Chapter Three

Summary of the chapter

BEARING CAPACITY OF SHALLOW

FOUNDATIONS

1. Introduction

The bearing capacity of a foundation is a critical concept in geotechnical engineering,

referring to the maximum load per unit area which the soil can support without
experiencing shear failure or unacceptable settlement. Shallow foundations, including
strip, spread, and mat foundations, are typically used for transferring structural loads to the
underlying soil. The design of such foundations requires a thorough understanding of the
soil properties, the type of load, and the geometry of the footing to ensure safety and
stability.

Bearing capacity not only ensures structural stability but also prevents excessive
settlement, differential settlement, and tilting, which could compromise the serviceability
of the structure. The study of bearing capacity involves analytical methods, empirical
approaches, and sometimes numerical modeling, depending on the complexity of soil
conditions and the geometry of the foundation.

2. Types of Bearing Capacity

2.1 Ultimate Bearing Capacity (q_u)

The ultimate bearing capacity represents the maximum pressure that can be applied on the
soil before failure occurs. At this load, the soil beneath the foundation reaches a state of
plastic equilibrium. Ultimate bearing capacity is influenced by the soil’s shear strength
parameters (cohesion and internal friction angle), the depth and width of the foundation,
and the surcharge or overburden pressure above the base of the footing.

2.2 Safe Bearing Capacity (q_safe)

Safe bearing capacity is derived by applying an appropriate factor of safety (FOS) to the
ultimate bearing capacity to ensure that the applied load is well below the failure threshold.
It is given by:

q_safe = q_u / FOS

This approach accounts for uncertainties in soil properties, variability in load conditions,
and inaccuracies in analysis, providing a margin of safety in the design of shallow
foundations.

2.3 Allowable Bearing Capacity

Allowable bearing capacity is similar to safe bearing capacity but often includes
considerations for acceptable settlement. Some soil types may fail by excessive settlement
before reaching shear failure. In such cases, allowable bearing capacity is computed based
on settlement criteria in addition to ultimate bearing capacity.

3. Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Theory

Terzaghi (1943) provided a fundamental method to compute the ultimate bearing capacity
for strip, square, and circular footings on cohesive or cohesionless soils. For a strip footing,
the ultimate bearing capacity is expressed as:

q_u = cN_c + γD_f N_q + 0.5γBN_γ

Where:

• c = cohesion of soil (kPa or kN/m²)

• γ = unit weight of soil (kN/m³)
 • D_f = depth of foundation below ground surface (m)
• B = width of the footing (m)
• N_c, N_q, N_γ = bearing capacity factors, which depend on the internal friction
angle (φ) of the soil.

This formula assumes a general shear failure condition where the soil under the foundation
exhibits a distinct failure surface extending from the base of the footing to the ground
surface. The contributions of cohesion, surcharge, and soil weight are combined to
calculate the total ultimate bearing capacity.

4. Bearing Capacity Factors

The bearing capacity factors (N_c, N_q, N_γ) are dimensionless coefficients that reflect
the influence of the soil’s friction angle on the load-bearing capacity. These factors are
computed using empirical or theoretical relationships derived from limit equilibrium
analyses:

• For φ = 0°, typical values are N_c = 5.14, N_q = 1, N_γ = 0

• As φ increases, all factors increase, reflecting the higher resistance provided by
frictional soils.

Tables or charts are often used to determine these factors for specific soils during design.

5. Types of Shear Failure

5.1 General Shear Failure

Occurs when dense or stiff soils fail with a well-defined failure surface that reaches the
ground surface. There is significant displacement and bulging around the edges of the
footing.

5.2 Local Shear Failure

Occurs in medium-dense or medium-stiff soils where the failure surface is less distinct and
the soil outside the footing experiences minor movement.

5.3 Punching Shear Failure

Occurs in loose or soft soils, particularly beneath small footings or column bases. The
footing sinks into the soil without significant lateral bulging.

6. Effect of Water Table

The presence of a water table reduces the effective stress acting on the soil, thereby
decreasing the bearing capacity. If the foundation is below the water table, the soil unit
weight γ in the bearing capacity equation is replaced by the submerged unit weight γ' = γ -
γ_w, where γ_w is the unit weight of water. Proper drainage or design adjustments must
be considered to mitigate this effect.

7. Worked Example

Given:

• Footing width, B = 2 m
• Foundation depth, D_f = 1.5 m
• Soil unit weight, γ = 18 kN/m³
• Cohesion, c = 20 kN/m²
• Internal friction angle, φ = 30°
• Bearing capacity factors: N_c = 30, N_q = 18, N_γ = 22
• Factor of Safety (FOS) = 3

Step 1: Calculate ultimate bearing capacity

q_u = cN_c + γD_f N_q + 0.5γBN_γ

= (20 × 30) + (18 × 1.5 × 18) + (0.5 × 18 × 2 × 22)

= 600 + 486 + 396

q_u = 1482 kN/m²

Step 2: Calculate safe bearing capacity

q_safe = q_u / FOS

q_safe = 1482 / 3 = 494 kN/m²

Conclusion: The safe bearing capacity of the soil for the given footing dimensions and soil
properties is 494 kN/m². This ensures a margin of safety against shear failure under the
applied loads.

8. Additional Considerations

• Footing Shape: Square and circular footings require modification factors in

Terzaghi’s equation.
• Load Inclination: When loads are inclined, additional factors reduce the bearing
capacity.
• Eccentric Loading: Eccentric or moment loads may reduce the effective area of
the footing, decreasing the allowable bearing pressure.
• Settlement Criteria: Excessive settlements may govern design in soft cohesive
soils even if the bearing capacity is adequate.

9. Applications

• Design of strip footings beneath walls

• Spread footings for individual columns
• Raft or mat foundations for large structures
• Earthquake-resistant foundation design
• Bridge abutments and retaining structures
10. Conclusion

A thorough understanding of the bearing capacity of shallow foundations is essential to

ensure safe and reliable design of structures. Terzaghi’s bearing capacity theory provides
a widely accepted method for estimating ultimate and safe loads, taking into account soil
properties, footing dimensions, and depth. Additional considerations such as water table,
footing shape, and load eccentricity are essential for realistic and practical design.
Engineers must integrate these factors to prevent structural failure, excessive settlement,
and maintain long-term serviceability of the foundation system.

A foundation, often constructed from concrete, steel or wood, is a structure

designed to transfer loads from a superstructure to the soil underneath the
superstructure. In general, foundations are categorized into two groups, namely,
shallow and deep foundations. Shallow foundations are comprised of footings, while
deep foundations include piles that are used when the soil near the ground surface has
no enough strength to stand the applied loading. The ultimate bearing capacity, qu,
(in kPa) is the load that causes the shear failure of the soil underneath and adjacent
to the footing. In this chapter, we will discuss equations used to estimate the ultimate
bearing capacity of soils. When you complete this chapter you should be able to:
Ÿ Calculate the bearing capacity of soils.

2.0 Bearing Failure Modes

Figure 2.1: Modes of bearing failures (a) General shear (b) Local shear and (c)
Punching shear.
Relative density of the soil and size of the foundation are among the major factors that
affect the mode of bearing failure likely to occur. The modes of bearing failure are
generally separated into three categories: The general shear failure (Fig. 1.1 a) is
usually associated with soils of low compressibility such as dense sand and stiff
cohesive soils. In this case, if load is gradually applied to the foundation, settlement
will increase. At a certain point – when the applied load per unit area equals to the
ultimate load qu – a sudden failure in the soil supporting the foundation will take place.
The failure surface in the soil will extend to the ground surface and full shear
resistance of the soil is developed along the failure surface. Bulging of the soil near the
footing is usually apparent.
For the local shear failure (Fig. 1.1 b), which is common in sands and clays of
medium compaction, the failure surface will gradually extend outward from the
foundation but will not reach the ground surface as shown by the solid segment in Fig.
1.1 b. The shear resistance is fully developed over only part of the failure surface
(solid segment of the line). There is a certain degree of bulging of the soil.
In the case of punching shear failure, a condition common in loose and very
compressible soils, considerable vertical settlement may take place with the failure
surfaces restricted to vertical planes immediately adjacent to the sides of the
foundation; the ground surface may be dragged down. After the first yield has
occurred the load-settlement curve will be steep slightly, but remain fairly flat.

2.1 Ultimate Bearing Capacity Equations

2.1.1 Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity equation

Many of the present day principles regarding bearing capacity equations appear to
have had their origin on a failure mechanism proposed by Prandtl in the early 1920s
(refer literature for Prandtl’s failure mechanism). Prandtl developed a bearing capacity

Figure 2.2: Failure mechanism for Terzhagi’s bearing capacity solution.

equation assuming a smooth (frictionless) footing and ignoring the weight of the soil
in the failure zone. These assumptions are not true in practice and therefore Prandtl’s
equation is never used in practical design, but it was a beginning.
 Terzhagi (1943) improved the Prandtl equation to include the roughness of the
footing and the weight of the failure zone. The failure mechanism in a c’, j’ soil for
Terzhagi’s bearing capacity solution is shown in Fig. 2.2. Terzhagi’s ultimate bearing
capacity equations are given as follows:

(2.1)
Strip (or long) footing: qu = c' N c + gDNq + 0.5BgNg

(2.2)
Square footing:
qu = 1.3c' N c + gDNq + 0.4BgNg
(2.3)
Circular footing:
qu = 1.3c' N c + gDNq + 0.3BgNg

where Nc, Nq and Ng are called the bearing capacity factors and are obtained as
follows:
e(3p / 2-j ') tan j ' K pg ö
Nq = , -
1÷
j'çg =1 tan æ
N (2.4)
N c = cot j '(N q - 1) ,
ø
è

2 cos2 (45 + 2 ç cos2 j' ÷

j' / 2)
Figure 2.3: Terzhagi’s bearing capacity coefficients.
Figure 2.3 shows the variation of the bearing capacity factors provided by Terzhagi.
Based on this figure, Aysen (2002) proposed the following equation to obtain the
value of Kpg in the N g equation:

K pg = (8j'2 -4j'+3.8) tan 2 (2.5)

(600 + j' / 2)

Where j' in the first term is in radians. In the undrained conditions (cu and ju = 0 ):
N c = ( p + 1) = 5.71,
3
Ng = 0 (2.6)
N q = 1,

2.1.2 Meyerhof’s Bearing Capacity equation

Meyerhof (1951) developed a bearing capacity equation by extending Terzhagi’s

failure mechanism and taking into account the effects of footing shape, load
inclination and footing depth by adding the corresponding factors of s, d, and i. For a
rectangular footing of L by B (L > B) and inclined load:
(2.7)
qu = c' N c scic d c + gDNq s q i q d q + 0.5BgNg sg ig dg

For vertical load, ic = iq = ig = 1

qu = c' Nc sc d c + gDNq sq d q + 0.5BgNg sg dg (2.8)

Figure 2.4: Meyerhof’s bearing capacity coefficients.
The bearing capacity factors:

N q = exp(p tan j ') tan 2 (45 + j ' / 2) ,

N c = cot j '(N q - 1) , Ng = (N q - 1) tan(1.4j ') (2.9)
In the undrained conditions (cu and
ju = 0 ):

N q = 1, Nc (p + 2) = 5.71, Ng = 0

The bearing capacity factors are graphically presented in Fig. 2.4. The shape,
inclination and depth factors are according to:
Shape Depth Inclination
æ 2
i = i = 1- a ö
0

Any j' c p c p c q ç ÷
L B 900 ø
For j' = 0 sq = s g = 1 dq = d g= 1 i g= 0
2
æ a0 ö
For j ' ³ 100
q g p q g p ig = ç1 - 0 ÷
L B
j' ö è j' ø
æ
K = tan 2 45 + , a =angle of resultant measured from vertical axis.
p ç ÷
è 2ø
æ Bö '
when triaxial j ' is used for plane strain, adjust j ' to obtain j ' = 1.1 - 0.1 ÷j
ç triaxial
è Lø

For the eccentric load, the length and width of the footing rectangle are modified to:
L’ = L – 2eL and B’ = B – 2eB (2.9)

where eL and eB represent the eccentricity along the appropriate directions.

2.1.3 Hansen’s Bearing Capacity Equation

Hansen (1961) extended Meyerhof’s solutions by considering the effects of

sloping ground surface and tilted base (Fig. 2.5) as well as modification of Ng and other
factors. For a rectangular footing of L by B (L > B) and inclined ground surface, base
and load:
(2.10)
qu = c' N c sc dcicbc gc + gDNq sq d q i q b q g q + 0.5BgNg sg dg ig bg gg
Equation 2.9 is sometimes referred to as the general bearing capacity equation. In the special case of a
horizontal ground surface,
 qu = c' N c sc dcicbc + gDNq sq dqiqbq + 0.5BgNg sg dg ig bg (2.11)

Figure 2.5: Identification of items in Hansen’s bearing capacity equation.

Figure 2.6 provides the relationships between Nc, Nq, and N g and the j' values, as
proposed by Hansen.

Figure 2.6: Hansen’s bearing capacity coefficients.

The bearing capacity factors Nc and Nq are identical with Meyerhof’s factors. Ng is
defined by:
 (2.12)
Ng = 1.5(Nq - 1) tan j

Since failure can take place either along the long side or along the short side, Hansen
proposed two sets of shape, inclination and depth factors.
The shape factors are:
Nq B B
B s = 1+ i × sin j ' , s =1- ³ 0.6
s = 1+ × i ,
(2.13)
q,B g ,B
c,B
c,B
q,B
0.4 ig ,B
L L
Nc

Nq L L L
s = 1+ × i , s =1+ i ³ 0.6
(2.14)
× sin j ' , s = 1-

q,L g ,L
c,L
c,L
q,L
0.4 ig ,L
B B
Nc

B L
For cu, ju=0 soil:
= 0.2 i = 0.2 i (2.15)
sc,B L c,B , sc,L B c,L

The inclination factors are:

1- i æ 0.5H a1 a2
ö
æ 0.7
ö
H
ic,i = iq,i - q,i
, iq,i = ç1 - i
÷ , ig ,i = ç1 - i
÷ (2.16)

Nq - 1 è V + Acb cotj' ø è V + Acb cotj' ø

where the suMix i (in Eqn. 2.15) stands for B or L. 2 a1 £ 5 . 2 a 2 £ 5 . A is the area
of the footing base and cb is the cohesion mobilized in the footing-soil contact area. For
the tilted base:
a2
é (0.7 -h 0 4500 )H ù
ig ,i = ê1 - i
ú (2.17)

ë V + Acb cotj' û

(2.18)
For cu, ju=0 soil: ic,i = 0.5 - 0.5
1 - H i Acb

In the above equations, B and L may be replaced by their effective values (B’ and L’)
expressed by Eqn. (2.9).
The depth factors are expressed in two sets:
For D/B £ 1 & D/L £ 1:
d = 1 + 2 tan j '(1 - sin j ') 2 × D (2.19)
dc,B = 1 + 0.4 × D ,
B q,B B
d = 1 + 2 tan j '(1 - sin j ')2 × D (2.20)
dc,L = 1 + 0.4 × D L ,

For D/B > 1 & D/L > 1:

q,L L

( B),
dc,B = 1 + 0.4 × tan -1 D d = 1 + 2 tan j'(1 - sin j ') 2 ×
(2.21)
tan -1 (D ) B
q,B
 ( L),
dc,L = 1 + 0.4 × tan -1 D d
q,L
= 1 + 2 tan j '(1 - sin j ') 2 × tan -1 (D )
L
(2.22)

For both sets: (2.23)

dg = 1

For cu, ju soil: dc,B = 0.4 × D B , dc,L = 0.4 × D L (2.24)

For the sloping ground and tilted base, the ground factors gi and base factors bi are
proposed by the following equations. The angles b and h are at the same plane, either
parallel to B or L.

g = 1- b
0
, g q = gg = (1 - 0.5 tan b )5 (2.25)
c
1470

g =b
0
(2.26)
For cu, ju soil:
c
1470

b = e -2h tan j ' , bg = e-2.7h tan j ' (2.27)

bc = 1- h 147
0
0 ,

b =h
0
(2.28)
For cu, ju soil:
c
1470

2.1.4 A comparative summary of the three bearing capacity equations

Terzaghi’s equations were and are still widely used, perhaps because they are
somewhat simpler than Meyerhof’s and Hansen’s. Practitioners use Terzaghi’s
equations for a very cohesive soil and D/B < 1. However, Terzaghi’s equations have
the following major drawbacks:
Ÿ Shape, depth and inclination factors are not considered.
Ÿ Terzaghi’s equations are suitable for a concentrically loaded horizontal footing but are not
suitable for eccentrically (for example, columns with moment or titled forces) loaded
footings that are very common in practice.
 Ÿ The equations are generally conservative than Meyerhof’s and Hansen’s.

Currently, Meyerhof’s and Hansen’s equations are more widely used than
Terzaghi’s. Both are viewed as somewhat less conservative and applicable to more
general conditions. Hansen’s is, however, used when the base is tilted or when the
footing is on a slope and for D/B > 1.
EXAMPLE 2.1
Given the data in Fig. E2.1, determine the ultimate bearing capacity qu using:
a)Terzaghi’s, b) Meyerhof’s and c) Hansen’s bearing capacity equations.

Figure E2.1: An isolated footing.

EAMPLE 2.2
Determine the ultimate bearing capacity of a square footing 1.5 m, at a depth of 1 m
in a soil c’ = 10 kPa, j ' =280, cu = 105 kPa, ju =0 and g = 19 kN/m3. Use Terzaghi’s,
Meyerhof’s and Hansen’s bearing capacity equations.
Strategy It is a good policy to sketch a diagram illustrating the conditions given.

EAMPLE 2.3
A square footing 1.5 m is to be constructed in sand with c’ = 0, j ' =400. The thickness
of the footing is 0.45 m and its top surface is level with the horizontal ground surface.
The footing is subjected to a central vertical force of 700 kN and a central horizontal
force (parallel to the sides) of 210 kN. Find the ultimate bearing capacity by a)
Meyerhof’s and b) Hansen’s equations. (Note that Terzaghi’s equations are not
applicable for inclined loads). The unit weight of the sand is 18 kN/m 3.

2.2.1 Effects of Groundwater Table on Bearing Capacity

For all the bearing capacity equations, you will have to make some adjustments
for the groundwater condition. The term gD in the bearing capacity equations refers
to the vertical stress of the soil above the base of the footing. The last term gB refers
to the vertical stress of a soil mass of thickness B, below the base of the footing. You
need to check which one of the three groundwater situations is applicable to your
project.
Situation 1: Groundwater level at a depth B below the base of the footing. In this
case no modification of the bearing capacity equations is required.
Situation 2: Groundwater level within a depth B below the base of the footing. If

I
the groundwater level is at a depth z below the base, such that z < B, then the term
gB is gz g '(B - z) or g sat z g '(B - z) . The later equation is used if the soil above

the groundwater level is also saturated. The term gD remains unchanged.

Situation 3: Groundwater level within the embedment depth. If the groundwater
is at a depth z within the embedment such that z < D, then the term gD is
gz g '(D - z) org sat z g '(D - z) . The latter equation is used if the soil above the

groundwater level is also saturated. The term gB becomes g ' B .

Figure E2.7: Groundwater within a) a depth B below base, b) embedment depth.

EAMPLE 2.4
Re-do example 2.3 assuming that the groundwater level is at the footing level (0.45 m
below the ground surface). The saturated unit weight is 21 kN/m3.

2.1.5 Allowable bearing capacity and factor of safety

The allowable bearing capacity, qa is calculated by dividing the ultimate bearing

capacity by a factor, called the factor of safety, FS. The FS is intended to compensate
for assumptions made in developing the bearing capacity equations, soil variability,
inaccurate soil data, and uncertainties of loads. The magnitude of FS applied to the
ultimate bearing capacity may be between 2 and 3. The allowable bearing capacity is:
qu (2.29)
q =
a
F
S

Alternatively, if the maximum applied foundation stress (s a )max is known and the
dimension of the footing is also known then you can find a factor of safety by replacing
in Eqn. (2.29):
qa by (s a )max

qu (2.30)
FS =
(s a )max
2.1.6 Eccentric Loads

Meyerhof (1963) proposed an approximate method for loads that are located
off-centered (or eccentric loads).

Figure A1
He proposed that for a rectangular footing of width B and length L, the base area
should be modified with the following dimensions:
B’ = B – 2eB and L’ =L - 2eL (1)

Where B’ and L’ are the modified width and length, eB and eL are the eccentricities in
the directions of the width and length, respectively. From your course in mechanics
you should recall that
M y and M (2)
e = e = x
B L
P P

where P is the vertical load, and M y and M x are the moments about the y and x axes,
respectively, as shown in Fig. A1.

The maximum and minimum vertical stresses along the x axis are:
P æ 6eB ö and s P æ 6eB ö (3)
s = 1+ = 1-
max
ç ÷ min ç ÷

and along the y axis are: BL è B ø BL è B ø

P
s = æ 6eL ö and s P æ 6eL ö (4)
1+ = 1-
max ç ÷ min ç ÷
BL è B ø BL è B ø
Since the tensile strength of soils is approximately zero, s min should always be
greater than zero. Therefore, eB & eL should always be less than B/6 & L/6, respectively.
The bearing capacity equations are modified for eccentric loads by replacing B with B’.
EXAMPLE 2.5
A footing 2 m square is located at a depth of 1 m below the ground surface in a deep
deposit of compacted sand, j ' =300, c’=0, and g sat =18 kN/m 3. The footing is
subjected to a vertical load of 500 kN and a moment about the Y-axis of 125 kN・m.
The ground water table is 5 m below the ground surface. Use Meyerhof’s bearing
capacity equation and calculate the factor of safety. Assume the soil above the ground
water is also saturated.

2.2 Field Tests

Often, it is difficult to obtain undisturbed samples of especially coarse-grained

soils for laboratory testing and one has to use results from field tests to determine the
bearing capacity of shallow foundations. Some of the most common methods used for
field tests are briefly described below.

2.2.1 Plate Loading Test

Tests on full sized footings are desirable but expensive. The alternative is to
carry out plate loading tests. The plate loading test is carried out to estimate the
bearing capacity of single footings. The plates that are used in the field are usually
made of steel and are 25 mm thick and 150 mm to 762 mm in diameter. A circular
plate of 300 mm is commonly used in practice. Occasionally, square plates that are
300 mm × 300 mm are also used.
To conduct a plate load test, a hole is excavated (Fig. 2.8) with a minimum
diameter 4BP (BP = diameter of the test plate) to a depth of D (D = depth of the
proposed foundation). The plate is placed at the center of the hole. Load is applied to
the plate in increments of 10% to 20% of the estimated ultimate load. Each load
increment is held until settlement ceases. The final settlement at the end of each
loading increment is recorded. The test should be conducted until the soil fails, or at
least until the plate has gone through 25 mm of settlement.

Figure 2.8: Plate Loading Test

For tests in clay,
 (2.31)
qu ( F ) = qu ( P )

where qu(F) & qu(P) are ultimate bearing capacity of foundation and plate, respectively.
Eqn. (2.31) implies that the bearing capacity in clays is independent of plate size.
For tests in sandy soil,
BF
qu ( F ) = q u ( P)
B (2.32)

where BF and BP stand for width of foundation and plate, respectively.

There are several problems associated with the plate load test. The test is
reliable if the soil layer is thick and homogeneous, local conditions such as a pocket of
weak soil near the surface of plate can affect the test results but these may have no
significant effect on the real footing, the correlation between plate load results and
real footing is problematic, and performance of the test is generally difficult.

2.2.2 Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is used to determine the allowable bearing
capacity of cohesionless coarse-grained soils such as sands. The test procedure for
SPT has been introduced in Chapter 1. The N values obtained from SPT are usually
corrected for various effects such as overburden pressure and energy transfer. The
following are two of the most commonly used methods in practice for correcting the N
values.

æ 95.8 ö
c =ç ÷ ; cN £ 2 (Liao and Whitman, 1985) (2.33)
N
s'

è z0 ø

æ1916 ö '
cN = 0.77 log10 ç ÷ ; cN £ 2, s z 0 > 24 kPa (Peck et al., 1974) (2.34)
s'
è z0 ø

where cN is a correction factor for overburden pressure, and s z' 0 is the effective
overburden pressure in kPa. A further correction factor is imposed on N values if the
groundwater level is within a depth B below the base of the footing. The groundwater
correction factor is:
 1 z (2.35)
c = +
W
2 2(D + B)

where z is the depth to the groundwater table, and D and B are the footing depth and
width. If the depth of the groundwater table is beyond B from the footing base cW = 1.
The corrected N value is:

Ncor = cN cW N
Meyerhof (1956, 1974) proposed the following equations to determine the allowable
bearing capacity qa from SPT values.
12 £ 1.22 m
q = S Ncor kd B (2.36)
a e
25

8 æ B + 0.305 ö 2

qa = Se N cor ç ÷ kd B > 1.22 m (2.37)

B ø
25 è

where Se is the elastic settlement of the layer in mm and kd = 1 + 0.33D/B £ 1.33.

In practice, each value of N is a soil layer up to a depth B below the footing base is
corrected and an average value of Ncor is used in Eqn. (2.37).
Bowles (1996) modified Meyerhof’s equations by 50% increase in the allowable
bearing capacity. Bowles’s equations are:
20 £ 1.22 m
q = S N corkd B (2.36)
a e
25

12.5 æ B + 0.305 ö
ø