P. 1
Foundations (13 Oct 2008)

Foundations (13 Oct 2008)

|Views: 116|Likes:
Publicado porKwaku Solo

More info:

Published by: Kwaku Solo on May 14, 2011
Direitos Autorais:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/22/2012

pdf

text

original

Shallow Foundations

Foundation Challenges: Type of Loading
Static loading
w
a
t
e
r
Settlement
(consolidation)
Bearing Capacity
(extra material added into a silo)
Foundation Challenges: Type of Loading
Dynamics loading:
e.g. wind and waves
Foundation Challenges: Type of Loading (Cont.)
·EÞCO)H· ¤EC-)Þ¹¯ "¹
·)¹´-·O""- 4ÒC)Þ
Dynamics loading
e.g. Earthquakes
Foundation Challenges:
Type of Loading (Cont.)
Foundation Challenges:Stress Paths
Definitions and Key Terms
• Foundation: Structure transmits loads to the underlying ground (soil).
(e.g. Rhinoceros's foot…)
• Footing: Slab element that transmit load from superstructure to ground
(e.g. Skier's skis…).
• Embedment depth, D
f
: The depth below ground surface where the base
of the footing rests.
• Bearing pressure: The normal stress imposed by the footing on the
supporting ground.
• Ultimate bearing capacity q
ult
: The maximum
bearing pressure that the soil can sustain (i.e it fails).
• Ultimate net bearing capacity (q
unet
):
The maximum bearing pressure that the soil can
sustain above its current overburden pressure
D
f
Footing
Ground
Surface
Definitions and Key Terms (Cont.)
• Allowable bearing capacity: (q
all
):
The working pressure that would ensure an acceptable margin of safety
against bearing capacity failure
• Factor of safety: The ratio between (q
unet
) and (q
all
). (F.S. = q
unet
/q
all
)
• Ultimate limit state: A state that defines a limiting shear stress that
should not be exceeded by any conceivable or anticipated loading during
the life span of a foundation or any geotechnical system
• Serviceability limit state: A state that defines a limiting deformation or
settlement of a foundation, which, if exceeded will impair the function of
the supported structure.
Basics
D = 5 cm
Calculate the bearing
pressure at point A in
kPa, assuming uniform
distribution of John’s
Weight
100 kg
John
0.981kg/cm
2
=1kPa
Basics
Concrete Frame
How would you locate
the footings at the Pins
to guarantee uniform
bearing pressure on the
ground?
Ground surface
Types of Foundations
Shal l ow Foundat i ons
Deep Foundat i ons
D
f
/B <= 2.5
D
f
/B > 2.5
B is the width of the footing, and D
f
is the
foundation depth
Examples of Shallow Foundations
Examples of Shallow Foundations
Isolated Footing
Combined Footings
Raft Foundation
Examples of Shallow Foundations (Cont.)
Examples of Shallow Foundations (Cont.)
V
H
D
d
Skirted
Foundations
s
u
z
kz
s
uo
Design Requirements
Load
Load
Settlement
1. The foundation must not collapse
or become unstable under any
conceivable load
2. Deformation (settlement) of the
structure must be within tolerable
limits
[N.B. Special case: dense sand]
Collapse
Load
Stages in load-settlement of shallow
foundations
Load
Load
Settlement
Relatively elastic vertical compression
The load-settlement curve is almost
straight.
Local yielding starts to affect
Upward and outward movement of the
soil with a possible surface heave.
General shear failure
Large settlements are produced as
plastic yielding is fully developed within
the soil. In dense sands: softening can
occur after collapse.
[N.B. Special case: dense sand]
Collapse
Load
Collapse and Failure Loads
Dense sand
(say Dr>0.7)
1
Q
ult
Load
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
Q
ult
Collapse
Failure
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
Q
ult
2
Medium sand
(say 0.7>Dr>0.3)
Q
ult
Failure
Loose sand
(say Dr<0.3)
3
Q
ult
Load
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
Q
ult
Failure
Characteristics of Each Failure Mode
• General shear (Dense sand):
– well defined failure mechanism
– continuous slip surface from footing to surface
– sudden catastrophic failure
• Local shear (Loose sand):
– failure mechanism well defined only beneath the footing
– slip surfaces do not extend to the soil surface
– considerable vertical displacement
– lower ultimate capacity
• Punching shear (Very Loose sand):
– failure mechanism less well defined
– soil beneath footing compresses
– large vertical displacements
– lowest ultimate capacity
– very loose soils or at large embedment depths
Collapse and Failure Loads
Footing
Rigid soil
wedge
45+f’/2
Log spiral slip
surface wedge
Rankine passive
zone
45-f’/2
Terzaghi’s Assumptions:
Soil is semi infinite, homogeneous, isotropic, weightless and
rigid plastic material
B
A
C
D
E
q
Essential Points so far
1. Failure mode in sands depends on the density of the soil.
2. More settlement is expected in loose soils than in dense
soils (for the same load). Alternatively, dense soils can
sustain more load.
3. A successful model to predict general shear failure of
foundations on medium to dense sands might be to assume
a trapped rigid wedge of soil beneath the footing bordering
radial shear zones under Rankine passive zone.
(to be continued…)
Soil Strength: Which Parameters to Use?
But dilation is a factor of density and stress state…
D, M, L: Dense, Medium, Loose
Soil Strength: Which Parameters to Use?
But dilation is also a factor of stress state…
CS φ
cs
!!!
Soil Strength: Which Parameters to Use?
Critical State Concept…
When sheared, state of soil tends towards a
unique line in t - s' - e space.
Or alternatively, the q – p’ – e space
This is called the critical state line (CSL).
Soil Strength: Which Parameters to Use?
undrained loading of clays…
Loose states
Dense states
CSL
Void ratio e
Normal effective stress s'
n
(or mean effective stress p')
Shear stress τ
Drained strength s
d
Undrained strength s
u
Drained strength s
d
Undrained strength s
u
Suction increases
effective stress
Positive pore pressure
reduces effective stress
D
i
l
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
Undrained test
Þ no volume change
allowed
σ'
n
e
o
f'
cv
What is s
u
and Why Can we Use it for Clays?
But remember: s
u
(or =c
u
) is not a fundamental strength property!!!
s
u
σ'
n
Shear stress τ
M
o
h
r
-
C
o
u
l
o
m
b
Tresca
Bearing Capacity Formulas
Methods of Analysis:
1. Effective Stress Analysis (ESA)- sands and slow loading on clays
2. Total Stress Analysis (TSA)- rapid loading on clays
Methods of Solutions
let’s start with retaining walls, just
before sitting on foundations…
Idealisation of Stress-Strain Behaviour:
Let’s simplify, by representing soil as
r i gi d per f ect l y pl ast i c…
St r ess
St rai n
St r engt h, su
su, usef ul f or cl ays i n undr ai ned condi t i ons
Introduction to Limit Analysis Methods for the
Calculation of Bearing Capacity
In this course, 3 methods will be discussed:
1. Limit Equilibrium (LE)
2. Upper Bound (UB)
3. Lower Bound (LB)
LE and UB can, in certain cases, be identical because they both
require an assumption of kinematic failure mechanism
UB and LB solutions may give the exact solution for a problem if
they match!!!
Stability Analysis of Geomechanical Structures
Requirements for exact solutions:
1) Equilibrium
2) Meets Yielding (or failure) conditions (Failure Criterion)
3) Compatibility of deformation (Velocity Field)
Concept of Bound Theorems in Plasticity (cont.)
Load
Deformation
EXACT
Upper Bound
Lower Bound
Pessimistic
Optimistic
The essential steps:
1. Assume a “safe” distribution of stresses (approximation), which
must be in equilibrium (statically admissible)
2. Stresses must be less than or equal to those that will cause failure
3. Use diagrams of the Mohr circles at the different regions to
determine collapse load.
The LB method gives pessimistic answer.
In many cases, the LB stress fields contains stress discontinuities.
Lower Bound
Lower Bound Theorem
σ
h
=0
q
Collapse of a vertical cut with
adjacent surcharge
q
0
Clay, S
u
q = 2 s
u
Assumed st r ess f i el d
σ
τ
Fai l ur e
envel ope
σ
v
= q
s
u
The essential steps:
1. Selection of plausible failure mechanism or failure (as in LE)
2. Determination of internal work (or dissipation) along interfaces of
velocity jumps using the velocity diagram (hodograph)
3. Use of energy balance (External work W
E
== Internal work W
I
) to
determine collapse load.
The UB method provides optimistic answer.
In most general mechanisms dissipation could occur also within zones of
diffusive shear rather than along interfaces of velocity jumps.
Upper Bound
Per unit width into the page:
work input = q. b. δ (1)
plastic work = (2)
(1) = (2)
• Energy balance
external work = internal plastic work
• Work = force * Distance
Upper Bound Theorem
Lengt h of cd =
b 2
δ δ
u u
s b b s 2 2 . 2 =
q = 2s
u
velocity diagram
(hodograph)
δ 2
δ
O
A
F
q
F
Collapse of a vertical cut with
adjacent surcharge
Failure surface
b
45
o
A
c
s
u
O
δ
d
σ
τ
s
u
pol e
Fai l ur e pl anes
45
o
s
u
The essential steps:
1. Selection of plausible failure mechanism or failure
2. Determination of the force acting on the failure surface based on
the force polygons
3. Use of equilibrium equations to determine the collapse or failure
load
Limit equilibrium is mainly used in slope stability problems.
In bearing capacity its use is minimal compared to the other methods as
it cannot indicate on exact solution.
However, it is built on the simple idea of force equilibrium…
Limit Equilibrium
• Combined faetures of upper and lower
bound solutions
• Assumes failure mechanism (sliding of rigid
plastic blocks) (No worries about Compatibility)
• Equilibrium of forces or moments
Limit Equilibrium
2
1
2
2
1
2 . b s b s b q
m Equilibriu From
u u
+ =
q = 2s
u
δ
qb
b s
u
2
b s
u
2
Force Polygon at
Failure
Collapse of a vertical cut with
adjacent surcharge
q
Failure surface
b
45
o
s
n
= s
u
s
u
• Moment equilibrium about point C
δ 2
. 2 .
2
. .
b
b s
b
b q
u
=
q = 2 s
u
Lengt h of CD =
2 / b
+
q
A
B
b
D
s
u
C
s
u
Active Earth Pressure - Rankine's Theory (Lower Bound)
FRICTIONAL SOIL
movement
σ
v
σ
h σ
h drops
s
τ
Pole
φ
σ
τ
max
90+φ
45+φ/ 2
σ
v
σ
h
State
of
failure
τ
σ σ
vo
σ
ho
φ
Orientation of
failure planes
45+φ/ 2
45+φ/ 2
90+φ
Passive Earth Pressure - Rankine's Theory (Lower Bound)
FRICTIONAL SOIL
movement
σ
v
σ
h
σ
h rises
State of
failure
τ
σ
σ
vo
σ
ho
φ
σ
τ
Pole
φ
σ
τ
max
90-φ
45-φ/ 2
σ
h
σ
v
Orientation of
failure planes
45-φ/ 2
45-φ/ 2
90-φ
a
p
K
K
1
=
Methods of Solutions
so what about foundations?
Q
ult
B
R
=
B
τ
=
s
u
σn
Consider strip footing of Width B, resting on surface of saturated clay
with undrained shear strength is s
u
.
Limit Equilibrium (example 1- TSA)
First consider the following mechanism:
Normal stress values are unknown-
but they go through centre of rotation!
Shear stress values on failure surface would
correspond to shear strength of soil!
From moment equilibrium (only!):
28 . 6
Bs
Q
N
0 B B s
2
B
Q
u
ult
c
u ult
= =
= × π − ×
But Terzaghi and Prandtl
claimed Nc=5.14…
Q
ult
B
τ
=
s
u
s
n
R
=
B
*
S
e
c
θ
θ
Limit Equilibrium (example 2- TSA)
Speculate an alternative mechanism:
From moment equilibrium (only!):
( )
( / 2) 2 0
ult
u
Q B s R R π θ × − − × =
52 . 5
Bs
Q
N
u
ult
c
= =
Minimize q
ult
based on θ gives θ=23.2
o
Closer to 5.14…
Upper Bound
Definition of incremental internal work (for ESA)
Mohr Circle of strain rates:
1
δε
2
δε
δγ = δε
2
1
12
δγ
δε
Mohr Circle of effective stresses:
1
' σ
2
' σ
τ
' σ
{ } τ σ ,
n
2 2 1 1 i
' ' W δε σ + δε σ = δ
Upper Bound
Definition of incremental internal work (for TSA)
Mohr Circle of strain rates:
1
δε
2
δε
δγ
δε
2
1 12
δε − =
δε = δε
( )
δγ = δε =
δε σ − σ =
δε σ + δε σ = δ
u 1 u
1 2 1
2 2 1 1 i
s s 2
W
Mohr Circle of total stresses:
σ
1
σ
2
σ
τ
u
s
2
s
2 1
u
σ − σ
=
τ = S
u
Upper Bound
(examples for calculations of work terms)
Q
H
V
y
V
x
External work:
W
E
= QV
y
+ HV
x
Independent of b
b may tend to zero
Internal work (TSA):
W
I
= Volume * δWi [from integration]
= (L.b) Su(ΔV/b) = Su L ΔV
ΔV
b
L
τ = S
u
Upper Bound
(examples for calculations of work terms)
Internal work (TSA):
W
I
= xy × δW
i
δW
i
= 2s
u
× Vy/y
W
I
= 2x × Vy × su
θ
V
0
V
0
Internal work (TSA):
W
I
= 2s
u
r V
o
θ
Fan Shear Zone
Upper Bound (example 1- TSA)
Q
ult
B
R
=
B
δ
W
i
=

s
u *
Δ
s
/
b
d
θ
W
I
= s
u
∗Δ
s
*πB = s
u
*dθ*πB
2
W
E
= Q
ult
*dθ*B/2
From equating W
E
= W
I
Q
ult
=6.28*s
u
*B
As we obtained from limit equilibrium!!!
Upper Bound (example 2- TSA)
Q
ult
B
3 rigid blocks (A-C) that slide relative to each other.
Shear strength is mobilised along block interfaces.
Assume that the same shear strength is acting along the interface
between Block A and the footing..
Let the vertical component of footing "velocity" be v.
A
B
C
Velocity Diagram (Hodograph)
v
Q
ult
B
v
Q
ult
= (6+α)*s
u
*B
Upper Bound (example 3- TSA)
Q
ult
B
As in the previous example, but symmetrical mechanism
However, this time shear strength is not mobilised along the
interface between Block A and the footing because there is not any
relative “velocity” between them.
A
B
C
B
C
Q
ult
B
A
B
C
B
C
Velocity Diagram (Hodograph)
Q
ult
= 6*s
u
*B
v
Upper Bound (example 4- TSA)
As in the previous example, but symmetrical mechanism
However, this time shear strength is not mobilised along the
interface between Block A and the footing because there is not any
relative “velocity” between them.
Q
ult
B
A
B
B

B/2
B
A
B
C
A, C: rigid blocks
B: fan zone comprised of
numerous sliding wedges
Upper Bound (example 5- TSA)
Q
ult
Velocity Diagram (Hodograph)
v
B
A
B
C
Upper Bound (example 6- Prandtl)
Q
ult
The essential steps:
1. Assume a “safe” distribution of stresses (approximation), which
must be in equilibrium (statically admissible)
2. Stresses must be less than or equal to those that will cause failure
3. Use diagrams of the Mohr circles at the different regions to
determine collapse load.
The LB method gives pessimistic answer.
In many cases, the LB stress fields contains stress discontinuities.
Lower Bound
Undrained Bearing Capacity - Simplest Lower Bound
q
Region 1
Major principal
stress horizontal
Region 2
Major principal
stress vertical
Stress discontinuity is frictionless
(in this example only)
Mohr's Circles of Stress
τ
σ
Stress Discontinuity
Stress discontinuity
Region B
(high stress)
Region A
(low stress)
σ
1A
σ
d
τ
d
σ
d
τ
d
σ
1B
=?
Mohr's Circles for Undrained Loading
τ
σ
The change in total stress across a discontinuity is related simply to the
rotation of the principal stresses across the discontinuity.
p
1
σ
1A
σ
1A
σ
d

d
p
2
σ
1B
Undrained Bearing Capacity – Lower Bound
increasing complexity
q
1 2
3
4
π/4
Mohr's Circles for Undrained Loading
Schofield/Wroth, 1968
Take: p=0, k=su
Get: q=2(1+√2)su =4.83su
π/4
Undrained Bearing Capacity - Optimum Lower Bound
q
Region 1: uniform stress state
Region 2: fan of many stress
discontinuities
Region 3: uniform stress state
1
2
3
2
1
Total change in direction of σ
1
from region 3 to region 1 = π/2 (ie within region 2)
If there are n stress discontinuities in the fan region, then each has dθ = π/2n
Mohr's Circles - Optimum Lower Bound Solution
τ
σ
π.s
u
q=(2+π).s
u
Q
ult
= q.B = (2+π).B.s
u
limn→∞[2n*sin(π/2n)]=π
Summary of Undrained Bearing Capacity Solutions
• Solutions were for infinitely long strip footings.
• Lower bound (final): q = 5.14s
u
• Upper bound (final): q = 5.14s
u
• Solutions converged at q = 5.14s
u
• General form (without inclination): q = N
c
s
u
with N
c
=5.14
• Inclined loading (shear stress on footing) reduces bearing capacity.
Effect of Soil Self Weight: e.g., via limit equil.
Additional terms are added to account for the self weight and over burden
pressure but in these cases effective stress analysis should be followed by
considering the friction angle. For example, limit equilibrium could supply the
self weight term by optimizing the geometry of the following failure
mechanism:
a
Q
u
γ is presented
b
Q
u
+W
1
(a)
W
2
(a,b)
W
2
W
1
The overburden stress term could be found by adding forces to the above poligons
W
2
R
1
R
1
R
1
R
2
R
2
R
1
R
2
ESA with self-weight & surcharge:
e.g., via (simplified form of) lower bound
B
D
Q
s
=
γ
D
q
Shallow Foundations have D/B < 1
Typical
Buried
Footing
Equivalent
Surface
Footing
ESA with self-weight & surcharge:
e.g., via (simplified form of) lower bound
Soil at state
of Active
Failure with
σ
v
>
h
σ
Frictionless
Discontinuity
Soil at state
of Passive
Failure with
σ
h
>
v
σ
σ σ
φ φ 1 3
2 = + N c N
N
c
c
φ
σ φ
σ φ
=
+
+
1
3
cot
cot
ESA with self-weight & surcharge:
e.g., via (simplified form of) lower bound
σ γ
v f
q z = +
σ
v
= σ
1
σ
h
= σ
3
N
q z c
c
f
h
φ
γ φ
σ φ
=
+ +
+
cot
cot
σ γ φ φ
φ
h f
N
q z c c = + + −
1
( cot ) cot
σ
h
= σ
1
σ
v
= σ
3
σ γ
v s
q z = +
N
c
q z c
h
s
φ
σ φ
γ φ
=
+
+ +
cot
cot
σ γ φ φ
φ h s
N q z c c = + + − ( cot ) cot
ESA with self-weight & surcharge:
e.g., via (simplified form of) lower bound
( ) ( ) σ σ
h active h passive
H H
dz dz =
∫ ∫
0 0
1
2 2
2 2
N
q H
H
c H N q H
H
c H
f s
φ
φ
γ
φ
γ
φ + +






= + +






cot cot
( ) ( )
q q N
H
N c N
f s
= + − + −
φ φ φ
γ
φ
2 2 2
2
1 1 cot
ESA with self-weight & surcharge:
e.g., via (simplified form of) lower bound
• This solution will give a lower bound to the true solution
because of the simplified stress distribution assumed in the soil
• Similar terms occur in all bearing capacity expressions. They
are functions of the friction angle and:
• the surcharge applied to the soil surface
• the self weight of the soil
• cohesion
( ) ( )
q q N
H
N c N
f s
= + − + −
φ φ φ
γ
φ
2 2 2
2
1 1 cot
Strip Footing with Inclined Loading - Lower Bound
q
Average shear
stress, τ
p
o
σ
1
horizontal
s
1
inclined to vertical
In region 1:
When a = 0 (purely vertical loading), then σ
1
is vertical.
When a =1 (footing sliding horizontally), then σ
1
is inclined at 45°
(since the maximum shear stress is on a horizontal plane).
τ = α s
u
fan zone
1
2
3
τ
σ
Mohr's Circles for Inclined Loading
Collapse Load for Inclined Loading on Cohesive Soil
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
α
q/s
u
0
1
2
0 2 4 6
Vertical load
H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

l
o
a
d
Interaction Diagram
Bearing Capacity Formulas: Terzaghi, 1943
Assumptions:
• Strip footing
• D
f
< B, where B is the footing width
• General shear failure
• The angle θ = φ’ (later was found to be 45+φ’/2)
• The shear strength above the footing base is negligible
• Soil above the footing can be replaced by an equivalent surcharge = γ D
f
• The base of the footing is rough
Footing
q
D
f
Ignored shear
strength
Total Stress Analysis (TSA): (agreeing with Prandtl, 1921):
q
unet
= 5.14 s
u
Where: q
unet
= Ultimate net bearing capacity (Force L
-2
)
s
u
= (c
u
=) Undrained shear strength (Force L
-2
)
Bearing Capacity Formulas: Terzaghi, 1943, cont.
Effective Stress Analysis (ESA) (Strip footing):
γ
γ N B N q N c q
q c ult
5 . 0 + + =
Bearing Capacity Formulas: Terzaghi, 1943, cont.
N
c
, N
q
and N
g
are the bearing capacity factors, all are function of φ'
c = cohesion in general cases. (Force L
-2
)
(use s
u
= (c
u
=) in rapid loading of clays)
θ = γ D
f
(overburden pressure) (Force L
-2
)
B = Footing width (L)
0.1
1
10
100
1000
0 10 20 30 40 50
Bearing Capacity Factors
φ π
φ
tan 2
)
2
45 ( tan e N
q
+ =
( ) φ cot 1 − =
q c
N N
( ) φ
γ
tan 1 2 + =
q
N N
N
γ
N
q
N
c
φ
ο
N
c
,

N
q
a
n
d

N
γ
0 14 . 5 = = φ when N
c
L
0 0 = = φ
γ
when N L
Effective Stress Analysis (ESA) (Square footing):
γ
γ N B N q N c q
q c ult
4 . 0 3 . 1 + + =
Effective Stress Analysis (ESA) (Circular footing):
γ
γ N B N q N c q
q c ult
3 . 0 3 . 1 + + =
Bearing Capacity Formulas: Terzaghi, 1943, cont.
General Bearing Capacity Formulas
(Meyerhof, 1963)
Effective Stress Analysis (ESA) (Strip footing):
γ γ γ γ
γ d i s N B d i s N q d i s N c q
q q q q c c c c ult
5 . 0 + + =
Where s, i and d are:
Shape factor, inclination factor and depth factor respectively
Shape factors
De Beer (1970) Shape
Source Relationship Factor
c
q
c
N
N
L
B
s . 1 + =
φ tan . 1
L
B
s
q
+ =
L
B
s 4 . 0 1 − =
γ
L = Length of foundation > B
Depth factors
Hansen (1970)
Depth (condition 1)
D
f
/B <= 1
Depth (condition 1)
D
f
/B > 1
Source Relationship Factor
B
D
d
f
c
4 . 0 1 + =
B
D
d
f
q
2
) sin 1 ( tan 2 1 φ φ − + =
1 =
γ
d








+ =

B
D
d
f
c
1
tan ) 4 . 0 ( 1








− + =

B
D
d
f
q
1 2
tan . ) sin 1 ( tan 2 1 φ φ
1 =
γ
d
N.B: D
f
/B is in radians
Inclinations factors
Meyerhof (1963);
Hanna and
Meyerhof (1981)
For if b<f
Otherwise
Inclination
(in the direction of
the footing width)
Source Relationship Factor
2
90
1








− = =
o
o
q c
i i
β
2
1








− =
φ
β
γ
i
D
f
NB: These factors are empirical and
based on extensive laboratory tests
b
b = Angle of the load with Vertical
0 =
γ
i
Gross and Net Ultimate Bearing Capacity
1. The formulas presented before give gross ultimate
bearing capacity, i.e q
ult
2. Net ultimate bearing capacity, q
unet =
q
ult
- γD
f
Factor of Safety, F
s
Allowable Bearing Pressure
q
an
= Net allowable bearing pressure
q
an
= (q
unet
/FS ) …………………………………………….(1)
q
ag
= Gross allowable bearing pressure = q
an
+ γD
f
……...(2)
(i.e, the factor of safety is not applied to the existing overburden pressure)
From (1) and (2):









=
f ag
unet
s
D q
q
F
γ
Example
0.7 m
c = 0
φ = 30
o
γ = 18 kN/m
3
B
Square
footing
20
o
Calculate the width B (for F
S
= 3)
Q (gross) = 150 kN
Effect of Water Table on Bearing Capacity
Effective stresses (effective unit weights) must be used where appropriate
• The terms to be corrected
are:
♣ q (overburden pressure);
♣ γ B in the third term
• Case (1): Above Foundation depth
♣ q = γ d
w
+ (D
f
- d
w
)γ'
♣ (γ' B) in the third term
B
d
w
B
1
2
3
D
f
d
w
• Case (2): d
w
<B
♣ q is not affected
♣ The term γ B is taken as:
γ d
w
+ (B - d
w
) γ'
• Case (3): d
w
>= B
♣ No Correction
Eccentric Footings
Definition:
Eccentric footing results from the condition that
the load (normal to the footing) is applied off the
centre of the footing. This means that the footing
will be subjected to bending moment
M
y
X
Y
B
L
P
e
B
Contact stress
(Resultant in the middle third!)
P
e
B
= M
y
/ P
M
y
Eccentric Footings (cont.)
Bearing capacity:
Treat the footing as a centric one, with reduced contact area of L’ x B’,
where:
L’ = L – 2 e
L
: B’ = B – 2 e
B
e
L
and e
B
are the eccentricity in L and B directions respectively
• Use B’ in the bearing capacity equation to calculate (q’
ult
)
• Shape and inclination factors are calculated based on L’
and B’ (effective area).
• It is possible that B’ > L’. In that case replace between
them.
• Depth factors are calculated based on actual L and B.
• Q
ult
= q’
ult
(B’) (L’)
• F
s
= Q
ult
/P
Eccentric Footings (cont.)
Example:
A square footing 2m*2m is subjected to an axial gross force of 3000kN
and moments of Mx = 800kN*m and My = 300kN*m.
From laboratory testing the strength parameters of the soil are given by
c = 20 kPa and φ = 36
o
and the total soil density is γ
t
= 18 kN/m
3
.
The water table is 7m and the foundation surface is at 2m.
Check the stability of the foundation by requiring:
(a) FS>3
(b) That no tension between footing and soil could be developed
Example:
e
y
= 300/3000 = 0.1
e
x
= 800/3000 = 0.266
B’ = B - 2e
y
= 1.8m; L’ = L – 2e
y
=1.47m
B’< L’ -> B’=1.47m and L’=1.8m
N
c
=50.55; N
q
=37.7; N
γ
=44.4 (for φ=36
o
)
Eccentric Footings (cont.)
59 . 1 tan .
' L
' B
1 s
q
= φ + = 61 . 1
N
N
.
' L
' B
1 s
c
q
c
= + =
67 . 0
' L
' B
4 . 0 1 s = − =
γ
Example:
Eccentric Footings (cont.)
⇒ = 1
B
D
f
kPa 5370
1 67 . 0 4 . 44 47 . 1 18 5 . 0 25 . 1 59 . 1 7 . 37 ) 2 18 ( 4 . 1 61 . 1 55 . 50 20
d s N B 5 . 0 d s N q d s N c q
q q q c c c ult

⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ + ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ × + ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ =
γ + + =
γ γ γ
4 . 1
B
D
4 . 0 1 d
f
c
= + =
25 . 1
B
D
) sin 1 ( tan 2 1 d
f
2
q
= φ − φ + =
1 =
γ
d
3 86 . 4
2 18 ) 47 . 1 8 . 1 /( 3000
2 18 5370
D q
D q
F
f ag
f ult
s
> =
⋅ − ⋅
⋅ −
=








γ −
γ −
=
1)
However, need to check for eccentricity!!!
Eccentric Footings (cont.)
Condition (2) is not satisfied!
In these problems it is preferable to first check this condition!!!
Although ex=0.266<L/6=0.333
And although ey=0.1<B/6=0.333
Tension could still occur!!! In rectangular footing the non-
tension kernel should be within…
Bearing Capacity on Layered Soils
I) Clay overlying Clay
• Two cases:
a) The Foundation is on a strong clay layer underlain by a
weak clay layer (s
u1
/s
u2
>1).
b) The foundation is on a weak clay layer underlain by a
strong clay layer (s
u1
/s
u2
<1).
B
Layer 1
(s
u1
)
Layer 2
(s
u2
)
Meyerhof and Hanna (1978)
Bearing Capacity on Layered Soils
Case (a): Strong over weak (s
u1
/s
u2
>1).
D
f
H
H
a
a'
Weak layer
Weak layer
strong layer
• If H/B is relatively small, failure would occur as punching
in the first layer, followed by general shear failure in the
second (the weak) layer
• If H/B is relatively large, the failure surface would be fully
contained within the first (upper layer).
Bearing Capacity on Layered Soils
Case (a): Strong over weak (s
u1
/s
u2
>1) (cont.)
f
a
c u ult
D
B
H s
L
B
N s
L
B
q
1 2
2
1 2 . 0 1 γ +


















+ +












+ =
From general shear failure of
bottom soil layer
From punching shear failure of
top soil layer
f c u ult
D N s
L
B
q
1 1
2 . 0 1 γ +












+ ≤
From general shear failure of top
soil layer
Bearing Capacity on Layered Soils
Case (a): Strong over weak (s
u1
/s
u2
>1) (cont.)
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
s
u2
/s
u1
s
a
/
s
u
1
Where:
B = width of foundation
L = length of foundation
N
c
= 5.14 (see chart)
s
a
= cohesion along the line a-a' in
the previous figure.
Bearing Capacity on Layered Soils
Case (b): Weak over strong (su
1
/s
u2
<1)
( )
t H
H
t b t ult
q q q q q
f
≥ − − + =
2
1 ) (
f c u t
D N s
L
B
q
1 1
2 . 0 1 γ +












+ =
f c u b
D N s
L
B
q 2 2 . 0 1
2
γ +












+ =
B H
f

N.B: N
c
= 5.14 for φ = 0
Bearing Capacity on Layered Soils
II) Dense or compacted sand above soft clay
D
f
H
H
Soft clay: s
u
φ = 0
Dense sand: φ,
s
u
= 0
• If H is relatively
small, failure would
extend into the soft
clay layer
• If H is relatively
large, the failure
surface would be
fully contained
within the sand
layer.
Meyerhof (1974)
Bearing Capacity on Layered Soils
II) Dense or compacted sand above soft clay (cont.)
f s
f
2
c ult
D
B
tan
K
H
D 2
1 H N c q γ +






φ






+ γ + =
The above formula is for a strip footing
γ
γ γ N B N D q
q f ult
2
1
) (
max
+ =
For a rectangular footing, use:
γ
γ γ N B
L
B
N D q
q f ult






− + = 4 . 0 1
2
1
) (
max
f s
f
2
c u ult
D
B
tan
K
H
D 2
1 H
L
B
1 N s
L
B
2 . 0 1 q γ +
φ






+ γ






+ +






+ =
Bearing Capacity on Layered Soils
II) Dense or compacted sand above soft clay (cont.)
Ref:
Meyerhof, G.G. (1974). Ultimate bearing capacity of footing
on sand layer overlying clay. Canadian Geotechnical
journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 224-229.
Meyerhof, G.G. and Hanna, A.M. (1978). Ultimate bearing
capacity of foundations on layered soil under inclined loads.
Canadian Geotechnical journal, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 565-572.

Foundation Challenges: Type of Loading

Static loading

ate w

r

Settlement
(consolidation)

Bearing Capacity
(extra material added into a silo)

Foundation Challenges: Type of Loading

Dynamics loading: e.g. wind and waves

Foundation Challenges: Type of Loading (Cont.)

Foundation Challenges: Type of Loading (Cont.)

Dynamics loading e.g. Earthquakes

Foundation Challenges:Stress Paths

Df : The depth below ground surface where the base of the footing rests.g. Rhinoceros's foot…) Footing: Slab element that transmit load from superstructure to ground (e. Skier's skis…). (e. Bearing pressure: The normal stress imposed by the footing on the supporting ground.Definitions and Key Terms • • • • • • Foundation: Structure transmits loads to the underlying ground (soil).e it fails). Ultimate bearing capacity qult : The maximum bearing pressure that the soil can sustain (i.g. Ultimate net bearing capacity (qunet): The maximum bearing pressure that the soil can sustain above its current overburden pressure Ground Surface Df Footing . Embedment depth.

which. if exceeded will impair the function of the supported structure.S. (F. • • • .Definitions and Key Terms (Cont. = qunet/qall ) Ultimate limit state: A state that defines a limiting shear stress that should not be exceeded by any conceivable or anticipated loading during the life span of a foundation or any geotechnical system Serviceability limit state: A state that defines a limiting deformation or settlement of a foundation.) • Allowable bearing capacity: (qall): The working pressure that would ensure an acceptable margin of safety against bearing capacity failure Factor of safety: The ratio between (qunet) and (qall).

John 100 kg Basics Calculate the bearing pressure at point A in kPa.981kg/cm2=1kPa . assuming uniform distribution of John’s Weight D = 5 cm 0.

Concrete Frame Basics How would you locate the footings at the Pins to guarantee uniform bearing pressure on the ground? Ground surface .

and Df is the foundation depth .5 B is the width of the footing.5 Df/B > 2.Types of Foundations Shallow Foundations Deep Foundations Df/B <= 2.

Examples of Shallow Foundations Isolated Footing Raft Foundation Combined Footings .

) H Skirted Foundations V su d D z suo kz .Examples of Shallow Foundations (Cont.

Design Requirements Load Load 1. Deformation (settlement) of the structure must be within tolerable limits Collapse Load Settlement [N.B. The foundation must not collapse or become unstable under any conceivable load 2. Special case: dense sand] .

B. Load Load Local yielding starts to affect General shear failure Upward and outward movement of the soil with a possible surface heave. Collapse Load Large settlements are produced as plastic yielding is fully developed within the soil. Settlement [N. In dense sands: softening can occur after collapse. Special case: dense sand] .Stages in load-settlement of shallow foundations Relatively elastic vertical compression The load-settlement curve is almost straight.

3) Dense sand (say Dr>0.3) .7>Dr>0.Collapse and Failure Loads Qult 1 2 Qult 3 Qult Load Load Qult Qult Settlement Settlement Collapse Failure Qult Failure Settlement Failure Loose sand (say Dr<0.7) Medium sand (say 0.

Characteristics of Each Failure Mode • General shear (Dense sand): – well defined failure mechanism – continuous slip surface from footing to surface – sudden catastrophic failure Local shear (Loose sand): – failure mechanism well defined only beneath the footing – slip surfaces do not extend to the soil surface – considerable vertical displacement – lower ultimate capacity Punching shear (Very Loose sand): – failure mechanism less well defined – soil beneath footing compresses – large vertical displacements – lowest ultimate capacity – very loose soils or at large embedment depths • • .

homogeneous.Collapse and Failure Loads Footing 45+f’/2 45-f’/2 C q A E B Log spiral slip surface wedge Rigid soil wedge D Rankine passive zone Terzaghi’s Assumptions: Soil is semi infinite. weightless and rigid plastic material . isotropic.

More settlement is expected in loose soils than in dense soils (for the same load). Failure mode in sands depends on the density of the soil. Alternatively. 2. 3. (to be continued…) . A successful model to predict general shear failure of foundations on medium to dense sands might be to assume a trapped rigid wedge of soil beneath the footing bordering radial shear zones under Rankine passive zone. dense soils can sustain more load.Essential Points so far 1.

M. Loose . L: Dense.Soil Strength: Which Parameters to Use? But dilation is a factor of density and stress state… D. Medium.

Soil Strength: Which Parameters to Use? But dilation is also a factor of stress state… CS φcs!!! .

s' .e space. state of soil tends towards a unique line in t . . Or alternatively.Soil Strength: Which Parameters to Use? Critical State Concept… When sheared. the q – p’ – e space This is called the critical state line (CSL).

Soil Strength: Which Parameters to Use? undrained loading of clays… Shear stress τ Drained strength sd f'cv Undrained strength su Drained strength sd Undrained strength su σ'n Dilation Suction increases effective stress Positive pore pressure reduces effective stress Contraction Loose states Void ratio e Undrained test Þ no volume change allowed eo Dense states CSL Normal effective stress s'n (or mean effective stress p') .

What is su and Why Can we Use it for Clays? Shear stress τ M mb lo ou -C hr o su Tresca σ'n But remember: su (or =cu) is not a fundamental strength property!!! .

sands and slow loading on clays 2. Effective Stress Analysis (ESA).rapid loading on clays .Bearing Capacity Formulas Methods of Analysis: 1. Total Stress Analysis (TSA).

Methods of Solutions let’s start with retaining walls. just before sitting on foundations… .

by representing soil as rigid perfectly plastic… Stress Strength. useful for clays in undrained conditions .Idealisation of Stress-Strain Behaviour: Let’s simplify. su Strain su.

Introduction to Limit Analysis Methods for the Calculation of Bearing Capacity In this course. Upper Bound (UB) 3. Lower Bound (LB) LE and UB can. Limit Equilibrium (LE) 2. in certain cases. 3 methods will be discussed: 1. be identical because they both require an assumption of kinematic failure mechanism UB and LB solutions may give the exact solution for a problem if they match!!! .

Stability Analysis of Geomechanical Structures Requirements for exact solutions: 1) Equilibrium 2) Meets Yielding (or failure) conditions (Failure Criterion) 3) Compatibility of deformation (Velocity Field) .

Concept of Bound Theorems in Plasticity (cont.) Optimistic Load Upper Bound EXACT Lower Bound Pessimistic Deformation .

the LB stress fields contains stress discontinuities. Stresses must be less than or equal to those that will cause failure 3. Use diagrams of the Mohr circles at the different regions to determine collapse load. In many cases. which must be in equilibrium (statically admissible) 2. Assume a “safe” distribution of stresses (approximation).Lower Bound The essential steps: 1. . The LB method gives pessimistic answer.

Lower Bound Theorem q q τ su 0 Failure envelope σh =0 Clay. Su Collapse of a vertical cut with adjacent surcharge σv = q σ Assumed stress field q = 2 su .

Determination of internal work (or dissipation) along interfaces of velocity jumps using the velocity diagram (hodograph) 3. . The UB method provides optimistic answer. In most general mechanisms dissipation could occur also within zones of diffusive shear rather than along interfaces of velocity jumps. Use of energy balance (External work WE == Internal work WI) to determine collapse load.Upper Bound The essential steps: 1. Selection of plausible failure mechanism or failure (as in LE) 2.

b. δ (1) plastic work = su 2 b. 2 δ = 2 b su δ (2) (1) = (2) q = 2su τ su pole su 45o Failure planes σ .Upper Bound Theorem q • Energy balance external work = internal plastic work • Work = force * Distance Length of cd = 2b d O Failure surface F δ A su 45o b c O velocity diagram (hodograph) Per unit width into the page: δ F 2δ A Collapse of a vertical cut with adjacent surcharge work input = q.

Limit Equilibrium The essential steps: 1. Selection of plausible failure mechanism or failure 2. it is built on the simple idea of force equilibrium… . However. Determination of the force acting on the failure surface based on the force polygons 3. Use of equilibrium equations to determine the collapse or failure load Limit equilibrium is mainly used in slope stability problems. In bearing capacity its use is minimal compared to the other methods as it cannot indicate on exact solution.

Limit Equilibrium • Combined faetures of upper and lower bound solutions • Assumes failure mechanism (sliding of rigid plastic blocks) (No worries about Compatibility) q su sn= su 45o b • Equilibrium of forces or moments su 2b qb Failure surface Collapse of a vertical cut with adjacent surcharge su δ 2b From Equilibriu m 1 +s 2 b 1 q.b = su 2 b u 2 2 q = 2su Force Polygon at Failure .

b. b q.• Moment equilibrium about point C + A su q C D su b B Length of CD = b/ 2 b = s . u 2 2δ q = 2 su . 2b.

Active Earth Pressure .Rankine's Theory (Lower Bound) FRICTIONAL SOIL movement σv σh τ State of failure σho φ τ 45+φ/2 φ σh drops σvo σ σh σ 90+φ σv τmax s 45+φ/2 Orientation of failure planes 90+φ 45+φ/2 Pole .

Passive Earth Pressure .Rankine's Theory (Lower Bound) FRICTIONAL SOIL σv movement τ State of failure φ τ φ 45-φ/2 σh σh rises σho σvo σ σv σ τmax 90-φ σh σ 45-φ/2 Pole 90-φ Orientation of 45-φ/2 failure planes Kp = 1 Ka .

Methods of Solutions so what about foundations? .

First consider the following mechanism: Qult B Normal stress values are unknownbut they go through centre of rotation! Shear stress values on failure surface would correspond to shear strength of soil! R= B τ= s u σn From moment equilibrium (only!): Q ult × B − s u πB × B = 0 2 Q ult = 6.28 Nc = Bsu But Terzaghi and Prandtl claimed Nc=5.Limit Equilibrium (example 1. resting on surface of saturated clay with undrained shear strength is su.14… .TSA) Consider strip footing of Width B.

2o From moment equilibrium (only!): τ= s u sn Q ult = 5.Limit Equilibrium (example 2.TSA) Speculate an alternative mechanism: Qult B R= B*S ecθ θ Qult × ( B / 2) − s u (π − 2θ ) R × R = 0 Minimize qult based on θ gives θ=23.52 Nc = Bsu Closer to 5.14… .

τ} δε σ'2 σ'1 σ' δWi = σ'1 δε1 + σ'2 δε2 .Upper Bound Definition of incremental internal work (for ESA) Mohr Circle of strain rates: Mohr Circle of effective stresses: δγ 1 δε12 = δγ 2 δε2 δε1 τ {σn .

Upper Bound Definition of incremental internal work (for TSA) Mohr Circle of strain rates: Mohr Circle of total stresses: δγ τ = −δε2 δε δε1 δε12 = δε1 σ1 − σ2 su = 2 τ = Su su σ2 δε2 σ1 σ δWi = σ1δε1 + σ2δε2 = (σ1 − σ2 )δε1 = 2suδε1 = su δγ .

b) Su(ΔV/b) = Su L ΔV Independent of b b may tend to zero .Upper Bound (examples for calculations of work terms) ΔV H Vx Q Vy τ = Su L Internal work (TSA): b External work: WE = QVy+ HVx WI = Volume * δWi [from integration] = (L.

Upper Bound (examples for calculations of work terms) Fan Shear Zone V V θ 0 0 Internal work (TSA): WI = xy × δWi δWi = 2su × Vy/y WI = 2x × Vy × su Internal work (TSA): WI = 2su r Voθ .

28*su*B As we obtained from limit equilibrium!!! Δ s /b .TSA) Qult B WI= su∗Δs*πB = su*dθ*πB2 WE= Qult*dθ*B/2 From equating WE= WI dθ δW R= B i= su * Qult =6.Upper Bound (example 1.

.Upper Bound (example 2.. Shear strength is mobilised along block interfaces. Assume that the same shear strength is acting along the interface between Block A and the footing.TSA) B Qult A B C 3 rigid blocks (A-C) that slide relative to each other. Let the vertical component of footing "velocity" be v.

Velocity Diagram (Hodograph) B v Qult v Qult = (6+α)*su*B .

Upper Bound (example 3.TSA) B Qult C B A B C As in the previous example. . this time shear strength is not mobilised along the interface between Block A and the footing because there is not any relative “velocity” between them. but symmetrical mechanism However.

Velocity Diagram (Hodograph) B Qult C B A B C Qult = 6*su*B v .

Upper Bound (example 4. .TSA) B Qult B/2 B dε A B As in the previous example. but symmetrical mechanism However. this time shear strength is not mobilised along the interface between Block A and the footing because there is not any relative “velocity” between them.

Upper Bound (example 5. C: rigid blocks B: fan zone comprised of numerous sliding wedges .TSA) B Qult A B C A.

Velocity Diagram (Hodograph) v .

Upper Bound (example 6.Prandtl) B Qult A B C .

In many cases. Stresses must be less than or equal to those that will cause failure 3. the LB stress fields contains stress discontinuities. which must be in equilibrium (statically admissible) 2. The LB method gives pessimistic answer. .Lower Bound The essential steps: 1. Assume a “safe” distribution of stresses (approximation). Use diagrams of the Mohr circles at the different regions to determine collapse load.

Simplest Lower Bound q Stress discontinuity is frictionless (in this example only) Region 1 Major principal stress horizontal Region 2 Major principal stress vertical .Undrained Bearing Capacity .

Mohr's Circles of Stress τ σ .

Stress Discontinuity Region B (high stress) σd τd σ1B=? Stress discontinuity Region A (low stress) σd τd σ1A .

.τd p2 The change in total stress across a discontinuity is related simply to the rotation of the principal stresses across the discontinuity.τ Mohr's Circles for Undrained Loading σ1A σ1A σ1B σ p1 σd.

Undrained Bearing Capacity – Lower Bound increasing complexity q π/4 1 2 3 4 .

k=su Get: q=2(1+√2)su =4.83su π/4 Schofield/Wroth.Mohr's Circles for Undrained Loading Take: p=0. 1968 .

then each has dθ = π/2n .Optimum Lower Bound q Region 1: uniform stress state Region 2: fan of many stress discontinuities Region 3: uniform stress state 1 3 1 2 2 Total change in direction of σ1 from region 3 to region 1 = π/2 (ie within region 2) If there are n stress discontinuities in the fan region.Undrained Bearing Capacity .

Mohr's Circles .su σ Qult = q.B.Optimum Lower Bound Solution lim [2n*sin(π/2n)]=π n→∞ τ π.B = (2+π).su q=(2+π).su .

14su • Upper bound (final): q = 5.14su • General form (without inclination): q = Ncsu with Nc=5.14 • Inclined loading (shear stress on footing) reduces bearing capacity.Summary of Undrained Bearing Capacity Solutions • Solutions were for infinitely long strip footings. • Lower bound (final): q = 5. .14su • Solutions converged at q = 5.

For example.b) Qu R2 a b R1 R1 R2 γ is presented R2 R1 W2 R1 W1 W2 The overburden stress term could be found by adding forces to the above poligons . Additional terms are added to account for the self weight and over burden pressure but in these cases effective stress analysis should be followed by considering the friction angle.g..Effect of Soil Self Weight: e. via limit equil. limit equilibrium could supply the self weight term by optimizing the geometry of the following failure mechanism: Qu+W1(a) W2(a.

ESA with self-weight & surcharge: e. via (simplified form of) lower bound B Typical Buried Footing D Q Equivalent Surface Footing qs = γ D Shallow Foundations have D/B < 1 ..g.

g. via (simplified form of) lower bound Soil at state of Active Failure with σ v > σh σ1 = N φ σ 3 + 2 c N φ Frictionless Discontinuity Soil at state of Passive Failure with σ h > σv Nφ σ 1 + c cot φ = σ 3 + c cot φ .ESA with self-weight & surcharge: e..

ESA with self-weight & surcharge: e.. via (simplified form of) lower bound σv = σ1 σh = σ3 σv = qf + γ z Nφ σh = σh = σ1 σv = σ3 σv = qs + γ z Nφ = σ h + c cot φ q s + γ z + c cot φ q f + γ z + c cot φ = σ h + c cot φ 1 ( q f + γ z + c cot φ ) − c cot φ Nφ σ h = N φ ( q s + γ z + c cot φ ) − c cot φ .g.

.ESA with self-weight & surcharge: e. via (simplified form of) lower bound ∫ (σ 0 H h active ) dz = ∫ (σ 0 H h ) passive dz 1 Nφ ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ γ H2 γ H2 ⎢q f H + 2 + c cot φ H ⎥ = N φ ⎢q s H + 2 + c cot φ H ⎥ ⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦ qf = qs N 2 φ γH 2 2 + N φ − 1 + c cot φ N φ − 1 2 ( ) ( ) .g.

They are functions of the friction angle and: • the surcharge applied to the soil surface • the self weight of the soil • cohesion .ESA with self-weight & surcharge: e. via (simplified form of) lower bound qf = qs N2 + φ γH 2 2 N φ − 1 + c cot φ N φ − 1 2 ( ) ( ) • This solution will give a lower bound to the true solution because of the simplified stress distribution assumed in the soil • Similar terms occur in all bearing capacity expressions.g..

τ τ = α su 1 2 3 q po σ1 horizontal s1 inclined to vertical fan zone In region 1: When a = 0 (purely vertical loading). then σ1 is vertical. then σ1 is inclined at 45° (since the maximum shear stress is on a horizontal plane).Lower Bound Average shear stress. . When a =1 (footing sliding horizontally).Strip Footing with Inclined Loading .

Mohr's Circles for Inclined Loading τ σ .

6 0.8 1 .Collapse Load for Inclined Loading on Cohesive Soil 6 5 4 q/su 3 2 1 0 0 0.2 0.4 α 0.

Interaction Diagram 2 Horizontal load 1 0 0 2 Vertical load 4 6 .

1943 Assumptions: • Strip footing • Df < B.Bearing Capacity Formulas: Terzaghi. where B is the footing width • General shear failure • The angle θ = φ’ (later was found to be 45+φ’/2) • The shear strength above the footing base is negligible • Soil above the footing can be replaced by an equivalent surcharge = γ Df • The base of the footing is rough Footing Ignored shear strength Df q .

cont.Bearing Capacity Formulas: Terzaghi. 1921): qunet = 5. 1943. Total Stress Analysis (TSA): (agreeing with Prandtl.14 su Where: qunet = Ultimate net bearing capacity (Force L-2) su = (cu=) Undrained shear strength (Force L-2) .

Bearing Capacity Formulas: Terzaghi. 1943. Effective Stress Analysis (ESA) (Strip footing): qult = c N c + q N q + 0. (Force L-2) (use su = (cu=) in rapid loading of clays) θ = γ Df (overburden pressure) (Force L-2) B = Footing width (L) . all are function of φ' c = cohesion in general cases. cont. Nq and Ng are the bearing capacity factors.5 γ B N γ Nc.

Bearing Capacity Factors 1000 N q = tan ( 45 + 2 100 φ 2 ) eπ tan φ Nc.1 0 10 20 φο 30 40 50 . 14 L when φ = 0 0. Nq and Nγ Nγ = 2 (N q + 1) tan φ Nc N γ = 0 L when φ = 0 10 Nq 1 N c = (N q − 1) cot φ Nγ N c = 5 .

1943.3 γ B N γ .Bearing Capacity Formulas: Terzaghi. cont.4 γ B N γ Effective Stress Analysis (ESA) (Circular footing): qult = 1.3 c N c + q N q + 0. Effective Stress Analysis (ESA) (Square footing): qult = 1.3 c N c + q N q + 0.

General Bearing Capacity Formulas (Meyerhof. inclination factor and depth factor respectively . 1963) Effective Stress Analysis (ESA) (Strip footing): qult = c Nc scic dc + q Nq sqiq dq + 0.5γ B Nγ sγ iγ dγ Where s. i and d are: Shape factor.

Shape factors
Factor Shape Relationship
B Nq sc = 1 + . L Nc

Source De Beer (1970)

B s q = 1 + . tan φ L B sγ = 1 − 0 .4 L
L = Length of foundation > B

Depth factors
Factor
Depth (condition 1) Df/B <= 1

Relationship
d c = 1 + 0 .4 Df B Df B

Source Hansen (1970)

d q = 1 + 2 tan φ (1 − sin φ ) 2

dγ = 1
d c = 1 + ( 0 . 4 ) tan
−1

Depth (condition 1) Df/B > 1

⎛ Df ⎞ ⎜ ⎜ B ⎟ ⎟ ⎝ ⎠
−1

d q = 1 + 2 tan φ (1 − sin φ ) 2 . tan

⎛ Df ⎞ ⎜ ⎜ B ⎟ ⎟ ⎝ ⎠

dγ = 1

N.B: Df/B is in radians

Inclinations factors
Factor
Inclination (in the direction of the footing width)

Relationship
⎛ β ic = i q = ⎜ 1 − ⎜ 90 o ⎝
o 2

Source
⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠
2

Meyerhof (1963); Hanna and Meyerhof (1981)

⎛ β ⎞ For iγ = ⎜ 1 − ⎟ if b<f ⎜ φ ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ Otherwise iγ = 0

b = Angle of the load with Vertical NB: These factors are empirical and based on extensive laboratory tests b

Df

qunet = qult .Gross and Net Ultimate Bearing Capacity 1. The formulas presented before give gross ultimate bearing capacity. Net ultimate bearing capacity.γDf .e qult 2. i.

the factor of safety is not applied to the existing overburden pressure) From (1) and (2): ⎛ ⎞ q unet ⎜ ⎟ Fs = ⎜q −γ D ⎟ f ⎠ ⎝ ag . Fs Allowable Bearing Pressure qan = Net allowable bearing pressure qan = (qunet/FS ) …………………………………………….Factor of Safety..(2) (i..(1) qag = Gross allowable bearing pressure = qan+ γDf…….e.

Example 20o Q (gross) = 150 kN c=0 φ = 30o γ = 18 kN/m3 0.7 m B Square footing Calculate the width B (for FS= 3) .

♣ γ B in the third term Case (1): Above Foundation depth ♣ q = γ dw + (Df .Effect of Water Table on Bearing Capacity • B 1 dw Df 2 dw B • • The terms to be corrected are: ♣ q (overburden pressure).dw) γ' Case (3): dw >= B ♣ No Correction 3 • Effective stresses (effective unit weights) must be used where appropriate .dw)γ' ♣ (γ' B) in the third term Case (2): dw <B ♣ q is not affected ♣ The term γ B is taken as: γ dw + (B .

This means that the footing will be subjected to bending moment Y L X P eB eB = My / P My P My Contact stress B (Resultant in the middle third!) .Eccentric Footings Definition: Eccentric footing results from the condition that the load (normal to the footing) is applied off the centre of the footing.

Depth factors are calculated based on actual L and B. Qult = q’ult (B’) (L’) Fs = Qult /P .) Bearing capacity: Treat the footing as a centric one.Eccentric Footings (cont. It is possible that B’ > L’. In that case replace between them. with reduced contact area of L’ x B’. where: L’ = L – 2 eL: B’ = B – 2 eB eL and eB are the eccentricity in L and B directions respectively • • • • • • Use B’ in the bearing capacity equation to calculate (q’ult) Shape and inclination factors are calculated based on L’ and B’ (effective area).

Check the stability of the foundation by requiring: (a) FS>3 (b) That no tension between footing and soil could be developed .) Example: A square footing 2m*2m is subjected to an axial gross force of 3000kN and moments of Mx = 800kN*m and My = 300kN*m.Eccentric Footings (cont. The water table is 7m and the foundation surface is at 2m. From laboratory testing the strength parameters of the soil are given by c = 20 kPa and φ = 36o and the total soil density is γt = 18 kN/m3.

1 ex = 800/3000 = 0.55. Nq=37. tan φ = 1.47m and L’=1. Nγ=44.2ey = 1.266 B’ = B .) ey = 300/3000 = 0.4 B' = 0.59 L' s γ = 1 − 0.47m B’< L’ -> B’=1.Example: Eccentric Footings (cont.4 (for φ=36o) sc = 1 + B' N q .8m.7.61 L' N c sq = 1 + B' .8m Nc=50.67 L' . = 1. L’ = L – 2ey =1.

47) − 18 ⋅ 2 = 4.4 ⋅ 0.59 ⋅ 1.47 ⋅ 44. 25 B d q = 1 + 2 tan φ (1 − sin φ ) 2 dγ = 1 q ult = c N c scd c + q N q sq d q + 0.4 + (18 × 2) ⋅ 37.4 B Df = 1 .4 Df = 1 .5 ⋅ 18 ⋅ 1.5 γ B N γ s γ d γ = 20 ⋅ 50.Example: Df =1 ⇒ B Eccentric Footings (cont.61 ⋅ 1.86 > 3 ⎠ .7 ⋅ 1.55 ⋅ 1.8 ⋅ 1.67 ⋅ 1 ≅ 5370kPa 1) ⎛ q ult − γ Df Fs = ⎜ ⎜q −γD f ⎝ ag ⎞ 5370 − 18 ⋅ 2 ⎟= ⎟ 3000 /(1.) d c = 1 + 0 .25 + 0.

333 Tension could still occur!!! In rectangular footing the nontension kernel should be within… Condition (2) is not satisfied! In these problems it is preferable to first check this condition!!! .333 And although ey=0.Eccentric Footings (cont.1<B/6=0.) However.266<L/6=0. need to check for eccentricity!!! Although ex=0.

Bearing Capacity on Layered Soils I) Clay overlying Clay • Two cases: a) The Foundation is on a strong clay layer underlain by a weak clay layer (su1/su2 >1). b) The foundation is on a weak clay layer underlain by a B strong clay layer (su1/su2 <1). Layer 1 (su1) Meyerhof and Hanna (1978) Layer 2 (su2) .

Df H a' a strong layer H Weak layer Weak layer • If H/B is relatively small. failure would occur as punching in the first layer. the failure surface would be fully contained within the first (upper layer). • . followed by general shear failure in the second (the weak) layer If H/B is relatively large.Bearing Capacity on Layered Soils Case (a): Strong over weak (su1/su2 >1).

) ⎡ ⎛ B ⎞⎤⎛ 2 sa H ⎞ ⎡ ⎛ B ⎞⎤ qult = ⎢1 + 0.2⎜ ⎟⎥su1 Nc + γ 1 D f ⎝ L ⎠⎦ ⎣ From general shear failure of top soil layer .2⎜ ⎟⎥su 2 Nc + ⎢1 + ⎜ ⎟⎥⎜ ⎟ + γ 1 Df ⎝ L ⎠⎦ ⎣ ⎝ L ⎠⎦⎝ B ⎠ ⎣ From general shear failure of bottom soil layer From punching shear failure of top soil layer ⎡ ⎛ B ⎞⎤ qult ≤ ⎢1 + 0.Bearing Capacity on Layered Soils Case (a): Strong over weak (su1/su2 >1) (cont.

Bearing Capacity on Layered Soils Case (a): Strong over weak (su1/su2 >1) (cont.4 0.) 1 Where: B = width of foundation L = length of foundation Nc = 5.7 0.14 (see chart) sa = cohesion along the line a-a' in the previous figure. 0.6 0 0.6 su2/su1 0.8 1 .8 0.2 0.9 s a/s u1 0.

B: Nc = 5.2⎜ ⎟⎥su1 Nc + γ 1 D f ⎝ L ⎠⎦ ⎣ ⎡ ⎛ B ⎞⎤ qb = ⎢1 + 0.2⎜ ⎟⎥su 2 Nc + γ 2 D f ⎝ L ⎠⎦ ⎣ Hf ≈ B N.14 for φ = 0 .Bearing Capacity on Layered Soils Case (b): Weak over strong (su1/su2 <1) q ult = q t + ( q b − q t ) 1 − ( H H f ) 2 ≥ qt ⎡ ⎛ B ⎞⎤ qt = ⎢1 + 0.

failure would extend into the soft clay layer If H is relatively large. Df H Dense sand: φ. the failure surface would be fully contained within the sand layer. su = 0 H • Soft clay: su φ=0 Meyerhof (1974) .Bearing Capacity on Layered Soils II) Dense or compacted sand above soft clay • If H is relatively small.

use: q ult 2Df ⎞ tan φ B⎞ B⎞ ⎛ ⎛ 2⎛ = ⎜ 1 + 0 .Bearing Capacity on Layered Soils II) Dense or compacted sand above soft clay (cont.4 ⎟ γ B N γ L⎠ ⎝ .) q ult 2Df ⎞ ⎛ tan φ ⎞ = c N c + γ H ⎜1 + ⎟ + γ Df ⎟ Ks ⎜ H ⎠ ⎝ ⎝ B ⎠ 1 ( q ult ) max = γ D f N q + γ B N γ 2 2⎛ The above formula is for a strip footing For a rectangular footing.2 ⎟ s u N c + ⎜ 1 + ⎟ γ H ⎜ 1 + + γ Df ⎟ Ks L⎠ L⎠ H ⎠ B ⎝ ⎝ ⎝ ( q ult ) max 1 = γ Df Nq + 2 B⎞ ⎛ ⎜ 1 − 0 .

Canadian Geotechnical journal. 224-229. G. Canadian Geotechnical journal. and Hanna.G. 15. 2. .M. pp. Ultimate bearing capacity of foundations on layered soil under inclined loads. No. (1978). Vol. pp. (1974).) Ref: Meyerhof. Vol. 4. 11. A.G. No. Meyerhof. Ultimate bearing capacity of footing on sand layer overlying clay.Bearing Capacity on Layered Soils II) Dense or compacted sand above soft clay (cont. G. 565-572.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Descarregar
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->