Foundolon Erquuming Randlod _ rapa are eer tie : Bam tadrand Ruawheld ter 1 Tus Yak BEARING CAPACITY OF SHALLOW re enc FOUNDATIONS ‘O25 ALEKSANDAR S. VESIC, D.Sc. ‘3.A. Jones Professor and Chairman Depertmont of Civil Engineering, Duke University 4.1 INTRODUCTION ‘com in design: the’structural failure of the foundation and the bearing capacity failure of the supporting soils ‘The designer of a shallow foundation must ensure that the “The structural failuze of the foundation may occur if the foundation meets basic considerations of safety, depend- foundation itself is not properly designed to sustain the Im ibility, functional utility, and economy. Specifically, the posed stresses. For example, an improperly proportioned foyemest of these are the requbements of adequate depth, oF inadequately sot/ord Toot er elated cone 5. tolerable settlements, and safety against (alure, sion, compression, of shear, 2s any other reinforced con- 1 oe reauizement of adequate depth centers around en- crete structural member, An improperly cast or inade- vironmental influences which could affect adversely the quately reinforced concrete pile may be broken during Toundation performance, The foundation must be deep handling and driving: it may also be broken by excessive CRougit with respect to the depth of frost penetration and lateral loads for which it was not designed. A freestanding depth of seasonal volume changes in the soll to prevent steel or wooden pile may buckle just as any other column, { excessive movetnents resulting from these influences. The particularly if it is subjected to combined axial forces and foundation must be deep enough to-exclude the possibility moments. All foundations must possess a conventional 1 tad me a Yay gaint sais, These and is So ee ney ceeesl'to arid dicual ine we aomel : aoe i oe ae ae gabon trating csc tae of the tle Cone | Ey ce a oe ie tpt Pa 3 sabes | sion of this subject see, for example, Terzaghi and Peck, ‘to a vertical static or transient load Q. If the vertical dis- a eae ae set ne oeLy tease alo an nO acts eal 9 ae scatman fe te ee tte cuanea Gadi ames: | must be limited in order not to cause slructural distress or footing; the composition of the supporting soil, end the excessive tilting Of the superstructure and they are also character, rate, and frequeney of the loading. Normally, “often limited by the serviccabilty requirements of the the'eurve-will indieate the ulllmate foad: Qg that the foun- Superstructure: for example, etane tracks and many ma- dation can support. This eansbe:either:aypeakstoad, 28 | See eee Gale of tole Ut, “The tool selilments shown by varyest and 2 in Fig. 3.1, or aloud at which a aust be limited because they invariably induce differentia ‘constantefinat.rate. of penetration is achieved, as shown by illements, cen ia apparently hornogeneous sol coud: cue 3 : TET Se onea alte by considerations ofsuch "he average presure in toni or kafem® over te cat. 3 | Tete ae eee ie taacent ullage water and sewage tal ata dof the foundation, coresponding to he ule rere tnatete "The methods of etcination af ste. tate toad Op, i caledwlimatepretireant wil Be de ‘Sim tod ihe magnitude of settlement tolerances are de. oted By go. Dy Ait ‘Sesed in Chapter tes “The reuicycnt. of safely against lle f cantered \, around {wo principal inde of fate that may be of con aYad Foundation Engineering Handbook - 2 o Load G82, toa 9, 3 10 Is ‘Setement w/B,perint » Fig. 3.1 Loadsettement relstionshipe of shallow footing. All foundations should be built so as to possess a certain safety against bearing capacity failure. The sufe or allow. able pressure qq i dofined a3 0, Pe 62 where Fy is a safety factor. Similarly, the load Qy = Qo/y Bs called allowable load. ‘The following sections are concerned mainly with de- termination of the ultimate pressure gg. The procedures for selection of safety factors will be discussed toward the end of the chapter, 3.2 MODES OF FAILURE It is known from observation of behavior of foundations subjected to load that bearing capacity failure occurs ust ally’ a shear failure of the soil supporting the footing. ‘The three principal modes of shear failure under founda. tions have been described in the literature at general shear faiture (Caquot, 1934; Buisman, 1935; Tereaghi, 1943), focal shear failure (Terzaghi, 1943; De Beer and Vesié, 1958), and: punching shear failure (De Beer and Vesié, 1958; Vesig, 19630). General shear failure is characterized by the existence of ‘9 wolldefined failure pattern consisting of a continuous slip surface from one edge of the footing to the ground surface (Fig. 3.2a), Un stress-controlled conditions, under which most foundations operate (and, pechaps, ure is sud den and catastrophic. Unless the structure prevents the footings from rotating, the failure is also accompanied by substantial Ulting of the foundation (Pig. 3.3). In strain- controlled conditions (oceurring, for example, when the load Is transmitted by jacking) @ visible decrease of toad necessary to produce footing movement after failure may be observed (Fig, 3.22). A tendency for bulging of adjacent soil can be recorded through most of the loading process on SS i i ‘onatondee | ea y Fla. 32 Modes of bearing capscty fale, (After Ves, 19632). Both sides of the footing, although the fina! soil collapse ‘occurs only on one side. Tm contrast with the above-described failure mode, punching shear failure is characterized by a failure pattern which is not easy to observe (Fig. 3.20). As the load. creases, the vertical movement of the footing is eccompa- tied by compression of the soil immediately unde Continued penetration of the footing is made possi vertical shear around the footing perimeter. The soil out- Side the loaded area remains relatively uninvolved end there is practically no movement of the soil on the sides of the footing. Both the vertical and the horizontal equilibrium of the footing are maintained, Except for sudden small move- iments ("jerks") of the foundation in the vertical direction, there is neither visible collapse nor substantial tilting. Con. tinuous increase in vertical load is needed to maintain foot. ing movement in the vertical direction, ‘Finally, local shear failure is also character ture pattern which is clearly defined only imme low the foundation (Fig. 3.2b). This pattern consists of a wedge and slip surfaces, which start at the edges of the footing just as in the case of general shear failure, ‘There is visible fendeney of soil bulging on the sides of the foot However, the vertical compression under the footing is sit- nificant and the slip surfaces end somewhere in the soil mass, Only after a considerable vertical displacement of the Tooting (Say up to one-half the width or diameter of the footing) may the slip surfaces appear atthe ground surface Even then there is no catastrophic collapse or tilting of the footing which remains deeply embedded, mobilizing the resistance of deeper soil sirata. Thus, local shear fallure re- tains some characteristics of both general shear and punch- ing modes of failure, represénting truly a transitional mode. ‘A few photographs illustrating the characteristic failure modes are shown in Figs. 3.3 through 39. Figure 3. taken from Tschebotarioff (1951), shows the view of a Conde de Freitas‘Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations 123 ig, 3.8 Beating capacity failure ofa tl foundation, (Fsom Techeboteroff, 1951.) Toiture pater under 3 ractangear founds ‘on tho surfece of loose send (0, = #88). (From De Beer and Vesié, 1958.) Fig. 94 General shear failure petten under 9 rectangular footing ‘on dante sand (2, ~ 10038). (From De Beer end Vesé, 1968.) ‘rain elevator after ge clay Under its foundation. In a similar case described in detail in the Hiterature (White, 1953; Peck and Bryant, 1953), the structure, with its foundation, tilled more than 60° at col- lapse of the underlying soi, The later bulged some 12 feet above the intially horizontal ground surface. Thanks to extreme rigidity of the conerete structure, there was relt- tively little structural damage. (The elevator was later Suaightened into a vertical position and put to normal use.) Howeves, another elevator which failed under romewhat similar circumstances was practially destroyed during col. lapse (Nordlund and Deere, 1970). Figures 3.4, 3.5, and 3.6 show the three characteristic modes of failure, as ob- Served on carefully. prepared models of long rectangiar plates resting initially on the surface of dry sand of differ: - ent densities (De Beer and Vesié, 1958), Figuies 3.7, 3.8 Fig, 3.8 Local shoar future gattan under a rectangular footing on and 3.9 show the punching shear failures under small plates medium dense sand (0, = 47%). (From D2 Bear and Vesé, 1958.) on dense, dry sand, 05 observed, respectively, in conditions Aes gece Mats SIAP 214008‘ep rectangular founds Wom in dance sand (D, = 90%, B = 1.5 in, O= 151). (From Vesié, rc) cmbedment (Vesié, 1963a), very rapid loading 1965) or presence of soft clay layer underneath, Which mode of failure i to be expected in any particular ‘ease depends on a number of factors that have been only panially explored so far. It-can be sald generally that the Fig, 38 Punching shear feluce under a dynomialy loaded Bnch- quate looting on dense sand (0, = 1008), Fale necutred fn 12 tmaee ata dialacamant of 0: in. (From Poplin, 1955.) Fig. 3.9 Punching sheer faite of a vctangilr footing on dense snd underain by soft ely. (From Vest, 1870.) failure mode depends on the relative compressibility of the soil in the particular geometrical and loading conditions. {f ‘he soll is practically incompressible and has a finite shear- ing strength, it will fallin general shear. On the other hand, if'a soil of given strongth is very compressible, i will fal in pponching shear, Thus, as shown in Fig. 3.4,'a footing on the surface of very dense sand will normally fail in general shear, while the same footing on the surface of very loose sand (Fig. 3.6) will fal in punching shear. However, itis important to understand that the soil type alone does aot etormine the mode of failure. For example, the mentioned Tooting on very dense sand can also fail in punching shea if the Footing Is placed at greater depth (Vesié, 1963a; see Figs, 3.7 and 3.10) or if i ie loaded by a transient, dynamic load (Heller, 1964; Vesié, Banks, and Woodard, 1965; see 3.8).* Similarly, the same footing will fallin punching, in by any com pressible statum such as loose sand o soft clay (Fig. 3.9) y Ao. a footing on sated, normaly convotdsted lay ‘ai fn in ganeal shear FIs oud so that mo woke “ange can fae plac: wole may fal n punching ser itis Toad stow enough that sl "okime change cam fake place nthe sll under fose fle these erence in alle modes sre now reson- ably well unentore, thee are at prerent mo general me imei erera tat eon use for Petion of mode of ‘ter bailare of soils londed by footings The only rational farameter proposed so for for calation of relate com | fresty ot sal mses under Toad te the ity indes, Fedetned 98 ee ‘Thore ate sacons to Belive that the mentioned footing on very denae snd would not fal general shear Wits diameter were In- freaaed beyond cotaa mit. We sh ‘essing sate fet,ean dey fsa, ene st ube see A 1 ri L 1 TB ora pec Fa BAER daE torn eta one Fig. 3.10 Modes of failure of model footings in sand. (Atter Ves, 19632, as mould by De Bose, 1870 See errand here @ is the shear madulus and ¢ and $ are strength pa- Tamoters of the soil (Vesié, 1963b, 1965b). This index, ap- ‘easing ia solutions of the problem of expansion of cavities Fran infinite solid, is associated with the assumed ideal laste plastic behavior of soil. To take care also of the aver- See volumetrie strain 4 in the plastic zone it has beon sug. sified (Vesie et al, 1965) that the value given by Eq. 3.3 Should be reduced to fp, ™ Solr, where ly @3) wo 30! Uninate tos Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations 128 1 Stara It is known that te rigidity index varies with stress level tnd with the character of loading (Vesié, 1965a). A hieht value of Trp, #8y over 250, definitely implies a retsvely [Avmnpressble soil mas, whereas alow value, say 10, im: vices reletvely compressible soil mass. Nevertheless, in The'absence of theoretical solutions for an elastic-lestic fold, there is no. way yet, other than semiempirical, to wells use of index Jy in predicting the failure mode of shale ve footings. "Some possibilities along these lines are out sed tater a this chapter in discussions of influence of soit compressibility Bay 33 ULTIMATE LOAD CRITERIA From the preceding discussion it is apparent that the “Tail ‘re of 4 foaded footing is clearly defined only in the case ‘of general shear failure. In such a case the peak, ultimate Toad is reached simulteneously with the appearance of slip fines at the ground surface, which is followed by founds tion collapse and a considerable Dulging ofthe soil mass on tthe side of the footing. In contrast with this, in the case of {wo other fallure modes (local and punching shear) the point of failure is lest clearly defined and often difficult to establish, Tn the case of punching or local shear failure of footings fon sand surface it has been observed (De Deer and Vesié, 1958) that a "frst failure” characterized by a sudden, large latte deformation of Bie soll under the footing, may oc- Tather eaty in the loading stage. However, to observe this “first failure” itis essent Toading. As most loading tests ate pérforni ydraul any cortainty and thus has limited practical value. ‘A very tertile ultimate load criterion that can be rec- ‘ommended for general vae defines the ultimate load. the. Goint where the slope of the load-settlement curve first Boi rove OF & lead, minimum valus(Vesie, 19638; JRA RII}S Another very consent ultanate load ex y the use of nc ‘ae prose fi 0 inate plsteson snd Base diameter, 618 "Tors at ntiee| ‘TeaNo. 21? en se oe 88D O66, 83? Ost Cs ig 311 Ulinay ond extcon bare on minimum slope of Toadaatement cure, (er Vase, 86982 ressandza Cone de reat Prof Al Se ro At, LABS vege de Cousroco Chil SO ka scot utaion SOF Myfaw Siar 2145001 Sacks, this “fist failure” cannot be noticed with lus to have a stress-controlled Cwch~ bu ayig. 342 Utimote fond ertsion bed on plot of fp loed wf ntement (After De Beer, 1067.) terion, suggested in recent years by Christiaens (De Beer. Teeny, defines the ultimate load at the polnt of break of AEST IC may be preferible to establish some other ert con of extical setilement, Such a criterion is no doubt ished by. the baste philosophy of foundation design, ser considers excessive settlement as failure of the foundation. ‘is thus of special interest to know the niagnitude of settlements of footings needed to mobilize ultimate loads. ‘Guuemations in saturated clays (Skempton, 1951) indicate Ge these settlements ray be about 3 to 7 percent of the Feeting width for surface footings, increasing up to 15 per: footing Woop footings. For footings in sand somewhat fisher values are found, ranging from 5 to 15 percent for Horace footing an a ih 28 pecan a sp ona {Muts and Kahl, 1954; De Beer and Vest (9030; De Beer, 1967). As shown in Fig. rea eam om outs” oma _o9 on ‘pute Fig. 3.13 Ultimate settlements of sutace footings, (After De Beer, 1967.) ie ina Log/Tox plot (Pig-9-12)- Both Tra the voaing test be arsed to pears to bea general tendency of inerease of ultimate sete Pear ef ineased size of footings (De Beer, 196: 1960) 62) dering these facts, unless a cleasy defined ultimate 1005 melted werved eater, it 18 advisable to carry load tn ots a a a sole tests on footie al fo at least 25-gescent of the footing fo setlements a pk an a be etched” Width minty i is expeent to adopt fit of erical Timon, such os 0 gazant of he fares he {seers Deed often propored and used for ven | les; ee Vest, 1967.) 3.4 COMPUTATION OF ULTIMATE LOAD “The computation of ultimate load for a shallow footing Mating om soll represents a problem of elastic-plastic equk ‘principle, be solved for at least the {ally symmettic cases. The foremost ing acceptable solutions lies undoubtedly sar election of a mathsmatical model of soil Yehavior oF in the inate (atrese-strain-time) relationships. in spite Of ie Sy improved capabilities for solution of boundary value setae of this kind, the theary of bearing capacity is stil Freer most exclusively to solutions developed for the etsastic sold of the clasical Theooy of Plstiity. As eeresthis golld is assumed to exhibit no deformation cao mever prior to shear failure and a plastic flow at ct stant stress al Thus, the capabilities of theor sam cedition of the ultimate load axe, strictly’ speaking FauaRea at presont to relatively inconipresible soils orto the hero shea falace mode, However it i rather common serefettice to use th available solutions for compressible pre ell, with posible eduction for the effects of sarght 7 and shear stcengtl properties defined by a sti Meith envelope, with strength characteristics ¢ and Jing Oectigse strain curve of a rigidplastic body, shown in Tig. .14b, To be determined is the maximum unit load 4 Gg /BL which this foundation can support, Boece this problem, the following simplifiations are usually made: i shearing resistance ofthe overburden soll (alone be, Fig. 14a) is neelected ‘atthe: fection between the overburden soil and the fomuistion (alone ad; Fig. 3,142) a5 well as between the roamparden and supporting soll (along ab, Fig. 3.143) is replected; seine’ length J, is assumed to be large in comparison with the width # of the foundation. > set yor terms, the overburden sol is replaced by a Uni- fornly. distdbuted surcharge @ = 7D. At the some time plane strain conditions are assumed. “Siapifeations (a) and (b) are justified in most cases and arenes on the safe side, The overburden soi is usually are atwy® racked, white the foundation is placed by exer wee oid Dackriling. Simplification (c), equivalent to tation tne foundation to be an infinite stip of width B Heit stetly speaking for LB > 10 end practically Monin The corrections to be introduced for L/# <3 por Mt pes other than a rectangle will be discussed later. “rhe problem, formulated a5 shown in Fig, 4, has been solved by the methods of the Theory f Plasticity. The yeFig, 3:14 The problem of bearing capaci of salto footings. basic solution avaitebte (Prandtl, 1921; Reissner, 1924) in- ‘ieates that the failure pattern should consist of three dines: 1, Ul, and (Il, Zone Tis an active Rankine zon “hich pushes the radial Prandtl zone If sidoways and the Jassie Rankine zone JL in an upward direction. The lower Boundary ACDE of the displaced soil mass is composed of {wo stralght lines AC and DE, inclined at 45° + 6/2 and 45° ~ 9/2, respectively, to the horizontal. The shape of the ‘connecting curve CD depends on the angle @ and on the ratio ¥8/a. For 7B/q ~ 0 (“weightless soil”) the curve be- ‘Somer a logarithmic splzal which for 7 0 degenerates into Grecle. In the general case (720) the curve lies between {spiral and a circle, as long 25 60. For 8 frictionless soil (@ 20) the curve is always a circle. ‘All these findings have (een confirmed experimentally (De Beer and Vesis, 1958), though the angle g may be slightly larger than 45° # 4/2, at east for long rectangular footings on the surface of sand. "A closed analytical solution of this problem, as posed, thas not yet been found and probably will not be found, ex- Cept for special cases, For Weightlss soil (y= 0), Prandtl land Reissner have found that: 49 = No + 98g Bs where Nand Ny are dimensionless bearing capacity factors, defined by Mg = e799 tan? (nl +612) Me = Mq~ Weare Bo ‘The numerical values of these factors are given in Toble 3.1 and shown graphically in Fig. 3.15. ‘For cohesionless soil without overburden (€ = 0,9 = 0) it Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations 127 TABLE 3.1. BEARING CAPACITY FACTORS Me My My Male ae ROE aE eee Chee te e @ si4 100 0200.00 4 838 108) 020002 2 563 20 21 3 580 131 022 4 Gre 13 923, 5 648 157 028 8 8a 12 028 7 Tie 88 028 38 7s 208 027 D792 328 028 10 835 2a7 030 mga oat m 328207 032 3 8B 326 033 1037359 038 1% tops aga 036 re er 037 nga aT 030 oat 1050 40032 0 aaa 80 a2 036 me MBs 840 as 088 a az 707 oa a8 B wes 782 bas 40 % 1805 865 04s Oa? 2 932900 60045 2% © 20721068, ost 047 Bm NAS oss 049 nm moe 13:20 Oss ast me © po 1472 osr 0st mas (ose 089085 3 gaa 1840 oer 088 a1 eT 2069 0639.80 a ao 2B 06s 082 3 aes 26.09 ons 085 Be. 0a 070 (987 3s 4629.30 07 070 386050775 075 073 37 bes 292 O77 075 mas 4809 02 (O78 3 a7 596 082 2 at 64.20 085 4 3857890 085, 4 9n71 85.38 ost ‘105.11 90.02 094 4% oMea7 115.31 oa7 sas 1348 101 4% 21018881 108 a see W721 108 19026 magn ve 9 9320581 ‘ so e589 319.07 2 ieee eee id ye can be shown that: : ao ™ 4 1BN, BD where Ny is again a dimensionless bearing capacity factor ‘hich cal be evaluated only numerically. ‘This factor varies Sharply with angle Y.‘The aumerical values shown by dashed lines in Fig, 3.15 are taken from an analysis made dy Caquot and Kérisel (1953) under assumption that Y = 43° + g/2._It can be shown (Vesié, 1970) that these values of #7, can be approximated with an error onthe sale side (not Sxczeding 10 percent for 15° vepe ce Crestrto Ct Sipe vi eseaaPlteice Mow SIAPE 30