NPTEL ADVANCED FOUNDATION ENGINEERING-I

Module 3
Lecture 9 to 12
SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS: ULTIMATE BEARING
CAPACITY

Topics
9.1

INTRODUCTION

9.2

GENERAL CONCEPT

9.3

TERZAGHIS BEARING CAPACITY THEORY

9.4

MODIFICATION OF BEARING CAPACITY EQUATIONS

FOR WATER TABLE

9.5

MODIFICATION OF BEARING CAPACITY EQUATIONS

FOR WATER TABLE

9.6

CASE HISTORY: ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY IN

SATURATED CLAY
Analysis of the Field Test Results

9.7

FACTOR SAFETY

10.1 THE GENERAL BEARING CAPACITY EQUATION

Bearing Capacity Factors
General Comments
10.2 EFFECT OF SOIL COMPRESSIBILITY
10.3 ECCENTRICALLY LOADED FOUNDATIONS

NPTEL ADVANCED FOUNDATION ENGINEERING-I

Foundation with Two-Way Eccentricity

BEARING CAPACITY OF LAYERED SOILS-STRONGER SOIL
UNDERLAIN BY WEAKER SOIL
Special Cases

11.1 BEARING CAPACITY OF FOUNDATIONS ON TOP OF A

SLOPE
11.2 SEISMIC BEARING CAPACITY AND SETTLEMENT IN
GRANULAR SOIL

12.1RECENT ADVANCES IN BEARING CAPACITY OF

FOUNDATIONS ON REINFORCED SOIL
12.2 FOUNDATIONS ON SAND WITH GEOTEXTILE
REINFORCEMENT
12.3 FOUNDATIONS ON SATURATED CLAY ( = ) WITH
GEOTEXTILE REINFORCEMENT

12.4 FOUNDATIONS ON SAND WITH GEOGRID

REINFORCEMENT
12.5 STRIP FOUNDATIONS ON SATURATED CLAY ( =
) WITH GEOGRID REINFORCEMENT

PROBLEMS
REFERENCES

NPTEL ADVANCED FOUNDATION ENGINEERING-I

Module 3
Lecture 9
SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS: ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY

Topics

1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6

INTRODUCTION
GENERAL CONCEPT
TERZAGHIS BEARING CAPACITY THEORY
MODIFICATION OF BEARING CAPACITY EQUATIONS
FOR WATER TABLE
MODIFICATION OF BEARING CAPACITY EQUATIONS
FOR WATER TABLE
CASE HISTORY: ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY IN
SATURATED CLAY
Analysis of the Field Test Results

1.7 FACTOR SAFETY

NPTEL ADVANCED FOUNDATION ENGINEERING-I

INTRODUCTION
To perform satisfactorily, shallow foundations must have two main characteristics:
1. The foundation has to be safe against overall shear failure in the soil that supports
it.
2. The foundation cannot undergo excessive displacement, that is, settlement. (The
term excessive is relative, because the degree of settlement allowable for a
structure depends on several considerations).
The load per unit area of the foundation at which the shear failure in soil occurs is called
the ultimate bearing capacity, which is the subject of this chapter.
GENERAL CONCEPT
Consider a strip foundation resting on the surface of a dense sand or stiff cohesive soil, as
shown in figure 3.1a, with a width of B. Now, if load is gradually applied to the
foundation, settlement will increase. The variation of the load per unit area on the
foundation, q c , with the foundation settlement is also shown in figure 3.1a. At a certain
point-when the load per unit area equals q u a sudden failure in the soil supporting the
foundation will take place, and the failure surface in the soil will extend to the ground
surface. This load per unit area, q u , is usually referred to as the ultimate bearing capacity
of the foundation. When this type of sudden failure in soil takes place, it is called the
general shear failure.

Figure 3.1 Nature of bearing capacity failure in soils: (a) general shear failure; (b) local
shear failure; (c) punching shear failure (redrawn after Vesic, 1973)

NPTEL ADVANCED FOUNDATION ENGINEERING-I

If the foundation under consideration rests on sand or clayey soil of medium compaction
(figure 3.1b), an increase of load on the foundation will also be accompanied by an
increase of settlement. However, in this case the failure surface in the soil will gradually
extend outward from the foundation, as shown by the solid lines in figure 3.1b. When the
load per unit area on the foundation equals q u(1) , the foundation movement will be
accompanied by sudden jerks. A considerable movement of the foundation is then
required for the failure surface in soil to extend to the ground surface (as shown by the
broken lines in figure 3.1b). The load per unit area at which this happens is the ultimate
bearing capacity, q u . Beyond this point, an increase of load will be accompanied by a
large increase of foundation settlement. The load per unit area of the foundation, q u(1) is
referred to as the first failure load (Vesic, 1963). Note that a peak value of q is not
realized in this type of failure,, which is called the local shear failure in soil.
If the foundation is supported by a fairly loose soil, the load-settlement plot will be like
the one in figure 3.1c. In this case, the failure surface in soil will not extend to the ground
surface. Beyond the ultimate failure load, q u , the load-settlement plot will be steep and
practically linear. This type of failure in soil is called the punching shear failure.
Vesic (1963) conducted several laboratory load-bearing tests on circular and rectangular
plates supported by a sand at various relative densities of compaction, Dr ,. The variation
of q u(1) /12B and q u /12B obtained from those tests are shown in figure 3.2 (B =
diameter of circular plate or width of rectangular plate, and = dry unit weight of sand).
It is important to note from this figure that, for Dr about 70%, the general shear type of
failure in soil occurs.

NPTEL ADVANCED FOUNDATION ENGINEERING-I

Figure 3.2 Variation of q u(1) /0.5B and q u /0.5B for circular and rectangular plates on
the surface of a sand (after Vesic, 1963)
Based on experimental results, Vesic (1973) proposed a relationship for the mode of
bearing capacity failure of foundations resting on sands. Figure 3.2 shows this
relationship, which involves the notation

NPTEL ADVANCED FOUNDATION ENGINEERING-I

Figure 3.3 Modes of foundation failure in sand (after Vesic, 1973)

Dr = relative density of sand

Df = depth of foundation measured from the ground surface

2BL

B = B+L

[3.1]

Where

B = width of foundation

L = length of foundation

(Note: L is always greater than B).

For square foundations, B = L; for circular foundation, B = L = diameter, so
B = B

[3.2]

Figure 3.4 shows the settlement, S, of the circular and rectangular plates on the surface
of sand at ultimate load as described in figure 3.2. It shows a general range of S/B with
the relative density of compaction of sand. So, in general, we can say that for foundations
at a shallow depth (that is, small Df /B ), the ultimate load may occur at a foundation
settlement of 4-10% of B. this condition occurs when general shear failure in sol occurs;
however, in the case of local or punching shear failure, the ultimate load may occur at
settlement of 15-25% of the width of the foundation (B).

NPTEL ADVANCED FOUNDATION ENGINEERING-I

Figure 3.4 Range of settlement of circular and rectangular plates at ultimate load
(Df /B = 0) in sand (after Vesic, 1963)

TERZAGHIS BEARING CAPACITY THEORY

Terzaghi (1943) was the first to present a comprehensive theory for the evaluation of the
ultimate bearing capacity of rough shallow foundations. According to this theory, a
foundation is shallow if the depth, Df (figure 3.5), of the foundation is less than or equal
to the width of the foundation. Later investigators, however, have suggested that
foundation with Df equal to 3.4 times the width of the foundation may be defined as
shallow foundations.

NPTEL ADVANCED FOUNDATION ENGINEERING-I

Figure 3.5 Bearing capacity failure in soil under a rough rigid continuous foundation
Terzaghi suggested that for a continuous, or strip foundation (that is, the width-to-length
ratio of the foundation approaches zero), the failure surface in soil at ultimate load may
be assumed to be similar to that shown in figure 3.5. (Note that this is the case of general
shear failure as defined in figure 3.1a). The effect of soil above the bottom of the
foundation may also be assumed to be replaced by an equivalent surcharge, q = Df
(where = unit weight of soil). The failure zone under the foundation can be separated
into three parts (see figure 3.5).
1. The triangular zone ACD immediately under the foundation
2. The radial shear zones ADF and CDE, with the curves DE and DF being arcs of
logarithmic spiral
3. Two triangular Rankine passive zone AFH and CEG
The angles CAD and ACD are assumed to be equal to the soil friction angle, . Note
that, with the replacement of the soil above the bottom of the foundation by an equivalent
surcharge q, the shear resistance of the soil along the failure surfaces GI and HJ was
neglected.
Using the equilibrium analysis, Terzaghi expressed the ultimate bearing capacity in the
form
q u = cNc + qNq + 12BN
Where

(strip foundation)

[3.3]

c = cohesion of soil

= unit weight of soil

q = Df

Nc , Nq , N =
bearing capacity factors that are nondimensional and are only functions of the soil friction angle,
The bearing capacity factors Nc , Nq , and N are defined by
e 2(3 /42)tan

Nc = cot
Nq =

e 2(3 /42)tan

2 cos 2 45+
Kp

4 2

2 cos 2 +

N = 2 cos 2 1 tan

1 = cot (Nq 1)

[3.4]

[3.5]
[3.6]

NPTEL ADVANCED FOUNDATION ENGINEERING-I

Where K p = passive pressure coefficient

The variations of the bearing capacity factors defined by equations (4, 5, and 6) are given
in table 1,
Table 1 Terzaghis Bearing Capacity Factors-equations (4, 5, and 6)

Nc

5.70

Nq

1.00

0.00

26

Nc

27.09

Nq

14.21

9.84

6.00

1.1

0.01

27

29.24

15.90

11.60

6.30

1.22

0.04

28

31.61

17.81

13.70

6.62

1.35

0.06

29

34.24

19.98

16.18

6.97

1.49

0.10

30

37.16

22.46

19.13

7.34

1.64

0.14

31

40.41

25.28

22.65

7.73

1.81

0.20

32

44.04

28.52

26.87

8.15

2.00

0.27

33

48.09

32.23

31.94

8.60

2.21

0.35

34

52.64

36.50

38.04

9.09

2.44

0.44

35

57.75

41.44

45.41

10

9.61

2.69

0.56

36

63.53

47.16

54.36

11

10.16

2.98

0.69

37

70.01

53.80

65.27

12

10.76

3.29

0.85

38

77.50

61.55

78.61

13

11.41

3.63

1.04

39

85.97

70.61

95.03

14

12.11

4.02

1.26

40

95.66

81.27

115.31

15

12.86

4.45

1.52

41

106.81

93.85

140.51

16

13.68

4.92

1.82

42

119.67

108.75

171.99

17

14.60

5.45

2.18

43

134.58

126.50

211.56

18

15.12

6.04

2.59

44

151.95

147.74

261.60

NPTEL ADVANCED FOUNDATION ENGINEERING-I

19

16.56

6.70

3.07

45

172.28

173.28

325.34

20

17.69

7.44

3.64

46

196.22

204.19

407.11

21

18.92

8.26

4.31

47

224.55

241.80

512.84

22

20.27

9.19

5.09

48

258.28

287.85

650.67

23

21.75

10.23

6.00

49

298.71

344.63

831.99

24

23.36

11.40

7.08

50

347.50

415.14

1072.80

25

25.13

12.72

8.34

From Kumbhojkar (`1993)

For estimating the ultimate bearing capacity of square or circular foundations equation
(1) may be modified to
q u = 1.3cNc + qNq + 0.4BN

[3.7]

And

(square foundation)

q u = 1.3cNc + qNq + 0.3BN

(circular foundation)

[3.8]

In equation (7), B equals the dimension of each side of the foundation; in equation (8), B
equals the diameter of the foundation.
For foundations that exhibit the local shear failure mode in soils, Terzaghi suggested
modifications to equations (3, 7, and 8) as follows:
2

q u = 3 cNc + qNq + 12BN

(strip foundation)

q u = 0.867cNc + qNq + 0.4BN

q u = 0.867cNc + qNq + 0.3BN

(square foundation)

(circular foundation)

[3.9]
[3.10]
[3.11]

Nc , Nq , and N are the modified bearing capacity factors. They can be calculated by
using the bearing capacity factor equations (for Nc , Nq , and N ) by replacing by
= tan1 (23 tan ). the variation of Nc , Nq , and N with the soil friction angle, , is
given in table 2.
Terzaghis bearing capacity equations have now been modified to take into account the
effects of the foundation shape (B/L), depth of embedment (Df ), and the load inclination.
This is given in section 7. Many design engineers, however, still use Terzaghis equation,

NPTEL ADVANCED FOUNDATION ENGINEERING-I

which provides fairly good results considering the uncertainty of the soil conditions at
various sites.
MODIFICATION OF BEARING CAPACITY EQUATIONS FOR WATER
TABLE
Equations (3) and (7) to (11) have been developed for determining the ultimate bearing
capacity based on the assumption that the water table is located well below the
foundation. However, if the water table is close to the foundation, some modifications of
the bearing capacity equations will be necessary, depending on the location of the water
table (see figure 3.6).

Figure 3.6 Modification of bearing capacity equations for water table

Case I
If the water table is located so that 0 D1 Df , the factor q in the bearing capacity
equations takes the form
Table 2 Terzaghis Modified Bearing Capacity Factors Nc , Nq , and N

Nc

5.70

Nq

1.00

0.00

26

Nc

15.53

Nq

6.05

2.59

5.90

1.07

0.005

27

16.30

6.54

2.88

6.10

1.14

0.02

28

17.13

7.07

3.29

6.30

1.22

0.04

29

18.03

7.66

3.76

6.51

1.30

0.055

30

18.99

8.31

4.39

NPTEL ADVANCED FOUNDATION ENGINEERING-I

6.74

1.39

0.074

31

20.03

9.03

4.83

6.97

1.49

0.10

32

21.16

9.82

5.51

7.22

1.59

0.128

33

22.39

10.69

6.32

7.47

1.70

0.16

34

23.72

11.67

7.22

7.74

1.82

0.20

35

25.18

12.75

8.35

10

8.02

1.94

0.24

36

26.77

13.97

9.41

11

8.32

2.08

0.30

37

28.51

15.32

10.90

12

8.63

2.22

0.35

38

30.43

16.85

12.75

13

8.96

2.38

0.42

39

32.53

18.56

14.71

14

9.31

2.55

0.48

40

34.87

20.50

17.22

15

9.67

2.73

0.57

41

37.45

22.70

19.75

16

10.06

2.92

0.67

42

40.33

25.21

22.50

17

10.47

3.13

0.76

43

43.54

28.06

26.25

18

10.90

3.36

0.88

44

47.13

31.34

30.40

19

11.36

3.61

1.03

45

51.17

35.11

36.00

20

11.85

3.88

1.12

46

55.73

39.48

41.70

21

12.37

4.17

1.35

47

60.91

44.45

49.30

22

12.92

4.48

1.55

48

66.80

50.46

59.25

23

13.51

4.82

1.74

49

73.55

57.41

71.45

24

14.14

5.20

1.97

50

81.31

65.60

85.75

25

14.80

5.60

2.25

= = 1 + 2 ( )
Where

[3.12]

NPTEL ADVANCED FOUNDATION ENGINEERING-I

=

Also, the value of in the last term of the equations has to be replaced by = .
Case II

For a water table located so that 0 ,

=

[3.13]

The factor in the last term of the bearing capacity equations must be replaced by the
factor

= + ( )

[3.14]

The preceding modifications are based on the assumption that there is no seepage force in
the soil.
Case III
When he water table is located so that ,the water will have no effect on the ultimate
bearing capacity.
CASE HISTORY: ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY IN SATURATED CLAY
Brand et al. (1972) reported field test results for small foundations on soft Bangkok clay
(a deposit of marine clay) in Rangsit, Thailand. The results of the soil exploration are
shown in figure 3.7. Because of the sensitivity of the clay, the laboratory test results for
(uconfined compression and unconsolidated undrianed triaxial) were rather scattered;
however, they obtained better results for the variation of with depth from field vane
shear tests. The vane shear test results showed that the average variations of the
undrained cohesion were

Depth (m)
0-1.5
1.5-2
2-8

(/2 )

35

Decreasing
linearly
from 35 to 24
24

NPTEL ADVANCED FOUNDATION ENGINEERING-I

Five small square foundations were tested for ultimate bearing capacity. The sizes of the
foundations were,
0.6 m, 0.6 m, 0.675 m 0.75 m 0.75m, 0.9 m 0.9 m, and 1.05 1.05 m. The
depth of the bottom of the foundations was 1.5 m measured from the ground surface. The
load-settlement plots obtained from the bearing capacity tests are shown in figure 3.8.

Figure 3.7 Results of soil exploration in soft Bangkok clay at Rangsit. Thailand (after
Brand et al., 1972)

Figure 3.8 Loan-settlement plots obtained from bearing capacity tests

NPTEL ADVANCED FOUNDATION ENGINEERING-I

Analysis of the Field Test Results
The ultimate loads, , obtained from each test are also shown in figure 3.8. The ultimate
load is defined as the point where the load displacement becomes practically linear. The
failure in soil below the foundation is of local shear type.
Hence, from equation (10)
= 0.867 + + 0.4

For = 0, = , 2, = 5.7, = 1 = 0. Thus for = 0

= 4.94 +

[3.15]

If we assume that the unit weight of soil is about 18.5 /3 ,

= (1.5)(18.5) = 27.75 /2 . We can then assume average values of : for
depths of 1.5 m to 2.0 m, (35 + 24)/2 = 29.5 /2 ; for depths greater than
2.0 , (24 /2 . If we assume that the undrained cohesion of clay at depth
below the foundation controls the ultimate bearing capacity,
Table 3 Comparison of Theoretical and Field Ultimate Bearing Capacities
() ( )

(
2 )

(/ ( ) ( ( ) ()
( ) (
/2 )
/2

0.6

28.58

Plas Correla
ticit tion
y
factor,

40

0.84

24.01

146.4

60

166.6

0.675

28.07

40

0.84

23.58

144.2

71

155.8

0.75

27.67

40

0.84

23.24

142.6

90

160

0.9

27.06

40

0.84

22.73

140.0

124

153

1.05

26.62

40

0.84

22.36

138.2

140

127

Equation (16)

From figure 3.7

From table 7 [ = 1.7 0.54 (): (1972)]

Equation (19 from chapter 2)

NPTEL ADVANCED FOUNDATION ENGINEERING-I

Equation (15)

Figure 3.8

( ) / 2
( )

(29.5)(2.01.5)+(24)[(2.01.5)]

[3.16]

The ( ) value obtained for each foundation needs to be corrected in view of

equation (19 from chapter 2) table 3 presents the details of other calculations and a
comparison of the theoretical and field ultimate bearing capacities.
Note that the ultimate bearing capacities obtained from the field are about 10% higher
than those obtained from theory. One reason for such a difference is that the ratio /
for the field tests varies from 1.5 to 2.5. The increase of the bearing capacity due to the
depth of embedment has not been accounted for in equation (16).
FACTOR SAFETY
Calculating the gross allowable load-bearing capacity of shallow foundations requires
application of a factor of safety (FS) to the gross ultimate bearing capacity, or

[3.17]

However, some practicing engineers prefer to use a factor of safety of

=

[3.18]

The net ultimate bearing capacity is defined as the ultimate pressure per unit area of the
foundation that can be supported by the soil in excess of the pressure caused by the
surrounding soil at the foundation level. If the difference between the unit weights of
concrete used in the foundation and the unit weight of soil surrounding is assumed to be
negligible,
() =
Where

() =
=
So,

[3.19]

NPTEL ADVANCED FOUNDATION ENGINEERING-I

( ) =

[3.20]

The factor of safety as defined by equation (20) may be at least 3 in all cases.
Another type of factor of safety for the bearing capacity of shallow foundations is often
used. It is the factor with respect to shear failure (FSshear ). in most cases, a vale of
FSshear = 1.4 1.6 is desirable along with a minimum factor of safety of 3-4 against
gross or net ultimate bearing capacity. The following procedure should be used to
calculate the net allowable load for a given FSshear .
1. Let c and be the cohesion and the angle of friction, respectively, of soil and let
FSshear be the required factor of safety with respect to shear failure. So the
developed cohesion and the angle of friction are
cd = FS

s h ear

[3.21]
tan

d = tan1 FS

s h ear

[3.22]

2. The gross allowable bearing capacity can now be calculated according to

equations (3, 7, 8), with cd and d as the shear strength parameters of the soil.
For example, the gross allowable bearing capacity of a continuous foundation
according to Terzaghis equation is
q all = cd Nc + qNq + 12BN

[3.23]

Where Nc , Nq , and N = bearing capacity factors for the friction angle, d

3. The net allowable bearing capacity is thus

q all (net ) = q all q = cd Nc + qNq 1 + 12BN

[3.24]

Irrespective of the procedure by which the factor of safety is applied, the magnitude of FS
should depend on the uncertainties and risks involved for the conditions encountered.
Example 1
A square foundation is 5 ft 5 ft in plan. The soil supporting the foundation has a
friction angle of = 20 and c = 320 lb/ft 2 . The unit weight of soil, , is 115 lb/ft 3 .
Determine the allowable gross load on the foundation with a factor of safety (FS) of 4.
Assume that the depth of the foundation (Df ) is 3 ft and that general shear failure occurs
in the soil.

NPTEL ADVANCED FOUNDATION ENGINEERING-I

Solution
From equation (7)
q u = 1.3cNc + qNq + 0.4BN
From table 1, for = 20 ,
Nc = 17.69
Nq = 7.44
N = 3.64
Thus

q u = (1.3)(320)(17.69) + (3 115)(7.44) + (0.4)(115)(5)(3.64)

= 7359 + 2567 + 837 = 10, 736 lb/ft 2

So, the allowable load per unit area of the foundation is

q

q all = FSu =

10,736
4

2691 lb/ft 2

Thus load total allowable gross load is

Q = (2691)B2 = (2691)(5 5) = 67,275 lb