Foundation Engineering Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations 20

CHAPTER TWO

BEARING CAPACITY OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

Table of Contents
Page No.
2.0 Introduction..................................................................................- 21 -
2.1 Bearing Failure Modes.....................................................................- 21 -
2.2 Ultimate Bearing Capacity Equations.................................................- 22 -
2.2.1 Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity equation.............................................- 22 -
2.2.2 Meyerhof’s Bearing Capacity equation............................................- 24 -
2.2.3 Hansen’s Bearing Capacity Equation..............................................- 25 -
2.2.4 A comparative summary of the three bearing capacity equations.......- 28 -
2.2.5 Allowable bearing capacity and factor of safety...............................- 32 -
2.2.6 Eccentric Loads..........................................................................- 32 -
2.3 Field Tests....................................................................................- 34 -
2.3.1 Plate Loading Test.......................................................................- 34 -
2.3.2 Standard Penetration Test (SPT)....................................................- 35 -
2.4. Methods of Improving Bearing Capacity of soils…………………………………..-
2.5. Bearing Capacity of footings on slops……………………………………………………-
2.6. Foundations on Rocks…………………………………………………………………………….-
2.7. Bearing Capacity of footings on Layered soils……………………………………….-
2.8. Proportioning of footings………………………………………………………………………..-

20
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations 21

2.0 Introduction

A foundation, often constructed from concrete, steel or wood, is a structure

designed to transfer loads from a superstructure to the soil underneath the
superstructure. In general, foundations are categorized into two groups, namely,
shallow and deep foundations. Shallow foundations are comprised of footings, while
deep foundations include piles that are used when the soil near the ground surface
has no enough strength to stand the applied loading. The ultimate bearing
capacity, qu, (in kPa) is the load that causes the shear failure of the soil
underneath and adjacent to the footing. In this chapter, we will discuss equations
used to estimate the ultimate bearing capacity of soils. When you complete this
chapter you should be able to:
 Calculate the bearing capacity of soils.

2.1 Bearing Failure Modes

Figure 2.1: Modes of bearing failures (a) General shear (b) Local shear and (c)
Punching shear.

21
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations 22

Relative density of the soil and size of the foundation are among the major
factors that affect the mode of bearing failure likely to occur. The modes of bearing
failure are generally separated into three categories: The general shear failure
(Fig. 1.1 a) is usually associated with soils of low compressibility such as dense
sand and stiff cohesive soils. In this case, if load is gradually applied to the
foundation, settlement will increase. At a certain point – when the applied load per
unit area equals to the ultimate load qu – a sudden failure in the soil supporting
the foundation will take place. The failure surface in the soil will extend to the
ground surface and full shear resistance of the soil is developed along the failure
surface. Bulging of the soil near the footing is usually apparent.
For the local shear failure (Fig. 1.1 b), which is common in sands and clays
of medium compaction, the failure surface will gradually extend outward from the
foundation but will not reach the ground surface as shown by the solid segment in
Fig. 1.1 b. The shear resistance is fully developed over only part of the failure
surface (solid segment of the line). There is a certain degree of bulging of the soil.
In the case of punching shear failure, a condition common in loose and
very compressible soils, considerable vertical settlement may take place with the
failure surfaces restricted to vertical planes immediately adjacent to the sides of the
foundation; the ground surface may be dragged down. After the first yield has
occurred the load-settlement curve will be steep slightly, but remain fairly flat.

2.2 Ultimate Bearing Capacity Equations

2.2.1 Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity equation

Many of the present day principles regarding bearing capacity equations

appear to have had their origin on a failure mechanism proposed by Prandtl in the
early 1920s (refer literature for Prandtl’s failure mechanism). Prandtl developed a
bearing capacity

22
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations 23

Figure 2.2: Failure mechanism for Terzhagi’s bearing capacity solution.

Equation assuming a smooth (frictionless) footing and ignoring the weight of the
soil in the failure zone. These assumptions are not true in practice and therefore
Prandtl’s equation is never used in practical design, but it was a beginning.
Terzhagi (1943) improved the Prandtl equation to include the roughness of
the footing and the weight of the failure zone. The failure mechanism in a c’, ’ soil
for Terzhagi’s bearing capacity solution is shown in Fig. 2.2. Terzhagi’s ultimate
bearing capacity equations are given as follows:

Strip (or long) footing: (2.1)

Square footing: (2.2)

Circular footing: (2.3)

where Nc, Nq and N are called the bearing capacity factors and are obtained as
follows:

, , (2.4)

23
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations 24

Figure 2.3: Terzhagi’s bearing capacity coefficients.

Figure 2.3 shows the variation of the bearing capacity factors provided by Terzhagi.
Based on this figure, Aysen (2002) proposed the following equation to obtain the
value of Kp in the N equation:
(2.5)
where in the first term is in radians. In the undrained conditions (cu and ):

, , (2.6)

2.2.2 Meyerhof’s Bearing Capacity equation

Meyerhof (1951) developed a bearing capacity equation by extending

Terzhagi’s failure mechanism and taking into account the effects of footing shape,
load inclination and footing depth by adding the corresponding factors of s, d, and i.
For a rectangular footing of L by B (L > B) and inclined load:

(2.7)

For vertical load, ic = iq = i = 1

24
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations 25

(2.8)

Figure 2.4: Meyerhof’s bearing capacity coefficients.

The bearing capacity factors:
, , (2.9)
In the undrained conditions (cu and ):

, ,

The bearing capacity factors are graphically presented in Fig. 2.4. The shape, inclination
and depth factors are according to:
Shape Depth Inclination

Any

For sq = s = 1 dq = d = 1 i = 0

For

, =angle of resultant measured from vertical axis.

when triaxial is used for plane strain, adjust to obtain

25
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations 26

For the eccentric load, the length and width of the footing rectangle are modified
to: L’ = L – 2eL and B’ = B – 2eB (2.9)
where eL and eB represent the eccentricity along the appropriate directions.

2.2.3 Hansen’s Bearing Capacity Equation

Hansen (1961) extended Meyerhof’s solutions by considering the effects of

sloping ground surface and tilted base (Fig. 2.5) as well as modification of N and
other factors. For a rectangular footing of L by B (L > B) and inclined ground
surface, base and load:

(2.10)

Equation 2.9 is sometimes referred to as the general bearing capacity equation. In

the special case of a horizontal ground surface,

(2.11)

Figure 2.5: Identification of items in Hansen’s bearing capacity equation.

Figure 2.6 provides the relationships between Nc, Nq, and N and the values, as

26
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations 27

proposed by Hansen.

Figure 2.6: Hansen’s bearing capacity coefficients.

The bearing capacity factors Nc and Nq are identical with Meyerhof’s factors. N is
defined by:

(2.12)

Since failure can take place either along the long side or along the short side,
Hansen proposed two sets of shape, inclination and depth factors.
The shape factors are:

, , (2.13)

, , (2.14)

For cu, u=0 soil: , (2.15)

27
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations 28

The inclination factors are:

, , (2.16)

where the suffix i (in Eqn. 2.15) stands for B or L. . . A is the

area of the footing base and cb is the cohesion mobilized in the footing-soil contact
area. For the tilted base:

(2.17)

For cu, u=0 soil: (2.18)

In the above equations, B and L may be replaced by their effective values (B’ and
L’) expressed by Eqn. (2.9).
The depth factors are expressed in two sets:
For D/B 1 & D/L 1:

, (2.19)

, (2.20)

For D/B > 1 & D/L > 1:

, (2.21)

, (2.22)

For both sets: (2.23)

For cu, u soil: , (2.24)

For the sloping ground and tilted base, the ground factors gi and base factors bi are
proposed by the following equations. The angles  and  are at the same plane,
either parallel to B or L.

, (2.25)

For cu, u soil: (2.26)

28
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations 29

, , (2.27)

For cu, u soil: (2.28)

2.2.4 A comparative summary of the three bearing capacity equations

Terzaghi’s equations were and are still widely used, perhaps because they are
somewhat simpler than Meyerhof’s and Hansen’s. Practitioners use Terzaghi’s
equations for a very cohesive soil and D/B < 1. However, Terzaghi’s equations have
the following major drawbacks:
 Shape, depth and inclination factors are not considered.
 Terzaghi’s equations are suitable for a concentrically loaded horizontal
footing but are not suitable for eccentrically (for example, columns with
moment or titled forces) loaded footings that are very common in practice.
 The equations are generally conservative than Meyerhof’s and Hansen’s.

Currently, Meyerhof’s and Hansen’s equations are more widely used than
Terzaghi’s. Both are viewed as somewhat less conservative and applicable to more
general conditions. Hansen’s is, however, used when the base is tilted or when the
footing is on a slope and for D/B > 1.

EXAMPLE 2.1
Given the data in Fig. E2.1, determine the ultimate bearing capacity qu using:
a)Terzaghi’s, b) Meyerhof’s and c) Hansen’s bearing capacity equations.

Figure E2.1: An isolated footing.

EAMPLE 2.2
Determine the ultimate bearing capacity of a square footing 1.5 m, at a depth of 1

29
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations 30

m in a soil c’ = 10 kPa, =280, cu = 105 kPa, =0 and = 19 kN/m3. Use

Terzaghi’s, Meyerhof’s and Hansen’s bearing capacity equations.

Strategy It is a good policy to sketch a diagram illustrating the conditions given.

EAMPLE 2.3
A square footing 1.5 m is to be constructed in sand with c’ = 0, =400. The

thickness of the footing is 0.45 m and its top surface is level with the horizontal
ground surface. The footing is subjected to a central vertical force of 700 kN and a
central horizontal force (parallel to the sides) of 210 kN. Find the ultimate bearing
capacity by a) Meyerhof’s and b) Hansen’s equations. (Note that Terzaghi’s
equations are not applicable for inclined loads). The unit weight of the sand is 18
kN/m3.

2.2.1 Effects of Groundwater Table on Bearing Capacity

For all the bearing capacity equations, you will have to make some
adjustments for the groundwater condition. The term in the bearing capacity
equations refers to the vertical stress of the soil above the base of the footing. The
last term refers to the vertical stress of a soil mass of thickness B, below the
base of the footing. You need to check which one of the three groundwater
situations is applicable to your project.
Situation 1: Groundwater level at a depth B below the base of the footing. In this
case no modification of the bearing capacity equations is required.

Situation 2: Groundwater level within a depth B below the base of the footing. If
the groundwater level is at a depth z below the base, such that z < B, then the
term is or . The later equation is used if the soil

30
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations 31

above the groundwater level is also saturated. The term remains unchanged.

Situation 3: Groundwater level within the embedment depth. If the groundwater is

at a depth z within the embedment such that z < D, then the term is
or . The latter equation is used if the soil above the
groundwater level is also saturated. The term becomes .

Figure E2.7: Groundwater within a) a depth B below base, b) embedment depth.

31
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations 32

EAMPLE 2.4
Re-do example 2.3 assuming that the groundwater level is at the footing level (0.45
m below the ground surface). The saturated unit weight is 21 kN/m3.

EAMPLE 2.5

A square footing is shown in figure below. Determine the safe gross load ( Factor of
safety of 3.0) that the footing can carry.

Fig.E2.5. Square footing.

2.2.5 Allowable bearing capacity and factor of safety

The allowable bearing capacity, qa is calculated by dividing the ultimate

bearing capacity by a factor, called the factor of safety, FS. The FS is intended to
compensate for assumptions made in developing the bearing capacity equations,
soil variability, inaccurate soil data, and uncertainties of loads. The magnitude of FS
applied to the ultimate bearing capacity may be between 2 and 3. The allowable
bearing capacity is:

(2.29)

Alternatively, if the maximum applied foundation stress is known and the

dimension of the footing is also known then you can find a factor of safety by
replacing qa by in Eqn. (2.29):

32
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations 33

(2.30)

2.2.6 Eccentric Loads

Meyerhof (1963) proposed an approximate method for loads that are located
off-centered (or eccentric loads).

Figure A1
He proposed that for a rectangular footing of width B and length L, the base area
should be modified with the following dimensions:
B’ = B – 2eB and L’ =L - 2eL (1)
Where B’ and L’ are the modified width and length, eB and eL are the eccentricities
in the directions of the width and length, respectively. From your course in
mechanics you should recall that

and (2)

where P is the vertical load, and My and Mx are the moments about the y and x
axes, respectively, as shown in Fig. A1.

The maximum and minimum vertical stresses along the x axis are:

and (3)

and along the y axis are:

and (4)

Since the tensile strength of soils is approximately zero, should always be

33
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations 34

greater than zero. Therefore, eB & eL should always be less than B/6 & L/6,
respectively. The bearing capacity equations are modified for eccentric loads by
replacing B with B’.

EXAMPLE 2.6

A footing 2 m square is located at a depth of 1 m below the ground surface in a

deep deposit of compacted sand, =300, c’=0, and =18 kN/m3. The footing is
subjected to a vertical load of 500 kN and a moment about the Y-axis of 125 kN ・
m. The ground water table is 5 m below the ground surface. Use Meyerhof’s bearing
capacity equation and calculate the factor of safety. Assume the soil above the
ground water is also saturated.

2.3 Field Tests

Often, it is difficult to obtain undisturbed samples of especially coarse-grained

soils for laboratory testing and one has to use results from field tests to determine
the bearing capacity of shallow foundations. Some of the most common methods
used for field tests are briefly described below.

2.3.1 Plate Loading Test

Tests on full sized footings are desirable but expensive. The alternative is to
carry out plate loading tests. The plate loading test is carried out to estimate the
bearing capacity of single footings. The plates that are used in the field are usually
made of steel and are 25 mm thick and 150 mm to 762 mm in diameter. A circular

34
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations 35

plate of 300 mm is commonly used in practice. Occasionally, square plates that are
300 mm×300 mm are also used.
To conduct a plate load test, a hole is excavated (Fig. 2.8) with a minimum
diameter 4BP (BP = diameter of the test plate) to a depth of D (D = depth of the
proposed foundation). The plate is placed at the center of the hole. Load is applied
to the plate in increments of 10% to 20% of the estimated ultimate load. Each load
increment is held until settlement ceases. The final settlement at the end of each
loading increment is recorded. The test should be conducted until the soil fails, or at
least until the plate has gone through 25 mm of settlement.

Figure 2.8: Plate Loading Test

For tests in clay,

(2.31)

Where qu (F) & qu (P) are ultimate bearing capacity of foundation and plate,
respectively. Eqn. (2.31) implies that the bearing capacity in clays is independent
of plate size.
For tests in sandy soil,

(2.32)

Where BF and BP stand for width of foundation and plate, respectively.

There are several problems associated with the plate load test. The test is
reliable if the soil layer is thick and homogeneous, local conditions such as a pocket
of weak soil near the surface of plate can affect the test results but these may have
no significant effect on the real footing, the correlation between plate load results
and real footing is problematic, and performance of the test is generally difficult.

2.3.2 Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is used to determine the allowable

bearing capacity of cohesionless coarse-grained soils such as sands. The test

35
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations 36

procedure for SPT has been introduced in Chapter 1. The N values obtained from
SPT are usually corrected for various effects such as overburden pressure and
energy transfer. The following are two of the most commonly used methods in
practice for correcting the N values.

1. DILATANCY CORRECTION: Silty fine sands and fine sands below the water
table develop pore pressure that is not easily dissipated. The pore pressure
increases the resistance of the soil and hence the penetration number (N)
Terzaghi and peck (1967) recommended the following correction in the case
of silty fine sands when the observed value of N exceeds 15.

The coorected penetration number, Nc

Nc=15+0.5(NR-15)

Where NR is the recorded value and Nc is the corrected value.

If NR≤15,Nc=NR

2. OVERBURDEN PRESSURE CORRECTION: In granular soils, the

overburden pressure affects the penetration resistance. If two soils having
the same relative density but different confining pressures are tested, the
one with a higher confining pressure gives a higher penetration number. As
the confining pressure in cohesionless soils increases with the depth, the
penetration number for soils at shallow depths is underestimated and that at
greater depths is overestimated. For uniformity, the N-values obtained from
field tests under different effective overburden pressure are corrected to a
standard effective overburden pressure.

(Liao and Whitman, 1985) (2.33)

(Peck et al., 1974) (2.34)

Where cN is a correction factor for overburden pressure, and is the effective

overburden pressure in kPa. A further correction factor is imposed on N values if

36
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations 37

the groundwater level is within a depth B below the base of the footing. The
groundwater correction factor is:

(2.35)

Where z is the depth to the groundwater table, and D and B are the footing depth
and width. If the depth of the groundwater table is beyond B from the footing base
cW = 1. The corrected N value is:

Meyerhof (1956, 1974) proposed the following equations to determine the allowable
bearing capacity qa from SPT values.

B 1.22 m (2.36)

B > 1.22 m (2.37)

where Se is the elastic settlement of the layer in mm and kd = 1 + 0.33D/B 1.33.

In practice, each value of N is a soil layer up to a depth B below the footing base is
corrected and an average value of Ncor is used in Eqn. (2.37).
Bowles (1996) modified Meyerhof’s equations by 50% increase in the
allowable bearing capacity. Bowles’s equations are:

B 1.22 m (2.36)

B > 1.22 m (2.37)

In the above equations N is the statistical average value for the footing influence
zone of about 0.5B above footing base to at least 2B below. Weighted average
using depth increment X N may be preferable to an ordinary arithmetic average:
that is,

Nav=(∑N*Zi)/(∑Zi)

For pile foundations there may be merit in the simple averaging of blow count N for
any stratum unless it is very thick- (thick being a relative term). Here it may be
better to subdivide the thick stratum into several “strata” and average the N count
for each subdivision.

37
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations 38

If there are consistently low values of N below this zone, settlements may be
troublesome if N is not reduced somewhat to reflect this event.
It can be noted, in the above equations, that footing width is a significant
parameter. Obviously if the depth of influence is on the order of 2B a larger footing
width will affect the soil to a greater depth and strains integrated over a greater
depth will produce a larger settlement. This is taken in to account somewhat for
mats, which are considered by both Meyerhof and Bowles to obtain in the previous
equations.

Both Meyerhof’s and Bowle’s equations are most viable and only reliable in
formations of sand, silty sand, and mixtures of silt, sand, and fine gravel. Thus,
careful scrutiny should be used in establishing a qall from SPT tests in fine-grained
soils such as silt and particularly clay, since silt and clay may be softened or
stiffened with an increase or decrease in the moisture content. Correspondingly, the
SPT results may vary in the same silt or clay formations if the moisture conditions
change.

Practical Problem Encountered: A one-story school building that was designed

using a qall based on a very high blow count (large N values) obtained during a dry
season (and low water table). The SPT information was used as a sole basis for
determining qall. Gradually, but cumulatively, over a three-year span from
construction, cracks exceeding 5cm developed in the on-grade concrete slab. A
subsequent evaluation revealed a clay stratum vulnerable to significant shrinkage
and swelling from notable changes in the water content.
In the same context, SPT numbers may be misleading if the formation should
contain large-size gravel. The large size gravel may wedge itself into a split-spoon
sampler thereby resulting in a large, misleading N value.
2.4 Methods Improving the Bearing Capacity of Soils

Significant increase in the bearing capacity of a soil can be achieved by altering the
soil properties of, cohesion c, or density. Usually an increase in density (or unit
weight) is accompanied by an increase in either  or c or both (assuming the soil is
cohesive). Particle packing (compaction) always increases the density, with a
resulting decrease in void ratio, and reduces long term settlements. Particle packing
usually increases the stress-strain modulus so that any “immediate” settlements

38
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations 39

are also reduced.

Methods of Soil Property Modification

Mechanical stabilization:

 Stabilization is achieved by altering grain size gradation of the site soil.

 Binder (material passing through No. 4 (0.425mm) sieve) is added for soil
dominated by gravel (from 75mm – 1mm). Where the soil is predominantly
cohesive, granular soil is imported and blended with the site soil.
 It usually requires much more granular materials to stabilize cohesive deposits
than binder for cohesionless deposits and as result other stabilizing
methodsare usually used for clayey soils.

Compaction
 This method usually uses some kind of rolling equipment to achieve particle
packing for both cohesionless and cohesive soils and is usually the most
economical.

39
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations 40

40
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations 41

Figure:
a:

Preloading
 Used in combination with drainage, it is primarily taken to reduce future
settlement but may also be used to increase shear strength.
Drainage
 A method undertaken to remove soil water and to speed up settlements under
preloading.
Densification using vibratory equipment
 The method uses some type of vibrating probe, which is inserted into the soil
mass and withdrawn.

41
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations 42

 Densification is particularly useful in sand, silty sand, gravelly sand deposits

with Dr less than about 50 to 60 percent.
Use of in-situ reinforcement
 The treatment produces composite ground. A trial spacing is chosen and
column of material such as stone, sand, cement, or lime is inserted in the
excavated soil and rammed.
 The drilled diameters usually range in between 600mm and 800mm and depth
of 4m to 8m.
Grouting
 Injection of a viscous fluid to reduce the void ratio (and k) or to cement rock
cracks. Most commonly, the viscous fluid is a mix water and water or water
and lime, and/or with additives such as fine sand, bentonite clay, or fly ash.
Geotextiles
 Synthetic fabric that is sufficiently durable to last a reasonable length of time
in the hostile soil environment.
 Because of their tensile strength, geotextiles are sometimes placed over weak
(poor bearing capacities) soils to form reinforcement. Generally, a layer of
controlled fill is placed over the geotextile, thereby creating a form of
composite that spans over the weak soil.
Chemical stabilization
 It involves use of chemical stabilizers (also termed chemical grouting). It is
seldom employed because of cost.
 The more commonly used chemical agents are phosphoric acid, calcium
chloride, and sodium silicate (or water glass).
 Various chemicals added to a soil may yield one but more likely a number of
changes in a soil formation: (I) reduce permeability of the soil (e.g. in dam
construction, excavation infiltration). (ii) Increase soil strength. (iii) Increase
bearing capacity (IV) decrease settlement. (v) Produce a stiffening of loose
sand formation and thus minimize undesirable effects, such as from vibrations.

2.5. Bearing Capacity of Footings on slopes:

Before construction of footings on sloping ground, the stability of the slope itself
must be investigated. Footings should not be constructed on slopes which are
unstable. They should also be avoided on slopes where slow creep of the superficial
material takes place. The stability of a stable slope may be endangered by the

42
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations 43

addition of footings. Hence the stability of footings must be investigated both before
and after construction of footings.
Footings on sloping ground:
 Should have sufficient edge distance (minimum 2 to 3 ft) as protection
against erosion.
 Should be carried below the depth of frost penetration.
 Should be carried below the top (organic) soil, miscellaneous fill, abandoned
foundation, and debris.
The bearing capacity of footings on sloping ground may be determined by the
following equation (Meyerohf’s, 1957):
q=CNcq+0.5γBNq
Where Ncq and Nγq vary with the slope of the ground, the relative position of the
footing and the angle of internal friction of the soil.

43
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations 44

Fig.2.9. Ultimate bearing capacity of continuous footings on slopes.

Example 2.7.

Figure E2.9. Shows a shallow strip footing on the top of a clay slope. Determine the

allowable bearing capacity of the foundation with a factor of safety of 4.0

Fig.E2.9. Strip Foundation on clay slope.

44
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations 45

2.8. Proportioning of footings:

2.8.1 Proportioning of footings using presumptive allowable soil pressures:

Through many years of practice, it has been possible to estimate the allowable soil
pressure for the different types of soils for uncomplicated soil conditions.
Accordingly different building codes give allowable average soil pressure σas.
After picking up the allowable soil pressure σas for a given soil, one may determine
the area and subsequently the proportions of a footing necessary to sustain a given
load or a combination of loads as in the figure …..
The allowable soil pressure, σas is given by:

Where

P=Load sustained by the footing.

A=a.b=area of footing.
a=Length of footing.
b=Width of footing.
The designer should fix the geometric shape (square, rectangle, circle) and the

ratio between a and b of the footing prior to the application of the above equation.

Since all other quantities in the above equation are known, one readily determines

the area A of the footing.

Figure: Proportioning of footings using presumptive value

45
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations 46

2.8.2. Proportioning of footings using the soil strength parameters ф and

C.

For cases where presumptive allowable soil pressures cannot be used, one should
determine the soil strength parameters ф and C. These parameters may be
approximated or determined from laboratory tests. If the nature of the project calls
for relatively accurate determination of ф and C, one should carry out a seies of
triaxial tests on undisturbed soil samples taken from several points. Using the value
of ф and C thus obtained, one can easily determine the area of the foundation in
question using bearing capacity equations (2.1-2.11).

Figure: Proportioning of footings using shear strength parameters of a soil

In applying the bearing capacity equations one should differentiate two states of

loading, namely, the initial or instantaneous loading condition and the final or long-

term loading condition.

46
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations 47

In the Initial loading condition, the load is assumed to act instantaneously. At

this stage the pore water pressure in the soil does not have time to dissipate. This

situation corresponds to the quick or undrained test condition of the triaxial test.

The soil parameters are designated by фu and Cu –in most cases фu=0.

In the Final loading or long term loading condition, the load is assumed to act

gradually as construction progresses, thus giving the pore water pressure in the soil

ample time to dissipate. Here the situation corresponds to the slow or drained test

condition of the triaxial test. The soil parameters in this case are designated by ф’

and C’.

When one compares the respective magnitudes of the soil parameters; one finds
that Cu is much bigger than C’ and фu-if not equal to zero- is much less than ф’.

Example 2.8:

Determine the Dimensions of a square footing necessary to sustain an axial column

load of 850KN as shown in the figure below, given that Df=2m, =19.1 KN/m3,if

a) An allowable presumptive bearing pressure of 150KN/m2 is used.

b) Cu=40KN/m2;C’=7.5KN/m2;Ǿ’=22.50.

47
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations 48

Figure: Proportioning of a square footing.

Example 2.9:

A Rectangular mat foundation measuring 10m X 20m is to be placed at a depth of

3.50m below ground level. The subsurface profile comprises of multiplayer soil
deposits, the details of which are shown in figure below. Determine safe bearing
capacity of the soil by adopting suitable factor of safety. Use Meyerhof’s bearing
capacity equation. Assume that the foundation carries a concentrically applied
vertical load.

48
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
 Foundation Engineering Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations 49

Example 2.10:

At a site for a proposed building, SPT tests were conducted in a borehole at a depth

interval of 0.75m. The results of blow counts (N) observed at different depths below

ground level are given in the table below. At this site the soil in general is fine sand

with an average bulk unit weight of 17.0KN/m3 and saturated unit weight of

21KN/m3. The ground water table is located at a depth of 3m below ground level. A

rectangular footing of size 3.0m X 4.0m is to be placed at a depth of 2.25m.

Determine the allowable bearing capacity of the footing for an allowable settlement

of 50mm.

Table: Measured SPT blow counts.

Depth, m 0.75 1.50 2.25 3.00 3.75 4.50 5.25 6.00 6.75 7.50 8.25 9.00 9.75

Recorded, N 9 12 15 14 21 18 22 24 19 21 25 20 16

49
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations 50

Example 2.11:

A Building is to be constructed over a site that has the soil stratification shown in
Figure below.
A. Determine the area of a square footing that can safely transfer the load
from the superstructure without shear failure, i.e. bearing capacity
failure.

B. Determine the corresponding total settlement for the footing area

proportioned above. Check if the load can be transferred without
excessive settlement. Is an isolated footing the right choice for this
condition? Why?

Use the following data:-

 The load from the superstructure; P=2645KN.
 The footing is to be placed at a depth of 2.0m below the ground
surface.
 The allowable total settlement is 75mm.
 Maximum center-to-center spacing between columns is 5.0m.
 Assume the foundation to be a rigid foundation..
 Ground water table exists at a depth of 5.0m below the ground
surface.
 Use Meyerhof’s Bearing Capacity equation. Use F.S=3.0.

Fi
G.L
g u
r e
:
10.0m CLAY SOIL

C=32 KN/m2, =22o , S=80%, Gs=2.70, =17 KN/m3

E=25Mpa, =0.50, eo=0.80, Cc=0.21

50
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes

Rock Extended to a great depth

Foundation Engineering Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations 51

Subsurface profile
Example 2.12:

A square footing is shown in figure below. Determine the safe gross allowable load

(factor of safety=3) that the footing can carry. Use any two bearing capacity

equations.

Figure: Square footing.

51
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations 52

Example 2.13:

A square footing is shown in figure below. Determine the safe gross allowable load

(factor of safety=3) that the footing can carry. Use Terzaghi bearing capacity

equations for general shear failure.

Given: sat=1980KG/m3, =25,=1800Kg/m3 ,C=23.94KN/m2, B=1.8m,

Df=1.2m, h=2m

Example 2.14:

52
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations 53

In the figure shown below, this shows a shallow strip foundation on the top a slope.
Given:
Slope (Sand)
β=15
C=0
=40
=15KN/m3
Foundation:
B=0.75m
D=1.5m
Estimate the allowable bearing capacity. Use factor of safety of 4.

Example 2.15:

53
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations 54

A square footing is shown in the figure below. The footing is subjected to an

eccentric load. For the following cases, Determine the gross allowable load that the
footing could carry. Use Meyerhof’s procedure and safety of factors=4.

Example 2.16:

54
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes
Foundation Engineering Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundations 55

A plate load test( bearing plate of 762mm diameter)

55
Arba Minch University/ Engineering Faculty/ Civil Eng’g Dep’t Lecture Notes