Arba Minch University, Faculty of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering
CHAPTER TWO
BEARING CAPACITY OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS
Table of Contents
2.0 Introduction........................................................................................21
2.1 Bearing Failure Modes..........................................................................21
2.2 Ultimate Bearing Capacity Equations......................................................22
2.2.1 Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity equation...................................................22
2.2.2 Meyerhof’s Bearing Capacity equation..................................................24
2.2.3 Hansen’s Bearing Capacity Equation....................................................25
2.2.4 A comparative summary of the three bearing capacity equations............28
2.2.5 Allowable bearing capacity and factor of safety.....................................30
2.2.6 Eccentric Loads.................................................................................31
2.3 Field Tests..........................................................................................32
2.3.1 Plate Loading Test.............................................................................32
2.3.2 Standard Penetration Test (SPT).........................................................33
Soil Mechanics II: Lecture Notes Instructor Demoze E. 20
Arba Minch University, Faculty of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering
2.0 Introduction
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:
Calculate the bearing capacity of soils.
2.1 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
Soil Mechanics II: Lecture Notes Instructor Demoze E. 21
Arba Minch University, Faculty of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering
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.
2.2 Ultimate Bearing Capacity Equations
2.2.1 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 Mechanics II: Lecture Notes Instructor Demoze E. 22
Arba Minch University, Faculty of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering
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’, ’ soil
for Terzhagi’s bearing capacity solution is shown in Fig. 2.2. Terzhagi’s ultimate
bearing capacity equations are given as follows:
Strip (or long) footing: qu c ' N c DN q 0.5 BN (2.1)
Square footing: q u 1.3c' N c DN q 0.4 BN (2.2)
Circular footing: q u 1.3c' N c DN q 0.3BN (2.3)
where Nc, Nq and N are called the bearing capacity factors and are obtained as
follows:
e ( 3 / 2 ') tan ' , , K p (2.4)
Nq N c cot ' ( N q 1) N 12 tan ' 1
2 cos (45 ' / 2)
2
cos '
2
Soil Mechanics II: Lecture Notes Instructor Demoze E. 23
Arba Minch University, Faculty of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering
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 Kp in the N equation:
K p (8 ' 2 4 '3.8) tan 2 (60 0 ' / 2) (2.5)
where ' in the first term is in radians. In the undrained conditions (cu and u 0
):
, , (2.6)
Nq 1 N c ( 32 1) 5.71 N 0
2.2.2 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:
qu c ' N c s c ic d c DN q s q i q d q 0.5 BN s i d (2.7)
For vertical load, ic = iq = i = 1
qu c ' N c s c d c DN q s q d q 0.5 BN s d (2.8)
Soil Mechanics II: Lecture Notes Instructor Demoze E. 24
Arba Minch University, Faculty of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering
Figure 2.4: Meyerhof’s bearing capacity coefficients.
The bearing capacity factors:
N q exp( tan ' ) tan 2 (45 ' / 2) , N c cot ' ( N q 1) , N ( N q 1) tan(1.4 ' )
(2.9)
In the undrained conditions (cu and u 0 ):
N q 1, N c ( 2) 5.71 , N 0
The bearing capacity factors are graphically presented in Fig. 2.4. The shape, inclination
and depth factors are according to:
Shape Depth Inclination
2
B D 0
Any ' s c 1 0.2 K p d c 1 0.2 K p ic iq 1 0
L B 90
For ' 0 sq = s = 1 dq = d = 1 i = 0
2
B D 0
For ' 10 0 s q s 1 0.1K p d q d 1 0.1 K p i 1 0
L B '
'
K p tan 2 45 , =angle of resultant measured from vertical axis.
2
when triaxial ' is used for plane strain, adjust ' to obtain
Soil Mechanics II: Lecture Notes Instructor Demoze E. 25
Arba Minch University, Faculty of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering
B '
' 1.1 0.1 triaxial
L
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.
2.2.3 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 N and
other factors. For a rectangular footing of L by B (L > B) and inclined ground
surface, base and load:
q u c ' N c s c d c ic bc g c DN q s q d q i q bq g q 0.5 BN s d i b g (2.10)
Equation 2.9 is sometimes referred to as the general bearing capacity equation. In
the special case of a horizontal ground surface,
q u c ' N c s c d c ic bc DN q s q d q i q bq 0.5 BN s d i b (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 and the ' values, as
Soil Mechanics II: Lecture Notes Instructor Demoze E. 26
Arba Minch University, Faculty of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering
proposed by Hansen.
Figure 2.6: Hansen’s bearing capacity coefficients.
The bearing capacity factors Nc and Nq are identical with Meyerhof’s factors. N is
defined by:
N 1.5( N q 1) tan (2.12)
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 c, B 1 ic , B , sq,B 1 i q , B sin ' , s , B 1 0.4 i , B 0.6 (2.13)
Nc L L L
Nq L L L
s c, L 1 ic , L , sq,L 1 i q , L sin ' , s , L 1 0.4 i , L 0.6 (2.14)
Nc B B B
For cu, u=0 soil: s B L
c , B 0.2 ic , B , s c , L 0.2 ic , L (2.15)
L B
The inclination factors are:
Soil Mechanics II: Lecture Notes Instructor Demoze E. 27
Arba Minch University, Faculty of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering
2
1 i q ,i , 0 .5 H i ,
1
0.7 H i (2.16)
i c ,i i q ,i iq ,i 1 i ,i 1
Nq 1 V Acb cot ' V Acb cot '
where the suffix i (in Eqn. 2.15) stands for B or L. 2 1 5 . 2 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:
2
(0.7 0 450 0 ) H i (2.17)
i , i 1
V Acb cot '
For cu, u=0 soil: ic ,i 0.5 0.5 1 H i Acb (2.18)
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 c , B 1 0.4 D , d q, B 1 2 tan ' (1 sin ' ) 2 D (2.19)
B B
d c , L 1 0. 4 D , d q , L 1 2 tan ' (1 sin ' ) 2 D (2.20)
L L
For D/B > 1 & D/L > 1:
d c , B 1 0.4 tan 1 D B , d q , B 1 2 tan ' (1 sin ' ) 2 tan 1 ( D )
B
(2.21)
d c,L 1 0.4 tan D
1 , d q , L 1 2 tan ' (1 sin ' ) 2 tan 1 ( D ) (2.22)
L L
For both sets: d 1 (2.23)
For cu, u soil: d c , B 0 .4 D , d c , L 0 .4 D (2.24)
B L
For the sloping ground and tilted base, the ground factors gi and base factors bi are
proposed by the following equations. The angles and are at the same plane,
either parallel to B or L.
g c 1
0
, g q g 1 0.5 tan (2.25)
5
0
147
gc
0
For cu, u soil: (2.26)
147 0
Soil Mechanics II: Lecture Notes Instructor Demoze E. 28
Arba Minch University, Faculty of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering
bc 1
0
, bq e 2 tan ' , b e 2.7 tan ' (2.27)
147 0
bc
0
For cu, u soil: (2.28)
147 0
2.2.4 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:
Shape, depth and inclination factors are not considered.
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.
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.
Soil Mechanics II: Lecture Notes Instructor Demoze E. 29
Arba Minch University, Faculty of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering
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, ' =280, cu = 105 kPa, u =0 and = 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, ' =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/m3.
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 D in the bearing capacity
equations refers to the vertical stress of the soil above the base of the footing. The
last term B 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 the groundwater level is at a depth z below the base, such that z < B, then the
term B is z ' ( B z ) or sat z ' ( B z ) . The later equation is used if the
soil above the groundwater level is also saturated. The term D 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
D is z ' ( D z ) or sat z ' ( D z ) . The latter equation is used if the soil
above the groundwater level is also saturated. The term B becomes ' B .
Soil Mechanics II: Lecture Notes Instructor Demoze E. 30
Arba Minch University, Faculty of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering
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.
2.2.5 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)
qa
FS
Alternatively, if the maximum applied foundation stress ( a ) max is known and the
dimension of the footing is also known then you can find a factor of safety by
replacing qa by ( a ) max in Eqn. (2.29):
qu
FS (2.30)
( a ) max
2.2.6 Eccentric Loads
Meyerhof (1963) proposed an approximate method for loads that are located
off-centered (or eccentric loads).
Soil Mechanics II: Lecture Notes Instructor Demoze E. 31
Arba Minch University, Faculty of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering
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
My Mx
eB and e L (2)
P P
where P is the vertical load, and My and Mx 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 6e B P 6e B
max 1 and min 1 (3)
BL B BL B
and along the y axis are:
P 6e L P 6e L
max 1 and min 1 (4)
BL B BL B
Since the tensile strength of soils is approximately zero, 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
Soil Mechanics II: Lecture Notes Instructor Demoze E. 32
Arba Minch University, Faculty of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering
deep deposit of compacted sand, ' =300, c’=0, and sat =18 kN/m3. 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.
2.3 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.
2.3.1 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,
qu ( F ) qu ( P ) (2.31)
Soil Mechanics II: Lecture Notes Instructor Demoze E. 33
Arba Minch University, Faculty of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering
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 ) qu ( P ) (2.32)
Bp
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.
2.3.2 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.
95.8 (Liao and Whitman, 1985) (2.33)
c N ' ; c N 2
z0
1916 (Peck et al., 1974) (2.34)
c N 0.77 log10 ' ; c N 2, z' 0 24 kPa
z0
where cN is a correction factor for overburden pressure, and 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)
cW
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:
N cor c N cW N
Soil Mechanics II: Lecture Notes Instructor Demoze E. 34
Arba Minch University, Faculty of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering
Meyerhof (1956, 1974) proposed the following equations to determine the allowable
bearing capacity qa from SPT values.
12 B 1.22 m (2.36)
qa S e N cor k d
25
2
8 B 0.305 B > 1.22 m (2.37)
qa S e N cor kd
25 B
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 B 1.22 m (2.36)
qa S e N cor k d
25
2
12.5 B 0.305 B > 1.22 m (2.37)
qa S e N cor kd
25 B
Soil Mechanics II: Lecture Notes Instructor Demoze E. 35