SCALE EFFECT OF SPREAD FOUNDATION LOADING TESTS USING VARIOUS SIZE PLATES

HIROFUMI FUKUSHIMA , SATOSHI NISHIMOTO and KOUICHI TOMISAWA

i) ii) iii)

ABSTRACT With the revision of the Specification for Highway Bridges in 2002 (in Japanese), correction coefficients for scale effects were introduced for use in the calculation formula of the ultimate bearing capacity of spread foundation. Meanwhile, soil moduli are often found using estimated formulas or other methods for practical reasons and are likely to be underestimated. As a result, the bearing capacity may also be underestimated, thereby leading to the design of uneconomical structures. Therefore, a proper understanding of appropriate design constants based on scale effects is of great importance. In this study, therefore, plate loading tests of the ground with different-sized loading plates were conducted using rock fills and gravel soils to examine the scale effect properties of the ultimate bearing capacity with changes in the form of spread foundation. The results of the tests were examined and compared with the ultimate bearing capacity formula. As a result, the following were revealed: 1) The same relationship of approximate expressions as in the Specification for Highway Bridges was recognized for the correction coefficient S of the bearing capacity coefficient N. 2) Because the parameter of the correction coefficient is not necessarily the same as the general value in the Specification for Highway Bridges, it is necessary to study and calculate correction coefficients and soil moduli appropriate for on-site conditions. 3) The plate loading test with different-sized loading plates is effective as a method for studying design constants in the design of spread foundation taking scale effects into consideration. Key Words: Scale effect, Ultimate bearing capacity, Plate loading test

INTRODUCTION Rapid progress in construction techniques and structural analysis methods in recent years has allowed the increase in scale of structures, which is needed due to the promotion of high-standard arterial highway projects, among other reasons. This is also the case with the structure foundations: proper investigation, design and construction methods for foundations that are compatible with large structures are now required. The reduction in construction costs in public undertakings, on the other hand, is strongly desired; therefore, the establishment of more rational methods is required in the design and construction of structures. Specifications for Highway Bridges with Instruction Manual (IV - Base Structure Edition) (hereinafter called specifications), revised in 2002, introduced the correction coefficients related to the scale effects of bearing capacity coefficients to the ultimate bearing
i)

capacity calculation formula of spread foundation bottom ground 1). The coefficients were designed to properly consider the scale effects of the foundation shape, as the increase in foundation width tends to reduce ultimate bearing capacity. On the other hand, it is common that soil constants (c and ) used in design are obtained by general physical-property values, estimate equations, etc.; therefore, these constants tend to be underestimated. This means that bearing capacity can be underestimated and excessively large structures be designed, bringing about the need to identify more accurate design constants (c, , correction coefficients, etc.) that take into consideration scale effects so that structures can be designed more appropriately. The present study, with the aim of identifying appropriate design constants that take into account scale effects, investigated the scale-effect properties of

Senior Research Engineer, Geotechnical Division, Civil Engineering Research Institute of Hokkaido, Hiragishi 1-3-1-34, Toyohira-ku, Sapporo, 062-8602, JAPAN. ii) Director of Geotechnical Division, Civil Engineering Research Institute of Hokkaido. iii) Senior Research Engineer, Geotechnical Division, Civil Engineering Research Institute of Hokkaido.

HIROFUMI FUKUSHIMA, SATOSHI NISHIMOTO and KOUICHI TOMISAWA

ultimate bearing capacity that accompany the changes in the shape of spread foundation by conducting the plate loading test on soft-rock ground, gravelly soil and rock-fill embankment, where the dimensional shape of loading plates are changed. In addition, study methods on correction coefficients for soil strength constants and scale effects that are necessary in the design of foundation structures are also considered. 2 SCALE EFFECTS OF SPREAD FOUNDATION ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY EQUATIONS 2.1 Outline of size effects The phenomenon in which increased foundation width on the ground reduces the ultimate bearing capacity of spread foundation was noted as early as in the 1940s, and it is well known as a classic technical theme 2). It has been referred to as the "scale effect" since the 1960s, when De Beer 3) reconfirmed it in experiments and already established foundations. This phenomenon is understood in the bearing capacity theory of Terzaghi: the bearing capacity coefficient (N) decreases with foundation width. Although various reasons have been suggested as the cause, the following three, or a combination of them, are generally accepted: 1) Reduction in due to increased stress 4) 2) Difference in among locations exerted on slip bands along with the progress of failure 5) 3) Impacts of the ratio of sand particles to foundation width 6) So far, no clear indications of how much each of the above factors affects bearing capacity have been discovered. Therefore, in practice, field-loading tests are conducted to correct the bearing capacity formula. 2.2 Scale effect correction in accordance with Specifications for Highway Bridges with Instruction Manual IV - Base Structure Edition The specifications, revised in 2002, introduced the ultimate bearing capacity equation of spread foundation that allows for scale effect correction 1). The following is the equation quoted from the specifications:

1, 2: Unit weight of bearing stratum and penetration stratum (kN/m3), Submerged unit weight for under ground water level Be: Effective foundation loading width that considers load eccentricity (m) Be=B - 2eB B: Foundation width (m) eB: Load eccentricity (m) Nc, Nq, N: Bearing capacity coefficients Sc, Sq, S: Correction coefficients related to the scale effects of bearing capacity coefficients Sc=(c*), Sq=(q*), S=(B*) c*=c/c01 c* 10, c0=10(kN/m2) q*=q/q01 q* 10, q0=10(kN/m2) B*=Be/B01 B*, B0=1.0(m) , , : Coefficients that describe the degree of scale effects (the value -1/3 may be used) The correction coefficients significantly reduced bearing capacity compared with that calculated using the conventional equation (1996 specifications) 7). As for the application of the correction coefficients, conditions for the investigation and calculation methods of soil constants (c, , etc.) are not mentioned. Cases where the correction coefficients reduced the allowable bearing capacity by 40 to 60% in the design of spread foundation with ordinal width have been verified. This degree of reduction is not negligible in actual practice; appropriate bearing capacity assessment where scale effects are strictly assessed is required through investigation and calculation of more accurate soil constants (c, ). Also, correction-coefficient parameters (, , ) are currently assigned general values not influenced by site conditions; the identification and setting of proper values for differing conditions are required. Therefore, in this study, with the aim of identifying appropriate design constants and correction coefficients that take into account scale effects, plate loading tests were conducted on gravelly soil and rock-fill embankment using loading plates of different scales to examine the properties of ultimate bearing capacity when influenced by the effects of scale. 3. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SUBGRADE REACTION COEFFICIENT AND FOUNDATION-WIDTH SCALE The specifications provide the following formula as an estimate equation for subgrade reaction coefficients, which is based on the idea that subgrade reaction coefficients are directly proportionate to foundation width raised to the -3/4th power 8).

1 Qu = Ae cN c S c + qN q S q + 1 Be N S (1) 2
Qu: Ground ultimate bearing capacity that considers the scale effects of bearing capacity coefficients (kN) Ae: Effective loading area (m2) , : Shape coefficients of foundation : Addition coefficients for penetration effects c: Ground cohesion (kN/m2) q: Top loading (kN/m2) q=2Df Df: Effective penetration depth of foundation (m)

B kV = kV 0 V 0.3
2

3 4

(2)

kV: Subgrade reaction coefficient (kN/m3) kV0: Vertical subgrade reaction coefficient equivalent to the values of plate loading test that uses 0.3-m-diameter rigid disks (kN/m3) BV: Conversion loading width of foundation (m) This relational expression was established based on loading test results conducted on sandy ground and the loamy layer of the Kanto Plain, where plate scale was set at various levels between 300 and 1,200 mm 9). It is quite likely that the formula will not necessarily apply in all situations, depending on ground conditions. Therefore, we decided to summarize and examine the relationship between loading plate scale and the subgrade reaction coefficient to confirm the applicability of the formula to materials with large particle size, such as those examined in this study. 4. PLATE LOADING TEST WHERE LOADING PLATE SCALE IS CHANGED 4.1 Outline of experiment Loading plate tests were conducted on specific ground types, where various loading plate scales were used, to examine the scale effects of ultimate bearing capacity in association with gravelly soil and rock-fill embankment (embankment created with debris from the excavation of fine rock mass). Loading plate tests were conducted for 17 conditions, where the scale shape of loading plates and ground conditions were changed (Table 1). Four types of circular loading plates (300, 900, 1,200 and 1,500 mm in diameter) were prepared to verify the scale effects in the ultimate bearing capacity equation of spread foundation, and one type of square loading plate (B=1,500 mm) to confirm the shape coefficient in the equation. Loading directions and reaction-force devices were altered for different ground conditions. Ground anchors were used as a reaction-force device in vertical loading tests and were connected to loading burrs. Adequate reaction force was assured against the design ultimate load (Photo1). For soft-rock ground, horizontal loading by test pit excavation was conducted to ensure adequate reaction force (Photo 2).

The multicycle loading method (4 cycles), as described in Japanese Geotechnical Society's "Horizontal Loading Test Method for Piles and Instruction Manual 10)," was adopted, and the test force duration for virgin load was 30 minutes, and that for hysteretic load was 5 minutes. There were three types of test ground - rock-fill embankment made of gneiss, boulder-mixed gravel, and shale. Tables 2 through 4 show the summaries of respective ground materials. In vertical loading tests, the ground surface was leveled by spreading sand on it. In horizontal loading tests, the gap between the ground surface and loading plate was filled with non-shrinkage mortar to hold them together.

Photo 1 Loading test (Vertical)

Photo 2 Loading test (Horizontal)

Table 1 Test conditions

FY 2004 2003 Ground type Soft rock Gravelly soil Unreinforced soil Geogridreinforced Load direction Horizontal Vertical Vertical Vertical Test conditions 6 4 4 3 1 1 1 300 600 3 1 Circular 900 1200 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1500 Square 1,500

2002

Rock-fill

HIROFUMI FUKUSHIMA, SATOSHI NISHIMOTO and KOUICHI TOMISAWA

Table 2 Summary material

of

rock-fill

embankment
Gneiss

4.2 Results (1) Estimation of ultimate bearing capacities Ultimate bearing capacities were estimated by the method of Uto et al. 11) in some situations, as the loading in ultimate state could not be tested due to the tilting of loading devices or other reasons. This estimation method reveals the relationship between the load and settlement by the approximate expression below and estimates the ultimate load Qmax, standard displacement and other variables by the least-squares method. m Q = Qmax {1 e ( S / S 0 ) } (3) Q: Load Qmax: Ultimate load S: Displacement Standard displacement (displacement that S0: corresponds to the yield load) m: Displacement index The coefficient of subgrade reaction was also calculated based on yield load and yield displacement obtained using this method. The load-settlement curves in rock-fill embankment and reinforced soil are as shown below (Figure 1).

Unit weight t (kN/m ) Unconfined compression strength (kN/m2)

27 (22 for rock fill) 50,600

Table 3 Summary of gravelly soil

Boulder-mixed gravel Unit weight t (kN/m3) N value in standard penetration test 20 50+

Table 4 Summary of soft-rock ground

Shale Unit weight t (kN/m3) Unconfined compression strength (kN/m2) 23 100

Table 5 Results of plate loading test

Circular Loading plate scale Ultimate bearing capacity Soil constant B Qu qu 1,197 4,234 38.7 100 600 1,150 4,067 38.3 100 Circular Loading plate scale Ultimate bearing capacity Soil constant Ultimate bearing capacity Soil constant Ultimate bearing capacity Soil constant B Qu qu 300 619 8,761 44.9 50 193 2,735 51.1 0 316 4,476 51.1 2.8 600 1,506 5,326 42.8 50 900 4,163 6,543 43.7 50 1,878 2,952 48.4 0 2,539 3,992 1,500 14,843 8,399 44.7 50 4,504 2,549 46.3 0 5,266 2,980 1,092 3,862 37.8 100 2,434 3,826 37.3 100 900 2,668 4,194 38.3 100 Square 1,500 4,581 2,036 45.3 0 1,200 4,491 3,971 37.5 100

Soft rock

Gravelly soil Rock-fill embank ment Unreinfo rced Rock-fill embank ment Reinforc ed soil

c Qu qu

c Qu qu

48.4 46.3 2.3 1.0 Units are: B: mmQu: kNqu: kN/m2: oc: kN/m2

B=300 Rock-Fill B=300 Reinforced 350 300 250

Fitted Line Fitted Line 3000

B=900 Rock-Fill B=900 Reinforced

Fitted Line Fitted Line

B=1500 Rock-Fill B=1500(Square) Rock-Fill B=1500 Reinforced 6000

Fitted Line Fitted Line Fitted Line

2500

5000

2000 Q(kN) Q(kN) Q(kN) 200 150 100 50 0 0 10 20 S(mm) 30 40 50

4000

1500

3000

1000

2000

500

1000

0 0 50 S(mm) 100 150

0 0 50 100 S(mm) 150 200

Figure 1 Estimation of the load-settlement curves and ultimate bearing capacities (rock-filled embankment) (2) Estimation of soil constants Subgrade reaction coefficients were calculated based on yield load and yield displacement obtained by the method of Uto et al. Soil constants were calculated from ultimate bearing capacity using the following formula: The test results confirmed that the soil constant tends to decrease as loading-plate scale increases. One possible reason is that the bearing capacity coefficient, which is supposed to be constant based on the correction coefficient of scale effects (S), was not appropriately corrected under the conditions tested. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the approximate expression of scale effect correction and the parameters.

Qu =

B 2
4

(1 .3cN

S c + 0 .3 B 1 N S

(4)

5. DISCUSSION The following assumptions were made: 5.1 Scale effects of bearing capacity coefficient N 1) Cohesion is ignored for unreinforced soil (c=0). 2) Reinforced soil functions as dummy cohesion (1) Summary by normalized ultimate bearing capacity effects in geogrid-reinforced soil. The ultimate bearing capacity for each study ground 3) The cohesion of gravelly soil is set at 50kN/m2 was normalized using the following formula and based on the results of geological surveys. summarized by the relation with loading plate scale 4) The general value set in the specifications (-1/3) (Figure 2). is used for correction coefficient parameters and . N c = N c 0 (B B0 ) (5) 5) , B*and c* are used as they are, though they Nc: Combined bearing capacity coefficient are outside the ranges set in the specifications (Normalized ultimate bearing capacity) ( 45o, 1 B*, 1 c* 10) Nc0: Standard bearing capacity coefficient Table 6 shows ultimate bearing capacities and soil (Bearing capacity coefficient when B=B0) constants obtained for different conditions by the B0: B0=1.0 m plate-loading test. Table 6 Test results
Ground type Estimates Soft rock (2004 study Gravelly soil (2003 study) =45.6 N=252.0 Nc=144.6
1.26

(Specifications IV [Instruction 10.3.6])

=37.7
N=50.9 Nc=60.0
c qu = 1.3cN c 10
1 / 3

c=100.0 =-1.26 =-1/3

B + 0.3BN 1 .0

c=50.0 =-1.18 =-1/3

1 / 3

Rock-fill embankment (2002 study) =47.4 c=0: Unreinforced c=3.3: Reinforced N=380.2 =-1.11 =-1/3 Nc=184.4 Unreinforced
1.18

Approx. expression

c qu = 1.3cN c 10

B + 0. 3 B N 1. 0

qu =

B 0 . 3 BN 1.0
1 / 3

1.11

Reinforced soil
c qu = 1.3cN c 10 B + 0.3BN 1 .0
1.11

HIROFUMI FUKUSHIMA, SATOSHI NISHIMOTO and KOUICHI TOMISAWA

In all tested conditions, normalized ultimate bearing capacity (Nc) tended to decrease as the foundation width B increased. Also, it was generally in a linear relationship with the correction factor (S) set in the specifications, and no significant gap was found in the correction coefficient parameter () among ground types.
Ncr

10000
Rock-fill (Unreinforced) Rock-fill (Reinforced) Approx. expression (Unreinforced) Approx. expression (Reinforced)

=47.4-1.11 c = 3.3= -1/3

1000

10000
Ncr: Gravelly soil Ncr: Rock-fill (Unreinforced) Ncr: Rock-fill (Reinforced) Ncr: Soft rock Approx. expression: Graverry soil Approx. expression: Rock-fill (Unreinforced) Approx. expression: Rock-fill (Reinforced) Approx. expression: Soft rock
=47.4-1.11 c = 0 = -1/3

100 0.1 1 B (m) 10

Ncr

1000

y = 1178.1x-1.0189 y = 578.8x-1.0283

Figure 3 Relationship between test values and approximate expression in rock-fill

10000

y = 380.19x

-1.1114

Gravelly soil Approx. expression: Graverry soil

y = 531.94x-1.2292 100 0.1 1

B(m)

10
=45.6 =-1.18 c = 50 =-1/3

Figure 2 Relationship between loading width B and combined subgrade reaction coefficient Nc (2) Scale effects in rock-fill embankment Normalized ultimate bearing capacity Nc equals N of Terzaghi's bearing capacity equation, as cohesion c can be ignored in rock-fill embankment (unreinforced). The relationship can be expressed as N = 380.2 (=47.4o), = -1.11, and it was confirmed that the correction coefficient parameter does not necessarily correspond with the general value of -1/3 set in the specifications. As for rock-fill embankment (reinforced soil), cohesion c was estimated by assuming the increase in bearing capacity by geogrid as dummy cohesion c (Fig. 3). Cohesion was estimated using the least-squares method from the relationship between the normalized Terzaghi's bearing capacity formula and loading plate scale. The scale-effect parameter was -1/3 as set in the specifications, since the correction coefficient of cohesion has no relation with foundation-width scale and cannot be estimated by the changes in loading-plate scale. In this case, c was estimated to be 3.3kN/m2. (3) Scale effects in gravelly soil The soil constant and scale-effect correction coefficient were estimated by the test results on gravelly soil. They were estimated for the normalized Terzaghi's bearing capacity formula using the least-squares method with the multiplier of loading-plate scale and the correction coefficient as the parameter (Fig. 4). The cohesion of 50kN/m2, which

Ncr

1000

100 0.1 1 B (m) 10

Figure 4 Relationship between test values and approximate expression in Gravelly soil
10000 Soft rock Approx. expression (Soft rock)

=37.7 =-1.26 c = 100 =-1/3

Ncr

1000

100 0.1 1 B (m) 10

Figure 5 Relationship between test values and approximate expression in Soft-rock

is the value set in the 1996 specifications for sand and gravel in the diluvial epoch, was assumed 12), as there were only four data points. The scale effect parameter was -1/3, the general value set in the specifications. According to estimation results, the relation can be expressed as N = 252.0 (=45.6o), = -1.18, and it was confirmed that the correction coefficient parameter does not necessarily correspond with the general value of -1/3 set in the specifications. (4) Scale effects in soft-rock ground The cohesion c was assumed to be 100kN/m2 based on the structure design conditions at the site, as there were only three loading-panel scale types tested. The scale effect parameter corresponded to the bearing capacity coefficient Nc was -1/3, the general value set in the specifications. According to estimation, the relation can be expressed as N = 50.9 (=37.7o), = -1.26, and it was confirmed that the correction coefficient parameter does not necessarily correspond with the general value of -1/3 set in the specifications. Normalized ultimate bearing capacity Nc tends to decrease as the foundation width B increases. They have a generally linear relationship, and no significant gap in slope was found among the different ground types. The correction coefficient parameter of N was estimated to be around -1, showing a large difference from -1/3, the general value set in the specifications. The general value for scale-effect parameter (-1/3) set in the specifications is believed to have been calculated based on the test results on sandy soil 4), 13), 14), and the inconsistency in the parameter may be partially due to the marked difference in ground conditions. Since soft-rock ground and ground types with relatively large particle sizes - i.e., those tested in this study - are often used as the bearing stratum of spread foundation structures, the setting of design constants should be implemented comprehensively by conducting adequate research. 5.2 Relationship between subgrade reaction coefficient and loading-plate scale Figure 5 illustrates the relationship between the subgrade reaction coefficient and loading-plate scale, Table 7

which was normalized by the subgrade reaction coefficient of 300-mm loading plates. A relationship similar to the approximate expression shown below, suggested in the specifications, was confirmed, except for 600-mm and 900-mm plates in gravelly soil, where the significant incline of the hydraulic jack prevented accurate measurement of settlement.
B k = k0 0 .3
n

(6)

k: Subgrade reaction coefficient (kN/m3) k0: Subgrade reaction coefficient by 300-mm loading plates (kN/m3) B: Conversion loading-width of foundation (m) n: Correction parameter
1.0

0.8

k/k0(Gravelly soil) k/k0(Rock-fill, Unreinforced) k/k0(Rock-fill, Reinforced) -3/4th power (specifications) -0.8th power -0.9th power -1.0th power (Elastic)

0.6 k/k0 0.4 0.2 0.0 0 0.3 0.6 0.9 B (m) 1.2 1.5 1.8

Figure 6 Relationship between loading width B and normalized subgrade reaction coefficient However, in the conditions tested, n was generally around 1 and was not necessarily near 3/4, the suggested value in the specifications. Figure 6 shows the relationship between the subgrade reaction coefficient and loading-panel scale. Also, approximation curves were estimated for rock-fill embankment types by the least-squares method. It was confirmed that n values were 0.986 and 0.920, respectively, levels close to that of elastic bodies (n=1.0). This may be due in part to the fact that n cannot be fixed, and must be adjusted depending on ground conditions and other factors. The value set in the specifications is believed to have been determined based on test results conducted on the loamy layer of

Relational expressions of subgrade reaction coefficient

Gravelly soil Rock fill embankment Unreinforced 149.2 0.920
1.003 0.920

k0 (kN/m3) n Approximate expression

143.5 1.003
B k = 143.5 0.3

Rock fill embankment Reinforced soil 169.6 0.986

B k = 169.6 0.3
0.986

B k = 149.2 0.3

Abnormal values (B=600, 900) were excluded for gravelly soil.

HIROFUMI FUKUSHIMA, SATOSHI NISHIMOTO and KOUICHI TOMISAWA

the Kanto Plain and sandy ground. The ground types studied have relatively large particle sizes, and therefore require careful considerations in setting the constant in the design stage. 5.3 The idea of regulations of the Specifications for Highway Bridges In the current specifications, many design constants are determined using the plate-loading test with a 300-mm loading plate. This study, however, revealed that the results of the plate-loading test were not necessarily consistent with the regulations of the specifications. Under ground conditions where ground is used as a bearing stratum for spread foundation of bridge structures, it is considered necessary to conduct investigations suitable to site conditions through loading and other tests. While there has been close relationship between the processes of ground survey methods/results and design conditions/methods, it is important to respect the expertise of both ground surveys and structural design and further promote cooperation between the two fields considering the current idea of performance specification-type design. 6. SUMMARY We conducted plate-loading tests on soft-rock ground, gravelly soil and rock-fill embankment, in which loading-plate scale was changed, to examine the scale effects of ultimate bearing capacity and subgrade reaction coefficient. The results were as follows: 1) A relationship similar to the approximate expression suggested in the specifications was confirmed in the correction coefficient S of bearing capacity coefficient N. 2) The correction coefficient parameter was not necessarily consistent with the general value that appeared in the specifications (-1/3); it is therefore necessary to further investigate it and calculate an appropriate correction coefficient depending on site conditions. It is also crucial to further research and calculate appropriate soil constants (c and ) based on scale-effect correction. 3) The subgrade reaction coefficients obtained in the tests established an approximate relationship similar to the estimate equation suggested in the specifications. However, the parameters were not necessarily consistent with the value set in the specifications (3/4th power). 4) Plate loading tests, in which loading-plate scale is changed, are practical as an investigation method of design constants that take into consideration the scale effects in spread-foundation design. Based on the above conclusions, we consider the following items essential to establish rational

next-generation design and construction methods that take into account the properties of different ground types. 1) The same study method should be applied to other ground types (hard rock, volcanic ash, hard elastic soil, etc.) to identify the scale effect properties of yet more ground types. Rock mass in particular needs to be investigated, as that ground type is often used as a bearing stratum for spread foundation structures. 2) The scale effect properties of bearing capacity coefficients (Nc, Nq) related to the effects of cohesion c and top load q must be examined. References
1) Japan Road Association (2002): Specifications for Highway Bridges (I - General Edition, IV - Base Structure Edition) with Instruction Manual, pp. 269-279. (in Japanese) 2) Japanese Geotechnical Society (1990): Introduction to Bearing Power, pp. 102-103. (in Japanese) 3) De Beer, E. E. (1965): Bearing Capacity and Settlement of Shallow Foundations on Sand, Proceedings of a Symposium held at Duke University, Durham, USA, pp. 15-33. 4) Kusakabe, O., Maeda, Y., Shiroishi, S. and Kawai, N. (1990): Loading test analysis of large three-dimensional foundation using expanded Kotter equation," Collection of Papers for 25th Geotechnical Engineering Academic Lecture Meeting, pp. 1243-1246. (in Japanese). 5) Yamaguchi, H., Kimura, T. and Fujii, N. (1975): Bearing capacity experiment on shallow foundation by centrifugal devices, Proceedings of the Japan Society of Civil Engineers, No.233, pp. 71-85. (in Japanese) 6) Tatsuoka, F. et al. (1989): Relationship among shear strength, experimental data and design calculation formula in the bearing capacity problems of ground, 34th Geotechnical Engineering Symposium, pp. 17-22. (in Japanese) 7) Japan Road Association (1996): Specifications for Highway Bridges (I - General Edition, IV - Base Structure Edition) with Instruction Manual, pp. 250-258. (in Japanese) 8) Japan Road Association (2002): Specifications for Highway Bridges (I - General Edition, IV - Base Structure Edition) with Instruction Manual, pp. 254-257. (in Japanese) 9) Yoshinaka, R. (1968): Lateral Subgrade Reaction Coefficient, Civil Engineering Techniques Vol.10, No.1, pp. 32-37. (in Japanese) 10) Japanese Geotechnical Society (1983): Plate Loading Test Methods and Instruction Manual, pp. 41-45. (in Japanese) 11) Uto, K. et al. (1982): A summary method for loading test results of the pile, Foundation Engineering Vol.10, No.9, pp. 21-30. (in Japanese) 12) Japan Road Association (1996): Specifications for Highway Bridges (I - General Edition, IV - Base Structure Edition) with Instruction Manual, pp. 236. (in Japanese) 13) Kawamura, Y., Kadotani, T., Ouchi, M. and Motegi, K. (1990): Planning and execution of large-scale loading tests of spread foundation using the self-weight of caissons, 25th Geotechnical Engineering Academic Lecture Meeting, pp.1239-1240. (in Japanese) 14) Maeda, Y., Kusakabe, O., Shiroishi, S. and Ouchi, M. (1990): Bearing capacity properties and destruction properties of large three-dimensional foundations on the thick scoria layer, 25th Geotechnical Engineering Academic Lecture Meeting, pp.1241-1242. (in Japanese)