CVL600-L3

CVL600: Foundation Engineering

Lecture #4-Shallow Foundation
Dr. Jinyuan Liu, PE, PEng
Ryerson University

Table of Contents

Shallow Foundation Introduction

Terzaghis Bearing Capacity Formula

General Bearing Capacity Formula

Water Depth Influence

Eccentrically Loaded Foundation

Examples

1
CVL600-L3

Foundations

Foundations

2
CVL600-L3

Shallow Foundation
Father of modern soil mechanics

Born in Prague, Czechoslovakia

Wrote Erdbaumechanick in 1925

Taught at MIT (1925-1929)

Taught at Harvard (1938 and after)

Karl Terzaghi (1883-1963)
The problems of soil mechanics can be divided into two principal
groups - stability problems and elasticity problems
- Karl Terzaghi, 1943
5

Problems of Shallow Foundations

West side of foundation sank 24-ft

Guess how
much
settlement?

Transcosna Grain Elevator

Canada (Oct. 18, 1913) 6

3
CVL600-L3

Three Failure Modes

How do we estimate the maximum bearing pressure that
the soil can withstand before failure occurs?
Types/Modes of Failure
General Shear Failure
Local Shear Failure
Punching Shear Failure

Which failure
mode are you
expected to
design
footing for?

Failure Modes

4
CVL600-L3

Design Procedure

Failure Envelope by Terzaghi

Rough footing base with surcharge -Smooth Footing

For Continuous foundations: qult cN c qN q 0.5 BN

For Square foundations: qult 1.3cN c qN q 0.4 BN

For Circular foundations: qult 1.3cN c qN q 0.3 BN

10

5
CVL600-L3

Bearing Capacity Factors

Nc 5.7 when 0

N c cot ( N q 1)

e 2( 3 / 4 ') tan '

Nq
2 cos 2 (45 / 2)

tan K p
N 1
2 cos
2

11

Bearing Capacity Factors

Assumptions in Terzaghis
Bearing Capacity Theory

No sliding between footing

and soil

Soil: a homogeneous semi-

infinite mass

General shear failure

Footing is very rigid

compared to soil

12

6
CVL600-L3

Example
Q: A square footing with a dimension of 5x5 ft. The soil supporting the
foundation has a friction angle of 20 and c=200psf. The unit weight is 125
pcf, assuming water table is 20 ft below and depth of foundation is 4 ft.
Determine the ultimate capacity of this footing using Terzaghis Ultimate
Capacity Formula.
Solution:
qult 1.3cN c qN q 0.4 BN For square foundations

=20 From the right table 3.1 or 3.6? Nc=17.69, Nq=7.44, Nr=3.64

qult 1.3cN c qN q 0.4 BN

1.3 x 200 x17.69 (4 x125) x7.44 0.4 x125 x5 x3.64
4599 3720 910 9230 psf

13

Allowable Bearing Capacity

Factor of Safety Another Way of FOS
q
qa ult Call=C/F
F all =tan-1(tan/F)
qa Allowable Bearing Capacity
F Factor of safety Then use Call and all to
get all the parameters
Allowable Net Bearing Capacity
qnet qult q Factor of Safety Depends on:
Type of Soil
qnet Level of Uncertainty in Soil
qall ( net ) Strength
F Importance of Structure and
qall (net
.. ) Net Allowable Bearing Capacity Consequences of Failure
F . Factor of safety Likelihood of Design Load
Occurrence
14

7
CVL600-L3

Minimum Factor of Safety

Main influencing factors: Importance of structures,

Uncertainties of ground conditions
15

Typical
Allowable
BC Value

NAVFAC DM 7.2

16

8
CVL600-L3

Local Shear Failure

17

Local vs General Shear Failure in Sand

Local Transition General

Shear Region Shear

18

9
CVL600-L3

Rectangular Foundation

General Shear Failure

Local Shear Failure

19

Groundwater Table Effect

1. Modify q
2. Calculate as
follows:
b w

1. No change in q
2. Calculate as
follows:
Dw D
w 1
B
1. No change in q
2. No change in

20

10
CVL600-L3

General Bearing Capacity Formula

Further Developments
Skempton (1951)
Brinch Hanson (1961)
Meyerhof (1963)
Vesic (1973, 1975)
Meyerhof (1953)
De Beer and Ladanyi (1961)
Brinch Hanson (1970)

qult cN c sc d c ic qN q sq d q iq 0.5 BN s d i

Shape factors.
Depth Factors .
Load Inclination Factors .

This formula was further developed by Vesic in 1973 and 1975

21

Formula Comparisons
Terzaghis Ultimate Bearing Capacity Formula
qult cN c qN q 0.5 BN (Continuous footing)

qult 1.3cN c qN q 0.4 BN (Square footing)

qult 1.3cN c qN q 0.3 BN (Circular footing)

Vesics Ultimate Bearing Capacity Formula

qult cN c sc d c ic qN q sq d q iq 0.5 BN s d i
Remember the corresponding table for each formula
Terzaghis different formulas for shaped foundations, while shape factors
in general bearing capacity formula
All are general shear failure cases
22

11
CVL600-L3

Vesics General Bearing Capacity Factors

B N q d c 1 0.4k
sc 1
L N c
d q 1 2k tan (1 sin ) 2
B
sq 1 tan
L d 1
B
s 1 0.4 D
L where k tan 1
B

With B/L increases (to square), Sc and Sq increase with Sr decreases

23

Vesics Inclination Factors

Q: Comparing to vertical load,

inclined road increases or reduced
bearing capacity of footing?

o
ic iq (1 )2
90 o

2
i (1 )
'
where - inclination of load with respect
to the vertical

24

12
CVL600-L3

Example
Q: A square footing with a dimension of 5x5 ft. The soil supporting the
foundation has a friction angle of 20 and c=200psf. The unit weight is 125
pcf, assuming water table is 20 ft below and depth of foundation is 4 ft.
Determine the ultimate capacity of this footing using General Bearing
Capacity Formula.
Solution:
qult cN c sc d c ic qN q sq d q iq 0.5 BN s d i
=20 From Table 3.3. Nc=14.83, Nq=6.40, Nr=5.39
Shape Factors:
Sc=1+B/L(Nq/Nc)=1+5/5*(6.40/14.83)=1.43
Sq=1+B/L(tanf)=1+5/5xtan(20)=1.36
Sr=1-0.4B/L=0.6
Depth Factors:
dc=1+0.4Df/B=1.32
dq=1+2tanf(1-sinf)2Df/B=1+2*tan(20o)(1-sin(20o))2x4/5=1.25
dr=1
25
Inclination Factors: All equal to 1.

Example Contd
qult cN c sc d c ic qN q sq d q iq 0.5 BN s d i
200 x14.83 *1.43 *1.32 x1 500 x6.40 x1.36 x1.25 x1
0.5 x125 x5.39 x0.6 x1x1
5599 5440 1011 12049 psf

qult 1.3cN c qN q 0.4 BN

Compare
4599 3720 910 9230 psf

Meyerhofs Factors
Use the same general bearing capacity formula
See Table 3.4 for difference with Vesics
Remember to use Table 3.5 for Nr instead of Table 3.3
Which one is better?
26

13
CVL600-L3

How to Use it in Practice?

Load Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)

vs
Working/Allowable Stress Design (WSD/ASD)
27

How to Use it in Practice?

28

14
CVL600-L3

Load and Resistance Factors

29

How to Use Load Combinations

30

15
CVL600-L3

Readings for Engineering Judgments

Chapter 3.8 Some Comments on Nr and Shape Factors
Vesic and Michalowskis Nr are the same and recommended to use
in this text
Zhu and Michalowski(2005) factors are recommended because of
sound theoretical background
Remember to comply with the code or design criteria (where there
may be some preferred formula)

Chapter 3.9 A Case Study for Bearing Capacity Failure

The failure mode is different from symmetrical one proposed by all
the researcher
The angle of friction is assumed to be 0o
FOS is 1.14 from calculation. Failure was happened before FOS=1

31

Eccentrically Loaded Foundation

P 6M P 6e
BL B 2 L BL (1 B ) max

q
P 6M P 6e
BL B 2 L BL (1 B ) min

P may include the weight of footing

4P
qmax considering qmin 0
3L( B 2e)

In real life, the pressure distribution is

much more complicated than shown here

34

16
CVL600-L3

Eccentrically Loaded Foundation

Step 1: Determine the effective dimensions of the footing
B=B-2e and L=L-2e (if moment in length direction)
Step 2: Use General Bearing Capacity formula
using corresponding B and L for shape factors
using original B to determine the depth factors
Step 3: Total Ultimate Load can be determined as
Qult=qu(BL)
Step 4: Check overall factor of safety. FOS =Qult/P
Step 5: Check factor of safety at max pressure pt. FOS=qu/qmax

35

Example

40

17
CVL600-L3

Example

41

Example

42

18
CVL600-L3

Example

8.69 not
48.69
-1 for net
pressure 43

Question?
Column Load P=15 tons for
a two-story plant
Supposed a SPT boring done for 20 ft
and frost condition requires the min.
C1, 1 0-5 ft footing depth to be 4 ft from surface.

Q1: Which depth soil parameters will be

C2, 5-10 ft used?
Q2: If not the whole depth is used for
the design, why did the boring go so
C3, 10-15 ft
deep?
Q3: Drained parameters or undrained
C4, 15-20 ft parameters to use? If Sand? If Clay?

44

19
CVL600-L3

Soil Strength Parameters

Use Saturated Strength Parameters

Use Undrained Strength in clays (Su)
Use Drained Strength in sands, c and
Intermediate soils that where partially drained conditions exist, engineers
have varying opinions; Undrained Strength can be used but it will be
conservative!
45

Bearing Capacity Accuracy

In Clays ..Within 10%
of true value (Bishop and
Bjerrum, 1960)
Smaller footings in
Sands. Bearing
capacity calculated were
too conservative but
conservatism did not
affect construction cost
much
Large footings in Sands
Bearing capacity
estimates were reasonable
but design was controlled
by settlement

46

20