Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PART 2
Foundation Analysis
11/09/14 5:40 PM
2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. This content is not yet final and Cengage Learning
does not guarantee this page will contain current material or match the published product.
81550_ch04_ptg01.indd 154
11/09/14 5:40 PM
2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. This content is not yet final and Cengage Learning
does not guarantee this page will contain current material or match the published product.
4.1 Introduction
1. They have to be safe against overall shear failure in the soil that supports them.
2. They cannot undergo excessive displacement, or settlement. (The term excessive is
relative, because the degree of settlement allowed for a structure depends on several
considerations.)
The load per unit area of the foundation at which shear failure in soil occurs is called the
ultimate bearing capacity, which is the subject of this chapter. In this chapter, we will
discuss the following:
155
11/09/14 5:40 PM
Load/unit area, q
qu
Failure
surface
in soil
(a)
Settlement
qu(1)
qu
Failure
surface
(b)
Settlement
Load/unit area, q
B
qu(1)
Failure
surface
(c)
qu
qu
Surface
footing
Settlement
Figure 4.1 Nature of bearing capacity failure in soil: (a) general shear failure: (b) local shear failure; (c) punching shear failure (Redrawn after Vesic, 1973) (Based on Vesic, A. S. (1973). Analysis
of Ultimate Loads of Shallow Foundations, Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division,
American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 99, No. SM1, pp. 4573.)
81550_ch04_ptg01.indd 156
2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. This content is not yet final and Cengage Learning
does not guarantee this page will contain current material or match the published product.
Load/unit area, q
11/09/14 5:40 PM
0.2
0.3
0.4
Punching
shear
700
600
500
Relative density, Dr
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
General
shear
Local shear
400
300
1 B
2
100
90
80
70
60
50
qu
1 B
2
and
qu
200
qu(1)
2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. This content is not yet final and Cengage Learning
does not guarantee this page will contain current material or match the published product.
will be steep and practically linear. This type of failure in soil is called the punching
shear failure.
Vesic (1963) conducted several laboratory load-bearing tests on circular and rectangular plates supported by a sand at various relative densities of compaction, Dr. The
variations of qus1dy12gB and quy12gB obtained from those tests, where B is the diameter of a
circular plate or width of a rectangular plate and g is a dry unit weight of sand, are shown
in Figure 4.2. It is important to note from this figure that, for Dr about 70%, the general
shear type of failure in soil occurs.
1 B
2
40
Legend
30
qu(1)
1 B
2
20
10
1.32
1.35
1.40
1.45
1.50
Dry unit weight, d
Unit weight of water, w
1.55
1.60
Figure 4.2 Variation of qus1dy0.5gB and quy0.5gB for circular and rectangular plates on the
surface of a sand (Adapted from Vesic, 1963) (Based on Vesic, A. B. Bearing Capacity of Deep
Foundations in Sand. In Highway Research Record 39, Highway Research Board, National
Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1963, Figure 28, p. 137.)
11/09/14 5:40 PM
0.2
Relative density, Dr
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Punching shear
failure
General
shear
failure
Df /B*
Local shear
failure
Df
B
5
Figure 4.3 Modes of foundation failure in sand (After Vesic, 1973) (Based on Vesic, A. S.
(1973). Analysis of Ultimate Loads of Shallow Foundations, Journal of Soil Mechanics
and Foundations Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 99, No. SM1,
pp. 4573.)
On the basis of experimental results, Vesic (1973) proposed a relationship for the
mode of bearing capacity failure of foundations resting on sands. Figure 4.3 shows this
relationship, which involves the notation
(4.1)
where
B 5 width of foundation
L 5 length of foundation
2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. This content is not yet final and Cengage Learning
does not guarantee this page will contain current material or match the published product.
B* 5 B
(4.2)
Figure 4.4 shows the settlement Su of the circular and rectangular plates on the surface of
a sand at ultimate load, as described in Figure 4.2. The figure indicates a general range of
SuyB with the relative density of compaction of sand. So, in general, we can say that, for
foundations at a shallow depth (i.e., small Df yB*), the ultimate load may occur at a foundation settlement of 4 to 10% of B. This condition arises together with general shear failure
81550_ch04_ptg01.indd 158
11/09/14 5:40 PM
0.2
0.3
0.4
Relative density, Dr
0.5
0.6
Punching
shear
25%
0.7
0.8
General
shear
Local shear
Su
B
2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. This content is not yet final and Cengage Learning
does not guarantee this page will contain current material or match the published product.
20%
Rectangular
plates
Circular plates
15%
10%
Circular plate diameter
203 mm (8 in.)
152 mm (6 in.)
102 mm (4 in.)
51 mm (2 in.)
51 3 305 mm (2 3 12 in.)
5%
0%
1.35
1.40
1.45
1.50
Dry unit weight, d
Unit weight of water, w
1.55
Figure 4.4 Range of settlement of circular and rectangular plates at ultimate load sDfyB 5 0d in
sand (Modified from Vesic, 1963) (Based on Vesic, A. B. Bearing Capacity of Deep Foundations
in Sand. In Highway Research Record 39, Highway Research Board, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C., 1963, Figure 29, p. 138.)
in soil; however, in the case of local or punching shear failure, the ultimate load may occur
at settlements of 15 to 25% of the width of the foundation (B).
DeBeer (1967) provided laboratory experimental results of SuyB (B 5 diameter of
circular plate) for DfyB 5 0 as a function of gB and relative density Dr. These results,
expressed in a nondimensional form as plots of SuyB versus gBypa (pa 5 atmospheric
pressure 100 kN/m2), are shown in Figure 4.5. Patra, Behera, Sivakugan, and Das (2013)
approximated the plots as
1B2
Su
sDfyB50d
1 p 2 2 1 1for p
gB
gB
# 0.025 (4.3a)
and
1 2
Su
B
sDfyB50d
1for p
gB
a
. 0.025 (4.3b)
where Dr is expressed as a fraction. For comparison purposes, Eq. (4.3a) is also plotted in
Figure 4.5. For DfyB . 0, the magnitude of SuyB in sand will be somewhat higher.
81550_ch04_ptg01.indd 159
11/09/14 5:40 PM
B/pa
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
De Beer (1967)
Eq. (4.3a)
2
4
Dr = 90%
80%
70%
Su
(%)
B
0.03
10
60%
12
50%
14
40%
16
30%
18
20%
20
Figure 4.5 Variation of SuyB with gBypa and Dr for circular plates in sand (Note: DfyB 5 0)
B
J
I
qu
Df
H
45 2 9/2
A
45 2 9/2
F
C
D
2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. This content is not yet final and Cengage Learning
does not guarantee this page will contain current material or match the published product.
q 5 Df
G
45 2 9/2 45 2 9/2
E Soil
Unit weight 5
Cohesion
5 c9
Friction angle 5 9
81550_ch04_ptg01.indd 160
11/09/14 5:40 PM
the unit weight of soil). The failure zone under the foundation can be separated into three
parts (see Figure 4.6):
2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. This content is not yet final and Cengage Learning
does not guarantee this page will contain current material or match the published product.
where
b 5 By2
B 5 2b
qu
A
C
9
C 5 c9(AD) 5
9
W
c9b
cos 9
9
D
PP
C 5 c9(CD) 5
c9b
cos 9
9
PP
81550_ch04_ptg01.indd 161
11/09/14 5:40 PM
qu 5
Pp
b
1 c9 tan f9 2
gb
tan f9 (4.6)
2
The passive pressure in Eq. (4.6) is the sum of the contribution of the weight
of soil g, cohesion c9, and surcharge q. Figure 4.8 shows the distribution of passive
pressure from each of these components on the wedge face CD. Thus, we can write
Pp 5
1
g sb tan f9d2 Kg 1 c9sb tan f9dKc 1 qsb tan f9dKq (4.7)
2
2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. This content is not yet final and Cengage Learning
does not guarantee this page will contain current material or match the published product.
b
9
H 5 b tan 9
H
3
D
9 5 9
1 H2K
2
(a)
9
H
H
2
9 5 9
c9HKc
(b)
9
H
H
2
9 5 9
D
qHKq
(c)
Note: H 5 b tan 9
1
2
PP 5 H K 1 c9HKc 1 qHKq
2
81550_ch04_ptg01.indd 162
11/09/14 5:40 PM
where Kg, Kc, and Kq are earth pressure coefficients that are functions of the soil friction angle, f9.
Combining Eqs. (4.6) and (4.7), we obtain
1
qu 5 c9Nc 1 qNq 1 gBNg
2
2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. This content is not yet final and Cengage Learning
does not guarantee this page will contain current material or match the published product.
(4.8)
where
Nq 5 Kq tan f9 (4.10)
and
Ng 5
1
tan f9sKg tan f9 2 1d (4.11)
2
qu 5 qq 5 qNq (4.12)
where
Nq 5
e2s3py42f9y2d tan f9
(4.13)
f9
2
2 cos 45 1
2
qu 5 qc 5 c9Nc (4.14)
Nc 5 cot f9
e2s3p/42f9/2dtan f9
21
f9
2 p
2 cos
1
4
2
qu 5 qg 5
1
gBNg (4.16)
2
11/09/14 5:40 PM
f9
Nc
Nq
Nga
f9
Nc
Nq
Nga
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
5.70
6.00
6.30
6.62
6.97
7.34
7.73
8.15
8.60
9.09
9.61
10.16
10.76
11.41
12.11
12.86
13.68
14.60
15.12
16.56
17.69
18.92
20.27
21.75
23.36
25.13
1.00
1.10
1.22
1.35
1.49
1.64
1.81
2.00
2.21
2.44
2.69
2.98
3.29
3.63
4.02
4.45
4.92
5.45
6.04
6.70
7.44
8.26
9.19
10.23
11.40
12.72
0.00
0.01
0.04
0.06
0.10
0.14
0.20
0.27
0.35
0.44
0.56
0.69
0.85
1.04
1.26
1.52
1.82
2.18
2.59
3.07
3.64
4.31
5.09
6.00
7.08
8.34
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
27.09
29.24
31.61
34.24
37.16
40.41
44.04
48.09
52.64
57.75
63.53
70.01
77.50
85.97
95.66
106.81
119.67
134.58
151.95
172.28
196.22
224.55
258.28
298.71
347.50
14.21
15.90
17.81
19.98
22.46
25.28
28.52
32.23
36.50
41.44
47.16
53.80
61.55
70.61
81.27
93.85
108.75
126.50
147.74
173.28
204.19
241.80
287.85
344.63
415.14
9.84
11.60
13.70
16.18
19.13
22.65
26.87
31.94
38.04
45.41
54.36
65.27
78.61
95.03
115.31
140.51
171.99
211.56
261.60
325.34
407.11
512.84
650.67
831.99
1072.80
(4.18)
(4.17)
2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. This content is not yet final and Cengage Learning
does not guarantee this page will contain current material or match the published product.
Table 4.1 Terzaghis Bearing Capacity FactorsEqs. (4.15), (4.13), and (4.11).a
and
In Eq. (4.17), B equals the dimension of each side of the foundation; in Eq. (4.18), B equals
the diameter of the foundation.
81550_ch04_ptg01.indd 164
11/09/14 5:40 PM
Terzaghis bearing capacity equations have now been modified to take into account
the effects of the foundation shape sByLd, depth of embedment sDfd, and the load inclination. This is given in Section 4.6. Many design engineers, however, still use Terzaghis
equation, which provides fairly good results considering the uncertainty of the soil conditions at various sites.
2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. This content is not yet final and Cengage Learning
does not guarantee this page will contain current material or match the published product.
qall 5
qu
FS
(4.19)
However, some practicing engineers prefer to use a factor of safety such that
(4.20)
The net ultimate bearing capacity is defined as the ultimate pressure per unit area of
the foundation that can be supported by the soil in excess of the pressure caused by the
surrounding soil at the foundation level. If the difference between the unit weight of
concrete used in the foundation and the unit weight of soil surrounding is assumed to
be negligible, then
qnetsud 5 qu 2 q
(4.21)
where
qnetsud 5 net ultimate bearing capacity
q 5 gDf
So
qallsnetd 5
qu 2 q
FS
(4.22)
The factor of safety as defined by Eq. (4.22) should be at least 3 in all cases.
Example 4.1
A square foundation is 2 m 3 2 m in plan. The soil supporting the foundation has a
friction angle of f9 5 258 and c9 5 20 kN/m2. The unit weight of soil, g, is 16.5 kN/m3.
Determine the allowable gross load on the foundation with a factor of safety (FS) of 3.
Assume that the depth of the foundation sDfd is 1.5 m and that general shear failure
occurs in the soil.
11/09/14 5:40 PM
Nc 5 25.13
Nq 5 12.72
Ng 5 8.34
Thus,
qu 5s1.3ds20ds25.13d 1 s1.5 3 16.5ds12.72d 1 s0.4ds16.5ds2ds8.34d
5 653.38 1 314.82 1 110.09 5 1078.29 kN/m2
So, the allowable load per unit area of the foundation is
qall 5
qu
1078.29
5
< 359.5 kN/m2
FS
3
Example 4.2
Refer to Example 4.1. Assume that the shear-strength parameters of the soil are the
same. A square foundation measuring B 3 B will be subjected to an allowable gross
load of 1000 kN with FS 5 3 and Df 5 1 m. Determine the size B of the foundation.
Solution
Allowable gross load Q 5 1000 kN with FS 5 3. Hence, the ultimate gross load Qu 5
(Q)(FS) 5 (1000)(3) 5 3000 kN. So,
qu 5
Qu 3000
5 2 (a)
B2
B
2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. This content is not yet final and Cengage Learning
does not guarantee this page will contain current material or match the published product.
Now,
81550_ch04_ptg01.indd 166
11/09/14 5:40 PM
By trial and error, we have
B 5 1.77 m 1.8 m
2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. This content is not yet final and Cengage Learning
does not guarantee this page will contain current material or match the published product.
(4.23)
where
gsat 5 saturated unit weight of soil
gw 5 unit weight of water
Also, the value of g in the last term of the equations has to be replaced by g9 5 gsat 2 gw.
Case II. For a water table located so that 0 # d # B,
q 5 gDf
Groundwater
table
Df
D1
(4.24)
Case I
D2
d
Groundwater table
Case II
sat 5 saturated
unit weight
11/09/14 5:40 PM
In this case, the factor g in the last term of the bearing capacity equations must be replaced
by the factor
g 5 g9 1
d
sg 2 g9d
B
(4.25)
Case III. When the water table is located so that d $ B, the water will have no effect on
the ultimate bearing capacity.
(4.26)
In this equation:
c9 5 cohesion
q 5 effective stress at the level of the bottom of the foundation
g 5 unit weight of soil
B 5 width of foundation (5 diameter for a circular foundation)
Fcs, Fqs, Fgs 5 shape factors
Fcd, Fqd, Fgd 5 depth factors
Fci, Fqi, Fgi 5 load inclination factors
Nc, Nq, Ng 5 bearing capacity factors
2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. This content is not yet final and Cengage Learning
does not guarantee this page will contain current material or match the published product.
The preceding modifications are based on the assumption that there is no seepage force in
the soil.
The equations for determining the various factors given in Eq. (4.26) are described
briefly in the sections that follow. Note that the original equation for ultimate bearing
capacity is derived only for the plane-strain case (i.e., for continuous foundations).
The shape, depth, and load inclination factors are empirical factors based on experimental data.
It is important to recognize the fact that, in the case of inclined loading on a foundation, Eq. (4.26) provides the vertical component.
81550_ch04_ptg01.indd 168
11/09/14 5:40 PM
Nq 5 tan2 45 1
2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. This content is not yet final and Cengage Learning
does not guarantee this page will contain current material or match the published product.
f9 p tan f9
e
2
(4.27)
and
Nc 5 sNq 2 1d cot f9
(4.28)
Equation (4.28) for Nc was originally derived by Prandtl (1921), and Eq. (4.27) for Nq
was presented by Reissner (1924). Caquot and Kerisel (1953) and Vesic (1973) gave the
relation for Ng as
Ng 5 2 sNq 1 1d tan f9
(4.29)
Table 4.2 shows the variation of the preceding bearing capacity factors with soil friction
angles.
Nc
Nq
Ng
f9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
5.14
5.38
5.63
5.90
6.19
6.49
6.81
7.16
7.53
7.92
8.35
8.80
9.28
9.81
10.37
10.98
1.00
1.09
1.20
1.31
1.43
1.57
1.72
1.88
2.06
2.25
2.47
2.71
2.97
3.26
3.59
3.94
0.00
0.07
0.15
0.24
0.34
0.45
0.57
0.71
0.86
1.03
1.22
1.44
1.69
1.97
2.29
2.65
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Nc
11.63
12.34
13.10
13.93
14.83
15.82
16.88
18.05
19.32
20.72
22.25
23.94
25.80
27.86
30.14
32.67
Nq
4.34
4.77
5.26
5.80
6.40
7.07
7.82
8.66
9.60
10.66
11.85
13.20
14.72
16.44
18.40
20.63
Ng
3.06
3.53
4.07
4.68
5.39
6.20
7.13
8.20
9.44
10.88
12.54
14.47
16.72
19.34
22.40
25.99
(continued)
11/09/14 5:40 PM
Nq
Ng
f9
Nc
Nq
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
35.49
38.64
42.16
46.12
50.59
55.63
61.35
67.87
75.31
83.86
23.18
26.09
29.44
33.30
37.75
42.92
48.93
55.96
64.20
73.90
30.22
35.19
41.06
48.03
56.31
66.19
78.03
92.25
109.41
130.22
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
93.71
105.11
118.37
133.88
152.10
173.64
199.26
229.93
266.89
85.38
99.02
115.31
134.88
158.51
187.21
222.31
265.51
319.07
Ng
155.55
186.54
224.64
271.76
330.35
403.67
496.01
613.16
762.89
Shape
Relationship
Fgs
DeBeer (1970)
Nq
1BL21 N 2
B
5 1 1 1 2 tan f9
L
B
5 1 2 0.4 1 2
L
Fcs 5 1 1
Fqs
Depth
Reference
Df
B
Hansen (1970)
#1
For f50:
Fcd 5 1 1 0.4
Df
1B2
Fqd51
Fgd51
2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. This content is not yet final and Cengage Learning
does not guarantee this page will contain current material or match the published product.
f9
For f9.0:
Fcd 5 Fqd 2
1 2 Fqd
Nc tan f9
Df
1B 2
Fgd51
81550_ch04_ptg01.indd 170
Df
B
.1
11/09/14 5:40 PM
Relationship
Reference
For f50:
Df
1B2
(')+*
2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. This content is not yet final and Cengage Learning
does not guarantee this page will contain current material or match the published product.
radians
Fqd51
Fgd51
For f9.0:
1 2 Fqd
Fcd 5 Fqd 2
Nc tan f9
Df
1B2
(')+*
radians
Fgd51
Inclination
Fci 5 Fqi 5 1 2
Fgi 5 1 2
b8
f9
b8
908
Example 4.3
Solve Example Problem 4.1 using Eq. (4.26).
Solution
From Eq. (4.26),
qu 5 c9NcFcsFcdFci 1 qNqFqsFqdFqt 1
1
gBNgFgsFgdFgt
2
Since the load is vertical, Fci5Fqi5Fgi51. From Table 4.2 for f9525, Nc520.72,
Nq510.66, and Ng510.88.
Using Table 4.3,
Fcs 5 1 1
Nq
1 L 21 N 2 5 1 1 122120.722 5 1.514
B
10.66
81550_ch04_ptg01.indd 171
11/09/14 5:40 PM
Fgs 5 1 2 0.4
Df
1B2
1 2 Fqd
Nc tan f9
5 1.233 2
11.522 5 1.233
Fgd 5 1
Hence,
qu5(20)(20.72)(1.514)(1.257)(1)
1 (1.5316.5)(10.66)(1.466)(1.233)(1)
1
1 s16.5ds2ds10.88ds0.6ds1ds1d
2
5 788.61476.91107.751373.2kN/m2
qu
1373.2
5
5 457.7 kN/m2
FS
3
Q5(457.7)(232)51830.8kN
qall 5
Example 4.4
A square foundation sB 3 Bd has to be constructed as shown in Figure 4.10. Assume that
g 5 105 lb/ft3, gsat 5 118 lb/ft3, f9 5 348, Df 5 4 ft, and D1 5 2 ft. The gross allowable
load, Qall, with FS 5 3 is 150,000 lb. Determine the size of the foundation. Use Eq. (4.26).
D1
Water
table
; 9; c95 0
sat
9
c95 0
Df
B3B
81550_ch04_ptg01.indd 172
2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. This content is not yet final and Cengage Learning
does not guarantee this page will contain current material or match the published product.
11/09/14 5:40 PM
Solution
We have
qall 5
Qall 150,000
5
lb/ft2
B2
B2
(a)
2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. This content is not yet final and Cengage Learning
does not guarantee this page will contain current material or match the published product.
qall 5
qu
1
1
5 qNqFqsFqd 1 g9BNgFgsFgd
FS 3
2
B
tan f9 5 1 1 tan 34 5 1.67
L
Fgs 5 1 2 0.4
Df
B
4
1.05
511
B
B
Fgd 5 1
and
So
qall 5
1
1.05
s321.2ds29.44ds1.67d 1 1
3
B
1122s118 2 62.4dsBds41.06ds0.6ds1d4
5 5263.9 1
(b)
5527.1
1 228.3B
B
150,000
5527.1
5 5263.9 1
1 228.3B
2
B
B
11/09/14 5:40 PM
Example 4.5
Depth (m)
N60
1.5
3.0
4.5
6.0
7.5
9.0
3
6
9
10
10
8
Q
208
0.7 m
c50
B 5 1.25 m
5 18 kN/m3
Figure 4.11
Depth (m)
N60
f9 (deg)
1.5
3.0
4.5
6.0
7.5
9.0
3
6
9
10
10
8
28
29
30
30
30
29
2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. This content is not yet final and Cengage Learning
does not guarantee this page will contain current material or match the published product.
Average 5 29.4 30
81550_ch04_ptg01.indd 174
11/09/14 5:40 PM
4.7 Other Solutions for Bearing Capacity Ng, Shape, and Depth Factors 175
Nq 5 18.4
Ng 5 22.4
From Table 4.3, (Note: B 5 L)
Fqs 5 1 1
2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. This content is not yet final and Cengage Learning
does not guarantee this page will contain current material or match the published product.
Fgs 5 1 2 0.4
Df
B
511
s0.289ds0.7d
5 1.162
1.25
Fgd 5 1
b8
908
b8
f9
Fqi 5 1 2
Fgi 5 1 2
2 1
2
5 12
2 1
2
5 12
20
90
20
30
2 5 0.605
2
2 5 0.11
2
Hence,
12
1
qu 5 s12.6ds18.4ds1.577ds1.162ds0.605d 1
s18ds1.25ds22.4ds0.6ds1ds0.11d
2
5 273.66 kN/m2
qall 5
Now,
qu
273.66
5
5 91.22 kN/m2
FS
3
Q cos 20 5 qall B2 5 s91.22ds1.25d2
Q < 151.7 kN
11/09/14 5:40 PM
Investigator
Relationship
Meyerhof (1963)
Hansen (1970)
Biarez (1961)
Booker (1969)
Michalowski (1997)
Hjiaj et al. (2005)
Martin (2005)
The variations of Ng with soil friction angle f9 for these relationships are given in
Table 4.5.
Meyerhof
(1963)
Hansen
(1970)
Biarez
(1961)
Booker
(1969)
Michalowski
(1997)
Hjiaj et al.
(2005)
Martin
(2005)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.04
0.07
0.11
0.15
0.21
0.28
0.37
0.47
0.60
0.75
0.92
1.13
1.38
1.67
2.01
0
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.05
0.07
0.11
0.16
0.22
0.30
0.39
0.50
0.63
0.79
0.97
1.18
1.44
1.73
2.08
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.05
0.09
0.14
0.19
0.27
0.36
0.47
0.60
0.76
0.94
1.16
1.42
1.72
2.08
2.49
0.10
0.12
0.15
0.17
0.20
0.24
0.29
0.34
0.40
0.47
0.56
0.66
0.78
0.92
1.09
1.29
1.53
1.81
2.14
0.00
0.04
0.08
0.13
0.19
0.26
0.35
0.44
0.56
0.69
0.84
1.01
1.22
1.45
1.72
2.04
2.40
2.82
3.30
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.05
0.08
0.12
0.17
0.22
0.29
0.36
0.46
0.56
0.69
0.84
1.01
1.21
1.45
1.72
2.05
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.04
0.07
0.10
0.14
0.20
0.26
0.35
0.44
0.56
0.70
0.87
1.06
1.29
1.56
1.88
81550_ch04_ptg01.indd 176
2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. This content is not yet final and Cengage Learning
does not guarantee this page will contain current material or match the published product.
11/09/14 5:40 PM
4.7 Other Solutions for Bearing Capacity Ng, Shape, and Depth Factors 177
2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. This content is not yet final and Cengage Learning
does not guarantee this page will contain current material or match the published product.
Soil
friction
angle, f9
(deg)
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Meyerhof
(1963)
Hansen
(1970)
Biarez
(1961)
Booker
(1969)
Michalowski
(1997)
Hjiaj et al.
(2005)
Martin
(2005)
2.41
2.88
3.43
4.07
4.84
5.73
6.78
8.02
9.49
11.22
13.27
15.71
18.62
22.09
26.25
31.25
37.28
44.58
53.47
64.32
77.64
94.09
114.49
139.96
171.97
212.47
264.13
2.48
2.95
3.50
4.14
4.89
5.76
6.77
7.96
9.35
10.97
12.87
15.11
17.74
20.85
24.52
28.86
34.03
40.19
47.55
56.38
67.01
79.85
95.44
114.44
137.71
166.34
201.78
2.98
3.54
4.20
4.97
5.87
6.91
8.13
9.55
11.22
13.16
15.45
18.13
21.29
25.02
29.42
34.64
40.84
48.23
57.06
67.65
80.41
95.82
114.53
137.33
165.25
199.61
242.13
2.52
2.99
3.53
4.17
4.94
5.84
6.90
8.16
9.65
11.41
13.50
15.96
18.87
22.31
26.39
31.20
36.90
43.63
51.59
61.00
72.14
85.30
100.87
119.28
141.04
166.78
197.21
3.86
4.51
5.27
6.14
7.17
8.36
9.75
11.37
13.28
15.52
18.15
21.27
24.95
29.33
34.55
40.79
48.28
57.31
68.22
81.49
97.69
117.57
142.09
172.51
210.49
258.21
318.57
2.42
2.86
3.38
3.98
4.69
5.51
6.48
7.63
8.97
10.57
12.45
14.68
17.34
20.51
24.30
28.86
34.34
40.98
49.03
58.85
70.87
85.67
103.97
126.75
155.25
191.13
236.63
2.25
2.69
3.20
3.80
4.50
5.32
6.29
7.43
8.77
10.35
12.22
14.44
17.07
20.20
23.94
28.41
33.79
40.28
48.13
57.67
69.32
83.60
101.21
123.04
150.26
184.40
227.53
1BL2
0.5
(4.30)
11/09/14 5:40 PM
Relationship
Shape
For f 5 0,
Fcs
Fqs 5 Fgs
For f9 > 108,
Fcs
Fqs 5 Fgs
For f 5 0,
Fcd
Fqd 5 Fgd
For f > 10
Fcd
Fqd 5 Fgd
and
1BL2
1BL2
1BL 2
1.5
0.5
(4.31)
sfor f9 < 308d(4.32)
Equations (4.30) through (4.33) have been derived based on sound theoretical
background and may be used for bearing capacity calculation.
2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. This content is not yet final and Cengage Learning
does not guarantee this page will contain current material or match the published product.
1 1 0.2 (B/L)
1
In this section, we will consider two field observations related to the ultimate bearing
capacity of foundations on soft clay. The failure loads on the foundations in the field will
be compared with those estimated from the theory presented in Section 4.6.
81550_ch04_ptg01.indd 178
11/09/14 5:40 PM
20
cu (VST) (kN/m2)
40
60
80
100
Depth (m)
2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. This content is not yet final and Cengage Learning
does not guarantee this page will contain current material or match the published product.
undrained shear strength (cu) obtained from field vane shear tests at the site. The groundwater table was located at about 0.6 m (2 ft) below the ground surface.
On September 30, 1970, just after it was filled to capacity for the first time with
corn silage, the concrete tower silo suddenly overturned due to bearing capacity failure.
Figure 4.13 shows the approximate profile of the failure surface in soil. The failure surface
extended to about 7 m (23 ft) below the ground surface. Bozozuk (1972) p rovided the following average parameters for the soil in the failure zone and the foundation:
Load per unit area on the foundation when failure occurred < 160 kN/m2
Average plasticity index of clay sPId < 36
Average undrained shear strength (cu) from 0.6 to 7 m depth obtained from field
vane shear tests < 27.1 kN/m2
From Figure 4.13, B < 7.2 m and Df < 1.52 m
We can now calculate the factor of safety against bearing capacity failure. From Eq. (4.26)
81550_ch04_ptg01.indd 179
11/09/14 5:41 PM
Original position
of foundation
1.46 m
0
22
458
1.
608
8
10
12
1
5 1.195
17.2
21
7.2 5.14 2
Fqs 5 1
5 1.08
11.52
7.2 2
Fcd 5 1 1 s0.4d
Fqd 5 1
2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. This content is not yet final and Cengage Learning
does not guarantee this page will contain current material or match the published product.
1m
308
0.9
Paved apron
Original
ground surface
7.2
22 2 8
Collapsed silo
508
Upheaval
Thus,
qu 5 scuds5.14ds1.195ds1.08ds1d 1 sgds1.52d
Assuming g < 18 kN/m3,
81550_ch04_ptg01.indd 180
cuscorrectedd 5 l cusVSTd
11/09/14 5:41 PM
FS 5
qu
181.8
5
5 1.14
applied load per unit area
160
This factor of safety is too low and approximately equals one, for which the failure occurred.
10
20
30
40
3
Depth (m)
2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. This content is not yet final and Cengage Learning
does not guarantee this page will contain current material or match the published product.
81550_ch04_ptg01.indd 181
11/09/14 5:41 PM
Load (kN)
40
160
120
80
200
Qu (ultimate load)
20
B = 0.675 m
30
B = 0.6 m
B = 1.05 m
B = 0.75 m
B = 0.9 m
40
zero to 1.5m measured from the ground surface, and cu(VST) is approximately equal to
24kN/m2 for depths varying from 1.5 to 8m. Other properties of the clay are
Liquid limit580
Plastic limit540
Sensitivity<5
Figure 4.15 shows the load-settlement plots obtained from the bearing-capacity
tests on all five foundations. The ultimate loads, Qu, obtained from each test are shown
in Figure 4.15 and given in Table 4.7. The ultimate load is defined as the point where the
load-settlement plot becomes practically linear.
Table 4.7 Comparison of Ultimate Bearing CapacityTheory versus Field Test Results
B
(m)
(1)
Df
(m)
(2)
Fcd
(3)
qu(theory)
(kN/m2)
(4)
Qu(field) (kN)
(5)
qu(field)
(kN/m2)
(6)
quxfieldc 2 quxtheory c
x%c
quxfieldc
(7)
0.600
0.675
0.750
0.900
1.050
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.476
1.459
1.443
1.412
1.384
158.3
156.8
155.4
152.6
150.16
60
71
90
124
140
166.6
155.8
160.6
153.0
127.0
4.98
20.64
2.87
0.27
218.24
2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. This content is not yet final and Cengage Learning
does not guarantee this page will contain current material or match the published product.
Settlement (mm)
10
81550_ch04_ptg01.indd 182
11/09/14 5:41 PM
qu 5 c9NcFcsFcdFci 1 qNqFqsFqdFqi 1
2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. This content is not yet final and Cengage Learning
does not guarantee this page will contain current material or match the published product.
Fcs 5 1 1
Nq
1
1BL21 N 2 5 1 1 s1d15.14
2 5 1.195
c
Fqs 51
Fqd 51
Df
(4.35)
qu5(5.14)(cu)(1.195)Fcd1q
(4.36)
The values of cu(VST) need to be corrected for use in Eq. (4.36). From Eq. (3.39),
cu5lcu(VST)
From Eq. (3.40b),
l51.18e20.08(PI)10.5751.18e20.08(80240)10.5750.62
From Eq. (3.40c),
l57.01e20.08(LL)10.5757.01e20.08(80)10.5750.58
So the average value of l<0.6. Hence,
cu5lcu(VST)5(0.6)(24)514.4kN/m2
q5gDf5(18.5)(1.5)527.75kN/m2
(4.37)
The values of qu calculated using Eq. (4.37) are given in column 4 of Table 4.7.
Also, the qu determined from the field tests are given in column 6. The theoretical and field
values of qu compare very well. The important lessons learned from this study are
1. The ultimate bearing capacity is a function of cu. If Eq. (3.40a) would have been
used to correct the undrained shear strength, the theoretical values of qu would have
varied between 200kN/m2 and 210kN/m2. These values are about 25% to 55%
more than those obtained from the field and are on the unsafe side.
2. It is important to recognize that empirical correlations like those given in Eqs. (3.40a),
(3.40b) and (3.40c) are sometimes site specific. Thus, proper engineering judgment
and any record of past studies would be helpful in the evaluation of bearing capacity.
11/09/14 5:41 PM
(4.38)
In this equation, Fcc, Fqc, and Fgc are soil compressibility factors.
The soil compressibility factors were derived by Vesic (1973) by analogy to the
expansion of cavities. According to that theory, in order to calculate Fcc, Fqc, and Fgc, the
following steps should be taken:
Step 1. Calculate the rigidity index, Ir, of the soil at a depth approximately By2
below the bottom of the foundation, or
Ir 5
Gs
(4.39)
c9 1 q9 tan f9
where
Gs 5 shear modulus of the soil
q9 5 effective overburden pressure at a depth of Df 1 By2
Step 2. The critical rigidity index, Irscrd, can be expressed as
Irscrd 5
5 31
2 1
f9
1
B
exp 3.30 2 0.45
cot 45 2
2
L
2
246
(4.40)
(4.41)
2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. This content is not yet final and Cengage Learning
does not guarantee this page will contain current material or match the published product.
In Section 4.2, we have discussed the mode of bearing-capacity failure such as general
shear failure, local shear failure and punching shear failure. The change of failure mode
is due to soil compressibility, to account for which Vesic (1973) proposed the following
modification of Eq. (4.26):
51
46
Figure 4.16 shows the variation of Fgc 5 Fqc [see Eq. (4.41)] with f9 and Ir. For f 5 0,
81550_ch04_ptg01.indd 184
11/09/14 5:41 PM
Ir(cr)
f9
(deg)
ByL50
ByL50.2
ByL50.4
ByL50.6
ByL50.8
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
13.56
18.30
25.53
36.85
55.66
88.93
151.78
283.20
593.09
1440.94
12.39
16.59
22.93
32.77
48.95
77.21
129.88
238.24
488.97
1159.56
11.32
15.04
20.60
29.14
43.04
67.04
111.13
200.41
403.13
933.19
10.35
13.63
18.50
25.92
37.85
58.20
95.09
168.59
332.35
750.90
9.46
12.36
16.62
23.05
33.29
50.53
81.36
141.82
274.01
604.26
8.64
11.20
14.93
20.49
29.27
43.88
69.62
119.31
225.90
486.26
B
1 0.60 log Ir
L
ByL51.0
(4.42)
For f9 . 0,
Fcc 5 Fqc 2
1.0
1 2 Fqc
Nq tan f9
(4.43)
1.0
500
100 250
0.8
250
0.8
50
0.6
10
0.4
25
5
2.5
0.2
Ir 5 1
F c 5 Fqc
50
F c 5 Fqc
2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. This content is not yet final and Cengage Learning
does not guarantee this page will contain current material or match the published product.
0.6
500
25
10
0.4
5
2.5
0.2
100
Ir 5 1
0
0
10
20
30
50
40
Soil friction angle, 9 (deg)
L
(a)
51
B
10
20
30
50
40
Soil friction angle, 9 (deg)
L
(b)
.5
B
81550_ch04_ptg01.indd 185
11/09/14 5:41 PM
Example 4.6
For a shallow foundation, B 5 0.6 m, L 5 1.2 m, and Df 5 0.6 m. The known soil
characteristics are
Soil:
f9 5 258
c9 5 48 kN/m2
g 5 18 kN/m3
Modulus of elasticity, Es 5 620 kN/m2
Poissons ratio, ms 5 0.3
2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. This content is not yet final and Cengage Learning
does not guarantee this page will contain current material or match the published product.
Ir 5
Gs
c9 1 q9 tan f9
However,
Gs 5
Es
2 s1 1 msd
So
Es
2 s1 1 msd[c9 1 q9 tan f9]
Ir 5
Now,
q9 5 g Df 1
B
0.6
5 18 0.6 1
5 16.2 kN/m2
2
2
Thus,
Ir 5
620
5 4.29
2 s1 1 0.3d[48 1 16.2 tan 25]
5 31
2 1
246
1
0.6
25
5 5exp313.3 2 0.45
cot 145 2 246 5 62.41
2
2
1.2
2
Irscrd 5
f9
1
B
exp 3.3 2 0.45
cot 45 2
2
L
2
81550_ch04_ptg01.indd 186
51
46
0.6
tan 25
51
1.2 2
s3.07 sin 25d log s2 3 4.29d
13
46 5 0.347
1 1 sin 25
11/09/14 5:41 PM
and
Fcc 5 Fqc 2
1 2 Fqc
Nc tan f9
2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. This content is not yet final and Cengage Learning
does not guarantee this page will contain current material or match the published product.
Fcc 5 0.347 2
1 2 0.347
5 0.279
20.72 tan 25
From Table 4.2, for f9 5 258, Nc 5 20.72, Nq 5 10.66, and Ng 5 10.88. Consequently,
Nq
Fcs 5 1 1
0.6
5 1.257
1 N 21BL2 5 1 1 110.66
21
20.72 1.2 2
Fqs 5 1 1
B
0.6
tan f9 5 1 1
tan 25 5 1.233
L
1.2
Fgs 5 1 2 0.4
5 0.8
1BL2 5 1 2 0.4 0.6
1.2
Fcd 5 Fqd 2
1 2 Fqd
Nc tan f9
Df
1B2
5 1.311
10.6
0.6 2
5 1.311 2
1 2 1.311
20.72 tan 25
5 1.343
and
Fgd 5 1
Thus,
81550_ch04_ptg01.indd 187
11/09/14 5:41 PM
where
Q 5 total vertical load
qmin 5
Q
6M
2
BL B2L
(4.45)
qmax 5
Q
6e
11
BL
B
(4.47)
Q
Q
B
B3L
(b)
2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. This content is not yet final and Cengage Learning
does not guarantee this page will contain current material or match the published product.
In several instances, as with the base of a retaining wall, foundations are subjected to
moments in addition to the vertical load, as shown in Figure 4.17a. In such cases, the distribution of pressure by the foundation on the soil is not uniform. The nominal distribution
of pressure is
Q
6M
qmax 5
1 2
(4.44)
BL B L
and
qmin
qmax
For e > B/6
qmax
(a)
81550_ch04_ptg01.indd 188
11/09/14 5:41 PM
Qu
2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. This content is not yet final and Cengage Learning
does not guarantee this page will contain current material or match the published product.
and
qmin 5
Q
6e
12
BL
B
(4.48)
Note that, in these equations, when the eccentricity e becomes B/6, qmin is zero. For
e . B/6, qmin will be negative, which means that tension will develop. Because soil cannot
take any tension, there will then be a separation between the foundation and the soil underlying it. The nature of the pressure distribution on the soil will be as shown in Figure 4.17a.
The value of qmax is then
qmax 5
4Q
(4.49)
3LsB 2 2ed
FS 5
Qu
Q
(4.50)
81550_ch04_ptg01.indd 189
11/09/14 5:41 PM
Qu
q9u
Qu
2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. This content is not yet final and Cengage Learning
does not guarantee this page will contain current material or match the published product.
qu(e)
B 2 2e
B
(b)
Note: qu(e) 5
q9u(B 2 2e)
B
L5L
B95B 2 2e
(a)
Note that if the eccentricity were in the direction of the length of the foundation, the value of L9 would be equal to L 2 2e. The value of B9 would
equal B. The smaller of the two dimensions (i.e., L9 and B9) is the effective
width of the foundation.
Step 2. Use Eq. (4.26) for the ultimate bearing capacity:
(4.51)
To evaluate Fcs, Fqs, and Fgs, use the relationships given in Table 4.3
with effective length and effective width dimensions instead of L and B,
respectively. To determine Fcd, Fqd, and Fgd, use the relationships given in
Table 4.3. However, do not replace B with B9.
Step 3. The total ultimate load that the foundation can sustain is
Qu 5
A9
$'%+&
(4.52)
q9u sB9d sL9d
81550_ch04_ptg01.indd 190
11/09/14 5:41 PM
FS 5
Qu
Q
2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. This content is not yet final and Cengage Learning
does not guarantee this page will contain current material or match the published product.
qused 5
q9usB 2 2ed
(4.53)
B
1
Qu 5 qusedB 5 B c9Ncsed 1 qNqsed 1 gBNgsed
2
(4.54)
1
Qu 5 BL c9NcsedFcssed 1 qNqsedFqssed 1 gBNgsedFgssed
2
(4.55)
L
Fcssed 5 1.2 2 0.025 swith a minimum of 1.0d
B
(4.56)
Fqssed 5 1
(4.57)
and
Fgssed 5 1.0 1
2 3
1 21 241 2
2e
B
3
2 0.68 1 0.43 2
B
L
2
e
B
B
L
(4.58)
11/09/14 5:41 PM
40
e/B = 0
Nc(e)
0.1
0.2
20
0.3
0.4
f9 5 408
eyB
0
0
10
20
Friction angle, 9 (deg)
30
40
Nc(e)
0 94.83
0.1 66.60
0.2 54.45
0.3 36.3
0.4 18.15
where
Rk5reduction factor
qu(e)5average ultimate bearing capacity of eccentrically loaded continuous foundations
(See Figure 4.19.)
qu 5 ultimate bearing capacity of centrally loaded continuous foundations
2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. This content is not yet final and Cengage Learning
does not guarantee this page will contain current material or match the published product.
60
12
Rk 5 a
e k
B
(4.60)
81550_ch04_ptg01.indd 192
11/09/14 5:41 PM
2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. This content is not yet final and Cengage Learning
does not guarantee this page will contain current material or match the published product.
60
40
e/B = 0
Nq(e)
0.1
20
0.2
0.3
f9 5 408
eyB
0.4
0
0
10
20
Friction angle, 9 (deg)
30
40
Nq(e)
0 81.27
0.1 56.09
0.2 45.18
0.3 30.18
0.4 15.06
1 24
e
B
(4.61)
0.00
0.25
0.50
1.00
1.862
1.811
1.754
1.820
0.73
0.785
0.80
0.888
11/09/14 5:41 PM
2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. This content is not yet final and Cengage Learning
does not guarantee this page will contain current material or match the published product.
40
e/B = 0
N(e)
0.1
20
0.2
f9 5 408
eyB
0.3
0.4
0
0
10
20
Friction angle, 9 (deg)
30
40
Ng(e)
0 115.80
0.1 71.80
0.2 41.60
0.3 18.50
0.4 4.62
where
1
qu 5 qNqFqd 1 gBNgFgd
2
(4.62)
The relationships for Fqd and Fgd are given in Table 4.3.
Based on several laboratory model tests, Patra et al. (2012a) have concluded that
qused < qu 1 2
2e
(4.63)
B
The ultimate load per unit length of the foundation can then be given as
81550_ch04_ptg01.indd 194
Qu5Bqu(e)
(4.64)
11/09/14 5:41 PM
Example 4.7
A continuous foundation is shown in Figure 4.23. If the load eccentricity is 0.2m,
determine the ultimate load, Qu, per unit length of the foundation. Use Meyerhofs
effective area method.
2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. This content is not yet final and Cengage Learning
does not guarantee this page will contain current material or match the published product.
Solution
For c950, Eq. (4.51) gives
q9u 5 qNqFqsFqdFqi 1
1
g9B9NgFgsFgdFgi
2
Sand
9 5 408
c9 5 0
5 16.5 kN/m3
1.5 m
2m
Fqi5Fg i51
Fgd51
Df
B
1 2 2 5 1.16
5 1 1 0.214
1.5
and
q9u 5 s24.75ds64.2ds1ds1.16ds1d
Consequently,
Qu5(B9)(1)(q9u)5(1.6)(1)(3287.39)<5260 kN
11/09/14 5:41 PM
Example 4.8
1
Qu 5 B qNqsed 1 gBNgsed
2
e
0.2
5
5 0.1
B
2
For f9540 and e/B50.1, Figures 4.21 and 4.22 give Nq(e)56.09 and Ng(e)<71.8.
Hence,
Qu52[(24.75)(56.09)1(12)(16.5)(2)(71.8)]55146 kN
2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. This content is not yet final and Cengage Learning
does not guarantee this page will contain current material or match the published product.
Example 4.9
Solve Example 4.7 using Eq. (4.63).
Solution
With c950,
1
qused 5 qNqFqd 1 gBNgFgd
2
For f9540, Nq564.2 and Ng5109.41 (see Table 4.2). Hence,
1
qu 5 s24.75ds64.2ds1.16d 1 s16.5ds2ds109.41ds1d
2
5 1843.18 1 1805.27 5 3648.45 kN/m2
2e
B
2
10.2224
5 3648.45 1 2 2
5 2918.76 kN/m2
qused 5 qu 1 2
81550_ch04_ptg01.indd 196
11/09/14 5:41 PM
(a)
B3L
B
2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. This content is not yet final and Cengage Learning
does not guarantee this page will contain current material or match the published product.
L9
Qu
B
(b)
eB
Mx
x
Qu
Qu
eL
My
(c)
(d)
M about the x- and y-axes can be determined as Mx and My, respectively. (See Figure 4.24c.)
This condition is equivalent to a load Qu placed eccentrically on the foundation with x 5 eB
and y 5 eL (Figure 4.24d). Note that
My
eB 5
(4.65)
Qu
and
Mx
eL 5
(4.66)
Qu
If Qu is needed, it can be obtained from Eq. (4.52); that is,
Qu 5 q9u A9
As before, to evaluate Fcs, Fqs, and Fgs (Table 4.3), we use the effective length L9 and
effective width B9 instead of L and B, respectively. To calculate Fcd, Fqd, and Fgd, we do not
replace B with B9. In determining the effective area A9, effective width B9, and effective
length L9, five possible cases may arise (Highter and Anders, 1985).
Case I. eLyL $ 16 and eB/B $ 16. The effective area for this condition is shown in
Figure 4.25, or
81550_ch04_ptg01.indd 197
A9 5 12B1L1
(4.67)
11/09/14 5:41 PM
B1
eB
L1
where
3eB
(4.68)
B
3eL
L
B1 5 B 1.5 2
L1 5 L 1.5 2
and
(4.69)
The effective length L9 is the larger of the two dimensions B1 and L1. So the effective width is
B9 5
A9
L9
(4.70)
Case II. eLyL , 0.5 and 0 , eByB , 16. The effective area for this case, shown in
Figure 4.26a, is
A9 5 12sL1 1 L2dB
(4.71)
The magnitudes of L1 and L2 can be determined from Figure 4.26b. The effective width is
A9
L1 or L2 swhichever is largerd
(4.72)
L9 5 L1 or L2 swhichever is largerd
(4.73)
B9 5
2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. This content is not yet final and Cengage Learning
does not guarantee this page will contain current material or match the published product.
eL
Qu
Case III. eLyL , 16 and 0 , eByB , 0.5. The effective area, shown in Figure 4.27a, is
81550_ch04_ptg01.indd 198
B9 5
A9
L
(4.75)
11/09/14 5:41 PM
B
eB
L2
L
L1
(a)
0.5
eB /B 5
eL /L
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.4
0.6
L1 /L, L2 /L
(b)
2
0.
01
0.2
4
0.0
0.0
For
obtaining
L2 /L
01
0.
eB /B 5
4
0.0
6
8
0.0
0.10
0.1
0.0
0.3
0.167
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.12
0.14
0.16
2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. This content is not yet final and Cengage Learning
does not guarantee this page will contain current material or match the published product.
eL
Qu
0.8
1.0
For
obtaining
L1 /L
Figure 4.26 Effective area for the case of eLyL , 0.5 and 0 , eB/B , 16 (After Highter and Anders,
1985) (Based on Highter, W. H. and Anders, J. C. (1985). Dimensioning Footings Subjected to
Eccentric Loads, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 111,
No. GT5, pp. 659665.)
(4.76)
Case IV. eLyL , 16 and eByB , 16. Figure 4.28a shows the effective area for this case. The
ratio B2yB, and thus B2, can be determined by using the eLyL curves that slope upward.
Similarly, the ratio L2yL, and thus L2, can be determined by using the eLyL curves that
slope downward. The effective area is then
The effective width is
81550_ch04_ptg01.indd 199
B9 5
A9
L
(4.77)
(4.78)
11/09/14 5:41 PM
eB
eL
Qu
2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. This content is not yet final and Cengage Learning
does not guarantee this page will contain current material or match the published product.
Effective
area
B2
B
(a)
0.5
eL /L 5
eB /B
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.4
0.6
B1 /B, B2 /B
(b)
2
0.
01
0.2
4
0.0
0.0
For
obtaining
B2 /B
01
0.
eL /L 5
4
0.0
6
8
0.0
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.1
0.0
0.3
0.167
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.8
1.0
For
obtaining
B1 /B
Figure 4.27 Effective area for the case of eL/L , 16 and 0 , eByB , 0.5 (Based on Highter,
W. H. and Anders, J. C. (1985). Dimensioning Footings Subjected to Eccentric Loads,
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 111,
No. GT5, pp. 659665.)
L9 5 L
(4.79)
81550_ch04_ptg01.indd 200
L9 5
A9
(4.80)
B9
11/09/14 5:41 PM
eB
eL
L
Qu
B2
(a)
For obtaining B2 /B
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.20
0.10
0.15
0.08
0.06
eB /B
0.
2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. This content is not yet final and Cengage Learning
does not guarantee this page will contain current material or match the published product.
Effective
area
0.0
0.10
0.1
0.04
0.0
6
0.05
0.04
0.02 5 eL /L
eL/L 5 0.02
For obtaining L2/L
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
B2 /B, L2 /L
(b)
0.8
1.0
eR
Qu
R
81550_ch04_ptg01.indd 201
11/09/14 5:41 PM
eR yR
A9yR 2
B9yR
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
2.8
2.4
2.0
1.61
1.23
0.93
0.62
0.35
0.12
0
1.85
1.32
1.2
0.80
0.67
0.50
0.37
0.23
0.12
0
Example 4.10
A square foundation is shown in Figure 4.30, with eL 5 0.3 m and eB 5 0.15 m. Assume
two-way eccentricity, and determine the ultimate load, Qu.
Solution
We have
eL 0.3
5
5 0.2
L
1.5
and
eB 0.15
5
5 0.1
B
1.5
This case is similar to that shown in Figure 4.26a. From Figure 4.26b, for eLyL 5 0.2
and eByB 5 0.1,
L1
< 0.85;
L
L1 5 s0.85ds1.5d 5 1.275 m
L2
< 0.21;
L
L2 5 s0.21ds1.5d 5 0.315 m
2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. This content is not yet final and Cengage Learning
does not guarantee this page will contain current material or match the published product.
and
From Eq. (4.71),
81550_ch04_ptg01.indd 202
L9 5 L1 5 1.275 m
11/09/14 5:41 PM
Sand
5 18 kN/m3
9 5 308
c9 5 0
0.7 m
2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. This content is not yet final and Cengage Learning
does not guarantee this page will contain current material or match the published product.
1.5 m 3 1.5 m
eB 5 0.15 m
1.5 m
eL 5 0.3 m
1.5 m
B9 5
A9 1.193
5
5 0.936 m
L9 1.275
Fqs 5 1 1
Fgs 5 1 2 0.4
5 0.706
1B9L9 2 5 1 2 0.4 10.936
1.275 2
Df
B
511
s0.289ds0.7d
5 1.135
1.5
and
81550_ch04_ptg01.indd 203
Fgd 5 1
11/09/14 5:41 PM
5 s1.193d[s12.6ds18.4ds1.424ds1.135d
Example 4.11
Consider the foundation shown in Figure 4.30 with the following changes:
eL50.18m
For the soil, g516.5kN/m3
eB50.12m
f9525
c9525kN/m2
eB 0.12
5
5 0.08
B
1.5
So
L2
< 0.32
L
B25(0.1)(1.5)50.15m
L25(0.32)(1.5)50.48m
2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. This content is not yet final and Cengage Learning
does not guarantee this page will contain current material or match the published product.
A9 1.5615
5
5 1.041m
L
1.5
L9 5 1.5 m
From Eq. (4.51),
81550_ch04_ptg01.indd 204
1
q9u 5 c9NcFcs Fed 1 qNqFqsFqd 1 gB9NgFgsFgd
2
11/09/14 5:41 PM
4.13 Bearing Capacity of a Continuous Foundation Subjected to Eccentrically Inclined Loading 205
2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. This content is not yet final and Cengage Learning
does not guarantee this page will contain current material or match the published product.
For f9525, Table 4.2 gives Nc520.72, Nq510.66 and Ng510.88. From Table4.3,
Nq
Fcs 5 1 1
10.66
5 1.357
1 21 N 2 5 1 1 11.041
1.5 21 20.72 2
Fqs 5 1 1
tan 25 5 1.324
1B9L9 2 tan f9 5 1 1 11.041
1.5 2
B9
L9
Fgs 5 1 2 0.4
5 0.722
1B9L9 2 5 1 2 0.4 11.041
1.5 2
1 2 Fqd
Nc tan f9
Df
5 1.145
1 B 2 5 1 1 2 tan 25s1 2 sin 25d 10.7
1.5 2
5 1.145 2
1 2 1.145
5 1.16
20.72 tan 25
Fgd 5 1
Hence,
11/09/14 5:41 PM
Qu(ei)
Qu(ei)
e
B
(a)
B
(b)
fairly limitedconsider the partially compensated case. The following are the procedures
used to estimate the ultimate load Qu(ei) for both of these cases.
Quseid 5
Based on a larger number of model test results, Patra et al. (2012a) proposed a reduction factor to estimate Qu(ei) for a foundation on granular soil, according to which
Quseid 5 quBsRFd(4.83)
RF 5 1 2 2
e
B
21
12
b8
f9
22sDfyBd
2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. This content is not yet final and Cengage Learning
does not guarantee this page will contain current material or match the published product.
(4.84)
81550_ch04_ptg01.indd 206
Quseid 5 quB 1 2 2
e
B
21
12
b8
f9
22sDfyBd
(4.85)
11/09/14 5:41 PM
4.13 Bearing Capacity of a Continuous Foundation Subjected to Eccentrically Inclined Loading 207
Quseid 5 quB 1 2 2
e
B
21
12
b8
f9
1.520.7sDfyBd
(4.86)
2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. This content is not yet final and Cengage Learning
does not guarantee this page will contain current material or match the published product.
Example 4.12
A continuous foundation is shown in Figure 4.32. Estimate the inclined ultimate load,
Quseid per unit length of the foundation. Use Eqs. (4.81) and (4.82).
Qu(ei)
208
5 16 kN/m3
9 5 358
c9 5 0
1m
0.15 m
1.5 m
Figure 3.32
Solution
From Eq. (4.81) with c9 5 0, we have
and
1
q9u 5 qNqFqdFqi 1 gB9NgFgdFgi
2
q 5 gDf 5 s16ds1d 5 16 kN/m2
B9 5 B 2 2e 5 1.5 2 s2ds0.15d 5 1.2 m
Df
Fgd 5 1
b8
908
b8
f9
Fqi 5 1 2
2 1
2
5 12
2 1
2
20
90
20
35
2 5 0.605
2
2 5 0.184
2
81550_ch04_ptg01.indd 207
Fgi 5 1 2
5 12
11/09/14 5:42 PM
q9u 5 s16ds33.3ds1.17ds0.605d 1
and
Quseid 5
2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. This content is not yet final and Cengage Learning
does not guarantee this page will contain current material or match the published product.
Example 4.13
Solve Example 4.12 using Eq. (4.85).
Solution
From Eq. (4.26) with c 5 0, we have
and
1
qu 5 qNqFqd 1 gBNgFgd
2
From Example 4.12, q 5 16 kN/m2, Nq 5 33.3, Ng 5 48.03, Fqd 5 1.17, and Fgd 5 1.
Hence,
qu 5 s16ds33.3ds1.17d 1
and
1 241
Quseid 5 quB 1 2 2
e
B
12
b8
f9
22sDfyBd
20
12
35
22 _1.5 +
1 243 1 24
0.15
5 s1199.74ds1.5d 1 2 s2d
1.5
Problems
4.1 For the following cases, determine the allowable gross vertical load-bearing capacity
of the foundation. Use Terzaghis equation and assume general shear failure in soil.
Use FS 5 4.
81550_ch04_ptg01.indd 208
11/09/14 5:42 PM
2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. This content is not yet final and Cengage Learning
does not guarantee this page will contain current material or match the published product.
Problems 209
Part
Df
f9
a.
b.
c.
3 ft
1.5 m
3m
3 ft
1.2 m
2m
288
358
308
c9
Foundation type
g
2
400 lb/ft
0
0
110 lb/ft
17.8 kN/m3
16.5 kN/m3
Continuous
Continuous
Square
4.2 A square column foundation has to carry a gross allowable load of 1805 kN
sFS 5 3d. Given: Df 5 1.5 m, g 5 15.9 kN/m3, f9 5 348, and c9 5 0. Use
Terzaghis equation to determine the size of the foundation (B). Assume general
shear failure.
4.3 Use the general bearing capacity equation [Eq. (4.26)] to solve the following:
a. Problem 4.1a
b. Problem 4.1b
c. Problem 4.1c
4.4 The applied load on a shallow square foundation makes an angle of 208 with the vertical. Given: B 5 5 ft, Df 5 3 ft, g 5 115 lb/ft3, f9 5 258, and c9 5 600 lb/ft2. Use
FS 5 3 and determine the gross inclined allowable load. Use Eq. (4.26).
4.5 A column foundation (Figure P4.5) is 3 m 3 2 m in plan. Given: Df 5 1.5 m,
f9 5 258, c9 5 70 kN/m2. Using Eq. (4.26) and FS 5 3, determine the net allowable
load [see Eq. (4.22)] the foundation could carry.
1.5 m
5 17 kN/m3
1m
Groundwater level
3m32m
Figure P4.5
11/09/14 5:42 PM
4.8 An eccentrically loaded foundation is shown in Figure P4.8. Use FS of 4 and determine the maximum allowable load that the foundation can carry. Use Meyerhofs
effective area method.
5 17 kN/m3
c9 5 0
9 5 368
1.5 m 3 1.5 m
Centerline
Figure P4.8
2 ft
4 ft
2 ft
5 ft
Figure P4.11
4.12 A square foundation is shown in Figure P4.12. Use FS 5 6, and determine the size
of the foundation. Use Prakash and Saran theory [Eq. (4.55)].
4.13 The shallow foundation shown in Figure 4.24 measures 1.5 m 3 2.25 m and is subjected to a centric load and a moment. If eB 5 0.12 m, eL 5 0.36 m, and the depth of
the foundation is 0.8 m, determine the allowable load the foundation can carry. Use a
factor of safety of 4. For the soil, we are told that unit weight g 5 17 kN/m3, friction
angle f9 5 358, and cohesion c9 5 0.
4.14 Consider a continuous foundation of width B 5 1.4 m on a sand deposit with c95 0,
f9 5 38 and g 5 17.5 kN/m3. The foundation is subjected to an eccentrically
inclined load (see Figure 4.31). Given: load eccentricity e 5 0.15 m, Df 5 1 m,
81550_ch04_ptg01.indd 210
2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. This content is not yet final and Cengage Learning
does not guarantee this page will contain current material or match the published product.
(Eccentricity
in one direction
only) e 5 0.15 m
Qall
1.0 m
11/09/14 5:42 PM
References 211
450 kN
70 kN m
5 16 kN/m3
c9 5 0
95 308
1.2 m
2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. This content is not yet final and Cengage Learning
does not guarantee this page will contain current material or match the published product.
B3B
Water table
sat 5 19 kN/m3
c9 5 0
9 5 308
Figure P4.12
and load inclination b 5 188. Estimate the failure load Qu(ei) per unit length of
the foundation
a. for a partially compensated type of loading [Eq. (4.85)]
b. for a reinforced type of loading [Eq. (4.86)]
References
Biarez, J., Burel, M., and Wack, B. (1961). Contribution Ltude de la Force Portante des
Fondations, Proceedings, 5th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Paris, Vol. 1, pp. 603609.
Booker, J. R. (1969). Application of theories of plasticity for cohesive frictional soils. Ph.D.
thesis, University of Sydney, Australia.
Bozozuk, M. (1972). Foundation Failure of the Vankleek Hill Tower Site, Proceedings, Specialty Conference on Performance of Earth and Earth-Supported Structures, Vol. 1, Part 2,
pp. 885902.
Brand, E. W., Muktabhant, C., and Taechanthummarak, A. (1972). Load Test on Small Foundations in Soft Clay, Proceedings, Specialty Conference on Performance of Earth and EarthSupported Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 1, Part 2, pp. 903928.
Caquot, A. and Kerisel, J. (1953). Sur le terme de surface dans le calcul des fondations en milieu
pulverulent, Proceedings, Third International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Zrich, Vol. I, pp. 336337.
De Beer, E. E. (1970). Experimental Determination of the Shape Factors and Bearing Capacity
Factors of Sand, Geotechnique, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 387411.
Hanna, A. M. and Meyerhof, G. G. (1981). Experimental Evaluation of Bearing Capacity
of Footings Subjected to Inclined Loads, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 18, No. 4,
pp. 599603.
Hansen, J. B. (1970). A Revised and Extended Formula for Bearing Capacity, Bulletin 28, Danish
Geotechnical Institute, Copenhagen.
Highter, W. H. and Anders, J. C. (1985). Dimensioning Footings Subjected to Eccentric Loads,
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 111,
No. GT5, pp. 659665.
11/09/14 5:42 PM
Hjiaj, M., Lyamin, A. V., and Sloan, S. W. (2005). Numerical Limit Analysis Solutions for
the Bearing Capacity Factor Ng, International Journal of Solids and Structures, Vol. 42,
No. 56, pp. 16811804.
Kumbhojkar, A. S. (1993). Numerical Evaluation of Terzaghis Ng, Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 119, No. 3, pp. 598607.
Martin, C. M. (2005). Exact Bearing Capacity Calculations Using the Method of Characteristics,
Proceedings, 11th International Conference of the International Association for Computer
Methods and Advances in Geomechanics, Turin, Italy, Vol. 4, pp. 441450.
Michalowski, R. L. (1997). An Estimate of the Influence of Soil Weight on Bearing Capacity
Using Limit Analysis, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 5764.
Meyerhof, G. G. (1953). The Bearing Capacity of Foundations Under Eccentric and Inclined
Loads, Proceedings, Third International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Zrich, Vol. 1, pp. 440445.
Meyerhof, G. G. (1963). Some Recent Research on the Bearing Capacity of Foundations,
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 1626.
Patra, C. R., Behera, R. N., Sivakugan, N., and Das, B. M. (2012a). Ultimate Bearing Capacity
of Shallow Strip Foundation under Eccentrically Inclined Load: Part I, International Journal
of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 342352.
Patra, C. R., Behera, R. N., Sivakugan, N., and Das, B. M. (2012b). Ultimate Bearing
Capacity of Shallow Strip Foundation under Eccentrically Inclined Load: Part II, International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 507514.
Patra, C. R., Behera, R. N., Sivakugan, N., and Das, B. M. (2013). Estimation of Average
Settlement of Shallow Strip Foundation on Granular Soil under Eccentric Load, International
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 218222.
Perloff, W. H. and Barron, W. (1976). Soil Mechanics: Principles and Applications, Ronald Press,
New York.
Prakash, S. and Saran, S. (1971). Bearing Capacity of Eccentrically Loaded Footings, Journal of
the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 97, No. SM1, pp. 95117.
Prandtl, L. (1921). ber die Eindringungsfestigkeit (Hrte) plastischer Baustoffe und die Festigkeit
von Schneiden, Zeitschrift fr angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik, Vol. 1, No. 1,
pp. 1520.
Purkayastha, r. d. and Char, R. A. N. (1977). Stability Analysis of Eccentrically Loaded
Footings, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Div., asce, Vol. 103, No. 6, pp. 647651.
Reissner, H. (1924). Zum Erddruckproblem, Proceedings, First International Congress of Applied
Mechanics, Delft, pp. 295311.
Terzaghi, K. (1943). Theoretical Soil Mechanics, Wiley, New York.
Vesic, A. S. (1963). Bearing Capacity of Deep Foundations in Sand, Highway Research Record
No. 39, National Academy of Sciences, pp. 112153.
Vesic, A. S. (1973). Analysis of Ultimate Loads of Shallow Foundations, Journal of the Soil
Mechanics and Foundations Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 99, No. SM1,
pp. 4573.
Zhu, M. and Michalowski, R. L. (2005). Shape Factors for Limit Loads on Square and
Rectangular Footings, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
American Society of Civil Engineering, Vol. 131, No. 2, pp. 223231.
81550_ch04_ptg01.indd 212
2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. This content is not yet final and Cengage Learning
does not guarantee this page will contain current material or match the published product.
11/09/14 5:42 PM