1/30/2020 Bearing capacity

Bearing capacity
Failure mechanisms and derivation of equations
Bearing capacity of shallow foundations
Presumed bearing values
Bearing capacity of piles

The ultimate load which a foundation can support may be calculated using bearing capacity theory. For
preliminary design, presumed bearing values can be used to indicate the pressures which would normally
result in an adequate factor of safety. Alternatively, there is a range of empirical methods based on in situ test
results.

The ultimate bearing capacity (qf) is the value of bearing stress which causes a sudden catastrophic settlement
of the foundation (due to shear failure).

The allowable bearing capacity (qa) is the maximum bearing stress that can be applied to the foundation such
that it is safe against instability due to shear failure and the maximum tolerable settlement is not exceeded. The
allowable bearing capacity is normally calculated from the ultimate bearing capacity using a factor of safety
(Fs).

When excavating for a foundation, the stress at founding level is relieved by the removal of the weight of soil.
The net bearing pressure (qn) is the increase in stress on the soil.
qn = q - qo
qo = g D
where D is the founding depth and g is the unit weight of the soil removed.

Failure mechanisms and derivation of equations Bearing capacity

Upper and lower bound solutions

Semi-circular slip mechanism
Circular arc slip mechanism

A relatively undeformed wedge of soil below the foundation forms an active Rankine zone with angles
(45º + f'/2).
The wedge pushes soil outwards, causing passive Rankine zones to form with angles (45º - f'/2).
The transition zones take the form of log spiral fans.

environment.uwe.ac.uk/geocal/foundations/founbear.htm 1/13
1/30/2020 Bearing capacity

For purely cohesive soils (f = 0) the transition zones become circular for which Prandtl had shown in 1920 that
the solution is

qf = (2 + p) su = 5.14 su

This equation is based on a weightless soil. Therefore if the soil is non-cohesive (c=0) the bearing capacity
depends on the surcharge qo. For a footing founded at depth D below the surface, the surcharge qo = gD.
Normally for a shallow foundation (D<B), the shear strength of the soil between the surface and the founding
depth D is neglected.

radius of the fan r = r0 .exp[q.tanf'].

q is the fan angle in radians (between 0 and p/2)
f' is the angle of friction of the soil
ro = B/[2 cos(45+f'/2)]

Upper and lower bound solutions Failure mechanisms and derivation of equations

The bearing capacity of a soil can be investigated using the limit theorems of ideal rigid-perfectly-plastic
materials.

The ultimate load capacity of a footing can be estimated by assuming a failure mechanism and then applying the
laws of statics to that mechanism. As the mechanisms considered in an upper bound solution are progressively
refined, the calculated collapse load decreases.

As more stress regions are considered in a lower bound solution, the calculated collapse load increases.

Therefore, by progressive refinement of the upper and lower bound solutions, the exact solution can be
approached. For example, Terzaghi's mechanism gives the exact solution for a strip footing.

Semi-circular slip mechanism Failure mechanisms and derivation of equations

Suppose the mechanism is assumed to have a semi-circular slip surface. In

this case, failure will cause a rotation about point O. Any surcharge qo will
resist rotation, so the net pressure (q - qo) is used. Using the equations of
statics:

Moment causing rotation

= load x lever arm
= [(q - qo) x B] x [½B]
Moment resisting rotation
= shear strength x length of arc x lever arm
= [s] x [p.B] x [B]
At failure these are equal:
(q - qo ) x B x ½B = s x p.B x B
Net pressure (q - qo ) at failure
environment.uwe.ac.uk/geocal/foundations/founbear.htm 2/13
1/30/2020 Bearing capacity

= 2 p x shear strength of the soil

This is an upper-bound solution.

Circular arc slip mechanism Failure mechanisms and derivation of equations

Consider a slip surface which is an arc in cross section, centred above one
edge of the base. Failure will cause a rotation about point O. Any surcharge
qo will resist rotation so the net pressure (q - qo) is used. Using the equations
of statics:

Moment causing rotation

= load x lever arm
= [ (q - qo) x B ] x [B/2]
Moment resisting rotation
= shear strength x length of arc x lever arm
= [s] x [2a R] x [R]
At failure these are equal:
(q - qo) x B x B/2 = s x 2 a R x R
Since R = B / sin a :
(q - qo ) = s x 4a /(sin a)²
The worst case is when
tana=2a at a = 1.1656 rad = 66.8 deg
The net pressure (q - qo) at failure
= 5.52 x shear strength of soil

Bearing capacity of shallow foundations Bearing capacity

Bearing capacity equation (undrained)

Bearing capacity equation (drained)
Factor of safety

The ultimate bearing capacity of a foundation is calculated from an equation that incorporates appropriate soil
parameters (e.g. shear strength, unit weight) and details about the size, shape and founding depth of the footing.
Terzaghi (1943) stated the ultimate bearing capacity of a strip footing as a three-term expression incorporating
the bearing capacity factors: Nc, Nq and Ng, which are related to the angle of friction (f´).

qf =c.Nc +qo.Nq + ½g.B .Ng

For drained loading, calculations are in terms of effective stresses; f´ is > 0 and N c, Nq and Ng are all > 0.
For undrained loading, calculations are in terms of total stresses; the undrained shear strength (su); Nq = 1.0
and Ng = 0

c = apparent cohesion intercept

qo = g . D (i.e. density x depth)
D = founding depth

environment.uwe.ac.uk/geocal/foundations/founbear.htm 3/13
1/30/2020 Bearing capacity

B = breadth of foundation
g = unit weight of the soil removed.

Bearing capacity equation (undrained) Bearing capacity of shallow foundations

Skempton's equation is widely used for undrained clay soils:

qf = su .Ncu + qo

where Ncu = Skempton's bearing capacity factor, which can be obtained from a
chart or by using the following expression:

Ncu = Nc.sc.dc

where sc is a shape factor and dc is a depth factor.

Nq = 1, Ng = 0, Nc = 5.14
sc = 1 + 0.2 (B/L) for B<=L
dc = 1+ Ö(0.053 D/B ) for D/B < 4

Bearing capacity equation (drained) Bearing capacity of shallow foundations

Bearing capacity factors

Shape factors
Depth factors

Terzaghi (1943) stated the bearing capacity of a foundation as a three-term expression incorporating the bearing
capacity factors
Nc, Nq and Ng.
He proposed the following equation for the ultimate bearing capacity of a long strip footing:

qf =c.Nc +qo.Nq + ½g.B .Ng

This equation is applicable only for shallow footings carrying vertical non-eccentric loading.
For rectangular and circular foundations, shape factors are introduced.

qf = c .Nc .sc + qo .Nq .sq + ½ g .B .Ng .sg

Other factors can be used to accommodate depth, inclination of loading, eccentricity of loading, inclination of
base and ground. Depth is only significant if it exceeds the breadth.

Bearing capacity factors Bearing capacity equation (drained)

environment.uwe.ac.uk/geocal/foundations/founbear.htm 4/13
1/30/2020 Bearing capacity

The bearing capacity factors relate to the drained angle of friction (f'). The c.Nc term is the contribution from
soil shear strength, the qo.Nq term is the contribution from the surcharge pressure above the founding level, the
½.B.g.Ng term is the contribution from the self weight of the soil. Terzaghi's analysis was based on an active
wedge with angles f' rather than (45+f'/2), and his bearing capacity factors are in error, particularly for low
values of f'. Commonly used values for Nq and Nc are derived from the Prandtl-Reissner expression giving

Exact values for Ng are not directly obtainable; values have been proposed by Brinch Hansen (1968), which are
widely used in Europe, and also by Meyerhof (1963), which have been adopted in North America.

Brinch Hansen:
Ng = 1.8 (Nq - 1) tanf'
Meyerhof:
Ng = (Nq - 1) tan(1.4 f')

Shape factors Bearing capacity equation (drained)

Terzaghi presented modified versions of his bearing capacity equation for shapes of foundation other than a long
strip, and these have since been expressed as shape factors. Brinch Hansen and Vesic (1963) have suggested
shape factors which depend on f'. However, modified versions of the Terzaghi factors are usually considered
sufficiently accurate for most purposes.
sc sq sg
square 1.3 1.2 0.8
circle 1.3 1.2 0.6
rectangle (B<L) 1+ 0.2(B/L) 1+ 0.2(B/L) 1 - 0.4(B/L)
B = breadth, L = length

Depth factors Bearing capacity equation (drained)

It is usual to assume an increase in bearing capacity when the depth (D) of a foundation is greater than the
breadth (B). The general bearing capacity equation can be modified by the inclusion of depth factors.

qf = c.Nc.dc + qo.Nq.dq + ½ B.gNg.dg

for D>B:
dc = 1 + 0.4 arctan(D/B)
dq = 1 + 2 tan(f'(1-sinf')² arctan(B/D)
dg = 1.0
for D=<B:
environment.uwe.ac.uk/geocal/foundations/founbear.htm 5/13
1/30/2020 Bearing capacity

dc = 1 + 0.4(D/B)
dq = 1 + 2 tan(f'(1-sinf')² (B/D)
dg = 1.0

Factor of safety Bearing capacity of shallow foundations

A factor of safety Fs is used to calculate the allowable bearing capacity qa from the ultimate bearing pressure qf.
The value of Fs is usually taken to be 2.5 - 3.0.

The factor of safety should be applied only to the increase in stress, i.e. the net bearing pressure qn. Calculating
qa from qf only satisfies the criterion of safety against shear failure. However, a value for Fs of 2.5 - 3.0 is
sufficiently high to empirically limit settlement. It is for this reason that the factors of safety used in foundation
design are higher than in other areas of geotechnical design. (For slopes, the factor of safety would typically be
1.3 - 1.4).

Experience has shown that the settlement of a typical foundation on soft clay is likely to be acceptable if a factor
of 2.5 is used. Settlements on stiff clay may be quite large even though ultimate bearing capacity is relatively
high, and so it may be appropriate to use a factor nearer 3.0.

Presumed bearing values Bearing capacity

For preliminary design purposes, BS 8004 gives presumed bearing values which are the pressures which would
normally result in an adequate factor of safety against shear failure for particular soil types, but without
consideration of settlement.
Category Types of rocks and soils Presumed bearing value
Non-cohesive soils Dense gravel or dense sand and gravel >600 kN/m²
Medium dense gravel,
<200 to 600 kN/m²
or medium dense sand and gravel
Loose gravel, or loose sand and gravel <200 kN/m²
Compact sand >300 kN/m²
Medium dense sand 100 to 300 kN/m²
<100 kN/m² depends on
Loose sand
degree of looseness
Cohesive soils Very stiff bolder clays & hard clays 300 to 600 kN/m²
Stiff clays 150 to 300 kN/m²
Firm clay 75 to 150 kN/m²
Soft clays and silts < 75 kN/m²
Very soft clay Not applicable
Peat Not applicable
environment.uwe.ac.uk/geocal/foundations/founbear.htm 6/13
1/30/2020 Bearing capacity

Made ground Not applicable

Presumed bearing values for Keuper Marl

Presumed bearing
Weathering Zone Description
value
Fully weathered IVb Matrix only as cohesive soil
IVa Matrix with occasional pellets less than 3mm 125 to 250 kN/m²
Partially III Matrix with lithorelitics up to 25mm 250 to 500 kN/m²
weathered Angular blocks of unweathered marl with virtually no
II 500 to 750 kN/m²
matrix
Unweathered 1 Mudstone (often not fissured) 750 to 1000 kN/m²

Bearing capacity of piles Bearing capacity

Driven piles in non-cohesive soil

Bored piles in non-cohesive soil
Driven piles in cohesive soil
Bored piles in cohesive soil
Carrying capacity of piles in a layered soil
Effects of ground water

The ultimate bearing capacity of a pile used in design may be one three values:
the maximum load Qmax, at which further penetration occurs without the load
increasing;
a calculated value Qf given by the sum of the end-bearing and shaft
resistances;
or the load at which a settlement of 0.1 diameter occurs (when Qmax is not
clear).

For large-diameter piles, settlement can be large, therefore a safety factor of 2-

2.5 is usually used on the working load.

A pile loaded axially will carry the load:

partly by shear stresses (ts) generated along the shaft of the pile and
partly by normal stresses (qb) generated at the base.
The ultimate capacity Qf of a pile is equal to the base capacity Qb plus the shaft
capacity Qs.

Qf = Qb + Qs = Ab . qb + S(As . ts)

where Ab is the area of the base and As is the surface area of the shaft within a soil layer.

Full shaft capacity is mobilised at much smaller displacements than those related to full base resistance. This is
important when determining the settlement response of a pile. The same overall bearing capacity may be
achieved with a variety of combinations of pile diameter and length. However, a long slender pile may be shown

environment.uwe.ac.uk/geocal/foundations/founbear.htm 7/13
1/30/2020 Bearing capacity

to be more efficient than a short stubby pile. Longer piles generate a larger proportion of their full capacity by
skin friction and so their full capacity can be mobilised at much lower settlements.

The proportions of capacity contributed by skin friction and end bearing do not just depend on the geometry of
the pile. The type of construction and the sequence of soil layers are important factors.

Driven piles in non-cohesive soil Bearing capacity of piles

Ultimate pile capacity

Standard penetration test
Cone penetration test

Driving a pile has different effects on the soil surrounding it depending on the relative density of the soil. In
loose soils, the soil is compacted, forming a depression in the ground around the pile. In dense soils, any further
compaction is small, and the soil is displaced upward causing ground heave. In loose soils, driving is preferable
to boring since compaction increases the end-bearing capacity.

In non-cohesive soils, skin friction is low because a low friction 'shell' forms around the pile. Tapered piles
overcome this problem since the soil is recompacted on each blow and this gap cannot develop.

Pile capacity can be calculated using soil properties obtained from standard penetration tests or cone
penetration tests. The ultimate load must then be divided by a factor of safety to obtain a working load. This
factor of safety depends on the maximum tolerable settlement, which in turn depends on both the pile diameter
and soil compressibility. For example, a safety factor of 2.5 will usually ensure a pile of diameter less than
600mm in a non-cohesive soil will not settle by more than 15mm.

Although the method of installing a pile has a significant effect on failure load, there are no reliable calculation
methods available for quantifying any effect. Judgement is therefore left to the experience of the engineer.

Ultimate pile capacity Driven piles in non-cohesive soil

The ultimate carrying capacity of a pile is:

Qf = Qb + Qs
The base resistance, Qb can be found from Terzaghi's equation for bearing capacity,
qf = 1.3 c Nc + qo Nq + 0.4 g B Ng

The 0.4 g B Ng term may be ignored, since the diameter is considerably less than the depth of the pile.
The 1.3 c Nc term is zero, since the soil is non-cohesive.

The net unit base resistance is therefore

qnf = qf - qo = qo (Nq -1)
environment.uwe.ac.uk/geocal/foundations/founbear.htm 8/13
1/30/2020 Bearing capacity

and the net total base resistance is

Qb = qo (Nq -1) Ab
The ultimate unit skin friction (shaft) resistance can be found from

qs = Ks .s'v .tand
where s'v = average vertical effective stress in a given layer

d = angle of wall friction, based on pile material and f´

Ks = earth pressure coefficient

Therefore, the total skin friction resistance is given by the sum of the layer resistances:

Qs = S(Ks .s'v .tand .As)

The self-weight of the pile may be ignored, since the weight of the concrete is almost equal to the weight of the
soil displaced.
Therefore, the ultimate pile capacity is:

Qf = Ab qo Nq + S(Ks .s'v .tand .As)

Values of Ks and d can be related to the angle of internal friction (f´) using the following table according to
Broms.
Ks
Material d
low density high density
steel 20° 0.5
1.0
concrete 3/4 f´ 1.0 2.0
timber 2/3 f´ 1.5 4.0

It must be noted that, like much of pile design, this is an empirical relationship. Also, from empirical methods it
is clear that Qs and Qb both reach peak values somewhere at a depth between 10 and 20 diameters.

It is usually assumed that skin friction never exceeds 110 kN/m² and base resistance will not exceed 11000
kN/m².

Standard penetration test Driven piles in non-cohesive soil

The standard penetration test is a simple in-situ test in which the N-value is the mumber of blows taken to drive
a 50mm diameter bar 300mm into the base of a bore hole.

Schmertmann (1975) has correlated N-values obtained from SPT tests against effective overburden stress as
shown in the figure.
The effective overburden stress = the weight of material above the base of the borehole - the wight of water

environment.uwe.ac.uk/geocal/foundations/founbear.htm 9/13
1/30/2020 Bearing capacity

e.g. depth of soil = 5m, depth of water = 4m, unit weight of soil = 20kN/m³,
s'v = 5m x 20kN/m³ - 4m x 9.81kN/m³ » 60 kN/m²

Once a value for f´ has been estimated, bearing capacity factors can be
determined and used in the usual way.

Meyerhof (1976) produced correlations between base and frictional resistances

and N-values. It is recommended that N-values first be normalised with
respect to effective overburden stress:

Normalised N = Nmeasured x 0.77 log(1920/s´v)

Ultimate base resistance Ultimate shaft resistance

Pile type Soil type qb (kPa) qs (kPa)
Gravelly sand 40(L/d) N 2 Navg
Driven
Sand but < 400 N
Sandy silt 20(L/d) N
Silt but < 300 N

13(L/d) N
Bored Gravel and sands
but < 300 N Navg
Sandy silt 13(L/d) N
Silt but < 300 N

L = embedded length
d = shaft diameter
Navg = average value along shaft

Cone penetration test Driven piles in non-cohesive soil

End-bearing resistance
The end-bearing capacity of the pile is assumed to be equal to the unit cone resistance (qc). However, due to
normally occurring variations in measured cone resistance, Van der Veen's averaging method is used:

qb = average cone resistance calculated over a depth equal to three pile diameters above to one pile
diameter below the base level of the pile.

Shaft resistance
The skin friction can also be calculated from the cone penetration test from values of local side friction or from
the cone resistance value using an empirical relationship:
At a given depth, qs = Sp. qc
where Sp = a coefficient dependent on the type of pile

Type of pile Sp
Solid timber )
environment.uwe.ac.uk/geocal/foundations/founbear.htm 10/13
1/30/2020 Bearing capacity

Pre-cast concrete ) 0.005 - 0.012

Solid steel driven )
Open-ended steel 0.003 - 0.008

Bored piles in non-cohesive soil Bearing capacity of piles

The design process for bored piles in granular soils is essentially the same as that for driven piles. It must be
assumed that boring loosens the soil and therefore, however dense the soil, the value of the angle of friction used
for calculating Nq values for end bearing and d values for skin friction must be those assumed for loose soil.
However, if rotary drilling is carried out under a bentonite slurry f' can be taken as that for the undisturbed soil.

Driven piles in cohesive soil Bearing capacity of piles

Driving piles into clays alters the physical characteristics of the soil. In soft clays, driving piles results in an
increase in pore water pressure, causing a reduction in effective stress;.a degree of ground heave also occurs. As
the pore water pressure dissipates with time and the ground subsides, the effective stress in the soil will increase.
The increase in s'v leads to an increase in the bearing capacity of the pile with time. In most cases, 75% of the
ultimate bearing capacity is achieved within 30 days of driving.

For piles driven into stiff clays, a little consolidation takes place, the soil cracks and is heaved up. Lateral
vibration of the shaft from each blow of the hammer forms an enlarged hole, which can then fill with
groundwater or extruded porewater. This, and 'strain softening', which occurs due to the large strains in the clay
as the pile is advanced, lead to a considerable reduction in skin friction compared with the undisturbed shear
strength (su) of the clay. To account for this in design calculations an adhesion factor, a, is introduced. Values of
a can be found from empirical data previously recorded. A maximum value (for stiff clays) of 0.45 is
recommended.

The ultimate bearing capacity Qf of a driven pile in cohesive soil can be calculated from:
Qf = Qb + Qs

where the skin friction term is a summation of layer resistances

Qs = S( a .su(avg) .As)

and the end bearing term is

Qb = su .Nc .Ab

Nc = 9.0 for clays and silty clays.

Bored piles in cohesive soil Bearing capacity of piles

environment.uwe.ac.uk/geocal/foundations/founbear.htm 11/13
1/30/2020 Bearing capacity

Following research into bored cast-in-place piles in London clay, calculation of the ultimate bearing capacity for
bored piles can be done the same way as for driven piles. The adhesion factor should be taken as 0.45. It is
thought that only half the undisturbed shear strength is mobilised by the pile due to the combined effect of
swelling, and hence softening, of the clay in the walls of the borehole. Softening results from seepage of water
from fissures in the clay and from the un-set concrete, and also from 'work softening' during the boring
operation.

The mobilisation of full end-bearing capacity by large-diameter piles requires much larger displacements than
are required to mobilise full skin-friction, and therefore safety factors of 2.5 to 3.0 may be required to avoid
excessive settlement at working load.

Carrying capacity of piles in layered soil Bearing capacity of piles

When a pile extends through a number of different layers of soil with different properties, these have to be taken
into account when calculating the ultimate carrying capacity of the pile. The skin friction capacity is calculated
by simply summing the amounts of resistance each layer exerts on the pile. The end bearing capacity is
calculated just in the layer where the pile toe terminates. If the pile toe terminates in a layer of dense sand or stiff
clay overlying a layer of soft clay or loose sand there is a danger of it punching through to the weaker layer. To
account for this, Meyerhof's equation is used.

The base resistance at the pile toe is

qp = q2 + (q1 -q2)H / 10B but £ q1

where B is the diameter of the pile, H is the thickness between the base of the pile and the top of the weaker
layer, q2 is the ultimate base resistance in the weak layer, q1 is the ultimate base resistance in the strong layer.

Effects of groundwater Bearing capacity of piles

environment.uwe.ac.uk/geocal/foundations/founbear.htm 12/13
1/30/2020 Bearing capacity

The presence and movement of groundwater affects the carrying capacity of piles, the processes of construction
and sometimes the durability of piles in service.

Effect on bearing capacity

In cohesive soils, the permeability is so low that any movement of water is very slow. They do not suffer any
reduction in bearing capacity in the presence of groundwater.
In granular soils, the position of the water table is important. Effective stresses in saturated sands can be as much
as 50% lower than in dry sand; this affects both the end-bearing and skin-friction capacity of the pile.

Effects on construction
When a concrete cast-in-place pile is being installed and the bottom of the borehole is below the water table, and
there is water in the borehole, a 'tremie' is used.

With its lower end lowered to the bottom of the borehole, the tremmie is filled with
concrete and then slowly raised, allowing concrete to flow from the bottom. As the
tremie is raised during the concreting it must be kept below the surface of the
concrete in the pile. Before the tremie is withdrawn completely sufficient concrete
should be placed to displace all the free water and watery cement. If a tremie is not
used and more than a few centimetres of water lie in the bottom of the borehole,
separation of the concrete can take place within the pile, leading to a significant
reduction in capacity.

A problem can also arise when boring takes place through clays. Site investigations
may show that a pile should terminate in a layer of clay. However, due to natural
variations in bed levels, there is a risk of boring extending into underlying strata.
Unlike the clay, the underlying beds may be permeable and will probably be under a
considerable head of water. The 'tapping' of such aquifers can be the cause of
difficulties during construction.

Effects on piles in service

The presence of groundwater may lead to corrosion or deterioration of the pile's fabric.
In the case of steel piles, a mixture of water and air in the soil provides conditions in which oxidation corrosion
of steel can occur; the presence of normally occurring salts in groundwater may accelerate the process.
In the case of concrete piles, the presence of salts such as sulphates or chlorides can result in corrosion of
reinforcement, with possible consequential bursting of the concrete. Therefore, adequate cover must be provided
to the reinforcement, or the reinforcement itself must be protected in some way. Sulphate attack on the cement
compounds in concrete may lead to the expansion and subsequent cracking. Corrosion problems are minimised
if the concrete has a high cement/aggregate ratio and is well compacted during placement.

environment.uwe.ac.uk/geocal/foundations/founbear.htm 13/13