To perform satisfactorily, shallow foundations must have
two main characteristics:
1. They have to be safe against overall shear failure in
the soil that supports them.
2. They cannot undergo excessive displacement, or
settlement.
(The term excessive is relative, because the degree of
settlement allowed for a structure depends on
several considerations.)
The load per unit area of the
foundation at which shear failure in
soil occurs is called the ultimate bearing
capacity. which is the subject of this
chapter
General Concept
Consider a strip foundation with a width of B
resting on the surface of a dense sand or stiff.1a.
Now, if a load is gradually applied to the
foundation, settlement will increase.
The variation of the load per unit area, with the
foundation settlement on the foundation q, is also
shown in Figure 3.1a. cohesive soil, as shown in
Figure 3
Figure 3. 1 Nature of bearing capacity failure in soil: (a) general shear failure:
(b) local shear failure; (c) punching shear failure (Redrawn after Vesie, 1973)
Shallow Foundations: Ultimate Bearing Capacity
At a certain point-when the load per unit area
equals q,,-a sudden failure in the soil supporting
the foundation will take place, and the failure
surface in the soil will extend to the ground
surface.
This load per unit area. q", is usually referred to
as the ultimate bearing capacity of the foundation.
When such sudden failure in soil takes place, it is
called general shear failure.
If the foundation under consideration rests on
sand or clayey soil of medium compaction (Figure
3.1b), an increase in the load on the foundation
will also be ac companied by an increase in
settlement.
However, in this case the failure surface in the
soil will gradually extend outward from the
foundation, as shown by the solid lines in Figure
3.1b.
When the load per unit area on the foundation
equals qu(l)' movement of the foundation will be
accompanied by sudden jerks.
A considerable movement of the foundation is then
required for the failure surface in soil to extend to
the ground surface (as shown by the broken lines in
the figure).
The load per unit area at which this happens is the
ultimate bearing capacity, q
• Figure 3,4 shows the settlement S of the
circular and rectangular plates on the sur face
of a sand at ultimate load, as described in
Figure 3.2,
• The figure indicates a gen eral range of SIB
with the relative density of compaction of
sand,
• So, in general, we can say that, for foundations at
a shallow depth (Le" small DflB*), the ultimate
load may occur at a foundation settlement of 4 to
10% of B.
• This condition arises together with general shear
failure in soil: however, in the case of local or
punching shear failure, the ultimate load may
occur at settlements of 15 to 25% of the width of
the foundation (B),
• This condition arises together with
general shear failure in soil: however, in
the case of local or punching shear
failure, the ultimate load may occur at
settlements of 15 to 25% of the width of
the foundation (B),
Terzaghi (1943) was the first to present a comprehensive
theory for the evaluation of the ultimate bearing capacity
of rough shallow foundations,
According to this theory, a foundation is shallow if its
depth, Df (Figure 3,5), is less than or equal to its width,
Later investigators, however, have suggested that
foundations with Df equal to 3 to 4 times their width may
be defined as shallow foundations.
• Terzaghi suggested that for a continuous, or
strip, foundation (Le" one whose width-to-
Iength ratio approaches zero), the failure
surface in soil at ultimate load may be assumed
to be similar to that shown in Figure 3,5.
• (Note that this is the case of general shear
failure, as defined in Figure 3.1a,)
• The effect of soil above the bottom of the
foundation may also be assumed to be
replaced by an equivalent surcharge, q = yDf
(where y is a unit weight of soil).
• The failure zone under the foundation Can be
separated into three parts (see Figure 3.5)
• 1. The triangular zone ACD immediately under the foundation
2. The radial shear zones ADF and CDE, with the curves DE and DF being
arcs of a logarithmic spiral
3. Two triangular Rankine passive zones AFH and CEG
• The angles CAD and ACD are assumed to be equal to the soil friction
angle </>’.
• Note that, with the replacement of the soil above the bottom of the
foundation by an equivalent surcharge q, the shear resistance of the soil
along the failure surfaces GI-and HI was neglected.
Using equilibrium analysis, Terzaghi expressed the ultimate bearing
capacity in the 'form
• Using equilibrium analysis, Terzaghi expressed the
ultimate bearing capacity in the 'form
• Terzaghi's bearing capacity equations have now
been modified to take into ac- count the effects
of the foundation shape (B/L), depth of
embedment (DI), and the load inclination. This is
given in Section 3.6.
• Many design engineers, however, still use
Terzaghi's equation, which provides fairly good
results considering the un- certainty of the soil
conditions at various sites.
Terzaghi's bearing capacity equations have now been modified
to take into ac- count the effects of the foundation shape (B/L),
depth of embedment (DI), and the load inclination.
This is given in Section 3.6. Many design engineers, however,
still use Terzaghi's equation, which provides fairly good results
considering the un- certainty of the soil conditions at various
sites.
• Factor of Safety
• Calculating the gross allowable load-bearing capacity of
shallow foundations re- quires the application of a
factor of safety (FS) to the gross ultimate bearing
capacity, or
• The net ultimate bearing capacity is defined as the
ultimate pressure per unit area of the foundation
that can be supported by the soil in excess of the
pressure caused by the surrounding soil at the
foundation level.
• If the difference between the unit weight of
concrete used in the foundation and-the unit
weight of soil surrounding is assumed to be
negligible, then
The General Bearing Capacity Equation
• The ultimate bearing capacity equations (3.3), (3.7), and
(3.8) are for continuous, square, and circular foundations
only; they do not address the case of rectangular
foundations (0 < B/L < 1 ) .
• Also, the equations do not take into account the shearing
resistance along the failure surface in soil above the
bottom of the foundation (the portion of the failure
surface marked as GI and HI in Figure 3.5).
• In addition, the load on the foundation may be inclined.
• To account for all these shortcomings.
Meyerhof (1963) suggested the following
form of the general bear ing capacity
equation:
• The equations for determining the various factors
given in Eq. (3.23) are described briefly in the sections
that follow.
• Note that the original equation for ultimate bearing
capacity is derived only for the plane-strain case
(ie., for continuous foundations).
• The shape. depth. and load inclination factors are
empirical factors based on experimental data.
• Bearing Capacity Factors
• The basic nature of the failure surface in soil suggested by
Terzaghi now appears to have been borne out by laboratory and
field studies of bearing capacity
(Vesic, 1973).
• However, the angle a shown in Figure 3.5 is closer to 45 + e/>'/2
than to e/>'. If this change is accepted, the values of N" Nq, and
Ny for a given soil friction angle will also change from those
given in Table 3.1.
• With a = 45 + e/>'/2, it can be shown that
• Meyerhof's Bearing Capacity, Shape, Depth, and Inclination Factors
• In most solutions, presented in this text, the bearing
capacity, shape, depth, and inclination factors
presented in Section 3.6 will be used.
• However. many geotechnical engineers employ the
various factors recommended by Meyerhof (1963) for
use in Eq. (3.23). Table 3.4 is a summary of those
factors.
• The two relationships stated above appear to contradict each
other.
• For a given soil friction angle with an increase in B/L, De
Beer's value of F" decreases, whereas the magnitude of F"
suggested by Meyerhof increases.
• More recently, Zhu and Michalowski (2005) evaluated the
shape factors based on the elastoplastic model of soil and
finite element analysis.
• They are as follows:
• In Section 3.3, Eqs. (3.3), (3.7), and (3.8), which apply to the
case of general shear failure. were modified to Eqs. (3.9). (3.10).
and (3.11) to take into account the change of failure mode in
soil (i.e., local shear failure).
• The change of failure mode is due to soil compressibility, to
account for which Vesic ( 1 973) proposed the following
modification of Eq. (3.23):
• In this equation, F,,, F." and F" are soil compressibility factors.
The soil compressibility factors were derived by Vesic (1973) by analogy to the
expansion of cavities.
• According to that theory, in order to calculate F", F." and F"" the following
steps should be taken:
Eccentrically Loaded Foundations
In several instances, as with the base of a
retaining wall, foundations are subjected to
moments in addition to the vertical load, as
shown in Figure 3.12a.
In such cases, the distribution of pressure by
the foundation on the soil is not uniform. The
nominal distribution of pressure is
Ultimate Bearing Capacity under Eccentric Loading-
Meyerhof's Theory
In 1953, Meyerhof proposed a theory that is
generally referred to as the effective area method.
The following is a step-by-step procedure for
determining the ultimate load that the soil can
support and the factor of safety against bearing
capacity failure
:
• Eccentrically Loaded Foundation-Prakash and Saran's
Theory
Prakash and Saran ( 1nl) analyzed the problem of
ultimate bearing capacity of eccentrically and vertically
loaded continuous (strip) foundations by using the
one-sided failure surface in soil, as shown in Figure
3.13.
• According to this theory, the ultimate load per unit
length of a continuous foundation can be estimated as
Foundation Supported by a Soil with a Rigid Base at Shallow Depth
• Figure 4.1(a) shows a shallow, rough continuous foundation
supported by a soil that extends to a great depth. Neglecting the
depth factor, for vertical loading Eq. (3.23) will take the form
Now. if a rigid. rough base is located at a
depth of H < D below the bottom of the
foundation, full development of the
failure surface in soil will be restricted.
In such a case, the soil failure zone and
the development of slip lines at ultimate
load will be as shown in Figure 4.2.
• Mandel and Salencon (1972) determined the
bearing capacity factors applicable to this case by
numerical integration, using the theory of
plasticity.
• According to their theory, the ultimate bearing
capacity of a rough continuous foundation with a
rigid, rough base located at a shallow depth can be
given by the relation
Bearing Capacity of Layered Soils: Stronger Soil
Underlain by Weaker Soil
• The bearing capacity equations presented in Chapter
3 involve cases in which the soil supporting the
foundation is homogeneous and extends to a
considerable depth.
• The cohesion. angle of friction, and unit weight of
soil were assumed to remain constant for the bearing
capacity analysis. However, in practice, layered soil
profiles are often encountered.
In such instances. the failure surface at ultimate load may
extend through two or more soil layers, and a determination
of the ultimate bearing capacity in layered soils can be made
in only a limited number of cases.
This section features the procedure for estimating the bearing
capacity for layered soils pro posed by Meyerhof and Hanna
(1978) and Meyerhof (1974).
Figure 4.7 shows a shallow continuous foundation supported
by a stronger soil layer, underlain by a weaker soil that
extends to a great depth. For the two soil lay ers. the physical
parameters are as follows:
Figure 4.7 shows a shallow continuous foundation supported
by a stronger soil layer, underlain by a weaker soil that
extends to a great depth.
For the two soil layers. the physical parameters are as
follows:
• Observe that, for the top layer to be a stronger soil,
q,jql should be less than unity.
• The variation of K, with q,/q, and </>; is shown in
Figure 4.8.
• The variation of c /c; with q,/ql is shown in Figure
4.9.
• If the height H is relatively large, then the
failure surface in soil will be completely located
in the stronger upper-soil layer (Figure 4.7b).
For this case,
,
In Chapter 3 theories relating to the
ultimate bearing capacity of single rough
continuous foundations supported by a
homogeneous soil extending to a great
depth were discussed.
• However, if foundations are placed
close to each other with similar soil
conditions, the ultimate bearing
capacity of each foundation may
change due to the interference effect
of the failure surface in the soil.
• This was theoretically investigated by Stuart
(1962) for granular soils.
• It was assumed that the geometry of the rupture
surface in the soil mass would be the same as
that assumed by Terzaghi (Figure3.5).
According to Stuart, the following conditions
may arise (Figure 4.10).
• Case II.I (Figure 4.lOc)
• This is the case where the center-to-
center spacing of the two continuous
foundations is
• x = x,<x,. Note that the triangular wedges
in the soil under the foundations make
angles of 1 800 2<1>' at points dl and d,.
• The arcs of the logarithmic spirals dIg, and dIe
are tangent to each other at d,. Similarly. the
arcs of the logarithmic spirals d,g, and d,e are
tangent to each other at d,.
• For this case, the ultimate bearing capacity of
each foundation can be given as (c' = 0)
• Case IV. (Figure 4.10d): If the spacing of the foundation is
further reduced such that x = x, < x). blocking will occur
and the pair of foundations will act as a single foundation.
• The soil between the individual units will form an inverted
arch which travels down with the foundation as the load is
applied.
• When the two foundations touch. the zone of arching
disappears and the system behaves as a single foundation
with a width equal to 2B.
• The ultimate bearing capacity for this case can be given by
Eq. (4.29). with B being replaced by 2B in the second ter
THANK YOU
