Está en la página 1de 12

# See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281704248

## Comparison of Bearing Capacity Calculation

Methods in Designing Shallow Foundations

0 1,320

2 authors:

## Sukanta Kumer Shill Mozammel Hoque

Dhaka University of Engineering & Technology Dhaka University of Engineering & Technology
14 PUBLICATIONS 13 CITATIONS 7 PUBLICATIONS 2 CITATIONS

## SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

## Low Cost housing by using Bamboo View project

Inte rnational Journal of Engineering Technology, Manage ment and Applied Sciences

## Comparison of Bearing Capacity Calculation Methods in Designing

Shallow Foundations

## Mr. SukantaKumer Shill Dr. Md. Mozammel Hoque

Assistant Professor Professor
Department of Civil Engineering Department of Civil Engineering
Dhaka University of Engineering & Technology (DUET), Dhaka University of Engineering & Technology (DUET),

Abstract-The principal aim of the paper is to compare the bearing capacity calculation methods proposed by different authors and
codes. To achieve the goal of study, Terzaghi (1943), Meyerhof (1963), Hansen (1970), Vesic (1973), Indian Standard (1981),
Eurocode7 (1996) and BNBC (1993) are considered in the parametric analysis. Comparison of mathematical expressions of
bearing capacity factors, parametric analysis of these factors and equations are presented in this paper. The most important
conclusion is that the evaluated bearing capacity of soil depends highly on the method used andthe code of practice. It is ob served
that for  soil, at lower value of angle of friction for instance 0 0 to 200 , the ultimate bearing capacities for all methods yields
approximately similar value. However,difference o f bearing capacity values among the methods increases exponentially with
increase of friction angle. IS code (1981), Eurocode7 (1996) and Vesic’s (1973) equations estimate somewhat higher value of
bearing capacity for cohesive soil than skempton’s (1951) equation. For c -  soil, Meyerhof’s (1963) equation is not highly
different from Tarzaghi’s (1943) equation up to a depth of D/B ≤1,but Hansen (1970), Vesic (1973), IS code (1981) and
Eurocode7 (1996) highly differ from Tarzaghi’s (1943) equation.
Key words: Shallow foundation, Footing, Bearing capacity, Internal friction angle, Cohesion, Bearing Capacity Factors.

I. INTRODUCTION
Shallo w foundation is a type of foundation unit that provides support of a structure by transferring loads to soil or rock at
shallow depths. Usually the depth to width ratio of foundation is less than unity and the depth of foundation is within 3m fro m the
surface [1]. To design a shallow footing size and shape of a structure, engineers have to know the ult imate bearing capacit y of
underneath soil. The ultimate bearing capacity of soil is the intensity of loading at the base of a foundation which in itiates shear
failure of the supporting soil [1]. Several bearing capacity equations proposed by different authors and adopted in different codes
are availab le to calculate the ultimate bearing capacity of soil at foundation level. But, different method of evaluating bearing
capacity yields different result. However, Bangladesh National Building Code (BNBC), 1993 proposed any established bearing
capacity equations shall be used for calculating bearing capacity of soil [1]. The basic equationof bearing capacity concerns strip
footings loaded vertically in the plane of symmetry (Fig.1) which is one of the first fo rmula for bearing capacity calcu latio n of
shallow foundation was given by Terzaghi (1943) as-
q ult = cNcsc+ q Nq +0.5Bγ Nγ sγ ... … … … … … … … … …. … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … .. (1)
in which q ult is the ultimate bearing capacity of soil, c is the cohesion of soil, γ is the unit weight of soil, q is the overburden
pressure, B is the foundation width, Nc is the bearing capacity factors concerning the cohesion of soil c, Nq is the bearing capacity
factors concerning the depth of foundation, Nγ is the bearing capacity factors concerning the internal friction angle of soil  [2, 4].
Skempton (1951) proposed a bearing capacity equation for saturated clay soil that is for   0 , as-
q ult = cu Nc +γDf … … … … … … … … … … … … …… ... … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … . (2)
in which cu =1/ 2 (unconfined compressive strength of clay), Df = depth of footing, γ = un it weight of soil and Nc is the bearing
capacity factors concerning the cohesion of soil [3]. Meyerhof (1951, 1963) proposed a bearing capacity equation similar to that of
Tarzaghi but included a shape factor sq with the depth term Nq .He also included depth factors d i and inclination factors ii [5]. These
additions produce equation of the general form as -
q ult = cNc.S c.d c.ic+ q Nq.S q.dq.iq + 0.5BγNγ Sγ dγ iγ …………... … … ... … ... … … … … … … … … … … … … ... … … … … … … ..(3)

## 29 Mr. Sukanta Kumer Shill, Dr. Md. Mozammel Hoque

Inte rnational Journal of Engineering Technology, Manage ment and Applied Sciences

## Hansen (1970) proposed the general bearing capacity equation as -

q ult = cNc.S c.d c.icg cb c + q Nq.Sq.d q.iqg qb q + 0.5BγNγ S γd γiγg γ bγ .. … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … (4)
This equation is readily seen to be a further extension of the earlier Meyerhof (1963) work. Hansen includes base factors for the
footing is tilted fro m the horizontal b i and for the possibility of a slope β of the ground supporting the footing to give ground
factors g i [6]. The Vesic (1973) proposed same bearing capacity equation as stated by Hansen’s (1970) general equation. Also the
expression for Nc and Nq terms are same as Hansen (1970), but Nγ is slightly different. There are also differences in ii , b i , and
g i terms. The vesic (1973) equation is somewhat easier to use than Hansen’s (1970) because Hansen uses the i terms in co mputing
shape factors si , whereas Vesic does not [7]. IS code (1981) gives a equation of bearing capacity which proposed by Vesic (1973)
[3].Eurocode7 (1996) proposed the equation of bearing capacity [8] as-
q ult = cNc.S c.ic+γd Df Nq.Sq iq + 0.5Bγd NγS γiγ …………... … … … … … … … … … … …. … … … … … … … … … … … … … ...(5)

## II. B EARING CAPACITY FACTORS

The bearing capacity factors Nc, Nq and Nγ are the d imensionless numbers, depending upon the angle of shearing friction resistance
 . The factors used by various authors and some codes are listed in Table1.

## Table1: Classical formu lae of bearing capacity factors

Authors & Codes Nγ Nc Nq
Terzaghi tan  K py (Nq -1)cot  a2
(1943) (
2 cos ( / 4  ( / 2)
-1)
2 cos  2 2

 3  
Where a = exp (  ) tan  
 4 2 
Skempton (1951) 0 See Table 5 1
Meyerhof(1963) (Nq -1)tan(1.4  ) (Nq -1)cot   
tan 2 ( ) exp( tan  )
4 2
Hansen(1970) 1.5(Nq -1)tan  (Nq -1)cot  Same as Meyerhof
Vesic(1973) 2(Nq +1) tan  (Nq -1)cot  Same as Meyerhof
Eurocode7(1996) 2(Nq -1) tan  (Nq -1)cot  Same as Meyerhof
IS Code(1981) 2(Nq +1) tan  (Nq -1)cot  Same as Meyerhof

A. Shape factors
The bearing capacity factors presented in Table1 are defined in the case of the strip footing. To take into account the non -infinite
length of a rectangular footing, a shape factor s i is introduced in each bearing capacity factor. The footing has width B and length
L, here, B≤L. The shape factors used by different authors and codes are listed in Table2.

## 30 Mr. Sukanta Kumer Shill, Dr. Md. Mozammel Hoque

Inte rnational Journal of Engineering Technology, Manage ment and Applied Sciences

## Table2: Shape factors according to authors and codes.

Authors & Codes Sγ Sc Sq
Terzaghi (1943)
(i) Strip (continuous) 1 1 1
(ii)Square 0.8 1.3 1
(iii) Circular 0.6 1.3 1
(iv)Rectangular (1  0.2 B L) (1  0.3 B L) 1

## M eyerhof (1963) 1, when  0 1, when  0

  B
K p  tan 2 (  ) B (1+ 0.2 K p ) B
),   10
0
),   10
0 (1+ 0.1K p
4 2 (1+ 0.1K p L
L L
Hansen (1970) B B Nq B B
(1  0.4 )  0.6 (1+ 0.2 ) for   0 and (1+ )for   0 1 sin 
L L Nc L L
Vesic (1973) B Nq B B
(1  0.4 )  0.6 1+ 1 tan 
L Nc L L
Eurocode7 (1996) B B sq N q  1 B
(1  0.3 ) 1+ 0.2 for   0 , and for   0 1 sin 
L L Nq 1 L
IS code (1981)
(i) Strip (continuous) 1.0 1.0 1.0
(ii)Square 0.8 1.2 1.3
(iii) Circular 0.6 1.2 1.3
(iv)Rectangular (1  0.4 B L ) (1+ 0.2B/L) (1+ 0.2B/L)

B. Inclination factors
The bearing capacity factors presented in Table1 are defined in the case of the strip footing for a vert ical load. To take into
account the inclination of the load in the footing, an inclination factor ii is introduced for each bearing capacity factor. There are
two parameters to characterize the inclination of load. The external load has a vert ical co mponent V and horizontal co mponent H,
H
therefore the inclination angle  defined as follo ws: tan   , A second form to describe the inclination of the load consist of
V
H
introducing an angle θ defined by- tan   , in which A is the effective soil– footing contact area, a is the adhesion[9].
V  Aa cot 
Eurocode7 (1996) assumes (a = c) and Bo wles (1997) assumes a = 0.6 to 1.0 of c [9].Therefore,the inclination factors used by the
different authors are listed in Table3.

## Table3: Classical formu lations for inclination factors according to authors

Authors iq i c (  0) ic (   0 ) i comments
2 2 2
Meyerhof  2   2   2  ---
2
 
(1963) 1   1   1   1  
          
Hansen 1  0.5 tan   iq N q  1 1  0.7 tan   2  1  5
1
 H  2

(1970) 0.5  1   2  2  5
Nq 1  Aa 
Vesic 1  tan  m iq N q  1 mH 1  tan  m1 2B
1 L
(1973) Nq 1 AaN c m
1 B
L

## 31 Mr. Sukanta Kumer Shill, Dr. Md. Mozammel Hoque

Inte rnational Journal of Engineering Technology, Manage ment and Applied Sciences

## www.ijetmas.com September 2015, Volume 3, Issue 9, ISSN 2349-4476

iq N q  1  H 
Eurocode7 H H ---
1  1
(1996) V  Ac  cot   Nq 1 0.51  1 

 V  Ac  cot  
  Acu  
 
IS code 2 2 2 -----
        
2
  
(1981) 1   1   1   1  
 90   90   90    

C. Depth factors

The bearing capacity factors presented in Table1 are defined in the case of the s trip footing at shallow depth D≤B. To take into
account the depth of footing a depth factor di is introduced for each bearing capacity factor.
Table4: Classical formu lations for depth factors
Authors dc dq dγ
Meyerhof D D Same as d q
(1963) 1+0.2√Kp For ∅ > 10, 1+0.1√Kp
B B
Hansen D D 1.0
(1970) 1+0.4 1  2 tan  (1  sin  ) 2
B B
Vesic D D 1.0
(1973) 1+0.4 1  2 tan  (1  sin  ) 2
B B
IS code D  D  Same as d q
(1981) 1+ 0.2 tan(45+ ) 1+ 0.1 tan(45+ ) for  >100 and 1.0 for  <100
B 2 B 2

## Table5: Skempton’s Bearing Capacity Factors for Cohesive soil

Footing Shape Nc
Strip 5( 1 0.2 D B ) With limit of Nc ≤7.5

## Rectangular D B B For D≤ 2.5, For D>2.5 respectively.

5( 1 0.2 )( 1  0.2 ) 7.5( 1  0.2 )
B L L

## III. PARAMETRIC ANALYS IS

To understand the differences obtained with all these methods, some numerical examp les will illustrate the application of the
bearing capacity calculation methods.
A.Effectof angle o f friction and method of bearing capacity on the ultimate bearing capacity of soil for c=0.

## Table 6: Soil and footing characteristics

Soil type FootingShape c γ B Depth
(kPa) (kN/ m3 ) (m) (m)

## 32 Mr. Sukanta Kumer Shill, Dr. Md. Mozammel Hoque

Inte rnational Journal of Engineering Technology, Manage ment and Applied Sciences

## Fig.2: Effect of friction angle on the ultimate bearing capacity

7000
Tarzaghi (1943)
Ultimate bearing capacity (kN/m 2 )
6000
Meyerhof (1963)
5000 Hansen (1970)
4000 Vesic (1973)
3000 IS code (1981)
2000

1000

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Angle of internal friction (degree)

It is seen from Fig.2 that the ultimate bearing capacities of all methods increase exponentially with increase of angle of frict ion.
At lowervalue of angle of friction for instance 00 to 200 , the ultimate bearing capacities are appro ximately similar to each other but
difference of bearing capacityincreases with increase of frict ion angle. It is also seen from Fig.2 that Terzaghi’s (1943) equation
estimates lower value of bearing capacity at higher value of frict ion angleco mpare to other authors and codes. IS code (1981) and
Vesic’s(1973) equations give larger value of bearing capacity at higher value of friction angle than other author and codes. Since
IS code (1981) represents Vesic’s (1973) equation, the value of bearing capacity obtained using IS code (1981) and Vesic’s
(1973) equation are almost same.

B.Effect of cohesion and method of bearing capacity on the ultimate bearing capacity of soil for   0.
Table 7: Soil and footing characteristics

## Soil type FootingShape  γ B Depth

(degree) (kN/ m3 ) (m) (m)

## 350 Tarzaghi (1943) Skempton (1951)

Ultimate bearing capacity

## 300 Meyerhof (1963) Hansen (1970)

250 Vesic (1973) IS code (1981)
Eurocode7 (1996)
kN/m 2 )

200
150
100
50
0
0 4 8 12Cohesion of16soil (kN/m 220
) 24 28 32

## 33 Mr. Sukanta Kumer Shill, Dr. Md. Mozammel Hoque

Inte rnational Journal of Engineering Technology, Manage ment and Applied Sciences

## www.ijetmas.com September 2015, Volume 3, Issue 9, ISSN 2349-4476

Itis seen fro m Fig.3 that theultimate bearing capacity ofcohesive soil linearly increases with the increase of cohesion. Here, the
differences in u ltimate bearing capacity among the different methods increase with increase of cohesion. It can also be seen from
the Fig.3that IS code (1981), Eurocode7 (1996) and Vesic’s (1973) equations estimate somewhat higher value of bearing capacity
for cohesive soil than skempton’s (1951) equation. On the other hand Tarzaghi (1943), Meyerhof (1963) and Skempton’s (1951)
equation calculates the value of bearing capacity conservatively for cohesive soil than other authors and codes.

C.Effectof cohesion and method of bearing capacity on the ultimate bearing capacity of soil fo r constant   15, 20 and 25

## Table 8: Soil and footing characteristics

Soil FootingShape  γ B Depth
(degree) (kN/ m3 ) (m) (m)

## c-  Square 15 17 2.25 2.00

Fig.3: Effect of cohesion on the ultimate bearing capacity of soil for constant   15

1000
Tarzaghi (1943) Meyerhof (1963)
Ultimate bearing capacity (kN/m 2 )

## IS code (1981) Eurocode7 (1996)

600

400

200

0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
Cohesion of soil, c (kN/m 2 )

One can be seen from Fig.3, Fig.4 and Fig.5 that the ultimate bearing capacity of c -  soil linearly increases with increase of
cohesion of soil.Here, Meyerhof’s (1963) equation is not highly different fro m Tarzaghi’s (1943) equation,but Hansen (1970),
Vesic (1973), IS code (1981) and Eurocode7 (1996) provides ultimate bearing capacity of soil wh ich is highly different from
Tarzaghi’s (1943) equation.

## Table 9: Soil and footing characteristics

Soil FootingShape  γ B Depth
(degree) (kN/ m3 ) (m) (m)

## 34 Mr. Sukanta Kumer Shill, Dr. Md. Mozammel Hoque

Inte rnational Journal of Engineering Technology, Manage ment and Applied Sciences

## www.ijetmas.com September 2015, Volume 3, Issue 9, ISSN 2349-4476

Fig.4: Effect of cohesion on the ultimate bearing capacity of soil for constant   20

1600
Tarzaghi (1943) Meyerhof (1963)
Ultimate bearing capacity (kN/m 2 )

1400
Hansen (1970) Vesic (1973)
1200
IS code (1981) Eurocode7 (1996)
1000

800

600

400

200

0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
Cohesion of soil, c (kN/m2 )

## Soil FootingShape  γ B Depth

(degree) (kN/ m3 ) (m) (m)

## c-  Square 25 17 2.25 2.00

Fig.5: Effect of cohesion on the ultimate bearing capacity of soil for constant   25

2400
Ultimate bearing capacity (kN/m 2 )

2000

1600

1200

800

## Hansen (1970) Vesic (1973)

400
IS code (1981) Eurocode7 (1996)
0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
Cohesion of soil, c (kN/m 2 )

## 35 Mr. Sukanta Kumer Shill, Dr. Md. Mozammel Hoque

Inte rnational Journal of Engineering Technology, Manage ment and Applied Sciences

## www.ijetmas.com September 2015, Volume 3, Issue 9, ISSN 2349-4476

It is also seen from the Fig.3, Fig.4 and Fig.5 that Hansen (1970), Vesic (1973), IS code (1981) and Eurocode7 (1996) provides
almost similar value of ultimate bearing capacity for c-  soil, but difference among the methods of bearing capacity wit h
Tarzaghi’s (1943) equation increases linearly with increase of cohesion of soil.
D. Effect of frict ion angle and method of bearing capacity on the ultimate bearing capacity of soil for constant c = 10, 15 and 20.

## Table 11: So il and footing characteristics

Soil FootingShape c γ B Depth
(kPa) (kN/ m3 ) (m) (m.)

## c-  Square 10 17 2.25 2.00

Fig.6: Effect of friction angle on the ultimate bearing capacity of soil for constant c = 10
Ultimate bearing capacity (kN/m 2 )

7500
Tarzaghi (1943) Meyerhof (1963)

## 4500 IS code (1981) Eurocode7 (1996)

3000

1500

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Angle of internal friction
Table 12: So il and footing characteristics
Soil FootingShape c γ B Depth
(kPa) (kN/ m3 ) (m) (m.)

## c-  Square 15 17 2.25 2.00

Fig.7: Effect of frict ion angle on the ultimate bearing capacity of soil fo r constant c = 15
9000
Tarzaghi (1943) Meyerhof (1963)
Ultimate bearing capacity

7500
Hansen (1970) Vesic (1973)
6000
IS code (1981) Eurocode7 (1996)
(kN/m 2 )

4500

3000

1500

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Angle of internal friction

## 36 Mr. Sukanta Kumer Shill, Dr. Md. Mozammel Hoque

Inte rnational Journal of Engineering Technology, Manage ment and Applied Sciences

## www.ijetmas.com September 2015, Volume 3, Issue 9, ISSN 2349-4476

It is seen fro m Fig.6, Fig.7 and Fig.8 that the ultimate bearing capacity of c -  soil increases exponentially with the increase of
angle of internal friction. In this case at lower value of angle of internal frict ion such as (00 to 200 ) all methods show
approximately similar result but at larger value of angle of internal friction such as (  >200 ), Tarzaghi’s (1943) equatio n
represents a lower value of bearing capacity than other authors and codes.

## Table 13: So il and footing characteristics

Soil FootingShape c γ B Depth
(kPa) (kN/ m3 ) (m) (m.)

## c-  Square 20 17 2.25 2.00

Fig.8: Effect of frict ion angle on the Ult imate bearing capacity of soil fo r constant c = 20
12000
Ultimate bearing capacity

## Tarzaghi (1943) Meyerhof (1963)

10000
Hansen (1970) Veesic (1973)
8000
(kN/m 2 )

## IS code (1981) Eurocode7 (1996)

6000
4000

2000

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Angle of internal friction
E.Effect of B/ L of footing on the ultimate bearing capacity of soil.

## Table 14: So il and footing characteristics

Soil  c γ Rectanglefooting, Depth
(degree) (kPa) (kN/ m3 ) B (m) (m.)

c-  30 20 17 2.25 2.00

## Fig.9: Effect of B/ L on the ultimate bearing capacity.

3000
Ultimate bearing capacity

2500

2000
(kN/m 2 )

## 1000 Hansen (1970) Vesic (1973)

500
IS code (1981) Eurocode7 (1996)
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
B/L of footing

## 37 Mr. Sukanta Kumer Shill, Dr. Md. Mozammel Hoque

Inte rnational Journal of Engineering Technology, Manage ment and Applied Sciences

## www.ijetmas.com September 2015, Volume 3, Issue 9, ISSN 2349-4476

It is evident fro m Fig.9 that the ult imate bearing capacity of all equations proposed by different authors and different codes
increase linearly with the increase of B/ L ratio of footing except Tarzaghi (1943). Therefo re, one can be understood from Fig.9
that the square footing that is B/L=1 has a greater bearing capacity than other type of footing though Terzaghi’s equation differs
fro m this.

## Table 15: Soil and footing characteristics

Soil Footing c γ  B
Shape (kPa) (kN/ m3 ) (degree) (m)

c-  Square 16 17 25 2.25

## Fig.10: Effect of D/B on the ult imate bearing capacity.

2000
Ultimate bearing capacity (kN/m2 )

1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
Tarzaghi (1943) Meyerhof (1963) Hansen (1970)
400
200 Vesic (1973) IS code (1981) Eurocode7 (1996)
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
D/B of footing
It is seen fro m Fig.10 thatthe ultimate bearing capacity of soil increases with the increase of D/ B ratio of footing for all
methods.Fig.10 shows also that at lower value of D/B rat io, all equations are not highly different fro m each other but, the
difference of bearing capacity among the methods become more p ronounced at larger D/B rat io of footing. In this case, up to a
depth of D≈B, only the Meyerhof’s (1963)q ult is not greatly different fro m the Terzaghi’s (1943), but Hansen (1970), Vesic
(1973), IS code (1981) and Eurocode7 (1996) varies largely than Tarzaghi (1943).

## IV. CONCLUS ION

The important conclusion is that the evaluated bearing capacity of soil depends highly on the method used, and therefore on the
codes.Terzaghi’s (1943) equation is not suited for footing with mo ments and/or horizontal loads or for bases on sloped ground
because Tarzaghi (1943) d id not include load inclination factor in his equation. One can use Terzaghi’s (1943) equation for quick
estimation of q ult where D/B≤1.Ho wever, the Terzaghi’s (1943) equations, being the first proposed, have been very widely used
because of its greater ease of use.For  soil, at lower value of angle of friction for instance 00 to 200 , the ult imate bearin g
capacities of all methods are approximately similar to each other but difference of bearing capacities among the methods incr eases
exponentially with increase of friction angle. It can be seen that IS code (1981), Eu rocode7 (1996) and Vesic’s (1973) equation
estimates somewhat higher value of bearing capacity for cohesive soil than skempton’s (1951) equation.It is also seen for c - 
soil that Meyerhof’s (1963) equation is not highly different fro m Tarzaghi’s (1943) equation up to a depth of D/B≤1, but Hans en
(1970), Vesic (1973), IS code (1981) and Eurocode7 (1996) h ighly differ fro m Tarzaghi’s (1943) equation. However, Bangladesh
National Building Code (BNBC), 1993 proposed any established bearing capacity equations shall be used for calculating bearing
capacity of soil.

## 38 Mr. Sukanta Kumer Shill, Dr. Md. Mozammel Hoque

Inte rnational Journal of Engineering Technology, Manage ment and Applied Sciences

## www.ijetmas.com September 2015, Volume 3, Issue 9, ISSN 2349-4476

However, if different engineers use different equations for a particu lar soil at a part icular depth, the result will be
different.Therefore, it will be good practice to use at least two methods and compare the commuted values of bearing capacit ies. If
twovalues are not compared well, use a third method, or use either an arith metic average or weighted average value for allowable
bearing capacity of soil for foundation design.

V. REFERENC ES:
[1].Bangladesh National Building Code (BNBC). Housing and Build ing Research Institute, Mirpur Dhaka, and Bangladesh
Standards and Testing Institution, Tejgaon Dhaka, First edition,1993.
[2]. Bowles J.E., Foundation Analysis and Design, 5th Edition, McGraw-Hill, New-Yo rk.1997.
[3]. Arora K.R., Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 6th Edit ion, Delhi, Reprint 2005.
[4]. Terzaghi k. Theoretical Soil Mechanics . Wiley,New Yo rk, 1943.
[5]. Meyerhof G. G. So me recent research on thebearing capacity of foundations. Canadian Geo-technical Journal, 1963, 1, No. 1,
16-26.
[6]. Hansen J. B. A Revised and Extended Formu la forBearing Capacity . Danish Geotechnical Institute,Copenhagen, 1970,
bulletin No. 28.
[7]. Vesic A. Analysis of ultimate loads of shallowfoundations. Journal of the Soil Mechanics andFoundations Division, ASCE,
1973, 99, No. SM1,45-73.
[8]. Eurocode 7. CalculGeÂotechnique. AFNOR, XPENV 1997-1, 1996.
[9] J.G. Sieffert and Ch. Bay-Gress, Co mparison of European bearing capacity calculat ion methods for shallow foundations.Proc.
Instn. Civ. Engrs. Geotech. Engng,2000,143,Apr.65-74

Authors Profiles

Mr.S ukantaKumer Shill is an assistant professor in the Department of Civil Engineering of Dhaka University of Engineering and Technology
(DUET), Gazipur, Bangladesh. His date of birth is 15 February of 1983 and the place of birth is M anikganj, Dhaka, Bangladesh. SukantaKumer
Shill passed Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering from Dhaka University of Engineering and Technology, Gazipur (DUET), Banglades h in
2007. He also earned M .Sc. engineering degree in structural engineering from Dhaka University of Engineering and Technolo gy (DUET),
Gazipur, Bangladesh.M r. Shill is also a member of Institute of Engineers Bangladesh (IEB), Dhaka. His membership number in IEB is
M /25282. He is also chief consultant of Dimension Engineering and Architectural Consultants, Joydevpur, Gazipur, Bangladesh.

Dr. Md.MozammelHoqueis a professor in the Department of Civil Engineering of Dhaka University of Engineering and Technology (DUET),
Gazipur, Bangladesh. M d. M . Hoque passed Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering from Bangladesh University of Engineering and
Technology (BUET), Dhaka, Bangladesh in 1994. He also earned M .Sc. engineering degree in Foundation engineering from Bangladesh
University of Engineering and Technology (BUET), Dhaka, Bangladesh. He earned PhD degree in structural engineering from Saitama
University, Japan.Dr. Hoque is also a Fellow member of Institute of Engineers Bangladesh (IEB), Dhaka. He is also chief consultant of Des ign
Development and M anagement (DDM ) Dhaka, Bangladesh.