Elected Shallow Foundation Bearing Capacity Methods: March 2016

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/309533707
Elected Shallow Foundation Bearing Capacity Methods
Presentation · March 2016

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10839.27042
CITATIONS READS
0 2,429
1 author:
Hamzah M. Beakawi Al-Hashemi

University of Bahrain
25 PUBLICATIONS 229 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Molecular Level Simulations for Geotechnical and Geo-environmental Applications View project
DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF ROCK SLOPES – ِA CASE STUDY View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Hamzah M. Beakawi Al-Hashemi on 29 October 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals
College of Engineering Sciences and Applied Engineering
Civil and Environmental Engineering Department
Geotechnical Engineering Section
CE552 Foundation Engineering
PROF. SAHEL ABDULJAUWAD
By: Hamzah M. Al-Hashemi / g201552950

NUCLEAR GAUGE TESTING (NDT) VisCPT
Introduction
Example for Bearing Capacity Failure of Shallow Footing:
2
INTRODUCTION LUGEON TESTING NUCLEAR GAUGE TESTING (NDT) VisCPT
SCPT Elected Shallow Foundation Bearing Capacity
BI-DIRECTIONAL TESTING Methods
Terzaghi & Peck (1948, 1967)
They were suggest a direct relation between the SPT

N-values and allowable soil pressure for footing on
dry and wet SAND. The following chart only
include 3 different SPT N-value. No correction is
recommended. SPT to perform below the base up to
depth B with 0.8 m intervals. N-value is take as
lowest average for design.
3
Terzaghi & Peck (1948)
4
Terzaghi & Peck (1967)
5
Terzaghi & Peck (1948, 1967)
For saturated soil it was suggested that for small

Df/B ratio, the obtained bearing capacity should be
reduced by 50%. For Df/B => 1.66, then reduction
will be 33% only.
6
Peck, Hanson & Thornburn (1953, 1974)
Peck et al (1953) presented a modified chart

corresponding to 1 in settlement resembling the chart
of Terzaghi and Peck (1948).
7
Peck, Hanson & Thornburn (1953)
8
Peck, Hanson & Thornburn (1953, 1974)
For saturated soil (GWT < Df) 50% reduction is

applicable, for intermediate position of GWT,
interpolation can be utilized.
9
Peck, Hanson & Thornburn (1974)
10
Meyerhof(1956, 1965)
Safe Bearing Capacity can be obtained from:
11
For silty SAND he suggested to reduce the BC up to one-

half, while for SAND-gravel mixtures the BC may be
increased by twice. 50% reduction is applicable for GWT
submergence. BC not affected when GWT below 1.5 B of the
base.
12
Allowable Bearing Capacity is less than Safe Bearing Capacity and can be
obtained considered 1 in total settlement and 0.75 in differential settlement :
13
For raft and pier; twice the allowable BC can be used. 1965, he stated the
following equations without correction of GWT effects which – as he
recommended – will be built in N-value:
14
Teng (1962)
He generated an empirical equation for Terzaghi and Peck chart (1948):
15
Teng (1962)
16
Sowers (1962)
He presented a chart illustrating the relation between allowable

BC and N-value for small structures with column loads range
from 25000 to 100000 lb. N-value is the average along 1.5 B
depth below the base.
17
Sowers (1962)
18
Bowles (1968, 1977, 1982, 1988)
He stated that both methods; Terzaghi & Peck, and Meyerhof

were too conservative and in (1968) he presented the following
charts.
19
Bowles (1968, 1977, 1982, 1988)

Modified (Terzaghi & Peck): Bowles 1968
20
Bowles (1968, 1977, 1982, 1988)

Modified (Meyerhof): Bowles 1968
21
Bowles (1968, 1977, 1982, 1988)
Bowles 1982, 1988: he dropped Terzaghi & Peck chart and he

modified the last chart of Meyerhof:
22
Bowles (1968, 1977, 1982, 1988)
23
Mohan, Aggarwal and Tolia (1971)
They presented the following chart for SPT and DCT with
allowable BC without correction of N-value, relations can be
written as:
24
Mohan, Aggarwal and Tolia (1971)
25
CFM(1975,1985,1992)
Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual CFM in 1975

presented a chart for allowable BC on non-cohesive soils based
on Peck et al (1953) and they did not take into account the
settlement considerations.
26
CFM(1975,1985,1992)
27
CFM(1975,1985,1992)
DCT can be correlated to SPT as (Ncone = 1.5 N), for 57.2 mm

diameter 60 degree cone driven by 140 lb hammer with a 30 in
drop.
28
CFM(1975,1985,1992)
Alternatively, allowable BC can be obtained from:
29
CFM(1975,1985,1992)
For shallow foundation, allowable BC is obtained from CPT as

following: qa = 0.1 qc, or as shown in the following chart using
Meyerhof (1956) relationship.
30
CFM(1975,1985,1992)
31
CFM(1975,1985,1992)
CFM (1985,1992) presented SI versions of Peck et al (1974), and

chart for correction of SPT N-value based on Peck et al (1974)
suggestion, as shown in the following charts.
32
CFM(1975,1985,1992)
33
CFM(1975,1985,1992)
34
McCarthy(1977)
He presented a chart of allowable BC related to footing width

and corrected SPT N-value, design N-value is the average
corrected value along 1.5 B depth below the base. Following
Table shown the correction factor.
35
McCarthy(1977)
36
McCarthy(1977)
The chart for GWT at depth greater than B below the base of
footing. One-third reduction is applied for GWT at base, and
linear interpolation for intermediate GWT depths.
37
McCarthy(1977)
38
McCarthy(1977)
He presented also a charts for CPT relations with allowable BC

based on Meyerhof and CFM, and a chart by assuming qc/N ratio
is 4 for SAND and 1 in settlement.
39
McCarthy(1977)
40
McCarthy(1977)
41
Parry (1977)
He suggested a method to calculate the ultimate BC of

cohesionless soil for Df<=B, as following:
42
Parry (1977)
Design N-value is take as representative value of N at a depth of

0.75 B below the foundation level. The settlement for design
purposes can be obtained from:
43
Parry (1977)
He suggested an allowable settlement to be taken as 20 mm, i.e.
For footings less than 2.2 m wide, it will be governed by bearing

capacity, for greater widths it will be governed by settlement.
44
Parry (1977)
Allowable BC, for 25 mm allowable settlement, can be obtained

from:
45
Parry (1977)
46
Spangler and Handy (1982)
Based on settlement of Schmertmann (1970. 1978) the presented

a chart relating SPT, CPT, footing width and net footing pressure,
qc/N ratio is assumed to be 4.
47
Spangler and Handy (1982)
48
Goel (1982)
49
Goel (1982)
50
Navfac DM7 (1982)
51
Navfac DM7 (1982)
52
Hunt (1986)
53
SCPT Elected
ElectedShallow
ShallowFoundation
FoundationBearing
BearingCapacity
BI-DIRECTIONAL CapacityMethods
TESTING Methods
Hunt (1986)
54
Hunt (1986)
55
Van der Vlugt and Rosenthal(1989)
They modified Spangler and Handy (1982) method for surface

loaded footing.
56
Van der Vlugt and Rosenthal(1989)
57
Thank you
58
View publication stats

Elected Shallow Foundation Bearing Capacity Methods: March 2016

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Elected Shallow Foundation Bearing Capacity Methods: March 2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Elected Shallow Foundation Bearing Capacity Methods

Presentation · March 2016

Hamzah M. Beakawi Al-Hashemi

DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF ROCK SLOPES – ِA CASE STUDY View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Elected Shallow Foundation Bearing Capacity Methods

PROF. SAHEL ABDULJAUWAD

By: Hamzah M. Al-Hashemi / g201552950

Terzaghi & Peck (1948, 1967)

They were suggest a direct relation between the SPT

Terzaghi & Peck (1948)

Terzaghi & Peck (1967)

Terzaghi & Peck (1948, 1967)

For saturated soil it was suggested that for small

Peck, Hanson & Thornburn (1953, 1974)

Peck et al (1953) presented a modified chart

Peck, Hanson & Thornburn (1953)

Peck, Hanson & Thornburn (1953, 1974)

For saturated soil (GWT < Df) 50% reduction is

Peck, Hanson & Thornburn (1974)

Safe Bearing Capacity can be obtained from:

For silty SAND he suggested to reduce the BC up to one-

He presented a chart illustrating the relation between allowable

Bowles (1968, 1977, 1982, 1988)

He stated that both methods; Terzaghi & Peck, and Meyerhof

Bowles (1968, 1977, 1982, 1988)

Bowles (1968, 1977, 1982, 1988)

Bowles (1968, 1977, 1982, 1988)

Bowles 1982, 1988: he dropped Terzaghi & Peck chart and he

Bowles (1968, 1977, 1982, 1988)

Mohan, Aggarwal and Tolia (1971)

Mohan, Aggarwal and Tolia (1971)

Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual CFM in 1975

DCT can be correlated to SPT as (Ncone = 1.5 N), for 57.2 mm

Alternatively, allowable BC can be obtained from:

For shallow foundation, allowable BC is obtained from CPT as

CFM (1985,1992) presented SI versions of Peck et al (1974), and

He presented a chart of allowable BC related to footing width

He presented also a charts for CPT relations with allowable BC

He suggested a method to calculate the ultimate BC of

Design N-value is take as representative value of N at a depth of

He suggested an allowable settlement to be taken as 20 mm, i.e.

For footings less than 2.2 m wide, it will be governed by bearing

Allowable BC, for 25 mm allowable settlement, can be obtained

Spangler and Handy (1982)

Based on settlement of Schmertmann (1970. 1978) the presented

Spangler and Handy (1982)

Navfac DM7 (1982)

Navfac DM7 (1982)

Van der Vlugt and Rosenthal(1989)

They modified Spangler and Handy (1982) method for surface

Van der Vlugt and Rosenthal(1989)

You might also like