Foundation Engineering-I Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations

CHAPTER TWO

BEARING CAPACITY OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

Table of Contents
Page No.
2.0 Introduction....................................................................................- 18 -

2.1 Bearing Failure Modes......................................................................- 18 -

2.2 Ultimate Bearing Capacity Equations..................................................- 19 -

2.2.1 Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity equation.............................................- 19 -

2.2.2 Meyerhof’s Bearing Capacity equation............................................- 21 -

2.2.3 Hansen’s Bearing Capacity Equation...............................................- 23 -

2.2.4 A comparative summary of the three bearing capacity equations.......- 26 -

2.2.5 Allowable bearing capacity and factor of safety................................- 30 -

2.2.6 Eccentric Loads...........................................................................- 31 -

2.3 Field Tests....................................................................................- 33 -

2.3.1 Plate Loading Test........................................................................- 33 -

2.3.2 Standard Penetration Test (SPT)....................................................- 34 -

2.4. Methods of Improving Bearing Capacity of soils……………………………………...-38

2.5. Bearing Capacity of footings on slopes……………………………………………….……-43

2.6. Foundations on Rocks…………………………………………………………………………….-

2.7. Bearing Capacity of footings on Layered soils……………………………………….-

2.8. Proportioning of footings…………………………………………………………………………..-45

17
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering-I Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations

2.0 Introduction

A foundation, often constructed from concrete, steel or wood, is a structure

designed to transfer loads from a superstructure to the soil underneath the

superstructure. In general, foundations are categorized into two groups, namely,

shallow and deep foundations. Shallow foundations are comprised of footings, while

deep foundations include piles that are used when the soil near the ground surface

has no enough strength to stand the applied loading. The ultimate bearing

capacity, qu, (in kPa) is the load that causes the shear failure of the soil

underneath and adjacent to the footing. In this chapter, we will discuss equations

used to estimate the ultimate bearing capacity of soils. When you complete this

chapter you should be able to:

 Calculate the bearing capacity of soils.

2.1 Bearing Failure Modes

18
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering-I Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations

Figure 2.1: Modes of bearing failures (a) General shear (b) Local shear and (c)
Punching shear.
Relative density of the soil and size of the foundation are among the major

factors that affect the mode of bearing failure likely to occur. The modes of bearing

failure are generally separated into three categories: The general shear failure

(Fig. 1.1 a) is usually associated with soils of low compressibility such as dense

sand and stiff cohesive soils. In this case, if load is gradually applied to the

foundation, settlement will increase. At a certain point – when the applied load per

unit area equals to the ultimate load qu – a sudden failure in the soil supporting

the foundation will take place. The failure surface in the soil will extend to the

ground surface and full shear resistance of the soil is developed along the failure

surface. Bulging of the soil near the footing is usually apparent.

For the local shear failure (Fig. 1.1 b), which is common in sands and clays

of medium compaction, the failure surface will gradually extend outward from the

foundation but will not reach the ground surface as shown by the solid segment in

Fig. 1.1 b. The shear resistance is fully developed over only part of the failure

surface (solid segment of the line). There is a certain degree of bulging of the soil.

In the case of punching shear failure, a condition common in loose and

very compressible soils, considerable vertical settlement may take place with the

failure surfaces restricted to vertical planes immediately adjacent to the sides of the

foundation; the ground surface may be dragged down. After the first yield has

occurred the load-settlement curve will be steep slightly, but remain fairly flat.

19
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering-I Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations

2.2 Ultimate Bearing Capacity Equations

2.2.1 Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity equation

Many of the present day principles regarding bearing capacity equations

appear to have had their origin on a failure mechanism proposed by Prandtl in the

early 1920s (refer literature for Prandtl’s failure mechanism). Prandtl developed a

bearing capacity

Figure 2.2: Failure mechanism for Terzhagi’s bearing capacity solution.

Equation assuming a smooth (frictionless) footing and ignoring the weight of the

soil in the failure zone. These assumptions are not true in practice and therefore

Prandtl’s equation is never used in practical design, but it was a beginning.

Terzhagi (1943) improved the Prandtl equation to include the roughness of

the footing and the weight of the failure zone. The failure mechanism in a c’, ’ soil

for Terzhagi’s bearing capacity solution is shown in Fig. 2.2. Terzhagi’s ultimate

bearing capacity equations are given as follows:

Strip (or long) footing: qu  c ' N c  DN q  0.5 BN  (2.1)

Square footing: q u  1.3c' N c  DN q  0.4 BN  (2.2)

Circular footing: q u  1.3c' N c  DN q  0.3BN  (2.3)

where Nc, Nq and N are called the bearing capacity factors and are obtained as

20
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering-I Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations

follows:

e ( 3 / 2 ') tan  '  K p 

Nq  , N c  cot  ' ( N q  1) , N   12 tan  '   1 (2.4)
2 cos 2 (45   ' / 2)  cos  ' 
2

Figure 2.3: Terzhagi’s bearing capacity coefficients.

Figure 2.3 shows the variation of the bearing capacity factors provided by Terzhagi.

Based on this figure, Aysen (2002) proposed the following equation to obtain the

value of Kp in the N equation:

K p  (8 ' 2 4 '3.8) tan 2 (60 0   ' / 2) 　　　　　　　　　　 (2.5)

Where  ' in the first term is in radians. In the undrained conditions (cu and  u  0

):

N q  1, N c  ( 32   1)  5.71 , N   0 　　　　　　　 (2.6)

21
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering-I Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations

2.2.2 Meyerhof’s Bearing Capacity equation

Meyerhof (1951) developed a bearing capacity equation by extending

Terzhagi’s failure mechanism and taking into account the effects of footing shape,

load inclination and footing depth by adding the corresponding factors of s, d, and i.

For a rectangular footing of L by B (L > B) and inclined load:

qu  c ' N c s c ic d c  DN q s q i q d q  0.5 BN  s i d  　　　　　　　 (2.7)

For vertical load, ic = iq = i = 1

qu  c ' N c s c d c  DN q s q d q  0.5 BN  s d  　　　　　　　 (2.8)

Figure 2.4: Meyerhof’s bearing capacity coefficients.

The bearing capacity factors:

N q  exp( tan  ' ) tan 2 (45   ' / 2) , N c  cot  ' ( N q  1) , N   ( N q  1) tan(1.4 ' )

(2.9)

22
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering-I Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations

In the undrained conditions (cu and  u  0 ):

N q  1, N c  (  2)  5.71 , N  0

The bearing capacity factors are graphically presented in Fig. 2.4. The shape, inclination

and depth factors are according to:

Shape Depth Inclination

2
B D  0 
Any  ' s c  1  0.2 K p d c  1  0.2 K p ic  iq  1  0 
L B  90 
For  '  0 sq = s  = 1 dq = d = 1 i = 0
2
B D  0 
For  '  10 0 s q  s  1  0.1K p d q  d   1  0.1 K p i  1  0 
L B  ' 
 ' 
K p  tan 2  45   ,  =angle of resultant measured from vertical axis.
 2
when triaxial  ' is used for plane strain, adjust  ' to obtain
 B '
 '  1.1  0.1  triaxial
 L

For the eccentric load, the length and width of the footing rectangle are modified

to: L’ = L – 2eL and B’ = B – 2eB　　　　　　 　　　　(2.9)

where eL and eB represent the eccentricity along the appropriate directions.

2.2.3 Hansen’s Bearing Capacity Equation

Hansen (1961) extended Meyerhof’s solutions by considering the effects of

sloping ground surface and tilted base (Fig. 2.5) as well as modification of N and

other factors. For a rectangular footing of L by B (L > B) and inclined ground

surface, base and load:

q u  c ' N c s c d c ic bc g c  DN q s q d q i q bq g q  0.5 BN  s d  i b g  　　　　(2.10)

23
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering-I Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations

Equation 2.9 is sometimes referred to as the general bearing capacity equation. In

the special case of a horizontal ground surface,

q u  c ' N c s c d c ic bc  DN q s q d q i q bq  0.5 BN  s d  i b 　 (2.11)

Figure 2.5: Identification of items in Hansen’s bearing capacity equation.

Figure 2.6 provides the relationships between Nc, Nq, and N and the  ' values, as

proposed by Hansen.

24
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering-I Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations

Figure 2.6: Hansen’s bearing capacity coefficients.

The bearing capacity factors Nc and Nq are identical with Meyerhof’s factors. N is

defined by:

N   1.5( N q  1) tan  　　　　　　　　　　　　(2.12)

Since failure can take place either along the long side or along the short side,

Hansen proposed two sets of shape, inclination and depth factors.

The shape factors are:

Nq B B B
s c, B  1   ic , B , sq,B  1  i q , B  sin  ' , s , B  1  0.4 i , B  0.6 　(2.13)
Nc L L L

Nq L L L
s c, L  1   ic , L , sq,L  1  i q , L  sin  ' , s , L  1  0.4 i , L  0.6 　(2.14)
Nc B B B

25
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering-I Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations

B L
For cu, u=0 soil: s c , B  0.2 ic , B , s c , L  0.2 ic , L 　(2.15)
L B

The inclination factors are:

1 2
1  i q ,i  0 .5 H i   0.7 H i 
i c ,i  i q ,i  , i q ,i  1   , i ,i  1   (2.16)
Nq 1  V  Acb cot  '   V  Acb cot  ' 

where the suffix i (in Eqn. 2.15) stands for B or L. 2   1  5 . 2   2  5 . A is

the area of the footing base and cb is the cohesion mobilized in the footing-soil

contact area. For the tilted base:

2
 (0.7   0 450 0 ) H i 
i , i  1   　　　　　　　　　　(2.17)
 V  Acb cot  ' 

For cu, u=0 soil: ic ,i  0.5  0.5 1  H i Acb 　(2.18)

In the above equations, B and L may be replaced by their effective values (B’ and

L’) expressed by Eqn. (2.9).

The depth factors are expressed in two sets:

For D/B  1 & D/L  1:

d c , B  1  0.4  D , d q, B  1  2 tan  ' (1  sin  ' ) 2  D 　(2.19)

B B
2 D
d c , L  1  0. 4  D
L , d q , L  1  2 tan  ' (1  sin  ' )  L 　(2.20)

For D/B > 1 & D/L > 1:

d c , B  1  0.4  tan 1 D B , d q , B  1  2 tan  ' (1  sin  ' ) 2  tan 1 ( D )

B (2.21)

d c,L  1  0.4  tan  D  1

, d q , L  1  2 tan  ' (1  sin  ' ) 2  tan 1 ( D ) (2.22)
L L
For both sets: d  1 (2.23)

26
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering-I Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations

For cu, u soil: d c , B  0 .4  D d c , L  0 .4  D

B, L (2.24)

For the sloping ground and tilted base, the ground factors gi and base factors bi are

proposed by the following equations. The angles  and  are at the same plane,

either parallel to B or L.

g c  1 
0
g q  g   1  0.5 tan  
5
, (2.25)
147 0

gc  
0
For cu, u soil: (2.26)
147 0

bc  1 
0
, bq  e 2 tan  ' , b  e 2.7 tan  ' (2.27)
147 0

bc  
0
For cu, u soil: (2.28)
147 0

2.2.4 A comparative summary of the three bearing capacity equations

Terzaghi’s equations were and are still widely used, perhaps because they are

somewhat simpler than Meyerhof’s and Hansen’s. Practitioners use Terzaghi’s

equations for a very cohesive soil and D/B < 1. However, Terzaghi’s equations have

the following major drawbacks:

 Shape, depth and inclination factors are not considered.

 Terzaghi’s equations are suitable for a concentrically loaded horizontal

footing but are not suitable for eccentrically (for example, columns with

moment or titled forces) loaded footings that are very common in practice.

 The equations are generally conservative than Meyerhof’s and Hansen’s.

Currently, Meyerhof’s and Hansen’s equations are more widely used than

Terzaghi’s. Both are viewed as somewhat less conservative and applicable to more

27
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering-I Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations

general conditions. Hansen’s is, however, used when the base is tilted or when the

footing is on a slope and for D/B > 1.

EXAMPLE 2.1

Given the data in Fig. E2.1, determine the ultimate bearing capacity qu using:

a)Terzaghi’s, b) Meyerhof’s and c) Hansen’s bearing capacity equations.

Figure E2.1: An isolated footing.

EAMPLE 2.2

Determine the ultimate bearing capacity of a square footing 1.5 m, at a depth of 1

m in a soil c’ = 10 kPa,  ' =280, cu = 105 kPa,  u =0 and  = 19 kN/m3. Use

Terzaghi’s, Meyerhof’s and Hansen’s bearing capacity equations.

Strategy It is a good policy to sketch a diagram illustrating the conditions given.

EAMPLE 2.3

A square footing 1.5 m is to be constructed in sand with c’ = 0,  ' =400. The

thickness of the footing is 0.45 m and its top surface is level with the horizontal

ground surface. The footing is subjected to a central vertical force of 700 kN and a

central horizontal force (parallel to the sides) of 210 kN. Find the ultimate bearing

capacity by a) Meyerhof’s and b) Hansen’s equations. (Note that Terzaghi’s

28
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering-I Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations

equations are not applicable for inclined loads). The unit weight of the sand is 18

kN/m3.

2.2.1 Effects of Groundwater Table on Bearing Capacity

For all the bearing capacity equations, you will have to make some

adjustments for the groundwater condition. The term D in the bearing capacity

equations refers to the vertical stress of the soil above the base of the footing. The

last term B refers to the vertical stress of a soil mass of thickness B, below the

base of the footing. You need to check which one of the three groundwater

situations is applicable to your project.

Situation 1: Groundwater level at a depth B below the base of the footing. In this

case no modification of the bearing capacity equations is required.

Situation 2: Groundwater level within a depth B below the base of the footing. If

the groundwater level is at a depth z below the base, such that z < B, then the

term B is z   ' ( B  z ) or  sat z   ' ( B  z ) . The later equation is used if the

soil above the groundwater level is also saturated. The term D remains

unchanged.

Situation 3: Groundwater level within the embedment depth. If the groundwater is

at a depth z within the embedment such that z < D, then the term D is

z   ' ( D  z ) or  sat z   ' ( D  z ) . The latter equation is used if the soil above

the groundwater level is also saturated. The term B becomes  ' B .

29
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering-I Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations

Figure E2.7: Groundwater within a) a depth B below base, b) embedment depth.

EXAMPLE 2.4

Re-do example 2.3 assuming that the groundwater level is at the footing level

(0.45 m below the ground surface). The saturated unit weight is 21 kN/m3.

30
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering-I Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations

EXAMPLE 2.5

A square footing is shown in figure below. Determine the safe gross load (Factor of

safety of 3.0) that the footing can carry.

Fig.E2.5 Square footing.

2.2.5 Allowable bearing capacity and factor of safety

The allowable bearing capacity, qa is calculated by dividing the ultimate

bearing capacity by a factor, called the factor of safety, FS. The FS is intended to

compensate for assumptions made in developing the bearing capacity equations,

soil variability, inaccurate soil data, and uncertainties of loads. The magnitude of FS

applied to the ultimate bearing capacity may be between 2 and 3. The allowable

bearing capacity is:

qu
qa  (2.29)
FS
Alternatively, if the maximum applied foundation stress ( a ) max is known and the

dimension of the footing is also known then you can find a factor of safety by

replacing qa by ( a ) max in Eqn. (2.29):

31
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering-I Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations

qu
FS  (2.30)
( a ) max

2.2.6 Eccentric Loads

Meyerhof (1963) proposed an approximate method for loads that are located

off-centered (or eccentric loads).

Figure A1

He proposed that for a rectangular footing of width B and length L, the base area

should be modified with the following dimensions:

B’ = B – 2eB and L’ =L - 2eL (1)

Where B’ and L’ are the modified width and length, eB and eL are the eccentricities

in the directions of the width and length, respectively. From your course in

mechanics you should recall that

My Mx
eB  and e L  　 (2)
P P

where P is the vertical load, and My and Mx are the moments about the y and x

axes, respectively, as shown in Fig. A1.

32
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering-I Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations

The maximum and minimum vertical stresses along the x axis are:

P  6e B  P  6e B 
 max  1   and  min  1   　 (3)
BL  B  BL  B 

and along the y axis are:

P  6e L  P  6e L 
 max  1   and  min  1   　 (4)
BL  B  BL  B 
Since the tensile strength of soils is approximately zero,  min should always be

greater than zero. Therefore, eB & eL should always be less than B/6 & L/6,

respectively. The bearing capacity equations are modified for eccentric loads by

replacing B with B’.

EXAMPLE 2.6

A footing 2 m square is located at a depth of 1 m below the ground surface in a

deep deposit of compacted sand,  ' =300, c’=0, and  sat =18 kN/m3. The footing

is subjected to a vertical load of 500 kN and a moment about the Y-axis of 125

kN ・ m. The ground water table is 5 m below the ground surface. Use Meyerhof’s

bearing capacity equation and calculate the factor of safety. Assume the soil above

the ground water is also saturated.

2.3 Field Tests

Often, it is difficult to obtain undisturbed samples of especially coarse-grained

33
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering-I Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations

soils for laboratory testing and one has to use results from field tests to determine

the bearing capacity of shallow foundations. Some of the most common methods

used for field tests are briefly described below.

2.3.1 Plate Loading Test

Tests on full sized footings are desirable but expensive. The alternative is to

carry out plate loading tests. The plate loading test is carried out to estimate the

bearing capacity of single footings. The plates that are used in the field are usually

made of steel and are 25 mm thick and 150 mm to 762 mm in diameter. A circular

plate of 300 mm is commonly used in practice. Occasionally, square plates that are

300 mm×300 mm are also used.

To conduct a plate load test, a hole is excavated (Fig. 2.8) with a minimum

diameter 4BP (BP = diameter of the test plate) to a depth of D (D = depth of the

proposed foundation). The plate is placed at the center of the hole. Load is applied

to the plate in increments of 10% to 20% of the estimated ultimate load. Each load

increment is held until settlement ceases. The final settlement at the end of each

loading increment is recorded. The test should be conducted until the soil fails, or at

least until the plate has gone through 25 mm of settlement.

Figure 2.8: Plate Loading Test

For tests in clay,

qu ( F )  qu ( P ) (2.31)

34
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering-I Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations

Where qu (F) & qu (P) are ultimate bearing capacity of foundation and plate,

respectively. Eqn. (2.31) implies that the bearing capacity in clays is independent

of plate size.

For tests in sandy soil,

BF
qu ( F )  qu ( P ) (2.32)
Bp

Where BF and BP stand for width of foundation and plate, respectively.

There are several problems associated with the plate load test. The test is

reliable if the soil layer is thick and homogeneous, local conditions such as a pocket

of weak soil near the surface of plate can affect the test results but these may have

no significant effect on the real footing, the correlation between plate load results

and real footing is problematic, and performance of the test is generally difficult.

2.3.2 Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is used to determine the allowable

bearing capacity of cohesionless coarse-grained soils such as sands. The test

procedure for SPT has been introduced in Chapter 1. The N values obtained from

SPT are usually corrected for various effects such as overburden pressure and

energy transfer. The following are two of the most commonly used methods in

practice for correcting the N values.

1. DILATANCY CORRECTION: Silty fine sands and fine sands below the water

table develop pore pressure that is not easily dissipated. The pore pressure

increases the resistance of the soil and hence the penetration number (N)

Terzaghi and peck (1967) recommended the following correction in the case

of silty fine sands when the observed value of N exceeds 15.

The corrected penetration number, Nc

35
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering-I Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations

Nc=15+0.5(NR-15)

Where NR is the recorded value and Nc is the corrected value.

If NR≤15, Nc=NR

2. OVERBURDEN PRESSURE CORRECTION: In granular soils, the

overburden pressure affects the penetration resistance. If two soils having

the same relative density but different confining pressures are tested, the

one with a higher confining pressure gives a higher penetration number. As

the confining pressure in cohesionless soils increases with the depth, the

penetration number for soils at shallow depths is underestimated and that at

greater depths is overestimated. For uniformity, the N-values obtained from

field tests under different effective overburden pressure are corrected to a

standard effective overburden pressure.

 95.8 
c N   '  ; c N  2 (Liao and Whitman, 1985) (2.33)
  z0 

 1916 
c N  0.77 log10  '  ; c N  2,  z' 0  24 kPa (Peck et al., 1974) (2.34)
  z0 

Where cN is a correction factor for overburden pressure, and  z' 0 is the effective

overburden pressure in kPa. A further correction factor is imposed on N values if

the groundwater level is within a depth B below the base of the footing. The

groundwater correction factor is:

1 z
cW   (2.35)
2 2( D  B )

Where z is the depth to the groundwater table, and D and B are the footing depth

36
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering-I Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations

and width. If the depth of the groundwater table is beyond B from the footing base

cW = 1. The corrected N value is:

N cor  c N cW N

Meyerhof (1956, 1974) proposed the following equations to determine the allowable

bearing capacity qa from SPT values.

12
qa  S e N cor k d B  1.22 m (2.36)
25
2
8  B  0.305 
qa  S e N cor   kd B > 1.22 m (2.37)
25  B 

where Se is the elastic settlement of the layer in mm and kd = 1 + 0.33D/B 

1.33. In practice, each value of N is a soil layer up to a depth B below the footing

base is corrected and an average value of Ncor is used in Eqn. (2.37).

Bowles (1996) modified Meyerhof’s equations by 50% increase in the

allowable bearing capacity. Bowles’s equations are:

20
qa  S e N cor k d B  1.22 m (2.36)
25
2
12.5  B  0.305 
qa  S e N cor   kd B > 1.22 m (2.37)
25  B 

In the above equations N is the statistical average value for the footing influence

zone of about 0.5B above footing base to at least 2B below. Weighted average

using depth increment X N may be preferable to an ordinary arithmetic average:

that is

Nav=(∑N*Zi)/(∑Zi

For pile foundations there may be merit in the simple averaging of blow count

N for any stratum unless it is very thick- (thick being a relative term). Here it may

37
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering-I Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations

be better to subdivide the thick stratum into several “strata” and average the N

count for each subdivision.

If there are consistently low values of N below this zone, settlements may be

troublesome if N is not reduced somewhat to reflect this event.

It can be noted, in the above equations, that footing width is a significant

parameter. Obviously if the depth of influence is on the order of 2B a larger footing

width will affect the soil to a greater depth and strains integrated over a greater

depth will produce a larger settlement. This is taken in to account somewhat for

mats, which are considered by both Meyerhof and Bowles to obtain in the previous

equations.

Both Meyerhof’s and Bowle’s equations are most viable and only reliable in

formations of sand, silty sand, and mixtures of silt, sand, and fine gravel. Thus,

careful scrutiny should be used in establishing a q all from SPT tests in fine-grained

soils such as silt and particularly clay, since silt and clay may be softened or

stiffened with an increase or decrease in the moisture content. Correspondingly, the

SPT results may vary in the same silt or clay formations if the moisture conditions

change.

Practical Problem Encountered:

A one-story school building that was designed using a q all based on a very high

blow count (large N values) obtained during a dry season (and low water table).

The SPT information was used as a sole basis for determining q all. Gradually, but

cumulatively, over a three-year span from construction, cracks exceeding 5cm

developed in the on-grade concrete slab. A subsequent evaluation revealed a clay

stratum vulnerable to significant shrinkage and swelling from notable changes in

38
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering-I Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations

the water content.

In the same context, SPT numbers may be misleading if the formation should

contain large-size gravel. The large size gravel may wedge itself into a split-spoon

sampler thereby resulting in a large, misleading N value.

2.4 Methods Improving the Bearing Capacity of Soils

Significant increase in the bearing capacity of a soil can be achieved by altering the

soil properties of, cohesion c, or density. Usually an increase in density (or unit

weight) is accompanied by an increase in either  or c or both (assuming the soil is

cohesive). Particle packing (compaction) always increases the density, with a

resulting decrease in void ratio, and reduces long term settlements. Particle packing

usually increases the stress-strain modulus so that any “immediate” settlements

are also reduced.

Methods of Soil Property Modification

Mechanical stabilization:

 Stabilization is achieved by altering grain size gradation of the site soil.

 Binder (material passing through No. 4 (0.425mm) sieve) is added for soil

dominated by gravel (from 75mm – 1mm). Where the soil is predominantly

cohesive, granular soil is imported and blended with the site soil.

 It usually requires much more granular materials to stabilize cohesive deposits

than binder for cohesionless deposits and as result other stabilizing

methodsare usually used for clayey soils.

Compaction:

39
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering-I Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations

 This method usually uses some kind of rolling equipment to achieve particle

packing for both cohesionless and cohesive soils and is usually the most

economical.

40
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering-I Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations

41
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering-I Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations

Preloading:

 Used in combination with drainage, it is primarily taken to reduce future

settlement but may also be used to increase shear strength.

Drainage:

 A method undertaken to remove soil water and to speed up settlements under

preloading.

Densification using vibratory equipment:

 The method uses some type of vibrating probe, which is inserted into the soil

mass and withdrawn.

 Densification is particularly useful in sand, silty sand, gravelly sand deposits

with Dr less than about 50 to 60 percent.

Use of in-situ reinforcement:

 The treatment produces composite ground. A trial spacing is chosen and

column of material such as stone, sand, cement, or lime is inserted in the

excavated soil and rammed.

 The drilled diameters usually range in between 600mm and 800mm and depth

of 4m to 8m.

42
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering-I Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations

Grouting:

 Injection of a viscous fluid to reduce the void ratio (and k) or to cement rock

cracks. Most commonly, the viscous fluid is a mix water and water or water

and lime, and/or with additives such as fine sand, bentonite clay, or fly ash.

Geotextiles:

 Synthetic fabric that is sufficiently durable to last a reasonable length of time

in the hostile soil environment.

 Because of their tensile strength, geotextiles are sometimes placed over weak

(poor bearing capacities) soils to form reinforcement. Generally, a layer of

controlled fill is placed over the geotextile, thereby creating a form of

composite that spans over the weak soil.

Chemical stabilization:

 It involves use of chemical stabilizers (also termed chemical grouting). It is

seldom employed because of cost.

 The more commonly used chemical agents are phosphoric acid, calcium

chloride, and sodium silicate (or water glass).

 Various chemicals added to a soil may yield one but more likely a number of

changes in a soil formation: (i) reduce permeability of the soil (e.g. in dam

construction, excavation infiltration). (ii) Increase soil strength. (iii) Increase

bearing capacity (IV) decrease settlement. (v) Produce a stiffening of loose

sand formation and thus minimize undesirable effects, such as from vibrations.

2.5. Bearing Capacity of Footings on slopes:

43
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering-I Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations

Before construction of footings on sloping ground, the stability of the slope itself

must be investigated. Footings should not be constructed on slopes which are

unstable. They should also be avoided on slopes where slow creep of the superficial

material takes place. The stability of a stable slope may be endangered by the

addition of footings. Hence the stability of footings must be investigated both

before and after construction of footings.

Footings on sloping ground:

 Should have sufficient edge distance (minimum 2 to 3 ft) as protection

against erosion.

 Should be carried below the depth of frost penetration.

 Should be carried below the top (organic) soil, miscellaneous fill, abandoned

foundation, and debris.

The bearing capacity of footings on sloping ground may be determined by the

following equation (Meyerohf’s, 1957):

q=CNcq+0.5γBNq

Where Ncq and Nγq vary with the slope of the ground, the relative position of the

footing and the angle of internal friction of the soil

44
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering-I Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations

Fig.2.9. Ultimate bearing capacity of continuous footings on slopes.

Example 2.7.

45
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering-I Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations

Figure E2.7. Shows a shallow strip footing on the top of a clay slope, Determine the

allowable bearing capacity of the foundation with a factor of safety of 4.0

Fig.E2.7 Strip Foundation on clay slope

2.8. Proportioning of footings:

2.8.1 Proportioning of footings using presumptive allowable soil pressures:

Through many years of practice, it has been possible to estimate the allowable soil

pressure for the different types of soils for uncomplicated soil conditions.

Accordingly different building codes give allowable average soil pressure σas.

After picking up the allowable soil pressure σas for a given soil, one may determine

the area and subsequently the proportions of a footing necessary to sustain a given

load or a combination of loads as in the figure …..

The allowable soil pressure, σas is given by:

Where

P=Load sustained by the footing.

46
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering-I Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations

A=a.b=area of footing.

a=Length of footing.

b=Width of footing.

The designer should fix the geometric shape (square, rectangle, circle) and the

ratio between a and b of the footing prior to the application of the above equation.

Since all other quantities in the above equation are known, one readily determines

the area A of the footing.

Figure: Proportioning of footings using presumptive value

2.8.2. Proportioning of footings using the soil strength parameters ф and

C:

For cases where presumptive allowable soil pressures cannot be used, one should

determine the soil strength parameters ф and C. These parameters may be

approximated or determined from laboratory tests. If the nature of the project calls

for relatively accurate determination of ф and C, one should carry out a series of

triaxial tests on undisturbed soil samples taken from several points. Using the value

of ф and C thus obtained, one can easily determine the area of the foundation in

question using bearing capacity equations (2.1-2.11).

47
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering-I Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations

Figure: Proportioning of footings using shear strength parameters of a soil

In applying the bearing capacity equations one should differentiate two states of

loading, namely, the initial or instantaneous loading condition and the final or long-

term loading condition.

In the Initial loading condition, the load is assumed to act instantaneously. At

this stage the pore water pressure in the soil does not have time to dissipate. This

situation corresponds to the quick or undrained test condition of the triaxial test.

The soil parameters are designated by фu and Cu –in most cases фu=0.

In the Final loading or long term loading condition, the load is assumed to act

gradually as construction progresses, thus giving the pore water pressure in the soil

ample time to dissipate. Here the situation corresponds to the slow or drained test

condition of the triaxial test. The soil parameters in this case are designated by ф’

48
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering-I Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations

and C’.

When one compares the respective magnitudes of the soil parameters; one finds

that Cu is much bigger than C’ and фu-if not equal to zero- is much less than ф’.

Example 2.8:

Determine the Dimensions of a square footing necessary to sustain an axial column

load of 850KN as shown in the figure below, given that Df=2m, =19.1 KN/m3,if

a) An allowable presumptive bearing pressure of 150KN/m2 is used.

b) Cu=40KN/m2;C’=7.5KN/m2;Ǿ’=22.50.

Figure: Proportioning of a square footing.

Example 2.9:

A Rectangular mat foundation measuring 10m X 20m is to be placed at a depth of

49
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering-I Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations

3.50m below ground level. The subsurface profile comprises of multi layer soil

deposits, the details of which are shown in figure below. Determine safe bearing

capacity of the soil by adopting suitable factor of safety. Use Meyerhof’s bearing

capacity equation. Assume that the foundation carries a concentrically applied

vertical load.

Example 2.10:

At a site for a proposed building, SPT tests were conducted in a borehole at a depth

interval of 0.75m. The results of blow counts (N) observed at different depths below

50
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
 Foundation Engineering-I Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations

ground level are given in the table below. At this site the soil in general is fine sand

with an average bulk unit weight of 17.0KN/m 3 and saturated unit weight of

21KN/m3. The ground water table is located at a depth of 3m below ground level. A

rectangular footing of size 3.0m X 4.0m is to be placed at a depth of 2.25m.

Determine the allowable bearing capacity of the footing for an allowable settlement

of 50mm.

Table: Measured SPT blow counts.

Depth, m 0.75 1.50 2.25 3.00 3.75 4.50 5.25 6.00 6.75 7.50 8.25 9.00 9.75
Recorded, N 9 12 15 14 21 18 22 24 19 21 25 20 16

Example 2.11:

A Building is to be constructed over a site that has the soil stratification shown in
Figure below.
A. Determine the area of a square footing that can safely transfer the load
from the superstructure without shear failure, i.e. bearing capacity
failure.

51
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering-I Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations

B. Determine the corresponding total settlement for the footing area

proportioned above. Check if the load can be transferred without
excessive settlement. Is an isolated footing the right choice for this
condition? Why?
Use the following data:-
 The load from the superstructure; P=2645KN.
 The footing is to be placed at a depth of 2.0m below the ground
surface.
 The allowable total settlement is 75mm.
 Maximum center-to-center spacing between columns is 5.0m.
 Assume the foundation to be a rigid foundation.
 Ground water table exists at a depth of 5.0m below the ground

G.L

10.0m CLAY SOIL

C=32 KN/m2, =22o , Sr=80%, Gs=2.70, =17 KN/m3

E=25Mpa, =0.50, eo=0.80, Cc=0.21

Rock Extended to a great depth

surface. Use Meyerhof’s Bearing Capacity equation. Use F.S=3.0.

Figure: Subsurface profile

52
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering-I Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations

Example 2.12:

A square footing is shown in figure below. Determine the safe gross allowable load

(factor of safety=3) that the footing can carry. Use any two bearing capacity

equations.

Figure: Square footing.

Example 2.13:

53
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering-I Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations

A square footing is shown in figure below. Determine the safe gross allowable load

(factor of safety=3) that the footing can carry. Use Terzaghi bearing capacity

equations for general shear failure.

Given: sat=1980KN/m3, =25,=1800Kg/m3 ,C=23.94KN/m2, B=1.8m, Df=1.2m,

h=2m

Example 2.14:

In the figure shown below, this shows a shallow strip foundation on the top a slope.

54
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering-I Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations

Given:

Slope (Sand)

β=15o

C=0 KN/m2

=40o

=15KN/m3

Foundation:

B=0.75m

D=1.5m

Estimate the allowable bearing capacity. Use factor of safety of 4.

Example 2.15:

A square footing of 4m width is shown in the figure below. The footing is subjected

to an eccentric load. For the following cases, Determine the gross allowable load

55
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering-I Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations

that the footing could carry. Use Meyerhof’s bearing capacity procedure and safety

of factors=4.

Given: Df=3m, x=y=0.5m, =25,=1800Kg/m3 ,C=23.94KN/m2

56
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes