Shallow Foundations

Foundation Challenges: Type of Loading

Static loading

te r
wa

Settlement Bearing Capacity

(consolidation) (extra material added into a silo)
Foundation Challenges: Type of Loading

Dynamics loading:
e.g. wind and waves
Foundation Challenges: Type of Loading (Cont.)
Foundation Challenges:
Type of Loading (Cont.)

Dynamics loading
e.g. Earthquakes
Foundation Challenges:Stress Paths
 Definitions and Key Terms
• Foundation: Structure transmits loads to the underlying ground (soil).
(e.g. Rhinoceros's foot…)
• Footing: Slab element that transmit load from superstructure to ground
(e.g. Skier's skis…).
• Embedment depth, Df : The depth below ground surface where the base
of the footing rests.
• Bearing pressure: The normal stress imposed by the footing on the
Ground
supporting ground.
Surface
• Ultimate bearing capacity qult : The maximum
bearing pressure that the soil can sustain (i.e it fails). Df
• Ultimate net bearing capacity (qunet):
The maximum bearing pressure that the soil can
Footing
sustain above its current overburden pressure
 Definitions and Key Terms (Cont.)
• Allowable bearing capacity: (qall):
The working pressure that would ensure an acceptable margin of safety
against bearing capacity failure
• Factor of safety: The ratio between (qunet) and (qall). (F.S. = qunet/qall )
• Ultimate limit state: A state that defines a limiting shear stress that
should not be exceeded by any conceivable or anticipated loading during
the life span of a foundation or any geotechnical system
• Serviceability limit state: A state that defines a limiting deformation or
settlement of a foundation, which, if exceeded will impair the function of
the supported structure.
John Basics
100 kg Calculate the bearing
pressure at point A in
kPa, assuming uniform
distribution of John’s
Weight

D = 5 cm

0.981kg/cm2=1kPa
 Basics
Concrete Frame

How would you locate

the footings at the Pins
to guarantee uniform
bearing pressure on the
Ground surface
ground?
 Types of Foundations

Shallow Foundations Deep Foundations

Df/B <= 2.5 Df/B > 2.5

B is the width of the footing, and Df is the

foundation depth
 Examples of Shallow Foundations

Raft Foundation
Isolated Footing Combined Footings
 Examples of Shallow Foundations (Cont.)

H
Skirted V
Foundations

su
d
suo
D kz

z
 Design Requirements
Load

Load
1. The foundation must not collapse
or become unstable under any
conceivable load
2. Deformation (settlement) of the
Collapse
structure must be within tolerable Load
limits
Settlement
[N.B. Special case: dense sand]
 Stages in load-settlement of shallow
foundations
Load
Relatively elastic vertical compression
The load-settlement curve is almost Load
straight.
Local yielding starts to affect
Upward and outward movement of the
soil with a possible surface heave.
General shear failure
Large settlements are produced as Collapse
plastic yielding is fully developed within Load
the soil. In dense sands: softening can
occur after collapse. Settlement
[N.B. Special case: dense sand]
 Collapse and Failure Loads
Qult
Qult Qult
1 2 3

Load Load
Qult
Qult

Settlement
Settlement

Settlement

Collapse Qult
Failure

Loose sand
Failure Failure
(say Dr<0.3)
Dense sand Medium sand
(say Dr>0.7) (say 0.7>Dr>0.3)
 Characteristics of Each Failure Mode
• General shear (Dense sand):
– well defined failure mechanism
– continuous slip surface from footing to surface
– sudden catastrophic failure
• Local shear (Loose sand):
– failure mechanism well defined only beneath the footing
– slip surfaces do not extend to the soil surface
– considerable vertical displacement
– lower ultimate capacity
• Punching shear (Very Loose sand):
– failure mechanism less well defined
– soil beneath footing compresses
– large vertical displacements
– lowest ultimate capacity
– very loose soils or at large embedment depths
 Collapse and Failure Loads
Footing

45+f’/2 45-f’/2

C A E
q

B D

Log spiral slip Rankine passive

Rigid soil zone
surface wedge
wedge

Terzaghi’s Assumptions:
Soil is semi infinite, homogeneous, isotropic, weightless and
rigid plastic material
 Essential Points so far
1. Failure mode in sands depends on the density of the soil.
2. More settlement is expected in loose soils than in dense
soils (for the same load). Alternatively, dense soils can
sustain more load.
3. A successful model to predict general shear failure of
foundations on medium to dense sands might be to assume
a trapped rigid wedge of soil beneath the footing bordering
radial shear zones under Rankine passive zone.
(to be continued…)
 Soil Strength: Which Parameters to Use?
But dilation is a factor of density and stress state…
D, M, L: Dense, Medium, Loose
 Soil Strength: Which Parameters to Use?
But dilation is also a factor of stress state…

CS φcs!!!
Soil Strength: Which Parameters to Use?
Critical State Concept…

When sheared, state of soil tends towards a

unique line in t - s' - e space.

Or alternatively, the q – p’ – e space

This is called the critical state line (CSL).
 Soil Strength: Which Parameters to Use?
undrained loading of clays…

Shear stress τ Drained strength sd

f'cv
Undrained strength su Undrained strength su

Drained strength sd
σ'n
Void ratio e Positive pore pressure
Suction increases
Dilation

effective stress reduces effective stress

Undrained test
Loose states

Contraction
Þ no volume change eo
allowed
Dense states

CSL
Normal effective stress s'n (or mean effective stress p')
 What is su and Why Can we Use it for Clays?
Shear stress τ

mb
o ulo
h r-C
o
M

su Tresca

σ'n

But remember: su (or =cu) is not a fundamental strength property!!!

 Bearing Capacity Formulas

Methods of Analysis:
1. Effective Stress Analysis (ESA)- sands and slow loading on clays
2. Total Stress Analysis (TSA)- rapid loading on clays
 Methods of Solutions

let’s start with retaining walls, just

before sitting on foundations…
Idealisation of Stress-Strain Behaviour:

Let’s simplify, by representing soil as

rigid perfectly plastic…
Stress

Strength, su

Strain
su, useful for clays in undrained conditions
 Introduction to Limit Analysis Methods for the
Calculation of Bearing Capacity

In this course, 3 methods will be discussed:

1. Limit Equilibrium (LE)
2. Upper Bound (UB)
3. Lower Bound (LB)

LE and UB can, in certain cases, be identical because they both

require an assumption of kinematic failure mechanism
UB and LB solutions may give the exact solution for a problem if
they match!!!
 Stability Analysis of Geomechanical Structures

Requirements for exact solutions:

1) Equilibrium
2) Meets Yielding (or failure) conditions (Failure Criterion)
3) Compatibility of deformation (Velocity Field)
Concept of Bound Theorems in Plasticity (cont.)

Optimistic
Load

Upper Bound

EXACT
Lower Bound
Pessimistic

Deformation
 Lower Bound
The essential steps:
1. Assume a “safe” distribution of stresses (approximation), which
must be in equilibrium (statically admissible)
2. Stresses must be less than or equal to those that will cause failure
3. Use diagrams of the Mohr circles at the different regions to
determine collapse load.

The LB method gives pessimistic answer.

In many cases, the LB stress fields contains stress discontinuities.
 Lower Bound Theorem
q

q
τ
0 σh =0
su Failure
envelope Clay, Su
Collapse of a vertical cut with
adjacent surcharge

σ
σv = q Assumed stress field

q = 2 su
 Upper Bound
The essential steps:
1. Selection of plausible failure mechanism or failure (as in LE)
2. Determination of internal work (or dissipation) along interfaces of
velocity jumps using the velocity diagram (hodograph)
3. Use of energy balance (External work WE == Internal work WI) to
determine collapse load.

The UB method provides optimistic answer.

In most general mechanisms dissipation could occur also within zones of
diffusive shear rather than along interfaces of velocity jumps.
 Upper Bound Theorem
Length of cd = 2b
q
F
• Energy balance δ
d
external work = internal plastic work A
• Work = force * Distance O b
su
Failure surface 45o
c
Collapse of a vertical cut with
O adjacent surcharge
velocity diagram
δ 2δ
(hodograph)
F A
Per unit width into the page:
τ Failure planes
work input = q. b. δ (1) su
plastic work = su 2 b. 2 δ = 2 b su δ (2)
(1) = (2) 45o σ
pole
q = 2su
su
 Limit Equilibrium
The essential steps:
1. Selection of plausible failure mechanism or failure
2. Determination of the force acting on the failure surface based on
the force polygons
3. Use of equilibrium equations to determine the collapse or failure
load
Limit equilibrium is mainly used in slope stability problems.
In bearing capacity its use is minimal compared to the other methods as
it cannot indicate on exact solution.
However, it is built on the simple idea of force equilibrium…
 Limit Equilibrium
q
• Combined faetures of upper and lower
bound solutions
su
• Assumes failure mechanism (sliding of rigid b
plastic blocks) (No worries about Compatibility) sn= su
• Equilibrium of forces or moments Failure surface 45o
Collapse of a vertical cut with
adjacent surcharge

su 2b
From Equilibriu m
qb
δ q.b = su 2 b 1 + su 2 b 1
su 2b
2 2
Force Polygon at
Failure
q = 2su
 q
• Moment equilibrium about point C +
A C
D
Length of CD = b/ 2 b
su
b b su
q.b. = su . 2b. B
2 2δ
q = 2 su
 Active Earth Pressure - Rankine's Theory (Lower Bound)
FRICTIONAL SOIL

τ State
φ τ φ
σv of 45+φ/2
movement failure
σh drops σh
σho σvo σ 90+φ τmax
σh σv s
σ

45+φ/2

Orientation of
failure planes Pole

90+φ

45+φ/2
 Passive Earth Pressure - Rankine's Theory (Lower Bound)
FRICTIONAL SOIL
State of
τ φ
τ φ 45-φ/2
σv failure
movement
σh
σ
τmax
σh rises σho
σvo
σv σh σ
90-φ
σ

45-φ/2 Pole

Kp = 1
Ka
90-φ
Orientation of
45-φ/2 failure planes
 Methods of Solutions

so what about foundations?

 Limit Equilibrium (example 1- TSA)
Consider strip footing of Width B, resting on surface of saturated clay
with undrained shear strength is su.
First consider the following mechanism:
Qult Normal stress values are unknown-
B but they go through centre of rotation!
Shear stress values on failure surface would
correspond to shear strength of soil!
B
R=

From moment equilibrium (only!):

τ= s u
B
σn Q ult × − s u πB × B = 0
2
But Terzaghi and Prandtl Q ult
claimed Nc=5.14… Nc = = 6.28
Bsu
 Limit Equilibrium (example 2- TSA)
Speculate an alternative mechanism:
From moment equilibrium (only!):
Qult × ( B / 2) − s u (π − 2θ ) R × R = 0
Qult
R=
B*S
B ecθ
θ

Minimize qult based on θ gives θ=23.2o

Q ult
τ= s u Nc = = 5.52
Bsu
sn

Closer to 5.14…
 Upper Bound
Definition of incremental internal work (for ESA)
Mohr Circle of strain rates: Mohr Circle of effective stresses:
τ
δγ
1
δε12 = δγ
2 {σn , τ}
δε σ'
δε2 δε1 σ'2 σ'1

δWi = σ'1 δε1 + σ'2 δε2

 Upper Bound
Definition of incremental internal work (for TSA)
Mohr Circle of strain rates: Mohr Circle of total stresses:

δγ τ σ1 − σ2
su =
δε12 = δε1 2
= −δε2 su
τ = Su
δε σ
δε2 δε1 σ2 σ1

δWi = σ1δε1 + σ2δε2

= (σ1 − σ2 )δε1
= 2suδε1 = su δγ
 Upper Bound
(examples for calculations of work terms)
ΔV

H Q τ = Su

Vy
Vx
b
L
External work:
WE = QVy+ HVx Internal work (TSA):
WI = Volume * δWi [from integration]
= (L.b) Su(ΔV/b) = Su L ΔV
Independent of b
b may tend to zero
 Upper Bound
(examples for calculations of work terms)

Fan Shear Zone

0
V
V
0
θ

Internal work (TSA):

WI = xy × δWi
Internal work (TSA):
δWi = 2su × Vy/y
WI = 2su r Voθ
WI = 2x × Vy × su
 Upper Bound (example 1- TSA)

Qult WI= su∗Δs*πB = su*dθ*πB2

B
WE= Qult*dθ*B/2
dθ From equating WE= WI
δW
B
R=

Qult =6.28*su*B
i=
su *
Δ
s /b As we obtained from limit equilibrium!!!
 Upper Bound (example 2- TSA)
B

Qult

A C
B

3 rigid blocks (A-C) that slide relative to each other.

Shear strength is mobilised along block interfaces.
Assume that the same shear strength is acting along the interface
between Block A and the footing..
Let the vertical component of footing "velocity" be v.
 Velocity Diagram (Hodograph)

Qult
v

Qult = (6+α)*su*B
 Upper Bound (example 3- TSA)
B

Qult

C A C
B B

As in the previous example, but symmetrical mechanism

However, this time shear strength is not mobilised along the
interface between Block A and the footing because there is not any
relative “velocity” between them.
 Velocity Diagram (Hodograph)

Qult

C A C
B B

v
Qult = 6*su*B
 Upper Bound (example 4- TSA)

Qult

B B
B/2 dε A

As in the previous example, but symmetrical mechanism

However, this time shear strength is not mobilised along the
interface between Block A and the footing because there is not any
relative “velocity” between them.
Upper Bound (example 5- TSA)
B
Qult

A C
A, C: rigid blocks
B
B: fan zone comprised of
numerous sliding wedges
 Velocity Diagram (Hodograph)

v
Upper Bound (example 6- Prandtl)
B
Qult

A C
B
 Lower Bound
The essential steps:
1. Assume a “safe” distribution of stresses (approximation), which
must be in equilibrium (statically admissible)
2. Stresses must be less than or equal to those that will cause failure
3. Use diagrams of the Mohr circles at the different regions to
determine collapse load.

The LB method gives pessimistic answer.

In many cases, the LB stress fields contains stress discontinuities.
Undrained Bearing Capacity - Simplest Lower Bound
q

Stress discontinuity is frictionless

(in this example only)

Region 1 Region 2
Major principal Major principal
stress horizontal stress vertical
 Mohr's Circles of Stress

σ
 Stress Discontinuity

Region B σ1B=?
(high stress) σd
τd
Stress discontinuity

Region A τd
(low stress) σd σ1A
 Mohr's Circles for Undrained Loading
τ

σ1A σ1B
σ
σ1A

p1 p2
σd,τd
The change in total stress across a discontinuity is related simply to the
rotation of the principal stresses across the discontinuity.
Undrained Bearing Capacity – Lower Bound
increasing complexity

π/4

1 2 3

4
Mohr's Circles for Undrained Loading

Take: p=0, k=su

Get: q=2(1+√2)su =4.83su

π/4

Schofield/Wroth, 1968
 Undrained Bearing Capacity - Optimum Lower Bound

q
Region 1: uniform stress state
Region 2: fan of many stress
discontinuities
1 3 Region 3: uniform stress state
1

2 2

Total change in direction of σ1 from region 3 to region 1 = π/2 (ie within region 2)
If there are n stress discontinuities in the fan region, then each has dθ = π/2n
 Mohr's Circles - Optimum Lower Bound Solution

lim [2n*sin(π/2n)]=π
n→∞

τ
π.su

q=(2+π).su
σ

Qult = q.B = (2+π).B.su

Summary of Undrained Bearing Capacity Solutions
• Solutions were for infinitely long strip footings.

• Lower bound (final): q = 5.14su

• Upper bound (final): q = 5.14su

• Solutions converged at q = 5.14su

• General form (without inclination): q = Ncsu with Nc=5.14

• Inclined loading (shear stress on footing) reduces bearing capacity.

 Effect of Soil Self Weight: e.g., via limit equil.
Additional terms are added to account for the self weight and over burden
pressure but in these cases effective stress analysis should be followed by
considering the friction angle. For example, limit equilibrium could supply the
self weight term by optimizing the geometry of the following failure
mechanism:
Qu+W1(a)
Qu W2(a,b)
R2
a b
R1
γ is presented R1 R1 R1
W2 W2
W1

R2 R2

The overburden stress term could be found by adding forces to the above poligons
 ESA with self-weight & surcharge:
e.g., via (simplified form of) lower bound

B
Typical
Buried
D
Footing

Q qs = γ D
Equivalent
Surface
Footing
Shallow Foundations have D/B < 1
 ESA with self-weight & surcharge:
e.g., via (simplified form of) lower bound

Soil at state Soil at state

of Active of Passive
Failure with Failure with
σ v > σh σ h > σv
Frictionless
Discontinuity σ 1 + c cot φ
σ1 = N φ σ 3 + 2 c N φ Nφ =
σ 3 + c cot φ
 ESA with self-weight & surcharge:
e.g., via (simplified form of) lower bound

σv = σ1 σh = σ1
σh = σ3 σv = σ3

σv = qf + γ z σv = qs + γ z

q f + γ z + c cot φ σ h + c cot φ
Nφ = Nφ =
σ h + c cot φ q s + γ z + c cot φ

1
σh = ( q f + γ z + c cot φ ) − c cot φ σ h = N φ ( q s + γ z + c cot φ ) − c cot φ
Nφ
 ESA with self-weight & surcharge:
e.g., via (simplified form of) lower bound

H H

∫ (σ
0
)
h active dz = ∫ (σ
0
h ) passive dz

1 ⎡ γ H2 ⎤ ⎡ γ H2 ⎤
⎢q f H + 2 + c cot φ H ⎥ = N φ ⎢q s H + 2 + c cot φ H ⎥
Nφ ⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦

γH 2
qf = qs N 2
φ +
2
( )
N φ − 1 + c cot φ N φ2 − 1 ( )
 ESA with self-weight & surcharge:
e.g., via (simplified form of) lower bound
γH 2
q f = q s N 2φ +
2
( ) ( )
N φ − 1 + c cot φ N φ2 − 1

• This solution will give a lower bound to the true solution

because of the simplified stress distribution assumed in the soil

• Similar terms occur in all bearing capacity expressions. They

are functions of the friction angle and:

• the surcharge applied to the soil surface

• the self weight of the soil
• cohesion
 Strip Footing with Inclined Loading - Lower Bound

Average shear
q
stress, τ
τ = α su po

3
1
2
σ1 horizontal

s1 inclined to vertical fan zone

In region 1:
When a = 0 (purely vertical loading), then σ1 is vertical.
When a =1 (footing sliding horizontally), then σ1 is inclined at 45°
(since the maximum shear stress is on a horizontal plane).
 Mohr's Circles for Inclined Loading
τ

σ
Collapse Load for Inclined Loading on Cohesive Soil
6

q/su 3

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
α
 Interaction Diagram

2
Horizontal load

0
0 2 4 6
Vertical load
 Bearing Capacity Formulas: Terzaghi, 1943
Assumptions:
• Strip footing
• Df < B, where B is the footing width
• General shear failure
• The angle θ = φ’ (later was found to be 45+φ’/2)
• The shear strength above the footing base is negligible
• Soil above the footing can be replaced by an equivalent surcharge = γ Df
• The base of the footing is rough
Ignored shear
Footing strength

Df
q
Bearing Capacity Formulas: Terzaghi, 1943, cont.

Total Stress Analysis (TSA): (agreeing with Prandtl, 1921):

qunet = 5.14 su
Where: qunet = Ultimate net bearing capacity (Force L-2)
su = (cu=) Undrained shear strength (Force L-2)
 Bearing Capacity Formulas: Terzaghi, 1943, cont.

Effective Stress Analysis (ESA) (Strip footing):

qult = c N c + q N q + 0.5 γ B N γ

Nc, Nq and Ng are the bearing capacity factors, all are function of φ'
c = cohesion in general cases. (Force L-2)
(use su = (cu=) in rapid loading of clays)
θ = γ Df (overburden pressure) (Force L-2)
B = Footing width (L)
 Bearing Capacity Factors
1000

φ
N q = tan ( 45 +
2
) eπ tan φ

Nγ = 2 (N q + 1) tan φ
100
Nc, Nq and Nγ

Nc N γ = 0 L when φ = 0
10

N c = (N q − 1) cot φ
Nq
Nγ
1
N c = 5 . 14 L when φ = 0

0.1
0 10 20
φο 30 40 50
Bearing Capacity Formulas: Terzaghi, 1943, cont.

Effective Stress Analysis (ESA) (Square footing):

qult = 1.3 c N c + q N q + 0.4 γ B N γ

Effective Stress Analysis (ESA) (Circular footing):

qult = 1.3 c N c + q N q + 0.3 γ B N γ

 General Bearing Capacity Formulas
(Meyerhof, 1963)

Effective Stress Analysis (ESA) (Strip footing):

qult = c Nc scic dc + q Nq sqiq dq + 0.5γ B Nγ sγ iγ dγ

Where s, i and d are:

Shape factor, inclination factor and depth factor respectively

 Shape factors

Factor Relationship Source

Shape B Nq De Beer (1970)

sc = 1 + .
L Nc
B
s q = 1 + . tan φ
L
B
sγ = 1 − 0 .4
L
L = Length of foundation > B
 Depth factors
Factor Relationship Source

Depth (condition 1) Df Hansen (1970)

d c = 1 + 0 .4
Df/B <= 1 B
Df
d q = 1 + 2 tan φ (1 − sin φ ) 2
B
dγ = 1

⎛ Df ⎞
Depth (condition 1) d c = 1 + ( 0 . 4 ) tan −1
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ B ⎠
Df/B > 1 ⎛ Df ⎞
d q = 1 + 2 tan φ (1 − sin φ ) 2 . tan −1
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ B ⎠
dγ = 1

N.B: Df/B is in radians

 Inclinations factors
Factor Relationship Source
2
⎛ β o
⎞
Inclination i c = i q = ⎜⎜ 1 − o
⎟⎟ Meyerhof (1963);
(in the direction of ⎝ 90 ⎠
2
the footing width)
⎛ β ⎞
For iγ = ⎜⎜ 1 − ⎟⎟ if b<f Hanna and
⎝ φ ⎠ Meyerhof (1981)
Otherwise iγ = 0

b = Angle of the load with Vertical

b
NB: These factors are empirical and Df
based on extensive laboratory tests
 Gross and Net Ultimate Bearing Capacity

1. The formulas presented before give gross ultimate

bearing capacity, i.e qult

2. Net ultimate bearing capacity, qunet = qult - γDf

 Factor of Safety, Fs
Allowable Bearing Pressure
qan = Net allowable bearing pressure
qan = (qunet/FS ) …………………………………………….(1)
qag = Gross allowable bearing pressure = qan+ γDf……...(2)
(i.e, the factor of safety is not applied to the existing overburden pressure)
From (1) and (2):

⎛ q unet ⎞
Fs = ⎜ ⎟
⎜q −γ D ⎟
⎝ ag f ⎠
 Example
20o Q (gross) = 150 kN

c=0
φ = 30o 0.7 m
γ = 18 kN/m3
B
Square
footing
Calculate the width B (for FS= 3)
 Effect of Water Table on Bearing Capacity
• The terms to be corrected
B are:
♣ q (overburden pressure);
1 ♣ γ B in the third term
dw
Df • Case (1): Above Foundation depth
♣ q = γ dw + (Df - dw)γ'
dw
2 ♣ (γ' B) in the third term
B • Case (2): dw <B
♣ q is not affected
♣ The term γ B is taken as:
γ dw + (B - dw) γ'
3
• Case (3): dw >= B
♣ No Correction

Effective stresses (effective unit weights) must be used where appropriate

 Eccentric Footings
P
Definition:
Eccentric footing results from the condition that
the load (normal to the footing) is applied off the eB
centre of the footing. This means that the footing
will be subjected to bending moment

Y
eB = My / P P

L My
My
X

Contact stress
B (Resultant in the middle third!)
 Eccentric Footings (cont.)

Bearing capacity:
Treat the footing as a centric one, with reduced contact area of L’ x B’,
where:
L’ = L – 2 eL: B’ = B – 2 eB
eL and eB are the eccentricity in L and B directions respectively
• Use B’ in the bearing capacity equation to calculate (q’ult)
• Shape and inclination factors are calculated based on L’
and B’ (effective area).
• It is possible that B’ > L’. In that case replace between
them.
• Depth factors are calculated based on actual L and B.
• Qult = q’ult (B’) (L’)
• Fs = Qult /P
 Eccentric Footings (cont.)

Example:
A square footing 2m*2m is subjected to an axial gross force of 3000kN
and moments of Mx = 800kN*m and My = 300kN*m.
From laboratory testing the strength parameters of the soil are given by
c = 20 kPa and φ = 36o and the total soil density is γt = 18 kN/m3.
The water table is 7m and the foundation surface is at 2m.

Check the stability of the foundation by requiring:

(a) FS>3
(b) That no tension between footing and soil could be developed
 Eccentric Footings (cont.)
Example:
ey = 300/3000 = 0.1
ex = 800/3000 = 0.266

B’ = B - 2ey = 1.8m; L’ = L – 2ey =1.47m

B’< L’ -> B’=1.47m and L’=1.8m

Nc=50.55; Nq=37.7; Nγ=44.4 (for φ=36o)

B' N q B' B'

sc = 1 + . = 1.61 sq = 1 + . tan φ = 1.59 s γ = 1 − 0.4 = 0.67
L' N c L' L'
 Eccentric Footings (cont.)
Example:
Df
d c = 1 + 0 .4 = 1 .4
B
Df
=1 ⇒ d q = 1 + 2 tan φ (1 − sin φ ) 2
Df
= 1 . 25
B B
dγ = 1

q ult = c N c scd c + q N q sq d q + 0.5 γ B N γ s γ d γ

= 20 ⋅ 50.55 ⋅ 1.61 ⋅ 1.4 + (18 × 2) ⋅ 37.7 ⋅ 1.59 ⋅ 1.25 + 0.5 ⋅ 18 ⋅ 1.47 ⋅ 44.4 ⋅ 0.67 ⋅ 1
≅ 5370kPa

⎛ q ult − γ Df ⎞ 5370 − 18 ⋅ 2
1) Fs = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ = = 4.86 > 3
⎝ q ag − γ Df ⎠ 3000 /(1 .8 ⋅ 1. 47 ) − 18 ⋅ 2
 Eccentric Footings (cont.)
However, need to check for eccentricity!!!

Although ex=0.266<L/6=0.333
And although ey=0.1<B/6=0.333
Tension could still occur!!! In rectangular footing the non-
tension kernel should be within…

Condition (2) is not satisfied!

In these problems it is preferable to first check this condition!!!
 Bearing Capacity on Layered Soils
I) Clay overlying Clay
• Two cases:
a) The Foundation is on a strong clay layer underlain by a
weak clay layer (su1/su2 >1).
b) The foundation is on a weak clay layer underlain by a
strong clay layer (su1/su2 <1). B

Layer 1
(su1)
Meyerhof and Hanna (1978)

Layer 2
(su2)
 Bearing Capacity on Layered Soils
Case (a): Strong over weak (su1/su2 >1).

Df strong layer
a
H
a'
H

Weak layer
Weak layer

• If H/B is relatively small, failure would occur as punching

in the first layer, followed by general shear failure in the
second (the weak) layer
• If H/B is relatively large, the failure surface would be fully
contained within the first (upper layer).
 Bearing Capacity on Layered Soils
Case (a): Strong over weak (su1/su2 >1) (cont.)

⎡ ⎛ B ⎞⎤ ⎡ ⎛ B ⎞⎤⎛ 2 sa H ⎞
qult = ⎢1 + 0.2⎜ ⎟⎥su 2 Nc + ⎢1 + ⎜ ⎟⎥⎜ ⎟ + γ 1 Df
⎣ ⎝ L ⎠⎦ ⎣ ⎝ L ⎠⎦⎝ B ⎠
From general shear failure of From punching shear failure of
bottom soil layer top soil layer
⎡ ⎛ B ⎞⎤
qult ≤ ⎢1 + 0.2⎜ ⎟⎥su1 Nc + γ 1 D f
⎣ ⎝ L ⎠⎦
From general shear failure of top
soil layer
 Bearing Capacity on Layered Soils
Case (a): Strong over weak (su1/su2 >1) (cont.)
1

Where: 0.9
B = width of foundation

s a/s u1
L = length of foundation 0.8

Nc = 5.14 (see chart)

sa = cohesion along the line a-a' in 0.7
the previous figure.

0.6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
su2/su1
 Bearing Capacity on Layered Soils
Case (b): Weak over strong (su1/su2 <1)

(
q ult = q t + ( q b − q t ) 1 − H
H f ) 2
≥ qt

⎡ ⎛ B ⎞⎤
qt = ⎢1 + 0.2⎜ ⎟⎥su1 Nc + γ 1 D f
⎣ ⎝ L ⎠⎦
⎡ ⎛ B ⎞⎤
qb = ⎢1 + 0.2⎜ ⎟⎥su 2 Nc + γ 2 D f
⎣ ⎝ L ⎠⎦
Hf ≈ B N.B: Nc = 5.14 for φ = 0
 Bearing Capacity on Layered Soils
II) Dense or compacted sand above soft clay

• If H is relatively Df Dense sand: φ,

small, failure would su = 0
H
extend into the soft
clay layer
H
• If H is relatively
large, the failure
surface would be
fully contained
within the sand Soft clay: su
layer. φ=0

Meyerhof (1974)
 Bearing Capacity on Layered Soils
II) Dense or compacted sand above soft clay (cont.)

2⎛
2Df ⎞ ⎛ tan φ ⎞
q ult = c N c + γ H ⎜1 + ⎟ Ks ⎜ ⎟ + γ Df
⎝ H ⎠ ⎝ B ⎠
1
( q ult ) max = γ D f N q + γ B N γ
2
The above formula is for a strip footing

For a rectangular footing, use:

⎛ B⎞ ⎛ B⎞ 2⎛ 2Df ⎞ tan φ
q ult = ⎜ 1 + 0 .2 ⎟ s u N c + ⎜ 1 + ⎟ γ H ⎜ 1 + ⎟ Ks + γ Df
⎝ L⎠ ⎝ L⎠ ⎝ H ⎠ B

1 ⎛ B⎞
( q ult ) max = γ Df Nq + ⎜ 1 − 0 .4 ⎟ γ B N γ
2 ⎝ L⎠
 Bearing Capacity on Layered Soils
II) Dense or compacted sand above soft clay (cont.)

Ref:
Meyerhof, G.G. (1974). Ultimate bearing capacity of footing
on sand layer overlying clay. Canadian Geotechnical
journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 224-229.
Meyerhof, G.G. and Hanna, A.M. (1978). Ultimate bearing
capacity of foundations on layered soil under inclined loads.
Canadian Geotechnical journal, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 565-572.