4.1.

Introduction
All civil engineering structures impose a loading on the
underlying soil or rock. The part of the structure, which
can be wood, concrete or steel usually lying below
ground level which transmits the load to the supporting
strata is referred to as the foundation. To ensure stability,
foundations must provide an adequate factor of safety
against shear or bearing failure of the underlying Soil
and the structure must be capable of withstanding the
settlements that will result, in particular the differential
settlements.
 CONT’D
In the vast majority of cases the choice of the
foundation is governed by the second of these two
factors, thus in general the need to limit settlements of
the structure will control the design of its foundation.
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:
1. Shear strength criterion
2. Settlement criterion
The soil’s limiting shear resistance is referred to as the
ultimate bearing capacity, qu, of the soil.
 CONT’D
 The ultimate bearing capacity (qu): is the gross
pressure at the base of the foundation at which soil
fails in shear.
 Net ultimate Bearing Capacity (qnu):
It is the net increase in pressure at the base of
foundation that cause shear failure of the soil.
Thus, qnu = qu – γDf (over burden pressure)
 Net Safe Bearing Capacity (qns): It is the net soil
pressure which can be safely applied to the soil
considering only shear failure.
Thus, qns = qnu /Fs
Fs - Factor of safety usually taken as 2.00 -3.00
 CONT’D
 Gross Safe Bearing Capacity (qs) :
It is the maximum pressure which the soil can carry
safely without shear failure. qs = qnu / Fs + γ Df
 Net Safe Settlement Pressure (qnp):
It is the net pressure which the soil can carry without
exceeding allowable settlement.
 Net Allowable Bearing Pressure (qna):
It is the net pressure which can be used for design of
foundation. Thus,
qna=qns;ifqnp>qns
qna = qnp ; if qns > qnp
It is also known as Allowable Soil Pressure (ASP).
 CONT’D

 For design, one uses an allowable bearing capacity, qa,

obtained by dividing the ultimate bearing capacity by a
suitable safety factor (i.e. qa=qu/FS).
 The bearing capacity is affected by factors like
a) Nature of the soil and its physical and engineering
properties
b) Size, shape, depth, rigidity and roughness of the
foundation
c) Water table conditions and initial stresses in the
foundation soil
d) Total and differential settlements that the structure
 CONT’D

 In general, foundations constructed at a depth

below the ground level which is approximately less
than or equal to 2 (i.e. Df<2B) –like footings and mat
foundations are designated as shallow foundations.
In contrast, piles, piers and caissons (Df>2B) are
designated as deep foundations.
 Numerous proposals have been advanced regarding
considerations, criteria, and procedures for the
evaluation of the bearing capacity of soils. Some
analytical methods of estimating bearing capacity
are given below.
 Bearing Failure Modes

 Vesic (1973) classified shear failure of soil under a

foundation base into three categories depending on the
type of soil & location of foundation.
 Relative density of soil and size of the foundation are
among the major factors that affect the mode of bearing
failure likely to occur. The modes of bearing failure are
generally separated into three categories :
a) General Shear - Dense Soils ( Dense sand/ stiff clays)
b) Local Shear - Less Dense Soil (medium sand/medium
clay)
c) Punching Shear – Loose soils (Loose sand/ soft clay)
 General Shear - Dense Soils (dense sands or stiff clays)
 The figure below shows the case known as a
General Shear Failure, which occurs in dense sands
or stiff clays. The ultimate load per unit length,
Q"ult, is equal to the bearing capacity of the soil
qult, times the width of the footing, B. In general
shear, the soil can fail to the left or right if the
footing can rotate, or both sides will fail if the
footing is constrained to prevent rotation. In
practice, this can be determined by looking at the
bulge or bulges that occur adjacent to the footing.
 CONT’D
 There are three zones that fail. Zone 1 acts as a wedge,
or an arrow point, that pushes into the soil. The wedge
itself remains intact and does not shear internally
because it is fully supported. The angle is interesting,
appearing from model studies and field evaluation to
be a value somewhere between for a rough base
(friction between the concrete and soil underneath)
and for a smooth base.
 Zone 1 pushes into Zone 2, however, and causes it to
rotate. Zone 2 rotates around the corner or the edge of
the footing. It has the shape of a logarithmic spiral,
which has the interesting property that a radial line
from the center of rotation makes an angle from the
normal to the surface.
 CONT’D
 Thus the force acting on the radial line properly
accounts for the normal and tangential shear
stresses. This section rotates into Zone 3, which is
a passive failure wedge as we saw in retaining wall
analysis.
CONT’D
 CONT’D

Figure : Logarithmic Spiral of Zone 2

 CONT’D

 The load - Settlement curve in case of footing resting on

surface of dense sand or stiff clays shows pronounced
peak & failure occurs at very small stain.
 A loaded base on such soils sinks or tilts suddenly in to
the ground showing a surface heave of adjoining soil
 The shearing strength is fully mobilized all along the
slip surface & hence failure planes are well defined.
 The failure occurs at very small vertical strains
accompanied by large lateral strains.
 RD > 65 , N>35, Φ > 36˚, e < 0.55
CONT’D
Local Shear - Less Dense Soil (medium sand/ medium clay)

 If the soil is loose enough to not exhibit a peak

strength, then it will fail at the residual value. In
that case, the three Zones do not fail all at once,
but rather progressively, starting along Zone 1, into
Zone 2 and finally into Zone 3. Because the failure
is progressive, it is known as Local Shear. It
requires more deformation than general shear,
because each location must undergo residual shear
conditions.
 CONT’D

Figure : Local (or Progressive) Shear

 CONT’D
 A fully formed failure surface develops, however,
and continues to resist shearing as it is pushed
further into the soil.
 CONT’D

 The foundation movement is accompanied by sudden

jerks.

 The failure surface gradually extend out wards from

the foundation.

 The failure starts at localized spot beneath the

foundation & migrates out ward part by part
gradually leading to ultimate failure.
 CONT’D

 The shear strength of soil is not fully mobilized along

planes & hence failure planes are not defined clearly.

 The failure occurs at large vertical strain & very small

lateral strains.
 RD = 15 to 65 , N=10 to 30 , Φ <30, e>0.75
CONT’D
 Punching Shear- Loose soils (Loose sand/ soft clay)

 If the soil is so loose that it cannot sustain the

shearing forces developed on the failure surface,
the soil underneath will collapse, causing the shear
zone to progress downward, more or less vertically,
until other constraints prohibit further movement.
 CONT’D

Figure : Punching Shear Failure

 CONT’D

 The loaded base sinks into soil like a punch.

 The failure surface do not extend up to the ground
surface.
 No heave is observed.
 Large vertical strains are involved with practically
no lateral deformation.
 Failure planes are difficult to locate.
CONT’D
 CONT’D
 Refer : Holt, Kovacs and Sheahan - An introduction
to Geotechnical Engineering to well understand
Peak, critical and residual strength.
 Bearing Capacity Based on Rankine Wedge
 Fig (a) shows a long, narrow footing (i.e., L/B is very
large) at a depth Df in to a c-φ soil. Fig (b) depicts the
Rankine wedges used in this analysis. Wedge I is
assumed to be an active Rankine wedge, which is
pushed down and slides to the right during the failure
sequence; wedge II is assumed to be a passive wedge,
which is pushed to the right and upward in the
process. The lateral resistances (P) are assumed to act
at the interface of the two wedges as shown [Fig (c)];
they have the same magnitude but opposite directions.
The P associated with wedge I represents the active
pressure resultant, whereas the P for wedge II is the
passive thrust.
 CONT’D

Figure : Footing in c-φsoil

CONT’D
 CONT’D
 The two resultants at the interface are assumed to have
same magnitude. Hence equating eqn (a) and (b), we
have
CONT’D
 CONT’D

For a purely cohesive soil (φ=0): Kp=1, Nγ=0, Nc=4, Nq=1

and hence the ultimate bearing capacity from eqn above
is qu= 4c +γDf. So in purely cohesive soils increase or
decrease in the width, B, of the footing has no effect on
qu. But increasing Df increases qu by a little factor.
The above derivation is based on less-than-accurate
assumptions: (1) the shear at the interface of the two
wedges was neglected and (2) the failure surfaces are not
straight lines as was indicated for the two wedges.
 Prandtl’s Theory for Ultimate Bearing Capacity

Prandtl’s theory of plastic equilibrium reflects on the

penetration (deformation) effects of hard objects in to
much softer material. The assumptions made were:
(1) Soil is isotropic and homogenous
(2) Soil is weightless
(3) Footing is long and has a smooth base and placed at
the surface of the soil. Fig below shows three zones
developed with in the soil resulting from bearing
failure.
 CONT’D

Figure : Prandtl’s theory of plastic equilibrium

 CONT’D
The penetrating wedge I pushes sides of zone II and III.
Shearing resistance mobilizes along log spiral and
straight line segment. Considering this shear
resistance, the ultimate bearing capacity of the soil
based on Prandtl’s theory is given by:
 4.2 Analytical Methods of calculating Bearing Capacity

4.2.1. Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Theory

Terzaghi improved on the wedge analysis described in
the preceding section by working with trial wedges of
the type assumed by Prandtl. However, he expanded
on Prandtl’s theory to include the effects of the weight
of the soil above the footer (bottom) level, an aspect
the Prandtl omitted in his work. Terzaghi assumed the
general shape of the various zones to remain
unchanged, as illustrated in Fig (a). Terzaghi assumed
the angle that the wedge faced formed with the
horizontal to be φ, rather than the (45+φ/2) assumed
in Prandtl’s and most other theories
 CONT’D
As did Prandtl, Terzaghi assumed a strip footing of
infinite extent and unit width.
Unlike Prandtl, however, Terzaghi assumed a rough
instead of a smooth base surface.
Further more, although he neglected the shear
resistance of the soil above the base of the footing
(segment gf in Fig (a)), he did account for the effects
of the soil weight by superimposing an equivalent
surcharge load q=γDf. Otherwise, the shape of the
failure surface is similar to that assumed by Prandtl.
 CONT’D
 One of Terzaghi’s greatest strengths was knowing
when he could borrow from other people and other
work. When Terzaghi was considering bearing
capacity, he recognized that three different
mechanisms were significant in resisting failure in the
general shear case. These were:
a. The friction caused by the footing and the soil
beneath the footing to develop normal and
shear stresses on the failure line (by Terzaghi),
b. The additional friction developed by surcharge
soil and stresses acting on the plane at the
bottom of the footing (by Reissner), and
c. The resistance developed by cohesion along the
base of the failure plane (by Prandtl).
 CONT’D

Figure: Terzaghi’s bearing capacity theory

 CONT’D
Fig (b) shows the penetrating wedge, where the down
ward load is resisted by the forces of the inclined faces
of the wedge. Assuming a unit length of the footing
normal to the page, we obtain qu as follows
 CONT’D

Terzaghi represented the value of Pp as the vector

sum of the three components: (1) that from
cohesion, (2) that from surcharge, and (3) that
resulting from the weight of the soil (bdef in Fig
(b)). With the addition for the shape factors in the
cohesion and base terms, Terzaghi obtained
expressions for the ultimate bearing capacity for
general shear conditions as:
CONT’D
 CONT’D
Table below gives the values for the various bearing
capacity factors recommended for the above
equations.
Table : Terzaghi’s N-factors
 CONT’D
 The results obtained here are quite within acceptable
limits for shallow footings (e.g. Df/B<1) subjected to only
vertical loads. But they are limited to concentrically
loaded horizontal footings; they are not suitable for
footings that support eccentrically-loaded columns or to
tilted footings. Further more, they are regarded as
somewhat overly conservative.
 Terzaghi developed his bearing-capacity equations
assuming a general shear failure in a dense soil and a
local shear failure for a loose soil. For the local shear
failure he proposed reducing the cohesion and φ as:
CONT’D
 CONT’D

4.2.2. Meyerhof’s Bearing Capacity Equation

 Meyerhof proposed a bearing capacity equation
similar to that of Terzaghi but added shape factors,
s, depth factors, d, and inclination factors, i(Eqn
below).
 CONT’D
 The N values are given in Table below (a) and (b).
 Table (a): Meyerhof’s N- factors
 CONT’D

Table (b): Meyerhof’s factors (s, d, i)

 CONT’D
 Meyerhof suggested that footing dimensions B'=B-
2ey and L'= L-2ex be used in determining the total
allowable load eccentrically applied in the x and y
directions, respectively (i.e., Qu= qu B' L'), and in
the corresponding terms in the ultimate bearing
capacity equations and in the various correction
factors for shape and inclination.
 Y

My eB
eL
Mx
L eL P X

B
 CONT’D
 Where p is the vertical load applied, My and Mx are
the moments about the x and y axes respectively.
 The minimum and maximum vertical stress along x
direction :

 The minimum and maximum vertical stress along x

direction :
 CONT’D
 Since the tensile strength of soils is approximately
zero, min should always be greater than zero.
There fore eB and eL should always be less than
B/6 and L/6 respectively.
 For the case where there are moments in the x and
y directions,
 CONT’D
4.2.3. Hansen’s Bearing Capacity Equation
Hansen proposed the general bearing capacity
equation(equation below) which includes ground
factors and base factors to include conditions for a
footing on a slope.
 CONT’D

expressions for inclination, shape, depth, base,

and ground inclination expressions proposed
by Hanson are given in Table below (b).
 CONT’D

Table (a): Hansen’s N- factors

 CONT’D

Table(b): Shape Factors

 CONT’D

Table(c): Depth Factors

 CONT’D

Table(d): Inclination Factors

Brief Table for si, di, ii, bi and gi
 4.2.4 Vesic’s Bearing Capacity Equation

The Vesic procedure is essentially the same as the

method of Hansen with select changes. The Nc and
Nq terms are those of Hansen but Nγ is slightly
different as is given by:
 CONT’D

 There are also differences in the ii, bi and gi terms

Table : Vesic’s Nγ - factors

 CONT’D

Table : Vesic’s N- factors

 CONT’D

Table : Shape factors

CONT’D
Brief Table for si, di, ii, bi and gi
 Introduction to Eurocode bearing capacity
provisions
The type of foundation to be used depends on a number of
factors such as:
 Soil properties and conditions
 Type of structure and loading
 Permissible amount of differential settlement
The design of any foundation consists of two parts:
 Geotechnical design to determine the safe bearing strength of
the soil
 Structural design of the foundation using reinforced concrete
 Cont’d
The following bearing capacity equations are given:
(i) Drained
R/A’= c'Ncbcscic+q'Nqbqsqiq+1/2g'B'N bgsgi
(ii) Un drained
 R/A’= (2+π)cu bc sc ic + q
 With the dimensionless factors for the bearing
resistance:
Nq= e π x tan’ tan2(45°+’/2), Nc =(Nq-1) cot’
Nc = 2 (Nq-1)tan’
 A’ = effective foundation area (reduced area with
load acting at its canter)
Other factors
CONT’D
 Comparative summary of Bearing Capacity Equations

 Terzagh’s Bearing Capacity Equation has the

following draw backs:
a. Shape, depth and inclination factors are not
considered.
b. Suitable for concentrically loaded horizontal
footing, but not suitable for eccentrically loaded
footings that are common in practice.
c. Conservative than Meyerhof’s and Hansen’s
 CONT’D
 Meyerhof’s and Hansen’s Bearing Capacity
Equations are more widely used than that of
Terzagh’s. Both are some what less conservative
and applicable to more general conditions.
Hansen’s Bearing Capacity Equation is used when
there is tilted base or when the footing is on a
slope ground and when D/B> 1.
4.3 Bearing Capacity Based on Tolerable Settlement

4.3.1 Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

This is the most commonly used in-situ test,

especially for cohesion less soils which cannot be
easily sampled.

 SPT test is extremely useful for determining the

relative density and the angle of internal friction of
cohesion less soils.
 CONT’D

Test procedure
1. Drill a 60 to 200 mm diameter exploratory boring to the
depth of the first test
2. Insert the SPT sampler (also known as a split spoon
sampler) into the boring. The sampler is connected via steel
rods to a 63.5kg hammer,
3. Raise the hammer a distance of 760 mm and allow it to fall.
This energy drives the sampler into the bottom of the boring
 CONT’D

 Repeat this process until the sampler has penetrated a distance

of 450mm, recording the number of hammer blows required for
each 150mm interval
4. Compute the standard penetration number, N value by
summing the blow count for the last 300 mm of penetration.
5. Remove the SPT sampler; remove and save the soil sample.
6. Drill the boring to the depth of the next test and repeat steps 2
through 6 as required.
 CONT’D

 The test is halted if there is refusal (if 50 blows are

required for any 15cm penetration, i.e. N=100, or if
10 successive blows produce no advance). After
applying some corrections, this blow count is
correlated with important properties of the soil,
which can be used for design of foundations. The
test is run intermittently with almost all types of
boring methods and for any type of soils even if it
was developed for cohesion less soils.
 CONT’D

 It has clearly the advantages of enabling one to

extract representative samples. It is also
economical in terms of cost per unit operation.
 CORRECTIONS TO OBSERVED SPT

 It was regularly observed that the N-value in

adjacent boreholes or when using different
equipment are not the same. The principal factor
is the input energy and its dissipation around the
sampler in to the surrounding soil. Energy
measurements show that the actual in put energy
to the sampler is 70 to 100 % of the theoretical
input energy. It is believed that the discrepancies
arise from the following factors:
 CONT’D

 Difference in some features of SPT equipment,

drilling rig, hammer and skill of operation
 Driving hammer configuration and the way hammer
load is applied whether liner is employed or not
 Amount of overburden pressure- the bigger the o.b.p
the more is N value
 Length of the drill rod- the shorter the rod the more
is N value
 CONT’D

 Bore hole diameter - the smaller the size of the

hole the more is N value

 There fore, in order to get approximately the same

value for a given soil type at a given depth, it has
been suggested to correct the N value as:
CONT’D
CONT’D
 CORRELATIONS OF SPT RESULTS

 Although the SPT is not considered as refined and

completely reliable method of investigation, the N
values give useful information with regards to
consistency of cohesive soils and relative density of
granular soils.
CONT’D
 CONT’D

 Terzaghi and Peck also gave the following

correlation(Table below) between SPT value, ϕ and
Dr.
 CONT’D

 Cohesive Soils

 The common correlations of N-values with

unconfined compressive strength of cohesive soils
is: q u =K * N ; Where K- is about 12 and qu - in
MPa
 CONT’D

 The following correlations are suggested by Bowels

(1995) :
 CONT’D

 Note: Other dynamic sounding tests can be

conducted by using cone instead of split spoon
sampler and driving the cone by hammer blows.
Depending on the weight of hammer, the drop
height and the tip area we have the different types
as summarized in Table :
CONT’D
 CONT’D

Standard penetration test (SPT) equipment

 Correction to be applied to measured values of SPT

 The N values of SPT as measured in the field may need to

be corrected.
 When SPT is made in fine saturated sands, saturated silty
sands, or saturated silts, correction is usually made for
possible build up of pore water pressure. The SPT values,
greater than 15 are modified as follows :
N = 15 + ½ (N’ –15) Suggested by Terzaghi and peck
where N= corrected value , N’= actual value
 4.3.2 Dynamic Cone Penetration Test

 which is normally used to determine the relative

resistance offered by the different soil layers.
 The cone is fixed to the bottom of a rod by pushed fit.

 The cone is driven into the ground in the same way as a

SPT is performed.
 The number of blows required to penetrate 30 cms
depth is called as Nc value.
 CONT’D
To judge the consistency of soil from Nc values, the
general practice is to convert Nc to N values of SPT
Nc = N/C
where : N = blow count for SPT
Nc = blow count for dynamic cone
C = Constant, lies between 0.8 and 1.2
when bentonite is used.
Nc= 1.5N for depths up to 3m
Nc= 1.75N for depths between 3m and 6m
Nc Values need to be corrected for overburden pressure
in cohesion less soils like SPT
CONT’D
 4.3.3 VANE SHEAR TEST

 This test is useful in determining the in-place shear

strength of very soft and sensitive clays, which lose a
large part of their strength when even slightly
disturbed by the sampling operation.
 The strength parameter obtained is consolidated
undrained shear strength, Cu.
 CONT’D

 In most cases a hole is drilled to the desired depth,

where the vane shear test is planned to be
performed and the vane is carefully pushed into
the soil. The maximum torque is then measured
from which the shearing strength is determined.
CONT’D
CONT’D
CONT’D
CONT’D
 CONT’D

 Field vane shear test overestimates the un drained

shear strength. Therefore reduction factor should
be used to estimate the design un drained shear
strength.
 Cu, d = λ cu, The commonly used value of λ is 0.6.
Or one can use curves (Figure below) to obtain λ
based on the PI value.
CONT’D
CONT’D
 4.3.4 PLATE LOADING TEST

 In this test a gradually increasing static load is applied

to the soil through a steel plate, and readings of the
settlement and applied load are recorded, from which a
relationship between bearing pressure and settlement
for the soil can be obtained.
The test procedure
1. Pit for the test must be at least 5 times the size of the
plate.
2. The plate should be properly placed in the soil.
 CONT’D

In the case of cohesion less soil (to prevent early

displacement of soil under the edges of the plate),
the plate must be positioned in cast in-situ concrete.
3. Loading platform should be properly erected.
 CONT’D

4. Loading of the soil is conducted in steps (loading

increment is kept constant).
5. Once completion of the test, the plate is unloaded
in the same incremental steps (to draw the
expansion curve).
CONT’D
CONT’D
 LIMITATION OF PLATE LOADING TEST

Plate loading test is of short duration. Hence

consolidation settlement does not fully occur
during the test.
For settlement consideration, its use is restricted
to sandy soils, and to partially saturated or rather
unsaturated clayey soils.
 CONT’D

 Plate loading test can give very misleading information

of the soil is not homogeneous within the effective
depth (depth of stress influence) of the prototype
foundation.

 Plate loading test should not recommended in soils

which are not homogeneous at least to depth of 1½ to
2 times the width of the prototype foundation.
CONT’D
 PILE LOADING TEST

 This is the most reliable means for determining the

load carrying capacity of a pile.
 The load arrangement and testing procedure are
more or less similar to the plate-loading test. From
the results of this test the allowable bearing capacity
and load- settlement relationship of a group of
friction piles can be estimated.
CONT’D
CONT’D
4.4 Bearing Capacity Based on Building
Codes(Presumptive Pressure)
 CONT’D
* The given design bearing values do not include the
effect of the depth of embedment of the foundation
** Compactness:
dense: N > 30,
medium dense: N is 10 to 30
loose: N < 10, where N is standard penetration value
*** Consistency:
hard: qu > 400 kPa,
stiff: qu= 100 to 200 kPa
medium stiff: qu = 50 to 100 kPa
soft: qu = 25 to 50 kPa, where qu. is unconfined
compressive strength
Table: Presumed allowable bearing values
under static loading (from BS 8004)
 4.5 Special Considerations in Bearing Capacity
calculation

Effect of Water Table on Bearing Capacity

 The soil’s unit weight used in the second and third term
(the γ in Nq and Nγ terms) of the bearing capacity
equations presented in the preceding sections are the
effective unit weights. When the effective unit weights
are used, they results in a decrease in the ultimate
bearing capacity of the soil.
 CONT’D

 The effective unit weight γb(γ') is roughly half γsat;

consequently there will be about 50% reduction in
the value of the corresponding term in the bearing
capacity formula. Indeed, a rise in the water table may
result in swelling of some fine-grain soils, possible
loss of apparent cohesion, a reduction of the angle of
internal friction and a decrease in the shear strength
of the soil.
 CONT’D
 However, the effect of water table on the shear
strength parameters of the foundation soil is
usually considered small and hence ignored. Also
the effective stress parameters, c' and φ', obtained
from an appropriate test in the laboratory, on
saturated sample of the soil, are to be used when
the soil is submerged under water. The water table
location can be in one of the following cases :
 CONT’D

1) Water Table Above the base of the Footing

Figure (a) depicts a case of the water table located
between the ground surface and base of the footing.
This condition is not frequently encountered; where
practical, designers will circumvent such conditions
by relocating the foundation to higher elevations
since, typically, high water tables create
construction problems, require dewatering, lower
bearing capacity, and so on. However, when this
condition is encountered, both the 2nd and 3rd terms
of the bearing capacity equations are affected by a
lower value of γ[= γb(γ') or γsub].
CONT’D
CONT’D
 CONT’D
2. Water at the Base of Footing
For this case, the γ in the second term (Nq) requires no
adjusting. The third term will be γb (Fig (b).
3. The Water Table Below the Base of Footing but with in
the wedge zone : When the water table lies with in the
wedge zone [depth approximately H=0.5Btan(45+φ/2)
from base of footing], some small difficulty may be
obtained in computing the effective unit weight to use in
the Nγ term [Fig (c)]. In many cases this term for such
situation can be ignored to obtain a conservative
solution. However, one can compute effective weight
(γe) for the soil within the wedge zone as :
 CONT’D

Where: H=0.5B tan (45+φ/2); dw=depth of water table

below base of footing
γ and γ’ (=γ-γw) are wet and submerged unit weight of
the soil respectively
4. The Water Table Below the wedge zone
When the water table is below the wedge zone [depth
approximately H=0.5Btan(45+φ/2) from base of
footing], the water table effects can be ignored for
computing the bearing capacity.
 Alternatively
Two cases may be considered

Case 1. When the water table lies above the base of the
foundation.
Case 2. When the water table lies within depth B below
the base of the foundation.
We will consider the two methods for determining the
effect of the water table on bearing capacity as given
below.
 Method 1

 For any position of the water table within the depth

(Df + B):

where Rwl = reduction factor for water table above the

base level of the foundation, Rw2 = reduction factor for
water table below the base level of the foundation, γ = γ
sat for all practical purposes in both the second and third
terms of bearing capacity equation.
CONT’D
CONT’D
 CONT’D
 Figure below shows in a graphical form the relations
Dwl/D, vs. Rwl and Dw2/B vs Rw2.
 The above Equations are based on the assumption that
the submerged unit weight of soil is equal to half of
the saturated unit weight and the soil above the water
table remains saturated.
 CONT’D

Method 2
 Equivalent effective unit weight method
 The above equation for the strip footing may be
expressed as:
CONT’D
Bearing Capacity of Foundations Subjected to Uplift or
Tension Forces

 Footings in industrial applications such as for legs of

elevated water tanks, anchorages for the anchor cables
of transmission towers, and bases for legs of power
transmission towers-and in a number of industrial
equipment installations are subjected to uplift or
tension forces.
 CONT’D

 Footings that can develop tensile resistance or

drilled piers with or without enlarged base are
commonly used as foundations for these types of
structures.

 The bearing capacity of these types of foundations

may be computed using the following equations.
CONT’D
 Bearing capacity of rocks

 It is common to use building code values for the

allowable bearing capacity of rock; however, geology,
rock type, and quality (as RQD) are significant
parameters which should be used together with the
recommended code value.
CONT’D
 Bearing Capacity for Footings on Layered Soils

 If the thickness of the stratum from the base of the

footing d1 is less than the H distance [H = 0.5 B tan
(45 + /2)], the rupture zone will extend in to
lower layer(s) depending on their thickness and
require some modification of qult. There are three
general cases.
CONT’D
CONT’D
CONT’D