See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/309642884

ECCENTRICALLY LOADED RECTANGULAR FOUNDATION ON GRANULAR SOIL

Conference Paper · December 2015

CITATIONS READS

0 321

3 authors:

Barada Prasad Sethy C. R. Patra

National Institute of Technology Rourkela National Institute of Technology Rourkela
11 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS    38 PUBLICATIONS   243 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Roma Sahu
National Institute of Technology Rourkela
10 PUBLICATIONS   4 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

M.Tech View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Barada Prasad Sethy on 22 December 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Load Carrying Capacity of Eccentrically Loaded Shallow
Rectangular Foundation on Granular soil
A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Degree of

Master of Technology
In
Civil Engineering

BARADA PRASAD SETHY

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, ROURKELA
2014
Load Carrying Capacity of Eccentrically Loaded Shallow
Rectangular Foundations on Granular soil

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the

Degree of

Master of Technology
in
Civil Engineering
Under the guidance and supervision of
Prof. Chittaranjan Patra
Submitted By:
BARADA PRASAD SETHY
(ROLL NO. 212CE1481)

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, ROURKELA
2014
 National Institute of Technology
Rourkela

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the thesis entitled “Load Carrying Capacity of

Eccentrically Loaded Shallow Rectangular Foundation on Granular soil”
being submitted by Barada Prasad Sethy in partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the award of Master of Technology Degree in Civil
Engineering with specialization in GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING at
National Institute of Technology Rourkela, is an authentic work carried out by
him under my guidance and supervision.
To the best of my knowledge, the matter embodied in this report has not been
submitted to any other university/institute for the award of any degree or
diploma.

Dr. Chittaranjan Patra

Place: Rourkela Professor
Date: Department of Civil Engineering
NIT Rourkela

I
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor Prof. Chittaranjan

Patra, for his guidance and constant encouragement and support during the course of my

work in the last one year. I truly appreciate and value his esteemed guidance and

encouragement from the beginning to the end of the thesis.

I would like to thank Prof. N Roy, Head of the Dept. of Civil Engineering, National

Institute of Technology, Rourkela, who have enlightened me during my project.

I am also thankful to Prof. S.K. Das, Prof. S.P. Singh, Prof. Rabi Narayan Behera and all

professors of Civil Engineering Department.

A special words of thanks to Miss Roma Sahu, Ph.D. scholar of Civil Engineering

Department, for his suggestions, comments and entire support throughout the project work.

I am also thankful to staff members of Geotechnical Engineering Laboratory especially, Mr

Chamuru suniani, Mr. Harihar Garnayak for their assistance & co-operation during the

exhaustive experiments in the laboratory. I express my special thanks to my friends for their

continuous support, suggestions and love.

Friendly environment and cooperative company I had from my classmates and affection

received from my seniors and juniors will always remind me of my days as a student at NIT

Rourkela. I wish to thank all my friends and well-wishers who made my stay at NIT

Rourkela, memorable and pleasant.

Finally, I would like to thank my parents and family members for their unwavering support

and invariable source of motivation.

Barada Prasad Sethy

II
 ABSTRACT

Since the publication of Terzaghi’s theory on the ultimate bearing capacity of shallow

foundations in 1943, the results of numerous studies (both theoretical and experimental) by

various investigators have been published. Most of the studies relate to the vertical load

applied centrally to the footing. Meyerhof (1953) suggested an empirical procedure for

estimating the ultimate bearing capacity of shallow foundation subjected to eccentric load.

Based on the review of the existing literature, it shows that no experimental investigation has

been done to estimate the ultimate bearing capacity of shallow rectangular foundation

subjected to eccentric loads. In the present work, the model tests have been conducted to

determine the ultimate bearing capacity of shallow (both surface and embedded) rectangular

foundation subjected to eccentric loads. Rectangular footings of size 10cm x 20cm and 10cm

x 30cm are used for load-tests in the laboratory. The tests have been conducted on dense

sand. The relative density (Dr) of sand maintained during the model test is 69 %. The

eccentricity varies from 0 to 0.15B with an increment of 0.05B and the depth of embedment

varies from 0 to B. Ultimate bearing capacity has been found out for central as well as

eccentric loading condition. An empirical equation has been developed for the reduction

factor in predicting the bearing capacity of eccentrically loaded rectangular embedded

foundation.

III
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page No.

Certificate………………………………………………………………………………………I

Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………………...II

Abstracts……………………………………………………………………………………...III

Tables of contents……………………………………………………………………………IV

List of tables………………………………………………………………………………….VI

List of figures………………………………………………………………………………..VII

Notations……………………………………………………………………………………...X

CHAPTER-1 INTRODUCTION

1.1.Introduction………………………………………………………………………………..1

CHAPTER-2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Bearing capacity of foundation on cohesionless soil under central loading condition…..2

2.2. Bearing capacity of foundation on cohesionless soil under eccentric loading condition...5

CHAPTER-3 EXPERIMENTAL WORK AND METHODOLOGY

3.1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………………….9

3.2. Materials used in the tests…...............................................................................................9

3.2.1. Sand……………………………………………………………………………..9

3.2.1.1. Sample collection……………………………………………………..9

3.2.1.2. Characteristics of sand………………………………………………..9

3.3. Test tank…………………………………………………………………………………10

3.4. Equipment’s used in the model test……………………………………………………...11

3.5. Sample preparation………………………………………………………………………12

3.6. Test procedures………………………………………………………………………….13

3.6.1 Surface footing…………………………………………………………………13

3.6.2 Embedded footing……………………………………………………………..14

IV
CHAPTER-4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………………...16

4.2. Experimental module……………………………………………………………………16

4.3. Model test results………………………………………………………………………..17

4.3.1 Ultimate bearing capacity for surface condition (test series A)………………………..17

4.3.2 Ultimate bearing capacity for embedment condition (test series B)…………………...23

4.4. Analysis of test results…………………………………………………………………..36

CHAPTER-5 CONCLUSIONS AND SCOPE FOR THE FUTURE WORK

5.1. Conclusions……………………………………………………………………………...46

5.2. Scope of the future work………………………………………………………………...46

References…………………………………………………………………………………....48

V
 LISTS OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Summary of bearing capacity factor……………………………………………….3

Table 2.2: Summery of shape factor…………………………………………………………..4

Table 2.3: Summery of depth factor…………………………………………………………..4

Table 2.4: Values of a and k…………………………………………………………………..7

Table 3.1: Geotechnical property of sand……………………………………………………10

Table 4.1: Sequence of the model test series (surface footing)……………………………....16

Table 4.2: Sequence of the model test series (embedment footing)………………………….17

Table 4.3: Model test parameters for the surface condition………………………………….17

Table 4.4: Calculated values of ultimate bearing capacity qu by Meyerhof (1951), Vesic
(1973), Hansen (1970), IS: 6403-1981 along with the present experimental values…….…..20

Table 4.5: Calculated values of ultimate bearing capacity qu by Meyerhof (1951), Vesic
(1973), Hansen (1970), IS: 6403-1981 along with the present experimental values………...21

Table 4.6: Calculated values of ultimate bearing capacity qu by Meyerhof (1951), IS: 6403-
1981 along with the present experimental values at Df/B=0.5 and B/L=0.5………………....26

Table 4.7: Calculated values of ultimate bearing capacity qu by Meyerhof (1951), IS: 6403-
1981 along with the present experimental values at Df/B=1 and B/L=0.5…..……………….27

Table 4.8: Calculated values of ultimate bearing capacity qu by Meyerhof (1951), IS: 6403-
1981 along with the present experimental values Df/B=0.5 and B/L=0.33…………..………28

Table 4.9: Calculated values of ultimate bearing capacity qu by Meyerhof (1951), IS: 6403-
1981 along with the present experimental values Df/B=1 and B/L=0.33……………..……...29

Table 4.10: Model test results (B/L=0.5)……………………………………………………..39

Table 4.11: Variation of b and n along with R2 values…………………………………….....40

Table 4.12: Comparison of reduction factor by different theories with present experiment...41

Table 4.13: Model test results (B/L=0.33)…………………………………………………....43

Table 4.14: Variation of b and n along with R2 values…………………………………….....43

Table 4.15: Comparison of reduction factor by different theories with present experiment...44

VI
 LIST OF FIGURES

Fig.2.1: Eccentrically loaded footing (Meyerhof, 1953)………………………………………6

Fig.3.1: Grain-size distribution curve of sand……………………………….………….........11

Fig.3.2: Experimental set up for surface condition………………………………………......13

Fig.3.3: Experimental set up for embedment condition……………………………………...14

Fig.4.1: Interpretation of ultimate bearing capacity (qu) by tangent intersection method

(Trautmann and Kulhawy 1988)……………………………………………………………..18

Fig.4.2: Variation of load settlement curve with eccentricity ratio (e/B) at Df/B =0 and
B/L=0.5………………………………………………………………………………………18

Fig.4.3: Variation of load settlement curve with eccentricity ratio (e/B) at Df/B =0 and
B/L=0.33..……………………………………………………………………………………19

Fig.4.4: Variation of qu with different e/B…………………………………………………....20

Fig.4.5: Variation of qu with different e/B…………………………………………………....21

Fig.4.6: Variation of N with B (adapted after DeBeer, 1965)……………………………...22

Fig.4.7: Comparison of N obtained from tests with small footings and large footings of 1m²

areas on sand (adapted after DeBeer, 1965)………………………………………………….22

Fig.4.8: Variation of load settlement curve with eccentricity ratio (e/B) at (Df/B)=0.5 and

(B/L)=0.5……………………………………………………………………………………..23

Fig.4.9: Variation of load settlement curve with eccentricity ratio (e/B) at (Df/B)=1 and

(B/L)=0.5……………………………………………………………………………………..23

Fig.4.10: Variation of load settlement curve with eccentricity ratio (e/B) at (Df/B)=0.5 and

(B/L)=0.33…………………………………………………………………………………....24

Fig.4.11: Variation of load settlement curve with eccentricity ratio (e/B) at (Df/B)=1 and

(B/L)=0.33……………………………………………………………………………………25

Fig.4.12: Variation of qu with different e/B at (Df/B=0.5) and (B/L=0.5)……………………...26

Fig.4.13: Variation of qu with different e/B at (Df/B=1) and (B/L=0.5)………………………..27

Fig.4.14: Variation of qu with different e/B at (Df/B=0.5) and (B/L=0.5)……………………...28

VII
Fig.4.15: Variation of qu with different e/B at (Df/B=1) and (B/L=0.33)………………………29

Fig.4.16: Variation of load settlement curve with embedment ratio (Df/B) at (e/B) =0 and

(B/L)=0.5……………………………………………………………………………………..30

Fig.4.17: Variation of load settlement curve with embedment ratio (Df/B) at (e/B) =0.05 and

(B/L)=0.5………………………………………………………………….………………….31

Fig.4.18: Variation of load settlement curve with embedment ratio (Df/B) at (e/B) =0.1 and

(B/L)=0.5……………………………………………………………………………………..31

Fig.4.19: Variation of load settlement curve with embedment ratio (Df/B) at (e/B) =0.15 and

(B/L)=0.5……………………………………………………………………………………..32

Fig.4.20: Variation of load settlement curve with embedment ratio (Df/B) at (e/B) =0 and

(B/L)=0.33……………………………………………………………………………………32

Fig.4.21: Variation of load settlement curve with embedment ratio (Df/B) at (e/B) =0.05 and

(B/L)=0.5……………………………………………………………………………………..33

Fig.4.22: Variation of load settlement curve with embedment ratio (Df/B) at (e/B) =0.1 and

(B/L)=0.5……………………………………………………………………………………..33

Fig.4.23: Variation of load settlement curve with embedment ratio (Df/B) at (e/B) =0.15 and

(B/L)=0.5……………………………………………………………………………………..34

Fig.4.24: Variation of qu with Df /B for e/B=0 to 0.15 at B/L=0.5…………………………..35

Fig.4.25: Variation of qu with Df /B for e/B=0 to 0.15 at B/L=0.33..………………………..35

Fig.4.26: Variation of qu with (Df/B) for (e/B)=0 to 0.15 at (B/L)=0.5 and 0.33……………36

Fig.4.27: Comparison of Reduction Factors obtained from present experimental results with

developed empirical Equation………………………………………………………………..40

Fig.4.28: Comparison of Present results with Meyerhof (1953)……………………………..42

Fig.4.29: Comparison of Present results with Purkayastha and Char (1977)………………..42

VIII
Fig.4.30: Comparison of Reduction Factors obtained from present experimental results with

developed empirical Equation………………………………………………………………..44

Fig.4.31: Comparison of Present results with Meyerhof (1953)……………………………..45

Fig.4.32: Comparison of Present results with Purkayastha and Char (1977)………………..45

IX
 LIST OF NOTATIONS

B Width of foundation

L Length of foundation

t Thickness of foundation

e Load eccentricity

 Load inclination with the vertical

Qu Ultimate load per unit length of the foundation

   Unit weight of sand

d Dry unit weight of sand

d(max) Maximum dry unit weight of sand

d(min) Minimum dry unit weight of sand

 Friction angle of sand

 Effective friction angle of sand

qu Ultimate bearing capacity

Nc, Nq, N   Bearing capacity factors

Fcs , Fqs , Fs  Shape factors

Fcd , Fqd , Fd Depth factors

s Settlement

B Effective width of foundation

A Effective area of foundation

Cu Coefficient of uniformity

Cc Coefficient of curvature

G Specific gravity

D10 Effective particle size

X
D50 Mean particle size

Dr Relative Density

R2 Co-efficient of efficiency

b,n Functions of embedment ratio (Df/B)

XI
CHAPTER-1
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION CHAPTER -1

All engineering structure resting on the earth must be carried out by some kind of interfacing

element called a foundation. Foundation is an integral part of a structure, whether it is

building, bridge, retaining wall and dam, etc. Every civil engineering structure has a

superstructure and a foundation. The function of the foundation is to receive the loads from

the superstructure and transmit it safely to the soil or rock below it. The design of shallow

foundation is accomplished by satisfying two requirements: (i) bearing capacity and (ii)

settlement. Bearing capacity refers to the ultimate load that the soil can bear or sustain under

given circumstances. Engineers need to be able to calculate the bearing capacity of

foundations subject to central vertical loads. Most of the studies for bearing capacity

calculation are based on the foundation under central vertical load. However, in some cases

due to bending moments and horizontal thrust, the structures like retaining walls, abutments,

waterfront structures, industrial machines and portal framed buildings are often subjected to

eccentric load. This may be due to (i) moments with axial forces or without axial forces (ii)

the oblique loading and (iii) their location near the property line, etc. This need has led to the

development of the theories of bearing capacity (Terzaghi's method). Bearing capacity

predictions based on Terzaghi's (1943) superposition method are partly theoretical and partly

empirical in which the contribution of different loading and soil strength parameters

(cohesion, soil friction angle, surface surcharge unit weight and self-weight) expressed in

the form of non-dimensional bearing capacity factors NC, Nq, and Nγ are summed. Several

analytical solutions have been proposed for computing these factors. The literature contains

many theoretical derivations, as well as experimental results from model tests and prototype

footings. The bearing capacity estimation is classified into four categories (i) the limit

equilibrium method (ii) the method of characteristics. (iii) the finite element method. (iv) the

upper bound plastic limit analysis.

1|Page
CHAPTER-2
LITERATURE REVIEW
LITERATURE REVIEW CHAPTER-2

2.1- Bearing capacity of foundation on cohesion-less soil under central loading condition

The stability of a structure depends upon the stability of the supporting soil. For that the

foundation must be stable against shear failure of the supporting soil and must not settle

beyond a tolerable limit to avoid damage to the structure. For a given foundation to perform

its optimum capacity, one must be ensured that it does not exceed its ultimate bearing

capacity. The ultimate bearing capacity (qu) is defined as the pressure at which shear failure

occurs in the supporting soil immediately below and adjacent to the foundation. Some

important landmark theories on bearing capacity developed by the investigators in the past

based on experimental and analytical studies are discussed in this section.

Terzaghi (1943) proposed a well-known theory to determine the ultimate bearing capacity of

a shallow, rough, continuous (strip) foundation supported by a homogeneous soil layer. The

equation can be expressed as

qu  cN c  qN q  0.5BN  (Strip foundation) (2.1)

For cohesion less soil the above equation 2.1is reduced to the form as expressed by:
qu  qN q  0.5BN  (2.2)

qu  1.3cN c  qN q  0.4BN  (Square foundation) (2.3)

qu  1.3cN c  qN q  0.3BN  (Circular foundation) (2.4)

Meyerhof (1951) propose a generalized method to estimate the ultimate bearing capacity for

centrally vertical loaded foundation as expressed by

qu  cN c Fcs Fcd  qN q Fqs Fqd  0.5BN  Fs Fd

(2.5)
For cohesion less soil the above equation (2.5) can be reduced to the form as

qu  qN q Fqs Fqd  0.5BN  Fs Fd

(2.6)

2|Page
q u = ultimate bearing capacity for a soil, q  D f = surcharge, D f = depth of embedment, B =

width of the foundation. c = unit cohesion. Fcd , Fqd , Fd =depth factors, Fcs , Fqs, Fs =shape

factors, N c, N q , N  =bearing capacity factors.

The bearing capacity factors as well as shape and depth factors proposed by many

investigator for estimating the bearing capacity of footings in above conditions are

summarized in the Table 2.1, Table 2.2 and Table 2.3 given below.

Table 2.1: Bearing capacity factor

Bearing Capacity Investigator Equation

Factors

Nc Prandtl (1921), N c  N q  1cot 

Reisnner(1924), Terzaghi
(1943), Meyerhof(1963)
Nc Krizek (1965) 228  4.3
Nc 
40  
Nq Prandtl (1921), Reisnner 
(1924), Terzaghi (1943), N q  tan 2 (45  )e  tan 
2
Meyerhof (1963)
Nq Krizek (1965) 40  5
Nq 
40  
Nq Terzaghi (1943)  3  
2  
e  4 2
tan 
Nq 

2

2 cos 45  
 2
N Terzaghi (1943) N   1.8N q  1cot  (tan  ) 2
N Meyerhof (1963) N   N q  1tan(1.4 )
N Bares et al (1961) N   1.8( N q  1) tan 
N Hansen (1970) N   1.5N c tan  2
N Vesic (1973) N   2N q  1tan 
N Lundgren and Mortensen N   1.5N q  1tan 
(1953) and Hansen (1970)

N Ingra and Baecher(1983) N  e 1.4640.173 

N Salgado(2008) N  N q  1tan(1.32 )

3|Page
Table 2.2: Shape factors

Shape Factors Investigator Equation

Shape Meyerhof (1963) B

For =0, S c  1  0.2( )
L
Sq = S= 1


2
B 
For > 10, S c  1  0.2  tan 45  
L  2

2
B 
S q  S   1  0.1  tan 45  
L  2
 N q  B 
S c  1    
 N c  L 
DeBeer (1970), [Use Nc and Nqgiven by Meyerhof (1963)]
Vesic (1975) B
S q  1    tan 
L
B
S   1  0.4 
L

 
Michalowski B
0.5

S c  1  1.8tan    0.1  
2
(1997)
L
0.5
B
S q  1  1.9tan    
2

L
 B
S  1  0.6tan    0.25  
2

L
L

 
1.5
 L   
S   1  1.3tan    0.5   e  B 
2

B

Table 2.3: Depth Factor

Depth Factors Investigator Equations

Meyerhof (1963) Df
For ϕ=0°, d c  1  0.2
B
d q  d  1

For ϕ≥ 10° ,
 Df   
d c  1  0.2  tan 45  
 B   2
 Df   
d q  d  1  0.1  tan 45  
 B   2

4|Page
 Hansen (1970), Df
Vesic (1975) For ϕ=0°, d c  1  0.4
B
1  dq
For ϕ>0°, dc  dq 
N q tan 
2 Df 
d q  1  2 tan  1  sin    
 B 
d  1

1  
Df
For DF /B>1 d c  1  0.4 tan  
 B 
 Df 
d q  1  2 tan 1  sin   tan 1  
2

 B 
d  1

Salgado et al.(2004)  Df 
0.5

d c  1  0.27 
 B 

2.2-Bearing capacity of foundation on cohesionless soil under eccentric loading

Meyerhof (1953) proposed a semi-empirical method to estimate the ultimate bearing

capacity of shallow foundation subjected to eccentric loading which is known as the

“equivalent area method”. The ultimate bearing capacity qu e  can be expressed as

1
qu e   cN c Fcd  qN q Fqd  B ' N  Fd (2.7)
2

For cohesion less soil the Equation 2.7 is reduced to the form as expressed by

1
qu e   qN q Fqd  B ' N  Fd (2.8)
2

Where, q u e  = ultimate bearing capacity with load eccentricity e, q  D f ,  is the unit

weight of soil, B is the width of the foundation, B'  B  2e , e is the load eccentricity,

Df=depth of foundation, N q, N  are the bearing capacity factors, Fqd , Fd are the depth factor.

Q  qu ( e) A' Where A'  B'*1 = effective area (for strip footing)

5|Page
 Figure 2.1: Eccentrically loaded footing (Meyerhof, 1953)

Purkayastha and char (1977): carried out stability analysis of eccentrically loaded strip

foundation on sand (C=0) using the method of slices proposed by Janbu. Based on this study,

they proposed that

qu eccentric
RK  1  (2.9)
qu centric

q u e 
 1  RK (2.10)
q u e  0 

Where, Rk = Reduction factor, qu centric = ultimate bearing capacity of centrally loaded

continuous foundations, qu eccentric = ultimate bearing capacity of eccentrically loaded

continuous foundations,

K
e (2.11)
Where, RK  a  =Reduction factor.
B

where, k and a are functions of the embedment ratio D f / B

The values of k and a are presented in table 2.4 for different Df / B

6|Page
 Table 2.4: Values of a and k

Df /B K a
0.00 0.73 1.862
0.25 0.785 1.811
0.50 0.80 1.754
1.00 0.888 1.820

Combining equations 2.10 and 2.11

K
  e 
qu eccentric  qu centric (1  RK )  qu centric)  1  a  (2.12)
  B 

When c=0

1
qu centric  qN q qd  BN  d (2.13)
2

From the analysis they suggested that the width of the footing and friction angle has no

influence on reduction factor (RK).

Prakash and Saran (1971) presented a comprehensive mathematical formulation to estimate

the ultimate bearing capacity for a rough continuous (strip) foundation under eccentric

loading. According to this theory for a strip foundation on sand.

Qu 1
qu   cN C e   D f N q e   BN  e  (2.14)
B 1 2

Where, N c e , N q e , N ( e) are the bearing capacity factors for an eccentrically loaded continuous

foundation. The bearing capacity factors are functions of e/B and . The bearing capacity

factors are presented in the form of charts for different e/B and .

Michalowski and You (1998) proposed a classical method to the bearing capacity proplem,

which is symmetrically loaded using the kinematic approach of limit analysis. Meyerhof

suggested a useful hypothesis to account for eccentricity of loading, in which footing width is

7|Page
reduced by twice-the-eccentricity to its effective size. This hypothesis has been criticized as

over conservative. The effective width rule significantly underestimates the bearing capacity

for clays (= 0) only when the footing is bonded with the soil and the eccentricity is relatively

large (e/B >0.25). For cohesive-frictional soils this underestimation decreases with an

increase in the internal friction angle. The rule of effective width gives very reasonable

estimates of the bearing capacity of eccentrically loaded footings on cohesive or cohesive-

frictional soils when the soil-footing interface is not bonded, and for any type of interface

when the eccentricity is small (e/B < 0.1). It also overestimates the bearing capacity for

purely frictional soils when the surcharge load is relatively small. For cohesionless however,

the effective width rule may overestimate the best upper bound and this overestimation

increases with an increase in eccentricity. The effective width rule under-underestimate the

upper bound solution by a margin of not more than 8 %

Mahiyar and Patel (2000) carried out finite-element analysis by taking an angle shaped

footing under eccentric loading. The analysis has been done by considering two parameters,

the depth of the footing (D) and eccentricity width ratio (ex/B). One side vertical projection of

footing confines the soil and prevents its lateral movement. For the prototype footing the

tilting is less as compared to the model footing under the same specific load intensity. It was

concluded that footing subjected to uniaxial eccentric loads can be designed for no or

negligible tilt.

8|Page
CHAPTER-3
EXPERIMENTAL WORK AND
METHODOLOGY
EXPERIMENTAL WORK AND METHODOLOGY CHAPTER-3

3.1 Introduction

All the model tests are conducted in Geotechnical laboratory of NIT Rourkela. The

experimental program was designed to study the bearing capacity of eccentrically loaded

rectangular footing on the sand bed. For this purpose, the laboratory model tests were

conducted on a rectangular footing in one density (i.e. Dense), load eccentricity (e) varied

from 0 to 0.15B (B = width of strip footing). Tests have been conducted for both surface and

embedment case. The depth of embedment varies from 0 to 1B. The ultimate bearing capacity

was interpreted from each test and analyzed.

3.2 Materials used in the tests

3.2.1 Sand

3.2.1.1 Sample collection

The sand used in the experimental program was collected from the river bed of a nearby Koel

river. It is made free from roots, organic matters, vegetables etc. by washing and cleaning.

The above sample was then oven dried and properly sieved by passing through IS 710 micron

and retained at IS 300 micron sieves to get the required grading. Dry sand is used as a soil

medium for the test. It does not include the effect of moisture and hence the apparent

cohesion associated with it.

3.2.1.2 Characteristics of sand

The geotechnical properties of the sand used is given in Table 3.1. The grain size distribution

curve is plotted in Figure 3.1. All the tests were conducted in one density with relative

densities of 69%. The average unit weight of relative densities is 14.32kN/m3. The friction

angle at relative densities is 40.80 which are found from direct shear tests.

9|Page
3.3 Test tank

A test tank of inside dimension 1.0m (length) 0.504m (width) 0.655m (height) is used. The

two length sides of the tank were made of 12mm thick high strength fiberglass. The two

width sides of tank are made up of mild steel of 8mm thickness. Scales are fitted on the

middle of the four internal walls of the box so that it will be easier in maintaining the required

density accurately. All four sides of the tank are braced to avoid bulging during testing. The

following considerations are taken into account while deciding the dimension of the tank. As

per provision of IS 1888-1962 the width of the test pit should not be less than 5 times the

width of the test plate, so that the failure zones are freely developed without any interference

from sides. Comer (1972) has suggested that in case of cohesionless soil the maximum

extension of failure zone is 2.5B to the both sides and 3B below the footing. By adopting the

above tank size for the model footing (10cm x 20cm) and (10cm x 30cm), it is ensured that

the failure zones are fully and freely developed without any interference from the sides and

bottom of the tank.

Table 3.1 Geotechnical property of sand

Property Value

Specific gravity (G) 2.64

Effective particle size (D10) 0.325mm

Mean particle size (D50) 0.46mm

Uniformity Coefficient (Cu) 1.45

Coefficient of Curvature (Cc) 1.15

Working dry density (d) 14.32 KN/m3

Maximum unit weight(d(max)) 15.19 KN/m3

Minimum unit weight (d(min)) 12.90 KN/m3

10 | P a g e
 120

100

80
% finer (N)

60

40

20

0
100 1000
Particle size (micron)

Figure 3.1: Grain-size distribution curve of sand

3.4 Equipment’s used in the model test

a) Load transferring shaft

b) Model footing

c) Proving ring

d) Dial gauge

a) Model footing

Model footing used for laboratory tests are made of mild steel plate of sizes

10cm  20cm  3cm. , 10cm  30cm  3cm. One footing is meant for central loading and other

three are meant for eccentrically loading, the eccentricity being (0.05B, 0.1B, 0.15B)

respectively. The bottom of the footing was made rough by applying glue and then rolling the

model footing over sand to give the effect of roughness of actual footing. Circular

11 | P a g e
depressions accommodating steel balls are made on the footings at proper points so that the

loading pattern can be made centric and eccentric mode. The load is transmitted from the

loading pad to the footing through the combination of load transferring unit ( i.e spindle and

steel ball).

b) Proving ring

Three proving ring are used capacity of 5 KN, 10 KN, 20 KN, 25KN whose least count are

6.67N, 10.471N, 24.242N, 34.7N respectively.

c) Dial gauge

Two dial gauges of the following specifications are used during the tests. The range of the

dial gauge is 50 mm and the least count is 0.01mm (i.e 1division=0.01mm).The dial gauges

are kept on the top portion of the longitudinal sides of the box because the top portion of the

entire box has a steel strip to accommodate the magnetic base of the dial gauge. The dial

gauge needles are placed over the footing which is attached with the magnetic base. As the

load applied settlement occurs which is shown by two dial gauges and it is recorded. The

average of the two dial gauge readings is taken as settlement of footing in mm.

3.5 Sample preparation

First of all the internal dimensions of the tank are measured accurately and then for each2.5

cm thick layer the volume is calculated. After fixing a density, at which all the tests will be

conducted, we can calculate the weight of sand needed for that particular thickness of the

sand layer. Here the working density to be maintained is 1.46 g/cc and the thickness of the

sand layer is 2.5 cm. It is found that for maintaining the required density in 2.5 cm layer,

required weight is 18.36 kg. The box is filled with sand using the sand raining technique.

Sand was poured into the test tank in 2.5 cm thick layer from a fixed height by sand raining

technique to maintain the desired density required for the model test. The height of fall was

12 | P a g e
fixed by taking several trials in the tank prior to the model test to achieve the required

density.

For the test without reinforcement footing is placed on the surface. For the application of

eccentric vertical loads to the footing, groove has been made on the top surface of footing at

varying distance from the centre of the footing as per the required eccentricity.

3.6 Test procedures

Fig.3.2 Experimental set up for surface condition.

3.6.1 Surface footing

i. First the sand is poured in the tank in each 2.5cm layer

ii. After filling the tank to a desired height, the filled surface is leveled and the footing is

placed over the sand bed with a predetermined alignment such that the load will be

transferred to the footing vertically.

iii. Then the steel ball is placed over the circular groove of the footing, and over that the

load transferring shaft is placed, through which the load is transferred to the footing.

iv. Two dial gauges are placed over the footing on the opposite sides of the spindle. Then

the initial readings of two dial gauges are noted down.

13 | P a g e
 v. Then load is applied over the footing with a constant rate and the footing is allowed to

settle under the applied load. Each load increment is maintained till the footing

settlement gets stabilized, which is measured from the two dial gauge readings.

3.6.2 Embedded footing

Fig.3.3 Experimental set up for embedment condition.

i. After filling the tank to a desired height, the filled surface is leveled and the footing is

placed over the sand bed with a predetermined alignment such that the load will be

transferred to the footing vertically.

ii. Then the steel ball is placed over the circular groove of the footing, and over that the

load transferring shaft is placed, through which the load is transferred to the footing.

iii. Two dial gauges are placed over the footing on the opposite sides of the spindle.

iv. After the setup again the sand is poured into the tank in each 2.5cm layer up to the

required height (5cm and 10cm in case of 0.5B and 1B embedment respectively)

The processes of load application are continued till there is a failure of foundation soil due to

sudden excessive settlement or up to 25mm settlement occur which can be observed in the

proving ring of the jack where the load taken by the footing get decreased continuously. On

14 | P a g e
completion of the load test, the equipment’s are removed, tank emptied and the tank again

filled for the next set of load test.

15 | P a g e
CHAPTER-4
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION CHAPTER-4

4.1 Introduction

Model tests have been conducted in the laboratory using rectangular footing with embedment

ratio (Df /B) varying from 0 to 1 and eccentricity ratio (e/B) varies from zero to 0.15 with an

increment of 0.05B. In ordered to investigate the load carrying capacity of the rectangular

embedded footings, the laboratory model tests have been conducted on the footing supported

by a sand layer. The test results have been used to develop the non-dimensional reduction

factor.

4.2 Experimental Module

Eight numbers of laboratory model tests are conducted on dense sand for surface condition

with different (B/L) ratio 0.5 and 0.33 and different eccentricity (e/B = 0, 0.05, 0.1, 0.15). The

detail sequence of model test in this condition are shown in table 4.1

Table: 4.1: Sequence of the model test series (surface footing)

Test series Df / B B/ L e/B

1-4 0 0.5 0,0.05,0.1,0.15

5-8 0 0.33 0,0.05,0.1,0.15

Sixteen numbers of laboratory model tests are conducted on dense sand for different

embedment condition with different B/L ratios (0.5 and 0.33) and different eccentricity ratios

(0, 0.05, 0.1, and 0.15). The detail sequence of model test in this condition is shown in table

4.2.

16 | P a g e
 Table: 4.2- Sequence of the model test series (embedment footing)

Test series Df / B B/ L e/B

9-12 0.5 0.5 0,0.05,0.1,0.15

13-16 1 0.5 0,0.05,0.1,0.15

17-20 0.5 0.33 0,0.05,0.1,0.15

21-24 1 0.33 0,0.05,0.1,0.15

4.3 Model Test Results

4.3.1 Ultimate bearing capacity for Surface condition (test series A)

The model test are performed in surface condition (i.e Df /B=0). Basically there are five

different methods to interpret the ultimate bearing capacity from the load-settlement curve

namely Log-Log method (DeBeer 1970), Tangent Intersection method (Trautmann and

Kulhawy 1988), 0.1B method ( Briaud and Jeanjean 1994), Hyperbolic method (Cerato

2005), and Break Point method (Mosallanezhad et al. 2008). For the present model test, the

ultimate bearing capacity of rectangular footing is determined by Tangent Intersection

Method [Fig.4.1]

Table 4.3.Model test parameters for the surface condition

Sand Unit weight of Relative density Friction angle ϕ- Df e B

type compaction of sand Direct shear test B B L
(kN/m3) (%) (degree)
Dense 14.36 69 40.8 0 0 0.5
0.05 0.33
0.1
0.15

17 | P a g e
 Load intensity(kN/m2)
0 50 100 150 200
0
2
4 qu
6
Settlement(mm)

8
10
12
14
16
18
20

Fig 4.1 – Interpretation of Ultimate bearing capacity (qu) by Tangent Intersection Method

(Trautmann and Kulhawy 1988)

The combined graph showing the load settlement curve for rectangular footing of size 10cm x

20cm and 10cm x 30cm is shown in Fig 4.2 from Fig 4.2 It is seen that as the eccentricity

ratio (e/B) increases, the load carrying capacity decreases as well as the total settlement

decreases. At any load intensity, the increase in settlement is accompanied by increase in

eccentricity or at any settlement; the increase in eccentricity is accompanied by decrease in

load intensity.

Load intensity(kN/m2)
0 50 100 150 200
0
2 Df/B=0
4 B/L=0.5
e/B=0
6
Settlement(mm)

8 e/B=0.05
10 e/B=0.1
12 e/B=0.15
14
16
18
20

Fig 4.2 Variation of load settlement curve with eccentricity ratio (e/B) at Df/B=0 and B/L=0.5

18 | P a g e
 Load intensity(kN/m2)
0 50 100 150 200
0
2
Df/B=0
4
e/B=0
6
Settlement(mm)

e/B=0.05
8
10 e/B=0.1
12 e/B=0.15
14
16
18
20

Fig 4.3 Variation of load settlement curve with eccentricity ratio (e/B) at

(Df/B)=0 and (B/L)=0.33

From the load-settlement curve shown in Fig. 4.2 and Fig. 4.3, the ultimate bearing capacity

are determined for each test are shown in Fig. 4.4 and Fig.4.5 along with the theoretical

values using well known available theories (Hansen, 1970; Vesic, 1973; Meyerhof, 1953; IS:

6403-1981). It is seen that Meyerhof’s theory is in close agreement to those of experimental

values obtained, otherwise the values obtained by experiments is usually higher than those

obtained by using other theories. The corresponding values are also shown in table 4.4 and

table 4.5. It can be seen that experimental bearing capacity for a given (Df /B) are

significantly higher than those predicted theory. Investigators like Balla 1962, Bolt 1982,

Chichy et al. 1978, Ingra and Baecher 1983, Hartikainen and Zadroga 1994, Milovic 1965,

Saran and Agarwal 1991 revealed that bearing capacity model test results which are being

carried out in various geotechnical laboratories of shallow footings and strip footings are in

general much higher than those calculated by traditional methods. There are several reasons

for this, the most important of which is the unpredictability of N and the scale effects

associate with the model tests.

19 | P a g e
 140
B/L=0.5

Ultimate bearing capacity(qu) kN/m2

120 Df/B=0
100
Df/B=0(experiment)
80 Meyerhof

60 Hansen
Vesic
40
IS 6403:1981

20

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
e/B

Figure 4.4 Variation of qu with different e/B

Table 4.4 Calculated values of ultimate bearing capacity qu by Meyerhof (1951), Vesic

(1973), Hansen (1970), IS: 6403-1981 along with the present experimental values.

Sl no B/L e/B Df /B Present Meyrhof Vesic I.S. code Hansen

experiment qu qu qu qu

qu (KN/m2) (KN/m2) (KN/m2) (KN/m2)

(KN/m2) =40.8 =40.8 =40.8 =40.8

1 0.5 0 0 128 99.08 77.39 77.56 56.66

2 0.5 0.05 0 102 89.31 71.4 71.55 52.27

3 0.5 0.1 0 86 79.38 65 65.15 47.6

4 0.5 0.15 0 68 69.46 58.26 58.36 42.64

20 | P a g e
 140.00
B/L=0.33
Df/B=0

Ultimate bearing capacity(qu) kN/m2

120.00

100.00
Df/B=0(experiment)
80.00
Meyerhof
60.00 Hansen
Vesic
40.00 IS 6403:1981

20.00

0.00
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
e/B

Figure 4.5 Variation of qu with different e/B

Table 4.5 Calculated values of ultimate bearing capacity qu Meyerhof (1951), Vesic (1973),

Hansen (1970), IS: 6403-1981 along with the present experimental values.

Sl no B/L e/B Df /B Present Meyrhof Vesic I.S. code Hansen

experiment qu qu qu qu

qu (KN/m2) (KN/m2) (KN/m2) (KN/m2)

(KN/m2) =40.8 =40.8 =40.8 =40.8

1 0.33 0 0 131 92.2 83.2 83.38 60.92

2 0.33 0.05 0 109 83.5 76.62 76.79 56.1

3 0.33 0.1 0 94 74.26 69.11 69.26 50.6

4 0.33 0.15 0 71 64.98 61.35 61.49 44.92

DeBeer (1965) compiled several bearing capacity test results which are shown in Figure 4.6

as a plot of N vs. B. The value of N rapidly decreases with the increase in B. In addition,

DeBeer (1965) compared the variation of N obtained from small scale laboratory and large

scale field test results, and these are given in Figure 4.7.

21 | P a g e
 Figure 4.6: Variation of N with B (adapted after DeBeer, 1965)

Figure 4.7: Comparison of N obtained from tests with small footings and large

Footings of 1m² areas on sand (adapted after DeBeer, 1965)

22 | P a g e
4.3.2 Ultimate bearing capacity for embedment condition (test series B)

The load tests have been conducted for different embedded rectangular foundation (10cm x

20cm and 10cm x 30cm) that is (Df /B = 0.5, 1) with load eccentricity e/B (=0, 0.05, 0.1 and

0.15). The results of load intensity and corresponding settlement of each test have been

plotted in arithmetic graph paper. The ultimate bearing capacity in each case has been

determined by double tangent intersection method. The load settlement curve corresponding

to (Df /B= 0, 0.5, 1.0) are obtained from the experimental results. These combined load

settlement curves are shown in Fig. 4.8 to Fig. 4.11

Load intensity(kN/m2)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
0

5
e/B=0
10
Settlement(mm)

e/B=0.05
e/B=0.1
15
e/B=0.15
20

25

30

Fig. 4.8 Variation of load settlement curve with eccentricity ratio (e/B)

at (Df/B)=0.5and (B/L)=0.5

23 | P a g e
 Load intensity(kN/m2)
0 100 200 300 400
0

e/B=0
10
Settlement(mm)

e/B=0.05
e/B=0.1
15
e/B=0.15
20

25

30

Fig. 4.9 Variation of load settlement curve with eccentricity ratio (e/B)

at (Df/B)=1and (B/L)=0.5

Load intensity(kN/m2)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
0

5
e/B=0
Settlement(mm)

e/B=0.05
10
e/B=0.1
e/B=0.15
15

20

25

Fig. 4.10 Variation of load settlement curve with eccentricity ratio (e/B)

at (Df/B)=0.5 and (B/L)=0.33

24 | P a g e
 Load intensity(kN/m2)
0 100 200 300 400
0

e/B=0
10
Settlement(mm)

e/B=0.05
e/B=0.1
15
e/B=0.15
20

25

30

Fig. 4.11 Variation of load settlement curve with eccentricity ratio (e/B)

at (Df/B)=0.5 and (B/L)=0.33

The combined load-settlement graphs are shown in Figures 4.8 to 4.11 to quantify the effect

of eccentricity at different depth of embedment (i.e. Df /B = 0.5, 1). From Figures 4.8 through

4.11. It is seen that at any depth of embedment, as the eccentricity increases, the ultimate

bearing capacity decreases. Furthermore, it is seen that with any depth of embedment, at any

Load-intensity the settlement of footing increases with increase in eccentricity. Similarly, it is

also seen that at any depth of embedment, Load-intensity at any settlement level decrease

with increase in eccentricity of the load. The ultimate bearing capacity of footing increases

with the increase in the depth of embedment and decreases with different eccentricity ratio

(e/B).

25 | P a g e
 250

B/L=0.5
Df/B=0.5
Ultimate bearing capacity(qu) kN/m2 200

150
Experiment
Meyerhof
100
IS 6403:1981

50

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
e/B

Figure 4.12 Variation of qu with different e/B at (Df/B=0.5) and (B/L=0.5)

Table 4.6 Calculated values of ultimate bearing capacity qu by Meyerhof (1951), IS: 6403-

1981 along with the present experimental values at (Df/B=0.5) and (B/L=0.5).

Sl no B/L e/B Df /B Present Meyrhof qu I.S. code

experiment qu (KN/m2) qu (KN/m2)

(KN/m2) =40.8 =40.8

=40.8

1 0.5 0 0.5 212 181.4 158.82

2 0.5 0.05 0.5 175 170.94 149.97

3 0.5 0.1 0.5 152 159.92 141.6

4 0.5 0.15 0.5 134 148.91 132.35

26 | P a g e
 350

B/L=0.5
300
Ultimate bearing capacity(qu) kN/m2 Df/B=1

250

200
Experiment

150 Meyerhof
IS 6403:1981
100

50

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
e/B

Figure 4.13 Variation of qu with different e/B at (Df/B=1) and (B/L=0.5)

Table 4.7 Calculated values of ultimate bearing capacity qu by Meyerhof (1951), IS: 6403-

1981 along with the present experimental values at (Df/B=1) and (B/L=0.5).

Sl no B/L e/B Df /B Present Meyrho’f I.S. code

experiment qu qu

qu (KN/m2) (KN/m2) (KN/m2)

=40.8 =40.8 =40.8

1 0.5 0 1 327 274.6 291.91

2 0.5 0.05 1 265 266.8 278.49

3 0.5 0.1 1 230 254.69 264.31

4 0.5 0.15 1 215 242.59 253.84

27 | P a g e
 250.00

B/L=0.33
Df/B=0.5
Ultimate bearing capacity(qu) kN/m2
200.00

150.00
Experiment
Meyerhof
100.00
IS 6403:1981

50.00

0.00
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
e/B

Figure 4.14 Variation of qu with different e/B at (Df/B=0.5) and (B/L=0.33)

Table 4.8 Calculated values of ultimate bearing capacity qu by Meyerhof (1951), IS: 6403-

1981 along with the present experimental values at (Df/B=0.5) and (B/L=0.33).

Sl no B/L e/B Df /B Present Meyrhof I.S. code

experiment qu qu

qu (KN/m2) (KN/m2) (KN/m2)

=40.8 =40.8 =40.8

1 0.33 0 0.5 224 169.7 156.51

2 0.33 0.05 0.5 195 159.9 148.27

3 0.33 0.1 0.5 181 149.6 139.15

4 0.33 0.15 0.5 161 139.3 129.73

28 | P a g e
 400.00

350.00
B/L=0.33
Df/B=1
Ultimate bearing capacity(qu) kN/m2
300.00

250.00

Experiment
200.00
Meyerhof
150.00 IS 6403:1981

100.00

50.00

0.00
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
e/B

Figure 4.15 Variation of qu with different e/B at (Df/B=1) and (B/L=0.33)

Table 4.9 Calculated values of ultimate bearing capacity qu by Meyerhof (1951), IS: 6403-

1981 along with the present experimental values at (Df/B=1) and (B/L=0.33).

Sl no B/L e/B Df /B Present Meyrhof I.S. code

experiment qu qu

qu (KN/m2) (KN/m2) (KN/m2)

=40.8 =40.8 =40.8

1 0.33 0 1 336 255 236.47

2 0.33 0.05 1 289 249.6 226.42

3 0.33 0.1 1 265 238.26 215.57

4 0.33 0.15 1 239 226.9 204.34

29 | P a g e
From the load-settlement curve shown in Fig. 4.8 to Fig. 4.11 the ultimate bearing capacity

determined for each test are shown in Fig. from 4.12 to Fig. 4.15 along with the theoretical

values using well known available theories (Meyerhof, 1953; Is: 6403-1981). It is seen that

Meyerhof’s theory is in close agreement to those of experimental values obtained. When B/L

ratio is 0.5 with different depth of embedment (i.e. Df /B =0.5,1) the values obtained by

experiments is nearly equal to the IS code and Meyerhof theories usually higher than those

obtained by using other theories. From Fig. 4.12 and Fig. 4.13, it is seen that when

eccentricity ratio (e/B=0.1, 0.15) the values obtained by experiments is lies in between IS

code and Meyerhof’s theories.

Load intensity(kN/m2)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
0

B/L=0.5
5
e/B=0

10 Df/B=0
Settlement(mm)

Df/B=0.5
15 Df/B=1

20

25

30

Fig. 4.16 Variation of load settlement curve with embedment ratio (Df/B) at

(e/B) =0 and (B/L)=0.5

30 | P a g e
 Load intensity(kN/m2)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
0

B/L=0.5
5
e/B=0.05

10 Df/B=0
Settlement(mm)

Df/B=0.5
15 Df/B=1

20

25

30

Fig. 4.17 Variation of load settlement curve with embedment ratio (Df/B)

at (e/B) =0.05 and (B/L)=0.5

Load intensity(kN/m2)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
0

5 B/L=0.5
e/B=0.1

10 Df/B=0
Settlement(mm)

Df/B=0.5
15
Df/B=1

20

25

30

Fig. 4.18 Variation of load settlement curve with embedment ratio (Df/B)

at (e/B) =0.1 and (B/L)=0.5

31 | P a g e
 Load intensity(kN/m2)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
0

B/L=0.5
5
e/B=0.15

Df/B=0
Settlement(mm)

10
Df/B=0.5
Df/B=1
15

20

25

Fig. 4.19 Variation of load settlement curve with embedment ratio (Df/B)

at (e/B) =0.15 and (B/L)=0.5

Load intensity(kN/m2)
0 100 200 300 400
0

5
B/L=0.33
e/B=0

10 Df/B=0
Settlement(mm)

Df/B=0.5
15 Df/B=1

20

25

30

Fig. 4.20 Variation of load settlement curve with embedment ratio (Df/B)

at (e/B) =0 and (B/L)=0.33

32 | P a g e
 Load intensity(kN/m2)
0 100 200 300 400
0

B/L=0.33
5 e/B=0.05

Df/B=0
Settlement(mm)

10
Df/B=0.5
Df/B=1
15

20

25

Fig. 4.21 Variation of load settlement curve with embedment ratio (Df/B)

at (e/B) =0.05 and (B/L)=0.33

Load intensity(kN/m2)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
0

B/L=0.33
5 e/B=0.1

Df/B=0
Settlement(mm)

10 Df/B=0.5
Df/B=1
15

20

25

Fig. 4.22 Variation of load settlement curve with embedment ratio (Df/B)

at (e/B) =0.1 and (B/L)=0.33

33 | P a g e
 Load intensity(kN/m2)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
0

B/L=0.33
5 e/B=0.15

Df/B=0
Settlement(mm)

10
Df/B=0.5
Df/B=1
15

20

25

Fig. 4.23 Variation of load settlement curve with embedment ratio (Df/B)

at (e/B) =0.15 and (B/L)=0.33

The load-settlement curves have been shown in Figures 4.16 through 4.23 to show the effect

of depth of embedment on the load bearing capacity and settlement at any eccentricity ratio (

e/B). It is seen that at any eccentricity, the bearing pressure increases with increase in depth

of embedment at any level of settlement. Similarly at any level of bearing pressure, the

settlement of the footing decreases with increase in depth of embedment.

34 | P a g e
 350

300 B/L=0.5
Ultimate bearing capacity(qu) kN/m2

250

200 e/B=0
e/B=0.05
150 e/B=0.1
e/B=0.15
100

50

0
0 0.5 1
Df/B

Fig. 4.24 Variation of qu with Df /B for e/B=0 to 0.15 at B/L=0.5

400

350 B/L=0.33
Ultimate bearing capacity(qu) kN/m2

300

250
e=0
200 e=0.05
e=0.1
150
e=0.15
100

50

0
0 0.5 1
Df/B

Fig. 4.25 Variation of qu with (Df/B) for (e/B)=0 to 0.15 at B/L=0.33

35 | P a g e
From this Fig. 4.24 and Fig.4.25 it has been seen that, in a particular eccentricity when depth

of embedment increases the bearing capacity increases. Simultaneously in a particular depth

of embedment when eccentricity increases the bearing capacity decreases.

400

350 B/L=0.5
Ultimate bearing capacity(qu) kN/m2

300
e/B=0
e/B=0.05
250
e/B=0.1
200 e/B=0.15
e/B=0
150
e/B=0.05
100 e/B=0.1
e/B=0.15
50

0
0 0.5 1
Df/B

Fig. 4.26 Variation of qu with (Df/B) for (e/B)=0 to 0.15 at (B/L)=0.5 and 0.33

4.4 Analysis of test results

Model tests have been conducted in the laboratory using rectangular footing of sizes (10cm x

20cm and 10cm x 30cm) with different embedment ratio (Df/B) varying from 0 to 1 and

eccentricity ratio (e/B) varying from zero to 0.15 with an increment of 0.05. In ordered to

investigate the load carrying capacity of the rectangular embedded footings subjected

eccentric load, the laboratory load tests have been conducted on the footing supported by a

sand layer. The test results have been used to develop the non-dimensional reduction factor,

which can be used to estimate the ultimate bearing capacity of eccentrically loaded footing by

knowing the ultimate bearing capacity of centric loaded footing.

36 | P a g e
Purkayastha and Char (1977) proposed the reduction factor corresponding to ultimate bearing

capacity for eccentrically loaded strip footing as follows:

qu ( e )
 1  RK (4.1)
qu

Where

qu eccentric
Rk  1  (4.2)
qu centric

Where Rk = reduction factor; qu(eccentric) = ultimate bearing capacity due to eccentric loading;

qu(centric) = ultimate bearing capacity due to centric loading.

Therefore, based on the concept in above eqn.(4.2) for load eccentricity it shows that a

reduction factor RF for rectangular footing can be developed for a given value of Df /B.

( )
(4.3)
( )

Where ( ) ultimate bearing capacity with eccentricity ratio e/B at an

embedment ratio Df /B and ( ) = ultimate bearing capacity with centric vertical

loading (e/B = 0) at the same embedment ratio Df /B.

( ) (4.4)

Where b, n = factors which are functions of Df /B.

The purpose of this chapter is to conduct laboratory model tests on rectangular foundations

with varying Df /B and e/B with 69% relative density and evaluate the coefficients b and n as

given in Eq. (4.4).

37 | P a g e
The ultimate bearing capacities of rectangular foundations determined from experimental

model tests in the laboratory are given in Table 4.10 (Col. 4). In order to quantify certain

parameters like e/B, Df /B all the model test results have been analyzed using Nonlinear

Regression Analysis (NLREG). NLREG performs statistical regression analysis to estimate

the values of parameters for linear, multivariate, polynomial, logistic, exponential, and

general nonlinear functions. The regression analysis determines the values of the coefficients

that cause the function to best fit the observed data that is being provided. The reduction

factor concept as discussed in section 4.1 use the proposed Eq. 4.3 and 4.4 to predict the

ultimate bearing capacity of two different shape of rectangular foundation subjected to

eccentric load. The following procedure is adopted to analyze the test results and develop the

reduction factor.

B/L=0.5

Step 1:

( ) (4.5)

for a given Df /B regression analyses is performed to obtain the magnitudes of b and n.

Regression analysis has been done to determine the values of b and n for each depth of

embedment (Df).

Step 2:

The values of b and n obtained from analyses in step 1 are shown in Table 4.10. It can be

seen from Table 5.9 that the variations of b and n with Df /B are very minimal. The average

values of b and n are 1.65 and 0.75 respectively. We can assume without loss of much

accuracy

(4.6)

(4.7)

38 | P a g e
The experimental values of RF defined by Eq. (4.3) are shown in Col. 4 of Table 4.10. For

comparison purposes, the predicted values of the reduction factor RF obtained using Eq.

(4.5), (4.6) and (4.7) are shown in Col. 5 of Table 4.10. The deviations of the predicted values

of RF from those obtained experimentally are shown in Col. 6 of Table 4.10. It is seen in

most cases the deviations are 5% or less; except in one case where the deviation is about

12%. Thus, Eq. (4.5), (4.6) and (4.7) provide a reasonable good and simple approximation to

estimate the ultimate bearing capacity of rectangular foundations (0  Df /B  1) subjected to

eccentric loading.

( ) ( ) [ ( ) ] (4.8)

Table 4.10: Model test results (B/L=0.5)

Experimental
Df /B e/B Experimental Predicted Deviation
( )
qu RF= RF Col.5-col.4
(kN/m2) ( )
[Eqs.5.4, Col.5
5.5,and (%)
5.6]
(1) (2) (3) (5) (6)
(4)
0 128 1 1 0
0.05 102 0.8 0.83 3.47
0
0.1 86 0.67 0.71 4.91
0.15 68 0.53 0.60 11.80
0 212 1 1.00 0.00
0.05 175 0.83 0.83 0.01
0.5
0.1 152 0.72 0.71 -1.47
0.15 134 0.63 0.60 -4.94
0 327 1.00 1.00 0.00
0.05 265 0.81 0.83 1.83
1
0.1 230 0.70 0.71 0.46
0.15 200 0.61 0.60 -1.55

39 | P a g e
 Table 4.11: Variation of b and n [Eq. (4.5)] along with R2 values

Df /B b n R2

0 2.10 0.80 0.991

0.5 1.52 0.81 1

1 1.34 0.65 1

1.20

1.00
Reduction factor-predicted

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
Reduction factor-Experiment

Figure 4.27: Comparison of Reduction Factors obtained from present experimental results

with developed empirical Equation

Comparison

The Reduction Factor is found out from different theories are compared with Present

experiment. The developed reduction factor is in good agreement with the theories given by

Meyerhof (1953) and Purkayastha and Char (1977). The values obtained are presented in

Table 4.12.

40 | P a g e
 Table 4.12: Comparison of Reduction Factor by different theories with Present Experiment

RF
RF RF RF
Df /B e/B Predicted (Meyerhof) (Purkayastha
(Experiment)
& Char)
0 1 1 1 1
0.05 0.8 0.83 0.9 0.79
0
0.1 0.67 0.71 0.8 0.65
0.15 0.53 0.6 0.7 0.53
0 1 1 1.00 1
0.05 0.83 0.83 0.94 0.84
0.5
0.1 0.72 0.71 0.87 0.72
0.15 0.63 0.6 0.82 0.62
0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1
0.05 0.81 0.83 0.95 0.87
1
0.1 0.7 0.71 0.91 0.76
0.15 0.61 0.6 0.87 0.66

Comparison with Meyerhof [1953]

The ultimate bearing capacity of rectangular foundations at certain depth of embedment

subjected to eccentric load on granular soil proposed by Meyerhof (1953) is

(4.9)

To compute ultimate bearing capacity of rectangular embedded foundation, Meyerhof (1963)

incorporated B’ as the effective width in the equation

( )
(4.10)
( )

At =40.8°, qu(centric) and qu(eccentric) at varying depth of embedment (Df /B=0, 0.5, 1.0) and at

eccentricities (e/B=0, 0.05, 0.1, 0.15) calculated for the RF from experimental as well as by

41 | P a g e
Meyerhof’s effective width theory. This has been shown in Table 4.12. If the average value

of RF by Meyerhof’s effective width found over the depth at any eccentricity given by table

are considered and compared with the predicted values using (b=1.65, n=0.75),the maximum

deviation will be lie in between 5 % except in one case 12%.

1.20
Reduction factor-predicted

1.00

0.80

0.60
Developed equation
0.40
Meyerhof
0.20

0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
Reduction factor-Experiment

Figure 4.28: Comparison of Present results with Meyerhof (1953)

1.20

1.00
Reduction Factor-Predicted

0.80

0.60
Developed equation
0.40 Purkayastha and Char

0.20

0.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50
Reduction Factor-Experiment

Figure 4.29: Comparison of Present results with Purkayastha and Char (1977)

42 | P a g e
B/L=0.33

( ) ( )[ ( ) ]

Table 4.13: Model test results (B/L=0.33)

Experimental Deviation
Df /B e/B Experimental Predicted
( ) Col.5-
qu RF= RF
col.4
(kN/m2) ( )
[Eqs.5.4,
Col.5
5.5,and
(%)
5.6]
(1) (2) (3) (5)
(4) (6)
0 131 1 1 0
0.05 109 0.83 0.83 -0.79
0
0.1 94 0.72 0.71 -1.55
0.15 71 0.54 0.60 10.01
0 224 1 1.00 0.00
0.05 195 0.87 0.83 -5.45
0.5
0.1 181 0.81 0.71 -14.35
0.15 161 0.72 0.60 -19.33
0 336 1.00 1.00 0.00
0.05 289 0.86 0.83 -4.18
1
0.1 265 0.79 0.71 -11.62
0.15 239 0.71 0.60 -18.09

Table 4.14: Variation of b and n [Eq. (5.4)] along with R2 values

Df /B b n R2

0 2.89 0.97 0.9921

0.5 1.10 0.73 0.9933

1 1.04 0.68 0.9981

43 | P a g e
 1.20

1.00

Reduction factor -predicted 0.80

0.60
Developed equation
0.40

0.20

0.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50
Reduction factor Experiment

Figure 4.30: Comparison of Reduction Factors obtained from present experimental results

with developed empirical Equation

Comparison

The Reduction Factor is found out from different theories are compared with Present

experiment. The developed reduction factor is in good agreement with the theories given by

Meyerhof (1953) and Purkayastha and Char(1977). The values obtained are presented in

Table 4.15.

Table 4.15: Comparison of Reduction Factor by different theories with Present Experiment

RF RF RF RF
Df /B e/B (Experiment) Predicted (Meyerhof) (Purkayastha
[Eq.4.3] & Char)
0 1 1 1 1
0.05 0.83 0.83 0.9 0.79
0
0.1 0.72 0.71 0.8 0.65
0.15 0.54 0.60 0.7 0.53
0 1 1 1.00 1
0.05 0.87 0.83 0.94 0.84
0.5
0.1 0.81 0.71 0.87 0.72
0.15 0.72 0.60 0.82 0.62

44 | P a g e
 0 1 1.00 1.00 1
0.05 0.86 0.83 0.95 0.87
1
0.1 0.79 0.71 0.91 0.76
0.15 0.71 0.60 0.87 0.66

Comparison with Meyerhof [1953]

This has been shown in Table 4.13. If the average value of RF by Meyerhof’s effective width

found over the depth at any eccentricity given by table are considered and compared with the

predicted values using (b=1.65, n=0.75),the maximum deviation will be lie in between 20%.

1.20
Reduction factor-predicted

1.00

0.80

0.60
Developed equation
0.40 Meyerhof
0.20

0.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50
Reduction factor-experiment

Figure 4.31: Comparison of Present results with Meyerhof (1953)

1.20
Reduction Factor-Predicted

1.00

0.80

0.60
Developed equation
0.40
Purkayastha and Char
0.20

0.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50
Reduction Factor-Experiment

Figure 4.32: Comparison of Present results with Purkayastha and Char (1977)

45 | P a g e
CHAPTER-5
CONCLUSIONS AND SCOPE FOR THE
FUTURE WORK
CONCLUSION CHAPTER 5

5.1 Conclusion

In surface and different depth of embedment, the bearing capacity also decreases with

increase in eccentricity. The results of laboratory model tests conducted to determine the

ultimate bearing capacity of a rectangular foundation supported by sand and subjected to an

eccentric load with an embedment ratio (Df /B) varying from zero to one have been reported.

The load eccentricity ratio (e/B) is varied from 0 to 0.15. Based on the test results and within

the range of parameters studied, following conclusions are drawn:

 An empirical relationship for reduction factor in predicting ultimate bearing

capacity has been proposed for eccentrically embedded rectangular footing.

( ) ( )[ ( ) ]

 A comparison between the reduction factors obtained from the empirical

relationships and those obtained from experiments shows, in most cases the

deviations are ±10% or less; except in one case, the deviation is about 20%.

 The developed reduction factor is in good agreement with the theory given by

Meyerhof (1953).

5.2 Scope of future work

The present thesis pertains to the study on the bearing capacity of eccentrically loaded

rectangular footing on dry sand bed. Due to time constraint other aspects related to shallow

foundations could not be studied. The future research work should address the below

mentioned points:

 The present work can be extended to foundations on cohesive soil

 Large scale study to be carried out to validate the present developed equation.

46 | P a g e
  The present work can be extended to eccentrically inclined loaded reinforced soil

condition.

 The present work can be extended to eccentrically loaded embedded footing on

reinforced soil condition.

 This work can be extended by using different density of sand (i.e. dense sand,

medium dense sand).

47 | P a g e
 REFERENCES

Akbas, S. O. and Kulhawy, F. H. Axial compression of footings in cohesionless soils. II:

bearing capacity, Journal Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 135, 11(2009): pp. 1575–1582.

Balla, A. Bearing capacity of foundations, Journal Soil Mech. and Found. Div., ASCE, 88

(1962), 13-34.

Bowles, J. E., Foundation analysis and design. Mc Graw Hill, 1988.

Briaud, J.L. and Jeanjean, P. Load settlement curve method for spread footings on sand, Proc.

of Settlement ’94, Vertical and Horizontal Deformations of Foundations and

Embankments, ASCE, no. 2 (1994): pp. 1774-1804.

Briaud, J. L. Spread footings in sand: Load settlement curve approach. J. Geotech.

Geoenviron. Eng. 133, no.8 (2007): pp. 905–920.

Cerato, Amy B., and Alan J. L. "Scale effects of shallow foundation bearing capacity on

granular material. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 133,

no. 10 (2007): 1192-1202.

Cichy, W., Dembicki, E., Odrobinski, W., Tejchman, A., and Zadroga, B. Bearing capacity of

subsoil under shallow foundations: study and model tests. Scientific Books of Gdansk

Technical University, Civil Engineering 22(1978): pp. 1-214.

DeBeer, E.E., Martens, A. A method of computation of an upper limit for the influence of

heterogeneity of sand layers in the settlements of bridges, Proc. of 4th ICSMFE,

London, U.K., Vol. 1 (1957): pp. 275–282.

DeBeer, E.E.Bearing capacity and settlement of shallow foundations on sand. Proceedings,

Symposium on Bearing Capacity and Settlement of Foundations, Duke University,

pp. 15-33.1565.

DeBeer, E.E. Experimental determination of the shape factors and the bearing capacity

factors of sand, Geotechnique 20, no.4 (1970): pp. 387-411.

48 | P a g e
Hansen, J. B. A revised and extended formula for bearing capacity. (1970).

Hartikainen, J., and Zadroga, B. Bearing capacity of footings and strip foundations:

comparison of model test results with EUROCODE 7, Proc., of 13th ICSMFE, New

Delhi, India, Vol.2 (1994): pp. 457-460.

Ingra, T.S., and Baecher, G.B. Uncertainty in bearing capacity of sands, Journal Geotech.

Eng. 109, no.7 (1983): pp. 899-914.

IS 6403. Indian Standard for determination of bearing capacity of shallow foundations, code

of practice, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi 1981.

Janbu, N. Earth pressures and bearing capacity calculations by generalized procedure of

slices, Proc. of 4th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech., and Found. Eng., London, Vol. 2 (1957):

pp. 207-211.

Krabbenhoft, S., Damkilde, L. and Krabbenhoft, K. Lower-bound calculations of the bearing

capacity of eccentrically loaded footings in cohesion less soil, Can. Geotech. Journal

49, no. 3 (2012): pp. 298–310.

Lundgren, H. and K. Mortensen. Determination by the theory of plasticity of the bearing

capacity of continuous footings on sand, Proc. of 3rd Intl. Conf. Mech. Found. Eng.,

Zurich, Switzerland, Vol. 1 (1953): pp. 409.

Mahiyar, H. & Patel, A. N. Analysis of angle shaped footing under eccentric loading, journal

of geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering 126, no.12 (2000): pp. 1151-

1156.

Meyerhof, G.G. The ultimate bearing capacity of foundations, Geotechnique 2, no.4 (1951):

pp. 301-332.

Meyerhof, G.G. Some recent research on the bearing capacity of foundations, Canadian

Geotechnical Journal 1, no. 1(1963): pp.16-26.

49 | P a g e
Meyerhof, G.G. Shallow foundations, Journal Soil Mech. Found. Div., ASCE 91, no. Proc.

Paper 4275 (1965): pp. 21-31.

Michalowski, R.L. & You, L. Effective width rule in calculations of bearing capacity of

shallow footings, Computers and Geotechnics 23, no.4 (1998): pp. 237-253.

Patra, C.R., Behera, R.N., Sivakugan, N., Das, B.M. Estimation of average settlement of

shallow strip foundation on granular soil under eccentric loading, International

Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 7,no.2 (2013): 218-222.

Prakash, S. and Saran, S. Bearing capacity of eccentrically loaded footings, Journal Soil

Mech. and Found Div., ASCE, 97(1971): pp. 95–118.

Purkayastha, R. D. Investigations of footing under eccentric loads, Journal Indian Geotech.

9, New Delhi, no.3 (1979): pp. 220–234.

Ranjan, G., and Rao, A. S. R. Basic and applied soil mechanics. New Age International,

2000.

Reissner, H. Zum erddruckproblem, Proc. of 1st Int. Cong. of Appl. Mech., (1924): pp. 295-

311.

Schmertmann, J.H. Static cone to compute static settlement over sand, Journal Soil Mech.

Found. Div., ASCE 96, no. 3 (1970): pp. 1011-1043.

Schultze, E., and Sherif, G. Prediction of settlements from evaluated settlement observations

for sand, Proc. of 8th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. and Found. Eng.1, no. 3 (1973): pp.

225–230.

Shiraishi, S. Variation in bearing capacity factors of dense sand assessed by model loading

tests, Soils and Found.30, no.1 (1990): pp, 17-26.

Trautmann, C.H. and Kulhawy, F.H. Uplift load-displacement behavior of spread

foundations, Journal of Geotech. Eng., ASCE 114, no.2 (1988): pp. 168-183.

50 | P a g e
 Vesic, A.S., Bearing capacity of Shallow foundations. In Geotechnical Engineering

Handbook. Edited by Braja M. Das, Chapter 3, Journal Ross Publishing, Inc., U.S.A,

1975.

Zadroga, B. Bearing capacity of inclined subsoil under a foundation loaded with eccentric

and inclined forces: Part 1-method review and own model tests, Archive of

Hydroengrg. 22, no. ¾ (1975): pp. 333-336.

Zadroga, B. Bearing capacity of shallow foundations on noncohesive soils. Journal of

geotechnical engineering 120, no. 11 (1994): pp. 1991-2008.

Taiebat, H. A. & Carter, J.P. Bearing capacity of strip and circular foundations on undrained

clay subjected to eccentric loads, Geotechnique 52, no. 1 (2002): pp. 61–64.

Terzaghi, K., Theoretical soil mechanics. New York, John Wiley, 1943

51 | P a g e

View publication stats