36

CHAPTER 2 BEARING CAPACITY AND SETTLEMENT

2.1 INTRODUCTION
Building loads are transmitted by columns, by bearing wall or by other bearing member to foundations. A foundation is the lower part of a structure which transmits loads to the underlying soil without causing a shear failure of the soil or excessive settlement.If the soil near the surface has adequate bearing capacity to support the structural load it is possible to use spread foundation such as footing or raft if the soil near the surface is incapable of supporting the structural loads, pile or piers are used to transfer the loads to soil layer at greater depth capable of supporting such loads. The foundations are classified as shallow and deep foundation, according to the depth of construction. Shallow foundation may be defined as those whose depth is not more than their width.

2.2 STABILITY OF A FOUNDATION

The stability of a foundation depends upon the safety of soil against : 1- Its failure in shear. 2- Excessive settlement.

2.3 BEARING CAPACITY

The supporting power of soil is referred to as its bearing capacity. It may be defined as the largest intensity of pressure which may be applied by a structure to the soil without causing failure of soil in shear or excessive settlement. Consider a footing placed at depth D below the ground surface, the overburden pressure at the footing level is qo = D. The total pressure at the base of the footing due to the self weight of the super structure and due to the weight of earth fill over the footing is known as the gross pressure intensity q . The difference in intennsities of gross pressure after the construction of the structure

37

and of the original overburden pressure q - qo is known as the net pressure qn . ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY qu The ultimate bearing capacity is the minimum gross pressure intensity at the base of footing at which the soil fail in shear. NET ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY qnu The net ultimate bearing capacity is the minimum net pressure intensity causing shear failure of soil. qnu = qu - q0 .. (2.1) qu = qnu+ qo .. (2.2) NET SAFE BEARING CAPACITY qns The net safe bearing capacity is the net ultimate bearing capacity divided by the factor of safety F.S.

qn = s

qn u F S

(2.3)

THE SAFE BEARING CAPACITY qs

The safe bearing capacity is the maximum pressure which the soil can carry safely without risk of shear failure. qs = qns + D = ALLOWABLE PRESSURE Pa The allowable pressure (the allowable bearing capacity) is the maximum pressure which is considered safe both with respect to shear failure and settlement. When the term bearing capacity is used without any prefix it may be understood to refer to the ultimate bearing capacity.
qnu FS

+ D

(2.4)

2.4 RANKINE BEARING CAPACITY EQUATION

Rankine considered the stability of two soil elements, one immediately beneath the footing and the other just beyond the

38

edge of the footing as shown in Fig.2.1.In order to resist the ultimate bearing qu, element I at the corner of the footing develops a lateral earth pressure 3 which is equal to the lateral earth pressure 1 of element II.
qu=1 D qu 3 1 I II I II 3 1 3 1 3= D

1(element II)

Fig.2.1 Rankine's analysis =3(element II )xtan2(45+/2) = D x tan2(45+/2)

3(element I) equals 1(element II) hence: 1(element I) =D tan2(45+/2) x tan2(45+/2) 1 of element I equals the ultimate bearing capacity qu hence: qu =D tan4(45+/2) (2.5)

2.5 TERZAGHI BEARING CAPACITY EQUATION

Terzaghi (1943)derived a bearing capacity equation for shallow foundation from a modification of equation proposed by Prandtl. This equation was derived based on neglecting the shearing resistance of the soil above the level of the base of the footing and considering only its weight as surcharge producing a uniform pressure qo= D on the horizontal plane at footing level. It is assumed that general shear failure takes place and the base of the footing is rough and that friction prevents shear displacement of the soil adjoining the base, therefore the active Rankine state cannot be developed under the footing. In the mechanism of failure introduced by Trezaghi, Fig.2.2, the soil wedge ABC

39

below the footing is considered to be in a state of elastic equilibrium and behaves as if it is a part of the footing itself. This soil wedge is termed zone I and bounded by plane surfaces inclined by angle to the horizontal. The vertical downward movement of the footing with its intact wedge ABC displaces the underlying soil sideways and transforms it into a state of plastic equilibrium. Two zones of shear failure develop on either side of zone I,zone II adjacent to zone I is the zone of radial shear in which set of shear planes enamates from outer edge of the footing and bounded by a logarithmic spiral starts from point C tangential to vertical line. Zone III is Rankine passive zone of linear shear in which the shear planes are inclined at angles (45-/2) to the horizontal. The forces acting on the planes AC and BC are the resultant passive pressure Pp ,acting in the vertical direction (at angle = to the normal), and adhesion force C acting along the planes, where
C= cB 2c os

The weight of the wedge ABC is given by :

W = B2 tn a 4

Fig.2.2 Terzaghi's mechanism of failure. At the instant of failure the downward and upward forces acting on the wedge ABC must balance, hence: q u B =2 p
p

+2 csin W

1 q u B = 2p p + cBtan B 2 tan .(2.6) 4

40

All the quantities in equation (2.6) are known except pp, so that if pp can be calculated, qu is known.The resultant passive pressure Pp can be calculated in three steps: i- Assume the footing rests on the surface of cohesionless soil i.e. D = 0, q0 = 0 and c = 0, then the calculated passive pressure will be Pp . ii- Assume q0 = 0 and the soil has no weight, then the calculated passive pressure pp will be ppc . iii- Assume the soil is cohesionless and have no weight i.e. c=0 and = 0 , then the calculated passive pressure pp will be Ppq. The resultant passive pressure pp will be the sum of pp, Ppc and Ppq. Equation (2.6) can be written as :

q u B = 2 ( P + p p c + p p q) + B c t a n 1 / 4 B 2 t a n . . . . . . .(2. 7) . . p
Let,

2p p 1/4 B 2 tan =B x 1/2 B N

2 p
p c

+B c ta n

= c B N

substitute with the above values in equation (2.7) it reduces to

2 p pq

=B D Nq

q u =cN c + D N q +1/2 B N .......(2. 8)

Where , c is unit cohesion ,D is the depth of the foundation , in the second term is the unit weight of the soil above foundation level, in the third term is the unit weight of the soil below foundation level, Nc ,Nq and N are the bearing capacity factors. They are dimensionless numbers and depend only upon the angle of shearing resistance of the soil. Nc and Nq values are calculated as : a2 Nq = 2 cs 2 ( 5 + ) o 4 / 2
/) a = e (3 /4 2 ta n

/) a = e (3 /4 2

41 ta n

( Nc = Nq ) o 1 ct
The N values are calculated by :
1 N = tn a 2 K p 1 c s 2 o

The values of Kp are determined by means of the - circle or logarithmic spiral. Values of Terzaghi bearing capacity factors are given in terms of in Table. 2.1. For cohesive soils (=0) For saturated clay may be assumed to be equal to zero and hence : Nc=5.7, Nq =1, N =0 ,Equation (2.8) becomes : qu = 5.7c+d (2.9) qnu = 5.7c (2.10)

or

For cohesionless soils ( c = 0 ) qu = D Nq + 1/2 B N

or

(2.11)

qnu = D( Nq - 1) + 1/2 B N (2.12)

SQUARE AND CIRCULAR FOOTING Equation (2.8 ) is the bearing capacity equation for a long strip footing. It can also be used for rectangular footing of length L equal to or greater than 5 times the width B i.e L 5B. Terzaghi gave the following approximate equation for square and circular shallow footings. SQUARE FOOTING qu = 1.3 c Nc + DNq +o.4 B N
CIRCULAR FOOTING

( 2.13 )

qu = 1.3 c Nc + DNq + 0.3 BN ( 2.14)

42

Where : B Diameter of the circular footing. TABLE. 2.1 Terzaghi's bearing capacity factors 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 34 35 40 45 48
50

Nc 5.7 7.3 9.6 12.9 17.7 25.1 37.2 52.6 57.8 95.7 172.3 258.3
347.5

Nq 1.0 1.6 2.7 4.4 7.4 12.7 22.5 36.5 41.4 81.3 173.3 287.9
415.1

N 0.0 0.5 1.2 2.5 5 9.7 19.7 36.0 42.4 100.4 297.5 780.1
1153.2

Kp 10.8 12.2 14.7 18.6 25.5 35.0 52 72.7 82 141 298.0 628.5
800.0

GENERAL AND LOCAL SHEAR FAILURE Fig.2.3 shows the results of loading tests on two footings placed on two types of soils. General shear failure is the case in which the loading test curve for a soil comes to a perfectly vertical ultimate condition at small settlement, as represented by curve (1) . It occurs in soils which are fairly dense or stiff. Local shear failure is the case in which the settlements are relatively large and there is no a definite vertical ultimate limit to the curve, as represented by curve (2). It occurs in a fairly soft, or loose and compressible soil. In a local shear failure the shear resistance of soil is not mobilizeed along the full length of the failure surfaces and the failure may take place by local shear. The bearing capacity factors Nc, Nq and N are used for the cases in which the failure is general shear. In the cases of local shear failure Terzaghi suggested the use of empirical of reduction factors to the actual cohesion and angle of shearing resistance as follows: c' = 2/3 c ..(2.15)

43

tan ' = 2/3 tan

(2.16)

Fig. 2.3 General and local shear failure The reduced values c' and ' are used for determining the bearing capacity. The corresponding bearing capacity factors Nc , Nq and N' . Example 2.1 A square footing 2.5x2.5 m is located at depth of 3 m in silty clay of unit weight 1.8 t /m3. The shear strength parameters are c=2 t/m2 and = 20o.Determine the ultimate bearing capacity based on Terazaghi equation. If the factor of safety is 3.0 , find the safe and net safe bearing capacities. Solution From table (2.1), for =20o, Nc =17.7 , Nq =7.4 , N = 5 qu =1.3 cNc +DNq + 0.4 B N =1.3 x2x17.7+1.8 x 3 x7.4+ 0.4 x1.8 x2.5 x 5= 94.98 t/m2 qnu = qu - D =94.98 - 1.8 x 3 = 89.58 t/m2 qs = qnu/F + D = 89.58/3 +3 x 1.8 = 35.26 t/m2 qns = qnu/F Example 2.2 = 89.58 / 3 = 29.86 t/m2

44

Redo Example 2.1 for local shear condition. Solution c'=2/3 c = 2/3x2 tan ' =2/3 tan =2/3tan 20 ' N'c =9.6+(12.9-9.6)/5 x3.6 = N'q =2.7+(4.4-2.7)/5 x3.6 = N' =1.2 + (2.5-1.2)/5 x3.6 = = = 45.59 - 1.8x3 40.19 / 3 = = = 12.0 3.9 45.59 t/m2 40.19 t/m2 13.40 t/m2 1.33 t/m2 0.24 13.6 O

2.1 qu=1.3x1.33x12+1.8x3x3.9+0.4x1.8x2.5x2.1 = qnu = qu - D qns = qnu / F = =

qs = qns + D = 13.4 + 3x1.8 = 18.80 t/m2 Example 2.3 A square footing 1.5 x 1.5 m is placed in sandy soil has an angle of internal friction =30oand unit weight equal to 1.8 t/m3.Find the depth at which the footing should be placed to carry a net load of 120 tons with a factor of safety equal to 3 . Solution Net safe bearing capacity = qnu /F =1/F x(qu - qo) = 120/(1.5x1.5) =1/3( D Nq+0.4 BN - D) The values of Terzaghi bearing capacity factors are obtained from table 2.1 ,Nq = 22.5 and N = 19.7 53.33 138.72 D = = = = 1/3(1.8x22.5xD+0.4x1.8x1.5x19.7 -1.8xD) 1/3 (38.7 D -21.28 ) 38.7 D 3.58 m

Example 2.4 A strip footing is placed at depth of 1.0 m in a soil has an angle of friction = 20o , cohesion c = 0.15 kg/cm2 , and unit weight = 1.85 t/m3, Determine the width of the footing if the factor of safety is 3.0 and the footing is to be designed to carry a load of

45

30 t/m' at the ground surface. Solution The value of the bearing capacity factors from Terzaghi, table 2.1 for = 20 are : Nc =17.7 ,Nq = 7.4 ,N = 5.0 qu = c Nc + DNq +0.5 BN = 1.5x17.7 +1.85x1x7.4 +0.5 x1.85 x5 xB =40.24 + 4.625 B qnu = qu - qo = 40.24 + 4.625 B - 1.0x1.85 = 38.39 + 4.625 B qns = 1/3(38.39 + 4.625 B) =30/B 4.625 B2 + 38.39 B -90 = 0
38.39 (38.39) 2 + 4.625 4x B= 2x 4.625 x 90 = 1.91 m

2.6 SKEMPTON'S METHOD

For clay soils in which can be assumed equal to zero, Skempton(1951) deduced the following semi-empirical equation in which the values of Nc are based partly on theory and partly on laboratory tests and full scale loading tests to failure. qu = cNc + D (2.17)

46

Fig. 2.4 Skempton's bearing capacity factor Nc when =o The values of Nc are given in Fig.2.4, the upper curve for circle and square footing and the lower for long strip footing of L/B 5 . For rectangular footing the value of Ncr may be obtained from Ncs of strip footing by the following relationship :
Nc r = (1 + 0.2 B/L )Ncs ..(2.18)

Skempton also gave the following rules : For depths where D/B is less than 2.5 Nc = (1 + 0.2 D/B) Nco ..(2.19) For depths where D/B is greater than 2.5 Nc = 1.5 Nco (2.20) Where Nco = bearing capacity factor at the surface. Example 2.5 A footing 2 x 4 m is placed at depth of 4 m in saturated clay of unit weight 2.1 t/m3. If the clay has cohesion c = 1.2 kg / cm2.and = 0, calculate the net safe load that could be carried by the footing if the factor of safety is 3 . Also find the total safe load on the footing. Solution From Skempton curves Fig. 2.4 for D/B = 4/2 = 2 Ncs = 7.2 Ncr =(1+0.2 B/L)Ncs =(1+0.2x2/4)x7.2 = 7.92 qnu = c Nc = 12 x 7.92 = 95.0 t/m2 qns = qnu / F.S = 95 /3 = 31.68 t/m2 The net safe load = 31.86 x 2 x 4 = 253.44 t qs = qns + D =31.68 + 4 X2.1 = 40.08 t/m2 The total safe load = 40.08 x 2 x 4 = 320.64 t/m2

47

2.7 MEYERHOF'S METHOD

Meyerhof (1951,1963) extended the previous analysis of the plastic equilibrium for the surface strip foundation to shallow and deep foundation. In the mechanism of failure shown in Fig. 2.5 there are two main zones on each side of the central zone ABC, radial shear zone BCD and mixed shear zone BDEF. The shearing resistance of the soil above the foundation level is considered in this analysis. The bearing capacity equation from Meyerhof (1963) is qu = cNcscdcic +DNqsqdqiq + 0.5 BNsdi .(2. 21) Where , s = shape factor, d = depth factor , and i = inclination factor. The value of these factors are given in table (2.2). The bearing capacity factors for shallow strip foundation are calculated as follows :
N q =e tan tan 4 + 2) ( 5

N c =( N q ) cot 1

N =( N q ) tan (1.4 ) 1
The values of the bearing capacity factors Nc,Nq,and N are given in table (2.3).

48

Fig. 2.5 Meyerhof mechanism of failure TABLE 2.2 Shape, depth, and inclination factors for the Meyerhof bearing capacity equation (2.21)
Factors Shape : Value sc =1+0.2 Kp For
B L B L

Any > 10o =0

D B D B L

sq =s=1+0.1 Kp sq = s =1 Depth : dc = 1 + 0.2 Kp dq = d = 1+0.1 Kp dq =d = 1

Any > 10o = 0

Inclination: R

ic = iq = i = i = 0

0 1 9 0 0

Any >0 =0

0 1 0

Where

Kp =tan2 (45+/2) = angle of resultant measured from vertical without a sign

2.8 HANSEN BEARING CAPACITY EQUATION

Based on Meyerhof work ,Hansen(1970) has proposed a general bearing capacity equation which includes the effect of the shape and depth of the footing as well as the inclination of the load. The ultimate bearing capacity is given by the following

49

formula : qu = cNc sc dc ic + D Nq sq dq iq + 0.5 B N s d i Where

(2.22)

s = Shape factor , d =depth factor and i = inclination factor. The bearing capacity factors are

N q =e tan tan

(45 + / 2)

same as Meyerhof same as Meyerhof

N c =( N q 1) cot

N =1.5 ( N q 1) tan
Hansen extended his work to include a factor for the footing being tilted from horizontal bc,bq, bg and for the footing being on slope gc, gq and g The values of the bearing capacity factors Nc,Nqand N are given in table (2.3).The shape, depth,inclination factors as well as base and ground surface inclination factor are given in table (2.4) TABLE (2.3) Bearing-capacity factors for the Meyerhof ,Hansen and Vesic bearing capacity equations Note that Nc and Nq are same for all three methods; subscripts identify author for N 0 5 10 15 20 25 26 28 30 32 34 36 Nc 5.14 6.49 8.34 10.98 14.83 20.72 22.25 25.80 30.14 35.49 42.16 50.59 Nq 1 1.57 2.47 3.94 6.40 10.66 11.85 14.72 18.40 23.18 29.44 37.75 N(M) 0.0 0.1 0.4 1.1 2.9 6.8 8.0 11.2 15.7 22.0 31.1 44.4 N(H) 0 0.1 0.4 1.2 2.9 6.8 7.9 10.9 15.1 20.8 28.8 40.1 N(V) 0.0 0.4 1.2 2.6 5.4 10.9 12.5 16.7 22.4 30.2 41.1 56.3 Nq/Nc 0.19 0.24 0.30 0.36 0.43 0.51 0.53 0.57 0.61 0.65 0.70 0.75

50

38 40 45 50

61.35 75.31 133.87 266.88

48.93 64.20 134.87 319.06

64.1 93.7 262.7 873.9

56.2 79.5 200.8 568.6

78.0 109.4 271.7 762.9

0.80 0.85 1.01 1.20

TABLE ( 2.4)Shape,depth,inclination, ground and base factors for use in Hansen bearing capacity equation
Shape factor

s c =1 +

Nq B B for > o , s c =0.2 for =0 Nc L L

B s q = + ta 1 n L

sc =1 for strip ,

,
1

s = .4 1 0

B L

Depth factor dc = 1+0.4 tan-1 D/B (rad) dc = 1+0.4 D/B dc = 0.4 tan-1 D/B dc = 0.4 D/B dq =1+2tan (1-sin )2D/B d = 1 for all Load inclination factors ic =i q 1 i q Nq 1 (rad)

for D/B > for D/B for D/B for D/B

1 1

>0 =0

for D/B > 1

dq =1+2tan (1-sin )2tan-1(D/B) (rad)

for D/B > 1

fo > 0 r

ic =0.5 +0.5 1

H Ac a

for

=0
5

0.5 H i q = 1 V + Ac a cot

0 .7 H i = 1 V + Ac a cot

(=0)

Base factor (tilted base )

bc = 1 17 4

0.7 o / 450 H i = 1 V + Ac a cot

o o

( >0)
V

51
bc = 1 17 4
bc = 1 4 7
o o

for > 0 for = 0

o o

+ < 90o <

TABLE (2.4) cont.

bq = e 2 tan
b = e 2.7 tan

in radian

Ground surface inclination factor (base on slope)

gc = 1 17 4
o o

for > 0
5

( 0 ) g q =g = 1 .5 tan

gc = 17 4

o
o

for = 0

Where A' =effective area of footing B'XL'(see Fig.2.6 ) ca = adhesion to base = cohesion or a reduced value. H = horizontal component of footing load equal to or less than V tan + ca A' V = total vertical load on footing = slope of ground with downward = (+) = tilt angle of base from horizontal with (+) upward = friction angle between base and soil, usually = for concrete on soil Note 1-Do not use shape factors in combination with inclination factors i.e. if H > 0 all shape factors = 1 2-Can use shape and depth factors in combination with ground and base factors.

2.9 VESIC'S BEARING CAPACITY EQUATION

Vesic (1973,1974) procedure is the same as Hansen Eq.(2.22). The essential differences in his method are using a slightly different N and variation on shape .depth, inclination, base and ground factors. The following is a brief of the various factors given by Vesic .

52

Nq = same as Meyerhof and Hansen Nc = same as Meyerhof and Hansen N = 2(Nq-1) tan The value of the bearing capacity are given in table (2.3) .
TABLE(2.5) Shape, depth, inclination, ground and base for use in Vesic bearing capacity equation

Depth and shape factors Inclination factors

are the same as that of Hansen.

m

H i q = 1 V + Ac a cot 1 iq ic = i q for > 0 same as Hansen N q 1

m H for = 0 Ac a N c m+ 1 H i = 1 V + Ac a cot ic =1
Where

m =m = B

2 +B / L 1 +B / L

H parallel to B

m =m = L

2 +L / B 1 +L / B

H parallel to L

Base inclination factor bc = Hansen factor bq = b =(1- tan )2 Ground surface inclination factor gc = Hansen factor gq =g =(1-tan)2 Example 2.6 Compute the safe bearing capacity using both Meyerhof and Hansen equations for footing 1.0x2.0m placed at depth1.0 m of cohesionless soil =35o,c = 0 and = 1.8 t/m3 above foundation

53

and = 0.8 t /m3 below foundation level (submerged).Take the factor of safety = 3. Solution Since c = 0 , Meyerhof and Hansen equations are reduced to qu = D Nqsq dq + 0.5 B N s d By Meyerhof From table 2.3, Nq=29.44+(37.75-29.44)/2 =33.59 N =31.1+(44.4-33.1)/2= 37.75 From table 2.2, Kp=tan2(45+/2)=tan2(45+35/2)=3.69, Kp =1.92 B/L =1/2=0.5 Sq = S =1+0.1 KpxB/L = 1.18 dq = d = 1+0.1 Kp x D/B =1.19 D/B =1/1 =1 With these values substitute in equation qu =1.8x1x33.59x1.18x1.19+0.5x0.8x1x37.75x1.18x1.19 = 84.42+21.2 =106.1 t/m2 qs =qu /F =106.1/3 =35.36 t/m2 By Hansen From table 2.3, Nq=33.4 same as Meyerhof N =28.8+(40.1-28.8)/2 =28.8+11.3/2 =34.45 From table 2.4,sq =1+(B/L)tan =1+0.5tan35 =1.35 s = 1-0.4B/L = 1-0.4x0.5 = 0.8 dq =1+2tan(1-sin)2D/B=1+2tan35(1-sin35)2x1=1.25 d = 1 With these values substitute in equation qu = 1.8x1x33.4x1.35x1.25 + 0.5x0.8x1x34.35x0.8x1 = 101.45 + 11=112.45 t/m2 qs =qu /F =112.45/3 = 37.48 t/m2 Example 2.7 A footing 1.5x1.5 m is placed at depth 2.0 m in cohesive soil having c = 6 t/m2 , = 0 and = 1.8 t/m2 . If the factor of safety is 3.0, find the safe bearing capacity by Terzaghi and Meyerhof. Solution By Trezaghi

54

From table 2.1,Nc = 5.7 and Nq = 1 For square footing qu =1.3 c Nc+ DNq=1.3x6x5.7+1.8x2x1 = 48.1 t /m2 qs=(qu - D)/FS + D = (48.1- 1.8 x3)/3 + 1.8 x3 =19.63 t/m2 By Meyerhof From table 2.2 sc=1+0.2Kp x B/L =1+0.2X1X1=1.2 , sq = 1 dc=1+0.2 Kp x D/B =1+0.2X1.33=1.27 , dq = 1 From table 2.3 , Nc = 5.14 and Nq = 1 qu = cNc x sc x dc + D x Nq x sq x dq qu = 6 x 5.14 x 1.2 x 1.27 + 1.8 x 2 x 1 x 1x 1 = 47 +3.6 =50.6 t/m2 qs = qu/ FS = 50.6/3 =16.86 t/m2 Example 2.8 Find the ultimate bearing capacity by , Meyerhof, Hansen and Vesic equations for a footing 2x4 m placed at depth 1.5 m in c- soil having = 20o, c =1.5 t/m2 and = 1.70 t/m3 for soil from surface to depth 2m,1.8 t/m3 from depth 2 m to 3 m and 1.9 t/m3 below that depth. Solution For all equation ,from table 2.3 Nc = 14.83 , Nq = 6.4 , B/L = 2/4=0.5 ,D/B =3/2 =1.5 Kp =tan2(45+/2)=tan2(45+20/2)=2.04 , Kp =1.43 By Meyerhof From table 2.2 , sc=1+ 0.2KpxB/L =1+ 0.2X2.04X0.5 = 1.2 sq=s =1+0.1KpxB/L =1+0.2x2.04x0.5 =1.1 dc=1+0.2 Kp x D/B=1+0.2x1.43x1.5 = 1.43 dq=d=1+0.1 Kp x D/B=1+0.1x1.43x1.5=1.2 From table 2.3 , N = 2.9 qu= cNcscdc + D Nq sqdq + 0.5 B N sd qu=1.5x14.83x1.2x1.43+(1.7x2+1.8x1)x6.4x1.1x1.2+0.5x1.9x2x 2.9 x 1.1x1.2 = 38.17+43.93+7,25 = 89.35 t/m2

55

By Hansen From table 2.3, N = 2.9 , Nq/Nc = 0.43 From table 2.4, sc = 1+Nq/NC XB/L = 1+0.43 x 0.5 = 1.2 sq = 1+B/L x tan = 1+ 0.5 x tan 20 =1.18 s =1 -0.4 x B/L = 1 - 0.4 x 0.5
-1 -1

= 0.8

dc = 1+0.4xtan D/B =1+0.4xtan 1.5 =1.39 dq = 1 + 2xtan(1-sin)2 x tan-1 D/B =1.31 d = 1 qu=cNc scdc + D Nqsqdq+0.5 B Nsd qu=1.5x14.83x1.2x1.39+(1.7x2+1.8x1)x6.4x1.18x1.31+0.5x1.9x 2 x 2.9 xo.8x1=37.1+51.44+4.41 = 92.95 tm2 By Vesic From table 3.2 N = 5.4 Shape and depth factors are the same as Hansen, hence the difference will be in the third term of the bearing capacity equation qu =37.1+51.44+0.5x1.9x2x5.4x0.8x1=37.1+51.44 +8.21 =96.75 t /m2

2.10 FOOTINGS WITH ECCENTRIC OR INCLINED LOADS

If a footing is placed eccentrically loaded with respect to either or both the x and y axis, an effective footing area should be determined.This reduced area allows the load to coincide with its centre as shown in Fig.2.6. The dimensions of the reduced area is as follows: L' = L- 2 ex , B' = B - 2 ey , A' = B' L' The ultimate bearing capacity, using the Meyerhof, Hansen and Vesic equations, obtained using B' in the term BN and B' in computing the shape factors.This results in reducing the ultimate bearing capacity, the ultimate load pu = qu B'L' Inclined loads are produced when the footing is loaded with

56

both a vertical and horizontal component of loading.The load inclination results in a bearing capacity reduction over that of footing subjected to a vertical load only.The inclination factors in tables 2.2, 2.4 and 2.5 are used with Meyerhof, Hansen and Vesic bearing capacity equation.

Fig.2.6 Effective footing dimensions for eccentric footing Example 2.9 A footing 2x4 m is loaded with axial load of 200 t and Mx = 20 m.t,My = 30 m.t is placed at depth 2 m in a soil has a unit weight of 1.8 t/m3. The soil has cohesion c = 1 t/m2 and angle of internal friction = 20o. The long direction of the footing is parallel to x- axis. If the factor of safety is 3,determine the allowable bearing capacity by Hansen equation. Solution ex =My/ V =30/200 = 0.15 m , ey = Mx/ V = 20/200 =0.1 m The reduced dimensions are : B' = B - 2 ey =2 - 2 x0.1 = 1.8 m L' = L - 2 ex =2 - Lx0.15 = 3.7 m From table 2.3 and 2.4 , Nc 14.83 , Nq = 6.4 , N = 2.9 Sc = 1+Nq/Nc XB'/L'=1+(6.4/14.83)x(1.8/3.7) = 1.21

57

sq = 1+( B'/L') x tan = 1+ (1.8/3.7) x tan20 s = 1 - 0.4 x B'/L' = 1 - 0.4 x(1.8/3.7) dc = 1+0.4xD/B = 1+0.4x2/2 dq =1+2xtan(1-sin)2xD/B=1+0.311 x 2/2 qu = cNcscdc + DNqsqdq + 0.5 B'Nsd

= 1.18 = 0.81 = 1.4 =1.32

d = 1 , all inclination, base and ground factors = 1 =1x14.83x1.21x1.4 + 1.8x2x6.4x1.18x1.32 +0.5x1.8x1.8x2.9x0.81x1 =64.76 t/m2 qa = qu/ FS = 64.76/3 =31.88 t/m2 Example 2.10 A footing 3 x 3 m is placed in a soil as shown in Fig. 2.7. The soil has = 25o , c = 2.5 t/m2 and unit weight of 1.8 t/m3 If = and ca = c and the factor of safety is 3, check if the footing is adquate . V =90t
D=0.5m

H=30t B=3m
= 15

FIG.2.7 Solution This example can be solved by Meyerhof, Hansen or Vesic, we choose arbitrary Hansen. All shape factors =1 Nc = 20.72, Nq = 10.7, N = 6.8 , dc =1.07 dq = 1+2tan(1-sin)2xD/B =1 + 0.311x0.5/3 = 1.05 , d = 1 From table 2.4
0 .5 x 3 0 =0.5 i q = 1 6 9 +9 x 2.5 x co 0 t
ic =i q
i
5

1 i q Nq

1 0.56 =0.56 =0.51 1 10 .7 1

=0.4 6
5

(0.7 5 o / 4 0 ) x3 1 5 0 = 1 9 + x 2.5 x c t 2 0 9 o 5

The base factors for tilt angle =15o

58

bc = 1- /147 = 1-15/147 = 0.9 , =15o = 0.262 radian bq =e-2x x tan = e-2xo.262xtan25 = 0.78 b = e-2.7xxtan = e -2.7x0.262x0.47 =0.72 qu = cNcdcicbc +DNqdqiqbq + 0.5 BNdib = 2.5x20.7x1.07x0.51x0.9+1.8x0.5x10.7x1.05x0.56x0.78 +0.5x1.8x3x6.8x1x0.46x0.72 = 25.39+8.17+6.08 qu = 39.64 t/m2 , qa = qu /FS = 39.64/3 =13.21 t/m2 The allowable load pa =qa x A' =13.21x9 = 118.89 t > 90t o.k

2.11 EFFECT OF WATER TABLE ON BEARING CAPACITY

The effective unit weight is used in derivation of all the bearing capacity equations. For soil below water table the submergence density should be used. If the water table is at distance B or greater below the footing, it has no effect on the bearing capacity calculation. When the water level is at distance less than B below the base of the footing, the effective unit weight in that zone can be computed by averaging the unit weights of wet and submerged values. A reduction factor W is applied to in the term 0.5BN which can be computed as : W = 0.5 + dw/B x0.5 > 1 (2.23) Where dw =depth of water table below footing base , Fig.2.8
G.S D1 W.T D D2

Dw W.T

59

Fig. 2.8 Effect of water table on bearing capacity If the water level is at footing base or above, ' (submerged density) of the soil below the footing base is used in the term 0.5BN or approximately wet is used and multiplied by w which is equal to o.5. When the water table is above the footing base the term qo is divided into two parts, the first part for the depth of soil D1 above the water level and is equal to D1 where is the wet unit weight (bulk density), the second part for the depth of soil D2 from footing base to the water level and is equal to 'D2 where ' is the submerged density. Thus the term DNq will be equal to (D1+'D2)Nq. Also an approximate method can be applied in which an average value for wet and submerged densities is used. This can be achieved by applying a reduction factor wq to in the term DNq computed as : wq = 0.5 +(D1/D) x 0.5 > .(2.24) The two reduction factors w and wq are computed on the bases that the submerged density is approximately equal to one-half the wet density. The bearing capacity equations 2.8 and both 2.21 and 2.22 can be rewritten to include the reduction factors as follows : qu = cNc + ( wq)DNq + 0.5 (w)BN (2.25) and rewriting equations 2.21 and 2.22 , we obtain qu=cNcscdcic +(wqDNqsqdqiq +0.5(w)BNsdi .(2.26) Example 2.11 A square footing 2x2 m is to be placed 3 m below ground surface of a soil having a density 1.9 t/m3. The shear strength parameters are c = 0 and =30o. The water table is at 8.o m below ground surface. If the factor of safety is 3,find the allowable bearing capacity. Determine also the allowable bearing capacity for the following cases : 1-The water table is 3.5 m below ground surface.

60

2-The water table is 1.5 m below ground surface. 3-The water table is at ground surface. Solution We will use Terzaghi equation For c = 0 , qu (wq)DNq + 0.4 (w)BN From table 2.1 for = 30, Nq = 22.5 , N = 19.7 Water table at 8 m below ground surface wq = 1 ,w = 1 qu =(1.9x1)x3x22.5 + 0.4x(1.9x1)x2x19.7 =128.25 + 29.94=158.19 t/m2 qa =qu/3 = 158.19/3 = 51.66 t/m2 Water table at 3.5 m below ground surface wq = 1 w =0.5 +(dw/B)x0.5 =0.5 +(0.5/2)x0.5 =0.625 qu=128.25 + 0.4x(1.9x0.625)x2x19.7 =146.97 t/m2 qa =qu/3 = 146.97/3 = 48.75 t/m2 Water table at 1.5 m below ground surface w =o.5 wq =o.5 + (D1/D) x 0.5 = 0.5 + (1.5/3) x 0.5 =0.75 qu = (1.9x0.75)x3x22.5 +0.4x(1.9x0.5)x2x19.7 = 96.19+14.97 = 111.16 t/m2 qa =qu/3 = 111.16/3 = 37.05 t/m2 It should be noted that the effect of buoyancy on the base of the footing should be considered.

2.12 BEARING CAPACITY OF FOOTINGS ON SLOPES

When the footing is located on or near a slope,Fig.2.9, its stability will be reduced due to lack of soil on the slope side. The bearing capacity is obtained by using reduced bearing capacity factors N'c and N'q as follows: 1-Find point "e" as shown in Fig, 2.9.The angle is equal to (45 - /2) since the slope is a principal plane. 2-Compute N'c = Nc x (L1/LO) Where LO = the failure surface "ade" in Fig.2.9-a

61

L1 = the failure surface "ade" in Fig.2.9-b and c 3-Compute N'q = Nq x (A1/AO) Where AO = the area "efgh" in Fig.2.9-a =(ef) x D m2 A1 = the area "fghe" in Fig.2.9-b or = the area "fge" in Fig. 2.9-c 4-The overall slope stability should be checked. h
D e f
(45- /2)

B P c

qo=D

a- footing far from slope

e

b
D

g f B P

(45- /2)

g B e
D

r
d

ro
a

P (45+ /2) a

r=ro etan b-footing near slope

(45- /2)

c- footing on slope Fig. 2.9 Footing on or adjacent to a slope The bearing capacity can be computed by Meyerhof, Hansen or Vesic equations and the reduced bearing capacity factors as qu = cN'cscic + DN'qsqiq + 0.5BN'sd i ( 2.24) N'c and N'q are given in table 2.6 .It should be noted that the effect of depth is included in both N'c and N'q, thus the depth factors are omitted from the first and second terms of the bearing capacity equation 2.24. Example 2.12

62

Compute the allowable bearing capacity of strip footing of width 2 m placed at 1.5 m from the edge of a slope 1:2 ( =26.5o) and at depth = 3 m. The soil parameters are = 30o , c = 0 and = 1.6 t/m3 .Take the factor of safety = 3.
TABLE 2.6 Bearing-capacity N'c,N'q for footing on or adjacent to a slope (after Bowles,1988)
D/B =0 0 10 20 25 30 60 N'c= N'q= 0 5.14 1.03 4.89 1.03 4.63 1.03 4.51 1.03 4.38 1.03 3.62 1.03 10 8.35 2.47 7.8 2.47 7.28 2.47 7.02 2.47 6.77 2.47 5.33 2.47 D/B =0.75 0 10 20 25 30 60 N'c= N'q= 0 5.14 1.03 5.14 0.92 5.14 0.92 5.14 0.92 5.14 0.88 4.07 0.37 0 5.14 1.03 5.14 1.03 5.14 10 8.35 2.47 8.35 1.95 8.35 1.90 8.35 1.82 8.35 1.72 6.83 0.63 D/B =1.50 10 8.35 2.47 8.35 2.47 8.35 20 14.83 6.40 14.83 4.43 14.83 4.11 14.83 3.85 14.83 3.54 10.55 1.17 20 14.83 6.40 14.83 5.85 14.83 20 14.83 6.4 13.37 6.4 12.39 6.4 11.82 6.4 11.28 6.4 8.33 6.4 b/B = 0 30 30.14 18.4 26.8 18.4 23.78 18.4 22.38 18.4 21.05 18.4 14.34 18.4 b/B =0 30 30.14 18.4 30.14 11.16 30.14 9.84 28.76 9.00 27.14 8.08 17.85 2.36 b/B = 0 30 30.14 18.40 30.14 14.13 30.14 40 75.31 64.20 75.31 33.94 66.81 28.21 62.18 25.09 57.75 21.91 34.84 5.52 40 75.31 64.20 75.31 40.81 75.31 40 75.31 64.2 64.42 64.2 55.01 64.2 51.8 64.2 46.88 64.2 28.56 64.2

0 10 20

N'c= N'q=

63 1.03 5.14 1.03 5.14 1.03 5.14 0.62 2.47 8.35 2.47 8.35 2.47 8.34 1.04 5.65 14.83 5.39 14.83 5.04 12.76 1.83 12.93 30.14 12.04 30.14 10.99 21.37 3.52 35.13 73.57 31.80 68.64 28.33 41.12 7.80

25 30 60

TABLE 2.6 Cont.

D/B = 0 10 20 25 30 60 N'c= N'q= 0 5.14 1.03 5.14 1.03 5.14 1.03 5.14 1.03 5.14 1.03 10 8.33 2.47 8.31 2.47 8.29 2.47 8.27 2.47 7.94 2.47 20 14.34 6.40 13.90 6.40 13.69 6.40 13.49 6.40 12.40 6.40 b/B = 0.75 30 28.02 18.40 26.19 18.40 25.36 18.40 24.57 18.40 20.43 18.40 40 66.60 64.20 59.31 64.20 56.11 64.20 53.16 64.20 39.44 64.20

D/B =0.75 10 20 25 30 60 N'c= N'q= 0 5.14 1.03 5.14 1.03 5.14 1.03 5.14 1.03 5.14 1.03 10 8.35 2.34 8.35 2.47 8.35 2.47 8.35 2.47 8.35 2.47 20 14.83 5.34 14.83 6.04 14.83 6.27 14.83 6.40 14.83 5.14

b/B = 0.75 30 30.14 13.47 30.14 14.39 30.14 14.56 30.14 14.52 23.94 10.05 40 75.31 40.83 71.11 40.88 67.49 40.06 64.04 38.72 45.72 22.56

D/B =1.50 10 20 25 N'c= N'q= 0 5.14 1.03 5.14 1.03 5.14 10 8.35 2.47 8.35 2.47 8.35 20 14.83 6.40 14.83 6.40 14.83

b/B = 0.75 30 30.14 15.79 30.14 16.31 30.14 40 75.31 45.45 75.31 43.96 75.31

64 1.03 5.14 1.03 5.14 1.03 2.47 8.35 2.47 8.35 2.47 6.40 14.83 6.40 14.83 4.97 16.20 30.14 15.85 27.46 9.41 42.35 74.92 40.23 52.00 20.33

30 60

TABLE 2.6 Cont.

D/B = 0 10 20 25 30 60 N'c= N'q= 0 5.14 1.03 5.14 1.03 5.14 1.03 5.14 1.03 5.14 1.03 10 8.35 2.47 8.35 2.47 8.35 2.47 8.35 2.47 8.35 2.47 D/B =0.75 10 20 25 30 60 N'c= N'q= 0 5.14 1.03 5.14 1.03 5.14 1.03 5.14 1.03 5.14 1.03 10 8.35 2.47 8.35 2.47 8.35 2.47 8.35 2.47 8.35 2.47 D/B =1.50 10 20 25 30 N'c= N'q= 0 5.14 1.03 5.14 1.03 5.14 1.03 5.14 10 8.35 2.47 8.35 2.47 8.35 2.47 8.35 20 14.83 6.40 14.83 6.40 14.83 6.40 14.83 20 14.83 6.01 14.83 6.40 14.83 6.40 14.83 6.40 14.83 6.40 20 14.83 6.40 14.83 6.40 14.83 6.40 14.83 6.40 14.83 6.40 b/B = 1.5 30 29.24 18.40 28.59 18.40 28.33 18.40 28.09 18.40 26.52 18.40 b/B = 1.5 30 30.14 15.39 30.14 18.40 30.14 18.40 30.14 18.40 30.03 18.40 b/B = 1.5 30 30.14 17.26 30.14 18.40 30.14 18.40 30.14 40 75.31 49.77 75.31 52.58 75.31 52.97 75.31 40 75.31 47.09 75.31 53.21 72.80 55.20 70.32 56.41 56.61 46.18 40 68.78 64.20 63.60 64.20 61.41 64.20 59.44 64.20 50.32 64.20

65 1.03 5.14 1.03 2.47 8.35 2.47 6.40 14.83 6.40 18.40 30.14 16.72 52.63 62.88 36.17

60

Solution D/B = 3/2 = 1.5 , b/B = 1.5 /2 =0.75 Using Hansen method, N = 15.1 , sq =s = d = 1 From table 2.6 and by interpolation , N'q = 16.095 qu = DN'q + 0.5 B N = 1.6 x3 x16.095 +0.5 x2x 15.1=77.26+15.1 = 92.36 t/m2 qa = qu /3 = 92.36 / 3 = 30.79 t/m2

2.13 DETERMINATION OF THE BEARING CAPACITY FROM IN-SITU TESTS 2.13.1 PLATE LOADING TEST
The purpose of the plate loading test is to determine the ultimate bearing capacity of a soil and the probable settlement of foundation or to check the value of the bearing capacity adopted from building codes. The method for performing the plate loading test is governed by the various building codes. The test is performed by loading a rigid bearing plate rests on the bottom of a pit at the foundation level. The size of the test plate varies from 30 cm to 75 cm depending upon practical consideration. The load is applied to the test plate by either dead weight or by a hydraulic jack exerts pressure against loaded platform or steel truss anchored to the ground by anchor piles Fig.2.10.The load is applied in increments of about one-fifth of safe bearing capacity or one-tenth the ultimate bearing capacity. The settlements are measured by dial gauges accurate to 0.02 mm. Readings of settlements are recorded every hour for the first six hours after each load increment has applied and at every 12 hours thereafter until the rate of settlement becomes less than 0.02 mm per hour. The result of the loading test are plotted to give load-settlement curve Fig.2.11. The ultimate bearing capacity can be determined

66

from curve as it has a definite failure point. In curve , the failure point is assumed that at which the curve passes into a steep and fairly straight tangent. Curve III does not indicate a failure point. The failure load may be assumed corresponding to a settlement equal to one-fifth of the width of the loaded area. When the failure does not occur under a load equal to threetimes the design load, the loading test is terminated and the design load is considered satisfactory.

Fig.2.10 Plate loading test

67

Fig.2.11 Load settlement curves The pressure bulb for the plate is assumed to be extend to a depth of about 1.5 times the width of the plate, Fig.2.12.

Fig.2.12 Influence of the size of loaded area on the depth of the stressed zone The results of the plate loading test reflects the shear strength and settlement characteristics of the soil within this pressure bulb. The pressure bulb of the actual foundation extends to a larger depth because of the larger width of the foundation. If there is a layer of soft soil below the influence area of the plate, it will not effect the results of the test. If the influence area of the actual foundation extends into the soft layer, the results of loading test on the plate does not represent the actual case of the foundation. Hence the interpretation of the plate loading test must be supplemented by exploratory boring to get information about the soil condition within the significant depth of the foundation. The significant depth is that within which the load on the foundation change the state of stress in the soil.

68

The plate loading test does not give a satisfactory value of the ultimate settlement in cohesive soil because the consolidation of soil takes time while the loading test is a test of short duration. When the clay is homogeneous and saturated to a depth of 2 to 2.5 B (width) of the footing, the settlement of the footing may be obtained from the following equation :
s f =s p BF Bp

(2.25)

In saturated clays the ultimate bearing capacity is independent of the footing size, thus the bearing capacity of footing is the same as that of test plate. qfooting = qplate (2.26) The settlement of foundation on sand can be estimated from the results of the plate loading test. If sp is the settlement of the loaded plate 30.5 x 30.5 cm under a given load per unit of area, and s is the settlement of the foundation of width B at the same load per unit area, then the relationship between s ,sp and B is given by :
2B (2.27) s =s p B +30.5 in which s, sp and B are expressed in cm. In sand and gravel the bearing capacity increases linearly with the size of the footing :
2

q footing = M + N

B footing B plate

(2.28)

The M term in Eq. 2.28 includes the Nc and Nq terms and the N term includes the N term of Eq. 2.8. Equation 2.28 may be solved graphically from the results of plate loading tests by using plates of more than one size. Practically, for extrapolating plate loading test we may use
q f =q p BF BP

(2.29)

69

Hausel (1929) has suggested the following equation for the bearing capacity of a footing on cohesive soils ( = 0) based on the results of two plate loading tests. v=Aq+ps (2.30) where v = total load on a bearing area A . A = contact area of footing (or plate). p = perimeter of footing. q = bearing pressure beneath area A. s = perimeter shear. Example 2.13 Two plate loading tests were carried out on plates,30 x30 cm and 45 x45 cm. The loads corresponding to 1.0 cm settlement were 4.2 t and 8.5 t, respectively. What is the size of square footing required to carry a 36 t column load ?. Solution v =Aq+ps 4.2 = 0.09 x q + 1.2 x s 8.5 = 0.202 x q + 1.8 x s q = 32.6 t /m2 s = 1.055 t /m2 For the footing required to support 36 t load 36 = B2 q + 4 B x s 32.6 B2 + 4.22 B - 36 = 0

B=

- 4.22 (4.22) 2 + 4 x 32.6 x 36 = 0.988 m 2 x 32.6

Take the footing 1.0 x 1.0 m

2.13.2 PENETRATION TESTS

Penetration tests provide a mean for the investigation of subsoils and supply informations about the consistency and relative density of the deferent layers. They are only the means of supplying information about cohesionless soils from which it is

70

difficult to obtain an undisturbed samples. The bearing capacity of cohesionless soil can be determined from the penetration test. The two tests which are commonly used are the standard penetration test SPT and the cone penetration test CPT. For the description of the two tests see chapter 1.

2.13.2.1 STANDARD PENETRATION TEST

In this test it necessary to estimate the width of the foundation. The tests are normally made at intervals between o.75 to 1.5 m to a depth at least equal to the width B of the foundation. The average value of N for this depth indicates the relative density of the sand. N is the standard penetration number and it is the number of blows required to drive the sampling spoon the last 30 cm of penetration. The allowable soil pressure can be estimated from the curves given by Terzaghi and Peck and shown in Fig. 2.13. The curves represent the relationship between the width B of the footing in metres and the soil pressure required to produce

71

Fig.2.13 Relationship between standard penetration resistance N and the allowable bearing pressure a settlement of 25 mm. For a given soil pressure, the settlement of a footing on sand depends upon the relative density and on the position of water table. The pressure corresponding to other amount of settlement s can be computed from the chart on the assumption that settlement varies directly as the soil pressure qa (shart) x 25 = qa s (2.31) Fig.2.13 is based on assumption that water table is at depth B below footing base. If the water table is at depth less than B below footing base, the value the allowable pressure qa from Fig. 2.13 should be multiplied by the factor W obtained from Eq.2.23. In case of rafts and peirs the allowable bearing pressure obtained from Fig.2.13 should be doubled because due to the rigidity of the foundations a settlement of 50 mm is considered acceptable.

72

Fig.2.14 Relationship between N and Nq and N-value from Standard penetration test, after Peck et al (1974)

Peck et al (1974) related the value of N obtained from standered penetration test with the values of , N and Nq as given in Fig.2.14.

Correction for N - value

1- Effect of Ground Water The value of N may be too great if the subsoil consists of very fine sand below the water table. Terzaghi and Peck recommended a correction for N values greater than 15 as follows: N' = 15 + 1/2 (N - 15) (2.32) where N = the actual measured blow count. N' =The corrected blow count This was based on the fact that the permeability of such soil is so low that the excess pore pressure increases the penetration number. 2- Effect of the Effective Overburden Pressure oboe the Level of the Test The standard penetration resistance depends on both the relative density of the sand and the effective overburden pressure thus, the sand at the same relative density would give higher penetration number at greater depths. The values of N measured denote include the effect of overburden pressure. The N value varies with stress level from ground surface down to depth 7.5 m. A correction factor CN is used for overburden pressure,where: CN = ( pa /vo )0.5 ( 2.33)

73

where : pa = Atmospheric pressure (1 t/ft2, 1 bar, 10.3 t/m2) vo = Vertical effective stress at the depth of the test It should be noted that the relationship between N and the relative density by Terzaghi and Peck ( Table 2.7) corresponding to an effective overburden pressure of 14.4 t/m2 which would occur at depth of about 7.5 m in an unsaturated sand. 3 - Effect of Borehole Diameter The SPT is carried out in borehole varies from 60 mm to 200 mm. In sand, the increase of borehole diameter decreases the measured value of N . A correction is made by multiplying N by a factor NB ,where: Diameter of borehole mm 60 - 115 150 200 4 - Effect for the Rod Length A correction for N is made if the length of the rods is less than 10 m by multiplying N by the factor NR , where: Length of rod > 10 m 6 to 10 m 4 to 5 m 3 to 4 m Example 2.14 A footing 3 x3 m is to be placed at a depth 3.0 m in sand deposit. The water table is 4.5 m below the ground surface. The value of the standard penetration test N is 12 . Determine the allowable soil pressure for the footing. ( sat = 2 t/m3) NR 1 0.95 0.85 0.7 NB 1.0 1.05 1.15

74

Solution Correction for overburden from CN =( pa /'vo)0.5

pa = 10.3 t/m2

'vo = 3 x (2-1) = 3 t/m2 CN =( 10.3 /3)0.5 1.85 N cor = 12 x 1.85 =22 From Fig. 2.13 qa =2.3 kg/cm2

The relationship between N and relative density , and unit weight of sand is given inTable.2.7 TABLE 2.7 Relationship between N , ,relative density Dr and Description Relative density N (SPT) wet t /m3 Very loose Loose Medium Dense Very dense

0 - 0.15 0.15-0.35 0.35-0.65 0.65-0.85 0.85-1.0 0 - 4 4 - 10 10 - 30 30 - 50 > 50 < 29o

1.1 - 1.6

29o-30o
1.4 - 1.8

30o-36o
1.7 - 2.0

36o-41o
1.7 -2.2

> 41o
2.0 - 2.3

The relationship between N and the unconfined compressive strength of cohesive soils is given in Table 2.8. These values are produced empirically and should be used cautiously, TABLE 2.8 Relationship between N and unconfined compressive strength of cohesive soils Description N (SPT) satt /m3 Very soft 0.0 - 2 Soft Medium
0.5 - 1.0

Stiff

Very stiff 15 - 30

Hard
> 4.0

qunkg/cm2 0.0 - 0.25 0.25 - 0.5

1.0 - 2.0 2.0 - 4.0

2-4

4 - 10 1.7 - 1.9

10 - 15

> 30

1.6 - 1.9

1.9 - 2.2

75

2.13.2.2 THE STATIC CONE PENETRATION TEST

The static cone penetration test provides a mean for the investigation of subsoils and supplies information about the consistency of the soil layers without the necessity of boring. Schmertman (1978), gave the following relationship between the Dutch cone penetration resistance qc and N :

qc N = 0 .8 0
where qc = cone resistance kg /cm2 N = Terzaghi bearing capacity factors From N , and Nq can be obtained.

(2.34)

Meyehof suggested the following formulae for the allowable bearing pressure for 25 mm settlement :
q qa = c 30

kg/cm
2

B < 1.2

(2.35)

qa =
where

q c B +0.3 50 B

kg/cm 2

B > 1.2 (2.36)

qc = static cone resistance kg/cm2 B = footing width, metre. If the water table is at depth less than B from the base of the footing , equations 2.36 and 2.37 should be multiplied by W given by equation 2.23.

2.14 BEARING CAPACITY FROM BUILDING CODES

The building codes give yhe values of the safe bearing capacity for various types of soils. These values are based on shear strength of the various soil types regardless the amount of settlement that may occur. These values are often a helpful guide

76

for preliminary design of foundation and they should be supplemented by field and laboratory soil tests, Table 2.9 gives the safe bearing capacity according to the Egyptian code of practice (2000)

TABLE 2.9 Safe bearing capacity values from Egyptian code

Soil type Description Bearing

value Gneissic Igneous and metamorphic rocks Laminated metamorphic rocks Sedimentary rock Clay stone,lime stone,sand stone Weathered rock mud stone, and soft rock Gravel, gravel sand mixture In sound condition In sound condition In sound condition
kg /m2 50 - 100

20 - 40

10 - 35

5 - 10 Unless affected by water Width of foundation B not less than 1.o m Water table at least at depth B below foundation Width of foundation B not less than 1.0 m

Highly compacted 5 - 7 Medium " 4-6 Loose 2-4 Coarse to Very dense 3-5 medium sand or Medium to dense 1.5 - 3 sand with gravel Loose 1-2 Fine to medium Very dense 2-4 sand or silty sand Medium to dense 1.5 - 2.5 or clayey sand Loose 1 - 1.5 Non- organic silt 1-2 or silty sand Homogeneous Hard >4 inorganic clay or Very stiff 2-4 sandy clay or silty Stiff 1-2 clay or clayey silt Medium stiff 0.5 - 1 Soft 0.25-0.5

Susceptible to long-term consolidation settlement.

77

Very soft

< 0.25

2.15 FACTOR OF SAFETY

The safe bearing capacity is obtained by dividing the ultimate bearing capacity by a factor of safety. The factor of safety is used to take account of : a- the variation of the shear strength of the soil. b- uncertainties in predicting the ultimate bearing capacity by the theoretical or empirical methods. A factor of safety of 2.5 to 3.0 is generally used. When the soil is very uniform the factor of safety may be taken equal to 2.0.

2.16 ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURE

The allowable bearing pressure qa is the smallest of the safe bearing capacity qs and the bearing pressure for a permissible settlement. The ultimate bearing capacity qu of the soil can be calculated from the knowledge of the shearing characteristics of the soil and using the analytical and field methods described earlier. The safe bearing capacity is then determined by applying an arbitrary factor of safety. If the settlement due to a foundation pressure equal to the safe bearing capacity is permissible for the type of the structure, then the allowable bearing pressure qa can be taken equal to the safe bearing capacity. If the settlement is not permissible, a reduced value will have to be taken for the allowable bearing pressure. The allowable bearing pressure can be determined from the results of the in-situ tests made on the soil.The allowable bearing pressure for foundation on dry sands is governed by tolerable settlement and it may be much lower than the maximum safe bearing capacity. It is therefore recommended in the case of foundation on sands and gravel to use an empirical design method relating allowable bearing pressures to permissible settlements for foundation of given dimensions.

2.17 DEPTH OF FOUNDATION

The depth of foundation is selected to satisfy the following

78

requirements : 1- The location of a stratum of an adequate bearing capacity. 2- The foundation level is located below the zone subjected to the seasonal weather changes. Such an unsuitable zone is the zone of shrinkage and swelling in clayey soils and the zone of frost action in fine sands and silts. 3- The foundation depth should be sufficient to avoid scouring, below the base of foundation, caused by rain water.

2.18 EFFECT OF FOUNDATION SIZE ON THE BEARING CAPACITY

Cohesive soil For footing placed on the surface of cohesive soil = 0 and D = 0 , Equation2.8 reduces to qu = cNc Thus the bearing capacity is independent of footing size. If two footings are loaded to the same pressure intensity, the average strains within the pressure bulbs are the same. The settlements resulting from the compressions of the bulbs are proportional to their heights.Thus the settlement is proportional to the footing size. Cohesionless soil Consider a footing placed on the surface of cohesionless soil c = 0 and D = 0 , Equation 2.8 Reduces to (2.37) N 2 Thus the bearing capacity is proportional to footing size. The shearing strengths and the resistance to distortion in cohesionless soil are proportional at all points to the depth below ground surface. The average shear strength and the average resistance to distortion within a pressure bulb which in turn is proportional to the size of the footing.Thus for cohesionless soil the settlement is independent of footing size.

qu =

2.19 EFFECT OF FOUNDATION DEPTH ON THE BEARING CAPACITY

79

The second term of Equation (2.8) is the only term involving depth. For cohesive soil of = 0 , Equation (2.8) reduces to : qu = cNc + D. It mean that by increasing the depth of foundation the ultimate bearing capacity increases by an amount equal to the to the overburden pressure D. In other words the net ultimate bearing capacity is independent of the foundation depth. For cohesionless soil Nq is considerably greater than unity and the bearing capacity increases by increasing foundation depth.

2.20 BEARING CAPACITY OF DEEP FOUNDATION

When the depth of the foundation is greater than its breadth it may be considered as deep foundation. The bearing capacity of deep foundation is given by Q = Qp + Qs (2.38) where Q = total bearing capacity Qp = base bearing capacity Qs = skin friction along the side of the foundation Qp is given by Qp = qu x A where A = area of the base of the foundation Qs is given by (2.39)

For cohesive soil ( = 0) Qs = ca x lateral surface area of the foundation (2.40) where ca = adhesion along the side of the foundation For cohesionless soil (c = 0) Qs = fs x lateral surface area of the foundation (2.41) where fs = side friction where = 1/2 D tan Ks (2.42) D = depth of foundation. = angle of friction between the side of foundation and the soil. Ks = coefficient of earth pressure on the side of the foundation.

80

For the calculation of the bearing capacity qu in the term (qu x A), Hansen Eq.2.22 , Meyerhof Eq.2.21 and Vesic Equation can be used. For cohesive soil ( = 0), Skempton Eq.2.17 can be used and Nc is taken from Fig.2.4.

2.21 SETTLEMENT OF FOUNDATION 2.21.1 CAUSES OF SETTLEMENT

1- Static loads, such as the weight of a structure or of an embankment. 2- Moving loads such as those which are transmitted through a road pavement, vibration due to pile driving and oscillating machine. 3- Ground water lowering, especially repeated lowering and raising of water level in loose granular soils tends to compact the soil and cause settlement. Prolonged lowering of water level causes settlement in fine soil due to extraction of the water from the voids. 4- Seasonal swelling and shrinkage of expansive clays. 5- Undermining, due to mining operations, tunnel construction and underground erosion, and adjacent excavation.

2.21.2 TYPES OF SETTLEMENT

The total settlement of a footing consists of two parts : s = si + sc where s = total settlement si = immediate settlement sc = settlement due to consolidation of clay (2.43)

2.21.2.1 IMMEDIATE SETTLEMENT

81

It consists of elastic compression and plastic deformation of the soil immediately upon application of the load without change in volume water content. It equals to :

si = q B
where

1 - 2 I Es

(2.44)

q = intensity of constant pressure B = width of footing = Poisson's ratio Es = modulus of elasticity of soil = influence factor

The values of the influence factor are given in Table2.10.

TABLE 2.10 Values of for various - shaped footings Shape Circle Square Rectangle L /B= Centre 1.000 1.120 1.5 1.360 2 1.530 5 2.100 10 2.520 100 3.380 Flexible Rigid Corner Average 0.64 0.850 0.88 0.56 0.950 0.82 0.68 0.77 1.05 1.26 1.69 1.200 1.310 1.830 2.250 2.960 1.06 1.2 1.7 2.1 3.4

2.21.2.2 SETTLEMENT DUE TO CONSOLIDATION

It is due to the slow extrusion of water from pores of clay soil

Sc =
or where

cc P + P H lo g O 1 +e o PO

(2.45) (2.46)

Sc = mv Dp H H = the thickness of the clay layer. Cc = the compression index.

82

po = the overburden pressure. p = increase in effective pressure eo = initial void ratio. mv= the coefficient of volume compressibility.

2.21.3 DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT

Differential settlements between foundations are a result of : 1- Variation in soil strata. 2- Variation in foundation loading. 3- Large loaded areas on flexible foundations. 4- Differences in time of construction of adjacent parts of a structure. 5- Variation in site condition. The differences of settlement between two adjacent columns is referred to as differential settlement. Differential settlement may cause damage to the structure due its distortion or tilting, so it is of greater importance than uniform settlement. Settlements should be estimated under various points of the structure such as centre, corner, lightest and heaviest column loads in order to compute the differential settlement. Differential settlement is sometimes taken as 3/4 of the maximum settlement. The allowable maximum differential settlement may be taken as 38 mm in clays and 25 mm for sand. The allowable maximum settlement may be taken as 75 mm for clays and 50 mm for sand. The angular distortion between two points under a structure is equal to the defferential settlement between the points divided by the distance between them.The allowable angular distortion is 1/ 300.

2.21.4 CONTROL OF SETTLEMENT

There are two methods for reducing the settlement : 1- To excavate a volume from the soil equivalent to the weight of the structure, then, when the structure is built, the net increase in pressure will be approximately zero. 2- To preload the soil with load equal to the expected load of the structure and allow time to permit the settlement to take place,

83

then remove the preload and construct the structure. Sand drains or well points may be used to accelerate the settlement. PROBLEMS 1- A strip footing 3.5 m wide to be placed at 3 m below ground surface on sandy clay soil having a density of 1.95 t/m3, = 15o and c= 0.25 kg/cm2. Find the ultimate load/m run using Terzaghi formula and compare the result with that estimated by Meyerhof. 2- A square footing is to be constructed at a depth of 3.5m below ground surface on sandy clay soil has = 10o and cohesion c= 0.55 kg/cm2. The density of the soil is 1.75 t/m3. Find the size of the footing to support a load of 400t using Terzaghi formula 3- A footing 2.5 x 2.5 m carries a net load of 1000 t. The base of the footing is at a depth of 3 m below ground surface. The soil strata consist of a layer of stiff saturated clay 28 m thick overlying dense sand. The density of the clay is 1.95 t/m3 and its shear strength is 1.3 kg/cm2. Find the factor of safety. 4- A column has a square footing founded at depth of 3 m below ground surface on clay of density1.8 t/m3 and cohesion c=0.35 kg/cm2. The total load applied to the soil is 80 t. Calculate the dimension of the footing if the factor of safety is 3.0. Use the theories of Terzaghi and Skempton. 5- Find the ultimate bearing capacity by Meyerhof, Hansen and Vesic methods for a strip foundation of width B = 0.9 m and to be placed at depth 1.2 m in soil having = 28o and c = 0.12 kg/cm2and density = 1.72 t/m3. 6- A silo, 60 m by 22 m in plan, is to be constructed on a slab foundation 3m below ground level in clay deposit with cohesion c = 0.75 kg/cm2. The clay has a saturated density of 1.8 t/m3 and the water table is at ground surface. The dead weight of the complete structure is 20000 t. If the factor of safety is to be 2.0, determine the maximum vertical load which the salio can carry. Use the theory of Terzaghi and compare the result with that estimated by Skempton , Meyerhof and Hansen. 7- An oil tank of diameter 30 m carries a total load , including its own weight, 20000 t. the base of the tank is located 3m below

84

ground surface. The soil consists of clay has c = 0.95 kg/cm2 and = 1.72 t/m3. Calculate : (a) The total foundation pressure. (b) The net foundation pressure. (c) The factor of safety. 8- A strip footing of width 1.5 m is placed on the surface of sand having = 20o and = 1.85 t/m3. The water table is at 5 m below ground surface. If the flood cause the water table to rise to the surface, by what percentage is the bearing capacity of the foundation reduced ?. 9- A footing 2 x 2 m is loaded with axial load of 200 t and Mx = 30 m.t, My = 18 m.t. The footing is placed at depth 2 m in soil having = 30o and c = 0.2 kg/cm2, and = 1.85 t/m3. The water table is 6 m below ground surface. If the factor of safety is 3 , what is the safe bearing capacity ?. 10- A strip footing of width 3 m is placed at depth 4.5 m in sand having unit weight of 1.8t/m3. The water table is at 6 m below ground surface. The number of blows from the standard penetration test (SPT), N = 15. Find the allowable bearing pressure for the footing. 11- A strip footing of width 2.0 m is placed at depth of 1.5 m below the ground surface of sandy soil. The result of the static cone penetration test (CPT), qc =30 kg /cm2. Find the allowable bearing pressure from Meyerhof Eq. And compare the result from that obtained from Schmertmann. The unit weight of the sand is 1.8 t /m3. 12- Two plate load tests were carried out on plates 45 x 45 cm and 60 x 60 cm. For the same settlement, the loads were 8 and 12 tons respectively. What size square footing is required to carry a 40 t column load ?. 13- A rectangular footing 2 x 4 m carries a load of 75 t on - c soil has a modulus of elasticity 3000 t/m2 and Poisson's ratio = 0.25. Find the immediate settlement at (a) the centre and the corner of the footing if it is considered as flexible footing (b) average settlement (c) settlement if the footing is considered as rigid footing. 14- A footing is located in slope as

85

shown in the given Fig. What is the allowable bearing capacity using Hansen or Vesic bearing 1.0m equations. = 25o

=1.8t/m3 =25o c =2.4t/m2 1.2m

86

36

ng capacity to

w and deep

pressure at

87

37

88

38

89

39

90

40

he calculated

91

41

92

42

93

43

94

44

95

45

90

= 1.91 m

96

46

97

47

98

48

lination of the

99

49

100

50

101

51

102

52

103

53

104

54

105

55

rea should be

g the ultimate

106

56

107

57

108

58

than B below

109

59

o one-half the

the allowable

110

60

111

61

( 2.24)

112

62

113

63

114

64

115

65

116

66

117

67

118

68

119

69

120

70

121

71

122

72

33)

123

nd the relative

73

124

74

125

75

126

76

127

77

128

78

he settlement

129

79

130

80

131

81

132

82

133

83

134

84

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235