Ambo University, Institute of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering -0-

CHAPTER FOUR
BEARING CAPACITY OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS
Introduction
A foundation, often constructed from concrete, steel or wood, is a structure designed to
transfer loads from a superstructure to the soil underneath the superstructure. In general,
foundations are categorized into two groups, namely, shallow and deep foundations. Shallow
foundations are comprised of footings, while deep foundations include piles that are used
when the soil near the ground surface has no enough strength to stand the applied loading.
The ultimate bearing capacity, qu, (in kPa) is the load that causes the shear failure of the soil
underneath and adjacent to the footing. In this chapter, we will discuss equations used to
estimate the ultimate bearing capacity of soils. When you complete this chapter you should
be able to:
 Calculate the bearing capacity of soils.

4.1 Bearing Failure Modes

Figure 4.1: Modes of bearing failures (a) General shear (b) Local shear and (c) Punching shear.
Relative density of the soil and size of the foundation are among the major factors that affect
the mode of bearing failure likely to occur. The modes of bearing failure are generally
separated into three categories: The general shear failure (Fig. 4.1 a) is usually associated
with soils of low compressibility such as dense sand and stiff cohesive soils. In this case, if

Soil Mechanics II: Lecture Notes -0-

Ambo University, Institute of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering -1-

load is gradually applied to the foundation, settlement will increase. At a certain point – when
the applied load per unit area equals to the ultimate load qu – a sudden failure in the soil
supporting the foundation will take place. The failure surface in the soil will extend to the
ground surface and full shear resistance of the soil is developed along the failure surface.
Bulging of the soil near the footing is usually apparent.
For the local shear failure (Fig.4.1 b), which is common in sands and clays of medium
compaction, the failure surface will gradually extend outward from the foundation but will
not reach the ground surface as shown by the solid segment in Fig. 4.1 b. The shear resistance
is fully developed over only part of the failure surface (solid segment of the line). There is a
certain degree of bulging of the soil.
In the case of punching shear failure, a condition common in loose and very compressible
soils, considerable vertical settlement may take place with the failure surfaces restricted to
vertical planes immediately adjacent to the sides of the foundation; the ground surface may
be dragged down. After the first yield has occurred the load-settlement curve will be steep
slightly, but remain fairly flat.

4.2 Ultimate Bearing Capacity Equations

4.2.1 Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity equation
Many of the present day principles regarding bearing capacity equations appear to have had
their origin on a failure mechanism proposed by Prandtl in the early 1920s (refer literature for
Prandtl’s failure mechanism).

Figure 4.2: Failure mechanism for Terzhagi’s bearing capacity solution.

Prandtl developed a bearing capacity equation
 Assuming a smooth (frictionless) footing and
 Ignoring the weight of the soil in the failure zone.
These assumptions are not true in practice and therefore Prandtl’s equation is never used
in practical design, but it was a beginning.
Terzhagi (1943) improved the Prandtl equation to include the roughness of the footing and
the weight of the failure zone. The failure mechanism in a c’, ϕ’ soil for Terzhagi’s bearing
capacity solution is shown in Fig. 4.2. Terzhagi’s ultimate bearing capacity equations are

Soil Mechanics II: Lecture Notes -1-

Ambo University, Institute of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering -2-

given as follows:

Strip (or long) footing: qu  c' N c  DN q  0.5BN  (4.1)

Square footing: qu  1.3c' N c  DN q  0.4 BN  (4.2)

Circular footing: qu  1.3c' N c  DN q  0.3BN  (4.3)

Where Nc, Nq and Nγ are called the bearing capacity factors and are obtained as follows:

e (3 / 2 ') tan  '  K p 

Nq  , N c  cot ' ( N q  1) , N   12 tan  '   1 (4.4)
2 cos2 (45   ' / 2)  cos  ' 
2

Figure 4.3: Terzhagi’s bearing capacity coefficients.

Figure 4.3 shows the variation of the bearing capacity factors provided by Terzhagi. Based on
this figure, Aysen (2002) proposed the following equation to obtain the value of Kpγ in the Nγ
equation:

K p  (8 ' 2 4 '3.8) tan 2 (600   ' / 2) (4.5)

Where  ' in the first term is in radians. In the undrained conditions (cu and u  0 ):

N q  1, N c  ( 32   1)  5.71 , N  0 (4.6)

Soil Mechanics II: Lecture Notes -2-

Ambo University, Institute of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering -3-

4.2.2 Meyerhof’s Bearing Capacity equation

Meyerhof (1951) developed a bearing capacity equation by extending Terzhagi’s failure
mechanism and taking into account the effects of footing shape, load inclination and footing
depth by adding the corresponding factors of s, d, and i. For a rectangular footing of L by B
(L > B) and inclined load:

qu  c' N c s c ic d c  DN q s q iq d q  0.5BN  s i d  (4.7)

For vertical load, ic = iq = iγ = 1

qu  c' N c sc d c  DN q s q d q  0.5BN  s d  (4.8)

Figure 4.4: Meyerhof’s bearing capacity coefficients.

The bearing capacity factors:

N q  exp( tan  ' ) tan 2 (45   ' / 2) , N c  cot ' ( N q  1) , N   ( N q  1) tan(1.4 ' ) (4.9)

In the undrained conditions (cu and u  0 ):

N q  1, N c  (  2)  5.71, N  0

The bearing capacity factors are graphically presented in Fig. 4.4. The shape, inclination and
depth factors are according to:

Soil Mechanics II: Lecture Notes -3-

Ambo University, Institute of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering -4-

Shape Depth Inclination

2
B D  0 
Any  ' s c  1  0 .2 K p d c  1  0.2 K p ic  iq  1  0 
L B  90 
For  '  0 sq = s γ = 1 dq = d γ= 1 i γ= 0
2
B D  0 
For  ' 10 0
s q  s  1  0.1K p d q  d   1  0.1 K p i  1  0 
L B  ' 
 ' 
K p  tan 2  45   ,  =angle of resultant measured from vertical axis.
 2
 B '
when triaxial  ' is used for plane strain, adjust  ' to obtain  '  1.1  0.1 triax ial
 L

For the eccentric load, the length and width of the footing rectangle are modified to:
L’ = L – 2eL and, B’ = B – 2eB (4.9)
Where eL and eB represent the eccentricity along the appropriate directions

4.2.3 Hansen’s Bearing Capacity Equation

Hansen (1961) extended Meyerhof’s solutions by considering the effects of sloping ground
surface and tilted base (Fig. 4.5) as well as modification of Nγ and other factors. For a
rectangular footing of L by B (L > B) and inclined ground surface, base and load:
qu  c' N c sc d c ic bc g c  DN q s q d q iq bq g q  0.5BN  s d  i b g  (4.10)

Equation 2.9 is sometimes referred to as the general bearing capacity equation. In the special
case of a horizontal ground surface,
qu  c' N c s c d c ic bc  DN q s q d q iq bq  0.5BN  s d  i b (4.11)

Figure 4.5: Identification of items in Hansen’s bearing capacity equation.

Soil Mechanics II: Lecture Notes -4-

Ambo University, Institute of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering -5-

Figure 4.6 provides the relationships between Nc, Nq, and Nγ and the  ' values, as proposed
by Hansen.

Figure 4.6: Hansen’s bearing capacity coefficients.

The bearing capacity factors Nc and Nq are identical with Meyerhof’s factors. Nγ is defined
by:

N   1.5( N q  1) tan  (4.12)

Since failure can take place either along the long side or along the short side, Hansen
proposed two sets of shape, inclination and depth factors.
The shape factors are:
Nq B B B
sc , B  1   ic , B , sq,B  1  iq , B  sin  ' , s , B  1  0.4 i , B  0.6 (4.13)
Nc L L L

Nq L L L
sc, L  1   ic , L , sq,L  1  iq , L  sin  ' , s  , L  1  0.4 i , L  0.6 (4.14)
Nc B B B

B L
For cu, ϕu=0 soil: s c , B  0.2 ic , B , s c , L  0 .2 ic , L (4.15)
L B

The inclination factors are:

Soil Mechanics II: Lecture Notes -5-

Ambo University, Institute of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering -6-

1 2
1  i q ,i  0.5H i   0.7 H i 
i c ,i  i q ,i  , i q ,i  1   , i ,i  1   (4.16)
Nq 1  V  Acb cot '   V  Acb cot ' 

Where the suffix i (in Eqn. 2.15) stands for B or L. 2  1  5 . 2   2  5 . A is the area of
the footing base and cb is the cohesion mobilized in the footing-soil contact area. For the
tilted base:

2
 (0.7   0 4500 ) H i 
i ,i  1   (4.17)
 V  Ac b cot ' 

For cu, ϕu=0 soil: ic ,i  0.5  0.5 1  H i Acb (4.18)

In the above equations, B and L may be replaced by their effective values (B’ and L’)
expressed by Eqn. (4.9).
The depth factors are expressed in two sets:
For D/B  1 & D/L  1:

d c, B  1  0.4  D , d q, B  1  2 tan  ' (1  sin  ' ) 2  D (4.19)

B B

d c, L  1  0.4  D , d q, L  1  2 tan  ' (1  sin ' ) 2  D (4.20)

L L
For D/B > 1 & D/L > 1:

d c, B  1  0.4  tan 1 D  B , d q, B  1  2 tan  ' (1  sin  ' ) 2  tan 1 ( D )

B
(4.21)

d c, L  1  0.4  tan 1 D  L, d q, L  1  2 tan  ' (1  sin ' ) 2  tan 1 ( D )

L
(4.22)

For both sets: d  1 (4.23)

For cu, ϕu soil: d c, B  0.4  D , d c, L  0.4  D (4.24)

B L
For the sloping ground and tilted base, the ground factors gi and base factors bi are proposed
by the following equations. The angles β and η are at the same plane, either parallel to B or L.

g c  1  g q  g   1  0.5 tan  
0
5
0 , (4.25)
147

gc  
0
For cu, ϕu soil: (4.26)
1470

bc  1
0
, bq e 2 tan  ' , b e 2.7 tan  ' (4.27)
1470

Soil Mechanics II: Lecture Notes -6-

Ambo University, Institute of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering -7-

bc  
0
For cu, ϕu soil: (4.28)
1470
Where η tilted base angle and β sloping ground angle

4.2.4 A comparative summary of the three bearing capacity equations

Terzaghi’s equations were and are still widely used, perhaps because they are somewhat
simpler than Meyerhof’s and Hansen’s. Practitioners use Terzaghi’s equations for a very
cohesive soil and D/B < 1. However, Terzaghi’s equations have the following major
drawbacks:
 Shape, depth and inclination factors are not considered.
 Terzaghi’s equations are suitable for a concentrically loaded horizontal footing but
are not suitable for eccentrically (for example, columns with moment or titled
forces) loaded footings that are very common in practice.
 The equations are generally conservative than Meyerhof’s and Hansen’s.
Currently, Meyerhof’s and Hansen’s equations are more widely used than Terzaghi’s. Both
are viewed as somewhat less conservative and applicable to more general conditions.
Hansen’s is, however, used when the base is tilted or when the footing is on a slope and for
D/B > 1.
EXAMPLE 4.1
Given the data in Fig. E4.1, determine the ultimate bearing capacity qu using: a) Terzaghi’s,
b) Meyerhof’s and c) Hansen’s bearing capacity equations.

Figure E4.1: An isolated footing.

EAMPLE 4.2
Determine the ultimate bearing capacity of a square footing 1.5m, at a depth of 1 m in a soil
c’ = 10 kPa,  ' =280, cu = 105 kPa, u =0 and  = 19 kN/m3. Use Terzaghi’s, Meyerhof’s and
Hansen’s bearing capacity equations.
Strategy It is a good policy to sketch a diagram illustrating the conditions given.

Soil Mechanics II: Lecture Notes -7-

Ambo University, Institute of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering -8-

EAMPLE 4.3
A square footing 1.5m is to be constructed in sand with c’ = 0,  ' =400. The thickness of the
footing is 0.45m and its top surface is level with the horizontal ground surface. The footing is
subjected to a central vertical force of 700kN and a central horizontal force (parallel to the
sides) of 210kN. Find the ultimate bearing capacity by a) Meyerhof’s and b) Hansen’s
equations. (Note that Terzaghi’s equations are not applicable for inclined loads). The unit
weight of the sand is 18kN/m3.

4.2.1 Effects of Groundwater Table on Bearing Capacity

For all the bearing capacity equations, you will have to make some adjustments for the
groundwater condition. The term D in the bearing capacity equations refers to the vertical
stress of the soil above the base of the footing. The last term B refers to the vertical stress
of a soil mass of thickness B, below the base of the footing. You need to check which one of
the three groundwater situations is applicable to your project.
Situation 1: Groundwater level at a depth B below the base of the footing. In this case no
modification of the bearing capacity equations is required.
Situation 2: Groundwater level within a depth B below the base of the footing. If the
groundwater level is at a depth z below the base, such that z < B, then the term B is
z   ' ( B  z ) or  sat z   ' ( B  z ) . The later equation is used if the soil above the
groundwater level is also saturated. The term D remains unchanged.
Situation 3: Groundwater level within the embedment depth. If the groundwater is at a
depth z within the embedment such that z < D, then the term D is z   ' ( D  z ) or
 sat z   ' ( D  z) . The latter equation is used if the soil above the groundwater level is also
saturated. The term B becomes  ' B .

Figure E4.7: Groundwater within a) a depth B below base, b) embedment depth.

Soil Mechanics II: Lecture Notes -8-

Ambo University, Institute of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering -9-

EAMPLE 4.4
Re-do example 4.3 assuming that the groundwater level is at the footing level (0.45m below
the ground surface). The saturated unit weight is 21kN/m3.

4.2.2 Allowable bearing capacity and factor of safety

The allowable bearing capacity, qa is calculated by dividing the ultimate bearing capacity by a
factor, called the factor of safety, FS. The FS is intended to compensate for assumptions made
in developing the bearing capacity equations, soil variability, inaccurate soil data, and
uncertainties of loads. The magnitude of FS applied to the ultimate bearing capacity may be
between 2 and 3. The allowable bearing capacity is:
qu
qa  (4.29)
FS
Alternatively, if the maximum applied foundation stress ( a ) max is known and the dimension
of the footing is also known then you can find a factor of safety by replacing qa by ( a ) max
in Eqn. (4.29):
qu
FS  (4.30)
( a ) max

4.2.3 Eccentric Loads

Meyerhof (1963) proposed an approximate method for loads that are located off-centered (or
eccentric loads).

Figure A1
He proposed that for a rectangular footing of width B and length L, the base area should be
modified with the following dimensions:
B’ = B – 2eB and L’ =L - 2eL (4.31)
Where B’ and L’ are the modified width and length, eB and eL are the eccentricities in the
directions of the width and length, respectively. From your course in mechanics you should

Soil Mechanics II: Lecture Notes -9-

Ambo University, Institute of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering - 10 -

recall that
My Mx
eB  and e L  (4.32)
P P
where P is the vertical load, and My and Mx are the moments about the y and x axes,
respectively, as shown in Fig. A1.
The maximum and minimum vertical stresses along the x axis are:
P  6eB  P  6eB 
 max  1   and  min  1   (4.33)
BL  B  BL  B 
and along the y axis are:
P  6eL  P  6eL 
 max  1   and  min  1   (4.34)
BL  B  BL  B 
Since the tensile strength of soils is approximately zero,  min should always be greater than
zero. Therefore, eB & eL should always be less than B/6 & L/6, respectively. The bearing
capacity equations are modified for eccentric loads by replacing B with B’.

EXAMPLE 4.5
A footing 2 m square is located at a depth of 1m below the ground surface in a deep deposit
of compacted sand,  ' =300, c’=0, and  sat =18 kN/m3. The footing is subjected to a vertical
load of 500 kN and a moment about the Y-axis of 125 kN・m. The ground water table is 5 m
below the ground surface. Use Meyerhof’s bearing capacity equation and calculate the factor
of safety. Assume the soil above the ground water is also saturated.

4.3 Field Tests

Often, it is difficult to obtain undisturbed samples of especially coarse-grained soils for
laboratory testing and one has to use results from field tests to determine the bearing capacity
of shallow foundations. Some of the most common methods used for field tests are briefly
described below.

4.3.1 Plate Loading Test

Tests on full sized footings are desirable but expensive. The alternative is to carry out plate
loading tests. The plate loading test is carried out to estimate the bearing capacity of single
footings. The plates that are used in the field are usually made of steel and are 25 mm thick
and 150 mm to 762 mm in diameter. A circular plate of 300 mm is commonly used in practice.
Occasionally, square plates that are 300 mm×300 mm are also used.
To conduct a plate load test, a hole is excavated (Fig. 4.8) with a minimum diameter 4BP (BP
= diameter of the test plate) to a depth of D (D = depth of the proposed foundation). The plate
is placed at the center of the hole. Load is applied to the plate in increments of 10% to 20% of

Soil Mechanics II: Lecture Notes - 10 -

Ambo University, Institute of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering - 11 -

the estimated ultimate load. Each load increment is held until settlement ceases. The final
settlement at the end of each loading increment is recorded. The test should be conducted
until the soil fails, or at least until the plate has gone through 25 mm of settlement.

Figure 4.8: Plate Loading Test

For tests in clay,

qu ( F )  qu ( P ) (4.35)

where qu(F) & qu(P) are ultimate bearing capacity of foundation and plate, respectively. Eqn.
(4.35) implies that the bearing capacity in clays is independent of plate size.
For tests in sandy soil,
B
qu ( F )  qu ( P ) F (4.36)
Bp
Where BF and BP stand for width of foundation and plate, respectively
There are several problems associated with the plate load test. The t `est is reliable if the
soil layer is thick and homogeneous, local conditions such as a pocket of weak soil near the
surface of plate can affect the test results but these may have no significant effect on the real
footing, the correlation between plate load results and real footing is problematic, and
performance of the test is generally difficult.

4.3.2 Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is used to determine the allowable bearing capacity of
cohesionless coarse-grained soils such as sands. The test procedure for SPT has been
introduced in Chapter 2. The N values obtained from SPT are usually corrected for various
effects such as overburden pressure and energy transfer. The following are two of the most
commonly used methods in practice for correcting the N values.

 95.8 
c N   '  ; c N  2 (Liao and Whitman, 1985) (4.37)
  z0 

 1916 
c N  0.77 log10  '  ; c N  2,  z' 0  24 kPa (Peck et al., 1974) (4.38)
  z0 

Soil Mechanics II: Lecture Notes - 11 -

Ambo University, Institute of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering - 12 -

Where cN is a correction factor for overburden pressure, and  z' 0 is the effective overburden
pressure in kPa. A further correction factor is imposed on N values if the groundwater level is
within a depth B below the base of the footing. The groundwater corr3ection factor is:
1 z
cW   (4.39)
2 2( D  B)
Where z is the depth to the groundwater table, and D and B are the footing depth and width. If
the depth of the groundwater table is beyond B from the footing base cW = 1. The corrected N
value is:
N cor  c N cW N
Meyerhof (1956, 1974) proposed the following equations to determine the allowable bearing
capacity qa from SPT values.
12
qa  S e N co r k d B  1.22 m (4.40)
25

 B  0.305 
2
8
qa  S e N cor   kd B > 1.22 m (4.41)
25  B 

Where Se is the elastic settlement of the layer in mm and kd = 1 + 0.33D/B  1.33. In

practice, each value of N is a soil layer up to a depth B below the footing base is corrected
and an average value of Ncor is used in Eqn. (2.43).
Bowles (1996) modified Meyerhof’s equations by 50% increase in the allowable bearing
capacity. Bowles’s equations are:
20
qa  S e N co r k d B  1.22 m (4.42)
25

 B  0.305 
2
12.5
qa  S e N cor   kd B > 1.22 m (4.43)
25  B 

4.4 Methods Improving the Bearing Capacity of Soils

Significant increase in the bearing capacity of a soil can be achieved by altering the soil
properties of ϕ, cohesion c, or density. Usually an increase in density (or unit weight ρ) is
accompanied by an increase in either ϕ, or c or both (assuming the soil is cohesive). Particle
packing (compaction) always increases the density, with a resulting decrease in void ratio,
and reduces long term settlements. Particle packing usually increases the stress-strain
modulus so that any “immediate” settlements are also reduced.

Methods of Soil Property Modification

Mechanical stabilization:
 Stabilization is achieved by altering grain size gradation of the site soil.

Soil Mechanics II: Lecture Notes - 12 -

Ambo University, Institute of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering - 13 -

 Binder (material passing through No. 4 (0.425mm) sieve) is added for soil dominated
by gravel (from 75mm – 1mm). Where the soil is predominantly cohesive, granular
soil is imported and blended with the site soil.
 It usually requires much more granular materials to stabilize cohesive deposits than
binder for cohesion-less deposits and as result other stabilizing methods are usually
used for clayey soils.
Compaction:
 This method usually uses some kind of rolling equipment to achieve particle packing
for both cohesion-less and cohesive soils and is usually the most economical.

(a) (b)

[c] [d]
Preloading:
 Used in combination with drainage, it is primarily taken to reduce future settlement
but may also be used to increase shear strength.
Drainage:
 A method undertaken to remove soil water and to speed up settlements under
preloading.
Densification using vibratory equipment:
 The method uses some type of vibrating probe, which is inserted into the soil mass
and withdrawn.

Soil Mechanics II: Lecture Notes - 13 -

Ambo University, Institute of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering - 14 -

 Densification is particularly useful in sand, silty sand, gravelly sand deposits with Dr
less than about 50 to 60 percent.
Use of in-situ reinforcement:
 The treatment produces composite ground. Trial spacing is chosen and column of
material such as stone, sand, cement, or lime is inserted in the excavated soil and
rammed.
 The drilled diameters usually range in between 600mm and 800mm and depth of 4m
to 8m.
Grouting:
 Injection of a viscous fluid to reduce the void ratio (and k) or to cement rock cracks.
Most commonly, the viscous fluid is a mix water and water or water and lime, and/or
with additives such as fine sand, bentonite clay, or fly ash.
Geotextiles:
 Synthetic fabric that is sufficiently durable to last a reasonable length of time in the
hostile soil environment.
 Because of their tensile strength, geotextiles are sometimes placed over weak (poor
bearing capacities) soils to form reinforcement. Generally, a layer of controlled fill is
placed over the geotextile, thereby creating a form of composite that spans over the
weak soil.
Chemical stabilization:
 It involves use of chemical stabilizers (also termed chemical grouting). It is seldom
employed because of cost.
 The more commonly used chemical agents are phosphoric acid, calcium chloride, and
sodium silicate (or water glass).
 Various chemicals added to a soil may yield one but more likely a number of changes
in a soil formation: (i) reduce permeability of the soil (e.g. in dam construction,
excavation infiltration). (ii) Increase soil strength. (iii) Increase bearing capacity (IV)
decrease settlement. (v) Produce a stiffening of loose sand formation and thus
minimize undesirable effects, such as from vibrations.
4.5 Bearing Capacity of Footings on slopes:
Before construction of footings on sloping ground, the stability of the slope itself must be
investigated. Footings should not be constructed on slopes which are unstable.
They should also be avoided on slopes where slow creep of the superficial material takes
place. The stability of a stable slope may be endangered by the addition of footings. Hence
the stability of footings must be investigated both before and after construction of footings.
Footings on sloping ground:
 Should have sufficient edge distance (minimum 2 to 3ft) as protection against erosion.
 Should be carried below the depth of frost penetration.

Soil Mechanics II: Lecture Notes - 14 -

Ambo University, Institute of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering - 15 -

 Should be carried below the top (organic) soil, miscellaneous fill, abandoned
foundation, and debris.
The bearing capacity of footings on sloping ground may be determined by the following
equation (Meyerohf’s, 1957):
q=CNcq+0.5γ BNq
Where Ncq and Nq vary with the slope of the ground, the relative position of the footing and
the angle of internal friction

Soil Mechanics II: Lecture Notes - 15 -

Ambo University, Institute of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering - 16 -

Fig.4.9. Ultimate bearing capacity of continuous footings on slopes.

Example 4.7
Figure E4.10. Shows a shallow strip footing on the top of a clay slope,
Determine the allowable bearing capacity of the foundation with a factor of safety of 4.0

Fig.E4.10 Strip Foundation on clay slope

Soil Mechanics II: Lecture Notes - 16 -

Ambo University, Institute of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering - 17 -

4.6 Proportioning of footings:

4.6.1 Proportioning of footings using presumptive allowable soil pressures:
Through many years of practice, it has been possible to estimate the allowable soil pressure
for the different types of soils for uncomplicated soil conditions. Accordingly different
building codes give allowable average soil pressure σall as.
After picking up the allowable soil pressure σall for a given soil, one may determine the area
and subsequently the proportions of a footing necessary to sustain a given load or a
combination of loads as in the figure
The allowable soil pressure, σall is given by: σall = P/A
Where
P=Load sustained by the footing.
A=a.b=area of footing.
a=Length of footing.
b=Width of footing.
The designer should fix the geometric shape (square, rectangle, circle) and the ratio between
a and b of the footing prior to the application of the above equation. Since all other quantities
in the above equation are known, one readily determines the area A of the footing.

Figure 4.11: Proportioning of footings using presumptive value

4.6.2 Proportioning of footings using the soil strength parameters ϕ and C:

For cases where presumptive allowable soil pressures cannot be used, one should determine
the soil strength parameters ϕ and C. These parameters may be approximated or determined
from laboratory tests. If the nature of the project calls for relatively accurate determination of
ϕ and C, one should carry out a series of triaxial tests on undisturbed soil samples taken from
several points. Using the value of ϕ and C thus obtained, one can easily determine the area of
the foundation in question using bearing capacity equations (4.1-4.11).

Soil Mechanics II: Lecture Notes - 17 -

Ambo University, Institute of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering - 18 -

Figure 4.12: Proportioning of footings using shear strength parameters of a soil

In applying the bearing capacity equations one should differentiate two states of loading,
namely, the initial or instantaneous loading condition and the final or long-term loading
condition.
In the Initial loading condition, the load is assumed to act instantaneously. At this stage the
pore water pressure in the soil does not have time to dissipate. This situation corresponds to
the quick or undrained test condition of the triaxial test. The soil parameters are designated
by ϕu and Cu –in most cases ϕu=0.
In the Final loading or long term loading condition, the load is assumed to act gradually as
construction progresses, thus giving the pore water pressure in the soil sample time to
dissipate. Here the situation corresponds to the slow or drained test condition of the triaxial
test. The soil parameters in this case are designated by ϕ ’ and C’.
When one compares the respective magnitudes of the soil parameters; one finds that Cu is
much bigger than C’ and ϕu-if not equal to zero- is much less than ϕ’.

Example 4.8:
Determine the Dimensions of a square footing necessary to sustain an axial column load of
850kN as shown in the figure below, given that Df=2m, γ=19.1 kN/m3, if
a) An allowable presumptive bearing pressure of 150kN/m2 is used.
b) Cu=40kN/m2; C’=7.5kN/m2; ϕ’=22.50.

Soil Mechanics II: Lecture Notes - 18 -

Ambo University, Institute of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering - 19 -

Figure 4.13: Proportioning of a square footing.

Example 4.9:
A Rectangular mat foundation measuring 10m X 20m is to be placed at a depth of 3.50m
below ground level. The subsurface profile comprises of multi layer soil deposits, the details
of which are shown in figure below. Determine safe bearing capacity of the soil by adopting
suitable factor of safety. Use Meyerhof’s bearing capacity equation. Assume that the
foundation carries a concentrically applied vertical load.
Example 4.10:
At a site for a proposed building, SPT tests were conducted in a borehole at a depth interval
of 0.75m. The results of blow counts (N) observed at different depths below ground level are
given in the table below. At this site the soil in general is fine sand with an average bulk unit
weight of 17.0kN/m3 and saturated unit weight of 21kN/m3.
The ground water table is located at a depth of 3m below ground level. A rectangular footing
of size 3.0m X 4.0m is to be placed at a depth of 2.25m. Determine the allowable bearing
capacity of the footing for an allowable settlement of 50mm.
Table: Measured SPT blow counts.
Depth, m 0.75 1.50 2.25 3.00 3.75 4.50 5.25 6.00 6.75 7.50 8.25 9.00 9.75

Recorded N 9 12 15 14 21 18 22 24 19 21 25 20 16

Soil Mechanics II: Lecture Notes - 19 -

Ambo University, Institute of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering - 20 -

Example 4.11:

A Building is to be constructed over a site that has the soil stratification shown in Fig 4.14.

A. Determine the area of a square footing that can safely transfer the load from the

superstructure without shear failure, i.e. bearing capacity failure.

B. Determine the corresponding total settlement for the footing area proportioned above.

Check if the load can be transferred without excessive settlement. Is an isolated footing the

right choice for this condition? Why?

Use the following data:-

 The load from the superstructure; P=2645kN.

 The footing is to be placed at a depth of 2.0m below the ground surface.

 The allowable total settlement is 75mm.

 Maximum center-to-center spacing between columns is 5.0m.

 Assume the foundation to be a rigid foundation.

 Ground water table exists at a depth of 5.0m below the ground surface. Use

Meyerhof’s Bearing Capacity equation. Use F.S=3.0.

Figure 4.14: Subsurface profile

Soil Mechanics II: Lecture Notes - 20 -

Ambo University, Institute of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering - 21 -

Example 4.12:
A square footing is shown in figure below. Determine the safe gross allowable load (factor of
safety=3) that the footing can carry. Use any two bearing capacity equations.

Figure 4.15: Square footing.

Example 4.13:
A square footing is shown in figure 4.16. Determine the safe gross allowable load (factor of
safety=3) that the footing can carry. Use Terzaghi bearing capacity equations for general
shear failure.
Given: ρsat=1980kg/m3, ϕ =25, ρ=1800kg/m3 ,C=23.94kN/m2, B=1.8m, Df=1.2m,
h=2m

Fig 4.16

Soil Mechanics II: Lecture Notes - 21 -

Ambo University, Institute of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering - 22 -

Example 4.14:
Figure 4.17, this shows a shallow strip foundation on the top a slope.
Given:
Slope (Sand)
β =15o, C’=0 kN/m2 ϕ =40o, γ=15kN/m3
Foundation:
B=0.75m
D=1.5m
Estimate the allowable bearing capacity. Use factor of safety of 4.

.
Fig 4.17
Example 4.15:
A square footing of 4m width is shown in the figure 4.18. The footing is subjected to an eccentric
load. For the following cases, determine the gross allowable load that the footing could carry. Use
Meyerhof’s bearing capacity procedure and safety of factors=4.
Given: Df=3m, x=y=0.5m, ϕ =25, ρ =1800kg/m3 , C=23.94kN/m2

Fig 4.18

Soil Mechanics II: Lecture Notes - 22 -