Oda Bultum University, Institute of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering -0-

CHAPTER THREE

BEARING CAPACITY OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

Table of Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................. - 1 -
Bearing Failure Modes ..................................................................................................... - 1 -
Ultimate Bearing Capacity Equations .................................................................................... - 2 -
Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity equation ................................................................................... - 2 -
Meyerhof’s Bearing Capacity equation .................................................................................. - 3 -
Hansen’s Bearing Capacity Equation .................................................................................... - 5 -
A comparative summary of the three bearing capacity equations .................................................. - 7 -
Allowable bearing capacity and factor of safety........................................................................ - 8 -
Eccentric Loads ............................................................................................................. - 9 -
Field Tests .................................................................................................................. - 10 -
Plate Loading Test ........................................................................................................ - 10 -
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) ....................................................................................... - 11 -

FoGE-II: Lecture Notes

Oda Bultum University, Institute of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering -1-

CHAPTER THREE

BEARING CAPACITY OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

Introduction

A foundation, often constructed from concrete, steel or wood, is a structure designed to transfer loads from
a superstructure to the soil underneath the superstructure. In general, foundations are categorized into two
groups, namely, shallow and deep foundations. Shallow foundations are comprised of footings, while deep
foundations include piles that are used when the soil near the ground surface has no enough strength to
stand the applied loading. The ultimate bearing capacity, qu, (in kPa) is the load that causes the shear
failure of the soil underneath and adjacent to the footing. In this chapter, we will discuss equations used to
estimate the ultimate bearing capacity of soils. When you complete this chapter you should be able to:
Calculate the bearing capacity of soils.

Bearing Failure Modes

Figure 3.1: Modes of bearing failures (a) General shear (b) Local shear and (c) Punching shear.
Relative density of the soil and size of the foundation are among the major factors that affect the mode of
bearing failure likely to occur. The modes of bearing failure are generally separated into three categories:
The general shear failure (Fig. 1.1 a) is usually associated with soils of low compressibility such as
dense sand and stiff cohesive soils. In this case, if load is gradually applied to the foundation, settlement
will increase. At a certain point – when the applied load per unit area equals to the ultimate load qu – a
sudden failure in the soil supporting the foundation will take place. The failure surface in the soil will

FoGE-II: Lecture Notes

Oda Bultum University, Institute of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering -2-
extend to the ground surface and full shear resistance of the soil is developed along the failure surface.
Bulging of the soil near the footing is usually apparent.
For the local shear failure (Fig. 1.1 b), which is common in sands and clays of medium compaction, the
failure surface will gradually extend outward from the foundation but will not reach the ground surface as
shown by the solid segment in Fig. 1.1 b. The shear resistance is fully developed over only part of the
failure surface (solid segment of the line). There is a certain degree of bulging of the soil.
In the case of punching shear failure, a condition common in loose and very compressible soils,
considerable vertical settlement may take place with the failure surfaces restricted to vertical planes
immediately adjacent to the sides of the foundation; the ground surface may be dragged down. After the
first yield has occurred the load-settlement curve will be steep slightly, but remain fairly flat.

Ultimate Bearing Capacity Equations

Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity equation

Many of the present-day principles regarding bearing capacity equations appear to have had their origin
on a failure mechanism proposed by Prandtl in the early 1920s (refer literature for Prandtl’s failure
mechanism). Prandtl developed a bearing capacity

Figure 3.2: Failure mechanism for Terzhagi’s bearing capacity solution.

equation assuming a smooth (frictionless) footing and ignoring the weight of the soil in the failure zone.
These assumptions are not true in practice and therefore Prandtl’s equation is never used in practical
design, but it was a beginning.
Terzhagi (1943) improved the Prandtl equation to include the roughness of the footing and the weight of
the failure zone. The failure mechanism in a c for Terzhagi’s bearing capacity solution is shown in
Fig. 2.2. Terzhagi’s ultimate bearing capacity equations are given as follows:

Strip (or long) footing: qu  c' N c  DN q  0.5BN  (3.1)

Square footing: qu  1.3c' N c  DN q  0.4 BN  (3.2)

Circular footing: qu  1.3c' N c  DN q  0.3BN  (3.3)

where Nc, Nq and N are called the bearing capacity factors and are obtained as follows:

e (3 / 2 ') tan '  K p 

Nq  , N c  cot ' ( N q  1) , N   12 tan  '   1  (3.4)
2 cos2 (45   ' / 2)  cos  ' 
2

FoGE-II: Lecture Notes

Oda Bultum University, Institute of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering -3-

Figure 3.3: Terzhagi’s bearing capacity coefficients.

Figure 2.3 shows the variation of the bearing capacity factors provided by Terzhagi. Based on this figure,
Aysen (2002) proposed the following equation to obtain the value of K in the N equation:

K p  (8 ' 2 4 '3.8) tan 2 (60 0   ' / 2) (3.5)

where ' in the first term is in radians. In the undrained conditions (cu and u  0 ):
N q  1, N c  ( 32   1)  5.71 , N   0 (3.6)

Meyerhof’s Bearing Capacity equation

Meyerhof (1951) developed a bearing capacity equation by extending Terzhagi’s failure mechanism and
taking into account the effects of footing shape, load inclination and footing depth by adding the
corresponding factors of s, d, and i. For a rectangular footing of L by B (L > B) and inclined load:

qu  c' N c sc ic d c  DN q s q iq d q  0.5BN  s i d  (3.7)

For vertical load, ic = iq = i = 1

qu  c' N c sc d c  DN q s q d q  0.5BN  s d  (3.8)

FoGE-II: Lecture Notes

Oda Bultum University, Institute of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering -4-

Figure 3.4: Meyerhof’s bearing capacity coefficients.

The bearing capacity factors:

N q  exp( tan  ' ) tan 2 (45   ' / 2) , N c  cot ' ( N q  1) , N   ( N q  1) tan(1.4 ' ) (2.9)

In the undrained conditions (cu and u  0 ):

N q  1, N c  (  2)  5.71 , N   0
The bearing capacity factors are graphically presented in Fig. 3.4. The shape, inclination and depth factors
are according to:
Shape Depth Inclination
2
B D  0 
Any ' s c  1  0.2 K p d c  1  0.2 K p ic  iq  1  0 
L B  90 
For  ' 0 sq = s = 1 dq = d = 1 i =0
2
For B D  0 
s q  s  1  0.1K p d q  d   1  0.1 K p i  1  0 
 ' 10 0 L B  ' 
 ' 
K p  tan 2  45   ,  =angle of resultant measured from vertical axis.
 2
 B
when triaxial ' is used for plane strain, adjust ' to obtain  '  1.1  0.1 triaxial
'

 L

FoGE-II: Lecture Notes

Oda Bultum University, Institute of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering -5-
For the eccentric load, the length and width of the footing rectangle are modified to:
L’ = L – 2eL and B’ =B – 2eB (3.9)
where eL and eB represent the eccentricity along the appropriate directions.

Hansen’s Bearing Capacity Equation

Hansen (1961) extended Meyerhof’s solutions by considering the effects of sloping ground surface and
tilted base (Fig. 3.5) as well as modification of N and other factors. For a rectangular footing of L by B (L
> B) and inclined ground surface, base and load:

qu  c' N c sc d c ic bc g c  DN q s q d q iq bq g q  0.5BN  s d  i b g  (3.10)

Equation 3.9 is sometimes referred to as the general bearing capacity equation. In the special case of a
horizontal ground surface,

qu  c' N c sc d c ic bc  DN q s q d q iq bq  0.5BN  s d  i b (3.11)

Figure 3.5: Identification of items in Hansen’s bearing capacity equation.

Figure 3.6 provides the relationships between Nc, Nq, and N and the ' values, as proposed by Hansen.

Figure 3.6: Hansen’s bearing capacity coefficients.

The bearing capacity factors Nc and Nq are identical with Meyerhof’s factors. N is defined by:

FoGE-II: Lecture Notes

Oda Bultum University, Institute of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering -6-
N   1.5( N q  1) tan  (3.12)

Since failure can take place either along the long side or along the short side, Hansen proposed two sets
of shape, inclination and depth factors.
The shape factors are:

Nq B B B
sc, B  1   ic , B , s q , B  1  iq , B  sin  ' , s , B  1  0.4 i , B  0.6 (3.13)
Nc L L L

Nq L L L
sc,L  1   ic , L , s q , L  1  iq , L  sin  ' , s , L  1  0.4 i , L  0.6 (3.14)
Nc B B B

B L
For cu u=0 soil: s c , B  0.2 ic , B , s c , L  0.2 ic , L (3.15)
L B

The inclination factors are:

1 2
1  i q ,i  0.5H i   0.7 H i 
i c ,i  i q ,i  , i q ,i  1   , i ,i  1   (3.16)
Nq 1  V  Acb cot '   V  Ac b cot ' 

where the suffix i (in Eqn. 3.15) stands for B or L. 2   1  5 . 2   2  5 . A is the area of the footing
base and cb is the cohesion mobilized in the footing-soil contact area. For the tilted base:

2
 (0.7   0 450 0 ) H i 
i ,i  1   (3.17)
 V  Ac b cot ' 

For cu u=0 soil: ic ,i  0.5  0.5 1  H i Ac b (3.18)

In the above equations, B and L may be replaced by their effective values (B’ and L’) expressed by Eqn.
(3.9).
The depth factors are expressed in two sets:
For D/B  1 & D/L  1:

d c , B  1  0.4  D , d q , B  1  2 tan  ' (1  sin  ' ) 2  D (3.19)

B B

d c , L  1  0.4  D , d q , L  1  2 tan  ' (1  sin  ' ) 2  D (3.20)

L L
For D/B > 1 & D/L > 1:

d c , B  1  0.4  tan 1 D  B, d q , B  1  2 tan  ' (1  sin  ' ) 2  tan 1 ( D ) (3.21)

B

d c , L  1  0.4  tan 1 D  L , d q , L  1  2 tan  ' (1  sin  ' ) 2  tan 1 ( D ) (3.22)

L
For both sets: d  1 (3.23)

For cu u soil: d c , B  0.4  D , d c , L  0. 4  D (3.24)

B L
FoGE-II: Lecture Notes
Oda Bultum University, Institute of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering -7-
For the sloping ground and tilted base, the ground factors gi and base factors bi are proposed by the
, either parallel to B or L.

g c  1  g q  g   1  0.5 tan  
0
5
, (3.25)
147 0

gc  
0
For cu u soil: (3.26)
147 0

bc  1 
0
, bq e 2 tan ' , b e 2.7 tan ' (3.27)
147 0

bc  
0
For cu u soil: (3.28)
147 0

A comparative summary of the three bearing capacity equations

Terzaghi’s equations were and are still widely used, perhaps because they are somewhat simpler than
Meyerhof’s and Hansen’s. Practitioners use Terzaghi’s equations for a very cohesive soil and D/B < 1.
However, Terzaghi’s equations have the following major drawbacks:
Shape, depth and inclination factors are not considered.
Terzaghi’s equations are suitable for a concentrically loaded horizontal footing but are not suitable for
eccentrically (for example, columns with moment or titled forces) loaded footings that are very common in
practice.
The equations are generally conservative than Meyerhof’s and Hansen’s.
Currently, Meyerhof’s and Hansen’s equations are more widely used than Terzaghi’s. Both are viewed as
somewhat less conservative and applicable to more general conditions. Hansen’s is, however, used when
the base is tilted or when the footing is on a slope and for D/B > 1.

EXAMPLE 3.1
Given the data in Fig. E3.1, determine the ultimate bearing capacity qu using: a)Terzaghi’s, b) Meyerhof’s
and c) Hansen’s bearing capacity equations.

Figure E3.1: An isolated footing.

EAMPLE32.2
Determine the ultimate bearing capacity of a square footing 1.5 m, at a depth of 1 m in a soil c’ = 10 kPa,

FoGE-II: Lecture Notes

Oda Bultum University, Institute of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering -8-
 ' =28 ,
0
cu = 105 kPa,  u =0 and  = 19 kN/m . Use Terzaghi’s, Meyerhof’s and Hansen’s bearing
3

capacity equations.
Strategy It is a good policy to sketch a diagram illustrating the conditions given.

EAMPLE 3.3
A square footing 1.5 m is to be constructed in sand with c’ = 0,  ' =400. The thickness of the footing is 0.45
m and its top surface is level with the horizontal ground surface. The footing is subjected to a central
vertical force of 700 kN and a central horizontal force (parallel to the sides) of 210 kN. Find the ultimate
bearing capacity by a) Meyerhof’s and b) Hansen’s equations. (Note that Terzaghi’s equations are not
3
applicable for inclined loads). The unit weight of the sand is 18 kN/m .

Effects of Groundwater Table on Bearing Capacity

For all the bearing capacity equations, you will have to make some adjustments for the groundwater
condition. The term D in the bearing capacity equations refers to the vertical stress of the soil above the
base of the footing. The last term B refers to the vertical stress of a soil mass of thickness B, below the
base of the footing. You need to check which one of the three groundwater situations is applicable to your
project.
Situation 1: Groundwater level at a depth B below the base of the footing. In this case no modification of
the bearing capacity equations is required.
Situation 2: Groundwater level within a depth B below the base of the footing. If the groundwater level is
at a depth z below the base, such that z < B, then the term B is z   ' ( B  z) or  sat z   ' ( B  z ) . The
later equation is used if the soil above the groundwater level is also saturated. The term D remains
unchanged.
Situation 3: Groundwater level within the embedment depth. If the groundwater is at a depth z within the
embedment such that z < D, then the term D is  sat z   ' ( D  z ) . The latter equation
z   ' ( D  z ) or
is used if the soil above the groundwater level is also saturated. The term B becomes  ' B .

Figure 3.7: Groundwater within a) a depth B below base, b) embedment depth.

EAMPLE 2.4
Re-do example 3.3 assuming that the groundwater level is at the footing level (0.45 m below the ground
3
surface). The saturated unit weight is 21 kN/m .

Allowable bearing capacity and factor of safety

The allowable bearing capacity, qa is calculated by dividing the ultimate bearing capacity by a factor, called
the factor of safety, FS. The FS is intended to compensate for assumptions made in developing the
bearing capacity equations, soil variability, inaccurate soil data, and uncertainties of loads. The magnitude

FoGE-II: Lecture Notes

Oda Bultum University, Institute of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering -9-
of FS applied to the ultimate bearing capacity may be between 2 and 3. The allowable bearing
capacity is:
qu
qa  (3.29)
FS
Alternatively, if the maximum applied foundation stress ( a ) max is known and the dimension of the footing
is also known then you can find a factor of safety by replacing qa by ( a ) max in Eqn. (3.29):
qu
FS  (3.30)
( a ) max

Eccentric Loads
Meyerhof (1963) proposed an approximate method for loads that are located off-centered (or eccentric
loads).

Figure A1
He proposed that for a rectangular footing of width B and length L, the base area should be modified with
the following dimensions:
B’ = B – 2eB and L’ =L - 2eL (1)
Where B’ and L’ are the modified width and length, eB and eL are the eccentricities in the directions of the
width and length, respectively. From your course in mechanics you should recall that
My Mx
eB  and e L  (2)
P P
where P is the vertical load, and My and Mx are the moments about the y and x axes, respectively, as
shown in Fig. A1.
The maximum and minimum vertical stresses along the x axis are:
P  6e B  P  6e B 
 max  1   and  min  1   (3)
BL  B  BL  B 
and along the y axis are:
P  6e L  P  6e L 
 max  1   and  min  1   (4)
BL  B  BL  B 
Since the tensile strength of soils is approximately zero,  min should always be greater than zero.
Therefore, eB & eL should always be less than B/6 & L/6, respectively. The bearing capacity equations are
modified for eccentric loads by replacing B with B’.

FoGE-II: Lecture Notes

Oda Bultum University, Institute of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering - 10 -
EXAMPLE 2.5
A footing 2 m square is located at a depth of 1 m below the ground surface in a deep deposit of
compacted sand,  ' =300, c’=0, and  sat =18 kN/m3. The footing is subjected to a vertical load of 500 kN
and a moment about the Y-axis of 125 kN・m. The ground water table is 5 m below the ground surface.
Use Meyerhof’s bearing capacity equation and calculate the factor of safety. Assume the soil above the
ground water is also saturated.

Field Tests
Often, it is difficult to obtain undisturbed samples of especially coarse-grained soils for laboratory testing
and one has to use results from field tests to determine the bearing capacity of shallow foundations. Some
of the most common methods used for field tests are briefly described below.

Plate Loading Test

Tests on full sized footings are desirable but expensive. The alternative is to carry out plate loading tests.
The plate loading test is carried out to estimate the bearing capacity of single footings. The plates that are
used in the field are usually made of steel and are 25 mm thick and 150 mm to 762 mm in diameter. A
circular plate of 300 mm is commonly used in practice. Occasionally, square plates that are 300 mm×300
mm are also used.
To conduct a plate load test, a hole is excavated (Fig. 2.8) with a minimum diameter 4BP (BP = diameter of
the test plate) to a depth of D (D = depth of the proposed foundation). The plate is placed at the center of
the hole. Load is applied to the plate in increments of 10% to 20% of the estimated ultimate load. Each
load increment is held until settlement ceases. The final settlement at the end of each loading increment is
recorded. The test should be conducted until the soil fails, or at least until the plate has gone through 25
mm of settlement.

Figure 2.8: Plate Loading Test

For tests in clay,

qu ( F )  qu ( P ) (3.31)

where qu(F) & qu(P) are ultimate bearing capacity of foundation and plate, respectively. Eqn. (2.31) implies
that the bearing capacity in clays is independent of plate size.
For tests in sandy soil,
BF
qu ( F )  qu ( P ) (3.32)
Bp
where BF and BP stand for width of foundation and plate, respectively.
There are several problems associated with the plate load test. The test is reliable if the soil layer is thick
and homogeneous, local conditions such as a pocket of weak soil near the surface of plate can affect the
FoGE-II: Lecture Notes
Oda Bultum University, Institute of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering - 11 -
test results but these may have no significant effect on the real footing, the correlation between plate
load results and real footing is problematic, and performance of the test is generally difficult.

Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is used to determine the allowable bearing capacity of cohesionless
coarse-grained soils such as sands. The test procedure for SPT has been introduced in Chapter 2. The N
values obtained from SPT are usually corrected for various effects such as overburden pressure and
energy transfer. The following are two of the most commonly used methods in practice for correcting the N
values.

 95.8 
c N   '  ; c N  2 (Liao and Whitman, 1985) (3.33)
  z0 

 1916 
c N  0.77 log 10  '  ; c N  2,  z' 0  24 kPa (Peck et al., 1974) (3.34)
  z0 

where cN is a correction factor for overburden pressure, and  z' 0 is the effective overburden pressure in
kPa. A further correction factor is imposed on N values if the groundwater level is within a depth B below
the base of the footing. The groundwater correction factor is:
1 z
cW   (3.35)
2 2( D  B )
where z is the depth to the groundwater table, and D and B are the footing depth and width. If the depth of
the groundwater table is beyond B from the footing base cW = 1. The corrected N value is:
N cor  c N cW N
Meyerhof (1956, 1974) proposed the following equations to determine the allowable bearing capacity qa
from SPT values.
12
qa  S e N cor k d B  1.22 m (3.36)
25

 B  0.305 
2
8
qa  S e N cor   k d B > 1.22 m (3.37)
25  B 

where Se is the elastic settlement of the layer in mm and kd = 1 + 0.33D/B  1.33. In practice, each value
of N is a soil layer up to a depth B below the footing base is corrected and an average value of Ncor is used
in Eqn. (2.37).
Bowles (1996) modified Meyerhof’s equations by 50% increase in the allowable bearing capacity. Bowles’s
equations are:
20
qa  S e N cor k d B  1.22 m (3.36)
25

 B  0.305 
2
12.5
qa  S e N cor   k d B > 1.22 m (3.37)
25  B 

FoGE-II: Lecture Notes