Dr. Ashraf E.

Abdel-Salam
Bearing Capacity Theory

Bearing Capacity
 INTRODUCTION

•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
• The foundation should be designed such that
The soil below does not fail in shear
The settlement is within the safe limits
Basic Definitions
Ultimate bearing capacity (qu)
Is the gross pressure at the base of the foundation at
which the soil fails in shear.
 Net ultimate bearing capacity (qnu)
It is the net increase in pressure at the base of foundation
that causes shear failure of soil

qnu = qu - ᵞh ( overburden pressure )

 Net safe bearing capacity (qns)
It is the net soil pressure which can be safely applied
to the soil considering only shear failure.
qns = qnu / f
 Gross safe bearing capacity ( qs )
It is the maximum gross pressure which the soil can carry
safely without shear failure
qs = qns + ᵞ h = qnu / f + ᵞ h = qu /f
Net safe settlement pressure ( qnp )
It is the net pressure which the soil can carry without
exceeding the allowable settlement.
 Net allowable bearing pressure (qna)
Is the net bearing pressure which can be used for
the design of foundation
qna = qns if qnp ˃ qns
qna = qnp if qnp ˂ qns
Bearing Capacity Failure

• a) General Shear Failure Most common

type of shear failure; occurs in strong
soils and rocks

• b) Local Shear Failure Intermediate

between general and punching shear
failure

• c) Punching Shear Failure Occurs in very

loose sands weak clays
Bearing Capacity Failure

General shear failure

Local shear failure

Punching shear failure

Soil Conditions and Bearing Capacity Failure
 Load Displacement Curves
(after Vesicʼ (1973))

a) General Shear Failure

b) Local Shear Failure
c) Punching Shear Failure
 Comments on Shear Failure
 Usually only necessary to analyze general shear failure.

 Local and punching shear failure can usually be

anticipated by settlement analysis.

 Failure in shallow foundations is generally settlement

failure; bearing capacity failure must be analyzed, but in
practical terms is usually secondary to settlement
analysis.
Method`s of bearing capacity

 Ranking bearing capacity

 Terzaghi bearing capacity
 Skempton method.
 Meyerhof`s method
 Hansen bearing capacity
 Ranking bearing capacity equation (1885)

For element 1
σ`1 =qu
σ`3 = ( tan2 ( 45 – φ` / 2 ))
For element 11
σ1
σ3 σ`3 = ᵞ z
σ3 I
σ1
σ1 σ`1 = ᵞ z / ( tan2 ( 45 – φ` / 2 ))
σ3 II σ3

σ1 σ`3 of I = σ`1 OF II
 p
 Terzaghi bearing capacity
The equation was derived based on neglecting the shear
resistance of the soil above the level of the base of the footing
and considering only its γ D at footing level .
The soil wedge ABC below the footing is considered to be in a
elastic state equilibrium and be have as a part of the footing
itself.
Shear surcharge water effect &
strength pressure foundation width
Based on Terzaghi’s bearing capacity theory, column load P
is resisted by shear stresses at edges of three zones under the
footing and the overburden pressure, q (=γD) above the
footing. The first term in the equation is related to cohesion
of the soil. The second term is related to the depth of the
footing and overburden pressure. The third term is related
to the width of the footing and the length of shear stress
area. The bearing capacity factors, Nc, Nq, Nγ, are function
of internal friction angle, φ.
Notes on Terzaghi's Method
 Since soil cohesion can be difficult to quantify,
conservative values of c (cohesion) should be used.
 Frictional strength is more reliable and does not need to
be as conservative as cohesion.
 Terzaghi's method is simple and familiar to many
geotechnical engineers; however, it does not take into
account many factors, nor does it consider cases such as
rectangular foundations.
 The Terzaghi`s bearing capacity theory assumption
• The base of footing is rough
• The footing is laid at shallow depth Df ≤ B
• The shear strength of the soil above the base of the footing is
neglected, and the soil above the base is replaced by a uniform
surcharge γD
• The load on the footing is vertical and uniformly distributed
• The footing is long L / B is infinite
• The shear strength of the soil is governed by the Mohr-
Coulomb equation
τ = c` + σ` tan φ`
 Skempton method
Skempton 1951 suggested a bearing capacity theory for saturated clay for
which ɸ = 0. Skempton gives Nc, the bearing capacity factor on the basis of
theory, laboratory tests and field observations. It was found that the value of Nc
increased with the increase in Df/B ratio. The expression for Nc proposed by
Skempton is given below.

For clay soil φ = zero

qu = CNc + γD at D / B ˂ 2.5

Nc = ( 1 + 0.2 D/ B ) Nc0

at D / B ˃ 2.5 Nc = 1.5 Nc0

For Strip footings,
Nc = 5(1+0.2Df/B), with a maximum limiting value of 7.5 ———- (1)

For square and circular footings,

Nc = 6(1+0.2Df/B), with a maximum limiting value of 9.0 ———- (2)

For rectangular footings,

Nc = 5(1+0.2Df/B) (1+0.2B/L) for Df/B ≤ 2.5 ———- (3)
  Meyerhof`s method
In 1951, Meyerhof published a bearing capacity theory which can be applied to
rough shallow and deep foundations. The failure surface at ultimate load under a
continuous foundation as assumed by Meyerhof (1951) is shown in Fig a and b.
In this figure, abc is the elastic triangular wedge shown in Fig., bcd is the radial
shear zone with cd being an arc of a log spiral, and bdef is a mixed shear zone in
which the shear varies between the limits of radial and plane shear depending on
the depth and roughness of the foundation. The plane be is referred to as an
equivalent free surface. The normal and shear stresses on the plane be are p o and
s o, respectively. The superposition method is used to determine the contribution
of cohesion ( c), qo, on the ultimate bearing capacity
( qu) of the continuous foundation and can be expressed as

qu = cNc + q0 Nq + 0.5 γ B N γ
Meyerhof (1963) proposed a formula for calculation of
bearing capacity similar to the one proposed by Terzaghi
but introducing further foundation shape coefficients.
He introduced a coefficient sq that multiplies the
Nq factor, depth factors di and inclination factors ii depth
factors di and inclination factors ii for the cases where the
load line is inclined to the vertical. Meyerhof obtained the
N factors by making trials on a number of BF arcs (see
Prandtl mechanism) whilst shear along AF was given
approximate values.
The General Bearing Capacity Equation
Factors Meyerhof Hansen Vesic
• For continuous footing,
s=1
• For perpendicular load,
i=1
• For level foundation,
b =1
• For level ground,
g =1
• Need to compute factors
- Bearing Capacity Factor N,
- Depth Factor d
Groundwater Effects
Shallow groundwater affects shear strength in two ways:

 Reduces apparent cohesion that takes place when soils

are not saturated; may necessitate reducing the cohesion
measured in the laboratory

 Pore water pressure increases; reduces both effective stress

and shear strength in the soil (same problem as is
experienced with unsupported slopes)
Ground water effect
FOOTINGS WITH ECCENTRIC
OR INCLINED LOADINGS

Eccentricity
Inclination
FOOTINGS WITH One Way Eccentricity

In most instances, foundations are subjected to

moments in addition to the vertical load as shown below.
In such cases the distribution of pressure by the
foundation upon the soil is not uniform.
• Note that in these equations, when the eccentricity e becomes
B/6, qmin is zero.
• For e > B/6, qmin will be negative, which means that tension
will develop.
• Because soils can sustain very little tension, there will be a
separation between the footing and the soil under it.
• Also note that the eccentricity tends to decrease the load
bearing capacity of a foundation.
• In such cases, placing foundation column off-center, as
shown in Figure is probably advantageous.
• Doing so in effect, produces a centrally loaded foundation
with a uniformly distributed pressure.
 Footing with Two-way Eccentricities
Consider a footing subject to a vertical ultimate load Qult and
a moment M as shown in Figures a and b. For this case, the
components of the moment M about the x and y axis are Mx
and My respectively. This condition is equivalent to a load Q
placed eccentrically on the footing with x = eB and y = eL as
shown in Figure
Footing with Two-way Eccentricities
Footings with Inclined Loads
 1. Compute the inclination factors using the equations given below:

βͦ inclination of load with respect to vertical

. 2- Use the inclination factors just computed to compute Hansen shape

factors as
3- These are used in the following modifications of the "edited“
Hansen bearing capacity equation:

Use the smaller value of qu\t computed by either of Equations.

The Bearing Capacity of Multi-Layered Soils
 In layered soil profiles, the unit weight of the soil, the angle of friction and
the cohesion are not constant throughout the depth. The ultimate surface
failure may extend through two or more of the soil layers.
 Consider the case when the stronger soil is underlain by a weaker soil. If H,
the thickness of the layer of soil below the footing, is relatively large then
the failure surface will be completely located in the top soil layer, which is
the upper limit for the ultimate bearing capacity.
 If the thickness H is small compared to the foundation width B, a punching
shear failure will occur at the top soil stratum, followed by a general shear
failure in the bottom soil layer.
 If H is relatively deep, then the shear failure will occur only on the top soil
layer.
• Meyerhof and Hanna (1978) and Meyerhof(1974)
Ground Factors
Base Factor

• For footings with angled foundation bases

• When footing is level, b = 1
Rigidity
Factors
Bearing Capacity from Field Tests
 Correction of Standard penetration number
• It has been suggested that the SPT be standardized to some energy ratio
Er which should be computed as

• Note that larger values of Er decrease the blow count N nearly linearly,
that is, Er45 gives N = 20 and Er90 gives N = 10;

Example of N for Er45 = 20 we obtain for the arbitrarily chosen Er = 70, (Er70):
N for Er70 = 13
Bearing Capacity using CPT
Bearing Capacity for Field
Load Tests PLT
For Granular Soils:

For Cohesive Soils: