ST.

VINCENT PALLOTTI COLLEGE

OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY
NAGPUR

Dr. Chetan S. Deshpande

Department of Civil Engineering

UNIT - II SHALLOW FOUNDATION

 Unit II
2

Bearing capacity of soil: Factor affecting bearing capacity, Terzaghi’s

theory, its validity and limitation, types of shear failure in foundation
soil, effect of water table on bearing capacity, (introduction to IS
method, factor affecting bearing capacity, field determination of
bearing capacity through plate load test and standard penetration test)
Settlement of shallow foundation: Causes of settlement, elastic and
consolidation settlement, differential settlement, control of excessive
settlement. (Standard penetration test, corrections for N - values to
obtain design soil parameters.)
 Introduction:
3
 Introduction:
4
 Introduction:
5

 What is meant by Foundations?

 Need of Foundations?

 Foundation Design Parameters?

Location & depth, Shear failure and Settlement

 Types of Foundations?

 IS:1904 – 1986 Code of practice for design and

construction of foundations in soils : general requirements
 1

3 3
Df
2

B
 Terminology:
7

 Bearing Capacity: In general, it is the load carrying capacity of

foundation soil or rock that enables to bear and transmit the loads from
the superstructure.
 Ultimate Bearing Capacity (qu): The maximum pressure which a
foundation can withstand without the occurrence of the shear failure of
the foundation.
 Net Ultimate Bearing Capacity (qnu): It is the net increase in the
pressure at the base of foundation that causes shear failure of the soil.
It is equal to the gross pressure minus overburden pressure.
qnu = qu – γ.Df
 Terminology:
8

 Net Safe Bearing Capacity(qns):

It is the net soil pressure which can be safely applied to the soil
considering only shear failure. It is obtained by dividing the net
ultimate bearing capacity by a suitable factor of safety
(usually varies between 2 to 5).
qns = qnu/F
 Terminology:
9

 Gross Safe Bearing Capacity(qs):

It is the maximum gross pressure which the soil can carry safely without
shear failure. It is equal to the net safe bearing capacity plus the original
overburden.
qs = qns + γ.Df
 Net Safe Settlement Pressure (qnp) :
It is the net pressure which the soil can carry without exceeding the
allowable settlement. The maximum allowable settlement generally varies
between 25 mm to 40 mm for individual footings. It is also known as Unit
soil pressure or safe bearing pressure.
 Terminology:
10

 Net allowable bearing pressure (qna):

This is the pressure used for the design of foundations. A foundation is
designed to distribute the load over the sub-soil without shear failure
along with the settlements within the permissible limits.
Thus, minimum of Net Safe Bearing Pressure (qns) and Net Safe Settlement
Pressure (qnp) should be taken for the design of foundations.
It is also known as Allowable bearing pressure or Allowable bearing
capacity.
 Factors affecting Bearing capacity:
11

 Nature of Soil and its physical & engineering properties.

 Nature of the foundation and size, shape, depth & rigidity of the
structure.
 Total and Differential Settlement which a structure can withstand
without functional failure.
 Depth of water table in relation to depth of foundation.
 Initial Stress experienced by the soil, if any.
12

Modes of Shear Failure in Soils

 Principle Modes of Soil failure:
13

 When a foundation (strip footing) resting on a horizontal

homogeneous soil is gradually loaded, load settlement curve can be
obtained.
 The nature of load settlement curve depends on the characteristics

of the soil.
 This governs the three mechanisms of the failure of soil.

1. General Shear Failure, 2. Punching Shear Failure and

3. Local Shear Failure
https://youtu.be/qoJNmaOIf0w
 Principle Modes of Soil failure:
14

 It is observed in brittle type

of soil (dense sand or stiff
clay).
 It exhibits a well-defined
failure pattern.
 A sudden, catastrophic failure with tilting of foundation.
 Bulging of ground surface adjacent to the foundation.
 An ultimate load can be easily located, hence amenable to analytical
treatment.
 Principle Modes of Soil failure:
15

 It is observed in a very plastic

type of soil (loose sand or soft
clay).
 It has poorly defined shear

planes.
 Soil mass beyond the loaded

area is little affected.

 Remarkable penetration of foundation (settlement of soil wedge) associated
with vertical shear along the edges of foundation.
 Continuous increase in settlement corresponding to increasing load values,
hence, a clear indication of ultimate load can not be registered.
 Principle Modes of Soil failure:
16

It is observed in medium dense



sand or clay with medium

consistency.
 It has characteristics of both

general and punching shear

failure.
 After certain value of load, settlement of foundation is accompanied with
jerks.
 Well defined wedge and slip surfaces only beneath the foundation with
significant settlement..
 Slight heave is observed only after substantial settlement of foundation.
 Principle Modes of Soil failure:
17

 It is observed that in case of very dense

sand supporting shallow foundation –
General Shear Failure.

 In case of shallow foundation on loose

sand or deep foundations – Punching
Shear Failure.
18

Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Theory

 Preamble:
19

 The theory is based on the limiting equilibrium approach.

 The forces acting on the soil wedge immediately beneath the

foundation are examined for static equilibrium and ultimate
bearing capacity is computed.

 Terzaghi developed a general bearing capacity equation for a

uniformly loaded strip footing.
 Assumptions:
20

 The soil is homogeneous, isotropic and its shear strength is governed

by Mohr-Coulomb Theory.
 The base of the foundation is rough and essentially a two
dimensional problem.
 The footing is laid at shallow depth i.e. (Df/B)≤1.
 The shear strength of the soil above the base of the footing is
neglected. Rather it is replaced by a uniform surcharge γDf
 The load on the footing is vertical and uniformly distributed.
 Assumptions:
21

 The footing is long i.e. L/B ratio is infinite.

 The elastic zone has straight boundaries inclined at φ to the
horizontal and the plastic zones are fully developed.
 Derivation:
22

Source: Soil Mechanical & foundation engineering by Dr. K.R. Arora

 Derivation:
23 Source: Soil Mechanical & foundation engineering by Dr. K.R. Arora

 Applying equations of equilibrium to the wedge ABC,

 Vertically Downward Forces = Vertically Upward Forces
 Vertically Downward Forces = qu.B + Weight of the wedge ABC
 Derivation:
24

 Vertically Downward Forces = qu.B + Weight of the wedge ABC

H  Weight of the wedge ABC = γ.Area(ΔABC)
 A(ΔABC)=(½).Base.Height
 Consider Tri(AHC), Area = (½).AH.HC
 AH = B/2 and HC = (B/2).tanφ  Area of Tri(AHC) = (½).(B/2).(B/2).tanφ

 Area of Tri(AHC) = (B2/8).tanφ  A(ΔABC)= 2 x Area of Tri(AHC)

 A(ΔABC)= 2 x (B2/8).tanφ = (B2/4).tanφ

Thus, ΣVertically Downward Forces = qu.B + γ.(B2/4).tanφ
 Derivation:
25

Vertically Upward Forces = Resultant Passive Pressure + Vertical

H
Component of Total Cohesive Forces
 Resultant Passive Pressure = 2 x PP
 Total Cohesive Forces = 2 x [c x L(AC)] x sinφ
Consider Tri(AHC), cos φ = AH/AC = (B/2)/AC
 AC = (B/2)/cos φ  Total Cohesive Force = 2 x sinφ x [c x (B/2)/cos φ]
 Total Cohesive Force = c x B x (tan φ)

Thus, ΣVertically Upward Forces = 2 x PP + (c x B x tanφ)

 Derivation:
26

ΣVertically Downward Forces = qu.B + γ.(B2/4).tanφ

ΣVertically Upward Forces = 2 x PP + (c x B x tanφ)
qu.B + γ.(B2/4).tanφ = 2 x PP + (c x B x tanφ)
qu.B = 2 x PP + (c x B x tanφ) – γ x (B2/4) x tanφ
PP consists of three components
1. (PP)γ due to weight of the soil in the shear zones II & III (c = 0 & q = 0)
2. (PP)c due to cohesion of the soil (γ = 0 & q = 0)
3. (PP)q due to surcharge, q (c = 0 & γ = 0)
 Derivation:
27

qu.B = 2 x [(PP)γ+ (PP)c + (PP)q] + (c x B x tanφ) – γ x (B2/4) x tanφ

Substituting, B x (½) x γ x B x Nγ for [2(PP)γ – γ x (B2/4) x tanφ]

B x c x Nc for [2(PP)c + (c x B x tanφ)]
B x γ x Df x Nq for [2(PP)q]

Thus, the equation becomes,

qu.B = B x c x Nc + B x γ x Df x Nq + B x (½) x γ x B x Nγ
 Derivation:
28

Dividing both sides by B,

qu= c x Nc + γ x Df x Nq + (½) x γ x B x Nγ
...Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Equation for strip footing under General Shear
Failure
Due to non-availability of exact solution to Local and Punching Shear Failure,
Terzaghi has suggested reduction in the values of c and φ, as mentioned below:
Mobilized cohesion, cm = (2/3) x c

Mobilized angle of internal friction, φm = tan-1[(2/3) tan φ]

29
30

Effect of Water Table on Bearing Capacity

 Effect of Water Table on Bearing Capacity:
31

Terzaghi’s equation for ultimate

bearing capacity of soil:
G.L.
qu= c x Nc + γ x Df x Nq +
(½) x γ x B x Nγ
Df
• Variation in water table affects the
bearing capacity of soil.
B • This is due to change in the unit
weight of the soil and effect on shear
parameters.
 Effect of Water Table on Bearing Capacity:
32

• Effect on shear parameters is very

less.
G.L. • Effect on unit weight of the soil is
approximately 50% on the related
Df terms in the equation.
• Unit weight of the soil above water
table (WT) is taken as moist unit
B weight.
• Unit weight of the soil below water
table (WT) is taken as saturated unit
weight.
 Effect of Water Table on Bearing Capacity:
33

G.L. • No effect on the bearing capacity, if

the water table is located at great
depth below the base of the
Df foundation.
• This minimum depth below the base
of the footing is set as width of the
B footing.
B
• The maximum depth of shear failure
WT is not expected to exceed the distance
No Effect equal to the width of a footing.
 Effect of Water Table on Bearing Capacity:
34

G.L. • There are two cases possible

WT zw1 for water table position.
Df Case 1 Case 1: Water table located
between the ground surface
and base of a footing.
B zw2
B WT Case 2: Water table located
Case 2 between the base of a footing
WT & depth equal to width of the
No Effect
footing, below its base.
 Effect of Water Table on Bearing Capacity:
35

G.L. Case 1: Water table located

WT zw1 between the ground surface and
Df Case 1 base of a footing.
qu= c x Nc + γ x Df x Nq +
(½) x γ x B x Nγ
B zw2
B WT Thus, the unit weight of soil in the
Case 2 second term is going to get
WT affected.
No Effect
 Effect of Water Table on Bearing Capacity:
36

G.L. • When Zw1=0, water table is at

WT zw1 ground surface, γ = γsat
Df Case 1 • When 0< Zw1< Df,
Above WT, γ = No change
Below WT, γ = γsat
B
γavg = [γ.zw1+ γsat(Df – zw1)]/Df
B
WT • When Zw1= Df, water table is at
No Effect the base of the footing,
γ = No change
 Effect of Water Table on Bearing Capacity:
37

G.L. Case 2: Water table located

between the base of a footing &
Df depth equal to width of the
footing, below its base.
qu= c x Nc + γ x Df x Nq +
B zw2 (½) x γ x B x Nγ
B WT
Case 2 Thus, the unit weight of soil in the
WT third term is going to get
No Effect affected (related to the elastic
wedge)
 Effect of Water Table on Bearing Capacity:
38

G.L. • When Zw2=0, water table is at

the base of the footing, γ = γsat
Df • When 0< Zw2< B,
Above WT, γ = No change
Below WT, γ = γsat
B zw2
B WT γavg = [γ.zw2+ γsat(B – zw2)]/B
Case 2
WT • When Zw2= B, water table is at
No Effect the great depth, γ = No change
 Effect of Water Table on Bearing Capacity:
39

G.L. The modified equation:

WT zw1 qu= c x Nc + Rw1 x γ x Df x Nq +
Case 1 Rw2 x (½) x γ x B x Nγ
Df
Rw1 = Reduction factor for WT
above the base of the footing
B zw2 Rw2 = Reduction factor for WT
B WT below the base of the footing
Case 2
WT zw1 zw2
Rw1 = 0.5x Rw2 = 0.5x
No Effect B
 Effect of Water Table on Bearing Capacity:
40

G.L.
WT zw1 0.9

Df Case 1

Rw1 or Rw2
B zw2
B WT
Case 2
WT
No Effect zw1/Df or zw2/B
 Important Equations to remember:
41

For Cohesive Frictional Soil (c – φ)

For Strip Footing,
qu= c x Nc + γ x Df x Nq + (½) x γ x B x Nγ
General Shear failure, when φ≥360 & ID>70%
Local Shear failure, when φ<280 & ID<20%

For Circular Footing,

qu= 1.3 x c x Nc + γ x Df x Nq + 0.3 x γ x B x Nγ
 Important Equations to remember:
42

For Square Footing,

qu= 1.3 x c x Nc + γ x Df x Nq + 0.4 x γ x B x Nγ

For Rectangular Footing,

qu= [1+0.3(B/L)] x c x Nc + γ x Df x Nq + 0.3 x γ x B x Nγ

For Cohesive Soils, (C>0 & φ= 0)
Nc = 5.7, Nq = 1.0 & Nγ = 0
43

Numerical on Bearing Capacity

44
45

1. A strip footing, 1 m wide at its base is located at a depth of 0.8 m

below the ground surface. The properties of the foundation soil are: c =
30 kN/m2, φ= 200 and γ = 18 kN/m3. Determine the safe bearing
capacity, using a factor of safety of 3. Use Terzaghi’s analysis and
assume the soil fails by a) general shear and b) Local Shear.
46

2. A square footing 2.5 m x 2.5 m is built in a homogeneous bed of sand

of unit weight 20 kN/m3 and having an angle of shearing resistance =
360. The depth of the base of the footing is 1.5 m below the ground
surface. Calculate the safe load that can be carried by the footing with a
factor of safety of 3 against complete Shear failure.
47

3. A strip footing, 1 m wide at its base is located at a depth of 0.8 m

below the ground surface. The properties of the foundation soil are: c =
30 kN/m2, φ= 200 and γ = 18 kN/m3. Determine the safe bearing
capacity, using a factor of safety of 3, if the water table is located at
the base of the footing. Take γsat = 19.5 kN/m3. Use Terzaghi’s analysis
and assume the soil fails by Local Shear.
48

4.

5.

6.
49

7.

8.
50

Plate Load Test

51

• What is Plate Load Test?

52

What is the need of Plate Load Test?

Prototype foundation can not be
tested for the actual loads.
Large Time
Loads consumed

High Cost
53

Overview of Plate Load Test:

•A rigid plate is loaded at the
foundation level to plot a Load-
Settlement curve.
• Loads are increased and
corresponding settlements are
recorded at each increment of the
load.
 Plate Load Test:
54

 Test Plate: M.S. Plate 25 mm thick (min); Size: 300 to 750 mm;
square or circular in shape.
 Settlement Recording Device: Dial gauges 25 mm travel;
accuracy: 0.01mm

 Datum bar: 1 to 1.5 m straight rod to hold the dial gauges.

 Loading Arrangement: Gravity Type or Reaction Type

 Plate Load Test:
55
 Plate Load Test:
56
57
58
 Plate Load Test:
59

Source: Geotechnical Engineering by C. Venkatramaiah

 Plate Load Test:
60

 Selection of Location: Foundation level; Water table level, if Water

table is within the depth equal to width of the plate.
 Test Pit: Width of the pit equals to 5 x Bp, properly cleaned &
levelled. A square hole is made at the centre of the pit of the plate
size and depth as per the formula:

(Dp/Bp) = (Df/B)
Dp = Depth of hole for the plate Bp = Width of the plate
Df = Depth of the foundation B = Width of the foundation
 Plate Load Test Procedure:
61

 After excavating a test pit of required size, a test plate is placed

over a 5 mm thick layer of sand at the test location matching with the
centre of loading.
 A seating pressure of 7 kN/m2 (70 g/cm2) is applied and released
before the commencement of actual test.
 A datum bar is placed on firm supports and fixed with minimum two
dial gauges placed diametrically on the opposite ends of the plate.

 A cumulative load of 1 kg/cm2 or one-fifth of the of the estimated

ultimate bearing capacity, whichever is less, is applied.
 Plate Load Test Procedure:
62

 Settlements are observed for each increment of load after an interval

of 1, 2.25, 4, 6.25, 9, 16, and 25 min. Thereafter, at hourly intervals
to the nearest of 0.02 mm.
 The test is continued until a load of about 1.5 times the expected
ultimate load is applied or 25 mm settlement has reached or soil
failure has occurred.
 Using the recorded data, load (pressure) – settlement curve is plotted
from which ultimate bearing capacity of soil is obtained.
 Plate Load Test Result:
63

Preferred where failure of soil can not be

identified.
 Settlement of Foundation:
64

 For Sand:  For Clay:

2
Sf B(Bp+0.3) Sf B
= =
Sp Bp(B+0.3) Sp Bp
Sp = Settlement of the plate (m) Reason: Modulus of Elasticity remains
constant.
Bp = Width of the plate (m)

Sf = Settlement of the foundation (m)

B = Width of the foundation (m)

 Limitations:
65

 Plate Size Effect:

Bearing capacity of cohesive soils is independent of size of the
footing. Hence, the results can be reasonably used for prototype
footings.

qu= 1.3 x c x Nc + γ x Df x Nq + 0.4 x γ x B x Nγ

In case of sand, the scaling effect gives misleading results.

 Limitations:
66

 Consolidation Settlement:
It takes many years to settle in case of cohesive soils. This is being a
short term test, the allowable bearing pressure obtained by
settlement criteria does not have any significance.

 Shape effect:
The test is conducted on square or circular plates in which shape
effect is inevitable. Therefore, the results are not recommended for
the design of strip footings.
 Limitations:
67

 Zone of influence:
The load test results depict the characteristics of soil located within the
depth equals to twice the width of the test plate. In case of prototype
footings, the depth of influence is undoubtedly larger than that for the
test plate. Thus, the results may prove misleading for the footings.
68

Numerical on Plate Load Test

69

1.

2 2
Sf B(Bp+0.3) Sf 2x(0.3+0.3)
= =
Sp Bp(B+0.3) 10 0.3x(2+0.3)

Sf = 30.245 mm
70

2.
71

3.
72

Settlements of foundation
 Sources:
73
 Types:
74

 Uniform or Total Settlement:

 Differential Settlement:
 Practices to avoid differential settlements:
75
76