Foundation 2 Ultimate Bearing Capacity 5.1 INTRODUCTION Itisthe customary practice to regard a foundation as shallow ifthe depth of the foundation is less than ‘or equal to the width ofthe foundation, The different types of footings that we normally come across are given in Fig. 4.1. A foundation isan integral part of a structure. The stability ofa structure depends "upon the stability of the supporting soil, Two important factors that are to be considered are: 1. The foundation must be stable against shear failure of the supporting soil, 2, ‘The foundation must not settle beyond a tolerable limit to avoid damage to the structure. ‘The other factors that require consideration are the location and depth ofthe foundation. In deciding the location and depth, one has to consider the erosions due to flowing water, underground defects such as root holes, cavities, unconsolidated fill, ground water level, presence of expansive soils, et. In selecting a type of foundation, one has to consider the functions ofthe structure and the load it has to carry, the subsurface condition of the soil, and the cost of the superstructure. . Design loads also play an important part in the selection of the type of foundation. The various Toads that are likely to be considered are: (/) dead loads, (i) live loads, (i) wind and earthquake forces, (iv) lateral pressures exerted by the foundation earth on the embedded structural elements, and (v) the effects of dynamic loads. In addition to the above loads, the loads that are due to the subsoil conditions are also required to be considered. They are: (i) lateral or uplift forces on the foundation elements due to high water table, (i) swelling pressures on the foundations in expansive soils, i) heave pressures on foundations {nareas subjected to frost heave, and (iv) negative frictional drag on piles where pile foundations are used in highly compressible soils. The steps that are required to be considered in the selection of the {ype of foundation are discussed in Chapter 4. 5.2 THE ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY OF SOIL DEFINED Consider the simplest case of a shallow foundation subjected to a central vertical load. The footing is founded at a depth D;below the ground surface Fig, 5.1 (a). Ifthe settlement, S, ofthe footing is. recorded against the applied load, Q, load-settlement curves, similar in shape to a stress~strain ‘curve, may be obtained as shown in Fig. 5.1 (b).Load Settlement, $ @ Fig. 5.1 Typical load-settiement curves: (a) Footing, (b) load-settlement curves ‘The shape of the curve depends generally onthe size and shape ofthe footing, the composition of the supporting soi, andthe characte, rate, and frequency of loading, Normally, a curve will indicate the ultimate load Q, thatthe foundation can support Ifthe foundation sol isa dense sand ora very stiff elay, the curve passes fainly abruptly toa peak value and then drops down a shown by curve C, in Fig. 5.1 0). The peak load Q, is quite pronounced in this case. On the other hand, ifthe sol is loose sand or soft clay, the settlement curve continues to descend on a slope as shown by curve C) ‘which shows thatthe compression of soil is continuously taking place without giving a definite value for Q,..On such a curve, Q, may be taken at a point beyond which there is a constant rate of penetration. 5.3 SOME OF THE TERMS DEFINED Itwill be useful to define, at this stage, some of the terms relating to bearing capacity of foundations (refer to Fig, 5.2). (a) Total Overburden Pressure qo gq isthe intensity of total overburden pressure due to the weight of both soil and water atthe base level of the foundation. Go = Dar * Yo De 6.) (b) Effective Overburden Pressure q,, 4; is the effective overburden pressure atthe base level of the foundation, = Wy + MBe 62) when B,=0, 95 =1Dy,=yDy——— Shallow Foundation 2: Ultimate Bearing Capacity 113 GL o [ue UPL | (,-D.) =D, y~ unit weight of soil above awr “You = Saturated unit weight of soil below GWT = submerged unit weight of soil ‘nit weight of water Fig. 5.2 Total and effective overburden pressures (c) The Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Soil, qy ais the maximum bearing capacity of soil at which the sol fails by shear. (d) The Net Ultimate Bearing Capacity, dry, ns is the bearing capacity in excess of the effective overburden pressure q’, expressed as In = Gu~ Fo (83) (e) Gross Allowable Bearing Pressure, q ais expressed as 6a) where F, = factor of safety (1) Net Allowable Bearing Pressure, dna is expressed as “ aos te 6s) ne Fr (g) Safe Bearing Pressure, q, is defined as the net safe bearing pressure which produces a settlement of the foundation which does not exceed a permissible limit. ‘Note: In the design of foundations, one has to use the least of the two values of qua and gy. 5.4 TYPES OF FAILURE IN SOIL Experimental investigations have indicated that foundations on dense sand with relative density ‘greater than 70 percent fail suddenly with pronounced peak resistance when the settlement reaches bout 7 percent of the foundation width. The failure is accompanied by the appearance of failure114 Advanced Foundation Engineering surfaces and by considerable bulging ofa sheared mass of sand as shown in Fig. 5.3 (8). This ype of failure is designated as general shear failure by Terzaghi (1943). Foundations on sand of relative density lying between 35 and 70 percent do not show a sudden failure. As the settlement exceeds about § percent of the foundation width, bulging of sand starts atthe surface. At settlements of about 15 percent of foundation width, a visible boundary of sheared zones atthe surface appears, However, the peak of base resistance may never be reached. This type of failure is termed local shear failure, Fig. 5.3 (b), by Terzaghi (1943). Foundations on relatively loose sand with relative density less than 35 percent penetrate into the soil without any bulging of the sand surface, The base resistance gradually increases as settlement progresses. The rate of settlement, however, increases and reaches a maximum at a settlement‘of bout 15 to 20 percent of the foundation width, Sudden jerks or shears can be observed as soon as the settlement reaches about 6 to 8 percent of the foundation width, The failure surface, which is vertical or slightly inclined and follows the perimeter of the base, never reaches the sand surface. This type of failure is designated as punching shear failure by Vesic (1963) as shown in Fig. 5.3 (c) @ tm Qu | D, al b) a Quy _ ; 5 be 5 © | —_ Fig. 5.3 Modes of boating capacity faliure (Vesic, 1963): (a) General sheat,(b) local shear failure, (6) punching shear failureShallow Foundation 2: Ultimate Bearing Capacity 115 ‘The three types of failure described above were observed by Vesic (1963) during tests on model footings. It may be noted here that as the relative depth width ratio increases, the limiting relative densities at which failure types change increase. The approximate limits of types of failure to be affected as relative depth D;/B, and relative density of sand, D,, vary are shown in Fig. 5.4 (Vesic, 1963). The same figure shows that there isa critical relative depth beiow which only punching shear failure occurs for circular foundations, this critical depth, D,/B, isaround 4 and for long rectangular foundations around 8. . Relative density of sand, D, 02 04 06 os 10 T General | | | Punching shear Relative depth of foundation D ,/B i 3 Fig. 5.4 Modes of fallure of model footings in sand (after Vesic, 1963) “The surfaces of failures as observed by Vesic are for concentric vertical loads. Any small amount of eccentricity in the load application changes the modes of failure and the foundation tilts in the direction of eccentricity. Tilting nearly always occurs in eases of foundation failures because of the inevitable variation in the shear strength and compressibility of the soil from one point to another and causes greater yielding on one side or another of the foundation, This throws the center of gravity of the load towards the side where yielding has occurred, thus increasing the intensity of Pressure on this side followed by further tilting ‘A footing founded on precompressed clays or saturated normally consolidated clays will fail in general shear, if it is loaded so that no volume change can take place and fails by punching shear if the footing is founded on soft clays. 5.5 AN OVERVIEW OF BEARING CAPACITY THEORIES The determination of bearing capacity of soil based on the classical earth pressure theory of Rankine (1857) began with Pauker, a Russian military engineer (1889), and was modified by Bell (1915). Pauker’s theory was applicable only for sandy soils but the theory of Bell took into account cohesion also. Neither theory took into account the width ofthe foundation, Subsequent developments led to the modification of Bell's theory to include width of footing also,116 Advanced Foundation Engineering ‘The methods of calculating the ultimate bearing capacity of shallow strip footings by plastic theory developed considerably over the years since Terzaghi (1943) first proposed a method by taking into account the weight of oil by the principle of superposition. Terzaghi extended the theory of Prandtl (1921), Prandtl developed an equation based on his study of the penetration ofa long hard metal punch into softer materials for computing the ultimate bearing capacity. He assumed the material ‘was weightless possessing only cohesion and friction. Taylor (1948) extended the equation of Prandtl by taking into account the surcharge effect of the overburden soil atthe foundation level No exact analytical solution for computing bearing capacity of footings is available at present because the basic system of equations describing the yield problems is nonlinear. On account of these reasons, Terzaghi (1943) first proposed a semiempirical equation for computing the ultimate bearing capacity of strip footings by taking into account cohesion, friction and weight of soil, and replacing the overburden pressure with an equivalent surcharge load atthe base level ofthe foundation, This method was for the general shear failure condition and the principal of superposition was adopted. His work was an extension of the work of Prandil (1921). The final form of the equation proposed by Terzaghi is the same as the one given by Prandtl Subsequent to the work by Terzaghi, many investigators became interested in this problem and presented their own solutions. However, the form of the equation presented by al these investigators remained the same as that of Terzaghi, but their methods of determining the bearing capacity factors ‘were different. Of importance in determining the beating capacity of strip footings is the assumption of plane strain inherent in the solutions of strip footings. The angle of internal friction as determined under an axially symmetric triaxial compression stress state, 6, is known to be several degrees less than that ‘determined under plane strain conditions under low confining pressures. Thus, the bearing capacity ‘ofa strip footing calculated by the generally accepted formulas, using ¢,, is usually less than the actual bearing capacity as determined by the plane strain footing tests which leads to @ conclusion thatthe bearing capacity formulas are conservative. ‘The ultimate bearing capacity, or the allowable soil pressure, can be calculated either from bearing capacity theories or ffom some ofthe in-situ tests. Each theory has its own good and bad points Some of the theories are of academic interest only. However, it isthe purpose of the author to present here only such theories which are of basi interest to students in particular and professional engineers in general. The application of field tests for determining bearing capacity are also presented which are of particular importance to professional engineers since present practice is to rely more on field tests for determining the bearing capacity or allowable bearing pressure of soil Some of the methods that are discussed in this chapter are: 1, Terzaghi’s bearing capacity theory. 2. The general bearing capacity equation, 3. Pressuremeter. 4, Field tests 5.6 TERZAGHI'S BEARING CAPACITY THEORY Terzaghi (1943) used the same form of equation as proposed by Prandil (1921) and extended his theory to take into account the weight of soil and the effect of sol above the base of the foundation ‘onthe bearing capacity of soil. Terzaghi made the following assumptions for developing an equation for determining g, for a c-9 soil (1) The soil is semiinfinite, homogencous and isotropic, (2) the problem is two-dimensional, (G) the base of the footing is rough, (4) the failure is by gencral shear, (5) the load is vertical and symmetrical, (6) the ground surface is horizontal, (7) the overburden pressure at foundation level is- Shallow Foundation 2: Ultimate Bearing Capacity 117 equivelent toa surcharge load qf yD,, where ys the effective unit weight of soil, and D the depth of foundation less than the width B ofthe foundation, (8) the principle of superposition is vali, and (9) Coulomb's law is strictly valid, that is, 0=e'* 6 tang Mechanism of Failure ‘The shapes of the failure surfaces under ultimate loading conditions are given in Fig. 5.5. The zones of plastic equilibrium represented in this figure by the area gedef may be subdivided into 1. Zone I of elastic equilibrium, 2. Zones If of radial shear state 3. Zones Ill of Rankine passive state. ‘When load g, per unit area acting on the base of the footing of width B with a rough base is transmitted into'the soil, the tendency of the soil located within zone J is to spread but this is counteracted by friction and adhesion between the soil and the base of the footing. Due to the existence of this resistance against lateral spreading, the soil located immediately beneath the base remains permanently ina state of elastic equilibrium, and the soil located within this Cental Zone behaves as iit were a par of the footing and sinks withthe footing under the superimposed load. The depth of this wedge shaped body of soil abe remains practically unchanged, yet the footing sinks. This process is only conceivable if the soil located just below point ¢ moves vertically downwards, This type of movement requires that the surface of sliding ed (Fig. 5.5) through point c should start from a vertical tangent. The boundary be of the zone of radial shear dd (Zone It) is also the surface of sliding. As per the theory of plasticity, the potential surfaces of sliding in an ideal plastic material intersect each other in every point of the 2one of plastic equilibrium at an angle (90° ~ @). Therefore, the boundary be must rise at an angle to the horizontal provided the fiction and adhesion between the soi and the base of the footing sulfice to prevent a sliding motion at the base The sinking of Zone I creates two zones of plastic equilibrium, Hl and II, on either side ofthe footing. Zone Il is the radial shear zone whose remote boundaries bd and af meet the horizontal surface at angles (45° 2), whereas Zone IT is a passive Rankine zone. The boundaries de and Jago these zones are straight lines and they meet the surface at angles of (45° — 9/2). The curved parts ed and cf in Zone II are parts of logarithmic spirals whose centres are located at band a respectively ~~ Logarithmic spiral Fig. 5.5 General shear failure surface as assumed by Terzaghi for a stip footing118 Advanced Foundation Engineering — Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Soil Strip footings Terzaghi developed his bearing capacity equation for strip footings by analysing the forces acting on the wedge abc in Fig, 5.5. The equation developed forthe ultimate bearing capacity g, is 1 3 18M, 66) il = BN, + DyNy + where Q,,,= ultimate load per unit length of footing, c= unit cohesion, ythe effective unit weight of soil, B= width of footing, D,= depth of foundation, V., N, and N are the bearing capacity factors. They are functions of the angle of friction, ¢. TThe bearing capacity factors are expressed by the following equations Ne =(Ny =I) cote } 3 a 2eos? (45° + 9/2) where ag =e"? 67) k moo where K,,~ passive earth pressure coefficient. Table 5.1 gives the values of N,N, and N, for various values of @ and Fig, 5.6 gives the same in « graphical form, le 5.1. Bearing capacity factors of Terzaghi * —_— — o 57 Lo 5 73 16 0 96 27 15 no 44 2 7 4 50 25 251 Pe 97 30 372, 225 19a 35 578 414 a4 40 987 813 1004 4s 1723 13.3 360.0 0 47S 415.1 lors Equations for Square, Circular, and Rectangular Foundations Terzaghi’s bearing capacity Eq, (5.6) has ben modified for ther types of foundations by introducing the shape factors, The equations areShallow Foundation 2: Ultimate Bearing Capacity 119 Values of N, en 889 Ssh 8 7 WA Ar Bot - + JH en, SH LA st] Bob ttt tt t a i | Boost a | 2 Ll {Tf 5 20h 4 | +t s {It | 2 sty + 2 | S10 — g | I | shy + oth | Lit 33 ers R eSR 8 2 S88 8 ‘Values of N, and, = Fig. 5.6 Terzaghis bearing capacity factors for general shear failure ‘Square foundations ay VBEN, +1 Dy Ny 04Y BN, 68) Circular foundations dy = 130 N, + y Dy Ny + 0.3 BNy 69) Rectangular foundations B 1 2) = en, (1+03%2) sypyn, +4 -02x2 a ou (i202) crane trem (ica!) Guo where B= width or diameter, £ = length of footing. Ultimate Bearing Capacity for Local Shear Failure ‘The reasons as to why a soil fails under local shear have been explained under Section 5.4. When a sol fails by local shear, the actual shear parameters cand are to be reduced as per Terzaghi (1943), The lower limiting values of c and @ are = = 0.676 and tan § = 0.67 tan 9 or § = tan”! (0.67 tan 4) (.) The equations for the lower found values for the various types of footings are given below.120. Advanced Foundation Engineering Strip foundation a 0.676. +7D,iy+ 5 BR 6.12) ‘Square Found: 44 = 0.867 N+ y Dy, + 0.4y Bil 6.13) Circular Foundation du = 0.8670 N, +7 D,N, + 0.37 BN; (6.14) Rectangular Foundation 2) se exDpitys van (1-022) ) where N,, Ni and Ware the reduced bearing capacity factors for local shear failure. These factors may be obtalned either from Table 5.1 or Fig, 5.7 by making use ofthe friction angle . (5) Ultimate Bearing Capacity q, in Purely Cohesionless and Cohesive Soils, Under General Shear Failure Equations for the various types of footings for (c- 4) soil under general shear failure have been given earlier. The same equations can be modified to give equations for cohesionless soil (for e= 0) and cohesive soils (for = 0) as follows Itmay be noted here that for = 0, the value of N= 0, and for §= strip footing and N, = 1 the value of N= 5.7 for a (a) Strip footing For 4 1D,Ny+ 3 YBN, 616) For Gy 5.70 + y Dy (b) Square footing For au" 1 Dp + O4Y BN, 6.17) For 0-0, q=Tder yDy (c) Circular Footing For Gu= 1DjNq + 0.3 BN; (5.18) For 0, gy 7he+ YD, (d) Rectangular footing B ‘or DyN, + + yBN, {1-02% . Fi =1D)Nq ty N, u( a (5.198)—————_———— Sattow Foundation 2: Ultimate Bearing Capacity 121 (, B For a.~ sre (14034) +40, (6.198) Similar types of equations as presented for general shear failure can be developed for local shear failure also. Transition from Local to General Shear Failure in Sand ‘As already explained, local shear failure normally occurs in loose and general shear failure ‘occurs in dense sand. There is a transition from local to general shear failure asthe state of sand changes from loose to dense condition. There is no bearing capacity equation to account for this transition from loose to dense state, Peck et al, (1974) have given curves for N, and Ny which automatically incorporate allowance for the mixed state of local and general shear failures as shown in Fig, 5.7 Very loose c Loose 0- —— T 0 | | bah - 10 | rr TT = v0} PR +—1—~| 29 Wah | | 5 2 Py Tt 203 ¥ 100, | | 4 hora’ = Lt} OMT I" &g | | [| so 2 so;—t / | 3 é 7 T 5 2 CLL woe 2 TT rT é F 60 | 10 e T £ | | Me NI a 11) Wrel 0 {jt Lt} | | ] | | | | 1 +41 El EL 2 30 32-34 36-38 AO 4 AAG ‘Angle of intemal friction, § Fig, 5.7 Terzagh’s bearing capacity factors which take care of mixed state of local and general ‘shear failures in sand (Pack et a, 1974)122 Advanced Foundation Engineering ‘The curves for N, and 1, are developed on the following assumptions. 1. Purely local shear failure occurs when $.28°, 2. Purely general shear failure occurs when > 38°, 3. Smooth transition curves for values of @ between 28° and 38° represent the mixed state of local and general shear failures. [Ny and N, for values of 62 38° areas given in Table 5.1. Values of W, and W, for @<28° may be ‘obtained from Table 5.1 by making use of the relationship $= tan! (2/3) tan . In the case of purely cohesive soil local shea failure may be assumed to occur in soft to medium stiff clay with an unconfined compressive strength qy S 100 kPa, Figure 5.7 also gives the relationship between SPT value Ney andthe angle of internal ition 9 by means ofa curve. This curve is useful to obtain the value of when the SPT value is known, Net Ultimate Bearing Capacity and Safety Factor ‘The net ultimate bearing capacity q,, is defined asthe pressure a the base level ofthe foundation in excess of the effective overburden pressure qj,~ yD,as defined in Eq (5.3). The net gp, for a strip footing is 1 Gru = Gu YDp)= CN, + ¥Dy(Nq~ 1) + 5 YBN, (5.20) ‘Similar expressions can be writen for square, circular, and rectangular foundations and also for local shear failure conditions. Allowable bearing pressure Per Eq, (5.4), the gross allowable bearing pressure is 4, 0° (21a) In the same way the net allowable bearing pressure dy is Dy Ina” E (6.21) where F, = factor of safety which is normally assumed as equal to 3 5.7 SKEMPTON’S BEARING CAPACITY FACTOR No For saturated clay soils, Skempton (1951), proposed the following equation fora strip foundation (6.28) or (5.226) (5.220) The N, values for strip and square (or circular) foundations as a function of the D, /B ratio are given in Fig, 5.8, The equation for rectangular foundation may be written as followsShallow Foundation 2: Utimate Bearing Capacity 123 B (Woe = (asso 16x) Was (5.224) where (N,) for rectangular foundation, (N,) = N, for squere foundation. Bearing capacity factors, 5.8 Skempton's beating capacity factor N. for clay soils, The lower and upper limiting values of N, for strip and square foundations may be written as follows: ‘Tipe of foundation Sip 24 Square 0 Ba 5.8 EFFECT OF WATER TABLE ON BEARING CAPACITY “The theoretical equations developed for computing the ultimate bearing capacity q, of sol are based ‘on the assumption that the water table lies at a depth below the base of the foundation equal to or greater than the width B of the foundation or otherwise the depth of the water table from ground surface is equal to or greater than (Dy~ B). Incase the water table lies at any intermediate depth less than the depth (D, +B), the bearing capacity equations are affected due to the presence of the water table. ‘Two cases may be considered here, ‘Case 1: When the water table lies above the base of the foundation. ‘Case 2: When the water table les within depth B below the base of the foundation.124 Advanced Foundation Engineering ‘We will consider the two methods for determining the effect ofthe water table on bearing capacity as given below. Method 1 For any position of the water table within the depth (D+ 8), we may write Eq. (5.6) as 1 CN, + DyNq Rui + 5 YBN ya (5.23) where Ry = reduction factor for water table above the base level ofthe foundation, Ryq = reduction factor for water table below the base level ofthe foundation, “fr all practical purposes in both the second and third terms of Eq (5.23) Case 1: When the water table lies above the base level of the foundation or when D,,:/D,S1 {[Fig. 5.9 (@)] the equation for R,) may be written as / : +a) (5.24) For Dyy/Dy= 0, we have Ry * 0.5, and for Dyy/D, = 1.0, we have Ry, = 1 Ry Case 2: When the water table lies below the base level or when D2 /B$ 1 Fig, 5.9 (b)] the equation for Ris (5.240) For Dy /B = 0, we have Ry = 0.5, and for D,y/B= 1.0, we have Rys = 1.0. Figure 5.9 shows in a graphical form the relations Dyy/Dy v8. Ryy and Dyp/B YS. Ryp. Equations (5.24a) and (5.24b) are based on the assumption that the submerged unit weight of soil is equal to half ofthe saturated unit weight and the soil above the water table remains saturated, Method 2: Equivalent effective unit weight method Equation (5.6) for the strip footing may be expressed as 1 a= Ne * Yet DPNy* 5 Yer BNy (525) where 1, = weighted effective unit weight of soil lying above the base level of the foundation, Ye2 ~ Weighted effective unit weight of soil lying within the depth B below the base level ofthe foundation, “Yn = moist or saturated unit weight of soil lying above WT (case 1 or case 2) “Yar ~ saturated unit weight of soil below the WT (ease | or case 2) ‘Ys = submerged unit weight of Soil = Yur—Yy Case 1: An equation for ¥,, may be written as apt Dat tant BE 1) (6.268)Shallow Foundation 2; Ultimate Bearing Capacity 125 Fig. 5.9 Effect of WT on bearing capacity: (a) Water table above base level of foundation, (b) water table below base level of foundation Case 2: F Om- 1) (5.260) Example 5.1 A strip footing of width 3 m is founded at a depth of 2-m below the ground surface in a (c- @) soil having a cohesion c= 30 KN/m? and angle of shearing resistance = 35°. The water table is at a126 Advanced Foundation Engineering $$$ depth of 5 m below ground level. The moist weight of soil above the water table is 17.25 KN/m*, Determine (a) the ultimate bearing capacity of the soil, (B) the net bearing capacity, and (c) the net allowable bearing pressure and the load/m for a factor of safety of 3. Use the general shear failure theory of Terzaghi. Solution For 6 = 35, From Eq. (5.6), Fig, Ex. 5.1 1 au = N+ YD/Ng + 5 BN, 1 = 30% 578+ 17.25% 2414 + 5H 17.25 %3 x 424 = 4259 KN? Gnu ~ Gu 1 Dp = 4259 ~ 17.25 * 2= 4225 N/m? dow 3225 1408 N/m? Example 5.2 Ifthe soil in Ex. 5.1 fails by local shear failure, determine the net safe bearing pressure. All the other data given in Ex, 5.1 remain the same,————— Shallow Foundation 2: Uimate Bearing Capacity 127 Solution For local shear failure: = tan”! 0.67 tan 35°= 25° & = 0.67¢ = 0.67 x 30 = 20 KN/m? From Table 5.1, for = 25°, W_=25.1, Ni, ‘Now from Eq, (5.12) 2.7, Ny=9.7 due 200251 4 nana ny Ee ias3 «99-191 AN Gnu = M91 = 17.25 % 2 = 1156.5 KN/m? 85.5 KN/m? 1156.5 KN/m Example 5.3 If the water table in Ex. 5.1 rises to the ground level, determine the net safe bearing pressure of the footing. All the other data given in Ex. 5.1 remain the same. Assume the saturated unit weight ofthe Soil Yq = 18.5 KN’, Solution When the WT is at ground level we have to use the submerged unit weight of the sol, ‘Therefore ty = Yar ~ Ye = 18.5 —9.81 = 8.69 KN/m> “The net altimate bearing capacity is un = 30 * S784 8.69 2 (414-1) + : 548.69 «3 x 42.4 = 2992 KN/m? 2992 Gna = =~ = 997.33 KN Io? Qq = 997.33 «3 = 2992 KNim Example 5.4 If the water table in Ex. 5.1 occupies any of the positions: (a) 1.25 m below ground level or (®) 1.25 m below the base level of the foundation, what will be the net safe bearing pressure? ‘Assume ac" 18.5 KN/m®, y (above WT) = 17.5 KN/m?. All the other data remain the same as given in Ex. 5.1 Solution Method 1 By making use of reduction factors R,, and R,» and using Egs (5.20) and (5.23), we may write 1 Gnu = Ne + Y Dy (Ng ~ 1) Rot * > TBM Ror Given: Ny= 41.4, Ny = 42.4 and N, = 57.8128 Advanced Foundation Engineering Case 1: When the WT is 1.25 m below the GL From Eq, (5.24), we get R, = 0.813 for Dy /D/= 0.625, R2=0.5 for Dya/B = 0. By substituting the known values in the equation for day, We have 1 ng = 30% 57.84 18.5 X2 x A.A «0813 + 5 «18S <3 x 424 x 0.5 = 3538 KN Ua? 1179 N/m? Case 2: When the WT is 1.25 m below the base of the foundation Ryy = 1.0 for Dyy/D/= 1, Ry = 0.71 for Dya/B= 0.42. ‘Now the net bearing capacity is aus" e578 1852404 4 18s 03x24 O71 = O6U RNIN? 484 sssanint ane BE esse Method 2 Using the equivalent effective unit weight method. Submerged unit weight y= 18.5 ~9.81 = 8.69 KN/m. Per Eq. (5.25), the net ultimate bearing capacity is 1 dna ™ Ne + Yr DY(Ng~ D+ 3 Yen BNy Case 1: When Dyy = 1.25 m (Fig. Ex. 5.4) From Eq, (5.26a) Da Ya De Ce Wd) 8.5 kN/m? Whee y= Yat ta = 869+ 225 (18.5 —8.69)= 1482 N/m Yea = Yo = 8.69 KN/m? a= e518 Maze Deana | 8aoe snake sen? ol Case 2: When D,2 = 1.25 m (Fig. Ex. 5.4) From Eq. 5.26 (b) Yer = Ym = 18.5 KN/m?Shallow Foundation 2: Ultimate Bearing Capacity 129 Fig, Ex.5.4 Effect of WT on bearing capacity 04 tea = 1347 N/m Example 5.5 ‘A square footing fails by general shear in a cobesionless soil under an ultimate load of Qu, = 1687.5 kips. The footing is placed ata depth of 6.5 ft below ground level. Given: 6 =35°, and y= 110 1b/ 1, determine the size ofthe footing ifthe water table is ata great depth (Fig. Ex. 5.5). Solution Fora square footing Eq, (5.17) for e= 0, we have au = yD/Ny+ 0.47 BN, For 9 = 35°,N,=41.4, and N,=424ffom Table 51 Qu _ 1687510? ng By substituting known values, we have 1687.5 x10? 3 10* 65 x 41.4404 x 110 x 42.48 = 29,601 + 1.8668) 10°130 Advanced Foundation Engineering 65h IE Pe | Simplifying and transposing, we have BP + 15,8638? ~ 904.34 =0 Solving this equation yields, B= 6.4 ft. Example 5.6 A rectangular footing of size 10 * 20 ft is founded at a depth of 6 ft below the ground surface in a ‘homogeneous cohesionless soil having an angle of shearing resistance §= 35°. The water table is at ‘agreat depth; The unit weight of soily= 114 Ib/ft?, Determine: (1) the net ultimate bearing capacity, (2) the net allowable bearing pressure for F,~ 3, and (3) the allowable load Q, the footing can carry. Use Terzaghi’s theory (Refer to Fig. Ex. 5.6) —— gn3se nate |~——10% 208 — Fig. Ex.5.6 Solution Using Eqs (5.19) and (5.20) for e= 0, the net ultimate bearing capacity for a rectangular footing is expressed as,——————— Shallow Foundation 2: Ultimate Bearing Capacity 131 1 BY = D,(N,~1)+ Lan, (1-022 dou = ¥D/(Nq~V) Loy, (1 i) From Table 5.1, y= 414, N= 42.4 for @= 35" By substituting the known values, 1 (, 10 > Gn = VA (ALA 1) 5 * 114 * 10 424 (1-02 95 ] = 49985 Ir (B * L) dy = 10 * 20 * 16462 ~ 3292 x 10° I e 292 kips Example 5.7 A rectangular footing of size 10 * 20 ff is founded at a depth of 6 ft below the ground level in a ‘cohesive soil (9= 0) which fails by general shear. Given: fg, = 114 Tb/ f°, c= 945 Ib/ 12, The water table is close to the ground surface, Determine gu, Gnu 284 na bY (2) Terzaghi’s method, and (6) Skempton’s method (use F, Solution Use Eg. (5.19) 0, For : 0 2 nw ~ Gu Yo Dy) * 6504 — (114 - 62.4) x 6 = 6195 Ib/t? 6195 en ne EF 2065 tb/ A? () Skempton’s method From Eqs (5.228) and (5.220), we may write y= Ney* YDy where N,= bearing capacity factor for a square foundation. Ney 2 = (084+ 016%2) «x, ( 2) Ne where Ne, = bearing capacity factor for a square foundation, From Fig, 12.9, Ne, = 7.2 for Dy/B= 0.60,132. Advanced Foundation Engineering Therefore Ng (084+ 016%28) «72-602 wy 20, Now gy = 945 « 6.62 + 114 x 6 = 6940 Ib/ ft? Gnu = (u-1Dy) = 6940 ~ 114 % 6 = 6256 Ib/R? im 6256 2 na = Fe = S~ = 2085 bs Note: Terzaghi's and Skempton’s values are in close agreement for cohesive soils. Example 5.8 If the soil in Ex. 5.6 is cohesionless (¢ = 0), and fails in local shear, determine: (/) The ultimate bearing capacity, (i) the net bearing capacity, and (i the net allowable bearing pressure, All the other data remain the samme, Solution From Eqs (5.15) and (5.20), the net bearing capacity for local shear failure for ¢= 0 is ae B anu = Gu 1) = 1D, (y= 1+ FBR, (-02%4) where tan~! 0.67 tan 35° = 25°, Ng = 12.7, and 7 for § = 25° from Table 5.1. By substituting known values, we have, 1 10) =a +d acnax i093 (1-02%22) « 2 Jou = MA * 6 (12.7 = 1) + 5 114% 10 oa 39)” 12979 tor 079 n= 2 nase win? 5.9 THE GENERAL BEARING CAPACITY EQUATION “The bearing capacity Eq, (5.6), developed by Terzaghi is for a strip footing under general shear failure, Equation (5.6) has been modified for other types of foundations such as square, circular and rectangular by introducing shape factors. Meyerhof (1963), presented a general bearing capacity ‘equation which takes into account the shape and the inclination of load. The general form of equation suggested by Meyerhof for bearing capacity is 1 de= Mesedele* Ny Sq Hyg * 57BN 5A y 621 where ¢ = unit cohesion, effective overburden pressure atthe base level of the foundation = ¥ D,, = effective unit weight above the base level of foundation, Y= effective unit weight of soil below the foundation base, y= depth of foundation,es dy dy fen ign by shape factors, depth factor, ‘Shallow Foundation 2: Ultimate Bearing Capacity 133 load inclination factors, B = width of foundation, No, Ng My = beating capacity factors. Hansen (1970) extended the work of Meyerhof by including in Eq, (5.27) two additional factors to take care of base tilt and foundations on slopes. Vesic (1973, 1974) used the same form of equation suggested by Hansen, All three investigators use the equations proposed by Prandtl (1921) for computing the values of Nand N, wherein the foundation base is assumed as smooth withthe angle c= 45°+ 0/2 (Fig. 5.5). However, the equations used by them for computing the values of Ny are different. The equations for N., N, and Ny are: mon, Ne = (Wg I cot 4 Ny = (M,— 1) tan (1.4 @) (Meyerhof) 4 y= 15(,- tang N= 20,4 Deng (Hansen) (vesie) ‘Table 5.2 gives the values ofthe bearing capacity factors. Equations for shape, depth and inclination factors are given in Table 5.3. The tlt ofthe base and the foundations on slopes are not considered here. Table 5.2 The values of N, No, and Meyerhof (M), Hansen (H), and Vesic (V) Ny, factors ¢ a Ny (H) (4) NO ° su 10 00 00 00 5 649 16 on ol 04 10 334 25 04 oa 12 15 1097 39 2 Li 26 20 14.83 64 29 29 54 2 20.71 107 68 68 109 26 22.25 18. 79 80 12s 28 25.79 a7 109 n2 167 30 3013, i 151 187 224 32 33.47 232 208 220 30.2 34 a4 294 287 Bu 410 36 30.35 317 400 444 362 38 6131 489 56. oo 19 40 n2s 64.1 14 93.6, 109.4 4 133.73 B47 200.5 262.3 2n3 50 266.50 3185 567.4 877, 162.84 In Table 5.3 following terms are defined with regard tothe inclination factors. 2, com horizontal component ofthe inclined load, vertical component of the inclined load, ‘unit adhesion on the base ofthe footing, Ay ~ effective contact area ofthe footing.184 Advanced Foundation Engineering Table 5.3 Shape, depth and load inclination factors of Meyerhot, Hansen and Vesic 2 fromQ | n8O ‘ torgno | OT he ee ‘op nee 102 WMG) (Dy) vor Ve} 12m ¢c-sino? (20) for g> 10° 4d, =d, for > 10° d, =d, =1forg=0 2 forany § 1 forall § Nove: Vesic's sand d factors = Hansen's s and d factors (,___ 050, _\° 1D, + Aye, cot) ( 0704, | Qu + Ayea cot Same as Hansen for §> 0 1. 0 AyeaNe ( On Ber Aycan oy Odes od) 24BiL mT BIL _ 24 BIL ™ TEBE with Q, parallel to B with Q, parallel to L—————-———— Shatiow Foundation 2: Ultimate Bearing Capacity 135 ‘The general bearing capacity Eq, (5.27) has not taken into account the effect of the water table position on the bearing capacity. Hence, Eq. (5.27) has to be modified according to the position of ‘ater level in the same way as explained in Section §.7. Validity of the Bearing Capacity Equations ‘There is currently no method of obtaining the ultimate bearing capacity ofa foundation other than as an estimate (Bowles, 1996). There has been litle experimental verification of any of the methods except by using model footings. Up (0 a depth of Dy = B the Meyerhof g, isnot sréaty different from the Terzaghi value (Bowles, 1996), The Terzaghi equations, being the first proposed, have been quite popular with designers. Both the Meyerhof and Hansen methods are widely used. The \Vesic method has not been much used. It isa good practice to use at least two methods and compare the computed values of g,. If the two values do not compare well, use a third method. Example 5.9 Refer to Ex. 5.1. Compute using the Meyerhof equation (a) the ultimate bearing capacity of the soil, (b) the net bearing capacity, and (c) the net allowable bearing pressure. All the other data remain the same Solution Use Eq, (5.27). For i= I the equation for net bearing eapacity is 1 Gin y= 1 Dy= Nese e+ YDylNy= 1) 59 yt 1 BN yy From Table 5.3, : (: 2) « foot 14 0.1N, (5 ] = | for strip footing 129 From Ex. 5.1, ¢* 30 KN/m?, y= 17.25 KN/m®, Dy=2m, B= 3 m. 16.35, N= 33.55, Ny From Table 5.2 for 6 = 35°, we have N. known values, we have Gnu * 30 * 46.35 * 1» 1,257 + 17,25 «2 * (33.55 ~1) x1 «1.129 7.75. Now substituting the 1 sb canas 3 x3775x1« 3X 1725 337.781 «1.129 = 1,748 + 1,268 + 1,103 = 4,119 RN/m?136 Advanced Foundation Engineering ——————————_———_——— 41g 1,373 KN/m? Gna = ‘There is very close agreement between Terzaghi’s and Meyerhof’s methods. Example 5.10 Refer to Ex. 5,6. Compute by Meyerhof's method the net ultimate bearing capacity and the net allowable bearing pressure for F,~ 3. All the other data remain the same. Solution From Ex. 5.6, we have B= 10 ft, L=20 ft, D/=6 ft, and y= 114 Ib/ft?, From Eq. (5.27) fore=O and i= I, we have 1 doa = y= 1Dy= 1DylMq~ 1) 5 dy +1 BNy 5 From Table 5.3, (ase. 38)(10) sq= 140.12 + 0.1 tant (45° +22 (22) c= 101% (2) 1.1m (25-28) 2) 7 @ Meyethof, {4e= 1,70 tom’ Golder, ‘ye 1.76 toni’ 485 tonim| ® Vesie, 4= 1.440 ton/m? ere, 14> 1.647 ton’ 200 wa. Mescheider, y= 1.788 ton? a ae MMs ° — A oo 002 00s Ona 00S 0.08 007 Yi00 ‘tos kglem Fig, 8.11 Effect of size on bearing capacity of surface footings in sand (after De Beer, 1965)140. Advanced Foundation Engineering os cegtnd (3.29) where, G = shear modulus of soi 2(+8) ‘modulus of elasticity effective overburden pressure at a depth equal to (D, + B/2) = Poisson’s ratio 6, = shear strength parameters Equation (5.29) was developed on the basis of the theory of expansion of cavities in an infinite solid with the assumed ideal elastic properties behaviour of soil. To take care of the volumetric strain A in the plastic zone, Vesic (1965), suggested that the value of /,, given by Eq. (5.29), be reduced by the following equation. Ie = Fly (8.30) 1 18 where F, = reduction factor Itisknown that /, varies with the stress level and the character of loading, A igh value of, for example over 250, implies a relatively incompressible soil mass, whereas a low value of say 10 implies a relatively compressible soil mass Based on the theory of expansion of cavities, Vesie developed the following equation for the compressibility factors. = B) san o-4 (3:07 sin @ log 2, cy a9 [44-068 meo[eeanete22 (5.31) For @> 0, one can determine from the theorem of correspondence GG (6.32) eo Noten ” For =0, we have B = 032+ 0.12 F +06 og f (533) For all practical purposes, Vesie suggests Gy 534) Equations (5.30) through Eq, (5.34) are valid as long as the values ofthe compressibility factors are less than unity. Figure 5.12 shows graphically the relationship between C (= Cy) and @ for two extreme cases of L/B> 5 (strip footing) and B/L = | (square) for different values of /,(Vesic 1970). Vesic gives another expression called the cttical rigidity index (I,)c, expressed as Were ; exp le 3-045 2) on(as-0/2)] (535)Shallow Foundation 2: Ultimate Bearing Capacity 141 10 - : y mn c-08 ANY NOR 8 ag 3 3 (EBs & 4 3% B06 \ = _ Sal 4 ‘5 ‘ol | B04 pe 2h E wey > 8 % ¥y oo - | Square or circle Long recta L=B (us> 5) oot | SS 1030304030 010203950 Angle of shearing resistance, § Fig. 5.12 Theoretical compressibility factors (ater Vesi, 1970) ‘The magnitude of), for any angle of 6 and any foundation shape reduces the bearing capacity because of compressibility effects, Numerical values of (J), for two extreme cases of B/L=0 and B/L= 1 ate given in Table 5.4 for various values of 6 Table 5.4 Values of critical rigiity index “Angle of shearing resistance Critical rigidity index for ‘Sip foundation ‘Square foundation e B/L~0 Le! 0 B 8 3 18 un 10 25 15 37 20 33 2s 89 30 132 35 283 40 502 45 we 30 4330 Application of J, (oF In) and (Hert 1. If/, (or J) 2 Certs assume the soil is incompressible and C=C, in Eq. (5.28)142. Advanced Foundation Engineering 2. If J, (OF Jy) < (Upais 288ume the soil is compressible. In such a case the compressibility factors C., Cy and Cy are to be determined and used in Eq (5.28), ‘The concept and analysis developed above by Vesic (1973) are based on a limited number of stall scale model tests and need verification in field conditions, Example 5.13 A square footing of size 12 « 12 M1 is placed at a depth of 6 fin a deep stratum of medium dense sand. The following soil parameters are available: ‘y= 100 Ib/8, Estimate the ultimate bearing capacity by taking into account the compressibility of the soil (Fig, Ex. 5.13). 0,6 35°, £,= 100 1/7, Poissons” ratio w= 0.25. Solution 5, Rigidity J, > 5 ‘sition Ie Sas) Fiano for e= 0 from Eg. (5.29) 12) _ = 100 (6+22) = 1200 win? = 0.6 ton? 7 = 1ibj* B/2) 100 (6 3) ~ $200 10/7» 06 ton/ A ‘Neglecting the volume change in the plastic zone _100 2+ 025) 06 tan 35° =95 From Table 5.4, (Ir = 120 for 6 = 35° Since 1, <(,)aio the soil is compressible. : From Fig. $.12, C, (= C,) = 0.90 (approx) for square footing for $= 35° and I, = 95. From Table 5.2, 0, = 33.55 and N~ 48.6 (Vesic's value) Fg, (628) may now be writen as 1 au = Foy ty Sq Cy* 51 BN by 5,Cy From Table 53 B 7 ~ +S tang ttan3s°=17 fr B= 04 = 0.6 for B= L +2tan35° (1 -sin3se)?« © = 1.427 R gio = 100 * 6 = 600 Ib/R? Substituting 1 y= 600 » 33.55 «1.127 «1.7 * 0.90 + 5 % 100 * 12 «48.6 « 1.00.6 «0.90Shallow Foundation 2: Ultimate Bearing Capacity 143 = 34,710+ 15,746 50,456 16/ Ifthe compressibility factors are not taken into account (That is, C, capacity 4,18 4, = 38,567 + 17,496 = $6,063 Ib/ A? a “y= 1) the ultimate bearing. c= 0,7= 100 Ib/A” = 35°, E, = 100 ton’ft” 6n w=025 Ree Fig, Ex. 5.13 Example 5.14 Estimate the ultimate bearing capacity of a square footing of size 12 x 12 ft founded at a depth of 6 ftin a deep stratum of saturated clay of soft to medium consistency. The undrained shear strength of the clay is 400 Tb/ ft? (= 0.2 1/2), The modulus of elasticity £, = 15 ton/f? under undrained conditions. Assume y= 0.5 and y= 100 1b/ f°. Solution Ey 15 Risidiy’ I= Tye, ~ Tbe ospoa ~ 2s From Table 5.4, (F,) i” 8 for $= 0 Since J, > (Jes the soil is supposed to be incompressible, Use Eq, (5.28) for computing g, by putting C.=C, =I for p= 0 Gu~ Nese de 45 Ny Sy dy From Table 5.2 for 6=0.N, From Table 5.3 14, and NY,144. Advanced Foundation Engineering Substituting and simplifying, we have fy = 400 5.14% 1.2% 1.24 100*6% (1)(1)(1) 960 + 600 3,560 lb/ft? = 1.78 ton/ ft? 5.11 BEARING CAPACITY OF FOUNDATIONS SUBJECTED TO ECCENTRIC LoaDs Foundations Subjected to Eccentric Vertical Loads {fa foundation is subjected to lateral loads and moments in addition to vertical loads, eccentricity in loading results. The point of application ofthe resultant of al the loads would lie outside the geometric centre of the foundation, resulting in eccentricity in loading, The eccentricity e is measured from the centre ofthe foundation fo the point of application normal tothe axis ofthe foundation, The maximum eccentricity normally allowed is B/6 where B is the width of the foundation. The basic problem is to determine the effect of the eccentricity on the ultimate bearing capacity of the foundation. When a foundation is subjected to an eccentric vertical load, as shown in Fig. 5.13 (a), it tilts towards the side of the eccentricity and the contact pressure increases on the side of tilt and decreases on the opposite side, When the vertical load Q,,, reaches the ultimate load, there wll bea failure of the supporting soil on the side of eccentricity. Asa consequence, settlement ofthe footing will be associated with tilting of the base towards the side of eccentricity. Ifthe eccentricity is very small, the load required to produce this typeof failure is almost equal tothe load required for producing a symmetrical general shear failure. Failure occurs due to intense radial shear on one side ofthe plane of symmetry, while the deformations in the zone of radial shear on the other side are still insignificant. For this reason the failure is always associated with a heave on that side towards which the footing tilts Research and observations of Meyerhof (1953, 1963) indicate that effective footing dimensions obtained (Fig, $.13) as L 1 =2¢,,B'=B-26, (5.36a) should be used in bearing capacity analysis o obtain an effective foting area defined as a= BL (5360) “Tho ultimate load bearing capacity of footing subjected to eccentric loads may be expressed 3s a= at! (5.366) where 9, = ulate bearing capacity ofthe foting withthe load acting atthe centre ofthe footing. Determination of Maximum and Minimum Base Pressures Under Eccentric Loadings The methods of determining the effective area ofa footing subjected to eccentric loadings have been discussed earlier. Itis now necessary to know the maximum and minimum base pressures under the same loadings. Consider the plan ofa rectangular footing given in Fig, 5.14 subjected to eccentric, loadings. Let the coordinate axes XX and Y¥ pass through the centre O of the footing. Ifa vertical load passes through O, the footing is symmetrically loaded. If the vertical load passes through O,on the axis, the footing is eecentrically loaded with one way eccentricity. The distance of O, from 0, designated as ¢,, is called the eccentricity in the 4-direction. Ifthe load passes through 0, on the Y-axis, the eccentricity ise, in the ¥-direction. Ifon the other hand the load passes through Q,,, the eccentricity is called two-way eccentricity or double eccentricityShallow Foundation 2: Ultinate Bearing Capacity 145 -—8—4 hp A’ Shaded area © Fig. 5.13 Eccentrically loaded footing (Meyerhot, 1953) When a footing is eccentrcally loaded, the soil experiences @ maximum or a minimum pressure at one of the comers or edges of the footing. For the load passing through Oy (Fig. 5.14), the points C and D at the comers of the footing experience the maximum and minimum pressures respectively The general equation for pressure may be written as 637) or (5.38)146 Advanced Foundation Engineering Section] b.{~ S Section Fig. 5.14 Footing subjected to eccentric loadings Where q = contact pressure at a given point (x, »), Q = total vertical load, A = area of footing, Qe, = M,= moment about axis YY, Qe, = M,=moment about axis 1X, Ji = moment of inertia ofthe footing about XX’ and YY axes respectively. pax 894 dn AK points C and D respectively may be obtained by substituting in Eq, (5.37) or (538) for we have aux = Ete (5.390) . (5.39b) Goxin Equation (5.39) may also be used for one way eccentricity by putting either e, = 0, or ey = 0. When e, or ¢, exceed a certain limit, Eq. (5.39) gives a negative value of q which indicates tension between the soil and the bottom of the footing. Equations (5.39) are applicable only when the load is applied within a limited area which is known as the Kern as is shown shaded in Fig 5.14, so that the load may fall within the shaded area to avoid tension, The procedure forthe determination of soil pressure when the load is applied outside the ker is laborious and as such not dealt with here However, charts are available for ready calculations in references such as Teng (1969) and Highter and Anders (1985).Shallow Foundation 2: Ultimate Bearing Capacity 147, 5.12 ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY OF FOOTINGS BASED ON SPT VALUES (N) Standard Energy Ratio R., Applicable to NValue ‘The effects of field procedures and equipment on the field values of N were discussed in Chapter 3. The empirical correlations established in the USA between and soil properties indicate the value of N conforms to certain standard energy ratios, Some suggest 70% (Bowles, 1996) and others 60% (Terzaghi et a, 1996). To avoid this confusion, the author uses NV. in this book as the corrected value for standard energy. Cohesionless Soils Relationship between Noor and ¢ The relation between N;,, and 6 established by Peck etal, (1974) is given in «graphical form in Fig. 5.7. The value of Nay to be used forgetting @ isthe corrected value for standard energy. The angle 6 obtained by this method can be used for obtaining the bearing capacity factors, and hence the ultimate bearing capacity of soi. Cohesive Soils Relationship between Neo and q, (Unconfined compressive strength) Relationships have been developed between N.- and g, (the undrained compressive strength) for the =0 condition. This relationship gives the value ofc, for any known value Of Ngo. The lationship may be expressed as Eq. (3.16), Ie ™ 2ey™ ENcor (KPa) (5.40) ‘here the value of the coefficient F may vary from a minimum of 12 t0 a maximum of 25. A low value of 13 yields g, given in Table 3.5 (b. Once g, is determined, the net ultimate bearing capacity and the net allowable bearing pressure can be found following Skempton’s approach. 5.13 THE CPT METHOD OF DETERMINING ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY Cohesionless Soils Relationship between q, D,and 6 Relationship between the static cone penetration resistance g, and @ have been developed by Robertson ‘and Campanella (1983b), [Fig, 3.18 (b)]. The value of can therefore be determined with the known, value of qc. With the known value of @, bearing capacity factors can be determined and hence the ultimate bearing capacity, Experience indicates that the use of 4, for obtaining @ is more reliable than the use of N, Bearing Capacity of Soil As per Schmertmann (1978), the bearing capacity factors Nand N for use in the Terzaghi bearing. capacity equation can be determined by the use of the equation Ng = Ny= 1.259, (541) ‘where q,~ cone point resistance in kg/cm? (or tsf) averaged over a depth equal to the width below the foundation,148 Advanced Foundation Engineering Undrained Shear Strength ‘The undrained shear strength c, under $=0 condition may be related tothe static cone point resistance go as Bq. (3.18) I~ Nala Po Ge Po He » or a: eek (5.42) where Nj = cone factor, may be taken as equal to 20 (Sanglerat, 1972) both for normally consolidated and preconsolidated clays. Po ~ total overburden pressure, When once ¢, is known, the values of gy, and gy, can be evaluated as per the methods explained in earlier sections. Example 5.15, ‘A water tank foundation has a footing of size 6 * 6 m, founded ata depth of 3 m below ground level ina medium dense sand stratum of grea depth. The corrected average SPT value obtained from the site investigation is 20. The foundation is subjected to a vertical load at an eccentricity of B/10 along one ofthe axes. Figure Ex. 5.15 gives the soil profile withthe remaining data, Estimate the ultimate load, Oy, by Meyethot’s method. SPT = 0,718.5 kNim’, $=35,.N,,=20 Medium dense sand B 10 [Bx B= 6x 6ma Fig. Ex. 5.15 Solution From Fig. 5.7, = 33° for Ny =20 B B~2e=6-2(0.6)=48m =Be6m Fore=Oandi~ 1, Eq. (5.28) reduces to 1 {= yDyNy Sy dy + SY B'N, syd, = YDsNy Sq dq * FY BN, 5,4,‘Shallow Foundation 2: Ulimate Bearing Capacity 149 From Table 2 for 6=33°, we have Ny = 2633, N,=26.55 (Meyerhos) From Table 5.3 (Meyerhof) B 3 (450433) = 10am, (2) - on tnt (457+ 38) ayes 5 134 for@> 10° 1 i> IBS 3 263% 134 «LAS +> 18.5 4.8 26.55 « 1.34% 1.115 = 2,181 + 1,761 = 3,942 KN/m? x 4,8 « 3,942= 113,530 KN = 114 MN Example 5.16 Figure Ex. 5.16, gives the plan ofa footing subjected to eccentric load with two way eccentricity. ‘The footing is founded ata depth 3 m below the ground surface. Given ¢, = 0.60 m and e, = 0.75 m, determine Q,,. The soil properties are: c= 0, Ney, = 20,7 18.5 KN/m®. The soil is medium dense sand, Use N, (Meyerhot) from Table .2 and Hansen's shape and depth factors from Table 5.3 Solution Figure Ex. 5.16 shows the two-way eccentricity. The eflective lengths and breadth ofthe foundation from Eq, 5.36 (a) is B L Effective area, A’ = L’ x B’= 4,5 «48 21.6m? As in Example 5.15 -2% 0.75 =4.5 m. 2*06=48m, . Len, = 1D Ng Sq dq 1B’ My Sy For 8= 33%, Ny= 26.3 and Ny= 26.55 (Meyerhot) From Table 5.3 (Hansen) 1+ 2 ean s30—1 + AS 065 = 161 @ a 48 P -04 063 + 2 tan 33° (1 ~ sin 33°)? * as +13 «0.21 0,67 = 1.183 1150 Advanced Foundation Engineering subing ayn ised 28s eters baths 14592655 «068 = 2,780 + 696 = 3,476 N/m? Quin = Ag 1,6 «3,476 = 75, 082 KN 5.14 ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY OF FOOTINGS RESTING ON STRATIFIED DEPOSITS OF SOIL Al the theoretical analysis dealt with so far is based on the assumption that the subsoil is isotropic and homogencous to a considerable depth, In nature, soil is generally non-homogeneous with mixtures of sand, silt and clay in different proportions. In the analysis, an average profile of such soils is normally considered. However, if soils are found in distinct layers of different compositions and slrength characteristics, the assumption of homogeneity to such soils isnot strictly valid ifthe failure surface cuts across boundaries of such layers. ‘The present analysis is limited to a system of two distinct soil layers. For a footing located in the upper layer ata depth D,below the ground level, the failure surfaces at ultimate load may either lie ‘completely in the upper layer or may cross the boundary of the two layers. Further, we may come across the upper layer strong and the lower layer weak or vice versa. In either case, a general analysis for (c—§) will be presented and will show the same analysis holds ruc if the soil layers are any one of the categories belonging to sand or clay. The bearing capacity of a layered system was first analysed by Button (1953), who considered only saturated clay ( = 0). Later on Brown and Meyerhof (1969) showed that the analysis of Button leads to unsafe results. Vesic (1975) analyzed the test results of Brown and Meyerhof and others and gave his own solution to the problem. ‘Vesic considered both the types of soil in each layer, that is clay and (c ~ 6) soils. However, ‘confirmations of the validity ofthe analysis of Vesic and others are not available. Meyerhof (1974) analysed the two layer system consisting of dense sand on soft clay and loose sand on stiff clay andShallow Foundation 2: Ultimate Bearing Capacity 151 supported his analysis with some model tests. Again Meyerhof and Hanna (1978) advanced the earlier analysis of Meyerhof (1974) to encompass (c ~ §) soil and supported their analysis with ‘mode! tests. The present section deals briefly with the analyses of Meyerhof (1974) and Meyerhof and Hanna (1978), Case 1: A stronger layer overlying a weaker deposit Figure 5.15 (a) shows a strip footing of width B resting at a depth D, below ground surface in a strong soil layer (Layer 1). The depth to the boundary of the weak layer (Layer 2) below the base of the footing is. Ifthis depth Fis insufficient to form a full failure plastic zone in layer 1 under the ultimate load conditions, a part of this ultimate load will be transferred to the boundary level mn. This load will induce @ failure condition in the weaker layer (Layer 2). However, ifthe depth His relatively large then the failure surface will be completely located in layer I as shown in Fig. 5.15 (b), The ultimate bearing capacities of strip footings on the surfaces of homogeneous thick beds of layer I and layer 2 may be expressed as Layer 1 1 5. a1 = eer * 7 BM 6.43) Layer 1: Stronger Layer 2: Stronger a @ = 2s a Stronger Layer 2: weaker fy O35 C2 ) i9. 5.15 Fallure of soll below strip footing under vertical load on strong layer overlying weak deposit (after Meyerhot and Hanna, 1978)