i

CHAPTER 2

Bearing capacity of shallow foundations
2
BEARING CAPACITY OF SHALLOW FOUNDATION
Definitions
Bearing Capacity
It is the ability of the soil to sustain the imposed loads without shear failure
Ultimate Bearing Capacity (q
ult
)
It is the least pressure which would cause shear failure of the supporting soil
immediately below and adjacent to a foundation.
Allowable Bearing Capacity (q
a
)
It is the maximum pressure which may be applied to the soil such that the two
fundamental requirements are satisfied.
a) Limiting the settlement to a tolerable amount (Section
b) Shear failure is prevented.
q
a
=q
ult
/FOS (With respect to shear)
FOS = 2.53 (Generally)

FOS depends on;
- type of soil (cohesive or cohesion less)

3
- Reliability of soil parameters
- Structure importance
- Consultant caution
Gross Pressure Intensity (q
gross
):-
It is the total pressure at base of the footing due to the weight of superstructure and
earth fill if any (figure-1).
W
ss
= Load from superstructure.
W
F
=Weight of foundation.
W
s
=Weight of the soil or earth fills.
qgross = W
ss
+ W
F
+ W
s


4
A=Area of the footing.

Figure 0-1 Gross and Net pressure demonstration
Net Pressure Intensity (q
net
)
It is the increase in pressure at foundation level, being the total weight less the
weight of the soil permanently removed.
(1) Before removal of soil, stress at foundation level (o
o
).
o = D
(2) After removal
q
net
= q
gross
- D
If q
gross
= D
W
ss

W
F

W
S
/2 W
S
/2
D
o=D o=D

5
q
net
= 0
Settlement (theoretically) =0
However practically when the soil is removed, there is heave at the bottom of
excavation, which is not fully recovered even when the same weight is again
placed.
MODES OF SHEAR FALUIRE
General Shear Failure
- Characterized by well defined failure pattern, consisting of a wedge and slip
surface and bulging (heaving) of soil surface adjacent to the footing.
- Sudden collapse occurs, accompanied by tilting of the footing
- Occurs in dense or stiff soil.
- Failure load is well defined.
Local Shear Failure
- Failure pattern consist of wedge and slip surface but is well defined only
under the footing. Slight bulging of soil surface occurs. Tilting of footing is
not expected.

6
- Large settlement occurs.
- Ultimate load is not well defined.
- Occurs in soil of high compressibility.

Figure 0-2 Modes of Failures (a) general shear (b) local shear (c) punching
shear
Punching Shear Failure
- Failure pattern is not well defined.
- No bulging of ground surface, no tilting of footing.
- Failure take place immediately below footing and surrounding soil remains
relatively unaffected.
- Large settlements-ultimate load is not well defined.

7
- Occurs in soil of very high compressibility.
- It also occurs in the soil of very high compressibility, if the foundation is
located at considerable depth.
Methods of bearing capacity determination
1) Analytic method i.e. through bearing capacity equations like using Terzaghi
equation, Myerhaf equation, Hansen equation etc.
2) Correlation with field test data e.g. Standard Penetration Test (SPT), Cone
Penetration Test (CPT) etc.
3) On-site determination of bearing capacity e.g. plate load test (PLT), pile load
test.
4) Presumptive bearing capacity (recommended bearing capacity in various
codes)
We will discuss only Analytical Methods (1) and Presumptive bearing capacity (4)
in this chapter. Methods (2) and (3) will be discussed in chapter-3 for shallow
footing and chapter-5 for pile foundations.


8
Analytical Method
Friction Angle |=o soil
Lower Bound Failure
if an equilibrium disturbance of stress can be found which balance the applied load
and nowhere violates the yield criteria, the soil mass will not fail or will just be at
appoint of failure i.e. it will be a lower bound estimated of capacity.
2 , 1 1 , 3
o o =
Since
)
2
45 tan( 2 )
2
45 ( tan
2
1 , 3 1 , 1
| |
o o + + + = c
1 ) 45 ( tan 0
2
= = |
c 2
1 , 3 1 , 1
+ = o o
)
2
45 tan( 2 )
2
45 ( tan
2
2 , 3 2 , 1
| |
o o + + + = c
From element 2
D q o = =
2 , 3

and

9
c q c D c 2 2 2
2 , 3 2 , 1
+ = + = + = o o
Now
2 , 1 1 , 3
o o =
ult
q c q c D c c D = + = + = + + = 4 4 2 2
1 , 1
o
Figure 0-3 Lower Bound Theorem
Upper Bound Theorem
If a solution is kinematically admissible and simultaneously satisfies equilibrium
failure must result i.e. it will be an upper bound estimate of capacity.
q
ult
P
ult

D q =
1
2
o
3,2

o
1,2

o
3,2

o
1,2

2
o
1,
o
3,1 =

o
1,1

o
3,1
1
Minor
Principal Plan
o
1 1

Major Principal
Plan

10
Let

= 0
o
M
0
2 2
= B B
B
B q
B
B q
ult
t

2
2
B
B
q B
q
ult
+
=
t

0
2
) (
2
) (
2
= H B
B
B q
B
B q
ult
t

) ( 2 2
0 )
2 2
(
2
c q c q q q
q q
B
ult ult
ult
= + H = + H =
= H
t t
t

H + = c q q
ult
2 Upper bound solution (U.B.S)

11
c q q
ult
4 + = Lower bound solution (L.B.S)
Figure 0-4 Upper bound theorem

For surfacing footing;
c
c c
q
S B L c q
S B U c q
q
ult
ult
ult
14 . 5
2
4 2
. . 4
. . 2
0
=
+ H
=
=
H =
=

Failure Plane t=c
q
ult

P
ult

D
B B
O

12
Terzaghis Bearing Capacity Equation (1943)
Terzaghi developed a general formula for ultimate bearing capacity of spread
footing foundations under the following assumptions:
- The depth of the footing is less than or equal to its width (D, B).
- The foundation is rigid and has a rough bottom.
- The soil beneath the footing is a homogeneous semi-infinite mass.
- Strip foundation with a horizontal base and level ground surface under vertical
loads.
- The general shear mode of failure governs and no consolidation of the soil
occurs (settlement is due only to shearing and lateral movement of the soil).
- The shear strength of the soil is described by s = c + tan


13

Terzaghi considered three zones in the soil, as shown in Figure 6.5. Immediately
beneath the foundation is a wedge zone that remains intact and moves downward
with the foundation. Next, a radial shear zone extends from each side of the
wedge, where he took the shape of the shear planes to be logarithmic spirals.
Finally, the outer portion is the linear shear zone in which the soil shears along
planar surfaces. Since Terzaghi neglected the shear strength of soils between the
ground surface and a depth D, the shear surface stops at this depth and the
overlying soil has been replaced with the surcharge pressure cr,JJ' This approach

14
is conservative, and is part of the reason for limiting the method to relatively
shallow foundations (D ~B).
Terzaghi developed his theory for continuous foundations (i.e., those with a very
large VB ratio). This is the simplest case because it is a two-dimensional problem.
He then extended it to square and round foundations by adding empirical
coefficients obtained from model tests and produced the following bearing
capacity formulas:
)
2
tan
2
tan
(
2
tan ) tan (tan
2
|

|
| | |
b r q c u
K
B
K q c K c B q + + + =
c c
N c K c = + ) tan (tan | |
q q
N K q = | tan
r b r
N K
B
= )
2
tan
2
tan
(
2
2
|

|

N
c
, N
q
and N
r
are bearing capacity factor or coefficient
Terzaghis bearing capacity equation is (for continuous footings)

r r q c c ult
S BN N q S cN q
2
1
+ + =
For square foundations:

15
r r q c c ult
S BN N q S cN q 4 . 0 3 . 1 + + =

For circular foundations:
r r q c c ult
S BN N q S cN q 3 . 0 3 . 1 + + =
Shape factor Strip footing Round Square Rectangular
S
c
1 1.3 1.3
c
q
N
N
L
B
) ( 1+
S
r
1 0.6 0.8
L
B
4 . 0 1

Meyerhof (1963) Bearing Capacity Equation
r r r r q q q q c c c c ult
i S d N B i S d N q i S d cN q ' + + =
2
1

Shape factor (S
c
, S
q
,

S
r
)
L
B
K S
p c
2 . 0 1+ = (For any |)
> + = = 10 1 . 0 1 | for
L
B
K S S
p r q



= = = 0 1 | for S S
r q

16
Depth factors:- (d
c
, d
q
, d
r
)

B
D
K d
p c
2 . 0 1+ = (For any| )

B
D
K d d
p r q
1 . 0 1+ = = (

10 > | )
1 = =
r q
d d

0 = |
Where
)
2
45 ( tan
2
|
+ =
p
K
)
2
45 ( tan
2 tan
|
| t
+ = e N
q

| cot ) 1 ( =
q c
N N
) 4 . 1 tan( ) 1 ( | =
q r
N N
Inclination factors (i
c
, i
q
, i

):
The effect of load inclination is to reduce the bearing capacity of the soil
2
)
90
1 (
u
= =
q e
i i
2
) 1 (
|
u
=
r
i

0 > |

17
0 =
r
i For

0 = |
Difference between Terzaghis and Meyerhofs approach:-
- Difference between N factors exists because of assumption of log spiral ad
and exit wedge cde.
- Meyerhofs shape factors do not differ greatly than those given by Terzaghi
except for addition of sq.
- Meyerhof approximately accounted for shear along c`d` in his analysis.
However observing that shear effect is still being ignored he introduced depth
factor.
- For D is approximately equal to B and Meyerhof is approximately equal to
Terzaghi, but the difference become pronounced for larger D/B ratio.
Uses of B.C. equations
Terzaghis equation:
- Very cohesive soil when D/Bs 1.
- quick estimate of the q
ult
.

18
- Do not use for footings with horizontal forces, for tilted base, for sloping
ground.
Uses of Meyerhof Equation
- For any situation.
Additional consideration in bearing capacity use:-
- Do not interpolate N factors over about 2.
- For |>35, N factors change rapidly and by large amounts.
- Bearing capacity equation tends to be conservative.
- Terzaghi developed bearing capacity equation for general shear failure. For
local shear failure he proposed reducing c, | i.e.
) tan
3
2
( tan
3
2
1
| |

= ' ' = ' ' and c c
- The 3
rd
term with N in bearing capacity equations do not increase without
bound. Use reduction factor with the term.
) log( 25 . 0 1
R
B
r
=


19
- If B is greater than or equal to 2m (6ft) then R=2.0 for SI units; R=6 for fps
units. So the term will be ) )(
2
1
(
r r r r r
i d S BN for Meyerhof equation and
) )(
2
1
(
r r r
S BN for Terzaghis equation.
General Observation about Bearing Capacity Equation
- The cohesive term cNc predetermines in cohesive soils.
- The depth or overburden term qNq predetermines in cohesion less soil.
- The self weight or breath term
r
BN
2
1
provides some increase in bearing
capacity both for cohesive and cohesion less soil. For B < 3 to 4m it can
even be neglected.
- No one would place footing on the surface of cohesion less soil.
Example 2-1(Terzaghi Equation)
Given data

3
/ 3 . 17 m KN =

20 = |

3
/ 20 m KN c =

20
Factor of safety(FOS) = 3
UU Test conducted.
Required
=
a
q Bearing Capacity
By using Terzaghi and Meyerhof equation.
Solution
The soil is saturated because a UU Test has given you

0 > |

20 = | , N
c
=17.7, N
q
=7.4 and N
r
=50
Shape factor S
c
=1.3, S
r
=0.8
r r q c c ult
S BN DN S cN q
2
1
+ + =
8 . 0 50 7 . 17
2
1
4 . 7 2 . 1 3 . 17 3 . 1 7 . 17 20 + + = B q
ult

kpa B q
ult
) 6 . 34 8 . 613 ( + =
3
ult ult
a
q
FOS
q
q = =
) 5 . 11 205 ( B q
a
+ =

21
B=1.5m < 2m; no reduction factor

2
/ 220 m KN q
a
=
B=3m since R>2m and ) log( 25 . 0 1
R
B
r
=
95 . 0 )
2
log( 25 . 0 1 = =
B
r

kpa q
a
240 95 . 0 3 5 . 11 0 . 205 = + =
Example 2-2 (Meyerhofs equation)
Vertical load
) (
2
1
A d S BN d S N q d S cN q
r r r q q q c c c ult
+ + =

20 = |
Use table 4-4 or equation.
Bearing Capacity Factor

4 . 6
)
2
45 ( tan ) tan exp(
2
=
+ =
q
q
N
N
|
| t


83 . 14
20 cot ) 1 4 . 6 (
cot ) 1 (
=
=
=
c
c
q c
N
N
N N

|


22

87 . 2
) 20 4 . 1 tan( ) 1 83 . 14 (
) 4 . 1 tan( ) 1 (
=
=
=
r
r
q r
N
N
N N

|

Shape factors

L
B
K S
p c
2 . 0 1+ = (For any| )
04 . 2 )
2
45 ( tan
2
= + =
|
p
K
Since square footing B is equal to L

41 . 1
04 . 2 2 . 0 1
2 . 0 1
=
+ =
+ =
c
c
p c
S
S
K S

Now |>10
204 . 1 04 . 2 1 . 0 1 1 . 0 1 = + = + = =
L
B
K S S
p r q

Depth factors

p c
K
B
D
d 2 . 0 1+ =
Assume B=1.5 m and B=3 m
For B=1.5m

23

23 . 1
04 . 2
5 . 1
2 . 1
2 . 0 1
=
+ =
c
c
d
d

For B=3m
04 . 2
3
2 . 1
2 . 0 1+ =
c
d
1 . 1 =
c
d
14 . 1 04 . 2
5 . 1
2 . 1
1 . 0 1 ) 5 . 1 ( = + = = = m B d d
q r

06 . 1 04 . 2
3
2 . 1
1 . 0 1 ) 3 ( = + = = m B d d
q r

Equation (A) for B=1.5m
14 . 1 2 . 1 87 . 2 5 . 1 3 . 17
2
1
14 . 1 204 . 1 4 . 6 2 . 1 3 . 17 23 . 1 41 . 1 83 . 14 20 + + =
ult
q
2
/ 1 . 747 94 . 50 757 . 181 39 . 514 m KN q
ult
= + + =
2
/ 249
3
1 . 747 1 . 747
m KN
FOS
q
all
= = =
Equation (A) for B = 3m will be
95 . 0 06 . 1 204 . 1 87 . 2 3 3 . 17
2
1
06 . 1 204 . 1 4 . 6 2 . 1 3 . 17 20 . 1 41 . 1 83 . 14 20 + + =
ult
q
2
/ 9 . 719 95 . 0 04 . 95 5 . 169 0 . 460 m KN q
ult
= + + =

24
2
/ 240
3
9 . 719
m KN q
all
= =
Example 2-3
Given
D=0.5m
B=0.5m
L=2m
3
/ 31 . 9 m KN = '

7 . 42 =
triaxial
|
c=0
Required
Ultimate bearing capacity =
ult
q
Solution
KN P
ult
1863 = (Measured)
kpa
L B
P
q
ult
ult
1863
2 5 . 0
0 . 1863
=

=
95 . 46 1 . 1 7 . 42 1 . 1 = = =
triaxial ps
| |

25
05 . 47 17 7 . 42 5 . 1 17 5 . 1 = = =
triaxial st
| |
Base your calculation on

47 =
ps
|
Note
If L/B is less than47 then use
triaxial
|
If L/B is greater than or equal to4 then use
ps
|
Effects of Water Table on Bearing Capacity of Soil
No Position of water table 2nd Term 3rd Term
1 Ground surface
w sat q
DN = ' ' ;
w sat r
BN = ' ' ; 2 / 1
2 If the water table is at
footing level or base of
footing.
dry

w sat
= '

3 Water table below the
wedge
= '

= '

4 Water table between 1
and 2
D
d d
w sat
) (
2 1

+
= '
w sat
= '


26
5 Water table at depth Zw
from the base of
footing.

) ( ) (
sub
w
w sat
B
Z
+ = '

= '
Bulk unit weight.
=
sat
Saturated unit weight.
=
sub
Submerged unit weight.
w sat sub
=
Bowles:-
) ( ) ( ) 2 (
2
2 2
e w
sub w
w
d H
H H
d
d H

= ' + = '
Example 2-4
Given
3
/ 1 . 18 m KN =

35 =
fr
|
c=0

27
3
/ 12 . 20 m KN
sat
=
D=1.12m
B=2.5m
Z
w
=1m (Depth of water table from base of footing.)
Required
Ultimate bearing capacity=
ult
q
Solution
For |=35
Bearing capacity factor are
N
c
=57.8, N
q
=41.4, N
r
=42.4
Shape factor for square footing.
S
c
=1.3, S
r
=0.8
Using Terzaghi equation;
) (
2
1
A S BN DN S cN q
r r q c c ult
' + ' + =
Position#1:Water table at ground surface and c=0

28
3
/ 31 . 10 81 . 9 12 . 20 m KN
w sat
= = = '
r r w sat q w sat ult
S BN DN q A ) (
2
1
) ( 0 ) ( + + =
8 . 0 4 . 42 5 . 2 31 . 10
2
1
4 . 41 1 . 1 31 . 10 + =
ult
q

2
/ 6 . 906 m KN q
ult
=
Position#2:- Base of footing
r r w sat q w sat ult
S BN DN q A ) (
2
1
) ( 0 ) ( + + =
2
/ 1261 8 . 0 4 . 42 5 . 2 31 . 10
2
1
4 . 41 1 . 1 1 . 18 0 m KN q
ult
= + + =
Position#3:- Non of the two term are affected;
r r w sat q w sat ult
S BN DN q A ) (
2
1
) ( 0 ) ( + + =
2
/ 1591 8 . 0 4 . 42 5 . 2 1 . 18
2
1
4 . 41 1 . 1 1 . 18 0 m KN q
ult
= + + =
Position#4:- 3rd term will be fully affected, 2nd term will be partially affected


29
3 2 1
/ 5 . 14
1 . 1
31 . 10 50 . 0 1 . 18 6 . 0 ) (
m KN
D
d d
w sat
=
+
=
+
= '



r r w sat q w sat ult
S BN DN q A ) (
2
1
) ( 0 ) ( + + =
2
/ 1100 8 . 0 4 . 42 5 . 2 31 . 10
2
1
4 . 41 1 . 1 5 . 14 0 m KN q
ult
= + + =

Position #5: 2nd term will be affected
3
/ 55 . 13
) (
m KN
D
d H d
w sub w
=
+ '
= '


2
/ 1400 8 . 0 4 . 42 5 . 2 55 . 13
2
1
4 . 41 1 . 1 1 . 18 0 ) ( m KN q A
ult
= + + =

Footing with Eccentric Loading
Effective width=
B'

y
e B B 2 = '
Effective length=
L'

x
e L L 2 = '
According to ACI-318 minimum dimensions are;

30
y y
W l B + = 4
min

x x
W l L = = 4
min

6
B
e s (e is usually limited to B/6)
Use
B'
and
L'
is Meyerhofs and shape factor, depth factor and last term of bearing
capacity.
Effective Area, L B A
f
' ' =
Example 4-5
Given Data

36 =
fr
|
c=20kpa
3
/ 18 m KN =
M
x
=450 KN-m
M
y
=360 KN-m
D=1.8m
B=1.8m

31
L=1.8m
Solution
25 . 0
1800
450
= = =
P
M
e
x
y

2 . 0
1800
360
= = =
P
M
e
y
x

Eccentricity criteria:-

)
6
(
max
B
e s


m
B
e 3 . 0
6
8 . 1
6
max
= = =


e
y
, e
x
< e
max
OK

Minimum dimension criteria
m B m W l B
y y
8 . 1 4 . 1 4 . 0 25 . 0 4 4
min
= < = + = + =
m L m W l L
x x
8 . 1 2 . 1 4 . 0 2 . 0 4 4
min
= < = + = + =

32
Now Effective Dimensions
3 . 1 25 . 0 2 8 . 1 2 = = = '
y
l B B ) ( L B ' < '
) ( B L ' > '
Take greater dimension as
L'

Now find the bearing capacity by Meyerhofs equation.
r r r q q q c c c ult
d S N B d S DN d S cN q ' ' + ' + =
2
1

36 = | 38 )
2
45 ( tan ) tan exp(
2
= + =
|
| t
q
N
51 cot ) 1 ( = = |
q c
N N
44 ) 4 . 1 tan( ) 1 ( = = |
q r
N N
Shape factor
85 . 3 )
2
45 ( tan
2
= + =
|
p
K
71 . 1 ) ( 2 . 0 1 =
'
'
+ =
L
B
K S
p c

35 . 1 )
4 . 1
3 . 1
( 1 . 0 1 = + = =
p r q
K S S
Depth factor-
4 . 1 2 . 0 2 8 . 1 2 = = = '
x
l L L

33
54 . 1
3 . 1
8 . 1
85 . 3 2 . 0 1 2 . 0 1 = + =
'
+ =
B
D
K d
p c

27 . 1 1 . 0 1 =
'
+ = =
B
D
K d d
p r q

r r r q q q c c c ult
d S N B d S DN d S cN q ' ' + ' + =
2
1

27 . 1 35 . 1 44 3 . 1 1 . 18
2
1
2 . 1 35 . 1 38 8 . 1 18 54 . 1 7 . 1 51 20 + + =
ult
q
2 . 897 52 . 2126 8 . 2701 + + =
ult
q
kpa q
ult
5 . 5719 =
kpa
FOS
q
q
ult
all
1900
3
=
=
=
Actual pressure= kpa
A
P
555
8 . 1 8 . 1
1800
=

=
Recalculate footing dimension based on;
Lets say;
kpa q
a
500 =

2
6 . 3
500
1800
m L B = = ' '
Original ratio 929 . 0
4 . 1
3 . 1
= =

34
m L L 97 . 1 6 . 3 929 . 0
2
= ' = ' B`=1.83m

m B
B
e B B
y
33 . 2
25 . 0 2 83 . 1
2
=
+ =
+ ' =


m L 37 . 2 2 . 0 2 97 . 1 = + =
If eccentricity is neglected and comparing its result with bearing capacity obtained
in previous example.
Shape factor
77 . 1 85 . 3 2 . 0 1 2 . 0 1 = + = + =
L
B
K S
p c

385 . 1 85 . 3 1 . 0 1 = + = =
r q
S S
Depth factor

39 . 1
8 . 1
8 . 1
85 . 3 2 . 0 1
2 . 0 1
= + =
+ =
c
p c
d
B
D
K d

19 . 1 1 . 0 1 = + = =
B
D
K d d
p r q


r r r q q q c c c ult
d S N B d S DN d S cN q ' ' + ' + =
2
1


35
19 . 1 385 . 1 4 . 44 8 . 1 18
2
1
19 . 1 385 . 1 38 8 . 1 18 39 . 1 77 . 1 51 20 + + =
ult
q
5 . 118 2 . 2029 5 . 2509 + + =
ult
q
kpa q
ult
5724 = (Very small increase or slight increase in bearing capacity)
Example 4-6
Solution:-

3
/ 43 . 9 m KN = '

43 =
fr
|
c=0
Since 4
5 . 0
2
= =
D
L

Use ;
ps
|

3 . 47 1 . 1 = =
fr ps
| |

5 . 47 17 5 . 1 = =
fr ps
| |
Use

47 =
ps
|

8 . 19 )
1060
382
( tan ) ( tan
1 1
= = =

V
H
u

36
Shape factor:-

L
B
K S
p c
2 . 0 1+ =
322 . 1
2
5 . 0
4 . 64 2 . 0 1 = + =
c
S
161 . 1 = =
r q
S S
Depth factor:-

5 . 0
5 . 0
54 . 2 2 . 0 1 2 . 0 1 + = + =
B
D
K d
p c

254 . 1 = =
r q
d d
Inclination factor:-

64 . 0 )
90
8 . 19
1 ( )
90
1 (
2 2
= = = =
u
q c
i i
33 . 0 )
47
8 . 19
1 ( ) 1 (
2 2
= = =
|
u
r
i
Now bearing capacity factor for

47 = |
N
q
=187.2, N
c
=173.6, N
r
=414.3

37
r r r r q q q q c c c c ult
i d S BN i d S DN i d S cN q ' + ' + =
2
1

33 . 0 254 . 1 161 . 1 3 . 414 5 . 0 43 . 9
2
1
64 . 0 254 . 1 16 . 1 2 . 187 5 . 0 43 . 9 + =
ult
q
kpa q
ult
1290 8 . 468 7 . 821 = + =
If we ignore the inclination;
kpa q
ult
2704 1420 4 / 128 = + =
Properties are different in different direction.
Footing on Anisotropic Soil
- Shear strength in vertical direction is not equal to the shear strength in
horizontal direction.
- This frequently occurs in cohesive soils.
Where

h u u
S S
, ,
=
u

Shear strength of the clay= Shear strength in horizontal direction.
But can also occur in cohesive less soil.
To account for this situation;

38
0 = | Soil
q
S S
N q
uh v u
c ult
' +
+
=
2
9 . 0
,

If we do not know
h u
S
,
then
q N S q
c v u ult
' + =
,
85 . 0
Where N
C
=5.14
Bearing capacity for Footing on Layered Soil:-
If d
1
is less than H then use the following procedure.
Case#1:- footing on clays (|=0)
(a) Top layer weaker than lower layer (C1<C2)
(b) Top layer is stronger than lower layer (C2<C1).
- There will not be many cases of a two layer cohesive soil with clearly
delineated strata.
- Usually the clay gradually transition from a hard, over consolidated surface
layer to the softer one, however the exception may be found primarily in
glacial deposit.

39
- In these cases it is common practice to treat the situation as a single layer
with a worst case S
c
value (shear strength of clay (S
u
))

1
2
c
c
C
R
=
For 1 s
R
C ;
Stripe footing; 14 . 5 14 . 5
5 . 1
1
s + =
R c
C
B
d
N
Circular footing; 05 . 6 05 . 6
0 . 3
1
s + =
R c
C
B
d
N
B=dia
If C
R
is greater than 0.7then reduce the above N
c
by 10%
Strip footing

1
1
5 . 0
14 . 4
d
B
N
c
+ = c
1
=cohesive for top layer
c
2
=cohesive for bottom layer

1
2
1 . 1
14 . 4
d
B
N
c
+ =
And 2
2 1
2 1

=
c c
c c
c
N N
N N
N

40
Circular footing

1
1
33 . 0
05 . 5
d
B
N
c
+ =

1
2
66 . 0
05 . 5
d
B
N
c
+ =
2
2 1
2 1

=
c c
c c
c
N N
N N
N
If
B
d
1
ratio is smaller and top layer is soft either place footing deeper onto a stiffer
stratum or use some kind of soil improvement method.
If the top layer is very soft, it tends to squeeze out from beneath the footing.
If top layer is very stiff, it tends to punch into the lower softer layer.
If q c q
ult
+ >
1
4 , the soil may squeeze, from beneath the footing.
Case#2 c-| soil layer
1) Compute )
2
45 tan( 5 . 0
|
+ = B H .
2) If H>d1, compute the modified value of | i.e.

H
d H d
2 1 1 1
) ( | |
|
+
= '


41
3) Compute
H
c d H c d
c
2 1 1 1
) ( +
= '

4) Compute q
ult
using ultimate bearing capacity equation and c'and |' above.
Case#3 Sand over laying clay or clay overlaying sand
(a) Sand over lying clay.
(b) Clay over lying sand.

Find
ult
f f
s v
ult ult
q
A
c pd
A
K pP
q q s + + ' ' = '
1
tan|

ult
q =Bearing capacity of top layer.
= ' '
ult
q Bearing capacity of lower layer using layer. of and ), (
1
| c d D q + = '
p=Total parameter for punching i.e. 2(B+L) or 3.1416dia of footing.
P
v
=total vertical pressure from footing base to lower soil.
dh h d q P
d
v
}
+ =
1
0
1

K
s
=Lateral earth pressure coefficient use | sin 1
0
= = K K
s
.

42
= | tan Coefficient of friction between (puks) and perimeter shear zone wall.
Pd
1
c=cohesive on perimeter as shear.
A
f
=area of footing (convert perimeter shear force to a stress).
Example 4-7
Given data
kpa S c
u
77
1
= =
0 = |
3
/ 26 . 17 m KN =
kpa S c
u
115
2
= =
Required
Bearing capacity
Solution
)
2
45 tan(
2
1 |
+ = B H
m m B H 22 . 1 5 . 1 ) 45 tan(
2
1
> = = .(two layer bearing capacity analysis)

43
1 5 . 1
77
115
1
2
> = = =
c
c
C
R

4 . 0
3
22 . 1
1
= =
B
d

For strip footing 39 . 5
4 . 0
5 . 0
14 . 4
5 . 0
14 . 4
1
1
= + = + =
d
B
N
c

89 . 6
4 . 0
1 . 1
14 . 4
1 . 1
14 . 4
1
2
= + = + =
d
B
N
c

048 . 6
28 . 12
2742 . 74
2
89 . 6 39 . 5
89 . 6 39 . 5
2
2 1
2 1
= =
+

=
+

=
c c
c c
c
N N
N N
N
Shape factors

1 . 1
6
3
2 . 0 1
2 . 0 1
= + =
+ =
c
p c
S
L
B
K S

1 )
2
45 ( tan
2
= + =
|
p
K

1 = =
r q
S S For ( 0 = | )
Depth factors

44
122 . 1 )
3
83 . 1
( 2 . 0 1 2 . 0 1 = + = + =
p c
K
B
D
d
1 = =
r q
d d ) 0 ( = |

q q q c c c ult
d S N q d S cN q + =
N
q
=1, N
c
=6.05, N
r
=0
kpa q
q
ult
ult
5 . 605
1 1 . 1 83 . 1 26 . 17 2 . 1 1 . 1 05 . 6 77
=
+ =

Case#1(B):- If we use weak soil properties and treat as single layer
N
c
=5.14
q q q c c c ult
d S N q d S cN q + =
kpa q
ult
2 . 519 83 . 1 26 . 17 12 . 1 1 . 1 14 . 5 77 = + =
Example 4-10
Bearing Capacity of footings on Slope
Bearing Capacity of Rock (Read Article 4-16)
- The strength of be bedrock in situ will be greater than compressive strength of
the foundation concrete with the exception of a few porous limestone and
volcanic rocks and some shales. The upper limit on allowable bearing capacity

45
is taken as fc of the base concrete or not more than the allowable bearing
pressure of metal piles.
- Rock quality designation (RAD) is an index or measure of the quality of a rock
mass. RQD is computed from recovered samples as
RQD = Lengths of intact pieces of core > 100 mm / Length of core advance
For example, a core advance of 1500 mm produce a sample length of 1310 mm
consisting of dust, gravel, and intact pieces. The sum of lengths of pieces 100 mm
or larger (pieces vary from gravel to 280 mm) in length of 890 mm. the recovery
ratio Lr=1310/1500=0.87 and RQD = 890/1500 =0.59.
RQD Rock
Description
< 0.25 Very poor
0.25-0.5 Poor
0.5-0.75 Fair
0.75-0.9 Good
>0.9 Excellent


46
- The bearing factors for sound rock are approximately
Nq = tan
6
(45+|/2) Nc= 5 tan
4
(45+|/2) N= Nq+1
Use the Terzaghi shape factors with theses bearing capacity factors.
- The angle of internal friction is estimated to be 45 for most rocks except
limestone or shale where values between 38 and 45 should be used. Rock
cohesion ranges from 3.5 to 17.5 MPa. In most cases the cohesion is estimated
to be 5 MPa as a conservative value.
- Reduce the ultimate bearing capacity based on RQD as
q
ult
'

= q
ult
(RQD)
2

- Most often large diameter drilled shafts are used in rock. These shafts are
socketed 2 to 3 shaft diameters into the rock. Recent load tests on this type of
foundation indicate the allowable bearing pressure is on the order of
qa= qu to 2.5 qu
where qa is allowable bearing pressure, and qu is unconfined compression
strength of intact rock core samples.
- Many engineers use an allowable bearing pressure from the local code based on
rock type from a visual inspection of the rock cores.

47
- When rock coring produces no intact pieces of consequence (RQD 0), one
should treat rock as soil mass and obtain bearing capacity using bearing
capacity equations developed for soil with best estimates of the soil parameters
| and c.
Example 4-8:
We have a drilled pier with a diameter = 1 m to be founded at a depth of 3.5 m
into a rock mass to get through the surface irregularities and the weathered rock
zone as determined by coring to a depth of 6.5 m into the rock. From the cores the
average RQD = 0.5 (or 50%) below the pier point.
Required:
Estimate the allowable bearing capacity for the pier base. For the pier concrete we
will use fc = 28 MPa (allowable fc is, of course, somewhat less)
Solution:
Assume from the rock cores that | = 45 and take c= 3.5 MPa (both reasonably
conservative cohesion may be overly so).
The Terzahi shape factors for round base are s
c
= 1.3, and s

= 0.6. Assume the unit
weight of the dense rock
rock
= 25.15 KN/m
3
. compute the following

48
Nc= 5 tan
4
(45+|/2) = 5 tan
4
(45+ 45/2) = 170
Nq = tan
6
(45+|/2) = tan
6
(45 + 45/2) = 198
N= Nq+1 = 199
qult = cNc sc + q Nq + B N s
= 3.5 x 170 x 1.3 + 3.5 x 25.15 x 198 / 1000 + 0.5 x 25.15 x 1 x 199 x 0.6/ 1000
= 773.5 + 17.4 + 1.5 = 792.4 MPa
use a SF = 3 and RQD = 0.5 to obtain the reduced allowable bearing pressure
qa = qult x (RQD)2/3
qa = 792.4 x 0.25 /3 = 66 MPa
We see that qa is ~ 2.4 x fc. Bearing capacity of rock is seldom a controlling
factor. It may be more critical for steel HP piles.

49


1
2
3
4
5
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
P.S.F
G.S.F
L.S.F
Relative Density Dr
D/B