College of Engineering

Department of Civil & Construction Engineering

CONEN 452: Foundation Design

Bearing Capacity (Shear Failure)

Dr. Zaheer Kazmi

Fall 2020 Email: [email protected]
 Bearing Pressure
• Bearing pressure is the contact force per unit area
along the bottom of the foundation.
• The bearing pressure is not necessarily distributed
evenly. Analytical studies and field measurements
indicate that actual distribution depends on several
factors, including the following:
– Eccentricity, if any, of the applied load
– Magnitude of the applied moment, if any
– Structural rigidity of the foundation
– Stress-strain properties of the soil
– Roughness of the bottom of the foundation
 Computation of Bearing Pressure
P

GWT
D

where
q = bearing pressure
P = vertical column load
Wf = weight of foundation, including the weight of
soil above the foundation, if any
A = base area of foundation
ud = pore water pressure at bottom of foundation
(i.e. at a depth D below the ground surface
Bearing Pressure – continuous footing

b = 1 m or 1 ft
 Distribution of Bearing Pressure

Flexible foundation on clay Flexible foundation on sand

Rigid foundation on clay Rigid foundation on sand

 Distribution of Bearing Pressure

Idealized distribution of bearing pressure

Real footings are close to being perfectly rigid, so the bearing
pressure distribution is not uniform. However, bearing capacity
and settlement analyses based on such a distribution would be
very complex, so it is customary to assume that the pressure
beneath concentric vertical loads is uniform across the base of
the footing, as shown above. The error introduced by this
simplification is not significant.
 Net Bearing Pressure

Net bearing pressure, q’ is the difference between the gross

bearing pressure, q, and the initial vertical effective stress, ’vo,
at depth D. In other words, q’ is a measure of the increase in
vertical effective stress at depth D.

Use of the net bearing pressure simplifies some computations,

especially those associated with settlement of spread footings.
 Floating Foundation
Mat foundations are often placed in deep excavations, as shown
below. In addition to providing underground space, this design
decreases bearing pressure because the weight of the
foundation is substantially less than the weight of excavated soil.
In other words, the weight of structure and the foundation is
partially offset by the removal of soil from excavation. This
reduction in q significantly reduces the settlement.
 Example

The mat foundation in Fig. below is to be 50 m wide, 70 m long,

and 1.8 m thick. The sum of the column and wall loads is 805
MN. Compute the average bearing pressure, then compare it
with the initial vertical effective stress in the soil immediately
below the mat. Use conc = 23.6 kN/m3.
10
Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations

❑ A foundation is required for distributing the

loads of the superstructure on a large area.

❑ The foundation should be designed such that

a) The soil below does not fail in shear &
b) Settlement is within the safe limits.
 Bearing Capacity of Soils
• Total (Gross) Foundation Pressure (q): is the total pressure applied
to the soil after construction and includes weight of the structure,
weight of foundation and back fill materials.

• Net foundation pressure (q’): is the total applied pressure

subtracting the weight of the excavated soil or the back-fill material.
𝑞 ′ = 𝑞 − 𝛾𝐷

• Ultimate bearing capacity (qu): The value of the average contact

pressure between the foundation and the soil which will produce
shear failure in the soil.

• Net ultimate bearing capacity (qn): is the ultimate bearing capacity

subtracting the weight of soil at the level of foundation or it will be
removed for construction.
𝑞𝑛 = 𝑞𝑢 − 𝛾𝐷
 Bearing Capacity of Soils
• Safe bearing capacity (qs): The maximum value of contact
pressure to which the soil can be subjected without risk of
shear failure. This is based solely on the strength of the soil
and is simply the ultimate bearing capacity divided by a
suitable factor of safety.
𝑞𝑢
𝑞𝑠 =
𝐹. 𝑆.
• Net safe bearing capacity (qns): It is the net soil pressure
which can be safely applied to the soil without shear failure.
𝑞𝑛𝑠 = 𝑞𝑛Τ𝐹𝑂𝑆
• Net Safe Settlement Pressure (qnp): It is the net pressure
which the soil can carry without exceeding allowable
settlement.
 Basic Definitions

• Allowable bearing pressure (qall): The maximum

allowable net loading intensity on the soil allowing for
both shear and settlement effects.

• Net Allowable Bearing Pressure (qna): It is the net

bearing pressure which can be used for design of
foundation.

𝑞𝑛𝑎 = 𝑞𝑛𝑠 ; 𝑖𝑓 𝑞𝑛𝑝 > 𝑞𝑛𝑠

𝑞𝑛𝑎 = 𝑞𝑛𝑝 ; 𝑖𝑓 𝑞𝑛𝑝 < 𝑞𝑛𝑠
 Modes of Shear Failure

Vesic (1973) classified shear failure of soil

under a foundation base into three categories
depending on the type of soil & location of
foundation.

1) General Shear failure.

2) Local Shear failure.
3) Punching Shear failure
Modes of Shear Failure
Modes of Shear Failure
Modes of Shear Failure
Model Test by Vesic (1973)
 General Guidelines

• Footings in clays – general shear

• Footings in Dense sands (Dr > 67%) – general shear
• Footings in Loose to Medium dense sands (30% < Dr <
67%) – Local shear
• Footings in Very Loose Sand (Dr < 30%) – punching
shear
 Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Theory
• Terzaghi (1943) was the first to present a comprehensive theory
for the evaluation of the ultimate bearing capacity of rough
shallow foundations.
• According to this theory, a foundation is shallow if its depth, D, is
less than or equal to its width, B (i.e. D  B).
• Later investigations, however, suggested that foundations with D
equal to 3-4 times their width may be defined as shallow
foundations (i.e. D  3B to 4B).
• Terzaghi suggested that for a continuous, or strip foundation
(width-to-length ratio approaches zero), the failure surface in soil
at ultimate load may be assumed to be similar to that shown in
Figure in the next slide.
• The effect of soil above footing base is assumed to be replaced by
an equivalent surcharge (q = D).
Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Theory
P Shear resistance of the soil above
the footing base is ignored
Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Theory
 Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Theory

1
𝑞𝑢 . 𝐵 = 2. 𝑃𝑝 + 2. 𝐵. 𝑐 ′ . 𝑡𝑎𝑛∅′ − 4 𝛾 ′ 𝐵2 𝑡𝑎𝑛∅′

𝑐′𝐵 𝐵
𝐶𝑎 = 𝑡𝑎𝑛∅′
2𝑐𝑜𝑠∅′ 2
Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Theory
 Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Theory
Using equilibrium analysis, Terzaghi expressed ultimate bearing
capacity in the form
qu = cN c + qNq + 0.5BN (Continuous foundation)
Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Theory

qu = cN c + qNq + 0.5BN

Cohesion Surcharge Friction
term term term
Terzaghi’s BC factors for general shear Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Theory
 Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Theory
BEARING CAPACITY THEORIES OF TERZAGHI AND SKEMPTON

40
Nq N

30 Nc
 (degree)
 (degrees)

20

10

0
60 50 40 30 20 10 0 20 40 60 80
N q and N c N
BEARING CAPACITY FACTORS [After Terzaghi and Peck (1948)]
 Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Theory
For general shear failure
qu = cN c + qNq + 0.5BN (Continuous foundation)

qu = 1.3cNc + qNq + 0.4BN (Square foundation)

qu = 1.3cNc + qNq + 0.3BN (Circular foundation)

For local shear failure (multiply first term by 2/3)

qu = 0.667cNc + qN q + 0.5BN (Continuous foundation)

qu = 0.867cNc + qN q + 0.4BN (Square foundation)

qu = 0.867cN c + qN q + 0.3BN (Circular foundation)

Terzaghi’s BC factors for local shear Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Theory

Foundation Design (Das)

P-130
 Effect of GWT on Bearing Capacity
Case I

qu = cN c + qNq + 0.5B N

Case II

B (B-d)

 = d +  (B − d )
1
qu = cN c + qNq + 0.5BN B
Example 2.1
Example
Example 2.2 & 2.3
 Further Developments
• Skempton (1951)
• Meyerhof (1953)
• Brinch Hanson (1961)
• De Beer and Ladanyi (1961)
• Meyerhof (1963)
• Brinch Hanson (1970)
• Vesic (1973, 1975)
General Bearing Capacity Equation Meyerhof (1963)
General Bearing Capacity Equation Meyerhof (1963)
General Bearing Capacity Equation Meyerhof (1963)
General Bearing Capacity Equation Meyerhof (1963)

𝑫𝒇
𝑭𝒐𝒓 ≤𝟏
𝑩
General Bearing Capacity Equation Meyerhof (1963)

𝑫𝒇
𝑭𝒐𝒓 >𝟏
𝑩
 Example 2.4

A square foundation is 2m x 2m in plan. The soil supporting the

′ 𝑜 ′ 𝑘𝑁
foundation has a friction angle of ∅ = 25 and 𝐶 = 20 2 .
𝑚
𝑘𝑁
The unit weight of soil is 𝛾 = 16.5 3 . Determine the allowable
𝑚
gross load on the foundation with a factor of safety (FS) of 3
using General Bearing Capacity Equation. Assume that the
depth of the foundation is 1.5 m and that general shear failure
occurs in the soil
Example 2
Example 2
 Example 2.5

A square foundation (B x B) has to be constructed as shown in

𝑘𝑁
the figure below. Assume that 𝛾 = 16.5 3 , 𝛾𝑠𝑎𝑡 =
𝑚
𝑘𝑁
18.55 3 , ∅ = 34𝑜 , 𝐷𝑓 = 1.22𝑚, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐷1 = 0.61𝑚. The gross
𝑚
allowable load 𝑄𝑎𝑙𝑙 , with FS =3 is 667.2 kN. Determine the size
of footing using general bearing capacity equation.
Example 3
Example 3
 Vesic’s Bearing Capacity Equation

qu = cNc sc dcicbc gc + qNq sq d qiqbq g q + 0.5BN s d i b g

 Vesic’s BC -- Shape Factors

For continuous footings,

B/L → 0, therefore, Sc, Sq, and Sg become 1
 Vesic’s BC -- Depth Factors

For relatively shallow foundations (D/B  1), use k = D/B

For deeper foundations (D/B1), use k = tan-1(D/B) with

tan-1 term expressed in radians
 Vesic’s BC -- Load Inclination Factors
The load inclination factors are for loads that don't act
perpendicular to the base of the footing, but still act
through its centroid.
For the loads inclined in B
direction

For the loads inclined in L

direction
Vesic’s BC -- Load Inclination Factors
Vesic’s BC -- Load Inclination Factors

If the load acts

perpendicular to the base
of the footing, the
inclination factors equal 1
and may be neglected.

The inclination factors also

equal 1 when  = 0
 Vesic’s BC -- Base Inclination Factors
The vast majority of footings are built with horizontal
bases. However, if the applied load is inclined at the a
large angle from the vertical, it may better to incline the
base of the footing to the same angle so the applied
load acts perpendicular to the base.
 Vesic’s BC -- Ground Inclination Factors
Footings located near the top of a slope have a lower
bearing capacity than those on level ground.
Vesic’s ground inclination factors account for this

If the ground is level ( = 0), the g factors become equal

to 1 and may be ignored.
Vesic’s BC -- Bearing Capacity Factors
 Vesic’s BC -- Bearing Capacity Factors
Bearing Capacity Factors for
Hanson, Meyerhof, and Vesic Bearing Capacity Equations
N N
PHI Nc Nq PHI Nc Nq
Hanson Mayerhof Vesic Hanson Mayerhof Vesic
0 5.14 1 0 0 0 26 22.25 11.9 7.9 8 12.5
1 5.38 1.1 0 0 0.1 27 23.94 13.2 9.3 9.5 14.5
2 5.63 1.2 0 0 0.2 28 25.8 14.7 10.9 11.2 16.7
3 5.9 1.3 0 0 0.2 29 27.86 16.4 12.8 13.2 19.3
4 6.19 1.4 0 0 0.3 30 30.14 18.4 15.1 15.7 22.4
5 6.49 1.6 0.1 0.1 0.4 31 32.67 20.6 17.7 18.6 26
6 6.81 1.7 0.1 0.1 0.6 32 35.49 23.2 20.8 22 30.2
7 7.16 1.9 0.2 0.2 0.7 33 38.64 26.1 24.4 26.2 35.2
8 7.53 2.1 0.2 0.2 0.9 34 42.16 29.4 28.8 31.1 41.1
9 7.92 2.3 0.3 0.3 1 35 46.12 33.3 33.9 37.1 48
10 8.34 2.5 0.4 0.4 1.2 36 50.58 37.7 40 44.4 56.3
11 8.8 2.7 0.5 0.5 1.4 37 55.63 42.9 47.4 53.3 66.2
12 9.28 3 0.6 0.6 1.7 38 61.35 48.9 56.2 64.1 78
13 9.81 3.3 0.8 0.7 2 39 67.86 56 66.7 77.3 92.2
14 10.37 3.6 1 0.9 2.3 40 75.31 64.2 79.5 93.7 109.4
15 10.98 3.9 1.2 1.1 2.6 41 83.85 73.9 95 114 130.2
16 11.63 4.3 1.4 1.4 3.1 42 93.7 85.4 113.9 139.3 155.5
17 12.34 4.8 1.7 1.7 3.5 43 105.1 99 137.1 171.1 186.5
18 13.1 5.3 2.1 2 4.1 44 118.36 115.3 165.6 211.4 224.6
19 13.93 5.8 2.5 2.4 4.7 45 133.86 134.9 200.8 262.7 271.7
20 14.83 6.4 2.9 2.9 5.4 46 152.08 158.5 244.6 328.7 330.3
21 15.81 7.1 3.5 3.4 6.2 47 173.62 187.2 299.5 414.2 403.6
22 16.88 7.8 4.1 4.1 7.1 48 199.24 222.3 368.6 526.3 495.9
23 18.05 8.7 4.9 4.8 8.2 49 229.9 265.5 456.3 674.8 613
24 19.32 9.6 5.7 5.7 9.4 50 266.85 319 568.5 873.7 762.7
25 20.72 10.7 6.8 6.8 10.9
 Eccentric or moment loads
pad

continuous
 If e ≤ B/6 then
trapezoidal
distribution

6𝑒
𝑞𝑚𝑖𝑛 =𝑞 1−
𝐵
6𝑒
𝑞𝑚𝑎𝑥 =𝑞 1+
𝐵

Prefer to have e ≤ B/6 as

this avoids uplift of one side
of the footing (resultant is in
middle third of footing)
Equivalent Footing
𝐵′ = 𝐵 − 2𝑒𝐵
𝐿′ = 𝐿 − 2𝑒𝐿

(𝑃 + 𝑊𝑓 )
𝑞𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑣 = ′
− 𝑢𝐷
𝐵 𝐿′

2e

Equivalent footing
 Factor of safety (FS) 61

Most building codes don not specify design factors of safety.

Therefore, engineers must use their own discretion and
professional judgment when selecting FS. Following influence
the selection of FS:

• Soil type
• Site characterization data
• Soil variability
• Importance of structure and consequences of failure
• The likelihood of the design load ever actually occurring
 Factor of safety (FoS)
Soil type: Shear strength in clays is less reliable than in sands, and more failure
have occurred in clays than in sands. Therefore, use higher factors of safety in
clays.

Site characterization data: There is more uncertainty in the design soil

parameters when minimum subsurface exploration and lab testing is carried out,
thus higher FoS is desirable.

Soil variability: Projects on site with erratic soil profiles should use higher FoS
than those with uniform soil profiles.

Importance of structure & consequence of failure: Higher FoS is used for

important structures. Structures with large height-to-width ratios (e.g. chimneys,
towers) could experience more catastrophic failure, thus should be designed
using higher FoS.

Likelihood of design load ever actually occurring: Some structures, such as grain
silos, are much more likely to actually experience their design loads, and thus
might be designed using higher FoS.
 63
Factor of safety (FoS)
 64
Factor of safety (FoS)
The true factor of safety is probably much greater than the design
factor of safety because of the following:
• The shear strength data are normally interpreted
conservatively, so the design values of c and  implicitly
contain another FoS.
• The service loads are probably less than the design loads.
• Settlement, not bearing capacity, often controls the final
design, so the footing will likely be larger than required to
satisfy bearing capacity criteria.
• Spread footings are commonly built somewhat larger than
the plan dimensions.