Bearing Capacity Calculator - Terzaghi Meyerhof
Calculate the ultimate and allowable bearing capacity of shallow foundations using Terzaghi and Meyerhof methods with soil parameters.
Bearing Capacity Calculator - Terzaghi Meyerhof
Calculator
Adjust values & calculateEnter your values below. Every result is computed in your browser โ no data is sent to any server.
Formula: q_u = c * Nc + gamma * Df * Nq + 0.5 * gamma * B * Ng
Worked example โ q_ult: 222.6 kPa | q_allow (FOS 3): 74.2 kPa | Width-independent (N_gamma = 0)
Formula
q_u = c * Nc + gamma * Df * Nq + 0.5 * gamma * B * Ng
This Bearing Capacity Calculator (Terzaghi & Meyerhof) computes results from your provided inputs using the calculator's underlying model.
Worked Examples
Example 1: Strip Footing on Saturated Clay (Undrained)
Problem:A strip footing 1.5 m wide sits at 1.0 m depth in a saturated clay with undrained cohesion c = 40 kPa, friction angle phi = 0 degrees, and unit weight 17 kN/m3. Find the ultimate and allowable bearing capacity with a factor of safety of 3.
Solution:At phi = 0 the bearing capacity factors are Nc = 5.14 (the Prandtl value used by Meyerhof), Nq = 1.0 and N_gamma = 0 q_ult = c x Nc + gamma x Df x Nq + 0.5 x gamma x B x N_gamma q_ult = (40 x 5.14) + (17 x 1.0 x 1.0) + 0 = 205.6 + 17.0 = 222.6 kPa q_allow = 222.6 / 3 = 74.2 kPa Note that N_gamma is zero, so the footing width B does not enter at all: on undrained clay a wider footing gains no bearing pressure, only more load capacity.
Result:q_ult: 222.6 kPa | q_allow (FOS 3): 74.2 kPa | Width-independent (N_gamma = 0)
Example 2: Strip Footing on Dense Sand (Drained)
Problem:A strip footing 2.0 m wide at 1.5 m depth bears on sand with c = 0, phi = 30 degrees and unit weight 18 kN/m3. Compare the Terzaghi and Meyerhof ultimate bearing capacities.
Solution:Terzaghi factors at phi = 30 degrees: Nq = 18.4, N_gamma = 22.4 q_ult (Terzaghi) = 0 + (18 x 1.5 x 18.4) + (0.5 x 18 x 2.0 x 22.4) = 496.8 + 403.2 = 900.0 kPa q_allow = 900.0 / 3 = 300.0 kPa Meyerhof uses Nq = e^(pi tan phi) tan^2(45 + phi/2) = 18.40 and N_gamma = (Nq - 1) tan(1.4 phi) = 15.67 q_ult (Meyerhof) = 0 + (18 x 1.5 x 18.40) + (0.5 x 18 x 2.0 x 15.67) = 496.8 + 282.1 = 778.9 kPa The two agree on the surcharge term and differ only in N_gamma, so Meyerhof is about 14 percent more conservative here.
Result:Terzaghi q_ult: 900.0 kPa | Meyerhof q_ult: 778.9 kPa | q_allow (Terzaghi, FOS 3): 300.0 kPa
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Terzaghi bearing capacity equation?
The Terzaghi bearing capacity equation estimates the ultimate bearing capacity of a shallow strip foundation as q_u = c * Nc + gamma * Df * Nq + 0.5 * gamma * B * Ng. Here c is soil cohesion, gamma is soil unit weight, Df is foundation depth, B is foundation width, and Nc, Nq, and Ng are bearing capacity factors that depend on the internal friction angle. This classical equation assumes a general shear failure mode in the soil beneath the footing.
How does the Meyerhof method differ from Terzaghi?
The Meyerhof method extends the Terzaghi approach by including shape, depth, and inclination correction factors, making it more versatile for different foundation geometries and loading conditions. Meyerhof also uses a different set of bearing capacity factors derived from a more rigorous slip-line analysis. In practice, Meyerhof tends to give slightly higher bearing capacities for deeper foundations because the depth factor accounts for the shear strength of soil above the footing base.
What factor of safety should I use for bearing capacity?
A factor of safety of 3.0 is commonly used for bearing capacity design in most building codes and geotechnical standards. This means the allowable bearing pressure is one-third of the ultimate bearing capacity. For temporary structures or well-characterized soil conditions, a factor of safety of 2.0 to 2.5 may be acceptable, while critical structures may require higher values. The factor of safety accounts for soil variability, load uncertainties, and simplified assumptions in the bearing capacity theory.
What are bearing capacity factors Nc, Nq, and Ng?
Bearing capacity factors Nc, Nq, and Ng are dimensionless coefficients that depend on the internal friction angle of the soil. Nc represents the contribution of cohesion to bearing capacity, Nq represents the contribution of the overburden pressure (surcharge), and Ng represents the contribution of the soil self-weight below the foundation. As the friction angle increases, all three factors increase exponentially, reflecting the greater shear strength of more frictional soils.
What is the difference between general shear, local shear and punching shear failure?
General shear failure develops a continuous slip surface from the footing edge to the ground surface, with a clear peak load and visible heave beside the footing; it is the mode the Terzaghi equation assumes and it occurs in dense sand and stiff clay. Local shear failure only partially develops that surface, and punching shear simply drives the footing downward with vertical compression and no heave, both typical of loose sand and soft clay. For those weaker soils Terzaghi recommended reduced strengths, c_mobilised = 2/3 * c and tan(phi_mobilised) = 2/3 * tan(phi), before entering the equation.
How does the groundwater table change the calculated bearing capacity?
Shear resistance responds to effective stress, so water in the failure zone reduces both the surcharge term and the self-weight term. When the water table sits at or above the footing base, the buoyant unit weight replaces the bulk value, gamma_effective = gamma_saturated - gamma_water, with gamma_water about 9.81 kN/m3. Since a saturated soil often weighs about 19 to 20 kN/m3, that roughly halves gamma and can cut the gamma-dependent terms by nearly half. A water table deeper than about B below the base has little effect because the slip surface no longer reaches it.
Should I enter undrained or drained strength parameters?
It depends on which condition governs. For a footing built quickly on saturated clay, the short-term undrained case uses total-stress parameters, c = s_u with phi = 0, which makes Nc equal to 5.14 and drops the self-weight term entirely. The long-term drained case uses effective-stress parameters c' and phi', which for a normally consolidated clay usually gives a higher capacity as excess pore pressures dissipate. Clays are therefore normally checked undrained, while free-draining sands are analysed in drained terms from the start because pore pressures never build.
How is the strip-footing equation adapted for square or circular footings?
The three-term equation is derived for a plane-strain strip, so shape factors are applied for finite footings. Terzaghi's classical adjustments give q_u = 1.3 * c * Nc + gamma * Df * Nq + 0.4 * gamma * B * Ng for a square footing and 1.3 * c * Nc + gamma * Df * Nq + 0.3 * gamma * B * Ng for a circular one of diameter B. The cohesion term rises because a compact footing is confined on all sides, while the self-weight term falls because the failure wedge is smaller relative to the loaded area. Meyerhof replaces these fixed values with continuous factors that depend on the width-to-length ratio.
How do eccentric or inclined loads reduce foundation capacity?
An eccentric vertical load is handled by Meyerhof's effective area method: the footing is analysed as a smaller concentric footing of width B' = B - 2 * e, where e is the eccentricity, and the capacity is computed with B' and then multiplied by the reduced area. A load inclined from vertical mobilises a shallower one-sided failure surface, so inclination factors reduce all three terms, with the reduction growing as the load angle approaches the friction angle. Both effects matter for retaining wall bases, bridge abutments and any footing carrying lateral thrust.
When does settlement govern the design rather than bearing capacity?
Shear failure and tolerable movement are separate limit states, and the design pressure is the lower of the two. On granular soils the ultimate capacity computed here rises with footing width because the self-weight term is proportional to B, but settlement also rises with width, so for footings wider than roughly one to two metres on sand it is almost always the settlement check that controls. On soft clays consolidation settlement can continue for years and is checked independently using compressibility parameters, not strength parameters.
References
Background & Theory
History
Reviewed for accuracy by Daniel Agrici, Founder & Lead Developer ยท Editorial policy
Related Calculators
๐งฎHorton Infiltration Calculator
Calculate infiltration capacity decay (horton) with inputs, formulas, and instant results.
๐งฎEarth Energy Balance Calculator
Calculate earth energy balance with inputs, formulas, and instant results.
๐งฎBouguer Correction Calculator
Calculate bouguer correction with inputs, formulas, and instant results.
๐งฎCrustal Density Calculator
Calculate crustal density with inputs, formulas, and instant results.
๐งฎCrustal Thickness Calculator (H-k)
Calculate crustal thickness from receiver functions with inputs, formulas, and instant results.
๐งฎEarthquake Magnitude to Energy Calculator
Calculate earthquake magnitude to energy with inputs, formulas, and instant results.
๐งฎGutenberg-Richter Recurrence Calculator
Calculate earthquake recurrence (gutenbergโrichter) with inputs, formulas, and instant results.
๐งฎEarthโs Rotation Period Variation Calculator
Calculate earthโs rotation period variation with inputs, formulas, and instant results.