HBRC Journal (2016) 12, 71–77

Housing and Building National Research Center

HBRC Journal

http://ees.elsevier.com/hbrcj

Bearing capacity of circular footing resting

on granular soil overlying soft clay
Kamal Mohamed Hafez Ismail Ibrahim

Civil Engineering Dep., Suez Canal University, Egypt

Received 5 March 2014; revised 30 June 2014; accepted 8 July 2014

KEYWORDS Abstract The bearing capacity of footings constructed on soft clay soil is considerably governed by
Bearing capacity; soil settlement. In practice, the bearing capacity of foundations on soft clay can be improved by a
Granular soil; layer of compacted sand or gravel. In this study numerical analysis is performed using the Mohr
Relative density; Column model and some of the results are ensured by field plate loading observations. It is dem-
Soft soil; onstrated that the ultimate bearing capacity is directly proportional to the angle of internal friction
Circular footing; of granular soil ‘‘/’’, the granular layer thickness ‘‘H’’, and the foundation depth ‘‘D’’, while at the
Foundation depth same time it is inversely proportional to the footing diameter ‘‘B’’. The ultimate capacity of surface
footings (D/B = 0 and H/B >2) increases about 67% if the granular soil changes from medium to
very dense. A significant enhancement in bearing capacity is achieved by increasing the ratio
between the granular soil thickness and the footing diameter ‘‘H/B’’ up to four for surface founda-
tions (D/B = 0) and up to six for deeper foundations (D/B = 1.0). The failure mechanism is char-
acterized by punch shear failure in the granular soil and Prandtl1 failure in the lower soft clay soil.
The ultimate bearing capacity is also directly proportional to the extension ‘‘x’’ of granular soil
measured from the footing edge up to a ratio equal to one (x/B = 1).
ª 2014 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Housing and Building National Research
Center.

Introduction half-space and found that failure under limited footings is

The foundation on soft clay soil should achieve both safe shear
stresses and safe settlement. Prandtl [1] studied surface strip
footing over a perfectly plastic cohesive-frictional weightless
E-mail address: kmhi123@Yahoo.com
Peer review under responsibility of Housing and Building National
Research Center.
Production and hosting by Elsevier
characterized by punching shear failure. Reissner [2] extended
the solution to include the effect of a uniform surcharge load
on the resistance of penetration of the ultimate applied load.
Terzaghi [3] introduced the concept of ultimate bearing
capacity (qu) and presented a comprehensive theory for the
evaluation of such capacity under shallow foundations. For
circular footings:
qu ¼ 1:3cNc þ c1 D Nq þ 0:3c2 B Nc ½1:3 ð1Þ
where; Nc, Nq, Nc, are functions of internal friction angle, /.
D and B are foundation depth and footing diameter
respectively.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hbrcj.2014.07.004
1687-4048 ª 2014 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Housing and Building National Research Center.
72
c1 and c2 are soil unit weight of fill and foundation soil
respectively.
c is soil cohesion.
For surface foundation on undrained saturated clay,
Nc = 5.7, Nq = 1 and Nc = 0 and qu = 1.3cNc.
The general bearing capacity theories proposed by
Meyerhof [4], Hansen [5], Vesic [6] and others are used in foun-
dation design checking on critical bearing capacity in the pres-
ence of loose and soft layers. The effect of ground water table
is considered by calculating the soil effective stresses within the
soil surface and deeper layers that extend to a depth equals the
footing width below the foundation level.
Vesic [7] classified the bearing capacity modes of failure into
general, local and punch failure. If the soil is incompressible and
has finite shear strength, a footing on this soil will fail in
general shear, while if the soil is very compressible like soft clay
it will fail in punching shear.
Meyerhof [8], studied dense sand overlying soft clay. The
failure shape is a truncated pyramid pushed into clay. The fric-
tion angle ‘‘/’’ and the soil cohesion ‘‘c’’ are both mobilized in
the failure zone. The test results agree with field observations.
Cerato and Lutenegger [9], Dewaiker and Mohapatro [10]
found that small-scale model footing test produces higher
values of bearing capacities than theoretical equations. In
practice, the bearing capacity of foundations on soft clay can
be improved by a layer of compacted sand or gravel. Exact
solutions introduced by Kenny and Andrawes [11] allow
development of a simple method to solve this problem. They
presented a theoretical model for footings on sand layer
overlying clay deposits. Model tests were carried out in the lab-
oratory to evaluate the stress-settlement relationship for sand
alone, for clay sub grade alone, and for sand overlying clay.
Results are compared with experimental data reported by
other researchers and presented in a chart.
Bowels [12] expressed the thickness of subsoil below shal-
low foundation which influences the bearing capacity by
B /
H¼ tanð450 þ Þ ð2Þ
2 2
where B is the width of shallow foundation, and / is the angle
of soil internal friction. In engineering practice, it is usually
assumed that H = 2B (PN-81/B-03020 [13]).
Methods for calculating the bearing capacity of multi-layer
soils range from averaging the strength parameters using limit
equilibrium considerations to a more rigorous limit analysis
approach (Michalowski and Shi [14]). Semi empirical
approaches have also been proposed based on experimental
studies (Meyerhof and Hanna [15]). The finite element method
can handle very complex layered patterns, and has also been
applied to this problem. (Burd and Frydman [16]).
Theory and test results show that the influence of the upper
soil layer thickness beneath the footing depends mainly on the
shear strength parameters and bearing capacity ratio of the
layers, the shape and depth of the foundation, and the inclina-
tion of the load. Sand overlying clay is one of those problem-
atic soil profiles indentified by Cassidy et al. [17] which may
cause punch through. Madhav and Sharma [18] examined
the bearing capacity of a footing resting on stiff upper layer
overlaying soft clay. The stiff layer distributes the applied
uniform stress on the soft soil over a much larger width. The
loading on the clay soil is considered to be uniform (qu) over
a width, B and to decrease linearly or exponentially with
K.M.H. Ismail Ibrahim
distance. Hanna and Meyerhof [19] cover the case of footings
on subsoil of dense sand overlying soft clay and presented the
results in the form of design charts.
Oda and Win [20] investigated the ultimate bearing capacity
of footings on a sand layer overlaying a clay layer. They con-
cluded that plastic flow occurs in the lateral direction in the
clay layer, exerts drag force on the upper sand layer which
results in loss of bearing capacity.
AbdulhaHz O. et al. [21] calculated the bearing capacity of
weak clay layer overlaid by a dense sand layer, based on the
assumption that the pattern of the failure surface is a punching
shear failure through the sand layer and Prandtl0 s failure mode
in the weak clay layer as a function of the properties of soils,
the footing width, and the topsoil thickness.
Murat et al. [22] found that there was no significant scale
effect of the circular footing resting on natural clay deposits
stabilized with a cover of compacted granular-fill layers.
The bearing capacity of granular soil overlying soft clay soil
is still a great challenge due to comprehensive punching failure
that takes place in soft clay and also due to the low bearing
capacity. This paper focuses its study on variable factors which
affect the global bearing capacity such as: granular soil thick-
ness, relative density, foundation depth, footing size, and the
extension of granular soil with respect to footing edge.
Material and methods
Fig. 1, shows a sketch of the studied case which consists of a
rigid circular footing with diameter ‘‘B’’ constructed at foun-
dation depth ‘‘D’’. The subsoil is a compacted granular sandy
soil with extension ‘‘x’’ from the footing edge and thickness
‘‘H’’ underlain by saturated soft clay. The compacted granular
soil is used to enhance the bearing capacity at the foundation
level. The soil and the footing properties are shown in Table 1.
Two series of soils are studied. In series 1 the granular soil cho-
sen is medium to loose sand. In series 2 the granular soil cho-
sen is very dense sand and in both series the subsoil is saturated
soft clay.
Fig. 2 shows the field loading test which consists of a circu-
lar loaded rigid steel plate 10 mm thickness and diameter 0.2 m
resting on the surface of ground pit. The pit is 2.5 m in diam-
eter (>12B) and its depth is 2.0 m (>6B). The soil in the pit
consists of either coarse dense graduated granular sandy soil
or medium to fine sand with thickness ‘‘H’’ underlain by
saturated soft clay with un-drained cohesion 21 kPa. The
Fig. 1 Circular footing constructed on granular soil underlain
by soft clay soil.
Bearing capacity of circular footing resting on granular soil overlying soft clay 73

Table 1 Mechanical property of circular footing and the sub-soil.

Element Soil type Model C (kPa) / w c (kN/m3) Es (kN/m2) m
Upper layer (drained) Medium to loose sand (series 1) Mohr Column 1 35 5 19.0 20000 0.30
Very dense sand (series 2) Mohr Column 45 12 22 50000 0.29
Lower layer (undrained) Soft clay Mohr Column 21 0 0 20 4000 0.50
Footing Steel Elastic     2E8 0.30

Fig. 2 Sketch of field loading test.

granular soil is compacted in layers with a constant thickness

10 cm and constant energy. The field density of the upper layer
is determined using the sand cone test while the core cutter is
used to determine the field density of clay soil. The load is
applied using a hydraulic jack to lift up a wooden pad
(0.55 kN) resting on four stand barrels. The loaded plate settle-
ment is recorded using a vertical dial gauge (accuracy
0.002 mm) against continuous additional load of a counted
number of cement bags (0.5 kN) used as counter weight which
is adjusted symmetrical in a manner to prevent overturning of
the wooden pad. Two series of tests are performed on very
dense sand (cd = 22 kN/m3), and on medium to loose sand
(cd = 19 kN/m3) with different values of ‘‘H’’ and ‘‘D’’. A
direct shear box test was performed on remolded granular
samples prepared with the same field density and water content Fig. 3 Deformed soil mesh due to surface loading applied on
to define its internal angle of friction ‘‘/’’. Vane test was per- circular rigid footing.
formed to determine the un-drained cohesion of soft clay soil.
The loading test was performed 3 h after inundation of the pit
to achieve soil saturation and water drainage. Results and discussions
A numerical finite element analysis using Plaxis [23] pro-
gram is used to solve the problem. Axisymmetric model was Figs. 4 and 5 show a comparison between field observations
chosen to represent the problem where half the footing and and numerical (num.) results of load settlement curves for a
the soil are analyzed. The Mohr-Column theory was used to rigid loaded circular plate with a diameter of ‘‘B = 0.2 m’’
simulate different soil behaviors. A drained condition was cho- supported either on medium to loose sand ‘‘/ = 350’’ or on
sen for granular soil while an un-drained loading was chosen very dense sand ‘‘/ = 450’’ respectively underlain by soft clay
to represent the saturated soft soil. The footing is assumed ‘‘c = 21 kPa’’. It was noticed that field and numerical results
as rigid elastic foundation. The axis of symmetry and the right are compatible to a great extent which means that numerical
vertical boundaries are laterally constrained. The right bound- analysis using the Mohr Column criterion represents the sub-
ary was chosen at a distance approximately 6B from the axis of soil well. The granular soil thickness ‘‘H’’ was tested for 0,
symmetry while the hinged bottom boundary was established B/2, B, 2B and 4B values. Increasing the granular soil thickness
at a depth 6B for vertical and lateral constrains. The deformed and its angle of internal friction increases the ultimate bearing
triangular 15 nodded element soil mesh is shown in Fig. 3. A capacity ‘‘qu’’ and decreases the soil settlement. The ultimate
uniform load multiplier was applied on rigid circular bearing capacity increases from 218 kPa to 350 kPa in case
foundation with radius ‘‘B/2’’ up to failure ‘‘qu’’. of granular thickness equals 2B and when ‘‘/’’ increases from
74 K.M.H. Ismail Ibrahim

q (kN/m2) 0 2
φ=35 , c =21 kN/m , B=0.2 m, D=0

225
H=0-Num.
200
H=B/2-Num.
175 H=B-Num.
150 H=2B-Num.
125 H=4B-Num.
100 H=0-field

75 H=B/2-field

50 H=B-field
H=2B-field
25
H=4B-field
0
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010
Settlement (m)

Fig. 4 Numerical and field load settlement curves for variable granular soil (medium to loose sand) thickness –series 1.

2 0 2
q (kN/m ) φ=45 , c=21 kN/m , B=0.2 m, D=0
400
H=0-Num.
350 H=B/2-Num.
300 H=B-Num.
H=2B-Num.
250
H=4B-Num.
200
H=0-field
150 H=B/2-field

100 H=B-field
H=2B-field
50
H=4B-field
0
0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006
Settlement (m)

Fig. 5 Numerical and field load settlement curves for variable granular soil (very dense sand) thickness –series 2.

qu/ γ B C/γB = 5, D/B=0, B=0.2 m, C=21 kPa

35o to 45o. The load settlement distribution in Fig. 4 is curved 90
while it tends to be linear in Fig 5 which means that in case of 80
very dense sand the soil behavior tends to be more elastic and 70
60
end of loading is sudden at failure. φ=35
50
Fig. 6 shows the normalized ultimate bearing capacity 40 φ=45
‘‘qu/cB’’ with respect to normalized granular thickness 30
‘‘H/B’’ in case of surface circular loaded plate 0.2 m diameter 20
and C/cB approximately equal to 5 for series 1 and 2. It was 10
noticed that the normalized ultimate bearing capacity 0
0 1 2 3 4
‘‘qu/cB’’ increases with the increase in thickness of granular soil H/B
up to a thickness H = 2B. More increase in thickness does not
affect the normalized bearing capacity. It was also noticed that Fig. 6 Distribution of normalized ultimate bearing capacity
increasing the internal angle of friction from 350 to 450 has a ratio ‘‘qu/cB’’ with respect to normalized granular soil thickness
considerable effect on increasing the normalized ultimate ratio ‘‘H/B’’.
bearing capacity as it increased from 51 to about 85 (i.e.
increases about 67%).
Figs. 7–9 show the distribution of normalized ultimate internal frictions underlain by soft clay ‘‘c = 21 kPa’’. Differ-
bearing capacity ‘‘qu/cB’’ with respect to the ratio ‘‘H/B’’ ent descending size footing diameters were chosen such that
which resulted from numerical analysis for surface footing c/cB = 0.5, 1 and 2 respectively. It was noticed that the
‘‘D/B = 0’’ in case of granular soil with different angle of ultimate load capacity increases by increasing: the angle of
Bearing capacity of circular footing resting on granular soil overlying soft clay 75

35 D/B=0 footing diameter no more significant enhancement in the nor-

C/γB =0.5 malized ultimate bearing capacity is realized.
30
Figs. 10–12 show the distribution of normalized ultimate
25 φ=30 load capacity ‘‘qu/cB’’ with the ratio ‘‘H/B’’ for footings hav-
qu/γB 20 φ=35 ing deeper foundation depth ‘‘D/B = 1’’ in cases of granular
15 φ=40 soil with different angle of internal frictions underlain by soft
10 φ=45 clay ‘‘c = 21 kPa’’, for c/cB = 0.5, 1 and 2 respectively. It was
noticed that the normalized ultimate load capacity increases
5
with the increase in foundation depth ‘‘D’’. If we compare
0 Fig. 6 where D/B = 0 with Fig. 10 where D/B = 1 and /
0 1 2 3 4
= 45o at H/B = 4 we will find that the normalized ultimate
H/B
bearing capacity qu/cB increases from 42 to 48 i.e. approxi-
Fig. 7 Distribution of normalized ultimate bearing capacity with mately 14.5% due to the increase in foundation depth. Also
respect to normalized granular soil thickness in case of D/B = 0 for D/B = 1 and H/B greater than 6 the normalized ultimate
and C/cB = 0.5. bearing capacity becomes constant i.e. for granular thickness
more than six times the footing diameter no more significant
enhancement in the normalized ultimate bearing capacity
40 D/B=0 was realized. Increasing the foundation depth ratio D/B from
35 C/γB =1.0 0 to 1 increases the effective range of H/B from 4 to 6.
30
Figs. 13 and 14 show the load settlement distribution for
φ=30 different extensions ‘‘x’’ in case of very dense and medium to
qu/γB 25
20 φ=35 loose granular soil underlain by soft clay ‘‘c = 21 kPa’’. It
φ=40 was noticed that increasing the granular soil extension ‘‘x’’
15
φ=45
increases the ultimate bearing capacity. Fig. 13 shows that
10
when the granular soil extension goes to be as raft (x equals
5
about 5.5B) the ultimate capacity is about 2750 kN/m2 while
0
in case of no granular soil extension ‘‘x = 0’’ the ultimate
0 1 2 3 4
H/B

Fig. 8 Distribution of normalized ultimate bearing capacity with 100 D/B=1

respect to normalized granular soil thickness in case of D/B = 0 C/γB =0.5
and C/cB = 1.0. 80
qu/γB φ=30
60
φ=35
50 D/B=0 φ=40
40
C/γB =2.0
40
φ=45
20
φ=30
qu/γB 30
φ=35 0
φ=40 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
20
H/B
φ=45
10
Fig. 10 Distribution of normalized ultimate bearing capacity
0 with respect to normalized granular soil thickness in case of D/
0 1 2 3 4 B = 1 and C/cB = 0.5.
H/B

Fig. 9 Distribution of normalized ultimate bearing capacity with

100 D/B=1
respect to normalized granular soil thickness in case of D/B = 0
C/γB =1.0
and C/cB = 2.0. qu/γB 80
φ=30
60
φ=35
internal friction ‘‘/’’ of granular fill, the ratio c/cB and the
granular soil thickness ‘‘H’’. The effect of the angle of internal 40 φ=40
friction on increasing the ultimate bearing capacity is consider- φ=45
20
able for H/B ratios greater than 2, for less ratios the enhance-
ment is not highly effective. Greater values of c/cB mean 0
footings with small diameter. Comparing Figs. 7–9 at H/B 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
equals 4 and / = 450, it is noticed that qu/cB equals 33, 35 H/B
and 42, so increasing the footing diameter decreases the ulti-
mate bearing capacity. For D/B = 0 and H/B greater than 4 Fig. 11 Distribution of normalized ultimate bearing capacity
the normalized ultimate bearing capacity is found to be with respect to normalized granular soil thickness in case of D/
constant i.e. for granular thickness more than four times the B = 1 and C/cB = 1.0.
76 K.M.H. Ismail Ibrahim

120 D/B=1 qu/ γB 45 φ = 45

qu/γB C/γB =2.0 40
100 35
80 φ=30 30
25
60 φ=35
20 φ = 35
φ=40 15
40
φ=45 10
20 5
0
0
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
X/B
H/B
Fig. 15 Normalized ultimate load distribution for different
Fig. 12 Distribution of normalized ultimate bearing capacity
granular extensions ‘‘x’’ in case of dense and medium granular fill.
with respect to normalized granular soil thickness in case of
D/B = 1 and C/cB = 2.0.

q (kN/m2)
c=21 kN/m2, φ=45, B=2.4 m, H=3.25B
3000

2500
X = 5.5B
2000
X = 1.6B
1500 X= B
X =0.85 B
1000
X=0

500

0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Settlement (m)

Fig. 13 Load settlement distribution for different granular

extensions ‘‘x’’ in case of very dense granular soil.

Fig. 16 Plastic points at ultimate failure load in case of

q (kN/m ) 2 H/B = 4, / = 45, D/B = 0, x/B = 1.6.
C=21 kN/m2, φ=35, B=2.4 m, H=3.25B
900
800
700 Fig. 15 shows the effect of increasing the granular soil
600 X =5.5 B extension ‘‘x’’ on the normalized ultimate bearing capacity
500 1.6B q/cB in case of very dense and medium to loose granular soil
400 X=0.85B
underlain by soft clay. It was noticed that increasing the gran-
300 x=0
ular extension ‘‘x’’ increases the normalized ultimate bearing
200 capacity up to an extension ‘‘x’’ equals the footing diameter
100 i.e. X/B = 1.0. More extension ‘‘x’’ does not any more
0 enhance the normalized ultimate bearing capacity.
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15
Fig. 16 shows the plastic points that arise at ultimate load
Settlement (m)
in granular soil with extension ‘‘x/B = 1.6’’ from footing edge.
Fig. 14 Load settlement distribution for different granular It is noticed that the mode of failure is divided into 3 zones.
extensions ‘‘x’’ in case of medium to loose granular soil. Zone 1 is the concentration of stress points under the loaded
area in the granular soil. Zone 2 is the concentration of shear
stresses at vertical interface between granular soil and soft
clay. Zone 3 is punch stresses in soft clay soil.
bearing capacity decreases to be 485 kPa. Also comparing
Figs. 13 and 14, it is noticed that the ultimate bearing capacity
Conclusions
in case of very dense sand increases from 2300 kN/m2 to
2750 kN/m2 (increases about 19.5%) when x increases from
1.6B to 5.5B while the ultimate bearing capacity in case of - There is a good agreement between field plate loading
medium to loose sand increases from 780 kN/m2 to about observations and corresponding numerical results using
850 kN/m2 (increases about 9%) when ‘‘x’’ increases from the Mohr Column model for circular footings constructed
1.6B to 5.5B. on granular soil underlain by soft clay. Also the normalized
Bearing capacity of circular footing resting on granular soil overlying soft clay
ultimate bearing capacity increases by 67% when the gran-
ular soil is having (H/B >2) changes from medium to very
dense sand.
- In case of small size surface foundation (c/cB = 5,
D/B = 0), increasing the granular soil thickness more than
twice the footing width (H/B >2) has no effect on increas-
ing the normalized ultimate bearing capacity.
- In case of relatively big size surface foundation (c/cB <2,
D/B = 0), increasing the granular soil thickness (H/B >2
and <4) has a considerable effect on increasing the normal-
ized ultimate bearing capacity. If the same foundation goes
deeper (c/cB <2, D/B = 1) the granular soil thickness that
causes an increase in normalized ultimate bearing capacity
ranges between H/B >2 and <6.
- Increasing the footing diameter decreases the ultimate bear-
ing capacity.
- The ultimate bearing capacity increases with the increase in
granular soil extension ‘‘x’’ up to a ratio ‘‘x/B = 1.0’’. For
greater ratios more than one no more increase in bearing
capacity is noticed.
- In case of limited extensions ‘‘x/B <1.6’’, the failure mech-
anism is characterized by punching shear in granular soil,
and Prandtl failure in soft clay soil.
Conflict of interest
None declared.
References
[1] L. Prandtl, Uber die eindringungsfestigkeit plastisher baustoffe
und die festigkeit von schneiden.i, Zeitschrift fur Angewandte
Mathematik und Mechanik 1 (1) (1921) 15–20.
[2] H. Reissner, Erdduckproblem, in: Proceedings First International
Conference on Applied Mechanics, Delft, 1924: 295–311.
[3] K. Terzaghi, Theoretical Soil Mechanics, Wiley, New York, 1943.
[4] G.G. Meyerhof, Some recent research on the bearing capacity of
foundations, Can. Geotech. J. 1 (1963) 16–31.
[5] J.B. Hansen, A revised and extended formula for bearing
capacity, Geoteknisk Inst. Bull. 28 (1970) 5–11.
[6] A.S. Vesic, Analysis of ultimate loads of shallow foundations,
ASCE J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. 99 (1) (1973) 45–73.
77
[7] A.S. Vesić, Bearing capacity of shallow foundations, in: H.F.
Winterkorn, H.Y. Fang (Eds.), Foundation Engineering
Handbook, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1975, pp.
121–147.
[8] G.G. Meyerhof, Ultimate bearing capacity of footings on sand
layer overlying clay, Can. Geotech. J. 11 (1974) 223–229.
[9] A.B. Cerato, A.J. Lutenegger, Scale effects of shallow
foundation bearing capacity on granular material, J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng. ASCE 133 (10) (2007) 1192–1202.
[10] D.M. Dewaiker, B.G. Mohapatro, Computation of bearing
capacity factor- Terzaghi’s Mechanism, Int. J. Geomech. 3 (1)
(2003) 123–128.
[11] M.J. Kenny, K.Z. Andrawes, The bearing capacity of footings
on sand layer overlying soft clay, Geotechnique 47 (1997) 339–
345.
[12] J.E. Bowles, Foundations analysis and design, McGraw-Hill
Publishing Company, New York, 1996.
[13] PN-81/B–03020, Posadowienie bezpośrednie budowli, 1981.
[14] R.L. Michalowski, L. SHI, Bearing capacity of footings over
two-layer foundation soils, J. Geotech. Eng. ASCE 121 (5)
(1995) 421–428.
[15] G.G. Meyerhof, A.M. Hanna, Ultimate bearing capacity of
foundations on layered soils under inclined load, Can. Geotech.
J. 15 (4) (1978) 565–572.
[16] H.J. Burd, S. Frydman, Bearing capacity of plane-strain footing
on layered soils, Can. Geotech. J. 34 (1997) 241–253.
[17] M.L. Cassidy, K.L. Tech, C.F. Leung, Y.K. Chow, M.F.
Randolph, C.K. Quah, Revealing the bearing capacity
mechanism of a penetrating spudcan through sand overlying
clay, Geotechnique 58 (10) (2008) 793–804.
[18] M.R. Madhav, J.S.N. Sharma, Bearing capacity of clay overlain
by stiff soil, J. Geotech. Eng. 117 (12) (1991) 1941–1947.
[19] A.M. Hanna, G.G. Meyerhof, Design charts for ultimate
bearing capacity of foundations on sand overlaying soft clay,
Can. Geotech. J. 17 (1980) 300–303.
[20] M. Oda, S. Win, Ultimate bearing capacity tests on sand
with clay layer, J. Geotech. Eng. 116 (12) (1990) 1902–1906.
[21] Abdulhahz O. Al-Shenawy, Awad A. Al-Karni, Derivation of
bearing capacity equation for a two layered system of weak clay
layer overlaid by dense sand layer, Pertanika J. Sci. Technol. 13
(2) (2005) 213–235.
[22] O. Murat, D. Ahmet, L. Mustafal, Y. Abdulazim, Numerical
analysis of circular footings on natural clay stabilized with
granular fill, Soils Found. 52 (1) (2012) 69–80.
[23] PLAXIS, Finite Element program for Soil and Rock Analysis,
A. A. Balkema Publishers, 2002.