SOILS AND FOUNDATIONS Vol. 38, No. 1, 181-194, Mar.

1998
Japanese Geotechnical Society

BEARING CAPACITY PREDICTIONS OF SAND OVERLYING CLAY

BASED ON LIMIT EQUILIBRIUM METHODS

MITSU 0KAMURAi), JIRO T AKEMURAii) and TSUTOMU KIMURAiii)

ABSTRACT
A dense sand layer is usually assumed to be a bearing stratum in foundation design. It is, however, difficult for en-
gineers to judge if a sand layer with limited thickness can be used as a bearing stratum when it is underlain by a thick
soft clay deposit. Many important parameters must be considered in this problem, for example, the thickness of the
sand, strength of clay and width, shape and embedment of footing. Several methods have been proposed to calculate
the bearing capacities of the sand overlying clay, in which limit equilibrium of forces acting on an imaginary sand
block between the base of the footing and the sand/ clay interface was considered. The bearing capacities calculated
based on existing methods are not the same for different assumptions adopted in each method. The shape of the sand
block and the forces acting on the surface of the block are the determining factors in the bearing capacity calculation.
In this paper, these factors as well as calculated bearing capacities are compared with the results of well-conditioned
centrifuge tests (Okamura et aL, 1997) to verify the validity of the methods. It has been confirmed that reasonable as-
sumptions in which the variation of the shape of the sand block and the forces related to the parameters are taken into
consideration are important tQ obtain a reasonable prediction. An alternative method is proposed and the bearing
capacity charts are presented for easy reference.

Key words: bearing capacity, failure mechanism, limit equilibrium method, punching failure, sand overlying clay,
shallow foundation (IGC: E3)

block. Two determining factors in the assumptions used

INTRODUCTION
Shallow foundations resting on a relatively thin sand
layer overlying a deep clay bed sometimes break through
the sand layer into the clay as shown in Fig. 1 (Vesic,
1975; Brown and Paterson, 1964; Craig and Chua, 1990).
In order to estimate the bearing capacity of the two-
layered subsoil profile with potential for punching shear
failure, several limit equilibrium methods have been
proposed (Yamaguchi, 1963; Meyerhof, 1974; Hanna
and Meyerhof, 1980; Kraft and Helfrich, 1982; Baglioni
et al., 1982; Myslivec and Kysela, 1978). Failure mecha-
nisms on the basis of observations of small scale model
tests in a gravitational field were determined. In these
methods, an imaginary sand block like a column or trun-
cated cone, resting on the interface between the upper
sand layer and the lower clay, was assumed to be pushed
down with the foundation together with stresses acting
on the block as shown in Fig. 2. The bearing capacity is
obtained from the equilibrium condition of the sand
in the limit equilibrium method, that is, angles of side sur-
face of the sand block to the vertical, a (Fig. 2(a)), and
stresses on the sand block differ for the different
methods, which results in large differences in the calculat-
ed bearing capacities. Therefore, experimental verifica-
tion of the assumptions is necessary in order to confirm
the validity of the methods.
Craig and Chua ( 1990) conducted model tests both in
100 g centrifugal acceleration field and gravitational (i.e.
1 g) field using almost the same models and experimental
devices. They reported that the failure mechanism and
the bearing capacities observed in centrifuge tests were
considerably different from those in 1 g tests. This differ-
ence was considered to arise from the difference of stress
levels between the centrifuge and 1 g models. Since cen-
trifuge testing provides nearly identical stress levels in a
model to that in the prototype, results of centrifuge tests
are more realistic than those of small scaled 1 g tests. In
the absence of adequate observations of real founda-

i) Senior Researcher, Soil Dynamics Division, Earthquake Disaster Prevention Research Center, Public Work Research Institute, Ministry of
Construction, Asahi 1, Tsukuba-shi, Ibaraki 305-0804. (Formerly, Research Associate, Tokyo Institute of Technology).
ii) Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology, 2-12-1 0-okayama Meguro-ku, Tokyo 152-0033.
iii) Professor, ditto.
Manuscript was received for review on September 6, 1996.
Written discussions on this paper should be submitted before October 1, 1998 to the Japanese Geotechnical Society, Sugayama Bldg., 4F,
Kanda Awaji-cho, 2-23, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 101-0063, Japan. Upon request the closing date may be extended one month.

181

This is an Open Access article under the CC-BY-NC-ND license.

NII-Electronic Library Service
182
Fig. 1. Punch shear failure of a footing on dense sand overlying soft
clay (after Vesic, 1975)
tions, therefore, well-conditioned centrifuge model tests
could be used preferably to verify the accuracy of the as-
sumptions in the existing methods. Although several
researchers have conducted centrifuge model tests on the
bearing capacity of sand layer overlying clay (Craig and
Chua, 1990, 1991)), the number of the tests has been
limited so far. In addition, as far as the authors are
aware, no attempt has been made to measure the stresses
acting on the sand block.
The authors carried out a series of some 60 centrifuge
(a) projected area method
Fig. 2. Mechanisms adopted for existing methods of analysis: (a) projected area method; (b) Hanna and Meyerhof (1980)
OKAMURA ET AL.
model tests on the bearing capacity of shallow footings
resting on a sand layer with underlying clay. Attempts
were also made to measure the stresses acting on the sand
block (Okamura et al., 1997). In this paper a direct com-
parison is made between the assumptions in the existing
limit equilibrium methods and the results of the cen-
trifuge tests in order to examine the validity of the exist-
ing methods. An alternative method is proposed on the
basis of the experimental observations and bearing capac-
ity charts are given for easy reference.
EXISTING METHODS
The existing bearing capacity analyses of the sand over-
lying clay using a limit equilibrium method can be clas-
sified into two groups according to the shape of the sand
block and the shearing resistance along the side of the
block. The first group is the so-called projected area
method which was first proposed by Yamaguchi (1963)
and the second is the method by Meyerhof (1974) and
Hanna and Meyerhof (1980). In this section of the paper
these methods are reviewed.
Methods of Analysis
In the projected area method, it is assumed that verti-
cal stresses propagate in sand from foundation to the
clay surface at a constant angle a to the vertical as shown
in Fig. 2(a). A rigid block of truncated cone or
trapezoidal shape under the foundation was assumed.
The bearing capacity of footing q1 was determined from
the ultimate bearing stress of the underlying clay and the
base area of the block, as follows;
for strip footing;
q1=( I +2 ~tan a}c.N,+pO) (1)
for circular footing;
sand: y', <t>'
cuNc +Po'
Ks: punching shear coefficient
(b) Hanna and Meyerhof ( 1980)
NII-Electronic Library Service
 BEARING CAP A CITY OF SAND OVER CLAY 183

on the block and gave following formulae,

qf=( I +2 ~tan a)\c,N,s,+pO)
where His the thickness of the sand below the footing, B
is width or diameter of footing, Po is effective overburden
pressure at the level of the footing base without consider-
ing vertical settlement of the footing due to loading, Cu is
undrained strength of underlying clay, Nc and Sc are bear-
ing capacity factor and shape factor (::::: 1.2 for circular
footing). In this method, the shearing resistance of sand
along the side of the sand block is neglected with an ex-
ception (Yamaguchi, 1963). The side angles of the block
a proposed by various researchers are different from each
other; for example, 30° for Yamaguchi (1963), tan- 1(1/
2) for Kraft and Helfrich (1983), 30° and 45° for Mys-
livec and Kysela (1982) and cf>' for Baglioni et al. (1982).
These angles a are assumed to be constant irrespective of
the strengths of the soils and geometric conditions, ex-
cept for that proposed by Baglioni et al. (1982).
Meyerhof (1974), Hanna and Meyerhof (1980) and
Hanna (1981) proposed a method with a failure mecha-
nism including a vertical side block (i.e. a= 0), as shown
in Fig. 2(b). The shearing resistance along the side sur-
face of the block is taken into account in this method.
They also made use of a concept of equilibrium of forces
(2)
for strip footing;
1
qf= CuNc + B ( y' H 2
+ 2Hpo)Ks tan c/>' +Po (3)
for circular footing;
1
qf=CuNcsc+2 B (y'H 2+2Hpo)Kstan¢'+po (4)
where y', cf>' and Ks are the effective unit weight and angle
of shearing resistance of sand, and punching shear
coefficient respectively. In this method, Ks is given in
charts as a function of cf>' and the ratio of the bearing
capacity of uniform sand to that of uniform clay,
qt(=0.5yBNySy) to q2(=cuNcsc), where Sy denotes the
shape factor of footing (Vesic, 1973).
In all the other methods, vertical stresses on the base of
the sand block are assumed to be the ultimate bearing
stresses of the clay. Centrifuge test results showed that
this assumption is adequate or somewhat conservative
(Okamura et al., 1997). In the following discussions,
influences of the two determining factors, that is, the an-
gle a and the shearing resistance along the side surface of
the sand block, on the bearing capacity of footing are
focussed on. These assumptions are compared with the

Table 1. Summary of the centrifuge test for circular footing on sand layer without embedment

Width of Depth of sand H y'B Strength at clay 2qf

H/B N~ Ac - Failure mode
footing B (m) (m) (kPa) surface c0 (kPa) y'B
1.5 0.5 8.71 7.0 2.07 10.2
3.0 1.0 11.9 6.8 2.74 32.0
3.0 29.2
4.5 1.5 17.7 6.6 3.97 70.8
punch through
6.0 2.0 22.4 6.5 4.97 130
1.5 1.0 8.71 6.6 3.91 36.9
1.5 14.6
3.0 2.0 11.9 6.5 5.25 133
0 0 24.8 4.93 10.0 general shear
3.0 29.2
3.0 1.0 24.5 5.08 44.5
6.1 punch through
2.0 3.0 1.5 19.5 24.6 7.66 90.3
1.5 3.0 2.0 14.6 24.5 10.2 143 general shear
3.0 0.5 44.9 9.31 28.9
3.0 1.0 47.2 9.80 58.3 punch through
3.0 29.2
4.5 1.5 52.2 10.8 103
6.0 2.0 53.8 6.1 11.2 125 general shear
1.5 1.0 44.9 18.6 83.0 punch through
1.5 3.0 2.0 14.6 47.2 19.6 140
general shear
4.5 3.0 52.2 21.7 147
3.0 1.0 75.5 15.7 73.3
3.0 29.2 punch through
4.5 1.5 85.9 6.1 17.8 141
3.0 4.5 3.0 14.6 85.9 35.7 148 general shear

* Band Hare shown in prototype scale. ** Centrifugal acceleration=50 g.

NII-Electronic Library Service

184 OKAMURA ET AL.

centrifuge test results. Conditions and results of the cen- side surface of the sand block. Therefore, the angle ¢'
trifuge tests are summarized in Tables 1 to 4. The de- was computed from the observed bearing capacity fac-
tailed information about the tests was reported elsewhere tors Ny ranging between 179 and 252 for strip footings on
(Okamura et al., 1997). uniform sand (H/ B= oo) and equations (5) and (6)
proposed by Caquot and Kerisel (1953).
Comparison with Centrifuge Test Results (5)
In the calculations of the bearing capacities of the cen-
trifuge models using Hanna and Meyerhof's method, the
angle of 45° was used as the angle of shearing resistance N. =entan<f>' n c/J')
tan2 ( -+- (6)
q 4 2
cp' for the sand. In Hanna and Meyerhof's method,¢' cor-
responds to the angle of shearing resistance of sand in It should be noted that the angle¢' of 45 obtained here is
which general shear failure occurs, and ¢' is distin- considered to be the average of the mobilized angle of
guished from the angle of shearing resistance along the shear resistance in the failure zone and different ·from

Table 2. Summary of the centrifuge tests for strip footing on sand layer without embedment

Width of Depth of y'B Strength at clay 2qf

footing B (m) sand H(m)
H/B
surface c0 (kPa)
N'c Ac - Failure mode
(kPa) y'B
0 0 22.4 5.90 12.0 general shear
2.0 2.0 1.0 19.5 21.9 5.77 28.5
2.0 1.0 21.9 5.77 32.5
5.1 punch through
1.5 3.0 2.0 14.6 22.4 7.89 78.8
3.0 3.0 22.4 11.8 136
1.0 9.74
4.0 4.0 23.0 12.1 222 general shear

* Band Hare shown in prototype scale. ** Centrifugal acceleration=50 g.

Table 3. Summary of the centrifuge tests for circular footing on sand Table 4. Summary of the centrifuge tests for strip footing on sand
layer with embedment (a) Circular footing

B H y'B Co 2qf Centrifugal

H/B N'c Ac A.P - Failure mode B y'B 2qf
(m) (m) (kPa) (kPa) acceleration A.P
y'B (m) n (g) (kPa) y'B
2.4 1.0 32.7 8.49 80
f--- f--- - 1.5 50 138
2.4 4.8 2.0 23.4 32.3 8.39 1.3 233
f--- f--- - 1.5 25 14.6 160
6.48 2.7 35.7 9.25 380
1.5 25 157
1.6 1.0 32.1 12.5 91
f--- f--- - punch through 2.0 50 19.5 0 138
3.36 2.1 33.0 12.9 1.5 270
- f--- - 3.0 50 134
4.4 2.8 33.9 13.2 469
- 3.0 50 29.2 127
2.56 1.6 32.7 12.7 196
15.6 - 3.0 75 142
1.6 f--- '---

4.8 3.0 32.3 12.6 1.9 550

- 6.1 f---
0.8 40 843
4.0 32.7 12.7 570 general shear 7.80 3.0
6.4 0.8 40 955
-
1.6 1.0 33.0 12.9 106
- f--- 2.4 r--
1.6 40 1.9 552
2.08 1.3 33.2 12.9 162 punch through
1.6 40 15.6 518
1.6 2.0 32.1 25.0 363 1.5
- - 1.6 40 530
3.36 4.2 33.0 25.7 3.0 855
- - 1--- general shear 2.4 60 1.5 458
7.80 33.9 26.4 855 23.4
0.8 4.4 5.5
2.4 40 1.3 400
-
1.6 2.0 33.0 25.7 465
- - 4.8 r-- punch through (b) Strip footing
2.08 2.6 33.2 25.9 698
1.0 50 9.74 252
0
* B and Hare shown in prototype scale. ** Centrifugal accelera- 2.0 50 19.5 179
tion=40 g.
* B is shown in prototype scale.

NII-Electronic Library Service

 BEARING CAP A CITY OF SAND OVER CLAY 185

]'4sf'
0.0
Q)
projected
area method observed
'l ]'45t
~
projected
area method
l
"0 30 t------......r "0 30 1------....r
.5
'-"
circular footings .5
'-"
-l::z- H!B=O .5
-D- 1.0
Q) -o- 1.5
} -+- 2.0

§ 20 strip footings
-~
t) • H/B=l.O
Q)
·s + • 2.0
a • 3.0
""0
Q)

~
0
'
Q)

10

circular footings
• Ac -8.4
Hanna and Meyerhof 0 "-c - 13
Hanna and Meyerhof
0~==~==~~._--~--L-~~--~~
o~--======~~~~~L-~~~~
0 10 20 30 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
Ac HIB
(a) footing without embedment (b) circular footing
Fig. 3. Variation of a, with Ac and HI B: (a) footing without embedment; (b) circular footing

that mobilized along the side surface of the sand block. Houlsby and Wroth, 1983).
Normalized bearing capacities, 2q1 I y' B( =srNr), for cir- Angles am obtained from the centrifuge tests are plot-
cular footings on uniform sand ranged between 127 and ted against normalized bearing capacity of underlying
160 as shown in Table 4. The depth of sand Hand foot- clay cuNciY' B(=lc) and HI Bin Fig. 3 (Okamura et al.,
ing width B shown in Tables 1 to 4 are in the prototype 1997). The angle am was determined based on observa-
scale. Although the range of prototype footing width test- tions of both the vertical stress distribution on the sur-
ed was somewhat different between strip and circular face of underlying clay and the deformation of the sub-
footings, the ratios of the mean values of Nr for circular soil. The am angles increase with relative thickness HI B
footings to those for strip footing, 0. 7, was used as the and normalized overburden pressure Po I y' B( = Ap ), and
shape factor for circular footings Sy. decrease with increasing Ac. The angles are not constant
The shape factor Sc for circular footings and Nc used in but vary from 3 to 19° in the tests, which is inconsistent
the calculation were 1.2 and 5.1, respectively. For clay of
which strength increases with depth, the use of the un-
drained strength at the clay surface c0 in combination 20r-~.-~--~~~-r-.-.-.-~-r~~
with Nc=5.1, which corresponds to the factor for clay obsetved Hanna and Meyerhof
with a uniform strength profile, must yield a conservative 1-.p=O - - B=l.Om
bearing capacity prediction. Hence, the representative un-
+
0
HIB=0.5} B=1.0-3.0m
HIB=l.O ). ::;;2.74-17.8
............. B=3.0m

drained strength of the underlying clay Cu given by equa- 6. HIB=1.5 c

tions (7) and (8) was utilized in this study, namely: • /-.p>O

N~ B=O.Bm, HJB=2
for strip footing; Cu=5.1 Co (7) }.. =4.8, }.. =25.7
~}B=1.6m P •

for circular footing;

N~
(8) • IJB:1.40-1.3_____:r_;:_·--------r--
Ramune's passive
Cu 5.1 X 1.2 Co + Ac =12·9
P
coefficient(cP'=40°)
where, N~ is a bearing capacity factor for clay with
strength increasing linearly with depth calculated from 10 20 30
slip line method. This N~ value is determined from the
non-dimensional parameter kB I co, where k is strength in- Fig. 4. Normalized horizontal earth pressure acting on the side of a
creasing ratio with depth (Davis and Booker, 1973; and block

NII-Electronic Library Service

186 OKAMURA ET AL.

with the assumption in the existing methods. Relation-
ships between normalized horizontal stresses pf, I
( y' z +p 0) observed in the sand with small pressure cells at
locations close to the side of sand block at the peak load
and Ac for the cases with circular footing are shown in
Fig. 4, where pf, and z denote effective horizontal stress
and depth of pressure cell from the level of the footing
base respectively. The punching shear coefficient Ks
proposed by Hanna and Meyerhof (1980), which is identi-
cal to the normalized horizontal stress, is also shown in
this figure. It can be seen from the figure that the normal-
ized horizontal stresses observed increase with increasing

-~>-
-....__
......,
150
calculated
projected area
(b)Hanna and Meyerhof' s method
circular footing Ac =0

H!B=2 .:
;;;; / 1/
,'
,'
I
. /
I'

method (a=30 )
N
~ .........
_.:~~
I
/ /'
caIcuIat ed
_.: ,' / Hanna and Meyerho
;:;:.-..
.....
...... 100 :
/
I
,' •
/
,/ ----- B=3.0(m)
u
ro •
/
I
b
1
I
/ ..........
B=l.O(m)
0..
ro ... I ,'_H/B= 1.5 ~ ,
u .' I ,:----;1
: I /~
.A ,.,.
on
~
......
~
:'
•
.:. I:'
/.:
I ,' I
,'
I

/
..
.A_.'
,. "'
ro // / A ,--"'
~
.0 /.·: ,.-"' ,'
50 "HJBl
"'0 t'JI&I
= , .. ,..,-"'
~
N
......
_.... .7
Jtt .
I .A .
.:..:---7
•• •• ,"'
,..::- .
.......
,
ro jt, .· / , ..
I,:,',"'' -+:;..-"''
s~ ~~... .-' .....
.· ..
z0 ~;.-····:,~[\'>~0
~ ·.,.~----

0 ~~._._._~~--~~~~~~_._._.~

0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30

(c)projected area method (d)Hanna and Meyerhof' s method

strip footing Ac =0 strip footing Ac =0
/
calculated /
/
/

_ _ _ projected area
method (a=30 I
/ ''
,,/ calculated
,/ Hanna and Meyerho
/ -----·B=3.0m
H/B~..· ;/X
..... ~/ (1.0)
,' I ,

....
.....'
1/
/
I

....
...... ..-"

,' I (1.5) _./

Observed . / D I
,.' /
.:;.;,._,~ H/B=2
I
HIB=O / .. ·· ,"'
HIB=l.O ,' ...·· ~'/
I .•
.,..,.,..,..,.
/

HIB=2.0 ..··,,,{l"'(2.0a;tH/~--~l---- ..
HIB=3.0 /
' ... . ....
~:;::~·· ;_o):'{\3~0 .... (B(m))
0 ~~._._._~~--~~~~~_._._._.~

0 30 0 10 20 30
Ac
Fig. 5. Relationship between 2q1 / y' Band Ac calculated using existing method

NII-Electronic Library Service

 BEARING CAPACITY OF SAND OVER CLAY 187

Ac. It can be considered that the higher strength of clay,

the larger the lateral squeeze of sand which takes place (a) projected area method (a=30°)
beneath the footing. This may cause the higher normal- A.p=O 0
ized horizontal stress for the higher Ac. It can also be seen
that the normalized horizontal stress for the footing with
embedment (Ap > 0) is smaller than that without embed-
ment (A.p=O). In the deeper footing for which the
strength of sand is higher than that for the shallower foot-
0
ing, punching shear failure is more likely to occur and "0
Q)
the lateral squeeze of the sand beneath the footing ~ f.c<lO f..c>lO
becomes less marked. In Hanna and Meyerhof's method,
138 100 H!B=O.S +
the coefficient Ks is given independent of Ap or the depth H!B=l.O A
of footings. For the footing without embedment, Ks H/B=l.S •
H!B=2.0 •
agrees well with the normalized horizontal stresses ob-
served in the tests, while for the footing with embedment
Ks is greater than the observation.
Normalized bearing capacity 2q1 /y'B of footings o~~~~~~~----~~~~~~~----~

300r-r-.-.-.-.-~-.-r-.-.-.~~r-~.
without embedment calculated from projected area
method and Hanna and Meyerhof's method are plotted (b)Hanna and Meyerhof
against Ac in Fig. 5 together with the results of the cen- A.p=O
trifuge tests. The calculated bearing capacities are also
compared with the test results in Fig. 6. In the projected
area method the angle a of 30° was used, which is one of
the smallest values from the existing methods mentioned
above. The projected area method overestimates the meas-
urements for the circular footings with Ac greater than 5 "0
v
Q)
(Figs. 5(a), 6(a)) but underestimates for strip footings in ] 0 f..c<lOf..c>lO
all cases (Fig. 5(c)). Since, in this method, the magnitude 8 100 H/B=O.S +
H/B=l.O A
of a used in the computation is considerably higher than 13 H/B=l.S •
actual as shown in Fig. 3(a), overestimation is inevitable H!B=2.0.
for cases with higher Ac, in which the reaction at the clay
surface plays a dominant role in equilibrium of the
forces. Fig. 7 shows the relationships between the ratios o~~~~~~~~----~~~~~~~----~
of the base area of sand block to that of footing and the 0 100 200 300
angle a. The ratio for circular footing increases more rap- observed 2qt /r' B
idly than that for strip footing with increasing a. This
implies that even a small increase in a causes a large in- Fig. 6. Relationship between calculated and observed normalized
bearing capacity
cr~ase in the base area of sand blocks under circular foot-
ings. This must also be the cause of the fact that overesti-
mation becomes greater for circular footings than for
strip footings.
In the cases of A.p=O, Hanna and Meyerhof's method QJ(embedment) = QJ(surface) +Po ( LJLJqf)
Po (9)
gives the higher normalized bearing capacity for thenar-
rower footing with same HI B and Ac, while little differ- where QJ(embedment) and QJ(surface) are bearing capacities of the
ence in bearing capacities can be found in the tests with footing with and without embedment respectively and
different footing width (Fig. 5(b)(d)). As shown in Fig. LJ QJ is bearing capacity increment due to increment of
6(b), however, the bearing capacities calculated from overburden pressure LJpo. Ratios of LJq1 / LJp0 obtained
Hanna and Meyerhof's method compared well with the from the tests with circular footings and calculation with
observation or are somewhat conservative. The extent of the two methods are plotted against HI B in Fig. 8. The
underestimation is greater for the smaller Ac and the numbers in parentheses in the figure refer to Ac. The ra-
higher H/ B (Figs. 5(b)(d), 6(b)). Since the punching tios become equal to the bearing capacity factor Nq when
shear coefficient Ks agrees well with the observations for the subsoil consists of a single uniform material. The
circular footings without embedment, the differences be- results of centrifuge tests indicated that this ratio ranges
tween calculated and observed bearing capacities can be from 1 for uniform clay (H/ B=O) to some 110 for
considered to be caused by the assumption of a=O. uniform sand (H/ B= oo). It should be noted that the ra-
From the results of centrifuge tests, it was confirmed tios observed seem to be independent of Ac. Since Hanna
that the superposition given by Eq. (9) can be applied for and Meyerhof's method gives the higher LJq1 / LJp0 for the
evaluating the bearing capacity of footings with embed- higher An however, the overestimation of the effect of
ment (Okamura et al., 1997), overburden pressure on the bearing capacity becomes

NII-Electronic Library Service

188 OKAMURA ET AL.

embedment calculated from the two methods are com-

pared with the tests results in Fig. 9. The Hanna and
Meyerhof's method overestimates the observations and
circular footing
strip footing the extent of the overestimation increases with both Ac
8
and Ap, whereas for the projected area method, the
results of calculations compare well with the observa-
tions. The underestimation of the effect of overburden
6 pressure counterbalances the overestimation of the bear-
ing capacity of footings without embedment for the
projected area method. The discussions above lead to the
4 conclusion that differences between observed and calcu-
lated bearing capacities arise from the discrepancy in the
shapes of the sand block or forces on the sides of the
2 block between the assumptions in the methods and the ac-
tual situation. A more realistic shape (or angle a) and
evaluation of forces are necessary in the assumptions to
o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ obtain reasonable predictions from the limit equilibrium
0 10 20 30 methods.
a (in degree)
Fig. 7. Variation of base area ratio with angle of the side of sand
block

1500
~
100 >..
...______
calculated circular footing .....
- - Hanna and Meyerhof ~
(B=l.Om, ¢' =45°) 1000
circular footings
80 .................. projected area method
'"0 with embedment
(a =30°) ~ Ap
] + 1.3

60
proposed method
(</J' =38 °) a 500
b.
0
1.5
1.9
0 2.4
~
-...........
obsetved
\1 3.0
<> 4.8
<I
~ "" 40 0

1500

HJB 0
circular footings
with embedment
Fig. 8. Bearing capacity increament related to increment of effective
overburden pressure 18 +
A.P
1.3
Ac
8.4-9.3
a 500
0
b.
0
1.5
1.9
2.4
12.5-13.0.
12.5-13.
12.8-12.9
marked as Ac increases. The projected area method \1 3.0 25.0·
underestimates this effect. Judging from these results as <> 4.8 25.7-25.9
well as the observed horizontal stresses shown in Fig. 4, it
may be said that the shearing resistance along the side sur- 0 ~~~~~~~~~_.~~~~~~~

face of the sand block should be reasonably taken into ac- 0 500 1000 1500
count in order to estimate the effect of overburden pres-
Observed 2q
1 /r' B
sure on bearing capacity. Fig. 9. Relationship between calculated and observed normalized
Normalized bearing capacities of circular footings with bearing capacity for footing with embedment

NII-Electronic Library Service

 BEARING CAPACITY OF SAND OVER CLAY 189

PROPOSED METHOD
In this study, a new limit equilibrium method has been
proposed in order to overcome the problems which exist
in the assumptions made in existing methods. The failure -y-H{
3
1

mechanism adopted in the proposed method, which is
similar to those in the existing methods, is illustrated sche-
matically in Fig. 10. Vertical effective stresses acting on
the base of the sand block, q~1ay, are assumed to be the ul-
timate bearing stresses of a rigid footing with rough base
on clay subject to the effective surcharge pressure (i.e.
Po + Y H in this problem), which is given by
1 representative strength of the underlying clay Cu in the
(10)
As was discussed earlier, the normalized horizontal earth
pressures observed decrease with the embedment depth
of the footing. In addition, the shearing resistance along
the side of the block becomes dominant in equilibrium of
the forces acting on the block as the footing depth in-
creases. In this method, therefore, Rankine's passive
- 4 B (H) tan
2
2
ac+6 H
B tan ac+3 } (12)
Assuming that typical small elements A and B just above
and below the sand/ clay interface as shown in Fig. 10,
are in the limit state of stress, the Mohr's circles of stress-
es for the two elements can be illustrated as shown in Fig.
11. Normal and shear stresses are normalized by the
figure. It should be noted that the Mohr's circle for the
clay element B in the figure is represented in terms of
total stress excluding static water pressure, whereas for
the circle for sand element A in terms of effective stress.
The direction of the slip surface in sand represented by a
straight line P-C in Fig. 11 is assumed to be that of the
side of the sand block. The angle of the side to the verti-
cal ac can be obtained from the figure as a function of cf> 1

coefficient Kp, which corresponds to a lower limit of ob- and normalized mean normal stress of the clay element
servations (as seen in Fig. 4), was adopted. The normal B, Umcl Cu, as follows.
stress of Kp times the vertical stress is assumed to act on 2 1
_1( Umc/ Cu-ams/ Cu(1 +sin c/> ))

the side of the sand block. Consideration of equilibrium ac=tan (13)

COS c/> 1 Sin c/> 1 Umsf Cu+ 1
of the forces acting on the block, including self weight of
the block, yields bearing capacity formulae as follows: Umc/ Cu=NcSc ( 1 +- -+-
1 H Ap) (14)
AcB Ac
for a strip footing;
1
H ) KP sin (c/> -ac)
QJ= ( 1+2Btanac (cuNc+p0+y H ) + - - - - - -
1

cos ¢'COS ac
The angle of shearing resistance mobilized on the sur-
x~ (p6 +yH)-y'H( I+~ tan a,) (11) face of a sand block should be estimated and adopted as
c/> in the proposed method. It is widely recognized that
1

for a circular footing; the angle c/> indicates a stress level dependency (e.g.
1

Bishop, 1966). In addition, strength anisotropy and

q1= ( I + 2 ~tan a,)\c.N,s, +p6 + y' H) progressive failure make it difficult to determine the angle
¢ for the bearing capacity calculation even for uniform
1

1
sand. Fortunately, however, influences of principal stress
+ 4Kp sin(¢' -ac) {( Po+--
1
1Y H)H
rotation in sand and progressive failure of sand overlying
COS ¢ COS ac 2 B
clay on the bearing capacity may be less noticeable com-

sand
(y ') (¢')
1+---~~r-----------~~~

0~....._-t-1,__ _ _ _ _ _-t------++--+--...

-1+---~~--------------~~

Fig. 10. Failure mechanism assumed in proposed method Fig. 11. Mohr's circle of stress for soil elements A and B

NII-Electronic Library Service

 190 OKAMURA ET AL.

pared to a uniform sand. In this study, only the influence The calculated angles ac as well as those observed am, in-
of stress level on¢' is taken into account in determining crease with Ap and HI B and decrease with increasing Ac.
¢'. The middle point of the side of sand block is chosen But ac is less sensitive to the changes of these parameters
as a representative point at which Rankine's passive state than O!m·
is assumed, that is, the minor principle stress is Po+ y' HI Figure 15 shows a comparison between calculated and
2 and major principle stress equals (Po+ y' HI 2)Kp. The observed normalized bearing capacities for footings
angles¢' are determined by the use of the relationship be- without embedment. For circular footings (Fig. 15(a)),
tween¢' and the mean principle stress, as shown in Fig. the bearing capacity calculated compares well with the ob-
12, which was obtained from both triaxial test and plane servations for smaller Ac irrespective of HI B. But the
strain tests on sand used in the model tests (Fukushima proposed method begins to overestimate the observa-
and Tatsuoka, 1984; Tatsuoka et al., 1986; Fujii, 1976; tions to some extent as Ac increases. This is caused by the
Okamura et al., 1993). The angles¢' of 38° and 40° for fact that the gap between the estimated angle ac and the
circular footings with and without embedment respec-
tively are adopted on the basis of triaxial test results and
for strip footings ¢' of 47° is adopted according to the
~
4
results of plane strain tests.
For clay with increasing strength with depth, the bear-
-.. ;;;. projected area method b
30 ........ am (observed)
ing capacity factor N~ proposed by Davis and Booker
(1973) and Houlsby and Wroth (1983) may usually be 0 circular footing AP =0
used, which increases with a gradient of the strength in- 2 5........_-
ecircular footing AP > 0
1---

.,
crease and with a decrease in co. The factor N~ is maxi- 0 strip footing A,P = 0
,.-.._
mum for a normally consolidated clay and decreases with Q) ac (calculated)
Q)
-----
_____ _____
1-<
an increase in both HI Band Ap (Okamura et al., 1997). ~ 20
In the case of .A.p=O and HI B~ 1.0, N ~ is less than 6.4
'"0
.s
._...
----- ,_.-

for strip footing and 6.8 for circular footing (Davis and
Booker, 1973, Houlsby and Wroth, 1982; Okamura et
- - 0
15 1---- '')01- ....... - - - - . . - --()7-- -- - -
al., 1997), which is not significantly large compared to <:$" ~~ ~"(----g.....--- 0
that for footings on uniform clay. A constant value Nc of E
~/ ~~')0 ( a_.. g - - ' 0
<:$ ~ . . . . ~............... 0
5.1 and shape factor Sc of 1.2 for circular footing, ir- 10
respective of the gradient of strength increase, therefore
~----........
........
0 fd • 0

~
can be adopted in this method.
The angle ac calculated from this proposed method is 5 1---0
plotted against the ratio a mel Cu in Fig. 13, together with
that observed in the tests, am. Fig. 14 shows variations of
I
_Hanna and Mererhof
0
0
the angles with Ac and HI B for circular footing without 5 7
6 8 9 10
embedment. ac is somewhat higher than am, especially in
the case with a small a me I Cu or large Ac. The proposed
method, however, appears to give a better approximation Fig. 13. Variation of angles a, and a, with Gmcl Cu
of the observed angle compared to the existing method.

20
· <l>p'=50.1-4.2log(Om/oo) circular footing A.P = 0
~2.9-4.01og(crm/cro)
o 0=98(kPa) l/J' =40° Nc = 6.1
f' I ,-..-. 15
4)
~ 4)

5b
~~tl <I)
'"0
~0.· sq.~. .s
~- .....;_ ~ t.
~(; ~-- '-"

~ ~ ~ "
~ ' E ---- ac (calculated)
........... I ~
10IT 10n 10 )4 105 --- am (observed)
Mean principal stress 0 10 30 40
Fig. 12. Variation of the angle of shearing resistance with mean prin-
cipal stress Fig. 14. Variation of angles a, and a, with Ac

NII-Electronic Library Service

 BEARING CAPACITY OF SAND OVER CLAY 191

observed angle am becomes greater for the higher Ac as
shown in Fig. 14. Relatively large differences between cal-
culated and observed angles can also be seen for smaller
HI B in Fig. 14, but it does not result in an apparent
overestimate of the bearing capacity. The reason for this
is that the base area of the sand block is not sensitive to a
change in a.c for small HI B. The proposed method gives
somewhat conservative prediction for strip footings (Fig.
15(b)). Figure 16 indicates displacement vectors observed
in the tests for footings without embedment (Okamura et
al., 1997). Relatively large horizontal displacement of
sand just outside the sand block can be seen for the strip
footing, whereas there is a small horizontal displacement
of sand for a circular footing. Although measurements
of horizontal stress of sand were not conducted for the
cases of strip footings, however, it can be expected from
the displacement vectors that horizontal stresses on the
side of the sand block under the strip footing may be
larger than that under a circular footing. This may cause
the underestimation of bearing capacity for a strip foot-
ing.
Relationships between observed normalized bearing
capacities and those calculated by the proposed method
are shown in Fig. 17. Excellent agreement can be seen for
the cases of a circular footing without embedment
(.A.p=O). The proposed method also appears to yield good
predictions for circular footings with embedment except
for the cases where Ac;::: 25 and Ap;::: 30. The calculated
bearing capacities tend to be larger than the observations
for the case with the higher Ac and Ap. The larger a.c in the
case with the higher Ac as shown in Fig. 14 is considered
to be a reason for this. The dashed line in Fig. 8 cor-
responds to the predicted value of LJq1 1LJp{J from the
method for circular footing. The calculated value of
LJq1 1LJp{J is slightly larger than the observations. This
must also be responsible for the overestimation of the
bearing capacity for the larger Ap. Although the proposed
method gives an overestimate for circular footings as Ac
and Ap increase, it can, however, predict the bearing
capacity for any of the tests presented in this study with a
maximum error of 19% for the cases without embedment
and 32% for the cases with embedment. This method is
believed to be applicable for predicting the bearing capac-
ity of a sand layer overlying clay for .A.cs26 and .A.ps4.8.
For the cases of strip footing, the proposed method
predicts the bearing capacity on the safe side with a maxi-
mum error of 31%.
Normalized bearing capacity charts for circular and
strip footings are given in Figs. 18 and 19 for easy refer-
ence. It should be noted that the bearing capacity for a
limited depth of sand overlying a weaker clay layer does
not exceed that of a deep sand bed (HI B= oo). Hence,
the value obtained from the charts and that from formu-
la for the deep sand bed (e.g. Terzaghi, 1943) must be

(a) circular footing

H/ B = 1 Ac = 9.8
observed Ap =0

~0
H/B=O
WB=0.5
H/B=l.O sand
H/B=1.5
0 H/B=2.0

clay
....,
~200
.c
-~
0...
H/ B = 1 Ac = 5.8
Cd
u (b) strip footing A p =0
OJ)
observed
r::
·c () H/B=O
·~ 100 2S H/B=l. sand
.0 0 H/B=2.0
"t:: X H/B=3.0
-~
";
(B(m))

§
z0 clay
o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - -
---;////
-,.... _... / I I
,\\, , , , _____ _
'-. ......_ ....., - - - - -

0 10 30 40

Fig. 15. Normalized bearing capacity calculated from proposed

method Fig. 16. Displacement vectors observed in the centrifuge test

NII-Electronic Library Service

192 OKAMURA ET AL.

200 600
(a)f..p=O
(a) A.p=O
400 ljl':::40 °
(circular footing) 35 °
~ 150 30 °
>- (strip footing)
.......
--------
~ 200

"'0 100
.....
C1.) circular footings

--8
~
Ac<lO Ac> 1
0

~
H/B=0.5 + c:q
~600
0 2 3
u
50
H/B=l.O
H/B=1.5
·~
•o
....,
~
H/B=2.0
• .~
u
ro
~400
u
0 OJ)
0 50 100 150 200 .s
~
observed 2qtlyB ro
Q)
.D 200
'"0
Q)
.~
800 (b) Ap>O ~
circular footings §
CQ ¢'=38° z0
>-
--::::600
~
• 800

0
"'0
.....
C1.)
400
--8
ro B(mm) J., Ac 600

ro
u •
0
20
20
200
•
@
0
40 400

0
+
0 200 400 600
observed 2q1 /r'B
Fig. 17. Relationship between calculated and observed normalized
bearing capacity
compared and the smaller one should be chosen as the
bearing capacity of the subsoil.
CONCLUSIONS
In this study, the validity of existing methods for es-
timating the bearing capacity of a sand layer overlying a
deep clay deposit were verified by comparing them with
the results of a series of centrifuge tests. Not only the
bearing capacity but also assumptions adopted in the
methods were evaluated. The following conclusions are
drawn;
(1) The projected area method in which a constant
side angle a of the sand block is assumed tends to overes-
timate the bearing capacity of the footing without embed-
200
800
H/B
Fig. 18. Bearing capacity charts for circular footing
ment for the higher normalized bearing capacity of under-
lying clay Ac, where the reaction at the clay surface plays
a dominant role in equilibrium of the forces acting on the
sand block. The extent of overestimation is greater for cir-
cular footings than for strip footings. Since the projected
area method neglects the shearing resistance of sand, an
underestimate of the bearing capacity increase due to an
increase in the footing embedment depth is inevitable.
(2) The method proposed by Meyerhof (1974) and
Hanna and Meyerhof (1980), in which the vertical side
sand block is utilized and the shearing resistance of sand
is taken into account, gives a conservative value for the
bearing capacity for a footing without embedment. For a

NII-Electronic Library Service

 BEARING CAP A CITY OF SAND OVER CLAY 193

the underlying clay.

(4) Bearing capacity charts are presented based on
the proposed method for easy reference.
200
NOTATIONS
The following symbols are used in this paper;
100
B: width or diameter of footing
c0 : undrained strength at surface of underlying clay
cu: representative undrained strength of underlying clay
H: depth of sand below footing base
KP: Rankine's passive earth pressure coefficient
OL-~---L--~--~--~~--~--~--~~
2 Ks: punching shear coefficient proposed by Hanna and
~ 0 4
~300~~--~--~--~--r-~--~---r--~-.
Meyerhof (1980)
Nc, Nq, N 1 : bearing capacity factors for uniform thick bed
~ N~: bearing capacity factor for strip or circular footings on
,C clay with strength linearly increasing with depth
·u p 0: effective overburden pressure at the level of footing base
§. 200
t)
pi,: horizontal effective stress at peak load observed in sand at
Ql)
locations close to the side of sand block
.s q1 : bearing capacity
~ sc, sy: shape factors for circular footing
~
..0 100 am: angle of side of sand block to the vertical observed in the
"0 tests
~
.~ ac: angle of side of sand block calculated from proposed
~
s method
=
A.c: normalized bearing capacity of underlying clay ( cuNc I
z0 y'B)
A.P: normalized overburden pressure (=Po I y' B)
cf>': angle of shear resistance of sand
400
y': effective unit weight of sand
u me: mean normal stress of clay element just beneath the sand
block subtracting static water pressure
LJp0: overburden pressure increment
LJqi bearing capacity increment due to the increment of over-
burden pressure LJp0

200
2 4
H/B
Fig. 19. Bearing capacity charts for strip footing
footing with embedment, however, overestimation
becomes noticeable as the depth of the footing increases.
The use of a higher horizontal stress acting on the side of
the sand block is responsible for this. An assumption of a
realistic value of the horizontal stress on the side is neces-
sary in the calculation in order to adequately predict the
effects of footing depth on the bearing capacity.
(3) A new limit equilibrium method was proposed in
which the variation of the side angle of the sand block
with the parameters including HI B, Ac and Ap is taken
into account. Bearing capacities calculated from the
proposed method compared well with the observations,
irrespective of shape, depth of footing and strength of
REFERENCES
1) Baglioni, V. P., Chow, G. S. and Endley, S. N. (1982): "Jack-up
foundation stability in stratified soil profiles," Proc. 14th Offshore
Technology Conf., Vol. 4, Paper OTC4409, pp. 363-384.
2) Bishop, A. W. (1966): "The strength of soils as engineering materi-
als," Geotechnique, Vol. 16, No.2, pp. 91-128.
3) Brown, J. D. and Paterson, W. G. (1964): "Failure of an oil
storage tank founded on a sensitive marine clay," Can. Geotech.
J., Vol. 1, No.4, pp. 205-214.
4) Caquot, A. and Kerisel, J. (1953): "Sur le terme de surface dans le
calcul des fondations en milieu pulverulent," Proc. 3rd Int. Conf.
on SMFE, Vol. 1, pp. 336-337.
5) Craig, W. H. and Chua, K. (1990): "Deep penetration of spud-can
foundations on sand and clay," Geotechnique, Vol. 23, No.4, pp.
551-563.
6) Craig, W. H. and Chua, K. (1991): "Large displacement perform-
ance of jack-up spud cans," Proc. Int. Conf. Geotechnical Cen-
trifuge Modeling, pp. 139-144, A. A. Balkema.
7) Davis, E. H. and Booker, J. R. (1973): "The effect of increasing
strength with depth on bearing capacity of clays," Geotechnique,
Vol. 23, No.4, pp. 551-563.
8) Fujii, N. (1976): "Investigations on the bearing capacity of shallow
foundations based on centrifuge model," Doctoral Thesis, Tokyo
Institute of Technology.
9) Fukushima, S. and Tatsuoka, F. (1984): "Strength and deforma-
tion characteristics of saturated sand at extremely low pressures,"
Soils and Foundations, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 30-48.
10) Hanna, A. and Meyerhof, G. G. (1980): "Design charts for ulti-
mate bearing capacity of foundations on sand overlying soft clay,"
Can. Geotech. J., Vol. 17, pp. 300-303.
11) Hanna, A. (1981): "Experimental study of footings in layered

NII-Electronic Library Service

194 OKAMURA ET AL.
soil," Proc. ASCE, Vol. 107, No. GT8, pp. 1113-1127.
12) Houlsby, G. T. and Wroth, C. P. (1983): "Calculations of stresses
on shallow penetrometers and footings," Proc. IUTAM Symposi-
um, pp. 107-112.
13) Kraft, L. and Helfrich, S. C. (1982): "Bearing capacity of shallow
footings, sand over clay," Can. Geotech. J., Vol. 20, pp. 182-185.
14) Meyerhof, G. G. (1974): "Ultimate bearing capacity of footings on
sand layer overlying clay," Can. Geotech. J., Vol. 11, No.2, pp.
223-229.
15) Myslivec, A. and Kysela, Z. (1978): The Bearing Capacity of Build-
ing Foundations, Amsterdam, Elsevier.
16) Okamura, M., Takemura, J. and Kimura, T. (1993): "A study on
bearing capacities of shallow footings on sand," Proc. JSCE, No.
463/III-22, pp. 85-94 (in Japanese).
17) Okamura, M., Takemura, J. and Kimura, T. (1997): "Centrifuge
model tests on bearing capacity and deformation of sand layer over-
lying clay," Soils and Foundations, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 73-88.
18) Tatsuoka, F. et al. (1986): "Strength and deformation characteris-
tics of sand in plane strain compression at extremely low pres-
sures," Soils and Foundations, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 65-84.
19) Terzaghi, K. (1943): Theoretical Soil Mechanics, John Wiley &
Sohns, New York.
20) Vesic, A. S. (1973): "Analysis of ultimate loads of shallow founda-
tion," Proc. ASCE, Vol. 99, No. SM1, pp. 45-73.
21) Vesic, A. S. (1975): Foundation Engineering Hand Book, Winter-
korn, H. F. and Fang, H-Y. (eds.), Van Nostrand Reinhold Com-
pany.
22) Yamaguchi, H. (1963): "Practical formula of bearing value for
two layered ground," Proc. 2nd ARCSMFE, Vol. 1, pp. 99-105.
NII-Electronic Library Service