Bearing Capacity Calculation (Shallow Foundation)

Terzaghis bearing capacity theory:

Based on Terzaghis bearing capacity theory, column load P is resisted by shear stresses at
edges of three zones under the footing and the overburden pressure, q (=D) above the footing. The
first term in the equation is related to cohesion of the soil. The second term is related to the depth of
the footing and overburden pressure. The third term is related to the width of the footing and the
length of shear stress area. The bearing capacity factors, Nc, Nq, N, are function of internal friction
angle, .
Terzaghi's Bearing capacity equations:

Strip footings:
Qu = c Nc + D Nq + 0.5 B N --------------------(1.1)

Square footings:
Qu = 1.3 c Nc + D Nq + 0.4 B N ------------------- (1.2)

Circular footings:
Qu = 1.3 c Nc + D Nq + 0.3 B N ----------------------(1.3)

Where:
C: Cohesion of soil, : unit weight of soil, D: depth of footing, B: width of footing
Nc, Nq, N: Terzaghis bearing capacity factors depend on soil friction angle, .

Nc=cot(Nq 1) ---------------------------------(1.4)

2(3/4-/2) tan
Nq= e / [2 cos2(45+/2)]---------------------------- (1.5)
N=(1/2) tan( Kpr /cos2 -1) ----------------------------------------(1.6)

Kpr=passive pressure coefficient.

 Figure 2: Terzaghis bearing capacity factors

Meyerhof's general bearing capacity equations:

Vertical load:
Qu = c Nc Sc Dc + D Nq Sq Dq + 0.5 B N S D ----------------[1.7]
Inclined load:
Qu = c Nc Sc Dc Ic + D Nq Sq Dq Iq + 0.5 B N S D I --------------[1.8]
Where:
Nc, Nq, N: Meyerhofs bearing capacity factors depend on soil friction angle, .
Nc = cot ( Nq 1)-------------------------- [1.9]
tan
Nq = e tan2(45+/2)]----------------- [1.10]
N = (Nq-1) tan (1.4) --------------------[1.11]
Sc, Sq, S: shape factors
Dc, Dq, D: depth factors
Ic, Iq, I: incline load factors
C: Cohesion of soil, : unit weight of soil, D: depth of footing; B, L: width and length of footing
Kpr = tan2(45+/2), passive pressure coefficient., = angle of axial load to vertical axis

Figure 2: Meyerhofs bearing capacity factors

Bearing capacity from SPT numbers:
One of most commonly method for determining allowable soil bearing capacity is from
standard penetration test (SPT) numbers. It is simply because SPT numbers are readily available
from soil boring. The equations that are commonly used were proposed by Meryerhof based on one
inches of foundation settlement. Bowles revised Meyerhofs equations because he believed that
Meryerhofs equation might be conservative.
Meryerhofs equations:
For footing width, 4 feet or less:
Qa = (N/4) / K ------------------------------[1.12]
For footing width, greater than 4 ft:
2
Qa = (N/6)[(B+1)/B] / K ------------------[1.13]
Bowles equations:
For footing width, 4 feet or less:
Qa = (N/2.5) / K----------------------------- [1.14]
For footing width, greater than 4 ft:
2
Qa = (N/4)[(B+1)/B] / K ----------------------[1.15]
2
Qa: Allowable soil bearing capacity, in kips/ft .
N: SPT numbers below the footing.
B: Footing width, in feet
K = 1 + 0.33(D/B) 1.33
D: Depth from ground level to the bottom of footing, in feet.
 Bearing Capacity Calculation (Deep Foundation)
Estimating load capacity of piles:
Pile load carrying capacity depends on various factors, including: (1) pile characteristics such as pile
length, cross section, and shape; (2) soil configuration and short and long-term soil properties; and
(3) pile installation method. Two widely used methods for pile design will be described:
method used to calculate the short-term load capacity (total stress) of piles in cohesive soils,
method used to calculate the long-term load capacity (effective stress) of piles in both cohesive
and cohesion less soils.
Piles resist applied loads through side friction ( shaft or skin friction) and end bearing as indicated in Fig.
3. Friction piles resist a significant portion of their loads by the interface friction developed between
their surface and the surrounding soils. On the other hand, end-bearing piles rely on the bearing
capacity of the soil underlying their bases. Usually, end-bearing piles are used to transfer most of their
loads to a stronger stratum that exists at a reasonable depth.

Design bearing capacity (resistance) can be defined as

Rc,d = Qb +Qs = Ab qb + A s,i qs;i;d .

Fig. 3. Piles side friction (shaft or skin friction) and end bearing

- method, short-term load capacity for cohesive soil:

Unit skin friction qs(z)

The method is based on the undrained shear strength of cohesive soils; thus, it is well suited for short-
term pile load capacity calculations. In this method, the skin friction is assumed to be proportional to the
undrained shear strength su, of the cohesive soil as follows and the interface shear stress qs between the
pile surface and the surrounding soil is determined as
qs (z) =(z)su (z)

where, su undrained shear strength, adhesion coefficient depending on pile material and clay type.

It is usually assumed that ultimate skin friction is independent of the effective stress and depth. In
reality, the skin friction is dependent on the effective stress and undrained shear strength but decreases
for long piles.

Niazi and Mayne [24] presented 25 methods of estimating pile unit shaft resistance within - method
and compared them. They showed main differences with respect to parameters: length effect, stress
history, Ip, su, v , progressive failure, plugging effect.

Belowthe main methods estimating skin friction in claysare shown:

(a) American Petroleum Institute (API, 1984, 1987)

The equation by API (1984, 1987) suggests values for as a function of cu as follows

(b) NAVFAC DM 7.2 (1984). Proposition for coefficient depends on type of pile (Table 1)
Table 1. vs. undrained shear strength (NAVFAC DM 7.2)
Soil Undrained shear
Pile type
consistency strength su [kPa]
Very soft 012 1.00

Timber and Soft 1224 1.000.96

concrete Medium stiff 2448 0.960.75
piles Stiff 4896 0.750.48
Very stiff 96192 0.480.33
Very soft 012 1.00
Soft 1224 1.000.92
Steel piles Medium stiff 2448 0.920.70
Stiff 4896 0.700.36
Very stiff 96192 0.360.19
As in the API method, effective stress effects are neglected in the DM 7.2 method.
(c) Equation based on undrained shear strength and effective vertical stress, Kolk and Van der Velde
method [18]. Coefficient is based on the ratio of undrained shear strength and effective stress. A
large database of pile skin friction results was analyzed and correlated to obtain value (Table 2).
(d) Simple rules to obtain coefficient based on s u/v proposed standard DNV-OS-J101-2007

(e) Mechanism controlling friction fatigue, Randolph

Randolph [26] suggested that progressive failure, which occurs in strain softening soil, was a possible
mechanism controlling friction fatigue. The progressive failure from the peak (peak) to the residual (res)
shaft resistance is shown in Fig. 4. Randolph proposed a reduction factor (Rf) which depends on the
degree of softening and the pile compressibility K

EA axial stiffnes of pile,

wres post-peak displacement required to mobilize the residual shaft resistance.

(f) Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, NGI-05

Karlsrud et al. , proposed modification of the NGI method by introducing correlation of sud/v 0 and

Ip with coefficient presented by the trend lines shown in Fig. 4. New data are included herein, all
previous data have been re-interpreted.
Fig. 4. Measured values of in relation to normalized strength, for all piles (Karlsrud et al.)

Figure 4 presents mobilized values of versus sud/v 0 for all piles discussed in this paper. Studies have
shown that the plasticity index has a large impact on the mobilized ultimate shaft friction and
corresponding - values.

- method, long-term load capacity for cohesive and cohesion less soils:

UNIT SKIN RESISTANCE q s(z)

The method is based on effective stress analysis and is suited for long-term (drained) analyses of pile
load capacity. The unit skin resistance qs, between the pile and the surrounding soil is calculated by
multiplying the friction factor, , between the pile and soil by h

qs (z) =h =(z)K(z)v(z) =(z)v(z)

where at rest pressure coefficient depends on the installation mode, usually K = K0, with K0 =

(1 sin)(OCR)0.5 3, OCR overconsolidation ratio, v vertical effective stress.

Niazi and Mayne presented 15 methods of estimating pile unit shaft resistance within - method and
compared them. They showed main differences between them with respect to parameters: r , , ,

OCR, K, v , L, d, su, ID, Ip. The main methods estimating skin frictionare shown below:

(a) according to NAVFAC DM 7.2(1984), = (z)K(z) = tan (z)K(z) , Tables 3 and 4.

Karlsrud proposed to take into account the plasticity index Ip in method. Figure 5 shows diagram of -
values from as low as 0.045 for low plastic NC clays to about 2.0 to very stiff clays with OCR of 40, which
is the upper range of available pile data.

Fig. 5. Chart for determination of - values dependent on OCR and Ip, Karlsrud

Unit base resistance qb

Using Terzaghis bearing capacity equation, the unit base resistance at the base of the pile can be
calculated
)
qb = (v b Nq + cbNc
where
(v) b vertical effective stress at the base of the pile, cb cohesion of the soil under the base of
the pile, Nc = (Nq 1)cot.