Chapter Three: Bearing Capacity of Soils (Shallow Foundations)
Chapter Three: Bearing Capacity of Soils (Shallow Foundations)
CHAPTER THREE
BEARING CAPACITY OF SOILS (SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS)
3.1
Introduction
All civil engineering structures impose a loading on the underlying soil or rock. The part of the
structure, usually lying below ground level which transmits the load to the supporting strata is
referred to as the foundation. To ensure stability, foundations must provide an adequate factor of
safety against shear or bearing failure of the underlying soil and the structure must be capable of
withstanding the settlements that will result, in particular the differential settlements.
Thus the criteria for the determination of the bearing capacity of a foundation are based on
the requirements for the stability of the foundation. The design value of the safe bearing capacity
would be the smaller of the two values, obtained from the two criteria:
i)
Total and differential settlements that the structure can withstand without functional
failure
In general, foundations are categorized into two groups, namely, shallow and deep
foundations. Shallow foundations (i.e. Df <B: according to Terzaghi) are comprised of footings, while
deep (Df >B) foundations include piles that are used when the soil near the ground surface has no
enough strength to stand the applied loading. In this chapter, we will discuss methods used to
estimate the ultimate bearing capacity of soils.
3.2
Relative density of the soil and size of the foundation are among the major factors that affect the
mode of bearing failure likely to occur. The modes of bearing failure are generally separated into
three categories:
The general shear failure (Fig. 3.1 a) is usually associated with soils of low compressibility such as
dense sand and stiff cohesive soils. In this case, if load is gradually applied to the foundation,
settlement will increase. At a certain point when the applied load per unit area equals to the
ultimate load qu a sudden failure in the soil supporting the foundation will take place. The failure
surface in the soil will extend to the ground surface and full shear resistance of the soil is developed
along the failure surface. Bulging of the soil near the footing is usually apparent.
44
Figure 3.1: Modes of bearing failures (a) General shear (b) Local shear and (c) Punching shear.
For the local shear failure (Fig. 3.1 b), which is common in sands and clays of medium
compaction, the failure surface will gradually extend outward from the foundation but will not reach
the ground surface as shown by the solid segment in Fig. 3.1 b. The shear resistance is fully
developed over only part of the failure surface (solid segment of the line). There is a certain degree
of bulging of the soil.
In the case of punching shear failure,(Fig. 3.1c) a condition common in loose and very
compressible soils, considerable vertical settlement may take place with the failure surfaces
restricted to vertical planes immediately adjacent to the sides of the foundation; the ground surface
may be dragged down. After the first yield has occurred the load-settlement curve will be steep
slightly, but remain fairly flat.
3.3
Terzaghi (1943) improved the Prandtl equation to include the roughness of the footing and the
weight of the failure zone. The failure mechanism in a c, soil for Terzaghis bearing capacity solution
is shown in Fig. 3.2. Terzaghis ultimate bearing capacity equations are given as follows:
Soil Mechanics II: Lecture Note (2006EC)
45
Figure 3.2: Failure mechanism for Terzhagis, Meyerhofs, Hansens bearing capacity solution.
Strip (or long) footing:
q u = c' N c + DN q + 0.5 BN
(3.1)
Square footing:
q u = 1.3c' N c + DN q + 0.4 BN
(3.2)
Circular footing:
q u = 1.3c' N c + DN q + 0.3BN
(3.3)
where Nc, Nq and N are called the bearing capacity factors and are obtained as follows:
Nq =
N c = cot ' ( N q 1) ,
K p
N = 12 tan '
1
2
cos '
(3.4)
Terzaghi developed his bearing-capacity equations assuming a general shear failure in a dense soil
and a local shear failure for a loose soil. For the local shear failure he proposed reducing the cohesion
and as:
c '=
2
c
3
' = tan
tan
Figure 3.3 shows the variation of the bearing capacity factors provided by Terzaghi. Based on this
figure, Aysen (2002) proposed the following equation to obtain the value of Kp in the N equation:
(3.5)
46
'
N q = 1 , N c = ( 32 + 1) = 5.71 ,
u = 0 ):
N = 0
(3.6)
The results obtained here are quite within acceptable limits for shallow footings (e.g. Df/B<1)
subjected to only vertical loads. But they are limited to concentrically loaded horizontal footings;
they are not suitable for footings that support eccentrically-loaded columns or to tilted footings.
Furthermore, they are regarded as somewhat overly conservative.
3.3.2 Meyerhofs Bearing Capacity equation
Meyerhof (1951) developed a bearing capacity equation by extending Terzaghis failure
mechanism and taking into account the effects of footing shape, load inclination and footing depth
by adding the corresponding factors of s, d, and i. For a rectangular footing of L by B (L > B) and
inclined load:
q u = c' N c s c ic d c + DN q s q iq d q + 0.5 BN s i d
(3.7)
q u = c' N c s c d c + DN q s q d q + 0.5 BN s d
(3.8)
N q = exp( tan ' ) tan 2 (45 + ' / 2) , N c = cot ' ( N q 1) , N = ( N q 1) tan(1.4 ' )
Soil Mechanics II: Lecture Note (2006EC)
47
u = 0 ):
N q = 1,
N c = ( + 2) = 5.14 ,
N = 0
'
s c = 1 + 0. 2 K p
'= 0
' 10
B
L
d c = 1 + 0. 2 K p
Inclination
0
ic = i q = 1 0
90
D
B
s q = s = 1
d q = d = 1
B
s q = s = 1 + 0.1K p
L
D
d q = d = 1 + 0. 1 K p
B
'
K p = tan 2 45 + ,
2
when triaxial
Depth
'
i = 0
0
i = 1 0
'
'
to obtain
B
L
'
' = 1.1 0.1 triaxial
For the eccentric load, the length and width of the footing rectangle are modified to:
L = L 2eL
and
B = B 2eB
(3.9)
48
q u = c' N c s c d c ic bc g c + DN q s q d q iq bq g q + 0.5 BN s d i b g
(3.10)
Equation 3.10 is sometimes referred to as the general bearing capacity equation. In the special case
of a horizontal ground surface,
q u = c' N c s c d c ic bc + DN q s q d q iq bq + 0.5 BN s d i b
(3.11)
<
+ 90
'
values, as proposed by
Hansen.
49
N = 1.5( N q 1) tan
(3.12)
Since failure can take place either along the long side or along the short side, Hansen proposed two
sets of shape, inclination and depth factors.
The shape factors are:
sc, B = 1 +
N q B'
ic , B ,
N c L'
sq,B = 1 +
B
iq , B sin ' ,
L
s , B = 1 0. 4
B i , B
0.6
L i , L
(3.13)
Nq L
ic , L ,
Nc B
sq,L = 1 +
L
i q , L sin ' ,
B
s , L = 1 0.4
L i , L
0.6
B i , B
(3.14)
sc, L = 1 +
s c , B = 0.2
B
ic , B ,
L
s c , L = 0. 2
L
ic , L
B
(3.15)
i c ,i = i q , i
1 i q ,i
Nq 1
i q ,i
1
0.5 H i
0.7 H i
, i ,i = 1
= 1
(3.16)
base and cb is the cohesion mobilized in the footing-soil contact area. For the tilted base:
i ,i
(0.7 0 450 0 ) H i
= 1
(3.17)
(3.18)
In the above equations, B and L may be replaced by their effective values (B and L) expressed by
Eqn. (3.9).
The depth factors are expressed in two sets:
For D/B
1 & D/L 1:
d c , B = 1 + 0.4 D ,
B
d c , L = 1 + 0. 4 D ,
L
(3.19)
(3.20)
( B),
d c , B = 1 + 0.4 tan 1 D
(3.21)
in radians
( L ),
d c , L = 1 + 0.4 tan 1 D
For both sets:
For cu, u soil:
d = 1 (for all )
d c , B = 0. 4 D
(3.22)
(3.23)
d c , L = 0. 4 D
(3.24)
L
50
g c = 1
147 0
147 0
gc =
bc = 1
g q = g = (1 0.5 tan )
0
bc =
(3.26)
147 0
bq = e 2 tan ' ,
(3.25)
(3.27)
(3.28)
147 0
Nq terms are those of Hansen but N is slightly different as is given by: N = 2 N q + 1 tan
0
N
0
0
5 10 15
0.4 1.2 2.6
20
5.4
25
10.9
26
12.5
28
30 32 34 36 38
40
45
50
16.7 22.4 30.2 41 56.2 77.9 109.3 271.3 761.3
s c = 1.0 +
s q = 1 .0 +
Nq B
Nc L
B
tan
L
B
s = 1.0 - 0.4
0 .6
L
Depth factors
d c = 0 .4 k (for =0)
d c = 1 . 0 + 0 .4 k (for >0)
d q = 1 + 2 tan (1 sin ) 2 k
Inclination factors
mH i
(for =0)
AfCaNc
ic = 1
Where:
d = 1.0
D
B
m = mL
D
1
B
D
k = tan 1
if
B
k in radians
k =
if
D
> 1
B
2 + B/L
1 + B/L
2 + L/B
=
1 + L/B
m = mB =
1 iq
ic = iq
(for >0)
Nq 1
Hi
i q = 1
V + A f C a cot
Hi
i = 1
+
V
A
C
cot
f
a
m +1
gc =
5 . 14
g c = iq
(for >0)
5 . 14 tan
g q = g = (1 . 0 t an )
b c = g c (for =0)
bc = 1
2
(for >0)
5 . 14 tan
bq = b = (1 tan )
in radians
51
Compute m=mB when Hi=HB (H parallel to B) and m=mL when Hi=HL (H // L). If you
2
iq, i (always)
= 260
= 19kN/m3
Df = 1.5m
c = 15kPa
B = 1.5m, L = 20m
Figure E3.1: An isolated strip footing.
EAMPLE 3.2
Determine the ultimate bearing capacity of a square footing 1.5 m, at a depth of 1 m in a soil c = 10
kPa,
' =280,
cu = 105 kPa,
u =0
is 0.45 m and its top surface is level with the horizontal ground surface. The footing is subjected to
a central vertical force of 700 kN and a central horizontal force (parallel to the sides) of 210 kN. Find
the ultimate bearing capacity by a) Meyerhofs and b) Hansens equations. (Note that Terzaghis
Soil Mechanics II: Lecture Note (2006EC)
52
in the bearing capacity equations refers to the vertical stress of the soil
thickness B, below the base of the footing. You need to check which one of the three groundwater
situations is applicable to your project.
Situation 1: Groundwater level at a depth B below the base of the footing. In this case no
modification of the bearing capacity equations is required.
Situation 2: Groundwater level within a depth B below the base of the footing. If the
groundwater level is at a depth z below the base, such that z < B, then the term
or
sat z + ' ( B z ) .
B is z + ' ( B z )
The later equation is used if the soil above the groundwater level is also
remains unchanged.
Situation 3: Groundwater level within the embedment depth. If the groundwater is at a depth z
within the embedment such that z < D, then the term
is
z + ' ( D z )
latter equation is used if the soil above the groundwater level is also
becomes ' B .
qu
(3.29)
FS
Alternatively, if the maximum applied foundation stress ( a ) max is known and the dimension of the
qa =
footing is also known then you can find a factor of safety by replacing qa by
FS =
Soil Mechanics II: Lecture Note (2006EC)
qu
( a ) max
(3.30)
53
qa(net) =
qu - D f
(3.31)
FS
Figure 3.8 Method of computing effective footing dimensions when footing is eccentrically loaded
He proposed that for a rectangular footing of width B and length L, the base area should be modified
with the following dimensions:
B = B 2eB and L =L - 2eL
(3.32)
Where B and L are the modified width and length, eB and eL are the eccentricities in the directions
of the width and length, respectively. From your course in mechanics you should recall that
eB =
My
P
and
eL =
Mx
P
(3.33)
where P is the vertical load, and My and Mx are the moments about the y and x axes, respectively, as
shown in Fig. 3.8.
The maximum and minimum vertical stresses along the x axis are:
max =
P 6e B
P 6e B
1 +
and min =
1
BL
B
BL
B
(3.34)
max =
P 6e L
P 6e L
1 +
and min =
1
BL
B
BL
B
(3.35)
min
Therefore, eB & eL should always be less than B/6 & L/6, respectively. The bearing capacity equations
are modified for eccentric loads by replacing B with B.
EXAMPLE 3.5
A footing 2 m square is located at a depth of 1 m below the ground surface in a deep deposit of
compacted sand,
' =300,
c=0, and
500 kN and a moment about the Y-axis of 125 kNm. The ground water table is 5 m below the ground
Soil Mechanics II: Lecture Note (2006EC)
54
Field Tests
Often, it is difficult to obtain undisturbed samples of especially coarse-grained soils for
laboratory testing and one has to use results from field tests to determine the bearing capacity of
shallow foundations. Some of the most common methods used for field tests are briefly described
below.
3.4.1 Plate Loading Test
Tests on full sized footings are desirable but expensive. The alternative is to carry out plate
loading tests. The plate loading test is carried out to estimate the bearing capacity of single footings.
The plates that are used in the field are usually made of steel and are 25 mm thick and 150 mm to
762 mm in diameter. A circular plate of 300 mm is commonly used in practice. Occasionally, square
plates that are 300 mm
To conduct a plate load test, a hole is excavated (Fig. 3.9) with a minimum diameter 4BP (BP
= diameter of the test plate) to a depth of D (D = depth of the proposed foundation). The plate is
placed at the center of the hole. Load is applied to the plate in increments of 10% to 20% of the
estimated ultimate load. Each load increment is held until settlement ceases. The final settlement at
the end of each loading increment is recorded. The test should be conducted until the soil fails, or at
least until the plate has gone through 25 mm of settlement.
qu ( F ) = qu ( P )
(3.36)
where qu(F) & qu(P) are ultimate bearing capacity of foundation and plate, respectively.
Eqn. (3.36)
qu ( F ) = qu ( P )
BF
Bp
(3.37)
55
95.8
c N = ' ; c N 2 (Liao and Whitman, 1985)
z0
(3.38)
1916
c N = 0.77 log10 ' ; c N 2, z' 0 > 24 kPa (Peck et al., 1974)
z0
(3.39)
z' 0
pressure in kPa. A further correction factor is imposed on N values if the groundwater level is within
a depth B below the base of the footing. The groundwater correction factor is:
cW =
1
z
+
2 2( D + B )
(3.40)
where z is the depth to the groundwater table, and D and B are the footing depth and width. If the
depth of the groundwater table is beyond B from the footing base cW = 1. The corrected N value is:
N cor = c N cW N
Meyerhof (1956, 1974) proposed the following equations to determine the allowable bearing
capacity qa from SPT values.
qa =
12
S e N cor k d
25
1.22 m
(3.41)
8
B + 0.305
qa =
S e N cor
kd
25
B
B > 1.22 m
(3.42)
value of N is a soil layer up to a depth B below the footing base is corrected and an average value of
Ncor is used in Eqn. (3.42).
Bowles (1996) modified Meyerhofs equations by 50% increase in the allowable bearing
capacity. Bowless equations are:
qa =
20
S e N cor k d
25
1.22 m
(3.43)
qa =
12.5
B + 0.305
S e N cor
kd
25
B
B > 1.22 m
(3.44)
q all (kPa) =
Soil Mechanics II: Lecture Note (2006EC)
qc
;
30
for B 1.2m
(3.45)
56
q all (KPa)
q c B + 0 .3
50
B
; for
(3.46)
B > 1.2m
N =
qc
80
bearing capacity equation is employed to determine qult. This approximation should be applicable for
D/B <1.5. qc is averaged over the depth interval from about B/2 above to 1.1B below the footing
base.
(3.47)
(3.48)
q c in KPa
As discussed previously, the bearing capacity of a foundation is based on two criteria-the pressure
that might cause shear failure of the foundation soil and the maximum allowable pressure such that
the settlements produced are not more than the tolerable values. The first criterion has already been
discussed in detail. For the second criterion, the tolerable values of the total and differential
settlements which a particular structure, on a particular type of foundation in a given soil, can
undergo without sustaining any harmful effects are to be decided up on. These values have already
been specified, based on experience and judgment. Once the limiting values of settlement are fixed,
the procedure involves determining that pressure which causes settlements just equal to the limiting
value. This is allowable bearing capacity on the basis of the settlement criterion. It is to be noted that
there is no need to apply a further factor of safety to this pressure, since it would have been applied
even at the stage of fixing up tolerable settlement values.
The smaller pressure of the values obtained from the two criteria is termed the allowable bearing
pressure, which is used for design of the foundation. The bearing capacity based on settlement
criterion may be determined from the field load tests or plate load tests, standard penetration tests
or from the charts like those prepared by Terzaghi and Peck, based on extensive investigation.
3.6
Building codes stipulates values of allowable soil pressure to use when designing foundations. These
values are usually based on years of experience, although in some cases they are simply used from
building code of another city. These arbitrary values of soil pressures (Presumptive pressures) are
base on a visual classification.
The following table
primarily for illustrative purposes, since it is generally agreed that in all but minor construction
projects some soil exploration should be undertaken. Major drawbacks to the use of presumptive
soil pressures are that they dont reflect the depth of the footing, size of footing, location of water
table, or potential settlements.
57
Supporting
Ground
Description
Type
** or
Consistency
***
Presumed
Design
Bearing
Remarks
Resistance
(kPa)
5600
Medium
(slate, schist)
and sound
hard
2800
These values are based on
Medium
hard
and sound
2800
Soft
1400
Soft
850
Dense
560
Medium dense
420
Loose
280
Dense
420
Medium dense
280
Loose
140
Hard
280
Stiff
200
Medium stiff
140
weathered rock
Decomposed rock to be
assessed as soil
Silt
Cohesive soils
Clay
Soft
70
Hard
420
Stiff
280
Medium stiff
140
Soft
70
Width of foundation
(B) not less than 1 m
Very soft
Not Applicable
* The given design bearing values do not include the effect of the depth of embedment of the
foundation
** Compactness:
dense: N > 30,
medium dense: N is 10 to 30
loose: N < 10, where N is standard penetration value
*** Consistency:
hard: qu > 400 kPa,
stiff: qu = 100 to 200 kPa
medium stiff: qu = 50 to 100 kPa
soft: qu = 25 to 50 kPa, where qu. is unconfined compressive strength
Soil Mechanics II: Lecture Note (2006EC)
58