Ultimate Bearing Capacity

Similar documents
Bearing Capacity (Daya Dukung Tanah)

CE 366 SETTLEMENT (Problems & Solutions)

VERTICAL STRESS INCREASES IN SOIL TYPES OF LOADING. Point Loads (P) Line Loads (q/unit length) Examples: - Posts. Examples: - Railroad track

Soil Mechanics. Outline. Shear Strength of Soils. Shear Failure Soil Strength. Laboratory Shear Strength Test. Stress Path Pore Pressure Parameters

Earth Pressure and Retaining Wall Basics for Non-Geotechnical Engineers

METHODS FOR ACHIEVEMENT UNIFORM STRESSES DISTRIBUTION UNDER THE FOUNDATION

REINFORCED CONCRETE. Reinforced Concrete Design. A Fundamental Approach - Fifth Edition. Walls are generally used to provide lateral support for:

Module 5 (Lectures 17 to 19) MAT FOUNDATIONS

Module 7 (Lecture 24 to 28) RETAINING WALLS

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING FORMULAS. A handy reference for use in geotechnical analysis and design

EFFECT OF GEOGRID REINFORCEMENT ON LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY OF A COARSE SAND BED

Soil Strength. Performance Evaluation of Constructed Facilities Fall Prof. Mesut Pervizpour Office: KH #203 Ph: x4046

PILE FOUNDATIONS FM 5-134

Estimation of Compression Properties of Clayey Soils Salt Lake Valley, Utah

13. AN INTRODUCTION TO FOUNDATION ENGINEERING

Worked Example 2 (Version 1) Design of concrete cantilever retaining walls to resist earthquake loading for residential sites

vulcanhammer.net This document downloaded from

When to Use Immediate Settlement in Settle 3D

Numerical Simulation of CPT Tip Resistance in Layered Soil

4.3 Results Drained Conditions Undrained Conditions References Data Files Undrained Analysis of

How To Model A Shallow Foundation

Soil Mechanics SOIL STRENGTH page 1

FOUNDATION DESIGN. Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA 451, Design Examples

ENCE 4610 Foundation Analysis and Design

Figure CPT Equipment

CE-632 Foundation Analysis and Design

DETERMINATION OF SOIL STRENGTH CHARACTERISTICS PERFORMING THE PLATE BEARING TEST

ESTIMATION OF UNDRAINED SETTLEMENT OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS ON LONDON CLAY

PDHonline Course S151A (1 PDH) Steel Sheet Piling. Instructor: Matthew Stuart, PE, SE. PDH Online PDH Center

CEEN Geotechnical Engineering Laboratory Session 7 - Direct Shear and Unconfined Compression Tests

FUNDAMENTALS OF CONSOLIDATION

FOOTING DESIGN EXAMPLE

INDIRECT METHODS SOUNDING OR PENETRATION TESTS. Dr. K. M. Kouzer, Associate Professor in Civil Engineering, GEC Kozhikode

Module 1 : Site Exploration and Geotechnical Investigation. Lecture 4 : In-situ tests [ Section 4.1: Penetrometer Tests ] Objectives

Improvement in physical properties for ground treated with rapid impact compaction

CHAPTER 9 FEM MODELING OF SOIL-SHEET PILE WALL INTERACTION

c. Borehole Shear Test (BST): BST is performed according to the instructions published by Handy Geotechnical Instruments, Inc.

A study on the Effect of Distorted Sampler Shoe on Standard Penetration Test Result in Cohesionless soil

A N Beal EARTH RETAINING STRUCTURES - worked examples 1

Geotechnical Measurements and Explorations Prof. Nihar Ranjan Patra Department of Civil Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur

Settlement of Precast Culverts Under High Fills; The Influence of Construction Sequence and Structural Effects of Longitudinal Strains

Page 1 of Sven Alexander Last revised SB-Produksjon STATICAL CALCULATIONS FOR BCC 250

Displacement (x) Velocity (v) Acceleration (a) x = f(t) differentiate v = dx Acceleration Velocity (v) Displacement x

Consolidation and Settlement Analysis

DIRECT SHEAR TEST SOIL MECHANICS SOIL MECHANICS LABORATORY DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING UNIVERSITY OF MORATUWA SRI LANKA

Laterally Loaded Piles

Program COLANY Stone Columns Settlement Analysis. User Manual

Drained and Undrained Conditions. Undrained and Drained Shear Strength

Effect of Gradation on Bearing Capacity and Settlement of Reinforced Sand

Structural Axial, Shear and Bending Moments

Figure A-1. Figure A-2. continued on next page... HPM-1. Grout Reservoir. Neat Cement Grout (Very Flowable) Extension Displacement Plate

APPENDIX G SETTLEMENT

How To Design A Foundation

THE EFFECT OF IMPROVEMENT SURROUNDING SOIL ON BORED PILE FRICTION CAPACITY

Report on. Wind Resistance of Signs supported by. Glass Fiber Reinforced Concrete (GFRC) Pillars

Soil Mechanics. Soil Mechanics

Determination of source parameters from seismic spectra

SPECIFICATIONS FOR PRECAST MODULAR BLOCK RETAINING WALL SYSTEM (revised 11/5/13)

MECHANICS OF SOLIDS - BEAMS TUTORIAL 1 STRESSES IN BEAMS DUE TO BENDING. On completion of this tutorial you should be able to do the following.

Abstract. Keywords. Pouya Salari 1, Gholam Reza Lashkaripour 2*, Mohammad Ghafoori 2. * lashkaripour@um.ac.ir

ALLOWABLE LOADS ON A SINGLE PILE

OPERE DI PROTEZIONE CONTRO LA CADUTA MASSI: ASPETTI PROGETTUALI. Reti in aderenza. Daniele PEILA. Daniele PEILA

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING Volume 3, No 3, 2013

INTRODUCTION TO SOIL MODULI. Jean-Louis BRIAUD 1

Rehabilitation of Existing Foundation Building to Resist Lateral and Vertical Loads

GUIDELINE FOR HAND HELD SHEAR VANE TEST

Important Points: Timing: Timing Evaluation Methodology Example Immediate First announcement of building damage

Pullout Testing of Xgrid PET PVC 40/20 IT and Xgrid PET PVC 80/30 IT In Sand

Analysis of Stresses and Strains

BEARING CAPACITY AND SETTLEMENT RESPONSE OF RAFT FOUNDATION ON SAND USING STANDARD PENETRATION TEST METHOD

DESIGN OF SLABS. 3) Based on support or boundary condition: Simply supported, Cantilever slab,

Copyright 2011 Casa Software Ltd. Centre of Mass

Dynamic Load Testing of Helical Piles

An Example of Using ReSSA in Complex Geometry of Reinforced Tiered Slope Introduction Background

Geotechnical Engineering: Slope Stability

10.1 Powder mechanics

COMPUTATIONAL ENGINEERING OF FINITE ELEMENT MODELLING FOR AUTOMOTIVE APPLICATION USING ABAQUS

Bending Stress in Beams

Settlement of Shallow Circular Foundations with Structural Skirts Resting on Sand. ÉeôdG Y I~æà ùÿg á«fé ûf G ±Gƒ G e á«ë ùdg ájôfg~dg ~YGƒ dg hõf

Design of Steel Structures Prof. S.R.Satish Kumar and Prof. A.R.Santha Kumar. The design of any foundation consists of following two parts.

Design of reinforced concrete columns. Type of columns. Failure of reinforced concrete columns. Short column. Long column

CONSOLIDATION

HOW TO DESIGN CONCRETE STRUCTURES Foundations

LABORATORY DETERMINATION OF CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO

INTERPRETATION OF CONE PENETRATION TESTS IN COHESIVE SOILS

USE OF CFRP LAMINATES FOR STRENGTHENING OF REINFORCED CONCRETE CORBELS

Appendix A Sub surface displacements around excavations Data presented in Xdisp sample file

Effect of grain size, gradation and relative density on shear strength and dynamic cone penetration index of Mahi, Sabarmati and Vatrak Sand

Stresses in Beam (Basic Topics)

EXAMPLE 1 DESIGN OF CANTILEVERED WALL, GRANULAR SOIL

p atmospheric Statics : Pressure Hydrostatic Pressure: linear change in pressure with depth Measure depth, h, from free surface Pressure Head p gh

Stress Strain Relationships

Stress Analysis, Strain Analysis, and Shearing of Soils

DESIGN OF SLABS. Department of Structures and Materials Engineering Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering University Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia

Site Investigation. Some unsung heroes of Civil Engineering. buried right under your feet. 4. Need good knowledge of the soil conditions

There are four types of friction, they are 1).Static friction 2) Dynamic friction 3) Sliding friction 4) Rolling friction

A Theoretical Solution for Consolidation Rates of Stone Column-Reinforced Foundations Accounting for Smear and Well Resistance Effects

EFFECT OF POSITIONING OF RC SHEAR WALLS OF DIFFERENT SHAPES ON SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF BUILDING RESTING ON SLOPING GROUND

Numerical Analysis of Texas Cone Penetration Test

CONCRETE FLOOR SLAB & CASTING BED CONSTRUCTION

Transcription:

CE-632 Foundation Analysis and Design Ultimate earing Capacity The load per unit area of the foundation at which shear failure in soil occurs is called the ultimate t bearing capacity. 1

Principal Modes of Failure: General Shear Failure: Load / Area ment Settle u Sudden or catastrophic failure Well defined failure surface ulging on the ground surface adjacent to foundation Common failure mode in dense sand 2

Principal Modes of Failure: Local Shear Failure: Load / Area u1 Set ttlement u Common in sand or clay with medium compaction Significant settlement upon loading Failure surface first develops right below the foundation and then slowly extends outwards with load increments Foundation movement shows sudden jerks first (at u1 ) and then after a considerable amount of movement the slip surface may reach hthe ground. A small amount of bulging may occur next to the foundation. 3

Principal Modes of Failure: Punching Failure: Load / Area u1 Set ttlement u Common in fairly loose sand or soft clay Failure surface does not extends beyond the zone right beneath the foundation Extensive settlement with a wedge shaped soil zone in elastic euilibrium beneath the foundation. Vertical shear occurs around the edges of foundation. After reaching failure load-settlement t curve continues at some slope and mostly linearly. 4

Principal Modes of Failure: Rela ative dep pth of fou undation n, D f /* Relative density of sand, D r 0 0.5 05 1.0 10 0 General Local shear shear 5 10 Punching shear Vesic (1973) Circular Foundation Long Rectangular Foundation * 2L = + L 5

Terzaghi s earing Capacity Theory j neglected Rough Foundation Surface u Strip Footing Effective overburden k g Shear Planes 45 φ /2 D f III e a II φ I φ d b II = γ.d f 45 φ /2 i III c - φ soil f Assumption L/ ratio is large plain strain problem D f Shear resistance of soil for D f depth is neglected General shear failure Shear strength is governed by Mohr-Coulomb Criterion 6

Terzaghi s earing Capacity Theory 1 2 u. = 2. Pp + 2. Ca.sinφ γ tanφ 4 a u φ φ I b 1 2 u. = 2. P c..sinφ γ tanφ p + 4 C a = /2 P = P + P + γ P cosφ C a.tanφ p p pc p P pγ = due to only self weight of soil in shear zone φ φ d φ φ in shear zone P p P p P pc = due to soil cohesion only (soil is weightless) P p = due to surcharge only 7

Terzaghi s earing Capacity Theory Weight term Cohesion term 1 P ( P c ) P 4 2 u. = 2. pγ γ tanφ + 2. pc +..sinφ + 2. p ( γ N γ ).0.5... cn c.. N Surcharge term u = cn. c + N. + 0.5 γ N. γ Terzaghi s bearing capacity euation Terzaghi s bearing capacity factors 1 K P γ φ 2 1 N tan 1 γ = N 2 cos φ = 2 φ 2cos 45+ 2 3 π φ in rad. N c = ( N 1cot ) φ a = tanφ 4 2 2a e 8

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant 9

Terzaghi s earing Capacity Theory Local Shear Failure: Modify the strength parameters such as: 2 c m = c 3 2 u = c. N c + N. + 0.5 γ N. γ 3 φ m = tan tanφ 3 1 2 Suare and circular footing: = 1.3 c. N + N. + 0.4 γ N. γ For suare u c = 1.3 c. N + N. + 0.3 γ N. For circular γ u c 10

Terzaghi s earing Capacity Theory Effect of water table: Case I: D w D f Surcharge, = γ. Dw + γ ( Df Dw) D w Case II: D f D w (D f + ) Surcharge, = γ D. F In bearing capacity euation replace γ by- Dw D f γ = γ + γ γ Case III: D w > (D f + ) ( ) No influence of water table. Another recommendation for Case II: d γ γ = + + H H ( H d ) γ ( H d ) 2 2 w w2 sat 2 w D f Rupture depth: Limit it of influence d = D D w w f ( ) H = 0.5tan 45 + φ 2 11

Skempton s earing Capacity Analysis for cohesive Soils ~ For saturated cohesive soil, φ = 0 N = 1, and N γ = 0 Df For strip footing: Nc = 5 1+ 0.2 with limit of Nc 7.5 For suare/circular footing: N c Df = 6 1+ 0.2 with limit of Nc 9.0 Df For rectangular footing: Nc = 5 1+ 0.2 1+ 0.2 for Df 2.5 L Nc = 7.5 1+ 0.2 for Df > 2.5 L = cn. + u Net ultimate bearing capacity,. D c = γ = cn. nu u f u c 12

Effective Area Method for Eccentric Loading D f In case of Moment loading e = x M F V y =-2e y A F = L e y = M x F V e x e y L =L-2e y In case of Horizontal Force at some height but the column is centered on the foundation M = F. d y Hx FH M = F. d x Hy FH 13

General earing Capacity Euation: (Meyerhof, 1963) = cn.. s. d. i + N.. s. d. i + 05 0.5 γ. N.. s. d. i u c c c c γ γ γ γ Shape Depth inclination factor factor factor Empirical correction factors = ( ) ( ) ( ) 2 φ.tan N tan 45. e π φ = + Nc N 1 cotφ Nγ = N 1 tan 1.4φ 2 [y Hansen(1970): N γ = 1.5 N 1 tan φ φ [y Vesic(1973): ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Nγ = 2 N + 1 tan φ = cn.. s. d. i. g. b + N.. s. d. i. g. b + 0.5 γ. N.. s. d. i. g. b u c c c c c c γ γ γ γ γ γ Ground factor ase factor 14

15

Meyerhof s Correction Factors: Shape Factors s c for φ φ 10 o 2 φ φ = 1+ 0.2 tan 45+ 2 φ L 2 s = sγ = 1+ 0.1 tan 45 + L 2 for lower φ φ value s = = 1 s γ Depth Df φ for φ 10 o Factors dc = 1+ 0.2 tan 45+ Df φ L 2 d = dγ = 1+ 0.1 tan 45+ L 2 for lower φ value d = = 1 d γ Inclination o β Factors ic = i = 1 90 2 i γ β = 1 φ 2 16

Hansen s Correction Factors: F ( 1 F ) 1/2 Inclination Factors Depth Factors H ic = 1 for φ = 0 2 L. c 05F 0.5F H i = 1 FV + Lc..cotφ For φ = 0 For φ > 0 Df dc = 0.4 for Df D 1 f dc = 0.4 tan for Df > 5 i i c γ 1 1 H = + for φ > 0 2 L. su 5 07F 0.7F H = 1 FV + Lc..cotφ Df dc = 1+ 0.4 for Df D 1 f dc = 1+ 0.4 tan for Df > For Df < For Df > 1 2 tan.( 1 sin ) 2 Df d = + φ φ ( ) 2 D 1 f d = 1+ 2 tan φ. 1 sinφ tan Shape Factors s c = 0.2 ic. for φ = 0 L s 1 i. L sin φ sc = 0.2( 1 2 ic). for φ > 0 L s = 1 04 0.4 i. L = + ( ) ( ) γ γ d γ = 1 Hansen s Recommendation for cohesive saturated soil, φ'=0..( 1 ) = cn + s + d + i + u c c c c

Notes: 1. Notice use of effective base dimensions, L by Hansen but not by Vesic. 2. The values are consistent with a vertical load or a vertical load accompanied by a horizontal load H. 3. With a vertical load and a load H L (and either H =0 or H >0) you may have to compute two sets of shape and depth factors s i,, s i,l and d i,, d i,l. For i, L subscripts use ratio L / or D/L. 4. Compute u independently by using (s i, d i ) and (s il, d il ) and use min value for design. 18

Notes: 1. Use H i as either H or H L, or both if H L >0. 2. Hansen (1970) did not give an i c for φ>0. The value given here is from Hansen (1961) and also used by Vesic. 3. Variable c a = base adhesion, on the order of 0.6 to 1.0 x base cohesion. 4. Refer to sketch on next slide for identification of angles η and β, footing depth D, location of H i (parallel and at top of base slab; usually also produces eccentricity). Especially notice V = force normal to base and is not the resultant R from combining V and H i.. 19

20

Note: 1. When φ=0 (and β 0) use N γ = -2sin(±β) in N γ term. γ ( β) γ 2. Compute m = m when H i = H (H parallel to ) and m = m L when H i = H L (H parallel to L). If you have both H and H L use m = (m 2 + m L2 ) 1/2. Note use of and L, not, L. 3. H i term 1.0 for computing i, i γ (always). 21

Suitability of Methods 22

IS:6403-1981 Recommendations = cn.. s. d. i +. N 1. s. d. i + 0.5 γ. N.. s. d. i Net Ultimate earing capacity: ( ) For cohesive soils nu c c c c = c. N. s. d. i where, N = 514 5.14 nu u c c c c N, N, N γ as per Vesic(1973) recommendations c c γ γ γ γ Shape Factors Depth Factors For rectangle, s For suare and circle, d d d c c = 1+ 0.2 s 1 0.2 L = + s L = 1 0.4 γ L s c = 13 1.3 s = 12 1.2 s = 0.8 for suare, s = 0.6 for circle Df φ = 1+ 0.2 tan 45+ L 2 D f φ φ = dγ = 1+ 0.1 tan 45+ L 2 = = 1 for φ < 10 o d γ γ for γ φ 10 o Inclination Factors The same as Meyerhof (1963) 23

earing Capacity Correlations with SPT-value aue Peck, Hansen, and Thornburn (1974) & IS:6403-1981 Recommendation 24

earing Capacity Correlations with SPT-value Teng (1962): For Strip Footing: For Suare and Circular Footing: 1 2 2 = 3 N. R. + 5 ( 100 + N ). D. R 6 nu w f w 1 2 2 = N. R. + 3( 100 + N ). D. R 3 nu w f w For D f >, take D f = Water Table Corrections: D w D w R w = 0.5 1 + R 1 [ w D f Dw D f R = w 0.5 1 + [ Rw 1 D f D f Limit of influence 25

earing Capacity Correlations with CPT-value IS:6403-1981 Recommendation: Cohesionless Soil 1.5 to 2.0 c value is taken as average for this zone nu c 0. 2500 0.1675 0.1250 0.0625 0 D 0.5 f 1 = 0 100 200 300 400 0 Schmertmann (1975): c kg N N γ in 0.8 cm 2 (cm) 26

earing Capacity Correlations with CPT-value IS:6403-1981 Recommendation: Cohesive Soil = c. N. s. d. i nu u c c c c Soil Type Normally consolidated clays Point Resistance Values Range of Undrained ( c ) kgf/cm 2 Cohesion (kgf/cm 2 ) c < 20 c /18 to c /15 Over consolidated clays c > 20 c /26 to c /22 27

earing Capacity of Footing on Layered Soil φ Depth of rupture zone = tan 45 + 2 2 or approximately taken as Case I: Layer-1 is weaker than Layer-2 Design using parameters of Layer -1 Case II: Layer-1 is stronger than Layer-2 Distribute the stresses to Layer-2 by 2:1 method 1 and check the bearing capacity at this level for limit state. 2 Layer-1 Also check the bearing capacity for original Layer-1 Layer-2 foundation level using parameters of Choose minimum value for design φ φ Another approximate method for c -φ soil: For effective depth tan 45 + 2 2 Find average c and φ and use them for ultimate bearing capacity calculation c av ch 1 1+ ch 2 2 + ch 3 3+... = H + H + H +... 1 2 3 tanφ av = tanφ H + tanφ H + tan φ H +... 1 1 2 2 3 3 H + H + H +... 1 2 3 28

earing Capacity of Stratified Cohesive Soil IS:6403-1981 Recommendation: 29

earing Capacity of Footing on Layered Soil: Stronger Soil Underlying Weaker Soil Depth H is relatively small Punching shear failure in top layer General shear failure in bottom layer Depth H is relatively large Full failure surface develops in top layer itself 30

earing Capacity of Footing on Layered Soil: Stronger Soil Underlying Weaker e Soil 31

earing Capacity of Footing on Layered Soil: Stronger Soil Underlying Weaker Soil earing capacities of continuous footing of with under vertical load on the surface of homogeneous thick bed of upper and lower soil 32

earing Capacity of Footing on Layered Soil: Stronger Soil Underlying Weaker Soil For Strip Footing: 2cH 2D K tanφ H H H a 2 f s 1 u = b + + γ1 1+ γ1 t Where, t is the bearing capacity for foundation considering only the top layer to infinite depth For Rectangular Footing: Special Cases: 2 ch 2 2 tan a Df Ks φ1 u = b + 1+ + γ1 1+ 1+ γ1 t H H L L H 1. Top layer is strong sand and bottom layer is saturated soft clay c = 1 0 φ = 2 0 2. Top layer is strong sand and bottom layer is weaker sand c = c 2 = 0 1 0 2. Top layer is strong saturated clay and bottom layer is weaker saturated clay φ 1 = 0 φ 2 = 0 33

Eccentrically Loaded Foundations Q M M e = Q Q = + L 6M L max 2 max Q = 1+ L 6e Q = L 6M L min 2 min Q = 1 L 6e e 1 e For > 6 There will be separation of foundation from the soil beneath and stresses will be redistributed. = 2e Use for s, and, L for dc, d, d γ to obtain L c, s, s = L γ u Q. u = u A The effective area method for two way eccentricity becomes a little more complex than what is suggested above. It is discussed in the subseuent slides 34

Determination of Effective Dimensions for Eccentrically Loaded d foundations (Highter and Anders, 1985) Case I: el 1 e 1 and L 6 6 1 3 3e 1 = 2 L e e L L 1 L 1 3 = L 2 3 L e L A 1 L 2 = L = max (, L ) 1 1 1 1 A = L 35

Determination of Effective Dimensions for Eccentrically Loaded foundations (Highter and Anders, 1985) Case II: el L e < 0.5 and 0 < < 1 6 L2 e e L L 1 L 1 A ( L L ) 2 L = max, L = 1+ 2 A ( ) 1 1 = L 36

Determination of Effective Dimensions for Eccentrically Loaded foundations (Highter and Anders, 1985) Case III: el 1 e and 0 0.5 L < 6 < < 1 e e L L 1 A = L + L = L ( ) 2 A = L 1 2 2 A 37

Determination of Effective Dimensions for Eccentrically Loaded foundations (Highter and Anders, 1985) Case IV: el L 1 1 e 1 < and < 6 6 e L e L 2 A 1 = L + + L + 2 L A L = L = L ( )( ) 2 1 2 2 38

Determination of Effective Dimensions for Eccentrically Loaded foundations (Highter and Anders, 1985) Case V: Circular foundation e R R A L = 39

Meyerhof s (1953) area correction based on empirical correlations: (American Petroleum Institute, t 1987) 40

earing Capacity of Footings on Slopes Meyerhof s (1957) Solution = cn + 05 0.5γγ N γ u c Granular Soil c = 0 u = 0.5γ N γ 41

earing Capacity of Footings on Slopes Meyerhof s (1957) Solution Cohesive Soil φ = 0 u = cn c N s γ H = c 42

earing Capacity of Footings on Slopes Graham et al. (1988), ased on method of characteristics 1000 100 For D f = 0 10 0 10 20 30 40 43

earing Capacity of Footings on Slopes Graham et al. (1988), ased on method of characteristics 1000 For 100 D f = 0 10 0 10 20 30 40 44

earing Capacity of Footings on Slopes Graham et al. (1988), ased on method of characteristics ti For D f = 0.5 45

earing Capacity of Footings on Slopes Graham et al. (1988), ased on method of characteristics ti For D f 1.0 = 46

earing Capacity of Footings on Slopes owles (1997): A simplified approach f g u α = 45+φ /2 f' g' u e D f 45 φ /2 d a α b α c e' 45 φ /2 d' r a' α r o b' α c' e' 45 φ /2 f' d' g' a' u α b' α c' Compute the reduced factor N c as: L N = N L c abde c. L abde Compute the reduced factor N as: Aaefg N = N. A aefg 47

Soil Compressibility Effects on earing Capacity Vesic s (1973) Approach Use of soil compressibility factors in general bearing capacity euation. These correction factors are function of the rigidity of soil Rigidity Index of Soil, I r : Critical Rigidity Index of Soil, I cr : I r Irc Gs = c + σ tanφ = 0.5. e vo 3.30 0.45 L φ tan 45 2 Compressibility Correction Factors, c c, c g, and c σ vo = γ. ( D f + /2 ) For Ir I c 1 rc c = c = c γ = /2 For I r < I rc 3.07.sin φ.log 2. 0.6 4.4.tan φ + L 1+ sinφ 10 ( I r ) c = c = e 1 γ For φ = 0 c = c 0.32 + 0.12 0.60.log I L + 1 c For φ > 0 cc = c N tanφ r 48