Foundation

Engineering

Bearing Capacity:
§ Types of Foundations
§ Theory of Bearing Capacity
§ Terzaghi Approach

Syllabus of Foundation Design

Site Investigation, Bearing capacity of Soil, Settlement,
Foundation Design, Piles, Lateral Earth Pressure, slope Stability.

Dr Hussein M. Al.Khuzaie; hma@mu.edu.iq 1

 Bearing Capacity Of Shallow Foundation

* A foundation is required for distributing the loads

of the superstructure on a large area.
* The foundation should be designed
such that:

a) The soil below does not fail in shear &

b) Settlement is within the safe limits.

Dr Hussein M. Al.Khuzaie; hma@mu.edu.iq 2

Dr Hussein M. Al.Khuzaie; hma@mu.edu.iq 3
 Shallow Foundations
Ø for transferring building loads to underlying ground
Ø mostly for firm soils or light loads

firm ground

bed rock
4
Dr Hussein M. Al.Khuzaie; hma@mu.edu.iq
 5
Dr Hussein M. Al.Khuzaie; hma@mu.edu.iq
Dr Hussein M. Al.Khuzaie; hma@mu.edu.iq 6
 7
Dr Hussein M. Al.Khuzaie; hma@mu.edu.iq
 Deep Foundations
Ø for transferring building loads to underlying ground
Ø mostly for weak soils or heavy loads

weak soil
P
I
L
E

bed rock

Dr Hussein M. Al.Khuzaie; hma@mu.edu.iq 8

Driven timber piles, Pacific Highway

Dr Hussein M. Al.Khuzaie; hma@mu.edu.iq 9

Shallow Foundations Bearing Capacity Failure

General shear failure

Local shear failure

Punching shear failure

10
Dr Hussein M. Al.Khuzaie; hma@mu.edu.iq
 11
Dr Hussein M. Al.Khuzaie; hma@mu.edu.iq
 Soil Conditions and Bearing Capacity Failure
Failure in Sand. The approximate limits of types of failure to be
expected at relative depths D/B and relative density of sand DR
vary as shown in Figure below. There is a critical relative depth
below which only punching shear failure occurs. For circular
foundations, this critical relative depth is about D/B = 4 and for
long (L » 5B) rectangular foundations around D/B = 8. The limits
of the types of failure depend upon the compressibility of the
sand. More compressible materials will have lower critical
depths (Vesic, 1973).

12
Dr Hussein M. Al.Khuzaie; hma@mu.edu.iq
 Comments on Shear Failure
• Usually only necessary to analyze general shear failure.

• Local and punching shear failure can usually be

anticipated by settlement analysis.

• Failure in shallow foundations is generally settlement

failure; bearing capacity failure must be analyzed, but in
practical terms is usually secondary to settlement
analysis.

Remark:
We design for the general shear case (for shallow
foundations)

Dr Hussein M. Al.Khuzaie; hma@mu.edu.iq 13

 Development of Bearing Capacity Theory
• Application of limit equilibrium methods first done by Prandtl
on the punching of thick masses
of metal.

• Prandtl's methods adapted by Terzaghi to bearing capacity

failure of shallow foundations.

• Vesicʼ and others improved on Terzaghi's original

theory and added other factors for a more complete analysis

Terzaghi

Dr Hussein M. Al.Khuzaie; hma@mu.edu.iq 14

LIMIT EQUILIBRIUM
1. Define the shape of a failure surface
2. Evaluate stresses vs. strengths along this surface

15
Dr Hussein M. Al.Khuzaie; hma@mu.edu.iq
Ultimate bearing capacity = qult = ?
(Bearing press. required to cause a BC failure)
Moments about point A

Dr Hussein M. Al.Khuzaie; hma@mu.edu.iq 16

 Assumptions for Terzaghi's Method
• Depth of foundation is less than or equal to its width;
(D ≤ B)
• No sliding occurs between foundation and soil
(rough foundation)
• Soil beneath foundation is homogeneous semi infinite
mass
• Mohr-Coulomb model for soil
• General shear failure mode is the governing
mode (but not the only mode)

Dr Hussein M. Al.Khuzaie; hma@mu.edu.iq 17

• No soil consolidation occurs
• Foundation is very rigid relative to the soil
• Soil above bottom of foundation has no shear
strength; is only a surcharge load against the
overturning load
• Applied load is compressive and applied vertically to
the centroid of the foundation
• No applied moments present

Dr Hussein M. Al.Khuzaie; hma@mu.edu.iq 18

Failure Geometry for Terzaghi's Method

Dr Hussein M. Al.Khuzaie; hma@mu.edu.iq

19
 Notes on Terzaghi's Method
• Since soil cohesion can be difficult to quantify, conservative
values of c (cohesion) should be used.

• Frictional strength is more reliable and does not need to be

as conservative as cohesion.

• Terzaghi's method is simple and familiar to many geotechnical

engineers; however, it does not take into account many
factors, nor does it consider cases such as rectangular
foundations.

20
Dr Hussein M. Al.Khuzaie; hma@mu.edu.iq
Ultimate Bearing Capacity (qu) :
The ultimate bearing capacity is the gross pressure at the
base of the foundation at which soil fails in shear.

Dr Hussein M. Al.Khuzaie; hma@mu.edu.iq 21

 22
Dr Hussein M. Al.Khuzaie; hma@mu.edu.iq
 23
Dr Hussein M. Al.Khuzaie; hma@mu.edu.iq
which can be simplified to the
! following
" bearing capacity equation:
(π tan Ø) 2 π Ø
Nq = e tan +
γB 4 2
qu = Nγ (4.32)
2
# ! " $
(π tan Ø) 2 π Ø
= cotcapacity
Ncbearing
and the Ø e factortan Nγ is 4 + 2 − 1 = cot Ø(Nq − 1)

! "# ! " $
1 π Ø π Ø (3π tan Ø)
Note
Nγ = when
4
tan Ø+ = 0,tan
4 2
Equation
+
4 2
e4.24
2 − 1no meaning. In this case, Nc = (
has
ivation are described %#in Section
! " 4.3. Or,$ if we plot N ! c against
" Ø, you
& wi
3 sin Ø π Ø cot Ø (3π tan Ø) π Ø cot Ø
becomes+ an asymptotic
2
1 + 8 sin Ø
tanvalue
4 2
+ as−Ø approaches
3
e2 + zero.
tan +
4 2 3
+ 1
More importantly, Shield (1954) has shown that by extending(4.33) satisfa
stress field associated with the Prandtl mechanism into the remaining ri
theAsshear surface, the upper-bound bearing capacity solution Equation
stated by Chen (1975), the bearing capacity due to soil weight is sensitive to the
4
bound for soils with an internal friction
, angle
where K of
=
roughness of soil–foundation interface. Hill’s mechanism is psuitable
g for a perfectly.smooth
less than
passive 75 ◦
earth It is th
that the bearing
soil–foundation capacity
interface, factors of
and Prandtl’s Equations
mechanism
pressure does 4.23 and soil–foundation
not allow
coefficient 4.24 are exact
slip and is therefore
solutions suitable
for shallow for a perfectlyon
foundations rough soil–foundation interface.
cohesive-frictional soils. In fact,wou
This if
we follow the above upper-bound approach but with Prandtl’s mechanism, the bearing
less of the
capacity roughness
obtained is exactlyoftwice
the the
soil–foundation interface.
solution of Equation 4.33 as derived from Hill’s
mechanism.
Dr Hussein M. Al.Khuzaie; hma@mu.edu.iq 24
Values for factor N have been obtained by Hansen [23] and
Meyerhof [27], represented by the following
approximations:

Dr Hussein M. Al.Khuzaie; hma@mu.edu.iq 25

Dr Hussein M. Al.Khuzaie; hma@mu.edu.iq 26
 1000
Ng = 3.5 Nq =6.4 NC = 14.8

The solution of the preceding equations for bearing capacity factors

Dr Hussein M. Al.Khuzaie; hma@mu.edu.iq 27
EXAMPLE 1
Given
A strip foundation with a width of 3 m is located at a depth of 2 m in a
cohesive-frictional soil. The cohesion of the soil c is 30 kPa and its
internal friction angle Ø is 30◦. The unit weight of the soil is γ = 17
kN/m3. For simplicity, the overburden effect will be accounted for by
using an equivalent surcharge, defined as the unit weight multiplied by
embedment depth of the foundation.
Required
The ultimate bearing capacity of the strip foundation.

Dr Hussein M. Al.Khuzaie; hma@mu.edu.iq 28

Dr Hussein M. Al.Khuzaie; hma@mu.edu.iq

29