The Bearing Capacity of Footings

on Cohesionless Soils
Stefan Van Baars *
Professor in Foundation Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Department of Science and Technology, University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg

ABSTRACT
In 1920 Prandtl published an analytical solution for the bearing capacity of a maximum
strip load on a weightless infinite half-space. This solution was extended by Reissner in
1924 with a surrounding surcharge.
Keverling Buisman (1940) extended the Prandtl-Reissner formula for the soil weight. It
was Terzaghi (1943) who wrote this in the form which is nowadays used. Since then
several people proposed equations for the soil-weight bearing capacity factor. In this
paper, we show that all those equations assume a Prandtl failure mechanism, while Finite
Element Modelling (FEM) of strip footings on cohesion less materials proof a global
failure mechanism. Also these equations result in a higher bearing capacity than found
with FEM. This means that the currently used equations for the soil-weight bearing
capacity factor, and also the corresponding shape factor, are inaccurate and unsafe.
Therefore new equations for the soil-weight bearing capacity factor, the soil-weight shape
factor and the surcharge shape factor have been presented in this paper.

KEYWORDS:

Bearing capacity, Footings, Foundations, Cohesion less soil

INTRODUCTION
Prandtl-Reissner
In 1920 the director of the Institute for Technical Physics at the University of Gttingen and
former professor in fluid mechanics, Ludwig Prandtl, published an analytical solution for the
bearing capacity of a soil under a limit pressure, p, causing kinematic failure of the weightless
infinite half-space underneath. The strength of the half-space is given by the angle of internal
friction, , and the cohesion, c. The solution was extended by Reissner in 1924 with a
surrounding surcharge, q. Prandtl subdivided the sliding soil part into three zones (see Figure 1):
1. Zone 1: A triangular zone below the strip load. Since there is no friction on the
ground surface, the directions of the principal stresses are horizontal and vertical;
the largest principal stress is in the vertical direction.
2. Zone 2: A wedge with the shape of a logarithmic spiral, where the principal
stresses rotate through 90 from Zone 1 to Zone 3. The pitch of the sliding
- 12945 -

Vol. 20 [2015], Bund. 26

12946

surface equals the angle of internal friction; = , creating a smooth transition

between Zone 1 and Zone 3 and also creating a zero frictional moment on this
wedge.
3. Zone 3: A triangular zone adjacent to the strip load. Since there is no friction on
the surface of the ground, the directions of principal stress are horizontal and
vertical; the largest principal stress is in the horizontal direction.

Figure 1: The wedge of Prandtl

The interesting part of this solution is that all three zones are fully failing internally according
to the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion, while the outer surfaces are simultaneously fully sliding
according to the Coulomb failure criterion. Only the latter criterion is the case in a Bishop slope
stability calculation. The analytical solution for the bearing capacity of this three-zone problem of
Prandtl and Reissner can be written as:
=
p cN c + qN q

(1)

where the bearing capacity factors are given as:

2

r
Nq =
Kp 3 =
K p ep tan
r
1
N c =( K p ep tan 1) cot

with: K p =

1 + sin
.
1 sin

(2)

Meyerhof
Keverling Buisman (1940) extended the Prandtl-Reissner formula for the soil weight, . It
was Terzaghi (1943) who wrote this with a soil-weight bearing capacity factor N :

p = cN c + qN q + 12 BN .

(3)

In 1953, then in Germany born Canadian, Meyerhof was the first to propose equations for
inclined loads. He was also the first in 1963 to write the formula for the (vertical) bearing capacity
with both inclination factors and shape factors:

Vol. 20 [2015], Bund. 26

12947

pv =ic sc cN c + iq sq qN q + i s 12 BN .

(4)

In this article we will look only at vertically loaded footing on cohesionless soils, which
means that this equation can be reduced to:

=
p sq qN q + s 12 BN .

(5)

Since the stresses under the footing are not necessarily constant due to the effects of the soil
weight, an average vertical stress p must be regarded.
The soil-weight bearing capacity factor N

LITERATURE
Keverling Buisman (1940), Terzaghi (1943), Caquot and Krisel (1953), Meyerhof (1951;
1953; 1963; 1965), Brinch Hansen (1970), Vesic (1973, 1975) and Chen (1975) subsequently
proposed different equations for the soil-weight bearing capacity factor N . Therefore the
following equations for the soil-weight bearing capacity factor can be found in the literature:
N =( K p ep tan f 1) tan (1.4f ) (Meyerhof '63),
N = 1.5 ( K p ep tan f 1) tan f (Brinch Hansen '70),
N = 2 ( K p ep tan f + 1) tan f (Vesic '73),

(6)

N = 2 ( K p ep tan f 1) tan f (Chen '75).

The equation from Brinch Hansen is, as he writes, based on (numerical) calculations first
from Lundgren-Mortensen and later from Odgaard and N. H. Christensen. The equation of Vesic
is almost identical to the solution of Caquot and Krisel (1953) because it is, as he writes, based
on the numerical results of an analysis made by them under the assumption that (the dilatancy

angle) = 45 + / 2 approximated with an error on the safe side. The equation of Chen and
also others like Michalowski (1997) are based on the limit analyses, in which the soil is modelled
as a perfectly plastic material obeying an associated flow rule.
Although Chens equation is used, without reference, by Eurocode 7, caution is still needed,
because Yu et al. (1998) concluded: although the limit-equilibrium analysis is used widely., its
use may lead sometimes to significant errors as both kinematic and static admissibility are
violated in the method.
Another important point is given by Hjiaj et al (2005), who wrote: As discussed by Chen
(1975), the analysis of cohesion less (frictional) soil with self-weight is complicated by the fact
that the shear strength increases with depth from a value of zero at the ground surface. This means
that the Prandtl failure mechanism is no longer capable of yielding exact results, , this leads to
the conclusion that the bearing capacity obtained using this mechanism can, at best, only be an
upper bound on the correct value.

Vol. 20 [2015], Bund. 26

12948

Finite Element Modelling

Because of the problems of the current solutions for the soil-weight bearing capacity factor
N , these solutions have also been checked in this paper for different values of the friction angle

with displacement controlled calculations with the finite element model (FEM) Plaxis in which
the dilatancy angle has been kept zero to be consistent with the rest of the Meyerhof equation
(eq. 4). The footing has been modelled smooth (free horizontal displacement). The unit weight of
the soil has been taken = 20 kN/m3, the width of the strip B = 2 m and 4 m. The loading of the
strip on cohesionless soil has been modelled with 15-node elements (12815 nodes and 18,852
stress points). The strip is placed in the middle of a container of 60 m wide and 50 m deep. The
calculations often reached their peak load shortly before the message soil body collapse
appeared, indicating that no equilibrium could be found anymore.
Figure 2 shows that a large and especially deep area under the footing is failing (relative shear
stress / max = 1 ) and that because of this the soil is rotating away under both sides of the
footing. This failure mechanism is different from the Prandtl-wedge failing mechanism. Also
another calculation of a rough footing (with fixed horizontal displacements) has been performed,
in order to see the effect of the friction of the footing. Since the plastic zone below the footings
reaches very deep, also a very shallow calculation has been performed with a soil layer thickness
versus footing width of only H / B = 2 , in order to see the influence of the bottom, or in practice,
the influence of stiffer and stronger layers below the top layer.

Figure 2: Relative shear stress ( / max ) and in the corner: incremental displacements
Figure 3 shows the results of all FEM calculations and together with the solutions of equation
(6).

Vol. 20 [2015], Bund. 26

12949

Figure 3: The soil-weight bearing capacity factor N

The different bearing capacity factors of equation (6) are clearly all too high, even for a rough
footing. The results of the three FEM calculations with the smooth footing are rather similar and
show a much lower bearing capacity factor, even for the shallow calculation with a soil layer
thickness of only H / B = 2 . A more accurate soil-weight bearing capacity factor would be, see
Figure 3:

N =
2 e tan tan

(7)

Vol. 20 [2015], Bund. 26

12950

The soil-weight shape factor s

Literature
Meyerhof (1963) was the first to publish shape factors. A few years later De Beer (1970)
published his shape factors, based on laboratory experiments. Brinch Hansen (1970) based his
shape factors on the experimental results from De Beer (1970). So the most commonly used shape
factors are (for B L ):
s = 1 + 0.1K p
B
s =
1 0.4
L

B
sin f
L

Meyerhof (1963) ,

De Beer (1970 ) .

(8)

These two soil-weight shape factors are very different from each other, besides, according to
finite element calculations of Tapper et al. (2015), the shape factors are more correlated to the
shape of the footing like:

s=
1 constant

B
.
L

(9)

Finite Element Modelling

The bearing capacities for a circular footing ( s N for B = L ) based on these shape factors
have been plotted in Figure 4, together with the outcome of the axial-symmetric FEM
calculations.
The results show that the currently used factors from Meyerhof ( s N ) and Brinch Hansen (

N ) - De Beer ( s ) are far too high, even for rough footings. It would therefore be far more
accurate to use the bearing capacity factor N of equation (7) together with the following shape
factor:
s =
1 0.55

B
.
L

(10)

Vol. 20 [2015], Bund. 26

12951

Figure 4: The circular soil-weight bearing capacity factor s N

The surcharge bearing capacity factor N q

Finite Element Modelling
The solution of the surcharge bearing capacity factor N q of Reissner has also been checked
by adding to the previous calculations a surcharge of q = 50 kPa.
The failure mechanism consists in this case of a smaller and a bigger wedge, but these two
wedges do not look like the Prandtl-wedge, see Figure 5. This is important since the Reissner
solution of the bearing capacity factor N q is based on the shape of the logarithmic spiral of this
wedge. Maybe the failure mechanism of Figure 5 is still a sort of superposition of the failure
mechanism for the soil-weight bearing capacity and of the failure mechanism for the surcharge
bearing capacity, because the bearing capacity factor N q , obtained from the additional bearing
capacity due to the additional surcharge, is still identical to the analytical solution of Reissner, see
Figure 6.

Vol. 20 [2015], Bund. 26

Figure 5: Incremental displacements at failure: Prandtl versus FEM

Figure 6: The surcharge bearing capacity factor N q

12952

Vol. 20 [2015], Bund. 26

12953

The surcharge shape factor sq

Literature
The two most commonly used surcharge shape factors are (for B L ):
sq = s = 1 + 0.1K p
B
sq = 1 + sin f
L

B
sin f
L

Meyerhof (1963) ,

(11)

De Beer (1970 ) .

Finite Element Modelling

The bearing capacity for a circular footing ( sq N q for B = L ) based on these surcharge shape
factors has been plotted in Figure 7, together with the results of the axial-symmetric FEM
calculations.

Figure 7: The circular surcharge bearing capacity factor sq N q

Figure 7 shows that both surcharge factors of equation 11 are far too high. It would therefore
be more accurate to use:

sq ==
s 1 0.55

B
.
L

(12)

The bearing capacity of a circular footing, based on this surcharge factor, has been plotted in
Figure 7 as well.

Vol. 20 [2015], Bund. 26

12954

CONCLUSIONS
One of the most well-known equations in the field of foundation engineering is the equation
for the soil bearing capacity of a strip footing on a half space from Meyerhof (1963), based on the
failure mechanism from Prandtl (1920). Results of Finite Element Modelling indicate that the
currently used equations for the soil-weight bearing capacity factor, and also the corresponding
shape factor, are inaccurate and unsafe. Therefore new equations for the soil-weight bearing
capacity factor, the soil-weight shape factor and the surcharge shape factor have been presented in
this paper.

REFERENCES
Brinch Hansen, J.A (1970) Revised and extended formula for bearing capacity, Bulletin
No 28, Danish Geotechnical Institute Copenhagen, 5-11.
Caquot, A. and Krisel, J. (1953). Sur le terme de surface dans le calcul des fondations en
milieu pulvrulents, Third International conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Zrich, pp. 336337.
Chen, W.F. (1975) Limit analysis and soil plasticity, Elsevier.
De Beer, E.E. (1970). Experimental determination of the shape factors and the bearing
capacity factors of sand. Geotechnique, 20, 387 411.
Eurocode 7, NEN 9997-1 (nl) Geotechnical design of structures - Part 1: General rules,
107-113
Fang, Hsai-Yang (1990) Foundation Engineering Handbook, Kluwer, Norwell-USA /
Dordrecht-NL
Hjiaj, M., Lyamin, A.V, Sloan, S.W. (2005) Numerical limit analysis solutions for the
bearing capacity factor N, International Journal of Solids and Structures, No 42,
16811704
Keverling Buisman, A.S. (1940). Grondmechanica, Waltman, Delft, the Netherlands, 243
Meyerhof, G.G. (1951) The ultimate bearing capacity of foundations, Gotechnique, 2,
301-332
Meyerhof, G.G. (1953) The bearing capacity of foundations under eccentric and inclined
loads, in Proc. III intl. Conf. on Soil Mechanics Found. Eng., Zrich, Switzerland, 1,
440-445
Meyerhof, G.G. (1963) Some recent research on the bearing capacity of foundations,
Canadian Geotech. J. , 1(1), 16-26
Meyerhof, G.G. (1965) Shallow foundations, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and
Foundations Division ASCE, Vol. 91, No. 2, March/April 1965, 21-32
Michalowski, R.L. (1997) An estimate of the influence of soil weight on bearing
capacity using limit analysis. Soils and Foundations, 37(4), 5764.
Prandtl, L. (1920) ber die Hrte plastischer Krper. Nachr. Ges. Wiss. Goettingen,
Math.-Phys. Kl., 7485.

Vol. 20 [2015], Bund. 26

12955

Reissner, H. (1924) Zum Erddruckproblem. Proc., 1st Int. Congress for Applied
Mechanics, C. B. Biezeno and J. M. Burgers, eds., Delft, The Netherlands, 295311.
Tapper, L., Martin, C.M. , Byrne, B.W. Lehane, B.M. (2015) Undrained vertical bearing
capacity of perforated shallow foundations, Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics, Fig.
7, 816
Terzaghi, K. (1943) Theoretical soil mechanics, J. Wiley, New York.
Van Baars, S. (2014) The inclination and shape factors for the bearing capacity of
footings, Soils and Foundations, Vol.54, No.5, October 2014
Vesic, A.S. (1973) Analysis of ultimate loads of shallow foundations. J. Soil Mech.
Found. Div., 99(1), 53.
Vesic, A.S. (1975) Bearing capacity of shallow foundations, H.F. Winterkorn, H.Y. Fang
(Eds.), Foundation Engineering Handbook, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York
(1975), pp. 121147
Yu, H.S., Salgado, R., Sloan, S.W., Kim, J.M. (1998) Limit analysis versus limit
equilibrium for slope stability, Journ. Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Eng.,
Jan. 1998, Vol 124, No 1, pp 111
Full contact details of corresponding author
Prof. dr. ir. S. Van Baars,
Department of Science and Technology,
University of Luxembourg, Campus Kirchberg; 6, rue R. Coudenhove-Kalergi; L-1359
Luxembourg; Luxembourg
stefan.vanbaars@uni.lu
00352-4666445801

2015 ejge