ENCE4610 FoundationAnalysisandDesign

Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations: Vesis Method Eccentric Loading of Foundations Effect of Water Table

CurrentMethodsofBearing CapacityAnalysis
Terzaghis Method does not take into consideration factors such as:
o o o o o Base or ground inclination Water table effects Layered soil effects Eccentricity of load Rectangular foundations

Methods in common use

o Meyerhof o Brinch-Hansen (esp. popular in Europe, generally the most conservative of the methods) o Vesi

Also, there are other methods of estimating the bearing capacity factors, especially N

All methods use the same Nc and Nq In this course we will emphasize Vesi
o Closest to AASHTO o Factors used in FE exam

Similar in basic format to Terzaghi's Method, but takes into account a larger number of factors Some variations in the way it is implemented

VesisMethod

VesiBearingCapacity Factors

For equations: angles in radians

VesiShapeFactors

VesiDepthFactors

VesiLoadInclination Factors

Vesi BaseTilt Factors

Vesi Ground Slope Factors

AllowableBearing Capacity

Factors when considering selection of a factor of safety

This image cannot currently be display ed.

Most foundations designed by ASD for geotechnical strength

q ult qa = F

Foundation is then designed so that the allowable bearing pressure is not exceeded

GeneralBearingCapacity Example
Governing Equation

Given

Find

Rectangular Foundation Width of foundation = 1100 mm (B) Length of Foundation = 2200 mm (L) Depth of Foundation = 1500 mm (D) Soil cohesion c = 15 kPa Soil internal friction angle 3 = 30, = 19 kN/m Water table even with depth of foundation Foundation and ground level, load concentric Design loading, FS = 3 using Vesis Method

EccentricorMoment Loading
Eccentric Loading
o Load is away from the centre of the foundation in the B direction only

Moment Loading

M l e= = Q Q l
This image cannot currently be display ed.

This image cannot currently be display ed.

VariablesforEccentricand MomentLoading

e = eccentricity of bearing pressure distribution Q = applied vertical load Q/l = applied vertical load per unit length of foundation M = applied moment load M/l = applied moment load per unit length of foundation e = eccentricity of applied vertical load



One-way loading is loading along one of the centre axes of the foundation Three cases to consider

OneWayLoading

EquationsforTwoDimensionalPressures withEccentric/MomentLoads

ExampleofOneWay Eccentricity
Given
o Continuous Foundation as shown o Groundwater table at great depth o Weight of foundation (concrete) not included in load shown
This image cannot currently be display ed.

Find
o Whether resultant force acts in middle third o Minimum and maximum bearing pressures



Compute Weight of Foundation

ExampleofOneWay Eccentricity
/ l) 8000 = = 0.61 ft. e= Q /l 12000 + 1125 B 5 = = 0.833 ft. > 0.61 ft. 6 6

Wf/b = (5)(1.5)(150) = 1125 lb/ft

Compute eccentricity

(M

Thus, eccentricity is within the middle third of the foundation and foundation can be analysed further without enlargement at this point

Compute minimum and maximum bearing pressures

Q l 6e q min = 1 B B (6 )(0.61 ) = 703 psf 12000 + 1125 = 1 5 5 Q l 6e q max = 1+ B B ( 6 )(0.61 ) 12000 + 1125 = 1 + = 4546 psf 5 5

ExampleofOneWay Eccentricity

q min

q max

TwoWayEccentricity
This image cannot currently be display ed.

Eccentricity in both L and B directions produces a planar distribution of stress

Kern of Stability Foundation stable against overturn only if resultant falls in the kern in the centre of the foundation Resultant in the kern if

6eB 6eL + 1 B L
This image cannot currently be display ed.

eB, eL = eccentricity in B, L directions

BearingPressureatCorners TwoWayEccentricity
6eB 6eL Q q = 1 B L A
This image cannot currently be display ed.

This image cannot currently be display ed.

TwoWayEccentricity Example
Given
12 m Grain silo design as shown Each silo has an empty weight of 29 MN; can hold up to 110 MN of grain 12 m Weight of mat = 60 MN Silos can be loaded independently of each other

Find
Whether or not eccentricity will be met with the various loading conditions possible Eccentricity can be oneway or two-way

This image cannot currently be display ed.

TwoWayEccentricity Example

One-Way Eccentricity

Largest Loading: two adjacent silos full and the rest empty Q = (4)(29) + 2(110) + 60 = 396 MN M = (2)(110)(12) = 2640 MN-m
Eccentricity OK for one-way eccentricity

B 50 = = 8.33 m > 6.67 m 6 6

M e= Q 2640 e= 396 e = 6.67 m

This image cannot currently be display ed.

TwoWayEccentricity Example

Two-Way Eccentricity
Largest Loading: one silo full and the rest empty P = (4)(29) + 110 + 60 = 286 MN MB = ML = (110)(12) = 1320 MN-m

eB = eL =

1320 M = = 4.62m 286 Q

6eB 6eL (6 )(4.62 ) + = 2 = 1.11 > 1 B L 50

Not acceptable

TwoWayEccentricity Example

Two-Way Eccentricity

Solution to Eccentricity Problem: increase the size of the mat

6eB 6eL (6 )(4.62 ) + = 2 =1 B L B B = L = 55.4 m

Necessary to also take other considerations into account (bearing failure, settlement, etc.)

This image cannot currently be display ed.

Equivalent Footing Procedure

Structural Geotechnical

(NAVFAC DM 7.02)

EquivalentFootingUsingTwo WayEccentricityExample

Largest Loading: one silo full and the rest empty

Result of Two-Way Eccentricity Analysis

eB = eL = 4.62 m B = L = 55.4 m (expanded foundation)

Equivalent Footing Dimensions

B = B 2eB = 55.4 (2)(4.62) B = 45.8 m = L (as B = L and eB = eL)

This image cannot currently be display ed.

EquivalentFootingUsingTwo WayEccentricityExample

One-Way Eccentricity

B 50 = = 8.33 m > 6.67 m 6 6

Largest Loading: two adjacent silos full and the rest empty B = L = 55.4 m (expanded foundation) eB = 6.67m eL = 0 m B = B-2eB = 55.4 (2)(6.67) = 42.1 m L = L = 55.4 m

Groundwaterand LayeredSoilEffects
Layered Soils are virtually unavoidable in real geotechnical situations Softer layers below the surface can and do significantly affect both the bearing capacity and settlement of foundations Shallow groundwater affects shear strength in two ways:
o Reduces apparent cohesion that takes place when soils are not saturated; may necessitate reducing the cohesion measured in the laboratory o Pore water pressure increases; reduces both effective stress and shear strength in the soil (same problem as is experienced with unsupported slopes)

SolutionforGroundwaterand LayeredSoilBearingCapacity
Weighted average is, overall, the best way of handling both of these situations Groundwater creates additional soil layer Valid unless soil strengths have major variations

1. Use the lowest of values of shear strength, friction angle and unit weight below the foundation. Simplest but most conservative. 2. Use weighted average of these parameters based on relative thicknesses below the foundation. Best balance of conservatism and computational effort.
1.

Three ways to analyze layered soil profiles:

3. Consider series of trial surfaces beneath the footing and evaluate the stresses on each surface (similar to slope failure analysis.) Most accurate but calculations are tedious; use only when quality of soil data justify the effort

Use width of foundation B as depth for weighted average

ExamplewithLayered SoilsandGroundwater
Find
o Check adequacy against bearing capacity failure using weighted average method, Vesis Formula and FS = 3

Given
o Square spread footing as shown

2.5 m

LayeredSoilExample
Failure zone exists for a distance B (1.8 m) below the foundation, i.e., from 1.9 m to 2.7 m below the ground surface (an assumption of the method)
o Unsubmerged silty sand layer is 0.6 m deep o Submerged silty sand layer is 0.5 m deep o Fine-to-medium sand layer is 0.7 m in the failure zone

Weighted Values of Soil Parameters

o

c' = (0.28+0.33)(5 kPa) + (0.39)(0) = 3 kPa o ' = (0.28+.33)(32) + (0.39)(38) = 34 o = (0.33)(18.2) + (0.28)(18.29.8) +(0.39)(20.1-9.8) = 12.4 kN/m3
Note that submerged unit weights were used for submerged layer This avoids the need to then compute an average buoyant weight In the event a layer is not submerged, the moist unit weight can be used for that layer and a buoyant weight for the submerged layers

Weighting factors
o Unsubmerged silty sand layer: 0.6/1.8 = 0.33 o Submerged silty sand layer: 0.5/1.8 = 0.28 o Fine-to-medium sand layer: 0.7/1.8 = 0.39

Compute Foundation Weight

o Wf = (1.8 m)2(1.9 m)(23.6 kN/m3) = 145 kN

BEARING CAPACITY BY VESIC'S METHOD Reference: Das, "Fundamentals of Geotechnical Engineering," Name Date 08-29-12 Identification Das Example 12.1 Input Units of Measurement SI SI or E Foundation Information

Section 12.2

Spreadsheet Resultfor LayeredSoil and Groundwater Example

w = 9.81

kN/m^3 Loading
e e B= L=

Shape B = L =

SQ SQ, CI, CO, or RE 1.80 1.80 m m

0.00 0.00 20.00

(deg)=

1.90 m Df = Soil Information c = 3.00 kPa = Leave s a t blank if no water. 34.00 deg 1 = Soil Above Foundation Base 17.80 1 s a t = kN/m^3 2 = Soil Below Foundation Base kN/m^3 12.40 2 s a t = Dw = 100.00 m Factor of Safety F = 3.00 Calculations (deg)= (rad)= (deg)= 34.00 0.59 20.00 c 3.00 q 33.82 12.40 B 1.80 Nc = Nq = N = Nc 42.16 Nq 29.44 N 41.06 42.16 29.44 41.06 Fcs 1.70 Fqs 1.67 F s 0.60 Depth of Water Below Ground Surface

B = L = A = Fcd 1.32 Fqd 1.21 F d 1.00

1.80 1.80 3.24 Fci 0.60 Fqi 0.60 F i 0.17

e e

B= L=

0.00 0.00 1.06

B'= L'= A'= Qu

1.80 1.80 3.24

Df /B= qu 172

kPa

558

kN

1223

kPa

3963.7

kN

47

kPa kPa kPa kPa kPa

151.0 4672.6 4563.0 1557.5 1521.0

kN kN kN kN kN

Gross Ultimate = 1442 FS = 3.00 Net Ultimate = 1408 Gross Allowable = Net Allowable = 481 469

LayeredSoiland GroundwaterExample
Notes on Solution
o To get the spreadsheet to properly analyze the results, we basically told it that the soil was dry and uniform, then input the homogenized cohesion, internal friction angle and unit weight under the foundation o We also computed a homogenized unit weight above the foundation; however, note that this is different from that below.

Notes on Solution
o Net allowable bearing capacity of the foundation = 1521 kN o Loads on Foundation: External Load = 800 kN Foundation Weight = 145 kN Total load = 945 kN < 1519 kN o IMPORTANT: note that different load combination schemes (ASD and LRFD) may change the total load we are actually designing against!

Questions?