DESIGN CONCEPTS OF SUBSTRUCTURES 18CSE321

TE
Module – 2

U
Dr S. G. Patil

IB
TR
IS
D
T
O
N
O
 TE
U
IB
TR
IS
D
T
O
N
O

Transcona grain elevator failure.

Isolated RC Footing

TE
U
IB
TR
IS
D
T
O
N
O

Dr. S. G. Patil
Syllabus

TE
U
IB
TR
IS
D
T
O
N
O

Dr. S. G. Patil
Choice between shallow or deep foundations

TE
• If a layer of soil with reasonable
strength is within 2 to 3 m of ground

U
level
• If shallow foundations cover more

IB
than 50% of building footprint area,
mat or deep foundation or combined

TR
can be more economical.

IS
D
T
O
N
O

Dr. S. G. Patil
Bearing Failures

TE
U
IB
TR
IS
D
T
O
N
O

Dr. S. G. Patil
Bearing Failures

TE
1. General shear:

U
• A general shear failure involves total rupture of the underlying soil.
• There is a continuous shear failure of the soil (solid lines) from below the

IB
footing to the ground surface.
• When the load is plotted versus settlement of the footing, there is a clear

TR
noticeable failure load, and this is designated Qult.
• The value of Qult divided by the width B and length L of the footing is
considered to be the ultimate bearing capacity (qult) of the footing. The

IS
ultimate bearing capacity has been defined as the bearing stress that causes a
sudden catastrophic failure of the foundation.
D
• A general shear failure ruptures and pushes up the soil on both sides of the
footing. For actual failures in the field, the soil is often pushed up on only one
T
side of the footing with subsequent tilting of the structure.
O

• A general shear failure occurs for soils that are in a dense or hard state.
N
O

Dr. S. G. Patil
Bearing Failures

TE
2. Local shear failure.
• Local shear failure involves rupture of the soil only immediately below the

U
footing.

IB
• There is soil bulging on both sides of the footing, but the bulging is not as
significant as in general shear.
• Local shear failure can be considered as a transitional phase between general

TR
shear and punching shear.
• A local shear failure occurs for soils that are in a medium dense or firm state.

IS
3. Punching shear.

D
• A punching shear failure does not develop the distinct shear surfaces.
• For punching shear, the soil outside the loaded area remains relatively uninvolved
and there is minimal movement of soil on both sides of the footing.
T
• The process of deformation of the footing involves compression of soil directly
O

below the footing as well as the vertical shearing of soil around the footing
perimeter.
N

• Load settlement curve does not have a dramatic break and for punching shear,
the bearing capacity is often defined as the first major nonlinearity in the load-
settlement curve.
O

• A punching shear failure occurs for soils that are in a loose or soft state.
Dr. S. G. Patil
Bearing Failures

TE
U
The soil density Dr is related

IB
to the failure type of the soil.
Vesic, 1973

TR
IS
D
T
O
N
O

Dr. S. G. Patil
Bearing Failures

TE
U
IB
TR
IS
D
T
O
N
O

Dr. S. G. Patil
 Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Theory

TE
U
IB
TR
IS
Terzaghi assumes that the failure surface in soil at ultimate load can be assumed as
D
a case of general shear failure. The soil above the bottom of the foundation can be
mathematically replaced by an equivalent surcharge q (q = γ Df). The failure zone
T
underneath the foundation can be separated into 3 parts:
O

1. The triangular zone (I) immediately under the foundation

N

2. The radial shear zones (II) with curves CE and CF being log spiral arcs
3. The triangular Rankine passive zones (III)
O

Dr. S. G. Patil
 Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Theory – General Shear Failure

TE
• Terzaghi expressed the ultimate bearing capacity for the various foundation
geometry as follows (using equilibrium analysis):

U
IB
TR
IS
c‘ = cohesion of soil
γ = unit weight of soil
D • The first term in above Equations reflects
the contribution of cohesion
T
q = γDf (equivalent surcharge load) • Second term reflects the frictional
O

Nc, Nq, Nγ = bearing capacity contribution of the overburden pressure or

factors (non-dimensional) surcharge,
N

• The last term reflects the frictional

contribution of the self-weight of the soil
O

below the footing level in the failure zone.

Dr. S. G. Patil
Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Failure – Local Shear Failure

TE
• For foundations that exhibit local shear failure modes in soils, Terzaghi
suggested the following modified ultimate bearing capacities:

U
IB
TR
IS
D
T
O

Nc’, Nq’, and Nγ ‘ are the modified bearing capacity factors. These can be
N

determined as in the regular equations (see before) but ϕ’ has to be replaced

by
O

Dr. S. G. Patil
The general bearing capacity equation (Meyerhof 1963)

TE
• Terzaghi’s solutions were for continuous, square and circular footings only.
Rectangular footings (0 < B/L < 1) need a new formulation.

U
• Terzaghi’s equations also do not consider shearing resistance along the failure

IB
surface in the soil above the bottom of the foundation.
• Also the applied load may be inclined, and so the geometry of the failure

TR
could change.
• Meyerhof (1963) therefore suggested a general bearing capacity equation:

IS
D
T
O
N
O

Dr. S. G. Patil
IS:6403-1981 Recommendations

TE
U
IB
TR
IS
D
B
T
O

B
N
O

Dr. S. G. Patil
Effect of Water Table on Bearing Capacity

TE
0.5 1 W’

U
IB
Depth of W.T
TR
Df

IS
D Df + B
T
Case-1: If the water table is likely to permanently remain at or below a depth
of (Df+B) beneath the ground level surrounding the footing then W‘ =1.
O

Case-II: If the water table is located at a depth Df or likely to rise to the

N

ground surface then the value of W‘ shall be taken as 0.5

Case-III: If the water table is likely to permanently got located at depth
O

Df < Dw < (Df +B), then the value of W‘ be obtained by linear interpolation.
Dr. S. G. Patil
 Footing ·on Layered Soils

TE
Footings may be placed on stratified

U
deposits. The usual methods of

IB
determining bearing capacity are not
applicable.

TR
A practicable solution which gives
reasonable safety is as follows:

IS
1. Consider the different layers of soil
within effective shear depth which
D
is approximately equal to 0.5 B tan
(45 + Ø/2). If the thickness of the
first layer below the base of the
T
footing is more than the significant
O

shear depth, analysis of single layer

holds good.
N

2. Average values of c and Ø are

obtained as
O

Dr. S. G. Patil
 Footing ·on Layered Soils

TE
3. Determine the bearing capacity of the footing considering single layer with
average shear strength parameter cav and Øav

U
IB
Alternatively
1. Compute the bearing capacity of each layer (considering single layer) using

TR
equivalent 'B' based on 2 V: 1H slopes and the distance from the base to
the top of the layer (Fig.).
2. For example for layer no. 3, equivalent width= (B+h1+h2) and equivalent

IS
depth of footing=Df+h1+h2
3. The pressure on the imaginary footing should not exceed the bearing
D
capacity of this layer, i.e.
T
O
N

This method will give results on the conservative side since the shear strength of
the upper layers is neglected.
O

Dr. S. G. Patil
Design for Eccentric or Moment Loads

TE
• Sometimes, because of space constraints, a column may not be located at the
Center of the footing.This gives rise to a geometric load eccentricity.

U
• On other occasions, the column is centered on the footing, but a moment

IB
(associated with a lateral load) is transferred from the column to the footing
giving rise to a mechanical load eccentricity defined mathematically as the

TR
ratio of the applied moment to the applied vertical load.
• Both types of eccentricities are treated in the same way in calcalations of
bearing capacity. The eccentricity in the B direction is denoted as eB and the

IS
eccentricity in the L direction, as eL.

D
T
O
N
O

Geometric eccentricity Dr. S. G. Patil

Mechanical eccentricity
Design for Eccentric or Moment Loads

TE
• When loads are not applied at the centroid of a foundation, a moment is
created (i.e. M= P×e, where e = eccentricity). If the foundation experiences a

U
moment along with a vertical load, the distribution of pressure underneath
the foundation is NOT uniform, but usually trapezoidal (or triangular). The

IB
pressure distribution can be estimated as:
 P  M 
q max,min =   ±  × y 

TR
A  I 

IS
D
T
O
N
O

Dr. S. G. Patil
Design for Eccentric or Moment Loads

TE
U
IB
TR
IS
D
T
O
N
O

Dr. S. G. Patil
 Calculation of Ultimate Bearing Capacity for Eccentric Loads

TE
Effective area method: Meyerhof (1953)

U
The effective area method follows the following steps in determining the
ultimate bearing capacity of a shallow foundation with one-way eccentricity:

IB
TR
IS
Use B’ & L’ to calculate shape
qnu  cN c sc d cic  q( N q  1) s q d q iq  0.5 BN s d i W ' factors (Sc, Sq, Sg) and Use B & L to
calculate depth factors (dc, dq, dg)
D
T
O
N
O

Dr. S. G. Patil
Calculation of Ultimate Bearing Capacity for Eccentric Loads

TE
Foundations with 2- way eccentric loading:

U
If the loading on a foundation has an eccentricity in 2 ways (x and y direction),
the foundation experiences a moment M about the x and y axis as well. If it’s a

IB
moment loading only, the moment can be replaced by Q*e and vice versa.

TR
IS
D
T
O
N
O

Dr. S. G. Patil
Footing on Sloping Ground

TE
• There are occasions where structures are required to be built near the edges
of slopes or on the slopes.

U
• Since full formations of shear zones under ultimate loading conditions are not

IB
possible on the sides close to the slopes or edges, the supporting capacity of
soil on that side get considerably reduced.

TR
• Meyerhof(1957) extended his theories to include the effect of slopes on the
stability of foundations.
I. Foundation on top of Slope

IS
• Figure shows a section of a
foundation with the failure surfaces
D
under ultimate loading condition.
The stability of the foundation
T
depends on the distance b of the
top edge of the slope from the face Bearing capacity of foundation on top of a Slope
O

of the foundation.
N

• Meyerhof (1957) developed the following theoretical relation for the ultimate
bearing capacity for continuous foundations:
O

Dr. S. G. Patil
Footing on Sloping Ground

TE
• The resultant bearing capacity factors Ncq and Ngq depend on the distance b
b Ø and the Df/B ratio.

U
• These bearing capacity factors are given in the form charts for strip

IB
foundation in purely cohesive and cohesionless soils respectively.

TR
IS
D
T
O
N
O

H
Ns 
Cu Ns is the stability number Dr. S. G. Patil
Footing on Sloping Ground

TE
• It can be seen from the figures that the bearing capacity factors increase with
an increase of the distance b. Beyond a distance of about 2 to 6 times the

U
foundation width B, the bearing capacity is independent of the inclination of
the slope, and becomes the same as that of a foundation on an extensive

IB
horizontal surface.

TR
II. Foundation on Slope
• Figure shows the nature of the
plastic zone developed under a

IS
rough continuous foundation of
width B.
D
• abc is an elastic zone, acd is a
radial shear zone, and ade is a
T
mixed shear zone. Based on this
Bearing capacity of foundation on Slope
O

solution, the ultimate bearing

capacity can be expressed as:
• For purely cohesive soil i.e. Ø=0 qu  cu N cqs
N

Depends on b
1
O

• For granular soil, that is c’=0 q u =  BN qs

2
Dr. S. G. Patil
 Settlement in Soils

TE
Settlement

U
S = S e + Sc + S s

IB
Immediate Primary Secondary

TR
Settlement Consolidation Consolidation
Se Sc Ss

Immediate Settlement: Occurs immediately after the construction.This is computed

IS
using elasticity theory. Important for Granular soil.
Primary Consolidation: Time dependent settlement. Settlement results from
D
volume change because water is squeezed out of the void space. Important for
Inorganic clays.
T
Secondary Consolidation: Time dependent settlement. Occurs in saturated cohesive
O

and organic soils due to plastic adjustment of soil fabric. It is the compression that
takes place at constant effective stress. Important for Organic soils.
N

For any of the above mentioned settlement calculations, we first need vertical
O

stress increase in soil mass due to net load applied on the foundation
Dr. S. G. Patil
Immediate Settlement Calculation (SI)

TE
U
 1  2 
Si  qB  If

IB
 E 

TR
q - net foundation pressure (kN/m2)
μ - Poissons ratio

IS
E - Youngs modulus
D
If - influence factor for settlement
T
Influence factor depends on shape and rigidity of foundation
O
N
O

Dr. S. G. Patil
Consolidation Test

TE
U
IB
TR
Soil samples in
tubes and sealed.

IS
D
T
O
N
O

Oedometer and clay samples from site

14
Dr. S. G. Patil
e – log v’ plot

TE
U
- from the above data

IB
TR
Loading:
void ratio

IS
v’ increases &
e decreases
D
Unloading:
v’ decreases &
T
e increases (swelling)
O
N
O

log v’
15
Dr. S. G. Patil
Compression and recompression indices

TE
U
IB
TR
Cr
1
void ratio

Cc ~ compression index

IS
D
Cr ~ recompression index
Cc
T
1
(or swelling index)
O

Cr
N

1
O

log v’
16
Dr. S. G. Patil
Preconsolidation pressure

TE
U
IB
is the maximum vertical
effective stress the soil

TR
element has ever been
subjected to
void ratio

IS
D
T
O
N

 p’ log v’
O

preconsolidation pressure Dr. S. G. Patil

 Virgin Consolidation Line

TE
U
IB
original

TR
state
virgin consolidation line
eo

IS
void ratio

D
T
O

eo, vo’
N
O

log v’
vo’ 18
Dr. S. G. Patil
Virgin Consolidation Line

TE
U
IB
original

TR
state
virgin consolidation line
eo

IS
void ratio

D
T
O

eo, vo’
N

 p’
O

log v’
vo’
Dr. S. G. Patil
Overconsolidation ratio (OCR)

TE
U
IB
original

TR
state
virgin consolidation line
eo

IS
void ratio

vo’
D
T
O
N

vo’
O

Field log v’

Dr. S. G. Patil
Overconsolidation ratio (OCR)

TE
U
IB
original

TR
state
virgin consolidation line
eo

IS
void ratio

vo’
D  p'
OCR 
T
 vo '
O
N

vo’  p’
O

Field log v’

Dr. S. G. Patil
 5 Important Definitions

TE
(1) Coefficient of compressibility (av) 2.5

Cr
e

U
av 
2
Cc

IB
 ' 1.5
Cr
(2) Compression index (Cc): Slope of NC

TR
void ratio, e

e 1

Cc 
log( '2 /  '1 )

IS
0.5

(3) Coefficient of Volume compressibility (mv)

V
V 
HD H mv 
av
0
100 1000 10000
Vertical effective stress (psf)
100000

mv  1  e0
T
 
O

(4) Coefficient of recompression index (Cr) or Swelling Index (Cs) Slope

N

of OC
k
O

(5) Coefficient of consolidation (Cv) Cv 

mv   w Dr. S. G. Patil
Settlement computations V IMP Formulas

TE
4 different ways to estimate the consolidation settlement:

U
DH consolidation settlement
(1) Using Basic Equation H e
 H0 initial thickness of clay layer

IB
Ho 1  eo De change in void ratio
e0 initial void ratio

TR
(2) Using coefficient of compressibility (av) av
Sc   ' H 0

IS
1  e0

D
(3) Using coefficient of volume compressibility (mv)
T
settlement = mv  H0
O

Existing effective stress

N

(4) Using Compression Index (Cc) Change in effective

Cc  'v   ' Stress due to
Sc   H o  log(
O

) construction of
1  e0  'v structureDr. S. G. Patil
MAJOR FACTORS AFFECTING BEARING CAPACITY

TE
• The major factors that affect bearing capacity of footings are :

U
1.Size of the foundation
2.Shape of the foundation

IB
3.Depth of the foundation

TR
4.Inclination of the load
5.Inclination of the foundation base
6.Inclination of the ground

IS
7.Position of ground water table.

D
T
O
N
O

Dr. S. G. Patil