Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Module 3
Lecture 10
SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS: ULTIMATE BEARING
CAPACITY
Topics
1.1 THE GENERAL BEARING CAPACITY EQUATION
The ultimate bearing capacity equations presented in equations (3, 7 and 8) are for
continuous, square, and circular foundations only. The do not address the case of
rectangular foundations (0 < 𝐵𝐵/𝐿𝐿 < 1. Also, the equations do not take into account the
shearing resistnace along the failure surface in soil above the bottom of the foundation
(the portion of the failure surface marked as GI and HJ in figure 3.5). In addition, the
load on the foundation may be inclined. To account for all these shortcomings, Meyerhof
(1963) suggested the following form of the general bearing capacity equation:
𝑞𝑞𝑢𝑢 = 𝑐𝑐𝑁𝑁𝑐𝑐 𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝐹𝐹𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 + 𝑞𝑞𝑁𝑁𝑞𝑞 𝐹𝐹𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞 𝐹𝐹𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞 𝐹𝐹𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞 + 12𝛾𝛾𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝛾𝛾 𝐹𝐹𝛾𝛾𝛾𝛾 𝐹𝐹𝛾𝛾𝛾𝛾 𝐹𝐹𝛾𝛾𝛾𝛾 [3.25]
Where
𝑐𝑐 = cohesion
The equations for determining the various factors given in equation (25) are described
briefly in the following sections. Note that the original equation for ultimate bearing
capacity is derived only for the plane-strain case (that is, for continuous foundations).
The shape, depth, and load inclination factors are empirical factors based on experimental
data.
Based on laboratory and field studies of bearing capacity, the basic nature of the failure
surface in soil suggested by Terzaghi now appears to be correct (Vesic, 1973). However,
the angle 𝛼𝛼 as shown in figure 3.5 is closer to 45 + ∅/2 than to ∅. If this change is
accepted, the values of 𝑁𝑁𝑐𝑐 , 𝑁𝑁𝑞𝑞 , and 𝑁𝑁𝛾𝛾 for a given soil friction angle will also change
from those given in table 1. With ∅ = 45 + ∅/2, the relations for 𝑁𝑁𝑐𝑐 and 𝑁𝑁𝑞𝑞 can be
derived as
NPTEL – ADVANCED FOUNDATION ENGINEERING-I
∅
𝑁𝑁𝑞𝑞 = 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡2 �45 + 2 � 𝑒𝑒 𝜋𝜋 tan ∅ [3.26]
The equation for 𝑁𝑁𝑐𝑐 given by equation (27) was originally derived by Prandtl (1921), and
the relation for 𝑁𝑁𝑞𝑞 [equation (26)] was presented by Reissner (1924). Caquot and Kerisel
(1953) and Vesic (1973) gave the relation for 𝑁𝑁𝛾𝛾 as
Table 4 shows the variation of the preceding bearing capacity factors with soil friction
angles.
In many texts and reference books, the relationship for 𝑁𝑁𝛾𝛾 may be different from that in
equation (28). The reason is that there is still some controversy about the variation of 𝑁𝑁𝛾𝛾
with the soil friction angle, 𝜙𝜙. In this text, equation (28) is used.
Other relationships for 𝑁𝑁𝛾𝛾 generally cited are those given by Meyerhof (1963), Hansen
(1970), and Lundgren and Mortensen (1953). They 𝑁𝑁𝛾𝛾 values for various soil friction
angles are given in appendix B (table B-1, B-2, B-3).
19 13.93 5.80 4.68 0.42 0.34 45 133.88 134.88 271.76 1.01 1.00
20 14.83 6.40 5.39 0.43 0.36 46 152.10 158.51 330.35 1.04 1.04
21 15.82 7.07 6.20 0.45 0.38 47 173.64 187.21 403.67 1.08 1.07
22 16.88 7.82 7.13 0.46 0.40 48 199.26 222.31 496.01 1.12 1.11
23 18.05 8.66 8.20 0.48 0.42 49 229.93 265.51 613.16 1.15 1.15
24 19.32 9.60 9.44 0.50 0.45 50 266.89 319.07 762.89 1.20 1.19
25 20.72 10.66 10.88 0.51 0.47
a
After Vesic (1973)
The relationships for the shape factors, depth factors, and inclination factors
recommended for use are shown in table 5. Other relationships generally found in many
texts and references are shown in table B-4 (appendix B).
General Comments
When the water table is present at or near the foundations, the factors 𝑞𝑞 and 𝛾𝛾 given in
the general bearing capacity equations, equation (25), will need modifications. The
procedure for modifying them is the same.
For undrianed loading conditions (𝜙𝜙 = 0 concept) in clayey soils, the general load-
bearing capacity equation [equation (25)] takes the form (vertical load)
−1
𝐷𝐷𝑓𝑓
𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 = 1 + 2 tan 𝜙𝜙(1 − sin 𝜙𝜙) tan � �
𝐵𝐵
𝐹𝐹𝛾𝛾𝛾𝛾 = 1
2
Inclinatio 𝛽𝛽 ° Meyerho
n 𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 = 𝐹𝐹𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞 = �1 − ° � f (1963);
90
Hanna
Where and
𝛽𝛽 = Meyerho
inclination of the load on the foundation with respect to the vertical
f (1981)
a
These shape factors are empirical relations based on extensive laboratory tests.
b
The factors 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1 (𝐷𝐷𝑓𝑓 /𝐵𝐵) is in radians.
Skempton (1951) proposed an equation for the net ultimate baring capacity for clayey
soils (𝜙𝜙 = condition), which is similar to equation (30) :
𝐷𝐷𝑓𝑓 𝐵𝐵
𝑞𝑞net (𝑢𝑢) = 5𝑐𝑐 �1 + 0.2 � �1 + 0.2 𝐿𝐿 � [3.31]
𝐵𝐵
Example 2
A square foundation (𝐵𝐵 × 𝐵𝐵) has to be constructed as shown in figure 3.9. Assume that
𝛾𝛾 = 105 lb/ft 3 , 𝛾𝛾sat = 118 lb/ft 3 , 𝐷𝐷𝑓𝑓 = 4 ft, and 𝐷𝐷1 = 2 ft. The gross allowable load,
𝑄𝑄all , with 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 = 3 is 150,000 lb. The field standard penetration resistance, 𝑁𝑁𝐹𝐹 values are
as follows:
Solution
Using equation (7 from chapter 2) and the Liao and Whitman relationship (table 4 from
chaper 2), the correct standard penetration number can be determined.
NPTEL – ADVANCED FOUNDATION ENGINEERING-I
Figure 3.9
For 𝜙𝜙 = 35° , from table 4, 𝑁𝑁𝑞𝑞 = 33.3, 𝑁𝑁𝛾𝛾 = 48.03. From table 5,
NPTEL – ADVANCED FOUNDATION ENGINEERING-I
𝐵𝐵
𝐹𝐹𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞 = 1 + 𝐿𝐿 tan 𝜙𝜙 = 1 + tan 35 = 1.7
𝐵𝐵
𝐹𝐹𝛾𝛾𝛾𝛾 = 1 − 0.4 � 𝐿𝐿 � = 1 − 0.4 = 0.6
4 1
𝐹𝐹𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞 = 1 + 2 tan 𝜙𝜙(1 − sin 𝜙𝜙)2 = 1 + 2 tan 35(1 − sin 35)2 𝐵𝐵 = 1 + 𝐵𝐵
𝐹𝐹𝛾𝛾𝛾𝛾 = 1
So
1 1 1
𝑞𝑞all = 3 �(321.2)(33.3)(1.7) �1 + B � + �2� (118 − 62.4)(B)(48.03)(0.6)(10�
6061 .04
= 6061.04 + + 267.05𝐵𝐵
B
[b]
Example 3
Refer to example1. Use the definition of factor of safety given by equation (20) and
𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 = 5 to determine the net allowable load for the foundation.
Solution
From example 1,
Hence
Example 4
NPTEL – ADVANCED FOUNDATION ENGINEERING-I
Refer to example 1. Use equation (7) and 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹shear = 1.5 determine the net allowable load
for the foundation.
Solution
tan 𝜙𝜙 tan 20
𝜙𝜙𝑑𝑑 = 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1 �𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 � = 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1 � � = 13.64°
shear 1.5
For 𝜙𝜙 = 13.64° , the values of the bearing capacity factors from table 1 are
Hence
And
Note: There appears to be a large discrepancy between the results of examples 3 (or 1)
and 4. The use of trial and error shows that, when 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹shear is about 1.2, the results are
approximated equal.
In section 3 equation 3, 7, and 8, which were for the case of general shear failure, were
modified to equations 9, 10, and 11 to take into account the change of failure mode in soil
(that is, local shear failure). The change in failure mode is due to soil compressibility. In
order to account for soil compressibility, Vesic (1973) proposed the following
modification to equation (25),
𝑞𝑞𝑢𝑢 = 𝑐𝑐𝑁𝑁𝑐𝑐 𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 + 𝑞𝑞𝑁𝑁𝑞𝑞 𝐹𝐹𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞 𝐹𝐹𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞 𝐹𝐹𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞 + 12𝛾𝛾𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝛾𝛾 𝐹𝐹𝛾𝛾𝛾𝛾 𝐹𝐹𝛾𝛾𝛾𝛾 𝐹𝐹𝛾𝛾𝛾𝛾 [3.32]
Where
NPTEL – ADVANCED FOUNDATION ENGINEERING-I
The soil compressibility factors were derived by Vesic (1973) from the analogy of the
expansion of cavities. According to that theory, in order to calculate 𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 , 𝐹𝐹𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞 , and 𝐹𝐹𝛾𝛾𝛾𝛾 the
following steps should be taken:
1. Calculate the rigidity index, 𝐼𝐼𝑟𝑟 , of the soil at a depth approximately 𝐵𝐵/2 below the
bottom of the foundation, or
𝐺𝐺
𝐼𝐼𝑟𝑟 = 𝑐𝑐+𝑞𝑞 ′ tan 𝜙𝜙 [3.33]
Where
1 𝐵𝐵 𝜙𝜙
𝐼𝐼𝑟𝑟(𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 ) = 2 �exp ��3.30 − 0.45 𝐿𝐿 � cot �45 − 2 ��� [3.34]
The variation of 𝐼𝐼𝑟𝑟(𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 ) for 𝐵𝐵/𝐿𝐿 = 0 and 𝐵𝐵/𝐿𝐿 = 1 are given in table 6.
𝐼𝐼𝑟𝑟(𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 )
𝜙𝜙 (deg) 𝐵𝐵 𝐵𝐵
=0 =1
𝐿𝐿 𝐿𝐿
0 13 8
5 18 11
10 25 15
15 37 20
20 55 30
25 89 44
NPTEL – ADVANCED FOUNDATION ENGINEERING-I
30 152 70
35 283 120
40 592 225
45 1442 482
50 4330 1258
1
After Vesic (1973)
Figure 3.10 shows the variation of 𝐹𝐹𝛾𝛾𝛾𝛾 = 𝐹𝐹𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞 [equation (35)] with 𝜙𝜙 and 𝐼𝐼𝑟𝑟 . For
𝜙𝜙 = 0,
𝐵𝐵
𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 = 0.32 + 0.12 𝐿𝐿 + 0.60 log 𝐼𝐼𝑟𝑟 [3.36]
For 𝜙𝜙 > 0,
1−𝐹𝐹𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞
𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 = 𝐹𝐹𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞 − 𝑁𝑁 [3.37]
𝑞𝑞 tan 𝜙𝜙
Example 5
For a shallow foundation, the following are given: 𝐵𝐵 = 0.6 m, 𝐿𝐿 = 1.2 m, 𝐷𝐷𝑓𝑓 = o. 6 m.
Soil:
𝜙𝜙 = 25°
𝑐𝑐 = 48 kN/m2
NPTEL – ADVANCED FOUNDATION ENGINEERING-I
𝛾𝛾 = 18 kN/m3
Solution
However,
𝐸𝐸
𝐺𝐺 = 2(1+𝜇𝜇 )
So
𝐸𝐸
𝐼𝐼𝑟𝑟 = 2(1+𝜇𝜇 )[𝑐𝑐+𝑞𝑞 ′ tan 𝜙𝜙]
𝐵𝐵 0.6
𝑞𝑞 ′ = 𝛾𝛾 �𝐷𝐷𝑓𝑓 + 2 � = 18 �0.6 + � = 162 kN/m2
2
620
𝐼𝐼𝑟𝑟 = 2(1+0.3)[48+16.2 tan 25] = 4.29
1 0.6 25
�exp ��3.3 − 0.45 1.2� cot �45 − ��� = 62.46
2 2
1−𝐹𝐹𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞
𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 = 𝐹𝐹𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞 − 𝑁𝑁
𝑞𝑞 tan 𝜙𝜙
1−0.347
𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 = 0.347 − 10.66 tan 25 = 0.216
𝑞𝑞𝑢𝑢 = 𝑐𝑐𝑁𝑁𝑐𝑐 𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 + 𝑞𝑞𝑁𝑁𝑞𝑞 𝐹𝐹𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞 𝐹𝐹𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞 𝐹𝐹𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞 + 12𝛾𝛾𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝛾𝛾 𝐹𝐹𝛾𝛾𝛾𝛾 𝐹𝐹𝛾𝛾𝛾𝛾 𝐹𝐹𝛾𝛾𝛾𝛾
From table 4, for 𝜙𝜙 = 25° , 𝑁𝑁𝑐𝑐 = 20.72, 𝑁𝑁𝑞𝑞 = 10.66, 𝑁𝑁𝛾𝛾 = 10.88. From table 5,
𝑁𝑁𝑞𝑞 𝐵𝐵 10.66 0.6
𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 = 1 + � 𝑁𝑁 � � 𝐿𝐿 � = 1 + �20.72 � �1.2� = 1.257
𝑐𝑐
𝐵𝐵 0.6
𝐹𝐹𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞 = 1 + 𝐿𝐿 tan 𝜙𝜙 = 1 + 1.2 tan 25 = 1.233
𝐵𝐵 0.6
𝐹𝐹𝛾𝛾𝛾𝛾 = 1 − 0.4 𝐿𝐿 = 1 − 0.4 1.2 = 0.8
𝐷𝐷 0.6
𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 = 1 + 0.4 � 𝐵𝐵𝑓𝑓 � = 1 + 0.4 �0.6� = 1.4
𝐷𝐷 0.6
𝐹𝐹𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞 = 1 + 2 tan 𝜙𝜙(1 − sin 𝜙𝜙)2 � 𝐵𝐵𝑓𝑓 � = 1 + 2 tan 25(1 − sin 25)2 �0.6� = 1.311
𝐹𝐹𝛾𝛾𝛾𝛾 = 1
Thus
In several instances, as with the base of a retaining wall, foundations are subjected to
moments in addition to the vertical load, as shown in figure 3.11a. In such cases the
distribution of pressure by the foundation on the soil is not uniform. The distribution of
nominal pressure is
𝑄𝑄 6𝑀𝑀
𝑞𝑞max = 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 + 𝐵𝐵 2 𝐿𝐿 [3.38]
And
𝑄𝑄 6𝑀𝑀
𝑞𝑞max = 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 − 𝐵𝐵 2 𝐿𝐿 [3.39]
Where
Figure 3.11b shows force system equivalent to that shown in figure 3.11a. The distance e
is he eccentricity, or
𝑀𝑀
𝑒𝑒 = [3.40]
𝑄𝑄
And
𝑄𝑄 6𝑒𝑒
𝑞𝑞max = 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 �1 − � [3.41b]
𝐵𝐵
Note that, in these equations, when the eccentricity, e, becomes 𝐵𝐵/6, 𝑞𝑞max is zero. for
𝑒𝑒 > 𝐵𝐵/6, 𝑞𝑞min will be negative, which means that tension will develop. Because soil
cannot take any tension, there will be a separation between the foundation and the soil
underlying it. The nature of the pressure distribution on the soil will be as shown in figure
3.11a. the value of 𝑞𝑞max then is
4𝑄𝑄
𝑞𝑞max = 3𝐿𝐿(𝐵𝐵−2𝑒𝑒) [3.42]
The factor of safety for such types of loading against baring capacity failure can be
evaluated by using the procedure suggested by Meyerhof (1953), which is generally
referred to as the effective area method. The following is Meyerholf a step-by-step
procedure for determination of the ultimate load that the soil can support and the factor of
safety against bearing capacity failure.
Note that, if the eccentricity were in the direction of the length of the foundation,
the value of 𝐿𝐿′ would be equal to 𝐿𝐿 − 2𝑒𝑒. The value of 𝐵𝐵′ would equal 𝐵𝐵. The
smaller of the two dimensions (that is, 𝐿𝐿′ and 𝐵𝐵′) is the effective width of the
foundation.
𝑞𝑞′𝑢𝑢 = 𝑐𝑐𝑁𝑁𝑐𝑐 𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 + 𝑞𝑞𝑁𝑁𝑞𝑞 𝐹𝐹𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞 𝐹𝐹𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞 𝐹𝐹𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞 + 12𝛾𝛾𝐵𝐵′𝑁𝑁𝛾𝛾 𝐹𝐹𝛾𝛾𝛾𝛾 𝐹𝐹𝛾𝛾𝛾𝛾 𝐹𝐹𝛾𝛾𝛾𝛾 [3.43]
To evaluate 𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 , 𝐹𝐹𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞 , and 𝐹𝐹𝛾𝛾𝛾𝛾 , use table 5 with effective length and effective width
dimensions instead of 𝐿𝐿 and 𝐵𝐵, respectively. To determine 𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 , 𝐹𝐹𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞 , and 𝐹𝐹𝛾𝛾𝛾𝛾 use
table 5 (do not replace 𝐵𝐵 with 𝐵𝐵′).
𝐴𝐴′
𝑄𝑄ult = ��
𝑞𝑞′����
𝑢𝑢
���
(𝐵𝐵′)(𝐿𝐿′) [3.44]
Where
5. Check the factor of safety against 𝑞𝑞max , or, 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 = 𝑞𝑞′𝑢𝑢 /𝑞𝑞max .
Note that eccentricity tends to decrease the load-bearing capacity of a foundation. In such
cases, placing foundation columns off center, as shown in figure 3.12, probably is
advantageous. Doing so, in procedures a centrally loaded foundation with uniformly
distributed pressure.
NPTEL – ADVANCED FOUNDATION ENGINEERING-I
Consider a situation in which a foundation is subjected to a vertical ultimate load 𝑄𝑄ult and
a moment M as shown in figure 3.13a and b. For this case, the components of the
moment, M, about the x and y axes can be determined as 𝑀𝑀𝑥𝑥 and 𝑀𝑀𝑦𝑦 respectively (figure
3.13). This condition is equivalent to a load 𝑄𝑄ult placed eccentrically on the foundation
with 𝑥𝑥 = 𝑒𝑒𝐵𝐵 and 𝑦𝑦 = 𝑒𝑒𝐿𝐿 (figure 3.13d). Note that
𝑀𝑀𝑦𝑦
𝑒𝑒𝐵𝐵 = 𝑄𝑄 [3.46]
ult
And
𝑀𝑀𝑥𝑥
𝑒𝑒𝐿𝐿 = 𝑄𝑄 [3.47]
ult
𝑞𝑞′𝑢𝑢 = 𝑐𝑐𝑁𝑁𝑐𝑐 𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 + 𝑞𝑞𝑁𝑁𝑞𝑞 𝐹𝐹𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞 𝐹𝐹𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞 𝐹𝐹𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞 + 12𝛾𝛾𝐵𝐵′𝑁𝑁𝛾𝛾 𝐹𝐹𝛾𝛾𝛾𝛾 𝐹𝐹𝛾𝛾𝛾𝛾 𝐹𝐹𝛾𝛾𝛾𝛾 [3.48]
And
Figure 3.13
Figure 3.14 Effective area for the case of 𝑒𝑒𝐿𝐿 /𝐿𝐿 ≥ 16 and eB /B ≥ 16
Where
3𝑒𝑒 𝐵𝐵
𝐵𝐵1 = 𝐵𝐵 �1.5 − � [3.49a]
𝐵𝐵
3𝑒𝑒 𝐿𝐿
𝐿𝐿1 = 𝐿𝐿 �1.5 − � [3.49b]
𝐿𝐿
The effective length, L’, is the larger of the two dimensions, that is, 𝐵𝐵1 or 𝐿𝐿1 . So, the
effective width is
𝐴𝐴′
𝐵𝐵 ′ = [3.50]
𝐿𝐿′
NPTEL – ADVANCED FOUNDATION ENGINEERING-I
Case II
𝑒𝑒𝐿𝐿 /𝐿𝐿 < 0.5 and 0 < eB /B < 16 . The effective area for this condition is shown in figure
3.15a.
Figure 3.15 Effective area for the case of 𝑒𝑒𝐿𝐿 /𝐿𝐿 < 0.5 and 0 < 𝑒𝑒𝐵𝐵 /𝐵𝐵 < 16 (after Highter
and Anders, 1985)
The magnitudes of 𝐿𝐿1 and𝐿𝐿2 can be determined from figure 3.15b. The effective width is
𝐴𝐴′
𝐵𝐵 ′ = 𝐿𝐿 [3.52]
1 or 𝐿𝐿2 (which is larger )
Case III
NPTEL – ADVANCED FOUNDATION ENGINEERING-I
𝑒𝑒𝐿𝐿 /𝐿𝐿 < 16 and 0 < eB /B < 0.5 . The effective area for this condition is shown in figure
3.16a:
Figure 3.16 Effective area for the case of 𝑒𝑒𝐿𝐿 /𝐿𝐿 < 16and 0 < 𝑒𝑒𝐵𝐵 /𝐵𝐵 < 0.5 (after Highter
and Anders, 1985)
𝐿𝐿′ = 𝐿𝐿 [3.56]
The magnitude of 𝐵𝐵1 and 𝐵𝐵2 can be determined from figure 3.16b.
NPTEL – ADVANCED FOUNDATION ENGINEERING-I
Case IV
𝑒𝑒𝐿𝐿 /𝐿𝐿 < 16 and eB /B < 16. Figure 3.17a shows the effective area for this case. The ratio
𝐵𝐵2 /𝐵𝐵 and thus 𝐵𝐵2 can be determined by using the 𝑒𝑒𝐿𝐿 /𝐿𝐿 curves that slope upward.
Similarly, the ratio 𝐿𝐿2 /𝐿𝐿 and thus 𝐿𝐿2 can be determined by using the 𝑒𝑒𝐿𝐿 /𝐿𝐿 curves that
slope downward. The effective area is then
Figure 3.17 Effective area for the case of 𝑒𝑒𝐿𝐿 /𝐿𝐿 < 16and 0 < 𝑒𝑒𝐵𝐵 /𝐵𝐵 < 16(after Highter and
Anders, 1985)
𝐿𝐿′ = 𝐿𝐿 [3.59]
NPTEL – ADVANCED FOUNDATION ENGINEERING-I
Example 6
A square foundation is shown in figure 3.18. Assume that the one-way load
eccentricity𝑒𝑒 = 0.15 m. Determine the ultimate load, 𝑄𝑄ult .
Figure 3.18
Solution
𝐿𝐿′ = 1.5 m
From table 5
𝐵𝐵′ 1.2
𝐹𝐹𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞 = 1 + 𝐿𝐿′ tan 𝜙𝜙 = 1 + �1.5� tan 30° = 1.462
𝐷𝐷𝑓𝑓 (0.289)(0.7)
𝐹𝐹𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞 = 1 + 2 tan 𝜙𝜙(1 − sin 𝜙𝜙)2 = 1+ = 1.135
𝐵𝐵 1.5
NPTEL – ADVANCED FOUNDATION ENGINEERING-I
𝐵𝐵′ 1.2
𝐹𝐹𝛾𝛾𝛾𝛾 = 1 − 0.4 � 𝐿𝐿′ � = 1 − 0.4 �1.5� = 0.68
𝐹𝐹𝛾𝛾𝛾𝛾 = 1
So
Hence
Example 7
Refer to example 6. Other quantities remaining the same, assume that the load has a two-
way eccentricity. Given: 𝑒𝑒𝐿𝐿 = 0.3 m, and 𝑒𝑒𝐵𝐵 = 0.15 m (figure 3.19). Determine the
ultimate load, 𝑄𝑄ult .
Figure 3.19
Solution
𝑒𝑒 𝐿𝐿 0.3
= 1.5 = 0.2
𝐿𝐿
𝑒𝑒 𝐵𝐵 0.15
= = 0.1
𝐵𝐵 1.5
This case is similar to that shown in figure 3.15a. From figure 3.15b, for 𝑒𝑒𝐿𝐿 /𝐿𝐿 =
0.2 and eB /B = 0.1
𝐿𝐿1
≈ 0.85; 𝐿𝐿1 = (0.85)(1.5) = 1.275 m
𝐿𝐿
NPTEL – ADVANCED FOUNDATION ENGINEERING-I
And
𝐿𝐿2
≈ 0.21; 𝐿𝐿2 = (0.21)(1.5) = 1.315 m
𝐿𝐿
For 𝜙𝜙 = 30° , from table 4, 𝑁𝑁𝑞𝑞 = 18.4 and 𝑁𝑁𝛾𝛾 = 22.4. Thus
𝐵𝐵′ 1.936
𝐹𝐹𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞 = 1 + � 𝐿𝐿′ � tan 𝜙𝜙 = 1 + �1.275 � tan 30° = 1.424
𝐵𝐵′ 1.936
𝐹𝐹𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞 = 1 − 0.4 � 𝐿𝐿′ � = 1 − 0.4 �1.275 � = 0.706
𝐷𝐷𝑓𝑓 (0.289)(0.7)
𝐹𝐹𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞 = 1 + 2 tan 𝜙𝜙(1 − sin 𝜙𝜙)2 = 1+ = 1.135
𝐵𝐵 1.5
𝐹𝐹𝛾𝛾𝛾𝛾 = 1
So
𝑞𝑞ult = 𝐴𝐴′ 𝑞𝑞′𝑢𝑢 = 𝐴𝐴′ (𝑞𝑞𝑁𝑁𝑞𝑞 𝐹𝐹𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞 𝐹𝐹𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞 + 12𝛾𝛾𝐵𝐵 ′ 𝑁𝑁𝛾𝛾 𝐹𝐹𝛾𝛾𝛾𝛾 𝐹𝐹𝛾𝛾𝛾𝛾 =
(1.193)[(12.6)(18.4)(1.424)(1.135) + (0.5)(18)(0.936)(22.4)(0.706)(1)] =
605.95 kN