RELIABILITY ASSESSMENT OF BEARING CAPACITY FOR

SHALLOW FOUNDATION
Abstract: Allowable stress design (ASD) method are used for computation of the bearing capacity of the
soil for the design of shallow foundation .A single factor of safety is generally used in ASD approach to
account the uncertainties involved in load as well as bearing capacity of soil. In the present study reliability
analysis of bearing capacity of the shallow foundation has been carried out. A reliability-based safety
factors in terms of reliability index have been developed. The effect of variability in soil parameter on
reliability index and probability of failure has also been examined. Some of the salient features of the study
are discussed herein.
Keywords: Reliability analysis, cohesion, angle of internal friction, shallow foundation.

Introduction
The conventional design of shallow foundations, for the allowable pressure, is calculated based
on shear failure criterion and settlement criterion. The allowable bearing capacity of the soil is
obtained by dividing the ultimate bearing capacity soil with a factor of safety. It should be also
ensured that the magnitude of the settlement of footing should not exceed a specified permissible
limit from serviceability requirements. The input soil parameters such as cohesion (c), the angle
of internal friction (φ), unit weight (ɣ), modulus of elasticity (E), for estimation of the allowable
pressure on foundation soil, are found either from field tests or from laboratory tests. As soil is
inherently variable, so that variations in measured values of those soil parameters is unavoidable.
The inherent variability of soil deposits, human errors, testing errors and model transformation
uncertainties contribute to variability in the test data (Phoon and kulhawy). The selection of factor
of safety in conventional design approach is simple and straightforward, it does not consider
various causes of uncertainty in geotechnical design in a rational manner. A reliability analysis is
performed to incorporate these variations. In the reliability analysis, input soil parameters are
treated as random variables and the effect of these input random variables are studied on the output
random variable. Reliability analysis approaches can be used in combination with conventional
approaches to have a better understanding into the choice of the allowable value of bearing
pressure and benefits in the decision-making process. Sivakumar Babu et al.established this aspect
with reference to the estimation of the allowable bearing pressure of a shallow foundation resting
on a typical stiff clay. The design of shallow foundations should ensure that the risk of bearing
capacity failure is minimum. The allowable bearing capacity of a shallow foundation must have
an explanation for the uncertainties involved in the applied loads and variability in the appraisal
of the foundation soil properties. Several researchers (e.g. Siva Kumar Babu et al. 2006; Siva
Kumar Babu and Srivastava 2007; Massih et al 2008; Massih and Soubra 2008 Vikas Pratap
Singh and Siva Kumar Babu 2010) have shown that a reliability-based analysis can provide a
better understanding of uncertainties involved in shallow foundation design. In the allowable stress
design (ASD), a factor of safety of 3.0 is generally used to the ultimate bearing capacity to account
for various uncertainties (Bowles 1996; Murthy 2003; Das 2007). Since the factor of safety
chooses in ASD is usually based on experience and judgment, quantitative measures of risk cannot
be determined for ASD (FHWA 2001).In India, IS: 6403 (1998) recommends the ASD approach
for the computation of ultimate bearing capacity of the shallow foundation. Using the concept of
reliability analysis, the allowable bearing capacity determined in accordance with IS: 6403 (1998)
is calibrated to the anticipated level of the probability of failure (expressed in terms of reliability
Index). In general, the present study shows the effect in computation of bearing capacity of the
shallow foundation due to variability in the foundation soil parameters.
Deterministic approach of bearing capacity
According to IS 6403 (1998), for a square footing subjected to the vertical load, of width B resting
on a horizontal ground at a depth Df the ultimate net bearing capacity of shallow foundation is
given by
qu =c Nc sc dc + ɣDf (Nq-1) sq dq + 0.5 Bɣ Nɣ sɣ dɣ (1)
Where c, φ and ɣ are the foundation soil cohesion, the angle of internal friction and unit weight
respectively; Nc Nq and Nɣ are the bearing capacity factor recommended by Vesic (1973) in terms
of equation 1a.The shape factor sc sq and sɣ are equal to 1.3, 1.2and o.8 respectively for square
footing and depth factor dc, dq, dɣ given by equation 1b.
Nc = (Nq-1) cot φ; Nq = eπ tanφ tan2 (45+φ⁄2); Nɣ = 2(Nq +1) tanφ (1a)
𝐷 𝐷
dc = 1+0.2 𝐵𝑓 tan (45+φ/2) dq = dɣ = = 1+0.1 𝐵𝑓 tan (45+φ/2) (1b)

The equation (1b) valid for φ >100

The allowable bearing capacity of the shallow foundation can be obtained by dividing the ultimate
bearing capacity qu by a suitable factor of safety FS i.e.

𝑞𝑢
qall = (2)
𝐹𝑆

Generally, the range of the factor of safety used for shallow foundation bearing capacity failure
(i.e. shear failure) is taken as 2.0-3.0 (Becker 1996a; FHWA 2001). However, as mentioned
earlier, a factor of safety of 3.0 commonly adopted for all kind of footings (Bowles 1996; Murthy
2003; Das 2007).
The margin of safety M against bearing capacity failure with reference to allowable bearing
capacity may be defined as
M=qu - qall (3)
Probabilistic approach
Reliability of a system is defined as the probability of safety in a given environment and loading
conditions and is evaluated in terms of reliability index (β) values. Normally, a reliability index
value in the range of 3.0–4.0 is accepted for good performance of the system .Various methods are
used for the estimation of reliability index, such as first order reliability method (FORM),
second-order reliability method (SORM), point estimate method (PEM), Monte Carlo simulation
(MCS) are available in the literature. For a system having capacity C (either ultimate bearing
capacity) and D is the demand (either applied pressure) then the performance function of the
system is given as, g (.) =C – D. If g (.) > 0 it denotes safety of system while g (.) < 0 represents
the system is in unsafe condition. In the present paper, reliability analysis is performed using the
spreadsheet-based Hasofer-Lind reliability method (Hasofer-Lind 1974) have been discussed in
detail in Low and Tang (1997) and Low (2005). Figure 1 illustrates the definition and the intuitive
interpretation of the Hasofer-Lind reliability index for the case of two random variables. As shown
in Figure 1, the Hasofer- Lind reliability index is obtained by minimizing its quadratic form (i.e.
ellipsoid) subject to the constraint that it becomes tangential to the failure surface g(X). This point
of tangency is defined as the design point (or most probable failure point) on the limit state surface
(as indicated by x* in Figure 1). The matrix formulation (Low and Tang 1997; Low 2005) of the
Hasofer-Lind reliability index β is given by

β = minXєF √[𝑋𝑖 − 𝜇𝑖𝑁 ]𝑇 [𝐶𝑁 ]−1 [𝑋𝑖 − 𝜇𝑖𝑁 ] (4)

Or

𝑇
𝑋𝑖 −𝜇𝑖𝑁 𝑋𝑖 −𝜇𝑖𝑁
β =minxЄF [√[ ] [𝑅]−1 [ ]] (5)
𝜎𝑖𝑁 𝜎𝑖𝑁

where Xi is a vector representing the set of random variables, µi is the vector of equivalent
normal mean, R is correlation matrix, C is covariance matrix, σi is the equivalent normal standard
deviation, and F is the failure domain. In the present study, foundation soil properties c, φ,
and ɣ are considered as the three normally distributed uncorrelated random variables for reliability
analysis. The performance function g(X) for the bearing capacity failure mode of shallow
foundation can be obtained by equating the margin of safety M (defined by equation 3) to zero
g (X) = M =qu – qall = 0 (6)

Fig. 1 Definition and the Intuitive Interpretation of the Hasofer-Lind Reliability Index
General procedure
The general procedure for the determination of reliability index for shallow foundations calibrated
with reference to the ASD factor of safety involved the following step.
I ) Identify the resistance parameters that are to be used as the random variables in the reliability
analysis and determine the corresponding statistical properties such as mean, standard deviation,
the coefficient of variation (COV), probability distribution function and correlation coefficient (if
desired) for the chosen random variable.
II) Determine the ultimate bearing capacity by choosing appropriate equation depending on the
shape of footing (e.g. strip, square, rectangular and circular).
III) Choose a suitable value of the factor of safety FS, determine the allowable bearing capacity
qall using equation 2 corresponding to the mean values of the random variables adopted for the
study.
IV) For a given limit state Hasofer-Lind reliability index and the design point X* can be obtained
using Microsoft Excel spreadsheet based constrained optimization tool SOLVER.
V) Repeat step IV with different values of FS (i.e.1 -3) and determine reliability index and the
probability of failure.
Numerical analysis
A shallow square footing of depth 1.2m is considered for study in the present article. The footing
has a width of 1.5 m. The resisting parameter i.e. foundation soil parameter such as c, φ, and ɣ are
considered as three normally uncorrelated random variables. The statistical properties of a random
variable are given in table 1.The random variables (i.e. c, φ and ɣ) is considered in three levels of
variability (a) low level with COVs of c, φ and ɣ equal to 10% 2% and 3% (i.e. lower limit values
of corresponding COV range) respectively, (b) medium level with COVs of c, φ and ɣ equal to
20%, 6% and 5% (i.e. average values of corresponding COV range) respectively, and (c) high level
with COVs of c, φ and ɣ equal to 30%, 10% and 7% (i.e. upper limit values of corresponding COV
range) respectively.
Table 1 statistical details of the uncorrelated random variables.
Random variable Mean Coefficient of variation Probability Reference
value µ (%) distribution
Range Average
Foundation soil cohesion c 10.0 10-30 20 Normal Phoon and
(kPa) kulhawy(1999a
Foundation soil angle of 30.0 2-10 6 Normal –b)
internal friction φ Duncun (2000)
(degrees)
Foundation soil unit 17.5 3-7 5 Normal
weight ɣ (KN/m )3
Result and discussion
The Hasofer-Lind reliability indices for margin of safety defined by equation 6 are determined by
using the equation 5 for different factor of safety. The effect on the reliability indices due to
variability in the level of resisting parameter have been also discussed.
The reliability index and their corresponding probability of failure obtained using Hasofer-Lind
method have been shown in fig 2 and fig 3 .From the analysis it can be concluded that as the factor
of safety increases reliability index also increased and their corresponding probability of failure
decreased.

Influence of variability on individual random variable

Due to human error, testing error, model error, the parameters may have variability in itself. These
variability may effect on structure safety. Influence of variability on individual random variable
have been discussed below.
Effect of variability on COV of cohesion of soil
The reliability index considerably influenced by variability in the parameters have been discussed
below. From the fig 4 it can be seen that the COV of cohesion increased from 10% to 30%.As the
COV increased the reliability index decreased for a given value of safety factor. The value of factor
of safety selected 2, 2.5 and 3.The value of reliability index for a safety factor equal to 3 when
COV is 10% have been found 5.61 , its value decreased up to 4.14 when COV reaches to 30%.for
same value of COV reliability index increases as the factor of safety increases.
Effect of variability on COV of friction angle
The COV variation of friction angle of soil varied from 2% to 10%.By keeping the average COV
for other value and varying COV for internal friction angle of foundation soil. The curve obtained
from these variation have been shown in fig 5.From the curve it can be concluded that due to
variability the most affected parameter is friction angle of soil. The value of reliability index for
the COV of 2% at factor of safety 3 have been found 7.36, and when COV reaches at 10% the
reliability index decreased to 3.31 for same value of factor of safety.
Effect of variability in COV of unit weight of soil
The COV variation of unit weight of soil are 3% to 7%.The value of reliability index obtained
from these variation have been shown in figure 6. From the figure 6 it can be concluded that the
effect in the reliability index due to variation in COV of unit weight are much lesser than other
parameters.
 Figure 2 Relation of Reliability Index with Figure 3 Relation of probability of failure with
factor of safety for mean value of resisting the factor of safety for mean the value of
parameter. resisting parameter

Figure 4 Influence of Variability in Foundation Soil Figure 5 Influence of Variability in

Cohesion on Margin of Safety for Bearing Capacity Foundation Soil Internal Friction Angle on
Failure Margin of Safety for Bearing Capacity Failure
 Figure 6 Influence of variability in foundation soil unit weight on margin of
safety for bearing capacity failure

Conclusion
The reliability index (β) and their corresponding probability of failure (pf) evaluated in the present
study have been shown figure 2 and figure 3.The variation in reliability index with factor of safety
2.0 ,2.5 and 3.0 due to variability in the foundation soil parameter i.e. c ,φ and ɣ have been shown
in figure 4 ,5 and 6 respectively. From figure 2, it can be noted that as the factor of safety increased
the reliability index also increased. At factor of safety equal to 2.4 the value of reliability index
approximately equal to 4.0.A reliability index with a value 4.0 indicate, the stability of
geotechnical structure is good (Phoon 2004). So we can use a factor of safety equal to 2.4 – 2.5 in
the ASD of the shallow foundation instead of using 3.0, which will be economical. Figure 3 shows
relation of probability of failure with respect to factor of safety. From figure 3 it can be noted that
as the safety factor increased probability of failure decreased. Figure 4, 5 and 6 represent the
variation in β with respect to variability in the parameters for different safety factor. From figure
4, 5 and 6 it can be concluded that for higher value of factor of safety reliability index is high. The
reliability index values decreases as the variability in the soil foundation parameter increases. The
mostly affected parameter due to variability is friction angle of foundation soil. Unit weight of
foundation soil are less affected due to variability in foundation soil. The cohesion of soil
parameter are also affected due to variability but reduction in values of reliability index is low as
compare to unit weight of soil. It can be concluded that the measurement of soil parameter should
be done carefully, it should not be much more variable otherwise it will be effect ultimately on the
stability of geotechnical structure.

References
Ayyub, B.M. and White, G.J. (1987): ‘Reliability- Conditioned Partial Safety Factors’, Journal
of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 113(2), pp. 279–294.
Baecher, G.B. and Christian, J.T. (2003): Reliability and Statistics in Geotechnical Engineering,
Wiley, London, UK.
Becker, D.E. (1996a): ‘Eighteenth Canadian Geotechnical Colloquium: Limit States Design for
Foundations. Part I. An overview of the Foundation Design Process’, Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 33(6), pp. 956–983.
Becker, D.E. (1996b): ‘Eighteenth Canadian Geotechnical Colloquium: Limit States Design for
Foundations. Part II. Development for the National Building Code of Canada’, Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 33(6), pp. 984–1007.
Bowles, J.E. (1996): Foundation Analysis and Design.5th Edition, McGraw-Hill Companies,
Inc., Singapore
Hasofer, A.M. And Lind, N.C. (1974): ‘Exact and Invariant Second Moment Code
Format’, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 100(1), pp. 111–121.
IS 6403 (1998): Code of Practice for Determination of Bearing Capacity of Shallow
Foundations, IS 6403: 1981 (Reaffirmed 1997, 6th Reprint), Bureau of Indian Standards, New
Delhi.
Low, B.K. (2005): ‘Reliability-Based Design Applied to Retaining Walls’, Geotechnique, 55(1),
pp. 63–75.
Low, B.K. and Tang, W.H. (1997): ‘Efficient Reliability Evaluation Using Spreadsheet. Journal
of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 123(7), pp. 749–752.
Massih, D.S.Y.A. and Soubra, A.-H. (2008): ‘Reliability- Based Analysis of Strip Footings
Using Response Surface Methodology’, International Journal of Geomechanics, ASCE, 8(2), pp.
134-143.
Murthy, V.N.S. (2003): Geotechnical Engineering - Principles and Practices of Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York.
Phoon, K.K. (2004): ‘Towards Reliability-Based Design for Geotechnical Engineering’,
Special Lecture for Korean Geotechnical Society, Seoul, pp. 1–23.
Phoon, K.K. and Kulhawy, F.H. (1999a):‘Characterization of Geotechnical
Variability’, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 36(4), pp. 612–624.
Phoon, K.K. and Kulhawy, F.H. (1999b): ‘Evaluation of Geotechnical Property Variability’,
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 36(4), pp. 625–639..
Sivakumar Babu, G.L. and Srivastava, A. (2007):‘Reliability Analysis of Allowable
Pressure on Shallow Foundation Using Response Surface Method’, Computers and
Geotechnics, 34(3), pp.187–194.
Sivakumar Babu, G.L., Srivastava, A. and Murthy, D.S.N. (2006): ‘Reliability Analysis of
the Bearing Capacity of a Shallow Foundation Resting on Cohesive Soil’, Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 43(2), pp.217-223