all elements you want to know about bearing capacity, it has.

© All Rights Reserved

2 vues

all elements you want to know about bearing capacity, it has.

© All Rights Reserved

- 2-INTRODUCTION Foundation ENGG.pdf
- Shallow Foundations Allowable Bearing Capacity & Settlement
- Safe Bearing Capacity Definition
- The Bearing Capacity of a Shallow Foundation
- Comparison of Bearing Capacity for Shallow
- Bearing Capacity
- Foundation Engineering Exam Questions
- Isolated Footing
- INTERFERENCE OF ADJOINING RECTANGULAR FOOTINGS ON REINFORCED SAND
- 2 Design of Cantilever Wall
- Soil Pile Capacity Soil Investigation Report
- Examples
- Thrust Anchor Blocks for End Caps
- Lecture 9
- 10067-9-V01-G00Z-01671
- Day 3-4 Impt Considerations in Design of Struct Perf Foundation
- SFA Isolated Footing
- soil_testing_report_HSS_BGT.pdf
- Ch12 Solution Manual Soil Mechanics and Foundations
- Culminating Experiment (1)

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 116

BEARING CAPACITY

D.A.V.I.E.T Submitted by: Abhishek Sharma 661/15

1.INTRODUCTION

2

important of all the aspects of geotechnical

engineering.

Loads from buildings are transmitted to the

foundation by columns, by load bearing walls or

by such other load-bearing components of the

structures.

rests is ledge, very hard soil or bed-rock, which is

known to be much stronger than is necessary to

transmit the loads from the structure.

ABHISHEK SHARMA

Such a ledge, or rock, or other stiff

material may not be available at

reasonable depth and it becomes invariably

necessary to allow the structure to bear

directly on soil, which will furnish a

satisfactory foundation, if the bearing

members are properly designed.

bearing capacity assumes

significance.

3

ABHISHEK SHARMA

2.SOME BASIC

DEFINITIONS

4

is in contact with soil and transmits loads to it.

Foundation soil or bed: The soil or bed to

which loads are transmitted from the base of the

structure.

Footing is a foundation consisting of a small

slab for transmitting the structural load to

the underlying soil. Footings can be individual

slabs supporting single columns or combined

to support two or more columns or be a long

strip of concrete slab. width B to length L ratio

is small, i.e., it approaches zero) supporting a

ABHISHEK SHARMA

Bearing capacity (q): The load-carrying

capacity of foundation soil or rock which enables

it to bear and transmit loads from a structure.

ULTIMATE bearing capacity (qult): Maximum

pressure which a foundation can withstand

without the occurrence of shear failure of the

foundation.

Gross Ultimate bearing capacity: The bearing

capacity inclusive of the pressure exerted by

the weight of the soil standing on the

foundation, or the ‘surcharge’ pressure, as it is

sometimes

Net Ultimatecalled.

bearing capacity (qnu): Gross

bearing capacity minus the original overburden

pressure or surcharge pressure at the

foundation level; obviously, this will be the

same as the gross capacity when theSHARMA

ABHISHEK depth 5of

Safe bearing capacity (qs ): Ultimate bearing

capacity divided by the factor of safety. The

factor of safety in foundation may range from 2

to 5,

net ultimate bearing capacity

foundation should then be added to get the

safe bearing capacity.

6

which can be transmitted to the soil without

ABHISHEK SHARMA

GROSS SAFE BEARING CAPACITY: It is the

maximum gross intensity (inclusive of

overburden pressure) of loading at the base of

the foundation that the soil can support before

NET

failingSAFE BEARING CAPACITY (qns ): It is the

in shear

maximum net intensity (exclusive of

overburden pressure) of loading at the base of

the foundation that the soil can support without

the risk of shear

ALLOWABLE failure. PRESSURE (q ): The

BEARING a

maximum allowable net loading intensity on the

soil at which the soil never fails in shear and

doesn’t pose any excessive settlement or can be

say

7 that the settlements are under permissible

ABHISHEK SHARMA

Ultimate limit state defines a limiting

stress or force that should not be

exceeded by any conceivable or

anticipated loading during the design life

of a foundation or any geotechnical

system.

Serviceability limit state defines a

limiting deformation or settlement of a

foundation, which, if exceeded, will

impair the function of the structure that

it supports.

8

ABHISHEK SHARMA

AS PER IS 6403 :

1981

Net Loading Intensity: The net loading intensity on

the foundation is the gross intensity of loading minus

the weight of displaced soil above the foundation base.

at the base or the foundation which would cause shear

failure of the soil support.

Safe Bearing capacity : Maximum intensity of

loading that the foundation will safely carry without the

risk of shear failure of soil irrespective of any

settlement that may occur.

Safe Bearing Pressure or Net Soil Pressure : The

Intensity of loading that will cause a permissible

settlement or specified settlement of the structure.

9

ABHISHEK SHARMA

Allowable Bearing Capacity : The net intensity of

loading which the foundation will carry without

undergoing settlement in excess or the permissible

value for the structure under consideration but not

exceeding net safebearing capacity

10

ABHISHEK SHARMA

3. TYPES OF FAILURE IN

11

SOIL

Experimental investigations have indicated

that foundations on dense sand with

relative density greater than 70 percent

fail suddenly with pronounced peak resistance

when the settlement reaches about 7

percent of the foundation width. The failure

is accompanied by the appearance of failure

surfaces and by considerable bulging of a

This typemass

sheared of failure is designated

of sand as shown inas general

Fig.

shear failure by Terzaghi (1943)

ABHISHEK SHARMA

12

ABHISHEK SHARMA

Foundations on sand of relative density lying

between 35 and 70 percent do not show a

sudden failure. As the settlement exceeds about

8 percent of the foundation width, bulging of

sand starts at the surface. At settlements of about

15 percent of foundation width, a visible boundary

of sheared zones at the surface appears. However,

the peak of base resistance may never be reached.

This type of failure is termed local shear failure,

Fig.

13

ABHISHEK SHARMA

Foundations on relatively loose sand with

relative density less than 35 percent

penetrate into the soil without any bulging

of the sand surface.

The base resistance gradually increases

as settlement progresses. The rate of

settlement, however, increases and reaches a

maximum at a settlement of about 15 to 20

percent of the foundation width.

Sudden jerks or shears can be observed as

soon as the settlement reaches about 6 to 8

percent of the foundation width.

The failure surface, which is vertical or

slightly inclined and follows the perimeter of

14the base, never reaches the sand surface. This

ABHISHEK SHARMA

15

ABHISHEK SHARMA

The approximate limits of types of failure to be affected

as relative depth DF / B and relative density of sand, Dr,

vary are shown in Fig.

(Vesic, 1963). General shear failure occur when φ

is more than or equal to 380. Local Shear Failure

occur when φ is than or equal to 280

16

4.CRITERIA FOR THE DETERMINATION OF

BEARING CAPACITY

17

located and founded at such a depth

that its performance does not

affected by factors such as lateral

expulsion of soil from beneath the

foundation, seasonal volume changes,

presence of adjoining structures etc.

ABHISHEK SHARMA

2. Shear failure of the foundation or bearing

capacity failure, as it is sometimes called, shall

not occur. (This is associated with plastic flow

of the soil material underneath the foundation,

and lateral expulsion of the soil from underneath

the footing

3. The of the foundation);

probable settlements,and, differential as

well as total, of the foundation must be limited to

safe, tolerable or acceptable magnitudes. In other

words, the anticipated settlement under the

applied pressure on the foundation should not be

detrimental to the stability

Last two criteria of the structure.

are known as the shear

strength criterion, and settlement criterion,

respectively. The design value of the safe

bearing

18

capacity, obviously, would be the

smaller of the two values, obtainedABHISHEKfrom these

SHARMA

5.FACTORS AFFECTING BEARING

CAPACITY

19

engineering properties;

such as the size, shape, depth below the ground

surface and rigidity of the structure;

the structure can withstand without functional

failure;

ABHISHEK SHARMA

6.METHODS OF DETERMINING

BEARING CAPACITY

20

building codes

ABHISHEK SHARMA

ACCORDING TO OUR SYLLABUS

FOLLOWING METHODS ARE PRESCRIBED

IN DETAIL ONE BY ONE.

NALYTIC APPROACH

1. The theory of elasticity—Schleicher’s method.

method, Pauker’s method and Bell’s method.

method,Terzaghi’s method,

Meyerhof’s method, Skempton’s method, Hansen’s

method and Balla’s method.

TEST

21

ABHISHEK SHARMA

7. RANKINE METHOD

22

on Rankine’s earth

pressure theory, is too

approximate and

conservative for practical

use.

WILLIAM RANKINE (1820–1872

ABHISHEK SHARMA

Rankine uses the relationship between

principal stresses at limiting equilibrium

conditions of soil elements, one located just

beneath the footing and the other just outside

it as shown in Fig.

23

ABHISHEK SHARMA

In element I, just beneath the footing, at

the base level of the foundation, the applied

pressure qult is the major principal stress;

under its influence, the soil adjacent to the

element

The active

tends pressure

get pushed is σcreating

out, on the active

vertical faces to the element.

conditions.

From the relationship between the

principal stresses at limiting

equilibrium relating to the active

state, we have:

……..EQ.

1

24

ABHISHEK SHARMA

In element II, just outside the footing, at

the base level of the foundation, the tendency

of the soil adjacent to the element is to

compress, creating passive conditions. The

pressure σ on the vertical faces of the element

will thus be the passive resistance.

This will thus be the major principal stress

and the corresponding minor principal stress

is q(= γ.Df)

……..EQ.

2

25

ABHISHEK SHARMA

ABHISHEK SHARMA

FROM EQ.1 AND 661

EQ.2

……..EQ.

3

not appear to take into account the size of the

footing.

to give Df , which is termed the minimum depth

required for a foundation:

……..EQ.

4

26

the size of the footing

An alternative approach based on Rankine’s

earth pressure theory which takes into

account the size b of the footing is as

follows:

It is assumed that rupture in the soil takes

place along CBD and CFG symmetrically. The

failure zones are made of two wedges as

shown. It is sufficient to consider the

equilibrium of one half.

27

ABHISHEK SHARMA

Wedge I is Rankine’s active wedge, pushed

downwards by qult on CA; consequently the

Wedge II isABRankine’s

vertical face passive

will be pushed wedge. The

outward.

pressure P on face AB of wedge I will be the same

as that which acts on face AB of wedge II;

consequently, the soil wedge II is pushed up. The

surcharge, q = γ.Df, due to the depth of footing

resists this.

28 ……..EQ.

ABHISHEK SHARMA ABHISHEK SHARMA

ABHISHEK SHARMA

from Rankine’s theory for the case with

surcharge.

From Wedge I, similarly,

…..EQ.6

Equating the two values of P from EQ.5.5 and

EQ.6, we get

…..EQ.7

This is written as

…..EQ.8

…..EQ.9

29

…..EQ.10

h are known as BEARING CAPACITY FACTORS

8.Prandtl’s Method

30

plastic failure in

metals when

punched by hard

metal punchers

(Prandtl,

1920). This analysis

has been adapted to

soil when loaded to

shear failure by a Ludwig Prandtl

relatively rigid 4 February 1875 - 15 August

foundation (Prandtl, 1953

ABHISHEK SHARMA

assumptions in Prandtl’s theory are:

(ii) The Mohr-Coulomb equation for failure envelope τ

= c + σ tan φ is valid for the soil,

(iii) Wedges I and III act as rigid bodies. The zones in

Sectors II deform plastically. In the plastic zones all

radius vectors or planes through A and B are failure

planes and the curved boundary is a logarithmic

spiral.

(iv) Wedge I is elastically pushed down, tending to

push zones III upward and outward, which is resisted

by the passive resistance of soil in these zones.

(v) The stress in the elastic zone I is transmitted

hydrostatically in all directions.

31

ABHISHEK SHARMA

qult = c cot φ (Nφ . eπ tan φ – 1)

32 …..EQ.11

This is Prandtl’s expression for ultimate bearing capacity

purely cohesive soils, φ = 0

…..EQ.12

Discussion of Prandtl’s Theory

rupture surface, consisting of an arc of a logarithmic

spiral and tangents to the spiral.

(ii) It is developed for a smooth and long strip footing,

resting on the ground surface.

(iii) Prandtl’s compound rupture surface corresponds

fairly well with the mode of failure along curvilinear

(iv) Prandtl’s

rupture expression,

surfaces observed as originally

from derived, does

experiments.

not include the size of the footing.

33

ABHISHEK SHARMA

ABHISHEK SHARMA

661 9. TERZAGHI METHOD

34

(1943).

in fact, an extension

and improved

modification of

Pandtl’s

2 October 1883 -- 25 October

1963

ABHISHEK SHARMA

ASSUMPTIONS:

isotropic, weightless, rigid–plastic material.

The embedment depth is not greater than the

width of the footing (Df < B).

General shear failure occurs & The base of the

footing is rough.

The soil above the footing base can be replaced

by a surcharge stress. This, in effect, means that

35

the shearing resistance of the soil located above

the base is neglected.

ABHISHEK SHARMA

The zone of plastic equilibrium, CDEFG, can be

subdivided into I a wedge-shaped zone located beneath

the loaded strip, in which the major principal stresses

are vertical,

II two zones of radial shear, BCD and ACG, emanating

from the outer edges of the loaded strip, with their

boundaries making angles (45° – φ/2) and φ with the

horizontal, and

III two passive Rankine zones, AGF and BDE, with their

boundaries making angles (45° – φ/2) with the

36

horizontal. ABHISHEK SHARMA

The adhesion force Ca on

the faces AC and BC is

given by:

…..EQ.13

equilibrium of wedge ABC, the vertical components of

he all forces

weight of must sum

the soil in up

theto zero. is given by

wedge

…..EQ.14

…..EQ.15

37

…..EQ.16

ABHISHEK SHARMA

For the simpler case of Df = 0 and c = 0, q = 0—that

is, if the base of the footing rests on the horizontal

surface of a mass of cohesionless sand, we have:

…..EQ.17

for c = 0,

α = 180° – φ, and δ = φ ; that is, it is the value purely

due to the weight of the soil.

38

ABHISHEK SHARMA

Substituting EQ.15 in

EQ.14

…..EQ.18

…..EQ.19

…..EQ.20

the friction circle method.

expressing the effect of the weight of the soil wedge,

ABC, of a cohesionless soil.

39

ABHISHEK SHARMA

For the calculation of the bearing capacity of a

cohesive soil, the computation of Pp involves a

considerable amount of labour.

Terzaghi, therefore, advocated a simplified approach,

which is based on the equation

…..EQ.21

earth pressure on a plane contact face with a

height H,

α = slope angle of the contact face, and

Kpc, Kpq, and Kpγ = coefficients whose values are

indpendent of H and γ. In the present case,

40

ABHISHEK SHARMA

Also the total passive earth pressure Pp on the

contact face is equal to

…..EQ.22

of the passive earth pressure comprehending the

effect of cohesion

Combining and surcharge.

this equation with Eq. 14,

we have

41 …..EQ.23

ABHISHEK SHARMA

If the soil wedge, ABC, is assumed weightless (γ = 0)

(Prandtl, 1920), Eq. (21) takes the form

…..EQ.24

values depend only on the value φ in Coulomb’s

equation.

On the other hand, if c = 0 and q = 0, γ being

greater than zero, the bearing capacity is given by

Eqs. 17 and 18:

42

ABHISHEK SHARMA

If the values c, Df, and γ are

greater than zero,

general bearing capacity

formula’’.

The coefficients Nc, Nq, and Nγ are called ‘‘bearing

capacity factors’’ for shallow continuous

footings.

43

ABHISHEK SHARMA

The problem of Nc and Nq has been rigorously

solved by means of Airy’s stress function

(Prandtl 1920, Reissner, 1924), for the

condition γ = 0:

…..EQ.26

…..EQ.27

…..EQ.28

depend only on the

value of φ.

44

ABHISHEK SHARMA

Bearing capacity of a strip footing with a

rough base on the ground surface is given by,

qult = 5.7c

…..EQ.29

For strip footing at a depth Df in a purely

cohesive soil

…..EQ.30

qult = 5.7c + γD .

Equation 23, along with the bearing capacity

f factors

Nc, Nq and Nγ are valid for ‘general shear failure’.

Terzaghi :

c′ = (2/3)c …..EQ.31

tan φ′ = (2/3) tan φ …..EQ.32

45

ABHISHEK SHARMA

for local shear failure,

…..EQ.33

plotted in Fig.

46

ABHISHEK SHARMA

QUICK

NOTE

As a general guideline, if failure occurs at

less than 5% strain and if density index is

greater than 70%, general shear failure may

be assumed,

if the strain at failure is 10% to 20% and if

the density index is less than 20%, local

shear failure may be assumed, and,

for intermediate situations punching

shear, linear interpolation of the factors may

be employed.

47

ABHISHEK SHARMA

The bearing capacity factors of

Terzaghi are tabulated in following

Table

48

ABHISHEK SHARMA

Bearing capacity of shallow circular

and square footings

Bearing capacity of circular footings has

been proposed by Terzaghi as follows,

here d =γ diameter

d Nγ of the circular footing.

e critical load for the footing is given by

…..EQ.35

49

ABHISHEK SHARMA

Similarly, the bearing capacity of a square

footing of side b is:

…..EQ.36

qults = 1.3 cNc + γDfNq + 0.4

γb Nγ

The critical load for the footing is given by

…..EQ.37

Qults = (b ) .

2

Qults

For a continuous footing of width b, it is

already seen that,

qult = cNc + γDf Nq + 0.5 γ b Nγ

…..EQ.38

50

ABHISHEK SHARMA

QUICK

Thus, the NOTEcapacity

bearing of a circular

footing of diameter equal to the width of a

continuous footing is 1.3 times that of the

continuous footing, or at least nearly so, if

the footings are founded in a purely cohesive

soil (φ = 0);

the bearing capacity of a square footing

of side equal to the width of a continuous

footing also bears a similar relation to that of

the continuous footing under similar conditions

just cited.

51

Further, the corresponding ratios are SHARMA

ABHISHEK 0.6

10. SKEMPTON METHOD

(1951)

52

Nc is a function of the

depth of foundation and

also of its shape.

Alec Skempton

4 June 1914 - 9 August

2001

ABHISHEK SHARMA

The net ultimate bearing capacity is

given by: …..EQ.39

qnet ult = c . Nc

Strip footings:

Nc = 5 (1 + 0.2 Df …..EQ.40

/b)

with a limiting value of

Nc of 7.5 for Df /b >

2.5. Square or Circular

footings:

EQ.41 ….. Nc = 6(1 +

(b is the side of

square or diameter of 0.2Df /b)

circular footing). with a limiting value

53 of

ABHISHEK SHARMA

for Df /b ≤ 2.5, for

Df /b > 2.5,

Nc = 7.5 (1 + 0.2 b/L)

L = length of the rectangular

footing.

54

ABHISHEK SHARMA

QUICK

NOTE

For a surface footing of square or circular

shape on purely cohesive soil

Qnet ult = 6c ...(Eq. 44)

limited to shallow foundations wherein

Df /b ≤ 1,

but

55

ABHISHEK SHARMA

11. Brinch Hansen’s ABHISHEK SHARMA

661

56

Method

Brinch Hansen (1961) has proposed the

following semi-empirical equation for the

bearing capacity of a footing, as a

generalisation of the Terzaghi equation:

…..EQ.45

A = effective area of the footing

q = overburden pressure at the foundation level (=

γ . Df),

Nq = Nφ . eπ tan φ

Nc = (Nq – 1) cot φ

Nγ = 1.8 (Nq – 1) tan φ

(Nφ = tan2 (45° + φ/2), with the usual notation.)

S = shape factors ABHISHEK SHARMA

661

d = depth factors,

and

i = inclination

factors.

factors

57

Brinch Hansen’s depth

Brinch Hansen’s inclination

factors

vised values of inclination factors:

…..EQ.46

…..EQ.47

58

ABHISHEK SHARMA

12. Balla’s Method

59

continuous footings (Balla 1962).

The theory appears to give values which are in good

agreement with field test results for footings

founded in cohesionless

The form soils.

of the bearing capacity equation is

the same as that of Terzaghi:

…..EQ.49

ABHISHEK SHARMA

But the equations for the bearing capacity factors

are cumbersome to solve without the aid of a digital

computer. Therefore, it is generally recommended that

Balla’s charts be used for the determination of these

factors.

60

ABHISHEK SHARMA

The limitations are that it should be used when Df

61

/ b ≤ 1.5 and that it is applicable to continuous

ABHISHEK SHARMA

ABHISHEK SHARMA

661

13. Meyerhof’s Method

62

Meyerhof’s approaches is that the latter considers the

shearing resistance of the soil above the base of the

foundation, while

Thus, Meyerhof the former

allows ignores

the failure it. to extend up to

zones

the ground surface (Meyerhof, 1951).

Zone I ABC ... elastic

Zone II BCD ... radial

shear

Zone III BDEF ... mixed

wherein Nc, Nq and Nγ are ‘‘Meyerhof’s bearing

shear

capacity factors’’, which depend not only on φ, but

also on the depth and shape of the foundation and

roughness of the base.

Meyerhof’s factors are more difficult to obtain than

Terzaghi’s, and have been presented in the form of

charts by Meyerhof.

For strip footings: Nc = 5.5(1 + 0.25 Df/b)…..EQ.50

with a limiting value of 8.25 for Nc

for Df /b > 2.5.

For square or circular footings: Nc = 6.2 (1 +

0.32 Df /b) with a limiting value of 9.0 for Nc for Df

63 (b is the side of a /b

square

> 2.5.or diameter of

ABHISHEK SHARMA

14. Vesic's Bearing Capacity Theory

64

failure surfaces in soil as suggested by Terzaghi as

incorrect.

However, the angle which the inclined surfaces make

with the horizontal was found to be closer to 45 + φ/2

instead of φ . The values of the bearing capacity factors , ,

for a given angle of shearing resistance change if above

modification is incorporated in the analysis as under

…..EQ.51

…..EQ.52

…..EQ.53

ABHISHEK SHARMA

eqns(51)was proposed by Prandtl(1921),and eqn(52)

was given by Reissner (1924). Caquot and Keisner

(1953) and Vesic (1973) gave eqn (53)

…..EQ.54

65

ABHISHEK SHARMA

Depth factor

Inclination factor

66

ABHISHEK SHARMA

15. IS 6403:1981

67

METHOD

…..EQ.55

+B, measured from the ground surface, w’=1.

If the water table rises to the base of the

footing or above, w’=0.5. If the water table

lies in between then the value is obtained by

linear interpolation. The shape factors

given by Hansen and inclination factors

as given by Vesic are used. ABHISHEK SHARMA

For cohesive soils:

Nc =

5.14

68

ABHISHEK SHARMA

16. EFFECT OF WATER TABLE ON

BEARING CAPACITY

69

weight and also the shear parameters c and

φ.

When the soil is submerged under water,

the effective unit weight γ′ is to be used in

the computation of bearing capacity.

NOTE:

Effective unit weight γ′ is roughly half the

saturated unit weight; consequently there

will be about 50% reduction in the value of

the corresponding term in the bearing

ABHISHEK SHARMA

• If the water table is at the level of the base

of the footing, γ′ is to be used for γ in the third

term, a reduction factor of 0.5 is to be

applied

• For to anythe location

third term.of the water table

intermediate between the base of the

footing and a depth equal to the width of

the footing below its base, a suitable

linear interpolation of the necessary

reduction is suggested.

• If the water table is above the base of

the footing, the reduction factor for the

70

third term is obviously limited to the

maximum of 0.5. ABHISHEK SHARMA

• The maximum reduction of 0.5 is

indicated for the second term when the

water table is at the ground level itself (or

above it), since γ′ is to be used for γ in the

second

• Whileterm.

no reduction in the second term

is required when the water table is at or

below the base of the footing,

• In the case of purely cohesive soils, since

φ ≈ 0°, Nq = 1 and Nγ = 0,

c . Nc, which is virtually unaffected by the

water table, if it is below the base of the

71 footing.

ABHISHEK SHARMA

ABHISHEK SHARMA

• If the water table is at the ground

661 level,

only the gross bearing capacity is reduced

by 50% of the surcharge term γ.Df (Nq = 1),

while the net value is again only c . Nc.

• In the case of purely cohesionless soils,

since

c = 0, and φ > 0, and Nq and Nγ are

For locations of

significantly ground water table within a

high,

depth of the width of the foundation below the

base and the ground level, the equation for

the ultimate bearing capacity may be

modified as follows:

...(Eq. 56)

72

*appropriate multiplying factor should be used for isolated

footings. **Appropriate shape factor.

c′ = effective cohesion ABHISHEK SHARMA

661

Nc, Nq, and Nγ = bearing capacity factors based on φ′

Rq and Rγ = reduction factors for the terms involving Nq

and Nγ owing to the effect of water table.

Rq and Rγ may be obtained as follows, from Fig.

zq = Df...Rq = 1.0 zγ = b...Rγ = 1.0

73

...(Eq. 57)

...(Eq. 58)

Note.

• For zq > Df (the water table is below the

base of the footing), Rq is limited to 1.0.

• For 0 ≤ zq ≤ Df (the water table is above

the base of the footing), Rγ is limited to

0.5.

• for zq > (Df + b) or zγ > b, Rq as well as

Rγ are limited to 1.0.

74

• For zq = 0, Rq as well as Rγ are limited

to 0.5. ABHISHEK SHARMA

17. FOUNDATION

75

SETTLEMENTS

Settlement total settlement and differential settlement

of foundations and consequently of the structures

above the foundations.

ource of Settlement

(i) Elastic compression of the foundation and the

underlying soil, giving rise to what is known as

‘immediate’, ‘contact’, ‘initial’, or ‘distortion’

(ii) Plastic compression of the underlying soil, giving

settlement,

rise to consolidation, settlement of fine grained soils,

both primary and secondary,

(iii) Ground water lowering, especially repeated

lowering and raising of ground water level in loose

granular soils and drainage without adequate filter

ABHISHEK SHARMA

(iv) Vibration due to pile driving, blasting and

oscillating machinery in granular soils,

expansive clays,

earth slopes,

excavation, mining subsidence and

underground erosion.

ABHISHEK SHARMA

The total settlement may be considered to consist of

the following contributions:

(a) Initial settlement or elastic compression.

(b) Consolidation settlement or primary compression.

(c) Secondary settlement or secondary compression

This is also referred to as the ‘distortion

settlement’ or ‘contact settlement’ and is usually

taken to occur immediately on application of the

foundation load.

saturated soils is primarily due to the expulsion of

gases and to the elastic compression and

rearrangement of particles.

77 In the case of saturated soils immediate

ABHISHEK SHARMA

ABHISHEK SHARMA

diate Settlement in Cohesionless Soils

661

This method has been developed for use with the

Dutch Cone Penetrometer but can be adapted for the

e immediate settlement,test.

standard penetration Si, is given by:

...(Eq. 58)

σ0 = effective overburden pressure at the centre of the

layer before any excavation or application of load,

Δσ = vertical stress increment at the centre of the

layer,

and Cs = compressibility constant, given by: 59)

...(Eq.

2

78 Cr being the static cone resistance (in kN/m ), and

σ being the effective overburden pressure at the point

ABHISHEK SHARMA

The value of Cr obtained from the Dutch Cone

661

penetration test must be correlated to the recorded

number of blows, N, obtained from the standard

penetration

According test. and Nixon (1961), Cr ranged from

to Meigh

430N (kN/m2) to 1930N (kN/m2). However, Cr is more

commonly taken as 400 N (kN/m2) as proposed by

Meyerhof (1956).

79

The use of charts: The actual number of blows, N, from

the standard penetration test has to be corrected,

under certain circumstances to obtain N′, the

corrected value.

obtain N′ from N.

by Terzaghi and Peck (1948) between the settlement

of a 305 mm square plate under a given pressure and

the N′-value of the soil immediately beneath it, as

For determining the settlement, Sf, of a square

shown in Fig.

foundation on a deep layer of cohesionless soil by

using Terzaghi and Peck’s formula:

...(Eq. 60)

80

the chart and, ABHISHEK SHARMA

The chart is applicable for deep layers only, that is, for

layers of thickness not less than 4B below the

foundation.

For rectangular foundations, a shape factor should

presumably be used. It is as follows:

= Settlement of square foundation of size B ×

shape factor.

81

ABHISHEK SHARMA

ABHISHEK SHARMA

661

ediate Settlement in Cohesive Soils

according to Terzaghi (1943), is given by:

...(Eq. 61)

flexible foundation of size L × B,

B = Width of the foundation,

q = Uniform pressure on the foundation,

Es = Modulus of elasticity of the soil beneath the

foundation,

ν = Poisson’s

= Influence ratio

Value, of the

which soil, and on L/B

is dependent

82

Si, for a rectangular foundation on the surface of a

semi-elastic medium is given by:

...(Eq. 62)

q = uniform intensity of pressure,

Es = modulus of elasticity of the soil beneath the

foundation,

ν = Poisson’s ratio of the soil, and

Is = influence factor which depends upon L/B.

83

ABHISHEK SHARMA

diate Settlement of a Thin Clay Layer

4B, Steinbrenner (1934) prepared coefficients.

The immediate settlement at the corners of a

rectangular foundation on an infinite layer is given by:

...(Eq. 63)

84

ABHISHEK SHARMA

85

ABHISHEK SHARMA

Permissible Settlements

There are two main ill-effects of differential

settlements:

(i) the architectural effect (cracking of plaster, for

example) and

(ii) the structural

Terzaghi and Peck effect (redistribution

(1948) specify a ofpermissible

moments

and shears, for example, which may ultimately lead to

differential settlement of 20 mm between adjacent

failure).

columns and recommend that foundations on sand be

designed for a total settlement of 25 mm.

Skempton and MacDonald (1956) specify that the

angular rotation or distortion between adjacent

columns in clay should not exceed 1/300, although

the total settlement may go up to 100 mm

Sowers (1957) recommends, in his discussion of the

paper by Polshin and Pokar (1957) a maximum

differential settlement of 1/500 for brick buildings and

86

1/5000 for foundations of turbogenerators.ABHISHEK SHARMA

Bozozuk (1962) summarised his investigations

in Ottawa as follows:

settlement of 65 mm for isolated foundations on clay,

40 mm for isolated foundations on sand, 65 to 100

mm for rafts on clay and 40 to 65 mm for rafts on

sand.

The permissible differential settlement is 40 mm for

foundations on clay and 25 mm for foundations on

87

sand. The angular distortion in the case of ABHISHEK

largeSHARMA

Remedial Measures Against Harmful

1.Settlements

Removal of soft soil strata, consistent with economy.

foundations

expulsion of soil mass from underneath the footing of a

foundation.

expansion of a soil mass and to give time for the pore

water to be expelled by the surcharge load.

appropriately, proper adjustment between pressure,

shape and size of the foundation in order to attain

88

uniform settlements underneath the structure.

ABHISHEK SHARMA

18. CONTACT PRESSURE

89

from the foundation to the soil.

A uniformly loaded foundation will not necessarily

transmit a uniform

contact pressure to the soil. This is possible only if the

foundation is perfectly ‘flexible’;

ABHISHEK SHARMA

ABHISHEK SHARMA

661

19. PLATE LOAD TEST

90

the foundation level, increasing the load in arbitrary

increments, and determining the settlements

corresponding to each load after the settlement has

nearly

The ceased

nature each

of thetime

loada applied

load increment

may be isgravity

applied.

loading

or dead weights on an improvised platform or reaction

loading by using a hydraulic jack. The reaction of the jack

load is taken by a cross beam or a steel truss anchored

suitably at both

Test plates areends.

usually square or circular, the size

ranging from 300 to 750 mm (side or diameter); the

minimum thickness recommended is 25 mm for providing

sufficient rigidity.

Jack-loading is superior in terms of accuracy and

uniformity of loading. Settlement of the test plate is

measured by means of at least two or three dial gauges

91

ABHISHEK SHARMA

The test pit should be at least five times as wide as the

test plate and the bottom of the test plate should

correspond to the proposed foundation level. At the

centre of the pit, a small square hole is made the size

being that of the test plate and the depth being such

that,

92

...(Eq. 64)

ABHISHEK SHARMA

Bigger size plates are preferred in cohesive soils. The test

procedure is given in IS: 1888–1982 (Revised). The

procedure, in brief, is as follows:

(i) After excavating the pit of required size and levelling

the base, the test plate is seated over the ground. A

little sand may be spread below the plate for even

support. If ground water is encountered, it should be

lowered slightly below the base by means of pumping.

applied and released before actual loading is

commenced.

the anticipated ultimate bearing capacity, is applied.

Settlements are recorded with the aid of the dial

gauges after 1 min., 4 min., 10 min., 20 min., 40 min.,

and 60 min., and later on at hourly intervals until the

93

ABHISHEK SHARMA

(iv) The test is continued until a load of about 1.5

times the anticipated ultimate load is applied.

According to another school of thought, a settlement

at which failure occurs or at least 2.5 cms should be

reached.

made between pressure and settlement, which is

usually referred to as the ‘‘load-settlement curve’’,

rather loosely. The bearing capacity is determined

from this plot, which is dealt with in the next

oad-Settlement

subsection. Curves

Load-Settlement curves or pressure-

settlement curves to be more precise, are obtained

as a result of loading tests either in the laboratory or

in the field, oedometer tests being an example in

94

the laboratory and plate bearing test, inABHISHEK

the field.

SHARMA

Curve I is typical of

dense sand or

gravel or stiff

clay, wherein

general shear

Curve

failure II is typical

occurs.

of loose sand or

soft clay, wherein

local shear

failure occurs.

Curve III is typical

of many c – φ soils

which exhibit

characteristics

intermediate

between

95 the above

two. ABHISHEK SHARMA

Determination of bearing capacity from

plate load test

(Terzaghi and Peck, 1948):

...(Eq. 65)

(mm),

Sp = settlement of the test plate (mm),

b = size of the proposed foundation (m), and

bp = size of the test plate (m).

This is applicable for sands.

96

ABHISHEK SHARMA

ABHISHEK SHARMA

The relationship is simpler for clays,661

since the

modulus value Es, for clays is reasonably

constant:

...(Eq. 66)

square size, and

The

S = method for the

Settlement of a determination of the

footing of width b. bearing

capacity of a footing of width b should be apparent

now. The permissible settlement value, such as 25 mm,

should be substituted in the equation that is applicable

(Eq. 50 to 51) ; and the Sp, the settlement of the plate

must be calculated. From the load-settlement curve,

the pressure corresponding to the computed settlement

97

mitations of Plate Load Tests

(ii) Consolidation settlements in cohesive soils,

which may take years, cannot be predicted,

(iii) Results from plate load test are not

recommended to be used for the design of

strip

(iv) footings,

The load test results reflect the

characteristics of the soil located only within a

depth of about twice the width of the plate.

Thus, it may be seen that interpretation and

use of the plate load test results requires great

care and judgment, on the part of the

foundation engineer.

98

ABHISHEK SHARMA

20. BEARING CAPACITY FROM

PENETRATION TESTS

99

allowable bearing pressure, based on a

standard allowable settlement, for footings

of known widths on sand, whose N-values

are known.

ABHISHEK SHARMA

Above figures do not apply to gravels or those soils

containing a large percentage of gravels. These charts

have been prepared on the assumption that the water

table is at a depth greater than the width of the

footing

10 below the base of the footing. If the water table

is located at the base of the footing, the

0

allowable

ABHISHEK SHARMA

Charts given by Peck, Hanson and Thornburn

(1953) may be used for the determination of

allowable bearing pressure for a specific allowable

settlement of 25 mm or 40 mm,

pressure for 40mm

10

1 settlement.

ABHISHEK SHARMA 661

Teng (1969) has proposed the following equation for

the graphical relationship of Terzaghi and Peck for a

settlement of 25 mm:

...(Eq. 67)

for a settlement of 25 mm,

N = Standard penetration value corrected for

overburden pressure and other applicable factors,

b = width of footing in metres,

Rγ = correction factor for location of water table,

(Eq.56)

he modified equation of Teng is as follows:

and Rd = Depth factor (= 1 + Df /b) ≤ 2.

where Df = depth of footing in metres. ...(Eq. 68)

10

2 ABHISHEK SHARMA

Meyerhof (1956) has proposed slightly different

equations for a settlement of 25 mm, but these yield

almost the same results as Teng’s equation:

...(Eq. 69)

...(Eq. 70)

...(Eq. 71)

...(Eq. 72)

10

3 ABHISHEK SHARMA

The I.S. code of practice gives Eq. 73 for a settlement

of 40 mm; but, it does not consider the depth effect.

...(Eq. 73)

...(Eq. 73 a)

a settlement of 25 mm,

N = Standard penetration value corrected for

overburden pressure and other applicable

factors,

b = width of footing in metres,

Rγ = correction factor for location of water

10

4

table, (Eq.52) ABHISHEK SHARMA

Teng (1969) also gives the following equations

for bearing capacity of sands based on the

criterion of shear failure:

...(Eq. 74)

...(Eq. 75)

necessary corrections,

b = width of continuous footing (side, if square, and

diameter, if circular in metres),

Df = depth of footing in metres, and

Rγ and Rq = correction factors for the position of the

ground water table, defined in Eqs. 52 & 53.

10

5 ABHISHEK SHARMA

21. BEARING CAPACITY OF CLAYS

106

...(Eq. 76)

the cohesion.)

ABHISHEK SHARMA

QUICK

NOTE

Skempton’s equations are preferred for rectangular

footings in pure clay.

Correlation of cohesion and consistency of clays with N-

values is not reliable. Unconfined compression test

is recommended for evaluating cohesion.

Overconsolidated or precompressed clays might show

hair cracks and slickensides. Load tests are

recommended in such cases.

Settlements of footings in clays may be calculated or

predicted by the use of Terzaghi’s one-dimensional

consolidation.

The bearing capacity of footings in clays is practically

unaffected by the size of the foundation.

10

7 ABHISHEK SHARMA

Example1: Compute the safe bearing capacity of a

square footing 1.5 m × 1.5 m, located at a depth of 1

m below the ground level in a soil of average density

20 kN/m3. φ = 20°, Nc = 17.7, Nq = 7.4, and Nγ = 5.0.

Assume a suitable factor of safety and that the water

table is very deep. Also compute the reduction in safe

bearing capacity of the footing if the water table rises

b = 1.5 m Square footing Df = 1 m

to the ground level.

γ = 20 kN/m3 φ = 20° Nc = 17.7, Nq = 7.4, and Nγ =

5.0

Assume c = 0 and η = 3

Df Nq, in this case.

= 0.4 × 20 × 1.5 × 5.0 + 20 × 1 × 7.4 = 60 + 148 =

208 kN/m2

10

8 ABHISHEK SHARMA

If the water table rises to the ground level,

Rγ = 0.5 = Rq

∴ qult = 0.4 γ bNγ . Rγ + γDf Nq . Rq

= 0.4 × 20 × 1.5 × 5.0 × 0.5 + 20 × 1 × 7.4 × 0.5

= 30 + 74 = 104 kN/m2

10

9 ABHISHEK SHARMA

Example 2: A plate load test was conducted on a uniform

deposit of sand and the following data were obtained:

the failure stress.

(ii) A square footing, 2m × 2 m, is to be founded at 1.5

m depth in this soil. Assuming the factor of safety

against shear failure as 3 and the maximum

permissible settlement as 40 mm, determine the

allowable bearing pressure.

(iii) Design of footing for a load of 2,000 kN, if the

water table is at a great depth.

11

0 ABHISHEK SHARMA

(i) The pressure-settlement curve is shown in Fig. The

failure point is obtained as the point corresponding to

the intersection of the initial

and final tangents. In this case, the failure stress is

500 kN/m2.

∴ qult = 500 kN/m2

11

1 ABHISHEK SHARMA

(ii) The value of qult here is given by

0.5.γbp Nγ .

bp, the size of test plate = 0.75 m

Assuming γ = 20 kN/m3,

500 = 0.5 × 20 × 0.75 Nγ

∴ Nγ = 500/7.5 ≈ 6.7

φ = 38°

∴ Nq ≈ 50 from Terzaghi’s charts.

For square footing of size 2 m and Df = 1.5 m,

qnet ult = 0.4 γ b Nγ + γDf (Nq – 1)

= 0.4 × 20 × 2 × 67 + 20 × 1.5 × 49 = 2,542

kN/m2

qsafe = 2542/3 ≈ 847 kN/m2 (for failure

against shear)

11

2 ABHISHEK SHARMA

Pressure for a settlement of 27 mm for the plate (from

Fig. ) = 550 kN/m2. Allowable bearing pressure is the

smaller of the values from the two criteria = 550

kN/m2.

From Part (ii), it is known that a 2 m square footing can

carry a load of 2 × 2 × 550 = 2,200 kN.

Therefore, a 2 m square footing placed at a depth

of 1.5 m is adequate for the design load.

11

3 ABHISHEK SHARMA

ample 3 (ESE CE 2017)

In a plate load test on a soil, at a particular magnitude

of the settlement, it was observed that the bearing

pressure beneath the footing is 100 kN/m2 and the

perimeter shear is 25 kN/m2. Correspondingly, the load

capacity of a 2m square footing at the same settlement

will be

(c) 400 kN (d) 600 kN

Q = Aσb + P σ s

σ b = Bearing pressure

σ s = Perimeter shear

A = Plate base area

P = Perimeter

Q

11

4

= Load capacity

GATE 2018 :The contact pressure and settlement

distribution for a footing are shown in the figure.

The figure corresponds to a

(b) flexible footing on granular soil

(c) flexible footing on saturated clay

(d) rigid footing on cohesive soil.

11

5

REFRENCES:

C. VENKATARAMAIAH

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

THIRD EDITION

( NEW AGE INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD. PUBLISHERS)

MUNI BUDHU-

SOIL MECHANICS AND FOUNDATIONS

THIRD EDITION -WILEY (2010)

BASIC AND APPLIED SOIL MECHANICS

(NEW AGE INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD., PUBLISHERS)

116

116 ABHISHEK SHARMA 661

- 2-INTRODUCTION Foundation ENGG.pdfTransféré parFarooq Hussain
- Shallow Foundations Allowable Bearing Capacity & SettlementTransféré parMansoor
- Safe Bearing Capacity DefinitionTransféré parVinnieTran
- The Bearing Capacity of a Shallow FoundationTransféré parpriprema komp
- Comparison of Bearing Capacity for ShallowTransféré parchristopherapss
- Bearing CapacityTransféré parAhsan Sattar
- Foundation Engineering Exam QuestionsTransféré parRamiz Keyra
- Isolated FootingTransféré parVasanthakumar
- 2 Design of Cantilever WallTransféré parAli Öztürk
- INTERFERENCE OF ADJOINING RECTANGULAR FOOTINGS ON REINFORCED SANDTransféré parIAEME Publication
- Soil Pile Capacity Soil Investigation ReportTransféré parzakaria200811060
- ExamplesTransféré parReemALMousawi
- Thrust Anchor Blocks for End CapsTransféré parKushan Dhanushka Nanayakkara
- Lecture 9Transféré parengsam777
- 10067-9-V01-G00Z-01671Transféré parAhmed Saad
- Day 3-4 Impt Considerations in Design of Struct Perf FoundationTransféré parMIHDI PALAPUZ
- SFA Isolated FootingTransféré paranjobalucas
- soil_testing_report_HSS_BGT.pdfTransféré parSreedhar Bhuduru
- Ch12 Solution Manual Soil Mechanics and FoundationsTransféré parcesar1982g
- Culminating Experiment (1)Transféré parAldrin M. Villanueva Jr.
- Bearing Capacity 120405032828 Phpapp01Transféré parSuman Manandhar
- 25. GIAO TRINH NEN MONG XE.pdfTransféré parNguyen Vinh
- Arc2Transféré parram
- 11 Bearing CapacityTransféré parVincze Robert
- Bearing capacity of strip and circular foundationTransféré parKevin Paul Arca Rojas
- 1. Bearing CapacityTransféré parwasim shaikh
- Report Part 2 p01Transféré parMehdi Hasan
- Geo Eng 466 exam 2010Transféré parSilver Lim
- WJET_2014050611440130 Application Bamboo Network.pdfTransféré parArzenaNorega
- PLAXIS 3D2018 Tutorial Lesson 04Transféré parBiao Deng

- 2925 Modeling of Anhydrite Swelling With FlacTransféré parjmhs31
- pdf (2)Transféré parfadi
- A311A311M-04(2015) Standard Specification for Cold-Drawn, Stress-Relieved Carbon Steel Bars Subject to Mechanical Property RequirementsTransféré parvantayusd
- Fender-brown Alloys for Surgical Instruments 2005Transféré parkaka**
- Homework 3 With SolutionsTransféré parDaniel Rodriguez
- Allowable Stress.pdfTransféré parsudoku
- Job#5 Unconfined Compressive Strength using Cemnt.pdfTransféré parMazharYasin
- Diode ConstructionTransféré parJelita Shaleha Sibarani
- Development of Heat Transfer Coefficient Correlation for Concentric Helical Coil Heat ExchangerTransféré parCaroline Rodrigues
- Sampath EmaniTransféré parSurya Sampath Emani
- Me 010 506 ThermodynamicsTransféré parPrins Korah
- Steam TableTransféré parAnthony Cruz
- A beamTransféré parriz2010
- RuiZhang DissertationTransféré parZenith Jina
- Fatigue Failure CriteriaTransféré parAmrMashhour
- Bernard_P._Binks,_Tommy_S._Horozov_Colloidal_Particles_at_Liquid_Interfaces.pdfTransféré parTanvir Hossain
- Hardenability of ASSAB 760 Steel during Tempering for Punch Holder ApplicationsTransféré parTowkir Ahmmad
- baseringanalysis-150309084319-conversion-gate01.pdfTransféré parkamal615
- Solid State Devices Notes pages 28-54Transféré parMohamed Mahmoud Saad Hassan
- TECNOLÓGICO UNIVERSITARIO DEL VALLE DE CHALCOTransféré parBlack Demon
- Moulds DesignTransféré parSree Raj
- Metal-Casting Processes and Equipment; Heat treatmentsTransféré parsengcan
- BlastTransféré parhosseinnet
- Chapter 2 - Part 1.pdfTransféré parRoger Fernandez
- Coil slumping.pdfTransféré parsergio_rolla
- Anna University [AERO-R2013]Transféré paraeroacademic
- Materials Class Test 2005 2008Transféré parRobert Lau Yik Siang
- 01 Continuum MechanicsTransféré parHernan Vega
- HardnessTransféré parmvdaulkar
- quasicrystals.pdfTransféré parPaulette Vincent-Ruz