You are on page 1of 20

# CE-632

## Foundation Analysis and

Design

Settlement of Foundation

Settlement
Settlement
S = Se + Sc + Ss

## Immediate Primary Secondary

Settlement Consolidation Consolidation
Se Sc Ss

##  Immediate Settlement: Occurs immediately after the construction.

This is computed using elasticity theory (Important for Granular soil)
 Primary Consolidation: Due to gradual dissipation of pore pressure
the soil mass, hence volume change. (Important for Inorganic clays)
 Secondary Consolidation: Occurs at constant effective stress with
volume change due to rearrangement of particles. (Important for
Organic soils)
For any of the above mentioned settlement calculations, we first need vertical
stress increase in soil mass due to net load applied on the foundation 2

## Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Elasticity

1
Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Boussinesq Analysis

## Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Boussinesq Analysis

Where,

## Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

0.5

0.4

0.3
Influence Factor for
IB General solution of vertical stress
0.2
P
0.1 σz = IB
0.0
z2
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

r z 6

2
Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

## Vertical Stress: Uniformly Distributed Circular Load

Rigid Plate on half Space

## Vertical Stress: Rectangular Area

3
Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

10

## Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Pressure Bulb
Square Footing Strip Footing

11

## Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Pressure
Bulb for
Square
Foundation

12

4
Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Pressure
Bulb for
Circular
Foundation

13

Newmark’s Chart

Influence Value

## This Model is good for normally-consolidated, lightly

overconsolidated clays, and variable deposits 14

Newmark’s Chart
Point of
stress
calculation

Depth = z2

##  Determine the depth, z, where you

wish to calculate the stress increase
 Adopt a scale as shown in the figure
 Draw the footing to scale and place Depth = z1
the point of interest over the center
of the chart
 Count the number of elements that
fall inside the footing, N
 Calculate the stress increase as:

15

5
Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Westergaard’s Method
 Provided solution for layered soils
 Assumption:
Elastic soil mass is laterally reinfrced by numorous,
closely spaced, horizontal sheets of negligible thickness
but infinite rigidity, that allow only vertical movement but
prevent the mass as a whole from undergoing
p g g anyy lateral
strain.

P ⎡ ⎤2 1 − 2ν
σz = ⎢ 2
1
⎥ C=
2π z ⎢ C + ( r z ) ⎥
2 2 2 (1 −ν )
⎣ ⎦

## This Model is specially good for pre-compressed or

overconsolidated clays 16

17

## Fröhlich Chart with

Fröhlich
concentration factor
m‘ = 4

Δσ z = n ( 0.005 ) .q

## This Model is specially good for

Sands

18

6
Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

## Simplified Methods (Poulos

(Poulos and Davis, 1974)

Circular Foundation:

⎡ ⎛ 2 −1.5 ⎤

⎛ B ⎞
Δσ z = ⎢1 − ⎜1 + ⎜ ⎟ ⎟ ⎥ (q − σ zD
′ )
⎢ ⎝ ⎝ 2 z ⎠ ⎟⎠ ⎥

⎣ ⎦

Square Foundation:

⎡ ⎛ 2

−1.76

⎛ B ⎞
Δσ z = ⎢1 − ⎜ 1 + ⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎟ ⎥ (q − σ ′ )
⎢ ⎜ ⎜ 2z ⎟ ⎥ zD

⎢⎣ ⎝ ⎝ f ⎠ ⎠ ⎥⎦

19

## Simplified Methods (Poulos

(Poulos and Davis, 1974)

Strip Foundation:

⎡ ⎛ 2

−2.60

⎛ B ⎞
Δσ z = ⎢1 − ⎜ 1 + ⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎟ ⎥ (q − σ ′ )
⎢ ⎜ ⎜ 2z ⎟ ⎥ zD

⎢⎣ ⎝ ⎝ f ⎠ ⎠ ⎥⎦

Rectangular Foundation:

−( 2.60 − 0.84 B / L )
⎡ ⎛ 1.38 + 0.62 B / L
⎞ ⎤
⎛ B ⎞
Δσ z = ⎢⎢1 − ⎜1 + ⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎟ ⎥ (q − σ ′ )

⎜ ⎜⎝ 2 z f ⎟
zD

⎣⎢ ⎝ ⎠ ⎦⎥

20

## Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Approximate
Methods

B.L
Rectangular Foundation: Δσ z = q
( B + z ).( L + z )
B2
Square/Circular Foundation: Δσ z = q
(B + z)
2

B
Strip Foundation: Δσ z = q
(B + z) 21

7
Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

22

## Elastic settlement of Foundation

H H

∫ ( Δσ − μ s Δσ x − μ s Δσ y ) dz
1
Elastic settlement:
Se = ∫ ε z dz = z
0
Es 0

Es = Modulus of elasticity
H= Thickness of soil layer
μs = Poisson’s ratio of soil

## Elastic settlement for Flexible Foundation:

Se =
qB
Es
(
1 − μ s2 I f )
If = influence factor: depends on the rigidity and shape of the foundation
Es = Avg elasticity modulus of the soil for (4B) depth below foundn level

23

## Elastic settlement of Foundation

24

8
Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

E in kPa

25

26

## Elastic settlement of Foundation

Soil Strata with
Semi-infinite depth

27

9
Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

## Steinbrenner’s Influence Factors for Settlement of the Corners of

loaded Area LxB on Compressible Stratus of μ = 0.5,
0.5, and Thickness Ht

28

## Strain Influence Factor Method for Sandy Soil: Schmertmann

and Hartman (1978)
z2 C1 = Correction factor for foundation depth
(
Se = C1C2 q − γ D f
Iz
E
Δz )∑ ⎡1 − 0.5 γ D f ( q − γ D f ) ⎤
⎣ ⎦ { }
0 s
C2 = Correction factor for creep effects
⎡⎣1 + 0.2 log ( time in years 0.1) ⎤⎦

## Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Example

z2
Se = C1C2 ( q − γ D f ) ∑
Iz
γ D f = 31.39 kN m2 Δz
0 Es

## For square and

circular foundations

Es ≈ 2.5qc

For rectangular
foundations
Es ≈ 3.5qc
Correlation with SPT data:
Es ≈ 800 N′′ in kPa

30

10
Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

## Burland and Burbidge’s Method for Sandy Soils

Depth of Stress Influence (z'):
If N60'‘ is constant or increasing with depth, then z ′ = 1.04 ( B )
0.75
,where B is in meters
If N60'‘ is decreasing with depth, use smaller of
z′ = 2 B and z′ = z ′′ = Thickness of soft layer below foundation

## Elastic Settlement (Se):

1 25 ( L B ) ⎤
2
⎡ 1.25 where B is in meters
Se = α1α 2α 3 Bq′ ⎢ ⎥
⎣⎢ 0.25 + ( L B ) ⎦⎥
and q′ is in kPa

## α1 = 0.0047 for NC sand Compressibility Index: α 2 = 1.71 ( N ′′ )

1.4
for NC sand
0.0016 for OC sand with qna ≤ po‘
= 0.57 ( N ′′ ) for OC sand
1.4
0.0047 for OC sand with qna ≤ po‘

## z ′′ ⎛ z ′′ ⎞ q′ = qna for NC sand and for OC sand with qna ≤ po‘

α3 = ⎜2− ′ ⎟ ≤1
z′ ⎝ z ⎠ q′ = qna − 0.67 po′ for OC sand with qna ≤ po‘

31

## Settlement due to Primary Consolidation

⎛ σ ′ + Δσ av′ ⎞
For NC clay (σ c′ < σ o′ < σ o′ + Δσ av′ ) Sc =
Cc H c
log ⎜ o ⎟
1 + eo ⎝ σ o′ ⎠
For OC clay (σ o′ + Δσ av′ < σ c′ ) Cs H c ⎛ σ o′ + Δσ av′ ⎞
Sc = log ⎜ ⎟
1 + eo ⎝ σ o′ ⎠
⎛ σ c′ ⎞ Cc H c ⎛ σ ′ + Δσ av
′ ⎞
For OC clay (σ o′ < σ c′ < σ o′ + Δσ av′ ) Sc =
Cs H c
log ⎜ ⎟ + log ⎜ o ⎟
1 + eo ⎝ σ o′ ⎠ 1 + eo ⎝ σ c′ ⎠
σ o′ = Average effective vertical stress before construction
′ =
Δσ av Average increase in effective vertical stress
σ c′ = Effective pre-consolidation pressure
eo = Initial void ratio of the clay layer Δσ t′
Cc = Compression Index
Δσ m′
Cs = Swelling Index
Hc = Thickness of the clay layer

1
Δσ av
′ = ( Δσ t′ + 4Δσ m′ + Δσ b′ ) Δσ b′
6 32

## Settlement Correction for Effect of 3-

3-D Consolidation

( Sc )3 D = λ ( Sc )1D

33

11
Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

## Fox’s Depth Correction

Factor for Rectangular
Footings of (L)x(B) at
Depth (D)

( Sc )Embedded
= Depth factor
( Sc )Surface

## Rigidity Factor as per

IS:8009--1976
IS:8009
Total settlement of
rigid foundation
Total settlement at the center
of flexible foundation

34

## Time Rate of Settlement

cv t Assumption of pore pressure
St = Si + USc T= distribution under the given
Ht 2 stress conditions

For open
clay layer
with two
way
drainage
use curve
for V=1

35

## Settlement Due to Secondary Consolidation

Cα H c ⎛t ⎞
Ss = log ⎜ 2 ⎟
1 + ep
Void Ratio, e

⎝ t1 ⎠
Δe
Cα = Secondary Compression Index =
log ( t2 t1 ) ep

## e p = Void ratio at the end of primary consolidation Δe

t1 t2
H c = Thickness of Clay Layer Time, t (Log scale)

## Secondary consolidation settlement is more important in the

case of organic and highly-compressible inorganic clays
36

12
Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant
Total Settlement
from SPT Data
for Cohesionless
soil

by factor W'
37

H t ⎡ σ o + Δσ ⎤
St = ln ⎢ ⎥
C ⎣ σo ⎦

3⎛ q ⎞
C= ⎜ c ⎟
2 ⎝ σo ⎠

##  Depth profile of cone resistance

can be divided in several
segments of average cone
resistance

##  Average cone resistance can

be used to calculate constant of
compressibility.

##  Settlement of each layer is

calculated separately due to
38

## Plate Load Test – IS:1888

IS:1888--1982

39

13
Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

## Plate Load Test – IS:1888

IS:1888--1982
Bearing Plate:
 Rough mild steel bearing plate in circular or square shape
 Dimension: 30 cm, 45 cm, 60 cm, or 75 cm.
Thickness > 25 mm
 Smaller size for stiff or dense soil. Larger size for soft or loose soil
 Bottom of the plate is grooved for increased roughness.
 Concrete blocks may be used to replace bearing plates.

40

IS:1888--1982

Test Pit:

##  Usually to the depth of foundation level.

 Width equal to five times the test plate
 Carefully leveled and cleaned bottom.
 Protected against
g disturbance or change
g in natural formation

Plan

Section

41

## Plate Load Test – IS:1888

IS:1888--1982
Procedure:
 Selection of Location
Based on the exploratory boring.
Test is carried out at the level of proposed foundation. If water table is
below the foundation level but the depth is less than width of plate
then the test is carried out at the level of water table. If the water table
is above the foundation level then the water level is reduced to
proposed foundation level by pumping out the water during the test;
however, in case off high permeability material perform
f the test at the
level of water table.
In case the soil is expected to have significant capillary action and the
water table is within 1 m below the foundation, it becomes necessary
to perform the test at the level of water table in order to avoid the
effect of higher effective stresses due to capillary action resulting in
lower values of interpreted settlements.
 Reaction supports should be at least (3.5 x width of plate) away from the
working space.
 Test plate should be placed over a 5 mm thick sand layer and it should be
42

14
Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

## Plate Load Test – IS:1888

IS:1888--1982
Procedure: (Contd.)
 A seating pressure of 7 kPa is applied and then released after some time
before the test.
 Loads are applied in the increments of approximately 1/5th of the
estimated ultimate safe load. (Or, one may choose to increase the load at
an increment of 0.5 kN.)
 At each load settlement is recorded at time intervals of 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 16, 25
min
i and
d th
thereafter
ft att intervals
i t l off one hour.
h
 For clayey soil, the load is increased when time settlement curve shows
that the settlement has exceeded 70-80% of the probable ultimate
settlement or a duration of 24 Hrs.
 For the other soils, the load is increased when the settlement rate drops
below 0.02 mm/min.
 The minimum duration for any load should, however, be at least 60 min.
 Dial gauges used for testing should have at least 25 mm travel and 0.01
mm accuracy.
 The load settlement curve can then be platted from settlement data.
43

## Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Zero Correction:
The intersection of the early straight line or nearly straight line with zero load
line shall be determined and subtracted from the settlement readings to allow
for the perfect seating of the bearing plate. 44

## Terzaghi and Peck (1948):

Sf = Settlement of a foundation of
⎡ B f ( B p + 30 ) ⎤
2
Sf width Bf (cm)
=⎢ ⎥
S p ⎢ B p ( B f + 30 ) ⎥ Sp = Settlement of the test plate of
⎣ ⎦ width Bp (cm) at the same load
intensity as on the foundation

Bond (1961):
Soil Index - n

## n Clay 1.03 to 1.05

Sf ⎡ Bf ⎤ Sandy clay 1.08 to 1.10
=⎢ ⎥ Loose sand 1.20 to 1.25
S p ⎣⎢ B p ⎦⎥
Medium sand 1.25 to 1.35
Dense sand 1.40 to 1.50
45

15
Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

## Plate Load Test: Some Considerations

 The width of test plate should not be less
than 30 cm. It is experimentally shown that
the load settlement behavior of soil is
qualitatively different for smaller widths.
 The settlement influence zone is much
larger for the real foundation sizes than Soft soil
that for test plate, which may lead to gross layer
misinterpretation
i i t t ti off expected
t d settlement
ttl t
for proposed foundation.
 The foundation settlements in loose sands are usually much larger than what
is predicted by plate load test.
 Plate load test is relatively short duration test and gives mostly the immediate
settlements. In case of granular soils the immediate settlement is close to
total settlements. However, due to considerable consolidation settlement in
case of cohesive soils, the plate load test becomes irrelevant in such case.
Although the following relationship is suggested
for interpreting the settlements in cohesive soils, S f Bf
it can not be used seriously for design. =
S
p B
p
46

## Plate Load Test: Bearing Capacity

 In case of dense cohesionless soil and highly cohesive soils ultimate bearing
 In case of partially cohesive soils and loose to medium dense soils the ultimate
bearing capacity load may be estimated by assuming the load settlement curve
so as to be a bilinear relationship.

47

## Plate Load Test: Bearing Capacity

 A more precise determination of
plotted in log-log scale and the
relationship is assume to be
bilinear. The intersection point is
taken as the yield point or the

quf Bf
For cohesioless soil Æ =
qup Bp

## For cohesive soil Æ quf = qup

48

16
Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Modulus of
Sub
Reaction

49

## Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Differential Settlement
Terzaghi’s recommendation:
Differential settlement should not exceed 50% of the total settlement calculated for the foundation.
Considering the sizes of different footing, the following criteria is suggested for buildings:
Differential settlement of footing > 75% of max calculated settlement of footing

For raft foundation the requirements shall be more stringent and they may designed for the
g criteria
following
Differential settlement of raft footing > 37% of max calculated settlement of raft footing
L

δ
Δ Δ
Δ= maximum settlement
δ= differential settlement
δ/Δ = angular distortion

## Allowable maximum and differential settlements as prescribed by

IS:1904-1986 are given on the next slide 50

## Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

51

17
Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

## Rotation of Footings Subjected to Moment

 Footings subjected to moment will have the tendency to rotate and
the amount of rotation can be estimated by assuming that the
footing is supported on a bed of springs and using the modulus of

Q
Es
M k=
(
B 1 −ν 2 )
Moment about the base due to
L soil reaction:

LB 3 kθ
L ( k .θ ).dx =
B2
M = 2∫
0 12
52

## Rotation of Footings Subjected to Moment

Influence factor
to compute
rotation of

θ=
12 M 12 M 1 −ν
=
2

=
(
1 −ν 2 M

) ( ) footing

3 2
LB k LB Es Es LB 2

Iθ values

53

##  Maximum bearing pressure that can be applied on the

soil satisfying two fundamental requirements

## Bearing capacity with adequate factor of safety

– net safe bearing capacity

## Settlement within permissible limits (critical in most cases)

– net safe bearing pressure

54

18
Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Allowable Bearing
Pressure
Terzaghi and Peck (1967):

⎛ B + 0.3 ⎞
2

## qnρ = 1.37 ( N ′′ − 3) ⎜ ⎟ Rw′ RD1S a

2 ⎝ 2B ⎠
kN m
Sa in mm and all other
dimensions in meter.

(25 mm)

⎛ Dw − D f ⎞
Rw′ = 0.5 ⎜ 1 +
⎜ ⎟⎟ [ Rw′ ≤ 1
⎝ Df ⎠

Df
= 1 + 0.2 ≤ 1.2
B
55

## Allowable Bearing Pressure

Peck, Hanson, and Thornburn (1974):

## N-values are corrected for dilatancy and overburden

Initial straight line Æ safe bearing capacity with FOS =2
Later horizontal portion Æ permissible settlement of 25 mm.

## Allowable bearing pressure from settlement consideration:

qa − net = 0.44Cw N ′′Sa S a = Permissible settlement in mm. (25 mm)
⎛ Dw ⎞
kN m 2 Cw = water table correction = 0.5 + 0.5 ⎜
⎜ D f + B ⎟⎟
⎝ ⎠ 56

## Allowable Bearing Pressure

Teng’s (1962) Correlation:
Net safe bearing pressure
⎛ B + 0.3 ⎞ ′
2

## qnρ = 1.4 ( N cor − 3) ⎜ ⎟ RwCD S a

Sa in mm and all other
2 ⎝ 2B ⎠ dimensions in meter.
kN m
Df
CD = depth correction factor = 1 + ≤2
B
N cor = C N .N
⎛ 1.75 ⎞
CN = ⎜ ⎟ for 0 < (σ o′ Pa ) ≤ 1.05
⎝ σ o′ Pa + 0.7 ⎠
⎛ 3.5 ⎞
CN = ⎜ ⎟ for 1.05 < (σ o′ Pa ) ≤ 2.8
⎝ σ o′ Pa + 0.7 ⎠
σ o′ = Effective Overburden stress
57

19
Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

## Allowable Bearing Pressure

Meyerhof’s (1974) Correlation:
Net safe bearing pressure
qnρ = 0.49 N ′′RD1S a kN m 2 for B ≤ 1.2 m
⎛ B + 0.3 ⎞
2

## qnρ = 0.32 N ′′RD 2 ⎜ ⎟ Sa kN m2 for B > 1.2 m

⎝ B ⎠
RD1 = depth correction factor RD 2 = depth correction factor
Df Df
= 1 + 0.2 ≤ 1.2 = 1 + 0.33 ≤ 1.33
B B

## Bowel’s (1982) Correlation:

qnρ = 0.73 N ′′RD1S a kN m2 for B ≤ 1.2 m
⎛ B + 0.3 ⎞
2

## qnρ = 0.48 N ′′RD 2 ⎜ ⎟ Sa kN m 2 for B > 1.2 m

⎝ B ⎠
N-value corrected for overburden using bazaraa’s equation, but
the N-value must not exceed field value 58

## Allowable Bearing Pressure

IS Code recommendation: Use total settlement correlations with SPT
data to determine safe bearing pressure.

## Correlations for raft foundations:

Rafts are mostly safe in bearing capacity and they do not show much
differential settlements as compared to isolated foundations.
Teng’s Correlation: qnρ = 0.7 ( N ′′ − 3) Rw′ CD Sa kN m 2

## Correlations using CPT data:

Meyerhof’s correlations may be used by substituting qc/2 for N,
where qc is in kg/cm2.

59

## Net vs. Gross Allowable Bearing Pressure

Soil Soil
Df t
Dc

Qg = Qc + B 2 Dcγ c + B 2 ( D f − Dc ) γ
Qc
qg = + Dcγ c + tγ c
B2
Qg Q
qg = =
Qc
+ γ D f + Dc ( γ c − γ ) qn = qg − γ D f = c2 + γ c ( Dc + t ) − γ D f
B2 B2 B
Q Usually Dc+t is much smaller than Df
qn = qg − γ D f = c2 + Dc (γ c − γ ) Qc
B qn = − γ Df
(γ c − γ ) is small, so it may be neglected B2
Qc
Q
qn = c2 ≤ qa − net + γ D f
B B2
Qc
Qc ≤ qa − gross
2
≤ qa − net B2
B 60

20