Design of Shallow Foundations 3-7

Applied pressure Applied pressure Applied pressure

Settlement

Settlement
Settlement

(a) General shear (b) Local shear (c) Punching shear

FIGURE 3.6 Failure modes of a shallow foundation.

failure surface that extends to the ground level, and a clearly formed heave appears at the
ground level near the footing. The other extreme is punching shear failure, which occurs in
weak, compressible soils such as very loose sands, where the failure surface does not extend to
the ground level and the failure load is not well defined, with no noticeable heave at the ground
level (Figure 3.6c). In between these two modes, there is local shear failure (Figure 3.6b), which
occurs in soils of intermediate compressibility such as medium-dense sands, where only slight
heave occurs at the ground level near the footing.
In reality, the ground conditions are always improved through compaction before placing
the footing. For shallow foundations in granular soils with Dr > 70% and stiff clays, the failure
will occur in the general shear mode (Vesic 1973). Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that
the general shear failure mode applies in most situations.
From bearing capacity considerations, the allowable bearing capacity (q all) is defined as

q ult
q all = (3.9)
F

where q ult is the ultimate bearing capacity, which is the average contact pressure at the soil-
footing interface when the bearing capacity failure occurs, and F is the factor of safety, which
typically is taken as 3 for the bearing capacity of shallow foundations.

3.3.1 Historical Developments

Prandtl (1921) modeled a narrow metal tool bearing against the surface of a block of smooth
softer metal, which later was extended by Reissner (1924) to include a bearing area located
below the surface of the softer metal. The Prandtl-Reissner plastic limit equilibrium plane
strain analysis of a hard object penetrating a softer material later was extended by Terzaghi
(1943) to develop the first rational bearing capacity equation for strip footings embedded in
soils. Terzaghi assumed the soil to be a semi-infinite, isotropic, homogeneous, weightless, rigid
plastic material; the footing to be rigid; and the base of the footing to be sufficiently rough to
ensure there is no separation between the footing and the underlying soil. It also was assumed
that the failure occurs in the general shear mode (Figure 3.7).

3.3.2 Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Equation

Assuming that the bearing capacity failure occurs in the general shear mode, Terzaghi ex-
pressed his first bearing capacity equation for a strip footing as:

J. Ross Publishing; All Rights Reserved

3-8 Geotechnical Engineering Handbook

Q (Line load)

γD f (Surcharge)

Strip footing γ1 Df
α α 45 – φ/2 45 – φ/2
passive active passive
γ2
radial shear radial shear

Failure surface B log spiral

FIGURE 3.7 Assumed failure surfaces within the soil during bearing capacity failure.

q ult = cNc + γ 1Df Nq + 0.5B γ 2 N γ (3.10)

Here, c is the cohesion and γ 1 and γ 2 are the unit weights of the soil above and below,
respectively, the footing level. Nc , Nq , and N γ are the bearing capacity factors, which are
functions of the friction angle. The ultimate bearing capacity is derived from three distinct
components. The first term in Equation 3.10 reflects the contribution of cohesion to the
ultimate bearing capacity, and the second term reflects the frictional contribution of the
overburden pressure or surcharge. The last term reflects the frictional contribution of the self-
weight of the soil in the failure zone.
For square and circular footings, the ultimate bearing capacities are given by Equations 3.11
and 3.12, respectively:

q ult = 1.2cNc + γ 1Df Nq + 0.4B γ 2N γ (3.11)

q ult = 1.2cNc + γ 1Df Nq + 0.3B γ 2N γ (3.12)

It must be remembered that the bearing capacity factors in Equations 3.11 and 3.12 are still for
strip footings. For local shear failure, where the failure surface is not fully developed and thus
the friction and cohesion are not fully mobilized, Terzaghi reduced the values of the friction
angle and cohesion by one-third to:

φ ′ = tan −1 (0.67 φ) (3.13)

c ′ = 0.67c (3.14)

Terzaghi neglected the shear resistance provided by the overburden soil, which was treated
as a surcharge (see Figure 3.7). Also, he assumed that α = φ in Figure 3.7. Subsequent studies
by several others show that α = 45 + φ兾2 (Vesic 1973), which makes the bearing capacity
factors different than what were originally proposed by Terzaghi. With α = 45 + φ兾2, the
bearing capacity factors Nq and Nc become:

 φ
Nq = e π tan φ tan2  45 +  (3.15)
 2

J. Ross Publishing; All Rights Reserved

Design of Shallow Foundations 3-9

TABLE 3.2 Expressions for N γ

Expression Reference

(Nq − 1) tan (1.4φ) Meyerhof (1963)

1.5 (Nq − 1) tan φ Hansen (1970)
2.0 (Nq − 1) tan φ European Committee for Standardisation (1995)
2.0 (Nq + 1) Vesic (1973)
1.1 (Nq − 1) tan(1.3φ) Spangler and Handy (1982)
0.1054 exp(9.6φ)a Davis and Booker (1971)
0.0663 exp(9.3φ)b Davis and Booker (1971)
a Rough footing with φ in radians.
b Smooth footing with φ in radians.

Nc = (Nq − 1) cot φ (3.16)

The above expression for Nc is the same as the one originally proposed by Prandtl (1921), and
the expression for Nq is the same as the one given by Reissner (1924). While there is general
consensus about Equations 3.15 and 3.16, various expressions for N γ have been proposed in
the literature, the most frequently used of which are those proposed by Meyerhof (1963) and
Hansen (1970). Some of these different expressions for N γ are presented in Table 3.2.
For undrained loading in clays, when φu = 0, it can be shown that Nq = 1, N γ = 0, and Nc
= 2 + π (= 5.14). Skempton (1951) studied the variation of Nc with shape and the depth of the
foundation. He showed that for a strip footing, it varies from 2 + π at the surface to 7.5 at a
depth greater than 5B, and for a square footing, it varies between 2π at the surface and 9.0 at
a depth greater than 5B. Therefore, for pile foundations, it generally is assumed that Nc = 9.
Most of the bearing capacity theories (e.g., Prandtl, Terzaghi) assume that the footing-soil
interface is rough. Concrete footings are made by pouring concrete directly on the ground, and
therefore the soil-footing interface is rough. Schultze and Horn (1967) noted that from the way
concrete footings are cast in place, there is adequate friction at the base, which mobilizes
friction angles equal to or greater than φ. Even the bottom of a metal storage tank is not
smooth, since the base is always treated with paint or asphalt to resist corrosion (Bowles 1996).
Therefore, the assumption of a rough base is more realistic than a smooth one. Based on
experimental studies, Vesic (1975) stated that foundation roughness has little effect on the
ultimate bearing capacity, provided the footing load is vertical.
Meyerhof’s N γ , used predominantly in North America, and Hansen’s, used in Europe,
appear to be the most popular of the above. The values of N γ proposed by Meyerhof (1963),
Hansen (1970), Vesic (1973), and in Eurocode 7 (European Committee for Standardisation
1995) are shown in Figure 3.8, along with the values of Nq and Nc . For φ < 30°, Meyerhof’s
and Hansen’s values are essentially the same. For φ > 30°, Meyerhof’s values are larger, the
difference increasing with φ. The Indian standard recommends Vesic’s N γ factor (Raj 1995).
The Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual recommends Hansen’s N γ factor (Canadian
Geotechnical Society 1992).

3.3.3 Meyerhof’s Bearing Capacity Equation

In spite of the various improvements that were made to the theoretical developments proposed
by Terzaghi, his original form of the bearing capacity equation is still being used because of its

J. Ross Publishing; All Rights Reserved