624.

172
1990
MOH

BEARING CAPACITY OF STRIP

FOOTING ON SAND

A Thesis
By

Submitted to the Department of Civil Engineering,

Bangladesh University of Engineering & Technology, Dhaka

in partial fulfilment for the requirement of the degree

of

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING

I111I1111 1111111111111111111 I11111

#78744#

October, 1990
 BEARING CAPACITY OF STRIP
FOOTING ON SAND

A Thesis
By
MOHAMMED ABDUL QUADIR

Approved as to style and content by:

--------~~-------------
(Dr. Mohammed Zoynul Abedin) Chairman
Associate Professor,
Dept. of Civil Engineering,
BUET, Dhaka.

(Dr. Alamgir M. Hoque) Member

Professor and Head,
Dept. of Civil Engineering,
BUET, Dhaka.

(Dr. A.M.M. Safiullah) Member

Professor,
Dept. of Civil Engineering,
BUET, Dhaka.

----~~~~------------
(Dr. Syed Fakhrul Ameen) Member
Assistant Professor,
Dept. of Civil Engineering,
BUET, Dhaka.

~~di"-KhO"dak"T- Member
Chief Structural Engineer, (External)
Development Design Consultants,
23 New Easkaton, Dhaka.

October, 1990
 iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author wishes to express his sincere gratitude to his

supervisor, Dr. Mohammed Zoynul Abedin for his continuous
guidance, discussion and valuable suggestions throughout the
courses of this research.

The author tenders his sincere thanks to Professor Alamgir M.

Hoque, Head of the Department of Civil Engineering, for the

opportunity provided to use computers of the department.

Thanks are due to the technicians of the Geotechnical Engineering

Division in particular to Mr. Habibur Rahman, for their help with

the test and instrumentation.

The author wishes to thank his parents, wife, children and

relatives for their support, encouragement and patience. The
author is also grateful to his friends for their continuous help
and encouragement.

The author gratefully acknowledges the personnel of the Roads and

Highways Department and the Ministry of Communications,

Bangladesh for the permission of this study.

Finally, the author wishes Mr. M.A. Malek for his neat typing and
Mr. Sahiduddin for his neat sketching of the diagrams.
 iv

ABSTRACT

Bangladesh University of Engineering & Technology

Department of Civil Engineering
M.Sc.Engineering
October, 1990

BEARING CAPACITY OF STRIP FOOTING ON SAND

A study on the behavior of a centrally loaded strip footing on an

artificially prepared air dry sand layer is reported in this
thesis. The study is concerned with the development of an
apparatus to study the bearing capacity of sand layers
constituted of selected sands of Bangladesh.

A bearing capacity testing apparatus was designed and constructed

in the laboratory. The apparatus mainly consist of a model tank
of dimensions 57 cm x 85.5 cm x 60 cm, a sand spreader, a
levelling apparatus, a strip footing and a loading rig having a
capacity of 27 kN.

Plane strain model tests were carried out using a rough based
footing resting on dense, (Dr = 80%to92%), semi-infinite (H/B~3)
layer of sand collected from different locations of Bangladesh.
The mechanical sand spreader was used to form the sand bed.
Strain controlled'loads were applied and the plane strain
conditions were carefully maintained. The bearing capacity tests
were carried out for surface (D/B=O) and shallow (D/B=0.5,1.0)
depth footing using four selected soil samples having different
angle of internal friction. The load, settlement and rotation
measurement were taken using load and strain dial gauges. Basic
computer programs were developed to analyze the data and present
the results.
 v

The effects of angle of internal friction(~) and depth of

surcharge on bearing capacity, angle of internal friction on
bearing capacity factors Ny, Nq and Nyq are studied. The results
are compared with those predicted by the existing methods. It is
observed that for a surface strip footing the bearing capacity
results are in good agreement with that given by the empirical
relation of Feda (1961) and Abdul Baki and Beik (1970) whereas
for a shallow depth footing the results are in satisfactory
agreement (Varying from 68% to 102%) with the results of Abdul
Baki and Beik (1970). It is further noticed that when the footing
depth closes to the width of footing the bearing capacity
predicted by Terzaghi has excellent agreement (within a range of
90% to 95%) with the experimental results particularly for higher
values of ~.It is, however, observed that,in general,the
predicted results are on the safe side in almost all the cases.

The experimental results show that the predicted values of Ny by

existing formulas are highly conservative,the exception being
that of Feda (1961), which is on the unsafe side. Terzaghi's
(1943) formula predicts bearing capacity factor for surcharge,Nq,
very closely while D/B is approximately 0.5. The reasonable
agreement for Nq was also observed while using the formulas of
Meyerhof (1955) and Br. Hansen (1961).

Statistical analysis of the experimental results yield good

correlations between ~ and the bearing capacity factors. And as
such, these relations are proposed to estimate the bearing
capacity of strip footing resting on Bangladesh sands.
 vi

MAIN NOTATIONS

B, Bf Width of footing/foundation
b Half the width of footing
c Cohesion of soil
D, Df Depth of footing(overburden surcharge)
d Diameter of the triaxial sample
E Young's Modulus of Elasticity
e Load eccentricity
eo Initial void ratio
H Soil layer thickness
Ka Coefficient of active earth pressure
Kp Coefficient of passive earth pressure
L Length of foundation
1 Length of triaxial specimen
Nc ,NQ ,Ny, Bearing capacity factor
N Q Combined bearing capacity factor
Nc r Bearing capacity factor multiplied by
the eccentricity and thickness factor
no Initial porosity of soil
Pp Passive pressure
Q Tota 1 load
qu Bearing pressure in kN/m2
r Rotation of footing
z Vertical distance from the base of footing
13 Angle of load spread
Unit weight of soil
Angle of footing base friction
o Strees
03 Confining pressure in triaxial tests, kPa
E Strain
i1J Angle of internal friction
i1Jt Triaxial angle of internal friction
i1Jp. Plane strain angle of internal friction
Summation
Poisson's ratio
T Shear stress
 vii
CONTENTS

Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii
ABSTRACT iv
MAIN NOTATIONS vi
CONTENTS vii

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 6

2. 1 General 6
2.2 Bearing Capacity of Strip Foundation
on Semi-infinite Layer 6
2.3 Effect of Footing Roughness and Layer
Thickness on Bearing Capacity 27
2.4 Settlement of Footing 31
2.5 Conclusions 33

CHAPTER 3 EXPERIMENTAL SET UP AND MATERIALS 36

3. 1 General 36
3.2 The Experimental Set up 36
3.2.1 The Tank 36
3.2.2 The Sand Spreader 39
3.2.3 The Sand Leveling Apparatus 43
3.2.4 The Footing 46
3.2.5 The Loading Rig 46
3.2.6 The Attachment for Strain Dial Gauges 50
3.2.7 The Tank Maneuver System 51
3.3 The Sand 51

CHAPTER 4 TEST PROGRAMME AND PROCEDURE 54

4.1 General 54
4.2 Properties of Soil 57
1
4.2.1 Grain Size- Distribution and
Specific Gravity 57
4.2.2 Maximum and Minimum Density/
Void Ratio 60
4.2.3 The Triaxial Test 61
 viii
4.3 Calibration of Apparatus 65
4.3.1 Calibration of the Sand Spreader 65
4.3.2 Calibration for Motor Speed 67
4.3.3 Calibration of the Proving Ring
of Loading Rig 67
4.4 Bearing Capacity Test Procedure 74
4.4.1 Sand Bed Formation 74
4.4.2 Placement of Footing 76
4.4.3 Deposition of Surcharge 77
4.4.4 Placing the Tank below the Loading Rig 77
4.4.5 Loading on the Footing 78

CHAPTER 5 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 79

5. 1 General 79
5.2 Porosity - Angle of Internal Friction
Relations of Sand Samples 80
5.3 Bearing Pressure - Settlement Relations 82
5.3.1 Surface Footing 82
5.3.2 Shallow Depth Footing 82
5.4 Settlement - Rotation Relations 97
5.4.1 Surface Footing 97
5.4.2 Shallow Depth Footing 98
5.5 Angle of Internal Friction - Bearing
Capacity Relations 98
5.5.1 Surface Footing 98
5.5.2 Shallow Depth Footing 101
5.6 Angle of Internal Friction - Bearing
Capacity Factors Relations 104
5.6.1 11l - Ny'Relations 104
5.6.2 11l - Nq Relations 110
5.7 Angle of Internal Friction - Combined
Bearing Capacity Factor Relations 113

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS 120

REFERENCES 125
 1

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

A footing foundation is the supporting base of a structure which

transmits the loads to the natural ground. Many earlier
scientists postulated their theories on the performance of this

type of foundation under external loading. Mainly the theories

were developed considering two types of stress states in the soil
media; (a) the imposed forces will not violate the state of

equilibrium and (b) the forces will not cause loss of equilibrium
(critical state or plastic state). In this regard the
contributions of Rankine (1857), Boussinesq (1885), Kotter
(1903), Prandt1 (1921), Reissner (1924), Terzaghi(1943), Meyerhof

(1955) etc. are of great importance. However, despite their

importance, their solutions were sometimes oversimplified and led
to further attention (Abedin, 1986).

The actual behaviour of soil when subjected to external forces is

a complex problem due to its formation variability in nature.

However, the modern theoretical investigations started with the

simplest case of homogeneous, isotropic medium of semi-infinite
extent with strip loading. Considering the above assumptions,
several investigators presented their theories on different
aspects of foundation behaviour particularly of the failure
mechanism.
 2

One of the early sets of bearing capacity equation was proposed

by Terzaghi (1943) assuming the boundary failure of soil surface

due to a foundation loading to be consisted of a logarithmic

spiral and a straight line and using the principle of superposi

tion, he obtained the bearing capacity factors, Nc, NQ and Ny. He

modified the bearing capacity equation developed for an infinite

strip by Prandtl (1921) based on the theory of plasticity. These

equations and those subsequent by Meyerhof (1951), Lundgren and

Mortensen (1953), Br.Hansen(1960), Balla(1962), Sokolovski(1965),

Abdul Baki and Beik(1970) make use of the general foundation

configuration, base conditions, roughness and approximate failure

surfaces for a unit length of an infinitely long strip footing so

that a plane strain condition can be assumed.

The development of all the theories concerning bearing capacity

and settlement requires assumptions which often are true only to

a limited degree.Thus any theoretical approach contains

uncertainties which can be checked only by examining actual

behaviour in the field or in the laboratory. Thus the previous

theoretical works were accompanied by experimental investigations

of bearing capacity, contact stresses and displacements under

the different loading conditions (e.g. Meyerhof 1951,1953, 1955,

1974; Eastwood 1955; Jumikis 1956; Muhs 1963; Milovic 1965;

Uzuner 1975; Tournier and Milovic 1977; Vafaeian 1978; Al-Omari

1984; Abedin 1986; Ameen 1990;).

The best test for the bearing capacity equations is the

comparison with full scale footing tests. Unfortunately not

 3

enough full-scale footing tests have been made to draw

statistically valid conclusions. Most of the tests have been

model studies using soils from scattered locations allover the

world.

Laboratory model tests are economic and reliable since the soil

characteristics and model dimensions can be chosen so that the

required parameters can be studied. The performance of the actual

foundation may be predicted if similarity laws are maintained.

However, similarity laws strictly can not be applied to the

bearing capacity problems as the results are affected by the

model size (De Beer, 1965). The scale effect is related to the

phenomenon of progressive rupture which is pronounced for larger

footings and its effect is to decrease bearing capacity (Muhs,

1965). There is no theoretical or empirical rules accounting for

this scale effect and consequences of the scale effect are left

to the engineering judgement.

Fortunately, the bearing capacity equations are conservative most

of the time and in almost all instances conservative soil

parameter estimates are used, so that the resulting computed

ultimate bearing capacity is likely to be quite underestimated

(Bowels, 1986).

From the practical point of view, it is not always desirable to

design a foundation considering the most conservative soil

parameters (Abedin,1986). This necessitates a more realistic

approach to investigate the bearing capacity of soil of a

 4

particular locality simulating the field conditions. The pioneers

in this field studied various types of foundations and found

different bearing capacity parameters although the various
assumptions concerning soil strength and unit weight made by most
of them were similar.

Thus it is not irrational to expect that the soil strength and

unit weight might not be the sole criteria to determine the

bearing capacity of the soil. Rather, the soil structure, which

depends mainly on its mode of formation and origin should be
considered in its analysis. All the existing theories disregard
these complex parameters and the problem was probably overcome by

performing model tests for the desired foundation conditions.

With a similar attitude, it is felt essential to provide a

succinct and logical treatment of the behaviour of foundations

resting on the alluvial sandy deposits of Bangladesh.
Unfortunately, no research work in this discipline has yet been
reported by any authorities. The present study is aimed at

initiating a research on bearing capacity of Bangladesh soil with

the following preliminary objectives:

i) To develop an experimental set-up for testing bearing capacity

of sandy soils.

ii)To investigate the bearing capacity and bearing capacity fac-

tors due to a strip loading on a semi-infinite layer composed

of selected Bangladesh soil.
 5

The present research investigates the bearing capacity of a model

soil foundation system which is carried out in the Geotechnical

Engineering Laboratory of Bangladesh University of Engineering

and Technology. An experimental system has been developed for the

purpose in which a sand spreader is used to deposit sand to form

an uniform bed in a model tank of dimensions 57 cmx85.5 cmx60 cm.

A model footing of dimensions 10 cm x 51 cm is used and strain

dial gauges are provided to measure the settlement and rotation

of footing during loading. The loads are applied to the footing

using a strain controlled loading rig through two loading blades.

In order to compare the results with the theoretical predictions,

the present tests are performed under plane strain conditions.

Organization of the Thesis:

The study is presented in six chapters, the first of which is an

introduction. Essentially chapter 2 reviews the relevant
literature and briefly outlines the aim and the scope of the
present investigation.

Chapter 3 describes the experimental set up and the test program

and procedure of the experiments are described in chapter 4.

Chapter 5 discusses the experimental results and provides

comparison with the predicted results.

Finally chapter 6 presents the conclusions of the experimental

results. Future recommendations are also presented in this

chapter.
 6

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 General

The present investigation is primarily concerned with the

determination of ultimate bearing capacity of shallow strip

foundation supported by a semi-infinite layer of local

Bangladeshi sand collected from four different locations. The

particular points of interest are the determination of the

bearing capacity of sands including settlements and rotations of

footing,the development of a loading mechanism, a model tank, a

sand spreader and a model footing.

In this chapter the most important literature related to a

present investigation are reviewed with special reference to the

general case of semi-infinite layer and central load.

2.2 Bearing Capacity of Strip Foundations on Semi-Infinite Layer

In the following sections both theoretical and experimental

findings of bearing capacity of centrally loaded strip

foundations on thick layers (semi-infinite) by different inves-

tigations are briefly discussed.

Probably the earliest recorded attempt to solve the problem of

bearing capacity of strip foundation was made by Rankine in 1857

 7

(Abedin, 1986). He assumed that failure in the soil is initiated

by the formation of two wedges immediately beneath the foun-

dation,Fig 2.1. With the application of load the Rankine active

wedge I is pushed downwards and sideways whilst the Rankine

passive Wedge II is pushed sideways and upwards. The horizontal

resistances P are assumed to act at interface of the two wedges.

They have the same magnitude but act on opposite directions and

are referred to as active pressure and passive pressure for wedge

I and Wedge II respectively. Bell (1915) modified Rankine's

solution to the bearing capacity of a strip footing on a c-~ soil

by assuming a failure mechanism composed of Rankine active and

passive region, Fig.2.1. Thus for active pressure on wedge I:

P = iy KaH2 - 2cH{Ka + quKaH (2.1a)

where, Ka= tan2(45° - ~/2)

For passive pressure on wedge II:

P = iy KpH2 - 2cH{Kp + qKpH (2.1b)

where, Kp= tan2(45° + ~/2)

From equation (2.1a) and (2.1b), solving for qu, we have:

qu= ty B(Kp5/2 - Kpi) + 2c(Kp3/2 + Kpi) + qKp2

where, Kp= 1/Ka and H = B/2tan(45° - ~/2) = B/2{Ka

 8

That is qu = cNc + qNq + h BNy (2.1c)

where, Nc = 2 (Kp 3/ 2 + Kp' )

~= H Kp 5/2 - Kp' )

Nq = Kp 2

Equation (2.1c) is the basic form of general bearing capacity

expression used in the field of soil mechanics. Variations in the

values for Nc, Nq and Ni have been proposed over the years by

different investigators, as have been factors to account for

footing shapes, depth, inclination, ground, and base variations

etc.

The above derivations are based on the assumptions that (a) there

is no shear on the interface of the two wedges; (b) the failure

surfaces are straight lines.Although this approach oversimplified

the problem,it initiated the plasticity solutions which have pro-

•
vided not only the essential quantitative data,but also an under-

standing of the mechanism of failure (Lee,White and Ingles,1983).

Many of the current day fundamental principles, however limited

or incomplete, regarding bearing capacity determination had their

substantive beginning with Prandt 1 's theory of plastic

equilibrium. Prandtl's (1921) theory of plastic equilibrium, on

the deformation or penetration effects of hard objects into much

softer materials led to a new approach for the solution of the

problem of rigid surface footing penetrating a relatively soft

soil. The main assumptions in Prandtl's analysis are (a) the

material is homogeneous, isotropic and weightless (b) the footing

 •
9

• I>

l"
J_
( b)

FIG.2.1 RANKINE'S WEDGES (AFTER CERNICA. 1982)

f.

Zone of
pa"lv8 ,tat.

FIG, 2.2 PRANDTL'S FAILURE MECHA NISM (AFTER CERNICA, 1982 I

 10

is infinitely long (say L/B~ 5) and smooth. Prandtl's bearing

capacity equation which is based on the rupture mechanism,Fig 2.2

is as follows:

qu = cNc (2.2)
where Nc = cot9J[tan2(45° + 9J/2)entan" -1 ] and is called

a bearing capacity factor for cohesion.

qu = Ultimate bearing capacity

c = cohesion

9J = angle of internal friction

An evaluation of equation (2.2) reveals that if the cohesion of

the soil was zero, the bearing capacity would also equal to zero

which is quite contrary to fact.

Subsequent to Prandtl's findings in the early 1920s,extensive

investigations by numerous individuals have pointed out this and

other limitations in Prandtl's theory when used to predict

bearing capacity of soils. These observations led to modifica-

tions and improvements in the applicability of Prandtl's theory

to soil bearing capacity problems.

Prandtl (1921) and Reissner(1924) solved the problem of computing

the loads due to cohesion and surcharge by means of Airy's stress

functions, assuming the unit weight of soil equal to zero. The

following equations are derived from those published by Prandtl

and Reissner (Terzaghi, 1943):

 11

ae2
Nc = Cotl2l[--------------- - 1]
2 Cos2(45 + 12l/2)

ae2
and Nq = ----------------
2COS2(45° + 12l/2)
Where in

ae = e(3n/4 - "/2)tan"

Reissner (1924) has taken into account the effect of overburden

on bearing capacity and the modified Prandtl's equation takes the

form:

qu = c Nc + q Nq (2.3)

where, q = uniform surcharge

Nq= a bearing capacity factor

Taylor (1939) added a term to equation (2.2) to account for the

shear strength induced by the overburden pressure. He determined
this correction term to be equal to (!y B tan(450 + 12l/2). Hence

introducing this term into equation (2.2) the expression for the
ultimate bearing capacity becomes:

[tan2 (450 + 12l/2)entan" - 1] (2.4)

qu=[c Cotl2l+ !yB tan(45° + 12l/2)]

Buisman (1940) appears to be the first investigator to express

the bearing pressure in a form obtained by superimposing the

contributions of cohesion, overburden and density (Lee, white

and Ingles, 1983).
 12

Terzaghi (1943) made a rational approach, on the basis of the

effects of these factors. He expanded Prandtl's theory to

include the effects of the weight of the soil. He assumed the

general shapes of the various zones to remain unchanged as in

Fig. 2.3a. Terzaghi assumed the angle that the wedge face forms

with the horizontal to be ~ rather than the (450 + ~/2) assumed

in Prandtl's theory. Fig.2.3a provides the basic elements in the

development of Terzaghi's theory. As did Prandtl,Terzaghi assumed

a strip footing of infinite extent. Unlike Prandtl,however,

Terzaghi assumed a rough instead of smooth base surface.

Furthermore although he neglected the shear resistance of the

soil above the base of the footing, he did account for the

effects of the soil weight by superimposing an equivalent

surcharge load q~Df. Otherwise the shape of the failure surface

is similar to that assumed by Prandtl's theory. The priciple of

superposition is not strictly correct; however, it leads to

errors which are on the safe side, not exceeding 17 to 20 percent

for ~=30° to 40°. This is equal to zero for ~ = 0 (Lundgreen and

Mortensen, 1953; Hansen and Christensen, 1969).

Fig.2.5, shows the penetrating wedge, in equilibrium, where the

downward load is resisted by the forces on the inclined faces of

the wedge. Thus considering LFy = 0

quB = 2Pp + 2(bd)c Sin~

 13

-
Rankine oct',ve .toh Prondtl
Rankin. pantv.
ploltic .tot,
I tot.

'a) FAILURE MECHANISM 'AfTER CERN,CA. 1982 l

40
•
•~3O
~
c
.~ 20 0'44° N('260
"Q ~.4ao Nj":l7BO
11 10 _

•
.2
:t 0 I
70 60 40 30. 20 lO.f 20 40 60 80 100

Valu.. of Nc and Nq ':>.71.0 Value 01 Ny

Ibl BEARING CAPACITY FACTORS 'AFTER TERZAGHI. 1962 l

FIG. 2,3 TERZAGHI'S BEARING CAPACITY THEORY

 14

But bd = B/2Cos!/l

Thus, quB = 2Pp + Bctan!/l

Terzaghi represented the value of Pp as the vector sum of three

components: that from (a) cohesion,(b) surcharge and(c) resulting

from the weight of the soil bdef Fig.2.5. He obtained an

expression for the ultimate bearing capacity for general shear
condition and for long footings which are identical in nature,
not in values, to those in equation (2.1c). Thus for a rough
based footing, as in Fig. 2.3a, the bearing capacity factors are

as follows:

NQ = e(3n/2-~)tan!/l/2Cos2(45° + !/l/2) (2.5a)

Nc = (NQ - 1)Cot!/l (2.5b)

(Kp/COS2 !/l- 1)
N y = itan!/l (2.5c)

where kp = coefficient of passive pressure from zone II and III

on zone I,Fig.2.3a.

Fig.2.3b and Fig.2.4 shows the variation of the bearing capacity

factors with the angle of internal frictions,!/l.

These factors are based on the assumptions of the incompre-

ssibility of soil and are therefore only applicable to the case

of general shear failure. The general shear failure is usually

associated with dense soils of relatively low compressibility,

and the failure (slip) surface is continuous from the edge of the
 15

VALUES OF Nc

°Nooo08 N 8
. 45
tI't-twQ)-

----- .
'z"
U
40 -
~
N~

<l
....
til 3:5 ,,-
V -
til

'I"X 30
/
-f- -- ;/ '- ------'. _._ .. -- -- ----
Nc
"
V
C?
V
1-- ----
/ L.-
-

/ ry, ./
V --- -- --
"-o 10
V Nq /
--- ._.- --
/
'"~ ~
/ . --I- --,.-

z
•• 0 1/ .... -
" ~ 0
...
WIDO N
"''' W ID~ ~ ril If)
( ('
0
o
00- o
VALUES OF Nq and Nt

FIG. 2.4 TERZAGHI'S BEARING CAPACITY FACTORS FOR SHAl.LOW

FOUNDATIONS (D}BI (AFTER TOMLINSON, 19BO)

I. B
--1

FIG.2.5 FORCES ACTING ON TIlE WEDGE (A FTER CfC:~lICA. 1900)

 16

footing to the soil surface(Fig.2.3a) and full shear resistance

of the soil is mobilised along the failure surface. To deal with

compressibility Terzaghi (1943) suggested the use of reduced

strength properties as follows:

C* = 2/3 c (2.6a)

11l* = tan- 1 (2/3 tanl1l) (2.6b)

where C* and 11l* are the reduced values of cohesion (c) and angle

of internal friction (11l)for local shear failure condition.

According to Cernica(1982), more recent research data indicate

that the angle the face of the penetrating wedge makes with the

horizontal is closer to (450+11l/2)assumed by Prandtl(1921),than

the angle 11l that Terzaghi assumed. Furthermore, Terzaghi's

equations do not provide for the effects of footer depth, load

inclination factor or eccentricity, soil compressibility, water

table and other factors. With subsequent refinements by others,

Terzaghi's equations are not as widely used as before. However,

they did and still do serve as a fundamental basis on which modif

ications and improvements have been made and are still being made

Meyerhof(1948,1951) developed a theory of bearing capacity for

shallow and deep foundations. His theory considers the shear

strength of soil in the overburden and assumes the boundary of

failure zone as a combination of logerithmic spiral failure

(slip) surface (CDE) and a free surface (AE or BE). Fig.2.6a. He

considered the plastic equilibrium for the zones bounded by the

 17

free surface, slip surface and the footing base, and calculated

the bearing capacity factors as follows:

)e2 e t • "~ ] / [ 1
Nq = [ ( 1 + S inl2l - Sinl2lSin(2n + 12l)] (2.7a)

Nc = (Nq - 1)Cotl2l (2.7b)

and Ny = 4Pp" Si n(45° + 12l/2)/B2 - ttan(45° + 12l/2 (2.7c)

where, PP = the overturning resulting thrust acting at an angle

of I2lto the normal on the face BC when balancing the

moment about the point O,(Fig.2.6a).The bearing

capacity factors are shown graphically in Fig 2.6b.

Angle /3 = the angle to define the 1ine BE, where the assumed
boundary failure slip line intersects the soil

surface.

Po and To = normal and tangential stresses of the resultant

effect of the wedge BEF.
Angle n = <DBE which is determined from the equation

Cos(2n + 12l)=ToCOSI2l/(C + Pltanl2l)

= [(C + Potanl2l)m]Cosl2l/(C+ Pltanl2l)

and Pl = [(C + Pl tanl2l)/Cosl2l]

[Sin(2n + 12l)- Sinl2l]+ Po
where m = degree of mobilization of shear strength on the

equivalent free surface (0 < m < 1 )

Angle e = IT - (450 - 12l/2)+ (/3 - n)

The bearing capacity factors according to Meyerhof are functions

of depth of foundation and angle of internal friction of the

soil. The base roughness of the footing has no effect on the

va 1ues of Nc and Nq but affects on 1y Ny. Meyerhof (1955)

suggested the use of a factor with Ntfor a perfectly smooth base.
 18

,,
,
,.,
,,

J. .__ "_,_~,~,
,

I,) Nt AND Nq (n) Ny

(0) FAILURE MEC'JANISM

100

Ul
a:
0
l-
V
~
>-
l-
i]
<t
Q.

'"
V

'"a:z
'"
w
5
'"

".

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

o 0

l b) BEARING CAPACI T"( FACTORS

FIG.2.6 MEYERHOr-'S BEARING CAPACITY THEORY

 19

Ny( S moo t h) = [n + (1 - n)2 /2] Ny( r 0 u 9h ) (2.8)

Where, n= tan6/tan~

6 = angle of base friction

~ = angle of internal friction of soil

Meyerhof(1948,1951,1955) conducted a series of experiments on

model footings and observed that the ultimate bearing capacity

of footings on the surface of dry sand agree fairly well with the

theoretical value for the worst failure condition and ultimate

shear strength of the soil.

Meyerhof(1955) observed that the final bearing capacity is

considerably greater than that estimated from the final shear

strength, probably owing to partial progressive failure with a

limited relative movement of the particles. The width of the

failure surface at ground level increases with the footing length

to a maximum for a long strip when it is less than the value

predicted by modified analysis.

He also concluded that while the bearing capacities of shallow

foundations are about three times greater than the values

estimated on the assumptions of zero shear strength of the

overburden, they agree fairly well if the maximum skin friction

and full shear strength above base level along a vertical failure

plane at the mean observed distance from the footing edge are

included. Although the extent of the failure surface varies

considerably with bearing areas of different shapes, the

corresponding bearing capacities appear to differ mainly for
 20

foundations at the surface and at very shallow depths.

Sokolovski (1960, 1965) derived a numerical solution, satisfying

the following basic equations, using the methods of
characteristic to solve the problems involving plastic shear in
the soil body.

Equations of static equilibrium:

OOx/OX + OTxz/OZ = ° (2.9a)

OOz/oz + OTxz/OX = y (2.9b)

Coulomb's failure criterion:

(Oz - ox)2 + 4Txz2 = Sin2j1l(ox + oz) (2.9c)

The solution of these equations gives two hyperbolic functions

which can be solved analytically for weightless materials and
numerically for materials with weight. Sokolovski's solution does

not depend on superposition. Harr (1966) calculated the bearing

capacity factors based on Sokolovski's solution and they are
represented graphically in Fig. 2.7.

Brinch Hansen (1961,1970) proposed a general formula of bearing

capacity which includes the effect of depth and shape of footing,
load and base inclination and ground slope in a form:
 21

100

!5

l!
0
~
u
~

.- .- .-
Nc .-
••
~
'u0 10
0-
0
lJ
5
'"~
.:
0
~
CD

/'
I
0 40

Angle of lntll!rnol Friction I fi

FIG. 2.7 SOKOLOVSKI'S BEARING CAPACITY FACTOR S. \AFTER

WONG. 19811
 22

where s,d,i,b and g's are the factors of shape,depth,load incli-

nation, base inclination and ground slope respectively. He

suggested the use of Prandtl and Reissner's values for Nc and Nq,
and a va 1ue of Ny was proposed as:

N ,'(= 1.8 (Nq - 1)tanlll (2.11)

Feda(1961) proposed an empirical relation to calculate the

bearing capacity factor for roughneSS,Ny,as follows:

N = o. Oleo. 2 S _ (2.12)
Y

Balla (1962) assumed a failure surface,Fig.2.8, combined with a

circular arc and a tangential straight line. According to him the
failure surface satisfies both static and kinematic conditions.
Balla gave the following bearing capacity factors:

Nc = tanlll+ (' F6 (2.13a)

Nq = 1 + ~ Fs (2.13b)
N Y = P (pF4 + Fs tanlll
) (2.13c)
where, p is a function of Ill,DiB,CiB and

The beari~g capacity factors Ny' Nc and Nq obtained using Balla's

theory are shown in Fig.2.8.After a number of experimental inves-

tigation Balla found that his theory was most appropriate for
foundations on cohesionless soil.
 23

-----L --- -1
(0 I FAILURE MECHANISM

300

200

100

..
••
o
8 50
••••

.~
u

"
0.

o"

'"
.~ 10
o•
m••

I
20 25 40

Anole of internol friction, eI 0

lbI BEARING CAPJI CITY FACTO RS

FIG. 2.8 BALLA S BEARING CAPACITY THEORY.

 24

Abdul Baki and Beik (1970) developed a theoretical solution

applicable to cohesionless soils considering the effect of base

roughness and shearing strength of overburden. They calculated

the bearing capacity factors Ny and Nq (Fig. 2.9a) neglecting the

shear strength of overburden, and the combined bearing capacity

factors Nyq(Fig2.9b)considering the shear strength of overburden.

They introduced the equation for bearing capacity as:

qu = i Y BNyq (2. 14)

where, Nyq is a function of ~ and D/B.

Uzuner (1975) conducted a series of bearing capacity tests on

Loch-Aline sand bed (plane strain ~=43°) formed using a mechani-

cal sand spreader in plane strain conditions. A rough based

footing of dimensions 0.12 m x 0.9 m was used and the load was

applied under strain controlled condition, without allowing any

rotation of the footing. His results, calculated in terms of the

bearing capacity factor Ny ,along with the results of other

investigators are shown in Fig.2.10. Uzuner used plane strain ~

values of sand and concluded that if triaxial ~ values were used,

his results were in good agreement with those of the other

investigators as indicated in Fig.2.10.

AlOmari (1984) made a useful remark on the variation of Uzuner's

results pointing out that Uzuner did not take into account the

degradation of ~ value due to the circulation of sand through

the sand spreader.
 25

2:5
0
1:5
10
:5
0
160 120 60 40 a 00 = 300 400
Nq Nv'

(0) VALUES OF Nq AND Nll

10

6
- ._--- ---- _ ... - _ ....
_._
-
I,
.,
o
I\- __

III
DIB
4.-.-.

2
-_.- - --
0
0 20 40 lOa 200 400 000 2000 4000

N~'V

( b ) VALUES OF N ~'\

FIG. 2.9 ABDUL BAKI AND BEIK'S BEARING CAPACITY THEORY.

 26

Ny
1000

50

100

5 --- ----- ---

--_.
------- -

---"--- ---_.-. "------_ ..- -

ANGLE: or INTERNAL FRICTION (!Pt.)

FIG. 2.10 UZUNER'S EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS OF N)(

 27

2.3 Effect of Footing Roughness and Layer Thickness on Bearing

Capacity

Prandt1's(1921) theory of plastic equilibrium is a fundamental

principle regarding current day bearing capacity determination.

His theory was based on the assumptions of a bearing capacity

failure of a strip footing having smooth interface between the

footing and the soil. This and other limitations were recognized

and accounted for, to some extent by Terzaghi and others.

Terzaghi (1943) accounted for the rough base of the footing and

mentioned that the tendency of soil located within the zone

I,Fig.2.3, to spread is counteracted by the friction and adhesion

between the soil and the base of the footing. On account of the

existence of this resistance against lateral spreading, the soil

located immediately beneath the base of the footing remains

permanently in a state of elastic equilibrium and the soil

located within the central zone behaves as if it were a part of

the sinking footing.

Livneh (1965) presented a theory for the calculation of bearing

capacity of weightless c-~ soil layer loaded with a rigid strip

footing having a rough or smooth surface. He concluded that the

bearing capacity of a soil based on smooth footing surface

increases with increasing thickness of soil reaching a constant

value at a certain limiting thickness. The presence of friction

between the soil and the surface increases the value of bearing

capacity and decreases the value of the limiting thickness.

 28

Livneh did not present any experimental results to support his

theory.

Vyalov (1967) developed a formula for the bearing capacity of

weightless weak soil underlying rigid base and subjected to a

strip load. He concluded that the bearing capacity decreases to a

minimum with increasing layer depth and then it starts

increasing,Fig.2.11.

Kananyan (1970) performed model tests using rigid rough plates of

length 0.82 m and widths varying from 0.16 m to 0.30 m on layer

of intermediate grain size dry alluvial sand (~t = 38°) placed in

a metal tank of 0.82 m x 2.0 m x 1.2 m dimensions having a rough

rigid base. The variation of bearing capacity with HIS is shown

in Fig.2.12. He performed tests on two conditions: constant

footing width of 0.20 m (Curve-1) and constant layer thickness of

0.20 m (curve-2),Fig.2.12. Kananyan concluded that in both the

test conditions bearing capacity increases with decreasing HIS

and beyond HIS = 2.0 (approx.), the layer thickness has no

influence on bearing capacity.

Abdul Saki and Seik (1970) studied the effect of footing

roughness on the bearing capacity in the case of surface and

shallow footings. In their study, they considered the problem by

finding the most critical slip surface that holds equally well

for friction effect and surcharge.

Meyerhof has done a lot of pioneering work along the line of

 29

k=Coeff,C,ent of Lateral Pr.'lur.

k = 0.5 b' Half of tho wIdth of f •• ,in,

20
k =0.3
k=o.o
15

10
I
,
!I .•• •..
o
o 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
H/b
" •• 2.11 LIMITING LOAD V. LAYER THIClCN£SS (VYALOV. 1967)

II

~ ROUGH INTER FACE

.<;:
u
••DoN 4
•• i
u u
.•...
••• •••
.~.. 2 :---x--- - ---
••••
III

o
o 2 3 6
HIli

,.18. 2.12 VAltlA710N OF BEARING CAPACITY WITH HIB (KANANYAN. le70 )

 30

shallow and deep footings but his method, despite its

effectiveness, is not directly useful to the designer because his

curves can not be used for Ny and Nq until the angle ~ is

determined, which requires the solution of a transcendental

equation (Abdul Baki and Beik,1970). One important feature of the

study of Abdul Baki and Beik(1970) is that a common slip surface

was implied in case of friction and surcharge.

Milovic and Tournier (1972, 1977) performed large scale load

tests on surface footings of widths varying from 0.20 m to 0.50 m

on a model tank of dimensions 5.0 m x 1.5 m x 1.5 m. The

experimental values of bearing capacity factors at different H/B

are compared with the theoretical values of various investigators

for a soil of ~t = 38°. The experimental results seemed to be

closer to the theory if an increased ~ (~P.= 1.1~t) value were

used. The limiting depth ratio (H/B) was found to be 2.0. The

distance between the footing edge and the failure surface outcrop

was found to increase with increasing H/B.

Al-Omari (1984) examined experimentally the behaviour of finite

layers of sand overlaying a rough or a smooth footing surface

under a strip loading condition. The footing has a rough base of

width 0.12 m,the relative density of the sand was 88% with

~t=37°.

For a rough interface condition,Al-Omari found that for both

surface and shallow (D/B = 0.5) foundations the ultimate bearing

capacity increased sharply with the decreasing layer thickness

 31

below a limiting value of H/B=1.5. For smooth surface footing, he

concluded that the ultimate bearing capacity decreased to a

minimum when H/B=O.5 and the limiting depth was around 3B(~=37°).

Abedin (1986) studied the eccentrically loaded strip footing on a

sand layer overlaying a rigid stratum. He used the similar

experimental set up as used by Al-Omari. He concluded that for a

rough footing base (~t=36.50) the limiting thickness is 1.5 B

for zero eccentricities.

2.4.Settlement of Footing

The settlement of a footing under loading is one of the most

important criteria in its structural design. There are many

factors which influence the settlement of a foundation. In the

present investigation the attention is limited to the ultimate

bearing pressure,the soil layer thickness under the footing and

the overburden surcharge.

The load applied on the foundation is ultimately transmitted to

the soil mass beneath the foundations. This induces stresses in

the sand mass and consequently it responds through its

deformations. The common practice in determining the bearing

capacity is to consider the failure of the soil along a sliding

surface. The occurrence of sliding surface, however ,is not sudden

and its formation follows certain deformation mechanism.

 )2

In order to facilitate the explanations of the observed

settlements, the important theoretical studies are briefly

discussed. There are two approaches to the problem of estimating

the settlements in granular soils; elastic theory and semi-

empirical methods.

Terzaghi and Peck (1948) presented the following empirical

relationship for the settlement We of a footing of width B,in

respect of the observed settlement WI of 0.305 m square plate due

to the same loading intensity.

We /Wl = [2B/( 1 + B) J2 (2.15)

where, B is the width of the footing in feet.

The results of plate load tests by Bjerrum and Eggestad(1963)

represented a very closely a function similar to equation (2.15)

with the only exception of an exponent, 0.875 of B in the

denominator.

Schmertmann (1970) proposed the following formula to calculate

the elastic settlement of in-situ sand.

W, = C, Cz Aq 2( Iz /E)4 Z
(2.16)
where C = a factor to incorporate the effect of strain relief
due to embedment = 1 - o . 5 (00 •/ q) 7 0.5
00 = effective overburden pressure
Cz = a factor to consider the creep of the soi 1 .

= + 0.2 log,o (t/0.1), Where, t = time in years.

 33

Using the basic relationship given by Terzaghi and Peck (1948),

equation (2.15), Arnold (1980) presented the following
relationship for estimating settlement of a footing of width B
(in meter).

2.8
W = 43.06 B ~[a In{1/(1-Ioq/Q)}/{1+(3.281B)m}2]Az (2.17)
z~o
where W = settlement of the footing

m = 0.788 + 0.0025 Dr

a = 0.032766 - 0.0002134 Dr , meters

Dr = relative density of soil is percent

q = intensity of load on the footing, kN/m2

Q = 19.63 Dr - 263.3, kN/m2

10 = Boussinesq's vertical stress influence coefficient for

the relevant depth z(the centre of the elementary
zone A z) .

A rno 1d (1980 ) also mentioned that though the empirical

relationship, equation (2.15), was derived using the relative

density measured by the Standard Penetration Test, the relative

density (the only data required above) of sand deposit
established by other means would be equally satisfactory.

2.5 Conclusions

In view of the forgoing literature review related to bearing

capacity, the following conclusions can be made:
 34

1. A significant amount of theoretical and experimental work has

been done in the past on the development of bearing capacity

formulae introducing bearing capacity factors,which are claimed

to be dependent on angle of internal friction only.

2. The bearing capacity formulae proposed by Prandtl (1921)

Terzaghi (1948), Meyerhof (1951), Reissner (1960), Balla (1962),

Hansen (1970) are investigated through experimental observation

by researchers like Meyerhof(1955), Eastwood(1955),Jumikis(1956),

MUhs(1963), Milovic(1965), Abdul Baki & Beik(1970), Uzuner(1975),

Vafaeian(1978), Pfeile and Das(1979), Wong(1981), Al-Omari(1984),

Abedin(1986) and Ameen(1990). The experimental and predicted

results are found to be in agreement in very few cases. The

disagreement in this regard is prominent. This leads to a general

remark that testing method and material properties other than ~

of the soil may affect the bearing capacity. The material

properties of the soil depends mainly on its structure and origin

3. No research or theoretical work on bearing capacity using

Bangladeshi soil has yet been reported by any researchers.

4. In design offices the formulae given by Terzaghi(1943),

Meyerhof(1955), Vesic(1961) and Hansen(1970) are widely used.

It is understood from the above that there is a need to inves-

tigate the bearing capacity in order to suggest the design office

 35

to consider the proper formulation of the problem. It is expected

that the proper experimental investigation will yield

satisfactory evidence to formulate the relations of bearing
capacity taking care of the material properties of the soil other
than angle of internal friction.

The main concerns of the present research are to investigate the

bearing capacity. the settlement and rotational behaviour of soil

mass due to surface and shallow depth footing resting on a sand
layer by introducing a proper experimental system.
 36

CHAPTER 3

EXPERIMENTAL SET UP
AND
MATERIALS

3.1 General

An experimental set-up was designed and constructed in the

present study to investigate bearing capacity of surface and

shallow depth strip footing resting on a soil layer. The soil

used in the present investigation was air dry sand collected from

different locations of Bangladesh.

The experimental set-up consists mainly of a model tank to house

sand bed, a sand spreader, a loading rig, a leveling apparatus

and a model footing. A general view of the experimental setup is

shown in Fig. 3.1. In the following articles the experimental

system and the characteristics of the sand bed are described.

3.2 The Experimental Set-up

3.2.1 The Tank

The tank was designed and constructed for the purpose of

containing a sand bed. A view of the tank is shown in Fig.3.2.

The skeleton of the tank is constructed of 35 x 35 x 4.5 mm mild

steel angles. The members of frame were connected to each other

by providing necessary bolting and/or welding. The 60 cm deep

tank has an inside dimension of 57 cm x 85.5 cm. The longer sides

 37

_ Variable Speed
Motor with Gear
box.

_ Loading Frame

-Loading bars

___Sand Spreader

- Model Tank

FIG. 3.1 EXPEklMENTAL SET-UP.

 38

, /rr-_
f ,----

FIG. 3.2 THE MODEL TANK

 39
are bounded by 10 mm thick glass sheets whereas wooden plates of

25 mm thick are used on the shorter sides. The glass sheets are

supported from outside by rubber pads which are attached to the

vertical members of the frame in order to prevent any damage of

glass walls during loading. Along the edges of the glass sheets,

rubber channels are provided to have a firm seat for the sheets.

Four steel wheels are fitted to the bottom of the tank which

rests on a rail system designed to facilitate shuttling of the

tank in between the sand spreader and loading rig. Details of the

tank are shown in Fig. 3.3.

3.2.2 The Sand Spreader

The sand spreader was used to form a uniform sand bed in the
tank. A general view of the spreader is shown in Fig.3.4. The
sand spreader has a movable steel hopper supported on four
wheels. The horizontal forward and backward movement of the
hopper is controlled by a chain gear system. The rotation of the
solid steel roller mounted at the base of the hopper causes a

constant flow of sand curtain through the gap between the roller

and the adjustable plate. The opening of the hopper can be

adjusted by raising or lowering the plate by adjustable screws

fixed at the outer surface of the spreader.A schematic diagram of

the roller hopper part of the sand spreader is shown in Fig.3.5.

The hopper moves for a distance of about 130 cm on two horizontal

rails which can be raised or lowered, over a distance of 80 cm,

on four vertical threaded carrying columns. The chain gear system

is used to rotate the steel roller. The threaded columns are

 40

MODEL TANK
37mm)[ 37mm)[ 5mm
tor frame of thl tonk

r ----- 91 em
...._- ._. -'--

--1
3 'mrn

rOmm
thick

Gla.!
rubber eUlhion

/
2~mm l{ 25mm AlumInIum onole
bolt. d wrth molO frame

"'-- 2mm U .hoped rubb.r cu.hion

~--
,•
• ;;
c
c
~
0
~
2
E
E on ~-_'-_=-== lemm th,ek woodin member
u
u

I;)
t<l
I()
'"to ~ 37mm x 37mm x 5mm
wllded with thl from.
Angll

9 mm thick M S plato at thl bottom

~ ~n __ --_-_- ._-_-_---_-_~~_~_:_m __+..,

PLAN

r- 2'cm • t
37mm x 37mm x 5mm Angll From I

10--- IBmm thick wood

E
u
-- 10 mm Groll

E on
o" <Xl
_ •• 0. __ ",_ • ___ • __

._---- 3mm bolt for fixino thl rubber

to on

../""""" 9 mm M S Plot. at Q floor Tonk

~.=:) u u u u \:.1)+.- 3 5 cm die "h •• 1

ELEVATION
-_._--~_. __
---_. __ . (LONG SIDE I
._._-----

FIG. 3.3 DETAILS OF TANK ..

 41

-Vertical threaded
column-
Chain-Gear arrange-
ments

Hopper

-Steel Roller for

sand curtain

Tank

FIG. 3.4 THE SAND SPREADER

 42

r--- 43cm
'Y-0.7mm sieve mesh

--- - __ L~~wh,el

5
v
N
Hopp.r
E

'-q
u
V

~cm Width opening adjustor

(Q I SAND .CURTAIN

(b I WHI::I::L SECTION

F'IG. 3.5 SECTION THROUGH ROLLER HOPPER OF' SAND SPREADER.

 43

protected from damage and/or dust by wrapping the threaded

portion by cloth cover during sand spreading. A 0.7 mm sieve is

placed on the top of the hopper in order to prevent undesirable

particles (bigger than the opening size) from entering the

hopper. The assembly housing the sand spreader is mobile and runs

on wheels over 37 mm x 37 mm T-section rails. For each operation

of the spreader the rails are fixed on the threaded columns by

nutes through movable bushes. The bottom ends of the threaded

column are bolted and welded by steel plates which are eventually

connected with the wooden floor.The swaying of the sand spreader,

due to operational movements, is restricted by a mid level and a

top level bracings. The mid level bracings consists of four

members (25 mm x 25 mm angle) which are welded and bolted with

the vertical column at a height 76 cm from the base. The top

bracings consist of four 50 mmx 5 mm flat bar which are connected

with the threaded columns by nuts and bolts.

3.2.3 The Sand Leveling Apparatus

After spreading the sand in the tank, it was necessary to level

off the sand bed in order to achieve the desired thickness of the

bed and the perfect horizontal surface. A leveling apparatus

similar to that used by Abedin (1986) was fabricated using

threade.d and flat bars and flat plates of mild steel for the

purpose. The L-shaped M.S plate is bolted to the lower end of the

threaded bars which acts as the leveller. The other ends of the

threaded bars are connected through the holes of the flat bar

using proper nuts. Thus the height of the leveller can be

 44

FIG. 3.6 THE SAND LEVELLING APPIV.TUS

FIG. 3.7 THE STR.IP FOOTING

 45

M.S. Flal bar

61cM
/
-I
"
~A
7 Nuts

}15cm thread

E
..,u - 18mmM.5.Rad
'"
Scm ihrlod
Llvell.r

kA
52 cm
I' -l
ELEVATION

~cm 1IC3.5cm M.S. sh.et as a levell.r

SECTION A-A

FIG.3.8 THE SAND LEVELLING APPARATUS

 46

adjusted to a desired depth. The projected ends of the flat bar

rest on the tank wall during the leveling operation. A genaral

view and a schematic diagram of the apparatus is shown in Fig.3.6

and Fig.3.8.

3.2.4. The Footing

The model footing is made of a pre-fabricated mild steel channel

having dimensions (length=50.8 cm and width=10 cm). The ends of

the channel were covered by welding M.S.plates of proper sizes.

Two similar v-shaped grooves are cut on the base plate to have

proper seats for the knife edged loading blades. Rough base of

the footing was achieved by glueing glass paper(B.S.grade S2,grit

no.40) onto the footing base. Hard rubber strips were cemented to

the edges of the footing to avoid any shock between the footing

and glass. Two U shaped mild steel handles are welded on the top

of the footing. A general view and a schematic diagram of the

strip footing are shown in Fig.3.7 and Fig.3.9.

3.2.5. The Loading Rig

A strain controlled loading rig was used in this investigation.

Details of the rig are shown in Fig.3.10 and Fig.3.11. The

loading mechanism is mainly composed of a loading frame, a

variable speed electrical motor, a speed control box, a gear box,

a vertical threaded shaft, a proving ring, and two loading bars.

The bottom members of the frame were drilled along with the

wooden floor and bolts were used for fixing the frame with the
 47

I.. 18 em "+ Groov~

Bla.da

,soem pi I~em •.I E

r----(-a-)~~~-;~rn------~1 In••

Handle 28 em

~-
---------,- -, ~B"'tO.D em ,

iT \

------
I . \

-l=- ",--1-_1
I

(b) x_SECTION

E
I
Irt

NE

(c) ELAVATION

FIG.3.9 DETAILS OF STRIP FOOTING.

 48

---Speed control handle

Proving Ring
Bracing Channel

Loading bars

eat for Strain Dial

Gauges
Strain Dial Gauges
for Settlement and
Rotation measurement.

FIG. 3.10 THE LOADING RIG

 49

.Auto off Switch

Control leYlr
Threadod yortlcal
Chain
Gear shiftin9 box
Sw',tch
Speed control box

Motor

Push switch (Motor start)

Mounting
beam
Pipe of electrical wire

Switch
VertIcal
.haft gear
box Plat. connecting the prov'rng
ring with vertical shoft of
(cadin\) ri~'
Praying ria
Load dial C)oUC)e

Nut

Middle beam (2.5mm x 2.5mm )

M.S .Channo'
23.5 ••••
LoodinQ bar

'"c
"0 10c
""
..J
--- Mid level guard beam
E
v

"'
(]I
v
If)
IOcmx4cm xO.~cm
Channel, welded

Strain 0101 Gauges

M .5. Fld to' over footing

, I
+ I S.D. gauge. are filted on il)
•
~
,
I I
,
I
\
\
I
Model Footing
on Sand Loyer
Re5ted
• \
)
',: ... ; . ",": .. . ..
.. .. "
If)

. '", .
"'
0)
. :.
:.
"

'.' . ~
. .. '
Tank
• ".

'.. • #
.,

~
••• I .,. " ':

~ .
••••••• .-: •

..
:

Sand
. .
(,

..... .' ... . .

1 , ,: • -: " •
.'
'., " ~
. . ", .'
. ... .
" ,"
"
Tank Wheel

150mm. long. IOmm dia bolts

Ii fix ing th. loadin g
"' frome with wooden floor

Rail for Tank Movement

~.
54.5cm
~I
FIG.3.11 THE LOADING RIG. (SCHEMATIC)
 50

floor. The loading frame is finally bolted to the wooden floor.

The speed of the motor can be controlled by a handle switch

which is connected with the speed control box. The gear box is

connected with the speed control box by a chain which drives down

or raises up the vertical threaded shaft by a two point switch

attached to the frame. The vertical threaded shaft is connected

with a mid level beam through a proving ring having a capacity of

approximately 27 kN. The loading bars rest on mid level beam and

can be lowered or raised by threaded nuts. A pair of knife-edge

loading blades are attached to the bars to transfer the load onto

the footing. Two auto-off switches are provided at the top and

bottom of the vertical threaded shaft for safety. Four bracing

channels (60 mm x 35 mm) were used with the loading frame to set

the tank in position and to counter balance the transmitted

vertical load. The bracing channels are connected to the main

frame by bolts.

3.2.6 The Attachment for Strain Dial Gauges

A special attachment was designed to hold the magnet-based strain

gauges used to measure settlement and rotation of the footing

during the application of load. The attachment was fabricated by

using threaded M.S. bars which were bolted with a 25 mm x 25 mm

angle. Provisions are made on the loading rig such that this can

be hung from the mid level guard beam,Fig. 3.11, and the dial

gauges seat properly onto the footing.

 51

3.2.7 The Tank Maneuver System

The loading frame and sand spreader are mounted on a wooden

frame,Fig.3.12 and Fig.3.13. The vertical threaded columns of the

sand spreader are fixed with the floor. Two, 2.82 meter long,

37 mm x 37 mm, T-section were used as a rails and fixed with the

floor over which the tank can move smoothly to its desired

position.

3.3 The Sand

The sand used in this investigation was collected from four

selected locations of Bangladesh. These locations are believed to

provide slightly different depositional environments and hence

grain characteristics. Three samples are of recent deposits from

river beds of the Jamuna,Meghna and Teesta. One sample is from

older deposit lying under the Pleistocene Modhupur deposit

located at Dhaka. The white colored medium sand was collected

from Dalia, Rangpur near the cut-off wall of the Teesta Barrage

Project, from a depth of about 2 metre. The fine to medium Meghna

sand was collected from the river bed near the Meghna ghat, Dhaka

about 200 metre upstream from Meghna bridge. The brown coloured

fine Dhaka sand was collected from a dry excavated pond of

Rajarbagh area of Dhaka city. The particle characteristics and

related geotechnical properties of these sands are also studied

by Yasin (1990).
 52

Tank

~.I .. r::
[Tank Wheels
\ lWOOden floor
\ 35x35x4.5 mm Rails

FIG. 3.12 THE: TANK MANEUVEI{ SYSTEM

 53

I. I:lm
I'
I ' , i i 1
I
I
I I
I
I
I I
Floor for loadin9 frome
E I
I I
N I I
!1! I
..:
I I
I I I
I I I
I
I I ! Roil for m ovem.nt of work
I ' I
I I I : I

Ii I ! TT
J:- (lap for nptrat',onal purpo •••

I I I I
I I. I 1 Floor for land spreoder
I I I
I I I
I I I
I
.,e I I I
..,
N
I I I (01 P LAN
I I I
I II
I
I II
I II
I I I
I I I I I I
--- Vortical throodod column Of
land sprtlQdt.",
TANK

IOem dio .t •• 1 who.1 of lank

4 em - T lOelion 01 rail
60mm+
IOOm.q:: BolO plato of .ort,'eol column
5 em x 5 om Shaft of
Tank Wheel
107 em
.1
(bl SECTIONAL ELEVATION

FIG.3.13 DETAIl.S OF TANK MANEU-VER SYSTEM.

 54

CHAPTER 4

TEST PROGRAMME AND PROCEDURE

4.1 General

The present research is carried out primarily for the development

of a testing set up and to determine the bearing capacity of

locally collected samples of sand. In total 36 bearing capacity

tests were performed. Tests were conducted for three depths,

(surface (O/S=O) and shallow (D/S = 0.5 and O/S = 1.0» on semi-

infinite soil layers at approximate H/S ratio = 3,Table 4.1. and

Fig. 4.1.

Tests were performed on a rough based footing for a vertical

central load. In order to examine the reproducibility of the

results, the tests were repeated. It is observed from the studies

of previous investigators that bearing capacity increases with

decreasing H/S and beyond H/S=2.0 the layer thickness has no

influence on bearing capacity. Thus it was decided to conduct the

tests at H/S ratio of approximately 3.

The properties of the soils like specific gravity, grain size

distribution were determined using ASTM 0854, and ASTM 0422,

procedure on each of the four samples. The maximum and minimum

densities/void ratios of the samples were determined for finding

the porosity and relative density of the samples at different

 55
Table 4.1 Bearing capacity Test Programme

Sample D/B ratio H/B ratio Test No. Sample designation

3.5 10 D11
0.00 3.5 11 D21
3.5 12 D31
Dhaka 3.0 22 D12
sand 0.50 3.0 23 D22
3.0 24 D32
3.0 34 D13
1.00 3.0 35 D23
2.B 36 D33
3.5 1 Jll
0.00 3.0 2 J21
3.5 3 J31
Jamuna 3.0 13 J12
sand 0.50 3.0 14 J22
3.0 15 J32
3.0 25 J13
1.00 3.0 26 .J23
3.0 27 J33
3.5 4 M11
0.00 3.0 5 M21
3.5 6 M31
Meghna 3.0 16 M12
sand 0.50 3.0 17 M22
3.0 18 M32
3.0 28 M13
1.00 3.0 29 M23
2.8 30 M33
3.5 7 Tll
0.00 3.0 8 T21
3.5 9 T31
Teesta 3.0 19 Tl2
sand 0.50 3.0 20 T22
3.0 21 T32
3.0 31 Tl3
1.00 3.0 32 T23
3.0 33 T33
 56

[Resea.rch SCheme-]

•
fLiterature Studyl

Testing Equipments I Sample COllectionl

Model Tank Tests for Soil Properties

I
Tank Manouver System
Sand Spreader Variable Speed Motor
Model Footing Speed Control Box Grain size distribution
Loading Mechanism I-. Loading Shaft Specific gravity
Proving Ring Maxm and Mi nm density
Loading Bars and Blades Tri ax ia 1 Compression Test

Sand Spreader
1
Calibration, Variable Speed Motor
Proving Ring

D/B :: 0.0
Bearing Capacity Tests~ D/B :: 0.5
D/B :: 1.0

Result Inte~pretation
and
Comparison

Fig.4.1 Research Scheme

 57

test conditions. To determine the angle of internal friction of

the samples 12 nos (using 3 samples of each) of drained triaxial

compression tests were performed on air dry sand having 37.5 mm

dia and 75 mm height cylindrical specimens with a constant all-

round pressure of 100 kPa at different initial void ratios,

Fig.4.3 and Fig.4.4. To determine the average initial porosity of

the sand to be tested for determination of the bearing capacity,

the sand spreader calibration tests were performed for different

height of fall,Fig 4.5 through.Fig 4.8. Through out the test

programme the same footing (8=10 em) was used.

4.2 Properties of Soil

4.2.1. Grain Size Distribution and Specific Gravity

The grain size distribution curves of the soils used in this

research are shown in Fig.4.1. The fineness modulus, grain sizes

d1o, dao and dao, uniformity coefficient, coefficient of

curvature and specific gravity of these soils are presented in

Table 4.2. The Teesta sample has the largest grain compared to

other soils whereas the Dhaka sand has the finest grains. Teesta

sand contains vary small amount of fines (material passing #200

sieve) i.e.0.17 percent whereas the Dhaka sand contains the

largest amount of this fraction (6.62 percent). The other two

sands, the Meghna and the Jamuna sands contain finer than #200

fraction of 0.63 percent and 5.48 percent respectively.

 58

LLL1IJudulillHllu'lllll dUUHU1UHllllH_ ~

0
a ~ i<t a
Z <t ~
<t III III «
III
III

<l <l
~ <l
Z :x: I- <l
:> CO f/) ~
2 w w <l
w :x:
...,
<t
a
" I-
Ul
()
Z
<l
-d Ul

.,
()
uJ
....
"
;:
f/)
uJ
E >
E ;:;

IX
"-0
uJ
.... Ul
uJ
"'::!' >
n:
<J :>
- u
0
z
0
....
:>
<D
IX
....
f/)
is
w
~
f/)

Z
<J
n:
"
'"•••
I" i:
TfITlTf rnTpTiljT n rjnrrpJ rr 1111r 11'1 qnn - Q
o o 0 0 0 0
Q cO fl) V (\I
 59

Table 4.2 Grain Properties of the soils investigated

:----------------------------------------------------------:
:Sample Designation: DS JS MS TS
:----------------------------------------------------------:
: Dhaka Jamuna Meghna Teesta
Location at at bridge barrage
:Rajarbagh: Bhuaypur: site site
Tangail :
:----------------------------------------------------------:
:Aprrox. depth from: 2 m' River: River 2 l1i .
:ground surface(m) : bank bed
:----------------------------------------------------------:
:Specific gravity 2.64 2.69 2.70 2.68

.
•

.
0

:Effectve grain 0.09 O. 11 0.16 0.22

:diameter, d10 mm :
.
0 -----------------------------------------------
.
0

d30 mm : 0.16 0.18 0.21 0.33

:----------------------------------------------------------:
d60 mm : 0.20 0.25 0.28 0.48

:----------------------------------------------------------:
:Fineness Modulus 1. 10 1. 15 1.31 2.40

:----------------------------------------------------------
:Uniformity 2.22 2.47 1. 75 2. 18
coefficient (Cu):
:----------------------------------------------------------:
:Coefficient of 1.42 1.12 0.98 1.03
curvature (ct)
- - +
:----------------------------------------------------------:
/j
 60

The uniformity coefficient of the soils vary from 2.22 for Dhaka

sand, 1.75 for Meghna sand, 2.18 for Teesta sand and 2.47 for

Jamuna sand. The coefficient of curvature of these sands ranges

from 0.98 for Meghna sand to 1.42 for Dhaka sand. According to
Unified soil classification system all of these four soils fall
into group SP (poorly graded sands with little or no fines). The

effective grain diameters are 0.11, 0.16, 0.22 and 0.09 mm for
Jamuna,Meghna,Teesta and Dhaka sands respectively.

4.2.2 Maximum and Minimum Density/Void Ratio

In granular soils the void ratio plays an important role on the

engineering properties. Range of void ratio that may prevail in a

granular soil mass depends on the grain size distribution, the

shape of the particles, the degree of denseness and the degree of

dryness. Since it is reported by different researchers that the

range of void ratio for a granular soil varies with the angle of
internal friction of the soil, it was conceived that comparison
of the engineering properties for different granular soils can be
made by taking void ratio as a base parameter. So the maximum and
minimum void ratio of the sands were investigated.

The minimum void ratio was determined using 150 mm high x 100 mm

dia mold. The weight of the empty mold and base plate was
recorded. The air dry sand was poured into it in 5 layers. After
placing each layer a 10 lbs weight was placed on top of the sand

and the mold was temped 25 times by a wooden mallet. After

placing fifth layer the collar was removed, the top was trimmed
 61

and the weight of the mold,base plate and sand was determined.

From these two weights and using the value of the specific

gravity of the sands,the maximum density, ymax, and the minimum

void ratio, em;n, were calculated, Table 4.3.

The maximum void ratio was determined using the same mold as
stated above. In this case, sand sample was placed in the mold
(without cOllar) from a funnel. The outlet of the funnel was kept

as near as possible to the sand surface. Care was taken so that

the mold suffers no vibration. When the mold was filled with sand

the top was carefully trimmed off and then it was weighed. The
void ratio was calculated accordingly. A number of trials were
made and the maximum void ratio of these trials was recorded as

emax and the corresponding density as y m;n, Table 4.3. (Bow1es,1986)

4.2.3 The Triaxial Test

strain controlled drained triaxial compression tests at different

void ratios were performed on 37.5 mm x 75 mm cylindrical

samples. All round pressure was maintained at 100 kPa and the

rate of strain was 0.625 mm/minute.

The deviator stress - strain diagrams are shown in, Fig.4.3 and
Fig.4.4. For each soil sample three triaxial tests were performed

at three different initial void ratio/relative density. The

triaxial friction angle along with initial void ratio, relative

density is presented in Table 4.4.

 62

Table 4.3 Limiting densities and void ratios of the sands

!-----------------------------------------------------------
:Sample designation: DS JS MS TS
!----------------------------------------------------------:
:Rajarbagh: Jamuna Meghna Teesta
Dhaka at : bridge : barrage :
Location
Bhuyapur: site site
Tangail :
!----------------------------------------------------------:
Maximum dry 15.70 15.80 16.00 16.14
: density(kN/cu.m.):
1----------------------------------------------------------:
Minimum dry 12.66 12.27 12.61 13.10
: density(kN/cu.m.):
!----------------------------------------------------------:
Maximum 1.045 1.150 1.100 1.040
: void ratio
!----------------------------------------------------------:
Minimum 0.650 0.670 0.655 0.630
: void ratio
!-----------------------------------------------------------
 50
50

40
4-0

,.....
'8. 30
~
'-~=' 30
'-'
.,
Ul

.,...
Ul Ul

...
~
(J)

Ul ~
...0 Ul

•..0
"0 20
"0 20
.,
'S;
a
'S;
Q)
a

10
Initial void ratio(eo) 10
Initial void ratio(eo)
~ El,=O.659 ~~=O.705
••"'''''''''' ~=O.758 ••"'''''''''' ~=O.828
, • , , , e,,=O.840 I I I I I e =O.871
o
o 4 o
12 16 20 24 4 8 12 24
Strain (If;) Strain (If;)
(a) Dhaka sand (b) Jamuna sand
Fig. 4.3 Deviator stress vs Axial strain(%)
CT\
W
 50 50

40 40

,-..
'-'
Ul
0..
°iii
a.
'--' 30 '--' 30
Ul
Ul
Ul
Ul

...
'"
~
...
'"
~
Ul Ul

...0 ...0
~ ~
0 0
oS; 20 oS; 20
Q)

0'" 0

10 10
Initial void ratio(eo) Initial void ratio(eo)

ee-<H>e eo=Q. 677 ee-<H>e eo=Oo658

.•."''''''' .•.e.,=Q. 764 .•."''''''' ••.e,,=Oo709
•• I • I e,.=0.776
II'" e,,=O.848
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 24

Strain (SIS)

(0) Meghno sand (b) Teesta sand

Fig. 4.LI Deviator stress vs Axial strain(% )
0"1

"""
 65

4.3. Calibration of Apparatus

4.3.1. Calibration of the Sand Spreader

The porosity of sand deposited by the sand spreader depends on

the width of gap through which the sand falls, the horizontal

speed of the hopper, the speed of the roller and the height of

fall (Abedin,1986). In the present investigation the gap width,

horizontal speed of hopper and speed of the roller of the sand

spreader were maintained fixed throughout the sand deposition

procedure. Hence, the porosity was considered to be a function of

height of fall only.

In order to calibrate the sand spreader for porosity against

height of fall, six cylindrical density pots of 108 mm diameter

and 51 mm height were placed on the tank bed. Arrangements were

such that a larger number of pots were used near the center of

the tank where the footing is to be placed. After deposition the

tank is pushed to move below the loading rig to allow the

adjustment for vibration during actual test. The pots were then

removed from tank and weighed after leveling the surface using a

straight edge.

The volume of each pot was measured by pouring water, and the

porosity of the soil was calculated. The average value obtained

from the six pots was taken as the porosity of the deposited bed

for a particular height of fall. The calibration was performed

using different heights ranging from 760 mm to 1060 mm.

 66

Table 4.4 Peak angle of internal friction for the

sands at different initial void ratios
with confining pressure 100 kPa

, -------------------------------------------------------------------
:Sample: Initial Mojor :Deviator
Peak
:desig-:Location void :Porosity strees
:principal:angle of
:nation: ratio strees :internal
:friction
: : : (%) : ( ps i ) : (ps i ) : <p1(deg) _
_________________________________________________ :

:Rajarbagh: 0.660 39.8 44.8 59.3 37.4

DS at 0.758 43.1 40.5 55.0 35.7
Dhaka 0.840 45.7 37.6 52.1 34.4

-------------------------------------------------------------------
: Jamuna
at 0.705 41.3 48.9 63.4 38.9
JS :Bhuyapur,: 0.828 44.8 44.7 59.2 37.3
:Tangail 0.871 46.6 43.5 58.0 36.9

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Meghna 0.677 40.4 49.8 64.3 39.2

MS bridge 0.764 43.3 46.4 60.9 38.0
site 0.848 45.9 44.3 58.8 37.2

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Teesta
at 0.658 39.7 50.4 64.9 39.4
TS Dalia 0.709 41.5 48.5 63.0 38.7
Rangpur 0.776 43.7 45.8 60.3 37.7

-------------------------------------------------------------------
 67

The variations of porosity against height of fall are shown in

Fig 4.5 through 4.8,Table 4.5. The minimum porosities are

obtained at a height of fall of 865 mm, 875 mm, 880 mm and 950 mm
for Jamuna, Meghna, Teesta and Dhaka sands respectivelY,Table
4.6. The variation of density is, however, found to be

insignificant within the specified height of fall.

4.3.2. Calibration for Motor Speed

The variable speed motor used in the loading rig, Fig.3.10 and

Fig.3.11, was rewired and reconstructed to attain a load capacity

of approximately 27 kN. As such, it was necessary to calibrate

the speed meter. The speed control handle applies variable

hydraulic pressure on depending on the rotational position of the

circular disc of the handle, Fig.3.11.

In order to calibrate the motor speed, the circular disc was set
at a graduated position and motor was set on. The distance

travelled by the shaft of the loading rig and the time required
were recorded. The speed was calculated accordingly. The

operations were repeated for each of 4 divisions of 24 graduated

division of disc.The calibration chart is presented in Table 4.1.

4.3.3. Calibration.of the Proving Ring of Loading Rig

The proving ring was calibrated for loading ranges from 0.4448 kN
to 26.69 kN. The load deflection curve was plotted and the load
 48
Sand Spreader Calibration Porosity - ~-tRelations

46

.•..•
c
OJ
~ 44
OJ
0-
c
>.
~ 42
Cfl
o
•...
o
CL
---------- - - ----= ------------
40

3~00 800 900 1000 1100 34 36 38 4"0 42

Height of fall in mm 32Angle of Internal Friction in degrees

Fig. 4.5 Height of fall-Porosity-Angle of Internal Friction Relations(Dhaka sand)

0'1
ex>
 48
Sand Spreader Calibration Porosity - ~ Relations

46

-+-'
c
Q)

~
Q)
44
0..

c
~
~ 42
Ul
o
•...
o
0...

40

3~00 800 900 1000 1100 3"4 36 38 40 42

Height of fall in mm 32 Angle of Internal Friction in degrees

Fig.4.6 Height of fall-Porosity-Angle of Internal Friction Relations(Jamuna sand)

0\
\.0
 48
Sand Spreader Calibration Porosity - Ii Relations
46

+-'
c
(l)

~
(l)
44
0..

$42
'Vi
o
'-
o
0-
I
40 I
,I
I
I
1 I J
3~00 800 900 1000 1100 3'4 3"6 38 4"0 42
Height of fall in mm 32 Angle of Internal Friction in degrees

Fig.4.7 Height of fall-Porosity-Angle of Internal Friction Relations(Meghna sand)

-:I
o
 48
Sand Spreader Calibration Porosity - ~tRelations

46

-'
c
v
~ 44
v
0-
C

~42
"(ij
o
'-
o
Cl..

40

3~00 800 900 1000 1100 34 36 38 40 42

Height of fall in mm 32Angle of Internal Friction in degrees

Fig.4.8 Height of fall-Porosity-Angle of Internal Friction Relations(Teesta sand)

-J
I-'
 72

Table 4.5 Sand Spreader Calibration showing height of fall,

Porosity and Relative density relations of the
soils in the tank.

!------------------------------------------------------------
:Sample Height Void :Porosity :Relative
:desig- :Location of ratio : density :
:nation fall
mm (s) (s)
!-----------------------------------------------------------:
DS Dhaka 760 0.702 41.3 86.8
at 860 0.689 40.8 90.0
:Rajarbagh: 960 0.678 40.4 92.8
1060 0.690 40.9 89.8
!-----------------------------------------------------------:

: Jamuna 760 0.742 42.6 85.0

JS at 860 0.722 41.9 89.0
:Bhuyapur 960 0.740 42.5 85.5
:Tangail
!-----------------------------------------------------------:

Meghna 760 0.735 42.4 82.0

MS bridge 860 0.696 41.0 90.8
site 960 0.711 41.6 87.3

!-----------------------------------------------------------:
Teesta 760 0.713 41.6 79.7
TS barrage 860 0.670 40.1 90.3
site 960 0.690 40.8 85.6

!------------------------------------------------------------
 73

Table 4.6 Height of fall, Porosity and Triaxial

angle of internal friction cjJ relation
of the sands . t

!-------------------------------------------------
:Sample Minimum: Height :Angle of
:des ig- :Locat ion : poros ity: of :interna 1
:nation fall :friction
: : : (%) : (mm) : cjJl: (deg) :
!-------------------------------------------------:
:Rajarbagh:
DS Dhaka 40.40 950 36.9

!-------------------------------------------------:
: Jamuna
JS :Bhuyapur: 41.95 865 38.5
:Tangail
!-------------------------------------------------:
: Meghna
MS : bridge 41.00 875 38.9
site
!-------------------------------------------------:
Teesta
TS : barrage: 40.30 880 39.2
site
!--------------------------------------------------
 74

calibration factor for a compression of 0.002 mm is found to be

26.15 Newton.

Table 4.7. Calibration chart of variable speed motor

------------ --------------------------------
Marking Speed of Motor in mm/minute
on handle ----------------- -------------
Up Down

- 12 8.50 8.50
8 7.25 7.25
4 6.00 6.00
o 4.50 4.50
+ 4- 2.75 2.75
+ 8 1.25 1.25
+ 12 0.625 0.625

4.4.Bearing Capacity Test Procedure

For all bearing capacity tests the experimental procedures were

similar. In the following sections the test method is described

in detail.

4.4.1. Sand Bed Formation

The tank was brought under the sand spreader and the sand

spreader was placed in position to cover the tank area. During

operation, the swaying of the sand spreader was prevented by the

top level and mid level bracings bolted with the vertical

threaded- stand of the spreader, Fig.3.4. Aluminium plate L-

sections were screwed to the top of the four side walls of the

tank to prevent rolling of the sand into the tank from its walls.

Polythene curtains were hung from the L-sections on all the four

sides of the tank to prevent the sand particles from entering the
 75

tank frame, wheels and base. The initial height of the hopper

(roller) was adjusted by using the nuts of threaded stand of the

spreader. The hopper was taken to the end of its run for filling

with sand. A sieve was placed on the hopper of sand spreader and

sand was poured on it. A mild shaking was applied to drop sand

into the hopper. When the hopper was approximately 3/4th full,

the spreading of sand over the tank were done by using the handle

of chain-gear arrangements of the sand spreader. After each 50 mm

of deposition the sand spreading were stopped and the hopper was

raised to keep a constant height of fall. The operations of

pouring, spreading and raising were continued until the depth of

deposition is slightly higher than the required layer thickness.

The sand deposited on the side of the L-sections was removed, the

curtains from the L-sections were taken off and the tank side was

cleaned. The spreader was cleaned and pulled away from the

loading rig for leveling the tank.

Two square steel bars were screwed to the top of the tank wall

which serve as the rails for the sand leveller. The excess sand

beyond the desired layer thickness was pushed to the edge of the

tank and eventually removed with the help of a flat bottom

shovel. During leveling operation a spirit level was used to

check the top level of the layer. The required depth was obtained

by adjusting the control nuts of the sand leveling apparatus. The

thickness of the layer was measured using the depth gauge.

 76

In some of the tests glass wall was lubricated by using rubber

membrane and silica grease. A thin layer of grease was applied on

small pieces of rubber membrane. They were then stuck to the

glass walls of the tank and were deposited as usual to form the

sand bed. The side lubrication was done to study the effect of

glass wall sand friction on bearing capacity.

4.4.2 Placement of Footing

For tests with surface footing (O/S = 0) the model footing was

placed after placing the tank in proper position. For placing the

footing in position and to ensure the central loading condition

the footing location over the sand bed was marked on the glass by

a glass marker before sand bed formation.

For tests with shallow footing (O/S = 0.5 and O/S = 1.0) the

footing was placed on the levelled sand bed before the deposition

of surcharge. Footing position was marked before starting sand

deposition. After filling the sand upto a desired layer thickness

the top was levelled. The footing was hung with the help of a

wire rope from a 3/4 inch dia M.S.rod so that the base of the

footing were just in touch with the sand bed. The top of the

footing was covered by clothes so that sand grains can not enter

into the footing. After getting desired layer height the top was

levelled, the clothes and the rod were removed and the tank was

pushed towards the loading rig.

 77

4.4.3. Deposition of Surcharge

For shallow depth (D/B=0.5, 1.0) footing test the footing was

hung with the help of wire ropes so that the base of the footing

just touched the levelled sand at the desired position of the

tank. This was intended to prevent the dislocation of footing

position during the tank maneuver. The sand was deposited using a

cover on the footing. To get a desired surcharge depth, the cover

was removed and sand was levlled off on both sides of footing.

The tank was then pushed to the loading rig and wire rope was

released.

4.4.4 Placing the Tank below the Loading Rig

After sand bed preparation the tank was pushed very slowly to

move toward the loading rig. The tank was placed in such a

position that the center of the tank is just below the loading

plates to ensure the vertical central loading condition. To

counter balance the applied load to the tank, cross bracings were

fitted at the ends of the tank. The nuts of the bracing were

tightened so that maximum portion of the applied load could be

transmitted to the bracing members and the tank wheels were kept

free from applied load for their safety. The tank was set in

position"so that the loading blades fix at the respective grooves

of the footing. Two strain dials were placed on the footing by

using special attachments, Fig. 3.11, for measuring deflection

and rotation of footing during loading.

 78

4.4.5 Loading on the Footing

The loading bars were lowered by adjusting the nuts, Fig. 3.11,

so that the loading blades touch the footing at the grooves. The

loading machine was switched on and off to set the zero position
of proving ring dial and strain dials at the footing.

A strain dial was also set at the base of the tank to check for
the deflection of the tank during loading. This dial was also set
at zero at this condition.

On setting zero of all the dials the loading rig was switched on,
the proving ring and corresponding strain dial readings were
taken. This was continued until the proving rig dial showed a
decrease or a small rate of increase in its reading. The loading

was stopped and the machine was switched on for unloading. It is

to be mentioned that at peak loading the strain dial reading at

the base of the tank were taken and found that the deflection is
negligible and in the order of 0.0025 mm.

The strain dial attachment and bracings were remove and the tank
was moved to its position for cleaning.
 79

CHAPTER 5

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
AND
DISCUSSION

5.1 General

This chapter presents the major findings of the laboratory

investigation into the bearing capacity of a strip footing

resting on surface and shallow depths of a sand bed prepared by

using a sand spreader. The results of bearing capacity and other

associated parameters are compared with the results of previous

investigators and discussed.

It is to be mentioned that the bearing capacity of the strip

foundation was investigated considering semi-infinite soil layer

beneath the foundation. The criteria and conditions of semi-

infiniteness of the layer were maintained as per suggestions of

the previous researchers like Kananyan (1970), Milovic and

Tournier (1972, 1977), Meyerhof (1974), Al-Omari (1984) and

Abedin (1986). As such the depth of the sand layer in the present

investigation was always maintained at approximately three times

the width, B, of footing and lateral extension of the layers on

both sides of the footing were approximately 3.5B.

In determining the bearing capacity the shear failure of the soil

mass was the only consideration. Four different sand samples were

used independently to form the sand beds. The triaxial angle of

internal friction, ~t, of the bed of different sand samples was

 80

maintained to lie in between 36.9° to 39.2°. An adjustment factor

of 1.1 as suggested by Lee(1970) were used with the triaxial

angle of friction to estimate the plane strain angle, ~P8, where

it became necessary for comparison purposes.

The test results are expressed in terms of bearing capacity,

conventional bearing capacity factors N Nq, and combined

bearing capacity factor, N q as suggested by Abdul Saki and Beik

(1970). The variation of these values were studied as against the

angle of internal friction,~. The relations between the

parameters were also analyzed statistically. It is observed

during these study that there exists interesting statistical

correlation between porosity and angle of internal friction of

the sand samples. These results are also incorporated in this

chapter.

5.2 Porosity(no) - Angle of Internal Friction(~t) Relations of

the Sand Samples

In order to estimate the friction angle of the sand sample

forming the sand bed,triaxial tests were done using 37.5 mmx75 mm

specimen at different porosities. The observed triaxial friction

angle is shown against porosity in Fig.4.5 to Fig.4.8. The

statistical analysis of the data shows that there exists linear

relations between initial porosity, no, and triaxial friction

angle, ~t, of all the four sand samples. The relations can be
expressed in the form:

~t = a - bno (5 .1)
,
 81

where, a and b are correlation constants

no = initial porosity of sand expressed in percent
~t = triaxial friction angle expressed in degrees.

03 = confining pressure = 100 kPa

The correlation constants along with the co-efficient of

correlations for different sand sample are presented in Table

5.1.

Table 5.1 Statistical parameters for no - ~t relation of

selected sands of Bangladesh (03 = 100 kPa).

r-----------T-------------------------T------------------,
: : Correlation, ~t = a-bno : Co-efficient of :
:Sand: : correlation :
:sample }------------T------------+------------------~
2
:L- :
-l- a ~: b ~: r ~:
I I I I I

:Dhaka sand:-L
L
57.2 :
,
0.50: -l-
0.9999 :
I
I I I I I

:Jamuna sand:
l ~ 55.4 :
l 0.40: -J 0.979 :
I

I I I I I

:Meghna
1
sand:, 54.1 :
1
0.37: ,
0.996 :
1
I I I I I

:Teesta
L sand:L 56.4 ~: 0.43: L 0.994 ~:

The values of co-efficient of correlation,r2, Table 5.1, shows

that the linear correlation between no and ~t is very strong.

This observation of linear correlationship between no and ~t

agrees with the findings of Feda(1961). The relations presented

in Table 5.1 may be used to determine the angle of internal

friction ~ when the porosity of the soil is known.

 82

5.3 Bearing Pressure-Settlement Relations

5.3.1 Surface Footing (O/B=O)

The bearing pressure on soil due to strip loading is plotted

against settlement of the footing in Figs.5.1a through 5.12a. At

least three identical tests were done on each of the sand in

order to ascertain the reproducibility of the test results. A

sharp peak was observed in each of the cases. This phenomenon

supports the existing concept of general shear failure of a dense

sand mass (Singh,1990). It is worthwhile to mention that the sand

bed prepared in the present investigation had the relative

density in the range of 80% to 92% indicating its dense state.

The observed settlement at peak bearing pressure ranges from 12%

to 16% of the width of the footing,Table 5.2. At allowable

bearing pressure with a factor of safety of 3,the settlement is

approximately 4.5% of the width of the footing. This is found to

be significantly large when compared to the values suggested by

Peak, Hansen and Thornburn (1974).

5.3.2 Shallow Oepth Footing (0/B=0.50, 1.00)

For both the cases (0/B=0.5 and 0/B=1.0) of shallow depth footing

the bearing pressure settlement relations were found to be

similar to that of surface footing (D/B=O). That is a distinct

peak of bearing pressure was observed. However, as expected, the

magnitude of peak pressure was found to increase with the

increasing value of O/B. The influence of surcharge is found more

 83
400

350

300
E
CT
fIl

'£ 250
oX

.!;
1: 200
:J
fIl
fIl

1:
0-
0> 150
c
'C
o
CD
.,
100

50 GGBGfl Test 34, D/B= 1.0, H/B=3.0

M""''' Test 22, DjB=0.5, HjB=3.0
, , , , 'Test 10, D!B=O.O, H!B=3.5

4 8 12 16 20 24 28
Settlement in mm.
(0)
1.5

1.0

.,.,
fIl

.,
'-
0>
-0
0.5

C 0.0
C in mm.
0
:;:;
0 -0.5
+'
0
0::

-1.0 ~ D/B= 1.0,H/B=3.0

A""'''''' DjB=0.5,HjB=3.0
~ ., I I D!B=0.O,H!B=3.5
-1.5
(b)
Fig.5.l (a) Bearing pressure vs Settlement,(b) Rotation vs
Settlement Relations of Dhaka sand (<j> t=36.9°)
 $4
400

350

300
E
<T
Ul
'£ 250
"'"
c

~
:J
200
Ul
Ul

~
a.
01 150
c
'C
o
Q)
CD
100

50 CHHHHl Test 35, 0/B= 1.0, H/B=3.0

.••.••.••.••.•.
Test 23, OjB=0.5, HjB=3.0
j j ~ ~ • Test 11, 0/B=O.O, H/B=3.5

4 8 12 16 20 24 28
Settlement in mm.
(0)
1.5

1.0
Ul
Q)

•..Ol
Q)
0.5
Q)
'0

.S 0.0
c
°
:;:;
0 -0.5
.•..•
°
0::

-1.0 lH>Bl*l 0/B= 1.0,H/B=3.0

.••.••.••.••••
OjB=0.5,HjB=3.0
~ I , I , D/B=0.O,H/B=3.5

-1.5
(b)
Fig.5.2(a) Bearing pressure vs Settlement.(b) Rotation vs
Settlement Relations of Dhaka sand (ep t=36.9 0)
 85
400

350

300
E
0-
(J)

'£
.:0<
250

~
:J
200
(J)
(J)

~
0-

CO' 150
c
'C
o
aJ '"
100

50 ~ Test 35, 0/B= 1.0, H/B=2.8

~ Test 24, 0/B=0.5, H/B=3.0
t t t t , Test 12, 0/B=O.O, H/B=3.5

4 8 12 15 20 24 28
Settlement in mm.
(0)
1.5

1.0
(J)

''""- 0.5
CO'

'"
"U

C 0.0
c
o
:g
+'
-0.5
o
no:
-1.0 GfrEH3-fl D/B= 1.0,H/B=2.8
"'''''''' .• D/B=0.5,H/B=3.0
~ •• I I D/B=0.0,H/B=3.5

-1.5
(b)
Fig.5.3(a) Bearing pressure vs Settlement.(b) Rotation vs0
Settlement Relations of Dhaka sand (cj> t=36.9 )
 400 86

350

300
E
CT
(/)

'£ 250
""
c

~ 200
'"
(/)
(/)

~
c.
Ol 150
c
'C
o
'"
aJ
100

50 ~ Test 25, 0/B=1.0. H/B=3.0

••••••••
At. Test 13. 0/B=0.5. H/B=3.0
, , , , 'Test 1, O/B=O.O, H/B=3.5

4 8 12 16 20 24 28
Settlement in mm.
(0)
1.5

1.0

(/)

'"
~ 0.5
0-
'"
-0

C 0.0
12 16 20 24 2
c
o Settlement In mm.
:g
..., -0.5
o
n::

-1.0 D/B= 1.0,H/B=3.0

.••.••.•..•.•••
D/B=0.5.H/B=3.0
'. I I , • D/B=0.O,H/B=3.5

-1.5
(b)
Fig.5.4(a) Bearing pressure vs Settlement,(b) Rotation vs 0
Settlement Relations of Jamuna sand (cpt =38.5 )
 400
87

350

300
E
0-
Ul
"" 250
z
"'"
s
~
::>
200
Ul
Ul
~
a.
0> 150
c
'C
o
Q)
CD
100

50 ~ Test 26, O/B= 1.0, H/B=3.0

. t. t.
AMA'" Test 14, 0/B=0.5, H/B=3.0
Test 2, O/B=O.O, H/B=3.0

4 8 12 16 20 24 28
Settlement in mm.
(0)
1.5

1.0

Ul
Q)
~ 0.5
0>
Q)
"0

C 0.0
c Settlement In mm.
o
1;
+'
-0.5
o
0:::
-1.0 '****' O/B= 1.0,H/B=3.0
AAMA 0/B=0.5,H/B=3.0
• I I I I D/B=0.0,H/B=3.0
-1.5
(b)
Fig.5.5(a) Bearing pressure vs Settlement,(b) Rotation vs
Settlement Relations of Jamuna sand (ep t=38.5° )
 400 88

350

300
S
0-
en
'-.
z 250
-'"
c

~
:J
200
en
en
~
c-
Ol 150
c
'C
o
Q)
(IJ
100

50 rHHHHJ Test 27, 0/B= 1.0, H/B=3.0

MMA Test 15, 0/B=0.5. H/B=3.0
t t t t 'Test 3. O/B=O.O. H/B=3.5

4 8 12 16 20 24 28
Settlement in mm.
(0)
1.5

1.0
en
Q)
Q)
L. 0.5
01
Q)
-0

0.0
.'= 2
c
,., -0.5
0
0
in mm.
.•..•
0
~
-1.0 0/B= 1.0,H/B=3.0
M"M 0/B=0.5,H/B=3.0
• • I , • 0/B=0.O,H/B=3.5
-1.5
(b)
Fig.5.6(a) Bearing pressure vs Settlement.(b) Rotation vs
Settlement Relations of Jamuna sand( <Pt=.38.5°)
 400 89

350

300
E
0-
Ul

'£ 250
-'"
.S
~
:>
200
Ul
Ul
~
a.
Ol 150
c
'C

CD
.,
o

100

50 ~ Test 28, 0/8= 1.0, H/8=3.0

.•••••••••.••
Test 16, 0/8=0.5, H/8=3.0
, , , , 'Test 4, 0/8=0.0, H/8=3.5

4 8 12 16 20 24 28
Settlement in mm.
(0)
1.5

1.0

.,
Ul
Q)
0.5
.,
~
Ol
"0

C 0.0
C
0 In mm.
:;:;
0 -0.5
+'
0
D:::

-1.0 D/B= 1.0,H/B=3.0

.•••••••••.••
D/B=0.5,H/B=3.0
~•• , • D/8=0.O,H/B=3.5
-1.5
(b)
Fig.5.7(a) Bearing pressure vs Settlement,(b) Rotation vs
Settlement Relations of Meqhna sand( <Pt 38.9°)
 400 90

350

300
E
0-
(f)

'£ 250
-'"
c

e:J 200
(f)
(f)

ec-
O'> 150
c
'C
o
Q)
CD
100

50 GB-GGtJ Test 29, O!B= 1.0, H!B=3.0

.•••••••.••.••
Test 17, 0/B=0.5, H/B=3.0
~ , ~ , 'Test 5, O/B=O.O, H/B=3.0

4 8 12 16 20 24 28
Settlement in mm.
(0)
1.5

1.0
(f)
Q)
e
0'>
0.5
Q)
"0

C 0.0
2
c In mm.
o
'g...- -0.5
o
0:: GB-GGtJ O!B= 1.0,H!B=3.0
-1.0 0!B=0.5,H!B=3.0
0/B=0.O,H/B=3.0

-1.5
(b)
Fig.5.8(a) Bearing pressure vs Settlement,(b) Rotation vs
Settlement Relations of Meghna sande <P t=38.9 0)
 400 91

350

300
SCT
III
'£ 250
~
c

~
:0
200
III
III
~
a.
01 150
c
'C
o
Q)
[lJ
100

50 lHHHHJ Test 30, o/B= 1.0, H/B=2.8

AAAo!>6 Test 18, 0/B=0.5, H/B=3.0
t t t t. Test 6, O/B=O.O, H/B=3.5

4 8 12 16 20 24 28
Settlement in mm.
(0)
1.5

1.0
III
Q)

~ 0.5
01
Q)
'0

.S 0.0 12
c Settlement In mm.
o
'E...., -0.5
o
n:
-1.0 D/B= 1.0,H/B=2.8
D/B=0.5,H/B=3.0
~ •• , t D/B=0.0,H/B=3.5
-1.5
(b)
Fig.5.9(a) Bearing pressure vs Settlement,(b) Rotation vs
Settlement Relations of Meqhna sande <Pt=38.9°)
 400 92

350

300
E;
0-
III

£-
~
250

1:'200
::>
III
III
1:'
C-
o> 150
c
'C
o
'"
m
100

50 ~ Test 31, 0/8=1.0, H/8=3.0

Test 19, 0/8=0.5,
AA •••••••• H!8=3.0
, , , • 'Test 7, 0/8=0.0, H/8=3.5

4 8 12 16 20 24 28
Settlement in mm.
(0)
1.5

1.0
III
Q)
•... 0.5
'"
0>

'"
"0

C 0.0
c in mm.
o
:g
.•..o -0.5
0::
-1.0 lHH>iHJ D/B= 1.0,H/B=3.0
AA •••••••• D/B=0.5,H!B=3.0
'. I I •• D/B=0.O,H/B=3.5
-1.5
(b)
Fig.5.l0(a)Bearing pressure vs Settlement,(b) Rotation vs
Settlement Relations of Teesta sande </Jt =39.2 0)
 400
93

350

300
~
CT
III

'£ 250
-""
c

~
:J
200
III
III
~
C-
Ol 150
c
'C
o
'"
aJ
100

50 GGiHHl Test 32, O/B= 1.0, H/B=3.0

MM" Test 20, 0/B=0.5, H!B=3.0
, , , , 'Test 8, 0/B=O.O, H/B=3.0

4 8 12 16 20 24 28
Settlement in mm.
(0)
1.5

1.0
III
Q)
Q)
c- 0.5
Ol
Q)
-0

C 0.0
C
0
:;:;
0
+"
-0.5
0
0:
-1.0 GGiHHl 0/B= 1.0,H/B=3.0
M ••••" 0/B=0.5,H!B=3.0
'.•••• D/B=0.O,H/B=3.0
-1.5
(b)
Fig.5.ll (a)Bearing pressure vs Settlement,(b) Rotation vs
t=39.2 )
Settlement Relations of Teesta sand( <I>
 400 94

350

300
E
C]"
If)

'£
~
250

.~
~
:J
200
If)
If)
~
a.
Ol 150
c
'C
o
Q)
CD
100

50 tHHHHl Test 33, 0/B= 1.0, H/B=3.0

AA ••••••••. Test
21, 0/B=0.5, H/B=3.0
• t t t t Test 9. O/B=O.O, H/B=3.5

4 8 12 16 20 24 28
Settlement in mm.
(0)
1.5

1.0
If)
Q)

~ 0.5
Ol
Q)
"0

C 0.0
c
o
'E.•... -0.5
o
a::
-1.0 IB= 1.0,H/B=3.0
•••••••••••••
/B=0.5,H/B=3.0
•• I I I D/B=0.O,H/B=3.5

-1.5
(b)
Fig.5.12(a)Bearing pressure vs Settlement,(b) Rotation vs
Settlement Relations of Teesta sande tPt=39.2 0)
Table 5."2 Bearing Capacity Test Results

:Sand :Sample:
,
D/B , H/B :Ultimate:Average I
Ny I N q : Nyq
,,
'Sample :Settl-IAverage'Rota- :Average:
:Desig-:Ratio:Ratio:Bearing 'Ultimate 'Using :ement Settle- tion
nation: I I :Rota-
I :Pressure Bearing Using Baki & I ment
,,I ,I ,I Pressure Conventional Beik's ,I ,:tion
I :kN/sq.m I
I I kN/sq.m Equation olt" Equation' (mm) (mm) (deg.) :(deg.)
,,I ,I
I 3.5 , 224.61
I
D 11
I 12.00 0.71 ,
I
Dhaka
, sand D21
D31
0.0 I
,
,
3.5 II 238.77
,, 231.56 231 .65 ,
I
300.7 --- 300.7 12.29 12.05 -0.43 I
I 0.57
I 3.5 I 11 .86 -0.58 I
I
,I I
I I
,I I I
,I at D12 3.0 II 304.16 I
I
I
I 13.86
I
I
I 0.57 I
:Rajar- D22 0.5 3.0 ,I 302. 15 301 .94 I 300.7 ,I ,
I bagh, I 299.52 I 91.3 392 13.03 13.56 -0.62 ,I 0.60
I
I
D32 3.0 I ,
I I
I 13.79 -0.62 I
I ,I I
I I
I I
, Dhaka
I
D13 I
I I
3.0 I 327.84 ,I ,I
I
,,I
: q, =36.9 D23 I
1.0 3.0 II 323.72 I 300.7 , :14.21 ,I 0.43
325.61 61.1 422.7 :13.18 I I
,I D33 2.8 II 325.27
I
I
I
I
I I 13.65
I I -0.47
I
I 0.47
I
I I I I :13.57 I I 0.51
I I I I I
I
I J 11 I 3.5 I 242.37 ,I
,
I I
I
I 3.0 II 241 .34
I I I
I Jamuna I :13.36 I I -1 .00
J21 0.0 , 240.48 I
, --- I I 13.25 I -0.87
I 3.5 II 237.74 314.2
I
I sand I 314.2 :13 .2 1 I I ,
I
0.92
I J31 I I I
I I
I
I
I ,,I I
, :13.18 I ,I -0.89
,I at I I I
I I ,I
3.0 , 328.87 I I ,
I I
I I J12
, I
I
, I I ,I :1"4.92 I 0.15
I 321 .09 I I
:Bhuya-
I I J22 I I
0.5 I 3.0 I 313.25
I 3.0 ,I 321 . 15 I
, I 314.2
I
,
I
I 105.4 I
I 419.6 :16.28 I 15.96 I 0.22 ,I 0.39
I pur ,: J32 I I I
I I

I
I I
,
I
I ,, I I I I :16.69 I ,
I
0.81
I
I 3.0 I 352.56 , ,
:Tangail:
I q, =38 .5 :
J13 I I i , I ,I :13.97 ,I 0.60
,II J23 1.0 ,I 3.0 ,I 337.63 I
I 348.61 I 314.2 I
I 70.7 I
I 455.5 :15.86
I
I 15.07 I ,
I 3.0 I 355.65 I
I I 0.97 I 0.85
I
I
I
I
J33 I
I I
I
,
I I
I I
I
I
I :15.37 I
I I, 0.98
I I I

* qu =ty BNy +Y Dr Nq

\0
V1
Cont. Table 5.2. Bearing Capacity Test Results

:Sand Sample: D/B H/B Ultimate Average Ny I

I Nq : NYq :Settl- Average:Rota- :Average:
:Sample Desig-:Ratio Ratio Bearing Ultimate I
I :Using :ement Settle-:tion :Rota-
I
I nation: Pressure Bearing Using :Baki & I
I ment I
:tion
I I I
I
I
I Pressure Conventional :Beik's I
I
I
I
I
I I kN/sq.m kN/sq.m Equation~ :Equation: (mm) (mm) :(deg.) :(deg.)
I I
I I I I
I
I I I I
I
I M 11 I 3.5 257.30 I
I :13.17 I
-0.76
I I
Meghna M21 I
0.0 3.0 259.36 257.30 330 --- I
330 :14.60 13.15 I
-0.96 I
I
I
I I I 0.86
sand M31 I 3.5 255.24 I
I
I
I
I :11 .68 I
-0.87
I I I
I I I I
I I
I I I I
I I I
at I M12 I 3.0 343.80 I
I
I
I
I
I :14.50 I
-0.63
I I
Meghna: M22 I 0.5 3.0 349.47 I
I 345.42 I
I 330 112 .9 I
I 443 :13.22 13.86 I
-1.18 I
0.86
I I I
bridge: M32 I 3.0 343.00 I
I
I
I
I
I :13.87 I
-0.76
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I
site, I M13 I 3.0 372.75 :13.57 I
0.73
I I I
Dhaka I M23 I 1.0 3.0 366.98 370.79 330 72.8 475.7 :12.62 14.15 I
-1 .32 I, 0.81
I I I
<P =38.9 : M33 372.64 I
I
I
I
I
:16.26 I 0.38
I I
I I
I I
I I
T 11 I I 3.5 269.15 :12.24 I
0.28
Teesta: T21
sand , T31
I
I
I
I
0.0 I
I
I
3.0 273.78 272.58 I 346 --- 346 :12.57 12.84
I
I
I -0.54 ,I 0.56
I I 3.5 274.81 I
I :13.70 , -0.87
I
I I I
I I
I I
I 0
I I
at 0 T12 I I 3.0 367.75 I
I :16.00 I I
-0.73
I I I I
I
I Teesta: T22 0.5 I 3.0 366.98 366.55 I
I 346 119.2 465.2 :15.05 I
15.16 I
0.72 ,I 0.72
I I I
:barrage: T32 I 3.0 364.92 I
I :14.44 I
, -0.72
I
I I I
I
I I I
I
site, I
T13 I
3.0 393.75 , , I
I 0 I I I I I :15.30 II I
I 0.50
:Rangpur: T23 1.0 I
3.0 391.69 I
391. 17 I
346 I
75.2 I
488.1 I
:14.71 I 14.81 II -0.48 I
I
I
I I I I I 0.53
: <p =39 .2: T33 3.0 388.08 I I 0
I
I I I I
I
I :14.41 I, ,
I
0.60
I

*' qu =tY BNy +Y OfNq \0

0'1
 97

significant for 0/B=0.5 than 0/B=1.0. The settlement at failure

was found to increase for the case of shallow depth footing as

compared to the surface footing, Table 5.2. This variation has no

distinct trend with the variation of O/B. However, the variation

of settlement was found to be insignificant in magnitude,

approximately within a limit of 2 to 3 percent.

5.4 Settlement-Rotation Relations

The rotation of the footing was studied for both surface and

shallow depth footing. The variation of rotation with footing

settlement for all the tests are shown in Figs.5.1b through 5.12b

5.4.1 Surface Footing (O/B=O.O)

In general the rotation of the footing increases with settlement,

Figs.5.1b to 5.12b.It is observed that the rotation is negligible

at initial stages of loading. This may be due to the fact that at

initial stages of loading the sand just beneath the footing gets

compacted, and rotation only starts when this compacted mass

pushes the surrounding soil side-wise. This agrees with the

theoretical assumptions made by Prandtl (1921), Terzaghi (1948),

Meyerhof(1975) and other investigators. The observed rotations,

Table 5 ..
2, indicate that the rotation of footing is negligible

and is limited within a value of 1°. The sense of rotation is

appeared to be unpredictable. However, it is observed, in

general that the failure outcrop first appeared on the side

opposite to the direction of rotation.

 98

5.4.2 Shallow Depth Footing (0/B=0.50, 1.0)

Similar to surface footing the rotations of shallow depth footing

were found to be insignificant. As before, the rotation is

negligible at the initial stages of loading, noticed to increase

with the increase of bearing pressure, Fig. 5.1b to 5.12b. The

rotation of the footing at failure load was found to be

independent of depth of surcharge. Similar observation like

surface footing was noticed regarding failure surface outcrop.

5.5 Angle of Internal Friction(~)-Bearing Capacity Relations

The variation of the ultimate bearing capacity with the angle of

internal friction(~ps) for both surface and shallow depth footing

are shown in Fig.5.13a to 5.13c.

5.5.1 Surface Footing (O/B=O.O)

The ultimate bearing capacity is found to increase with the

increase of angle of internal friction. This is in general

agreement with the observation of the previous investigators like

Terzaghi(1943),Meyerhof(1955),Br.Hansen(1961),Feda(1961). It is

observed "that the rate of increase of ultimate bearing capacity

is comparatively smaller for ~ps values less than 42°. The

rate,however,increases at higher values of ~ps. When compared

with the results of other investigators, Fig.5.13a,Table 5.3, the

predicted ultimate bearing capacity is found to be in the range

 99
450 r----------r----.--

400

3~ -
Feda (1961)

300

-
N
E
z Author
""l:

.•..>- 2'0
u
co
a.
co
u
en
l:
...
co 20 Baki & Beik (1970)
QJ
.ll

.•..
QJ
co
E
+::
::> Terzaghi (1943 )
I~O

100
G-EI€le£l Teesto sana. -
...... .....
~'Jil+;' 6 A 6-

,........ ....,
-
Meghna sand
Jamuna sand
Dhaka sand

50 I
400 410 420 430 440

Angle of Internal Friction (<P ) in degrees

ps
Fig. 5. 13a Angle of Internal Friction Vs. Ultimate Bearing Capacity
Relations for Surface (D/B = 0) Footing.
Table 5.3 Calculated Ultimate Bearing Capacity in percent of Experimental results

Experimental .. Ultimate Bearing Capacity in percent of Experimental results

<Pt . <P ps ; Ultimate Bearing :--------------------:--------------------:------:--------------------:
Capacity . Terzaghi : Meyerhof : Feda : A. Bak i & Beik
(kN/sq.m) : (1943) . (1955) :(1961): (1970)
:--------------------:--------------------:--------------------:------:--------------------:
0/B=0:0/B=.5: 0/B=1: 0/B=0:0/B=.5: O/B= 1: 0/B=0:0/B=.5: O/B= 1: O/B=O: 0/B=0:0/B=.5: 0/B=1:
1
1
1 1 1 1
,
1 1 1 I 1

.
1 1 1
.. . 1 1 1 I 1
; ;
. :
36.9: 40.6: 231. 6: 301 .7: 325.6: 39.6 . 53 : 70 30.7 39.8 .. 52 85 .. 62 .. 68 78
__ I1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

..
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
: : . .. .
1 1 1 1 1_-

:
38.5: 42.3: 240.5: 321. 1: 348.6: 57.4 : .. 89.5 : 41.2 : 63.7 . 124 .
1 , 1 1 1 1
70
, 1 1
50
1 , 1
82
1
82
I
92
-_I

..
1 1 I 1 1 1
: :
1

..
1

:
1

:
1

:
1 1
. '--
38.9: 42.8: 257.3: 345.4: 370.8: 60.6 .. 73 : .. . 134 .. .. ..
,,
94 42.4 51 : 65.6
,,
86 89 98
: ,1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
.
1 1 I

.. .
•
.
.
1
. :
1 1

.
1 1 1
.
1
• 1
.. ,--
: . : : : :
39.2: 43.1: 272.6: 366.5: 391. 2: 61.3 73 .. 94.6 : 43.7 . 51.6 : 66.5 .. 137 .. 91 .. 92 102

I-'
o
o
 101

of 40% to 137% of the experimental results. The observed ultimate

bearing capacity shows reasonable agreement with the predicted

value,Table 5.3, given by Feda(1961) and Abdul Baki & Beik(1970).

The experimental results indicate that the ultimate bearing

capacity as predicted by Terzaghi(1943) and Meyerhof(1955) is

slightly conservative.

5.5.2 Shallow Depth Footing (D/B=0.5,1.0)

Similar to the case of surface footing, the ultimate bearing

pressure increases with the increase of the angle of internal

friction, Fig. 5.13b & 5.13c, Table 5.3. The presence of

surcharge significantly increases the bearing capacity. The

influence of surcharge on bearing capacity is more significant

for D/B = 0.5 than for D/B = 1.0. It is observed that the

increase in bearing pressure with the angle of internal friction,

for both D/B = 0.5 and D/B = 1.0 is similar for all ~ values in

the range of 40.6° to 43.1° of ~p •• The increase of bearing

pressure for D/B = 0.5 is higher than for D/B=1.0

For D/B = 0.5, the observed bearing capacity is found to have a

good agreement with the predicted values of Baki & Beik (1970).

When depth of surcharge equals to the width of the footing, the

prediction by Terzaghi (1943), Meyerhof (1955), Br. Hansen (1961)

and Abdul Baki & Beik (1970) appears to be in close agreement

with the present observation.

 102

450 ---------------------T--

400

Abdul
-
N
E Baki & Beik(1970)
Z
~ 300
c:
•..>-
u
'"
Co
Terzaghi 11943)
U '" 250
0'1
c:
lo-

ell
'"OJ
•.. OJ
200 -
•..'"E
:J

150 -

100-
Teesta sand
Meghna sand
Jamuna sand
""HtlH
Dhaka sand

42~ 430 440

Angle of Internal Friction I <j> ) in degrees

ps

Fig. 5.13b Angle of Internal Friction Vs. Ultimatel:learing Capacity

I<elations for Shallow I DI B=O.5) Footing.
 103

r--.
Abdul
Baki &
Beik (1970)

Author
400 -

Terzaghi (1943)
3:10 -

--x-
N

-
Z
::t:
E
300
Meyerhof
(1955)
C

- >-
u
a'" .
J 2:10
Ol
C
•..
'"
Q)
~
Q)
~ 20-
E

150 -

100 -
lllHlEIl'l Teesta -sand
AA-b-b-l! Meghna !lond
++...- Jamund sand
lW< •• ....,
Dhaka sand

50
400 410 420 430 440
Angle of Internal Friction (cj> ) in degrees
ps
Fig. 5. 13c Angle of Internal Friction Vs. Ultimate Bearing Capacity
Kelations for Shallow (D/B=I.0) Footing.
 W4

5.6 Angle of Internal Friction(~) - Bearing Capacity Factors

Relations

The bearing capacity factor for friction,Ny' was calculated from

the results of ultimate bearing capacity of surface footing. In

order to determine the bearing capacity factor for surcharge, Nq,

the results of bearing capacity for shallow depth footing were

used. As suggested by Terzaghi (1943), the principle of

superposition was used to calculate the value of Nq. That is the

increase in bearing capacity due to surcharge is assumed to be a

function of Nq and surcharge itself. The variation of these

factors (N and Nq) with the angle of internal friction (~pB) are
y
discussed in the following sections.

5.6.1. ~ - Ny Relations

The variation of Ny with the angle of internal friction ~ is

shown in Fig. 5.14. It is observed that the bearing capacity

factor,Ny' in general, increases with increasing ~ . The rate of

increase is very prominent, when ~PB value exceeds 42°. This

observation agrees with the findings of previous investigators,

like Terzaghi (1943), Meyerhof (1955), Vesic (1961), Feda

(1961),Br. Hansen (1970), Fig. 5.14, Table 5.4 and 5.5.

It is further observed that most of the previous investigators

underestimate the value of Ny' The prediction of Ny by Feda

(1961) is, however, found to have an excellent agreement with the

experimental results when ~PB is approximately 41.4°. For lower

 105

~oo .

Feda (1961)
4~0

400

0/ Author

300

2~0
;-
Z
.•...
0

'.,:l" Terzaghi
( 1943)
>'" 200
Vesic(1961)
Meyerhofl 1955
Hansen (1961)

150

Gees£) Teesto sand

h6~"'6 Meghno sand
......•.......•..•
Jomuna sand
100 )f44-K-W--K
Dhaka sand

Angle of Internal Friction( <p ps) in degrees

Fig. 5.14 Angle of Internal Friction Vs. N Relations.

y
Table 5.4 Values of Ny' Nq and Nyq

:-----"-----:-----:-----:-----:-----:-----:-----:-----:-----:-----:-----:-----:-----:-----:-----:-----:
: :Experimental : Terzaghi : Meyerhof : Br.Hansen: Vesic : Feda: Baki & Beik
$t : ~ps :Values of Ny,Nq : (1943) : (1955) : (1961) : (1961) :(1961: (1970)
:-----:-----:-----:-----------:-----:-----:-----:-----:-----:-----:-----:-----:-----:-----:-----:-----:
: degr: degr: Ny : Nq Ny: Nq: Ny: Nq: Ny: Nq: Ny: Nq: Ny : Nyq : Nyq : Nyq :
:D/B= :D/B=l: :D/B=O:D/B=.:D/B=l:
0 0 0 -:-----;-----:-----:-----:-----: : : : : : : : :

:36.9 : 40.6: 301 : 91.3: 61.1: 119 : 88.6: 92: 63.3: 106 : 69.8: 122 : 69.8: 256 : 185 : 266 : 328 :

:-----:-----:-----'-----"-----:-----:-----:-----:-----:-----:-----:-----:-----:-----:-----:-----:-----:
:38.5 : 42.3: 314 : 106 : 70.7: 180 : 114 : 129 : 80.6: 145 : 89.2: 164 : 89.2: 391 : 257 : 343 : 420 :
._---- 0 0 "----_._----:-----:-----:-----: : : : : : " : ;

:38.9 : 42.8: 330 : 113 : 72.8: 200 : 123 : 140 : 85.7: 159 : 96.1: 180 : 96.1: 443 : 285 : 395 : 468 :
• 0 • 0 -:-----:-----:-----:-----:-----: : : : : : : : :

:39.2 : 43.1: 346 : 119 : 75.2: 212 : 129 : 150 : 89.9: 168 : 101 : 190 : 101 : 478 : 314 : 430 : 508 :
:-----:----- 0 -:-----:-----:-----:-----:-----: : : : : : : : :

f-'
o
0\
Table 5.5 Calculated values of Ny in percent of Experimental values

. . Experi-: Calculated Values of Ny in percent of

<Pt . <Pps : mental . Experimental values of Ny
:
Ny :Terzaghi:Meyerhof: Hansen: Vesic Feda
(1943) . (1961) : (1961)
(1955) . . (1961)
. . : : .
:
.
. . : ..
36.9 40.6 .. 301 39.5 35 : 35.2 . 40.5 ..: 85
: . : : .. : :
: : :
38.5 . .
: 42.3 314 : 57.3 47.2 .. 46.2 : 52.3
: . : . ..: 124
: : . ..
38.9 : 42.8 . 330 : 60.6 : 49.7
:
.. 48.2
:
.. . : 54.5 : 134
: : .
:
.
: : :
39.2 .. 43.1 : 346 . . :
61.3 : 51 48.6 55 137

b
--l
 108

values of ~, Feda's equation,(Eqn. 2.12), slightly underestimates

Ny and for higher values it overestimates.

It is understood that none of the widely used prediction methods

can be used to estimate the bearing capacity factor, Ny' for

economic design of a foundation in the context of Bangladesh
soil. As such an attempt is made in the present investigation to

find a statistical relation between ~t and Ny Regression

analysis of the limited number of data was done for the purpose.

This analysis shows that ~t and Ny have an exponential

correlation between them which can be expressed as:

N = 40.52 eO.054~t (5.2)

y

The correlation coefficient (r2) of 0.83 indicates that, it can

predict satisfactorily the value of N when ~t is known,Fig.5.15.

y
The exponential relation between ~ and N is also reported by
y
Feda (Eqn. 2.12). However the parameters of the equation found to

be different.

From the experimental observation and analysis it may be proposed

that the empirical equation (Eqn. 5.2) should be used in

calculating the value of N for Bangladesh soil.

y
 109

360

Calculated by equn qu =!YBNy+YDf Nq

Predicted from equn (5.2)

3

340
/
/
/
/
33
/

)- 320
Z
.•..o
<II
IV
::l
'"
>
310

-x /' l3-eeee Teesla sand

/'
A666A
/' Meghna sand
,,/ + •• "If' t Jamuno sand'
HUIIJfH
Dhaka sand

37.5"

Angle of Internal Friction (<P tl in degrees

Fig. 5.15 <P

t Vs. Ny Relations Showing Calculated and Predicted
Results
 110

5.6.2 ~ - Nq Relations

The bearing capacity factor, Nq against ~PB is shown in Fig. 5.16

and Table 5.3. It is observed that Nq varies significantly with

the depth of surcharge, even if depth of surcharge is limited to

a depth equals to width of footing. It is interesting to mention

that the value of Nq decreases with the increase of the depth of
surcharge.

For both D/B=0.5 and D/B=1, Nq increases with increasing~. The

comparison of Nq, Fig. 5.16, Table 5.6 with the predicted values
of other investigators show that the general value of Nq given by

Terzaghi (1943) is in close agreement with the experimental

results when D/B = 0.5. The predictions of Meyerhof (1955), Br.

Hansen (1961), Vesic (1961) show reasonable agreement with the

experimental results while using D/B = 0.5. In case of higher D/B

ratio the predictions appear to be on the unsafe side, particu-

larly at higher values of ~. The variation could be as high as
1.8 times as compared to Terzaghi (1943) when D/B = 1. Hence the

present investigation suggests to disregard the concept of

assuming constant value of Nq for shallow depth footing.

Statistical analysis of the experimental results show that ~ and

Nq have a .good exponential correlation between them which can be
expressed as:

(5.3)

where ~t is the triaxial friction angle.

 III

140

130

(1943)

120

Author( D 1 B=O.5)

110

'0
Meyerhof( 1955)
Hansen (1961)
C'" Vesic (1961), D\B
Z
.•..
o
CIl
III
:J
lU
>

80

Author
(D/B=1.0)

70

GeBeEJ Teesto sand

6AhAA Meghna sand_
t to++ ••. Jomllno sand
lfU,,"H Dhaka sand

Angle of Internal Friction (<p ) in degrees

ps
Fig. 5.16 Angle of I nternal Friction Vs. N Relations.
q
Table 5.6 Calculated values of Nq (O<B) in percent of Experimental Nq (0/B=0.5,1.0)

. Experimental Calculated values of Nq (O<B) in percent of

<Pt <P ps . values of : Experimental Nq (0/B=0.5,1.0)
Nq .'-
Terzaghi(1943) Meyerhof(1955) . Br.Hansen(1961)
:D/B=0.5 : 0/B=1.0:D/B=0.5 0/B=1.0:D/B=0.5 : 0/B=1.0:0/B=0.5 : D/B=1.0:
. :
: :
36.9 40.6 .
. ..
91 .3
.
61 .1 : 97
.
145 . 76.5 114 . 76.5 . 114
. : :
38.5 42.3 106 . 70.7 107
. .
161 84 124 : 84 124
: :
: : '--
38.9 -
42.8 113 72.8 109 178 : 85 132 85 132
: .
. . .
:
39.2 43.1 : 119 . 75.2 . 108 . 172 85 . 134 . 85 . 134

I--'
I--'
I\)
 113

The parameters a and b for different D/B along with the

coefficient of correlations (r2) are shown in Table 5.7.

Table 5.7 Statistical parameters of Eqn. 5.3

Parameters Co-efficient of
D/B a b correlation(r2)

0.5 1.506 0.1110 0.970

1.0 2.253 0.0894 0.999

The correlation coefficient (r2), Table 5.7, indicates that it

can predict satisfactorily the value of Nq when ~t is known. The

experimental and predicted values of Nq using the proposed

equation is shown in Fig. 5.17. This shows excellent agreement

between the observed and the predicted results. Thus it may be

proposed to use the empirical relation (Eqn. 5.3) to determine

the bearing capacity factor for surcharge, Nq,in the context of

Bangladesh soil.

5.7 Angle of Internal Friction(~) - Combined Bearing Capacity

Factor(N q) Relations

Abdul Baki and Beik (1970) proposed a dimensionless combined

bearing capacity factor,N,q, considering the shear strength of

surcharge for a shallow depth footing and introduced a bearing

capacity equation (Eqn.2.14). Using this equation and

experimental results of bearing capacity, the values of Nyq were

 114

130

Calculated by equ" qu=tYBNy+YDfNQ

120 - Predicted from equ" (5.3)

110

100

D/B=O.5

CT 90
z
"-o
VI

:'"J
III
> 80

70

.",,--
~ -- -- --
D/Ij=1.0
13IHI 1313
AAAAA
+.•• ~ ••
Teosta sand
Meghna sand
Jamuna sand

- --
.•...w-*w-'< Dhaka sand
_X
60
36.5° 37° 37.5° 38" 38.5" 39" 39.5°

Angle of Internal Friction (<P t) in degrees

Fig. 5.17 <PtVs: Nq Relations Showing Calculated and Pr~dicted.

Results
 115

calculated,Table 5.2, and are plotted against ~PB in Fig. 5.18.

It is observed that,Nyq increases with increasing values of ~,

and for a particular depth of surcharge and a given ~ Ny q

increases with the increase of D/B. This observation is in

general agreement with the results of Abdul Baki and Beik (1970).

However, the values of Nyq proposed by them seems to be slightly

conservative particularly at lower values of ~, Table 5.8, Fig.

5.18. At higher values of ~ the experimental bearing capacity

factors have a good agreement with the predicted results.

The experimental evidence leads to a proposal that the bearing

capacity of shallow foundation in dense soil layer of Bangladesh

may be predicted reasonably by using Abdul Baki and Beik's

equation (Eqn. 2.14).

The variation of Nyq with ~ is studied statistically using the

experimental data. It is an important observation that ~q has

very strong exponential relation with ~t for each of D/B's. The

relations can be represented by the following general equation.

(5.4)

where ~t'is the triaxial friction angle in degrees.

The parameters a, b for different D/B along with the co-efficient

of correlations (r2) are shown in Table 5.9.

 116

j,
500 -'-'-'-0/8=1.0
-----D/8=0.5 it
----I.) I 8=0.0
./£::"?
7 / 0
....
y /. //
450 .•............
.---- . / /
.~ / /' I
_--x- --'- Author Arf/ I

_----/
--- .
I
/
400 - --. /
--x- - Author / Abdul
/ Baki & 8eik /~bd 1
, (1970) / u
•..'-ou / / Saki & Beik (1970)

'"
L1. 350 /' /
/
•..>- /
u
/
'"C.
(j
m
l: 300 x /'
>
/
.::::.----* /
Abdul-
'- ••••••••
/'
8aki & Beik[ 1970)
'"
QJ
;0 ••••••
••••••••
"tl
........................
QJ
l: ••.......
:0
E 2!lO
o
u

GBBa€J Teesto sand

6:6:066 Meghna sand
200 t'l '" "* Jamuna sand
l~' ~H_H_H~H Dhaka sand

Angle of Internal Friction [<j> ps) in degrees

Fig. 5.18 Angle of Internal Friction Vs. Combined Bearing Capacity

Factor Relations.
Table 5.8 Calculated values of the Combined Bearing Capacity Factor Nyq
in percent of Experimental values

-f-'
f-'
-'l
 118

Table 5.9 Statistical parameters of Eqn. 5.4

------ ----------------------- -------------------

parameters Coefficient of
DIB a b correlation( r2)
---------------- ------------ -------------------
0.0 40.5 0.054 0.834
------ ---------- ------------ -------------------
0.5 31.6 0.068 0.894
------ ---------- ------------ -------------------
1.0 45.3 0.060 0.965
------ ---------- ------------ -------------------

The experimental and predicted values of N~q using the proposed

equation is shown in Fig. 5.19. This shows excellent agreement

between the observed and the predicted results. Hence, it may be

proposed that the bearing capacity of Bangladesh sand can be

computed by using the combined bear ing capac ity factor N -{q
instead of using the conventional bearing capacity factors of ~

and Nq• However, this should be a major concern of the future

researchers to generalize the equation by performing investiga-

tion using other values of angle of internal friction and width

of footing.
 119

Calculated by equn (2.14)

_____ Predicted from equn (5.4)
500

CT
?-

--
450

-
Z

•...

----
::;.--
o
.•..
u -x
CO
u..
.•..>- 400
-x
'\j
CO
0.
CO
--- _
U
OJ
l:

~~-
•...
CO
./
<ll
.:0
"C

o
u
<ll
l:
:0
E
300
X-----=-=-=-'.---=-~
--~~
=== --::::-:::::--
lJ 1l:s=O
.-

2~O
GeBSEl Teesla sand
660-66 Meghna Bond
...... .,. ... .•.
-
Jamuna sand
)4.W-H I+W Dhaka sand

38° 38.5° 39° 39.So

37.5°
Angle of Internal Friction (cj> t) in degrees

Figs. 5.19 cj> t Vs. Ny q I{elations Showing Calculated and Predicted

Results
 120

CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSIONS

The present investigation was aimed at the development of an

experimental set up and to study the behaviour of a centrally

loaded strip foundation on semi-infinite soil layer formed by

using selected alluvial sands of Bangladesh. The study embraces

the observations of dependence of geotechnical properties of sand
on its physical properties, ultimate bearing capacity and bearing
capacity factors on angle of internal friction and also the

settlement and rotational behaviour of foundation during loading.

The investigation has been conducted using a model footing of

0.10 m wide and 0.51 m long resting on dense semi-infinite

(H/B=3.0,approx.) sand layer (Or=80% to 92%, ~t = 36.90 to 39.20)
contained in a model tank of dimensions 57 cm x 85.5 cm x 60 cm.

Tests were carried out under plane strain conditions. The footing
was subjected to a strain controlled central loading and free to

rotate about the loading point. The load, settlement and rotation
measurements were taken using load and strain dial gauges.

On the. basis of experimental observation the following

conclusions may be drawn:

1. The triaxial friction angle of an alluvial sand deposit of

Bangladesh has a linear relationship with porosity.
 121

The relation is proposed as:

{ZIt = a - bno (6.1)

where, a and b are parameters of the relations and depend on the

source of deposit. The parameters are presented in Table 5.1. The

values of a and b are found to vary from 54 to 57.2 and 0.37 to

0.50 respectively.

2. For a surface footing, the ultimate bearing capacity for the

sandy soils used in this study and bearing capacity factor, Ny,
predicted by Terzaghi (1943), Meyerhof (1955) and Br. Hansen

(1961) is conservative even if the plane strain angle of shearing

resistance ({ZIps=l.l{Z1t) is considered in estimating the bearing

capacity factors. The variation is within range of 35% to 62% of

the experimental results. The predictions by Feda (1961) and

Abdul Baki and Beik (1970) are reasonable and found to vary from

the observed value within a range of 62% to 137% of the

experimental results.

3. For a shallow depth footing (D/B < 1.0) the prediction of

ultimate bearing capacity by Terzaghi (1943), Meyerhof (1955),

Br. Hansen (1961) and Abdul Baki and Beik (1970) compares very

closely when surcharge depth equals to width of footing. For

shallower depths Abdul Baki and Beik (1970) predicts

satisfactorily while the others estimate conservatively.

 122

4) The concept of assuming constant value of the bearing capacity

factor for surcharge, Nq,by the other prominent investigator like

Terzaghi (1943), Meyerhof(1955), Br. Hansen (1961) and Abdul Baki

and Beik(1970) is in contradiction with the present study.

5) The bearing capacity factor Nq predicted by Terzaghi closes to

reality when depth of surcharge equals to half the width of

footing. The prediction by Meyerhof (1955), Br. Hansen (1961),

Vesic(1961) seems to be reasonable. For higher depth of surcharge

their prediction is on the unsafe side.

6) The proposed combined bearing capacity factor, Nyq for a

shallow depth footing by Abdul Baki and Beik (1970) seems to

yield a good prediction of ultimate bearing capacity of
Bangladesh soil.

7) There exists strong exponential relationship between the

triaxial friction angle and the bearing capacity factors Ny, Nq

and Nyq for Bangladesh sand. Oepending on the limited number of

available data the relations are proposed as:

N = 40.52 eO .05 4 ~ t (for O/B=O.O)

y
Nq = 1.506 eO .1 1 1~ t (for 0/B=0.5)
Nq = 2.253 eO .089 4 ~ t (for O/B= 1.0)

Ny q = 40.5 eO .05 4 ~ t (for O/B=O.O)

Nyq = 31.6 eO.068~t (for 0/B=0.5)
N y q= 45.3 eO .06 0~t (for O/B= 1.0)
 123

The above relations may be used to predict the ultimate bearing

capacity of sandy soil of Bangladesh using the conventional

bearing capacity equations.

8) While using the conventional equations the use of plane strain

angle of internal friction is suggested to estimate the bearing

capacity factors.

9) The settlement at allowable bearing pressure predicted by

Peak, Hansen and Thornburn (1974) seems to be significantly lower

as compared to the actual case.

10) The rotation of footing is noticeable only after the slip

failure of the soil mass occurs. The sense of rotation is

unpredictable.

11) The failure outcrop arises on both sides at an approximate

distance of B from the edges of the footing and it is prominent

on one side after the shear failure of the soil occurs.

12) The glass wall-soil-friction is negligible and the friction

overestimates the bearing capacity only upto a maximum of 7

percent.

Recommendation for Future Study

The present study initiates the scope of investigating different

aspects of the behaviour of a foundation system in Bangladesh

 124

sand due to external loading. It is mainly concentrated on the

development of a bearing capacity set up and to investigate the

behaviour of a strip foundation system due to central loading.

This research project can be continued to study the other avenues
of bearing capacity of shallow foundations on the following
aspects:

i) To generalize the observation of present study, similar

investigation can be done using sands of different properties

and locations.

ii) To study the distribution of stresses beneath the footing by

installing appropriate measuring instrument like strain
gauges.

iii)To study the bearing capacity behaviour considering

different shapes and forms of foundation.

iv) To study the deformation behaviour of the soil mass beneath

the footing. This may be extended for layered soil and using
any inclusion in the soil mass like geotextile.
v) To study the effect of ground water table on bearing
capacity.

vi) To investigate the eccentricity and inclination effect on

bearing capacity using different shapes of footing.
vii)To study the effect of soil layer thickness on bearing
capacity for different types of footing and loading.
 125-
REFERENCES

ABEDIN, M.Z. (1986),"Eccentrically Loaded Strip Footing on a Sand

Layer overlaying a Rigid Stratum", Ph.D. Thesis, University of
Strathclyde, U.K.

ABDUL BAKI,A.and BEIK,L.A.(1970),"Bearing Capacity of Foundations

on Sand",Proc. ASCE, J.of SMFE Divn., Vol. 96, SM 2, pp. 545-556.

AL-OMARI, R.R. (1984),"Strip Foundation on a Sand Layer overlay-

ing a Rigid Stratum",Ph.D.Thesis, University of Strathclyde, U.K.

AMEEN, a.F. (1990),"Strip Footing on a Sand Layer overlaying a

Rigid Stratum and Subjected to Inclined Eccentric Loads", Ph.D.
Thesis, University of Strathclyde,U.K.

ANDRAWES,K.Z.(1976),"A Contribution to Plane Strain Model Testing

of Granular Materials", Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. of Southampton, U.K.

ARNOLD, M. (1980),"Prediction of Footing Settlements on Sand",

Ground Engineering, Vol. 13, NO.2.

ARTHUR, J.R.F., and ROSCOE, K.H. (1965),"An Examination of the

Edge Effects in Plane Strain Model Earth Pressure Tests", Proc.
6th ICSMFE, Montreal, Vo. 2, pp. 363-367.

BALLA, A. (1962),"Bearing Capacity of Foundations", Proc. ASCE,

J.of SMFE Divn., Vol. 88, SM 5, pp. 13-34.

BJERRUM and EGGESTAD (1963),"Interpretation of Loading Test on

Sand", Proc. Eur. Conf. on SMFE, Weisbaden. Vol.l

BOWLES, J.E. (1986)," Foundation Analysis and Design", 3rd Edn.,

Singapore.

Br. HANSEN, J.(1961),"A General Formula for Bearing Capacity",

Geo. Inst. Akad. Tek. Vid., Copenhagen, Bull.ll, pp. 38-45.
 126
Br. HANSEN, J.(1970)," A Revised and Extended Formula for Bearing
Capacity", Bull. Geo. Inst.,Copenhagen,Denmark, Vol.28, pp. 5-11.

BUISMAN, A.S.K. (1940)," Grondmechanica", Waltman, Delft.

CAQUOT, A. and KERISEL,J.(1953)," Ultimate Bearing Capacity of a

Foundation Lying on the Surface of a Cohesionless Soil", Proc.
3rd ICSMFE, Switzerland,Vol.l, pp. 336-337.

CERNICA,J.N.(1982)"Geotechnical Engineering" Holt Sounders,Tokyo.

DAS, B.M. (1981a)"Eccentrically Loaded Surface Footing on Sand

Layer Resting on Rough Rigid Base",Transp.Res.Rec. 827,pp.41-44.

DAS, B.M. (1981b)," Bearing Capacity of Eccentrically Loaded

Surface Footing on Sand", Soils and Foundations, 21, NO.1, pp.
115-119.

DAS, B.M.(1985),"Advanced Soil Mechanics" Mc Graw Hill, New York.

DE BEER,E.E.(1961)" Discussions", Proc. 5th ICSMFE, Paris, Vol.3,

pp. 205-208.

DE BEER,E.E. (1965) ,"Bearing Capacity and Settlement of Shallow

Foundations on Sand", Proc. Symp. on Bearing Capacity and
Settlement of Foundation, Duke University, pp. 15-33.

EASTWOOD, W.(1955),"The Bearing Capacity of Eccentrically Loaded

Foundation on Sandy Soils", The Structural Engineer, Vol. XXXIII,
No.6, pp. 181-197.

FEDA, J.,(1961)," Research on the Bearing Capacity of Loose Soil"

Proc. 5th ICSMFE, Paris, Vol.l, pp. 635-642.

HANSEN, B. and CHRISTENSEN, N.H. (1969)." Theoretical Bearing

Capacity of very Shallow Footings", Proc. ASCE, J. of SMFE, Divn.
Vol. 95, SM 6, pp. 1568-72.

HARR, M.E. (1966), "Foundation of Theoretical Soil Mechanics "

Mc Graw Hill.
 127

JUMIKIS, A.R.(1961)," The Shape of Rupture Surface in Dry Sand",

Proc. 5th ICSMFE, Paris, Vol.l, pp. 693-698.

KANANYAN, A.S.(1970)," Experimental Investigation of the

Stability of Foundation Beds of Finite Thickness", Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, pp. 303-307.

KIRKPATRICK,W.M.,ANDRAWES,K.Z., UZUNER,B.A. and VAFAEIAN,M.(1979)

"Rupture surfaces and Failure Mechanisms in Sand Mass",Proc. 6th
Asian Regional Conf. on SMFE,Singapore, pp 301-304.

KIRKPATRICK,W.M. and YANIKIAN,H.A.(1975) "Side Friction in Plane

Strain Tests", Proc.,4th South East Asian Conference on Soil
Engineering,Kualalumpur. Sec. 3, pp 16-23

KIRKPATRICK,W.M. and UZUNER,B.A.(1975)," Measurement Errors in

Model Foundation Tests",Istanbul Conf,on SM, Vol. 2, pp 98-106.

KOTTER, F. (1903),"Die Bestimmung des Druckes an Gekrummten

Gleitflechen",eine Aufgabe aus der Lehre Vom Erddruck, Berl. Ber.

LAMBE, T.W. and WHITMAN, R.V.(1969) "Soil Melchanics", John Wiley

and Sons, New York.

LEE, I .K. (1965), "Foundation Subjected to Moment", Proc. 6th

ICSMFE, Vol. 2, pp. 108-112.

LEE, I.K., WHITE, W., and INGLES, O,G. (1983) "Geotechnical

Engineering", Pitman, London.

LUNDGREN, H. and MORTENSEN, K. (1953), "Determination by the

Theory of Plasticity of the Bearing Capacity of Continuous
Footing on Sand",Proc.,3rd ICSMFE, Switzerland, Vol.l,pp.409-412.

MAHMOUD, M.A.(1985), "Continuously Penetrating Bodies in Granular

Materials", Ph.D. Thesis, University of Southampton.

MANDEL, J.and SALECON, J.(1972) "Force Portante d'un sol sur une
Assise Rigide (etude theorigue)".Geotechnique 22, NO.1, pp 79-93.
 MEYERHOF, G.G.(1948) "An Investigation of the Bearing Capacity of
Shallow Footings on Dry Sand" Proc. 2nd ICSMFE, Rotterdam, Vol.l.

MEYERHOF, G.G.(1950)" The Bearing Capacity of Sand", Ph.D.Thesis,

University of London.

MEYERHOF,G.G.(1951)"The Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Foundations"

Geotechnique, Vol. 2, pp 301-332.

MEYERHOF, G.G. (1953) "The Bearing Capacity of Foundations under

Eccentric and Inclined Loads", Proc. 3rd ICSMFE, Switzerland,
Vol. 1., pp 440-445.

MEYERHOF, G.G. (1955) "Influence of Roughness of Base and Ground

Water Conditions on the Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Foundations"
Geotechnique 5.

MEYERHOF, G.G. (1963) "Some Recent Research on the Bearing

Capacity of Foundations", Canadian Geotech. Jnl. 1, No.1, pp 16-
26.

MEYERHOF, G.G. (1974) "Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Footings on

Sand Layer Overlying Clay", Canadian Getech. Journal, Vol. 11,
No.2, pp. 223-229.

MILOVIC, D.M. (1965) "Comparison between

the Calculated and
Experimental Values of the Ultimate Bearing Capac ity" , Proc. 6th
ICSMFE, Montreal, Vol. 2. pp 142-144.

MILOVIC, D.M., TOURNIER J. (1972)," Comportment de foundations

reposant sur une couche compressible d'epaisseur Iimitee", Le
comportement des sols avant Ia rputure, No. special Bull. Liasis,
LCPC, Paris, pp. 303-307.

MILOVIC, D.M., TOUZOT, G. and TOURNIER, J.P.(1970) "Stresses and

Displacements in an Elastic Layer due to Inclined and Eccentric
Load over a Rigid Strip", Geotechnique 20, NO.3, PP 231-252.

I
 129
MUHS, H. (1963) "Ueber die zulassign Belastung nicht bindigen
Boden", Mitt. der, Degebo, Heft 16, Berlin, pp 105-121.

MUHS, H. (1965) "On tne Phenomenon of Progress ive Rupture in

Connection with the Failure Behaviour of Footing in Sand",
Discussion, 6th ICSMFE, Montreal, Vol. 3, pp 410-421.

PFEIFLE, T.W. and DAS, B.M. (1979) "Bearing Capacity of Surface

Footings on Sand Layer Resting on a Rigid Rough Base", Soils and
Foundations, Vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 1-11.

PRAKASH, S.and SARAN, S.(1971) "Bearing Capacity of Eccentrically

Loaded Footings", Proc. ASCE, Jnl. SM & F. Divn., SM1, pp 95-117.

PRAKASH, S. and SARAN, S. (1973) "A New Method of Designing

Eccentrically Loaded Rigid Footings",Indian Geotech. Jnl.pp.1-11.

PRANDTL, L. (1921) "Hauptaufsatze Uber die Eindringungsfestigkeit

(Harte) plastischer Baustaffe und die Festigkeit von Schneiden",
Zeit, Ang. Math, Mech., Vol. 1. No. 1.

SCHMARTMANN, J.H.(1970):Static Cone to Compute Static Settlement

over sand", Proc. ASCE, Vol. 96, NO.SM 3.

SCHULTZE, E. (1961) "Distribution of Stress Beneath a Rigid

Foundation", Proc. 5th ICSMFE, Paris, Vol. 1, pp 807-813.

SOKOLOVSKI, V. V. (1960) "Statics of Soi 1 Medi a" , Butterworths,

London.

SOKOLOVSKI, V.V.(1965) "Statics of Granular Media", Pergaman

Press.

TENNEKOON, B.L.(1970) "Stresses and Strains Induced by a Strip

Footing on Sand", Ph.D. Thesis, Cambridge University.

TERZAGHI, K. (1943) "Theoretical Soil Mechanics", John Wiley &

Sons, New York

 130
TERZAGHI, K. and PECK, R.B.(1948) "Soil Mechanics in Engineering
Practice", John Wiley and Sons, New York.

UZUNER, B.A .. (1975) "Centrally and Eccentrically Loaded Strip

Foundations on Sand", Ph.D. Thesis, (Vol. I & II) University of
Strathclyde, Glasgow.

VAFAEIAN, M.(1978) "Strip Foundations on Sand under Centrally and

Eccentrically Inclined Loads", Ph.D. Thesis, (Vol. I & II),
University of Strathclyde, Glasgow.

VESIC, A.S. (1973) "Analysis of Ultimate Loads of Shallow

Foundations" , Proc. ASCE, J. of the SM & FE Div., Vol. 99, SM 1,
pp 45-73.

VYALOV, S.S. (1967) "Bearing Capacity of Weak Soil Layer with

Underlying Rigid Base", Proc. 3rd Asian Conf. Soil Mech. Haifa,
pp 245-247.

WONG, F.K. (1981) "Inclined and Eccentrically Loaded Square

Foundations on Sand", Ph.D. Thesis, (Vols. I & II), University of
Strathclyde, Glasgow.

YAMAGUCHI, H., KIMURA, T and FUJIL, N.(1977) "On the Scale Effect
of Footing in Dense Sand", Proc. 9th ICSMFE, Vol. I, pp 795-798.