Bearing Capacity

Definitions
 Ultimate Bearing Capacity (qf) : It is the maximum pressure that a
foundation soil can withstand without undergoing shear failure.
 Net ultimate Bearing Capacity (qn) : It is the maximum extra
pressure (in addition to initial overburden pressure) that a foundation
soil can withstand without undergoing shear failure.
qn = qf - qo
 Here, qo = γD represents the overburden pressure at foundation level
 Safe Bearing Capacity (qs) : It is the maximum pressure which
the soil can carry safely without shear failure.
qn
qs   qo
FS
 Allowable Bearing Pressure (qa) : It is the maximum pressure the
foundation soil is subjected to considering both shear failure and
settlement.
 Criteria for Determining Bearing Capacity

 Shear Strength Criteria : Shear Failure shall

not occur
 Settlement Criteria :Total and differential
settlements are within safe, permitted limit.
 Modes of Shear Failures
Depending on the stiffness of foundation soil and depth of
foundation, the following are the modes of shear failure
experienced by the foundation soil.
 Modes of Shear Failures
General Shear Failure

 Continuous, well defined and distinct failure surface develops between the edge of
footing and ground surface.
 Dense or stiff soil that undergoes low compressibility experiences this failure.
 Continuous bulging of shear mass adjacent to footing is visible.
 Failure is accompanied by tilting of footing.
 Failure is sudden and catastrophic with pronounced peak in P – Δ curve.
 The length of disturbance beyond the edge of footing is large.
 State of plastic equilibrium is reached initially at the footing edge and spreads
gradually downwards and outwards.
 General shear failure is accompanied by low strain (<5%) in a soil with considerable
Φ (Φ>36o) and large N (N > 30) having high relative density (ID > 70%).
 Modes of Shear Failures
Local Shear Failure

1. This type of failure is seen in relatively loose and soft soil.

2. A significant compression of soil below the footing and partial development of
plastic equilibrium is observed.
3. Failure is not sudden and there is no tilting of footing.
4. Failure surface does not reach the ground surface and slight bulging of soil around
the footing is observed.
5. Failure surface is not well defined.
6. Failure is characterized by considerable settlement.
7. Well defined peak is absent in P – Δ curve.
8. Large strain (> 10 to 20%) in a soil with low Φ (Φ<28o) and low N (N < 5) having
low relative density (ID > 20%).
 Modes of Shear Failures
Punching Shear Failure

1. This type of failure is seen in loose and soft soil and at deeper
elevations.
2. This type of failure occurs in a soil of very high compressibility.
3. Failure pattern is not observed.
4. Bulging of soil around the footing is absent.
5. Failure is characterized by very large settlement.
6. Continuous settlement with no increase in P is observed in P – Δ
curve.
Methods for Determining Bearing Capacity

 Bearing Capacity from Building Codes – IS:1904

 Analytical Methods
 Plate Load Tests/Pile load tests
 Penetration Tests (SPT, Dynamic & Static cone
penetration Tests)
 Model Tests
Methods for Determining Bearing Capacity
Bearing Capacity from Building Codes – IS:1904
 Methods for Determining Bearing Capacity
Analytical Methods:
 Theory of Elasticity – Schleicher’s Method
 Classical Earth pressure Theory:
 Rankine’s method,
 Pauker’s method,
 Bell’s Method
 Theory of Plasticity:
 Fellenius method
 Pradtl’s method
 Terzaghi’s Method,
 Meyerhof’s method,
 Skempton’s method
 Hansen’s Method &
 Balla’s Method
 Methods for Determining Bearing Capacity
Theory of Elasticity – Schleicher’s Method

Where
s = elastic settlement
K= Shape co-efficient (stiffness of footing, shape,
distribution of total load)
q = net pressure applied from footing on soil
A = Area of footing
E = Modulus of Elasticity
µ = Poisson’s ratio for the soil
 Methods for Determining Bearing Capacity
Classical Earth Pressure Theory – Rankine’s Method
Too approximate & conservative
For element - I

For element –II, soil get compressed,

creating passive conditions,
 Terzaghi’s Theory
Terzaghi (1943) was the first to propose a comprehensive theory for
evaluating the safe bearing capacity of strip footing with rough base.

Assumptions:
1. Soil is homogeneous and Isotropic.
2. The shear strength of soil is represented by Mohr Coulombs
Criteria.
3. The footing is of strip footing type with rough base. It is essentially
a two dimensional plane strain problem.
4. Elastic zone has straight boundaries
5. Failure zone is not extended above, beyond the base of the footing.
Shear resistance of soil above the base of footing is neglected.
 Terzaghi’s Theory
Assumptions:
6. Passive pressure force has three components (PPC produced by
cohesion, PPq produced by surcharge and PPγ produced by weight of
shear zone).
7. Effect of water table is neglected.
8. Footing carries concentric and vertical loads.
9. Footing and ground are horizontal.
10.Limit equilibrium is reached simultaneously at all points. Complete
shear failure is mobilized at all points at the same time.
11.The properties of foundation soil do not change during the shear
failure
 Terzaghi’s Theory

 Strip footing of infinite length and width B

 Uniform surcharge, q0 on surface of isotropic, homogeneous
soil
 Rankine active wedge, ABC: forces
 Passive zones, ADE ( ) & BGF ( )
 Terzaghi’s Theory

 transition between & ACD & BCG (zones or radial

shear or slip fans)
 above EDCGF: plastic equilibrium
 below EDCGF: elastic equilibrium
 Considering For equilibrium of
elastic wedge ABC,
 ΣV = 0
 B.qult + W - 2.Pp - 2.Ca.ac.sinØ
 the more general case is a footing at depth D

 Neglecting the shear strength of the soil above depth D implies that
this soil is a surcharge: q0 = γD

 Terzaghi’s general equation:

qf = cNc + γDNq + 0.5γNγ

 Bearing Capacity Factors
Net ultimate bearing capacity,
q n  cN c  DN q  0.5BN   D

q n  cN c  D( N q  1)  0.5BN 

Safe bearing capacity,


qs  cN c  D( N q  1)  0.5BN 
1
F

 D

 Nγ, Nc and Nq are bearing capacity factors and are derived

from various sources
Bearing Capacity Factors for different ϕ
ϕ Nc Nq Ng N'c N'q N'g
0 5.7 1.0 0.0 5.7 1.0 0.0
5 7.3 1.6 0.5 6.7 1.4 0.2
10 9.6 2.7 1.2 8.0 1.9 0.5
15 12.9 4.4 2.5 9.7 2.7 0.9
20 17.7 7.4 5.0 11.8 3.9 1.7
25 25.1 12.7 9.7 14.8 5.6 3.2
30 37.2 22.5 19.7 19.0 8.3 5.7
34 52.6 36.5 35.0 23.7 11.7 9.0
35 57.8 41.4 42.4 25.2 12.6 10.1
40 95.7 81.3 100.4 34.9 20.5 18.8
45 172.3 173.3 297.5 51.2 35.1 37.7
48 258.3 287.9 780.1 66.8 50.5 60.4
50 347.6 415.1 1153.2 81.3 65.6 87.1
Bearing Capacity Factors for different ϕ
 Bearing Capacity
Local shear failure
 If a soil is relatively loose and soft, it fails in local shear
failure.
 Such a failure is accounted in bearing capacity equation
by reducing the magnitudes of strength parameters c and
ϕ as follows.
2 2
c  c
1
tan   tan 
1

3 3
Local Shear Mixed Zone General Shear
Failure Failure
Φ < 28o 28o < Φ < 36o Φ > 36o
Nc1, Nq1, Nγ1 Ncm, Nqm, Nγm Nc, Nq, Nγ
 Bearing Capacity
Effect of shape of Foundation:
The shape of footing influences the bearing capacity.

Circular footing

q f  1.3cN c  DN q  0.3BN 

Square footing

q f  1.3cN c  DN q  0.4BN 

Rectangular footing
B B
q f  (1  0.3 )cN c  DN q  (1  0.2 )0.5BN 
L L
 Effect of Water Table fluctuation
q f  cN c  DN q Rw1  0.5BN  Rw 2
W1

Z W1
D

Influence of R

1  Z w1 
 1 
B

Rw1
2 D  0.5 < Rw1 < 1

D
D

1  Z w2 
Rw 2  1 
B 
W2

2
B Z
W2

Influence of R
 IS Code Method
IS : 6403 – 1981 gives the equation for the net ultimate
bearing capacity

q nu  cN c s c d c i c  q( N q  1) s q d q iq  0.5BN  s d  i W '

The factor W’ takes into account

N c  ( N q  1) cot  the effect of the water table. If
the water table is at or below a
 tan   depth of (Df + B), measured from
N q  (e ) tan (45  )
2
ground level, then W’ = 1.0. If
2
the water table is likely to rise to
N   2( N q  1) tan 
the base of the foundation or
above, the value of W’ is taken as
0.5.
IS Code Method
IS Code Method
IS Code Method
 Other methods for Bearing Capacity
 Fellenius method (Circular failure surface, for cohesive soil)
 Pradtl’s method:
• Logarithmic spiral failure surface,
• Smooth long footing,
• For C-Ø Soil
• Assumed soil to be weightless
 Meyerhof ’s method:
• Considered shearing resistance of soil above base of
foundation
 Skempton’s method: for cohesive soil, Suggested
shape/depth factor
 Hansen’s Method : Generalized form of Bearing equation
 Balla’s Method: Suggested different method for calculation
of bearing capacity factors
 Bearing Capacity from Plate Load Test (IS:1888)
 Prepare a test pit up to the
desired foundation level.
 A rigid steel plate, round or
square in shape, 300 mm to
750 mm in size, 25 mm thick
acts as model footing.
 Dial gauges, at least 2, of
required accuracy (0.002 mm)
are placed on plate at corners
to measure the vertical
deflection.
 At every applied load, the plate
settles gradually. The dial
gauge readings are recorded
after the settlement reduces to
least count of gauge (0.002
mm)
 Bearing Capacity from Plate Load Test (IS:1888)

1. The test results reflect the behaviour of soil below the plate (for a distance of
~2Bp), not that of actual footing which is generally very large.
2. It is essentially a short duration test. Hence, it does not reflect the long term
consolidation settlement of clayey soil.
3. Size effect is pronounced in granular soil. Correction for size effect is essential in
such soils.
 Bearing Capacity from Plate Load Test (IS:1888)
 For cohesionless soil: Empirical
relationship to consider size effect:

S, Sp, settlements of foundation &

plate, (mm)
B, bp, size of footing & plate in m

For Cohesive soil:

Permissible settlement value for foundation (25 mm) may be

substituted in eq. to get settlement of plate, From load-settlement curve,
corresponding pressure is determined.
Bearing Capacity from Plate Load Test (IS:1888)
Bearing Capacity from Plate Load Test (IS:1888)

Settlement = 1.25 mm
 Bearing Capacity from Plate Load Test (IS:1888)
Example:
A plate load test was conducted on a uniform deposit of sand with
unit weight = 20 kN/m3, & following data obtained:

Pressure 50 100 200 300 400 500 600

(kN/m2)
Settlement 1.25 2.0 4.0 7.5 12.5 20.0 40.0
(mm)

The size of the plate was 750 mm x 750 mm & that of pit 3.75 m x
3.75 m x 1.5 m
i) Plot the pressure –settlement curve and determine failure stress.
ii) A square footing 2 m x 2m is to be founded at 1.5 m depth in this
soil. Assuming FOS = 3 against shear failure, and max.
permissible settlement as 40 mm, determine allowable bearing
pressure.
Bearing Capacity from Plate Load Test (IS:1888)
 Bearing Capacity from Penetration Test
Standard Penetration Test
 Reference can be made to IS 2131 for details on Standard
Penetration Test.
 It is a field test to estimate the penetration resistance of soil.
 It consists of a split spoon sampler 50.8 mm OD, 35 mm ID, min
600 mm long and 63.5 kg hammer freely dropped from a height of
750 mm.
 Test is performed on a clean hole 50 mm to 150 mm in diameter.
 Correlation between N value and 
N - value Denseness Value of 
0–4 Very Loose 25o – 32o
4 – 10 Loose 27o – 35o
10 – 30 Medium 30o – 40o
30 – 50 Dense 35o – 45o
> 50 Very Dense > 45o

Correlation between N value and Unconfined Compressive strength (qu)

N - value Consistency Value of qu (t/m2)
0–2 Very Soft < 2.5
2–4 Soft 2.5 – 5.0
4–8 Medium 5.0 – 10.0
8 – 15 Stiff 10.0 – 20.0
15 – 30 Very Stiff 20.0 – 40.0
> 30 Hard > 40.0
Bearing Capacity from Penetration Test
 Bearing Capacity from Penetration Test
Teng Equation

34.3

1  Z 
R   
B 
1
2  

Zγ = depth of water table from ground - Df

1  Z w1 
Rq  1 
2 D 
Bearing Capacity from Model Test
Cone Penetration Test (CPT)

42
Cone Penetration Test (CPT)

43