bearing pressure

•it is the pressure along the bottom of the foundation.

•various research and field measurements have shown that bearing pressure
might not necessarily uniformly distributed underneath the foundation.
•its distribution is influenced by several factors including:
 eccentricity of the applied load, if any
 magnitude of applied moment, if any
 structural rigidity of the foundation
 stress-strain behavior of the soil
 Bearing Pressure
• the bearing pressure (q) at the bottom of a shallow foundation is:

P: vertical column load,

Wf: weight of foundation including the weight of soil above the foundation.
Shallow foundations are made of reinforced concrete, use gconc=23.6 kN/m3 .

A: base area of the foundation,

uD: pore water pressure at the bottom of the foundation (D is the depth from
ground surface to the bottom of the foundation). This term accounts for the
uplift pressure due to bouyancy.
Bearing Pressure for continuous footings
 Example 5.2 from Coduto (p.157)

A 0.7m wide continuous footing supports a wall load of 110kN/m.

The bottom of this footing is at a depth of 0.5m below the adjacent
ground surface and the soil has a unit weight of 17.5kN/m3. The
gwt is at a depth of 10m below the ground surface. Compute the
bearing pressure.
 Example 5.2 from Coduto (p.157)
A 0.7m wide continuous footing supports a wall load of 110kN/m. The bottom of
this footing is at a depth of 0.5m below the adjacent ground surface and the soil
has a unit weight of 17.5kN/m3. The gwt is at a depth of 10m below the ground
surface. Compute the bearing pressure.
 Example 5.3 from Coduto (p.159)
The mat foundation shown below is 50m wide, 70m long, and 1.8m
thick. The sum of the column and wall loads is 805MN. Compute the
average bearing pressure, then compare it with the initial vertical
effective stress in the soil immediately below the mat.
 Foundations with eccentric or moment loads
•in general, vertical load (P) acts through the centroid of foundations,
hence assumed to generate fairly uniform distribution of bearing
pressure.

• but sometimes, either vertical load may not act through the centroid or
there exist moment on the foundation causing nonuniform distribution of
bearing pressure.
Foundations with eccentric or moment loads
•for Fig. a
if spread footing:

if continuous footing:

•for Fig. b
if spread footing:

if continuous footing:
 One-way loading (if eccentricity occur only in
the B direction)
•bearing pressure distribution is approximated to be linearly distributed
underneath the foundation depending on the value of e.

•if e≤ B/6
 One-way eccentric loading (if eccentricity
occur only in the B direction)
•if e>B/6 as shown in figure below, there would be no contact pressure in
some section of the base area. This can cause excessive tilting of the
foundation which is not good.

•therefore foundations with

eccentricity (either due to
vertical load or moment) should
satisfy
e≤ B/6
 Two-way eccentric loading (if eccentricity occur
both in the B and L directions)
•for the contact pressure to be
compressive along the entire base
of the footing the following
condition should be met:

•if above condition satisfied

magnitudes of q at different
corners:
 Example 5.5 from Coduto (p.165)
The mat foundation shown will support four
grain silos. These are cylindrical structures
used to store grains. Each of the silos has an
empty weight of 29MN, and can hold up to
110MN of grain. The mat has a weight of
60MN. Since each silo is filled independently,
the resultant load imposed on the mat does not
necessarily act through the centroid. Evaluate
the various loading conditions and determine
whether eccentric loading requirements will
be met. If these requirements are not met,
determine the minimum mat width B, needed
to satisfy these requirements.
Example 5.5 from Coduto (p.165)
Example 5.5 from Coduto (p.165)
Example 5.5 from Coduto (p.165)
 bearing capacity

•shallow foundations induce both compressive and shear stresses in the soils
underneath them.

•if the bearing pressure is large enough or the size of the footing is small enough,
shear stresses may exceed the shear strength of the soil, which causes bearing
capacity failure.
Types of Bearing Capacity Failures

•general shear is the most common

failure mode. Could simulate failure
conditions especially in clayey soils or
dense sands (Dr>67%).

•local shear could simulate failure

conditions in medium dense sandy soils
(30%<Dr<67%).

•punching shear could simulate failure

conditions in very loose sandy soils
(Dr<30%).
 Design for Bearing Capacity
• General shear failure involves total rupture of the underlying soil. There
is a continuous shear failure of the soil (solid lines) from below the footing
to the ground surface.

When the load is plotted versus settlement of the footing, there is a distinct
load at which the foundation fails (solid circle), and this is designated Qult.

The ultimate bearing capacity (qult) has been defined as the bearing stress
that causes a sudden catastrophic failure of the foundation
 Design for Bearing Capacity
• Local shear failure involves rupture of the soil only immediately
below the footing. There is soil bulging on both sides of the footing, but
the bulging is not as significant as in general shear.

Local shear failure can be considered as a transitional phase between

general shear and punching shear. Because of the transitional nature of
local shear failure, the bearing capacity could be defined as the first
major nonlinearity in the load-settlement curve (open circle) or at the
point where the settlement rapidly increases (solid circle).
 Design for Bearing Capacity
• 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.

The load settlement curve does not have a dramatic break and for punching
shear, the bearing capacity is often defined as the first major nonlinearity in the
load-settlement curve (open circle).
 Design for Bearing Capacity

• we design the shallow foundations in order to prevent the general shear

bearing capacity failure.

•there are several methods that have been developed for bearing capacity
analysis.

•most common ones are Terzaghi’s method and Vesic’s method.

 Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Method
• those are the assumptions for this method:
1) depth of the foundation (D) ≤ its width (B),
2) bottom of the foundation is rough (i.e. no sliding between its bottom and
soil),
3) soil underneath the foundation extends to a large depth and homogeneous
(soil properties are uniform),
4) shear strength of the soil is expressed by Mohr-Coulomb criterion
5) type of failure is in general shear,
6) no consolidation occurs in the soil,
7) foundation is rigid relative to the soil,
8) the soil between the ground surface and depth D has no shear strength and
act as a surcharge load,
9) applied load is compressive, there is neither eccentric loading nor moment
acting on the foundation.
Geometry of Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Failure
 Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Method
• for square foundations:

• for continuous foundations:

• for circular foundations:

Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Method
 Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Factors

• bearing capacity factors calculated from the equations are also given in a
tabular form
 Terzaghi’s Bearing
Capacity Factors

• bearing capacity factors

calculated from the equations are
also given in a tabular form
 Example 6.2

The proposed continuous footing

shown in the figure will support
the exterior wall of a new
industrial building. The underlying
soil is an undrained clay, and gwt
is below the bottom of the footing.
Compute the ultimate bearing
capacity, and compute the wall
load required to cause a bearing
capacity failure.
Solution of Example 6.2
Solution of Example 6.2
 Vesic’s Bearing Capacity Method

• Terzaghi’s bearing capacity method is still widely used since it is simple and
familiar.

• however, it does not consider some cases such as rectangular footings,

inclined loads, footings located near the top of a slope, or large depth to width
ratios (e.g. D>B).

•method developed by Vesic, based on theoretical and experimental findings,

could be applicable to a much wider range of geometry and loading conditions
compared to Terzaghi’s.
 Vesic’s Bearing Capacity Method

•the basic form of the ultimate bearing capacity formula is the same with
Terzaghi’s.
 Vesic’s Shape Factors

•remember B: foundation width, L: foundation length

 Vesic’s Depth Factors

• if D/B ≤ 1 use k=D/B

• if D/B > 1 use k=tan-1(D/B) , where tan-1 term is in radians

 Vesic’s Load Inclination Factors
• these factors are used when there is a shear component (V) of the applied load
at the base of a footing. If there is no V, all i factors are equal to 1.

V: component of the load acting

parallel to the bottom of the
foundation

P: component of the load acting

if the load is inclined in B perpendicular to the bottom of the
direction foundation

if the load is inclined in L

direction
 Vesic’s Base Inclination Factors

• these factors are used very seldomly as most of footings have horizontal bases.
 Vesic’s Ground Inclination Factors
•foundations near the top of a slope have lower bearing capacity than those on
level ground. The following factors account for this.
 Vesic’s Bearing Capacity Factors
•Vesic’s bearing capacity factors calculated from the equations below are also
given in a tabular form in your book.
 Ground water influence
•the presence of groundwater within the failure zone of our foundation is
important because it reduces the shear strength (either by reducing the apparent
cohesion or by increasing the pore pressure).
•therefore we design the foundations according to the worst case depth
(shallowest location) of gwt.
 Ground water influence
•the value of the effective unit weight(g') used in the bearing capacity equations
are adjusted according to the location of the gwt.

• for case 1:

•for case 2:

•for case 3:
Ground water influence
Ground water influence
 Bearing Capacity Correlations with SPT-value
• In the case of sands, the settlement is almost immediate and an allowable or
permissible settlement of 25mm is usually applied. Foundation design uses
the allowable bearing capacity, qa, which satisfies the settlement condition
and provides values of the Factor of Safety greater than the normal (3.0 –
4.0).

• The standard penetration test results, N values, are corrected to allow for;
pore water pressure and overburden pressure.

Correction factor, CN, for overburden pressure – this accounts for the confining
pressure at the depth at which the N value has been taken and is read off a
graph.Now a revised value for the number of blows, Nrev = CN x N

The effects of pore water pressure at the location of the test are considered by
further correcting the Nrev value: Ncorr = 15 + 0.5(Nrev – 15)
Bearing Capacity Correlations with SPT-value
Peck, Hansen, and Thornburn (1974)
Bearing Capacity Correlations with SPT-value
Bearing Capacity Correlations with CPT-value (cohesionless)
Bearing Capacity Correlations with CPT-value (cohesive)
 Bearing Capacity on Layered Soil

Another approximate method for c’-f’ soil:

 Eccentrically Loaded Foundations

The effective area method for two way eccentricity becomes a little more complex
than what is suggested above. It is discussed in the subsequent slides
Determination of Effective Dimensions for Eccentrically Loaded
Foundations (Highter and Anders, 1985)
Determination of Effective Dimensions for Eccentrically Loaded
Foundations (Highter and Anders, 1985)
Determination of Effective Dimensions for Eccentrically Loaded
Foundations (Highter and Anders, 1985)
Determination of Effective Dimensions for Eccentrically Loaded
Foundations (Highter and Anders, 1985)
Determination of Effective Dimensions for Eccentrically Loaded
Foundations (Highter and Anders, 1985)
 Drained vs. Undrained Strength
•remember that hydraulic conductivity of clays could be one million times
smaller than that of sands. Therefore the rate of drainage (dissipation of excess
pore pressures) during and after the construction can be very slow.

•remember the following table from Soil Mechanics class?

(usually on the conservative side,

compared to drained analysis )
 Example 6.3 (Coduto)
A 30m by 50m mat foundation is to be built as shown in figure below. Compute
the ultimate bearing capacity using Vesic’s method.
Solution of Example 6.3 (Coduto)
Solution of Example 6.3 (Coduto)

=1-0.4 (30/50)=0.76
 Allowable bearing capacity (qa)
•in the design, ultimate bearing capacity (qult) of the soil is reduced by dividing
it to a factor of safety (F). we name this value as allowable bearing capacity
(qa).