FOUNDATION

ENGINEERING
BFC43103
CHAPTER 2
2.0 Shallow Foundation
2.1 SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS: ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY
 To perform satisfactorily, shallow foundations must have two
main characteristics:
1. They have to be safe against overall shear failure in the soil
that supports them.
2. They cannot undergo excessive displacement, or
settlement. (The term excessive is relative, because the
degree of settlement allowed for a structure depends on
several considerations.)

 The load per unit area of the foundation at which shear

failure in soil occurs is called the ultimate bearing capacity.
 2.2 GENERAL CONCEPT OF BEARING CAPACITY
 Consider a strip foundation with a width of B resting
on the surface of a dense sand or stiff cohesive soil,
as shown in Figure 2.2a.
 Now, if a load is gradually applied to the foundation,
settlement will increase.
 The variation of the load per unit area on the
foundation (q) with the foundation settlement is also
shown in Figure 4.1a.
 At a certain point—when the load per unit area
equals qu—a sudden failure in the soil supporting the
foundation will take place, and the failure surface in
the soil will extend to the ground surface.
 This load per unit area, qu, is usually referred to as
the ultimate bearing capacity of the foundation.
 When such sudden failure in soil takes place, it is
called general shear failure (Vesic, 1963). Figure 2.2a
 If the foundation under consideration rests on sand or
clayey soil of medium compaction (Figure 2.2b), an
increase in the load on the foundation will also be
accompanied by an increase in settlement.
 However, in this case the failure surface in the soil will
gradually extend outward from the foundation.
 When the load per unit area on the foundation equals q(s1),
movement of the foundation will be accompanied by
sudden jerks.
 A considerable movement of the foundation is then
required for the failure surface in soil to extend to the
ground surface (as shown by the broken lines in the figure).
 The load per unit area at which this happens is the ultimate
bearing capacity, qu.
 Beyond that point, an increase in load will be accompanied
by a large increase in foundation settlement.
 The load per unit area of the foundation, qu(1), is referred to
as the first failure load (Vesic, 1963).
 Note that a peak value of q is not realized in this type of
failure, which is called the local shear failure in soil. Figure 2.2b
 If the foundation is supported by a
fairly loose soil, the load–settlement
plot will be like the one in Figure
2.2c.
 In this case, the failure surface in
soil will not extend to the ground
surface.
 Beyond the ultimate failure load, qu,
the load–settlement plot will be
steep and practically linear.
 This type of failure in soil is called
the punching shear failure.

Figure 2.2c
2.3 TERZAGHI’S BEARING CAPACITY THEORY
 Terzaghi (1943) was the first to present a comprehensive theory for the
evaluation of the ultimate bearing capacity of rough shallow foundations.
 According to this theory, a foundation is shallow if its depth, Df (Figure 2.3),
is less than or equal to its width.
 Later investigators, however, have suggested that foundations with Df
equal to 3 to 4 times their width may be defined as shallow foundations.
 Terzaghi suggested that for a continuous, or strip, foundation (i.e., one
whose width-to-length ratio approaches zero), the failure surface in soil at
ultimate load may be assumed to be similar to that shown in Figure 2.3.
(Note that this is the case of general shear failure).

Figure 2.2
  The effect of soil above the bottom of the foundation may also be assumed
to be replaced by an equivalent surcharge, (where γ is a unit weight of
soil).
 The failure zone under the foundation can be separated into three parts
(see Figure 2.3):
1. The triangular zone ACD immediately under the foundation
2. The radial shear zones ADF and CDE, with the curves DE and DF being
arcs of a logarithmic spiral
3. Two triangular Rankine passive zones AFH and CEG
 The angles CAD and ACD are assumed to be equal to the soil friction angle.
 Note that, with the replacement of the soil above the bottom of the
foundation by an equivalent surcharge q, the shear resistance of the soil
along the failure surfaces GI and HJ was neglected.
 Using equilibrium analysis, Terzaghi expressed the ultimate bearing capacity in the form

 To estimate the ultimate bearing capacity of square and circular foundations, may be
respectively modified to

 B equals the width, dimension of each side of the foundation; or B equal the diameter of
the foundation.
 The variations of the bearing capacity factors Nc, Nq and Nγ defined are given in
Table 2.3a.
  For foundations that exhibit the local shear failure mode in soils, Terzaghi
suggested the following modifications to Eqs.:

 and are the modified bearing capacity factors.

 Terzaghi’s bearing capacity equations have now been modified to take into
account the effects of the foundation shape depth of embedment and the load
inclination.
 Many design engineers, however, still use Terzaghi’s equation, which provides
fairly good results considering the uncertainty of the soil conditions at various
sites.
  Terzhagi’s modified bearing capacity factors and for local shear failure is
defined and given in Table 2.3b.
 2.4 FACTOR OF SAFETY
 Calculating the gross allowable load-bearing capacity of shallow foundations requires the
application of a factor of safety (FS) to the gross ultimate bearing capacity, or

 The net ultimate bearing capacity is defined as the ultimate pressure per unit area of the
foundation that can be supported by the soil in excess of the pressure caused by the surrounding
soil at the foundation level.
 If the difference between the unit weight of concrete used in the foundation and the unit weight
of soil surrounding is assumed to be negligible, then
 2.5 MODIFICATION OF BEARING CAPACITY
EQUATIONS FOR WATER TABLE
 At section 2.3 give the ultimate bearing capacity of Terzhagi’s equation, based on the
assumption that the water table is located well below the foundation. However, if the water
table is close to the foundation, some modifications of the bearing capacity equations will
be necessary.
 In this case, the factor γ in the last term of the bearing capacity equations
must be replaced by the factor

 The preceding modifications are based on the assumption that there is no

seepage force in the soil.
2.6 THE GENERAL BEARING CAPACITY EQUATION
 The ultimate bearing capacity in section 2.3 are for continuous, square, and
circular foundations only; they do not address the case of rectangular
foundations (0 < B/L < 1).
 Also, the equations do not take into account the shearing resistance along
the failure surface in soil above the bottom of the foundation (the portion of
the failure surface marked as GI and HJ in Figure 2.2).
 In addition, the load on the foundation may be inclined. To account for all
these shortcomings, Meyerhof (1963) suggested the following form of the
general bearing capacity equation:

 Also known as Mayerhof or the general bearing capacity equation.

2.6.1 BEARING CAPACITY FACTORS
 Table 2.6.1: Bearing capacity factors with soil friction angle
 Table 2.6.1: Bearing capacity factors with soil friction angle (continued)
 2.6.2 SHAPE, DEPTH AND INCLINATION FACTORS
 Table 2.6.2: Shape, depth, and inclination factors
Terzaghi’s equation
2.7 ECCENTRICALLY LOADED FOUNDATIONS
 In several instances, as with the base of a retaining wall, foundations are
subjected to moments in addition to the vertical load, as shown in Figure 2.7a.
In such cases, the distribution of pressure by the foundation on the soil is not
uniform. The nominal distribution of pressure is

 Figure 2.7b shows a force system equivalent to that shown in Figure 2.7a. The
distance is the eccentricity.

 Substituting into qmax and qmin

 Figure 2.7: Eccentrically loaded foundations
 Note that, in these equations, when the eccentricity e becomes B/6, qmin is
zero.
 For e > B/6, qmin will be negative, which means that tension will develop.
Because soil cannot take any tension, there will then be a separation
between the foundation and the soil underlying it.
 The nature of the pressure distribution on the soil will be as shown in Figure
2.7a. The value of qmax is then

 Figure 2.7.1 shows the nature of failure surface in soil for a surface strip
foundation subjected to an eccentric load. The factor of safety for such
type of loading against bearing capacity failure can be evaluated as

Figure 2.7.1 Nature of

failure surface in soil
supporting a strip
foundation subjected to
eccentric loading
(Note: Df = 0; Qu is
ultimate load per unit
2.7.1 ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY UNDER ECCENTRIC LOADING-ONE WAY
ECCENTRICITY
Effective Area Method (Meyerhoff, 1953)
 In 1953, Meyerhof proposed a theory that is generally referred to as the effective
area method.
 The following is a step-by-step procedure for determining the ultimate load that the
soil can support and the factor of safety against bearing capacity failure:

Step 1. Determine the effective dimensions of the foundation (Figure 2.7.2a):

B’ = effective width = B - 2e
L’ = effective length = L

Note that if the eccentricity were in the direction of the length of the foundation, the
value of L’ would be equal to L - 2e. The value of B’ would equal B. The smaller of the
two dimensions (i.e., L’ and B’) is the effective width of the foundation.
  Step 2. Use Eq. (4.26) for the ultimate bearing capacity:

Table 2.6.2

Table
2.6.2.
 Step 3. The total ultimate load that the foundation can sustain is

 Step 4. The factor of safety against bearing capacity failure is

 It is important to note that q’u is the ultimate bearing capacity of a foundation
of width B’ = B - 2e with a centric load (Figure 2.7.2a). However, the actual
distribution of soil reaction at ultimate load will be of the type shown in Figure
2.7.2b. In Figure 2.7.2b, qu(e) is the average load per unit area of the
foundation. Thus,

Figure 2.7.2
Prakash and Saran Theory
 Prakash and Saran (1971) analyzed the problem of ultimate bearing capacity of
eccentrically and vertically loaded continuous (strip) foundations by using the one-
sided failure surface in soil, as shown in Figure 2.7.1.
 According to this theory, the ultimate load per unit length of a continuous
foundation can be estimated as

 The variations of Nc(e), Nq(e), and Nγ(e) with soil friction angle ϕ’ are given in Figures
2.7.3, 2.7.4, and 2.7.5. For rectangular foundations, the ultimate load can be given
as
 Prakash and Saran (1971) also recommended the following for the shape
factors:
 Figure 2.7.3: Variation of Nc(e) with soil friction angle ϕ’
 Figure 2.7.4: Variation of Nq(e) with soil friction angle ϕ
 Figure 2.7.5: Variation of Nγ(e) with soil friction angle ϕ
Reduction Factor Method (For Granular Soil)
 Purkayastha and Char (1977) carried out stability analysis of eccentrically
loaded continuous foundations supported by a layer of sand using the
method of slices. Based on that analysis, they proposed

(2.7.1)

(See Figure 2.7.2)

(2.7.2)

 where a and k are functions of the embedment ratio Df/B (Table 4.9).
 Hence, combining Eqs (2.7.1) and (2.7.2)

(2.7.3)

Table
2.7.1

 Where,

 The relationships for Fqd and Fγd are given in Table 2.6.2.
 Based on several laboratory model tests, Patra et al. (2012a) have concluded
that

 The ultimate load per unit length of the foundation can then be given as
 2.7.2 BEARING CAPACITY – TWO WAY ECCENTRICITY

 Refer to Braja M. Das Eight Edition textbook section 4.12 page 196
 2.8 VERTICAL STRESS

bearing capacity.
INCREASE
The allowable settlement IN
of a shallow foundation SOIL
may control the allowable

 The allowable settlement itself may be controlled by local building codes. Thus,
the allowable bearing capacity will be the smaller of the following two
conditions:
2.8.1 STRESS BELOW A RECTANGULAR AREA
2.9 AVERAGE VERTICAL STRESS INCREASE DUE TO A RECTANGULAR LOADED
AREA
 2.10 SETTLEMENT OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS
 The settlement of a shallow foundation can be divided into two major categories:

(a) elastic, or immediate, settlement and

(b) consolidation settlement.

 Immediate, or elastic, settlement of a foundation takes place during or immediately after the
construction of the structure.
 Consolidation settlement occurs over time. Pore water is extruded from the void spaces of saturated
clayey soils submerged in water. The total settlement of a foundation is the sum of the elastic
settlement and the consolidation settlement.
 Consolidation settlement comprises two phases: primary and secondary.
 The fundamentals of primary consolidation settlement were explained in detail in Geotechnic 2.

 Secondary consolidation settlement occurs after the completion of primary consolidation caused by
slippage and reorientation of soil particles under a sustained load.
 Primary consolidation settlement is more significant than secondary settlement in inorganic clays and
silty soils. However, in organic soils, secondary consolidation settlement is more significant.
 This chapter presents various theories presently available for estimating of elastic and consolidation
settlement of shallow foundations.
2.10.1 ELASTIC SETTLEMENT OF SHALLOW FOUNDATION ON
CLAY
(μs = 0.5)
 2.10.2 SETTLEMENT BASED ON THE THEORY OF
ELASTICITY – ELASTIC SETTLEMENT IN GRANULAR SOIL
Is
2.10.3 CONSOLIDATION SETTLEMENT - PRIMARY
CONSOLIDATION SETTLEMENT RELATIONSHIPS