Shallow Foundations and Retaining Walls

Earth Pressure, Bearing Capacity, and Stability

Bengt H. Fellenius

A shallow foundation can be a simple footing under a column of a wall, or the much more
elaborate case of a bridge abutment. The latter must be designed for dead loads from the bridge
deck, earth pressure from the backfill behind the wall and in front to the wall, as well as the
bearing capacity of the footing with due consideration to that the loads do not act in the center of
the footing. UniBear handles the simple and elaborate case with equal ease.

First, consider the earth pressure. For a cantilever wall, the general case involves eleven earth
pressure distributions as shown in the following figure. Horizontal stresses originate from earth
pressure on active and passive side, above and below the water table, from unbalanced water
table, and due to loads on the ground surface.

Then, the vertical forces must be determined. For the same general case, the following figure
indicates eight forces acting on the wall.
 Page 2

The stresses and forces can be combined and represented by vectors as shown in the next figure:

Terzaghi (1954) showed how to include the effect of loads on the surface behind the wall and
developed formulae for the calculation of the earth pressure against the wall. The formulae as
well as nomograms based on them are found in many text books and manuals.

Because Terzaghi’s original paper discussed earth pressure against walls, he did not add any
comments on the effect on the footing of a cantilever wall. Consequently, no text book or
manual includes this aspect. However, in preparing the background document for the UniSoft
programs, the author added this influence and UniBear includes the means of its calculation.
 Page 3

Bearing capacity of a footing must consider eccentricity and inclination of the resultant to all
loads. The simple engineering approach is to perform the calculations for an equivalent footing
with the vertical component of the results in its center, as illustrated in the figure shown below.

Factor of Safety—Bearing Capacity. In the design of a footing for bearing capacity, the
applied load is only allowed to reach a certain portion of the maximum available (ultimate)
resistance, and, as is the case for all foundation designs, the design must include a margin of
safety against failure. In most geotechnical applications, this margin is achieved by applying a
factor of safety defined as a the available soil strength divided by the mobilized shear resistance.
The available strength is either cohesion, c, friction, tan φ, or both combined. (Notice that
friction is not the friction angle, φ, but its tangent, tan φ). However, in bearing capacity
problems, the factor of safety is usually not defined as a ratio between strength and mobilized
resistance, but as given by the following equation.

Fs = (ru - q’)/qallow or = ru/qallow

where Fs = factor of safety

ru = ultimate unit resistance (unit bearing capacity)
q’ = overburden effective stress at the foundation level
qallow = the allowable bearing stress

The unit bearing capacity is calculated by means of the well-known bearing capacity formula
and depends on bearing capacity factors (N), inclination factors (i), and shape factors (s), as well
as on cohesion (c) and friction (tan φ ):

ru = sc ic c‘ Nc + sq iq q‘ Nq + sγ iγ 0.5B‘ γ‘ Nγ

The factor of safety applied to the bearing capacity formula is usually recommended to be no
smaller than 3.0. There is some confusion whether, in calculating the bearing capacity according
to the above equation, the relation (Nq - 1) should be used in lieu of Nq. Further, some also
question whether or not the overburden stress, q’, should be deducted from ru, that is, whether or
not the factor of safety should apply to a “net” stress. For example, the Canadian Foundation
Engineering Manual (1985) omits the q’ part. The difference has little practical importance,
however. In coarse-grained soils, for example, the friction angle, φ‘, normally exceeds a value of
 Page 4

33° and the corresponding Nq-value exceeds 25, that is, when also considering the effect of Nγ ,
the “error” is no greater than a percentage point or two. In terms of the effect on the friction
angle, the difference amounts to about 0.2°, which is too small to have any practical relevance.

More important, however, the definition of factor of safety given by the equation is different
from the factor of safety applied to the shear strength. This is because the ultimate resistance
determined by the bearing capacity formula includes several aspects other than soil shear
strength. Particularly so for foundations on soil having a substantial friction component.
Depending on the particulars of each case, a value of 3 to 4 for the factor defined by Eq. 2.2
corresponds, very approximately, to a factor of safety on shear strength in the range of
1.5 through 2.0 (Fellenius 1994).

In fact, the bearing capacity formula is wrought with much uncertainty and the factor of safety,
be it 3 or 4, applied to a bearing capacity formula is really a “factor of ignorance” and does not
always guarantee an adequate safety against failure. Therefore, in the design of footings, be it in
clays or sands, the settlement analysis should be given more weight than the bearing capacity
formula calculation.

The ultimate resistance according to the bearing capacity formula assumes a relatively
incompressible subsoil. For footings placed on compressible soils, the formula can be adjusted
by a rigidity factor as indicated by Vesic (1973; 1975), resulting in a reduction of the calculated
ultimate resistance, ru. However, most bridge piers or bridge abutments are placed on relatively
incompressible soil and, then, the rigidity adjustment does not apply. Where the soil is
compressible enough to warrant such adjustment, settlement analysis, not bearing capacity
analysis, should be let to govern the limiting (allowable) stress. Notice, stability against sliding
and limiting the loading eccentricity is equally important on compressible soil. Either may show
to be governing the design.

Factor of Safety—Sliding. The calculation of a footing stability must include a check that the
safety against horizontal sliding is sufficient. Sliding is governed by the horizontal component
and the calculation consists of determining the ratio between the sum of the horizontal
resistance and the sum of all horizontal loads, ΣRh/ΣQh at the interface between the footing
underside and the soil. This ratio is taken as the factor of safety against sliding. Usually, the
safety against sliding is considered satisfactory if the factor of safety lies in the range of 1.5
through 1.8. The horizontal resistance is made up of friction (ΣQv tan ϕ‘) and cohesion
components (c‘ B L).

Overturning. Frequently, one finds in text books and codes that the stability of a footing is
expressed as an overturning ratio: “Factor-of-Safety against overturning”. This is the ratio
between rotating moment around the toe of the footing taken as the quotient between the forces
that try to topple (overturn) the footing and the forces that counteract the overturning.
Commonly, the recommended “factor-of-safety against overturning” is 1.50. However, while the
ratio between the calculated moments may be 1.50, the true or actual Factor of Safety, Fs, is
not 1.50. For the factor of safety concept to be valid, a value of Fs close to unity must be
possible, which is not the case when the resultant moves beyond the third point. For an
“overturning” situation, the combination of increasing edge stress and progressively developing
 Page 5

non-linearity causes the point of rotation to move inward. At an overturning ratio of about 1.2,
failure becomes imminent. Ballerinas dance on toe, real footings do not, and the overturning
ratio must not be thought of as being the same as a factor of safety. Instead, the overturning is
governed by the condition that the resultant must lie inside the middle third of the footing.

As long as the resultant falls within the middle third of the footing width, it can acceptably be
assumed that the stress distribution below the footing is approximately linear. The linearity is a
condition for the “equivalent footing” approach to be an acceptable approximation for handling
eccentric loading. However, when the resultant moves beyond the third point, that is, closer to
the edge of the footing, not only does the edge stress increase rapidly, the assumption of linearity
is no longer valid. The requirement of having the resultant in the middle third is, therefore, very
important in the design. In fact, if the resultant lies outside the middle third, the safe use of the
bearing capacity formula becomes highly questionable.

UniBear Demo Example. The UniBear calculations are illustrated in a numerical example
summarized in the figure below. Details of the case are presented in the UniBear’s demo
example. The example is based on a 10.0 m long and 8.0 m high, vertically and horizontally
loaded retaining wall (bridge abutment). The wall is assumed to be infinitely thin so that its
weight can be neglected in the calculations. It is placed on the surface of a ’natural’ coarse-
grained soil and a coarse material (backfill) is placed behind the wall. A 1.0 m thick fill is
placed in front of the wall and over the toe area. The groundwater table lies close the ground
surface at the base of the wall and the ground surface is horizontal.

Cantilever wall example (Fellenius, 1995)

In any analysis of a foundation case, a free-body diagram is necessary to ensure that all forces
are accounted for in the analysis, such as shown above. Although the length of the wall is finite,
it is normally advantageous to calculate the forces per unit length of the wall (the length, L, then
only enters into the calculations when determining the shape factors).
 Page 6

The vertical forces denoted Q1 and Q2 are loads on the base (heel portion). Q1 is from the
surcharge on the ground surface calculated over a width equal to the length of the heel. Q2 is the
weight of the soil on the heel. The two horizontal forces denoted P1 and P2 are the active earth
pressure forces resulting from the load on the ground surface behind the wall and from the soil
weight. The forces are let to act on a fictitious wall rising from the heel, which wall is the
boundary in the “free-body” calculation. Because this fictitious wall is soil, it is commonly
assumed that wall friction does not occur (Tschebotarioff 1951).

Because of compaction of the backfill and the inherent stiffness of the stem, the earth pressure
coefficient to use for earth pressure against the stem is larger than active pressure coefficient.
This earth pressure is of importance for the structural design of the stem and it is quite different
from the earth pressure to consider in the stability analysis of the wall.

The figure does not show any passive earth pressure in front of the wall, because the front wall
earth pressure is normally neglected in practice. The design assumes that movements are large
enough to develop active earth pressure behind the wall, but not large enough to develop fully
the passive earth pressure against the front of the wall. Not just because the passive earth
pressure is small, but also because in many projects a more or less narrow trench for burying
pipes and other conduits is often dug in front of the wall. This, of course, eliminates the passive
earth pressure, albeit temporarily.

Calculations by applying the equations from the Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual
(CFEM 1985) and the background document to the UniSoft programs (Fellenius 1996) result in
the following.

φ’ = 32° ==> Ka = 0.307 Kp is assumed to be zero

φ’ = 33° ==> Nq = 26.09 Nc = 38.64 Nγ = 24.44
iq = ic = 0.69 iγ = 0.28 sq = sc = 1.34 sγ = 0.80
e = 0.50 m B‘ = 5.0 m ru = 603 KPa q = 183 KPa
FS-bearing = 3.29 FS-sliding = 2.35 Overturning ratio = 3.76

The design calculations show that the factors of safety against bearing failure and against sliding
are 3.29 and 2.35, respectively. The resultant acts at a point on the base of the footing at a
distance of 0.50 m from the center, which is smaller than the limit of 1.00 m. Thus, it appears as
if the footing is safe and stable and the edge stress acceptable. However, a calculation result
must always be reviewed in a “what if” situation. That is, what if for some reason the backfill in
front of the wall were to be removed? Well, this seemingly minor change results in a reduction
of the calculated factor of safety to 0.90. The possibility that this fill is removed at some time
during the life of the structure is real. Therefore, despite that under the given conditions for the
design problem, the factor of safety for the footing is adequate, the structure may not be safe.
 Page 7

The User of UniBear can easily turn the demo into a more realistic case. Add the thickness of
the footing and the wall, for example. Let the wall be inclined and have wall friction. Why not,
reality has wall friction and UniBear loves reality! While you are at it, add a couple of tie backs
and see how this could improve the stability. Finally, try LFRD or ULS calculation. That’s the
graduation! Note, UniBear does not take any longer time to complete a more elaborate design.

Some words of caution: Footing design must emphasize settlement analysis. The bearing
capacity formula approach is very approximate and should never be taken as anything beyond a
simple estimate for purpose of comparing a footing design to previous designs. When concerns
for capacity are at hand, the capacity analysis should include calculation using results from in-
situ testing (piezocone penetrometer and pressuremeter). Finite element analysis may serve as a
very useful tool provided that a proven soil model is applied. Critical design calculations should
never be let to rely solely on information from simple borehole data and N-values (SPT-test
data) applied to bearing capacity formulae.

Is the Bearing Capacity Formula Even Reasonably Correct? The bearing capacity formula
applies best to the behavior of small model footings in dense sand. For a full-scale footing—the
real life—the formula is highly questionable. When loading small diameter footings placed in
loose sand or large diameter model footings in sand, be it loose or dense, no clear ultimate value
can be obtained even at very large deformations. The diagram below presents results from
loading tests on a 150 mm diameter footing in dry sand of densities varying from very dense to
loose.

Only for tests in the dense sand do the stress-settlement (stress-movement, rather) curves shown
in the diagram indicate a very distinct peak value—a bearing capacity. The relative movement at
that value is 7 % of the footing diameter. In less dense sands, no such peak is found even at
movements as large as 40 % of the footing diameter.

As mentioned, the diagram shows the results of tests on small-scale footings—models. With
regard to full-scale footings in sand, no peak is found, be the sand loose or dense and the
stress-settlement behavior is similar to that shown in the diagram for the tests in the less dense
sand. The reason why bearing capacity can be demonstrated when testing model footings in
dense sand, but not in full-scale footings in any density sand, cannot be found by means of the
bearing capacity theory, which is based on invalid assumptions. More recent studies employing
the principles of critical state or steady state soil mechanics have indicated the reason for this
situation. For details, see Altaee and Fellenius (1994).
 Page 8

Contact stress versus settlement. Tests on

150 mm footings (data from Vesic 1967)

Notice also that the ‘failure’ mode for a strip footing is plane strain, whereas most friction angles
provided to the designer are obtained in triaxial testing (if at all from a test), and the two modes
of failure are not equal and give different values of φ.

The fallacies of the bearing capacity formula notwithstanding, the formula is frequently applied
to current foundation designs. Most building codes, handbooks, and guidelines recommend its
use. Therefore, applying the bearing capacity formula to routine designs is still considered
within the accepted standard of care.

Modern design of shallow foundations includes LRFD methods, Limit States methods, or the
mix between the LFRD and working stress as applied by the AASHTO Specifications (1992).
By the way, do you know that AASHTO applies the Caquot-Kerisel bearing capacity factor,
while most other codes and manuals in North America apply the Terzaghi-Meyerhof factors?
The difference is significant. For more details on this and other matters, see the background
document and UniBear’s manual.
 Page 9

REFERENCES

Altaee, A. and Fellenius, B. H., 1994. Physical modeling in sand. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 420 - 431.
AASHTO Specifications, 1992. Standard specifications for highway bridges, 15th Edition.
American Association of State Highway Officials, Washington.
Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual, CFEM, 1985. Second Edition. Canadian
Geotechnical Society, BiTech Publishers, Vancouver, 456 p.
Fellenius, B. H., 1994. Limit states design for deep foundations. FHWA International
Conference on Design and Construction of Deep Foundations, Orlando, December 1994, Vol. II,
pp. 415 - 426.
Fellenius, B. H., 1995. Foundations. Chapter 22 in Geotechnical Engineering Handbook.
Edited by W. F. Chen, CRC Press New York, pp. 817 - 853.
Fellenius, B. H., 1996. Basics of Foundation Design. BiTech Publishers, Richmond, British
Columbia, 134 p.
Tschebotarioff, G. P., 1951. Soil mechanics, foundations, and earth structures. McGraw-hill
Book Company Inc., New York, 655 p.
Terzaghi, K., 1954. Anchored bulkheads. American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE,
Transactions, Vol. 119, pp. 1243 - 1324.
Vesic, A. S., 1967. A study of bearing capacity of deep foundations. Final Report Project
B-189, Georgia Institute of Technology, Engineering Experiment Station, Atlanta, 270 p.
Vesic, A. S., 1973. Analysis of ultimate loads of shallow foundations. American Society of
Civil Engineers, ASCE, Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 99, SM1,
pp. 45 - 73.
Vesic, A. S., 1975. Bearing capacity of shallow foundations. In Foundation Engineering
Handbook, edited by H. F. Winterkorn and H-Y Fang, VanNostrand Reinhold Co., New York,
pp. 121 - 147.