Foundolon Erquuming Randlod _ rapa are eer tie : Bam tadrand Ruawheld ter 1 Tus Yak BEARING CAPACITY OF SHALLOW re enc FOUNDATIONS ‘O25 ALEKSANDAR S. VESIC, D.Sc. ‘3.A. Jones Professor and Chairman Depertmont of Civil Engineering, Duke University 4.1 INTRODUCTION ‘com in design: the’structural failure of the foundation and the bearing capacity failure of the supporting soils ‘The designer of a shallow foundation must ensure that the “The structural failuze of the foundation may occur if the foundation meets basic considerations of safety, depend- foundation itself is not properly designed to sustain the Im ibility, functional utility, and economy. Specifically, the posed stresses. For example, an improperly proportioned foyemest of these are the requbements of adequate depth, oF inadequately sot/ord Toot er elated cone 5. tolerable settlements, and safety against (alure, sion, compression, of shear, 2s any other reinforced con- 1 oe reauizement of adequate depth centers around en- crete structural member, An improperly cast or inade- vironmental influences which could affect adversely the quately reinforced concrete pile may be broken during Toundation performance, The foundation must be deep handling and driving: it may also be broken by excessive CRougit with respect to the depth of frost penetration and lateral loads for which it was not designed. A freestanding depth of seasonal volume changes in the soll to prevent steel or wooden pile may buckle just as any other column, { excessive movetnents resulting from these influences. The particularly if it is subjected to combined axial forces and foundation must be deep enough to-exclude the possibility moments. All foundations must possess a conventional 1 tad me a Yay gaint sais, These and is So ee ney ceeesl'to arid dicual ine we aomel : aoe i oe ae ae gabon trating csc tae of the tle Cone | Ey ce a oe ie tpt Pa 3 sabes | sion of this subject see, for example, Terzaghi and Peck, ‘to a vertical static or transient load Q. If the vertical dis- a eae ae set ne oeLy tease alo an nO acts eal 9 ae scatman fe te ee tte cuanea Gadi ames: | must be limited in order not to cause slructural distress or footing; the composition of the supporting soil, end the excessive tilting Of the superstructure and they are also character, rate, and frequeney of the loading. Normally, “often limited by the serviccabilty requirements of the the'eurve-will indieate the ulllmate foad: Qg that the foun- Superstructure: for example, etane tracks and many ma- dation can support. This eansbe:either:aypeakstoad, 28 | See eee Gale of tole Ut, “The tool selilments shown by varyest and 2 in Fig. 3.1, or aloud at which a aust be limited because they invariably induce differentia ‘constantefinat.rate. of penetration is achieved, as shown by illements, cen ia apparently hornogeneous sol coud: cue 3 : TET Se onea alte by considerations ofsuch "he average presure in toni or kafem® over te cat. 3 | Tete ae eee ie taacent ullage water and sewage tal ata dof the foundation, coresponding to he ule rere tnatete "The methods of etcination af ste. tate toad Op, i caledwlimatepretireant wil Be de ‘Sim tod ihe magnitude of settlement tolerances are de. oted By go. Dy Ait ‘Sesed in Chapter tes “The reuicycnt. of safely against lle f cantered \, around {wo principal inde of fate that may be of con aYad Foundation Engineering Handbook - 2 o Load G82, toa 9, 3 10 Is ‘Setement w/B,perint » Fig. 3.1 Loadsettement relstionshipe of shallow footing. All foundations should be built so as to possess a certain safety against bearing capacity failure. The sufe or allow. able pressure qq i dofined a3 0, Pe 62 where Fy is a safety factor. Similarly, the load Qy = Qo/y Bs called allowable load. ‘The following sections are concerned mainly with de- termination of the ultimate pressure gg. The procedures for selection of safety factors will be discussed toward the end of the chapter, 3.2 MODES OF FAILURE It is known from observation of behavior of foundations subjected to load that bearing capacity failure occurs ust ally’ a shear failure of the soil supporting the footing. ‘The three principal modes of shear failure under founda. tions have been described in the literature at general shear faiture (Caquot, 1934; Buisman, 1935; Tereaghi, 1943), focal shear failure (Terzaghi, 1943; De Beer and Vesié, 1958), and: punching shear failure (De Beer and Vesié, 1958; Vesig, 19630). General shear failure is characterized by the existence of ‘9 wolldefined failure pattern consisting of a continuous slip surface from one edge of the footing to the ground surface (Fig. 3.2a), Un stress-controlled conditions, under which most foundations operate (and, pechaps, ure is sud den and catastrophic. Unless the structure prevents the footings from rotating, the failure is also accompanied by substantial Ulting of the foundation (Pig. 3.3). In strain- controlled conditions (oceurring, for example, when the load Is transmitted by jacking) @ visible decrease of toad necessary to produce footing movement after failure may be observed (Fig, 3.22). A tendency for bulging of adjacent soil can be recorded through most of the loading process on SS i i ‘onatondee | ea y Fla. 32 Modes of bearing capscty fale, (After Ves, 19632). Both sides of the footing, although the fina! soil collapse ‘occurs only on one side. Tm contrast with the above-described failure mode, punching shear failure is characterized by a failure pattern which is not easy to observe (Fig. 3.20). As the load. creases, the vertical movement of the footing is eccompa- tied by compression of the soil immediately unde Continued penetration of the footing is made possi vertical shear around the footing perimeter. The soil out- Side the loaded area remains relatively uninvolved end there is practically no movement of the soil on the sides of the footing. Both the vertical and the horizontal equilibrium of the footing are maintained, Except for sudden small move- iments ("jerks") of the foundation in the vertical direction, there is neither visible collapse nor substantial tilting. Con. tinuous increase in vertical load is needed to maintain foot. ing movement in the vertical direction, ‘Finally, local shear failure is also character ture pattern which is clearly defined only imme low the foundation (Fig. 3.2b). This pattern consists of a wedge and slip surfaces, which start at the edges of the footing just as in the case of general shear failure, ‘There is visible fendeney of soil bulging on the sides of the foot However, the vertical compression under the footing is sit- nificant and the slip surfaces end somewhere in the soil mass, Only after a considerable vertical displacement of the Tooting (Say up to one-half the width or diameter of the footing) may the slip surfaces appear atthe ground surface Even then there is no catastrophic collapse or tilting of the footing which remains deeply embedded, mobilizing the resistance of deeper soil sirata. Thus, local shear fallure re- tains some characteristics of both general shear and punch- ing modes of failure, represénting truly a transitional mode. ‘A few photographs illustrating the characteristic failure modes are shown in Figs. 3.3 through 39. Figure 3. taken from Tschebotarioff (1951), shows the view of a Conde de Freitas‘Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations 123 ig, 3.8 Beating capacity failure ofa tl foundation, (Fsom Techeboteroff, 1951.) Toiture pater under 3 ractangear founds ‘on tho surfece of loose send (0, = #88). (From De Beer and Vesié, 1958.) Fig. 94 General shear failure petten under 9 rectangular footing ‘on dante sand (2, ~ 10038). (From De Beer end Vesé, 1968.) ‘rain elevator after ge clay Under its foundation. In a similar case described in detail in the Hiterature (White, 1953; Peck and Bryant, 1953), the structure, with its foundation, tilled more than 60° at col- lapse of the underlying soi, The later bulged some 12 feet above the intially horizontal ground surface. Thanks to extreme rigidity of the conerete structure, there was relt- tively little structural damage. (The elevator was later Suaightened into a vertical position and put to normal use.) Howeves, another elevator which failed under romewhat similar circumstances was practially destroyed during col. lapse (Nordlund and Deere, 1970). Figures 3.4, 3.5, and 3.6 show the three characteristic modes of failure, as ob- Served on carefully. prepared models of long rectangiar plates resting initially on the surface of dry sand of differ: - ent densities (De Beer and Vesié, 1958), Figuies 3.7, 3.8 Fig, 3.8 Local shoar future gattan under a rectangular footing on and 3.9 show the punching shear failures under small plates medium dense sand (0, = 47%). (From D2 Bear and Vesé, 1958.) on dense, dry sand, 05 observed, respectively, in conditions Aes gece Mats SIAP 214008‘ep rectangular founds Wom in dance sand (D, = 90%, B = 1.5 in, O= 151). (From Vesié, rc) cmbedment (Vesié, 1963a), very rapid loading 1965) or presence of soft clay layer underneath, Which mode of failure i to be expected in any particular ‘ease depends on a number of factors that have been only panially explored so far. It-can be sald generally that the Fig, 38 Punching shear feluce under a dynomialy loaded Bnch- quate looting on dense sand (0, = 1008), Fale necutred fn 12 tmaee ata dialacamant of 0: in. (From Poplin, 1955.) Fig. 3.9 Punching sheer faite of a vctangilr footing on dense snd underain by soft ely. (From Vest, 1870.) failure mode depends on the relative compressibility of the soil in the particular geometrical and loading conditions. {f ‘he soll is practically incompressible and has a finite shear- ing strength, it will fallin general shear. On the other hand, if'a soil of given strongth is very compressible, i will fal in pponching shear, Thus, as shown in Fig. 3.4,'a footing on the surface of very dense sand will normally fail in general shear, while the same footing on the surface of very loose sand (Fig. 3.6) will fal in punching shear. However, itis important to understand that the soil type alone does aot etormine the mode of failure. For example, the mentioned Tooting on very dense sand can also fail in punching shea if the Footing Is placed at greater depth (Vesié, 1963a; see Figs, 3.7 and 3.10) or if i ie loaded by a transient, dynamic load (Heller, 1964; Vesié, Banks, and Woodard, 1965; see 3.8).* Similarly, the same footing will fallin punching, in by any com pressible statum such as loose sand o soft clay (Fig. 3.9) y Ao. a footing on sated, normaly convotdsted lay ‘ai fn in ganeal shear FIs oud so that mo woke “ange can fae plac: wole may fal n punching ser itis Toad stow enough that sl "okime change cam fake place nthe sll under fose fle these erence in alle modes sre now reson- ably well unentore, thee are at prerent mo general me imei erera tat eon use for Petion of mode of ‘ter bailare of soils londed by footings The only rational farameter proposed so for for calation of relate com | fresty ot sal mses under Toad te the ity indes, Fedetned 98 ee ‘Thore ate sacons to Belive that the mentioned footing on very denae snd would not fal general shear Wits diameter were In- freaaed beyond cotaa mit. We sh ‘essing sate fet,ean dey fsa, ene st ube see A 1 ri L 1 TB ora pec Fa BAER daE torn eta one Fig. 3.10 Modes of failure of model footings in sand. (Atter Ves, 19632, as mould by De Bose, 1870 See errand here @ is the shear madulus and ¢ and $ are strength pa- Tamoters of the soil (Vesié, 1963b, 1965b). This index, ap- ‘easing ia solutions of the problem of expansion of cavities Fran infinite solid, is associated with the assumed ideal laste plastic behavior of soil. To take care also of the aver- See volumetrie strain 4 in the plastic zone it has beon sug. sified (Vesie et al, 1965) that the value given by Eq. 3.3 Should be reduced to fp, ™ Solr, where ly @3) wo 30! Uninate tos Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations 128 1 Stara It is known that te rigidity index varies with stress level tnd with the character of loading (Vesié, 1965a). A hieht value of Trp, #8y over 250, definitely implies a retsvely [Avmnpressble soil mas, whereas alow value, say 10, im: vices reletvely compressible soil mass. Nevertheless, in The'absence of theoretical solutions for an elastic-lestic fold, there is no. way yet, other than semiempirical, to wells use of index Jy in predicting the failure mode of shale ve footings. "Some possibilities along these lines are out sed tater a this chapter in discussions of influence of soit compressibility Bay 33 ULTIMATE LOAD CRITERIA From the preceding discussion it is apparent that the “Tail ‘re of 4 foaded footing is clearly defined only in the case ‘of general shear failure. In such a case the peak, ultimate Toad is reached simulteneously with the appearance of slip fines at the ground surface, which is followed by founds tion collapse and a considerable Dulging ofthe soil mass on tthe side of the footing. In contrast with this, in the case of {wo other fallure modes (local and punching shear) the point of failure is lest clearly defined and often difficult to establish, Tn the case of punching or local shear failure of footings fon sand surface it has been observed (De Deer and Vesié, 1958) that a "frst failure” characterized by a sudden, large latte deformation of Bie soll under the footing, may oc- Tather eaty in the loading stage. However, to observe this “first failure” itis essent Toading. As most loading tests ate pérforni ydraul any cortainty and thus has limited practical value. ‘A very tertile ultimate load criterion that can be rec- ‘ommended for general vae defines the ultimate load. the. Goint where the slope of the load-settlement curve first Boi rove OF & lead, minimum valus(Vesie, 19638; JRA RII}S Another very consent ultanate load ex y the use of nc ‘ae prose fi 0 inate plsteson snd Base diameter, 618 "Tors at ntiee| ‘TeaNo. 21? en se oe 88D O66, 83? Ost Cs ig 311 Ulinay ond extcon bare on minimum slope of Toadaatement cure, (er Vase, 86982 ressandza Cone de reat Prof Al Se ro At, LABS vege de Cousroco Chil SO ka scot utaion SOF Myfaw Siar 2145001 Sacks, this “fist failure” cannot be noticed with lus to have a stress-controlled Cwch~ bu ayig. 342 Utimote fond ertsion bed on plot of fp loed wf ntement (After De Beer, 1067.) terion, suggested in recent years by Christiaens (De Beer. Teeny, defines the ultimate load at the polnt of break of AEST IC may be preferible to establish some other ert con of extical setilement, Such a criterion is no doubt ished by. the baste philosophy of foundation design, ser considers excessive settlement as failure of the foundation. ‘is thus of special interest to know the niagnitude of settlements of footings needed to mobilize ultimate loads. ‘Guuemations in saturated clays (Skempton, 1951) indicate Ge these settlements ray be about 3 to 7 percent of the Feeting width for surface footings, increasing up to 15 per: footing Woop footings. For footings in sand somewhat fisher values are found, ranging from 5 to 15 percent for Horace footing an a ih 28 pecan a sp ona {Muts and Kahl, 1954; De Beer and Vest (9030; De Beer, 1967). As shown in Fig. rea eam om outs” oma _o9 on ‘pute Fig. 3.13 Ultimate settlements of sutace footings, (After De Beer, 1967.) ie ina Log/Tox plot (Pig-9-12)- Both Tra the voaing test be arsed to pears to bea general tendency of inerease of ultimate sete Pear ef ineased size of footings (De Beer, 196: 1960) 62) dering these facts, unless a cleasy defined ultimate 1005 melted werved eater, it 18 advisable to carry load tn ots a a a sole tests on footie al fo at least 25-gescent of the footing fo setlements a pk an a be etched” Width minty i is expeent to adopt fit of erical Timon, such os 0 gazant of he fares he {seers Deed often propored and used for ven | les; ee Vest, 1967.) 3.4 COMPUTATION OF ULTIMATE LOAD “The computation of ultimate load for a shallow footing Mating om soll represents a problem of elastic-plastic equk ‘principle, be solved for at least the {ally symmettic cases. The foremost ing acceptable solutions lies undoubtedly sar election of a mathsmatical model of soil Yehavior oF in the inate (atrese-strain-time) relationships. in spite Of ie Sy improved capabilities for solution of boundary value setae of this kind, the theary of bearing capacity is stil Freer most exclusively to solutions developed for the etsastic sold of the clasical Theooy of Plstiity. As eeresthis golld is assumed to exhibit no deformation cao mever prior to shear failure and a plastic flow at ct stant stress al Thus, the capabilities of theor sam cedition of the ultimate load axe, strictly’ speaking FauaRea at presont to relatively inconipresible soils orto the hero shea falace mode, However it i rather common serefettice to use th available solutions for compressible pre ell, with posible eduction for the effects of sarght 7 and shear stcengtl properties defined by a sti Meith envelope, with strength characteristics ¢ and Jing Oectigse strain curve of a rigidplastic body, shown in Tig. .14b, To be determined is the maximum unit load 4 Gg /BL which this foundation can support, Boece this problem, the following simplifiations are usually made: i shearing resistance ofthe overburden soll (alone be, Fig. 14a) is neelected ‘atthe: fection between the overburden soil and the fomuistion (alone ad; Fig. 3,142) a5 well as between the roamparden and supporting soll (along ab, Fig. 3.143) is replected; seine’ length J, is assumed to be large in comparison with the width # of the foundation. > set yor terms, the overburden sol is replaced by a Uni- fornly. distdbuted surcharge @ = 7D. At the some time plane strain conditions are assumed. “Siapifeations (a) and (b) are justified in most cases and arenes on the safe side, The overburden soi is usually are atwy® racked, white the foundation is placed by exer wee oid Dackriling. Simplification (c), equivalent to tation tne foundation to be an infinite stip of width B Heit stetly speaking for LB > 10 end practically Monin The corrections to be introduced for L/# <3 por Mt pes other than a rectangle will be discussed later. “rhe problem, formulated a5 shown in Fig, 4, has been solved by the methods of the Theory f Plasticity. The yeFig, 3:14 The problem of bearing capaci of salto footings. basic solution avaitebte (Prandtl, 1921; Reissner, 1924) in- ‘ieates that the failure pattern should consist of three dines: 1, Ul, and (Il, Zone Tis an active Rankine zon “hich pushes the radial Prandtl zone If sidoways and the Jassie Rankine zone JL in an upward direction. The lower Boundary ACDE of the displaced soil mass is composed of {wo stralght lines AC and DE, inclined at 45° + 6/2 and 45° ~ 9/2, respectively, to the horizontal. The shape of the ‘connecting curve CD depends on the angle @ and on the ratio ¥8/a. For 7B/q ~ 0 (“weightless soil”) the curve be- ‘Somer a logarithmic splzal which for 7 0 degenerates into Grecle. In the general case (720) the curve lies between {spiral and a circle, as long 25 60. For 8 frictionless soil (@ 20) the curve is always a circle. ‘All these findings have (een confirmed experimentally (De Beer and Vesis, 1958), though the angle g may be slightly larger than 45° # 4/2, at east for long rectangular footings on the surface of sand. "A closed analytical solution of this problem, as posed, thas not yet been found and probably will not be found, ex- Cept for special cases, For Weightlss soil (y= 0), Prandtl land Reissner have found that: 49 = No + 98g Bs where Nand Ny are dimensionless bearing capacity factors, defined by Mg = e799 tan? (nl +612) Me = Mq~ Weare Bo ‘The numerical values of these factors are given in Toble 3.1 and shown graphically in Fig. 3.15. ‘For cohesionless soil without overburden (€ = 0,9 = 0) it Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations 127 TABLE 3.1. BEARING CAPACITY FACTORS Me My My Male ae ROE aE eee Chee te e @ si4 100 0200.00 4 838 108) 020002 2 563 20 21 3 580 131 022 4 Gre 13 923, 5 648 157 028 8 8a 12 028 7 Tie 88 028 38 7s 208 027 D792 328 028 10 835 2a7 030 mga oat m 328207 032 3 8B 326 033 1037359 038 1% tops aga 036 re er 037 nga aT 030 oat 1050 40032 0 aaa 80 a2 036 me MBs 840 as 088 a az 707 oa a8 B wes 782 bas 40 % 1805 865 04s Oa? 2 932900 60045 2% © 20721068, ost 047 Bm NAS oss 049 nm moe 13:20 Oss ast me © po 1472 osr 0st mas (ose 089085 3 gaa 1840 oer 088 a1 eT 2069 0639.80 a ao 2B 06s 082 3 aes 26.09 ons 085 Be. 0a 070 (987 3s 4629.30 07 070 386050775 075 073 37 bes 292 O77 075 mas 4809 02 (O78 3 a7 596 082 2 at 64.20 085 4 3857890 085, 4 9n71 85.38 ost ‘105.11 90.02 094 4% oMea7 115.31 oa7 sas 1348 101 4% 21018881 108 a see W721 108 19026 magn ve 9 9320581 ‘ so e589 319.07 2 ieee eee id ye can be shown that: : ao ™ 4 1BN, BD where Ny is again a dimensionless bearing capacity factor ‘hich cal be evaluated only numerically. ‘This factor varies Sharply with angle Y.‘The aumerical values shown by dashed lines in Fig, 3.15 are taken from an analysis made dy Caquot and Kérisel (1953) under assumption that Y = 43° + g/2._It can be shown (Vesié, 1970) that these values of #7, can be approximated with an error onthe sale side (not Sxczeding 10 percent for 15° vepe ce Crestrto Ct Sipe vi eseaaPlteice Mow SIAPE 30f ceed el . vol <_aundation Engineering Handbook o 18 Theoretical slip patterns under eecenttle and inetined $ by the expression: a Prax = Qtan 6+ A'ey 1 where A" is the effective bearing area of the foundation, while c, and ¢ ropresent, respectively, the adhesion and the angle of fiction belween the soil and the footing. (It should be noted that the presently available evidence ‘Schultze and Horn, 1967—indicates that 5 = @y and that the adhesion in soft clays is equal to thelr undrained shear strength.) ; To find The ultimate vertical component Qo. that wi ‘cause a general shear failure, an analysis simor to that per Formed for vertical, central load must be performed. Such ‘an analysis discloses, as before, the existence of three zones in the soll under the footing, the size of which may be ap- preciably reduced with the incresss of inclination and ec-* Centsicity of the load (Fig, 3.16a, 6). Zone I is an elastic ‘wedge, ABC, which is triangular in shape as long as the load is central (Schultze, 1952; Sokolowskii, 1960). For eccen- ie loads, the AC side of the wedge assumes the shape of 3 cele whose center coincides with the center of rotation of the footing (Fig, 3.16a, b) (Brinch Hansen, 1953, 1955). AS tong as the Toad eccentricity e is smaller than'B/4 the rotation center remains on the side of the footing opposite theload (Fig. 3.162). For = 8/4 the centers exactly under the Tooting edge, moving, for lurger eccentricities, further {toward the axis of the footing and causing uplift of the less loaded side of the footing (Fig. 3.160). (The lat tion is, for obvious reasons, to be avoided in design provide adequate safety against lifting of the footing ed itis normally recommended that the eecentrcity e not ceed 8/6). ‘Theoretical and experimental investigations show that it \ is on the safe side to take account of the eccentricity by } intioducing a fictitious effective widih B= B = 2e of the \ footing, instead of its actual width (De Bees, 1949; Meyor- pry be hof, 1953). At the same te, it may be found convenient to lattoduce the influence of the loud inclination by multi- plying the individval terms ofthe Dearing capacity equation BAI by the lnclnaion factors Se, yt by (Schultze, 19525) Biinch Hansen, 1961). Thas the bering capacity equation for the general ease of eccentric and inclined loading ean be vwiten in the form: Pas = ehekckeat Wakatart PIN Fabat “where £' = L ~ 2ey, is the effective length of the footing, in- Trouced to take into account posible eccentricity ez, of the load i the longitudinal duction Based on rigorous analyses forthe planet ‘of a footing on weightless soil Joaded by a centra food (Fg 30b), Brinch Hansen (1961) propose the fol Towing approximate expression for inclination Tactor fq From the theorem of corsespondence one finds also (De Beer and Ladanyi, 1961) % G13) ean 1-Sar Set Noam} 1 can be easily shown (Vests, 1970) that, for $= 0, the lt terexpression becomes Gas) Perea tas ew, G19) Similar analyses for 4 footing on the surface of @ soll with weight (Sokolovskii, 1960) suggest the following val- “tus Tor the load inclination factor &y¢? ? Su" |! oypivecoedl “These values fe considerably higher than thote p= gon by rach onsen (1961) and ony shy higher Mean” valu resin om Ine latest Computtins at the'panah Ceotcchtet Institute Bench Hanson, 1970) ‘Tey tein faraicerent ith valle experimental to is subect (Gate, (365), ee exvresions 4 Thrgh 3:17 have been dared oy shouldbe apie, sly tren, aly to theese ofa vey long foundation ated on y inane fonds in the duction ft shoter aie. 2 of te founttion Mower, the cis of fads ince in ate Mictuan'at eng sie fof the founintion ot cal, ist getter pace interee, The experimental videnes ter tud sabjee coming agely fom BEGEDO tots with IMgratle odes of sao footings on sand (Mus a Wess oo nus that er et dnc diference In the Wad fockaton sets nthe toes. Thue Reon’ of ton inclnation as well ste io B/E Of te ‘itor the footing nae eft on atinaion factor. Pen ing more eted vestaaton, It sugested (Vee, Iho) tat expesiony 314 and 3:17 berapaced by aoe aie rsa Gro ‘The newest, lnge-ssile mode expetiments indicate that this widkh ‘eduction i somewhat conserve (Mohs and Webs, 1969, Dosken, 1969). Gan (3.14@) 7. t= [\- grate] ON See at aera eae ad (3.18a) +8 ‘5 long as the inclination of the toad isin the direction of shorter side 2 of the foundation. In the contrary case, ‘when the toad inclination isin tho direetion of longer side L fof the foundation, the exponent in expressions 3.14a and 3.17 becomes ~: Met 2+ LB ay HEE 3.186) Consistent with 3.148 and 3.15, expression 3.16, valid for 0, then becomes: me sea wnt wt e169) ‘The terfactors for other values of ¢ can be found, as be- tor fom a Ter tbaaton is inthe direction n, makig an anle Oy with Ge dretion ofthe Tong side a the foun dalton fs sugested to interpolate bebween the exponats inp and mp an sec for anys an exponent deterined fm amy = mz 608" Oy + my sin? Gy (3.18) For shapes other than rectangle, the effective founda- tion area may be determined 25 that of the equivalent rec- tangle, constructed so that its geometric eenter coincides ‘with the load center and that it follows as closely as possi- ble the adjacent contour of the setual base area. A few ex- amples, after Brinch Hansen (1961), are shown in Fig. 3.17 EXAMPLE 3.3: For the footing discussed in Example 3.1, find the ultimate bearing capacity in conditions (a) and (6)'r the footing reaction acts 3 fect off centor in the direo- tion of the short side B (ey =3 ft) and ifthe inclination of the reaction is in the same direction, “Assume that the hori- zontal component of the reaction is equal to half of the Ultimate valno given by Ea. 3.12. Condition (a): Tffective width of the footing: B' = 28 ~ (2)(3) = 22 ft Horizontal reaction: P=0.5 Fyax * (0.5)(22)(84)(0.22) = 203.3 ton Exponent mp (Hq. 3.184): mg = (2+ (1/31/01 + (1/3)1 = 175 x foal ig. 3.17 Equivalent and effective foundation sexs. Utter Brinch Haneen, 1061.) Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations 131 Inclination factors (Eqs. 3.14 and 3.163) faa Vikas = 1 10.759(203.3916406.6)65.14)1 = 0.83 Uitimete bearing pressure (ee figures from Bxample 3.1): 4 = (1.219083) (0.46)(1) = 1.00 + 0.46 = 1.46 ton Condition (b): ‘Assume tun 8 = tan gg = 0.42, (0.5)(0.42)9) = 0.210 (0.21) = 0.66 (Ea, 3.14a) Fe sGeoe ta 9.66)/(18.05)(0.42)] = 0.62 (Fg. 3.15) =(1- 0.21)" = 0.52 (Ea, 3.172) (0.72}(0.62) + (4.57(0.66) + (2,14)(0.52) OAS +3.02+ 111 = 4.58 tonffte ‘As in Example 3.1 this value represents the upper limit of ‘bearing capsety under the assumption of an incompressible sl % EXAMPLE 3.4. For the same footing find the ultimate ‘eating capacity if the reaction acts 6.5 feet off the direetion of the long sie, and ifthe inclinatior sume ditection. Assume that the horizontal component is equal to the ultimate value given by Bq. 3.12. Condition (8) Efeetive length of the foating: 1! = 84 ~ (2)(6.5)= 71 ft P= Pryay (28)(71)(0.22) = 4374 ton Exponent my, (Eq. 3.180): mz =(2#3)((1 + 3)= 1.253 $e = 1 = [(1.25)(437.4)(437.4)(5.14)] = 0.76 do = (1:21)(0.76) + (0.46)(1) = 1.38 ton/tt? Condition (b) P= 0.42Q;tq = (1~ 0.42)! «0.51 fe (T= 9.511118.05)(0.42)1 = 0.45 G ses os 5 = (0.72)(0.45) + (4.57000.51) + (2,14)(0.29) = 0.32'4.2.33 + 0.62 = 3.27 tony? ‘As in Example 3.1 this value represents the upper limit of bearing capecity under the assumption of an incompressible sol. 3.7 EFFECT OF BASE TILT AND GROUND SURFACE SLOPE ‘There are situations in engineering practice where the foun dation base may be inclined to facilitate transmission of Tanger horizontal reactions. Also, faily often the ground, surface below which the thallow foundation i placed is inclined with respect to the horizontal. Both situations are shown in Fig, 3-18, where the angle of bate tilt is denoted up O Bl © ‘Alessandea Conde de Freitas ft a De Cr ve Sarena+ 4328 * words. As in the case of Faiindation Engineering Hondbook by @ and the ground surface slope by w, positive down- inclination, it has been found convenient to introduce these two effects by multiplying ‘the individual terms ofthe bearing capacity equation 3.11 with bate ie factors andfor ground slope factor, ane ous to fectors in Eq, 3.13 (Iivorstor, 1970; Brinch Hi sen, 1970)._ On the bois of analyses performed by Meyer. thot (1953) for weightes soi and Brinch Hansen (1970) for surface footings on sol with weight, the following joint ex: pression for tit factors may be proposcd (Vest, 1970) See = Soe 2 = a tan gy B19) ‘To find Ser one can use, os before, expression 3.15, The limiting valve of fr for p= Ois Ser = 1 = [alte + 2)1 3.20) where a is expressed in radians. Expression 3.19 is very Sccurate for fy, and somewhat on the sate side Tor kyr It foe the advantage of ysing the correct limit al for fer forg=0 (Eq. 4.2) or ground sope factors Brinch Hansen (1970) points cout that Sg vais with tan coin exactly the same man Sue toineirion factor fey sanceate PNG EPs ot §), It isalo posible to show that, fo al practical pa. (poses, Say “Sge- We can thus adopt Sag > Sy = (N= tan co]? The cohesion fector fc cam be found, as before, pression 3.13. The limiting value of this actor for 6 Ois Sep = 1~ Rota +291 22) I should be noted, however, that the existence of ground slope in the ease of frictionless soil (8 = 0) requites the ad: dition ‘of the thied (weight) term in the bearing capacity equation, It can be shown (Wesié, 1970) that the Ny-vale for this term is negative end equal to Ny (237 Expressions 3.19 through 3.24 can be used, theoreti cally, 35 tong as == 2sinw a <45 and < 45° It is also required that 32a o | the calculation of depth factors is fraught with uncertainty, requiring rather arbitrary assumptions about stress conditions in the overburden soil, Experimental data are difficult to interpret properly, as the sale and compres. lity effects (to be discussed in the next section) inter ‘ene along with uncertainties about exact stress conditions fn the surrounding soil. To provide a transition to deep foundations Brinch Hansen (1970) tentatively proposed for D{B> 1 the Following formulas: Fqa = #2 tan O(1~ sin gy an" (0/0) fant 6260 Combined with 3.15 the above formula yields for = 0 Soa = 140.4 tan (D/B) G27) ‘These expressions, combined with shape factor from Table 3.2 give for very deep square or circular foundations in sat ‘ated ciny (= 0) the folowing wellown res: ao "(5.1491 40.20¥ (04 TS leta =9.28et 4 {a consoness sis these exressong ge go = 3.180N for ¢ = 30° and qo = 3.68¢Ny for = 45%, where No avon by exoresion 3.6. These oblte are in fair anteemént with observed point Bearing capacities of driven piles in Sand in conditions where q could be determined with some ty (ef. Veslé, 19652, 1967). shoutd be noted, however, that this increase of bearing 3.28) capacity due to "depth effect” occurs in conditions where 4°} the methad of placement of the foundation (driving) causes significant lateral compression, Ther 3a) or if {he Overbuiden strata are relatively coinpressible. For this zeafon, its advised not to introduce depth factors in design ‘of shallow found: 9.9 INFLUENCE OF SO/L COMPRESSIBILITY AND SCALE EFFECTS Bo eter ete eei Ic has been emphasized earlier that all preceding analyses of ‘ultimate load are based on the assumption of incompress- ibility of soil and that they should be applied, strictly spea ing, only to cases in which general shear failure of the toil is expected. There exists a lack of cational methods for ane- Ayzing bearing capacity failures in the two other modes ‘characteristic for compressible soil. To satisfy the immediate needs of engineering practice ‘Terzaghi (1943) proposed the ust of the same bearing cx pacity equation and factors with reduced strength charac. teristics e* and 9° defined as follows: oste 3.29) 97 = tan"! (0.67 tan 9) 3.30) ‘Such an approach may give satisfactory answers in some soils, although it is not always on the safe side (ef. Vesié Bearing Capacity of Shalfow Foundations 133 and Johnion, 1963). For sands, a Nat seduction of ¢ in the ‘ate of local and punching shear failures i probably too ‘conservative. It also suggests 2 jump in bearing capacity om ‘transition to general shear failure, 2 phenomenon which, of course, does not occur. Observations of failure loads of ‘small footings on at least four sends (Vesis, 1970) suggest that the factor 0.67 in Eq. 3.30 should be ceplaced by a correction factor varying with relative Gensity Dy, such as 10.67 + Dy ~ 0.750}, applicable in the range 0 <0; <0.67. Proposals of this kind may be useful in practice; how- ‘ever, their ultimate value is quite limited as they aze based ‘on the doubtful premise that the relative compressibility of a soll under different geometrical and Toading conditions is telated exclusively toils strength characteristics cand g. ther words, the philosophy of this approach ignores the ‘existence of scale effects other than those exprested by Eq. 3.9, ‘Seal effects differing from those predicted by the clas cal earth pressure theories have been known in bearing c pacity and earth pressure phenomena for quite some time. Yet, the understanding of the variety of reasons for thelr existence has come only in very recent years, mostly in connection with studies of shallow and deep foundations (De Beer, 1963, 1965; Vosic, 1964, 19654; Kériscl, 1967). ‘These studies indicate that, in cass of shallow foundstions, the ith foundation size,” ‘They also how clearly that the relative compressibility of soils, both i ep tg foes ao respect to gravity forces and with respect fo.the soil. strength, increases with fount In view of these facts « « bearing capacity factors wit ‘be expected in all soils. face footings on sand. "Figure 3.19, taken {rom De Beer (1965a) shows that this decrease has been apparent in all, ‘major experimental studies of the problem of bearing c pacity of shallow footings. As the largest of these footings has been only one meter (3.3 feet) square, there is gieat practical as well as theoretical interest in determining, whether the Ny-ralues shown in Fig. 3.19 tend asyinptoti- cally {0 some minimum. Recent studies om this subject (Vesié, 1969) seem to indicate that the Ny-values for arbitraly large footings may be muich smaller than conventionally sssamed, This is iustrated in Fig. 3.20, which presents a comparison of ‘measured ultimate resistances of small surface footings with those of deep footings, showing also the predicted bearing capacities of large footings according to conventional the- ‘ory. It ls postulated that the bearing capacity of luge sur face footings cannot be greater than the resistance of deep footings on the same soll** In other words, there should be an upper limit of bearing capacity of all footings Which may be related to the void ratio ofthe fol at failure, “To arrive at an adequate assessment of the influence of soil compressibility and related scale effects, it would be necessary to have a bearing capacity theory based on some ‘There aze actually thie independent rasont for this decrease of strength with foundation size (a the curvatre of Mahe envelope (©) progressive eapeure along te slp ln (e presence of tones oF seams of weakness In all so deposits. The eelativecontettion ofeach of the reasons varies with sll ype andthe range of foo" lng sce, thee foal fect beng discernible in practically all soil, ‘THs postalate seems to imply that very lenge footings Should Ea exeluively in puaching shear, as apparently all deep footing do. ‘This should nat be surprising, one considers the mentioned fat that the relative compressibility of soils inereates with footing ‘Conde de Freitas Proft Ae A 2B vse crt OER SAPS 245001+ 198, - Foundation Enginestlng Handbook 121.614 onl? = \ NN 7621538 tonfn? Meyabor. ‘Oe be cove B02 Dor Om ig. 2:19 Effoct of sie on betting capacity af surface footings in sand. (After De Beer, 1968.) | See eesseee “| Soa ag 2 : io i ‘| lee SE raat ation of stn ro fn (alter Vesi, 1989) more realistic soil models (such 3s, for example, elastic- plastic solid). In the absenco of needed exact solutions for his class of problems, it may be proposed to use the pres- tntly available theory bated on solutions for a rigd-plastic solid, slong with some compressibility factors fo, to fefactors in Eq. 3.13. ‘To find tentative expressions for compressibility factors ‘one can use the aseumption that the ultimate normal pres- ‘Sure on the sides of the wedge under the footing (AC and CB, Fig. 3.14) fs equal to the pressure needed to expand « ceavily in the same Soil mass. (This assumption, first used by Skempton, Yassin and Gibson, 1953, wes found to be rea- sonable for deep foundations, at least under certain condi- tions.) Combining this assumption with solutions for cavity Cxpaveion in an elastic-plastic solid (Vesi¢, 1963b) one can obtain bearing capacity factors for comparison with those von by Tables 3-1 and 3.2. Tn this way the following ex- pression for compressibility factor fq is obtained (Vesié, 1970): = Crue pa = Saute pale Rectangular pats © Gent 72 16191000? @ Geary 1.509 tone® © Meyerint y+ 1.62 anf! © Meyuol 4= 1485 onl? © Veifng= 1AK0 oni? 587 ona? DoF yO. tzlen? 3.19., fge ® exp (1C4.4 + 0.68/L) tan gl . 4.07 sin) Cote 24/1 +sin 691} 31) “The quantity fe can be found asin from coneapondence Te cua Spin Mops aeons itor dO beer 0.324026, +0006 1, (332) onsteing expression Jor al pact! pipes we can wate a Se = ba} ‘The wse of expressions TIT through 3.33 makes sense, | obriously, only as long a5 the compressibility factors re- | main smaiter than unity, Numerical values of the compres- Silty factors fgc for two extreme eases, B/L = 0 (infinite strip) and B/L =1 (squase) are given in Table 3.3 and shows traphicaly in Fig. 3.21. ‘Table 3.4 gives the factors Leo 8¢- owing to Eq, 3.32, forthe same two extreme cases. From expression 3.31 one can find the magnitude of the rigidity index for any angle $ and any patticular founds tion shape below which it becomes necessary to reduce the beating capacity Because of compressibility effects. This 8.33) nde einen ¢ prt Asana Conde de Fes an a de Consregno Civil ba as 2 “Mats SIAPE 214500Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations 135 TABLE 3.3. VALUES OF COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR gc. Bn = 1 (Square) ve o 25 2 0 100 ~—250_~—«600 © 1,000 1.000 1.000 (1.039) 5! 0272 0852 0917 0988 (1.000) 1% 0887 0708 9805 0928 1.1071 1" 0437 0562 0679 042 11.056) 2ot 0217 0.433 0843 0604 “0.048 11.190) : 2s 0224 0:22 0.473 0557 801 (1.05) : a0” 0152 0228 0310 o422 0634 0863 1.175) ‘3st 0008 0.152 0.214 0200 0468 0.855 “O9TE M143) - 40° 0059 0096 0.137 0.197 317 0.456 Osa U.055)« 45° 0033 0.056 0.000 0.117 194 0.284 0417 “0882 (1.015) 50" 016 0.027 9.081 0061 O10 0.188 0.231 0.993 0.587 on. =0(8t9) G N+ 25 6 2 100250500 of 1.000. 1.000 : : 5 0.733 0870 nei : wo 0528 0726 saa) aw 0372 0578 0699 0898 (1.087) 20, 0.255 aa 0588 0762 0.968 2s 0169 0320 0421 060s 0.798 30" 0.107 0218 0299 asa 0.610 205) 35° o.084 0141 0197. 0307 0.431 Ooat (1.318) 4. 0.036 0s1 019 ats2 0275 0638 09168" ast 0018 00s 0064 0.107 0.188 0380 0857 0° 0.008 020 ost 0.076 0192 0.287 34. VALUES OF COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR foc FOR $= 0. tr on 25 1025 50 100 250 1 0440 0679 0859 1.039) 0 0320 0959 0.739 “0919 (1.167) Te arco method by dot take Foe” 1 catical rigidity index is given by Gere = 4 exp (3.30 0.45B/L) cot (45~ $7201 (3.34) Numecical values of the critical rigidity indexes corre- sponding to different angles of shearing resistance $ are tiven, for the two extreme cases B/L =O (strip) and BY/L = 1 (equate), in Table 3.5 Tt should be understood that all the information pro- duced by this approximate analysis must be treated as ten {ative and, in some sente, qualitative in nature. The pur- pote of publishing Eqs. 3.31 through 3.24 at this time isto fllow the designer, in absence of any other rational method, to assess numerically the order of magnitude of expected reduction of bearing capacity caused by the compressibility effects, It is hoped that further development of our ability to treat analytically the complex elastic-plastic behavior of ‘TABLE 3.5. VALUES OF CRITICAL RIGIDITY INDEX. Angle of Pea Cia Rigty Ind esitance Seip foundation ‘Square foundation e ‘on.=0 ont ° 3 2 ‘ 8 n 10 3 6 6 a 20 20 65 20 2 89 a 30 32 0 38 283 120 0 92 25 a5 12 406 50 4300 : nile by numerical methods such 25 finite-element technique ‘vil allow a more accurate prediction of compressibility ef Feets (ef. Desai and Reese, 1970). EXAMPLE3.7: Investigate the offect of compressibility ‘on ultimate bearing capacity of the footing in clay discussed jn Example 3.1, ‘The modulus of deformation of the soll in tundrained condition is By = 24.1 ton/ft?. The modulus of ‘confined compression (in drained conditions) increases with pressure q according to A, » 12.69. prot Alesana Conde de ras Ds Pt OB a 5 Couto co ‘sorteot Shae TAPES186. Foundation Engineering Handbook Condition (a): Criticalrigidity index (Eq. 3.34): 4 exp ((3.30~ (045)(1/991 (.00)} = 12 tex (Bq. 3.3): f, = (24.10/20 + 0.5)(0.22) =a7> 12 ‘The absumption of soil incompressibility is justified. The computed value of ultimate bearing pressure in Example 3.1 can be used without reduction. Condition (6): ‘The average overburden pressure in the expansion zone is taken as presture at tho depth 2/2 below the base of the In this way one obtains: '8)(105) + (2 + 14)(43)1/(2,000) = 0.764 ton/tt? M, = (12.6)(0.768) = 9.62 tonift Poisson's ratio v = (1 ~ sin (1.2) (299917 [2 sin (1.2) (23°)) =0.35 Modulus of deformation in drained condition: Bq = (9.62)11 ~ 0.35 ~ (2(0.35*)1/C ~ 0.35) 5.99 tony? (Critical ily index eae = $ exp {13.30 (0.45)(1/3)1 cot [45° ~ (0.5)(23°)] } = 59 ‘Actual rigidity index Ip = (5.9991 (201 + 0.35)10.04 + (0.764)(042))} = 6< 59 ‘Thus, the assumption of soil incompressbility is not justi- fied.’ Compresslbility fectors (Eqs. 3.31, 3.33 and 3.15): fae = ep {64.4 +(0.6)01/3)1 (0.4291 + 1.00.391)0.099/01 + 0.391013 =" Soe = 0:44 ~ (I~ 0.44)(18.05)(0.42) = 0.37 bye the = O44 ‘timate bearing presture (ser Gguces in Example 3.1): ao = (0.729(0.37) + (4.57048) # 2.14)(0.44) = 0.27 2.10 + 0.94 = 3.22 ton/ft? It would be of interest to compare this value with that obtained by the Terzaghi approach. The reduced strenath ‘characteristics are (Eqs. 3.29 and 3.30): = (0.67)(0.04) = 0.027 ton{ft? g* = tan! (0.671042) = 16" Bearing capacity factors (Table 3.1): Ng = 1,62;Nq = 4.34:Ny = 3.06 44 Uttimate bearing pressure: ao = (0.027)(11.63)(1.16) + (0.463)(4.34)(1.14) ++ (172)(43)(28)(3.06)(0.87)1(2,000) 3.36 + 2.29 + 0.80 = 3.45 ton/ti® EXAMPLE 3.8: Investigate the effect of compressibility fon ultimate bearing capacity of the footing in sand discussed in Example 3,2. In the low and elevated pressure range the modulis of deformation of sand increases with mean nor- ‘mal stress according to the equation where #, = 364 tonjft? is the modulus at mean normal stress of 0) = | ton/ft “The average mean normal stress in the expansion zone is taken es initial mean normal stesg at a depth 8/2 below the base of tie footing. With $= 38° for the snd in the “elas- tic” zone the coefficient of earth pressure at rest is Ko = 1 sin (1.2)(38") = 0.29 Mean normal stress at depth of 24 feet: {U1 + (29(0.29)173) {UCB)(100) + (16)(5891/€2,000)} = 045 ton/st? ° Modulus of deforination: £ = (364) YO4S = 244 ton/it? Poisson's ratio’ v= 0,29/(1 +0.29) = 0.23 Representative angle of shearing resistence for the plastic ‘zone is taken again to be 35 CCitial igidity index (iq. 3.34) pen = 4 2x9 (3.30 (0.45)(1/9) + cot [45° (0.5035°)]} = 278 Neglecting the volume change in the plastic zone one finds rigidity index of : “ I= Q44)/{2(0 4 0.23)(0.45)(0.70)} = 316 > 278 ity appears to be ‘Thus, the assumption of incompressi justified, Remark: The assumption of an average volumetric strain cof I percent in the plastic one would reduce the rigidity index to (Eqs. 3.3 and 3.4) 10 or = 316]L1 + 316)(0.01) ly factor would be (Eq. The corresponding sompres 3.3n and 3.3) Sq = fre = ex9 (1-44°* 0.90/39) 0.70 + ((3.07)(0.574)(E.1B}/(1 + 0.574)}} = 0.607 “he ultimate bearing capacity would be reduced to do =(35.1)(0.607) = 21.3 ton However, sine the sand in question is of medium density, the assuinption of average volume compression of 1 pet: cent in the plastic zone is unfavorable. The actual ti trate bearing capacity of ths footing gn sand would be ‘close to the upper value of 35.1 ton/ft”. As mentioned in'the remarks after Example 3.2, the allowable bearing pressure may be controlled by maximum tolerable ettle- iment forthe structure in question. 3.10 INFLUENCE OF ROUGHNESS OF THE FOUNDATION BASE thas often been contended in the literature thatthe failure patter of the Prandt! solution (Fig. 3.140) and subsequent extensions require perfect roughness of the foundation base, The argument has been that dhe original Prandt solution docs not satisfy the steain rate comps tions and that the Heneky (1923) pattern shown in Fig. 3.22 should be used instead, at Least for smooth footings. ‘The latter pattern, used by Meyerhof (1955) to evaluate the | i] | . conde de Fries Prof lesan ye GR eg de Coarrte Cet PRS fseol4 Si SSIAPE 2148000 ‘MattFig. 9:22 Sip pattern under 9 perfectly smaoth fasting postulated sy Haneky (1823). \._ jects of base smoothness, suggests that the bearing eapac- ocjiy of a smooth footing on the surface of a cohesiontess soil ‘should be only oneshalf the capacity of a rough footing. However, the experiments performed to verify these cout cepts (De Beer and Vesié, 1958; Biarez, Burel, and Wack, 1961) showed practically'no effect of foundation rough: ness on bearing capacity. Iti significant to add that it was never postible to reproduce experimentally the double wedge with the slip sucfaces starting in the middle of the footing. “A single wedge, very similar to that shown in Fig, 3.140, was formed even in cases where the footing was spit longitudinally into two oF more Footings, free to move lat- erally in opposite directions; see De Beer and Vesic, 1958, ‘Nédai (1963) reports a similar experience with punching of metals. Thus, patterns such as that shown in Fig. 3.22 ere fictitious, and should not be used in bearing capacity com: Putations. It may be concluded that the stress and defor. ion pattem under compressed areas ie such that it al ways leads to formation of single wedges, such as that shown in Fig. 3.143. The foundation roughness hes ltt effect on bearing capacity as long as spplied extemal loads remain vertical In the ease of inclined toads, the foundation roughness nay limit the maximum horizontal component P of load to be transmitted aeross the contact surface of the base (Eq. 3.12). However, experience seems to indicate ‘that most castin-placs concrete foundations, by the way they ae constructed, possess roughnesses defined by fric- tion angles equal to ‘or greater than the angles of internat fiction gy of the underlying so (see Schulte and Horn, 1967), (The latter angles vary from about 32° for quartz ‘sands to about 10° for some colloidal clays of very high plasticity.) A 3.11. INFLUENCE OF THE VERTICAL PROFILE OF ‘THE FOUNDATION BASE ‘The preceding considerations were concerned with footings thang plane contact areas.” The influcace of the Vertical Profile of contact areas was jvestigated theoretically by Biacez, Burl, and Wack (1961), Meyethot (1961), Sazchy 2967) and others, Some experimantal dat. eperted by Soschy, ‘The first two of these papers were concerned with bearing cepacity of wedge-shaped tong rectangle footings (Fig. 3.758). The results (Fig. 3.238) show thet there is practically no difference between bearing capacity of wedges and thet of ordinary lat footings of the sane size, as one asthe base angle p (Fig. 3.{4e) romans smaller than 45° + 9/2. Wedges with steeper angles W should have a Janger bearing capacity, at fear if the comparison is made sing the’ depth of the wedge bate (Fig. 3.23) ws D. "The study by Széchy was concemmed with the effects of cured contact areas (Fig. 3.24); there was no appatent difference ‘in bearing capacities of fat and convex areas AL the some time, a slight concavity of the contact ares resulted ins reaturable increase of bearing epacity. The difference can Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundetions 137 Sa i fs vd So WT a 500 THT a eon o : Fig.3.23 Bosring capacity of wedge-shaped strip footings. (Al Meyehot, 1951) Fia.3:24 Footing wlth a concave contact area, (After Széchy, 1067) be explained by taking the depth of the sharp edge of the ‘concave footing as D, It may be concluded that the vertical profile of the contect asea has no effect on bearing capacity ‘5 Tong as D is taken as depth of the footing edges and the prgfile romeins contained within the wedge detined by y= 45° + 9/2 (wedge I, Fig, 3.140). 3.12, INFLUENCE OF ADJACENT FOOTINGS ‘The preceding discussions were concemed with the bearing capacity of an isolated footing. In all analyses itis assumed, essentially, that the soil mass affected by the footing (ACDEA in Fig, 3.140) is undor the action of pravity forces alone aid is not under the influence of ‘There are, however, conditions in engineering. practice where footings are placed so close to each other that their ‘zones of action overlap. ‘The problem of interaction of footings has been stud- fed by Stuart (1962), Mandel (1965), and West and Stuart (1965), ‘These authors considered the problem of bearing IC capacity of simultaneously Yoaded parallel strips of width B placed at a spacings {rom each other, centerto-center (Fig. 3.254). ‘The results footings ‘may resistance §. For low g-values they for high g-vsives they appear to be significant (cf. Fig. ( 3.25b), particularly if @ footing is surrounded by others on bom. It should be noted, however, that these effects are con- siderably reduced as £/B-> 1, Similasly, the compressibility Freitas Prot Alesana Cone de De Pat tate Ce 20 wat es@ ° : —— Aralps AralyisB experiment Fig.9.28 Ettect of Interaction of tong parallel strip tcotings. (ter Wet and Stuart, 1968.) of solids reduces and may completely eliminate the inter- ference effects. ‘There are practically no such effects In the s¢ of punching shear failure. For these and other reasons| it is not recommended to consider interference effects in bearing capacity computations. A designer should be| aware, however, of the possiblity of their existence in some special circumstances 3.13 INFLUENCE OF GROUNDWATER TABLE ‘The position of the groundwater table may have a signifi- ‘cant effect on bearing capacity of shallow foundations. Generally the submergence of soils will cause loss of all sp- parent cohesion, coming from capillary stresses or from weak cementation bonds. At the same time, the effective unit weight of submerged soils will be reduced to about ‘one-half the weight of the same soils above the water table. ‘Thus, through submergence, all thee torms of the bearing capacity equation may be considerably reduced. For this ‘eazon, it is essential that the bearing capacity analyses be ‘made assuming the highest possible groundwater level at the particular location for the expected Mfetime of the struc- ture in question, The assessment of this highest possible evel must be made taking Into consideration the probabi- ity of temporary high Tovels that could be expected in some locations during heavy rainstorms or floods, although they ray not appear in the offical records If the highest groundwater level i within the dopth ty < A below the foundation level (Fig. 3.26) the effective Unit ‘weight of the soil below the foundation base (yin Eq. 3.7 (or 3.9) should be taken equal to 127+ lm ~7) where 7 i the submerged unit weight and Yq isthe moist 335) 4 8 matt Qu ; 5S Quat eyee Fly. 3.26 lnttuence of groundwater table, ‘unit weight of sol, corerponding to the minimum moisture content of the soil above the water table (Meyerhiof, 1955). I the water table is permanently below the depth fy = 2, should be taken equal Yq. For water table at or above the level of the foundation base, submerged unit weight 17 should be used. ‘All preceding considerations are based on the assump: tion that the seepage forces acting on soll skeleton are negligible, Shovld there be significant groundwater seepage in any direction, it may have an effect on bearing capacity {In addition to possible internal erosion of the soll (under- ining, piping, and similar phenomena), the seepage force adds «component to the body forces caused by sravty ‘This component, acting in the direction of stream lines, is equal 10 %94, where! is the hydraulle gradient causing seep age._A simplified analysis of this effect of seepage force on Dearing capecity can be made by sesuming that the seepage through the soil zone directly involved in potential shear failure is paralet and Romogencous. in such a case the vectorial sum of effective soil weight and seepage force de- fines the direction and magnitude of a fictitious 7 to be used in Eqs. 3.7, 3.9 or 3.11, with posible base tlt and sround-slope factors, as defined by Bags. 3.19 through 3.23. 3.14 NONHOMOGENEOUS SOIL CONDITIONS In a discustion of effects of nomhomogensity on bearing capacity, aistnetion oust be made between two basi Kinds ‘oftnonhomogensity that can be encountered Tn erratic sot brofies-different-boringson the ste escose the presence fisnvrietyof sous of uiferent composition end charactor is Tenses or in iregoar stata ‘of limited exten such conditions the ony reasonable sumption Uae be mate about the sll profle—itone can be mage at alaigshot shear flr wl Cceurin te soil mae along thesweakest soil encountered. One can question, Roweve viheerseis techaleslly posible and economicaly feasib1s tajpansa-soll-exploration which wil aiclose all weaker san enex existing inthe soll mass, "Thus faking and testing samples Irom alow borings may not be tified. 7A crudeestinate of beaing capacity onthe bass of pene tion test resus, combined with previous experience on sin iarates,may often be preferred in such eases in contrast to this situation, the aonhomnogenity In rex- soil profiesfollows « dfinite pattem, such as «di ‘emible increase of decrease of sll strength with depth in Proft Alessandra Conde de Freitas (Be rege Connie Cit SO ie “can ere Se i sane tem“MB 3.04t Gearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations 130 TABLE 3.6. MODIFIED BEARING CAPACITY FACTOR Hert eeecee i Mm 25 ae er im 576 6.35 coaun taee = all botings atthe site, Increasing the number of borings and {epling a poator numberof amples may be justified for Ine portant structures, as this. may bring the estimates of sol Characteristics closer to statistical averages. These averaes, combined with stendarddeviations, can then be used In Bearing-capacity analyses in some meaning way. ‘A very common Kind of soll nonhomogencity is that of Aistinet soll ayers of different strength and approximately feonstant thickness, The simplest situations that can be con dered would be those of 3 twodayer protein two che lero conditions: fing stratum softer than the undesying steatum Be begring:stratur stiffer than the underlying stratum lorie. 3.270). The first situation is often found when, for example, « rigid or flexible footing ox an embankment is placed on a relatively thin layer of sft clay ovetying aif cay or rock ‘The second situation occurs wien the footing is placed on & stiff cay erust ora sand stratum on the top of a deposit of relatively soft, normally consolidated clay.” Button (1953) analyzed both situations for saturated clays bn undrained condition (9 = 0) astuining general shear failure along the sylindsicat sip suracesststing at he edges of the fond tion. Later experimental research (Brown and 1969) showed that the realistic and thatthe resulting ‘on the unsafe side. It sppears that the flue inthe it. situation (Fig, 3.272 occur, at eat in part, by lateral place {i0.flow similar. to that opcurting in solid squeezed be- {ween:two. rough parallel plates (Hattmana, 1925). The’ failurein;the- second situation (Fig. 3.27b) is basically a Dunching failure, with vertical sip surfaces similar to those shown in Fig. 39. ‘Tho beating capacity of the footing ins > bottesimations given by 40 Nm ta 236) ‘where:¢y represents the.suirained shear strength of the upper layer and Mp, a-modified:bearing capacity factor which depends:on. the ratio of the shear strengths of the ‘wo-layers, «= ce/ey, the relative thickness of the upper layer, #/B, as well 1s on the Loundation shape. By interpo. lation between known rigorous solutions of the related problems one can obtain the following expression for Ny ‘n the first situation (soft clay layer over stiff clay layer, Gatto) HvZNE + ‘ts of interest to note that the vacation of soll strength in an ‘otherwise repular sol profile may be portant sale Tete (ef. Kévst, 1967), ease = Dl+ DWE? CF KDNE +811 Dine (ele + Dive + a +B- TONE + BNE SB 11 - (ENE +B- DONE FT) Squate or Circular Footing (L/2 = 1) am aaley 428 2 6 0 @ = 1 a7 en7 847. a7 1s 649 678725 | 925 2 673 720 810 1234 3 7.05 7e2 938 1881 4 726 1028 24.68 5 740 1088 3088 10 14 022 1259 6 : a7 1017 1647 = where B = BL/{2(6 + L)H] may be called the punching in- dex of the footing, while No = {.V, represents the earlier tiven bearing capaaty factor ofthe tundation,carccted for shape. l= D/A and Ne =6.1) fora cneuaros sane foundations) = B/2it and Nz 3.18 tors sip found: tion) "Numereal vals of the modified beotng capacity feo nhs sitstion for equere and tong retanguler tcotingr ne gen in Table 6. They are aug shows ope fealy'n Hg. For abvootely vig foaing they oe Probably on the safe sfe. However ewuton stadvand ta Spplying those factor to very flee footings Por the second sutton (ff ele Iyer ove clay ayer, Fig. 3.27b), Brown and Meyerhof (1969) suggest that “?— the analyse seminng spl shear povehiny sound the footing perimeter wooid be apprntate Such an, sal BEB adivdtiw (224%) —> Win = WB + KoNe * (ShcVe) It should be noted thatthe tess reported by Brown and Moyebot indicate reduction of effective strength of the ‘upper stiff clay layer, which may be attributed to progres- Sn fire phenomena. TESS ugpestd thatthe shear st 13.36 be reduced by-an SARS hi Rentoncd ean aie ‘of bout 3the'factor appears to be 0:75. ‘Other contributions to the subject of beating capacity of lnyeted clays in undrained conditions bave been made by Suklje (1954) who made extensive theoretical and expert mental studies of the stability of a lyer of soft clay resting ‘on firm bose such as rock. Some of his solulions verified by smalkscale- model experiments, a given in Fig. 3.29, 3.38) 637 ‘The studies of Siva Reddy and Srinivasan (1967) and James et al, (1969), both representing extensions of Button’s ‘work, should be mentioned because they demonstrate the dra Conde de Freitas Al So. Prf Adjuate. 0 ee 4 oe 5 tee ee fan SIAPE 248001+ | $ag: ' Fbundation Engineering Handbook sere tn 7 1» § seuss i uit 2 3 ya Po | mats sso} 8 & Oo opt Unie septi e Pat gt tne £2 is muon pty ty et rc: Pat Hid ae cy ey tn i ERS le! ies is ghiaind casts: —(ahdaan tar ie eee a aa Tk dali y mapas oy MAE TR tn amy on TABLE 3,7. COEFFICIENTS OF INCREASE OF BEARING CAPACITY FACTORS DUE TO PRESENCE OF ANINFINITELY STIFF LAYER AT DEPTH H BELOW THE STRIP FOUNDATION OF WIDTH B, {after Mandel and Salengo Coefficients £- (upper number) £5 (tower number) 969) o| am [r]2ts]e [fs [6 le [o Yea] | aa | a0] a0] iso [178 OL Fo terain< 449) Yo0| 100 | 100] t:00} 0 | 1:00 | 1.00 “a tot | bot tora 3.58 the influence of the soft ‘lay layer becomes negligible. BAIS A4B)(S48 © 0.75) (GA1)(5.48) = TayG.4 1065 48) + 2.41 + 0.75} (5.48 + 1.75)5.48 + 0.75) ~ [(2.41)(5.48) + 0.751648) ‘A more general enalysis, valid Tor rectangles of any ‘upper, stronger layer having strength patameters ¢1, 1 and-underlain by a lower layer of stiength parameters, cy, $2 (Fig. 3.270) yiolds, under the tion that the sip Surfaces are vertical (Vesié, 1970) 49 “ae +01 )ey cot exp (21+ (8/91 K tam (HU) ~ (UK) cot $y (3.40) In this expression K = (1 ~ sin /(1 + sin? $y), white ing capacity of a fictitious footing oft a ‘The actual Tooting, Dut TestIME D «SLInDErZ (Generally to be onated from sen ters ¢3, 2 and other characteristics of the second layer). Tf Ehe- upper layer js colisionless (ey = 0) with 25° j, © $0" the above expression is reduced to ~ Bex ahew (O61 +N) GAD ‘This expression can be used to Gind a simple expression for critical depth of the upper layer, beyond which the bearing capacity willbe little affected by the presence of the lower See re the bce cae Steet en 3 in (145) ira = 3B aan [A study of this expression, valid if ¢) = 0, reveals that the ctitical depth of a strip foundation should be twice that of fa square foundation, under otherwise identical conditions, Tecan also be shown that the critical depth increases roughly in proportion to the angle of shearing resistance ‘1 of the upper layer and the water content wv of the lower layer Gf the latter happons to be saturated clay). Most sig nificantly, however, the critical depth also varies with the size of the footing, at least ifthe lower layer is saturated ¥._ In conditions of Teheng's tests, for example, the crit {cal depth ratio for a two-foot-wide footing should be 6.8, and for & 20-footwide footing 10.3, 2s compared with 3.2 predicted by Eq. 342 and 3.5 observed for 2-inch-wide ‘models, 'A final remark will be made segerding footings resting on. 1 thin stratum of rock underlain by softer stata. In addi- tion to examining the possibility of punching shear falure, similar to that occurring in soils, one should also check that the footing, as designed, does not induce failure of rack in tension at the bottom of the upper stratum. Such-an analy: sisvcancbe-made-using: the goncepts developed by Wester- ‘guard: (1926)-for analysis of concrete pavements, For selec- ton of values for-the lower stratum, in view of limited depth of that stratum, see. Vesié and Saxena (1970). An alternate approzch is to use the layered solid theory of Bur- ‘mister (1943). EXAMPLE 3.9: For the footing from Example 3.1 find the ultimate bearing capacity in undrained conditions ifthe Dearing stratum of soft clay is underlain by a thick stratum th 0.53 tonffi?) start: 16 feet. Punching index B = ((84)(28)1/12(84 + 28)(16 ~ 10)) ing fcom elevation 2195 Shape factor sce Example 3.1): fe 2 = (.067)(5.14) = 5.48 Shear strength ratio: Modified bearing capacity factor (Eq. 3.37): 1+ 2.41)(.15)}5.48-+0.95) 1.087; ‘Nyq = $.86 (cheeks well with an interpolated value from Fig. 3.28) Utimate bearing pressure (Eq, 3.36): 40 = (0.22)(5.86) + (0.463) = 1.29 + 0.46 1.75 tony EXAMPLE 3.10: Solve the problem described in Exam- ple 3.9 under assumption thet the uadrained shear strength of the upper layer is 0.53 ton/ft? while the sitength of the lower layer is 0.22 ton/it® ‘Shear strength ratio: f= 0.22/0.53 = 0.415, Punching index (same as in Example 9) = 1.75, Modified bearing capacity factor (Eq. 3.38): My = (AILLTS) + (0.41SY(5.48) = 0.57 + 2.27 = 2.84 Ultimate bearing pressure (Eq. 3.36) ‘49 * (0.53)(2.84) + (0.463)(1.00) = 1.50 ¥70.46 96 ton/ft? ‘The small difference in the bearing capacities between the case analyzed in Example 9 and the present case is un- derstandable if one considers the fact that the thickness of the upper layer is only 6 feet, oF less than one fourth of the foundation width. EXAMPLE 3.11; For the footing from Example 3.2 find ‘the ultimate Learing capacity if the bearing stzatum of me- dium dense sand is underlain by stiff clay (undrained shear Strength 0.53 ton/fe?, starting at elevation ~ 30 fe ‘The ultimate bearing capacity of sand in infinite mass, from Example 3.2 isq@ = 39.1 ton/ft?. ‘The ultimate bearing capacity ofa fictitious footing rest- Ing on the Tower, clay layer is (see Example 1, for some figures) ‘a& = (0.83)(5.14)(1.067) + {(8)(105) + (229(43)] (2000) = 2.90 +0,89 = 3.79 tons ‘The critical depth of the upper layer is (Eq. 3.42): [28H ES.18.791/{20+ UY = 10> 208 Consequently, the bearing ca be affected by the presence of tl nitude, computed from Eq. 3.41 fs (3.79) exp {0.67 [1 + (1/391 (20/28)} = He ity of the footing will stiff clay layer. Its mag: 15 tonft? % 3.18 EFFECT OF RATE OF LOADING All the analyses of bearing capacily presented in precedi ‘paragraphs are conceived for static loading conditions. Itis ‘Aessandm Conde de Freitas Ser ne, ‘E coubeen Ct saint oe enn = eeBe “ assuingd, tacitly, that the footing load Q (Fig. 3.12) is in- ‘creaied gradually until failure at a loading rate slow enough Utat rio Viscous or flects are felt. This assumption applies to conditions of most ordinary footings, which carry tain deed load and are presumed to fail by a single ap- jon of excessive static ive load. ‘The rate of applica- 3 of these loads affects, under these conditions, the beer ing capacity only to the extent that it may be related to the tate of drainage of excess pore-water pressures created in the supporting soil by the application of the loads. It ix understood that the selection of shear strength parameters ‘cand 6 to be introduced in the analysis will be made so as to take care of that effect (ee Example 3.1). However, some Footings, such as those supporting missile Jaunching of blast resistant structures, are subjected to high live Toads of very short duration. ‘The high rates of strain associated with these impulsive loads may induce viscous fang inertia effects in the sol mass. The related phenomena, have been the object of extensive study, mostly by lond teats ‘on model footings on sand and clay (of, for example, Jack son and Hadala, 1964; Richast, 1965; Vesié, Banks, and Woodard, 1965; Poplin, 1965; Whitman, 1970). The find- ings ofthese studies can be summarized as fol 1) As the rate of losding is increased from about 10 infsec (static loading conditions) to about 10 in/see (impact Toading conditions) the mode of failure of model footings { on both dense sand and compacted clay changes from gen- fal sher to punching shear, This change is Cxplained by the fact that the inertia effects in the soll ‘asim effect as overburden pressure (Heller, 1964). 2) tn the mentioned range of loading rates, from 10 to 10 injsec, footings on dense sand show a slight drop of beat- ing capacity with increased loading rate, followed by a steady, slow inerease, which is extended all the way into the {impact velocities range (Fig. 3.30). This trend in variation (of bearing capacity is analogous to the trend in variation of shoar strength of dry sands observed by Whitman and Healy (1962). From the practical point of viow, this means that ‘he static bearing capacity analyses may be applicable also in the case of footings subjected to moderately rapid loads, provided that the strength parameters are determined by tests at appropriate loading rates. In absence of equigment for transient tests, a reduction of @-anele of up to 2° may bbe in urder for dense sand. It is highly questionable, how= “ a x an [Ne ‘ag apy tar g wie) 99a ie mig tot eee Fig. 930 Effect of loading vlcity on beartog capacity of surtace footings on dans sand. (Attar Ves, Banks, and Woodard, 1968.) veeeay fol 4 ho trudie ‘Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundetions 143 Fig. 3.31 Ettect of cate oF tain on undraind strength of a stir ‘ated, normaly chtolidated, fat cay. (After Whitman, 1920.) ever, what to expect in the case of loose, submerged sand, because of transient liquefaction effects. '3) Footings on compacted clay all show a considerable yrease in bearing capacity as the rate of loading changes conditions. There exists no in ahout the behavior in the intermediate ange of londing rates. However, on the basis of strength {tests on clay samples at variable loading rates, we ean expect that the bearing capacity of footings on olay, contrary to sand, will increase with increased loading rats (Fig. 3.31). ‘This conclusion is supported by the finding that a good pre. diction of not only ultimate bearing capacity but also of load-displacement behavior of small footings subjected to transient Joads can be obtained by multiplying the stresses (or loads) corresponding (o any particular displacement by appropriate stran-rate factors (Sackson and Hadala, 1965). ihe ratio of undrained soll strength the undrained soll strength at the standard laboratory strain rate Jn summary, it appears that the conventional, static analyses of beating capacity can be used for footings tub- jected to moderately rapid loadings, if the strength param. eters ¢ and 9 introduced in the analysis are modified for strain rate effects. ‘The footings subjected to impact and vibratory loads stil ‘equire a dynamic approach for analysis. Details about analysis of such footings can be found in Richart (1965), 05 well asin Chapters 24 ond 25 of this book. 3.16 CHOICE OF SAFETY FACTOR ‘The analyses described in this chapter are all made with the purpose of assessing the magnitude of ultimate toad Qo ot ultimate pressure qo (Eq. 3.1) at which the foundation may cing capacity failure. As mentioned in the foundations are designed to a& to possess ‘an adequate safety against this type of failure. ‘The assessment of adequate safety of a component of a structure is, in the modera view, a complex problem of opti- mization, Which ean be properly resolved only with duc considerations of serviceability and economy of the struc- ture, az well as of probability and consequences of failure. While the mathematical methods of analysis of this aspect ‘of the bearing capacity problem are well advanced, (cf, for ‘example, Freudenthal, 1961, 1968; Wu and Craft, 1967; ‘Ang and’ Amin, 1969)'there are apparently no generally ace cepted, consistent eriteria that cam be recommended for use in engineering design today. ‘A traditional approach to the cholce of safety factors Fy, appearing in Eq. 3.2, is outlined in Table 3.8. This approach| recognizes that the choice of safety factors should depend fon the character and expected life of the structure as well as ‘Alessandra Conde de Fre 2 De Pa SARE Bs Nesters SP Mau SIAPE 2145001TABLE 3.8. MINIMUM SAFETY FACTORS FOR a DESIGN OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS, - (AFTER VESIG, 1970.) “Te following abt may bo uso asa guide for permanent steuetures, ‘a reasonably homogeneous sai conaltons, Sei Exploration Thorou, Complete’ Limited cate. Cherscterstice ory Typleal Swuctes of te Category ltway bridges Maximum design Marshovses Toad key to A Blac fammoces —cecurattemy = 040 Hydecute ‘consequences taining wat of ate, Sos estrous ‘Wighvay ordgas Maximum design Lgntindestdal ood moy excur 8 andpubile—oceasionaly, 25838 butdiogs Consequences oF fallre Apartment and Maximum design cc“ otes Teed unhely 30 buitinge tooeeur Pomorke: ("For wnporry structures ther factors can be reduced to 75, percent of the above values. However, im a0 cate should the fafety fastors lower than 2.0 be Used, (2) For exceptionally tal bulldings, such as chimneys and towers, fr genealy whenever progressive bearing capacly tllure may be feared, these factor should bo inrepsed by 20 to 60 percent |) The postbiey of Neoding of foundation sail anor removal of sisting overturden by stour oF exewrllon should be even ‘2deauateconsaeration, (4) Teisedvisable te check bow the shortterm (end-otconste tion) and Tongtocm stability, uniess one of the to conditions ‘sceaty ls foverable. (6) Ie is understood that ll foundotions will be analyzed seo with ‘espect 10 moxinum tolerable total and diffrantel settlement. ‘ sattlement govars the design, higher safety factor mur be vie te consequences of failure, “Thus, a lower safety factor ‘ean be adopted for temporary, limited life structures. Also, 4 higher safety factor is suggested for structures where the ‘maximum design toad will egulatly occur and where the consequences of failure would be digsstrous, as compared with structures where the maximum design load is unlikely to occur, and where the consequences of failure would not be ar serious. Higher factors are required for structures in danger of progrestive failure, such a& exceptionally” tall buildings. Finally, fact that a thorough knowledge of the soil profi an extensive exploration and testing, program, allows the designer to assess the ultimate Toads with a much higher de- sree of confidence, thus reducing the probability of failure Ina more modern version of the traditional approach to evaluation of safety, the uncertainties involved with differ. eat variables such as foundation loads oF soil strength are Intcoduced separately as “partial safety factors” (cl. Brinch Hansen, 1965). A nominal state of failure is considered, in which the acting loads are multiplied by certain i TABLE 3.9. PARTIAL SAFETY FACTORS FOR DESIGN OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS, (AFTER BRINCH HANSEN, 1965) Load Factors Dead toad Steady water presto Fluetoting water pracsore Live toads (gone ‘Wind ead Earth or afaln pressure In slo ‘Strength Factors ‘cohesion 200 Costicient of inten 80) feetion ane 120 18:10) ‘Remark: The surnbers in parenihens refer to temporary stuctures ‘or to extraordinary combinations of toaings tach 36 dead Toad F ‘most uatavoroe ive toad + most untevortie wind load) tors, while the strength parameters ¢ and ¢ are reduced by other partial factors. The advantages of this approach, Which is widely used in somo countries, become especially apparent in analysis of footings for earth retaining struc- tures or footings on slopes. A list of recommended partial factors is given in Table 3.9, EXAMPLE 3.12: Forthe footing diseussedin Example 3.1 find the safe beating capacity in both assumed conditions. Use both the traditional approach with a safety factor of F, = 3.0 and the parlial safety factor approach. Assume that the footing reaction comes 65 percent from live load and 35 percent from dead load. Condition (3) ‘Traditional approach: qq = 1.67/3.0= 0.56 ton/1t? Partial safety factor approac ‘Nominal steength: ¢ = 0.2/2.0 = 0.11 tonjf ‘Nominal bearing capacity An = (0.11)(5.14)(1.067) + (0.463) = 0.604 0.46 = 1.06 ton/tt? (0.64)( 1,50) + (0.36)(1.00) = 1.32 Average load fact .06/1.32 0.80 tonjft™ ‘Allowable bearing pressure: ag Condition (b) ‘The problem will be solved using the values from Example 3.2, which include the compressibility effects, ‘Traditional approach: qq = 3.22/3.0 = 1,07 tonjft? artiat safety factor approach: ‘Nominal strength: cy = 0.04/2.0 = 0.02 ton/tt® tan Gy = 0.424/1.2=0,353; by = 19.5° bearing capacity factors: Nom Ne= Aig = 6.1:My = 5.0 Nomina shape factors: fe = 1 +4799(042) = 1.14; Sq = 1+ (1310.35) = 1,125 f= 087 ‘The compressibility factors have to be computed using sits gal potmeten. Beample 27 es fe = O37 fae = ye 20.48, ptt Alessandra Conde de Freitas De ose rc SOR Dias scat tenia SR Mair SIAPE 245001* Nopinal bearing capacity: So.o2yc14.4901.14300.37 +(0.462)66.01.129(0.44) + (1/2)€43)(28)(5.0)(0.87)(0.44)/(2000) = 0.12 + 1.39 eC 0.57 = 2,08 ton/tt? {Load factor, same as above, is euual 132 7, Allowable bearing pressure: gq = 2.08/1.32= 1.58 ton/ft® 3.17 BEARING CAPACITY ACCORDING TO BUILDING copes Most building codes contain some information on bearing capacity of shallow footings, usually presented in the form of tables relating allowable foundation pressures to certain soil types. “For example, a code may indicate “sale pres: sures" of 3 to 6 ton/tt" for dense sand or hard clay and 1. to 3 ton/ft? for medium dense sand or stiff clay, ete. When ever this information is actually based on local experience, it should be considered as a helpful indication of pressures that have been used in a given locality without causing dis. {ross to the structures builtin the past, ‘The limited valu of {his information will, perhaps, be best understood by point. ing out some of the serious shortcomings of the mentioned tables: 1) Tho character of the bearing stratum is given in de- scriptive torms, often very vogue. and without specification ‘of physical properties ofthe soil in question 2) The underlying strala are astumed to have no effect on safe bearing capacity. 3) Such important fectors ss size, shape, and depth of foundation and the position of the water table are normally. ‘sssumed to have no effect on bearing capacity. 4) The type and statical system of the structure sup- ported by the foundation, as well ae the charactor of design loads are equally assumed to be of no effect. It should ‘be obvious that the information of this kind, however useful, should never be taken at a substitute for & Proper engineering analysis of bearing capacity, following Drocedures similar to those exposed in this chapter. REFERENCES ‘Ang, A. HS. and Amin, M. (1969), Safety factors and probabiity Mructurad design, Joural of te Smactasl Diiuton ASCH, 98, No. ST7, pp, 1389-1405. Antoine, Jn; W'Henminie, R. Land Buchel, M, (1953), Force pportante de pieux de frac diamete fondés sur un bane Caeare fe faible paisar; Proceedings, Thid Intern. Conf. Sod Mech, Found. Brare, Zisich, VO. 2, p36, Besezantsev, V. G, (1952), Oveamerrchnaia zadecha teoril pred. el nago ravnovesa sypuckel sredy, Gostekhizdat, Moskva, pp. ari, ‘lars, J, Burl M., and Wack, B. (1961), Connibution 3 Fétude do 4a force portant des fondaions: Pocecding, Fifth International Conference on Soil Mechenlcr end Foundetion Entincerin, Par, ‘Vol 1, pp. 603-609. ‘Brinch Hansen, 3. 1953), arth Pressure Celeltion, Danish Tech- nical Press, Copenhagen, pp. 1-271 Brinch Hansen, 3, (1955)," Simpel becegning af fundamenters baereorne, fagenifren, 64, No.4, pp. 95-100, Brinch Hansen, J. (1957), General Report, Divison Ils, Proceedings, Fourth Intemational Conference on Soil Mechonles end Founda ‘ion Breiueering, London, Voll pp. 441-447, Buinch Hansen, 5. (1961), Generel Formule for Bearing Capctiy, Bulletin No. 11, Danish Techelesl tnetitute, Copentagen, Pre 38-46. Bearing Copacity of Shallow Foundations 146 Brinch Hansen, 1. (1965), The philosophy of foundation design: Design eriteia safety factors and settloment lint, ine Dearig Gopecty and Setiement of Foundations, Moceadiags of a Sy Postum helt at Duke University, April 5/6, 1965, pp. 9-13. Beineh Hansen, J. (1970), A Revised and ixtended Formula for Bearing Capeciy, Bulletin No. 28, Danish Gentechnieal Insite, Copenhagen, pp. 5-11. Brown, J. D. and Neyerhof, G. G. (1969), Expesimental study of bearing capacity in layered leys, Proceedings, Seventt Intern Cont. Soi Mech. Fourd. Engr. bexioo City, Va. >, ype 45-31. Duiaman, A. S. K. (1935), De wesrtand van panlpunten in sand, De ngenteur 50, pp. Bt. 25-28, 31-35. Buisman, A, 8. K. (340), Grondmechaniea, Waltman, Delt, pp. 10. ‘Burmiser,D. M. (1943), The theory of stesses and deplacements in layered systems and application tothe desig of asport urays, Proceedings of the Highway Ressorch Bocrd, 23 ep. 126-148. De Beer, E. & (1970), Experimental determination of the shape factors and the Beating cpacky factors of sind, Czotecinlaue 20,No. 4, 9p. 387-411. | ‘Button, 8. 5.1953), The bearing capieity of footings on a two-ayer ‘ohesive subsoil, Proc. Tit Interm. Conf. Soll Mech. Found. Engr. 2vieh, Vol 1, pp. 332-338. Caquot, 4. (1930), fgillbre des mats 3 frottement intern, ‘Guutict-Vilars, Bais, pp. 1-9. on (Coquot, A. and Kérisel, 3. (1953), Sur I terme de surface danse ‘aleul des fondations én allew pulérslent, Proceedings, Third Interationel Conference on Soll Mechanics and Foundation Br shreering, Zech, Vol 1p. 336-297, Cox, A.D. Eason, G., and Hopkins, HG. (1961), Axialysymamat- tic plsie deformations in sal, Pilorophial Pansat of te ‘Royel Society of London, Seitsk, 254, pp. I-48. De Deer, E. E. (1949), Grondmechanico, Deli, Funderingen N,V. fol, Antwerpen, po, 41-5 E, (1963), The sal effect inthe transposition of the reais of deep sounding estson the wllimate bearing eapaaly of Bes and caisson foundations, Gdotechnlque 11, No. 1. pp. 5-75, De Boer, 2, E. (19654), Besing capacity and settement of shallow foundations on san, Bearing Capacity and Sellement of Foun. dations, Procsedings of a Symposium held at Duke Univer pp. 15-34, De Mer, E. FE. (19656), The sal offect om the phenomenon of peo- ssessve rupture in cahssontess sols Procedings, Sixth Tater ‘nations Conference on So Mechanics and Foundation Bngincer. ‘hg, Montes, Vole pp. 1317. De Deer, E. E. (1967), Mosfondervindeike bijiage (ot de stuale van fet gransdraagvecmogen van zand onder Tunderngen op Sal; Bepalig von det vormtactor sy Annales det Tras Pb lies de Helique, 68, No. 6, yp. 481-806; 69, No. 1, pp. 1-88; No. 4, pp. 321-360: No. 5, np. 395-442; No. 6, pp. 495-322, De Boor’. and Yesi, A.'(988), Etude expérimentale de to ‘apactéportante du sable sous dot fondatons dretes Stables en ue, Annet dez Travaux Publis de Melggue 58, No.3, 558. De leet, E, E, and Ladanyi, B. (1961), Etude expérimentale de ta ‘2pacté portanie du sable sous ds fOndationscuculaues Gables 8 sures, Proceedings, Ph Inter. Conf. Soll Mech. Found, Engrg, Pas, VOL 1, pp. 517-581 Desai C &, and Reese, LC. (1970), Analysis of ctcuae footings on layered sols, Proceedings ASCE: Journal of the Soil Mechanfet ‘and Foundations Distion 96, M4, pp. 1289-1310, Dorken, W. (1969), Die Einfust des Anssettghet out die Grund ‘ruchlot oteeht ‘beanspruchter Obeifschengiladungen a0 richtbindlgen ‘Hen, Miteungen avs dem Inttat for Vou Kehrowasierbau, Crundbau. und Eodenmechenie, "Technische Hochschule Aachen: Heft 44 Boson, G. and Shield, R. T. (1960), The plastic indentation of a Sembinfinit wold by a pertetly rough eieulae punch Zech fur Angewandte Mathemarie und Physik, Vol. 11, pp. 33-42, Freutental, A.M. (1961), Safty, rebablty and stucival design, ‘oural of the Structural Dishion ASCE 81, No. ST9, pp. LAG. Girsudot,P. (1965), Recherches expérimentales su les fondatons ‘soumises des efforts inclings ou excenese,dnmales des Ponte ot (Ghcusies 135, No. 3, pp. 167-199. conde de Freitas rol Alsen ja 7 2g Dep de Corts Cis 5 PRD Escola Fieica ats SIAPE 114800)