Journal of the SOIL MECHANICS AND FOUNDATIONS DIVISION - Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers STATE-OF-THE-ART OF FLOATING FOUNDATIONS* By Hugh Q. Golder, M. ASCE —_——- SYNOPSIS For a floating foundation the soil must have weight but itneednot have shear strength. The foundation must be able to resist pressure on its base and sides and, if the weight or levelof the soll varies, the pressures willnot be uniform, and shear and bending forces will act on the foundation. In practice, most foundations are partly floating, and almost all so-called floating foundations 11 residual pressure is usually leit on are only partly floating because 2 sma. the soil. After a history of their development and the reasons for their use are given, the problems to be considered in using floating foundations are examined. Among the most Important problems are excavation, bottom heave, settlement and.tilting, and structural problems. . INTRODUCTION In considering an engineering problem it is often helpful to begin with the Lmits between which the problem lies, in a physical sense, although these limits are not necessarily practical in an engineering sense. When a foundation rests on the ground surface it s supported by the shear strength of the soil or rock of which the ground is composed. When the foun- dation is placed below the ground surface, for frost or drying protection, and ithe welght of the overburden 1s deducted from the applied pressure, the foun- Hote s—Diacuasion open until Augiat I, 1585. To extend the closing date ona ta twilitos rewuses mancto filed with the Executive Secretary, ASCE, Tile paper le pari Srthe copyrighted Journalof the Soll Mechanies and Foundations Division, Procoetiiage of the Amortean Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 81, No. SM2, March, 1965, 2 This {8 one of tho “state-of-the-art” papers presented at the ASCE Soll S and Foundations Divistos Coal. on *Desigh of Foundations for Controlot Sotiioment#: = held at Northwestern Univ., Evanaton, Ill., June, 1964, tha comptled papers were pro- sented tn the Septamber, 1964, division Journal. Cons. Civ. Enge., H. Q. Golder and Assocs. Lid., Toronto, Canada, ces Pf be Ce ie Pe Pr .pate ee ee nea ne 7 Gs SM? March, 1985 (../) ength and partly by “buoyancy,” supported partly by the shear str {mit to a floating foundation Is a he foundation is partly floating. The 1! er. analogy of a ship indicates certain useful facts, namely: ‘The ship displaces a volume of water equal to its weigh ‘After the initial settlement there is no further settlement; the pressure on the horizontal base is uniform} if the water level ceases to be uniform, (i. e., wave action) the pres- change and the hull is subjected to bending and shear forcesi §. there are lateral pressures on the side of the hull} 9G. the water has no shear strength, 1. e., shear strength is not necessary for support; and 5 7. the hull is compl may be high. ‘The preceding facts indicate that, ete when launched into the water and launching stresses é for a floating foundation, the soil must have weight but it need not have shear strength. ‘The foundation must be able to resist pressure on its base and sides and, if the weight or level of the soil iyaries; the pressures will not be uniform, and shear and bending forces will lact onthe foundation. Once in position, the foundation will not settle further (if fully floating) unless further load ts added. In soil of low shear strength construction of floating foundations maybe difficult but the depth {s not Umited by shear strength if suitable construction procedures are used; however, “Jaunching” stresses in the foundation may be high. In practice, most foun- dations are partly floating, and almost all of the so-called floating foundations fare only partly floating because a small residual pressure | usually left on the soil. r ‘A floating foundation will be cons: part of the building load is balanced against the wei Fad is not supported by the shear strength of the soil. dered herein as one in which the greater ight of excavated material HISTORY floating foundations is not new. There is some evi- The concept of using "18th century, andit is probable that they were dence that they were used in the used intuitively before that date. Tn the discussion? of a paper, by to 2 German work by G. Hagen? date use of floating foundations by John Rennie in London at the A te no doubt that Hagen really knew what a Moating “.. .aheavy building can still be safely built by Sin so that it actually floats. The complete weight © greater than that of the excavated material.” " ‘The reference to Rennle is taken from “A Treatise 6 by J. Farey (1827). According to Hagen, Farey says 2 Terzaghi, Karl, discusston of “Application of Soil Mechanics in Desig Foundations,” by A. Casagrande and FR. E. Fadum, Transactions, ASCE, Vo p. 427. 1 Hagen, G., *Handbuchder Wasserbaukunsy Ernst U. Kora, Berlin, 1870,INSTRUCTION SHOWING STRESSING FIG. 3.-COMPLETED BOX AT START OF!March, 1965 conditions are such that a building can be constructed Fupture of the soil, but the settlements, particularly the differ- is, will be too larze for the structure to stand without severe Hon. The floating foundation is used to reduce settlements, OF COMPLETED .0LL HOUSE In type II the shear strengthof the soll is 60 low that the build mucted except as a floating foundation, which 1s used to ry © settlem ough it mz der water in the de ¥ Linked ¢ e depth of able con- ation, but om heave ted, and can becavation problem although it may is no greatex ler water, excavation, either in the dry or unde oil; this must be ‘consideredin the de- Mat be closely Linked to dation. ‘The depth of th, if suitable con- an occur with both tyPes Exces nan type I. 5s sd. p heave ©: ith type DY settlement can be ve measured during &x- her elastic and console hether oF not Br discussion {5 .stion for on are adequate: is a problem. This co some- seter the foundation 15 complete- metimes be used [0 correct 2 not difficult to make 2 rigid basement. scted with owner use of the basement nt space canbe made available to cells remain permanently ms in this type are connec- sosition, considerably rige inthe design and concerning:SM 2. March, 1965 r Saperficially, it might seem that floating foundations are simple in princl ' & ple and overcome all the difficulties associated with nent and soft soils. _ } The question then arises: Why are not all foundations constructed as floating me foundations? The simple answer is COST!