See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/353601441

A Comparative Study of Measuring Soil Bearing Capacity for Shallow

Foundations Using Analytic Approaches and Empirical Formulas with SPT at
Various Locations of Dhaka City

Article · July 2021

CITATIONS READS

2 1,286

3 authors:

Ahanaf Tahmid Siam Junaed

Uttara University Ahsanullah University of Science & Tech
17 PUBLICATIONS 11 CITATIONS 4 PUBLICATIONS 2 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

A S M Fahad Hossain
University of Québec in Chicoutimi
52 PUBLICATIONS 61 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by A S M Fahad Hossain on 31 July 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Remote Sensing, Environmental Science & Geotechnical
Engineering
Volume 6 Issue 2

A Comparative Study of Measuring Soil Bearing Capacity for

Shallow Foundations Using Analytic Approaches and Empirical
Formulas with SPT at Various Locations of Dhaka City

Ahanaf Tahmid1, Siam Junaed2, A S M Fahad Hossain3

Students1, 2, Assistant Professor3
Department of Civil Engineering1, 2, 3
Ahsanullah University of Science & Technology, 141 & 142, Love Road, Tejgaon Industrial Area,
Dhaka, Bangladesh1,2,3
Corresponding Authors’ E-mail: 170103160@aust.edu1, 170103147@aust.edu2, fahad.ce@aust.edu3

Abstract
The bearing farthest reaches of the soil is an important subject in the Design
of Geotechnical Engineering, especially in the establishment of planning, as
the intensity of any establishment is dependent on it. A structure with an
incredibly delicate structure can collapse while remaining on weak and
vulnerable soil with a low bearing limit. Numerous researchers have given
their individual calculations based on individual diverse parameters and
impediments on various occasions. The determination of sufficient bearing
condition of the soil is performed by analytic approach of Terzaghi's,
Meyerhof's, and empirical formula using SPT of Meyerhof and Bowels at
different territories in Dhaka city for the shallow base in this study paper. It
was found that the bearing capacity of the soil was discovered comparatively
not similar by the two techniques where analytic approaches shows more
values than the empirical formulas of SPT.

Keywords: Bearing capacity, Soil, SPT value, Shallow foundation, Terzaghi’s

method, Meyerhof’s method.

INTRODUCTION The foundation is the most basic

Any civil engineering construction places component of the structure, and it is
stress on the soil underneath it (or rock). usually placed under the ground surface

23 Page 23-32 © MANTECH PUBLIATIONS 2021. All Rights Reserved

 Journal of Remote Sensing, Environmental Science & Geotechnical
Engineering
Volume 6 Issue 2

and connects the pile mostly to soil/rock used to ensure that a shallow
layers which really support it. The capacity establishment's bearing limit is met:
of the foundational soil to support the  Laboratory tests
stress of the establishment rather than  Penetration tests
overemphasizing the soil to the point of  Plate bearing tests
shear disappointment or absurdly high  Model tests and prototype tests
settlement collapse is known as the  Analytical methods
bearing limit of soil. This may be often  Bearing capacity tables in various
referred to as the establishment bearing building codes
limit. A soil's bearing limit is largely
determined by the kinds of constructions it There are several informative
faces. There are two types of construction methodologies available. Typically, they
establishments: shallow and deep. The are communicated in relation to conditions
nature of the foundation and the nature of known as bearing limit conditions. The
the soil layers that supply the most of the most obvious of these are given by:
assistance are reflected in the order. In this  Terzaghi (1943)
paper, bearing capacity was considered for
 Balla (1962)
shallow foundation only. A shallow
 Vesic (1975)
foundation is something that is built on
 Rankine (1857)
durable soil at a shallow depth below
 Pauker (1889)
ground surface and underneath the
 Bell (1915)
superstructure's shortest section. Distribute
 randlt (1921)
harmony, which is essentially equilibrium,
 Schleicher (1926)
tangle, pier, and so on. Another very
 Fellinius (1939) Meyerhof (1951)
valuable description of a shallow
Skempton (1951)
establishment is where the profundity of
 Hansen (1961).
the establishment differs from its breadth.
However, this is insufficient for general
A few techniques are available within the
establishment. It is acceptable to restrict
composition for confirming the bearing
the term "shallow" to less than 3 m or less
limit of soils while maintaining the
than the structure's expansiveness balance.
submerged shear strength limits.
The following recommendations should be
Regardless, shallow foundations are

24 Page 23-32 © MANTECH PUBLIATIONS 2021. All Rights Reserved

 Journal of Remote Sensing, Environmental Science & Geotechnical
Engineering
Volume 6 Issue 2

typically set higher than the base methodology, Meyerhof's methodology

groundwater level in any location where
the soil is normally in an exceptionally
unsaturated condition. Generally,
bearing limit of soils is
assumptive completely
conditions, ignoring the impact of lean
anxieties or the induction drag. As a result
of this explanation, estimating the bearing
capacity of shallow foundations using
traditional techniques is unlikely to be
accurate, resulting in uneconomical types.
The aim of this paper is to look at
Terzaghi's, Meyerhof's and SPT structures
for deciding the passing on the limit of
shallow foundations. There are reviews of
different meanings of limit factors, depth,
the components of shape, load inclination,
as well as evaluations of these factors.
Dhaka is the capital of Bangladesh, and
the bearing furthest regions of soil were
measured by Terzaghi's, Meyerhof's, and
SPT techniques after a compilation of
different findings from soil test records
from various regions of the Dhaka area.
METHODOLOGY
During the research of the paper, findings
from soil test reports from various districts
of Dhaka city were gathered. Table 1 lists
various domains, and Fig. 1 shows the area
of a jurisdiction map.
and SPT method for square shape
equilibrium was used to decide the bearing
the furthest reaches of the soil of various
selected destinations, and profundity was adjusted
submerged from 3 feet to 10 feet as needed for
shallow establishment. In each of these
methods, the water table depth was
adjusted to 7 feet and was measured for
vertical loads only, not tilted loads.
Furthermore, the element of safety was
taken into account three times in this study.
Nc, Ny, and Nq are non-dimensional
bearing limit factors taken from B. M.
Das's Principles of Geotechnical
Engineering, seventh edition. Shape factor
and profundity factor is needed for
Meyerhof's technique and can be found in
Table 2. Following this, the bearing of the
soil's farthest reaches was regulated by
Terzaghi condition and Meyerhof
condition (for square equilibrium) with
water table adjustment. The bearing
capacity of the soil was also calculated
using SPT values where water table
adjustment was not required.
Terzaghi's

25 Page 23-32 © MANTECH PUBLIATIONS 2021. All Rights Reserved

 Journal of Remote Sensing, Environmental Science & Geotechnical
Engineering
Volume 6 Issue 2

Table 1: Selected Site Locations and Necessary Data

Site Location Cohesion(psf) Angle of internal Moist unit Saturated unit
friction, Ф weight(pcf) weight(pcf)
1 Basundhara 560 25 90 118
2 MRT 1 0 30 92 122
3 MRT 2 0 32 105 130
4 Uttarkhand 0 31 120 135
5 Green Road 2038 0 100 117

Fig. 1: Image of the Site Location (Google Map)

Table 2: Meyerhof’s Shape and Depth factor (Principles of Geotechnical Engineering by B.

M. Das, 7th edition)
For ɸ Shape Depth
Any ɸ Sc = 1 + 0.2*Kp*B/L Dc = 1 + 0.2* *D/B
ɸ= 0° Sq = Sᴕ = 1 Dq = Dᴕ = 1
ɸ>=10° Sq = Sᴕ = 1 + 0.1*Kp*B/L Dq = Dᴕ = 1 + 0.1* *D/B

The going with conditions Terzaghi (T), Meyerhof (M), SPT (S) must be used for cohesion
less and firm soil. The search condition's basis of square condition is –
= 1.3 C + + 0.4 y y . . . . . . (T)
=C S d+ S d + 0.5 y y Sy dy . . . . . . (M)

26 Page 23-32 © MANTECH PUBLIATIONS 2021. All Rights Reserved

 Journal of Remote Sensing, Environmental Science & Geotechnical
Engineering
Volume 6 Issue 2

BEARING CAPACITY BASED ON STANDARD PENETRATION TEST

This is an alternative method. If the other methods cannot be used this method is used to
determine the Bearing capacity of soil. But this is not the most appropriate method. In this
method no water level correction is required. This calculation is totally based on the SPT
value.

Table 3: Bearing Capacity Equation Based on Standard Penetration Test

Meyerhof (S-M) Bowles (S-B) For
= (N/4)*Kd = (N/2.5)*Kd B≤4’
=(N/6)*((B+1)/B)2*Kd = (N/4)*((B+1)/B)2*Kd B>4’
* Kd = 1+0.33( f / B)≤1.33

Where, criticized. The credits which are changed

f = Foundation depth(ft); B = Foundation here:
width (ft); u = Ultimate bearing limit of 1. q stands for the soil that has
soil (ksf); q = The pressure of overburden accumulated over the establishment as
= y f (ksf); c = Cohesion (ksf); y = Unit a result of the situation.
weight of soil (kcf); dc, dy and dq are 2. The letter y stands for the situation's
depth factors; Nc, Nq and Ny are non- inherent soil.
dimensional bearing breaking point factors
which are functions only of the angle of Changes to the Bearing Ability
internal friction, Ф; Sc, Sy and Sq are Equation for the Water Table:
shape factors, N = Standard penetration State 1: As seen in Fig. 2, the water table
number (N value), Terzaghi's, Meyerhof's with the target is 0 ≤ D1 ≤ Df.
and SPT conditions have a complete The part, q, over an actually very far off
bearing limit based on the premise that the situation, should predict the structure's
water table is located just under the state: (For the establishments’ soil)
establishment. Regardless, if the water = ×y+ × (y -y )
level is similar to the establishment, very
far will diminish due to the effect of the The view, which is currently in a relatively
water table, so any adjustment to above inaccessible state, will take the structure:
what anyone would find possible situation (For the soil beneath the building
(Terzaghi, Meyerhof & SPT) can be establishment)

27 Page 23-32 © MANTECH PUBLIATIONS 2021. All Rights Reserved

 Journal of Remote Sensing, Environmental Science & Geotechnical
Engineering
Volume 6 Issue 2

y = y′ = y -y

State 2: The groundwater is regarded as 0

≤ d ≤ B, as seen in Fig. 3.

The angle, q, over an extremely

inaccessible condition, should consider the Fig. 3: State 2
structure's state: (For the establishment's
soil) State 3: The groundwater is designated as,
= f ×y and for the momentum problem, the
The angle, y, and in a very distant state are groundwater is considered to have no
hoping to carry the structure: (In honor of unreasonable bearing cutoff.
the soil behind the establishment)
ANALYSIS RESULTS
y = y′ + × (y - y′)/ Table 3-5 shows the results of calculating
the bearing limit of a shallow structure
using Terzaghi's condition, Meyerhof's
analytic approach and Empirical formulas
of Meyerhof and Bowels for foundation
importance ranging from 3feet to 10feet.
Furthermore, the correlation graph in Fig.
4 (a-e) of passable bearing limit of soil
versus importance of structure is made to
Fig. 2: State 1
see the variation between the results of
these two methods.

Table 3: Terzaghi's, Meyerhof's, and SPT Conditions Provide Allowable Load Bearing Constrain
of Soil (Site 1, 2)
Allowable Bearing Capacity, (ksf) Allowable Bearing Capacity, (ksf)
Depth Site-1 Site-2
(ft) Terzaghi Meyerhof SPT M SPT B Terzaghi Meyerhof SPT M SPT B
(T) (M) (S-M) (S-B) (T) (M) (S-M) (S-B)
3 7.74 9.28 0.29 0.43 3.29 4.78 2.59 3.88
4 8.13 10.16 0.30 0.46 4.05 5.59 1.21 1.82
5 8.51 11.07 0.32 0.48 4.82 6.43 1.28 1.92

28 Page 23-32 © MANTECH PUBLIATIONS 2021. All Rights Reserved

 Journal of Remote Sensing, Environmental Science & Geotechnical
Engineering
Volume 6 Issue 2

6 11.70 16.45 0.64 0.96 5.59 7.32 1.28 1.92

7 12.23 17.81 0.64 0.96 6.35 8.25 1.28 1.92
8 12.77 19.21 0.64 0.96 7.21 9.13 0.96 1.44
9 13.30 20.64 0.64 0.96 8.13 10.00 0.96 1.44
10 13.84 22.12 0.64 0.96 9.04 10.90 0.96 1.44

Table 4: Terzaghi's, Meyerhof's, and SPT Conditions Provide Allowable Load Bearing Constrain
of Soil (Site 3,4)
Allowable Bearing Capacity, (ksf) Allowable Bearing Capacity, (ksf)
Site-3 Site-4
Depth
Terzaghi Meyerhof SPT M SPT B Terzaghi Meyerhof SPT M SPT B
(ft)
(T) (M) (S-M) (S-B) (T) (M) (S-M) (S-B)
3 4.88 7.46 2.01 3.02 4.99 6.44 1.73 2.59
4 5.87 8.93 2.12 3.19 6.04 7.58 1.82 2.73
5 6.87 10.48 2.23 3.35 7.11 8.75 1.92 2.87
6 7.87 12.11 3.83 5.75 8.24 9.81 5.11 7.66
7 8.87 13.82 3.83 5.75 9.38 10.91 5.11 7.66
8 9.87 15.60 3.83 5.75 10.52 12.06 5.11 7.66
9 10.86 17.46 3.83 5.75 11.66 13.26 5.11 7.66
10 11.86 19.40 3.83 5.75 12.80 14.50 5.11 7.66

Table 5: Terzaghi's, Meyerhof's, and SPT Conditions Provide Allowable Load Bearing Constrain
of Soil (Site 5)
Allowable Bearing Capacity, (ksf) Site-5
Depth Terzaghi Meyerhof SPT M SPT B
(ft) (T) (M) (S-M) (S-B)
3 5.13 4.79 1.44 2.16
4 5.17 4.99 3.03 4.55
5 5.20 5.19 3.19 4.79
6 5.24 5.38 3.19 4.79
7 5.28 5.57 3.19 4.79
8 5.32 5.75 3.83 5.75
9 5.36 5.94 3.83 5.75
10 5.40 6.12 3.83 5.75

29 Page 23-32 © MANTECH PUBLIATIONS 2021. All Rights Reserved

 Journal of Remote Sensing, Environmental Science & Geotechnical
Engineering
Volume 6 Issue 2

(a) Site 1 (b) Site 2

(c) Site 3 (d) Site 4

(e) Site 5

Fig. 4: Allowable Bearing Capacity VS. Depth of Foundation Graphs

CONCLUSIONS AND from empirical formula with SPT N values.

RECOMMENDATIONS In this research the analytic approach was
The objective of this research was to used only of Terzaghi and Meyerhof while
compare the bearing capacity determined the empirical formula used of Meyerhof
from different analytic approaches and and Bowels. The objective of the

30 Page 23-32 © MANTECH PUBLIATIONS 2021. All Rights Reserved

 Journal of Remote Sensing, Environmental Science & Geotechnical
researchers was successful as the results
were comparable for both techniques but
more research using different analytic
approaches and empirical formulas at
different areas should be performed to
verify the reliance of empirical formulas
using the SPT.
REFERENCES
A. BOOK
1. Bowles, J, E. (1988). Foundation
Analysis and Design, MC Graw
Hill publications New York.
2. Das, B.M., Advanced Soil
Mechanics. 3 ed2008, New York:
Taylor & Francis Group.
3. Das, B.M., Principles
Geotechnical Engineering, seventh
edition.
4. Hansen, J, B. (1968). A Revised
Extended Formula for Bearing
Capacity, Danish geotechnical
institute Bulletin, NO28.
5. Meyerhof, G G (1956). Penetration
Tests and bearing capacity of
cohesionless soils, proceedings
ASCE, vol.82NO.SM1, paper 866,
pp1-19.
B. JOURNAL
31 Page 23-32 © MANTECH PUBLIATIONS 2021. All Rights Reserved
Engineering
Volume 6 Issue 2
1. Mohammad Ghavami,
Mohammadreza Mir Tamizdoust,
Omid Ghasemi-Fare,
Determination of allowable bearing
capacity of shallow foundation
using modified hyperbolic stress-
strain model, Journal of Applied
Geophysics, Volume 166, 2019,
Pages 1-9, ISSN 0926-9851,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2
019.04.012.
2. Richard H.G. Parry; Estimating
Bearing Capacity in Sand from
SPT Values; Journal of the
Geotechnical Engineering Division;
Vol. 103, Issue 9 (September 1977);
https://doi.org/10.1061/AJGEB6.0
of
000484
C. THESIS
1. Ameen, S.F. (1985). “Geotechnical
characteristics of Dhaka clay”,
M.Sc. Engg. Thesis, Department of
Civil Engineering, Bangladesh
University of Engineering and
Technology, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
2. Uddin M. M. (2017) “A Method
for Improving Bearing Capacity of
Foundationin Reclaimed Areas of
Dhaka City” M.Sc. Engg. Thesis,
Department of Civil Engineering,
 Journal of Remote Sensing, Environmental Science & Geotechnical
Engineering
Volume 6 Issue 2

Bangladesh University of
Engineering and Technology,
Dhaka, Bangladesh.

D. LECTURE NOTE
1. A S M Fahad Hossain; CE 442
Geotechnical Engineering
Sessional II, Lab Manual;
Department of Civil Engineering;
Ahsanullah University of Science
and Technology.

32 Page 23-32 © MANTECH PUBLIATIONS 2021. All Rights Reserved

View publication stats