EVEREST ENGINEERING COLLEGE

(Affiliated to Pokhara University)

Sanepa-02, Lalitpur

Subject code – CVL 390

A MINOR PROJECT MID-TERM REPORT ON

“THE EFFECT OF WATER TABLE ON BEARING CAPACITY
OF SOIL”

Submitted by:
Sunil Bhatt (21045796)
Sudip Jagari (21045792)
Sujan Nepali (21045793)
Sujata Dhungana (21045794)
Trijit Yadav (21045797)
Ujit Thapa Magar (21045798)

Summited to: Department of Civil Engineering

Jestha 09,2081
 ABSTRACT

The water table is the level below which the ground is saturated with water, significantly impacts
the soil's bearing capacity. Bearing capacity is the maximum load per unit area that the soil can
support without failure. This proposal examines the effect of the water table on the bearing capacity
of soil using Meyerhof method.

The bearing capacity is the most important soil property. Which governs the design of foundation.
Soft clay strata are often unable to bear the load transferred from the superstructure to the
foundation. Bearing capacity and the settlement are the two important parameters in the field of
geotechnical engineering. Civil engineering projects such as buildings, bridges, dams and
roadways require detailed subsurface information as part of the design process. Bearing capacity
is affected by various factors like change in level of water table, cohesion, friction angle,
dimensions of the footings etc.

The effect of water table on bearing capacity of soil determined by Meyerhof method for
rectangular footings are considered.

Keywords: Bearing capacity, Shallow foundation, Water table

ii
 TABLE OF CONTENT
ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................................................... ii
LIST OF SYMBOLS ......................................................................................................................................... iv
LIST OF ABBREVIATION ................................................................................................................................. v
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................................ vii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Problem Statement .............................................................................................................................. 2
1.3 Objective ............................................................................................................................................. 3
1.4 Project Features................................................................................................................................... 3
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................................. 4
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................ 6
3.1 Flowchart ............................................................................................................................................ 6
3.2 Soil Types and Soil Codes .................................................................................................................. 8
CHAPTER 4: WORK COMPLETED AND WORK REMAINING ......................................................................... 12
4.1 Work Completed ............................................................................................................................... 12
4.2 Work Remaining ............................................................................................................................... 12
4.3 Schedule for Remaining Work.......................................................................................................... 12
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................ 13
APENDIX ...................................................................................................................................................... 14

iii
 LIST OF SYMBOLS

B = width of foundation
Ø = Friction angle
c = cohesion of soil
Df = Depth of foundation
Nc , Nq, N = Meyerhof’s bearing capacity constant
qult = Ultimate Bearing capacity of soil

iv
 LIST OF ABBREVIATION

MG = Gravelly Silt
CG =Gravelly Clay
MS = Sandy Silt
CS = Sandy Clay
ML = Low Plasticity Silt
MI = Medium Plasticity Clay
CL = Low Plasticity Clay
CI = Medium Plasticity Clay
CH = High Plasticity Clay
CV =Very High Plasticity Clay
SW = Well Graded Sand
SP = Poorly Graded Sand
S-F = Fine Trace Sand
SM = Silty Sand
SC = Clayey Sand
WG = Well Graded Gravel
GP = Poorly Graded Gravel
G-F = Fine Trace Gravel
GM = Silty Gravel
GC = Clayey Gravel

v
 LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE
Figure 1.1: Effect of groundwater on basement…………………………………. 2
Figure 1.2: Flowchart……………….…………………………………………… 6

vi
 LIST OF TABLES

Table page
Table 1: Soil Types and Soil codes………………………………………………………… 10

vii
 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Water table, upper level of an underground surface in which the soil or rock are permanently
saturated with water. The water table fluctuates both with the seasons and from year to year
because it is affected by climatic variations and by the amount of precipitation used by
vegetation.(Britannica.com)

The position of ground water has a significant effect on the bearing capacity of soil. Presence of
water table at a depth less than the width of the foundation from the foundation bottom will reduce
the bearing capacity of the soil. Lesser the depth harder it is to build a strong foundation as the soil
will have low bearing capacity. As speaking of bearing capacity, it is the maximum stress which
particular soil can withstand without failing.

The study of the effect of the water table on bearing capacity calculations is based on the
fundamental principles of geo-technical engineering. Geo-technical engineers evaluate the
behavior of soil to design stable and safe foundations for various structures. The bearing capacity
of soil is an important parameter in this process, influenced by factors such as the water table level.

The water table is a critical component in bearing capacity equations and plays a significant role
in foundation design for structures ranging from buildings to bridges. Understanding how
variations in the water table level impact this capacity is essential for ensuring the stability and
safety of constructed facilities. Different soil types respond differently to changes in the water
table, so it is essential to adjust the foundation design to the specific geo-technical conditions of
the site. Research in this area investigates the interactions between soil properties and the water
table, focusing on the effects of these factors on optimal foundation design, stability thresholds,
and overall geo-technical performance. Additionally, the research examines the influence of the
water table on the settlement, deformation, and long-term behavior of structures. By thoroughly
examining how the water table impacts bearing capacity calculations, researchers and engineers
aim to provide valuable insights to improve geo-technical engineering practices.
These insights may guide the formulation of guidelines, standards, and design methodologies,
contributing to the efficiency, safety, and sustainability of civil infrastructure.

Figure 1-1:Effect of groundwater on basement

Source: Ground Up Foundation Repair

1.2 Problem Statement

The bearing capacity of soil is a crucial factor in the design and construction of shallow
foundations. However, the presence and fluctuation of the water table can significantly impact the
soil's bearing capacity. Existing studies provide valuable insights but often exhibit variability in
results due to differing methodologies and site-specific conditions. Computational tools like GEO5
offer predictions, yet these need empirical validation to ensure accuracy. There is a clear need for
an integrated approach that combines literature data, computational analysis, and empirical
research to develop a more accurate understanding of the water table's effect on soil bearing
capacity. This can lead to more robust designs that account for variations in the water table,
improving overall structural stability. This dataset serves as a valuable reference, helping to
standardize approaches and methodologies in geotechnical engineering.

2
1.3 Objective

 Determine the bearing capacity of soil with varying values of depth and width including
water table.
 To create a data set for design of shallow footing under various soil condition including
water table.

1.4 Project Features

The report computed the different values of bearing capacity with varying depth and width of
foundation, for maximum and minimum friction angle and cohesion of different types of soil
including water table effects for shallow isolated foundation. Also create a data set. Prepare a graph
for various water depth vs its maximum and minimum bearing capacity. The source of the study
is based on secondary data available in geo 5 software and seniors reports.

3
 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

During the Model box test equipment, the water content of the soil layer above the water table
increased due to the capillary phenomenon of the soil, which lead to a decrease in the parameters
of internal friction angle and cohesion and a decrease in the bearing capacity. The numerical
simulation assumes that the water content of the soil above the water table is the initial water
content. Therefore, the bearing capacity of the test result is smaller than that of the simulation
result. (Wang, 2022)

As depth of foundation increases, ultimate bearing capacity of soils increases. This is due to
increase in surcharge weight. 4. The decrease in the bearing capacity depends on the depth of water
table below the ground. If the depth of the water table is equal to or more than the depth of
foundation plus the foundation width, the effect is negligible. 5. The limiting depth beyond which
the ground water table below the base of the foundation has no effect on the bearing capacity
increases as the angle of friction increases. (Mohammad Yasin Bhat, 2021)

The height of water level and the frequency of water-level fluctuation are negatively correlated
with the bearing capacity of the foundation, and the relationship of change is nonlinear. The water-
level fluctuation can strengthen the capillary effect and expand the range of saturated soil in the
foundation.
In this study, the influence of the water-level fluctuation was added to the traditional calculation
of the foundation bearing capacity. A new expression form of pore water pressure was derived for
sinusoidal fluctuation. The average error between the calculated bearing capacity and the test
results is less than 8%. It shows that this theory can be used to calculate the bearing capacity of a
foundation under water-level fluctuation.
This model can well predict the change in the foundation bearing capacity due to the water-level
change. It has a good early warning function for an engineered foundation that has been under a
high groundwater level for a long time. (Wenfeng Chen 1, 2022)

Terzaghi was the first to propose a bearing capacity equation on the consideration of general shear
failure in the soil below a rough strip footing. Using the principle of superposition, he demonstrated
the effects of soil cohesion, its angle of internal friction, surcharge (soil ty lying above the level of

4
footing base), soil unit weight The and footing width on the ultimate bearing pressure. Later on,
Brinch Hansen introduced factor that accounted for footing shape and load inclination, in the
bearing capacity equation. (Terzaghi, 1943)

Meyerhof Bearing Capacity Analysis

In the 1950s and 1960s Meyerhof published an updated bearing capacity analysis method by
extending Terzaghi’s equations to include the soil above the base of the foundation.The general
form of the Meyerhof bearing capacity analysis equation is shown below with the ultimate bearing
capacity (qult) related to the cohesion (c), the effective overburden pressure at the level of the
foundation base (q0’) which is equal to the effective unit weight of the soil multiplied by the depth
to the base of the foundation (Df), the effective weight of the soil (γ) and the width of the foundation
(B). (Civil Engineering Spreadsheets, n.d.)

5
 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

3.1 Flowchart

Literature review

Data collection

Geo-tech data Geo 5

software

Data Analysis

Calculations

Data Interpretation

Report Writing

Figure 3-1: Flowchart

6
The methodology for studying how the water table affects the bearing capacity of soil involves
several key steps. Initially, the project began with a comprehensive literature review to understand
existing knowledge about the impact of water table levels on soil strength and to identify gaps
requiring further exploration. This review focused on soil properties such as cohesion, friction
angle, and unit weight, and how these properties are influenced by changes in water table levels.
Information was collected from academic journals, books, and reliable websites, establishing a
solid theoretical foundation for the study.

Data collection was conducted through multiple avenues. Essential soil property data, including
minimum and maximum cohesion and friction angle for different soil types, was gathered from
GEO5 software. Additional data was obtained using the Geotechdata which allowed for precise
modeling of soil conditions and simulation of various scenarios. This enriched our dataset with
varied perspectives and findings from recent studies.

In the data analysis phase, we focused on understanding how varying the depth of the water table
impacts soil bearing capacity while keeping the soil type constant. This controlled approach helped
isolate the effect of water table depth on bearing capacity. Shallow foundations at depths of 4 ft to
7 ft were considered, and the bearing capacity was analyzed under conditions where the water table
was at the bottom, at ground level, and in dry conditions. The Meyerhof equation was used to
calculate the soil's bearing capacity, and an Excel spreadsheet was created to facilitate these
calculations. This tool allowed for efficient computation and easy manipulation of variables to
observe different outcomes. We determined the minimum and maximum bearing capacities for
different soil types under varying water table conditions.

Data interpretation revealed that bearing capacity typically decreases as the water table rises.
Patterns and trends were observed and illustrated using bar graphs, which displayed the minimum
and maximum values of bearing capacity at different water table levels. These visual aids
effectively communicated the impact of water table fluctuations on soil strength. Finally, a detailed
report was compiled to explain the methodology, data collected, analysis performed. This report
includes conclusions that highlight the significant impact of water table changes on soil bearing
capacity. By providing a comprehensive account of our study, we aim to contribute valuable
insights to the field of geotechnical engineering and inform future research and
practical applications.

7
3.2 Soil Types and Soil Codes

S.N. Soil Name Soil code

1 Gravelly Silt MG
2 Gravelly Clay CG
3 Sandy Silt MS
4 Sandy Clay CS
5 Silt with low or medium plasticity ML
6 Clay with low or medium plasticity CL
7 Silt with high or very high plasticity MH
8 Clay with high or very high plasticity CH
9 Well graded sand SW
10 Poorly graded sand SP
11 Sand with trace of fines S-F
12 Silty sand SM
13 Clayey sand SC
14 Well graded gravel GW
15 Gravel, poorly graded GP
16 Gravel with trace of fines G-F
17 Silty gravel GM
18 Clayey gravel GC

Table 1. Soil Types and Soil codes

8
Soil code Min. Bearing Capacity Max. Bearing Capacity
MG 136 484
CG 154 803
MS 172 803
CS 190 867
ML 180 931
CL 180 867
MH 145 675
CH 118 675
SP 101 229
SW 101 229
SF 101 229
SM 101 580
SC 101 420
GW 101 229
GP 101 229
GF 101 229
GM 101 356
GC 118 548

9
Soil code Min.Bearing Capacity Max. Bearing Capacity
MG 149 523
CG 167 842
MS 185 842
CS 203 905
ML 185 969
CL 185 905
MH 149 714
CH 132 714
SW 114 268
SP 114 268
SF 114 268
SM 114 618
SC 149 459
GW 114 268
GP 114 268
GF 114 268
GM 114 395
GC 132 587

Soil Type vs Bearing Capacity at depth 5ft for (5ftx5ft)Area and water table depth at
32.81ft.
969
1000 905 905
900 842 842
800 714 714
BEARING CAPACITY

700 618
587
600 523
459
500 395
400
268 268 268 268 268 268
300 203
167 185 185 185
200 149 149 132 149 132
114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114
100
0
MG CG MS CS ML CL MH CH SW SP SF SM SC GW GP GF GM GC
SOIL TYPE

Min.Bearing Capacity Max.Bearing Capacity

10
Soil code Min.Bearing Capacity Max.Bearing Capacity
MG 91 385
CG 108 704
MS 126 704
CS 144 767
ML 126 831
CL 126 767
MH 91 576
CH 73 576
SW 55 130
SP 55 130
SF 55 130
SM 55 480
SC 91 321
GW 55 130
GP 55 130
GF 55 130
GM 55 257
GC 73 549

11
 CHAPTER 4: WORK COMPLETED AND WORK REMAINING

4.1 Work Completed

 The maximum and minimum bearing capacity of different soil type for maximum and
minimum cohesion and friction angle is computed.
 The bearing capacity of soil is computed with varying value of water table depth,
foundation depth and foundation width. And graph is prepared for different bearing
capacity for water table at bottom, 10m from surface and at surface of foundation.

4.2 Work Remaining

 Prepare graph for different bearing capacity for water table depth 2.13m, 1.83m, 1.22m.
 Compare the bearing capacity in various conditions of minimum and maximum cohesion,
friction angle and water table depth.

4.3 Schedule for Remaining Work

S.N. Task Name DAY 1 DAY 2 DAY 3 DAY 4 DAY 5 DAY 6

1. Graph Interpretation
and data comparing

2. Final report writing

12
 REFERENCES

 Civil Engineering Spreadsheets. (n.d.). Retrieved from CivilWeb Spreadsheets : https://civilweb-

spreadsheets.com/

 M.S Dixit, D. K. (2012). Effect of depth of footing and water table on bearing capacity of soil .
International journal of engiineering resource and technology.

 Mohammad Yasin Bhat, S. T. (2021). A Comparative Study on the Effect of Water Table on
Bearing Capacity. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET), 6.

 Terzaghi. (1943). Theoritical soil mechanics. new york.

 Wang, E. (2022). Study on the Influence of Groundwater Variation on the Bearing Capacity of
Sandy Shallow Foundation. MDPI.

 Wenfeng Chen 1, 2. X. (2022). Study on the Influence of Groundwater Variation on the Bearing
Capacity of Sandy Shallow Foundation. MDPI.

13
 APENDIX

Water Min. Min.

table unit Min. Friction Bearing
Soil Width Length Depth depth weight Cohesion Angle Capacity
code m m m m KN/m3 Kpa (Deg) Nc Nq N (Kpa)
MG 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 19 4 26 22.5 11.85 8 136
CG 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 19.5 6 24 19.32 9.6 5.72 154
MS 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 18 8 24 19.32 9.6 5.72 172
CS 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 18.5 10 22 16.88 7.82 4.07 190
ML 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 20 8 19 13.93 5.8 2.4 180
CL 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 21 8 17 12.34 4.77 1.66 180
MH 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 21 4 15 10.98 3.94 1.13 145
CH 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 20.5 2 13 9.81 3.26 0.74 118
SP 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 20 0 33 38.64 26.09 26.17 101
SW 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 18.5 0 30 30.14 18.4 15.67 101
SF 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 17.5 0 28 25.8 14.72 11.19 101
SM 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 18 0 28 25.8 14.72 11.19 101
SC 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 18.5 4 26 22.25 11.85 8 101
GW 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 21 0 33 38.64 26.09 26.17 101
GP 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 20 0 32 35.49 23.18 22.02 101
GF 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 19 0 30 30.4 18.4 15.67 101
GM 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 19 0 30 30.4 18.4 15.67 101
GC 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 19.5 2 28 25.8 14.72 11.19 118

14
 Water Min. Min.
table unit Min. Friction Bearing
Soil Width Length Depth depth weight Cohesion Angle Capacity
code m m m m KN/m3 Kpa (Deg) Nc Nq N Kpa
MG 1.52 1.52 1.52 0 19 4 26 22.5 11.85 8 91
CG 1.52 1.52 1.52 0 19.5 6 24 19.32 9.6 5.72 108
MS 1.52 1.52 1.52 0 18 8 24 19.32 9.6 5.72 126
CS 1.52 1.52 1.52 0 18.5 10 22 16.88 7.82 4.07 144
ML 1.52 1.52 1.52 0 20 8 19 13.93 5.8 2.4 126
CL 1.52 1.52 1.52 0 21 8 17 12.34 4.77 1.66 126
MH 1.52 1.52 1.52 0 21 4 15 10.98 3.94 1.13 91
CH 1.52 1.52 1.52 0 20.5 2 13 9.81 3.26 0.74 73
SP 1.52 1.52 1.52 0 20 0 33 38.64 26.09 26.17 55
SW 1.52 1.52 1.52 0 18.5 0 30 30.14 18.4 15.67 55
SF 1.52 1.52 1.52 0 17.5 0 28 25.8 14.72 11.19 55
SM 1.52 1.52 1.52 0 18 0 28 25.8 14.72 11.19 55
SC 1.52 1.52 1.52 0 18.5 4 26 22.25 11.85 8 91
GW 1.52 1.52 1.52 0 21 0 33 38.64 26.09 26.17 55
GP 1.52 1.52 1.52 0 20 0 32 35.49 23.18 22.02 55
GF 1.52 1.52 1.52 0 19 0 30 30.4 18.4 15.67 55
GM 1.52 1.52 1.52 0 19 0 30 30.4 18.4 15.67 55
GC 1.52 1.52 1.52 0 19.5 2 28 25.8 14.72 11.19 73

Water Min. Min.

table unit Min. Friction Bearing
Soil Width Length Depth depth weight cohesion Angle Capacity
code m m m m KN/m3 Kpa (Deg) Nc Nq N Kpa
MG 1.52 1.52 1.52 10 19 4 26 22.5 11.85 8 149
CG 1.52 1.52 1.52 10 19.5 6 24 19.32 9.6 5.72 167
MS 1.52 1.52 1.52 10 18 8 24 19.32 9.6 5.72 185
CS 1.52 1.52 1.52 10 18.5 10 22 16.88 7.82 4.07 203
ML 1.52 1.52 1.52 10 20 8 19 13.93 5.8 2.4 185
CL 1.52 1.52 1.52 10 21 8 17 12.34 4.77 1.66 185
MH 1.52 1.52 1.52 10 21 4 15 10.98 3.94 1.13 149
CH 1.52 1.52 1.52 10 20.5 2 13 9.81 3.26 0.74 132
SP 1.52 1.52 1.52 10 20 0 33 38.64 26.09 26.17 114
SW 1.52 1.52 1.52 10 18.5 0 30 30.14 18.4 15.67 114
SF 1.52 1.52 1.52 10 17.5 0 28 25.8 14.72 11.19 114
SM 1.52 1.52 1.52 10 18 0 28 25.8 14.72 11.19 114
SC 1.52 1.52 1.52 10 18.5 4 26 22.25 11.85 8 149
GW 1.52 1.52 1.52 10 21 0 33 38.64 26.09 26.17 114
GP 1.52 1.52 1.52 10 20 0 32 35.49 23.18 22.02 114
GF 1.52 1.52 1.52 10 19 0 30 30.4 18.4 15.67 114
GM 1.52 1.52 1.52 10 19 0 30 30.4 18.4 15.67 114
GC 1.52 1.52 1.52 0 19.5 2 28 25.8 14.72 11.19 132

15
 Water Max.
table unit Max. Max. Bearing
Soil Width Length Depth depth weight Cohesion Friction Capacity
code m m m m KN/m3 kpa Angle(deg) Nc Nq N Kpa
MG 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 19 16 32 35.49 23.18 22.02 484
CG 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 19.5 36 30 30.14 18.4 15.67 803
MS 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 18 36 29 27.86 16.44 13.24 803
CS 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 18.5 40 27 23.94 13.2 9.46 867
ML 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 20 44 23 18.05 8.66 4.82 931
CL 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 21 40 21 15.81 7.07 3.42 867
MH 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 21 28 19 13.93 5.8 2.4 675
CH 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 25 28 17 12.34 4.77 1.66 675
SW 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 20 0 42 105.11 99.01 171.14 229
SP 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 18.5 0 37 67.87 55.96 77.33 229
SF 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 17.5 0 33 38.64 26.09 26.17 229
SM 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 18 10 30 46.12 33.3 37.15 580
SC 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 18.5 12 28 75.31 64.2 93.69 420
GW 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 21 0 44 118.37 115.31 211.41 229
GP 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 20 0 41 118.37 115.31 211.41 229
GF 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 19 0 38 161.35 48.93 64.07 229
GM 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 19 8 35 75.31 64.2 93.69 356
GC 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 19.5 10 32 46.12 33.3 37.15 548

Water Max. Max.

table unit Max. Friction Bearing
Soil Width Length Depth depth weight Cohesion Angle Capacity
code m m m m KN/m3 Kpa (Deg) Nc Nq N Kpa
MG 1.52 1.52 1.52 10 19 16 32 35.49 23.2 22.02 523
CG 1.52 1.52 1.52 10 19.5 36 30 30.14 18.4 15.67 842
MS 1.52 1.52 1.52 10 18 36 29 27.86 16.4 13.24 842
CS 1.52 1.52 1.52 10 18.5 40 27 23.94 13.2 9.46 905
ML 1.52 1.52 1.52 10 20 44 23 18.05 8.66 4.82 969
CL 1.52 1.52 1.52 10 21 40 21 15.81 7.07 3.42 905
MH 1.52 1.52 1.52 10 21 28 19 13.93 5.8 2.4 714
CH 1.52 1.52 1.52 10 25 28 17 12.34 4.77 1.66 714
SW 1.52 1.52 1.52 10 20 0 42 105.1 99 171.1 268
SP 1.52 1.52 1.52 10 18.5 0 37 67.87 56 77.33 268
SF 1.52 1.52 1.52 10 17.5 0 33 38.64 26.1 26.17 268
SM 1.52 1.52 1.52 10 18 10 30 46.12 33.3 37.15 618
SC 1.52 1.52 1.52 10 18.5 12 28 75.31 64.2 93.69 459
GW 1.52 1.52 1.52 10 21 0 44 118.4 115 211.4 268
GP 1.52 1.52 1.52 10 20 0 41 118.4 115 211.4 268
GF 1.52 1.52 1.52 10 19 0 38 161.4 48.9 64.07 268
GM 1.52 1.52 1.52 10 19 8 35 75.31 64.2 93.69 395
GC 1.52 1.52 1.52 10 19.5 10 32 46.12 33.3 37.15 587

16
 Water Max. Max.
table unit Max. Friction Bearing
Soil Width Length Depth depth weight Cohesion Angle Capacity
code m m m m KN/m3 Kpa (Deg) Nc Nq N Kpa
MG 1.5 2 1.5 0 19 16 32 35.49 23.18 22.02 385
CG 1.5 2 1.5 0 19.5 36 30 30.14 18.4 15.67 704
MS 1.5 2 1.5 0 18 36 29 27.86 16.44 13.24 704
CS 1.5 2 1.5 0 18.5 40 27 23.94 13.2 9.46 767
ML 1.5 2 1.5 0 20 44 23 18.05 8.66 4.82 831
CL 1.5 2 1.5 0 21 40 21 15.81 7.07 3.42 767
MH 1.5 2 1.5 0 21 28 19 13.93 5.8 2.4 576
CH 1.5 2 1.5 0 25 28 17 12.34 4.77 1.66 576
SW 1.5 2 1.5 0 20 0 42 105.11 99.01 171.1 130
SP 1.5 2 1.5 0 18.5 0 37 67.87 55.96 77.33 130
SF 1.5 2 1.5 0 17.5 0 33 38.64 26.09 26.17 130
SM 1.5 2 1.5 0 18 10 30 46.12 33.3 37.15 480
SC 1.5 2 1.5 0 18.5 12 28 75.31 64.2 93.69 321
GW 1.5 2 1.5 0 21 0 44 118.37 115.3 211.4 130
GP 1.5 2 1.5 0 20 0 41 118.37 115.3 211.4 130
GF 1.5 2 1.5 0 19 0 38 161.35 48.93 64.07 130
GM 1.5 2 1.5 0 19 8 35 75.31 64.2 93.69 257
GC 1.5 2 1.5 0 19.5 10 32 46.12 33.3 37.15 549

17