4 Shallow Foundations: Ultimate

Bearing Capacity

4.1 Introduction

T o perform satisfactorily, shallow foundations must have two main characteristics:

1. They have to be safe against overall shear failure in the soil that supports them.
2. They cannot undergo excessive displacement, or settlement. (The term excessive is
relative, because the degree of settlement allowed for a structure depends on several
considerations.)
The load per unit area of the foundation at which shear failure in soil occurs is called the
ultimate bearing capacity, which is the subject of this chapter. In this chapter, we will
discuss the following:
●
Fundamental concepts in the development of the theoretical relationship for ultimate
bearing capacity of shallow foundations subjected to centric vertical loading
●
Effect of the location of water table and soil compressibility on ultimate bearing
capacity
●
Bearing capacity of shallow foundations subjected to vertical eccentric loading and
eccentrically inclined loading.

4.2 General Concept

Consider a strip foundation with a width of B resting on the surface of a dense sand or stiff
cohesive soil, as shown in Figure 4.1a. Now, if a load is gradually applied to the founda-
tion, settlement will increase. The variation of the load per unit area on the foundation (q)
with the foundation settlement is also shown in Figure 4.1a. At a certain point—when the
load per unit area equals qu—a sudden failure in the soil supporting the foundation will
take place, and the failure surface in the soil will extend to the ground surface. This load
per unit area, qu, is usually referred to as the ultimate bearing capacity of the foundation.
When such sudden failure in soil takes place, it is called general shear failure.
155

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 156 Chapter 4: Shallow Foundations: Ultimate Bearing Capacity

B Load/unit area, q

qu

Failure
(a) surface
in soil Settlement

B Load/unit area, q

qu(1)

qu

Failure
(b) surface
Settlement
B Load/unit area, q

qu(1)
qu qu
Failure
surface
Surface
(c) footing
Settlement

Figure 4.1 Nature of bearing capacity failure in soil: (a) general shear failure: (b) local shear fail-
ure; (c) punching shear failure (Redrawn after Vesic, 1973) (Based on Vesic, A. S. (1973). “Analysis
of Ultimate Loads of Shallow Foundations,” Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division,
American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 99, No. SM1, pp. 45–73.)

If the foundation under consideration rests on sand or clayey soil of medium

compaction (Figure 4.1b), an increase in the load on the foundation will also be
accompanied by an increase in settlement. However, in this case the failure surface in
the soil will gradually extend outward from the foundation, as shown by the solid lines
in Figure 4.1b. When the load per unit area on the foundation equals qus1d, movement
of the foundation will be accompanied by sudden jerks. A considerable movement of
the foundation is then required for the failure surface in soil to extend to the ground
surface (as shown by the broken lines in the figure). The load per unit area at which
this happens is the ultimate bearing capacity, qu. Beyond that point, an increase in load
will be accompanied by a large increase in foundation settlement. The load per unit
area of the foundation, qus1d, is referred to as the first failure load (Vesic, 1963). Note
that a peak value of q is not realized in this type of failure, which is called the local
shear failure in soil.
If the foundation is supported by a fairly loose soil, the load–settlement plot will
be like the one in Figure 4.1c. In this case, the failure surface in soil will not extend
to the ground surface. Beyond the ultimate failure load, qu, the load–settlement plot

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 4.2 General Concept 157

will be steep and practically linear. This type of failure in soil is called the punching
shear failure.
Vesic (1963) conducted several laboratory load-bearing tests on circular and rec-
tangular plates supported by a sand at various relative densities of compaction, Dr. The
variations of qus1dy12gB and quy12gB obtained from those tests, where B is the diameter of a
circular plate or width of a rectangular plate and g is a dry unit weight of sand, are shown
in Figure 4.2. It is important to note from this figure that, for Dr ù about 70%, the general
shear type of failure in soil occurs.

Relative density, Dr
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

Punching General
Local shear
shear shear
700
600
500
400

300

200
1 B
qu

2
and

100
90
80 qu
1 B
qu(1)

70 1 B
2

60 2
50
40
Legend
Circular plate 203 mm (8 in.)
30
Circular plate 152 mm (6 in.)
qu(1) Circular plate 102 mm (4 in.)
20 1 B Circular plate 51 mm (2 in.)
2 Rectangular plate 51 3 305 mm
(2 3 12 in.)
Reduced by 0.6
Small signs indicate first failure load
10
1.32 1.35 1.40 1.45 1.50 1.55 1.60
Dry unit weight, d
Unit weight of water, w

Figure 4.2 Variation of qus1dy0.5gB and quy0.5gB for circular and rectangular plates on the
surface of a sand (Adapted from Vesic, 1963) (Based on Vesic, A. B. Bearing Capacity of Deep
Foundations in Sand. In Highway Research Record 39, Highway Research Board, National
Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1963, Figure 28, p. 137.)

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 158 Chapter 4: Shallow Foundations: Ultimate Bearing Capacity

Relative density, Dr
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0

1
Punching shear Local shear General
failure failure shear
failure
2
Df /B*

Df
4
B

5
Figure 4.3 Modes of foundation failure in sand (After Vesic, 1973) (Based on Vesic, A. S.
(1973). “Analysis of Ultimate Loads of Shallow Foundations,” Journal of Soil Mechanics
and Foundations Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 99, No. SM1,
pp. 45–73.)

On the basis of experimental results, Vesic (1973) proposed a relationship for the
mode of bearing capacity failure of foundations resting on sands. Figure 4.3 shows this
relationship, which involves the notation
Dr 5 relative density of sand
Df 5 depth of foundation measured from the ground surface
2BL
B* 5 B 1 L (4.1)

where
B 5 width of foundation
L 5 length of foundation
(Note: L is always greater than B.)
For square foundations, B 5 L; for circular foundations, B 5 L 5 diameter, so

B* 5 B (4.2)

Figure 4.4 shows the settlement Su of the circular and rectangular plates on the surface of
a sand at ultimate load, as described in Figure 4.2. The figure indicates a general range of
SuyB with the relative density of compaction of sand. So, in general, we can say that, for
foundations at a shallow depth (i.e., small Df yB*), the ultimate load may occur at a founda-
tion settlement of 4 to 10% of B. This condition arises together with general shear failure

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 4.2 General Concept 159

Relative density, Dr
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

Punching General
Local shear
shear shear
25%

20%
Rectangular
plates
Circular plates
15%
Su
B

10%
Circular plate diameter
203 mm (8 in.)
152 mm (6 in.)
5% 102 mm (4 in.)
51 mm (2 in.)
51 3 305 mm (2 3 12 in.)
Rectangular plate (width 5 B)
0%
1.35 1.40 1.45 1.50 1.55
Dry unit weight, d
Unit weight of water, w

Figure 4.4 Range of settlement of circular and rectangular plates at ultimate load sDfyB 5 0d in
sand (Modified from Vesic, 1963) (Based on Vesic, A. B. Bearing Capacity of Deep Foundations
in Sand. In Highway Research Record 39, Highway Research Board, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C., 1963, Figure 29, p. 138.)

in soil; however, in the case of local or punching shear failure, the ultimate load may occur
at settlements of 15 to 25% of the width of the foundation (B).
DeBeer (1967) provided laboratory experimental results of SuyB (B 5 diameter of
circular plate) for DfyB 5 0 as a function of gB and relative density Dr. These results,
expressed in a nondimensional form as plots of SuyB versus gBypa (pa 5 atmospheric
pressure ø 100 kN/m2), are shown in Figure 4.5. Patra, Behera, Sivakugan, and Das (2013)
approximated the plots as

1B2 1 p 2 2 1 1for p 2
Su gB gB
s%d 5 30 es20.9Drd 1 1.67 ln # 0.025 (4.3a)
sDfyB50d a a

and

1for p 2
gB
1 2
Su s%d 5 30es20.9Drd 2 7.16 . 0.025 (4.3b)
B sDfyB50d
a

where Dr is expressed as a fraction. For comparison purposes, Eq. (4.3a) is also plotted in
Figure 4.5. For DfyB . 0, the magnitude of SuyB in sand will be somewhat higher.

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 160 Chapter 4: Shallow Foundations: Ultimate Bearing Capacity

B/pa
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03
0
2 De Beer (1967)
Eq. (4.3a)
4
Dr = 90%
6
80%
8 70%
(%)

10 60%
Su
B

12 50%
14 40%
16 30%
18 20%
20

Figure 4.5 Variation of SuyB with gBypa and Dr for circular plates in sand (Note: DfyB 5 0)

4.3 Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Theory

Terzaghi (1943) was the first to present a comprehensive theory for the evaluation of
the ultimate bearing capacity of rough shallow foundations. According to this theory, a
foundation is shallow if its depth, Df (Figure 4.6), is less than or equal to its width. Later
investigators, however, have suggested that foundations with Df equal to 3 to 4 times their
width may be defined as shallow foundations.
Terzaghi suggested that for a continuous, or strip, foundation (i.e., one whose
width-to-length ratio approaches zero), the failure surface in soil at ultimate load may be
assumed to be similar to that shown in Figure 4.6. (Note that this is the case of general
shear failure, as defined in Figure 4.1a.) The effect of soil above the bottom of the founda-
tion may also be assumed to be replaced by an equivalent surcharge, q 5 gDf (where g is

B
J I
Df qu q 5 Df

H A G
45 2 9/2   C
45 2 9/2 45 2 9/2 45 2 9/2
F D E Soil
Unit weight 5 
Cohesion 5 c9
Friction angle 5 9

Figure 4.6 Bearing capacity failure in soil under a rough rigid

continuous (strip) foundation

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 4.3 Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Theory 161

the unit weight of soil). The failure zone under the foundation can be separated into three
parts (see Figure 4.6):
1. The triangular zone ACD immediately under the foundation
2. The radial shear zones ADF and CDE, with the curves DE and DF being arcs of a
logarithmic spiral
3. Two triangular Rankine passive zones AFH and CEG
The angles CAD and ACD are assumed to be equal to the soil friction angle f9.
Note that, with the replacement of the soil above the bottom of the foundation by an
equivalent surcharge q, the shear resistance of the soil along the failure surfaces GI and
HJ was neglected.
The ultimate bearing capacity, qu, of the foundation now can be obtained by consid-
ering the equilibrium of the triangular wedge ACD shown in Figure 4.6. This is shown on
a larger scale in Figure 4.7. If the load per unit area, qu, is applied to the foundation and
general shear failure occurs, the passive force, Pp, will act on each of the faces of the soil
wedge, ACD. This is easy to conceive if we imagine that AD and CD are two walls that
are pushing the soil wedges ADFH and CDEG, respectively, to cause passive failure. Pp
should be inclined at an angle d9 (which is the angle of wall friction) to the perpendicular
drawn to the wedge faces (that is, AD and CD). In this case, d9 should be equal to the angle
of friction of soil, f9. Because AD and CD are inclined at an angle f9 to the horizontal,
the direction of Pp should be vertical.
Considering a unit length of the foundation, we have for equilibrium
squds2bds1d 5 2W 1 2C sin f9 1 2Pp (4.4)
where
b 5 By2
W 5 weight of soil wedge ACD 5 gb2 tan f9
C 5 cohesive force acting along each face, AD and CD, that is equal to the unit
cohesion times the length of each face 5 c9by(cos f9)
Thus,
2bqu 5 2Pp 1 2bc9 tan f9 2 gb2 tan f9 (4.5)

B 5 2b

qu
A C
9 9

c9b W c9b
C 5 c9(AD) 5 C 5 c9(CD) 5
cos 9 cos 9

9 D 9
PP PP

Figure 4.7 Derivation of Eq. (4.8)

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 162 Chapter 4: Shallow Foundations: Ultimate Bearing Capacity

or
Pp gb
qu 5 1 c9 tan f9 2 tan f9 (4.6)
b 2
The passive pressure in Eq. (4.6) is the sum of the contribution of the weight
of soil g, cohesion c9, and surcharge q. Figure 4.8 shows the distribution of passive
pressure from each of these components on the wedge face CD. Thus, we can write
1
Pp 5 g sb tan f9d2 Kg 1 c9sb tan f9dKc 1 qsb tan f9dKq (4.7)
2

9 C

H 5 b tan 9

H
3
D 9 5 9
1 H2K
 
2
(a)

9 C
1

H
H
2
9 5 9
D
c9HKc
(b)

9 C
1

H
H
2
9 5 9
D
qHKq
Figure 4.8 Passive force distribution on the
(c) wedge face CD shown in Figure 4.7:
Note: H 5 b tan 9
(a) contribution of soil weight g;
1 2 (b) contribution of cohesion c9;
PP 5 H K 1 c9HKc 1 qHKq
2 (c) contribution of surcharge q.

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 4.3 Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Theory 163

where Kg, Kc, and Kq are earth pressure coefficients that are functions of the soil fric-
tion angle, f9.
Combining Eqs. (4.6) and (4.7), we obtain

1
qu 5 c9Nc 1 qNq 1 gBNg (4.8)
2

where
Nc 5 tan f9sKc 1 1d (4.9)
Nq 5 Kq tan f9 (4.10)
and
1
Ng 5 tan f9sKg tan f9 2 1d (4.11)
2
where Nc, Nq, and Ng 5 bearing capacity factors.
The bearing capacity factors Nc, Nq, and Ng are, respectively, the contributions
of cohesion, surcharge, and unit weight of soil to the ultimate load-bearing capacity.
It is extremely tedious to evaluate Kc, Kq, and Kg. For this reason, Terzaghi used an
approximate method to determine the ultimate bearing capacity, qu. The principles of
this approximation are given here.
1. If g 5 0 (weightless soil) and c 5 0, then
qu 5 qq 5 qNq (4.12)
where
e2s3py42f9y2d tan f9
Nq 5 (4.13)
1 2
f9
2 cos2 45 1
2
2. If g 5 0 (that is, weightless soil) and q 5 0, then
qu 5 qc 5 c9Nc (4.14)
where

Nc 5 cot f9
3 e2s3p/42f9/2dtan f9

2 cos2
p f9
4
11 2
21
2 4 5 cot f9sNq 2 1d (4.15)

3. If c9 5 0 and surcharge q 5 0 (that is, Df 5 0), then

1
qu 5 qg 5 gBNg (4.16)
2
The magnitude of Ng for various values of f9 is determined by trial and error.
The variations of the bearing capacity factors defined by Eqs. (4.13), (4.15), and
(4.16) are given in Table 4.1.

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 164 Chapter 4: Shallow Foundations: Ultimate Bearing Capacity

Table 4.1 Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Factors—Eqs. (4.15), (4.13), and (4.11).a

f9 Nc Nq Nga f9 Nc Nq Nga

0 5.70 1.00 0.00 26 27.09 14.21 9.84

1 6.00 1.10 0.01 27 29.24 15.90 11.60
2 6.30 1.22 0.04 28 31.61 17.81 13.70
3 6.62 1.35 0.06 29 34.24 19.98 16.18
4 6.97 1.49 0.10 30 37.16 22.46 19.13
5 7.34 1.64 0.14 31 40.41 25.28 22.65
6 7.73 1.81 0.20 32 44.04 28.52 26.87
7 8.15 2.00 0.27 33 48.09 32.23 31.94
8 8.60 2.21 0.35 34 52.64 36.50 38.04
9 9.09 2.44 0.44 35 57.75 41.44 45.41
10 9.61 2.69 0.56 36 63.53 47.16 54.36
11 10.16 2.98 0.69 37 70.01 53.80 65.27
12 10.76 3.29 0.85 38 77.50 61.55 78.61
13 11.41 3.63 1.04 39 85.97 70.61 95.03
14 12.11 4.02 1.26 40 95.66 81.27 115.31
15 12.86 4.45 1.52 41 106.81 93.85 140.51
16 13.68 4.92 1.82 42 119.67 108.75 171.99
17 14.60 5.45 2.18 43 134.58 126.50 211.56
18 15.12 6.04 2.59 44 151.95 147.74 261.60
19 16.56 6.70 3.07 45 172.28 173.28 325.34
20 17.69 7.44 3.64 46 196.22 204.19 407.11
21 18.92 8.26 4.31 47 224.55 241.80 512.84
22 20.27 9.19 5.09 48 258.28 287.85 650.67
23 21.75 10.23 6.00 49 298.71 344.63 831.99
24 23.36 11.40 7.08 50 347.50 415.14 1072.80
25 25.13 12.72 8.34
a
From Kumbhojkar (1993)

To estimate the ultimate bearing capacity of square and circular foundations,

Eq. (4.8) may be respectively modified to

qu 5 1.3c9Nc 1 qNq 1 0.4gBNg ssquare foundationd (4.17)

and

qu 5 1.3c9Nc 1 qNq 1 0.3gBNg scircular foundationd (4.18)

In Eq. (4.17), B equals the dimension of each side of the foundation; in Eq. (4.18), B equals
the diameter of the foundation.

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 4.4 Factor of Safety 165

Terzaghi’s bearing capacity equations have now been modified to take into account
the effects of the foundation shape sByLd, depth of embedment sDfd, and the load inclina-
tion. This is given in Section 4.6. Many design engineers, however, still use Terzaghi’s
equation, which provides fairly good results considering the uncertainty of the soil condi-
tions at various sites.

4.4 Factor of Safety

Calculating the gross allowable load-bearing capacity of shallow foundations requires the
application of a factor of safety (FS) to the gross ultimate bearing capacity, or
qu
qall 5 (4.19)
FS
However, some practicing engineers prefer to use a factor of safety such that

net ultimate bearing capacity

Net stress increase on soil 5 (4.20)
FS

The net ultimate bearing capacity is defined as the ultimate pressure per unit area of
the foundation that can be supported by the soil in excess of the pressure caused by the
surrounding soil at the foundation level. If the difference between the unit weight of
concrete used in the foundation and the unit weight of soil surrounding is assumed to
be negligible, then

qnetsud 5 qu 2 q (4.21)

where
qnetsud 5 net ultimate bearing capacity
q 5 gDf
So
qu 2 q
qallsnetd 5 (4.22)
FS

The factor of safety as defined by Eq. (4.22) should be at least 3 in all cases.

Example 4.1
A square foundation is 2 m 3 2 m in plan. The soil supporting the foundation has a
friction angle of f9 5 258 and c9 5 20 kN/m2. The unit weight of soil, g, is 16.5 kN/m3.
Determine the allowable gross load on the foundation with a factor of safety (FS) of 3.
Assume that the depth of the foundation sDfd is 1.5 m and that general shear failure
occurs in the soil.

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 166 Chapter 4: Shallow Foundations: Ultimate Bearing Capacity

Solution
From Eq. (4.17)
qu 5 1.3c9Nc 1 qNq 1 0.4gBNg
From Table 4.1, for f9 5 258,
Nc 5 25.13
Nq 5 12.72
Ng 5 8.34
Thus,
qu 5s1.3ds20ds25.13d 1 s1.5 3 16.5ds12.72d 1 s0.4ds16.5ds2ds8.34d
5 653.38 1 314.82 1 110.09 5 1078.29 kN/m2
So, the allowable load per unit area of the foundation is
qu 1078.29
qall 5 5 < 359.5 kN/m2
FS 3
Thus, the total allowable gross load is
Q 5 s359.5d B2 5 s359.5d s2 3 2d 5 1438 kN ■

Example 4.2
Refer to Example 4.1. Assume that the shear-strength parameters of the soil are the
same. A square foundation measuring B 3 B will be subjected to an allowable gross
load of 1000 kN with FS 5 3 and Df 5 1 m. Determine the size B of the foundation.
Solution
Allowable gross load Q 5 1000 kN with FS 5 3. Hence, the ultimate gross load Qu 5
(Q)(FS) 5 (1000)(3) 5 3000 kN. So,
Qu 3000
qu 5 5 2 (a)
B2 B
From Eq. (4.17),
qu 5 1.3c9Nc 1 qNq 1 0.4gBNg
For f9 5 25°, Nc 5 25.13, Nq 5 12.72, and Ng 5 8.34.
Also,
q 5 gDf 5 s16.5ds1d 5 16.5 kN/m2
Now,
qu 5 s1.3ds20ds25.13d 1 s16.5ds12.72d 1 s0.4ds16.5dsBds8.34d
(b)
5 863.26 1 55.04B

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 4.5 Modification of Bearing Capacity Equations for Water Table 167

Combining Eqs. (a) and (b),

3000
5 863.26 1 55.04B (c)
B2
By trial and error, we have
B 5 1.77 m ø 1.8 m ■

4.5 Modification of Bearing Capacity Equations

for Water Table
Equations (4.8) and (4.17) through (4.18) give the ultimate bearing capacity, based on the
assumption that the water table is located well below the foundation. However, if the water
table is close to the foundation, some modifications of the bearing capacity equations will
be necessary. (See Figure 4.9.)

Case I. If the water table is located so that 0 # D1 # Df, the factor q in the bearing
capacity equations takes the form

q 5 effective surcharge 5 D1g 1 D2sgsat 2 gwd (4.23)

where
gsat 5 saturated unit weight of soil
gw 5 unit weight of water
Also, the value of g in the last term of the equations has to be replaced by g9 5 gsat 2 gw.

Case II. For a water table located so that 0 # d # B,

q 5 gDf (4.24)

Groundwater
D1
table
Df Case I
D2
B

d
Groundwater table
Case II
sat 5 saturated Figure 4.9 Modification of bearing
unit weight capacity equations for water table

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 168 Chapter 4: Shallow Foundations: Ultimate Bearing Capacity

In this case, the factor g in the last term of the bearing capacity equations must be replaced
by the factor

d
g 5 g9 1 sg 2 g9d (4.25)
B

The preceding modifications are based on the assumption that there is no seepage force in
the soil.

Case III. When the water table is located so that d $ B, the water will have no effect on
the ultimate bearing capacity.

4.6 The General Bearing Capacity Equation

The ultimate bearing capacity equations (4.8), (4.17), and (4.18) are for continuous,
square, and circular foundations only; they do not address the case of rectangular founda-
tions s0 , ByL , 1d. Also, the equations do not take into account the shearing resistance
along the failure surface in soil above the bottom of the foundation (the portion of the
failure surface marked as GI and HJ in Figure 4.6). In addition, the load on the foundation
may be inclined. To account for all these shortcomings, Meyerhof (1963) suggested the
following form of the general bearing capacity equation:

qu 5 c9NcFcsFcdFci 1 qNqFqsFqdFqi 1 12 gBNgFgsFgdFgi (4.26)

In this equation:
c9 5 cohesion
q 5 effective stress at the level of the bottom of the foundation
g 5 unit weight of soil
B 5 width of foundation (5 diameter for a circular foundation)
Fcs, Fqs, Fgs 5 shape factors
Fcd, Fqd, Fgd 5 depth factors
Fci, Fqi, Fgi 5 load inclination factors
Nc, Nq, Ng 5 bearing capacity factors
The equations for determining the various factors given in Eq. (4.26) are described
briefly in the sections that follow. Note that the original equation for ultimate bearing
capacity is derived only for the plane-strain case (i.e., for continuous foundations).
The shape, depth, and load inclination factors are empirical factors based on experi-
mental data.
It is important to recognize the fact that, in the case of inclined loading on a founda-
tion, Eq. (4.26) provides the vertical component.

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 4.6 The General Bearing Capacity Equation 169

Bearing Capacity Factors

The basic nature of the failure surface in soil suggested by Terzaghi now appears to have
been borne out by laboratory and field studies of bearing capacity (Vesic, 1973). However,
the angle a shown in Figure 4.6 is closer to 45 1 f9y2 than to f9. If this change is accepted,
the values of Nc, Nq, and Ng for a given soil friction angle will also change from those given
in Table 4.1. With a 5 45 1 f9y2, it can be shown that

1 2
f9 p tan f9
Nq 5 tan2 45 1 e (4.27)
2

and

Nc 5 sNq 2 1d cot f9 (4.28)

Equation (4.28) for Nc was originally derived by Prandtl (1921), and Eq. (4.27) for Nq
was presented by Reissner (1924). Caquot and Kerisel (1953) and Vesic (1973) gave the
relation for Ng as

Ng 5 2 sNq 1 1d tan f9 (4.29)

Table 4.2 shows the variation of the preceding bearing capacity factors with soil friction
angles.

Table 4.2 Bearing Capacity Factors

f9 Nc Nq Ng f9 Nc Nq Ng

0 5.14 1.00 0.00 16 11.63 4.34 3.06

1 5.38 1.09 0.07 17 12.34 4.77 3.53
2 5.63 1.20 0.15 18 13.10 5.26 4.07
3 5.90 1.31 0.24 19 13.93 5.80 4.68
4 6.19 1.43 0.34 20 14.83 6.40 5.39
5 6.49 1.57 0.45 21 15.82 7.07 6.20
6 6.81 1.72 0.57 22 16.88 7.82 7.13
7 7.16 1.88 0.71 23 18.05 8.66 8.20
8 7.53 2.06 0.86 24 19.32 9.60 9.44
9 7.92 2.25 1.03 25 20.72 10.66 10.88
10 8.35 2.47 1.22 26 22.25 11.85 12.54
11 8.80 2.71 1.44 27 23.94 13.20 14.47
12 9.28 2.97 1.69 28 25.80 14.72 16.72
13 9.81 3.26 1.97 29 27.86 16.44 19.34
14 10.37 3.59 2.29 30 30.14 18.40 22.40
15 10.98 3.94 2.65 31 32.67 20.63 25.99
(continued)

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 170 Chapter 4: Shallow Foundations: Ultimate Bearing Capacity

Table 4.2 Bearing Capacity Factors (Continued)

f9 Nc Nq Ng f9 Nc Nq Ng

32 35.49 23.18 30.22 42 93.71 85.38 155.55

33 38.64 26.09 35.19 43 105.11 99.02 186.54
34 42.16 29.44 41.06 44 118.37 115.31 224.64
35 46.12 33.30 48.03 45 133.88 134.88 271.76
36 50.59 37.75 56.31 46 152.10 158.51 330.35
37 55.63 42.92 66.19 47 173.64 187.21 403.67
38 61.35 48.93 78.03 48 199.26 222.31 496.01
39 67.87 55.96 92.25 49 229.93 265.51 613.16
40 75.31 64.20 109.41 50 266.89 319.07 762.89
41 83.86 73.90 130.22

Shape, Depth, and Inclination Factors

Commonly used shape, depth, and inclination factors are given in Table 4.3.

Table 4.3 Shape, Depth and Inclination Factors [DeBeer (1970); Hansen (1970); Meyerhof (1963);
Meyerhof and Hanna (1981)]

Factor Relationship Reference

Nq
1BL21 N 2
Shape DeBeer (1970)
Fcs 5 1 1
c

5 1 1 1 2 tan f9
B
Fqs
L

5 1 2 0.4 1 2
B
Fgs
L

Depth Df Hansen (1970)

#1
B
For f 5 0:
Df
Fcd 5 1 1 0.4 1B2
Fqd 5 1
Fgd 5 1

For f9 . 0:
1 2 Fqd
Fcd 5 Fqd 2
Nc tan f9
Df
Fqd 5 1 1 2 tan f9 s1 2 sin f9d2 1B 2
Fgd 5 1
Df
.1
B

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 4.6 The General Bearing Capacity Equation 171

Table 4.3 Shape, Depth and Inclination Factors [DeBeer (1970); Hansen (1970); Meyerhof (1963);
Meyerhof and Hanna (1981)] (Continued)

Factor Relationship Reference

For f 5 0:
Df
Fcd 5 1 1 0.4 tan21 1B2
(')+*
Fqd 5 1 radians

Fgd 5 1
For f9 . 0:
1 2 Fqd
Fcd 5 Fqd 2
Nc tan f9
Df
Fqd 5 1 1 2 tan f9s1 2 sin f9d2 tan21 1B2
(')+*
radians
Fgd 5 1

1 2
Inclination b8 2 Meyerhof (1963); Hanna and
Fci 5 Fqi 5 1 2 Meyerhof (1981)
908

1 2
b8 2
Fgi 5 1 2
f9
b 5 inclination of the load on the
foundation with respect to the vertical

Example 4.3
Solve Example Problem 4.1 using Eq. (4.26).
Solution
From Eq. (4.26),

1
qu 5 c9NcFcsFcdFci 1 qNqFqsFqdFqt 1 gBNgFgsFgdFgt
2

Since the load is vertical, Fci 5 Fqi 5 Fgi 5 1. From Table 4.2 for f9 5 25°, Nc 5 20.72,
Nq 5 10.66, and Ng 5 10.88.
Using Table 4.3,
Nq
1 21 N 2 5 1 1 122120.722 5 1.514
B 2 10.66
Fcs 5 1 1
L c

Fqs 5 1 1 1BL2 tan f9 5 1 1 1222 tan 25 5 1.466

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 172 Chapter 4: Shallow Foundations: Ultimate Bearing Capacity

Fgs 5 1 2 0.4 1BL2 5 1 2 0.41222 5 0.6

Df
Fqd 5 1 1 2 tan f9 s1 2 sin f9d2 1B2
5 1 1 s2dstan 25ds1 2 sin 25d
2
11.522 5 1.233
1 2 Fqd
3s20.72dstan 25d 4
1 2 1.233
Fcd 5 Fqd 2 5 1.233 2 5 1.257
Nc tan f9
Fgd 5 1

Hence,
qu 5 (20)(20.72)(1.514)(1.257)(1)
1 (1.5 3 16.5)(10.66)(1.466)(1.233)(1)
1
1 s16.5ds2ds10.88ds0.6ds1ds1d
2
5 788.6 1 476.9 1 107.7 5 1373.2 kN/m2
qu 1373.2
qall 5 5 5 457.7 kN/m2
FS 3
Q 5 (457.7)(2 3 2) 5 1830.8 kN ■

Example 4.4
A square foundation sB 3 Bd has to be constructed as shown in Figure 4.10. Assume that
g 5 105 lb/ft3, gsat 5 118 lb/ft3, f9 5 348, Df 5 4 ft, and D1 5 2 ft. The gross allowable
load, Qall, with FS 5 3 is 150,000 lb. Determine the size of the foundation. Use Eq. (4.26).

D1 Water
; 9; c95 0
table

Df sat
9
c95 0

B3B Figure 4.10 A square foundation

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 4.6 The General Bearing Capacity Equation 173

Solution
We have
Qall 150,000
qall 5 5 lb/ft2 (a)
B2 B2

From Eq. (4.26) (with c9 5 0), for vertical loading, we obtain

1 2
qu 1 1
qall 5 5 qNqFqsFqd 1 g9BNgFgsFgd
FS 3 2

For f9 5 348, from Table 4.2, Nq 5 29.44 and Ng 5 41.06. Hence,

B
Fqs 5 1 1 tan f9 5 1 1 tan 34 5 1.67
L

Fgs 5 1 2 0.4 1BL2 5 1 2 0.4 5 0.6

Df 4 1.05
Fqd 5 1 1 2 tan f9s1 2 sin f9d2 5 1 1 2 tan 34 s1 2 sin 34d2 511
B B B

Fgd 5 1
and
q 5 s2ds105d 1 2 s118 2 62.4d 5 321.2 lb/ft2
So

3 1 2
1 1.05
qall 5 s321.2ds29.44ds1.67d 1 1
3 B

1 1122s118 2 62.4dsBds41.06ds0.6ds1d4 (b)

5527.1
5 5263.9 1 1 228.3B
B
Combining Eqs. (a) and (b) results in

150,000 5527.1
5 5263.9 1 1 228.3B
B2 B

By trial and error, we find that B < 4.5 ft. ■

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 174 Chapter 4: Shallow Foundations: Ultimate Bearing Capacity

Example 4.5
A square column foundation (Figure 4.11) is to be constructed on a sand deposit. The
allowable load Q will be inclined at an angle b 5 20° with the vertical. The standard
penetration numbers N60 obtained from the field are as follows.

Depth (m) N60

1.5 3
3.0 6
4.5 9
6.0 10
7.5 10
9.0 8

208

0.7 m

c50
 5 18 kN/m3
B 5 1.25 m Figure 4.11

Determine Q. Use FS 5 3, Eq. (3.29), and Eq. (4.26).

Solution
From Eq. (3.29),
f9 sdegd 5 27.1 1 0.3N60 2 0.00054sN60d2
The following is an estimation of f9 in the field using Eq. (3.29).

Depth (m) N60 f9 (deg)

1.5 3 28
3.0 6 29
4.5 9 30
6.0 10 30
7.5 10 30
9.0 8 29
Average 5 29.4° ø 30°

With c9 5 0, the ultimate bearing capacity [Eq. (4.26)] becomes

1
qu 5 qNqFqsFqdFqi 1 gBNgFgsFgdFgi
2
q 5 s0.7ds18d 5 12.6 kN/m2
g 5 18 kN/m3

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 4.7 Other Solutions for Bearing Capacity Ng, Shape, and Depth Factors 175

From Table 4.2 for f9 5 30°,

Nq 5 18.4
Ng 5 22.4
From Table 4.3, (Note: B 5 L)

1 L 2 tan f9 5 1 1 0.577 5 1.577

B
Fqs 5 1 1

Fgs 5 1 2 0.4 1BL2 5 0.6

Df s0.289ds0.7d
Fqd 5 1 1 2 tan f9s1 2 sin f9d2 511 5 1.162
B 1.25
Fgd 5 1

1 2 1 2 5 0.605
2 2
b8 20
Fqi 5 1 2 5 12
908 90

1 2 5 11 2 20302 5 0.11
2 2
b8
Fgi 5 1 2
f9
Hence,

qu 5 s12.6ds18.4ds1.577ds1.162ds0.605d 1 1122s18ds1.25ds22.4ds0.6ds1ds0.11d
5 273.66 kN/m2

qu 273.66
qall 5 5 5 91.22 kN/m2
FS 3

Now,
Q cos 20 5 qall B2 5 s91.22ds1.25d2
Q < 151.7 kN ■

4.7 Other Solutions for Bearing Capacity Ng,

Shape, and Depth Factors
Bearing Capacity Factor, Ng
The bearing capacity factor, Ng, given in Eq. (4.29) will be used in this text. There
are, however, several other solutions that can be found in the literature. Some of those
solutions are given in Table 4.4.

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 176 Chapter 4: Shallow Foundations: Ultimate Bearing Capacity

Table 4.4 Ng Relationships

Investigator Relationship

Meyerhof (1963) Ng 5 sNq 2 1d tan 1.4f9

Hansen (1970) Ng 5 1.5sNq 2 1d tan f9
Biarez (1961) Ng 5 1.8sNq 2 1d tan f9
Booker (1969) Ng 5 0.1045e9.6f9 sf9 is in radiansd
Michalowski (1997) Ng 5 es0.6615.1 tan f9d tan f9
Ng 5 es1y6dsp13p tan f9d 3 stan f9d2py5
2
Hjiaj et al. (2005)
Martin (2005) Ng 5 sNq 2 1d tan 1.32f9
Note: Nq is given by Eq. (4.27)

The variations of Ng with soil friction angle f9 for these relationships are given in
Table 4.5.

Table 4.5 Comparison of Ng Values Provided by Various Investigators

Soil
friction
angle, f9 Meyerhof Hansen Biarez Booker Michalowski Hjiaj et al. Martin
(deg) (1963) (1970) (1961) (1969) (1997) (2005) (2005)
0 0.00 0 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00
1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.04 0.01 0.00
2 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.08 0.03 0.01
3 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.17 0.13 0.05 0.02
4 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.20 0.19 0.08 0.04
5 0.07 0.07 0.09 0.24 0.26 0.12 0.07
6 0.11 0.11 0.14 0.29 0.35 0.17 0.10
7 0.15 0.16 0.19 0.34 0.44 0.22 0.14
8 0.21 0.22 0.27 0.40 0.56 0.29 0.20
9 0.28 0.30 0.36 0.47 0.69 0.36 0.26
10 0.37 0.39 0.47 0.56 0.84 0.46 0.35
11 0.47 0.50 0.60 0.66 1.01 0.56 0.44
12 0.60 0.63 0.76 0.78 1.22 0.69 0.56
13 0.75 0.79 0.94 0.92 1.45 0.84 0.70
14 0.92 0.97 1.16 1.09 1.72 1.01 0.87
15 1.13 1.18 1.42 1.29 2.04 1.21 1.06
16 1.38 1.44 1.72 1.53 2.40 1.45 1.29
17 1.67 1.73 2.08 1.81 2.82 1.72 1.56
18 2.01 2.08 2.49 2.14 3.30 2.05 1.88

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 4.7 Other Solutions for Bearing Capacity Ng, Shape, and Depth Factors 177

Table 4.5 Comparison of Ng Values Provided by Various Investigators (Continued)

Soil
friction
angle, f9 Meyerhof Hansen Biarez Booker Michalowski Hjiaj et al. Martin
(deg) (1963) (1970) (1961) (1969) (1997) (2005) (2005)
19 2.41 2.48 2.98 2.52 3.86 2.42 2.25
20 2.88 2.95 3.54 2.99 4.51 2.86 2.69
21 3.43 3.50 4.20 3.53 5.27 3.38 3.20
22 4.07 4.14 4.97 4.17 6.14 3.98 3.80
23 4.84 4.89 5.87 4.94 7.17 4.69 4.50
24 5.73 5.76 6.91 5.84 8.36 5.51 5.32
25 6.78 6.77 8.13 6.90 9.75 6.48 6.29
26 8.02 7.96 9.55 8.16 11.37 7.63 7.43
27 9.49 9.35 11.22 9.65 13.28 8.97 8.77
28 11.22 10.97 13.16 11.41 15.52 10.57 10.35
29 13.27 12.87 15.45 13.50 18.15 12.45 12.22
30 15.71 15.11 18.13 15.96 21.27 14.68 14.44
31 18.62 17.74 21.29 18.87 24.95 17.34 17.07
32 22.09 20.85 25.02 22.31 29.33 20.51 20.20
33 26.25 24.52 29.42 26.39 34.55 24.30 23.94
34 31.25 28.86 34.64 31.20 40.79 28.86 28.41
35 37.28 34.03 40.84 36.90 48.28 34.34 33.79
36 44.58 40.19 48.23 43.63 57.31 40.98 40.28
37 53.47 47.55 57.06 51.59 68.22 49.03 48.13
38 64.32 56.38 67.65 61.00 81.49 58.85 57.67
39 77.64 67.01 80.41 72.14 97.69 70.87 69.32
40 94.09 79.85 95.82 85.30 117.57 85.67 83.60
41 114.49 95.44 114.53 100.87 142.09 103.97 101.21
42 139.96 114.44 137.33 119.28 172.51 126.75 123.04
43 171.97 137.71 165.25 141.04 210.49 155.25 150.26
44 212.47 166.34 199.61 166.78 258.21 191.13 184.40
45 264.13 201.78 242.13 197.21 318.57 236.63 227.53

Shape and Depth Factors

The shape and depth factors given in Table 4.3 recommended, respectively, by
DeBeer (1970) and Hansen (1970) will be used in this text for solving problems.
Many geotechnical engineers presently use the shape and depth factors proposed by
Meyerhof (1963). These are given in Table 4.6. More recently, Zhu and Michalowski
(2005) evaluated the shape factors based on the elastoplastic model of soil and finite
element analysis. They are

12 B 0.5
Fcs 5 1 1 s1.8 tan2f9 1 0.1d (4.30)
L

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 178 Chapter 4: Shallow Foundations: Ultimate Bearing Capacity

Tabel 4.6 Meyerhof’s Shape and Depth Factors

Factor Relationship

Shape

For f 5 0,
Fcs 1 1 0.2 (B/L)
Fqs 5 Fgs 1
For f9 > 108,
Fcs 1 1 0.2 (B/L) tan2(45 1 f9/2)
Fqs 5 Fgs 1 1 0.1 (B/L) tan2(45 1 f9/2)

Depth

For f 5 0,
Fcd 1 1 0.2 (Df /B)
Fqd 5 Fgd 1
For f > 10°
Fcd 1 1 0.2 (Df /B) tan (45 1 f9/2)
Fqd 5 Fgd 1 1 0.1 (Df /B) tan (45 1 f9/2)

12B 0.5
Fqs 5 1 1 1.9 tan2f9 (4.31)
L

Fgs 5 1 1 s0.6 tan2 f9 2 0.25d 1BL2 sfor f9 < 308d (4.32)

and

12 L 1.5
Fgs 5 1 1 s1.3 tan2f9 2 0.5d e 2sLyBd sfor f9 . 308d (4.33)
B

Equations (4.30) through (4.33) have been derived based on sound theoretical
background and may be used for bearing capacity calculation.

4.8 Case Studies on Ultimate Bearing Capacity

In this section, we will consider two field observations related to the ultimate bearing
capacity of foundations on soft clay. The failure loads on the foundations in the field will
be compared with those estimated from the theory presented in Section 4.6.

Foundation Failure of a Concrete Silo

An excellent case of bearing capacity failure of a 6-m (20-ft) diameter concrete silo
was provided by Bozozuk (1972). The concrete tower silo was 21 m (70 ft) high and
was constructed over soft clay on a ring foundation. Figure 4.12 shows the variation of the

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 4.8 Case Studies on Ultimate Bearing Capacity 179

cu (VST) (kN/m2)
0 20 40 60 80 100

2
Depth (m)

Figure 4.12 Variation of cu with depth

6 obtained from field vane shear test

undrained shear strength (cu) obtained from field vane shear tests at the site. The ground-
water table was located at about 0.6 m (2 ft) below the ground surface.
On September 30, 1970, just after it was filled to capacity for the first time with
corn silage, the concrete tower silo suddenly overturned due to bearing capacity failure.
Figure 4.13 shows the approximate profile of the failure surface in soil. The failure surface
extended to about 7 m (23 ft) below the ground surface. Bozozuk (1972) provided the fol-
lowing average parameters for the soil in the failure zone and the foundation:
●
Load per unit area on the foundation when failure occurred < 160 kN/m2
●
Average plasticity index of clay sPId < 36
●
Average undrained shear strength (cu) from 0.6 to 7 m depth obtained from field
vane shear tests < 27.1 kN/m2
●
From Figure 4.13, B < 7.2 m and Df < 1.52 m
We can now calculate the factor of safety against bearing capacity failure. From Eq. (4.26)

qu 5 c9NcFcsFcdFci 1 qNcFqsFqdFqi 1 12 gB NgFgsFgdFgi

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 180 Chapter 4: Shallow Foundations: Ultimate Bearing Capacity

508
508 Collapsed silo
Upheaval

Original position Paved apron

1.46 m of foundation
0
1 Original
22 2 8 ground surface
2
Depth below paved apron (m)

0.9
7.2
4

1 m
308

m
m
458 22
6 1.
608
8

10

12

Figure 4.13 Approximate profile of silo failure (Based on Bozozuk, 1972)

For f 5 0 condition and vertical loading, c9 5 cu, Nc 5 5.14, Nq 5 1, Ng 5 0, and

Fci 5 Fqi 5 Fgi 5 0. Also, from Table 4.3,

17.2
7.2 21 5.14 2
1
Fcs 5 1 1 5 1.195

Fqs 5 1

Fcd 5 1 1 s0.4d 11.52

7.2 2
5 1.08

Fqd 5 1
Thus,
qu 5 scuds5.14ds1.195ds1.08ds1d 1 sgds1.52d

Assuming g < 18 kN/m3,

qu 5 6.63cu 1 27.36 (4.34)
According to Eqs. (3.39) and (3.40a),
cuscorrectedd 5 l cusVSTd
l 5 1.7 2 0.54 log [PIs%d]

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 4.8 Case Studies on Ultimate Bearing Capacity 181

For this case, PI < 36 and cusVSTd 5 27.1 kN/m2. So

cuscorrectedd 5 {1.7 2 0.54 log [PIs%d]}cusVSTd

5 s1.7 2 0.54 log 36ds27.1d < 23.3 kN/m2

Substituting this value of cu in Eq. (4.34)

qu 5 s6.63ds23.3d 1 27.36 5 181.8 kN/m2

The factor of safety against bearing capacity failure

qu 181.8
FS 5 5 5 1.14
applied load per unit area 160
This factor of safety is too low and approximately equals one, for which the failure occurred.

Load Tests on Small Foundations in Soft Bangkok Clay

Brand et al. (1972) reported load test results for five small square foundations
in soft Bangkok clay in Rangsit, Thailand. The foundations were 0.6 m 3 0.6 m,
0.675 m 3 0.675 m, 0.75 m 3 0.75 m, 0.9 m 3 0.9 m, and 1.05 m 3 1.05 m. The depth
of the foundations (Df) was 1.5 m in all cases.
Figure 4.14 shows the vane shear test results for clay. Based on the variation of
cu(VST) with depth, it can be approximated that cu(VST) is about 35 kN/m2 for depths between

cu (VST) (kN/m2)
10 20 30 40
0

3
Depth (m)

Figure 4.14 Variation of cu(VST) with depth for

8 soft Bangkok clay

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 182 Chapter 4: Shallow Foundations: Ultimate Bearing Capacity

Load (kN)
0 40 80 120 160 200
0

Qu (ultimate load)

10
Settlement (mm)

20

B = 0.675 m
30
B = 1.05 m
B = 0.6 m
B = 0.75 m

B = 0.9 m
40
Figure 4.15 Load-settlement plots obtained from bearing capacity tests

zero to 1.5 m measured from the ground surface, and cu(VST) is approximately equal to
24 kN/m2 for depths varying from 1.5 to 8 m. Other properties of the clay are
●
Liquid limit 5 80
●
Plastic limit 5 40
●
Sensitivity < 5
Figure 4.15 shows the load-settlement plots obtained from the bearing-capacity
tests on all five foundations. The ultimate loads, Qu, obtained from each test are shown
in Figure 4.15 and given in Table 4.7. The ultimate load is defined as the point where the
load-settlement plot becomes practically linear.

Table 4.7 Comparison of Ultimate Bearing Capacity—Theory versus Field Test Results
quxfieldc 2 quxtheory c
B Df qu(theory)‡‡ qu(field)‡‡‡ x%c
Fcd‡ (kN/m2) quxfieldc
(m) (m) (kN/m2) Qu(field) (kN)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

0.600 1.5 1.476 158.3 60 166.6 4.98

0.675 1.5 1.459 156.8 71 155.8 20.64
0.750 1.5 1.443 155.4 90 160.6 2.87
0.900 1.5 1.412 152.6 124 153.0 0.27
1.050 1.5 1.384 150.16 140 127.0 218.24
‡
Eq. (4.35); ‡‡Eq. (4.37); ‡‡‡Qu(field)/B2 5 qu(field)

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 4.8 Case Studies on Ultimate Bearing Capacity 183

From Eq. (4.26),

1
qu 5 c9NcFcsFcdFci 1 qNqFqsFqdFqi 1
gBNgFgsFgdFgi
2
For undrained condition and vertical loading (that is, f 5 0) from Tables 4.2 and 4.3,
●
Fci 5 Fqi 5 Fgi 5 1
●
c9 5 cu, Nc 5 5.14, Nq 5 1, and Ng 5 0
Nq
1 21 N 2 5 1 1 s1d15.14 2 5 1.195
B 1
●
Fcs 5 1 1
L c

●
Fqs 5 1
●
Fqd 5 1
Df
●
Fcd 5 1 1 0.4 tan 21 1 B 2 5 1 1 0.4 tan 11.5B 2 21
(4.35)

(Note: Df /B . 1 in all cases)

Thus,
qu 5 (5.14)(cu)(1.195)Fcd 1 q (4.36)
The values of cu(VST) need to be corrected for use in Eq. (4.36). From Eq. (3.39),
cu 5 lcu(VST)
From Eq. (3.40b),
l 5 1.18e20.08(PI) 1 0.57 5 1.18e20.08(80 2 40) 1 0.57 5 0.62
From Eq. (3.40c),
l 5 7.01e20.08(LL) 1 0.57 5 7.01e20.08(80) 1 0.57 5 0.58
So the average value of l < 0.6. Hence,
cu 5 lcu(VST) 5 (0.6)(24) 5 14.4 kN/m2

Let us assume g 5 18.5 kN/m2. So

q 5 gDf 5 (18.5)(1.5) 5 27.75 kN/m2
Substituting cu 5 14.4 kN/m2 and q 5 27.75 kN/m2 into Eq. (4.36), we obtain
qu(kN/m2) 5 88.4Fcd 1 27.75 (4.37)
The values of qu calculated using Eq. (4.37) are given in column 4 of Table 4.7.
Also, the qu determined from the field tests are given in column 6. The theoretical and field
values of qu compare very well. The important lessons learned from this study are
1. The ultimate bearing capacity is a function of cu. If Eq. (3.40a) would have been
used to correct the undrained shear strength, the theoretical values of qu would have
varied between 200 kN/m2 and 210 kN/m2. These values are about 25% to 55%
more than those obtained from the field and are on the unsafe side.
2. It is important to recognize that empirical correlations like those given in Eqs. (3.40a),
(3.40b) and (3.40c) are sometimes site specific. Thus, proper engineering judgment
and any record of past studies would be helpful in the evaluation of bearing capacity.

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 184 Chapter 4: Shallow Foundations: Ultimate Bearing Capacity

4.9 Effect of Soil Compressibility

In Section 4.2, we have discussed the mode of bearing-capacity failure such as general
shear failure, local shear failure and punching shear failure. The change of failure mode
is due to soil compressibility, to account for which Vesic (1973) proposed the following
modification of Eq. (4.26):

qu 5 c9NcFcsFcdFcc 1 qNqFqsFqdFqc 1 21 gBNgFgsFgdFgc (4.38)

In this equation, Fcc, Fqc, and Fgc are soil compressibility factors.
The soil compressibility factors were derived by Vesic (1973) by analogy to the
expansion of cavities. According to that theory, in order to calculate Fcc, Fqc, and Fgc, the
following steps should be taken:
Step 1. Calculate the rigidity index, Ir, of the soil at a depth approximately By2
below the bottom of the foundation, or

Gs
Ir 5 (4.39)
c9 1 q9 tan f9

where
Gs 5 shear modulus of the soil
q9 5 effective overburden pressure at a depth of Df 1 By2
Step 2. The critical rigidity index, Irscrd, can be expressed as

5 31 B
2 1 246
1 f9
Irscrd 5 exp 3.30 2 0.45 cot 45 2 (4.40)
2 L 2

The variations of Irscrd with ByL are given in Table 4.8.

Step 3. If Ir $ Irscrd, then
Fcc 5 Fqc 5 Fgc 5 1
However, if Ir , Irscrd, then

51 46
s3.07 sin f9dslog 2Ird
2 3
B
Fgc 5 Fqc 5 exp 24.4 1 0.6 tan f9 1 (4.41)
L 1 1 sin f9

Figure 4.16 shows the variation of Fgc 5 Fqc [see Eq. (4.41)] with f9 and Ir. For f 5 0,

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 4.9 Effect of Soil Compressibility 185

Table 4.8 Variation of Ir(cr) with f9 and B/L

Ir (cr)
f9
(deg) ByL 5 0 ByL 5 0.2 ByL 5 0.4 ByL 5 0.6 ByL 5 0.8 ByL 5 1.0

0 13.56 12.39 11.32 10.35 9.46 8.64

5 18.30 16.59 15.04 13.63 12.36 11.20
10 25.53 22.93 20.60 18.50 16.62 14.93
15 36.85 32.77 29.14 25.92 23.05 20.49
20 55.66 48.95 43.04 37.85 33.29 29.27
25 88.93 77.21 67.04 58.20 50.53 43.88
30 151.78 129.88 111.13 95.09 81.36 69.62
35 283.20 238.24 200.41 168.59 141.82 119.31
40 593.09 488.97 403.13 332.35 274.01 225.90
45 1440.94 1159.56 933.19 750.90 604.26 486.26

B (4.42)
Fcc 5 0.32 1 0.12 1 0.60 log Ir
L

For f9 . 0,
1 2 Fqc
Fcc 5 Fqc 2 (4.43)
Nq tan f9

1.0 1.0
500
100 250 250
0.8 0.8
50 500
50 100
F c 5 Fqc

F c 5 Fqc

0.6 0.6
25 25
10 10
0.4 0.4
5 5
2.5
2.5
0.2 0.2
Ir 5 1 Ir 5 1

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Soil friction angle, 9 (deg) Soil friction angle, 9 (deg)
L L
(a) 51 (b) .5
B B

Figure 4.16 Variation of Fgc 5 Fqc with Ir and f9

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 186 Chapter 4: Shallow Foundations: Ultimate Bearing Capacity

Example 4.6
For a shallow foundation, B 5 0.6 m, L 5 1.2 m, and Df 5 0.6 m. The known soil
characteristics are
Soil:
f9 5 258
c9 5 48 kN/m2
g 5 18 kN/m3
Modulus of elasticity, Es 5 620 kN/m2
Poisson’s ratio, ms 5 0.3
Calculate the ultimate bearing capacity.
Solution
From Eq. (4.39),
Gs
Ir 5
c9 1 q9 tan f9
However,
Es
Gs 5
2 s1 1 msd
So
Es
Ir 5
2 s1 1 msd[c9 1 q9 tan f9]
Now,

1 2 1 2
B 0.6
q9 5 g Df 1 5 18 0.6 1 5 16.2 kN/m2
2 2
Thus,
620
Ir 5 5 4.29
2 s1 1 0.3d[48 1 16.2 tan 25]
From Eq. (4.40),

5 31 2 1B
246
1 f9
Irscrd 5 exp 3.3 2 0.45 cot 45 2
2 L 2

5 5exp313.3 2 0.45 2 cot 145 2 246 5 62.41

1 0.6 25
2 1.2 2
Since Irscrd . Ir, we use Eqs. (4.41) and (4.43) to obtain

51 46
s3.07 sin f9dlogs2Ird
2 3
B
Fgc 5 Fqc 5 exp 24.4 1 0.6 tan f9 1
L 1 1 sin f9

51
5 exp 24.4 1 0.6
1.2 2
0.6
tan 25

46 5 0.347
s3.07 sin 25d log s2 3 4.29d
13
1 1 sin 25

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 4.9 Effect of Soil Compressibility 187

and
1 2 Fqc
Fcc 5 Fqc 2
Nc tan f9

For f9 5 258, Nc 5 20.72 (see Table 4.2); therefore,

1 2 0.347
Fcc 5 0.347 2 5 0.279
20.72 tan 25

Now, from Eq. (4.38),

qu 5 c9NcFcsFcdFcc 1 qNqFqsFqdFqc 1 12gBNgFgsFgdFgc

From Table 4.2, for f9 5 258, Nc 5 20.72, Nq 5 10.66, and Ng 5 10.88. Consequently,

Nq
1 N 21BL2 5 1 1 110.66
20.72 21 1.2 2
0.6
Fcs 5 1 1 5 1.257
c

B 0.6
Fqs 5 1 1 tan f9 5 1 1 tan 25 5 1.233
L 1.2

Fgs 5 1 2 0.4 1BL2 5 1 2 0.4 0.6

1.2
5 0.8

Df
Fqd 5 1 1 2 tan f9s1 2 sin f9d2 1B2
5 1 1 2 tan 25 s1 2 sin 25d2 10.6
0.6 2
5 1.311

1 2 Fqd 1 2 1.311
Fcd 5 Fqd 2 5 1.311 2
Nc tan f9 20.72 tan 25

5 1.343
and
Fgd 5 1

Thus,

qu 5 s48ds20.72ds1.257ds1.343ds0.279d 1 s0.6 3 18ds10.66ds1.233ds1.311d

s0.347d1s12ds18ds0.6ds10.88ds0.8ds1ds0.347d 5 549.32 kN/m2 ■

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 188 Chapter 4: Shallow Foundations: Ultimate Bearing Capacity

4.10 Eccentrically Loaded Foundations

In several instances, as with the base of a retaining wall, foundations are subjected to
moments in addition to the vertical load, as shown in Figure 4.17a. In such cases, the dis-
tribution of pressure by the foundation on the soil is not uniform. The nominal distribution
of pressure is
Q 6M
qmax 5 1 2 (4.44)
BL B L
and
Q 6M
qmin 5 2 2 (4.45)
BL B L
where
Q 5 total vertical load
M 5 moment on the foundation
Figure 4.17b shows a force system equivalent to that shown in Figure 4.17a. The distance
M
e5 (4.46)
Q
is the eccentricity. Substituting Eq. (4.46) into Eqs. (4.44) and (4.45) gives

1 2
Q 6e
qmax 5 11 (4.47)
BL B

Q
Q e
M

B B
B3L
(b)
For e < B/6

qmin
qmax

For e > B/6

qmax

(a)

Figure 4.17 Eccentrically loaded foundations

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 4.11 Ultimate Bearing Capacity under Eccentric Loading—One-Way Eccentricity 189

B Figure 4.18 Nature of

Qu
failure surface in soil
e
supporting a strip
foundation subjected to
eccentric loading
(Note: Df 5 0; Qu is
ultimate load per unit
length of foundation)

and

1 2
Q 6e
qmin 5 12 (4.48)
BL B

Note that, in these equations, when the eccentricity e becomes B/6, qmin is zero. For
e . B/6, qmin will be negative, which means that tension will develop. Because soil cannot
take any tension, there will then be a separation between the foundation and the soil under-
lying it. The nature of the pressure distribution on the soil will be as shown in Figure 4.17a.
The value of qmax is then
4Q
qmax 5 (4.49)
3LsB 2 2ed
The exact distribution of pressure is difficult to estimate.
Figure 4.18 shows the nature of failure surface in soil for a surface strip foundation
subjected to an eccentric load. The factor of safety for such type of loading against bearing
capacity failure can be evaluated as
Qu
FS 5 (4.50)
Q

where Qu 5 ultimate load-carrying capacity.

The following sections describe several theories for determining Qu.

4.11 Ultimate Bearing Capacity under Eccentric

Loading—One-Way Eccentricity
Effective Area Method (Meyerhoff, 1953)
In 1953, Meyerhof proposed a theory that is generally referred to as the effective area
method.
The following is a step-by-step procedure for determining the ultimate load that the
soil can support and the factor of safety against bearing capacity failure:
Step 1. Determine the effective dimensions of the foundation (Figure 4.19a):
B9 5 effective width 5 B 2 2e
L9 5 effective length 5 L

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 190 Chapter 4: Shallow Foundations: Ultimate Bearing Capacity

e e
Qu Qu

q9u
qu(e)

B 2 2e
B
B (b)

q9u(B 2 2e)
Note: qu(e) 5 B

L5L

B95B 2 2e

(a)

Figure 4.19 Definition of q9u and qu(e)

Note that if the eccentricity were in the direction of the length of the foun-
dation, the value of L9 would be equal to L 2 2e. The value of B9 would
equal B. The smaller of the two dimensions (i.e., L9 and B9) is the effective
width of the foundation.
Step 2. Use Eq. (4.26) for the ultimate bearing capacity:

q9u 5 c9NcFcsFcdFci 1 qNqFqsFqdFqi 1 12 gB9NgFgsFgdFgi (4.51)

To evaluate Fcs, Fqs, and Fgs, use the relationships given in Table 4.3
with effective length and effective width dimensions instead of L and B,
respectively. To determine Fcd, Fqd, and Fgd, use the relationships given in
Table 4.3. However, do not replace B with B9.
Step 3. The total ultimate load that the foundation can sustain is
A9
Qu 5 $'%+& (4.52)
q9u sB9d sL9d
where A9 5 effective area.

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 4.11 Ultimate Bearing Capacity under Eccentric Loading—One-Way Eccentricity 191

Step 4. The factor of safety against bearing capacity failure is

Qu
FS 5
Q

It is important to note that qu9 is the ultimate bearing capacity of a foundation of

width B9 5 B 2 2e with a centric load (Figure 4.19a). However, the actual distribution of
soil reaction at ultimate load will be of the type shown in Figure 4.19b. In Figure 4.19b,
qu(e) is the average load per unit area of the foundation. Thus,
qu9sB 2 2ed
qused 5 (4.53)
B

Prakash and Saran Theory

Prakash and Saran (1971) analyzed the problem of ultimate bearing capacity of eccentri-
cally and vertically loaded continuous (strip) foundations by using the one-sided failure
surface in soil, as shown in Figure 4.18. According to this theory, the ultimate load per
unit length of a continuous foundation can be estimated as

3 4
1
Qu 5 qusedB 5 B c9Ncsed 1 qNqsed 1 gBNgsed (4.54)
2

where Nc(e), Nq(e), Ng(e) 5 bearing capacity factors under eccentric loading.
The variations of Nc(e), Nq(e), and Ng(e) with soil friction angle f9 are given in
Figures 4.20, 4.21, and 4.22. For rectangular foundations, the ultimate load can be given as

3 4
1
Qu 5 BL c9NcsedFcssed 1 qNqsedFqssed 1 gBNgsedFgssed (4.55)
2

where Fcs(e), Fqs(e), and Fgs(e) 5 shape factors.

Prakash and Saran (1971) also recommended the following for the shape factors:
L
Fcssed 5 1.2 2 0.025 swith a minimum of 1.0d (4.56)
B
Fqssed 5 1 (4.57)
and

1 2 3 1 21 241 2
2e B 3 e B 2
Fgssed 5 1.0 1 2 0.68 1 0.43 2 (4.58)
B L 2 B L

Reduction Factor Method (For Granular Soil)

Purkayastha and Char (1977) carried out stability analysis of eccentrically loaded continu-
ous foundations supported by a layer of sand using the method of slices. Based on that
analysis, they proposed
qused
Rk 5 1 2 (4.59)
quscentricd

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 192 Chapter 4: Shallow Foundations: Ultimate Bearing Capacity

60

40

e/B = 0
Nc(e)
0.1

0.2
20
0.3

0.4
f9 5 408

eyB Nc(e)

0 94.83
0.1 66.60
0.2 54.45
0
0.3 36.3
0 10 20 30 40
0.4 18.15
Friction angle, 9 (deg)

Figure 4.20 Variation of Ncsed with f9

where
Rk 5 reduction factor
qu(e) 5 average ultimate bearing capacity of eccentrically loaded continuous foundations
(See Figure 4.19.)
qu 5 ultimate bearing capacity of centrally loaded continuous foundations
The magnitude of Rk can be expressed as

1Be 2
k
Rk 5 a (4.60)

where a and k are functions of the embedment ratio Df yB (Table 4.9).

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 4.11 Ultimate Bearing Capacity under Eccentric Loading—One-Way Eccentricity 193

60

40
e/B = 0

Nq(e)

0.1

20
0.2

0.3
f9 5 408
0.4 eyB Nq(e)

0 81.27
0.1 56.09
0.2 45.18
0
0.3 30.18
0 10 20 30 40 0.4 15.06
Friction angle, 9 (deg)

Figure 4.21 Variation of Nqsed with f9

Hence, combining Eqs. (4.59) and (4.60)

3 1Be 2 4
k
qused 5 qus1 2 Rkd 5 qu 1 2 a (4.61)

Table 4.9 Variations of a and k [Eq. (4.60)]

DfyB a k

0.00 1.862 0.73

0.25 1.811 0.785
0.50 1.754 0.80
1.00 1.820 0.888

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 194 Chapter 4: Shallow Foundations: Ultimate Bearing Capacity

60

40

e/B = 0

N(e)

0.1

20

0.2

f9 5 408

eyB Ng(e)
0.3
0 115.80
0.4 0.1 71.80
0 0.2 41.60
0 10 20 30 40 0.3 18.50
Friction angle, 9 (deg) 0.4 4.62

Figure 4.22 Variation of Ng(e) with f9

where
1
qu 5 qNqFqd 1 gBNgFgd (4.62)
2

The relationships for Fqd and Fgd are given in Table 4.3.
Based on several laboratory model tests, Patra et al. (2012a) have concluded that

1 2
2e
qused < qu 1 2 (4.63)
B

The ultimate load per unit length of the foundation can then be given as

Qu 5 Bqu(e) (4.64)

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 4.11 Ultimate Bearing Capacity under Eccentric Loading—One-Way Eccentricity 195

Example 4.7
A continuous foundation is shown in Figure 4.23. If the load eccentricity is 0.2 m,
determine the ultimate load, Qu, per unit length of the foundation. Use Meyerhof’s
effective area method.
Solution
For c9 5 0, Eq. (4.51) gives

1
q9u 5 qNqFqsFqdFqi 1 g9B9NgFgsFgdFgi
2

where q 5 (16.5) (1.5) 5 24.75 kN/m2.

Sand
1.5 m 9 5 408
c9 5 0
 5 16.5 kN/m3 Figure 4.23 A continuous foundation with load
2m eccentricity

For f9 5 40°, from Table 4.2, Nq 5 64.2 and Ng 5 109.41. Also,

B9 5 2 2 (2)(0.2) 5 1.6 m
Because the foundation in question is a continuous foundation, B9yL9 is zero. Hence,
Fqs 5 1, Fgs 5 1. From Table 4.3,
Fqi 5 Fg i 5 1
Df
Fqd 5 1 1 2 tan f9s1 2 sin f9d2
B
5 1 1 0.214 11.522 5 1.16
Fgd 5 1
and
q9u 5 s24.75ds64.2ds1ds1.16ds1d

1 1122s16.5ds1.6ds109.41ds1ds1ds1d 5 3287.39 kN/m 2

Consequently,
Qu 5 (B9)(1)(q9u) 5 (1.6)(1)(3287.39) < 5260 kN ■

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 196 Chapter 4: Shallow Foundations: Ultimate Bearing Capacity

Example 4.8
Solve Example 4.7 using Eq. (4.54).
Solution
Since c9 5 0

3
1
Qu 5 B qNqsed 1 gBNgsed
2 4
e 0.2
5 5 0.1
B 2
For f9 5 40° and e/B 5 0.1, Figures 4.21 and 4.22 give Nq(e) ø 56.09 and Ng(e) < 71.8.
Hence,
Qu 5 2[(24.75)(56.09) 1 (12)(16.5)(2)(71.8)] 5 5146 kN ■

Example 4.9
Solve Example 4.7 using Eq. (4.63).
Solution
With c9 5 0,
1
qused 5 qNqFqd 1 gBNgFgd
2
For f9 5 40°, Nq 5 64.2 and Ng 5 109.41 (see Table 4.2). Hence,

Fqd 5 1.16 and Fgd 5 1 (see Example 4.7)

1
qu 5 s24.75ds64.2ds1.16d 1 s16.5ds2ds109.41ds1d
2
5 1843.18 1 1805.27 5 3648.45 kN/m2
From Eq. (4.63),

1 2
2e
qused 5 qu 1 2
B

5 3648.45 1 2 2 3 10.2224
5 2918.76 kN/m2
Qu 5 Bqused 5 s2ds2918.76d < 5838 kN ■

4.12 Bearing Capacity—Two-Way Eccentricity

Consider a situation in which a foundation is subjected to a vertical ultimate load Qult and a
moment M, as shown in Figures 4.24a and b. For this case, the components of the moment

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 4.12 Bearing Capacity—Two-Way Eccentricity 197

Qu

(a) M

B3L
B

eB
Mx
M Qu
L9
Qu x Qu My eL

B
(b) (c) (d)

Figure 4.24 Analysis of foundation with two-way eccentricity

M about the x- and y-axes can be determined as Mx and My, respectively. (See Figure 4.24c.)
This condition is equivalent to a load Qu placed eccentrically on the foundation with x 5 eB
and y 5 eL (Figure 4.24d). Note that
My
eB 5 (4.65)
Qu
and
Mx
eL 5 (4.66)
Qu
If Qu is needed, it can be obtained from Eq. (4.52); that is,
Qu 5 q9u A9
where, from Eq. (4.51),
q9u 5 c9NcFcsFcdFci 1 qNqFqsFqdFqi 1 12 gB9NgFgsFgdFgi
and
A9 5 effective area 5 B9L9
As before, to evaluate Fcs, Fqs, and Fgs (Table 4.3), we use the effective length L9 and
effective width B9 instead of L and B, respectively. To calculate Fcd, Fqd, and Fgd, we do not
replace B with B9. In determining the effective area A9, effective width B9, and effective
length L9, five possible cases may arise (Highter and Anders, 1985).

Case I. eLyL $ 16 and eB/B $ 16. The effective area for this condition is shown in
Figure 4.25, or
A9 5 12B1L1 (4.67)

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 198 Chapter 4: Shallow Foundations: Ultimate Bearing Capacity

Effective
B1 area

eB

Qu eL
L1
L

Figure 4.25 Effective area for the case of eL/L $ 16 and

B eB/B $ 16

where

1 2
3eB
B1 5 B 1.5 2 (4.68)
B

and

1 2
3eL
L1 5 L 1.5 2 (4.69)
L

The effective length L9 is the larger of the two dimensions B1 and L1. So the effective width is
A9
B9 5 (4.70)
L9

Case II. eLyL , 0.5 and 0 , eByB , 16. The effective area for this case, shown in
Figure 4.26a, is

A9 5 12sL1 1 L2dB (4.71)

The magnitudes of L1 and L2 can be determined from Figure 4.26b. The effective width is

A9
B9 5 (4.72)
L1 or L2 swhichever is largerd
The effective length is
L9 5 L1 or L2 swhichever is largerd (4.73)

Case III. eLyL , 16 and 0 , eByB , 0.5. The effective area, shown in Figure 4.27a, is

A9 5 12 sB1 1 B2dL (4.74)

The effective width is

A9
B9 5 (4.75)
L

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 4.12 Bearing Capacity—Two-Way Eccentricity 199

Effective
B area

eB
L2
eL L1
Qu
L

(a)

0.5

0.4 eB /B 5
0.167
0.1
0.3 0.08
0.06
eL /L

0.2 0.0
4
0.0
0.16

0.0
0.14
0.12

0.0
0.10

2
0.
0.0

01
4

0.1
8

eB /B 5 For
0.
obtaining 01 For
0.0

L2 /L obtaining
2

0
L1 /L
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
L1 /L, L2 /L
(b)

Figure 4.26 Effective area for the case of eLyL , 0.5 and 0 , eB/B , 16 (After Highter and Anders,
1985) (Based on Highter, W. H. and Anders, J. C. (1985). “Dimensioning Footings Subjected to
Eccentric Loads,” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 111,
No. GT5, pp. 659–665.)

The effective length is

L9 5 L (4.76)
The magnitudes of B1 and B2 can be determined from Figure 4.27b.

Case IV. eLyL , 16 and eByB , 16. Figure 4.28a shows the effective area for this case. The
ratio B2yB, and thus B2, can be determined by using the eLyL curves that slope upward.
Similarly, the ratio L2yL, and thus L2, can be determined by using the eLyL curves that
slope downward. The effective area is then

A9 5 L2B 1 12 sB 1 B2dsL 2 L2d (4.77)

The effective width is
A9
B9 5 (4.78)
L

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 200 Chapter 4: Shallow Foundations: Ultimate Bearing Capacity

B1

eB

eL
Qu
L

Effective
area

B2
B
(a)

0.5

0.4 eL /L 5
0.167
0.1
0.3 0.08
0.06
eB /B

0.2 0.0
4
0.0
0.16

0.0
0.14
0.12

0.0
0.10

2
0.
0.0

01
4

0.1
8

eL /L 5 For
0.
obtaining 01 For
0.0

B2 /B obtaining
2

0
B1 /B
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
B1 /B, B2 /B
(b)

Figure 4.27 Effective area for the case of eL/L , 16 and 0 , eByB , 0.5 (Based on Highter,
W. H. and Anders, J. C. (1985). “Dimensioning Footings Subjected to Eccentric Loads,”
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 111,
No. GT5, pp. 659–665.)

The effective length is

L9 5 L (4.79)

Case V. (Circular Foundation) In the case of circular foundations under eccentric

loading (Figure 4.29a), the eccentricity is always one way. The effective area A9 and
the effective width B9 for a circular foundation are given in a nondimensional form in
Table 4.10. Once A9 and B9 are determined, the effective length can be obtained as
A9
L9 5 (4.80)
B9

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 4.12 Bearing Capacity—Two-Way Eccentricity 201

L2 eB
eL

L
Qu
Effective
area

B2
(a)

0.20
For obtaining B2 /B
0.16
0.14
0.12

0.15 0.10
0.08
0.06
0.
1

0.0 0.1
eB /B

0.10 8 4 0.04

0.0 Figure 4.28 Effective area for the

6
case of eL/L , 16 and eB/B , 16
0.05 0.04 0.02 5 eL /L (Based on Highter, W. H. and
Anders, J. C. (1985). “Dimensioning
eL/L 5 0.02
Footings Subjected to Eccentric
For obtaining L2/L
0 Loads,” Journal of Geotechnical
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Engineering, American Society of
B2 /B, L2 /L Civil Engineers, Vol. 111, No. GT5,
(b) pp. 659–665.)

eR
Qu

Figure 4.29 Effective area for circular foundation

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 202 Chapter 4: Shallow Foundations: Ultimate Bearing Capacity

Table 4.10 Variation of A9yR2 and B9yR with

eRyR for Circular Foundations

eR yR A9yR 2 B9yR

0.1 2.8 1.85

0.2 2.4 1.32
0.3 2.0 1.2
0.4 1.61 0.80
0.5 1.23 0.67
0.6 0.93 0.50
0.7 0.62 0.37
0.8 0.35 0.23
0.9 0.12 0.12
1.0 0 0

Example 4.10
A square foundation is shown in Figure 4.30, with eL 5 0.3 m and eB 5 0.15 m. Assume
two-way eccentricity, and determine the ultimate load, Qu.
Solution
We have
eL 0.3
5 5 0.2
L 1.5

and
eB 0.15
5 5 0.1
B 1.5

This case is similar to that shown in Figure 4.26a. From Figure 4.26b, for eLyL 5 0.2
and eByB 5 0.1,
L1
< 0.85; L1 5 s0.85ds1.5d 5 1.275 m
L
and
L2
< 0.21; L2 5 s0.21ds1.5d 5 0.315 m
L
From Eq. (4.71),

A9 5 12 sL1 1 L2dB 5 12 s1.275 1 0.315ds1.5d 5 1.193 m2

From Eq. (4.73),

L9 5 L1 5 1.275 m

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 4.12 Bearing Capacity—Two-Way Eccentricity 203

Sand
0.7 m  5 18 kN/m3
9 5 308
1.5 m 3 1.5 m c9 5 0

eB 5 0.15 m

1.5 m
eL 5 0.3 m

Figure 4.30 An eccentrically loaded

1.5 m foundation

From Eq. (4.72),

A9 1.193
B9 5 5 5 0.936 m
L9 1.275

Note from Eq. (4.51) with c9 5 0,

q9u 5 qNqFqsFqdFqi 1 12gB9NgFgsFgdFgi

where q 5 s0.7ds18d 5 12.6 kN/m2.

For f9 5 308, from Table 4.2, Nq 5 18.4 and Ng 5 22.4. Thus from Table 4.3,

Fqs 5 1 1 1B9L9 2 tan f9 5 1 1 10.936

1.275 2
tan 308 5 1.424

Fgs 5 1 2 0.4 1B9L9 2 5 1 2 0.4 10.936

1.275 2
5 0.706

Df s0.289ds0.7d
Fqd 5 1 1 2 tan f9s1 2 sin f9d2 511 5 1.135
B 1.5

and
Fgd 5 1

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 204 Chapter 4: Shallow Foundations: Ultimate Bearing Capacity

So
Qu 5 A9q9u 5 A9sqNqFqsFqd 1 12gB9NgFgsFgdd

5 s1.193d[s12.6ds18.4ds1.424ds1.135d
1 s0.5ds18ds0.936ds22.4ds0.706ds1d] < 606 kN ■

Example 4.11
Consider the foundation shown in Figure 4.30 with the following changes:
eL 5 0.18 m
eB 5 0.12 m
3
For the soil, g 5 16.5 kN/m
f9 5 25°
c9 5 25 kN/m2
Determine the ultimate load, Qu.
Solution
eL 0.18 eB 0.12
5 5 0.12; 5 5 0.08
L 1.5 B 1.5
This is the case shown in Figure 4.28a. From Figure 4.28b,
B2 L2
< 0.1; < 0.32
B L
So
B2 5 (0.1)(1.5) 5 0.15 m
L2 5 (0.32)(1.5) 5 0.48 m
From Eq. (4.77),

1 1
A9 5 L2B 1 sB 1 B2dsL 2 L2d 5 s0.48ds1.5d 1 s1.5 1 0.15ds1.5 2 0.48d
2 2
5 0.72 1 0.8415 5 1.5615 m2
A9 1.5615
B9 5 5 5 1.041m
L 1.5
L9 5 1.5 m
From Eq. (4.51),
1
q9u 5 c9NcFcs Fed 1 qNqFqsFqd 1 gB9NgFgsFgd
2

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 4.13 Bearing Capacity of a Continuous Foundation Subjected to Eccentrically Inclined Loading 205

For f9 5 25°, Table 4.2 gives Nc 5 20.72, Nq 5 10.66 and Ng 5 10.88. From Table 4.3,

Nq
1B9L9 21 N 2 5 1 1 11.041 21 20.72 2
10.66
Fcs 5 1 1 5 1.357
c 1.5

Fqs 5 1 1 1B9L9 2 tan f9 5 1 1 11.041

1.5 2
tan 25 5 1.324

Fgs 5 1 2 0.4 1B9L9 2 5 1 2 0.4 11.041

1.5 2
5 0.722

Df
Fqd 5 1 1 2 tan f9s1 2 sin f9d2 1 B 2 5 1 1 2 tan 25s1 2 sin 25d 10.7
1.5 2
5 1.145 2

1 2 Fqd 1 2 1.145
Fcd 5 Fqd 2 5 1.145 2 5 1.16
Nc tan f9 20.72 tan 25

Fgd 5 1
Hence,

q9u 5 s25ds20.72ds1.357ds1.16d 1 s16.5 3 0.7ds10.66ds1.324ds1.145d

1
1 s16.5ds1.041ds10.88ds0.722ds1d
2

5 815.39 1 186.65 1 67.46 5 1069.5 kN/m2

Qu 5 A9qu9 5 (1069.5)(1.5615) 5 1670 kN ■

4.13 Bearing Capacity of a Continuous

Foundation Subjected to Eccentrically
Inclined Loading
Shallow continuous foundations are at times subjected to eccentrically inclined loads.
Figure 4.31 shows two possible modes of load application. In this figure, B is the width of
the foundation, e is the load eccentricity, and Qu(ei) is the ultimate load per unit length of
the foundation. In Figure 4.31a, the line of load application of the foundation is inclined
toward the center line of the foundation and was referred to as partially compensated by
Perloff and Baron (1976). It is also possible for the line of load application on the founda-
tion to be inclined away from the center line of the foundation, as shown in Figure 4.31b.
Perloff and Baron (1976) called this type of loading a reinforced case.
The results of practically all studies relating to the bearing capacity of a shallow foun-
dation subjected to an eccentrically inclined load presently available in literature—though

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 206 Chapter 4: Shallow Foundations: Ultimate Bearing Capacity

Qu(ei) Qu(ei)

 

e e
B B
(a) (b)

Figure 4.31 Continuous foundation subjected to eccentrically inclined load:

(a) partially compensated case and (b) reinforced case

fairly limited—consider the partially compensated case. The following are the procedures
used to estimate the ultimate load Qu(ei) for both of these cases.

Partially Compensated Case (Figure 4.31a)

Meyerhof’s effective area method can be used to determine the ultimate load Qu(ei). From
Eq. (4.51),
1
q9u 5 c9NcFcdFci 1 qNqFqdFqi 1 gNgB9FgdFgi (4.81)
2
Note that, for continuous foundations, Fcs 5 Fqs 5 Fgs 5 1, and B′ 5 B – 2e. Using
the values of the bearing capacity factors given in Table 4.2 and the depth and inclination
factors given in Table 4.3, the value of q9u can be estimated. Note that q9u is the vertical
component of the soil reaction. So,
sq9udsB9ds1d q9usB 2 2ed
Quseid 5 5 (4.82)
cos b cos b

Based on a larger number of model test results, Patra et al. (2012a) proposed a reduc-
tion factor to estimate Qu(ei) for a foundation on granular soil, according to which
Quseid 5 quBsRFd (4.83)
where RF 5 reduction factor
qu 5 ultimate bearing capacity of the foundation with centric vertical loading
(i.e., e 5 0, b 5 0)
The reduction factor can be expressed as
22sDfyBd

1 211 2 f92
e b8
RF 5 1 2 2 (4.84)
B

Combining Eqs. (4.83) and (4.84), we have

22sDfyBd

1 211 2 f92
e b8
Quseid 5 quB 1 2 2 (4.85)
B

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 4.13 Bearing Capacity of a Continuous Foundation Subjected to Eccentrically Inclined Loading 207

Reinforced Case (Granular Soil)

Patra et al. (2012b) conducted several model tests on continuous foundations on granular
soil and gave the following correlation to estimate Qu(ei). Or,
1.520.7sDfyBd

1 21 2
e b8
Quseid 5 quB 1 2 2 12 (4.86)
B f9

Example 4.12
A continuous foundation is shown in Figure 4.32. Estimate the inclined ultimate load,
Quseid per unit length of the foundation. Use Eqs. (4.81) and (4.82).

Qu(ei)

208

 5 16 kN/m3
9 5 358
1m c9 5 0

0.15 m
1.5 m Figure 3.32

Solution
From Eq. (4.81) with c9 5 0, we have
1
q9u 5 qNqFqdFqi 1 gB9NgFgdFgi
2
q 5 gDf 5 s16ds1d 5 16 kN/m2
and
B9 5 B 2 2e 5 1.5 2 s2ds0.15d 5 1.2 m
From Table 4.2 for f9 5 35°, Nq 5 33.3, and Ng 5 48.03, we have
Df
Fqd 5 1 1 2 tan f9s1 2 sin f9d2 1 B 2 5 1 1 2 tan 35s1 2 sin 35d 11.51 2 5 1.17 2

Fgd 5 1

1 2 5 11 2 20902 5 0.605
2 2
b8
Fqi 5 1 2
908

1 2 5 11 2 20352 5 0.184
2 2
b8
Fgi 5 1 2
f9

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 208 Chapter 4: Shallow Foundations: Ultimate Bearing Capacity

q9u 5 s16ds33.3ds1.17ds0.605d 1 1122s16ds1.2ds48.03ds1ds0.184d 5 461.98 kN/m 2

and
q9usB 2 2ed s461.98ds1.2d
Quseid 5 5 5 589.95 kN < 590 kN/m ■
cos b cos 20

Example 4.13
Solve Example 4.12 using Eq. (4.85).
Solution
From Eq. (4.26) with c 5 0, we have
Fqs 5 Fgs 5 1 (continuous foundation)
Fqi 5 Fgi 5 1 (vertical centric loading)
and
1
qu 5 qNqFqd 1 gBNgFgd
2
From Example 4.12, q 5 16 kN/m2, Nq 5 33.3, Ng 5 48.03, Fqd 5 1.17, and Fgd 5 1.
Hence,

qu 5 s16ds33.3ds1.17d 1 1122s16ds1.5ds48.03ds1d 5 1199.74 kN/m 2

and
22sDfyBd

3 1Be 2411 2 f92

b8
Quseid 5 quB 1 2 2

22 _1.5 +
1

3 1 243 1 24
0.15 20
5 s1199.74ds1.5d 1 2 s2d 12
1.5 35
< 465 kN/m ■

Problems
4.1 For the following cases, determine the allowable gross vertical load-bearing capacity
of the foundation. Use Terzaghi’s equation and assume general shear failure in soil.
Use FS 5 4.

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.