Bearing Capacity Shear Wave

Allowable Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations Semih S.
Tezcan, Ali Keceli, and Zuhal Ozdemir

Based on Shear Wave Velocity
Revised 23 / 06 / 2004
ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY

OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS
BASED ON SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY
1 2 3
Semih S. Tezcan , Ali Keceli , Zuhal Ozdemir
ABSTRACT
Firstly, the historical background is presented for the determination of ultimate

bearing capacity of shallow foundations. The principles of plastic equilibrium used in the
classical formulation of the ultimate bearing capacity are reviewed, followed by a discussion
about the sources of approximations inherent in the classical theory.
Secondly, based on a variety of case histories of site investigations, including

extensive bore hole data, laboratory testing and geophysical prospecting, an empirical
formulation is proposed for the determination of allowable bearing capacity of shallow
foundations. The proposed expression corroborates consistently with the results of the
classical theory and is proven to be reliable and safe, also from the view point of maximum
allowable settlements. It consists of only two soil parameters, namely, the insitu measured
shear wave velocity, and the unit weight. The unit weight may be also determined with
sufficient accuracy, by means of another empirical expression, using the P-wave velocity. It
is indicated that once the shear and P-wave velocities are measured insitu by an appropriate
geophysical survey, the allowable bearing capacity is determined reliably through a single
step operation. Such an approach, is considerably cost and time-saving, in practice.
Key words : bearing capacity, shear wave, foundation design, shallow footings,
allowable bearing pressure
1. Introduction
The ultimate bearing capacity of a particular soil, under a shallow footing, was
investigated theoretically by Prandtl (1921) [5] and Reissner (1924) [6] using the concept of
plastic equilibrium as early as in 1921. The formulation however is slightly modified,
generalised, and updated later by Terzaghi (1925) [12], Meyerhof (1956) [4], Hansen (1968)
[3], De Beer (1970) [2], and Sieffert et al. (2000) [7] .
The historical bearing capacity formulation, as will be discussed briefly in the next
Section, is still widely used in geotechnical engineering practice. However, there are various
1
Professor of Civil Engineering, Bogazici University, Bebek, Istanbul, Turkey
Phone: +90. 212. 352 65 59; Fax: +90. 212. 352 65 58; Mobile: +90. 532. 720 28 18
[ tezokan @ superonline. com ]
2
Professor of Geophysics, Istanbul University, Beyazit, Istanbul, Turkey
3
Research Engineer, Higher Education Research Foundation, Istanbul, Turkey
1
J:\NORMAS\Bearing_Capacity_Shear_Wave.doc 03/03/2004
Allowable Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations Semih S. Tezcan, Ali Keceli, and Zuhal Ozdemir
uncertainities in representing the real insitu soil conditions by means of a few laboratory
tested shear strength parameters. The basic soil parameters are cu = cohesion, undrained shear
strength and φ = angle of internal friction, which can only be determined by laboratory testing
of undisturbed soil samples. It is sometimes impossible to take undisturbed soil samples
especially in sandy and gravelly soils.
The insitu measured shear wave velocity, vs , however as a single field index represents
the real soil conditions, much more effectively and reliably than the laboratory tested shear
strength parameters. In addition to geophysical refraction seismic survey, there are several
other techniques of measuring the shear wave velocity at the site as discussed by Stokoe et al.
(1972) [11], Tezcan et al. (1975) [14]. Because, the insitu measured shear wave velocity, vs ,
reflects the true photograph of the soil, containing the contributions of the void ratio,
effective confining stresses, stress history, shear and compressive strengths, geologic age etc.
As will be seen later in this study, the shear wave velocity, vs , enables the practicing engineer
to determine the allowable bearing capacity, qa , in a most convenient, reliable and straight
forward manner.
2. Classical formulation
Using the principles of plastic equilibrium, the ultimate bearing capacity, qf , of a
shallow strip footing, with a depth of D, from the surface and with a width of B and length L,
( Figure 1) , is given by Terzaghi (1967) [13] as ,
q = c Nc sc +  D Nq + 0.5  B N s (1)
f
where,
a) Bearing capacity factors;
Nq = exp ( tan φ) tan2 (450 + φ /2)
Nc = (Nq - 1) cot φ
N = 1.8 (Nq -1) tan φ by Hansen (1968) [3]
or N = (Nq - 1) tan (1.4 φ) .by Meyerhof (1956) [4]
b) Shape factors:
sc = 1 + 0.20 B / L …………………………….……………. (φ ≠ 0 conditions)
sc = [1 + 0.20 B / L] [1 + 0.3 (D / B)0.25 ] ….. (φ = 0 conditions, saturated clays)
s = 1 - 0.2 (B / L) ………………………. (B / L = footing width to length ratio)

s = 0.6 ……………………………………………………… (circular footing)
It is customary to take B / L = 0 for a strip footing, and B / L = 1 for a square footing.

The formulation is applicable to ‘shallow’ foundations in which the depth D , is not greater
than the breadth B. The foundation shape factor expression of sc given above for saturated
clays under undrained conditions, where  = 0, is generated using the Nc curves supplied by
Skempton (1951) [8]. If the soil is ‘weak’, or in other words is not fairly dense or stiff,
i.e. Dr < 0.35 , N60 < 8 , cu < 100 kPa , or vs < 200 m/sec, the reduced shear strength
parameters cr and r are used in Eq.1, instead of the laboratory determined c and , as
follows [13] :
cr = 0.67 c (2a)
tan r = 0.67 tan  (2b)
2
3. Sources of approximations in classical approach
The approximations involved in the derivation and use of the ultimate bearing capacity,
qf , given by Eq.1, may be summarized as follows:
a) The soil mass is assumed to be purely homogeneous and isotropic, while the soil in nature is
extremely heteregenous and tixotropic, further the classical theory is developed only for a
planar case, while all footings are 3- dimensional in real behaviour.
b) The first term of Eq.1 represents the shear strength, the second term is the contribution of
the surcharge pressure due to the depth of foundation, and the third term represents the
contribution of the self-weight. It is only an approximation to superimpose the contributions of
various load cases in an entirely nonlinear plastic stress-strain environment.
c) The contribution of self-weight can be determined only approximately, by numerical or

graphical means, for which no exact formulation is available.
d) The shear strength of soil within a depth D , from the surface is neglected.
e) Depending on the degree of, compressibility of the soil, there may be three types of failure
modes; (i) general shear, (ii) local shear, and (iii) punching shear, as shown in Figure 1.
The theoretical considerations behind Eq.1, correspond only to the general shear mode, which
is typical for soils of low compressibility, such as dense sands and stiff clays. In the local shear
failure, only a partial state of plastic equilibrium is developed with significant compression
under the footing. In the punching shear mode, however, direct planar shear failures occur
only along the vertical directions around the edges of the footing. Therefore, Eq.1 is no longer
applicable for soils of high compressibility, such as loose sand and soft clay, which may
undergo, either (ii) the local shear or (iii) the punching shear failures. Consequently, the
results of Eq.1 will only be approximate for such soils. In reality, the excessive settlement and
not the shear failure is normally the limiting criterion in high compressibility soils.
f) The ultimate bearing capacity calculations are very sensitive to the values of shear strength
parameters c , and  , which are determined in the laboratory using ‘undisturbed’ soil samples,
which may not necessarily represent the true conditions prevailing at the site. Unrealistically,
high bearing capacity is calculated especially, if the shear strength parameter,  , is
inappropriately determined to be on the high side in the laboratory. All soil parameters
including the real values of internal angle of friction, water content, void ratio, confining
pressure, presence of boulders or cavities, etc are not necessarily the same in the soil
samples.
g) Customarily, after a due geotechnical survey, a single value of allowable bearing capacity qa ,
is assigned in practice, to a particular construction site. However, minor variations in sizes,
shapes and depths of different foundations at a particular site are overlooked, and the same
qa value is used in foundation design, through- out the construction site.
h) A factor of safety of 3 is used normally, in order to obtain the allowable bearing capacity, qa ,
which contains a significant amount of reserve strength in it, accounting for all the
inaccuracies and approximations cited herein. This significantly large factor of safety
represents the degree of uncertainties and our ‘ignorance’ in determining the real soil
conditions.
i) Last, but not the least, although some quantitative guidance is available as contained in
Section 2, there is quite a bit of intuition in determining whether the soil is on the ‘strong’ or the
‘weak’ side, for the purpose of using reduced (two thirds) shear strength parameters, in
accordance with Eq 2.
3
4. Practical recommendations
Based on the practical experiences of the writers, the ranges of allowable bearing
capacities for different categories of cohesive and granular soils are summarized in Table 1.
For comparisons as well as for quick reference purposes, the values of SPT counts N60 , shear
strength parameters cu , and  , relative density Dr , and also the shear wave velocity vs , for
each soil category are also given in Table 1. The ranges of allowable bearing pressures qa , are
tested to be in conformity with the empirical recommendations of the UBC-97 (1997) [16],
the Turkish Earthquake Code TEC-1998 [15], and the BS 8004 (1986) [1].
5. Use of shear wave velocity

a ) For control of settlements
Based on numerous case studies, as discussed in the subsequent Sections, the
allowable bearing capacity, qa , under a shallow foundation in units of kPa, may be obtained
from the following empirical expressions:
qa = 0.024  vs (3a)
-4
qa = 2.4 ( 10 )  vs (3b)
where,  = unit weight (kN/m3),  = mass density (kg/m3), and vs = shear wave velocity
(m/sec). Since, a proper foundation design must satisfy not only an assured degree of safety
against possible shear failures of the supporting soil, but also the settlements, and in particular
the differential settlements, should not exceed the tolerable limits as given by Skempton et al.
(1956) [10] . Hence, the coefficient of the empirical formula in Eq. 3 is so selected to be on
the low side, that no settlement problem will necessarily be encountered in relatively soft soil
conditions. This point has been rigorously tested and verified for all soft ‘weak’ soil
conditions existing in the case histories given Table 2.
Although, the empirical expressions of Eq. 3, are proposed by the writers, on the basis
of extensive geotechnical and geophysical soil investigations at 14 different sites, they should
be used with caution. For relatively important buildings, and especially until a stage when the
validity of these simple empirical expressions are amply tested and calibrated over a sufficient
period of time, the allowable bearing pressure should be determined also by means of
conventional methods using Terzaghi’s soil parameters.
The proposed empirical expressions are for estimating the allowable bearing pressure
only. The settlement calculations however, should be conducted, especially for soft soil
conditions and for important structures, using either the elastic theory [10] , or the Skempton-
Bjerrum method [9] . Because, settlements sometime may be the dominating factor.
b ) For setting an upper ceiling for q

a
In order to set a practical upper ceiling for the allowable bearing capacity, qa ,
especially for the rocky formations the empirical expression given in Eq. 3, is adjusted to
yield gradually reduced values through a factor sv , for shear wave velocities greater than 500
m/sec, as follows:
4
qa = 0.024  vs sv ≥ 30.6  (4)
-6
sv = 1 – 3 x 10 ( vs- 500 ) 1.6 (5)
The variation of allowable bearing capacity qa , with shear wave velocity vs , is

illustrated in Figure 2, where the reduction factor sv , sets an asymptotic upper limit of
qa = 30.6  for shear wave velocities vs ≥ 2 000 m/sec.
c ) For calculating unit weights

There is a direct relationship between the average unit weight  , and the P-wave
velocity of a soil layer. Based on extensive case histories of laboratory testing, a convenient
empirical relationship in this regard, is proposed by the writers as follows:
p = o + 0.002 vp (6)
where, p = the unit weight in kN/m3 based on P-wave velocity, vp = P-wave velocity in m/sec,
and o = the reference unit weight values given as follows:
 = 16 for loose sandy, silty and clayey soils

o
 = 17 for dense sand and gravel

o
 = 18 for mudstone, limestone, claystone, conglomerate, etc.

o
 = 20 for sandstone, tuff, graywacke, schist, etc.

o
As seen in Figure 3, the unit weights calculated by the empirical expression given in
Eq.6, are in excellent agreement with those determined in the laboratory. In the absence of
any bore hole sampling and laboratory testing of soil samples, the above empirical expression
provides a reliable first approximation for the unit weights of various soils, once the insitu
measured P-wave velocities are available. In fact, the speedy evaluation of unit weights, prior
to any soil sampling, enables the practicing engineer to calculate the allowable bearing
capacity qa , readily from Eq. 3.
6. Case histories
a ) Field investigations
In order to establish a sound and reliable relationship between the allowable bearing
capacity qa , and the shear wave velocity vs , a series of case histories have been studied as
summarized in Table 2. For each case, in-depth geotechnical and geophysical site
investigations have been conducted and a comprehensive set of insitu and laboratory tested
soil parameters have been determined. Most of the basic soil parameters, for each typical soil
layer, are shown in Figures 4 through Figure 6. If however, for any particular soil parameter
in any typical soil layer, multiple values were available, from various bore hole and seismic
survey measurements, only the average of these multiple values have been indicated.
5
b ) Allowable bearing capacities by the classical theory

The first column in these Figures contain the insitu measured SPT data, N30, the
laboratory tested values of cu = undrained shear strength (kPa) , ’ = effective internal angle
of friction, n = unit weight (kN/m3), and also the qf = ultimate bearing capacities (kPa), and
qa = allowable bearing capacities (kPa) calculated using the classical approach of Eq. 1. If, a
particular soil layer is considered to be ‘weak’ in accordance with Terzaghi’s (1967) [13]
recommendations, two thirds of shear strength parameters have been utilized in the bearing
pressure capacity calculations, as given in Eq. 2.
c ) Allowable bearing capacity by vs
The second column contains, the insitu measured vs and vp- velocities (m/sec),
 = Poisson ratio, p = unit weights (kN/m3) determined on the basis of P-wave velocities
given in Eq. 6, qa = allowable bearing capacities (kPa) based on shear wave velocities, in
accordance with Eq. 3. In all case histories, the shear wave velocity, vs , and the P-wave
velocity, vp , have been measured insitu by means of seismic refraction method, using low
level explosives. The propagating waves have been recorded by means of a 12-channel Smart
Seis Geometrics instrument, which is capable of producing very high resolution of
signal/noise ratio, due to its instant analogue and/or digital signal analyses and automatic
filtering process.
In practice, the geophysical explorations are not daily business in foundation

engineering, therefore, there is a necessity for experienced technical staff for such a purpose.
The shear wave velocities may be measured, through impact energy methods, during the bore
hole drilling, or using the cross-hole technique [11] , [14].
Realizing that, the bearing capacity is correlated with large strains at failure, while the
shear wave velocity is associated with ‘zero strain’ levels, the proposed empirical expressions
are adjusted effectively in order to accommodate the differences in strain levels.
For each case history, the allowable bearing capacities obtained by the classical theory
have been compared in Figure 7, with those determined by Eq. 3, using the shear wave
velocities. It is seen that there is a very good agreement between these two different sets of
values. The allowable bearing capacities qa , based on the shear wave velocities are more
uniform in distribution, exhibiting no erratic variation and further, they provide an inherent
factor of safety against shear failure and intolerable settlements. The empirical allowable
bearing pressure expression given in Eq. 3, ensures for all foreseeable soft soil conditions,
including those of the case studies that, the maximum allowable settlement is not exceeded.
7. Conclusions
a) The determination of adequately safe allowable bearing capacity of a soil layer under a
shallow foundation is a problem of vital importance in geotechnical engineering. The classical
approach is not only costly and time consuming due to extensive insitu and laboratory testing
required, but also involves significant approximations and intuitive judgements. Despite the
‘exact’ nature of the classical theory, a huge factor safety, on the order of 300 percent, is
recommended in order to account for the unexpected inaccuracies and our ‘ignorance’ of the
real soil conditions.
6
b) The proposed empirical shear wave velocity approach however, is surprisingly cost effective,
and time saving. The insitu measured shear wave velocity, vs, as an indispensable single field
index, is capable of representing the real soil conditions at the site, including the true
influence of a family of soil parameters like water content, confining pressure, relative
density, void ratio, nonuniformity, discontinuity, nonhomogeneity, shear and compressive
strength, etc. The complications and misrepresentations associated with soil sampling, sample
disturbance, accurate simulations in the laboratory testing, etc. are all avoided. Shear wave
velocity measurement at a site however, calls for additional cost and expert geophysical
personnel.
c) The depth, width and length of a foundation plays a significant role especially in granular
soils, in the derivation of mathematical formulation when following the classical approach. In
cohesive soils, the geometry of foundation does not play a significant role anyhow.
Nevertheless in classical theory, the soil is idealized into an isotropic, homogeneous and
uniform elasto-plastic planar geometrical medium. In the shear wave velocity approach
however, there is absolutely no need to consider the foundation size and depth, even in
granular soils, since the influence of all these parameters are inherently incorporated in the
insitu measured vs – values. The classical approach is further handicapped by the layered
conditions. In shear wave velocity approach however, the bearing capacity of a single layer,
immediately under the foundation, is directly determined, as a one step operation.
d) The empirical formulations proposed for calculating both the allowable bearing capacity qa ,
and the unit weight , are proven to be safe and reliable as verified consistently by 14 different
laboratory tested case histories. The validity and reliability of the proposed scheme will be
better established however, as the proposed empirical method is constantly calibrated by
conventional method at more and more sites.
8. Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance and cooperation extended by Mr.
Tufan Durgunoglu, and Mr. Abdullah Calisir of the Geotechnics Co., Istanbul, who conducted
the geotechnical and geophysical soil investigations of all the case studies discussed herein.
Sincere thanks are also due to Professor Osman Uyanik, of Suleyman Demirel University,
Isparta, for his invaluable criticisms and corrections of the manuscript.
9. References
[1]. British Standard 8004 (1986). Code of Practice for Foundations, British Standards
Institution, London.
[2]. DeBeer, E.E. (1970). “Experimental determination of the shape factors and the
bearing capacity factors of sand”, Geotechnique, Vol. 20, pp. 387-411.
[3]. Hansen, J.B. (1968). “A revised extended formula for bearing capacity”, Danish
Geotechnical Institute Bulletin, No. 28.
[4]. Meyerhof, G.G. (1956). “ Penetration tests and bearing capacity of cohesionless
soils”, Proceedings ASCE, Vol. 82, No. SM1, Paper 866, pp. 1-19.
7
[5]. Prandtl, L. (1921). “Über die Eindringungsfestigkeit (Härte) plastischer Baustoffe und
die Festigkeit von Schneiden” (On the penetrating strengths (hardness) of plastic
construction materials and the strength of cutting edges), Zeit. Angew. Math. Mech.,
1, No.1, pp.15-20.
[6]. Reissner, H. (1924). “Zum Erddruckproblem” (Concerning the earth-pressure
problem), Proc. 1st Int. Congress of Applied Mechanics, Delft, pp. 295-311.
[7]. Sieffert, J.G., and Ch. Bay-Gress (2000). “Comparison of the European bearing
capacity calculation methods for shallow foundations”, Geotechnical Engineering,
Institution of Civil Engineers, Vol. 143, pp. 65-74.
[8]. Skempton, A. W. (1951). “The bearing capacity of clays’’ , Proceedings, Building

Research Congress, 1, 180-9.
[9]. Skempton, A. W. and Bjerrum, L. (1957). “A contribution to the settlement analysis of

foundation on clay”, Geotechnique, Vol. 7, pp. 168-178.
[10]. Skempton, A. W. and MacDonald, D. H. (1956). Allowable settlement of buildings,

Proceedings ICE, 5, Part 3, pp. 727-68.
[11]. Stokoe, K. H., and Woods, R. D. (1972). “Insitu Shear Wave Velocity by Cross-Hole
Method”, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Divison, ASCE, Vol. 98, No.
SM5, pp. 443-460.
[12]. Terzaghi, K. (1925). “Structure and volume of voids of soils”, Pages 10, 11, 12, and
part of 13 of Erdbaumechanik auf Bodenphysikalisher Grundlage, translated by A.
Casagrande in From theory to practice in soil mechanics, New York, John Wiley and
Sons, 1960, pp. 146-148.
[13]. Terzaghi, K., and Peck, R. B. (1967). “Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice”, 2nd
edn, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
[14]. Tezcan, S. S., Erden, S. M., and Durgunoğlu, H. T. (1975). “Insitu Measurement of
Shear Wave Velocity at Boğaziçi University Campus”, Proceedings of International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 2, April 1975, pp.
157-164, Istanbul Technical University, Ayazağa, Istanbul, Turkey.
[15]. Turkish Earthquake Code (TEC), (1998). < www. koeri.boun.edu.tr >.
[16]. Uniform Building Code (UBC), (1997). International Conference of Building

Officials, 5360 Workman Mill Road Whittier, California, USA.
8
Figure 1. – Failure mechanisms under a strip footing
9
SS
Figure 2. – Allowable bearing capacity of soils based on vs
10
Figure 3. – Unit weights based on vp - velocities
11
Figure 4.- Allowable bearing capacities for case histories No.1 through No.4
(Units are; g = kN/m3, c = kN/m2, qa = kN/m2, vs , vp = m/sec)
12
Figure 5.- Allowable bearing capacities for case histories No.5, 6, 7, and 9
13
Figure 6.- Allowable bearing capacities for case histories No.10 through No.14
14
Figure 7. – Comparisons of allowable bearing capacities

(Numerals beside the data points are the case study numbers)
15
Table 1.- Recommended ranges of allowable bearing capacities (kPa)
16
No
Table 2.- Locations and the scope of investigations for each case study
Number Footing Allowable

of Depth Number bearing
No Building Identity bore holes and Of capacity, qa
average depth D surveys in kPa
Number m m a b (c) (d)
1 Atatürk Primary School Building 2 15.30 4.00 2 2 281 287

Babaeski, Kırklareli , Western Turkey
2 Residential Apartments
4 9.50 2.50 3 3 110 147
Yeşilçay Cooperative, Çay, Afyon
3 Zeki Örnek, Housing complex,
2 20.00 3.00 1 3 150 203
Göktürk Village, Eyüp, Istanbul
4 Oztas Apartments, Florya
2 20.00 3.00 1 3 146 164
Şenlik, Bakırkoy, Istanbul
5 Oil tankı(†) , Haramidere, Istanbul 3 8.00 2.50 3 3 165 113
6 Oil tanks, Samsun, Black Sea 6 25.00 2.50 3 2 215 224
7 Oil tanks, Mudanya, Bursa 4 20.7 2.50 3 3 100 133
8 Oil tanks, Çubuklu, Istanbul 3 12.00 1.00 3 4 115 100
9 Oil tanks, Iskenderun 5 5.50 1.50 3 3 520 374
10 Oil tanks, Mersin 8 26.10 2.50 3 3 187 218
11 Oil tanks, Derince , Kocaeli 7 21.00 1.50 3 3 110 86
12 Oil tanks, Derince, Kocaeli 7 21.00 7.00 3 3 222 205
13 Oil tanks, Aliağa, Izmir 6 19.20 2.50 3 4 231 234
14 Suleyman Demirel University,
2 12.00 4.00 2 2 120 124
Isparta, Southern Turkey
(a) seismic refraction surveys, (b) geophysical soil layers,

(c) the classical Terzaghi approach (Eq. 1), (d) the shear wave velocity approach (Eq. 3).
(†)
Oil tanks belong to the Turkish Petroleum Office Co., Ankara, Turkey
17

Bearing Capacity Shear Wave

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bearing Capacity Shear Wave

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Allowable Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations Semih S.

Tezcan, Ali Keceli, and Zuhal Ozdemir

ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY

Firstly, the historical background is presented for the determination of ultimate

Secondly, based on a variety of case histories of site investigations, including

s = 1 - 0.2 (B / L) ………………………. (B / L = footing width to length ratio)

It is customary to take B / L = 0 for a strip footing, and B / L = 1 for a square footing.

3. Sources of approximations in classical approach

c) The contribution of self-weight can be determined only approximately, by numerical or

5. Use of shear wave velocity

b ) For setting an upper ceiling for q

qa = 0.024  vs sv ≥ 30.6  (4)

The variation of allowable bearing capacity qa , with shear wave velocity vs , is

c ) For calculating unit weights

 = 16 for loose sandy, silty and clayey soils

 = 17 for dense sand and gravel

 = 18 for mudstone, limestone, claystone, conglomerate, etc.

 = 20 for sandstone, tuff, graywacke, schist, etc.

b ) Allowable bearing capacities by the classical theory

c ) Allowable bearing capacity by vs

In practice, the geophysical explorations are not daily business in foundation

[8]. Skempton, A. W. (1951). “The bearing capacity of clays’’ , Proceedings, Building

[9]. Skempton, A. W. and Bjerrum, L. (1957). “A contribution to the settlement analysis of

[10]. Skempton, A. W. and MacDonald, D. H. (1956). Allowable settlement of buildings,

[16]. Uniform Building Code (UBC), (1997). International Conference of Building

Figure 1. – Failure mechanisms under a strip footing

Figure 2. – Allowable bearing capacity of soils based on vs

Figure 3. – Unit weights based on vp - velocities

Figure 7. – Comparisons of allowable bearing capacities

Table 1.- Recommended ranges of allowable bearing capacities (kPa)

Number Footing Allowable

Number m m a b (c) (d)

1 Atatürk Primary School Building 2 15.30 4.00 2 2 281 287

(a) seismic refraction surveys, (b) geophysical soil layers,

You might also like