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: Slab element that transmit load from
superstructure to ground
Embedment depth, D
f
: 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
earthfill if any.)
Definitions and Key Terms
Ultimate bearing capacity q
ult
/q
f
/q
u
: The
maximum bearing pressure that the soil can
sustain (i.e it fails).
Ultimate net bearing capacity (q
unet
/q
nf
/q
nu
):
The maximum bearing pressure that the soil
can sustain above its current overburden
pressure
D q q or
D q q
nf f
f nf

+ =
=
G
Ground
Safe bearing capacity: it is the maximum
pressure which the soil can carry without
shear failure or ultimate bearing capacity, q
f
,
divided by Factor of safety ,F.


Net safe bearing capacity: It is the net
ultimate bearing capacity divided by factor of
safety, F.


D
F
q
D q q
nf
ns s
+ = + =
F
q
q
nf
ns
Definitions and Key Terms (Cont.)
Allowable bearing capacity: (q
all
/q
a
): 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 (q
unet
) and
(q
all
). (F.S. = q
unet
/q
all
)
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
D
D
f
/B s 1
Terzaghi
D
f
/B > 4

D
f
/Bs 2-2.5
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 developed
within the soil.
In dense sands: softening can
occur after collapse.
Collapse and Failure Loads
(c) Punching shear failure
(a) General shear failure
(b) Local 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, D
r
, greater than about 67%.
Shallow foundations on loose to medium
dense sands (30% < D
r
< 67%) are probably
governed by local shear.
Shallow foundations on very loose sand
(D
r
< 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 | > 36
o

,general shear failure and | < 28
o
local
shear failure.
(iii) Penetration test: N > 30 : G.S.F
N s 5 : L.S.F

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 : I
D
> 70 G.S.F

I
D
< 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 q
u
s 10 t/m
2
(or c
u
s 5 t/m
2
).

Contd
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 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
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 full-scale 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.
zD u c ult
s N q o + =
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 s
u
.
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 o
zD
D = D at a depth D.
The objective of this derivation is to obtain
a formula for the ultimate bearing
capacity,q
ult
,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:
zD u ult
zD u ult A
s q
B Bb B Bb s B Bb q M
o t
o t
+ =
=
2
) 2 / ( ) )( ( ) 2 / )( (
It is convenient to define a new parameter,
called a bearing capacity factor, N
c
and
rewrite Equation as:

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, N
c
= 2t =
6.28.
This simplified formula has only limited
applicability in practice because it considers
zD u c ult
s N q o + =
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.

Contd
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 s 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' + o' 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
P
Surcharge Pressure = o'
zD
45-|/2
45-|'/2
Passive Zone
Lowest Shear Surface
Radial Shear Zone
Wedge Zone
D
B
B
| |
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 o
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:


For continuous foundations:


For circular foundations

o BN N N c q
q zD c ult
'
+
'
+
'
= 3 . 0 3 . 1

o BN N N c q
q zD c ult
'
+
'
+
'
= 5 . 0

o N B N N c q
q zD c ult
'
+
'
+
'
= 4 . 0 3 . 1
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 c
T
|
T
and o
D
for c', |', and o
D
'
If saturated undrained conditions exist, we
may conduct a total stress analysis with the
shear strength defined as c
T
= S
u
and |
T
= O. In
this case, N
c
= 5.7, N
q
= 1.0, and N

= 0.0.
The Terzaghi bearing capacity factors are:
Contd
( )
|
|
.
|

\
|

'
'
=
>
'
'

=
=
'
=
=
'
+
=
' '
1
cos 2
tan
0
tan
1
0 7 . 5
) 2 / 45 ( cos 2
2
tan 360 / 75 . 0
2
2
|
|
|
|
|
|

| | t
u
u
p
q
c
c
q
K
N
f or
N
N
f or N
e a
a
N
Contd
For strip footing:


| |
| |
| | D R BN . R ) N ( D cN .
F
q
D R BN . R ) N ( D cN .
F
q
D R BN . R ) N ( D cN
F
q
w w q c s
w w q c s
w w q c s

+ + + =
+ + + =
+ + + =
2 1
2 1
2 1
3 0 1 3 1
1
: footing circular For
4 0 1 3 1
1
: footing square For
5 0 1
1
Computation of safe bearing
capacity

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

3 2 Where
2 1
= =
=
=
=
' ' '
=
=
=
=
1
2
1
0 1 5 0
1
2
1
0 1 5 0
2 2 2 2 2
2
2
1 1 1 1
1
1
= = = = =
|
.
|

\
|
+ =
= = = =
|
.
|

\
|
+ =
w w w w w
w
w
w w w w
w
w
R , B R , B Z If , R Z If
B
Z
. R
R , D Z If , R Z If
D
Z
. R
BEARING CAPACITY FACTORS [After Terzaghi and Peck(1948)]
N
q
and N
c
N

|

(
d
e
g
r
e
e
s
)

N

N
q
N
c
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 c
u
, |
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)
) 4 . 1 tan( ) 1 (
cot ) 1 (
) 2 / 45 ( tan
5 . 0 : Load Inclined
5 . 0 : load Vertical
2 tan
|
|
|

| t


=
=
+ =
'
+ + =
'
+ + =
q
q c
q
q q q c c c ult
q q q c c c ult
N N
N N
e N
d i N B d i N q d i cN q
d s N B d s N q d s cN q
Meyerhof Bearing Capacity
Equations
. L or D/ /B L ratio use 6, - 4 section. in presented 2), - (4
equation of subscripts , For and , as and
shape of sets two compute to have may you 0) or H
0 either yH (and H load a and load a vertical With . 3
. H load
horizontal a by ng accompanyi load a vertical or load
a vertical either with consistent are above values The 2.
. c Vesi by not but n Hanse
by L . B dimension base e effectiv of use Note . 1
. . , . . .
B
B L
B
' '
>
=
'
' ' ' '
L i d d s s d
s
L i B i L i B i i
i
Notes:
1. Use H
i
as either H
B
or H
L
. Or both if H
L
>0.
2. Hansen

did not give an i
c
for | > 0. The value above
is from Hansen and also used by Vesic'.
3. Variable c
a
= base adhesion on the order of 0.6 to1.0 x
base cohesion.
4. refer to sketch for identification of angles q and |,
footing width D, location of H
i
(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 H
i
.

Bearing capacity equations by
the several authors indicated
Terzaghi(1943). See table 4-2 for typical values
and for k
p
values.

8 0 6 0 0 1
3 1 3 1 0 1
1
2
1
2 45
5 0
2
2 75 0
2
2
. . . s
. . . s
square round strip For
cos
K
tan
N
cot ) N ( N
e a
) / ( cos a
a
N s BN . N q s cN q
c
p
q c
tan ) / . (
q q c c ult

|
.
|

\
|
=
=
=
+
= + + =

0 0 0
0
2
1
2
90
1 : n Inclinatio
0 1
10 1 0 1
B
2 0 1 : Depth
0 1
10 1 0 1
2 0 1 : Shape
For e Valu Factors
= > =
> |
.
|

\
|
=
|
.
|

\
|
= =
= = =
> + = =
+ =
= = =
> + = =
+ =

for i
o
o
i
Any
o
o
q
i
c
i
d
q
d
o
B
D
p
K . d
q
d
Any
D
p
K .
c
d
s
q
s
o
L
B
p
K . s
q
s
Any
L
B
p
K .
c
s
H
R
V
u
<
|

Where K
p
= tan
2
(45+|/2)
| = angle of
resultant R
measured from
vertical without a
sign: if | = 0 all i

=
1.0
B.L.D = previously
defined
Table 4-3
Meyerhof(1963) see Table 4-3 for shape,
depth and inclination factors.

( )
( )

4 1 1
1
2 45
5 0 : Load Inclined
5 0 : Load Vertical
2
. tan N N
cot N N
/ tan e N
i d B . i d N q i d cN q
d s B . d s N q d s cN q
q
q c
tan
q
q q q c c c ult
q q q c c c ult
=
=
+ =
'
+ + =
'
+ + =
Hansen (1970).* See Table 4-5 for shape, depth,
and other factors.
( )

tan N . N
N
N
q g b i d s s . q
b g i d s BN .
b g i d s N q b g i d s cN q
q
c
q
c c c c c u ult
q q q q q q c c c c c c ult
1 5 1
above Meyerhof as same
above Meyerhof as same
1 14 5 use
0 When
5 0
: General
=
=
=
+
'

'

'

'
+
'
+ =
=
+
+ =
0.6
L
B
0.4 1.0
(V)
s
all for 1.0

d 0.6
L
B
0.4 1.0
(H)
s
____ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________
all for
above defined k tan
L
B
1.0
q(V)
s
k
2
sini (1 2tan 1
q
d sin
L
B
1.0
q(H)
s
_______ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________
radians in k strip for 1.0
c
s
1 D/B for (D/B)
1
tan k
L
B
.
c
N
q
N
1.0
c(V)
s
1 D/B for
B
D
k
L
B
.
c
N
q
N
1.0
c(H)
s
)
o
0 ( 0.4k
c
d )
o
0 (
L
B
0.2
c(H)
s
factors Depth factors Shape
equations capacity bearing c Vesi or
Hansen the in use for factors depth and Shape
> =
= >
'
'
=
+ =
' + =
'
'
+ =
=
>

= + =
s =
'
'
+ =
= = ' =
'
'
= '
'
TABLE 4-5(a)
( )
radians in
) tan . exp( b
) tan exp(
q
b
) (
o
o
c
b
cot
a
c
f
A V
i
H
o
/
o
.
i
) (
o
o
c
b
cot
a
c
f
A V
i
H .
i
) base tilted ( factors Base
) tan . ( g
q
g
cot
a
c
f
A V
i
H .
q
i
o
o
.
c
g
q
N
q
i
q
i
c
i
o
o
c
g
a
c
f
A
i
H
.
c
i
_ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________
) slope on base ( factors Ground factors n Inclinatio
_ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________

7 2
2 5
2
2
0
147
1
2
450 7 0
1
0
147
1
7 0
1
5
1
2
5
5 0 1
1
5 0
1
147
0 1
1
1
147
1 5 0
=
= s s
> =
+

=
= = '
+
=
s s
= =
+
=
=

=
= ' = '
(
(
(

(
(
(

(
(
(

TABLE 4-5(b)
Vesic' (1973, 1975).* See Table 4-5 for shape,
depth, and other factors.
( )
_ __________ __________ __________ __________
tan N N
above Meyerhof as same N
above Meyerhof as same N
q
c
q

1 2
above. equations s Hansen' use
+ =
=
=
*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 i
i
< 1.
( )
( )
( )
2
1
2
0 1
1
2
14 5
2
1
1
2
0 0 1 0 1
base) (tilted factors Base
0 1 0 1
with defined below defined and
0
14 5
1
0
1
1
14 5
0 1
slope) on (base factors Ground factors n Inclinatio
terms. of tion identifica for sketch to refer and below es not See
equations. capacity bearing 1973,1975b c Vesi the
for factors base and ground, n, inclinatio of Table

tan . b b
B / L
B / L
m m
tan .
b
L / B
L / B
m m
) ( g b
cot c A V
H
. . i
__________ __________
tan . g g
cot c A V
H
. i
i i m , i
tan .
i
i g ) (
N
i
i i
radians in
.
g ) (
N c A
mH
i
______ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________
______ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________
q L
c B
c c
m
a f
i
q
m
a f
i
q
c q q
q
q c
q
q
q c
c
c a f
i
c
= =
+
+
= =
=
+
+
= =
= ' = '
(

+
=
= =
(

+
=
>

= >

=
= ' = = '
'
+
Table 4-5(c)
Notes:
1. When | = 0 (and | = 0) use N

= -2 sin(|) in N

term.
2. Compute m = m
B
when H
j
= HB (H parallel to B) and
m = m
L
when H
i
=H
L
(H parallel to L). If you have both
H
B
and H
i
,use m = \m
B

2
+m
2
L
Note use of B and L, not
B', L'
3. Refer to Table sketch and Tables 4-5a,b for term
identification.
4. Terms N
c
,N
q
, 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 H

i
=
H
L
).
6. H
i
term < 1.0 for computing i
q
, 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 (D
f
+ B), we may write Eq. as:
Eq. of terms third and second
the both in purposes practical all for
. foundation the of level base the
below table water for factor eduction
, foundation the of level base the
above table water for factor reduction
2
1
sat
2
1
2 1



=
=
=
+ + =
r R
R Where
R BN R N D cN q
w
w
w w q f c u
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
. . R have we , . D / D for and
, . R have we , D / D For
D
D
R
w f w
w f w
f
w
w
0 1 0 1
5 0 0
1
2
1
1 1
1 1
1
1
= =
= =
|
|
.
|

\
|
+ =
Case 2:When the water table lies below the
base level or when Dw2/B < 1 (12.1 Ob) the
equation for R
w2
is





Method 2: Equivalent effective unit weight
method
0 1 0 1
5 0 0
1
2
1
2 2
2 2
2
2
. R have we , . B / D for and
. R have we , B / D For
B
D
R
w w
w w
w
w
= =
= =
|
.
|

\
|
+ =
WT above lying soil
of weight unit saturated or moist
foundation the of
level base the above lying soil of
weight unit effective weighted
effective weighted Where
2
1
2
1
2 1
=
=
=
+ + =
m
e
e
e q f e c u
BN N D cN q

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
( )
( )



'
+
'
=
=
'
=
'
+
'
=
m
w
e
m e
e
m
f
w
e
B
D
D
D
2
2
1
2
1
1
2 Case
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




Hansen,
Meyerhof ,
Vesic'

Hansen , Vesic'
Very cohesive soils where D/B s 1or for a
quick estimate of q
ult
to compare with other
methods. Do not use for footings with
moments and/or horizontal forces or for
tilted bases and/or sloping ground.

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

( )
o
n
n n
w
n
w n a
w n w n
log . C
N C N
al et Peck overburden for Correction
mm in settlement Allowable s
correction table water c
) necessary if e submergenc and (
overburden for value N corrected average N
m / t s c N . q
. mm exceeding not settlement for pressure net q where
kPa c N . m / t c N . q

200
77 0
041 0
25
25 10 025 1
2
25
2
25
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
= =
C
n
max. = 2
o
o
in t/m
2
(10 Ton/m
2
)
o
o
> 2.5 t/m
2
Correction for
submergence
(very fine silty sand
below water table and
N > 15)
N' =15+ (N
n
15)



o
o
t/m
2
C
n
0 2
0.6 1.0 1.8
1.5 2.0 1.6
10 1.0
For o
o
s 2.5 t/m
2
Bearing Pressure for Rafts and
Piers
q
50
=2.05 N
n
c
w
t/m
2

q
50
= net pressure for settlement = 50 mm or
differential settlement = 20 mm
c
w
= 0.5 + 0.5 D
w
/D + B s 1
Where D
w
= depth of water table below the
ground surface
c
w
= 0.5 for D
w
= 0 and c
w
= 1 for D
w
= 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 N
n
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
q
net 25
=11.98 N
n
F
d
For Bs 1.22m and 25 mm
settlement, q = kN/m
2
q
net 25
=7.99 N
n
F
d
(B + 0.305/B)
2
For B > 1.22m
B in mm
By Bowles (50 % above)
q
net 25
=19.16 N
n
F
d
(s/25.4) For Bs 1.22 m (kN/m
2
)
q
net 25
=11.98 (B + 0.305/B)
2
(For B > 1.22m) x N
n
F
d

(s/25.4)
Where F
d
= Depth factor = 1 + 0.33(D
f
/B) s 1.33
s = tolerable settlement.

Parrys Theory
q
ult
= 30 N kN/m
2
D s B
Teng (For continuous or strip footing)
q
net (ult)
=1/60 { 3 N
2
BR'
w
+ 5(100 + N
2
) D
f
R
w
}
For square and circular:
q
net (ult)
=1/30 {N
2
BR'
w
+ 3(100 + N
2
) D
f
R
w
}
q
net
= ulltimate bearing capacity in t/m
2
N = corrected SPT value
R'
w
, R
w
= correction factor for water table
B = width of footing
D
f
= depth of footing






Empirical relationships for C
N
(Note: o'
o
is in
kN/m
2
)

Source C
N
Liao and Whitman
(1960)
Skempton (1986)
Seed et al. (1975)
Peck et al. (1974)
o
.

'
1
78 9
o
.
'
+ 01 0 1
2
|
.
|

\
|
'

6 95
25 1 1
.
log .
o

2
5 2
1912
77 0
m / kN . for
log .
o
o
>
'
|
.
|

\
|
'

SAFE BEARING PRESSURE FROM
EMPIRICAL EQUATIONS
BASED ON CPT VALUES FOR FOOTINGS ON
COHESIONLESS SOIL
mm. 25 of settlement a
for been have equations above The
kPa in and kg/m
in resistence point cone the is where
kPa 7 2
widths all for formula e approximat An
m 2 1 for kPa
1
1 1 2
m 2 1 for kPa 6 3
2
2
2
2
2
. q
q
R q . q
. B R
B
q . q
. B R q . q
s
c
w c s
w c s
w c s
=
>
|
.
|

\
|
+ =
s =
Meyerhof (1956)
Allowable bearing pressure of sand can be
calculted:
q
c
is in units kg/cm
2
. If q
c
is in other units
kg/cm
2
, you must convert them before using
in the equation below.

4
55
c
q
N ~
By Meyerhof (1956)
( )
( )
m B
m / kN ce tan resis n penetratio cone q where
mm settlement m . B For
B .
B . q
q
mm settlement m . B For
q
q
c
c
net all
c
net all
=
=
>
|
.
|

\
|
+
=
s =
2
2
25 22 1
28 3
1 28 3
25
25 22 1
15
Terzaghi
The bearing capacity factors for the use in
Terzaghi equations can be estimated as:

Where q
c
is avaeraged over the depth interval
from about B/2 above to 1.1B below the footing
base. This approximation should be applicable for
D
f
/ B s 1.5. For chesionless soil one may use:
Strip q
ult
= 28 - 0.0052 (300- q
c
)
1.5
(kg/cm
2
)

For square q
ult
= 48 - 0.009 (300- q
c
)
1.5
(kg/cm
2
)

c q
q N . N . ~ ~

8 0 8 0
For clay one may use
2
2
kg/cm 34 0 5
kg/cm 28 0 2
c ult
c ult
q . q square
q . q Strip
Bearing Capacity from Plate Load Test
This is reliable method to obtain bearing
capacity.
The cost is very high.






By using several sizes of plates this equation can
be solved graphically for q
ult
.

term N the
is N and terms N and N the includes M Where
B
B
N M q
q q
q c
test load
foundation
foundation ult
test load ult foundation ult

+ =
=
,
, ,
Practically, for extrapolating plate load tests for
sands (which are often in a configuration so that
the N
q
term is negligible), use the following





It is not recommended unless the B
foundation
/B
plate

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 CPT correlation.
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
plate
foundation
plate ult
B
B
q q
Housel's (1929) Method of
Determining Safe Bearing Pressure
from Settlement Consideration
Objective
To determine the load
Q
f
and the size of a
foundation for a
permissible settlement
S
f
.
Housel suggests two
plate load tests with
plates of different
sizes, say B
1
x B
1
and
B
2
x B
2
for this purpose.
. shear perimeter to
ing correspond t tan cons another n
pressure bearing the
to ing correspond t tan cons a m
plate of perimeter P
plate of area contact A
plate given a on applied load Q Where
n P m A Q
p
p p
=
=
=
=
=
+ =
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 S
f
. for the
foundation.
4. Determine the loads Q
1
and Q
2
from each
of the curves for the given permissible
settlement s
f
Now we may write the following equations
Q
1
=mA
p1
+ nP
p1
For plate load test 1.
Q
2
=mA
p2
+ nP
p2
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
Q
f
= mA
f
+ nP
f
Where A
f
area of the foundation, P
f
=perimeter of the foundation.
When A
f
and P
f
are known, the size of the foundation can be
determined.



Bearing Capacity on Layered Soils
Case (a): Strong over weak
(su
1
/su
2
>1).
If H/B is relatively
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
(su
1
/su
2
>1) (cont.)
Bearing Capacity on Layered Soils
Case (a): Strong over weak
(su
1
/su
2
>1) (cont.)
Where:
B = width of
foundation
L = length of
foundation
N
c
= 5.14 (see
chart)
s
a
= 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 sand
above soft clay
If H is relatively
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 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.
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.