CEG CEG- -4012 Geotechnical Engineering II 4012 Geotechnical Engineering II

Lecture #04 Lecture #04

The Bearing Capacity of Soils
-Terzaghis Ultimate Bearing Capacity
-Meyerhofs Method
-Brinch Hansen Method
-Vesics Method
-Eccentrically Loaded Footings
Foundation Engineering, by L. Prieto-Portar, 2008
A shallow foundation must:
1. be safe against an overall shear failure in the soil that supports it.
2. cannot experience excessive displacement (in other words, settlement).
The definitions of bearing capacity are,
qo is the contact pressure of the soil at the footings invert;
qu is the load per unit area of the foundation at which the shear failure in soil
occurs and is called the ultimate bearing capacity of the foundation; and
qall is the load per unit area of the foundation that is supported without an unsafe
movement of the soil, and is called the allowable bearing capacity.
CONCENTRIC LOAD ( NO ECCENTRICITY)
B X L
B
q
Q
y
x
Figure 1.
A continuous footing resting on the surface of a dense sand or a stiff cohesive soil is shown in
Figure 2a with a width of B. If a load is gradually applied to the footing, its settlement will
increase. When the load per unit area equals qu a sudden failure in the soil supporting the
foundation will take place, with the failure surface in the soil extending to the ground surface.
This type of sudden failure is called a general shear failure.
If the foundation rests on send or clayey soil of medium compaction (Figure 2b), an increase
of load on the foundation will increase the settlement and the failure surface will gradually
extend outward from the foundation (as shown by the solid line). When the load per unit area
on the foundation equals qu, the foundation movement will be like sudden jerks. A consider-
able movement of the foundation is required for the failure surface in soil to extend to the
ground surface (as shown by the broken lines). The load per unit area at which this happens is
the ultimate bearing capacity qu. Beyond this point, an increase of the load will be
accompanied by a large increase of footings settlement. The load per unit area of the footing
qu, is referred to as the first failure load (Vesic 1963). Note that the peak value of q is not
realized in this type of failure, which is called the local shear failure in soil.
If the foundation is supported by a fairly loose soil, the load-settlement plot will be like the one
in Figure 2c. In this case, the failure surface in soil will not extend to the ground surface. Past
the value qu, the load-to-settlement plot will be steep and practically linear. This type of failure
is called the punching shear failure.
S e t t l e m e n t
L o a d / u n i t a r e a , q
q
u
S e t t l e m e n t
B
L o a d / u n i t a r e a , q
q
u
L o a d / u n i t a r e a , q
q
u
q
u ( 1 )
q
u
S u r f a c e
f o o t i n g
B
( c )
s u r f a c e
F a i l u r e
( b )
F a i l u r e
s u r f a c e
B
( a )
F a i l u r e
i n s o i l
s u r f a c e
Figure 2. The nature of bearing capacity failures in soils: (a) the general shear failure; (b) the local
shear failure; and (c) the punching shear failure. (Redrawn fromVesic, 1973).
Dense sands and stiff cohesive soils.
Soils of medium density or stiffness.
Loose and soft soils.
2
u
(
1
)
6 0
S m a l l s i g n s i n d i c a t e
f i r s t f a i l u r e l o a d
8 i n . C i r c u l a r p l a t e
6 i n . C i r c u l a r p l a t e
4 i n . C i r c u l a r p l a t e
2 i n . C i r c u l a r p l a t e
2 X 1 2 i n . R e c t a n g u l a r p l a t e
( r e d u c e d b y 0 . 6 )
D r y u n i t w e i g h t ( l b / f t )
8 5
2 0
1 0
3 0
2 1
4 0
5 0
1
2
B
9 0
u ( 1 ) q
3
9 5
R e l a t i v e d e n s i t y D
0 . 6
5 0 0
1 0 0
2
a
n
d
B
1
u
B
8 0
7 0
9 0
2 0 0
3 0 0
4 0 0
B
u q
1
P u n c h i n g S h e a r
0 . 3
7 0 0
6 0 0
0 . 2 0 . 4
L o c a l S h e a r
0 . 5
G e n e r a l S h e a r
r
0 . 7 0 . 8
L e g e n d
Figure 3. Variation of qu(1) / B and qu / B for circular and rectangular plates on the surface of
sand. (Adapted from Vesic, 1963).
Based on experimental results from Vesic (1963), a relation for the mode of bearing
capacity failure of foundations can be proposed (Figure 4), where
Dr is the relative density in sand,
Df is the depth of the footing measured from the ground surface,
B is the width and L is the length of the footing (Note: L is always greater than B).
B
5
4
D f
3
0 . 4
R e l a t i v e d e n s i t y D
D
f
/
B

P u n c h i n g S h e a r
f a i l u r e
2
1
0
0 . 2
r
G e n e r a l S h e a r L o c a l S h e a r
f a i l u r e f a i l u r e
0 . 6 0 . 8 1 . 0
Figure 4. Modes of foundation failure in sand (after Vesic, 1963).
1 0 %
9 0
D r y u n i t w e i g h t ( l b / f t )
4 i n .
2 i n .
6 i n .
2 X 1 2 i n . R e c t a n g u l a r p l a t e
( w i d t h B )
8 i n .
0 %
5 %
8 5
3
9 5
R e l a t i v e d e n s i t y D
L o c a l S h e a r P u n c h i n g S h e a r
S
B
1 5 %
2 0 %
2 5 %
0 . 2 0 . 4 0 . 3 0 . 5
G e n e r a l S h e a r
0 . 6
r
0 . 7 0 . 8
Figure 5. Range of settlement of circular and rectangular plates at ultimate loads for Df / B = 0 in
sand (after Vesic, 1973).
Terzaghis Ultimate Bearing Capacity Theory:
Using an equilibrium analysis, Karl Terzaghi expressed in 1943 the ultimate bearing
capacity q
u
of a particular soil to be of the form,
(for strip footings, such as wall foundations)
(for square footings, typical of interior columns)
(for circular footings, such as towers, chimneys)
where, q = D
f
is the removed pressure from the soil to place the footing, Nc, N, and Nq
are the soil-bearing capacity factors, dimensionless terms, whose values relate to the
angle of internal friction . These values can be calculated when is known or they can
be looked up in Terzaghis Bearing Capacity Factor Table.
Terzaghis bearing capacity equations have been modified to take into account the
effects of the foundation shape (B/L), depth (Df) and the load inclination (i). This will
be discussed further in the next section for the General Bearing Capacity equation.
= c + + 0.5 B
= 1.3c + + 0.4 B
= c + + 0.3 B
u c q
u c q
u c q
q N q N N
q N q N N
q N q N N






(1951, 1963)
(1970)
The factor of safety FS against a bearing capacity failure is thus defined as,
where qall is the gross allowable load-bearing capacity and qn is the net ultimate bearing
capacity.
The factor of safety is chosen according the function of the structure, but never less
than 3 in all cases.
The net ultimate bearing capacity is defined as the ultimate pressure per unit area of
the footing that can be supported by the soil in excess of the pressure caused by the
surrounding soil at the foundation level.
Therefore,
A footing will obviously not settle at all if the footing is placed at a depth where the
weight of the soil removed is equal to the weight of the columns load plus the footings
weight.

u
all
q
q
FS
=
net ( u ) u u f
q q q q D = =
Choosing the Bearing Capacity Factors.
Based on laboratory and field studies of bearing capacities, the basic failure surface in
soil suggested by Terzaghi, has been modified by Meyerhof, Hansen and Vesic. The
relation for Nq was presented by Reissner (1924),
whereas the equation for Nc was originally derived by Prandtl in 1921 to explain the
behavior of hot steel being extruded through dies,
Nc = (Nq 1) cot
and finally, Caquot and Kerisel (1953) and Vesic (1973) proposed a relation for N ,
later modified by Coduto as,
2 tan tan
tan 45 e e
2
| |
= + =
|
\ .
q P
N K

2( 1) tan '
1 0.4sin(4 ')
q
N
N

+
=
+
Bearing Capacity Factors for General Shear
Angle of friction Terzaghi Meyerhof Hansen
( ( ( (degrees) N
c
N
q
N

N
c
N
q
N

N
c
N
q
N


0 5.70 1.00 0.00 5.10 1.00 0.00 5.10 1.00 0.00
2 6.30 1.22 0.18 5.63 1.20 0.01 5.63 1.20 0.01
4 6.97 1.49 0.38 6.19 1.43 0.04 6.19 1.43 0.05
5 7.34 1.64 0.50 6.50 1.60 0.07 6.50 1.60 0.07
6 7.73 1.81 0.62 6.81 1.72 0.11 6.81 1.72 0.11
8 8.60 2.21 0.91 7.53 2.06 0.21 7.53 2.06 0.22
10 9.61 2.69 1.21 8.34 2.47 0.37 8.34 2.47 0.39
12 10.76 3.29 1.70 9.28 2.97 0.60 9.28 2.97 0.63
14 12.11 4.02 2.23 10.37 3.59 0.92 10.37 3.59 0.97
15 12.86 4.45 2.50 11.00 3.90 1.13 11.00 3.90
16 13.68 4.92 2.94 11.63 4.34 1.38 11.63 4.34 1.43
18 15.52 6.04 3.87 13.10 5.26 2.00 13.10 5.26 2.08
20 17.69 7.44 4.97 14.33 6.40 2.37 14.83 6.40 2.95
22 20.27 9.19 6.61 16.88 7.82 4.07 16.88 7.82 4.13
24 23.36 11.40 8.58 19.32 9.60 5.72 19.32 9.60 5.75
25 25.13 12.72 9.70 20.70 10.70 6.77 20.70 10.70
26 27.09 14.21 11.35 22.25 11.85 8.00 22.25 11.85 7.94
28 31.61 17.81 15.15 25.80 14.72 11.19 25.80 14.72 10.94
30 37.16 22.46 19.73 30.14 18.40 15.67 30.14 18.40 15.07
32 44.04 28.52 27.49 35.49 23.18 22.02 35.49 23.18 20.79
34 52.64 36.50 36.96 42.16 29.44 31.15 42.16 29.44 28.77
35 57.75 41.44 42.40 37.15
36 63.53 47.16 51.70 50.59 37.75 44.43 50.59 37.75 40.05
38 77.50 61.55 73.47 61.35 48.93 64.08 61.35 48.93 56.18
40 95.67 81.27 100.39 75.32 64.20 93.69 75.32 64.20 79.54
42 119.67 108.75 165.69 93.71 85.38 139.32 93.71 85.38 113.96
44 151.95 147.74 248.29 118.37 115.31 211.41 118.37 115.31 165.58
45 172.28 173.28 294.50 262.70
46 196.22 204.20 426.96 152.10 158.51 329.74 152.10 158.51 244.65
48 258.29 287.86 742.61 199.27 222.31 526.47 199.27 222.31 368.68
50 347.50 415.16 1153.15 266.89 319.07 873.89 266.89 319.07 568.59

Example 1.
A square foundation is 5 feet by 5 feet in plan. The soil supporting the foundation has a
friction angle of = 20 and c = 320 lb/ft. The unit weight of the soil = 115 lb/ft
3
.
Determine the allowable gross load on the foundation with a factor of safety of 4. Assume
that the depth of the foundation Df is 3 feet and that a general shear failure occurs in the
soil. Use Terzaghi Method.
Solution: Terzaghis formula for a square footing is,
7 44 5
11
4
u c q
c q
u
u
u
all
q = 1.3c N + q N + 0.4 B N
where N =17.69, N =7.44 and N =4.97
q = 1.3(0.320)(17.69) + (0.115)(3 )( . ) + 0.4 (0.115 )( )(4.97)
q = 11 ksf
q ksf
q = 2.77 ksf
FS
Thus, the total gross load allowed fr



= =
2 2
all all
om the column will be,
Q =q (B ) = (2.77 ksf)(5 70 ft) = kips
The General Bearing Capacity Equation.
The Terzaghi ultimate bearing capacity equations presented previously are for
continuous, square, and circular footings only. They do not include rectangular
footings (0 < B/L < 1), or take into account the shearing resistance along the failure
surface in the soil above the bottom of the foundation, or the inclination of the footing
or the load. To account for all of these, Meyerhof (1963) suggested the following
General Bearing Capacity equation:
where c = the cohesion;
q = the excavated soils pressure at the footings invert (its bottom);
= the unit weight of the soil;
B = width of foundation ( equal to the diameter for a circular foundation);
Nc, Nq, N are the bearing capacity factors;
Fcs, Fqs, Fs are the shape factors;
Fcd, Fqd, Fd are the depth factors; and
Fci, Fqi, Fi are the load inclination factors.

u
1
q
2
= + +
c cs cd ci q qs qd qi s d i
c N F F F q N F F F BN F F F

Shape Factors.
Depth Factors for Df / B 1.
Depth Factors for Df/B >1.
Inclination Factors with is the inclination of load with respect to the vertical.
1
q
cs
c
N
B
F
L N
= +
1 tan
qs
B
F
L
= + 1 0.4
s
B
F
L

=
1 0.4
f
cd
D
F
B
= +
2
1 2tan (1 sin )
f
qd
D
F
B
= +
1
d
F

=
1
1 0.4tan
f
cd
D
F
B

| |
= +
|
\ .
2 1
1 2tan (1 sin ) tan
f
qd
D
F
B


= + 1
d
F

=
2
1
90
o
ci qi
o
F F
| |
= =
|
\ .
2
1
i
F

| |
=
|
\ .
Example 2.
Compare the predicted ultimate vertical footing load Pu using both the Hansen and
Meyerhof methods, and compare their results with the actual field measured load of 1863
kPa, given that L = 2.0 m.
The soil is a saturated sand, because the
water table is close to the surface. The
effective unit weight is = 9.31 kN/m
3
.
The angle of internal friction was
determined from a triaxial test to be 42.
The corrected field value is therefore,
1.5( ) 17
1.5(42 ) 17 46
=
= =
field triaxial
o
field

a) For the Brinch Hanson method,

For = 46, Nq = 158.51 N
c
= 0 and N = 244.65
Fqs = 1 + (B/L) tan = 1 + (0.5/2) tan46 = 1.26
F s = 1 - 0.4 (B/L) = 1 0.4 (0.5/2) = 0.9
Fqd = 1 + 2 tan (1 - sin ) = 1 + 0.155(0.5/0.5) = 1.155
Fd = 1.0
qu = 0 + Df Nq Fsq Fdq + B N

F
s
F
d
= (9.31)(0.5)(158.51)(1.26)(1.155) + (0.5)(9.31)(0.5)(244.65)(0.9)(1) = 1,586 kPa
Hansen predicts 1,586 kPa versus 1,863 kPa (measured) or a + 15% under-predicted.
b) For the Meyerhof method,
For = 46, Nq = 158.51 N
c
= 0 and N = 329.74
Kp = tan
2
(45+/2) = 6.13 therefore Kp = 2.48
Fqs = F s = 1 + 0.1 Kp (B/L) = 1 + (0.1)(6.13)(0.5/0.5) = 1.61
Fqd = F d = 1 + 0.1 Kp (B/L) = 1+ (0.1)(2.48)(0.5/0.5) = 1.25
qu = 0 + D
f
N
q
F
qs
F
qd
+ B N F s F d
= (9.31)(0.5)(158.51)(1.61)(1.25) +(0.5)(9.31)(0.5)(329.74)(1.61)(1.25) = 3,030 kPa
Meyerhof predicts 3,030 kPa versus 1,863 kPa (measured) or a +63% over-predicted.
Example 3.
Determine the size of the square footing, if the soil has a = 105 pcf, sat = 118 pcf, Df = 4
feet, D1 = 2 ft. The gross design load Qall is 150 kips with a FS = 3. The field SPTs are as
follows,
Depth(ft) N (blows/ft)
5 4
10 6
15 6
20 10
25 5
Solution.
Using Ncor = CN Nfield
where Ncor is the corrected N value to a standard of v [95.6 kN/m or 2,000 lb/ft];
CN is the correction factor, Nfield is the N value obtained in the field and the Liao and
Whitman relationship is
D f
D 1
W a t e r
t a b l e
B X B
c = 0
s a t

c = 0
a
N
'
v
p
C

=
150 kips
The corrected standard penetration number Ncor can now be determined,
Depth Nfield
The average Ncor seems to be about 4.3, and using the Hatanaka-Uchida (1997) equation
to find the averaged angle of internal friction ,
v
'
=
a
cor field
p
N N

( )
( )( ) ( )( )
( )
( )( ) ( )( )
( )
( )( ) ( )( )
( )
( )
0.5
0.5
0.5
2 0.105 3 0.118 0.0624
5 4 4 = 1.7
2
2 0.105 8 0.118 0.0624
10 6 6 = 3.4
2
2 0.105 13 0.118 0.0624
15 6 6 = 4.1
2
2
20 10 10
+ (
(

+ (
(

+ (
(

( ) ( )( )
( )
( )( ) ( )( )
0.5
0.5
0.105 18 0.118 0.0624
= 7.8
2
2 0.105 23 0.118 0.0624
25 5 5 = 4.3
2
+ (
(

+ (
(


20 + 20 = 20(4.3) 20 29 = +
cor
N
Example 4.
Using the data of Example 1, if the factor of safety is increased to 5, what is the new net
allowable load for the footing?
Solution :
( )
2 2
( )
52
11 from Example 1, and = (0.115)(3) 0.

345 ksf
11 - 0.345
2.1 ksf
5
(2.1)( 70 5) =
= = =
= =
= =
u f
u
all net
all net all
q ksf q D
q
q
FS
kips versus Q q B kips

Example 5.
Again using the data of Example 1, and using the equation for a square footing and a
factor of safety against shear failure of 1.5, determine the net allowable load for this
footing. Use Hansens bearing capacity factors, without modifiers. Apply the factor of
safety to both parameters, c and .
Solution :
-1 -1
d
( )
(
320 psf
213 psf
1.5
tan tan 20
tan tan 13.64
1.5
Therefore, 1.3 0.4 B
For 13.64 , 2.29, 3.59, and 10.4

= =
(

(
= = =
(
(


= + +
=

d
shear
shear
all net d c q
q c
all ne
c
c
FS
FS
q c N q N N
N N N
q

( )
)
( )
( )
(1.3)(0.213)(10.4) (0.115) 3 (3.59) (0.4)(0.115)(5)(2.29)
4.6 ksf
a 115 nd (4.6)(5)(5 57. ) 5
= + +
=
= = =
t
all net
all net
kips
q
Q tons
NOTE: There appears to be a large discrepancy between the results of Examples 4 and 5. The use of trial and
error shows that, when the FS (shear) is about 1.2 the results are approximately equal.
Modification of the Bearing Capacity Equations for the Water Table.
Case I: When 0 D1 Df .
where sat is the saturated unit weight soil and w is the unit weight of water. The general
bearing capacity equation is now,
( )
1 2 e sat w
q D D = +
qu = c Nc Fcs Fcd Fci + qe Nq Fqs Fqd Fqi + ( sat w) B N F s F d F i
Modification of the Bearing Capacity Equations for the Water Table.
Case II. When 0 d B .
where sat is the saturated unit weight soil and w is the unit weight of water. The general
bearing capacity equation is now,
qu = c Nc Fcs Fcd Fci + q Nq Fqs Fqd Fqi + [ + ( - )d/B] B N F s F d F i
f
q D =
Modification of the Bearing Capacity Equations for the Water Table.
Case III. When d B, the water table will have no effect on the ultimate bearing capacity.
qu = c Nc Fcs Fcd Fci + q Nq Fqs Fqd Fqi + [ + ( - )d/B ] B N F s F d F i
Example 6.
Calculate the bearing capacity for a square footing, given c = 350 lb/ft
2
, = 105 lb/ft
3
, sat =
118 lb/ft
3
, Df = 4.0 feet, Dw = 2.0 feet, = 25, B = 4.0 feet, Qrequired = 50,000 lb and FS = 3.
Bearing capacity factors: For = 25,
Nq = 6.4
Nc = 14.8 and
N = 5.4
Shape factors:
Fqs = 1 + (1) tan 25 = 1.40
Fcs = 1 + (1) 6.4/14.8) = 1.43
F s = 1 0.4(1) = 0.6
Depth factors: Df /B = (4/4) 1
Fqd = 1 + 2 tan (1 - sin )
2
tan
-1
(4/4) = 1.28
Fcd = 1 + 0.4 tan
-1
(4/4) = 1.35
F d = (1 /)
2
= 1
Inclination Factors:
Fci = Fqi = Fi = 1
Consideration of water table: 0 < Dw < Df therefore,
q = D1 + D2 ( sat - w) = (2.0)(105) + (2.0)(118 - 62.4) = 321 lb/ft
2
So,
qu = c Nc Fcs Fcd Fci + q Nq Fqs Fqd Fqi + B N F s F d F i
= (350)(14.8)(1.43)(1.35)(1)+(321)(6.4)(1.40)(1.28)(1)+(55.6)(3.3)(5.4)(0.6)(1)(1)
qu = 14,000 lb/ft
2
(FS)(Qall) = (qu)(A) therefore Qall = (14,000)(4)(4)/3 = 50,700 lb > 50000 lb Satisfactory.
70
1 0.33 1.2
0.04
f
all
D
N
q if B m
B
| |
= +
|
\ .
2
70
0.3
1 0.33 1.2
0.06
f
all
D
N B
q if B m
B B
| |
+
| |
= +
|
|
\ .
\ .
Bearing Capacity from SPT.
Several papers have been published that provide statistical data that predict the bearing
capacity of footings whilst controlling their settlement to 1 inch. The data is based on the
results of SPTs with a correction to 70%, that is N70. The allowable bearing capacity can
be provided on a preliminary basis from,
Alternatively, a chart is provided in the next slide that also predict allowable bearing
capacities for surface loaded footings with a settlement limited to approximately 1 (25
mm). Equations used are shown on figure. Depth-factor adjustment are also shown. The
N provided is approximately N55.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
qa, kPa
B, m
Bearing Capacity from SPT.
55
0.05
all
N
q =
2
55
0.3
1 0.33
0.08
0 1.2
f
all
f
D
N B
q
B B
for D B and B m
| |
+
| |
= +
|
|
\ .
\ .
>
1.2 m
N=15
N=5
N=10
N=20
N=25
N=30
N=35
N=40

N N q
q c
8 . 0 ~ 8 . 0 ~
( )
2
5 . 1
300 0052 . 0 28
cm
kg
q q
c ult
=
( )
2
5 . 1
300 009 . 0 48
cm
kg
q q
c ult
=
2
28 . 0 2
cm
kg
q q
c ult
+ =
2
34 . 0 5
cm
kg
q q
c ult
+ =
Bearing Capacity using CPT.
For Granular Soils:
strip footings
square footings
For Cohesive Soils:
strip footings
square footings
Props for stability when
using dead weights.
Several dial gauges attached to an independent suspension systemto record plate
settlements with each increment of the jack load.
Jack
Short block
Steel plate
Dead weight of a truck or a beam attached to anchor piles
Bearing Capacity for Field Load Tests.
anchors or piles
to provide a
reactive force
Eccentrically loaded foundations
Foundations with a One-Way Eccentricity.
In most instances, foundations are subjected to moments in addition to the vertical load
as shown below. In such cases the distribution of pressure by the foundation upon the soil
is not uniform.
Q M
B
B
B X L
e
F o r e < B / 6
q m i n
q m a x
F o r e > B / 6
q m a x
e
( b ) ( a )
Figure 6. An
eccentrically
loaded
footing.
The effective
width is now,
B = B - 2e
whereas the
effective length is
Still,
L = L
The distribution of the nominal pressure is :
where Q is the total vertical load and Mis the moment on the footing in one axis.
Figure 6b shows a force system equivalent to that in Figure 6a. The distance e is the
eccentricity of the load, or
Substituting equation 16 in equations 14 and 15 yields:
max
2
min
2
6
(14)
and
6
q (15)
Q M
q
BL B L
Q M
BL B L
= +
=
M
e (16)
Q
=
max
min
6
1 (17 a)
6
q 1 (17 b)
Q e
q
BL B
and
Q e
BL B
| |
= +
|
\ .
| |
=
|
\ .
Note that in these equations, when the eccentricity e becomes B/6, qmin is zero. For e >
B/6, qmin will be negative, which means that tension will develop. Because soils can sustain
very little tension, there will be a separation between the footing and the soil under it.
Also note that the eccentricity tends to decrease the load bearing capacity of a
foundation. In such cases, placing foundation column off-center, as shown in Figure 7 is
probably advantageous. Doing so in effect, produces a centrally loaded foundation with a
uniformly distributed pressure.
M
e
Q
Figure 7. A footing with the column off-center to preserve a uniform pressure on the soil.
The general bearing capacity equation is therefore modified to,
qu = c Nc Fcs Fcd Fci + q Nq Fqs Fqd Fqi + B N F s F d F i
and Qu = qu B L
Foundations with Two-way Eccentricities.
Consider a footing subject to a vertical ultimate load Qult and a moment Mas shown in
Figures 8a and 8b. For this case, the components of the moment Mabout the x and y axis
are Mx and My respectively. This condition is equivalent to a load Q placed eccentrically
on the footing with x = eB and y = eL as shown in Figure 8d.
M
B X L
Qult
B
(a)
Qult
B
L
Qult
My
x
y
My
Qult
Mx
e
L
e
B
(b) (c) (d)
Figure 8. Analysis of a footing with a two-way eccentricity.
Note that,
ult
c q
ult u
(18)
If Q is needed, it can be obtained as ' ' ,
1
' cN qN B ' N (19)
2
A' is the effective area B'L'
Finally Q = q (
y
x
B L
ult
ult
ult u
u cs cd ci qs qd qi s d i
M
M
e and e
Q Q
Q q A where
q F F F F F F F F F
and

= =
=
= + +
cs qs s
A')
As before, to evaluate F , F , and F , use the effective length (L') and the effective width
(B') dimensions instead of L and B, respectively. To calculate F , ,and ,do not replace
B with B
cd qd d
F F

'. In determining the effective area (A'), effective width(B'), and the effective (L'),
four possible cases may arise (Highter and Anders, 1985).
B
1
B
Qult
L
1
Effective
area
eL
eB
L
1 1
ffective area for the case of and .
6 6
L B
e e
L B
Figure 9. Case I. The e
1 1
1 1
1 1
and .
6 6
1
The effective area for this condition is A' (20)
2
3 3
where B 1.5 and L 1.5 (21 a and b)
The effective length L
L B
B L
e e
L B
B L
e e
B L
B L

=
| | | |
= =
| |
\ . \ .
Case I :
1 1
', is the larger of the two dimensions B L .
Therefore, the effective width is:
'
' (22)
'
L
or
A
B
L
e
=

Case II :
1 2
1 2
1 1
and 0 . The effective area for this case is shown in Figure 10a,
2 6
1
' ( ) (23)
2
The magnitude of L and L can be det
B
e
L B
A L L B
< < <
= +
1 2
1 2
ermined from Figure 10b. The effective width is,
'
' (24)
( arg )
The effective length is ' ( arg ) (25)
A
B
L or L whichever is l er
L L or L whichever is l er
=
=
0.4
0.1
For
obtaining
L2/L
0.6 0
0
0.2 0.4
0
.
1
6
0.2
0.1
0.3
e
L
/
L
0
.
1
0
eB/B =
0
.
1
2
0
.
1
4 0
.
0
6
0
.
0
8
0
.
0
4
For
obtaining
L1/L
0.8 1.0
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
2
0
.
0
2
0
.
0
1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.5
eB/B =
0.167
L1/L , L2/L
(b)
L
(a)
Qult
L2
eB
B
L1
eL
Effective
area
1 1
Effective area for the case of and 0 (After Highter and Anders, 1985)
2 6
'
The effective width is ' and the effective length is ' .
L B
e e
L B
A
B L L
L
< < <
= =
Figure 10. Case II.

L1 and L2 can be determined from the figure,
1 2
'
'
A
B
L orL
=
using in the denominator the largest
value of L, that is,
L = L1 or L2 whichever is larger
1 2
1 1
and 0 . The effective area is shown in Figure 11a.
6 2
1
' ( ) (26)
2
The effective width is,
'
L B
e e
L B
A B B L
B
< < <
= +
=
Case III :
1 2
'
(27)
The effective length is equal to L' L (28)
The magnitudes of B and B can be determined
A
L
=
2
2
2
fron Figure 11b.
1 1
and . The effective area is shown in Figure 12a.
6 6
The ratio and thus B can be determined by using the curves that slope upward.
Similarely, the ratio
L B
L
e e
L B
B e
B L
L
L
< < Case IV :
2
2 2 2
and thus L can be determined by using the curves that slope downward.
The effective area is then,
1
' ( )( ) (29)
2
L
e
L
A L B B B L L = + +
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
B1/B , B2/B
e
B
/
B
Effective
area
Qult
0
.
1
6
For
obtaining
B2/B
For
obtaining
B1/B
0
.
1
4
eL/L =
0
.
1
2
0
.
1
0
0
.
0
8
0
.
0
6
0
.
0
4
0
.
0
2
0
.
0
1
eL
eB
B
L
eL/L =
0
.
0
2
0
.
0
1
0.167
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
(a)
(b)
B1
B2
Foundation with Two-way Eccentricity, Case III
1 1
Effective area for the case of and 0
6 2
(After Highter ans Anders, 1985).
L B
e e
L B
< < < Figure 11.
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
B2/B , L2/L
e
B
/
B
Effective
area
Qult
eL/L = 0.02
eL
eB
B
L
0.02 = eL/L
(a)
(b)
B2
For obtaining L2/L
For obtaining B2/B
L2
0
.
0
4
0
.
0
6
0
.
0
8
0
.
1
0
.
1
4
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0
.
1
2
0
.
1
6
0
.
1
4
Foundation with Two-way Eccentricity, Case IV
1 1
Effective area for the case of and
6 2
(After Highter ans Anders, 1985)



L B
e e
L B
< < Figure 12.
Example 7.
A square foundation is shown in Figure 13. Assume that the one- way load eccentricity e
is 0.15 m. Determine the ultimate load Qult.
Solution : With c = 0, equation 19 becomes:
sat =18kN/m
= 30
c = 0
1.5 m x 1.5 m
0.7 m
sand
3
( ) ( )
1
q 2
2
f
' qN B'N
and D 0.7 18 12.6 kN m
u qs qd qi s d i
q F F F F F F
q

= +
= = =
Figure 13.
For = 30, Nq = 18.4 and N = 22.4
B = 1.5 2(0.15) = 1.2 m
L = 1.5 m
( )
( )( ) 2
B' 1.2
1 tan 1 tan 30 1.462
' 1.5
0.289 0.7
1 2tan 1 - sin 1 1.135
1.5
B' 1.2
1 - 0.4 1 - 0.4 0.68
L' 1.5

qs
f
qd
s
F
L
D
F
B
F

| |
= + = + =
|
\ .
= + = + =
| | | |
= = =
| |
\ . \ .
( )( )( )( ) ( )( )( )( )( )
( ) ( )( )( )
1
2
2
1
' 12.6 18.4 1.462 1.135 18 1.2 22.4 0.68 1
384.7 164.50 549.2 kN m
B' ' ' 1.2 1.5 549.2 988
d
u
ult u
F
So
q
Hence
Q L q kN

=
= +
= + =
= =
Example 8.
Using the data from Example 5, and having a two-way eccentricity, for Figure 14,
determine the ultimate load Qult.
1.5m
e =0.3 m
1.5m
L
e =0.15m
B

2 . 0
5 . 1
3 . 0
L
e
: Solution
L
= =

1 . 0
5 . 1
15 . 0
B
e
B
= =

2
2 1
1.193m ) 0.315)(1.5 (1.275
2
1
) L L (
2
1
' A
) 51 . 3 .( FromEq
= +
= + =

Figure 14.
1
1
q 2
2
q
qs
A' 1.193
From equation 24 B' 0.936
L' 1.275
From equation 25, L' L
Since c 0
' qN B'N
(0.7)(18) 12.6 kN/m
For 30 , N 18.4 and N 22.4
'
F 1 tan
'
u qs qd qi s d i
f
q F F F F F F
and q D
B
L

= = =
=
=
= +
= = =
= = =
| |
= +
|
\ .
s
2
qd
d
0.936
1 tan 30 1.424
1.275
' 0.936
F 1 0.4 1 0.4 0.706
' 1.275
(0.289)(0.7)
F 1 2 tan (1 sin ) 1 1.135
1.5
F 1
1
' ' '( ' )
2
(1.193)[(12.6)
f
ult u q qs qd s d
B
L
D
B
Q A q A qN F F B N F F

| |
= + =
|
\ .
| | | |
= = =
| |
\ . \ .
= + = + =
=
= = + =
= (18.4)(1.424)(1.135) (0.5)(18)(0.936)(22.4)(0.706)(1)]
606 kN
+
=