See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315662318

Behavior of circular footing resting on layered

foundation: Sand overlying clay of varying
strengths

Article in International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering · April 2017

DOI: 10.1080/19386362.2017.1314242

CITATIONS READS

0 19

2 authors:

Arghadeep Biswas A. Murali Krishna

Jalpaiguri Government Engineering College Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati
11 PUBLICATIONS 23 CITATIONS 87 PUBLICATIONS 223 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Use of Recycled Tire Chips Mixed with Sand in Civil Engineering View project

Performance of Geocell-Reinforced Foundation Systems on Clay Subgrades of Varying Strengths View

project

All content following this page was uploaded by Arghadeep Biswas on 12 April 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

ISSN: 1938-6362 (Print) 1939-7879 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yjge20

Behaviour of circular footing resting on layered

foundation: sand overlying clay of varying
strengths

Arghadeep Biswas & A. Murali Krishna

To cite this article: Arghadeep Biswas & A. Murali Krishna (2017): Behaviour of circular footing
resting on layered foundation: sand overlying clay of varying strengths, International Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2017.1314242

Published online: 12 Apr 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=yjge20

Download by: [103.193.88.2] Date: 12 April 2017, At: 07:41

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING, 2017
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2017.1314242

Behaviour of circular footing resting on layered foundation: sand overlying clay of

varying strengths
Arghadeep Biswasa  and A. Murali Krishnab
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Jalpaiguri Government Engineering College, Jalpaiguri, India; bDepartment of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology Guwahati, Guwahati, India

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

A series of laboratory model tests was performed on rigid circular footing, 150 mm in diameter (D), resting Received 20 January 2017
on surfaces of different layered foundations. The experimental programme considered different foundation Accepted 25 March 2017
configurations by varying the thicknesses (H) of dense sand layers, in the range of 0.63–2.19D, overlying
KEYWORDS
clay subgrades of different strengths, ranging from very soft (cu = 7 kPa) to stiff (cu = 60 kPa). The responses Homogeneous foundation;
of homogeneous foundations (configured with the sand and clays) were also obtained in order to compare layered foundation; subgrade
the performances. The pressure–settlement responses of homogeneous and layered foundations depicted strength; clay; sand; circular
non-linear variations within the range of footing settlement tested (s = 0–24% of D). The layered foundations footing; bearing capacity;
indicated significant improvements in bearing capacities for the softer clay subgrades (cu  ≤  30 kPa) as model test
compared to corresponding homogeneous clay beds; while, reduced bearing pressures were noted for
stiff clay subgrade having cu = 60 kPa. In general, foundation responses depicted higher bearing pressures
for stiffer subgrades (cu), thicker sand-layers (H/D) and at greater footing settlement levels (s/D); however, in
terms of bearing pressure ratios (BPR), a decreasing trend was observed with increase in stiffness of the clay
subgrades (cu). In the testing programme maximum of about 5.34-fold improvement in bearing pressure
was obtained for layered foundations having cu = 7 kPa; while, it was about 0.9 for the stiff clay subgrade
(cu = 60 kPa) as compared to the corresponding homogeneous clay beds. Responses of the model tests
were in significantly good agreement with that of the theoretical analyses reported earlier.

Introduction individual soil layers; qualitatively, soft (or stiff) soil overlying
stiff (or soft) subgrades (Button 1953; Sivareddy and Srinivasan
Behaviour of shallow foundations in layered soils is quite com-
1967; Brown and Meyerhof 1969; Desai and Reese 1970a, 1970b;
plicated, and, therefore, has been a topic of interest for several
Purushothamaraj, Ramiah, and Rao 1974; Satyanarayana and
decades. Initiated with Button (1953) in the form of different
Garg 1980; Florkiewicz 1989; Azam and Wang 1991; Merlfleld,
saturated clay layers, it has been enriched by several researches
Sloan, and Yu 1999).
through numerical modelling and/or laboratory physical tests
In general, physical model tests in varying configurations
indicating the influences of different parametric variations
were the most common mode of study for the behaviour of
(Brown and Meyerhof 1969; Vesic 1973, 1975; Meyerhof 1974;
layered foundations; however, as compared to physical tests,
Purushothamaraj, Ramiah, and Rao 1974; Tournier and Milović
analytical analyses are more competent to consider rigorous
1977; Meyerhof and Hanna 1978; Pfeifle and Das 1979; Hanna
parametric variations (Mandel and Salencon 1972; Sloan 1981;
and Meyerhof 1980; Hanna 1981, 1982; Kraft and Helfrich
Griffiths 1982a, 1982b; Sloan and Randolph 1982; Burd 1986;
1983; Siraj-Eldine and Bottero 1987; Cooke 1988; Madhav and
Love et al. 1987; Madhav and Sharma 1991; Brocklehurst 1993;
Sharma 1991; Tani and Craig 1995; Burd and Frydman 1996;
Burd and Frydman 1996; Frydman and Burd 1997; Yin, Wang,
Cerato and Lutenegger 2006). The behaviour of foundations on
and Selvadurai 2001; Erickson and Drescher 2002; Yilmaz and
layered soil was discussed in different ways: for example, with
Bakir 2009). Apparently, Button (1953) was the first to ana-
respect of combinations of different soil types such as sand (or
lyse the behaviour of layered foundations, using circular arch
clay) overlying clay (or sand) (Meyerhof 1974; Meyerhof and
method and strength ratio (CR  =  c1/c2) of the individual soil
Hanna 1978; Hanna and Meyerhof 1980; Hardy and Townsend
layers. Later, Brown and Meyerhof (1969) modified the method
1982; Michalowski and Shi 1995, 1996; Burd and Frydman
suggesting corrections in the form of different Nc values, based
1996; Kenny and Andrawes 1996; Michalowski 1997; Okamura,
on depth and shape of the footing (in addition to the strength
Takemura, and Kimura 1997). Alternatively, several analy-
ratio of the layers). A more general analytical solution for the
ses have also been reported having dealt with strengths of the
layered systems, considering the c–φ soils and modified Nc

CONTACT  Arghadeep Biswas  arghadeep.biswas@gmail.com

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2   A. BISWAS AND A. MURALI KRISHNA
Footing
D
Full Tank Depth (1 m)
H
Sand
Clay
Full Tank Width (1 m)
Figure 1. Schematic of layered foundations.
factors, was proposed by Purushothamaraj, Ramiah, and Rao
(1974); however, the factors found to be very similar to that of
Meyerhof (1953). Bowles (1997) combined different methods
to propose a step-wise solution considering weighted average
of the soil parameters based on individual layer thicknesses.
The Bowles’s solution, eventually, ended up with an equation
similar to that proposed by Valsangkar and Meyerhof (1979)
who considered the passive earth pressure of the underlying
soil in estimating the ultimate bearing capacity of the layered
foundations.
It is observed that the studies were mostly concerned about
the ultimate bearing capacity of the layered foundations of dif-
ferent configurations; while, very few have mentioned its var-
iation with respect to the footing settlement in determining
the design bearing pressures. However, in all the instances, it is
noticed that the bearing pressures (or capacities) for different
foundations were a function of footing settlements. Therefore,
it may be concluded and well-known fact that the response of
foundation systems with respect to bearing capacity is not always
useful when settlement becomes the deciding criteria. Besides,
Frydman and Burd (1997), Yin, Wang, and Selvadurai (2001),
Erickson and Drescher (2002), Cerato and Lutenegger (2006)
have observed that the level of footing settlement influences the
shear parameters of soils which significantly affect the overall
foundation behaviour; however, the mechanism is not well-de-
fined and yet to be fully explored. Hence, it can be said that
the estimation of foundation performance in terms of ultimate
Figure 2. Grain size distribution curves of clay and sand.
bearing capacity alone may not be a wise practice always, but it
should be identified at the desired stain levels (or footing set-
tlement level) for optimising the design considerations. In most
of the reported studies, the layered configurations were consid-
ered as very soft or stiff soil in different combinations, with the
help of sand and/or clay with constant consistencies. However,
limited studies have investigated the effect of strengths of sub-
grades, especially when clay is considered. Therefore, though it
has been studied extensively, however, ample scope is there for
studying the behaviour of layered foundations, specially when
clay is as the subgrade with varying strengths and some of the
issues are required to be re-addressed for better understanding.
A brief discussion on the issue was presented by the authors in
their earlier reports (Biswas, Krishna, and Dash 2013a, 2013b;
Biswas et al. 2015; Biswas, Krishna, and Dash 2016); however,
it was in the context of geosynthetics-reinforced foundations
where strain in geo-reinforcements (or level of settlement) was
a very important parameter in determining the foundation
performance.
The present experimental programme considered the behav-
iour of circular footing on the unreinforced layered founda-
tions. In this study, the layered foundations were consisted of
clay subgrades of different undrained shear strengths (cu = 7,
15, 30, and 60 kPa) overlain by varying layers of dense sand of
constant relative density (Dr = 80%). The obtained results were
analysed in terms of variation in bearing pressures and bear-
ing pressure ratios (BPR) with footing settlements. Besides, the
deformation behaviours of the foundation surfaces were also
considered in order to confirm the mechanism hypothesised
with respect to pressure–settlement responses. The observa-
tions of the model tests were compared with the theoretical
analyses reported earlier, such as the theories proposed by
Meyerhof (1974) and Meyerhof and Hanna (1978), for the foun-
dations having softer layer overlying stiffer soil and vice-versa.
Besides, a non-linear regression analysis was also performed
to study the interdependency of different parameters varied in
the model tests.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING   3

Table 1. Material properties.

Properties
Material Gs LL (%) PL (%) MDD (kN/m )
3
OMC (%) Dr (%) φ Cu Cc
Clay 2.65 42 21 20.71 19.31 – – – –
Sand 2.68 – – – – 80 40 3.06 0.62

Experimental programme diameter (D) was used as the footing. Different layered configu-
rations, consisted of 0.63, 1.15, 1.67 and 2.19D thick sand layers
The experimental programme is similar to that reported earlier
(Soil type – 1) overlying clay subgrades (Soil type – 2) of vary-
in Biswas, Krishna, and Dash (2013a, 2013b), Biswas et al. 2015,
ing undrained shear strengths (cu = 7, 15, 30 and 60 kPa), were
Biswas, Krishna, and Dash 2016) and the detail can be found in
considered in the test programme. A locally available red soil
Biswas (2016); however, for the completeness of this article, a
(Soil type – 2) and river sand (Soil type – 1) was used to pre-
brief of the same is presented in this section.
pare the foundation beds. Various standard physical tests were
The schematic of the foundation configurations is presented
conducted to classify the soils. The grain size distribution of the
in Figure 1. An 18-mm-thick circular steel plate of 150 mm in
foundation soils are presented in Figure 2. The Cc and Cu for the

Figure 3. Calibration curve for clay consistency.

Figure 4. Calibration curve for sand raining.

4   A. BISWAS AND A. MURALI KRISHNA

the sand was kept at 80% with maintained unit weight as 15.83
kN/m3. The internal friction angle of the sand was as 43° and 40°
(at 80% relative density) determined through direct shear and
triaxial compression tests, respectively. Table 1 presented a brief
of the test results mentioned above.
Two calibration curves are presented in Figure 3, used for pre-
paring the clay beds of varying strengths. The curves are show-
Sand ing the variation of undrained shear strengths (cu) and dry unit
Container weight (γd) with water content (w), obtained in advance through
several of trials by varying the compaction effort and water con-
tent. For the present study, four different clay strengths, such as
cu = 7, 15, 30 and 60 kPa, were selected representing the very soft,
soft, medium stiff and stiff clay consistencies. In preparation, for
the desired strength, the required water content (w) and dry unit
weights (γd) were determined from the calibration curves and
the clay was prepared accordingly. While preparing the clay, the
Inverted
Cone

air dried pulverised soil was mixed with the required water (in
excess of air-dried water content) and kept in sealed containers
Ht. of fall

60°
for about a week to allow the moisture distribution in the soil
mass. For preparing the clay beds, the moist clay was weighted
(as per the required bulk unit weight) and placed in the test tank
Figure 5. Sand raining device. in layers (about 50 mm thick). The clay layers were compacted
with a drop hammer (4.5 kg) falling from a fixed height (450 mm)
on a plywood board placed over the clay layers. A plastic sheet
was kept in between the clay surface and the plywood board to
Sand Raining Device reduce the moisture loss and sticking of clay on the board during
(Hopper) the compaction. The procedure was continued till the desired
thicknesses of clay beds/subgrades were reached. The uniformity
of the clay beds was verified by collecting clay samples in vane
Load Frame shear mould from different layers and locations. While collecting
the samples, care was taken to keep the bottom hole of the vane
shear mould open (to avoid air-locking within the mould). The
Hydraulic Jack collected samples were tested for unit weight, moisture contents
and the undrained shear strengths (through vane shear test). The
scattered points in Figure 3 are showing the variations in cu, γd,
Dial Gauges Proving Ring
and w of the clay beds which indicated considerably consistent
test beds were prepared.
Footing
The sand bed/layer was prepared through ‘raining’ technique.
Foundation Bed For the sand-raining, the required height of fall for the desired
Dial Gauges
relative density (Dr = 80%) was obtained by trials. The variation
Hydraulic of height of fall with the relative density of the sand is presented
Test Tank (1×1×1 m3) Pump in Figure 4. Sand raining was done with a device as shown in
Figure 5. The device was consisted of an inverted cone attached
to a hollow pipe connected with a large hopper. The uniformity
Steel Bracings of the sand bed/layer was checked by collecting regular samples
during the sand-raining in small containers of known volume
placed at different locations on the surface of sand layers. The
Figure 6. Complete test set-up. variation in relative density (Dr) of the sand was found within a
range of ±2%, indicating a consistent test condition was main-
tained. For preparing the layered soil, the sand raining was
sandy soil were calculated as about 0.62 and 3.06, respectively. started soon after the clay subgrades were prepared up to the
The specific gravity of the clay and sand was found as 2.65 and desired depths.
2.68, respectively. The liquid and plastic limit of the clay soil was Foundation beds were prepared in laboratory, in a heavily
determined as 42 and 21%, respectively. The maximum dry unit braced steel tank of size 1 × 1 × 1 m3. In Figure 6, the photograph
weight and corresponding optimum moisture content was deter- of the complete test set-up is presented showing the positions
mined as 17.31 kN/m3 and 19.7%, respectively, through standard of footing, loading arrangements, and the response monitor-
proctor compaction test. The maximum and minimum dry unit ing devices (dial gauges). In the experiments, the bottom of the
weights of the sand were determined as 16.43 and 13.82 kN/m3, footing was roughened by applying a thin layer of sand with
respectively. In the experimental programme, relative density of epoxy glue. After preparing the foundation beds to its full height,

Table 2. Test series.
Foundation configuration Parameters
Homogeneous clay and sand cu = 7, 15, 30 and 60 kPa; and Dr = 80%
Layered foundations H/D = 0.63, 1.15, 1.67 and 2.19
cu = 7, 15, 30 and 60 kPa and Dr = 80%
the footing was placed at the centre of the levelled surface. The
loading arrangement was suitably adjusted to the centre line of
the footing. The footing was loaded by pushing it into the soil
with a manually operated hydraulic jack. The jack was mounted
on a load frame comprised of two well-anchored steel columns
and a reaction beam. The load transferred onto the footing was
measured by a pre-calibrated proving ring, positioned in between
the hydraulic jack and the footing. A ball-bearing was used in
between the footing and the proving ring to ensure loading ver-
ticality. Six dial gauges of 0.01-mm accuracy were used at dif-
ferent locations on the foundation surfaces (D, 2D and 3D from
the centre and either side of the footing) to monitor the surface
deformations behaviour. Two dial gauges (0.01 mm accuracy)
were placed on the footing (diagonally opposite to each other) for
recording the footing settlement. A relatively faster rate of load-
ing (2–3 mm/min.) was considered to simulate the undrained
condition (Dash, Sireesh, and Sitharam 2003; Sitharam, Sireesh,
and Dash 2005) in the clay. Measurements (load and deforma-
tions) were taken at regular intervals of footing settlements till
about 24% of ‘D’ was reached.
Figure 7. Pressure–settlement responses of homogeneous beds: Clay and Sand.
Table 3. Comparison of theoretical and experimental bearing pressures.
Theoretical ultimate bearing pressure
Undrained shear strength, cu (kPa) (kPa) (qu = 5.14 cu)
7 35.98
15 77.1
30 154.2
60 308.4
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING   5
Results
The Table 2 presents details of the parametric variation con-
sidered for the model test series. In the experiments, responses
from different model tests were recorded in terms of bearing
pressures and surface deformations at different levels of footing
settlement (s). Results were further discussed in terms of BPR
for different foundation systems. In presenting the test results
and analysis, this article used the normalised forms of footing
settlement, surface deformations and sand layer thicknesses, with
respect to footing diameter (D), as s/D, δ/D and H/D, respec-
tively. The settlement and heaving were differentiated with a ‘–’
and ‘+’ signs, respectively.
Homogeneous foundations: clay and sand
A series of tests on homogeneous soils, such as clay having
cu = 7, 15, 30 and 60 kPa, and sand bed with Dr = 80%, were
performed in test series A. Figure 7 presents the pressure–
settlement responses of homogeneous foundations. For the
homogeneous beds, the repeatability of the test conditions was
verified and the result indicates (dotted lines in Figure 7) consid-
erably close match between the tests. In general, the homogene-
ous beds depicted non-linear pressure settlement variations and
did not show any peak (or failures) within the range of settlement
tested (up to s/D = 24%): higher pressure values were noted for
clay beds having higher cu values (at same levels of s/D) and at
greater settlement levels (s/D). For instance, at s/D  =  2%, the
Observed maximum bearing pressure
(kPa) (At s/D = 24%) % Difference (w.r.t. qu = 5.14 cu)
31.4 12.73
62.9 18.42
132.7 13.94
244.5 20.72
6   A. BISWAS AND A. MURALI KRISHNA
Figure 8. Pressure–settlement responses of homogeneous and layered foundations having clay subgrades of varying strengths (cu) for different layer thicknesses (H).
bearing pressure for very soft clay bed (cu = 7 kPa) was 17.5 kPa;
while, it was 84 kPa for stiff clay bed having cu = 60 kPa. The cor-
responding pressure values (at s/D = 12%) for the respective clay
beds were about 31 and 196 kPa, respectively, indicating increase
in bearing pressures with the footing settlements. The maximum
bearing pressures for clay bed having cu = 7, 15, 30, and 60 kPa
were obtained as about 31, 63, 133 and 245 kPa, respectively,
at the maximum level of footing settlement tested (s/D = 24%).
Similar non-linear variation was also noticed for the homo-
geneous sand bed, in which case the maximum bearing pressure
was about 175 kPa (at s/D = 24%). As per the responses presented
in Figure 7, it can be concluded that the sand bed have exhibited
relatively stiffer response compared to that of the clay beds having
cu ≤ 30 kPa. The ratio of secant modulus (at s/D = 2%) of the
pressure–settlement responses of clay to sand beds was deter-
mined as about 0.4, 0.5, 0.8 and 2.0, for cu = 7, 15, 30 and 60 kPa,
respectively. The above may also be considered as the estimator
of ratio of subgrade modulus (i.e. kclay/ksand). The responses from
‘Test Series A’ were used further to analyse and compared the
performance of the layered foundations.
In the model tests, surface deformations were recorded at
D, 2D and 3D distances (x) from the centre and either side of
the footing. It was noticed that the surface deformations (heav-
ing and/or settlements) for the homogeneous foundations were
mostly pronounced at distance ‘D’ from the footing centre; and,
the intensity of deformations was gradually reduced towards the
tank boundaries. In case of clay beds, though the variations of
deformation magnitudes were not very consistent with cu values;
however, at different levels of s/D, it was mostly heaving at foun-
dation surfaces. The heaving may be attributed to the undrained
behaviour of the saturated clay which was generated with the
faster rate of loading. For the sand bed, an initial settlement (up
to s/D ≈ 15%) followed by heaving at the foundation surface
was noticed. Such behaviour can be similitude to the dilation of
dense sand. In case of sand bed, the maximum surface settlement
(–δ/D) was about 0.15% at s/D  =  6%, and maximum heaving
(+δ/D) was about 0.6% (at s/D = 24%).
A comparison between the theoretical ultimate bearing capac-
ity (calculated as qu  =  5.14cu, as per Meyerhof 1951), and the
maximum bearing pressures obtained from the experiments is
presented in Table 3. In this regard, it may be mentioned here
that the ultimate bearing capacities were not attained in present
experiments, but values are representing the maximum bear-
ing pressures noted at maximum level of settlement tested (i.e.
s = 24% of D). Considering the above, it may be concluded that
the result are reasonably close. The differences are in the range of
13–21% with respect to theoretical ultimate bearing capacities.
Layered foundations (sand overlying clay subgrades)
Layered foundations were comprised of dense sand of vary-
ing thicknesses (H  =  0.63–2.19D) overlying clay subgrades of

Figure 9. Typical surface deformation profile of layered foundation: cu = 7 kPa and H = 0.63D.
Figure 10. Variation of δ/D with s/D at x = D for different cu for H = 0.63D.
different strengths (cu  =  7 to 60 kPa). Figure 1 presented the
schematic of the foundation configurations and the details can
be found in Table 2. The responses of homogeneous foundations,
a dense sand bed and four clay beds of different strengths, were
presented in Figure 7. It may be noticed that the homogeneous
sand bed depicted stiffer pressure–settlement response compared
to clay bed having cu ≤ 30 kPa. Therefore, the layered foundations
having clay subgrades of cu ≤ 30 kPa can be considered as the
softer layer overlain the stiffer soil; and vice-versa in case of clay
subgrade having cu = 60 kPa.
In Figure 8(a)–(c), the pressure–settlement responses of the
layered foundations are presented. In general, the responses of
foundations comprised of softer clay subgrades (cu  ≤  30 kPa)
indicated significant improvement in bearing pressures, com-
pared to corresponding homogeneous clay beds (at same s/D
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING   7
levels). For instance, in Figure 8(a), foundation on cu = 7 kPa
with a 0.63D thick sand layer, the bearing pressure is about 56
kPa, as compared to 31 kPa of corresponding homogeneous clay
bed (both at s/D = 24%). Similar responses were also obtained
for cu  =  15 and 30 kPa (Figure 8(b) and (c), respectively). In
addition, it was noticed that the bearing pressures were increased
with increase in layer thicknesses (H). In Figure 8(a), range of
bearing pressure variation was 56–168 kPa (at s/D = 24%) with
increase in layer thickness (H) as 0.63–2.19D. In similar condi-
tions, the increase in bearing pressures were about 140–168 kPa
and 161–217 kPa, for cu = 15 and 30 kPa, respectively (Figure 8(b)
and (c)). However, in general, a reduction in rate of improvement
in bearing pressures was noticed for H > 1.67D for softer sub-
grades (cu ≤ 30 kPa). For instance, in case of cu = 7 kPa (Figure
8(a)), the bearing pressure was increased from 56 to 161 kPa (at
8   A. BISWAS AND A. MURALI KRISHNA
Figure 11. Variation of δ/D with s/D at x = D for varying H/D for foundations for cu = 60 kPa.
s/D = 24%) in the range of H = 0.63–1.67D; while, the variation
was only 161–168 kPa for H = 1.67–2.19D. Similar trend was also
observed for the foundations having cu = 15 and 30 kPa. In addi-
tion, in Figure 8(c), for cu = 30 kPa with H = 1.67D, a peck bearing
pressure of about 238 kPa (at s/D = 18%) was noticed; beyond
that, the performance was reduced for H = 2.19D with a bearing
pressure of 217 kPa (at s/D = 24%). Repeated test confirmed the
above behaviour with this layer configuration. However, similar
observations were also reported by Meyerhof (1974), for soils
of nearly close ultimate bearing capacity. In that case, the top
layer was of stiffer soil and the layer thickness was in the range
of 1.5–2.5 times of footing width (B). In this regard, it may be
mentioned here that the in present tests, the maximum bearing
pressures obtained for homogeneous clay of cu  =  30 kPa and
sand bed of Dr = 80% were in similar range (Figure 7). From the
present experimental observations (for softer soil overlying by
the stiffer soil), the optimum layer thickness can be considered
as 1.67D which could derive maximum contribution from the
layered configurations.
Responses of foundations on stiff clay (cu = 60 kPa) are pre-
sented in Figure 8(d). With stiff clay subgrade, the maximum
bearing pressure was noted about 203 kPa for H  =  0.63D at
s/D = 24%. Except this, the responses were very much similar,
with a maximum bearing pressure about 190 kPa (irrespective
of layer thickness variations, H/D). The higher bearing pressure
for H = 0.63D is attributed to the effect of additional support for
the sand layer derived from the underlying stiff clay. In general,
for a relatively thin layer of sand (≤D), such as 0.63D, the failure
surface is expected to be extended to the underlying subgrade;
whereas, for the thick layers (>1 –1.5D), the failure surface gen-
erally develops completely within the top layer. In present case,
for the thinner layer configuration (with H = 0.63D), the stiff
subgrade provided the additional resistance for the extended
failure surface; whereas, for thicker layers (H ≥ 1.15D), the over-
all foundation behaviour were dominated by the sand layer (top
layer). Thus, it may be noticed that with a slightly higher mag-
nitude of bearing pressure (~190 kPa), the pressure–settlement
responses for H ≥ 1.15D were closer to that of the homogeneous
sand, in which case the maximum bearing pressure was about
175 kPa. This is also in good agreement with the observations
of Meyerhof (1974) and Cerato and Lutenegger (2006), for the
foundations with softer layer overlying stiffer subgrades.
A typical surface deformation profile for layered foundation
at different levels of footing settlement is presented in Figure 9.
The Figure 10 presents a comparison of surface deformations of
layered foundation (with H = 0.63D) to that of the correspond-
ing homogeneous clay beds, at x = D. It may be noticed that,
around x = D, the surface heaving for the layered foundations
was comparatively reduced for the softer subgrades. This could
be attributed to higher load distribution through the sand layer
which penetrated the subgrade in a wider area than the foot-
ing. Therefore, around the footing, the sand layer experienced a
depression at bottom which effected as reduction in heaving at
the foundation surfaces. However, away from the footing centre,
a pronounced heaving was recorder which was due to shearing
and squeezing out of sand column. The physical deformations of
the underlying clay subgrades also confirm the above (discussed
in details in the next section). However, as compared to the softer
subgrades, much higher heaving around the footing was noticed
for the stiff clay subgrade, presented in Figure 11. This was purely
due to the sand column failure by shearing and squeezing out of
sand from the footing bottom (as the subgrade penetration was
restricted by the stiff clay subgrade).
Visual inspections
Visual inspections of physical deformation of the clay subgrades
were performed after each test. For the layered foundations,
after careful removal of the sand layers, a circular bowl-shaped
depression was noticed on the clay subgrade just under the
footing. Figure 12(a) shows the photograph of such depression
observed at the end of the test with very soft clay subgrade (cu = 7
kPa) overlain by 0.63D thick sand layer. In this case, a maxi-
mum depression of about 30 mm was found at the centre of the

(a)
Figure 12. Formation of sand column and a typical subgrade penetration for layered foundation (cu = 7 kPa; H = 0.63D).
penetration. As per the observations, it can be inferred that the
load was transferred onto the clay subgrades through a truncated
pyramidal sand column, formed in between the footing and the
clay subgrades (Figure 12(b)). Similar observations and conclu-
sion were also discussed by Meyerhof (1974). The Dʹ indicated in
Figure 12(b) is the diameter of the depression region generated
through such sand column penetration. It has been noticed that
the formation and penetration of the sand column was depended
on sand layer thickness and the strength of underlying clay sub-
grade. It was observed that D > D for the softer subgrades (cu < 30
kPa) with layer thicknesses H  ≤  1.15D. However, D  <  D was
noticed for the thicker layers and stiffer subgrades where the
failure surfaces were expected to develop within the sand layer.
Besides, it was observed that the depths of the depressions were
reduced with the increase in subgrade strength and sand layer
thickness. In addition, for stiffer subgrades and thicker sand lay-
ers, the depressions became merely an impression. It could be
the result of increased restraint against the footing settlement by
the stiffer subgrades and higher load distribution through the
thicker sand layers. For a very soft clay, such as cu = 7 kPa, the
resistance from the subgrade (against the transmitted footing
load) was not significant. Hence, the sand column could easily
penetrate through the subgrade and the depressions were very
prominent. While, for the stiff clay subgrade, such as cu = 60 kPa,
depressions were not prominent even for the very thin layer of
sand, such as H = 0.63D. However, for stiff clay subgrade, signif-
icant heaving was observed at the foundation surfaces when the
thickness of the sand layer was more than the diameter of the
footing (H ≥ 1.15D). The post-test exhumed stiff clay layer, how-
ever, did not exhibit any visible deformations under the footing
bottom. Thus, it can be hypothesised that in these cases the upper
sand layer has failed in general shear inducing enhanced surface
heaving (Jumikis 1961; Selig and McKee 1961; Vesic 1973) due to
the high restrain against footing settlement, which also confirms
the trend of surface deformation behaviour as discussed earlier.
During the post experimental inspections, while excavating
the top layers, a layer of moist sand was found at the interface
with the underlying clay subgrade; besides, the moisture con-
tents of the interface clay layers were also reduced considerably.
Though, any quantitative measurements were not recorded, how-
ever, qualitatively, it was found that the thickness of the moist
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING   9
Footing
H
Sand
Penetration
Clay
(b)
layer was varied as per thicknesses of overlying sand layers and
the moisture content of the clay subgrades (alternatively, clay
strengths; ref. Figure 3). In comparison, it was noticed that the
thickness of the moist sand was more for softer clay subgrades
having higher moisture content and thicker sand layer having
greater overburden pressure. This signifies that at the interface,
the shear parameters of the sand and clay were not constant as
they were prepared initially. However, as the experiments were
conducted within few hours (starting from preparing the foun-
dation beds up to the completion of loading), the effect of change
in shear parameters and the consolidation of the underlying clay
layers can be neglected.
Bearing Pressure Ratio (BPR)
The responses of layered foundations were further analysed in
terms of BPR. The BPR was defined as the ratio of bearing pres-
sures of the layered foundations (qs) to that of the corresponding
homogeneous clay beds (qc), at same s/D (Equation (1)). It is as
similar as the bearing capacity ratio (BCR) defined by Binquet
and Lee (1975a, 1975b), in case of reinforced foundations.
qs
BPR = [at same s∕D] (1)
qc
The BPR was in the range of 1.2–5.34 for the layered systems
on comparatively soft clay subgrades (cu ≤ 30 kPa). Figure 13
presents the variations in BPR with s/D, for different H/D (for
cu  =  7 and 60 kPa). In the figure, it may be noticed that the
BPR was increased with increase in footing settlement (s/D) and
layer thickness (H/D). It was significantly very high, about 5.34,
for cu = 7 kPa and gradually reduced to about 0.9 for the sub-
grade of 60 kPa (cu). For cu = 7 kPa, the BPR was in the range
of 1.78–5.34 for H variation as 0.63–2.19D (at s/D = 24%). At
similar configurations, the BPR for cu = 15 and 30 kPa were in
the range of 2.22–2.67 and 1.21–1.63, respectively. In general, it
was noticed that beyond s/D ~ 12%, the rate of increase in BPR
were reduced which was indicated by flatter slopes of the BPR-
settlement curves. This is attributed to the punching of sand
column into the softer subgrades; besides, squeezing out of the
sand from footing bottom under shear was also responsible for
such reduction which was pronounced for stiff subgrade. The
10   A. BISWAS AND A. MURALI KRISHNA
Figure 13. Variation of BPR with footing settlement (s/D) for different layered systems with varying layer thicknesses (H/D).
Figure 14. Variation of BPR with layer thickness (H) for different cu at s/D = 12%.
variation in BPR, for cu = 60 kPa, was in the range of 0.58–0.90
(presented in dotted lines in Figure 11). The behaviour is indicat-
ing the reduction in performance of stiff clay subgrade in layered
configuration. It can be attributed to the failure of the relatively
soft sand layer by shear, and squeezing out of the same due to
very high restraint offered by the underlying stiff clay against
the subgrade penetration. The post-test observations were also
confirms the above showing very little subgrade penetration with
high heaving at foundation surfaces.
Figure 14 presents a typical variations in BPR showing the
effect of layer thickness (H/D) (at s/D = 12%). In general, the BPR
were increased with H up to 1.67D (for cu ≤ 30 kPa); the values
of BPR were 4.0, 2.86 and 2.29 for the subgrades having cu = 7,
15 and 30 kPa, respectively (at s/D = 12% with H = 1.67D). The
corresponding values were 4.45, 2.43 and 1.93, respectively, for
similar subgrade variations in case of H = 2.19D. However, for
the stiff subgrade of 60 kPa, the responses of BPR remain almost
constant irrespective of H/D variations. In this case, the BPR was
about 0.8, indicating reduction in performance for cu = 60 kPa
in layered configuration, as compared to corresponding homo-
geneous clay bed (as mentioned earlier).
In Figure 15, the influence of subgrade strengths (cu) for dif-
ferent foundation systems is presented for H = 1.67D (in terms
of BPR): a decreasing trend in BPR with increasing subgrade
strengths (cu) may be noticed. This was significantly very high
at higher level of footing settlement, such as s/D  =  24%. For
instance, at s/D  =  12%, the BPR varied as 4.0 to 0.82 for an
increase in cu from 7 to 60 kPa; while, at s/D  =  24%, in sim-
ilar subgrade variations, the variation in BPR was 5.12–0.77.
However, it may be mentioned here that the decreasing trend
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING   11

Figure 15. Variation of BPR for different cu and s/D at H = 1.67D.

250 Theoretical
Experimental
200
Bearing Pressure (kPa)

150

100

50

0
cu = 7 kPa cu = 15 kPa cu = 30 kPa cu = 60 kPa
Subgrade Strength, cu (kPa )

Figure 16. Comparison of theoretical ultimate and experimental maximum bearing pressure for different clay subgrades (H = 1.15D).

)2
was in terms of BPRs; while, the corresponding bearing pressures
(
( ) H
qu = qt + qb − qt 1 −
were higher for the stiffer subgrades (for cu ≤ 30 kPa) at similar Ht
levels of footing settlements. (3)
where B/L is the ratio of width to length of the footing and cu is
the undrained shear strength of the subgrade clay. The γ1, H, φ
Comparison with theoretical analyses
and Df are the unit weight, thickness, internal friction angle of
A comparison of experimentally obtained foundation responses, overlying sand layer and depth of footing from ground surface,
in terms of bearing pressures, with the theoretical approach pro- respectively. The Ks is the coefficient of punching shear. The
posed by Meyerhof (1974) and Meyerhof and Hanna (1978) is qt and qb are the ultimate bearing capacity of surface footing
presented in Figs. 16 and 17. As per the theoretical analyses, the rested on corresponding homogeneous beds of sand and clay,
ultimate bearing capacity of layered foundations, having a sand respectively. However, in this present comparative analysis, the
layer overlying relatively soft and stiff clay subgrades, can be qt and qb were considered as the experimentally obtained max-
estimated by Equations (2) and (3), respectively. imum bearing pressures for the homogeneous sand and clay
beds, respectively. In Figure 16, a considerably good agreement
B
[ ( )]
qu = 1 + 0.2 5.14cu + 𝛾1 H 2 can be noticed between the experimental and the theoretical
L (2) values for different subgrades with H = 1.15D. In case of sand
)( D )(
Ks tan 𝜑
)
B overlying the stiff clay subgrade, the comparison for different
( f
1+ 1+2 + 𝛾1 Df ≤ qt
L H B layer thicknesses is presented in Figure 17.
12   A. BISWAS AND A. MURALI KRISHNA

250
Theoretical
Experimental
200

Bearing Pressure (kPa)

150

100

50

0
H = 0.63D H = 1.15D H = 1.67D H = 2.19D
Layer Thickness (H/D)

Figure 17. Comparison of theoretical ultimate and experimental maximum bearing pressure for different layer thicknesses of sand overlying clay subgrade of cu = 60 kPa.

Regression modelling
Model test results indicated considerable influence of the sub-
grade clay strength (cu), sand layer thickness (H) and footing
settlements (s) on the variations in foundation behaviour. An
attempt is, thereby, made to quantify the parametric influences,
in terms of bearing pressures. For the purpose regression anal-
ysis was considered which is a statistical tool used to establish
relationship amongst a set of dependent and independent var-
iables (Devore and Farnum 1999; Dielman 2001). Though, in
practice, the regression analysis to extrapolate the results of
such a 1-g model experiment is not very justified, however, it
is capable to indicate the importance of each parameter under
consideration. For that, the methodology reported by Ranjan,
Vasan, and Charan (1996), Bera, Ghosh, and Ghosh (2005),
Latha, Somwanshi, and Reddy (2013), Bora and Dash (2014)
is followed in this article and a non-linear regression model, as
shown in Equation (4), is considered to explain the foundation
behaviours.
𝛽 𝛽
Yi = Xi i1 .Xi i2 .Xi i3 … Xi ik
1 2
levels (s/D), were considered as the independent variables (or the
predictors, Xik). In the analysis of layered systems, the contribu-
tion of sand was directly computed as the bearing pressures of the
homogeneous sand bed (qos) obtained from the model tests. For
each foundation system, a set of model test data (corresponding
to s/D = 2, 6, 12, 18 and 24%) were used to generate the regression
coefficients and the remaining data (corresponding to s/D = 0.67,
4, 8, 10, 14, 16, 20 and 22%) were considered for validation of the
models. The regression analysis was performed using the built-in
data analysis tool pack available in Microsoft Excel®.
Homogeneous foundations
The Equation (5) presents the regression model considered for
homogeneous clay beds. The bearing pressure (qc) of the different
homogeneous clay beds were expressed as the function of corre-
sponding undrained shear strengths (cu) and footing settlement
levels (s/D%).
s
𝛽i
( )𝛽i
(5)
2
qc = c u 1 . %
(4)
𝛽 𝛽
D
3 k

Incorporating the coefficients (βik), the final form of Equation

where i = 1, 2, 3 … n, is the number of data sets (observations).
(5) is presented in Equation (5.1). The equation signifies that
The Yi is the dependent variable corresponding to independ-
the level of footing settlement is having immense effect on the
ent variables (predictors), i.e. the Xik; where, k is the number of
behaviour of homogeneous clay beds.
influencing parameter of Yi for the ith observation set. The βik is
the corresponding regression coefficients. The significance and ( )0.5
s
qc = c u . (5.1)
accuracy of the regression models were assessed through differ- D
ent indices and statistical parameters, such as standard error (Es),
Similar as the homogeneous clay beds as presented in Equation
coefficient of determination (R2), F-test and t-test.
(5.1), an attempt was made for the homogeneous sand bed, where
the bearing pressure, qos, was considered as the function of the
Regression models footing settlements (s/D%). As the sand properties were not var-
ied in the tests, the relationship presented in Equation (5.2) was
The bearing pressures of homogeneous clay (qc) and layered
constructed through curve fitting in Microsoft Excel®. However,
systems (qs) were considered as the dependent variables (Yi) for
Figure 18 indicates a considerably good agreement between the
the regression analysis. The influencing parameters, such as the
experimental and predicted bearing pressures for the homoge-
undrained shear strength of clay (cu), the thickness of sand layers
neous sand bed. ( )0.5
s
(H/D) overlying the clay subgrades and the footing settlement qos = 40.
D (5.2)
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING   13

Figure 18. Observed and predicted bearing pressures for homogeneous beds.

Figure 19. Variation of experimental and predicted bearing pressures.

Layered foundations final expression for the Equation (6) becomes as Equation (6.1).
Figure 19 presents the variation of experimental and predicted
For the layered systems, the bearing pressures (qs) are expressed
bearing pressures.
in terms of subgrade strengths (cu), bearing pressures of homo-
geneous sand bed (qos), the sand layer thicknesses (H/D) and
footing settlement levels (s/D). Equation (6) shows the expression
Conclusions
considered for the layered foundations.
𝛽i
(
s H
)𝛽i ( )𝛽i3 ( )𝛽
2
This study has investigated the behaviour of layered foundations
qc = c u 1 . % . . qos i4 (6) configured with dense sand overlying clay subgrades of vary-
D D
ing strengths. It is revealed that the performance of foundations
( )0.12 ( )0.35 ( )0.71 was strongly influenced by the subgrade strengths and footing
s H settlement levels. In addition, considerable effect of thicknesses
qc = cu0.31 . . . qos (6.1)
D D of overlying sand layer, especially for softer subgrades, was also
where, the qs’s are the bearing pressures of different layered foun- noticed. Though, no methodology is suggested and few ideal con-
dations configurations and βi’s are the regression coefficients. In ditions were assumed (such as consolidation effect was not taken
the analysis, data-sets up to H = 1.67D were considered to gener- place and initial shear parameters were constant though out the
ate the regression coefficients. Incorporating the coefficients, the tests etc.), however, the obtained results indicated significant
14   A. BISWAS AND A. MURALI KRISHNA
insight of the foundation behaviour. The observations could be
very useful in practice in estimating the effect of different param-
eters in varying foundation conditions.
The homogeneous beds depicted stiffer behaviour for 80%
relatively dense sand as compared to clay beds having cu ≤ 30
kPa. It was noticed that the zone of maximum curvature in the
pressure–settlement responses for different homogeneous beds
were different. Therefore, ‘only’ the ultimate bearing capacity may
be misleading information to describe the performance of the
foundations; instead, information about the level of settlement
with the bearing pressure would be more justified. However, a
considerably good agreement between observed model–tests
responses in homogeneous configurations (in terms of maximum
bearing pressures) were noticed with that of theoretical ultimate
bearing capacities reported in literature.
In layered configuration, the pressure–settlement responses
showed improvements in bearing pressures with a layer of sand
overlying the softer subgrades (cu ≤ 30 kPa); whereas, detrimental
effect was seen for the stiff clay subgrade of 60 kPa (cu), irre-
spective of variations in sand layer thickness (H). As per the
observed responses, higher bearing pressure values were noted
for stiffer subgrades; however, in terms of improvements, the
bearing pressures ratios were decreased with increase in subgrade
strengths (cu).
The sand layer thickness H of 1.67D was found to be the opti-
mum and most beneficial for foundation performance, in terms
of bearing pressures. However, influences of subgrades were
noticed event with H = 2.19D, for stiffer subgrades (cu ≥ 30 kPa).
The above observation confirms the conclusion drawn by Cerato
and Lutenegger (2006) where the foundation performance were
influenced by a rigid subgrade placed beyond 2D depth from
the footing bottom. In case of stiffer subgrades (cu ≥ 30 kPa), the
shearing and squeezing out of sand layer at and from the footing
bottom were predominant; while, for cu ≤ 15 kPa, punching of
sand column onto the clay subgrades was prevailing.
A regression analysis presented the inter-relationship amongst
the variables, such as the subgrade strength, layer thicknesses
and the footing settlements, considered in the study. Though the
regression analysis was very much hypothetical and it may not
be very appropriate to extrapolate the results of such a small 1-g
floor models, however, the models presented a reasonably good
predictability of bearing pressures for foundation systems of dif-
ferent configurations. Besides, it has indicated the importance
of the parameters involved in the model considered in terms
of regression coefficients associated with it. Overall, the experi-
mental observations can be very useful in practice and it could
derive a more realistic approach involving the mechanics of the
influencing parameters in estimating the foundation behaviour
for different parametric variations.
Notations and abbreviations
cu  undrained shear strength (Pa)
G  specific gravity
φ  internal friction angle (°)
Cu  coefficient of uniformity
Cc  coefficient of curvature
CR  shear strength ratio
γ  unit weight (N/m3)
Nc  bearing capacity factor
H  thickness of sand layer (m)
Ht  critical layer thickness from the footing bottom (m)
D  diameter of the footing (m)
Df  depth of footing from ground surface (m)
B  width of the footing (m)
L  length of the footing (m)
Ks  coefficient of punching shear
Dr  relative density of sand
s  footing settlement (m)
w  moisture content
δ  foundation surface deformation (m)
qc  bearing pressure of homogeneous clay (Pa)
qos  bearing pressure of homogeneous sand (Pa)
qs  bearing pressure of layered foundations (Pa)
qt  ultimate bearing capacity of surface footing rested on
homogeneous sand (Pa)
qb  ultimate bearing capacity of surface footing rested on
homogeneous clay (Pa)
BPR  bearing pressure ratio
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
ORCID
Arghadeep Biswas   http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3094-6361
References
Azam, G., and M. C. Wang. 1991. “Bearing Capacity of Strip Footing
Supported by Two-layer c–φ Soils.” Transportation Research Record
1331: 55–66.
Bera, A. K., A. Ghosh, and A. Ghosh. 2005. “Regression Model for Bearing
Capacity of a Square Footing on Reinforced Pond Ash.” Geotextiles and
Geomembranes 23 (3): 261–285.
Binquet, J., and K. L. Lee. 1975a. “Bearing Capacity Tests on Reinforced
Earth Slabs.” Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE 101
(12): 1241–1255.
Binquet, J., and K. L. Lee. 1975b. “Bearing Capacity Analysis of Reinforced
Earth Slabs.” Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE 101
(12): 1257–1276.
Biswas, A. 2016. “Influence of Subsoil Strength on Performance of
Geosynthetic-reinforced Foundations.” PhD Thes., IIT Guwahati,
Guwahati, India.
Biswas, A., M. A. Ansari, S. K. Dash, and A. M. Krishna. 2015.
“Behavior of Geogrid Reinforced Foundation System Supported
on Clay Subgrades of Different Strengths.” International
Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering 1 (3): doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40891-015-0023-5
Biswas, A., A. M. Krishna, and S. K. Dash. 2013a. “Behavior of Circular
Footing on Layered Soil: Sand Overlying Clay Subgrades.” In Proceedings
of 4th IYGEC, 157–160. IIT Chennai, India.
Biswas, A., A. M. Krishna, and S. K. Dash. 2013b. “Influence of Subgrade
Strength on the Performance of Geocell-Reinforced Foundation
Systems.” Geosynthetics International 20 (6): 376–388.
Biswas, A., A. M. Krishna, and S. K. Dash. 2016. “Behavior of Geosynthetic
Reinforced Soil Foundation Systems Supported on Stiff Clay
Subgrade.” International Journal of Geomechanics, ASCE 16 (5): doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000559.

Bora, M. C., and S. K. Dash. 2014. “Regression Model for Floating Stone
Column Improved Soft Clay.” In Proceedings of IGC, 1453–1459.
Kakinada, India.
Bowles, J. E. 1997. Foundation Analysis and Design. 5th ed. New york:
McGrawHill International Editions.
Brocklehurst, C. J. 1993. “Finite Element Studies of Reinforced and
Unreinforced Two-layer Soil Systems.” D.Phil. Thes., University of
Oxford, Oxford.
Brown, J., and G. G. Meyerhof. 1969. “Experimental Study of Bearing
Capacity in Layered Clays.” In Proceedings of 17th ICSMFE, vol. 2, 45–
51. Mexico City.
Burd, H. J. 1986. “A Large Displacement Finite Element Analysis of a
Reinforced Unpaved Road.” D.Phil. Thes., University of Oxford, Oxford.
Burd, H. J., and S. Frydman. 1996. “Bearing Capacity of Plane-strain
Footings on Layered Soils.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal 34: 241–253.
Button, S. J. 1953. “The Bearing Capacity of Footings on a Two-layer
Cohesive Sub-soil.” In Proceedings of 3rd ICSMFE, vol. 1, 332–335.  440–445.
Switzerland.
Cerato, A. B., and A. J. Lutenegger. 2006. “Bearing Capacity of Square and
Circular Footings on a Finite Layer of Granular Soil Underlain by a
Rigid Base.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering
132 (11): 1496–1501.
Cooke, R. P. 1988. “Contact Stress Distributions beneath a Rigid Circular
Plate Resting on a Cohesionless Mass.” M.S. Thes., Clarkson University,
Potsdam.
Dash, S. K., S. Sireesh, and T. G. Sitharam. 2003. “Model Studies on Circular
Footing Supported on Geocell Reinforced Sand Underlain by Soft Clay.”
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 21 (4): 197–219.
Desai, C. S., and L. Reese. 1970a. “Ultimate Capacity of Circular Footings
on Layered Soils.” Journal of Indian National Society of Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering 96 (1): 41–50.
Desai, C. S., and L. Reese. 1970b. “Analysis of Circular Footings on Layered
Soils.” Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE 96
(4): 1289–1310.
Devore, J. L., and N. R. Farnum. 1999. Applied Statistics for Engineers and
Scientists. Stamford, CT: International Thomson Publishing Inc..
Dielman, T. E. 2001. Applied Regression Analysis for Business and Economics.
Stamford, CT: Thomson Learning Inc..
Erickson, H. L., and A. Drescher. 2002. “Bearing Capacity of Circular
Footings.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering
128 (1): 38–43.
Florkiewicz, A. 1989. “Upper Bound to Bearing Capacity of Layered Soils.”
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 26 (4): 730–736.
Frydman, S., and H. J. Burd. 1997. “Numerical Studies of the Bearing
Capacity Factor Nγ.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering 123 (1): 20–29.
Griffiths, D. V. 1982a. “Computation of Bearing Capacity on Layered Soils”.
In Proceedings of 4th ICNMG, vol. 1, 163–170.  Rotterdam.
Griffiths, D. V. 1982b. “Computation of Bearing Capacity Factors Using
Finite Elements.” Géotechnique 32 (3): 195–202.
Hanna, A. M. 1981. “Experimental Study on Footings in Layered Soil.”
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE 107 (8): 1113–1127.
Hanna, A. M. 1982. “Bearing Capacity of Foundations on a Weak Sand Layer
Overlying a Strong Deposit.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal 19: 392–396.
Hanna, A. M., and G. G. Meyerhof. 1980. “Design Charts for Ultimate
Bearing Capacity of Foundations on Sand Overlying Soft Clay.”
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 17 (2): 300–303.
Hardy, A. C., and F. C. Townsend. 1982. “Preliminary Investigation
of Bearing Capacity of Layered Soils by Centrifugal Modeling.”
Transportation Research Record 872: 20–24.
Jumikis, A. R. 1961. “The Shape of Rupture Surface in Sand.” In Proceedings
of 5th ICSMFE, vol. 1, 693–698.  Paris.
Kenny, M. J., and K. Z. Andrawes. 1996. “The Bearing Capacity of Footings
on a Sand Layer Overlying Soft Clay.” Geotechnique 47 (2): 339–345.
Kraft, Jr., L. M., and S. C. Helfrich. 1983. “Bearing Capacity of Shallow
Footing, Sand over Clay.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal 20: 182–
185.
Latha, G. M., A. Somwanshi, and K. H. Reddy. 2013. “A Multiple Regression
Equation for Prediction of Bearing Capacity of Geosynthetic Reinforced
Sand Beds.” Indian Geotechnical Journal 43 (4): 331–343.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING   15
Love, J. P., H. J. Burd, G. W. E. Milligan, and G. T. Houlsby. 1987. “Analytical
and Model Studies of Reinforcement of a Layer of Granular Fill on a Soft
Clay Subgrade.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal 24: 611–622.
Madhav, M. R., and J. S. N. Sharma. 1991. “Bearing Capacity of Clay
Overlain by Stiff Soil.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 117 (12):
1941–1948.
Mandel, J., and J. Salencon. 1972. “Force portante d’un sol sur une assire
rigide (etude théorique).” Geotechnique 22 (1): 79–93.
Merlfleld, R. S., S. W. Sloan, and H. S. Yu. 1999. “Rigorous Plasticity
Solutions for Thebearing Capacity of Two-layered Clays.” Geotechnique
49 (4): 471–490.
Meyerhof, G. G. 1951. “The Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Foundations.”
Géotechnique 2: 301–332.
Meyerhof, G.G. 1953. “The Bearing Capacity of Foundations un-
der Eccentric and Inclined Load.”[Strength of a ground on a rig-
id assay (theoretical study).] In Proceedings of 3rd ICSMFE, vol. 1,
Meyerhof, G. G. 1974. “Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Footings on Sand
Layer Overlying Clay.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal 11: 223–229.
Meyerhof, G. G., and A. M. Hanna. 1978. “Ultimate Bearing Capacity
of Foundations on Layered Soils under Inclined Load.” Canadian
Geotechnical Journal 15 (4): 565–572.
Michalowski, R. L. 1997. “An Estimate of the Influence of Soil Weight on
Bearing Capacity Using Limit Analysis.” Soils and Foundations 37 (4):
57–64.
Michalowski, R. L., and L. Shi. 1995. “Bearing Capacity of Footings over
Two-Layer Foundation Soils.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 121
(5); 421–428.
Michalowski, R. L., and L. Shi. 1996. “Bearing Capacity of Footings
over Two-layer Foundation Soils: Closure.” Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering 122 (8): 701–702.
Okamura, M., J. Takemura, and T. Kimura. 1997. “Centrifuge Model Tests
Bearing Capacity and Deformation of Sand Layer Overlying Clay.” Soils
and Foundations 37 (1): 73–88.
Pfeifle, T. W., and B. M. Das. 1979. “Model Tests for Bearing Capacity
in Sand.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE 105 (9):
1112–1116.
Purushothamaraj, P., B. K. Ramiah, and K. N. V. Rao. 1974. “Bearing
Capacity of Strip Footings in Two Layered Cohesive-friction Soils.”
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 11: 32–45.
Ranjan, G., R. M. Vasan, and H. D. Charan. 1996. “Probabilistic Analysis
of Randomly Distributed Fiber-reinforced Soil.” Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering 122 (6): 419–426.
Satyanarayana, A. M., and R. K. Garg. 1980. “Bearing Capacity of Footings
on Layered c–φ Soils.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division,
ASCE 106 (Gt7): 819–824.
Selig, E. T., and K. E. McKee. 1961. “Static and Dynamic Behaviour of
Small Footings.” Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division,
ASCE 87: 29–47.
Siraj-Eldine, K., and A. Bottero. 1987. “Etude experimentale de la capacite
portante d’une couche de sol pulverulent d’epaisseur limitee.” Canadian
Geotechnical Journal 24: 242–251.
Sitharam, T. G., S. Sireesh, and S. K. Dash. 2005. “Model Studies of a
Circular Footing Supported on Geocell-Reinforced Clay.” Canadian
Geotechnical Journal 42: 693–703.
Sivareddy, A., and R. J. Srinivasan. 1967. “Bearing Capacity of Footings
on Layered Clays.” Proceedings Journal of the Soil Mechanics and
Foundations Division 93 (SM2): 83–99.
Sloan, S. W. 1981. “Numerical Analysis of Incompressible and Plastic
Solids Using Finite Elements.” Ph.D. Thes., University of Cambridge,
Cambridge.
Sloan, S. W., and M. F. Randolph. 1982. “Numerical Prediction of Collapse
Loads Using Finite Element Methods.” International Journal for
Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics 6: 47–76.
Tani, K., and W. H. Craig. 1995. “Bearing Capacity of Circular Foundations
on Soft Clay of Strength Increasing with Depth.” Soils and Foundations
35 (4): 21–35.
Tournier, J. P., and D. M. Milović. 1977. “Etude experimentale de la capacite
portante d’une couche compressible d’epaisseur limitee.” Géotechnique
27 (2): 111–123.
16   A. BISWAS AND A. MURALI KRISHNA

Valsangkar, A. J., and G. G. Meyerhof. 1979. “Experimental Study of
Punching Coefficients and Shape Factor for Two-layered Soils.”
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 16 (4): 802–805.
Vesic, A. S. 1973. “Analysis of Ultimate Loads of Shallow Foundations.”
Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE 99 (SM1):
45–73.
Vesic, A. S. 1975. “Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations.” In Foundation
Engineering Hand Book, edited by Hsai-Yang Fang, 144–165, New York:
Van Nostrand Reinhold Book Co..
Yilmaz, M. T., and B. S. Bakir. 2009. “Capacity of Shallow Foundations
on Saturated Cohesionless Soils under Combined Loading.” Canadian
Geotechnical Journal 46: 639–649.
Yin, J. H., Y. J. Wang, and A. P. S. Selvadurai. 2001. “Influence of
Nonassociativity on the Bearing Capacity of a Strip Footing.” Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 127 (11): 985–989.

View publication stats