Bearing Capacity of

Shallow Foundation
 BEARING CAPACITY
If a footing is subjected to too great a
load, some of the soil supporting it will
reach a failure state and the footing
may experience a bearing capacity
failure.
The bearing capacity is the
limiting pressure that the footing
can support.
Supporting soil
 Definitions and Key
Terms
Foundation: Structure transmits loads to the
underlying ground (soil).
Footing: Slab element that transmit
load from superstructure to ground
Embedment depth, Df : The depth below
ground surface where the base of the
footing rests.
Bearing pressure(q): The normal stress
impose by the footing on the
supporting ground.(weight of
superstructure + self weight of
footing + weight of earthfill if any.)
 Definitions and Key
Terms
Ultimate bearing capacity q ult
/qf /qu : The maximum bearing
pressure that the soil can
sustain (i.e it fails).
Ultimate net bearing capacity (qunet
/qnf /qnu): Ground
G

Theq maximum
= q − γ D bearing pressure
nf f
that the soil can sustain above
its f = qnf + γoverburden
or qcurrent D pressure
Safe bearing capacity: it is the maximum
pressure which the soil can carry without
shear failure or ultimate bearing capacity,
qf , divided by Factor of safety ,F.

qnf
qs = qns + γD = + γD
F
Net safe bearing capacity: It is the net
ultimate bearing capacity divided by factor
of safety, F.
qnf
qns =
F
 Definitions and Key
Terms (Cont.)
Allowable bearing capacity: (qall /qa): The
working pressure that would ensure an
acceptable margin of safety against
bearing capacity failure, or It is the net
loading intensity at which neither soil fails
in shear nor there is excessive settlement
detrimental to the structure.
Factor of safety: The ratio between (qunet )
and (qall ). (F.S. = qunet /qall )
 Definitions and Key
Terms (Cont.)
Ultimate limit state: A state that defines
a limiting shear stress that should not be
exceeded by any conceivable or
anticipated loading during the life span
of a foundation or any geotechnical
system.

Serviceability limit state: A state that

defines a limiting deformation or
settlement of a foundation, which, if
exceeded will impair the function of the
supported structure.
Basics
Basics
Df /B ≤ 1 Df /B≤ 2-2.5
D Df /B > 4
Terzaghi Others
 Design Requirements
1. The foundation must
not collapse
or become unstable under
any
conceivable load
2. Deformation
(settlement) of the
structure must be
within tolerable
limits
 Stages in load-
settlement of shallow
foundations
Relatively elastic vertical
compression
The load-settlement curve is almost
straight.
Local yielding starts to affect
Upward and outward movement of
the soil with a possible surface
heave.
General shear failure
Large settlements are produced as
plastic yielding is fully developed
within the soil.
In dense sands: softening can
occur after collapse.
Collapse and Failure
Loads
(a) General shear failure

(b) Local shear failure

(c) Punching shear failure

 Shallow foundations in rock and undrained
clays are governed by the general shear
case.
 Shallow foundations in dense sands are
governed by the general shear case. In this
context, a dense sand is one with a relative
density, Dr , greater than about 67%.
 Shallow foundations on loose to
medium dense sands (30% < Dr< 67%)
are probably
governed by local shear.
 Shallow foundations on very loose sand
(Dr < 30%) are probably governed by
punching shear.
Characteristics of Each
Failure Mode
General shear (Dense sand):
– well defined failure mechanism
– continuous slip surface from footing to
surface
– sudden catastrophic failure
Local shear (Loose sand):
– failure mechanism well defined only
beneath the footing
– slip surfaces do not extend to the soil
surface
– considerable vertical displacement
– lower ultimate capacity
 Guide lines to know
whether failure is local
(i)
or general
Stress-strain test: (c-φ soil) general
shear failure occurs at low strain, say <5 %
while for local shear failure stress-strain curve
continues to rise at strain of 10 to 20 %.
(ii) Angle of shear resistance: For φ > 36o
,general shear failure and φ < 28o local shear
failure.
(iii) Penetration test: N ≥ 30 : G.S.F
N ≤ 5 : L.S.F

Contd…
Contd…
(iv) Plate Load Test: Shape of the load
settlement curve decides
whether it is G.S.F or L.S.F
(v) Density Index : ID > 70 G.S.F
ID < 20 L.S.F

For purely cohesive soil, local shear failure

may be assumed to occur when the soil is
soft to medium, with an unconfined
compressive strength qu ≤ 10 t/m2 (or cu ≤ 5
t/m2).
 Punching shear (Very Loose sand):
– failure mechanism less well defined
– soil beneath footing compresses
– large vertical displacements
– lowest ultimate capacity
– very loose soils or at large embedment
depth
 Foundation
Requirements
1. Safe against failure (bearing capacity or
structural failure)
2. Should not exceed tolerable
settlement(probable maximum and
differential settlement)
3. Its construction should not make any
change to existing structure.
4. Should be adequate depth from
consideration of adverse environment
influence:
i. Zones of high volume change due
to moisture fluctuations.
ii. Depth of frost penetration
iii. Organic matter; peat and muck.
iv. Abandoned garbage dumps or
loosed fill areas.
v. Scouring depth
 BEARING CAPACITY
ANALYSES IN SOIL-
GENERAL SHEAR CASE
Methods of Analyzing Bearing Capacity
 To analyze spread footings for bearing capacity
failures and design them in a way to avoid such
failures, we must understand the relationship
between bearing capacity, load,
 footing dimensions, and soil properties.
Various researchers have studied these relationships
using a variety of techniques, including:
 Assessments of the performance of
real foundations, including full-scale
load tests.
 Load tests on model footings.
 Limit equilibrium analyses.
 Detailed stress analyses, such as finite
element method (FEM) analyses.
• Full-scale load tests, which consist of
constructing real spread footings and
loading
them to failure, are the most precise way
to evaluate bearing capacity. However,
such tests are expensive, and thus are
rarely, if ever, performed as a part of
routine design. A few such tests have
been performed for research purposes.
• Model footing tests have been used
quite extensively, mostly because the
cost of these tests is far below that for
full-scale tests. Unfortunately, model
tests have their limitations, especially
when conducted in sands, because of
uncertainties in applying the proper
scaling factors. However, the advent
of centrifuge model tests has partially
overcome this problem.
• Limit equilibrium analyses are the
dominant way to assess bearing capacity
of shallow foundations. These analyses
define the shape of the failure surface,
as shown in Figure , then evaluate the
stresses and strengths along this
surface. These methods of analysis have
their roots in Prandtl' s studies of the
punching resistance of metals (Prandtl,
1920). He considered the ability of very
thick masses of metal (i.e., not sheet
metal) to resist concentrated loads. Limit
equilibrium analyses usually include
empirical factors developed from model
tests.
qult = N c su + σ zD
• Occasionally, geotechnical engineers
perform more detailed bearing capacity
analyses using numerical methods, such
as the finite element method (FEM).
These analyses are more complex, and
are justified only on very critical and
unusual projects. We will consider only
limit equilibrium methods of bearing
capacity analyses, because these
methods are used on the overwhelming
majority of projects.
 Essential Points so far
• Failure mode in sands
depends on the density of the
soil.
• More settlement is expected
in loose soils than in dense
soils (for the same load).
Alternatively, dense soils can
sustain more load.
 The limit equilibrium
method
consider the continuous footing as
shown in Figure.
Let us assume this footing experiences a
bearing capacity failure, and that this
failure occurs along a circular shear surface
as shown.
Assume the soil is an undrained clay
with a shear strength su.
Neglect the shear strength between the
ground surface and a depth D. Thus, the
soil in this zone is considered to be only
a surcharge load that produces a vertical
total stress of σ zD D = γ D at a depth D.
 The objective of this derivation is
to obtain a formula for the ultimate
bearing capacity,qult ,which is the
bearing pressure required to
cause a bearing capacity failure.
 consider a slice of the foundation
of length b and taking moments
about Point A, we obtain the
following:
M A = ( qult Bb)( B / 2) − ( suπBb)( B ) − σ zD Bb( B / 2)
qult = 2π su + σ zD
 It is convenient to define a new
parameter, called a bearing capacity factor,
Nc and
rewrite Equation as: q = N s +σ
ult c u zD

Equation is known as a bearing capacity

formula, and could be used to evaluate the
bearing capacity of a proposed foundation.
According to this derivation, Nc = 2π =
6.28.
This simplified formula has only limited
applicability in practice because it
considers
Contd
Contd…
only continuous footings and undrained
soil conditions (φ = 0), and it assumes the
foundation rotates as the bearing capacity
failure occurs. However, this simple
derivation illustrates the general
methodology required to develop more
comprehensive bearing capacity formulas.
 No exact analytical solution for computing
bearing capacity of footings is available at
present because the basic system of
equations describing the yield problems is
nonlinear.

On account of these reasons, Terzaghi (1943)

first proposed a semi-empirical equation for
computing the ultimate bearing capacity of
strip footings by taking into account cohesion,
friction and weight of soil, and replacing the
overburden pressure with an equivalent
surcharge load at the base level of the
foundation.
The ultimate bearing capacity, or the
allowable soil pressure, can be calculated
either from bearing capacity theories or from
some of the in situ tests.
Each theory has its own good and bad points.
Some of the theories are of academic interest
only. However, it is the purpose of the author
to present here only such theories which are
of basic interest to students in particular and
professional engineers in general.
 Terzaghi's Bearing
Capacity
Assumptions:
Formulas
The depth of the foundation is less than or
equal to its width (D ≤ B).
The bottom of the foundation is
sufficiently rough that no sliding occurs
between the foundation and the soil.
The soil beneath the foundation is a
homogeneous semi-infinite mass (i.e., the
soil extends for a great distance below
the foundation and the soil properties are
uniform
throughout).
The shear strength of the soil is
described by the formula s = c' + σ ' tan
φ '.
 The general shear mode of failure
governs.
No consolidation of the soil occurs
(i.e., settlement of the foundation is
due only to
the shearing and lateral movement of
the soil).
The foundation is very rigid in
comparison to the soil.
 The soil between the ground surface
and a depth D has no shear strength,
and serves
only as a surcharge load.
The applied load is compressive and
applied vertically to the centroid of
the foundation and no applied
moment loads are present.
Bearing Capacity
Failure
 Transcosna Grain
Elevator Canada (Oct.
18, 1913)

West side of foundation

 P

D Surcharge
B
Pressure = σ ′ zD

φ φ 45-φ ′ /2
45-φ /2
Wedge Zone
B
Passive Zone

Lowest Shear Surface

Radial Shear Zone

Collapse and Failure
Loads
 Terzaghi considered three zones in the
soil, as shown in Figure, immediately
beneath the foundation is a wedge
zone that remains intact and moves
downward with the foundation.
Next, a radial shear zone extends from
each side of the wedge, where he took the
shape of the shear planes to be logarithmic
spirals.
Finally, the outer portion is the linear
shear
zone in which the soil shears along planar
surfaces
 Since Terzaghi neglected the shear
strength of soils between the ground
surface and a depth D, the shear surface
stops at this depth and the overlying soil
has been replaced with the surcharge
pressure σ zD .This approach is
conservative, and is part of the reason
for limiting the method to relatively
shallow foundations (D < B).
 Terzaghi developed his theory for
continuous foundations (i.e., those with a
very large L/B ratio).
This is the simplest case because it is a
two- dimensional problem.
He then extended it to square and
round foundations by adding empirical
coefficients obtained from model tests and
produced the following bearing
capacity formulas:
 For square foundations:
qult = 1.3 c′N c + σ zD
′ N q + 0.4 γ ′ B N γ

For continuous
foundations:
q = c′N + σ ′ N + 0.5γ ′ BN
ult c zD q γ

For
qult =circular
1.3 c′ N c + σfoundations
′ ′
zD N q + 0.3γ BNγ
 Because of the shape of the
failure surface, the values of c′ and
φ ′ only need to represent the soil
between the bottom of the footing
and a depth B below the bottom. The
soils between the ground surface
and a depth D are treated simply as
overburden.
 Terzaghi's formulas are presented in terms
of effective stresses. However, they also
may be used in a total stress analyses by
substituting cT φ T and σ D for c', φ ', and σ D ′
If saturated undrained conditions exist, we
may conduct a total stress analysis with the
shear strength defined as cT= Su and φ T= O.
In this case, Nc = 5.7, Nq = 1.0, and Nγ =
0.0.
The Terzaghi bearing capacity factors are:

Contd…
Contd… a 2θ
Nq =
2 cos2 ( 45 + φ ′ / 2)

aθ = eπ ( 0.75−φ ′ / 360 ) tan φ ′

N c = 5.7 for φ ′ = 0

Nq −1
Nc = for φ ′ > 0
tan φ ′
tan φ ′  K pγ 
Nγ =  − 1
2  cos φ ′ 
2
Computation of safe
bearing capacity
For strip footing:
1
qs = [ cN c + γD( N q − 1 )Rw1 + 0.5γBN γRw 2 ] + γD
F
For square footing :
1
qs = [1.3cN c + γD( N q − 1 )Rw1 + 0.4γBN γRw 2 ] + γD
F
For circular footing :
1
qs = [1.3cN c + γD( N q − 1 )Rw1 + 0.3γBN γRw 2 ] + γD
F
W here F = F actorof safety 2 to 3
D = D epth of footing
B= W idth of footingor diam eterof footing
N c , N q , N γ = B earingcapacity factors
dependingon φ for general shear failure
N c′ , N q′ , N γ′ = B earingcapacity factors for local
shear failure
c = cohesion for g.s.f
Rw1 and Rw 2 = W ater table reduction factor
c m = 2 / 3 of c and tanφm = 2 / 3 tanφ
  Z  1
Rw1 = 0.5 1 + w 1  If Z w 1 = 0 Rw 1 = , If Z w 1 = D , Rw 1 = 1
 D  2
 Z  1
Rw 2 = 0.5 1 + w 2  If Z w 2 = 0 Rw 2 = , If Z w 2 = B , Rw 2 = B , Rw 2 = 1
 B  2
 Nq Nγ

Nc
(degrees
φ

Nq and Nc Nγ

BEARING CAPACITY FACTORS [After Terzaghi and Peck(1948

Bearing Capacity Factors
 Effective Stress Analysis
Two situations can be simply analysed.
The soil is dry. The total and effective
stresses are identical and the analysis is
identical to that described above except
that the parameters used in the equations are
c´, φ ´, γ dry rather than cu, φ u, γ sat . If the
water table is more than a depth of 1.5 B
(the footing width) below the base of the
footing the water can be assumed to have no
effect.
Further Developments
Skempton (1951)
Meyerhof (1953)
Brinch Hanson (1961)
De Beer and Ladanyi
(1961)
Meyerhof (1963)
Brinch Hanson (1970)
Vesic′ (1973, 1975)
 Meyerhof Bearing
Capacity Equations
Vertical load : qult = cN c sc d c + q N q sq d q + 0.5γB′N γ sγ dγ
Inclined Load : qult = cN cic d c + q N qiq d q + 0.5γB′N γ iγ dγ

N q = eπ tan φ tan 2 ( 45 + φ / 2)
N c = ( N q − 1) cot φ
N γ = ( N q − 1) tan(1.4φ )
1. Note use of ′effective′ base dimension B′.L′ by
Hansen but not by Vesic′.
2. The values above are consistent with either a vertical
load or a vertical load accompanying by a horizontal
load H B .
3. With a vertical load and a load H L (and either yH B = 0
or H B > 0) you may have to compute two sets of shape si
and d i as si . B , si . Land d i . B , d i . L. For i, Lsubscripts of equation
(4 - 2), presented in section. 4 - 6, use ratio L′/B or D/L′.
Notes:
1.Use Hi as either HB or HL . Or both if HL >0.
2.Hansen did not give an ic for φ > 0. The value
above is from Hansen and also used by Vesic′ .
3.Variable ca = base adhesion on the order of 0.6
to1.0 x base cohesion.
4.refer to sketch for identification of angles η and
β , footing width D, location of Hi(parallel and at
top of base slab; usually also produces
eccentricity). Especially note V = force normal
to base and is not the resultant R from
combining V and Hi .
 Bearing –capacity
equations by the several
authors See
Terzaghi(1943). indicated
table 4-2 for
typical values and for kpγ values.
a2
qult = cN c sc + qN q + 0.5γBN γsγ Nq =
a cos 2 ( 45 + φ/ 2 )
a = e ( 0.75 π− φ/ 2 ) tan φ
N c = ( N q − 1 ) cot φ
tan φ K pγ 
Nγ =  − 1
2  cos φ 
2

For strip round square

sc 1.0 1.3 1.3
sγ 1.0 0.6 0.8
Factors Value For
B
Shape : sc = 1 + 0.2 K p
L
Any φ Table 4-3
B
sq = sγ = 1 + 0.1 K p φ> 10 o
L
sq = sγ = 1 φ= 0
D
Depth : d c = 1 + 0.2 K p Any φ
B Where Kp = tan2
D
d q = d γ = 1 + 0.1 K p φ> 10 o (45+φ /2)
B
d q = dγ = 1 φ= 0 φ = angle
2 of resultant R
 θo  measured from
Inclination : ic = iq =  1 − o  Any φ
 90  vertical without a
V 2
R  θo  sign: if φ = 0
iγ =  1 − o  φ> 0
θ <φ

 φ  all iγ =
H iγ = 0 for θ > 0 φ= 0 1.0
B.L.D =
previously defined
 • Meyerhof(1963) see Table 4-3 for
shape, depth and inclination factors.

Vertical Load : qult = cN c sc d c + q N q sq d q + 0.5γB′sγd γ

Inclined Load : qult = cN c d c ic + q N q d q iq + 0.5γB′d γiγ
N q = e πtan φ tan 2 ( 45 + φ/ 2)
N c = ( N q − 1) cot φ
N γ = ( N q − 1) tan( 1.4φ)
Hansen (1970).* See Table 4-5 for shape,
depth, and other factors.
General : qult = cN c sc d c ic g c bc + qN q sq d q iq g q bq
+ 0.5γBN γsγd γiγg γbγ
When φ= 0
use qult = 5.14 su ( 1 + sc′ + d c′ − ic′ − bc′ − g c′ ) + q
N q = same as Meyerhof above
N c = same as Meyerhof above
N γ = 1.5( N q − 1) tan φ
 Shapeanddepthfactorsfor usein theHansen
or Vesic′ bearingcapacityequations
Shapefactors Depthfactors
ABLE 4-5(a)
s′
c(H)
=0.2
B′
L′
(φ =0o) d′ =0.4k (φ =0o)
c
N
q B′
s =1.0+ . k = DBforD/B ≤1
c(H) N L′
c
N
q B
s =1.0+ . k = tan−1(D/B) forD/B >1
c(V) N L
c
s =1.0forstrip kinradians
c
_________________________________________________________
B′
s =1.0+ sinφ d =1+2tanφ′(1 −sinφi 2k
q(H) L′ q
B
s =1.0+ tanφ kdefinedabove
q(V) L
for allφ
______________________________________________________
B′
s =1.0−0.4 ≥0.6 d =1.0 for allφ
γ(H) L′ γ
B
s =1.0−0.4 ≥0.6
γ(V) L
 ___________________________________________________
Inclination factors Ground factors( base on slope )
___________________________________________________
H β o
ic′ = 0.5 − 1 − i gc′ =
A ca 147 o
TABLE 4-5(b) 1 − iq
f
βo
ic = iq − gc = 1.0 −
Nq − 1 147 o
α
 0.5 H  1
iq = 1 − i  gq = gγ = ( 1 − 0.5 tan β)5
 V + A c cot φ
 f a 
2≤α ≤5
1
Base factors( tilted base )
α
 0.7 H  1
i ηo
iγ = 1 −  ′
bc = ( φ= 0 )
 V + A c cot φ 147 o
 f a 
α
 ( )
0.7 − ηo / 450o H  2
i ηo
iγ = 1 − bc = 1 − ( φ> 0 )
 V + A ca cot φ  147 o
 f 
2≤α ≤5 bq = exp( −2ηtan φ)
2
bγ = exp( −2.7ηtan φ)
η in radians
• Vesic′ (1973, 1975).* See Table 4-5
for shape, depth, and other factors.
use Hansen' s equations above.
N q = same as Meyerhof above
N c = same as Meyerhof above
N γ = 2( N q + 1) tan φ
_________________________________________
*These methods require a trial process to obtain
design base
dimensions since width B and length L are needed
to compute
shape, depth, and influence factors.
†See Sec. 4-6 when ii < 1.
 Table of inclinatio n, ground, and base factors for
the Vesi c ′( 1973,1975b ) bearing − capacity equations.
See not es below and refer to sketch for identifica tion of terms.
__________ __________ __________ __________ __________ ______

Table 4-5(c)
Inclinatio nfactors Ground factors (base on slope)
__________ __________ __________ __________ __________ ______
mH i β
ic′ = 1 − ( φ= 0 ) g c′ = β in radians
A f ca N c 5.14
1 − iq 1 − iq
ic = iq − ( φ> 0 ) g c = iq − φ> 0
Nq −1 5.14 tan φ
iq , and m defined below iq defined with ic
m
 Hi 
iq = 1.0 − g q = g γ = ( 1.0 − tan β)
2

 V + A f c a cot φ
Base factors (tilted base)
__________ __________
m +1
 Hi 
iγ = 1.0 − 1.0 − bc′ = g c′ ( φ= 0 )
 V + A f c a cot φ
2+B / L 2β
m = mB = bc = 1 −
1+ B / L 5.14 tan φ
2+L/ B
bq = bγ = ( 1.0 − ηtan φ)
2
m = mL =
1+ L / B
• Notes:
1. When φ = 0 (and β ≠ 0) use Nγ = -2 sin(±β )
in Nγ term.
2. Compute m = mB when Hj = HB (H parallel to B)
and m = mLwhen Hi =HL (H parallel to L). If you
have both HB and Hi ,use m = √mB 2 +m2L Note
use of B and L, not B', L′
3. Refer to Table sketch and Tables 4-5a,b for
term identification.
4. Terms Nc,Nq, and Nγ are identified in Table 4-1.
5. Vesic′ always uses the bearing-capacity
equation given in Table 4-1 (uses B‘ in the Nγ
term even when Hi = HL).
6. Hi term < 1.0 for computing iq, iγ (always).
 EFFECT OF WATER TABLE
ON BEARING CAPACITY
• The theoretical equations developed
for computing the ultimate bearing
capacity qu of soil are based on the
assumption that the water table lies
at a depth below the base of the
foundation equal to or greater than
the width B of the foundation or
otherwise the depth of the water
table from Contd…
ground surface is equal to or greater
than (Df+ B). In case the water table
lies at any intermediate depth less
than the depth (Df+ B), the bearing
capacity equations are affected due
to the presence of the water table.
Two cases may be considered here.
Case 1. When the water table lies above
the base of the foundation.
Case 2. When the water table lies within
depth B below the base of the
foundation.
We will consider the two methods for
determining the effect of the water table on
bearing capacity as given below.
Method 1
For any position of the water table
within the depth (Df+ B), we may
write Eq. as: 1
qu = cN c + γD f N q Rw1 + γBN γRw 2
2
Where Rw1 = reduction factor for water table above
the base level of the foundation,
Rw 2 = reduction factor for water table below
the base level of the foundation.
γ= γsat for all practical purposes in both the
second and third terms of Eq.
Case 1: When the water table lies
above the base level of the
foundation or when Dw1/Df < 1
(Fig. 12.10a) the equation for
Rw1 may be 1  written
Dw1  as
Rw1 =  1 + 
2 D f 
For Dw1 / D f = 0 , we have Rw1 = 0.5 ,
and for Dw1 / D f = 1.0 , we have Rw1 = 1.0.
Case 2: When the water table lies below the
base level or when Dw2 /B < 1 (12.10 b) the
equation for Rw2 is

1 Dw 2 
Rw 2 =  1 + 
2 B 
For Dw 2 / B = 0 , we have Rw 2 = 0.5
and for Dw 2 / B = 1.0 , we have Rw 2 = 1.0

Method 2: Equivalent effective unit weight

method
 1
qu = cN c + γe 1 D f N q + γe 2 BN γ
2
Where γe 1 = weighted effective
γe 2 = weighted effective unit weight
of soil lying above the base level
of the foundation
γm = moist or saturated unit weight of
soil lying above WT
γ sat = saturated unit weight of soil
below the WT (cas1 or case 2)
γ ′ = Submerged unit weight of
soil =(γ sat- γ w)
Case 1
An equation for γ e1 may be written as
Dw1
γe 1 = γ′ + ( γm − γ′)
Df
γe 2 = γ′

Case 2
γe 1 = γm
Dw 2
γe 2 = γ′ + ( γm − γ′)
B
General Observations about
Bearing Capacity
1. The cohesion term dominates in cohesive soils.
2. The depth term (γ D Nq) dominates in
cohesionless soils. Only a small increase in D
increases qu substantially.
3. The base width term (0.5 γ B Nγ ) provides some
increase in bearing capacity for both cohesive and
cohesionless soils. In cases where B < 3 to 4m
this term could be neglected with little error.
4. No one would place a footing on the ground
surface of a cohesionless soil mass.
5. It is highly unlikely that one would place
a footing on a cohesionless soil with a Dr <
0.5. If the soil is loose, it would be
compacted in some manner to a higher
density prior to placing footings on it.
6. Where the soil beneath the footing is not
homogeneous or is stratified, some
judgment must be applied to determining
the bearing capacity.
 Which Equations to Use
 There are few full-scale footing tests
reported in the literature (where one usually
goes to find substantiating data).
 The reason is that, as previously noted, they
are very expensive to do and the cost is
difficult to justify except as pure research
(using a government grant) or for a precise
determination for an important project—
usually on the basis of settlement control.
 Few clients are willing to
underwrite the costs of a full-scale
footing load test when the bearing
capacity can be obtained— often
using empirical SPT or CPT data
directly—to a sufficient precision for
most projects.
Use for Best for
Terzaghi Very cohesive soils where D/B ≤ 1or
for a quick estimate of qult to
compare with other methods. Do not
use for footings with moments and/or
horizontal forces or for tilted bases
and/or sloping ground.
Hansen,
Meyerhof , Any situation that applies, depending
Vesic′ on user’s preference or familiarity
with a particular method.
Hansen ,
When base is tilted; when footing is
Vesic′ on a slope or when D/B > 1
 Bearing Pressure from In
situ Tests(empirical
• From SPT methods)
• (Terzaghi & Peck )
• Sandy Soil
q = 1.025 N c t / m = 10.25 N c 2
kPa
25 n w n w

where q25 = net pressure for settlement not exceeding 25mm .

qa = 0.041 N n c w s t / m 2
N n = average corrected N value for overburden
( and submergence if necessary )
c w = water table correction
s = Allowable settlement in mm
Correction for overburden ( Peck et al )
N n = Cn × N
200
C n = 0.77 log
σo
Cn max. = 2
σ o in t/m2 (10 Ton/m2 )
σ ≥ 2.5 t/m 2 For σ o ≤ 2.5 t/m2
o
σ o t/m2 Cn
Correction for
submergence 0 2

(very fine silty sand 0.6 – 1.8

1.0
below water table and
1.5 – 1.6
N > 15) 2.0
N′ =15+ ½(Nn – 15) 10 1.0
Empirical relationships for CN
(Note: σ ′ o is in kN/m2)
Source CN

1
Liao and Whitman 9.78
σo′
(1960) 2
1 + 0.01 σo′
Skempton (1986)
 σo′ 
1 − 1.25 log  
Seed et al. (1975)  95.6 
 1912 
0.77 log  
Peck et al. (1974)  σo′ 
for σo′ ≥ 2.5 kN / m 2
 Bearing Pressure for
Rafts and Piers
q50 =2.05 Nn cw t/m2
q50 = net pressure for settlement = 50 mm or
differential settlement = 20 mm
cw = 0.5 + 0.5 Dw /D + B ≤ 1
Where Dw = depth of water table below the
ground surface
cw = 0.5 for Dw= 0 and cw= 1 for Dw= Df + B
The proximity of water table is likely to reduce
the bearing capacity by 50 % or increase the
settlement by 100 % .
• For designing of footings, generally N
values are determined at 1 m interval as
the test boring is advanced.
• Generally the average corrected values of
Nn over a distance from the base of footing
to a depth B – 2B below the footing is
calculated. When several borings are made,
the lowest average should be used.
• For raft. N is similarly calculated or
determined, if Nn is less than 5.
• Sand is too loose and should be
compacted or alternative foundation
on piles or piers should be
considered.
• If the depth of raft D i.e less than 2.5
m, the edges of raft settle more than
the interior because of lack of
confinement of sand.
 By Meyerhof’s Theory
qnet25 =11.98 Nn Fd For B≤ 1.22 and 25 mm
settlement, q = kN/m2
qnet25 =7.99 Nn Fd (B + 0.305/B)2 For B > 1.22
B in mm
By Bowles (50 % above)
qnet25 =19.16 Nn Fd (s/25.4) For B≤ 1.22 m (kN/m2)
qnet25 =11.98 (B + 0.305/B)2 (For B > 1.22m) x Nn Fd
(s/25.4)
Where Fd = Depth factor = 1 + 0.33(Df /B) ≤ 1.33
s = tolerable settlement.
 Parry’s
q Theory
= 30 N kN/m
ult
2
D≤ B

Teng (For continuous or strip footing)

qnet(ult) =1/60 { 3 N2 BR′ w + 5(100 + N2) Df Rw}
For square and circular:
qnet(ult) =1/30 {N2 BR′ w + 3(100 + N2) Df Rw}
qnet = ulltimate bearing capacity in t/m2
N = corrected SPT value
R′ w , Rw = correction factor for water table
B = width of footing
Df = depth of footing
 SAFE BEARING PRESSURE
FROM EMPIRICAL EQUATIONS
BASED ON CPT VALUES FOR
FOOTINGS ON COHESIONLESS
s c SOIL
q = 3.6 q R kPa
w2
for B ≤ 1.2 m
2
 1
qs = 2.1 qc  1 +  Rw 2 kPa for B ≥ 1.2 m
 B
An approximate formula for all widths
qs = 2.7 qc Rw 2 kPa
where qc is the cone point resistence in
kg/m 2 and qs in kPa.
The above equations have been for
a settlement of 25 mm.
 Meyerhof (1956)
• Allowable bearing pressure of sand
can be calculted:
• q c is in units kg/cm2. If qc is in other
units kg/cm2, you must convert them
before using in the equation below.

qc
N 55 ≅
4
 By Meyerhof (1956)
qc
qall ( net ) = For B ≤ 1.22 m settlement 25 mm
15
2
q 3.28 B + 1 
qall ( net ) = c   For B > 1.22 m settlement 25 mm
25 3.28 B 
where qc = cone penetration resis tan ce kN / m 2
B =m
 Terzaghi
The bearing capacity factors for the use in Terzaghi
equations can be estimated as:

Where qc is averaged N q ≅ the

0.8over γ ≅ qc interval from
0.8 Ndepth
about B/2 above to 1.1B below the footing base. This
approximation should be applicable for Df / B ≤ 1.5.
For chesionless soil one may use:
Strip qult = 28 - 0.0052 (300- qc)1.5 (kg/cm2)
For square qult = 48 - 0.009 (300- qc)1.5 (kg/cm2)
 For clay one may use
Strip qult = 2 + 0.28qc ( kg/cm )
2

square qult = 5 + 0.34qc ( kg/cm )

2
Bearing Capacity from Plate
 This is reliableLoad
method toTest
obtain bearing
capacity.
 The cost is very high.

qult, foundation = qult, load test

B foundation
qult, foundation = M + N
Bload test
Where M includes the N c and N q terms and N is
the N γ term
 By using several sizes of plates this equation
can be solved graphically for qult .
 Practically, for extrapolating plate load tests
for sands (which are often in a configuration
so that the Nq term is negligible), use the
following

 B foundation 
qult = q plate  

 B plate 

 It is not recommended unless the

Bfoundation /Bplate is not much more than about 3.
When the ratio is 6 to 15 or more the
extrapolation from a plate- load test is little
more than a guess that could be obtained at
least as reliably using an SPT or CPT
correlation.
 Housel's (1929) Method of
Determining Safe Bearing
Pressure from Settlement
Objective
Consideration
To determine the
load Qf and the size
of a foundation for
Q = Ap m + Pp n
a permissible Where Q = load applied on a given plate
settlement Sf.
A = contact area of plate
Housel suggests
two plate load tests Pp = perimeter of plate
with plates of
different sizes, say m = a cons tan t corresponding to
B1 x B1 and the bearing pressure
B2 x B2 for this n = another cons tan t corresponding
purpose.
to perimeter shear .
 Procedure
1 Two plate load tests are to be
conducted at the foundation level of
the prototype as per the procedure
explained earlier.
2. Draw the load-settlement curves
for each of the plate load tests.
3. Select the permissible settlement Sf.
for the foundation.
4. Determine the loads Q1 and Q2 from
each of the curves for the given
permissible settlement sf
Now we may write the following equations

For plate load test 1.

Q1 =mAp1 + nPp1

For plate load test 2.

Q2 =mAp2 + nPp2
The unknown values of m & n can be found by solving
the above equations.
The equation for a prototype foundation may be written as
Qf = mAf + nPf
Where Af area of the foundation, Pf =perimeter of the
foundation.
When Af and Pf are known, the size of the foundation
can be determined.
 Bearing Capacity on
Layered Soils
Case (a): Strong over
relatively weak (su1/su2 >1).
 If H/B is
small,
failure would
occur as
punching in the
first layer, followed
by general
shear failure in the
second (the
weak) layer
 If H/B is
relatively large,
the failure surface
would be fully
contained within
the first (upper
 Bearing Capacity on
Layered Soils
Case (a): Strong over
weak (su1/su2 >1) (cont.)
 Bearing Capacity on
Layered Soils
Case (a): Strong over
weak
B = width of(su1/su2 >1) (cont.)
Where:

foundation
L = length of
foundation
Nc = 5.14 (see
chart)
sa = cohesion
along the
line a-a' in
the
previous
figure.
Bearing Capacity on
Layered Soils
Case (b): Weak over
strong (su1/su2 <1)
 Bearing Capacity on
Layered Soils
II) Dense or compacted
sand above
If H is relatively
small, failure
soft clay
would
extend into the
soft
clay layer

If H is relatively
large, the failure
surface would be
fully contained
within the sand
layer.
 Bearing Capacity on
Layered Soils
II) Dense or compacted
sand above soft clay
(cont.)
 Bearing Capacity on
Layered Soils
II) Dense or compacted
sand above soft clay
(cont.)
 BEARING CAPACITY
BASED ON BUILDING
CODES
(PRESUMPTIVE
• PRESSURE)
In many cities the local building code
stipulates values of allowable soil
pressure to use when designing
foundations. These values are usually
based on years of experience,
although in some cases they are
simply used from the building code
of another city.
 Values such as these are also found in
engineering and building-construction
handbooks.
 These arbitrary values of soil pressure are
often termed presumptive pressures.
 Most building codes now stipulate that
other soil pressures may be acceptable if
laboratory testing and engineering
considerations can justify the use of
alternative values.
 Presumptive pressures are based on a
visual soil classification.
Table 4-8 indicates representative
values of building code pressures.
These values are
primarily for illustrative purposes,
since it is generally conceded that in
all but minor construction projects
some soil exploration should be
undertaken
• Major drawbacks to the use of
presumptive soil pressures are that
they do not reflect the depth of
footing, size of footing, location of
water table, or potential settlements.