Bearing Capacity of

Shallow Foundation
 BEARING CAPACITY
If a fo o tin g is su b je cte d to to o g re a t a
lo a d , so m e o f th e so ilsu p p o rtin g it w ill
re a ch a fa ilu re sta te a n d th e fo o tin g
m a y exp e rie n ce a b e a rin g ca p a city
fa ilu re .
T h e b e a rin g ca p a city is th e
lim itin g p re ssu re th a t th e fo o tin g
ca n su p p o rt.
Supporting soil
 Definitions and Key
Terms
 Foundation: Structure transmits
loads to the underlying ground (soil).

Footing: Slab element that
transmit load from superstructure to
ground
 Embedment depth, Df : The depth
below the ground surface where the
base of the footing rests.

Bearing pressure(q): The normal
stress impose by the footing
on the supporting ground.
(weight of superstructure +
self weight of footing + weight of
 Definitions and Key
Terms
 Ultimate bearing capacity
qult /qf /qu : The maximum
bearing pressure that the soil
can sustain (i.e it fails).
Ultimate net bearing capacity

(qunet /qnf /qnu ):

Ground
G
 The maximum bearing
− γ D the soil can
qnf = q f that
pressure
sustain above
or q f = qnf + γ D its current
overburden pressure
 Safe bearing capacity: it is the
maximum pressure which the soil
can carry without shear failure or
ultimate bearing capacity, qf ,
divided by Factor ofqsafety ,F.
• qs = qns + γD = nf
+ γD
F
•
 Net safe bearing capacity: It is
the net ultimate bearing
qnf capacity
qns = of safety, F.
divided by factor
• F
 Definitions and Key Terms
(Cont.)
 Allowable bearing capacity:
(qall /qa): The working pressure
that would ensure an acceptable
margin of safety against bearing
capacity failure, or It is the net
loading intensity at which neither
soil fails in shear nor there is
excessive settlement detrimental
to the structure.
 Factor of safety: The ratio
between (qunet ) and (qall ). (F.S. =
 Definitions and Key Terms
(Cont.)
 Ultimate limit state: A state that
defines a limiting shear stress that
should not be exceeded by any
conceivable or anticipated loading
during the life span of a foundation
or any geotechnical system.



Serviceability limit state: A state
that defines a limiting deformation
or settlement of a foundation,
which, if exceeded will impair the
function of the supported
structure.
Basics
Basics
Df /B  1 Df /B 2-2.5
D
Terzaghi Df /B > 4
Others
 Design Requirements
1.
 The foundation
must not
collapse
 or become
unstable under
any
 conceivable
load
2. Deformation
(settlement) of
the
 structure
must be within
tolerable
 limits
 Stages in load-
settlement of shallow
 foundations
Relatively elastic vertical
compression
The load-settlement curve is

almost
straight.

Local yielding starts to

affect
Upward and outward

movement of
the soil with a possible

surface
heave.

General shear failure

Large settlements are

produced as
plastic yielding is fully
Collapse and Failure
Loads
( a ) General shear failure

( b ) Local shear failure

( c ) Punching shear failure

§ Shallow foundations in rock and
undrained clays are governed by
the general shear case.
§ Shallow foundations in dense
sands are governed by the general
shear case. In this
 context, a dense sand is one
with a relative density, Dr , greater
than about 67%.
§ Shallow foundations on loose to
medium dense sands (30% < Dr<
67%) are probably
 governed by local shear.
§ Shallow foundations on very
loose sand
 (Dr < 30%) are probably
governed by punching shear.
•
 Characteristics of Each
Failure Mode
General shear (Dense sand):
 – well defined failure mechanism
 – continuous slip surface from
footing to surface
 – sudden catastrophic failure
Local shear (Loose sand):
 – failure mechanism well defined
only beneath the footing
 – slip surfaces do not extend to
the soil surface
 – considerable vertical
displacement
 – lower ultimate capacity
 Guide lines to know
whether failure is local
or general
(i)
 Stress-strain test: (c- soil)
general shear failure occurs at low
strain, say <5 % while for local shear
failure stress-strain curve continues to
rise at strain of 10 to 20 %.
(ii) Angle of shear resistance: For 
> 36o ,general shear failure and  <
28o local shear failure.
(iii) Penetration test: N  30 : G.S.F
 N  5 : L.S.F
Contd …
Contd …
(iv) Plate Load Test: Shape of the
load
settlement curve decides
whether it is G.S.F or L.S.F
(v) Density Index : ID> 70 G.S.F
 ID < 20
L.S.F


 For purely cohesive soil, local

shear failure may be assumed to
occur when the soil is soft to
medium, with an unconfined
compressive strength qu  10 t/m2
(or cu  5 t/m2).
 Punching shear (Very Loose
sand):
 – failure mechanism less well
defined
 – soil beneath footing
compresses
 – large vertical
displacements
 – lowest ultimate capacity
 – very loose soils or at large
 Foundation
Requirements
1.Safe against failure (bearing capacity or
structural failure)
2.Should not exceed tolerable
settlement(probable maximum and
differential settlement)
3.Its construction should not make any
change to existing structure.
4.Should be adequate depth from
consideration of adverse
environment influence:
i. Zones of high volume change due to
moisture fluctuations.
ii.Depth of frost penetration
iii.Organic matter; peat and muck.
iv.Abandoned garbage dumps or
loosed fill areas.
v.Scouring depth
 BEARING CAPACITY
ANALYSES IN SOIL-
GENERAL SHEAR CASE
 Methods of Analyzing Bearing
Capacity
q To analyze spread footings for bearing
capacity failures and design them in a way to
avoid such failures, we must understand the
relationship between bearing capacity, load,
q footing dimensions, and soil
properties. Various researchers have
studied these relationships using a variety of
techniques, including:
Ø Assessments of the performance
of real foundations, including full-
scale load tests.
Ø Load tests on model footings.
Ø Limit equilibrium analyses.
Ø Detailed stress analyses, such as
finite element method (FEM)
analyses.
• Full-scale load tests, which consist
of constructing real spread footings
and loading
 them to failure, are the most
precise way to evaluate bearing
capacity. However, such tests are
expensive, and thus are rarely, if
ever, performed as a part of routine
design. A few such tests have been
performed for research purposes.
• Model footing tests have been
used quite extensively, mostly
because the cost of these tests
is far below that for full-scale
tests. Unfortunately, model tests
have their limitations, especially
when conducted in sands,
because of uncertainties in
applying the proper scaling
factors. However, the advent of
centrifuge model tests has
partially overcome this problem.
• Limit equilibrium analyses are
the dominant way to assess bearing
capacity of shallow foundations.
These analyses define the shape of
the failure surface, as shown in
Figure , then evaluate the stresses
and strengths along this surface.
These methods of analysis have their
roots in Prandtl' s studies of the
punching resistance of metals
(Prandtl,
 1920). He considered the ability of
very thick masses of metal (i.e., not
sheet metal) to resist concentrated
loads. Limit equilibrium analyses
usually include empirical factors
qult = N c su + σ zD
• Occasionally, geotechnical engineers
perform more detailed bearing
capacity analyses using numerical
methods, such as the finite element
method (FEM). These analyses are
more complex, and are justified
only on very critical and unusual
projects. We will consider only limit
equilibrium methods of bearing
capacity analyses, because these
methods are used on the
overwhelming majority of projects.
 Essential Points so far
• Failure mode in sands
depends on the density of
the soil.
• More settlement is expected
in loose soils than in dense
soils (for the same load).
Alternatively, dense soils can
sustain more load.
 The limit equilibrium
method
consider the continuous footing as
shown in Figure.
Let us assume this footing
experiences a bearing capacity
failure, and that this failure occurs
along a circular shear surface as
shown.
Assume the soil is an undrained clay
with a shear strength su.
Neglect the shear strength between
the ground surface and a depth D.
Thus, the soil in this zone is considered
to be only a surcharge load that
produces a vertical total stress of
§ The objective of this derivation is
to obtain a formula for the
ultimate bearing capacity,qult
,which is the bearing pressure
required to cause a bearing
capacity failure.
§ consider a slice of the foundation
of length b and taking moments
about Point A, we obtain the
M A = ( qult Bb)( B / 2) − ( suπBb)( B ) − σ zD Bb( B / 2)
following:
qult = 2π su + σ zD
 It is convenient to define a new
parameter, called a bearing capacity
factor, Nc and
ult = N c su + σ zD
rewrite Equation qas:


 Equation is known as a bearing

capacity formula, and could be used to
evaluate the
 bearing capacity of a proposed
foundation. According to this
derivation, Nc = 2 = 6.28.
This simplified formula has only
limited applicability in practiceContd…
because it considers
 Contd…
 only continuous footings and
undrained soil conditions ( = 0),
and it assumes the
 foundation rotates as the
bearing capacity failure occurs.
However, this simple derivation
illustrates the general methodology
required to develop more
comprehensive bearing capacity
formulas.
•
q No exact analytical solution for
computing bearing capacity of
footings is available at present
because the basic system of
equations describing the yield
problems is nonlinear.


 On account of these reasons,

Terzaghi (1943) first proposed a semi-
empirical equation for computing the
ultimate bearing capacity of strip
footings by taking into account
cohesion, friction and weight of soil,
and replacing the overburden pressure
with an equivalent surcharge load at
the base level of the foundation.
 The ultimate bearing capacity, or
the allowable soil pressure, can be
calculated either from bearing
capacity theories or from some of the
in situ tests.
 Each theory has its own good and
bad points. Some of the theories are
of academic interest only. However, it
is the purpose of the author to
present here only such theories
which are of basic interest to
students in particular and
 professional engineers in general.
 Terzaghi's Bearing
Capacity Formulas
 Assumptions:
The depth of the foundation is less than or
equal to its width (D  B).
The bottom of the foundation is sufficiently
rough that no sliding occurs between the
foundation and the soil.
The soil beneath the foundation is a
homogeneous semi-infinite mass (i.e., the soil
extends for a great distance below the
foundation and the soil properties are uniform
 throughout).
The shear strength of the soil is described by
the formula s = c' + ' tan '.
 The general shear mode of failure
governs.
No consolidation of the soil occurs
(i.e., settlement of the foundation is
due only to
 the shearing and lateral
movement of the soil).
The foundation is very rigid in
comparison to the soil.
 The soil between the ground
surface and a depth D has no shear
strength, and serves
 only as a surcharge load.
The applied load is compressive
and applied vertically to the centroid
of the foundation and no applied
moment loads are present.
Bearing Capacity
Failure
 Transcosna Grain
Elevator Canada (Oct.
18, 1913)

West side of foundation

 P

D Surcharge
B
Pressure =  zD
  45 -  / 2
45 -  / 2
Wedge Zone
B
Passive Zone

Lowest Shear Surface

Radial Shear Zone

Collapse and Failure
Loads
 Terzaghi considered three zones in the
soil, as shown in Figure, immediately
beneath the foundation is a wedge zone
that remains intact and moves downward
with the foundation.
Next, a radial shear zone extends from
each side of the wedge, where he took
the shape of the shear planes to be
logarithmic spirals.
Finally, the outer portion is the linear
shear
 zone in which the soil shears along
planar surfaces
 Since Terzaghi neglected the shear
strength of soils between the
ground surface and a depth D, the
shear surface stops at this depth
and the overlying soil has been
replaced with the surcharge pressure
zD .This approach is conservative,
and is part of the reason for limiting
the method to relatively shallow
foundations (D < B).
 Terzaghi developed his theory for
continuous foundations (i.e., those with
a very large L/B ratio).
This is the simplest case because it
is a two- dimensional problem.
He then extended it to square and
round foundations by adding empirical
coefficients obtained from model
tests and produced the following
bearing capacity formulas:
 For square foundations:
• qult = 1.3 c′N c + σ zD
′ N q + 0.4 γ ′ B N γ


For continuous
foundations:
qult = c′N c + σ zD
′ N q + 0.5γ ′ BN γ
•
•
For circular foundations
qult = 1.3 c′ N c + σ zD
′ N q + 0.3γ ′ BNγ
 Because of the shape of the failure
surface, the values of c and only
need to represent the soil between
the bottom of the footing and a
depth B below the bottom. The soils
between the ground surface and a
depth D are treated simply as
overburden.
 Terzaghi's formulas are presented in
terms of effective stresses. However,
they also
 may be used in a total stress
analyses by substituting cT T and D
for c', ', and D  If saturated
undrained conditions exist, we may
conduct a total stress analysis with the
shear strength defined as cT= Su and
T= O. In this case, Nc = 5.7, Nq = 1.0,
and N = 0.0.
The Terzaghi bearing capacityContd…
factors are:
Contd… a 2θ
Nq =
2 cos2 ( 45 + φ ′ / 2)

aθ = eπ ( 0.75−φ ′ / 360 ) tan φ ′

N c = 5.7 for φ ′ = 0

Nq −1
Nc = for φ ′ > 0
tan φ ′
tan φ ′  K pγ 
Nγ =  − 1
2  cos φ ′ 
2
 Computation of safe
bearing capacity
 For strip footing:

1
qs = [ cN c + γD( N q − 1 )Rw1 + 0.5γBN γRw 2 ] + γD
F
For square footing :
1
qs = [1.3cN c + γD( N q − 1 )Rw1 + 0.4γBN γRw 2 ] + γD
F
For circular footing :
1
qs = [1.3cN c + γD( N q − 1 )Rw1 + 0.3γBN γRw 2 ] + γD
F
W here F = F actorof safety 2 to 3
D = D epth of footing
B= W idth of footingor diam eterof footing
N c , N q , N γ = B earingcapacity factors
dependingon φ for general shear failure
N c′ , N q′ , N γ′ = B earingcapacity factors for local
shear failure
c = cohesion for g.s.f
Rw1 and Rw 2 = W ater table reduction factor
c m = 2 / 3 of c and tanφm = 2 / 3 tanφ
  Z  1
Rw1 = 0.5 1 + w 1  If Z w1 = 0 Rw1 = , If Z w 1 = D , Rw 1 = 1
 D  2
 Z  1
Rw 2 = 0.5 1 + w 2  If Z w 2 = 0 Rw 2 = , If Z w 2 = B , Rw 2 = B , Rw 2 = 1
 B  2
 Nq N

Nc
( degrees )


N q and N c N

BEARING CAPACITY FACTORS [ After Terzaghi and Peck ( 1948 )]

Bearing Capacity Factors
Effective Stress Analysis
Two situations can be simply
analysed.
The soil is dry. The total and
effective stresses are identical and
the analysis is identical to that
described above except that the
parameters used in the equations
are c´,  ´,  dry rather than cu, u,
sat . If the water table is more
than a depth of 1.5 B (the footing
width) below the base of the
footing the water can be assumed to
Further Developments
Skempton (1951)
Meyerhof (1953)
Brinch Hanson (1961)
De Beer and Ladanyi
(1961)
Meyerhof (1963)
Brinch Hanson (1970)
Vesic (1973, 1975)
 Meyerhof Bearing
Capacity Equations
Vertical load : qult = cN c sc d c + q N q sq d q + 0.5γB′N γ sγ dγ
Inclined Load : qult = cN cic d c + q N qiq d q + 0.5γB′N γ iγ dγ

N q = eπ tan φ tan 2 ( 45 + φ / 2)
N c = ( N q − 1) cot φ
N γ = ( N q − 1) tan(1.4φ )
1. Note use of ′effective′ base dimension B′.L′ by
Hansen but not by Vesic′.
2. The values above are consistent with either a vertical
load or a vertical load accompanying by a horizontal
load H B .
3. With a vertical load and a load H L (and either yH B = 0
or H B > 0) you may have to compute two sets of shape si
and d i as si . B , si . Land d i . B , d i . L. For i, Lsubscripts of equation
(4 - 2), presented in section. 4 - 6, use ratio L′/B or D/L′.
Notes:


1.Use Hi as either HB or HL . Or both if HL >0.

2.Hansen did not give an ic for  > 0. The
value above is from Hansen and also
used by Vesic .
3.Variable ca = base adhesion on the order of
0.6 to1.0 x base cohesion.
4.refer to sketch for identification of angles 
and , footing width D, location of
Hi(parallel and at top of base slab;
usually also produces eccentricity).
Especially note V = force normal to base
and is not the resultant R from combining
V and Hi .
 Bearing –capacity
equations by the several
 authors indicated
Terzaghi(1943). See table 4-2 for
typical values and for kp values.
• a2
qult = cN c sc + qN q + 0.5γBN γsγ Nq =
a cos 2 ( 45 + φ/ 2 )
a = e ( 0.75 π− φ/ 2 ) tan φ
N c = ( N q − 1 ) cot φ
tan φ K pγ 
Nγ =  − 1
2  cos φ 
2

For strip round square

sc 1.0 1.3 1.3
sγ 1.0 0.6 0.8
Factors Value For

Shape : sc = 1 + 0.2 K p
B
Any φ Table 4 - 3
L
B
sq = sγ = 1 + 0.1 K p φ> 10 o
L
sq = sγ = 1 φ= 0
D
Depth : d c = 1 + 0.2 K p Any φ
B Where Kp = tan2
d q = d γ = 1 + 0.1 K p
D
φ> 10 o (45+ /2)
B  =
d q = dγ = 1 φ= 0 angle of
2 resultant R
 θo  measured from
Inclination : ic = iq =  1 − o  Any φ
 90  vertical without a
V 2 sign: if  = 0 all
 θo 
R iγ =  1 − o  φ> 0 i =
<

 φ 
H iγ = 0 for θ > 0 φ= 0
1.0
B.L.D =
previously defined
 • Meyerhof(1963) see Table 4-3 for
shape, depth and inclination
factors.
Vertical
• Load : qult = cN c sc d c + q N q sq d q + 0.5γB′sγd γ
Inclined Load : qult = cN c d c ic + q N q d q iq + 0.5γB′d γiγ
N q = e πtan φ tan 2 ( 45 + φ/ 2)
N c = ( N q − 1) cot φ
N γ = ( N q − 1) tan( 1.4φ)
 Hansen (1970).* See Table 4-5 for
shape, depth, and other factors.
General : qult = cN c sc d c ic g c bc + qN q sq d q iq g q bq
+ 0.5γBN γsγd γiγ g γbγ
When φ= 0
use qult = 5.14 su ( 1 + sc′ + d c′ − ic′ − bc′ − g c′ ) + q
N q = same as Meyerhof above
N c = same as Meyerhof above
N γ = 1.5( N q − 1) tan φ
 Shapeanddepthfactorsfor usein theHansen
or Vesic′ bearingcapacityequations
Shapefactors Depthfactors
TABLE 4 - 5 ( a ) s′ =0.2
B′
(φ =0o) d′ =0.4k (φ =0o)
c(H) L′ c
N
q B′
s =1.0+ . k = DBforD/B ≤1
c(H) N L′
c
N
q B
s =1.0+ . k = tan−1(D/B) forD/B >1
c(V) N L
c
s =1.0for strip kinradians
c
_________________________________________________________
B′
s =1.0+ sinφ d =1+2tanφ′(1 −sinφi 2k
q(H) L′ q
B
s =1.0+ tanφ kdefinedabove
q(V) L
forallφ
______________________________________________________
B′
s =1.0−0.4 ≥0.6 d =1.0 for allφ
γ(H) L′ γ
B
s =1.0−0.4 ≥0.6
γ(V) L
 ___________________________________________________
Inclination factors Ground factors( base on slope )
___________________________________________________
H β o
ic′ = 0.5 − 1 − i gc′ =
147 o
TABLE 4 - 5 ( b ) A ca
f
1 − iq βo
ic = iq − gc = 1.0 −
Nq − 1 147 o
α
 0.5 H  1
iq = 1 − i  gq = gγ = ( 1 − 0.5 tan β)5
 V + A c cot φ
 f a 
2≤α ≤5
1
Base factors( tilted base )
α
 0.7 H  1 o
i η
iγ = 1 −  bc′ = ( φ= 0 )
 V + A c cot φ 147 o
 f a 
α
 ( )
0.7 − ηo / 450 o H  2
i ηo
iγ = 1 − bc = 1 − ( φ> 0 )
 V + A ca cot φ  147 o
 f 
2≤α ≤5 bq = exp( −2ηtan φ)
2
bγ = exp( −2.7ηtan φ)
η in radians
• Vesic (1973, 1975).* See Table 4-5
for shape, depth, and other factors.
use Hansen' s equations above.
N q = same as Meyerhof above
N c = same as Meyerhof above
N γ = 2( N q + 1) tan φ
_________________________________________
*These methods require a trial process to obtain
design base
dimensions since width B and length L are needed
to compute
shape, depth, and influence factors.
†See Sec. 4-6 when ii < 1.
 Table of inclinatio n, ground, and base factors for
the Vesi c ′( 1973,1975b ) bearing − capacity equations.
See not es below and refer to sketch for identifica tion of terms.
__________ __________ __________ __________ __________ ______

Table 4 - 5 ( c Inclinatio
)__________nfactors Ground factors (base on slope)
__________ __________ __________ __________ ______
mH i β
ic′ = 1 − ( φ= 0 ) g c′ = β in radians
A f ca N c 5.14
1 − iq 1 − iq
ic = iq − ( φ> 0 ) g c = iq − φ> 0
Nq −1 5.14 tan φ
iq , and m defined below iq defined with ic
m
 Hi 
iq = 1.0 − g q = g γ = ( 1.0 − tan β)
2

 V + A f c a cot φ
Base factors (tilted base)
__________ __________
m +1
 Hi 
iγ = 1.0 − 1.0 − bc′ = g c′ ( φ= 0 )
 V + A f c a cot φ
2+B / L 2β
m = mB = bc = 1 −
1+ B / L 5.14 tan φ
2+L/ B
m = mL = bq = bγ = ( 1.0 − ηtan φ)
2

1+ L / B
• Notes:
 1. When  = 0 (and   0) use N = -2
sin(± ) in N term.
 2. Compute m = mB when Hj = HB (H
parallel to B) and m = mLwhen Hi =HL (H
parallel to L). If you have both HB and Hi ,use m
=  mB 2 +m2L Note use of B and L, not B', L
 3. Refer to Table sketch and Tables 4-5a,b
for term identification.
 4. Terms Nc,Nq, and N are identified in
Table 4-1.
 5. Vesic always uses the bearing-
capacity equation given in Table 4-1 (uses B‘
in the N term even when Hi = HL).
 6. Hi term < 1.0 for computing iq, i
(always).
General Observations about
Bearing Capacity
• 1. The cohesion term dominates in cohesive soils.
• 2. The depth term (γ D Nq) dominates in cohesionless soils. Only a small
increase in D
• increases qu substantially.
• 3. The base width term (0.5 γ B Nγ) provides some increase in bearing capacity
for both
• cohesive and cohesionless soils. In cases where B < 3 to 4 m this term could be
• neglected with little error.
• 4. No one would place a footing on the ground surface of a cohesionless soil
mass.
• 5. It's highly unlikely that one would place a footing on a cohesionless soil with
a
• Dr < 0.5. If the soil is loose, it would be compacted in some manner to a higher
• density prior to placing footings on it.
• 6. Where the soil beneath the footing is not homogeneous or is stratified, some
judgment
• must be applied to determining the bearing capacity.
 EFFECT OF WATER TABLE
ON BEARING CAPACITY
• The theoretical equations developed
for computing the ultimate bearing
capacity qu of soil are
• based on the assumption that the
water table lies at a depth below
the base of the foundation equal
• to or greater than the width B of the
foundation or otherwise the depth
of the water table from
• ground surface is equal to or greater
than (D,+ B). In case the water
table lies at any intermediate
• depth less than the depth (D,+ B),
the bearing capacity equations are
affected due to the presence of
• the water table.
• Two cases may be considered here.
• Case 1. When the water table lies
above the base of the foundation.
• Case 2. When the water table lies
within depth B below the base of
the foundation.
• We will consider the two methods for
determining the effect of the water
table on bearing
• capacity as given below.
 Method 1
 For any position of the water table
within the depth (Df+ B), we may
write Eq. as: 1
q = cN + γD N R + γBN R
u c f q w1 γ w2
2
Where Rw1 = reduction factor for water table above
the base level of the foundation,
Rw 2 = reduction factor for water table below
the base level of the foundation.
γ = γsat for all practical purposes in both the
second and third terms of Eq.
• Case 1:When the water table lies
above the base level of the
foundation or when Dwl/Df < 1
• (Fig. 12.10a) the equation for Rwl
may be written as

1 Dw1 
Rw1 =  1 + 
2 D f 
For Dw1 / D f = 0 , we have Rw1 = 0.5 ,
and for Dw1 / D f = 1.0 , we have Rw1 = 1.0.
• Case 2:When the water table lies
below the base level or when
Dw2/B < 1 (12.1 Ob) the equation
for Rw2 is
• 1 D 
Rw 2 =  1 + w 2 
2 B 
•
For Dw 2 / B = 0 , we have Rw 2 = 0.5
• and for Dw 2 / B = 1.0 , we have Rw 2 = 1.0
•
•
• Method 2: Equivalent effective
 1
qu = cN c + γe 1 D f N q + γe 2 BN γ
2
Where γe 1 = weighted effective
γe 2 = weighted effective unit weight
of soil lying above the base level
of the foundation
γm = moist or saturated unit weight of
soil lying above WT
 sat =saturated unit weight of soil
below the WT (cas1 or case 2)
  =Submerged unit weight of
soil =(sat - w)
 Case 1
 An equation for e1 may be
written D as
γe 1 = γ′ + w1 ( γm − γ′ )
Df
γe 2 = γ′

Case 2
γe 1 = γm
Dw 2
γe 2 = γ′ + ( γm − γ′)
B
 Which Equations to Use
q There are few full-scale footing
tests reported in the literature
(where one usually goes to find
substantiating data).
q The reason is that, as previously
noted, they are very expensive to do
and the cost is difficult to justify
except as pure research (using a
government grant) or for a precise
determination for an important
project— usually on the basis of
settlement control.
q Few clients are willing to
underwrite the costs of a full-scale
footing load test when the
bearing capacity can be obtained—
often using empirical SPT or CPT
data directly—to a sufficient
precision for most projects.
Use for Best for
Terzaghi Very cohesive soils where D/B  1or for a
quick estimate of qult to compare with other
methods. Do not use for footings with
moments and/or horizontal forces or for tilted
bases and/or sloping ground.
Hansen, Any situation that applies, depending on user’s
Meyerhof , preference or familiarity with a particular
Vesic method.

When base is tilted; when footing is on a slope

Hansen ,
or when D/B > 1
Vesic
 Bearing Pressure from In
situ Tests
• From Empirical Formulae
• SPT
• (Terzaghi & Peck )
q = 1.025 N c t / m = 10.25 N c kPa
25 n w
2
n w

• Sandy Soil
where q = net pressure for settlement not exceeding 25mm .
25

qa = 0.041 N n c w s t / m 2
• N n = average corrected N value for overburden
( and submergence if necessary )
c w = water table correction
s = Allowable settlement in mm
Correction for overburden ( Peck et al )
N n = Cn × N
200
C n = 0.77 log
σo
 Cn max. = 2
 o in t/m2 (10 For o  2.5 t/m2
Ton/m2 )  o t/m2 Cn
0 2
 o  2.5 t/m2 0.6 – 1.0 1.8
 Correction for 1.5 – 2.0 1.6
10 1.0
submergence
 (very fine silty
sand below water
table and N > 15)
 N =15+ ½(Nn
– 15)
 Bearing Pressure for
Rafts and Piers
• q50 =2.05 Nn cw t/m2
• q50 = net pressure for settlement =
50 mm or differential settlement =
20 mm
• cw= 0.5 + 0.5 Dw /D + B  1
• Where Dw = depth of water table
below the ground surface
• cw = 0.5 for Dw= 0 and cw= 1 for
Dw= D + B
• The proximity of water table is likely
• For designing of footings, generally N
values are determined at 1 m
interval as the test boring is
advanced.
• Generally the average corrected
values of N over a distance from
the base of footing to a depth B –
2B below the footing is calculated.
When several borings are made,
the lowest average should be used.
• For raft. N is similarly calculated or
determined, if Nn is less than 5.
• Sand is too loose and should be
compacted or alternative
foundation on piles or piers should
be considered.
• If the depth of raft D ie less than 2.5
m, the edges of raft settle more
than the interior because of lack of
confinement of sand.
 By Meyerhof’s Theory
• qnet 25 =11.98 Nn Fd For B 1.22m and 25
mm settlement, q = kN/m2
• qnet 25 =7.99 Nn Fd (B + 0.305/B)2 For B >
1.22m
• B in mm
• By Bowles (50 % above)
• qnet 25 =19.16 Nn Fd(s/25.4) For B 1.22 m
(kN/m2)
• qnet 25 =11.98 (B + 0.305/B)2 (For B >
1.22m) x Nn Fd (s/25.4)
• Where Fd = Depth factor = 1 + 0.33(Df /B)
 1.33
• s = tolerable settlement.
 Parry’s Theory
 qult = 30 N kN/m2 DB
 Teng (For continuous or strip footing)
 qnet (ult) =1/60 { 3 N2 BRw + 5(100 + N2)
Df Rw}
 For square and circular:
 qnet (ult) =1/30 {N2 BRw + 3(100 + N2)
Df Rw}
 qnet = ulltimate bearing capacity in t/m2
 N = corrected SPT value
 Rw , Rw = correction factor for water
 Empirical relationships for CN
(Note:  o is in kN/m2)
Source CN
Liao and Whitman 1
(1960) 9.78
σo′
2
Skempton (1986)
1 + 0.01 σo′
Seed et al. (1975)  σo′ 
1 − 1.25 log  
 95 . 6 
Pecket al. (1974)  1912 
0.77 log  
 σo′ 
for σo′ ≥ 2.5 kN / m 2
 SAFE BEARING PRESSURE
FROM EMPIRICAL EQUATIONS
BASED ON CPT VALUES FOR
FOOTINGS ON COHESIONLESS
s c
SOIL
q = 3.6 q R kPa for B ≤ 1.2 m
w2
2
 1
qs = 2.1 qc  1 +  Rw 2 kPa for B ≥ 1.2 m
 B
An approximate formula for all widths
qs = 2.7 qc Rw 2 kPa
where qc is the cone point resistence in
kg/m 2 and qs in kPa .
The above equations have been for
a settlement of 25 mm.
 Meyerhof (1956)
• Allowable bearing pressure of sand
can be calculted:
• q c is in units kg/cm2. If qc is in other
units kg/cm2, you must convert
them before using in the equation
below.
qc
N 55 ≅
4
 By Meyerhof (1956)

qc
qall ( net ) = For B ≤ 1.22 m settlement 25 mm
15
2
qc  3.28 B + 1 
qall ( net ) =
  For B > 1.22 m settlement 25 mm
25 3.28 B 
where qc = cone penetration resis tan ce kN / m 2
B =m
 Terzaghi
• The bearing capacity factors for the use
in Terzaghi equations can be
estimated as:0.8 N ≅ 0.8 N ≅ q
q γ c

•
• Where qc is avaeraged over the depth
interval from about B/2 above to 1.1B
below the footing base. This
approximation should be applicable
for Df / B  1.5. For chesionless soil
one may use:
• Strip qult = 28 - 0.0052 (300- qc)1.5
(kg/cm2)
1.5
 For clay one may use
Strip qult = 2 + 0.28qc ( kg/cm )
2

square qult = 5 + 0.34qc ( kg/cm )

2
Bearing Capacity from Plate
q
Load Test
This is reliable method to obtain
bearing capacity.
q The cost is very high.
• qult, foundation = qult, load test
B foundation
• qult, foundation = M + N
Bload test
• Where M includes the N c and N q terms and N is

• the N γ term

•
•
q By using several sizes of plates this
q Practically, for extrapolating plate load
tests for sands (which are often in a
configuration so that the Nq term is
negligible), use the following
•  B foundation 
• qult = q plate  

 B plate 
•


•
q It is not recommended unless the
Bfoundation /Bplate is not much more than
about 3. When the ratio is 6 to 15 or more
the extrapolation from a plate- load test is
little more than a guess that could be
obtained at least as reliably using an SPT or
 Housel's (1929) Method of
Determining Safe Bearing
Pressure from Settlement

Consideration
 Objective
 To determine
the load Qf and the Q = Ap m + Pp n
size of a
foundation for a Where Q = load applied on a given plate
permissible A = contact area of plate
settlement Sf.
 Housel Pp = perimeter of plate
suggests two plate m = a cons tan t corresponding to
load tests with
plates of different the bearing pressure
sizes, say B1 x B1 n = another cons tan t corresponding
and
to perimeter shear .
 B2 x B2 for this
purpose.
 Procedure
1 Two plate load tests are to be
conducted at the foundation level of
the prototype as per the procedure
explained earlier.
2. Draw the load-settlement curves
for each of the plate load tests.
3. Select the permissible settlement
Sf. for the foundation.
4. Determine the loads Q1 and Q2 from
each of the curves for the given
permissible settlement sf
 Now we may write the following equations
 Q1 =mAp1 + nPp1
 For plate load test 1.
 Q2 =mAp2 + nPp2
 For plte load test2.
 The unknown vaues of m&n can be found by
solving
 the above equations.
 The equation for a prototype foundation may be
written as
 Qf = mAf + nPf
 Where Af area of the foundation, Pf =perimeter of
the foundation.
 When Af and Pf are known, the size of the foundation
can be determined.
 Bearing Capacity on
Layered Soils
Case (a): Strong over
relativelyweak (su1/su2 >1).
q If H / B is
small ,
failure would
occur as punching
in the first
layer , followed
by general shear
failure in the
second ( the weak )
layer
q If H / B is
relatively large ,
the failure surface
would be fully
contained within
the first ( upper
layer ).
 Bearing Capacity on
Layered Soils
Case (a): Strong over
weak (su1/su2 >1) (cont.)
 Bearing Capacity on
Layered Soils
Case (a): Strong over

weak (su1/su2 >1) (cont.)
Where:
 B = width
of
foundation
 L=
length of
foundation
 Nc = 5.14
(see chart)
 sa =
cohesion
along the
line a-a' in
the
Bearing Capacity on
Layered Soils
Case (b): Weak over
strong (su1/su2 <1)
 Bearing Capacity on
Layered Soils
II) Dense or compacted

sand
If H is above soft clay
relatively
small, failure
would
extend into the

soft
clay layer

If H is relatively
large, the

failure
surface would

be
fully contained
 Bearing Capacity on
Layered Soils
II) Dense or compacted
sand above soft clay
(cont.)
 Bearing Capacity on
Layered Soils
II) Dense or compacted
sand above soft clay
(cont.)
 BEARING CAPACITY
BASED ON BUILDING
CODES
(PRESUMPTIVE
• PRESSURE)
In many cities the local building code
stipulates values of allowable soil
pressure to use when designing
foundations. These values are
usually based on years of
experience, although in some cases
they are simply used from the
building code of another city.
q Values such as these are also
found in engineering and building-
construction handbooks.
q These arbitrary values of soil
pressure are often termed
presumptive pressures.
q Most building codes now stipulate
that other soil pressures may be
acceptable if laboratory testing and
engineering considerations can
justify the use of alternative values.
q Presumptive pressures are based
on a visual soil classification.
 Table 4-8 indicates representative
values of building code pressures.
These values are
 primarily for illustrative purposes,
since it is generally conceded that in
all but minor construction projects
some soil exploration should be
undertaken
• Major drawbacks to the use of
presumptive soil pressures
are that they do not reflect
the depth of footing, size of
footing, location of water
table, or potential
settlements.