Fundamentals of Geotechnical Engineering – III Security Level:

Interval

Chapter 5
Bearing Capacity of Soils

www.huawei.co
m

Geotechnical Engineering Chair

School of Civil & Environmental
Copyright © 2009 Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. All rights
reserved.
Engineering
 Bearing Capacity of Soils

 How do we estimate the maximum bearing

pressure that the soil can withstand before failure
occurs?
 Foundation is the lowest part of a structure that transfers load from
structure to soil without overstressing the soil if properly designed.

 Overstressing the soil causes excessive settlement and shear failure

which can be damaging to the structure.
 Bearing Capacity of Soils

 Depending on the structure and soil type, different foundations

are used.

 Shallow foundations: Df < 2B or Df < 3m

 Isolated, combined, mat, strap.

 Deep foundations: for heavier structures, when great depth is

required for supporting load.

 Piles, piers, cassions

 Bearing Capacity of Soils
 For a foundation to function properly:

 Settlement of soil caused by the load must be within the tolerable

limit.

 Shear failure of soil must not occur.

 Thus the criteria for the determination of the bearing capacity of a foundation
are based on the requirements for the stability of the foundation. The design
value of the safe bearing capacity would be the smaller of the two values
obtained from the two criteria:

 Shear strength criterion

 Settlement criterion
 Bearing Capacity of Soils

 Bearing capacity is affected by

 Nature of the soil and its physical and engineering properties.
 Size, shape, depth, rigidity, and roughness of foundations.
 Water table conditions.
 Total and differential settlement that the structure can withstand
without failure.

 Design criteria's that should be considered.

 Adequate depth
 Limiting settlement
 Factor of safety against shear failure
 Plastic Failure Theory

 Forms of bearing capacity failure

 Terzaghi (1943) stated that bearing capacity failure of a foundation
is caused by
 General soil shear failure

 Local soil shear failure

 Punching shear failure (Vesic 1963)

 Plastic Failure Theory

 General shear failure

 Occurs when a clearly defined plastic yield slip surface forms under the footing
and develops outward towards one or both sides and eventually to the ground
surface. Failure is sudden and will often be accompanied by severe tilting
leading to final collapse on one side.

 Associated with dense or over consolidated soils of low compressibility.

 Plastic Failure Theory

 Local shear failure

 In compressible soils, significant vertical movement may take place
before any noticeable development of shear planes occurs. As the
soil beneath the footing reaches the yield condition shear planes
develop, but fail to extend to the ground surface. Some bulging may
occur, but very little tilting takes place. First failure load
(Vesic. 1963)
 Plastic Failure Theory

 Punching shear failure

 In weak compressible soils considerable vertical movement may
take place with the development of slip surface restricted to vertical
planes adjacent to the sides of the footing. Bulging is usually absent
and may even be replaced by drag down.
 Bearing Capacity of Soils

 Bearing Capacity
 Ultimate bearing capacity, qu is the load that causes the shear failure of the soil underneath
and adjacent to the footing.
 Net bearing pressure, qn is the net change in total stress experienced by the soil at the base
of the foundation. The difference between the total applied stress and the stress removed
due to excavation.

 Allowable bearing capacity, qa is defined as the bearing pressure that will cause either
undrained or drained settlement or creep equal to a specified tolerable design limit.
 A presumed bearing pressure is a conservative value attributed to a rock or soil for
preliminary design.
Bearing Capacity of Soils
 Ultimate Bearing Capacity Equations

 Bearing capacity based on Rankine Wedge

 Shear at the surface of the two wedges are neglected

 Failure surface is a straight line

Rankine Wedge
 Ultimate Bearing Capacity Equations
 Prandtl’s Theory for Ultimate Bearing Capacity
 Soil is isotropic, homogeneous and weightless
 Footing is long and has a smooth base and placed at the surface of
the soil.
 Ultimate Bearing Capacity Equations

 Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Theory

 Expanded on Prandtl’s theory to include the effect of the weight of the soil above the footing level.

 Assumed the angle that the wedge forms with the horizontal to be ø (not 45 + ø/2)

 Footing of infinite extent and unit width.

 Rough base surface, soil is homogeneous, footing is rigid compared to soil

 Accounted for the effect of the soil weight by superimposing an equivalent surcharge load.

 General shear failure in dense soils and local shear failure in loose soil
 Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Theory

 Terzaghi represented Pp as the vector sum of

 Cohesion

 Surcharge

 Weight of the soil

 Also added shape factors.

 Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Theory

 For local shear failure in loose soils.

 Results are limited to concentrically loaded horizontal footing. Not suitable for footing
that support eccentrically loaded columns or tilted footings.
 Bearing Capacity of Soils

 Meyerhof ’s Bearing Capacity Equation

 Included shape factor (s), depth factor (d) and inclination factors (i).
 Meyerhof ’s Bearing Capacity Equation

 For eccentrically loaded footing use,

 Bearing Capacity of Soils

 Hansen’s Bearing Capacity Equation

 Included ground factor and base factor to include conditions for a footing on a
slope.
 Bearing Capacity of Soils

 Vesic’s Bearing Capacity Equation

 Example 1

1. The square footing shown below must be designed to carry a 294kN load. Use
Terzaghi’s, Meyehof’s and Hansen’s bearing capacity formula to determine the
width of the footing with a factor of safety of 3.
 qu  c' N c s c ic d c  DN q s q iq d q  0.5BN  s i d 

sq sϒ

dq dϒ
sq sϒ

dq dϒ
 Bearing Capacity of Soils

 Effect of Water Table on Bearing Capacity

 Rise in water table may result in the reduction of the bearing capacity of a
soil.

 Rise in water table may result in

 Swelling of some fine-grained soils
 Possible loss of apparent cohesion
 Reduction of the angle of internal friction
 Decrease in the shear strength of the soil

 Effective stress parameters, c’ and ø’, obtained from laboratory tests on

saturated soil samples are to be used when the soil is submerged.
 Bearing Capacity of Soils

 Groundwater Table Effect

 Case 1: water table above the

base of the footing
 Not frequently encountered.
 Use in the 2nd and 3rd terms
of the bearing capacity
equation.
 Bearing Capacity of Soils

 Groundwater Table Effect

 Case 2: Water at the base of

footing
 Use in the 3rd term.
 Bearing Capacity of Soils

 Groundwater Table Effect

 Case 3: Water table below the
base of footing but within the
wedge zone. (Within a depth B
below the base of footing, or

 Use ϒe in the 3rd term

 Bearing Capacity of Soils

 Groundwater Table Effect

 Case 4: Water table below the
base of footing not within the
wedge zone.

 No adjustment made to the BC

equation

Case 4
 Example 2

2. What will be the ultimate bearing capacity of a 1m width footing if water

table was present at 0.85m below the depth of the footing. (use Meyerhof’s
bearing capacity equation)

0.85m
 Example 3

3. A square footing of 2m is located at a depth of 1m. It is subjected to a load

inclined at 20 ͦ. The footing is located on a deposit of compacted sand with φ
= 30 ͦ and ϒsat = 18kN/m^3. The ground water table is located at a depth of
5m below the ground surface but the sand is saturated because of capillary
action. Determine the allowable bearing capacity for a FS of 2.
0.25

0.25
Meyerhof’s N-factors
Quiz
Terzaghi’s N-factors
Meyerhof’s N-factors
Hansen’s N-factors
 Bearing Capacity based on Tolerable Settlement

 A tolerable settlement for which a foundation can undergo without sustaining

any harmful effect are decided upon based on experience and judgment.

 The pressure which causes settlements just equal to the limiting value is
determined.

 Obtaining undisturbed samples of cohesionless soil during a soil exploration is

usually difficult.

 Bearing capacity can be determined from plate load tests, SPT and CPT
 Bearing Capacity from SPT
 Widely used mostly in cohesionless soils

 Performed by driving a standard split spoon sampler into the ground by

blows from a drop hammer of mass 64kg falling from 76cm.

 The sampler is initially driven 15cm below the bottom of the borehole.
Then the number of blows required to drive it an additional 30cm is
counted. (SPN)
 Bearing Capacity from CPT

 Used in fine and medium sand, soft silts and clays.

 The thrust required to drive the cone and the sleeve 80mm into the ground at a
constant rate of 10mm/s to 20mm/s are measured independently so the end
resistance and side friction may be estimated independently.
 Bearing Capacity from Field Loading Test
 Most reliable method of obtaining the bearing capacity and settlement characteristics at a site.

 Round plate (30cm and 70 cm) or square plate (30cm X 30cm and 60cm X 60cm) is loaded in a
pit excavated in the ground, at a depth equal to the roughly estimated depth of the foundation
for which the BC is to be estimated.

 Excavate a pit to a depth equal to roughly estimated depth of the foundation and place the
plate.

 A load is applied on the plate by increment (ΔP = qutl,estimated/5) and settlements are recorded
from a dial gauge for each load increment.

 The test is continued until a total settlement reaches 25mm or until capacity of the
apparatus is reached or until soil fails by shear.

 Settlement Vs time and settlement Vs applied stress are plotted.

 qutl,estimated is then interpolated for the desired tolerable settlement.

 Bearing Capacity from Field Loading Test

Clays Sandy soil

 Limitations of Field Loading Test
 Size effect
 Consolidation settlement can not be determined (short term test)
 Zone of influence of the plate is smaller than the real footing
 Bearing Capacity (ES EN 1997-1:2015)
 General
 Provisions apply to spread foundations including pads, strips and rafts.

 One criteria for a safe design is that the structure should not become unfit for use.

 The structure should not reach a limit state during its design life.

 Achieved by designing the structure to ensure that it does not reach two important limit states.

1. Ultimate Limit State (ULS): concerned with the safety of the people and of
the structure. This requires the whole structure or its elements should not
collapse, overturn or buckle when subjected to the design loads.
2. Serviceability Limit State (SLS): concerned with comfort of occupants
(vibration, large cracks, deflection) and appearance of the structure
(excessive deflection, cracking)
Bearing Capacity (ES EN 1997-1:2015)
 Limit States
Permanent actions – G
Variable actions – Q
Accidental actions - A
 Bearing Capacity (ES EN 1997-1:2015)
Design value for permanent actions = characteristic permanent action * load factor
Gd = Gk * ϒF
Design value for variable action = characteristic variable action * load factor
Qd = Qk * ϒF

The partial safety factor ϒF takes into account of;

a. possible increase in load
b. Inaccurate assessment of the effects of loads
c. unforeseen stress distribution in members
d. importance of the limit state being considered
Bearing Capacity (ES EN 1997-1:2015)
Bearing Capacity (ES EN 1997-1:2015)
Bearing Capacity (ES EN 1997-1:2015)
Bearing Capacity (ES EN 1997-1:2015)
Bearing Capacity (ES EN 1997-1:2015)
Bearing Capacity (ES EN 1997-1:2015)
Bearing Capacity (ES EN 1997-1:2015)
 Serviceability limit state
Bearing Capacity (ES EN 1997-1:2015)
Recommendation by Euro code 7 (ES EN 1997-1:2015)
Bearing Capacity (ES EN 1997-1:2015)
Recommendation of Euro code 7 (ES EN 1997-1:2015)
Example 1
Example 2

2.
Continue…….