CE-408

Foundation Engineering

Ultimate Bearing Capacity

The load per unit area of the foundation at which shear failure in soil
occurs is called the ultimate bearing capacity.
1
Principal Modes of Failure:
General Shear Failure: Load / Area
q

qu

Settlement
 Sudden or catastrophic failure
 Well defined failure surface
 Bulging on the ground surface adjacent to foundation
 Common failure mode in dense sand

2
Principal Modes of Failure:
Load / Area
Local Shear Failure: q

qu1

Settlement
qu

 Common in sand or clay with medium compaction

 Significant settlement upon loading
 Failure surface first develops right below the foundation and then
slowly extends outwards with load increments
 Foundation movement shows sudden jerks first (at qu1) and then after
a considerable amount of movement the slip surface may reach the
ground.
 A small amount of bulging may occur next to the foundation.
3
Principal Modes of Failure:
Load / Area
Punching Failure: q

qu1

qu

Settlement
 Common in fairly loose sand or soft clay
 Failure surface does not extends beyond the zone right beneath the
foundation
 Extensive settlement with a wedge shaped soil zone in elastic equilibrium
beneath the foundation. Vertical shear occurs around the edges of
foundation.
 After reaching failure load-settlement curve continues at some slope and
mostly linearly.
4
 Principal Modes of Failure:
Relative density of sand, Dr Vesic (1973)
0 0.5 1.0
0
Relative depth of foundation, Df/B*

General
Local shear 2BL
shear B  *

B
Circular
L
Foundation
5

Punching
shear Long
Rectangular
Foundation
10
5
 Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Theory
B

Rough Foundation Strip Footing

Surface
j k
neglected qu Effective overburden
Df q = ’.Df
a b
g 45−’/2 ’ ’ 45−’/2 i
I
III III
B
Shear II II c’- ’ soil
Planes d f
e

Assumption
 L/B ratio is large  plain strain problem
 Df ≤ B
 Shear resistance of soil for Df depth is neglected
 General shear failure
 Shear strength is governed by Mohr-Coulomb Criterion
6
 Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Theory
B
1
qu .B  2.Pp  2.Ca .sin     B2 tan 

 4
qu

1
qu .B  2.Pp  B.c.sin   4  B 2 tan
b
a 
’ ’
C a= B/2 I Pp  Pp  Ppc  Ppq
Ca B.tan’
cos’
Pp = due to only self weight of soil
’ ’ in shear zone
d
Pp Pp Ppc = due to soil cohesion only
(soil is weightless)
Ppq = due to surcharge only

7
Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Theory
Weight term Cohesion term

1 
 
qu .B   2.Pp 4
  B2

tan 
  pc
 B.c.sin    
pq
2.P 
2.P Surcharge term
B.c.Nc B.q.Nq
B. 0.5 B.N
Terzaghi’s bearing
qu  c.Nc  q.N q  0.5 capacity equation
B.N Terzaghi’s bearing capacity factors

1  K P  Nq  e 2a
N  tan 1
 cos2  
2   
2
 
  2 cos  45  
2
 3   in rad. 
N  N 1cot a    
 tan 
c q
 4 2 8
Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

9
Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Theory

Local Shear Failure:

 2 tan 
Modify the strength parameters such as: 2
cm  3 c m  tan 1 
 3  

2
qu  3 c.Nc   q.Nq   0.5
B.N 

Square and circular footing:

qu   q.N q  0.4 For square

1.3c  B.N
qu  .N c  q.N q  0.3 For circular

1.3c.N c B.N

10
 Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Theory
Effect of water table:
Case I: Dw ≤ Df
 Dw
Surcharge, q   .Dw    D f Dw 
Df
Case II: Df ≤ Dw ≤ (Df + B)

In bearing capacity
Surcharge,  .DF
q  equation B
replace  by-
 Dw  f

  D     B
  B 
Case III: Dw > (Df + B)

Limit of influence
No influence of water table.

Another recommendation for Case II:

d w  Dw  D f
dw
  2H    H 
2
w H  sat 
2 w
H  0.5B tan 45    2 
d Rupture depth:
2
d  H 11
Skempton’s Bearing Capacity Analysis for
cohesive Soils
~ For saturated cohesive soil, ‘ = 0  N q  1, and N 
 D  0
For strip footing: N c  5  1 0.2 Nc 
f
 
B with limit of 7.5
 D 
For square/circular N c  6  1 0.2 with limit of N c 
footing:
f
 B
 9.0
 D 
1 0.2  for Df 
B
For rectangular footing: N c  5  1 0.2 f

B   L  2.5
 
 B D  2.5
N  7.5 1 0.2  for f
c
L

qu  c.N c 
q
Net ultimate bearing capacity, q q nu u   .Df qu  c.Nc
12
Effective Area Method for Eccentric Loading

In case of Moment loading

My
e FV
Df x

Mx
B ey
AF=B’L’ FV
B’=B-2ey

In case of Horizontal Force at

L’=L-2e y some height but the column is
ey
centered on the foundation
ex

M y  FHx .d FH
M x  FHy .d FH

13
 General Bearing Capacity Equation:
(Meyerhof, 1963)
qu  c.N c .sc .dc .ic  
q.N q .sq .d q .iDepth
q
0.5 .B.N .s .d .i
Shape inclination Empirical correction
factor factor factor factors


2
  1 tan
N q  tan    .e .tan   N c  N q 1cot   N   N q
2 
45 [By Hansen(1970):
1.4  
N   1.5 N q 1tan
[By Vesic(1973):
  

qu  c.N c .sc .d c .ic .g c .bc   N   2 N q 1 tan   

q.N q .sq .d q .iq .g q .bq 0.5 .B.N  .s .d .i .g .b
Ground factor Base factor
14
Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

15
Meyerhof’s Correction Factors:

B  for    10o B 2 
Shape sc  1 0.2 tan 2  45      
Factors  L  2  sq  s  1 0.1 L tan  45
2
for lower
value
sq  s  1
Depth Df  for   10o
d c  1    Df 
Factors
L tan  45 2 d q  d  1 0.1 tan  45   
0.2 
  L  2 
for lower  value
dq  d 1

Inclination  2  
2
i  i  1  
o
Factors i   1 
c q  90  
16
 Hansen’s Correction Factors:
1 FH
1/2
FH 1
Inclination ic  1 for   0 ic  1  for   0
Factors  2BL.c 2  BL.su
 0.5F 
5
  0.7F 
5

iq  1 H
i  1
 FV  BL.c.cot 
H
 FV  BL.c.cot 
for   0    for   0  
Depth
 Df  Df
Factors for D f  B for D f  B
 dc  0.4 B  d c  1 0.4 B
 
 Df B  for D f  B
d c  0.4 tan 1 B for f d c  1 0.4 tan 1 B
D Df
For D f  B  For D f  B 
  D  d 
2 
d q  1 2 tan  . 1 sin    tan 1  f 
2
d q  1 2 tan  . 1 sin   
B  B  1
Df 
Shape
sc  0.2ic . for   0
Factors
B L sc
 0.2  1 c
2i L. for   0
B
sq  1 iq .  B L sin  s  1 0.4i .  B
d  i  
L
Hansen’s Recommendation for cohesive saturated soil, '=0  qu  c.Nc .1 sc c c
 Notes:

1.Notice use of “effective”

base dimensions B‘, L‘ by
Hansen but not by Vesic.

2.The values are consistent

with a vertical load or a
vertical load accompanied
by a horizontal load HB.

3.With a vertical load and a

load HL (and either HB=0 or
HB>0) you may have to
compute two sets of shape
and depth factors si,B, si,L
and di,B, di,L. For i,L
subscripts use ratio L‘/B‘ or
D/L‘.

4.Compute qu independently
by using (siB, diB) and (siL,
diL) and use min value for
design.
18
 Notes:

1.Use Hi as either HB or HL,

or both if HL>0.

2.Hansen (1970) did not give

an ic for >0. The value given
here is from Hansen (1961)
and also used by Vesic.

3.Variable ca = base
adhesion, on the order of 0.6
to 1.0 x base cohesion.

4.Refer to sketch on next

slide for identification of
angles  and , footing depth
D, location of Hi (parallel and
at top of base slab; usually
also produces eccentricity).
Especially notice V = force
normal to base and is not the
resultant R from combining
V and Hi..

19
20
Note:

1.When =0 (and ≠0) use

N = -2sin(±) in N term.

2.Compute m = mB when Hi
= HB (H parallel to B) and
m = mL when Hi = HL (H
parallel to L). If you have
both HB and HL use
m = (mB2 + m L2)1/2. Note use
of B and L, not B’ , L’ .

3. Hi term ≤ 1.0 for

computing iq, i (always).

21
Suitability of Methods

22
 IS:6403-1981 Recommendations
Net Ultimate Bearing capacity: qnu  c.N c .sc .d c .ic  q. N q 1.sq .d q .iq 
For cohesive soils  qnu  cu .N c .sc .d c .ic 0.5  .B.NN.sc .d
where, 5.14
.i
N c , N q , N as per Vesic(1973) recommendations

Shape For rectangle, B s  1 0.4

Factors sc  1 0.2L sq  1 0.2L L
B
B
For square and circle, sc  1.3 sq  1.2
s  0.8 for square,
Depth D 
d c  1 0.2 L f tans45
 0.6
2 
Factors for circle

D   for
d q  d  1 0.1 L f tan 45      10o
2
d  d  1 for    10o
q 

Inclination
Factors The same as Meyerhof (1963) 23
 . Amit
Prashant

Bearing Capacity
Correlations with
SPT-value
Peck, Hansen, and
Thornburn (1974)
&
IS:6403-1981
Recommendation

24
Bearing Capacity Correlations with SPT-value
Teng (1962):
1
For Strip Footing: 
qnu  3N 2 .B.Rw  5 100 N 2 .D .R 
6 
f w

1 
 
For Square and
Circular Footing: qnu   N 2 .B.Rw  3 100 N 2 .D .R 
3 
f w

For Df > B, take Df = B

D
Water Table Corrections:
Df
 D 
Rw  0.5 1  D fw  Rw  1
  B

  Dw  D f 
Rw  0.5 1 B
 D f  Rw 
1 Limit of influence 25
 Bearing Capacity Correlations with CPT-value
0. 2500
IS:6403-1981 Recommendation:
Cohesionless Soil
0.1675
qnu
qc 0.1250
0
0.5
Df
B 
0.0625 B 1
1.5B q c value is
to taken as
2.0B average for 0
this zone 0 100 200 300 400

B (cm)
Schmertmann (1975):
kg
N   N q  qc  in
0.8 cm2
26
 Bearing Capacity Correlations with CPT-value
IS:6403-1981 Recommendation:
Cohesive Soil

qnu

Point Resistance Values Range of Undrained

Soil Type
cu . ( q ) kgf/cm
c
2 Cohesion (kgf/cm2)

Normally consolidated
clays
Nc . q < 20
c qc/18 to qc/15
sc .d
Over consolidated clays q > 20 qc/26 to qc/22
.i
c c
c

27
 Bearing Capacity of Footing on Layered Soil
Depth of rupture zone B tan     or approximately taken as “B”
 45 
 2 
2
Case I: Layer-1 is weaker than Layer-2
Design using parameters of Layer -1

Case II: Layer-1 is stronger than Layer-2

Distribute the stresses to Layer-2 by 2:1 method and
1 check the bearing capacity at this level for
B
limit state.
2
Layer-1 Also check the bearing capacity for original
Layer-2 foundation level using parameters of Layer-1
B
Choose minimum value for design

B tan  45    
Another approximate method for c‘-‘ soil: For effective depth 
B  
Find average c‘ and ‘ and use them for ultimate bearing capacity calculation 2 2

cav  c1 H1  c2 H 2  c3 H 3 tan tan 1 H1  tan 2 H 2  tan 3 H 3

av 
H1  H 2  H 3  ....  H1  H 2  H 3  .... 28
 ....  ....
Bearing Capacity of Stratified Cohesive Soil
IS:6403-1981 Recommendation:

29
 Bearing Capacity of Footing on Layered Soil:
Stronger Soil Underlying Weaker Soil

 Depth “H” is relatively small  Depth “H” is relatively large

 Punching shear failure in top layer  Full failure surface develops in top
 General shear failure in bottom layer itself
layer

30
Bearing Capacity of
Footing on Layered Soil:
Stronger Soil
Underlying Weaker Soil

31
 Bearing Capacity of Footing on Layered Soil:
Stronger Soil Underlying Weaker Soil

Bearing capacities of continuous footing of with B

under vertical load on the surface of homogeneous
thick bed of upper and lower soil

32
 Bearing Capacity of Footing on Layered Soil:
Stronger Soil Underlying Weaker Soil
2D f  K s tan 
or Strip Footing: qu  qb  2ca H  1 H 1 2
 1   1 H  qt
B  H  B
Where, qt is the bearing capacity for foundation considering only
the top layer to infinite depth

For Rectangular Footing:

 B  2ca H  2

2D f
qu  q  1
 L  B   1 H  1 B  1 H  K s tan
B
  1 H  qt
b
    L  
1
Special Cases:
1. Top layer is strong sand and bottom layer is saturated soft clay

c1  
2  0
0 sand and bottom layer is weaker sand
2. Top layer is strong

c1  0 c2  0
2. Top layer is strong saturated clay and bottom layer is weaker saturated clay
1  0 2  0 33
Eccentrically Loaded Foundations
Q
M
M
e Q

qmax  Q  6M2 qmax  Q  1  6e 

B BL B L BL  B 

qmin  Q  6M2 qmin  Q  1  6e 

BL B L BL  B 

For e 1 There will be separation


B 6
of foundation from the soil beneath
and stresses will be redistributed.

Use B  B 
for sc , sq , s , and B, L for dc , d q , d to obtain q u
2e L 
The effective area method for two way eccentricity becomes a
Qu L qu .A little more complex than what is suggested above.
It is discussed in the subsequent slides 34
 Determination of Effective Dimensions for Eccentrically
Loaded foundations (Highter and Anders, 1985)

Case I: eL 1 and eB 1
L 6 B 
6
B1  B  B 
3 3e
B1
2 B
eB
 3 3eL 
L  L 
1
L eL L1 2 L 

1
A  2 L 1B 1 L  max  B1 , L1

B
A
B 
L

35
 Determination of Effective Dimensions for Eccentrically Loaded
foundations (Highter and Anders, 1985)

eL
Case II: eB  1
L  0.5 and 0 
B 6
L2 eB

eL L1

1
A  2  L1  L2  A
B 
B L
L  max  B1 , L1
36
Determination of Effective Dimensions for Eccentrically Loaded
foundations (Highter and Anders, 1985)
eB
Case III: eL  1 and 0   0.5
B
L 6
B1

eB

eL

B2

1 
A  2 L  B1  B2 A
B 
L
L  L 37
Determination of Effective Dimensions for Eccentrically Loaded
foundations (Highter and Anders, 1985)

Case IV: eL 1 and eB 1

 
L 6 B
6
B1
eB

eL

B2

1
A  L2 B  2  B1  B2  L  2L
A
  L
L B 
L
38
Determination of Effective Dimensions for Eccentrically Loaded
foundations (Highter and Anders, 1985)

Case V: Circular Foundation

eR

A
L 
B

39
Meyerhof’s (1953) area correction based on empirical
correlations: (American Petroleum Institute, 1987)

40
 r. Amit
Prashant
Bearing Capacity o
f
Footings on
Slopes Meyerhof’s
(1957) Solution

qu  c Ncq  0.5 BN  q

Granular Soil

c  0

qu 
0.5 BN 
q
41
 Prashant

Bearing Capacity of
Footings on
Slopes Meyerhof’s
(1957) Solution

Cohesive Soil

  0

qu  cNcq

Ns 
H
c 42
 Amit Prashant
Bearing Capacity of
Footings on Slopes
Graham et al. (1988),
Based on method
of characteristics
1000

For
Df
100 0
B

10
0 10 20 30 40
43
 Amit Prashant

Bearing Capacity of
Footings on Slopes
Graham et al. (1988),
Based on method
of characteristics
1000

For
Df
100
0
B

10
0 10 20 30 40
44
Bearing Capacity of Footings on Slopes
Graham et al. (1988), Based on method of characteristics

For
Df
 0.5
B

45
Bearing Capacity of Footings on Slopes
Graham et al. (1988), Based on method of characteristics

For
Df

B 1.0

46
 Bearing Capacity of Footings on Slopes
Bowles (1997): A simplified approach
B
B  = 45+
f' g'
f g ’/2 qu
qu
Df a'
a c'
c
45−’/2  
e  
e'
45−’/2 ro
r
b'
d b
d'

B
g'
 Compute the reduced factor Nc as:
qu
f' Labd e
N c  N c. L
a' c' abde

e'  
45−’/2
 Compute the reduced factor Nq as:

b' Aaef g 
N q  N q. A
d' aefg 47
 Soil Compressibility Effects on Bearing Capacity
Vesic’s (1973) Approach
 Use of soil compressibility factors in general bearing capacity equation.
 These correction factors are function of the rigidity of soil
Gs
Rigidity Index of Soil, I r: Ir 
c  vo tan
   B
 3.30  0.45 L   B
Critical Rigidity Index of Soil, I cr :  

  
tan 45 
I rc   2 
B/2
 
0.5.e
Compressibility Correction Factors, cc, cg, and cq
    . D  B /
vo f
For
I r  I rc cc  cq  c  1
 3.07.sin  .log10 2.I
2 
 0.6 B 4.4 .tan  
 L  
For    r

I r  I rc cq  c  1sin  
1
e For    0  cc  0.32  0.12L  0.60.log
B r

I 1 cq
For   0  cc  cq  N tan
q 48