FOUNDATION ENGINEERING

BFC43103
CHAPTER 2
2.0 Shallow Foundation
▪ To perform satisfactorily, shallow foundations must have two main
characteristics:
1. They have to be safe against overall shear failure in the soil that
supports them.
2. They cannot undergo excessive displacement, or settlement. (The
term excessive is relative, because the degree of settlement
allowed for a structure depends on several considerations.)

▪ The load per unit area of the foundation at which shear failure in
soil occurs is called the ultimate bearing capacity.
▪ Consider a strip foundation with a width of B resting on the
surface of a dense sand or stiff cohesive soil, as shown in
Figure 2.2a.
▪ Now, if a load is gradually applied to the foundation,
settlement will increase.
▪ The variation of the load per unit area on the foundation (q)
with the foundation settlement is also shown in Figure 4.1a.
▪ At a certain point—when the load per unit area equals qu—
a sudden failure in the soil supporting the foundation will
take place, and the failure surface in the soil will extend to
the ground surface.
▪ This load per unit area, qu, is usually referred to as the
ultimate bearing capacity of the foundation.
▪ When such sudden failure in soil takes place, it is called
general shear failure (Vesic, 1963).
Figure 2.2a
▪ If the foundation under consideration rests on sand or clayey
soil of medium compaction (Figure 2.2b), an increase in the
load on the foundation will also be accompanied by an
increase in settlement.
▪ However, in this case the failure surface in the soil will
gradually extend outward from the foundation.
▪ When the load per unit area on the foundation equals q(s1),
movement of the foundation will be accompanied by sudden
jerks.
▪ A considerable movement of the foundation is then required
for the failure surface in soil to extend to the ground surface
(as shown by the broken lines in the figure).
▪ The load per unit area at which this happens is the ultimate
bearing capacity, qu.
▪ Beyond that point, an increase in load will be accompanied by
a large increase in foundation settlement.
▪ The load per unit area of the foundation, qu(1), is referred to as
the first failure load (Vesic, 1963).
▪ Note that a peak value of q is not realized in this type of
failure, which is called the local shear failure in soil.
Figure 2.2b
▪ If the foundation is supported by a fairly
loose soil, the load–settlement plot will
be like the one in Figure 2.2c.
▪ In this case, the failure surface in soil
will not extend to the ground surface.
▪ Beyond the ultimate failure load, qu, the
load–settlement plot will be steep and
practically linear.
▪ This type of failure in soil is called the
punching shear failure.

Figure 2.2c
▪ Terzaghi (1943) was the first to present a comprehensive theory for the evaluation
of the ultimate bearing capacity of rough shallow foundations.
▪ According to this theory, a foundation is shallow if its depth, Df (Figure 2.3), is less
than or equal to its width.
▪ Later investigators, however, have suggested that foundations with Df equal to 3 to 4
times their width may be defined as shallow foundations.
▪ Terzaghi suggested that for a continuous, or strip, foundation (i.e., one whose width-
to-length ratio approaches zero), the failure surface in soil at ultimate load may be
assumed to be similar to that shown in Figure 2.3. (Note that this is the case of
general shear failure).

Figure 2.2
▪ The effect of soil above the bottom of the foundation may also be assumed to be
replaced by an equivalent surcharge, 𝑞 = γ𝐷𝑓 (where γ is a unit weight of soil).
▪ The failure zone under the foundation can be separated into three parts (see Figure
2.3):
1. The triangular zone ACD immediately under the foundation
2. The radial shear zones ADF and CDE, with the curves DE and DF being arcs of a
logarithmic spiral
3. Two triangular Rankine passive zones AFH and CEG
▪ The angles CAD and ACD are assumed to be equal to the soil friction angle.
▪ Note that, with the replacement of the soil above the bottom of the foundation by an
equivalent surcharge q, the shear resistance of the soil along the failure surfaces GI
and HJ was neglected.
▪ Using equilibrium analysis, Terzaghi expressed the ultimate bearing capacity in the form

▪ To estimate the ultimate bearing capacity of square and circular foundations, may be respectively
modified to

▪ B equals the width, dimension of each side of the foundation; or B equal the diameter of the
foundation.
▪ The variations of the bearing capacity factors Nc, Nq and Nγ defined are given in Table
2.3a.
▪ For foundations that exhibit the local shear failure mode in soils, Terzaghi suggested the
following modifications to Eqs.:

▪ 𝑁𝑐′ , 𝑁𝑞′ , and 𝑁γ′ are the modified bearing capacity factors.

▪ Terzaghi’s bearing capacity equations have now been modified to take into account the
effects of the foundation shape depth of embedment and the load inclination.
▪ Many design engineers, however, still use Terzaghi’s equation, which provides fairly
good results considering the uncertainty of the soil conditions at various sites.
▪ Terzhagi’s modified bearing capacity factors 𝑁𝑐′ , 𝑁𝑞′ , and 𝑁γ′ for local shear failure is
defined and given in Table 2.3b.
▪ Calculating the gross allowable load-bearing capacity of shallow foundations requires the
application of a factor of safety (FS) to the gross ultimate bearing capacity, or

▪ The net ultimate bearing capacity 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.
▪ If the difference between the unit weight of concrete used in the foundation and the unit weight of
soil surrounding is assumed to be negligible, then
▪ At section 2.3 give the ultimate bearing capacity of Terzhagi’s equation, based on the assumption that
the water table is located well below the foundation. However, if the water table is close to the
foundation, some modifications of the bearing capacity equations will be necessary.
▪ In this case, the factor γ in the last term of the bearing capacity equations must be
replaced by the factor

▪ The preceding modifications are based on the assumption that there is no seepage
force in the soil.
▪ The ultimate bearing capacity in section 2.3 are for continuous, square, and circular
foundations only; they do not address the case of rectangular foundations (0 < B/L <
1).
▪ Also, the equations do not take into account the shearing resistance along the failure
surface in soil above the bottom of the foundation (the portion of the failure surface
marked as GI and HJ in Figure 2.2).
▪ In addition, the load on the foundation may be inclined. To account for all these
shortcomings, Meyerhof (1963) suggested the following form of the general
bearing capacity equation:

▪ Also known as Mayerhof or the general bearing capacity equation.

▪ Table 2.6.1: Bearing capacity factors with soil friction angle
▪ Table 2.6.1: Bearing capacity factors with soil friction angle (continued)
▪ Table 2.6.2: Shape, depth, and inclination factors
Terzaghi’s equation
▪ In several instances, as with the base of a retaining wall, foundations are subjected
to moments in addition to the vertical load, as shown in Figure 2.7a. In such cases,
the distribution of pressure by the foundation on the soil is not uniform. The
nominal distribution of pressure is

▪ Figure 2.7b shows a force system equivalent to that shown in Figure 2.7a. The
distance is the eccentricity.

▪ Substituting into qmax and qmin

▪ Figure 2.7: Eccentrically loaded foundations
▪ Note that, in these equations, when the eccentricity e becomes B/6, qmin is zero.
▪ For e > B/6, qmin will be negative, which means that tension will develop. Because
soil cannot take any tension, there will then be a separation between the foundation
and the soil underlying it.
▪ The nature of the pressure distribution on the soil will be as shown in Figure 2.7a.
The value of qmax is then

▪ Figure 2.7.1 shows the nature of failure surface in soil for a surface strip foundation
subjected to an eccentric load. The factor of safety for such type of loading against
bearing capacity failure can be evaluated as

Figure 2.7.1 Nature of failure

surface in soil supporting a
strip foundation subjected
to eccentric loading
(Note: Df = 0; Qu is
ultimate load per unit
length of foundation)
Effective Area Method (Meyerhoff, 1953)
▪ In 1953, Meyerhof proposed a theory that is generally referred to as the effective area
method.
▪ The following is a step-by-step procedure for determining the ultimate load that the soil can
support and the factor of safety against bearing capacity failure:

Step 1. Determine the effective dimensions of the foundation (Figure 2.7.2a):

B’ = effective width = B - 2e
L’ = effective length = L

Note that if the eccentricity were in the direction of the length of the foundation, the value of L’
would be equal to L - 2e. The value of B’ would equal B. The smaller of the two dimensions (i.e.,
L’ and B’) is the effective width of the foundation.
 ▪ Step 2. Use Eq. (4.26) for the ultimate bearing capacity:

Table 2.6.2

Table 2.6.2.

▪ Step 3. The total ultimate load that the foundation can sustain is

▪ Step 4. The factor of safety against bearing capacity failure is

▪ It is important to note that q’u is the ultimate bearing capacity of a foundation of width
B’ = B - 2e with a centric load (Figure 2.7.2a). However, the actual distribution of soil
reaction at ultimate load will be of the type shown in Figure 2.7.2b. In Figure 2.7.2b,
qu(e) is the average load per unit area of the foundation. Thus,

Figure 2.7.2
Prakash and Saran Theory
▪ Prakash and Saran (1971) analyzed the problem of ultimate bearing capacity of eccentrically
and vertically loaded continuous (strip) foundations by using the one-sided failure surface in
soil, as shown in Figure 2.7.1.
▪ According to this theory, the ultimate load per unit length of a continuous foundation can be
estimated as

▪ The variations of Nc(e), Nq(e), and Nγ(e) with soil friction angle ϕ’ are given in Figures 2.7.3,
2.7.4, and 2.7.5. For rectangular foundations, the ultimate load can be given as
▪ Prakash and Saran (1971) also recommended the following for the shape factors:
▪ Figure 2.7.3: Variation of Nc(e) with soil friction angle ϕ’
▪ Figure 2.7.4: Variation of Nq(e) with soil friction angle ϕ
▪ Figure 2.7.5: Variation of Nγ(e) with soil friction angle ϕ
Reduction Factor Method (For Granular Soil)
▪ Purkayastha and Char (1977) carried out stability analysis of eccentrically loaded
continuous foundations supported by a layer of sand using the method of slices.
Based on that analysis, they proposed

(2.7.1)

(See Figure 2.7.2)

(2.7.2)

▪ where a and k are functions of the embedment ratio Df/B (Table 4.9).
▪ Hence, combining Eqs (2.7.1) and (2.7.2)

(2.7.3)

Table 2.7.1

▪ Where,

▪ The relationships for Fqd and Fγd are given in Table 2.6.2.
▪ Based on several laboratory model tests, Patra et al. (2012a) have concluded that

▪ The ultimate load per unit length of the foundation can then be given as
▪ Refer to Braja M. Das Eight Edition textbook section 4.12 page 196
▪ The allowable settlement of a shallow foundation may control the allowable bearing
capacity.
▪ The allowable settlement itself may be controlled by local building codes. Thus, the
allowable bearing capacity will be the smaller of the following two conditions:
▪ The settlement of a shallow foundation can be divided into two major categories:
(a) elastic, or immediate, settlement and
(b) consolidation settlement.

▪ Immediate, or elastic, settlement of a foundation takes place during or immediately after the
construction of the structure.
▪ Consolidation settlement occurs over time. Pore water is extruded from the void spaces of
saturated clayey soils submerged in water. The total settlement of a foundation is the sum of the
elastic settlement and the consolidation settlement.
▪ Consolidation settlement comprises two phases: primary and secondary.
▪ The fundamentals of primary consolidation settlement were explained in detail in Geotechnic 2.
▪ Secondary consolidation settlement occurs after the completion of primary consolidation caused
by slippage and reorientation of soil particles under a sustained load.
▪ Primary consolidation settlement is more significant than secondary settlement in inorganic clays
and silty soils. However, in organic soils, secondary consolidation settlement is more significant.
▪ This chapter presents various theories presently available for estimating of elastic and
consolidation settlement of shallow foundations.
(μs = 0.5)
Is