Foundation Engineering - Shallow Foundation

ground
( Shallow Foundation )
Presented by-
A.B.M Sazzad Hossain
Weak soil
bed rock
 A unique combination of science, experience, judgment
and a passion for understanding the uniqueness and
variability of ground conditions resulting from the forces of
nature.
 It is the art of determining the properties of unseen and

variable materials to provide a facility that perform as
expected at acceptable level of risk and at an optional cost.
 Geotechnical engineering involves investigation and
engineering evaluation of earth materials including soil,
rock, ground water and man-made materials and their
systems, structural foundations and other civil engineering
works.
 The practice involves applications of the principles of the

soil mechanics and knowledge of engineering principles,
formulas, construction techniques and performance
evaluation of civil engineering work influenced by earth
materials.
 The base up on which knowledge structure is built in

Geotechnical Engineering is a through comprehension of
the elements of geologic environment.
1. Soil does not posses a unique or linear stress-strain
relationship.
2. Soil behavior depends up on the pressure, time and
environment.
3. Soil at every location is essentially different
4. Nearly in all the cases, the mass of soil involved is
underground and cannot be seen entirely, but must be
evaluated on the basis of small size samples, obtained
from isolated locations.
5. Most soils are very sensitive to disturbance from
sampling and thus the behavior measured by a lab test
may be unlike that of in situ soil.
 The foundation engineer should posses the following
information
 Knowledge of soil mechanics and background of theoretical

analysis
 Composition of actual soil strata in the field.
 Necessary experience-precedents-what designs have
worked well under what designs have worked well under
what conditions-economic aspects
 Engineering judgment or intuition - to find solutions to the
problems.
 In a broad sense, foundation engineering is a art of selecting,
designing and constructing the elements that transfer the
weight of structure to the underlying soil or rock.
 The role of engineer is to select the type of foundation, its
design and supervision of construction.
Before the engineer can design a foundation intelligently, he must

have a reasonably accurate conception of the physical properties
and the arrangement of the underlying materials. This requires
detailed soil explorations.
Definition:
The lowest part of a structure which transmits its weight to
the underlying soil or rock is the foundation.
Foundations can be classified into two major categories:
Shallow foundations
Strip Foundation or Wall Foundation
Spread Foundation or Isolated Column Foundation
Combined Foundation
Raft or Mat Foundation
Deep foundations.
Pile Foundation
Cassion Foundation
Rational Design of Shallow Foundations
 The design of foundation system consists of two phases.

These are referred to as:
1. Geotechnical design and
2. Structural design.
 The aim of Geotechnical design essentially is to arrive at

the plan dimensions of the foundation, satisfying the,
-Safe bearing capacity of soil
-Allowable settlement.
 The structural design is taken up only after its
geotechnical design is completed, which determines the
footing thickness and also the quantity and proper
placing of reinforcement.
SETTLEMENTS OF FOUNDATIONS
NO SETTLEMENT TOTAL SETTLEMENT DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT
Uniform settlement is usually of little consequence in a

building, but differential settlement can cause severe
structural damage
Steps for the Selection of the Type of Foundation:
In choosing the type of foundation, the design engineer must perform
five successive steps.
Obtain the required information concerning the nature of the
superstructure and the loads to be transmitted to the foundation.
Obtain the subsurface soil conditions.
Explore the possibility of constructing any one of the types of
foundation under the existing conditions by taking into account
(i) the bearing capacity of the soil to carry the required load, and
(ii) the adverse effects on the structure due to differential settlements.
Eliminate in this way, the unsuitable types.
 Once one or two types of foundation are selected on the basis of
preliminary studies, make more detailed studies. These studies may
require more accurate determination of loads, subsurface conditions
and footing sizes. It may also be necessary to make more refined
estimates of settlement in order to predict the behavior of the structure.
Estimate the cost of each of the promising types of foundation, and
choose the type that represents the most acceptable compromise
between performance and cost.
LOAD--SETTLEMENTS CHARACTERISTIC
LOAD
Bearing Pressure q qu
s
Relatively Elastic
Settlement
Some Lateral Distortion of Soil
Partial Shear failure

Significant Vertical Movement
Bulging of Soil around Footing
Heavy Penetration
Large Lateral Distortion
Huge Bulging around Footing
Principal Modes of Foundation Failure:
Depending on the type of soil and soil density, bearing failures are usually
accompanied by deep penetration and side bulging.
The mode of shear failure are commonly separated into three categories:
General Shear Failure

Local Shear Failure
Punching Shear Failure
The modes of potential failure caused by a footing of width B subjected to
uniform footing pressure q develop the limiting soil shear strength Ƭs at a
given point along a slip path is-
a c
The force resisting shear is Ƭs times the length of the slip path ‘abc ‘ for
homogeneous c-φ soil soil.
The force resisting shear for purely cohesive soil is only depend on the value C
The force resisting shear for purely cohesive soil is only depend on the value
Common failure mode in dense sand

Well defined failure surface
Bulging on the ground surface
adjacent to foundation
Sudden or catastrophic failure
Local Shear Failure
Common in sand or clay with medium

Compaction
Significant settlement upon loading
Failure surface first develops right
below the foundation and then slowly
extends outwards with load increments.
Foundation movement shows sudden jerks first (at qu1) and then
after a considerable amount of movement the slip surface may
reach the ground.
A small amount of bulging may occur next to the foundation.
The shear strength of soil is not fully mobilized along planes & hence failure
planes are not defined clearly.
Common in fairly loose sand or soft clay

Failure surface does not extends beyond
the zone right beneath the foundation
Extensive settlement with a wedge shaped
soil zone in elastic equilibrium beneath the foundation. Vertical
shear occurs around the edges of foundation.
After reaching failure, Load-Settlement curve continues at some
slope and mostly linear
…More Discussion on Mode of failure
General Shear Failure:
General shear failure is characterized by the existence of a well-defined
failure pattern consisting of a continuous slip surface from one edge of the
footing to the ground surface. Unless the structure prevents the footings
from rotating, the failure is also accompanied by tilting of the footing.
Bulging of adjacent soil on both sides of the footing can also be seen. A
schematic diagram of this failure is shown in Figure . These failures are
sudden, and catastrophic. The load-settlement curve shows a prominent
peak, as in the schematic in Figure, which means that after a certain load,
the vertical displacement increases even for a lesser load than that at the
peak.
It may also be possible that the curve reaches the maximum load
asymptotically, without a prominent peak as shown, but with a sudden clear
change in its slope. Static test of a 3inch footing after failure is shown in. It can
be observed that the slip lines have developed clearly from the edge of footing
to the ground surface.
When failure takes place under an eccentric vertical loading, there could occur
a one-sided rupture surface as shown in Figure.
Local Shear Failure:
Local shear failure is characterized by a failure pattern clearly observable only

immediately below the footing. This consists of a wedge and slip surfaces
originating at the edges of the footing just as in the case of general shear
failure. However, the vertical compression under the footing is significant and
the slip surfaces end somewhere in the soil mass . Only after some
considerable displacement of the footing, the slip surfaces appear on the
ground surface.
Local shear failure retains some characteristics of both the general shear and
punching modes (discussed next) of failure. When the load per unit area
equals qu(1), the movements are accompanied by jerks. This load per unit
area qu(1) is referred to as the first failure load (Vesić, 1963). The load-
settlement curve does not show a clear peak as in the general shear failure
Punching Shear Failure …More Discussion on Mode of failure
In punching shear failure, the failure pattern is not easy to observe, unlike in the
failure modes discussed earlier. As the load increases, the compression of the soil
immediately below the footing occurs, and the continued penetration of the footing
is made possible by vertical shear around the footing perimeter. There is
practically no movement of the soil on the sides of the footing,and both the
horizontal and vertical equilibrium are maintained, except for the jerks or sudden
movements in the vertical direction. A continuous increase in the vertical load is
needed to maintain the movement in vertical direction. The schematic of soil
movement and the load-settlement curves for the punching shear failure are
shown in Figure below. These curves have steeper slopes than for those with local
shear failures.
MODE OF FOUNDATION FAILURE
Principal Modes of Failure:
Where
Is hydraulic radius
For Rectangular Footing
For Circular Footing
By Vesic(1973)
Relative Density
Soil consists of soil particles and those soil particles can be
arranged either very densely, very loosely, or somewhere in
between. The Relative Density of a soil is how dense (or tightly
packed) the soil is relative to the soil in it's densest state. We use
the void ratio of the soil to determine this. The void ratio in a soil
is a ratio of the volume of voids in a soil mass to the volume of
solid material in the same soil mass. Vv / Vs in math terms. A soil
that is 80 to 85% relative density is pretty dense. That means
generally that it is 80 to 85% of it's most dense state
For Circular Footing in Sand
Studies have shown that it can be generally said that if the soil is
incompressible and has a finite shear strength, a footing on this soil will
fail in general shear, while if the soil is very compressible, it will fail in
punching shear (Vesić, 1975).
When the relative density of the soil beneath the foundation is known,
one can expect either of the failure modes according to the embedment
depth to footing width ratio, as shown in Figure. It is worthwhile to note
that general shear failures are limited to relative depths of foundation
(D/B*) of about 2.0. This is the reason why Terzaghi’s bearing capacity
equation, and its modifications, are restricted to D/B*»2.
Further increase in the relative depth changes the behavior of the

foundation from shallow foundation to deep foundation. The slip zones
develop around the foundation tip, which is significantly different from
punching shear failure.
Overview – Mode of failure:
The interpretation of the failure or ultimate load from a load test is made
more complex by the fact that the soil type alone does not determine the
mode of failure (Vesić, 1975).
For example, a footing on very dense sand can also fail in punching
shear if the footing is placed at a greater depth, or if loaded by a
transient, dynamic load. The same footing will also fail in punching
shear if the very dense sand is underlain by a compressible stratum
such as loose sand or soft clay.
It is clear from the above discussion that failure load of the footing is
only clearly defined for the case of general shear failure, and for the
cases of the other two modes of failure, it is often difficult to establish a
unique failure load.
Summary – Mode of failure:

This type of failure is seen in dense and stiff soil. The following are some
characteristics of general shear failure.
Continuous, well defined and distinct failure surface develops between the
edge of footing and ground surface.
Dense or stiff soil that undergoes low compressibility experiences this failure.
Continuous bulging of shear mass adjacent to footing is visible.
Failure is accompanied by tilting of footing.
Failure is sudden and catastrophic with pronounced peak in P – Δ curve.
The length of disturbance beyond the edge of footing is large.
State of plastic equilibrium is reached initially at the footing edge and
spreads gradually downwards and outwards.
General shear failure is accompanied by low strain (<5%) in a soil with
considerable Φ (Φ>36o) and large N (N > 30) having high relative density
(ID > 70%).
Local Shear Failure
This type of failure is seen in relatively loose and soft soil. The following are
some characteristics of shear failure.
A significant compression of soil below the footing and partial development

of plastic equilibrium is observed.
Failure is not sudden and there is no tilting of footing.
Failure surface does not reach the ground surface and slight bulging of soil
around the footing is observed.
Failure surface is not well defined.
Failure is characterized by considerable settlement.
Well defined peak is absent in P – Δ curve.
Local shear failure is accompanied by large strain (> 10 to 20%) in a soil
with considerably low Φ (Φ<28o) and low N (N < 5) having low relative
density (ID > 20%).
This type of failure is seen in loose and soft soil and at deeper elevations.
The following are some characteristics of punching shear failure.
This type of failure occurs in a soil of very high compressibility.

Failure pattern is not observed.
Bulging of soil around the footing is absent.
Failure is characterized by very large settlement.
Continuous settlement with no increase in P is observed in P – Δ curve.
SELECTED FAILURE CRITERIA
In order to examine the different criteria and establish a preferable

method for defining the bearing capacity of shallow foundations on
soils, the following failure criteria were used to interpret the failure load
from the load-settlement curves of footings with centric vertical loading:
 Minimum slope criterion (Vesić, 1963)

 Limited settlement criterion of 0.1B (Vesić, 1975)
Log-log failure criterion (De Beer, 1967)
 Two-slope criterion (shape of curve)
How to determine the Failure load in Load-
Load-Settlement Curve?
Minimum Slope Failure (Ultimate) Load Criteria, Vesić (1963)
Based on the load-settlement curves, a versatile ultimate load criterion
recommended for general use is to define the ultimate load at the point
where the slope of the load-settlement curve first reaches zero or a steady,
minimum value.
The interpreted ultimate loads for different tests are shown as black dots in
Figure for soils with different relative densities, Dr .
For footings on the surface of or embedded in the soils with higher relative
densities, there is a higher possibility of failure in general shear mode and
the failure load can be clearly identified as for the test
identified as Figure .
For footings in soils with lower relative densities however, the failure mode
could be local shear or punching shear, with the identified failure location
being arbitrary at times . A semi-log scale plot with the base pressure (or
load) in logarithmic scale can be used as an alternative to the linear scale
plot if it facilitates the identification of the starting of minimum slope and
hence the failure load.
Limited Settlement Criterion of 0.1B, Vesić (1975)
For the cases in which the point of minimum slope of the curve cannot be
established with certainty, Vesić (1975) suggests to adopt a limit of critical
settlement, such as 10 percent of the footing width. The dotted line in Figure
represents this criterion. It can be seen that this criterion is a conservative
estimate for the presented tests and may become a problem for larger
foundations, of say B > 4ft.
Figure : Ultimate load criterion

based on minimum slope of
load-settlement curve (Vesić,
1963; modified to show
settlement = 0.1B)
Interpretation from the Log-Log Plot of Load-Settlement Curve, De
Beer (1967)
The loads versus the settlements are plotted in logarithmic scales. The ultimate
load is defined as the change in load settlement region identified as the point of
break of the load-settlement curve, as shown by the circled dots in Figure. It
has been found that this criterion gives very conservative interpreted failure loads
for local and punching shear failures as compared to the Minimum Slope criterion.
Figure : Ultimate load criterion based on

plot of log load versus log settlement; g is
unit weight of sand, B is footing width and A
is the contact area (Mol sand is from Mol,
Belgium) (De Beer, 1967)
Two-Slope Criterion
A common variation to the Minimum Slope or De Beer’s approach is the ‘shape
of curve’ or the ‘two-slope criterion’ shown in Figure. In this approach, the
asymptotes of the load-settlement curve at the linear region at the start of
loading and that towards the end of the loading are constructed in either a
linear or a logarithmic scale load settlement .
The pressure corresponding to the point where these asymptotes intersect is
taken as the failure.
There is sometimes a possibility

to interpret a range of failure
loads, especially when using
this approach.
A reasonable interpretation of
the failure load in such a case
can be taken as the average
value of the identified load range.
In case of dense cohesionless soil and highly cohesive soils ultimate
bearing capacity may be estimated from the peak load in load-settlement
curve.
In case of partially cohesive soils and loose to medium dense soils the
ultimate bearing capacity load may be estimated by assuming the load
settlement curve so as to be a bilinear relationship.
Vesic (1963) modified range of settlement of circular and rectangular footing
for D/B=0 in sand.
Transition from Local to General Shear Failure in Sand
Local shear failure normally occurs in
loose and general shear failure occurs (Peck et al., 1974)
in dense sand. There is a transition from
local to general shear failure as the
state of sand changes from loose to
dense condition.
The curves for Nq and NƔ are developed on
the following assumptions.
1. Purely local shear failure occurs when φ
≤ 28°.
2. Purely general shear failure occurs
when φ ≥ 38°.
3. Smooth transition curves for values of φ
between 28° and 38° represent the mixed
state of local and general shear failures.
In the case of purely cohesive soil local

shear failure may be assumed to occur in
soft to medium stiff clay with an unconfined
compressive strength qu < 100 kPa.
Summarizes the bearing capacity factors to be used under different
situations. If ϕ is less than 36o and more than 28o, it is not sure whether
the failure is of general or local shear type. In such situations, linear
interpolation can be made and the region is called mixed zone.
Bearing capacity factors in zones of local, mixed and general shear conditions.
Local Shear Failure Mixed Zone General Shear

Failure
Φ < 28o 28o < ϕ < 36o Φ > 36o
Nc1, Nq1, Nγ1 Ncm, Nqm, Nγm Nc, Nq, Nγ

Comparison of General Shear and Local/ Punching shear Failure
General Shear Failure Local/Punching Shear Failure
Occurs in dense/stiff soil Occurs in loose/soft soil
Φ>36o, N>30, ID>70%, Cu>100 kPa Φ<28o, N<5, ID<20%, Cu<50 kPa
Results in small strain (<5%) Results in large strain (>20%)
Failure pattern well defined & clear Failure pattern not well defined
Well defined peak in P-Δ curve No peak in P-Δ curve
Bulging formed in the neighbourhood of No Bulging observed in the neighbourhood
footing at the surface of footing
Extent of horizontal spread of disturbance at Extent of horizontal spread of disturbance
the surface large at the surface very small
Observed in shallow foundations Observed in deep foundations
Failure is sudden & catastrophic Failure is gradual
Less settlement, but tilting failure observed Considerable settlement of footing observed
Zone-I (abc) Zone-II (bcf or acf) Zone-III (bgf or
afg)
-Triangular Elastic Zone -Prandtle’s radial shear -Rankine Passive zone
-Remain intact during zone -The slip lines gf makes
failure -Undergoes angle ±(45-φ/2)
-The inclination angle of considerable
ac and bc is α=φ with plastic flow
the horizontal -Line cf is an arc of a log
spiral
Bearing Capacity of Shallow
Foundation
• Father of modern soil mechanics
• Born in Prague, Czechoslovakia
• Wrote “Erdbaumechanick” in 1925
• Taught at MIT (1925-1929)
• Taught at Harvard (1938 ---)
Dr. Karl Terzaghi stated in his 1943 book titled Theoretical Soil
Mechanics:
“. . . the theories of soil mechanics provide us only with a working

hypothesis, because our knowledge of the average physical
properties of the subsoil and of the orientation of the boundaries
between the individual strata is always incomplete and often utterly
inadequate. Nevertheless, from a practical point of view, the working
hypothesis furnished by soil mechanics is as useful as the theory of
structures in other branches of civil engineering.”
Development of Bearing Capacity Theory
Application of limit equilibrium methods first done by Prandtl on the

punching of thick masses of metal.
Prandtl's methods adapted by Terzaghi to bearing capacity failure of

shallow foundations.
Meyerhof, Vesic, Hansen and others improved on Terzaghi's

original theory and added other factors for a more complete
analysis
Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Theory
Based on Prandtl's theory (1920) for plastic failure of metal under rigid punches
Terzaghi(1943) derived a general bearing capacity equation. All soils are covered in
this method by two cases which are designated as general shear and local shear
failures
Assumptions:
Subsoil below foundation structure is homogenous, Isotropic
The underneath Footing surface is rough enough
Shallow foundation Df < B
2D case: Plain stress-strain
L/B ratio is large: Continuous, or strip, footing
The Failure zone is not extended above
Effect of water Table is neglected.
Footing carries concentric
Vertical load.
At the same time, complete
Shear strength is mobilised
At all points of critical failure
Path.
C’
/2
For vertical Equilibrium
Sin
Terzaghi represented the value of Pp as some of the three components-
1. From cohesion :
2. From surcharge:
3. From the weight of soil (triangular zone abd):
Cohesion Term Surcharge Term

Weight Term
Terzaghi’s ultimate bearing capacity-

Terzaghi’s bearing
capacity factors
Terzaghi’s general shear failure equation:
Where bearing capacity factors can be calculated as per following equations:
where K p = passive earth pressure coefficient

Terzaghi’s bearing capacity factors can be calculated as
per following graphs:
Terzaghi’s bearing capacity factors can be calculated as
per following charts:
Terzaghi’s local shear failure equation:
Where modified factors -
Terzaghi proposed the following modified bearing capacity equations:

Modification for Shape Factors
Terzaghi’s bearing capacity equation is valid for long strip footing. It can also be
used for rectangular footing and also circular footing as modified by Terzaghi-
Where
’ = tan-1 (2/3. tan)

Graph for Bearing Capacity Factors for Terzaghi’s Local Shear Failure
Table for Bearing Capacity Factors for Terzaghi’s Local Shear Failure
For Cohesive soil (φ=0)
or
For Non-Cohesive soil (c=0)

Limitations of Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Equations:
The theory is applicable to shallow foundations

As the soil compresses, Φ increases which is not considered. Hence
fully plastic zone may not develop at the assumed Φ.
All points need not experience limit equilibrium condition at different
loads.
Method of superpositition is not acceptable in plastic conditions as the
ground is near failure zone.
 Skempton (1951)
 Meyerhof (1953)
 Brinch Hansen (1961)
 De Beer and Ladanyi (1961)c
 Meyerhof (1963)
 Brinch Hansen (1970)
 Vesic (1973, 1975)
Example-01:
Meyerhof’s Bearing Capacity Theory:
Terzaghi’s bearing capacity equations are based on continuous, square and
circular footings only.
--The equations do not address the case of rectangular foundation (0< B/L<!).
--The equations do not consider the shear strength of soil above the bottom of
the foundation.
--The equations do not account the inclined load on foundation.
In 1951, Meyerhof published a bearing capacity theory which can be applied to

rough shallow and deep foundations. The failure surface at ultimate load under a
continuous foundation as assumed by Meyerhof (1951)
The bearing capacity of shallow foundations has been derived by Meyerhof (1951)
taking into account the shear strength of the soil above the base level of the
footing. He assumed a failure mechanism similar to Terzaghi's but extending up to
ground surface .
Zone of Meyerhof’s Bearing Capacity Equation
abc is the the elastic triangular wedge

bcd is the radial shear zone. cd is the arc of log spiral
bde is the mixed shear zone where shear varies between radial and plane shear.
The plane be is referred to as an equivalent free surface. The normal and shear
stresses on the plane be are p o and s o, respectively.
Meyerhof (1951) equation of ultimate bearing capacity for vertical loading
Terzaghi presented modified versions of his bearing capacity
equation for shapes of foundation other than a long strip, and these
have since been expressed as shape factors. Meyerhof (1963)
modified his bearing equation adding Shape Factor, Depth Factor,
Inclination Factor.
Meyerhof (1963) general bearing capacity equation is expressed as-

Meyerhof’s Bearing Capacity Factors
Bearing Capacity Factors can be calculated by the following equations:
Bearing Capacity Factors

Meyerhof’s Bearing Capacity Depth and Inclination Factors
D
Where
B
For φ Depth Factor Inclination Factor
Any φ 2
φ=0o
2
φ≥ 100
Meyerhof’s Bearing Capacity Shape Factors
For φ Shape Factor
Any φ
For φ=00
For φ≥100
Meyerhof Bearing Capacity modification for
Eccentric Loading:
When the footing is applied with some eccentricity, the ultimate bearing
capacity is reduced.
Meyerhof (1963) suggested the effective footing breadth (B ′) and length (L′)
as:
♦For footings with eccentricities, B ′ and

L′ should be used in computing the
ultimate bearing capacity.
♦ In computing shape factors , depth
factors B should be used.
♦The unhatched area (A′ = B ′ x L′) in
is the effective area which contributes
to the bearing capacity, and therefore,
the ultimate footing load is computed
by multiplying the ultimate bearing
capacity by this area A′.
Plane Strain Correction
It has been reported by several researchers that the friction angle obtained
from a plane strain compression test is greater than that obtained from a
triaxial compression test by about 4– 9 times in dense sands and 2–4 times
in loose sands (Ladd et al. 1977). A conservative estimate of the plane
strain friction angle may be obtained from the triaxial friction angle by (Lade
and Lee 1976):
For
For
On the basis of the suggestions made by Bishop (1961) and Bjerrum and
Kummeneje (1961) that the plane strain friction angle is 10% greater than
that from a triaxial compression test, Meyerhof proposed the corrected
friction angle for use with rectangular footings as:
Hansen’s Bearing Capacity Equation:
Based on theoretical and experimental work, Hansen (1970) proposed
the following bearing capacity equation for drained and undrained
conditions:
In addition to the shape (s), depth (d ), and inclination (i ) factors,

Hansen(1970) included base inclination (b) and ground
inclination (g) factors. Base inclination factors account for any
inclination in the base of the footing.
This may become necessary when
the footing is required to carry an β
inclined load. The ground inclination D
factors account for the reduction in
bearing capacity when the footing is
located on sloping ground, α
as shown in Fig. B
Shape Depth Factor
Factor
Hansen’s(1970)
Shape and Depth
Factor
For φ value Load Inclination

Factor
Φ=0
Hansen’s(1970)
Load Inclination Φ>0
Factor 5
Any Φ
5
Any Φ
Hansen’s(1970) Base Inclination and Ground Inclination
Factor
Base Inclination Factor Ground Inclination Factor
Inclination
5
β
D
α
B
Comparative Over View of Terzaghi’s, Meyerhof’s and Hansen Equation
 Terzaghi’s
Type of Footing General Equation
Long Footing: qu = cNc + ƔDNq + ƔGNƔ
Square Footing qu = 1.3 cNc + ƔDNq + 0.4 ƔBNƔ
Circular Footing qu = 1.3 cNc + ƔDNq + 0.3 ƔBNƔ

 Meyerhof’s
Type of Loading General Equation
Vertical Load qu = cNcscdc + Nqsqdq + γBNγ sγ dγ
Inclined load qu = cNcscdcic + Nqsqdqiq + γBNγ sγ
dγiγ
 Hansen’s
Inclination of Ground General Equation
Surface
Inclined qu = cNcscdcicbcgc + Nqsqdqiqbqgq + BNγsγ dγiγdγgγ
Horizontal Ground qu = -c cotø + (+ c cot ø) Nqsqdqiqbqgq + BNγsγ

Surface dγiγdγgγ
After various research and field investigation DeBeer(1970)
proposed shape factor and Hansen(1970) suggest depth factor and
Meyerhof and Hanna(1981) give inclination factor for general equation of
shallow footing bearing capacity.
Factor Relationship Reference
Shape Factor DeBeer

(1970)
Hansen(1970) suggested depth factor:
Depth/Width For φ Value Depth Factor

ratio
Hansen(1970) suggested depth factor:
Depth/Width For φ Value Depth Factor

ratio
Meyerhof and Hanna(1981) suggested Inclination factor:
Modification of Bearing Capacity Equations for Water Table
Case-I
water Table
Water table at depth ≥(Df+B)
B
Ground water Table
Case-II
Water table at depth Df to (Df+B)
Where
Case-III
Water table at depth < Df
Comparative analysis of the bearing capacity formula.
After Ko and Davidson (1973).
Examples of Evaluation of Bearing Capacity
Example 1
A square foundation is 1.5m*1.5m in plan. The soil supporting the foundation has a
friction angle Φ′=20˚, and c’=15.2 KN/m2. The unit weight of soil γ is 17.8 KN/m3.
Determine the allowable gross load on the foundation with a factor of safety (FS) of 4.
Assume that the depth of the foundation (Df) is 1 meter and that general shear failure
occurs in soil.
Solution:
From Eq.
From Table for Φ′=20˚,

=17.69
= 7.44
=3.64
Thus,
= KN/m2
So the allowable load per unit area of the foundation is

qall = qu /FS = KN/m2
,
Example 2
Repeat Example-1, Assuming that local shear failure occurs in the soil supporting
the foundation.
Solution:
From Eq.
From Table for Φ′=20˚

=11.85
= 3.88
=1.12
So
= KN/m2
KN/m2
0̊
0.7m ć =0
ǿ=30̊
Ɣ=18K
N/m
Example:04
A square foundation is shown in Figure. Assume that the one- way load
eccentricity e =0.15 m. Determine the ultimate load, Qult..
Solution:
With c’ = 0 Eq. becomes
qu’= qNqFqsFqdFqi+ 0.5γB’NγFγsFγdFγi
q=(0.7)*(18)=12.6 KN/m2
For ’ =30˚, from table, Nq=18.4 and Nγ= 22.4.
B’= 1.5-2*(0.15)=1.2m
L’= 1.5 m
Fqs= 1+( B’/ L’)tan ’=1+(1.2/1.5)*tan30˚=1.462
Fqd= 1+2 tan ’*(1- sin ’)*(Df/B)= 1+(.289)*(0.7)/1.5=1.135
0.7m
Fγs=1-0.4(B’/L’)=1-0.4*(1.2/1.5)=0.68
Fγd=1
So, Ɣ=18 KN/m3
qu’=(12.6)(18.4)(1.462)(1.135)+0.5(18)(1.2)(22.4)(0.68)(1) ǿ=30̊
Ć=0
=384.7+164.50= 549.2 KN/m2
Hence,
Qult=B’L’(qu’)=(1.2)(1.5)(549.2)=988 KN
Example:05
Given The data in Figure. Find qu via Terzagh’s , Meyerhof’s and Hansen’s Equation.
Solution:
γ =18.2 KN/m3
Via Terzagis’s equation: 1m C =16 KN/m2
Ø =24̊
qu = cNc + γDNq + γBNγ
For φ = 24˚, Nc =23.36, Nq=11.4 , Nγ=8.58, Hence, B=1m xL=20m
qu = 16*(23.36)+ 18.2*1*11.4 + *(18.2)*(1)*(8.58)

=659.3 KN/m2
Via Meyerhof’s equation:
For φ = 24˚ Nc =19.32, Nq=9.60, Nγ=5.72,
Hence, =1+0.2 *(2.37)*(1/20) =1.02

= 1.01
=1+0.2*√2.37*(1/1) =1.31
=1.15
ic= iγ= iq =1
Thus
qu= 16*(19.32)*(1.02)*(1.31)+18.2*(1)*(9.6)*(1.01)*(1.15)+0.5*(18.2)*(1)(5.72)*(1.01)*(1)
=412.62+202.94+52.57 =668.13 KN/m2
Via Hansen’s equation:

For horizontal ground surface and horizontal footing base, and inclination factor =1
For φ=24˚, Nc =19.32, Nq=9.6, Nγ=5.75.
= 1+0.41*(1/20) =1.02
=1-0.4*(1/20) =0.98
dγ=1
qu= -16*(2.25)+(18.2*1+35.94)(9.6)(1.02)(1.31)+0.5*(18.2)(5.75)(0.98)(1)
=-35.94+694.44+51.84 =710.34 KN/m2
Summary of qu Values,
Method Terzaghi Meyerhof Hansen
qu(KN/m2) 659.3 668.13 710.34
Example :06
The results of a full-scale test conducted by H.Muhs in Berlin and reported by J.B Hansen(24).
The pertinent data associated with this test, as reported by Hansen are:
Footing dimension L= 2m; B=0.5m (A=1m2);D=0.5m.
Dense sand,
=0.95 t/m3; c=0, Failure load Q=190 t ; φpl=47˚(φtr≈40˚; Muh’s measured≈40˚).

Find qu Via Terzaghi’s, Meyerhof’s and Hansen’s equations
Example
Via Terzaghi’s equation:
Note L/B=4; Use of long footing equation is perhaps acceptable, For c=0.
For φ=47˚, Nq=246, Nγ=585.
qu = (0.95)*(0.5)*(246)+(1/2)*(0.95)*(0.5)*(585)=255.78 t/m2
Via Meyerhof’s equations:
For φ=47˚, Nq=190, Nγ=429.
From equation-
qu = 278.60 t/m2
Via Hansen’s equation

(for c=0, i, b and g terms =0)
For φ=47˚, Nq=190, Nγ=300
dγ=1
qu= 186.6 t/m2

Summary of qu Values,
Method Terzaghi Meyerhof Hansen Measured

qu(KN/m2) 255.78 278.6 186.6 190
The theories used in that chapter are based
on shear failure criteria. They do not indicate
the settlement that a footing may undergo
under the ultimate loading conditions. From
the known ultimate bearing capacity obtained
from any one of the theories, the allowable
bearing pressure can be obtained by
applying a suitable factor of safety to the
ultimate value. When we design a foundation,
we must see that the structure is safe on two
counts. They are,
1. The supporting soil should be safe from

shear failure due to the loads imposed on it
by the superstructure,
2. The settlement of the foundation should be

within permissible limits.
Definitions of bearing capacity
Ultimate Bearing Capacity, qult
Is the intensity of bearing pressure at

which the supporting ground is
expected to fail in shear, i.e. a building
will collapse.
Safe bearing capacity, qs
Where F = factor of safety

Factor of Safety of bearing capacity
Vesic, 1975, suggested minimum factors of safety for shallow foundations

which take into account the extent of the site investigation, likelihood of
maximum design load and the consequences of failure, as shown below-
Allowable bearing capacity, qa
Is the bearing pressure that will cause acceptable settlement of the
structure, i.e. if settlement is excessive the safe bearing capacity
value will need to be reduced (by increasing F until settlement is
acceptable). Settlement may be either long term consolidation
(clays) or immediate (sands and gravels)
Thus any foundation design must include:
1. Bearing capacity analysis
2. Settlement analysis – varies according to type of structure /

nature of soils
Net Bearing Capacity, qn or qnet
Soil excavated to depth, D in order to construct a foundation, causes
a relief in vertical stress of ɣD. If the excavation is subsequently
backfilled the overburden pressure, σo, is restored and net bearing
capacity applies.
For example, net ultimate bearing capacity, qn ult ,is the net change in
total stress experienced by the soil at the base of the foundation i.e.;
qn ult = (total applied stress) – (stress removed due to the excavation)

qn ult = qult - σo
= qult - ɣD
The factor of safety, F must be applied to the net and not the gross
ultimate bearing capacity-
Idealized curvet of load per unit area versus settlement
of foundation
Stress
qa
Sa Settlement
Refer to Fig. which is a plot of load per unit area q versus settlement S for a
foundation.
The ultimate bearing capacity is realized at a settlement level of Su . Let
Sall be the allowable level of settlement for the foundation and qall(S) be the
corresponding allowable bearing capacity. If FS is the factor of safety against
bearing capacity failure, then the allowable bearing capacity is qall (b) = qu /FS.
The settlement corresponding to qall (b) is

S´. For foundations with smaller
widths of B, S´ may be less than Sall ;
however, for larger values of B, Sall < S´.
Hence, for smaller foundation widths, the
bearing capacity controls and, for
larger foundation widths, the allowable
settlement controls
Effect of Size of Footings on Settlement.
Figure gives typical load-settlement

relationships for footings of different widths
on the surface of a homogeneous sand
deposit. It can be seen that the ultimate
bearing capacities of the footings per unit
area increase with the increase in the
widths of the footings. However, for a given
settlement S, such as 25 mm, the soil
pressure is greater for a footing of
intermediate width Bb than for a large
footing with BC. The pressures
corresponding to the three widths
intermediate, large and narrow, are
indicated by points b, c and a respectively.
narrow
Nature of Load-Settlement curve in clay

Wide
narrow
Nature of Load-Settlement curve in sand Wide

The same data is used to plot
Fig. which shows the pressure
per unit area corresponding to a
given settlement S1, as a
function of the width of the
footing. The soil pressure for
settlement Sl increases for
increasing width of the footing, if
the footings are relatively small,
reaches a maximum at an
intermediate width, and then
decreases gradually with
increasing width.
We learnt that qna is obtained by applying a suitable factor of safety
(normally 3) to the net ultimate bearing capacity of soil. Now we have to
learnd how to obtain qs. Even without knowing the values of qna and qs,it
is possible to say from experience which of the two values should be
used in design based upon the composition and density of soil and the
size of the footing. The composition and density of the soil and the size
of the footing decide the relative values of qna and qs.
The ultimate bearing capacity of footings on sand increases with an

increase in the width, and in the same way the settlement of the footing
increases with increases in the width. In other words for a given settlement
the corresponding unit soil pressure decreases with an increase in the
width of the footing. It is therefore, essential to consider that settlement will
be the criterion for the design of footings in sand beyond a particular size.
Experimental evidence indicates that for footings smaller than about 1.20
m, the allowable bearing pressure q is the criterion for the design of
footings, whereas settlement is the criterion for footings greater than 1.2 m
width.
The bearing capacity of footings on clay is independent of the
size of the footings, the settlement of the footing increases with
an increase in the size. It is essential to take into consideration
both the shear failure and the settlement criteria together to
decide the safe bearing pressure.
However, footings on stiff clay, hard clay, and other firm soils
generally require no settlement analysis if the design provides a
minimum factor of safety of 3 on the net ultimate bearing capacity of
the soil. Soft clay, compressible silt, and other weak soils will settle
even under moderate pressure and therefore settlement analysis is
necessary.
Both of the above consideration are a function of the least lateral dimension
of the footing, typically called the footing width and designed as Bf . The
effect of footing width on allowable bearing capacity and settlement is
shown conceptually in Figure. The allowable bearing capacity of a footing
is usually controlled by shear-failure considerations for narrow footing
widths as shown in zone A in Figure. As the footing width increases,
the allowable bearing capacity is limited by the settlement potential of the
soils supporting the footing which is a function of the footing width .
Stated another way, as the footing width increase, the stress increase felt
by the soil may decrease but effect of the applied stress will extend more
deeply below the footing base. Therefore, settlements may increase
depending on the type of soils within the depth of settlement influence.
This is schematically shown in zone B in Figure.
The concept of decreasing allowable bearing capacity with increasing
footing width for the settlement controlled case is an important concept to
understand. In such cases, the allowable bearing capacity is the value
of the applied stress at the footing width, the only way to limit the
settlements to a certain desired value is by reducing applied stress.
The more stringent the settlement criterion the less the stress that can be
applied to the footing which in turn means that the allowable bearing capacity
is correspondingly less. This is conceptually illustrated in Figure wherein
it is shown that decreasing the settlement, i.e., going from 3s to 2s to s
decreases the allowable bearing capacity at a given footing width.
Differential Settlement
Differential settlement should not exceed 50% of the total settlement calculated for the
foundation.
Considering the sizes of different footing, the following criteria is suggested for buildings:
Differential settlement of footing  75% of max calculated settlement of footing

For raft foundation the requirements shall be more stringent and they may designed for the
following criteria
Differential settlement of raft footing  37% of max calculated settlement of raft footing
d
D D
= maximum settlement
= differential settlement
/D = angular distortion
Chart for estimating allowable soil pressure for footing on sand on the
basis of results of standard penetration test. (Terzaghi, et al., 1996)
Formulas for Settlement Calculations.
by Terzaghi et al., (1996)
The following formulas were developed for computing settlements for

square footings.
For normally consolidated soils and gravels
For preconsolidated sand and gravel
For
For
Effect of Settlement on the Structure - Foundations.
If the structure as a whole settles uniformly into the ground there will not
be any detrimental effect on the structure . The only effect it can have is on
the service lines, such as water an sanitary pipe connections, telephone
and electric cables etc. which can break if the settlement considerable.
Such uniform settlement is possible only if the subsoil is homogeneous
and the loa distribution is uniform. Buildings in Mexico City have undergone
settlements as large as 2 m However, the differential settlement if it
exceeds the permissible limits will have a devastating effect on the structure
According to experience, the differential settlement between parts of a

structure may no exceed 75 percent of the normal absolute settlement.
The various ways by which differentia settlements may occur in a
structure are shown in table gives the absolute an permissible differential
settlements for various types of structures
Bearing capacity of cohesive soils
The ultimate bearing capacity of saturated cohesive soils (clay and silt) with
low permeability is most critical immediately after construction, before the
excess pore water pressure has had time to dissipate i.e. undrained
conditions.
As time proceeds, consolidation occurs, the soil becomes stiffer and has
more strength. Therefore design of foundations on fine grained soils should
be in terms of undrained or total stress.
Skempton (1951) suggested for an undrained saturated clay (ϕu = 0o), the
basic Terzaghi equation should be used, but with values of Nc related to the
shape and depth of the foundation-
Since when ϕu = 0o; Nq = 1 and Nɣ = 0 Terzaghi becomes;
And in net terms;

Values of Nc can be found from the
chart (Skempton, 1951) below:
Special Cases:
Ultimate Bearing Capacity at Shallow Depth
The bearing capacity problems are already described assuming
that-
The soil supporting the foundation is homogeneous and extends to a

great depth below the bottom of the foundation.
They also assume that the ground surface is horizontal; however, this
is not true in all cases.
It is possible to encounter-
 A rigid layer at a shallow depth,
The soil may be layered and have different shear strength

parameters.
 It may be necessary to construct foundations on or near a slope.

Foundation Supported by soil with Rigid Base at
Shallow Depth
(a) Homogeneous soil extending to a great depth;
The extent of the failure zone in soil at ultimate load qu is equal to D. The
magnitude of D obtained during the evaluation of the bearing capacity
factor Nc by Prandtl [1] and Nq by Reissner [2] is given in a
nondimensional form . Similarly, the magnitude of D obtained by
Lundgren and Mortensen [3] during the evaluation of NƔ is given in Fig.
In the next slide
Variation of D/B with soil friction angle (for Nc ,Nq and NƔ )
Now if a rigid rough base is located at a depth of H < D below the
bottom of the foundation, full development of the failure surface in
soil will be restricted.
In such a case, the soil failure zone and the development of slip lines
at ultimate load will be as shown in Fig. b.
rough rigid base
(b) A rough rigid base located at a shallow depth

Mandel and Salencon [4] determined the bearing capacity factors
for such a case by numerical integration using the theory of
plasticity. According to Mandel and Salencon’s theory, the ultimate
bearing capacity of a rough continuous foundation with a rigid
rough base located at a shallow depth can be given by the
relation-
The variation of with H/B and soil friction angle
are shown in the following figs.-
Mandel and Salencon’s bearing capacity factor

Rectangular Foundation in Granular Soil
Neglecting the depth factors, the ultimate bearing capacity of rough

circular and rectangular foundations on a sand layer (c = 0) with a rough
rigid base located at a shallow depth can be given as-
The above-mentioned shape factors are functions of H/B and ".

Based on the work of Meyerhof and Chaplin [5]
Where
and L = length of the foundation
B = Width of the foundation
The variations of m1 and m2 with H/B and " are given in following Figs:
Cerato and Lutenegger(2006) provided some test results for the bearing
Capacity Factor N*Ɣ. These tests were conducted using Square and circular
plates with B Varying from 6inch to 12inch.
Terzaghi’s bearing capacity equations for square and circular foundation
can be used-
For Square Foundation
For Circular Foundation

Foundation in Saturated Clay
For saturated clay (that is, φ = 0)
Mandel and Salencon [9] performed calculations to evaluate Nc* for

continuous foundations. Similarly, Buisman [10] gave the following relationship
for obtaining the ultimate bearing capacity of square foundations,
Example-01
Example-02
ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY OF FOOTINGS ON LAYERED SOIL
In layered soil profiles, the unit weight of the soil, the angle of
friction and the cohesion are not constant throughout the depth.
The ultimate surface failure may extend through two or more of the
soil layers.
Consider the case when the stronger soil is underlain by a weaker

soil. If H, the thickness of the layer of soil below the footing, is
relatively large then the failure surface will be completely located in
the top soil layer, which is the upper limit for the ultimate bearing
capacity.
If the thickness H is small compared to the foundation width B, a

punching shear failure will occur at the top soil stratum, followed
by a general shear failure in the bottom soil layer.
If H is relatively deep, then the shear failure will occur only on the
top soil layer.
Case 1: A Stronger Layer Overlying a Weaker Deposit
Figure (a) shows a strip footing of

width B resting at a depth Df, below
ground surface in a strong soil layer
(Layer 1).
The depth to the boundary of the weak
layer (Layer 2) below the base of the
footing is H.
If this depth H is insufficient to form a
full failure plastic zone in Layer 1
under the ultimate load conditions, a
part of this ultimate load will be
transferred to the boundary level mn.
This load will induce a failure condition
in the weaker layer (Layer 2).
However, if the depth H is
relatively large then the failure surface
will be completely located in Layer 1
as shown in Fig. (b).
The equation for the ultimate bearing capacity qu for the two layer soil
system may now be expressed as-
Layer-1
where, Stronger
qb - ultimate bearing capacity of Layer 2
Ca- adhesion force
Layer-2
The equation for Pp may be written as- weaker
In practice, it is convenient to use a coefficient Ks of punching shearing resistance
on the vertical plane through the footing edges so that
The punching shear co-efficient Ks is function of q2 /q1 and φ’
Note that q2 and q1 are the ultimate bearing capacity of a continous foundation
of width B
Variation of Ca’/C’1 with q2/q 1 based on the Coefficients of punching shear resistance
Theory of Meyerhof and Hanna, 1978) under vertical load (after Meyerhof and
Hanna, 1978)
For Rectangular Foundation
Where
and
BEARING CAPACITY EVALUATION BY FIELD TESTS
Consistency of Saturated Cohesive Soils:
For sand the empirical Values for Dr, Friction Angle, & Unit Weight
vs. SPT*
Table—Penetration resistance and soil properties based on
the SPT (Peck, et al.)
Wash Boring
Auger Boring
In-situ (on-site) tests:
1. Plate bearing test

2. Standard penetration test (SPT) –
sand/gravel beds
3. Vane Shear test
Plate bearing test
The plate load test is a semi-direct method to estimate the allowable
bearing pressure of soil to induce a given amount of settlement. Plates,
round or square, varying in size, from 30 to 60 cm and thickness of about
2.5 cm are employed for the test.
The load on the plate is applied by making use of a hydraulic jack.
The reaction of the jack load is taken by a cross beam or a steel truss
anchored suitably at both the ends. The settlement of the plate is
measured by a set of three or four dial gauges of sensitivity 0.02 mm
placed 120° or 90° apart. The dial gauges are fixed to independent
supports which remain undisturbed during the test.
Testing Procedure
Select test location and depth at the point where

the real foundation will be constructed, if possible. If the test is performed
in a test pit, width of the pit should be at least 4 to 5 times of
plate diameter.
Apply the load to the plate in steps by means of hydraulic jack pushing
against the counter weight until reaching the maximum test load.
Unloading should also be done in the backward steps. Read and record
the load of every step from proving ring.
 Read settlement from the dial gauges. 3 to 4 dial gauges should be
placed separately at 120° or 90° respectively.
The test should continue until a total settlement of 2.5 cm or the settlement
at which the soil fails, whichever is earlier, is obtained. After the load is
released, the elastic rebound of the soil should be recorded.
From the test results, a load-settlement curve should be plotted as shown in
Figure.
Allowable pressure on a prototype foundation for an assumed settlement may
be found by making use of the following equations suggested by Terzaghi and
Peck (1948)--
For square footings in granular soils:

2
For square footings in Cohesive soil:
where
Sf = permissible settlement of foundation in mm,
Sp= settlement of plate in mm,
B = size of foundation in meters,
b = size of plate in meters
Since a load test is of short duration, consolidation settlements cannot be
predicted. The test gives the value of immediate settlement only.
If the underlying soil is sandy in nature immediate settlement may be taken

as the total settlement.
If the soil is a clayey type, the immediate settlement is only a fraction of the
total settlement. Load tests, therefore, do not have much significance in
clayey soils to determine allowable pressure on the basis of a settlement
criterion.
If the soil is not homogeneous to a great depth, plate load tests give very
misleading results.
A plate load test is not recommended in soils which are not homogeneous
at least to a depth equal to 1-l/2 to 2 times the width of the prototype
foundation.
Scale Effect:
If the soil is not homogeneous to a
great depth, plate load tests give very
misleading results. Assume, as shown
in Fig. two layers of soil. The top
layer is stiff clay whereas the bottom
layer is soft clay. The load test
conducted near the surface of the
ground measures the characteristics
of the stiff clay but does not indicate the nature of the soft clay soil which is
below.
The actual foundation of a building however has a bulb of pressure which

extends to a great depth into the poor soil which is highly compressible. Here
the soil tested by the plate load test gives results which are highly on the
unsafe side.
Plate load tests should not be relied on to determine the ultimate bearing capacity of
sandy soils as the scale effect gives very misleading results. However, when the
tests are carried on clay soils, the ultimate bearing capacity as determined by the
test may be taken as equal to that of the foundation since the bearing capacity of
clay is essentially independent of the footing size.
Bearing capacity of granular soil
In the case of sands, the settlement is almost immediate and an allowable

or permissible settlement of 25mm is usually applied.
♦Foundation design uses the allowable bearing capacity, qa, which

satisfies the settlement condition and provides values of the Factor of
Safety greater than the normal 3.0 – 4.0.
♦Because of the difficulty and expense of undisturbed sampling and lack

of uniformity of sand/gravel deposits, in-situ test results are used to
determine the allowable bearing capacity and to make settlement
predictions.
Standard Penetration test (SPT)
The standard penetration test (SPT) is an in-situ dynamic
penetration test designed to provide information on the
geotechnical engineering properties of soil. The test
procedure is described in the , ASTM D1586 .
The test uses a thick-walled sample tube, with an outside

diameter of 50 mm and an inside diameter of 35 mm, and a
length of around 650 mm. This is driven into the ground at
the bottom of a borehole by blows from a slide hammer with
a weight of 63.5 kg (140 lb) falling through a distance of
760 mm (30 in). The sample tube is driven 150 mm into the
ground and then the number of blows needed for the tube to
penetrate each 150 mm (6 in) up to a depth of 450 mm
(18 in) is recorded. The sum of the number of blows required
for the second and third 6 in. of penetration is termed the
"standard penetration resistance" or the "N-value".
Generally two types of sample collecting device and for counting SPT value are used -
1. Split-Spoon Sampling
Used in the field to obtain soil samples that are generally disturbed but still
representative
The degree of disturbance for a soil sample is expressed as-
Where
AR =Ratio of disturbed area to total area of soil
Do =Outside diameter of the sampling tube
Di =Inside diameter of the sampling tube
When the area ratio is 10% or less , the sample is generally considered
to be undisturbed
SPT VIDEO
SPT ANIMATION
2. Shelby Tube
Made of seamless steel or aluminum and are frequently

used to obtain undisturbed soils i,e clayey soil.
The most common thin walled tube samplers have outside

Diameter 50.8mm and 76.2mm. The bottom end of the tube
Is sharpened. The drilled rod with the sampler attached is
lower to the bottom of the bore hole and the sampler is
pushed in to the soil. The soil sample inside the tube is
then pulled out.
This tube may then be transported as-is with a threaded

sealing cap on the open end or have the sample pushed
out and sealed in a purpose made tube for later
examination.
The degree of disturbance for a soil sample is expressed

as-
1 2
3
Fig-1: Tube being attached to drill rod
Fig-2: Tube sampler pushed into soil
Fig-3: Recovery of soil sample
SOIL SAMPLING BY SHELBY TUBE
The standard penetration test results, N values, are corrected to allow for;
--Pore water pressure and

--Overburden pressure
and are then used to find the allowable bearing capacity, qa, from chart
Correction factor, CN, for overburden pressure
This accounts for the confining pressure at the depth at which the N value
has been taken and is read off a graph (Peck, Hanson & Thornburn,
1974):
Correction Factor CN
Effective Overburden Stress, Kn/m2

Now a revised value for the number of blows,
Nrev = CN x N
The effects of pore water pressure
At the location of the test are considered by further correcting the Nrev
value:
Ncorr = 15 + 0.5(Nrev – 15)
This corrected, Ncorr, value is then used to find the allowable bearing
pressure (=capacity) qa from the chart below (Terzaghi, K & Peck, R B
1967, p.491)
The effect of the water
table may be taken into
account by applying the
following correction:
Allowable Bearing Pressure, Kn/m2
Standard Penetration Resistance

where
Dw = depth of water table
below ground level
D = depth of foundation below
ground level
B = width of foundation
Thus, allowable bearing
pressure, qa derived from the
previous graph becomes a
corrected allowable bearing
pressure, qa corr
Width of Footing, B (m)

It is important to point out that several factors contribute to the variation
of the standard penetration number N at a given depth for similar soil
profiles.
--SPT hammer efficiency,

--Borehole diameter,
--Sampling method , and
--Rod length factor.
The two most common types of STP hammers used in the field are the
safety hammer and donut hammer. They are commonly dropped by a
rope with two wraps around a pulley.
On the basis of field observations, it appears reasonable to standardize

the field penetration number as a function of the input driving energy and
its dissipation around the sampler into the surrounding soil, or
SPT hammer efficiency, can be expressed as- Where
Input Energy= Wh
W=Wt. of hammer
≈0.623KN (140 lb)
h=Ht. of Drop ≈0.76m(30”)
In the field, the magnitude of Er can vary from 30 to 90%.
The standard practice now is to express the N value to an average

energy ratio of 60%(≈N60)
Thus correcting for field procedures and on the basis of field
observations, it is reasonable to standardize the field penetration
number as a function of the input driving energy and its dissipation
around the sampler into the surrounding soil-
Where
N60=Standard Penetration number, corrected
For field conditions to an average energy ratio of 60%
N=Measured Penetration number
ɳH=Hammer efficiency(%)
ɳB=Correction for bore hole diameter
ɳS=Sampler correction
ɳR=Correction for rod length
Variation of ɳH
Country Hammer Hammer

ɳH(%)
Type release
Japan Donut Free Fall 78
Donut Rope and Pulley 78
USA Safety Rope and Pulley 60
Donut Rope and Pulley 45
Variation of ɳB
Diameter(mm ɳB
)
60-120 1
150 1.05
200 1.15
Variation of ɳs
Variable ɳs
Standard Sampler 1
With liner for dense sand and 0.8
clay 0.9
With liner for loose sand
Variation of ɳR
Rod Length (m) ɳR

>1o 1
6-10 0.95
4-6 0.85
0-4 0.75
Correlation for N60 in Cohesive Soil
The consistency of clay soils can be estimated from Standard Penetration

number N60.
SPT should be corrected for several correlations.
In order to achieve that, Szechy and Vargi(1978) calculated the

Consistency Index (CI) as-
Where
W= Natural Moisture content
LL=Liquid Limit
PL=Plastic Limit
Hara,et al(1971) suggested the following correlation between the undrained
shear Strength of clay (Cu) and N60
Where
pa=Atmospheric Pressure(≈100 kN/m2 , ≈2000 lb/in2 )
Correlation for N60 in Non-Cohesive Soil
In granular soil, Standard Penetration Number N is affected by the effective
Overburden pressure σ0’ .For that reason the value of N60 obtained from field
Exploration under different effective over burden pressures (σ0’) should be
corrected-
Where
(N1)=The value of N60 corrected to a standard value of σ0’
CN =Correction Factor
Correction Factor CN can be obtained from following relationships-
2
Liao and Whitman’s relationship(1986)
Skempton’s relationship(1986)
Correction Factor CN can be obtained from following relationships-
Liao and Whitman’s relationship(1986)
0.5
Skempton’s relationship(1986)
(For normally consolidated fine sand)
(For normally consolidated coarse sand)
Peck et al’s relationship (1974)

Variation of CN with overburden pressure
Liao and Skempton Skempton Peck

Whitma (Fine (Coarse et all
n Sand) Sand)
025 2 1.60 1.33 1.47

0.5 1.41 1.33 1.2 1.23
0.75 1.15 1.14 1.09 1.10
1 1 1 1 1
1.5 0.82 0.80 0.86 0.87
2 0.71 0.67 0.75 0.77
3 0.58 0.57 0.60 0.63
4 0.5 0.40 0.60 0.64
Correlation between N60 and Relative Density of Granular Soil
Meyerhof (1957)
Cubrinovski and Ishihara (1999)

Correlation between Angle of Friction and Standard
Penetration Number
♦ Peck, Hanson and Thornburn(1974)
♦ Schmertmann (1975)
CPT VIDEO
qc (KN/m2) fc (KN/m2)
♦ The CPT is originally known as Dutch
Cone Penetration Test is used for
investigation of engineering properties
for a soil profile.
♦ The test is also called the static
penetration test and no bore holes are
required to perform.
depth (m)
A 60o cone with a base area of 10
cm2 is pushed into the ground at a
Steady rate of about 20mm/sec and
the resistance of penetration is
measured.
The CPT is used to measure

♦ The point resistance or cone resistance ,qc
♦The frictional resistance, fc
Generally two types of penetrometer are used
♦ Mechanical Friction –Cone Penetrometer
The tip of this penetrometer is

connected to an inner set of rods.
The tip is first advanced about
40mm, giving the cone resistance.
With further thrusting, the tip
engages the friction sleeve.
As the rod advances , the rod force

is equal to the sum of the vertical
force on the cone and sleeve.
Subtracting the force on the cone
gives the side resistance.
♦ Electric Friction –Cone Penetrometer
The tip of this penetrometer is attached to a string of steel rods. The tip is pushed
into the ground at the rate of 20mm/sec
Correlation between qc ,Fr and the type of soil
(Robertson and Campanella’s 1983)
Where
Correlation between qc ,σ’o and Dr for normally consolidated sand
( Baldi et al. 1982) and (Robertson and Campanella’s 1983)
Correlation between qc/D60 for various type of soil
Correlation between qc ,Fr and the type of soil
Correlation between qc and Drained Friction Angle (φ’) for Sand
Robertson and Campanella (1983) suggested the variation of Dr, σo’ and φ’ for
Normally consolidated quartz sand.
This relationship is modified by (Kulhawy and Mayne,1990)
Correlation between Undrained Shear Strength, Effective

Vertical Pressure
Where
Correlations for preconsolidation pressure (σ’o )and
overconsolidation ratio(OCR)
(Mayne and Kemper-1988)
Vane Shear Test
The vane shear test is an in-situ geotechnical testing methods used
to estimate the undrained shear strength of fully saturated clays
without disturbance. The test is relatively simple, quick, and
provides a cost-effective way of estimating the soil shear strength;
therefore, it is widely used in geotechnical investigations.
The results of the test are not reliable if clay contains silt or sand.
The vane shear test apparatus consists of a four-blade stainless steel

vane attached to a steel rod that will be pushed into the ground. The
height of vane is usually twice its overall widths and is often equal to
10 cm or 15 cm.
 A rod with a four blade vane is pushed into the ground and rotated
generally at a slow rate of 6o to 12o per minute. Every 15 - 30 secs
the torque force is measured, once maximum torque has been
reached, the vane is rotated rapidly for ten revolutions to induce
shear failure. After shearing, the slow rotation rate is resumed to
determine the remoulded shear strength. The shear strength is
proportional to the torque / blade diameter3.
The test can be done at the base of a drill hole or trial pit, or at
ground level. If the test is being conducted at the bottom of a
drill hole it is important that the test area has not been disturbed by
boring, generally the test is conducted five borehole diameters
below the borehole base.
VANE SHEAR TEST
The undrained Shear strength in pure clay is-
Where
T=applied torque in N-m
Cu=Undrained Shear strength kN/m2
The constant is expressed as-
Where
D=Diameter of vane in cm
H=Height of vane in cm
If H/D=2
Location and depth of Foundation
The following considerations are necessary for deciding the
location and depth of foundation
As per IS:1904-1986, minimum depth of foundation shall be 0.50 m.

 Foundation shall be placed below the zone of
 The frost heave
 Excessive volume change due to moisture variation (usually exists
within 1.5 to 3.5 m depth of soil from the top surface)
 Topsoil or organic material
 Peat and Muck
 Unconsolidated material such as waste dump
 Foundations adjacent to flowing water (flood water, rivers, etc.)
shall be protected against scouring. The following steps to be taken
for design in such conditions
 Determine foundation type
 Estimate probable depth of scour, effects, etc.
 Estimate cost of foundation for normal and various scour conditions
 Determine the scour versus risk, and revise the design accordingly
Recommendations for foundations adjacent to

slopes and existing structures
 When the ground surface slopes

downward adjacent to footing, the
sloping surface should not cut the
line 1V of distribution of the load
2H(2H:1V).
 In granular soils, the line joining the
lower adjacent edges of upper and
lower footings shall not have a
slope steeper than 2H:1V.
 In clayey soil, the line joining the
lower adjacent edge of the upper
footing and the edge of the lower footing
should not be steeper than 2H:1V.
Other recommendations for footing adjacent to existing
Structures
 Minimum horizontal distance between the foundations shall

not be less than the width of larger footing to avoid damage to
existing structure
 If the distance is limited, the principal of 2H:1V distribution

should be used so as to minimize the influence to old structure
 Proper care is needed during excavation phase of foundation

construction beyond merely depending on the 2H:1V criteria for
old foundations. Excavation may cause settlement to old
foundation due to lateral bulging in the excavation and/or shear
failure due to reduction in overburden stress in the surrounding
of old foundation
Footings on surface rock or sloping rock faces
For the locations with shallow rock beds, the foundation can be
laid on the rock surface after chipping the top surface.
If the rock bed has some slope, it may be advisable to provide
dowel bars of minimum 16 mm diameter and 225 mm embedment
into the rock at 1 m spacing
.
A raised water table may cause damage to the foundation by
 Floating the structure

Reducing the effective stress beneath the foundation
Water logging around the building may also cause wet basements. In
such cases, proper drainage system around the foundation may be
required so that water does not accumulate.
Loads on Foundation
Permanent Load:
This is actual service load/sustained loads of a structure which give rise
stresses and deformations in the soil below the foundation causing its
settlement.
Transient Load:
This momentary or sudden load imparted to a structure due to wind or
seismic vibrations. Due to its transitory nature, the stresses in the soil
below the foundation carried by such loads are allowed certain
percentage increase over the allowable safe values.
Dead Load:
It includes the weight of the column/wall, footings, foundations, the
overlaying fill but excludes the weight of the
displaced soil
Live Load:
This is taken as per the specifications .
Bearing Capacity of sand based on SPT:
Units Meyerhof Bowles For Footing

Width
FPS
Note:
Bearing Capacity of sand based on SPT:
The allowable bearing pressure based on ultimate capacity
This allowable pressure is equal to the ultimate bearing capacity divided
by an appropriate factor of safety. A factor of safety of 3 is usually used
under normal loading condition
For square footing:
For very long footing:
Where,
qult = Net ultimate bearing pressure, psf.
B= width of footing, ft.
D = Depth of footing, ft, measured from ground surface to bottom of
footing. If. D > B, use D=B for computation
Rw and Rw’= Correction factor for position of water level, When the
water level is below the bottom of footing, Rw’ = 1.0; and when water
level is above the bottom of footing, Rw=0.5.
The allowable bearing pressure based on tolerable settlement
This allowable bearing pressure has been established empirically(Terzahgi

and Peck, 1984) and may be expressed by the equation:
Spread Footings
Calculated Soil Bearing = Diminishing Soil Pressure
Load (pounds) W=footing

width
Area of Footing (sq.ft) Critical zone for
compaction
Soil pressure
Compare to Allowable Soil cut by ½ at W
Bearing Capacity this level
Soil pressure
W
cut by 2/3 at
this level
Net Bearing Capacity
Soil excavated to depth, D in order to construct a foundation, causes a
relief in vertical stress of ɣD. If the excavation is subsequently backfilled
the overburden pressure, Ϭo, is restored and net bearing capacity
applies.
For example, net ultimate bearing capacity, qn ult ,is the net change in
total stress experienced by the soil at the base of the foundation i.e.;
qn ult = (total applied stress) – (stress removed due to the excavation)
qn ult = qult - Ϭo
= qult - ɣD
The factor of safety, F.S must be applied to the net and not the gross
ultimate bearing capacity
In terms of effective stress (e.g.. For a foundation

placed in free draining sand when the W.T. is
Above the foundation base):
Where
Soil Pressure Distribution
Pressure distribution when the underneath

soil is granular
Pressure distribution when the underneath

soil is clay
Idealized Pressure distribution

Structural Design of Spread Footing
Two criteria to design for

-Flexure
-Shear
it is more expedient to perform the shear analysis first

not expedient to use shear reinforcement in spread
footings
we neglect the shear strength of the reinforcing steel
Shear analysis is done to determine d
Reinforcing Steel for Flexural Loads
Concrete is weak in tension; thus, reinforcing

steel must be added when tension is anticipated,
which is virtually guaranteed with flexural loading
 Reinforcing steel in foundation almost inevitably

involves use of reinforcing bars (rebar); welded
wire fabric, needles, etc., are not generally used
Principles for Flexural Design
Factored moment on the critical surface Muc determines

the necessary dimensions of the member and the
necessary size and location of the reinforcing bars
This can be a complex process; however, geotechnical

considerations tend to simplify the design process, as it
dictates some of the options
 Amount of the steel required flexure depends upon the

effective depth d
Effective depth
Compression
Tension
Nominal moment capacity of a flexural member made of

reinforced concrete
Minimum and Maximum Steel
Minimum and Maximum Spacing
Selection of reinforcing bar size and spacing must satisfy the

following minimum and maximum spacing requirements
Clear space between bars must be at least equal to db,

25 mm (1"), or 4/3 times the nominal aggregate size
Centre-to-centre spacing of the reinforcement must not
exceed 3T or 500 mm (18"), whichever is less
Development Length
Development length Id is the length rebars must extend through
the concrete in order to develop proper anchorage
Assumptions for calculations of minimum development length

Clear spacing between the bars is at least 2db
Concrete cover is at least db
Variables for development length variables
Computation of Development Length
The development length is measured from the critical section for bending to
the end of the bars (usually 75 mm (3") from the end of the footing,
even if loads don't require it)
Supplied development length
l = cantilever distance
This length must be greater than the required development length.

If not, best solution is to use smaller rebars with shorter development
lengths
Classification of Spread Footings
a)Square or Rectangular Footings:

in reality bend in two perpendicular
directions.
b)Strip Footings
are designed as if they bend in only
one direction
Justification of One-
One-Way Slab Assumption
Steel Area
Usual procedure is to prepare a moment diagram and select an
appropriate amount of steel for each portion of the member.
For spread footings, we can simplify this by identifying a critical

section for bending and use the moment determined there to design
the steel for the entire footing.
Location of critical section for bending depends upon the type of

column being used.
Critical Section for Bending
Moment at Critical Bending Section
Factored bending moment Pu

e
Mu
Assumes Pu acts through
Centroid of footing Pu
Based on soil bearing pressure with

assumed eccentricity of B/3
Muc = factored moment at critical section for bending

Pu = factored compressive load from column
Mu = factored moment load from column
l = cantilever distance
B = footing width
Designing for Shear
ACI defines two modes for shear failure in spread footings
One-way shear (beam shear or wide-beam shear)
Two-way shear (Punching shear )

What is Punching Shear?
M M
Element A: Triaxial stress conditioned Element B: Triaxial stress conditioned

Whose crusing value as much as 14 Where compression acts only top and
times than f c' bottom of the face but all 4 sides are
subjected to tensile stress which results
c strength dilation or zero stress and
c unreliable
c c c  t
c c t t
t c
Design Conditions for Shear
Footing design is satisfactory for shear when
Vuc = factored shear force on critical surface
Vnc = nominal shear capacity on the critical surface

Φ = resistance factor for shear = 0.85
Vc = nominal shear load capacity of concrete

Vs = nominal shear load capacity of
steel (neglected)
Two--Way Shear
Two
Two-way shear can be

caused by the column
load P, moment M
and horizontal shear V
on the foundation
To analyze the shear force,

we divide the footing into
two blocks
Only this portion load produces shear

on critical shear surface
Two--Way Shear
Two
Two--Way or Punching Shear Strength
Two
The Nominal Punching Shear Strength
Except for column of elongated cross section
For cases in which the ratio of critical perimeter to slab depth

bo/d is very large
Reinforcement Distribution for Moment
Two--Way or Punching Shear Strength
Two
s
=
Two--Way Shear
Two
The percentage of Pu that produces

shear along the critical surfaces is
the ratio of the base area of the
outer block to the total
base area
An applied moment load Mu will

produce an additional shear
force on the two opposing faces
of the inner block
Force on most critical face of shear block

One-Way Shear
Two-way shear always governs the

design of footings subjected to purely
vertical loads.
Checking such footings for one-way

shear is unnecessary
If applied shear and/or moment

loads are present,
both kinds of shear need to be
checked
One--Way Shear
One
Shear stress caused by the applied vertical load Pu is uniformly

distributed across the two vertical planes as shown in the previous slide
Shear stress on the vertical planes caused by the applied moment load
Mu is expressed by the flexure formula = Mc/I, and thus is the greatest in
the left and right edges of these planes
Shear stress caused by the applied shear load is uniformly distributed

across the planes
The factored shear stress on the critical vertical surfaces is the greatest
shear stress multiplied by the area of the shear surfaces. This may be
greater than the integral of the shear stress across the shear surfaces, but
is useful because it produces a design that keeps the maximum shear
stress within acceptable limits.
The applied normal, moment and shear loads must be multiplied by
(B – c – 2d)/B before applying them to the critical vertical planes.
This factor is the ratio of the footing base area outside the critical
planes to the total area, and thus reflects the percentage of the
applied loads that must be transmitted through the
critical vertical planes
The maximum shear stress on the critical vertical surfaces is the

vector sum of those due to the applied normal, moment and shear
loads
Factored shear force on the critical vertical Surfaces
Vuc = shear force on critical shear surfaces

B = footing width
c = column width
d = effective depth
Pu = applied normal load
Mu = applied moment load
Vu = applied shear load
Nominal one-way shear load capacity on the critical section
Vnc = nominal one-way shear capacity on the

critical section (lb)
Vc = nominal one-way shear capacity of concrete (lb)
bw = length of critical shear surface = 2B (in)
d = effective depth (in)
f'c = 28-day compressive strength of concrete (psi)
and nominal shear strength,
=274 kips
The bending moment on section gh,
The steel area
Checking the minimum steel ratio
So minimum steel requirement
The required development length
=25.0 in
The actual length reserved, =48-3=45 in.

Combined Footing
Strength design in longitudinal direction
The net upward pressure caused by the factored column load is-
The net upward pressure per linear

foot in longitudinal direction is
=7.6x6.5=49.4 k/ft
The maxm negative moment
between columns occurs at the
section of zero shear.
Let x be the distance from the
outer edge of exterior column to
this section-
Then x=9.3 ft
The moment at this section is
The moment at the right edge of the interior column is-
Try d=37.5”
Flexural Shear Check

From the shear diagram the critical section for flexural shear at a distance d
The design shear strength
O.K
Punching Shear Check
Critical Punching Shear at a distance d/2 for exterior 3 sided column

The shear strength on the perimeter section-
Flexural Steel Area in long. direction
Provide 11no. #9 bars in longitudinal direction
Check development Length
The required development length is-
O.K
Strength design in Transverse direction
The effective width of the transverse beam under the interior column is
24+d/2=24+2x37.5/2=61.5” say 5’-0”
The effective depth for bending d=37.5-1=36.5”
Here minimum required steel area control. So-
13 nos-#7 bars are selected.

Mat/Raft foundation
A foundation system in which essentially the entire

building is placed on a large continuous footing.
Usually large concrete slab supporting many columns.
Commonly used as foundation for silos, chimneys, large
machinery.
It is a flat concrete slab, heavily reinforced with steel,
which carries the downward loads of the individual columns
or walls.
Mat Foundation often considered to be used when dealing
with the following conditions:
The spread footings cover over 50% of the

foundation area because of large column loads.
The soil is soft with a low bearing capacity.
Hydrostatic uplift resistance is needed etc.

Common Types of Mat Foundations
Types of Raft Foundation
Plane Slab Rafts:

For fairly small and uniform spacing of columns and when the supporting
soil is not too compressible.
Beam and Slab:
For large column spacing and unequal column loads.
Slab with Column Pedestals:
For columns with heavy loads which may require large shear strength or
flexural strength of slab.
Cellular Rafts:
For compensated foundations to avoid differential settlements in weak soils.
Piled Rafts:
For heavy structures on soft soils in order to share the loads with piles.
Strip Rafts or Grid Rafts:
For economical design where a complete slab may be avoided.
General Considerations for Raft Foundation
The depth of foundation shall not be less than 1.0 m.
 Punching shear failure for raft foundation on cohesionless soils is

not an option so it shall not be considered for analysis. The design is
mostly governed by settlement criteria.
 For raft foundations on cohesive soils, stability against deep seated

failure shall be analyzed. The effect of long term settlement due to
consolidation shall also be considered.
 The uplift due to sub-soil water shall be considered in design. The

construction below water table shall be checked for floatation
 Foundations subjected to heavy vibratory loading should

preferably be isolated
Rigidity of Soil-
Soil-Structure System
Performance of raft depends on the relative rigidity of its three imponents
Super structure
Raft
Soil
Distribution of contact pressures depends on the relative rigidity of the
foundation with respect to soil
It is important that the rigidity of superstructure also matches with the
rigidity of foundation
Rigid Superstructure with Rigid Foundation: Does not allow

differential settlement so it is good
Rigid Superstructure with Flexible Foundation: Large deformations in
the foundation which is not suitable for superstructure
Flexible Superstructure with Rigid Foundation: It may acceptable but
Is not necessary
Flexible Superstructure with Flexible Foundation: This is also good
Characteristic Length and Critical Column Spacing
If the foundation is relatively flexible and the column Spacing large,

settlements will no longer be uniform or Linear. For one thing, the
more heavily loaded columns will cause larger settlements, and
thereby larger Subgrade reaction, than the lighter ones. Also, since
the continuous strip or slab midway between columns will deflected
upward relative to the nearby columns, this means that the soil
settlement, and thereby the subgrade reaction will be smaller midway
between columns than directly at the columns. This is shown
schematically In Fig. below.
In this case the subgrade reaction can no longer be assumed as
uniform. A reasonably accurate but fairly complex analysis can then
be made using the theory of beams on elastic foundation.
A simplified procedure has been developed that covers the most
Frequent situations of strip and grid foundation. The method first
defines the conditions under which a foundation can be regarded as
rigid so that uniform or overall linear distribution of subgrade
reaction can be assumed. This is the case when the average of two
adjacent span length in a continuous strip does not exceed 1.75/λ,
provided also that the adjacent span and column loads do not differ
by more than 20 percent of the larger value. Here,
Where
Ks= S kś
λ=
Kś = Coefficient of subgrade reaction as defined
in soils mechanics, basically force per unit area
required to produce unit settlement, kips/ft3
b = Width of footing, ft.
Ec = Modulus of elasticity of concrete kips/ft2.
I = Moment of inertia of footing, ft4
S = Shape factor, being [ ]2 for granular soils
[ ] cohesive soils such as clays, where n = ratio of longer to
shorter side of strip.
Characteristic Length and Critical Column Spacing
The characteristic coefficient λ, as used in classical solution of
beams on elastic foundation, can be obtained as
λ=
Flexural Rigidity of Structure, EI
Relative Stiffness of Structure and Foundation Soil
Whether The Mat is Rigid or Flexible?
 Rigidity of Superstructure And Foundation

Modulus of Elasticity of Material used in
Structure
Moment of inertia of
structure per unit length
E I b at right angles to B
Kr 
Es B 3
Width of raft
Modulus of Elasticity of Soil
Whether The Mat is Rigid or Flexible?
Where
 ah3 
EIb  E I F  Ib   
 12 
E I b  flexural rigidity of the Superstructure and Mat

 EI   flexural rigidity of the framed members at right angles to B
b
  E ah /12   flexural rigidity of shear walls

3
a  shear wall thickness

h  shear wall height
E I F  flexural rigidity of the mat foundation
If K r  0 .5 , th e n m a t c a n b e tr e a te d a s r ig id i.e . (  d /  )  0
If K r  0 .5 , th e n (  d /  )  0 .1
If K r  0 , th e n (  d /  )  0.3 5 ( s q u a r e m a ts ) a n d (  d /  )  0 .5 ( lo n g m a ts )
To Design Mat Foundation:
 Determine the capacity of the foundation
 Determine the settlement of foundation
 Determine the differential settlement
 Determine the stress distribution beneath the
foundation
 Design the structural component of the mat
foundation using the stress distribution obtain from 4.
Bearing capacity of the Foundation
Bearing Capacity Analysis follows the same approach as for spread

footings
q ult  c N c s c d c   zD N q s q d q  0 . 5  BN  s d 
Factor of Safety (Das, 2004):

Under normal Dead loads = 3.0(Min)
Under extreme loads = 1.75-2.0(Min)
Settlement of foundation
The settlement tends to be controlled via the following:
Use of a larger foundation to produce lower soil contact

pressures.
Displaced volume of soil (flotation effect); theoretically

if the weight of excavation equals the combined weight of
the structure and mat, the system "floats" in the soil mass
and no settlement occurs.
Bridging effects attributable to-
a. Mat rigidity.
b. Contribution of superstructure rigidity to the mat.
Foundation type Expected maximum Expected

settlement, mm differential
settlement, mm
Spread 25 20
Mat 50 20
Structural Design of Mat Foundations
Approximate Method
Flexible Method
Finite Difference Method
Finite Element Method
AN APPROXIMATE METHOD:
The mat is divided into strips loaded by a line of columns and resisted by
soil pressure.
This strip is then analyzed as a combined footing. (This method can be

used where the mat is very rigid and the column pattern is fairly uniform in
both spacing and loads.)
 This method is not recommended at present because of the substantial

amount of approximations and the wide availability of computer programs that
are relatively easy to use.

Foundation Engineering - Shallow Foundation

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Foundation Engineering - Shallow Foundation

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

ground

 It is the art of determining the properties of unseen and

 The practice involves applications of the principles of the

 The base up on which knowledge structure is built in

 Knowledge of soil mechanics and background of theoretical

Before the engineer can design a foundation intelligently, he must

Foundations can be classified into two major categories:

 The design of foundation system consists of two phases.

 The aim of Geotechnical design essentially is to arrive at

NO SETTLEMENT TOTAL SETTLEMENT DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT

Uniform settlement is usually of little consequence in a

Some Lateral Distortion of Soil

Partial Shear failure

General Shear Failure

Common failure mode in dense sand

Common in sand or clay with medium

Common in fairly loose sand or soft clay

Local shear failure is characterized by a failure pattern clearly observable only

For Rectangular Footing

For Circular Footing

Further increase in the relative depth changes the behavior of the

General Shear Failure

A significant compression of soil below the footing and partial development

Punching Shear Failure

This type of failure occurs in a soil of very high compressibility.

In order to examine the different criteria and establish a preferable

 Minimum slope criterion (Vesić, 1963)

Figure : Ultimate load criterion

Figure : Ultimate load criterion based on

There is sometimes a possibility

In the case of purely cohesive soil local

Local Shear Failure Mixed Zone General Shear

Nc1, Nq1, Nγ1 Ncm, Nqm, Nγm Nc, Nq, Nγ

“. . . the theories of soil mechanics provide us only with a working

Application of limit equilibrium methods first done by Prandtl on the

Prandtl's methods adapted by Terzaghi to bearing capacity failure of

Meyerhof, Vesic, Hansen and others improved on Terzaghi's

For vertical Equilibrium

Cohesion Term Surcharge Term

Terzaghi’s ultimate bearing capacity-

Where bearing capacity factors can be calculated as per following equations:

where K p = passive earth pressure coefficient

Where modified factors -

Terzaghi proposed the following modified bearing capacity equations:

’ = tan-1 (2/3. tan)

For Non-Cohesive soil (c=0)

The theory is applicable to shallow foundations

In 1951, Meyerhof published a bearing capacity theory which can be applied to

abc is the the elastic triangular wedge

Meyerhof (1963) general bearing capacity equation is expressed as-

Bearing Capacity Factors can be calculated by the following equations:

Bearing Capacity Factors

For φ Shape Factor

♦For footings with eccentricities, B ′ and

In addition to the shape (s), depth (d ), and inclination (i ) factors,

For φ value Load Inclination

Square Footing qu = 1.3 cNc + ƔDNq + 0.4 ƔBNƔ

Circular Footing qu = 1.3 cNc + ƔDNq + 0.3 ƔBNƔ

Horizontal Ground qu = -c cotø + (+ c cot ø) Nqsqdqiqbqgq + BNγsγ

Factor Relationship Reference

Shape Factor DeBeer

Depth/Width For φ Value Depth Factor

Depth/Width For φ Value Depth Factor

From Table for Φ′=20˚,

qu = 16(23.36)+ 18.2111.4 + (18.2)(1)(8.58)

Hence, =1+0.2 (2.37)(1/20) =1.02