University of Hong Kong Department of Civil Engineering

MSc(Eng) in Geotechnical Engineering

CIVL6027 Foundation Engineering

Instructors:
Prof. Jun Yang (coordinator) Office: HW 6-25
Phone: 2241 5273 E-mail: junyang@hku.hk;
Homepage: http://web.hku.hk/~junyang
Dr. JSH Kwan
Phone: 2762 5362 E-mail: juliankwan@cedd.gov.hk

Class schedule: Wednesday 7:00 p.m. – 9:30 p.m. (online)

Lecture Schedule:
Week No. Topics Instructor
1
Course overview; general concepts Dr. Jun Yang
(Jan. 22)
2
CNY
(Jan. 29)
3
ELS Dr. Julian Kwan
(Feb. 5)
4
ELS Dr. Julian Kwan
(Feb. 12)
5
Cancelled Dr. Julian Kwan
(Feb. 19)
6
Cancelled Dr. Julian Kwan
(Feb. 26)
7
ELS Dr. Julian Kwan
(Mar. 4)
8
ELS Dr. Julian Kwan
(Mar. 11)
9
ELS Dr. Julian Kwan
(Mar. 18)
10
Shallow foundations Dr. Jun Yang
(Mar. 25)
11
Shallow foundations Dr. Jun Yang
(Apr. 1)
12
Deep foundations Dr. Jun Yang
(Apr. 8)
13
Deep foundations Dr. Jun Yang
(Apr. 15)
14
Deep foundations Dr. Jun Yang
(Apr. 22)
15
(Apr. 29)
Assessment:

Type Percentage of Total (%)

Written examination 75

Coursework 25
Suggested References

1. BD−Buildings Department (2004). Code of Practice for

Foundations. Buildings Department, The Government of the
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

2. Bowles, J. E. (1988; 1996). Foundation Analysis and Design,

4th & 5th Editions, McGraw-Hill, New York, New York.
(Call # 624.15 B787).

3. Coduto D.P. (1994). Foundation Design: Principles and

Practices. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. (Call #
624.15 C67).

4. Das, B.M. Principles of Foundation Engineering. 4th ed.,

Pacific Grove, PWS Pub. 1999 (Call # 624.15 D22).

5. Geotechnical Engineering Office (1993). Guide to Retaining

Wall Design: Geoguide 1, 2nd Edition (Call # HK 624.164
H7 for LIB USE ONLY; LB 624.164 H7).

6. Geotechnical Engineering Office (1997). Pile Design and

Construction, GEO Publication No. 1/96, 1996 (Call # LB
624.154 P62).

7. Poulos, H. G., and Davis, E. H. (1980). Pile Foundation

Analysis and Design, Wiley, New York, New York (Call #
624.154 P87).

8. Tomlinson, M. J. (1994). Pile Design and Construction

Practice, 4th Edition, Cement and Concrete Association,
London, England (Call # LB 624.154 T65).
 SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS
APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS
Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol
LENGTH
in inches 25.4 millimeters mm
ft feet 0.305 meters m
yd yards 0.914 meters m
mi miles 1.61 kilometers km
AREA
2 2
in square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm
2 2
ft square feet 0.093 square meters m
2 2
yd square yard 0.836 square meters m
ac acres 0.405 hectares ha
2 2
mi square miles 2.59 square kilometers km
VOLUME
fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL
gal gallons 3.785 liters L
ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3
3 3
yd cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m
3
NOTE: volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown in m
MASS
oz ounces 28.35 grams g
lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg
T short tons (2000 lb) 0.907 megagrams (or "metric ton") Mg (or "t")
TEMPERATURE (exact degrees)
o o
F Fahrenheit 5 (F-32)/9 Celsius C
or (F-32)/1.8
ILLUMINATION
fc foot-candles 10.76 lux lx
fl foot-Lamberts 3.426 candela/m2 cd/m2
FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS
lbf poundforce 4.45 newtons N
lbf/in2 poundforce per square inch 6.89 kilopascals kPa

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS

Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol
LENGTH
mm millimeters 0.039 inches in
m meters 3.28 feet ft
m meters 1.09 yards yd
km kilometers 0.621 miles mi
AREA
2 2
mm square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in
m2 square meters 10.764 square feet ft2
2 2
m square meters 1.195 square yards yd
ha hectares 2.47 acres ac
2 2
km square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi
VOLUME
mL milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz
L liters 0.264 gallons gal
3 3
m cubic meters 35.314 cubic feet ft
3 3
m cubic meters 1.307 cubic yards yd
MASS
g grams 0.035 ounces oz
kg kilograms 2.202 pounds lb
Mg (or "t") megagrams (or "metric ton") 1.103 short tons (2000 lb) T
TEMPERATURE (exact degrees)
o o
C Celsius 1.8C+32 Fahrenheit F
ILLUMINATION
lx lux 0.0929 foot-candles fc
2 2
cd/m candela/m 0.2919 foot-Lamberts fl
FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS
N newtons 0.225 poundforce lbf
2
kPa kilopascals 0.145 poundforce per square inch lbf/in
*SI is the symbol for the International System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E380.
(Revised March 2003)

ii
Two fundamental problems in foundation
engineering:

 Bearing capacity/Stability: no collapse

 Settlement/Deformation: tolerable settlement

Topics to Be Covered

 Shallow foundations
 Pile foundations
 Excavation and lateral supporting systems
Design Philosophy

Resistance (R) > Loads (S)

Safe region (design

criterion satisfied)

Increasing level
R=S
Capacity (R)

of safety

Design
criteria

Safety
margin Unsafe region
(design criterion not
satisfied)

Demand (S)
Design Philosophy

 Working Load/Stress Design (WSD)

 Limit State Design (LSD)

Design Philosophy

 Working Load/Stress Design (WSD)

The basis of the design is to ensure that throughout the

structure, when it is subject to the working or service applied
load, the induced stresses are less than the allowable stresses.

P (allow) =Ru/FS
P (working) < P (allow)

Ru: The ultimate resistance of a structural or foundation element

FS: Global factor of safety

Ranges of global factor of safety commonly used in

foundation design (Terzaghi and Peck, 1967)

Item Factor of safety, FS

Retaining structures, excavations 1.5-2

Foundations 2-3
Uplift heave 1.5-2
Piping 2-3

Piles (with load tests) 1.5-2.0

Piles (with dynamic formulae) 3
Design Philosophy

 Limit State Design (LSD)

In general, this design considers separately the two classes of

ultimate and serviceability limit states using partial factors of
safety. The factored resistance for design must be greater than
or equal to the factored load effects.

Ru > S

Ru: Ultimate resistance : Resistance factor (<1.0)

S: Design action/load : Load factor (>1.0)

Design Philosophy

 Limit States

Defined as conditions under which a structure or its component

members no longer perform their intended functions.

Whenever a structure or part of a structure fails to satisfy one

of its intended performance criteria, it is said to have reached a
limit state.
Design Philosophy

 Ultimate limit state

Involving the total or partial collapse of the structure or

foundation.

 Serviceability limit state

Representing those conditions which affect the function or
service requirements/performance of the structure under
expected service or working loads.

North American Approach (factored resistance approach)

European Approach (factored strength approach)

Partial factors for foundation design

(Meyerhof, 1993; 1995)

Item Factor of safety, FS

Dead loads 1.1

Live loads 1.5

Friction (tan’) 1.25

Cohesion (c) 1.4-1.6
Shallow Foundation

 Load transferred to soil

at depth of a surface
excavation
 Better for lightweight
structures on less
problematic soil
 Less expansive

Deep Foundation

 Load transferred to soil

at significant depth
 Typically used for heavy
structures on
problematic soil
 More expansive
 Df
Df

Df/B typically less than 1.0 Df/B as large as 50

Bearing Capacity of Shallow

Foundation

Failure modes of shallow foundation

 General shear failure

 Local shear failure
 Punch shear failure
Bearing Capacity of Shallow
Foundation
General shear failure
-abrupt, sudden. Failure surface extends to
ground surface.
-Typically in dense sand or stiff clay

q
Q

qu

Failure Surface

Bearing Capacity of Shallow

Foundation
Local shear failure
-Failure surface does not extend to ground surface. occurs
slowly, with substantial settlement.
-More likely in medium sand or clayey soil
q
Q

Failure
Surface qu
Bearing Capacity of Shallow
Foundation
Punching shear failure
-continuous punching failure and settlement with gradual
increase in q .
-More likely in loose sand and soft clay

q
Q

Failure 
Surface

qu?

Vesic (1963, 1973)

Terzaghi Bearing Capacity
Theory
Q

’ = Df
Df

I III 45°- /2

=
II

Spiral

qu = qc + qq + q

Limit equilibrium analysis

Basic Assumptions

 Depth of foundation  width (i.e. Df  B)

 Rough bottom, foundation does not slide
 homogeneous, semi-infinite, isotropic soil mass
 Mohr-Coulomb failure criteria
 Rigid foundation in comparison to soil stiffness
 Soil above bottom of footing acts as surcharge only
and has no strength
 Plane strain (strip footing), then extended to square
and circular footings
Terzaghi Bearing Capacity
Equation

Strip

q u  1 . 0 cN c  D f  N q  0 . 5  B N 

Square

q u  1 . 3 cN c  D f  N q  0 . 4  B N 

Circular

q u  1 . 3 cN c  D f  N q  0 . 3  B N 

Bearing Capacity Factors

a2
Nq  a   e ( 0.75    / 2 ) tan 
2cos (45   / 2)
2

Nq  1 2 ( N q  1) tan 
Nc  N 
tan  1  0 . 4 sin( 4  )
 1000 1000 1000

General
General Shear
100 Shear 100 Failure 100
Failure General

Bearing Capacity Factor, N

Bearing Capacity Factor, Nq
Bearing Capacity Factor, Nc

Shear
Failure
10 10 10
Local
Shear
Local
Failure
1 Shear 1
1
Failure
Local
Shear
Failure
0.1 0.1 0.1

0.01 0.01 0.01

0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50

Friction Angle, degrees Friction Angle, degrees Friction Angle, degrees

Effect of groundwater

Df

d
B

Case I: d≥(Df+B)
Effect of groundwater

Df
d

Case II: Df  d <(Df+B)

Effect of groundwater

d
Df

Case III: 0<d<Df

Effect of groundwater

Df

Case IV: d=0

Development of Bearing
Capacity Theory

 Meyerhof (1963):
Used  = (45 + /2) and included shear strength in
soil above footing, inclined and eccentric loads
 Brinch Hansen (1970):
Similar to Meyerhof, but accounted for slope and
tilted base
 Vesic (1973):
Similar to Hansen with modified inclination, slope,
and tilt factors
 All three methods use same Nc and Nq, but have
different N
Meyerhof Bearing Capacity
Equation
qu= cNcFcsFcdFci + qNqFqsFqdFqi + ½ BNFsFdFi

 Q

Fcs, Fqs, Fs = shape factors

Df q = Df

Fcd, Fqd, Fd= depth factors

Soil:
B , c, 

Fci, Fqi, Fi = load inclination factors

Shape Factor (Fs)

B 
For ( = 0°) Fcs  1  0 . 20   Fqs = Fs = 1.00
L 

B   
Fcs  1  0 .20   tan 2  45  
For ( 10°) L  2

B  2 
Fqs = Fs  1  0 .10   tan  45  
 
L  2 

For (0° < <10°) Interpolation

Depth Factor (Fd)

D 
For ( = 0°) Fcd  1  0 . 20  f  Fqd = Fd = 1.00
 B 

Fcd  1  0.20 f  tan 45   

D
For ( 10°) B   2

D   
Fqd = Fd  1  0 .10  f  tan  45  
 B   2

For (0° < <10°) Interpolation

Inclination Factor (Fi)

2
For ( = 0°)     Fi =0
Fci= Fqi  1   
  90   

2
   
Fci= Fqi  1   
  90   
For ( >0°)
2
   
Fi  1     (= 0 if  > )
    
 Meyerhof Bearing Capacity
Factors

N q  e  tan 
tan 2
( 45   / 2 )

N  1

q
N
tan 
c

N   (N q  1) tan( 1 .4  )
or
N γ = 1 .5 (N q -1 )tan 

1000 1000 1000

Terzaghi Terzaghi
Terzaghi
100 100 100
Bearing Capacity Factor, Nc

Bearing Capacity Factor, Nq

Bearing Capacity Factor, N

10 10 10

Meyerhof

1 1 1
Meyerhof

Meyerhof

0.1 0.1 0.1

0.01 0.01 0.01

0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Friction Angle , degrees Friction Angle , degrees Friction Angle , degrees
 Settlement of Shallow
Foundations

Criteria for A Satisfactory

Foundation

 Provide adequate bearing capacity to avoid

catastrophic bearing failure.
 Control settlement to prevent structural
damage and loss of serviceability
 Consider any future influences such as frost
action
Uniform Settlement

uniform 

All parts of the structure settle the same amount

Differential Settlement

min max

Angular distortion =  / L = (max - min) / L

 Serviceability limit states

Serviceability limit
Examples
state

Architectural damage Tilting of structures (chimneys, retaining

(damage to appearance) walls) and cracking in walls

Cracked floors, misalignment of machinery,

Loss of serviceability dislocation of pipe joints, jammed doors and
windows

Bulking of columns and overstressing

Structural damage
beams
 Maximum allowable settlement

Foundation type
Soil type
Isolated footing Rafts/Mats

Clay 75 mm 100 mm

Sand 50 mm 60 mm

Distortion limits
Structural
/L
Observation

1/5000 0.0002 No damage

1/300 0.0033 Architectural damage

1/150 0.0067 Structural damage

Settlement of Shallow
Foundations on Clay
Time
i
 = i + c + s

c
i = immediate settlement
c = primary consolidation settlement
s= secondary consolidation (creep)
s


Immediate Settlement

1
 z  [ z  ( x   y )]
E
 i    z dz
In-Situ Stress in Ground

Ground surface

Vertical stress:
v= z =z

z
Horizontal stress:
v
h= K0v

h

In-Situ Stress in Ground

Ground surface

h 
K0  
z  v 1 
Stress Induced by Point Load

Q
3
3Q z
v  
2 R 5
z

Q  3r2z (1 2 )R 
r     R
2R2  R3 R z  z
v
(1  2 )Q  z R 
  2    r
2 R R Rz


Stress Induced by Line Load

2 qz 3 q
v z  (force/length)
 R4

2qx2z
 
x
 R4 R v (or z)
z
2 q z
 
 R2
y
x

y
Stress Induced by Strip Load

q
 z    sin  cos   2  
 B
q
 x    sin cos  2  
q
 (force/area)

2 q
 y    x   z   

z
q
 zx  sin  sin   2  


 xy   yz  0 x

Stress Induced by Strip Load

q B
z    sin  
 q
(force/area)
q
x    sin  
 
2 q
y   z

 xy   yz   zx  0

 Stress Induced by Strip Load
The increases in the three principal total stresses can
be calculated using the following equations

2
x z  x 
1    z    zx
2  2 

2
x z  x 
3    z    zx
2  2 
 ( 1   3 )  ( x   z )
2  
2 2

Stress Induced by Rectangular

Load

B
 z  qIc q
L

1  2mn C1 1 C1  2mn C1  
Ic    tan1  
4  C1  C2 C1  C1  C2  
 
z
B L
m n
z z z

C1=1  m2  n2 C 2 =m 2n 2
Stress Induced by Circular Load

 z  qIc B

  1  
3/ 2
I c  1     z
  1  ( B / z )2  
 
z

Bulb of pressure
Immediate Settlement
Affected by:
 Footing rigidity
 Footing shape
 Location beneath footing
 Soil stiffness parameters E and 
 Soil layering
 Presence of rigid layer (rock)

Immediate Settlement

Uniform Contact Pressure, q

i

Flexible footing
Immediate Settlement

i

Contact Pressure, q

Rigid footing

Immediate Settlement B

q
Case I: Loading on the surface of a
half-space

circle, square,
 1  2
 or rectangular
 i  C sqB   footing 
 E 

B B
= Poisson’s ratio
E= Young’s modulus
q= uniformly distributed loading L
CS= shape & rigidity factor
Immediate Settlement

Case II: Loading on the surface of a soil layer underlain

by rigid base

 1  2

 i  C 's q B  
 E  B
q

H E, 
Rigid Boundary

Immediate Settlement

Case III: Loading on the surface of a stiff layer

underlain by a less rigid layer of great thickness

B
1  2

 i  C "s q B   q
 E 
H E1, 1

 E2, 2
 Consolidation Settlement

Analogy
P
P
P

u = 0 u = P/A u < P/A u = 0

Consolidation Settlement
Primary consolidation:
 When a load is applied to a saturated clay soil, it is initially
carried by the pore water as an excess pore water pressure
(over hydrostatic), u. The applied load, due to a foundation,
increases the pore pressure already there.
 With time, water will move out of the clay layer to the surface,
or to some drainage boundary. The rate of this movement is
primarily a function of the soil permeability and the layer
thickness.
 As the water moves out, the excess pore water pressure
decreases, and the soil skeleton (spring) carries some of the
stress. Also, a volume decrease occurs, and thus settlement.
 Settlement will cease at C when the excess pore water
pressure has dissipated to zero, and there is no more tendency
for water to flow out of the clay.
Consolidation Settlement

Void Virgin curve with slope CC (= compression index)

Ratio,
e

Initial state

e0

e Final state after load applied

eF

Log Vertical Effective

Stress, ’V
’0 ’f = ’0 + V

Normally consolidated clay

Consolidation Settlement

 
 
  ∆e   - (e F  e 0 ) 
C C      
 ∆log p   log  σ' 0  ∆σ' V 
 
  σ' 0 
   

 σ'  ∆σ' V 
∆e  (e F - e 0 )   C C log  0 
 σ' 0 
 Consolidation Settlement

C H  σ' 0  Δσ' V 
 C   C  log  
1  e0   σ' 0  H P Clay
CC, e0

n C H   σ' 0i  Δσ Vi 
 C    Ci i  log  
i 1 1  e σ' 0i
 0i   

Consolidation Settlement
Slope Cs (= swelling index) e
e

e ’c ’c

e
Slope CC

Case I Case II
’0 ’f = ’0 + V Log ’V ’0 ’f = ’0 + V Log ’V

Overconsolidated clay
Consolidation Settlement

Case I

 C H   σ'  Δσ' V 
 C   s  log  0 
1  e0
  σ' 0  P Clay
H CC, Cs
e0
Case II

 C H   σ' 
 C   s  log  c 
 1  e 0   σ' 0 
 C cH   σ'    v 
   log  0 
1  e0   σ' c 

Time Rate of Consolidation

 What percentage of c will have occurred at a

given time?

 How much time is required for given percentage

of c to occur?

One dimensional consolidation theory

Time Rate of Consolidation
% Consolidation

c t
T  V

(H / N ) 2 Uav

T= Dimensionless time factor

corresponding to the given Uav T
Time Factor
t= Time required to reach Uav % Consolidation
Uav= A given degree of
consolidation for the clay layer
H= Thickness of the clay layer
N= Number of drainage paths Uav
(= 1 or 2)

T
Time Factor

Time Rate of Consolidation

N=2 H N=1
Time Rate of Consolidation
Case 2
Case 1a Case 1b Half Sine
Constant Linear Curve

The relationship
between T and U for
1-D consolidation
depends on the
initial profile of the Case 3
excess pore water Sine Curve Case 4
pressure, u, vs. Triangular
depth (caused by the
applied load V).

Average Time Factor T

Consolidation Case 1
U% Case 2 Case 3 Case 4
(1a, 1b)
0 0 0 0 0
5 0.0020 0.0030 0.0208 0.0250
10 0.0078 0.0111 0.0427 0.0500
15 0.0177 0.0238 0.0659 0.0753
20 0.0314 0.0405 0.0904 0.101
25 0.0491 0.0608 0.117 0.128
30 0.0707 0.0847 0.145 0.157
35 0.0962 0.112 0.175 0.187
40 0.126 0.143 0.207 0.220
45 0.159 0.177 0.242 0.255
50 0.197 0.215 0.281 0.294
55 0.239 0.257 0.324 0.336
60 0.286 0.305 0.371 0.384
65 0.342 0.359 0.425 0.438
70 0.403 0.422 0.488 0.501
75 0.477 0.495 0.562 0.575
80 0.567 0.586 0.652 0.665
85 0.684 0.702 0.769 0.782
90 0.848 0.867 0.933 0.946
95 1.129 1.148 1.214 1.227
100    
Secondary Consolidation
Settlement

Void
Ratio, e

Secondary compression
index, C

eP

log time, t tP t1 t2 tF

C = -e / log t eP= void ratio at end of

= -(e2-e1) / log (t2 / t1) primary consolidation

Secondary Consolidation
Settlement

C H t 
 s     log  F 
1  e0
  tP 

tF = time at which magnitude of secondary

compression required
tP = time corresponding to end of primary
consolidation
C = typically 3-4% of CC
Settlement of Shallow
Foundations on Sand

 Settlement occurs rapidly

 Settlement typically small
 Creep normally a minor factor
 Sand stiffness strongly stress-dependent

Settlement of Shallow
Foundations on Sand

Strain influence factor method (Schmertmann

method)

I 
 Z  q  Z 
 E 
 IZ 
  q  02B   dz
 E 
 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 IZ 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 IZ

Finite Element
= 0.5  = 0.4
0.5 0.5 Analysis

1.0 1.0
z/B z/B
Model Test
1.5 1.5 Dr = 44%

2.0 Model Test

2.0
Dr = 85%

Theoretical IZ Distribution Observed IZ Distribution

n
 Ιz 
  C 1C 2   'Z    Δz i
i 1  E  i
 '0 
C1 = Correction factor for depth of embedment =1  0 . 5    0 . 5
 ' Z 
 t yrs 
C2 = Correction factor for secondary creep settlement = 1  0.2 log 10  
 0 .1 
 
’Z = Net foundation pressure increase at footing bottom = (q - ’0)
’0 = Effective stress at footing bottom before any excavation
IZi = Strain influence factor at mid-height of each sub-layer
Ei = Young’s modulus for each sub-layer (estimated from CPT)
qC = Cone tip bearing (average assigned to each sub-layer)
zi = Height of each sub-layer
tyr = Time in years after placement of footing
 Idealized IZ Distribution
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 IZ

0.5 IZP = maximum IZ

Z
=(z/B) Axisymmetric (L/B = 1)
IZ = 0.1 at z = 0
2 IZ = IZP at z = 0.5B
IZ = 0 at z = 2B
B
’Z = q - '0
q
3 '0

Plane Strain (L/B > 10)

IZ = 0.2 at z = 0 'ZP
IZ = IZP at z = B
4 IZ = 0 at z = 4B depth to IZP
IZ

Settlement Reduction: Modify

Ground

 Surcharge to pre-consolidate soil, sand drains

to speed
 Compaction, penetration or chemical grout
 Remove soft material
 Surface vibro-compaction
 Dynamic compaction: drop big weight using
crane, works best with sands/silts
Settlement Reduction: Modify
Foundation

 Spread load: larger or more footings

 Mat foundation: bridges poor soils,
settlement uniform
 Compensate for foundation load with
excavation: often use a mat
 Deep foundations

Settlement Reduction: Modify

Structure

 Increase stiffness: expensive, risky

 Increase flexibility: lighter members, simple
connections
 Lighten structural loading
 Construction joints / closure pours: eliminates
differential
 Deal with problem later, design structure for
easy repair
Example 0 50 100 150 200 qC, tsf
0
Determine the settlement of a
foundation on sand after 10
years:

Footing size 8.5 ft x 34 ft 10

Foundation Load = 526 tons
Depth of Embedment = 6.6 ft
GWT depth = 6.6 ft
Sand  = 100 pcf, sat = 115 pcf
20

Notes:
1 ft=0.3048 m
1pcf=157.1 N/m3 30
1tsf=95.76 KN/m2
1tsf=2000 psf
 w= 62.4 pcf
CIVL6027 Foundation Engineering Dr J Yang

CPT-based method (Schmertmann, 1970; 1978)

n
 Ιz 
  C1C2  'Z    Δz i
i 1  E i

where
  0 
C1: correction factor for embedment (= 1  0.5    0.5 )
  z 

 t yrs 
C2: correction factor for creep settlement (= 1  0.2log10  )
 0.1 
 0 : initial vertical effective stress at the level of foundation base
 z : net foundation pressure increase at the level of foundation base ( q   0 )

Izi: strain influence factor at mid-height of each sub-layer from idealized Iz distribution
 z
shown below (Note: I zp  0.5  0.1 ,  zp =initial vertical effective stress at the level
 zp

of maximum Iz)
Ei: Young’s modulus for each sub-layer, estimated from CPT (=2.5qc for L/B=1 and
3.5qc for L/B>10)
qc: cone tip resistance for each sub-layer
Δzi: thickness of each sub-layer
tyrs: time in years after placement of foundation

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 IZ

B
’Z = q - '0 0.5
q IZP = maximum IZ
'0 1

'ZP Axisymmetric (L/B = 1)

IZ = 0.1 at z = 0
2 IZ = IZP at z = 0.5B
depth to IZP IZ = 0 at z = 2B
IZ

Plane Strain (L/B > 10)

IZ = 0.2 at z = 0
IZ = IZP at z = B
4 IZ = 0 at z = 4B
CIVL6027 Foundation Engineering Dr J Yang

SPT-based method (Burland & Burbidge, 1985)

2
qb   v  0.7
w 3 B
 0.1 f s f L ft I c  
LR pa  LR 

where
w: foundation settlement
LR: reference length (1 m, or 3.281 ft or 39.37 in)
B: foundation width
qb: unit load at the level of foundation base
v’: initial vertical effective stress at the level of foundation base (before construction)
pa: reference pressure (100 kPa or ~ 1 tsf)
1.71
Ic: compression index ( , N is the average SPT N value over the influence zone
N 1.4
below the foundation)
0.79
 B zf
zf: influence zone below foundation,  
LR  LR 
2
 L 
 1.25 B 
fs: shape factor, f s   L 
  0.25 
B 
1 H>z f

fL: layer factor, f L   H
 H (H: thickness of the sand layer below
z  2   H  z f
 f  zf 

foundation)

 t
ft: time factor f t   1  R3  Rt log  (t in year, R3=0.3, Rt=0.2; if ignoring the creep
 3
settlement, take ft =1)
Influence chart for vertical stress increase beneath corner of a rectangular load (Perloff &
Baron)
Values of Shape and Rigidity Factor Cs at Various Points of Elastic Half-Space Surface
Middle of Middle of
Shape Center Corner Short Side Long Side Average

Circle (flexible) 1.00 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.85

Circle (rigid) 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79
Square (flexible) 1.12 0.56 0.76 0.76 0.95
Square (rigid) 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
Rectangle L/B = 1.5 1.36 0.67 0.89 0.97 1.15
(flexible) L/B = 2.0 1.52 0.76 0.98 1.12 1.30
L/B = 3.0 1.78 0.88 1.11 1.35 1.52
L/B = 5.0 2.10 1.05 1.27 1.68 1.83
L/B = 10 2.53 1.26 1.49 2.12 2.25
L/B = 100 4.00 2.00 2.20 3.60 3.70
L/B = 1,000 5.47 2.75 2.94 5.03 5.15
L/B = 10,000 6.90 3.50 3.70 6.50 6.60

Source: Perloff & Baron from Schleicher (1926)

Values of Shape Factor C’S for Settlement of Center of Uniformly Loaded Area on
Elastic Layer Underlain by Rigid Base (Large Flexible Foundation,  = 0.3)

Rectangle
Infinite
Circle
Strip
(Dia. B) L/B = 1 L/B = 1.5 L/B = 2 L/B = 3 L/B =5 L/B =10 L/B = 
H/B =0 u=0 =0 u=0 =0 u=0 =0 u=0 =0 u=0 =0 u=0 =0 u=0 =0 u=0

0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.1 0.10 0.08 0.10 0.08 0.10 0.08 0.10 0.08 0.10 0.08 0.10 0.08 0.10 0.08 0.10 0.08
0.25 0.26 0.22 0.26 0.21 0.25 0.21 0.25 0.21 0.25 0.21 0.25 0.21 0.25 0.21 0.25 0.21
0.5 0.50 0.45 0.51 0.44 0.51 0.43 0.51 0.43 0.51 0.43 0.51 0.43 0.51 0.43 0.51 0.43
1.0 0.72 0.68 0.77 0.72 0.85 0.77 0.87 0.78 0.88 0.78 0.88 0.78 0.88 0.78 0.88 0.78
1.5 0.81 0.78 0.88 0.84 1.00 0.94 1.07 0.99 1.12 1.02 1.13 1.02 1.13 1.02 1.13 1.02
2.5 0.89 0.87 0.98 0.95 1.14 1.10 1.24 1.19 1.36 1.29 1.44 1.34 1.45 1.34 1.45 1.34
3.5 0.92 0.90 1.02 1.00 1.20 1.17 1.32 1.29 1.47 1.42 1.60 1.52 1.64 1.54 1.65 1.54
5.0 0.94 0.93 1.05 1.04 1.25 1.23 1.39 1.36 1.56 1.53 1.75 1.69 1.87 1.77 1.88 1.77
 1.00 1.00 1.12 1.12 1.36 1.36 1.57 1.52 1.78 1.78 2.10 2.10 2.53 2.53  

Source: Perloff & Baron from Harr (1966)

H = thickness of layer
 = shear stress at rigid base interface
u = displacement at rigid base interface
Values of Correction Factor C’’S at Center of Circular Uniformly Loaded Area on
Elastic Layer E1, Thickness H, Underlain by Less Stiff Elastic Layer E2 of Infinite Depth
(1 = 2 = 0.4)

Value of E1/E2,

H/B 1 2 5 10 100

0 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

0.10 1.000 0.972 0.943 0.923 0.760
0.25 1.000 0.885 0.779 0.699 0.431
0.50 1.000 0.747 0.566 0.463 0.228
1.00 1.000 0.627 0.399 0.287 0.121
2.50 1.000 0.550 0.274 0.175 0.058
5.00 1.000 0.525 0.238 0.136 0.036
 1.000 0.500 0.200 0.100 0.010

Source: Perloff & Baron from Burmister, 1965