2 Chapter General Bearing Capacity Final

Chapter 2: Subsurface Exploration P a g e |1
-
-

Kurdistan Region Iraq
Cihan University
College of Engineering
Department of Civil Engineering
Fourth Year
Chapter: 2
Ass. Prof.: Yousif Ismael Mawlood.
2017-2018
Ass. Prof. Yousif Ismael Mawlood Soil Mechanics and Foundation Eng. Civil Eng. Department
3. Introduction
To perform satisfactorily, a shallow foundation must have two main
characteristics:
1. The foundation has to be safe against an overall shear failure in the soil that
supports it.
2. The foundation cannot undergo excessive displacement (i.e., settlement).
Note:
The term excessive settlement 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
3.1 Mode of Bearing Capacity Failures:
Bearing capacity failures of foundations can be grouped into three

categories
1- General shear failure.
2- Local shear failure.
3- Punching shear failure.
3.1.1 General and Local Shear Failure of Soils
If the soil is generally dense, the settlement of the footing that precedes
the ultimate shear failure is relatively small. It is called general shear failure
(GSF) as shown in Figure 4.1(a) and curve 1 of the load settlement curves. If
the soil is loose, then a large settlement precedes the shear failure as shown in
Figure 4.1(b) and curve 2, of the load settlement curve. Such a failure is called
a local shear failure (LSF).
3.1.2 Punching Shear Failure
In some structures like liquid storage tanks and rafts supported on loose
soils, there could be a base shear failure in which the base/foundation
undergoes a punching failure as shown in Figure 4.1c and curve 3 of the load
settlement curve.
Note: In modern structures, the settlement failure is more common. The shear
failures are reported mostly from embankments and similar
structures/constructions. Punching shear failure is likely in liquid storage
structures and raft foundations founded on soft soils.
3.2 Bearing Capacity

3.2.1 Ultimate Bearing Capacity ( )
Its the minimum load per unit area of the foundation that causes shear failure
in the underlying soil. Or, its the maximum load per unit area of the
foundation can be resisted by the underlying soil without occurs of shear
failure (if this load is exceeded, the shear failure will occur in the underlying
soil).
3.2.2 Allowable Bearing Capacity ( )
Its the load per unit area of the foundation can be resisted by the underlying
soil without any unsafe movement occurs (shear failure) and if this load is
exceeded, the shear failure will not occur in the underlying soil till reaching
the ultimate load.
3.3 Terzaghis Bearing Capacity Theory

Terzaghi suggested that for a continuous, or strip, foundation (i.e., one
whose width-to-length ratio approaches zero), the failure surface in soil at
ultimate load may be assumed to be similar to that shown in Figure 4.6. The
failure zone under the foundation can be separated into three parts:
1. The triangular zone ACD immediately under the foundation

2. The radial shear zones ADF and CDE, with the curves DE and DF being
arcs of a logarithmic spiral
3. Two triangular passive zones AFH and CEG.
= + +
. (4.8) (continuous or strip foundation, such as wall foundations)
Where:
=
=
=
If , , are earth pressure coefficients that are functions of the soil
friction angle, .
= tan ( + 1) . . (4.9)
= tan (4.10)
And
1
= tan ( tan 1) (4.11)
2
Where
where , , = bearing capacity factors.
The bearing capacity factors , , are, respectively, the
contributions of cohesion, surcharge, and unit weight of soil to the ultimate
load-bearing capacity. It is extremely tedious to evaluate , , . For
this reason, Terzaghi used an approximate method to determine the ultimate
bearing capacity, . The values of , , are given here.
where
3
2( )
4 2
= ( 1) . . (4.11)

2 cos 2 (45 + )
2
3
2( )
4 2
= (4.13)

2 cos 2 (45 +
2)
And
1
= ( 2 1) (4.15)
2 cos
Where

= ( + ) Passive pressure coefficient, the variation of the
2
bearing capacity factors defined by equations (4.12), (4.13) and (4.12) are
given in table (4.1)
To estimate the ultimate bearing capacity of square and circular foundations,

Eq. (4.8) may be respectively modified to
qu = 1.3cNc + qNq + 0.4 BN (square foundationd) . (4.17)
B = The dimension of each side of the foundation
qu = 1.3cNc + qNq + 0.3BN (circular foundationd) . (4.18)
B = The diameter of the foundation.
3.4 Factor of Safety:

Calculating the gross allowable load-bearing capacity of shallow foundations
application of a factor of safety (FS) to the gross ultimate bearing capacity, or

= . (4.19)

However, some practicing engineers prefer to use a factor of safety such that
net ultimate bearing capacity
Net stress increase on soil = . (4.20)
FS
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.
() = . (4.21)
Where
() = The net ultimate bearing capacity
=

() = . (4.22)

where
The factor of safety as defined by Eq. (4.22) should be at least 3 in all cases.
Example 3.1
A square foundation is 2 m x 2 m in plan. The soil supporting the foundation
has a friction angle of = 25 and = 20 kN/m. and the unit weight of soil,

is = 16.5 . Determine the allowable gross load on the foundation with a
3
factor of safety (FS) of 3. Assume that the depth of the foundation ( ) is 1.5
m and that general shear failure occurs in the soil. Use Terzaghis Method.
Solution:
From Eq. (4.17)
= . + + .
From Table 4.1, for = 25,
= 25.13, = 12.72, = 8.34

Thus
= (1.3)(20)(25.13) + (1.516.5)(12.72) + (0.4)(16.5)(2)(8.34)
= 653.38 + 314.82 + 110.09 = 1078.29 /2
So, the allowable load per unit area of the foundation is,
qu 1078.29
qall = = 359.5 kN/m2
FS 3
Thus, the total allowable gross load is,
= (359.5)2 = (359.5)(22) = 1438
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 B will be subjected to an
allowable gross load of 1000 kN with FS = 3 and Df = 1 m. Determine the
size B of the foundation.
Solution
Allowable gross load Q = 1000 kN with FS = 3. Hence, the ultimate gross load
= ()() = (1000)(3) = 3000 . So,
3000
= = ()
2 2
From Eq. (4.17),

= 1.3 + + 0.4
for = 25,
= 25.13, = 12.72, = 8.34
Also,

= = (16.5)(1) = 16.5
2
Now,
= (1.3)(20)(25.13) + (16.5)(12.72) + (0.4)(16.5)()(8.34)

= 863.26 + 55.04 ()
Combining Eqs. (a) and (b),
300
= 863.26 + 55.04 ()
2
By trial and error, we have

B 5= 1.77 m 1.8 m
Example 4.3
The square footing shown below will carry a gross mass of 30,000 kg. Using a
factor of safety of 3 and using Terzaghis method, general shear failure, determine
the size B of the square footing.
Solution:
Given that the soil density = 1850 kg /m3, convert to a unit weight via the
relation

(1850 3 ) (9.81 2 )

= = = 18.15 3

1000

(30000 ) (9.81 2 )
= = = 294

1000

And the load to be supported by the footing
Terzaghi proposed that the ultimate bearing capacity of a square footing is given
by,
qu = 1.3cNc + qNq + 0.4 BN
And the allowable bearing capacity with the factor of safety of 3 is,
1
= = (1.3 + + 0.4 )
3 3
294
= = 2
2
294 1
Or = (1.3 + + 0.4 )
2 3
For = 35, = 57.75, = 41.44, and = 45.41.
Substituting these values into Terzaghis equation, we get

294 1
= [(0) + (18.15)(1)(41.44) + (0.4)(18.15)(45.41)]
2 3
294
= 250.712 + 109.892
2
294 = 250.7122 + 109.8923
109.8923 + 250.7122 294 = 0
3 + 2 = 0
By solving equation = 0.915 0.92
3.5 Modification of Bearing Capacity Equations for Water Table
If the water table is close to the foundation, some modifications of the bearing
capacity equations will be necessary.
Case I. If the water table is located so that 0 1 , the factor q in the

bearing capacity equations takes the form
q = effective surcharge = D1 + D2 (sat w ) . (4.23)
where
=
=
Also, the value of in the last term of the equations has to be replaced by
=
Case II. For a water table located so that 0
= . . (4.24)
In this case, the factor in the last term of the bearing capacity equations must be
replaced by the factor

= + ( ) . (4.25)

Case III. When the water table is located so that the water will have no
effect on the ultimate bearing capacity.
4.6 The General Bearing Capacity Equation.

Meyerhof (1963) suggested the following General Bearing Capacity equation:
qu = c Nc Fcs Fcd Fci + qNq Fqs Fqd Fqi + 0.5 BN Fs Fd Fi (4.26)
Where
c = the cohesion;
q = effective stress at the level of the bottom of the foundation
= the unit weight of the soil;
B = width of foundation (equal to the diameter for a circular foundation);
Nc , Nq , N = bearing capacity factors.
Fcs , Fqs , Fs = shape factors
Fcd , Fqd , Fd = depth factors
Fci , Fqi , Fi = load inclination factors
4.6 Bearing Capacity Factors for Meyerhof s equation:

Bearing capacity factors Depth Factors (continues):

for >
= tan2 (45 + ) . . (4.27)
2 For = 0
1
= ( 1) = ( 1) . (4.28) = 1 + 0.4 tan1 ( )
tan
= 2( + 1) . . (4.29)
: tan1 ( )

Shape Factors:
= = 1
For >
= 1 + ( ) ()
1
=
tan
= 1 + tan

= 1 + 2 tan (1 sin )2 1 ( )

= 1 0.4 ( ) where: (L > B)

tan1 ( )
Depth Factors: for Hansen (1970)

= 1
For = 0
Inclination Factors:
Meyerhof (1963); Hanna and Meyerhof (1981)
= 1 + 0.4 ( ) , = = 1
2
= = (1 )
For > 90
1 2
= = (1 ) Hence:
tan
=inclination of the load on the foundation with
= 1 + 2 tan (1 sin )2 ( )

respect to the vertical.
= 1
Example 4.3
A square foundation is 2 m x 2 m in plan. The soil supporting the foundation has a
friction angle of = 25 and = 20 kN/m. and the unit weight of soil, is =

16.5 . Determine the allowable gross load on the foundation with a factor of
3
safety (FS) of 3. Assume that the depth of the foundation ( ) is 1.5 m and that
general shear failure occurs in the soil. Use Eq. (4.26).
Solution
From Eq. (4.26),
qu = c Nc Fcs Fcd Fci + qNq Fqs Fqd Fqi + 0.5 BN Fs Fd Fi
Since the load is vertical = = = 1 from table 4.2
for = 25, = 20.72, = 10.66, = 10.88
Using Table 4.3
2 10.66
= 1 + ( )= 1+ ( ) = 1.514
2 20.72
2
= 1 + tan = 1 + tan 25 = 1.466
2
2
= 1 0.4 ( ) = 1 0.4 ( ) = 0.6
2
<

= 1 + 2 tan (1 sin )2 ( )

1.5
= 1 + 2 (tan 25)(1 sin 25)2 ( ) = 1.233
2
1 1 1.233
=
= 1.233 [ ] = 1.257
tan (20.72)(tan 25)
= 1
Hence,
qu = (20)(20.72)(1.514)(1.257)(1) + (1.5 16.5)(10.66)(1.466)(1.233)(1)
+ 0.5(16.5)(2)(10.88)(0.6)(1)(1)

qu = 788.6 + 476.9 + 107.7 = 1373.2
2
1373.2
= = = 457.7
. 3 2
Total allowable load (Q all ) = qall x B 2 = (457.7)(2 2) = 1830.8 kN
Example 4.4
A square foundation ( ) has to be constructed as shown in Figure 4.10.

Assume that = 16.5 3
, = 18.55 , = 34, = 1.22 , 1 =
3
0.61 . The gross allowable load, Qall with FS = 3 is 667.2 kN. Determine the
size of the footing. Use Eq. (4.26).
Solution:
667.2
= = . ()
2 2 2
From Eq. (4.26) (with = ), for vertical loading, we obtain

1
= = (qNq Fqs Fqd + 0.5 BN Fs Fd )
. 3
for = 34, from table 4.2,

= 29.44, = 41.06 ,

= 1 + tan = 1 + ( ) tan 34 = 1.67

= 1 0.4 ( ) = 1 0.4 ( ) = 0.6

Assume that <1

= 1 + 2 tan (1 sin )2 ( )

1.22 0.32
= 1 + 2 (tan 34)(1 sin 34)2 ( ) =1+

= 1
And

= (0.61)(16.5) + 0.61(18.55 9.81) = 15.4
2
So
1 0.32
= [(15.4)(29.44)(1.67) (1 + )
3 B
+ 0.5 (18.55 9.81)(B)(41.06)(0.6)(1)] . ()
80.76
= 252.38 + + 35.89

Combining Eqs. (a) and (b) results in
667.2 80.76
= 252.38 + + 35.89
2
667.2 = 252.38 2 + 80.76 + 35.89 3
35.89 3 + 252.38 2 + 80.76 667.2 = 0
Solving the above equation, we get

B1 = 6.18 or B2 = 1.36 m or B3 = 2.21 m
By trial and error, we find that

= . > = 1.22 . Assumed
< 1
Example 4.5
A square column foundation (Figure 4.11) is to be constructed on a sand
deposit. The allowable load Qall will be inclined at an angle = 20 with the
vertical. The standard penetration numbers N60 obtained from the field are as
follows.
Note that Eq. (3.29)
2
(deg) = 27.1 + 0.3N60 0.00054(N60 )
Determine Qall. Use FS = 3, Eq. (3.29), and Eq.
(4.26).
Solution
From Eq. (3.29),
(deg) = 27.1 + 0.3N60 0.00054(N60 )2
The following is an estimation of in the field
using Eq. (3.29).
With = 0, the ultimate bearing capacity [Eq. (4.26)] becomes
qu = qNq Fqs Fqd Fqi + 0.5 BN Fs Fd Fi

= (0.7)(18) = 12.6
2
kN
= 18
m3
From Table 4.3 = 30, (Note: B = L)
= 18.4, = 22.40
From Table 4.3, (Note: B = L)

= 1 + tan = 1 + 0.577 = 1.577

= 1 0.4 ( ) = 0.6

<1

= 1 + 2 tan (1 sin )2 ( )

(0.289)(0.7)
=1+ = 1.162
1.25
= 1
2 20 2
Fqi = (1 ) = (1 ) = 0.605
90 90
2 20 2
= (1 ) = (1 ) = 0.11
30
Hence,
= (12.6)(18.4)(1.577)(1.162) (0.605) + 0.5 (18)(1.25)(22.4)(0.6)(1)(0.11)

= 257.028 + 16.632 = 273.66
2
qu 273.66
= = = 91.22 2
3
Now
cos 20 = 2 = (91.22)(1.25)2
(91.22)(1.25)2
=
cos(20)
= 151.7
4.10 Eccentrically Loaded Foundations
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
6
= + 2 (4.44)

And
6
= 2 (4.45)

Where
Q = total vertical load
M = moment on the foundation
Figure 4.17b shows a force system equivalent to that shown in Figure 4.17a. The
Distance

= (4.46)

is the eccentricity. Substituting Eq. (4.46) into Eqs. (4.44) and (4.45) gives
6
= (1 + ) (4.47)

And
6
= (1 ) (4.48)

Note that, in these equations,
B
If e = qmin = 0
6
B
for e > qmin = This means that tension will develop.
6
- Because soil cannot take any tension, there will then be a
separation between the foundation and the soil underlying it.
- The value of
4
= (4.49)
3( 2)
The factor of safety for such type of loading against bearing capacity failure can be
evaluated as

= . (. )

where ultimate load-carrying capacity.
4.11 Ultimate Bearing Capacity under Eccentric Loading

One-Way Eccentricity
I. Effective Area Method (Meyerhof, 1953)
In 1953, Meyerhof proposed a theory that is generally referred to as
the effective area method.
The following is a step-by-step procedure for determining the
ultimate load that the soil can support and the factor of safety against
bearing capacity failure:
Step 1. Determine the effective dimension of the foundation

(Figure 4.19a):

B = effective width = B 2e
L = effective length = L
If the eccentricity in the direction of L
L = effective length = L 2e
B = effective width = B
The smaller of the two dimensions (i.e., L and B ) is the effective
width of foundation
Step 2. Use equation (4.26) for the ultimate bearing capacity:

= c Nc Fcs Fcd Fci + qNq Fqs Fqd Fqi + 0.5 N Fs Fd Fi . (4.51)
- To evaluate Fcs , Fqs , and Fs 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 Fd use the
relationships given in Table 4.3 However, do not replace B with

Step 3. The total ultimate load that the foundation can sustain is
= = ( )( ) . . (4.52)
= ( )( ) =
Step 4. The factor of safety against bearing capacity failure is
Qu
FS =
Q
It is important to note that is the ultimate bearing capacity of a
foundation of width = 2 with a centric load (Figure 4.19a).
However, the actual distribution of soil reaction at ultimate load will
be of the type shown in Figure 4.19b. In Figure 4.19b, () is the
average load per unit area of the foundation. Thus,
(2 )

() = . (4.53)

Example 4.7:
A continuous foundation is shown in Figure 4.23. If the load
eccentricity is 0.2 m, determine the ultimate load, Q u , per unit length
of the foundation. Use Meyerhofs effective area method.
Solution:
For c = 0, Eq. (4.51) gives

= + 0.5

= (16.5)(1.5) = 24.75 2 .

for = 40 , From Table 4.2,

Nq = 64.2 N = 109.41

= 2 = 2 2(0.2) = 1.6
Because the foundation in question is

a continuous foundation, is zero.

Hence,
= 1 = 1
from Table 4.3
= = 1
1.5
= 1 + 2 tan (1 sin )2 ( ) = 1 + 0.214 ( ) = 1.16
2
= 1
and
= (24.75)(. )(1)(1.16)(1) + (0.5)(16.5)(1.6)(109.41)(1)(1)(1)

kN
= 3287.39 2
m
Consequently,
= (1)( ) = (1.6)(1)(3287.39)
Example 3.4:
A square foundation is shown in Figure
3.9. Assume that the one-way load
eccentricity e = 0.15 m. Determine the
ultimate load Qu.
Solution:
= + + 0.5 . (3.43)
= 0 , = 0
= + 0.5

= (0.7)(18) = 12.6 2

From Table 4.2, for = 30
Nq = . N = .
= 2 = 1.5 2(0.15) = 1.2
= = 1.5
1.2
= 1 + tan = 1 + ( ) tan 30 = 1.462
1.5
1.2
= 1 0.4 ( ) = 1 0.4 ( ) = 0.68
1.5

For 1

0.7
= 1 + 2 tan (1 sin )2 ( ) = 1 + 2 tan 30 (1 sin 30 )2 ( )
1.5
= 1.135
= 1
= + 0.5
= (12.6)(. )(1.462)(1.135)(1) + (0.5)(18)(1.2)(22.40)(0.68)(1)(1)
kN
= 384.7 + 164.50 = 549.2
m2
Hence
= ( ) = (1.2)(1.5)(549.2) 988
5.9 Bearing Capacity of Foundations on a Slope

A theoretical solution for the ultimate bearing capacity of a shallow
foundation located on the face of a slope was developed by Meyerhof
(1957). Figure 5.23 shows the nature of the plastic zone developed
under a rough continuous foundation of width B. In Figure 5.23,
is an elastic zone, is a radial shear zone, and is a mixed
shear zone. Based on this solution, the ultimate bearing capacity can
be expressed as
= (for purely cohesive soil, that is, = 0) . (5.45)
and
= 0.5 (for granular soil, that is ) , c = 0) . (5.46)
The variations of and with slope angle are given in

Figures 5.24 and 5.25.
4.5 Foundations on Rock
On some occasions, shallow foundations may have to be built on

rocks, as shown in Figure 5.32. For estimation of the ultimate
bearing capacity of shallow foundations on rock, we may use
Terzaghis bearing capacity equations [Eqs. (4.8), (4.17) and (4.18)]
with the bearing capacity factors given here (Stagg and Zienkiewicz,
1968; Bowles, 1996):
4

= 5 tan (45 + ) . . (5.50)
2

= tan6 (45 + ) . . (5.51)
2
= + 1 . . (5.52)
For rocks, the magnitude of the cohesion intercept, , can be

expressed as

= 2 (45 + ) . . (5.53)
2
where
= unconfined compression strength of rock
= angle of friction
The unconfined compression strength and the friction angle of rocks

can vary widely. Table 5.4 gives a general range of for various
types of rocks. It is important to keep in mind that the magnitude of
and (hence ) reported from laboratory tests are for intact
rock specimens. It does not account for the effect of discontinuities.
To account for discontinuities, Bowles (1996) suggested that the
ultimate bearing capacity should be modified as
() = ()2 . . (5.54)
where RQD = rock quality designation
In any case, the upper limit of the allowable bearing capacity should
not exceed (28-day compressive strength of concrete).
Example 5.13
Refer to Figure 5.32. A square column foundation is to be
constructed over siltstone.
Given:
Foundation: = 2.5 2.5 , = 2

: = 17 3

Siltstone: = 32 2 = 31 = 25 = 50%
3
Estimate the allowable load-bearing capacity. Use FS= 4. Also, for

concrete, use = 30 2 .

Solution
From Eq. (4.17),
= 1.3 + + 0.4
31
= 5 tan (45 + ) = 5 tan4 (45 + ) = 48.8
4
2 2

31
= tan6 (45 + ) = tan6 (45 + ) = 30.5
2 2
= + 1 = 30.5 + 1 = 31.5
Hence

= 1.3 (32 103 2 ) (48.8) + (17 2)(30.5) + (0.4)(25)(2.5)(31.5)

= 2030.08 103 + 1.037 103 + 0.788 103 2031.9 103 2

() = ()2 = (2030)(0.5)2 = 508
2

= =

Since 127 2 is greater than , use = 30 2

Checking Sliding of Footing:

To complete stability of foundation after checking bearing capacity, horizontal sliding of footing
must also must be checked. As shown in fig 2.7
Sliding:
Resisting forces
FSS =
Driving forces
V tan + C Af + other forces
= 1.5 P
H
H G.L
V = sum of vertical forces, resultant
2 2
Assumed value = , =
3 3
C = cohesion of the soil =
= area of footing
H = deriving forces
Also, it is useful to check overturning of the footing as
Fig.2.7 V
Below:
Ex.5 W.l
Overturning:
Resisting moment
FSO = 2
Overturning moment
Example
Footing 1.5m x 3 m is subject to vertical load p = 600 kN and horizontal load =
100 As shown in the following figure. Check the stability of the footing in
sliding, and overturning
P= 600 kN
H= 100 kN
G.L
Sand: c =0, =36,

2m
=18 kN/m3
1.5m x 3 m
Sat. Sand =36,

Fig. sat = 19.8kN/m3,
c=20 kN/m2
Solution
Resisting forces V tan + C Af + other forces

FSS = = 1.5
Driving forces H
2 2
600 x tan ( x36 ) + x 20x1.5x3 + 0
=
3 3 = 3.27 1.5 O. K
100
Resisting moment 600 x 0.75

FSO = = = 2.25 2 o. k
Overturning moment 100 x 2

2 Chapter General Bearing Capacity Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2 Chapter General Bearing Capacity Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 2: Subsurface Exploration P a g e |1

Ass. Prof.: Yousif Ismael Mawlood.

Bearing capacity failures of foundations can be grouped into three

3.2 Bearing Capacity

3.3 Terzaghis Bearing Capacity Theory

1. The triangular zone ACD immediately under the foundation

To estimate the ultimate bearing capacity of square and circular foundations,

3.4 Factor of Safety:

= 25.13, = 12.72, = 8.34

From Eq. (4.17),

= (1.3)(20)(25.13) + (16.5)(12.72) + (0.4)(16.5)()(8.34)

By trial and error, we have

qu = 1.3cNc + qNq + 0.4 BN

For = 35, = 57.75, = 41.44, and = 45.41.

Substituting these values into Terzaghis equation, we get

294 = 250.7122 + 109.8923

109.8923 + 250.7122 294 = 0

By solving equation = 0.915 0.92

3.5 Modification of Bearing Capacity Equations for Water Table

Case I. If the water table is located so that 0 1 , the factor q in the

4.6 The General Bearing Capacity Equation.

qu = c Nc Fcs Fcd Fci + qNq Fqs Fqd Fqi + 0.5 BN Fs Fd Fi (4.26)

4.6 Bearing Capacity Factors for Meyerhof s equation:

From Eq. (4.26) (with = ), for vertical loading, we obtain

for = 34, from table 4.2,

+ 0.5 (18.55 9.81)(B)(41.06)(0.6)(1)] . ()

35.89 3 + 252.38 2 + 80.76 667.2 = 0

Solving the above equation, we get

By trial and error, we find that

With = 0, the ultimate bearing capacity [Eq. (4.26)] becomes

qu = qNq Fqs Fqd Fqi + 0.5 BN Fs Fd Fi

4.10 Eccentrically Loaded Foundations

In several instances, as with the base of a retaining wall, foundations are

4.11 Ultimate Bearing Capacity under Eccentric Loading

Step 1. Determine the effective dimension of the foundation

Step 2. Use equation (4.26) for the ultimate bearing capacity:

Step 4. The factor of safety against bearing capacity failure is

For c = 0, Eq. (4.51) gives

= (24.75)(. )(1)(1.16)(1) + (0.5)(16.5)(1.6)(109.41)(1)(1)(1)

5.9 Bearing Capacity of Foundations on a Slope

The variations of and with slope angle are given in

4.5 Foundations on Rock

On some occasions, shallow foundations may have to be built on

For rocks, the magnitude of the cohesion intercept, , can be

The unconfined compression strength and the friction angle of rocks

Checking Sliding of Footing:

Sand: c =0, =36,

Sat. Sand =36,

Resisting forces V tan + C Af + other forces

Resisting moment 600 x 0.75

You might also like