16 Soil-Bearing Capacity for Shallow

Foundations

The lowest part of a structure generally is referred to as the foundation. Its function is to
transfer the load of the structure to the soil on which it is resting. A properly designed
foundation transfers the load throughout the soil without overstressing the soil.
Overstressing the soil can result in either excessive settlement or shear failure of the soil,
both of which cause damage to the structure. Thus, geotechnical and structural engineers
who design foundations must evaluate the bearing capacity of soils.
Depending on the structure and soil encountered, various types of foundations are
used. Figure 16.1 shows the most common types of foundations. A spread footing is sim-
ply an enlargement of a load-bearing wall or column that makes it possible to spread the
load of the structure over a larger area of the soil. In soil with low load-bearing capac-
ity, the size of the spread footings required is impracticably large. In that case, it is more
economical to construct the entire structure over a concrete pad. This is called a mat
foundation.
Pile and drilled shaft foundations are used for heavier structures when great
depth is required for supporting the load. Piles are structural members made of timber,
concrete, or steel that transmit the load of the superstructure to the lower layers of the
soil. According to how they transmit their load into the subsoil, piles can be divided
into two categories: friction piles and end-bearing piles. In the case of friction piles,
the superstructure load is resisted by the shear stresses generated along the surface of
the pile. In the end-bearing pile, the load carried by the pile is transmitted at its tip to
a firm stratum.
In the case of drilled shafts, a shaft is drilled into the subsoil and then is filled with
concrete. A metal casing may be used while the shaft is being drilled. The casing may be left
in place or may be withdrawn during the placing of concrete. Generally, the diameter of a
drilled shaft is much larger than that of a pile. The distinction between piles and drilled
shafts becomes hazy at an approximate diameter of 1 m (3 ft), and the definitions and
nomenclature are inaccurate.
Spread footings and mat foundations generally are referred to as shallow founda-
tions, whereas pile and drilled-shaft foundations are classified as deep foundations. In a
more general sense, shallow foundations are foundations that have a depth-of-embedment-
to-width ratio of approximately less than four. When the depth-of-embedment-to-width
ratio of a foundation is greater than four, it may be classified as a deep foundation.

576
 16.1 Ultimate Soil-Bearing Capacity for Shallow Foundations 577

(a) (b)

Pile

(c) (d)

Figure 16.1 Common types of foundations: (a) spread footing; (b) mat foundation; (c) pile foun-
dation; (d) drilled shaft foundation

In this chapter, we discuss the soil-bearing capacity for shallow foundations. As

mentioned before, for a foundation to function properly, (1) the settlement of soil caused
by the load must be within the tolerable limit, and (2) shear failure of the soil supporting
the foundation must not occur. Compressibility of soil—consolidation and elasticity
theory—was introduced in Chapter 10. This chapter introduces the load-carrying capacity
of shallow foundations based on the criteria of shear failure in soil.

16.1 Ultimate Soil-Bearing Capacity

for Shallow Foundations
To understand the concept of the ultimate soil-bearing capacity and the mode of shear fail-
ure in soil, let us consider the case of a long rectangular footing of width B located at the
surface of a dense sand layer (or stiff soil) shown in Figure 16.2a. When a uniformly dis-
tributed load of q per unit area is applied to the footing, it settles. If the uniformly distrib-
uted load (q) is increased, the settlement of the footing gradually increases. When the value
of q ⫽ qu is reached (Figure 16.2b), bearing capacity failure occurs; the footing undergoes
a very large settlement without any further increase of q. The soil on one or both sides of
578 Chapter 16: Soil-Bearing Capacity for Shallow Foundations

qu⬘ qu

Load per unit area

B
q

Settlement
II I

General shear failure

Local shear failure

(a) (b)

Figure 16.2 Ultimate soil-bearing capacity for shallow foundation: (a) model footing;
(b) load settlement relationship

the foundation bulges, and the slip surface extends to the ground surface. The load-
settlement relationship is like Curve I shown in Figure 16.2b. In this case, qu is defined as
the ultimate bearing capacity of soil.
The bearing capacity failure just described is called a general shear failure and
can be explained with reference to Figure 16.3a. When the foundation settles under the
application of a load, a triangular wedge-shaped zone of soil (marked I) is pushed down,

Original surface of soil

B
qu

III III
I

II II

(a)

Original surface of soil

B
qu⬘

II II

(b)

Figure 16.3 Modes of bearing capacity failure in soil: (a) general shear failure of soil;
(b) local shear failure of soil
 16.2 Terzaghi’s Ultimate Bearing Capacity Equation 579

and, in turn, it presses the zones marked II and III sideways and then upward. At the
ultimate pressure, qu , the soil passes into a state of plastic equilibrium and failure
occurs by sliding.
If the footing test is conducted instead in a loose-to-medium dense sand, the load-
settlement relationship is like Curve II in Figure 16.2b. Beyond a certain value of q ⫽
quœ , the load-settlement relationship becomes a steep, inclined straight line. In this case,
quœ is defined as the ultimate bearing capacity of soil. This type of soil failure is referred
to as local shear failure and is shown in Figure 16.3b. The triangular wedge-shaped
zone (marked I) below the footing moves downward, but unlike general shear failure,
the slip surfaces end somewhere inside the soil. Some signs of soil bulging are seen,
however.

16.2 Terzaghi’s Ultimate Bearing Capacity Equation

In 1921, Prandtl published the results of his study on the penetration of hard bodies
(such as metal punches) into a softer material. Terzaghi (1943) extended the plastic
failure theory of Prandtl to evaluate the bearing capacity of soils for shallow strip foot-
ings. For practical considerations, a long wall footing (length-to-width ratio more
than about five) may be called a strip footing. According to Terzaghi, a foundation
may be defined as a shallow foundation if the depth Df is less than or equal to its
width B (Figure 16.4). He also assumed that, for ultimate soil-bearing capacity calcu-
lations, the weight of soil above the base of the footing may be replaced by a uniform
surcharge, q ⫽ gDf .
The failure mechanism assumed by Terzaghi for determining the ultimate soil-
bearing capacity (general shear failure) for a rough strip footing located at a depth Df
measured from the ground surface is shown in Figure 16.5a. The soil wedge ABJ
(Zone I) is an elastic zone. Both AJ and BJ make an angle f⬘ with the horizontal.
Zones marked II (AJE and BJD) are the radial shear zones, and zones marked
III are the Rankine passive zones. The rupture lines JD and JE are arcs of a logarith-
mic spiral, and DF and EG are straight lines. AE, BD, EG, and DF make angles of

Df
Unit weight
of soil ⫽ g
q ⫽ gDf
Df ⱕ B

Figure 16.4 Shallow strip footing

580 Chapter 16: Soil-Bearing Capacity for Shallow Foundations

qu q ⫽ gDf
Df
f⬘ f⬘
G f⬘ 45 ⫺ f⬘ A I B f⬘ 45 ⫺ f⬘ F
45 ⫺ 2 J 45 ⫺ 2
2 C C 2 Soil
III III
PP PP g
E II II D c⬘
f⬘

(a)

B ⫽ 2b
qu
A f⬘ f⬘ B
c⬘b W
C ⫽ c⬘(AJ ) ⫽ C ⫽ c⬘(BJ) ⫽ c⬘b
cos f⬘ cos f⬘

f⬘ J f⬘
PP PP
(b)

Figure 16.5 Terzaghi’s bearing capacity analysis

45⫺f⬘/2 degrees with the horizontal. The equation of the arcs of the logarithmic spi-
rals JD and JE may be given as

r ⫽ ro eu tan f¿

If the load per unit area, qu , is applied to the footing and general shear failure
occurs, the passive force Pp is acting on each of the faces of the soil wedge ABJ. This con-
cept is easy to conceive of if we imagine that AJ and BJ are two walls that are pushing the
soil wedges AJEG and BJDF, respectively, to cause passive failure. Pp should be inclined
at an angle d⬘ (which is the angle of wall friction) to the perpendicular drawn to the
wedge faces (that is, AJ and BJ). In this case, d⬘ should be equal to the angle of friction of
soil, f⬘. Because AJ and BJ are inclined at an angle f⬘ to the horizontal, the direction of
Pp should be vertical.
Now let us consider the free-body diagram of the wedge ABJ as shown in Figure
16.5b. Considering the unit length of the footing, we have, for equilibrium,

1qu 2 12b2 112 ⫽ ⫺W ⫹ 2C sin f¿ ⫹ 2Pp (16.1)

where b ⫽ B/2
W ⫽ weight of soil wedge ABJ ⫽ gb2 tan f¿
C ⫽ cohesive force acting along each face , AJ and BJ, that is equal to
the unit cohesion times the length of each face ⫽ c¿b/1cos f¿ 2

Thus,

2bqu ⫽ 2Pp ⫹ 2bc¿ tan f¿ ⫺ gb2 tan f¿ (16.2)

 16.2 Terzaghi’s Ultimate Bearing Capacity Equation 581

or
Pp gb
qu ⫽ ⫹ c¿ tan f¿ ⫺ tan f¿ (16.3)
b 2

The passive pressure in Eq. (16.2) is the sum of the contribution of the weight of
soil g, cohesion c⬘, and surcharge q and can be expressed as

Pp ⫽ 12 g1b tan f¿ 2 2Kg ⫹ c¿1b tan f¿ 2Kc ⫹ q1b tan f¿ 2Kq (16.4)

where Kg , Kc , and Kq are earth-pressure coefficients that are functions of the soil friction
angle, f⬘.
Combining Eqs. (16.3) and (16.4), we obtain

1
qu ⫽ c¿Nc ⫹ qNq ⫹ gBNg
2

where

Nc ⫽ tan f¿1Kc ⫹ 1 2 (16.5)

Nq ⫽ Kq tan f¿ (16.6)
Ng ⫽ 12 tan f¿1Kg tan f¿ ⫺ 1 2 (16.7)

The terms Nc , Nq , and Ng are, respectively, the contributions of cohesion, sur-

charge, and unit weight of soil to the ultimate load-bearing capacity. It is extremely
tedious to evaluate Kc , Kq , and Kg . For this reason, Terzaghi used an approximate
method to determine the ultimate bearing capacity, qu . The principles of this approxi-
mation are the following.

1. If c⬘ ⫽ 0 and surcharge (q) ⫽ 0 (that is, Df ⫽ 0), then

qu ⫽ qg ⫽ 12 gBNg (16.8)
2. If g ⫽ 0 (that is, weightless soil) and q ⫽ 0, then
qu ⫽ qc ⫽ c¿Nc (16.9)
3. If g ⫽ 0 (weightless soil) and c⬘ ⫽ 0, then
qu ⫽ qq ⫽ qNq (16.10)

By the method of superimposition, when the effects of the unit weight of soil, cohe-
sion, and surcharge are considered, we have

qu ⫽ qc ⫹ qq ⫹ qg ⫽ c¿Nc ⫹ qNq ⫹ 12 gBNg (16.11)

Equation (16.11) is referred to as Terzaghi’s bearing capacity equation. The terms

Nc , Nq , and Ng are called the bearing capacity factors. The values of these factors are given
in Table 16.1.
582 Chapter 16: Soil-Bearing Capacity for Shallow Foundations

Table 16.1 Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Factors—Nc , Nq and Ng—Eqs. (16.11), (16.12),
and (16.13), respectively

Fⴕ Fⴕ
a a
(deg) Nc Nq NG (deg) Nc Nq NG

0 5.70 1.00 0.00 26 27.09 14.21 9.84

1 6.00 1.10 0.01 27 29.24 16.90 11.60
2 6.30 1.22 0.04 28 31.61 17.81 13.70
3 6.62 1.35 0.06 29 34.24 19.98 16.18
4 6.97 1.49 0.10 30 37.16 22.46 19.13
5 7.34 1.64 0.14 31 40.41 25.28 22.65
6 7.73 1.81 0.20 32 44.04 28.52 26.87
7 8.15 2.00 0.27 33 48.09 32.23 31.94
8 8.60 2.21 0.35 34 52.64 36.50 38.04
9 9.09 2.44 0.44 35 57.75 41.44 45.41
10 9.61 2.69 0.56 36 63.53 47.16 54.36
11 10.16 2.98 0.69 37 70.01 53.80 65.27
12 10.76 3.29 0.85 38 77.50 61.55 78.61
13 11.41 3.63 1.04 39 85.97 70.61 95.03
14 12.11 4.02 1.26 40 95.66 81.27 116.31
16 12.86 4.45 1.52 41 106.81 93.85 140.51
16 13.68 4.92 1.82 42 119.67 108.75 171.99
17 14.60 5.45 2.18 43 134.58 126.50 211.56
18 15.12 6.04 2.59 44 161.95 147.74 261.60
19 16.56 6.70 3.07 45 172.28 173.28 325.34
20 17.69 7.44 3.64 46 196.22 204.19 407.11
21 18.92 8.26 4.31 47 224.55 241.80 512.84
22 20.27 9.19 5.09 48 258.28 287.85 650.67
23 21.75 10.23 6.00 49 298.71 344.63 831.99
24 23.36 11.40 7.08 50 347.50 416.14 1072.80
25 25.13 12.72 8.34
a
N␥ values from Kumbhojkar (1993)

For square and circular footings, Terzaghi suggested the following equations for ulti-
mate soil-bearing capacity:
The square footing is

qu ⫽ 1.3c¿Nc ⫹ qNq ⫹ 0.4gBNg (16.12)

The circular footing is

qu ⫽ 1.3c¿Nc ⫹ qNq ⫹ 0.3gBNg (16.13)

where B ⫽ diameter of the footing.

 16.2 Terzaghi’s Ultimate Bearing Capacity Equation 583

Krizek (1965) gave the following approximations for the values of Nc, Nq, and N␥
with a maximum deviation of 15%.
228 ⫹ 4.3f¿
Nc ⫽ (16.14)
40 ⫺ f¿
40 ⫹ 5f¿
Nq ⫽ (16.15)
40 ⫺ f¿
and
6f¿
Ng ⫽ (16.16)
40 ⫺ f¿
where ␾⬘ ⫽ soil friction angle, in degrees. Equations (16.14) through (16.16) are valid for
␾⬘ ⫽ 0° to 35°.
Equation (16.11) was derived on the assumption that the bearing capacity failure of soil
takes place by general shear failure. In the case of local shear failure, we may assume that

c¿ ⫽ 23 c¿ (16.17)

and

tan f¿ ⫽ 23 tan f¿ (16.18)

The ultimate bearing capacity of soil for a strip footing may be given by

quœ ⫽ c¿Ncœ ⫹ qNqœ ⫹ 12 gBNgœ (16.19)

The modified bearing capacity factors Ncœ , Nqœ , and Ngœ are calculated by using
the same general equation as that for Nc , Nq , and Ng , but by substituting f¿ ⫽ tan⫺1 ( 23 tan f⬘)
for f⬘. The values of the bearing capacity factors for a local shear failure are given in
Table 16.2. The ultimate soil-bearing capacity for square and circular footings for the local
shear failure case now may be given as follows [similar to Eqs. (16.12) and (16.13)]:
The square footing is

quœ ⫽ 1.3c¿Ncœ ⫹ qNqœ ⫹ 0.4gBNgœ (16.20)

The circular footing is

quœ ⫽ 1.3c¿Ncœ ⫹ qNqœ ⫹ 0.3gBNgœ (16.21)

For an undrained condition with f ⫽ 0 and tf ⫽ cu , the bearing capacity factors are
Ng ⫽ 0 and Nq ⫽ 1. Also, Nc ⫽ 5.7. In that case, Eqs. (16.11), (16.12), and (16.13) (which
are the cases for general shear failure) take the forms
584 Chapter 16: Soil-Bearing Capacity for Shallow Foundations

Table 16.2 Terzaghi’s Modified Bearing Capacity Factors—N⬘c , N⬘q , and N⬘g—Eqs. (16.19),
(16.20), and (16.21), respectively

Fⴕ Fⴕ
(deg) N cœ N qœ N Gœ (deg) N cœ N qœ N Gœ

0 5.70 1.00 0.00 26 16.53 6.05 2.59

1 5.90 1.07 0.005 27 16.30 6.54 2.88
2 6.10 1.14 0.02 28 17.13 7.07 3.29
3 6.30 1.22 0.04 29 18.03 7.66 3.76
4 6.51 1.30 0.055 30 18.99 8.31 4.39
5 6.74 1.39 0.074 31 20.03 9.03 4.83
6 6.97 1.49 0.10 32 21.16 9.82 5.51
7 7.22 1.59 0.128 33 22.39 10.69 6.32
8 7.47 1.70 0.16 34 23.72 11.67 7.22
9 7.74 1.82 0.20 35 25.18 12.75 8.35
10 8.02 1.94 0.24 36 26.77 13.97 9.41
11 8.32 2.08 0.30 37 28.51 16.32 10.90
12 8.63 2.22 0.35 38 30.43 16.85 12.75
13 8.96 2.38 0.42 39 32.53 18.56 14.71
14 9.31 2.55 0.48 40 34.87 20.50 17.22
16 9.67 2.73 0.57 41 37.45 22.70 19.75
16 10.06 2.92 0.67 42 40.33 25.21 22.50
17 10.47 3.13 0.76 43 43.54 28.06 26.25
18 10.90 3.36 0.88 44 47.13 31.34 30.40
19 11.36 3.61 1.03 45 51.17 35.11 36.00
20 11.85 3.88 1.12 46 55.73 39.48 41.70
21 12.37 4.17 1.35 47 60.91 44.54 49.30
22 12.92 4.48 1.55 48 66.80 50.46 59.25
23 13.51 4.82 1.74 49 73.55 57.41 71.45
24 14.14 5.20 1.97 50 81.31 65.60 85.75
25 14.80 5.60 2.25

qu ⫽ 5.7cu ⫹ q 1strip footing2 (16.22)

and
qu ⫽ 11.32 15.7 2cu ⫹ q ⫽ 7.41cu ⫹ q 1square and circular footing2
(16.23)

16.3 Effect of Groundwater Table

In developing the bearing capacity equations given in the preceding section we assumed
that the groundwater table is located at a depth much greater than the width, B of the foot-
ing. However, if the groundwater table is close to the footing, some changes are required
in the second and third terms of Eqs. (16.11) to (16.13), and Eqs. (16.19) to (16.21). Three
different conditions can arise regarding the location of the groundwater table with respect
to the bottom of the foundation. They are shown in Figure 16.6. Each of these conditions
is briefly described next.