THE UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE

SCHOOL OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING DESIGN III

M. B. Jaksa

BEARING CAPACITY OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

References:

1.

Bowles, J. E. (1996). Foundation Analysis and Design, 5th ed., McGraw-Hill, 1175p.
Coduto, D. P. (1994). Foundation Design - Principles and Practices, Prentice Hall, 796p.
Craig, R. F. (2004). Soil Mechanics, 7th ed., Spon Ltd., 464p.
Das, B. M. (1995). Principles of Foundation Engineering, 3rd ed., PWS Publ. Co., 828p.
Peck, R. B., Hanson, W. E. and Thornburn, T. H. (1974). Foundation Engineering, 2nd ed.,
Wiley, 514p.
Schmertmann, J. H. (1978). Guidelines for the Cone Penetration Test - Performance and Design.
Report No. FHWA-TS-78-209, U.S. Dept. Transportation, Federal Highway Administration,
Washington, 145p.
Tomlinson, M. J. (1986). Foundation Design and Construction, 5th ed., Longman, 842p.
Whitlow, R. (1990). Basic Soil Mechanics, 2nd ed., Longman, 528p.

INTRODUCTION

An integral part of foundation, or footing, design is that the underlying soil or rock is able to support
the loads imposed by the foundation. In other words, the subsurface material must not fail in shear.
This section investigates the bearing capacity of soils and rocks.
Before we investigate the various theories used to quantify the bearing capacity of geotechnical
materials, it is necessary to define a few key terms:
ultimate bearing capacity, qu , is defined as the pressure at which the material beneath the
foundation fails in shear.
net bearing pressure, qn , is defined as the pressure applied to the foundation minus the
overburden pressure.
allowable bearing pressure, qall , is defined as the ultimate bearing capacity divided by some
assumed factor of safety, FS. That is:
qall =
where:

FS

qu
FS

(1.1)

is usually between 2 and 3.

The allowable bearing pressure is the pressure which can safely be applied to the foundation such
that shear failure is unlikely to occur. Can you suggest reasons why geotechnical engineering
applies larger factors of safety than structural engineering?

Typical ultimate bearing capacities for various soil and rock types are given in Table 1.1. Note that
these values should be used for preliminary design purposes only.

Table 1.1

Typical ultimate bearing capacities for various soil and rock types.
(Source: Whitlow, 1990.)
Soil and Rock Types

Ultimate Bearing
Capacity, qu (kPa)

Rocks
Hard igneous or gneissic rocks
Hard limestones and sandstones
Schists and slates
Hard shales and mudstones; soft sandstones
Soft shales and mudstones
Hard sound chalk; soft limestone
Cohesionless soils
Dense gravel or sand/gravel
Medium-dense gravel or sand/gravel
Loose gravel or sand/gravel
Dense sand
Medium-dense sand
Loose sand
Cohesive soils
Very Stiff to hard clays
Stiff clays
Firm clays
Soft clays and silts
Very soft clays and silts

Remarks

10,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
600 - 1,000
600

Only sound unweathered

rocks. Thinly bedded or
heavily jointed rocks
must be assessed after
inspection.

> 600
200 - 600
< 200
> 300
100 - 300
< 100

Providing:
the footing width B > 1 m
and the groundwater level
> B metres below the base
of the footing.

300 - 600
150 - 300
75 - 150
< 75
Not applicable

This group is susceptible

to long-term settlement.

Note:

These values are to be used for preliminary purposes only and they are gross values with allowance for
embedment.

2.

ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

2.1

Lower and Upper Bound Solutions

Consider a footing of width B and length L whose base is located at a depth D below the ground
surface. The situation is shown diagramatically in Figure 2.1.
Consider an element of soil located beneath the footing (Block 1, situated just to the left of the
vertical line OY) and another element located adjacent to this one (Block 2, situated just to the right
of the vertical line OY). Note that, at failure, the vertical stress applied to Block 1, 1,1 , is equal to
the ultimate bearing capacity of the soil, qu . This vertical stress causes a lateral stress on Block 1
equal to 3,1 which, in turn causes a lateral stress on Block 2 of magnitude 1,2 . The vertical stress
applied to Block 2, 3,2 , is equal to the overburden pressure, q = D ( being the bulk unit weight of
the soil). Note that the lateral stress applied to Block 2 is given a subscript of 1, rather than 3,
because its magnitude is greater than the vertical stress applied to Block 2.

Figure 2.1 Bearing capacity approximation for a = 0 soil. (Source: Bowles, 1996.)
Recall, from Geotechnical Engineering II, the relationship between the principal total stresses, 1
and 3 , at failure is given by:

1 = 3 tan 2 45+ + 2c tan 45+

2
2

(2.1)

1 sin
tan 2 45+ =

2
1 + sin

(2.2)

Note that:

Lower Bound
For the special case of a cohesive soil, = 0, tan( 45+ 2) = tan 2 ( 45+ 2) = 1 . For Block 2:

3,2 = q , and therefore:

1, 2 = q (1) + 2c(1) = q + 2c

(2.3)

1,1 = 3,1 (1) + 2c(1) = ( q + 2c) + 2c = q + 4c

(2.4)

Since 3,1 = 1,2 :

Since 1,1 = qu , and if q = 0 :

qu = 4c

(2.5)

Upper Bound
For a possible upper bound, consider the footing rotating about point O, as shown in Figure 2.1.
Taking moments about O (anticlockwise moments are positive):

q B
u

B
2 B
B q B
c

2
2

Pressure on footing

B
=0
2

Overburden pressure

Shear developed on failure plane

3

(2.6)

Rearranging and solving for qu yields:

qu = 2c + q

(2.7)

qu = 2c = 6.28 c

(2.8)

Again, if q = 0 :

Hence, for a cohesive soil ( = 0), the ultimate bearing capacity, qu , lies between 4c and 6.28c.
(Coincidently, the average, 5.14c (= + 2) is given by plasticity theory).

2.2

Methods Currently Used to Estimate the Ultimate Bearing Capacity

It should be emphasised from the outset that all of the methods currently in use to evaluate the
ultimate bearing capacity of a foundation provide only estimates of this capacity. This is due largely
to the complexity of the problem, the heterogeneity of soils and the enormous cost and difficulties
of performing load tests on full-scale foundations.
In this treatment we will examine 2 methods which are in current use for the estimation of the
ultimate bearing capacity of a foundation: the Terzaghi and Brinch Hansen methods. Two other
equations proposed by Meyerhof and Vesi are also used, and these are described in detail by
Bowles (1996).

2.2.1

Terzaghis Method

Karl Terzaghi, in 1943, was the first to present a comprehensive theory for the evaluation of the
ultimate bearing capacity of rough shallow foundations. (A foundation is assumed to be shallow if
the depth from the ground surface to the base of the foundation, D, is no more than 3 to 4 times the
width of the foundation). Terzaghi suggested that for a continuous, or strip, footing the failure
surface may be assumed to be similar to that shown in Figure 2.2. The failure zone under the
foundation can be separated into 3 parts:
1. The triangular zone ACD immediately beneath the foundation;
2. The radial shear zones ADF and CDE, with the curves DE and DF logarithmic spirals;
3. Two triangular Rankine passive zones AFH and CEG.

Figure 2.2 Bearing capacity failure in soil under a rough, rigid strip footing.
(Source: Das, 1995.)
4

Using equilibrium analyses, Terzaghi expressed the ultimate bearing capacity in the form:
qu = cNc + qNq + 0.5BN

Strip Footings:

where:

is the cohesion of the soil;

is the bulk unit weight of the soil;
= D ;
are non-dimensional bearing capacity factors which are
dependent solely on , and are given by Eqns (2.10) to (2.12)
and in Table 2.1.

q
Nc , Nq , N

and:

where:

e 2( 3 4 2 ) tan

Nc = cot
1
2
2 cos ( 45+ 2)

(2.10)

Nq =

e 2( 3 4 2 ) tan
1
2 cos 2 ( 45+ 2)

(2.11)

N =

1 K P
1 tan

2
2 cos

(2.12)

KP

Table 2.1

(2.9)

is the passive pressure coefficient of the soil.

Terzaghis bearing capacity factors. (Source: Das, 1995.)

Nc

Nq

Nc

Nq

Nc

Nq

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

5.70
6.00
6.30
6.62
6.97
7.34
7.73
8.15
8.60
9.09
9.61
10.16
1076
11.41
12.11
12.86
13.68

1.00
1.10
1.22
1.35
1.49
1.64
1.81
2.00
2.21
2.44
2.69
2.98
3.29
3.63
4.02
4.45
4.92

0.00
0.01
0.04
0.06
0.10
0.14
0.20
0.27
0.35
0.44
0.56
0.69
0.85
1.04
1.26
1.52
1.82

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33

14.60
15.12
16.56
17.69
18.92
20.27
21.75
23.36
25.13
27.09
29.24
31.61
34.24
37.16
40.41
44.04
48.09

5.45
6.04
6.70
7.44
8.26
9.19
10.23
11.40
12.72
14.21
15.90
17.81
19.98
22.46
25.28
28.52
32.23

2.18
2.59
3.07
3.64
4.31
5.09
6.00
7.08
8.34
9.84
11.60
13.70
16.18
19.13
22.65
26.87
31.94

34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50

52.64
57.75
63.53
70.01
77.50
85.97
95.66
106.81
119.67
134.58
151.95
172.28
196.22
224.55
258.28
298.71
347.50

36.50
41.44
47.16
53.80
61.55
70.61
81.27
93.85
108.75
126.50
147.74
173.28
204.19
241.80
287.85
344.63
415.14

38.04
45.41
54.36
65.27
78.61
95.03
115.31
140.51
171.99
211.56
261.60
325.34
407.11
512.84
650.67
831.99
1072.8

For square and circular foundations, Terzaghi suggested the following eqautions:
Square Footings:

qu = 1.3cNc + qNq + 0.4BN

(2.13)

Circular Footings:

qu = 1.3cNc + qN q + 0.3BN

(2.14)

2.2.2

Brinch Hansens Method

Hanson (1970) proposed the general bearing capacity case:

) (

qu = (cNc sc dc ic gc bc ) + qNq sq dq iq gq bq + 0.5BN s d i g b

where:

and:

si
di
ii
gi
bi

(2.15)

are shape factors;

are depth factors;
are inclination factors;
are ground factors (base on slope);
are base factors (tilted base).

N q = e tan tan 2 45 +
2

(2.16)

N c = (N q 1)cot

(2.17)

N = (N q 1) tan (1.4)

(2.18)

Values of si , di , ii , gi and bi are given in Table 2.2, and Nc , Nq and N in Table 2.3.

Table 2.2

Shape, depth, inclination, ground and base factors for use in either the Brinch
Hansen or Vesi bearing capacity equations. Use primed factors when = 0.
(Source: Bowles, 1996.) [continued overleaf.]

Table 2.2

Shape, depth, inclination, ground and base factors for use in either the Brinch
Hansen or Vesi bearing capacity equations. Use primed factors when = 0.
(Source: Bowles, 1996.) [continued]

Table 2.3

Bearing capacity factors for Brinch Hansen equation.

Nc

Nq

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

5.14
5.38
5.63
5.90
6.19
6.49
6.81
7.16
7.53
7.92
8.34
8.80
9.28
9.81
10.37
10.98
11.63

1.00
1.09
1.20
1.31
1.43
1.57
1.72
1.88
2.06
2.25
2.47
2.71
2.97
3.26
3.59
3.94
4.34

0.00
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.05
0.07
0.11
0.16
0.22
0.30
0.39
0.50
0.63
0.78
0.97
1.18
1.43

Nc

Nq

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33

12.34
13.10
13.93
14.83
15.81
16.88
18.05
19.32
20.72
22.25
23.94
25.80
27.86
30.14
32.67
35.49
38.64

4.77
5.26
5.80
6.40
7.07
7.82
8.66
9.60
10.66
11.85
13.20
14.72
16.44
18.40
20.63
23.18
26.09

1.73
2.08
2.48
2.95
3.50
4.13
4.88
5.75
6.76
7.94
9.32
10.94
12.84
15.07
17.69
20.79
24.44

Nc

Nq

34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50

42.16
46.12
50.59
55.63
61.35
67.87
75.31
83.86
93.71
105.11
118.37
133.87
152.10
173.64
199.26
229.92
266.88

29.44
33.30
37.75
42.92
48.93
55.96
64.20
73.90
85.37
99.01
115.31
134.87
158.50
187.21
222.30
265.50
319.06

28.77
33.92
40.05
47.38
56.17
66.76
79.54
95.05
113.96
137.10
165.58
200.81
244.65
299.52
368.67
456.40
568.57

2.2.3

Which Equation to Use

Bowles (1996) suggested the various equations be used in the following situations:
Use
Terzaghi
Brinch Hansen, Meyerhof,
Vesi
Brinch Hansen, Vesi

2.2.4

Best for
Very cohesive soils where D B 1 or for a quick estimate of qu to compare with other methods.
Any situation which applies, depending on user preference or familiarity with a particular method.
When base is tilted; when footing is on a slope; or when D B 1 .

Choice of Factor of Safety

The factor of safety, FS, to be used to determine the allowable bearing pressure, qall , should be
chosen with consideration given to the following:

the type of structure;

the quality of the soil exploration program;
the likelihood of the maxiimum load occurring; and
the consequences of failure.

High factors of safety (4 to 6) are used where limited soil exploration is undertaken, the soil
conditions are very variable, the consequences of failure are disastrous, and the maximum design
load is likely to occur often.
Low factors of safety (2 to 2.5) are adopted where thorough and complete site investigations are
undertaken, the soil conditions are relatively uniform, and where the maximum design load is
unlikely to occur.

2.3

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS

2.3.1

Effect of Water Table on Bearing Capacity

The ultimate bearing capacity equations presented thus far have inherently assumed that the
groundwater table is located well below the base of the foundation. However, if the water table is
located close to the foundation, some modifications of the bearing capacity equations are necessary,
depending on the depth of the water table, Dw , below ground surface. Three cases are examined and
these are shown diagrammatically in Figure 2.3.

Case 1. 0 Dw D (The water table is located at or above the base of the footing)

Firstly, the effective surcharge pressure, q , needs to be modified to account for the effective
unit weight, ' (= sat w), of the soil; that is:
q = Dw + ( D Dw ) '

(2.19)

Secondly, the parameter , in the last term (...BN) is replaced by '.

Case 2. D < Dw D+B (The water table is located below the base of the footing and above D + B)

The parameter , in the last term (...BN) is replaced by $ , such that:

8

 D D
$ = w 1 w

(2.20)

Case 3. Dw > D+B (The water table is located below D + B beneath the ground surface)

No modifications are necessary.

Figure 2.3 The three groundwater cases which influence bearing capacity.
(Source Coduto, 1994.)

2.3.2

Bearing Capacity of Footings on Layered Soils

The ultimate bearing capacity equations examined thus far have treated the soil beneath the footing
as being a single, homogeneous deposit. In some instances, the subsoil may be stratified into thin
layers. Bowles (1996) suggests a number of methods for handling layered soils located beneath the
footing. A useful technique for treating c soils is to evaluate average values, cav and av , and to
substitute these into the various bearing capacity models, such that:

cav =

c1 H1 + c2 H2 + c3 H3 + L + cn Hn
n

(2.21)

i =1

1 H1 tan 1 + H2 tan 2 + H3 tan 3 + L + Hn tan n

av = tan
n

Hi

i =1
where:

ci
Hi
i
Hi

is the cohesion of layer i;

is the thickness of layer i;
is the internal angle of friction of layer i ( may equal zero);
is the effective shear depth and is limited to 0.5B tan(45+ /2).
9

(2.22)

2.3.3

Short-Term and Long-Term Bearing Capacity

Except in special cases, it is advisable to analyse the stability of a foundation against bearing
capacity failure for both short-term and long-term stability to ensure that the foundation performs
satisfactorily throughout its design life.

Short-Term Case (Undrained):

This case considers the situation just after construction or soon after rapid loading. Excess pore
pressures, created by the loading, have not had time to dissipate.
In the various bearing capacity equations, use the undrained strength parameters cu and u , and
use total stresses, that is, use the bulk unit weight, .
Long-Term Case (Drained):
This case considers the situation a long time after construction or after very slow loading. As a
consequence, all excess pore pressures have had time to dissipate.
In the various bearing capacity equations, use the effective strength parameters c' and ', and use
effective stresses, that is, substitute ' for .
2.3.4

Bearing Capacity from CPT

Schmertmann (1978) suggested that Nq and N can be estimated from:

N q N 1.25 qc
where:

qc

(2.23)

is the measured cone tip resistance averaged over the depth interval
from about B /2 above to 1.1B below the footing base.

The values of Nq and N can then be substituted into the various bearing capacity equations.

Geotech3_LS7_Bearing Capacity.doc,
2006, M. B. Jaksa

10