CHAPTER THREE

ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY UNDER INCLINED

AND ECCENTRIC LOADS

3.1 INTRODUCTION

Due to bending moments and horizontal thrusts transferred from the super-
structure, shallow foundations are many times subjected to eccentric and
inclined loads. Under such circumstances, the ultimate bearing capacity theories
presented in Chapter 2 will need some modification, and this is the subject of
discussion in this chapter. The chapter is divided into two major parts. The first
part discusses the ultimate bearing capacity of shallow foundations subjected
to centric inclined load, and the second part is devoted to the ultimate bearing
capacity under eccentric loading.

FOUNDATIONS SUBJECTED TO INCLINED LOAD

3.2 MEYERHOFS THEORY (CONTINUOUS FOUNDATION)

In 1953, Meyerhof [1] extended his theory for ultimate bearing capacity under
vertical loading (Section 2.4) to the case with inclined load. Figure 3.1 shows
the plastic zones in the soil near a rough continuous (strip) foundation with
small inclined load. The shear strength of the soil, s, is given as

s = c! !! tan" (3.1)

where c = cohesion
!! = effective vertical stress
" = angle of friction
The inclined load makes an angle # with the vertical. It needs to be pointed
out that Fig. 3.1 is an extension of Fig. 2.7. In Fig. 3.1, abc is an elastic zone,
bcd is a radial shear zone, and bde is a mixed shear zone. The normal and shear
stresses on plane ae are po and so , respectively. Also, the unit base adhesion is
ca . The solution for the ultimate bearing capacity, qu , can be expressed as
1
qu(v) = qucos# = cNc+ po Nq+ $BN$ (3.2)
2
where Nc , Nq , N$ = bearing capacity factors for inclined loading condition
$ = unit weight of soil
Similar to Eqs. (2.71), (2.59), and (2.70), we can write

1999 by CRC Press LLC

FIGURE 3.1 Plastic zones in soil near a foundation with inclined load

qu(v) = qucos# = qu(V) + q!u(V) (3.3)

where

qu(v) = cNc + po Nq (for ""0, $"0, po"0, c"0) (3.4)

and
1
q!u(v) = $BN$ (for ""0, $"0, po"0, c"0) (3.5)
2
It was shown by Meyerhof [1] in Eq. (3.4) that

1 + sin sin(2 ) 2 tan

N c = cot e 1 (3.6)
1 sin sin(2 + )
1 + sin sin(2 ) 2 tan
Nq = e (3.7)
1 sin sin(2 + )

Note that the horizontal component of the inclined load per unit area on the
foundation, qh , cannot exceed the shearing resistance at the base, or

qu(h) # ca + qu(v) tan% (3.8)

where ca = unit base adhesion

% = unit base friction angle
In order to determine the minimum passive force per unit length of the
foundation, Pp$(min) (see Fig. 2.11 for comparison), to obtain N$ , one can take
a numerical step-by-step approach as shown by Caquot and Kerisel [2] or a
semi-graphical approach based on the logarithmic spiral method as shown by
Meyerhof [3]. Note that the passive force Pp$ acts at an angle " with the
normal drawn to the face bc of the elastic wedge abc (Fig. 3.1). The
1999 by CRC Press LLC
relationship for N$ is

2 Pp (min) sin 2 sin cos( )

N = + cos( ) (for )
B cos( )
2
cos

(3.9)

The ultimate bearing capacity expression given by Eq. (3.2) can also be
depicted as
1
qu(v) = qu cos# = cNcq + $BN$q (3.10)
2
where Ncq , N$q = bearing capacity factors which are functions of the soil
friction angle, ", and the depth of the foundation, Df
For a purely cohesive soil (" = 0)

qu(v) = qu cos# = cNcq (3.11)

Figure 3.2 shows the variation of Ncq for a purely cohesive soil (" = 0) for
various load inclinations (#).

FIGURE 3.2 Meyerhofs [1] bearing capacity factor Ncq for purely
cohesive soil (" = 0)

1999 by CRC Press LLC

 FIGURE 3.3 Meyerhofs [1] bearing capacity factor N$q for cohesionless
soil (c =0, % = ")

For cohesionless soils, c = 0 and, hence, Eq. (3.10) gives

1
qu(v) = qu cos# = $BN$q (3.12)
2
Figure 3.3 shows the variation of N$q with #.

1999 by CRC Press LLC

3.3 GENERAL BEARING CAPACITY EQUATION

The general ultimate bearing capacity equation for a rectangular foundation

given by Eq. (2.82) can be extended to account for inclined load and can be
expressed as
1
qu = cNc &cs &cd &ci + qNq &qs &qd &qi + $BN$ &$s &$d &$i (3.13)
2
where Nc , Nq , N$ = bearing capacity factors [for Nc and Nq , use Table 2.3;
for N$ , see Table 2.4 Eqs. (2.72), (2.73), (2.74)]
&cs , &qs , &$s = shape factors (Table 2.5)
&cd , &qd , &$d = depth factors (Table 2.5)
&ci , &qi , &$i = inclination factors
Meyerhof [4] provided the following inclination factor relationships

2

ci = qi = 1 (3.14)
90
2

i = 1 (3.15)

Hansen [5] also suggested the following relationships for inclination factors
5
0.5Qu sin
qi = 1
(3.16)
Q u
cos + BLc cot
1 qi
ci = qi (3.17)
N 1
q

Table 2.3
5
0.7Qu sin (3.18)
i = 1
Qu cos + BLc cot

where, in Eqs. (3.14) to (3.18)

# = inclination of the load on the foundation with the vertical
Qu = ultimate load on the foundation = qu BL
B = width of the foundation
L = length of the foundation

3.4 OTHER RESULTS FOR FOUNDATIONS WITH

CENTRIC INCLINED LOAD

Based on the results of field tests, Muhs and Weiss [6] concluded that the ratio
of the vertical component Qu(v) of the ultimate load with the inclination # with

1999 by CRC Press LLC

the vertical to the ultimate load Qu when the load is vertical (that is, # = 0) and
is approximately equal to (1$tan#)2.

Qu ( v )
= (1 tan ) 2
Qu ( = 0 )

or

Qu ( v )
BL qu(v )
= = (1 tan ) 2 (3.19)
Qu ( = 0) q u ( = 0)
BL

Dubrova [7] developed a theoretical solution for the ultimate bearing

capacity of a continuous foundation with centric inclined load and expressed
it in the following form

qu = c(Nq* $ 1)cot" +2qNq* + B$N$* (3.20)

where Nq*, N$* = bearing capacity factors

q = $Df
The variations of Nq* and N$* are given in Figs. 3.4. and 3.5.

EXAMPLE 3.1
Consider a continuous foundation in a granular soil with the following: B = 1.2
m; Df = 1.2 m; unit weight of soil, $ = 17 kN/m3; soil friction angle, " = 40%;
load inclination, # = 20%. Calculate the gross ultimate load bearing capacity
qu .
a. Use Eq. (3.12).
b. Use Eq. (3.13) and Meyerhofs bearing capacity factors (Table 2.3),
his shape and depth factors (Table 2.5); and inclination factors [Eqs.
(3.14) and (3.15)].

Solution

a. From Eq. (3.12)

BN q
qu =
2 cos
Df 1.2
= = 1;
B 1.2

" = 40%; and #=20%. From Fig. 3.3, N$q & 100. So

1999 by CRC Press LLC

FIGURE 3.4 Variation of Nq*

(17)(1.2)(100)
qu = = 1085.5 kN / m 2
2 cos 20

b. With c = 0 and B/L = 0, Eq. (3.13) becomes

1
qu = qNq &qd &qi + $BN$ &$d &$i
2

For "= 40%, from Table 2.3, Nq = 64.2 and N$ = 93.69. From Table
2.5,

1999 by CRC Press LLC

FIGURE 3.5 Variation of N$*

D
qd = d = 1 + 0.1 f tan 45 +
2
B

1.2 40
= 1 + 0.1 tan 45 + = 1.214
1.2 2

From Eqs. (3.14) and (3.15)

20
2 2

qi = 1 = 1 = 0.605
90 90
2
20
2

i = 1 = 1 = 0.25
40

1999 by CRC Press LLC

 So
1
qu = (1.2 17)(64.2)(1.214)(0.65) + (17)(1.2)(93.69)(1.214)(0.25)
2
= 1323.5 kN / m2 !!

EXAMPLE 3.2
Consider the continuous foundation described in Example 3.1. Other quan-
tities remaining the same, let " = 35%.
a. Calculate qu using Eq. (3.12).
b. Calculate qu using Eq. (3.20).

Solution

a. From Eq. (3.12)

BN q
qu =
2 cos
From Fig. 3.3, N$q & 65

(17)(1.2)( 65)
qu = 706 kN / m 2
2 cos 20
b. For c = 0, Eq. (3.20) becomes

qu = 2qNq* + B$N$*

Using Figs. 3.4 and 3.5, for " = 35% and tan# = tan20=0.36, Nq* & 8.5
and N$* & 6.5 (extrapolation)

qu = (2)(17 1.2)(8.5) + (1.2)(17)(6.5) & 480 kN / m2

Note: Eq. (3.20) does not provide depth factors. !!

3.5 CONTINUOUS FOUNDATION WITH ECCENTRIC LOAD

When a shallow foundation is subjected to an eccentric load, it is assumed that

the contact pressure decreases linearly from the toe to the heel. However, at
ultimate load, the contact pressure is not linear. This problem was analyzed by
Meyerhof [1], who suggested the concept of effective width, B. The effective
width is defined as (Fig. 3.6)

B = B $ 2e (3.21)

1999 by CRC Press LLC

FIGURE 3.6 Effective width B!

where e = load eccentricity

According to this concept, the bearing capacity of a continuous foundation
can be determined by assuming that the load acts centrally along the effective
contact width as shown in Fig. 3.6. Thus, for a continuous foundation [from
Eq. (2.83)] with vertical loading
1
qu = cNc !cd + qNq !qd + " BN" !"d (3.22)
2
Note that the shape factors for a continuous foundation are equal to one. The
ultimate load per unit length of the foundation, Qu , can now be calculated as

Qu = qu A

where A = effective area = B 1 = B

Reduction Factor Method

Purkayastha and Char [8] carried out stability analysis of eccentrically loaded
continuous foundations using the method of slices proposed by Janbu [9].
Based on that analysis, they proposed that

1999 by CRC Press LLC

 q u ( eccentric )
Rk = 1 (3.23)
q u ( centric )

where Rk = reduction factor

qu(eccentric) = ultimate bearing capacity of eccentrically loaded
continuous foundations
qu(centric) = ultimate bearing capacity of centrally loaded continuous
foundations
The magnitude of Rk can be expressed as

k
e
R k = a
B

where a and k are functions of the embedment ratio Df /B (Table 3.1).

TABLE 3.1 Variations of a

and k [Eq. (3.24)]

Df /B a k
0 1.862 0.73
0.25 1.811 0.785
0.5 1.754 0.80
1.0 1.820 0.888

Hence, combining Eqs. (3.23) and (3.24)

e
k

q u ( eccentric ) = q u ( centric ) (1 Rk ) = q u ( centric ) 1 a (3.25)

B

where
1
qu(centric) = cNc !dc + qNq !dq + " BN" !"d (3.26)
2

Theory of Prakash and Saran

Prakash and Saran [10] provided a comprehensive mathematical formulation

to estimate the ultimate bearing capacity for rough continuous foundations
under eccentric loading. According to this procedure, Fig. 3.7 shows the
assumed failure surface in a c soil under a continuous foundation subjected

1999 by CRC Press LLC

FIGURE 3.7 Derivation of the bearing capacity theory of Prakash and
Saran for eccentrically loaded rough continuous foundation

1999 by CRC Press LLC

to eccentric loading. Let Qu be the ultimate load per unit length of the foun-
dation of width B with an eccentricity e. In Fig. 3.7, Zone I is an elastic zone
with wedge angles of #1 and #2 . Zones II and III are similar to those assumed
by Terzaghi (that is, Zone II is a radial shear zone and Zone III is a Rankine
passive zone).
The bearing capacity expression can be developed by considering the
equilibrium of the elastic wedge abc located below the foundation (Fig. 3.7b).
Note that, in Fig. 3.7b, the contact width of the foundation with the soil is equal
to Bx1 . Neglecting the self-weight of the wedge

Qu = Pp cos(#1 " $) + Pm cos(#2 " $m) + Ca sin #1 + Ca sin#2 (3.27)

wherePp , Pm = passive forces per unit length of the wedge along the wedge
faces bc and ac, respectively
$ = soil friction angle
$m = mobilized soil friction angle (#$)
cBx1 sin 2
Ca = adhesion along wedge face bc = sin( + )
1 2
mcBx1 sin 1
Ca = adhesion along wedge face ac = sin( + )
1 2
m = mobilization factor (#1)
c = unit cohesion
Equation (3.27) can be expressed in the form

Qu 1
qu = = BN ( e ) + D f N q ( e ) + cN c ( e ) (3.28)
( B 1) 2

where N"(e) , Nq(e) , Nc(e) = bearing capacity factors for an eccentrically loaded
continuous foundation
The above-stated bearing capacity factors will be functions of e/B, $, and
also the foundation contact factor x1 . In obtaining the bearing capacity factors,
Prakash and Saran [10] assumed the variation of x1 as shown in Fig. 3.7c.
Figures 3.8, 3.9, and 3.10 show the variations of N"(e) , Nq(e) , and Nc(e) with $
and e/B. Note that for e/B = 0 the bearing capacity factors coincide with those
given by Terzaghi [11] for a centrically loaded foundation.
Prakash [12] also gave the relationships for settlement of a given founda-
tion under centric and eccentric loading conditions for a equal factor of safety,
FS. They are as follows (Fig.3.11)

2 3
Se e e e
= 1.0 1.63 2.63 + 5.83 (3.29)
So B B B

1999 by CRC Press LLC

FIGURE 3.8 Prakash and Sarans bearing capacity
factors, Nc(e)

and
2 3
Sm e e e
= 1.0 2.31 22.61 + 31.54
So
B
B B (3.30)

where So = settlement of a foundation under centric loading at

qu(centric)
qall(centric) = FS
Se , Sm = settlements of the same foundation under eccentric loading at
qu(eccentric)
qall(eccentric) =
FS

1999 by CRC Press LLC

FIGURE 3.9 Prakash and Sarans bearing capacity
factors, Nq(e)

EXAMPLE 3.3
Consider a continuous foundation having a width of 2 m. If e = 0.2 m and the
depth of the foundation Df = 1 m, determine the ultimate load per unit meter
length of the foundation. For the soil use $ = 40$, " = 17.5 kN / m3, and c =
0. Use Meyerhofs bearing capacity and depth factors. Use the reduction factor
method.

Solution Since c = 0, B/L = 0. From Eq. (3.26)

1
qu(centric) = qNq !dq + " BN" !"d
2
From Table 2.3, for $ = 40$, Nq = 64.2 and N" = 93.69. Again, from Table 2.5,
Meyerhofs depth factors are as follows:

1999 by CRC Press LLC

FIGURE 3.10 Prakash and Sarans bearing capacity
factors, N"(e)

D
qd = d = 1 + 0.1 f tan 45 +
2
B
1 40
= 1 + 0.1 tan 45 + = 1.107
2 2

So
1
qu(centric) = (1)(17.5)(64.2)(1.107) + (17.5)(2)(93.69)(1.107)
2
= 1243.7 + 1815.2 = 3058.9 kN / m2

According to Eq. (3.25)

e
k

q u ( eccentric ) = q u ( centric ) (1 R k ) = q u ( centric ) 1 a

B

1999 by CRC Press LLC

FIGURE 3.11 Notations for Eqs. (3.28) and (3.29)

For Df /B = 1/2 = 0.5, from Table 3.1, a = 1.754 and k = 0.80. So

0.2
0 .8

q u ( eccentric ) = 3058 .91 1.754 2209 kN/m

2

The ultimate load per unit length

Q = (2209)(B)(1) = (2209)(2)(1) = 4418 kN / m !!

EXAMPLE 3.4
Solve Example Problem 3.3 using the method of Prakash and Saran.

Solution From Eq. (3.28)

1
Q u = ( B 1) BN ( e ) + D f N q ( e ) + cN c ( e )
2

1999 by CRC Press LLC

Given c = 0. For $ = 40$, e/B = 0.2/2 = 0.1. From Figs. 3.9 and 3.10, Nq(e) =
56.09 and N"(e) %55. So

1
Qu = ( 2 1) (17.5)(2)( 55) + (17.5)(1)(56.09)
2
= ( 2)( 962.5 + 981.6) = 3888 kN/m !!

EXAMPLE 3.5
Solve Example Problem 3.3 using Eq. (3.22)..

Solution For c = 0, from Eq. (3.22)

1
qu = qNq !qd + " BN" !"d
2
B = B " 2e = 2 " (2)(0.2) = 1.6 m

From Table 2.3, Nq = 64.2 and N" = 93.69. From Table 2.5, Meyerhofs depth
factors are as follows:

D
qd = d = 1 + 0.1 f tan 45 +
2
B

1 40
= 1 + 0.1 tan 45 + = 1.107

2 2

1
qu = (1 17.5)(64.2)(1.107) + (17.5)(1.6)(93.69)(1.107)
2
= 2695.9 kN/m2

Qu = (B 1)qu = (1.6)(2695.9) % 4313 kN !!

3.6 ULTIMATE LOAD ON RECTANGULAR FOUNDATION

Meyerhofs effect area method [1] described in the preceding section can be
extended to determine the ultimate load on rectangular foundations. Eccentric
loading of shallow foundations occurs when a vertical load Q is applied at
a location other than the centroid of the foundation (Fig. 3.12a), or when a
foundation is subjected to a centric load of magnitude Q and momentum M
(Fig. 3.12b). In such cases, the load eccentricities may be given as

1999 by CRC Press LLC

FIGURE 3.12 Eccentric load on rectangular foundation

MB
eL = (3.31)
Q
and
ML (3.32)
eB =
Q

where eL , eB = load eccentricities, respectively, in the direction of long and

short axes of the foundation
MB , ML = moment components about the short and long axes of the
foundation, respectively

1999 by CRC Press LLC

FIGURE 3.13 One-way eccentricity of load on foundation

According to Meyerhof [1], the ultimate bearing capacity qu and the

ultimate load Qu of an eccentrically loaded foundation (vertical load) can be
given as
1
qu = cNc !cs !cd + qNq !qs !qd + "BN" !"s !"d (3.33)
2
and

Qu = (qu)A (3.34)

where A = effective area = BL

B = effective width
L = effective length
The effective area A is a minimum contact area of the foundation such that
its centroid coincides with that of the load. For one-way eccentricity, that is, if
eL =0 (Fig. 3.13a), then

B = B ! 2eB; L = L; A = BL (3.35)

However, if eB = 0 (Fig. 3.13b), calculate L ! 2eL . The effective area is

A = B(L ! 2eL) (3.36)

The effective width B is the smaller of the two values, that is, B or L ! 2eL .

1999 by CRC Press LLC

FIGURE 3.14 Rectangular foundation
with one-way eccentricity

Based on their model test results Prakash and Saran [10] suggested that, for
rectangular foundations with one-way eccentricity in the width direction (Fig.
3.14), the ultimate load may be expressed as

1
2 BN ( e ) s ( e ) + D f N q ( e ) qs ( e )
Q u = q u ( BL ) = ( BL ) (3.37)
+ cN
c( e) cs ( e )
where !"s(e) ,
!qs(e) , !cs(e) = shape factors
The shape factors may be expressed by the following relationships

2
2e B 3e B
s ( e ) = 1 .0 + B 0 .68 + 0 .43 B (3.38)
B L 2 B L

where L = length of the foundation

!qs(e) = 1 (3.39)

and

1999 by CRC Press LLC

 B
cs ( e ) = 1 + 0.2 (3.40)
L

Note that Eq. (3.37) does not contain the depth factors.
For two-way eccentricities (that is, eL " 0 and eB " 0), five possible cases
may arise as discussed by Highter and Anders [13]. They are as follows:

Case I (eL /L # 1/6 and eB /B # 1/6)

This case is shown in Fig. 3.15. For this, calculate

3e
B1 = B1.5 B (3.41)
B

and

3e
L1 = L1.5 L (3.42)
L

So, the effective area

1
A = B1 L1 (3.43)
2

The effective width B is equal to the smaller of B1 or L1 .

Case II (eL /L < 0.5 and 0 < eB /B < 1/6)

This case is shown in Fig. 3.16. Knowing the magnitudes of eL /L and eB /B,
the values of L1 /L and L2 /L (and thus L1 and L2) can be obtained from Figs.
3.17 and 3.18. The effective area is given as

1
A = (L1 + L2)B (3.44)
2
The effective length L is the larger of the two values L1 or L2 . The effective
width is equal to

A
B = (3.45)
L

1999 by CRC Press LLC

FIGURE 3.15 Effective area for the case of
eL /L # 1/6 and eB /B # 1/6

FIGURE 3.16 Effective area for the case of

eL/L < 0.5 and 0 < e B /B < 1/6

1999 by CRC Press LLC

FIGURE 3.17 Plot of eL /L versus L1 /L for eL /L < 0.5 and 0 < eB /B < 1/6
(redrawn after Highter and Anders [13])

FIGURE 3.18 Plot of eL /L versus L2 /L for eL /L < 0.5 and 0 < eB /B < 1/6
(redrawn after Highter and Anders [13])

1999 by CRC Press LLC

FIGURE 3.19 Effective area for the case of
eL /L < 1/6 and 0 < eB /B < 0.5

Case III (eL /L < 1/6 and 0 < eB /B < 0.5)

Figure 3.19 shows the case under consideration. Knowing the magnitudes of
eL /L and eB /B, the magnitudes of B1 and B2 can be obtained from Figs. 3.20 and
3.21. So the effective area can be obtained as
1
A = (B1 + B2)L (3.46)
2
In this case, the effective length is equal to

L = L (3.47)

The effective width can be given as

A
B = (3.48)
L

Case IV (eL /L < 1/6 and eB /B < 1/6)

The eccentrically loaded plan of the foundation for this condition is shown in
Fig. 3.22. For this case, the eL /L curves sloping upward in Fig. 3.23 represent
the values of B2 /B on the abscissa. Similarly, in Fig. 3.24 the family of eL /L

1999 by CRC Press LLC

FIGURE 3.20 Plot of eB /B versus B1 /B for eL /L < 1/6 and 0 < eB /B < 0.5
(redrawn after Highter and Anders [13])

FIGURE 3.21 Plot of eB /B versus B2 /B for eL /L < 1/6 and 0 < eB /B < 0.5
(redrawn after Highter and Anders [13])

1999 by CRC Press LLC

FIGURE 3.22 Effective area for the case of
eL /L < 1/6 and eB /B < 1/6

FIGURE 3.23 Plot of eB /B versus B2 /B for eL /L < 1/6 and eB /B < 1/6
(redrawn after Highter and Anders [13])

1999 by CRC Press LLC

FIGURE 3.24 Plot of eB /B versus L2 /L for eL /L < 1/6 and eB /B < 1/6
(redrawn after Highter and Anders [13])

curves which slope downward represent the values of L2 /L on the abscissa.

Knowing B2 and L2 , the effective area A can be calculated. For this case, L
= L and B = A/L.

Case V (Circular Foundation)

In the case of circular foundations under eccentric loading (Fig. 3.25a), the
eccentricity is always one way. The effective area A and the effective width B
for a circular foundation are given in a nondimensional form in Fig. 3.25b.
Depending on the nature of the load eccentricity and the shape of the foun-
dation, once the magnitudes of the effective area and the effective width are
determined, they can be used in Eqs. (3.33) and (3.34) to determine the ulti-
mate load for the foundation. In using Eq. (3.33), one needs to remember that
1. The bearing capacity factors for a given friction angle are to be
determined from those presented in Tables 2.3 and 2.4.
2. The shape and depth factors are determined by using the relationships
given in Table 2.5 by replacing B for B and L for L whenever they
appear.

1999 by CRC Press LLC

FIGURE 3.25 Normalized effective dimension of circular
foundations (after Highter and Anders [13])

3. The depth factors are determined from the relationships given in Table
2.5. However, for calculating the depth factor, the term B is not
replaced by B.

1999 by CRC Press LLC

EXAMPLE 3.5
A shallow foundation measuring 4 ft 6 ft in plan is subjected to a centric load
and a moment. If eB = 0.45 ft, eL = 1.2 ft, and the depth of the foundation is 3
ft, determine the allowable load the foundation can carry. Use a factor of safety
of 4. For the soil given unit weight, ! = 115 lb / ft3 ; friction angle, " = 35!; and
cohesion, c = 0. Use Vesics N! (Table 2.4), DeBeers shape factors (Table
2.5), and Hansens depth factors (Table 2.5).

Solution For this case

e B 0.4 e L 1.2
= = 0.1; = = 0.2
B 4 L 6

For this type of condition, Case II as shown in Fig. 3.16 applies. Referring to
Figs. 3.17 and 3.18
L1
= 0.865, or L1 = (0.865)(6) = 5.19 ft
L

L2
= 0.22, or L2 = (0.22)(6) = 1.32 ft
L
From Eq. (3.44)
1 1
A = (L1 + L2)B = (5.19 + 1.32)(4) = 13.02 ft2
2 2
So

A A 13.02
B = = = = 2.51 ft
L L1 519
.
Since c = 0
1
qu = qNq #qs #qd + !BN! #!s #!d
2
From Table 2.3 for " = 35!, Nq = 33.30. Also from Table 2.4 for " = 35!,
Vesics N! = 48.03.
The shape factors given by DeBeer are as follows (Table 2.5)

B 2.51
qs = 1 + tan = 1 + tan 35 = 1.339
L 5.19

B 2.51
s = 1 0.4 = 1 (0.4) = 0.806
L 5.19

1999 by CRC Press LLC

 The depth factors given by Hansen are as follows:

D
qd = 1 + 2 tan (1 sin ) 2 f

B
3
= 1 + (2)(tan 35)(1 sin 35) 2 = 1.191
4
d = 1

So
1
qu = (115)(3)(33.3)(1.339)(1.191) + (115)(2.51)(48.03)(0.806)(1)
2
= 18,321 + 5,587 = 23,908 lb / ft2

So the allowable load on the foundation is

q u A ( 23,908)(13.02)
Q= = = 77,820 lb !!
FS 4

REFERENCES

1. Meyerhof, G. G., The bearing capacity of foundations under eccentric and

inclined loads, in Proc., III Intl. Conf. on Soil Mech. Found. Eng., Zurich,
Switzerland, 1, 1953, 440.
2. Caquot, A., and Kerisel, J., Tables for the Calculation of Passive Pressure,
Active Pressure, and the Bearing Capacity of Foundations, Gauthier-Villars,
Paris, 1949.
3. Meyerhof, G. G., The ultimate bearing capacity of foundations, Geotechnique,
2, 301, 1951.
4. Meyerhof, G. G., Some recent research on the bearing capacity of foundations,
Canadian Geotech. J., 1(1), 16, 1963.
5. Hansen, J. B., A Revised and Extended Formula for Bearing Capacity, Bulletin
No. 28, Danish Geotechnical Institute, Copenhagen, 1970.
6. Muhs, H., and Weiss, K., Inclined load tests on shallow strip footing, in Proc.,
VIII Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Eng., Moscow, 1.3, 1973.
7. Dubrova, G. A., Interaction of Soils and Structures, Rechnoy Transport,
Moscow, 1973.
8. Purkayastha, R. D., and Char, R. A. N., Stability analysis for eccentrically
loaded footings, J. Geotech. Eng. Div., ASCE, 103(6), 647, 1977.
9. Janbu, N., Earth pressures and bearing capacity calculations by generalized
procedure of slices, in Proc., IV Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Eng., London, 2,
1957, 207.

1999 by CRC Press LLC

 10. Prakash, S., and Saran, S., Bearing capacity of eccentrically loaded footings,
J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., ASCE, 97(1), 95, 1971.
11. Terzaghi, K., Theoretical Soil Mechanics, John Wiley, New York, 1943.
12. Prakash, S., Soil Dynamics, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1981.
13. Highter, W. H., and Anders, J. C., Dimensioning footings subjected to
eccentric loads., J. Geotech. Eng., ASCE, 111(5), 659, 1985.

1999 by CRC Press LLC