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
 Cantilever Retaining Walls
 Most common type of retaining structure = concrete or
masonry cantilever retaining wall  wall height less than 5 m
 Major requirements for design: stability and structural integrity
STABILITY
A cantilever retaining wall must
be
stable in all the following ways:
a. Must not slide horizontally
b. Must not overturn
c. Normal force acting on the base
of the footing must be within the
middle third of the footing
d. Must not experience a bearing
capacity failure
e. Must not undergo a deep-seated
shear failure
STABILITY
The stability of the wall is dependent on its dimensions and on the
forces between the wall and the ground.
STABILITY
 When evaluating stability  consider the wall and the soil
above the footing as a unit  wall soil unit
 Evaluate its stability using the principles of statics  after the
dimensions are known.

 First: develop a trial design

 Check its stability and
progressively refine the design
 Converging trial & error process
until an optimal design obtained
  Suggested first trial dimensions  retaining
STABILITY wall backfilled with cohesionless soils

 For strong soils and level backfill

 the toe of extension = 0.5B
 critical center = 0.1B from the toe
 For weaker soils or inclined backfill
 toe extension = less (with the
increase in the heel extension
 critical center = further from the toe
(a) Sliding
 Sliding stability use limit equilibrium approach : the forces
acting on the wall soil unit if it were about to fail
 FS = ratio of the forces required to cause the wall to fail to
those actually act on it
 Driving forces:
- Horizontal component of active lateral earth pressure
- Hydrostatic forces (if any) acting on the back of the wall-soil unit
 Resisting forces:
- Passive lateral earth pressure
- Sliding friction along the bottom of the footing
- Hydrostatic forces (if any) acting on the front of the wall-soil unit

 P b 
F R

 P b 
b = usually 1 ft or 1 m
D
(a) Sliding

 P b 
F R

 P b 
D

 Cohesionless soils  design the wall such that FS ≥ 1.5

 Cohesive soils  design the wall such that FS ≥ 2.0
 Alternatively  pseudo ultimate-strength criteria  FS  1.89

0.9 PR b  1.7 PD b

 The earth pressures and sliding friction coefficients used in

stability analyses should be ultimate values
Example:
A 12 ft (3.66 m) retaining wall supports a backfill inclined at a slope of 4 : 1.
The soil behind the wall is a fine to medium sand with c = 0; ϕ = 35º; and 
= 19.165 kN/m3. The soil below the footing is also a fine to medium sand: c
= 0; ϕ = 38º; and  = 19.64 kN/m3. Determine the required footing
dimensions to satisfy the stability criteria.
(20.3cm)

(1) Select the trial dimensions

(3.66m)

(4.5m)

(15.2cm)

(30.5cm) (38.1cm)
(1.22m)

(30.5cm)
The soil behind the wall c = 0; ϕ = 35º; and  = 19.165 kN/m3. (20.3cm)
The soil below the footing c = 0; ϕ = 38º; and  = 19.64 kN/m3.

(2A) Analyze the sliding stability

Use Coulomb’s method to calculate

active pressure (3.66m)

  tan 1 4  14
(4.5m)
1

 w 2 335  23
(15.2cm)

(30.5cm) (38.1cm)
(1.22m)

(30.5cm)

cos    
2
Ka   0.374
sin w   sin     
2

cos  cosw   1 
2

 cos  w    cos     

 .H K a . cos w
2  .H 2 K a . sin w
Pa b   20.33 kN/m Va b   8.63 kN/m
2 2
Coulomb’s Theory for  .H 2 K a . cos w
Pa b 
Cohessionless Soils 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
The soil behind the wall c = 0; ϕ = 35º; and  = 19.165 kN/m3. (20.3cm)
The soil below the footing c = 0; ϕ = 38º; and  = 19.64 kN/m3.

(2) Analyze the sliding stability

Use Rankine’s method to calculate

passive pressure  ignore upper 0.75 ft (3.66m)

K p  tan 2 45   / 2  4.20

(4.5m)

 .H K p . cos 
2 (15.2cm)

Pp b   1.16 kN/m (30.5cm) (38.1cm)

2 (1.22m)

(30.5cm)
Sliding friction
Weight of footing:
Stem = 6.95 kN/m
Footing = 5.00 kN/m
Soil behind the wall = 28.22 kN/m Pf b  48.8 kN/m
 .H 2 K a . sin w
Va b   8.63 kN/m
2
 Design values of ϕf for cast-in-place concrete footing

Alternatively, use ϕf  0.7 ϕ  ϕ is friction angle of the soil beneath the footing
  .H 2 K a . cos w (20.3cm)

Pa b   20.33 kN/m
2
 .H 2 K p . cos 
Pp b   1.16 kN/m
2
(3.66m)

Weight of footing: Pf b  48.8 kN/m (4.5m)

(15.2cm)

From Table  ϕf = 26º

(30.5cm) (38.1cm)

V f b  Pf btan  f  23.8 kN/m

(1.22m)

(30.5cm)

 P b  V b  Pp b
F   1.23  1.5 ....NG
R f

 P b  D Pa b
 If trial design does not satisfy the sliding
requirements  use one or more of the
following modifications:
- Extend the heel of the footing
- Add a key beneath the footing
- Use a stronger backfill soil
- Install tiedown anchors
- Install a tieback anchor

 If FS is excessive  reduce the heel

extension and/or remove or shorten the
key. Adjust the toe has very little effect.
Tiedown anchor

 Express final dimension of footing/key

as a multiple of 0.1 m  trial & error
 (20.3cm)
(2B) Try adding 0.533m to hell extension
(Total = 1.75m)

 .H 2 K a . cos w
Pa b   21.53 kN/m
2
(3.66m)

 .H K a . sin w
2
Va b   9.14 kN/m (4.63m)
2
(15.2cm)

(30.5cm) (38.1cm)
(1.22m)

(30.5cm)
(1.75m)
Sliding friction
Weight of footing:
Stem = 6.95 kN/m
Footing = 6.46 kN/m
Soil behind the wall = 41.24 kN/m Pf b  63.80 kN/m
 .H 2 K a . sin w
Va b   9.14 kN/m
2
 (20.3cm)
(2B) Try adding 0.533m to hell extension
(Total = 1.75m)

 .H 2 K a . cos w
Pa b   21.53 kN/m
2
(3.66m)
 .H K p . cos 
2

Pp b   1.16 kN/m (4.63m)

2
(15.2cm)
Weight of footing:
Pf b  63.80 kN/m (30.5cm) (38.1cm)
(1.22m)

 From Table  ϕf = 26º (30.5cm)

(1.75m)

V f b  Pf btan  f  31.09 kN/m

 P b  V b  Pp b
F   1.50  1.5 ....OK
R f

 P b  D Pa b
(2C) Use original heel extension and
add 0.61 m deep key

 .H 2 K a . cos w
Pa b   26.20 kN/m
2
 .H 2 K a . sin w
Va b   11.12 kN/m H = (5.105m)
2
 .H 2 K p . cos 
Pp b   10.50 kN/m
2
(0.914m)
Sliding friction (0.61m)
Weight of footing:
Stem = 6.95 kN/m (1.22m)
Footing = 5.00 kN/m (0.305m)

Soil behind the wall = 28.22 kN/m

 .H 2 K a . sin w Pf b  53.735 kN/m
Va b   11.12 kN/m
2
Key = 1.33 kN/m
Soil in front of key = 1.11 kN/m
 (2C) Use original heel extension and
add 0.61 m deep key
 .H 2 K a . cos w
Pa b   26.20 kN/m
2
 .H 2 K p . cos 
Pp b   10.50 kN/m
2 H = (5.105m)

Weight of footing: Pf b  53.735 kN/m

Use weighted average coefficient of friction,

: 1 ft of shear through the soil ( = tan 38) & (0.914m)

5 ft along soil-concrete interface ( = tan 26) (0.61m)

1 tan 38  5 tan 26
tan f  avg   0.537 (1.22m)
6 (0.305m)

 
V f b  Pf b tan  f  28.82 kN/m

 P b  V b  Pp b
F   1.50  1.5 ....OK
R f

 P b  D Pa b
STABILITY
A cantilever retaining wall must
be
stable in all the following ways:
a. Must not slide horizontally
b. Must not overturn
c. Normal force acting on the base
of the footing must be within the
middle third of the footing
d. Must not experience a bearing
capacity failure
e. Must not undergo a deep-seated
shear failure
(b) Overturning
 Once the trial design satisfies the sliding stability  begin
evaluating its overturning stability.
 M b
 Continue to use limit equilibrium approach F R

 This is not M  0  M D b

 Computed FS depends on the location of center of overturning

 Traditional center of overturning and
Bruner’s center

 Recommended center of overturning and

design of earth pressure when no key is
present

 Recommended center of overturning and

design of earth pressure when a key is
present
  Use trial & error to find the center of rotation
 FS lowest = critical  Global FS against
overturning
 Usually this point is between 0.1B – 0.3B
behind the toe

Forces generate driving moments:

- Horizontal component of active lateral earth
pressures acting on the back of the wall
- Hydrostatic forces acting behind the wall
- Weight of soil-wall unit between the toe of
footing and the point of rotation
Forces generate resistance moments:
-Vertical component of active lateral earth pressures on the back of the wall
- Hydrostatic forces acting on the front of the wall
- Weight of soil-wall unit between the point of rotation & the heel of footing
- Surcharge loads acting above the wall-soil unit
- Bearing pressure acting on the bottom of footing, forward the point of rotation
 The footing may move slightly rearward if an overturning failure were to
occur (center of rotation may actually slightly higher than the bottom)
 Resistance offered by passive pressure is not reliable  neglect it !
 Normal force between the bottom of the footing and the ground Pf/b:
In LE condition, only part of footing forward the point of rotation would be
in contact with the soil  bearing capacity failure.
 Set Pf/b equal to the ultimate bearing capacity of a pseudo-footing 
width = distance from the toe to center of overturning  Pf-ult/b
 Shear force Vf/b  does not affect the overturning stability
 FS: ≥ 1.50 for cohesionless soil ; and ≥ 2.00 for cohesive soil
 Location of Normal force along the base of footing:
During in service condition  Pf/b must be located within the middle third
of the footing (eccentricity e < B/6) to maintain compressive stress  to
avoid excessive rotation.
For wall supported on bedrock  Pf/b must be located within the middle
half of the footing (eccentricity e < B/4)
 (20.3cm)

(2B) Try adding 0.533m to hell extension

(Total = 1.75m)
The soil behind the wall c = 0; ϕ = 35º; and  = 19.165 kN/m3.
The soil below the footing c = 0; ϕ = 38º; and  = 19.64 kN/m3.
(3.66m)
(4.63m)
Try to use center of overturning
0.9 ft = 0.274 m from the toe
(15.2cm)

Compute ultimate bearing capacity (30.5cm) (38.1cm)

of a 0.274 m wide footing (1.22m)

(30.5cm) (1.75m)

For ϕ = 38º  Nc =77.5; Nq = 61.5; and N = 82.3

qu  cN c   D N q  1  0.5BN   12.190 lb/ft 2

Pf ult / b  12.19090  10.970 lb/ft 2

 (20.3cm)

(2B) Try adding 0.533m to hell extension

(Total = 1.75m)
The soil behind the wall c = 0; ϕ = 35º; and  = 19.165 kN/m3.
The soil below the footing c = 0; ϕ = 38º; and  = 19.64 kN/m3.
(3.66m)

M b
(4.63m)

F
 R

61200
 2.08  1.5 ....OK
 M D b 29500
(15.2cm)

(30.5cm) (38.1cm)
(1.22m)

(30.5cm) (1.75m)
 (20.3cm)

(2B) Try adding 0.533m to hell extension

(Total = 1.75m)

Find the location of the resultant force

acting on the footing  taking the sum of (3.66m)

moments about any point  equal to zero (4.63m)

(15.2cm)

(30.5cm) (38.1cm)
(1.22m)

(30.5cm) (1.75m)
Sliding friction
Weight of footing:
Stem = 6.95 kN/m
Footing = 6.46 kN/m
Soil behind the wall = 41.24 kN/m Pf b  63.80 kN/m
 .H 2 K a . sin w
Va b   9.14 kN/m
2
 (20.3cm)

(2B) Try adding 0.533m to hell extension

(Total = 1.75m)

Find the location of the resultant force

acting on the footing  taking the sum of (3.66m)

moments about any point  equal to zero (4.63m)

Pf b  63.80 kN/m
(15.2cm)

(30.5cm) (38.1cm)
Let x = horizontal distance from center of
(1.22m)
overturning to the resultant of force
(30.5cm) (1.75m)

M b0  x  0.57 m
Let e = eccentricity = distance from center of footing to the resultant force
B B 2.362
e  0.274  x  0.338 m   0.393 m
2 6 6

eB 6 Resultant is within the middle third …. OK

If the overturning stability of the trial design is not satisfactory or the
resultant is not in the middle third of footing  consider the modif:
- Extend the toe of footing
- Extend the heel of footing
- Use a strong backfill soil
- Use tiedown or tieback anchor
 (20.3cm)

(2B) Try to remove 0.25 ft (7.62 cm) from

the toe extension

 M b 57700 (3.66m)
F R
  1.96  1.5 ....OK
 M b  29500
(4.63m)
D

(15.2cm)

(30.5cm) (38.1cm)
(1.22m)

(30.5cm) (1.674m)
 (20.3cm)

(2B) Try to remove 0.25 ft (7.62 cm) from

the toe extension

Find the location of the resultant force

acting on the footing  taking the sum of (3.66m)

moments about any point  equal to zero (4.63m)

Pf b  63.59 kN/m
(15.2cm)

(30.5cm) (38.1cm)
Let x = horizontal distance from center of
(1.22m)
overturning to the resultant of force
(30.5cm) (1.75m)

M b0  x  0.497 m
Let e = eccentricity = distance from center of footing to the resultant force
B B 2.286
e  0.274  x  0.372 m   0.381 m
2 6 6

eB 6 Resultant is within the middle third …. OK  further trimming

will cause the resultant to be outside the middle third
STABILITY
A cantilever retaining wall must
be
stable in all the following ways:
a. Must not slide horizontally
b. Must not overturn
c. Normal force acting on the base
of the footing must be within the
middle third of the footing
d. Must not experience a bearing
capacity failure
e. Must not undergo a deep-seated
shear failure