Ch3 Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations (1-37) - 2016

CHAPTER 3
BEARING CAPACITY
OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS
3.1 MODES OF FAILURE

Failure is defined as mobilizing the full value of soil shear strength accompanied with
excessive settlements. For shallow foundations it depends on soil type, particularly its
compressibility, and type of loading.
Modes of failure in soil at ultimate load are of three types; these are:
Mode of Failure Characteristics Typical Soils
1. General Shear failure Well defined continuous slip Low compressibility soils
surface up to ground level, Very dense sands,
Heaving occurs on both Saturated clays (NC and OC),
sides with final collapse and Undrained shear (fast loading).
tilting on one side,
Failure is sudden and
catastrophic,
Ultimate value is peak value.
Well defined slip surfaces Moderate compressibility soils

2. local Shear failure only below the foundation, Medium dense sands,
(Transition) discontinuous either side,
Large vertical displacements
required before slip surfaces
appear at ground level,
Some heaving occurs on
both sides with no tilting and
no catastrophic failure,
No peak value, ultimate
value not defined.
3. Punching Shear failure Well defined slip surfaces High compressibility soils
only below the foundation, Very loose sands,
non either side, Partially saturated clays,
Large vertical displacements NC clay in drained shear
produced by soil (very slow loading),
compressibility, Peats.
No heaving, no tilting or
catastrophic failure, no
ultimate value.
Fig.(3.1): Modes of failure.

Foundation Engineering / Dr.Rafi M.S. Chapter 3: Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations
3.2 CONTACT PRESSURE

The pressure acting between a footing's base and the soil below is referred to as contact
pressure. Knowledge of contact pressure and associated shear and moment distributions is
important in footing design.
Contact pressure can be computed by using the flexural formula:-
P M x .y M y .x
q .........(3.1)
A Ix Iy
where:
q= contact preesure,
P = total axial vertical load = D.L. + L.L.,
A= area of footing,
M x ,..M y total moment about respective x and y axes,
I x ,..I y moment of inertia about respective x and y axes,
x, y = distance from centriod to the point at which the contact pressure is computed along
respective x and y axes.
P D.L L.L P D.L L.L P D.L L.L

center line
center line
e e
L L L
Or
P
q act . q min. q min.
Af
center line
q max . q max .
(a) Concentric load (b) Eccentric load
Fig.(3.2): Contact pressure distribution under footings.
As shown in Figure (3.1a), if the moments about both x and y axes are zero, then, the
contact pressure is simply equal to the total vertical load divided by the footing's area. While in
case of moment or (moments), the contact pressure below the footing will be non-uniform (see
Fig.(3.1b)).
2
Assuming that moment is only in (L direction), due to the moment, there is non-uniform
contact pressure below the footing under the following three cases:
Case (1):
When moment in (L- direction only) and e x L / 6 P = D.L.+L.L.
M L B.L3
e x = eccentricity = ; c ; I ;
M
P 2 12
M.c 6M L/3 L/6 L/6 L/3
; M = P..e x P
I B.L2 q act .
Af
6 P.e x L
P
q max .
B.L B.L2 M.c

I
P 6 P.e x M.c
q min. +
B.L 2
B.L I
P 6.e x q min.
min .
q max
.
or 1
B.L L q max .
When moments (in both directions) and e x L / 6 ; e y B / 6
My Mx y
ex ; ey My
P P
P 6 P.e x 6 P.e y ex
Mx
min .
or q max
.
B.L B.L2 B 2 .L ey
B x x
P 6.e x 6.e y
min .
q max 1
.
or
B.L L B
L
y P=
Case (2): When moment in (L direction) only and e x L / 6 D.L.+L.L.
ex
P 6.e x P L 2 P
q max . 1 = 1 =
B.L L B.L L B.L
L/3 L/6 L/6 L/3
P 6.e x P L
q min. 1 = 1 =0
B.L L B.L L q min. = 0
q max .
3
Case (3): When moment in (L direction) only and e x L / 6

P = q . B. L
1 P =
P q max . .L1 .B .....(a) D.L.+L.L.
2 ex
L L
e 1 ......(b)
3 2
2 P
From equation (a): q max . (c) L/6
L1 .B
L L/2
From equation (b): L1 3 e x ....(d)
2 ex L1/3
Substituting equation (d) into equation (c) gives: q min. = 0
q max .
2. P
q max .
L L1
3.B e x
2
P =
D.L.+L.L.
Example (3.1): (Contact pressure)

Proportion a footing subjected to concentric column load (1600 kN) and to an overturning
moment (800 kN-m), if q all. =200 kPa ?
Solution:
M 800
ex = 0.5 m; put q max . q all. of soil
P 1600
P 6.e x 1600 3
or q max . 1 ; 200 = 1
B.L L B.L L
Area Proportion: Choose B and L such that (L/B < 2.0)
L (m) B (m) Area (m2) L/B
Let, L = 6e = 3 5.40 16.20 0.55 < 2.0
4 3.50 14.00 1.14 < 2.0
5 2.56 12.80 1.95 < 2.0 take L = 5.0 and B = 2.6
6 2.00 12.00 3.00 > 2.0
7 1.63 11.42 4.29 > 2.0
Check: L/6 = 5/6 = 0.83m > e x 0.5m the resultant is within the middle 3rd. (O.K.)
4
3.3 BEARING CAPACITY CLASSIFICATION

Gross Bearing Capacity ( q gross ): It is the total unit pressure at the base of footing
which the soil can take up. P
G.S.
q D f .
Df Do
t
B
q gross = total pressure at the base of footing = Pfooting / area.of .footing .
where Pfooting p.(column.load ) + own wt. of footing + own wt. of earth fill over the
footing.
q gross (P s .D o .B.L c .t.B.L) / B.L
P
q gross s .D o c .t .....(3.2)
B.L
Ultimate Bearing Capacity ( q ult. ): It is the maximum unit pressure or the maximum
gross pressure that a soil can stand without shear failure.
Allowable Bearing Capacity ( q all. ): It is the ultimate bearing capacity divided by a

reasonable factor of safety.
q ult.
q all. ........................................................(3.3)
F.S
Net Ultimate Bearing Capacity: It is the ultimate bearing capacity minus the vertical
pressure that is produced on horizontal plain at level of the base of the foundation by an
adjacent surcharge.
q ult.net q ult. D f . ..........(3.4)
Allowable Bearing Capacity ( q all. net ): It is the net safe bearing capacity or the
ultimate bearing capacity divided by a reasonable factor of safety.
q ult. net q ult. D f .
Approximate: q all. net ..................(3.5)
F.S F.S
q ult.
Exact: q all. net D f . ..................................(3.6)
F.S
5
3.4 FACTOR OF SAFETY IN DESIGN OF FOUNDATION

The choice of factor of safety (F.S.) depends on many factors such as:
1. The variation of shear strength of soil,
2. Magnitude of damages,
3. Reliability of soil data such as uncertainties in predicting the q ult. by the theoretical or
empirical methods,
4. Changes in soil properties due to construction operations,
5. Relative cost of increasing or decreasing F.S., and
6. The importance of the structure, differential settlements and soil strata underneath the
structure.
The general values of safety factor used in design of footings are 2.5 to 3.0. The upper value
(3.0) is normally used for normal design load in service conditions and the lower value (2.5)
is used for maximum or transient loading conditions such as wind load or earthquakes.
3.5 BEARING CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS

Three requirements must be satisfied in determining bearing capacity of soil. These are:
(1) Adequate depth; the foundation must be deep enough with respect to environmental
effects; such as:
Depth of frost penetration,
Depth of seasonal volume changes in the soil,
To exclude the possibility of erosion and undermining of the supporting soil by
water and wind currents, and
To minimize the possibility of damage by construction operations,
(2) Tolerable settlements, the bearing capacity must be low enough to ensure that both
total and differential settlements of all foundations under the planned structure are
within the allowable values,
(3) Safety against failure, this failure is of two kinds:
The structural failure of the foundation; which may be occur if the foundation
itself is not properly designed to sustain the imposed stresses, and
The bearing capacity failure of the supporting soils.
3.6 FACTORS AFFECTING BEARING CAPACITY

1. Type of soil (cohesive or cohesionless),
2. Physical features of the foundation; such as size, depth, shape, type, and rigidity,
3. Total and differential settlements that the structure can stand,
4. Physical properties of soil; such as density and shear strength parameters,
5. The water table condition, and
6. Original stresses.
6
3.7 METHODS OF DETERMINING BEARING CAPACITY

(A) BEARING CAPACITY TABLES
The bearing capacity values can be found from certain tables presented in building
codes, soil mechanics and foundation books. They are based on experience and can be only used
for preliminary design of light and small buildings as a helpful indication; however, they should
be followed by the essential laboratory and field soil tests.
(B) FIELD LOAD TEST

This test is fully explained in (section 2.10Chapter 2).
(C) BEARING CAPACITY EQUATIONS

Several bearing capacity theories were proposed for estimating the ultimate bearing
capacity of shallow foundations. Some of important bearing capacity equations are presented in
Table (3.1).
Table (3.1): Bearing capacity equations by the several authors indicated.
Meyerhof (see Table 3.2 for shape, depth, and inclination factors)
Vertical load: qult. c.Nc .Sc .dc q.Nq .Sq .dq 0.5.B..N .S .d
Inclined load: q ult. c.Nc .dc .ic q.Nq .dq .iq 0.5.B..N .d .i
N q e . tan tan 2 (45 / 2) ; N c ( N q 1). cot ; N ( N q 1). tan(1.4)
Hansen (see Table 3.3 for shape, depth, and inclination factors)
For.. 0 : qult. cNcScdcicgcbc qNqSqdqiqgq bq 0.5.B..N S d i g b

For.. 0 : qult. 5.14Su (1 Sc dc ic bc gc ) q
N q e . tan tan 2 (45 / 2) ; N c ( N q 1). cot ; N 1.5( Nq 1). tan
Vesic (see Table 3.3 for shape, depth, and inclination factors)
Use Hansen's equations above
N q e . tan tan 2 (45 / 2) ; N c ( N q 1). cot ; N 2( Nq 1). tan
7
Table (3.2): Shape, depth and inclination factors for Meyerhof's equation.
For Shape Factors Depth Factors Inclination Factors

2
B Df
Any Sc 1 0.2.K P d c 1 0.2 K P i c i q 1
L B 90
2
B Df
10 Sq S 1 0.1.K P d q d 1 0.1 K P i 1
L B
0 Sq S 1.0 dq d 1.0 i 0
2
Where: K P tan (45 / 2) R
angle of resultant measured from vertical without a sign.
B, L , Df = width, length, and depth of footing.
B
Note:- When triaxial is used for plan strain, adjust as: Ps (1.1 0.1 )triaxial
L
Important Notes:
8
All the bearing capacity equations above are based on general shear failure in soil.
For local shear failure (for medium dense sands, when D r 0.67 or for clays
sheared in drained conditions, Terzaghi (1943) suggested that the shear strength
parameters c and should be reduced as:
c* 0.67c and * tan1(0.67 tan ) ......(3.7)
Due to scale effects, N and then the ultimate bearing capacity decreases with
increase in size of foundation. Therefore, Bowle's (1996) suggested that for (B > 2m),
with any bearing capacity equation of Table (3.1), the term ( 0.5B.N S d ) must be
B
multiplied by a reduction factor: r 1 0.25 log ; i.e., 0.5B.N S d r
2
B (m) 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 5 10 20 100
r 1 0.97 0.95 0.93 0.92 0.90 0.82 0.75 0.57
3.8 EFFECT OF WATER TABLE

Through submergence, all the three terms of the bearing capacity (B.C.) equations may be
considerably reduced. Therefore, it is essential that the B.C. analysis be made assuming the
highest possible groundwater level at the particular location for the expected life time of the
structure.
G.S. W.T.
Case (5)
D1 W.T.
Df Case (4)
D2
B W.T.
Case (3)
m W.T. dw
Case (2)
W.T.
15 Case (1)
Case (1):
If the water table (W.T.) lies at B or more below the foundation base; no W.T. effect.
Case (2):
a- (from Foundation Engg. Handbook Ref.): If the water table (W.T.) lies within the depth
1
( d w <B) ; (i.e., between the base and the depth B), use av. in the term .B.N as:
2
From Meyerhof: av. (d w / B)( m ) ...(3.8a)
9
b- (from Foundation Analysis and Design Ref.): If the water table (W.T.) lies within the
1
wedge zone { H 0.5B tan(45 / 2) }; use av. in the term .B.N as:
2
d
From Bowles: av. (2H d w ) w . wet (H d w ) 2 .(3.8b)
2 2
H H
where,
H 0.5B tan(45 / 2) ,
= submerged unit weight =( sat. w ),
d w = depth to W.T. below the base of footing, and
m wet = moist or wet unit weight of soil in depth ( d w ).
Note:
1
Since in many cases of practical purposes, the term .B.N can be ignored for
2
1
conservative results, it is recommended for this case to, use in the term .B.N
2
instead of av.
Since ( av. ( from..Meyerhof ) av. ( from..Bowles ) ).
Case (3): If d w = 0 ; the water table (W.T.) lies at the base of the foundation; use
Case (4): If the water table (W.T.) lies above the base of the foundation; use:
1
q t .D1(above..W.T.) .D 2 (below..W.T.) and in .B.N term.
2
Case (5): If the water table (W.T.) lies at ground surface (G.S.); use: q .D f and
1
in .B.N term.
2
Note:
All the preceding considerations are based on the assumption that the seepage forces acting
on soil skeleton are negligible. The seepage force adds a component to the body forces
caused by gravity. This component acting in the direction of stream lines is equal to (i. w ) ,
where i is the hydraulic gradient causing seepage.
Example (3.2): (Ultimate bearing capacity)

A footing load test produced the following data: D f = 0.5m, B = 0.5m, L = 2.0m,
soil 9.31 kN/m3, c = 0 kN/m2, tr 42.5 , Qult.(measured ) = 1863 kN, and q ult.(measured )
= 1863/(0.5)(2.0) = 1863 kN/m2. Compute q ult. by Meyerhof's and Hansen's equations and
compare computed with measured values.
10
Solution:
(a) By Meyerhof's equation:
From Table (3.1) for vertical load with c = 0:
q ult. qN q Sq d q 0.5 .B.N S d
B 0 .5
From Table (3.2): ps (1.1 0.1 ) tr = (1.1 - 0.1 )42.5 = 45.7; Take 46
L 2 .0
Bearing capacity factors from Table (3.1):
For 46 : Nq e. tan .. tan2 (45 / 2) 158.5 , N ( Nq 1) tan(1.4.) 328.7
Shape factors from Table (3.2): K p tan 2 (45 / 2) =6.13

B 0.5
Sq S 1 0.1.K p 1 0.1(6.13) 1.15
L 2.0
Depth factors from Table (3.2):
D 0.5
K p 2.47 , dq d 1 0.1. K p f 1 0.1(2.47) 1.25
B 0.5
q ult. 0.5(9.31)(158.5)(1.15)(1.25) + 0.5(9.31)(0.5)(328.7)(1.15)(1.25) = 2160.4 kN/m2
(b) By Hansen's equation:

Since c = 0, and all g i ..and..b i factors are 1.0; the Hansen's equation simplifies to:
From Table (3.3): L / B = 2 / 0.5 = 4 > 2 ....use..... ps 1.5tr 17 ,
1.5 (42.5) 17 = 46.75 ; Take 47

For 47 : Nq e. tan .. tan2 (45 / 2) 187.2 , N 1.5( Nq 1) tan 299.5
Shape factors from Table (3.3):
B 0.5 B 0.5
Sq 1 tan 1 tan 47 1.27, S 1 0.4 1 0.4 0.9
L 2.0 L 2.0
Df
Depth factors from Table (3.3): dq 1 2 tan (1 sin )2
B
0.5
d q 1 2 tan 47(1 sin 47) 2 1.155 , d 1.0
0.5
q ult. 0.5 (9.31)(187.2)(1.27)(1.155) + 0.5(9.31)(0.5)(299.5)(0.9)(1.0) = 1905.6 kN/m2
Versus 1863 kN/m2 measured.
Both Hansen's and Meyerhof's equations give over-estimated q ult. compared with
measured.
11
Example (3.3): (Effect of water table)

A vertically and concentrically loaded (2.5m x 2.5m) square footing is to be placed on a
cohesionless soil as shown below. What is the allowable B.C. using the Hansen equation
and a safety factor (SF) = 2.0?
P
G.S.
m = 18.1 kN/m3
D f =1.1m c 0 kN/m2
1.95m
2.5m x 2.5m tr. 35
w 10%
W.T. Gs 2.68
sat = ?
Solution:
(1 ).Gs. (1 0.10)(2.68)(9.81)
m = ; e 0.597
1 e 1 e
Gs e (2.68 0.597)
sat . (9.81) = 20.12 kN/m3
1 e 1.597
From figure d w 0.85m and H 0.5B tan(45 / 2) = 2.4m

( d w H ); i.e., the water table (W.T.) lies within the wedge zone H 0.5B tan(45 / 2) .
1
Therefore, use av. in the term .B.N :
2
d
av. (2H d w ) w . wet (H d w ) 2
2 2
H H
0.85 (20.12 9.81)

av. (2)(2.4) 0.85) (18.1) (2.4 0.85)2 14.85 kN/m3
2 2
2.4 2.4
By Hansen's equation:
q ult. cN cSc d c i c g c b c qN q Sq d q i q g q b q 0.5.B.N S d i g b
Since c = 0, any factors with subscript c do not need computing. Also, all g i ..and..b i factors
are 1.0; with these factors identified the Hansen's equation simplifies to:
q ult. qN qSqdq 0.5 av . .B.N S d .r
No need to compute ps , since footing is square.
For 35 : Nq e. tan .. tan2 (45 / 2) 33.3 and N 1.5( Nq 1) tan 33.9
B B
Shape factors: from Table (3.3): Sq 1 tan 1.7 and S 1 0.4 0.6
L L
12
Df
Depth factors: from Table (3.3): dq 1 2 tan (1 sin )
2
, and d 1.0
B
d q 1 2 tan 35(1 sin 35) 2 (1.1/ 2.5) 1.11,
B 2.5
r 1 0.25 log 1 0.25 log 0.976
2 2
q ult. (1.1)(18.1)(33.3)(1.7)(1.11)+ 0.5(14.85)(2.5)(33.9)(0.6)(1.0)(0.976) = 1619.6 kN/m2
q all. =1619.6 / 2 810 kN/m2
Note: 810 kN/m2 is a very large bearing pressure; since in most cases, the allowable
bearing capacity does not exceed 500 kN/m2.
Example (3.4): (Allowable net bearing capacity)

Determine the allowable net bearing capacity of a strip footing using Hansen Equations if
c = 0, 30 , D f = 1.0m , B = 1.0m , soil 19 kN/m3, the water table is at ground
surface, and SF=3.
Solution:
(a) By Hansen's equation:
For.. 0 : q ult. cN cSc d c i c g c b c qN q Sq d q i q g q b q 0.5.B.N S d i g b
Since c = 0, any factors with subscript c do not need computing. Also, all g i ..and..b i factors
are 1.0; with these factors identified the Hansen's equation simplifies to:
for........... 34 ..use.. ps tr
From Table (3.3): ...use...ps 1.5tr 17
for L/B 2 ..use.. ps 1.5tr 17
.....ps (1.5)(30) 17 = 28
For 28 : Nq e. tan .. tan2 (45 / 2) 14.7 , N 1.5( Nq 1) tan 10.9
Shape factors from Table (3.3): Sq S 1.0,
Df
Depth factors from Table (3.3): dq 1 2 tan (1 sin )2
B
1
dq 1 2. tan 28(1 sin 28)2 1.29 and d 1.0
1
q ult. 1.0 (19-9.81)(14.7)(1.29) + 0.5(1)(19 9.81)(10.9)(1.0) = 224.355 kN/m2
q all. =224.355/3 = 74.785 kN/m2
qall.(net ) 74.785 (1)(19 9.81) 66 kN/m2
13
Example (3.5): (Allowable bearing capacity of tilted base footing )

A (2.0m x 2.0m) square footing has the geometry and load as shown in figure below. Is the
footing adequate with a SF = 3.0?.
P
G.S.
Df = 0.3m
H
P = 600 kN B = 17.5 kN/m3
H = 200 kN 10
B = 2m c = 25 kN/m2, 25
Solution:
We can use either Hansen's, or Meyerhof's or Vesic's equations. An arbitrary choice is

Hansen's method.
Check Sliding Stability:

2 2
Use ; Ca c and Af (2)(2) 4m2
3 3
2 2
H max . Af Ca V tan (2)(2)( 25) 600 tan 25 246.3 kN
3 3
H 246.3
Fs(slididing) max . 1.2 1.5 (Not safe for sliding), therefore, increase (B)
H 200
301.1
Try B x B = 2.7m x 2.7m , Fs(slididing) 1.5 1.5 (O.K.)
200
Bearing Capacity By Hansen's Equation:
With inclination factors all..Si 1.0

q ult. cN c .dc .ic .bc qNq .dq .iq .bq 0.5.B.N .d .i .b .r

N c ( N q 1). cot , N q e . tan .. tan 2 (45 / 2) , N 1.5( N q 1) tan
For 25 : N c 20.7 , N q 10.7 , N 6.8

For Df = 0.3m, and B = 2.7m: Df / B = 0.3/2.7 = 0.11 < 1.0 (shallow footing)
D
d c 1 0.4 f 1 0.4(0.11) 1.044
B
D
d q 1 2 tan (1 sin )2 f 1 0.311(0.11) 1.034 , d 1.0
B
14
Inclination factors from Table (3.3):

0.5H 0.5(200)
iq (1 )5 (1 )5 0.587
V Af .c. cot 600 (2.7)(2.7)(25) cot 25
(1 iq ) 1 0.587
ic iq 0.587 0.544
( N q 1) 10.7 1
5 5
(0.7 / 450) H (0.7 10 / 450)200
for.. 0 : i 1 1 0.479
V Af .c. cot 600 (2.7)(2.7)( 25) cot 25
B 2.7
r 1 0.25 log 1 0.25 log 0.967
2 2
Base factors from Table (3.3): 10 (10)( / 180) 0.175.(in..radians )

10
bc 1 1 0.93
147 147
bq e2 tan e2(0.175) tan 25 0.85
b e2.7 tan e2.7(0.175) tan 25 0.80
q ult. 25(20.7)(1.044)(0.544)(0.93) + 0.3(17.5)(10.7)(1.034)(0.587)(0.85)

+ 0.5(17.5)(2.7)(6.8)(1)(0.479)(0.80)(0.967) = 361.843 kN/m2
q ult.( net ) 361.843 0.3(17.5)

S.F. 4.3 > 3.0 (O.K.)
q all 600
(2.7)( 2.7)
3.9 FOOTINGS WITH INCLINED OR ECCENTRIC LOADS

INCLINED LOAD:
If a footing is subjected to an inclined load Q (see Fig.(3.4)), the inclined load is resolved
into vertical and horizontal components. The vertical component Q v can then be used for
bearing capacity analysis in the same manner as described previously (Table 3.1). Then after the
bearing capacity has been computed by the normal procedure, it must be multiplied by the
reduction factor R i using Fig.(3.4) as:
q ult.(inclined..load) q ult.( vertical ..load) ..R i .......(3.9)
Note: In this case, Meyerhof's bearing capacity equation for inclined load (from Table 3.1) can
be used directly:
q ult. (inclined..load) cN c d c i c qN q d q i q 0.5 .B.N d i ..(3.10)
15
(a) Horizontal foundation (b) Inclined foundation
Figure (3.4): Inclined load reduction factors.
Also, in this case, the footings stability with regard to the inclined load's horizontal
component must be checked by calculating the factor of safety against sliding as:
H
Fs (slididing) max . ........(3.11)
H
where:
H = the inclined load's horizontal component,
Hmax . Af .Ca tan . for ( c ) soils; or
H max . A f .C a ... for the undrained case in clay ( u 0 ); or
H max . tan .. for sand and the drained case in clay ( c 0 ).
Af effective..area B.L
C a adhesion .C u where... 1.0 .for soft to medium clays; and
. 0.5 ..for stiff clays,
= the net vertical effective load = Q v D f . ; or

(Q v D f .) u.Af (If the water table lies above foundation level)
= the skin friction angle, which can be taken as equal to ( ), and
u = the pore water pressure at foundation level.
16
ECCENTRIC LOAD:
To provide adequate SF(against ...lifting ) of the footing edge, it is recommended that the
eccentricity ( e B / 6 ). Footings with eccentric loads can be analyzed for bearing capacity by
two methods:
(1) Concept of useful width:
In this method, only that part of the footing that is symmetrical with regard to the load is
used to determine bearing capacity by the usual method, with the remainder of the footing
being ignored.
First, computes eccentricity and adjusted dimensions:

My Mx
ex ; L L 2e x ; ey
; B B 2e y ; Af A B.L
V V
Second, calculates q ult. from Meyerhof's, or Hansen's, or Vesic's equations (Table 3.1)
1
using B in the ( B..N ) term and B or/ and L in computing the shape factors and
2
the actual B in computing depth factors.
(2) Application of reduction factors:

First, computes bearing capacity by the normal procedure (using equations of Table 3.1),
assuming that the load is applied at the centroid of the footing. The computed value is then
corrected for eccentricity by a reduction factor ( R e ) obtained from Fig.(3.5) or from
R e 1 - 2(e/B) ........for.. cohesive.. soil

...(3.12)
R e 1 - e/B ..... ....for..cohesionles s..soil

q ult.(eccentric ) q ult.(concentric ) ..R e ................(3.13)
Fig.(3.5): Eccentric load reduction factors.
17
Example (3.6): (Footing with inclined load)

A square footing of (1.5m x1.5m) is subjected to an inclined load as shown in figure below.
What is the factor of safety against bearing capacity (use Meyerhofs equation).
30
G.S. 180 kN
D f = 1.5m = 20 kN/m3
q u 160
B = 1.5m
kPa
4m
W.T.
Solution:
Bearing capacity By Meyerhof's equation:

From Table (3.1) for vertical load:
qult. c.Nc .Sc .dc q.Nq .Sq .dq 0.5.B..N .S .d
Bearing capacity factors: For u 0 : N c 5.14 , N q 1.0 , N 0
Shape factors from Table (3.2): K p tan 2 (45 / 2) = 1.0

B 1.5 B 1.5
Sc 1 0.2.K P 1 0.2(1) 1.2 , Sq S 1 0.1.K p 1 0.1(1.0) 1.1
L 1.5 L 1.5
D 1.5 D 1.5
d c 1 0.2 K P f 1 0.2(1) 1.2 , d q d 1 0.1. K p f 1 0.1(1.0) 1.1
B 1.5 B 1.5
q ult.( vertical .load) (160/2)(5.14)(1.2)(1.2) + (1.5)(20)(1.0)(1.1)(1.1) + 0 = 628.428 kN/m2
From Fig.(3.6) with 30 and cohesive soil: the reduction factor R i for the inclined load
is 0.42.
q ult.(inclined.load) = 628.428(0.42) = 264 kN/m2
Q v Q. cos 30 = 180 (0.866) = 155.88 kN ,
Q ult. 264(1.5)(1.5)
Factor of safety (against bearing capacity failure) = 3.8
Qv 155.88
Check for sliding:
Q h Q. sin 30 = 180 (0.5) = 90 kN
H max . Af .C a tan = (1.5)(1.5)(80) + (180)(cos30)(tan0)=180 kN
H 180
Factor of safety (against sliding) max . 2.0 (O.K.)
Qh 90
18
Example (3.7): (Footing with eccentric loads in both directions)

A (1.8m x1.8m) square footing is loaded with axial load Q =1780 kN and subjected to M x
= 267 kN-m and M y = 160.2 kN-m moments. Undrained Triaxial tests of unsaturated soil
samples give c 9.4 kN/m2, 36 and 18.1 kN/m3. If D f = 1.8m and the water table
is at 6m below the G.S., what is the allowable soil pressure if S.F.= 3.0 using:-
(a) Hansen bearing capacity and
(b) Meyerhof's reduction factors.
Solution:
267 160.2
ey 0.15m ; e x 0.09m
1780 1780
B B 2e y 1.8 2(0.15) 1.5m ; L L 2e x 1.8 2(0.09) 1.62m
(a) Using Hansen's equation:

With...all...ii ,..gi ..and...bi ..factors...are...1.0 , the ultimate bearing capacity equation will be:
q ult. cN c .Sc .d c qN q .Sq .d q 0.5 .B.N .S .d

For 36 :
Nc ( Nq 1).cot = 50.6
N q e . tan .. tan 2 (45 / 2) = 37.8

N 1.5( N q 1) tan = 40
N q B 37.8 1.5
Sc 1 1 1.692
N c L 50.6 1.62
B 1.5
Sq 1 tan 1 tan 36 1.673
L 1.62
B 1.5
S 1 0.4 1 0.4 0.629
L 1.62
For Df =1.8m, and B = 1.8m, Df / B = 1.0 (shallow footing)
D
dc 1 0.4 f 1 0.4(1.0) 1.4
B
D
dq 1 2 tan (1 sin )2 f 1 2 tan(36)(1 sin 36)2 (1.0) 1.246
B
d 1.0
q ult. = 9.4(50.6)(1.692)(1.4) + 1.8(18.1)(37.7)(1.673)(1.246)
+ 0.5(18.1)(1.5)(40)(0.629)(1) = 4028.635 kN/m2
19
q all. 4028.635 / 3 1342.878 kN/m2
q act . (Actual soil pressure) = 1780 / (1.5)(1.62) = 732.510 < 1342.878 (O.K.)
(b) Using Meyerhof's reduction:

e 0.09 0.5
R ex 1 ( x )1/ 2 1 ( ) 0.78
L 1.8
ey 0.15 0.5
R ey 1 ( )1/ 2 1 ( ) 0.72
B 1.8
Re-compute q ult. as for a centrally loaded footing from:-
q ult. cN c .Sc .d c qN q .Sq .d q 0.5.B.N .S .d
Since bearing capacity and depth factors are unchanged, only the shape factors need to be
calculated as:
The revised shape factors from Table (3.3) are:

Nq B 37.8 1.8
Sc 1 1 1.75
Nc L 50.6 1.8
B 1.8
Sq 1 tan 1 tan 36 1.73
L 1.8
B 1.8
S 1 0.4 1 0.4 0.60
L 1.8
q ult. = 9.4(50.6)(1.75)(1.4) + 1.8(18.1)(37.7)(1.73)(1.246)

+ 0.5(18.1)(1.8)(40)(0.60)(1) = 4212.403 kN/m2
4212.403
qall.(centrally . loaded.foo ting) 1404.134 kN/m2
3
qall.(eccentric . loaded..fo oting) = q all.( (R )(R ey )

centrally. loaded.foo ting) ex
= 1404.134(0.78)(0.72) = 788.35 kN/m2 (Very high)
q act . (Actual soil pressure) = 1780/(1.8)(1.8) = 549.383 < 788.35 (O.K.)
20
3.10 BEARING CAPACITY FOR FOOTINGS ON LAYERED SOILS

Stratified soil deposits are of common occurrence. It was found that when a footing is
placed on stratified soils and the thickness of the top stratum form the base of the footing ( d1 or
H ) is less than the depth of penetration [ Hcrit . 0.5B tan(45 / 2) ]; in this case the rupture
zone will extend into the lower layer (s) depending on their thickness and therefore require some
modification of ultimate bearing capacity ( qult. ).
Several solutions have been proposed to estimate the bearing capacity of footings on
layered soils; however, they are limited for the following three general cases:-
Case (1): Footing on layered clays (all = 0) (see Fig.(3.6)):

(a) Top layer stronger than lower layer ( C2 / C1 1).
(b) Top layer weaker than lower layer ( C2 / C1 > 1).
The first situation occurs when the footing is placed on a stiff clay or dense sand stratum
followed by a relatively soft normally consolidated clay. The failure in this case is basically a
punching failure. While, the second situation is found when the footing is placed on a relatively
thin layer of soft clay overlying stiff clay or rock. The failure in this case occurs, at least in part
by lateral plastic flow.
G.S.
B B
Soft layer c1 , 1 H Stiff layer c1 , 1 H
Stiff layer c 2 , 2 Soft layer c 2 , 2
(a) (b)
Fig.(3.6): Typical two-layer soil profiles.
Hansen Equation (Ref., Bowles's Book, 1996)

For both cases (a, and b), q ult. is calculated from Table (3.1) for = 0 as:
qult. Su .Nc .(1 Sc dc ic bc gc ) q .....(3.14)

If the inclination, base and ground effects are neglected, then equation (3.14) will be:-
qult. Su .Nc .(1 Sc dc ) q .........(3.15a)
21
In this method, S u is calculated as an average value C avg. depending on the depth of

penetration ( H crit . 0.5B tan(45 ) , while N c = 5.14. So that, equation (3.15a) is written
as:
q ult. 5.14.C avg. (1 Sc d c ) q .....(3.15b)
where:
C1H C 2 [Hcrit - H]
S u C avg. = ,
Hcrit
Df Df D
Sc 0.2 B , and d c 0.4 for 1 or dc 0.4 tan1 f (radians) for ( Df / B ).
L B B B
Case (2): Footing on layered c soils (see Fig.(3.7)):

(a) Top layer stronger than lower layer ( C2 / C1 1).
(b) Top layer weaker than lower layer ( C2 / C1 > 1).
G.S.
Df B
H or d1 1 , c1 , 1 Layer (1)
d2 2 , c 2 , 2 Layer (2)
Fig.(3.7): Typical two-layer soil profiles.

(1) Compute Hcrit . 0.5B tan(45 1 / 2) using 1 for the top layer.
(2) If H crit . H compute the modified values of c and as:
Hc1 (H crit . H)c 2 H1 (H crit . H) 2
c* ; *
H crit . H crit .
Hint: A possible alternative for c soils with a number of thin layers is to use average
values of c and in bearing capacity equations of Table (3.1) as:
c H c H ..... c n H n H tan .1 H 2 tan .2 ..... H n tan .n
cav. 1 1 2 2 ; av. tan 1 1
Hi Hi
(3) Use Hansen's equation from Table (3.1) for q ult. with c * and * as:
q ult. c * N cSc d c i c g c b c qN q Sq d q i q g q b q 0.5BN S d i g b .(3.16)
If the effects of inclination, ground and base factors are neglected, then equation (3.31) will
takes the form:
22
q ult. c * N cSc d c qN q Sq d q 0.5BN S d ................(3.17)

where:
N c ( N q 1) cot * , N q e tan * tan 2 (45 * / 2) , N 1.5( N q 1) tan *
Nq B B B
Sc 1 , Sq 1 tan * , and S 1 0.4
Nc L L L

d c 1 0.4k , d q 1 2 tan * (1 sin *) 2 k, and d 1.0
Df D D D
where: k ..for.. f 1 or k tan1 f .(radians )..for.. f 1 .
B B B B
(4) Otherwise, if H crit . H , then q ult. is estimated as the bearing capacity of the first soil layer
q ult. q t whether it is sand or clay.
Case (3): Footing on layered sand and clay soils:

(a) Sand overlying clay.
(b) Clay overlying sand.

(1) Compute H crit . 0.5B tan(45 1 / 2) using 1 for the top layer.
(2) If H crit . H , for both cases; sand overlying clay or clay overlying sand, estimate q ult. as
follows:
p.Pv.K s . tan 1 p.d1c1
q ult. q b q t ............(3.18)
Af Af
where:
q t , q b = ultimate bearing capacities of the footing with respect to top and bottom soils ,
for sand or clay with 0 :
q t c1Nc1Sc1d c1 1Df Nq1Sq1d q1 0.5B1N 1S1d 1 .....................(3.19a)
q b c 2 N c2Sc2 d c2 1 (D f H) N q 2Sq 2 d q 2 0.5B 2 N 2S 2 d 2 ....(3.19b)
for clay in undrained condition ( u 0 ):

q t 5.14Su (1 Sc dc ) 1D f ................(3.19c)
q b 5.14Su (1 Sc dc ) 1 (D f H) ............(3.19d)
Hansen's bearing capacity factors from Table (3.1) with ( i ):
N c ( N q 1) cot , N q e . tan tan 2 (45 / 2) , N 1.5( N q 1) tan
23
Nq B B B
Shape factors from Table (3.3): S c 1 , Sq 1 tan , S 1 0.4
Nc L L L
Depth factors from Table (3.3): d c 1 0.4k , dq 1 2 tan (1 sin )2 k, d 1.0
where:
Df D D D
k ..for.. f 1 or k tan1 f .(radians )..for.. f 1 .
B B B B
p = total perimeter for punching = 2 (B + L) or .D (diameter),
Pv = total vertical pressure from footing base to lower soil computed from in Fig. (3.8) as:
d1
d12
1h.dh qd1 1 2
1D f .d1
0
Fig.(3.8): Footings on layered soils.
K s = lateral earth pressure coefficient

= tan 2 (45 / 2) or use K o 1 sin ,
tan = coefficient of friction,
pd1c1 = cohesion on perimeter as a force,
A f = area of footing.
(3) Otherwise, if H crit . H , then q ult. is estimated as the bearing capacity of the first soil layer
q ult. q t whether it is sand or clay.
24
Example (3.8): (Footing on layered clay)

A (3.0m x 6.0m) rectangular footing is to be placed on a two-layer clay deposit shown in
figure. Estimate the ultimate bearing capacity (use Hansen's equation)?
P
G.S.
1.83m c1 Su 77 kPa
Clay (1) 3m 0
17.26 kN/m3
H =1.5m
1.22m
c2 Su 115
Clay (2)
kPa
Solution:
Hcrit . 0.5B tan .(45 1 / 2) = 0.5(3) tan (45) = 1.5m > 1.22m
the critical depth penetrated into the 2nd. layer of soil.
For case (1); clay on clay layers using Hansen's equation (From Bowles's Book, 1996):
q ult. 5.14.C avg. (1 Sc d c ) q
where:
C1H C 2 [Hcrit - H] 77(1.22) 115 (1.5 - 1.22)
S u C avg. = 84.093
Hcrit 1.5
Sc 0.2B / L 0.2(3 / 6) 0.1 ;
For Df / B 1 : dc 0.4D / B 0.4.(1.83 / 3) 0.24
q ult. = 5.14(84.093)1 0.1 0.24 1.83(17.26) 610.784 kPa
25
Example (3.9): (footing on c soils)

A (1.5m x 2.0m) rectangular footing is to be constructed on layered soils shown in figure.
Check its adequacy against shear failure (use Hansen's equation, F.S. = 3.0, and w =10
kN/m3). P = 300 kN
G.S.
Soil Soil Soil 0.8m W.T.
parameter
(1) (2) (3) Soil (1)
Gs 2.70 2.65 2.75 1.5m x 2m 0.4m
e 0.8 0.9 0.85
Soil (2) 0.5m
c (kPa) 10 60 80
35 0 0
Soil (3)
Solution:
G s . w 2.70(10)
d1 15 kN/m3
1 e 1 0.8
(G s e) w (2.70 0.8)10
sat1 19.4 kN/m3
1 e 1 0.8
G s . w 2.65(10)
d2 18.7 kN/m3
1 e 1 0.9
(2.75 0.85)10
sat 2 19.45 kN/m3
1 0.85
Hcrit . 0.5B tan .(45 1 / 2) = 0.5(1.5) tan(45) = 0.75m 0.50m
the critical depth penetrated into the soil layer (3).
Since soils (2) and (3) are of clay layers, therefore; use Hansen's equation (for 0 ):
q ult. 5.14C avg. (1 Sc d c ) q
where:
C1H C 2 [Hcrit - H] 60(0.5) 80 (0.75 - 0.50)
C avg. = 66.67
Hcrit 0.75
Sc 0.2B / L 0.2(1.5 / 2) 0.15 ; For Df / B 1 dc 0.4Df / B 0.4(1.2 / 1.5) 0.32
q ult. =5.14 (66.67)(1+ 0.15 + 0.32) + 0.8(15) + 0.4 (19.45 - 10) = 519.5 kPa
519.5
qall(net ) 15.78 157.4 kPa
3
26
300
qapplied 100 kPa < q all ( net ) 157.4 kPa (O.K.)
(1.5)(2)
Check for squeezing:

For no squeezing of soil beneath the footing: ( q ult. 4c1 q )
4c1 q = 4(60) + [0.8(15) + 0.4 (19.45 - 10)] = 255.78 kPa 519.5 kPa (O.K.)
Example (3.10): (footing on sand overlying clay)

A (2.0m x 2.0m) square footing is to be placed on sand overlying clay as shown in figure.
Estimate the ultimate bearing capacity (use Hansen's equation)?
G.S.
1.50m c1 0 kPa
Sand 2m x 2m 34
17.25
H =1.88m
W.T. 0.60m
kN/m3
Clay Su q u / 2 75 kPa
Solution:
Hcrit . 0.5B tan .(45 1 / 2) = 0.5(2) tan (45 + 34 / 2) = 1.88m > 0.60m
the critical depth penetrated into the 2nd. layer of soil.
For case (3); sand overlying clay using Hansen's equation:

p.Pv.K s . tan 1 p.d1c1
q ult. q b qt
Af Af
where:
FOR SAND LAYER:

q t 1 Df Nq1Sq1 dq1 0.5B 1 N 1S1 d 1
27
Hansen's bearing capacity factors from Table (3.1) with ( 34 ):

N q e tan 34 tan 2 (45 34 / 2) 29.4
N 1.5(29.4 1) tan 34 28.7
B
Sq 1 tan 1.67
L
B
S 1 0.4 0.6
L
D 1.5
dq 1 2 tan .(1 sin ) 2 f 1 2 tan 34.(1 sin 34)2 1.2
B 2
d 1.0
q t 17.25(1.5)(29.4)(1.67)(1.2) + 0.5(2)17.25)(28.7)(0.6)(1.0) = 1821.5 kPa
FOR CLAY LAYER:

q b 5.14Su (1 Sc dc ) q
B 2
Sc 0.2 0.2 0.2 ;
L 2
Df D 1.5 0.6
For 1 : d c 0.4 tan 1 f 0.4 tan 1 ( ) 0.32 ; Sq d q 1
B B 2
q b = 5.14(75)(1 + 0.2 + 0.32) + (1.5 + 0.6)(17.25) = 622 kPa
Now, obtain the punching contribution:

0.6
d1
d12 0.62
Pv 1h.dh qd1 1 1D f d1 = 17.25 17.25.(1.5)(0.6) 18.6 kN/m
2 2
0 0
K o 1 sin 1 sin 34 0.44 ,
2(2 2)(18.6)(0.44) tan 34 2(2 2)(0.6)(0)
q ult. 622 = 633 kPa < ( q t. = 1821.5 kPa)
(2)(2) (2)(2)
633
and q all. 211kPa
3
28
3.11 BEARING CAPACITY OF FOOTINGS ON SLOPES

If footings are on slopes, their bearing capacities are less than those footings on level
ground. In fact, bearing capacity of a footing is inversely proportional to ground slope.
MEYERHOF'S METHOD:
In this method, the ultimate bearing capacity of footings on slopes is computed using the
following equations:
1
(q ult. )strip..footing ..on..slope cN cq .B.N q .....(3.20)
2
(q ult. )c.or.s.footing .on.level.ground
(q ult. )c.or.s.footing .on.slope (q ult. )strip...footing .on.slope .....(3.21)
(q ult. )strip..footing .on.level.ground
where:
N cq and N q are bearing capacity factors for footings on or adjacent to slope; determined
from Fig.(3.9),
c or s footing denotes either circular or square footing, and
(q ult. ) of footing on level ground is calculated from Terzaghi's equation as given below.
q ult. cNc .Sc qNq 0.5.B..N.S ........(3.22)

where

2[0.75. ( )]. tan
e 2 180 tan k P
Nq ; N c ( N q 1). cot ; N ( 1)
2 cos 2 (45 / 2) 2 cos 2
( 33)
And a close approximation of k P 3. tan 2 [45 ].
2
Strip circular square rectangular
Sc = 1.0 1.3 1.3 (1+ 0.3 B / L)
S = 1.0 0.6 0.8 (1- 0.2 B / L)
Notes:
(1) A triaxial should not be adjusted to ps , since the slope edge distorts the failure pattern
such that plane-strain conditions may not develop except for large b / B ratios.
(2) For footings on or adjacent to a slope, the overall slope stability should be checked for
the footing load using method of slices by Bishop's or slope-stability programs such as
SLIDE or PROKON softwares.
29
(a) on face of slope.
Bearing capacity factor ,

Bearing capacity factor ,
Distance of foundation from edge of slope, b/B

Distance of foundation from edge of slope
b/B (for Ns = 0) or b/H (for Ns > 0).
(b) on top of slope.
Fig.(3.9): bearing capacity factors for continuous footing (after Meyerhof).
30
Example (3.11): (footing on top of a slope)

A bearing wall for a building is to be located close to a slope as shown in figure. The
ground water table is located at a great depth. Determine the allowable bearing capacity
using F.S. = 3?
Q
1.5m G.S.
Df 1.0m
6.1m 1.0m
Cohesionless Soil
30
19.5 kN/m3, c =0, 30
Solution:
By Meyerhof's Method
1
(q ult. )strip.footing .on.slope cN cq .B.N q .........(3.20)
2
From Figure (3.18b) with 30 , 30 , b / B 1.5 , and Df / B 1.0 (use the dashed
line): - N q = 40
1
(q ult. )strip.footing .on.slope (0) Ncq (19.5)(1.0)(40) = 390 kN/m2
2
qall. 390 / 3 130 kN/m2

Same conditions as Example (3.11), except that a 1.0m x 1.0m square footing is to be
constructed near the slope.
Q
1.5m G.S.
Df 1.0m
6.1m 1.0m x 1.0m
Cohesionless Soil
30
19.5 kN/m3, c =0, 30
31
Solution:
By Meyerhof's Method
(q ult. )c.or.s.footing .on.level.ground
(q ult. )c.or.s.footing .on.slope (q ult. )strip...footing .on.slope .....(3.21)
ult. strip..footing .on.level.ground
( q )
(q ult. )strip.footing .on.slope 390 kN/m2 (from Example 3.11).
(q ult. ) of square or strip footing on level ground is calculated from Terzaghi's equation:
1
q ult. cN cSc qNq .B..N.S
2
Bearing capacity factors: For 30 ; Nc 37.2,..Nq 22.5,..N 19.7
Shape factors:
for square footing; Sc 1.3 , and S 0.8 ; for strip footing; Sc S 1.0
(q ult. )square.footing .on.level.ground = 0 + 1.0(19.5)(22.5)+ 0.5(1.0)(19.5)(19.7)(0.8) = 592.4 kN/m2
(q ult. )strip..footing .on.level.ground = 0 + 1.0(19.5)(22.5)+ 0.5(1.0)(19.5)(19.7)(1.0) = 630.8 kN/m2
592.4
(q ult. )square.footing .on.slope 390 366.25 kN/m2
630.8
and (qall. )square.footing .on.slope 366.25 / 3 122 kN/m2
qall.(net ) 122 1(19.5) = 102.5 kN/m2 for design purposes.
Homework: (footing on face of a slope)

Resolve Example (3.11), except that a 1.0m x 1.0m square footing is to be constructed on
face of the slope.
Q G.S.
Cohesionless Soil
19.5 kN/m3
Df 1.0m
c = 0, 30
30 1.0m x 1.0m
32

A shallow continuous footing in clay is to be located close to a slope as shown in figure.
The ground water table is located at a great depth. Determine the gross allowable bearing
capacity using F.S. = 4 (use Meyerhof's method).
Q
0.8m G.S.
Df 1.2m
6.2m 1.2m
Clay Soil
30
17.5 kN/m3, c = 50 kN/m2, 0
Solution:
Since B < H assume the stability number Ns 0 and for purely cohesive soil ( 0 ):
(q ult. )continuous.footing .on.slope cNcq
From Fig.(3.9b) for cohesive soil:
b 0.8 D
with 30 , 30 , 0.75 , and f 1.0 (use the dashed line): N cq = 6.3
B 1.2 B
(qult. )continuous.footing .on.slope (50)(6.3) 315 kN/m2
qall.(gross ) 315 / 4 78.8 kN/m2
3.12 BEARING CAPACITY OF FOUNDATIONS

WITH UPLIFT OR TENSION FORCES
Footings in industrial applications such as the legs of elevated water tanks, anchorages for
the anchor cables of transmission towers, bases for legs of power transmission towers, drilled
shafts, with or without enlarged bases and in a number of industrial equipment installations are
subjected to uplift or tension forces.
Meyerhof and Adams (1968) considered this problem for shallow or deep circular and
rectangular footings in cohesionless soil. They neglected the larger pull-out zone observed in the
tests (as ab of Fig.3.10) and used an approximation of shear resistance along line a b . They
developed simplified equations with shape factors and limiting depth ratios Df / B or H/B for
design use. Their equations were verified with models and full-scale tests on circular footings and
gave considerable scatter; however, with a factor of safety of 2.5 the equations found to be
satisfactory.
33
Tu sDf (perimeter) W
G.S.
D
q .L1 L1
s.Df c.Df n tan .(dh )
0
W
G.S. b b Df
H
Df
Shallow B Deep
a
Fig.(3.10): Footings for tension loads.
In general, the ultimate tension resistance is given by: Tult. s.Df .(perimeter) W
with adjustments for depth and shape (whether perimeter is circular or rectangular), this gives the
following:
FOR SHALLOW FOOTINGS:
D2
Circular footings: Tult. BcDf sf B ( f )K u tan W .....(3.22)
2
Rectangular footings: Tult. 2cDf (B L) Df2 (2sf B L B)K u tan W .....(3.23)
where: sf 1 mDf / B
FOR DEEP FOOTINGS:
H
Circular footings: Tult. BcH sf B(2Df H)( )K u tan W ...(3.24)
2
Rectangular footings: Tu lt. 2cH(B L) (2Df H)H(2sf B L B)K u tan W (3.25)
where: s f 1 mH / B
For square footings use L = B.
Obtain ( s f ) and (m) from Table (3.4) shown below, based on ( ).
Table (3.4): Limiting H/B , m, and s f for footings with uplift or tension forces
20 25 30 35 40 45 48
Limiting H/B 2.5 3 4 5 7 9 11
m 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.25 0.35 0.50 0.60
Maximum s f 1.12 1.30 1.60 2.25 4.45 5.50 7.60
The lateral earth pressure coefficient K u can be taken as one of the following:
34
K u tan2 (45 / 2) K p ;
K u tan(45 / 2) K p
K u tan2 (45 / 2) Ka ;
K u 0.65 0.5 ( in radian);
K u Ko 1 sin
Using K o or an average of K p and K a may be reasonable. Then, the allowable tension
resistance is calculated as:
T
Tall. ult. ........(3.26)
F.S.
3.13 FOUNDATIONS ON ROCK

It is common to use the building code values for the allowable bearing capacity of rocks.
However, there are several significant parameters which should be taken into consideration
together with the recommended code value; such as site geology, rock type and quality (as RQD).
Usually, the shear strength parameters c and of rocks are obtained from high Pressure
Triaxial Tests. However, for most rocks 45 except for limestone or shale (38 45)
can be used. Similarly in most cases we could estimate c 5 MPa with a conservative value.
Rock Quality Designation (RQD):

It is an index used by engineers to measure the quality of a rock mass and computed from
recovered core samples as:
RQD..%
lengths..of ..int act ..pieces..of ..core 100mm x 100
length ..of ..core..advance
Table (3.5): Allowable contact pressure q all. of jointed rock.
q all.
RQD % 2 2
Quality
(T/ft ) or (kg/cm ) (kN/m2)
100 300 31678 Excellent
90 200 21119 Very good
75 120 12671 Good
50 65 6864 Medium
25 30 3168 Poor
0 10 1056 Very poor
1.0 (T/ft2) = 105.594 (kN/m2)
Notes:
35
1. If qall. (tabulated) qu (unconfined..compressive..strength) of intact rock sample, then

take qall. q u ,
2. The settlement of the foundation should not exceeds (0.5 inch) or (12.7mm) even for
large loaded area,
3. If the upper part of rock within a depth of a bout (B / 4) is of lower quality, then its
RQD value should be used or that part of rock should be removed.
Any of the bearing capacity equations from Table (3.1) with specified shape factors can be
used to obtain q ult. of rocks, but with bearing capacity factors for sound rock proposed by
(Stagg and Zienkiewicz, 1968) as:
Nc 5 tan4 (45 / 2)
Nq tan6 (45 / 2)
N Nq 1
Then, q ult. must be reduced on the basis of RQD as:-

qult. q ult. (RQD)2
q ult. (RQD)2
and qall.
F.S.
where:
F.S. = Safety factor dependent on RQD. It is common to use F.S. from (6-10) with the
higher values for RQD less than about 0.75.
Example (3.14): (footing with uplift or tension forces)

A square footing of (1.2m x 1.2m x 0.6m) dimensions is placed at depth of 1.8m in a soil of
= 17.3 kN/m3, c = 19.2 kPa , 20 . Estimate the allowable uplift force (use F.S. = 2.5).
Solution:
Df / B = 1.8 / 1.2 =1.5

From Table (3.4): For 20 ; the limiting H/B = 2.5 and m = 0.05
Df / B =1.5 (Limiting H/B = 2.5), therefore, the footing is classified as shallow.
Tult. 2cDf (B L) Df2 (2sf B L B)K u tan W ......(3.23)
sf 1 mDf / B = 1+ 0.05(1.5) = 1.075

K u tan2 (45 20 / 2) 2.04 K p ; K u K p 1.43

K u 0.65 0.5(20)( ) 0.82 ; Ku Ko 1 sin 20 0.658 ;
180
36
Average K u 1.24 (4 - values)
W = weight of concrete + weight of soil replaced

= (1.2)(1.2)(0.6)(24) + (1.2)(1.2)(1.8-0.6)(17.3) = 50.63 kN
Tult. 2(19.2)(1.8)1.2 1.2 17.3(1.8)2 (2)(1.075)(1.2) 1.2 1.2.1.24 tan 20 50.63 281.8.kN
T 281.8
and Tall. ult. 112.72 kN
F.S. 2.5
Example (3.15): (RQD)

A core advance of 1500 mm produced a sample length of 1310 mm consisting of dust,
gravel and intact pieces of rock. If the sum of pieces 100mm or larger in length is 890 mm,
determine:
(1) The recovery ratio (Lr ) , and
(2) (RQD).% .
Solution:
1310 890
The recovery ratio (Lr ) 0.87 and (RQD).% .x.100 59 %
1500 1500
Example (3.16): (foundation on rock)

A pier with a base diameter of 0.9m drilled to a depth of 3m in a rock mass. If RQD = 50%,
45 and c = 3.5 MPa, rock = 25.14 kN/m3, estimate q all. of the pier using Terzaghi's
equation.
Solution:
1
By Terzaghi's equation: q ult. cN c .Sc qN q .B..N.S
2
Shape factors: For circular footing: Sc 1.3 ; and S 0.6
Bearing capacity factors from (Stagg and Zienkiewicz, 1968):
Nc 5 tan4 (45 / 2) , Nq tan6 (45 / 2) , N Nq 1
For 45 : Nc 170 , Nq 198, and N 199
q ult. (3.5)(103 )(170)(1.3) (3)(25.14)(198) 0.5(25.14)(0.9)(199)(0.6) 789.78 kPa

q (RQD) 2 789.78(0.5)2
and q all. ult. 65.815 kPa
F.S. 3.0
37

Ch3 Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations (1-37) - 2016

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Ch3 Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations (1-37) - 2016

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

CHAPTER 3

3.1 MODES OF FAILURE

Well defined slip surfaces Moderate compressibility soils

Fig.(3.1): Modes of failure.

3.2 CONTACT PRESSURE

P D.L L.L P D.L L.L P D.L L.L

(a) Concentric load (b) Eccentric load

Fig.(3.2): Contact pressure distribution under footings.

When moments (in both directions) and e x L / 6 ; e y B / 6

Case (3): When moment in (L direction) only and e x L / 6

Example (3.1): (Contact pressure)

3.3 BEARING CAPACITY CLASSIFICATION

which the soil can take up. P

Allowable Bearing Capacity ( q all. ): It is the ultimate bearing capacity divided by a

3.4 FACTOR OF SAFETY IN DESIGN OF FOUNDATION

3.5 BEARING CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS

3.6 FACTORS AFFECTING BEARING CAPACITY

3.7 METHODS OF DETERMINING BEARING CAPACITY

(B) FIELD LOAD TEST

(C) BEARING CAPACITY EQUATIONS

N q e . tan tan 2 (45 / 2) ; N c ( N q 1). cot ; N ( N q 1). tan(1.4)

For.. 0 : qult. cNcScdcicgcbc qNqSqdqiqgq bq 0.5.B..N S d i g b

N q e . tan tan 2 (45 / 2) ; N c ( N q 1). cot ; N 1.5( Nq 1). tan

Use Hansen's equations above

N q e . tan tan 2 (45 / 2) ; N c ( N q 1). cot ; N 2( Nq 1). tan

For Shape Factors Depth Factors Inclination Factors

3.8 EFFECT OF WATER TABLE

Example (3.2): (Ultimate bearing capacity)

Shape factors from Table (3.2): K p tan 2 (45 / 2) =6.13

(b) By Hansen's equation:

Bearing capacity factors from Table (3.1):

Versus 1863 kN/m2 measured.

Example (3.3): (Effect of water table)

From figure d w 0.85m and H 0.5B tan(45 / 2) = 2.4m

0.85 (20.12 9.81)

Example (3.4): (Allowable net bearing capacity)

Example (3.5): (Allowable bearing capacity of tilted base footing )

We can use either Hansen's, or Meyerhof's or Vesic's equations. An arbitrary choice is

Check Sliding Stability:

Bearing Capacity By Hansen's Equation:

With inclination factors all..Si 1.0

Bearing capacity factors from Table (3.1):

Depth factors from Table (3.3):

Inclination factors from Table (3.3):

Base factors from Table (3.3): 10 (10)( / 180) 0.175.(in..radians )

b e2.7 tan e2.7(0.175) tan 25 0.80

q ult. 25(20.7)(1.044)(0.544)(0.93) + 0.3(17.5)(10.7)(1.034)(0.587)(0.85)

q ult.( net ) 361.843 0.3(17.5)

3.9 FOOTINGS WITH INCLINED OR ECCENTRIC LOADS

q ult.(inclined..load) q ult.( vertical ..load) ..R i .......(3.9)

(a) Horizontal foundation (b) Inclined foundation

Figure (3.4): Inclined load reduction factors.

(1) Concept of useful width:

First, computes eccentricity and adjusted dimensions:

(2) Application of reduction factors:

q ult.(eccentric ) q ult.(concentric ) ..R e ................(3.13)

Fig.(3.5): Eccentric load reduction factors.

Example (3.6): (Footing with inclined load)

Bearing capacity By Meyerhof's equation:

Bearing capacity factors: For u 0 : N c 5.14 , N q 1.0 , N 0

Shape factors from Table (3.2): K p tan 2 (45 / 2) = 1.0

Example (3.7): (Footing with eccentric loads in both directions)

(a) Using Hansen's equation: