BEHAVIOUR OF ECCENTRICALLY LOADED CIRCULAR

FOOTING ON GRANULAR SOIL

RESEARCH PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

REQUIREDMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY IN

(GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING)

SUBMITTED BY

SARITA JENA

ROLL NO-213CE1044

UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF

PROF.C.R PATRA

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING NATIONAL

INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ROURKELA, 2015
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the thesis entitled as “Behaviour of eccentrically loaded

circular footing on granular soil” is a record of bonafide work and sincere efforts
put forward by Sarita jena submitted for the requirement of the degree of Master of
Technology in Civil Engineering with specialization in Geotechnical engineering
at National Institute of Technology Rourkela, under my supervision and Guidance.
To the best of my knowledge, the content in this report has not been submitted to any
other university/institute for the award of any degree or diploma.

Prof. Chittaranjan Patra

Department of Civil Engineering
National Institute of Technology
Rourkela

i
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to express my deep sense of gratitude to my esteemed supervisor

Prof. Chittaranjan Patra, for his encouragement and consistent support throughout the research

work in the last one year. I would genuinely acknowledge his faith in me, to do this work, taking it

to a higher level.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks to Prof. S.K. Sahu, HOD, Civil Engineering

Department, National Institute of Technology, Rourkela, who have illuminated me throughout my

research work with his enormous support.

I am also honored, for Prof. N. Roy, Prof. S.K. Das, Prof. S.P. Singh, Prof. R.K.Bag,

Prof. S. Patra, Prof. R.N. Behera and all other faculty members of Civil Engineering Department,

NIT Rourkela, having their valuable support during my research work.

Exceptional and sincere thanks to Miss. Roma Sahu, and Mr. Barada Prasad Sethy

Ph.D. Scholars in Civil Engineering Department, NIT Rourkela for their suggestions, remarks,

emotional and consistent support during the crucial period of research work.

I am also appreciative to Mr. A. K Nanda, Technical Assistant, Geotechnical Engineering

Laboratory, NIT Rourkela for his remarkable support during my research work.

I am also thankful to Mr. Chamuru Suniani (Geotechnical Lab Attendant), Mr. Harihar

Garnayak (Highway Lab Attendant), Mr. Suraj and Mr.Saroj for their support & co-operation

throughout the project work.

At long last, I would thank my family members for their unconditional moral support, a

special thanks to my father, for being there for me, sailing my boat through all hardships.

Sarita Jena

Roll No-213CE1044

ii
 ABSTRACT

In the past several works have been carried out for eccentric loaded condition over sand for finding

the ultimate bearing capacity of shallow foundation. These investigations are limited to strip, square

and rectangular footings, it has been found out that less attention is paid to determine the ultimate

bearing capacity of eccentrically loaded circular foundation with different depth of embedment Df.

Hence the present investigations are based on the load settlement behaviour of eccentrically loaded

circular footing. Bearing capacity is different for centric and eccentric vertical loaded condition

which is subjected to the foundation, the case of vertical load applied centrally to the foundation

studied in most of the cases. Settlement and bearing capacity study of shallow footings is needed

for design of a foundation. The investigation is undertaken to study the behaviour of bearing

capacity and settlement of circular footing over sand bed. The test have been conducted for both

surface and embedded foundations under eccentric and centric loads resting over sand bed. The

investigation shows that ultimate bearing capacity of foundation depends on the different type of

loading (Centric, eccentric) and the depth of embedment (Df/B). Tests were carried out at depth of

embedment (Df/B) varies from zero to one and the eccentricity ratio (e/B) varies from zero to 0.15

with sand of relative density (Dr) equal to 69%. The present experiment is also analyzed and

compared with the results of the previous investigations. In order to predict load-settlement

behaviour and compare with experimental observation, equally analytical and numerical analysis

(PLAXIS 3D) have also been conducted.

iii
 CONTENTS
Title Page No.
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………….....iii

Table of contents…………………………………………………………………………ix

List of tables……………………………………………………………………………..viii

List of figures……………………………………………………………………………vi

List of Notations…………………………………………………………………………ix

CHAPTER1: INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………….1

1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………..........2

CHAPTER2: LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………………………………...4

2.1 introduction…………………………………………………………………………….5

2.2 Bearing capacity of shallow foundation on granular soil………………………………5

CHAPTER3: MATERIAL USED AND EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE…………….17

3.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………….18

3.2 Material used……………………………………………………………………………18

3.2.1 Sand…………………………………………………………………………………...18

3.2.2 Characteristics of sand………………………………………………………………..19

3.3 Experimental procedure………………………………………………………………...19

3.4 Model test series………………………………………………………………………...22

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND ANALYSIS……………………………………………….23

4.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………..24

4.2 Centric loading condition………………………………………………………………..24

4.2.1 Surface footing with centric loading condition………………………………………...25

4.2.2 Embedded footing with centric loading condition……………………………………..26

4.3 Eccentric loading condition………………………………………………………………….31

iv
4.3.1 Surface footing with eccentric loading condition………………………………………….31

4.3.2 Embedded footing with eccentric loading condition………………………………………33

CHAPTER 5: SUMMERY OF RESULTS ………………….…………………………………..43

5.1 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………44

CHAPTER 6: NUMERICAL ANALYSIS……………………………………………………….45

6.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………46

6.2Methodology…………………………………………………………………………………...47

6.2.1 Testing procedure……………………………………………………………………………48

6.3 Results analysis………………………………………………………………………………..50

6.3.1 Comparison………………………………………………………………………………….54

CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION AND SCOPE OF FUTURE RESEARCH WORK……………59

7.1 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………….60

7.2 Future research work…………………………………………………………………………..61

CHAPTER 8: REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………….62

v
 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure no. Title Page no.

Figure 1 Typical failure mechanism of axially loaded footing 3

Figure 2 Effective width concept (source: Meyerhof, 1953) 7

Figure 2.1 Geometry of the finite element mesh and details of the mesh in the near field 12

Figure 3.1 Grain size distribution of soil 20

Figure 3.2 Experimental setup of laboratory model tests at Surface condition 21

Figure 3.3 Experimental setup of laboratory model tests at embedded condition 22

Figure 4.1 Ultimate Bearing Capacity qu by Tangent Intersection method 25

Figure 4.2 Load Settlement curve with Df/B=0, e/B=0 26

Figure 4.3 Variation of Load-Settlement Curve with Embedment ratio (Df/B) at e/B=0 27
Figure 4.4 Variation of qu with Df/B for e/B = 0 using formulae of existing theories along with
present experimental values 28
Figure 4.5 Change of Nγ with γB (adapted after DeBeer, 1965) 29
Figure 4.6 Comparison between Nγ obtained from tests with small footings 30
and large footings of 1m² area on sand (adapted after DeBeer, 1965)
Figure 4.7 Load Settlement Curve with Df/B=0, e=0, 0.05B, 0.10B, 0.15B 33
Figure 4.8 Load-Settlement Curve with Df/B=0.5, e=0, 0.05B, 0.10B, 0.15B 34
Figure 4.9 Load-Settlement Curve with Df/B=1 e=0, 0.05B, 0.10B, 0.15B 35
Figure 4.10 Difference in Load-Settlement Curve with Embedment ratio (Df/B) at e/B=0.05 35
Figure 4.11 Difference in Load-Settlement Curve with Embedment ratio (Df/B) at e/B=0.10 36

Figure 4.12: Difference in Load-Settlement Curve with Embedment ratio (Df/B) at e/B=0.15 36

Figure4.13 Comparison of ultimate bearing capacities of Present experimental results 38

With Meyerhof at different Df/B and e/B

Figure 4.14 Comparison of Present experimental results with Purkayastha and Char (1977) with
Df/B=0 40
Figure 4.15 Comparison of Present experimental results with Purkayastha and Char (1977) with
Df/B=0.5 40

vi
Figure 4.16 Comparison of Present experimental results with Purkayastha and Char (1977)
With Df /B=1.0 41

Figure 6.1 General procedure of analysis 48

Figure 6.2 Geometry model for analysis in surface condition 49

Figure 6.3 Geometry model for analysis in surface eccentric condition 49

Figure 6.4 Failure pattern at eccentric condition (e/B=0.15) 50

Fig.6.5 qu value shown by tangent intersection method at e/B=0, Df/B=0 51

Figure 6.6 Variation in Load settlement curve at Df/B=0 52

Figure.6.7 Variation in Load settlement curve at Df/B=0.5 53

Figure 6.8 Variation in Load settlement curve at Df/B=1 53

Figure 6.9 Comparison Load settlement curve at Df/B=0, e/B=0 54

Figure 6.10 Comparison Load settlement curve at Df/B=0, e/B=0.05 54

Figure 6.11 Comparison Load settlement curve at Df/B=0, e/B=0.10 56

Figure 6.12 Comparison Load settlement curve at Df/B=0, e/B=0.15 56

Figure 6.13 Comparison of ultimate Bearing capacity at different e/B (0, 0.05, 0.10, and 0.15) 58

for present experiment results with PLAXIS result

vii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table no. Title Page no.

Table 2 Summary of bearing capacity factors 9

Table 2.1 Summary of shape and Depth factors 10

Table 2.2 Value of a and k 11

Table 3.1 Geotechnical property of sand 19

Table 3.2 Sequence of the model test series 22

Table 4.1 Model test parameters for the case of Centric Loading condition 24
Table 4.2 Calculated values of ultimate bearing capacities qu by different theories along with 31
Present experiment value
Table 4.3 Model test parameters for the case of Eccentric Loading condition 32
Table 4.4 Calculated values of (qu) by Meyerhof (1963) for eccentric condition along with 39
Present experimental values of qu

Table 4.5 Calculated values of Rk by Purkayastha and Char (1977) for eccentric vertical condition
along with Present experimental values 42

Table 6.1 Parameter used in numerical analysis 47

Table 6.2 Calculated value of qu by PLAXIS for eccentric condition along with experimental
value 57

viii
 LIST OF NOTATION

List of Abbreviations and Nomenclature

Abbreviations

RF Reduction factor

UBC ultimate bearing capacity

Nomenclature

Symbols

B Width of foundation (Diameter of circular footing)

t Thickness of foundation

L Length of foundation

e Load eccentricity

QU Ultimate load per unit length of foundation

qu Ultimate load bearing capacity

Df Depth of foundation

 Unit weight of sand

 d max  Maximum dry unit weight of sand

 dmin Minimum dry unit weight of sand

q Surface surcharge

Nc , Nq , N Bearing capacity factors

S c , S q , S Shape factors

d c , d q , d Depth factors

 Internal angle of friction

 Dilatancy angle
ix
c Cohesion

Cu Uniformity coefficient

Cc Coefficient of curvature

S Settlement

Su Ultimate settlement

A’ Effective area of foundation

B’ Effective width of foundation

G Specific gravity

D10 Effective particle size

D30 Particle size

D60 Particle size

Dr Relative density

x
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

The lowest part of a structure which transfers its load to the soil beneath is known as foundation.

The stability of a structure mostly depends on the performance of foundation. Its design should be

done properly, considering its importance. Depending on the depth of embedment, foundations can

be classified as shallow or deep. The ultimate load which can be sustained by the soil is identified

as bearing capacity. Bearing capacity and settlement are two parameter requirement for the design

of shallow foundation. It is essential for engineers to estimate the foundation’s bearing capacity

subjected to vertical loads. Usually, so many studies for estimation of bearing capacity involves

foundation subjected to vertical loading. However, for some structures such as abutment, retaining

wall, portal framed building and water front structure, which are often subjected to eccentric load

due to horizontal thrust and bending moment. Settlement of foundation under load due to the

movement of soil particle horizontally and vertically below the footing. Tilt of the footing caused

by eccentric loading which results to non-uniform stress distribution and unequal settlement below

the footing. When centric vertical load subjected to the foundation, uniform stress distribution under

the footing and equal settlement at both edges occurred. The tilt of footing directly proportional to

the (e/B) ratio, i.e. it increases with the increasing (e/B) ratio. When eccentricity ratio is greater than

1/6, the edge of the footing which is away from center will lose its contact with the soil. As a result,

it will reduce the effective width (B’) of footing and which will reduce the ultimate bearing capacity

of foundation. Stress developed in different layers of soil due to the imposed load by various

structures at the foundation level will always be accompanied by some amount of strain, which

causes settlement of the structures.

2
(Figure 1: Typical Failure Mechanism of Axially Loaded Footing)

3
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

4
Chapter 2 LITERATUREREVIEW

2.1 Introduction

The review of literatures briefly represented below for eccentrically loaded foundation. An

overview of experimental study and numerical analysis is also discussed below.

2.2 Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations on granular soil

For stability the foundation of structure should be stable against shear failure of the supporting soil

and to avoid damage to the structure it must not settle beyond a tolerable limit .The stability of the

supporting soil to the foundation of structure shows the stability to structure. A foundation should

not exceed its ultimate bearing capacity for performing to its optimum capacity. After the

publications of Terzaghi (1943) concept on the field of bearing capacity for shallow foundations,

numerous studies have been made by various investigators. Several studies are related to footings

subjected to vertical and central loads. Researchers like Purkayastha and char (1977) and Prakash

and saran (1971) studied on the eccentrically loaded footings. Empirical procedures for estimating

the ultimate bearing capacity of foundations subjected to eccentric vertical loads developed by

Meyerhof (1953). Meyerhof (1974) modified the shape factor and depth factor for bearing capacity

analysis in circular footing over rigid sand bed. An extensive literature review based on bearing

capacity of shallow foundations under eccentric loading conditions is presented below.

Terzaghi (1943) theory was proposed first to determine the ultimate bearing capacity of Shallow

footing. The surcharge q = γD applied on soil above the bottom of foundation. The study of

foundation as strip foundation with rough base. As per this theory shallow foundation having the

depth less than or equal to width .The zone of failure below the foundation is divided in to 3 part

i.e. Triangular zone, 2 Radial shear zone, and 2 Rankine passive zone due to vertical centric load.

He had provided expression for the different type of footing as below

5
 q u  cN c  qN q  1 BN  For continuous and strip foundation
2

 qu  1.3cNc  qNq  0.4BN For square foundation

 qu  1.3cNc  qNq  0.3BN For Circular foundation

Where c=Cohesion of soil,  = Unit weight of soil and q  D f , Nc, Nq, andN are the bearing

capacity factors are given below

  3    
 2 4  2  tan   
e  

N  cot     1

 2 cos 2     
c

 4 2 
 

  3    
 2 4  2  tan   
e  

Nq  
 
 2 cos 2  45    
  2 
 

 K p 
N    1 tan  
1
 2 2 
 cos   

Where Kpγ = passive pressure coefficient

Meyerhof (1953) proposed a generalized equation for any shape of foundation (strip, rectangular

or square) in case of ultimate bearing capacity since the case of rectangular footing was not reported

by Terzaghi (1943). The proposed equation for ultimate bearing capacity is as follows

6
 B’=B-2e

where e = load eccentricity

Figure 2: Effective width concept (source: Meyerhof, 1953)

Q  q  A 
ult u

Where A = effective area  B 1 He concluded that the average bearing capacity of the footing
decreases, approximately parabolic ally, with an increase in eccentricity.

Meyerhof (1963) suggested a bearing capacity equation in generalized form for different shape of

footing and also the study not considered the shearing resistance across the failure surface in soil

above the bottom of foundation. Below equation is given for ultimate bearing capacity.

qu  cN c Fcs Fcd Fci  qN q Fqs Fqd Fqi  1 BN  Fs Fd Fi
2

Fcs , Fqs , Fs  Shape factor,

Fcd , Fqd , Fd  = Depth factor

Fci , Fqi , Fi = Inclination factor

7
In the past many investigators have proposed bearing capacity factors. These factors are

summarized in table

Table 2: Summary of bearing capacity factors

Bearing capacity factors Equation Investigator

Nc Nc  (Nq 1) cot Terzaghi (1943),

Meyerhof (1963)
Nq   3     Terzaghi (1943)
 2 4  2  tan   
e  

Nq  
 
 2 cos 2  45    
  2 
 
Nq   Meyerhof(1963),
N q  tan 2  45  e ( tan  )
 2 Hansen(1970),
Vesic(1973),
Is code(IS: 6403-1981)

N
N  1.8( N q  1) cot (tan ) 2 Terzaghi (1943)

N N  1.5( N q  1) tan Hansen(1970)

N N  2(Nq 1) tan Vesic(1973)

Is code(IS: 6403-1981)

8
 Table 2.1: Summary of shape and Depth factors

Factors Equation Investigator

Shape Sq =1 Meyerhof (1974)

S  0.6 (circular footing)

B Vesic (1975)

S q  1    tan 
L
Hansen(1970)
B
S   1  0.4 
L
Sq  1 Is code (IS: 6403-
1981)
S  0.6 (circular footing)

Depth  Df    Meyerhof(1963)
  10 : d c  1  0.2  tan 45  
 B   2
 Df   
d q  d   1  0.1  tan 45  
 B   2

Df 1 dq Hansen(1970)
For  1: dc  dq  For  0 Vesic(1975)
B N q tan 
2 Df 
d q  1  2 tan  1  sin    
 B 
d  1

Is code (IS: 6403-

 Df   1981)
d q  d   1  0 .1  tan 2  45    For   10  
 B   2

Prakash and Saran (1971) developed a relationship given to calculate the ultimate load per unit

length (Qu) of strip foundation with eccentrically vertical loaded condition shown by the following

equation

9
 Q 1
q  u  BN  D N    cN  
 e 
u
B  1 2 f q e  c e 

Where N(e), Nq(e), NC(e) = Bearing capacity factors of continuous foundation in an eccentrically

loaded condition.

Meyerhof (1974) the study was based on the ultimate bearing capacity of circular and strip footing

resting on sub-soils having two layers of different cases of dense sand on soft clay and loose sand

on stiff clay. Bearing capacity ratio of clay to sand, friction angle, shape and depth of foundation

are the main factors which have an influence over sand layer thickness below the footing. For

circular footing upper limits of S  0.6 and Sq =1.

Purkayastha and char (1977) tests were conducted for analysis on stability of eccentrically loaded

strip foundation on sand using the method of slices proposed by Janbu (1957). Based on this study

qu e 
 1  RK
qu e  0 
qu eccentric
RK  1 
qu centric

K
e
R K  a 
B

k and a value presented in below table

10
 Table2.2: Value of a and k

Df /B 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

Rahaman (1981) study was carried out for understanding the problem of the bearing capacity and

settlement by using Circular footing on sand bed. Shear strength, Frictional angle, relative density

(Dr) of sand, and surcharge effect on bearing capacity and settlement are investigated. Maximum

vertical strain occurs at 0.5 to0.6 times the diameter of footing, depth increase with decrease in

density of sand. Radial deformation increase from center of the footing to a maximum value at a

distance of 0.75 time the diameter and then started decreasing.

Taiebat and Carter (2002) this paper described Finite element modeling of the problem of the

bearing capacity of strip and circular footings under vertical load and moment. The footings rest on

the uniform and homogeneous soil surface which undergoes deformation under undrained

condition. The soil has a uniform undrained Young’s modulus and a uniform undrained shear

strength (Su), Eu  300S u .A Poisson’s ratio of µ=0.5. The Young’s modulus for the foundations

was set as E f  1000Eu that is, the foundations are much stiffer than the soil, and therefore they can

be considered as effectively rigid. The contact between the footings and the soil is unable to sustain

tension.

11
 Figure 2.1: Geometry of the finite element mesh and details of the mesh in the near field

(Source: Taiebat and Carter, 2002)

To model the interface as shown in the above figure 2.1 a thin layer of ‘no-tension’ elements was

used under the footing. The separation between the foundation and the soil is shown by the presence

of tensile vertical stress in the interface elements. No shear stress can be sustained in the interface

elements immediately after the separation. However, comparison of the failure envelopes obtained

in the study shows that the effective width method, generally used in the analysis of footing which

is subjected to eccentric load and it provide approximate values of the collapse loads.

Boushehrian and Hataf (2003) study was performed on circular and ring footing. Here, the effects

of vertical spacing, number of reinforcement layers on bearing capacity of footing and the depth of

first layer of reinforcement were considered for investigation. Both the experimental and numerical

studies showed that, with the use of a single layer of reinforcement, there is an optimum

reinforcement embedment depth for which the bearing capacity is greatest. They also found out

that, for multi-layer reinforced sand, it requires an optimum vertical spacing of reinforcing layer. It

was also found that, with the increase in number of reinforcement layers, the bearing capacity also

increased, provided the reinforcements were placed within a range of effective depths. Further, the

12
analysis indicated that, bearing capacity does not increase beyond a threshold value of

reinforcement stiffness.

Dash et al. (2003) by conducting small-scale model tests, the effectiveness of geocell reinforcement

placed in the granular fill overlying soft clay beds has been studied. The test beds were applied with

uniform loading by a rigid circular footing. The overall performance of the system depends on the

factors such as width and height of geocell mattress and presence of a planar geogrid layer at the

base of geocell mattress. The performance of the system can be improved substantially by providing

geocell reinforcement in the sand layer lying above. With the addition of another geogrid layer at

the base of the geocell mattress, load carrying capacity and stiffness of foundation bed increases

considerably. With increase in the height of geocell mattress, this beneficial effect decreases.

Sitharam and Sireesh (2004) this paper contains the model test conducted to determine the bearing

capacity of an embedded circular footing supported by multi-layer geogrid sand beds. Besides load

settlement data, strain in geogrid layer, pressure distribution on soil subgrade and deformations on

fill surface were measured. The results obtained from test shows that, the ultimate bearing capacity

increases with embedment depth ratio of the foundation. A considerable improvement in

performance in terms of increase in bearing capacity and reduction in surface deformation can be

obtained by providing multi-layer geogrid reinforcement in the sand bed. It also causes uniform

redistribution of footing pressure over a wide area of subgrade soil.

13
Cerato and Lutenegger (2006) investigation carried out on model circular and square footing test

performed on well-graded sand with 3 different relative density and 5 different sand layer

thickness. The foundation will have an influence over the unit load supported by the soil of the

hard layer present at a certain depth. Therefore original equation of bearing capacity modified for

this condition. Footing shape factor S should account for both shape and final layering. To predict

bearing capacity on finite layer first appropriate shape factor (Square Sᵞ= 0.8, Circular Sᵞ=0.6) should

be chosen.

Basudhar et al. (2007) investigated on the Effect of the footing size, number of reinforcing layers,

reinforcement placement pattern and bond length and the relative density of the soil on the load-

settlement characteristics of the circular footing over sand bed with geotextile. By the increase in

number of reinforcement layers settlement value decreases. There is substantially increment of

BCR values for each increment in the number of reinforcement layers.

Sireesh et al. (2009) the paper based on various parameters such as, thickness of unreinforced

sand layer above clay bed, width and height of geocell mattress, influence of an additional layer of

planar geogrid placed at the base of the geocell mattress, relative density of the sand fill in the

geocell varies in the model test. The test results shows that, by providing adequate size of geocell

over the clay performance can be improved. If the height of geocell mattress is greater than 1.8

times the diameter of footing, effect of voids over the performance of footing reduces. With

geocells filled with dense soil better improvement in performance can be achieved.

Lovisa et al. (2010) paper studied for circular footing to find out the behaviour of prestressed

geotextile-reinforced over sand bed. A significant improvement to the load bearing capacity and

settlement can be achieved by addition of prestress reinforcement. The load-carrying capacity at 5

mm settlement in the prestressed case (with prestress equal to 2% of the allowable tensile strength

14
of the geotextile) is approximately double that of the geotextile reinforced sand without prestress

for surface footing.

Nagaraj and Ullagaddi (2010) in this paper investigation carried out to study the effect of shape

and size of footing on load settlement behavior of sand foundation. In case of sand foundation the

increase in size of footing will improve the bearing capacity or load – settlement behavior of the

supporting soil and also the shape of the footing has influence on the bearing capacity or load -

settlement behavior of the supporting soil. Square footing has shown better load-settlement

behavior as compared to circular and rectangular shapes.

Dewaikar et al. (2011) observed on the model circular footing with reinforced soil to study the

load settlement behaviour. The study showed that provision of a single layer reinforcement,

ultimate bearing capacity increases and settlement decreases. Further, in case of BCR and SRF

rubber grid performed better than the Geo-grid.

Elsaied et al. (2014) three dimensional physical laboratory models were examined to investigate

the influence of soil confinement on circular footing behavior resting on granular so il. Observed

that on increasing the number of geogrid layers more than one layer had a small significant effect

on the footing behavior. Moreover, placing geogrid layers underneath the cylinders improves the

bearing capacity up to 7.5 times that of the non-confined case. The load-settlement behavior

depends on the diameter and height of the confinement cylinder relative to the footing diameter.

Gupta et al. (2014) investigation has been done on the influence of three dimensional confinement

of dense sand on the behavior of a model circular footing resting over dense sand. The load bearing

capacity was studied for a circular footing supported on a three-dimensional confined sand bed.

The results indicate that, by confining soil the bearing capacity of circular footing can be increased

15
appreciably. As compared to the unconfined case the bearing capacity was found to increase by a

factor of 36.18.

2.3 Scope of the present study

Based on the existing literature review for the bearing capacity of shallow foundations, it shows

that very few attentions has been paid to determine the ultimate Bearing capacity of eccentrically

loaded circular footing. Most of these studies are based on theoretical analyses and numerical

analyses supported by few number of model tests. So, the objective of the present thesis is to study

the behaviour of eccentrically loaded circular footing by varying eccentricity ratio (e/B), depth of

embedment ratio (Df /B) at 69% relative density (ID).The experimental values have been compared

with different theory of analysis. Study of Variation in Reduction factor (Rk) has been occurred for

purkayastha and char (1977) and eccentrically loaded circular footings. Numerical analysis is

conducted by using PLAXIS 3D to determined load-settlement curve for both surface and

embedded eccentrically loaded circular footings.

16
 CHAPTER 3

MATERIAL USED

AND Experimental

PROCEDURE

17
Chapter3 MATERIAL USED AND EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

3.1 Introduction

So as to study the bearing capacity of eccentrically loaded Circular footing on granular soil (sand),

the experimental program was designed. To fill this need, the laboratory model tests were

conducted on circular footings in 69% relative density, load eccentricity (e) was varied from 0 to

0.15B (B = Diameter of circular footing) at an increment of 0.05B, and the depth of embedment

(Df/B) was varied from 0 to 1.0 at an increment of 0.5. The ultimate bearing capacity was

interpreted from every test and investigated.

3.2 Material
 Sand
 Circular footing(Diameter(B)=100mm, thickness (t)=25mm)

3.2.1 Sand

The sand utilized as a part of experimental program was collected from the river bed of Koel River.

By quick washing and cleaning, it is made free from roots, organic matters etc. The collected

sample was sieved to get the required grading by passing through 710 micron and retained at 300

micron. As dry sand does not include the effect of moisture, it can be used as soil medium for the

test. Table 3.1 shows the Geotechnical properties of the sand. The curve of grain size distribution

is plotted in Figure 3.1. All the experiment were conducted over sand with 69% relative density.

The unit weight for 69% relative density is14.32 kN/m3 and the friction angle of sand is 40.8°

which obtained from direct shear tests.

18
3.2.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF SAND
Table 3.1: Geotechnical property of sand

Property Value
Specific gravity (G) 2.63
Effective particle size (D10) 0.350mm
Mean particle size (D50) 0.44mm
Uniformity coefficient (Cu) 1.30
Coefficient of curvature (Cc) 1.11
Working dry density (γ d ) 14.32 kN/m3
Maximum unit weight (γd(max)) 15.08 kN/m3

Minimum unit weight (γd(min)) 12.90 kN/m3

Relative Density (Dr) 69%
Internal angle of friction (φ) 40.8˚

19
 120
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF SAND

100

80
%finer(N)

60

40

20

0
100 1000
Particle size(micron)

(Figure 3.1: Grain Size Distribution of Sand)

3.3 Experimental procedure

The model tests were conducted in a mild steel tank measuring 1.0m (length)  0.504m (width) 

0.655m (height). To avoid bulging during test all four side of tank are braced. The tank two length

sides are made with high strength fiberglass of 12mm thickness. Circular type model foundation

have been taken, having dimension 100mm (width B) 25mm (thickness t) which made up of mild

steel plate. Glue applied at bottom of footing and then rolling the model footing on sand to made

rough bottom. For achieve required relative density Sand was poured in layer of 25mm into the

test tank from a fixed height by raining technique. Several trials made in the test tank to maintain

height of fall prior to the model test for achieved the desired unit weight. The model foundation

20
was putted at a desired Df/B ratio at the middle of the tank. Load to the model foundation was

applied by a loading assembly manually. Given Fig 3.2 and Fig. 3.3 shows the photographic image

of experimental setup of surface and embedded condition laboratory model tests. The load applied

to the model foundation is measured by Proving ring (10KN with 12.121N least count). Settlement

of the model foundation is measured by dial gauges (.01mm least count range 50mm) placed on

two edges along the width side of the model foundation. Figure 3.2 shows the photographic image

of prepared sand sample with two dial gauges arranged diagonally over the Circular footing for

the test.

Figure3.2: Experimental setup of laboratory model tests at Surface condition

21
 Figure 3.3: Experimental setup of laboratory model tests at embedded condition

3.4 Model test series

Table 3.2: Model test series for experiment

Test series Df/B B/L e/B

1-4 0 1 0,0.05,0.10,0.15

5-8 0.5 1 0,0.05,0.10,0.15

9-12 1 1 0,0.05,0.10,0.15

22
 CHAPTER 4

EXPERIMENTAL

RESULTS

AND ANALYSIS

23
Chapter 4 Results and discussion

4.1 Introduction

The laboratory model test have been conducted by using circular footing with the eccentricity

ratio e/B varying from 0 to 0.15 and embedment Ratio Df /B varying from 0 to 1, The effect of load

eccentricity on the load carrying capacity of Circular embedded footings was investigated from

the tests, dry sand bed used for laboratory model test.

4.2 Centric loading conditions

The model tests are performed in centric vertical loading condition (i.e. e/B = 0). Basically, the

ultimate bearing capacity is determined by Tangent Intersection method for present test. There are

five different method to calculate ultimate bearing capacity from the load-settlement curve i.e.

Break Point method (Mosallanezhad et al. 2008). Tangent Intersection method (Trautmann and

Kulhawy 1988), 0.1B method (Briaud and Jeanjean 1994), Log-Log method (DeBeer 1970), and

Hyperbolic method (Cerato2005),

Table 4.1: Model test parameters for the case of Centric Loading condition

B/L Sand type Unit Relative Friction Df/B e/B

weight Density of angle
(kN/m3) Sand % φ
Direct
shear test
(Degree)
1 Dense 14.32 69 40.8 0 0

0.5

24
 Load Intensity(kN/m2)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

0

6 qu
8
Settlement(mm)

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

Figure 4.1: Interpretation of Ultimate Bearing Capacity qu by Tangent Intersection method

4.2.1 Surface Footing with Centric Loading Conditions

Definite failure point is observed for central loading condition with circular footing of size (10cm

diameter). The characteristics of General shear failure shown by this curve. Tangent intersection

method is used to obtain ultimate bearing capacity of footing. From the load settlement curve of

centrally loaded circular footing ultimate bearing capacity, qu is 87 kN/m2.

25
 Load Intensity(kN/m2)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
0

6
Settlement(mm)

10
e/B=0
12

14

16

18

20

22

Figure 4.2: Load Settlement curve with Df/B=0, e/B=0

4.2.2 Embedded Footing at Centric Loading Conditions

Load settlement curves are obtained from the experimental results for different Df/B ratio (0, 0.5,

and 1).The combined load settlement curves of Df/B=0, 0.5 1.0 are shown in Fig. 4.3. As seen from

figure the bearing capacity of circular footing increases with the increase in depth of embedment.

The ultimate bearing capacity for 0.5B depth of embedment is 160 kN/m2 at centric condition (i.e.

e/B=0). Similarly for 1B depth of embedment at centric loading condition the ultimate bearing

capacity is 230 kN/m2.

26
 Load Intensity(kN/m2)
0 100 200 300 400
0

10

15

Df/B=0
Settlement(mm)

20
Df/B=0.5
25
Df/B=1

30

35

40

45

50

Figure 4.3: Variation of Load-Settlement Curve with Embedment ratio (Df/B) at e/B=0

For the case of centric loading (e/B = 0) at various depth to width ratio t i.e. Df/B = 0, 0.5 and 1.0

the theoretical values of ultimate bearing capacities corresponding to φ =40.8° have been obtained

using the various theory of Meyerhof (1963), Terzaghi (1943), Hansen (1970), Vesic (1973), IS

code (6403-1983). These values are plotted in Fig. 4.4 the same has been presented in Table 4.2,

which represent the present experimental values along with the theoretical values.

27
 300

Terzaghi Theory (1943)

Meyerhof Theory (1963)
250
Hansen Theory (1970)
Ultimate Bearing Capacity qu(kN/m2) Vesic Theory (1973)

200
IS Code (6403-1981)
Present Experiment

150

100

50

0
0 0.5 1
Df/B

Figure 4.4: Variation of qu with Df/B for e/B = 0 using formulae of existing theories along with

present experimental values

It is investigated from the Fig. 4.4 the bearing capacities obtained experimentally is significantly

higher than those predicted by theories except Hansen and Vesic method for given condition of

embedment due to the shape and depth factor. Geotechnical laboratories clearly shows that model

test results for model tests of bearing capacity for shallow foundation are, in general, much higher

than those calculated by traditional methods . The most important reason among several reason for

this is the unpredictability of Nᵧ and the model test scale effect .several bearing capacity test results

which shown in Fig 4.5 as plot of N  vs. B predicted by DeBeer (1965). The N  value rapidly

28
decreases with the increase in B value. The variation of Nᵧ obtained from small scale laboratory

and large scale field test results also compared, and these are given in Fig. 4.5

Figure 4.5: Variation of Nγ with γB (adapted after DeBeer, 1965)

29
Figure 4.6: Comparison of Nγ obtained from tests with small footings and large footings of

1m² area on sand (adapted after DeBeer, 1965).

30
 Table 4.2: Calculated values of ultimate bearing capacities qu by different theories along with

present experimental value

e/B Df/B Present Terzaghi Meyerhof Hansen Vesic Is

Experiment; (1943); (1963); (1970); (1973); code(6403-

qu(kN/m2) qu(kN/m2) qu(kN/m2) qu(kN/m2) qu(kN/m2) 1981);

qu(kN/m2)

0 0 87 58.19 47.22 39.49 54.15 54.15

0 0.5 160 123.59 108.61 144.90 159.56 127.57

0 1 230 188.98 181.82 269.49 284.15 215.14

4.3 Eccentric Loading Conditions

Twelve numbers of model tests are conducted in eccentric loading condition. The load settlement

curves of Circular foundations (e/B = 0, 0.05, 0.1 and 0.15) in surface condition are plotted in Fig.

4.7. The load carrying capacity decreases with increase in e/B ratio. Similarly, the variation of

load-settlement curve with depth of embedment (Df/B) shows by Fig.4.10 to Fig. 4.12

4.3.1 Surface Footing at Eccentric Loading Conditions

The ultimate bearing capacity of Circular footings with eccentric loading of (e/B = 0, 0.05, 0.1,

and 0.15) has been found out. The values obtained are presented in Table 4.4 and shows in Fig.4.7.

Similarly, for surface circular footing with load eccentricities the ultimate bearing capacities have

been computed and shown in Fig. 4.7. It is found that for eccentric loading e/B=0.05, 0.1, 0.15 the

31
ultimate bearing capacities are 78 kN/m2, 60 kN/m2 and 52 kN/m2 respectively. It is observed that

the UBC decreases with increase in eccentricity.

Table 4.3: Model test parameters for the case of Eccentric Loading condition

B/L Sand type Unit Relative Friction Df/B e/B

weight Density of angle
(kN/m3) Sand % φ
Direct
shear test
(Degree)
1 Dense 14.32 69 40.8 0 0

0.5 0.05

1 0.1

0.15

32
 Load Intensity(kN/m2)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

0

6
Settlement(mm)

e/B=0
8
e/B=0.05
10 e/B=0.10
12 e/B=0.15

14

16

18

20

22

Figure 4.7: Load Settlement Curve with Df/B=0, e=0, 0.05B, 0.10B, 0.15B

4.3.2 Embedded Footing at Eccentric Loading Conditions

In order to show the effect of embedment and effect of eccentricity, load-settlement curves have

been plotted for the case of eccentrically embedded footing. At a depth of embedment equal to

0.5B or 1.0B, the bearing capacity decreases with increase in eccentricity like surface footing at

any settlement level. It is seen that the ultimate bearing capacity of footing increases with the

increase in depth to width ratio of footing at any eccentricity. Similarly, at any depth of

embedment, the ultimate bearing capacity decreases with increase in eccentricity. The values

obtained are presented in Table 4.4.The same has been shown in Fig.4.8 and 4.9.

33
 Load Intensity(kN/m2)
0 50 100 150 200 250
0

10
e/B=0
Settlement(mm)

15 e/B=0.05
e/B=0.10
20 e/B=0.15

25

30

35

Figure 4.8: Load-Settlement Curve with Df/B=0.5, e=0, 0.05B, 0.10B, 0.15B

34
 Load Intensity(kN/m2)
0 100 200 300 400
0

10

15
e/B=0
Settlement(mm)

20 e/B=0.05
e/B=0.10
25
e/B=0.15
30

35

40

45

Figure 4.9: Load-Settlement Curve with Df/B=1 e=0, 0.05B, 0.10B, 0.15B

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

10

15
Settlement(mm)

20 Df/B=0
Df/B=0.5
25
Df/B=1
30

35

40

45

50

Figure 4.10: Variation of Load-Settlement Curve with Embedment ratio (Df/B) at e/B=0.05

35
 Load Intensity(kN/m2)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
0

10
Settlement(mm)
Df/B=0
Df/B=0.5
15
Df/B=1

20

25

30

Figure 4.11: Variation of Load-Settlement Curve with Embedment ratio (Df/B) at e/B=0.10

Load Intensity(kN/m2)
0 50 100 150 200
0

5
Settlement(mm)

Df/B-0
10 Df/B=0.5
Df/B=1

15

20

Figure 4.12: Variation of Load-Settlement Curve with Embedment ratio (Df/B) at e/B=0.15

36
By using Meyerhof’s effective area method the experimental ultimate bearing capacities for

eccentrically loaded foundations (e/B = 0, 0.05, 0.1 and 0.15, Df/B = 0, 0.5 and 1) are plotted along

with the bearing capacities obtained. This is shown in Fig. 4.13 and Table 4.4. The nature of

decrement of bearing capacity with the increase in eccentricity as observed from experimental

results are with those using Meyerhof’s method (1953). It can be seen from Fig.4.13 that the

difference in experimental UBC and computed UBC by Meyerhof’s method is more at higher

eccentricity and higher depth of embedment. Yamamoto and Hira (2009) used finite elements to

calculate the bearing capacity of surface foundations on frictional soils under eccentric loadings,

and for a friction angle of 35° and an eccentricity e = (1/3) B, they found a bearing capacity equal

to about 45% of the one determined by the effective width approach. Michalowski and You (1998)

also revealed that the effective width rule over- estimates the best upper bound to the average

bearing pressure for purely frictional (granular) soil and relatively small surcharge loads. Also for

a surface footing with eccentricity e/B =0.25 this overestimation is 35%, and it increases with an

increase in e/B.

37
 300 Present Experiment;Df/B=0
Meyerhof;Df/B=0
Present Experiment;Df/B=0.5
250 Meuerhof;Df/B=0.5
Present Experiment;Df/B=1
Meyerhof;Df/B=1
Ultimate Bearing Capacity qu(kN/m2)

200

150

100

50

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15
e/B

Figure4.13: Comparison of ultimate bearing capacities of Present experimental results

With Meyerhof at different Df/B and e/B

38
 Table 4.4: Calculated values of (qu) by Meyerhof (1963) for eccentric condition along with

Present experimental values of qu

e/B Df/B Present Meyerhof

Experiment; (1963);
qu (kN/m2) qu(kN/m2)

0 0 87 47.22

0.05 0 78 42.50

0.10 0 60 37.78

0.15 0 52 33.05

0 0.5 160 108.61

0.05 0.5 131 103.42

0.10 0.5 125 98.23

0.15 0.5 119 93.03

0 1 230 181.82

0.05 1 190 176.11

0.10 1 185 170.40

0.15 1 155 164.68

The reduction factor (RF) obtained from the present experimental data for the Circular footing has

been compared with the RF for strip footing as given by Purkayastha and Char at depth of

embedment (Df/B=0, 0.5, 1.0). The reduction factors at all eccentricities and at all depth of

embedment are not in well close agreement. These are shown in figures 4.14, 4.15 and 4.16

39
 Present
1.2 Experiment;Df/B=0
Purkayastha and Char
1 (1977);Df/B=0

Reduction Factor (Rk)

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15
e/B

Figure 4.14: Comparison of Present experimental results with Purkayastha and Char (1977) with

Df/B=0

1.2 Present
Experiment;Df/B=0.5
1 Purkayastha and Char
Reduction Factor (Rk)

(1977);Df/B=0.5
0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15
e/B

Figure 4.15: Comparison of Present experimental results with Purkayastha and Char (1977) with
Df/B=0.5

40
 1.2
Present
Experiment;Df/B=1

1
Purkayastha and
char(1977);Df/B=1
Reduction Factor (RK) 0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15
e/B

Figure 4.16: Comparison of Present experimental results with Purkayastha and Char (1977)

With Df /B=1.0

41
 Table 4.5: Calculated values of Rk by Purkayastha and Char (1977) for eccentric vertical

condition along with Present experimental values.

Df/B e/B Present Purkayastha and

Experiment; Char (1977);
Rk Rk
0 0 1 1

0 0.05 0.89 0.79

0 0.1 0.68 0.65

0 0.15 0.59 0.53

0.5 0 1 1

0.5 0.05 0.82 0.84

0.5 0.1 0.78 0.72

0.5 0.15 0.74 0.62

1 0 1 1

1 0.05 0.76 0.87

1 0.10 0.74 0.76

1 0.15 0.62 0.66

42
 CHAPTER 5
SUMMERISED

EXPERIMENTAL

RESULTS

43
Chapter 5 SUMMERIZED EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
5.1 Conclusion

Following are the conclusions drawn from the investigation which is according to the laboratory

experiments.

 Ultimate bearing capacity of circular footing is effected by the depth of embedment (Df/B)

and to the eccentricity ratio (e/B) of foundation.

 Ultimate bearing capacity decreases by increasing the eccentricity (e/B) ratio for both

surface and embedded condition.

 The ultimate bearing capacity by reduction factor developed from present experiments is

in well compared with existing theory by Purkayastha and char (1977).

 For the eccentric loaded circular footing the Bearing Capacity increases with increase in

embedment.

 Settlement of circular foundation increases by increasing embedment (Df/B) ratio.

44
Chapter 6

NUMERICAL

ANALYSIS

45
Chapter 6 NUMERICAL ANALYSIS
6.1 Introduction

PLAXIS is a FEM package used for analysis of stability and deformation of structure. It is

developed at the Technical University of Delft. At the initial stage, this was used to analyse the

soft soil river embankments of the lowlands of Holland. But later, a company named PLAXIS BV

was formed, and expansion of the program was done to address a wide range of geotechnical

issues. It requires advanced and anisotropic behaviour of soils and rock for analysis purpose. As

soil being a material with multiple phases, some additional methods are adopted to take care of

hydrostatic and non-hydrostatic pore pressures within the soil. Here, the modelling of the soil is

an important aspect. But many projects require the modelling of structures and the interaction

between soil and structure. PLAXIS is a software package well equipped with advanced features

to deal with complex problems involved in geotechnical engineering. There are two different

approaches: experimentally, by conducting model and full-scale tests; or, analytically, by using

methods such as finite elements used to solve the foundation engineering problem. Full-scale tests

are the ideal method for obtaining data, however, practical difficulties and economic

considerations either eliminate or considerably restrict the possibility of full-scale testing. As an

alternative model tests may be employed, but they have disadvantages. Boundary conditions, the

size of the footing, the sample disturbance, the test setup and procedure of the testing box usually

affected the model tests results. Due to the fortunate developments in numerical methods and

computer programming, it is advantageous to use these techniques to simulate the conditions of

model tests to verify the theoretical models. The theoretical study can then be extended to cover a

wide range of field cases which engineers omitted using full-scale testing.

46
In the present study, the program “PLAXIS 3D” used for Numerical analysis. It is a finite-element

based software. The stresses, strains and failure aspects of a given problem can be evaluated by

using this software.

6.2 METHODOLOGY

The finite element program PLAXIS 3D (version 2013), is used to model the tests of circular

footing on granular sand. PLAXIS is intended for the analysis of deformation and stability in

geotechnical engineering projects. The Mohr–Coulomb model is used for soil and linear-elastic

model is used for the footing; undrained behavior is adopted for the analysis and 10-node

tetrahedral elements are used for the analysis. Elastic modulus of sand (E) is calculated from stress

strain curve (Lysandros pantelidis 2005). The parameters used in the analysis are tabulated in

below Table

Table 6.1: Parameter used in numerical analysis

Parameter Value

Angle of internal friction (ø) (°) 40.8

Unit weight of sand (kN/m3) 14.32

Unit weight of steel (kN/m3) 78.5

Poisson’s ratio (ν) 0.33

Modulus of elasticity of sand (E) (kN/m2) 9000

Modulus of elasticity of steel(E) (kN/m2) 2  10 8

Dilatancy angle ψ (°) 10.8

Relative density of sand (Dr) (%) 69

Cohesion C (kN/m2) 0

47
6.2.1Testing procedure

First a geometric model of dimension 1m x 0.5m x 0.655m is created. The footing of size (0 .1m

diameter and 0 .025m thickness) is placed on the top surface of the soil model at desired position

at the center or a distance away from it according to different eccentricities. A very fine mesh is

generated in the geometry. An incremental vertical load is applied on the surface of the footing,

according to different loading conditions. Then the loading point of the soil model is selected for

the analysis. The calculations are done until the failure of the soil. The load- settlement curve

obtained from the output gave the ultimate bearing capacity of the circular footing by using tangent

intersection method for different loading conditions. Same procedure is adopted for different

loading conditions. Given Fig.6.1 shows the general procedure of analysis

View
Calculation output
Selecting, phase
Generation the
Giving soil of mesh applied
and material load point
Creating
the properties
geometry

Figure 6.1: General procedure of analysis

48
Figure 6.2: Geometry model for analysis at surface condition (e/B=0)

Figure 6.3: Geometry model of eccentrically loaded footing at (Df/B=0, e/B=0.15)

49
 Figure 6.4: Failure pattern at eccentric condition (e/B=0.15)

6.3 Results analysis

Numerical analysis have been occurred over unreinforced soil with circular footing by using

PLAXIS 3D.The result has been investigated for surface case (Df/B=0) and embedded case of

(Df/B=0.5, 1.0) along with different eccentric condition (e/B=0, 0.05, 0.10, 0.15).The load

settlement curve for surface condition at different eccentric ratio shown by Fig.6.7. Fig. 6.9 shown

the load settlement curve for embedded condition at different eccentric ratio. For both the cases

50
ultimate bearing capacity decreases by increasing eccentricity. By increasing embedment ratio

ultimate bearing capacity increases.

Load Intensity(kN/m2)
0 50 100 150 200
0

qU
5
Settlement(mm)

10 e/B=0

15

20

25

Fig.6.5: qu value shown by tangent intersection method at e/B=0, Df/B=0

51
 Load Intenity(kN/m2)
0 50 100 150 200
0

e/B=0
Settlement(mm)

10 e/B=0.05
e/B=0.10
e/B=0.15
15

20

25

Figure 6.6: Variation in Load settlement curve at Df/B=0

52
 Load Intensity(kN/m2)
0 100 200 300 400 500
0

4
e/B=0
Settlement(mm)

e/B=0.05
6
e/B=0.10
8 e/B=0.15

10

12

14

Figure.6.7: Variation in Load settlement curve at Df/B=0.5

Load Intensity(kN/m2)
0 200 400 600 800
0

5
Settlement(mm)

e/B=0
10 e/B=0.05
e/B=0.10
e/B=0.15
15

20

25

Figure 6.8: Variation in Load settlement curve at Df/B=1

53
6.3.1 Comparison
Fig.6.9 to Fig. 6.12 shown the load settlement compared curve for some cases obtained by both

experimental and numerical analysis by using circular footing. Almost same pattern observed in

comparison. The value of qu obtained numerically higher then experimental due to the soil

parameter such as elasticity modulus used in analysis and the displacement value obtained in the

laboratory. There is good compatibility of observation between experiment and numerical analysis.

Load Intensity(kN/m2)
0 50 100 150 200
0

Plaxis Result
Settlement(mm)

10
Experimental
Result
15

20

25

Figure 6.9: Comparison Load settlement curve at Df/B=0, e/B=0

54
 Load Intensity(kN/m2)
0 50 100 150 200
0

Plaxis Result
Settlement(mm)

10

Experimental
Result
15

20

25

Figure 6.10: Comparison Load settlement curve at Df/B=0, e/B=0.05

55
 Load Intensity(kN/m2)
0 50 100 150
0

6
Settlement(mm)
Plaxis Result
8
Experimental
10 Result

12

14

16

18

Figure 6.11: Comparison Load settlement curve at Df/B=0, e/B=0.10

Load Intensity(kN/m2)
0 20 40 60 80 100
0

4
Plaxis Result
Settlement(mm)

6
Experimental
Result
8

10

12

14

Figure 6.12: Comparison Load settlement curve at Df/B=0, e/B=0.15

56
Table 6.2: Calculated value of qu by PLAIXS 3D for eccentric condition along with
experimental value

e/B Df/B Present PLAXIS 3D

Experiment; result;
qu (kN/m2) qu(kN/m2)

0 0 87 125

0.05 0 78 114

0.1 0 60 98

0.15 0 52 80

0 0.5 160 383

0.05 0.5 131 335

0.1 0.5 125 308

0.15 0.5 119 280

0 1 230 545

0.05 1 190 517

0.1 1 185 508

0.15 1 155 450

57
 600 Present Experiment;Df/B=0
Plaxis Result;Df/B=0
Present Experiment;Df/B=0.5
Plaxis Result;Df/B=0.5
Ultimate Bearing Capacity qu(kN/m2)

Present Experiment;Df/B=1
400 Plaxis Result;Df/B=1

200

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15
e/B

Figure 6.13: Comparison of ultimate Bearing capacity at different e/B (0, 0.05, 0.10, and 0.15)
for present experiment results with PLAXIS 3D result

The nature of decrement of bearing capacity with the increase in eccentricity as observed from

experimental results are with those using PLAXIS 3D results. It can be seen from Fig. 6.13 that

the UBC by PLAXIS 3D method giving higher value than experimental UBC.UBC value increases

by increasing the depth of embedment.

58
 CHAPTER 7
Conclusion AND

SCOPE OF FUTURE

WORK

59
7.1Conclusion CONCLUSION AND SCOPE OF FUTURE WORK

As per numerical analysis following conclusions are drawn:

Numerical analysis and experimental analysis on model circular footing revealed that ultimate

bearing capacity affected by depth of embedment (Df/B), and different eccentric ratio e/B.

 Ultimate bearing capacity decreases by increasing the eccentricity (e/B) ratio for both

surface and embedded condition.

 For the eccentric loaded circular footing, with increase in embedment depth bearing

capacity increases.

 Maximum value of ultimate bearing capacity for each cases are obtained numerically in

comparison to experimental.

7.2 Future research work

The present thesis is relevant to the study at different depth of embedment on the bearing capacity

of eccentrically loaded circular footing on sand bed and eccentrically loaded at surface condition.

The future research work should address the below mentioned points:

 The present work can be extended to study the behavior of circular foundations of different

sizes (Different diameter (B)) at different depth of embedment (Df /B=0.5, 1.0)

 Large scale study should be carried out to validate the present developed equations. The

present work can be extended to foundations on cohesive soil.

 The present work can be extended to reinforced soil condition for different depth of

embedment.

60
 A generalized equation for Ultimate bearing capacity of reinforced sand bed can be

derived for any shape (i.e. Circular, square, rectangular and strip) of footing.

 Present experiment have not been investigated for effect of other parameter (scale effect,

different relative density, different type of soil etc.)

61
CHAPTER 8

REFERENCES

62
Chapter 8 REFERENCES
References

Basudhar,P.K.,Saha,Santanu.,Deb,Kousik (2007) “Circular footings resting on geotextile-

reinforced sand bed” Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Kanpur Geotextiles and

Geomembranes 25,pp.377–384.

Boushehrian,J.H.,Hataf,N., (2003) “Experimental and numerical investigation of the bearing

capacity of model circular and ring footings on reinforced sand” Department of Civil Engineering,

Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran Geotextiles and Geomembranes 21(4),pp. 241–256.

Cerato A.B.,Lutenegger A,J., (2006) “Bearing capacity of square and circular footings on a finite

layer of granular soil underlain by a rigid base” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental

Engineering ASCE vol.132,No.11,pp.1496-1501.

Dash,S.K.,Sireesh,S.,Sitharam,T.G., (2003) “Model studies on circular footing supported on

geocell reinforced sand underlain by Soft clay” Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute

of Science. Bangalore 560012. India Geotextiles and Geomembranes 21, pp.197-219.

DeBeer E.E., (1970) “Experimental determination of the shape factors and the bearing capacity

factors of sand” Geotechnique 20, no.4: pp. 387-411.

Dewaikar,D.M.,Guptha,K.G.,Chore,S.H., (2011) “An Experimental Study into Behaviour of

Circular Footing on Reinforced Soil "International scientific conference ,pp.630-634.

Elsaied,A.E.,Saleh,N.M.,Elmasha.M.E., (2014) “Behavior of circular footing resting on laterally

confined granular reinforced soil” Construction Research Institute, Egypt, Civil Eng. Department,

Benha University, Egypt, Housing and Building National Research Center,pp.1-6

63
Gupta, Ravi, Kumar, Rakesh, Jain, P.K., (2014) “behaviour of circular footing resting on three

dimensional confined sand” International Journal of Advanced Engineering Technology Vol-V,

pp.11-13.

Lovisa, J.,Shukla,S.K.,Sivakugan,N., (2010) “Behaviour of prestressed geotextile-reinforced sand

bed supporting a loaded circular footing” Geotextiles and Geomembranes 28 ,pp. 23–32

Meyerhof G.G. (1953) “The Bearing Capacity of Foundations under Eccentric and Inclined

Loads” In Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Zurich, vol. 1, pp. 440-45.

Meyerhof G. G. (1963). “Some recent research on the bearing capacity of foundation.” Canadian

Geotech. J. 1(1), pp. 16-26.

Meyerhof G.G (1974). “Ultimate bearing capacity of footings on sand layer overlying clay”

Can.Geotech j, 11, pp.223-229.

Nagaraj,T.K.,Ullgaddi,B.P., (2010) “Experimental Study on Load Settlement Behavior of Sand

Foundations” Indian Geotechnical Conference GEOtrendz IGS Mumbai Chapter & IIT

Bombay,pp.807-808.

Patra, C.R., Behera, R.N., Sivakugan, N., Das, B.M.(2012) “Ultimate bearing capacity of shallow

strip foundation under eccentrically inclined load”: part I, International Journal of Geotechnical

Engineering 6, no.3: pp. 343-352.

Patra, C.R., Behera, R.N., Sivakugan, N., Das, B.M. (2013) “Estimation of average settlement of

shallow strip foundation on granular soil under eccentric loading” International Journal of

Geotechnical Engineering 7,no.2, pp.218-222.

64
Prakash, S. and Saran, S. (1971) “Bearing capacity of eccentrically loaded footings”, Journal Soil

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

Purkayastha, R.D., and Char, R.A.N. (1977) “Sensitivity analysis for eccentrically loaded

footings.” J.Geotech.Eng. Div., ASCE, 103(6), 647.

Rahman, M.G., (1981) “Bearing capacity and settlement of circular footing on sand “Department

of civil Engineering Ottawa university Canada, pp.1-173.

Sitharam,T.G.,Sireesh,S., (2004) “Model studies of embedded circular footing on Geogrid-

Reinforced sand beds” Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore,

India. Ground improvement 8, No. 2, pp. 69-75.

Sireesh, S., Sitharam, T.G. Dash, S.K., (2009) “Bearing capacity of circular footing on geocell–

sand mattress overlying clay bed with void”. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 27, pp. 89–98.

Taiebat, H. A. & Carter, J.P. (2002) “Bearing capacity of strip and circular foundations on

undrained Clay subjected to eccentric loads”. Geotechnique 52, no. 1, pp. 61–64.

Terzaghi, K. (1943) Theoretical Soil Mechanics, Wiley, New York.

Vesic, A.S., (1975) “Bearing capacity of Shallow foundations. In Geotechnical Engineering

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

65