm Dm=20mm
m Dm=10mm Dm=10mm
700
1200 Dm=20mm
600 2000
Dm=20mm Dm=30mm
q (kPa)

q (kPa)
q (kPa)
500 Dm=40mm
800
400 Dm=40mm
300 Dm=30mm 1000
200 400
100 Dm=30mm
0 0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Sm/Dm Sm/Dm Sm/Dm

2000
3500 6000
1800
Dm=5mm Dm=10mm
1600 5000
1400 2800 Dm=20mm Dm=30mm
1200 4000
q (kPa)

Dm=10mm

q (kPa)
q (kPa)

2100
1000 Dm=30mm 3000
800 Dm=20mm
1400 Dm=20mm
600 2000
400 700 1000
200 Dm=30mm
0 0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Sm/Dm Sm/Dm Sm/Dm

2500 7000
Dm=5mm 6000
2000 Dm=10mm 6000 Dm=20mm
Dm=10mm 5000
Dm=20mm 5000
1500 4000
q (kPa)

q (kPa)

Dm=30mm
q (kPa)

4000
Dm=30mm 3000
1000 Dm=20mm 3000 Dm=30mm
2000 2000
500
1000 1000
0 0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Sm/Dm Sm/Dm Sm/Dm

4000
Dm=40mm
3000
q (kPa)

Dm=30mm
2000

1000

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Sm/Dm

Fig. 6. Load–settlement curves for NDm ¼ 200 mm, 500 mm, 1000 mm and 1500 mm. (a) NDm ¼200 mm, dm/Dm ¼0 (b) NDm ¼ 200 mm, dm/Dm ¼ 0.5
(c) NDm ¼ 200 mm, dm/Dm ¼1.0 (d) NDm ¼ 500 mm, dm/Dm ¼0 (e) NDm ¼ 500 mm, dm/Dm ¼ 0.5 (f) NDm ¼500 mm, dm/Dm ¼1.0 (g) NDm ¼ 1000 mm,
dm/Dm ¼ 0 (h) NDm ¼ 1000 mm, dm/Dm ¼ 0.5 (i) NDm ¼ 1000 mm, dm/Dm ¼ 1.0 and (j) NDm ¼ 1500 mm, dm/Dm ¼ 0.
 Y. Toyosawa et al. / Soils and Foundations 53 (2013) 349–356 353

the maximum footing diameter, it was considered that there
was no boundary effect (Yang and Toyosawa, 2003;
Meyerhof, 1948). In order to increase the roughness, sandpa-
per was glued to the footing base and the side surface was
made harsh.
The test programs are shown in Table 3. In this study, the
model footing diameter, Dm, the embedded depth of footing,
dm, and the centrifugal acceleration, N, were varied in order
to investigate the particle size effects. These symbols are
summarized in Fig. 5. The model footing was placed at the
center of the model ground surface and was loaded vertically
at a constant settlement rate of 1% footing-diameter/min
after the acceleration reached the target.
3. Discussion on test results
3.1. Influence of particle size effects on load-settlement
curves
Fig. 6 shows the relationship between the bearing
pressure and relative displacement (footing settlement
Sm/footing width Dm) for NDm ¼ 200 mm, 500 mm, 1000
mm and 1500 mm. The ratio of the embedded depth to the
footing width dm/Dm was 0, 0.5 and 1.0. Although the
load–settlement curves were expected to be constant
independent of the variation of NDm, the curves varied
3.2. Influence of particle size effects on ultimate bearing
capacity
When the peak of the load–settlement curve could be
observed, the peak was defined as the ultimate bearing
capacity, qu. In other cases, a hyperbolic function was used
to fit the load–settlement curve, and the intersection point
of the initial tangent and the asymptote was defined as qu
(Yang, 1994).
Fig. 7 presents the relationship between the ultimate
bearing capacity, qu, and the equivalent footing dia-
meter, NDm. The ultimate bearing capacity, qu, increased
with increasing in equivalent footing diameter, NDm, and
decreased with increasing model footing diameter, Dm. In
the case of dm/Dm ¼ 0 (Fig. 6(a)), the ultimate bearing
capacity of Dm ¼ 30 mm and Dm ¼ 40 mm was almost the
same, namely, when the footing diameter, Dm, was larger
than 30 mm, Dm/D50 was more than 50, the effects of
Dm/D50 on the centrifuge test results could be neglected. In
the cases of dm/Dm ¼ 0.5 and 1.0, when the footing
3000
Dm =30mm
2500 Dm =20mm
2000
qu (kPa)

Dm =10mm Dm =40mm
for different Dm. The difference between the load– 1500
settlement curves decreased with the increase of footing
1000
diameter, Dm. As shown in Fig. 6(a), (d), (g) and (j), the
curves of Dm ¼ 30 mm and 40 mm were almost the same 500
and were greatly different from the curves of Dm ¼ 10 mm 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000
and 20 mm for dm/Dm ¼ 0. However, for dm/Dm ¼ 0.5 and
NDm (mm)
1.0, the curves of Dm ¼ 20 mm and 30 mm were almost
identical and differed significantly from the curves of 5000
Dm ¼ 5 mm and 10 mm, as shown in Fig. 6(b), (c), (e),
4000 Dm =20mm
(f), (h) and (i).
On the other hand, the peak of the load–settlement curve Dm =10mm Dm =30mm
qu (kPa)

3000
was observed in the case of the small embedment (dm/Dm ¼ 0 Dm =5mm
and 0.5) for the footings with the diameter of 200 mm and 2000
500 mm in prototype. The clear heaving around the circular 1000
footing observed after the tests, indicated that general shear
failure occurred. On the other hand, when the footing 0
0 500 1000 1500
diameter was increased to 1000 mm and 1500 mm in proto- NDm (mm)
type, the peak was not clearly recognized; the mode of failure
changed from general shear failure to local shear failure. 6000
In the case of dm/Dm ¼ 1.0, however, no peak in the load–
5000 Dm =20mm
settlement curve was recognizable for any footing diameter Dm =10mm
except for the 200 mm in prototype; the mode of failure was 4000
qu (kPa)

Dm =5mm Dm =30mm
local shear failure or punching shear failure. 3000
As mentioned above, for the same ratio of footing
2000
diameter to particle size, the particle size effects were more
marked when the ground was able to easily generate a 1000
shear band. It is considered that as the embedment, dm, or 0
0 500 1000 1500
equivalent footing diameter, NDm, increased, local shear
NDm (mm)
failure (progressive failure) became more obvious and the
general shear failure was hard to form, and the particle size Fig. 7. Relationship between qu and NDm. (a) dm/Dm ¼ 0, (b) dm/Dm ¼ 0.5
effects became less obvious as a result. and (c) dm/Dm ¼ 1.0
354 Y. Toyosawa et al. / Soils and Foundations 53 (2013) 349–356

diameter Dm increased to 20 mm, Dm/D50 increased to
33.3, and the particle size effects could be eliminated.
3.3. Influence of particle size effects on settlement
The relationship between footing settlement ratio, (Sm/Dm)u,
at the ultimate bearing capacity (same value of qu which is
illustrated in Section 3.2 was used) and NDm are summarized
in Fig. 8. (Sm/Dm)u decreased as the footing diameter Dm
increased and the differences of (Sm/Dm)u in the same Dm also
decreased with an increase in the footing diameter. The
settlement presented the same trend as the ultimate bearing
capacity. As shown in Fig. 8, in the case of dm/Dm ¼ 0, when
Dm/D50 was more than 50, the particle size effects could be
ignored and in the cases of dm/Dm ¼ 0.5 and 1.0, Dm/D50
should exceed 33.3.
3.4. Influence of embedment on particle size effects
Fig. 9 shows the relationship between the ultimate
bearing capacity, qu, and the acceleration, N (g). For the
0.4
same prototype, ultimate bearing capacity, qu, decreased as
the acceleration decreased. When the footing diameter
increased to a certain value, the ultimate bearing capacity
became a constant and the particle size effects could be
neglected. Yang et al. (2007) introduced the index Dqu to
quantitatively measure the extent of the influence of
particle size effects on the test results. The index Dqu is
expressed as the Eq. (1).
9qu qu0 9
Dqu ¼ ð1Þ
qu0
where, Dqu: index to express the particle size effect, qu:
ultimate bearing capacity, qu0: constant ultimate bearing
capacity with no particle size effect.
The value of qu, was used as the value of qu0 when qu
converged to an approximately constant value and was the
minimum value. Therefore, when dm/Dm ¼ 0, result value of
qu at the Dm ¼ 40 test, was used as qu0. When dm/Dm ¼ 0.5
3500
Dm
3000 big small

Dm =10mm 2500 NDm =1500mm

0.3
qu (kPa)
2000 NDm =1000mm
(Sm/Dm)u

Dm =20mm
0.2 1500
Dm =30mm 1000 NDm =500mm
0.1
Dm =40mm 500 NDm =200mm

0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 20 40 60
NDm (mm) N(g)

0.4 6000
Dm =5mm 5000 Dm
0.3 big small
Dm =10mm
4000 NDm =1000mm
(Sm/Dm)u

qu (kPa)

Dm =30mm
0.2 3000 NDm =500mm
Dm =20mm 2000
0.1
1000 NDm =200m

0 0
0 500 1000 1500 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
NDm (mm) N(g)

0.6
7000
0.5 Dm =5mm Dm
6000 big small
0.4 5000 NDm =1000mm
(Sm/Dm)u

Dm =10mm
qu (kPa)

0.3 4000
Dm =30mm
3000 NDm =500mm
0.2
Dm =20mm 2000
0.1 NDm =200mm
1000
0 0
0 500 1000 1500 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
NDm (mm) N(g)

Fig. 8. Relationship between (Sm/Dm)u and NDm. (a) dm/Dm ¼0, Fig. 9. Relationship between qu and N. (a) dm/Dm ¼ 0, (b) dm/Dm ¼ 0.5 and
(b) dm/Dm ¼ 0.5 and (c) dm/Dm ¼ 1.0. (c) dm/Dm ¼1.0.
 Y. Toyosawa et al. / Soils and Foundations 53 (2013) 349–356 355

or 1.0, result value of qu at the Dm ¼ 30 test, was used
as qu0.
On the basis of the results in Fig. 9, the relationship
between Dqu and Dm/D50 was obtained as in Fig. 10. It was
shown that Dqu decreased as Dm/D50 increased for all
embedment values. When the ratio of footing diameter to
mean particle size, Dm/D50, increased to 50, the corre-
sponding value of Dqu was less than 2% in the case of
dm/Dm ¼ 0, and in the cases of dm/Dm ¼ 0.5 and 1.0, when
Dm/D50 reached 33.3, the corresponding value of Dqu was
less than 2%. It could be concluded that the particle size
effects were less obvious as embedment increased.
Fig. 11 presents the relationship between the value of Dqu
and the embedded depth ratio dm/Dm, further illustrating the
influence of embedment on the particle size effects. For the
same Dm/D50, the value of Dqu decreased as embedment
70
60
NDm=500mm
50
Δqu (%)
increased and the influence of the particle size effects on the
test results became less obvious. It is reasonable to conclude
that the particle size effects can be ignored when the ratio of
footing diameter to the mean particle size, Dm/D50, increased
to 33.3 in both cases of dm/Dm ¼ 0.5 and 1.0. As dm/Dm
increased from 0.5 to 1.0, the value of Dqu decreased from 2%
to 1%. In other words, the particle size effects are less
significant in the case of dm/Dm ¼ 1.0 than dm/Dm ¼ 0.5.
Based on the data in Figs. 10 and 11, the relationship
between the Dm/D50 and the dm/Dm was obtained for the
value of Dqu equal to 0% and 2% as shown in Fig. 12. The
figure indicated the extent and degree of bearing capacity
with the diameter of model footing. According to the chosen
ratio of footing diameter to mean particle size, Dm/D50, and
the ratio of the embedded depth to the footing width, dm/Dm,
in the figure, it was possible to distinguish whether any
particle size effects occurred in the tests, and to assess the
70
60
Dm /D50 =8.3
50

40 NDm=1000mm

Δqu (%)
40
30 NDm=200mm
Dm /D50 =16.7
20 30

10 20
NDm=1500m
10 Dm /D50 =50
0 Dm /D50 =33.3
0 20 40 60 80
0
Dm /D50 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
dm /Dm
70
70
60
60
50
NDm=200mm 50 Dm /D50 =16.7
Δqu (%)

40
Δqu (%)

40
30
30
20
20 Dm /D50 =33.3
10 NDm=500mm
NDm=1000mm 10
0 Dm /D50 =50
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Dm /D50
dm /Dm

90 50
80
70 40
60 Dm /D50 =33.3
30
Δqu (%)
Δqu (%)

50
40 NDm=500mm
20
30
20 10
10 NDm=200mm Dm /D50 =50
NDm=1000mm
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Dm /D50 dm /Dm

Fig. 10. Relationship between Dqu and Dm/D50. (a) dm/Dm ¼0, Fig. 11. Relationship between Dqu and dm/Dm. (a) NDm ¼ 200 mm,
(b) dm/Dm ¼ 0.5 and (c) dm/Dm ¼ 1.0. (b) NDm ¼ 500 mm and (c) NDm ¼ 1000 mm.
356 Y. Toyosawa et al. / Soils and Foundations 53 (2013) 349–356
100
80
Δqu=0%
Particle size effects
60
Dm /D50
can be neglected
40 Δqu=2%
Particle size effects
20 were obvious
0 capacity of shallow footing on sand. Journal of Geotechnical
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
dm /Dm
Fig. 12. Particle size effects.
extent of their influence. The figure could also be used to
choose a reasonable model footing size or particle size with
an embedded depth of footing.
4. Conclusions
A series of bearing capacity tests for circular footings in
the centrifuge was conducted to study the influence of the
model footing diameter and the embedded depth on the
bearing capacity, with the following results.
(1) Against a given value of prototype diameter, the ultimate
bearing capacity decreased with as the diameter of the
circular model footing (Dm) increased, and also with
increases in the embedded depth (dm). However, when
the ratio of footing diameter to particle size (Dm/D50) was
more than 50, the ultimate bearing capacity in the same
equivalent diameter of footing was not dependent on the
diameter of model footing with the embedded depth of
0 m. In addition, when this ratio was more than 33, the
ultimate bearing capacity was not affected by the diameter
of model footing, with the ratio of the embedded depth to
the footing diameter as 0.5 and 1.0.
(2) The relationship between the ratio of footing diameter to
particle size and the ratio of embedded depth to footing
diameter provided a useful index for determining the
model footing diameter, embedded depth and particle
size of model ground in the centrifugal circular bearing
capacity tests.
References
Gemperline, M.C., 1988. Coupled effects of common variables on the
behavior of shallow foundations in cohesionless soils. In: Proceedings
of the International Centrifuge’88, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 285–292.
Gemperline, M.C., Hon, Y., 1988. Centrifuge model tests for ultimate
bearing capacity of footing on step slope in cohesionless soils. In:
Proceedings of the International Conference’88, pp. 203–221.
Kimura, T., Kusakabe, O., Saitoh, K., 1985. Geotechnical model test of
bearing capacity problems in a centrifuge. Geotechnique 35 (1), 33–45.
Kusakabe, O., 1993. Application of centrifuge modeling to foundation
engineering. Foundation and Construction 11 (1), 1–10.
Liu, F., Yang, J.-J., Ding, Y.D., et al., 2007. Study on influence of
footing shape and depth burial on bearing capacity by centrifugal
tests. Architecture Technology 38 (Suppl.1), 327–331.
Meyerhof, G.G., 1948. An investigation of the bearing capacity of shallow
footings on dry sand. In: Proceedings of the Second International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 1948, p. 1.
Okamura, M., Takemura, J., Kimura, T., 1993. A study on bearing
1 Engineering, JSCE No. 463/III-22, 85–94 (in Japanese).
Okamura, M., Takemura, J., Ueno, K., 2004. Centrifugal model test – the
technology and the applicability. 2. The similarity of centrifugal model test
and the technology – advantage and disadvantage. Tsuchi-to-Kiso, JGS 52
(10), 37–44 (in Japanese).
Ovesen, N.K., 1975. Centrifuge testing applied to bearing capacity
problems of footings on sand. Geotechnique 25, 394–401.
Ovesen N.K., 1979. The scaling law relationship: panel discussion. In:
Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, 4, pp. 319–323.
Pu, J.-L., Hao, H.-Y., 1988. Study on bearing capacity of shallow
foundation by centrifugal tests. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering 10 (6), 1–18.
Pu, J.-L., Ko, H.-Y., 1988. Experimental determination of bearing capacity
in sand by centrifuge footing tests. Centrifuge’88, pp. 293–299.
Siddiquee, M.S.A., Tanaka, T., Tatsuoka, F., 1992. A numerical simula-
tion of bearing capacity of footing on sand. In: Proceedings of the
27th Annual Meeting of Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, 1992, 2, pp. 1413–1416.
Tatsuoka, F., Okahara, M., Tanaka, T., Tani, K., Morimoto, T.,
Siddiquee, M.S.A., 1991. Progressive failure and particle size effect
in bearing capacity of a footing on sand. Geotechnical Engineering
Congress, ASCE II, 788–802.
Tatsuoka, F., Tanaka, T., Okahara, M., Sissiquee, M.S.A., 1992. Study into
the bearing capacity of strip footing on sand by model tests, element tests
and numerical analyses. Soils and Foundations 40 (5), 11–16.
Tatsuoka, F., Goto, S., Tanaka, T., Tani, K., Kimura, Y., 1997. Particle
size effects on bearing capacity of footing on granular material. In:
Proceedings of IS-NAGOYA, 1997, pp. 133–138.
Toyosawa, Y., Yang, J.-J., Miura, S., Suemasa, N., 2004. Bearing
capacity of reinforced ground using centrifuge tests. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, JSCE 757/III-66, 247–257.
Ueno, K., 2001. On the bearing capacity of surface foundation on granular
media. Ph.D. Thesis, Tokyo Institute of Technology, pp. 98–99.
Xu, G.-M., Zhang, W.-M., 1996. Study on the grain-size effects and
boundary effects in centrifugal test. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering 18 (3), 80–85 (in Chinese).
Yamaguchi, H., Kimura, T., Fujii, N., 1976. On the influence of
progressive failure on the bearing capacity of shallow foundation in
dense sand. Soils and Foundations 13 (1), 11–22.
Yang, J.-J., 1994. A study on bearing capacity of geogrid reinforced
foundation ground. Ph.D. Thesis, Kyushu University.
Yang, J.-J., Toyosawa, Y., 2003. Bearing capacity of reinforced sandy
ground using centrifuge tests. Tsuchi-to-Kiso, JGS 51 (11),
47–49 (in Japanese).
Yang, J.-J., Liu, F., Toyosawa, Y., Horii, N., Itoh, K., 2007. Particle size
effects on bearing capacity of sandy ground by centrifugal tests.
Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 29 (4), 477–483.