Bearing Capacity

UNIT 7 BEARING CAPACITY

Structure
7.1 Introduction
Objectives

7.2 Ultimate Bearing Capacity for Shallow Foundations

7.2.1 Definition of Terms
7.2.2 Bearing Capacity Failures
7.2.3 Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations : Karl Terzaghi’s Analysis

7.3 Factors Affecting Bearing Capacity

7.4 Bearing Capacity from Building Codes
7.5 Determination of Bearing Capacity from Field Tests
7.5.1 Plate Load Test
7.5.2 Standard Penetration Test

7.6 Summary
7.7 Answers to SAQs

7.1 INTRODUCTION
This unit seeks to introduce you to several basic concepts necessary to understand
the bearing capacity of soils. To begin with several terms associated with bearing
capacity have been defined. This is followed by modes of failure of shallow
foundations. Next, Terzaghi’s bearing capacity equation has been explained. The
various factors affecting bearing capacity of soil have also been described in
detail. The determination of bearing capacity from IS code is also explained.
Finally, determination of bearing capacity from field tests are explained. Some
illustrative examples and problems are given to reinforce the concepts presented.

Objectives
After studying this unit, you should be able to
• understand the importance of bearing capacity in soil mechanics,
• define various terms associated with bearing capacity,
• identify different kinds of bearing capacity failures,
• describe the Terzaghi’s bearing capacity equation,
• explain the various factors affecting bearing capacity,
• describe the determination of bearing capacity from IS codes, and
• discuss the determination of bearing capacity in field.
129
Soil Mechanics and
Foundation
7.2 ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY FOR
E i i SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS
The supporting power of a soil or rock is referred as bearing capacity.
7.2.1 Definition of Terms
Total Overburden Pressure
The total overburden pressure on any horizontal plane is the intensity of
total pressure, due to the weight of both soil and water. It is represented
by σ.
Surcharge Pressure
The total overburden pressure at the base level of the foundation before
commencement of construction operation is called the surcharge pressure. It
is represented by σo.
Effective Overburden Pressure
It is the total overburden pressure minus the pore water pressure at the
foundation level. It is represented by σ′.
Total Foundation Pressure or Total Bearing Pressure
It is defined as the total pressure at the foundation level after the structure
has been fully constructed and fully loaded. It is represented by q.
Net Foundation Pressure or Net Bearing Pressure
It is defined as the net increase in pressure at the foundation level due to the
dead and live loads applied by the structure. It is represented by qn. It can
be calculated from the following equation :
qn = q – σo = q – γ D
where D is the depth of foundation and γ is the average unit weight of soil
above foundation base.
Ultimate Bearing Capacity
The ultimate bearing capacity of a soil is defined as the gross load intensity
at which the supporting soil immediately below and adjacent to a
foundation fails in shear. It is represent by qult.
Net Ultimate Bearing Capacity
The net ultimate bearing capacity of a soil is defined as the net load
intensity at which the soil fails in shear. It is represented by qnult. It can be
calculated as
qnult = qult – σo = qult – γ D
Net Safe Bearing Capacity
The net safe bearing capacity is the net ultimate bearing capacity divided by
a factor of safety (F). It is represented as qult. It can be calculated as
qmult
qns =
F
130
Safe Bearing Capacity Bearing Capacity

It is the maximum pressure which the soil can carry safely without risk of
shear failure. It is represented as qs. It can be calculated from following
equation
qmult
qs = qns + γ D = +γD
F
Sometimes, the safe bearing capacity is also equal to the ultimate bearing
capacity divided by a factor of safely, i.e.
qult
qs =
F
Safe Bearing Pressure for Allowable Settlement
It is the net bearing pressure which will not allow the settlement of a
foundation to exceed the given maximum allowable value S. It is
represented by qset.
Allowable Bearing Capacity or Pressure
It is defined as the maximum allowable net bearing pressure which gives
safety against both the shear failure and the excessive settlement. It is
represented by qa and it is the lower of the values of qns and qset.
7.2.2 Bearing Capacity Failures
It has been established by experimental investigations that a shallow foundation
fails in three principal modes of shear failure due to insufficient bearing capacity.
The three principal modes of failure are as follows :
(a) General shear failure
(b) Local shear failure
(c) Punching shear failure
General Shear Failure
In case of general shear failure well defined slip lines are assumed to extend
from the edge of the footing to the adjacent ground surface. This is shown
in Figure 7.1.
LOAD
SETTLEMENT

Figure 7.1 : General Shear Failure

In stress controlled conditions, under which most foundations operate,
failure is sudden and catastrophic with well defined ultimate load. It has
been observed that adjacent soil tends to bulge during loading, although the
final soil collapse occurs only on one side. In strain controlled conditions, a
visible decrease of load necessary to produce footing movement after
failure may be observed as shown in Figure 7.1. This type of failure is
characteristic of narrow, surface footing or of shallow depth resting on
stronger, denser soils which are relatively incompressible and ultimate
bearing capacity is well defined.
131
Soil Mechanics and Local Shear Failure
Foundation
E i i Local shear failure is an intermediate failure mode characterized by well
defined slip lines immediately below the footing but extending only a short
distance into the soil mass, as shown in Figure 7.2.
LOAD

SETTLEMENT
Figure 7.2 : Local Shear Failure
The failure surfaces do not reach upto ground surface and there is only
slight bulging of soil around the footing. The local shear failure is not
sudden and it occurs by large settlements. The ultimate bearing capacity is
not well defined and it may be chosen as the load corresponding to the
settlement equal to certain percentage of the footing width, say at 10% B.
Punching Shear Failure
Punching shear failure occurs on soils of high compressibility. There is
vertical shear around the footing perimeter and compression of soil
immediately under the footing, with soil on the sides of the footing
remaining practically uninvolved as shown in Figure 7.3.
LOAD

TEST AT
GREATER DEPTH

SETTLEMENT

SURFACE
TEST

Figure 7.3 : Punching Shear Failure

There is neither visible collapse nor substantial tilting. There is exception of
small jerks of the footing in the vertical direction. Punching shear failure is
characterized in terms of very large settlement. The ultimate bearing
capacity is not well defined.
Modes of Failure of Footings in Sand
The effect of relative density (Dr) of sand and ratio of foundation depth to
width (D/B) on the type of failure is shown in Figure 7.4. It is clear from the
figure that there is a critical relative depth below which only punching shear
failure occurs.
Density Index of Sand
0 0.5 1.0
0 LOCAL GENERAL
SHEAR
RELATIVE DEPTH OF FOUNDATION (D/B)

SHEAR

CIRCULAR
FOUNDATION

PUNCHING
LONG
SHEAR
RECTANGULAR
FOUNDATION

10

Figure 7.4 : Effect of Density Index of Sand and Relative Depth

of Foundation on Type of Failure
132
7.2.3 Bearing Capacity of Shallow Footings : Bearing Capacity

Karl Terzaghi’s Analysis

The Terzaghi analysis makes the following assumptions to arrive at an
approximate value of ultimate bearing capacity.
(a) The footing is a strip at shallow depth (L > 5B, D < B) and has a
rough base.
(b) The problem is essentially two dimensional general shear failure with
well defined failure surfaces and zones as indicated in Figure 7.5.
(c) The soil is homogeneous, isotropic and relatively incompressible and
its shear strength is represented by Coulomb’s equation.
(d) The failure zones do not extend above the horizontal plane through
the base of the footing. The shearing resistance of soil above the base
level as well as friction between soil and sides of the footing are
neglected. The overburden soil is replaced by a uniformly distributed
equivalent surcharge σ0 = γD.
(e) The elastic zone has straight boundaries inclined at Ψ = φ to the
horizontal, and the plastic zones fully develop.

B
Ground line

D q ult ψ =φ σ0 =γ D

A
Be b Be1
I
III
III
Bd II C
II Bd1

Figure 7.5(a) : Zones of Plastic Equilibrium

Qq

Qb
General
Local
Settlement

Qa

Figure 7.5(b) : Local and General Shear Failure

Bulge

3 1 3
2 2

Figure 7.5 (c) Displacement for general shear failure

133
Soil Mechanics and
Foundation
E i i
3 1 3
2 2

Figure 7.5(d) : Displacement for Local Shear Failures

Figure 7.5 shows a footing of width B, and subjected to loading intensity qult to
cause failure.
The bearing capacity depends on the shearing resistance on the boundary of the
failure zones. The shearing resistance can be divided into three parts.
(a) Cohesive resistance.
(b) Frictional resistance resulting from the surcharge σ0 at the footing
level.
(c) Frictional resistance resulting from the weight of soil within the
failure zones.
Although these quantities are not entirely independent, they may be considered
separately and on their addition the ultimate bearing capacity may be expressed as
1
qult = c N c + σ′o N q + γ BN γ . . . (7.1)
2
where, c = undrained cohesion of soil,
σo′ = effective overburden pressure at foundation level, and
γ = unit weight of soil below foundation level.
The Eq. (7.1) is known as Terzaghi’s general bearing capacity equation. Nc, Nq
and Nγ are bearing capacity factors which depends only on the value of angle of
shearing resistance (φ).
Eq. (7.1) can also be written as
1
qult = [c N c + σ′o ( N q − 1) + γ BN γ ] + σ′o . . . (7.2)
2
where, σ′o = total overburden pressure = γ D
1
c N c + σ′o ( N q − 1) + γ BN γ = net ultimate bearing capacity = qnult
2
If water table is below the base of the footing, σ = γ D and hence Eq. (7.1) can be
re-written as
1
qult = c N c + γ D N q + γ BN γ . . . (7.3)
2
Net ultimate bearing capacity can be determined by
1
qnult = c N c + σ′ ( N q − 1) + γ BN γ . . . (7.4)
2
If water table is below the base of footing, the Eq. (7.4) reduces to
1
qnult = c N c + γ D ( N q − 1) + γ BN γ . . . (7.5)
2
134
Safe bearing capacity can be determined by Bearing Capacity

qmult
qs = + σ′
F
1 1
= [c N c + σ′ ( N q − 1) + γ BN γ ] + σ′ . . . (7.6)
F 2
If water table is below the base of footing, the Eq. (7.5) reduces to
1 1
= qs = [c N c + γ D ( N q − 1) + γ BN γ ] + σ′ . . . (7.7)
F 2
Terzaghi’s bearing capacity factors are given in Table 7.1.
Table 7.1 : Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Factors
Sl. No. φ General Shear Failure Local Shear Failure
Nc Nq Nγ N c′ Nq′ Nγ ′
1 0 5.7 1.0 0.0 5.7 1.0 0.0
2 5 7.3 1.6 0.5 6.7 1.4 0.2
3 10 9.6 2.7 1.2 8.0 1.9 0.5
4 15 12.9 4.4 2.5 9.7 2.7 0.9
5 20 17.7 7.4 5.0 11.8 3.9 1.7
6 25 25.1 12.7 9.7 14.8 5.6 3.2
7 30 37.2 22.5 19.7 19.0 8.3 5.7
8 34 52.6 36.5 35.0 23.7 11.7 9.0
9 35 57.8 41.4 42.4 25.2 12.6 10.1
10 40 95.7 81.3 100.4 34.9 20.5 18.8
11 45 172.3 173.3 297.5 51.2 35.1 37.7
12 50 347.5 415.1 1153.2 81.3 65.6 87.1

Example 7.1

Compute the ultimate bearing capacity of a strip footing of width 1.50 m

and 1.0 m below the surface of a moist soil having cohesion of 20 kN/m2
and angle of internal friction of 30o. Use Terzaghi’s analysis. Take
γ = 20 kN/m3. Assume general shear failure.
Solution
The ultimate bearing capacity from Terzaghi’s analysis can be calculated as
1
qult = c N c + γ D N q + γ BN γ
2
From Table 7.1, the values of bearing capacity factors for φ = 30o are :
NC = 37.2 Nq = 22.5 Nγ = 19.7
Also B = 1.50 m, D = 1.0 m, c = 20 KN/m2 and γ = 20 KN/m2
Putting the values, we get
1
qult = 20 × 37.2 + 20 × 1.0 × 22.5 + × 20 × 1.5 × 19.7
2
= 1489.5 kN/m2. 135
Soil Mechanics and
Foundation
E i i
SAQ 1

(a) Differentiate between general and local shear failure.

(b) A strip footing, 1.5 m wide at its base is located at a depth of 1.0 m
below the ground surface. The properties of ground soil are :
γ = 20 kN/m2, c = 25 kN/m2 and φ = 25o
Determine the safe bearing capacity using a factor of safety of 3.
Assume that the soil fails by local shear. Use Terzaghi’s analysis.

7.3 FACTORS AFFECTING ULTIMATE

BEARING CAPACITY
The following factors affect bearing capacity :
(a) Effect of footing shape
(b) Effect of type of soil
(c) Unit weight
(d) Width of footing
(e) Depth of footing
(f) Relative density
(g) Type of Failure
(h) Effect of compressibility
(i) Choice of shear parameters
(j) Effect of water table
Effect of Footing Shape
The Eq. (7.1) is applicable for shallow strip footings. In practice, spread
footings or isolated footings are often encountered. The computation of the
ultimate bearing capacity of such a footing becomes complicated because of
its three dimensional character. Since the soil fails along all sides of such a
footing, which may be either square, circular or rectangular in shape, the
ultimate bearing capacity of such a footing is different from that of a strip
footing for the same width. Terzaghi gave the following equations for
different types of footings :
For square footing
qult = 1.3 c N c + σ′ N q + 0.4 γ BN γ . . . (7.8)

where, B is the width or length of footing.

136
 For circular footing Bearing Capacity

qult = 1.3 c N c + σ′ N q + 0.3 γ BN γ . . . (7.9)

where, B is the diameter of footing
For rectangular footing
⎛ B⎞ 1 ⎛ B⎞
qult = c N c ⎜ 1 + 0.3 ⎟ + σ′ N q + γ BN γ ⎜ 1 − 0.2 ⎟ . . . (7.10)
⎝ L⎠ 2 ⎝ L⎠
Effect of Type of Soil
The ultimate bearing capacity also depends upon type of soil. It has
different values for cohesive and non-cohesive soil.
Cohesive Soil
For a cohesive soil φ = 0, c > 0, Nc = 5.7, Nγ = 0 and Nq = 1
Strip Footing
1
qult = c N c + σ′ N q + γ BN γ
2
= 5.7 c + σ′ . . . (7.11)
Circular Footing
qult = 1.3 c N c + σ′ N q + 0.3 γ BN γ

= 1.3 c × 5.7 + σ′
= 7.4 c + σ′ . . . (7.12)
Square Footing
qult = 1.3 c N c + σ′ N q + 0.4 γ BN γ

= 1.3 c × 5.7 + σ′
= 7.4 c + σ′ . . . (7.13)
Rectangular Footing
⎛ B⎞ 1 ⎛ B⎞
qult = c N c ⎜ 1 + 0.3 ⎟ + σ′ N q + γ BN γ ⎜ 1 − 0.2 ⎟
⎝ L⎠ 2 ⎝ L⎠

⎛ B⎞
= c × 5.7 ⎜1 + 0.3 ⎟ + σ′
⎝ L⎠

⎛ B⎞
= 5.7 c ⎜1 + 0.3 ⎟ . . . (7.14)
⎝ L⎠
Non-Cohesive Soil
For a non-cohesive soil c = 0 and φ > 0
Strip Footing
1
qult = σ′ N q + γ BN γ . . . (7.15)
2
Square Footing
qult = 1.3 c N c + σ′ N q + 0.4 γ BN γ

= σ′ N q + 0.4 γ BN γ . . . (7.16)
137
Soil Mechanics and Circular Footing
Foundation
E i i qult = 1.3 c N c + σ′ N q + 0.3 γ BN γ

= σ′ N q + 0.3 γ BN γ . . . (7.17)

Rectangular Footing
⎛ B⎞ 1 ⎛ B⎞
qult = c N c ⎜ 1 + 0.3 ⎟ + σ′ N q + γ BN γ ⎜ 1 − 0.2 ⎟
⎝ L ⎠ 2 ⎝ L⎠

1 ⎛ B⎞
= σ′ N q + γ BN γ ⎜1 − 0.2 ⎟ . . . (7.18)
2 ⎝ L⎠

Effective of Unit Weight

The two terms in ultimate bearing capacity equation contains unit weight of
soil and therefore it has direct impact on the value of ultimate bearing
capacity. The effective unit weight of soil get reduced when water table is
close to the ground surface and hence ultimate bearing capacity is affected.
Width of Footing
The ultimate bearing capacity of footing in sand increases with width of the
footing.
Depth of Footing
The ultimate bearing capacity increases with depth of footing.
Relative Density
A sand with greater relative density exhibits larger angle of internal friction.
It is observed from the Terzaghi’s bearing capacity factors table that the
value of Nq and Nγ increases with φ. Hence, dense sands have greater
bearing capacity.
Type of Failure
Three types of bearing capacity failures occurs in footings as explained in
Section 7.2.2. The ultimate bearing capacity is different for different types
of failure. The Terzaghi’s bearing capacity Eq. (7.1) is based on general
shear failure and bearing capacity factors Nc, Nq and Nγ correspond to the
general shear failure. In general shear failure, the soil properties are
assumed to be such that a slight downward movement of footing develops
fully plastic zones and the soil bulges out as shown in Figure 7.5(c).
If the soil is not dense or stiff, failure does not take place along well defined
planes as shown in Figure 7.5(d). The footings on loose sand sinks into the
ground and no well defined failure zones are developed. The load
settlement relationship corresponds to curve b in Figure 7.5(b). Terzaghi
has recommended that an approximate value of ultimate bearing capacity of
continuous footings on such soils may be computed based on the parameter
cm and φm, where
2
cm = c
3
2
tan φm = tan φ
3
138
 The bearing capacity factors Nc′, Nq′ and Nγ′ are for different values of φm Bearing Capacity
are given in Table 7.1. The ultimate bearing capacity for local shear failure
is given by
2 1
qult = c N c′ + γ ′ N q′ + γ BN γ′ . . . (7.19)
3 2
Choice of Shear Parameters
The Eq. (7.1) derided by Terzaghi can be applied strictly only to cases
where the groundwater table is deep and the shear parameters should be
expressed in terms of effective stresses. The above equation could also be
applied to an undrained, total stress condition using total shear strength
parameters cT (cu) and φT (φu).
The choice of using c′, φ′ or cT, φT depends on the type of soil and
construction time.
For free draining granular soils, effective stress parameters c′, φ′ are used
whereas for clays or clayey soils, total stress parameters cT, φT are used.
Effect of Water Table
The position of water table has a significant effect on the bearing capacity
because submergence of soil reduces the cohesion (c) and reduced to
effective unit weight to about half of the value above the water table. The
angle of shearing resistance is not appreciably changed due to position of
water table. Thus through submergence, all the three terms of the bearing
equation may become considerably smaller. For different positions of the
water table, the bearing capacity is expressed as follows :
Water Table at Ground Surface
1
qult = c N c + γ sub D ( N q − 1) + γ sub BN γ + γ sat D . . . (7.20)
2
Water Table between Ground Surface and Base of Footing
1
qult = c N c + σ′0 ( N q − 1) + γ sub BN γ + σo . . . (7.21)
2
where, σ′o = Effective overburden pressure at base level, and
σo = Total overburden pressure.
Water Table at Base of the Footing
1
qult = c N c + γ D ( N q − 1) + γ sub BN γ + γ D . . . (7.22)
2
Water Table between the Base of Footing and a Distance B below the
Footing
1
qult = c N c + γ D ( N q − 1) + γ ′a BN γ + γ D . . . (7.23)
2
where, γa′ = Average unit weight,
γ x + γ sub ( B − x)
= , and
B
x = depth of water table below footing.
If the water table is at depth ≥ B below the footing, it is assumed to have no
effect. 139
Soil Mechanics and
Foundation
Example 7.2
E i i
A square footing of size 2.5 m × 2.5 m is built in a sandy soil of unit weight
17 kN/m3 and having angle of shearing resistance of 35o. The depth of base
of footing is 1.2 m below the ground surface. Calculate the safe load that
can be carried by a footing with a factor of safety of 3 against shear failure.
Assume that the soil fails by general shear failure. Use Terzaghi’s analysis.
Solution
For φ = 35o, the values of bearing capacity factors are
Nc = 57.8, Nq = 41.4, Nγ = 42.4
It is also given that B = 2.5 m, D = 1.2 m, γ = 17 kN/m3, c = 0 and F = 3
Ultimate bearing capacity can be calculated as
1
qult = c N c + γ D N q + γ BN γ
2
1
= γ D Nq + γ BN γ
2
1
= 17 × 1.2 × 41.4 + × 17 × 2.5 × 42.4
2
= 1745.56 kN/m2
Net ultimate bearing capacity
qnult = qult – γ D = 1745.56 – 17 × 1.2 = 1725.16 k N/m2.
Safe bearing capacity
qmult 1725.16
qs = +γD= + 17 × 1.2 = 595.45 kN/m 2
F 3

Safe load = B2 × qs
= 2.52 × 595.45333
= 3721.58 kN.

Example 7.3

A 2.0 m square footing is located in a dense sand at a depth of 1.2 m. The

shear strength parameters being c = 0 and φ = 40o. Determine the ultimate
bearing capacity for the following water table positions.
(a) at ground surface
(b) at 1 m below ground surface
(c) at footing level
The moist unit weight of sand above the water table is 19 kN/m3 and the
saturated unit weight of soil is 21 kN/m3. The values of bearing capacity
parameters for φ = 40o are Nq = 81.3, Nγ = 100.4.
140
Solution Bearing Capacity

(a) Water table at ground surface

qult = γ sub D ( N q − 1) + 0.4 γ sub BN γ + γ sat D

here, γsub = γsat – γω = 21 – 9.8 = 11.2 kN/m3

Putting the values
qult = 11.2 × 1.2 × (81.3 – 1 ) + 0.4 × 11.2 × 2.0
× 100.4 + 21 × 1.2
= 2004.02 kN/m2
(b) Water table at 1 m below ground surface
qult = σ′0 ( N q − 1) + 0.4 γ sub BN γ + σ0

Here, σ0′ = 1 × 19 + 0.2 × 11.2 = 21.24 kN/m2

σ0 = 1 × 19 + 0.2 × 21 = 23.2 kN/m2
Putting the values
qult = 21.24 (81.3 – 1) + 0.4 × 11.2 × 2.0 × 100.4 + 23.2
= 2628.36 kN/m2
(c) Water table at footing level
qult = γ D ( N q − 1) + 0.4 γ sub BN γ + γ D

= 19 × 1.2 × (81.3 – 1) + 0.4 × 11.2 × 2.0 × 100.4 + 19 × 1.2

= 2753.22 kN/m2

SAQ 2

(a) Explain the various factors affecting bearing capacity of a soil.

(b) Determine the diameter of a circular footing to carry a concentric
column load of 825 kN. The depth of footing is 1.50 m. The soil is
partly saturated and has, c = 55 k N/m2 and γ = 19 k N/m3. Use a
factor of safety of 3 and ignore the weight of the footing. Use
Terzaghi’s analysis.
(c) A square footing of size 3.0 m × 3.0 m is located in a dense sand at a
depth of 1.8 m. The shear strength parameters being c = 0 and
φ = 35o. Determine the ultimate bearing capacity for the following
water table positions :
(i) at footing level
(ii) at 0.5 m below the footing, and
(iii) at a depth greater than B below the footing
The moist unit weight of sand above the water table is 17 kN/m3 and
the saturated unit weight is 19 kN/m3.

141
Soil Mechanics and
Foundation
7.4 ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY AS PER
E i i BIS CODE
The net ultimate bearing capacity of strip footing is given by :
(a) For general shear failure
1
qnult = c N c + σ′ ( N q − 1) + γ BN γ . . . (7.24)
2
(b) For local shear failure
2 1
qnult = c N c′ + σ′ ( N q − 1) + γ BN γ′ . . . (7.25)
3 2
where Nc, Nq, Nγ = Bearing capacity factors
σ′ = effective surcharge at the base level of foundation
The bearing capacity factors can be computed from the following
equations
N c = ( N q − 1) cot φ . . . (7.26)
⎛ φ⎞
N q = tan 2 ⎜ 45o + ⎟ e π tan φ . . . (7.27)
⎝ 2⎠
and Nr = 2 (Nq + 1) tan φ . . . (7.28)
The values of these factors are given in Table 7.2 for various values
of φ at 5o interval.
Table 7.2 : Bearing Capacity Factors
Sl. No. φ Bearing Capacity Factors
(Degrees) Nc Nq Nr
1. 0 5.14 1.00 0.00
2. 5 6.49 1.57 0.45
3. 10 8.35 2.47 1.22
4. 15 10.98 3.94 2.65
5. 20 14.83 6.40 5.39
6. 25 20.72 10.66 10.88
7. 30 30.14 18.40 22.40
8. 35 46.12 33.30 48.03
9. 40 75.31 64.20 109.41
10. 45 138.88 134.88 271.76
11. 50 266.89 319.07 762.89

The values of bearing capacity factors for local shear failure, i.e. Nc′,
Nq′ and Nγ′ are obtained for φ′ = tan– 1 (0.67 φ) and φ′ is used instead
of φ in Table 7.2.
Effect of Shape Factor, Depth Factor and Inclination Factor
The bearing capacity Eqs. (7.24) and (7.25) will be modified to take into
account, the shape of the footing, inclination of loading and depth of
embedment. The modified equations are as follows :
(a) For general shear failure
1
qult = c N c . sc . d c .ic + σ′ ( N q −1) sq d q iq + γ BN γ sγ d γ iγ . . . (7.29)
2
142
 (b) For local shear failure Bearing Capacity

2 1
qult = c N c′ sc d c ic + σ′ ( N q −1) sq . d q . iq + γ BN γ′ sγ . d γ . iγ . . . (7.30)
3 2
The shape factors sc, sq and sr are given in Table 7.3.
Table 7.3 : Shape Factors (IS : 6403 – 1981)
Sl. No. Shape of Base Shape Factors
Sc Sq Sγ
1. Continuous strip 1.0 1.0 1.0
2. Rectangle ⎛ B⎞ ⎛ B⎞ ⎛ B⎞
⎜1 + 0.2 ⎟ ⎜ 1 + 0.2 ⎟ ⎜ 1 − 0.3 ⎟
⎝ L⎠ ⎝ L⎠ ⎝ L⎠
3. Square 1.3 1.2 0.8
4. Circle 1.3 1.2 0.6

The depth factors are given as under

D
dc = 1 + 0.2 . Nφ . . . (7.31)
B
dq = d γ = 1, for φ < 10o . . . (7.32)
D
and d q = d γ = 1 + 0.1 N φ , for φ ≥ 10o . . . (7.33)
B
⎛ φ⎞
where, N φ = tan 2 ⎜ 45o + ⎟
⎝ 2⎠
The inclination factors are as given below
2
⎛ α⎞
ic = iq = ⎜1 − ⎟ . . . (7.34)
⎝ 90 ⎠
2
⎛ α⎞
and iγ = ⎜ 1 − ⎟ . . . (7.35)
⎝ φ⎠
where α = inclination of the load to the vertical, in degrees.
Effect of Water Table
The effect of water table is taken into account in the form of correction
factor W′ applied to third term in Eqs. (7.24) and (7.25).
The values of W′ for different positions of water table are as follows :

DW
B

ZW
B
∇ Water Table

Figure 7.6 : Effect of Water Table 143

Soil Mechanics and (a) If the water table is likely to permanently remain at or below a
Foundation depth of (D + B) beneath the ground level surrounding the
E i i
footing, then W′ = 1.
(b) If the water table is located at a depth D or likely to rise to the
base of footing or above, then the value of W′ shall be taken
as 0.5.
(c) If the water table is permanently get located at depth
D < Dw < (D + B), then W′ can be calculated as
⎡ dw ⎤
W ′ = 0.5 ⎢1 + . . . (7.36)
⎣ B ⎥⎦

when dw = 0, W′ = .5, when dw = B, W′ = 1.

It may be noted that if the water table rises above the base of footing, W′
will remain at its minimum value of 0.5.
Cohesionless Soils
Indian standard code recommends that the bearing capacity of cohesionless
soils (c = 0) can be calculated
(a) based on relative density or
(b) based on standard penetration resistance value and
(c) based on static cone penetration test.
Cohesive Soils
The net ultimate bearing capacity immediately after construction on fairly
saturated homogeneous cohesive soils can be calculated from the
expression qnult = c Nc . sc . dc . ic.
where, Nc = 5.14 and the value of c can be obtained from unconfined
compressive strength test.

Example 7.4

A square footing has a size of 2.0 m × 2.0 m has to transmit the load of a
column at a depth of 1.8 m. Calculate the safe load which the footing can
carry at a factor of safety of 3 against shear failure. The soil has following
properties :
c = 10 kN/m2, γ = 18 kN/m3 and φ = 30o
Use IS Code method.
Solution
For = 30o, Bearing capacity factors are
Nc = 30.14, Nq = 18.40, Nγ = 22.40
For general shear failure net ultimate bearing capacity
1
qnult = c N c′ . sc . dc . ic + σ′ ( N q − 1) sq . d q . iq + γ BN γ sγ d γ iγ W ′
2
Since the footing is square, sc = sq = sγ = 1
Since the load is vertical, ic = iq = iγ = 1
144
 Since effect of water table is not considered, W′ = 1. Bearing Capacity

The depth factors will be as under

D D ⎛ φ⎞
dc = 1 + 0.2 N φ = 1 + 0.2 tan ⎜ 45o + ⎟
B B ⎝ 2⎠

1.8 ⎛ 30o ⎞
= 1 + 0.2 tan ⎜ 45o + ⎟ = 1.31
2 ⎜ 2 ⎟⎠
⎝
D
d q = d γ = 1 + 0.1 N φ , for φ = 10o
B
1.8 ⎛ 30o ⎞
= 1 + 0.2 tan ⎜ 45o + ⎟⎟ = 1.16
2 ⎜ 2
⎝ ⎠
Effective overburden pressure, σ′ = γ D = 18 × 1.8 = 32.4 kN/m2.
Substituting the values, we get
qnult = 10 × 30.14 × 1 × 1.31 × 1 + 32.4 × (18.40 – 1) × 1 × 1.16 × 1
+ 12 × 18 × 2.0 × 22.40 × 1 × 1.16 × 1 × 1
= 1516.51 kN/m2
Safe bearing capacity
qnult
qs = +γD
F
1516.51
= + 18 × .18 = 537.9 kN/m 2
3
Safe load = qs B2
= 537.9 × 22
= 2151.60 kN.

SAQ 3

Calculate the ultimate bearing capacity of a strip footing of 2.0 m width

resting on the surface of a saturated clay. Also determine the safe bearing
capacity if the factor of safety is 3. Assume c = 65 kN/m2. Use IS Code
method of analysis.

7.5 DETERMINATION OF BEARING CAPACITY

FROM FIELD TESTS
The field tests which may be used for determination of ultimate bearing capacity
of soils are :
(a) Plate load test
(b) Standard penetration test
(c) Dynamic cone penetration test
(d) Static cone penetration test
(e) Pressuremeter test 145
Soil Mechanics and Here plate load test and standard penetration test will be explained in detail in this
Foundation unit. Learners are advised to go through any text book on soil mechanics for the
E i i
remaining three test.
7.5.1 Plate Load Test
Plate load test is a field test to determine the ultimate bearing capacity of soil and
the probable settlement under a given loading. The load test is performed in
following steps :
(a) Loading a rigid plate at the foundation level.
(b) Determining the settlements corresponding to each load increment.
(c) Drawing of load settlement curve.
(d) Determination of ultimate bearing capacity from load settlement
curve.
The plate load test is performed assuming that down to the depth of influence of
stresses, the soil strata is reasonably uniform.
The plate load test is performed in a test pit dug upto the base level of the footing
having in general width equal to five times the width of test plate. The bearing
plate is made of mild steel and it is either square or circular. The size of bearing
plate varies from 300 mm to 750 mm and its thickness is more than 25 mm.
The test plate is loaded with the help of a hydraulic jack. The reaction of the
hydraulic jack is born either by gravity loading platform method or by reaction
truss method as per Bureau of Indian Standard code (IS : 1888-1982). The
reaction truss loading method is found convenient. In the reaction truss loading
method, a steel truss is anchored to the ground across the pit. A hydraulic jack
with an attached pressure gauge is interpreted between the underside of the truss
and the test plate. The settlement of the plate is measure accurate to 0.02 mm with
the help of atleast two dial gauges resting on the plate and fixed to an independent
datum bar.
To commence the test, a minimum a seating pressure of 7 kPa is first applied to
the plate and removed before starting the load test. The dial gauges meant for
recording the settlement are set to read zero. The load is then applied in
cumulative equal increments of not more than 100 kPa or of not more than one
fifth of the estimated ultimate bearing capacity. Each load is maintained constant
until the rate of settlement is less than 0.3 mm/hour or 2 hours have elapsed. For
clayey soils, the load is maintained constant until about 70 to 80 percent of the
probable ultimate settlement at that stage is reached or at the end of 24 hour.
The settlement is recorded at convenient intervals and the final settlement at the
end of that loading period. The load is increased to next higher value and the
process is repeated. Load testing is continued until one of the following stages is
attained.
(a) the settlement becomes definitely progressive indicating shear failure,
(b) the applied pressure exceeds three times the allowable pressure, and
(c) the total settlement exceeds ten percent of the width or diameter of the
plate.
The load is finally released and if desired rebound observations may be taken.
A load settlement curve is plotted with the help of observed readings on
arithmetic scale as shown in Figure 7.7 From the load settlement curve, zero
correction which is given by the intersection of nearly straight line of the curve
with zero load line shall be determined and subtracted from the settlement
readings to allow for the perfect seating of the bearing plate and other causes.
146
 Load intensity Bearing Capacity

C Partially
cohesive soil

Settlement

D
Dense
cohesionless
soil

B Cohesive
soil

A Loose to medium
cohesionless soil

Figure 7.7 : Load Settlement Curves

Figure 7.7 shows the four typical curves whose details are as follows :
Curve A
It is a typical curve for loose to medium cohesionless soil. The curve is
straight line in the earlier stages and flattens out at later stages. There is no
clear point of failure.
Curve B
It is a typical curve for cohesive soils. It is not quite straight in the early
part and leans towards settlement axis as the settlement increases. The
failure is well defined.
Curve C
It is a typical curve for partially cohesive soils. The failure is not well
defined.
Curve D
It is a typical curve for dense cohesionless soils. The failure is well defined.
The ultimate bearing capacity can be easily calculated for curves B and D. Since
yield point is not well defined in case of curves A and C, the settlements are
plotted as abscissa against corresponding load intensities as ordinate both to
logarithmic scale as shown in Figure 7.8.
500
Approximate
failure stress
Load intensity

100

50
Elastic Plastic
yield yield
settlement settlement
10
0.1 0.5 1.0 5 10 50

Settlement (mm)

Log-Log plot

Figure 7.8 : Load Settlement Curve on Log-Log Plot 147

Soil Mechanics and The intersection of two straight lines in Figure 7.8 will be considered as yield
Foundation value of soil. The safe bearing capacity can be obtained by dividing the ultimate
E i i
bearing capacity with a factor of safety.
Limitations of Plate Load Test
The limitations of plate load test are as follows :
(a) A plate load test is essentially a short duration test and it gives
no information whereby the magnitude and rate of long term
consolidation settlement in clays may be calculated.
(b) The plate load test results reflect only the character of the soil
located within a depth less than twice the width of the bearing
plate. The foundations are generally larger, the settlement and
resistance against shear failure will depend upon the properties
of a much thicker stratum.
(c) The ultimate bearing capacity for clayey soils for a large
foundation is the same as that for the test plate. Whereas in
dense sandy soils the bearing capacity increases with the size of
the foundation, and the test on smaller size bearing plates tend
to give conservative results.
(d) It is necessary to explore the sub soil conditions to atleast
1.5 times width of footing below the footing for safe application
of the results of a plate load test.
(e) The proximity of a water table within the influence of the
footing also affect the results of a plate load test.
Effect of the Size of Plate on Bearing Capacity
Bearing capacity of sands and gravels increases with the size of footing.
The relationship between the two can be expressed as
BF
qult = M + N . . . (7.37)
BP

where M includes the Nc and Nq terms of bearing capacity equation and N

includes Nγ term of bearing capacity equation.
The Eq. (7.37) can be solved graphically by using more than one size
plates.
Be extrapolating the plate load test data, the following equation can be used
for all practical purposes :
BF
qult = qP . . . (7.38)
BP

where, qult = Ultimate bearing capacity of actual footing,

qP = Bearing capacity obtained from plate load test,
BP = Width of plate, and
B

BF = Width of footing.
B

The bearing capacity is almost independent of the footing size or the plate
size for clays, i.e.
qult = qP . . . (7.39)
148
Effect of Size of Plate on Settlements Bearing Capacity

The settlement of a foundation varies with its size. The settlement of plate
(ρP) and settlement of actual footing (ρF) for granular soils can be expressed
by the following equation as per Terzaghi and Peck :
2
⎡ B ( B + 0.3) ⎤
ρP = ρF ⎢ P F ⎥ . . . (7.40)
⎣ BF ( BP + 0.3) ⎦

Let Δρ = permissible settlement of foundation, then maximum settlement of

4
the largest footing Δρ .
3
The corresponding settlement of the test plate on granular soils is given by
2
4 ⎡ B ( B + 0.3) ⎤
ρP = Δρ ⎢ P F ⎥ . . . (7.41)
3 ⎣ BF ( BP + 0.3) ⎦

The net loading intensity qP corresponding to settlement ρP determined

from the load settlement curve obtained from plate load test is then the
4
bearing pressure for a specified settlement for the plate and Δρ for the
3
large footing.
The following relation can be used for clayey soils
BP
ρP = ρF . . . (7.42)
BF

7.5.2 Standard Penetration Test

The standard penetration test is used to assess essentially the insitu density index
of a sand deposit. The test is performed in a cased or uncased borehole, 55 to
150 mm in diameter. A thick wall split-tube sample having 50.8 mm outer
diameter and 35 mm inside diameter and about 650 mm in length attached to a
string of drill rods is lowered to the bottom of the hole and allowed to sink under
self weight. The sampler is first driven by light blows of the hammer falling
thorough a height of 75 cm to a seating penetration of 15 cm. The sample is then
driven under blows of the 63.5 kg hammer falling from a height of 75 cm to an
additional penetration of 30 cm or 50 blows (BIS : 2131-1963). The total number
of blows required for an additional penetration of 30 cm is known as the standard
penetration resistance N.
Corrections to Observed N Values
The observed value of N is corrected for
(a) Overburden pressure, and
(b) Submergence.
Overburden Pressure Correction (Cn)
Figure 7.8 shows the relation between effective overburden pressure
and overburden pressure correction (Cn) for cohessionless soil. The
N-value for cohessionless soil is corrected for overburden pressure
according to Figure 7.8 to get the corrected value No.
149
Soil Mechanics and 0
Foundation
E i i

98

196

294

392

490
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

Correction factor Cn
Figure 7.8 : Normalising Correction
The corrected value can be calculated from following equation
N = Cn N . . . (7.43)
where, Cn = Normalising correction factor.
Correction Due to Submergence
The corrected value No obtained after applying overburden pressure
correction is corrected further for submergence if the stratum consists
of fine sand and silt below water table, for values of N greater than 15
using the following equation
1
N e = 15 + ( No − 15) . . . (7.44)
2
Terzaghi and Peck have described the density index of sand on the
basis of corrected N values. They have also given approximate
correlation with angle of shearing resistance (φ) and corrected N.

Example 7.5

A plate load test was conducted in a sandy soil with a plate of size
0.5 m × 0.5 m. The ultimate load per unit area was found to be 200 kPa.
Find the allowable bearing capacity for a footing of size 3 m × 3 m, using of
a factor of safety of 3.
Solution
For a sandy soil relationship between bearing capacity of actual footing and
width of footing can be expressed as
BF
qF = qP
BP
150
 Putting the values, we get Bearing Capacity

3
qF = 200 ×
0.5
= 1200 kPa
Allowable bearing capacity of footing.
qF 1200
qa = = = 400 kPa .
3 3

SAQ 4

(a) Discuss the limitations of plate load test.

(b) A 500 mm square bearing plate settles by 10 mm in the plate load test
on cohessionless soil, when the intensity of loading is 200 kN/m2.
Estimate the settlement of a shallow foundation of size 2.0 m × 2.0 m
under the same intensity of loading.

7.6 SUMMARY
This unit has introduced the concept of bearing capacity and its determination.
The unit also explains different kind of bearing capacity failures. The
determination of bearing capacity from Terzaghi’s equation and IS code method
has also been discussed in length. Influence of various factors on bearing capacity
has also been described.
Lastly determination of bearing capacity in field by plate load test and standard
penetration resistance have been dealt with.

7.7 ANSWERS TO SAQs

SAQ 1
(b) The ultimate bearing capacity is given by
2 1
qult = c N c′ + γ D N q′ + γ BN γ′
3 2
For φ = 25o, Nc′ = 14.8, Nq′ = 5.6, Nγ′ = 3.2
It is given that γ = 20 k N/m3, C = 25 kN/m2, D = 1.0 m, B = 1.5 m
and F = 3.
Putting the values, we get
2 1
qult = × 25 × 14.8 + 20 × 1 × 5.6 + × 20 × 1.5 × 3.2
3 2
= 406. 67 kN/m2
151
Soil Mechanics and Net ultimate bearing capacity
Foundation
E i i qnult = qult – γ D = 406.67 – 20 × 1
= 386.67 kN/m2
Safe bearing capacity
qult
qs = +γD
F
386.67
= + 20 × 1
3
= 148.89 kN/m2
SAQ 2
(b) For φ = 15o, the values of bearing capacity factors are Nc = 12.9,
Nq = 4.4, Nγ = 2.5.
Net ultimate bearing capacity is given by
qult = 1.3 c N c + γ D ( N q − 1) + 0.3 γ BN γ

= 1.3 × 55 × 12.9 + 19 × 1.5 × (4.4 – 1) + 0.3 × 19 × B × 2.5

= 1019.25 + 14.25 B
Safe bearing capacity can be calculated as
qnult
qs = +γD
F
1019.25 + 14.25 B
= + 19 × 1.5
3
= 368.25 + 4.75 B
Safe bearing capacity is also equal to
P 825
qs =
A π B2
4
825
∴ = 368.25 + 4.75 B
π B2
4
or B3 + 77.53 B2 – 1050.42 = 0
Solving by trial and error, we get B = 3.60 m.
(c) For φ = 35o, Bearing capacity factors are Nc = 57.8, Nq = 41.4 and
Nγ = 42.4
(i) Water table at footing level
qult = γ D ( N q − 1) + 0.4 γ sub BN γ + γ D

= 17 × 1.8 × (41.4 – 1) + 0.4 × (19 – 9.8) × 3 × 42.4 + 17 × 1.8

= 1734.94 kN/m2.
152
 (ii) Water table at 0.5 m below the footing. Bearing Capacity

We calculate weighted average unit weight γa′ below the

footing to a depth equal to B = 3.0 m
0.5 × 17 + 25 × 9.2
γ ′a = = 10.50 kN/m3
3.0
Ultimate bearing capacity
qult = γ D N q + 0.4 γ ′a BN γ

= 17 × 1.8 × 41.4 + 0.4 × 10.50 × 3 × 42.4

= 1801.08 kN/m2.
(iii) Water table greater than B below the footing
qult = γ D N q + 0.4 γ BN γ

= 17 × 1.8 × 41.4 + 0.4 × 17 × 3.0 × 42.4

= 2131.8 kN/m2
SAQ 3
For saturated clay, Nc = 5.14, Nq = 1.00, Nγ = 0
Effective overburden pressure, σ′ = γ D = 0
Hence ultimate bearing capacity
1
qult = c N c + σ′ ( N q − 1) + γ BN γ
2
= 65× 5.14 = 334.10 kN/m2
qult 334.10
Safe bearing capacity, qs = =
F 3
= 111.37 kN/m2
SAQ 4
(b) For cohesionless soils relationship between the settlement of plate
(ρp) and actual footing (ρF) is expressed as
2
⎡ B ( B + 0.3) ⎤
ρF = ρP ⎢ F P ⎥
⎣ BP ( BF + 0.3) ⎦
2
⎡ 2.0 (0.5 + 0.3) ⎤
= 10 ⎢ ⎥
⎣ 5.0 (2.0 + 0.3) ⎦
= 19.36 mm

153