Study of Effect of Different Parameters on Bearing Capacity of Soil

IGC 2009, Guntur, INDIA

STUDY OF EFFECT OF DIFFERENT PARAMETERS ON BEARING

CAPACITY OF SOIL

M.S. Dixit
Research Scholar, Government College of Engineering, Aurangabad (M.S.)–431 005, India.
E-mail: manishsdixit@gmail.com
K.A. Patil
Lecturer in Civil Engineering Department., Government College of Engineering , Aurangabad (M.S.)–431 005, India.
E-mail:kapatil111@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT: Soil is considered by the engineer as a complex material produced by weathering of the solid rock. Soil is the
most important material which is in use for construction of civil engineering structures. Amongst all parameters, the bearing
capacity of soil to support the load coming over its unit area is very Important. There are various methods for calculation of
bearing capacity of soil put forth by scientists like Prandtl, Terzaghi, Meyerhoff, Hansen, Vesic and others. Principal factors
that Influence ultimate bearing capacities are type of soil, width of foundation, soil weight in shear zone and surcharge.
Structural rigidity and the contact stress distribution do not greatly influence bearing capacity. Bearing capacity analysis
assumes a uniform contact pressure between the foundation and underlying soil. With other factors unchanged the type of
failure of soil, depth of foundation, and effect of water table also governs the bearing capacity of soil. The present paper deals
with the study of effect of shape of footing on bearing capacity of soil. Similarly the effect of depth of footing on bearing
capacity of soil is studied. In general, other factors remaining constant, bearing capacity of soil goes on increasing as depth or
width of foundation increases. The comparison of bearing capacity of soil with methods of analysis given by Terzaghi and IS
code method is carried out for different shapes i.e. strip, square, circular and rectangle. In case of local shear failure, amongst
different shapes of footing the bearing capacity of strip footing is found to be lowest in comparison with square, circular and
rectangular shaped footings.
Key Words: Bearing Capacity, Soil Parameters, Strip Footing, Depth of Foundation.

1. INTRODUCTION and to a purely cohesive soil. Meyerhoff (1951) used limit

equilibrium method for the evaluation of ultimate bearing
Soil is a universally available natural material derived mostly
capacity of shallow foundation with rough base for a c-∅
from rocks and rocky minerals. As soil is a product of nature
soil. Chen (1975) used limit analysis approach and employed
possess an inherently variable and complex character. The
Prandtl and Hill mechanism for the evaluation of bearing
bearing capacity is the most important soil property which
capacity factors for rough and smooth footings respectively.
governs the design of foundation. Soft clay strata are often
Finite element analysis has been used by different
unable to bear the load transferred from the super structure to
investigators in conjunction with plasticity theory, to predict
the foundation Bearing capacity and the settlement are the
bearing capacity of strip footings. Many investigators
two important parameters in the field of geotechnical
attributed the beneficial changes in properties of soil and
engineering. Civil engineering projects such as buildings,
increase in the load carrying capacity of the soil by various
bridges dams and roadways require detailed subsurface
methods like compaction, preloading, grouting, densification
information as part of the design process. Bearing capacity is
using vibratory equipment, using in situ reinforcement, using
affected by various factors like change in level of water table
geotextiles, chemical stabilization etc.
eccentric loads, inclined loads dimensions of the footing etc.
Terzaghi (1943) proposed the first comprehensive bearing
capacity analysis for the case of strip footing with rough base 2. EXPERIMENTAL WORK
for a frictional cohesive soil using limit equilibrium method.
The initial contributions in this area were also made by 2.1 Material
Prandtl, (1920) Resissner (1924). Prandtl (1920) obtained 2.1.1 Soil
analytical closed form solutions for ultimate bearing pressure
for the case of a strip footing on weightless semi-infinite The soils used in the study were collected from different
space. This analysis is applicable to frictional cohesive soil locations and depth. The details of the soil samples collected

682
 Study of Effect of Different Parameters on Bearing Capacity of Soil

are as shown in the table 1. The proposed depths of Table 3: Effect of Shape of Footing on Ultimate Bearing
foundation at these sites were considered based on judicious Capacity of Soil for Local Shear Failure
judgment. Method Shape of footing
of Strip Square Rectan- Circular
Table 1: Details of Different Soils Collected analysis gular
Symbol Location Depth of foundation Terzaghi 266.18 319.14 300.56 318.12
in meter IS code 242.71 288.70 272.29 302.50
Soil-1 Paithan 2.5
Soil-2 Aurangabad 1.2 From Table 3 it is found that, in case of local shear failure
Soil-3 Ellora 2.0 and by Terzaghi’s analysis the ultimate bearing capacity
determined is highest for square shaped footing and least for
strip footing. The square and circular shaped footings have
3. LABORATORY TESTS fairly same values of ultimate bearing capacity. In case of IS
The aim of this work is to study the effect of different code method, the ultimate bearing capacity determined is
parameters on bearing capacity of the soil. Three highest for circular shaped footing and least one for strip
representative soil samples from proposed depth of footing. This effect of shape of footing on ultimate bearing
foundation were collected. Experimental work was planned capacity determined by methods given by Terzaghi and
to study the properties of different soils collected for Bureau of Indian Standard is different for different footings,
determination of ultimate bearing capacity of the soil. For all due to combined effect of value of shape factors and different
these soils the standard protector test and direct shear tests values of bearing capacity factors.
were conducted to determine maximum dry density, Soil 2 is a non-cohesive soil hence the type of failure
optimum moisture content, cohesion and angle of internal possible is general shear failure. For non-cohesive soils the
friction (∅). The test results of different soils tested for these value of cohesion is less and hence neglected. Most of time,
properties are as shown in table 2. this cohesion is apparent cohesion. For soil 2 by using
Tezaghi and IS code method, the values of ultimate bearing
Table 2: Properties of different soils collected for bearing capacities are determined. These values obtained are
capacity analysis. tabulated in Table 4.
Symbol Depth of MDD OMC% C in (∅)
of soil foundation in kN/m2 Table 4: Effect of Shape of Footing on Ultimate Bearing
in meter gm/cm3 Capacity of Soil for General Shear Failure
Soil-1 2.5 1.49 26.2 30.00 12.5 Method Shape of footing
Soil-2 1.2 1.83 11.4 2.90 35 of Strip Square Rectan- Circular
Soil-3 2.0 1.60 19.2 16.25 25 analysis gular
Terzaghi 1272.30 1196.19 1196.19 1120.08
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION IS code 1148.35 1205.59 1129.09 1119.38
The inputs required for determination of ultimate bearing
From Table 4 it is found that, in case of Terzaghi’s analysis
capacity of soil are cohesion, unit weight of soil, depth of
the value of ultimate bearing capacity is lowest for circular
proposed foundation, width of foundation and bearing
footing and maximum for strip footing. This is due to
capacity factors. In case of general shear failure and when
combined effect of cohesion equal to zero and effect of shape
value of cohesion is less, it is neglected. In general, unless
factors while calculating the ultimate bearing capacity of the
otherwise mentioned the width of footing is assumed to be soil. Whereas in case of IS code method, the ultimate bearing
1.0 meter. Similarly in further section the value of bearing capacity is maximum for square footing and minimum for
capacity tabulated in table are in kN/m2. circular footing.

4.1 Effect of Shape of Footing on Bearing Capacity
The shape of footing is an important parameter which
governs the ultimate bearing capacity of the soil. In general
strip, square rectangular and circular shaped footing are used.
For soil 1 by keeping other parameters constant, the effect of
shape of footing on ultimate bearing capacity of soil is
studied. The values of ultimate bearing capacity for soil-1 are
determined by methods given by Terzaghi and Bureau of
Indian Standard. These values are tabulated in Table 3.
4.2 Effect of Depth of Footing on Bearing Capacity
The depth of footing is important parameter which governs
the ultimate bearing capacity of the soil. For different soils
by keeping other parameters constant, the effect of depth of
strip footing on ultimate bearing capacity of soil is studied.
In this study it is assumed that irrespective of variation in
depth of foundation the properties of soil remain constant.
The values of ultimate bearing capacities determined for
different soils by IS code method are as shown in Table 5. In

683
Study of Effect of Different Parameters on Bearing Capacity of Soil

Table 5, the values in parenthesis indicate the percentage The effect of increase in width of footing leads to marginal
increase in ultimate bearing capacity in comparison with 1.5 increase in ultimate bearing capacity. This effect increases
meter depth of foundation. with increase in value of ∅ of the soil. This is due to increase
In general, it is understood that with other factors remaining in values of bearing capacity factors used in calculation of
constant as depth of foundation increases the bearing ultimate bearing capacity of soil.
capacity of soil increases. The values of angle of internal
friction (∅) for soil 1, soil 2, and soil 3 are 12.5,35 and 25 4.4 Effect of Water Table on Bearing Capacity
degrees, respectively. Thus the percentage increase in
ultimate bearing capacity with reference to 1.5 meter depth The change in moisture content of the soil affects the
for further depths is lesser for soil 1 having value of ∅ equal properties of the soil. Similarly, if soil gets submerged its
to 12.5 degree, somewhat more for soil 3 having value of ∅ ability to support the load coming over it unit area is reduced.
equal to 25 degree and maximum for soil 2 having value of When the water table is above the base of the footing, the
∅ equal to 35 degree. The effect of increase in depth on submerged weight is used for the soil below the water table
increase in safe bearing capacity is predominant due to for computing the surcharge. The water table corrections are
increase in surcharge weight, which governs the safe bearing applied to determine the ultimate bearing capacity of the soil.
capacity of the soil. For different soils by keeping other parameters constant, the
effect of water table for strip footing on safe bearing capacity
Table 5: Effect of Depth of Strip Footing on Ultimate of soil is studied. The values of safe bearing capacities
Bearing Capacity determined by using factor of safety of 3 for different soils
by IS code method are shown in Table 7. In Table 7 the
Type Depth of foundation in meter Type of
values in parenthesis indicate percentage decrease in safe
of 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 failure
bearing capacity of soil in comparison with no water table
soil
correction.
Soil 1 210.69 226.70 242.71 258.72 Local
(7.60) (15.20) (22.80) shear
failure Table 7: Effect of Water Table on Safe Bearing Capacity
Soil 2 1327.67 1626.54 1925.41 2224.37 General of Soil
(22.51) (45.02) (67.04) shear Type of Safe bearing capacity in kN/m2 Type of
failure soil Without Water Water failure
Soil 3 289.25 329.2 369.16 409.12 Local water table table
(13.81) (27.63) (41.44) shear table may may
failure correction reach reach up
upto the to the
4.3 Effect of Width of Footing on Bearing Capacity base of ground
the level
The width of footing is important parameter which governs footing
the ultimate bearing capacity of the soil. For different soils Soil 1 117.45 104.08 78.39 Local
by keeping other parameters constant, the effect of width of (11.38) (33.26) shear
strip footing on ultimate bearing capacity of soil is studied. failure
The values of ultimate bearing capacities determined for
Soil 2 397.14 325.30 197.90 General
different soils by IS code method are shown in Table 6.
(18.09) (50.17) shear
failure
Table 6: Effect of Width of Strip Footing on Ultimate Soil 3 130.67 125.51 85.80 Local
Bearing Capacity of Soil (3.95) (34.33) shear
Type Width of foundation in meter Type of failure
of 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 failure
soil From Table 7, it is found that for soil 1 having value of ∅
Soil 1 241.99 244.14 246.29 248.44 Local equal to 12.5 degrees, the percentage decrease in safe bearing
shear capacity of soil due to water table corrections is found to be
failure 11.38% and 33.26%. For soil 3 having value of ∅ equal to
Soil 2 1105.24 1234.57 1363.89 1493.21 General 25 degrees the percentage decrease in safe bearing capacity
shear of soil due to water table corrections is found to be 3.95%
failure and 34.33%. For soil 2 having value of ∅ equal to 35 degree
Soil 3 326.11 335.39 344.67 353.95 Local the percentage decrease in safe bearing capacity of soil due
shear to water table corrections is found to be 18.09% and 50.17%.
failure Thus it can be concluded that the effect of water table

684

correction on safe bearing capacity is predominant for non-
cohesive soil. Safe bearing capacity of non cohesive soil is
reduced to about 50% when water table may reach upto
ground level.
5. CONCLUSIONS
Based on the studies carried out following conclusions are
drawn :
• The important parameters which govern the bearing
capacity of soil are cohesion, unit weight of soil, depth
of proposed foundation, width of foundation and angle
of internal friction.
• In case of local shear failure, the values of ultimate
bearing capacity determined for circular and square
shaped footings are found to be higher than strip and
rectangular footings. This trend is different for non
cohesive soil.
• As depth of foundation increases ultimate bearing
capacity of soil increases. The effect of increase in depth
on safe bearing capacities is predominant due to increase
in surcharge weight.
• The effect of increase in width of footing on ultimate
bearing capacity is marginal
• For cohesive and frictional soil leading to local shear
failure, the effect of water table correction on safe
bearing capacity is less in comparison with non-cohesive
soil.
685
Study of Effect of Different Parameters on Bearing Capacity of Soil
• The effect of water table correction on safe bearing
capacity is predominant for non-cohesive soil. Safe
bearing capacity of non-cohesive soil is reduced to about
50% when water table may reach up to ground level.
REFERENCES
Bohdan Zadroga, (1994). “Bearing Capacity of Shallow
Foundations on Non-cohesive Soil” ASCE, Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 120, No. 11, pp. 1991–
2008.
Griffths D.V., Fenton G.A. and Manoharan N., (2002).
“Bearing Capacity of Rough Rigid Strip Footings on
Cohesive Soil: Probabilistic Study”, Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE,
pp. 743–755.
Hans L. Erickson and Andrew Drescher, (2002). “Bearing
Capacity of Circular Footings”, Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 128,
No. 1, pp. 38–43.
Junhawan Lee and Rodrige Salgado, (2005). “Estimation of
Bearing Capacity of Circular Footings on Sands Based on
Cone Penetration Test”, Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, pp. 442–452.
Kasmalkar B.J., (2002). “Foundation Engineering”, Pune
Vidyarthi Griha Prakashan, Sadashiv Peth, Pune.
Nayak N.V. (2001). “Foundation Design Manual”, Dhanpat
Rai Publication Private Limited, New Delhi.
Punmiya B.C. (2003). Soil Mechanics and Foundation,
Laxmi Publications Private Limited, New Delhi.