Week 9

Determination of
Bearing Capacity
from Field Tests

Bearing Capacity from Field Tests

[Tests performed in the field to obtain the required soil properties]

Standard Penetration Test (N-values)

Cone Penetration Test (qc )
Plate Load Test
Major Advantages of field tests over laboratory tests:
There is no need to extract soil sample (sampling not required)
The conditions during testing are identical to the actual
situation (soil disturbance is minimum)

Standard Penetration Test

Split Spoon Sampler

Standard Penetration Test

It consists of a split spoon sampler 50.8 mm OD, 35 mm ID, min
450-600 mm long and 63.5 kg hammer freely dropped from a
height of 750 mm.
The test is performed on a pre-prepared clean hole 50 mm to 150
mm in diameter.
Split spoon sampler is placed vertically in the hole, allowed to
freely settle under its own weight or with blows for first 150 mm
which is called seating drive.
The number of blows required for the next 300 mm penetration
into the ground is the standard penetration number N
Apply the desired corrections (such as corrections for overburden
pressure, saturated fine silt and energy)
[N is correlated with most soil properties; such as friction angle , undrained cohesion, density etc..]

Bearing Capacity correlations with SPT-value

Bearing Capacity of footings on Sand

Advantages & Disadvantages of Standard Penetration Test

Advantages:
Relatively quick & simple to perform
Equipment & expertise for test is widely available
Provides useful index for relative strength & compressibility of soil
Able to penetrate dense & stiff layers
Results reflect soil density, fabric, stress strain behavior
Disadvantages:
Requires the preparation of bore holes.
Dynamic effort is related to mostly static performance.
If hard stone is encountered, difficult to obtain reliable results.
Not possible to obtain properties continuously with depth.

Cone Penetration Test

Cone Penetration Test

Cone Penetration Test can either be Static or Dynamic.

Continuous record of penetration resistance with depth is achieved.
Consists of a cone 36 mm diameter (1000 mm2) and 60o vertex angle.
Cone is carried at the lower end of steel rod that passes through steel tube of
36 mm dia.
Either the cone, or the tube or both can be forced in to the soil by jacks.
Cone is pushed 80 mm in to the ground and resistance is recorded, steel
tube is pushed to the cone and resistance is recorded. Further, both cone and
tube are penetrated 200 mm and resistance is recorded. Total resistance (q c)
gives the CPT value expressed in kPa.
Cone resistance represents bearing resistance at the base and tube resistance
gives the skin frictional resistance. Total resistance can be correlated with
strength properties, density and deformation characteristics of soil.
Correction for overburden pressure is applied.
Approximately, N = 10qc

CPT-SPT values for different soil types

The Cone Penetrometer Test (CPT)

A correlation between the cone penetration resistance qc and values of was
proposed by Meyerhof, and is shown below:

Advantages & Disadvantages

Advantages:
Continuous resistance with depth is recorded.
Static resistance is more appropriate to determine static
properties of soil.
Can be correlated with most properties of soils.
Disadvantages:
If a small rock piece is encountered, resistance shown is
erratic and incorrect.
Involves handling heavy equipment.

Plate Load Test

Plate Load Test

To determine bearing capacity & settlement characteristics of the

ground through preparing a test pit down to the desired foundation level.
A rigid steel plate (round or square in shape) 300 mm to 750 mm in size,
25 mm thick acts as model footing.
Dial gauges, at least 2, of required accuracy (0.002 mm) are placed on
the plate at corners to measure the vertical deflection.
Loading is provided either as gravity loading or as reaction loading.
(For smaller loads gravity loading is acceptable where sand bags apply
the load). In reaction loading, a reaction truss or beam is anchored to the
ground. A hydraulic jack applies the reaction load.
At every applied load, the plate settles gradually. The dial gauge
readings are recorded after the settlement reduces to least count of gauge
(0.002 mm) and average settlement of 2 or more gauges is recorded.
Load vs. Settlement graph is plotted; load is plotted on the horizontal
scale and settlement is plotted on the vertical scale, (Refer to BS5930)

Advantages & Disadvantages of Plate load test

Advantages:
1- It provides the allowable bearing pressure at the location considering both
shear failure and settlement.
2- The loading techniques and other arrangements for field testing are
identical to the actual conditions in the field.
3- It is a fast method of estimating the average bearing pressure and loadsettlement behavior of the ground.
Disadvantages:
1- Test results reflect the behavior of soil below the plate not that of actual
footing which is generally larger.
2- It is essentially a short duration test. Hence, it does not reflect the long term
consolidation settlement of clayey soils.
3- Size effect is pronounced in granular soils. Correction for size effect is
essential in such soils.

Bearing
Capacity from
Field Tests

DESIGN PROCEDURE FOR SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS ON

GRANULAR SOIL (Standard Penetration Test)

A study of the loadsettlement relationships for footings of

different widths on granular soil shows that it is only when the
width B is less than 1m that bearing capacity considerations are
likely to control the design.
For foundations on granular soil, the conventional approach is to
design from the standpoint of settlement and then check that
there is an adequate factor of safety.
In the case of footings, we generally specify that the settlement
should not exceed 25mm and that the factor of safety should not
be less than 2.

DESIGN PROCEDURE FOR SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS ON

GRANULAR SOIL (Standard Penetration Test)

The bearing pressure that produces any given settlement in a loose

soil will clearly be less than the bearing pressure that produces the
same settlement in a dense soil. It should then be possible to produce
some rough correlation between the bearing pressure that produces a
given settlement and the N-values obtained from the Standard
Penetration Test.
Such a correlation has been proposed by Peck, Hanson & Thornburn
(1974) for the case of a foundation of width B situated on granular
soil in which the water table is at a depth B or more below
foundation level. This suggests that for a total settlement of 25mm,
the net allowable bearing pressure, denoted by qnall, can be expressed
as:

qnall = 11N

(kN/m2)

DESIGN PROCEDURE FOR SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS ON

GRANULAR SOIL (Standard Penetration Test)
However, if the water table lies at ground level, the effective stresses within
the soil are reduced by about 50%, and correspondingly the stiffness of the
soil is reduced. Hence, if the water table is at ground level, the bearing
pressure that will produce a settlement of 25mm is about half of that which
would produce 25mm of settlement if the water table is at a depth of B or
more below foundation level. Thus, for the water table at ground level:
qnall = 0.5 x 11N (kN/m2)
= 5.5N (kN/m2)
For intermediate positions of the water table, we can perform a linear
interpolation between the values 11N and 5.5N using the mathematical
expression:

Where

Dw denotes the depth of the water table below ground level 0 Dw (Df + B)

Shallow foundations on granular soils

Fsd =
or of safety against drained shear failure

tan/ tanm

m = mobilised shear

Figure 7.4 Relationship between N and for shallow foundations in granular soil

Figure 7.6 Correlation

between relative density,
standard penetration value
N, bearing capacity factor
N and effective angle of
friction

Classwork (1):
A vertical concrete column is to carry a total load at ground level of 2200kN, and is to be supported on a
square concrete footing founded at a depth of 2m below ground level in a thick deposit of sand as shown
in Figure 7.11.
A ground investigation revealed that groundwater level was static at a depth of 2m, and Standard
Penetration Tests carried out in the sand gave N values in the range 30 34. The sand has a bulk density
above groundwater level of 1.60Mg/m3 and a saturated density of 1.90Mg/m3.
(a) If the total settlement of the footing is not to exceed 25mm and the factor of safety based on
drained bearing failure is not to be less than 2, determine a suitable size for the square footing.
(b) For this size of footing, calculate the factor of safety based on drained shear failure.
Neglect the difference in density between the concrete and the sand.

Figure (7.4)

Subs. FS=2.0 to find N mobilised then m;

Classwork (2):
(a) A square footing is to be located at a depth of 2m below ground level in a
thick deposit of sand. The footing will support a column load at ground level
of 2000kN. A site investigation revealed that the water table was static at a
considerable depth below foundation level, and Standard Penetration Tests in
the sand gave an N value of 30. The sand was found to have a bulk density
above the water table of 1.60Mg/m3and a saturated density of 1.90Mg/m3.
If the total settlement is to be limited to 25mm, determine a suitable size for
the square footing and estimate values of the factor of safety based on
drained bearing failure and the factor of safety based on drained shear failure
of the foundation.
(b) Repeat the above calculations for conditions where the water table lies:
(i) at the base of the footing, and (ii) at ground surface.

[Ans: (a) B = 2.46m; Fbd = 5.70; Fsd = 1.80

(b) (i) B = 2.94m; Fbd = 7.09; Fsd = 2.09
(ii) B = 3.48m; Fbd = 7.40; Fsd = 2.11]

Classwork (3):
Figure 7.12 shows the details of a bridge pier that is founded in the bed of a
river in a deep deposit of sandy gravel having a saturated density of
2.05Mg/m3 and an effective angle of friction of 35.
The depth of water in the river is 4m, and the base of the pier is located at a
depth of 2.5m below the riverbed level. The pier is 3m wide and the total load
at foundation level including the weight of the structure and the foundation is
1500kN per metre run. Determine values for the factor of safety based on
drained bearing failure and the factor of safety based on drained shear failure.

DESIGN PROCEDURE FOR SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS ON

GRANULAR SOIL (Cone Penetration Test)
In conjunction with the conventional design approach explained above, there are
methods available for predicting the likely settlements of foundations on granular
soil. The BuismanDe Beer method (1965), for example, relates the cone
penetration resistance qc to a constant of compressibility C for the soil and
calculates the settlement of the foundation S as the summation of the settlements
of a number of incremental sub-layers of thickness z using the expression:

However this method is strictly applicable only to normally consolidated

granular soils, and in the case of over-consolidated soils it will therefore
overestimate the likely settlements.

DESIGN PROCEDURE FOR SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS ON

GRANULAR SOIL (Plate Load Test)
Plate load test is often used to assess the likely settlements of foundations on
granular soils. The results of the test are extrapolated to predict the settlement of
the full-scale foundation, the extrapolation is generally based on an empirical
relationship proposed by Terzaghi & Peck (1967) which is in dimensionless form
and approximated by the expression:
(7.26)
Sp=settlement of a plate of width Bp and
Sf =settlement of a foundation of width Bf when the bearing pressure is the same for both
the plate and the foundation.

However, there is considerable evidence that the correlation between foundation

settlement and foundation size is not quite as simple as that suggested by equation
(7.26). This evidence taken together with the doubts expressed earlier about the
truly representative nature of plate load tests suggests that predictions of
foundation settlement based exclusively on equation (7.26) should be treated with
considerable caution.

Factor of Safety
It is the factor of ignorance about the soil under consideration. It
depends on many parameters such as,
1- Type of soil
2- Method of exploration
3- Level of uncertainty in soil strength
4- Importance of structure and consequences of failure
5- Likelihood of design load occurrence, etc.
Important:
Assume a factor of safety F=3, unless otherwise specified for
bearing capacity problems. Table 7.5 provides the details of
factors of safety to be used under different circumstances:

Table 7.5 Typical factors of safety for bearing capacity

calculation in different situations

End of
Shallow
Foundatio