BEARING CAPACITY EQUATIONS IN DESIGNING SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

1.1 BEARING CAPACITY EQUATIONS: 1.1.1 Terzaghis bearing Capacity Theory Terzaghi (1943) was the first to present a comprehensive theory for evaluating the ultimate bearing capacity of shallow foundations with rough base.According to this theory a foundation is shallow if its depth Df is less than or equal to its width. Later investigators, however, have suggetsed that foundation with Df equal to 3 to 4 times their width may be defined as shallow foundations.

Fig.1.1: Typical Shallow Foundation

Fig.1.3: Terzaghis concept of Footing with five distinct failure zones in foundation soil

Ultimate bearing capacity, qu = cN c +DN q + 0.5BN If the ground is subjected to additional surcharge load q, then
qu = cN c + (D + q ) N q + 0.5BN .

Net ultimate bearing capacity, q n = cN c + DN q + 0.5BN D Or, q n = cN c + D ( N q 1) + 0.5BN Safe or allowable bearing capacity,
qall = cN c + D ( N q 1) + 0.5BN

1 ] FS + D

Here, F = Factor of safety (usually2-3) c = cohesion of soil, = unit weight of soil, D = Depth of foundation q = Surcharge at the ground level, B = Width of foundation Nc, Nq, N = Terzaghis bearing capacity factors depend on soil friction angle .
Where: Nc = cot(Nq 1)

Nq = (e 2(3/4-/2)tan ) / 2 cos2(45+/2)
N = 1/2 tan ( Kpr /cos2 -1) Kpr = passive pressure coefficient.

Table 1: Bearing capacity factors for different

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 34 35 40

Nc 5.7 7.3 9.6 12.9 17.7 25.1 37.2 52.6 57.8 95.7

Nq 1.0 1.6 2.7 4.4 7.4 12.7 22.5 36.5 41.4 81.3

Ng 0.0 0.5 1.2 2.5 5.0 9.7 19.7 35.0 42.4 100.4

N'c 5.7 6.7 8.0 9.7 11.8 14.8 19.0 23.7 25.2 34.9

N'q 1.0 1.4 1.9 2.7 3.9 5.6 8.3 11.7 12.6 20.5

N'g 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.9 1.7 3.2 5.7 9.0 10.1 18.8

45 48 50

172.3 258.3 347.6

173.3 287.9 415.1

297.5 780.1 1153.2

51.2 66.8 81.3

35.1 50.5 65.6

37.7 60.4 87.1

Effect of shape of Foundation The following are the corrections for circular, square and rectangular footings. Circular footing, q f =1.3cN c + DN q + 0.3BN Square footing, q f = 1.3cN c + DN q + 0.4BN Rectangular footing, q f = (1 + 0.3
B B )cN c + DN q + (1 0.2 )0.5BN L L

Table 2: Summary of Shape factors for different shapes of footing Shape Strip Square Round Rectangle sc 1 1.3 1.3
(1 + 0.3 B ) L

sq 1 1 1 1

s 1 0.8 0.6
(1 0.2 B ) L

The equation for bearing capacity explained above is applicable for soil experiencing general shear failure. If a soil is relatively loose and soft, it fails in local shear failure. Such a failure is accounted in bearing capacity equation by reducing the magnitudes of strength parameters c and

as follows.
tan 1 = c1 = 2 tan 3 2 c 3

Table summarizes the bearing capacity factors to be used under different situations. If is less than 360 and more than 280, it is not sure whether the failure is of general or local shear type. In such situations, linear interpolation can be made and the region is called mixed zone. Table 3: Bearing capacity factors in zones of local, mixed and general shear conditions. Local Shear Failure < 28o Nc1, Nq1, N1 Mixed Zone 28o < < 36o Ncm, Nqm, Nm General Shear Failure > 36o Nc, Nq, N

1.1.2 General Bearing Capacity Equation

It is evident that Tergaghis equation is only valid for the case of general shear failure because no soil compression is allowed before the failure occurs. Meyerhof, Hansen, and Vesic further extended Terzaghis bearing capacity equation to account for footing shape ( si), footing embedment depth (d1), load inclination or eccentricity (ii), sloping ground (gi), and tilted base (bi). Chen reevaluated N factors in Terzaghis equation using the limit analysis method. These efforts resulted in significant extensions of Terzaghis bearing capacity equation. The general form of the bearing capacity equation can be expressed as:

qu = c.Nc. Sc. dc. ic + q.Nq. Sq. dq. iq + 0.5.BN. S. d. i

Equations are available for shape factors (sc, sq, s), depth factors (dc, dq, d) and load inclination factors (ic, iq, i). The effects of these factors are to reduce the bearing capacity. Table 4: Bearing capacity factors for general bearing capacity equation

Note: Nc and Nq are same for all four methods; subscripts identify author for M = Meyerhof; H = Hansen; V = Vesic; C = Chen.

Vesic suggested that a flat reduction of might be too conservative in the case of local and punching shear failure. He proposed the following equation for a reduction factor varying with relative density Dr:

Bearing Capacity from Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

The SPT is widely used to obtain the bearing capacity of soils directly .Meyerhof (1956, 1974) published equation for computing the allowable bearing capacity for a 25 mm (1 inch) settlement. IN FPS SYSTEM: qall =

N 70 D (1 + 0.33 ) 2 B
2

but (1+0.33 but (1+0.33

D )1.33 and B 4.0 ft. B D )1.33 and B > 4.0 ft. B

N B +1 D qall = 70 (1 + 0.33 ) 3.2 B B

Where: qall = Allowable bearing pressure in ksf, for H = 1inch settlement. D = Depth of foundation (ft) B = Width of foundation (ft).

IN SI UNIT: qall =

N 70 D (1 + 0.33 ) 0.04 B
2

but (1+0.33 but (1+0.33

D )1.33 and B 1.2 m. B D )1.33 and B > 1.2 m. B

N B +1 D qall = 70 (1 + 0.33 ) 0.06 B B

Where: qall = Allowable bearing pressure in kpa, for H = 25 mm settlement. D = Depth of foundation (m) B = Width of foundation (m).

can be computed from the measured N as follows: The Standard blow count N 70
= CN.N. N 70 3 1 2 4

Where: CN=

95.76 p0

1/ 2

and

 = Effective overburden pressure in (kpa). p0

Hammer for 1 = 1.14 (normally) Rod length correction 2 = 1.00 = 0.95 = 0.85 Sampler correction 3 = 1.00 Borehole diameter correction 4 = 1.00 = 1.05 when rod length >10.0m when rod length 6-10m when rod length 4-6m without liner. for 60 mm-120 mm for 150 mm.
H j H 0

The allowable soil pressure for any settlement Hj is q a = qa inch and Hj = settlement that can be tolerated in mm or inch.

. Where Ho = 25 mm or 1

Parry (1977) proposed computing the allowable bearing capacity of cohesion less soils as: qa = 30N55 (kpa) for DB Where, N55 is the average SPT value at a depth about 0.75B below the proposed base of the footing. The allowable bearing pressure qa is computed for settlement checking as qa =
N 55 15 B

(kpa)

for a Ho = 20 mm

Angle of internal friction can be calculated by using SPT value as:

N 55 = 25 + 28 q
1/ 2

Here, q is the effective overburden pressure at the location of the average

N55 count.

N/avg. is an average value of the SPT blow counts, which is determined within the range of depths from footing base to 1.5B below the footing. In very fine or silty saturated sand, the measured SPT blow count ( N) is corrected for submergence effect as follows:

BEARING CAPACITY FROM PLATE LOAD TEST

For clay soil qult is independent of footing size, giving qult,foundation = qult, load test and for (c- ) soil qult,foundation = M+ N
B foundation Bloadtest

where M includes the Nc and Nq terms and N is the N term.

Practically for sand use the following relation qult,foundation

B foundation B plate equation is not recommended unless the

B foundation B plate = qult, load test

.The use of this

is not much more atan about 3.0.

Housels method for bearing capacity from plate load test

Housels (1929) and Williams (1929) both gave an equation for using at least two plate load tests to obtain an allowable load Ps for some settlement as Ps = Aq1 + pq2 Where A = area of plate used for the load test, m2 or ft2. P = perimeter of the load test plate, m or ft. q1= bearig pressure of interior zone of plate q2= edge shear of plate (kpa or ksf)

31.5.2 Layered Systems Westergaard [70], Burmister [21-23], Sowers and Vesic [62], Poulos and Davis [55], and Perloff [54] discussed the solutions to stress distributions for layered soil strata. The reality of interlayer shear is very complicated due to in situ nonlinearity and material inhomogeneity [37,54]. Either zero (frictionless) or with perfect fixity is assumed for the interlayer shear to obtain possible

FIGURE 31.9 Pressure bulbs based on the Bossinesq equation for square and long footings. (After NAVFAC 7.01, 1986].)

solutions. The Westergaard method assumed that the soil being loaded is constrained by closed spaced horizontal layers that prevent horizontal displacement [52]. Figures 31.10 through 31.12 by the Westergaard method can be used for calculating vertical stresses in soils consisting of alternative layers of soft (loose) and stiff (dense) materials. 31.5.3 Simplified Method (2:1 Method) Assuming a loaded area increasing systemically with depth, a commonly used approach for computing the stress distribution beneath a square or rectangle footing is to use the 2:1 slope method as shown in Fig. below. Sometimes a 60 distribution angle (1.73to1 slope) may be assumed.The pressure increase .q at a depth z beneath the loaded area due to base load P is

FIGURE 31.10 Vertical stress contours for square and strip footings [Westerqaard Case].(After NAVFAC 7.01, 1986.) Where symbols are referred to Figure 31.14. The solutions by this method compare very well with those of more theoretical equations from depth z from B to about 4B but should not be used for depth z from 0 to B [14]. A comparison between the approximate distribution of stress calculated by a theoretical method and the 2:1 method is illustrated in Figure 31.15.

31.6.2 Settlement of Shallow Foundations on Sand SPT Method DAppolonio et al. [28] developed the following equation to estimate settlements of footings on sand using SPT data:

Where 0 and 1 are settlement influence factors dependent on footing geometry, depth of embedment, and depth to the relative incompressible layer (Figure 31.17), p is average applied pressure under service load and M is modulus of compressibility. The correlation between M and average SPT blow count is given in Figure 31.18. Barker et al. [9] discussed the commonly used procedure for estimating settlement of footing on sand using SPT blow count developed by Terzaghi and Peck [64,65] and Bazaraa [10].

FIGURE 31.18 Correlation between modulus of compressibility and average value SPT blow count. (After DAppolonia et al [28].)

1.6 FACTOR OF SAFETY It is the factor of ignorance about the soil under consideration. It depends on many factors such as, 1. Type of soil 2. Method of exploration 3. Level of Uncertainty in Soil Strength 4. Importance of structure and consequences of failure 5. Likelihood of design load occurrence, etc. Assume a factor of safety F = 3, unless otherwise specified for bearing capacity problems. Table 7.5 provides the details of factors of safety to be used under different circumstances.

Table 7.5 Typical factors of safety for bearing capacity calculation in different situations

7.12 Presumptive Safe Bearing Capacity It is the bearing capacity that can be presumed in the absence of data based on visual identification at the site. National Building Code of India (1983) lists the values of presumptive SBC in kPa for different soils as presented below. A : Rocks Sl No 1 2 3 4 Description Rocks (hard) without laminations and defects. For e.g. granite, trap & diorite Laminated Rocks. For e.g. Sand stone and Lime stone in sound condition Residual deposits of shattered and broken bed rocks and hard shale cemented material Soft Rock SBC (kPa) 3240 1620 880 440

B : Cohesionless Soils Sl No 1 2 3 4 5 6 Description Gravel, sand and gravel, compact and offering resistance to penetration when excavated by tools Coarse sand, compact and dry Medium sand, compact and dry Fine sand, silt (dry lumps easily pulverized by fingers) Loose gravel or sand gravel mixture, Loose coarse to medium sand, dry Fine sand, loose and dry SBC (kPa) 440 440 245 150 245 100

C : Cohesive Soils Sl No 1 Description Soft shale, hard or stiff clay in deep bed, dry SBC (kPa) 440

2 3 4 5 6

Medium clay readily indented with a thumb nail Moist clay and sand clay mixture which can be indented with strong thumb pressure Soft clay indented with moderate thumb pressure Very soft clay which can be penetrated several centimeters with the thumb Black cotton soil or other shrinkable or expansive clay in dry condition (50 % saturation)

245 150 100 50 130 - 160

Note : 1. Use d for all cases without water. Use sat for calculations with water. If simply density is mentioned use accordingly. 2. Fill all the available data with proper units. 3. Write down the required formula 4. If the given soil is sand, c = 0

REFERENCES: 1. Joseph E. Bowles, Foundation Analysis and Design, Fifth Edition, McGraw Hill, New York, pp.213-343. 2. Braja M. Das, Principles of Foundation Engineering, Sixth Edition, India edition, pp.81-146.