Structural Foundation Designers’ Manual CONSULTING ENGINEERS Cc)This book is based on over 30 years’ intensive practical experience. As a designers’ manual, its aim is to simplify as much as possible a complex subject which is often treated too theoretically, by providing simple, buildable and economical foundations. It explains simply, clearly and with numerous worked examples how ‘economic foundation design is achieved. It deals with both straightforward and difficult sites, following the process through site investigation, foundation selection and, finally, design. ‘The book includes chapters on many of the aspects of foundation engineering that most other books avoid, including filled and contaminated sites, mining and other man-made conditions that are all too frequently encountered. A step-by- step procedure for the design of lightweight and flexible rafts is provided to fill the gap in guidance on this much neglected, yet extremely economical foundation solution. ‘The book concentrates on foundations for building structures rather than the larger civil engineering foundations and includes many innovative and economic solutions developed and used by the authors’ practice but not often covered in other publications. ‘An extensive series of appendices completes the book, providing a valuable source of reference. Written by practising engineers for practising engineers, it draws on Curtins’ wide experience in the field and will be a worthy companion to their Structural Masonry Designers’ Manual, also published by Blackwell Science.STRUCTURAL FOUNDATION DESIGNERS’ MANUALnvSTRUCTURAL FOUNDATION DESIGNERS’ MANUAL Curtins CONSULTING ENGINEERS W. G. CURTIN, Meng, PhD, Feng, FICE, FiStructl, MConst: G. SHAW, Céng, FICE, Fistructe, MComsE G. I. PARKINSON, CEng, FICE, FistructE, MConsE J. M. GOLDING, bse, Ms, CEng, MICE, MIStructE b Blackwell Stience© Estate of W. G. Curtin, together with G. Shaw, G. 1 Parkinson, J. M. Golding 1994 Blackwell Science Lid Editorial Ofces Osney Mead, Oxford OX2 OEL. 25 John Steet, London WCIN 2B 23 Ainslie Place, Edinburgh EH3 6A) 238 Main Sueet, Cambridge Massachusets 02142, USA, ‘54 University Steet, Carlton ‘Victoria 3083, Ausraia (Other Editorial Oties: Amette Blackwell SA Lyre de Lille, 75007 Pais France Blackwell Wissenshafts-Verlog GmbH ‘Kurfurstendamm 57 10707 Berlin, Germany Feldgase 13, A-1238 Wien Austia Allsights reserved. No part ofthis publication may be reproduced, stored ina retieval system. o ransmited, in any form or by any means, electronic, ‘mectanical, photocopying, recording ‘or otherwise, except as permitted By the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. First published 1994 Reprinted 1994 Set by SeuriteTypeseters, Hong Kong ‘Prined and bound in Great Britain by the University Pres, Cambridge Marston Book Services Lid PO Box 87 Oxford OX2 ODT (Orders Tel: 01865 791155 Fax; 01865 791927 Telex: 837515) usa, Blackwell Science, Inc. 238 Main Steet Cambridge, MA 02142 (Orders: Te: 800 759-6102 617 876-7000) Canada (Oxford University Press 70 Wyotord Drive Don Mills Ontario M3C 19 (Orders Te: 416 387-8552) Australia BBlackivell Science Pty Lud 54 University Street Carlton, Victoria 3053 (Onders Te: 03 347-5552) ‘A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN 0-532.02025.3 Libeary of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Structural foundation designers’ manual/Curtins Consulting Engineers ple. W.G. Carin. [etal pm. Includes bibliographical references and index ISBN 0-632-02025-3 Poundatons. 2. Structural Desig, 1. Curtin, W.G. (William George). Curtins Consulting Engineers pe TATISS75. 1993 624,1'5-de20 9312682 cP awDedication This book is dedicated to Bill Curtin who died suddenly in November 1991 following a shor illness. Bill's contribution to the book at that time was all but complete and certainly well ahead of his co-authors. Iisa source of sadness that Bill did not have the pleasure and satisfaction of seeing the completed publication but his ‘input and enthusiasm gave his co-authors the will to com- plete their input and progress the book to completionCONTENTS Preface ‘The Book’s Structure and What Its About ‘Acknowledgements Notation vt awit PART I: APPROACH AND FIRST CONSIDERATIONS 1 Principles of foundation design 1 12 13 Lo Lio 1 Introduction Foundation safety etteria Bearing capacity 1.3.1 Introduction 1.32 Bearing capacity 1.33. Presumed bearing value 1.34 Allowable bearing pressure 1.35 Inclined loading Settlement Limit state philosophy LS.1 Working stress design 1.5.2 Limit state design Interaction of superstructure and soil 1.6.1 Example 1: Three pinned arch 1.6.2 Example 2: Vierende: superstructure 1.6.3 Example 3: Prestressed brick diaphragm wall 1.64 Example 4: Composite deep beams 1.6.5 Example S: Buoyancy raft Foundation types 1.7.1 Pad foundations 1.7.2. Strip footings 1.7.3 Raft foundations 1.7.8 Piled foundations Ground treatment (geotechnical processes) Changes of soil properties during Post-construction foundation failure Practical considerations L111 Example 6: Excavation in waterlogged ground Example 7: Variability of ground conditions 1a w 0 10 10 10 n a B B 1“ 4 1.11.3 Example 8: Reliability of the soils investigation Example 9: Deterioration of ‘ground exposed by excavation Example 10: Effect of new foundation on existing structure 1.12. Design procedures hana Las Soll mechanics, lab testing and geology A: Soll mechanics 2.1 Introduction to soil mechanics 2.2 Pressure distribution through ground 23. Bearing capacity 2.3.1. Introduction to bearing capacity 2.3.2 Main variables affecting bearing capacity 2.3.3 Bearing capacity and bearing pressure 2.3.4 Determination of ultimate bearing capacity 23.5 Safe bearing capacity — cohesionless soils 2.3.6 Safe bearing capacity ~ cohesive soils 2.3.7 Safe bearing capacity ~ combined soils 24 Settlement 24.1 Introduction to settlement 24.2 Void ratio 24.3 Consolidation test, 24.4 Coefficient of volume compressibility 24.5 Magnitude and rate of settlement 24.6 Settlement calculations 25 Allowable bearing pressure 26 Conclusions B: Laboratory testing 2.7 Introduction to laboratory testing 2.8 Classification ~ (disturbed sample tests) 2.8.1 Particle size and distribution 282 Density 283 Liquidity and plasticity 28.4 General 16 6 ” 18 18 » a a 2 2 2 2B 4 24 8 2% 2% 2 2 7 27 2 28 »Contents 2.9 Undisturbed sample testing 2.9.1 Moisture content 2.9.2 Shear strength 2.9.3 Consolidation tests (ocvometer apparatus) 2.944 Permeability tests 2.9.5 Chemical tests 2.10 Summary of tess, 211 Analysis of results 2.12 Final observations on sting C: Geology 2.13 Introduction to geoloey 2.14 Formation of rock types 2.15 Weathering of racks 2.16 Agents of weathering 2.16.1 ‘Temperature Water Wind Glaciation 2.17. Earth movement 2.7.1. Folds, fractures and faults 2.17.2. Dip and strike 2.17.3. Jointing 2.74 Date 2.18 Errors in borchole interpreta 2.19 Geophysical investigation 2.20. Expert knowledge and advice Ground investigation 3.1 Tnwroduetion 3.2. The nced for investigation 3.2.1 The designer's need 3.2.2 The contractor's need 3.2.3 The client's need 324 estigation for failed, or failing, existing foundations 3.3. Procedure B31 Site survey plan 33.2. Study of existing information 3.3.3 Preliminary site reconnaissance and site walkabout 3.4 Soll investigation 3.4.1. Borehole layout Site i 3.4.2 Trial pits ayout 3.4.3 Hand augers 3.44 Boring 3.45 Backflling of tral pits and boreholes 3.4.6 — Soil sampling 34.7 Storage of samples 34.8 Frequency of sampling 349 Appointment of specialist soi investigator Site examination of soils Field (site) testing of soils 3.6.1 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) 3.6.2 Vane test 3.6.3 Plate bearing test, 3.04 2» » 3 M M a M » 40 40 0 0 0 “0 0 40 4 41 41 41 2 45 45 6 a a7 so 30 0 3.6.5 Groundwater (piezomerers and standpipes) 3.66 Other field tests, 3.7 Recording information ~ wal pit and borehole logs and soll profiles 3.8 Soil samples und soil profiles 3.) Preliminary analysis of resus 3.10 Site investigation report 3.10.1 Factors affecting quality of report 3.10.2 Sequence of report Site description “The ground investigation Results Recommendations 3.11 Filly (made ground) 3.12 Legal issues 313 Tin 3.14 Conclusions 3.15 Further information 3.16 References PART 2: SPECIAL AND FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS 4 Topography and its influence on site evelopment 4.1 Introduction 4.2. Implications from surface observations 42.1. Changes in level, ground slopes and 42.2 Mounds, depressions and disturbed ‘ground 42.3 Past oF current activities 424 Vegetation 42.5 Surface ponding or watercourses 4.3 Bifeetson development arising from topographical features AL Sloping sites 43.2. Slope stabil 433° Groundwater 4.34 Sottlement 44° Summary Contaminated and derelict sites 5.1 Introduction SAL State of the ar 5.1.2 Contamination implications Redundant foundations and services 5.2.1 Identification 5.2.2 Sampling and testing 5.2.3. Site treatment 5.3 Chemical and toxic contaminants 5.3.1 Human and animal risk 53.2. Plant risk 5.3.3. Risk to buildings 53.4 Toxic contamination ~ site identification ‘Contaminant 535 536 537 Sampling and testing Site weatment 6 56 “o 2 #2 geeee of 65 6s 6 6 “7 “7 m a 7 a 2 n 4 1” 8 s ” ” so BI 2 2 x 8 st 85 8s 85 37 7 7 25.4 Foundation protection 5S Example 5.6 References and further information Mining and other subsidence 6.1 Introduction 62 Mechanics of mining subsidence 63. Methods of mining 63.1 Longwall workings 632 Pill I workings (partial extraction methods) 63.3 “Bell-pits’ 6.4 Associated and other worl 6.4.1 Abandoned mine shafts and adits ds 6.4.2. Firedlay and other clays 643 [ron ores 64.4 Other metals 645 Limestone 646 Salt 647 Chalk 65° Faulting 6.6 Natural and other cavities 646.1 Dissolving rock 6.46.2 Dissolving soils 6.17 Treatment of abandoned shallow workings 6.7.1 Introduction 67.2. Excavate and backiil 6.7.3 Partial and full grouting 6.8 Treatment of abandoned shafts 6.8.1 Capping 6.9 Effect of mining method and method of treatment 6.9.1 Introduction 6.9.2 Bell workings 69.3 Pillar and stall 6.9.4 Longwall workings 69.5 Rafts founded over longwall workings 6.10. Design principles and preceutions in longwall mining subsidence areas 6.10.1 Introduction 6.10.2 Rafts and strips for loverise, lightly loading buildings Ratt for multi-storey structures or heavy industrial buildings 6.10.4 Jacking points 6.10.5. Service duets 6.10.6. Piling 6.10.7 Arteulated foundation 6.11 Superstructures 6.11.1 Introduction 6.11.2 Rigid superstructures 6.11.3 Flexible superstruetures 6.12 Monitoring 6.13 References 6.10.3 Fi 7.1. Filled sites % 9% 10s 10s as Ms 07 07 or ut Mm 12 3 1B 14 ua na us us 11s us He 16 16 116 7 us us 119 Contents T.l.L Introduction 7.12. Movement and settlement 7.2. The container 7.2.1 The container surface 7.2.2. The container edges 7.2.3 The container base 7.2.4 The container substrata 73° Water 7.3.1 Effect of water on combustion 7.3.2 fest of water on chemical solutions 7.3.3, Water lubrication 73.4 Water inundation 735 Organic decay 73.6 Information from water 7.4 The fil material 7.4.1. Introduction 7.5. Fill investigations 73.1 Special requirements 75.2 Suggested procedures 7.6 Settlement predictions 7.6.1 Settlement: fill only 7.6.2 Settlement: combined effects 7.7. The development and its services TTA Sensitivity 7.7.2. Treatment and solutions 2.1.3. New filing for development. 7.8 Case examples 7.8.1 Introduction 7.8.2. Example I: Movement of existing building on fil Example 2: New development on existing colliery fill Example 3: New development on new filing Example 4: New developments oo ‘existing preloaded fill Example 5: New development on existing backfilled quarry (purchase ‘of coal rights) Example 6: Development on new fill (prevention of flooding) 183 184 188 186 187 ‘Ground improvement methods 8.1 Introduction 8.2 Surface rolling 82.1 Introduetion 82.2 Method 8.2.3 Soil suitability and variation 8.2.4 Site monitoring 83. Vibro-stabilization 8.3.1 Introduction B32 Working surfaces 83.3 Method 83.4 Vibro-compaction 83.5 Vibro-displacement 83.6 Vibro-replacememt 83.7 Summary of vibro-stabilizaion 83.8 Design considerations ~ granular soils us us ug ug 20 120 ry m 122 i m2 2 i iP 122 122 1 na 128 as nas 126 a 27 128 1 129 129 129 130 BL i 132 13 1s Bs Bs Bs Bs 16 136 17 7 138 1s 139 140 140 ua max Contents Ba 85 86 a7 88 839 soils 83.10 Testing B3.11_Vibvo-concrete Dynamic consolidation B4.1 Introduction B42 Method a3 Usage Ra.d Site checks reload RS.1 Introduction 5.2 Method R53. Design of surcharge R54 Installation of drainage systems Grout injections 86.1 Introduction 86.2 Loose soils 8.6.3 Swallowholes 864 Shallow mining 8.65 Mine shafts, wells and bell-pts Limefeement stabilization Reinforced earth BA. Introduction 8.2 Foundation applications R83 Patents S84 Research and development PART 3: FOUNDATION TYPES: SELECTION AND DESIGN 9 Foundation types 9 92 93 9a Introduction Foundation types Group one ~ strip a pad foundations 93.1 Strip footings 93.2 Masonry strips 9.3.3 Comerete rips ~ plein and reinforced 93.4 Conerete trench fill 935 Stone treneh fill 93.6 Rectangular beam strips 9.3.7 Inverted T beam strips 93.8 Pad bases 93.9 Shallow mass concrete pads 9.3.10. Shallow reinforced conerete pads 93.11 Deep reinforced concrete pads 9.3.12 Deep mass concrere pads 9.3.13 Balanced pad foundations 9.3.14 Rectangular balanced pad foundations 9.3.15 Trapezoidal balanced pad foundati 93.16 Holed balanced pad foundations 93.17 Cantilever balanced pad foundations Group two ~ surface spread foundations 9.4.1 Nominal crust raft 942. Crust raft 9.4.3 Blanket raft 1a 142 1a 1a 1a as ae 44 Mas Mas Maa 14s Ms Ms us Me 17 M7 M7 as as as a9 9 150 133 153 153 153 153 1st 158 1st 155 135 155 136 156 136 156 137 158 138 158 139 139 130 100) 161 161 Design considera n Slip-plane raft 944 94.5 Cellular rat 9.4.6 — Lidded cellular raft 9.4.7 Beam strip raft Y.A.8 Buoyancy (or floating) raft 94.9 Jacking rat 95 Group three ~ pile foundations 95.1 Introduct 9.5.2 Stone/gravel piles 953. Concrete piles 9.5.4 Timber piles 955 Steel piles 9.5.6 Anchor ples 9.5.7 Anchor blocks 9.5.8 Pile caps and ground beams 9.6 Group four ~ miscellaneous elements and forms 9.6.1 Suspended ground floor stabs 9.6.2 Floating ground floor slabs 9.6.3 Pier and beam foundations 9.6.8 Retaining walls 9.65. Grillage foundations Foundation selection and design procedures ‘A: Foundation selection 10.1 Inteoduetion 10.2 Foundation selection 10.3 Information collection/assessment 10.8 General approach to choice of foundations 10.5 Questioning the information snd proposals 10,6 Exploitation of foundation sifiness and resulting ground pressure 10.7 Conclusions B: Foundation design calculation procedure 10.8 Introduction 10.9 Definition of bearing pressures 10.10 Calculation of applied bearing pressures 10.11 Structural design of foundation members 10.12 General design method Design of pads, strips and continuous {foundations 1.1 Unteinforced concrete pads and strips Ht Introduction MLL Trench fil 11.1.3. Trench fil design decisions IILLA Sizing of the design M115. Design Example |: Trench fll strip Footing Design Example 2: Deep mass concrete pad base 11.7 Unreinforced conerete strips Reinforced eonerete pads and strips 12.1 Introduction 11.2.2 Design decisions 11.2.3 Sizing up of the design 16 2 ol ol 161 el 162 162 162 162 163 os 166 166 166 166 167 168 168 160 169 10 7 14 m4 178 174 174 175 st ss 1st 185 8s 86 WT wi we 198 19s 98 18 20) 201 203 204 20s 206 206 20% 2072 ns na ns 11.24 Design Example 3: Reinforced strip foundat 11.2.5. Design Example 4: Reinforced pad base Pad foundations with axial loads and bending moments 113.1 Design Example 5: Pad base — axial [oad plus bending moment {small eccentricity) 11.3.2 Design Example 6: Pad base — axial foad plus bending moment large eccentricity) 11.3.3. Design Example 7: Pad base ~ axial load plus bending moments about both axes 11.3.4 Design Example 8: Pad base ~ axial and horizontal loads 113.5 Design Example 9: Shear wall base ~ vertical loads and horizontal wind loads Rectangular and Tee-beam continuous strips 11.4.1 Itroduction 11.4.2. Design decisions 11.4.3 Sizing of the design 11.4.4 Design Example 10: Continuous ‘Tee team footing with uniform bearing pressure 114.5 Design Example 11: Continuous rectangular beam footing wi trapezoidal bearing pressure Grllage foundations 11.5.1 Introduction 11.5.2 Design decisions 11.5.3. Sizing of the design 11.5.4 Design Example 12: Grillage foundation Floating slabs (ground slabs) 11.6.1 Introduction 11.6.2 Design decisions 11.6.3. Sizing of the slab 11.6.4 Design Example 13: Floating slab ‘Tied and balanced foundations RI 22 123 ‘General introduction ‘Tied foundations 122.1 Introduction 122.2 Design decisions 12.2.3. Sizing the foundations 122.4 Design Example 1: Tied portal frame base Balanced foundations (rectangular, cantilever, trapezoidal and holed) 12.3.1. Introduction 123.2 Design decisions 123.3. Sizing up the design 12.3.4 Design Example 2: Rectangular balanced foundation 213 213 25 219 20 22 204 228 Ds Ds 226 29 233 233 233 233 2M 236 236 236 237 238 22 22 22 22 22 22 268 2s 28 2 8 246 Contents 1235. Design Example 3: Cantilever balanced foundation 12.36 Design Example 4; Trapezoidal balanced foundation 12.37 Design Example 5: Holed balanced foundation 13 Raft foundations 1B.1 Design procedures for semi-lexible rafts 13.11 Design principles 13.1.2 Design of raft layouts 1.13 Bearing pressure design 13.14 Design span for local depressions 13.1.5 Slab design 13.1.6 Beam design 13.2. Nominal crust raft ~ semi-lexible 13.2.1 Design decisions 13.2.2 Sizing the design 13.2.3 Design Example 1: Nominal crust raft 133. Crust raft 133.1 Introduction 13.3.2 Design decisions 13.3.3 Design Example 2: Crust raft 13.4 Blanket raft 14.1 Introduction 134.2 Design decisions 13.4.3 Sizing the design 1344 Design Example 3: Blanket raft 13.5 Slip sandwich raft 13.5.1 Introduction 135.2 Design decisions 13.5.3 Siting the design 1354 Design Example 4: Slip sandwich raft 136. Cellular raft 13.6.1 Introduction 13.6.2 Sizing the design 13.63 Design Example 5: Cellular rat 13.7 Lidded cellular raft 13.21 Introduetion 13.7.2 Sizing the design 13.7.3. Design Example 6: Lidded cellular rat 13.8 Beam strip raft 13.8.1 Tntrodueti 13.8.2 Sizing the design 13.83. Design Example 7: Beam strip raft 13.9 Buoyancy raft 13.9.1 Introduction 13.9.2 Sizing the design 139.3 Design Example 8: Buoyancy raft 13.10 Jacking raft 13.10.1 Introduction i 27 249 250 253 253 253 253 258 257 2s7 263 264 268 264 266 268 268 268 268 m mm 2m 23 ma a7 271 278 279 280 281 281 281 283 286 286 287 287 287 ges ge 291 201 BgContents “ Bau Piles a 142 M3 rey 145 wa 4s M9 13.102 Sizing the design References Tnraduetion Applications ‘Types of piles 14.3.1 Load-bearing characteristics M32 Mate Methods of piling 144.1 Driven piles 144.2 Driven castinsplace piles 14.4.3 Bored eastin-plae piles M44 Serew piles 144.5 Jacked ples 1446 Continuous 144.7 Mini or pin piles Choice of pile 145.1 Ground conditions and structure 145.2 Durability 145.3. Cost Design of piled foundations 14.6.1 Factor of safety 14.6.2 Determination of ultimate bearing capacity 14.6.3. Pile loading tests 14.6.4 Pile groups 146.5. Spacing of piles within a group 146.6 Ultimate bearing capacity of group 146.7 Negative friction Pile caps 14.7.1 Tocroduction 14.7.2. The need for pile caps ~ capping beams 14.7.3. Size and depth Design of foundations at pile head Design examples 14.9.1 Design Example Calculation of pile safe working loads 149.2 Design Example 2 Pile cap design 149.3, Design Example 3: Piled ground beams with floating slab 14.9.4 Design Example 4: Piled ground beams with suspended slab 14.9.5 Design Example 5: Piled foundation with suspended at sb 300 301 30 wo 301 302 304 os 305 0s 305 sos 305, Ms 6 an Ny 309 313 ats 15 Retaining walls, basement wal ‘underpinning 15.1 Introduction 18.2 Retaining walls and basements 153 Stability 154 Flotation 15.5 Buoyancy 15.6 Pressures 15.6.1 Liguid pressure 15.6.2 Earth pressure 5.6.3 Surcharge 5.6.4 Simplified expressions (for preliminary estimates) 15.7 Slip eile example 15.8 Continuous underpinning 15:9 Discontinuous underpinning 15.10 Spread underpinning 5.11 Slip circles and. Appendices Invdction to appendices Appentn A: Properties and presumed baring pressures of ome wll known engineerin os tind ols Append B: Map showing ares of hike aa Appendix C: Map shoing ares of oa and Appendix D: Foundation election ales Append E: Gu to we of round Append Tables lating contaminated sevois Appendix G: Fat of sey Appendix He Des chan fo pad and stip ‘aunts Append : Tale of groand beam tal es Appendix Ks Design pap and hts or alt foundation spanning fl depression Appendix L:Table of mata stn ‘ppends ME: Cost indies or foundation pes Append Ne Allowabc Rearing pres for foundation ow ono sl Index a2 33 a4 339 ast 353 358 359 367 9 amPREFACE ‘Why yet another book on foundations when so many good ‘ones are alteady available?’ — a good question which deserves an This book has grown out of our consultancy’s extensive experience in often difficult and always cost-competitive conditions of designing structural foundations. Many of the existing good books are written witha civil engineering bias and devote long sections to the design of aspects such as bridge caissons and marine structures. Furthermore, a lot fof books give good explanations of soil mechanics and research — but mainly for green field sites. We expect designers 10 know soil mechanics and where to turn for reference when necessary. However there are few books which cover the new advances in geotechnical processes rnccessary now that we have to build on derelict, abandoned inner-city sites, polluted or toxic sites and similar problem sites. And no book, yet, deals with the developments we nd other engineers have made, for example, in raft foun: dations. Some books are highly specialized, dealing only (and thoroughly) with topics such as piling or underpinning. Foundation engineering is a wide subject and designers need. primarily ane reference for guidance. Much has been written on foundation construction work and methods — and that deserves a treatise in its own right, Design and construction should be interactive, but in order to limit the size of the book, we decided, with regret o estiet discussion ta design and omit discussion of techniques such as dewater- ing, bentonite diaphragm wall construction, timbering, ete ‘oundation construction can be the biggest bottleneck in «8 building programme s0 attention to speed of construction is vital in the design and detailing process. Repairs to failed or deteriorating foundations are frequently the most costly of all building remedial measures so care in safe design is crucial, bute dation design is unnecessarily costly and the advances ia agant design is wasteful. ‘Too much foun: pressure distribution due to foundation loads (kNim") (6) Characters versus ultimate (u subscript) Loads and pressures ate either characteristic values oF wtimare values. This distinction is important, since characteristic values (working loads/pressures) are used for bearing pressure checks. while ultimate values (Factored loads/pressures) are used for structural member design. All ultimate values have u subscripts. Thus ‘p= characteristic pressure due to superstructure loads a= ultimate pressure due to superstructure loads GENERAL NOTATION Dimensions a Gistance of edge of footing from face of wall/beam a area of base Ay effective area of base (over which compressive bearing pressures act) A area of reinforcement OR surface area of pile shalt > ‘width for reinforcement design a width of base By, ‘width of beam thickening in raft Boone assumed width of concrete base Bra assumed spread of load at underside of compacted fill material a effective depth of reinforcement D depth of underside of foundation below ground level OR diameter of pile Dy depth of water-table below ground level h thickness of base hy thickness of beam thickening in raft a thickness of compacted fill material Io thickness of concrete n length of pile OR height of retaining wall My. Hy thickness of soil strata “I', °°, ete L length of base OR length of depressio Ly effective length of base (over which compressive beating pressures act) is thickness of wall “ length of punching shear perimeter x projection of external footing beyond line of action of load z depth below ground levelNotation xxi % depth below watertable prope setlement of strata 1,2 ete Miscellaneous ‘ cohesion “ undisturbed shear strength at base of ple « average undraned shear strength fr pile shaft ° void tatio Jn characteristic local bond stress L ultimate conertesres (in pile) fo characteristic conerete cube strength 1 ‘moment of inertia k permestilty k ‘arth pressure coefficient Kn bending moment factor (at design) m coctfcicat of volume compressibility N SPT value N Terzaghi hearing capacity factor Ny Terraghi hearing capacity factor ‘ Teezaghi bearing capacity factor * ultimate concrete shear stength v total volume % volume of solids % volume of voids z section modulus « excep compression rate parameter OR adhesion factor Y nit weight of soil Yo dry anit weight of soi a saturated unit weight of soi * ni weight of water ° angle of wal friction 4 coefficient of fection (il sess nocmal to the shear plane ° (sol) fective normal stress : (ot shear stress ° angle of internal friction ‘Occasionally thas been necessary to vary the notation system from that indicated here. Where ths does happen, the changes to the notation are specifically defined inthe accompanying text or illustrations.PARTI APPROACH AND FIRST CONSIDERATIONSCHAPTER 1 PRINCIPLES OF FOUNDATION DESIGN 1.4 INTRODUCTION Foundation design could be thought of as analogous to a bbeam design. ‘The designer of the beam will need to know the load to be carried, the load-carrying capacity of the bbeam, how much it will deflect and whether there are any long-term effects such as ercep, moisture movement, ete. If the calculated beam section is, for some reason, not strong, enough t0 support the load or is likely to deflect unduly, then the beam section is changed, Alternatively, the beam can either be substituted for another type of structural element, ora stronger material be chosen for the beam. Similarly the soil supporting the structure must have adequate load-carrying capacity (bearing capacity) and not deflect (settle) unduly. The long-term effect of the soils bearing capacity and settlement must be considered. If the ground is not strong enough t0 bear the proposed initial design load then the structural contact load (bearing press ure) can be reduced by spreading the load over a greater area ~ by increasing the foundation size or other means — or by transferring the load 10 a lower strata. For example. rafts should replace isolated pad bases ~ or the load can be -d to stronger soil at a lower depth beneath the surface by means of piles. Alternatively, the ground can be strengthened by compaction, stabilization, pre-consolidation or other means. The structural materials in the super structure are subjct t stress, strain, movement, etc..and it ean be helpful 1o consider the soil supporting the supersteuc ture asa structural material, also subject to stress, strain and ‘Structural design has been described as: using materials not fully undersiood, to make frames which cannot be accurately analysed, 10 resist forces which can only be estimated. Foundation design is, at best, no. better. ‘Accuracy’ is a chimera and the designer must exercise judgement Sections 1.2-1.6 outline the general principles before 400 >6 ‘Width of foundation not less soils Medium dense gravel, or medium dense than Im, Groundwater level sand and gravel <200 10 600 | <2106 assumed to be a depth not Loose gravel, oF loose sand and gravel | <200 2 less than below the base of Compact sand 300 > ‘the foundation, For effect of Medium dense sand 100 t0 300 | 1103 relative density and Loose sand <100 < groundwater level, see Value depending on degree of |2.22.3.2 looseness Cohesive soils. Very stiff boulder clays and hard clays | 30010600 | 3106 | Group 3is susceptible o Stiff clays 150t0 300 | 1.5103 | ong-term consolidation Firm clays 7510150 | 0.750 15 | settiement (see 2.1.23.3) Soft clays and silts <1 <0.15___| For consistencies of clays, Very soft clays and sits Not applicable sce table § Peat and organie soils Not applicable See 2.2.23.4 Made ground or fill ‘Not applicable see 2.2.23.5 + 107.25 kNim? = 1.0°¢kgtiem? = Loni? All references with this table refer to the original document6 Approach and First Considerations could result in reducing the value of the allowable bearing pressure to carry the vertical component of the inclined load. BS 8004 (Code of practice for foundations) suggests simple rule for design of foundations subjeet to inclined loads as follows: ry r, H cA where T= vertical component of the inclined load. HH = horizontal component of the inclined load, allowable vertical load ~ dependent on allow able bearing pressure, allowable horizontal load ~ dependent on a Towable friction and/or adhesion on the hori: ~2ontal base. plus passive resistance where this ccan be telied upon, However, lke al simple rvles which ate on the safe side, there are exceptions, A more conservative value can be necessary when the horizontal component i relatively high and is acting on shallow foundations (where their depth! breadth ratio is less than 1/4) founded on non-cohesive soils. Inthe same way that allowable bearing pressure is reduced toprevent excessive settlemes so too may allowable passive resistance, to prevent unacceptable horizontal movement. 1.4 SETTLEMENT IF the building. settles excessively, cntially ~ eg. ad amounts — the settlement may be serious enough to particularly differ- cent columns settling by different original position settled position of base of va settlenent aifferential settlenent relative rotation ase meet fension cracks hogging endanger the stability of the structure, and would be likely y problems Less serious settlement may stil be sulicient to cause cracking which could affect the building's weathertightness, theraval and sound insulation damage Finishes and services, affect the operation of plant such as more, settlement, even relatively minor. which causes the building to tit, can render it visually unacceptable, (Old Tudor buildings. for example, may look charming and ‘quaint with their tts and leaning, but clients and owners of ‘modern buildings are unlikely to accept similar tits.) Differential settlement. sagging. hogging and relative rotation are shown in Fig. 1 sit should be remembered that foundations to cause serious serviceabil fire resistance, ead cranes, and other serviceabiliyy factors. Further: from other structural members. and for superstruc ‘members would also apply to foundation members. it has been found thatthe magnitude of = sometimes referred t0 as angular is itcal in framed structures, and the magni is critical for load-bearing walls. Empirical criteria have been established to minimize cracking, or other damage. by limiting the movement, as shown in Table 1.2. The length-t0-height ratio is important since according 10 some researchers the the length-to-height ratio the greater the limiting value of A/L, It will also be noted that cracking due to hogging occurs at half the deflection ratio of that for sagging. Sagging problems appear to occur more frequently than hogging in practice fa similar to those distortion tude of the defletion ratio. AIL. p+} pecccsceen b tension cracks relative deflection A deflection ratio = A. T sagging ig, Lt Settlement definitions.Table 1.2 Typical values of angular distortion to 1977) ‘racking (Ground Subsidence, Table 1 Principles of Foundation Design 7 institution of Civil Engineers, (Class of structure Type of structure Limiting angular distortion 1 Rigid Not applicable: tilt is riterion 2 tically determinate 1/100 co 1/200) steel and timber structures 3 Statically indeterminate steel and 17200 to 1/300 reinforced concrete framed structures, load-bearing reinforced brickwork buildings, all founded on reinforced concrete continuous and slab foundations 4 A class 3, but not satisfying one of 11300 t0 1/500) the stated conditions 5 Precast concrete large-pane! 17500 to 1/700 Since separate serviceability and ultimate limit state analyses are not at present cartied out for the soil ~ see section L.S ~ it is current practice to adjust the factor of safety which isapplied to the sols ultimate bearing capacity, in order to obrain the allowable bearing pressure. Similarly, the partial safety factor applied to the charac teristic structural loads will be affected by the usual super structure design factors and then adjusted depending on the structure (is sensitivity to movement, design life, damaging effects of movement), and the type of imposed loading. For example, full imposed load occurs infrequently in theatres and almast permanently in grain stores. Overlooking this permanence of loading in desig has caused foundation failure in some grain stores. A number of failures due to such loading conditions have been investigated by the authors’ practice. A typical example is an existing grain store whose foundations performed satisfactorily until a new rain store was built alongside. The ground pressure from the new store increased the pressure in the soil below the existing store — which settled and tilted. Similarly, red to the ground (by, for example, fixing moments atthe base of fixed portal frames) ‘must be considered in the design, since they will affect the structure's contact pressure on the soll ‘There isa rough correlation hetween bearing capacity and. settlement. Sols of high bearing capacity tend to settle less than soils of low bearing capacity. It is therefore even more advisable to check the likely settlement of structures founded ‘on weak soils. As a guide, care is required when the safe bearing capacity (i.e. ultimate bearing capacity divided by a factor of safety) falls below 12SkN/m; each site, and each structure, must however be judged oa its own merits. 15 LIMIT STATE PHILOSOPHY 15.1 Working stress design A common design method (based on working sess) used in the past was to determine the ultimate bearing capacity of the soil. then divide it by a factor of safety. commonly 3, t0 determine the safe bearing capacity. The safe bearing capa- city is the maximum allowable design lozding intensity on the soil. The ulimate bearing capacity is the magnitude of the loading intensity at which the soil fails in shear. Typical ultimate bearing capacities are ISOKN/m? for soft clays, 300-600KN/m? for firm clays and loose sand/gravel, and 10001500 kN/en? for hard boulder clays and dense gravels ‘Consider the following example for a column foundation ‘The ultimate bearing capacity for a stiff clay is 750kN/n? If the factor of safety equals 3, determine the area of & pad base 10 support a column load of 1O0KN (ignoring the ‘weight of the base and any overburden), tatimate be capacity factor of safety Safe bearing capacity = 2 = 250m? column toad actual bearing pressure = cad r base area therefore, column load required base area = 10 ae _) ™ The method has the atacion of simplcty and was generally adequate for traditional tuiligs in the past8 Approach and First Considerations However. ‘nuclear power station, complex chemical works. housing expensive plant susceptible to foundation movement or Similar buildings. can warrant a higher factor of safety than 4 supermarket’s warehouse stacking tinned pet food. A. crovided theatre may deserve a higher safety factor than an ‘occasionally used cow-shed. The designer should exercise his or her judgement in choice of factor of safety In adaition, while there must be precautions taken against foundation collapse limit tae (i.e. total fallute) there must be a check that the serviceability limit state (ie. movement under load which causes structural or building use distress) is not exceeded. Wher bearing pressure is restricted toa suitable value below that ‘of the safe bearing capacity, known as the allowable bearing pressure can be uneconomic and ignores other factors. A setllement criteria dominate, the 1.5.2 Limit state design Attempts to apply limit state philosophy to foundation design have, so far, not been considered totally successful So a compromise between working siress and limit state has developed, where the designer determines an estimated ‘allowable bearing pressure and checks for settlements and building serviceability. The actual beating pressure is then factored up into an ulimate design pressure, for structural design of the foundation members. The partial safety factors applied for ultimate design loads i.e. typically 14% dead, 1.6% imposed, 1.4 wind and 1.2 for dead + imposed + wind) are for superstructure design and should not be applied (0 foundation design for allowable bearing calewations For dead and imposed loads the actual working toad, i the unfactored characteristic load, should be used in most foundation desigas. Where there are important isolated foundations and particularly when subject to significant eccentric loading (as in heavily loaded gantry columas water towers, and the like) the engineer should exercise his discretion in applying a partial safety factor tothe imposed load. Similarly when the imposed load is very high in relation to the dead load (as in large oil tanks of steel drums). the engineer should apply a partial safety factor to the imposed load Infact when the foundation load due to wind load on the superstructure is relatively small ~ ie. less than 25% of| (dead + imposed) — it maybe ignored, Where the occasional foundation load due to wind exceeds 25% of (dead + posed). then the foundation area should be proportioned so that the pressure due (0 wind + dead + imposed loads does not exceed 1.25 x (allowable bearing pressure). When wind uplift on a foundation exceeds dead load, then this becomes a erica load case 1.6 INTERACTION OF SUPERSTRUCTURE AND SOIL, The superstructure, its foundation, and the supporting 50 should be considered as a structural entity, with the three elements interacting. ‘Adjustments to the superstructure design to resist the effects of hearing failure and settlements, at minor extra rigid porte three pinned arch Fig. 1.2 Rigid portal versus three planed arch. costs, are often more economic than the expensive area increase oF stiffening of the foundations. Some examples from the authors’ practice are given hete to illustrate these adjustments, Adjustments tothe sol to improve its proper- ties are brieRy discussed in section 1.8, The choice of foundation type is outlined in section 1,7. Adjustments and choices are made to produce the most economical solution, 1.6.1 Bxample The superstructure costs for rigid steel portal-frame shed are generally cheaper than the three pinned arch solution (see Fig. 1.2) Dilferental settlement of the column pad bases wi seriously alfet the bending moments (and thus the stresses) in the rigid portal but have insignificant effect on the three pinned arch. Therefore the pad foundations for the rigid portal will have to he bigger and more expensive than those for the arch, and may far exceed the saving in superstructure steelwork costs for the portal. (In some cases it can be ‘Three pinned arch worthwhile to place the column eecentrc to the foundation base ta counteract the moment a the base of the foundation due to column fixity and/or horizontal thrust.) 1.6.2 Example “The single-storey reinforced concrete (.c.) frame structure shown in Fig. 1.3 sas founded in soft ground fable to excessive Sagging/differential settlement. Two main sot utions were investigated: ierended! superstructure (1) Normal rc, superstructure founded on deep, sl, heavily reinforced strip Footings (2) Stitfer superstructure, to act as a Vierendeel truss and thus in effect becoming a stiff beam, with the foundation beam acting as the bottom hoom of the tru.