Shallow Foundations: Ultimate Bearing Capacity Introduction ‘To perform satisfactorily, shallow foundations must have two main characteristics |. They have to be safe against overall shear failure in the sol that supports them. 2. They cannot undergo excessive displacement, or settlement. (The term excessive is relative, because the degree of seitlement allowed fora structure depends on several considerations) ‘The load per unit erea of the foundation at which shear failure in soil occurs is called the ultimate bearing capacity, which is the subject ofthis chapter. General Concept Consider a strip faundaton with a width of B resting on the surface ofa dense sand ot Sif cohesive soil as shown in Figue 31a. Now, i load is gradually applied tothe foundation, setlement will ineease. The variation of the load per unit area'on the foun. dation (@) with the foundation setement is also shown in Figure 31a. At a cenain poiat—when the load per unit area equals gj—a siden fur inthe sol supporting the foundation will take place, and the failure surface in the soil will extend to the ground surface. This load er unit area, gis usually referred to as theultimate bearing capac: ity ofthe foundatin. When soch Sudden failure in sil takes place, it scaled general shea failure. If the foundation under consideration rests on sand or elayey sol of medium come pacton (Figure 31b), an increase inthe load on the foundation will also be accompa: nied by an increasein setlement, However, inthis case the faire surface in the sil Wil gradually extend outward from the foundation, as shown by the sli lines in Figure 3alb. When the fad per unit area on the foundation equals q,, ovement of the foun- dation willbe accompanied by sudden jerks. considerable movement ofthe founda. tion is then require forthe failure surface in sil to extend to the ground surface (as shown by the broken lines inthe figure). The load per unit area at which this happens is the wlimate bearing capacity, gy Beyond that point, an increase in load will be 133184 Chapter: Shallow Foundations: Ultimate Bearing Capacity Londit are, @ i. Setement 8 Load aes Setement 5 ‘Ladi area, g Seutement Figure 3.1 Nature of bering capacity flare in oi) general shea alu: (b) local shear failure; (6) punching shear file (Reva ater Vsi, 1973) (Vesic, A. S. (1973). "Analysis of Ultimate ‘Loads of Shallow Foundations.” Journal of Sil Mechanics and Foundations Divison, American Society of Civil Engaces, Vol 98, No. SMI, pp. 48-13. With permission fom ASCE.) accompanied by a lage increase in foundation settlement. The load per unit area of the foundation, gay. is referred to as the first failure foad(Vesic, 1963). Note that a peak value of gis nt realized inthis type of failure, which is called the local shear faire i sil Fhe foundation is supported by afarly loose soil, the load-settlement plot will be like the one in Figure 3.1c. In this case, the failure surface in soil will not extend to the ground surface. Beyond the ultimate failure load, qy the load-settement plot ‘will be steep and practically Tinea. This type of fallure in soll is called the punching shear failure. ‘esi (1963) conducted several laboratory load-bearing test on czcular and reetan- ular plates supported by a sand at various relative densities of compaction, D,. The vari ations of g/47B ad 4,/tyB obtained from thse tests, where B isthe diameter of a cirelar plate or with ofa rectangular plate andy is dry uit weight of sand, are shown jn Figure 3.2. It is important to note frm this Figure that, for D, > about 70%, the general shear type of failure in soil occurs On the basis of experimental results, Vesic (1973) proposed a relationship for the mode of bearing capacity faluee of foundations resting on sands. Figure 3.33.2 General Concept 135 Relative densi, D, a2 03 04 Osh as or on: a9 Pinching General ra Local shear aa i ilar 12m in) ‘inl 12min) (Greate 1mm in} 2 eng ae 5 Retied 06 113s 40 nas 3S Dey uit weight, ye Tarweigt of wat, Figure 3.2 Vatiation of gu/057B and gy/05yB for cicalar and rectangular plates on the surface ofa sand (dipte from Vesic, 1963) (From Vesi, A, B. Bearing Capaity of Deep Foundations in Sand. In Highway Research Record 39, Highway Research Bord, National Research Council, Washington, D.C, 1963, Figure 28, p, 137. Reproduced with permission ofthe Transportation Reseach Boar) shows this relationship, which involves the notation D, = relative density of sand D, = depth of foundation measured from the ground surface -_ 2BL. o en where B = width of foundation = length of foundation (Note: Lis always preater than B.)136 Chapter 3: Shallow Foundations: Ultimate Bearing Capacity py aaive densi, 0 02 06 Punching shear failure Figure 3.3 Modes of fundstion fue in sand (After Vesic, 1973) (Ves, A. S- (1973). “Analysis of Ulimate Laas of Shallow Foundation," Journal of Sol! Mechanics and Foundations Division, Anaican Society of Cl Engineers, Vol 9, No, SMI, pp. 45-73. ‘With permission fom ASCE.) For quate foundations, B = L; for circular foundations, B = L = diameter, so 8 B 62) Figure 34 shows the retlement 5 ofthe circular and rectangular plates on the surface of & snd utultimare load, os described in Figire 3.2. The igure indicates a general range of ‘5/8 with te relative density of compaction of sand, So in genera, we ean say that, for foundations at shallow depth (Le, small Dy), the ultimate Toad may occur at a foundation settement of 4 to 10% of B. This contin arises together with general shear failure in soi, however, inthe case of local or punching shear failure, the ultimate load tay occur at settlements of 15 (0 25% ofthe width ofthe foundation (2). Terzaghi's Bearing Capacity Theory ‘Terzaghi (1943) was the frst 0 present a comprehensive theory forthe evaluation of the ultimate bearing capacity of rough shallow foundations. According to this theory, a foun- dation is shalfow if tsdepth, D; (Figure 3.5, is less than or equal tits wid. Later inves tigators, however, have suggested that foundations with Dy equal to 3 t0 4 times thei ‘width may be defined as shallow foundations “Terzaghi suggested that for a continuous, or strip, foundation (Le., one whose width= to-Tength ratio approaches zero), the failure surface in sol at ultimate load may be assumed to be similar to that show in Figure 35. (Note that this isthe case of general shear failure, as defined in Figure 3.18) The effect of soil above the bottom ofthe foundation may also be ‘assumed to be replaced by an equivalent surcharge, q =D, (where is a unit weight of soil), Te failure zone under the foundation can be separated into three parts (see Figure 3.5):3.3 Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Theory 137 elaine density. D, 62 03) btu ate caster eta ox Poncing ‘General = Local hear a 259 20 18% ais 10% ‘Cs mse eam isin) B istam isi 5% | © aman 2 si x30 (2% 124) etna rth = of ee ry unit weight 9 ah of wae 7 Figure 3.4 Range of setement of circular and recangulr plates at uitimate oad (D,/B = 0) in snd (Modified from Vesic, 1963) (From Vesc, A. B Bearing Capacity of Beep Foundations in Sand. In Highway Research Record 39, Highway Researet Board, National Reseach Coun, Washington, D.C 1963, Figure 28, p 138, Reproduced with permission ofthe Transporation Reseach Board) Unit weigh Cohesion Frton snp Figure 3.5 Rearing capaci failure in sit under a rough rigid continuous (sti) foundation138 Chapter 3: Shallow Foundations: Utimate Bearing Capacity 1, The triangular zove ACD immediately under the foundation 2. The radial shear cones ADF and CDE, with the curves DE and DF being arcs of a logarithmic spiral 3, Two triangular Renkine passive zones AFH and CEG ‘The angles CAD and ACD are assumed to be equal to the soi friction angle 6! [Note that, with the replacement of the soil above the bottom of the foundation by an ‘equivalent surcharge g, the shear resistance ofthe soil along the failure surfaces G/ and ‘HI was neglected. Using equilibrium analysis, Terzaghi expressed the ulkimate bearing capacity in the form a, €N.+ gM, +}yBN, —(continaouso stp foundation) 3), cohesion of soil unit weight of soil yD, bearing sapacity factors the soil ction angle 6” ‘The bearing capacity factors N,N, and NY, are defined by ‘are nondimensional and ae functions only of ot e'(N, — 1) oa @5) and tan 86) where K,, = passive pressure coefficient ‘The variations ofthe bearing capacity factors defined by Eqs. G.4), G.5), and (3.6) are given in Table 3. ‘To estimate the ulimate bearing capacity of square and circular foundations, Eq, (3.1) may be respectively modified to 4. =13C'N. + qN, + 04yBN, (square foundation) en33 Terzaghl’s Bearing Capacity Theory 139 Se Table 3.1 Terzaghis Bearing Capacity Factors—E4s. (3.4), (35), and 3.6) a From Kumbho ar (1993) —<— ee Teen nN paen Ny Ne 0 S70 «100 26 a09 1421 988 1 6% 110 27 261590 60 2 630 La a Me na 1370 3 6m 13s 29 34ak 9 98, 16:18, Aen | ene a0 aris aa 1913 ST teh Moe en ana ae 265 6 773 isl oan aoe 26.87 7 815200027 gs a0) 3223 3194 8 80 221s wt 3850 3808 9 907 244k a5 5795s W961 268 oss 6831 5436 1016-29806) 370s igs oe, ia as aise 7861 er 95.03 fe em el aes tI 1s 844s 182g) t068 38s ast re ee I) tao) S45 2843 HSR 12650236 18 1512608259 ae S95 774 261.60, 9 1656670307 aS 28325 34 2 177k 3.68 a6 88222 21892826431 a7 ass tg) S128 m2 mz 819 50a 2s8z8 2878s asa? 23-275 10.23 600 BaRT] des 831.99 tr ry 28 mae 5 From Kombhejlar (1988) "From Kumbhojkar (1993) and = 13C'N, + qN, + 03yBN, (civewar foundation) G8) In Eq, (3.7), B equals the dimension ofeach side ofthe foundation; in Eq, (3.8), B equals the diameter of the findation. For foundations that exhibit the local shear failure mode in soils, Terzaghi suggested the following modifications to Eqs, (3.3), (3.7), and (3.8) 4% = 2/N + qNy+ BN; (stip foundation) 69 = O867C'N: + GN + O4yBN; (square foundation) G10) % = O867e'N; + GN; + 0.3yBN; (circuluefoundation) —_@.11)140 Chapter 3: Shallow Foundstions: Ultimate Bearing Capacity ieee yw M ™, 0 S70 100 00 26 Iss) 60s a9 1 590 Lor oos, 276306842 2 iGW=) OMe (rg May AE saat 4 7OT3a9, 3 6312s R765 3.8 4 651-130, ss 30s] a8 5S 6 139 ome. 31 00890) 6 6971492 G98. 1 7 i> ; lid, 3 - me | in 6 om tr i) Cicely ral er ey ono) as sal asa oo 832208030728 1090 ae) om RO a os 6m oe 0 sie aT i ol ass 0 tar Me on er A Ge ee 7 oat 336 aE 28062625 1% © 1090336 ORR 4a 3040 36 BGS 386.00 a es) a 4% 55733848170 aa aT 133 aT tas 48.30 22 1292 4485S AB HDG 5.5, 2% st 4828 TBS STAT T1458 m 144 soo pr 0S] = asses 2430560228 Ni, Nj.and Ni, the modified bearing capacity factors, can be calculated by using te bearing capacity factor equations (for N., Np and N, respectively) by replacing 6 by & = tan "(tan "). The variation of N?, Nj and Nj withthe sol fition angle 6” is given in Table 3.2 ‘Terzaghi’s Bearing capacity equations have now been modified 0 take into account the effects ofthe foundation shape (B/L), depth of embedment (D,), and the load incli- nation. This is given in Section 3.6. Many design engineers, however, sill use Terzagh’s tauation, which proves fairly good results considering the uncertainty ofthe sol condi- tions a various sites Factor of Safety Calculating the gross allowable load-bearing capacity of shallow foundations requires the pplication ofa factor of safety (FS) to the gross ultimate bearing capacity, ot on a= BS 1)4 Factor of Safety 141 However, some practicing engineers prefer o use a factor of safety such that net ultimate beating capacity [Net tress increase on soil st = G13) ‘The net ultimate dearing capacity is defined asthe ultimate pressure per unit area of the foundation that ean be supported by the soil in excess of the pressure caused by the surrounding soil zt the foundation level, I'he difference between the unit weight of con. crete used in the foundation and the unit weight of soil surrounding is assumed to be negligible, then Gate) = = Gas where aia) = Net ultimate beating capacity a=; So uaa aoa) = Gus) ‘The factor of safety as defined by Eq. (3.15) should be atleast 3 in all eases. Example 3.1 ee tet estas Se ‘A square foundation is 2m X 2m in pla. The soil supporting the foundation has a fiction angle of oh! = 25° and c! = 20kN/m?, The unit weight of soil, 7, is 16.5 kN/m’. Determine the allowable ross load on the foundation with a factor of safety (FS) of 3. Assume thatthe depth of the foundation (2) i 15 m and that general shear false oc in the so Solution From Eq. (3.7) = Ve'N, + qN, + 04yBN, Prom Table 3.1 for! = 25°, N= 2513, N,= 1272 fy = 84 Ts, 4. = (13) (20)(25.13) + (15 X 165)(12.72) + (04)(165)(2)(8.34) 65338 + 314.82 + 11009 = 1078.29 kN/?142 Chapter 3: Shallow Foundations: Ulimate Bearing Capacity Modification of Bearing Capacity Equations for Water Table Equations (3.3) and (3.7) through (3.11) give theultimate bearing capacity, based on the ‘assimption thatthe water tale is located well below the foundation. However, ifthe water table is close tothe foundation, some modifications of the bearing capacity equations will be necessary (See Figure 3.6.) Case I. IF the water table is located so that 0-< D, = D,, the factor q in the bearing capacity equations takes the form 4 = effective surcharg Diy + Dian ~ Ys G16) where ‘You = saturated unit weight of soil Yoo = unit weight of vater ‘Also, the value of in he last term of the equations has 10 be replaced by 9! = Ya ~ Yo: Case Il, For 8 water uble located so that 0 = d = B, q= Dy Gn In this case, the factor in the last term ofthe bearing capacity equations must be replaced by the factor G8) one Fy, Figure 3.6 Modification of baring capacity equations for wate table3.6 The General Besring Capacity Equation 143 ‘The preceding modifications are based on the assumption that there is no seepage force in the soi Case Ill, When the water table is located so that d= B, the water will have no effect on the ultimate bearing capacity. The General Bearing Capacity Equation ‘The ultimate bearing capacity equations (3.3), (3.7) and (3.8) are for continuous, square, and circular foundations only; they do not adiress the case of rectangular foundations (0 B/L <1). Also, the equations do not take into account the shearing resistance ‘along the failure surface in soil above the bottom of the Foundation (the portion ofthe fail- lure surface marked as Gi and H/ in Figure 3.5). In addition, the load on the foundation ‘ay be inclined. “o account forall these shortcomings, Meyerhof (1963) suggested the following form of the general bearing capacity equation: NEeseab + ONE + YBN Fy Pah G9) In this equation: 4 = eftztive stress atthe level of the bottom of the foundation Yy = unt weight of soil 'B = width of foundation (= diameter for a circulae foundation) Foy Foy Fos = shepe factors Fegs Fs Fea = depth factors Fy Fy Fog = loal inclination factors Ni, Ny. Ny = becring capacity factors ‘The equations for determining the various factors given in Eg, (3.19) are deseried briefly inthe sections that follow. Note that the original equation for ultimate bearing eapacity is derived only fr the plane-strsin case (Le, for continuous foundations). The shape, depth, ‘nd load inclination factors are empirical Factors based on experimental data, Bearing Capacity Factors ‘The basic nature ofthe failure surface in soil suggested by Terzaghi now appears o have been bbome out by laboratory and field studies of bearing capacity (Vesic, 1973). However, the angle a shown in Figure 35 is closer to 45 + @/2 than to 6. I this change is accepted, the valves of Nand, fr a given sol fiction angle will also change from those given in Table 3.1. With a = 45" 4/2, it can be shown that Ny tan! (s + 2) in 620)144 Chapter: Shallow Foundations: Ultimate Bearing Capacity and N= (N= Not" 621 Equation (3.21) for N, was originally derived by Pranddl (1921), and Ea, (3.20) for N, was presented by Reissner (1924). Caquot and Kerisel (1953) and Vesic (1973) gave the rela- tion for N, as N,=2(N, + tang! 6x) ‘Table 3.3 shows the variation ofthe preceding bearing capacity factors with soil friction angles. Table 3.8 Bearing Capacity Factors eM OM ares ™ ™, ™, 0 Si 100 000 26-2235 ass 1 lar 2 563 10s R28 80, iT 2 x) ras) lot 4 6 Lass 3030.18 240 5 6 15 (Cas asl. Sar 2599 62 Giles sige Osten re aan 302 i 76) ont 3519 8 753-205 oe aD 41.05 9 8A 2A reader ce8S AR $8.03, 835 aT 885089 S631 fe eee pe 6619 12 19g8: SigSporiu: Nepet abe! 0 61S 7808 i") BLY aa WOT ay heme Tay sas 4 1037338284781 106.1 13 1098394268 83.86 13022 16 343k 306 BTL 13555 7 934 at SS at 186.58 1310526407437 22466 Ge sm 48 4 hee 21176 20483 64D 5394620 33038 at 156) | To Got 78 line 403.67 m 688722389826 49601 % 1805865820 20993 613.16 2 1952960 9s 50.28.89 76289 2520721066 1088 Shape, Depth, Inclination Factors ‘Commonly used shape, depth, and inclination factors are piven in Table 3.4,36 The General Bearing Capacity Equation 148 OO Table 2.4 Shape, Depth and Intnaton Factors (DeBoer (1970); Hansen (1970); Meyesot (1963); ‘Meyertiof and Hana (1981)) Fecor Talat Fetereneo stope Dedeer (570 Depth Hansen (1970) Red >0 ihe Fam Fea cr ainoy (2 Fy= 4216! (1 in (2) Fert », Bes Feo=0 tetinton Meyer (96 Han and ‘Meyerhof (1981) 3 = inclination of the load onthe foundation with respect to the ver —lC re146 Chapter 3: Shallow Foundations: Utimate Bearing Capacity Example 3.2 Solve Example Problem 3.1 using Ea, (319). Solution From Eq. (2.19), 1 y= ON FasFesPs + ON FF oiFs * 3 YONGE oF dh Since the load is vernal, F, = Fy. N, = 10.66, and N, = 10:88. ‘Using Table 3.4, = 1, From Table 33 for = 25°, N, = 20.72, _ = 1283 1233 - | 112 os G72) (wn 28) Fast Hence, 4. = 20)20:72)(1.514(1.2571) #UL5 X 1653(10.66)1.466)(1.2331(1) +assyqcvansen00 = 188.6 + 4769+ 1077 373.2KNie = (457.792 2) = 1830.8 KN .38 The Generel Bearing Capacity Equation 147 AA square foundstion (BX 2) has to be consitieied as shown in Figure 37. Assume that y = 105 0, yy = 118 bff, 6! = 34°, D, = 4 and Dy = 2 ft. The grows allowable load, Oy, with FS = 3 js 150,000 ib. Determine the size ofthe footing. Use 9.6.19, axe Figure 3.7 A squure foundation Solution We have 2x _ 180 = Se = 100 100 jt @ From Ea. (3:19) (vith c* = 0), for vertical loading, we obtain 40 aS a _ 1 E Jog & -H(enssnerlvmet) 34°, from Table 33, N, = 29.44 and N, = 41.06. Hence, : menue [ak i pees S14 Band ~ snp)? = 1+ Dean 34(1 ~ sina = 1 + LOS (2)(105) + 2(118 ~ 624) = 3212/R?1a Chapter 3: Shallow Foundations: Ukimate Bearing Capacity se a=} [ra cranan(1 48) =(Qaw-eo@amonn) — © = 52639 + 274 . a838 Conning Bs @) 2 etsn soa som Grn 526894 e+ 2288 By trial and error, we find that B ~ 4.5. . Case Studies on Ultimate Bearing Capacity In this section, we will consider two field observations related (0 the ultimate bearing ‘capacity of foundations on soft clay. The failure loads on the foundations in the field will bbe compared with those estimated from the theory presented in Section 3.6, Foundation Failure of a Concrete Silo An excellent case of beating capacity failure of a 6-m (20-f) diameter concrete silo was provided by Bozozuk (1972). The concrete tower silo was 21 m (70 ft) high and was constructed over soft clay on a ring foundation, Figure 3.8 shows the variation of the tndrained shear strength (c,) obtained from field vane shear tests at the site. The ground water table was located at about 0.6 m (2 ft) below the ground surface. (On September 30, 1970, just after it was filed to capacity for the first time with corn silage, the concrete tower silo suddenly overturned due to bearing capacity failure. Figure 3.9 shows the approximate profile of the failure surface in soil, The failure surface exterded to about 7 m (23 fi) below the ground sutface, Bozozuk (1972) provided the following average parameters for the sil in the failure zone and the foundation: + Load per unit areeon the foundation when failure occurred = 160 KN/i? + Average plasticity index of clay (PI) ~ 36 + Average undrained shear strength (,) from 0.6 to 7m depth obtained from field vane shear tests = 27.1 N/m? + From Figure 3.9, 8 = 7.2m and D, ~ 1.52 m.Depeh (a Figure 3.8 Variation of, wth depth ‘obtained from field vane shear test XL collapsed ilo Orginal poston ol foundtion Paved apron Figure 3.9 Approximate profile of silo failure (Adapted from Bozoauk, 1972) vg150. Chapter 3: Shallow Foundations: timate Bearing Capacity, ‘We can now calculate the factor of safety against bearing expect failure, From Ea, 3.19) Gy = ON FFs + INE gE giF gi * 2 YBN FF al For @ = 0 condition and vertical loading, of = ¢y Ne = 5.14,N, = 1,N, = 0, and Fa= Fy = Fy, = 0. Also, from Table 3.4, rants (2) = 108 rs Yu = (e_)(5.14) (1.195) (1.08) (1) + (7) (1.52) = 238 os Cxdecmceety = ACuevst {1.7 ~ 0.54 log [PI(%) evs) we (6a (h3) #36 8A oe ‘applied load per unit area Sac This fator of safety is 00 low and approximately equals one for which the allure occurred, Load Tests on Small Foundations in Soft Bangkok Clay Brand etal (1972) reported loud test reslts for five small square foundations in soft Bangkok clay in Rargsit, Thailand. The foundations were 0.6m X 0.6%, 0.675 m x 0.675 m, 0.75 m x 0. m, 09m X 09m, and 1.05 mX 1.05 m, The depth of of the oundations (D,) was 1S m in all cases Figure 3.10 shows the vane shear test results for clay. Based on the variation of cosy With dep, ita be approximated hat cs 8 about 35 kN/m for depths between zero t 1.5 m measured from the ground surface, ad cgysr is approximately equal to 24 KEN/n®for depths varying fom 15 t0 8m. Other properties ofthe clay are + Sensitivity = 53.7 Case Studies on Ultimate Bearing Capacity 151 Sxosn Nin’) (oe a 2 a t+ 1| re Figure 3.10 Variation of xox with depth for sl soft Bangkok clay Figure 3.11 stows the load-sttement plots obtained from the beating-capacity tests on all ve foundation. The ultimate Toads, Q, obtained from each test are shown in Figure 3.11 «and given in Table 35. The ultimate load is defined asthe point where the Ioad-setlement plot becomes practically linear From Eq. 3. = ON FaPashas* Ne pF Fg + SBN PP ky For undrained condition and vertical loading (that i, = 0) from Tables 3.3 and 34, G24182 Chapters: Shallow Foundations: Utimate Bearing Capacity oat 1) Settee om) 8 «ol Figure 3.17 Loud-setement plots obtained from bearing capacity tests (Note: Dy/B> Lin all cases) Thus, = GAVE MINK +g G25) “The values of eqs need 10 be comrected for use in Bq, (3.25). From Eq. (234), Dees, From Eq. (2.35t), A= Lge" + 0.57 = 1.1868 4 057 = 0.62 From Ba. (2.350), Ole + 0.57 = 7.01e°™ + 0.57 = 0.58 Table 8.5 Comparison of Ukimste Rearing Capacity —Theory vesus Field Test Results 2, Sem ae Seater, om) tro) Fa) KNY UNF?) Taran 7 @ & ow a ‘o m ago 15 1a 1588 © 1666 198 dos 13 1489368 n 1588 ~0st ano 13 1a tas % tes 2s? tooo 13 sla isk I330 027 to 13 1381501640 iano =1824 74. 0.24% "Eg. 6.201" QsmualB? = danse3.8 Etfect of Sci! Compressiblity 153 So the average value of A ~ 0.6, Hence, (0.624) = 14.4 kN/n? Let us assume = 18.5 kNim?, So 4g = yD,= (18.5)(L.5) = 27.75 kNim? Substituting cy = 14.4 KN? and g = 27.75 kNimn? 0 Eg. (3.25), we obtain BAF + 2775 6.26) ‘The values of g, calculated using Ea. (3.26) ae given in column 4 of Table 3.5. Also, the g, determined from the field tests are given in column 6. The theoretical an field val. les of q, compare very wel. The important lessons learned from this study are |. The ultimate bearing capacity is a function of e,. If Eq, (2.35a) would have been used to correct the undained shear strength, the theoretical values of g, would have varied between 200 kN/m? and 210 kNimn?. These values are about 25% to 58% ‘more than these obtained from the field and are on the unsafe side. 2. Ic is importan: to recognize that empirical correlation like those given in Eqs. (2.350), (2.359) and (2.35c) ate sometimes site specific, Thus, proper engineering Judgment and any record of past studies would be helpful in the evaluation of bear ing capacity, Effect of Soil Compressibility In Section 3.3, Eqs (3.3), (3.7), and (3.8), which apply to the ease of general shear failure, were modified to Eqs. (3.9), (3.10), and (3.11) to take into account the change of failure ‘mode in soil (Le, Iseal shear failure). The change of failure mode is due to soil compress. ‘bitty, to account fr which Vesic (1973) proposed the following modification of Ea. (3.19); 9. = CONE FegFec + ON FFgdle + FYBN,FosPraP Gan In this equation, F, Fy, and Fare soil compressibility factors. ‘The soil compressibility factors were derived by Vesic (1973) by analogy to the expansion of cavities. According to tha theory, in onder to calculate FR, and Fy, the following steps shouldbe taken: ‘Step 1. Caleuate the rigidity index, 1, ofthe soil at a depth approximately B/2 below the bottom of the foundation, oF G, oF dune 328) where G, = shear modulus ofthe soil 4 = effective overburden pressure at a depth of Dy + B/2154 Chapter 8: Shallow Foundations: Utimete Bearing Capacity Step 2, The extical sii tarifallen-eof)a(o-2)]) om ‘The variations of I, with BY/L are given in Table 3.6. Step 3. WEL, = Iya, then lity index, J.) cam be expressed as Ee However if J, < jay then oe BY, 4 4 [ Gazing’) (ow 27) oof 44~052)ang'+[, ae 630) Figure 3.12 shows the variation of Fy. = Fa. [see Eq. (3.30)] with and J, For B Fec= 032+ 0.127 + 0.60108 1, ean) For g! > 0, 632) Table 3.6 Variation of I with and BL (doo) a=0 a =02 B08 B= 10 2 03s 946 364 0 B36 1239 S10 1639 1508 1363 1236 1120 lo 833298 20.60 1830 16552 1493 a oer pos 2s 23.05 2049 S565 ARS ‘308 S85 3329227 eo al 6708 5820 5053 4388 oo sim re LI 95.09 S136 6962 3528320238240 68S LAD 11931 do 5930948897013, 382.35, THO 225.90 45 44094 115956 9331978090 6h. 480.26,3.8 Effect of Soll Compressibilty 185 10 os 06 fos 02 o © 10 2 3% 4 50 0 2» 3% 40 30 Sel rcion angle, (deg) Sel eton ange (dee) 7 i weber wes Figure 3.12 Variation of Fg = Fy wth I, and 6 Example 3.4 eee For a shallow fiundation, = 0.6m, L = 12m, and Dy = 0.6m. The known soil ‘characteristics are fallow Soil Modulus of elasticity, Poisson's ratio, y, = E, = 620 kN/m? 3 Calculate the ulti nate bearing capacity Solution From Eq. (3.28), G, tang However, BE 204 a) So se saroaai (1+ wile + waa 8) Now,156 Chapter 3: Shallow Foundations: Vtimate Bearing Capacity Thus, 620 (eee "= 30 + 0aE8 + 162tun 25) ** From Eq, (3.29), tan sve b(s-$)) Hod o-astthals 2) }-w Since dey > J}, we use Eqs. (3.30) and (3.32) to obtain fer ce(( i ord \ne «(Cums mels 0s we (-44 +0644) mas . [emanate +2)]} 0307 Tain 25 and ee Feo= Fe Nang For! = 25°, N, = 20.72 (ce Table 33); therefore, Fuc= 0247 — 1=OMT _ga19 207210025 ~ © Now, from Eq. G.27, a = EN FnFeaFec + ONeFipEuabge + 3YBN Fy PF om Table 33, ford = 25%, N, = 20.72, N, = 10.6, and NV, = 10.88, Consequentty, Be cane len Fg = 14+ p tang! = 1+ 55 tn 25 = 1.253 257 iy jute tet -ana'r(2) 086, 1 = Fy e eae a Neang 2072 tan 25 cere Fea 433.9 Eecentricaly Loaded Foundations 157 md Fant Thus, 44, = (48) (2072) (1.257)(1.343)(0279) + (06 x 18)(10.66) (1.233) 1.311) (0:347)+4)(18)(0.6)(1088)(08)(1) (0347) = 84932 KN/m? EXE Eccentrically Loaded Foundations In several instances, a8 with the base of a retaining wall, foundations are subjected to ‘moments in addition tothe vertical load, as shown in Figure 3.13a, In such eases, the dis tribution of pressure by the foundation on the soil is not uniform. The nominal distibution of esse -2, oM ows = By, PL (B.33) and 2s ‘ua = 2 - oa) Fore < Bis | Fore> B16 oe @ o Figure 3.13 Becenucally loaded foundations158 Chapter: Shallow Foundations: Jhimate Bearing Capacity where Q = total vertical loal _M = moment on the foundation Figure 3.136 shows 2 force system equivalent to that shown in Figure 3.13a. The fiance uw ae 3.35 “ a9 is th escent. utstinting Bs. (3.5) no Eas (2.33) and 2.34 gives 635 a Q(, 6 an £(1-£) ox [Note that, in these equations, when the eccentricity e becomes B/'6, day is zero. For > B/6, dai will be negative, which means that tension will develop. Because soil cannot take any tension, there will hen be a separation between the foundation and the soil under Iying it The nature ofthe pressure distribution onthe soil willbe as shown in Figure 3.13a, ‘The value of dau is then _ 3L(B - 2) om = 38) ‘The exact distribution of pressure is dificult to estimate Figure 3.14 shows the naure of failure surface in soil fora surface strip foundation subjected to an eccentc load, The factor of safety for such type of loading against bear- ‘ng eapacity failure ean be evaluated as 39) ‘The following sections describe several theories for determining Qu failure surface in supporting a stip found tion subjected to eccentric loading (Wote: Dy = 0: Ou sult ‘mate load per unit length of foundation)3.10 Ultimate Besring Capacity under Eccentric Loading —One-Way Eecontiicty 159 Ultimate Bearing Capacity under Eccentric Loading—One-Way Eccentricity Effective Area Method (Meyerhoff, 1953) 1In1953, Meyerhot proposed a theory thats generally refered tthe effective area method The following isa step-by-step procedure for determining the ultimate load that the soil ean support an the factor of safety against bearing capacity flare Step 1. Determine the effective dimensions of the foundation (Figure 3.135 BY = ctfecive width = B ~ 26 = effective length [Now that ifthe eccemricity were in the direction ofthe length of the foun- dation, the value of L’ would be equal 1 J. ~ 2e, The value of B’ would equal B. The smaller ofthe two dimensions (ie. ’ and Bis the effective i ofthe foundation, Step 2. Use Eg. 3.19) forthe utimate bearing capacity = ON FaFahs + GN Feutly + YBN FPP 8.40) ‘To 2valuate Fy Fy and Fuse the eelationships given in Table 34 with tice length a fective width dimensions instead of Land B, respec. tively. To determine Fg Fy and Foy, se the relationships given in Table 3.4. However, donot place with B Step 2. Theta uhimate load thatthe foundation can sustain is 7 “GAD a1 Oo 9 BYES oy whee A’ effective area, Step 4 Theficor fsa gant Dearing capaci flr is Bs ° Prakash and Saran Theory Prakash and Saran 1971) analyzed the problem of ultimate bearing capacity of eccentri- cally and vertically loaded continuous (strip) foundations by using the one-sided failure surface in soil as shown in Figure 3.14. According to this theory, theultimate load per anit length of a continuous foundation can be estimated as 1 Om = 8. Net Mao + 7M] G42) Where Ni Nyon Nya) ~ bearing capacity factors under eccentric loading. ‘The variations Of Nig Nyy and Nye) With soil friction angle «’ are given in Figures 3.15, 3.16, nd 3.17. For rectangular foundations, the ultimate load can he given as Qu= Be Neoan + ON uoFois + 37PNF ye] 043) where Foy Fier ad Fue) = shape factors.160 Chapter 3: Shallow Foundations: Ulimate Bearing Capacity © ° ° 20 30 Pa Friction ange, (eg) Figure 3.15 Vaiation 3 Nay wih 6 Prakash and Saran (1971) also recommended the following forthe shape factors: nyo =t2-omns(vineninimmstts) as Fate) = 1 G45) sand Fao 0 (Goa) [ow-GGNG) owe Reduction Factor Method (For Granular Soil) urkayasthha and Cha: (1977) carried out stability analysis of eecentrically loaded contin- uous foundations supported by a layer of sand using the method of slices. Based on that analysis, they proposed3.10 Uttimato Bearing Capacity under Eccentrie Loading—One-Way Eccentricity 161 a _ A . c i a a asia BB ; a SS (oes = ric ie ee ee ee ae a7) ar where Ry = reduction factor oosense)= wtimate bearing capacity of eccentrically loaded continuous fcundations Gucou) = utimate bearing capacity of centrally loaded continuous foundations (3) oy Where «and i are functions ofthe emedment ratio Dy/B (Table 3.7) ‘The magnitude of &; can be expressed as R,162 Chapter: Shallow Foundations: Ukimate Bearing Capacity ® a 0 20 0 0 ction angle, (ee) Figure 3.17 Variation cf Ngo with Table 3.7 Variation ofa and & (Eq, 3.489] ys 2 « on 1.862 073, 025 13 78s on 1754 030 10 1820 o.888 Hence, combining Eqs. (3.47) and (3.48) aca) = Hotei ~ Ri) suaaanl! = (5) | 69) 1 is = ANE * ZVBRE 303.10 Ultimate Bearing Capacity under Eccentric Loading—One-Way Eccentricity 163 ‘The relationships for Fy, and Fae given in Table 3.4 ‘The ulimate load per unit length of the foundation can then be given as 2, SS Example 3.5 A continuous foundation is shown in Figure 4.18, Ifthe load eccentricity is 02m, ‘determine the utimate load. Q,y, per unit length of the foundation. Use Meyerhot"s effective area method. Solution Fore’ = 0, Eq. G40) gives, ass) esp = WN FahiFg + 37 BN Phy where g = (16.5) (1.5) = 24.75 kNimn? op Eccl swe pees t0 terse ss ia ceo For = 40 from Table 39, N, = 64:2 and, = 109.41. Aso B= 2-02) ‘Because the foundation in question is @ continuous Foundation, B'/L is zero. Hence, y= 1.Fy, = 1, stom Table 3.4, Fem F=1 Lom p ttamegtl sear 102i jeg Canute Be rae mas sal puie Consequently, ue BY 1g) = (1.691) 3287.39) = $260 kN .164 Chepter3: Shallow Foundations: Jitimate Bearing Capacity Example 3.6 Solve Example 35 wing Ba. G42). Solution Since c’ = 0 ey xe for "= A anf «01, Figues 316ml 317 Gi My = SED N= 7 oe Quy = 2(24.75)(56.09) + (G3(16.5)271.8)] = 5146 KN . Example 3.7 Sohe Exp 35 lng EG saluson Nie + 7 BNE aoe) For 6 = 40", Ny = 64:2 and, = 109.41 (ee Tale 3.3). Hence, Fag= 1 lO and Fy = 1 (6 Example 3.5) uc) = (2495)(64.2) (1.16) + 5(065)(2) (109.41) (1) = 1843.18 + 1805.27 = 3648.45 KN/m? From Eq. G48), nb) For D/B = 1.5/2 = 0.75, Table 3.7 gives a ~ 1.75 and & = 0.85. Hence, eae Buacews) = Buseck! ~ R= Q)G6IBASKA ~ 0253) ~ S451KN2.11 Bearing Copacity—Two-way Eccentricity 165 Bearing Capacity—Two-way Eccentricity (Consider a situation in which a foundation is subjected to a vertical ultimate load Q,y and moment MM, as shown in Figures 3.19 and b. For this case, the components of the ‘moment Mf about the x- and y-axes can be determined as M, and M,, respectively. (See Figure 3.19.) This condition is equivalent toa load Qyy placed eccentically on the foun dation with x = eg and y = e, (Figure 3.194), Note that 852) an 53) If Quy is needed, i can be obtained from Eq, (3.41); that i, Qa gia where, from Ea. 2.40), % NF ales + ONFFysFg + YBN FoF Py and a effective area = BL’ As before, toevaluate FF,» and F, (Table 3.4), we use the effective length L' and effective widlh Banstead of Land B, respectively. To calculate Fy Fyy and Fy, we do a » ° © Figure 2.19 Analysisof foundation with wo-way eccentricity166 Chapter 3: Shallow Foundations: Ultimate Bearing Capacity not replace B with B’, In determining the effective area A’, effective width B’, and effec tive length L’ five possible eases may arise (Highter and Anders, 1985). Case J. ¢,/I. >} ani ¢g/B = $. The effective area for this condition is shown in Figure 3.20, or Bil 54) where Sen =a is) a9 and n= 2(1s- 356) 1" a 650) “The effective length Ls the lager ofthe two dimensions Band So the effective with is ii wet 6s Case I, ¢,/L <05 and 0- $ and eq/B = 33.11 Bearing Capacity-Two-way Eccentricity 167 bop Figure 3.21 Bifectve area for the case ofe,/. = 05 and O< eg/B = 5 (After Higher and Anders, 1985) Hightr, WHE and Ando, J.C. (1985), “Dimeasioning Footings Subjected to Becontic Loads” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. American Society of Civil Engineers, VL. 111, Tine [No. GTS, pp. 659-665. With by permission from ASCE.) ‘The effective widths 3.62) ‘The effective lengthis E=L (3.63) ‘The magnitudes of By and B; can be determined from Figure 3.22, Case IV. e,/L < ;and eq/B < §, Figure 3.23a shows the effective area for this case, The ratio By/B, and thus B., ean be determined by using the ¢,/L curves that slope upward ‘Simitary, the ratio Z4/L, and thus L, can be determined by using the e,/L curves that slope downward, The effective are is then a LB + 1(B + BL L,) G64)168 Chapter 3: Shallow Foundations: timate Bearing Capecity os os 03 oa on obtaining a opi iens un us male a0 2/0, BiB ‘b) Figure 3.22 Elfectivearea forthe case of e,/L < hand 0 < eq/B < OS (After Higher find Anders, 1985) Higter, W. H. and Anders 3. C (1985). "Dimensioning Footings ‘objected to Becentric Loads Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Ametican Society ‘of Civil Engineers, Vo. 111, No. GTS, pp. 659-665. With permission from ASCE) ‘The effective width is a 7 3.65) ‘The effective length is ie D 3.66) Case V. (Circular Foundation) In the case of circular foundations under eccentric Toading (Figure 3.24), the eccentricity is always one way. The effective area A” and the cffective width B' fora cireulat foundation ae given in a nondimensional form in Table 3.8. (Once A’ and Bare determined, the effective length can be obtained as3.11 Bearing Capacty-Two-way Eccentricity 169 i Figure 8.24 Bective ares fr citeular Foundation170 Chapter 3: Shallow Foundations: Ultimate Bearing Capacity Table 3.8 Variation of A'/#® and B'/R with x foe Cirular Foundations oun IBA or 28 ss 02 2 im 03 20 12 os io 0a 0s 123 (st 05 0880 one soe om os 03808 me 10 ° ° Example 3.8 'A square foundation is shown in Figure 3.25, wih e = 0.3 m and ep sume two-way eocertrcity, and determine the ultimate Toad, Qu. 15m. As Solution Wenae «103 Bats = 1 1 onl “Ths caesar‘ hat shown in Figure 3.2, From Pgoe 3218, for e/ = 02 tndeq/B = 01, 1, = (088)(15) = 1275 e 021)(15) = 015m From Eg.) 193 m? (I, + La)B = 4(.275 + 0315)(1.5)3.11 Unimate Besring Capacity-Two-way Eccentricity 171 Figure 8.25 An eccenticallyloded foundation From Eq. (3.60), 1275 m Prom Eq. 3.59), 1193 1275 = 093m INF Pal + LYBIN FFP where g = (0-7) (18) For 2.6 KN 30°, om Table 33, Ng = 18.4 and N, = 22.4, Thus from Tanle 3.4, fet + (Bingo (2a ron -aa(t) =~ na(288) Ga to 2 4 706 Fog = 1+ 2tan(1 ~ sing)? 135 and172. Chapter &: Shallow Foundations: Ultimate Bearing Capacity so dy = AON GF ycFqs + BN Fok os) 11939{(12.6) (184)(1424) (1.135) “+(05)(18)(0936)(224)(0706)(1)}~ 606KN = Example 3.9 Conse the oundaon shown in Figure 325 wit he following hangs 6.= 048m = 01m For the soil, y= 165 kN/m? ga2s © = 258 Determine the uit oa, Qu Solution “ p12 is Dee ‘This is the ease shown jn Figure 3.234. From Figure 3.23, Bio, Boon se 2, -(@1113)-015n t= 022415) ~48m From Eq. (3.64), pin hp Hep 4 By(e = by) = (88/15) +45 + 01910504) = 0.72 + 08415 = 1.5615 m? Al _ 15615 a Losin es L=ism From Eq. (3.40), A= ENP t+ aN Fk + 5B N Fla‘3.12 Bearing Capacity of a Continuous Foundation Subjected to Eccentric Inclined Load 173 For $! = 25°, Table 3.3 gives N, = 20.72, N, = 10,66 and N, = 10.88. From Table 34, 28) 357 1081 nos + CE) wi + (28 ese us 10) p99 D 1+ atm 6 ~sindy(22) = 1 + 21m 25(1-sin23) _ 1S as 2072 tan 25 1.145 116 Hence, 4, = (25)(20.72) (1.357) (1.16) + (16.5 x 0.7) (10.66)(1.324) (1.145) + $(168)(1.081) (1088) (0.22) 1) = 81535 + 186.65 + 67.46 = 1069.5 kN/m? Qs, = A°G) = (1069.5)1.5615) = 1670 kN . Bearing Capacity of a Continuous Foundation Subjected to Eccentric Inclined Loading ‘The problem of ulimate bearing capacity of a continuous foundation subjected to an {eccentric inclined lead was studied by Saran and Agarwal (1991), Ifa continuous founds tion i located ata depth D, below the ground surface and is subjected to an eccentric load (oad eccentricity = e) inclined at an angle 8 to the vertical, the ultimate eapacity can be expressed as 1 a= Ble Me + aga) + F7PNy0] 667 where Nejay Nyayand Nye) bearing capacity factors: yD, ‘The variations ofthe bearing capacity factors with e/B, $', and derived by Saran and ‘Agarwal are given ir Figures 3.26, 3.27, and 3.28,174 Chapter 8: Shallow Foundations: Uimate Bearing Capacity 100 0 Ne 0 § 0 B= 0) ot o 0 ks » eee i i amr i 6 42) ° i at ase Sian. ® 0 n-a/Jul of / is ooo eo oO Soi tion ange, 8 (dee) © Figure 3.26 Variation of Ney With 6 ¢/B, snd Sol ition angle, (Ge) @‘3.12 Bearing Capacity of # Continuous Foundation Subjected to Eocentric Inclined Losd 178 ° oe ° ee) Sl rtom ange, (de) Soil friton ane 4" (de) @ ° oo ° Caeser See) Soil ren ange, (dee) Sl tion ange 4" (dea) © @ Figure 3.27 Variation of Nya with #¢/2, and Example 3.10 Ae ee A continuous foundation is shown in Figure 3.29. Estimate theultimate load, Quy per ‘unit Fength of the undation, Solution With c' = 0, from Eg, (3.67), :176 Chapter 3: Shallow Foundations: Ultimate Bearing Capacity 0 eee 0 20 30 4 Soi fiom angle, (eg) Sol son ange (dee) @ 0 Baw » 2 - og, 0 cS 02 3 o 30 38 0 Soll cin angle, 6 (eg) Solfetion ange, (des) e © Figure 3.28 Vasstion of Nay With $',¢/B, snd 8 B= 15m,q = Dj = (1)(16) = 16RN/m', e/ B = 015/15 = 0.1, and 6 =20°. From Figures 3.27(¢} and 3.28(¢), Njay = 14.2and Nygy = 20.Hence, Qa = (1S)[(16) (14-2) + (16) (1.5) (20)] = 700.8 kNfmProblems 177 y= 16kNin?S eas 3.4 Por the following cases, determine the allowable gross vertical load-bearing capacity f the foundation. Use Terzaghi’s equation and assume general shear failure in soil Use FS = 4, ee Caer oe 7 Foundation type a 43s GOO 110 TH/A® Continoous boo2m im) 0 ITRN/m* Continuous Ca a I6SKN/m' Square 32 A square cohimn foundation has to carry a gross allowable load of 1805 kN (FS =3). Given: Dy= 15m, y= 159KN/m, 6 = 34% and c’ = 0. Use ‘Terzaghi’s equation to determine the size of the foundation (2). Assume general shear failure, 33 Use the genera bearing capacity equation [Eq (3.19) to solve the following a. Problem 3a by, Problem 3.16 «Problem 3.te 34 The applied loud ona shallow square foundation makes an angle of 15° withthe ver tical. Given: B= Of, De=3N, y= lISIbjf, = 25°, and c= 500 Ib/f2. Use FS = 4 and determine the gross allowable loa. Use Ea. 19). 35° A column foundation (Figue P3.5) is 3m % 2m in plan. Given: Dy = 15m, # = 28, c! = TOKN/m’, Using Eq, (3.19) and FS = 3, determine the net allowable load see Ea. (3.15) the foundation could cary 3.6 Fora square foundation thats B X Bin plan, D, = 2 m; vertical gros allowable load, Oy = 3530 kN, y = 165 KN/m’; = 30°; c= 0; and FS = 4, Determine the size of the foundation. Use Eq (3.19).178 Chapter 3: Shallow Foundations: Ultimate Bearing Capacity pat ar 3.7. Forthe design ofa shallow foundation, given the following: 25° SOKN/m? Unit weight, y= 17 KN/m? ‘Modulus of elasticity, E, = 1020 kN/m? Poisson's ratio, i, = 0.35, Soil Foundation: L = 15m im Calculate the ultimate bearing capacity. Use Eq, (3.27). 38 An eccentrically loaded foundation is shown in Figure P3.8. Use FS of 4 and deter- ‘mine the maximum allowable load thatthe foundation can cary. Use Meyethof's et- fective area method, 39 Repeat Problem 3.8 using Prakash and Saran’s method. 3.10 For an eccentrially loaded continuous foundation on sand, given B = 1.8m, Dj = 0.9 m, e/B = 0.12 (one-way eccentricity), y= 16 kN/m’, and ¢ = 35°. Using the redlucton factor method, estimate the ultimate load per unit length of the foundation Conus Figure P3.8 3.11 An eccentrcally loaded continuous foundation is shown in Figure P3.11, Determine the ultimate loae Q, per unit length thatthe foundation can carry. Use the reduction {actor method. 3.12. A square footing is shown in Figure P3.12. Use FS = 6, and determine the size of, the footing, Use Prakash and Saran theory (Eq. (3.43)References 179 ssoan TORN y= 16k f ite Ee Ly ar eee Figure P3.12 3.13 The shallow foundation shown in Figure 3.19 measures 1.2m X 1.8 m and is sub- jected to a centric load and a moment. I) = 0.12m, e, = 0.36 m, and the depth of the foundation is 1 m, determine the allowable load the foundation can catry. Use a factor of safety of 3. For the sol, we are told that unit weight y = 17 kN/i’, friction angle " = 35°, and cohesion = 0, Bozo, M, (1972). "Foundation Failure ofthe Vankleek Hill Tower Site" Proceedings, Spe- slalty Confererce on Performance of Earth and Earth Supported Structures, Vol. 1 Patt 2, pp. 885-902, ‘Brann, E,W, MOKTAMLAE C, and TAECHANTHUSEMARAK,A. (1972) “Lond Test on Small Founde- ‘ions in Soft Chy Procedings, Specialy Conference on Peformance of Earth and Earth ‘Supported Strucnves, American Society of Civil Engineers, Yo. 1, Par 2, pp, 903-928, ‘Coquor A. and Keni, J (1953), “Surle terme de surface dans le calcul des fondatons en milieu Pulverulet” Proceedings, Thin international Conference on Soil Mechanix and Foundation Engineering Zivich, Val. 1, pp 336-337 De Burr, EE, (1970, “Experimental Determination of the Shape Factors and Beating Capacity Factors of Sand Geotecinigue, Vol 20, No.4 pp. 387-411 Hiss, A.M, and Merenio,G, G. (1981) “Experimental Evaltion of Besrng Capacity of Footings Subjected to Inclined Loads" Canadian Geotechnical Juma, Vl. 18, No.4, pp 99-603,180 Chapter 3: Shallow Foundations: Uimate Bearing Capacity Hiyssen J. B (1970). A Revised and Extended Formal for Bearing Capaci Bulletin 28, Danish ‘Geotechnical Instnte, Copenhagen, ‘owen, W. H., and ANteRs, J.C. (1985). “Dimensioning Footings Subjected to Eeventic Loads” Jounal of Geotednical Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 111, No GT, pp. 659-65. -Kunmoikat. A. S. (199) “Numerical Evaluation of Terzagh's N," Journal of Geotechnical i _sineering, American Society of Chil Engineers, Vol. 119, No 3, pp. 598-07. Mevuior, G. G. (1983. “The Bearing Capacity of Foundations Under Beventic and Inclined ‘Loads Proceedings, Third International Conference on Soil Mechanies and Foundation Br -incering,Zirich, Vol. 1, pp. 440—445, “Meveor,G. G. (1963), "Some Revent Research on the Bearing Capacity of Foundations Can- ‘dian Geoteclnical Journal, Wl. 1 No. 1p 16-26. Prakast, Sand SaaS. (1971). “Bearing Capacity of Eeceatically Loaded Footing ‘ofthe Sol Mechavis and Foundaions Division, ASCE, Vol. 91, No. SMI, pp. 95-117, Praxon. L. (1921). "Uber die Eindringungsfestigheit (Harte) plasischer Baustoffe und die Fes- tikeit von Schneiden” Zeitchif fir angewandhe Mathematit und Mechanik, NOL, No.1, pp. 15-20, PurxavasTla, RD., and Cuan, RA. N. (1977). “Stability Analysis of Ecentically Loaded Foot ings” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Dis, ASCE, Vo. 103, No.6, pp. 647-651 Resnik, H, (1924), “Zam Enkrvchproblem,” Proceedings, Ft Incemational Congres of pled Mechanics, Delft, pp. 295-311, ‘Saas, 5. and AGakwAl. RB. (1991). “Bearing Capcity of Eecetically Obiquly Loaded Foot- ing” Journal of Geotechnical Enginering, ASCE, Vol. 117, No. 11, pp. 169-1680, ‘zac, K. (1943). Theoretical Soi! Mechanics, Wiley, New York. ‘Vos, A. 8 (1963). “Bering Capacity of Doep Foundations in Sand” Highway Research Recond No. 38, National Academy of Sciences, pp. 112-153 ‘Yost A. S, (1973), “Analysis of Ulimate Loads of Shallow Foundations” Jownal ofthe Soil Me: “chonies and Foundations Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol 9, No, SMI, pp. 45-73,