LOAD SETTLEMENT CURVE METHOD FOR and 1 m footings, respectively); and (2) significant differences
SPREAD FOOTINGS ON SANDa in bearing capacity factors in this range of friction angle.
Discussion by Richard J. Deschamps, 3
Associate Member, ASCE
Briaud and Jeanjean present an interesting approach for
the development of load settlement curves for spread footings
on granular soils. The discusser would like to start by com-
mending the geotechnical engineering group at Texas A&M
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Manchester on 05/22/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
University and the Federal Highway Administration for the
outstanding field testing program on shal10w foundations that
has provided rare load-settlement data that wil1 be valuable
for many years to come.
The authors procedure utilizes prebored pressuremeter tests
(PMT) and a sophisticated finite-element analysis. They also
provide an interpretation of the load settlement data and draw
conclusions regarding the absence of scaling with footing size
when examining the applied stress versus settlement ratio (sl
B) relationship. These interpretations have important impli-
cations regarding: (1) the validity of the traditional bearing
capacity equation; and (2) the selection of appropriate design
loads and safety factors. The discusser's comments wil1 focus
on these latter aspects.
SCALING EFFECTS IN BEARING CAPACITY
The discusser was intrigued by: (1) the authors' observation
that the load-settlement curves were sensibly independent of
scale when plotted in terms of siB versus applied pressure;
and (2) the reaction of the participants at Settlement '94 to
the implication that the bearing-capacity equation was a poor
model. A hypothesis is presented here to explain the apparent
independence of the load settlement data to scale for this
particular site.
Bearing Capacity Model
To examine the possible independence 'of footing size on
bearing capacity, an average curve was drawn through the
data presented by the authors in Fig. 22 and is shown in Fig.
26. This idealized curve is assumed to be representative of
all footings tested. The bearing capacity for each footing size
is assumed to be the stress at an arbitrarily defined ratio of
siB. An siB ratio of 0.1 was used for this discussion to be
consistent with the authors. A similar trend is obtained for
other values of siB. The bearing capacity for all footings is
1.5 MPa at slB = 0.1 based on the representative curve shown
in Fig. 26. Using the Brinch Hansen (1970) bearing-capacity
equation and the interpreted bearing capacity, N~ and N q
were back-calculated to estimate the mobilized friction angle
for each of the four spread footings sizes. The mobilized
friction angle was found to vary with footing size from 38.6°
for the 1 m footing to 35.2° for the 3 m footing [Using Mey-
erhof (1965) the values would have been 36.4° to 33.3°]. Thus,
a relatively modest change in friction angle can produce the
same bearing capacity in footings ranging in size from 1 to 3
m due to: (1) the important contribution to capacity from
embedment (DiB ranging between 0.25 and 0.75 for the 3 m
"By Jean-Louis Briaud and Philippe Jeanjean, Proc., Vertical and
Horizoll/al Deformations of Found. and Embankments: Geotech. Spec.
Publ. No. 40, Albert T. Yeung and Guy Y. Felio, eds.,Vol. 2, 1994.
ASCE. New York, 1774-1804.
'Ass!. Prof.. School of Civ. Engrg., 1284 Civ. Engrg. Bldg.. Purdue
Univ., West Lafayette. IN 47907.
684 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING / SEPTEMBER 1995
J. Geotech. Engrg. 1995.121:684-685.
In Situ Test Results
Figs. 5 and 6 illustrate the range of standard penetration
test (SPT) N-value and cone penetration test (CPT) tip re-
sistance (qc> with depth at the site. Fig. 27 shows an enlarged
view of the average values of Nand qc. These figures il1ustrate
a consistent reduction in both Nand qc from approximate
depths 1.5 to 2.75 m. Based on the bearing capacity model,
the failure zone extends to an approximate depth B below
the footing. As the friction angle of the soil mass decreases
with depth, it is clear that the representative "constant" fric-
tion angle appropriate for analysis depends on footing size.
The representative friction angle for a large footing would
have to come from a greater depth than for a smaller footing.
Interpretation of Apparent Scale Independence
The trend in the reduction of back-calculated friction angles
with increased footing sizes, and the reduction in Nand qc
with depth in the soil mass below the footings appears to be
internal1y consistent with both a valid bearing capacity model
and the recorded load settlement response for the spread
footings. When the friction angle varies approximately line-
arly with depth, a representative friction angle for analysis
will be located at some depth less than B below the footing.
This depth was estimated to be between 0.6 and 0.7 B when
the friction angle decreases modestly with depth based on a
numerical analysis using a relatively simple Mohr-Coulomb
elastic-plastic model. Using a depth of 0.65 B, the required
average friction angle for all footings to have the same bearing
capacity is superimposed in Fig. 27. This trend is consistent
with the in-situ test results. The trend is not sensitive to the
specific depth to the representative friction angle as similar
trends are obtained when choosing a representative friction
angle from depths ranging between 0.5 and 0.8 B. It appears
to the discusser that the in-situ test results support the modest
reduction in friction angle with depth that is necessary to
produce the same bearing capacity for footing ranging be-
tween 1 and 3 m.
In addition, some studies cited by the authors (Osterberg
1947; Skempton 1951) in support of the unique load settle-
ment curve were based on clay soils. A unique siB versus
pressure relationship would not violate the bearing capacity
equation for clays because the failure stress is not a function
of footing size.
1.8
•Average" curve for all footings
'iii
1.5 2.5m f
1m
Q.
1.2
:i:
Ql
~ 0.9
:::J
UJ
UJ
Ql
0.6
a:
0.3
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10
Settlement/Width, SIB
FIG. 26. "Average" Pressure versus siB Relationship for All Foot-
ings (Heavy Dash = "Average" Curve for All Footings)
 0.-------------------, Design Criteria
The authors observed that a bearing capacity criterion with
a safety factor of 3.0 would control design for the footings
tested while in most cases settlement criterion would control.
These results are likely related to the stress history at this
-1 +-------+----""""""-\--------j
site. The values E)qc required to predict the load to induce
25 mm settlement using Schmertmann's (1978) method range
between 5.7 and 7.9. These values are much greater than the
recommended values, which range between 2.5 and 3.5. This
provides additional evidence supporting significant prestress-
-2 ing of the site. Had the deposit been normally stressed, set-
E tlements would probably have controlled the design .
.r:.
15.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Manchester on 05/22/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Q) SIMPLIFIED DESIGN BASED ON SPT AND CPT

0 TEST RESULTS
-3
Eqs. (12) and (13) do not consider the influence of embed-
ment and should be used with caution because embedment
has a significant contribution to capacity. A spread footing
with a DIB ratio of 0.75 has 75% greater capacity than with
-4+----------------+--"------l a DlB ratio of 0.25 according to Meyerhof (1965) and 128%
more capacity according to Brinch Hansen (1970), for a fric-
tion angle of 38°.
Eqs. (14) and (15) provide an adequate representation for
these specific data. However, for a normally stressed site
-5+-----.------.------,---,-------l these relationships may be unconservative. Based on the back
o 5 10 15 20 25 calculated E,lqc for this site, siB may be as high as 0.02 for
SPT "N" Value the recommended load at a normally stressed site where EJ
I I I i i i I I i I qc is in the range of 2.5 to 3.5.
o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
CPT Tip Resistance (tst) CONCLUSIONS
-1-1--.,---,,--T,--r,---r,--T,----"r--I The authors present an interesting and useful method to
o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
develop load settlement curves for spread footings on sand.
Mobilized Friction Angle (degrees)
As more test results become available their approach can be
FIG. 27. Average Penetration Test Results for National Geotech- calibrated and verified.
nical Site It may be premature to discontinue use of the bearing-
capacity equation because a relatively modest reduction in
friction angle with depth would produce the same bearing
IMPACT OF RELATIVELY HIGH SOIL STIFFNESS AT capacity for the spread footings tested. This reduction in fric-
NATIONAL SITE tion angle is supported by the in-situ test results.
Reasonable predictions of foundation response from finite-
Selecting Constitutive Parameters for element simulations require significant judgment in both the
Numerical Modeling selection of constitutive parameters and interpretation of re-
sults. It should not be expected that the parameters obtained
The discusser believes that constitutive parameters ob-
directly from laboratory tests of reconstituted samples are
tained from laboratory tests must be modified to obtain rea-
sufficient to make accurate predictions.
sonable predictions of performance. This is especially true of
Using penetration test results directly for shallOW foun-
soil stiffness. Tests on disturbed samples will require signif-
dation design should be used with caution because the im-
icant modification based on judgment. The stiffness will be
portant influence of embedment depth on bearing capacity,
much greater in situ than measured from triaxial tests results
and of prestressing on settlement, is not well characterized
due to natural aging, even if the deposit was not prestressed.
by penetration tests.
For the National Geotechnical Engineering Site at Texas A&M
University, evidence indicates the site has been significantly APPEND~. REFERENCES
prestressed, which would produce a much larger initial stiff-
ness (Lambrechts and Leonards 1978). Based on Fig. 24, the Brinch Hansen, J. (1970). "A revised and extended formula for bearing
actual soil stiffness at the site is more than an order of mag- capacity." Bull. No. 28, Danish Geotechnical Institute. Copenhagen,
Denmark.
nitude greater than the initial stiffness used in the finite-ele- Lambrechts. J. R .. and Leonards. G. A. (1978). "Effects of stress history
ment modeling (FEM) which was developed from lab test on deformation in sand." ASCE. 1. Ceo/echo Engrg.. 104(11). 1371-
results. 1387.

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING / SEPTEMBER 1995/685

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1995.121:684-685.