1

BEARING CAPACITY

Submitted to: Dr. Sanjeev Naval

D.A.V.I.E.T Submitted by: Abhishek Sharma 661/15
1.INTRODUCTION
2

The subject of bearing capacity is perhaps the most

important of all the aspects of geotechnical
engineering.
Loads from buildings are transmitted to the
foundation by columns, by load bearing walls or
by such other load-bearing components of the
structures.

Sometimes the material on which the foundation

rests is ledge, very hard soil or bed-rock, which is
known to be much stronger than is necessary to
transmit the loads from the structure.

ABHISHEK SHARMA
 Such a ledge, or rock, or other stiff
material may not be available at
reasonable depth and it becomes invariably
necessary to allow the structure to bear
directly on soil, which will furnish a
satisfactory foundation, if the bearing
members are properly designed.

It is here that the subject of

bearing capacity assumes
significance.

3
ABHISHEK SHARMA
2.SOME BASIC
DEFINITIONS
4

Foundation: The lowest part of a structure which

is in contact with soil and transmits loads to it.
Foundation soil or bed: The soil or bed to
which loads are transmitted from the base of the
structure.
Footing is a foundation consisting of a small
slab for transmitting the structural load to
the underlying soil. Footings can be individual
slabs supporting single columns or combined
to support two or more columns or be a long
strip of concrete slab. width B to length L ratio
is small, i.e., it approaches zero) supporting a
ABHISHEK SHARMA
Bearing capacity (q): The load-carrying
capacity of foundation soil or rock which enables
it to bear and transmit loads from a structure.
ULTIMATE bearing capacity (qult): Maximum
pressure which a foundation can withstand
without the occurrence of shear failure of the
foundation.
Gross Ultimate bearing capacity: The bearing
capacity inclusive of the pressure exerted by
the weight of the soil standing on the
foundation, or the ‘surcharge’ pressure, as it is
sometimes
Net Ultimatecalled.
bearing capacity (qnu): Gross
bearing capacity minus the original overburden
pressure or surcharge pressure at the
foundation level; obviously, this will be the
same as the gross capacity when theSHARMA
ABHISHEK depth 5of
Safe bearing capacity (qs ): Ultimate bearing
capacity divided by the factor of safety. The
factor of safety in foundation may range from 2
to 5,

The factor of safety should be applied to the

net ultimate bearing capacity

the surcharge pressure due to depth of the

foundation should then be added to get the
safe bearing capacity.

It is thus the maximum intensity of loading

6
which can be transmitted to the soil without
ABHISHEK SHARMA
GROSS SAFE BEARING CAPACITY: It is the
maximum gross intensity (inclusive of
overburden pressure) of loading at the base of
the foundation that the soil can support before
NET
failingSAFE BEARING CAPACITY (qns ): It is the
in shear
maximum net intensity (exclusive of
overburden pressure) of loading at the base of
the foundation that the soil can support without
the risk of shear
ALLOWABLE failure. PRESSURE (q ): The
BEARING a
maximum allowable net loading intensity on the
soil at which the soil never fails in shear and
doesn’t pose any excessive settlement or can be
say
7 that the settlements are under permissible
ABHISHEK SHARMA
Ultimate limit state defines a limiting
stress or force that should not be
exceeded by any conceivable or
anticipated loading during the design life
of a foundation or any geotechnical
system.
Serviceability limit state defines a
limiting deformation or settlement of a
foundation, which, if exceeded, will
impair the function of the structure that
it supports.
8
ABHISHEK SHARMA
AS PER IS 6403 :
1981
Net Loading Intensity: The net loading intensity on
the foundation is the gross intensity of loading minus
the weight of displaced soil above the foundation base.

Ultimate Bearing Capacity : The intensity of loading

at the base or the foundation which would cause shear
failure of the soil support.
Safe Bearing capacity : Maximum intensity of
loading that the foundation will safely carry without the
risk of shear failure of soil irrespective of any
settlement that may occur.
Safe Bearing Pressure or Net Soil Pressure : The
Intensity of loading that will cause a permissible
settlement or specified settlement of the structure.

9
ABHISHEK SHARMA
Allowable Bearing Capacity : The net intensity of
loading which the foundation will carry without
undergoing settlement in excess or the permissible
value for the structure under consideration but not
exceeding net safebearing capacity

10
ABHISHEK SHARMA
 3. TYPES OF FAILURE IN
11
SOIL
Experimental investigations have indicated
that foundations on dense sand with
relative density greater than 70 percent
fail suddenly with pronounced peak resistance
when the settlement reaches about 7
percent of the foundation width. The failure
is accompanied by the appearance of failure
surfaces and by considerable bulging of a
This typemass
sheared of failure is designated
of sand as shown inas general
Fig.
shear failure by Terzaghi (1943)

ABHISHEK SHARMA
12
ABHISHEK SHARMA
 Foundations on sand of relative density lying
between 35 and 70 percent do not show a
sudden failure. As the settlement exceeds about
8 percent of the foundation width, bulging of
sand starts at the surface. At settlements of about
15 percent of foundation width, a visible boundary
of sheared zones at the surface appears. However,
the peak of base resistance may never be reached.
This type of failure is termed local shear failure,
Fig.

13
ABHISHEK SHARMA
 Foundations on relatively loose sand with
relative density less than 35 percent
penetrate into the soil without any bulging
of the sand surface.
The base resistance gradually increases
as settlement progresses. The rate of
settlement, however, increases and reaches a
maximum at a settlement of about 15 to 20
percent of the foundation width.
Sudden jerks or shears can be observed as
soon as the settlement reaches about 6 to 8
percent of the foundation width.
The failure surface, which is vertical or
slightly inclined and follows the perimeter of
14the base, never reaches the sand surface. This
ABHISHEK SHARMA
15
ABHISHEK SHARMA
 The approximate limits of types of failure to be affected
as relative depth DF / B and relative density of sand, Dr,
vary are shown in Fig.
(Vesic, 1963). General shear failure occur when φ
is more than or equal to 380. Local Shear Failure
occur when φ is than or equal to 280

16
4.CRITERIA FOR THE DETERMINATION OF
BEARING CAPACITY
17

1. LOCATION AND DEPTH:

A foundation must be properly

located and founded at such a depth
that its performance does not
affected by factors such as lateral
expulsion of soil from beneath the
foundation, seasonal volume changes,
presence of adjoining structures etc.
ABHISHEK SHARMA
2. Shear failure of the foundation or bearing
capacity failure, as it is sometimes called, shall
not occur. (This is associated with plastic flow
of the soil material underneath the foundation,
and lateral expulsion of the soil from underneath
the footing
3. The of the foundation);
probable settlements,and, differential as
well as total, of the foundation must be limited to
safe, tolerable or acceptable magnitudes. In other
words, the anticipated settlement under the
applied pressure on the foundation should not be
detrimental to the stability
Last two criteria of the structure.
are known as the shear
strength criterion, and settlement criterion,
respectively. The design value of the safe
bearing
18
capacity, obviously, would be the
smaller of the two values, obtainedABHISHEKfrom these
SHARMA
 5.FACTORS AFFECTING BEARING
CAPACITY
19

(i) Nature of soil and its physical and

engineering properties;

(ii) Nature of the foundation and other details

such as the size, shape, depth below the ground
surface and rigidity of the structure;

(iii) Total and differential settlements that

the structure can withstand without functional
failure;

(iv) Location of the ground water table

ABHISHEK SHARMA
 6.METHODS OF DETERMINING
BEARING CAPACITY
20

(i) Bearing capacity tables in various

building codes

(ii) Analytical methods

(iii) Plate bearing tests

(iv) Penetration tests

(v) Model tests and prototype tests

ABHISHEK SHARMA
 ACCORDING TO OUR SYLLABUS
FOLLOWING METHODS ARE PRESCRIBED
IN DETAIL ONE BY ONE.
NALYTIC APPROACH
1. The theory of elasticity—Schleicher’s method.

2. The classical earth pressure theory—Rankine’s

method, Pauker’s method and Bell’s method.

3. The theory of plasticity—Fellenius’ method, Prandtl’s

method,Terzaghi’s method,
Meyerhof’s method, Skempton’s method, Hansen’s
method and Balla’s method.

PLATE LOAD TEST AND PENETRATION

TEST
21
ABHISHEK SHARMA
 7. RANKINE METHOD
22

This method, based

on Rankine’s earth
pressure theory, is too
approximate and
conservative for practical
use.

WILLIAM RANKINE (1820–1872
ABHISHEK SHARMA
 Rankine uses the relationship between
principal stresses at limiting equilibrium
conditions of soil elements, one located just
beneath the footing and the other just outside
it as shown in Fig.

23
ABHISHEK SHARMA
 In element I, just beneath the footing, at
the base level of the foundation, the applied
pressure qult is the major principal stress;
under its influence, the soil adjacent to the
element
The active
tends pressure
get pushed is σcreating
out, on the active
vertical faces to the element.
conditions.
From the relationship between the
principal stresses at limiting
equilibrium relating to the active
state, we have:

……..EQ.
1
24
ABHISHEK SHARMA
In element II, just outside the footing, at
the base level of the foundation, the tendency
of the soil adjacent to the element is to
compress, creating passive conditions. The
pressure σ on the vertical faces of the element
will thus be the passive resistance.
This will thus be the major principal stress
and the corresponding minor principal stress
is q(= γ.Df)

……..EQ.
2
25
ABHISHEK SHARMA
 ABHISHEK SHARMA
FROM EQ.1 AND 661

EQ.2
……..EQ.
3

This gives the bearing capacity of the footing. It does

not appear to take into account the size of the
footing.
to give Df , which is termed the minimum depth
required for a foundation:
……..EQ.
4

It does not appear to take into account

26
the size of the footing
 An alternative approach based on Rankine’s
earth pressure theory which takes into
account the size b of the footing is as
follows:
It is assumed that rupture in the soil takes
place along CBD and CFG symmetrically. The
failure zones are made of two wedges as
shown. It is sufficient to consider the
equilibrium of one half.

27
ABHISHEK SHARMA
Wedge I is Rankine’s active wedge, pushed
downwards by qult on CA; consequently the
Wedge II isABRankine’s
vertical face passive
will be pushed wedge. The
outward.
pressure P on face AB of wedge I will be the same
as that which acts on face AB of wedge II;
consequently, the soil wedge II is pushed up. The
surcharge, q = γ.Df, due to the depth of footing
resists this.

28 ……..EQ.
ABHISHEK SHARMA ABHISHEK SHARMA
 ABHISHEK SHARMA
from Rankine’s theory for the case with
surcharge.
From Wedge I, similarly,

…..EQ.6
Equating the two values of P from EQ.5.5 and
EQ.6, we get
…..EQ.7
This is written as

…..EQ.8

…..EQ.9
29
…..EQ.10
h are known as BEARING CAPACITY FACTORS
 8.Prandtl’s Method
30

Prandtl analyzed the

plastic failure in
metals when
punched by hard
metal punchers
(Prandtl,
1920). This analysis
has been adapted to
soil when loaded to
shear failure by a Ludwig Prandtl
relatively rigid  4 February 1875 - 15 August
foundation (Prandtl, 1953
ABHISHEK SHARMA
assumptions in Prandtl’s theory are:

(i) The soil is homogeneous, isotropic and weightless.

(ii) The Mohr-Coulomb equation for failure envelope τ
= c + σ tan φ is valid for the soil,
(iii) Wedges I and III act as rigid bodies. The zones in
Sectors II deform plastically. In the plastic zones all
radius vectors or planes through A and B are failure
planes and the curved boundary is a logarithmic
spiral.
(iv) Wedge I is elastically pushed down, tending to
push zones III upward and outward, which is resisted
by the passive resistance of soil in these zones.
(v) The stress in the elastic zone I is transmitted
hydrostatically in all directions.
31
ABHISHEK SHARMA
 qult = c cot φ (Nφ . eπ tan φ – 1)
32 …..EQ.11
This is Prandtl’s expression for ultimate bearing capacity
purely cohesive soils, φ = 0

qult = (π + 2)c = 5.14c

…..EQ.12
Discussion of Prandtl’s Theory

(i) Prandtl’s theory is based on an assumed compound

rupture surface, consisting of an arc of a logarithmic
spiral and tangents to the spiral.
(ii) It is developed for a smooth and long strip footing,
resting on the ground surface.
(iii) Prandtl’s compound rupture surface corresponds
fairly well with the mode of failure along curvilinear
(iv) Prandtl’s
rupture expression,
surfaces observed as originally
from derived, does
experiments.
not include the size of the footing.

33
ABHISHEK SHARMA
ABHISHEK SHARMA
661 9. TERZAGHI METHOD
34
(1943).

Terzaghi’s method is,

in fact, an extension
and improved
modification of
Pandtl’s

Karl von Terzaghi  

2 October 1883 -- 25 October
1963
ABHISHEK SHARMA
ASSUMPTIONS:

The soil is a semi-infinite, homogeneous,

isotropic, weightless, rigid–plastic material.
The embedment depth is not greater than the
width of the footing (Df < B).
General shear failure occurs & The base of the
footing is rough.
The soil above the footing base can be replaced
by a surcharge stress. This, in effect, means that
35
the shearing resistance of the soil located above
the base is neglected.
ABHISHEK SHARMA
 The zone of plastic equilibrium, CDEFG, can be
subdivided into I a wedge-shaped zone located beneath
the loaded strip, in which the major principal stresses
are vertical,
II two zones of radial shear, BCD and ACG, emanating
from the outer edges of the loaded strip, with their
boundaries making angles (45° – φ/2) and φ with the
horizontal, and
III two passive Rankine zones, AGF and BDE, with their
boundaries making angles (45° – φ/2) with the
36
horizontal. ABHISHEK SHARMA
 The adhesion force Ca on
the faces AC and BC is
given by:
…..EQ.13

Considering a unit length of the footing and the

equilibrium of wedge ABC, the vertical components of
he all forces
weight of must sum
the soil in up
theto zero. is given by
wedge

…..EQ.14

…..EQ.15
37
…..EQ.16
ABHISHEK SHARMA
 For the simpler case of Df = 0 and c = 0, q = 0—that
is, if the base of the footing rests on the horizontal
surface of a mass of cohesionless sand, we have:

…..EQ.17

Here Kpγ is the coefficient of passive earth pressure

for c = 0,
α = 180° – φ, and δ = φ ; that is, it is the value purely
due to the weight of the soil.
38
ABHISHEK SHARMA
 Substituting EQ.15 in
EQ.14

…..EQ.18

…..EQ.19

…..EQ.20

The value of Kpγ is obtained by means of the spiral or

the friction circle method.

Nγ is called the ‘‘bearing-capacity factor’’

expressing the effect of the weight of the soil wedge,
ABC, of a cohesionless soil.
39
ABHISHEK SHARMA
 For the calculation of the bearing capacity of a
cohesive soil, the computation of Pp involves a
considerable amount of labour.
Terzaghi, therefore, advocated a simplified approach,
which is based on the equation

…..EQ.21

where Ppn = normal component of the passive

earth pressure on a plane contact face with a
height H,
α = slope angle of the contact face, and
Kpc, Kpq, and Kpγ = coefficients whose values are
indpendent of H and γ. In the present case,
40
ABHISHEK SHARMA
Also the total passive earth pressure Pp on the
contact face is equal to

…..EQ.22

where (cKpc + qKpq) = Ppn is the normal component

of the passive earth pressure comprehending the
effect of cohesion
Combining and surcharge.
this equation with Eq. 14,
we have

41 …..EQ.23
ABHISHEK SHARMA
 If the soil wedge, ABC, is assumed weightless (γ = 0)
(Prandtl, 1920), Eq. (21) takes the form

…..EQ.24

The factors Nc and Nq are pure numbers whose

values depend only on the value φ in Coulomb’s
equation.
On the other hand, if c = 0 and q = 0, γ being
greater than zero, the bearing capacity is given by
Eqs. 17 and 18:

42
ABHISHEK SHARMA
If the values c, Df, and γ are
greater than zero,

This is called ‘‘Terzaghi’s …..EQ.25

general bearing capacity
formula’’.
The coefficients Nc, Nq, and Nγ are called ‘‘bearing
capacity factors’’ for shallow continuous
footings.

43
ABHISHEK SHARMA
 The problem of Nc and Nq has been rigorously
solved by means of Airy’s stress function
(Prandtl 1920, Reissner, 1924), for the
condition γ = 0:

…..EQ.26

…..EQ.27

…..EQ.28

The values Nc and Nq

depend only on the
value of φ.
44
ABHISHEK SHARMA
 Bearing capacity of a strip footing with a
rough base on the ground surface is given by,
qult = 5.7c
…..EQ.29
For strip footing at a depth Df in a purely
cohesive soil
…..EQ.30
qult = 5.7c + γD .
Equation 23, along with the bearing capacity
f factors
Nc, Nq and Nγ are valid for ‘general shear failure’.

For ‘local shear failure’, as given by

Terzaghi :
c′ = (2/3)c …..EQ.31
tan φ′ = (2/3) tan φ …..EQ.32

45
ABHISHEK SHARMA
for local shear failure,
…..EQ.33

Terzaghi’s bearing capacity factors are

plotted in Fig.
46
ABHISHEK SHARMA
 QUICK
NOTE
As a general guideline, if failure occurs at
less than 5% strain and if density index is
greater than 70%, general shear failure may
be assumed,
if the strain at failure is 10% to 20% and if
the density index is less than 20%, local
shear failure may be assumed, and,
for intermediate situations punching
shear, linear interpolation of the factors may
be employed.
47
ABHISHEK SHARMA
 The bearing capacity factors of
Terzaghi are tabulated in following
Table

48
ABHISHEK SHARMA
 Bearing capacity of shallow circular
and square footings
Bearing capacity of circular footings has
been proposed by Terzaghi as follows,

qultc = 1.3 cNc + γDf Nq + 0.3 …..EQ.34

here d =γ diameter
d Nγ of the circular footing.
e critical load for the footing is given by

…..EQ.35

49
ABHISHEK SHARMA
 Similarly, the bearing capacity of a square
footing of side b is:
…..EQ.36
qults = 1.3 cNc + γDfNq + 0.4

γb Nγ
The critical load for the footing is given by
…..EQ.37
Qults = (b ) .
2

Qults
For a continuous footing of width b, it is
already seen that,
qult = cNc + γDf Nq + 0.5 γ b Nγ
…..EQ.38
50
ABHISHEK SHARMA
 QUICK
Thus, the NOTEcapacity
bearing of a circular
footing of diameter equal to the width of a
continuous footing is 1.3 times that of the
continuous footing, or at least nearly so, if
the footings are founded in a purely cohesive
soil (φ = 0);
the bearing capacity of a square footing
of side equal to the width of a continuous
footing also bears a similar relation to that of
the continuous footing under similar conditions
just cited.
51
Further, the corresponding ratios are SHARMA
ABHISHEK 0.6
 10. SKEMPTON METHOD
(1951)
52

He found that the factor

Nc is a function of the
depth of foundation and
also of its shape.

Alec Skempton
4 June 1914 -  9 August
2001

ABHISHEK SHARMA
 The net ultimate bearing capacity is
given by: …..EQ.39
qnet ult = c . Nc
Strip footings:
Nc = 5 (1 + 0.2 Df …..EQ.40
/b)
with a limiting value of
Nc of 7.5 for Df /b >
2.5. Square or Circular
footings:
EQ.41 ….. Nc = 6(1 +
(b is the side of
square or diameter of 0.2Df /b)
circular footing). with a limiting value
53 of
ABHISHEK SHARMA
 for Df /b ≤ 2.5, for
Df /b > 2.5,
Nc = 7.5 (1 + 0.2 b/L)

…..EQ.42 & EQ.43

b = width of the rectangular footing,

L = length of the rectangular
footing.

54
ABHISHEK SHARMA
 QUICK
NOTE
For a surface footing of square or circular
shape on purely cohesive soil
Qnet ult = 6c ...(Eq. 44)

as against 7.4c from Terzaghi’s theory.

It must be noted that Terzaghi’s theory is

limited to shallow foundations wherein
Df /b ≤ 1,

but
55
ABHISHEK SHARMA
 11. Brinch Hansen’s ABHISHEK SHARMA
661

56
Method
Brinch Hansen (1961) has proposed the
following semi-empirical equation for the
bearing capacity of a footing, as a
generalisation of the Terzaghi equation:
…..EQ.45

Qult = vertical component of the total load

A = effective area of the footing
q = overburden pressure at the foundation level (=
γ . Df),
Nq = Nφ . eπ tan φ
Nc = (Nq – 1) cot φ
Nγ = 1.8 (Nq – 1) tan φ
(Nφ = tan2 (45° + φ/2), with the usual notation.)
S = shape factors ABHISHEK SHARMA
661
d = depth factors,
and
i = inclination
factors.

Brinch Hansen’s shape

factors

57
Brinch Hansen’s depth
 Brinch Hansen’s inclination
factors
vised values of inclination factors:

…..EQ.46
…..EQ.47

But, for φ = 0°, …..EQ.48

58
ABHISHEK SHARMA
 12. Balla’s Method
59

Balla has proposed a theory for the bearing capacity of

continuous footings (Balla 1962).
The theory appears to give values which are in good
agreement with field test results for footings
founded in cohesionless
The form soils.
of the bearing capacity equation is
the same as that of Terzaghi:

…..EQ.49

ABHISHEK SHARMA
 But the equations for the bearing capacity factors
are cumbersome to solve without the aid of a digital
computer. Therefore, it is generally recommended that
Balla’s charts be used for the determination of these
factors.

60
ABHISHEK SHARMA
 The limitations are that it should be used when Df
61
/ b ≤ 1.5 and that it is applicable to continuous
ABHISHEK SHARMA
 ABHISHEK SHARMA
661
13. Meyerhof’s Method
62

The important difference between Terzaghi’s and

Meyerhof’s approaches is that the latter considers the
shearing resistance of the soil above the base of the
foundation, while
Thus, Meyerhof the former
allows ignores
the failure it. to extend up to
zones
the ground surface (Meyerhof, 1951).
 Zone I ABC ... elastic
Zone II BCD ... radial
shear
Zone III BDEF ... mixed
wherein Nc, Nq and Nγ are ‘‘Meyerhof’s bearing
shear
capacity factors’’, which depend not only on φ, but
also on the depth and shape of the foundation and
roughness of the base.
Meyerhof’s factors are more difficult to obtain than
Terzaghi’s, and have been presented in the form of
charts by Meyerhof.
For strip footings: Nc = 5.5(1 + 0.25 Df/b)…..EQ.50
with a limiting value of 8.25 for Nc
for Df /b > 2.5.
For square or circular footings: Nc = 6.2 (1 +
0.32 Df /b) with a limiting value of 9.0 for Nc for Df
63 (b is the side of a /b
square
> 2.5.or diameter of
ABHISHEK SHARMA
 14. Vesic's Bearing Capacity Theory
64

Vesic(1973) confirmed that the basic nature of

failure surfaces in soil as suggested by Terzaghi as
incorrect.
However, the angle which the inclined surfaces make
with the horizontal was found to be closer to 45 + φ/2
instead of φ . The values of the bearing capacity factors , ,
for a given angle of shearing resistance change if above
modification is incorporated in the analysis as under
…..EQ.51
…..EQ.52
…..EQ.53

ABHISHEK SHARMA
 eqns(51)was proposed by Prandtl(1921),and eqn(52)
was given by Reissner (1924). Caquot and Keisner
(1953) and Vesic (1973) gave eqn (53)

…..EQ.54

65
ABHISHEK SHARMA
Depth factor

Inclination factor

66
ABHISHEK SHARMA
 15. IS 6403:1981
67
METHOD

…..EQ.55

If the water table is at or below a depth of Df

+B, measured from the ground surface, w’=1.
If the water table rises to the base of the
footing or above, w’=0.5. If the water table
lies in between then the value is obtained by
linear interpolation. The shape factors
given by Hansen and inclination factors
as given by Vesic are used. ABHISHEK SHARMA
For cohesive soils:

Nc =
5.14

68
ABHISHEK SHARMA
 16. EFFECT OF WATER TABLE ON
BEARING CAPACITY
69

Water in soil is known to affect its unit

weight and also the shear parameters c and
φ.
When the soil is submerged under water,
the effective unit weight γ′ is to be used in
the computation of bearing capacity.
NOTE:
Effective unit weight γ′ is roughly half the
saturated unit weight; consequently there
will be about 50% reduction in the value of
the corresponding term in the bearing
ABHISHEK SHARMA
 • If the water table is at the level of the base
of the footing, γ′ is to be used for γ in the third
term, a reduction factor of 0.5 is to be
applied
• For to anythe location
third term.of the water table
intermediate between the base of the
footing and a depth equal to the width of
the footing below its base, a suitable
linear interpolation of the necessary
reduction is suggested.
• If the water table is above the base of
the footing, the reduction factor for the
70
third term is obviously limited to the
maximum of 0.5. ABHISHEK SHARMA
 • The maximum reduction of 0.5 is
indicated for the second term when the
water table is at the ground level itself (or
above it), since γ′ is to be used for γ in the
second
• Whileterm.
no reduction in the second term
is required when the water table is at or
below the base of the footing,
• In the case of purely cohesive soils, since
φ ≈ 0°, Nq = 1 and Nγ = 0,

• Net ultimate bearing capacity is given by

c . Nc, which is virtually unaffected by the
water table, if it is below the base of the
71 footing.
ABHISHEK SHARMA
 ABHISHEK SHARMA
• If the water table is at the ground
661 level,
only the gross bearing capacity is reduced
by 50% of the surcharge term γ.Df (Nq = 1),
while the net value is again only c . Nc.
• In the case of purely cohesionless soils,
since
c = 0, and φ > 0, and Nq and Nγ are
For locations of
significantly ground water table within a
high,
depth of the width of the foundation below the
base and the ground level, the equation for
the ultimate bearing capacity may be
modified as follows:
...(Eq. 56)

72
*appropriate multiplying factor should be used for isolated
footings. **Appropriate shape factor.
c′ = effective cohesion ABHISHEK SHARMA
661
Nc, Nq, and Nγ = bearing capacity factors based on φ′
Rq and Rγ = reduction factors for the terms involving Nq
and Nγ owing to the effect of water table.
Rq and Rγ may be obtained as follows, from Fig.

zq = 0...Rq = 0.5 zγ = 0...Rγ = 0.5

zq = Df...Rq = 1.0 zγ = b...Rγ = 1.0

73
 ...(Eq. 57)

...(Eq. 58)

Note.
• For zq > Df (the water table is below the
base of the footing), Rq is limited to 1.0.
• For 0 ≤ zq ≤ Df (the water table is above
the base of the footing), Rγ is limited to
0.5.
• for zq > (Df + b) or zγ > b, Rq as well as
Rγ are limited to 1.0.
74
• For zq = 0, Rq as well as Rγ are limited
to 0.5. ABHISHEK SHARMA
 17. FOUNDATION
75
SETTLEMENTS
Settlement total settlement and differential settlement
of foundations and consequently of the structures
above the foundations.
ource of Settlement
(i) Elastic compression of the foundation and the
underlying soil, giving rise to what is known as
‘immediate’, ‘contact’, ‘initial’, or ‘distortion’
(ii) Plastic compression of the underlying soil, giving
settlement,
rise to consolidation, settlement of fine grained soils,
both primary and secondary,
(iii) Ground water lowering, especially repeated
lowering and raising of ground water level in loose
granular soils and drainage without adequate filter
ABHISHEK SHARMA
 (iv) Vibration due to pile driving, blasting and
oscillating machinery in granular soils,

(v) Seasonal swelling and shrinkage of

expansive clays,

(vi) Surface erosion, creep or landslides in

earth slopes,

(vii) Miscellaneous sources such as adjacent

excavation, mining subsidence and
underground erosion.

76 The settlements from the first two sources

ABHISHEK SHARMA
 The total settlement may be considered to consist of
the following contributions:
(a) Initial settlement or elastic compression.
(b) Consolidation settlement or primary compression.
(c) Secondary settlement or secondary compression

Initial Settlement or Elastic Compression

This is also referred to as the ‘distortion
settlement’ or ‘contact settlement’ and is usually
taken to occur immediately on application of the
foundation load.

Such immediate settlement in the case of partially

saturated soils is primarily due to the expulsion of
gases and to the elastic compression and
rearrangement of particles.
77 In the case of saturated soils immediate
ABHISHEK SHARMA
 ABHISHEK SHARMA
diate Settlement in Cohesionless Soils
661

tandard Penetration Test (De Beer and Martens, 1957

This method has been developed for use with the
Dutch Cone Penetrometer but can be adapted for the
e immediate settlement,test.
standard penetration Si, is given by:

...(Eq. 58)

H = thickness of the layer getting compressed,

σ0 = effective overburden pressure at the centre of the
layer before any excavation or application of load,
Δσ = vertical stress increment at the centre of the
layer,
and Cs = compressibility constant, given by: 59)
...(Eq.
2
78 Cr being the static cone resistance (in kN/m ), and
σ being the effective overburden pressure at the point
 ABHISHEK SHARMA
The value of Cr obtained from the Dutch Cone
661
penetration test must be correlated to the recorded
number of blows, N, obtained from the standard
penetration
According test. and Nixon (1961), Cr ranged from
to Meigh
430N (kN/m2) to 1930N (kN/m2). However, Cr is more
commonly taken as 400 N (kN/m2) as proposed by
Meyerhof (1956).

79
 The use of charts: The actual number of blows, N, from
the standard penetration test has to be corrected,
under certain circumstances to obtain N′, the
corrected value.

Thornburn (1963) has given a set of curves to

obtain N′ from N.

He also extended the graphical relationship given

by Terzaghi and Peck (1948) between the settlement
of a 305 mm square plate under a given pressure and
the N′-value of the soil immediately beneath it, as
For determining the settlement, Sf, of a square
shown in Fig.
foundation on a deep layer of cohesionless soil by
using Terzaghi and Peck’s formula:
...(Eq. 60)

Sp = Settlement of a 305 mm-square plate, obtained from

80
the chart and, ABHISHEK SHARMA
 The chart is applicable for deep layers only, that is, for
layers of thickness not less than 4B below the
foundation.
For rectangular foundations, a shape factor should
presumably be used. It is as follows:

Settlement of a rectangular foundation of width B

= Settlement of square foundation of size B ×
shape factor.

81
ABHISHEK SHARMA
 ABHISHEK SHARMA
661
ediate Settlement in Cohesive Soils

The immediate settlement of a flexible foundation,

according to Terzaghi (1943), is given by:

...(Eq. 61)

Si = immediate settlement at a corner of a rectangular

flexible foundation of size L × B,
B = Width of the foundation,
q = Uniform pressure on the foundation,
Es = Modulus of elasticity of the soil beneath the
foundation,
ν = Poisson’s
= Influence ratio
Value, of the
which soil, and on L/B
is dependent

82
 Si, for a rectangular foundation on the surface of a
semi-elastic medium is given by:

...(Eq. 62)

B = width of the rectangular foundation of size L × B,

q = uniform intensity of pressure,
Es = modulus of elasticity of the soil beneath the
foundation,
ν = Poisson’s ratio of the soil, and
Is = influence factor which depends upon L/B.

Skempton (1951) gives the following values of Is :

83
ABHISHEK SHARMA
diate Settlement of a Thin Clay Layer

For cases when the thickness of the layer is less than

4B, Steinbrenner (1934) prepared coefficients.
The immediate settlement at the corners of a
rectangular foundation on an infinite layer is given by:

...(Eq. 63)

84
ABHISHEK SHARMA
85
ABHISHEK SHARMA
Permissible Settlements
There are two main ill-effects of differential
settlements:
(i) the architectural effect (cracking of plaster, for
example) and
(ii) the structural
Terzaghi and Peck effect (redistribution
(1948) specify a ofpermissible
moments
and shears, for example, which may ultimately lead to
differential settlement of 20 mm between adjacent
failure).
columns and recommend that foundations on sand be
designed for a total settlement of 25 mm.
Skempton and MacDonald (1956) specify that the
angular rotation or distortion between adjacent
columns in clay should not exceed 1/300, although
the total settlement may go up to 100 mm
Sowers (1957) recommends, in his discussion of the
paper by Polshin and Pokar (1957) a maximum
differential settlement of 1/500 for brick buildings and
86
1/5000 for foundations of turbogenerators.ABHISHEK SHARMA
 Bozozuk (1962) summarised his investigations
in Ottawa as follows:

(IS: 1904-1961) recommends a permissible total

settlement of 65 mm for isolated foundations on clay,
40 mm for isolated foundations on sand, 65 to 100
mm for rafts on clay and 40 to 65 mm for rafts on
sand.
The permissible differential settlement is 40 mm for
foundations on clay and 25 mm for foundations on
87
sand. The angular distortion in the case of ABHISHEK
largeSHARMA
 Remedial Measures Against Harmful
1.Settlements
Removal of soft soil strata, consistent with economy.

2. The use of properly designed and constructed pile

foundations

3. Provision for lateral restraint against lateral

expulsion of soil mass from underneath the footing of a
foundation.

4. Building slowly on cohesive soils to avoid lateral

expansion of a soil mass and to give time for the pore
water to be expelled by the surcharge load.

5. Reduction of contact pressure on the soil; more

appropriately, proper adjustment between pressure,
shape and size of the foundation in order to attain
88
uniform settlements underneath the structure.
ABHISHEK SHARMA
 18. CONTACT PRESSURE
89

‘Contact pressure’ is the actual pressure transmitted

from the foundation to the soil.
A uniformly loaded foundation will not necessarily
transmit a uniform
contact pressure to the soil. This is possible only if the
foundation is perfectly ‘flexible’;

ABHISHEK SHARMA
 ABHISHEK SHARMA
661
19. PLATE LOAD TEST
90

The test essentially consists in loading a rigid plate at

the foundation level, increasing the load in arbitrary
increments, and determining the settlements
corresponding to each load after the settlement has
nearly
The ceased
nature each
of thetime
loada applied
load increment
may be isgravity
applied.
loading
or dead weights on an improvised platform or reaction
loading by using a hydraulic jack. The reaction of the jack
load is taken by a cross beam or a steel truss anchored
suitably at both
Test plates areends.
usually square or circular, the size
ranging from 300 to 750 mm (side or diameter); the
minimum thickness recommended is 25 mm for providing
sufficient rigidity.
Jack-loading is superior in terms of accuracy and
uniformity of loading. Settlement of the test plate is
measured by means of at least two or three dial gauges
91
ABHISHEK SHARMA
The test pit should be at least five times as wide as the
test plate and the bottom of the test plate should
correspond to the proposed foundation level. At the
centre of the pit, a small square hole is made the size
being that of the test plate and the depth being such
that,
92
...(Eq. 64)
ABHISHEK SHARMA
Bigger size plates are preferred in cohesive soils. The test
procedure is given in IS: 1888–1982 (Revised). The
procedure, in brief, is as follows:
(i) After excavating the pit of required size and levelling
the base, the test plate is seated over the ground. A
little sand may be spread below the plate for even
support. If ground water is encountered, it should be
lowered slightly below the base by means of pumping.

(ii) A seating pressure of 7.0 kN/m2 (70 g/cm2) is

applied and released before actual loading is
commenced.

(iii) The first increment of load, say about one-tenth of

the anticipated ultimate bearing capacity, is applied.
Settlements are recorded with the aid of the dial
gauges after 1 min., 4 min., 10 min., 20 min., 40 min.,
and 60 min., and later on at hourly intervals until the
93
ABHISHEK SHARMA
 (iv) The test is continued until a load of about 1.5
times the anticipated ultimate load is applied.
According to another school of thought, a settlement
at which failure occurs or at least 2.5 cms should be
reached.

(v) From the results of the test, a plot should be

made between pressure and settlement, which is
usually referred to as the ‘‘load-settlement curve’’,
rather loosely. The bearing capacity is determined
from this plot, which is dealt with in the next
oad-Settlement
subsection. Curves
Load-Settlement curves or pressure-
settlement curves to be more precise, are obtained
as a result of loading tests either in the laboratory or
in the field, oedometer tests being an example in
94
the laboratory and plate bearing test, inABHISHEK
the field.
SHARMA
Curve I is typical of
dense sand or
gravel or stiff
clay, wherein
general shear
Curve
failure II is typical
occurs.
of loose sand or
soft clay, wherein
local shear
failure occurs.
Curve III is typical
of many c – φ soils
which exhibit
characteristics
intermediate
between
95 the above
two. ABHISHEK SHARMA
Determination of bearing capacity from
plate load test
(Terzaghi and Peck, 1948):

...(Eq. 65)

S = settlement of the proposed foundation

(mm),
Sp = settlement of the test plate (mm),
b = size of the proposed foundation (m), and
bp = size of the test plate (m).
This is applicable for sands.

96
ABHISHEK SHARMA
 ABHISHEK SHARMA
The relationship is simpler for clays,661
since the
modulus value Es, for clays is reasonably
constant:
...(Eq. 66)

Sp = Settlement of a test plate of 300 mm

square size, and
The
S = method for the
Settlement of a determination of the
footing of width b. bearing
capacity of a footing of width b should be apparent
now. The permissible settlement value, such as 25 mm,
should be substituted in the equation that is applicable
(Eq. 50 to 51) ; and the Sp, the settlement of the plate
must be calculated. From the load-settlement curve,
the pressure corresponding to the computed settlement
97
mitations of Plate Load Tests

(i) Size (plate) effects are very important.

(ii) Consolidation settlements in cohesive soils,
which may take years, cannot be predicted,
(iii) Results from plate load test are not
recommended to be used for the design of
strip
(iv) footings,
The load test results reflect the
characteristics of the soil located only within a
depth of about twice the width of the plate.
Thus, it may be seen that interpretation and
use of the plate load test results requires great
care and judgment, on the part of the
foundation engineer.
98
ABHISHEK SHARMA
 20. BEARING CAPACITY FROM
PENETRATION TESTS
99

Terzaghi and Peck have prepared charts for

allowable bearing pressure, based on a
standard allowable settlement, for footings
of known widths on sand, whose N-values
are known.

ABHISHEK SHARMA
Above figures do not apply to gravels or those soils
containing a large percentage of gravels. These charts
have been prepared on the assumption that the water
table is at a depth greater than the width of the
footing
10 below the base of the footing. If the water table
is located at the base of the footing, the
0
allowable
ABHISHEK SHARMA
 Charts given by Peck, Hanson and Thornburn
(1953) may be used for the determination of
allowable bearing pressure for a specific allowable
settlement of 25 mm or 40 mm,

Fig.1 allowable bearing

pressure for 40mm
10
1 settlement.
ABHISHEK SHARMA 661
 Teng (1969) has proposed the following equation for
the graphical relationship of Terzaghi and Peck for a
settlement of 25 mm:
...(Eq. 67)

where qna = net allowable soil pressure in kN/m2

for a settlement of 25 mm,
N = Standard penetration value corrected for
overburden pressure and other applicable factors,
b = width of footing in metres,
Rγ = correction factor for location of water table,
(Eq.56)
he modified equation of Teng is as follows:
and Rd = Depth factor (= 1 + Df /b) ≤ 2.
where Df = depth of footing in metres. ...(Eq. 68)
10
2 ABHISHEK SHARMA
 Meyerhof (1956) has proposed slightly different
equations for a settlement of 25 mm, but these yield
almost the same results as Teng’s equation:
...(Eq. 69)

...(Eq. 70)

Modified equation of Meyerhof is as follows:

...(Eq. 71)

...(Eq. 72)

10
3 ABHISHEK SHARMA
The I.S. code of practice gives Eq. 73 for a settlement
of 40 mm; but, it does not consider the depth effect.

...(Eq. 73)
...(Eq. 73 a)

qna = net allowable soil pressure in kN/m2 for

a settlement of 25 mm,
N = Standard penetration value corrected for
overburden pressure and other applicable
factors,
b = width of footing in metres,
Rγ = correction factor for location of water
10
4
table, (Eq.52) ABHISHEK SHARMA
 Teng (1969) also gives the following equations
for bearing capacity of sands based on the
criterion of shear failure:
...(Eq. 74)

...(Eq. 75)

N = Standard penetration value, after applying the

necessary corrections,
b = width of continuous footing (side, if square, and
diameter, if circular in metres),
Df = depth of footing in metres, and
Rγ and Rq = correction factors for the position of the
ground water table, defined in Eqs. 52 & 53.
10
5 ABHISHEK SHARMA
 21. BEARING CAPACITY OF CLAYS
106

For pure clays, φ = 0°.

...(Eq. 76)

(for square or circular footings, c being

the cohesion.)

ABHISHEK SHARMA
 QUICK
NOTE
Skempton’s equations are preferred for rectangular
footings in pure clay.
Correlation of cohesion and consistency of clays with N-
values is not reliable. Unconfined compression test
is recommended for evaluating cohesion.
Overconsolidated or precompressed clays might show
hair cracks and slickensides. Load tests are
recommended in such cases.
Settlements of footings in clays may be calculated or
predicted by the use of Terzaghi’s one-dimensional
consolidation.
The bearing capacity of footings in clays is practically
unaffected by the size of the foundation.
10
7 ABHISHEK SHARMA
 Example1: Compute the safe bearing capacity of a
square footing 1.5 m × 1.5 m, located at a depth of 1
m below the ground level in a soil of average density
20 kN/m3. φ = 20°, Nc = 17.7, Nq = 7.4, and Nγ = 5.0.
Assume a suitable factor of safety and that the water
table is very deep. Also compute the reduction in safe
bearing capacity of the footing if the water table rises
b = 1.5 m Square footing Df = 1 m
to the ground level.
γ = 20 kN/m3 φ = 20° Nc = 17.7, Nq = 7.4, and Nγ =
5.0
Assume c = 0 and η = 3

qult = 1.3 c Nc + 0.4 γ b Nγ + γDf Nq = 0.4 γ b Nγ + γ

Df Nq, in this case.
= 0.4 × 20 × 1.5 × 5.0 + 20 × 1 × 7.4 = 60 + 148 =
208 kN/m2
10
8 ABHISHEK SHARMA
 If the water table rises to the ground level,
Rγ = 0.5 = Rq
∴ qult = 0.4 γ bNγ . Rγ + γDf Nq . Rq
= 0.4 × 20 × 1.5 × 5.0 × 0.5 + 20 × 1 × 7.4 × 0.5
= 30 + 74 = 104 kN/m2

qnet ult = qult – γ′Df = 104 – 10 × 1 = 94 kN/m2

ercentage reduction in safe bearing capacity

10
9 ABHISHEK SHARMA
Example 2: A plate load test was conducted on a uniform
deposit of sand and the following data were obtained:

(i) Plot the pressure-settlement curve and determine

the failure stress.
(ii) A square footing, 2m × 2 m, is to be founded at 1.5
m depth in this soil. Assuming the factor of safety
against shear failure as 3 and the maximum
permissible settlement as 40 mm, determine the
allowable bearing pressure.
(iii) Design of footing for a load of 2,000 kN, if the
water table is at a great depth.

11
0 ABHISHEK SHARMA
 (i) The pressure-settlement curve is shown in Fig. The
failure point is obtained as the point corresponding to
the intersection of the initial
and final tangents. In this case, the failure stress is
500 kN/m2.
∴ qult = 500 kN/m2

11
1 ABHISHEK SHARMA
 (ii) The value of qult here is given by
0.5.γbp Nγ .
bp, the size of test plate = 0.75 m

Assuming γ = 20 kN/m3,
500 = 0.5 × 20 × 0.75 Nγ
∴ Nγ = 500/7.5 ≈ 6.7
φ = 38°
∴ Nq ≈ 50 from Terzaghi’s charts.
For square footing of size 2 m and Df = 1.5 m,
qnet ult = 0.4 γ b Nγ + γDf (Nq – 1)
= 0.4 × 20 × 2 × 67 + 20 × 1.5 × 49 = 2,542
kN/m2
qsafe = 2542/3 ≈ 847 kN/m2 (for failure
against shear)
11
2 ABHISHEK SHARMA
 Pressure for a settlement of 27 mm for the plate (from
Fig. ) = 550 kN/m2. Allowable bearing pressure is the
smaller of the values from the two criteria = 550
kN/m2.

(iii) Design load = 2,000 kN

From Part (ii), it is known that a 2 m square footing can
carry a load of 2 × 2 × 550 = 2,200 kN.
Therefore, a 2 m square footing placed at a depth
of 1.5 m is adequate for the design load.
11
3 ABHISHEK SHARMA
ample 3 (ESE CE 2017)
In a plate load test on a soil, at a particular magnitude
of the settlement, it was observed that the bearing
pressure beneath the footing is 100 kN/m2 and the
perimeter shear is 25 kN/m2. Correspondingly, the load
capacity of a 2m square footing at the same settlement
will be

Sol. (a) 200 kN (b) 300 kN

(c) 400 kN (d) 600 kN
Q = Aσb + P σ s
σ b = Bearing pressure

σ s = Perimeter shear
A = Plate base area
P = Perimeter
Q
11
4
= Load capacity
GATE 2018 :The contact pressure and settlement
distribution for a footing are shown in the figure.
The figure corresponds to a

(a) rigid footing on granular soil

(b) flexible footing on granular soil
(c) flexible footing on saturated clay
(d) rigid footing on cohesive soil.
11
5
REFRENCES:

C. VENKATARAMAIAH
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
THIRD EDITION
( NEW AGE INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD. PUBLISHERS)

MUNI BUDHU-
SOIL MECHANICS AND FOUNDATIONS
THIRD EDITION -WILEY (2010)

A.S.R RAO & GOPAL RANJAN-

BASIC AND APPLIED SOIL MECHANICS
(NEW AGE INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD., PUBLISHERS)

IS 6401:1981 & IS: 1888–1982

116
116 ABHISHEK SHARMA 661