Equation parameters

Main requirement we going to establish with this research that we going to

concentrate on granular soils.

Soil
soil reaches point 𝜏 =𝜎 tan𝜙
In the situation of failure – Creates curved shear plane forming failure wedge and

Where

 𝜏 =Shear stress
 𝜎 = Normal stress
 𝜙 = Friction angle
Ultimatily bearing capacity is – capacity to resist shear stress.
Loss of shear resistance = loss of stability and bearing capacity
Hence one of the most important soil bahavoure is ration between normall
stresses and shear strength -displayed as a Phai – friction angle.

Shear Strength or maximum Shear capacity

τf=σn tanϕ
Where:
τf = shear strength at failure
σn = normal stress acting on the shear plane
φ = friction angle

φ (friction angle)
represents
 Particle interlock
 Surface roughness
 Amount of dilation
 Packing density

Friction angle application between the Eurocode/ numerical /

analytical method
Establish meaning between Critical State, Angle of Repose or Peak Strength ,
Why we taking Critical Strength instead of Peak Strength.
Dense soil experience three stages during shear test. It shown in the shear strain
and shear stress graph where soil initially goes trough “initial state” and then
experience “peak value and, moves to the “critical state”

Analytical approach is adapted by using Peak friction angle and its used in such
Meyerhof Vesic Terzaghi equations as dense sands indicates on strong dilations
and shoes clear peak friction.
By this approach It gives higher shear strength and would include dilation as its
calculated on dense sands
In dense sands dilations creates extra shear strength – this produces a peak
friction angle
The relationship can be seen below, where dilation angle is the difference
between the peak and critical -state friction angle.
ϕpeak=ϕcrit+ψ
Bolton (1986)
Plaxis use of friction angle
Depending on the model:
Plaxis Mohr-Coulomb Model uses one friction and angle and one dilation angle
and keeps the stiffness constant – overall acts as a critical friction angle
Eurocode

Eurocode use Characteristic friction angle (φₖ) and then apply partial factors to
get design friction angle shown in this equations below , where γ_M is partial
factor.
ϕd=tan−1(γMtanϕk)

Summary
Dense sand uses peak and critical friction angle
Loose sand use only critical
….

Soil Density +packing Density

Loose Sand
 High void ratio
 Particles easily rearranges
  Contracts(shrinks ) under shear (reduced volume)
 No peak ϕ , just critical ϕ
Published soil mechanics literature (Budhu, 2011; Das & Sobhan, 2014; Coduto,
1999; Terzaghi et al., 1996) consistently indicates that the effective friction angle
of loose, clean sands typically ranges between 28° and 30° with packing density
up to 35%

Medium -Dense sand

 Some interlocking
 Slight dilation
 Peak friction angle slightly higher than Critical angle of friction
Typical published values place the effective friction angle of medium-dense
sands between 30–36°, depending on grading, angularity, and stress level
(Budhu, 2011; Das & Sobhan, 2014; Coduto, 1999; Holtz et al., 2010). Terzaghi,
Peck & Mesri (1996) similarly report friction angles of 30–34° for medium-dense
sands. Bolton (1986) provides correlations showing that medium densities
generally yield peak friction angles up to 32–36°, depending on confining stress
and dilation behaviour.

3) Dense Sands
 High Interlocking
 Strong dilation
 Clear Peak friction angle
 ϕ Peak significantly > critical ϕ
Dense Sand:
Published data consistently report effective friction angles of 36–42° for dense
sands (Budhu, 2011; Das & Sobhan, 2014; Coduto, 1999). Holtz et al. (2010) list
typical values around 34–40°, while Terzaghi, Peck & Mesri (1996) describe dense
sands reaching 36–40°. Bolton (1986) provides a theoretical framework linking
relative density and dilation to peak friction angles, indicating that very dense
sands may reach 40–45° under low confining stresses.

Surface Roughness (particle Angularity)

Angula
Sub-angular
Sub-rounded
Rounded

Angular = higher ϕ
Rounded = lower ϕ

Typical values
Smooth round sand ϕ = 28°-32°
Angular Crushed sand ϕ = 40° -45°

More rounded Edges = More friction = higher shear resistance

Particle Interlock
 Particle Shape - Grain angularity More angular = better interlock
More rounds =less
interlock

Dilation
Dilation= dense sand expends ( increase volume) during shear.
 Dense sand = grain interlock = volume increase (dilation)
 Loose sand= grain collapse = volume decrease and stay constant

Occurs when sand is

 Dense enough
 Angular enough
 Interlocked
Loose sands doesn’t dilate
When sand dilates it requires extra work(energy) to increase the volume =extra
shear resistance “extra shear stress”
ϕpeak=ϕcrit+ψ
Where
Φcrit – is critical state friction angle
Ψ – dilation angle

loose sand: ψ ≈ 0 → ϕ_peak ≈ ϕ_crit

Medium-dense sand: ψ small → ϕ_peak slightly > ϕ_crit
Dense sand: ψ large → ϕ_peak much > ϕ_crit

Dilation is the increase in volume that occurs in dense sand during shear. This
behaviour generates a peak friction angle greater than the critical-state friction
angle.

Unit weight
y_d – dry unit weight
 Losee soil 15-18 kN/m3
 Medium to dense 15-18 kN/m3

y_sat – saturated unit weight

Saturated sands 19-21 kN/m3
y’ - effective unit weight (saturated – water unit weight)
y_sat 20- y_w9.81 =y’ 10.2 kN/m3

For bearing calculations = qult=q′Nq+0.5γ′BNγ

y’ - larger= higher capacity
y’ – lower = capacity

For Plaxis
Only required to in out y sat and y unsat and then it calculates rest
automatically.

Stiffness
“Soil resistance to deformation “
 Controls
  Settlement
 Shape of failure zone
 Stress distribution
In Plaxis, stiffness used by
E(Youngs modulus)
V(Poisson’s ratio)
E50 , Eurs , EoeD (in Hardening model)

Poisson’s Ratio (v)

“ Expansion sideways” perpendicular to the loading ratio compering (axial

strain or longitudinal) vs (transverse or lateral strain )
Typically sands v = 0.25-0.35

Young’s Modulus (E)

Stiffness of sand increase with
 Density (loose to dense)
 Confining stress
 Stress history
 Particle contact condition
E=Stress /Strain

Loose sand
E= 10-20 MPa
Medium Dense
E=20-40 MPa
Dense Sand
E=40-80 MPa

Footing Type
Strip footing
 2d plain
 Analytical comparison (Terzagi,Meyehof, Hansen , Vesic)
 Eurocode 7 Slope factors

B = 2m
Or 1m for simplicity
D =1m

Slope Geometry
(β) = 20, 30, 40

Research about failure wedges and shear

planes “ failure mechanisms
“!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Passive plain – is shear plane where the soil is compressed – activated by high
normal stress (strong resistance)
Passive Wedge- activated by passive plane forms underneath the *foundation
Active plain – Soil has been unloaded or pulled apart (weak resistance )

In bearing capacity failure if governed by passive wedge beneath the foundation.

The main failing point at the slopes is where passive wedge gets cut. It provides
the primary resistance.
 Bearing Capacity Equations

Terzaghi Bearing Capacity

Limitation
 Assumed :
 Strip footing
 Central vertical load
 No slope
 Shallow depth
 General Shear failure
 Planar failure surface

Lacking information for

 Slopes
 Shape factors
 Inclined loads
 Deep footing
 Settlement calculations

Quick Summary of Bearing capacity calculations advance.

Terzaghi (1943) - Meyerhof (1951-1963) - Hansen (1961-1970)
– Vesic (1973-1975)
Meyerhof brought additionally
  Shape factors
 Depth factors
 Inclination factors
 Eccentricity factors

Hansen brought additionally

 Slope correction factors
 Base and load inclination
 Generalised failure surfaces

Vesic
 Updated Ny
 Updated Shear zones
 Elastic displacement

In this Specific Case of research

Hansen and Vesic uses Both slope correction factors.

Hansen (1970)
 Hansens Method is Literature widely accepted
 Matches Eurocode annex D structure
 Easier to implement manually
 Good comparison with Plaxis

Or

Represents same formula just some of the parameters used with slightly
different symbol.

The first part of the equation is linked to the cohesion

“For cohesion soils”

C -Cohesion improves bearing capacity because the soil is bonding to
other particles. However, it has to be mindful as cohesion soil acts
different in long-term and short-term situations. Therefore, for short term
condition is used undrain conditions cu (undrain shear strength is high)
and long- term condition drained where (c and ϕ) controls the conditions
For cohesionless soils like sand effective cohesion c’ is taken = 0 because
particles doesn’t experience bonding .

Nc – Bearing capacity factor- depending on the friction angle (ϕ)

Shape factor- general rule is for bearing capacity magnitude is Strip > Square
> Circular.
Failure mechanism
Due to the stip footing failure mechnism is 2d = soil pushes out /fail sideways. So
the circular and squere has 3D failing mechanism
However, Squere and cicrcular foundations are better agains roatational failure
and better for eccentricity loading and overturning.
Sc is shape factor , for strip footing is 1

Embedment depth increases bearing capacity by adding surcharge -

providing lateral confinement(support) and forcing deeper and stronger
failure mechanisms.

dc- Depth Factors

Load Inclination factor reduce bearing capacity when loads applied
horizontal or inclined . Hansen’s method express reduction inclinator
factors iq and iy and ic.
In this study the load is assumed to be purely vertical and concentric,
therefore no inclination factors are applied

The second part of equation is linked to the surcharge- all the

weight above the base of the foundation , included the self weight.

q = Surcharge illustrates vertical stress directed to the foundation from

the soil above. Therefore confining stresses increases – what results in
the higher shear strength.
In normal case if the foundation tichness represents depth of the
foundation , would be used unit weigt of concrete but In this study to
simplify the surcharge is used as a soil above the foundation.
Nq = Bearing Capacity factors for surcharge

Slope factors.
As the slope is getting steeper ,
 the ground is becoming less confinement
 Share planes reaches ground faster
 Capacity falls

gq acts as the determinant to the Nq- the higher slope angle = less
effective Nq becomes.

gy acts as determinant to the Ny. When the slope angle increases and
becomes as steep and angle of friction the soil cannot generate Ny
resistance. so the slope is same angle as friction angle is on verge of
failure.
The third part of equation is linked to the soil unit weight

Y- Bulk or effective unit weight (depending on groundwater level condition

)
B- effective footing with
Ny -bearing capacity for soil weight

In This study case the equation is simplified due to the fact

 cohesionless soil
 strip footing and
 vertical load
All the factors with 1 or 0 disappears
Distance from the crest

In the bearing capacity calculation Hansen’s and Vesic’s methods

includes slope factors representing slope angle. However by using slope
factors the rule is made considering the foundation location is at the crest
of the slope. This study aim to research foundation position with various
distances for the crest, therefore there is multiple ways om how to include
distance in to this equition.
A) Use literature provided charts developed by previously conducted
studies.
B) Use distance factors suggested by the previously conducted studies
C) Use the Numerical (Finite Ellemnt Modelling) software to produce the
result difference.

In the lithuareture , Mayerhof’s (1957) first discuss the relationships

between the crest distance from the foundation. In this study he
discusses the relationships for up to 6 times the With of the foundation
from the crest. It has been referenced by most other , later research.
 It provides bearing capacity factors near slopes
 Distance effect (b/D) foundation distance from crest.
 Gives charts for granular soils
Talk about, what you picking , what is the charts representing etcetera
….

Kusakabe et al.(1981)

Produced reduction factor

 Considered multiple phi values
Shows how u increases to 1
Provides design charts.

Kusakabe et al(1981) presents reduction -factor chart for various

cohesion ratios c/yB. For granular soil with neglitable cohesion (c=0)
the ration tends to be zero. Since author didn’t include a chart for c/yb
= 0 , the lowest value case c/yB =0.5 offers the closetst representation
and is adopted in this study.
Therese is discussed different chart s of frixtion angle the revelent
friction angle charts are viewed where ,friction angle is 30 loose sand
is approximately 30 and for dense is approximately 40.
Produced reduction factors “u” defined ratio of the bearing capacity
near the slope and bearing capacity on level ground. With value 1
indicating no infualence from the slope, while <1 the reduction due to
the slope proximity to the crest.

Graham et al. (1988)

 Focuses in granular slopes
 Provides simplified Nyq charts

This study discusses failure wedge under footing is asymmetric to one on

the slope.
Failure mechanisms depth and shape depends heavily on phai and slope
angle
Existing theories (Meyehof) are to conservative
Provides Critical setback distance Hc below

Step by step ,slope reduction factor establishment.

 Flat Ground -established the Qult for the flat slope with 3 angle of
friction what describes loose , medium-dense and dense soil.
 Crest reduction -Establishing Qult for previsly stated angle of
friction with 3 different slope angles and foundation located at the
crest of the slope.
 Crest and distance reduction - Create crest reduction factor-
showing how foundation effects moving away from the crest.

From Litarature (Meyerhof, Kusakabe, and Graham) discusses slope

influences distance from the crest)
Its important to distinglish, earlier studies done my Meyerhof slopes with
different frictiangle and angle doest reach past 4-5 times the footing
breath distance from the slope, however in the later studies done by
Graham is proven sand with better Stress with stenght charesteristics
friction angle effects up to 5-6 times the foundation breght distance from
the slope. Its shows the pattern for weaker soils the stress harachteristics
are lower and the effected distance is smaller.

Intrestingly Graham discusses minimum distance from the slope where

failure no longer exits trioguh the slope, called critical setback durance ,
shown in the table below.
If the footing distance is lower than stated in the table below, failure
wedge intersects the slope , makes the failure with high risk. If the footing
is longer distance , failure wedge still shows the impact, however stays in
the slope.
Research more seatback distance resources !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

U=
QSlope
QFlat (
+ 1−
QSlope
QFlat )
∗(
x/ B
L
)

U= Setback Distance Factor

L= Total Setback Distance
x/B= Distance from slope

Eurocode 7
Limit State is condition where a structural element ceases to fulfil its
intended criteria ( representing boundary between acceptable and
unacceptable performance.

Ultimate Limit States(ULS) Structural failure under extreme loading

conditions
Serviceability Limit State (SLS) Structural limitation under normal
service loading

Equilibrium Limit State (EQU) the limit when structure loses its
stability.- overturning. Sliding , uplifting.
Eurocode 7 Generation 1 uses three design approaches: DA1, DA2 and
DA3.
In the UK recommended approach for shallow foundation and slope
stability is
Design Approach 1 (DA1)
Consist of two combinations
DA1-1 partial factors applied to actions (yF>1) soil parameters unfactored
Increase in loads but keep soil strength realistic/same
DA1-2 soil and resistance factor applied (yM>1 , yR>1 ) actions
unfactored
Keep the loads moderate but reduce the soil strength

For the reference purpose we going to use then term d with referring to
the eurocode design parameters what translates to parameters with
applied Eurocode Factor.
Phid = Phi * partial factor
Fo the example using DAC2 where phi is applied factor M
Tan(phi)d=tanPhi/m
Phid = arctan (tanphi/M)

Eurocode 1997 :2004 – there istn a