1.

0 Bearing Capacity

Bearing Capacity Mr. Jjuuko Samuel, NDEJJE

02/24/15

Ultimate Bearing Capacity

2

The load per unit area of the foundation at which

shear failure in soil occurs is called the ultimate
bearing capacity.

02/24/15
Bearing Capacity Mr. Jjuuko Samuel, MUK

Principal Modes of Failure

3

General Shear Failure:

Sudden or catastrophic failure
Well defined failure surface
Bulging on the ground surface adjacent
to foundation

Common failure mode in dense sand

Bearing Capacity Mr. Jjuuko Samuel, MUK

02/24/15

Principal Modes of Failure

4

Local Shear Failure:

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.
Bearing Capacity Mr. Jjuuko Samuel, MUK

02/24/15

Principal Modes of Failure

5

Local Shear Failure:

Bearing Capacity Mr. Jjuuko Samuel, MUK

02/24/15

Principal Modes of Failure

6

Punching Failure:
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.
Bearing Capacity Mr. Jjuuko Samuel, MUK

02/24/15

Principal Modes of Failure

7

Punching Failure:

Bearing Capacity Mr. Jjuuko Samuel, MUK

02/24/15

Principal Modes of Failure

8

Bearing Capacity Mr. Jjuuko Samuel, MUK

02/24/15

Terzaghis Bearing Capacity Theory

9

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
Bearing Capacity Mr. Jjuuko Samuel, MUK

02/24/15

Terzaghis Bearing Capacity Theory

10

Bearing Capacity Mr. Jjuuko Samuel, MUK

02/24/15

Terzaghis Bearing Capacity Theory

11

2
1
q u . B 2. Pp 2.C a . sin ' 4 ' B tan
2
1
q u . B 2. Pp B .c '. sin ' 4 ' B tan

'

'

Pp Pp Ppc Ppq
Pp due to only self weight of soil in shear zone
Ppc due to soil cohesion only (soil is weightless)
Ppq due to surcharge only
Bearing Capacity Mr. Jjuuko Samuel, MUK

02/24/15

Terzaghis Bearing Capacity Theory

12

Weight term

Surcharge term

Cohesion term

qu . B ( 2. P py 1 ' B 2 tan ' ) ( 2. Ppc B . c '. sin ' ) 2. Ppq

4
B .( 0.5 ' B . N

c. N

q. N

1) cot '

B .c . N

0.5 ' B . N

K P
1
2 tan ' [
1]
2
cos '
(N

B.q. N

Terzaghis bearing capacity

equation
Terzaghis bearing capacity
factors
e2a
N

'
q
2 cos 2 ( 45 )
2
'inrad .
3
a ( 4
) tan '
2

Bearing Capacity Mr. Jjuuko Samuel, MUK

02/24/15

13

Bearing Capacity Mr. Jjuuko Samuel, MUK

02/24/15

Terzaghis Bearing Capacity Theory

14

Local Shear Failure:

Modify the strength parameters
such as:
2
c'

3 c'
m

' m tan 1 ( 2 tan ' )

3

qu 2 c '. N ' c q . N ' q 0.5 ' B . N '

3

Square and circular footing:

qu 1.3 c '. N c q . N q 0.4 ' B . N '
qu 1.3 c '. N c q . N q 0.3 ' B . N '

For square
For circular

Bearing Capacity Mr. Jjuuko Samuel, MUK

02/24/15

Terzaghis Bearing Capacity Theory

15

Effect of water table:

Case I: Dw Df
Surch arg e , q . D

' (D

Case II: Df Dw (Df + B)

Surch arg e , q . D

In bearing capacity equation replace

by:

Dw D f
' (
)( ' )
B

Case III: Dw > (Df + B)

No influence of water table.

Bearing Capacity Mr. Jjuuko Samuel, MUK

02/24/15

Terzaghis Bearing Capacity Theory

16

Another recommendation for Case II:

dw
'
( 2 H d w )
sat
( H dw )2
H2
H2

Rupture depth:
H 0.5 B tan( 45

'
)
2

d w Dw D f

Bearing Capacity Mr. Jjuuko Samuel, MUK

02/24/15

17

Skemptons Bearing Capacity Analysis

for cohesive Soils
~ For saturated cohesive soil, = 0
N c 5 (1 0.2

For strip footing:

For square/circular
footing:

Df
B

N c 6 (1 0.2

)
Df
B

Nq = 1 and N = 0
with limit of Nc 7.5

with limit of Nc 9.0

Df

For rectangular footing: N c 5 (1 0.2 )(1 0.2 B ) for Df 2.5

B
L
N c 7.5 (1 0.2 B )
L

for Df > 2.5

qu = c.Nc + q

qu = c.Nc

Net ultimate bearing capacity, qnu = qu .Df

Bearing Capacity Mr. Jjuuko Samuel, MUK

02/24/15

18

Effective Area Method for Eccentric

Loading
In case of Moment loading
ex

My
Fv

Mx
ey
Fv

In case of Horizontal Force at

some height but the column is
centered on the foundation
M y FHx . d FH

Bearing Capacity Mr. Jjuuko Samuel, MUK

M x FHy . d FH

02/24/15

19

General Bearing Capacity Equation:

(Meyerhof, 1963)
qu c . N c . s c . d c . i c q . N q . s q . d q . i q 0.5 ' B . N . s . d . i

Shape
factor

Depth
factor

N q tan 2 ( 45

Inclination
factor

' . tan '

). e
2

Empirical correction
factors

N c ( N q 1) cot '

N ( N q 1) tan(1.4 ' )

[By Hansen (1970):

N 1.5 ( N q 1) tan( ' )

[By Vesic (1973):

N 2 ( N q 1) tan( ' )

qu c . N c . s c . d c . i c . g c . bc q . N q . s q . d q . i q . g q . bq 0.5 ' B . N . s . d . i . g . b

Ground factor

Base factor
Bearing Capacity Mr. Jjuuko Samuel, MUK

02/24/15

20

Bearing Capacity Mr. Jjuuko Samuel, MUK

02/24/15

Meyerhofs Correction Factors:

21

Shape
Factors

For 10o

'
s c 1 0.2 B tan 2 ( 45 )
L
2

'
B
2
s q s 1 0.1 tan ( 45 )
L
2

For lower value

s q s 1

Depth
Factors

d c 1 0.2

Df
L

tan( 45

'
)
2

For 10o
d q d 1 0.1

Df
L

tan( 45

For lower value

d q d 1

Inclination
Factors

o 2
i c i q ( 1
)
90

2
i (1 )
'

Bearing Capacity Mr. Jjuuko Samuel, MUK

02/24/15

'
)
2

Hansens Correction Factors:

22

Inclination
Factors

FH
ic 1
for ' 0
2 BL . c '
0.5 FH
i q [ 1
]5
FV BL . c '. cot '

Depth For 0
Df
Factors

For 0

d c 0 .4

forD f

1 D f
d
0 . 4 tan

ForD

1
( 1 F H )
i c 1 [ 1
] 2 for ' 0
2
BL . su
0.7 FH
i [1
]5
FV BL . c '. cot '

d q 1 2 tan '.(1 sin ' ) 2

d c 1 0 . 4
forD

Df
B

forD f

1 D f
d
1 0 . 4 tan

ForD

Df

Df
2

1
d q 1 2 tan '.(1 sin ' ) tan
B

Bearing Capacity Mr. Jjuuko Samuel, MUK

forD

02/24/15

d 1

Hansens Correction Factors:

23

Shape
Factors

B
B
0.2 (1 2 i ). L for ' 0
s c 0.2 ic . for ' 0 s
c
c
L
B
B
s
1 i .( L ) sin ' s 1 0.4 i .( L )
q
q

Hansens Recommendation for cohesive saturated soil

' 0 qu c . N c .(1 s c d c ic ) q

Bearing Capacity Mr. Jjuuko Samuel, MUK

02/24/15

24

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
Bearing Capacity Mr. Jjuuko Samuel, MUK
02/24/15
design.

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..
25

Bearing Capacity Mr. Jjuuko Samuel, MUK

02/24/15

26

Bearing Capacity Mr. Jjuuko Samuel, MUK

02/24/15

27

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 + mL2)1/2. Note
use of B and L, not B,
L.
3. Hi term 1.0 for
Bearing Capacity Mr. Jjuuko Samuel,
MUK 02/24/15 i , i (always).
computing
q

Suitability of Methods
28

Use
Terzaghi

Best for
Very cohesive soils where D/B1 or for a
quick estimate of qult to compare with other
methods. Do not use for footings with
moments and/or horizontal forces or for tilted
bases and/or sloping ground

Hansen,
Meyerhof,
Vesic

Any situation that applies, depending on user

preference or familiarity with a particular
method.

Hansen, Vesic When base is tilted; when footing is on a

slopeCapacity
or when
D/B>
Bearing
Mr. Jjuuko
Samuel,1.
MUK 02/24/15

IS:6403-1981 Recommendations
29

Net Ultimate Bearing capacity:

q nu c . N c . s c . d c . ic q .( N q 1). s q . d q . i q 0.5 ' B . N . s . d . i

For cohesive soils

q nu cu . N c . s c . d c . ic whereN c 5.14

Nc, Nq, N as per Vesic(1973) recommendations

Shape
Factors

For rectangle,

s c 1 0.2 B
L

s q 1 0.2 B s
L

B
1 0.4 L

For square and circle, sc = 1.3 sq = 1.2

s = 0.8 for square, s = 0.6 for circle

Bearing Capacity Mr. Jjuuko Samuel, MUK

02/24/15

IS:6403-1981 Recommendations
30

Depth
Factors

d c 1 0.2

Df
L

tan( 45
Df

'
)
2

'
d q d 1 0.1
tan( 45 ) for ' 10 o
L
2
d q d 1 for ' 10 o

Inclination Factors

The same as Meyerhof (1963)

Bearing Capacity Mr. Jjuuko Samuel, MUK

02/24/15

31

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

Bearing Capacity Mr. Jjuuko Samuel, MUK

02/24/15

32

Bearing Capacity Correlations with

SPT-value
Teng (1962):

1
2
2
For Strip Footing: q nu 6 3 N . B . R w 5 100 N . D f . R w
For Square and
1
2
2
Circular Footing: q nu 3 N . B . R w 3 100 N . D f . R w

For Df > B, take Df = B

Water Table Corrections:

D
R w 0.5 1 w
Df
0.5 1
Rw

Dw D f
Df

Rw 1
R/w 1

Bearing Capacity Mr. Jjuuko Samuel, MUK

02/24/15

33

Bearing Capacity Correlations with

CPT-value

IS:6403-1981 Recommendation:
Cohesionless Soil

Schmertmann (1975):
Bearing Capacity Mr. Jjuuko Samuel, MUK

02/24/15

34

Bearing Capacity Correlations with

CPT-value
IS:6403-1981 Recommendation:
Cohesive Soil

q nu cu . N c . s c . d c . ic

Soil Type

Point Resistance
Values (qc)
kgf/cm2

Range of
Undrained
Cohesion
(kgf/cm2)

Normally consolidated
clays

qc < 20

qc/18 to qc/15

Over consolidated clays

qc > 20

qc/26 to qc/22

Bearing Capacity Mr. Jjuuko Samuel, MUK

02/24/15

35

Bearing Capacity of Footing on

Layered Soil

Depth of rupture zone B tan 45

2

'
2

or approximately taken as B

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 check the bearing capacity at this
level for limit state.
Also check the bearing capacity for original
foundation level using parameters of Layer1Choose minimum value for design
Bearing Capacity Mr. Jjuuko Samuel, MUK

02/24/15

36

Bearing Capacity of Footing on

Layered Soil
Another approximate method for c- soil:
For effective depth B

'
2 tan 45 2

Find average c and and use them for ultimate bearing

capacity calculation
c H c H c H
c av 1 1 2 2 3 3
H 1 H 2 H 3

tan av

tan 1 H 1 tan 2 H 2 tan 3 H 3

H 1 H 2 H 3

Bearing Capacity Mr. Jjuuko Samuel, MUK

02/24/15

37

Bearing Capacity of Stratified

Cohesive Soil
IS:6403-1981 Recommendation:

Bearing Capacity Mr. Jjuuko Samuel, MUK

02/24/15

Bearing Capacity of Footing on Layered

Soil: Stronger Soil Underlying Weaker
Soil

38

Depth H is relatively large

Depth H is relatively small
Full failure surface develops in top
Punching shear failure in top layer
General shear failure in bottom layer layer itself

Bearing Capacity Mr. Jjuuko Samuel, MUK

02/24/15

Bearing Capacity of Footing on Layered

Soil: Stronger Soil Underlying Weaker
Soil

39

2 C a PP sin
qu qb
1H
B

Ca = caH

ca = adhesion

B = width of the foundation

Ca = adhesive force
Pp = passive force per unit length of the
faces aa and bb
qb = bearing capacity of the bottom soil
layer
= inclination of the passive force Pp
Bearing Capacity Mr. Jjuuko Samuel, MUK
with the horizontal

02/24/15

Bearing Capacity of Footing on Layered

Soil: Stronger Soil Underlying Weaker
Soil

40

2D f
2 cu H
2
qu qb
1 H 1
B
H

K s tan 1
1H
B

The punching shear coefficient

Ks f

q2
,1
q1

Bearing capacities of continuous footing of

width B under vertical load on the surface of
homogeneous thick bed of upper and lower
soil
q1 c1 N c 1 1 1 BN 1
2

q 2 c 2 N c 2 1 2 BN 2
2
Bearing Capacity Mr. Jjuuko Samuel, MUK

02/24/15

Bearing Capacity of Footing on Layered

Soil: Stronger Soil Underlying Weaker
Soil
2D

41

For Strip Footing: qu qb 2 c a H 1H 2 1 f K s tan 1 1H qt

B
H
B
Where, qt is the bearing capacity for foundation
considering only the top layer to infinite depth
For Rectangular Footing:

q u q b 1 B
L

2 c a H
1 H 2 1 B
B
L

2D f
H

K s tan 1
1 H qt
B

Special Cases:
1. Top layer is strong sand and bottom layer is saturated soft clay
c1 = 0 2 = 0
2. Top layer is strong sand and bottom layer is weaker sand
c1 = 0 c2 = 0
3. Top layer is strong saturated clay and bottom layer is weaker
saturated clay
1 = 0 2 = 0
Bearing Capacity Mr. Jjuuko Samuel, MUK

02/24/15

Eccentrically Loaded Foundations

42

Bearing Capacity Mr. Jjuuko Samuel, MUK

02/24/15

43

Determination of Effective Dimensions

for Eccentrically Loaded foundations
(Highter and Anders, 1985)
Case I: e L 1 e B 1
and

3e
B1 B 3 B
2 B
3eL
3
L1 L

2 B

A 1 L1 B1
2
L max( B1 , L1 )

B A
L

Bearing Capacity Mr. Jjuuko Samuel, MUK

02/24/15

44

Determination of Effective Dimensions

for Eccentrically Loaded foundations
(Highter and Anders, 1985)
Case II: e L 0.5 and 0 e B 1
L

A 1
2

L1 L2 B

L max

B1 , L1

B A
L

Bearing Capacity Mr. Jjuuko Samuel, MUK

02/24/15

45

Determination of Effective Dimensions

for Eccentrically Loaded foundations
(Highter and Anders, 1985)

e
Case III: e L 1
and 0 B 0.5
L

A 1 L
2

B1 B 2
L L

B A
L
Bearing Capacity Mr. Jjuuko Samuel, MUK

02/24/15

46

Determination of Effective Dimensions

for Eccentrically Loaded foundations
(Highter and Anders, 1985)

Case IV:

eL 1
e
and B 1
L 6
B 6

A L2 B 1 ( B1 B 2 )( L L2 )
2
L L B A
Bearing Capacity Mr. Jjuuko Samuel, MUK
L

02/24/15

47

Determination of Effective Dimensions

for Eccentrically Loaded foundations
(Highter and Anders, 1985)

Case V: Circular foundation

L A
B

Bearing Capacity Mr. Jjuuko Samuel, MUK

02/24/15

Meyerhofs (1953) area correction based

on empirical correlations: (American
Petroleum Institute, 1987)
48

Bearing Capacity Mr. Jjuuko Samuel, MUK

02/24/15

Bearing Capacity
of Footings on
Slopes Meyerhofs
(1957) Solution

49

qu c N cq 0.5 BN q

Granular Soil
c = 0
qu 0.5 BN q

Bearing Capacity Mr. Jjuuko Samuel, MUK

02/24/15

Bearing Capacity of Footings on Slopes

Meyerhofs (1957) Solution
50

Cohesive Soil
=0
qu c N cq
Ns

H
c

Bearing Capacity Mr. Jjuuko Samuel, MUK

02/24/15

Bearing Capacity of Footings on Slopes

Graham et al. (1988), Based on method
of characteristics

51

For

Bearing Capacity Mr. Jjuuko Samuel, MUK

Df
B

02/24/15

Bearing Capacity of Footings on Slopes

Graham et al. (1988), Based on method
of characteristics

52

For

Bearing Capacity Mr. Jjuuko Samuel, MUK

Df
B

02/24/15

Bearing Capacity of Footings on Slopes

Graham et al. (1988), Based on method
of characteristics

53

For

Df
B

0.5

Bearing Capacity Mr. Jjuuko Samuel, MUK

02/24/15

Bearing Capacity of Footings on Slopes

Graham et al. (1988), Based on method
of characteristics

54

For

Df
B

1.0

Bearing Capacity Mr. Jjuuko Samuel, MUK

02/24/15

Bearing Capacity of Footings on Slopes

Bowles (1997): A simplified approach

55

Bearing Capacity Mr. Jjuuko Samuel, MUK

02/24/15

Soil Compressibility Effects on Bearing

Capacity Vesics (1973) Approach

56

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, Ir:
Ir
tan
c vo

Critical Rigidity Index of Soil, Icr:

I rc 0.5. e

3.30 0.45 B
L

tan 45
2

Bearing Capacity Mr. Jjuuko Samuel, MUK

02/24/15

Soil Compressibility Effects on Bearing

Capacity Vesics (1973) Approach

57

Compressibility Correction Factors, cc, c, and cq

For Ir Irc
For Ir < Irc

cc = c q = c = 1

3.07. sin . log10 2. I r

B
0.6 4.4 . tan
L
1 sin
c q c e
For 0 c c 0.32 0.12 B 0.60. log I r
L
1 c q
For 0 c c c q
N q tan

Bearing Capacity Mr. Jjuuko Samuel, MUK

02/24/15