Bearing Capacity of

Shallow Foundation

BEARING CAPACITY
If a footing is subjected to too great a
load, some of the soil supporting it will
reach a failure state and the footing
may experience a bearing capacity
failure.
The bearing capacity is the
limiting pressure that the footing
can support.
Supporting soil

Definitions and Key

Terms

Foundation: Structure transmits loads to

the

underlying ground (soil).

Footing:
load

Slab element that transmit

from superstructure to ground

Embedment depth, Df : The depth below

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
earth fill if any.)

Definitions and Key

Terms
Ultimate bearing capacity q
ult

/qf /qu : The maximum bearing

pressure that the soil can
sustain (i.e it fails).
Ultimate net bearing capacity
(qunet /qnf /qnu):
G
Ground
The maximum bearing pressure
qnf the
q f soil
Dcan sustain above
that
its
pressure
or qcurrent
q overburden
D
f

nf

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.
nf
qs qnsof settlement
D
D
(Irrespective
F
Net safe bearing capacity: It is the
net ultimate bearing
qnf capacity divided
by factor ofqsafety,
F.
ns

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. = qunet/qns )

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
D
Terzaghi

Df /B 2-2.5
Others

Df /B > 4

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
3
No damage to
E.F

Stages in loadsettlement 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
developed

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 65%.

Shallow foundations on loose to

medium dense sands (30% < Dr<
65%) 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
embedment
depth

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 at 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 SOILGENERAL
SHEAR
CASE
Methods of Analyzing Bearing
Capacity

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,
footing dimensions, and soil properties.
Various researchers have studied these
relationships using a variety of techniques,
including:

Assessments of the performance

of real foundations, including fullscale load tests.
Load tests on model footings.
Limit equilibrium analyses.
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 developed
from model tests.

qult N c su 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 un-drained 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
zDD = D at a depth D.

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
following:
M A (qult Bb)( B / 2) ( suBb)( B ) zD Bb( B / 2) 0

qult 2 su zD

It is convenient to define a new

parameter, called a bearing capacity
factor, Nc and
rewrite Equation as:
qult N c su zD
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 practice because it
considers
Contd

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.

 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 sank 24-ft

Wedge Zone
B

Surcharge
Pressure = zD

45-/2
45-/2
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:

N q 0.4 B N
qult 1.3 cN c zD
For continuous
foundations:

N q 0.5 BN
qult cN c zD

For
circular
foundations
q 1.3 c N N 0.3 BN
ult

zD

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 capacity factors are:

Contd

Contd

a 2
Nq
2 cos 2 (45 / 2)
a e 0.75 / 2 tan
N c 5.7

for 0

Nq 1
Nc
tan

for 0

tan K p

N
1
2
2 cos

Computation of safe
bearing capacity
For strip footing:
qs
For
qs
For
qs

1
cN c D( N q 1 )Rw1 0.5BN Rw 2 D
F
square footing :
1
1.3cN c D( N q 1 )Rw1 0.4BN Rw 2 D
F
circular footing :
1
1.3cN c D( N q 1 )Rw1 0.3BN Rw 2 D
F

Where F Factor of safety 2 to 3

D Depth of footing
B Width of footing or diameter of footing
N c , N q , N Bearing capacity factors
depending on for general shear failure
N c , N q , N Bearing capacity factors for local
shear failure
c cohesion for g.s.f
Rw1 and Rw 2 Water table reduction factor
c m 2 / 3 of c and tan m 2 / 3 tan

Rw 1 0.5 1 w1
D

Rw 2 0.5 1 w 2
B

1
If Z w1 0 Rw 1 ,
2

If Z w1 D , Rw 1 1

1
If Z w 2 0 Rw 2 , If Z w 2 B , Rw 2 B , Rw 2 1
2


(degrees
)

Nq

Nc

Nq and Nc

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 have no effect.

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 0.5BN s d
Inclined Load : qult cN cic d c q N qiq d q 0.5BN i d
N q e tan tan 2 ( 45 / 2)
N c ( N q 1) cot
N ( N q 1) tan(1.4 )

1. Note use of effectiv e base dimension B.L by

Hansen but not by Vesi c.
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
authorsSee
indicated
Terzaghi(1943).
table 4-2 for
typical values and for kp values.
qult cN c sc qN q 0.5BN s

a2
Nq
a cos 2 ( 45 / 2 )
a e ( 0.75 / 2 ) tan
N c ( N q 1 ) cot

tan K p
N
1

2
2 cos

For strip round square

sc
1.0 1.3
1.3
s

1.0

0.6

0.8

Factors

Valu e

For

B
sc 1 0.2 K p
L

Shape :

Any

B
sq s 1 0.1 K p
L
sq s 1

10 o
0

D
d c 1 0.2 K p
B

Depth :

Any

D
d q d 1 0.1 K p
B
d q d 1
Inclination :

<

V
H

o
ic iq 1 o
90

o
i 1 o

i 0 for 0

Table 4-3

10 o
0

2
Any
0
0

Where Kp = tan2
(45+/2)
= angle of
resultant R
measured from
vertical without a
sign: if = 0 all i =
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 0.5Bs d
Inclined Load : qult cN c d c ic q N q d q iq 0.5Bd i
N q e tan tan 2 45 / 2
N c N q 1 cot

N N q 1 tan 1.4

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
0.5BN s d i g b

When

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 1.5 N q 1 tan

Shape
anddepth
factors
foruseintheHansen
orVesi
c bearing
capacity
equations
Shape
factors
Depth
factors
B
s
0.2 ( 0o)
d 0.4k ( 0o)
c
c(H)
L
N
q B
s
1.0
.
k DBforD/B 1
c(H)
N L
c
N
q B
1(D/B)forD/B 1
s
1.0
.
k tan
c(V)
N L
c
s 1.0forstrip
kinradians
c
__________
__________
__________
__________
__________
_______
B
s
1.0 sin
d 1 2tan
(1 sini2k
q
q(H)
L
B
s
1.0 tan

kdefined
above
q(V)
L
forall
__________
__________
__________
__________
__________
____
B
s
1.0 0.4 0.6
d 1.0forall

(H)
L
B
s
1.0 0.4
0.6
(V)
L

ABLE 4-5(a)

___________________________________________________
Inclination factors
Ground factors( base on slope )
___________________________________________________
H
o

i
ic 0.5 1
gc
A ca
147 o
f
1 iq
o
ic iq
gc 1.0
Nq 1
147 o

1
0.5 H
i

iq 1
gq g ( 1 0.5 tan )5

V A ca cot
f

TABLE 4-5(b)

2 5
1

0.7 H

i 1

V A ca cot
f

i 1

Base factors( tilted base )

0.7 o / 450o H i

V A ca cot
f

2 5
2

bc
( 0)
147 o

o
bc 1
( 0)
147 o
bq exp( 2 tan )
b exp( 2.7 tan )
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 2 N q 1 tan

_________________________________________
*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 inclination, ground, and base factors for

the Vesi c 1973,1975b bearing capacity equations.
See not es below and refer to sketch for identification of terms.
________________________________________________________

Table 4-5(c)

Inclinationfactors
Ground factors (base on slope)
________________________________________________________
mH i

ic 1
( 0)
g c
in radians
A f ca N c
5.14
ic iq

1 iq
Nq 1

( 0)

g c iq

iq , and m defined below

Hi
iq 1.0
V A f c a cot

1 iq
0
5.14 tan

iq defined with ic

g q g 1.0 tan

Base factors (tilted base)

____________________

Hi
i 1.0 1.0
V A f c a cot

2 B / L
m mB
1 B / L
2 L/ B
m mL
1 L / B

m 1

bc g c
bc 1

( 0)
2
5.14 tan

bq b 1.0 tan

 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 ( D Nq) dominates in cohesionless soils. Only a small
increase in D increases qu substantially.
3. The base width term (0.5 B N) 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
1
write
Eq.
as:
qu cN c D f N q Rw1 BN Rw 2
Where Rw1

2
reduction factor for water table above

Rw 2

the base level of the foundation,

reduction factor for water table below

sat

the base level of the foundation.

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
Dw1
1

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
D
1
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 unit

weight method

1
qu cN c e1 D f N q e 2 BN
2
Where e1 weighted effective

e 2 weighted effective unit weight

of soil lying above the base level
of the foundation
m 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 as
Dw1
m
e1
Df
e 2
Case 2
e1 m
e 2

Dw 2
m

B

Which Equations to Use

There are few full-scale footing tests
reported in the literature (where one
usually goes to find substantiating data).
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.

 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
directlyto 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,
Meyerhof ,
Vesic
Hansen ,
Vesic

Any situation that applies,

depending on users preference or
familiarity with a particular method.
When base is tilted; when footing is
on a slope or when D/B > 1

Bearing Pressure from In

situ
Tests
From Empirical Formulae
SPT
(Terzaghi & Peck )
Sandy Soil

q25 1.025 N n cw t / m 2 10.25 N n cw kPa

where q25 net pressure for settlement not exceeding 25mm.
qa 0.041 N n cw s t / m 2
N n average corrected N value for overburden
(and submergence if necessary )
cw water table correction
s Allowable settlement in mm

Correction for overburden Peck et al

N n Cn N
200
Cn 0.77 log
o

Cn max. = 2
o in t/m2 (10 Ton/m2
2
For

2.5
t/m
o
)
C

2
o 2.5 t/m
t/m
0
2
Correction for
0.6
1.8
submergence
1.0
(very fine silty sand
1.5
1.6
2.0
below water table
10
1.0
and N > 15)
N =15+ (Nn 15)
n

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 to
reduce the bearing capacity by 50 % or
increase the settlement by 100 % .

 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 Meyerhofs 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 m
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.

Parrys Theory
qult = 30 N

kN/m2

DB

Teng (For continuous or strip footing)

qnet (ult) =1/60 { 3 N2 BRw + 5(100 + N2) Df Rw}
For square and circular:
qnet (ult) =1/30 {N2 BRw + 3(100 + N2) Df Rw}
qnet = ulltimate bearing capacity in t/m2
N = corrected SPT value
Rw , Rw = correction factor for water table
B = width of footing
Df = depth of footing

Empirical relationships for CN

(Note: o is in kN/m2)
Source
Liao and Whitman
(1960)
Skempton (1986)
Seed et al. (1975)
Peck et al. (1974)

CN
1
9.78
o

2
1 0.01 o
o
1 1.25 log

95
.
6

1912
0.77 log

o
for o 2.5 kN / m 2

SAFE BEARING PRESSURE

FROM EMPIRICAL EQUATIONS
BASED ON CPT VALUES FOR
FOOTINGS ON COHESIONLESS
q 3.6 q R SOIL
kPa for B 1.2 m
s

w2

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
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
q 3.28 B 1
qall net c
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 q 0.8 N qc
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)
For square qult = 48 - 0.009 (300- qc)1.5 (kg/cm2)

For clay one may use

Strip

qult 2 0.28qc

square qult 5 0.34qc

kg/cm
kg/cm
2

Bearing Capacity from Plate

Load Test

This is reliable method to obtain bearing

capacity.
The cost is very high.
qult, foundation qult, load test
qult, foundation M N

B foundation
Bload test

Where M includes the N c and N q terms and N is

the N term

By using several sizes of plates this equation

can be solved graphically for qult.

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

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 plateload test is little more than a guess that could be
obtained at least as reliably using an SPT or CPT
correlation.

Housel's (1929) Method of Determining Safe

Bearing Pressure from Settlement Consideration

Objective
To determine the
load Qf and the size
of a foundation for
a permissible
settlement Sf.
Housel suggests
two plate load tests
with plates of
different sizes, say
B1 x B1 and
B2 x B2 for this
purpose.

Q Ap m Pp n
Where Q load applied on a given plate
A contact area of plate
Pp perimeter of plate
m a cons tan t corresponding to
the bearing pressure
n another cons tan t corresponding
to perimeter shear .

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
If H/B is
(su1/su2 >1).
relatively weak
small,
failure
would
occur as punching
in the
first layer,
followed by general
shear failure in the
second (the
weak) layer
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
Where:
weak
(su
/su
>1)
(cont.)
1
2
B = width of
foundation
L = length of
foundation
Nc = 5.14 (see
chart)
sa = cohesion
along the
line a-a' in the
previous
figure.

Bearing Capacity on
Layered Soils
Case (b): Weak over
strong (su1/su2 <1)

Bearing Capacity on
Layered Soils
II) Dense or compacted
If H issand
relatively above soft clay
small, failure would
extend into the
soft
clay layer
If H is relatively
large, the failure
surface would be
fully contained
within the sand
layer.

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
In many cities
the local building code
PRESSURE)

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.

 Values such as these are also found in

engineering and building-construction
handbooks.
These arbitrary values of soil pressure are
often termed presumptive pressures.
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.
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.