CE306 – FOUNDATION

ENGINEERING
BEARING CAPACITY

1
 Project

-Every group will have a individual project

- Insitu and Lab test results will be given
- You will Calculate
- Bearing Capacity
- Total Settlement

2
 Selection of Foundation .
• Shallow foundations:
– Where the ratio of
embedment depth to min
plan dimension is less or
equal to 2.5

– Embedment depth is the

depth below the ground
surface where the base of
foundation rests.

3
Selection of Foundation .

4
 Steps in selection of Foundation types
1 Obtain the required information concerning the nature of the superstructure
and the loads to be transmitted to the foundation.
2. Obtain the subsurface soil conditions.
3. Explore the possibility of constructing any one of the types of foundation under
the existing conditions by taking into account (i) the bearing capacity of the
soil to carry the required load, and (ii) the adverse effects on the structure
due to differential settlements. Eliminate in this way, the unsuitable types.
4. Once one or two types of foundation are selected on the basis of preliminary
studies, make more detailed studies. These studies may require more accurate
determination of loads, subsurface conditions and footing sizes. It may also
be necessary to make more refined estimates of settlement in order to predict
the behavior of the structure.
5. Estimate the cost of each of the promising types of foundation, and choose the
type that represents the most acceptable compromise between performance
and cost.

5
 Some basic definitions:
• Total Overburden Pressure q0
– qo is the intensity of total overburden pressure due to the weight of both soil
and water at the base level of the foundation.
• Effective Overburden Pressure q'0
– q'0 is the effective overburden pressure at the base level of the foundation.

6
 Some basic definitions:
• The Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Soil, qu
– qu is the maximum bearing capacity of soil at which the soil fails by shear.
• The Net Ultimate Bearing Capacity, qnu
– qnu is the bearing capacity in excess of the effective overburden pressure q'0
expressed as

7
• Gross Allowable Bearing Pressure, qa is expressed as:

• where Fs = factor of safety.

• Net Allowable Bearing Pressure, qna

• Safe Bearing Pressure, qs

• qs is defined as the net safe bearing pressure which produces a settlement of

the foundation which does not exceed a permissible limit.

• Note: In the design of foundations, one has to use the least of the two values
of qna and qs.

8
 BEARING CAPACITY THEORIES

• The determination of bearing capacity of soil based on the classical earth pressure
theory of Rankine (1857) began with Pauker, a Russian military engineer (1889).

• It was modified by Bell (1915). Pauker's theory was applicable only for sandy soils
but the theory of Bell took into account cohesion also.

• The methods of calculating the ultimate bearing capacity of shallow strip footings
by plastic theory developed considerably over the years since Terzaghi (1943).
Terzaghi extended the theory of Prandtl (1921).

• Taylor (1948) extended the equation of Prandtl by taking into account the
surcharge e Terzaghi (1943) first proposed a semi-empirical equation for computing
the ultimate bearing capacity of strip footings by taking into account cohesion,
friction and weight of soil, and replacing the overburden pressure with an
equivalent surcharge load at the base level of the foundation effect of the
overburden soil at the foundation level.
9
 Methods of bearing capacity determination

1. Terzaghi's bearing capacity theory

2. The general bearing capacity equation
3. Field tests
• TERZAGHI'S BEARING CAPACITY THEORY
– Terzaghi made the following assumptions for developing an equation
for determining qu for a c-ɸ soil.
– The soil is semi-infinite, homogeneous and isotropic,
– The problem is two-dimensional,
– The base of the footing is rough,
– The failure is by general shear,
– the load is vertical and symmetrical,
– The ground surface is horizontal,
– the overburden pressure at foundation level is equivalent to a surcharge load
– the principle of superposition is valid,
– Coulomb's law is strictly valid, that is, 10
 Mechanism of Failure
• The shapes of the failure surfaces under ultimate loading conditions are given in
Fig.
• The zones of plastic equilibrium represented in this figure by the area gedcf may
be subdivided into three zones:
– 1 . Zone I of elastic equilibrium
– 2. Zones II of radial shear state
– 3. Zones III of Rankine passive state

1
1
 Mechanism of Failure
– When load qu per unit area acting on the base of the footing of width B with
a rough base is transmitted into the soil, the tendency of the soil located
within zone I is to spread but this is counteracted by friction and adhesion
between the soil and the base of the footing.
– Due to the existence of this resistance against lateral spreading, the soil
located immediately beneath the base remains permanently in a state of
elastic equilibrium, and the soil located within this central Zone I behaves as
if it were a part of the footing and sinks with the footing under the
superimposed load.

1
2
• The depth of this wedge shaped body of soil abc remains practically unchanged, yet
the footing sinks.
• This process is only conceivable if the soil located just below point c moves
vertically downwards. This type of movement requires that the surface of sliding cd
(Fig.) through point c should start from a vertical tangent. The boundary be of the
zone of radial shear bed (Zone II) is also the surface of sliding.

13
• As per the theory of plasticity, the potential surfaces of sliding in an ideal plastic
material intersect each other in every point of the zone of plastic equilibrium at an
angle (90° - ɸ). Therefore the boundary be must rise at an angle ɸ to the horizontal
provided the friction and adhesion between the soil and the base of the footing
suffice to prevent a sliding motion at the base.
• The sinking of Zone I creates two zones of plastic equilibrium, II and III, on either
side of the footing. Zone II is the radial shear zone whose remote boundaries bd
and af meet the horizontal surface at angles (45° - ɸ/2), whereas Zone III is a
passive Rankine zone. The boundaries de and fg of these zones are straight lines
and they meet the surface at angles of (45° - ɸ/2). The curved parts cd and cf in
Zone II are parts of logarithmic spirals whose centers are located at b and a
respectively.

14
• Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Soil Strip Footings:
– Terzaghi developed his bearing capacity equation for strip footings by
analyzing the forces acting on the wedge abc in Fig.

• Qult = ultimate load per unit length of footing,

• c = unit cohesion,
• ϒ = the effective unit weight of soil,
• B = width of footing,
• D= depth of foundation,
• Nc, Nq and Nɣ are the bearing capacity factors. They are functions of the angle of
friction ɸ. 15
• where Kp = passive earth pressure coefficient

16
Bearing capacity factors of Terzaghi

17
Terzaghi's bearing capacity factors for general shear failure

18
 Equations for Square, Circular, and Rectangular Foundations
• Terzaghi's bearing capacity Eq. has been modified for other types of foundations
by introducing the shape factors. The equations are:
– Square Foundations:

– Circular Foundations:

– Rectangular Foundations:

19
 Equations for Square, Circular, and Rectangular Foundations

• Ultimate Bearing Capacity qu in Purely Cohesion-less and Cohesive Soils Under

General Shear Failure:
• For cohesion-less soil (for c = 0) and cohesive soils (for ɸ = 0) as follows.
• Strip Footing

• Square Footing:

• Circular Footing

• Rectangular Footing

20
 Solved Example:
• A strip footing of width 3 m is founded at a depth of 2 m below the ground
surface in a (c - ɸ) soil having a cohesion c = 30 kN/m2 and angle of shearing
resistance ɸ = 35°. The water table is at a depth of 5 m below ground level. The
moist weight of soil above the water table is 17.25 kN/m3.
• Determine (a) the ultimate bearing capacity of the soil, (b) the net bearing
capacity, and (c) the net allowable bearing pressure and the load/m for a factor
of safety of 3. Use the general shear failure theory of Terzaghi.

21
22
• If the water table in Ex. 12.1 rises to the ground level, determine the net safe
bearing pressure of the footing. All the other data given in Ex. 12.1 remain the
same. Assume the saturated unit weight of the soil ɣsat= 18.5 kN/m3.

23
24
 Home Assignment
• A rectangular footing of size 10 x 20 ft is founded at a depth of 6 ft below the
ground surface in a homogeneous cohesionless soil having an angle of shearing
resistance ɸ = 35°. The water table is at a great depth. The unit weight of soil
ɣ= 114 lb/ft3. Determine: (1) the net ultimate bearing capacity, (2) the net
allowable bearing pressure for Fs = 3, and (3) the allowable load Qa the footing
can carry. Use Terzaghi's theory.

• A rectangular footing of size 10 x 20 ft is founded at a depth of 6 ft below the

ground level in a cohesive soil (ɸ = 0) which fails by general shear. Given: ɣsat
=114 lb/ft3, c = 945 lb/ft2. The water table is close to the ground surface.
Determine qu , qnu and qna by Terzaghi's method,

25
 THE GENERAL BEARING CAPACITY EQUATION
• Meyerhof (1963) presented a general bearing capacity equation which takes
into account the shape and the inclination of load. The general form of
equation suggested by Meyerhof for bearing capacity is

26
27
28
 Validity of the Bearing Capacity Equations
• There is currently no method of obtaining the ultimate bearing
capacity of a foundation other than as an estimate (Bowles,
1996).
• There has been little experimental verification of any of the
methods except by using model footings. Up to a depth of Df~ B
the Meyerhof qu is not greatly different from the Terzaghi value
(Bowles, 1996). The Terzaghi equations, being the first proposed,
have been quite popular with designers.

• Both the Meyerhof and Hansen methods are widely used. The
Vesic method has not been much used. It is a good practice to use
at least two methods and compare the computed values of qu. If
the two values do not compare well, use a third method.
29
 ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY OF FOOTINGS BASED ON SPT VALUES (N]
• Standard Energy Ratio Res Applicable to N Value
• The empirical correlations established in the USA between N and soil properties
indicate the value of N conforms to certain standard energy ratios. Some suggest
70% (Bowles, 1996) and others 60% (Terzaghi et al., 1996).
• The relation between Ncor and ɸ established by Peck et al., (1974) is given in a
graphical form in Fig. The value of Ncor to be used for getting ɸ is the corrected
value for standard energy. The angle ɸ obtained by this method can be used for
obtaining the bearing capacity factors, and hence the ultimate bearing capacity of
soil.
• Cohesive Soils
• Relationship Between Ncor and qu (Unconfined Compressive Strength)
Relationships have been developed between Ncor and qu (the undrained
compressive strength) for the ɸ = 0 condition. This relationship gives the value of
cu for any known value of Ncor. The relationship may be expressed as Eq.
• where the value of the coefficient & may vary from a minimum of 12 to a
maximum of 25
30
31
Real Life Example

Hospital Project
-7 Storey
- Raft Foundation
- B = 14
- L = 28
- DL – 4210 Ton
- LL – 948,86 Ton

32
Real Life Example

-Insitu Testing
-SPT
-Lab Testing
-Specific Gravity
-LL / PL
- Sieve
-1D Consolidation
33
Real Life Example

34
35
 Bearing Capacity

• Structural engineer assumed a raft foundation.

• Lets check Bearing Capacity for a rectangular foundation first

• Assume 2m x 3m rectangular footing B=2m L=3m

• We are assuming the depth of footing Df = 2m inorder to pass soft

Organic top soil.

• Week 7 /Slide 18 Terzagi Bearing Capacity equation for

rectangular footing

36
 Bearing Capacity

C: Cohesion from laboratory testing (0,93kg/cm3) : 91,22 kN/m2

ɣ : unit weight of soil at foundation level from laboratory test : 20.11 kN/m3

Nc, Nq and Nɣ are the bearing capacity factors. They are

functions of the angle of friction ɸ.

37
 Bearing Capacity
Hawever Before that we need to get Angle of Shear Resistance
from Week 4a / Slide 51 = 31

31

We can get the blow N number from SPT log which is 14

38
 Bearing Capacity

Nc, Nq and Nɣ are from week 7 / slide 17

Nc (38) , Nq(25) and Nɣ (25) 39

40
Structural Loading (q)

41
qna (1780 kN/m2) < q (12273 kN/m2)

NOT ACCEPTABLE!!!

42
 TRY RAFT FOUNDATION

Week 7 / slide 27 we used modifide equation of Meyerhof (1963)

43
 TRY RAFT FOUNDATION

From Structural Engineers Suggestions we use;

Df : 1,5m
B : 14m
L : 28m
Cu : 91,22 kN/m2
Nc (38) , Nq(25) and Nɣ (25)

44
Structural Loading (q) for raft

45
qna (1600kN/m2) > q (172 kN/m2)

ACCEPTABLE!!!

46
 Settlement

1.1. Elastic Settlement (Si)

Jambu, Bjerrum ve Kjaernslı [4] formulatıon for ınıtıal settlement

Week 5 Slide 7

qo = qn from raft foundation bearing capacity calculation = 172 kN/m2

α = 4 for the centre of the foundation

B’ = B/2 for the centre of foundation = 14/2 = 7m

µs = 0,3 poisons ratio

Es : Elastic modulus
Butler and Bjerrum relationship for consolidated clays : Es/Cu = 400
Es= 400 x 91,22 = 36488 kN/m2 47
 Settlement

If = 0,97 week 5 slide 10

Df/B=1,5/14 = 0,11

L/B = 28/14 = 2

48
 Settlement

week 5 slide 10
m’= 28/4 = 2

n’ = 2/ (14/2) =0,28

F1 =0,022

F2= 0,060
49
Settlement

50
 Settlement

Consolidation Settlement (Sc)

Formulation from Week 6B Slide 8

1 𝑒0 −𝑒1 1 0,79−0,59
𝑀𝑣 = 𝑥 = 𝑥 =
1+𝑒0 𝜎1′ −𝜎0′ 1+0,79 294−29

e0

e1

29 294 51
 Settlement

H= 2m - settlement will occur in that layer from log

52
 Settlement

z= 2 m

mz = 14/2 = 7 m=3,5

nz = 7/2= 3,5 n= 1,75

Ir = 0.23
∆𝝈′𝟎 =4 x 0.23 x 172 = 158,24kN/m2

53
 Settlement

Sc= 0,42 * 158,24* 2= 132 mm

Total Settlement ST=Se + Sc = 132+6 =138mm

NOT ACCEPTABLE
WHAT SHELL WE DO!!!

54