Bearing

Bearing Capacity
Capacity of
of
Shallow
Shallow Footings
Footings
 Limit States

Serviceability Ultimate
 Limit States
BEARING CAPACITY FAILURE:
Factor of safety or safety margin against shear failure of the
supporting soil must be adequate.

SERVICEABILITY:
Settlement of the foundation at working loads should be
within specified limits so as to not cause damage to the
structure or its services or give rise to aesthetic problems.

Both of the above requirements must be satisfied.

 Design Approaches
Working Stress:
 Divide strength by a factor of safety (typically 3)
 This defines the allowable working load
 Compare the allowable load to the design working load
 “Conventional” design approach

Limit State:
 Multiply the strength by a strength reduction factor
 Multiply the load by a load factor
 Compare the two values
 Approach is used by Bridge Code, Retaining Structures
Code, Piling Code
Design Load
yF
y chosen so that there is
F only a small chance of the
actual force
exceeding the value y F

Typical values for y :

1.25 for Dead Load
1.50 for Live Load
1.35 typical average

Force (kN)
 Design Strength
fR
fchosen so that there is
R
only a small chance of
the actual capacity
being less than the value
fR

Typical values for f :

0.45 to 0.55 : depends on
reliability of design method,
certainty in soil strengths, etc

Force (kN)
Ultimate Limit State
yF <fR
F R

Force (kN)
 Safe Design Stresses

160 MPa Load

Load::
FF == ssaxial = 160 MPa
axial = 160 MPa
yy FF == 1.35
1.35 xx 160
160 == 216
216 MPa
MPa
mild steel

Capacity
Capacity::
RR == ffsysy == 250
250 MPa
MPa
ff R
R == 0.90.9 xx 250
250 == 225
225 MPa
MPa

yy FF << ff R
R …..O.K.
…..O.K.
 Safe Design Stresses

Load
Load::
FF == ssaxial = 110 kPa
axial = 110 kPa
110 kPa
yy FF == 1.35
1.35 xx 110
110 == 149
149 kPa
kPa

Capacity
Capacity::
RR == ffsysy == 250
250 kPa
kPa
ff R
R == 0.55
0.55 xx 250
250 == 138
138 kPa
kPa

yy FF >> ff R
R (no
(no good)
good)
Modes of Bearing Capacity Failure
 Characteristics of Failure Modes
General shear:
– well defined failure mechanism
– continuous slip surface from footing to surface
– sudden catastrophic failure
Local shear:
– failure mechanism well defined only beneath the footing
– slip surfaces do not extend to the soil surface
– considerable vertical displacement
– lower ultimate capacity
Punching shear:
– failure mechanism less well defined
– soil beneath footing compresses
– large vertical displacements
– lowest ultimate capacity
– very loose soils or at large embedment depths
 Analytical Solutions
• The failure of real soils with weight, cohesion and
friction is a complex phenomenon, not amenable
to simple theoretical solutions.
• If simplifying assumptions are made, it is
possible to develop particular analytical
solutions.
• These analytical solutions must be based either
on principles of equilibrium or kinematic
admissibility.
 Lower Bound Solution
“If an equilibrium distribution of stresses can be
found which balances the applied load, and
nowhere violates the yield criterion, the soil mass
will not fail or will be just at the point of failure”

i.e. it will be a lower-bound estimate of capacity.

Lower Bound Solution
qu = 4su

1 2
Weightless
soil f = 0
 Upper Bound Solution
“If a solution is kinematically admissible and
simultaneously satisfies equilibrium considerations,
failure must result”

i.e. it will be an upper-bound estimate of capacity.

Upper Bound Solution

qu r. r/2 = p r.su.r
qu = 2psu

r
Weightless
soil f = 0
Exact Solution for Undrained
Loading

qu = Nc.su

Nc = ?

A C A, C: rigid blocks
B B: fan zone comprised of
numerous sliding wedges
Inclined Loading

A C
B
 Inclined Loading
6

Nq/s
cc
u 3

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

t/suu
 Generalized Shear Failure

Soil Failure
Lines

passive
rigid
radial
shear
log spiral
 Bearing Capacity for real soils

Exact,
Exact, theoretical
theoretical analytical
analytical solutions
solutions have
have only
only been
been
computed
computed forfor special
special cases
cases -- e.g.
e.g. soils
soils with
with no
no weight,
weight,
no
no frictional
frictional strength,
strength, ff or
or no
no cohesion,
cohesion, c.c.

Approximate
Approximate solutions
solutions have
have been
been derived
derived by
by
combining
combining solutions
solutions for
for these
these special
special cases.
cases.
 Typical General Bearing Capacity
Equation
B
q u   s c d ci c g c b c  N c c   s q d q i q g q b q  N q p o   s  d  i  g  b   N 
2
Factors
Factors toto account
account for:
for:
•• shape
shape (strip,
(strip, circle,
circle, square,
square,
rectangle)
rectangle)
•• depth
depth ofof embedment
embedment
•• inclination
inclination ofof load
load
•• sloping
sloping ground
ground surface
surface
•• tilted
tilted footing
footing base
base f
Df po = g.Df
c
B
soil density, g, (kN/m3)
Bearing Capacity Factors


Nq  e tan  tan2  45  
 2

 
Nc  Nq 1 cot 

 
N   2 N q  1 tan 
 Bearing Capacity Factors
1000
Nc
Bearing Capacity Factor

Nq
100 Ng

10

0.1
0 10 20 30 40 50
Friction Angle (deg)
 Effect of Water Table on
Bearing Capacity
B

dw

Effective stresses (effective unit weights) must be used where appropriate

 Layered Soils

weak
weak strong
strong

strong
strong weak
weak