Geotechnical and Foundation

Engineering
CE-3333

Bearing Pressure & Bearing Capacity of Soils

Engr. Iqbal Ahmad

Department of Civil Engineering
Capital university of Science and Technology, Islamabad
Iqbalahmad@cust.edu.pk
1
 Foundations in Civil Engineering 2

• Foundation is the structural element that connect a structure

to the ground.
• These elements are made of concrete, steel, wood etc.
• Foundations can be divided into two broad categories:
shallow foundations, and deep foundations.
• Shallow foundations transmit the structural loads to the near-
surface soils
• Deep foundations transmit some or all of the loads to deeper
soils.
 Foundations 3

Foundations

Shallow Deep
foundations foundations

Piles Caissons
Spread Mat
footings Anchors Auger-cast Drilled
piles shafts

A spread footing (or simply footing) is an enlargement at the

bottom of a column or bearing wall that spreads the applied
structural loads over a sufficiently large soil areas.
Spread footings 4
Mat foundations 5
 Mat foundations 6

Mat foundations are also known as raft foundations. They are always
made of reinforced concrete. Mats are considered if:
1. The structural load are so high or soil conditions so poor that spread footings
would be exceptionally large. As a general rule of thumb, if spread footing
would cover more than 50 % of the building footprint area, a mat or some type
of deep foundation will usually be more economical.

2. If the soil is very erratic and prone to excessive differential settlements

(heaves). The structural continuity and flexural strength of a mat will bridge
over these irregularities.

3. The uplift loads are larger than spread footings can accommodate. The greater
weight and continuity of a mat may provide sufficient resistance.

4. The bottom of structure is located below the GWT, so water proofing is an

important concern. Because mats are monolithic, they are much easier to
waterproof. The weight of mat also helps resist hydrostatic uplift forces from
the groundwater.
 Bearing pressure 7

• Bearing pressure is the contact force per unit area

along the bottom of the foundation.
• The bearing pressure is not necessarily distributed
evenly. Analytical studies and field measurements
indicate that actual distribution depends on several
factors, including the following:
– Eccentricity, if any, of the applied load
– Magnitude of the applied moment, if any
– Structural rigidity of the foundation
– Stress-strain properties of the soil
– Roughness of the bottom of the foundation
 Computation of bearing pressure 8

GWT
D

where
q = bearing pressure
P = vertical column load
Wf = weight of foundation, including the weight of
soil above the foundation, if any
A = base area of foundation
ud = pore water at bottom of foundation (i.e. at a
depth D below the ground surface
Bearing pressure – continuous footings 9

B = 1 m or 1 ft
 Example-1 10

The 5-ft square footing shown in figure below supports a

column load of 100 k. compute the bearing pressure. Use
conc = 150 lb/ft3.

Foundation Design
Principles & Practices
2nd ed. (Coduto)
Page 156
 Example-2 11

• A 0.7-m wide continous spread footing supports a

wall load of 110 kN/m. The bottom of this footing is
at a depth of 0.50 m below the adjacent ground
surface and the soil has a unit weight of 17.5 k N/m3.
The ground water table is at depth of 10 m below the
ground surface. compute the bearing pressure. Use
conc = 23.6 k N/m3.

Foundation Design
Principles & Practices
2nd ed. (Coduto)
Page 157
 Distribution of bearing pressure 12

Flexible foundation on clay Flexible foundation on sand

Rigid foundation on clay Rigid foundation on sand

 Distribution of bearing pressure 13

Idealized distribution of bearing pressure

Real footings are close to being perfectly rigid, so the bearing
pressure distribution is not uniform. However, bearing capacity
and settlement analyses based on such a distribution would be
very complex, so it is customary to assume that the pressure
beneath concentric vertical loads is uniform across the base of
the footing, as shown above. The error introduced by this
simplification is not significant.
 Net bearing pressure 14

Net bearing pressure, q’ is the difference between the gross

bearing pressure, q, and the initial vertical effective stress, ’vo,
at depth D. In other words, q’ is a measure of the increase in
vertical effective stress at depth D.

Use of the net bearing pressure simplifies some computations,

especially those associated with settlement of spread footings.
 Gross and net bearing capacity 15

Gross bearing capacity

combines the total upward
pressure of both applied load
and self weight + overburden
soil pressure above the
foundation.

For net soil bearing here self

weight + overburden pressure is
cancelled out by an equal and
opposite upward pressure leaving
the applied pressure which is equal
to the applied load dividing by
footing area.
 Floating foundation 16

Mat foundations are often placed in deep excavations, as shown

below. In addition to providing underground space, this design
decreases bearing pressure because the weight of the
foundation is substantially less than the weight of excavated soil.
In other words, the weight of structure and the foundation is
partially offset by the removal of soil from excavation. This
reduction in q significantly reduces the settlement.
 Example-3 17

The mat foundation in Fig. below is to be 50 m wide, 70 m long,

and 1.8 m thick. The sum of the column and wall loads is 805
MN. Compute the average bearing pressure, then compare it
with the initial vertical effective stress in the soil immediately
below the mat. Use conc = 23.6 kN/m3.

Foundation Design - Principles & Practices

2nd ed. (Coduto)
Page 159
Eccentric loading – One Way Loading 18
Eccentric loading 19
 Eccentric loading 20

Q  6e  Q  6e 
qmax  1   qmin  1  
BL  B BL  B
Eccentric loading 21

Q  6e 
qmax  1  
BL  B
Q  6e 
qmin  1  
BL  B
Eccentric loading - Example 22

Foundation Design - Principles & Practices

2nd ed. (Coduto)
Page 162
Eccentric loading – Two Way Loading 23
Eccentric loading – Two Way Loading 24

Foundation Design - Principles & Practices

2nd ed. (Coduto)
Page 165
 Bearing capacity of soils 25

• Ultimate bearing capacity: The value of the average contact

pressure between the foundation and the soil which will
produce shear failure in the soil.
• Safe bearing capacity: The maximum value of contact
pressure to which the soil can be subjected without risk of
shear failure. This is based solely on the strength of the soil
and is simply the ultimate bearing capacity divided by a
suitable factor of safety.
• Allowable bearing pressure: The maximum allowable net
loading intensity on the soil allowing for both shear and
settlement effects.
 Some Definitions 26

Bearing capacity
Bearing Capacity criteria
Bearing capacity is the power of foundation soil to hold the forces from
the superstructure without undergoing shear failure or excessive
settlement.

Total Overburden Pressure q0

The pressure due to the weight of both soil and water at the base level
of the foundation

Effective Overburden Pressure q'0

q'0 is the effective overburden pressure at the base level of the
foundation.
 Some Definitions (cont…) 27

Ultimate Bearing Capacity (qu)

It is the maximum pressure that a foundation soil can withstand
without undergoing shear failure.

Net ultimate Bearing Capacity (qnu)

qnu is the bearing capacity in excess of the effective overburden pressure q'0
expressed as
qn = qf – q’o
Gross Allowable Bearing Pressure (qa)
It is expressed as ; where, Fs is the Factor of safety

Net Allowable Bearing Pressure, (qna)

It is expressed as ; where, Fs is the Factor of safety
 Some Definitions 28

Safe Bearing Capacity (qs)

It is the safe extra load the foundation soil is subjected to in addition to
initial overburden pressure.

qn
qs   qo
F
Here F represents the factor of safety.

Foundation
It is that part of the structure which is in direct contact with soil. Foundation
transfers the forces and moments from the super structure to the soil below such
that the stresses in soil are within permissible limits and it provides stability
against sliding and overturning to the super structure. It is a transition between
the super structure and foundation soil.
 Modes of shear failure 29

Depending on the stiffness of foundation soil and depth of foundation, the

following are the modes of shear failure experienced by the foundation soil.
a. General shear failure
b. Local shear failure
c. Punching shear failure
 Modes of shear failure 30

a. General shear failure

When uniform load q is applied, the soil settles. If q = qu then state of
plastic equilibrium is attained initially around the edge of footing , which
then gradually spreads downwards and outwards capacity failure occur.
The zone 1 is pushed downward, the 2 and 3 are pushed sideway and
upward. Failure take place by sliding.

1. On low compressibility (dense or stiff) soils

2. plastic equilibrium throughout support and adjacent soil masses
3. heaving on both sides of foundation
 Modes of shear failure 31

a. General shear failure

32
 Modes of shear failure 33

b. Local shear failure

Zone 1 moves downward (below the footing). The slip surfaces end
somewhere inside the soil. Some sign of bulging at surface are seen. No
tilting, only slight heaving occur.

1. On highly compressible soils

2. only partial development of plastic equilibrium
3. only slight heaving on sides
4. significant compression of soil under footing but no tilting
 Modes of shear failure 34

b. Local shear failure

 Modes of shear failure 35

c. Punching shear failure

Zone 1 moves downward relatively large settlements occur. There is
compression beneath the footing accompanied by shearing in vertical
direction around the edge of footing. There is no heaving nor tilting of
foundation. The ultimate load is not well defined. Sudden collapse or
tilting failures are not common.

1. On loose, uncompacted soils

2. vertical shearing around edges of footing
3. high compression of soil under footing, hence large settlements
4. no heaving, no tilting
 Modes of shear failure 36

c. Punching shear failure

37
 BEARING CAPACITY THEORIES 38

• The determination of bearing capacity of soil based on the classical earth

pressure theory of Rankine (1857) began with Pauker, a Russian military
engineer (1889).

• It was modified by Bell (1915). Pauker's theory was applicable only for
sandy soils but the theory of Bell took into account cohesion also.

• The methods of calculating the ultimate bearing capacity of shallow strip

footings by plastic theory developed considerably over the years since
Terzaghi (1943). Terzaghi extended the theory of Prandtl (1921).

• Taylor (1948) extended the equation of Prandtl by taking into account

the surcharge. Terzaghi (1943) first proposed a semi-empirical equation
for computing the ultimate bearing capacity of strip footings by taking
into account cohesion, friction and weight of soil, and replacing the
overburden pressure with an equivalent surcharge load at the base level
of the foundation effect of the overburden soil at the foundation level.
 Methods of bearing capacity determination 39

1. Terzaghi's bearing capacity theory

2. General bearing capacity equation
3. Field tests
• TERZAGHI'S BEARING CAPACITY THEORY
Terzaghi made the following assumptions for developing an
equation for determining ultimate bearing capacity of c-ɸ soil.
– The soil is semi-infinite, homogeneous and isotropic,
– The problem is two-dimensional,
– The base of the footing is rough,
– The failure is by general shear,
– the load is vertical and symmetrical,
– The ground surface is horizontal,
– the overburden pressure at foundation level is equivalent to a
surcharge load
– Coulomb's law is strictly valid, that is,
 Terzaghi’s Theory

 strip footing of infinite length and width B

 uniform surcharge, q0 on surface of isotropic,
homogeneous soil
 Rankine active wedge, ABC: forces 
 Passive zones, ADE & BGF
 (Linear zones or radial shear or slip fans)
 above EDCGF: plastic equilibrium
 below EDCGF: elastic equilibrium
 the more general case is a footing at depth D

 Neglecting the shear strength of the soil above depth

D implies that this soil is a surcharge: q0 = D
 Terzaghi’s general equation for Ultimate Bearing
Capacity

qu = cNc + qNq + 0.5BN

Cohesion Surcharge Friction term
Contribution of: term term
Ultimate Bearing Capacity (General Shear Failure)

 Theory was qu  c( Nc )  qNq  0.5γB( N )

developed for strip
N q  e  tan( ) tan 2 (45  2 )
footings
N c  ( N q  1) cot(  )
N   ( N q  1) tan(1.4 )

 For Square Footing qu  1.3c(Nc )  qNq  0.4γB(N )

 For Circular Footing qu  1.3c( N c )  qN q  0.3γB( N )

B = Diameter of
the footing
For General Shear Failure 44
 Ultimate Bearing Capacity (Local Shear Failure)
_
 In case of Local shear q 'u  c'( N 'c )  qN 'q  0.5γB( N ' )
failure
_
2
c'  c '
3
_
2
tan'   '
3
_
 For Square Footing q 'u  1.3c'(Nc )  qNq  0.4γB(N )

_
 For Circular Footing q 'u  1.3 c'( N c )  qN q  0.3γB( N )
B = Diameter of
the footing
For Local Shear Failure 46
Effect of water table on Bearing Capacity 47
Effect of water table on Bearing Capacity 48
Example 49
 50

Foundation Design - Principles & Practices

2nd ed. (Coduto)
Page 189
51
52
53
 Further developments 54

• Skempton (1951)
• Meyerhof (1953)
• Brinch Hanson (1961)
• De Beer and Ladanyi (1961)
• Meyerhof (1963)
• Brinch Hanson (1970)
• Vesic (1973, 1975)
General Bearing Capacity Equation 55
General Bearing Capacity Equation 56
57
58
Meherhof’s Factors 59
 Vesic bearing capacity equations 60

qu  cN c sc d c ic bc g c  qN q sq d q iq bq g q  0.5 BN  s d  i b g 

Vesic bearing capacity Equation 61
Vesic bearing capacity – shape factors 62

For continuous footings,

B/L  0, therefore, Sc, Sq, and S become 1
 Vesic bearing capacity – depth factors
63

For relatively shallow foundations (D/B  1), use k = D/B

For deeper foundations (D/B1), use k = tan-1(D/B) with

tan-1 term expressed in radians
 Vesic bearing capacity – Load inclination factors 64

The load inclination factors are for loads that don't act
perpendicular to the base of the footing, but still act
through its centroid.
For the loads inclined in B
direction

For the loads inclined in L

direction
Vesic bearing capacity – Load inclination factors 65
Vesic bearing capacity – Load inclination factors 66

If the load acts

perpendicular to the base
of the footing, the
inclination factors equal 1
and may be neglected.

The inclination factors also

equal 1 when  = 0
 Vesic bearing capacity – Base inclination factors 67

The vast majority of footings are built with horizontal

bases. However, if the applied load is inclined at the a
large angle from the vertical, it may better to incline the
base of the footing to the same angle so the applied
load acts perpendicular to the base.
Vesic bearing capacity – Ground inclination factors 68

Footings located near the top of a slope have a lower

bearing capacity than those on level ground.
Vesic’s ground inclination factors account for this

If the ground is level ( = 0), the g factors become equal

to 1 and may be ignored.
Vesic bearing capacity – Bearing capacity factors 69
 Bearing Capacity Factors for
70
Hanson, Meyerhof, and Vesic Bearing Capacity Equations
Ng Ng
PHI Nc Nq PHI Nc Nq
Hanson Mayerhof Vesic Hanson Mayerhof Vesic
0 5.14 1 0 0 0 26 22.25 11.9 7.9 8 12.5
1 5.38 1.1 0 0 0.1 27 23.94 13.2 9.3 9.5 14.5
2 5.63 1.2 0 0 0.2 28 25.8 14.7 10.9 11.2 16.7
3 5.9 1.3 0 0 0.2 29 27.86 16.4 12.8 13.2 19.3
4 6.19 1.4 0 0 0.3 30 30.14 18.4 15.1 15.7 22.4
5 6.49 1.6 0.1 0.1 0.4 31 32.67 20.6 17.7 18.6 26
6 6.81 1.7 0.1 0.1 0.6 32 35.49 23.2 20.8 22 30.2
7 7.16 1.9 0.2 0.2 0.7 33 38.64 26.1 24.4 26.2 35.2
8 7.53 2.1 0.2 0.2 0.9 34 42.16 29.4 28.8 31.1 41.1
9 7.92 2.3 0.3 0.3 1 35 46.12 33.3 33.9 37.1 48
10 8.34 2.5 0.4 0.4 1.2 36 50.58 37.7 40 44.4 56.3
11 8.8 2.7 0.5 0.5 1.4 37 55.63 42.9 47.4 53.3 66.2
12 9.28 3 0.6 0.6 1.7 38 61.35 48.9 56.2 64.1 78
13 9.81 3.3 0.8 0.7 2 39 67.86 56 66.7 77.3 92.2
14 10.37 3.6 1 0.9 2.3 40 75.31 64.2 79.5 93.7 109.4
15 10.98 3.9 1.2 1.1 2.6 41 83.85 73.9 95 114 130.2
16 11.63 4.3 1.4 1.4 3.1 42 93.7 85.4 113.9 139.3 155.5
17 12.34 4.8 1.7 1.7 3.5 43 105.1 99 137.1 171.1 186.5
18 13.1 5.3 2.1 2 4.1 44 118.36 115.3 165.6 211.4 224.6
19 13.93 5.8 2.5 2.4 4.7 45 133.86 134.9 200.8 262.7 271.7
20 14.83 6.4 2.9 2.9 5.4 46 152.08 158.5 244.6 328.7 330.3
21 15.81 7.1 3.5 3.4 6.2 47 173.62 187.2 299.5 414.2 403.6
22 16.88 7.8 4.1 4.1 7.1 48 199.24 222.3 368.6 526.3 495.9
23 18.05 8.7 4.9 4.8 8.2 49 229.9 265.5 456.3 674.8 613
24 19.32 9.6 5.7 5.7 9.4 50 266.85 319 568.5 873.7 762.7
25 20.72 10.7 6.8 6.8 10.9
Bearing Capacity Spreadsheet 71
 Factor of safety (FS) 72

Most building codes don not specify design factors of safety.

Therefore, engineers must use their own discretion and
professional judgment when selecting FS. Following influence
the selection of FS:

• Soil type
• Site characterization data
• Soil variability
• Importance of structure and consequences of failure
• The likelihood of the design load ever actually occurring
 Factor of safety (FoS) 73

Soil type: Shear strength in clays is less reliable than in sands, and more failure
have occurred in clays than in sands. Therefore, use higher factors of safety in
clays.

Site characterization data: There is more uncertainty in the design soil

parameters when minimum subsurface exploration and lab testing is carried out,
thus higher FoS is desirable.

Soil variability: Projects on site with erratic soil profiles should use higher FoS
than those with uniform soil profiles.

Importance of structure & consequence of failure: Higher FoS is used for

important structures. Structures with large height-to-width ratios (e.g. chimneys,
towers) could experience more catastrophic failure, thus should be designed
using higher FoS.

Likelihood of design load ever actually occurring: Some structures, such as grain
silos, are much more likely to actually experience their design loads, and thus
might be designed using higher FoS.
Factor of safety (FS) 74
 Factor of safety (FS) 75

The true factor of safety is probably much greater than the design
factor of safety because of the following:
• The shear strength data are normally interpreted
conservatively, so the design values of c and  implicitly
contain another FoS.
• The service loads are probably less than the design loads.
• Settlement, not bearing capacity, often controls the final
design, so the footing will likely be larger than required to
satisfy bearing capacity criteria.
• Spread footings are commonly built somewhat larger than
the plan dimensions.
 Bearing capacity based on settlement 76

According to Meyerhof’s theory, for 25 mm (1 inch) of

estimated maximum settlement

In English (fps) units,

 Bearing capacity based on settlement
77

Bowles (1977) proposed modified equations

In English (fps) units

Plate load test 78

ASTM D-1194
 79

In sandy soils

In clayey soils

For a given intensity of load q, the settlement of actual footing can

be approximated from following relationship

In sandy soils

In clayey soils
Limitation of plate load test 80
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) 81

ASTM D-1586
 SPT test procedure 82

ASTM D-1586
Drill a 60-200 mm (2.5-8 in) dia
exploratory boring to the depth of
test.
Insert SPT sampler into boring.
63.5 kg (140 lb)
A hammer of 63.5 kg (140 lb) is
raised a distance of 760 mm (30 in)
and allowed to fall.
The process of hammering is
repeated until the sampler has
penetrated a distance of 450 mm
(18 in).
Number of hammer blows are
recorded for each 150 mm (6 in)
penetration.
 SPT test procedure 83

Test is stopped if (a) more than 50 blows are required for any of
the 150 mm intervals, or (b) if more than one hundred total blows
are required to drive the required 300 mm or (c) 10 successive
blows produce no advance. This is known as refusal and noted on
boring log.

Total blow count for last 300 mm (12 in) of penetration is called
SPT N value.
 Sources of error in SPT N value 84

The principal variants of the test are

• Method of drilling
• How well the bottom of hole is cleared before the test
• Presence or lack of drilling mud
• Diameter of the hole
• Location of the hammer (surface type or down-hole type)
• Type of hammer
• Number of turns of the ropes around the cathead
• Actual hammer drop height
• Mass of the anvil that the hammer strikes
• Friction in rope guides and pulleys
• Wear in the sampler drive shoe
• Straightness of the drill rods
• Rate at which the blows are applied
Correction to N value 85
86
87
Overburden correction 88
89