Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Module 4
(Lecture 15)
SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS: ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY AND
SETTLEMENT
Topics
1.1 ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY
1.2 ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURE IN SAND BASED ON
SETTLEMENT CONSIDERATION
1.3 FIELD LOAD TEST
1.4 PRESUMPTIVE BEARING CAPACITY
1.5 TOLERABLE SETTLEMENT OF BUILDINGS
1.6 FOUNDATION WITH SOIL REINFORCEMENT
1.7 SHALLOW FOUNDATION ON SOIL WITH REINFORCEMENT
NPTEL ADVANCED FOUNDATION ENGINEERING-I
Meyerhof (1956) proposed a correlation for the net allowable bearing pressure for
foundations with the corrected standard penetration resistance, . The net pressure has
been defined as
net (all ) =
According to Meyerhofs theory, for 1 in. (25.4 mm) of estimated maximum settlement
3.28+1 2
net (all ) (kN/m2 ) = 7.99 (for > 1.22 m) [4.49]
3.28
Where
And
B+1 2
net (all ) (kip/ft 2 ) = (for 4 ft [4.51]
6 B
Since Meyerhof proposed original correlation, researchers have observed that its results
are rather conservative. Later, Meyerhof (1965) suggested that the net allowable bearing
pressure should be increased by about 50%. Bowles (1977) proposed that the modified
form of the bearing pressure equations be expressed as
net (all ) (kN/m2 ) = 19.16 25.4
(for 1.22 m) [4.52]
3.28+1 2
net (all ) (kN/m2 ) = 19.98
25.4 (for > 1.22 m) [4.53]
3.28
Where
= torelable settlement, in mm
In English units
net (all ) (kip/ft 2 ) = Fd S c (for 4 ft) [4.55]
2.5
B+1 2
net (all ) (kip/ft 2 ) = Fd S c (for > 4 ft) [4.56]
4 B
Where
Based on equation (55 and 56), the variation of net (all ) /(Fd Sc ) with B and are
given in figure 4.30.
The empirical relations just presented may raise some questions. For example which
value of the standard penetration number should be used, and what is the effect of the
water table on the net allowable bearing capacity? The design value of should be
determined by taking into account the values for a depth of 2B to 3B, measured from
the bottom of the foundation. Many engineers are also of the opinion that the value
NPTEL ADVANCED FOUNDATION ENGINEERING-I
should be reduced somewhat if the water table is close to the foundation. However, the
author believes that this reduction is not required because the penetration resistance
reflects the location of the water table.
Meyerhof (1956) also prepared empirical relations for the net allowable bearing capacity
of foundations based on the cone penetration resistance, :
net (all ) = 15 (for 1.22m and settlement of 25.4 mm) [4.57]
And
3.28+1 2
net (all ) = 25 (for > 1.22m and settlement of 25.4 mm) [4.58]
3.28
Note that in equations (57 and 58) the unit of B is meters, and the units of net (all ) and
are kN/m2 .
q c (lb /ft 2 )
net (all ) (lb/ft 2 ) = (for 4ft and settlement of 1 in. ) [4.59]
15
And
q c (lb /ft 2 ) +1 2
net (all ) (lb/ft 2 ) = (for > 4ft and settlement of 1 in. ) [4.60]
25 25
The basic philosophy behind the development of these correlations is that, if the
maximum settlement is not more than 1 in. (25.4 mm) for any foundation, the differential
settlement would be no more than 0.75 in. (19 mm). These are probably the allowable
limits for most building foundation designs.
the nature f the load-settlement curve obtained from such tests, from which the ultimate
load per unit area can be determined.
Figure 4.31 Plate load test: (a) test arrangement; (b) nature of load-settlement curve
() = () [4.61]
W, is
Here
Equation (61) implies that the ultimate bearing capacity in clay is virtually independent
of the size of the plate.
NPTEL ADVANCED FOUNDATION ENGINEERING-I
Where
And
2 2
= (for sandy soil) [4.64]
+
The preceding relationship is based on the work of Terzaghi and Peck (1967). Figure
4.32 shows a comparison of several large-scale field test results in with equation (64).
Based on this comparison, it can be said that equation (64) is fairly approximate.
Figure 4.32 Comparison of field test results with equation (64) (after DAppolonia et al.,
1970)
Housel (1929) proposed a different technique for determining the load-bearing capacity
of shallow foundations based on settlement considerations:
1 = 1 + 1 [4.65]
2 = 2 + 2 [4.66]
Where
, =
two constants that corresponds to the bearing presure and perimeter shear, respectively
The values of and can be determined by solving equations (65 and 66).
= + [4.67]
Where
Because , and are known, equation (67) can be solved determine foundations
width.
Example 7
The results of a plate load test in a sandy soil are shown in figure 4.33. The size of the
plate is 0.305m 0.305m. Determine the size of a square column foundation that should
carry a load of 2500 kN with a maximum of 25 mm.
NPTEL ADVANCED FOUNDATION ENGINEERING-I
Figure 4.33
Solution
The problem has to be solved by trial and error. Use the following table and equation
(64):
Example 8
The results of two plate load tests are given in the following table:
0.305 32.2 20
0.610 71.8 20
NPTEL ADVANCED FOUNDATION ENGINEERING-I
A square column foundation has to be constructed to carry a total load of 715 kN. The
tolerable settlement is 20 m. determine the size of the foundation.
Solution
= 50.68 kN/m2
= 29.75 kN/m
= +
Or
= 2 + 4
Or
2.8 m
Example 9
A shallow square foundation for a column is to be constructed. It must carry a net vertical
load of 1000 kN. The foundation soil is sand. The standard penetration numbers obtained
from field exploration are given in figure 4.34. Assume that the depth of the foundation
will be 1.5 m and the tolerable settlement is 25.4 mm. determine the size of the
foundation.
NPTEL ADVANCED FOUNDATION ENGINEERING-I
Figure 4.34
Solution
The field standard penetration numbers need to be corrected by using the Liao and
Whitman relationship (table 4 from chapter 2). This is done in the following table
2 3 31.4 7
4 7 62.8 9
6 12 94.2 12
8 12 125.6 11
10 16 157.0 13
12 13 188.4 9
14 12 206.4 8
16 14 224.36 9
18 18 242.34 11
Rounded off
NPTEL ADVANCED FOUNDATION ENGINEERING-I
From the table, it appears that a corrected average value of about 10 would be
appropriate. Using equation (53)
3.28+1 2
( ) = 11.98 25.4
3.28
3.28+1 2
( ) = 119.8
3.28
B (m) ( ) (kN/m2 )
= ( )
2 (kN)
Several building codes (for example, Uniform Building Code, Chicago Building Code,
New York City Building Code) specify the allowable bearing capacity of foundations on
various types of soil. For minor construction, they often provide fairly acceptable
guidelines. However, these bearing capacity values are based primarily on the visual
classification of near-surface soils. They generally do not take into consideration factors
such as the stress history of the soil, water table location, depth of the foundation, and
tolerable settlement. So, for large construction projects, the codes presumptive values
should be used only as guides.
As has been emphasized in this chapter, settlement analysis is an important part of the
design and construction of foundations. Large settlements of various components of a
structure may lead to considerable damage and/or may interfere with the proper
functioning of the structure. Limited studies have been made to evaluate the conditions
for tolerable settlement of various types of structures (for example, Bjerrum, 1963;
NPTEL ADVANCED FOUNDATION ENGINEERING-I
Burland and Worth, 1974; Grant et al., 1974; Polshin and Tokar, 1957; and Wahls, 1981).
Wahls (1981) has provided an excellent review of these studies.
Figure 4.35 gives the parameters for definition of tolerable settlement. Figure 4.35a is for
a structure that has undergone settlement without tilt; Figure 4.35b is for a structure that
has undergone settlement with tilt.
Figure 4.35 Parameters for definition of tolerable settlement (redrawn after Wahls, 1981)
= relative deflection
= tilt
= = angular distortion
= deflection ratio
Bjerum (1963) provided the conditions of limiting angular distortion, , for various
structures (see table 6).
NPTEL ADVANCED FOUNDATION ENGINEERING-I
Polshin and Tokar (1957) presented the settlement criteria of the 1955 U.S.S.R. Building
Code. These criteria were based on experience gained from observations of foundation
settlement over 25 years. Tables 7 and 8 present the criteria.
It was discussed in chapter 3 that the ultimate bearing capacity of shallow foundations
can be improved by including tensile reinforcement such as metallic strips, geotextiles,
and geogrids in the soil supporting the foundation. The procedure for designing shallow
foundations for limiting settlement condition (that is, allowable bearing capacity) with
layers of geogrid as reinforcement is still n the research and development stages.
However, the problem of allowable bearing capacity of shallow foundations resting on
granular soil reinforced with metallic strips was studied in detail by Binquet and Lee
(1975a, b), who proposed the rational design method presented in the following sections.
(a)
Civil-and industrial-building
column foundations:
(b)/
/ 2.5 3(80)
/ 1.5 4(100)
Framed building
4(100)