Bearing Capacity for Geotechnical

Design of Shallow Foundations of

Multi-Storey Buildings

Geotechnical Engineering for Foundations − Professor Mohamed Shahin Curtin University − Page 1
 Introduction
❑ As mentioned in the previous lecture series, shallow foundations comprise pad footings,
strip footings, combined footings and rafts (Figure 1).
❑ The design of such foundations for multi-storey buildings relies on satisfactory
fulfilment of two criteria: bearing capacity and settlement. The design requirement for
bearing capacity ensures that there is an adequate protection against possible shear
failure to the underlying ground, whereas the design requirement for settlement (total
and differential) ensures that the building serviceability is accepted and structural
damage is avoided.

Raft/Mat Foundation

Figure 1: Typical examples of shallow foundations for multi-storey buildings

Geotechnical Engineering for Foundations − Professor Mohamed Shahin Curtin University − Page 2
 Applied Pressure vs Bearing Capacity
❑ In order to design a shallow foundation for bearing capacity, the applied
pressure at the foundation level should be less than the bearing capacity of soil
by a factor of safety, usually between 2 to 3. The applied pressure is the contact
force per unit area along the bottom of the foundation, whereas the bearing
capacity is the pressure at which the soil beneath the foundation fails in shear,
or it is the shear strength that the soil provides against applied pressure or
external loads. There are two conditions for the applied pressure and bearing
capacity that can be used for the geotechnical design, as follows (Figure 2):
❑ Gross Applied Pressure (qapp-gross):

PG PC + W f + Ws
qapp − gross = = (1)
A A
PG = applied load at the foundation level;
PC = column load;
Wf = weight of footing;
Ws = weight of soil above the footing, if any; and
A = base area of foundation.
❑ For design, Wf + Ws can be virtually assumed to be equal to 10% of the column
load, i.e. PG = PC + 0.1PC= 1.1PC.
Geotechnical Engineering for Foundations − Professor Mohamed Shahin Curtin University − Page 3
 PC

Df Soil PG Soil

Footing

Figure 2: Applied pressure of shallow foundations

❑ Net Applied Pressure (qapp-net):

An alternative way to define the applied pressure is using the net applied
pressure, qapp-net, which is the difference between the gross applied pressure, qapp-
gross, and the vertical effective overburden pressure, σ’vo, at the foundation level
(i.e. at depth Df from the ground surface). In other words, it is the applied
pressure at the foundation level in excess of the existing soil own-weight.

Geotechnical Engineering for Foundations − Professor Mohamed Shahin Curtin University − Page 4
❑ Failure Modes for Bearing Capacity Calculations:
In order to compute the bearing capacity of soil for shallow foundations, it is
important to study the different principal modes of failure beneath the
foundations, which may be defined as follows:
— General shear failure (Figure 3a):
• This mode of failure is associated with dense cohesionless or stiff cohesive soils of
low compressibility.
• Failure starts with a soil wedge underneath the footing, followed by a spiral slip
surfaces which extend outward to the ground surface.
• Failure is sudden and accompanied by a considerable bulging at the ground surface.
— Local shear failure (Figure 3b):
• This failure mode occurs for footing resting on compressible soils of medium
compaction.
• Failure starts with a soil wedge underneath the footing, followed by a spiral slip
surfaces that do not extend to the ground surface.
• Failure is not sudden and some bulging may occur.
— Punching shear failure (Figure 3c):
• This failure mode occurs if the foundation is supported by a fairly loose
cohesionless or soft cohesive soils of high compressibility.
• Only a soil wedge underneath the foundation is occurred and the failure surface
does not extend to the ground surface.
• Failure is accompanied by a considerable vertical movement and bulging at the
ground surface is absent.
Geotechnical Engineering for Foundations − Professor Mohamed Shahin Curtin University − Page 5
 General failure mode
dense sand or stiff clay

Local failure mode

medium dense sands

Punching failure mode

loose sands or soft clay

Figure 3: Principal modes of bearing capacity failure: (a) general shear failure; (b)
local shear failure; (c) punching shear failure (after Das, 1998)

Geotechnical Engineering for Foundations − Professor Mohamed Shahin Curtin University − Page 6
❑ Gross Bearing Capacity:
The gross bearing capacity is determined by considering one of the failure
modes shown in Figure 3 and applying the limit equilibrium analysis to
evaluate the stresses and strengths along the surface of failure. For the design
purposes, it is only necessary to check the general shear failure mode rather
than the local or punching shear failure modes and then calculate the ultimate
gross bearing capacity, qult-gross. It should be noted that assuming the general
shear failure mode in the design is practical as in reality the soil is usually
improved by compaction or stabilisation before placing the footings.
❑ Net Bearing Capacity:
It is the difference between the gross bearing capacity and effective vertical
overburden pressure, σ’vo, at the foundation level. Thus the net ultimate bearing
capacity, qult-net, is the difference between qult-gross and σ’vo.
❑ For the design of shallow foundations, we want to make sure that the applied
pressure is less than the ultimate bearing capacity, by a factor of safety (FS),
thus, limiting the probability of failure. For calculation of the factor of safety,
the gross ultimate bearing capacity and gross applied pressure may be used,
alternatively, the net ultimate bearing capacity and net applied pressure can also
be used, as follows:
q ult − gross q ult −net
FS = or FS =
qapp − gross qapp − net

Geotechnical Engineering for Foundations − Professor Mohamed Shahin Curtin University − Page 7
❑ In this unit, we will use the gross rather than the net definition for calculation of
the factor of safety as usually used by many codes. For simplicity, we will use
the term qult for qult-gross, and qapp for qapp-gross. The factor of safety will thus be
expressed, as follows:
qult
FS = (2)
qapp
❑ For a safe design, FS obtained from Equation (2) should not be less than 2;
however, if certain FS needs to be achieved (usually between 2 to 3), then the
allowable bearing pressure, qall, can be obtained, as follows:
qult
qall = (3)
FS

❑ It should be noted that qall is the working pressure that can be safely applied at
the foundation level so that the shear failure is unlikely to occur. We then
design the foundation in such away that qapp does not exceed qall (i.e. qapp ≤ qall).

Geotechnical Engineering for Foundations − Professor Mohamed Shahin Curtin University − Page 8
 Terzaghi’s Method of Ultimate Bearing Capacity
❑ Terzaghi (1943) used the general failure mode shown in Figure 4 and proposed
the following equation for the ultimate bearing capacity, qult, of shallow
foundations, qult:
qult = cNc sc + qNq + 0.5 b BN  s (4)
Cohesion Surcharge Density
term term term
where:
c = soil cohesion;
γb = unit weight of soil below the foundation level;
B = footing breadth or width;
q = applied overburden vertical stress (surcharge) at the foundation level;
Nc, Nq & Nγ = bearing capacity factors (depend solely on soil friction angle, ); and
sc & sγ = shape factors.

Figure 4: General shear failure as proposed by Terzaghi (after Das, 1998)

Geotechnical Engineering for Foundations − Professor Mohamed Shahin Curtin University − Page 9
❑ The bearing capacity factors Nc, Nq, Nγ are given by the following equations:
Nc = ( Nq − 1) cot  Table 1: Bearing capacity factors of Terzaghi’s method

e(3 /2− ) tan 

Nq = −1
2cos (45 +  / 2)
2

1  K p 
N =  − 1 tan 
2  cos2  

K p = (8 2 − 4 + 3.8) tan 2 (60o +  / 2)

The above equations are translated into a simple form in Table 1, in which Nc,
Nq, Nγ are obtained by knowing the friction angle . The shape factors sc & sγ
can be obtained from Table 2.
Table 2: Shape factors of Terzaghi’s method
Shape factor Footing
Strip Square Circular Rectangular
Sc 1.0 1.3 1.3 B
(1 + 0.3 )
L
Sγ 1.0 0.8 0.6 B
(1 − 0.2 )
L

❑ It should be noted that Terzaghi’s equation for the ultimate bearing capacity did
not consider the impact of the depth of foundation or inclined footing load.
Geotechnical Engineering for Foundations − Professor Mohamed Shahin Curtin University − Page 10
 Worked Example (1)
For the square footing shown below, use Terzaghi’s method to obtain the
following (water table is far below the ground surface):
(a) Factor of safety against bearing capacity failure, if the footing is
subjected to a column load of 450 kN.
(b) Magnitude of the maximum allowable column load that can be applied for a
factor of safety, FS = 3. [Answers: FS = 2.4 and PC = 362 kN]

0.25 × 0.25 m
PC

c’ = 15 kPa
1.0 m
ϕ‘ = 20o
γ = 18 kN/m3
1.5 m × 1.5 m

Geotechnical Engineering for Foundations − Professor Mohamed Shahin Curtin University − Page 11
 Meyerhof’s Method of Ultimate Bearing Capacity
❑ Meyerhof (1963) presented an equation to calculate the ultimate bearing
capacity, qult, that takes into account the impact of the depth of foundation,
Df, and load inclination to the vertical, α, as follows:
qult = cNc sc dcic + qNq sq d qiq + 0.5 b BN  s d i (5)

Nc, Nq, Nγ are the bearing capacity factors and are given as:

(
N q = e tan tan 2 45 +  / 2 ) Nc = ( N q − 1) cot  N = ( N q −1) tan(1.4 )
P
Q
sc, sq, sγ = shape factors;
dc, dq, dγ = depth factors; and α Df
ic, iq, iγ = load inclination factors. T

Values of the bearing capacity factors do not have to be obtained using the above
equations and an alternative easy way is to use Table 3. Also, the equations
needed to obtain the values of the shape, depth and load inclination factors are
included in Table 4. It should be noted that the safety against sliding due to load,
T, should be checked but sliding may be somewhat restricted when footings are
connected by tie beams.
Geotechnical Engineering for Foundations − Professor Mohamed Shahin Curtin University − Page 12
 Table 4: Shape, depth and load inclination
Table 3: Bearing capacity factors of Meyerhof’s method factors of Meyerhof’s method
Factor Meyerhof
o Nc Nq Nγ sc B
1 + 0.2 N   
0 5.14 1.0 0.0 L
sq B
5 6.49 1.6 0.1 1 + 0.1N    and 1 for  = 0
L
10 8.34 2.5 0.4 sγ Same as sq
15 10.97 3.9 1.1 dc Df 
1 + 0.2 N   
20 14.83 6.4 2.9  B 
25 20.71 10.7 6.8 dq Df 
1 + 0.1 N   and 1 for  = 0
26 22.25 11.8 8.0  B 
dγ same as dq
28 25.79 14.7 11.2 2
  
30 30.13 18.4 15.7 ic 1 −  for any 
 90 
32 35.47 23.2 22.0 iq same as ic for any 
2
34 42.14 29.4 31.1   
iγ 1 −   for  > 0 and zero for  = 0
36 50.55 37.7 44.4   
38 61.31 48.9 64.0
N = tan 2 (45 +   / 2)
40 72.25 64.1 93.6 For strip footings, B/L = 0.0
45 133.73 134.7 262.3 αo = tan-1(T/P) (has no sign and measured from the vertical)
P = normal component of Q perpendicular to the footing base
50 266.50 318.50 871.7 T = shear component of Q parallel to the footing base

Q P

α
T
Geotechnical Engineering for Foundations − Professor Mohamed Shahin Curtin University − Page 13
 Worked Example (2)
In the figure shown below, use Meyerhof’s method to check the stability of the
footing against bearing capacity failure and sliding failure.
[Answers: FSbearing = 1.23 and FSsliding = 0.5]

500 kN

35o c’ = 15 kPa
1.0 m
ϕ‘ = 20o
γsoil = 18 kN/m3
1.5 m × 1.5 m

Geotechnical Engineering for Foundations − Professor Mohamed Shahin Curtin University − Page 14
 Hansen’s Method of Ultimate Bearing Capacity
❑ Hansen (1970) extended Meyerhof’s work to include two additional factors to the
equation of ultimate bearing capacity, qult, to take care of the sloping ground surface,
β, and tilted base, η, as follows:
qult = cNc sc dcic gcbc + qNq sq d qiq g qbq + 0.5 b BN  s d i g b (6)

The bearing capacity factors Nc and Nq are the same as Meyerhof, but Nγ is:

N = 1.5( N q − 1) tan 
+β
sc, sq, sγ = shape factors; P Df
dc, dq, dγ = depth factors; α
ic, iq, iγ = load inclination factors;
gc, gq, gγ = ground slope factors; and T β + η ≤ 90o
+η
bc, bq, bγ = tilted base factors.

Values for the bearing capacity factors can be obtained directly from Table 5,
and equations to compute the values of the shape, depth, load inclination,
ground slope and tilted base factors are given in Table 6.
Geotechnical Engineering for Foundations − Professor Mohamed Shahin Curtin University − Page 15
 Table 5: Bearing capacity factors of Hansen’s method

o Nc Nq Nγ

0 5.14 1.0 0.0

5 6.49 1.6 0.1

10 8.34 2.5 0.4

15 10.97 3.9 1.2

20 14.83 6.4 2.9

25 20.71 10.7 6.8

26 22.25 11.8 7.9

28 25.79 14.7 10.9

30 30.13 18.4 15.1

32 35.47 23.2 20.8

34 42.14 29.4 28.7

36 50.55 37.7 40.0

38 61.31 48.9 56.1

40 72.25 64.1 79.4

45 133.73 134.7 200.5

50 266.50 318.50 567.4

Geotechnical Engineering for Foundations − Professor Mohamed Shahin Curtin University − Page 16
Table 6: Shape, depth, load inclination, ground slope
and tilted base factors of Hansen’s method
Factor Hansen N = tan 2 (45 +   / 2)
sc Nq  B 
1+
N c  L  For strip footings, B/L = 0.0
B
αo = tan-1(T/P) (has no sign and measured from the vertical)
sq 1 + tan   ca = adhesion on the base of footing
L
Af = contact area of footing
sγ B
1 − 0 .4 ηo = base inclination in degrees
L 
η = base inclination in radians, i.e.  (rad ) =   
Df  cot  = 1 / tan  180 
dc 1 + 0.4 
 B 
Df 
dq 1 + 2 tan   (1 − sin   ) 2  
 B 
dγ 1 for all 

0 .5 +β
1 − iq T  Df
ic iq − for  > 0 and 0.51 −  for  = 0 P
Nq −1  A f c a 
5 α
 0.5T 
iq 1 − o 
 P + Af ca cot  
5
 0.7T  T β + η ≤ 90o
iγ 1 − 
 P + Af ca cot   +η

gc 
1−
147 
gq (1 − 0.5 tan   ) 5

gγ same as gq

bc 
1−
147 
e −2 tan 
bq 

bγ 
e−2.7 tan
Geotechnical Engineering for Foundations − Professor Mohamed Shahin Curtin University − Page 17
 Worked Example (3)
Calculate the factor of safety against bearing capacity failure for the footing
shown below, using Hansen’s method. [Answer: FS = 1.8 < 2-3, unsafe]

PC = 400 kN

30o
1.0 m
c’ = 15 kPa
ϕ‘ = 20o
1.5 × 1.5 m γsoil = 18 kN/m3

Geotechnical Engineering for Foundations − Professor Mohamed Shahin Curtin University − Page 18
 Vesic’s Method of Ultimate Bearing Capacity
❑ Vesic (1975) used the same form of equation suggested by Hansen to
obtain the ultimate bearing capacity, qult, but developed his own bearing
capacity factor Nγ as well as load inclination, ground slope and tilted base
factors.
❑ Values for the bearing capacity factors are given in Table 7, whereas the
equations needed to obtain the shape, depth, load inclination, ground slope
and tilted base factors are given in Table 8.

Geotechnical Engineering for Foundations − Professor Mohamed Shahin Curtin University − Page 19
 Table 7: Bearing capacity factors of Vesic’s method

o Nc Nq Nγ
0 5.14 1.0 0.0
5 6.49 1.6 0.4
10 8.34 2.5 1.2
15 10.97 3.9 2.6
20 14.83 6.4 5.4
25 20.71 10.7 10.9
26 22.25 11.8 12.5
28 25.79 14.7 16.7
30 30.13 18.4 22.4
32 35.47 23.2 30.2
34 42.14 29.4 41.0
36 50.55 37.7 56.2
38 61.31 48.9 77.9
40 72.25 64.1 109.4
45 133.73 134.7 271.3

50 266.50 318.50 762.84

Geotechnical Engineering for Foundations − Professor Mohamed Shahin Curtin University − Page 20
Table 8: Shape, depth, load inclination, ground slope N = tan 2 (45 +   / 2)
and tilted base factors of Vesic’s method
For strip footings, B/L = 0.0
Factor Vesic
αo = tan-1(T/P) (has no sign and measured from the vertical)
sc
ca = adhesion on the base of footing
sq
same as Hansen Af = contact area of footing
sγ
ηo = base inclination in degrees
dc

η = base inclination in radians, i.e.  (rad ) =   
dq same as Hansen 180 
cot  = 1 / tan 
dγ
2+ B/L
1 − iq mT m = mB =  ÷ for T parallel to B
ic iq − for  > 0 and 1 − for  = 0  1+ B / L 
Nq −1 A f ca N c
2+ L/B
m m = mL =  ÷ for T parallel to L
 T   1+ L / B 
iq 1 − o 
 P + Af ca cot  
m +1
 T 
iγ 1 − 
 P + Af ca cot   +β
gc   P Df
1−
147  α
gq (1 − tan   ) 2

gγ same as gq
T β + η ≤ 90o
2 +η
bc 1−
(5.14 tan   )
bq (1 −  tan  ) 2
bγ same as bq

Geotechnical Engineering for Foundations − Professor Mohamed Shahin Curtin University − Page 21
 Worked Example (4)
Calculate the ultimate bearing capacity for the footing shown below, using Vesic’s
method. Neglect applied shear to the footing base. [Answer: qult = 481 kPa]

1.0 m
1.4 m

c’ = 15 kPa
ϕ‘ = 20o
γsoil = 18 kN/m3
15o

Geotechnical Engineering for Foundations − Professor Mohamed Shahin Curtin University − Page 22
Summary of Ultimate Bearing Capacity Calculations
Values of the bearing capacity factors for Meyerhof (M), Hansen (H) and Vesic (V)

o Nc Nq Nγ (M) Nγ (H) Nγ (V)

0 5.14 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

5 6.49 1.6 0.1 0.1 0.4
10 8.34 2.5 0.4 0.4 1.2
15 10.97 3.9 1.1 1.2 2.6
20 14.83 6.4 2.9 2.9 5.4
25 20.71 10.7 6.8 6.8 10.9
26 22.25 11.8 8.0 7.9 12.5
28 25.79 14.7 11.2 10.9 16.7
30 30.13 18.4 15.7 15.1 22.4
32 35.47 23.2 22.0 20.8 30.2
34 42.14 29.4 31.1 28.7 41.0
36 50.55 37.7 44.4 40.0 56.2
38 61.31 48.9 64.0 56.1 77.9
40 72.25 64.1 93.6 79.4 109.4
45 133.73 134.7 262.3 200.5 271.3
50 266.50 318.50 871.7 567.4 762.84

Geotechnical Engineering for Foundations − Professor Mohamed Shahin Curtin University − Page 23
 Factors of shape, depth of foundation, load inclination, ground slope and tilted base for Meyerhof, Hansen and Vesic
Factor Meyerhof Hansen Vesic
B Nq  B 
sc 1 + 0.2 N    1+
L N c  L 
B B
1 + tan   same as Hansen
sq 1 + 0.1N    and 1 for  = 0
L L
B
sγ Same as sq 1 − 0 .4
L
Df  Df 
dc 1 + 0.2 N    1 + 0.4 
 B   B  same as Hansen
Df  Df 
dq 1 + 0.1 N   and 1 for  = 0 1 + 2 tan   (1 − sin   ) 2  
 B   B 
dγ same as dq 1 for all 
  
2

0 .5
1 − iq
1 − iq T  iq − for  > 0 and 1 −
mT
for  = 0
ic 1 −  for any  iq − for  > 0 and 0.51 −  for  = 0 Nq −1 A f ca N c
 90  Nq −1  A f c a 
5 m
 0.5T   T 
iq same as ic for any  1 − o  1 − o 
 P + Af ca cot    P + Af ca cot  
2 5 m +1
    0.7T   T 
iγ 1 −   for  > 0 and zero for  = 0 1 −  1 − 
    P + A f ca cot    P + A f ca cot  
gc  
1− 1−
147  147 
gq
N/A (1 − 0.5 tan   ) 5 (1 − tan   ) 2

gγ same as gq same as gq

bc  2
1− 1−
N/A 147  (5.14 tan   )
bq
e −2 tan 

(1 −  tan  ) 2
bγ  same as bq
e−2.7 tan
Geotechnical Engineering for Foundations − Professor Mohamed Shahin Curtin University − Page 24
 N = tan 2 (45 +   / 2)
For strip footings, B/L = 0.0 +β
P Df
αo = tan-1(T/P) (has no sign and measured from the vertical)
α
ca = adhesion on the base of footing

Af = contact area of footing

T β + η ≤ 90o
ηo = base inclination in degrees +η

η = base inclination in radians, i.e.  (rad ) =   
180 
cot  = 1 / tan 

2+ B/L
m = mB =  ÷ for T parallel to B
 1+ B / L 
2+ L/B
m = mL =  ÷ for T parallel to L
 1+ L / B 

Geotechnical Engineering for Foundations − Professor Mohamed Shahin Curtin University − Page 25
❑ Which equation to use?
Bowles (1996) suggested the various equations be used in the following
situations:
Use Best for
Terzaghi Very cohesive soil where Df/B ≤ 1 or for a quick estimate of qult to compare with other methods
Hansen, Meyerhof, Vesic Any situation which applies, depending on used preference or familiarity with a particular method.
Hansen, Ves ic When base is tilted; when ground surface is sloped; or when Df/B = 1.

❑ Bearing capacity for footings near ground slope?

It should be noted that the bearing capacity equations for methods of Hansen and
Vesic were developed considering zero edge distance (i.e. the distance between the
footing edge and shoulder of ground slope), which represents the worst case
scenario at which the presence of ground slope has the most significant impact on
reducing the bearing capacity. In cases where the edge distance is greater than
zero, the bearing capacity will increase until it reaches a constant value where the
presence of ground slope no longer affects the bearing capacity, i.e. at the
maximum edge distance. Calculations of the bearing capacity when the edge
distance ranges between zero and maximum are not covered herein and can be
found elsewhere (e.g. Saran et al. 1989 and Castelli & Motta 2010). Determination
of the maximum edge distance can also be found in Saran et al. 1989, which
mainly depends on , β and Df.

Geotechnical Engineering for Foundations − Professor Mohamed Shahin Curtin University − Page 26
 Bearing Capacity for Footings on Layered Soils
❑ The bearing capacity equations examined thus far have treated the soil beneath
the footing as being a single homogeneous deposit (i.e. c,  and γ are constant
with depth). In some instances, the subsoil beneath the footing may be stratified
into layers. One way of dealing with such situation is to use the weighted
average values of c,  and γ based on the relative thicknesses of each stratum in
the zone between the bottom of the footing and a depth H below the bottom. The
depth H can be taken equal to B or [B/2 × tan(45o + ϕ1/2)], whichever is higher.
The weighted average values can be calculated as follows (see Figure 5):
i=n i =n

c H
i=n
i i  H i i  H i i

cav = i =1
i=n
 av = i =1
i=n
 av = i =1
i=n (7)
H i H i H
i =1
i
i =1
i =1
where:
ci = cohesion of layer i;
i = friction angle of layer i;
γi = unit weight of soil for layer i;
Hi = thickness of layer i; and
Hi = effective depth beneath the footing.
Geotechnical Engineering for Foundations − Professor Mohamed Shahin Curtin University − Page 27
 GS

B
H1 c1, 1, γ1
H2 c2, 2, γ2
H

Hn cn, n, γn

Figure 5: Footing on layered soils

Geotechnical Engineering for Foundations − Professor Mohamed Shahin Curtin University − Page 28
 Effective vs Total Stresses for Bearing Capacity
❑ If the water table is far below the foundation level, the bearing capacity should
be computed using the effective shear strength parameters c’ and ’, and the
bulk unit weight of soil, γ. However, if the water table is located close to the
foundation, the shear strength parameters will be in accordance with whether
the design should be based on effective stress analysis (drained condition) or
total stress analysis (undrained condition). Also, some modifications are
necessary in the bearing capacity equations for the surcharge load q and unit
weight of soil, depending on the depth of water table below the ground surface.

❑ Effective Stress Analysis: This analysis considers the drained condition where
the excess pore water pressures, if any, that may be created due to loading has
time to dissipate. In this case, in the various bearing capacity equations, use the
effective shear strength parameters c’ and ’, and the values of q and γb should
be computed taking into account the level of water table as per the following
three cases (see Figure 6).

• Case I: the water table is located so that (0 ≤ D1 ≤ Df). The surcharge

pressure q in the bearing capacity equations will take the following form:
q = D1 +  sat D2 −  w D2 = D1 + ( sat −  w ) D2 = D1 +  D2
Geotechnical Engineering for Foundations − Professor Mohamed Shahin Curtin University − Page 29
 where:
γ = bulk unit weight of soil above the water table;
γsat = saturated unit weight of soil below the water table;
γ‘ = effective unit weight of soil; and
γw = unit weight of water.
Also, the parameter γb , in the last term (… γb BNγ ) is replaced by γ’.

• Case II: the water table is located above the ground surface by a height hw. The
surcharge pressure q in the bearing capacity equations will be:
q =  whw +  sat D f − w (h w + D f ) = ( sat −  w ) D f =  ' D f
Also, the parameter γb , in the last term (… γb BNγ ) is replaced by γ’.

• Case III: the water table is located below the base of footing so that (0 ≤ d ≤ B).
The surcharge load q in the bearing capacity equation will take the form:
q = D f

Also, the parameter γb , in the last term (… γb BNγ ) is replaced by the factor:
d
 =  '+ ( −  ' )
B

Geotechnical Engineering for Foundations − Professor Mohamed Shahin Curtin University − Page 30
 WT
hw
GS GS GS
γ D1
WT γ
Df Df Df
D2

B B B
d
γsat q = D f γsat q = D f WT
γsat
Case I Case II Case III
Figure 6: The three ground water cases that influence bearing capacity

❑ Total Stress Analysis: This analysis considers the undrained condition where excess
pore water pressures develop due to loading and will not have enough time to dissipate.
In this case, in the various bearing capacity equations, use the undrained strength
parameters cu (or su) and u = 0, and in calculation of the surcharge load q, use the bulk
unit weight γ above the water table and saturated unit weight γsat below the water table,
depending on the location of the water table between the ground surface and foundation
level. It should be noted that in this case, N = 0, thus the last term (… γb BNγ ) is zero.

❑ Please note that for fully saturated soils: use drained condition (or effective stress
analysis) for sands; whereas use both drained and undrained conditions (effective and
total stress analyses) for clays, and consider the worst case scenario, however, the
undrained condition is likely to be more critical. For partially saturated soils: use drained
condition for sands, and use undrained condition for clays but it will be conservative.
Geotechnical Engineering for Foundations − Professor Mohamed Shahin Curtin University − Page 31
 Worked Example (5)
Refer to the figure below and use FS = 3 and Terzaghi’s method to calculate the
allowable column load, for drained and undrained conditions, and omment on the
results obtained, if the water table is located at:
(a) ground surface
(b) 0.5 m below the ground surface
(c) 2.0 m below the ground surface
[Answers: Pc-drained condition = 307 , 327 , 357 kN, Pc-undrained condition = 64, 63, 62 kN]

0.25 × 0.25 m
Qcol

c’ = 15 kPa

1.0 m cu = 10 kPa
ϕ‘ = 20o
γ = 18 kN/m3
1.5 × 1.5 m
γsat = 20 kN/m3

Geotechnical Engineering for Foundations − Professor Mohamed Shahin Curtin University − Page 32
 Footings with Eccentric Loading
❑ Most foundations are built so that the vertical load acts through the centroid, thus
producing a fairly uniform distribution of bearing pressure underneath the
foundation. However, sometimes it becomes necessary to accommodate eccentric
loading which results from loads applied somewhere other than the footing’s
centroid or from applied moments (see Figure 7), such as those resulting at the
footings of a tall building from wind loads or earthquakes.

❑ Eccentric loadings produce a non-uniform bearing pressure distribution

underneath footings, and also change the bearing capacity calculations. When a
footing is subjected to an eccentric load, it tilts towards the side of the eccentricity
and the bearing pressure increases on that side and decreases on the opposite side.
When the vertical applied load reaches its ultimate value, there will be a failure of
the supporting soil on the side of eccentricity. It is then important to know how
bearing pressure and bearing capacity change with eccentric loading and how
they can be determined.

❑ In Figure 7(a), the eccentricity of the bearing pressure is equal to:

M M
e= = (8)
PG 1.1PC

Geotechnical Engineering for Foundations − Professor Mohamed Shahin Curtin University − Page 33
❑ In Figure 7(b), the eccentricity is equal to:
M PC x
e= = (9)
PG 1.1PC
where:
M = applied moment at the foundation level of the footing centroid;
PG = applied load at the foundation level of the footing centroid;
PC = column load;
A = base area of foundation;
e = eccentricity of the bearing pressure distribution; and
e1 = eccentricity of the column load to the footing centroid.

Pc Pc
GS GS
e1
M M

PG PG
(a) (b)
Figure 7: Examples of footings with eccentricity

Geotechnical Engineering for Foundations − Professor Mohamed Shahin Curtin University − Page 34
 Applied Pressure for Eccentric Foundations
❑ One-Way Eccentricity:
For a footing with one-way eccentricity in the B direction (i.e. eB) the possible
applied pressure distributions will be as shown in Figure 8. If eB < B/6, the
applied pressure distribution is trapezoidal and its minimum and maximum
values, qapp-min and qapp-max , can be calculated as follows:

PG 6e
qapp − min = (1 − B ) (11)
A B
PG 6eB
qapp − max = (1 + ) (12)
A B
❑ If eB = B/6, then qapp-min = 0 and the applied pressure distribution is triangular, as
shown in Figure 8. Therefore, so long as eB ≤ B/6, there will be some applied
pressure contact along the entire base area of the foundation. However, if eB >
B/6, part of the applied pressure will be in tension and one side of the foundation
will lift off the ground, which should not be allowed.

❑ If the column include crane loads, the applied pressure distribution should satisfy
the following condition: qapp-min ≥ 25% qapp-max.
Geotechnical Engineering for Foundations − Professor Mohamed Shahin Curtin University − Page 35
❑ If the eccentricity is in the L direction, replace B with L and eB with eL in Eqns. (11) and
(12), respectively, to calculate qapp-min and qapp-max.

GS GS

ML ML

PG PG
B B

qapp-min
ML qapp-max
L

PG
qapp-min

B qapp-min qapp-max

qapp-max

Figure 8: Possible applied pressure distributions for a footing with one-way eccentricity in B-direction

Geotechnical Engineering for Foundations − Professor Mohamed Shahin Curtin University − Page 36
❑ Two-Way Eccentricity:
In Figure 9, the footing is subjected to two-way eccentricity and the
minimum & maximum applied pressures are calculated, as follows:
PG 6e 6e
qapp − min = (1 − B − L ) (13)
A B L

PG 6e 6e
qapp − max = (1 + B + L ) (14)
A B L

where: eB and eL are the eccentricities in the B and L directions, respectively,

and can be obtained as follows: eB = ML /PG and eL = MB /PG.

eB ML
MB
eL
PG
L

Figure 9: Footing with two-way eccentricity

Geotechnical Engineering for Foundations − Professor Mohamed Shahin Curtin University − Page 37
 Bearing Capacity for Eccentric Foundations
❑ Meyerhof (1963) suggested a method that is generally referred to as the
effective area method to obtain the bearing capacity of footings subjected to
eccentricity. The design of footing subjected to eccentricity is the same as
described earlier using any of the ultimate bearing capacity methods but with
some modifications to consider for the effective dimensions of footing, as
explained below.

❑ One-Way Eccentricity:
For footings with one way eccentricity, the effective footing dimensions are as
follows (see Figure 10):
B’ = effective width = B – 2eB (for eccentricity in B direction)
or
L’ = effective length = L – 2eL (for eccentricity in L direction)
❑ In the bearing capacity equations, to obtain the shape factors (sc, sq and sγ), use
the effective width B’ or effective length L’ instead of B or L. Also, use B’ in the
last term of the bearing capacity equations (… γbBNγ ). However, to determine
the depth factors (dc, dq and dγ), use B & L and do not replace them by B’ & L’.

Geotechnical Engineering for Foundations − Professor Mohamed Shahin Curtin University − Page 38
 B B
B’

eL

L’
L
L
eB

B’ = B – 2eB L’ = L – 2eL

Figure 10: Effective dimensions for footings with one-way eccentricity in B and L directions

❑ It should be noted that if eccentricity was in the direction of the footing length,
as the case in the left of Figure 8, the effective length L’ would be equal to L –
2eL and the effective width would be equal to B. L’ and B should be compared
and the smaller of the two dimensions should be used as the effective width of
footing and the other dimension should be used as the effective length.

Geotechnical Engineering for Foundations − Professor Mohamed Shahin Curtin University − Page 39
❑ Two-Way Eccentricity:
When a foundation is subjected to two-way eccentricity, its effective area (i.e. the
area affected by the load) will be similar to the dashed area depicted in Figure 11.
In this case, the effective width of foundation B’ will be such that:

( B + B1 ) L1 ( B − B1 )
B' = + (15)
2 2L
where, B1 and L1 can be determined from charts established by Higher and
Andres (1985) and reproduced in Figures 12 and 13, respectively. The effective
length is still the original length L.

❑ As with the one way eccentricity, in the bearing capacity equations, use the
effective width B’ instead of B to obtain the shape factors (sc, sq and sγ). Also,
use B’ in the last term of the bearing capacity equation (… γbBNγ ). However,
to determine the depth factors (dc, dq and dγ), use the original width B and do
not replace it by B’.

Geotechnical Engineering for Foundations − Professor Mohamed Shahin Curtin University − Page 40
 B

L1
eL

L
eB

B1
Figure 11: Effective area related to a two-way eccentricity

Figure 12: Higher and Andres charts for Figure 13: Higher and Andres charts for
the determination of B1 the determination of L1
Geotechnical Engineering for Foundations − Professor Mohamed Shahin Curtin University − Page 41
❑ For footings with eccentricity, the bearing capacity, qult, can then be
compared with the maximum bearing pressure, qapp-max, and the factor of
safety can then be obtained as follows:
qult
FS = (16)
qapp−max

Geotechnical Engineering for Foundations − Professor Mohamed Shahin Curtin University − Page 42
 Worked Example (6)
❑ Determine the factor of safety against bearing capacity failure using
Meyerhof’s method for the footing shown in the figure below. The water table
is far below the foundation level and the depth of foundation is 1.5 m from the
ground surface, and the soil has the following properties:  = 18 kN/m3, c’ =
15 kPa and ’ = 20o. [Answer: FS = 4.2, very safe]

ML = 67.5 kN.m

MB = 90 kN.m
PG = 450 kN
3m ●

2m

Geotechnical Engineering for Foundations − Professor Mohamed Shahin Curtin University − Page 43
❑ Determination of Footing Dimensions:
In calculation of the bearing capacity of shallow foundations shown previously, the
footing dimensions (B × L) were given. However, in reality such dimensions should be
determined in advance by the geotechnical engineer and the following general procedure
can be used for this purpose.
1. Estimate the preliminary allowable bearing pressure, q*all, from the ultimate bearing
capacity of the underlying foundation material, qu (obtained from Table 9), such that: q*all
= qu/FS. The values in Table (9) should only be used for preliminary design purposes. The
choice of the FS (factor of safety) should be decided with the following considerations: (i)
type of structure; (ii) quality of the soil exploration program; (iii) likelihood of the
maximum load occurring; and (iv) consequences of failure. On the one hand, high FS ≥ 3
is used where limited soil exploration is undertaken, the soil conditions are very variable,
the consequences of failure are disastrous and the maximum design load is likely to occur
often. On the other hand, low FS = 2 is adopted where thorough and complete site
investigations are undertaken, the soil conditions are relatively uniform and the maximum
design load is unlikely to occur.
2. Determine the vertical load and moment (if any) transmitted from the structure to the
footing under the service loading conditions. These are the applied load, PG, and moment,
MG, at the foundation level. Where PG is made of the column load, PC, weight of footing,
WF, and weigh of soil above it, Ws, or (PG = 1.1 PC), noting that PC is made of the dead
load, PD, and live load, PL, of the structure (i.e. PC = PD + PL). Likewise, MG (if any) is
made of the column moment, MC (i.e. MC = MD + ML).
3. Select the overall dimensions of the footing for the load, PG, and moment, MG (if any), so
as to fulfil the allowable bearing pressure, q*all, in such away to achieve as uniform
pressure as possible.
Geotechnical Engineering for Foundations − Professor Mohamed Shahin Curtin University − Page 44
4. Perform the bearing capacity analysis on the proposed footings and calculate the actual
ultimate bearing capacity, qult, using the actual allowable bearing capacity (i.e. qall =
qult/FS), making sure that the applied bearing pressure, qapp, is less than qall.
5. Calculate the net applied bearing pressure, qnet, and perform the settlement analysis, as will
be explained in the next lecture series, to calculate the settlement, making sure that it is
within tolerable limits.
Table 9: Typical ultimate bearing capacities for various soil and rock types (after Whitlow 1990).

Geotechnical Engineering for Foundations − Professor Mohamed Shahin Curtin University − Page 45
 Worked Example (7)
❑ Use FS = 3 and check the bearing capacity of a pad footing supporting (300 mm × 400
mm) column carrying a vertical column load of 550 kN (400 kN dead load and 150 kN
live load). The footing is located at 1.5 m from the ground surface and the water table is
far below the ground surface. The underlying foundation material is a stiff to very stiff
clay with the following properties: c’ = 50 kPa, ϕ’ = 5o, E’ = 30 MPa, ν’ = 0.45, γsoil = 18
kN/m3. [B = 2.0 m × L = 3.0 m gives qapp = 100 kPa < qall = 163 kPa, safe]

Geotechnical Engineering for Foundations − Professor Mohamed Shahin Curtin University − Page 46
 Bearing Capacity of Raft Foundations
❑ As mentioned previously, a raft foundation is a large concrete slab used to accommodate
the entire building columns and walls so that their loads are spread over a large area
(Figure 14 shows pad footings versus raft foundation).
❑ Raft foundations are usually used where the soil has low bearing capacity and/or the
structure loads are so large that more than 50% of the available land area would be
covered by pad footings. Several configurations for raft foundations can be used and
typical examples are shown in Figure 15, the simplest and most common type is the flat
slab (Figure 15a), which will be the main focus of our unit.
❑ Raft foundations have the following advantages over pad footings as they: (i) provide
much more structural rigidity and reduce the potential for excessive total settlement; (ii)
when the soil contains weak pockets or cavities, large differential settlements are to be
expected if the building is founded on pad footings; raft foundations however tend to
bridge over the weak soil pockets and hence reduce differential settlement; (iii) spread the
structural loads over a large area, thus, reduce the applied bearing pressure on the
supporting soil; and (iv) have greater weight and thus are able to resist higher uplift loads.

Pad footings Raft foundation

Figure 14: Pad footing versus raft foundation.
Geotechnical Engineering for Foundations − Professor Mohamed Shahin Curtin University − Page 47
 Figure 15: Several configurations of raft foundations: (a) flat slab/plate; (b) plate thickness under
columns; (c) beam and slab (waffle slab); (d) slab with pedestals; and (e) basement walls or closed boxes.

Geotechnical Engineering for Foundations − Professor Mohamed Shahin Curtin University − Page 48
❑ Bearing capacity calculations for raft foundations are similar to those of pad or strip
footings, as discussed earlier. One important aspect for the design of raft foundations is
that the dimensions of the raft have to be selected so as to satisfy the requirement that the
point of application of the resultant applied load, PG, coincides with the centroid of the
raft area, thus, the applied pressure is distributed uniformly (Figure 16), which will help to
avoid tilting. If for whatever reason the resultant applied load does not act at the centroid
of the raft area, the contact pressure will no longer be uniform (Figure 17). In this case, the
bearing capacity can be calculated using the same y procedure described earlier for footings
with eccentricity.

L/2

PG
qapp = PG
x
A

L/2

B/2 B/2
PG
qapp =
A
Figure 16: Uniform applied pressure distribution for raft foundation.
Geotechnical Engineering for Foundations − Professor Mohamed Shahin Curtin University − Page 49
 y

PG 6e 6ey
qapp −min = (1 − x − )
A B L
My PG 6e 6ey
ex
PG Mx qapp − max = (1 + x + )
ey A B L
L x
ex = eB = My/PG

ey = eL = Mx/PG

PG = 1.1 P C
B

Figure 17: Non-uniform applied pressure distribution for raft foundation.

Geotechnical Engineering for Foundations − Professor Mohamed Shahin Curtin University − Page 50
References:
❑ Bowles, J. E. (1996). Foundation analysis and design, McGraw-Hill, N.Y.
❑ Castelli, F., and Motta, E. (2010). “Bearing Capacity of Strip Footings Near
Slopes” Journal of Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 28, 187–198.
❑ Das, B. (1998). Principles of geotechnical engineering, PWS Publishing
Company, Boston, MA.
❑ Hansen, J. B. (1970). “A revised and extended formula for bearing capacity”
Danish Geotechnical Institute, Copenham, Bulletin (28), 5-11.
❑ Highter, W. H., and Andres, J. C. (1985). “Dimensioning footings subjected to
eccentric loads” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 11(GT5), 659-665.
❑ Meyerhof, G. G. (1963). “Shallow foundations” Journal of Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Division, 91(SM2), 21-31.
❑ Saran, S., Sud, V. K., and Handa, S. C. (1989). “Bearing capacity of footings
adjacent to slopes” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 115(4), 553-573.
❑ Terzaghi, K. (1943). Theoretical soil mechanics, Wiley & Sons, N.Y.
❑ Vesic, A. S. (1975). “Analysis of ultimate loads of shallow foundations” Journal
of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering Division, ASCE, 99(SM1), 45-73.

Geotechnical Engineering for Foundations − Professor Mohamed Shahin Curtin University − Page 51