Bearing Capacity

The ultimate load which a foundation can support may be calculated using bearing
capacity theory. For preliminary design, presumed bearing values can be used to
indicate the pressures which would normally result in an adequate factor of safety.
Alternatively, there is a range of empirical methods based on in situ test results.

The ultimate bearing capacity (qf) is the value of bearing stress which causes a
sudden catastrophic settlement of the foundation (due to shear failure).

The allowable bearing capacity (qa) is the maximum bearing stress that can be
applied to the foundation such that it is safe against instability due to shear
failure and the maximum tolerable settlement is not exceeded. The allowable
bearing capacity is normally calculated from the ultimate bearing capacity using a
factor of safety (Fs).

When excavating for a foundation, the stress at founding level is relieved by the
removal of the weight of soil. The net bearing pressure (qn) is the increase in
stress on the soil.
qn = q - qo
qo = D
where D is the founding depth and is the unit weight of the soil removed.

Failure mechanisms and derivation of equations

 Upper and lower bound solutions
 Semi-circular slip mechanism
 Circular arc slip mechanism

 A relatively undeformed wedge of soil below the foundation forms an active

Rankine zone with angles (45º + '/2).
 The wedge pushes soil outwards, causing passive Rankine zones to form with
angles (45º - '/2).
 The transition zones take the form of log spiral fans.

For purely cohesive soils ( = 0) the transition zones become circular for which
Prandtl had shown in 1920 that the solution is
qf = (2 + ) su = 5.14 su
This equation is based on a weightless soil. Therefore if the soil is non-cohesive
(c=0) the bearing capacity depends on the surcharge qo. For a footing founded at
depth D below the surface, the surcharge qo = . Normally for a shallow
foundation (D<B), the shear strength of the soil between the surface and the
founding depth D is neglected.
radius of the fan r = r0 .exp[ .tan '].
is the fan angle in radians (between 0 and /2)
' is the angle of friction of the soil
ro = B/[2 cos(45+ '/2)]

Upper and lower bound solutions

The bearing capacity of a soil can be investigated using the limit theorems of ideal
rigid-perfectly-plastic materials.

The ultimate load capacity of a footing can be estimated by assuming a failure

mechanism and then applying the laws of statics to that mechanism. As the
mechanisms considered in an upper bound solutionare progressively refined, the
calculated collapse load decreases.

As more stress regions are considered in a lower bound solution, the calculated
collapse load increases.

Therefore, by progressive refinement of the upper and lower bound solutions, the
exact solution can be approached. For example, Terzaghi's mechanism gives the
exact solution for a strip footing.

Semi-circular slip mechanism

Suppose the mechanism is assumed to have a semi-
circular slip surface. In this case, failure will cause a
rotation about point O. Any surcharge qo will resist
rotation, so the net pressure (q - qo) is used. Using the
equations of statics:
Moment causing rotation
= load x lever arm
= [(q - qo) x B] x [½B]
Moment resisting rotation
= shear strength x length of arc x lever arm
= [s] x [ .B] x [B]
At failure these are equal:
(q - qo ) x B x ½B = s x .B x B
Net pressure (q - qo ) at failure
= 2 x shear strength of the soil
This is an upper-bound solution.
Circular arc slip mechanism
Consider a slip surface which is an arc in cross section,
centred above one edge of the base. Failure will cause
a rotation about point O. Any surcharge qo will resist
rotation so the net pressure (q - qo) is used. Using the
equations of statics:

Moment causing rotation

= load x lever arm
= [ (q - qo) x B ] x [B/2]
Moment resisting rotation
= shear strength x length of arc x lever arm
= [s] x [2 R] x [R]
At failure these are equal:
(q - qo) x B x B/2 = s x 2 R x R
Since R = B / sin :
(q - qo ) = s x 4 /(sin )²
The worst case is when
tan =2 at = 1.1656 rad = 66.8 deg
The net pressure (q - qo) at failure
= 5.52 x shear strength of soil

Bearing capacity of shallow foundations

 Bearing capacity equation (undrained)
 Bearing capacity equation (drained)
 Factor of safety

The ultimate bearing capacity of a foundation is calculated from an equation that

incorporates appropriate soil parameters (e.g. shear strength, unit weight) and
details about the size, shape and founding depth of the footing. Terzaghi (1943)
stated the ultimate bearing capacity of a strip footing as a three-term expression
incorporating the bearing capacity factors: Nc, Nq and N , which are related to the
angle of friction ( ´).

qf =[Link] +[Link] + ½g.B .Ng

For drained loading, calculations are in terms of effective stresses; ´ is > 0 and
N c, Nq and N are all > 0.
For undrained loading, calculations are in terms of total stresses; the undrained
shear strength (su); Nq = 1.0 and N = 0
c = apparent cohesion intercept
qo = D (i.e. density x depth)
D = founding depth
B = breadth of foundation
= unit weight of the soil removed.

Bearing capacity equation (undrained)

Skempton's equation is widely used for undrained clay soils:
qf = su .Ncu + qo
where Ncu = Skempton's bearing capacity factor, which can
be obtained from a chart or by using the following
expression:
Ncu = [Link]
where sc is a shape factor and dc is a depth factor.
Nq = 1, N = 0, Nc = 5.14
sc = 1 + 0.2 (B/L) for B<=L
dc = 1+ Ö(0.053 D/B ) for D/B < 4

Bearing capacity equation (drained)

 Bearing capacity factors
 Shape factors
 Depth factors

Terzaghi (1943) stated the bearing capacity of a foundation as a three-term

expression incorporating the bearing capacity factors
Nc, Nq and N .
He proposed the following equation for the ultimate bearing capacity of a long strip
footing:
qf =[Link] +[Link] + ½g.B .N
This equation is applicable only for shallow footings carrying vertical non-eccentric
loading.
For rectangular and circular foundations, shape factors are introduced.
qf = c .Nc .sc + qo .Nq .sq + ½ .B .N .sg
Other factors can be used to accommodate depth, inclination of loading, eccentricity
of loading, inclination of base and ground. Depth is only significant if it exceeds the
breadth.
Bearing capacity factors
The bearing capacity factors relate to the drained angle of friction ( '). The [Link] term
is the contribution from soil shear strength, the [Link] term is the contribution from
the surcharge pressure above the founding level, the ½.B. .Ng term is the
contribution from the self weight of the soil. Terzaghi's analysis was based on an
active wedge with angles ' rather than (45+ '/2), and his bearing capacity factors
are in error, particularly for low values of '. Commonly used values for Nq and
Nc are derived from the Prandtl-Reissner expression giving

Exact values for Ng are not directly obtainable; values have been proposed by
Brinch Hansen (1968), which are widely used in Europe, and also by Meyerhof
(1963), which have been adopted in North America.
Brinch Hansen:
N = 1.8 (Nq - 1) tan '
Meyerhof:
N = (Nq - 1) tan(1.4 ')

Shape factors
Terzaghi presented modified versions of his bearing capacity equation for shapes of
foundation other than a long strip, and these have since been expressed as shape
factors. Brinch Hansen and Vesic (1963) have suggested shape factors which
depend on '. However, modified versions of the Terzaghi factors are usually
considered sufficiently accurate for most purposes.
sc sq s
square 1.3 1.2 0.8
circle 1.3 1.2 0.6
rectangle (B<L) 1+ 0.2(B/L) 1+ 0.2(B/L) 1 - 0.4(B/L)
B = breadth, L = length

Depth factors
It is usual to assume an increase in bearing capacity when the depth (D) of a
foundation is greater than the breadth (B). The general bearing capacity equation
can be modified by the inclusion of depth factors.
qf = [Link] + [Link] + ½ B. .d
for D>B:
dc = 1 + 0.4 arctan(D/B)
dq = 1 + 2 tan( '(1-sin ')² arctan(B/D)
d = 1.0
for D=<B:
 dc = 1 + 0.4(D/B)
dq = 1 + 2 tan( '(1-sin ')² (B/D)
d = 1.0

Factor of safety
A factor of safety Fs is used to calculate the allowable bearing capacity qa from the
ultimate bearing pressure qf. The value of Fs is usually taken to be 2.5 - 3.0.

The factor of safety should be applied only to the increase in stress, i.e. the net
bearing pressure qn. Calculating qa from qf only satisfies the criterion of safety
against shear failure. However, a value for Fs of 2.5 - 3.0 is sufficiently high to
empirically limit settlement. It is for this reason that the factors of safety used in
foundation design are higher than in other areas of geotechnical design. (For
slopes, the factor of safety would typically be 1.3 - 1.4).

Experience has shown that the settlement of a typical foundation on soft clay is
likely to be acceptable if a factor of 2.5 is used. Settlements on stiff clay may be
quite large even though ultimate bearing capacity is relatively high, and so it may be
appropriate to use a factor nearer 3.0.

Presumed bearing values

For preliminary design purposes, BS 8004 gives presumed bearing values which
are the pressures which would normally result in an adequate factor of safety
against shear failure for particular soil types, but without consideration of settlement.
Category Types of rocks and soils Presumed bearing value
Non-cohesive soils Dense gravel or dense sand and gravel >600 kN/m²
Medium dense gravel,
<200 to 600 kN/m²
or medium dense sand and gravel
Loose gravel, or loose sand and gravel <200 kN/m²
Compact sand >300 kN/m²
Medium dense sand 100 to 300 kN/m²
<100 kN/m² depends on
Loose sand
degree of looseness
Cohesive soils Very stiff bolder clays & hard clays 300 to 600 kN/m²
Stiff clays 150 to 300 kN/m²
Firm clay 75 to 150 kN/m²
Soft clays and silts < 75 kN/m²
Very soft clay Not applicable
Peat Not applicable
Made ground Not applicable
Presumed bearing values for Keuper Marl

Presumed bearing
Weathering Zone Description
value
Fully weathered IVb Matrix only as cohesive soil
IVa Matrix with occasional pellets less than 3mm 125 to 250 kN/m²
Partially III Matrix with lithorelitics up to 25mm 250 to 500 kN/m²
weathered Angular blocks of unweathered marl with
II 500 to 750 kN/m²
virtually no matrix
Unweathered 1 Mudstone (often not fissured) 750 to 1000 kN/m²

Bearing capacity of piles

 Driven piles in non-cohesive soil
 Bored piles in non-cohesive soil
 Driven piles in cohesive soil
 Bored piles in cohesive soil
 Carrying capacity of piles in a layered soil
 Effects of ground water

The ultimate bearing capacity of a pile used in design

may be one three values:
the maximum load Qmax, at which further penetration
occurs without the load increasing;
a calculated value Qf given by the sum of the end-
bearing and shaft resistances;
or the load at which a settlement of 0.1 diameter occurs
(when Qmax is not clear).

For large-diameter piles, settlement can be large,

therefore a safety factor of 2-2.5 is usually used on the
working load.

A pile loaded axially will carry the load:

partly by shear stresses ( s) generated along the
shaft of the pile and
partly by normal stresses (qb) generated at the
base.
The ultimate capacity Qf of a pile is equal to the base capacity Qb plus the shaft
capacity Qs.
Qf = Qb + Qs = Ab . qb + (As . s)
where Ab is the area of the base and As is the surface area of the shaft within a soil
layer.
Full shaft capacity is mobilised at much smaller displacements than those related to
full base resistance. This is important when determining the settlement response of
a pile. The same overall bearing capacity may be achieved with a variety of
combinations of pile diameter and length. However, a long slender pile may be
shown to be more efficient than a short stubby pile. Longer piles generate a larger
proportion of their full capacity by skin friction and so their full capacity can be
mobilised at much lower settlements.

The proportions of capacity contributed by skin friction and end bearing do not just
depend on the geometry of the pile. The type of construction and the sequence of
soil layers are important factors.

Driven piles in non-cohesive soil

 Ultimate pile capacity
 Standard penetration test
 Cone penetration test

Driving a pile has different effects on the soil surrounding it depending on the
relative density of the soil. In loose soils, the soil is compacted, forming a
depression in the ground around the pile. In dense soils, any further compaction is
small, and the soil is displaced upward causing ground heave. In loose soils, driving
is preferable to boring since compaction increases the end-bearing capacity.

In non-cohesive soils, skin friction is low because a low friction 'shell' forms around
the pile. Tapered piles overcome this problem since the soil is recompacted on each
blow and this gap cannot develop.

Pile capacity can be calculated using soil properties obtained from standard
penetration tests or cone penetration tests. The ultimate load must then be
divided by a factor of safety to obtain a working load. This factor of safety depends
on the maximum tolerable settlement, which in turn depends on both the pile
diameter and soil compressibility. For example, a safety factor of 2.5 will usually
ensure a pile of diameter less than 600mm in a non-cohesive soil will not settle by
more than 15mm.

Although the method of installing a pile has a significant effect on failure load, there
are no reliable calculation methods available for quantifying any effect. Judgement
is therefore left to the experience of the engineer.
Ultimate pile capacity
The ultimate carrying capacity of a pile is:
Qf = Qb + Qs
The base resistance, Qb can be found from Terzaghi's equation for bearing
capacity,
qf = 1.3 c Nc + qo Nq + 0.4 B N
The 0.4 term may be ignored, since the diameter is considerably
less than the depth of the pile.
The 1.3 c Nc term is zero, since the soil is non-cohesive.
The net unit base resistance is therefore
qnf = qf - qo = qo (Nq -1)
and the net total base resistance is
Qb = qo (Nq -1) Ab
The ultimate unit skin friction (shaft) resistance can be found from
qs = Ks . 'v .tan
where 'v = average vertical effective stress in a given layer
= angle of wall friction, based on pile material and ´
Ks = earth pressure coefficient
Therefore, the total skin friction resistance is given by the sum of the layer
resistances:
Qs = (Ks . 'v .tan .As)
The self-weight of the pile may be ignored, since the weight of the concrete is
almost equal to the weight of the soil displaced.
Therefore, the ultimate pile capacity is:
Qf = Ab qo Nq + (Ks . 'v .tan .As)

Values of Ks and can be related to the angle of internal friction ( ´) using the
following table according to Broms.

Ks
Material
low density high density
steel 20° 0.5
1.0
concrete 3/4 ´ 1.0 2.0
timber 2/3 ´ 1.5 4.0

It must be noted that, like much of pile design, this is an empirical relationship. Also,
from empirical methods it is clear that Qs and Qb both reach peak values
somewhere at a depth between 10 and 20 diameters.

It is usually assumed that skin friction never exceeds 110 kN/m² and base
resistance will not exceed 11000 kN/m².
Standard penetration test
The standard penetration test is a simple in-situ test in
which the N-value is the mumber of blows taken to drive
a 50mm diameter bar 300mm into the base of a bore
hole.

Schmertmann (1975) has correlated N-values obtained

from SPT tests against effective overburden stress as
shown in the figure.
The effective overburden stress = the weight of material
above the base of the borehole - the wight of water
e.g. depth of soil = 5m, depth of water = 4m, unit weight of soil = 20kN/m³, 'v = 5m
x 20kN/m³ - 4m x 9.81kN/m³ 60 kN/m²

Once a value for ´ has been estimated, bearing capacity factors can be
determined and used in the usual way.

Meyerhof (1976) produced correlations between base and frictional resistances

and N-values. It is recommended that N-values first be normalised with respect to
effective overburden stress:

Normalised N = Nmeasured x 0.77 log(1920/ ´v)

Ultimate base resistance Ultimate shaft resistance
Pile type Soil type
qb (kPa) qs (kPa)
Gravelly sand 40(L/d) N
Driven 2 Navg
Sand but < 400 N
Sandy silt 20(L/d) N
Silt but < 300 N

13(L/d) N
Bored Gravel and sands
but < 300 N
Navg
Sandy silt 13(L/d) N
Silt but < 300 N
L = embedded length
d = shaft diameter
Navg = average value along shaft
Cone penetration test
End-bearing resistance
The end-bearing capacity of the pile is assumed to be equal to the unit cone
resistance (qc). However, due to normally occurring variations in measured cone
resistance, Van der Veen's averaging method is used:
qb = average cone resistance calculated over a depth equal to three pile diameters
above to one pile diameter below the base level of the pile.
Shaft resistance
The skin friction can also be calculated from the cone penetration test from values of
local side friction or from the cone resistance value using an empirical relationship:
At a given depth, qs = Sp. qc
where Sp = a coefficient dependent on the type of pile

Type of pile Sp
Solid timber )
Pre-cast concrete )
0.005 - 0.012
Solid steel driven )
Open-ended steel 0.003 - 0.008

Bored piles in non-cohesive soil

The design process for bored piles in granular soils is essentially the same as that
for driven piles. It must be assumed that boring loosens the soil and therefore,
however dense the soil, the value of the angle of friction used for calculating
Nq values for end bearing and values for skin friction must be those assumed for
loose soil. However, if rotary drilling is carried out under a bentonite slurry ' can be
taken as that for the undisturbed soil.

Driven piles in cohesive soil

Driving piles into clays alters the physical characteristics of the soil. In soft clays,
driving piles results in an increase in pore water pressure, causing a reduction in
effective stress;.a degree of ground heave also occurs. As the pore water pressure
dissipates with time and the ground subsides, the effective stress in the soil will
increase. The increase in 'v leads to an increase in the bearing capacity of the pile
with time. In most cases, 75% of the ultimate bearing capacity is achieved within 30
days of driving.

For piles driven into stiff clays, a little consolidation takes place, the soil cracks and
is heaved up. Lateral vibration of the shaft from each blow of the hammer forms an
enlarged hole, which can then fill with groundwater or extruded porewater. This, and
'strain softening', which occurs due to the large strains in the clay as the pile is
advanced, lead to a considerable reduction in skin friction compared with the
undisturbed shear strength (su) of the clay. To account for this in design calculations
an adhesion factor, , is introduced. Values of can be found from empirical data
previously recorded. A maximum value (for stiff clays) of 0.45 is recommended.

The ultimate bearing capacity Qf of a driven pile in cohesive soil can be calculated
from:
Qf = Qb + Qs

where the skin friction term is a summation of layer resistances

Qs = ( .su(avg) .As)

and the end bearing term is

Qb = su .Nc .Ab

Nc = 9.0 for clays and silty clays.

Bored piles in cohesive soil

Following research into bored cast-in-place piles in London clay, calculation of the
ultimate bearing capacity for bored piles can be done the same way as for driven
piles. The adhesion factor should be taken as 0.45. It is thought that only half the
undisturbed shear strength is mobilised by the pile due to the combined effect of
swelling, and hence softening, of the clay in the walls of the borehole. Softening
results from seepage of water from fissures in the clay and from the un-set concrete,
and also from 'work softening' during the boring operation.

The mobilisation of full end-bearing capacity by large-diameter piles requires much

larger displacements than are required to mobilise full skin-friction, and therefore
safety factors of 2.5 to 3.0 may be required to avoid excessive settlement at working
load.

Carrying capacity of piles in layered soil

When a pile extends through a number of different layers of soil with different
properties, these have to be taken into account when calculating the ultimate
carrying capacity of the pile. The skin friction capacity is calculated by simply
summing the amounts of resistance each layer exerts on the pile. The end bearing
capacity is calculated just in the layer where the pile toe terminates. If the pile toe
terminates in a layer of dense sand or stiff clay overlying a layer of soft clay or loose
sand there is a danger of it punching through to the weaker layer. To account for
this, Meyerhof's equation is used.

The base resistance at the pile toe is

qp = q2 + (q1 -q2)H / 10B but £ q1
where B is the diameter of the pile, H is the thickness between the base of the pile
and the top of the weaker layer, q2 is the ultimate base resistance in the weak layer,
q1 is the ultimate base resistance in the strong layer.

Effects of groundwater
The presence and movement of groundwater affects the carrying capacity of piles,
the processes of construction and sometimes the durability of piles in service.

Effect on bearing capacity

In cohesive soils, the permeability is so low that any movement of water is very
slow. They do not suffer any reduction in bearing capacity in the presence of
groundwater.
In granular soils, the position of the water table is important. Effective stresses in
saturated sands can be as much as 50% lower than in dry sand; this affects both
the end-bearing and skin-friction capacity of the pile.

Effects on construction
When a concrete cast-in-place pile is being installed and the bottom of the borehole
is below the water table, and there is water in the borehole, a
'tremie' is used.

With its lower end lowered to the bottom of the borehole, the
tremmie is filled with concrete and then slowly raised,
allowing concrete to flow from the bottom. As the tremie is
raised during the concreting it must be kept below the
surface of the concrete in the pile. Before the tremie is
withdrawn completely sufficient concrete should be placed to
displace all the free water and watery cement. If a tremie is
not used and more than a few centimetres of water lie in the
bottom of the borehole, separation of the concrete can take
place within the pile, leading to a significant reduction in capacity.

A problem can also arise when boring takes place through clays. Site investigations
may show that a pile should terminate in a layer of clay. However, due to natural
variations in bed levels, there is a risk of boring extending into underlying strata.
Unlike the clay, the underlying beds may be permeable and will probably be under a
considerable head of water. The 'tapping' of such aquifers can be the cause of
difficulties during construction.

Effects on piles in service

The presence of groundwater may lead to corrosion or deterioration of the pile's
fabric.
In the case of steel piles, a mixture of water and air in the soil provides conditions
in which oxidation corrosion of steel can occur; the presence of normally occurring
salts in groundwater may accelerate the process.
In the case of concrete piles, the presence of salts such as sulphates or chlorides
can result in corrosion of reinforcement, with possible consequential bursting of the
concrete. Therefore, adequate cover must be provided to the reinforcement, or the
reinforcement itself must be protected in some way. Sulphate attack on the cement
compounds in concrete may lead to the expansion and subsequent cracking.
Corrosion problems are minimised if the concrete has a high cement/aggregate ratio
and is well compacted during placement.

Reference:

[Link]