3 BEARING CAPACITY
OF SHALLOW
FOUNDATIONS
ALEKSANDAR S. VESIC, D.Sc.
J. A. Jones Professor and Chairman
Departme~t of Civil Engineering, Duke University
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The designer of a shallow foundation must ensure that the
foundation meets basic considerations of safety, depend-
ability, functional utility, and economy. Specifically, the
foremost of these are the requirements of adequate depth,
tolerable settlements, and safety against failure.
The requirement of adequate depth centers around en-
vironmental influences which could affect adversely the
foundation performance. The foundation must be deep
enough with respect to the depth of frost penetration and
depth of seasonal volume changes in the soil to prevent
excessive movements resulting from these influences. The
foundation must' be deep enough to exclude the possibility
of erosion and u'ndermining of the supporting soil by water
and wind currents. The foundation should also be ade-
quately placed with respect to adjacent structures, existing
or anticipated, to minimize the possibility of mutual dam-
age by construction operations or by transmission of addi-
tional loads to the supporting soils. (For a detailed discus-
sion of this subject see, for example, Terzaghi and Peck,
1948; Tschebotarioff, 1951; Little, 1961).
The requirement of tolerable settlements is concerned
with total and differential settlements of all foundations
under the planned structure. The differential settlements
must be limited in order not to cause structural distress or
excessive tilting of the superstructure and they are also
often limited by the serviceability requirements of the
superstructure; for example, crane tracks and many ma-
chines have limits of tolerable tilt. The total settlements
must be limited because they invariably induce differential
settlements, even in apparently homogeneous soil condi-
tions. They are also often limited by considerations of such
factors as access to adjacent buildings, water and sewage
connections, etc. The methods of determination of settle-
ments and the magnitude of settlement tolerances are dis-
cussed in Chapter 4.
The requirement of safety against failure is centered
around two principal kinds of failure that may be of con-
cern in design: the structural failure of the foundation and
the bearing capacity failure of the supporting soils.
The structural failure of the foundation may occur if the
foundation itself is not properly designed to sustain the im-
posed stresses. For example, an improperly proportioned
or inadequately reinforced footing or mat may fail in ten-
sion, compression, or shear, as any other reinforced con-
crete structural member. An improperly cast or inade-
quately reinforced concrete pile may be broken during
handling and driving; it may also be broken by excessive
lateral loads for which it was not designed. A free-standing
steel or wooden pile may buckle just as any other column,
particularly if it is subjected to combined axial forces and
moments. All foundations must possess a conventional
safety against such failures. The analysis and design pre-
cautions needed to avoid structural failure are discussed
later in Chapters 12 through 21.
This chapter is devoted primarily to the discussion of the
problem of bearing capacity failure of the soil. Consider
the simplest case of a shallow footing (Fig. 3.1 a) subjected
to a vertical static or transient load Q. If the vertical dis-
placement w of the foundation is recorded as the load Q
increases, a load-settlement curve similar in shape to a
stress-strain curve may be obtained (Fig. 3.1 b ). The shape
of this curve depends generally on the size and shape of the
footing, the compo'sition of the supporting soil, and the
character, rate, and frequency of the loading. Normally,
the curve will indicate the ultimate load Q 0 that the foun-
dation can support. This can be either a peak load, as
shown by curves 1 and 2 in Fig. 3.1 b, or a load at which a
constant final rate of penetration is achieved, as shown by
curve 3.
The average pressure in ton/ft 2 or kg/cm 2 over the con-
tact area A of the foundation, corresponding to the ulti-
mate load Q 0 , is called ultimate pressure and will be de-
noted by q O • By definition
(3.1)
121
 ~~-~-------------------------=~·-··--··-
122 Foundation Engineering Handbook

Load

(a) General shear

(a)

Load Q/B 2 , ton/ft 2

0 5 10 15
l""lllllii;::=:;::::=--i----,---, (b) Local shear
...,
0::
0)
(.)

'"
0)
0.

~
"
i::
0)
5

s
0)

E
0)
Cl)

(c) Punching shear

(b)
Fig. 3.1 Load-settlement relationships of shallow footings.

All foundations should be built so as to possess a certain
safety against bearing capacity failure. The safe or allow-
able pressure qa is defined as
qa = qo
Fs
where Fs is a safety factor. Similarly, the load Qa = Qo /Fs
is called allowable load.
The following sections are concerned mainly with de-
termination of the ultimate pressure q 0 . The procedures
for selection of safety factors will be discussed toward the
end of the chapter.
3.2 MODES OF FAILURE
It is known from observation of behavior of foundations
subjected to load that bearing capacity failure occurs usu-
ally as a shear failure of the soil supporting the footing.
The three principal modes of shear failure under founda-
tions have been described in the literature as general shear
failure (Caquot, 1934; Buisman, 1935; Terzaghi, 1943),
local shear failure (Terzaghi, 1943; De Beer and Vesic,
1958), and punching shear failure (De Beer and Vesic,
1958; Vesic, 1963a).
General shear failure is characterized by the existence of
a well-defined failure pattern consisting of a continuous slip
surface from one edge of the footing to the ground surface
(Fig. 3.2a). In stress-controlled conditions, under which
most foundations operate (and, perhaps, fail) failure is sud-
den and catastrophic. Unless the structure prevents the
footings from rotating, the failure is also accompanied by
substantial tilting of the foundation (Fig. 3.3). In strain-
controlled conditions (occurring, for example, when the
load is transmitted by jacking) a visible decrease of load
necessary to produce footing movement after failure may
be observed (Fig. 3. 2a). A tendency for bulging of adjacent
soil can be recorded through most of the loading process on
Fig. 3.2 Modes of bearing capacity failure. (After Vesic, 1963a).
both sides of the footing, although the final soil collapse
occurs only on one side.
(3.2) In contrast with the above-described failure mode,
punching shear failure is characterized by a failure pattern
which is not easy to observe (Fig. 3.2c). As the load in-
creases, the vertical movement of the footing is accompa-
nied by compression of the soil immediately underneath.
Continued penetration of the footing is made possible by
vertical shear around the footing perimeter. The soil out-
side the loaded area remains relatively uninvolved and there
is practically no movement of the soil on the sides of the
footing. Both the vertical and the horizontal equilibrium of
the footing are maintained. Except for sudden small move-
ments ("jerks") of the foundation in the vertical direction,
there is neither visible collapse nor substantial tilting. Con-
tinuous increase in vertical load is needed to maintain foot-
ing movement in the vertical direction.
Finally, local shear failure is also characterized by a fail-
ure pattern which is clearly defined only immediately be-
low the foundation (Fig. 3.2b). This pattern consists of a
wedge and slip surfaces, which start at the edges of the
footing just as in the case of general shear failure. There is
visible tendency of soil bulging on the sides of the footing.
However, the vertical compression under the footing is sig-
nificant and the slip surfaces end somewhere in the soil
mass. Only after a considerable vertical displacement of the
footing (say up to one-half the width or diameter of the
footing) may the slip surfaces appear at the ground surface.
Even then there is no catastrophic collapse or tilting of the
footing which remains deeply embedded, mobilizing the
resistance of deeper soil strata. Thus, local shear failure re-
tains some characteristics of both general shear and punch-
ing modes of failure, representing truly a transitional mode.
A few photographs illustrating the characteristic failure
modes are shown in Figs. 3.3 through 3.9. Figure 3.3,
taken from Tschebotarioff (1951 ), shows the view of a

Fig. 3.3 Bearing capacity failure of a silo foundation. (From Tschebotarioff, 1951.)
Fig. 3.4 General shear failure pattern under a rectangular footing
on dense sand (Dr= 100%). (From De Beer and Vesic, 1958.)
Fig. 3.5 Local shear failure pattern under a rectangular footing on
medium dense sand !Dr= 47%). (From De Beer and Vesic, 1958.)
Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations 123
Fig. 3.6 Punching shear failure pattern under a rectangular founda-
tion on the surface of loose sand (Dr= 15%). (From De Beer and
Vesic, 1958.)
grain elevator after general shear failure of the firm clay
under its foundation. In a similar case described in detail in
the literature (White, 1953; Peck and Bryant, 1953), the
structure, with its foundation, tilted more than 60° at col-
lapse of the underlying soil. The latter bulged some 12 feet
above the initially horizontal ground surface. Thanks to
extreme rigidity of the concrete structure, there was rela-
tively little structural damage. (The elevator was later
straightened into a vertical position and put to normal use.)
However, another elevator which failed under somewhat
similar circumstances was practically destroyed during col-
lapse (Nordlund and Deere, 1970). Figures 3.4, 3.5, and
3.6 show the three characteristic modes of failure, as ob-
served on carefully prepared models of long rectangular
plates resting initially on the surface of dry sand of differ-
ent densities (De Beer and Vesic, 1958). Figures 3.7, 3.8
and 3.9 show the punching shear failures under small plates
on dense, dry sand, as observed, respectively, in conditions
124 Foundation Engineering Handbook
Fig. 3.7 Punching shear failure under a deep rectangular founda-
tion in dense sand (Dr= 90%, B = 1.5 in, D = 15 in). (From Vesic,
1963a.)
of deep embedment (Vesic, 1963a), very rapid loading
(Poplin, 1965) or presence of soft clay layer underneath
(Vesic, 197 O).
Which mode of failure is to be expected in any particular
case depends on a number of factors that have been only
partially explored so far. It can be said generally that the
Fig. 3.8 Punching shear failure under a dynamically loaded 8-inch-
square footing on dense sand (Dr= 100%). Failure occurred in 12
msec at a displacement of 0.3 in. (From Poplin, 1965.)
Fig. 3.9 Punching shear failure of a rectangular footing on dense
sand underlain by soft clay. (From Vesic, 1970.)
failure mode depends on the relative compressibility of the
soil in the particular geometrical and loading conditions. If
the soil is practically incompressible and has a finite shear-
ing strength, it will fail in general shear. On the other hand,
if a soil of given strength is very compressible, it will fail in
punching shear. Thus, as shown in Fig. 3,4, a footing on
the surface of very dense sand will normally fail in general
shear, while the same footing on the surface of very loose
sand (Fig. 3.6) will fail in punching shear. However, it is
important to understand that the soil type alone does not
determine the mode of failure. For example, the mentioned
footing on very dense sand can also fail in punching shear if
the footing is placed at greater depth (Vesic, 1963a; see
Figs. 3. 7 and 3 .1 0) or if it is loaded by a transient, dynamic
load (Heller, 1964; Vesic, Banks, and Woodard, 1965; see
Fig. 3.8). * Similarly, the same footing will fail in punching
shear if the very dense sand below is underlain by any com-
pressible stratum such as loose sand or soft clay (Fig. 3.9).
Also, a footing on saturated, normally consolidated clay
will fail in general shear if it is loaded so that no volume
change can take place; while it may fail in punching shear if
it is loaded slow enough that all volume change can take
place in the soil under load.
While these differences in failure modes are now reason-
ably well understood, there are at present no general nu-
merical criteria that can be used for prediction of mode of
shear failure of soils loaded by footings. The only rational
parameter proposed so far for evaluation of relative com-
pressibility of soil masses under load is the rigidity index
Ir defined as
*There are reasons to believe that the mentioned footing on very
dense sand would not fail in general shear if its diameter were in-
creased beyond a certain limit. We shall return to this later in dis-
cussing scale effects.
 Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations 125

Relative density of sand. l),

(3.4)
o~----o~.2--~-o~A____o~.6--~-~o.s____~1.o
It is known that the rigidity index varies with stress level
and with the character of loading (Vesic, 1965a). A high
value of Irr, say over 250, definitely implies a relatively
incompressible soil mass, whereas a low value, say 10, im-
plies a relatively compressible soil mass. Nevertheless, in
the absence of theoretical solutions for an elastic-plastic
solid, there is no way yet, other than semiempirical, to
make use of index Ir in predicting the failure mode of shal-
low footings. Some possibilities along these lines are out-
Local shear lined later in this chapter, in discussions of influence of soil
,.2
compressibility.
0.
.g 3 3.3 UL Tl MATE LOAD CRITERIA
c;
> Punching shear

" From the preceding discussion it is apparent that the "fail-

~ ure" of a loaded footing is clearly defined only in the case
of general shear failure. In such a case the peak, ultimate
4
load is reached simultaneously with the appearance of slip
lines at the ground surface, which is followed by founda-
tion collapse and a considerable bulging of the soil mass on
the side of the footing. In contrast with this, in the case of
5'------'------'------'----~---~ two other failure modes (local and punching shear) the
B*= B for a square or circular footing
B*= BL/2(B+L) for a rectangular footing point of failure is less clearly defined and often difficult to
establish.
Fig. 3.10 Modes of failure of model footings in sand. (After Vesic, In the case of punching or local shear failure of footings
1963a, as modified by De Beer, 1970.) on sand surface it has been observed (De Beer and Vesic,
1958) that a "first failure" characterized by a sudden, large
plastic deformation of the soil under the footing, may oc-
I = G (3.3) cur rather early in the loading stage. However, to observe
r (c + q tan ef>)
this "first failure" it is essential to have a stress-controlled
where G is the shear modulus and c and ef> are strength pa- loading. As most loading tests are performed by the use of
rameters of the soil (Vesic, 1963b, 1965b). This index, ap- hydraulic jacks, this "first failure" cannot be noticed with
pearing in solutions of the problem of expansion of cavities any certainty and thus has limited practical value.
in an infinite solid, is associated with the assumed ideal A very versatile ultimate load criterion that can be rec-
elastic-plastic behavior of soil. To take care also of the aver- ommended for general use defines the ultimate load as the
age volumetric strain Ll in the plastic zone it has been sug- point where the slope of the load-settlement curve first
gested (Vesic et al., 1965) that the value given by Eq. 3.3 reaches zero or a steady, minimum value (Vesic, 1963a; see
should be reduced to Irr= rvir, where also Fig. 3.11 ). Another very consistent ultimate load cri-

Base pressure, lb/ in 2

0.5

Ultimate load
1.0
~
<I)
..c::
u
.s
-;::; l.5
<I)

E
E
Cl)
<I)

2.0 Circular plates on sand

Base diameter, 6 in
Tests at surface
Test No. Yd, lb/ft 3 D,
2.5 61 96.2 0.78
61
62 93.0 0.66
62 63 91.7 0.61
. .___ __,._6_4_ __,.__ _-=- 64-'----s-s......o__o_.3_2~
63:....i...._ _ _..___ _- ' - -_ _ _
30
Fig. 3.11 Ultimate load criterion based on minimum slope of load-settlement curve. (After Vesic, 1963a.)

L.
126 Foundation Engineering Handbook

pears to be a general tendency of increase of ultimate settle-

Q/(AyB) ments with increased size of footings (De Beer, 1965a,
2
1~_ _ _2,__ _~4--6~~8~10_ _ _2T0_ _ _4~0-~6~0_;;,80;;__;.;!00 1967).
Considering these facts, unless a clearly defined ultimate
load can be observed earlier, it is advisable to carry load
tests on footings and plates on loose and compressible soils
4
to settlements equal to at least 25 percent of the footing
width. In cases in which a peak load cannot be established
with certainty, it is expedient to adopt a limit of critical
settlement, such as 10 percent of the footing depth. (The
same limit has been often proposed and used for driven
c piles; see Vesic, 1967.)
E
E
~ 20
V
~ 3.4 COMPUTATION OF UL Tl MATE LOAD
~

~
40
60 All tests: Mo! sand
Footing dia. 3.8 cm
80 q=O.lkg/cm 2
I00 '-----'-----'----''----'-_,__ __.__ _ _u__1--....1_-J
Fig. 3.12 Ultimate load criterion based on plot of log load vs. log
settlement. (After De Beer, 1967.)
terion, suggested in recent years by Christiaens (De Beer,
1967), defines the ultimate load at the point of break of
the load-settlement curve in a log/log plot (Fig. 3.12). Both
criteria require, however, that the loading test be carried to
very large displacements, preferably of the order of 50 per-
cent of the foundation size. Thus, from the practical point
of view, it may be preferable to establish some other cri-
terion of critical settlement. Such a criterion is no doubt
justified by the basic philosophy of foundation design,
which considers excessive settlement as failure of the
foundation.
It is thus of special interest to know the magnitude of
settlements of footings needed to mobilize ultimate loads.
Observations in saturated clays (Skempton, 1951) indicate
that these settlements may be about 3 to 7 percent of the
footing width for surface footings, increasing up to 15 per-
cent for deep footings. For footings in sand somewhat
higher values are found, ranging from 5 to 15 percent for
surface footings and as high as 25 percent for deep footings
(Muhs and Kahl, 1954; De Beer and Vesic, 1958; Vesic,
1963a; De Beer, 1967). As shown in Fig. 3.13, there ap-
yB*, kg/cm 2
0.005 0.0 IO 0.01 5 0.020
¢ 3.8 cm
t 10
15
~s~--~---~---~--~---~--~
Circular footings: H* = fJ
Rl'ctangular footings: lJ* = IJL/2 (/J+L ): L/8
Fig. 3.13 Ultimate settlements of surface footings. (After De Beer,
1967.)
The computation of ultimate load for a shallow footing
resting on soil represents a problem of elastic-plastic equi-
librium which can, in principle, be solved for at least the
plane-strain and the axially symmetric cases. The foremost
difficulty in finding acceptable solutions lies undoubtedly
in the selection of a mathematical model of soil behavior or
its constitutive (stress-strain-time) relationships. In spite of
greatly improved capabilities for solution of boundary value
problems of this kind, the theory of bearing capacity is still
limited almost exclusively to solutions developed for the
rigid-plastic solid of the classical Theory of Plasticity. As
known, this solid is assumed to exhibit no deformation
whatsoever prior to shear failure and a plastic flow at con-
stant stress after failure. Thus, the capabilities of theoreti-
cal prediction of the ultimate load are, strictly speaking,
limited at present to relatively incompressible soils or to the
general shear failure mode. However, it is rather common
in practice to use the available solutions for compressible
soils as well, with possible reduction for the effects of
compressibility.
The problem is generally posed as follows (Fig. 3.14a).
Consider a rectangular foundation of width B and length L,
resting in a soil mass at a depth D. The soil mass is of semi-
infinite extent and is homogeneous. It has an effective unit
weight 'Y and shear strength properties defined by a straight-
line Mohr envelope, with strength characteristics c and ¢,
and a stress-strain curve of a rigid-plastic body, shown in
Fig. 3.14b. To be determined is the maximum unit load
q 0 = Q 0 /BL which this foundation can support.
To solve this problem, the following simplifications are
usually made:
a) the shearing resistance of the overburden soil (along
0.025 0.030 be, Fig. 14a) is neglected;
b) the friction between the overburden soil and the
foundation (along ad, Fig. 3.14a) as well as between the
overburden and supporting soil (along ab, Fig. 3.14a) is
neglected;
c) the length L is assumed to be large in comparison
with the width B of the foundation.
In other terms, the overburden soil is replaced by a uni-
formly distributed surcharge q = "(D. At the same time
plane strain conditions are assumed.
Simplifications (a) and (b) are justified in most cases and
are always on the safe side. The overburden soil is usually
weaker or cracked, while the foundation is placed by exca-
vation and backfilling. Simplification (c), equivalent to
assuming the foundation to be an infinite strip of width B,
is justified, strictly speaking for L/B > 10 and practically
for L/B > 5. The corrections to be introduced forL/B < 5
6
and shapes other than a rectangle will be discussed later.
The problem, formulated as shown in Fig. 14c, has been
solved by the methods of the Theory of Plasticity. The
 Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations 127

Q
TABLE 3.1. BEARING CAPACITY FACTORS

<I> tan</>

0 5.14 1.00 0.00 0.20 0.00

1 5.38 1.09 0.07 0.20 0.02
2 5.63 1.20 0.15 0.21 0.03
3 5.90 1.31 0.24 0.22 0.05
--'~!""~-~- - - - - - _ __.'.' 9' (a)
4 6.19 1.43 0.34 0.23 0.07
r c.4>,y
5 6.49 1.57 0.45 0.24 0.09
6 6.81 1.72 0.57 0.25 0.11
7 7.16 1.88 0.71 0.26 0.12
8 7.53 2.06 0.86 0.27 0.14
9 7.92 2.25 1.03 0.28 0.16
10 8.35 2.47 1.22 0.30 0.18
er

~l:::=-· t=.
T
11 8.80 2.71 1.44 0.31 0.19
12 9.28 2.97 1.69 0.32 0.21
(b) 13 9.81 3.26 1.97 0.33 0.23
14 10.37 3.59 2.29 0.35 0.25
0 15 10.98 3.94 2.65 0.36 0.27
16 11.63 4.34 3.06 0.37 0.29
17 12.34 4.77 3.53 0.39 0.31
18 13.10 5.26 4.07 0.40 0.32
Q, 19 13.93 5.80 4.68 0.42 0.34
20 14.83 6.40 5.39 0.43 0.36

if 21 15.82 7.07 6.20 0.45 0.38

22 16.88 7.82 7.13 0.46 0.40

'
Ill
E

(c)
23
24
25
18.05
19.32
20.72
8.66
9.60
10.66
8.20
9.44
10.88
0.48
0.50
0.51
0.42
0.45
0.47
26 22.25 11.85 12.54 0.53 0.49
c.<P. y 27 23.94 13.20 14.47 0.55 0.51
28 25.80 14.72 16.72 0.57 0.53
Fig. 3.14 The problem of bearing capacity of shallow footings. 29 27.86 16.44 19.34 0.59 0.55
30 30.14 18.40 22,40 0.61 0.58
31 32.67 20.63 25.99 0.63 0.60
basic solution available (Prandtl, 1921; Reissner, 1924) in- 32 35.49 23.18 30.22 0.65 0.62
dicates that the failure pattern should consist of three 33 38.64 26.09 35.19 0.68 0.65
zones: I, II, and III. Zone I is an active Rankine zone, 34 42.16 29.44 41.06 0.70 0.67
which pushes the radial Prandtl zone II sideways and the 35 46.12 33.30 48.03 0.72 0.70
passive Rankine zone III in an upward direction. The lower 36 50.59 37.75 56.31 0.75 0.73
boundary ACDE of the displaced soil mass is composed of 37 55.63 42.92 66.19 0.77 0.75
two straight lines AC and DE, inclined at 45° + <P/2 and 38 61.35 48.93 78.03 0.80 0.78
45° - </)/2, respectively, to the horizontal. The shape of the 39 67.87 55.96 92.25 0.82 0.81
connecting curve CD depends on the angle <P and on the 40 75.31 64.20 109.41 0.85 0.84
ratio rB/q. For rB/q ~ 0 ("weightless soil") the curve be- 41 83.86 73.90 130.22 0.88 0.87
comes a logarithmic spiral which for 'Y = 0 degenerates into 42 93.71 85.38 155.55 0.91 0.90
a circle. In the general case ('YB =f. 0) the curve lies between 43 105.11 99.02 186.54 0.94 0.93
a spiral and a circle, as long as <P =f. 0. For a frictionless soil 44 118.37 115.31 224.64 0.97 0.97
(</) = 0) the curve is always a circle. All these findings have 45 133.88 134.88 271.76 1.01 1.00
been confirmed experimentally (De Beer and Vesic, 1958), 46 152.10 158.51 330.35 1.04 1.04
though the angle i/1 may be slightly larger than 45° + ¢/2, at 47 173.64 187.21 403.67 1.08 1.07
least for long rectangular footings on the surface of sand. 48 199.26 222.31 496.01 1.12 1.11
A closed analytical solution of this problem, as posed, 49 229.93 265.51 613.16 1.15 1.15
has not yet been found and probably will not be found, ex- 50 266.89 319.07 762.89 1.20 1.19
cept for special cases. For weightless soil ('Y = O), Prandtl
and Reissner have found that:
can be shown that:
Qo = cNe + qNq (3.5)
(3.7)
where Ne and Nq are dimensionless bearing capacity factors,
defined by where N'Y is again a dimensionless bearing capacity factor
which can be evaluated only numerically. This factor varies
Nq = etr tan <I> tan2 (rr/4 + ¢/2) sharply with angle i/1. The numerical values shown by
Ne = (Nq - 1) cot¢ (3.6) dashed lines in Fig. 3.15 are taken from an analysis made
by Caquot and Kerisel (1953) under assumption that i/1 =
The numerical values of these factors are given in Table 3 .1 45° + </)/2. It can be shown (Vesic, 1970) that these values
and shown graphically in Fig. 3.15. of N'Y · can be approximated with an error on the safe side
For cohesionless soil without overburden (c = 0, q = O) it (not exceeding 10 percent for 15° < <P < 45° and not ex-
 128 Foundation Engineering Handbook

unsettled, because of difficulties in selecting a representa-

BOO..---~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-..
tive value of angle of shearing resistance </> for the bearing
Nq = e "''"°'tan (45° +q,/2)
2

600 capacity computations. Some authors (Meyerhof, 1963;

Nc=(Nq -1) cot</>
Brinch Hansen, 1970) use the plane-strain value of</>, which,
N~= 2(Nq +!)tan <f,
400 according to their views, may be up to IO percent higher
than the corresponding conventional triaxial test value.
300
This can help explain the results of tests with long rectangu-
200
lar plates on soil surface; however, it only contributes to
difficulties in interpreting the results of tests with circular
plates placed at a certain depth. (At any rate, there remains
the question as to what degree the conditions of soil ele-
100 ments along a slip surface under a circular footing are closer
80 to a2 a 3 than to plane-strain conditions.)
60 Much stronger is the argument that a shear failure in soil
under the footing is a phenomenon of progressive rupture
< 40 at variable stress levels (Muhs, 1963; De Beer, 1965a, b,
i
t 30
1967). Consequently when the slip line ACDE in Fig. 3.14
,.';: reaches E, just mobilizing the peak shearing strength at that
c point, the soil strength at the beginning of the slip line
·~ 20
B (point A) must be well below the peak. In addition, the
00
stress level at A is higher than at E. Thus, in view of known
·~ curvature of Mohr's envelope in the low stress range, the
0:, IO
</>-angle at A must be lower than at E. A representative
8
</>-value must be sought with due consideration of these
6 facts. Working along these lines, it has been suggested (De
Beer, 1965a) that the bearing capacity evaluations should
4 be made using strength characteristics corresponding to an
average mean normal stress equal to

2
ao =! (qo + 3q)(I - sin</>) (3.10)
While the discussions and investigations of these and
other questions associated with evaluation of the bearing
1.0 capacity continue, there is an increased trend among both
0.8 practicing engineers and researchers to retain the Prandtl-
0.6
Reissner and Caquot-Kerisel factors given in Table 3.1 as
the most reliable factors available at present. The widely
0.4 used Terzaghi factors, though not substantially different
0 IO 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 numerically, are being gradually abandoned, as they are
Angle of shearing resistance <p, degrees based on obviously incorrect failure patterns.
Fig. 3.15 Bearing capacity factors for shallow footings.

3.5 EFFECT OF FOUNDATION SHAPE

ceeding 5 percent for 20° < </> < 40°)
expression
N'Y ~ 2(Nq + 1) tan</>
The N'Y-values according to 3.8 are given in Table 3.1 and
also presented graphically in Fig. 3.15.
For all intermediate cases, where c =I= 0, q =I= 0, and "f =I=
0, Eqs. 3.5 and 3.7 are combined into
known as Buisman-Terzaghi equation (Buisman, 1940;
Terzaghi, 1943 ). This superposition is not strictly correct;
however, it leads to errors which are on the safe sid~, not
exceeding 17 to 20 percent for </> = 30° to 40°, while equal
to O for </> = 0° (Lundgren and Mortensen, 1953; Hansen
and Christensen, 1969).
It should be mentioned here that there exists in the liter-
ature a great variety of proposed solutions to this problem.
While the variations in N c- and N q-values proposed remain
relatively insignificant, the differences in N 'Y-values, coming
primarily from the mentioned sharp variation of N'Y with
i/1, are substantial, ranging from about one-third to double
the values shown in Table 3.1.
In spite of the intensified experimental work on this sub-
ject, the question of "correct" N'Y-values remains somewhat
by the analytical
For foundation shapes other than the long rectangle, the
(3.8) mathematical difficulties in obtaining solutions are consid-
erable. Only the axially-symmetrical case of a circular foot-
ing has been solved so far (Ishlinskii, 1944; Berezantsev,
1952; Mizuno, 1953; Eason and Shield, 1960; Cox, Eason,
and Hopkins, 1961 ). The proposed solutions make use of
some assumptions about soil behavior that remain to be
proved experimentally ("complete plasticity") and their re-
(3.9) sults are, at least in part, at some variance with observations
(cf. Hansen and Christensen, 1969).
In view of these facts, the engineering approach to eval-
uation of effect of foundation shape has been mostly semi-
empirical. On the basis of comparative loading tests with
footings of different shapes, including long rectangles, the
following modification of Eq. 3.9 has come into general
use:
(3.11)
In this expression Ne, Nq, and N'Y are, as before, bearing
capacity factors for an infinite strip or long rectangle and
tc, tq, hare dimensionless parameters called shape factors.
Shape factors also depend on the angle of shearing re-
sistance </> of the soil, as well as on some other parameters.
However, many of them are taken to be constants or simply

L

I
TABLE 3.2. SHAPE FACTORS FOR SHALLOW'
FOUNDATIONS.
(After De Beer, 1967, as modified by Vesic, 1970).
Shape of
the Base te l;q I;'Y
Strip 1.00 1.00 1.00
Rectangle 1 + (BIL )(NqlNe) 1 + (BIL) tan <I> 1 - 0.4BIL
Circle and
Square 1 + (NqlNe) 1 +tan</> 0.60
functions of the geometrical form of the foundation. Rec-
ommended expressions of shape factors based primarily on
extensive experiments at Ghent (De Beer, 1967) are given
in Table 3.2. Numerical values of Nq/Ne and tan</> appear-
ing in these expressions are given in Table 3 .1.
EXAMPLE 3.1: A rectangular footing 28 feet wide and
84 feet long is to be placed at a depth of 10 feet in a deep
stratum of soft, saturated clay (bulk unit weight 105
Ib/ft 3 ). The water table is at 8 feet below ground surface.
Find the ultimate bearing capacity under the following two
conditions:
(a) assuming that the rate of application of dead and
live loads is fast in comparison with the rate of dissipation
of excess pore-water pressures caused by loads, so that un-
drained conditions prevail at failure;
(b) assuming, as the other extreme, that the rate of
loading is slow enough that no excess pore-water pressures
are introduced in the foundation soil.
The strength parameters of the soil, obtained from un-
consolidated, undrained tests are Cu = 0.22 ton/ft 2 , <f>u = 0.
Consolidated, drained tests give cd = 0.04 ton/ft 2 , <!>d = 23°.
Condition (a):
Submerged unit weight of soil: r' = 105 - 62 = 43 lb/ft 3
Overburden stress: q = [(8)(105) + (2)(43)] /(2000) =
0.463 ton/ft 2
Bearing capacity factors (Table 3.1): Ne = 5.14,Nq= 1,
N-y = 0
Shape factors (Table 3.2): te = 1 + (1/3)(0.20) = 1.067,
tq = 1.00
Ultimate bearing pressure (Eq. 3 .11):
qo = (0.22)(5 .14 )( 1.067) + (0.463)(1 )( 1.00)
= 1.21 + 0.46 = 1.67 ton/ft 2
Condition (b)
Bearing capacity factors: Ne= 18.05; Nq = 8.66;N'Y =
8.20
Shape factors: te = 1 + (1/3)(0.48) = 1.16; tq = 1 +
0/3)(0.42) = 1.14; r'Y = 1 - co.4)(1/3) = o.87
Ultimate bearing pressure:
qo = (0.04)(18.05)(1.16) + (0.463)(8.66)(1.14)
+ (1/2)(43)(28)(8.20)(0.87)/(2000)
= 0.72 + 4.57 + 2.14 = 7.43 ton/ft 2
Remark: The computed values of q 0 represent the upper
limit of bearing capacity under the assumption of incom-
pressible soil. The analyses of effects o.f compressibility
for this case are presented in Example 3 .7.
EXAMPLE 3.2: Solve the problem described in Example
3.1 if the footing is placed at the same depth (10 feet) in a
deep stratum of medium dense sand. Assume for sand a
Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations 129
saturated unit weight of 118 lb/ft 3 and an average moist
unit weight above the water table of 100 lb/ft 3 . Drained
triaxial tests on sand samples show that the angle </) of
shearing resistance of sand varies with mean normal stress
a 0 according to the equation
</> = </>1 - (5.5°) log10 (a/a1)
where a 1 = 38° is the angle of shearing resistance at mean
normal stress a 1 = 1 ton/ft 2 •
Solution:
Submerged unit weight of sand: r' = 118- 62 = 56 lb/ft 3
Overburden stress: q = (8)(100) + (2)(56)/(2000) = 0.456
ton/ft 2
To find the mean normal stress, according to Eq. 3.10, a pre-
liminary estimate of bearing capacity is needed. It is as-
sumed for this preliminary analysis that </) = 34 °.
Bearing capacity factors (Table 3.1): Nq = 29.44; N'Y =
41.06
Shape factors: tq = 1 + (1/3)(0.67) = 1.22; t'Y = 1 -
0.4(1/3) = 0.87
Ultimate bearing pressure (Eq. 3.11):
q0 = (0.456)(29.44)(1.22)
+ (1/2)(56)(28) ( 41.06)(0.87)/(2000)
= 16.4 + 14.0 = 30.4 ton/ft 2
Mean normal stress along the slip surface (Eq. 3.10):
a 0 = (1/4)[30.4+(3)(0.456)](1- 0.559)=3.5 ton/ft 2
Representative angle of shearing resistance:
</> = 38° - (5.5°)(0.544) = 35°
The analysis is now repeated with</)= 35°:
Nq = 33.3; N-y = 48.0; tq = 1 + (1/3)(0.70)
= 1.23; r.,, = 0.87;
q0 = (0.456)(33.3)(1.23)
+ (1 /2)(56)(28)( 48.0)(0.87)/(2000)
= 18.7 + 16.4 = 35.1 ton/ft 2
In view of small change in mean normal stress from the pre-
viously found value, this answer is retained.
Remarks: ( 1) The analysis of compressibility effects for
this case is presented in Example 3.8.
(2) Because of high value of ultimate bearing capacity
it is possible that the allowable bearing pressure may be
controlled by maximum tolerable settlement for the
structure in question.
3.6 EFFECT OF INCLINATION AND ECCENTRICITY
OF THE LOAD
The preceding discussions were all concerned with a footing
loaded by a central, vertical load. If the load is inclined or
eccentric, or, as it most often happens, both inclined and
eccentric, the problem is somewhat more complicated be-
cause of the presence of the horizontal component P of the
footing reaction (Fig. 3. l 6a). Failure can occur either by
sliding of the footing along its base AB, or by general shear
of the underlying soil.
At the verge of sliding the horizontal component P is
related to the vertical component Q of the footing reaction
130 Foundation Engineering Handbook
(a)
(b)
Fig. 3.16 Theoretical slip patterns under eccentric and inclined
loads.
by the expression:
P max = Q tan q> +A' Ca (3.12)
where A' is the effective bearing area of the foundation,
while Ca and 1> represent, respectively, the adhesion and the
angle of friction between the soil and the footing. (It
should be noted that the presently available evidence-
Schultze and Horn, 1967-indicates that fi = 1>t and that
the adhesion in soft clays is equal to their undrained shear
strength.)
To find the ultimate vertical component Q 0 that will
cause a general shear failure, an analysis similar to that per-
formed for vertical, central load must be performed. Such
an analysis discloses, as before, the existence of three zones
in the soil under the footing, the size of which may be ap-
preciably reduced with the increase of inclination and ec-
centricity of the load (Fig. 3.16a, b). Zone I is an elastic
wedge, ABC, which is triangular in shape as long as the load
is central (Schultze, 1952; Sokolovskii, 1960). For eccen-
tric loads, the AC side of the wedge assumes the shape of a
circle whose center coincides with the center of rotation of
the footing (Fig. 3.16a, b) (Brinch Hansen, 1953, 1955).
As long as the load eccentricity e is smaller than B/4 the
rotation center remains on the side of the footing opposite
the load (Fig. 3.16a). Fore = B /4 the center is exactly under
the footing edge, moving, for larger eccentricities, further
toward the axis of the footing and. causing uplift of the less
loaded side of the footing (Fig. 3. l 6b ). (The latter condi-
tion is, for obvious reasons, to be avoided in design. To
provide adequate safety against lifting of the footing edge,
it is normally recommended that the eccentricity e not ex-
ceed B/6).
Theoretical and experimental investigations show that it
is on the safe side to take account of the eccentricity by
1
introducing a fictitious effective width B = B - 2e of the
footing, instead of its actual width (De Beer, 1949; Meyer-
hof, 1953).* At the same time, it may be found convenient
to introduce the influence of the load inclination by multi-
plying the individual terms of the bearing capacity equation
3.11 by the inclination factors r ei, r qi, r'YdSchultze, 1952;
Brinch Hansen, 1961 ). Thus the bearing capacity equation
for the general case of eccentric and inclined loading can be
written in the form:
Qo = Bql, = cNererei + qNqrqrqi + }yBN'Yr'Yr'Yi (3.13)
where L' = L - 2e L is the effective length of the footing, in-
troduced to take into accourit possible eccentricity eL of
the load in the longitudinal direction.
Based on rigorous analyses for the plane-strain problem
of a footing on weightless soil loaded by a central, inclined
load (Fig. 3.16b ), Brinch Hansen (1961) proposed the fol-
lowing approximate expression for inclination factor rq(
rqi =[1 - Q + B':,c cot (/>r (3.14)
From the theorem of correspondence one finds also (De
Beer and Ladanyi, 1961)
1 - rqi
rci = rqi - Ne tan 1> (3.15)
It can be easily shown (Vesic, 1970) that, for 1> = 0, the lat-
ter expression becomes
2P
1 1
(3.16)
B L c Ne
Similar analyses for a footing on the surface of a soil
with weight (Sokolovskii, 1960) suggest the following val-
ues for the load inclination factor r'Y(
hi=[l-Q+B':ccotq>r (3.17)
These values are considerably higher than those pro-
posed by Brinch Hansen (1961) and only slightly higher
than the values resulting from the latest computations at
the Danish Geotechnical Institute (Brinch Hansen, 1970).
They are in fair agreement with available experimental data
on this subject (Giraudet, 1965).
Since expressions 3.14 through 3.17 have been derived
from plane-strain analyses, they should be applied, strictly
speaking, only to the case of a very long foundation acted
upon by inclined loads in the direction of the shorter side B
of the foundation. However, the case of loads inclined in
the direction of longer side L of the foundation is of equal,
if not greater practical interest. The experimental evidence
on this subject, coming largely from DEGEBO tests with
large-scale models of shallow footings on sand (Muhs and
Weiss, 1969) suggests that there is a distinct difference in
the load inclination effects in the two cases. Thus, the di-
rection of load inclination, as well as the ratio B /L of the
sides of the footing have effect on inclination factor. Pend-
ing more detailed investigations, it is suggested (Vesic,
1970) that expressions 3.14 and 3.17 be replaced by
rqi : 1- I
PI ]m (3.14a)
[ Q +BL c cot 1>
*The newest, large-scale model experiments indicate that this width
reduction is somewhat conservative (Muhs and Weiss, 1969;
Dorken, 1969).
 Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations 131

p ]m+l (3.17a)
Inclination factors (Eqs. 3.14 and 3.16a):
hi= [ l- Q+B 1L 1ccot<p Sqi = 1; Sci= 1 - [(1.75)(203.3)/(406.6)(5.14)1 = o.83

where the exponent m is equal to Ultimate bearing pressure (see figures from Example 3.1):

2 +B/L q 0 = (1.21)(0.83) + (0.46)(1) = 1.00 + 0.46 = 1.46 ton/ft 2

mB = 1 +B/L
(3.18a)
as long as the inclination of the load is in the direction of
shorter side B of the foundation. In the contrary case,
when the -load inclination is in the direction of longer side L
of the foundation, the exponent in expressions 3 .14a and
3.17a becomes
2 +L/B
mL = 1 + L/B
(3.18b)
Consistent with 3.14a and 3.15, expression 3.16, valid
for <p = 0, then becomes:
mP
Sci= 1 - B'L'c Ne (3.16a)
The Scrfactors for other values of <p can be found, as be-
fore, from Eq. 3.15.
If the load inclination is in the direction n, making an
angle 8 n with the direction of the long side L of the foun-
dation it is suggested to interpolate between the exponents
mL and mB and select for analysis an exponent determined
from
(3.18c)
For shapes other than rectangle, the effective founda-
tion area may be determined as that of the equivalent rec-
tangle, constructed so that its geometric center coincides
with the load center and that it follows as closely as possi-
ble the adjacent contour of the actual base area. A few ex-
amples, after Brinch Hansen (1961), are shown in Fig. 3.17.
EXAMPLE 3.3: For the footing discussed in Example
3.1, find the ultimate bearing capacity in conditions (a) and
(b) if the footing reaction acts 3 feet off center in the direc-
tion of the short side B (eB = 3 ft) and if the inclination of
the reaction is in the same direction. Assume that the hori-
zontal component of the reaction is equal to half of the
ultimate value given by Eq. 3 .12.
Condition (a):
Effective width of the footing: B' = 28 - (2)(3) = 22 ft
Horizontal reaction: P= 0.5 Pmax = (0.5)(22)(84)(0.22) =
203.3 ton
Exponent mB (Eq. 3.18a): mB = [2 + (1/3)] /[1 + (1/3)] =
1.75
Condition (b):
Assume tan 8 = tan <pd = 0.42, Ca = 0.
P = (0.5)(0.42)Q = 0.21Q
75
Sqi = (1- 0.21)1. = 0.66 (Eq. 3.14a)
Sci= 0.66 - [(1- 0.66)/(18.05)(0.42)] = 0.62 (Eq. 3.15)
S-yi = (1 - 0.21) 2 · 75 = 0.52 (Eq. 3.17a)
q 0 = (0.72)(0.62) + (4.57)(0.66) + (2.14)(0.52)
= 0.45 + 3.02 + 1.11 = 4.58 ton/ft 2
As in Example 3 .1 this value represents the upper limit of
bearing capacity under the assumption of an incompressible
soil.
EXAMPLE 3.4. For the same footing find the ultimate
bearing capacity if the reaction acts 6.5 feet off center in
the direction of the long side, and if the inclination is in the
same direction. Assume that the horizontal component is
equal to the ultimate value given by Eq. 3.12.
Condition (a)
Effective length of the footing: L' = 84 - (2)(6.5) = 71 ft
P = Pmax = (28)(71)(0.22) = 437.4 ton
Exponent mL (Eq. 3.18b): mL = (2 + 3)/(1 + 3) = 1.25;
sc = 1 [(1.25)(437.4)/(437.4)(5.14)1 = o.76
qo = (1.21)(0.76) + (0.46)(1) = 1.38 ton/ft 2
Condition (b)
P = 0.42 Q; sq o -
= 0.42)1. 25 = o.51
sc = o.51 - [0 - o.51 )/(18.05)(0.42) J = 0.45
s-y = o - o.42) 2 ·25 = 0.29
q 0 = (0.72)(0.45) + (4.57)(0.51) + (2.14)(0.29)
= 0.32 + 2.33 + 0.62 = 3.27 ton/ft 2
As in Example 3.1 this value represents the upper limit of
bearing capacity under the assumption of an incompressible
soil.
3.7 EFFECT OF BASE Tl LT AND GROUND SURFACE
SLOPE
There are situations in engineering practice where the foun-
dation base may be inclined to facilitate transmission of
larger horizontal reactions. Also, fairly often the ground
surface below which the shallow foundation is placed is
inclined with respect to the horizontal. Both situations are
shown irt Fig. 3.18, where the angle of base tilt is denoted

s--l I
I
L- ----

B
Fig. 3.17 Equivalent and effective foundation areas. (After Brinch
Hansen, 1961.) Fig. 3.18 Foundation with tilted base and sloped ground surface.
132 Foundation Engineering Handbook
by a and the ground surface slope by w, positive down-
wards. As in the case of load inclination, it has been found
convenient to introduce these two effects by multiplY.ing
the individual terms of the bearing capacity equation 3.11
with base tilt factors St and/or ground slope factors Sg, anal-
ogous to factors Si in Eq. 3.13 (Hvorslev, 1970; Brinch Han-
sen, 1970). On the basis of analyses performed by Meyer-
hof (1953) for weightless soil and Brinch Hansen (1970) for
surface footings on soil with weight, the following joint ex-
pression for tilt factors may be proposed (Vesic, 1970):
Sqt = S'Yt = (1 - a tan ¢)2 (3.19)
To find Set one can use, as before, expression 3.15. The
s
limiting value of ct for¢ = 0 is
Set= 1 - [2a/(7T + 2)] (3.20)
where a is expressed in radians. Expression 3.19 is very
accurate for ht and somewhat on the safe side for Sqt· It
has the advantage of yielding the correct limit value for
Set for¢= 0 (Eq. 3.20).
For ground slope factors Brinch Hansen (1970) points
out that Sqg varies with tan w in exactly the same manner
1 1
as the load inclination factor Sqi varies with P/(Q + B L c
cot ¢). It is also possible to show that, for all practical pur-
poses, S'Yg c::,. Sqg· We can thus adopt
Sqg = S'Yg = [1 - tan w] 2 (3.21)
The cohesion factor Scg can be found, as before, from ex-
pression 3.15. The limiting value ·of this factor for¢= 0 is
Scg =1- [2 w/(7T + 2)] (3.22)
It should be noted, however, that the existence of ground
slope in the case of frictionless soil (¢ = 0) requires the ad-
dition of the third (weight) term in the bearing capacity
equation. It can be shown (Vesic, 1970) that the N'Y-value
for this term is negative and equal to
N'Y = - 2 sin w (3.23)
Expressions 3.19 through 3.24 can be used, theoreti-
cally, as long as
a< 45° and w < 45° (3.24)
It is also required that
w<¢ (3.25)
However, one should keep in mind that the analyses of
slope effects, from which expressions 3.21 and 3.22 for
slope factors were proposed, do not take into consideration
the existing shearing stresses in the ground. The effect of
these stresses may be negligible as long as O < w < ¢/2. It is
advised, for slopes steeper than ¢/2, to perform also an
analysis of slope stability, using one of the methods de-
scribed in Chapter 10. ·--
It is also important to remember that the analyses lead-
ing to adoption of factors given in Eqs. 3.19 through 3.23
are all based on assumption of plane strain conditions.
Thus, they are, strictly speaking, valid only for long rec-
tangular footings, with main axis parallel to the slope. Con-
sidering the mentioned similarity between slope factors and
load inclination factors, it is expected that there must be
variation of slope and tilt factors with the foundation shape
similar to those presented in the preceding section. There
are, however, still no experimental data on this subject.
EXAMPLE 3.5: For the footing discussed in preceding
examples find the ultimate bearing capacity if the footing
base is tilted 1 (vertical) to 4 (horizontal). Assume, as in Ex-
ample 3.3, that the reaction is 3 feet off center in the di-
rection of the short side B, inclined in the same direction,
with a horizontal reaction equal to one-half the ultimate
value from Eq. 3.12.
Condition (a):
Angle of base tilt: a= tan- 1 (1/4) = 0.253
Base tilt factor (Eq. 20): Set= 1 - (2)(0.253)/(3.14 + 2) =
0.90
Ultimate bearing pressure (see figures from Example 3.3):
q 0 = (1.00)(0.90) + 0.46 = 0,90 + 0.46 = 1.36 ton/ft 2
Condition (b):
Base tilt factors (Eqs. 3.19 and 3.15):
Sqt = s'Yt = l 1 - (0.253)(0.42)1 2 = o.79
set= o.79 - lO - o.79)/08.05)(0.42)1 = o.76
q 0 = (0.45)(0. 76) + (3.02)(0. 79) + (1.11 )(0. 79)
= 0.34 + 2.38 + 0.88 = 3.60 ton/ft 2
EXAMPLE 3.6: For the footing discussed in Example 3.1
find the ultimate bearing capacity if the ground slopes
5 (horizontal) to 1 ( vertical). The load is assumed to remain
central and vertical.
Condition (a):
Angle of ground slope: w = tan -I (1/5) = 0.201 = 11.5°;
sin w = 0.19; cos w = 0.98
Ground slope factor (Eq. 22): Scg = 1 - [(2)(0.201)/
(3.14 + 2)] = 0.92
Bearing capacity factor (Eq. 3.24): N'Y = -2(0.19) = -0.38
Ultimate bearing pressure (see figures from Example 3 .1 ):
q0 = (1.21)(0.92) + (0.46)(0.98)
- [ (1/2)( 43)(28)(0.38)(0.87)] /(2000)
= 1.02 + 0.45 - 0.10 = 1.37 ton/ft 2
Condition (b):
Ground slope factors (Eqs. 3.21 and 3.15):
Sqg = s'Yg = o - 0.201) 2 = o.64
scg = o.64 - o - o.64)/l08.o5)(0.42)l = o.59
q 0 = (0.72)(0.59) + (4.57)(0.98)(0.64) + (2.14)(0.64)
= 0.42 + 2.87 + 1.37 = 4.66 ton/ft2 ·
3.8 EFFECT OF SHEARING RESISTANCE OF THE
OVERBURDEN
In the discussion of computation of ultimate load it was
mentioned that the analyses presented neglect the shearing
resistance of the overburden. This is normally justified by
the fact that the overburden soil is weaker than the bearing
stratum. In some cases, however, the expected increase of
bearing capacity due to shearing resistance of the overbur-
den cannot be neglected. The problem may be formulated,
as before, as the plane-strain problem of general shear fail-
ure of a rigid-plastic solid, with the difference that the solid
extends above the level of the foundation base (Fig. 3.14a).
The exact solution of this problem is, again, not known.
Approximate solutions have been found by Meyerhof
(1951) and others. The results are often presented for
analysis in the form of "depth factors" Sd (Skempton,
19 51; Brin ch Hansen, 1961 ). These are dimensionless
parameters, analogous to factors Si in Eq. 3.13, indicating
the increase in individual terms of the bearing capacity due
to the shearing strength of the overburden. Their values are
given by the following approximate formulas proposed by

Brinch Hansen (1970) and valid for D/B ~ 1:
rqd = 1 + 2 tan¢ (1 - sin ¢)2 D/B
r-yd = 1 (3.26)
The quantity red can be found again from the correspon-
dence formula 3.15. From 3.15 and 3.26 one finds, for
¢= 0.
red = 1 + 0.4 D/B (3.27)
For D/B > 1 the calculation of depth factors is fraught with
uncertainty; requiring rather arbitrary assumptions about
stress conditions in the overburden soil. Experimental data
are difficult to interpret properly, as the scale and compres-
sibility effects (to be discussed in the next section) inter-
vene along with uncertainties about exact stress conditions
in the surrounding soil. To provide a transition to deep
foundations Brinch Hansen (1970) tentatively proposed for
D/B > 1 the following formulas:
rqd = 1 + 2 tan¢ (1 - sin ¢) 2 tan- 1 (D/B)
r'Yd = 1 (3.26a)
Combined with 3.15 the above formula yields for¢= 0
red = 1 + 0.4 tan- 1 (D/B) (3.27a)
These expressions, combined with shape factors from Table
3.2 give for very deep square or circular foundations in satu-
rated clay(¢= 0) the following well-known result:
q 0 = (5.14)[1 +0.20+(0.4)(1.57)] c+q =9.28c+q (3.28)
In cohesionless soils these expressions give q O = 3 .18 qNq
for¢= 30° and q 0 = 3.68qNq for¢= 45°, where Nq is
given by expression 3.6. These results are in fair agreement
with observed point bearing capacities of driven piles in
sand in conditions where q could be determined with some
certainty (cf. Vesic, 1965a, 1967).
It should be noted, however, that this increase of bearing
capacity due to "depth effect" occurs in conditions where
the method of placement of the foundation (driving) causes
significant lateral compression. There exists good evidence
that this effect is practically nonexistent if the foundations
are drilled in or buried and backfilled (Vesic, 1963a) or if
the overburden strata are relatively compressible. For this
reason, it is advised not to introduce depth factors in design
of shallow foundations.
3.9 INFLUENCE OF SOIL COMPRESSIBILITY AND
SCALE EFFECTS
It has b~en emphasized earlier that all preceding analyses of
ultimate load are based on the assumption of incompress-
ibility of soil and that they should be applied, strictly .speak-
ing, only to cases in which general shear failure of the soil is
expected. There exists a lack of rational methods for ana-
lyzing bearing capacity failures in the two other modes
characteristic for compressible soil.
To satisfy the immediate needs of engineering practice
Terzaghi (1943) proposed the use of the same bearing ca-
pacity equation and factors with reduced strength charac-
teristics c* and¢* defined as follows:
c* = 0.67c (3 .29)
</)* = tan- 1 (0.67 tan¢) (3.30)
Such an approach may give satisfactory answers in some
soils, although it is not always on the safe side ( cf. Vesic
Bearing Capacit:y of Shallow Foundations 133
and Johnson, 1963). For sands, a flat reduction of¢ in the
case of local and punching shear failures is probably too
conservative. It also suggests a jump in bearing capacity on
transition to general shear failure, a phenomenon which,
of course, does not occur. Observations of failure loads of
small footings on at least four sands (Vesic, 1970) suggest
that the factor 0.67 in Eq. 3.30 should be replaced by a
correction factor varying with relative density Dr, such as
0.67 + Dr - 0.75D;, applicable in the range O ~Dr~ 0.67.
Proposals of this kind may be useful in practice; how-
ever, their ultimate value is quite limited as they are based
on the doubtful premise that the relative compressibility of
a soil under different geometrical and loading conditions is
related exclusively to its strength characteristics c and ¢. In
other words, the philosophy of this approach ignores the
existence of scale effects other than those expressed by
Eq. 3.9.
Scale effects differing from those predicted by the classi-
cal earth pressure theories have been known in bearing ca-
pacity and earth pressure phenomena for quite some time.
Yet, the understanding of the variety of reasons for their
existence has come only in very recent years, mostly in
connection with studies of shallow and deep foundations
(De Beer, 1963, 1965b; Vesic, 1964, 1965a; Kerisel, 1967).
These studies indicate that, in case of shallow foundations,
the average shear strength mobilized along a slip line under
the foundation decreases with foundation size.* They also
show clearly that the relative compressibility of soils, both
with respect to gravity forces and with respect to the soil
strength, increases with foundation size.
In view of these facts a decrease in apparent values of
bearing capacity factors with size should to a certain degree
be expected in all soils. Probably the most conspicuous of
all is the decrease in N-y-values with increased size of sur-
face footings on sand. Figure 3.19, taken from De Beer
(1965a) shows that this decrease has been apparent in all
major experimental studies of the problem of bearing ca-
pacity of shallow footings. As the largest of these footings
has been only one meter (3.3 feet) square, there is great
practical as well as theoretical interest in determining
whether the N-y-values shown in Fig. 3.19 tend asymptoti-
cally to some minimum.
Recent studies on this subject (Vesic, 1969) seem to
indicate that the N -y-values for arbitrarily large footings
may be much smaller than conventionally assumed. This is
illustrated in Fig. 3.20, which presents a comparison of
measured ultimate resistances of small surface footings with
those· of deep footings, showing also the predicted bearing
capacities of large footings according to conventional the-
ory. It is postulated that the bearing capacity of large sur-
face footings cannot be greater than the resistance of deep
footings on the same soil.** In other words, there should
be an upper limit of bearing capacity of all footings which
may be related to the void ratio of the soil at failure.
To arrive at an adequate assessment of the influence of
soil compressibility and related scale effects, it would be
necessary to have a bearing capacity theory based on some
*There are actually three independent reasons for this decrease of
strength with foundation size: (a) the curvature of Mohr envelope;
(b) progressive rupture along the slip line; (c) presence of zones or
seams of weakness ·in all soil deposits. The relative contribution
of each of the reasons varies with soil type and the range of foot-
ing size, their total effect being discernible in practically all soils.
**This postulate seems to imply that very large footings should fail
exclusively in punching shear, as apparently all deep footings do.
This should not be surprising, if one considers the mentioned fact
that the relative compressibility of soils increases with footing
size.
134 Foundation Engineering Handbook

- - - - - - Circular plates
800
- · - · - · - Square plates
0 - - - - Rectangular plates
\ : : ' · , , 1.67 4',.,/m'
600 G) Gent,yk= 1.619 ton/m 3
\_ ',, Vesic, ® Gent,yk= 1.509 ton/m 3
"\ ' , , / Yk = 1.538 ton/m 3 @ Meyerhof, yk = 1.62 ton/m 3
400 Meyerhof,
....... ' , _ @) Meyerhof, yk = 1.485 ton/m 3
\::k = 1.70 ton/m' Golder~;,;-j' @ Vesic,yk= 1.440 ton/m 3
'°'=":{L / / yk = I.76 ton/m 3

,,, ~- & .L-Vandeperre, 1950,yk= 1.647 ton/m 3

200 ~ -=::::::·-·-·-
\
® ...
.. _ ·-·---:::-:.:::=.·=:....:=:=
. . . . .....··-:--<J;:t--------,,\5
....... - - · - -1..W Me1sche1der, 1940, Yk= J.788 ton/m' Muhs
· - · - · - · •-@
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 100
yB, kg/cm 2
Fig. 3.19 Effect of size on bearing capacity of surface footings in sand. (After De Beer, 1965.)

tqc = exp {[(-4.4 + 0.6B/L) tan¢]

600
400 Circular footings
+ [(3.07 sin¢) (log10 2Ir)/(I + sin cp)J} (3.31)
Chattahoochee sand (vibrated)
200 Dry unit weight, 96.4 lb/ft 3 The quantity tee can be found again from correspondence
Relative density, Dr= 0.79 formula 3.15. Applying L'Hopital's rule one finds for¢= 0
Standard triaxial, <p = 39°
100
,:: 80 tee= 0.32 + O.I2B/L + 0.60 log10 Ir (3.32)
? 60
2

~
40 Considering expression 3.8 for all practical purposes we can
.~ unite
;:: 20
00
.5 (3.33)
0
.£: 10
0

.§ The use of expressions 3.31 through 3.33 makes sense,

5 obviously, only as long as the compressibility factors re-
4
main smaller than unity. Numerical values of the compres-
sibility factors tqc for two extreme cases, B/L = 0 (infinite

0.2
------
'l l':,,t plall' siLc:-.

0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 4 6

Usual footing sizes

8 IO 20 40 60 80 I 00 200
strip) and B/L = I (square) are given in Table 3.3 and shown
graphically in Fig. 3 .21. Table 3 .4 gives the factors t cc ac-
cording to Eq. 3.32, for the same two extreme cases.
Foo tin!! size, ft From expression 3.31 one can find the magnitude of the
Fig. 3.20 Variation of ultimate resistance of footings with size. rigidity index for any angle ¢ and any particular founda-
(After Vesic, 1969.) tion shape below which it becomes necessary to reduce the
bearing capacity because of compressibility effects. This
more realistic soil models (such as, for example, elastic-
c;
plastic solid). In the absence of needed exact solutions for !=---
r c + q tan¢
this class of problems, it may be proposed to use the pres-
ently available theory based on solutions for a rigid-plastic
solid, along with some compressibility factors tc, analogous
to t;-factors in Eq. 3.13.
To find tentative expressions for compressibility factors
one can use the assumption that the ultimate normal pres-
sure o.n the sides of the wedge under the footing (AC and
CB, Fig. 3.14c) is equal to the pressure needed to expand a
cavity in the same soil mass. (This assumption, first used by
Skempton, Yassin and Gibson, 1953, was found to be rea-
sonable for deep foundations, at least under certain condi-
tions.) Combining this assumption with solutions for cavity
expansion in an elastic-plastic solid (Vesic, 1963b) one can Square or circle
L=B
obtain bearing capacity factors for comparison with those
given by Tables 3.1 and 3.2. In this way the following ex- 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 so
pression for compressibility factor tq is obtained (Vesic, Angle of shearing resistance,¢

1970): Fig. 3.21 Theoretical compressibility factors. (After Vesic, 1970.)

 Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations 135

TABLE 3.3. VALUES OF COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR tqc·

BIL = 1 (Square)

~ 00
2.5 5 10 25 50 100 250 500

1.000 1.000 1.000 (1.039)

50 0.772 0.852 0.917 0.988 (1.090)
10° 0.587 0.703 0.806 0.924 (1.107)
15° 0.437 0.562 0.679 0.821 (1.056)
20° 0.317 0.433 0.548 0.694 0.948 (1.199)
25° 0.224 0.322 0.423 0.557 0.801 (1.054)
30° 0.152 0.228 0.310 0.422 0.634 0.863 (1.175)
35° 0.098 0.153 0.214 0.300 0.468 0.655 0.918 (1.433)
40° 0.059 0.096 0.137 0.197 0.317 0.456 0.654 (1.055)
45° 0.033 0.054 0.080 0.117 0.194 0.284 0.417 0.692 (1.015)
50° 0.016 0.027 0.041 0.061 0.104 0.155 0.231 0.393 0.587

BIL = 0 (Strip)

~00
2.5 5 10 25 50 100 250 500

1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

50 0.733 0.808 0.870 0.937 (1.034)
10° 0.528 0.632 0.725 0.831 0.996 (1.142)
15° 0.372 0.478 0.578 0.699 0.899 (1.087)
20° 0.255 0.348 0.441 0.558 0.762 0.964 (1.220)
25° 0.169 0.243 0.320 0.421 0.605 0.796 (1.048)
30° 0.107 0.161 0.219 0.299 0.449 0.610 0.831 (1.248)
35° 0.064 0.100 0.141 0.197 0.307 0.431 0.603 0.941 (1.318)
40° 0.036 0.058 0.083 0.119 0.192 0.275 0.395 0.638 0.916
45° 0.018 0.030 0.044 0.064 0.107 0.156 0.229 0.380 0.557
50° 0.008 0.013 0.020 0.030 0.051 0.076 0.113 0.192 0.287

In area marked by dots take tqc = 1.

3.4. VALUES OF COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR tee TABLE 3.5. VALUES OF CRITICAL RIGIDITY INDEX.
FOR¢= 0.
Angle of

~
Critical Rigidity Index for:
Shearing
2.5 5 10 25 50 100 250 Resistance Strip foundation Square foundation
</J BIL =O BIL= 1
1 0.440 0.679 0.859 (1.039)
0 13 8
0 0.320 0.559 0.739 0.919 (1.157) 5 18 11
10 25 15
In area marked by dots take tee= 1. 15 37 20
20 55 30
25 89 44
critical rigidity index is given by 30 152 70
35 283 120
Ur)crit =! exp ((3.30 0.45B/L) cot (45 - ¢/2)] (3.34) 40 592 225
45 1442 486
Numerical values of the critical rigidity indexes corre- 50 4330 1258
sponding to different angles of shearing resistance ¢ are
given, for the two extreme cases B/L = 0 (strip) and B/L = 1
(square), in Table 3.5. soils by numerical methods such as finite-element technique
It should be understood that all the information pro- will allow a more accurate prediction of compressibility ef-
duced by this approximate analysis must be treated as ten- fects (cf. Desai and Reese, 1970).
tative and, in some sense, qualitative in nature. The pur-
pose of publishing Eqs. 3.31 through 3.34 at this time is to EXAMPLE 3.7: Investigate the effect of compressibility
allow the designer, in absence of any other rational method, on ultimate bearing capacity of the footing in clay discussed
to assess numerically the order of magnitude of expected in Example 3 .1. The modulus of deformation of the soil in
reduction of bearing capacity caused by the compressibility undrained condition is Eu = 24. l ton/ft 2 . The modulus of
effects. It is hoped that further development of our ability confined compression (in drained conditions) increases with
to treat analytically the complex elastic-plastic behavior of pressure q according to M v = 12.6 q.
136 Foundation Engineering Handbook
Condition (a):
Critical rigidity index (Eq. 3.34):
Ur)crit =!exp {[3.30- (0.45)(1/3)] (1.00)} = 12
Rigidity index (Eq. 3.3): Ir= (24.1)/2(1 + 0.5)(0:22)
= 37 > 12
The assumption of soil incompressibility is justified. The
computed yalue of ultimate bearing pressure in Example
3.1 can be used without reduction.
Condition (b):
The average overburden pressure in the expansion zone is
taken as pressure at the depth B/2 below the base of the
footing. In this way one obtains:
q = [(8)(105) + (2 + 14)(43)]/(2,000) = 0.764 ton/ft 2
Mu= (12.6)(0.764) = 9.62 ton/ft 2
Poisson's ratio v = [ 1 - sin ( 1.2)(23°)] /
[2 ~ sin ( 1.2) (23°)] = 0.35
Modulus of deformation in drained condition:
Ed = (9.62)[ 1 - 0.35 - (2)(0.35 2
)] /(1 - 0.35)
= 5.99 ton/ft 2
Critical rigidity index:
Ur)crit = ! exp {[3.30 - (0.45)(1/3)]
· cot [ 45° - (0.5)(23°)] } = 59
Actual rigidity index:
Ir = (5 .99)/ { 2(1 + 0.35)[0.04 + (O. 764 )(0.42)]} ,.; 6 <° 59
Thus, the assumption of soil incompressibility is not justi-
fied. Compressibility factors (Eqs. 3.31, 3.33 and 3.15):
tqe = exp {[-4.4 + (0.6)(1/3)] (0.42)]
+ [(3.07)(0.391)(1.09)/(1 + 0.391)]} = 0.44
tee = 0.44 - (1- 0.44)/(18.05)(0.42) = 0.37
t'Ye = t qe = 0.44
Ultimate bearing pressure (see figures in Example 3 .1):
qo = (0.72)(0.37) + (4.57)(0.44) + (2.14)(0.44)
2
= 0.27 + 2.10 + 0.94 = 3.22 ton/ft
It would be of interest to compare this value with that
obtainetl by the Terzaghi approach. The reduced strength
characteristics are (Eqs. 3.29 and 3.30):
c* = (0.67)(0.04) = 0.027 ton/ft 2
<P* = tan -t (0.67)(0.42) = 16°
Bearing capacity factors (Table 3.1):
Ne= I l.62;Nq = 4.34;N'Y = 3.06
Ultimate bearing pressure:
qo = (0.027)(11.63)(1.16) + (0.463)(4.34)(1.14)
+ (1/2)(43)(28)(3.06)(0.87)/(2,000)
= 0.36 + 2.29 + 0.80 = 3.45 ton/ft 2
EXAMPLE 3.8: Investigate the effect of compressibility
on ultimate bearing capacity of the footing in sand discussed
in Example 3.2. In the low and elevated pressure range the
modulus of deformation of sand increases with mean nor-
mal stress according to the equation
E = E1 v'a{a;
where E 1 = 364 ton£ft2 is the modulus at mean normal
stress of a1 = 1 ton/ ft .
The average mean normal stress in the expansion zone is
taken as initial mean normal stress at a depth B/2 below the
base of the footing. With <P = 38° for the sand in the "elas-
tic" zone the coefficient of earth pressure at rest is
K 0 = 1 - sin (1.2)(38°) = 0.29
Mean normal stress at depth of 24 feet:
a= {[ 1 + (2)(0.29)] /3} {[(8)(100) + (16)(56) l /(2,000)}
= 0.45 ton/ft2
Modulus of deformation:
E = (364)-v'oAs = 244 ton/ft 2
Poisson's ratio:
V = 0.29/(1 + 0.29) = 0.23
Representative angle of shearing resistance for the plastic
zone is taken again to be 35°.
Critical rigidity index (Eq. 3.34):
Ur)crit = ! exp {3.30 - (0.45)(1/3)
· cot [45 0 - (0.5)(35 0 )] }
= 278
Neglecting the volume change in the plastic zone one
finds a rigidity index of
Ir= (244)/[2(1 + 0.23)(0.45)(0.70)] = 316 > 278
Thus, the assumption of incompressibility appears to be
justified.
Remark: The assumption of an average volumetric strain
of 1 percent in the plastic zone would reduce the rigidity
index to (Eqs. 3.3 and 3.4)
Irr= 316/[ 1 + (316)(0.01)] = 152
The corresponding compressibility factor would be (Eq.
3.31 and 3.33)
tqe = t'Ye = exp {[-4.4+(0.6)(1/3)] 0.70
+ [(3.07)(0.574 )(2.18)/(1 + 0.574) l} = 0.607
The ultimate bearing capacity would be reduced to
qo = (35.1)(0.607) = 21.3 ton/ft 2
However, since the sand in question is of medium density,
the assumption of average volume compression of 1 per-
cent in the plastic zone is unfavorable. The actual ulti-
mate bearing capacity of this footing on sand would be
close to the upper value of 35 .1 ton/ft 2 . As mentioned
in the remarks after Example 3.2, the allowable bearing
pressure may be controlled by maximum tolerable settle-
ment for the structure in question.
3.10 INFLUENCE OF ROUGHNESS OF THE
FOUNDATION BASE
It has often been contended in the literature that the failure
pattern of the Prandtl solution (Fig. 3.14b) and subsequent
extensions require perfect roughness of the foundation
base. The argument has been that the original Prandtl
solution does not satisfy the strain rate compatibility equa-
tions and that the Hencky (1923) pattern shown in Fig.
3.22 should be used instead, at least for smooth footings.
The latter pattern, used by Meyerhof (1955) to evaluate the

Fig. 3.22 Slip pattern under a perfectly smooth footing postulated
by Hencky (1923).
effects of base smoothness, suggests that the bearing capac-
ity of a smooth footing on the surface of a cohesionless soil
should be only one-half the capacity of a rough footing.
However, the experiments performed to verify these con-
cepts (De Beer and Vesic, 1958; Biarez, Burel, and Wack,
l 96 l) showed practically no effect of foundation rough-
ness on bearing capacity. It is significant to add that it was
never possible to reproduce experimentally the double
wedge with the slip surfaces starting in the middle of the
footing. A single wedge, very similar to that shown in Fig.
3.14c, was formed even in cases where the footing was split
longitudinally into two or more footings, free to move lat-
erally in opposite directions; see De Beer and Vesic, 19 5 8.
Nadai ( l 963) reports a similar experience with punching of
metals. Thus, patterns such as that shown in Fig. 3.22 are
fictitious, and should not be used in bearing capacity com-
putations. It may be concluded that the stress and defor-
mation pattern under compressed areas is such that it al-
ways leads to formation of single wedges, such as that
shown in Fig. 3.14a. The foundation roughness has little
effect on bearing capacity as long as applied external loads
remain vertical.
In the case of inclined loads, the foundation roughness
may limit the maximum horizontal component P of the
load to be transmitted across the contact surface of the
base (Eq. 3.12). However, experience seems to indicate
that most cast-in-place concrete foundations, by the way
they are constructed, possess roughnesses defined by fric-
tion angles equal to or greater than the angles of internal
friction <f>t of the underlying soil (see Schultz~ and Horn,
1967). (The latter angles vary from about 32 for quartz
sands to about l 0° for some colloidal clays of very high
plasticity.)
3.11 INFLUENCE OF THE VERTICAL PROFILE OF
THE FOUNDATION BASE
The preceding considerations were concerned with footings
having plane contact areas. The influence of the vertical
profile of contact areas was investigated theoretically by
Biarez, Burel, and Wack (1961), Meyerhof (1961), Szechy
(1967), and others. Some experimental data are reported
by Szechy. The first two of these papers were concerned
with bearing capacity of wedge-shaped long rectangular
footings (Fig. 3.23a). The results (Fig. 3.23b) show that
there is practically no difference between bearing capacity
of wedges and that of ordinary flat footings of the same
size, as long as the base angle I/; (Fig. 3.14c) remains smaller
than 45° + </J/2. Wedges with steeper angles I/; should have a
larger bearing capacity, at least if the comparison is made
using the depth of the wedge base (Fig. 3.23a) as D. The
study by Szechy was concerned with the effects of curved
contact areas (Fig. 3.24 ); there was no apparent difference
in bearing capacities of flat and convex areas. At the same
time, a slight concavity of the contact areas resulted in a
measurable increase of bearing capacity. The difference can
Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations 137
¢ = 30°
'.,, = 45° +1>/2
10.__~--'---'~-'---'---'-~'----'----'
90° 80° 70° 60° 50° 40° 30° 20° 10° 0
Base angle, if;
(a)
(b)
Fig. 3.23 Bearing capacity of wedge-shaped strip footings. (After
Meyerhof, 1961.)
R
\
Fig. 3.24 Footing with a concave contact area. (After Szechy,
1967.)
be explained by taking the depth of the sharp edge of the
concave footing as D. It may be concluded that the vertical
profile of the contact area has no effect on bearing capacity
as long as D is taken as depth ·of the footing edges and the
profile remains contained within the wedge defined by I/; =
45° +</J/2 (wedge I, Fig. 3.14c).
3.12 INFLUENCE OF ADJACENT FOOTINGS
The preceding discussions were concerned with the bearing
capacity of an isolated footing. In all analyses it is assumed,
essentially, that the soil mass affected by the footing
(ACDEA in Fig. 3.14c) is under the action of gravity forces
alone and is not under the influence of any other footing.
There are, however, conditions in engineering practice
where footings are placed so close to each other that their
zones of action overlap.
The problem of interaction of footings has been stud-
ied by Stuart (1962), Mandel (1965), and West and Stuart
(1965). These authors considered the problem of bearing
capacity of simultaneously loaded parallel strips of width B
placed at a spacings from each other, center-to-center (Fig.
3.25a). The results indicate that the effects of adjacent
footings may vary considerably with the angle of shearing
resistance </>. For low ¢-values they are negligible; however,
for high ¢-values they appear to be significant (cf. Fig.
3.25b), particularly if a footing is surrounded by others on
both sides.
It should be noted, however, that these effects are con-
siderably reduced as L/B ~ l. Similarly, the compressibility
138 Foundation Engineering Handbook
Q Q
(a)
- - - Analysis A
------ Analysis B
a - - , Experiment
c;
2 200
"0.
~ Fig. 3.26 Influence of groundwater table.
·c"
"
8 150
w content of the soil above the water table (Meyerhof, 1955).
2.0 3.0 4.0
s/B
(b)
Fig. 3.25 Effect of interaction of long parallel strip footings.
(After West and Stuart, 1965.)
of solids reduces and may completely eliminate the inter-
ference effects. There are practically no such effects in the
case of punching shear failure. For these and other reasons
it is not recommended to consider interference effects in
bearing capacity computations. A designer should be
aware, however, of the possibility of their existence in some
special circumstances.
3.13 INFLUENCE OF GROUNDWATER TABLE
The position of the groundwater table may have a signifi-
cant effect on bearing capacity of shallow foundations.
Generally the submergence of soils will cause loss of all ap-
parent cohesion, coming from capillary stresses or from
weak cementation bonds. At the same time, the effective
unit weight of submerged soils will be reduced to about
one-half the weight of the same soils above the water table.
Thus, through submergence, all three terms of the bearing
capacity equation may be considerably reduced. For this
reason, it is essential that the bearing capacity analyses be
made assuming the highest possible groundwater level at the
particular location for the expected lifetime of the struc-
ture in question. The assessment of this highest possible
level must be made taking into consideration the probabil-
ity of temporary high levels that could be expected in some
locations during heavy rainstorms or floods, although they
may not appear in the official records.
If the highest groundwater level is within the depth Zw ,(
B below the foundation level (Fig. 3.26) the effective unit
weight of the soil below the foundation base ('Y in Eq. 3. 7
or 3.9) should be taken equal to
(3.35)
where -y' is the submerged unit weight and 'Ym is the moist
----B--~""'
W.T.
sz
y'
unit weight of soil, corresponding to the minimum moisture
If the water table is permanently below the depth Zw = B,
'Y should be taken equal 'Ym. For water table at or above
the level of the foundation base, submerged unit weight
-y' should be used.
All preceding considerations are based on the assump-
tion that the seepage forces acting on soil skeleton are
negligible. Should there be significant groundwater seepage
in any direction, it may have an effect on bearing capacity.
In addition to possible internal erosion of the soil (under-
mining, piping, and similar phenomena), the seepage force
adds a component to the body forces caused by gravity.
This component, acting in the direction of stream lines, is
equal to 'Yw i, where i is the hydraulic gradient causing seep-
age. A simplified analysis of this effect of seepage force on
bearing capacity can be made by assuming that the seepage
through the soil zone directly involved in potential shear
failure is parallel and homogeneous. In such a case the
vectorial sum of effective soil weight and seepage force de-
fines the direction and magnitude of a fictitious 'Y to be
used in Eqs. 3.7, 3.9 or 3.11, with possible base tilt and
ground-slope factors, as defined by Eqs. 3.19 through 3.23.
3.14 NONHOMOGENEOUS SOIL CONDITIONS
In a discussion of effects of nonhomogeneity on bearing
capacity, distinction must be made between two basic kinds
of nonhomogeneity that can be encountered. In erratic soil
profiles different borings on the site disclose the presence
of a variety of soils of different composition and character-
istics, appearing in lenses or in irregular strata of limited
extent. In such conditions the only reasonable assumption
that can be made about the soil profile-if one can be made
at all-is that a shear failure will occur in the soil mass along
the weakest soil encountered. One can question, however,
whether it is technically possible and economically feasible
to plan a soil exploration which will disclose all weaker
strata and lenses existing in the soil mass. Thus, taking and
testing samples from a few borings may not be justified. A
crude estimate of bearing capacity on the basis of penetra-
tion test results, combined with previous experience on sim-
ilar sites, may often be preferred in such cases.
In contrast to this situation, the nonhomogeneity in reg-
ular soil profiles follows a definite pattern, such as a dis-
cernible increase or decrease of soil strength with depth in
 Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations 139

TABLE 3.6. MODIFIED BEARING CAPACITY FACTOR

Nm
Long Rectangular Footing (LIB ~ 5)

~
Cz/C1 - 2

5.14
4 6 8 10 20

5.14
1.0 5.14 5.14 5.14 5.14 5.14
1.5 5.14 5.31 5.45 5.59 5.70 6.14 7.71
2 5.14 5.43 5.69 5.92 6.13 6.95 10.28
3 5.14 5.59 6.00 6.38 6.74 8.16 15.42
4 5.14 5.69 6.21 6.69 7.14 9.02 20.56
(a) (b)
5 5.14 5.76 6.35 6.90 7.42 9.66 25.70
Fig. 3.27 Typical two-layer soil profiles. 10 5.14 5.93 6.69 7.43 8.14 11.40 51.40
5.14 6.14 7.14 8.14 9.14 14.14
all borings at the site. Increasing the number of borings and
testing a greater number of samples may be justified for im- Square or Circular Footing (LIB = 1)
portant structures, as this may bring the estimates of soil
characteristics closer to statistical averages. These averages,
combined with standard deviations, can then be used in
bearing capacity analyses in some meaningful way.*
~
Cz/C1

1
4

6.17
8

6.17
12

6.17
16

6.17
20

6.17
40

6.17 6.17
A very common kind of soil nonhomogeneity is that of 1.5 6.17 6.34 6.49 6.63 6.76 7.25 9.25
distinct soil layers of different strength and approximately 2 6.17 6.46 6.73 6.98 7.20 8.10 12.34
constant thickness. The simplest situations that can be con- 3 6.17 6.63 7.05 7.45 7.82 9.36 18.51
sidered would be those of a two-layer profile in two char- 4 6.17 6.73 7.26 7.75 8.23 10.24 24.68
acteristic conditions: 5 6.17 6.80 7.40 7.97 8.51 10.88 30.85
a) bearing stratum softer than the underlying stratum 10 6.17 6.96 7.74 8.49 9.22 12.58 61.70
(Fig. 3.27a); 6.17 7.17 8.17 9.17 10.17 15.17
b) bearing stratum stiffer than the underlying stratum
(Fig. 3.27b ).
The first situation is often found when, for example, a where (3 = BL/[2(B + L)H] may be called the punching in-
rigid or flexible footing or an embankment is placed on a dex of the footing, while Ne* = tcNc represents the earlier
relatively thin layer of soft clay overlying stiff clay or rock. given bearing capacity factor of the foundation, corrected
The second situation occurs when the footing is placed on a
for shape. ((3 = B/4H and Ne*= 6.17 for a circular or square
stiff clay crust or a sand stratum on the top of a deposit of
foundation; (3 = B/2H and NJ = 5.14 for a strip founda-
relatively soft, normally consolidated clay. Button (1953)
tion.) Numerical values of the modified bearing capacity
analyzed both situations for saturated clays in undrained
factor Nm in this situation for square and long rectangular
condition (<p = O) assuming general shear failure along the
footings are given in Table 3.6. They are also shown graph-
cylindrical slip surfaces starting at the edges of the founda-
ically in Fig. 3.28. For absolutely rigid footings they are
tion.
probably on the safe side. However, caution is advised in
Later experimental research (Brown and Meyerhof,
applying these factors to very flexible footings.
1969) showed that the assumed failure modes were un-
For the second situation (stiff clay layer over soft clay
realistic and that the resulting bearing capacity factors were
layer, Fig. 3.27b), Brown and Meyerhof (1969) suggest that
on the unsafe side. It appears that the failure in the first
the analysis assuming simple shear punching around the
situation (Fig. 3.27a) occurs, at least in part, by lateral plas- footing perimeter would be appropriate. Such an analysis
tic flow similar to that occurring in a solid squeezed be- yields
tween two rough parallel plates (Hartmann, 1925). The
failure in the second situation (Fig. 3.27b) is basically a (3.38)
punching failure, with vertical slip surfaces similar to those
shown in Fig. 3.9. The bearing capacity of the footing in It should be noted that the tests reported by Brown and
both situations is given by Meyerhof indicate a reduction of effective strength of the
(3.36) upper stiff clay layer, which may be attributed to progres-
sive failure phenomena. It is thus suggested that the shear
where c 1 represents the undrained shear strength of the strength c 1 in Eq. 3.36 be reduced by an appropriate factor.
upper layer and Nm a modified bearing capacity factor In conditions of the mentioned tests, with a clay sensitivity
which depends on the ratio of the shear strengths of the of about 2 the factor appears to be 0.75.
two layers, K = c 2 /c 1 , the relative thickness of the upper Other contributions to the subject of bearing capacity of
layer, H/B, as well as on the foundation shape. By interpo- layered clays in undrained conditions have been made by
lation between known rigorous solutions of the related Suklje (19 54) who made extensive theoretical and experi-
problems one can obtain the following expression for Nm mental studies of the stability of a layer of soft clay resting
in the first situation (soft clay layer over stiff clay layer, on a firm base such as rock. Some of his solutions, verified
Fig. 3.27a; Vesic, 1970): by small-scale model experiments, are given in Fig. 3.29.
1<NJ(Nf +(3- l)[(K + l)NJ 2 +(l +1<(3)N/ +(3- 1]
(3.37)
Nm= [1<(1< + l)Nf +1< +(3- 1] [(NJ +{3)NJ +(3- 1] - (1<Nf +(3- l)(NJ+ 1)

*It is of interest to note that the variation of soil strength in an The studies of Siva Reddy and Srinivasan (1967) and James
otherwise regular soil profile may be the source of sometimes im- et al. (1969), both representing extensions of Button's
portant scale effects (cf. Kerisel, 1967). work, should be mentioned because they demonstrate the
140 Foundation Engineering Handbook
-----------~-~--r----,---.,,---, 13

12 II

II IO

Square or circular footing

Long rec~angular footing

8
B/H= 12

Bill= 8
7 Bili= 4

Bill,;;; 4 6.17 Bill,;;; 2 5.14

6
2 3 4 6 8 9 10 3 4 6 9 10
Undrained strength ratio, K = c 2 jc 1 Undrained strength ratio. K = c 2 /c 1
Fig. 3.28a Modified bearing capacity factor Nm for square or cir- Fig. 3.28b Modified bearing capacity factor Nm for long rectangu-
cular footings on two-layer cohesive soil in undrained conditions. lar footings on two-layer cohesive soil in undrained conditions.
(After Vesic, 1970.) (After Vesic, 1970.)

TABLE 3.7. COEFFICIENTS OF INCREASE OF BEARING CAPACITY

FACTORS DUE TO PRESENCE OF AN INFINITELY
STIFF LAYER AT DEPTH H BELOW THE STRIP
FOUNDATION OF WIDTH 8.
(After Mandel and Salen~on, 1969.)
Coefficients r C (upper number)
tq (lower number)

<P 8/H--+ 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 10

00 1.02 1.11 1.21 1.30 1.40 1.59 1.78

t=1 forB!H< 1.41
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

10° 1.11 1.35 1.62 1.95 2.33 3.34 4.77

t=1 forB!H< 1.12
1.07 1.21 1.37 1.56 1.79 2.39 3.25

20° r= 1 for 1.01 1.39 2.12 3.29 5.17 8.29 22.00 61.50
8/H < 0.86 1.01 1.33 1.95 2.93 4.52 7.14 18.70 51.90

30° S" = 1 for 1.13 2.50 6.36 17.40 50.20 150.00 1444 14 800
8/H < 0.63 1.12 2.42 6.07 16.50 47.50 142.00 1370 14 000

Coefficients 'Y t
<P 8/H--+ 2 3 4 5 6 8 10
00 S"-y = 1 for all 8/H
10° S"-y = 1 for 8/H < 4.07 1.01 1.04 1.12 1.36
20° S"-y = 1 for 8/H < 2.14 1.07 1.28 1.63 2.20 4.41 9.82
30° S"-y = 1 for 8/H < 1.30 1.20 2.07 4.23 9.9 24.8 178 1450
 Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations 141

6=2.4!5
q 0 =21rc

{3H - - - - - - - i

6 = 2.4!5
q 1 = l.95{3c

6 = 2.4!5
Qo (21rc) / (1-0.0142(3 2 )
(] /3 )a?+ Ba 2 + [ (2/9) -· (/3/ 0 )] 0 3= O

-----{3H--------.~

0=2.415
18.3 {3 2 c
q=--------'-------
H l "4 /3a3 a2a 2 2 /3 3 . 2 /3 1
- + - - - - + ( - - - ) 6 a+6 4 ( - - - )
!2 3 2 9 6 96 4

6=2.415
O'. /3[(1),-1 )/t/1]
q 1 36.6 c/[8 2- {3 2 (1 l/t/1)]
q,<a21rc q 2 -q 1 <21rc
Q2 < [t/l/(t/1-1)] 21rc

Fig. 3.29 Bearing capacity of a layer of soft clay overlying rock. (After Suklje, 1954.)

fact that both the case of anistropic layered clays and the
case of a single clay layer with continuously variable
strength can be handled with sufficient accuracy by intro-
ducing an average strength for the layer or soil zone in ques-
tion. Desai and Reese ( 1970) presented an analysis of bear-
ing capacity of a circular footing on a two-layer clay soil in
undrained conditions, showing the potential of finite-ele-
ment techniques for this class of problems.
The problem of bearing capacity of a layer of soil o flim-
ited depth H resting over a lower layer of infinite rigidity
and strength has been treated for the plane strain case (1011:g
rectangular footing) by Mandel and. Salern;on ( 1969). Their
solution, obtained by the method of characteristics, indi-
cates that the presence of a rigid layer below the bearing
stratum results in an increase of bearing capacity. Factors
of increase due to this effect, analogous to factors ti in Eq.
3.11 are presented in Table 3. 7. It is seen that this effect
becomes aj5parent whenever the depth of the bearing
stratum is smaller than the foundation width, and may
become fairly significant for large values of the angle
of shearing resistance </> and low H/B ratios. However,
it may be questioned to what extent these results, ob-
tained under the assumption of rigid-plastic behavior,
apply to real soils. It is reasonable to expect that, in
cases of high </> and low H/B, footings will fail by vertical
compression of the bearing stratum, in which crushing of
soil particles plays a predominant role. Also the strength of
the rigid stratum, which is always finite, will after a certain
point play a role in the deformation process, limiting the
bearing capacity below the indicated values.
Of far greater interest is the general problem or bearing
capacity of a stiff stratum underlain by a softer stratum,
when the soils involved possess both cohesion and friction.
One of the simplest and most frequent problems of this
kind is that of a layer of sand of finite thickness underlain
by a. soft clay layer. Experimental studies (Tcheng, 1957;
Vesic, 1970) show that the mode of failure under these cir-
cumstances is punching along essentially vertical slip lines
following the foundation perimeter (Fig. 3.9). According
to Tcheng's analysis, the bearing capacity q 0 of a long rec-
142 Foundation Engineering Handbook

tangle on the top of the sand layer with shear strength EXAMPLE 3. 9: For the footing from Example 3 .1 find
characteristics c = 0 and ¢ should be related to the bearing the ultimate bearing capacity in undrained conditions if the
capacity q~ of the underlying (clay) layer by the expression bearing stratum of soft clay is underlain by a thick stratum
of stiff clay, (undrained shear strength 0.5 3 ton/ft 2 ) start-
q0 = q~/{1 - 2(H/B) tan¢ (1 +sin¢) ing from elevation 16 feet.
· exp [-(rr/4 - ¢/2) tan¢]} (3.39) Punching index (3 = [(84)(28)] /[2(84 + 28)(16 - 10))
= 1.75
Tcheng reported good agreement between his test results Shape factor (see Example 3.1): tc
= 1.067;
and the above expression at least in the domain H ~ 1. 5 B. NJ= (1.067)(5.14) = 5.48
For greater depths he proposed semiempirical formulas, Shear strength ratio: K = c 2 /c 1 = 0.53/0.22 = 2.41
suggesting also that for H),, 3.5 B the influence of the soft Modified bearing capacity factor (Eq. 3.37):
clay layer becomes negligible.
N = (2.41)(5.48)(5.48 + 0.75) {(3.41)(5.48) + [1 + (2.41)(1.75)] 5.48 + 0.75}
m [(2.41)(3.41)(5.48) + 2.41 + 0.75] [(5.48 + 1.75)5.48 + 0.75] - [(2.41)(5.48) + 0.75] (6.48)
A more general analysis, valid for rectangles of any Nm = 5.86 (checks well with an interpolated value from
shape, resting on an upper, stronger layer having strength Fig. 3.28)
parameters c 1 , ¢ 1 and underlain by a lower layer of Ultimate bearing pressure (Eq. 3.36):
strength parameters c 2 , ¢ 2 (Fig. 3.27b) yields, under the
assumption that the slip surfaces are vertical (Vesic, 1970): q0 = (0.22)(5.86) + (0.463) = 1.29 + 0.46 = 1.75 ton/ft 2

qo = [q~ +(1/K)c 1 cot¢il exp {2[1 +(B/L)] Ktan¢ 1 (H/B)} EXAMPLE 3.10: Solve the problem described in Exam-
ple 3.9 under assumption that the undrained shear strength
- (1/K) c 1 cot ¢ 1 (3.40) of the upper layer is 0.53 ton/ft 2 while the strength of the
In this expression K = ( 1 - sin 2 ¢ 1 )/( 1 + sin 2 ¢ 1 ), while lower layer is 0.22 ton/ft 2 .
q" is the bearing capacity of a fictitious footing of the same Shear strength ratio: K = 0.22/0.53 = 0.415
size and shape as the actual footing, but resting on the top Punching index (same as in Example 9) (3 = 1.75
of layer 2 (generally to be evaluated from strength param- Modified bearing capacity factor (Eq. 3.38):
eters c 2 , ¢ 2 and other characteristics of the second layer). Nm = (1/1.75) + (0.415)(5.48) = 0.57 + 2.27 = 2.84
If the upper layer is cohesionless (c 1 = O) with 25° ~
¢ 1 ~ 50° the above expression is reduced to - Ultimate bearing pressure (Eq. 3.36)

q0 = q~ exp {0.67 [ 1 + (B/L )] (H/B)} (3.41) q0 = (0.53)(2.84) + (0.463)(1.00) = I.SO+ 0.46

This expression can be used to find a simple expression for
critical depth of the upper layer, beyond which the bearing
capacity will be little affected by the presence of the l~wer
soft layer. Denoting by q~ the bearing capacity of the
upper layer in infinite mass, one finds:
3 In (q~/q~)
(H/B)crit = 2(1 +B/L)]
A study of this expression, valid if c 1 = 0, reveals that the
critical depth of a strip foundation should be twice that of
a square foundation, under otherwise identical conditions.
It can also be shown that the critical depth increases
roughly in proportion to the angle of shearing resistance
¢ 1 of the upper layer and the water content w of the lower
layer (if the latter happens to be saturated clay). Most sig-
nificantly, however, the critical depth also varies with the
size of the footing, at least if the lower layer is saturated
clay. In conditions of Tcheng's tests, for example, the crit-
ical depth ratio for a two-foot-wide footing should be 6.8,
and for a 20-foot-wide footing 10.3, as compared with 3.2
predicted by Eq. 3.42 and 3.5 observed for 2-inch-wide
models.
A final remark will be made regarding footings resting on
a thin stratum of rock underlain by softer strata. In addi-
tion to examining the possibility of punching shear failure,
similar to that occurring in soils, one should also check that
the footing, as designed, does not induce failure of rock in
tension at the bottom of the upper stratum. Such an analy-
sis can be made using the concepts developed by Wester-
gaard (1926) for analysis of concrete pavements. For selec-
tion of k-values for the lower stratum, in view of limited
depth of that stratum, see Vesic and Saxena (1970). An
alternate approach is to use the layered solid theory of Bur-
mister (1943 ).
= 1.96 ton/ft 2
The small difference in the bearing capacities between
the case analyzed in Example 9 and the present case is un-
derstandable if one considers the fact that the thickness of
the upper layer is only 6 feet, or less than one fourth of the
foundation width.
(3.42) EXAMPLE 3.11: For the footing from Example 3.2 find
the ultimate bearing capacity if the bearing stratum of me-
dium dense sand is underlain by stiff clay (undrained shear
strength 0.53 ton/ft 2 ), starting at elevation - 30 feet.
The ultimate bearing capacity of sand in infinite mass,
from Example 3 .2 is q~ = 35 .1 ton/ft 2 •
The ultimate bearing capacity of a fictitious footing rest-
ing on the lower, clay layer is (see Example 1, for some
figures):
q~ = (0.53)(5.14)(1.067) + [(8)(105) + (22)(43))/(2000)
= 2.90 + 0.89 = 3.79 ton/ft 2
The critical depth of the upper layer is (Eq. 3.42):
Hcrit = [(3)(28) ln (35.1/3.79)] /{2 [1 + (1/3)]}
= 70 ft> 20 ft
Consequently, the bearing capacity of the footing will
be affected by the presence of the stiff clay layer. Its mag-
nitude, computed from Eq. 3.41 is
q0 = (3.79) exp {0.67 [l + (1/3)] (20/28)} = 7.15 ton/ft 2
3.15 EFFECT OF RATE OF LOADING
All the analyses of bearing capacity presented in preceding
paragraphs are conceived for static loading conditions. It is
 Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations 143
60 ,--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-,

assumed, tacitly, that the footing load Q (Fig. 3. la) is in- 1.60
creased gradually until failure at a loading rate slow enough 1.50
~
that no viscous or inertia effects are felt. This assumption
"' .S
applies to conditions of most ordinary footings, which carry
a certain dead load and are presumed to fail by a single ap-
fo 1.40
1.30 <.'":':
"
plication of excessive static live load. The rate of applica- "
·~ 1.20 ~
tion of these loads affects, under these conditions, the bear-
l 40 I.IO fl"
en
ing capacity only to the extent that it may be related to the ,.;
Data corrected 1.00
rate of drainage of excess pore-water pressures created in ::E to e1=0.800
the supporting soil by the application of the loads. It is 0.90
30~~~~:--~~-'---~~--'-~~~..J......~~--'-~~---l
understood that the selection of shear strength parameters 1000 100 10 0.1 0.01 0.001
c and </J to be introduced in the analysis will be made so as Tinll' t<' l'lt strain, s1..·c
to take care of that effect (see Example 3 .1 ). Fig. 3.31 Effect of rate of strain on undrained strength of a satu-
However, some footings, such as those supporting missile- rated, normally consolidated, fat clay. (After Whitman, 1970.)
launching or blast resistant structures, are subjected to high
live loads of very short duration. The high rates of strain
associated with these impulsive loads may induce viscous ever, what to expect in the case of loose, submerged sand,
and inertia effects in the soil mass. The related phenomena because of transient liquefaction effects.
have been the object of extensive study, mostly by load tests 3) Footings on compacted clay all show a considerable
on model footings on sand and clay (cf., for example, Jack- increase in bearing capacity as the rate of loading changes
son and Hadala, 1964; Richart, 1965; Vesic, Banks, and from static to impact loading conditions. There exists no
Woodard, 1965; Poplin, 1965; Whitman, 1970). The find- direct information about the behavior in the intermediate
ings of these studies can be summarized as follows: range of loading rates. However, on the basis of strength
1) As the rate of loading is increased from about 10-4 tests on clay samples at variable loading rates, we can expect
in/sec (static loading conditions) to about 10 in/sec (impact that the bearing capacity of footings on clay, contrary to
loading conditions) the mode of failure of model footings sand, will increase with increased loading rate (Fig. 3.31 ).
on both dense sand and compacted clay changes from gen- This conclusion is supported by the finding that a good pre-
eral shear to punching shear. This change is explained by diction of not only ultimate bearing capacity but also of
the fact that the inertia effects in the soil mass have a sim- load-displacement behavior of small footings subjected to
ilar effect as overburden pressure (Heller, 1964). transient loads can be obtained by multiplying the stresses
2) In the mentioned range of loading rates, from 10-4 to (or loads) corresponding to any particular displacement by
10 in/sec, footings on dense sand show a slight drop of bear- appropriate strain-rate factors (Jackson and Hadala, 1965).
ing capacity with increased loading rate, followed by a The latter is defined as the ratio of undrained soil strength
steady, slow increase, which is extended all the way into the at a specified strain rate to the undrained soil strength at the
impact velocities range (Fig. 3.30). This trend in variation standard laboratory strain rate.
of bearing capacity is analogous to the trend in variation of In summary, it appears that the conventional, static
shear strength of dry sands observed by Whitman and Healy analyses of bearing capacity can be used for footings sub-
(1962). From the practical point of view, this means that jected to moderately rapid loadings, if the strength param-
the static bearing capacity analyses may be applicable also eters c and </J introduced in the analysis are modified for
in the case of footings subjected to moderately rapid loads, strain rate effects.
provided that the strength parameters are determined by The footings subjected to impact and vibratory loads still
tests at appropriate loading rates. In absence of equigment require a dynamic approach for analysis. Details about
for transient tests, a reduction of ¢-angle of up to 2 may analysis of such footings can be found in Richart ( 1965), as
be in order for dense sand. It is highly questionable, how- well as in Chapters 24 and 25 of this book.

3.16 CHOICE OF SAFETY FACTOR

600
o\o
"'°' The analyses described in this chapter are all made with the
.:$' 'v'" purpose of assessing the magnitude of ultimate load Q 0 or
500 <l.J(;r<l.J" ,-e,~o~
ultimate pressure q 0 (Eq. 3.1) at which the foundation may
,._
0:,

~
C,
,~ . ,,,,,~
experience a bearing capacity failure. As mentioned in the
introduction, the foundations are designed so as to possess
3
400 """"
c,"'
an adequate safety against this type of failure.
"'" The assessment of adequate safety of a component of a
~
300 structure is, in the modern view, a complex problem of opti-
t
<.'!
mization, which can be properly resolved only with due
b considerations of serviceability and economy of the struc-
·u
"'0. 200 ture, as well as of probability and consequences of failure.
CT
bl)
While the mathematical methods of analysis of this aspect
of the bearing capacity problem are well advanced, (cf., for
'§"
100 example, Freudenthal; 1961, 1968; Wu and Craft, 1967;
"' Circular footings B = 4 in Ang and Amin, 1969) there are apparently no generally ac-
cepted, consistent criteria that can be recommended for use
0
10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1
in engineering design today.
10
A traditional approach to the choice of safety factors F 8 ,
Loading velocity, in/sec
appearing in Eq. 3.2, is outlined in Table 3.8. This approach
Fig. 3.30 Effect of loading velocity on bearing capacity of surface recognizes that the choice of safety factors should depend
footings on dense sand. (After Vesic, Banks, and Woodard, 1965.) on the character and expected life of the structure as well as
144 Foundation Engineering Handbook

TABLE 3.8. MINIMUM SAFETY FACTORS FOR TABLE 3.9. PARTIAL SAFETY FACTORS FOR DESIGN
DESIGN OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS. OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS. (AFTER
(AFTER VESIC, 1970.) BRINCH HANSEN, 1965.)
Preliminary note: The selection of safety factors for design cannot
be made properly without assessing the degree of reliability of all Load Factors
other parameters that enter into design, such as design loads,
strength and deformation characteristics of the ~oil mass, etc. In Dead load 1.00
view of this, each case is to be considered separately by the designer. Steady water pressure 1.00
The following table may be used as a guide for permanent structures Fluctuating water pressure 1.20 (1.10)
in reasonably homogeneous soil conditions. Live loads (general) 1.50 (1.25)
Wind loads 1.50 (1.25)
Soil Exploration Earth or grain pressure in silos 1.20 (1.10)

Cate- Characteristics Thorough, Strength Factors

gory Typical Structures of the Category Complete Limited
Cohesion c 2.00 (1.80)
Railway bridges Maximum design
Coefficient of internal friction tan </> 1.20 (1.10)
Warehouses load likely to
A Blast furnaces occur often; 3.0 4.0
Hydraulic consequences Remark: The numbers in parentheses refer to temporary structures
Retaining walls of failure or to extraordinary combinations of loadings (such as dead load +
Silos disastrous most unfavorable live load+ most unfavorable wind load).

Highway bridges Maximum design

Light industrial load may occur
B and public occasionally, 2.5 3.5
buildings consequences
of failure
serious
Apartment and Maximum design
C office load unlikely 2.0 3.0
buildings
to occur
Remarks:
(1) For temporary structures these factors can be reduced to 75
percent of the above values. However, in no case should the
safety factors lower than 2.0 be used.
(2) For exceptionally tall buifdings, such as chimneys and towers,
or generally whenever progressive bearing capacity failure may
be feared, these factors should be increased by 20 to 50 percent.
(3) The possibility of flooding of foundation soil and/or removal of
existing overburden by scour or excavation should be given
adequate consideration.
(4) It is advisable to check both the short-term (end-of-construc-
tion) and long-term stability, unless one of the two conditions
is clearly less favorable.
(5) It is understood that all foundations will be analyzed also with
respect to maximum tolerable total and differential settlement.
If settlement governs the design, higher safety factors must be
used.
on the consequences of failure. Thus, a lower safety factor
can be adopted for temporary, limited life structures. Also,
a higher safety factor is suggested for structures where the
maximum design load will regularly occur and where the
consequences of failure would be disastrous, as compared
with structures where the maximum design load is unlikely
to occur, and where the consequences of failure would not
be as serious. Higher factors are required for structures in
danger of progressive failure, such as exceptionally tall
buildings. Finally, this approach also takes into account the
fact that a thorough knowledge of the soil profile, based on
an extensive exploration and testing program, allows the
designer to assess the ultimate loads with a much higher de-
gree of confidence, thus reducing the probability of failure.
In a more modern version of the traditional approach to
evaluation of safety, the uncertainties involved with differ-
ent variables such as foundation loads or soil strength are
introduced separately as "partial safety factors" (cf. Brinch
Hansen, 1965 ). A nominal state of failure is considered, in
which the acting loads are multipli,ed by certain partial fac-
tors, while the strength parameters c and <p are reduced by
other partial factors. The advantages of this approach,
which is widely used in some countries, become especially
apparent in analysis of footings for earth retaining struc-
tures or footings on slopes. A list of recommended partial
factors is given in Table 3.9.
EXAMPLE 3.12: For the footing discussed in Example 3.1
find the safe bearing capacity in both assumed conditions.
Use both the traditional approach with a safety factor of
F 8 = 3.0 and the partial safety factor approach. Assume
that the footing reaction comes 65 percent from live load
and 35 percent from dead load.
Condition (a)
Traditional approach: qa = 1.67/3.0 = 0.56 ton/ft 2
Partial safety factor approach:
Nominal strength: c = 0.22/2.0 = 0.11 ton/ft 2
Nominal bearing capacity:
qn = (0.11)(5.14)(1.067) + (0.463) = 0.60 + 0.46
= 1.06 ton/ft 2
Average load factor: (0.64)(1.50) + (0.36)(1.00) = 1.32
Allowable bearing pressure: qa 1.06/1.32 = 0.80 ton/ft 2
Condition (b)
The problem will be solved using the values from Example
3. 7, which include the compressibility effects.
Traditional approach: qa = 3.22/3.0 = 1.07 ton/ft 2
Partial safety factor approach:
Nominal strength: Cn = 0.04/2.0 = 0.02 ton/ft 2
tan </Jn = 0.424/ 1.2 = 0.353; </Jn = 19 .5°
Nominal bearing capacity factors:
Ne= 14.4;Nq = 6.l;N,, = 5.0
Nominal shape factors:
te = 1 + (1/3)(0.42) = 1.14;
tq = 1 +(1/3)(0.35) = 1,12;
r,, = 0.87
The compressibility factors have to be computed using
actual soil parameters. Example 3.7 gives tee= 0.37; tqe =
t,,e = 0.44.

Nominal bearing capacity:
q = (0.02)(14.4)( 1.14 )(0.37) + (0.463)(6.1)(1.12)(0.44)
+ (1/2)( 43)(28)(5.0)(0.87)(0.44 )/(2000) = 0.12 + 1.39
+ 0.57 = 2.08 ton/ft 2
Load factor, same as above, is equal 1.32.
Allowable bearing pressure: Qa = 2.08/1.32 = 1.58 ton/ft 2
3.17 BEARING CAPACITY ACCORDING TO BUILDING
CODES
Most building codes contain some information on bearing
capacity of shallow footings, usually presented in the form
of tables relating allowable foundation pressures to certain
soil types. For example, a code may indicate "safe pres-
sures" of 3 to 6 ton/ft 2 for dense sand or hard clay and 1.5
to 3 ton/ft 2 for medium dense sand or stiff clay, etc. When-
ever this information is actually based on local experience,
it should be considered as a helpful indication of pressures
that have been used in a given locality without causing dis-
tress to the structures built in the past. The limited value of
this information will, perhaps, be best understood by point-
ing out some of the serious shortcomings of the mentioned
tables:
1) The character of the bearing stratum is given in de-
scriptive terms, often very vague and without specification
of physical properties of the soil in qJJestion.
2) The underlying strata are assumed to have no effect
on safe bearing capacity.
3) Such important factors as size, shape, and depth of
foundation and the position of the water table are normally
assumed to have no effect on bearing capacity.
4) The type and statical system of the structure sup-
ported by the foundation, as well as the character of design
loads are equally assumed to be of no effect.
It should be obvious th.2t the information of this kind,
however useful, should never be taken as a substitute for a
proper engineering analysis of bearing capacity, following
procedures similar to those exposed in this chapter.
REFERENCES
Ang, A. H. S., and Amin, M. (1969), Safety factors and probability
in structural design, Journal of the Structural Division ASCE_; 95,
No. ST7, pp. 1389-1405. ' en surface, Anna/es des Travaux Publics de Belgique 59, No. 3,
Antoine, J., L'Herminier, R. L., and Bachelier, M. (1953), Force
portante de pieux de grand diametre fondes sur un bane calcaire
de faible epaisseur; Proceedings, Third Intern. Conf Soil Mech.
Found. Engrg., Zurich, Vol. 2, p. 3-6.
Berezantsev, V. G. (1952), Osesimetrichnaia zadacha teorii pred-
el'nogo ravnovesia sypuchei sredy, Gostekhizdat, Moskva, pp.
81-120.
a
Biarez, J., Burel, M., and Wack, B. (1961), Contribution l'etude de
la force portante des fondations; Proceedings, Fifth International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Paris,
Vol. 1, pp. 603-609.
Brinch Hansen, J. (1953), Earth Pressure Calculation, Danish Tech-
nical Press, Copenhagen, pp. 1-271.
Brinch Hansen, J. (1955), Simpel beregning af fundamenters
baereevne,Jngeni</>ren, 64, No. 4, pp. 95-100.
Brinch Hansen, J. (1957), General Report, Division Illa, Proceedings,
Fourth International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Founda-
tion Engineering, London, Vol. II, pp. 441-447.
Brinch Hansen, J. (1961), A General Formula for Bearing Capacity,
Bulletin No. 11, Danish Technical Institute, Copenhagen, pp.
38-46.
Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations 145
Brinch Hansen, J. (1965), The philosophy of foundation design:
Design criteria, safety factors and settlement limits, in: Bearing
Capacity and Settlement of Foundations, Proceedings of a Sym-
posium held at Duke University, April 5/6, 1965, pp. 9-13.
Brinch Hansen, J. (1970), A Revised and Extended Formula for
Bearing Capacity,-Bulletin No. 28, Danish Geotechnical Institute,
Copenhagen, pp. 5-11.
Brown, J. D. and Meyerhof, G. G. (1969), Experimental study of
bearing capacity in layered clays, Proceedings, Seventh Intern.
Conf Soil Mech. Found. Engrg., Mexico City, Vol. 2, pp. 45-51.
Buisman, A. S. K. (1935), De weerstand van paalpunten in zand,
De Ingenieur 50, pp. Bt. 25-28, 31-35 ..
Buisman, A. S. K. (1940), Grondmechanica, Waltman, Delft, pp.
190.
Burmister, D. M. (1943), The theory of stresses and displacements in
layered systems and application to the design of airport runways,
Proceedings of the Highway Research Board, 23, pp. 126-148.
De Beer, E. E. (1970), Experimental determination of the shape
factors and the bearing capacity factors of sand, Geotechnique
20, No. 4, pp. 387-411.
Button, S. J. (1953), The bearing capacity of footings on a two-layer
cohesive subsoil, Proc. Third Intern. Conf Soil Mech. Found.
Engrg., Zurich, Vol. 1, pp. 332-335.
Caquot, A. (1934), Equilibre des massifs a frottement interne,
Gauthier-Villars, Paris, pp. 1-91.
Caquot, A. and Kerisel, J. (1953), Sur le terme de surface dans le
calcul des fondations en milieu pulverulent, Proceedings, Third
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation En-
gineering, Zurich, Vol. I, pp. 336-337.
Cox, A. D., Eason, G., and Hopkins, H. G. (1961), Axially symmet-
ric plastic deformations in soils, Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society of London, Series A, 254, pp. 1-45.
De Beer, E. E. (1949), Grondmechanica, Deel II, Funderingen N. V.
Standard Boekhandel, Antwerpen, pp. 41-51.
De Beer, E. E. (1°963), The scale effect in the transposition of the
results of deep sounding tests on the ultimate bearing capacity of
piles and caisson foundations, Geotechnique 11, No. 1, pp.
39-75.
De Beer, E. E. (1965a), Bearing capacity and settlement of shallow
foundations on sand, Bearing Capacity and Settlement of Foun-
dations, Proceedings of a Symposium held at Duke University,
pp. 15-34.
De Beer, E. E. (1965b), The scale effect on the phenomenon of pro-
gressive rupture in cohesionless soils, Proceedings, Sixth Inter-
national Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineer-
ing, Montreal, Vol. II, pp. 13-17.
De Beer, E. E. (1967), Proefondervindelijlce bijdrage tot de studie
van het gransdraagvermogen van zand onder funderingen op
staal; Bepaling von der vormfactor Sb, Anna/es des Travaux Pub-
lics de Belgique, 68, No. 6, pp. 481-506; 69, No. 1, pp. 41-88;
No. 4, pp. 321-360; No. 5, pp. 395-442; No. 6, pp. 495-522.
De Beer, E. E. and Vesic, A. (1958), Etude experimentale de la
capacite portante du sable sous des fondations directes etablies
pp. 5-58.
De Beer, E. E. and Ladanyi, B. (1961), Etude experimentale de la
capacite portante ·du sable sous des fondations circulaires etablies
en surface, Proceedings, Fifth Intern. Conf Soil Mech. Found.
Engrg., Pari,, Vol. 1, pp. 577-581.
Desai, C. S. and Reese, L. C. (1970), Analysis of circular footings on
layered soils, ProceedinfES ASCE, Journal of the Soil Mechanics
and Foundations Division 96, SM4, pp. 1289-1310.
Darken, W. (1969), Die Einfluss des Aussermittigkeit auf die Grund-
bruchlast lotrecht beanspruchter Oberfliichengrundungen auf
nichtbindigen Boden, Mitteilungen aus dem Institut fiir Ver-
kehrswasserbau, Grundbau und Bodenmechanik, Technische
Hochschule Aachen; Heft 44.
Eason, G. and Shield, R. T. (1960), The plastic indentation of a
semi-infinite solid by a perfectly rough circular punch, Zeitschrift
fur Angewandte Mathematik und Physik, Vol. 11, pp. 33-42.
Freudenthal, A. M. (1961), Safety, reliability and structural design,
Journal of the Structural Division ASCE 87, No. ST3, pp. 1-16.
Giraudet, P. (1965), Recherches experimentales sur !es fondations
a
soumises des efforts inclines ou excentres, Annales des Pants et
Chaussees 135, No. 3, pp. 167-193.
146 Foundation Engineering Handbook
Hansen, B. and Christensen, N. H. (1969), Discussion on theoretical
bearing capacity of very shallow footings, Proceedings ASCE,
Journal of the Soil Mech. and Found. Division, 95, No. SM-6, pp.
1568-72.
Hartmann, W. (1925), Uber die Integration der Differentialglei-
chungen des ebenen Gleichgewichtszustandes fiir den allgemein-
plastischen Korper, Thesis, University of Gottingen.
Heller, L. W. (1964), Failure modes of impact-loaded footings on
dense sand, Technical Report R-281, U.S. Naval Civil Engineering
Laboratory, Port Hueneme, California, pp. 1-31.
Hencky, H. (1923), Uber einige statisch bestimmte Falle des
Gleichgewichts in plastischen Korpern; Zeitschrift angew. Math.
und Mech. Vol. 3, pp. 241-246.
Hvorslev, M. J. (1970), The basic sinkage equations and bearing ca-
pacity theories, Techn. Report M-70-1, U.S. Army Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
Ishlinskii, A. I. (1944), Osesimmetrichnaia zadacha teorii plastich-
nosti i p'roba Brinellia, Prikladnaia matematika i mekhanika 8,
No. 3, pp. 201-208.
James, C. H. C., Krizek, R. J., arid Baker, W. H. (1969), Bearing
capacity of purely cohesive soils with a nonhomogeneous
strength distribution, Highway Research Record, No. 282, pp._
48-56.
Jackson, J. G., Jr., and Hadala, P. F. (1964), Dynamic bearing capac-
ity of soils, Report 3: The application of similitude to small-scale
footing tests, Technical Report 3-599, U.S. Army Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
Kerisel, J. (1967), Scaling laws in soil mechanics, Proceedings, Third
Panamerican Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation En-
gineering, Caracas, Vol. III, pp. 69-92.
Little, A. L. (1961), Foundations, E. Arnold, London.
Lundgren, H. and Mortensen, K. (1953), Determination by the the-
ory of plasticity of the bearing capacity of continuous footings
on sand, Proceedings, Third International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Zurich, Vol. I, pp. 409-
412.
Mandel, J. (1965), Interference plastique de semelles filantes; Pro-
ceedings, Sixth Intern. Con[. Soil Mech. Found. Engrg., Montreal,
Vol. II, pp. 127-131.
Mandel, J. and Saleni;:on, J. (1969), Force portante d'un sol sur une
assise rigide; Proc. Seventh Intern. Con[. Soil Mech. Found.
Engrg., Mexico, Vol. 2, pp. 157-164.
Meyerhof, G. G. (1951), The ultimate bearing capacity of founda-
tions, Geotechnique 2, pp. 301-332.
Meyerhof, G. G. (1953), The bearing capacity of foundations under
eccentric and inclined loads, Proceedings, Third International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Ziirich, Vol. I, pp. 440-445.
Meyerhof, G. G. (1955), Influence of roughness of base and ground-
water conditions on the ultimate bearing capacity of founda-
tions; Geotechnique 5, No. 3, pp. 227-242.
Meyerhof, G. G. (1961), The ultimate bearing capacity of wedge-
shaped foundations, Proceedings, Fifth Intern. Con[. Soil Mech.
Found. Engrg., Paris, Vol. 2, pp. 105-109.
Meyerhof, G. G. (1963), Some recent research on the bearing capac-
ity of foundations, Canadian Geotechnical Journal l, No. 1, pp.
16-26.
Mizuno, T. (1953), On the bearing power of soil under a uniformly
distributed circular load, Proceedings, Third International Con-
ference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Zurich,
Vol. I, pp. 446-449.
Muhs, H. (1963), Ueber die zulassige Belastung nicht bindigen
Boden, Mitteilungen der Degebo, Heft 16, Berlin, pp. 105-121.
Muhs, H. and Weiss, K. (1969), Die Grenztragfahigkeit und Schief-
stellung ausmittig-lotrecht belasteter Einzelfundamente im Sand
nach Theorie und Versuch; Mitteilungen der Degebo, No. 22, 84
pp.
Muhs, H. and Weiss, K. (1969), The influence of the load inclination
on the bearing capacity of shallow footings, Proceedings, Seventh
Intern. Con[. Soil Mech. Found. Engrg., Mexico City, Vol. 2, pp.
187-194.
Nadai, A. (1963), Theory of Flow and Fracture of Solids; Vol. II,
McGraw-Hill Book Co., p. 470.
Nordlund, R. L. and Deere, D. U. (1970), Collapse of Fargo grain
elevator, Proceedings ASCE, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Division 96, No. SM2, pp. 585-607;
Ohde, J. (1950), Der Eindringungswiderstand von Fundamenten als
Grundlage fiir die Festlegung der zulassigen Baugrundbelastung,
Bautechnik 27, No. 8, pp. 272-277.
Peck, R. B. (1965), Bearing capacity and settlement: Certainties and
uncertainties, in: Bearing Capacity and Settlement, Proceedings
of a Symposium held at Duke University, April 5/6, 1965, pp.
3-8:
Peck, R. B. and Bryant, F. G. (1953), The bearing capacity failure of
the Transcona elevator; Geotechnique 3, pp. 201-208.
Poplin, J. K. (1965), Dynamic bearing capacity of soils, Report 2:
Dynamically loaded small-scale footing tests on dry dense sand,
Techn. Report 3-599, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experi-
ment Station, Vicksburg, Miss., 133 pp.
Prandtl, L. (1921), Uber die Eindringungsfestigkeit plastisher Baus-
toffe und die Festigkeit von Schneiden, Zeitschrift fur Ange-
wandte Mathematik und Mechanik, 1, No. 1, pp. 15-20.
Richart, F. E., Jr. (1965), Dynamically loaded foundations, in:
· Bearing Capacity and Settlement of Foundations, Proceedings of
a Symposium held at Duke University, April 5/6, 1965, pp.
69-81. -
Reissner, H. (1924), Zurn Erddruckproblem, Proceedings, First In-
ternational Conference on Applied Mechanics, Delft, pp. 295-
. 311.
Schultze, E. (1952), Der Widerstand des Baugrundes gegen schriige
Sohlpressungen, Die Bautechnik 29, No. 12, pp. 336-342.
Schultze, E. and Horn, A. (1967), The base friction for horizontally
loaded footings in sand and gravel, Geotechnique 17, No. 4, pp.
329-347.
Siva Reddy, A. and Srinivasan, R. J. (1967), Bearing capacity of
footings on layered clays, Proceedings ASCE, Journal of the Soil
Mechanics and Foundations Division 93, No. SM2, pp. 83-99.
Skempton, A. W. (1951), The bearing capacity of clays, Proceedings,
Building Research Congress, London, pp. 180-189.
Skempton, A. W. Yassin, A. A. and Gibson, R. E. (1953), Theorie de
la force portante des pieux, Anna/es de l'Institut Technique du
Biitiment et des Travaux Publics No. 63-64, pp. 285-290.
Sokolovskii, V. V. (1960), Statics of Soil Media, Butterworth, Lon-
don, pp. 1-237.
Stuart, J. G. (1962), Interference between foundations with special
reference to surface footings in sand, Geotechnique 12, No. I,
pp. 15-22.
Suklje, L. (1954 ), Ca pa cite portante des couches cohesives peu per-
meables et d'epaisseur limitee; Proceedings, Yugoslav Society of
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, No. 3, pp. 16-26.
Szechy, K. (1967), Der Einfluss der Sohlflachenform von Streifen-
fundamenten auf die Tragfahigkeit und Spannungsausbreitung,
VD! Zeitschrift 109, No. 8, pp. 339-344.
Tcheng, Y. (1957), Fondations superficielles en milieu stratifie, Pro-
ceedings, Fourth Intern. Conf Soil Mech. Found. Engrg., Lon-
don, Vol. 1, pp. 449-452.
Terzaghi, K. (1943), Theoretical Soil Mechanics, J. Wiley & Sons,
New York.
Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R. B. (1948), Soil Mechanics in Engineering
Practice, New York (J. Wiley), Second edition 1966, 729 pp.
Tschebotarioff, G. P. (1951), Soil Mechanics, Foundations and Earth
Structures, McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 655.
Vesic, A. (1963a), Bearing capacity of deep foundations in sand,
National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, High-
way Research Record, 39, pp. 112-153.
Vesic, A. (1963b), Theoretical studies of cratering mechanisms af-
fecting the stability of cratered slopes, Final Report, Project No.
A-655, Engineering Experiment Station, Georgia Institute of
Technology, Atlanta, Georgia pp. 1-67.
Vesic, A. S. (1964), Model investigations of deep foundations and
scaling laws, Panel discussion, Session II, Proceedings, North
American Conference on Deep Foundations (Congreso Sobre
Cimientos Profundos) Mexico City, Vol. II, pp. 525-533.
Vesic, A. S. (1965a), Ultimate loads and settlements of deep founda-
tions in sand, Bearing Capacity and Settlement of Foundations,
Proceedings of a Symposium held at Duke University, pp. 53-68.
Vesic, A. S. (1965b), Cratering by explosives as an earth pressure
problem, Proceedings, Sixth International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Montreal, Vol. II, pp.
427-431.
Vesic, A. S. (1967), A study of bearing capacity of deep founda-

tions, Final Report, Project B-189, Georgia Institute of Technol-
ogy, Atlanta, Georgia, pp. xvi and 264.
vesic, A. S. (1969), Effects of scale and compressibility on bearing
capacity of surface foundations, Proceedings, Seventh Interna-
tional Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineer-
ing, Mexico City, 1969, Vol. III, pp. 270-272.
Vesic, A. S. (1970), Research on Bearing Capacity of Soils (unpub-
lished).
Vesic, A. S. and Johnson, W. H. (1963), Model studies of beams
resting on a silt subgrade, Proceedings ASCE, Journal of the Soil
Mechanics and Foundations Division 89, No. SMl, pp. 1-31.
vesic, A. S., Wilson, W. E., Clough, G. W. and Tai, T. L. (1965),
Engineering properties of nuclear craters, Technical Report No.
3-699, Report 2, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, Miss., pp. 1-123.
Vesic, A. S., Banks, D. C., and Woodard, J. M. (1965), An experi-
mental study of dynamic bearing capacity of footings on sand,
Proceedings, Sixth International Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, Montreal, Vol. II, pp. 209-213.
vesic, A. S. and Saxena, S. K. (1970), Analysis of structural behavior
Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations 147
of AASHO road test rigid pavements, Report 97, National Coop-
erative Highway Research Program, National Academy of Sci-
ence, Washington, D.C., 35 pp. •
West, J. M. and Stuart, J. G. (1965), Oblique loading resulting from
interference between surface footings on sand, Proceedings, Sixth
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation En-
gineering, Montreal, Vol. II, pp. 214-217.
Westergaard, H. M. (1926), Stresses in concrete pavements computed
by theoretical analysis;Public Roads 7,No. 2, pp. 25-35.
White, L. S. (1953), Transcona elevator failure: Eyewitness account,
Geotechnique 3, No. 5, pp. 209-214.
Whitman, R. V. and Healy, K. A. (1962), Shear strength of sands
during rapid loadings, Proceedings ASCE, Journal of the Soil
Mechanics and Foundations Division 88, No. SM2, pp. 99-132.
Whitman, R. V. (1970), The response of soils to dynamic loadings,
Contract Report No. 3-26, U.S. Army Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, Miss., 200 + 16 pp.
Wu, T. H. and Kraft, L. (1967), The probability of foundation
safety, Journal of the Soil Mechanics Division, ASCE 93, No.
SM5, pp. 213-231.
-·----·---------------------------