You are on page 1of 15

# cc qc

qc
q
N
=

=

=
1
0 353
1 0 353
10 66 25
0 228
tan
.
.
. tan
.

=
90
) (
2 1 1
i
Also
Equation (2.84):
q
u
= (48)(20.72)(1.257)(1.4)(0.228)
+ (0.6)(18) (10.66) (1.233) (1.155)(0.353)
+
1
2
(18)(0.6)(10.88)(0.8)(1)(0.353)
= 399.05 + 57.88 + 16.59 474 kN/m
2
yy
2.11 BEARING CAPACITY OF FOUNDATIONS
ON ANISOTROPIC SOIL
Foundation on Sand (c = 0)
Most natural deposits of cohesionless soil have an inherent anisotropic
structure due to their nature of deposition in horizontal layers. Initial deposition
of the granular soil and subsequent compaction in the vertical direction causes
the soil particles to take a preferred orientation. For a granular soil of this type
Meyerhof suggested that, if the direction of application of deviator stress
makes an angle i with the direction of deposition of soil (Fig. 2.25), then the
soil friction angle 1 can be approximated in a form
(2.90)
where1
1
= soil friction angle with i = 0(
1
2
= soil friction angle with i = 90(
Figure 2.26 shows a continuous (strip) rough foundation on an anisotropic
sand deposit. The failure zone in the soil at ultimate load is also shown in the
figure. In the triangular zone (Zone 1) the soil friction angle will be 1 = 1
1
.
However, the magnitude of 1 will vary between the limits of 1
1
and 1
2
in Zone
2. In Zone 3 the effective friction angle of the soil will be equal to 1
2
.
Meyerhof  suggested that the ultimate bearing capacity of a continuous
foundation on an anisotropic sand could be calculated by assuming an equiva-
lent friction angle 1 = 1
eq
, or
1999 by CRC Press LLC
FIGURE 2.25 Aniostropy in sand deposit
FIGURE 2.26 Continuous rough foundation on anisotropic sand deposit

eq
=
+
=
+ ( ) ( ) 2
3
2
3
1 2 1
n
where friction ratio =
2
n =

1
(2.91)
(2.92)
Once the equivalent friction angle is determined, the ultimate bearing capacity
for vertical loading conditions on the foundation can be expressed as
(neglecting the depth factors)
q
u
= q N
q(eq)

qs
+
1
2
B N
(eq)

s
(2.93)
1999 by CRC Press LLC
FIGURE 2.27 Variation of N
(eq)
[Eq. (2.93)]
1999 by CRC Press LLC
FIGURE 2.28 Variation of N
q(eq)
[Eq. (2.93)]
where N
q(eq)
, N
(eq)
= equivalent bearing capacity factors corresponding to the
friction angle 1 = 1
eq
In most cases the value of 1
1
will be known. Figures 2.27 and 2.28
present the plots of N
q(eq)
and N
(eq)
in terms of n and 1
1
. Note that the soil
1999 by CRC Press LLC
]
]
]
,

,
(
,
\
,
(
j
+
]
]
]
,

,
(
,
\
,
(
j
+

L
B
BN
L
B
qN q
q u
4 . 0 1
2
1
tan 1
(eq) eq (eq)
b
a
c
c c
u i
uV uH

( )
( )( )
45
(
(
,
\
,
,
(
j +

2
) (
uH uV
i c u
c c
N q
friction angle 1 = 1
eq
was used in Eqs. (2.66) and (2.72) to prepare the graphs.
So combining the relationships for shape factors (Table 2.5) given by DeBeer

(2.94)
Foundations on Saturated Clay (1 11 1 = 0 concept)
As in the case of sand discussed above, saturated clay deposits also exhibit
anisotropic undrained shear strength properties. Figures 2.29a and 2.29b show
the nature of variation of the undrained shear strength of clays, c
u
, with respect
to the direction of principal stress application . Note that the undrained
shear strength plot shown in Fig. 2.29b is elliptical. However, the center of the
ellipse does not match the origin. The geometry of the ellipse leads to the
equation
(2.95)
where c
uV
= undrained shear strength with i = 0(
c
uH
= undrained shear strength with i = 90(
A continuous foundation on a saturated clay layer (1 = 0) whose
directional strength variation follows Eq. (2.95) is shown in Fig. 2.29c. The
failure surface in the soil at ultimate load is also shown in the figure. Note that,
in Zone I, the major principal stress direction is vertical. The direction of the
major principal stress is horizontal in Zone III; however, it gradually changes
from vertical to horizontal in Zone II. Using the stress characteristic solution,
Davis and Christian  determined the bearing capacity factor N
c(i)
for the
foundation. For a surface foundation
(2.96)
The variation of N
c(i)
with the ratio of a/b (Fig. 2.29b) is shown in Fig. 2.30.
Note that, when a = b, N
c(i)
becomes equal to N
c
= 5.14 [isotropic case; Eq.
(2.67)].
In many practical conditions, the magnitudes of c
uV
and c
uH
may be known,
but not the magnitude of c
u(i = 45()
. If such is the case, the magnitude of a/b [Eq.
(2.95)] cannot be determined. For such conditions, the following approximation
may be used
1999 by CRC Press LLC
FIGURE 2.29 Bearing capacity of continuous foundation on anisotropic
saturated clay
14 . 5
2
9 . 0
=

uH uV
c u
c c
N q
(2.97)
1999 by CRC Press LLC
FIGURE 2.30 Variation of N
c(i)
with a/b based on the analysis of Davis and
Christian
qd qs q cd cs
i uH i uV
i c u
qN
c c
N q +
]
]
]
,

, +

2
) 90 ( ) 0 (
) (
qd qs f cd cs
uH uV
i c u
D
c c
N q +
(
(
,
\
,
,
(
j +

2
) (
The preceding equation, which was suggested by Davis and Christian , is
based on the undrained shear strength results of several clays. So, in general,
for a rectangular foundation with vertical loading condition
(2.98)
For 1 = 0 condition, N
q
= 1 and q = D
f
. So
(2.99)
The desired relationships for the shape and depth factors can be taken from
Table 2.5 and the magnitude of q
u
can be estimated.
Foundation on c1 11 1 Soil
The ultimate bearing capacity of a continuous shallow foundation supported
1999 by CRC Press LLC
FIGURE 2.31 Anisotropic clay soilassumptions for bearing capacity evaluation
by anisotropic c1 soil was studied by Reddy and Srinivasan  using the
method of characteristics. According to this analysis the shear strength of a soil
can be given as
s = )tan1 + c
However, it is assumed that the soil is anisotropic only with respect to
cohesion. As mentioned previously in this section, the direction of the major
principal stress (with respect to the vertical) along a slip surface located below
the foundation changes. In anisotropic soils, this will induce a change in the
shearing resistance to the bearing capacity failure of the foundation. Reddy and
Srinivasan  assumed the directional variation of c at a given depth z below
the foundation as (Fig. 2.31a)
1999 by CRC Press LLC
K
c
c
V z
H z
=
( )
( )

c
V z
V z
l
c
l
c
=

=
=
=
( )
( )
0
0
where characteristic length =
c
i(z)
= c
H(z)
+ [c
V(z)
c
H(z)
]cos
2
i (2.100)
where c
i(z)
= cohesion at a depth z when the major principal stress is inclined
at an angle i to the vertical (Fig. 2.31b)
c
V(z)
= cohesion at depth z for i = 0(
c
H(z)
= cohesion at depth z for i = 90(
The preceding equation is of the form suggested by Casagrande and Carrillo
.
Figure 2.31b shows the nature of variation of c
i(z)
with i. The anisotropy
coefficient K is defined as the ratio of c
V(z)
to c
H(z)
.
(2.101)
In overconsolidated soils K is less than one and, for normally consolidated
soils the magnitude of K is greater than one.
For many consolidated soils, the cohesion increases linearly with depth
(Fig. 2.31c). Thus
c
V(z)
= c
V(z=0)
+ s (2.102)
where c
V(z)
, c
V(z=0)
= cohesion in the vertical direction (that is, i = 0) at depths
of z and z = 0, respectively
= the rate of variation with depth z
According to this analysis, the ultimate bearing capacity of a continuous foun-
dation may be given as
q
u
= c
V(z=0)
N
c(i)
+ qN
q(i)
+
1
2
BN
(i)
(2.103)
where N
c(i)
, N
q(i)
, N
(i)
= bearing capacity factors
q = D
f
This equation is similar to Terzaghis bearing capacity equation for continuous
foundations [Eq. (2.31)].
The bearing capacity factors are functions of the parameters
c
and K. The
term
c
can be defined as
(2.104)
(2.105)
1999 by CRC Press LLC
FIGURE 2.32 Reddy and Srinivasans bearing capacity factor, N
c(i1)

influence of K (
c
= 0)
Furthermore, N
c(i)
is also a function of the nondimensional width of the
foundation, B
B =
B
l
(2.106)
The variations of the bearing capacity factors with
c
, B, 1, and K
determined using the method of analysis by Reddy and Srinivasan  are
shown in Figs. 2.32 to 2.37. This study shows that the rupture surface in soil
at ultimate load extends to a smaller distance below the bottom of the founda-
tion for the case where the anisotropic coefficient K is greater than one. Also,
when K changes from one to two with = 0, the magnitude of N
c(i)
is reduced
by about 30% 40%.
1999 by CRC Press LLC
FIGURE 2.33 Reddy and Srinivasans bearing capacity factor N
c(i

influence of K (
c
= 0.2)
1999 by CRC Press LLC
FIGURE 2.34 Reddy and Srinivasans bearing capacity factor, N
c(i1)

influence of K (
c
= 0.4)
1999 by CRC Press LLC
FIGURE 2.35 Reddy and Srinivasans bearing capacity factors, N
(i1)
and N
q(i1)
(
c
= 0)
EXAMPLE 2.3
Estimate the ultimate bearing capacity q
u
of a continuous foundation with the
following: B = 9 ft, c
V(z=0)
= 250 lb/ft
2
, = 25 lb/ft
2
/ft, D
f
= 3 ft, = 110 lb/ft
3
,
and 1 = 20(. Assume K = 2.
Solution From Eq. (2.105)
1999 by CRC Press LLC
Characteristic length,
Nondimensional width,
l
c
B
B
l
V z
= = =
= = =
= ( )
.
.
.
0
250
110
227
9
227
396

Also
FIGURE 2.36 Reddy and Srinivasans bearing capacity factors, N
(i1)
and N
q(i1)
influence of K (
c
= 0)
1999 by CRC Press LLC
FIGURE 2.37 Reddy and Srinivasans bearing capacity factors, N
(i1)
and N
q(i1)
influence of K (
c
= 0.2)

c
V z
l
c
=

= =
= ( )
( )( . )
.
0
25 2 27
250
0 227
Now, referring to Figs. 2.33, 2.34, 2.36, and 2.37, for 1 = 20(,
c
= 0.227, K
= 2, and B = 3.96 (by interpolation)
N
c(i)
14.5; N
q(i)
6, and N
(i)
4
1999 by CRC Press LLC