DOI 10.

1007/s11204-017-9413-0
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 53, No. 6, January, 2017 (Russian Original No. 6, November-December, 2016)

SOIL MECHANICS

A CORRECTION TERM IN THE TERZAGHI EQUATION

FOR SUBSOIL BEARING CAPACITY ANALYSIS

V. G. Fedorovskii UDC 624.131524

N. M. Gersevanov Scientific-Research Institute of Foundations and Underground
Structures, Scientific-Research Center Stroitel'stvo JSC, Moscow, Russia.

This paper proposes to introduce an additional term in the Terzaghi trinomial equation
for more accurate evaluation of strip and circular footing bearing capacity for any ratios
of soil cohesion over soil specific weight. Some effects connected up with footing shape
and circular footing solution for high values of internal friction angle are discussed.

The following Terzaghi equation is often used to calculate shallow footing bearing capacity
(limit footing-subsoil contact pressure):

pu = 1/2γ bNγ + cNc + qNq, (1)

where γ is specific soil weight, kN/m3; b is footing width, m; Nγ , Nc, Nq are dimensionless coefficients;
c is cohesion, kPa; q is specific soil pressure above footing bottom, kPa.
Note 1. In Russia this equation is usually applied without the factor 1/2 before the first term on
the right-hand side. It firstly appeared in Terzaghi's book [1] but with nonstandard notations. In the next
book [2] the equation is presented in the standard format. The difference is inessential and only involves
Nγ factor twofold reduction.
Note 2. Coefficients of bearing capacity N usually relate to a strip footing with a rough bottom
under vertical central load, while other factors are accounted for by means of coefficients of inclina-
tion, of shape, etc. In the paper [3], each bearing capacity coefficient depends on the five bearing
capacity coefficients of shape, depth, load inclination, footing bottom inclination, and subsoil inclina-
tion. This shows that the degree of footing bottom smoothness must be taken into account. Evidently,
it is impossible to account for so many factors simultaneously. Therefore, four centrally loaded plate
problem options are analyzed below that allow for the exact solution of the two-dimensional limit equi-
librium problem for a vertically loaded plate: 1) perfectly smooth strip, 2) perfectly smooth circle; 3)
perfectly rough strip, and 4) perfectly rough circle. In each case the bearing capacity factors are denot-
ed as per Eq. (1).
As is known, Eq. (1) is not an exact solution since the slip-line grids, used for the case of heavy
cohesionless subsoil (for determining Nγ ) and in the case of weight-free cohesive subsoil (for determin-
ing Nc and Nq), do not coincide. Let us present Eq. (1) in simplified form:

Translated from Osnovaniya, Fundamenty i Mekhanika Gruntov, No. 6, pp. 2-5, November-December, 2016.
©
0038-0741/17/5306-0365 2017 Springer Science+Business Media New York 365
 35
3 Nc
30

pu /(c + 1/2γb)
25
20 1 2
15
10 Nγ
5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
c/(c + 1/2γb)
Fig. 1. Limit pressure on subgrade with ϕ = 30o, caused by a perfectly rough strip footing
under a central vertical force: 1) exact solution pu; 2) Terzaghi solution pT; 3) solution
as per the current design code and A.S. Stroganov et al. [4].

TABLE 1
Options K(ϕ)
1 0.678 + 1.705e−4.5ϕ
2 0.502 + 1.557e−4.2ϕ
3 0.749 + 4.129e−6.5ϕ
4 0.558 + 3.292e−6.3ϕ

pT = 1/2γbNγ + cNc  pγ + pc , (2a)

pu = pT + Δpu. (2b)

Typical graphs of pu and pT (the latter was plotted for exact Nγ value) are shown in Fig. 1. The pT
graph shown is included in SP 22.13330.2011 and is based on the results obtained by Stroganov et al. [4].
The graphs show essential difference between pu and pT up to 18% pu and 22% pT. The question arises
as to whether it is possible to ignore this difference using a simple term.
The author tried to do it in [5] and obtained qualitatively adequate results, but these results could
hardly be called good, because a rather approximate method was used to assess the bearing capacity,
based on application of a logarithmic spiral. The past years have seen significant progress in computer-
ization of the practically precise method of characteristics for solving such problems. Here the software
code ABC of Martin [6] ought to be mentioned first of all. Similar software was developed by Karaulov
[7] and Korolev [8] for axisymmetric and limit equilibrium plane problems. This paper presents the
main results of ABC software numeric and analysis; Korolev and Karaulov kindly shared their results.
Notably, the results coincided with just one exception, mentioned below.
The analyses were done for internal friction angles ϕ within the 5-45° range with 5° increments
for relative values of cohesion ĉ = 0.2, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, and 0.8, with ĉ = c/(1/2γ b + c).
The approximation Δpu is presented in the following form:

pγ p c
pu = K (ϕ ) , (3)
pT

where K(ϕ) is the unknown function of the angle of internal friction, pγ and pc are defined by Eq. (2a).
In order to determine K(ϕ), a mean square root approximation is applied for the points that cor-
respond to the calculations of all ϕ values with ĉ = 0.5, i.e., for middle points of the curves, as shown
in Table 1.

366
 TABLE 2
Bearing capacity factors for options
ϕ° 1 2 3 4
Nγ Nc Nγ Nc Nγ Nc Nγ Nc
0 0 5.142 0 5.689 0 5.142 0 6.047
2.5 0.032 5.764 0.023 6.482 0.039 5.764 0.028 6.955
5 0.085 6.489 0.060 7.432 0.114 6.489 0.081 8.058
7.5 0.164 7.340 0.118 8.582 0.238 7.340 0.172 9.411
10 0.281 8.345 0.206 9.985 0.433 8.345 0.322 11.09
12.5 0.451 9.542 0.337 11.72 0.732 9.542 0.559 13.18
15 0.698 10.98 0.533 13.87 1.181 10.98 0.931 15.84
17.5 1.056 12.71 0.827 16.60 1.848 12.71 1.510 19.25
20 1.577 14.84 1.268 20.07 2.838 14.84 2.413 23.67
22.5 2.337 17.46 1.938 24.58 4.306 17.46 3.830 29.50
25 3.458 20.72 2.966 30.51 6.492 20.72 6.073 37.31
27.5 5.128 24.86 4.565 38.46 9.775 24.86 9.672 47.94
30 7.651 30.15 7.102 49.29 14.76 30.15 15.54 62.70
32.5 11.52 37.04 11.21 64.38 22.44 37.04 25.32 83.62
35 17.59 46.15 18.02 85.88 34.47 46.15 41.97 114.0
37.5 27.28 58.44 29.65 117.4 53.76 58.44 71.20 159.2
40 43.22 75.39 50.17 164.8 85.41 75.39 124.1 228.6
42.5 70.24 99.32 87.81 238.8 139.0 99.32 223.7 338.8
45 117.7 134.1 160.0 358.8 232.7 134.1 419.5 520.3

Thus, the approximate value of the limit pressure Pa can be found as follows:

pγ p c
Pa = pT + K (ϕ ) . (4)
pT

Besides the data in Table 1, bearing capacity coefficients for different footing types (Table 2)
were used.
In order to check the quality of approximation (4), a series of calculations of ĉ was done for
ϕ = 5-45 with 2.5 increments, and also for each of the four plate types, for each value of ϕ the respec-
o o

tive ĉ was adopted. A summary of these values is given in Table 3.

The computed results are shown in Fig. 2. The error of the Terzaghi approximation c was adopted.
A summary of these values is given in Table 3.
The analytical results are given on Fig. 2. The error of the Terzaghi approximation is Δpu = pu − pT;
the error of the approximation as per Eq. (4) δ pu = |pu − pa|. The modulus in (4) means that pa can be
either less or greater than pu. It is possible to draw the following conclusions from Fig. 2:
− δ pu is always several times (more often even one order of magnitude) less than Δpu;
− the error for the smooth plate is less than that for the rough one;
− the error for the circle is less than that for the strip;
− in general the relative approximation error (4) exceeds, as a rule, 1% and sometimes reaches 2-4%.
The two examples below can be useful independently.
Evidently, there is a factor connected with limit pressures for the circle and the strip, i.e., a sort
of shape factor. Figure 3 shows that this ratio is essentially variable (in contrast to that in construction
codes) and increases versus growth in the angle ϕ. A variable shape factor is discussed in Hansen's paper
[3], although it differs qualitatively from Fig. 3 with the exception of the fact that even in the simplest

367
 TABLE 3
Relative cohesion ĉ for option
ϕ
1 2 3 4
5 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
7.5 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.2
10 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.4
12.5 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.6
15 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
17.5 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.2
20 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.4
22.5 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.6
25 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
27.5 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.2
30 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.4
32.5 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.6
35 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
37.5 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.2
40 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.4
42.5 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.6
45 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

a b Δp/pu, %
Δp/pu, % 24
22
20 20
18 18
16 16
14 14
12 12
10 10
8 8
6 6
4 4
2 2
0 0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 ϕ o
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 ϕ o

Fig. 2. Error of the initial and refined solutions: a) smooth plate; b) rough plate; , ) strip;
, ) circle; , ) Δpu /pu; , ) δpu /pu

a b
pc /ps pc /ps
3 4.5
3 4
2.5 3.5 3
2 2 3
2.5 2
1.5 2
1
1 1.5 1
1
0.5 0.5
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 ϕ o 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 ϕ o

Fig. 3. Ultimate pressures ratio (shape factor) for circular and strip plates ĉ = 0, 0.5, and 1
(curves 1, 2, 3 respectively): a) smooth plate, b) rough plate.

case the shape factor depends both on ϕ and other factors (e.g., on the degree of bottom roughness).
The second example is connected with the fact that even in the case of large internal friction
angles for cohesive soils (with high ĉ value), the classic solution by the method of characteristics with
the assumption of total plasticity (Haar-Karman hypothesis) is impossible, strictly speaking, as these
characteristics intersect each other. Martin [6] ignores this fact for simplicity. Karaulov [7], on the con-
trary, rejects the Haar-Karman hypothesis and assumes the minimally necessary Lode parameter value,

368
 Nc
500

2
50

1
5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 ϕ o

Fig. 4. Comparison of ultimate pressures on cohesive weightless subsoil

under a circular plate with and without fulfillment of the Haar-Karman
hypothesis: 1) smooth plate; 2) rough plate. Solid line as per Martin;
dashed line as per Karaulov.

which differs from −1, i.e., holds fixed the value of the intermediary principal stress σ2, but at a slight-
ly higher level than σ3. The difference between these solutions is shown in Fig. 4. Evidently, the differ-
ence is negligibly small with the exception of highest ϕ values (over 40 ).
o

REFERENCES
1. K. Terzaghi, Theoretical Soil Mechanics, Wiley, New York (1943).
2. K. Terzaghi and R. Peck, Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, Wiley, New York (1948).
3. J. A. Brinch Hansen, "Revised and extended formula for bearing capacity," Bull. No. 28, The Danish
Geotechnical Institute, Copenhagen, 5-11 (1970).
4. A. S. Stroganov, M. C. Gaidai, A. Z. Tits, A. S. Snarsky, and A. V. Vronsky, "Approximate analytical
method for evaluating subsoil bearing capacity and its experimental evaluation," Osn. Fundam. Mech.
Gruntov, No.1, 19-23 (1983).
5. V. G. Fedorovsky, "Variation analysis of strip footing subsoil bearing capacity for inclined load,"
Proceedings of the N. M. Gersevanov Scientific-Research Institute of Foundations and Underground
Structures, No. 84 (1985).
6. C. M. Martin, User Guide for ABC - Analysis of Bearing Capacity, 1.0, Oxford (2004).
7. A. M. Karaulov, Bearing Capacity of Subsoil under Axisymmeric Footings, SGUPS, Novosibirsk
(2002).
8. K. V. Korolev, Plane Problem of Soil Limit State, SGUPS, Novosibirsk (2010).

369
Soil Mechanics & Foundation Engineering is a copyright of Springer, 2017. All Rights
Reserved.