CE 5105

Analytical & Numerical Methods in Foundation

Engineering
CA1-Strip Footing Bearing Capacity Study

Letchumanan Mayooran
A0193997B
Objective : Determine the Nc in the bearing capacity formula by using FEM (plain strain analysis in Plaxis)
Reference: Computation of bearing capacity factors Using Finite Elements By D.V Griffiths

Equation for bearing capacity of shallow foundation By Terzaghi (1943)

1
𝑄𝑢𝑙𝑡 = 𝐶𝑁𝑐 + 𝑞𝑠 𝑁𝑞 + 𝑁𝛾 𝛾𝐵
2
1.Determine Nc
If qs=0 & γ=0 Then;
𝑄𝑢𝑙𝑡
𝑁𝐶 =
𝐶

2.Determine Nq
If C=0 & γ=0 Then;
𝑄𝑢𝑙𝑡
𝑁𝑞 =
𝑞𝑠

3.Determine Nγ
If C=0 & qs=0 Then;
2𝑄𝑢𝑙𝑡
𝑁𝛾 =
𝐵𝛾

Type of footing and Plaxis Simulation

Case:1 Smooth 𝛿=0

Rough 𝛿≥∅
Case:2 Rigid
Flexible

Summary of FEM (Plaxis) model considerations from the reference (By D.V Griffiths)

1.Bearing pressure is mobilised by "applying prescribed vertical displcement" at nodes

2.By altering the no of nodes displaced different footing width can be simulated
3.For smooth footing the nodes were displaced vertically but allowed free movement horizontally
but for the rough footing added restrains horizontally
4.The most realistic model approach is model the footing and apply the load on it, But in
FEM study use Displacement control is most convinient rather than Load control
5.possible to place an actual footing on soil but to make sure the strength & stiffness of the
footing is much higher than the underneath soil in order to study the Rigid behaviour
6.Simple and ideal way to create rigid or flexible footing in FEM to use the displacement
control is more appropriate
Plaxis model
Rigid Smooth footing

prescribed displacement applied

to soil body directly (Rigid)

Lateral Restrain set to free for

described displacement (smooth)

magnitude & direction of

prescribed deflection

Bondary conditions of the FEM model

 Plaxis model
Flexible Rough footing

prescribed displacement applied

on concrete footing (Flexible)

Lateral Restrain applied for

described displacement (Rough)

magnitude & direction of

prescribed deflection

Bondary conditions of the FEM model

horizontally
When model (For Nγ) for the uniform load Local failure observed,to over come this
problem small amount of plastic soil introduced to the soil body

In order to achieve above stress distribution uniform varied load applied in order to
Study the failure mechanism for Nγ
Common Errors /failures encountered in plaxis during the analysis

1.Not enough Load steps

2.Seems Soil Body Collapse

3.Load advancement fails

1.Show how Nc is obtained as function of C and Phi, and Psi angle
Determine Nc If qs=0 & γ=0 Then;
𝑄𝑢𝑙𝑡
𝑁𝐶 =
𝐶
Nc Rigid & Smooth

Soil Fy(Qult) C' Nc

γ=0, φ=0, Ψ=0 521.007 100 5.2
γ=0, φ=10, Ψ=0 843.274 100 8.4
γ=0, φ=20, Ψ=0 1415.315 100 14.2
γ=0, φ=20, Ψ=20 1506.548 100 15.1
γ=0, φ=30, Ψ=0 2493.583 100 24.9
γ=0, φ=30, Ψ=30 3064.387 100 30.6
Nc Rigid & Rough

Soil Fy(Qult) C' Nc

γ=0, φ=0, Ψ=0 527.026 100 5.3
γ=0, φ=10, Ψ=0 850.185 100 8.5
γ=0, φ=20, Ψ=0 1448.98 100 14.5
γ=0, φ=20, Ψ=20 1526.836 100 15.3
γ=0, φ=30, Ψ=0 2381.907 100 23.8
γ=0, φ=30, Ψ=30 3110.21 100 31.1
 Nc From Nc-Rigid Nc-Rigid
Soil
Euation 3 Smooth(Plaxis) Rough(Plaxis)
φ=0 5.1 5.2 5.3
φ=5 6.5
φ=10 8.3 8.4 8.5
φ=15 11.0
φ=20 14.8 14.2 14.5
φ=25 20.7
φ=30 30.1 24.9 23.8

Comparison of Nc Smooth Vs Rough footing

35.0

30.0

25.0

20.0

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Nc-From Eq 3 Nc-Rigid Smooth (plaxis) Nc-Rigid Rough(Plaxis)

Nc Flexible & rough
Soil Fy(Qult) C' Nc
γ=0, φ=0, Ψ=0 526.948 100 5.3
γ=0, φ=10, Ψ=0 851.033 100 8.5
γ=0, φ=20, Ψ=0 1454.793 100 14.6
γ=0, φ=20, Ψ=20 1526.071 100 15.3
γ=0, φ=30, Ψ=0 2560.474 100 25.6
γ=0, φ=30, Ψ=30 3097.002 100 31.0

Nc Flexible & Smooth

Soil Fy(Qult) C' Nc
γ=0, φ=0, Ψ=0 526.947 100 5.3
γ=0, φ=10, Ψ=0 851.033 100 8.5
γ=0, φ=20, Ψ=0 1438.21 100 14.4
γ=0, φ=20, Ψ=20 1526.06 100 15.3
γ=0, φ=30, Ψ=0 2473.746 100 24.7
γ=0, φ=30, Ψ=30 3096.978 100 31.0
 Nc From Nc-Flexible Nc-Flexible
Soil
Euation 3 Rough(Plaxis) Smooth(Plaxis)
φ=0 5.1 5.3 5.3
φ=5 6.5
φ=10 8.3 8.5 8.5
φ=15 11.0
φ=20 14.8 14.6 14.4
φ=25 20.7
φ=30 30.1 25.6 24.7

Comparison of Nc Smooth Vs Rough footing

35.0

30.0

25.0

20.0

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Nc-From Eq 3 Nc-flexible Smooth(plaxis) Nc-Flexible Rough(Plaxis)
 Determination of Nc- Rigid & Smooth Footing
Incremental Displacement Plastic points

γ=0, φ=0, Ψ=0

γ=0, φ=10, Ψ=0

γ=0, φ=20, Ψ=0

γ=0, φ=30, Ψ=0

 Determination of Nc-Rigid & Smooth Footing
Incremental Displacement Plastic points

γ=0, φ=20, Ψ=20

γ=0, φ=30, Ψ=30

Determination of Nc-Rigid & Rough Footing

γ=0, φ=0, Ψ=0

γ=0, φ=10, Ψ=0

 Determination of Nc- Rigid & Rough Footing
Incremental Displacement Plastic points

γ=0, φ=20, Ψ=0

γ=0, φ=30, Ψ=0

γ=0, φ=20, Ψ=20

γ=0, φ=30, Ψ=30

2.Show how Nq is obtained as function of C and Phi, and Psi angle
Determine Nq If C=0 & γ=0 Then;
𝑄𝑢𝑙𝑡
𝑁𝑞 =
𝑞𝑠
Nq Rigid & Smooth

Soil Fy(Qult) qs Nq
γ=0, φ=0, Ψ=0 10.124 10 1.0
γ=0, φ=10, Ψ=0 24.991 10 2.5
γ=0, φ=20, Ψ=0 62.985 10 6.3
γ=0, φ=20, Ψ=20 64.761 10 6.5
γ=0, φ=30, Ψ=0 149.349 10 14.9
γ=0, φ=30, Ψ=30 186.027 10 18.6
Nq Rigid & Rough

Soil Fy(Qult) qs Nq
γ=0, φ=0, Ψ=0 10.68 10 1.1
γ=0, φ=10, Ψ=0 25.066 10 2.5
γ=0, φ=20, Ψ=0 62.062 10 6.2
γ=0, φ=20, Ψ=20 65.444 10 6.5
γ=0, φ=30, Ψ=0 146.773 10 14.7
γ=0, φ=30, Ψ=30 188.576 10 18.9
 Nq From Nq-Rigid Nq-Rigid
Soil
Euation 6 Smooth(Plaxis) Rough(Plaxis)
φ=0 1.0 1.0 1.1
φ=5 1.6
φ=10 2.5 2.5 2.5
φ=15 3.9
φ=20 6.4 6.3 6.2
φ=25 10.7
φ=30 18.4 14.9 14.7

Comparison of Nq for Smooth Vs Rough footing

20.0
18.0
16.0
14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Nq-From Eq 6 Nq-Rigid Smooth(plaxis) Nq-Rigid Rough(Plaxis)
 Determination of Nq- Rigid & Smooth Footing
Incremental Displacement Plastic points

γ=0, φ=0, Ψ=0

γ=0, φ=10, Ψ=0

γ=0, φ=20, Ψ=0

γ=0, φ=30, Ψ=0

 Determination of Nq-Rigid & Smooth Footing
Incremental Displacement Plastic points

γ=0, φ=20, Ψ=20

γ=0, φ=30, Ψ=30

Determination of NqRigid & Rough Footing

γ=0, φ=0, Ψ=0

γ=0, φ=10, Ψ=0

 Determination of Nq-Rigid & Rough Footing
Incremental Displacement Plastic points

γ=0, φ=20, Ψ=0

γ=0, φ=30, Ψ=0

Determination of Nq-Rigid & Rough Footing

γ=0, φ=20, Ψ=20

γ=0, φ=30, Ψ=30

3.Show how Nγ is obtained as function of C and Phi, and Psi angle
Consider effects of Rigid compared to flexible footing
Determine Nγ,If C=0 & qs=0 Then;
2𝑄𝑢𝑙𝑡
𝑁𝛾 =
𝐵𝛾
Nγ Rigid & Smooth
Soil Fy(Qult) B γ Nγ
γ=0, φ=0, Ψ=0 0.487 1 18 0.1
γ=0, φ=10, Ψ=0 7.057 1 18 0.8
γ=0, φ=20, Ψ=0 32.418 1 18 3.6
γ=0, φ=25, Ψ=0 63.795 1 18 7.1
γ=0, φ=20, Ψ=20 34.043 1 18 3.8
γ=0, φ=25, Ψ=25 68.868 1 18 7.7

Nγ Flexible & Smooth

Soil Fy(Qult) B γ Nγ
γ=0, φ=0, Ψ=0 2.916 1 18 0.3
γ=0, φ=10, Ψ=0 18.069 1 18 2.0
γ=0, φ=20, Ψ=0 78.81 1 18 8.8
γ=0, φ=30, Ψ=0 188.418 1 18 20.9
γ=0, φ=20, Ψ=20 113.825 1 18 12.6
γ=0, φ=30, Ψ=30 68.868 1 18 7.7
4.Show how Nγ is obtained as function of C and Phi, and Psi angle
Consider effects of Rough compared to smooth footing
Determine Nγ,If C=0 & qs=0 Then;
2𝑄𝑢𝑙𝑡
𝑁𝛾 =
𝐵𝛾
Nγ Rigid & Smooth

Soil Fy(Qult) B γ Nγ
γ=0, φ=0, Ψ=0 0.487 1 18 0.1
γ=0, φ=10, Ψ=0 7.057 1 18 0.8
γ=0, φ=20, Ψ=0 32.418 1 18 3.6
γ=0, φ=25, Ψ=0 63.795 1 18 7.1
γ=0, φ=20, Ψ=20 34.043 1 18 3.8
γ=0, φ=25, Ψ=25 68.868 1 18 7.7
Nγ Rigid & Rough

Soil Fy(Qult) B γ Nγ
γ=0, φ=0, Ψ=0 0 1 18 0
γ=0, φ=10, Ψ=0 19.138 1 18 2.1
γ=0, φ=20, Ψ=0 76.315 1 18 8.5
γ=0, φ=25, Ψ=0 129.015 1 18 14.3
γ=0, φ=20, Ψ=20 102.315 1 18 11.4
γ=0, φ=30, Ψ=30 444.625 1 18 49.4
 Nγ From Nγ From Nγ From Nγ From Nγ From
Nγ -Rigid Nγ -Rigid
Table3 Table3 Table4 Table4 Table4
Soil(φ) Smooth(P Rough(Pla
(Smooth- (Rough- (Rough- (Rough- (Rough-
laxis) xis)
Hill) Hansen) Prandtl) Hansen) Terzaghi)
0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
5 0.1 0.5 0.1
10 0.5 0.8 1.3 0.7 2.1
15 1.2 0.7 2.9 1.2 2.0
20 2.7 1.6 3.6 6.2 2.9 4.8 8.5
25 5.9 3.5 7.1 13.0 7.0 9.8 14.3
30 12.7 7.5 27.7 15.0 20.0

X2
Nγ value of Rough footing is approximately twice of Smooth footing

Comparison of Nγ with Hill&Hansen Curves for Smooth footing

14.0

12.0

10.0

8.0
Nγ

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Phi(φ)

Hill Hansen&Chritiensen Nγ-from Plaxis B=1,γ=18

 Comparison of Nγ with Hansen,Terzaghi & prandtl Curves for
Rough footing

30.0

25.0

20.0
Nγ

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Phi(φ)

Nγ -Prandtl Nγ -Hansen Nγ -Terzaghi Nγ -Rough from Plaxis

Note-
The refrence paper By D.V Griffiths is based on following paramaters to determine the Nγ
Footing width B= 1.5m
weight of soil γ=20Kg/m3
In this study Nγ is determined based on following parameters
Footing width B= 1.0m
weight of soil γ=18Kg/m3

in order to compare the results back calculated the Qult and value of Nγ is converted to
suit the current study
Nγ Rigid & Smooth
Soil Fy(Qult) B γ Nγ
γ=0, φ=0, Ψ=0 0.487 1 18 0.1
γ=0, φ=10, Ψ=0 7.057 1 18 0.8
γ=0, φ=20, Ψ=0 32.418 1 18 3.6
γ=0, φ=25, Ψ=0 63.795 1 18 7.1
γ=0, φ=20, Ψ=20 34.043 1 18 3.8
γ=0, φ=25, Ψ=25 68.868 1 18 7.7

Speciman Calculation & Comparison with Table 3 Nγ for Smooth footings

γ=0, φ=10, Ψ=0 7.057 1 18 0.8

2𝑄𝑢𝑙𝑡
𝑁𝛾 =
𝐵𝛾

Back Calculate for qult

qult= (0.5x1.5x20)/2= 7.5
if B=1,γ=18
Nγ= 2x7.5/(1x18)= 0.83
From Plaxis for B=1,γ=18
Nγ= 0.80

About the same value as Hill (Smooth) mechanism (Table -3)

Nγ Rigid & Rough
Soil Fy(Qult) B γ Nγ
γ=0, φ=0, Ψ=0 0 1 18 0
γ=0, φ=10, Ψ=0 19.138 1 18 2.1
γ=0, φ=20, Ψ=0 76.315 1 18 8.5
γ=0, φ=25, Ψ=0 129.015 1 18 14.3
γ=0, φ=20, Ψ=20 102.315 1 18 11.4
γ=0, φ=30, Ψ=30 444.625 1 18 49.4

Speciman Calculation & Comparison with Table 3 Nγ for Smooth footings

γ=0, φ=10, Ψ=0 19.138 1 18 2.1

2𝑄𝑢𝑙𝑡
𝑁𝛾 =
𝐵𝛾

Back Calculate for qult

qult= (0.5x1.3x20)/2= 19.5
if B=1,γ=18
Nγ= 2x19.5/(1x18)= 2.2
From Plaxis for B=1,γ=18
Nγ= 2.10

About the same value as Prndtl (Rough) mechanism (Table -4)

 Determination of Nγ- Rigid & Smooth Footing
Incremental Displacement Plastic points

γ=0, φ=0, Ψ=0

γ=0, φ=10, Ψ=0

γ=0, φ=20, Ψ=0

γ=0, φ=30, Ψ=0

 Determination of Nγ- Rigid & Smooth Footing
Incremental Displacement Plastic points

γ=0, φ=20, Ψ=20

γ=0, φ=30, Ψ=30

Determination of Nγ-Rigid & Rough Footing

γ=0, φ=0, Ψ=0

γ=0, φ=10, Ψ=0

 Determination of Nγ-Rigid & Rough Footing
Incremental Displacement Plastic points

γ=0, φ=20, Ψ=0

γ=0, φ=30, Ψ=0

Determination of Nγ-Rigid & Rough Footing

γ=0, φ=20, Ψ=20

γ=0, φ=30, Ψ=30

5.Conclusions of the study
The above studies show that the closed form solution using Terzaghi’s (1943) non dimensionless
values give slightly conservative approach compare to FEM studies the shallow foundation
design.

The above study is proof that Nc, Nq is not depending on

1.footing width
2.Footing roughness

There are many values available for Nγ in the literature it shows theoretical uncertainty in this
parameter,

The above study is proof that Nγ is depends on

1.footing width
2.Footing roughness

The all 3 parameters Nc, Nq & Nγ are increased with increase of friction angle

For the smaller friction angle Nγ also small in value but when friction angle increases Nγ increase
very rapidly