Shallow Foundation

References:
 Coduto, D.P. (1994): Foundation design:
principles and practices
 Hardiyatmo, H.C. (2002): Teknik Fondasi I
 Day, R.W. (2006): Foundation engineering
handbook
 Tomlinson, M.J. (2001): Foundation design and
construction
 Topics (from SAP):
Konstruksi dinding penahan tanah dan bentuk a. Pengertian, fungsi, maksud, tujuan konstruksi
bangunan yang menggunakannya b. Aplikasi di lapangan dan perkembangan
konstruksi penahan tanah
Analisis tekanan tanah (diam, aktif, pasif) a. Teori Rankine dan Coulomb
b. Analisis beban
Pengaruh beban, muka air dan lapisan tanah a. Pengaruh beban, muka air dan lapisan tanah
berbeda terhadap tekanan dan analisis dengan berbeda terhadap tekanan tanah
metode Cullman b. Analisis metode Cullman
Konstruksi dinding penahan tanah I a. Tinjauan analisis beban
b. Stabilitas terhadap gaya eksternal
c. Stabilitas terhadap gaya Internal
d. Merancang konstruksi perkuatan tanah
Konstruksi dinding penahan tanah II a. Tinjauan analisis beban
b. Stabilitas terhadap eksternal
c. Stabilitas terhadap gaya Internal
d. Merancang konstruksi perkuatan tanah
Perkuatan pada tanah konstruksi pada dinding a. Pengertian, maksud, tujuan perkuatan tanah
penahan tanah dengan kondisi tanah kurang b. Bahan perkuatan tanah
baik c. Macam/tipe konstruksi perkuatan tanah
d. Analisis beban
Topik Spesial : perkembangan konstruksi a. Topik Spesial (berkaitan perkembangan teknik
fondasi dangkal sesuai perkembangan iptek fondasi dangkal dan dinding penahan tanah)
b. Analisis beban
 Lateral Earth Pressure

Difference between vertical and horizontal Equal fluid pressure in

earth pressures (σv ≠σh) all directions

The ratio between horizontal effective stress (σh) and the vertical effective
stress, (σv ) is known as the coefficient of lateral earth pressure, K.

Three improtant soil conditions: at-rest,

active and passive condition
 At-rest condition
It is very difficult to determine the in situ coefficient of lateral earth pressure
at rest through measurement  typical values and empirical formulas

For uncemented sands and normally consolidated clays (Jacky, 1948):

Modified by Schmidt (1966):

Coduto (1994): K0  (1  sin  )OCRsin 1  0.5 tan  

2

H 2 K 0
P0 / b 
2
b = unit length of the wall (usually 1 m)
 = unit weight of soil
H = height of the wall
 Lateral Earth Pressure
 Vertical stresses can be reliably calculated by multiplying the
unit weight of the soil by the depth; the horizontal stresses
cannot be accurately predicted.
 The coefficient of lateral earth pressure depends not only on
the soil physical properties, but also on construction or
deposition processes, stress history, and time among others.
 From a retaining earth structures design perspective, two
limits or conditions exist where the soil fails: active and
passive. The corresponding coefficients of lateral earth
pressure are denoted Ka and Kp, respectively.
 Under „„natural‟‟ in situ conditions, the actual value of the
lateral earth pressure coefficient is known as the coefficient of
lateral earth pressure at rest, K0.
 Lateral Earth Pressure: Rankine (1857)
Rankine’s (1857): an active lateral earth pressure condition
occurs when the horizontal stress (σh) decreases to the minimum
possible value required for soil stability. In contrast, a passive
condition takes place when (σh) increases to a point where the
soil fails due to excessive lateral compression.
Active and passive
pressures acting on a
cantilever retaining wall
 Lateral Earth Pressure & Shear Strength (1)
 'h 0
K0 
 'v

Assuming the friction between the soil and the wall to be negligible,
the vertical effective stress (σv), at a depth z behind the wall = .z

Angle of the shear plane

Changes in the stress condition in a soil as it transitions
from the at-rest to the active condition
Development of shear failure planes in the soil behind a
wall as it transitions from the at-rest to the active condition
Wall movement required to reach the active condition
Lateral Earth Pressure & Shear Strength (2)

Starting from at-rest conditions, the wall moves toward the backfill.
While the vertical stress remains constant, the horizontal stress
will gradually increase value σhp
Angle of the shear plane
Changes in the stress condition in a soil as it transitions
from the at-rest to the passive condition
Development of shear failure planes in the soil behind a
wall as it transitions from the at-rest to the passive condition
Wall movement required to reach the passive condition
Effect of wall movement on lateral earth pressure in sand
 Important Points:
1. The mobilized angle of internal friction at rest (0) is related to the
in situ horizontal and vertical stresses, and thus is a function of
the coefficient of earth pressure at rest:

2. Although the soil remains within the failure limits between

active and passive conditions, deformation does occur in
conjunction with any changes in loading conditions.
3. Because active failure is reached through a „„shorter‟‟ stress
path compared to a passive condition, smaller deformations
are associated with active failure.
4. When transitioning from active to passive and vice versa, a
K = 1 condition must occur where the horizontal and vertical
stresses are equal, and Mohr circle collapses into a point 
the soil is at its most stable condition.
Free body diagram behind a retaining wall
using Rankine‟s solution : Active case

 .H 2 K a . cos 
Pa b 
2

 .H 2 K a . sin 
Va b 
2

Ka 
cos   cos 2
  cos 2  
 
Theoretical pressure and
shear acting against the wall
cos   cos 2
  cos  
2

 h   v K a cos 
K a  tan 2 45   / 2  0
   v K a sin 
Free body diagram behind a retaining wall
using Rankine‟s solution : Passive case

 .H 2 K p . cos 
Pp b 
2

 .H 2 K p . sin 
Vp b 
2

Kp 
cos   cos 2
  cos 2  
 
Theoretical pressure and
shear acting against the wall
cos   cos 2
  cos  
2

 h   v K p cos 
K p  tan 2 45   / 2  0
   v K p sin 
Comparison between (a) theoretical and (b) observed distributions
of earth pressures acting behind retaining structures
Example: A 6 m tall cantilever wall retains a soil that has the following
properties: c = 0, ϕ = 30º,  = 19.2 kN/m3. The ground surface behind
the wall is inclined at a slope of 3 horizontal to 1 vertical, and the wall
has moved sufficiently to develop the active condition. Determine the
normal and shear forces acting on the back of this wall.
  tan 1 1 / 3  18

Ka 
cos   cos 2
  cos 2  
 0.415
cos   cos 2
  cos  
2

 .H 2 K a . cos 
Pa b   136 kN/m
2

 .H 2 K a . sin 
Va b   44 kN/m
2
 Lateral Earth Pressure: Coulomb (1776)
 Coulomb (1776): considers the stability of a soil wedge
behind a retaining wall.
 Most critical condition, the direction of line AB is varied until a
maximum value of PA is obtained
Lateral Earth Pressure: Coulomb (1776)
 Coulomb’s Theory for Cohessionless Soils
 Resultant of the normal and
shear forces acting on the wall
is inclined at an angle ϕw from a
perpendicular of the wall.
 ϕw is the coefficient of friction
between the wall and the soil
  .H 2 K a . cos w
Pa b 
2

 .H 2 K a . sin w
Va b 
2
cos 2    
Ka 
sin w   sin     
2

cos  cosw   1 
2

 cos  w    cos     

 .H 2 K p . cos w
Pp b 
2

 .H 2 K p . sin w
Vp b 
2
cos 2    
Kp 
sin w   sin     
2

cos  cosw   1 
2

 cos  w    cos     
 These formula are valid only for ≤ϕ
 Concrete or masonry wall  ϕw = 0.67ϕ
 Steel walls has less sliding friction 
ϕw = 0.33ϕ
 Coulomb‟s values of Kp are often much
higher than Rankine‟s  difference ranges:
10% at ϕ = 10º to 150% at ϕ = 40º
 This discrepancy occurs because the critical
failure surface is not a plane (as both theory
assume)  in reality it is concave upward
 Coulomb theory is sensitive to this 
erroneously high values of Kp.
 For practical problems  best to use
Rankine‟s theory to compute passive
pressure
 Lateral Earth Pressures in Soils with Cohesion
 Rankine did not address lateral earth pressures in soil with cohesion
(c ≥ 0 and ϕ ≥ 0) ; Coulomb did not address passive pressure 
Bell (1915) developed complete formulas for cohesive soil

(a) Theoretical Behavior : soil with cohesion can stand vertically to

a height of no more than the critical height (Hc):

2c
Hc 
 Ka

 If H < Hc  the earth will stand vertically without a wall

 In practice  apply FS to Hc (1.5 to 2.0) before deciding no wall
 Consider the potential for surface erosion and other modes of
failure
 Active pressures in soil with cohesion

 H 2 K a 2c 2 
Pa / b    2cH K a   cos   0
 2  

 H 2 K a 2c 2 
Va / b    2cH K a   sin   0
 2  

Theoretical distribution of active pressure in

soils with cohesion (c ≥ 0; ϕ ≥ 0

 These formulas often are incorrectly stated without the 2c2/ term 
to account the lack of tensile forces between the wall and the soil at
depths shallower than Hc.
 Passive pressures in soil with cohesion
Rankine equations for passive
conditions in soils with cohesion:

 H 2 K p 
Pp / b    2cH K p  cos 
 2 
 

 H 2 K p 
Vp / b    2cH K p  sin 
 2 
 

Theoretical distribution of passive pressure

in soils with cohesion (c ≥ 0; ϕ ≥ 0
 Lateral Earth Pressures in Soils with Cohesion
(b) Actual Behavior : lateral earth pressure computations in cohesive
soils based on Rankine or Coulomb‟s theories are not very reliable 
produce unconservative designs.
This discrepancy occurs because the theories does not consider:
 Creep in these soils may change the earth pressure
 The soil may be expansive
 Clays obstruct drainage  may trap the water behind the wall

 Creep  soil slowly shears and never reaches complete

equilibrium  failure wedge slowly moves toward the wall 
impossible to maintain the active condition for long period
 Expanding backfill places very large load on the wall  exact
magnitude of lateral pressure is difficult to predict.
 Solution: avoid backfilling any wall with an expansive soil
 Terzaghi and Peck’s Method
 Terzaghi & Peck (1967)  semiempirical method based partially
on the observed performance of real walls.
 Useful with clayey soils or when no soil test data are available
 Appropriate only for the walls less than about 6 m in height
 Terzaghi and Peck’s Method
Normal and shear
forces acting on
the wall:

Gh H 2
Pa / b 
2

Gv H 2
Va / b 
2

Pa = normal force between soil and wall

Va = shear force between soil and wall
Chart for estimating the loads
acting against a retaining wall
below ground surface that is
sloped and then becomes level


G kN/m3 
 Equivalent Fluid Method
 Gh in Terzaghi & Peck‟s method  equivalent fluid density : the
wall is backfilled with a fluid with unit weight of Gh  compute
“earth” pressure using the principles of fluid statics
 For sandy soils, it is also possible to obtain Gh from lateral earth
pressure theories.

Example:
A cantilever wall will retain a sandy soil with c = 0, ϕ = 35º, and  =
20 kN/m3. The ground surface above the wall will be level (=0) and
there will be no surcharge loads. Compute the active pressure and
express it as the equivalent fluid density.
Example:
A cantilever wall will retain a sandy soil with c = 0, ϕ = 35º, and  =
20 kN/m3. The ground surface above the wall will be level (=0) and
there will be no surcharge loads. Compute the active pressure and
express it as the equivalent fluid density.

Solution:
 .H 2 K a . cos  Gh H 2
Pa b  
2 2
Gh  K a (This is true only for a cohesionle ss soil with   0)

K a  tan 2 45   / 2  0.271

Gh  K a  5.42 kN/m3

 Recommend that the engineer design the wall to retain a fluid with unit
weight of 5.42 kN/m3