Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Assistant Professor
Professor
Gazipur, Bangladesh
Gazipur, Bangladesh
Abstract-The principal aim of the paper is to compare the bearing capacity calculation methods proposed by different authors and
codes. To achieve the goal of study, Terzaghi (1943), Meyerhof (1963), Hansen (1970), Vesic (1973), Indian Standard (1981),
Eurocode7 (1996) and BNBC (1993) are considered in the parametric analysis. Comparison of mathematical expressions of
bearing capacity factors, parametric analysis of these factors and equations are presented in this paper. The most important
conclusion is that the evaluated bearing capacity of soil depends highly on the method used andthe code of practice. It is ob served
that for soil, at lower value of angle of friction for instance 0 0 to 200 , the ultimate bearing capacities for all methods yields
approximately similar value. However,difference o f bearing capacity values among the methods increases exponentially with
increase of friction angle. IS code (1981), Eurocode7 (1996) and Vesics (1973) equations estimate somewhat higher value of
bearing capacity for cohesive soil than skemptons (1951) equation. For c - soil, Meyerhofs (1963) equation is not highly
different from Tarzaghis (1943) equation up to a depth of D/B 1,but Hansen (1970), Vesic (1973), IS code (1981) and
Eurocode7 (1996) highly differ from Tarzaghis (1943) equation.
Key words: Shallow foundation, Footing, Bearing capacity, Internal friction angle, Cohesion, Bearing Capacity Factors.
I. INTRODUCTION
Shallo w foundation is a type of foundation unit that provides support of a structure by transferring loads to soil or rock at
shallow depths. Usually the depth to width ratio of foundation is less than unity and the depth of foundation is within 3m fro m the
surface [1]. To design a shallow footing size and shape of a structure, engineers have to know the ult imate bearing capacit y of
underneath soil. The ultimate bearing capacity of soil is the intensity of loading at the base of a foundation which in itiates shear
failure of the supporting soil [1]. Several bearing capacity equations proposed by different authors and adopted in different codes
are availab le to calculate the ultimate bearing capacity of soil at foundation level. But, different method of evaluating bearing
capacity yields different result. However, Bangladesh National Building Code (BNBC), 1993 proposed any established bearing
capacity equations shall be used for calculating bearing capacity of soil [1]. The basic equationof bearing capacity concerns strip
footings loaded vertically in the plane of symmetry (Fig.1) which is one of the first fo rmula for bearing capacity calcu latio n of
shallow foundation was given by Terzaghi (1943) asq ult = cNcsc+ q Nq +0.5B N s ... . .. (1)
in which q ult is the ultimate bearing capacity of soil, c is the cohesion of soil, is the unit weight of soil, q is the overburden
pressure, B is the foundation width, Nc is the bearing capacity factors concerning the cohesion of soil c, Nq is the bearing capacity
factors concerning the depth of foundation, N is the bearing capacity factors concerning the internal friction angle of soil [2, 4].
Skempton (1951) proposed a bearing capacity equation for saturated clay soil that is for 0 , asq ult = cu Nc +Df ... . (2)
in which cu =1/ 2 (unconfined compressive strength of clay), Df = depth of footing, = un it weight of soil and Nc is the bearing
capacity factors concerning the cohesion of soil [3]. Meyerhof (1951, 1963) proposed a bearing capacity equation similar to that of
Tarzaghi but included a shape factor sq with the depth term Nq .He also included depth factors d i and inclination factors ii [5]. These
additions produce equation of the general form as q ult = cNc.S c.d c.ic+ q Nq.S q.dq.iq + 0.5BN S d i ... ... ... ... ..(3)
29
Inte rnational Journal of Engineering Technology, Manage ment and Applied Sciences
tan
2 cos
Nq
a2
2 cos ( / 4 ( / 2)
2
) tan
Where a = exp (
4 2
Skempton (1951)
See Table 5
Meyerhof(1963)
(Nq -1)tan(1.4 )
(Nq -1)cot
Hansen(1970)
1.5(Nq -1)tan
(Nq -1)cot
) exp( tan )
4 2
Same as Meyerhof
Vesic(1973)
(Nq -1)cot
Same as Meyerhof
Eurocode7(1996)
(Nq -1)cot
Same as Meyerhof
IS Code(1981)
(Nq -1)cot
Same as Meyerhof
tan 2 (
A. Shape factors
The bearing capacity factors presented in Table1 are defined in the case of the strip footing. To take into account the non -infinite
length of a rectangular footing, a shape factor s i is introduced in each bearing capacity factor. The footing has width B and length
L, here, BL. The shape factors used by different authors and codes are listed in Table2.
30
Inte rnational Journal of Engineering Technology, Manage ment and Applied Sciences
S
1
0.8
0.6
1
1.3
1.3
(1 0.2 B L)
(1 0.3 B L)
1,
K p tan 2 ( )
4 2
Hansen (1970)
Vesic (1973)
Eurocode7 (1996)
IS code (1981)
(i) Strip (continuous)
(ii)Square
(iii) Circular
(iv)Rectangular
Sc
when
(1+ 0.1K p
Sq
1
1
1
1
1,
B
0
), 10
L
B
(1+ 0.2 K p )
L
B
(1 0.4 ) 0.6
L
(1+ 0.2
B
(1 0.4 ) 0.6
L
1+
B
(1 0.3 )
L
1+ 0.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
(1+ 0.1K p
Nq B
B
) for 0 and (1+
)for 0
L
Nc L
Nq B
Nc L
sq N q 1
B
for 0 , and
for 0
L
Nq 1
1.0
1.2
1.2
(1+ 0.2B/L)
(1 0.4 B L )
when
B
sin
L
B
tan
L
B
sin
L
B
0
), 10
L
1.0
1.3
1.3
(1+ 0.2B/L)
B. Inclination factors
The bearing capacity factors presented in Table1 are defined in the case of the strip footing for a vert ical load. To take into
account the inclination of the load in the footing, an inclination factor ii is introduced for each bearing capacity factor. There are
two parameters to characterize the inclination of load. The external load has a vert ical co mponent V and horizontal co mponent H,
H
therefore the inclination angle defined as follo ws: tan
, A second form to describe the inclination of the load consist of
V
H
introducing an angle defined by- tan
, in which A is the effective soil footing contact area, a is the adhesion[9].
V Aa cot
Eurocode7 (1996) assumes (a = c) and Bo wles (1997) assumes a = 0.6 to 1.0 of c [9].Therefore,the inclination factors used by the
different authors are listed in Table3.
Table3: Classical formu lations for inclination factors according to authors
Authors
i c ( 0)
iq
Hansen
(1970)
1 0.5 tan
Vesic
(1973)
1 tan m
iq N q 1
31
2
1
2
1
iq N q 1
Meyerhof
(1963)
Nq 1
Nq 1
ic ( 0 )
2
1
0.5 1
Aa
mH
1
AaN c
comments
i
1
---
1 0.7 tan
1 tan m1
2 1 5
2 2 5
2B
1 B
L
L
Inte rnational Journal of Engineering Technology, Manage ment and Applied Sciences
H
V Ac cot
1
90
iq N q 1
Nq 1
1
90
0.51
H
1
Acu
1
90
H
V Ac cot
---
-----
C. Depth factors
The bearing capacity factors presented in Table1 are defined in the case of the s trip footing at shallow depth DB. To take into
account the depth of footing a depth factor di is introduced for each bearing capacity factor.
Table4: Classical formu lations for depth factors
Authors
dc
dq
d
Meyerhof
(1963)
1+0.2Kp
D
B
Same as d q
D
B
Hansen
(1970)
1+0.4
D
B
1 2 tan (1 sin ) 2
D
B
1.0
Vesic
(1973)
1+0.4
D
B
1 2 tan (1 sin ) 2
D
B
1.0
IS code
(1981)
1+ 0.2
Footing Shape
D
tan(45+ )
2
B
1+ 0.1
D
tan(45+ ) for >100 and 1.0 for <100
2
B
Strip
5( 1 0.2 D B )
Square/Circular
6( 1 0.2 D B )
Rectangular
Same as d q
5( 1 0.2
D
B
)( 1 0.2 )
B
L
7.5( 1 0.2
B
)
L
Soil type
-soil
32
FootingShape
Square
(kPa)
(kN/ m3 )
0
17
B
(m)
2.25
Depth
(m)
2.00
Inte rnational Journal of Engineering Technology, Manage ment and Applied Sciences
7000
Tarzaghi (1943)
6000
Meyerhof (1963)
5000
Hansen (1970)
4000
Vesic (1973)
3000
IS code (1981)
2000
1000
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
Angle of internal friction (degree)
40
45
It is seen from Fig.2 that the ultimate bearing capacities of all methods increase exponentially with increase of angle of frict ion.
At lowervalue of angle of friction for instance 00 to 200 , the ultimate bearing capacities are appro ximately similar to each other but
difference of bearing capacityincreases with increase of frict ion angle. It is also seen from Fig.2 that Terzaghis (1943) equation
estimates lower value of bearing capacity at higher value of frict ion angleco mpare to other authors and codes. IS code (1981) and
Vesics(1973) equations give larger value of bearing capacity at higher value of friction angle than other author and codes. Since
IS code (1981) represents Vesics (1973) equation, the value of bearing capacity obtained using IS code (1981) and Vesics
(1973) equation are almost same.
B.Effect of cohesion and method of bearing capacity on the ultimate bearing capacity of soil for 0.
Table 7: Soil and footing characteristics
Soil type
FootingShape
c-soil
Square
(degree)
(kN/ m3 )
B
(m)
17
2.25
Depth
(m)
2.00
350
Tarzaghi (1943)
Meyerhof (1963)
Vesic (1973)
Eurocode7 (1996)
300
250
200
Skempton (1951)
Hansen (1970)
IS code (1981)
150
100
50
0
0
33
24
28
32
Inte rnational Journal of Engineering Technology, Manage ment and Applied Sciences
Soil
FootingShape
c-
Square
(kN/
m3 )
(degree)
15
17
B
(m)
2.25
Depth
(m)
2.00
Fig.3: Effect of cohesion on the ultimate bearing capacity of soil for constant 15
1000
800
Tarzaghi (1943)
Meyerhof (1963)
Hansen (1970)
Vesic (1973)
IS code (1981)
Eurocode7 (1996)
600
400
200
0
0
12
16
20
24
28
32
Soil
FootingShape
c-
Square
34
(kN/
m3 )
(degree)
20
17
B
(m)
2.25
Depth
(m)
2.00
Inte rnational Journal of Engineering Technology, Manage ment and Applied Sciences
1600
Tarzaghi (1943)
Meyerhof (1963)
Hansen (1970)
Vesic (1973)
IS code (1981)
Eurocode7 (1996)
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0
12
16
20
24
28
32
FootingShape
c-
Square
(degree)
(kN/ m3 )
B
(m)
25
17
2.25
Depth
(m)
2.00
Fig.5: Effect of cohesion on the ultimate bearing capacity of soil for constant 25
2400
2000
1600
1200
800
Tarzaghi (1943)
Meyerhof (1963)
Hansen (1970)
Vesic (1973)
IS code (1981)
Eurocode7 (1996)
400
0
0
35
12
16
20
Cohesion of soil, c (kN/m 2 )
24
28
32
Inte rnational Journal of Engineering Technology, Manage ment and Applied Sciences
Soil
FootingShape
c-
(kPa)
(kN/ m3 )
Square
10
B
(m)
17
Depth
(m.)
2.25
2.00
Fig.6: Effect of friction angle on the ultimate bearing capacity of soil for constant c = 10
7500
Tarzaghi (1943)
Meyerhof (1963)
6000
Hansen (1970)
Vesic (1973)
4500
IS code (1981)
Eurocode7 (1996)
3000
1500
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
FootingShape
c-
Square
(kPa)
(kN/ m3 )
15
17
B
(m)
Depth
(m.)
2.25
2.00
Fig.7: Effect of frict ion angle on the ultimate bearing capacity of soil fo r constant c = 15
9000
Tarzaghi (1943)
Meyerhof (1963)
Hansen (1970)
Vesic (1973)
IS code (1981)
Eurocode7 (1996)
7500
6000
4500
3000
1500
0
0
36
10
15
20
25
Angle of internal friction
30
35
40
45
Inte rnational Journal of Engineering Technology, Manage ment and Applied Sciences
Soil
(kPa)
(kN/ m3 )
FootingShape
c-
Square
20
Depth
(m.)
(m)
17
2.25
2.00
Fig.8: Effect of frict ion angle on the Ult imate bearing capacity of soil fo r constant c = 20
12000
Tarzaghi (1943)
Meyerhof (1963)
Hansen (1970)
Veesic (1973)
IS code (1981)
Eurocode7 (1996)
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Rectanglefooting,
(kPa)
(kN/ m3 )
B (m)
Soil
(degree)
c-
30
20
17
Depth
(m.)
2.25
2.00
3000
2500
2000
1500
Tarzaghi (1943)
Meyerhof (1963)
1000
Hansen (1970)
Vesic (1973)
IS code (1981)
Eurocode7 (1996)
500
0
0
37
0.2
0.4
B/L of footing
0.6
0.8
Inte rnational Journal of Engineering Technology, Manage ment and Applied Sciences
Soil
Footing
Shape
c-
Square
(kPa)
(kN/ m3 )
16
B
(m)
(degree)
17
25
2.25
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
Tarzaghi (1943)
Meyerhof (1963)
Hansen (1970)
Vesic (1973)
IS code (1981)
Eurocode7 (1996)
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
D/B of footing
0.8
1.2
It is seen fro m Fig.10 thatthe ultimate bearing capacity of soil increases with the increase of D/ B ratio of footing for all
methods.Fig.10 shows also that at lower value of D/B rat io, all equations are not highly different fro m each other but, the
difference of bearing capacity among the methods become more p ronounced at larger D/B rat io of footing. In this case, up to a
depth of DB, only the Meyerhofs (1963)q ult is not greatly different fro m the Terzaghis (1943), but Hansen (1970), Vesic
(1973), IS code (1981) and Eurocode7 (1996) varies largely than Tarzaghi (1943).
IV. CONCLUS ION
The important conclusion is that the evaluated bearing capacity of soil depends highly on the method used, and therefore on the
codes.Terzaghis (1943) equation is not suited for footing with mo ments and/or horizontal loads or for bases on sloped ground
because Tarzaghi (1943) d id not include load inclination factor in his equation. One can use Terzaghis (1943) equation for quick
estimation of q ult where D/B1.Ho wever, the Terzaghis (1943) equations, being the first proposed, have been very widely used
because of its greater ease of use.For soil, at lower value of angle of friction for instance 00 to 200 , the ult imate bearin g
capacities of all methods are approximately similar to each other but difference of bearing capacities among the methods incr eases
exponentially with increase of friction angle. It can be seen that IS code (1981), Eu rocode7 (1996) and Vesics (1973) equation
estimates somewhat higher value of bearing capacity for cohesive soil than skemptons (1951) equation.It is also seen for c -
soil that Meyerhofs (1963) equation is not highly different fro m Tarzaghis (1943) equation up to a depth of D/B1, but Hans en
(1970), Vesic (1973), IS code (1981) and Eurocode7 (1996) h ighly differ fro m Tarzaghis (1943) equation. However, Bangladesh
National Building Code (BNBC), 1993 proposed any established bearing capacity equations shall be used for calculating bearing
capacity of soil.
38
Inte rnational Journal of Engineering Technology, Manage ment and Applied Sciences
Mr.S ukantaKumer Shill is an assistant professor in the Department of Civil Engineering of Dhaka University of Engineering and Technology
(DUET), Gazipur, Bangladesh. His date of birth is 15 February of 1983 and the place of birth is M anikganj, Dhaka, Bangladesh. SukantaKumer
Shill passed Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering from Dhaka University of Engineering and Technology, Gazipur (DUET), Banglades h in
2007. He also earned M .Sc. engineering degree in structural engineering from Dhaka University of Engineering and Technolo gy (DUET),
Gazipur, Bangladesh.M r. Shill is also a member of Institute of Engineers Bangladesh (IEB), Dhaka. His membership number in IEB is
M /25282. He is also chief consultant of Dimension Engineering and Architectural Consultants, Joydevpur, Gazipur, Bangladesh.
Dr. Md.MozammelHoqueis a professor in the Department of Civil Engineering of Dhaka University of Engineering and Technology (DUET),
Gazipur, Bangladesh. M d. M . Hoque passed Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering from Bangladesh University of Engineering and
Technology (BUET), Dhaka, Bangladesh in 1994. He also earned M .Sc. engineering degree in Foundation engineering from Bangladesh
University of Engineering and Technology (BUET), Dhaka, Bangladesh. He earned PhD degree in structural engineering from Saitama
University, Japan.Dr. Hoque is also a Fellow member of Institute of Engineers Bangladesh (IEB), Dhaka. He is also chief consultant of Des ign
Development and M anagement (DDM ) Dhaka, Bangladesh.
39