Bearing capacity of shallow

and deep foundations

8 CLASSES

Course Teacher : Lt Col Mohiuddin, PEng Edited for CE14

Military Institute of Science and Technology 10Lectures : Feb-Mar2015

1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8

Basic Definitions
Shallow Foundation: It refers to the founding
depth being less than the breadth of the
foundation. It is sensible to limit the term
shallow to mean less than 3 m or less than the
breadth of the foundation footing. (Generally, the depth
is less than two times
Footing: An enlarged base of the least dimension of
the foundation- BNBC )
the structure to distribute the
column or wall load to
ground at a compatible
strength and deformation
characteristics of foundation
soil.
 Basic Definitions
Mat or Raft: This is characterized by the feature
of framing columns or walls into the footing in
two directions. Any number of columns can be
accommodated with as low as four columns.
Bearing Capacity :
This is a general term
used to describe, the
load carrying
capacity of a
foundation soil that
enables to bear and
transmit loads from
a structure.
Basic Definitions (Ref BNBC –Chapter3, Para 3.3)
ALLOWABLE LOAD: The maximum load that may be safely applied to a
foundation unit, considering both the strength and settlement of the
soil, under expected loading and soil conditions.
DESIGN LOAD: The expected un‐factored load to a foundation unit.
GROSS PRESSURE: The total pressure at the base of a footing due to
the weight of the superstructure and the original overburden pressure.
NET PRESSURE: The gross pressure minus the surcharge pressure i.e.
the overburden pressure of the soil at the foundation level.
Allowable bearing pressure: The maximum allowable net loading
intensity on the soil at which the soil neither fails in shear nor
undergoes intolerable settlement detrimental to the structure. It is
used for foundation design.
Safe bearing pressure: The maximum average pressure of loading
that the soil will safely carry without the risk of permissible
settlement.
Basic Definitions
Ultimate Bearing Capacity(qu): Maximum pressure that a
foundation soil can withstand without the occurrence of shear
failure of the foundation.
Net (or Net Ultimate) bearing capacity (qn): Gross bearing
capacity minus the original overburden pressure or surcharge
pressure at the foundation level. [ qn = qu-γDf]
Safe bearing capacity: (qs) Net ultimate bearing capacity divided by a
factor of safety (FS). The FS may range from 2 to 4, depending upon the
importance of structure, and the soil profile. [ qs=qn/FS ]
Gross Bearing Capacity: The bearing capacity inclusive of
surcharge pressure . [ qg = qs+ γDf ]
PRESUMPTIVE BEARING CAPACITY: The net approximate
pressure prescribed as appropriate for the particular type of
ground to be used in preliminary designs of foundations
1. Bearing Capacity Tables by BNBC
1. Bearing Capacity Tables by BNBC
Minimum factors of safety for shallow foundations

Vesic, 1975, suggested minimum factors of safety for

shallow foundations which take into account the extent of
the site investigation, likelihood of maximum design load
and the consequences of failure, as shown below;
 Criteria for the
Determination of
Bearing Capacity

The foundation should

be designed such that :

1. The soil below does

not fail in shear &

2. Settlement is within
the safe limits.
 Factors Affecting Bearing Capacity
1. Nature of soil and its physical and engineering
properties
2. Nature of the foundation and other details such
as the size, shape, depth at which the foundation
is located and rigidity of the structure
 Factors Affecting Bearing Capacity
3. Total and differential settlement that the
structure can withstand without functional failure

4. Location of ground water table relative to the

level of foundation

5. Initial stresses, if any.

 Modes of shear Failure Heave

Vĕsic (1973) classified shear failure of soil under a

foundation base into three categories depending
on the type of soil & location of foundation.
(a) General Shear failure.
(b) Local Shear failure.
(c) Punching Shear failure (a)

(b)

(c)
 General Shear Failure
Zone 1 pushes into Zone 2

Zone 2 rotates around the footing edge

And has the shape of a logarithmic spiral

Section of Zone-2 rotates

into Zone 3, which is a
passive failure wedge

Since all the zones are moving at the same time,

when the deformation to failure is reached, all
 In general shear, the soil
three Zones shear at once, and that represents the can fail to the left or
greatest stress that can be placed on the footing right if the footing can
rotate, or
 both sides will fail if the
footing is constrained to
prevent rotation.
Logarithmic Spiral  In practice, this can be
of Zone 2 determined by looking at
the bulge or bulges that
occur adjacent to the
General Shear - Dense Soils footing.
 Modes of shear Failure
(a) General Shear failure.
 Occurs in dense/stiff soil for Φ>36o, N>30, ID>70%, Cu>100 kPa
 A continuous slip surface occurs up to ground level.
 Soil above failure surface in state of plastic equilibrium, with
heaving on either side.
 Failure is sudden and catastrophic and accompanied by
tilting of the footing.
 Observed in shallow foundations
 Less settlement, but tilting A Passive Passive C
failure observed Active
Radial Radial
final slip (movement of soil) on
one side only causing structure to B
tilt

Results in small strain (<5%)

Failure pattern well defined & clear
Above ABC  Plastic Equilibrium Below ABC  Elastic Equilibrium
 Local Shear Failure
 If the soil is loose enough to not exhibit a peak strength,
then it will fail at the residual value.
 In that case, the three Zones do not fail all at once, but
rather progressively, starting along Zone 1, into Zone 2 and
finally into Zone 3.
 Because the failure is progressive, it is known as Local Shear.

For the local shear failure, the

It requires more
failure surface extends from deformation than general
the edge of the footing to shear, because each
approximately the boundary of location must undergo
the Rankine passive state residual shear conditions.
(zone-3)

Local Shear (or Progressive) - Less Dense Soil

 Modes of shear Failure
(b) Local Shear failure.
 Significant compression under footing causes only a partial
development of plastic equilibrium.
 Failure surface is not continuous.
 Some minor heaving at ground level but no catastrophic failure.

 Observed in deep foundations

 Failure is gradual
 Considerable settlement of footing observed
on highly compressible soils

 Occurs in loose/soft soil for Φ<28o, N<5, ID<20%, Cu<50 kPa

 Results in large strain (>20%), Failure pattern not well defined
 Punching Shear Failure
If the soil is so loose that it cannot sustain the
shearing forces developed on the failure surface, the
soil underneath with collapse, causing the shear
zone to progress downward, more or less vertically,
until other constraints prohibit further movement.

Heave

Punching Shear – Loose Soil

 Modes of shear Failure
(c) Punching Shear failure
 Slip surfaces almost vertical
 Large vertical displacements due to high
compression of soil under footing
 No heaving, tilting or catastrophic failure
 Compression increases the density of the soil
 vertical shearing around edges of footing
 Observed in deep foundations
 Failure is gradual
 Considerable settlement of footing observed
on loose, uncompacted soils

 Occurs in loose/soft soil for Φ<28o, N<5, ID<20%, Cu<50 kPa

 Results in large strain (>20%), Failure pattern not well defined
 The three modes of bearing failures
Φ>36o, N>30, ID>70%, Cu>100 kPa

Φ<28o, N<5, ID<20%, Cu<50 kPa

Φ<28o, N<5, ID<20%, Cu<50 kPa

Dense Soil, Rock, NC Clay

Less Dense Soil, Progressive

Loose Sand, Weak Clay

 Bearing Capacity Failure

Sand
Circular Foundation

Model Tests by Vesic (1973)

Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations

The following methods are available for the

determination of bearing capacity of a shallow
foundation:

1. Bearing capacity tables in various building

codes
2. Plate bearing tests
3. Penetration tests
4. Model tests and prototype tests
5. Laboratory tests
6. Analytical methods
2. Plate Bearing Tests
Plate bearing tests are load tests conducted in the field
on a plate. These involve effort and expense. There are
some limitations also.
Consider ASTM D1194 - Plate Load Test
A 1 ft2 Plate is placed on a
soil surface. A load P is
placed on the plate and the
settlement ΔH is measured as
a function of P. Two different
types of shapes can be
developed depending on the
density of the soil. From this,
we can get a peak and
residual bearing capacity.
3. Penetration tests
They are conducted with devices known as
penetrometers which measure the resistance of soil
to penetration. This is correlated to bearing capacity.

4. Model and prototype tests

They are very cumbersome and costly, and are not
usually practicable.

5. Laboratory tests
They are simple, may be useful in arriving bearing
capacity especially of pure clays.
6.Bearing Capacity By Analytical Methods
Usually various analytical methods are expressed in
terms of equations commonly known as bearing
capacity equation. The prominent of these are given by:

1. Rankine (1857) 7. Terzaghi (1943)

2 Pauker (1889) 8. Meyerhof (1951)
3. Bell (1915) 9. Skempton (1951)
4. Prandlt (1921) 10. Hansen (1961)
5. Schleicher (1926) 11. Balla (1962)
6. Fellinius (1939) 12. Vesic (1975)
 Bearing Capacity : Analytical Methods

1. The theory of elasticity: Schleicher’s

method
2. The classical earth pressure theory:
Rankine, Pauker, Bell
3. The theory of Plasticity: Fellinius,
Prandlt, Terzaghi, Meyerhof,
Skempton, Hansen, Balla, Vesic
 Bearing Capacity : Analytical Methods
The theory of elasticity: Schleicher’s method
Based on the theory of elasticity and Boussinesq’s stress
distribution, Schleicher (1926) integrated the vertical
stresses caused by a uniformly distributed surface load and
obtained an elastic settlement, s, of soil directly underneath
a perfectly elastic bearing slab as follows.

 
K = shape coefficient
Kq A 1   2 q = net pressure applied on
s the soil due to slab
E A = area of the bearing
E slab
 Cons tan t  C ,
if ,
1  
2
E = modulus of elasticity of
then, q 
sC soil
K A  = Poisson’s ratio of soil
Limitation : No effect of depth and size of foundation, location of water table etc.
Bearing Capacity : Analytical Methods
Shallow foundation
C-φ Soil

Method Based on theory of Plasticity

Terzaghi : The Father of Soil Mechanics

 Terzaghi’s Theory Actually Terzaghi
considered it only
φ

III I III
II II
Craig, 6th Ed.

 strip footing of infinite length and width B

 uniform surcharge, q0 on surface of isotropic,
homogeneous soil
 Rankine active wedge, ABC: forces 
 Passive zones, ADE () & BGF ()
Theory of plasticity deals with Stability Problem  Ultimate failure
Example : Problem of earth pressure, slope stability, bearing capacity etc.

I
II II

 transition between(I)  & : ACD & BCG

(zones or radial shear or slip fans)
 above EDCGF: plastic equilibrium
 below EDCGF: elastic equilibrium
Elasticity problem deals with stress deformation of the soil when no failure is involved. Example :
Settlement problems in soils
Assumptions in Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Theory
1. Depth of foundation is less than or equal to its width.
2. Base of the footing is rough.
3. Soil above bottom of foundation has no shear
strength; it is only a surcharge load against the
overturning load
4. Surcharge up to the base of footing is considered.
5. L/B ratio is infinite. Effect of water table is neglected.

6. Load applied is vertical and non-eccentric.

7. The soil is homogenous and isotropic.
8. Elastic zone has straight boundaries inclined at an angle equal to Φ
to the horizontal.
 Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Theory
 soil above the base of the footing is neglected, but the
effect of soil weight above the base is considered by
superimposing an equivalent surcharge of intensity
q=Df. [ Figure (a) ]
 The development of the failure surface in the soil is
governed by the general shear failure.
 Zone I is considered to be at Rankine active state, zone II
under radial shear and zone III at Rankine passive state.
 Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Theory
 As footing sinks in to the ground the faces AC and BC of
the wdge ABC push the soil to the sides.
 When plastic equilibrium is reached the forces
acting on the wedge ABC [fig (b)] are :
1. Ultimate footing load= B qult Ref: Bowels, 5th ed, P216
2. Weight of the wedge, W= DAS, 5th ed. P507
(1/2)(B/2)(H)(γ)(2)= (1/2)(B/2) (B/2
tanφ) (γ) (2) = (1/4)(γ)B2tanφ
3. The passive force Pp on two faces
AC and CB = 2Pp (acting
vertically)
4. Cohesive force on the face AC and
H
CB, Ca = c (B/2) / Cosφ
On the verge of failure, V = 0, thus; φ B/2
Bqult + (1/4)(γ)B2tanφ - 2Pp - cB tanφ =0
Or, qultB = 2Pp + cB tanφ - (1/4)(γ)B2tanφ =0 Pp
(i)
AC=CB=(B/2) /cosφ
What about Pp ? H=(B/2) tanφ
 Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Theory
The value of Pp has been represented as the vector sum of three
components, (i) cohesion,c, (ii) surcharge,q and (iii) weight of the soil.
Hence, Pp = Pc+Pq+Ppγ
Terzaghi assumed the method of superposition to be valid. So,
2Pp = 2(Pc+ Ppq+Ppγ)
Now, qultB = 2Pp + cB tanφ - (1/4)(γ)B2tanφ =0 From Eqn (i)
Or, qultB = 2(Pc+ Ppq+Ppγ) + cB tanφ - (1/4)(γ)B2tanφ =0
Or, qultB = (2Pc+ cB tanφ) + 2Ppq+ {2Ppγ - (1/4)(γ)B2tanφ} =0
Let, 2Pc+ cB tanφ = B. cNc,
(Cohesive component)
2Ppq=B. qNq
(Surcharge component)
and 2Ppγ- (1/4)(γ)B2tanφ = B. (1/2)γBNγ
(Wedge component)
Hence (i) can be rewritten as, qult = cNc + qNq + 0.5γBNγ
Where, Nc, N and Nq are
non dimensional bearing
Shear Surcharge Soil Self
Contribution (Overburden)
capacity factors and of
Strength Weight
functions only of the, . (Wedge wt)
Summary
Slide 35

Plastic
zone

Elastic zone
qult = cNc + qNq + 0.5γBNγ
Surcharge Soil Self
Shear
Weight
Strength
(Wedge
(Cohesion)
weight-
abd)
 Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Factors
Original   3   
Recent Research Work
2  
  4 2  .tan  (Click for Excell Spread sheet)
 
 
exp 
Nq 

N q  tan 45  2 .e tan
2

2 cos 2   
4

2

Nc= cot (Nq – 1) N c  N q  1cot 

N   1.5N q  1tan
 K p 
N  1
2 . tan  
 cos2   1
 

K p  3 tan 45  2
  
 33
2
 A close approximation only

Terzaghi never explained very well how he obtained the

Kpγ used to compute Nγ
These bearing capacity factors are valid for strip footing only and
require to be adjusted for rectangular and circular footings
 Click for Excell
Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Spread sheet
Click for Excell
Spread sheet(SM)
Factors

Terzaghi
gave only a
small scale
curve of φ vs
Nγ and three
specific values
of Nγ at φ = 0,
34 and 480
Evaluation of Nc for
strip footing in Clay
Prandtl Method
 Bearing Capacity for Clayey Soil
Evaluation of Bearing capacity factor Nc for clay soil
considering Strip footing

General Considerations
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. Here the mechanism considers an
upper bound solution (i.e., a failure surface is
assumed).
What is Upper or Lower bound
Solution ?
 Bearing Capacity for Clayey Soil
Evaluation of Bearing capacity factor Nc for clay soil
considering Strip footing

Upper bound Solution

The solution to upper bound limit problem is
obtained by writing the internal and external
plastic work components and equating them.
The upper bound technique considers only
velocity or failure modes and energy
dissipation. Stress distribution need not to be
in equilibrium.
Rate of external work done exceeds the rate
of internal dissipation.
 Bearing Capacity for Clayey Soil
Evaluation of Bearing capacity factor Nc for clay soil
considering Strip footing

Lower bound Solution

The lower bound technique on the other
hand considers only equilibrium and yield
condition. It gives no considerations to
material kinematics.
The effect of change of geometry on
equilibrium conditions is neglected.
The theorems do not require the stress or
velocity fields to be continuous.
 Bearing Capacity for Clayey Soil
Relationship between Upper and Lower bound solutions
Lower bound Upper bound
solution solution

Body and
Displacement
Surface force,
U1
F1,T1

Equilibrium Compatibility
(geometry)

Stresses Strains
σij εij
Constitutive
laws
 Bearing Capacity for Clayey Soil
Nc for clay soil - Prandtl Method(1920)
Assumptions
1) Soil is isotropic and homogeneous
2) Rigid object(footing) deforms soft material (soil)
3) Theory based on condition of plastic equilibrium
4) Footing is infinitely long
5) Footing is placed at the surface of the soil
6) The interface of soil and footing is smooth
Limitations
 Typical Soil is never isotropic nor homogeneous
 Typical footing is never infinitely long
 Footing interface is not smooth
Applicability : Regardless of limitations Prandtl’s theory appeared as
the beginning of bearing capacity determination of soils which is still
applicable but undergoing constant modification and improvements.
 Bearing Capacity for Clayey Soil
Evaluation of Nc for strip footing in clay C soil
Consider a strip footing is x
A1 B1
resting on clay. We
assume the mechanism
of wedge failure for this
footing. In fig(a)
Consider a slip surface
which is an arc in cross C-φ soil
section, centered above Fu (applied force)
one edge of the base.
Failure will cause a
rotation about point x. δwf
Out side of failure x
wedge, O is a static 450 450 450
A1 R B1
point where there is no δwA For purely cohesive R
movement of soil. 900 soils (φ = 0) the
δwB
Relative to O O . transition zones
become circular
900
displacements of
wedges A1 and B1 will be
calculated. Fig.(a)
 Bearing Capacity for Clayey Soil
Evaluation of Nc for strip footing in Clay
Let, Fu = Applied force(external) on footing (ultimate loading)
δ = Compatible displacements within the failure wedge
L = Slip length, B = Footing width, C= undrain soil cohesion

External work done = Force x Vertical displacement = F.δwF

Internal work done = ∑C.L.δ (stress x Length x unit width x displacement)
Equating both internal and external work done (plastic) we
may obtain the value of bearing capacity factor Nc

Fu

B
1 3
2

Fig (b)
 Evaluation of Nc for strip footing in Clay
 Let us draw the vectorial visual representation of the
movement of Soil and Foundation (known as Hodograph)
that represents relative velocities of the various parts in the
deformation process. [fig. (d)]
 External work done = Fu.δwf
 Work done by internal stress
1. For 01 = Force x Displacement =
(Cohesion x slip length 01) x δwf =
c.(B/√2).√2. δwf = c.B. δwf = δw.O1
2. Similarly for 03, δw.O3= c.B. δwf  From Geometry of Hodograph
So, Total work done = 01+03 = 2c.B. δwf 1. Slip Length 01=03=23=B/√2,
½.B ½.B where, 02=B
δwf2 =(1/2.B)2+z2 = 1/4 x 2B2 π/4 2.Displacement
z
Z=(B/2), so, B=√2δwf δwf π/4 δwf 01=03=12=23=√2. δwf
Fu 3
δwf
B 0 2
1 3 δw01
δwf 2 1
02=footing width B
Fig (c) Fig (d) 01 = 03 = B/√2
 Evaluation of Nc for strip footing in Clay
 Internal work done
4. Fan Failure
Work done for Fan Failure,
δwFan= (Circumferential + Radial)failure
θf δw
O . θf
θ δθ δwδθ
R δw

Rδθ Hodograph for The kinematic slip

Fan Failure Fan Failure condition simply states
that relative velocity
change, δw in a narrow
transition zone bounded by
two parallel planes must
form the angle φ with slip
planes
 Evaluation of Nc for strip footing in Clay
 Internal work done
4. Fan Failure
Work done for Fan Failure,
δwFan= (Circumferential + Radial)failure

θf δw
O . θf
θ δθ δwδθ
R δw

Rδθ
Fan Failure Hodograph for Fan Failure
𝜽
δwFan= ∑c(Rδθ)δw+ ∑c R (δwδθ )= 2c R δw 𝟎 𝒇 𝒅𝜽= 2c Rδwθf
For, θf = π/2, δwFan= 2c Rδwf (π/2) = c (B/√2)(√2δwf )π = πc Bδwf
Total internal work done= 2c.B. δwf + πc Bδwf = (2+π)c.B. δwf
Equating External and internal work done, Fu.δwf= (2+π)c.B. δwf
Or, Fu/B = (2+π)c but Fu/B= qd = Net ult bearing capacity
Or, qd = NcC, Where, Nc=(2+ π)=5.14, (Prandtl,1920)
3
[ Terzaghi  2 𝜋 + 1 = 5.71 ]
 Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Theory

qult = cNc + qNq + 0.5BγNγ

These bearing capacity factors are valid for strip
footing only and require to be adjusted for rectangular
and circular footings as follows : q = γDf

Strip footing: qult = cNc + qNq+ 0.5BN

Square footing: qult = 1.3cNc + qNq+ 0.4 BN
Circular Footing : qult = 1.3cNc + qNq + 0.3 BN

Terzaghi(1943) took the shape factor as 1.3 which was later

changed by Terzaghi and Peck(1967) to 1.2. Both values are used
in practice. Meyerhof considers 1.2. However, 1.3 is widely used.
 Forms of Bearing Capacity Equation
(Strip footing-Terzaghi, C-φ Soil)

qult = cNc + qNq + 0.5BγNγ q = γDf

If ground is subjected to additional surcharge, q then

qult = cNc + (γDf+q)Nq + 0.5BγNγ
The net ultimate bearing capacity is,
qn = qult – q = cNc+ q(Nq-1)+ 0.5BγNγ

The safe bearing capacity is,

qs = (qn /FS )+ γDf
Note : For φ=0, Nc=5.71, Nq=1 and Nγ=0
 Bearing Capacity Equation-summary
qult = cNcSc + qNqSq + 0.5BγNγSγ
Strip footing: qult = cNc + qNq+ 0.5BN
Square footing: qult = 1.3cNc + qNq+ 0.4 BN
Circular Footing : qult = 1.3cNc + qNq + 0.3 BN
Shape sc sq sγ
Strip 1 1 1
Square 1.3 1 0.8
Round 1.3 1 0.6
B B
Rectangle (1  0.3 ) 1 (1  0 .2 )
L L
B and L represent the width and length respectively of rectangular
footing such that B < L
q = γDf
 Bearing Capacity Equation - Corrections

q = γDf
qult = cNcSc + qNqSq + 0.5BγNγSγ
Bearing capacity obtained from above equation gives too
large values for footing width B>6ft(2m). This is apparently
because the 0.5BγNγ become too large (DeBeer1965;
Vesic1969). Therefore Bowels(1988) suggest a reduction
factor, rγ with this term (0.5BγNγ)as follows :

B= 2(m) 2.5 3 3.5 4 5 10 20 100

rγ = 1 0.97 0.95 0.93 0.92 0.9 0.82 0.75 0.57

The table can be expressed in rγ = 1-0.25Log(B/k)

equation form as  K=2 for SI and 6 for fps
 Bearing Capacity Equation - Corrections

For failures other than general

shear Terzaghi proposed reduced
values of c and  as: What is plane
strain
condition ?
c = 0.67c See next slide.
For details
 = tan-1(0.67tan) read Coduto
P81-82

𝜑𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛 = 𝑡𝑎𝑛−1 (1.2𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜑𝑑𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟 )

 (Plain strain) = 1.1 (determined from triaxial test)
Soil element beneath the strip footing is always subjected to plane-strain
loading, therefore φps to be used to calculate bearing capacity
 What is plane strain condition ?
Fig : An example of (a) axisymmetric stress condition; and
(b) Plane strain stress condition

(b) x
(a)
y

Lateral strain and intermediate principle stress are difficult to

model in conventional laboratory test and therefore often not
accurately reflected in the C- φ values. In plane strain condition
lateral strain is considered as zero which would occur beneath a
very long spread footing as shown in the figure (b). In
axisymmetric stress condition, (fig-a) intermediate principal stress,
σ2 , equals the minor principal address, σ3, thus analysis become easier.
 Class Example-1
What will be the net ultimate bearing capacity of
sand having ϕ = 36o and γd = 19 kN/m3 for
(i) 1.5 m strip foundation and (ii) 1.5 m X 1.5 m
square footing.
The footings are placed at a depth of 1.5 m below
ground level. Assume F = 2.5. Use Terzaghi’s
equations. ( Note : Net ultimate bearing capacity,
qnet = qult - Df )
Solution.
From Chart, for φ = 360, Nc =63.53 Nq=47.16, Nγ =51.7,
B=1.5m, D=1.5m, γ=19kN/m3, C=0, q=γDf=19x1.5=28.5kN/m2
For Strip footing, qult = cNc + ½BN + qNq = 0xNc +
0.5x1.5x19x51.7+ 28.5x47.16 = 2081kPa
For Square footing, qult = 1.3cNc + 0.4 BN + qNq= 0+
0.4x1.5x19x51.7+28.5x47.16= 1933kPa
For Circular Footing : qult = 1.3cNc + 0.3 BN + qNq = ?
 Class Example-2

A strip foundation is required to support a load of

600kN/m run at a depth of 1.2m in a soil with the
following properties
γ = 18.0 kN/m3
c = 15.0 kN/m2
φ = 320
Determine the required width of the foundation
using a factor of safety of 3 against bearing
capacity failure (net safe bearing capacity)

( Note : Net safe = (qnet ) / FS

[Ans : 1.36m]
 Class Example-3
(Bowels,5th ed. – Example4-1, P231)
Compute the allowable bearing pressure using the
Terzaghi equation for the footing and soil parameters
shown in the figure. Use FS=3. The soil data are obtained
from a series of undrained U triaxial tests. Is the soil
saturated ? If φ is 190 what type of shear failure do you
expect? Compute net allowable pressure for this case.
Solution P
1. The soil is not saturated, since a U EGL
test gives a φ angle. A CU test might γ = 17.3 kN/m3

Df = 1.2m
give similar data for a saturated soil. φ = 320
2. Bearing Capacity Computation c = 20 kPa
From Chart we get,
Nc=17.7, Nq=7.4, Nγ=5, Shape factor,
Sc= (1+0.3B/L)=1.3 (considering square
footing, B=L), Sq=1, Sγ=1-0.2B/L=0.8 B=?
 Class Example-3 Cont..
(Bowels,5th ed. – Example4-1, P231)
Solution
Nc=17.7, Nq=7.4, Nγ=5, Sc= 1.3 Sq=1, Sγ=0.8, and 0.5BγNγSγ=34.6B
qult = cNcSc + qNqSq + 0.5BγNγSγ = (613.8+34.6B)kPa
qa = qult /3 = (205+11.5B) kPa, rγ = 1-0.25Log(B/k)
Considering B=1.5m, qa= (205+11.5x1.5)kPa=220kPa
Considering B=3m, P
qa=205+11.5x3x0.95(Reduction
EGL
factor, rγ) = 240kPa
[Note: Here rγ is used since B>2m ]
3 γ = 17.3 kN/m

Df = 1.2m
φ = 320
Ans : Recommended qa=200 ~ 220kPa c = 20 kPa
Recommended, P=200 x 1.52 or 32=400kN to 1800kN
Hints for next part of the problem :
When φ reduces to 190, with a C value of 20kPa the
soil is likely to fail by local or punching shear. So
reduce C’=0.67C and,  = tan-1(0.67tan). Also use, B=?, qa=?
 (Plain strain) = 1.1 (triaxial test)
 Limitations of Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Theory
1. The theory is applicable to shallow foundations.
2. As the soil compresses, Φ increases which is not considered. Hence
fully plastic zone may not develop at the assumed Φ.
3. All points need not experience limit equilibrium condition at different loads.
4. Method of superposition is not acceptable in plastic conditions as
the ground is near failure zone.
5. Terzaghi neglected shear resistance provided by the overburden soil
which was simply treated as surcharge. He assumed α=φ instead of
α=45+φ/2

α=
 Terzaghi
Meyerhof’s Theory

Meyerhof

(1) Shallow foundation with rough base defined.

(2) Terzaghi and Hansen equations neglect shear
along cd Ref : Bowles, 5th Ed. Fig 4.3(a) P221
General footing-soil interaction for bearing-capacity
equations for strip footing—
left side for Terzaghi (1943), Hansen (1970),
and right side Meyerhof (1951)

Ref : Bowles, 5th Ed. Fig 4.3(b) P221

 Meyerhof’s Theory
Meyerhof (1951) considered :
1. The effects of shearing resistance
within the soil above foundation level
2. The shape and roughness of foundation
3. Correction factors for eccentricity and load inclination
Therefore, beneficial effects of the foundation
depth can be included in the analysis.
d’

q=γDf Df qult
e c b
45-φ/2 α α ψ
For Meyerhof, Hansen,
α =45 + φ/2
η
η=90- φ For Terzaghi, α = φ
d η a

Terzaghi’s Terzaghi and Hansen

Meyerhof’s
theory Theory
θ = angle ace or abd’, ψ= angle acd or abd’
Arc ad or ad’= log spiral for φ>0 Ref : Bowles, 5th Ed. Fig 4.3, P221
 Meyerhof’s Theory and Comparison
According to Meyerhof (1951) :

For vertical Load: qult = cNc Scdc + qNqSqdq + ½ BNSd

For inclined load: qult = cNc Scdcic + qNqSqdqiq + ½BNSdi

Where,
Nq = exp tan tan2(/4 + /2) same as Modified Terzaghi
Nc = (Nq – 1)cot same as Modified Terzaghi
N = (Nq – 1) tan(1.4) According to EC7, N = 2(Nq – 1) tan 
Nc, Nq  same as Meyerhof
S = Shape factor
d = Depth factor According to Hansen, N = 1.5(Nq – 1) tan 
i = inclination factors Nc, Nq  same as Meyerhof, Modified Terzaghi

According to Vesic, N = 2(Nq +1) tan , Nc, Nq  same as Meyerhof

Meyerhof’s Theory – BC Factors

Terzaghi

Meyerhof (Click for Excell Spread sheet)

 Meyerhof’s Theory(1963) – Various Factors
Meyerhof’s factors for shape, depth and load inclination
(after Cernica, 1995)
Table-1

(<100)

Allen et al.(2004) suggested

relation between plane strain φ
(φps ) and direct shear φ, (φds ) 𝜑𝑝𝑠 = 𝑡𝑎𝑛−1 (1.2𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜑𝑑𝑠 )
Soil element beneath the strip footing is always subjected to plane-strain loading,
therefore φps to be used to calculate bearing capacity
 Meyerhof’s Theory – Example Problem, Bowles,4-7
A 2 x 2 m square footing has the ground slope of β
= 100 for the given direction of HB. If HB were
reversed along with passive pressure Pp with β = -
800 (could use -90°) to resist sliding and base
geometry shown in the following figure, then :
Is the footing dimensions adequate for FS=3?

Class Example-4
 Meyerhof’s Theory – Example Problem, Bowles,4-7
a. Here φ = 250, From Table-1, for φ ≥ 100
Sγ = Sq = 1+0.1Kp B/L, dγ = dq = 1+0.1√Kp.D/B, iq =(1- α /φ) [α =
angle of resultant measured from vertical axis ]
for any φ , Sc =1+0.2Kp B/L, dc= 1+0.2√Kp.D/B, ic=iq =(1- α/90)2
• For inclined load: qult = cNc Scdcic+ ½ BNSdi+ qNqSqdqiq
Now, D/B= 0.3/2 = 0.15 ; Kp= tan2(450+φ/2) = tan2(450+25/2) = 2.464
Angle of resultant from v. axis, α = tan-1(H/V)= tan-1(200/600)=18.430
Sq= Sγ = 1+0.1Kp B/L = 1+0.1x2.464x(2/2)=1.25, Sc= 1+0.2Kp B/L =1.493

dq= dγ = 1+0.1√Kp D/B = 1+0.1x √ 2.464x0.15=1.02, dc= 1+0.2√Kp D/B =1.047

ic= iq =(1-α/90)2=(1-18.43/90)2=0.632, iγ= =(1-α/φ)2=(1-18.43/25)2=0.069=0.07
 Meyerhof’s Theory – Example Problem, Bowles,4-7
• For inclined load: qult = cNc Scdcic+ ½ BNSdi+ qNqSqdqiq
Now, From calculation, Sc=1.493, Sq=Sγ=1.25, dc=1.047, dq=dγ=1.02,
ic=iq=0.632, iγ=0.07, C=25kPa,
From chart Nc= 20.7, Nq=10.7, Nγ =6.8, Nq/Nc=0.517
qult = cNc Scdcic+ ½ BNSdi+ qNqSqdqiq
=(25x20.7x1.493x1.047x0.632)+(0.5x2x17.5x6.8x1.25x1.02x0.07)
+(17.5x0.3x10.7x1.25x1.02x0.632)
= 511.25+10.62+45.26 =567.13kPa

qallowable=qa=qult /FS= (567.13)/(3) = 189 kPa

Allowable soil pressure,

Pa= (BxL)qa=(2mx2m)x189kPa
= 756kN > 600kN (OK)
 Example 4-7(Bowles) – Solution by Terzaghi’s Method
 For Square footing: qult = 1.3cNc + 0.4 BN + qNq 
 From Chart, for φ=250, Nc=25.1, Nγ=9.7,Nq=12.7
Nc=25.11, Nγ=6.75, Nq =10.65 (Modified Terzaghi)
Nc=20.72, Nγ =9.01, Nq=10.66 (EC7)
 qult=1.3x25x25.1 +0.4x2x17.5x9.7 +17.5x0.3x12.7
= 1018 kPa (Using original Terzaghi BC factors)
= 966 kPa (Modified Terzaghi) (5.5% less)
= 855 kPa (EC7)(19% less)
qd=qult/3 = 340kPa, 322kPa, 285kPa
It is logical to use EC7(285kPa) as cohesion factor is safer than others

Allowable soil pressure,

Pa= (BxL)qa=(2mx2m)x285
= 1140kN > 600kN (OK)
Is the footing dimensions adequate for FS=3?
 Meyerhof’s Theory for Eccentricity

DfD
D DDf
D
Resultant
of
superstructure e
pressure
Concentric Eccentric

B
Effective Footing Dimensions-For Eccentricity
Effective Area Method for Eccentric Loading
According to ACI 318, Minimum dimensions of a rectangular footing with
a central column of dimensions (wx )x( wy) are required to be ,
Bmin= 4ey+Wy B’= 2ey+Wy
Lmin= 4ex+Wx L’= 2ex+Wx

qallow= qult / FS
qult(desirable) = qult X Re
Re=Reduction factor

Re = 1- 2e/B (cohesive soil)

Re = 1-√(e/B) (φ soil and 0<e/B<0.3)

y
 Footings with Eccentric or Moment Loads

(a) e<B/6

(c) e=B/6

(b) e>B/6

If e<B/6, the bearing pressure distribution(BPD)

has a trapezoidal shape (Fig-a). If e=B/6 BPD is
triangular and resultant force (RF) acts at the 3rd
point of the footing (Fig-c). However if e>B/6 RF
at the base is outside the 3rd point (Fig-b).
Footings with Eccentric or Moment Loads

(a) e<B/6

(c) e=B/6

(b) e>B/6

e > B/6 risks the

separation of
footing from
foundation soil
 (a) e<B/6

(c) e=B/6

(b) e>B/6
e > B/6
risks the
separation
of footing
from
foundation (a)
soil
(b)

If e<B/6, the bearing pressure distribution(BPD) has a

trapezoidal shape (Fig-a). If e=B/6 BPD is triangular and
resultant force (RF) acts at the 3rd point of the footing (Fig-c).
However if e>B/6 RF at the base is outside the 3rd point (Fig-b).
Footings with Eccentric or Moment Loads
L
P

eL B Kern B/3
eb
B
L/3
L
To maintain bearing
pressure, (q’0) >0, along
B
the entire base of the
footing, the resultant force
must be located within
diamond shaped kern
Example 6.8 - Coduto
A 5ft square footing supports a vertical
load of 75k and a moment load of 50ft-k.
The allowable bearing capacity of the soil
is 3500psf. Is this design satisfactory?
Solution : e =M/Q = 50 / 75 = 0.67 ft
B’= B-2e = 5 – 2x 0.67 = 3.66ft
q'equiv = P/A’=(75x1000)/(3.66x5)= 4100 psf
q'equiv > 3500psf, so the design is not
satisfactory. A larger B is required.
Max bearing pressure check (optional):

= (75x1000)/52[ 1+6x0.667/5 ] = 5400psf > 3500psf

(So, design is not satisfactory)
 Example Problem on Eccentricity, Bowles,Example4-5
A square footing is 1.8 X 1.8 m with a 0.4 X 0.4 m square column. It
is loaded with an axial load of 1800 kN and Mx = 450 kN-m; My =
360 kN-m. Undrained triaxial tests (soil not saturated) give φ = 36°
and c = 20 kPa. The footing depth D = 1.8 m; the soil unit weight γ =
18.00 kN/m3; the water table is at a depth of 6.1 m from the ground
surface.
• Required. What is the allowable soil pressure, if SF = 3.0, using
Meyerhof's equation; and the reduction factor Re?

1.8m X 1.8 m

Class Example-5
Bowles,Example4-5
From figure :
ex=My/Fv = 360/1800 = 0.2m
ey=Mx/Fv = 450/1800 = 0.25m

Wy= 0.4m
L=1.8m
B/6 = 1.8/6= 0.3 > ex and ey
Bmin= 4ey+Wy= 1.4m<1.8m
Lmin= 4ex+Wx =1.2m<1.8m Wx= 0.4m

So, B’= B-2ey=1.8-2x0.25=1.3

and, L’=L-2ex=1.8-2x0.2=1.4 B=1.8m

Now, Using Meyerhof’s Eqn,

Kp= tan2(450+φtr/2) = 3.85
From chart, Nc=51, Nq=38,
Nγ = 44.4  44 (using B’, L’,
not by B and L  Remember)
Note : if plain strain  is given Triaxial φ = 360
then obtain triaxial using formula,
ps = (1.1 – 0.1B/L)triaxial
Bowles,Example4-5

Sc= 1+0.2Kp B/L=1.77

Sq= Sγ = 1+0.1Kp B/L=1.385

Wy= 0.4m
L=1.8m
dc= 1+0.2√Kp D/B =1.39
dq=dγ=1+0.1√Kp D/B = 1.196
Nc=51, Nq=38, Nγ = 44, Wx= 0.4m

C=20kPa, γ’=γ=18kN/m3
For vertical Loading, Meyerhof’s formula is
B=1.8m
qult=cNc Scdc+½ BNSd+
qNqSqdq [ q =γD ]
=(20x51x1.77x1.39)+(0.5x1.8x

Dw=6.1m
18x44x1.385x1.196) +

D=1.8m
(18x1.8x38x1.385x1.196)
= 2509.506+1180.725+ Triaxial φ = 360
2039.433 =5729.66kPa =
5730 kPa
Bowles,Example4-5 Re = 1- 2e/B (cohesive soil)
Re = 1-√(e/B) (φ soil and 0<e/B<0.3)
For two way eccentricity
two reduction factors (Re)
need to be considered

Wy= 0.4m
ex/L = 0.2/1.8 = 0.11

L=1.8m
ey/B = 0.25/1.8 = 0.1389
Since the cohesion is very small Wx= 0.4m
(20kPa); consider eqn for φ soil
ReB=1-√(ey/B) = 0.627
ReL=1-√(ex/L) = 0.67 B=1.8m

Reduced qult =5730(ReB ReL )

kPa = 5730x0.627x0.67 =
2407 kPa

Dw=6.1m
D=1.8m
qallow = Reduced qult (2407)
/FS(=3) = 802kPa Triaxial φ = 360
But the actual soil pressure is
V/(BL)=1800/(1.8x1.8)=555kPa
Bowles,Example4-5 Re = 1- 2e/B (cohesive soil)
Re = 1-√(e/B) (φ soil and 0<e/B<0.3)

qallow = qult /FS(=3) = 802kPa

But the actual soil pressure is
V/(BL)=1800/(1.8x1.8)=555kPa

Wy= 0.4m
L=2.4m
B’= B-2ey=1.8-2x0.25=1.3
and, L’=L-2ex=1.8-2x0.2=1.4
Adapting, qallow = 500kPa
Wx= 0.4m

New, B’L’ = A’= 1800/500 = 3.6m2

Original ratio of B=2.4m
B’/L’=1.3/1.4=0.929
0.929L’2 = 3.6m2 L’=1.97m,
then B’=1.83m

Dw=6.1m
From these we find, B =

D=1.8m
1.83+2x0.25 = 2.33[B’=2ey+Wy]
L = 1.97 + 2x0.2 = 2.37 [L’=2ex+Wx]
Triaxial φ = 360
Thus make the base square with
dimensions, 2.4m x 2.4m
Coduto,Example6.3
A 5ft wide continuous footing is subjected to a concentric
vertical load of 12k/ft and a moment load of 8ft-k/ft
acting laterally across the footing as shown in the figure.
Determine whether the resultant force on the base of the
footing acts within middle third and compute the
maximum and minimum bearing pressure.
Solution : [ Q or M /L = load or moment per unit length] 8 ft-k/ft
12 k/ft
e= M/Q = (M/L)/(Q/L)=(8 ft-k/ft)/(12k/ft)=0.667ft
B/6= 5ft/6=0.833ft, So, e<B/6, Therefore the
resultant is in the middle third (Ans)
Now,
= 12/5[ 1+6x0.667/5 ] = 4.320ksf
(Ans)
Middle Third
= 12/5[ 1- 6x0.667/5 ] = 0.479ksf 5 ft
(Ans)
 Inclined
Hansen’s Equation – Various Factors load (i)

 Hansen (1961) proposed a more generalized equation

with shape(s) and depth(d) of foundation and the
inclination factors for load (i), footing base(b) and ground
(g) over which footing is resting

 Hansen’s equation can be expressed as

1 Sloping
qult  cNc sc dcicbc gc  BN s d i b g  qNq sq d qiqbq g q ground
2 (g)

Where,
Nc, N and Nq are bearing capacity factors


S, d, i, b and g’s factors for footing shape, depth of
footing, load inclination, base inclination and ground
slope respectively

Inclined base (b)

 Hansen’s factors for shape, depth and inclination
Shape of footing Shape factors
Sc S Sq
Strip 1.0 1.0 1.0
Rectangular 1 + 0.2B/L 1 - 0.4B/L 1 + 0.2B/L
Square 1.3 0.8 1.2
Circular 1.3 0.6 1.2
Depth Factors
dc 1 + 0.35 (Df/B)
d 1.0
dq 1 + 0.35 (Df/B)
dq = dc for   25o and dq = 1.0 for  = 0o. Df = footing depth, B = width
Inclination factors
ic 1 – H/(2cBL)
i 1 – 1.5H/V
iq (ic)2
Note: H and V are the horizontal and vertical components of inclined force.
Limitation: H  Vtan + caBL; tan = coefficient of friction between footing
and soil; ca = cohesion (adhesion) between soil and footing;
L = Length of footing along the force H.
Hansen’s Equation – Various Factors
Hansen’s Equation – Various Factors
Hansen’s Equation – Various Factors
 Hansen’s Equation – Various Factors
1
qult  cNc sc dcicbc gc  BN s d i b g  qNq sq d qiqbq g q (1)
2
Where,
Nq = exp tan tan2(/4 + /2) [ Same as Meyerhof ]
Nc = (Nq – 1)cot [ Same as Meyerhof ]
N = 1.5(Nq – 1) tan [Differs from Meyerhof ]
N = (Nq – 1) tan(1.4) [ Meyerhof ]
In The Special Case of Horizontal Ground Surface,
Equation (1) transforms to

1
qult  c. cot   (q  c. cot  ) N q sq d qiqbq  BN s d i b
2
BC Factors- Terzaghi,Meyerhof & Hansen

Hansen Terzaghi

Meyerhof (Click for Excell Spread sheet)

 20

BC Factors- at a glance
Nc (Terzaghi)
Nc (Terzaghi) - EC7
Nc (Meyerhof&Hansen)
Nq (Terzaghi - Modified)
15 Nq (Terzaghi) - EC7
Nq (Meyerhof&Hansen)
BC Factors

Ngama(Terzaghi-Modified)
Ngama (Terzaghi) - EC7
Ngama (Meyerhof) Different BC factors
10
Ngama (Hansen) 900
Nc (Terzaghi)
Φ = 0 to 20 deg 800 Nc (Terzaghi) - EC7
Nc (Meyerhof&Hansen)

BC Factors, Nc, Nq, Ngama

5 Nq (Terzaghi - Modified)
700 Nq (Terzaghi) - EC7
Nq (Meyerhof&Hansen)
Ngama(Terzaghi-Modified)
0 600 Ngama (Terzaghi) - EC7
0 5 10 15 20 Ngama (Meyerhof)
Phai Ngama (Hansen)
500
120
Nc (Terzaghi)
Nc (Terzaghi) - EC7 400 Φ = 40 to 50 deg
100 Nc (Meyerhof&Hansen)
Nq (Terzaghi - Modified)
Nq (Terzaghi) - EC7
Nq (Meyerhof&Hansen) 300
BC Factors

80 Ngama(Terzaghi-Modified)
Ngama (Terzaghi) - EC7
Ngama (Meyerhof)
60
Ngama (Hansen) 200

Φ = 20 to 40 deg
40 100
40 42 44 46 48 50
20 Phai
0
20 25 30 35 40

Phai (Click for Excell Spread sheet)

 Ref : Foundation Analysis and Design,
5th Ed., Bowels, J.E., 1997, page 228

Suggested Use of Bearing Capacity Equations

Use Best For Remark
Terzaghi Very Cohesive Use for quick estimate
soils where of qult and compare
Df/B ≤ 1 with other methods
Hansen, Any situation that Both the Meyerhof
Meyerhof, applies and Hansen methods
Vesic are widely used
Hansen, When base is The Vesic method has
Vesic tilted, footing is not been much used
on a slope.
When Df/B > 1
It is a good practice to use at least two methods and compare
the computed values of qu. If the two values do not compare
well, use a third method
 Class Example-6
For a given isolated footing shown in the figure calculate
ultimate bearing capacity via Terzaghi’s, Meyerhof’s and
Hansen’s equations. Comment on your results. What type
of shear failure in soil do you really expect here? Why?
[Remember, for general shear failure, Φ>36o, N>30, ID>70%, Cu>100 kPa ]

Solution Note : As L>>B so the footing is considered as strip footing

Bearing Capacity Computation
Q
1. Via Terzaghi’s Equation EGL
For φ=240,
From Chart we get, γ = 18.2 kN/m3

Df = 1.0m
Nc=23.36, Nq=11.4, Nγ=8.58, φ = 240
c = 16 kPa
qult = cNc + qNq+½ BN General
B Shear
=16x23.36+ 18.2x1x11.4 + B=1m, L=20m
0.5x1x18.2x 8.58 = 659 kPa
 Solution Class Example-6
Bearing Capacity Computation
2. Via Meyerhof’s Equation
For φ=240, From Chart, Nc=19.32, Nq=9.6, Nγ=5.72,
Kp=(1+Sin24)/(1-sin24)=2.37, (B/L)=1/20=0.05, (Df/B)=1/1=1
Sc=1+0.2Kp(B/L)=1+0.2x2.37x0.05=1.02
Sq=Sγ=1+0.1Kp(B/L)=1+0.1x2.37x0.05=1.01
dc=1+0.2√Kp(D/B)=1+0.2√2.37x1=1.31
dq=dγ=1+0.1√Kp(D/B)=1+0.1√2.37x1=1.15
For horizontal case, ic=iq=iγ=1 Q
qult = cNc Scdcic + qNqSqdqiq +
½BNSdi EGL
γ = 18.2 kN/m3

Df = 1.0m
=16x19.32x1.02x1.31x1 + φ = 240
c = 16 kPa
(1x18.2)x9.6x1.01x1.15x1+
General
0.5x1x18.2x5.72x1.01x1.15x1 B Shear

= 412.62 + 202.94 + 60.46 = 676 kPa B=1m, L=20m

 Solution Class Example-6
Bearing Capacity Computation
3. Via Hansen’s Equation
For horizontal ground surface and horizontal footing
qult = -C cot φ + (q+C cotφ)NqSqdq + ½BNSd

For φ=240, From Chart, Nc=19.32, Nq=9.6, Nγ=5.75,

(B/L)=1/20=0.05, (Df/B)=1/1=1, C.cotφ=16x(1/tan24)=35.94
Sq=1+ Sinφ (B/L)=1+Sin24 x0.05=1.02
Sγ=1- 0.4 (B/L)=1- 0.4x0.05 = 0.98 Q
dγ= 1, dq=1+2(tanφ)(1-sinφ)2(Df/B)=1+2x0.445x0.352x1=1.313
For horizontal case, ic=iq=iγ=1 EGL
qult = -Ccot φ+ (q+C cotφ)NqSqdq + ½BNSd γ = 18.2 kN/m3

Df = 1.0m
φ = 240
c = 16 kPa
= -35.94 + (18.2x1+35.94)x9.6 x1.02
x1.313 + 0.5x1x18.2x5.75x0.98x1 General
B Shear
= -35.94 + 696.07 + 51.28
= 711 kPa B=1m, L=20m
 Class Example-6
Result Summary and Remarks

Mostly used in Mainly followed Used in

Bangladesh in North America Europe

Method Terzaghi Meyerhof Hansen

qult (kPa)= 659 676 711
Q
Remarks : Hansen’s method is
appropriate for the situation where base EGL
is tilted, footing is on a slope and Df/B >
γ = 18.2 kN/m3
1. Whereas Terzaghi’s method is best

Df = 1.0m
φ = 240
applicable for very Cohesive soils with c = 16 kPa
Df/B ≤ 1. Here Terzaghi’s method may be
adopted together with Meyerhof. The B
General
average of Terzaghi and Meyerhof may Shear
provide a reasonable value. Hence, B=1m, L=20m
design qult may be 670kPa.
 Hansen’s Equation – Example Problem, Bowles,4-7
Redo Example 4-7 by using Hansen’s Equation.
Is the footing dimensions(2mx2m)adequate for FS=3?
Assume, δ = φ, Ca = C, D=0.3(smallest value)
Step-1 : Check for Sliding Stability; FSsliding = fmax/HB
= (V tanδ+CaBL)/HB = (600tan25+25x2x2)/200=1.9>1(OK)
Step-2 : Computation of bearing capacity factors
For φ = 250 from chart,
Nc=20.7, Nq=10.7, Nγ=6.8
K = tan-1(D/B) = tan-1(0.3/2)=8.53

Nq/Nc = 0.517
Inclination factor, IF
=V+AfCaCotφ = 600+2x2x25xCot250=814.4
Class Example-7
 Hansen’s Equation – Example Problem, Bowles,4-7
Step-3 : Depth Factor, k=D/B=0.3/2=0.15 <1
dc=1+0.4k =1+0.4x0.15 = 1.06, dγ = 1 ( for all φ )
dq=1+2tanφ(1-sinφ)2k=1+2tan25(1-sin25)2x0.15=1.046≈1.05
Step-4 : Compute Inclination Factors
Step-5 : Compute base and ground slope Factors
After Finding all parameters , qult=515.1kPa
qa=515.1/3=171kPa
Pallow = (BxL)qa = 2x2x171= 684kN>600 (ok)
Hansen  qa =171 kPa Meyerhof  qa =189 kPa

Home practice :
Complete the steps 4&5
using Bowles, Table 4-5
(a,b,c) Summary
 Example Problem, Bowles,4-7 : Result Summary
Terzaghi  qa=340 kPa(original),322kPa(modified)
Terzaghi  qa=285 kPa(using EC7 BC factors)
Meyerhof qa=189 kPa Hansen qa=171 kPa
Now the question is, which one to use ?
Remark : Here Terzaghi value is highest as it does not
take account of any reduction factor like load
inclination or slope etc. Meyerhof’s consideration of
load inclination factor has reduced this value
significantly. As Hansen considered all possible factors
(inclination, slope, shape & depth etc.), the value has
reduced further. Hence, use of Hansen value is safe.
But It is better to use average of Hansen & Meyerhof. In
absence of Hansen (as calculation is exhaustive)
average of Terzaghi (EC7) and Meyerhof may suffice.
Home practice problem
Find the ultimate bearing capacity of two
foundations shown below using the
approaches defined next to the sketch.
 Water Table Correction – Vesic (1973)
qult = cNcSc + qNqSq + 0.5BγNγSγ
Replace γ in the 3rd term of bearing capacity eqn with γ’)

Case- 1 γ‘=γb= γsat- γw D or Df B

Dw

Case- 2 γ‘=γ – γw [1-{Dw-D}/B] B

Case- 3 γ‘=γ

Case 1 : Dw <= D
Case 2 : Dw is from footing bottom to B depth
Case 3 : Dw is beyond (D+B) depth
Example 6.6 – Coduto
Compute the net ultimate bearing capacity (Terzaghi) of a 1m
square footing founded at a depth of 0.5m below the ground
surface. The ground water table is at a depth of 0.8m below
the ground surface and the soil is clayey sand with C=50kPa,
φ=210 and γ = 18.5 kN/m3
Solution :
Step-1 : Determine ground
water case
Dw=0.8m, D=0.5m, B=1m
Dw is within footing bottom
to additional B depth. So use
Case-2. Now,
γ‘=γ – γw [1-{Dw-D}/B] = 11.6kN/m3
Step-2 : Determine Bearing Capacity
For φ = 210, Nc=18.9, Nq=8.3, Nγ=5.1, σ’D= q’=σ –u = 18.5 x 0.5 – 0 = 9.2kPa
qn = qult – q = 1.3Nc+ q’(Nq-1)+ 0.4BγNγ =214kPa
101
 Home Assignment
A proposed public building includes a bearing wall that will
carry a dead load of 70kN/m and a live load of 50kN/m.
This wall will be supported on a 0.3m deep continuous
footing. Based on a moderately through soil investigation, it
was determined that the soil beneath this footing is a clay
with Su=125kPa and γ=17.3kN/m3. The ground water table
is at a depth of 5m below the ground surface. Determine the
required footing width B. (Use Hansen’s formula)
Hints : Q/L = 70+50, B/L=B/α =0, Sc=0 (based on a footing length=α, not 1), dc=0.2,
q’=17.3x0.3=5.2kPa.
qu=5.14Su(1+Sc+dc-0-0-0)-5.2=766kPa, q’a=qu/FS(=3)=766/3=255kPa.
B=(Q/L)/q’a=120/255=0.5m (Ans) 102
Effect of Water Table

II

qult = cNc + qNq + 0.5γBNγ

B
III

γ‘ = γb= γsat - γw
(Bowles)

(Wedge zone depth)

Rw Correction – Teng
Teng(1962) suggested water
table correction factors, Rw,
as the unit weight of soil as
50% of its bulk unit weight.

when the water table is at the ground

Rw = ½(1 + dw/Df)
surface or at the base of the footing

When the water table is anywhere from

the base of the footing to a level of well
below the foundation, that is, 0  dw  B. Rw = ½(1 + dw/B)
When the water table is well below the foundation, that is dw  B, no
correction is needed for soil weight component (0.5γBNγ) and
surcharge component (qNq)

Hence, the bearing capacity formula takes the form,

Qult = cNc + RwqNq + ½ RwBN
 Example Problem - Water Table
= 2 ft

= 4 ft
Dw= 4 ft

From Fig : c’=0, φ’=30deg, Also, Nγ = 15 and Nq= 19

γ‘ = 125-62.4= 62.6pcf, γ(bar) =62.6+[(4-2)/4](125-62.6)=93.9pcf
A strip footing will be constructed on a nonplastic silty sand deposit that has the
shear strength properties as shown in the fig (i.e., find c′=? and φ′=?°) and a
saturated unit weight of 125 pcf (19.7 kN/m3). The proposed strip footing will be 4
ft (1.2 m) wide and embedded 2 ft (0.6 m) below the ground surface. Use a factor
of safety of 3 and use bearing capacity factors Nγ = 15 and Nq= 19. Assume the
groundwater table is located 4 ft (1.2 m) below ground surface. Determine the
allowable bearing pressure qall and the maximum vertical concentric load the strip
footing can support for the nonplastic silty sand.
Class Practice : Problem on water table
 Effect of Layering of Soil
When footing rests on a multilayer deposit, Bowles recommends
n
 
H   hi  0.5B tan  45  
i 1  2

cav 
 c h
i i

h i

tan   
 h tan i i

h
av
i
Correction Factors
For failures other than general shear Terzaghi proposed
reduced values of c and  as:
c = 0.67c
 = tan-1(0.67tan)
For sandy soil Vesic (1975) suggests :

* = tan-1(0.67 + ID – 0.75ID2)tan
for 0  ID  0.67
* = , for ID  0.67

 (Plain strain) = 1.1 (determined from triaxial test)

(Hansen)
 Bearing Capacity for Sandy Soil
2.0 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6
For any value of 300
Correction factor CN
permissible settlement, Sp, (Eqn-5.3 Peck,Hanson)
the safe bearing pressure CN=0.77log10(20/P’) ;

Effective overburden pressure kN/m2

250
Valid for P’≥0.25tsf
is given by

Effective overburden pressure kN/m2

qsafe-pr, Sp = 200

(q safe-pr/25) SpCwCD
150
Average value of measured N
should be within a zone of 2B
below the base of the footing. 100

Cw and CD are the correction factors 50

of N for water table and overburden
(p’) respectively. Fig 19.6 (Peck) 00
Correction factor CN
 Ref: Ch19(Peck)

Footings on Sand
For a given
settlement, S,
soil pressure
is greater for
intermediate
width.

Load settlement Curve

Corresponding Intermediate
to a given
settlement, S, Narrow wide
Soil pressure,
q1 is function Variation of Soil pressure with Footing width
of footing
width
Relationship among soil pressure, footing width
and settlement for footing of constant Df/B ratio
Distribution of Soil Pressure
(Contact stress /pressure distribution under rigid footing)
Ref : Page 6, ACI 336.2R 1966, reapproved 1980.

Lesser contact pressure at centre

Contact pressure is more at centre

Soil pressure distribution in Soil pressure distribution in

non-cohesive soil cohesive soil (saturated clay)
(in granular soil Modulus of deformation
E, varies with depth, increases with
confining pressure)
 Distribution of Soil Pressure
(Contact stress or pressure distribution under footing)
Contact Contact
stress stress
(rigid) (Rigid)

Contact Contact
stress stress
q Clay
(flexible) q Sand (flexible)

Settlement Settlement Settlement Settlement

Profile Profile Profile Profile
(Rigid) (Flexible) (Flexible) (Rigid)

(a) clay (b) sand

Contact pressures distribution and settlement profiles, After Das (2008).

Note that the contact stresses usually concentrated near edges and low at footing center for clayey soils and the same is reverse for
sandy soil. A recent study by Hany Farouk and Mohammed Farouk as published in New Frontiers in Geotechnical Engineering
GSP 243 © ASCE 2014, reported that distribution of the contact stresses under flexible footing on clay is not uniform.
 Ref: Ch19(Peck)

Footings on Sand
According to dashed Fig. soil
pressure, q1 is independent of
footing width after certain range
of q1.
 Bearing Capacity for Sandy Soil
For sandy soil safe bearing pressure is usually determined from its
empirical correlations with SPT N value as suggested by Terzaghi
and Peck (Fig 19.3). This chart applies to Df≤B, resting on uniform
sand of unit weight of 100pcf, FS=2, max settlement = 1”
It gives the bearing pressure for permissible settlement of 25 mm.

Fig 19.3 (peck)

2.75 Settlement to govern N=25

1.75 Bearing to govern

Curves show that for larger footing widths net soil pressure become constant
For larger footing width (Raft) use, qa(tsf) = 0.22N ( 5 ≤ N ≥ 50 ),
otherwise use 0.11N (Note : This fig is used where settlement governs)
If water table is located at or may rise to ground surface chart value should
be multiplied by a correction factor, Cw = 0.5 + 0.5 Dw/(Df+B)
 Terzaghi’s general bearing capacity factors
against SPT values for cohsionless soils

Peak, Hanson and

Thornburn proposed a
For SPT N=25
chart for practical use
where bearing capacity
factors can be obtained
against SPT values for
cohesionless soil. The
SPT values are however Nγ=37
to be corrected for Nq=34
overburden and water Fig 19.5(peck)
table.
 Example Problem - Settlement
Calculate the settlement against bearing capacity failure for the
continuous wall footing on sand shown in the figure with a SPT N
value of 25. Assume reasonable values of soil and conc unit wt. FS=?

Solution : water table is at the

5 t/ft
base of the footing, So, water N=25
table correction factor, GL
Cw = 0.5 + 0.5 Dw/(Df+B) Df=t=1’
= 0.5+0.5x1/(1+2) = 0.667 B=2’
Settlement Governing
For Df/B=½=0.5,&N=25, from Fig19.3, allowable soil pressure,qa=2.75tsf
Or, For settlement to govern, qa= 0.11N = 0.11x25 = 2.75tsf
Corrected, qall = 2.75Cw= 2.75x0.667 = 1.834tsf
Bearing to Govern
From Fig 19.3(b), qa = 1.75 tsf,
Corrected qa = 0.667x1.75 tsf = 1.17tsf  (1)
qa(actual) = (P/B) + t(γconc - γsoil )/2000 tsf = 5/2 + 1(150-120)/2000 = 2.515 tsf
For qall = 1.834 tsf, settlement = 1” ( 25mm)
For, qa(actual) = 2.515 tsf, Settlement = (2.515tsf)(1”)/(1.834tsf)= 1.37”
Hence , Settlement against Bearing Capacity Failure = 1.37”
 Example Problem - Settlement
Calculate the settlement against bearing capacity failure for the
continuous wall footing on sand shown in the figure with a SPT N
value of 25. Assume reasonable values of soil and conc unit wt. FS=?
5 t/ft
From Fig19.5, for N=25, N=25
GL
Nq=34, Nγ=37 Df=t=1’
γ’soil = (120-62.4)/2000=0.028 tcf B=2’
Ultimate Bearing Capacity
qult = cNc + qNq + 0.5γBNγ = 0 + γDfNq + 0.5 γ’BNγ
Net ultimate Bearing Capacity, qd = qult - γDf = 0.5γ’BNγ + γDf (Nq -1)
qd = 0.5γ’BNγ + γDf (Nq -1) = 0.5x2x0.0288x37 + 0.06x1x(34-1) = 3 tsf
Similar problem
FS = qd / qa = 3/1.17 (from eqn-1) = 2.56 See ch-19
Prob-6, Peck
Ans :
Settlement against Bearing Capacity Failure = 1.37” , FS = 2.5
 Bearing Capacity for Sandy Soil
Corrections to the measured N value
Sand can exhibit different N values at different depths even though
its relative density is constant. So correction to N ( =N’) is needed.
It is possible, by the use
of Thorburn’s chart, to
prepare the plot of the
N′/N ratio relationship to
effective overburden
pressure, over the range
0 to 138 kPa (roughly
from 0 to 7 m depth of
overburden).
The value of N corresponding
N’=N(for eff. Ov. Pressure>138kPa)
to the critical density appears
to be about 15. Terzaghi and (after Thorburn,1963)
Peck suggest that, for N>15
Ncorrected = 15+0.5(N-15) Estimation of N′ from the test value N
Correction of SPT N value for Sand
 Estimation of allowable bearing pressure
from the standard penetration test-Sand
The allowable bearing
pressure for these curves
(which are applicable to
both square and rectangular
foundations) was defined by
Terzaghi and Peck (1948).
Conditions : Pressure For N=31
• Maximum settlement = 25 mm. 300kPa
• Unsaturated soils
• Water table(WT) = 1.0B below
foundation(need no correction)
• Reduce value by 50% if (WT) is
at or above foundation
• Linear interpolation needed B=3m
between these two (WT).
 Example Problem-Sandy Soil
A granular soil was subjected to standard penetration tests at
depths of 3 m. Groundwater level occurred at a depth of 1.5 m
below the surface of the soil which was saturated and had a
unit weight of 19.3 kN/m3. The average N count was 15.
(i) Determine the corrected value N′.
(ii) A strip footing, 3 m wide, is to be founded at a depth of 3 m.
Assuming that the sand’s strength characteristics are constant
with depth, determine the allowable bearing pressure.
Solution
(i) Effective overburden pressure = 3 × 19.3 − 1.5 × 10 = 43 kPa
From Fig. for σ′v = 43 kPa, N′/N = 2.1 (Considering, γw =10 kN/m3)
Therefore N′ = 15 × 2.1 = 31. (Ans)
(ii) From Fig for N′ = 31 and B = 3 m:
Allowable bearing pressure = 300 kPa ( is for dry soil).
For submerged condition, allowable bearing pressure=300/2=150kPa
(Ans)
Bearing Capacity for Sandy Soil Based on Settlement

 Obtaining undisturbed sample in cohesionless soil is

difficult. So SPT-N value is commonly used to predict
the allowable soil bearing capacity.
 According to Meyerhof, for 25mm (1”) of settlement:
qallowable(net)(kip/ft2)=(1/4) Ncorrected [for B ≤ 4ft]
=(1/6) Ncorrected [(B+1)/B]2 [for B >4ft]
 Since Meyerhof’s(1956) result is conservative,
Bowles(1977) proposed a modification as under :
qall(net)(kip/ft2)=(1/2.5) NcorFdSe [for B ≤ 4ft]
=(1/4) Ncor[(B+1)/B]2 FdSe[for B >4ft]
Where, Fd=depth factor = 1+0.33(Df/B) ≤1.33
Se = Tolerable settlement (in)
N value to be considered for a depth of 2B to 3B.
No water table correction is needed (Das, B.M, 2002)
 Bearing Capacity for Sandy Soil Based on Settlement

 Example 1: Given : Footing size 6ftx 6ft ; Df=4ft, N=12

(settlement 1”), Find Net allowable bearing capacity, qa(net)
Solution :
qa(net)(kip/ft2) =(1/6) N [(B+1)/B]2 [for B >4ft] (Meyerhof)
= (1/4) N[(B+1)/B]2 FdSe[for B >4ft] (Bowles)
Fd=depth factor = 1+0.33(Df/B) ≤1.33,
N values for a depth of 2B to 3B
 qa(net) = (12/6)*[(6+1)/6]2 = 2.72ksf (Meyerhof)

 qa(net) = (12/4)*[(6+1)/6]2 Fd ( for 1” Settlement) [ Bowles ]

= 4.083Fd ksf
Fd= 1+0.33(4/6) = 1.22 ≤ 1.33
qa(net) = 4.083*1.22 ksf = 4.98ksf ≈ 5ksf (239kPa) (34.7psi)
 Bearing Capacity for Clayey Soil
 Allowable bearing capacity is estimated comparing
the safe bearing pressure against settlement and safe
bearing capacity against shear failure of foundation
soil.
General bearing capacity formula,
qult= cNc+ ½BN+ qNq
For Clay soil φ=0, Hence, N=0,Nq=1, Nc=5.7

If undrained shear strength parameters

are used for the design, then
Intermediate values
q f  cu N c  D by interpolation

Values of Nc are acquired from

Skempton’s Chart 
 Bearing Capacity for Clayey Soil
 Usually determined by Skemton’s formula
 For a continuous footing in clay ultimate net bearing
capacity can be expressed in terms of unconfined
compressive strength, qu and is given by:
qu
qult  net  cNc  (5.7)  2.85qu
2
Using a factor of safety of 3, for a strip footing
For qu<75kPa
qult  net 2.85qu or 1.5ksf
qa    0.95qu  qu qa=qu is not
FS 3 recommended
Thus gross safe bearing capacity is :
qultnet
qsafe gross   D f  qu  D f
FS
(qb ) (qa)  qb-qa=γDf  qb=load/area
Bearing Capacity for Clayey Soil – Skempton’s Analysis
 Bearing Capacity of Footings on Clay
• In contrast to footings on sand which are
more likely to experience excessive
settlement than outright bearing capacity
failure, footings on clay are vulnerable to
both types of distress.
• In particular, a footing underlain by soft to
medium clay may fail catastrophically the
first time it is loaded.
• Therefore, the first step in developing the
design of a footing on clay is to determine
its ultimate bearing capacity.
(Terzaghi et. al : Soil mechanics in Engineering Practice – third edition, Page 405)
Summary

Ultimate Bearing Capacity, qult – Clay Soil

Continuous Footing
 qult = (π + 2) C = 5.14 C  Prandlt (smooth base)
 qult = (1.5π + 1) C = 5.7 C  Terzaghi (Rough base)
 If footing extends up to a depth, Df then
qult = 5.14 C + γDf
Circular Footing
qult = 5.64 C
General Equation for Net Ultimate BC –
Sandy Soil
qd = qult - γDf = 0.5γ’BNγ + γDf (Nq -1)
 Example - Clay
A large scale bearing capacity test on a footing of size
1.05m x 1.05m at a depth of 1.5m yielded an ultimate
value of 141kN. Unconfined compression test on the soft
saturated clay in the laboratory yielded, c=0.03N/mm2 . If
the unit weight of the soil is 16kN/m3, how much does the
laboratory test differ from that obtained using Terzaghi’s
bearing capacity equation?

Given, γ= 16kN/m3, Df=1.5m, plate width, b=1.05m

For saturated clay, φ =0, Nc=5.7, Nq=1, Nγ=0
For square footing, using Terzaghi equation,
qult= 1.3cNc+qNq+0.4bγNγ=(1.3Cx5.7)+(16x1.5x1)+(0)
=7.41C+24  (1)
From plate load test, qult=141/(1.05 x1.05) =127.89kPa  (2)
Solving (1) and (2), C= 14.02kPa=0.014 N/mm2
Lab test value is greater than that obtained by Terzaghi
equation by [(0.03-0.014)x100%]/[0.03]=53.33% (Ans)