Bearing Capacity of

Shallow foundations

Technical University of Kenya

Department of civil engineering
Dr. Eng. Alphonce A. Owayo.
Lower and Upper Bound Solutions for Bearing
Capacity.
Although today we have finite element methods which can
combine elastic and plastic components of soil response to
loading, the use of lower and upper bound plasticity is important
in enhancing our understanding of plasticity in soils and many of
the methods we use in geotechnical design. This is an overview of
both lower and upper bound solutions to the classic bearing
capacity problem. Much of this presentation is drawn from
Tsytovich (1976) but the equations have been re-derived and
checked.
Definitions (from Verruijt)
Lower bound theorem. The true failure load is larger than the load
corresponding to an equilibrium system.
Upper bound theorem. The true failure load is smaller than the
load corresponding to a mechanism, if that load is determined
using the virtual work principle. For our purposes, since we’re
assuming an elastic/perfectly plastic
Jan-April 2023 2
type of soil model, the lower bound solution is where the stress at
some point reaches the elastic limit, while the upper bound
solution has the stress fully plastic to the boundaries of the
system, at which point the capacity of the system to resist further
stress has been exhausted (reached its upper limit.)
Assumptions
 Foundation is very rigid relative to the soil (for upper bound)
and flexible relative to soil (lower bound.) With the latter, a
rigid foundation produces infinite stresses at the edges, which
means the lower bound solution is zero pressure in that case.
 No sliding occurs between foundation and soil (rough
foundation)

Jan-April 2023 3
 Applied load is compressive and applied vertically to the
centroid of the foundation (upper bound) or uniformly (lower
bound)
 No applied moments present
 Foundation is a strip footing (infinite length)
 Soil beneath foundation is homogeneous semi-infinite mass.
For the derivations here, we additionally assume that the
properties of the soil above the base of the foundation are the
same as those below it
 Mohr-Coulomb model for soil
 General shear failure mode is the governing mode
 No soil consolidation occurs
 Soil above bottom of foundation has no shear strength; is only
a surcharge load against the overturning load
 The effective stress of the soil weight acts in a hydrostatic
fashion, i.e., the horizontal stresses are the same as the vertical
ones.
Jan-April 2023 4
These are fairly standard assumptions for basic bearing capacity
theory; the “additions” from these are workarounds that have been
developed. That includes the analysis of finite foundations
(squares, rectangles, circles, etc.)
Theory of Elasticity of Infinite Strip Footings
Let us begin by considering the system below of a strip footing
with a uniform load. The variables are defined in the figure.

Figure 1 Elastic Model of Stresses of Strip

Loads (adapted from Tsytovich (1976))

Jan-April 2023 5
It can be shown that the stresses at a point of interest can be
defined as follows:

It can also be shown that the principal axis of the stresses at the
point are along a line in the middle of the angle 𝛼. This is the
dashed line in the diagram above. Along this line the angle 𝛽= 0
(and thus 𝛼Τ2=- 𝛽’ ) and the principal stresses due to the load
become

Jan-April 2023 6
Jan-April 2023 7
Lower Bound Solution
Shallow foundations are seldom built with the base of the
foundation at the same elevation as the ground line. They are
customarily built to a depth from the surface, as shown below.

Figure 2 Geometry and Nomenclature of a

Typical Shallow Foundation (from Soils and
Foundations Manual)

Jan-April 2023 8
At this point, for analysis purposes, we transform the effect of the
depth into an overburden stress, which is the product of the the
unit weight of the soil 𝛾 and the depth of the foundation base from
the surface D (or h,) as shown below:

Figure 3 Strip Foundation with Surrounding

Overburden (from Tsytovich (1976))

Jan-April 2023 9
The effective stress at any point below the surface is given by the
equation

At the point the hydrostatic stress assumption becomes important.

The transformation from Equations (1-3) to (4-5) involved an axis
rotation. Assuming the soil acts hydrostatically means that, no
matter how we rotate the axis, the addition of the effective stress
to the principal stress is independent of direction.
Doing just that yields the following:

Jan-April 2023 10
At this point we state the failure function for Mohr-Coulomb
theory:

Substituting Equations (7) and (8) into Equation (9) yields

Solving for z, we have

At this point we want to find the maximum value of z at which

point plasticity first sets in. We do this by taking the derivative of
z relative to 𝛼 and setting it to zero, or

Jan-April 2023 11
 𝜋
It can be shown that this condition is fulfilled when 𝛼 = .
2
Substituting that value back into Equation (11) gives us the value
of z at which point plasticity is first induced, or

If we solve for the pressure p , that pressure will be in reality the

critical pressure at which plasticity is first induced. Solving for
that pressure,

At this point we need to face reality and note that, if the point
we’re looking for is the point at which plastic deformation begins,
then it cannot be at any depth other than the base of the
foundation, or zmax= 0 . Making that final substitution yields at
last.
Jan-April 2023 12
Upper Bound
The upper bound solution is a well-worn path in geotechnical
engineering and only the highlights will be shown here.

In 1920-1 Prandtl and Reissener solved the problem for a soil by

neglecting its own weight, i.e., Equation (16) They determined
that the failure pattern and surface can be represented by the
following configuration.
They determined that the upper bound critical pressure was given
by the equation

Jan-April 2023 13
 Figure 4 Slip Lines and Failure Surface for
Upper Bound Bearing Capacity Failure (from
Tsytovich (1976))
If we define

then

Jan-April 2023 14
If we further define;

we have

The only thing missing from this equation is the effect of the
weight of the soil bearing on the failure surface at the
bottom of the failure region shown in Figure 4, and thus the
bearing capacity equation can be written thus:

Where

Jan-April 2023 15
This last bearing capacity factor has been the subject of variable
solutions over the years; the one shown here is that of Vesić, which
is enshrined in FHWA/AASHTO recommended practice. Verruijt
discusses this issue in detail.
Worked Example
We can take an example from the Soils and Foundations Manual,
shown below

It would probably be useful to state the bearing capacity equations in

nomenclature that’s more consistent with American practice (and the
diagram above.) In both cases this is, for the lower bound solution,
Jan-April 2023 16
and for the upper-bound solution,

One important practical difference between the two is the way the
overburden is handled. With the lower bound solution, it is equal to
𝛾D , while with the upper bound solution it is simply the pressure q .
For a uniform soil above the foundation base with no water table to
complicate things, q = 𝛾D = (125)(5) = 625psf.
Direct substitution into Equation (15a) of all of the variables with
shows that the lower bound critical pressure is 4740.5 psf.
The upper bound is a little more complicated. The three bearing
capacity factors are Nq = 6.4, Nc =14.8,and , N𝛾 = 5.39 . Substituting
these, q and the other variables yield an upper bound critical
pressure of 13,436.8 psf.
Jan-April 2023 17
If the lower bound is a reduction from the upper bound using a
factor of safety, then the FS = 2.83. The lower bound solution is
conservative.

Conclusion
Although the lower bound solution may be too conservative for
general practice, it is at least an interesting exercise to show the
variations in critical pressure from the onset of plastic yielding to its
final failed state.

PEQ

Repeat the above example using standard SI units.

Jan-April 2023 18