CIVL 3740 - Geotechnical Analysis and Design
Chapter 4
Shallow foundations
SO, Pui San
4.3 FS & Other bearing capacity theories
Allowable bearing capacity
A factor of safety (FOS) of about 3 or more is applied to the ultimate soil bearing
capacity to arrive at the value of allowable bearing capacity (working condition)
Purpose of applying FOS: to protect the foundation against bearing capacity
failure (various uncertainties in theoretical value); to ensure that the foundation
does not undergo undesirable settlement
Factor of safety
Method 1 - Gross method
Gross allowable bearing capacity (gross stress at the foundation base)
and
W(D+L) : the dead and live loads above the
ground surface
WF: the self-weight of the foundation
Ws: the weight of the soil located
immediately above foundation
A: Area of the foundation
Das (2012)
Method 2 - Net stress method
Net allowable bearing capacity (Net stress increase on soil) is the allowable load
per unit area of the foundation in excess of the existing vertical effective stress at
the level of the foundation.
The vertical effective stress at the foundation level is equal to q = γDf, the net
ultimate load is:
If we assume that the weight of the soil and the weight of the concrete from
which the foundation is made are approximately the same:
Example 1 Das (2012)
Solution: Square foundation, general shear failure
Example 2 Das (2012)
A square foundation is shown here. The footing will carry a gross mass of
30,000 kg. Using a factor of safety of 3, determine the size of the footing—that
is, the size of B.
Solution:
Square foundation,
general shear failure:
General Bearing Capacity Equation Das (2012)
After the development of Terzaghi’s bearing-capacity equation, several investigators
worked in this area and refined the solution (Meyerhof, 1951 and 1963; Lundgren
and Mortensen, 1953; Balla, 1962; Vesic, 1973; and Hansen, 1970).
Different solutions show that the bearing-capacity factors Nc and Nq do not
change much
The values of Nγ obtained by different investigators vary widely. This is because
of the variation of the assumption of the wedge shape of soil located directly
below the footing.
φ
Zone Ⅰ : Rankine active - θ Ι = 45 o
+
2
Zone Ⅱ : Radial shear - slip fans
Zone Ⅲ : Rankine passive - θ III = 45o − φ
2
Ⅰ
Ⅲ
Ⅱ Based on model tests
Meyerhof, 1963 (DeBeer and Vesic, 1958)
On the basis of this type of failure mechanism, the ultimate bearing capacity of a
strip footing may be evaluated by the approximate method of superimposition:
Contribution of surcharge (Reissner, 1924)
Contribution of cohesion (Prandtl, 1921)
Contribution of soil weight (Vesic, 1973)
Combination of these equation leads to (Meyerhof, 1963)
Note
The formulation is the same as Terzaghi’s bearing capacity equation
The values of the bearing capacity factors are NOT the same in Terzaghi’s
equation and Meyerhof’s equation
Resulting from different assumptions (e.g., different slip surfaces)
The differences in bearing capacity factors are usually minor compared
with the unknown soil parameters
But for all practical purposes, Terzaghi’s bearing-capacity factors will yield good
results. Differences in bearing-capacity factors are usually minor compared with
the unknown soil parameters.
Das (2012)
Bearing-
Capacity
Factors using
general Nc,
Nq, and Nγ
Modification of General Bearing Capacity Equation
The soil-bearing capacity equation for a strip footing can be modified for
general use by incorporating the following factors:
Semi-empirical factors
based on experimental
results
load inclination factors
Shape factor
L>B
Depth factor
Condition (a): Df / B ≤ 1
Condition (b): Df / B > 1
Inclination factor
For undrained condition, if the footing is subjected to vertical loading (α = 0)
Example 3 Das (2012)
A square footing is shown here. Determine the safe gross load (factor of safety
of 3) that the footing can carry. Use Modification of General Bearing Capacity
Equation
Solution:
Df / B =1/1.2 = 0.83 ≤ 1
The groundwater table is located above the bottom of the foundation
Terzaghi’s bearing capacity equation vs. Meyerhof’s general bearing capacity equation
Differences between the two theories:
Different values for Nc, Nq and Nγ
Different shape factors
Terzaghi’s theory does not require depth factor and inclination factor, but
Meyerhof’s theory requires
Different analysis methods should be adopted:
For the short-term condition (immediately after construction), pore water
pressure and effective stress of soil is unknown, so total stress analysis is
considered and used.
For the long-term condition (some years after construction), excess pore
water pressure due to construction all dissipates, and pore water pressure
(hydrostatic in the long-term condition) and effective stress of soil can be
calculated, so effective stress analysis is considered and used.
Eccentrically loaded foundations
• Theoretical stress distribution below foundation
• Semi-empirical design method (simplified)
M = Qe
Eccentricity of the force (vertical force is Q and corresponding moment is M)
M
e=
Q
Theoretical stress distribution under eccentric load
For e > B/6 (assume soil cannot sustain tension), stress distribution is Triangle
Length of the triangle : 3(B 2 − e )
2Q 4Q
qmax = =
3( B 2 − e) L 3( B − 2e) L
For e ≤ B/6, stress distribution is Trapezoid
Q 6e Q 6e
qmax = 1 + qmin = 1 −
LB B LB B
where e = M Q
Derivation of stress distribution for e ≤ B/6 - Method 1
Moment equilibrium:
B B
1
(qmax − qmin )BL − = M Assume linear distribution
2 2 3 of contact pressure
12 M Q 12e
⇒ qmax − qmin = =
LB 2 LB B
Force equilibrium:
1
(qmax + qmin )BL = Q
2
2Q
⇒ qmax + qmin =
LB
Therefore
Q 6e Q 6e
qmax = 1 + qmin = 1 −
LB B LB B
Derivation of stress distribution for e ≤ B/6 - Method 2
Basic knowledge of “mechanics of material”
Q Mx M
q= − e=
A I Q x
When x = -L/2 (where q is maximum)
Q (Qe )(− B 2 ) Q 6e
qmax = − = 1 +
LB 3
(
LB 12 )
LB B
When x = L/2 (where q is minumum) For rectangle
LB 3
Q (Qe )(B 2 ) Q 6e I=
= − = 1 −
qmin
LB ( 3
LB 12 ) LB B
12
A = LB
Design methods for eccentrically loaded footings
Since the theoretical stress distribution under eccentrically loaded
footings is complicated, simplified methods are generally used in
practice. “Effective area method” (Meyerhof, 1953): a semi-empirical
method
Define effective width B'=B-2e (The
part that is symmetrical about the point
of applying the load is considered
useful/effective)
If the eccentricity were in the direction
of foundation length, should be L’=L-2e
Use the B’ and L’ for design (including
calculating foundation area and any
factor)
Smith (1998)
Example 4
Solution:
For eccentrically loaded footing, the effective width is B’ = B-2e = 2.28 m
Bearing capacity factors: for φ’=35°, Nq ≈ 33 and Nγ ≈ 48
Inclination factor: α=20° (arctan(102/282)), λqi = (1-20/90)2 = 0.6 ; λγi = (1-20/35)2 =
0.18
Shape factor: for very long footing, shape factors are 1
Depth factors: Df/B’=0.44<1, then λqd = 1+2tan(35°)*(1-sin(35°))2*0.44 = 1.1, λγd = 1
The ultimate bearing capacity (c’ = 0) is
1
qu = qN q S q I q Dq + γBN γ Sγ I γ Dγ = 18 × 33 × 0.6 × 1.1 + 0.5 × 18 × 2.28 × 48 × 0.18 = 569 kPa
2
Smith (1998)
Case (a): FOS is calculated using gross method
569
FOS = = 4.6
282 2.28
Case (b): FOS is calculated using net stress method
Net ultimate bearing capacity
qu − net = qu − γD f = 551 kPa
Net stress increase on soil
Fver 282
qn = − γD f = − 18 = 106kPa
B' 2.28
The factor of safety
qu − net
FOS = = 5.2
qn
