9.1 Ultimate & Allowable Bearing Capacity Theories
Key Takeaways
Terzaghi's ultimate bearing capacity equation models general shear failure beneath continuous strip footings under drained conditions using three components: cohesion, surcharge, and soil unit weight.
Shape factors (s_c, s_q, s_gamma), depth factors (d_c, d_q, d_gamma), and inclination factors (i_c, i_q, i_gamma) modify Terzaghi's base equation in Meyerhof, Hansen, and Vesic general bearing capacity frameworks.
Soil shear failure modes depend on density and compressibility: general shear failure occurs in dense sand and stiff clay, local shear failure in medium dense soil, and punching shear failure in loose sand and soft clay.
High groundwater tables reduce effective vertical stress, requiring buoyant unit weight adjustments depending on whether the water table is above the footing base, within depth B below the base, or below depth B.
Net allowable bearing capacity incorporates a factor of safety (typically FS = 3.0) applied to net ultimate bearing capacity (q_net,ult = q_ult - gamma * D_f), safeguarding against shear failure while accounting for excavation relief.
Introduction to Shallow Foundations
A shallow foundation is defined geotechnical engineering-wise as a structural element whose depth of embedment is less than or equal to its minimum width (), though some modern codes extend this boundary to . Shallow foundations transfer structural column and wall loads to upper soil strata through direct base contact pressure. The fundamental design requirements demand that:
- The ultimate shear strength of the supporting soil mass is not exceeded (ultimate limit state for bearing capacity with an adequate Factor of Safety, ).
- Immediate elastic and long-term consolidation settlements remain within tolerable structural limits (serviceability limit state).
Shear Failure Modes Beneath Shallow Foundations
Depending on soil relative density , soil compressibility, and foundation embedment depth, three distinct shear failure modes can develop beneath loaded footings:
| Failure Mode | Soil Conditions | Physical Characteristics | Stress-Settlement Response |
|---|---|---|---|
| General Shear Failure | Dense sand (), stiff to hard cohesive clay | Well-defined continuous slip surfaces extend from footing edges to ground surface. Significant surface heaving on both sides. | Sudden, catastrophic collapse with a clear peak ultimate load . |
| Local Shear Failure | Medium dense sand (), medium stiff clay | Slip surfaces extend outward into radial shear zones but do not reach ground surface. Slight surface heave. | Significant settlement before failure; well-defined peak missing ( designated at specific settlement). |
| Punching Shear Failure | Loose sand (), soft clay, weak upper crust | Slip surfaces are restricted to vertical perimeter boundaries directly beneath footing. Zero surface heave; soil around footing remains flat. | Continuous downward penetration with high settlements; curve shows no distinct yield point. |
General Shear Failure Geometry
Applied Load P
│
┌───────────┴───────────┐
│ Footing (B x L) │
Ground Surface └───┬───────────────┬───┘ Ground Surface
───┬───────────────┘ └───────────────┬───
╱ │ Zone I: Zone I: │ ╲
╱ │ Active Wedge Active Wedge │ ╲ Zone III: Passive
╱ │ (Elastic) (Elastic) │ ╲ Rankine Zone
╱ └─────────────────┬───────────────────────┘ ╲
╱ Zone II: Radial │ Zone II: Radial ╲
└────── Shear Zone ──────────┴────── Shear Zone ────────────────┘
For local and punching shear failures, Vesic and Terzaghi recommended adjusting soil shear strength parameters before applying standard bearing capacity equations:
Terzaghi's Ultimate Bearing Capacity Theory
Karl Terzaghi (1943) developed the first comprehensive theory for evaluating ultimate bearing capacity beneath a continuous strip footing of infinite length () under drained conditions. Terzaghi assumed a rigid active wedge (Zone I) directly beneath the footing base inclined at angle to the horizontal, flanked by radial shear zones (Zone II) and passive Rankine zones (Zone III).
Terzaghi's Equation for Continuous Strip Footings
Where:
- Gross ultimate bearing capacity (kPa or psf)
- Effective soil cohesion (kPa or psf)
- Effective vertical surcharge stress at footing base level (kPa or psf)
- Total/moist unit weight of soil supporting the wedge (kN/m³ or pcf)
- Footing width (m or ft)
- Terzaghi non-dimensional bearing capacity factors (functions strictly of friction angle )
Mathematical Formulation of Bearing Capacity Factors
Undrained Cohesive Soils (Saturated Clay, )
Under quick, undrained loading in saturated clay ():
General Bearing Capacity Equation (Meyerhof, Hansen, Vesic)
Terzaghi's original formulation was restricted to continuous strip footings loaded vertically. Meyerhof (1963), Hansen (1970), and Vesic (1973) expanded the equation to accommodate non-strip footprints, shallow-to-deep embedment, and inclined loadings:
Where are shape factors, are depth factors, and are load inclination factors.
Terzaghi Empirical Shape Modifications
For square and circular footings, Terzaghi simplified shape effects as follows:
- Square Footing ():
- Circular Footing (Diameter ):
Meyerhof / Vesic General Shape Factors
For rectangular footings ( where ):
Vesic Bearing Capacity Factor
In modern PE exam specifications, Vesic's equation is widely accepted:
Groundwater Table (GWT) Corrections
The presence of a groundwater table alters effective vertical stresses and unit weights within the shear failure zone. The correction depends on the depth of the water table relative to ground surface and footing base .
Case 1: GWT Above Footing Base (0 <= dw <= Df)
Ground Surface ───────────────────────────── dw = 0 to Df
│ │
▼ ▼
GWT ═════════════════════════════════════════
│ (Df - dw)
Footing Base └───► ┌───────────┐
│ B x L │
└───────────┘
| GWT Depth Position | Surcharge Term Adjustment | Unit Weight Term Adjustment |
|---|---|---|
| Case 1: ; Water table is above footing base | Use effective buoyant unit weight in the third term. | |
| Case 2: ; Water table is within failure wedge depth below base | Unmodified overburden: | Use weighted average unit weight , where . |
| Case 3: ; Water table is below failure wedge zone | Unmodified overburden: | Unmodified moist/total unit weight in third term. |
Factors of Safety and Allowable Bearing Capacity
To prevent shear failure with an adequate margin of safety, ultimate bearing capacity values are converted to allowable design pressures:
Gross Allowable Bearing Capacity ()
Where is typically for primary static building loads ( for temporary or seismic loading).
Net Ultimate Bearing Capacity ()
Net ultimate bearing capacity represents the net stress increase above existing overburden pressure:
Net Allowable Bearing Capacity ()
Maximum allowable column force for a footing area :
Comprehensive Worked Calculation Example
Problem Statement
A square footing measuring is founded at depth in a sandy soil. The soil properties are:
- Soil friction angle
- Effective cohesion
- Moist soil unit weight above GWT
- Saturated soil unit weight
- Water unit weight
- Groundwater table is located at below ground surface.
Using Terzaghi bearing capacity factors for (), compute:
- The gross ultimate bearing capacity
- The net ultimate bearing capacity
- The allowable net column load using
Solution Steps
Step 1: Calculate Effective Surcharge (Case 1 GWT)
Since , Case 1 applies:
Step 2: Compute Terzaghi Gross Ultimate Capacity for Square Footing
For square footing with :
Step 3: Compute Net Ultimate Bearing Capacity
Step 4: Compute Net Allowable Bearing Pressure and Column Load
A continuous strip footing of width B = 2.0 m is founded at a depth of D_f = 1.5 m in a saturated cohesive clay layer under undrained conditions (phi_u = 0, c_u = 80 kPa, gamma = 18.0 kN/m³). Using Vesic undrained bearing capacity theory with N_c = 5.14, what is the gross ultimate bearing capacity q_ult of the footing?
438.1 kPa
411.2 kPa
521.5 kPa
384.2 kPa
How does a high groundwater table located at the ground surface (d_w = 0) affect the ultimate bearing capacity of a shallow foundation compared to a completely dry soil condition?
It increases bearing capacity due to hydrostatic pressure uplift on the base.
It reduces bearing capacity because buoyant unit weight (gamma' = gamma_sat - gamma_w) reduces both effective surcharge q' and soil unit weight in the failure wedge zone.
It has zero net effect because pore water pressure cancels out total stress changes.
It increases the cohesion parameter c' by softening clay minerals.
A square footing (2.0 m x 2.0 m) and a continuous strip footing of width B = 2.0 m are constructed at D_f = 1.0 m in dry sand (phi' = 35°, c' = 0, gamma = 18.0 kN/m³). According to Terzaghi bearing capacity equations, why does the square footing have a different unit-weight term coefficient than the strip footing?
Square footings experience plane-strain shear stress enhancement raising N_gamma by 40%.
Square footings require a depth factor multiplication that doubles the N_q surcharge contribution.
Terzaghi applied an empirical shape factor of 0.4 to the unit weight term for square footings (0.4 * gamma * B * N_gamma) compared to 0.5 for strip footings (0.5 * gamma * B * N_gamma) to account for 3D radial soil displacement.
Square footings undergo punching shear failure regardless of relative density.
A column footing has a gross ultimate bearing capacity q_ult = 900 kPa at depth D_f = 1.5 m in soil with unit weight gamma = 18.0 kN/m³. If a factor of safety FS = 3.0 is specified, what is the net allowable bearing pressure q_net,all?
300.0 kPa
273.0 kPa
309.0 kPa
291.0 kPa
Sections you finish are checked off in the contents.