EXAMPLES ON ANALYTICAL
METHODS
Example1
Cont’d
Solution
Example2
If the soil in the above example fails by local shear failure,
determine the net safe bearing pressure. All the other
data given in Example remain the same.
Example 3
If the water table in Example rises to the ground level,
determine the net safe bearing pressure of the footing.
All the other data given in Example remain the same.
Assume the saturated unit weight of the soil
γsat=18.5kN/m3.
Cont’d
Example 4
If the water table in example above occupies any of
the positions(a)1.25m below ground level or
(b)1.25m below the base level of the foundation,
what will be the net safe bearing pressure? Assume
γsat=18.5kN/m3,γ/(aboveWT)=17.5kN/[Link] the
other data remain the same as given in the above
example.
Cont’d
Cont’d
Case I—When theWT is 1.25m below the GL
We get Rwl=0.813 for Dw/Df=0.625,Rw2=0.5
forDw2/B=0.
Cont’d
Cont’d
Cont’d
Cont’d
Cont’d
Effect of WT on bearing capacity
Example 5
Calculate the diameter of a circular footing in clay at a
depth of 1m with qu=200 kPa if the column load is
500 kN. Take γsat=20kN/m3 and Fs=3. Use Terzaghi’s
equation.
Example 6
The square footing in Figure below is subjected to a
vertical load of 400 kN and a moment of 100 kN.m. The
soil has c=10 kPa, γ=18 kN/m3 and φ=30°. Determine
the factor of safety using Meyerhof’s equation.
Solution
Example 7
7. You are given the following data on the sketch:
HL,ult = 382 KN, Vult = 1060 kN
Solution
Cont’d
Cont’d
Cont’d
Example 8
Compute the allowable bearing capacity via Terzaghi’s,
Meyerhof’s, and Hansen’s equations for the footing
and soil parameters shown in Figure below. Use a
safety factor of 2.5 to obtain qall
Solution
Cont’d
Cont’d
3. Hansen’s equation
EXAMPLES ON EUROCODE
Bearing Capacity by Design Approach 1
Solution
Cont’d
Cont’d
Cont’d
Cont’d
Cont’d
Clearly combination 2, although it has a smaller value
of applied base pressure, because of the factor of safety
γφ = 1.25 applied to tan φ, it has a smaller value of the
permissible base pressure. The footing size is adequate
but can be reduced.
Cont’d
Bearing Capacity by Design Approach 2
The Design 2 approach is similar to Design 1 approach
except that only Combination 1 partial factors are used
both for actions as well as for soil parameters.
Finally an overall factor γR is used for bearing pressure.
Cont’d
Cont’d
Cont’d
Cont’d
Cont’d
Cont’d
Bearing Capacity by Design Approach 3
The Design 3 approach is similar to Design 1 approach
except that Combination 1 partial factors are used only
for actions but Combination 2 partial factors are used
for soil parameters. Finally an overall factor γR = 1 is
used for bearing pressure.
Cont’d
Cont’d
Cont’d
Cont’d
Comments on Three Design Approaches
The three design approaches give very different
permissible base pressures. The ratios of qult applied
/qult permissible for Design approaches 1, 2 and 3 are
respectively are 0.77, 0.69 and 0.97. The reason for
Design approach 3 giving a low ratio is because it uses
high partial factor for actions and soil parameters
leading to high applied pressure and low permissible
base pressure.
Cont’d
On the other hand, the Design 1 approach for
combination 2 uses low partial factor for actions and
soil parameters leading to low applied pressure and
low permissible base pressure. There is no guidance in
Eurocode 7 on which is the most suitable design
approach. For STR/GEO limit states, the U.K. National
Annex allows only Design 1 approach.
