Calculating Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations

CHAPTER 3
BEARING CAPACITY
OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS
3.1 MODES OF FAILURE

Failure is defined as mobilizing the full value of soil shear strength accompanied with
excessive settlements. For shallow foundations it depends on soil type, particularly its
compressibility, and type of loading. Modes of failure in soil at ultimate load are of three types;
these are as shown below in Fig.(3.1).
Mode of Failure Characteristics Typical Soils
(i) General Shear Failure Well defined continuous slip Low compressible soils,
B Load/ unit area, q surface up to ground level, Very dense sands,
Heaving occurs on both Saturated clays (NC
qult. sides with final collapse and and OC),
tilting on one side, Undrained shear (fast
Failure is sudden and loading).
Failure Surface
catastrophic,
Settlement
Ultimate value is peak value.
(ii) Local Shear Failure Well defined slip surfaces Moderate compressible
only below the foundation, soils,
B Load/ unit area, q discontinuous either side, Medium dense sands,
qult.(1) Large vertical displacements
required before slip surfaces
qult.
appear at ground level,
Some heaving occurs on
Failure Surface both sides with no tilting and
Settlement no catastrophic failure,
No peak value, ultimate
value not defined.
(iii) Punching Shear Failure
B Load/ unit area, q Well defined slip surfaces High compressible soils
only below the foundation, Very loose sands,
qult.(1) non of either side, Partially saturated
qult. qult. Large vertical displacements clays,
produced by soil NC clay in drained
Surface
Failure Surface footing
compressibility, shear
No heaving, no tilting or (very slow loading),
Settlement catastrophic failure, no Peats.
ultimate value.
Fig.(3.1): Modes of failure in soil.

Foundation Engineering for Civil Engineers Chapter 3: Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations
3.2 BEARING CAPACITY CLASSIFICATION

Gross Bearing Capacity ( q gross ): It is the total unit pressure at the base of footing
which the soil can take up.

P
G.S.
q D f .
Df Do
t
B
q gross = total pressure under the base of footing = Pfooting / area.of .footing .
where Pfooting p.(column .load ) + own wt. of footing + own wt. of earth fill over the
footing.
q gross (P s .D o .B.L c .t.B.L) / B.L
P
q gross s .D o c .t .....(3.1)
B.L
Ultimate Bearing Capacity ( q ult. ): It is the maximum unit pressure or the maximum
gross pressure that a soil can stand without shear failure.
Allowable Bearing Capacity ( q all. ): It is the ultimate bearing capacity divided by a

reasonable factor of safety.
q ult.
q all. ........................................................(3.2)
F.S
Net Ultimate Bearing Capacity: It is the ultimate bearing capacity minus the vertical
pressure that is produced on horizontal plain at level of the base of the foundation by an
adjacent surcharge.
q ult.net q ult. D f . ..........(3.3)
Net Allowable Bearing Capacity ( q all. net ): It is the net safe bearing capacity or the
net ultimate bearing capacity divided by a reasonable factor of safety.
q ult. net q ult. D f .
Approximate: q all. net ..................(3.4)
F.S F.S
q ult.
Exact: q all. net D f . ..................................(3.5)
F.S
73
3.3 FACTOR OF SAFETY FOR BEARING CAPACITY

The choice of factor of safety (F.S.) depends on many factors such as:
1. The variation of shear strength of soil,
2. Magnitude of damages,
3. Reliability of soil data such as uncertainties in predicting the q ult. by the theoretical or
empirical methods,
4. Changes in soil properties due to construction operations,
5. Relative cost of increasing or decreasing F.S., and
6. The importance of the structure, differential settlements and soil strata underneath the
structure.
The general values of safety factor used in design of footings are 2.5 to 3.0. The upper value
(3.0) is normally used for normal design load in service conditions and the lower value (2.5)
is used for maximum or transient loading conditions such as wind load or earthquakes.
3.4 BEARING CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS

Three requirements must be satisfied in determining bearing capacity of soil. These are:
(1) Adequate depth; the foundation must be deep enough with respect to environmental
effects; such as:
Depth of frost penetration,
Depth of seasonal volume changes in the soil,
To exclude the possibility of erosion and undermining of the supporting soil by
water and wind currents, and
To minimize the possibility of damage by construction operations,
(2) Tolerable settlements, the bearing capacity must be low enough to ensure that both
total and differential settlements of all foundations under the planned structure are
within the allowable values,
(3) Safety against failure, this failure is of two kinds:
The structural failure of the foundation; which may occur if the foundation itself is
not properly designed to sustain the imposed stresses, and
The bearing capacity failure of the supporting soils.
3.5 FACTORS AFFECTING BEARING CAPACITY

1. Type of soil (cohesive or cohesionless),
2. Physical features of the foundation; such as size, depth, shape, type, and rigidity,
3. Total and differential settlements that the structure can stand,
4. Physical properties of soil; such as density and shear strength parameters,
5. The water table condition, and
6. Original stresses.
74
3.6 METHODS OF DETERMINING BEARING CAPACITY

3.6.1 BEARING CAPACITY TABLES
The bearing capacity values can be found in certain tables presented in building codes, soil
mechanics and foundation books; such as that shown in Table (3.1). They are based on
experience and can be only used for preliminary design of light and small buildings as a helpful
indication; however, they should be followed by the essential laboratory and field soil tests.
Table (3.1) neglects the effect of the following items: (i) underlying strata, (ii) size, shape
and depth of footings, (iii) type of the structures supported by the footings, (iv) absence of
specification of the physical properties of the soil in question, and (v) the assumption that the
ground water table level is at foundation level or with depth less than width of footing. Therefore,
if water table rises above the foundation level, the hydrostatic water pressure force which affects
the base of foundation should be taken into consideration.
Table (3.1): Bearing capacity values according to building codes.
Bearing pressure
Soil type Description Notes
(kN/m2)
Rocks 1. bed rocks. 70
2. sedimentary layer rock 30
(hard shale, sand stone, Unless they are
siltstone). affected by water.
3. shest or erdwas. 20
4. soft rocks. 13
Cohesionless Dry submerged
soil
1. well compacted sand or
sand mixed with gravel. 3.5-5.0 1.75-2.5
2. sand, loose and well
graded or loose mixed 1.5-3.0 0.5-1.5 Footing width
sand and gravel. 1.0 m.
3. compacted sand, well 1.5-2.0 0.5-1.5
graded.
4. well graded loose sand. 0.5-1.5 0.25-0.5
Cohesive 1. very stiff clay 2-4

soil 2. stiff clay 1-2
3. medium-stiff clay 0.5-1 It is subjected to
4. low stiff clay 0.25-0.5 settlement due to
5. soft clay up to 0.2 consolidation
6. very soft clay 0.1-0.2
7. silt soil 1.0-1.5
3.6.2 FIELD LOAD TEST

This test is fully explained in (section 2.11 Chapter 2).
75
3.6.3 BEARING CAPACITY EQUATIONS

Several bearing capacity theories were proposed for estimating the ultimate bearing
capacity of shallow foundations. A summary of some important works developed so far is as
follows:-
(1) PRANDTL, 1921; REISSNER, 1924 ANALYSES
Fig.(3.2) shows the Prandtl theory of rupture under line loading. It was based on long
metal plate as a continuous or strip footing with the following assumptions:
The surface of plate is very smooth,
L/B is (i.e., strip footing),
The load is applied axially to the center of plate,
There is no friction between soil and plate,
The failure pattern consists of three zones; zone (I) is an active Rankine zone, which
pushed the radial Prandtl zone (II) sideways and the passive Rankine zone (III) in an
upward direction.
The weights of the three soil zones are neglected.
The lower boundary acde of the displaced soil mass is composed of two straight lines
ac and de inclined at (45 / 2) and (45 / 2) , respectively to the horizontal. The
shape of the connecting curve cd depends on the angle and on the ratio ( .B / q ).
Hence, when .B / q = 0 (weightless soil), the curve becomes a logarithmic spiral but
if ( 0 ), it degenerates into a circle.
B
qult.
a b e
45 /2 = 45 + /2 45 /2
III I III
II II
c d
Fig.(3.2): Prandtl theory of rupture under line loading.
Under the assumption that = (45 / 2) , the following bearing equations were
obtained:-
(i) Prandtl and Reissner, 19211924 Analyses:
(for weightless soil; 0 ):
q ult. cN c qN q ........(3.6)
(ii) Caquot and Kerisel, 1953 Analyses:
(for cohesionless soil; c = 0 without overburden; q = 0 ):
1
q ult. B..N ..........(3.7)
2
76
Now summing Eqs.(3.6 and 3.7) gives (for c 0,..q 0,..and.. 0 ):

1
q ult. cN c qNq .B..N ............(3.8)
2
where, N c , N q , and N are bearing capacity factors defined as:
N q e . tan tan2 (45 / 2) ; same as Meyerhof, Hansen, and Vesic

N c ( N q 1). cot ; same as Meyerhof, Hansen, and Vesic
N 2.(Nq 1). tan ; same as Vesic
Eq.(3.8) is known as (Buisman, 1940 - Terzaghi, 1943 bearing capacity equation for
strip footing). But, it leads to an errors on the safe side, not exceeding 20% for
20 40 , while equal to zero for 0 .
(2) TERZAGHI'S BEARING CAPACITY EQUATION

Terzaghi's equation was produced from a slightly modification of the bearing capacity
theory developed by Prandtl using the following assumptions:
(a) The footing is continuous footing L/B and the soil is homogenous,
(b) The base of footing is rough; there is a friction between footing and soil,
(c) The shear strength of soil located above the base the footing is neglected, and could be
replaced by a surcharge (q = D f . ), and
(d) The load is applied axially at the center of the footing (centric load).
Referring to Fig.(3.3), the failure area in the soil under the foundation can be divided
into three major zones. These are:
(1) Zone cba: this is a triangular elastic zone located immediately below the bottom of the
foundation. The inclination of sides ac and ab of the wedge with the horizontal is (
); the soil friction angle, while most other theories use ( 45 / 2 ),
(2) Zone cad: this zone is the Prandtl radial shear zone, and
(3) Zone cde: this zone is the Rankine passive zone.
Qult.
B
c b
e Cd Cd
a
Pp Pp
Forces on the elastic wedge.
Fig.(3.3): Failure surface in soil at ultimate load for a continuous rigid foundation
as assumed by Terzaghi, Meyerhof, and Hansen, (after Das, 2009).
77
Terzaghi's bearing capacity equation is developed by summing all vertical forces on the
wedge cba shown in Fig.(3.3) and equating the sum to zero. The wedge cba will be in
equilibrium at failure under the following forces:-
(1) The total ultimate load ( Q ult. ) acting vertically downward.

Qult. q ult..( B) .........................(3.9)
(2) The weight of the wedge cba:
1 B 1
wt. of cba = . B.( tan ) .B2 . tan .......(3.10)
2 2 4
This weight acting downward and can be neglected due to its very small value.
(3) The resultant passive earth pressure Pp acting on the faces ab and ac and inclined at an
angle to the normal to these faces.
(4) The cohesive force C d acting along the faces ab and ac.
Taking into account the above forces, the equation of equilibrium can be written as:
1
Q ult. .B 2 tan 2{Pp C d . sin ) ............(3.11)
4
B/2
But, C d c.( ) ; where c is soil cohesion acting along the faces ab and ac, and the
cos
resultant Pp can be divided into three components as: Pp Pp Ppc Ppg

where, Pp is the passive earth pressure produced by the weight of (caed) zone, Ppc is the
passive earth pressure produced by cohesion (c), and Ppg is the passive earth pressure produced
by surcharge (q).
1 B
Q ult. .B2 tan 2{Pp Ppc Ppg c. . tan ) ......(3.12)
4 2
2Pp 1 2Ppc 2Ppg
Q ult. B.( B.. tan ) ( c. tan ) .(3.13)
B 4 B B
1
Q ult. B. B..N D f ..N q c.N c ....(3.14)
2
1
or q ult. cN c .Sc qNq .B..N.S .........(3.15)
2
Eq.(3.15) is known as Terzaghi's bearing capacity equation. for any type of footings under
general shear failure.
where, N c , N q and N are bearing capacity factors

defined in Tables (3.2 and 3.3).
Sc and S are shape factors.
q is the overburden pressure at foundation level.
78
(3) MEYERHOF'S BEARING CAPACITY EQUATION

Meyerhof (1951) proposed a bearing capacity equation similar to that of Terzaghi but
included a shape factor S q for the depth term N q , depth factors d i and inclination factors i i for
cases where the footing load is inclined from the vertical.
Vertical load: q ult. c.N c .Sc .d c q.N q .Sq .d q 0.5..B.N .S .d ....(3.16)

Inclined load: q ult. c.N c .d c .i c q.N q .d q .i q 0.5..B.N .d .i ....................(3.17)
where,
N c , N q and N are bearing capacity factors defined by Table (3.2) as:
N q e . tan tan2 (45 / 2) ; N c ( N q 1). cot ; N ( N q 1). tan(1.4)
See Table (3.4) for shape, depth and inclination factors.
Note: Up to Df / B 1 (shallow foundations), q ult. from Meyerhof's Eqs.(3.16 or 3.17) is not

greatly different from the Terzaghi's value, however, the difference is more pronounced at
larger Df / B ratios.
(4) HANSEN'S BEARING CAPACITY EQUATION

Hansen (1970) proposed the general bearing capacity case. He presented an equation
considered as a further extension of Meyerhof's (1951) equation that includes factors for the
footing being tilted from horizontal bi and for possibility of the footing being on a slope g i .
Hansens equation allows any D/B and thus can be used for shallow or deep footings
(piles and drilled caissons). Comparing with field results, Hansens equation gives more
accurate results than those obtained from Terzaghi's equation.
(a) for.. 0
q ult. cN cSc d c i c g c b c qN q Sq d q i q g q b q 0.5.B.N S d i g b ...(3.18)
(b) for.. 0 (undrained condition; N c 5.14,.N q 1,.N 0 )

q ult. 5.14Su (1 Sc d c i c bc g c ) q .......(3.19)
where,
N c , N q and N are bearing capacity factors defined in Table (3.2) as:
N q e . tan tan2 (45 / 2) ; Same as Meyerhof
N c ( N q 1). cot ; Same as Meyerhof ;
N 1.5( N q 1). tan
See Table (3.5) for shape, depth and inclination factors.
79
(5) VESIC'S BEARING CAPACITY EQUATION

It is essentially the Hansen equation but with slightly different N and a variation in
some of Hansen's i i , b i ..and..g i factors as noted in Table (3.5) with the subscript (V). Any factor
is subscripted with (H) can be used for Vesic solution.
Note: Due to scale effects, N and then the ultimate bearing capacity decreases with the
increase in the size of foundation. Therefore, Bowles (1996) suggested that for (B > 2m), in any
bearing capacity equation of Table (3.2), the term ( 0.5B.N S d ) must be multiplied by a
B
reduction factor: r 1 0.25 log ; i.e., 0.5B.N S d r
2
B (m) 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 5 10 20 100
r 1 0.97 0.95 0.93 0.92 0.90 0.82 0.75 0.57
(6) BALLA'S BEARING CAPACITY EQUATION

This equation is originally derived for strip footing with ( D f / B 1.5 ) on cohesionless
soil or soil with little cohesion. It considers the depth of footing as well as the shearing stress
developed along the failure surfaces and the solution generates some very complicated
mathematical expressions. However, programming these expressions, a final form of equation
can be written as:
q ult. cN c qN q b..N .........(3.20)

where,
N c , N q and N are bearing capacity factors determined as follows:
(1) Obtain Df / b and c/b , where, b = B/2.
(2) With Df / b , c/b , and use Fig.(3.4) to find the factor .
(3) With known values of and , enter Fig.(3.5) to determine the bearing capacity
factors N c , N q and N , respectively.
80
Table (3.2): Summary of bearing capacity equations by several investigators

(after Bowles, 1996).
Terzaghi (see Table 3.3 for typical values for K P values)

q ult. cNc .Sc qNq 0.5.B..N.S

2[0.75. ( )]. tan
e 2 180 tan k P
Nq ; N c ( N q 1). cot ; N ( 1)
2 cos 2 ( 45 / 2) 2 cos 2
( 33)
where a close approximation of k P 3. tan2 45 .
2
Strip circular square rectangular

Sc = 1.0 1.3 1.3 (1+ 0.3 B / L)
S = 1.0 0.6 0.8 (1- 0.2 B / L)
Meyerhof (see Table 3.4 for shape, depth, and inclination factors)
Vertical load: qult. c.Nc .Sc .dc q.Nq .Sq .dq 0.5.B..N .S .d
Inclined load: q ult. c.Nc .dc .ic q.Nq .dq .iq 0.5.B..N .d .i
N q e . tan tan2 (45 / 2) ; N c ( N q 1). cot ; N ( N q 1). tan(1.4)
Hansen (see Table 3.5 for shape, depth, and inclination factors)
For.. 0 : qult. cNcScdcicgcbc qNqSqdqiqgq bq 0.5.B..N S d i g b

For.. 0 : q ult. 5.14Su (1 Sc dc ic bc gc ) q
Nq e. tan tan2 (45 / 2) ; N c ( N q 1). cot ; N 1.5( N q 1). tan
Vesic (see Table 3.5 for shape, depth, and inclination factors)
Use Hansen's equations above

N q e . tan tan2 (45 / 2) ; N c ( N q 1). cot ; N 2( N q 1). tan
All above bearing capacity equations are based on general shear failure in soil.
For Hansens and Vesics bearing capacity equations, Nc and Nq factors are the same as those of
Meyerhof whereas, N is different in all.
81
Table (3.3): Bearing capacity factors of Terzaghi's equation.
,.. deg Nc Nq N K P
0 5.7 1.0 0.0 10.8
5 7.3 1.6 0.5 12.2
10 9.6 2.7 1.2 14.7
15 12.9 4.4 2.5 18.6
20 17.7 7.4 5.0 25.0
25 25.1 12.7 9.7 35.0
30 37.2 22.5 19.7 52.0
34 52.6 36.5 36.0
35 57.8 41.4 42.4 82.0
40 95.7 81.3 100.4 141.0
45 172.3 173.3 297.5 298.0
48 258.3 287.9 780.1
50 347.5 415.1 1153.2 800.0

= 1.5 + 1
Table (3.4): Shape, depth and inclination factors of Meyerhof's equation.
For Shape Factors Depth Factors Inclination Factors

2
B Df
Any Sc 1 0.2.K P d c 1 0.2 K P i c i q 1
L B 90
2
B Df
10 Sq S 1 0.1.K P d q d 1 0.1 K P i 1
L B
0 Sq S 1.0 dq d 1.0 i 0
where, K P tan2 (45 / 2) R

angle of resultant measured with vertical without a sign.
B, L , Df = width, length, and depth of footing.
B
Note:- When triaxial is used for plan strain, adjust as: Ps (1.1 0.1 )triaxial
L
82
83
Fig.(3.4) Values of ratio for various c / b and Df / b values

for Ballas bearing capacity equation (after Bowles, 1996).
Fig.(3.5) Bearing capacity factors Nc ,..Nq ,..and..N to be used in Balla's equation

(after Bowles, 1996).
84
3.7 WHICH EQUATION TO BE USED?

The summary of using of all bearing capacity equations is shown in Table (3.6). Of the
bearing capacity equations previously discussed, the most widely used equations are Meyerhof's
and Hansen's among others. However, Vesic's equation is a suggested method in API manual
(American Petroleum Institute, RP2A Manual, 1984).
Table (3.6): Uses of bearing capacity equations.
Equation Best for

Pure cohesive soils where D/B 1 or for a quick estimate of q ult.
Terzaghi
compared with other methods,
Somewhat simpler than Meyerhof's, Hansen's or Vesic's equations; that

need to compute shape, depth, inclination, base and ground factors,
Suitable for a concentrically loaded horizontal footing,
Not applicable for columns with moments or tilting forces,
More conservative than other methods.

Meyerhof, Hansen,
Any situation depending on user preference with a particular method.
Vesic
Hansen, Vesic When base is tilted; when footing is on a slope or when D/B >1.
Balla Cohesionless soils or soil with little cohesion when D/B 1.5.
3.8 SOIL STRENGTH CASES

There are three cases usually considered in soil mechanics, which affect the type of shear
strength parameters c and to be used in bearing capacity equations; these cases are shown in
Table (3.7).
Table (3.7): Shear strength parameters according to soil strength cases.
Soil Strength Case Cohesion Friction
Case (1): Undrained condition in clay (short-term case). c cu u 0

Case (2): Drained condition in clay (long-term case). c c ( 0)
Case (3): Drained condition in sand (short and long term case). c0 ( 0)
The shape, depth, inclination and other factors used in different bearing capacity equations
are also dependent on the choice of c and values, so that different factors will be obtained
depending on the soil strength case assumed.
85
3.9 CONTACT PRESSURE

The pressure acting between a footing's base and the soil below is referred to as contact
pressure. Knowledge of contact pressure and associated shear and moment distributions is
important in footing design.
Contact pressure can be computed using the flexural formula:-
P M x .y M y .x
q .........(3.21)
A Ix Iy
where,
q= contact preesure,
=
P total axial vertical load = D.L. + L.L.,
A= area of footing,
M x ,..M y total moment about respective x and y axes,
I x ,..I y moment of inertia about respective x and y axes,
x, y = distance from centriod to the point at which the contact pressure is computed along
respective x and y axes.
P D.L L.L P D.L L.L P D.L L.L

center line
center line
e e
L L L
Or
P
q act . q min. q min.
Af
center line
q max . q max .
(a) Concentric load (b) Eccentric load
Fig.(3.6): Contact pressure distribution under footings.
As shown in Fig.(3.6a), if the moments about both x and y axes are zero, then, the contact
pressure is simply equal to the total vertical load divided by the footing's area. While in case of
moment or (moments), the contact pressure below the footing will be non-uniform (see
Fig.3.6b).
86
Assuming that moment is only in (L - direction), due to this moment, there will be a non-
uniform contact pressure below the footing under the following three cases:
(1) when e x L / 6 , the resultant of loading passes within the middle third of the footing.
Here, there is compression under the footing with maximum pressure on one side and
minimum pressure on the other side.
(2) when e x L / 6 , the resultant of loading passes on edge of the middle third of the footing.
(3) when e x L / 6 , the resultant of loading is outside the middle third of the footing. Here,
there will be a tension under the footing.
Case (1):
P = D.L.+L.L.
When moment in (L- direction only) and e x L / 6
M L B.L3 M
e x = eccentricity = ; c ; I ;
P 2 12
L/3 L/6 L/6 L/3
M.c 6M P
; M = P..e x q act .
I B.L2 Af L
P 6 P.e x M.c
q max .
B.L 2
B.L I
M.c
P 6 P.e x +
q min. I
B.L B.L2
q min.
P 6.e x q max .
min .
q max 1
.
or
B.L L
When moments (in both directions) and e x L / 6 ; e y B / 6
My Mx y
ex ; ey
P P My
P 6 P.e x 6 P.e y ex
Mx
min .
or q max
.
B.L B.L2 B 2 .L ey
B x x
P 6.e x 6.e y
min .
q max
.
or 1
B.L L B
L
y
87
Case (2): When moment in (L direction) only and e x L / 6 P=

D.L.+L.L.
P 6.e x P L 2 P ex
q max . 1 = 1 =
B.L L B.L L B.L
P 6.e x P L L/3 L/6 L/6 L/3

q min. 1 = 1 =0
B.L L B.L L
q min. = 0
q max .
Case (3): When moment in (L direction) only and e x L / 6
P = q . B. L
1 P =
P q max . .L1 .B .....(a) D.L.+L.L.
2 ex
L L
e 1 ......(b)
3 2
2 P
From equation (a): q max . (c) L/6
L1 .B
L L/2
From equation (b): L1 3 e x ....(d)
2 ex L1/3
Substituting equation (d) into equation (c) gives: q min. = 0
q max .
2. P
q max .
L L1
3.B e x
2
P =
D.L.+L.L.
3.10 EFFECT OF SOIL COMPRESSIBILITY

1. For clays sheared in drained conditions, Terzaghi (1943) suggested that the shear
strength parameters c and should be reduced as:
c* 0.67c and * tan1(0.67 tan ) ........(3.22)
2. For loose and medium dense sands (when D r 0.67 ), Vesic (1975) proposed:
* tan1(0.67 Dr 0.75D2r ) tan .........(3.23)
where, D r is the relative density of the sand, recorded as a fraction.
Note: For dense sands ( Dr 0.67 ), the strength parameters need not to be reduced, since the
general shear mode of failure is likely to apply.
88
3.11 EFFECT OF WATER TABLE

Generally, the submergence of soils will cause loss of all apparent cohesion, coming from
capillary stresses or from weak cementation bonds. At the same time, the effective unit weight of
submerged soils will be reduced to about one-half the weight of the same soils above the water
table.
Thus, through submergence, all the three terms of the bearing capacity (B.C.) equations
may be considerably reduced. Therefore, it is essential that the B.C. analysis be made assuming
the highest possible groundwater level at the particular location for the expected life time of the
structure.
G.S. W.T.
Case (5)
D1 W.T.
Df Case (4)
D2
B W.T.
Case (3)
m W.T. dw
Case (2)
W.T.
Case (1)
Case (1):
If the water table (W.T.) lies at B or more below the foundation base; no W.T. effect.
Case (2):
a- (after Meyerhof, 1951): If the water table (W.T.) lies within the depth ( d w <B) ; (i.e.,
1
between the base and the depth B), use av. in the term .B.N as:
2
av. (d w / B)( m ) ..(3.24a)
b- (after Bowles, 1996): If the water table (W.T.) lies within the wedge zone
1
{ H 0.5B tan(45 / 2) }; use av. in the term .B.N as:
2
dw
av. (2H d w ) . wet ( H d w ) 2 .....(3.24b)
H 2 H 2
where,
H 0.5B tan(45 / 2) ,
= submerged unit weight =( sat. w ),
d w = depth to W.T. below the base of footing, and
m wet = moist or wet unit weight of soil in depth ( d w ).
89
Case (3): If d w = 0 ; the water table (W.T.) lies at the base of the foundation; use
Case (4): If the water table (W.T.) lies above the base of the foundation; use:
1
q t .D1(above..W.T.) .D 2 (below..W.T.) and in .B.N term.
2
Case (5): If the water table (W.T.) lies at ground surface (G.S.); use: q .D f and
1
in .B.N term.
2
Notes:
1
1. Since in many cases of practical purposes, the term .B.N can be ignored for
2
1
conservative results, it is recommended for this case to use in the term .B.N
2
instead of av.
since ( av. ( from..Meyerhof ) av. ( from..Bowles ) )
2. All the preceding considerations are based on the assumption that the seepage forces
acting on soil skeleton are negligible. The seepage force adds a component to the body
forces caused by gravity. This component acting in the direction of stream lines is equal
to (i. w ) , where i is the hydraulic gradient causing seepage.
Problem (3.1): (Contact pressure)

Proportion a footing subjected to concentric column load (1600 kN) and to an overturning
moment (800 kN-m), if q all. =200 kPa.
Solution:
My 800
ex 0.5 m ; put q max . q all. of soil
p 1600
P 6.e x 1600 3
or q max . 1 ; 200 = 1
B.L L B.L L
Area Proportion: Choose B and L such that (L/B < 2.0)
L (m) B (m) Area (m2) L/B

Let, L = 6e = 3 5.40 16.20 0.55 < 2.0
4 3.50 14.00 1.14 < 2.0
5 2.56 12.80 1.95 < 2.0 Take L = 5.0 and B = 2.6
6 2.00 12.00 3.00 > 2.0
7 1.63 11.42 4.29 > 2.0
Check : L / 6 = 5 / 6 = 0.83m > e x = 0.5m The load is within the middle 3rd. (O.K.)
90
Problem (3.2): (Effect of water table)

A (1.2m x 4.2m) rectangular footing is placed at a depth of ( D f =1m) below the G.S. in
clay soil with u 0 , 18 kN/m3, C u 22 kN/m2. Find the allowable maximum load
which can be applied under the following conditions:
(a) W.T. at base of footing with sat 20 kN/m3,
(b) W.T. at 0.5m below the surface and sat 20 kN/m3,
(c) If the applied load is 400kN and the W.T. at the surface what will be the factor of
safety of the footing against B.C. failure?
Pall. ?
G.S.
= 18 kN/m3
D f =1.0m c 22 kN/m2
B =1.2m
Solution: u 0
(a) W.T. at base of footing:
L/B = 4.2/1.2 = 3.5 < 5 rectangular footing,

D/B = 1/1.2 = 0.833 < 1.0 shallow footing; therefore Terzaghi's equation is applicable.
Terzaghi's equation is:
1
q ult. cN c .Sc qNq .B..N.S
2
Bearing capacity factors: From Table (3.3) for 0 : N c 5.7 , Nq 1.0 , and N 0
B B
Shape factors: From Table (3.2) for rectangular footing: Sc (1 0.3 ) ; S (1 0.2 )
L L
1 .2
q ult. (22)(5.7)(1 + 0.30 ) + (1.0)(18)(1)
4 .2
1 .2
+ 0.5(1.2)(20-10)(0)(1 - 0.20 )= 154.148 kN/m2
4 .2
q all. = 154.148 /3 = 51.388 kN/m2
Pall. = 51.388(1.2)(4.2) = 258.970 kN
(b) W.T. at 0.5m below the ground surface:
q t .D1(above..W.T.) .D 2 (below..W.T.)
D1 0.5 and D 2 0.5 ; q 18.(0.5) (20 10)(0.5) 14 kN/m2
1 .2 1 .2
q ult. (22)(5.7)(1 + 0.30 ) + (14)(1) + 0.5(1.2)(20-10)(0)(1-0.20 )= 150.148 kN/m2
4 .2 4 .2
q all. = 150.148 /3 = 50.049 kN/m2
Pall. = 50.049(1.2)(4.2) = 252.249 kN
91
(c) If the applied load is 400 kN and the W.T. at the surface what will be the factor of
safety of the footing against B.C. failure?.
Pall. = 400 kN; q all. = 400/(1.2)(4.2)= 79.36 kN/m2; q D f . =(1)(20-10)=10 kN/m2

1 .2 1 .2
q ult. (22)(5.7)(1 + 0.30 ) + (10)(1) + 0.5(1.2)(20-10)(0)(1 - 0.20 )= 146.14 kN/m2
4 .2 4 .2
q 146.14
SF ult. 1.8
q all. 79.36
Problem (3.3): (Effect of water table)

A vertically and concentrically loaded (2.5m x 2.5m) square footing is to be placed on a
cohesionless soil as shown below. What is the allowable B.C. using the Hansens equation
and a safety factor (SF) = 2.0?
P
G.S.
m = 18.1 kN/m3
D f =1.1m c 0 kN/m2
1.95m
2.5m x 2.5m tr. 35
w 10%
W.T. Gs 2.68
sat = ?
Solution:
m 18.1
d = 16.45 kN/m3
1 1 0.10
d 16.45
Vs = 0.626 m3
G s . w (2.68)(9.81)
Vv 1.0 Vs 1 0.626 0.374 m3
The saturated unit weight is the dry weight + weight of water in voids.
sat. d Vv . w = 16.45 + 0.374(9.81) = 20.12 kN/m3
From the figure d w 0.85m and H 0.5B tan(45 / 2) = 2.4m

( d w H ); i.e., the water table (W.T.) lies within the wedge zone H 0.5B tan(45 / 2) .
1
Therefore, use av. in the term .B.N :
2
d
av. (2H d w ) w . wet (H d w ) 2
2 2
H H
0.85 (20.12 9.81)
av. (2)(2.4) 0.85) (18.1) (2.4 0.85)2 14.85 kN/m3
2 2
2.4 2.4
92
Using Hansen's equation:
q ult. cN cSc d c i c g c b c qN q Sq d q i q g q b q 0.5.B.N S d i g b

Since, c = 0, any factors with subscript c do not need computing. Also, all g i ..and..b i
factors are 1.0; with these factors identified the Hansen's equation simplifies to:
q ult. qN q Sq d q 0.5 av. .B.N S d
No need to compute ps , since footing is square.
Bearing capacity factors from Table (3.2):
For 35 : Nq e. tan .. tan2 (45 / 2) 33.3 and N 1.5( Nq 1) tan 33.9
B B
Shape factors from Table (3.5): Sq 1 tan 1.7 and S 1 0.4 0.6
L L
D
Depth factors from Table (3.5): d q 1 2 tan (1 sin ) 2 , and d 1.0
B
d q 1 2 tan 35(1 sin 35) 2 (1.1 / 2.5) 1.11 ,
q ult. (1.1)(18.1)(33.3)(1.7)(1.11)+ 0.5(14.85)(2.5)(33.9)(0.6)(1.0)= 1617 kN/m2
q all. =1617/2 = 808.5 kN/m2
Note: 808.5 kN/m2 is very large bearing pressure; since in most cases, the allowable
bearing capacity does not exceed 500 kN/m2.
Problem (3.4): (Allowable net bearing capacity)

Determine the allowable net bearing capacity of a strip footing using Terzaghis and
Hansens equations if c = 0, 30 , D f = 1.0m , B = 1.0m , soil 19 kN/m3, the water
table is at ground surface, and SF=3.
Solution:
(a) Using Terzaghi's equation:
1
q ult. cN c .Sc qN q .B..N.S
2
Shape factors From Table (3.2): For strip footing: Sc S 1.0
Bearing capacity factors From Table (3.3): For 30 : Nq 22.5, and N 19.7
q ult. 0 + 1.0 (19-9.81)(22.5)(1.0) + (0.5)(1)(19-9.81)(19.7)(1.0) = 297 kN/m 2
q all. =297/3 = 99 kN/m2

qall.(net ) qall. Df . 99 (1)(19 9.81) 90 kN/m2
93
(b) Using Hansen's equation:

For.. 0 : q ult. cN cSc d c i c g c b c qN q Sq d q i q g q b q 0.5.B.N S d i g b
Since c = 0, factors with subscript c do not need computing. Also, all g i ..and..b i factors
are 1.0; with these factors identified the Hansen's equation simplifies to:
q ult. qN q Sq d q 0.5 .B.N S d
for........... 34 ..use.. ps tr
From Table (3.5): ...use...ps 1.5tr 17
for L/B 2 ..use.. ps 1.5tr 17
.....ps (1.5)(30) 17 = 28
For 28 : Nq e. tan .. tan2 (45 / 2) 14.7 , N 1.5( Nq 1) tan 10.9
Shape factors from Table (3.5): Sq S 1.0,
Df
Depth factors from Table (3.5): dq 1 2 tan (1 sin )2
B
1
dq 1 2. tan 28(1 sin 28)2 1.29 and d 1.0
1
q ult. 1.0 (19-9.81)(14.7)(1.29) + 0.5(1)(19 9.81)(10.9)(1.0) = 224.355 kN/m2
q all. = 224.355/3 = 74.785 kN/m2
qall.(net ) 74.785 (1)(19 9.81) 66 kN/m2
Problem (3.5): (Ultimate bearing capacity)

A footing load test produced the following data: D f = 0.5m, B = 0.5m, L = 2.0m,
soil 9.31 kN/m3, c = 0 kN/m2, tr 42.5 , Qult.(measured ) = 1863 kN, and q ult.(measured )
= 1863/(0.5)(2.0) = 1863 kN/m2. Compute q ult. using Hansen's and Meyerhof's equations
and compare the computed values with those measured.
Solution:
(a) Using Hansen's equation:

Since c = 0, and all g i ..and..b i factors are 1.0; Hansen's equation simplifies to:
From Table (3.5): L / B = 2 / 0.5 = 4 > 2 ....use..... ps 1.5tr 17 ,
1.5 (42.5) 17 = 46.75 ; Take 47
94

For 47 : Nq e. tan .. tan2 (45 / 2) 187.2 , N 1.5( Nq 1) tan 299.5
Shape factors from Table (3.5):
B 0.5
Sq 1 tan 1 tan 47 1.27,
L 2.0
B 0.5
S 1 0.4 1 0.4 0.9
L 2.0
Df
Depth factors from Table (3.5): dq 1 2 tan (1 sin )2
B
0.5
d q 1 2 tan 47(1 sin 47) 2 1.155 , d 1.0
0.5
q ult. 0.5 (9.31)(187.2)(1.27)(1.155) + 0.5(9.31)(0.5)(299.5)(0.9)(1.0) = 1905.6 kN/m2
versus 1863 kN/m2 measured.
(b) Using Meyerhof's equation:

From Table (3.2) for vertical load with c = 0:
B 0 .5
From Table (3.4): ps (1.1 0.1 ) tr = (1.1 - 0.1 )42.5 = 45.7; Take 46
L 2 .0
For 46 : Nq e. tan .. tan2 (45 / 2) 158.5 , N ( Nq 1) tan(1.4.) 328.7
Shape factors from Table (3.4): K p tan 2 (45 / 2) =6.13

B 0.5
Sq S 1 0.1.K p 1 0.1(6.13) 1.15
L 2.0
Depth factors from Table (3.4):
Df 0.5
K p 2.47 , dq d 1 0.1. K p 1 0.1(2.47) 1.25
B 0.5
q ult. 0.5(9.31)(158.5)(1.15)(1.25) + 0.5(9.31)(0.5)(328.7)(1.15)(1.25) = 2160.4 kN/m2
versus 1863 kN/m2 measured. Both Hansen's and Meyerhof's equations give over-
estimated q ult. compared with that measured.
Problem (3.6): (Ultimate bearing capacity)

A series of large-scale footing B.C. tests were performed on soft Bangkok clay. One of the
tests consisted of (1.05m) square footing at ( D f =1.5m). At (25 mm) settlement the load
obtained was approximately (14.1 ton) from the load-settlement curve. Unconfined
compression and vane shear tests gave unconfined strength values as follows:
LL 80%, , PL 35% , q u 3 Tons/m2, and Su,Vane 2.4 Tons/m2. Compute q ult. using
Hansens equation and compare it with the load test value of (14.1 ton).
95
Solution:
Obtain N,.Si ,..and..d i factors, since 0 for soft clay (in unconfined compression test),
N c 5.14 and N q 1.0 .
Using Fig.(2.27a) for PI = 45% obtain a reduction factor . 0.8.
S u , desgin ...S u , Vane = 0.8(2.4) = 1.92 ton/m2.
B 1 D 1.5
Sc 0.2 0.2 0.2 , and d c 0.4 tan 1 0.4 tan 1 0.38 (D >B)
L 1 B 1.05
From Table (3.2): for.. 0 (undrained condition; N c 5.14,.N q 1,.N 0 )
q ult. 5.14Su (1 Sc d c ic bc g c ) q
Neglecting ( i c , bc ,..and..g c ) and q.N q since there was probably operating space in the
footing excavation, Hansen's equation will be:
qult. 5.14.Su (1 Sc dc )
From Vane shear test: q ult. = 5.14(1.92)(1+ 0.2 + 0.38) = 15.6 ton/m2
14.1
From load test: q actual 12.8 ton/m2
(1.05)(1.05)
If we use; S u q u / 2 , we obtain:
1.5
From unconfined compressive test: q ult. (15.6) 12.2 ton/m2
1.92
Problem (3.7): (Allowable bearing capacity for cohesive soil)

A series of q u tests in the zone of interest (from SPT samples) of a boring log give an
average value of 200 kPa. Estimate q all for square footings located at somewhat
uncertain depths of unknown B dimensions using both Meyerhof's and Terzaghi's
equations if SF = 3.0.
Solution:
This Problem illustrates the most common method for obtaining q all of cohesive soils in
case of limited data.
(a) Using Meyerhof's equation: q ult. cN cSc d c qN q Sq d q 0.5 .B.N S d
From Table (3.2): For.. 0 : Nc 5.14,...Nq 1,...and...N 0
B
From Table (3.4): K p tan 2 (45 / 2) =1 ; Sc 1 0.2K p =1.2 (for square footing),
L
Sq S 1.0 ; d q d 1.0 ; q ult. cN c Sc qN q
q q 1 q
qall. ult. 1.2 u (5.14) 1.03q u 0.3q
3 2 3 3
96
(b) Using Terzaghi's equation:

From Table (3.2): q ult. cN c Sc qN q 0.5 .B.N S
From Table (3.3): For.. 0 : Nc 5.7 , N q 1 and N 0 ; Sc 1.3 (square footing)
q q 1 q
q all. ult. 1.3 u (5.7) 1.24q u 0.3q
3 2 3 3
It is common to neglect 0.3q and note that 1.03 or 1.24 is sufficiently close to 1.0 (and is
conservative) to take the allowable bearing pressure as:
qall. qu 200.kPa or q ult. cN c 3q u
Note: The use of q all. q u for the allowable bearing pressure is nearly universal when
SPT samples are used for q u , since these samples are in very disturbed state. However,
this method of obtaining q all. is not recommended when ( q u 75.kPa ), and in these cases
S u should be determined from samples of better quality than those of SPT samples.
Problem (3.8): (Allowable bearing capacity of tilted base footing )

A (2.0m x 2.0m) square footing has the geometry and load as shown in figure below. Is the
footing adequate with a SF = 3.0?.
P
G.S.
Df = 0.3m
H
P = 600 kN B = 17.5 kN/m3
H = 200 kN 10
c = 25 kN/m2, 25
B = 2m
Solution:
We can use either Hansen's, or Meyerhof's or Vesic's equations. An arbitrary choice is
Hansen's method.
Check Sliding Stability:

2 2
Use ; Ca c and Af (2)(2) 4m2
3 3
2 2
H max . Af Ca V tan (2)(2)( 25) 600 tan 25 246.3 kN
3 3
H 246.3
Fs(slididing) max . 1.2 1.5 (Not safe for sliding), therefore, increase (B)
H 200
301.1
Try B x B = 2.7m x 2.7m , Fs(slididing) 1.5 1.5 (O.K.)
200
97
Bearing Capacity By Hansen's Equation:
With inclination factors all..Si 1.0

q ult. cN c .dc .ic .bc qNq .dq .iq .bq 0.5.B.N .d .i .b .r

N c ( N q 1). cot , N q e . tan .. tan 2 (45 / 2) , N 1.5( N q 1) tan
For 25 : N c 20.7 , N q 10.7 , N 6.8

For Df = 0.3m, and B = 2.7m: Df / B = 0.3/2.7 = 0.11 < 1.0 (shallow footing)
D
d c 1 0.4 f 1 0.4(0.11) 1.044
B
D
d q 1 2 tan (1 sin )2 f 1 0.311(0.11) 1.034 , d 1.0
B
Inclination factors from Table (3.5):

0.5H 0.5(200)
iq (1 )5 (1 )5 0.587
V Af .c. cot 600 (2.7)(2.7)(25) cot 25
(1 iq ) 1 0.587
ic iq 0.587 0.544
( N q 1) 10.7 1
5 5
(0.7 / 450) H (0.7 10 / 450)200
for.. 0 : i 1 1 0.479
V Af .c. cot 600 (2.7)(2.7)( 25) cot 25
B 2.7
r 1 0.25 log 1 0.25 log 0.967
2 2
Base factors from Table (3.5): 10 (10)( / 180) 0.175.(in..radians )

10
bc 1 1 0.93
147 147
bq e2 tan e2(0.175) tan 25 0.85
b e2.7 tan e2.7(0.175) tan 25 0.80
q ult. 25(20.7)(1.044)(0.544)(0.93) + 0.3(17.5)(10.7)(1.034)(0.587)(0.85)

+ 0.5(17.5)(2.7)(6.8)(1)(0.479)(0.80)(0.967) = 361.843 kN/m2
q ult.( net ) 361.843 0.3(17.5)
S.F. 4.3 > 3.0 (O.K.)
q all 600
(2.7)( 2.7)
98
3.12 FOOTINGS WITH INCLINED OR ECCENTRIC LOADS

3.12.1 FOOTINGS WITH INCLINED LOAD
If a footing is subjected to an inclined load Q (see Fig.(3.7)), the inclined load is resolved
into vertical and horizontal components. The vertical component Q v is then used for bearing
capacity analysis in the same manner as described previously (Table 3.2). After the bearing
capacity has been computed by the normal procedure, it must be corrected by the R i factor using
Fig.(3.7) as:
q ult.(inclined..load) q ult.( vertical ..load) ..R i ...(3.25)
or In this case, Meyerhof's bearing capacity equation for inclined load shown in Table (3.2) can
be used directly:
q ult. (inclined..load) cN c d c i c qN q d q i q 0.5 .B.N d i .(3.26)
(a) Horizontal foundation (b) Inclined foundation
Fig.(3.7): Inclined load reduction factors.
Also, in this case, the footings stability with regard to the inclined load's horizontal
component must be checked by calculating the factor of safety against sliding as:
H
Fs (slididing) max . ........(3.27)
H
where,
H = the inclined load's horizontal component,
Hmax . Af .Ca tan . for ( c ) soils; or
99
H max . A f .C a ... for the undrained case in clay ( u 0 ); or

H max . tan .. for sand and the drained case in clay ( c 0 ).
Af effective..area B.L
C a adhesion .C u where... 1.0 .for soft to medium clays; and
. 0.5 ..for stiff clays,
= the net vertical effective load = Q v D f . ; or
(Q v D f .) u.Af (if the water table lies above foundation level)
= the skin friction angle, which can be taken as equal to ( ),and
u = the pore water pressure at foundation level.
3.12.2 FOOTINGS WITH ECCENTRIC LOAD

Eccentric load results from loads applied somewhere other than the footing's centroid or
from applied moments, such as those resulting at the base of a tall column from wind loads or
earthquakes on the structure.
Fig.(3.8) shows the slip patterns under eccentric loads. It is clear that the side AC of the
wedge ABC assumes a shape of a circle, with its center which coincides with the center of
rotation of the footing. But, when ( e B / 4 ), the center of rotation remains on the side of the
footing opposite to the load (see Fig.(3.8a)). While at ( e B / 4 ) the center of rotation is exactly
under the footing edge, moving for larger (e) towards the axis of the footing and causing uplift of
its less loaded side (see Fig.(3.8b)).
However, to provide adequate SF(against ...lifting ) of the footing edge, it is recommended that
the eccentricity ( e B / 6 ).
Fig.(3.8): Theoretical slip patterns under eccentric loads

(after Das, 2009).
100
Footings with eccentric loads can be analyzed for bearing capacity by two methods:
(1) Concept of useful width:

In this method, only that part of the footing that is symmetrical with regard to the load is
used to determine bearing capacity by the usual method, with the remainder of the footing
being ignored. Thus, in Fig.(3.9) with the (eccentric) load applied at the point indicated, for
a rectangular footing, the effective or shaded area is symmetrical with regard to the load,
and it is used to determine bearing capacity. Whereas, the effective area for circular footing
is computed by locating ( e x ) on any axis (x-axis shown) and producing a centrally located
area abcd constructed as shown in Fig.(3.9). Then, area of abc is computed as a segment of
a circle which is doubled to give the centrally area abcd ( Af B.L Area of abcd).
First, computes eccentricity and adjusted dimensions:
My Mx
ex ; L L 2e x ; ey ; B B 2e y ; Af A B.L
V V
Second, calculates q ult. from Meyerhof's, or Hansen's, or Vesic's equations (Table 3.2)
1
using B in the ( B..N ) term and B or/ and L in computing the shape factors and
2
the actual B in computing depth factors.
Fig.(3.9): Effective footing dimensions when footing is eccentrically

loaded for both rectangular and round bases.
(2) Application of reduction factors:

First, compute the bearing capacity by the normal procedure (using equations of Table 3.2),
assuming that the load is applied to the centroid of the footing. The computed value is then
corrected for eccentricity by a reduction factor ( R e ) obtained from Fig.(3.10) or from
Meyerhof's reduction equations as:
101
R e 1 - 2(e/B) ........for.. cohesive.. soil

...(3.28)
R e 1 - e/B ..... ....for..cohesionles s..soil

q ult.(eccentric ) q ult.(concentric ) ................(3.29)
Fig.(3.10): Eccentric load reduction factors.
Problem (3.9): (Footing with inclined load)

A square footing of (1.5m x1.5m) is subjected to an inclined load as shown in the figure
below. What is the factor of safety against bearing capacity (use Terzaghi's equation).
180 kN
G.S. 30
D f = 1.5m = 20 kN/m3
q u 160 kPa
B = 1.5m
4m
W.T.
Solution:
Bearing capacity By Terzaghi's equation:
1
2
Shape factors from Table (3.2): For square footing Sc 1.3;...S 0.8 , c q u / 2 = 80 kPa
102
Bearing capacity factors from Table (3.3): For u 0 : Nc 5.7 , N q 1.0 , N 0

q ult.( vertical .load) 80(5.7)(1.3)+20(1.5)(1.0) + 0.5(1.5)(20)(0)(0.8) = 622.8 kN/m2
From Fig.(3.7) with 30 and cohesive soil: the reduction factor for the inclined load is
0.42.
q ult.(inclined.load) = 622.8(0.42) = 261.576 kN/m2
Q v Q. cos 30 = 180 (0.866) = 155.88 kN
q 261.576
Factor of safety (against bearing capacity failure) ult . 3.77
q act. 155.88
(1.5)(1.5)
Check for sliding:
H max . Af .C a tan =(1.5)(1.5)(80) + (180)(cos30)(tan0)=180 kN
H = Q h Q. sin 30 = 180 (0.5) = 90 kN
H 180
Factor of safety (against sliding) max. 2.0 (O.K.)
H 90
Problem (3.10): (Footing with eccentric load in one direction)

A (1.5m x1.5m) square footing is subjected to eccentric load as shown in the figure below.
What is the safety factor against bearing capacity failure (use Terzaghi's equation) using:
(a) The concept of useful width, and
(b) Meyerhof's reduction factors.
P = 330 kN
G.S.
1.2m
= 20 kN/m3
q u = 190 kN/m2
Centerline of footing
e x =0.18m
1.5m
B 1.5-2(0.18)=1.14m
1.5m
103
Solution:
(1) By concept of useful width:

Using Terzaghi's equation:
1
2
Shape factors from Table (3.2): For square footing: Sc 1.3 , S 0.8 ; c q u / 2 = 95 kPa
Bearing capacity factors from Table (3.3): For u 0 : Nc 5.7 , Nq 1.0 and N 0
The useful width is: B B 2e x 1.5 2(0.18) 1.14m
q ult. 95(5.7)(1.3) + 20(1.2)(1.0) + 0.5(1.14)(20)(0)(0.8) = 727.95 kN/m2
q 727.95
Factor of safety (against B.C. failure) ult . 3.77
q act. 330
(1.14)(1.5)
(2) By Meyerhof's reduction factors:
In this case, q ult. is computed based on the actual width: B = 1.5m
1
2
Shape factors from Table (3.2): For square footing: Sc 1.3 , S 0.8 ; c q u / 2 = 95 kPa
Bearing capacity factors from Table (3.3): For u 0 : Nc 5.7 , Nq 1.0 and N 0
q ult.(concentric .load) 95(5.7)(1.3) + 20(1.2)(1.0) + 0.5(1.5)(20)(0)(0.8) = 727.95 kN/m2
For eccentric load from Fig.(3.10):
e 0.18
with Eccentricity ratio x 0.12 ; and cohesive soil R e = 0.76
B 1.5
q ult.(eccentric .load) = 727.95 (0.76) = 553.242 kN/m2
q 553.242
Factor of safety (against B.C. failure) ult . 3.77
q act. 330
(1.5)(1.5)
Problem (3.11): (Footing with eccentric loads in both directions)

A (1.8m x1.8m) square footing is loaded with axial load Q =1780 kN and subjected to M x
= 267 kN-m and M y = 160.2 kN-m moments. Undrained Triaxial tests of unsaturated soil
samples give c 9.4 kN/m2, 36 and 18.1 kN/m3. If D f = 1.8m and the water table
is at 6m below the G.S., what is the allowable soil pressure if S.F.= 3.0 using:-
(a) Hansens bearing capacity and
(b) Meyerhof's reduction factors.
Solution:
267 160.2
ey 0.15m ; ex 0.09m
1780 1780
104
B B 2e y 1.8 2(0.15) 1.5m ; L L 2e x 1.8 2(0.09) 1.62m
(a) Using Hansen's equation:

With all , , and factors equal to 1.0, the ultimate bearing capacity equation will be:
q ult. cN c .Sc .d c qN q .Sq .d q 0.5 .B.N .S .d

For 36 :
Nc ( Nq 1).cot = 50.6
N q e . tan .. tan 2 (45 / 2) = 37.7

N 1.5( N q 1) tan = 40
N q B 37.8 1.5
Sc 1 1 1.692
N c L 50.6 1.62
B 1.5
Sq 1 tan 1 tan 36 1.673
L 1.62
B 1.5
S 1 0.4 1 0.4 0.629
L 1.62
For Df =1.8m, and B = 1.8m, Df / B = 1.0 (shallow footing)
D
dc 1 0.4 f 1 0.4(1.0) 1.4
B
D
dq 1 2 tan (1 sin )2 f 1 2 tan(36)(1 sin 36)2 (1.0) 1.246
B
d 1.0
q ult. = 9.4(50.6)(1.692)(1.4) + 1.8(18.1)(37.7)(1.673)(1.246)
+ 0.5(18.1)(1.5)(40)(0.629)(1) = 4028.635 kN/m2
1780 6(0.15) 6(0.09)

q act. 1 988.889 kN/m2
(1.8)(1.8) 1.8 1.8
q 4028.635
Factor of safety (against B.C. failure) ult . 4.1 > 3.0 (O.K.)
q act. 988.889
(b) Using Meyerhof's reduction:
e 0.09 0.5
R ex 1 ( x )1/ 2 1 ( ) 0.78
L 1.8
105
e y 1/ 2 0.15 0.5
R ey 1 ( ) 1 ( ) 0.72
B 1.8
Re-compute q ult. as for a centrally loaded footing from:-
q ult. cN c .Sc .d c qN q .Sq .d q 0.5.B.N .S .d
Since bearing capacity and depth factors are unchanged, only the shape factors need to be
calculated as:
The revised shape factors from Table (3.5) are:
Nq B 37.8 1.8
Sc 1 1 1.75
Nc L 50.6 1.8
B 1.8
Sq 1 tan 1 tan 36 1.73
L 1.8
B 1.8
S 1 0.4 1 0.4 0.60
L 1.8
q ult. (concentric.loaded .footing) = 9.4(50.6)(1.75)(1.4) + 1.8(18.1)(37.7)(1.73)(1.246)

+ 0.5(18.1)(1.8)(40)(0.60)(1) = 4212.403 kN/m2
q ult . (eccentric .loaded .footing) q ult . (concentric.loaded .footing).( R ex )( R ey )
= 4212.403 (0.78)(0.72) = 2365.685 kN/m2

1780
q act. 549.383 kN/m2
(1.8)(1.8)
q 2365.685
Factor of safety (against B.C. failure) ult . 4.3 > 3.0 (O.K.)
q act. 549.383
3.13 BEARING CAPACITY OF FOOTINGS ON LAYERED SOILS

Stratified soil deposits are of common occurrence. It was found that when a footing is
placed on stratified soils as shown in Fig.(3.11) and the thickness of the top stratum from the base
of the footing (H) is less than the depth of penetration [ Hcrit . 0.5B tan(45 / 2) ], the rupture
zone will extend into the lower layer (s) depending on their thickness and therefore requires some
modification of ultimate bearing capacity ( q ult. ).
106
Several solutions have been proposed to estimate the bearing capacity of footings on
layered soils; however, they are limited to the following three general cases:-
3.13.1 CASE (1): FOOTING ON LAYERED CLAYS (ALL = 0): (see Fig. (3.11))
(a) Top layer stronger than lower layer ( C2 / C1 1).
(b) Top layer weaker than lower layer ( C2 / C1 > 1).
The first situation occurs when the footing is placed on a stiff clay or dense sand stratum
followed by a relatively soft normally consolidated clay. The failure in this case is basically a
punching failure. The second situation is often found when the footing is placed on a relatively
thin layer of soft clay overlying stiff clay or rock. The failure in this condition occurs, at least in
part, because of lateral plastic flow. However, for clays in undrained condition ( u = 0), the
undrained shear strength ( S u or c u ) can be determined from unconfined compressive ( q u )
tests. So that assuming a circular slip surface of the soil shear failure pattern may give reasonably
reliable results (Bowles, 1996).
Vesics Equation (1970)
For both cases (a, and b), the ultimate bearing capacity for strip footing is calculated as:
q ult. = C1 Nm + q ........(3.30)
where,
C1 = undrained shear strength of the upper layer,
Nm = modified bearing capacity factor, which depends on:
(i) the ratio of the shear strength of the two layers; k = C2/C1 ,
(ii) the relative thickness of the upper layer (H/B) and the shape of foundation.
o For C2 / C1 1 :
Nm = 1/ + k Sc Nc (from Hansen, 1970) Sc Nc (from Terzaghi, 1943), and
o For C2 / C1 1 :
N m is calculated either using the following equation or Table (3.8) or Fig.(3.12) for square
or circular footings (L/B = 1) and long rectangular footings (L/B 5).
kNc * (Nc * - 1){(k 1)Nc * (1 k )Nc * - 1}

Nm
{K (k 1) Nc * k - 1}{(Nc * )Nc * - 1} - (kNc * c
where,
= punching index of the footing = B.L / [2 (B+L) H]
Nc* = bearing capacity factor corrected for shape = Sc Nc (from Terzaghi, 1943).
107
G.S.
B B
Soft layer c1 , 1 H Stiff layer c1 , 1 H
Stiff layer c 2 , 2 Soft layer c 2 , 2
(a) (b)
Fig.(3.11): Typical two-layer soil profiles.
Table (3.8): Modified bearing capacity factor Nm for C2/C1 > 1.
(a) Square or circular footings (L/B = 1)
B/H
C2/C1
4 8 12 16 20 40
1 6.17 6.17 6.17 6.17 6.17 6.17 6.17
1.5 6.17 6.34 6.49 6.63 6.76 7.25 9.25
2 6.17 6.46 6.73 6.98 7.20 8.10 12.34
3 6.17 6.63 7.05 7.45 7.82 9.36 18.51
4 6.17 6.73 7.26 7.75 8.23 10.24 24.68
5 6.17 6.80 7.40 7.97 8.51 10.88 30.85
10 6.17 6.96 7.74 8.49 9.22 12.58 61.70
6.17 7.17 8.17 9.17 10.17 15.17
(b) long rectangular footings (L/B 5)
B/H
C2/C1
2 4 6 8 10 20
1 5.14 5.14 5.14 5.14 5.14 5.14 5.14
1.5 5.14 5.31 5.45 5.59 5.70 6.14 7.71
2 5.14 5.43 5.69 5.92 6.13 6.95 10.28
3 5.14 5.59 6.00 6.33 6.74 8.16 15.42
4 5.14 5.69 6.21 6.69 7.14 9.02 20.56
5 5.14 5.76 6.35 6.90 7.42 9.66 25.70
10 5.14 5.93 6.69 7.43 8.14 11.40 51.40
5.14 6.14 7.14 8.14 9.14 14.14
108
Fig.(3.12): Modified bearing capacity factor N m for footings on two-layer

cohesive soil in undrained conditions (after Vesic, 1970).
Hansens Equation (1996)

For both cases (a, and b), q ult. is calculated from Table (3.2) for = 0 as:
q ult. Su .Nc .(1 Sc dc ic bc gc ) q .....(3.31)

If the inclination, base and ground effects are neglected, then Eq. (3.31) will be:-
q ult. Su .Nc .(1 Sc dc ) q .........(3.32a)
In this method, S u is calculated as an average value C avg. depending on the depth of
penetration [ H crit . 0.5B tan(45 ) ], while N c = 5.14. So that, equation (3.28a) is
written as:
q ult. 5.14.C avg. (1 Sc d c ) q .....(3.32b)
where,
C1H C 2 [Hcrit - H]
S u C avg. = ,
Hcrit
Df Df D
Sc 0.2 B , and d c 0.4 for 1 or dc 0.4 tan1 f (radians) for Df / B >1.
L B B B
109
3.13.2 CASE (2): FOOTING ON LAYERED c SOILS

(a) Top layer stronger than lower layer ( C2 / C1 1).
(b) Top layer weaker than lower layer ( C2 / C1 > 1).

Fig.(3.13) shows a foundation of any shape resting on an upper layer having strength
parameters c1 , 1 and underlaid by a lower layer with c 2 , 2 .
G.S.
Df B
H or d1 1 , c1 , 1 Layer (1)
d2 2 , c 2 , 2 Layer (2)
Fig.(3.13): Footing on layered c soils.
(i) If (H / B)crit . (H / B) :
B H
1 2(1 ) K s tan 1( )
q ult. {q b c1 cot 1}..e L B ( 1 c cot ) .......(3.33a)
1 1
Ks Ks
where,
3 ln(q t / q b )
(H / B)crit . ,
2(1 B / L)
q t Ultimate bearing capacity of the footing with respect to top soil layer (1).
c1Nc1Sc1dc1 1Df Nq1Sq1dq1 0.5B1N 1S1d 1
q b Ultimate bearing capacity of a fictitious footing of same size and shape as the actual
footing but resting on the top of layer (2).
c2 Nc2Sc2dc2 1(Df H) Nq 2Sq 2dq 2 0.5B 2 N 2S 2d 2
1 sin 2 1
Ks .
1 sin 2 1
110
Vesic's bearing capacity factors with ( i ):

Nci ( Nqi 1) cot i , Nqi e tan i tan2 (45 i / 2) , and N 2( N q 1) tan i
i i
Vesic's shape factors from Table (3.5):

B Nqi B B
Sci 1 , Sqi 1 tan i , and S i 1 0.4
L N ci L L
Vesic's depth factors from Table (3.5):
dci 1 0.4k , d qi 1 2 tan .i (1 sin i )2 k, and d i 1.0
Df D D D
where: k ..for.. f 1 or k tan1 f .(radians )..for.. f 1 .
B B B B
(ii) If (H / B)crit . (H / B) :
q ult. q t c1N c1Sc1d c1 1D f N q1Sq1d q1 0.5B1N 1S 1d 1 ......(3.33b)

(1) Compute Hcrit . 0.5B tan(45 1 / 2) using 1 for the top layer.
(2) If H crit . H compute the modified values of c and as:
Hc1 (H crit . H)c 2 H1 (H crit . H) 2
c* ; *
H crit . H crit .
Hint: A possible alternative for c soils with a number of thin layers is to use average
values of c and in bearing capacity equations of Table (3.2) as:
c H c H ..... c n H n H tan .1 H 2 tan .2 ..... H n tan .n
cav. 1 1 2 2 ; av. tan 1 1
Hi Hi
(3) Use Hansen's equation from Table (3.2) for q ult. with c * and * as:
q ult. c * N cSc d c i c g c b c qN q Sq d q i q g q b q 0.5BN S d i g b .(3.34)
If the effects of inclination, ground and base factors are neglected, then equation (3.31) will
takes the form:
q ult. c * N cSc d c qN q Sq d q 0.5BN S d ................(3.35)
where,
N c ( N q 1) cot * , N q e tan * tan 2 (45 * / 2) , N 1.5( N q 1) tan *
Nq B B B
Sc 1 , Sq 1 tan * , and S 1 0.4
Nc L L L
111

d c 1 0.4k , d q 1 2 tan * (1 sin *) 2 k, and d 1.0
Df D D D
where: k ..for.. f 1 or k tan1 f .(radians )..for.. f 1 .
B B B B
(4) Otherwise, if H crit . H , then q ult. is estimated as the bearing capacity of the first soil layer
q ult. q t whether it is sand or clay.
3.13.3 CASE (3): FOOTING ON LAYERED SAND AND CLAY SOILS

(a) Sand overlying clay.
(b) Clay overlying sand.
(1) Compute (H / B) crit . from:

3 ln(q t / q b )
(H / B)crit . ..........(3.36a)
2(1 B / L)
where, q t , q b = ultimate bearing capacities with respect to top and bottom soils ,
for sand overlying clay:
q t 1D f N q1Sq1d q1 0.5B1 N 1S 1d 1 ...............................(3.36b)
q b c 2 N mSc2 d c2 1 (D f H) .....(3.36c)
for clay overlying sand:
q t c1 N mSc1d c1 1D f ........(3.36d)
qb 1(Df H) Nq 2Sq 2dq 2 0.5B 2 N 2S 2d 2 ........(3.36e)
Vesic's bearing capacity factors from Table (3.2) with ( i ):
Nm 6.17....for....L / B 1 or N m 5.14...for ..L / B 5
Nqi e tan i tan2 (45 i / 2) ,
N i 2( Nqi 1) tan i
B Nqi B B
Sci 1 , Sqi 1 tan i , and S i 1 0.4
L N ci L L
dci 1 0.4k , d qi 1 2 tan i (1 sin i )2 k, and d i 1.0
Df D Df D
where, k ..for.. f 1 or k tan1 .(radians )..for.. f 1 .
B B B B
112
(2) If (H / B) crit . (H / B) , for both cases; sand overlying clay or clay overlying sand, estimate
q ult. as follows:
B H
1 2(1 ) Ks tan 1( )
q ult. {q b c1 cot 1}..e L B ( 1 c cot ) ............(3.37)
1 1
Ks Ks
q b ultimate bearing capacity of a fictitious footing of the same size and shape as the
actual footing but resting on the top of layer (2),
c2 Nc2Sc2dc2 1(Df H) Nq 2Sq 2dq2 0.5B 2 N 2S 2d 2
1 sin 2 1
Ks punching shear coefficien t .
1 sin 2 1
(3) Otherwise, if (H / B) crit . (H / B) ,then q ult. is estimated as the bearing capacity of the first
soil layer q ult. q t whether it is sand or clay.

(1) Compute H crit . 0.5B tan(45 1 / 2) using 1 for the top layer.
(2) If H crit . H , for both cases; sand overlying clay or clay overlying sand, estimate q ult. as
follows:
p.Pv.K s . tan 1 p.d1c1
q ult. q b q t ............(3.38)
Af Af
where,
q t , q b = ultimate bearing capacities of the footing with respect to top and bottom soils.
p = total perimeter for punching = 2 (B + L) or .D (diameter).
d1
Pv = total vertical pressure from footing base to lower soil computed as: 1h.dh qd1
0
d12
1 1D f .d1
2
K s = lateral earth pressure coefficient = tan 2 (45 / 2) or use K o 1 sin .
tan = coefficient of friction.
pd1c1 = cohesion on perimeter as a force.
A f = area of footing.
for sand or clay with 0 :

q t c1Nc1Sc1d c1 1Df Nq1Sq1d q1 0.5B1N 1S1d 1 .....................(3.39a)
q b c 2 N c2Sc2 d c2 1 (D f H) N q 2Sq 2 d q 2 0.5B 2 N 2S 2 d 2 ....(3.39b)
113
for clay in undrained condition ( u 0 ):

q t 5.14Su (1 Sc d c ) 1D f ................(3.39c)
q b 5.14Su (1 Sc dc ) 1 (D f H) ............(3.39d)
Hansen's bearing capacity factors from Table (3.2) with ( i ):

N c ( N q 1) cot , N q e . tan tan 2 (45 / 2) , N 1.5( N q 1) tan
Nq B B B
Shape factors from Table (3.5): S c 1 , Sq 1 tan , S 1 0.4
Nc L L L
Depth factors from Table (3.5): d c 1 0.4k , dq 1 2 tan (1 sin )2 k, d 1.0
where,
D D D D
k f ..for.. f 1 or k tan1 f .(radians )..for.. f 1 .
B B B B
(3) Otherwise, if H crit . H , then q ult. is estimated as the bearing capacity of the first soil layer
q ult. q t whether it is sand or clay.
Problem (3.12): (Footing on layered clay)

A (3.0m x 6.0m) rectangular footing is to be placed on a two-layer clay deposit shown in
the figure below. Estimate the ultimate bearing capacity using Hansen's equation.
G.S.
1.83m c1 Su 77 kPa
Clay (1) 3m 0
17.26 kN/m3
H =1.5m
1.22m
c2 Su 115 kPa
Clay (2)
Solution:
Hcrit . 0.5B tan .(45 1 / 2) = 0.5(3) tan (45) = 1.5m > 1.22m
the critical depth penetrated into the 2nd. layer of soil.
114
For case (1); clay on clay layers and using Hansen's equation:
q ult. 5.14.C avg. (1 Sc d c ) q
where,
C1H C 2 [Hcrit - H] 77(1.22) 115 (1.5 - 1.22)
S u C avg. = 84.093
Hcrit 1.5
Sc 0.2B / L 0.2(3 / 6) 0.1 ;
For Df / B 1 : dc 0.4D / B 0.4.(1.83 / 3) 0.24
q ult. = 5.14(84.093)1 0.1 0.24 1.83(17.26) 610.784 kPa
Problem (3.13): (footing on sand overlying clay)

A (2.0m x 2.0m) square footing is to be placed on sand overlying clay as shown in the
figure below. Estimate the ultimate bearing capacity using Hansen's equation.
G.S.
1.50m c1 0 kPa
Sand 2m x 2m 34
17.25 kN/m3
H =1.88m
W.T. 0.60m
Clay Su q u / 2 75 kPa
Solution:
Hcrit . 0.5B tan .(45 1 / 2) = 0.5(2) tan (45 + 34 / 2) = 1.88m > 0.60m
the critical depth penetrated into the 2nd. layer of soil.
For case (3); sand overlying clay and using Hansen's equation:
p.Pv.K s . tan 1 p.d1c1
q ult. q b qt
Af Af
115
FOR SAND LAYER:

q t 1 Df Nq1Sq1 dq1 0.5B 1 N 1S1 d 1
Hansen's bearing capacity factors from Table (3.2) with ( 34 ):

N q e tan 34 tan 2 (45 34 / 2) 29.4
N 1.5(29.4 1) tan 34 28.7
B
Sq 1 tan 1.67
L
B
S 1 0.4 0.6
L
D 1.5
dq 1 2 tan .(1 sin ) 2 f 1 2 tan 34.(1 sin 34)2 1.2
B 2
d 1.0
q t 17.25(1.5)(29.4)(1.67)(1.2) + 0.5(2)17.25)(28.7)(0.6)(1.0)= 1821.5 kPa
FOR CLAY LAYER:

q b 5.14Su (1 Sc dc ) q
B 2
Sc 0.2 0.2 0.2 ;
L 2
Df D 1.5 0.6
For 1 : d c 0.4 tan 1 f 0.4 tan 1 ( ) 0.32 ; Sq d q 1
B B 2
q b = 5.14(75)(1 + 0.2 + 0.32) + (1.5 + 0.6)(17.25)= 622 kPa
Now, obtain the punching contribution:

0.6
d1
d12 0.62
Pv 1h.dh qd1 1 1D f d1 = 17.25 17.25.(1.5)(0.6) 18.6 kN/m
2 2
0 0
K o 1 sin 1 sin 34 0.44
2(2 2)(18.6)(0.44) tan 34 2(2 2)(0.6)(0)

q ult. 622 = 633 kPa < ( q t. = 1821.5 kPa)
(2)(2) (2)(2)
Take q ult . 633 kPa
116
Problem (3.14): (footing on c soils)

A (1.5m x 2.0m) rectangular footing is to be constructed on layered soils shown in the
figure below. Check its adequacy against shear failure using Hansen's equation with F.S. =
3.0, and w =10 kN/m3.
P = 300 kN
G.S.
Soil Soil Soil 0.8m W.T.
parameter
(1) (2) (3) Soil (1)
Gs 2.70 2.65 2.75 1.5m x 2m 0.4m
e 0.8 0.9 0.85
Soil (2) 0.5m
c (kPa) 10 60 80
35 0 0
Soil (3)
Solution:
G s . w 2.70(10)
d1 15 kN/m3
1 e 1 0.8
(Gs e) w (2.70 0.8)10
sat1 19.40 kN/m3
1 e 1 0.8
G s . w 2.65(10)
d2 18.7 kN/m3
1 e 1 0.9
(2.75 0.85)10
sat 2 19.45 kN/m3
1 0.85
Hcrit . 0.5B tan .(45 1 / 2) = 0.5(1.5) tan(45) = 0.75m 0.50m
the critical depth penetrated into the soil layer (3).
Since soils (2) and (3) are clay layers, therefore; use Hansen's equation (for 0 ):
q ult. 5.14C avg. (1 Sc d c ) q
where,
C1H C 2 [Hcrit - H] 60(0.5) 80 (0.75 - 0.50)
C avg. = 66.67
Hcrit 0.75
Sc 0.2B / L 0.2(1.5 / 2) 0.15 ; For Df / B 1 dc 0.4Df / B 0.4(1.2 / 1.5) 0.32
q ult. =5.14 (66.67)(1+ 0.15 + 0.32) + [0.8(15) + 0.4 (19.40 - 10)] = 519.505 kPa
117
519.5
q all ( net) [0.8(15) + 0.4 (19.40 - 10)] = 157.408 kPa
3
300
qapplied 100 kPa < q all ( net ) 157.408 kPa (O.K.)
(1.5)(2)
Check for squeezing:

For non squeezing of soil beneath the footing: ( q ult. 4c1 q )
4c1 q = 4(60) + [0.8(15) + 0.4 (19.40 - 10)] = 255.76kPa 519.505 kPa (O.K.)
Problem (3.15): (Footing on layered clay)

A (2.0m x 2.0m) square footing is to be placed on two-layered clay deposit as shown in the
figure below. Using Vesics equation; estimate the ultimate load that the footing can carry
under the following cases:
(a) cu1 30 kN/m2, and cu 2 45 kN/m2 (soft clay over stiff clay),
(b) cu1 45 kN/m2, and cu 2 30 kN/m2 (stiff clay over soft clay).
Pult . ?
G.S.
c u 30 kN/m2, u 0 , 17 kN/m3
1.0m
2.0m x 2.0m
c u 45 kN/m2, u 0 , 17 kN/m3 1.0m
Solution:
(a) Soft clay over stiff clay:

C2 / C1 = 45 / 30 = 1.5 1.0
q ult. C1.Nm q
From Table (3.8) for C2/C1 = 1.5 and B/H = 2.0: N m 6.17
q ult. 30(6.17) + (1)(17) = 202.1 kN/m2
Pult . q ult. .Area = 202.1(2)(2) = 808.4 kN
118
(b) Stiff clay over soft clay:

Considering the soils as cu1 45 kN/m2, and cu 2 30 kN/m2
q ult. C1.Nm q ; C2 / C1 = 30 / 45 = 0.667 1.0
Nm 1/ k.Sc .Nc (Hansen, 1970) Sc .Nc (Terzaghi, 1943)

= B.L / [2 (B+L) H] = (2)(2)/ [2(2+2)1]= 0.5
B Nq 2.0(1)
From Hansen for 0 : N c = 5.14, N q =1.0 and Sc 1 1 1.194
L Nc 2.0(5.14)
Nm 1/ k.Sc .Nc (Hansen, 1970) = 1/ 0.5 + (0.667)(1.194)(5.14) = 6.09
From Table (3.2): Sc .Nc (Terzaghi, 1943) = 1.3 (5.7) = 7.41
N m = 6.09 7.41 (O.K.) Take N m 6.09
q ult. C1.Nm q = 45(6.09) + (1)(17) = 291.2 kN/m2
Pult . q ult. .Area = 291.2 (2)(2) = 1164.8 kN
Problem (3.16): (Footing on sand underlaid by clay)

A (8.5m x 26m) rectangular footing is to be placed at depth (3m) in a medium dense sand
( 35 ) underlaid by stiff clay ( Cu 56 kPa) starting at elevation (9m). If the water
table is at (2.4m) below the ground surface, find the ultimate bearing capacity of the soil
using Vesics equation.
Pult.
G.S.
W.T. 2.4m 3.0m
8.5m x 26m Dense sand: 35
sat . 18.9 kN/m3
6.0m moist 16 kN/m3
Stiff clay: C u = 56 kPa
Solution:
For sand overlying clay:

q t.(sand ) 1Df Nq1Sq1dq1 0.5B1N 1S1d 1 ...............................(3.36a)
q b.(clay ) c2 NmSc2dc2 1(Df H) .....(3.36b)
119
Vesic's bearing capacity factors from Table (3.2):

For 35 : Nq1 e tan 35 tan2 (45 35 / 2) 33.3
N 1 2( Nq1 1) tan 1 2(33.3 1) tan 35 48
Nm 5.14 for L / B 26 / 8.5 3.05 5
B 8.5 B 8.5
Sq1 1 tan 1 1 tan 35 =1.23 and S1 1 0.4 1 0.4 0.87
L 26 L 26
Depth factors from Table (3.5): For Df / B 3 / 8.5 1 (Shallow footing):
3
d q1 1 2 tan 35(1 sin 35) 2 1.09 and d 1 1.0
8.5
D
dc2 1 0.4 f 1.14
B
The q ult. of sand in infinite mass:
q t.(sand ) 1Df Nq1Sq1dq1 0.5B1N 1S1d 1 .........................(3.36a)
q t.(sand ) [2.4(16) 0.6(18.9 9.81)](33.3)(1.23)(1.09) 0.5(8.5)(18.9 9.81)(48)(0.87)(1.0)
= 3571.168 kN/m2
The q ult. of a fictitious footing resting on the lower clay layer:

q b.(clay ) c2 NmSc2dc2 1(Df H) ........(3.36b)
q b.(clay ) 56(5.14)(1.064)(1.14) 2.4(16) 6.6(16 9.81) 428.392 kN/m2
Compute (H / B) crit . from:

3 ln(q t / q b ) 3 ln3571.168 / 428.392
(H / B)crit . 2.4 (H / B 6 / 8.5 0.7)
2(1 B / L) 2(1 8.5 / 26)
The q ult. of footing is affected by the pressure of the stiff clay layer and its magnitude is:
B H
1 2(1 ) Ks tan 1( )
q ult. {q b c1 cot 1}..e L B ( 1 c cot ) ........................(3.37)
1 1
Ks Ks
where,
1 sin 2 1 1 sin 2 35
Ks 0.5 05; Since c1 0 (sand), Eq.(3.37) simplifies to:
1 sin 2 1 1 sin 2 35
B H 8.5 6
2(1 ) K s tan 1 ( ) 2(1 ).(0.505).(tan 35).( )
q ult. q b ..e L B (428.392)..e 26 8.5 831 kN/m2
120
3.14 SKEMPTON'S BEARING CAPACITY DESIGN CHARTS

3.14.1 FOOTINGS ON CLAY AND PLASTIC SILTS
From Terzaghi's bearing capacity equation:
1
q ult. cN c .Sc qNq .B..N.S ......(3.15)
2
For saturated clay and plastic silts: ( u 0 and N c 5.7, N q 1.0,.and.N 0 )
For strip footing: Sc S 1.0
q ult. cN c q ...........(3.40a)
q
q all. ult. and q all.(net ) q all. q
3
q cN c q cN c q
q all.(net ) ult. q q ( q ) .....(3.40b)
3 3 3 3
where, N c Bearing capacity factor obtained from Fig.(3.14) depending on the shape of footing
and D f /B.
q C Soil
If the term ( q ) is neglected due to its small value, and
3 ()
S Cu . tan
From soil mechanics principals:-
For c soil: 1 3 tan 2 (45 / 2) 2c tan(45 / 2) Cu 2

()
3 0 1 q u
For UCT: 1 q u and 3 = 0; then q u 2c tan(45 / 2)
q
For u 0 ; c u and Eq.(3.40b) will be:
2 Pure Cohesive Soil
Nc u 0
q all.(net ) q u ........(3.40c)
6 ()
qu
S Cu , u 0
From Fig.(3.14): 2
D
For f =0: Nc 6.2 0 for square or circular footings, Cu
B
()
5.14 for strip or continuous footings 3 0 1 q u
If N c 6.0 , then:
q all.(net ) q u ........(3.41)
See Fig.(3.15) for net allowable soil pressure for footings on clay and plastic silt.
121
9.0 10 2.0
Df / B = 4
8.5 1.8
Net allowable Soil pressure

8 1.6
Df / B = 2
8.0 Square and circular B/ L=1
1.4
7.5
Df / B = 1
(kg/ cm2)
6 1.2
7.0 1.0
Nc Continuous B/ L= 0 Df / B = 0.5
6.5 4 .8
.6
6.0 Df / B = 0
2 .4
5.5
.2
.2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
5.0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 2 4 6 8 10
Df / B Unconfined compressive strength
(kg/ cm2)
Fig.(3.14): Skemptons bearing capacity factor Fig.(3.15): Net allowable soil pressure for
for clay soils under 0 conditions footings on clay and plastic silt [determined for
(after Murthy, 2007). factor of safety of 3 against bearing capacity failure 0.
Chart values are for strip footings (B/L=0); and for other
types of footings multiply values by (1+ 0.2B/L)].
B B
Nc(net ) Nc(strip) (1 0.2 ) or Nc(net ) Nc(square ) (0.84 0.16 )
L L
3.14.2 RAFTS ON CLAY
If q b
Q Total..load (D.L. L.L.)
> q all. use pile or floating foundations.
Af footing..area
From Skempton's equation, the ultimate bearing capacity (for strip footing) is given by:
q ult. cN c q ........................................(3.40a)
and q ult.(net ) cN c
cN c cN c
q all.(net ) or F.S.
F.S. q all.( net )
Net soil pressure = q b D f .
cN c
F.S. ............(3.42)
q b Df .
122
Notes:
(1) If qb D f . (i.e., F .S . ) the raft is said to be fully compensated foundation (in this
case, the weight of foundation (D.L.+ L.L.) = the weight of excavated soil).
(2) If qb D f . (i.e., F.S. = certain value) the raft is said to be partially compensated
foundation such as the case of storage tanks.
3.14.3 FOOTINGS ON SAND AND NON PLASTIC SILT

From Terzaghi's equation, the ultimate bearing capacity is:
1
q ult. cN c .Sc qNq .B..N.S .....(3.15)
2
For sand (c 0) and for strip footing ( Sc S 1.0 ), then, Eq.(3.15) will become:
1
q ult. qN q B..N ..........(3.43a)
2
1
q ult.(net ) D f ..N q B..N D f .
2
1 D . 1
q ult.(net ) D f . ( N q 1) B..N B f ( N q 1) .N
2 B 2
B D f . 1
q all.(net ) ( N q 1) .N ..........(3.43b)
F.S. B 2
Notes:
(1) The wider the footing, the greater q ult. /unit area. However, for a given settlement S i such as
(1 inch or 25mm), the soil pressure is greater for a footing of intermediate width B b than for
a large footing with B c width or for a narrow footing with B a width; see Fig.(3.16a).
Df
(2) For = constant and a given settlement on sand, there is an actual relationship between
B
q all. and B represented by (solid line); see Fig.(3.16b). However, as a basis for design, a
substitute relation (dashed lines) can be used as shown in Fig.(3.16c). The error for footings
of usual dimensions is less than 10%. The position of the broken line efg differs for
different sands.
(3) The ultimate bearing capacity q ult. of a footing on sand depends on:
width of the footing, B,
depth of the surcharge surrounding the footing, D f
angle of internal friction,
relative density of the sand, D r
standard penetration resistance, N-value and
water table position.
123
(4) The net allowable bearing capacity shown by Eq.(3.43b) is derived from the frictional
resistance due to:
(i) the weight of the sand below the footing level; and
(ii) the weight of the surrounding surcharge or backfill.
(5) The design charts for proportioning shallow footings on sand and non-plastic silts are shown
in Figs. (3.17, 3.18 and 3.19).
Q1 Q2 Q3
Ba Bb Bc
(a) Footings of different widths.
Soil Pressure, q
d Given c a b
Settlement , Si
Settlement
Narrow Wide
footing footing
Intermediate
footing
(b) Loadsettlement curves for footings of increasing widths.

Soil pressure, q
b
a
c g
f
d
e Width of footing, B
(c) Variation of soil pressure with B for given settlement, Si.
Fig.(3.16): Footings on sand (after Peck et al., 1974).
124
Df / B 1.0 Df / B 0.50 Df / B 0.25

6 6 6
N = 50 N = 50 N = 50
Net soil pressure (kg/ cm2)
5 5 5
N = 40 N = 40 N = 40
4 4 4
N = 30 N = 30 N = 30
3 3 3
N = 20 N = 20 N = 20
2 N = 15 2 2 N = 15
N = 15
N = 10 N = 10 N = 10
1 1 1 N=5
N=5 N=5
0 0 0
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8
Width of footing, B, (m)
Fig.(3.17): Design charts for proportioning shallow footings on sand.
Correction factor C N
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
0
Effective vertical overburden ressure
50
100
150
200
(kN/ m2)
250
300
350
400
450
500
Fig.(3.18): Chart for correction of N-values in
sand for overburden pressure.
Fig.(3.19): Relationship between bearing

capacity factors and .
(after Murthy, 2007).
125
Limitations of Using Charts (Figs.(3.17, 3.18 and 3.19)):

These charts are prepared for strip footing, therefore, for other types of footings multiply q all.
by (1+ 0.2 B/L).
The charts are drawn for: shallow footings ( D f / B 1 ); 100 Ib/ft3; settlement = 1(inch);
F.S. = 2.0; no water table (far below the footing); and corrected N-values.
N-values must be corrected for:
2000
(i) Overburden Pressure Effect using Fig.(3.19) or the formula: C N 0.77 log
Po (kPa)
If po 25 kPa, (no need for overburden pressure correction).
Dw
(ii) Water Table Effect: C w 0.5 0.5
B Df B
G.S.
Df
W.T. Dw
NB
3.14.4 RAFTS ON SAND
For allowable settlement = 2 (inch) and differential settlement 3/4 (inch) provided that
Df (min .) (8ft )..or..(2.4m) , the allowable net soil pressure is given by:
G.S. Q
Dw W.T.
Df
Df D w
Raft Foundation
NB Sand
S ( N)
q all.(net ) C w all. ... for ( 5 N 50 )......(3.44)
9
2.0( N)
If C w =1 and Sall. 2 ; then q all.(net ) 1.0 0.22 N(Tsf ) 23.23N(kPa)
9
126
and q gross qall.(net ) Df .

Q
Area
where,
D f . D w (D f D w )( w ) (D f D w ) w
Dw
C w 0.5 0.5 = (correction for water table)
B Df
N = SPT number (corrected for both W.T. and overburden pressure).
Hint: A raft-supported building with a basement extending below water table is acted on by
hydrostatic uplift pressure or buoyancy equal to (D f D w ) w per unit area.
Problem (3.17): (footing on clay)

Determine the size of the square footing shown in the figure below, if q u = 100 kPa and
F.S.= 3.0.
Q = 1000 kN
G.S.
2m soil 20 kN/m3
B=? 0.4m conc. 24 kN/m3

Solution:
Method (1):
Assume B =3.5m, D / B = 2/3.5 = 0.57 then from Fig.(3.14): N c 7.3
100
q ult.. cNc q = (7.3) + 2(20) = 405 kPa
2
q 405
q all. (net ) ult. q 20(1.6) 24(0.4) 93.4 kPa
3 3
Area =1000/93.4 = 10.71 m2; For square footing: B 10.71 3.27m 3.5m
Take B =3.25m, and Df / B = 2/3.25 = 0.61 then from Fig.(3.14): N c 7.5

q ult. cN c q = 50(7.5) + 2(20) = 415 kPa
q 415
qall.(net ) ult. q 20(1.6) 24(0.4) 96.73 kPa
3 3
Area=1000/96.73 = 10.34 m2; B 10.34 3.21 3.25m (O.K.)
use B x B = (3.25m x 3.25m)
127
Method (2):
Assume qall.(net ) q u 100 kPa
Area =1000/100 = 10 m2; For square footing B 10 3.16 m; Take B = 3.25m
From Fig.(3.14) for B = 3.25m, and Df / B = 2/3.25 = 0.61: N c 7.5
q ult. cN c q = 50(7.5) + 2(20) = 415 kPa
415
qall.(net ) 20(1.6) 24(0.4) 94.73 kPa (calculated) 100 kPa (assumed)
3
use B x B = (3.25m x 3.25m)
Hint: For safe and economic design: qall.net (assumed) qall.net (calculated ) 1.10.qall.net (assumed)
Problem (3.18): (footing on clay)

For the square footing shown in the figure below, if q u = 380 kPa and F.S. = 3.0, determine
q all. and D f (min .) which give the maximum effect on q all. . P
Solution: G.S.
From Skempton's equation:
Df ?
For square footing:
0.9m x 0.9m
cN c(strip) cN c (square )
q all.( net) (1.2) or q all.( net)
3 3 q u 380 kN/m2
From Fig.(3.14) at D f / B = 4 and B/L=1 N c(square ) = 9.0
380
( 9)
q all.( net) 2 570 KPa and D f = 4(0.9) = 3.6m
3
Problem (3.19): (raft on clay)

For the raft shown in the figure below, find the safety factor against bearing capacity
failure.
Q = 2500 MN
G.S.
Solution:
soil 15.71 kN/m3
cN c 10m q u 95.76 kN/m2
F.S.
q b Df .
100m x 100m
128
q D B
cN c u N c ; where N c f ( f , )
2 B L
From Fig.(3.14) for D / B =10/100 = 0.1 and B / L 100/100 = 1.0: N c 6.4
95.76 2500(10 3 )
cN c 6.4 306.4 kN/m2; and q b 250 kN/m2
2 100x100
cN c 306.4
F.S. 3.3
q b Df . 250 10(15.71)
Problem (3.20): (raft on clay)

Determine the safety factor against bearing capacity failure (F.S.) for the raft shown in the
figure below for the following depths: Df 1m, 2m, 3m, and 5m.
Q = 20 000 kN
G.S.
Solution:
Df soil 18 kN/m3
cN c q u 100 kN/m2
F.S.
q b Df . 10m x 20m
For D f 1m:
From Fig.(3.14) for D f / B =1/10 = 0.1 and B / L 0:
10
N c strip 5.4 and N c rec tan gular = Ncstrip (1 0.2B / L) = 5.4 (1+ 0.2 ) = 5.94
20
cN c (100 / 2)5.94 50(5.94)
F.S. 3.62
q b Df . 20000
1(18) 100 18
(10)(20)
For D f 2m:
10
Ncstrip 5.5 and N c rec tan gular = Ncstrip (1 0.2B / L) = 5.5 (1+ 0.2 ) = 6.05
20
cN c (100 / 2)6.05 50(6.05)
F.S. 4.72
q b Df . 20000
2(18) 100 36
(10)(20)
129
For D f 3m:
10
20
cN c (100 / 2)6.27 50(6.27)
F.S. 6.81
q b Df . 20000
3(18) 100 54
(10)(20)
For D f 5m:
10
20
cN c (100 / 2)6.49 50(6.49)
F.S. 32.4
q b Df . 20000
5(18) 100 90
(10)(20)
Problem (3.21): (footing on sand)

Determine the gross bearing capacity and the expected settlement of the rectangular
footing shown in the figure below. If N avg. (not corrected) = 22 and the depth for correction
= 6m. Q
G.S.
Solution:
0.75m
Po = 0.75(16) + 5.25(16 - 9.81) = 44.5 kPa >25 kPa W.T.
2000 2000 0.75m x 1.5m
C N 0.77 log 0.77 log =1.266
Po (kPa) 44.5 16 kN/m3
Dw 0.75
C w 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.75
B Df 0.75 0.75
N corr . =22(1.266)(0.75)= 20.8 (Use N = 20)
From Fig.(3.17) for footings on sand; for Df / B = 1, B = 0.75m and N = 20:-
For strip footing: q all.( net ) 2.2 (kg/cm2) or 220 (kPa)
For rectangular footing: q all.( net ) 220 (1 + 0.2B/L) = 242 kPa
qgross qall.(net ) Df . = 242 + 0.75(16) = 254 kPa
And the maximum settlement is not more than (1 inch or 25mm).
130
Problem (3.22): (Raft on sand)

Determine the maximum soil pressure that should be allowed at the base of the raft shown
in the figure below if sand 15.7 kN/m3, and N avg. (corrected) =19 blows/ 30cm?
G.S.
Q
3m
W.T.
9m x 15m
Very fine Sand

9m 15.7 kN/m3, Navg. 19 blow/ 30cm.
Solution: Rock
For raft on sand: q all.(net ) 23.23N(kPa) = 23.23(19) = 441.37 kPa

Dw 3
Correction for water table: Cw 0.5 0.5 = 0.5 0.5 0.625
B Df 93
qall.(net ) (0.625)441.37 275.856 kPa
The surcharge = D f . = 3(15.7) = 47.1 kPa
and q gross q all.(net ) D f . 275.856 + 47.1= 323 kPa
Problem (3.23): (raft on sand)

A (30m x30m) square reinforced concrete structure is to be supported by a raft with its
base 4.8m below ground surface. The subsoil consists of sand to a great depth. Five
boreholes have been made at the site, the average N-values corrected for overburden
pressure Po are as shown in the figure below. While test of boring was in progress, the
water level was at a depth of 1.5m. During construction, the water level will be lowered to
6m. But upon completion of the structure, the water level will return to its original position.
What total load including the weight of raft can be supported if the total settlement does not
exceed 2.0 (inches) and the differential settlement not to exceed 0.75 (inch)?
G.S. Q
B.H.1 B.H.2
1.5m W.T.
36 32 4.8m
B.H.3 30m x 30m
30m
1.2m W.T.
30 Sand
B.H.4 B.H.5
18.2 kN/m3
36 36
30m Rock
131
Solution:
(i) On the basis of total stress:
N avg. = (36+32+30+36+35)/5 = 33.2 , but for worst condition, use N min. = 30
For raft on sand: qall.(net ) 23.23( N)kPa = 23.23(30) = 697 kPa
Dw 1.5
Correction for water table: C w 0.5 0.5 = 0.5 0.5 0.52
B Df 4.8 30
q all.(net ) 697(0.52) 362.44 kPa
The surcharge = D f . = 4.8(18.2) = 87.36 kPa
and q gross q all.(net ) D f . 362.44 + 87.36 = 450 kPa
The total weight that can be supported by the raft = 450(30)(30)=405000 kN = 405 Ton
(ii) On the basis of effective stress:

As above q all.(net ) 697(0.52) 362.44 kPa
In this case, the surcharge D f . Effective stress + hydrostatic uplift pressure
Effective stress: v D w (D f D w ) =1.5(18.2) + (4.8 -1.5)(18.2-9.81) =54.987 kPa
Hydrostatic uplift pressure or buoyancy on the base:
= (D f D w ) w per unit area =(4.8-1.5)(9.81) = 32.373 kPa; this value
represents the difference in q all.(net ) of the raft between (total and effective stress
conditions).
and q gross q all.(net ) D f . 362.44 + (54.987 + 32.373) = 450 kPa
The total weight that can be supported by the raft = 450(30)(30) = 405000 kN = 405 Ton
The total weight that produces 2 (inches) settlement is independent on whether the
calculation is based on total or effective stresses.
3.15 BEARING CAPACITY OF FOOTINGS ON SLOPES

If footings are placed on slopes, their bearing capacity is less than that of footing placed on
level ground surface. In fact, the bearing capacity of a footing is inversely proportional to ground
slope.
3.15.1 MEYERHOF'S METHOD

In this method, the ultimate bearing capacity of footings on slopes is computed using the
following equations:
1
(q ult. )strip..footing ..on..slope cN cq .B.N q .....(3.45)
2
(q ult. )c.or.s.footing .on.level.ground
(q ult. )c.or.s.footing .on.slope (q ult. )strip...footing .on.slope .....(3.46)
(q ult. )strip..footing .on.level.ground
132
where,
N cq and N q are bearing capacity factors for footings on or adjacent to slope; determined
from Fig.(3.20),
c or s footing denotes either circular or square footing, and
(q ult. ) of footing on level ground is calculated from Terzaghi's equation.
3.15.2 GENERAL METHOD

In this method, the ultimate bearing capacity of footings on slopes can be computed using
any equation of Table (3.2); such as:-
(q ult. ) cNcScic qNqSqiq 0.5.B.N.S d i .........(3.47)
But with:
Nc and Nq reduced bearing capacity factors obtained from Table (3.9) for any ( , Df / B ,
b / B and ). Notice that the effect of depth is included in both N c and N q when Df / B
> 0, so that d i factors should not be used again.
Notes:
(1) For practical purposes, use the minimum net allowable bearing capacity value
calculated from Meyerhof's or general method,
(2) A triaxial should not be adjusted to ps , since the slope edge distorts the failure pattern
such that plane-strain conditions may not develop except for large b / B ratios,
(3) For footings on or adjacent to a slope, the overall slope stability should be checked for
the footing load using one of the slope-stability programs such as Geo-studio software.
(4) If (L) direction of foundation is in the same direction of slope, the F.S. should also be
checked in (B) direction, in addition to that in (L) direction; but not vice versa.
(5) The Nc and Nq reduced bearing capacity factors can also be obtained by drawing the
failure patterns of footings on or adjacent to a slope and on level ground as follows:
(a) Develop the exit point E for a footing as shown in Fig.(3.21). The angle of the exit is
taken as ( 45 / 2 ) since the slope line is a principal plane.
(b) Compute Nc and Nq on the basis of failure surface lengths and area ratios.
L A1
Nc Nc 1 and Nq Nq
Lo Ao
where,
Lo = length of failure surface ade of footing on level ground, (see Fig.(3.21a)).
L1 = length of failure surface adE of footing on or adjacent to a slope, (see Fig.(3.21b)).
A o = area of ec( D f ) of footing on level ground, (see Fig.(3.21a)).
A1 = area of Efg of footing on face of slope or area of Efgh of footing on top of slope,
(see Fig.(3.21b)).
133
(a) on face of slope.
(b) on top of slope.

Fig.(3.20): bearing capacity factors for continuous footing (after Meyerhof, 1957).
134
b P
h g
G.S. D
f B
E c
ro
Df q Df . r
c b P a
e g r = ro d
III r I 45 / 2 D
45 / 2 ro f B c
II E 45 + /
45 / r ro
d a
a
d
(a) Footing on level ground. (b) Footings on or adjacent to slope.
Fig.(3.21): Footings on slopes.
Table (3.9): Nc , and Nq bearing capacity factors for footings on or adjacent to slope.
Df / B 0 b / B 0 Df / B 0.75 b/B 0 Df / B 1.5 b/B 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
Nc 5.14 8.35 14.83 30.14 75.31 5.14 8.35 14.83 30.14 75.31 5.14 8.35 14.83 30.14 75.31
0 Nq 1.03 2.47 6.40 18.40 64.20 1.03 2.47 6.40 18.40 64.20 1.03 2.47 6.40 18.40 64.20
10 4.89 7.80 13.37 26.80 64.42 5.14 8.35 14.83 30.14 75.31 5.14 8.35 14.83 30.14 75.31
1.03 2.47 6.40 18.40 64.20 0.92 1.95 4.43 11.16 33.94 1.03 2.47 5.85 14.13 40.81
20 4.63 7.28 12.39 23.78 55.01 5.14 8.35 14.83 30.14 66.81 5.14 8.35 14.83 30.14 75.31
1.03 2.47 6.40 18.40 64.20 0.94 1.90 4.11 9.84 28.21 1.03 2.47 5.65 12.93 35.14
25 4.51 7.02 11.82 22.38 50.80 5.14 8.35 14.83 28.76 62.18 5.14 8.35 14.83 30.14 73.57
1.03 2.47 6.40 18.40 64.20 0.92 1.82 3.85 9.00 25.09 1.03 2.47 5.39 12.04 31.80
30 4.38 6.77 11.28 21.05 46.88 5.14 8.35 14.83 27.14 57.76 5.14 8.35 14.83 30.14 68.64
1.03 2.47 6.40 18.40 64.20 0.88 1.71 3.54 8.08 21.91 1.03 2.47 5.04 10.99 28.33
60 3.62 5.33 8.33 14.34 28.56 4.70 6.83 10.55 17.85 34.84 5.14 8.34 12.76 21.37 41.12
1.03 2.47 6.40 18.40 64.20 0.37 0.63 1.17 2.36 5.52 0.62 1.04 1.83 3.52 7.80
Df / B 0 b / B 0.75 Df / B 0.75 b / B 0.75 Df / B 1.5 b / B 0.75
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
10 5.14 8.33 14.34 28.02 66.60 5.14 8.35 14.83 30.14 75.31 5.14 8.35 14.83 30.14 75.31
1.03 2.47 6.40 18.40 64.20 1.03 2.34 5.34 13.47 40.83 1.03 2.47 6.40 15.79 45.45
20 5.14 8.31 13.90 26.19 59.31 5.14 8.35 14.83 30.14 71.11 5.14 8.35 14.83 30.14 75.31
1.03 2.47 6.40 18.40 64.20 1.03 2.47 6.04 14.39 40.88 1.03 2.47 6.40 16.31 43.96
25 5.14 8.29 13.69 25.36 56.11 5.14 8.35 14.83 30.14 67.49 5.14 8.35 14.83 30.14 75.31
1.03 2.47 6.40 18.40 64.20 1.03 2.47 6.27 14.56 40.06 1.03 2.47 6.40 16.20 42.35
30 5.14 8.27 13.49 24.57 53.16 5.14 8.35 14.83 30.14 64.04 5.14 8.35 14.83 30.14 74.92
1.03 2.47 6.40 18.40 64.20 1.03 2.47 6.40 14.52 38.72 1.03 2.47 6.40 15.85 40.23
60 5.14 7.94 12.17 20.43 39.44 5.14 8.35 14.83 23.94 45.72 5.14 8.35 14.83 27.46 52.00
1.03 2.47 6.40 18.40 64.20 1.03 2.47 5.14 10.05 22.56 1.03 2.47 4.97 9.41 20.33
Df / B 0 b / B 1.5 Df / B 0.75 b / B 1.5 Df / B 1.5 b / B 1.5
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
10 5.14 8.35 14.34 29.24 68.78 5.14 8.35 14.34 30.14 75.31 5.14 8.35 14.83 30.14 75.31
1.03 2.47 6.40 18.40 64.20 1.03 2.47 6.01 15.39 47.09 1.03 2.47 6.40 17.26 49.77
20 5.14 8.35 14.83 28.59 63.60 5.14 8.35 14.83 30.14 75.31 5.14 8.35 14.83 30.14 75.31
1.03 2.47 6.40 18.40 64.20 1.03 2.47 6.40 18.40 53.21 1.03 2.47 6.40 18.40 52.58
25 5.14 8.35 14.83 28.33 61.41 5.14 8.35 14.83 30.14 72.80 5.14 8.35 14.83 30.14 75.31
1.03 2.47 6.40 18.40 64.20 1.03 2.47 6.40 18.40 55.20 1.03 2.47 6.40 18.40 52.97
30 5.14 8.35 14.83 28.09 59.44 5.14 8.35 14.83 30.14 70.32 5.14 8.35 14.83 30.14 75.31
1.03 2.47 6.40 18.40 64.20 1.03 2.47 6.40 18.40 56.41 1.03 2.47 6.40 18.40 52.63
60 5.14 8.35 14.83 26.52 50.32 5.14 8.35 14.83 30.03 56.60 5.14 8.35 14.83 30.03 62.88
1.03 2.47 6.40 18.40 64.20 1.03 2.47 6.40 18.40 46.18 1.03 2.47 6.40 16.72 36.17
135
Problem (3.24): (footing on top of a slope)

A bearing wall for a building is to be located close to a slope as shown in the figure below.
The ground water table is located at a great depth. Determine the allowable bearing
capacity using F.S. = 3?
(a) Using Meyerhof's method, Q
(b) Using general method.
1.5m G.S.
Df 1.0m
6.1m 1.0m
Cohesionless Soil
30
19.5 kN/m3, c =0, 30
Solution:
(a) Using Meyerhof's Method

1
(q ult. )strip.footing .on.slope cN cq .B.N q .........(3.45)
2
From Fig.(3.20b) with 30 , 30 , b / B 1.5 , and Df / B 1.0 (using the dashed
line): N q = 40
1
(q ult. )strip.footing .on.slope (0) Ncq (19.5)(1.0)(40) = 390 kN/m2
2
qall. 390 / 3 130 kN/m2
(b) Using General Method

Hansen's equation is:
qult. cNc.Scic qNq .Sqiq 0.5.B.N .Sd i
From Table (3.9) for 30 , 30 , b / B 1.5 , and Df / B 1.0 :- Nq =18.4
For 30 : Nq e. tan 30 tan2 (45 30 / 2) 18.4 , and N 1.5(18.4 1) tan 30 15.1
Shape and depth factors from Table (3.5): Sq 1 , S 1 , d 1
q ult. 0 + 1(19.5)(18.4)(1)(1) + 0.5(1)(19.5)(15.1)(1)(1)(1)=505.723 kN/m2.
qall. 506.025/3 = 169 kN/m2
use qall.(net ) 130 1(19.5) = 110.5 kN/m2 for design purposes.
136

Resolve Problem (3.25) with a condition that a 1.0m x 1.0m square footing is to be
constructed near the slope.
(a) Using Meyerhof's Method,
Q
(b) Using General Method.
1.5m G.S.
Df 1.0m
6.1m 1.0m x 1.0m
Cohesionless Soil
30
19.5 kN/m3, c =0, 30
Solution:
(a) Using Meyerhof's Method

(q ult. )c.or.s.footing .on.level.ground
(q ult. )c.or.s.footing .on.slope (q ult. )strip...footing .on.slope .....(3.46)
(q ult. )strip..footing .on.level.ground
(q ult. )strip.footing .on.slope 390 kN/m2 from Problem (3.25).
(q ult. ) of square or strip footing on level ground is calculated from Terzaghi's equation:
1
q ult. cN cSc qNq .B..N.S
2
Bearing capacity factors from Table (3.3): For 30 ; Nc 37.2,..Nq 22.5,..N 19.7
Shape factors Table (3.2):
For square footing; Sc 1.3 and S 0.8 ; For strip footing; Sc S 1.0
(q ult. )square.footing .on.level.ground = 0 +1.0(19.5)(22.5)+ 0.5(1.0)(19.5)(19.7)(0.8) = 592.4 kN/m2
(q ult. )strip..footing .on.level.ground = 0 +1.0(19.5)(22.5)+ 0.5(1.0)(19.5)(19.7)(1.0) = 630.8 kN/m2
592.4
(q ult. )square.footing .on.slope 390 366.25 kN/m2
630.8
and (qall. )square.footing .on.slope 366.25 / 3 122 kN/m2
(b) Using General Method
Hansen's equation is: qult. cNc.Scic qNq .Sqiq 0.5.B.N .Sd i

From Table (3.9) for 30 , 30 , b / B 1.5 , and Df / B 1.0 :- Nq =18.4
137
Shape and depth factors from Table (3.5):

B B
S q 1 tan 1.577, S 1 0.4 0.6, d 1
L L
q ult. 0 + 1(19.5)(18.4)(1.577)(1) + 0.5(1)(19.5)(15.1)(0.6)(1)(1)= 654.163 kN/m2.
qall. 654.163 / 3 = 218 kN/m2
use qall.(net ) 122 1(19.5) = 102.5 kN/m2 for design purposes.
Problem (3.26): (footing on face of a slope)

Resolve Problem (3.25) with a condition that a 1.0m x 1.0m square footing is to be
constructed on the face of slope using the General Method.
Q G.S.
Cohesionless Soil
19.5 kN/m3
Df 1.0m
c = 0, 30
30 1.0m x 1.0m
Solution:
Using General Method:

Hansen's equation is: qult. cNc.Scic qNq .Sqiq 0.5.B.N .Sd i
Since c = 0 (cohesionless soil); Nc = 0
From Table (3.9) for 30 , 30 , b / B 0 , and Df / B 1.0 :- Nq = ?
Df / B 0.75 Df / B 1.5
30 30 Nq = 8.08 Nq = 10.99
10.99 8.08
By interpolation: Nq 8.08 (0.25) = 9.05 for Df / B 1.0
0.75
Shape and depth factors from Table (3.5):
B B
S q 1 tan 1.577, S 1 0.4 0.6, and d 1
L L
138
q ult. 0 + 1(19.5)(9.05)(1.577)(1) + 0.5(19.5)(1)(15.1)(0.6)(1) = 366.64 kN/m2.

qall. 366.64 / 3 = 122.2 kN/m2
and qall.(net ) 122.2 1(19.5) = 102.7 kN/m2 for design purposes.

A shallow continuous footing in clay is to be located close to a slope as shown in the figure
below. The ground water table is located at a great depth. Determine the gross allowable
bearing capacity using F.S. = 4 (use Meyerhof's method).
Q
0.8m G.S.
Df 1.2m
6.2m 1.2m
Clay Soil
30
17.5 kN/m3, c = 50 kN/m2, 0
Solution:
Since B < H, assume the stability number Ns 0 and for purely cohesive soil ( 0 ):
(q ult. )continuous.footing .on.slope cNcq
From Fig.(3.19b) for cohesive soil:
b 0.8 D
With 30 , 0.75 , and f 1.0 (use the dashed line): N cq = 6.3
B 1.2 B
(qult. )continuous.footing .on.slope (50)(6.3) 315 kN/m2
qall.(gross ) 315 / 4 78.8 kN/m2
3.16 BEARING CAPACITY FROM FIELD TESTS

Several empirical equations were presented from SPT or CPT results by many
investigators; these are as follows:
3.16.1 BEARING CAPACITY FROM SPT RESULTS

Parry (1976) computed q ult. of cohesionless soils as:
q ult. 30N...(kPa)......for..(D B)
139
This equation was based on back computing N q and N using an angle of internal friction
1/ 2
N
based on N as: 25 28.
q
where,
N is an approximate N55 (SPT-N value measured for a base energy E rb = 55) at a depth
about (0.75B) below the base of footing corrected for water table ( C w ) and overburden
pressure ( C N ), and q effective overburden pressure at the location of Navg. .
Bowles (1996) adjusted Meyerhof's equations with approximately 50% increase in

allowable bearing capacity of footings on sand using the standard penetration test (SPT) as:
N
qall.(S ) k d ......................(kPa)...for..B 1.2m
o 0.05
N B 0.3 2
qall.(S ) ( ) k d ....(kPa)...for..B 1.2m
o 0.08 B
where,
q all.(S ) Allowable bearing pressure for So = 25mm or 1(inch) settlement.
o
N N55 Average SPT value at a depth about (2B) below the base of footing for a base
energy E rb = 55 and corrected for Cw ...and...CN ,
D
k d 1 0.33 1.33 .
B
The allowable bearing pressure for any settlement can be given by:
S
qall.(S ) i qall.(S )
i So o
where, So = 25mm or 1(inch) settlement, and Si = the actual settlement (mm or inch).
Fig.(3.22) shows the allowable bearing capacity for footings on sand with settlement
limited to approximately 25mm.
3.16.2 BEARING CAPACITY FROM CPT RESULTS

Meyerhof (1951) based on Terzaghi's and Pecks equations gave the following empirical
equations for bearing capacity of footings on sand using the static cone resistance (CPT):
(a) for square or strip footings:
qall.(S ) 3.6qc ...................(kPa)...for..B 1.2m
o
1
qall.(S ) 2.1qc (1 )2 ......(kPa)...for..B 1.2m
o B
(b) for mat foundations: qall.(S ) 2.0 q all.(S )
o o
140
(c) for submergence condition: q all.(S ) 0.5 q all.(S )

o o
where, q all.(S ) Allowable bearing pressure for So = 25mm or 1(inch) settlement.

o
Meyerhof (1953) also proposed that q all. of sand can be computed using any equation
based on SPT making a substitution for q c as: N qc / 4 where q c = cone resistance
(kg/cm2).
Schmertmann et al. (1978) computed allowable bearing capacity of sand using CPT as:
(a) For sand: Strip footing:. q ult. 28 0.0052(300 qc )1.5 .................... ....( kg / cm 2 )
Square footing: q ult. 48 0.009(300 qc )1.5 . ....( kg / cm 2 )
(b) For clay: Strip footing: qult. 2 0.28qc ... ....( kg / cm 2 )
Square footing: q ult. 5 0.34qc ........... ....( kg / cm 2 )
Fig.(3.22): Allowable bearing capacity for surface loaded footings

on sand with settlement limited to 25 mm.
141
3.17 BEARING CAPACITY OF FOUNDATIONS

WITH UPLIFT OR TENSION FORCES
Footings in industrial applications are subjected to uplift or tension forces as idealized in
Fig.(3.23) such as the legs of elevated water tanks, anchorages for the anchor cables of
transmission towers, bases for legs of power transmission towers, drilled shafts, with or without
enlarged bases and in a number of industrial equipment installations.
Meyerhof and Adams (1968) considered this problem for shallow or deep circular and
rectangular footings in cohesionless soil. They neglected the larger pull-out zone observed in the
tests as ab in Fig.(3.23) and used an approximation of shear resistance along line a b . They
developed simplified equations with shape factors and limiting depth ratios Df / B or H/B for
design use. Their equations were verified with models and full-scale tests on circular footings and
gave considerable scatter; however, with a factor of safety of 2.5 the equations were found to be
satisfactory.
Tu sDf (perimeter) W
G.S.
D
q .L1
s.Df c.Df n tan .(dh ) L1
0
G.S. b b W Df
H
Df
Shallow B Deep
a
Fig.(3.23): Footings for tension loads.
In general, the ultimate tension resistance is given by: Tult. s.Df .(perimeter) W
with adjustments for depth and shape (whether perimeter is circular or rectangular), this gives the
following:
FOR SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS:
D2
Circular footings: Tult. BcDf sf B ( f )K u tan W .....(3.48)
2
Rectangular footings: Tult. 2cDf (B L) Df2 (2sf B L B)K u tan W .....(3.49)
where, sf 1 mDf / B
FOR DEEP FOUNDATIONS:
H
Circular footings: Tult. BcH sf B(2Df H)( )K u tan W ...(3.50)
2
Rectangular footings: Tu lt. 2cH(B L) (2Df H)H(2sf B L B)K u tan W (3.51)
where, s f 1 mH / B
For square footings use L = B.
Obtain ( s f ) and (m) from Table (3.10) based on ( ).
142
Table (3.10): Limiting H/B , m, and s f for footings

with uplift or tension forces
20 25 30 35 40 45 48
Limiting H/B 2.5 3 4 5 7 9 11
M 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.25 0.35 0.50 0.60
Maximum s f 1.12 1.30 1.60 2.25 4.45 5.50 7.60
The lateral earth pressure coefficient K u can be taken as one of the following:
K u tan2 (45 / 2) K p ;
K u tan(45 / 2) K p
K u tan2 (45 / 2) Ka ;
K u 0.65 0.5 ( in radian);
K u Ko 1 sin
Using K o or an average of K p and K a may be reasonable. Then, the allowable tension
resistance is calculated as:
T
Tall. ult. .........(3.52)
F.S.
3.18 FOUNDATIONS ON ROCK

It is common to use the building code values for the allowable bearing capacity of rocks,
see Tables (3.1 and 3.11). However, there are several significant parameters which should be
taken into consideration together with the recommended code value; such as site geology, rock
type and quality (as RQD).
Usually, the shear strength parameters c and of rocks are obtained from high Pressure
Triaxial Tests. However, for most rocks 45 with the exception of limestone or shale,
(38 45) can be used. Similarly in most cases, it could be estimated as c 5 MPa with a
conservative value.
Rock Quality Designation (RQD):

It is an index used by engineers to measure the quality of a rock mass and computed from
recovered core samples as:
RQD..%
lengths..of ..int act ..pieces..of ..core 100mm x 100..(3.53)
length ..of ..core..advance
143
Table (3.11): Allowable contact pressure q all. of jointed rock.
q all.
RQD % 2 2
Quality
(T/ft ) or (kg/cm ) (kN/m2)
100 300 31678 Excelent
90 200 21119 Very good
75 120 12671 Good
50 65 6864 Medium
25 30 3168 Poor
0 10 1056 Very poor
1.0 (T/ft2) = 105.594 (kN/m2)
Notes:
1. If qall. (tabulated) qu (unconfined..compressive..strength) of intact rock sample, then
take qall. q u ,
2. The settlement of the foundation should not exceed (0.5 inch) or (12.7mm) even for
large loaded area,
3. If the upper part of rock within a depth of a bout (B / 4) is of poor quality, then its RQD
value should be used or that part of rock should be removed.
Any of the bearing capacity equations from Table (3.2) with specified shape factors can be
used to obtain q ult. of rocks, but with bearing capacity factors for sound rock proposed by
(Stagg and Zienkiewicz, 1968) as:
Nc = 5 tan4 (45+ /2)

Nq = tan6 (45+ /2) ....(3.54a)
N = Nq +1
Then, q ult. must be reduced on the basis of RQD as:-

qult. q ult. (RQD)2 .......(3.54b)
q (RQD)2
and qall. ult. ........(3.54c)
F.S.
where,
F.S. = Safety factor dependent on RQD. It is common to use F.S. of (610) with the higher
values for RQD % 50.
144
Problem (3.28): (bearing capacity from field tests)

SPT results from a soil boring located adjacent to a planned foundation for a proposed
warehouse are shown below. If spread footings for the project are to be found (1.2m)
below surface grade, what foundation size should be provided to support (1800 kN)
column load? Assume that 25mm settlement is tolerable, W.T. encountered at (7.5m).
P = 1800 kN
G.S.
D f =1.2m
B=?
= 17 kN/m3
7.5m
W.T.
10 kN/m3
Solution:
Find o at each depth and correct Nfield values. Assume B = 2.4 m

At depth B below the base of footing (1.2 + 2.4) = 3.6m; Navg. (15 19 25) / 3 20
From Fig.(3.17) for Navg. 20 and D f / B = 0.5: q all.( net ) 2.2 (kg/cm2) or 220 (kPa)
SPT sample depth o CN

Nfield N CN .Nfield
(m) (kN/m2) Fig.(3.18)
0.3 9
1.2 10 20.4 1.55 15
2.4 15 40.8 1.28 19
3.6 22 61.2 1.15 25
4.8 19 81.6 1.05 20
6 29 102 0.95 27
7.5 33 127.5 0.90 30
10 27 152.5 0.85 23
P 1800
Say B = 2.5 m, q all. = , L 3.27m , use (2.5m x 3.30m) footing.
( B)( L) (220)(2.5)
145
Problem (3.29): (footing or pile with uplift or tension forces)

A square footing of (1.2m x 1.2m x 0.6m) dimensions is placed at depth of 1.8m in a soil of
= 17.3 kN/m3, c = 19.2 kPa , 20 . Estimate the allowable uplift force (use F.S. = 2.5).
Solution:
Df / B = 1.8 / 1.2 =1.5

From Table (3.10): For 20 ; the limiting H/B = 2.5 and m = 0.05
Df / B =1.5 (Limiting H/B = 2.5), therefore, the footing is classified as shallow.
Tult. 2cDf (B L) Df2 (2sf B L B)K u tan W ......(3.46)
sf 1 mDf / B = 1+ 0.05(1.5) = 1.075
K u tan2 (45 20 / 2) 2.04 K p ; K u K p 1.43

K u 0.65 0.5(20)( ) 0.82 ; Ku Ko 1 sin 20 0.658 ;
180
Average K u 1.24 (4 - values)
W = weight of concrete + weight of soil replaced

= (1.2)(1.2)(0.6)(24) + (1.2)(1.2)(1.8-0.6)(17.3) = 50.63 kN
Tult. 2(19.2)(1.8)1.2 1.2 17.3(1.8)2 (2)(1.075)(1.2) 1.2 1.2.1.24 tan 20 50.63 281.8.kN
T 281.8
and Tall. ult. 112.72 kN
F.S. 2.5
Problem (3.30): (RQD)

A core advance of 1500 mm produced a sample length of 1310 mm consisting of dust,
gravel and intact pieces of rock. If the sum of pieces 100mm or larger in length is 890 mm,
determine:
(1) The recovery ratio (Lr ) , and
(2) (RQD).% .
Solution:
1310 890
The recovery ratio (Lr ) 0.87 and (RQD).% .x.100 59 %
1500 1500
146
Problem (3.31): (foundation on rock)

A pier with a base diameter of 0.9m drilled to a depth of 3m in a rock mass. If RQD = 50%,
45 and c = 3.5 MPa, rock = 25.14 kN/m3, estimate q all. of the pier using Terzaghi's
equation.
Solution:
1
Terzaghi's equation is: q ult. cN c .Sc qN q .B..N.S
2
Shape factors from Table (3.2): For circular footing: Sc 1.3 ; and S 0.6
Bearing capacity factors from (Stagg and Zienkiewicz, 1968):
Nc = 5 tan4 (45+ /2)

Nq = tan6 (45+ /2) ....(3.54a)
N = Nq +1
For 45 : Nc 170 , Nq 198, and N 199
q ult. (3.5)(103 )(170)(1.3) (3)(25.14)(198) 0.5(25.14)(0.9)(199)(0.6) 789.78 kPa

and
q (RQD)2
qall. ult. ........(3.54c)
F.S.
789.78(0.5)2
65.815 kPa
3.0
3.19 BEARING CAPACITY UNDER EARTHQUAKE LOADING

1. Bearing Capacity for Static Load:
As explained before, the bearing capacity of any shape of foundation resting on c soil
can be calculated using any of the equations listed in Table (3.2). For example, the bearing
capacity for a continuous footing on c soil can be determined by the general equation as:
q ult. cN c qN q 0.5 .B.N .........(3.55)
147
where, Nc , Nq , and N are bearing capacity factors obtained either from Fig.(3.23) or Table (3.2)
for specified Meyerhof's or Hansen's or Vesic's bearing capacity equation.
60 60
40 40
Nc Nq
20 20
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
(deg.) (deg.)
120
100
80
N 60
40
20
0
0 10 20 30 40
(deg.)
Fig.(3.24): Bearing capacity factors for static loading.
148
2. Bearing Capacity for Earthquake Load:

Richards et al. (1993) proposed that the bearing capacity for a continuous footing on c
soil can be calculated by:
q ult. cN cE qN qE 0.5.B.N E ........(3.56)

where, N cE , N qE , N E and are bearing capacity factors determined from Fig.(3.25).
Fig.(3.25): Bearing capacity factors for earthquake loading.
149
Problem (3.32): (foundation under earthquake loading)

A shallow continuous foundation of B = 1.5 m, = 1.0 m, = 17 kN/m3, c = 30 kN/m2,
=25o, = 0.25; = 0; Estimate the ultimate bearing capacity .
Solution:
Recalling Eq. (3.56):

q ult. cN cE qN qE 0.5.B.N E .......(3.56)
Bearing capacity factors for static load:
Here Table (3.2) or Fig.(3.24) can be used. Let an arbitrary choice to be Table (3.2).
From Table (3.2): Hansen's bearing capacity factors are:
Nc (Nq 1).cot , Nq e . tan .. tan2 (45 / 2) , N 1.5(Nq 1) tan
For 25 : Nc 20.7 , Nq 10.7 , N 6.8
Bearing capacity factors for earthquake load:
From Fig.(3.25):
For tan = k h /(1 k v ) = 0.25/ (10 ) = 0.25
NcE
= 0.44 ; NcE =(0.44)(20.7) = 9.108
Nc
NqE
= 0.38 ; NqE = (0.38)(10.7) = 4.066
Nq
NE
=0.13 ; NE =(0.13)(6.8) = 0.884
N
1
q ult. (30)(9.108) (1)(17)(4.066) (17)(1.5)(0.884) 354 kN/m2
2
150
PROBLEMS
Bearing capacity problems
P3.1 Determine ultimate and allowable bearing capacities of (0.5m x 2.0m) rectangular
footing placed on cohesionless soil with properties: 40 , and = 9.31kN/m3 (use
F.S. =3).
2.0m
0.5m
Qall. ?
G.S.
0.5m
0.5m
P3.2 What is the net ultimate bearing capacity of 2m square footing placed at 1m depth in:-
a. Granular soil with c = 0, =30, and = 18 kN/m3? and
b. Saturated cohesive soil with c = 60 kN/m2, and = 0?
P3.3 Determine the allowable bearing capacity of 1.5m width continuous footing resting at
1.0m depth below the ground surface given that the effective angle of internal friction of
soil is = 25, cohesive intercept = 12 kN/m2, and = 18 kN/m3 using:-
a. Terzaghis equation, and
b. Hansens equation.
P3.4 Determine the allowable bearing capacity of the following footings using Hansens
equation:
a. Rectangular footing
Df = 0.7m, B = 0.8m, L= 2.0m
= 9.81 kN/m3, 42 , C= 0
Water table level at ground surface.
b. Square footing
Df = 1.2m, B = 2.0m
= 17.5 kN/m3, q u = 300 kN/m2
Water table is at great distance below the base of footing.
P3.5 Determine the ultimate and allowable B.C. of 1.0m width of continuous footing located at
depth of 1.2m below the ground surface under the following cases considering the soil
properties to be = 0.25 kg/cm2, = 20, and m = 1700 kg/cm3 :
a. The soil is stiff clay, and
b. The soil is very soft clay.
151
P3.6 Determine the size of square footing resting on sand at a depth of 1m below ground
surface where the SPT shows that N =15 blows/ft. Assume that W.T. is at 2m below the
ground surface, where:
QDead = 40 tons, and
DL = 40 tons
QLive = 30 tons. LL = 30 tons
G.S.
1m N =15
BxB
W.T. 1m
P3.7 Determine the factor of safety for the footing shown in the figure below for a settlement of
3 cm given that the soil properties of sand are sat . t 20kN/m3 and Nfield =19/30cm
at a depth of 4m below the ground surface.
800 kN
HINT: Po =1.5(20) + 2.5(20-10) = 55 25
N CN .Nfield = 22 G.S.
N =15 + (1/2)(22 -15)
1.5m
W.T.
2m x 2m
4m
P3.8 Determine the allowable bearing capacity of the footing shown in the figure below, given
that the soil properties are c = 50 kN/m2, 25 , and =18 kN/m3.
HINT: e = M/P 400 kN

e = (100)(1.5) / 400
G.S. 100 kN
1.5m
1.0m x 1.3m
152
P3.9 Resolve problem 3.8 with extra applied moment of 100 kN-m.
400 kN
HINT: 100 kN-m
e = (150 + 100) / 400 100 kN
1.5m
1.0m x 1.3m
P3.10 A square footing is located at a depth 1.2m below the ground surface. If c = 20 kPa,
20 , and soil 17.28 kN/m3, what is the allowable soil pressure using Terzaghi's
equation and SF=3.0 under the following cases:
(a) General shear failure?
(b) Local shear failure? and then
(c) Draw the relationships between q all. and B in each case.
qall. ?
G.S.
= 17.28 kN/m3
D f =1.2m c = 60 kN/m2
B=? 20
P3.11 A circular footing is subjected to a vertical load of 700 kN and located at 1.2m depth
below the ground surface. If soil 17.6 kN/m3, and q u 60 kPa, what is its size using
Terzaghi's equation and SF = 3.0 under the following cases:
700 kN
(a) Cu = 30 kPa, and 0 ?
(b) Cu = 0 kPa, and 20 ? and
G.S.
(c) Cu = 30 kPa, and 20 ?
= 17.6 kN/m3
D f =1.2m c = 60 kN/m2
D=? 20
P3.12 A rectangular footing 8.4m wide and 25.2m long is to be placed at a depth of 3m in a
deep stratum of soft saturated clay soil 16.5 kN/m3. The water table is at 2.4m below
ground surface. Find the ultimate bearing capacity q ult. under the following cases:
(a) If the footing reaction acts at 0.90m off center in B-direction ( eB 0.90m), and
(b) If the footing reaction acts at 1.95m off center in the L-direction (eL =1.95m),
assume that the horizontal component of the reaction is equal to half of the
ultimate value given by: Pmax . Af .Ca Q. tan
153
P3.13 For the wall footing shown in the figure below, if c = 16 kPa, 25 , and soil 18.2
kN/m3, what is its ultimate soil pressure using Terzaghi's equation and S.F.= 3.0?
q ult. ?
G.S.
= 18.2 kN/m3
D f =1.0m
c = 16 kN/m2
1.0m x 20m 25
P3.14 Determine the gross and net allowable loads that a 1.2m square footing shown in the
figure below can carry using Terzaghi's equation and S.F.= 3.0.
Qall.(gross),.(net ) ?
G.S.
= 17.3 kN/m3
D f =0.9m
c = 9.6 kN/m2
1.2m x 1.2m 20
P3.15 Determine the safe gross load that a circular footing of 1.22m in diameter can carry
using Meyerhof's bearing capacity eqauation and S.F.= 3.0..
Qall. ?
G.S.
c = 0 kN/m2, 32 W.T. 0.61m

B =1.22m
t 18.1 kN/m3
sat . 21.1 kN/m3 0.61m
P3.16 A (1.5m x 0.75m) rectangular footing subjected to eccentric load is shown in the figure
below. Determine q gross for bearing capacity failure in soil using Hansen's bearing
capacity equation.
1.5m
0.75m
0.06m
0.12m G.S.
0.6m c = 0 kN/m2, 30
t 18.1 kN/m3
154
P3.17 Given:
1. A uniform soil deposit has the following properties:
20.4 kN/m3, c = 37.6 kN/m2, and 30 ,
2. A proposed footing to be located 1.5 m below the ground surface must carry a
total load of 2670 kN,
3. The ground water table is at a great depth, and its effect can be ignored.
Required:
Determine the width of a square footing to carry the load using a general shear
condition and a factor of safety of (3.0). Also, if the footing is circular what would
be its diameter?
Q 2670 kN
G.S.
= 20.4 kN/m3
D f =1.5m
c = 37.6 kN/m2
B =? 30
P3.18 Determine the soil pressure for the following cases:

1. When the footing is subjected to vertical load only,
2. When the footing is subjected to overturning moment, then
3. Determine the size of footing so that the soil pressure does not exceed that
obtained in point (1).
445 kN
70 kN-m
G.S.
D f =1.2m c = 10 kN/m2, 30
1.8m x 1.8m
P3.19 Proportion the dimensions (B x L) for the footing shown in the figure below. Given that
the undrained shear strength q u = 75 kPa, clay =18 kN/m3, and conc. = 24 kN/m3 (Use
Hansens equation, S.F. = 3.0).
600 kN
300 kN-m
G.S.
0.6m
0.3m Rectangular footing
B
L
155
P3.20 For the wall footing shown in the figure below, calculate the factor of safety against the
bearing capacity failure for the following cases (using Meyerhof's equation):
a- The load is vertical, and if
b- The load is inclined at 15 to the vertical. Center line
e = 0.25m
1.0m 0.5m 0.5m

1.5m 25 , c = 40 kN/m2
= 18 KN/m3
2m sat = 20 KN/m3
1.5m
W.T.
P3.21 A strip footing of 1.0m width is as shown below. Show with sketching the variation of net
allowable bearing capacity of soil at the base of footing versus the water table (W.T.)
locations (using Hansen's equation).
Qall.(net ) ?
G.S. W.T.
(a)
1.0m W.T.
Sand (b)
1.0m
sat . 20 kN/m3 W.T.
(c)
w 10 kN/m3 1.0m
triaxial 32.7 2.0m
W.T.
(d)
P3.22 For the circular oil tank shown in the figure beside, find 0.5m
the minimum diameter of footing if F.S. = 2.5 and
oil 8 kN/m3, soil 14.4 kN/m3, concrete 24 0.5m
kN/m3 , and Vfooting 0.1...Vtan k ? 12m
10m
G.S. B =?
Silty sand c = 40 kN/m2, 15
156
P3.23 An offshore concrete oil tank of B = 6m, L = 10m and H = 9m is as shown in the figure
below. Find:-
1. F.S. against bearing capacity,
2. F.S. against sliding ( 2 / 3 ),
3. F.S. against floating, and
4. F.S. against overturning.
Notes:
Neglect the active and passive sides forces,
Use Meyerhof's equation. 300 kN/m
Take oil 8 kN/m3, and concrete 24 kN/m3.
6m
500 kN
5.5m Water 0.4m

6m
2.5m Oil
6m G.S.
1.0m
6m
Sand 30 , soil 18 kN/m3
P3.24 For the tank shown in the figure below, if F.S. = 2.0, weight of tank (empty) = 5000 kN,
and weight of tank (full) = 10000 kN, check the adequacy of footing (against bearing
capacity and sliding failures).
500 kN
2.5m
0.5m
3m
G.S. G.S.
0.75m 0.75m
2m
1m
2m 2m 3m
6m Sand
30 , = 18 kN/m3
157
P3.25 For the cabling tower shown in the figure below, if the weight of tower = 2000 kN,
moment due to wind load = 8000 kN-m, minimum factor of safety = 2.0, check the
adequacy of the proposed four spread footings each of (4m x 4m x 1m) dimensions
(against bearing capacity failure and uplift).
Wind load
6m x
45
4mx4mx1m
6m G.S.
W.T.
Sand
3m
30 , = 18 kN/m3 1m
Gs 2.7
4mx4mx1m
P3.26 A raft foundation of 15m diameter is placed at 2.5m below the ground surface in clay soil
with sat . 20 kN/m3, Gs 2.65 as shown in the figure below. The raft supports a tower
of 40 MN weight and wind load moment of 20 MN-m. Find the thickness of footing if
S.F.=2.5.
G.S.
2.5m W.T.
C = 120 kN/m2
Raft: 15m diameter
30m Clay
sat . 20 kN/m3, Gs 2.65
Sand C = 300 kN/m2
158
Footings on clay and plastic silt problems
P3.27 A continuous wall footing will rest at 0.9m depth on saturated clay that has an
unconfined compressive strength of 120kPa. At a load of 140 kN/m of wall, a factor of
safety of 3 is required. But when the footing is subjected to a load of 190 kN/m, the F.S.
should not be less than 2. Ignore the difference in the unit weights of concrete and clay,
and determine the width of the footing.
P3.28 Proportion a square footing to carry a column load of 1600 kN at 2.5 safety factor, given
that the base of footing is at 1.2m below the ground surface level and the clay beneath
the footing has an unconfined compressive strength of 155 kN/m2.
P3.29 A footing (3m) square rests at 0.9m depth on clay that has an unconfined compressive
strength of 130 kN/m2. If the factor of safety is not to be less than 2.5, what is the
maximum column load that can be supported by the footing?
P3.30 A building is to be supported on a reinforced concrete raft covering an area of (14m x

21m). The subsoil is clay with an unconfined compressive strength of 85 kN/m 2. The
pressure on the soil, due to weight of building and other loads it will carry, will be 150
kN/m2 at base of raft. If the unit weight of the excavated soil is 18.85 kN/m 3, at what
depth should the bottom of the raft be placed to provide a factor of safety of 3?
P3.31 A raft (18 x 22m) in plan has its base 3m below the surface of clay deposit with a unit
weight of 18.85 kN/m3. The unconfined compressive strength of clay is 82 kN/m2. The
factor of safety against bearing capacity failure must be 3. What total weight of building
plus foundation can safely be supported by the raft?
Footings on layered soils problems
P3.32 A (3m x 6m) rectangular footing is to be placed on a two-layered clay deposits as shown
in the figure below. Compute the F.S. against the bearing capacity failure and check
whether the soil may squeeze beneath the footing or not.
Total load = 900 kN
G.S. 3m x 6m 0.6m
1.2m Clay q u = 192 kPa, = 0
2.4m Clay q u = 576 kPa, = 0
Rock RQD = 50%, q u = 3000 kPa
159
P3.33 A (8.5m x 26m) rectangular footing is to be placed at depth 3m in a stratum of soft

saturated clay ( sat . 16.8 kN/m3). The water table is at 2.4m below the ground
surface. Find the ultimate bearing capacity of soil in undrained condition under the
following cases (use Vesics equation):
(a) Soft clay is underlain by stiff clay, and
(b) Stiff clay is underlain by soft clay. P
G.S.
Soft clay: C u = 23 kPa 3.0m W.T. 2.4m

8.5m x 26m
sat . 16.8 kN/m3
1.8m
P3.34 A (1.5m x 2.0m) rectangular footing is to be placed on c soils shown in the figure
below. Check its adequacy against shear failure (assume F.S.= 3.0, and =10
kN/m3 ) using:
(a) Vesics equation, and
(b) Hansens equation. P
Soil Soil Soil G.S.

Parameter
(I) (II) (III) 1.2m
Soil (1)
1.5m x 2.0m W.T.
Gs 2.70 2.65 2.75
e 0.8 0.9 0.85 Soil (2) 1.5m
c (kPa) 10 60 80
35 30 0
Soil (3)
P3.35 A (8.5m x 26m) rectangular footing is to be placed at depth (3m) in a medium dense
sand ( 35 ) underlaid by stiff clay ( Cu 56 kPa) starting at elevation (9m). If the
water table is at (2.4m) below the ground surface, find the ultimate bearing capacity
of the soil using Hansens equation.
P
G.S.
W.T.
2.4m
3.0m
8.5m x 26m Dense sand: 35
sat . 18.9 kN/m3

6.0m moist 16 kN/m3
160
Footings on slope Problems
P3.36 A bearing wall for a building is to be located close to a slope as shown in the figure
below. The ground water table is located at a great depth. Determine the ultimate
bearing capacity using:
(a) Meyerhof's method, and
(b) Hansen's method. q ult. ?
1.5m G.S.
Df 1.5m
6m 1.5m
30 Granular Soil
40 , 16.8 kN/m3
P3.37 A (1.2m x 1.2m) square footing is to be placed near a slope of c soil. If 15 ,

Df 0.9m, c = 50 kN/m2, 33 , 17.3 kN/m3, and the ground water table is
located at a great depth, find the maximum allowable load that the footing can carry
using:
(a) Meyerhof's method, and Qall. ?
(b) Hansen's method.
0.9m G.S.
3.6m Df 0.9m
1.2m x 1.2m
15
c = 50 kN/m2, 33 , 17.3 kN/m3
P3.38 A (3m x 6m) rectangular combined footing that supports two columns each of (0.4m x
0.4m) is to be constructed near a slope as shown in the figure below. Find F.S. against
bearing capacity failure.
Note: Since (L) direction of 6m

foundation is in the
0.4m x 0.4m
same direction of
3m
slope, check the F.S.
in (B) direction also.
4.8m 1m
1000 kN 2000 kN
4.5m G.S.
3m W.T.
6m
20 Sand 30 , sat. 18 kN/m3, Gs 2.65
161
P3.39 For the cabling tower near a slope shown in the figure below, if the weight of tower =
6000 kN, moment due to wind load = 10000 kN-m, and minimum factor of safety = 2.0,
check the S.F. of (4m x 4m x 1m) spread footings against bearing capacity failure.
Wind load
5m x
45
4mx4mx1m
5m 3m W.T.
G.S.
3m 1m
4mx4mx1m 4mx4mx1m
20
Sand 30 , = 18 kN/m3, Gs 2.7
Footings on rocks Problems
P3.40 The unweathered quartzite below excavation level for a multistory building has an RQD
of 30% for the upper 1.5m and 70% for the next 6m. A load of 1500 tons is delivered to
the rock through a square reinforced concrete pedestal. What would be the size of the
pedestal to restrict the settlement to about 12.7mm?
1500 Tons
B=?
1.5m RQD =30%
6.0m RQD =70%
162
P3.41 If the upper 1.5m of rock was removed for the described excavation in problem (3.40).
What would be the size of the pedestal?
1500 Tons
B=?
6.0m RQD =70%
P3.42 A shale with RQD of 90% and unconfined compressive strength of 50T/ft2 is to support a
column load of 1000 Tons transmitted to the rock through a circular pier drilled a few
meters into the shale. What diameter of pier shaft is required if the settlement is not to
exceed 12.7mm?
163
REFERENCES
API, (1984), API recommended practice for planning, designing and constructing fixed offshore
platform, 15th edition. API RP2A page 115. American Petroleum
Balla, A. (1962),Bearing capacity of foundations, J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., ASCE, Vol.88(5),
No.13.
Bowles, J.E.,(1996), Foundation Analysis and Design, 5th edition, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Brinch Hansen, J. (1970),A revised and extended formula for bearing capacity, Bulletin
No.28, Danish Geotechnical Institute, Copenhagen, pp5-11
Das, Braja M. (2007), Principles of Foundation Engineering, 7th edition, Nelson a division of
Thomson Canada Limited.
Das, Braja M. (2009),Settlement and allowable bearing capacity. Shallow foundations, CRC
Press: 165-228.
Das, Braja M. (2009),Ultimate bearing capacity theories? Centric Vertical Loading. Shallow
Foundations, CRC Press: 11-75.
Erickson, H. L. and Drescher A. (2002),"Bearing capacity of circular footings." Journal of
geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering 128(1): 38-43.
Meyerhof, G.G. (1953),The bearing capacity of foundations under eccentric and inclined
loads, Proc. 3rd International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Zurich, Vol.1, pp. 440-45.
Meyerhof, G.G. and Adams, J.I. (1968),The ultimate uplift capacity of foundations, Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 5, pp.225-244.
Meyerhof, G.G.(1951),The ultimate bearing capacity of foundations, Geotechnique 2:301-332.
Meyerhof, G.G., (1957),The ultimate bearing capacity of foundations on slopes, in Proc., IV
Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Eng., London England, Vol.1, No.384.
Murthy, V. (2007),Textbook of soil mechanics and foundation engineering.
Parry, R.H.G. (1976),Engineering properties of clay shales, US Army W.E.S. Technical Report
5716, No. 3.
Peck, R. B., Hanson W. E. and Thornburn T. H. (1974),Foundation engineering, Wiley New
York.
Prandtl, L. (1921). Uber die eindringungs-festigkeit plastisher baustoffe und die festigkeit von
schneiden, Z. Ang. Math. Mech., Vol.1, No.1, p.15.
Richards, R., Jr., Elms, D. G., and Budhu, M. (1993),Seismic bearing capacity and settlement of
foundations, J. Geotech. Eng., ASCE, Vol.119, No.4, p.622.
Saran, S., Sud, V. K., and Handa, S. C. (1989),Bearing capacity of footings adjacent to slopes,
J. Geotech. Eng., ASCE, Vol.115(4), No.553.
Schmertmann, J.H., Hartman, J.P. and Brown, P.R. (1978),Improved strain influence factor
diagrams, Journal GE, ASCE, Vol.104, No.8, pp.1131-1135.
Terzaghi, K. (1943),Theoretical soil mechanics, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Vesic, A.S. (1975),Bearing capacity of shallow foundations. In Foundation Engineering
Handbook, edition. Winterkorn, H F and Fang, H Y. Pub: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.
164

Calculating Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Calculating Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

CHAPTER 3

3.1 MODES OF FAILURE

Mode of Failure Characteristics Typical Soils

Fig.(3.1): Modes of failure in soil.

3.2 BEARING CAPACITY CLASSIFICATION

which the soil can take up.

Allowable Bearing Capacity ( q all. ): It is the ultimate bearing capacity divided by a

3.3 FACTOR OF SAFETY FOR BEARING CAPACITY

3.4 BEARING CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS

3.5 FACTORS AFFECTING BEARING CAPACITY

3.6 METHODS OF DETERMINING BEARING CAPACITY

Table (3.1): Bearing capacity values according to building codes.

Cohesive 1. very stiff clay 2-4

3.6.2 FIELD LOAD TEST

3.6.3 BEARING CAPACITY EQUATIONS

Fig.(3.2): Prandtl theory of rupture under line loading.

Now summing Eqs.(3.6 and 3.7) gives (for c 0,..q 0,..and.. 0 ):

N q e . tan tan2 (45 / 2) ; same as Meyerhof, Hansen, and Vesic

(2) TERZAGHI'S BEARING CAPACITY EQUATION

(1) The total ultimate load ( Q ult. ) acting vertically downward.

where, N c , N q and N are bearing capacity factors

(3) MEYERHOF'S BEARING CAPACITY EQUATION

Vertical load: q ult. c.N c .Sc .d c q.N q .Sq .d q 0.5..B.N .S .d ....(3.16)

See Table (3.4) for shape, depth and inclination factors.

Note: Up to Df / B 1 (shallow foundations), q ult. from Meyerhof's Eqs.(3.16 or 3.17) is not

(4) HANSEN'S BEARING CAPACITY EQUATION

(b) for.. 0 (undrained condition; N c 5.14,.N q 1,.N 0 )

See Table (3.5) for shape, depth and inclination factors.

(5) VESIC'S BEARING CAPACITY EQUATION

(6) BALLA'S BEARING CAPACITY EQUATION

q ult. cN c qN q b..N .........(3.20)

Table (3.2): Summary of bearing capacity equations by several investigators

Terzaghi (see Table 3.3 for typical values for K P values)

Strip circular square rectangular

N q e . tan tan2 (45 / 2) ; N c ( N q 1). cot ; N ( N q 1). tan(1.4)

For.. 0 : qult. cNcScdcicgcbc qNqSqdqiqgq bq 0.5.B..N S d i g b

Nq e. tan tan2 (45 / 2) ; N c ( N q 1). cot ; N 1.5( N q 1). tan

Use Hansen's equations above

Table (3.3): Bearing capacity factors of Terzaghi's equation.

Table (3.4): Shape, depth and inclination factors of Meyerhof's equation.

For Shape Factors Depth Factors Inclination Factors

where, K P tan2 (45 / 2) R

Fig.(3.4) Values of ratio for various c / b and Df / b values

Fig.(3.5) Bearing capacity factors Nc ,..Nq ,..and..N to be used in Balla's equation

3.7 WHICH EQUATION TO BE USED?

Table (3.6): Uses of bearing capacity equations.

Equation Best for

Somewhat simpler than Meyerhof's, Hansen's or Vesic's equations; that

Suitable for a concentrically loaded horizontal footing,

Not applicable for columns with moments or tilting forces,

More conservative than other methods.

3.8 SOIL STRENGTH CASES

Table (3.7): Shear strength parameters according to soil strength cases.

Soil Strength Case Cohesion Friction

Case (1): Undrained condition in clay (short-term case). c cu u 0

3.9 CONTACT PRESSURE

P D.L L.L P D.L L.L P D.L L.L

(a) Concentric load (b) Eccentric load

Fig.(3.6): Contact pressure distribution under footings.

Case (2): When moment in (L direction) only and e x L / 6 P=

P 6.e x P L L/3 L/6 L/6 L/3

3.10 EFFECT OF SOIL COMPRESSIBILITY