Bearing capacity

Failure mechanisms and derivation of equations

Bearing capacity of shallow foundations

Presumed bearing values

Bearing capacity of piles

The ultimate load which a foundation can support may be calculated using bearing
capacity theory. For preliminary design, presumed bearing values can be used to
indicate the pressures which would normally result in an adequate factor of safety.
Alternatively, there is a range of empirical methods based on in situ test results.

The ultimate bearing capacity (qf) is the value of bearing stress which causes a
sudden catastrophic settlement of the foundation (due to shear failure).

The allowable bearing capacity (qa) is the maximum bearing stress that can be
applied to the foundation such that it is safe against instability due to shear
failure and the maximum tolerable settlement is not exceeded. The allowable bearing
capacity is normally calculated from the ultimate bearing capacity using a factor of
safety (Fs).

When excavating for a foundation, the stress at founding level is relieved by the
removal of the weight of soil. The net bearing pressure (qn) is the increase in stress
on the soil.
qn = q - qo
qo = D
where D is the founding depth and is the unit weight of the soil removed.

Failure mechanisms and derivation of equations Bearing capacity

 Upper and lower bound solutions

Semi-circular slip mechanism

Circular arc slip mechanism

A relatively undeformed wedge of soil below the foundation forms an active

Rankine zone with angles (45 + '/2).

The wedge pushes soil outwards, causing passive Rankine zones to form with
angles (45 - '/2).

The transition zones take the form of log spiral fans.

For purely cohesive soils ( = 0) the transition zones become circular for which
Prandtl had shown in 1920 that the solution is
qf = (2 + ) su = 5.14 su
This equation is based on a weightless soil. Therefore if the soil is non-cohesive (c=0)
the bearing capacity depends on the surcharge q o. For a footing founded at depth D
below the surface, the surcharge qo = . Normally for a shallow foundation (D<B),
the shear strength of the soil between the surface and the founding depth D is
neglected.
radius of the fan r = r0 .exp[.tan'].
is the fan angle in radians (between 0 and /2)
' is the angle of friction of the soil
ro = B/[2 cos(45+'/2)]

Upper and lower bound Failure mechanisms and derivation of

solutions equations
The bearing capacity of a soil can be investigated using the limit theorems of ideal
rigid-perfectly-plastic materials.

The ultimate load capacity of a footing can be estimated by assuming a failure

mechanism and then applying the laws of statics to that mechanism. As the
mechanisms considered in an upper bound solutionare progressively refined, the
calculated collapse load decreases.

As more stress regions are considered in a lower bound solution, the calculated
collapse load increases.

Therefore, by progressive refinement of the upper and lower bound solutions, the
exact solution can be approached. For example, Terzaghi's mechanism gives the exact
solution for a strip footing.

Semi-circular slip mechanism Failure mechanisms and derivation of equations

Suppose the mechanism is assumed to have a semi-circular slip surface. In this case,
failure will cause a rotation about point O. Any surcharge q o will resist rotation, so the
net pressure (q - qo) is used. Using the equations of
statics:
Moment causing rotation
= load x lever arm
= [(q - qo) x B] x [B]
Moment resisting rotation
= shear strength x length of arc x lever arm
= [s] x [.B] x [B]
At failure these are equal:
(q - qo ) x B x B = s x .B x B
Net pressure (q - qo ) at failure
= 2 x shear strength of the soil
This is an upper-bound solution.

Failure mechanisms and derivation of equations

Circular arc slip mechanism
Consider a slip surface which is an arc in cross section, centred above one edge of the
base. Failure will cause a rotation about point O. Any surcharge q o will resist rotation
so the net pressure (q - qo) is used. Using the equations of statics:

Moment causing rotation

= load x lever arm
= [ (q - qo) x B ] x [B/2]
Moment resisting rotation
= shear strength x length of arc x lever arm
= [s] x [2R] x [R]
At failure these are equal:
(q - qo) x B x B/2 = s x 2 R x R
Since R = B / sin :
(q - qo ) = s x 4 /(sin )
The worst case is when
tan=2 at = 1.1656 rad = 66.8 deg
The net pressure (q - qo) at failure
= 5.52 x shear strength of soil

Bearing capacity of shallow foundations Bearing capacity

Bearing capacity equation (undrained)

Bearing capacity equation (drained)

Factor of safety

The ultimate bearing capacity of a foundation is calculated from an equation that

incorporates appropriate soil parameters (e.g. shear strength, unit weight) and details
about the size, shape and founding depth of the footing. Terzaghi (1943) stated the
ultimate bearing capacity of a strip footing as a three-term expression incorporating
the bearing capacity factors: Nc, Nq and N, which are related to the angle of friction
().

qf =c.Nc +qo.Nq + .B .Ng

For drained loading, calculations are in terms of effective stresses; is > 0 and N c,
Nq and N are all > 0.
For undrained loading, calculations are in terms of total stresses; the undrained shear
strength (su); Nq = 1.0 and N = 0

c = apparent cohesion intercept

qo = D (i.e. density x depth)
D = founding depth
B = breadth of foundation
= unit weight of the soil removed.

Bearing capacity equation Bearing capacity of shallow

(undrained) foundations

Skempton's equation is widely used for undrained clay

soils:
qf = su .Ncu + qo
where Ncu = Skempton's bearing capacity factor, which can
be obtained from a chart or by using the following
expression:
Ncu = Nc.sc.dc
where sc is a shape factor and dc is a depth factor.
Nq = 1, N = 0, Nc = 5.14
sc = 1 + 0.2 (B/L) for B<=L
dc = 1+ (0.053 D/B ) for D/B < 4

Bearing capacity equation Bearing capacity of shallow

(drained) foundations

Bearing capacity factors

Shape factors

Depth factors
Terzaghi (1943) stated the bearing capacity of a foundation as a three-term expression
incorporating the bearing capacity factors
Nc, Nq and N.
He proposed the following equation for the ultimate bearing capacity of a long strip
footing:
qf =c.Nc +qo.Nq + .B .N
This equation is applicable only for shallow footings carrying vertical non-eccentric
loading.
For rectangular and circular foundations, shape factors are introduced.
qf = c .Nc .sc + qo .Nq .sq + .B .N .sg
Other factors can be used to accommodate depth, inclination of loading, eccentricity
of loading, inclination of base and ground. Depth is only significant if it exceeds the
breadth.

Bearing capacity factors Bearing capacity equation (drained)

The bearing capacity factors relate to the drained angle of friction ('). The c.Nc term
is the contribution from soil shear strength, the q o.Nq term is the contribution from the
surcharge pressure above the founding level, the .B..Ng term is the contribution
from the self weight of the soil. Terzaghi's analysis was based on an active wedge with
angles ' rather than (45+'/2), and his bearing capacity factors are in error,
particularly for low values of '. Commonly used values for Nq and Nc are derived
from the Prandtl-Reissner expression giving

Exact values for Ng are not directly obtainable; values have been proposed by Brinch
Hansen (1968), which are widely used in Europe, and also by Meyerhof (1963), which
have been adopted in North America.
Brinch Hansen:
N = 1.8 (Nq - 1) tan'
Meyerhof:
N = (Nq - 1) tan(1.4 ')
Shape factors Bearing capacity equation (drained)

Terzaghi presented modified versions of his bearing capacity equation for shapes of
foundation other than a long strip, and these have since been expressed as shape
factors. Brinch Hansen and Vesic (1963) have suggested shape factors which depend
on '. However, modified versions of the Terzaghi factors are usually considered
sufficiently accurate for most purposes.
sc sq s
square 1.3 1.2 0.8
circle 1.3 1.2 0.6
rectangle (B<L) 1+ 0.2(B/L) 1+ 0.2(B/L) 1 - 0.4(B/L)
B = breadth, L = length

Depth factors Bearing capacity equation (drained)

It is usual to assume an increase in bearing capacity when the depth (D) of a

foundation is greater than the breadth (B). The general bearing capacity equation can
be modified by the inclusion of depth factors.
qf = c.Nc.dc + qo.Nq.dq + B..d
for D>B:
dc = 1 + 0.4 arctan(D/B)
dq = 1 + 2 tan('(1-sin') arctan(B/D)
d = 1.0
for D=<B:
dc = 1 + 0.4(D/B)
dq = 1 + 2 tan('(1-sin') (B/D)
d = 1.0

Factor of safety Bearing capacity of shallow foundations

A factor of safety Fs is used to calculate the allowable bearing capacity q a from the
ultimate bearing pressure qf. The value of Fs is usually taken to be 2.5 - 3.0.
The factor of safety should be applied only to the increase in stress, i.e. the net bearing
pressure qn. Calculating qa from qf only satisfies the criterion of safety against shear
failure. However, a value for Fs of 2.5 - 3.0 is sufficiently high to empirically limit
settlement. It is for this reason that the factors of safety used in foundation design are
higher than in other areas of geotechnical design. (For slopes, the factor of safety
would typically be 1.3 - 1.4).

Experience has shown that the settlement of a typical foundation on soft clay is likely
to be acceptable if a factor of 2.5 is used. Settlements on stiff clay may be quite large
even though ultimate bearing capacity is relatively high, and so it may be appropriate
to use a factor nearer 3.0.

Presumed bearing values Bearing capacity

For preliminary design purposes, BS 8004 gives presumed bearing values which are
the pressures which would normally result in an adequate factor of safety against
shear failure for particular soil types, but without consideration of settlement.
Category Types of rocks and soils Presumed bearing value
Non-cohesive soils Dense gravel or dense sand and gravel >600 kN/m
Medium dense gravel,
<200 to 600 kN/m
or medium dense sand and gravel
Loose gravel, or loose sand and gravel <200 kN/m
Compact sand >300 kN/m
Medium dense sand 100 to 300 kN/m
<100 kN/m depends on
Loose sand
degree of looseness
Cohesive soils Very stiff bolder clays & hard clays 300 to 600 kN/m
Stiff clays 150 to 300 kN/m
Firm clay 75 to 150 kN/m
Soft clays and silts < 75 kN/m
Very soft clay Not applicable
Peat Not applicable
Made ground Not applicable
Presumed bearing values for Keuper Marl

Presumed bearing
Weathering Zone Description
value
Fully weathered IVb Matrix only as cohesive soil
IVa Matrix with occasional pellets less than 3mm 125 to 250 kN/m
Partially III Matrix with lithorelitics up to 25mm 250 to 500 kN/m
weathered Angular blocks of unweathered marl with
II 500 to 750 kN/m
virtually no matrix
Unweathered 1 Mudstone (often not fissured) 750 to 1000 kN/m

Bearing capacity of piles Bearing capacity

Driven piles in non-cohesive soil

Bored piles in non-cohesive soil

Driven piles in cohesive soil

Bored piles in cohesive soil

Carrying capacity of piles in a layered soil

Effects of ground water

The ultimate bearing capacity of a pile used in design may be one three values:
the maximum load Qmax, at which further penetration occurs without the load
increasing;
a calculated value Qf given by the sum of the end-bearing and shaft resistances;
or the load at which a settlement of 0.1 diameter occurs (when Qmax is not clear).
For large-diameter piles, settlement can be large,
therefore a safety factor of 2-2.5 is usually used on the
working load.

A pile loaded axially will carry the load:

partly by shear stresses (s) generated along the
shaft of the pile and
partly by normal stresses (qb) generated at the
base.
The ultimate capacity Qf of a pile is equal to the base
capacity Qb plus the shaft capacity Qs.
Qf = Qb + Qs = Ab . qb + (As . s)
where Ab is the area of the base and As is the surface area
of the shaft within a soil layer.

Full shaft capacity is mobilised at much smaller

displacements than those related to full base resistance. This is important when
determining the settlement response of a pile. The same overall bearing capacity may
be achieved with a variety of combinations of pile diameter and length. However, a
long slender pile may be shown to be more efficient than a short stubby pile. Longer
piles generate a larger proportion of their full capacity by skin friction and so their full
capacity can be mobilised at much lower settlements.

The proportions of capacity contributed by skin friction and end bearing do not just
depend on the geometry of the pile. The type of construction and the sequence of soil
layers are important factors.

Driven piles in non-cohesive soil Bearing capacity of piles

Ultimate pile capacity

Standard penetration test

 Cone penetration test

Driving a pile has different effects on the soil surrounding it depending on the relative
density of the soil. In loose soils, the soil is compacted, forming a depression in the
ground around the pile. In dense soils, any further compaction is small, and the soil is
displaced upward causing ground heave. In loose soils, driving is preferable to boring
since compaction increases the end-bearing capacity.

In non-cohesive soils, skin friction is low because a low friction 'shell' forms around
the pile. Tapered piles overcome this problem since the soil is recompacted on each
blow and this gap cannot develop.

Pile capacity can be calculated using soil properties obtained from standard
penetration tests or cone penetration tests. The ultimate load must then be divided
by a factor of safety to obtain a working load. This factor of safety depends on the
maximum tolerable settlement, which in turn depends on both the pile diameter and
soil compressibility. For example, a safety factor of 2.5 will usually ensure a pile of
diameter less than 600mm in a non-cohesive soil will not settle by more than 15mm.

Although the method of installing a pile has a significant effect on failure load, there
are no reliable calculation methods available for quantifying any effect. Judgement is
therefore left to the experience of the engineer.

Ultimate pile capacity Driven piles in non-cohesive soil

The ultimate carrying capacity of a pile is:

Qf = Qb + Qs
The base resistance, Qb can be found from Terzaghi's equation for bearing capacity,
qf = 1.3 c Nc + qo Nq + 0.4 B N
The 0.4 term may be ignored, since the diameter is considerably less
than the depth of the pile.
The 1.3 c Nc term is zero, since the soil is non-cohesive.
The net unit base resistance is therefore
qnf = qf - qo = qo (Nq -1)
and the net total base resistance is
 Qb = qo (Nq -1) Ab
The ultimate unit skin friction (shaft) resistance can be found from
qs = Ks .'v .tan
where 'v = average vertical effective stress in a given layer
= angle of wall friction, based on pile material and
Ks = earth pressure coefficient
Therefore, the total skin friction resistance is given by the sum of the layer
resistances:
Qs = (Ks .'v .tan .As)
The self-weight of the pile may be ignored, since the weight of the concrete is almost
equal to the weight of the soil displaced.
Therefore, the ultimate pile capacity is:
Qf = Ab qo Nq + (Ks .'v .tan .As)

Values of Ks and can be related to the angle of internal friction () using the
following table according to Broms.

Ks
Material
low density high density
steel 20 0.5
1.0
concrete 3/4 1.0 2.0
timber 2/3 1.5 4.0

It must be noted that, like much of pile design, this is an empirical relationship. Also,
from empirical methods it is clear that Q s and Qb both reach peak values somewhere at
a depth between 10 and 20 diameters.

It is usually assumed that skin friction never exceeds 110 kN/m and base resistance
will not exceed 11000 kN/m.

Standard penetration test Driven piles in non-cohesive soil

The standard penetration test is a simple in-situ test in which the N-value is the
mumber of blows taken to drive a 50mm diameter bar 300mm into the base of a bore
hole.

Schmertmann (1975) has correlated N-values obtained

from SPT tests against effective overburden stress as
shown in the figure.
The effective overburden stress = the weight of material
above the base of the borehole - the wight of water
e.g. depth of soil = 5m, depth of water = 4m, unit
weight of soil = 20kN/m, 'v = 5m x 20kN/m - 4m x
9.81kN/m 60 kN/m

Once a value for has been estimated, bearing capacity factors can be determined
and used in the usual way.

Meyerhof (1976) produced correlations between base and frictional resistances and N-
values. It is recommended that N-values first be normalised with respect to effective
overburden stress:

Normalised N = Nmeasured x 0.77 log(1920/v)

Ultimate base resistance Ultimate shaft resistance
Pile type Soil type
qb (kPa) qs (kPa)
Gravelly sand 40(L/d) N
Driven 2 Navg
Sand but < 400 N
Sandy silt 20(L/d) N
Silt but < 300 N

13(L/d) N
Bored Gravel and sands
but < 300 N
Navg
Sandy silt 13(L/d) N
Silt but < 300 N
L = embedded length
d = shaft diameter
Navg = average value along shaft

Driven piles in non-cohesive soil

Cone penetration test
End-bearing resistance
The end-bearing capacity of the pile is assumed to be equal to the unit cone resistance
(qc). However, due to normally occurring variations in measured cone resistance, Van
der Veen's averaging method is used:
qb = average cone resistance calculated over a depth equal to three pile diameters
above to one pile diameter below the base level of the pile.
Shaft resistance
The skin friction can also be calculated from the cone penetration test from values of
local side friction or from the cone resistance value using an empirical relationship:
At a given depth, qs = Sp. qc
where Sp = a coefficient dependent on the type of pile

Type of pile Sp
Solid timber )
Pre-cast concrete )
0.005 - 0.012
Solid steel driven )
Open-ended steel 0.003 - 0.008

Bored piles in non-cohesive soil Bearing capacity of piles

The design process for bored piles in granular soils is essentially the same as that for
driven piles. It must be assumed that boring loosens the soil and therefore, however
dense the soil, the value of the angle of friction used for calculating N q values for end
bearing and values for skin friction must be those assumed for loose soil. However,
if rotary drilling is carried out under a bentonite slurry ' can be taken as that for the
undisturbed soil.

Driven piles in cohesive soil Bearing capacity of piles

Driving piles into clays alters the physical characteristics of the soil. In soft clays,
driving piles results in an increase in pore water pressure, causing a reduction in
effective stress;.a degree of ground heave also occurs. As the pore water pressure
dissipates with time and the ground subsides, the effective stress in the soil will
increase. The increase in 'v leads to an increase in the bearing capacity of the pile
with time. In most cases, 75% of the ultimate bearing capacity is achieved within 30
days of driving.

For piles driven into stiff clays, a little consolidation takes place, the soil cracks and is
heaved up. Lateral vibration of the shaft from each blow of the hammer forms an
enlarged hole, which can then fill with groundwater or extruded porewater. This, and
'strain softening', which occurs due to the large strains in the clay as the pile is
advanced, lead to a considerable reduction in skin friction compared with the
undisturbed shear strength (su) of the clay. To account for this in design calculations an
adhesion factor, , is introduced. Values of can be found from empirical data
previously recorded. A maximum value (for stiff clays) of 0.45 is recommended.

The ultimate bearing capacity Qf of a driven pile in cohesive soil can be calculated
from:
Qf = Qb + Qs

where the skin friction term is a summation of layer resistances

Qs = ( .su(avg) .As)

and the end bearing term is

Qb = su .Nc .Ab

Nc = 9.0 for clays and silty clays.

Bored piles in cohesive soil Bearing capacity of piles

Following research into bored cast-in-place piles in London clay, calculation of the
ultimate bearing capacity for bored piles can be done the same way as for driven piles.
The adhesion factor should be taken as 0.45. It is thought that only half the
undisturbed shear strength is mobilised by the pile due to the combined effect of
swelling, and hence softening, of the clay in the walls of the borehole. Softening
results from seepage of water from fissures in the clay and from the un-set concrete,
and also from 'work softening' during the boring operation.

The mobilisation of full end-bearing capacity by large-diameter piles requires much

larger displacements than are required to mobilise full skin-friction, and therefore
safety factors of 2.5 to 3.0 may be required to avoid excessive settlement at working
load.

Carrying capacity of piles in layered soil Bearing capacity of piles

When a pile extends through a number of different layers of soil with different
properties, these have to be taken into account when calculating the ultimate carrying
capacity of the pile. The skin friction capacity is calculated by simply summing the
amounts of resistance each layer exerts on the pile. The end bearing capacity is
calculated just in the layer where the pile toe terminates. If the pile toe terminates in a
layer of dense sand or stiff clay overlying a layer of soft clay or loose sand there is a
danger of it punching through to the weaker layer. To account for this, Meyerhof's
equation is used.

The base resistance at the pile toe is

qp = q2 + (q1 -q2)H / 10B but q1

where B is the diameter of the pile, H is the thickness between the base of the pile and
the top of the weaker layer, q2 is the ultimate base resistance in the weak layer, q 1 is
the ultimate base resistance in the strong layer.
Effects of groundwater Bearing capacity of piles

The presence and movement of groundwater affects the carrying capacity of piles, the
processes of construction and sometimes the durability of piles in service.

Effect on bearing capacity

In cohesive soils, the permeability is so low that any movement of water is very slow.
They do not suffer any reduction in bearing capacity in the presence of groundwater.
In granular soils, the position of the water table is important. Effective stresses in
saturated sands can be as much as 50% lower than in dry sand; this affects both the
end-bearing and skin-friction capacity of the pile.

Effects on construction
When a concrete cast-in-place pile is being installed and the bottom of the borehole is
below the water table, and there is water in the borehole, a 'tremie' is used.

With its lower end lowered to the bottom of the borehole, the tremmie is filled with
concrete and then slowly raised, allowing concrete to flow from the bottom. As the
tremie is raised during the concreting it must be kept below the surface of the concrete
in the pile. Before the tremie is withdrawn completely sufficient concrete should be
placed to displace all the free water and watery cement. If a tremie is not used and
more than a few centimetres of water lie in the bottom of the borehole, separation of
the concrete can take place within the pile, leading to a significant reduction in
capacity.

A problem can also arise when boring takes place through

clays. Site investigations may show that a pile should
terminate in a layer of clay. However, due to natural
variations in bed levels, there is a risk of boring extending
into underlying strata. Unlike the clay, the underlying beds
may be permeable and will probably be under a considerable
head of water. The 'tapping' of such aquifers can be the cause
of difficulties during construction.

Effects on piles in service

The presence of groundwater may lead to corrosion or
deterioration of the pile's fabric.
In the case of steel piles, a mixture of water and air in the soil provides conditions in
which oxidation corrosion of steel can occur; the presence of normally occurring salts
in groundwater may accelerate the process.
In the case of concrete piles, the presence of salts such as sulphates or chlorides can
result in corrosion of reinforcement, with possible consequential bursting of the
concrete. Therefore, adequate cover must be provided to the reinforcement, or the
reinforcement itself must be protected in some way. Sulphate attack on the cement
compounds in concrete may lead to the expansion and subsequent cracking. Corrosion
problems are minimised if the concrete has a high cement/aggregate ratio and is well
compacted during placement.

BEARING CAPACITY FOR SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

The bearing capacity of a shallow foundation can be defined as the maximum value of the load
applied, for which no point of the subsoil reaches failure point (Frolich method) or else for which
failure extends to a considerable volume of soil (Prandtl method and successive).

Prandtl, has studied the problem of failure of an elastic half-space due to a load applied on its
surface with reference to steel, characterizing the resistance to failure with a law of the type:

=c+tan valid for soils as well

Prandtl assumes:

Weightless material, therefore =0;

rigid plastic behaviour;

 resistance to failure stated as: =c+tan;

uniform vertical load applied to an infinitely long strip of width 2b (Plane strain case);

no tangential stresses on interface between load strip and bearing surface;

no overload the edges of the foundation (q=0).

Upon failure the yield of the material within the space GFBCD is verified. Within the triangle AEB
failure occurs according to two families of straight segments inclined by 45+/2 to the horizontal.
Within the triangle AEB failure occurs according to two families of straight segments inclined by
45+/2 to the horizontal.
Within zones ABF and EBC failure occurs along two families of lines, the ones made up of straight
lines passing through points A and E, and the other consisting of arcs of families of logarithmic
spirals. The poles of these are points A and E. In the triangles AFG and ECD failure occurs along
segments inclined at (45+ /2 ) to the vertical.

Solution of Prandtl

Having thus identified the soil tending to failure by application of the ultimate load, this can be
calculated expressing the equilibrium between the forces acting in any volume of soil whose base is
delimited by whichever slip surface.
Thus one reaches the equation q =bc, where the coefficient B depends only upon the soils angle of
friction .

b=cotg[e^(tan)tan^(2)(45+/2)-1]

For =0 coefficient b is 5.14, and therefore q=5.14 c.

In the alternate case, namely that where the soil is cohesionless (c=0, 0) q=0, so that according
to Prandtl it would not be possible to apply any load to cohesionless soils.
Based on this theory, admittedly of little practical value, all the various investigations and
developments have proceeded.
Caquot proceeds from the same premises as Prandtl excepting that the load strip is no longer
placed on the surface but at a depth of h 2b; the soil between surface and depth h has the
following characteristics: 0, =0, c=0 i.e. that it is material with weight attribute but no resistance.

The equilibrium equations thus resolve to:

q=A1+bc

which is certainly a step forward but hardly reflects reality.

Terzaghi (1955), continues on the same lines as Caquot but adds modifications to take into account
of the real characteristics of the foundation-soil system.
Under the action of the load transmitted by the foundation, the soil at the contact with the foundation
tends to move laterally, but is restrained in this by the tangential resistances that develop between
the soil and the foundation. This results in a change of the stress state in the ground placed directly
below the foundation.
Terzaghi assigns to the sides AB and EB of Prandtls wedge, an inclination to the horizontal,
assigning to this a value as a function of the mechanical characteristics of the soil at the contact soil-
foundation.

Thus 2 =0 for soil below the foundation is reviewed assuming that the failure surfaces remain
unaltered, the expression for ultimate load becomes:

q=Ah+bc+Cb

in which, is a coefficient that is a function of the angle of friction of the soil below the footing and of
the angle defined above; and b is the half width of the strip..

Further on the basis of experimental data, Terzaghi introduces factors due to the shape of the
foundation. Again Terzaghi refines the original hypothesis of Prandtl who considered the behaviour
of soil as rigidplastic.Terzaghi instead assigns such behaviour only to very compact soils.

In these soils the curve loads/settlements is at first linear, followed by a short curved segment
(elastic-plastic behavior). Failure is instantaneous and the value of the ultimate load is easily
identifiable (general failure). In a very loose soil however the relation loads/settlements has an
accentuated curved line even at low levels of load due to a progressive failure of the soil (local
failure) and thus the identification of ultimate load is not so clear like for compact soils.. For very
loose soils therefore Terzaghi introduces in the previous formula the reduced values for the
mechanical properties of the soil:

tanrid=(2/3)tan e crid=(2/3)c

Thus Terzaghis formula becomes:

 Bearing-capacity equations by the several authors indicated

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.

Shape, depth, and inclination factors for the Meyerhof bearing-capacity

Hansens (1970) formula is a further extension on Meyerhofs; the additions consists in the
introduction of bi that accounts for the possible inclination of the footing to the horizontal and a factor
gi for inclined soil surface
Hansens formula is valid for whatever ratio D/B and therefore for both surface and deep
foundations, however the author introduces coefficients to compensate for the otherwise excessive
increment in limit load with increased depth.

Vesic (1975) proposes a formula that is analogous to Hansens with Nq ed Nc as per Meyerhof and
N as below:

N=2(Nq+1)tan

Shape and depth factors are the same as Hansens but there are differences in load inclination,
ground inclination and footing inclination factors.
Shape and depth factors for use in either the Hansen (1970)
or Vesic (1975) bearing-capacity equations.
 Table of inclination, ground, and base factors for the Hansen (1970) equations

Table of inclination, ground, and base factors for the Vesic (1975) equations

Brich-Hansen (EC7-EC8) In order that a foundation may safely sustain the projected load in regard
to general failure for all combinations of load relative to the ultimate limit state, the following must be
satisfied:

Vd Rd

Where Vd the design load at ultimate limit state normal to the footing, including the weight of the
foundation it self and Rd is the foundation design bearing capacity for normal loads, also taking into
account eccentric and inclined loads. When estimating R d for fine grained soils short and long term
situations should be considered.
Bearing capacity in drained conditions is calculated by:
 R/A=(2+)cuscic+q

Where:

A = BL design effective foundation area. Where eccentric loads are involved, use the reduced
area at whose center the load is applied.

cu undrained cohesion
q total lithostatic pressure on bearing surface
sc foundation shape factor
sc 1 + 0,2 (B/L) rectangular shapes
sc 1,2 square or circular shapes
ic correction factor for inclination due to a load H

ic=0.5[1+(1-H/(Acu)^0.5]

Design bearing capacity in drained conditions is calculated as follows:

R/A = c Nc sc ic + q Nq sq iq + 0,5 g B Ng sg ig

Where:

Nc= same as Meyerhof (1963) above

Nq= same as Meyerhof (1963) above
N=2(Nq-1)tan

Shape factors
sq = 1+(B/L) sin rectangular shape
sq = 1+sin square or circular shape
s =1-0.3(B/L) rectangular shape
s =0.7 square or circular shape
sc= (sq Nq-1)/(Nq-1) rectangular, square, or circular shape.

In addition to the correction factors reported in the table above will also be considered the ones
complementary to the depth of the bearing surface and to the inclination of the bearing surface and
ground surface (Hansen).

Sliding considerations
The stability of a foundation should be verified with reference to collapse due to sliding as well as to
general failure. For collapse due to sliding, the resistance is calculated as the sum of the adhesion
component and the soil-foundation friction component. Lateral resistance arising from passive thrust
of the soil can be taken into account using a percentage supplied by the user. Resistance due to
friction and adhesion is calculated with the expression:

FRd = Nsd tan+ca A

In which Nsd is the value of the vertical force, is the angle of shearing resistance at the base of the
foundation, ca is the foundation-soil adhesion, and A is the effective foundation area. There where
eccentric loads are involved, use the reduced area at whose centre the load is applied.
Bearing capacity for foundations on rock
Where foundations rest on rock, it is appropriate to take into consideration certain other significant
parameters such as the geologic characteristics, type of rock and its quality measured as RQD. It is
the practice to use very high values of safety factor for bearing capacity of rock and correlated in
some way with the value of RQD (Rock quality designator). For example for a rock whose RQD is up
to a maximum of 0.75 the safety factor oscillates between 6 and 10. Terzaghis formula can be used
in calculation of rock bearing capacity using friction angle and cohesion of the rock or those
proposed by Stagg and Zienkiewicz (1968) according to which the coefficients of the bearing
capacity are:

Nq=tan^6(45+/2)
Nc=5tan^4(45+/2)
N=Nq+1

These coefficients should be used with form factors from the formula of Terzaghi. Ultimate bearing
capacity is a function of RQD as follows:

q=qult(RQD)^2

If rock coring does not render whole pieces (RQD tends to 0) the rock is treated as a soil estimating
as best the factors: c and .