Shallow Foundations

Shallow Foundations
Bearing Capacity
The problems of soil mechanics can
be divided into two principal groups -
stability problems and elasticity
problems
- Karl Terzaghi, 1943
Karl Terzaghi (1883-1963)
Father of modern soil mechanics
Born in Prague, Czechoslovakia
Wrote Erdbaumechanick in 1925
Taught at MIT (1925-1929)
Taught at Harvard (1938 and after)
Karl Terzaghi at Harvard, 1940
Foundation: The lowest part of a structure is generally referred to as
foundation. Its function is to transfer load of the superstructure to the soil
on which it is resting.
Foundation Soil or Bed: The soil or bed to which loads are transmitted
from the base of the structure.
Footing: The portion of the foundation of the structure, which transmits
loads directly to the foundation soil.
Bearing Capacity: The load carrying capacity of foundation soil or rock
which enables it to bear and transmit loads from a structure.
Definitions
Ultimate Bearing Capacity : Maximum pressure which a foundation can
withstand without the occurrence of shear failure of the foundation.
Gross Bearing Capacity: The bearing capacity inclusive of the pressure
exerted by the weight of the soil standing on the foundation, or the
surcharge pressure as it is sometimes called.
Net Bearing Capacity: Gross bearing capacity minus the original
overburden pressure or surcharge pressure at the foundation level.
Safe Bearing Capacity: Ultimate bearing capacity divided by the factor of
safety which may range from 2 to 5 depending upon the importance of
the structure and soil profile at the site.
Allowable Bearing Pressure: The maximum allowable net loading
intensity on the soil at which the soil neither fails in shear nor undergoes
excessive settlement detrimental to the structure.
Factors Affecting Bearing Capacity
1. Nature of soil and its physical and engineering
properties.
2. Nature of the foundation and other details such as
the size, shape, depth below the ground surface
and rigidity of the structure.
3. Total and differential settlements that the
structure can withstand without functional failure.
4. Location of the ground water table relative to the
level of the foundation
5. Initial stresses if any
Bearing Capacity Failure
Transcosna Grain Elevator
Canada (Oct. 18, 1913)
West side of foundation sank 24-ft
Stability Problem
Bearing Capacity Failure
Bearing Capacity Analysis
How do we estimate the maximum
bearing pressure that the soil can
withstand before failure occurs?
Bearing Capacity Failures
Types/Modes of Failure
general shear failure
local shear failure
punching shear failure
General Shear Failure
1. Sudden or catastrophic failure
2. Well defined failure surface
3. Bulging on the ground surface
adjacent to foundation
4. Common failure mode in dense
sand
Local Shear Failure
1. Common in sand or clay with medium compaction
2. Significant settlement upon loading
3. Failure surface first develops right below the
foundation and then slowly extends outwards with
load increments
4. Foundation movement shows sudden jerks first (at
qu1) and then after a considerable amount of
movement the slip surface may reach the ground.
5. A small amount of bulging may occur next to the
foundation.
Punching Shear Failure
1. Common in fairly loose sand or soft clay
2. Failure surface does not extends beyond the zone
right beneath the foundation
3. Extensive settlement with a wedge shaped soil
zone in elastic equilibrium beneath the
foundation. Vertical shear occurs around the
edges of foundation.
4. After reaching failure load-settlement curve
continues at some slope and mostly linearly.
Model Tests by Vesic (1973)
General Guidelines
Footings in clays - general shear
Footings in Dense sands ( > 67%)
-general shear
Footings in Loose to Medium dense
sands (30%< < 67%) - Local Shear
Footings in Very Loose Sand ( < 30%)-
punching shear
r
D
r
D
r
D
Methods of Determining Bearing Capacity
1. Bearing capacity tables in various building
codes.
2. Analytical methods
3. Model tests
4. Plate bearing tests
5. Penetration tests
6. Laboratory tests
Bearing Capacity from Building Codes
Analytical Methods
1. Theory of Elasticity (Schleichers method)
2. Classical earth pressure thery Rankines
method, Paukers method and Bells
method.
3. Theory of Plasticity- Fellenius method,
Prandtls method, Terzaghis method,
Meyerhofs method, Skemptons method,
Hasens method and Ballas method.
Terzaghi Bearing Capacity
Formulas
Assumptions in Terzaghi Bearing
Capacity Formulas
L/B ratio is large --------> plain strain problem
D B
Shear resistance of soil for D dpeth is neglected
No sliding between footing and soil
soil: a homogeneous semi-infinite mass
footing is very rigid compared to soil
General shear failure
Shear strength is governed by Mohr-Coulomb Criterion
Terzaghi Bearing Capacity Formulas

BN N q cN q
q c u
' 5 . 0 . + + =
For Square foundations:
For Continuous foundations:

BN N q cN q
q c u
' 4 . 0 . 3 . 1 + + =
For Circular foundations:

BN N q cN q
q c u
' 3 . 0 . 3 . 1 + + =
Bearing Capacity Factors
Angle of shearing
resistance (|)
(Deg.)
Terzaghis bearing capacity factors
N
c
N
q
N
0 5.7 1 0
5 7.3 1.6 1.5
10 9.6 2.7 1.2
15 12.9 4.4 2.5
20 17.7 7.4 5
25 25.1 12.7 9.7
30 37.2 22.5 19.7
35 57.8 41.4 42.4
40 95.7 81.3 100.4
45 172.3 173.3 297.5
50 347.5 415.1 1153
For local shear failure, Terzaghi suggests the
following values for c and |.
( ) c c
3
2
' =
( ) ) (
3
2
) ' ( | | Tan Tan =
The corresponding values of bearing capacity factors are N
c
, N
q
and N

which are less than the corresponding

values for general shear failure. Also c | must be used
wherever c and | occur in the computation for bearing
capacity.
Further Developments
Skempton (1951)
Meyerhof (1953)
Brinch Hanson (1961)
De Beer and Ladanyi (1961)
Meyerhof (1963)
Brinch Hanson (1970)
Vesic' (1973, 1975)
General Bearing Capacity Equation
(IS 6403-1981)

o i d s BN i d s N i d s cN q q
q q q zD
c
c c c ult
5 . 0 + + =
factors n inclinatio are i and i , i
factors depth are d and d , d
factors shape are s and s , s
factors capacity bearing are N and N , N
foundation below soil of t unit weigh effective
level foundation at pressure overburden effective
soil of cohesion undrained c
foundation of width B
q c
q c
q c
q c
zD
=
=
=
=
square) for 0.8 and circular for 0.6 to (Equal 4 . 0 1
square) or circular for 1.2 to (Equal 2 . 0 1
square) or circular for 1.3 to (Equal 2 . 0 1
|
.
|

\
|
=
|
.
|

\
|
+ =
|
.
|

\
|
+ =
L
B
s
L
B
s
L
B
s
q
c

0
0
10 for 1
10 for ) 2 / 45 tan( 1 . 0 1
) 2 / 45 tan( 2 . 0 1
< = =
> +
|
.
|

\
|
+ = =
+
|
.
|

\
|
+ =
|
| |
|

d d
B
D
d d
B
D
d
q
q
c
degrees in are anf where ) / 1 (
) 90 / 1 (
2
2
| o | o
o

=
= =
i
i i
q c
As Per IS 6403
| |
) ( tan ). 1 ( 2
) 2 / 45 ( tan ) tan( exp(
) ( ). 1 (
2
|
| | t
|

+ =
+ =
=
q
q
q c
N N
N
Cot N N
Groundwater Table Effect
Groundwater Table Effect;
Case I
1. Modify o
zD
2. Calculate as follows:
w b
= =
'
Groundwater Table Effect;
Case II
1. No change in o
zD
2. Calculate as follows:
|
|
.
|

\
|
|
.
|

\
|

=
'
B
D D
w
w
1
Groundwater Table Effect;
Case III
1. No change in o
zD
2. No change in
=
'
Allowable Bearing Capacity
F
q
q
ult
a
=
.. Allowable Bearing Capacity
F . Factor of safety
a
q
Factor of Safety
Depends on:
Type of soil
Level of Uncertainty in Soil Strength
Importance of structure and
consequences of failure
Likelihood of design load occurrence
Minimum Factor of Safety
Selection of Soil Strength
Parameters
Use Saturated Strength Parameters
Use Undrained Strength in clays (c
u
)
Use Drained Strength in sands,
Intermediate soils that where partially
drained conditions exist, engineers
have varying opinions; Undrained
Strength can be used but it will be
conservative!
|
' '
and c
Accuracy of Bearing Capacity Analysis
In Clays ..Within 10% of true value
(Bishop and Bjerrum, 1960)
Smaller footings in Sands. Bearing
capacity calculated were too conservative
but conservatism did not affect construction
cost much
Large footings in Sands Bearing capacity
estimates were reasonable but design was
controlled by settlement
Accuracy; Bearing Capacity Analysis
Bearing Capacity from Model Tests
Housels Approach
Housel(1929) based on experimental investigation
gave a practical method of determining bearing
capacity of a foundation. He made one
assumption that the bearing capacity of a
foundation consists of two components.
1. One which is carried by the soil column directly
beneath the foundation
2. The second part which is carried by the soil
around the perimeter of the foundation.
The concept is expressed by the formula given
below.
q
s
.A = o.A+m.P ..(1)
Where
q
s
= bearing capacity of the foundation in kPa
o = contact pressure developed under the
bearing area of the foundation (an experimental
constant)
m = perimeter shear (an experimental
constant)
A = bearing area of foundation
P = perimeter of the foundation
A
P
m qs . + =o
x m qs . + =o
Where x represents perimeter-area ratio. Housel assumes that o
and m are constant for different loading tests on the same soil
for a specific settlement which would be tolerated by the
foundation. Hence he suggested that o and m be determined by
conducting small-scale model tests by loading two or more tests
plates or model footings which have different areas and different
perimeters and measuring the total load required to produce the
specified allowable settlement in each case at the proposed level
of the foundation. This gives two or more simultaneous
equations from which o and m may be determined. Then the
bearing capacity of the proposed foundation may be computed
by substituting for x of the proposed foundation in the above
equation (3).
(2)
(3)
Bearing Capacity from Plate Load Tests
1. Test Plates size 300 to 750
mm.
2. Test pit should be atleast
five times as wide as the
test plate and the bottom of
the test plate should
correspond to the proposed
foundation level.
3. Bigger size plates are
preferred in cohesive soils.
4. If ground water is
encountered, it should be
removed by pumping.
5. A seating load of 7 kN.m2 is
applied and released before
actual loading is
commenced.
6. The load is applied in
increments and the
settlements are recorded for
1, 4, 10, 20 60min and for
24 hours. Once settlement
ceases then next load
increment is applied and
again the above procedure is
repeated.
7. Finally a load settlement
curve is plotted.
Dense sand, gravel and stiff
clay
Loose sand or soft clay
Many c-| soils
For cohesionless soils
For cohesive soils
2
3 . 0
3 . 0
(

+
+
=
b
b
b
b
S
S p
p p
p p b
b
S
S
=
Limitation of PLT
1. Since the size of the plate and size of the foundation
are different, the results of a plate load tests do not
reflect the bearing capacity of the foundation.
2. Consolidation settlements in clays which may take
years cannot be predicted.
3. Results can not be used for strip footing as tests are
conducted using square or circular plate.
4. The load test results reflect the characteristics of the
soil located only within a depth of about twice the
width of the plate.
Bearing Capacity from Penetration Tests
The standard penetration test results are in the form
of Penetration Number, N which indicates the
number of blows required to cause 300 mm
penetration of a split spoon sampler into the soil
under test by means of a 65 kg hammer falling
through 750 mm. This value has been correlated
to Terzaghis bearing capacity factors, density
index and angle of shearing resistance (|).
Terzaghi and Peck have also prepared charts for
allowable bearing pressure, based on a standard
allowable settlement for footings of known widths
on sand whose N values are known.
Bearing Capacity from Laboratory
Tests
The bearing capacity of a cohesive soil can be
evaluated from the unconfined compression
strength (q
u
).
) 2 / 45 tan( 2
0
1 | o + = = c qu
When | = 0
0
, for a purely cohesive soil
u u c q 2 =
This is applicable when D = 0. The ultimate bearing
capacity may be divided by a suitable factor of safety
(say 3) to get safe bearing capacity.
Bearing Capacity for Sands
) 1 .( . . . . + = Nq D N b q ult net o
Where a
0.5 for continuous footing
0.4 for square footing
0.3 for circular footing
Thus the net ultimate bearing capacity depends upon
1. The unit weight of soil
2. Angle of shearing resistance besides the size and depth of the
footing
Peck, Hanson and Thornburn (1953) have developed charts for
evaluating f and Terzaghis bearing capacity factors from the
SPT value N.
Bearing Capacity for Pure Clays (| = 0
0
)
zD u ult
c q o + = 7 . 5
zD u ult
c x q o + = 7 . 5 3 . 1
For continuous footing
For square/circular footing
Shallow Foundations - Settlement
Sources of Settlement
Design Requirements
Induced Stresses Beneath Shallow Foundations
Settlement Analysis Based on Laboratory Tests
Settlement in Stratified Soils
Differential Settlement
Rate of Settlement
Accuracy of Settlement Predictions
Sources of Settlement
1. Elastic compression of the foundation and the underlying soil
giving rise to what is known as immediate settlement.
2. Plastic compression of the underlying soil giving rise to
consolidation settlement of fine grained soils.
3. Ground water lowering
4. Vibration due to pile driving
5. Seasonal swelling and shrinkage of expansive soils
6. Surface erosion, creep
7. Miscellaneous sources such as adjacent excavation, mining
subsidence and under ground erosion.
The settlement from the first two sources can be predicted with
fair degree of confidence.
Design Requirements
Total Settlement (o)
Differential Settlement(o
D
)
a
o o s
Da D
o o s
Total vs. Differential Settlement