Chapter-2 Bearing Capacity of Soils

Soil Mechanics-II Bearing Capacity of Soils
CHAPTER TWO
BEARING CAPACITY OF SOILS
2.0 Introduction
Every structure consists of two basic Components: the superstructure and the
substructure. The lowest artificially built part of a structure that rests on or in the
ground, which transmits the load of the superstructure to the supporting strata is called
foundation. Foundations can be broadly classified into two categories
x Shallow foundations: - are foundations whose depth below the ground level (Df)
is approximately less than or equal to their least dimension (width) (i.e. Df %).
Isolated footings and mat foundations are common examples of shallow
foundations.
x Deep foundations: - are foundations whose depth below the ground level (Df) is
greater than their least dimension (width) (i.e. Df >> B). piles foundations, piers
and caissons are common examples of deep foundations.
To ensure stability, foundations must provide an adequate factor of safety against shear
or bearing failure of the underlying soil and the structure must be capable of
withstanding the settlements that will result. Thus the criteria for the determination of
the bearing capacity of a foundation are based on the requirements for the stability of
the foundation. The design value of the safe bearing capacity would be the smaller of
the two values, obtained from the two criteria which are;
¾ Shear strength criterion
¾ Settlement criterion
The load per unit area of the foundation at which shear failure in soil occurs is called the
ultimate bearing capacity, qu, of the soil.
The bearing capacity is affected by factors like;
x Nature of the soil and its physical and engineering properties.
x Size, shape, depth, rigidity and roughness of the foundation.
x Water table conditions and initial stresses in the soil.
x The settlement that the structure can withstand without functional failure.
2.1 Bearing Failure Modes

Relative density of the soil and size of the foundation are among the major factors that
affect the mode of bearing failure likely to occur. The modes of bearing failure are
generally separated into three categories as discussed below.
Unity University Compiled by: Feysel N.

Department of Civil Engineering 1 of 22
The general shear failure (Fig. 2.1a) is usually associated with soils of low
compressibility such as dense sand and stiff cohesive soils. In this case, if load is
gradually applied to the foundation, settlement will increase. At a certain point – when
the applied load per unit area equals to the ultimate load qu – a sudden failure in the soil
supporting the foundation will take place. The failure surface in the soil will extend to
the ground surface and full shear resistance of the soil is developed along the failure
surface. Bulging of the soil near the footing is usually apparent.
Figure 2.1: Modes of bearing failures (a) General shear failure (b) Local shear failure
(c) Punching shear failure.
For the local shear failure (Fig. 2.1b), which is common in sands and clays of medium
compaction, the failure surface will gradually extend outward from the foundation but
will not reach the ground surface as shown by the solid segment in Fig. 2.1b. The shear
resistance is fully developed over only part of the failure surface (solid segment of the
line). There is a certain degree of bulging of the soil.
In the case of punching shear failure, a condition common in loose and very
compressible soils, considerable vertical settlement may take place with the failure
surfaces restricted to vertical planes immediately adjacent to the sides of the foundation;
the ground surface may be dragged down. After the first yield has occurred the
load-settlement curve will be steep slightly, but remain fairly flat.

2.2 Ultimate Bearing Capacity Equations

Numerous methods have been proposed regarding assumptions, criteria, and procedures
for the evaluation of the bearing capacity of soils. Some analytical methods for the
calculation of bearing capacity are discussed below.
2.2.1 Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity equation

Many of the present day principles regarding bearing capacity equations appear to have
had their origin on a failure mechanism proposed by Prandtl in the early 1920s (refer
literature for Prandtl’s failure mechanism). Prandtl developed a bearing capacity
equation assuming a smooth (frictionless) footing and ignoring the weight of the soil in
the failure zone. These assumptions are not true in practice and therefore Prandtl’s
equation is never used in practical design, but it was a beginning.
Figure 2.2: Failure mechanism for Terzaghi’s bearing capacity solution.

Terzaghi (1943) improved the Prandtl equation to include the roughness of the footing
and the weight of the failure zone. Terzaghi suggested that the failure mechanism in a c’,
I’ soil for a strip (long or continuous) foundation (i.e. foundation with L>>B) will be as
shown in Fig. 2.2. Terzhagi’s ultimate bearing capacity equations are given by:
Strip footing: qu c' N c qN q 0.5 BJN J (2.1)
Square footing: qu 1.3c' N c qN q 0.4 BJN J (2.2)
Circular footing: qu 1.3c' N c qN q 0.3BJN J (2.3)
Where, T Ȗ 'f (2.4)

Nc, Nq and NȖ are bearing capacity factors and are obtained as follows:

e (1.5S I ') tan I ' § K pJ ·

Nq , Nc cot I ' ( N q 1) , NJ 1
tan I ' ¨¨ 1¸¸ (2.5)
2 cos 2 (45 I ' / 2) 2
© cos I ' ¹
2
Figure 2.3: Terzaghi’s bearing capacity factors

For undrained conditions ( Iu 0 ):
Nc (1.5S 1) 5.71 Nq 1 NJ 0 (2.6)

2.2.2 Meyerhof’s Bearing Capacity equation

Meyerhof (1951) developed a bearing capacity equation by extending Terzhagi’s failure
mechanism and taking into account the effects of footing shape, load inclination and
footing depth by adding the corresponding factors of s, d, and i. For a rectangular
footing with dimensions L by B (L > B) and supporting an inclined load:
qu c' N c sc ic d c qN q sq iq d q 0.5 BJN J sJ iJ d J (2.7)
For vertical load, ic = iq = iȖ = 1
qu c' N c sc d c qN q sq d q 0.5 BJN J sJ d J (2.8)
The bearing capacity factors are:
Nq eS tan I ' tan 2 (45 I ' / 2) , Nc cot I ' ( N q 1) , NJ ( N q 1) tan(1.4I ' )

Nq 1, Nc (S 2) 5.14 , NJ 0
The shape, inclination and depth factors are according to the following equations.
Shape Depth Inclination
2
B D § D0 ·
Any I ' sc 1 0.2 K p dc 1 0.2 K p ic iq ¨¨1 0 ¸¸
L B © 90 ¹
For I ' 0 sq = sȖ= 1 dq = dȖ= 1 iȖ = 0
2
B D § D0 ·
For I 't 10 0
sq sJ 1 0.1K p dq dJ 1 0.1 K p iJ ¨¨1 0 ¸¸
L B © I' ¹
§ I' ·
Kp tan 2 ¨ 45 ¸ , D = inclination angle of the load measured from vertical axis.
© 2¹
§ B· '
when triaxial I ' is used for plane strain, adjust I ' to obtain I ' ¨1.1 0.1 ¸I triaxial
© L¹
For the eccentric load, the length and width terms of the shape factor are modified to:
L’ = L – 2eL and B’ = B – 2eB (2.9)
Where eL and eB represent the eccentricity along the appropriate directions.

Figure 2.4: Meyerhof’s bearing capacity factors.
2.2.3 Hansen’s Bearing Capacity Equation

Hansen (1961) extended Meyerhof’s solutions by considering the effects of sloping
ground surface and tilted base (Fig. 2.5) as well as modification of NȖ and other factors.
For a rectangular footing of L by B (L > B) and inclined ground surface, base and load:
qu c' N c sc d c ic bc g c qN q sq d q iq bq g q 0.5 BJN J sJ d J iJ bJ g J (2.10)
Equation 2.10 is sometimes referred to as the general bearing capacity equation. In the
special case of a horizontal ground surface & base, the equation is the same as
Meyerhof’s equation (eq. 2.7)
qu cN c (1 sc d c ic bc g c ) q (2.11)

Figure 2.5: Identification of items in Hansen’s bearing capacity equation.

Figure 2.6 provides the relationships between Nc, Nq, and NȖ and the I ' values, as
proposed by Hansen.
Figure 2.6: Hansen’s bearing capacity factors

Note that the bearing capacity factors Nc and Nq are identical with Meyerhof’s factors.
NȖ is defined by:
NJ 1.5( N q 1) tan I (2.12)
Since failure can take place either along the long side or along the short side, Hansen
proposed two sets of shape, inclination and depth factors.
The inclination factors are:
ic , B iq , B
1 iq , B
iq , B
§
¨¨1
0.5 H B ·
¸¸
D1
iJ , B
§
¨¨1

0.7 (K o / 450o ) H B ·
¸¸ (2.13)
D2
Nq 1 © V Acb cot I ' ¹ © V Acb cot I ' ¹
ic , L iq , L
1 iq , L
iq , L
§
¨¨1
0.5 H L ·
¸¸
D1
iJ , L
§
¨¨1

0.7 (K o 450o ) H L ·
¸¸ (2.14)
D2
Nq 1 © V Acb cot I ' ¹ © V Acb cot I ' ¹
If I=0: ic , B 0.5 1 ( H B Acb ) ic , L 0.5 1 ( H L Acb ) (2.15)
The shape factors are:

Nq B B B
sc,B 1 ic , B , sq,B 1 iq , B sin I ' , sJ , B 1 0.4 iJ , B t 0.6 (2.16)
Nc L L L
Nq L L L
sc,L 1 ic , L , sq,L 1 iq , L sin I ' , sJ , L 1 0.4 iJ , L t 0.6 (2.17)
Nc B B B
B L
If I = 0: sc,B 0.2 ic , B , sc,L 0.2 ic , L (2.18)
L B
Where, A = the area of the footing (A=BxL).

Cb = adhesion mobilized in the footing-soil contact area (cb = 0.6c to c).
Į1 DQGĮ2 are constants given by 2 d D 1 d 5 and 2 d D 2 d 5 .
In the above equations, B and L may be replaced by their effective values (B’ and L’)
expressed by Eqn. (2.9).
The depth factors are expressed in two sets:
For D d B & D d L:
d c,B 1 0.4 D , d q,B 1 2 tan I ' (1 sin I ' ) 2 D (2.19)

B B
d c,L 1 0.4 D , d q,L 1 2 tan I ' (1 sin I ' ) 2 D (2.20)

L L
If I=0: d c,B 0.4 D , d c,L 0.4 D

B L

For D > B & D > L: (Note that tan-1 is in radians)
d c,B 1 0.4 tan 1 D B, d q,B 1 2 tan I ' (1 sin I ' ) 2 tan 1 ( D )

B
(2.21)
d c,L 1 0.4 tan 1 D L, d q,L 1 2 tan I ' (1 sin I ' ) 2 tan 1 ( D )

L
(2.22)
If I=0: d c,B 0.4 tan 1 D B , d c,L L

0.4 tan 1 D (2.23)
For both sets: dJ 1 (2.24)

For the sloping ground and tilted base, the ground factors gi and base factors bi are
proposed by the following equations. The angles ȕ and Ș are at the same plane, either
parallel to B or L.
The ground factors are;
1 E 1 0.5 tan E 5
0
gc , gq gJ (2.25)
147 0
If I=0: gc E0 (2.26)
147 0
The base factors are;
1 K
0
bc , bq e 2K tan I ' ȘLQUDGLDQ, bJ e 2.7K tan I ' ȘLQUDGLDQ (2.27)
147 0
If I=0: bc K0 (2.28)
147 0
2.2.4 A comparative summary of the three bearing capacity equations

Terzaghi’s equations were and are still widely used, perhaps because they are somewhat
simpler than Meyerhof’s and Hansen’s. Practitioners use Terzaghi’s equations for a very
cohesive soil and D < B. However, Terzaghi’s equations have the following major
drawbacks:
y Shape, depth and inclination factors are not considered.
y Terzaghi’s equations are suitable for a concentrically loaded horizontal footing
but are not suitable for eccentrically (for example, columns with moment or
titled forces) loaded footings that are very common in practice.
y The equations are generally conservative than Meyerhof’s and Hansen’s.
Currently, Meyerhof’s and Hansen’s equations are more widely used than Terzaghi’s.
Both are viewed as somewhat less conservative and applicable to more general
conditions. Hansen’s is, however, used when the base is tilted or when the footing is on
a slope and for D > B.

2.2.5 Gross and Net Bearing Capacity

The bearing capacity obtained in the equations discussed so far is the gross bearing
capacity. The net ultimate bearing capacity (qnet) is defined as the ultimate pressure per
unit area of the foundation that can be supported by the soil in excess of the pressure
caused by the surrounding soil at the foundation level. It is obtained by deducting the
original overburden pressure or surcharge pressure from the gross bearing capacity (qu).
qnet qu J cD f
Floating foundation: If a foundation exerts a pressure with an intensity less or equal to

the overburden pressure removed during excavation, there will be no need of checking
bearing capacity and such a foundation is called floating (compensating) foundation.
2.2.6 Allowable bearing capacity and factor of safety

The allowable bearing capacity, qall is calculated by dividing the ultimate bearing
capacity by a factor, called the factor of safety, FS. The FS is intended to compensate
for assumptions made in developing the bearing capacity equations, soil variability,
inaccurate soil data, and uncertainties of loads. The value of FS applied to the ultimate
bearing capacity ranges between 2 and 3. The allowable bearing capacity is:
qu
qall (2.29)
FS
Alternatively, if the maximum applied foundation stress qmax is known and the
dimension of the footing is also known then you can find a factor of safety by replacing
qall by qmax in Eqn. (2.29) as:
qu
FS (2.30)
qmax
2.2.7 Effects of Groundwater Table on Bearing Capacity
The soil’s unit weight used in the surcharge term (WKHT Ȗ'f) and the wedge term (WKHȖ)
of the bearing capacity equations presented in the previous sections are the effective
unit weight of the soil. When there is a ground water table at the site, you need to check
which one of the four situations given below is applicable to your project.
Case-1:- Water table above the base of the footing
Figure 2.7a shows the case where the water table is located between the ground surface
and base of the footing. This condition is not frequently encountered; where practical,
engineers avoid this condition by relocating the foundation to higher elevation because
high water table create construction problems, requires dewatering and it reduces the
bearing capacity. However, when this condition is encountered apply the following
modification

In the surcharge term use q J ( D f d w ) J cd w

In the wedge term replace J with J c
Figure 2.7: Groundwater conditions for bearing capacity calculation.

Case-2:- Water table at the base of the footing
Figure 2.7b shows the case where the water table is located at the base of the footing.
When this condition is encountered;
In the surcharge term use q JD f
In the wedge term replace J with J c
Case-3:- Water table below the base of the footing but within the wedge zone
Figure 2.7c shows the case where the water table lies within the wedge zone (depth
approximately + % WDQĭ from the base of the footing. When this condition
is encountered;
In the surcharge term use q JD f
Jc
In the wedge term replace J with J eq 2 H d w d w2 J 2
H d w 2
H H
Case-4:- Water table below the wedge zone
Figure 2.7d shows the case where the water table lies below the wedge zone. In this case
no modification is required.

2.2.8 Bearing Capacity of Foundations On or Adjacent To Slopes

A special problem that may be encountered occasionally is that of a footing located on
or adjacent to a slope. In such cases, the lack of soil on the slope side of the footing will
tend to reduce the stability of the footing.
For gentle slopes the ground slope factors of Hansen can be used to get the ultimate
bearing capacity of footings. For steep slopes the analysis presented here can be used.
The two general cases of footings on slopes are shown below.
Figure 2.8: Footing located adjacent to or on a slope

According to Bowles the equation for ultimate bearing capacity is given as;
qu cN c sc ic qN q sq iq 0.5JBN J sJ iJ (2.31)
Where, N c N q = Bowles bearing capacity factors and are given in figure 2.9 below.
NȖ is EHDULQJFDSDFLW\IDFWRUIRUWKHȖWHUPDV JLYHQE\+DQVHQ The depth factors are

not included in the above equation since the depth effect is included in the computations
of ratios of lengths. To calculate the shape and inclination factors use Hansen’s method.
:KHQOHQJWKUDWLRV!RUZKHQE%!WRXVHȕ

Figure 2.9: Bearing capacity factors (Nc & Nq) for footings on or adjacent to slopes.

2.2.9 Eccentrically Loaded Foundations

In reality foundations are subjected to moments in addition to vertical loads. Consider a
situation in which a foundation is subjected to a vertical load P and moments Mx and
My about the x- and y-axis respectively as shown in figure 2.10 below.
Figure 2.10: Eccentrically loaded foundation.

For eccentrically loaded foundations, the distribution of the stress under the foundation
is not uniform as shown in figure 2.10. But the equations for the calculation of bearing
capacity discussed so far were under the assumption that the stress distribution under
the foundation is uniform.
Meyerhof proposed a theory that is generally referred to as the effective area Method for
the determination of the bearing capacity of eccentrically loaded foundations.
(a) (b)
Figure 2.11: (a) eccentrically loaded foundation. (b) equivalent centrically loaded
foundation

According to Meyerhof the eccentrically loaded foundation (BxL) should be replaced

by an equivalent foundation with dimension (B’xL’) so that the load P passes through
the centroid of the foundation as shown in figure 2.11.
The condition in figure 2.10 is equivalent to a load P placed on the foundation at x= eB
and y= eL from the center as shown in figure 2.11. Note that
My Mx
eB and eL (2.32)
P P
The footing dimensions B and L, should be modified as:
B' B 2eB and L' L 2eL (2.33)
Where B’ and L’ are the footing effective dimensions.
Note that the smaller of the two dimensions (i.e., B’ and L’) is the effective width of the
foundation.
Meyerhof’s ultimate bearing capacity equation can now be expressed as;
qu cN c sc d c ic q ' N q sq d q iq 0.5 B' J ' N J sJ d J iJ (2.34)
In this equation:
¾ Use the effective width (B’) in the wedge term %¶Ȗ¶1ȖSȖdȖiȖ).
¾ To evaluate the shape factors (Sc, Sq, and SȖ) use the effective length and effective
width dimensions instead of L and B, respectively. But when you calculate the
depth factors (dc, dq, and dȖ) do not replace B with B’.
The total ultimate load that the foundation can support is given by:
Pu qu * A' qu * ( B' L' ) (2.35)
2.2.10 Determination of Base Pressures under Eccentrically Loaded Foundation

Consider the plan of a rectangular footing subjected to eccentric loadings as shown
below. When a footing is eccentrically loaded, the soil experiences a maximum or a
minimum pressure at one of the corners or edges of the footing.
The general equation for the stress under the footing can be written as:
Q M xx M y y Q § 6eB 6eL ·
q r r or q ¨1 r r ¸ (2.36)
A I yy I xx A© B L ¹
The maximum and minimum stresses are:

Q § 6e B 6e L · Q § 6eB 6eL ·
qmax ¨1 ¸ and qmin ¨1 ¸ (2.37)
A© B L ¹ A© B L ¹

Figure 2.12: eccentrically loaded foundation.
When ex or ey exceed a certain limit, qmin gives a negative value, which indicates tension
between the soil and the bottom of the footing. Since the tensile strength of soils is
approximately zero, qmin should always be greater than zero. On the other hand, the
value of qmax should always be less than qu.
Therefore, equation 2.36 is applicable only when the load is applied within a limited
area which is known as the Kern as is shown shaded in Fig 2.12 so that the load may
fall within the shaded area to avoid tension.
2.3 Bearing Capacity from Field Tests

Often, it is difficult to obtain undisturbed samples of especially coarse-grained soils for
laboratory testing to get the shear strength parameters. Hence one has to use results
from field tests to determine the bearing capacity of shallow foundations. Some of the
most common methods used for field tests are briefly described below.
2.3.1 Plate Loading Test

Tests on full sized footings are desirable but expensive. The alternative is to carry out
plate loading tests. The plate loading test is carried out to estimate the bearing capacity
of isolated footings. The plates that are used in the field are usually made of steel and
are 25 mm thick and 150 mm to 762 mm in diameter. A circular plate of 300 mm is
commonly used in practice. Occasionally, square plates that are 300 mm×300 mm are
also used.
The procedure used for performing the test is as follows:
¾ A pit is excavated with a minimum width or diameter of 4Bp (Bp is the diameter of the
test plate) to a depth of Df (the depth of the proposed foundation).

¾ The plate is placed at the center of the hole, and a load that is about one-fourth to
one-fifth of the estimated ultimate load is applied to the plate in steps by means of a
jack. During each step of the application of the load, the settlement of the plate is
observed on dial gauges. At least one hour is allowed to elapse between each
application.
¾ The test should be conducted until failure, or at least until the plate has gone through
25 mm of settlement.
¾ Once completion of the test, the plate is unloaded in the same incremental steps (to
draw the expansion curve).
Figure 2.13: Plate loading test and its load-settlement curve
For tests in clay, qu ( F ) qu ( p ) (2.38)
Where qu(F) & qu(P) are ultimate bearing capacity of foundation and plate, respectively.
Eqn. (2.38) implies that the bearing capacity in clays is independent of plate size.
For tests in sandy soil,
BF
qu ( F ) qu ( p ) (2.39)
Bp
Where BF and BP stand for width of foundation and plate, respectively.
There are several problems associated with the plate load test. The test is reliable if the
soil layer is thick and homogeneous, local conditions such as a pocket of weak soil near
the surface of plate can affect the test results but these may have no significant effect on
the real footing, the correlation between plate load results and real footing is
problematic, and performance of the test is generally difficult.

2.3.2 Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is used to determine the allowable bearing capacity
of cohesionless coarse-grained soils. In this test, a standard split-spoon sampler is
driven 450mm into the ground by blows from a drop hammer of mass 63.5 kg falling
from a height of 760 mm. The blows required to produce the first 150mm penetration
are usually ignored since the ground is considered to be disturbed during drilling
activity. The number of blows required driving the sampler further 300mm is recorded
as standard penetration number; N, at that depth or simply “the N-value” or “Blow
count”. SPT test is usually conducted at an interval of 1.5m.
The N-values should be corrected for different factors before using them using:
N'cor C N N n1 n2 n3 n4 (2.40)
Where, N’cor = Adjusted (corrected) N value

N = Measured (observed) N value
CN = Adjustment for overburden pressure, C N 95.76 V 'o
ı¶o = Effective overburden pressure (KPa)
n1= hammer efficiency correction, n1 Er Erb
Er = Average energy ratio that depends on the hammer system.
Erb= Standard energy ratio (commonly 55%, 60% or 70%)
n2 = rod length correction n3 = sampler correction

n4 = borehole diameter correction
In the field, the magnitude of Erb can vary from 30 to 90%. The standard practice is to
express (standardize) the N-value to one of the following average energy ratio.
x Erb = 55%, hence n1=Er/55 and N’cor will be expressed as N’55.


Figure 2.14: Corrections for SPT N-values.

Meyerhof proposed the following equations to calculate the allowable bearing capacity
for shallow foundations.
For Isolated Footing : For Mat Foundation :

N N
qall K d KW if B d 1.2 qall K d KW
F1 F2
2
N § B 0.3 ·
qall ¨ ¸ K d KW if B ! 1.2
F2 © B ¹
Where, F1 0.05 & F2 0.08 if N is N' 55 or N'60
F1 0.04 & F2 0.06 if N is N'70
§ DW ·
°0.5¨1 ¸ if DW B § Df ·
KW ® © B ¹ Kd 1 0.33¨¨ ¸¸ d 1.33
°1 tB © B ¹
¯ if DW
Where, DW = Depth of ground water from the footing base.
N = The statistical average value of the corrected SPT N-value (N’55, N’60 or N’70) in
the footing influence zone, which is taken to be the zone between 0.5B above the base
of the footing up to 2B below the base of the footing.

2.4 Bearing Capacity of Rocks

On some occasions, foundations may have to be built on rocks, as shown in figure 2.15.
For estimation of the ultimate bearing capacity of shallow foundations on rock, we may
use Terzaghi’s bearing capacity equations but with bearing capacity factors given as;
Figure 2.15: Foundation on rock.

§ Ic · § Ic ·
Nc 5 tan 4 ¨ 45o ¸ N q tan 6 ¨ 45o ¸ N J Nq 1
© 2¹ © 2¹
It is important to keep in mind that the values of c’ and ĭreported from laboratory tests
are for intact rock specimens. It does not account for the effect of discontinuities. To
account for discontinuities, Bowles (1996) suggested that the ultimate bearing capacity
qu should be modified as;
qu RQD
2
qu(modified)
Where, RQD = Rock Quality Designation.

In any case, the upper limit of the allowable bearing capacity should not exceed fck
(28-day compressive strength of concrete).

EXAMPLE-1
For the data given in the figure shown below, determine the ultimate bearing capacity
using: a) Terzaghi’s, b) Meyerhof’s and c) Hansen’s bearing capacity equations.
EXAMPLE-2
Determine the ultimate bearing capacity of a square footing 2mx2m, located at a depth
of 1.5m below the ground. The soil has c’ = 70KPa, I ' =300 and J = 17KN/m3. Use
Terzaghi’s, Meyerhof’s and Hansen’s bearing capacity equations. Also determine the
maximum ultimate load the footing can support in each case.
EXAMPLE-3
A rectangular footing 2m x 3m, supports an inclined load as shown below. Determine
the ultimate bearing capacity using (a) Meyerhof’s and (b) Hansen’s bearing capacity
equations.
EXAMPLE-4
Determine the ultimate bearing capacity of a square footing 1.5 m, at a depth of 1 m in a
soil c’ = 10 KPa, I ' =280, cu = 105 KPa, Iu =0 and J = 19 KN/m3. Using;
(a) Terzaghi’s, (b) Meyerhof’s and (c) Hansen’s bearing capacity equations.

EXAMPLE-5
A rectangular foundation 2m x 3m in plan is constructed at a depth of 2m from the
ground surface. The soil has I ' =10o, c’ = 40 KPaȖ .1P3 DQGȖsat = 19.5KN/m3.
Using FS=3, determine the gross allowable load the foundation can carry if;
(a) The water table is at great depth.
(b) The water table is at 2.5m from the ground surface.
(c) The water table is at 2m from the ground surface.
(d) The water table is at 0.5m from the ground surface.
(e) The water table is at the ground surface.
EXAMPLE-6
The figure below shows a shallow strip footing on the top of a clay slope, Determine the
allowable bearing capacity of the foundation with a factor of safety of 4.
EXAMPLE-7
A 2.5mX2.5m square footing is to be placed at a depth of 2m below ground level in a
clay layer. The water table is at a depth of 1.5m below ground level. Properties of the
clay are; cu = 90KN/m2, Iu = 0, c’ = 10 KN/m2,I’ = 20°, Jsat = 20KN/m3, J = 18KN/m3.
The footing supports a vertical column load which has an eccentricity of 0.04m along
the x-axis. Determine the maximum load that can be applied to the column.
EXAMPLE-8
A footing 2m square is located at a depth of 1m below the ground surface in a deep
deposit of compacted sand, I ' =300, c’=0, and J =18 KN/m3. The footing is subjected
to a vertical load of 500KN and moments about the x-axis of 100KNm and about the
y-axis of 125KNm. The ground water table is 5m below the ground surface. Use
Meyerhof’s bearing capacity equation and calculate the factor of safety.


Chapter-2 Bearing Capacity of Soils

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter-2 Bearing Capacity of Soils

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Soil Mechanics-II Bearing Capacity of Soils

2.1 Bearing Failure Modes

Unity University Compiled by: Feysel N.

Unity University Compiled by: Feysel N.

2.2 Ultimate Bearing Capacity Equations

2.2.1 Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity equation

Figure 2.2: Failure mechanism for Terzaghi’s bearing capacity solution.

Strip footing: qu c' N c  qN q  0.5 BJN J (2.1)

Square footing: qu 1.3c' N c  qN q  0.4 BJN J (2.2)

Circular footing: qu 1.3c' N c  qN q  0.3BJN J (2.3)

Where, T Ȗ 'f (2.4)

Unity University Compiled by: Feysel N.

e (1.5S I ') tan I ' § K pJ ·

Figure 2.3: Terzaghi’s bearing capacity factors

Nc (1.5S  1) 5.71 Nq 1 NJ 0 (2.6)

Unity University Compiled by: Feysel N.

2.2.2 Meyerhof’s Bearing Capacity equation

qu c' N c sc ic d c  qN q sq iq d q  0.5 BJN J sJ iJ d J (2.7)

For vertical load, ic = iq = iȖ = 1

qu c' N c sc d c  qN q sq d q  0.5 BJN J sJ d J (2.8)

The bearing capacity factors are:

Nq eS tan I ' tan 2 (45  I ' / 2) , Nc cot I ' ( N q  1) , NJ ( N q  1) tan(1.4I ' )

For undrained conditions ( Iu 0 ):

Unity University Compiled by: Feysel N.

Figure 2.4: Meyerhof’s bearing capacity factors.

2.2.3 Hansen’s Bearing Capacity Equation

qu c' N c sc d c ic bc g c  qN q sq d q iq bq g q  0.5 BJN J sJ d J iJ bJ g J (2.10)

Unity University Compiled by: Feysel N.

Figure 2.5: Identification of items in Hansen’s bearing capacity equation.

Figure 2.6: Hansen’s bearing capacity factors

Unity University Compiled by: Feysel N.

Nq 1 © V  Acb cot I ' ¹ © V  Acb cot I ' ¹

Nq 1 © V  Acb cot I ' ¹ © V  Acb cot I ' ¹

If I=0: ic , B 0.5  1  ( H B Acb ) ic , L 0.5  1  ( H L Acb ) (2.15)

The shape factors are:

Where, A = the area of the footing (A=BxL).

d c,B 1  0.4  D , d q,B 1  2 tan I ' (1  sin I ' ) 2  D (2.19)

d c,L 1  0.4  D , d q,L 1  2 tan I ' (1  sin I ' ) 2  D (2.20)

If I=0: d c,B 0.4  D , d c,L 0.4  D

Unity University Compiled by: Feysel N.

For D > B & D > L: (Note that tan-1 is in radians)

d c,B 1  0.4  tan 1 D B , d q,B 1  2 tan I ' (1  sin I ' ) 2  tan 1 ( D )

d c,L 1  0.4  tan 1 D L , d q,L 1  2 tan I ' (1  sin I ' ) 2  tan 1 ( D )

If I=0: d c,B 0.4  tan 1 D B , d c,L L

For both sets: dJ 1 (2.24)

2.2.4 A comparative summary of the three bearing capacity equations

Unity University Compiled by: Feysel N.

2.2.5 Gross and Net Bearing Capacity

Floating foundation: If a foundation exerts a pressure with an intensity less or equal to

2.2.6 Allowable bearing capacity and factor of safety

Unity University Compiled by: Feysel N.

In the surcharge term use q J ( D f  d w )  J cd w

Figure 2.7: Groundwater conditions for bearing capacity calculation.

Unity University Compiled by: Feysel N.

2.2.8 Bearing Capacity of Foundations On or Adjacent To Slopes

Figure 2.8: Footing located adjacent to or on a slope

NȖ is EHDULQJFDSDFLW\IDFWRUIRUWKHȖWHUPDV JLYHQE\+DQVHQ The depth factors are

Unity University Compiled by: Feysel N.

Unity University Compiled by: Feysel N.

2.2.9 Eccentrically Loaded Foundations

Figure 2.10: Eccentrically loaded foundation.

Unity University Compiled by: Feysel N.

According to Meyerhof the eccentrically loaded foundation (BxL) should be replaced

Meyerhof’s ultimate bearing capacity equation can now be expressed as;

Strip footing: qu c' N c qN q 0.5 BJN J (2.1)

Square footing: qu 1.3c' N c qN q 0.4 BJN J (2.2)

Circular footing: qu 1.3c' N c qN q 0.3BJN J (2.3)

e (1.5S I ') tan I ' § K pJ ·

Nc (1.5S 1) 5.71 Nq 1 NJ 0 (2.6)

qu c' N c sc ic d c qN q sq iq d q 0.5 BJN J sJ iJ d J (2.7)

qu c' N c sc d c qN q sq d q 0.5 BJN J sJ d J (2.8)

Nq eS tan I ' tan 2 (45 I ' / 2) , Nc cot I ' ( N q 1) , NJ ( N q 1) tan(1.4I ' )

qu c' N c sc d c ic bc g c qN q sq d q iq bq g q 0.5 BJN J sJ d J iJ bJ g J (2.10)

Nq 1 © V Acb cot I ' ¹ © V Acb cot I ' ¹

Nq 1 © V Acb cot I ' ¹ © V Acb cot I ' ¹

If I=0: ic , B 0.5 1 ( H B Acb ) ic , L 0.5 1 ( H L Acb ) (2.15)

d c,B 1 0.4 D , d q,B 1 2 tan I ' (1 sin I ' ) 2 D (2.19)

d c,L 1 0.4 D , d q,L 1 2 tan I ' (1 sin I ' ) 2 D (2.20)

If I=0: d c,B 0.4 D , d c,L 0.4 D

d c,B 1 0.4 tan 1 D B, d q,B 1 2 tan I ' (1 sin I ' ) 2 tan 1 ( D )

d c,L 1 0.4 tan 1 D L, d q,L 1 2 tan I ' (1 sin I ' ) 2 tan 1 ( D )

If I=0: d c,B 0.4 tan 1 D B , d c,L L

In the surcharge term use q J ( D f d w ) J cd w

NȖ is EHDULQJFDSDFLW\IDFWRUIRUWKHȖWHUPDV JLYHQE\+DQVHQ The depth factors are

qu cN c sc d c ic q ' N q sq d q iq 0.5 B' J ' N J sJ d J iJ (2.34)