Bearing Capacity Factors for Shallow Foundations

Subject to Combined Lateral and Axial Loading

FDOT Contract No. BDV31-977-66

FDOT Project Manager: Larry Jones

Principal Investigator: Scott Wasman, Ph.D.

Co-Principal Investigator: Michael McVay, Ph.D.

Research Assistant: Stephen Crawford

 PRESENTATION OUTLINE

1) Introduction
2) Background
3) Objectives
4) Research Tasks
5) Research Conclusions
6) Recommendations
7) Project Benefits
8) Future Research
 INTRODUCTION

Numerous structures have been built on shallow foundations

subjected to combined axial and lateral loads (MSEW, Cast in place
walls, etc.).

In general, there isn’t a consensus among state practitioners as to if

and how combined axial/lateral loads should be included in
predictions of bearing capacity.
 BACKGROUND

1) AASHTO Specifications (10.6.3.1.2) make allowance for load inclination

• Meyerhof (1953), Brinch Hansen (1970), and Vesić (1973) are considered
• Based on small scale experiments
• Derived for footings without embedment

2) AASHTO commentary (C10.6.3.1.2a) suggest inclination factors may be overly

conservative
• Footing embedment (Df) = B or greater
• Footing with modest embedment may omit load inclination factors

3) FHWA GEC No.6 indicates load inclination factors can be omitted if lateral and
vertical load checked against their respective resistances

4) Resistance factors included in the AASHTO code were derived for vertical loads
• Applicability to combined lateral/axial loads are currently unknown
• Up to 75% reduction in Nominal Bearing Resistance computed with AASHTO
load inclination factors
 OBJECTIVES

• Collect data of L/B, embedment, eccentricity, lateral /axial load combinations,

and sand densities of shallow foundations in Florida

• Select 1 average B, 2 loading locations, 3.5 lateral/axial load ratios, and 2 sand
densities for centrifuge testing (56 cases x 2 repetitions = 112 total tests)

• Repeat 3 of the above cases with embedment = B

• Build load frame for centrifuge tests to accommodate all cases

• Conduct centrifuge tests of all cases and obtain the measured ultimate bearing
capacity, measured lateral/axial load inclinations, and eccentricity factors

• Compare measured results with AASHTO methods and other existing methods

• Identify which combination of bearing factors are representative and

recommended for FDOT
 RESEARCH TASKS

TASKS
1) Task-1: Survey of FDOT shallow foundation design and construction
practices

2) Task-2: Construct centrifuge container and load frame for variable

embedment, eccentricity and load inclination test on shallow foundations

3) Task-3: Centrifuge testing of shallow foundations

4) Task-4: Comparison of AASHTO, and published bearing capacity factors

with centrifuge results

5) Task-5: Draft final and closeout teleconference

6) Task-6: Final report.

 TASK 1
Survey of FDOT Shallow Foundation Design and
Construction Practice
Online survey of FDOT engineers showed:
• Commonly used for single and multi-story structures, retaining walls, and
bridges
• Less commonly used for sign structures, toll gantry, sounds walls, and light
poles
• Widths, B, ranges from 3 – 12 ft, with most 3 and 8 ft as the most common
• L/B = 1 was most common followed by 2, 6, then 10
• Embedment = 4 ft was most common, followed by 3, 2, and 5 ft
• Only eccentricity provided was B/6
• Lateral/axial load inclination factor has been used in design; however, only 2
ratios were provided: 0.1 and 0.25
• A3 and A-2-4 were most common soil types used beneath foundation
• Soil most frequently compacted to 100% max dry density, less frequently to
95%
 TASK 1

FDOT recommends analysis of shallow foundations be done in

accordance with AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications
General bearing capacity equation recommended by AASHTO (2016)
0 1 1
𝑞𝑛 = 𝑐𝑁𝑐𝑚 + 𝛾𝐷𝑓 𝑁𝑞𝑚 𝐶𝑤𝑞 + 0.5𝛾𝐵𝑁𝛾𝑚 𝐶𝑤𝛾 = 𝛾𝐷𝑓 𝑁𝑞𝑚 + 0.5𝛾𝐵𝑁𝛾𝑚

𝑁𝑞𝑚 = 𝑁𝑞 𝑆𝑞 𝑑𝑞 𝑖𝑞

𝑁𝛾𝑚 = 𝑁𝛾 𝑆𝛾 𝑖𝛾
𝜙𝑓
𝑁𝑞 = 𝑒 𝜋 tan 𝜙𝑓 𝑡𝑎𝑛2 45° + (Reissner, 1924)
2
𝑁𝛾 = 2 𝑁𝑞 + 1 𝑡𝑎𝑛 𝜙𝑓 (Vesić, 1973)

𝐵 = Foundation width 𝑆𝑞 , 𝑆𝛾 = Shape correction factor (Vesić, 1973)

𝛾 = Soil unit weight 𝑑𝑞 = Depth correction factor
𝐷𝑓 = Embedment depth 𝑖𝑞 , 𝑖𝛾 = Inclination correction factors (Vesić, 1973)
𝜙𝑓 = Soil friction angle
 TASK 2: GEOTECHNICAL CENTRIFUGE

• Useful to study geotechnical problems (capacity of 3 meter diameter centrifuge

foundations) at a fraction of the cost of prototype study
• Soil has non-linear mechanical properties dependent on
effective stress and stress history
• Spinning model in centrifuge increases the
“gravitational” acceleration model which produces
identical self-weight stresses between model and
prototype (smodel/ sprototype = 1)
• Scale other properties for testing
ex. Lmodel/ Lprototype = 1/N
Property Scale Factor
Length 1/N
Area 1/N2
Volume 1/N3 1/36th scale
Force 1/N2 model: Shallow
Unit Weight N
foundation
Stress 1
L/B = 20
Strain 1

• In flight load application and monitoring of foundation

response (displacement and soil pressure)
 TASK 2: TEST SOIL

100
#10 #40
80 #60
A-3 (Fine Sand)

Passing (%)
60
• Max unit weight: 108.9 pcf
40
• Min unit weight: 90.7 pcf #100
20
• 2.5% Passing #200 #200
• 97.5% Sand 0
10 1 0.1 0.01
• Coefficient of Uniformity: 1.67 Sieve Opening (mm)
• Coefficient of Curvature: 1.35
• Specific gravity: 2.67 42

Peak Friction Angle (deg)

• emin: 0.53 40
y = 0.1716x + 24.911
R² = 0.9803
• emax: 0.84 38
• Subangular-subrounded 36
• USCS: SP
34
32
y = 0.1825x + 20.92
30
R² = 0.9518
28
40 60 80 100
Relative Density (%)
Direct Shear Triaxial Shear
 LOAD CASE SCENARIOS

a
Load Case Scenarios
• Load Case-1: Vertical-centric
• Load Case-2: Vertical-eccentric
• Load Case-3: Inclined-eccentric, horizontal
component in direction of eccentricity,
positive (+)
• Load Case-4: Inclined-centric Fh (+) e e Fh (-)
• Load Case-5: Inclined-eccentric, horizontal
component opposite direction of eccentricity,
negative (-) PS1 PS2 PS3 PS4

B = width, H = Height, a = angle of

inclination, 5.7° and 14° (not to scale) and
eccentricity = B/6.
 TASK 2: CENTRIFUGE CONTAINER AND LOAD FRAME
Model Parameters
L/B Ratio 20 10 1
Interior container width (in.) 20
Interior container length (in.) 20 15 20
Interior container depth (in.) 9.5
Soil depth (in.) 8.5
Scale factor (N) 36 40 40
Foundation material Alum.
Model width (in) 1 1.5 1.5
Model length (in.) 20 15 1.5
Model thickness (in.) 0.5 0.75 0.75
# of Hyd. load actuators 3 3 1
# of Omega load cells 3 3 1
# of BEI linear potentiometers 3 3 1
# of Pressure sensors 0 4 4

• All prototypes to be tested:

• Dr of medium dense and very dense A3 fine sand
• Df of 0 and 0.5B
• Vertical centric loads
• L/B = 20 tests only vertical centric loads for Ng and Nq, dq, and dg with negligible shape effects (Sq, Sg)
• L/B = 10 and 1 all load combinations
 TASK-3: PRESSURE vs. DISPLACEMENT PLOT
Strip Footing-MD & VD (Df=0 & Df=0.5B)

Bearing Capacity Equation:

𝑞𝑛 = 𝛾𝐷𝑓 𝑁𝑞 𝑑𝑞 + 0.5𝛾𝐵𝑁𝛾

Bearing Capacity Equation:

𝑞𝑛 = 0.5𝛾𝐵𝑁𝛾
 TASK-3: EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION
Boundary Conditions
𝜏 = 𝜎ℎ 𝑡𝑎𝑛 𝛿  𝜎ℎ = 𝐾𝑜 𝛾ℎ
TASK-3:EVALAUTION OF f

Internal Friction Angle Phi-f (Bias)

45.0

Failure Surface - f 40.0

35.0 Direct Shear

Triaxial Shear
30.0 45 Degree

25.0
25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0
Laboratory Test - f
TASK-3: PRESSURE vs. DISPLACEMENT PLOT
Rectangular-VD (Df=0 and L/A=0.10)
Bearing Capacity Equation: 𝑞𝑛 = 0.5𝛾𝐵𝑁𝛾 𝑆𝛾 𝒊𝜸
TASK-3: PRESSURE vs. DISTRIBUTION PLOT
Rectangular-VD (Df=0 and L/A=0.10)

PS1 PS2 PS3 PS4

 TASK-3: FAILURE SURFACE IMAGES-
Rectangular-VD (Df=0 and L/A=0.10)
Load Case -1 (LT-24) Df=0 Load Case -4 (LT-26)

Load Case -2 (LT-31) Load Case -5 (LT-28)

Load Case -3 (LT-30)

TASK-3: PRESSURE vs. DISPLACEMENT PLOT
Rectangular-VD (Df=0.5B and L/A=0.10)
Bearing Capacity Equation: 𝑞𝑛 = 𝛾𝐷𝑓 𝑁𝑞 𝑆𝑞 𝑑𝑞 𝑖𝑞 + 0.5𝛾𝐵𝑁𝛾 𝑆𝛾 𝑖𝛾
TASK-3: PRESSURE vs. DISPLACEMENT PLOT
Square-VD (Df=0 and L/A=0.10)
Bearing Capacity Equation: 𝑞𝑛 = 0.5𝛾𝐵𝑁𝛾 𝑆𝛾 𝒊𝜸
 TASK-3: FAILURE SURFACE IMAGES
Square Footing- (Df=0 and L/A=0.10)
Load Case -1 Load Case -2 Load Case -3

Load Case -4 Load Case -5 Load Case -5

TASK-3: PRESSURE vs. DISPLACEMENT PLOT
Square-VD (Df=0.5B and L/A=0.10)
Bearing Capacity Equation: 𝑞𝑛 = 𝛾𝐷𝑓 𝑁𝑞 𝑆𝑞 𝑑𝑞 𝑖𝑞 + 0.5𝛾𝐵𝑁𝛾 𝑆𝛾 𝑖𝛾
TASK-3: PRESSURE vs. DISPLACEMENT PLOT
Square-VD (Df=B with L/A=0.25)
Bearing Capacity Equation: 𝑞𝑛 = 𝛾𝐷𝑓 𝑁𝑞 𝑆𝑞 𝑑𝑞 𝑖𝑞 + 0.5𝛾𝐵𝑁𝛾 𝑆𝛾 𝑖𝛾

Df=B

Df=0.5B

Df=0
TASK-4: CONCENTRIC LOADING ON STRIP FOUNDATION

FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY:

𝑞𝑛 = 𝛾𝐷𝑓 𝑁𝑞𝑚 + 0.5𝛾𝐵𝑁𝛾𝑚

STRIP FOUNDATION AT SURFACE:

𝑞𝑛 = 0.5𝛾𝐵𝑁𝛾𝑚
• Df = 0
• Measured Ngm Term
• L/B = 20 the shape factors sq and s g are 1.04 and 0.98 ( <4% error)

STRIP FOUNDATION AT Df = B:
𝑞𝑛 = 𝛾𝐷𝑓 𝑁𝑞𝑚 + 0.5𝛾𝐵𝑁𝛾𝑚 & 𝑁𝑞𝑚 = 𝑁𝑞 𝑆𝑞 𝑑𝑞 𝑖𝑞
• Df = B
• Measured Nqm & depth corrections, 𝑑𝑞
• 𝑁𝑞 & 𝑁𝛾 are only functions of f
TASK-4: LOADING ON RECTANGULAR & SQUARE
FOUNDATION

RECTANGLE & SQUARE FOUNDATION AT Df = 0 & Df = B :

𝑁𝑞𝑚 = 𝑁𝑞 𝑆𝑞 𝑑𝑞 𝑖𝑞 & 𝑁𝛾𝑚 = 𝑁𝛾 𝑆𝛾 𝑖𝛾
• Df = 0 & Df = B
• Measured Nqm & depth corrections, 𝑑𝑞
• 𝑁𝑞 & 𝑁𝛾 are only functions of f

RECTANGLE & SQUARE FOUNDATION with eccentricity:

𝑁𝑞𝑚 = 𝑁𝑞 𝑆𝑞 𝑑𝑞 𝑖𝑞 & 𝑁𝛾𝑚 = 𝑁𝛾 𝑆𝛾 𝑖𝛾
• Df = 0 & Df = B
• Lateral/Axial load ratios: 0.1 & 0.25
• Maximum eccentricity: B/6
• 𝐵′ = 𝐵 − 2 ∙ e𝐵

RECTANGLE & SQUARE FOUNDATION with load inclination:

𝑁𝑞𝑚 = 𝑁𝑞 𝑆𝑞 𝑑𝑞 𝑖𝑞 & 𝑁𝛾𝑚 = 𝑁𝛾 𝑆𝛾 𝑖𝛾
• Df = 0 & Df = B
• Lateral/Axial load ratios: 0.1 & 0.25
• Isolate the inclination factors
 TASK-4: BEARING CAPACITY FACTORS- Nq & Ng
Bearing Capacity Factor for Overburden:

Reissner, (1924): AASHTO recommended:

𝜙𝑓
𝑁𝑞 = 𝑒 𝜋 tan 𝜙𝑓 𝑡𝑎𝑛2 45° + 2

Bearing Capacity Factor for Soil Unit Weight (Analytical Derivation):

Vesić (1973): AASHTO recommended:

𝑁𝛾 = 2 𝑁𝑞 + 1 𝑡𝑎𝑛 𝜙𝑓

Zhu et al. (2001):

𝑁𝛾 = 2 𝑁𝑞 + 1 𝑡𝑎𝑛 1.07𝜙𝑓

Bearing Capacity Factor for Soil Unit Weight (Empirical Relationships):

Meyerhof (1963):
𝑁𝛾 = 𝑁𝑞 − 1 tan 1.4𝜙𝑓

Hansen (1970):
𝑁𝛾 = 1.5 𝑁𝑞 − 1 𝑡𝑎𝑛 𝜙𝑓
 TASK-4: SHAPE & DEPTH FACTORS (L/B=20)

Shape Factors considered in analysis:

(L/B=20 < 4% error for the factors used)
Reference Sq Sg
DeBeer (1970) as modified by Vesić (1973) 1.04 0.98
EuroCode (2005) 1.03 0.99
Meyerhof (1963) 1.02 1.02
Perau (1995, 1997) 1.06 0.95
Zhu and Michalowski (2005) 1.17 1.00

Depth Factors considered in analysis:

Hansen (1970):
2 𝑑𝑓 𝑑𝑓
𝑑𝑞 = 1 + 2 tan 𝜙𝑓 ∙ 1 − sin 𝜙𝑓 for ≤1
𝐵 𝐵
𝑑𝛾 = 1

Meyerhof (1963)*
𝑑𝑓
𝑑𝑞 = 1 + 0.1 𝐾𝑝 for 𝜙𝑓 > 10°
𝐵
𝑑𝛾 = 𝑑𝑞
 TASK-4: MEASURED Nq and Ng (L/B=20)

𝑞𝑢 = 𝛾(𝐷𝑓 + )𝑁𝑞 + 1/2 𝛾𝐵𝑁𝛾 Density

Nq Ng Reissner Vesić
Hansen Ng
(slope) (2 * intercept) Nq Ng
MD 27.29 28.87 24.88 33.10 22.91
or in a normalized form as VD* 39.03 48.53 34.44 50.12 35.47
VD** 61.98 56.75 49.59 72.43 57.15
*Relative Density, Dr=85-90%, **Relative Density, Dr=91-96%
𝑞𝑢 𝐷𝑓 + 
= 𝑁𝑞 + 1/2 𝑁𝛾
𝛾𝐵 g𝐵 150 150

𝒚 = 𝒎𝒙 + b
125 }38 125 }38
100 100

}35 }35
qu / gB

75 75

qu / gB
Nq = slope
50 } 32 50 }32
Ng = 2 * intercept
25 25
(A) (B)
0 0
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75
(Df + )/gB (Df + )/gB

(A) Hansen (1970) and Vesic’ (1973) dq and dg

(B) Meyerhof (1963) dq and dg
*VD (Dr=85-90%)
**VD (Dr=91-96%)
 TASK-4: SHAPE FACTORS

Measured sg with theoretical methods Measured sq with theoretical methods

1.6 2.4

2.2
1.4
sg = 1.3386(L/B) -0.105 2.0
R² = 0.9745
1.8 sq = 1.4738(L/B) -0.137
1.2 R² = 0.9668
1.6

1.0 1.4

sq
sg

1.2
0.8
1.0

0.8
0.6
0.6

0.4 0.4
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
L/B L/B
Data Vesić Data Vesić
EuroCode Meyerhof EuroCode Meyerhof
Zhu & Michalowski Perau Zhu & Michalowski Perau
Power (Data) Power (Data)
 TASK-4: BEARING CAPACITY BIAS PLOT (L/B=20)

Bearing Capacity Bias for Bearing Capacity Bias for Bearing Capacity Bias for
Vesić Ng (fDS Peak) Zhu Ng (fDS Peak) Hansen Ng (fDS Peak)
Measured Bearing Capacity (psf)

40000 40000 40000

30000 30000 30000

20000 20000 20000

10000 10000 10000

y = 0.7999x + 2518.2 y = 0.78x + 2071.7 y = 0.8453x + 4233.2
R² = 0.9824 R² = 0.982 R² = 0.9762
0 0 0

Predicted Bearing Capacity (psf)

 TASK-4: BEARING CAPACITY BIAS TABLE (L/B=20)

Load L/B Reissner- Vesic'-Ng Meyerhof-Ng Hansen-Ng Vesic'-Ng Meyerhof-Ng Hansen-Ng Vesic'-Ng Meyerhof-Ng Hansen-Ng Vesic'-Ng Meyerhof-Ng Hansen-Ng
Test Ratio Nq Bias Bias Bias Bias Bias Bias Bias Bias Bias Bias Bias Bias Bias
Hansen and Vesic' Depth Factors Meyerhof Depth Factors (dg=dq) & Hansen and Vesic' Depth Factors Meyerhof Depth Factors (dg=dq) &
Df=0 -
(dg=1) & Vesic' Shape Factors Vesic' Shape Factors (dg=1) & Meyerhof Shape Factors Meyerhof Shape Factors
LT-1 20 1.13 1.33 1.71 1.88 1.28 1.65 1.81
LT-2 20 1.14 1.29 1.66 1.83 1.24 1.60 1.76
LT-3 20 1.10 1.15 1.56 1.67 1.11 1.51 1.61
LT-4 20 1.13 1.17 1.59 1.69 1.13 1.54 1.63
LT-17 20 1.21 1.09 1.32 1.51 1.05 1.27 1.46
Same Results as Hansen Depth Same Results as Hansen Depth
LT-18 20 1.23 1.09 1.32 1.52 1.06 1.28 1.46
Factors (dg=dq=1) & Vesic' Shape Factors (dg=dq=1) & Vesic' Shape
LT-23 10 1.20 0.93 1.13 1.29 0.86 1.04 1.19
Factors Factors
LT-24 10 1.17 0.97 1.17 1.34 0.89 1.08 1.24
LT-125 1 1.25 1.90 2.31 2.64 0.80 0.98 1.11
LT-126 1 1.19 1.84 2.22 2.55 0.77 0.93 1.07
LT-165 5 1.22 1.08 1.31 1.50 0.92 1.11 1.28
LT-167 5 1.23 1.07 1.29 1.48 0.90 1.10 1.25
Hansen and Vesic' Depth Factors Meyerhof Depth Factors (dg=dq) & Hansen and Vesic' Depth Factors Meyerhof Depth Factors (dg=dq) &
Df=0.5B -
(dg=1) & Vesic' Shape Factors Vesic' Shape Factors (dg=1) & Meyerhof Shape Factors Meyerhof Shape Factors
LT-5 20 1.10 1.15 1.33 1.37 1.12 1.31 1.35 1.13 1.32 1.36 1.10 1.29 1.34
LT-6 20 1.10 1.10 1.27 1.31 1.07 1.25 1.29 1.08 1.26 1.30 1.05 1.24 1.28
LT-7 20 1.13 1.06 1.20 1.26 1.01 1.16 1.22 1.04 1.19 1.25 1.00 1.15 1.21
LT-8 20 1.15 1.11 1.26 1.32 1.06 1.22 1.28 1.09 1.25 1.30 1.05 1.21 1.26
LT-9 20 1.14 1.13 1.31 1.35 1.10 1.29 1.33 1.12 1.30 1.34 1.08 1.28 1.32
LT-10 20 1.09 1.07 1.21 1.27 1.02 1.17 1.23 1.05 1.20 1.26 1.01 1.16 1.22
LT-11 20 1.14 1.08 1.23 1.28 1.03 1.19 1.24 1.06 1.21 1.27 1.02 1.17 1.23
LT-12 20 1.08 1.14 1.29 1.34 1.08 1.23 1.29 1.13 1.28 1.34 1.07 1.22 1.28
LT-13 20 1.34 0.92 1.03 1.09 0.87 0.97 1.03 0.92 1.02 1.08 0.86 0.96 1.02
LT-14 20 1.25 0.93 1.04 1.11 0.88 0.99 1.06 0.92 1.02 1.10 0.87 0.98 1.05
LT-20 20 1.22 0.95 1.05 1.12 0.89 0.99 1.06 0.94 1.04 1.11 0.88 0.98 1.05
LT-36 10 1.21 0.83 0.92 0.98 0.79 0.88 0.94 0.80 0.89 0.96 0.76 0.85 0.92
LT-44 10 1.20 0.90 1.00 1.07 0.86 0.95 1.02 0.87 0.97 1.04 0.82 0.92 1.00
LT-128 1 1.20 1.17 1.24 1.29 1.14 1.21 1.26 0.89 0.99 1.07 0.84 0.94 1.02
LT-129 1 1.21 1.14 1.21 1.26 1.11 1.19 1.23 0.87 0.97 1.04 0.82 0.92 1.00
Hansen and Vesic' Depth Factors Meyerhof Depth Factors (dg=dq) & Hansen and Vesic' Depth Factors Meyerhof Depth Factors (dg=dq) &
Df=B -
(dg=1) & Vesic' Shape Factors Vesic' Shape Factors (dg=1) & Meyerhof Shape Factors Meyerhof Shape Factors
LT-16 20 1.24 0.89 0.95 0.99 0.84 0.90 0.94 0.89 0.95 0.99 0.83 0.90 0.94
LT-21 20 1.21 0.92 0.98 1.02 0.85 0.91 0.95 0.92 0.98 1.02 0.84 0.90 0.95
TASK-4: PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION
Eccentric Load Case

𝐵 ′ = 𝐵 − 2 ∙ e𝐵
Foundation
Measured Design
Rotation
Eccentricity Eccentricity
(degree)
B/6.1 B/6 6.65
B/6.25 B/6 7.06
B/7
PS1 PS2 B/6
PS3 PS4 6.54
B/7.4 B/6 9.13
B/8.2 B/6 8.46
 TASK-4: EFFECT OF ECCENTRICITY
Surface & Embedded Footing
𝐵 ′ = 𝐵 − 2 ∙ e𝐵
Rectangular Footing Square Footing
45000 45000

30000 30000

Measured qu (psf)
Measured qu (psf)

15000 15000

0 0
0 15000 30000 45000 0 15000 30000 45000
Predicted qu (psf) Predicted qu (psf)
 TASK-4: EFFECT OF LOAD INCLINATION-ig
Inclination Factor-ig for L/B=10 (VD) Inclination Factor-ig for L/B=10 (MD)
1.0 1.0

0.9 0.9
VD Data MD Data
0.8 0.8
Meyerhof-ig Meyerhof-ig
0.7 0.7

0.6 Vesic'-ig 0.6 Vesic'-ig

0.5 Hansen-ig 0.5 Hansen-ig

ig
ig = e-4.523(H/V)
ig

ig = e-3.921(H/V)
0.4 R² = 0.9873 L/B=10, L/A=0.10 (VD) 0.4 R² = 0.9919 L/B=10, L/A=0.10 (MD)
0.3 L/B=10, L/A=0.25 (VD) 0.3 L/B=10, L/A=0.25 (MD)
0.2 0.2
Expon. (VD Data) Expon. (MD Data)
0.1 0.1

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
H/V Ratio) H/V Ratio

Inclination Factor-ig for L/B=1 (VD) Inclination Factor-ig for L/B=1 (MD)
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
VD Data
0.8 MD Data
0.8
Meyerhof-ig
0.7 Meyerhof-ig
0.7
0.6 Vesic'-ig
0.6 Vesic'-ig
ig = e-4.027(H/V)
0.5 ig = e-3.713(H/V) Hansen-ig
ig

0.5 R² = 0.9848
ig

Hansen-ig
0.4 R² = 0.9664 L/B=1, L/A=0.1 (VD) 0.4
L/B=1, L/A=0.1 (MD)
0.3 L/B=1, L/A=0.25 (VD) 0.3
L/B=1, L/A=0.25 (MD)
0.2
Expon. (VD Data) 0.2
0.1 Expon. (MD Data)
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
H/V Ratio H/V Ratio
 TASK-4: EFFECT OF LOAD INCLINATION-iq
Inclination Factor-iq for L/B=10 (VD) lination Factor-iq for L/B=10 (MD)
1.0 1.0
0.9 0.9
VD Data MD Data
0.8 0.8 iq = e-1.857x
Meyerhof-iq Meyerhof-iq
0.7 0.7 R² = 0.9906
Vesic'-iq Vesic'-iq
0.6 0.6
0.5 Hansen-iq 0.5 Hansen-iq
iq

iq
0.4 L/B=10, L/A=0.10 (VD) 0.4 L/B=10, L/A=0.10 (MD)
0.3 L/B=10, L/A=0.25 (VD) 0.3 L/B=10, L/A=0.25 (MD)
0.2 iq = e-3.3(H/V) Expon. (VD Data)
0.2
Expon. (MD Data)
0.1 R² = 0.9853 0.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
H/V Ratio H/V Ratio

Inclination Factor-iq for L/B=1 (VD) Inclination Factor-iq for L/B=1 (MD)
1.0 1.0
0.9 0.9
VD Data MD Data
0.8 0.8
iq = e-1.437(H/V)
0.7 Meyerhof-iq 0.7 Meyerhof-iq
R² = 0.998
0.6 Vesic'-iq 0.6 Vesic'-iq
0.5 0.5
iq

iq

Hansen-iq Hansen-iq
0.4 0.4
L/B=1, L/A=0.10 (VD) L/B=1, L/A=0.10 (MD)
0.3 0.3
L/B=1, L/A=0.25 (VD) L/B=1, L/A=0.25 (MD)
0.2 iq = e-3.518(H/V) 0.2
R² = 0.9835 Expon. (VD Data) Expon. (MD Data)
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
H/V Ratio H/V Ratio
TASK-4: BEARING CAPACITY BIAS PLOT
Rectangular Footing (VD)
Paired Methods & Best Methods
TASK-4: BEARING CAPACITY BIAS PLOT
Rectangular Footing (VD)
Match Methods
TASK-4: BEARING CAPACITY BIAS PLOT
Square Footing (VD)
Paired Methods & Best Methods
TASK-4: BEARING CAPACITY BIAS PLOT
Square Footing (VD)
Match Methods
 SUMMARY OF RESEARCH CONCLUSIONS

• Bearing capacities of L/B = 20 , 10, and 1 shallow foundations on sand subjected

to centric, eccentric, and inclined loading measured in centrifuge tests.
• Bearing capacity factors Ng and Nq validated against measured bearing capacity of
strip foundations (shape factor = 1).
• Correction factors for depth, shape, and inclination independently validated against
measured bearing capacities of L/B = 10 and 1 foundations in MD and VD sand.
• Based on comparison with measured bearing capacities, the combination of factors
that lead to bias (measured/predicted) values closest to 1 are:
• Soil overburden is well represented by Nq (Reissner, 1924)
• Soil self weight is best predicted by Ng Vesić (1973) method
• Eccentricity is represented by B′
• Effect of embedment is best predicted by dq and dg Meyerhof (1963)
• Effect of foundation shape is best predicted by Sq and Sg Meyerhof (1963)
• Effect of inclination in cases 3 and 4 best predicted by Hansen (1970) and
Vesić (1973) iq and ig with B′, Loukidis et al. (2008) fie with B does well
• Effect of inclination in case 5: Loukidis et al. (2008) fie with B does well
 SUMMARY OF RESEARCH CONCLUSIONS

• Foundation embedment had a marked effect on the measured bearing capacity:

• Df = 0.5B
• Greatest improvement in capacity for lateral/axial load = 0.25
• For MD and VD and L/B =10 and L/B = 1
• Significant improvements (60 – 100%) for cases 3-5
• Case 3 (most critical) improvements 62 – 90%
• Significant improvement in capacity for lateral/axial load 0.1
• 18-80% increase in capacity
• Df = B tests on L/B = 1 in VD sand with lateral/axial = 0.25
• Improvements in capacity of 119% for cases 3 and 4 compared to Df = 0
• Df = B tests on L/B = 1 in VD sand with lateral/axial = 0.10
• Improvements in capacity of 115% for case 3 compared to Df = 0
• Based on the results, 38 – 70% reduction in measured bearing capacity for
footings subjected to inclined loads (0.10 and 0.25)and when embedded up to
Df = B.
 SUMMARY OF RESEARCH CONCLUSIONS

• Combination of load inclination and eccentricity is significant and direction of

lateral component of load relative the direction of eccentricity should be
considered
• Case 3 (+ load combination) was the most critical for L/B = 10 and 1 and
MD and VD sands
• Capacity increased as load combination became less + and more – (case 5)
• Same trend in results for Df = 0 and 0.5B tests
• AASHTO inclination factor methods don’t account for relative direction of
inclined load – may overpredict bearing capacity
 RECOMMENDATIONS

When estimating bearing capacity, the following methods in ASSHTO guidelines on

shallow foundation design compared well with measured results and should continue
to be used:
• Nq (Reissner, 1924)
• Ng Vesić (1973) method
• B′ = B – 2e
• dq and dg Meyerhof (1963)
• For cases 3 and 4 loading, Vesić (1973) iq and ig
• Hansen (1970) iq and ig for L/B = 10 and 1 footings on sand
• Vesić (1973) Sq and Sg are conservative (esp. for L/B < 5)
• Vesić (1973) iq and ig are unconservative
• Effect of foundation shape is best predicted by Sq and Sg Meyerhof (1963)
• When loading is like case 5, effect of inclination is best predicted by Loukidis et
al. (2008) fie with B
• Inclination factor should not be omitted: 38 – 70% reduction in measured bearing
capacity for embedded footings subjected to inclined loads (0.10 and 0.25).
 PROJECT BENEFITS

• Qualitative:
• AASHTO methods to account for shape and inclination are
conservative and commentary to account for effect of inclined load is
ambiguous
• The results of this research provide measured results of representative
shallow foundation cases and independently assess the influence of soil
weight, depth, shape, eccentricity, and inclination for comparison to
current AASHTO methods
• Experimental results and analysis in this research address the ambiguity
and uncertainty in the design methods
• Quantitative:
• Reducing conservancy in designs will result in more cost-efficient
designs (smaller foundations)
• Shallow foundations designed with appropriate load inclination factors
to account for reduced bearing capacity may be assigned with less risk
(probability of a foundation failure X the consequence of a failure ($)).
 FUTURE RESEARCH

Shallow Foundations on/near Slopes

• AASHTO guidelines on bearing capacity of shallow foundations on or near
slopes is based on Meyerhof (1957) charts for Df = 0 and 1.
• Recent work by Zerguine et al., (2017) looked at bearing capacity of
eccentrically loaded strip footing near slopes through finite element
modeling of the system in cohesionless soil.
• Yang at al., (2019) proposed modifying all factors to account for the
influence of the slope proximity to shallow foundation in c-f soil.
Bias and LRFD Resistance Factor Calibration
• NCHRP 24-31 Program compiled database of measured bearing capacity of
shallow foundations on soil and rock.
• Vertical centric, eccentric, inclined, and eccentric inclined cases tested.
• Current work shows method bias for and Ng 0.93 – 1.88 for Vesić, Hansen,
Meyerhof methods.
• Can amend NCHRP database with new data to calibrate resistance factor for
methods and cases (eccentric-inclined) in design.
 LIST OF PUBLICATIONS

About to be Submitted:

• Experimental Verification of Bearing Capacity Factors for Shallow Foundations on Sand (2020):
Stephen Crawford, Scott Wasman Ph.D., Michael McVay Ph.D., Larry Jones, Victor Steck

In-Draft:
• Centrifuge Modeling of Pressure Distributions Beneath Rectangular Shallow Foundations with
Inclined-eccentric Loading on Sand (2020): Stephen Crawford, Scott Wasman Ph.D., Michael McVay
Ph.D., Larry Jones

Planned:
• Centrifuge Modeling of Pressure Distributions Beneath Square Shallow Foundations with Inclined-
eccentric Loading on Sand (2020): Stephen Crawford, Scott Wasman Ph.D., Michael McVay Ph.D.,
Larry Jones

• Resistance Factors for Shallow Foundations on Granular Soil Subjected to Centric, Eccentric, and
Inclined Loads (2020):
Scott Wasman Ph.D., Stephen Crawford, Michael McVay Ph.D., Andrea Tyrrell, Larry Jones
Thank You