Table 2.6. Categories of analysis and design- ure mechanism or punching shear failure.

General shear failure

Cate- Sub- Characteristics Method of parame- usually develops in soils that exhibit brittle stress-strain behav­
gory divi- ter estimation iour and in this case the failure of the foundation may be sudden
_________ sion___________________________________ and catastrophic. Punching shear failure normally develops in
1 Empirical - not based on Simple in-situ or soils that exhibit compressible, plastic stress-strain behaviour. In
soil mechanics principles laboratory tests,
this case, failure is characterised by progressive, downward
with correlations
2 2A Based on simplified the­ Routine relevant in-
movement or “punching” of the foundation into the underlying
ory or charts - uses soil situ or laboratory soil. This failure mode is also the mechanism normally associ­
mechanics principles - tests - may require ated with deep foundations such as piles and drilled shafts.
amenable to hand calcu­ some correlations Different methods of analysis are used for the different failure
lation; simple linear modes. For the general shear mode, a rational approach based on
elastic or rigid plastic the limiting states of equilibrium is employed. The approach is
2B soil models based on the theory of plasticity and its use has been validated, at
As for 2A, but theory is least in principle, by laboratory and field testing. For the punching
non-linear (deformation)
shear mode, a variety of approaches have been suggested, none of
or elasto-plastic (stabil­
ity)
which is strictly correct from the point of view of rigorous applied
3 3A Based on theory using Careful laboratory mechanics, although most methods predict ultimate capacities
site-specific analysis, and/or in-situ tests which are at least comparable to field test results.
uses soil mechanics which follow the In the discussion that follows, particular emphasis is given to:
principles. Theory is lin­ appropriate stress - Estimating the ultimate capacity of foundations subjected to
ear elastic (deformation) paths combined loading, i.e., combinations of vertical and horizon­
3B or rigid plastic (stability) tal forces and moments,
As for 3A, but non- - Estimating the ultimate capacity for cases of eccentrically ap­
linearity is allowed for in
plied forces, and
3C a relatively simple man­
ner
- Estimating the ultimate capacity of foundations on non-
As for 3A, but non- homogeneous soils including layered deposits.
linearity is allowed for
via proper constitutive 3.2.1 Conventional bearing capacity theory
soil models A rational approach for predicting the bearing capacity of a foun­
dation suggested by Vesic (1975) has now gained quite widespread
acceptance in foundation engineering practice. This method takes
3 BEARING CAPACITY OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS some account of the stress-deformation characteristics of the soil
and is applicable over a wide range of soil behaviour. This ap­
3.1 Design issues proach is loosely based on the solutions obtained from the theory of
In relation to shallow foundations, the key design issues include: plasticity, but empiricism has been included in significant measure,
to deal with the many complicating factors that make a rigorous
- Estimation of the ultimate bearing capacity of the foundation
with, where relevant, appropriate allowance for the combined solution for the capacity intractable.
For a rectangular foundation the general bearing capacity
effects of vertical, horizontal and moment loading; equation, which is an extension of the expression first proposed
- Estimation of the total and differential settlements under ver­ by Terzaghi (1943) for the case of a central vertical load applied
tical and combined loading, including any time-dependence
of these foundation movements; to a long strip footing, is usually written in the form:
- Estimation of foundation movements due to moisture changes
in the underlying soil, where these changes are induced by (3.1)
factors other than the loading applied directly to the founda­ qNqc,qr^qsCqiCqtCqgCqd
tion;
- Structural design of the foundation elements. where qu is the ultimate bearing pressure that the soil can sustain,
In this section, the first two of these design issues will be ad­ Qu is the corresponding ultimate load that the foundation can
dressed, while section 4 deals with settlement issues. support, B is the least plan dimension of the footing, L is the
Conventionally, the issues of ultimate capacity and settlement length of the footing, c is the cohesion of the soil, q is the over­
are treated separately in design analyses. For most hand calcula­ burden pressure, and y is the unit weight of the soil. It is assumed
tion methods this separation is necessary, because to do other­ that the strength of the soil can be characterised by a cohesion c
wise would render the analysis intractable. However, in some and an angle of friction 0. The parameters Nc, Nr and Nq are
design applications it may be important to conduct more sophis­ known as the general bearing capacity factors which determine
ticated analysis in order to understand fully the characteristic the capacity of a long strip footing acting on the surface of soil
foundation behaviour. Very often these sophisticated analyses represented as a homogeneous half-space. The factors f allow
will employ numerical techniques requiring computer solution. for the influence of other complicating features. Each of these
In this section hand methods of analysis are discussed, and some factors has double subscripts to indicate the term to which it ap­
useful solutions derived from more sophisticated analysis are plies (c, y or q) and which phenomenon it describes (r for rigidity
also identified. of the soil, s for the shape of the foundation, i for inclination of the
load, t for tilt of the foundation base, g for the ground surface incli­
3.2 Ultimate load capacity nation and d for the depth of the foundation). Most of these factors
depend on the friction angle of the soil, <j>,as indicated in Table
Prediction of the ultimate bearing capacity of a foundation is one 3.1. Details of the sources and derivations for them may be
of the most significant problems in foundation engineering, and found in Vesic (1975), Caquot and Kerisel (1948, 1953), Davis
consequently there is an extensive literature detailing both theo­ and Booker (1971) and Kulhawy et al. (1984). The unusual case
retical and experimental studies of this topic. A list of the princi­ of foundations subjected to a combination of a concentric verti­
pal contributions to the study of this subject may be found, for cal load and a torsional moment has also been studied by Perau
example, in Vesic (1973), Chen and McCarron (1991) and Tani (1997).
and Craig (1995).
Bearing capacity failure occurs as the soil supporting the
foundation fails in shear. This may involve either a general fail­
2533