Bearing Capacity of Soils ASTU

CHAPTER THREE
BEARING CAPACITY OF SOILS
3.1 Introduction

Loads from a structure are transferred to the soil through a foundation. Foundation is the lowest
part of a structure. Its function is to transfer the load of the structure to the soil on which it is
resting. A properly designed foundation transfers the load throughout the soil without
overstressing the soil. Overstressing the soil can result in either excessive settlement or shear
failure of the soil, both of which cause damage to the structure. Thus, engineers who design
foundations must evaluate the bearing capacity of soils. In general, foundations are categorized
into two groups, namely, shallow and deep foundations. Shallow foundations are comprised of
footings, while deep foundations include piles that are used when the soil near the ground surface
has no enough strength to stand the applied loading.

A foundation is an integral part of a structure. The stability of a structure depends upon the
stability of the supporting soil. Two important factors that are to be considered are

i. The foundation must be stable against shear failure of the supporting soil.
ii. The foundation must not settle beyond a tolerable limit to avoid damage to the structure.

The ultimate bearing capacity, qu, (in kPa) is the load that causes the shear failure of the soil
underneath and adjacent to the footing.

3.2 Bearing Failure Modes

i. General shear: A general shear failure involves total rupture of the underlying soil. There is a
continuous shear failure of the soil from below the footing to the ground surface (Fig 3.1 a).
When the load is plotted versus settlement of the footing, there is a distinct load at which the
foundation fails, and this is designated as Qult. The value of Qult divided by the width and
length of the footing is considered to be the ultimate bearing capacity of the footing. The
ultimate bearing capacity has been defined as the bearing stress that causes a sudden
catastrophic failure of the foundation. General shear failure ruptures and pushes up the soil on
both sides of the footing. A general shear failure occurs in soils that are in dense or hard state.

ii. Punching shear: A punching shear failure does not develop the distinct shear surfaces
associated with a general shear failure. For punching shear, the soil outside the loaded area
remains relatively uninvolved, and there is minimal movement of soil on both sides of the
footing. The process of deformation of the footing involves compression of soil directly below
the footing as well as the vertical shearing of soil around the footing perimeter (Fig. 3.1 c). A
punching shear failure occurs for soils that are in a loose or soft state.

Foundation Engineering I: Lecture Notes 2016 0

 Bearing Capacity of Soils ASTU
iii. Local shear: Local shear failure involves rupture of the soil only immediately below the
footing. There is soil bulging on both sides of the footing, but bulging is not as significant as in
general shear (Fig. 3.1 b). Local shear failure can be considered as a transitional phase between
general shear and punching shear. A local shear failure occurs for soils that are in a medium or
firm state. The slip planes are expected to lie within the soil layer below the base of the footing
and extend laterally

Figure 3.1: Modes of bearing failures (a) General shear (b) Local shear and (c) Punching shear.

Foundation Engineering I: Lecture Notes 2016 1

Bearing Capacity of Soils ASTU
3.3 Ultimate Bearing Capacity Equations
3.3.1 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.

Terzaghi (1943) improved the Prandtl equation to include the roughness of the footing and the
weight of the failure zone. The failure mechanism in a c’, ϕ’ soil for Terzaghi’s bearing capacity
solution is shown in Fig. 3.2.

Figure 3.2: Failure mechanism for Terzaghi’s bearing capacity solution.

Terzaghi’s ultimate bearing capacity equations are given as follows:

Strip (or long) footing: qu  c' N c  DN q  0.5BN  (3.1)

Square footing: qu  1.3c' N c  DN q  0.4 BN  (3.2)

Circular footing: qu  1.3c' N c  DN q  0.3BN  (3.3)

Where Nc, Nq and N  are called the bearing capacity factors and are obtained as follows:

e (3 / 2 ') tan  '  K p 

Nq  , N  cot ' ( N q  1) , N   12 tan  '   1 (3.4)
2 cos2 (45   ' / 2) c  cos  ' 
2

Foundation Engineering I: Lecture Notes 2016 2

Bearing Capacity of Soils ASTU

Figure 3.3: Terzaghi’s bearing capacity coefficients.

Figure 3.3 shows the variation of the bearing capacity factors provided by Terzaghi. Based on this

figure, Aysen (2002) proposed the following equation to obtain the value of Kp  in the Nc

equation:

K p  (8 ' 2 4 '3.8) tan 2 (600   ' / 2) (3.5)

Where  ' in the first term is in radians. In the undrained conditions (cu and u  0 ):

N q  1 , N c  ( 32   1)  5.71 , N  0 (3.6)

3.3.2 Meyerhof’s Bearing Capacity equation

Meyerhof (1951) developed a bearing capacity equation by extending Terzaghi’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 of L by B (L > B) and
inclined load:

Foundation Engineering I: Lecture Notes 2016 3

Bearing Capacity of Soils ASTU
qu  c' N c s c ic d c  DN q s q iq d q  0.5BN  s i d  (3.7)

For vertical load, ic = iq = i  = 1

qu  c' N c sc d c  DN q s q d q  0.5BN  s d  (3.8)

Figure 2.4: Meyerhof’s bearing capacity coefficients.

The bearing capacity factors:

N q  exp( tan  ' ) tan 2 (45   ' / 2) , N c  cot ' ( N q  1) , N   ( N q  1) tan(1.4 ' ) (3.9)

In the undrained conditions (cu and u  0 ):

N q  1, N c  (  2)  5.71, N  0

The bearing capacity factors are graphically presented in Fig. 2.4. The shape, inclination and
depth factors are according to:

Foundation Engineering I: Lecture Notes 2016 4

Bearing Capacity of Soils ASTU
Shape Depth Inclination
2
B D  0 
Any  ' s c  1  0 .2 K p d c  1  0.2 K p ic  iq  1  0 
L B  90 
For  '  0 sq = s  = 1 dq = d  = 1 i = 0
2
B D  0 
For  ' 10 0
s q  s  1  0.1K p d q  d   1  0.1 K p i  1  0 
L B  ' 
 ' 
K p  tan 2  45   ,  =angle of resultant measured from vertical axis.
 2

 B '
when triaxial  ' is used for plane strain, adjust  ' to obtain  '  1.1  0.1 triax ial
 L

For the eccentric load, the length and width of the footing rectangle are modified to:

L’ = L – 2eL and B’ = B – 2eB (3.10)

Where, eL and eB represent the eccentricity along the appropriate directions.

3.3.3 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 N  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  DN q s q d q iq bq g q  0.5BN  s d  i b g  (3.11)

Equation 2.9 is sometimes referred to as the general bearing capacity equation. In the special
case of a horizontal ground surface,

qu  c' N c s c d c ic bc  DN q s q d q iq bq  0.5BN  s d  i b (3.12)

Foundation Engineering I: Lecture Notes 2016 5

Bearing Capacity of Soils ASTU

Figure 3.5: Identification of items in Hansen’s bearing capacity equation.

Figure 3.6 provides the relationships between Nc, Nq, and N  and the  ' values, as proposed by

Hansen.

Figure 3.6: Hansen’s bearing capacity coefficients.

The bearing capacity factors Nc and Nq are identical with Meyerhof’s factors. N  is defined by:

N   1.5( N q  1) tan  (3.13)

Foundation Engineering I: Lecture Notes 2016 6
Bearing Capacity of Soils ASTU
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 shape factors are:

Nq B B B
sc , B  1   ic, B , s q , B  1  iq , B sin  ' , s , B  1  0.4 i , B  0.6 (3.14)
Nc L L L

Nq L L L
sc, L  1   ic , L , s q , L  1  iq , L sin  ' , s  , L  1  0.4 i , L  0.6 (3.15)
Nc B B B

B L
For cu, ϕu=0 soil s c , B  0.2 ic , B , s c , L  0 .2 ic , L (3.16)
L B

The inclination factors are:

1 2
1  i q ,i  0.5H i   0.7 H i 
i c ,i  i q ,i  , i q ,i  1   , i ,i  1   (3.17)
Nq 1  V  Acb cot '   V  Acb cot ' 

Where the suffix i (in Eqn. 3.15) stands for B or L. 2  1  5 . 2   2  5 . A is the area of the
footing base and cb is the cohesion mobilized in the footing-soil contact area. For the tilted base:

2
 (0.7   0 4500 ) H i 
i ,i  1   (3.18)
 V  Ac b cot ' 

For cu, ϕu=0 soils: ic ,i  0.5  0.5 1  H i Acb (3.19)

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/B  1 & D/L  1:

d c, B  1  0.4  D , d q, B  1  2 tan  ' (1  sin  ' ) 2  D (3.20)

B B

d c, L  1  0.4  D , d q, L  1  2 tan  ' (1  sin ' ) 2  D (3.21)

L L

Foundation Engineering I: Lecture Notes 2016 7

Bearing Capacity of Soils ASTU
For D/B > 1 & D/L > 1:

d c, B  1  0.4  tan 1 D B , d q, B  1  2 tan  ' (1  sin  ' ) 2  tan 1 ( D )

B
(3.22)

 L,
d c, L  1  0.4  tan 1 D d q, L  1  2 tan  ' (1  sin ' ) 2  tan 1 ( D )
L
(3.23)

For both sets: d  1 (3.24)

For cu, ϕu =0 soils: d c, B  0.4  D , d c, L  0.4  D (3.25)

B L

For the sloping ground and tilted base, the ground factors gi and base factors bi are proposed by
the following equations. The angles β and - β are at the same plane, either parallel to B or L.

g c  1  g q  g   1  0.5 tan  
0
5
, (3.26)
1470

gc  
0
For cu, ϕu =0 soils: (3.27)
1470

bc  1
0
, bq e 2 tan  ' , b e 2.7 tan  ' (3.28)
1470

bc  
0
For cu, ϕu = 0 soils: (3.29)
1470

3.4 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 < 1. However, Terzaghi’s equations have the following major drawbacks:

 Shape, depth and inclination factors are not considered.

 Terzaghi’s equations are suitable for a concentrically loaded horizontal footing but are not
suitable for eccentrically (for example, columns with moment or tilted forces) loaded
footings that are very common in practice.
 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 > 1.
Foundation Engineering I: Lecture Notes 2016 8
Bearing Capacity of Soils ASTU
EXAMPLE 1

Given the data in Figure E2.1 below, determine the ultimate bearing capacity qu using:

a) Terzaghi’s, b) Meyerhof’s and c) Hansen’s bearing capacity equations.

Figure E3.1: An isolated footing.

EAMPLE 2

Determine the ultimate bearing capacity of a square footing 1.5 m, at a depth of 1 m in a soil c’ =
10 kPa,  ' =280, cu = 105 kPa, u =0 and  = 19 kN/m3. Use Terzaghi’s, Meyerhof’s and Hansen’s
bearing capacity equations.

Strategy It is a good policy to sketch a diagram illustrating the conditions given.

EAMPLE 3

A square footing 1.5m is to be constructed in sand with c’ = 0,  ' =400. The thickness of the
footing is 0.45 m and its top surface is level with the horizontal ground surface. The footing is
subjected to a central vertical force of 700 kN and a central horizontal force (parallel to the sides)
of 210kN. The unit weight of the sand is 18kN/m3. Find the ultimate bearing capacity by

a) Meyerhof’s and
b) b) Hansen’s equations.
(Note that Terzaghi’s equations are not applicable for inclined loads).

3.5 Effects of Groundwater Table on Bearing Capacity

For all the bearing capacity equations, you will have to make some adjustments for the
groundwater condition. The term D in the bearing capacity equations refers to the vertical
stress of the soil above the base of the footing. The last term B refers to the vertical stress of a
soil mass of thickness B, below the base of the footing. You need to check which one of the three

Foundation Engineering I: Lecture Notes 2016 9

Bearing Capacity of Soils ASTU
groundwater situations is applicable to your project.

Situation 1: Groundwater level at a depth B below the base of the footing. In this case no
modification of the bearing capacity equations is required.

Situation 2: Groundwater level within a depth B below the base of the footing. If the groundwater
level is at a depth z below the base, such that z < B, then the term B is z   ' ( B  z )
or  sat z   ' ( B  z ) . The later equation is used if the soil above the groundwater level is also
saturated. The term D remains unchanged.

Situation 3: Groundwater level within the embedment depth. If the groundwater is at a depth z
within the embedment such that z < D, then the term D is z   ' ( D  z ) or  sat z   ' ( D  z) .
The latter equation is used if the soil above the groundwater level is also saturated. The term B
becomes  ' B .

Figure 3.7: Groundwater within a) a depth B below base, b) embedment depth.

EAMPLE 4

Re-do example 3 assuming that the groundwater level is at the footing level (0.45 m below the
ground surface). The saturated unit weight is 21kN/m3.

3.6 Allowable bearing capacity and factor of safety

The allowable bearing capacity, qa 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 magnitude of FS applied to the ultimate bearing capacity may be between 2 and 3.
The allowable bearing capacity is:

qu
qa  (3.30)
FS
Alternatively, if the maximum applied foundation stress ( a ) max is known and the dimension of
the footing is also known then you can find a factor of safety by replacing qa by ( a ) max in Eqn.
(3.29):
Foundation Engineering I: Lecture Notes 2016 10
Bearing Capacity of Soils ASTU
qu
FS  (3.31)
( a ) max

3.7 Eccentric Loads

Meyerhof (1963) proposed an approximate method for loads that are located off-centered (or
eccentric loads).

Figure A1
He proposed that for a rectangular footing of width B and length L, the base area should be
modified with the following dimensions:
B’ = B – 2eB and L’ =L - 2eL (3.32)
Where B’ and L’ are the modified width and length, eB and eL are the eccentricities in the
directions of the width and length, respectively. From your course in mechanics you should recall
that
My Mx
eB  and e L  (3.33)
P P
Where P is the vertical load, and My and Mx are the moments about the y and x axes, respectively,
as shown in Fig. A1.

The maximum and minimum vertical stresses along the x axis are:
P  6eB  P  6eB 
 max  1   and  min  1   (3.34)
BL  L  BL  L 

And along the y axis are:

P  6eL  P  6eL 
 max  1   and  min  1   (3.35)
BL  L  BL  L 

Since the tensile strength of soils is approximately zero,  min should always be greater than zero.
Therefore, eB & eL should always be less than B/6 & L/6, respectively. The bearing capacity
equations are modified for eccentric loads by replacing B with B’.

Foundation Engineering I: Lecture Notes 2016 11

Bearing Capacity of Soils ASTU
EXAMPLE 5

A footing 2m square is located at a depth of 1 m below the ground surface in a deep deposit of
compacted sand,  ' =300, c’=0, and  sat =18 kN/m3. The footing is subjected to a vertical load of

500 kN and a moment about the Y-axis of 125 kN・m. The ground water table is 5 m below the

ground surface. Use Meyerhof’s bearing capacity equation and calculate the factor of safety.
Assume the soil above the ground water is also saturated.

3.8 Methods Improving the Bearing Capacity of Soils

Significant increase in the bearing capacity of a soil can be achieved by altering the soil properties
of, cohesion c, or density . Usually an increase in density (or unit weightg) is accompanied by an
increase in either Ф or c or both (assuming the soil is cohesive). Particle packing (compaction)
always increases the density, with a resulting decrease in void ratio, and reduces long term
settlements. Particle packing usually increases the stress-strain modulus so that any “immediate”
settlements are also reduced.

3.9 Methods of Soil Property Modification

Mechanical stabilization:

 Stabilization is achieved by altering grain size gradation of the site soil.

 Binder (material passing through No. 4 (0.425mm) sieve) is added for soil dominated by
gravel (from 75mm – 1mm). Where the soil is predominantly cohesive, granular soil is
imported and blended with the site soil.
 It usually requires much more granular materials to stabilize cohesive deposits than binder
for cohesionless deposits and as result other stabilizing methodsare usually used for clayey
soils.

Compaction:

 This method usually uses some kind of rolling equipment to achieve particle packing for
both cohesionless and cohesive soils and is usually the most economical.

Preloading:

 Used in combination with drainage, it is primarily taken to reduce future settlement but
may also be used to increase shear strength.

Foundation Engineering I: Lecture Notes 2016 12

Bearing Capacity of Soils ASTU

Drainage:

 A method undertaken to remove soil water and to speed up settlements under preloading.

Densification using vibratory equipment:

 The method uses some type of vibrating probe, which is inserted into the soil mass and
withdrawn.
 Densification is particularly useful in sand, silty sand, gravelly sand deposits with Dr less
than about 50 to 60 percent.

Foundation Engineering I: Lecture Notes 2016 13

Bearing Capacity of Soils ASTU
Use of in-situ reinforcement:

 The treatment produces composite ground. A trial spacing is chosen and column of
material such as stone, sand, cement, or lime is inserted in the excavated soil and rammed.
 The drilled diameters usually range in between 600mm and 800mm and depth of 4m to
8m.

Grouting:

 Injection of a viscous fluid to reduce the void ratio (and k) or to cement rock cracks. Most
commonly, the viscous fluid is a mix water and water or water and lime, and/or with
additives such as fine sand, bentonite clay, or fly ash.

Geotextiles:

 Synthetic fabric that is sufficiently durable to last a reasonable length of time in the hostile
soil environment.
 Because of their tensile strength, geotextiles are sometimes placed over weak (poor
bearing capacities) soils to form reinforcement. Generally, a layer of controlled fill is
placed over the geotextile, thereby creating a form of composite that spans over the weak
soil.

Chemical stabilization:

 It involves use of chemical stabilizers (also termed chemical grouting). It is seldom

employed because of cost.
 The more commonly used chemical agents are phosphoric acid, calcium chloride, and
sodium silicate (or water glass).
 Various chemicals added to a soil may yield one but more likely a number of changes in a
soil formation: (i) reduce permeability of the soil (e.g. in dam construction, excavation
infiltration). (ii) Increase soil strength. (iii) Increase bearing capacity (IV) decrease
settlement. (v) Produce a stiffening of loose sand formation and thus minimize undesirable
effects, such as from vibrations.

3.10 Bearing Capacity of Footings on slopes

Before construction of footings on sloping ground, the stability of the slope itself must be
investigated. Footings should not be constructed on slopes which are unstable. They should also
be avoided on slopes where slow creep of the superficial material takes place. The stability of a
stable slope may be endangered by the addition of footings. Hence the stability of footings must
be investigated both before and after construction of footings.

Foundation Engineering I: Lecture Notes 2016 14

Bearing Capacity of Soils ASTU
Footings on sloping ground:

 Should have sufficient edge distance (minimum 2 to 3 ft) as protection against erosion.
 Should be carried below the depth of frost penetration.
 Should be carried below the top (organic) soil, miscellaneous fill, abandoned foundation,
and debris.

The bearing capacity of footings on sloping ground may be determined by the following equation
(Meyerohf’s, 1957):

q=CNcq+0.5γBNγq

Where Ncq and Nγq vary with the slope of the ground, the relative position of the footing and the
angle of internal friction of the soil

Fig.9. Ultimate bearing capacity of continuous footings on slopes.

Foundation Engineering I: Lecture Notes 2016 15
Bearing Capacity of Soils ASTU
EXAMPLE 6

Figure E6 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 4.0

Fig.E6: Strip Foundation on clay slope

3.11 Proportioning of footings

Proportioning of footings using presumptive allowable soil pressures

Through many years of practice, it has been possible to estimate the allowable soil pressure for
the different types of soils for uncomplicated soil conditions. Accordingly different building codes
give allowable average soil pressure Sas.

After picking up the allowable soil pressure s as for a given soil, one may determine the area and
subsequently the proportions of a footing necessary to sustain a given load or a combination of
loads as in the Figure 10.

The allowable soil pressure, Sas is given by:

Where

P = Load sustained by the footing

A = a x b = area of footing

a = Length of footing
b = Width of footing

The designer should fix the geometric shape (square, rectangle, circle) and the ratio between a and
b of the footing prior to the application of the above equation. Since all other quantities in the
above equation are known, one readily determines the area A of the footing.

Foundation Engineering I: Lecture Notes 2016 16

Bearing Capacity of Soils ASTU

Figure 10: Proportioning of footings using presumptive value

Proportioning of footings using the soil strength parameters Ф and C:

For cases where presumptive allowable soil pressures cannot be used, one should determine the
soil strength parameters Ф and C. These parameters may be approximated or determined from
laboratory tests. If the nature of the project calls for relatively accurate determination of Ф and C,
one should carry out a series of triaxial tests on undisturbed soil samples taken from several
points. Using the value of Ф and C thus obtained, one can easily determine the area of the
foundation in question using bearing capacity equations (1-11).

Figure 11: Proportioning of footings using shear strength parameters of a soil

Foundation Engineering I: Lecture Notes 2016 17

Bearing Capacity of Soils ASTU
In applying the bearing capacity equations one should differentiate two states of loading, namely,
the initial or instantaneous loading condition and the final or long-term loading condition.

In the Initial loading condition, the load is assumed to act instantaneously. At this stage the pore
water pressure in the soil does not have time to dissipate. This situation corresponds to the quick
or undrained test condition of the triaxial test. The soil parameters are designated by Фu and Cu
–in most cases Фu=0.

In the Final loading or long term loading condition, the load is assumed to act gradually as
construction progresses, thus giving the pore water pressure in the soil ample time to dissipate.
Here the situation corresponds to the slow or drained test condition of the triaxial test. The soil
parameters in this case are designated by Ф’ and C’.

When one compares the respective magnitudes of the soil parameters; one finds that Cu is much
bigger than C’ and Фu if not equal to zero is much less than Ф’.

EXAMPLE 7:

Determine the Dimensions of a square footing necessary to sustain an axial column load of 850kN
as shown in the figure below, given that Df=2m, γ=19.1 KN/m3, if

a) An allowable presumptive bearing pressure of 150kN/m2 is used.

b) Cu=40kN/m2; C’=7.5kN/m2; Ф’=22.50.

Figure 8: Proportioning of a square footing.

EXAMPLE 8:

A Rectangular mat foundation measuring 10m X 20m is to be placed at a depth of 3.50m below
ground level. The subsurface profile comprises of multi-layer soil deposits, the details of which

Foundation Engineering I: Lecture Notes 2016 18

Bearing Capacity of Soils ASTU
are shown in figure below. Determine safe bearing capacity of the soil by adopting suitable factor
of safety. Use Meyerhof’s bearing capacity equation. Assume that the foundation carries a
concentrically applied vertical load.

EXAMPLE 9:

At a site for a proposed building, SPT tests were conducted in a borehole at a depth interval of
0.75m. The results of blow counts (N) observed at different depths below ground level are given
in the table below. At this site the soil in general is fine sand with an average bulk unit weight of
17.0kN/m3 and saturated unit weight of 21kN/m3. The ground water table is located at a depth of
3m below ground level. A rectangular footing of size 3.0m X 4.0m is to be placed at a depth of
2.25m. Determine the allowable bearing capacity of the footing for an allowable settlement of
50mm.

Table E9: Measured SPT blow counts

EXAMPLE 10:

A Building is to be constructed over a site that has the soil stratification shown in Figure E10
below.

A. Determine the area of a square footing that can safely transfer the load from the
superstructure without shear failure, i.e. bearing capacity failure.
B. Determine the corresponding total settlement for the footing area proportioned above.
Check if the load can be transferred without excessive settlement. Is an isolated footing
the right choice for this condition? Why?

Use the following data:-

 The load from the superstructure; P=2645KN.

 The footing is to be placed at a depth of 2.0m below the ground surface.
 The allowable total settlement is 75mm.
 Maximum center-to-center spacing between columns is 5.0m.
 Assume the foundation to be a rigid foundation.
 Ground water table exists at a depth of 5.0m below the ground surface. Use
Meyerhof’s Bearing Capacity equation. Use F.S=3.0.
Foundation Engineering I: Lecture Notes 2016 19
Bearing Capacity of Soils ASTU

Figure E10: Subsurface profile

EXAMPLE 11:

A square footing is shown in figure below. Determine the safe gross allowable load (factor of
safety=3) that the footing can carry. Use any two bearing capacity equations.

Figure E11: Square footing.

EXAMPLE 12:

A square footing is shown in figure below. Determine the safe gross allowable load (factor of
safety=3) that the footing can carry. Use Terzaghi bearing capacity equations for general shear
failure.

Given: ρsat=1980kg/m3, Ф =250, ρ=1800Kg/m3 ,C=23.94kN/m2, B=1.8m, Df=1.2m, h=2m

Foundation Engineering I: Lecture Notes 2016 20

Bearing Capacity of Soils ASTU

Figure E13

EXAMPLE 13:

In the figure shown below, this shows a shallow strip foundation on the top a slope.

Given:

Slope (Sand)

ß =15o C=0 kN/m2; Ф =40o; γ=15kN/m3

Foundation:

B=0.75m; D=1.5m

Estimate the allowable bearing capacity. Use factor of safety of 4.

Figure E13

Foundation Engineering I: Lecture Notes 2016 21

Bearing Capacity of Soils ASTU
EXAMPLE 14:

A square footing of 4m width is shown in the figure below. The footing is subjected to an
eccentric load. For the following cases, determine the gross allowable load that the footing could
carry. Use Meyerhof’s bearing capacity procedure and safety of factors=3.

Given: Df=3m, x=y=0.5m, Ф =250, ρ=1800kg/m3 ,c=23.94kN/m2

Figure E14

Foundation Engineering I: Lecture Notes 2016 22