CE 632 Bearing Capacity PDF

CE-632
CE 632
Foundation Analysis and
Design
Ultimate Bearing Capacity

The load per unit area of the foundation at which shear failure in soil
occurs is
i called
ll d the
th ultimate
lti t bearing
b i capacity. it
1
Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant
Principal Modes of Failure:

General Shear Failure: Load / Area
q
qu
Settlement
Sudden or catastrophic failure
Well defined failure surface
Bulging on the ground surface adjacent to foundation
Common failure mode in dense sand
2

Load / Area
Local Shear Failure: q
qu1
Setttlement
qu
Common in sand or clay with medium compaction

Significant settlement upon loading
Failure surface first develops
p right
g below the foundation and then
slowly extends outwards with load increments
Foundation movement shows sudden jerks first (at qu1) and then
after a considerable amount of movement the slip surface may
reachh th
the ground.
d
A small amount of bulging may occur next to the foundation.
3

Load / Area
Punching Failure: q
qu1
qu
Setttlement
Common in fairly loose sand or soft clay
Failure surface does not extends beyond the zone right beneath the
foundation
Extensive settlement with a wedge shaped soil zone in elastic
equilibrium beneath the foundation. Vertical shear occurs around the
edges of foundation.
Aft reaching
After hi ffailure
il lload-settlement
d ttl t curve continues
ti att some slope
l
and mostly linearly.
4

Relative density of sand, Dr Vesic (1973)
0 0.5
05 1.0
10
n, Df/B*
0
General
Local 2BL
shear
B = *
undation
shear
B+L
pth of fou
Circular
Foundation
5
ative dep
Punching
Rela
shear Long
Rectangular
Foundation
10
5
g
Terzaghi’s g Capacity
Bearing p y Theory
y
B
Rough Foundation Strip Footing

Surface
j k
neglected qu Effective
Eff ti overburden
b d
Df q = γ’.Df
a b
g 45−φ’/2 φ’ φ’ 45−φ’/2 i
I
III III
B
Shear II II c’- φ
c φ’ soil
Planes d f
e
Assumption
L/B ratio is large Æ plain strain problem
Df ≤ B
Shear resistance of soil for Df depth is neglected
General shear failure
Shear strength is governed by Mohr-Coulomb Criterion 6
Terzaghi s Bearing Capacity Theory

Terzaghi’s
B
1
qu .B = 2.Pp + 2.Ca .sin φ ′ − γ ′B 2 tan φ ′
4
qu
1
qu .B = 2.Pp + B.c′.sin φ ′ − γ ′B 2 tan φ ′
b
4
a
φ’ φ’
Ca= B/2 I Pp = Ppγ + Ppc + Ppq
Ca B.tanφ’
cosφ’
Ppγ = due to only self weight of soil
φ’ d
φ’ in shear zone
Pp Pp Ppc = due to soil cohesion only
(soil is weightless)
Ppq = due to surcharge only
7

Terzaghi’s
Weight term Cohesion term
⎛ ⎞
qu .B = ⎜ 2.Ppγ − γ ′B 2 tan φ ′ ⎟ + ( 2.Ppc + B.c′.sin φ ′ ) + 2.Ppq
1
⎝ 4 ⎠
Surcharge term
B. ( 0.5γ ′B.Nγ ) B.c.N c B.q.N q
Terzaghi’s bearing
qu = c.N c + q.N q + 0.5γ ′B.Nγ capacity equation
Terzaghi’s bearing capacity factors
1 ⎡ K Pγ ⎤ e2a
Nγ = tan φ ′ ⎢ 2 − 1⎥ Nq =
2⎛ φ′ ⎞
2 ⎣ cos φ ′ ⎦ 2 cos ⎜ 45 + ⎟
⎝ 2⎠
N c = ( N q − 1) cot φ ′ ⎛ 3π φ ′ in rad. ⎞
a=⎜ − ⎟ tan φ ′
⎝ 4 2 ⎠ 8
9

Terzaghi’s
Local Shear Failure:

2 ⎛2 ⎞
Modify the strength parameters such as: cm′ = c′ φm′ = tan −1 ⎜ tan φ ′ ⎟
3 ⎝ 3 ⎠
2
qu = c′.N c′ + q.N q′ + 0.5γ ′B.Nγ′
3
Square and circular footing:
qu = 1.3c′.N c + q.N q + 0.4γ ′B.Nγ′ For square
qu = 1.3c′.N c + q.N q + 0.3γ ′B.Nγ′ For circular
10

Terzaghi’s
Effect of water table:
Case I: Dw ≤ Df
Surcharge, q = γ .Dw + γ ′ ( D f − Dw ) Dw
Case II: Df ≤ Dw ≤ (Df + B) Df

Surcharge, q = γ .DF
In bearing capacity equation B
replace γ by-
⎛ Dw − D f ⎞
γ =γ′+⎜ ⎟ (γ − γ ′) B
⎝ B ⎠
Case III: Dw > (Df + B)
Li it off iinfluence
Limit fl
No influence of water table.
Another recommendation for Case II:

d w = Dw − D f
dw γ′
γ = ( 2H + dw ) γ + 2 ( H − dw )
2
2 sat Rupture depth: H = 0.5 B tan ( 45 + φ ′ 2 )
H H 11
p
Skempton’s g Capacity
Bearing p y Analysis
y for
cohesive Soils
~ For saturated cohesive soil, φ‘ = 0 Æ N q = 1, and Nγ = 0
⎛ Df ⎞
For strip footing: N c = 5 ⎜1 + 0.2 ⎟ with limit of N c ≤ 7.5
⎝ B ⎠
⎛ Df ⎞
For square/circular N c = 6 ⎜1 + 0.2 ⎟ with limit of N c ≤ 9.0
footing:
g ⎝ B ⎠
⎛ Df ⎞ ⎛ B⎞
For rectangular footing: N c = 5 ⎜1 + 0.2 ⎟⎜ 1 + 0.2 ⎟ for D f ≤ 2.5
⎝ B ⎠⎝ L⎠
⎛ B⎞
N c = 7.5 ⎜1 + 0.2 ⎟ for D f > 2.5
⎝ L⎠
qu = c.N c + q
Net ultimate bearing capacity, qnu = qu − γ .D f qu = c.N c
12
Effective Area Method for Eccentric Loading
In case of Moment loading

My
ex =
Df FV
Mx
B ey =
AF=B’L’ FV
B’=B-2ey
IIn case off Horizontal

H i t l Force
F att
L’=L-2ey some height but the column is
ey
centered on the foundation
ex
M y = FHx .d FH
M x = FHy .d FH
13
General Bearing Capacity Equation:

(Meyerhof, 1963)
0 5γ .B.Nγ .sγ .dγ .iγ
qu = c.N c .sc .dc .ic + q.N q .sq .d q .iq + 0.5
Shape Depth inclination Empirical
p correction
f t
factor factor f t
factor factors
⎛ φ′ ⎞ N c = ( N q − 1) cot φ ′ Nγ = ( N q − 1) tan (11.4

4φ ′ )
N q = tan 2 ⎜ 45 + ⎟ .eπ .tan φ ′
⎝ 2⎠
[[Byy Hansen(1970):
( ) N γ = 1.5 ( N q − 1) tan (φ ′ )
[By Vesic(1973): N γ = 2 ( N q + 1) tan (φ ′ )
qu = c.N c .sc .dc .ic .gc .bc + q.N q .sq .d q .iq .g q .bq + 0.5γ .B.Nγ .sγ .dγ .iγ .gγ .bγ
Ground factor Base factor
14
15
M
Meyerhof’s
h f’ Correction
C i Factors:
F
⎛ φ′ ⎞ for φ ′ ≥ 10o
Shape
B
sc = 1 + 0.2 tan 2 ⎜ 45 + ⎟ B 2⎛ φ′ ⎞
sq = sγ = 1 + 0.1 tan ⎜ 45 + ⎟
Factors L ⎝ 2⎠ L ⎝ 2⎠
for lower φ ′ value
sq = sγ = 1
Depth Df ⎛ φ′ ⎞ for φ ′ ≥ 10o

Factors d c = 1 + 0.2 tan ⎜ 45 + ⎟ Df ⎛ φ′ ⎞
L ⎝ 2⎠ d q = dγ = 1 + 0.1 tan ⎜ 45 + ⎟
L ⎝ 2⎠
for lower φ ′ value
d q = dγ = 1
2
⎛ βo ⎞
2
Inclination ⎛ β⎞
Factors ic = iq = ⎜1 − ⎟ iγ = ⎜1 − ⎟
⎝ 90 ⎠ ⎝ φ′ ⎠
16
Hansen’s Correction Factors:

1 ⎡ (1 − FH ) ⎤
1/2
FH
Inclination ic = 1 − for φ ′ = 0 ic = ⎢1 + ⎥ for φ ′ > 0
Factors 2 BL.c′ 2⎣ BL.su ⎦
5
⎡ ⎤
5
0 5F
0.5 FH ⎡ 0 7F
0.7 FH ⎤
iq = ⎢1 − ⎥ iγ = ⎢1 − ⎥
⎣ F V + BL .c ′.cot φ ′ ⎦ ⎣ FV + BL .c ′.cot φ ′ ⎦
For φ = 0 For φ > 0
Depth
⎡ Df ⎡ Df
Factors ⎢ d c = 0.4 for D f ≤ B ⎢ d c = 1 + 0.4 for D f ≤ B
⎢ B ⎢ B
⎢ −1
Df ⎢ −1
Df
d
⎢⎣ c = 0.4 tan for D f > B d
⎢⎣ c = 1 + 0.4 tan for D f > B
B B
For D f < B For D f > B
2 ⎛ Df ⎞
d q = 1 + 2 tan φ ′. (1 − sin φ ′ ) ⎜ ′ ′
2 −1 ⎛
d q = 1 + 2 tan φ . (1 − sin φ ) tan ⎜
Df ⎞
⎟
dγ = 1
⎟
⎝ B ⎠ ⎝ B ⎠
Shape B B
Factors
sc = 0.2ic . for φ ′ = 0 sc = 0.2 (1 − 2ic ) . for φ ′ > 0
L L
sq = 1 + iq . ( B L ) sin
i φ′ 0 4iγ . ( B L )
sγ = 1 − 0.4
Hansen’s Recommendation for cohesive saturated soil, φ'=0 Æ qu = c.N c . (1 + sc + d c + ic ) + q

Notes:
1. Notice use of “effective”

base dimensions B‘, L‘ by
H
Hansen b
butt nott by
b Vesic.
V i
2. The values are consistent

with a vertical load or a
vertical load accompanied by
a horizontal load HB.
3. With a vertical load and a

load HL (and either HB=0 or
HB>0) you may have to
compute two sets of shape
and depth factors si,B, si,L
and di,B, di,L. For i,L
subscripts use ratio L‘/B‘ or
D/L‘.
4. Compute qu independently
by using (siB, diB) and (siL,
diL) and use min value for
design.
18
Notes:
1. Use Hi as either HB or HL,

or both if HL>0.
2. Hansen (1970) did not give

an ic for φ>0. The value given
here is from Hansen (1961)
and also used by Vesic.
3. Variable ca = base
adhesion, on the order of 0.6
to 1.0 x base cohesion.
4. Refer to sketch on next

slide for identification of
angles η and β, footing depth
D, location of Hi (parallel and
at top of base slab; usually
also produces eccentricity)
eccentricity).
Especially notice V = force
normal to base and is not the
resultant R from combining V
and Hi..
19
20
N t
Note:
1. When φ=0 (and β≠0) use

( β) in Nγ term.
Nγ = -2sin(±
2. Compute m = mB when
Hi = HB (H parallel to B) and
m = mL when Hi = HL (H
parallel to L). If you have
both HB and HL use
m = (mB2 + mL2)1/2. Note use
of B and LL, not B’B,L
L’.
3. Hi term ≤ 1.0 for

computing iq, iγ (always).
21
Suitability of Methods
22
IS:6403-1981 Recommendations
Net Ultimate Bearing capacity: qnu = c.Nc .sc .dc .ic + q. ( N q − 1) .sq .d q .iq + 0.5γ .B.Nγ .sγ .dγ .iγ
For cohesive soils Æ qnu = cu .N c .sc .d c .ic where

where, N c = 5.14
5 14
N c , N q , Nγ as per Vesic(1973) recommendations
B B B
Shape For rectangle, sc = 1 + 0.2 sq = 1 + 0.2 sγ = 1 − 0.4
Factors L L L
For square and circle, 1 3 sq = 1.2
sc = 1.3 12
sγ = 0.8 for square, sγ = 0.6 for circle
Df ⎛ φ′ ⎞
Depth d c = 1 + 0.2 tan ⎜ 45 + ⎟
Factors L ⎝ 2⎠
Df ⎛ φ′ ⎞
d q = dγ = 1 + 0.1 tan ⎜ 45 + ⎟ for φ ′ ≥ 10o
L ⎝ 2⎠
d q = dγ = 1 for φ ′ < 10o
Inclination
Factors The same as Meyerhof (1963) 23
Bearing Capacity
Correlations with
S
SPT-value
a ue
Peck, Hansen, and
Thornburn (1974)
&
IS:6403-1981
Recommendation
24
Bearing Capacity Correlations with SPT-value

SPT value
Teng (1962):
For Strip Footing:
1⎡
( )
qnu = ⎣3 N ′′2 .B.Rw′ + 5 100 + N ′′2 .D f .Rw ⎤⎦
6
1⎡ 2
( )
For Square
F S andd
Circular Footing: qnu = ⎣ N ′′ .B.Rw′ + 3 100 + N ′′2 .D f .Rw ⎤⎦
3
For Df > B,
B take Df = B
Dw
Water Table Corrections:
Df
⎛ Dw ⎞
Rw = 0.5 ⎜1 +
⎜ D f ⎟⎟ [ Rw ≤ 1
⎝ ⎠ B
⎛ Dw − D f ⎞
Rw′ = 0.5 ⎜1 +
⎜ ⎟⎟ [ Rw′ ≤ 1 B
⎝ Df ⎠
Limit of influence 25
Bearing Capacity Correlations with CPT-value

0. 2500
IS:6403-1981 Recommendation:
Cohesionless Soil
0.1675
qnu
qc 0.1250 0
0.5
Df
B =1
0.0625 B
1.5B qc value is
to taken as
2.0B average for 0
this zone 0 100 200 300 400
B (cm)
Schmertmann (1975):
qc kg
Nγ ≅ N q ≅ ← in
0.8 cm 2
26
Bearing Capacity Correlations with CPT-value

Cohesive Soil
qnu = cu .N c .sc .dc .ic
Point Resistance Values Range of Undrained

Soil Type
( qc ) kgf/cm2 Cohesion (kgf/cm2)
Normally consolidated
qc < 20 qc/18 to qc/15
clays
Over consolidated clays qc > 20 qc/26 to qc/22
27
Bearing Capacity of Footing on Layered Soil

Depth of rupture zone =
B ⎛ φ′ ⎞
tan ⎜ 45 + ⎟ or approximately taken as “B”
2 ⎝ 2⎠
Case I: Layer-1 is weaker than Layer-2
Design using parameters of Layer -1
Case II: Layer-1 is stronger than Layer-2

Distribute the stresses to Layer-2 by 2:1 method
1 and check the bearing capacity at this level for
B
limit state.
2
Layer-1 Also check the bearing capacity for original
L
Layer-2
2 foundation level using parameters of Layer-1
Layer 1
B
Choose minimum value for design
B ⎛ φ′ ⎞
Another approximate method for c‘-φ‘ soil: For effective depth 4 + ⎟≅B
tan ⎜ 45
2 ⎝ 2⎠
Find average c‘ and φ‘ and use them for ultimate bearing capacity calculation
c1 H1 + c2 H 2 + c3 H 3 + .... tan φ1 H1 + tan φ2 H 2 + tan φ3 H 3 + ....

cav = tan φav =
H1 + H 2 + H 3 + .... H1 + H 2 + H 3 + .... 28
g Capacity
Bearing p y of Stratified Cohesive Soil
29
g Capacity
Bearing y of Footing
g on Layered
y Soil:
Stronger Soil Underlying Weaker Soil
Depth “H” is relatively small Depth “H” is relatively large

Punching shear failure in top layer Full failure surface develops in top
General shear failure in bottom layer
y itself
layer
30
Bearing Capacity of
Footing
F ti on Layered
L d Soil:
S il
Stronger Soil Underlying
Weaker
ea e So
Soil
31
Bearing Capacity of Footing on Layered Soil:

Stronger
St Soil
S il Underlying
U d l i Weaker
W k Soil
S il
Bearing capacities of continuous footing of with B

under vertical load on the surface of homogeneous
thick bed of upper and lower soil
32
Bearing Capacity of Footing on Layered Soil:

Stronger Soil Underlying Weaker Soil
2ca′ H 2⎛
2 D f ⎞ K s tan φ1′
For Strip Footing: qu = qb + + γ 1H ⎜1 + ⎟ − γ 1 H ≤ qt
B ⎝ H ⎠ B
Where, qt is the bearing capacity for foundation considering
only the top layer to infinite depth
For Rectangular Footing:

⎛ B ⎞ ⎛ 2c ′ H ⎞ 2⎛ B ⎞ ⎛ 2 D f ⎞ K s tan φ1′
qu = qb + ⎜1 + ⎟ ⎜ a ⎟ + γ 1H ⎜1 + L ⎟ ⎜1 + H ⎟ − γ 1 H ≤ qt
⎝ L ⎠⎝ B ⎠ ⎝ ⎠⎝ ⎠ B
Special
p Cases:
1. Top layer is strong sand and bottom layer is saturated soft clay
c1′ = 0 φ2 = 0
2. Top layer is strong sand and bottom layer is weaker sand
c1′ = 0 c2′ = 0
2 Top layer is strong saturated clay and bottom layer is weaker saturated clay
2.
φ1 = 0 φ2 = 0
33
y Loaded Foundations
Eccentrically
Q
M M
e=
Q
Q 6M Q ⎛ 6e ⎞
qmax = + qmax = ⎜1 + ⎟
B BL B 2 L BL ⎝ B⎠
Q 6M Q ⎛ 6e ⎞
qmin = − qmin = ⎜1 − ⎟
BL B 2 L BL ⎝ B⎠
e 1
For > There will be separation
e B 6
of foundation from the soil beneath
and stresses will be redistributed.
B′ = B − 2e
Use for sc , sq , sγ , and B, L for d c , d q , dγ to obtain qu
L′ = L
The effective area method for two way eccentricity becomes
Qu = qu . A′ a little more complex than what is suggested above.
It is discussed in the subsequent slides 34
Determination of Effective Dimensions for Eccentrically

Loaded
L d d foundations
f d ti (Highter
(Hi ht and d Anders,
A d 1985)
C
Case II: eL 1 e 1
≥ and B ≥
L 6 B 6
⎛ 3 3e ⎞
B1 = B ⎜ − B ⎟
B1 ⎝2 B ⎠
eB
⎛ 3 3eL ⎞
L1 = L ⎜ − ⎟
L eL L1
⎝ 2 L ⎠
L′ = max ( B1 , L1 )
1
A′ = L1 B1
2
B A′
B′ =
L′
35
Determination of Effective Dimensions for Eccentrically Loaded
foundations (Highter and Anders,
Anders 1985)
eL e 1
Case II: < 0.5 and 0 < B <
L B 6
L2 eB
eL L1
1
A′ = ( L1 + L2 ) B A′
2 B′ =
L′ = max ( B1 , L1 ) L′
36
Anders 1985)
Case III: eL < 1 and 0 < eB < 0.5

L 6 B
B1
eB
eL
B2
1
A′ = L ( B1 + B2 )
A′
2 ′
B =
L′ = L L′
37
Anders 1985)
eL 1 eB 1
Case IV: < and <
L 6 B 6
B1
eB
eL
B2
1
A′ = L2 B + ( B1 + B2 )( L + L2 )
2
A′
L′ = L B′ =
L′ 38
Anders 1985)
Case V: Circular foundation
eR
A′
L′ =
B′
39
Meyerhof’s (1953) area correction based on empirical

correlations:
l ti (American
(A i Petroleum
P t l Institute,
I tit t 1987)
40
Bearing Capacity of
Footings
F ti on Slopes
Sl
Meyerhof’s (1957)
Solution
qu = c′N cq + 0.5
0 5γ BN γ q
Granular Soil
c′ = 0
qu = 0.5γ BN γ q
41
Bearing Capacity of
Footings
F ti on Slopes
Sl
Meyerhof’s (1957)
Solution
Cohesive Soil
φ′ = 0
qu = c′N cq
γH
Ns =
c 42
Bearing Capacity of
Footings on Slopes
Graham et al. (1988),
Based on method of
characteristics
1000
For
Df
100 =0
B
10
0 10 20 30 40
43
Bearing Capacity of
Footings on Slopes
Graham et al. (1988),
Based on method of
characteristics
1000
For
Df
100
=0
B
10
0 10 20 30 40
44
Bearing Capacity of Footings on Slopes

G h
Graham ett al.
l (1988),
(1988) Based
B d on method
th d off characteristics
h t i ti
For
Df
= 0.5
B
45

G h
Graham ett al.
l (1988),
(1988) Based
B d on method
th d off characteristics
h t i ti
For
Df
= 1.0
B
46

B l (1997):
Bowles (1997) A simplified
i lifi d approachh
B
B α = 45+φ’/2
/2
f' g''
f g qu
qu
Df a'
a cc'
c
45−φ’/2 α α
e α α
e'
45−φ’/2 ro
r
b'
b
d b
d'
B
g' Compute the reduced factor Nc as:
qu La′b′d ′e′
f' N c′ = N c .
a' c' Labde
e' α α
45−φ’/2
Compute the reduced factor Nq as:
Aa′e′f ′g ′
b'
N q′ = N q .
d' Aaefg 47
Soil Compressibility Effects on Bearing Capacity

Vesic’s (1973) Approach
Use of soil compressibility factors in general bearing capacity equation.
These correction factors are function of the rigidity of soil
Gs
Rigidity Index of Soil, Ir: Ir =
c′ + σ vo
′ tan φ ′
⎧ ⎛ B ⎞⎫
⎪⎪ 3.30 − ⎜ 0.45 L ⎟ ⎪⎪ B
⎝ ⎠
Critical Rigidity Index of Soil, Icr: ⎨ ⎬
⎪ tan ⎡ 45 − φ ′ ⎤ ⎪
⎪⎩ ⎢ 2 ⎥⎦ ⎪⎭
I rc = 0.5.e ⎣
B/2
Compressibility Correction Factors, cc, cg, and cq

σ vo′ = γ . ( D f + B / 2 )
For I r ≥ I rc cc = cq = cγ = 1
⎡⎛ B ⎞ 3.07.sin φ ′.log10 ( 2. I r ) ⎤
⎢⎜ 0.6 − 4.4 ⎟.tan φ ′ + ⎥
1+ sin φ ′
For I r < I rc cq = cγ = e ⎣⎝ L ⎠ ⎦
≤1
B
For φ ′ = 0 → cc = 0.32 + 0.12 + 0.60.log I r
L
1 − cq
For φ ′ > 0 → cc = cq −
N q tan φ ′ 48

CE 632 Bearing Capacity PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CE 632 Bearing Capacity PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CE-632

Ultimate Bearing Capacity

Principal Modes of Failure:

Principal Modes of Failure:

 Common in sand or clay with medium compaction

Principal Modes of Failure:

Principal Modes of Failure:

Rough Foundation Strip Footing

Terzaghi s Bearing Capacity Theory

Ppq = due to surcharge only

Terzaghi s Bearing Capacity Theory

B. ( 0.5γ ′B.Nγ ) B.c.N c B.q.N q

Terzaghi’s bearing capacity factors

Terzaghi s Bearing Capacity Theory

Local Shear Failure:

Square and circular footing:

qu = 1.3c′.N c + q.N q + 0.4γ ′B.Nγ′ For square

qu = 1.3c′.N c + q.N q + 0.3γ ′B.Nγ′ For circular

Terzaghi s Bearing Capacity Theory

Case II: Df ≤ Dw ≤ (Df + B) Df

Another recommendation for Case II:

Effective Area Method for Eccentric Loading

In case of Moment loading

IIn case off Horizontal

General Bearing Capacity Equation:

⎛ φ′ ⎞ N c = ( N q − 1) cot φ ′ Nγ = ( N q − 1) tan (11.4

[By Vesic(1973): N γ = 2 ( N q + 1) tan (φ ′ )

Depth Df ⎛ φ′ ⎞ for φ ′ ≥ 10o

Hansen’s Correction Factors:

Hansen’s Recommendation for cohesive saturated soil, φ'=0 Æ qu = c.N c . (1 + sc + d c + ic ) + q

1. Notice use of “effective”

2. The values are consistent

3. With a vertical load and a

1. Use Hi as either HB or HL,

2. Hansen (1970) did not give

4. Refer to sketch on next

1. When φ=0 (and β≠0) use

3. Hi term ≤ 1.0 for

For cohesive soils Æ qnu = cu .N c .sc .d c .ic where

Bearing Capacity Correlations with SPT-value

Bearing Capacity Correlations with CPT-value

Bearing Capacity Correlations with CPT-value

qnu = cu .N c .sc .dc .ic

Point Resistance Values Range of Undrained

Over consolidated clays qc > 20 qc/26 to qc/22

Bearing Capacity of Footing on Layered Soil

Case II: Layer-1 is stronger than Layer-2

c1 H1 + c2 H 2 + c3 H 3 + .... tan φ1 H1 + tan φ2 H 2 + tan φ3 H 3 + ....

 Depth “H” is relatively small  Depth “H” is relatively large

Bearing Capacity of Footing on Layered Soil:

Bearing capacities of continuous footing of with B

Bearing Capacity of Footing on Layered Soil:

For Rectangular Footing:

Determination of Effective Dimensions for Eccentrically

Case III: eL < 1 and 0 < eB < 0.5

Case V: Circular foundation

Meyerhof’s (1953) area correction based on empirical

Bearing Capacity of Footings on Slopes

Bearing Capacity of Footings on Slopes

Bearing Capacity of Footings on Slopes

Soil Compressibility Effects on Bearing Capacity

Compressibility Correction Factors, cc, cg, and cq

You might also like

Common in sand or clay with medium compaction

Depth “H” is relatively small Depth “H” is relatively large