1.

1 Failure by Shear
During summer, as we walk on a lawn or on u~pavedg round with soil at the surface, we do so pretty
confidently. The thought that the soil will not be able to bear our weight does not enter our head. During
the rainy season, especially after a rain, as we walk on those same locations, we, however, tread more
gingerly. Of course, we don't want to step in a puddle of water and wet our.shoes. But even when
there is no puddle, we step fonvard with caution. This is so, because we have all had the experience
of stepping into soil softened by the rain. When we have done so, our shoe penetrates into the soil,
the soil squeezes out from under and emerges around the sides of our shoe. We end up with a muddy
shoe and some loss of our own balance before the soil underneath the surface comes to our rescue
and supports our weight and provides us our usual stability. The soil below our shoe just "gave way".
The soil did not settle on account of consolidation, nor was it a manifestation of eiastic settlement, the
soil just ran away from under the shoe. This "giving way" or running away is what we Geotechnical
Engineers call a bearing capacity failure.
How the bearing capacity failure occurs and when it occurs has been mechanistically discussed in
Section 12.4, depicted in Fig 12.10 and the governing equation presented in Eq. 12.10. When a load
is applied by a footing or for that matter our shoe, shearing stresses are induced in the soil below.
Equation 12.10 states that a bearing capacity failure occurs when the sum of shearing stresses induced
in soil along a possible failure surface is more than the shearing strength that can be mobilized on that
failure surface. Bearing capacity failure is thus a failure by shear.
The focus in Section 12.4 was on how to assess the shear strength that will be mobilized along the
- failure surface. The focus now is on how to assess the shear stresses that are induced along the failure
surface. There can he aninfinite number of possible failure surfaces and we can't possibly investigate
all of them. We are as such also in search-of a short cut method to determine the critical failure
surface-the surface along which the failure is most likely to occur. A systematic approach of doing
so is what we call the bearing capacity analysis and is the topic of this Chapter.

1.2 Failure Mechanisms in Shallow and Deep Foundations

Mechanisms of failure by shear aredifferent in shailow and deep foundations. The fomer has been
shown in Fig. 12.10; the latter is depicted in Fig. 20.1. When load is applied to a deepfoundation, it
is resisted not just by.the soil below the foundation but also by the soil.that surrounds thefoundation.
Below the deep foundation soil strength is mobilized alonb failure surfaces that are generated in a
manner that bears some resemblancelo what happens below shallow foundations. Shear strength of
soil sulrounding the deep foundation assists in supporting the .load applied on the deep foundation by
friction that-develops between the soil and the surface of the deep foundation. Piles are used as deep
foundation in a pile group. Pile group resistance equals the resistance of one pile into the nu.mber of
piles in the group as shown in Fig 20.1(b) or as the resistance of the group as a monolith% shown
in Fig. 20.ltc). As in the last Chapter, we will first explore the bearing capacity of shallow fsqdations
and then in the latter part of the Chapter focus on deep foundations.

1.3 Failure along an Over-simplified Failure Surface

A useable theory to determine if a particular combination of soil, loaded area and the stress applied will
he safe from a bearing capacity failure or not must first be able to define the critical failure surface.
Otherwise the work involved in investigating a large number of possible failure surfaces would be
prohibitive. Several researchers resorted to conducting model studies in the laboratory to delineate the
characteristics of the criiical failure surface. A number of bearing capacity theories have been
presented over the years. Before looking at some ofthe better known and often used theories in Section
20.6, it is instructive to develop a bearing capacity theory utilizing only the knowledge you now possess
through your study of Part I of this Book. This theory is known as Bell's theory after F.G. Bell, the
engineer who originally proposed it. No one uses this theory in practice--its only utility is to help
us understand the concept of bearing capacity and also because it yields an equation of the correct
form which we will discuss in detail in Section 20.5.
Figure 20.2 depicts a very long rectangular foundation of width, B, located at a depth, 4, in a soil
that is characterized by shear strength parameters c and 4 and a unit weight of y. We want to determine
the stress, g,,,, which if transferred to the soil by the foundation will induce a bearing capacity failure.
q,, is thus called the ultimate bearing capacity. In actual practicz, since you as the Consulting
Geotechnical Engineer do not want the foundation to fail, you will design the foundation such that it
transfers a stress to the soil that is less than the q,,,. If you design to apply a stress q,, < g,,,,, then
your foundation's safety from a bearing capacity faiiure can be described by a Safety Factor, S.F. =
q,,,lqqP. So let us attempt to determine qUl,.
Visualize that the stress, qUl,, imposed by the foundation on the soil below it, acts like an axial stress
on a zone JKLM shown by dashed lines in Fig. 20.2. Let us think of the zone JKLM as an imaginary
triaxial sample. When such a triaxial sample is sheared to failure, a failure plane, i.e.; JL would develop
that would be inclined at an angle of (45 + $12)" to the horizontal. Adjacent to the zone JKLM, visualize

another imaginary triaxial sample KLNP lying horizontally. The minor principal stressof JKLM, would
be :the majorprincipal stress of KLNP. The minor principal stress of KLNP would~ori.ginate* mm the
overburden actingon KLNP. Let us assume that the major and minor principle stresses acting on.KLNp
cause the triaxial sample FLNP,to fail by shear. Then LP would be a failure.plme. Bearingcapacity
failure in Fig 20.2 is thus being visualized as follows: a stress q,,, is applied by rnefoundation at JK,
this simultaneously induces shear failures in the twotriaxial samples JKLh? and KLNP with JLP as the
failur:: surface.
Bell then proceeded by making the assumption that the failure-surface JLP is .the critical failure
surface. To develop a method for determining qVnh. e used the Mob's Circles at failure for .the two
imaginary rriaxial samples JKLM and KLNP and the failure envelope fortte soil as depicted in'ig. 20.3.
The Mohr's Circle designated' I presents the state of stress at failure for JKLM and the Circle
-designated II for KLEU?. The overburden on the imaginary fciaxial sample KLNP at XP is yD/. The
distance KL is B tan (45 + 912)" and so the over burden pressure on LN is y(Df+ B tan (45 + $12)").
Remember we are working quite imprecisely with imaginary triaxial samples and in this same spirit we
can consider the minor principal mess for Circle I1 to be the average overburden acting at KP and
LN and fierefore equal to y(D,+ 0.5B tan (45 + 4/2)0). This will be the minor principal stress even
when the triaxial sample KLNP fails.
Knowing the minor principal stress at failure for Circle II, we can determine the major principal
stress at failure for Circle 11, oIm using the expression developed in Fig 20.4 as:
= )'(D, + 0.5 B tan (45 + $12)) tan'a + 2c tan a (20.1)
The major principal stress at failure for Circle II has to equal the minor principal stress at failure for
Circle I. We can then use the expression given in Fig 20.4 once again, taking the expression in Eq.
29.1 as u3fl and determine the major principal stress at failure for Circle I which is the q,,, that we
are seeking, as follows:
Equation 20.3 is known as the Bearing Capacity Equation and is-one of the most important and highly
used equations in Geotechnical Engineering. Although this equation has been developed using imaginary
triaxial samples and a very unlikely critical failure surface, the form of the equation that has emerged
is correct even when we make better assumptions as we will see in Section 20.6.

1.4 Failure along a Circular Failure Surface

In Fig. 12.10, wehad depicted a failure surface that was part curve andpart a straight1ine. If the stress
applied by :he footing equals a,,,, a bearing capacity failu1-e occurs. For a Safety Faccor of 1.0, the
sam of shearing stresses induced along t\e failure suxface would equal the total shearing strength
developed. We can pursue this he-o f -thought further with simp!ifying assumptions. Suppose we
consider the failure sulface to he circular and assunie chat the soil strength in& affected zone is a
constant. i.e. c = constant and = 0. This would be the situation for,clay under undrained conditions
and then c = S,,, i.e. the average undrained strength of the soil in the ~ffectedzo ne. The situation is
shown in Fig. 20.5(a). Upon failure the soi! mass would rotate. about the cater0 ofthe circular failure
surface. Let us say a bearing capacity failure is imminent (Safety Factor = 1.0). At this juncture, the
moments trying to cause a rotation of the soil mass about 0, that is, the driving nzornentwill equal
the monients trying to prevent the soil from rotating, that is, the resisting moment. The driving moment
arises on account of q,,,, applied to the soil by the footing of width B with a lever arm of a <,n$~t-~a,.t#,tte~ n,
B12. The resistins moment arises on account of two reasons. One, because of strength, S,, developed
along the failure surface of lenstli rrB with a lever am of B and, two, hecause of surcharge y Dfacting
along KL, i.e. a distance B with a lever am1 Bl2. The weight of the soil mass, W. does not generate
any moment because the moment arm is zero as is evident from Fig. 20.5(b). For Safety Factor = 1.0
or qalr= ~(270+ q(1) (20.5)
By comparing Eq. 20.5 with Eq. 20.3. we would conclude that N, = 211, N, = 1 and Ny = 0. These
values forN,, Nq and NNya re not unreasonable as will become evident in Section 20.6. What is important
to note at the moment is that the form of Eq. 20.3, that is, the form of the Bearing Capacity Equation
has been reaffilmed even though the failure surface assumed and the process followed in this Section
is very different from the one pursued in Section 20.3.

1.5 The Bearing Capacity Equation

As is evident from Eq. 20.3, the ultimate bearing capacity, q,,, often referred to just as the bearing
capacity, is a function of B. D/, y, N,, N,, N, and c. The terms N,, N,, Ny are functions only of a,
which in turn is a functiononly of $, the angle of shearing resistance of soil. The parameters N,, Nq
and N,are known as the Bearing Capaciry Factors. Since they are functions only of $, we can calculate
their values for different values of @ and store them in a tablular form or as graphs. y in the Bearing
Capacity Equation represents the relevant unit weight of soil. When the soil is above the ground water
tahle, yis the total unit weight and when the soil is below the watertable, the value of y would be that
of the buoyant unit weight.
The bearing capacity can-thus be visualized to be a function of the soil foundation system depending
on the three following factors:
(i) R and DP i.e. the geometry of the foundation and its location,
(ii) y, i.e. the physical state of the soil and the soil profile including the location of the water table, and
(i) c and @, i.e. the engineering property of soil, specifically the relevant shear strength parameters.
Consulting Geotechnical Engineers are often asked by general Civil Engineers, Structural Engineers,
U, Construction Engineers, Architects as to what is the bearing capacity of some soil. These engineers/
..*-S .L,at8

architects then feel very distressed when the Consulting Geotechnical Engineer responds that their
question cannot be answered. The question would have an answer if the bearing capacity depended
only on soil. But as is evident from the above discussion, it is a function of the foundation geometry,
of its location, of the soil, and of the location of the water table. For a particular geometry, location
and soil, q,,l, is still not a constant. It will vary if the water tahle fluctuates and, as we will see in Section
20.9, for some soils, it can have different values in the short and the long term, i.e. the value changes
with time.
it is usefd to learn to appreciate how important are each of the factors that influence the magnitude
of the bearing capacity. Each factor is discussed in turn.
The width, B, of the foundation appears only in the thiid term of the hearing capacity equation. If
.. the proposed width or' a foundation is doubled, the heariny capacity would increase because the third
term in Eq. 20.3 would be doubled. As we saw in Eq. 20.5, for a circular failure surface, when the
soil was characterized by a @ = 0, Ny was zero and the third term vanished. This is actually true also
for more realistic failure surfaces as we will see in the next Section. When @ = 0, B has no effect
0" 4urr
: The depth below ground surface, D? at which the foundation is located appears only in the second
term. Again, if the proposed .Df is doubled, the bearing capacity would increase because the second
term in Eq. 20.3 would be doubled.
The unit weight of the soil appears in the second and the third terms of Eq. 20.3, remember that
q = y Df. So for soil of higher density the q,, is higher because two terms will have a higher value.
The variation in the usual range of unit weight of soils is about 20 % and as such the effect of unit
weight is about 20 % or less. When, however, the water table rises, the total unit weight ceases to
be relevant and.we have to consider the buoyant unit weight, the effect on q,, is very significant.
Consider, for example, a situation where the water table is at a depth below the zone influenced by
a particular foundation, that is, at a depth more than twice the width of the foundation below the base
of the foundation. The unit weight we would use in Eq. 20.3 is the total unit weight. Now consider
" that due to the monsoon or some other hydraulic reason the water table rises to the ground surface.

The unit weight that we would use in the second and the third terms of Eq. 20.3 would have to be
changed to the value of the buoyant unit weight which as you know has a value roughly half that of
the total unit weight. As such, two terms of Eq. 20.3 would be about halved and indeed the q,, also almost
halved. No wonder then, that we hea- of buildins having collapsed in ,Lie monsoon. Not ali buildings collapse
in the rnonsoon on account of abearing capacity failure of the foundation but it i?

one possible source if the foundation had beeil designed without considering the~effec.to f a possible
rise in the water table. if ihe water rises, but not all the way to the ground surface tben, of coune.
the reduction in q,,n is less. If it rises only .to the base of the foundation, then only the *ird term oj
Eq. 20.3 is affected. Because In calculating the surcharge, g, due tooverburden &e unit weight would
still be the total unit weight.
The cohesion intercept term, c, appears in the fi~tetr m of Eq. 20.3 and the first term would vq
linearly with changes in c end accol-dingly influence, q,,.
Lastly, we note that one Bearing Capacity Factor appears in each of the three terms of Eq. 20.3
All the Bearing Cdpacity Factors are a function only o f . A s 4 increases so do N,, Nq and N,,,T he
relation is not linear and as we shall see in the next Section, N,, N, and Ny, increase much more thar,
proportionatel)' with increase in 4. Clear1y;of all the .parameters that affect q,,,, the angle of sheaing
resistance of soil, @,has the greatest influence. As 4 increases,.the bearing capacity incceases markedly.
This is illustrated in Solved Example 20.1.