You are on page 1of 28

This image cannot currently be displayed.

ENCE 4610
Foundation Analysis and Design
Shallow Foundations
Total and Differential Settlement
Schmertmann’s Method
Strength Requirements
Geotechnical Strength
Requirements
Design to prevent failure by
soil shear failure
Geotechnical strength for
shear failure is referred to as
the bearing capacity of the
soil
Analysis usually performed by
ASD analysis; LRFD becoming
more common
Structural Strength
Requirements
Design to avoid structural
failure of foundation
components
Similar to other structural
analyses
• Most common strength
requirement: avoid bearing
capacity failure
This image cannot currently be displayed.
Serviceability 
Considerations
• Most common issue
in serviceability:
settlement
This image cannot currently be displayed.
This image cannot currently be displayed.
Types of 
Settlement
• Definitions of
Settlement
o Absolute settlement,
usually associated
with uniform/total
settlement
o Angular distortion
settlement, usually
associated with
differential settlement
(ratio of settlement to
distance between
foundations and
structures)
Factors to Determine 
Acceptable Settlement
Connections with existing
structures
Utility Lines
Total settlement of
permanent facilities can
harm or sever connections
to outside utilities such as
water, natural gas, and
sewer lines.
Water and sewer lines may
leak contributing to
localised wetting of the soil
profile and aggravating
differential displacement.
Leaking gas from breaks
caused by settlement can
lead to explosions.
Surface Drainage
Access
Aesthetics
Material of structure (steel,
concrete)
Usage Requirements
Settlement of
bridges/overpasses vs.
settlement of embankments,
the “bump in the bridge”
“Typical” Values of 
Acceptable Settlement
This image cannot currently be displayed.
This image cannot currently be displayed.
This image cannot currently be displayed.
Example of Settlement 
Calculations
Given
Steel framed office building, 20' column spacing
Supported on spread footings founded on clayey
soil
Find
Allowable total settlement
Allowable differential settlement
Solution
Typical total settlement specification = 4” (Frames
structure)
Use δ = 1/500 (Steel and concrete frame); δ
du
=
(1/500)(20') = 0.04' = 0.5”
Schmertmann’s Method:
Procedure and Example
• Given
o 6’ x 24’ footing, shown below
o 2 ksf applied bearing pressure
o Soil Profile and foundation
depth as shown below
• Note that N1
60
are
corrected for both
overburden and hammer
efficiency
• Find
o Settlement in inches at the
end of construction
o Settlement in inches one (1)
year after the end of
construction
Schmertmann’s Method
Step 1: Draw the Strain Influence Diagram, 
Compute I
zb
at Surface
• Strain influence
diagrams for square
and continuous
foundations are
shown at the right
• Compute L
f
/B
f
(Equivalent Footing)
o Uniform loading, so L
f
/B
f
= L/B = 24/6 = 4
o For L/B = 1, I
z
|
z = 0
= 0.1
o For L/B = 10, I
z
|
z = 0
= 0.2
o By linear interpolation, for
L/B = 4, I
z
|
z = 0
= 0.133
Schmertmann’s Method
Step 2: Draw the Strain Influence Diagram, Compute Maximum 
Depth of Influence
• Compute D
I
o Uniform loading, so L
f
/B
f
=
L/B = 24/6 = 4
o For L/B = 1, D
I
= 2B
f
o For L/B = 10, D
I
= 4B
f
o By linear interpolation, for
L/B = 4, D
I
= 8B
f
/3
o For B = 6, D
I
= (8)(6)/(3) =
16’
Schmertmann’s Method
Step 3: Draw the Strain Influence Diagram, Determine Depth of 
Peak Strain Influence Factor
• Compute D
IP
o Uniform loading, so L
f
/B
f
=
L/B = 24/6 = 4
o For L/B = 1, D
IP
= B
f
/2
o For L/B = 10, D
IP
= B
f
o By linear interpolation, for
L/B = 4, D
IP
= 2B
f
/3
o For B = 6, D
IP
= (2)(6)/(3) =
4’
o Alternate: D
IP
= D
I
/4
Schmertmann’s Method
Step 4: Draw the Strain Influence Diagram, Determine Peak Strain 
Influence Factor
• Compute I
ZP
o D
IP
= (2)(6)/(3) = 4’
o This is 4’ below the foundation;
since the foundation is 3’
below the surface, the depth
of the peak strain influence
factor is 3 + 4 = 7’ below the
soil surface (important for
effective stress computations)
o I
ZP
=0.5 + 0.1(Δp/p
op
)
0.5
o Increase in stress at depth of
footing Δp = 2 ksf – (3’)(0.115
kcf) = 1.655 ksf
o p
op
= (3)(0.115) + (3)(0.125) +
(1)(120) = 0.840 ksf
o I
ZP
= 0.5 + 0.1(1.665/0.840)
0.5
=
0.64
Schmertman’s Method
Step 5: Draw the Strain Influence Diagram
• Helpful Guidelines:
o The depth of the peak value
of the strain influence is
fixed. To aid in the
computation, develop the
layering such that one of
the layer boundaries occurs
at this depth even though it
requires that an actual soil
layer be sub-divided.
o Limit the top layer as well as
the layer immediately below
the peak value of influence
factor, I
zp
, to 2/3B
f
or less to
adequately represent the
variation of the influence
factor within D
IP
.
o Limit maximum layer
thickness to 10 ft (3 m) or
less.
o Match the layer boundary
with the subsurface profile
layering.
Layer Boundaries are SOLID
Layer Mid-Points are DASHED
Schmertmann’s Method
Step 6: Determine the Values of Elastic Modulus
• Estimate from SPT Value
o Layer 1: Sandy Silt, E
s
=
4(N1
60
) = (4)(25) = 100 tsf =
200 ksf
o Layer 2: Coarse Sand, E
s
=
10(N1
60
) = (10)(30) = 300 tsf =
600 ksf
o Layer 3: Coarse Sand, E
s
=
10(N1
60
) = (10)(30) = 300 tsf =
600 ksf
o Layer 4: Sandy Gravel, E
s
=
12(N1
60
) = (12)(68) = 816 tsf =
1632 ksf
• Values computed in this
fashion must be corrected
by a factor X
Schmertmann’s Method
Step 6: Determine the Values of Elastic Modulus
• Modulus of Elasticity
Correction Factor X
o X = 1.25 for L
f
/B
f
= 1
o X = 1.75 for L
f
/B
f
> 10
o By linear interpolation, for
L
f
/B
f
= 4, X = 1.42
• Corrected Values of E
s
o 1: (100)(1.42) = 142 tsf
o 2: (300)(1.42) = 426 tsf
o 3: (300)(1.42) = 426 tsf
o 4: (816)(1.42) = 1159 tsf
Schmertmann’s Method
Step 7: Compute Basic Total Settlement
• Basic Formula for
Schmertmann’s Method
o We first concentrate on
computing the
summation, which will
represent the settlement
divided by the applied
bearing pressure








= Δ
Δ Δ =

=
s
z
c i
n
i
i i
XE
I
H H
H p C C S
1
2 1
Schmertmann’s Method
Step 8: Determine Embedment and Creep Factors
896 . 0
1655
115 ' 3
5 . 0 1
5 . 0 1
1
1
=
×
− =
Δ
− =
pcf
pcf
C
p
p
C
o
• Embedment Factor
• Creep Factor
2 . 1
1 . 0
1
log 2 . 0 1
year, one of end At
1
on, constructi of end For
1 . 0
log 2 . 0 1
10 2
2
10 2
=






+ =
=






+ =
C
C
t
C
years
Schmertmann’s Method
Step 9: Determine Settlement at End of Construction
Step 10: Determine Settlement at End of One Year
• End of Construction
• End of One Year
" 130 . 0
) ksf 2 tsf 1 )( in/tsf 1760 . 0 )( ksf 1.655 )( 1 )( 896 . 0 (
1
2 1
=
=
Δ Δ =

=
i
i
n
i
i i
S
/ S
H p C C S
" 156 . 0
) ksf 2 tsf 1 )( in/tsf 1760 . 0 )( ksf 1.655 )( 2 . 1 )( 896 . 0 (
1
2 1
=
=
Δ Δ =

=
i
i
n
i
i i
S
/ S
H p C C S
Chart for 
Interpolated 
Values
Settlement vs. Bearing 
Capacity (Shear Failure)
Bearing 
Capacity 
Charts
Example
Comments on Bearing 
Capacity Chart Example
Lightly Loaded Footings and 
Presumptive Bearing Pressures
• Lightly loaded footings are
those which meet the
following criteria:
o Square, circular, or rectangular
footings subjected to vertical loads
less than 200 kN (45 kips)
o Continuous footings subjected to
vertical loads less than 60 kN/m (4
kips/ft)
• Include typical one and
two-story wood frame
buildings and other similar
structures
• A conservative approach;
normally easier in these
cases to design a
conservative structure than
to perform the analysis
• The use of presumptive bearing
capacities for shallow foundations
bearing in soils is not recommended for
final design of shallow foundations for
transportation structures, especially
bridges. Guesses about the geology
and nature of a site and the
application of a presumptive value
from generalizations in codes or in the
technical literature are not a substitute
for an adequate site-specific
subsurface investigation and
laboratory testing program. As an
exception, presumptive bearing values
are sometimes used for the preliminary
evaluation of shallow foundation
feasibility and estimation of footing
dimensions for preliminary
constructability or cost evaluations.
Presumptive Bearing Pressures
Sands
Allowable Bearing Pressure
Tons Per sq ft
Type of Bearing Material Consistency In Place Range Recommended
Value for Use
Well graded mixture of fine and coarse-
grained soil: glacial till, hardpan, boulder clay
(GW-GC, GC, SC)
Very compact 8 to 12 10.0
Gravel, gravel-sand mixtures, boulder gravel
mixtures (SW, SP, SW, SP)
Very compact 6 to 10 7.0
Medium to compact 4 to 7 5.0
Loose 2 to 6 3.0
Coarse to medium sand, sand with little
gravel (SW, SP)
Very compact 4 to 6 4.0
Medium to compact 2 to 4 3.0
Loose 1 to 3 1.5
Fine to medium sand, silty or clayey medium
to coarse sand (SW, SM, SC)
Very compact 3 to 5 3.0
Medium to compact 2 to 4 2.5
Loose 1 to 2 1.5
Presumptive Bearing Pressures
Clays and Silts
Allowable Bearing Pressure Tons
Per sq ft
Type of Bearing Material Consistency In
Place
Range Recommended
Value for Use
Homogeneous inorganic clay,
sandy or silty clay (CL, CH)
Very stiff to hard 3 to 6 4.0
Medium to stiff 1 to 3 2.0
Soft .5 to 1 0.5
Inorganic silt, sandy or clayey silt,
varved silt-clay-fine Sand
Very stiff to hard 2 to 4 3.0
Medium to stiff 1 to 3 1.5
Soft .5 to 1 0.5
Presumptive Bearing Pressures
Notes
o Compacted fill, placed with control of moisture, density, and lift
thickness, has allowable bearing pressure of equivalent natural soil.
o Allowable bearing pressure on compressible fine grained soils is
generally limited by considerations of overall settlement of structure.
o Allowable bearing pressure on organic soils or uncompacted fills is
determined by investigation of individual case.
o If tabulated recommended value for rock exceeds unconfined
compressive strength of intact specimen, allowable pressures equals
unconfined compressive strength.
Questions?