A Report on TERZAGHIs/ MEYERHOFs/ HANSENs/ VESICs/ and

SKEMPTONS Bearing Capacity Theory

As a requirement of CE 249- Foundation Analysis and Design

By
Nikko James M. Jadumas, CE
January 17, 2015

Development of Bearing Capacity Theory

Application of limit equilibrium methods was first done by Prandtl on the punching of
thick masses of metal. Prandtl's methods were adapted by Terzaghi to bearing capacity failure of
shallow foundations. Vesic and others improved on Terzaghi's original theory and added other
factors for a more complete analysis.
Terzaghis Bearing Capacity Theory
Terzaghi (1943) gave a general theory for the bearing capacity of soils under a strip
footing, making the following assumptions:
1. The base footing is rough.
2. The footing is laid at a shallow depth, i.e. Df B.
3. The shear strength of the soil above the base of the footing is neglected. The soil above
the base is replaced by a uniform surcharge Df.
4. The load on the footing is vertical and is uniformly distributed.
5. The footing is long i.e. L/B ratio is infinite, where B is the width and L is the length of
the footing.
6. The shear strength of the soil is governed by the Mohr-Coulomb equation.
Derivation of Equation

Figure 1. Terzaghis Analysis

As shown in figure 1, as the base of the footing is rough, the soil in the wedge ABC
immediately beneath the footing is prevented from undergoing any lateral yield. The soil in this
wedge (Zone I) remains in a state of elastic equilibrium. It behaves as if it were a part of the
footing itself. It s assumed that the angles CAB and CBA are equal to the angle of shearing
resistance of the soil.
The sloping edges AC and BC of the soil wedge CBA bear against the radial shear zones
CBD and CAF (Zone II). The curves CD and CF are arcs of a logarithmic spiral.
Two triangular zones BDE and AFG are the Rankine passive zones (Zone III). An
overburden pressure q= Df acts as a surcharge on the Rankine passive zones.
The failure zones do not extend above the horizontal planes passing through the base AB
of the footing. In other words, the shearing resistance of the soil located above the base of the
footing is neglected, and the effect of soil is taken equivalent to a surcharge of Df. Because of
this assumption, Terzaghis theory is valid only for shallow foundations (Df B), in which the
Df is relatively small.
The loading conditions are similar to that on a retaining wall under passive pressure case.
The failure occurs when the downward pressure exerted by loads on the soil adjoining the
inclined surfaces CB and CA of the soil wedge is equal to the upward pressure. The downward
1
forces are due to the load (qu x B) and the weight of the wedge (4 2 tan ). The upward
forces are the vertical component of the resultant passive pressure (PP) and the cohesion (c)
acting along the inclined surfaces. As the resultant passive pressure is inclined at an angle to
the normal to the surface of the wedge, it is vertical. Therefore, from the equilibrium equation in
the vertical direction,
1
2 tan + [ ] = 2 + 2 ( sin )
4
Where = length of the inclined surface CB

2
=
cos
Substituting the value of , we get
1
[ ] = 2 + tan 4 2 tan
The resultant passive pressure (PP) on the surface CB and CA constitutes the following 3
components.
1. Component (PP) which is produced by the weight of the shear zone BCDE, assuming the
soil as cohesionless (c= 0) and neglecting surcharge q.
2. Component (PP)c which is produced by the component c of the soil, assuming the soil as
weightless (=0) and neglecting the surcharge q.
3. Component (PP)q which is produced by surcharge (q), assuming the soil is cohesionless
and weightless (c= 0; =0)
The three components, (PP), (PP)c, and (PP)q are obtained assuming different surfaces of
failures. Although their respective failure surfaces are different from the actual failure surface
developed for a footing on a soil possessing weight and cohesion and also having surcharge, the
results can be superimposed without introducing much error. Thus, the resultant passive pressure
PP is taken equal to the sum of the components (PP), (PP)c, and (PP)q.

So, from the previous equation, [ ] = 2 + tan 4 2 tan , substitute the

value of the resultant passive pressure PP, the equation becomes,
1
[ ] = 2 [(PP ) + (PP )C + (PP )q ] + tan 4 2 tan
Next, substitute the following equations which resulted from thorough experiments and research
to the above equation,
1
1
2(PP ) 4 2 tan = 2 2
2(PP )C + tan =
2(PP )q =
Hence, we get
1
= + + 2 2
Simplifying the above equation gives us,
1
= + + 2

= + + (Terzaghis Bearing Capacity Equation)

where is the overburden pressure=
1
= 2 ( , )
The bearing capacity factors , , are the dimensionless numbers, depending
upon the angle of shearing resistance ()of the soil. These are defined by the following
equations:
or

= cot [

22 (450 +

= [
=

2 2 (450 + )
2

1
2

)
2

1]

] ,

3 ) tan
4
2

where = (

1] tan , where = coefficient of passive pressure

Figure 2 gives the value of the bearing capacity factors. The values are also tabulated in
Table 1. These values are for general shear failure.
If the ground surface on the two sides of the footing is at different levels, is taken as
the smaller of the depths on the two sides.
Terzaghis bearing capacity equation gives the ultimate bearing capacity of a strip
footing.

Bearing Capacity of Square and Circular Footing

Terzaghis bearing capacity equation has been derived for a strip footing. The
deformations under a strip footing are two dimensional. It is known as a plain strain case in
theory of elasticity. On the other hand, the deformation of soil under a square or a circular
footing is three dimensional. A rigorous analytical solution for a three dimensional case is
extremely difficult.
Based on experimental results, Terzaghi gave the following equations for the ultimate
bearing capacity for square and circular shallow footings.

a. Square Footing
= 1.3 + + .
b. Circular Footing
= . + + .

Table 1. Terzaghis Bearing Capacity Factors

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50

5.7
7.3
9.6
12.9
17.7
25.1
37.2
57.8
95.7
172.3
347.5

General Shear Failure

1.0
1.6
2.7
4.4
7.4
12.7
22.5
41.4
81.3
173.3
415.1

0.0
0.5
1.2
2.5
5.0
9.7
19.7
42.4
100.4
297.5
1153.2

Local Shear Failure

(Vesic)

5.7
6.7
8.0
9.7
11.8
14.8
19.0
25.2
34.9
51.2
81.3

1.0
1.2
1.6
2.2
3.3
5.3
9.5
18.7
42.5
115.0
329.10

1.0
1.4
1.9
2.7
3.9
5.6
8.3
12.6
20.5
35.1
65.6

0.0
0.2
0.5
0.9
1.7
3.2
5.7
10.1
18.8
37.7
87.1

Figure 2. Terzaghis Bearing Capacity Factor

Ultimate Bearing Capacity in Case of Local Shear Failure

Terzaghis bearing capacity equation gives the ultimate bearing capacity of a strip footing
under general shear failure. No theoretical solution is available for local shear failure and
punching shear failure. Terzaghi (1943) has suggested the following empirical reduction to the
actual cohesion and the angle of shearing resistance in case of local shear failure.
2

Mobilized cohesion, = 3
Mobilized angle of shearing resistance, = 1 (23 tan )
The reduced values of equal to are used to determine bearing capacity parameters
from the values of the general shear failure. The modified bearing capacity factors are indicated
as , , and for local shear failure. Figure 2 gives the values of these factors for different
values of . Table 1 also gives the values of these factors for values of . It has been found
from several model tests that the value of as determined above is underestimated.
Sometimes, the following equation for (Vesic, 1963) is used for local shear failure. This
gives more reliable results.

= ( 3.8 )2 (450 +

Table 1 and figure 2 also give the Vesics values of .

The equation for local shear failure for strip footing can be written as

= . + +
where , , and are for reduced values of , equal to
Also, the corresponding equations for square and circular shallow footings are,
= . + + .
(Square Footing)

= . + + .
(Circular Footing)

Figure 3. Bearing Capacity Factors for Local Shear Failure

Effect of Water Table on Bearing Capacity

Terzaghis bearing capacity equation has been developed based on the assumption that
the water table is located at a great depth. If the water table is located close to the foundation, the
bearing capacity equation needs modification.
There are four cases for the consideration of the effects of water table. It varies depending
on how high the water table is above the base of the footing or how deep it is beneath it.
Case 1: D1 < Df
1

f
2

The factor in the bearing capacity equations takes the form of

= D1 + D2 (sat - w)
where = effective surcharge, = unit weight of soil,
sat= saturated unit weight of soil
Also, the of in the last term of the equations has to be replaced by = sat - w

= + [D1 + D2 (sat w ) ] + (sat w ) (Strip Footing)

= 1.3 + [D1 + D2 (sat w ) ] + . (sat w ) (Square footing)

= . + [D1 + D2 (sat w ) ] + . (sat w ) (Circular Footing)
Case 2: d < B

For water table located so that d < B, change in the third term of the equation to
1
= [d + (B d)] where = sat - w

= + + [d + (sat w )(B d)] (Strip Footing)

= 1.3 + + . [d + (sat w )(B d)] (Square footing)

= . + + . [d + (sat w )(B d)] (Circular Footing)

Case 3: d > B

For water table located so that d > B, the water will have no effect on the ultimate bearing
capacity.

= + + (Strip Footing)
= 1.3 + + . (Square footing)
= . + + . (Circular Footing)

Case 4: d = Df

For water table located at the bottom of the footing, change in the third term to
= sat - w

= + + (sat w ) (Strip Footing)

= 1.3 + + . (sat w ) (Square footing)
= . + + . (sat w ) (Circular Footing)

Meyerhofs Bearing Capacity Theory

The form of equation used by Meyerhof (1951) for determining ultimate bearing capacity
of symmetrically loaded strip footings is the same as that of Terzaghi but his approach to solve
the problem is different. He assumed that the logarithmic failure surface ends at the ground
surface, and as such took into account the resistance offered by the soil and surface of the footing
above the base level of the foundation. The different zones considered are shown in figure 4.

Figure 4. Failure Zones Considered by Meyerhof

In this, EF failure surface is considered to be inclined at an angle (450 + 2) of with
the horizontal followed by FG which is log spiral curve and then the failure surface extends to
the ground surface (GH). EF is considered as an imaginary retaining wall face with failure
surface as FGH. This problem is same as the retaining wall with the inclined backfill at an angle
of a. For this case the passive earth pressure acting on the retaining wall is given by Caqnot
and Kerisel (1856). Considering the equilibrium of the failure zone,
= 0
+ = 2 , where =the load on footing; =the weight of the active zone
= the vertical component of the passive pressure acting
on walls JF and EF
Then the ultimate bearing capacity ( ) is given as,

2( + + )

= 1 = =
Comparing the above equation with,
1
= + + 2
We get,
2
=
=
=

2
1
2
2
2

The form equation proposed by Meyerhof (1963) is,

= + + .
where,
, = bearing capacity factors for strip foundation
c = unit cohesion
, = are shape factors
, = are depth factors
, = are inclination factors
The bearing capacity factors are given by the following equations,
= 2 (450 + )( )
= ( 1)
= ( 1) (1.4)

Table 2. Shape, depth and inclination factors for Meyerhofs bearing capacity

Factors

Shape

Depth

Inclination

where,

Value

= (1 + 0.2 )

= = (1 + 0.1 )

= = 1

= (1 + 0.2 )

= = (1 + 0.1 )

= = 1
2
= = (1 0 )
90
2
= (1 )

= 0

= 2 (45 + 2)
= angle of resultant measured from vertical without sign
B= width of footing
L= length of footing
D= depth of footing

For
Any
> 10
=0
Any
> 10
=0
Any
> 10
=0

Hansens Bearing Capacity Theory

It has been shown by Milovic (1965) that Terzaghis theory gives the value of the
ultimate bearing capacity higher than experimental values for cohesive soils and is unsafe.
However, for cohesionless soils, the theory gives conservative values of the bearing capacity. For
cohesive soils, Hansen (1961) gives the values of ultimate bearing capacity which are in better
agreement with experimental values.
According to Hansen, the ultimate bearing capacity is given by
= + + .
Where , are Hansens bearing capacity factors (Table 3), and q is the
effective surcharge at the base level ( ), and
, ( 4)
, ( 5)
, ( 6)
The bearing capacity factors are given by the following equations,
= 2 (450 + )( )
= ( 1)
= 1.50( 1)
Table 3. Hansens Bearing Capacity Factors

00
5.14
1.0
0.0

50
6.48
1.57
0.09

100
8.34
2.47
0.09

150
10.97
3.94
1.42

200
14.83
6.40
3.54

250
20.72
10.66
8.11

300
30.14
18.40
18.08

350
46.13
18.40
18.08

400
450
500
75.32 133.89 266.89
64.18 134.85 318.96
95.41 240.85 681.84

Table 4. Shape Factors

Shape of Footing

Continuous Footing (Strip)

1.0
1.0
Rectangular Footing
1 + 0.2 B/L
1 + 0.2 B/L
Square Footing
1.3
1.2
Circular Footing
1.3
1.2
where L = length of footing; B= width of footing
Table 5. Depth Factors

where Df = depth of footing; B= width of footing

1 + 0.35 (Df/B)
1 + 0.35 (Df/B)
1.00

1.0
1 - 0.4 B/L
0.8
0.6

Table 6. Inclination Factors

2
1.5
1

2
( )

Vesics Bearing Capacity Theory

Vesic (1973) confirmed that the basic nature of failure surfaces in soil as suggested by
Terzaghi and as given in figure 1 is correct. However, the angle which the inclined surfaces AC
and BC make with the horizontal was found to be closer to (450 + 2) instead of .The values
of bearing capacity factors , for a given angle of shearing resistance change if
above modification is incorporated in the analysis, as under
= 2 (450 + )( )
= ( 1)
= 2( + 1)
The bearing capacity equation is similar in form to Hansens equation,
= + + .
where ,
,
,
As before, is effective surcharge at the base level (=Df)
Table 7. Vesics Bearing Capacity Theory

00
5.14
1.0
0.0

50
6.49
1.57
0.45

100
8.35
2.47
1.22

150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
10.98 14.83 20.72 30.14 46.12 75.31 133.88 266.89
3.94 6.40 10.66 18.40 33.30 64.20 134.88 319.07
2.65 5.39 10.88 22.40 48.03 109.41 271.76 762.89

Table 8. Shape Factors

Shape of Footing
Strip
Rectangle
Circle and square

,
1.0
1 + ()( )
1 +( )

1.0
1 + () tan
1 + tan

1.0
1 0.4 ()
0.60

The depth factors as proposed by Hansen (1970) are used for Df/B 1 as follows,
= 1 + 0.4( )
= 1 + 2 tan (1 sin )2 ( )
= 1.0
In Vesics equation, the following inclination factors proposed by Meyerhof (1963) and
Hanna and Meyerhof (1981) are generally used.
, = = (1 0 900 )2
= (1 0 )2
Where 0 is the inclination of the load with vertical.

Skepmtons Analysis for Cohesive Soils

Skempton (1951), suggested a bearing capacity theory for saturated clay for which = 0.
Skempton gives Nc, the bearing capacity factor on the basis of theory, laboratory tests and field
observations. It was found that the value of Nc increased with the increase in Df/B ratio. The
expression for Nc proposed by Skempton is given below.
For saturated cohesive soil, = 0, so it follows that = 1 = 0.

For strip footing:

= 5 (1 + 0.2

For square/circular footing:

= 6 (1 + 0.2

For rectangular footing:

= 5 (1 + 0.2

) 7.5

) 9.0

) (1 + 0.2 ) 2.5

= 7.5 (1 + 0.2 ) > 2.5

Therefore, Skemptons ultimate bearing capacity equation is,
= +

Sample Problems
1. The footing shown in the figure is to be constructed in a uniform deposit of stiff clay and
must support a wall that imposes a loading of 152 kN/m of wall length. Use Terzaghis
bearing capacity equation.
Angle of friction of clay= 00
Unconfined compressive strength of soil q= 145.8 kN/m3
Unit weight of soil= 18.82 kN/m3
a. Compute the cohesion of soil
b. Compute the allowable bearing capacity of soil using factor of safety of 3
c. Compute the width of the footing
Solution:
a. Cohesion of soil
1
=
2
1
= (145.8 /2 )
2
= . /
b. Allowable bearing capacity
From table:
= 00
= 5.7
= 1.0
= 0
1

= + + 2
= 72.9(5.7) + 18.82(1.2) + 0
= 438.11 kPa

438.11
=
3
= . /
=

c. Required width of wall

=

152 /
=
146.04 /2
= . .

2. A square footing which carries an axial load of 132,530 kg has its bottom resting on a
ground water table at a depth of 2.5m from the ground surface as shown in figure.
Assume a general shear failure.
a. Compute the width of the footing using Terzaghis equation using a gross factor of
safety of 3
b. Compute the ultimate bearing capacity of the soil

=1,846 3

c= 1,605
kg/m2
=300

=1,965 3

Solution:
a. Width of footing
From table:
= 300
= 35
= 22
= 19
= 1.3 + + 0.40(sat w )
= 1.3(1605)(35) + 1846(2.5)(22) + 0.4(1965)()(19)
= 174,557 + 7,334B
=
174,557 + 7,334B 132,530
=
3
2
= .

b. Ultimate bearing capacity

= 174,557 + 7,334B
= 174,557 + 7,334(1.465)
= 185, 302 kg/m2 or 1,818 kPa