SOILS AND FOUNDATIONS

Lesson 08
Chapter 8 – Shallow Foundations

Testing Theory

Experience
Topics

g Topic 1 (Section 8.0, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4)

- General and Bearing Capacity
g Topic 2 (Section 8.5, 8.6, 8.7, 8.8, 8.9)
- Settlement
- Spread footings on embankments, IGMs, rocks
- Effect of deformations on bridge structures
g Topic 3 (Section 8.10)
- Construction
Shallow Foundations

Lesson 08 - Topic 1
General and Bearing Capacity
Section 8.0 to 8.4
Learning Outcomes

g Atthe end of this session, the participant will

be able to:
- Identify different types of shallow foundations
- Recall foundation design procedure
- Contrast factors that influence bearing capacity
in sand and clay
- Compute bearing capacity in sand and clay
- Describe allowable bearing pressure for rock
foundations
Stresses Imposed by Structures

g Abutment and piers may have shallow or deep

foundations
General Approach to Foundation
Design
g Duty of Foundation Designer
- Establish the most economical design that safely
conforms to prescribed structural criteria and
properly accounts for the intended function of
the structure
g Rational method of design
- Evaluate various foundation types
Recommended Foundation Design
Approach
g Step1:
Determine:
- Direction, type and magnitude of foundation
loads
- Tolerable deformations
- Special constraints
• Underclearance requirements
• Structure type, span lengths
• Time constraints on construction
• Extreme event loading
• Construction load requirements
Recommended Foundation Design
Approach
g Step2:
Evaluate subsurface investigation and
laboratory testing data for reliability and
completeness

Choose design method consistent with

quality and quantity of subsurface data
Recommended Foundation Design
Approach
g Step
3:
Consider alternate foundation types
Foundation Alternatives

g ShallowFoundations
g Deep Foundations
- Piles, shafts
Foundation Cost

g Express foundation capacity in terms of $

g TOTAL cost of foundation system divided by the

load supported by the foundation in tons

g TOTAL cost of a foundation must include ALL

costs associated with the foundations
- Need for excavation support system, pile caps, etc.
- Environmental restrictions
- All other factors as applicable
Foundation Cost

g Ifestimated costs of alternative foundation

systems during design are within 15%, the
alternate foundation designs should be
considered for inclusion in contract
documents
Loads and Limit States

g Loads
- Permanent and Transient
- Codes specify load combinations
g Foundation limit states
- Ultimate
• Bearing capacity, eccentricity, sliding, global stability,
structural capacity
- Serviceability
• Excessive settlement, excessive lateral displacement,
structural deterioration of foundation
Types of Shallow Foundations

g Isolated Spread Footings

- Length (L) to width (B) ratio, L/B < 10
Types of Shallow Foundations

g Combined Strip Spread Footings

- Length (L) to width (B) ratio, L/B ≥ 10
Shallow Foundations for Bridge
Abutments
Shallow Foundations for Retaining
Walls
Combined Footings

Abutment Fill

2
1 Toe of End Slope

Original Ground

Toe of Side Slope

Mat Foundations

REINFORCED CONCRETE MAT

Spread Footing Design Procedure

g Geotechnicaldesign of spread footing is a

two part process

g First Part:
- Establish an allowable stress to prevent shear
failure in soil

g Second Part:
- Estimate the settlement under the applied stress
Allowable Bearing Capacity

g Allowable bearing capacity is lesser of:

Applied stress that will result in shear failure

divided by FS
- Ultimate limit criterion

OR

Applied stress that results in a specified amount of

settlement of the structure
- Serviceability criterion
Bearing Capacity Chart
Ultimate Bearing Capacity, qult
Allowable Bearing Capacity,
q
q all = ult
Allowable Bearing Capacity, ksf (kPa)

FS

Contours of Allowable
Bearing Capacity for a
given settlement

S1
S2
S3

Effective Footing Width, ft (m)

Design Process Flow Chart

g Figure 8-10
Bearing Capacity

g Bearing capacity failure occurs when the

shear strength of foundation soil is exceeded
g Similar to slope stability failure

L= ∞ q

A ψ B E

I III

II
C
D
Bearing LOAD

Capacity

SETTLEMENT
Failure (a) GENERAL SHEAR

Mechanisms
LOAD

g General shear

SETTLEMENT
g Local shear
(b) LOCAL SHEAR

g Punching shear

LOAD

SETTLEMENT
TEST AT
GREATER
DEPTH

(c) PUNCHING SHEAR SURFACE TEST

Footing Dimension Terminology

g Bf = Width of footing
- Least lateral dimension
Df

Bf

g Lf = Length of footing

g Df
= Depth of Lf

embedment of footing
Basic Bearing Capacity Equation

g Equation 8-8

q ult = c (N c ) + q (N q ) + 0.5 ( γ )(B f )(N γ )

c = cohesion
q = surcharge at footing base
Nc, Nq, Nγ = Bearing capacity factors
γ = unit weight of foundation soil
Assumptions of Basic Bearing
Capacity Equation (Section 8.4.3)
g Strip(continuous) footing
g Rigid footing
g General shear
g Concentric loading (i.e., loading through the
centroid of the footing)
g Footing bearing on level surface of
homogeneous soil
g No impact of groundwater
Bearing Capacity Factors
1000
Figure 8-15
Table 8-1
Bearing Capacity Factors

100

Nc
10

Nq
Nγ
1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Friction Angle, degrees

Example 8-1

d = D = 5′ γT = 125 pcf
φ = 20°
c = 500 psf
B = 6′ γsub = 63 pcf
Example 8-1

g Solution
Effect of Variation of Soil Properties
and Footing Dimensions (Table 8-2)
Properties and Dimensions Cohesive Cohesionless
γ = γa = effective unit weight Soil Soil
γb = submerged unit weight φ=0 φ = 30o
Df = embedment depth c = 1000 psf c=0
Bf = footing width (assume strip footing) qult (psf) qult (psf)
A. Initial situation: γ = 120 pcf, Df = 0', 5140 6720
Bf = 5', deep water table
B. Effect of embedment: Df = 5', γ=120
pcf, Bf = 5', deep water table
C. Effect of width: Bf = 10' γ = 120 pcf,
Df = 0', deep water table
D. Effect of water table at surface:
γ = 57.6 pcf, Df = 0', Bf = 5'
Effect of Variation of Soil Properties
and Footing Dimensions (Table 8-2)
Properties and Dimensions Cohesive Cohesionless
γ = γa = effective unit weight Soil Soil
γb = submerged unit weight φ=0 φ = 30o
Df = embedment depth c = 1000 psf c=0
Bf = footing width (assume strip footing) qult (psf) qult (psf)
A. Initial situation: γ = 120 pcf, Df = 0', 5140 6720
Bf = 5', deep water table
B. Effect of embedment: Df = 5', γ=120 5740 17760
pcf, Bf = 5', deep water table
C. Effect of width: Bf = 10' γ = 120 pcf, 5140 13440
Df = 0', deep water table
D. Effect of water table at surface: 5140 3226
γ = 57.6 pcf, Df = 0', Bf = 5'
Student Exercise 5

g Findthe allowable bearing capacity assuming

a FS=3 for the condition shown below for a
10’x50’ footing with rough base
Final Grade

4′ Sand
γ = 115 pcf
30′ 10′ φ = 35°
C=0
Bearing Capacity Correction Factors

g Footing shape
- Adjusted for eccentricity
g Depth of water table
g Embedment depth
g Sloping ground surface
g Inclined base
g Inclined loading
Student Exercise 5

g Solution
 Modified Bearing Capacity Equation
Equation 8-11
q ult = cN c s c b c + qN q C Wq s q b q d q + 0.5γ B f N γ C Wγ s γ b γ
g sc, sγ, sq shape correction factors

g bc, bγ, bq base inclination correction factors

g Cwq, Cwγ groundwater correction factors

g dq embedment correction factor

g Nc, Nγ, Nq bearing capacity factors as function of φ

Estimation of φ for Bearing Capacity
Factors (Table 8-3)
Very Very
Description Loose Medium Dense
Loose Dense
Corrected N-value
0 4 10 30 50
N160

Friction angle 25 – 27 – 35 – 38 –
30 – 35
φ Degrees 30 32 40 43

Moist unit weight 70 – 90 – 110 – 120 – 130 –

(γ) pcf 100 115 130 140 150
Shape Correction Factors

g Basic
equation assumes strip footing which
means Lf/Bf ≥ 10

g Forfootings with Lf/Bf < 10 apply shape

correction factors

g Compute the effective shape of the footing

based on eccentricity
 Effective Footing Dimensions

B′f = Bf – 2eB ; L′f = Lf – 2eL ; A′= B′f L′f

Pressure Distributions

Structural design Sizing the footing

Shape Correction Factors
Friction Cohesion Unit Surcharge
Factor Angle Term (sc) Weight Term (sq)
Term (sγ)

⎛ Bf ⎞
φ=0 1 + ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ 1.0 1.0
Shape ⎝ 5L f ⎠
Factors,
sc, sγ, sq ⎛ Bf ⎞⎛ N q ⎞ ⎛ Bf ⎞ ⎛B ⎞
φ>0 1 + ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟⎜⎜ ⎟ 1 − 0.4⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ 1 + ⎜⎜ f tan φ ⎟⎟
⎟ ⎝ Lf ⎠ ⎝ Lf ⎠
⎝ Lf ⎠⎝ N c ⎠

g Inroutine foundation design, use of effective

dimensions in shape factors is not practical
Location of Groundwater table

g To correct the unit weight

DW CWγ CWq
0 0.5 0.5
Df 0.5 1.0
> 1.5Bf + Df 1.0 1.0
Note: For intermediate positions of the groundwater table,
interpolate between the values shown above.
Embedment Depth Friction
Angle, φ
g Toaccount for the (degrees) Df/Bf dq
1 1.20
shearing resistance in 2 1.30
the soil above the 32
4 1.35
footing base 8 1.40
Note: The depth correction 1 1.20
2 1.25
factor should be used only 37
4 1.30
when the soils above the 8 1.35
footing bearing elevation are 1 1.15
as competent as the soils 2 1.20
42
beneath the footing level; 4 1.25
otherwise, the depth correction 8 1.30
factor should be taken as 1.0. See Note
Sloping Ground Surface

g Modifythe bearing capacity equation as

follows:

q ult = c (N cq ) + 0.5 ( γ )(B f )(N γq )

g Usefulin designing footings constructed

within bridge approach fills
Footing in Slope
Footing Near Slope
 Inclined Base
g Footings with inclined base should be
avoided or limted to angles less than 8-10º
b1q− −⎜ ⎜⎜ ⎟
g Sliding may be an issue for inclined bases
⎛ ⎛ α1 − ⎞b q ⎞
⎟
⎝ 147N.3tan
⎠ φ ⎟
⎝ c ⎠

Cohesion Unit Weight Surcharge

Friction Term (c) Term (γ) Term (q)
Factor Angle bc bγ bq
Base φ=0 1.0 1.0
Inclination
Factors, φ>0 (1-0.017α tanφ)2 (1-0.017α tanφ)2
bc, bγ, bq
φ= friction angle, degrees;
α = footing inclination from horizontal, upward +, degrees
Inclined Loading

g Ifshear (horizontal) component is checked

for sliding resistance, the inclination
correction factor is omitted
g Use effective footing dimensions in
evaluation of the vertical component of the
load
Comments on Use of Bearing
Capacity Correction Factors
g Forsettlement-controlled allowable bearing
capacity, the effect application of correction
factors may be negligible

g Applicationof correction factors is

secondary to the adequate assessment of
the shear strength characteristics of the
foundation soil through correctly performed
subsurface exploration
Local or Punching Shear

c* = 0.67c
φ*=tan-1(0.67tanφ)

g Loose sands
g Sensitive clays
g Collapsible
soils
g Brittle clays
Bearing Capacity Factors of Safety
q ult
q all =
FS
g qall = allowable bearing capacity
g qult = ultimate bearing capacity
g Typical FS = 2.5 to 3.5
g FS is a function of
- Confidence in shear strength parameter, c and φ
- Importance of structure
- Consequences of failure
Overstress Allowances

g Forshort-duration infrequently occuring

loads, an overstress of 25 to 50 % may be
allowed for allowable bearing capacity
Practical Aspects of Bearing
Capacity
Presumptive Allowable Bearing
Capacity
g NOT recommended for soils
g See Tables 8-8, 8-9 and 8-10 for rocks
Learning Outcomes

g Atthe end of this session, the participant will

be able to:
- Identify different types of shallow foundations
- Recall foundation design procedure
- Contrast factors that influence bearing capacity
in sand and clay
- Compute bearing capacity in sand and clay
- Describe allowable bearing pressure for rock
foundations
Any Questions?

THE ROAD TO
UNDERSTANDING
SOILS
AND
FOUNDATIONS
 Shallow Foundations

Lesson 08 - Topic 2
Settlement, footings on embankments, IGMs,
rocks, effect of deformations on bridge structures
Section 8.5 to 8.9
Learning Outcomes

g Atthe end of this session, the participant will

be able to:
- Calculate immediate settlements in granular
soils
- Calculate consolidation settlements in saturated
fine-grained soils
- Describe tolerances and consequences of
deformations on bridge structures
Settlement of Spread Footings

g Immediate (short-term)
g Consolidation (long-term)
Immediate Settlement

g Hough’s method
- Conservative by a factor of 2 (FHWA, 1987)
g Schmertmann’s method
- More rational
- Based on nonlinear theory of elasticity and
measurements
Charts
Figure 2-11
g Ds= 4B to 6B
for continuous
footings where
Lf/Bf ≥ 10

g Ds= 1.5B to 2B
for square
footings where
Lf/Bf = 1
Trend of Analytical Vertical Strain, %
Results and
Measurements

Depth below Footing

Legend:

2B
Square footings
where Lf/Bf =1

Continuous footings
where Lf/Bf ≥ 10 4B
Schmertmann Method
n ⎛ Iz ⎞
S i = C1C 2 Δp ∑ ΔH i ΔH i = H c ⎜ ⎟
i =1 ⎝ XE ⎠
⎛ po ⎞ ⎛ t (years) ⎞
C1 = 1 − 0.5⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ≥ 0 .5 C 2 = 1 + 0.2 log10 ⎜ ⎟
⎝ Δp ⎠ ⎝ 0.1 ⎠
g Iz Strain Influence Factor
gE Elastic Modulus, Table 5-20
gX Modification factor for E
g C1 Correction factor for strain relief
g C2 Correction factor for creep deformation
 0 .5
⎛ ⎞
⎜ Δp ⎟
I zp = 0 . 5 + 0 . 1⎜ ⎟
⎜ p op ⎟
⎝ ⎠
see ( b ) below

Lf = Length of footing
Axisymmetric Bf = least width of footing
Lf/Bf =1 Bf

Δp = p − po

po

Plane Strain Lf/Bf ≥ 10

Bf /2 (for axisymmetric case) p op
Bf (for plane strain case)

Depth to Peak Strain

Influence Factor, Izp
Example 8-2
g Given:6’x24’ footing on soil profile shown
below. Determine settlement at end of
construction and 10 years after construction
Ground Surface

Clayey Silt 3 ft γt = 115 pcf; N160 = 8

Sandy Silt Bf = 6 ft 3 ft γt = 125 pcf; N160 = 25

Coarse Sand 5 ft γt = 120 pcf; N160 = 30

Sandy Gravel 25 ft γt = 128 pcf; N160 = 68

Draw Strain Influence Diagram
Influence Factor (Iz)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
0 0

4 4
B

Depth below footing

8 8

12
2B 12

Axisymmetric 16 16
Lf/Bf =1 3B
20 20
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Influence Factor (Iz)

Plane Strain Lf/Bf ≥ 10

g Calculate peak Iz = 0.64
Strain Influence Diagram
Divide into layers
Influence Factor (Iz)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
0 0
Layer 1

Layer 2
4 4
Depth below footing (ft)

Layer 3

8 8

12 12
Layer 4

16 16

20 20
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Influence Factor (Iz)
Determine Elastic Modulus, Es

g Use Table 5-20, Page 5-90

Layer 1: Sandy Silt: E = 4N160 tsf
Layer 2: Coarse Sand: E = 10N160 tsf
Layer 3: Coarse Sand: E = 10N160 tsf
Layer 4: Sandy Gravel: E = 12N160 tsf
g Calculate X-factor, X = 1.42
Setup Table for Settlement
Computation
IZ
Layer Hc N160 E XE Z1 IZ at Zi Hi = Hc
XE

(inches) (tsf) (tsf) (ft) (in/tsf)

1 36 25 100 142 1.5 0.31 0.0759
2 12 30 300 426 3.5 0.56 0.0152
3 48 30 300 426 6 0.55 0.0599
4 96 68 816 1,159 12 0.22 0.0176

Σ Hi= 0.1686
Compute Correction Factors C1 , C2
⎛ po ⎞ ⎛ 3 ft ×115 pcf ⎞
C1 = 1 − 0.5⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ = 1 − 0.5⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ = 0.896
⎝ Δp ⎠ ⎝ 1655 psf ⎠

⎛ t (years) ⎞
C 2 = 1 + 0.2 log10 ⎜ ⎟
⎝ 0.1 ⎠
g At end of construction, t=0.1 year
⎛ 0.1 ⎞
C 2 = 1 + 0.2 log10 ⎜ ⎟ = 1.0
⎝ 0.1 ⎠
g At t=10 years
⎛ 10 ⎞
C 2 = 1 + 0.2 log10 ⎜ ⎟ = 1.4
⎝ 0.1 ⎠
Determine Immediate Settlement

g At end of construction, t = 0.1 year

S i = C1C 2 Δp∑ H i
⎛ ⎞
⎜ 1655psf ⎟⎛ in ⎞
S i = (0.896)(1.0)⎜ ⎟⎜ 0.1686 tsf ⎟
⎜ 2000 psf ⎟⎝ ⎠
⎝ tsf ⎠
S i = 0.125 inches

g At t = 10 years
⎛ 1.4 ⎞
S i = 0.125 inches⎜ ⎟ = 0.175 inches
⎝ 1.0 ⎠
Consolidation Settlement

g Sameprocedures as in Chapter 7 (Approach

Roadway Deformations)
Example 8-3
g Calculate consolidation settlement for following case:
130 kips

4′ Gravel
γT = 130 pcf
10′

Normally consolidated clay

10′
γsub = 65 pcf, e0 = 0.75, Cc = 0.4
Rock
Example 8-3
p0 = (14′ × 130 pcf) + (5′ × 65 pcf) = 2,145 psf
130 kips 130kips
Δp = = = 0.208 ksf = 208 psf
(10 ft + 15 ft) 2
625 ft
Cc ⎛ p 0 + Δp ⎞
ΔH = H log 10 ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
1 + e0 ⎝ p0 ⎠
⎛ 0.4 ⎞ ⎛ 2145 psf + 208 psf ⎞
ΔH = 10ft ⎜ ⎟log10 ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ 1 + 0.75 ⎠ ⎝ 2145 psf ⎠
ΔH = 0.09′ = 1.1″
Student Exercise 6

g Find
footing settlement (immediate +
consolidation) for the following case
5′

25′
Sand and Gravel
Avg. N′ = 40

Clayey Silt
CC = 0.25 45′
e0 = 0.90
(Normally Consolidated)
Student Exercise 6
Pressure - psf
Depth – ft.
Spread Footings on Embankments

g Section 8.6
g If spread footings are placed on
embankments, structural fills that include
sand and gravel sized particles should be
used that are compacted properly (minimum
95% of standard Proctor energy)
Settlement of Footings on Structural
Fills
g In
absence of other data, use N160 = 32 for
the structural to estimate settlement of
footings on compacted structural fill
Vertical Stress Distribution
0
Bridge
Bridge Pier
Pier

20 Earth
Earth
Embankment
Embankment

40
Depth

h=20’
h=20’ h=40’
h=40’

60

80

100
00 11 22 33 44 55
Vertical
Vertical Stress
Stress
 Footings on IGMs and Rocks

g Use theory of elasticity

2
Cd Δp Bf (1 − ν )
δv =
Em
where: δv = vertical settlement at surface
Cd = shape and rigidity factors (Table 8-12)
Δp = change in stress at top of rock surface due to applied footing load
Bf = footing width or diameter
ν = Poisson’s ratio (refer to Table 5-23 in Chapter 5)
Em = Young’s modulus of rock mass (see Section 5.12.3 in Chapter 5)
Effect of
Deformations on
Bridge
Structures Tilt (Rotation)

g Section 8.9
Differential
Settlement

Differential
Settlement
Tolerable Movements for Bridges
(Table 8-13)
Limiting Angular Type of Bridge
Distortion, δ/S
0.004 Multiple-span (continuous
span) bridges
0.005 Single-span bridges
Note:
δ is differential settlement, S is the span length. The quantity, δ/S, is
dimensionless and is applicable when the same units are used for δ
and S, i.e., if δ is expressed in inches then S should also be expressed
in inches.
Construction Point Concept for
Evaluation of Settlements
g Divide the loadings based on sequence of
construction
g Key construction point is when the final load
bearing member is constructed, e.g., when a
bridge deck is constructed

g Table 8-14
- Put in a slide
Learning Outcomes

g Atthe end of this session, the participant will

be able to:
- Calculate immediate settlements in granular
soils
- Calculate consolidation settlements in saturated
fine-grained soils
- Describe tolerances and consequences of
deformations on bridge structures
Any Questions?

THE ROAD TO
UNDERSTANDING
SOILS
AND
FOUNDATIONS
Shallow Foundations

Lesson 08 - Topic 3
Construction
Section 8.10
Learning Outcomes

g Atthe end of this session, the participant will

be able to:
- Discuss elements of shallow foundation
construction/inspection
Key Elements of Shallow Foundation
Construction
g Table 8-15

g Contractor set-up
g Excavation
g Shallow foundation
g Post installation
- Monitoring
Structural Fill

g Tests for gradation and durability of fill at

sufficient frequency to ensure that the
material meets the specification
g Compaction tests
g If surcharge fill is used for pre-loading verify
the unit weight of surcharge
Monitoring

g Check elevations of footing, particularly

when footings are on embankment fills
g Periodic surveying during the service life of
the footing, particularly if the subsurface has
soft soils within the depth of influence
g Impacts on neighboring facilities
g Use instrumentation as necessary
Learning Outcomes

g Atthe end of this session, the participant will

be able to:
- Discuss elements of shallow foundation
construction/inspection
Any Questions?

THE ROAD TO
UNDERSTANDING
SOILS
AND
FOUNDATIONS
Interstate 0 – Apple Freeway
Note: Scale shown in Station Form
S.B. N.B.
Apple Apple
Frwy Frwy

Baseline
Baseline 90
90 91
91 92
92 93
93
Stationing
Stationing
Interstate
Interstate 00

Proposed
Proposed Toe
Toe
of
of Slope
Slope
Proposed
Proposed Final
Final Grade
Grade
2 Proposed
Proposed
1 Abutment
Abutment
Existing
Existing
Ground
Ground Surface
Surface
 9
Subsurface Terrain reconnaissance

Apple Freeway
Investigations Site inspection
Subsurface borings

9
Basic Soil Properties Visual description
Classification tests

Exercise
Soil profile

9
Laboratory Testing Po diagram
Test request
Consolidation results

g Appendix A
Strength results

9
Slope Design soil profile
Stability Circular arc analysis

- Section A.7 Sliding block analysis

Lateral squeeze analysis

9
Approach Roadway Design soil profile
Settlement Magnitude and rate of
settlement
Surcharge
Vertical drains

Design soil profile

Pier bearing capacity
Spread Footing Pier settlement
Design Abutment settlement
Surcharge
Vertical drains
Driven Pile Design Design soil profile
Static analysis – pier
Pipe pile
H – pile
Static analysis – abutment
Pipe pile
H – pile
Driving resistance
Lateral movement - abutment

Construction Wave equation

Monitoring Hammer approval
Embankment instrumentation
 APPLE FREEWAY
PIER BEARING CAPACITY
Assumptions:

• Footing embeded 4′ below ground

• Footing width = 1/3 pier height = 7′
• Footing length = 100′
9 ∴Continuous
L/W = 100/7 > 10

BAF - ″N″
2 4
4′
6
11
21 10′
7′ 15′
22
40
37
33 Sand

Clay
Compute N160 values

Depth p0 p0 N Hammer N60 N160

Ef / 60 Cn
(ft.) (psf) (tsf) (bpf) Efficiency (Ef) (bpf) (bpf)
5 550 0.275 11 65 1.083 12 1.43 17
7 770 0.385 21 65 1.083 23 1.32 30
8 880 0.440 22 65 1.083 24 1.28 30
10 1100 0.550 40 65 1.083 43 1.20 52
12 1195 0.598 37 65 1.083 40 1.17 47
14 1290 0.645 33 65 1.083 36 1.15 41
Average corrected blow count = 36
 APPLE FREEWAY PIER SETTLEMENT

SAND

CLAY -1

CLAY-
CLAY-2

Time (days)
50 100 150 200 250

1″

ΔH
2″

3″

Δ H = 2.85″
 APPLE FREEWAY
EAST ABUTMENT SETTLEMENT

Pressure (psf)
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
0

Sand Pf 4470 Pabut

5550
10′
Po Clay
4920
5850
Depth (ft)

20′
Pc

30′ 5650 6200

40′

50′
Gravel Layer
Time (days)
100 200 300 400 500
0

1″
ΔH
2″

Δ H = 2.59″
 APPLE FREEWAY
EAST ABUTMENT SETTLEMENT TREATMENT
Time – days
100 200 300 400
0

Assume Wick Drains Installed

5″
*0.25″ Δ Remaining 30 days after abutment loaded

ΔH Begin Abutment Footing Construction

10″
12.66″ emb. Δ

ΔHABUT
15″

15.25″ Emb. + Abut

Time – Days
100 200 300 400 500
0
0.83″ 240 days 400 days

5″
30′ Fill to *Assume 10′
ΔH – 10′ Surcharge Surcharge Used
Total

10″

13.7″ t90
15″

15.25″Total ΔH
 SPREAD FOOTING DESIGN

Design Soil Profile

Strength and consolidation values selected for all soil layers.

Footing elevation and width chosen.

Pier Bearing Capacity

Qallowable = 3 tons/sq.ft.

Pier Settlement

Settlement = 2.8", t90 = 220 days.

Abutment Settlement

Settlement - 2.6", t90 = 433 days.

Vertical Drains

t90 = 60 days - could reduce settlement to 0.25" after abutment

constructed and loaded.

Surcharge

10' surcharge: t90 = 240 days

before abutment constructed.
Any Questions?

THE ROAD TO
UNDERSTANDING
SOILS
AND
FOUNDATIONS