CEG 561 - GEOTECHNICS

TOPIC 2
FOUNDATION & SETTLEMENT
PART 1: SHALLOW FOOTING
SERIES 1: MECHANISM OF BEARING CAPACITY OF SHALLOW FOUNDATION

MASYITAH MD NUJID
masyitahmn@uitm.edu.my
PPKA
OPEN DISTANCE LEARNING & ACTIVITY BKBA 3.14
WEEK 5: 13 APRIL 2020 – 19 APRIL 2020 UiTMCPP
PART 1: SERIES 1
MECHANISMS OF BEARING
CAPACITY OF SHALLOW
FOUNDATION
Learning process for topic 2
Understand
Define design Apply-
Theory/Concept requirements calculate/design
& factor

2
LEARNING OUTCOME: AT THE END, STUDENST ARE ABLE TO
+ DEFINE WHAT IS FOUNDATION & IT’S TYPES
+ UNDERSTAND DESIGN REQUIREMENTS AND
CONCEPTS
+ IDENTIFY FACTORS IN THE DESIGNS OF
SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS
+ DISCUSS THE MECHANISM OF BEARING
CAPACITY OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

3
FOUNDATION:an interface element used to transfer load from
superstructure to underlying soil or rock.
+ Shallow/Spread Foundations: less + Deep Foundations
than 3 m or less than or equal the
breadth of the footings + piles, piers and caissons
+ isolated pads, strip footings and
mat (raft)
super
structure

soil
B Pile foundation

B
D/B < 1 or D < 3.0 m
4
 CLASSIFICATION OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS
A structure may be subjected to loads, forces and pressures
(Liu & Evett, 2005):
i) Dead load (overall weight of structure)
ii) Live load (weights of applied bodies-
not permanent structure)
i) Wind load (not live load, act on wall on
exposed surfaces of structures)
i) Snow load (accumulation of snow on roofs
and exterior flat of surfaces)
i) Earth pressure (produces a lateral force that acts against
the portion of substructure layering below ground/fill level)
i) Water pressure (produce a lateral force)
ii) Earthquake forces (act lateral, vertical, torsional on a structure in any direction)

5
Factors in the
1) ADEQUATE DEPTH
design shallow foundations
2) LIMITING SETTLEMENT 3) FACTOR OF SAFETY
AGAINST SHEAR FAILURE
+ Depth must be + Total settlement,
sufficient to prevent differential and + Shear failure occurs
when the soil divides
any adverse effects angular distortion into separate blocks or
due to changes in that may be zones which move fully
surface conditions, tolerated. or partially, and
i.e. climatic changes, tangentially with
+ Depending on the respect to each other.
action of freezing
functional
and thawing,
performance of the + FOS: the ratio of the
temperature shear strength of the
building and the soil to the maximum
changes.
requirement of the mobilised shear stress
+ Also important user as well as must not be less than
when dealing with economic factors. the appropriate value.
horizontal loads or
strong overturning Design requirements and concepts with accordance to: 1)
moments. British Standard, 2) Euro code 7: Geotechnical Design

6
2) Limiting settlement
Guidelines (Skempton and MacDonald, 1956)

1) SANDS
i. Maximum total settlement = 40 mm for isolated footings
= 40 - 65 mm for rafts

ii. Maximum differential = 25 mm

settlement between
adjacent columns

2) CLAYS
i. Maximum total settlement = 65 mm for isolated footings
= 65 -100 mm for rafts

ii. Maximum differential = 40 mm

settlement between
adjacent columns

7
THREE (3) MODES OF SHEAR FAILURE
1) General shear 2) Local shear failure 3) Punching shear
failure failure
Shear plane starts from one
slip surface ~ develops side and ends within the Development of slip surface
outwards towards one soil. restricted to vertical plane
or both sides and adjacent to the sides of the
eventually to the ground footing.
Adjacent bulging may occur
surface. but little tilting. Bulging at the surface is
usually absent and may
Failure is sudden, even be replaced by drag-
severe tilting leading to Settlement which occurs will down.
final collapse. usually be the principal This type of failure normally
design criterion. occurs in very loose
Associated with dense
sand or over- cohesionless soils.
consolidated soils of low This type of failure normally
compressibility. occurs in loose
cohesionless soils.

8
THREE (3) MODES OF SHEAR FAILURE

9
3)

10
ESSENTIAL POINTS ARE:
❑ Dense soils fail along well-defined slip planes resulting in a general
shear failure.
❑ Loose soils do not fail suddenly and the slip planes are not well
defined, resulting in a local shear failure.
❑ Very loose soil can fail by punching shear failure.
❑ More settlement is expected in loose soils than in dense soils.
❑ The expected failure surface for general shear failure consists of a
rigid wedge of soil trapped beneath the footing bordering radial
shear zones under Rankine’s passive zones.

11
To be continued
 “
Source: success.com

References:
1) Braja, M. D. & Nagaratnam S., “Fundamental of Geotechnical Engineering” 5th Edition, Cengage
Learning, Boston, USA, 2017.
2) Craig's “Soil Mechanics” 8th Edition, J.A. Knappett & R. F. Craig, Spoon Press, UK, 2012.
3) https://www.google.com/search?q=classification+of+shallow+foundation&rlz=1C1CHBF_enMY81
7MY817&sxsrf=ALeKk006t4aUsLbkWsSerGuwu_WkCJFnFA:1585951745560&source=lnms&tb
m=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjB9bLTos3oAhX_zzgGHSJACf4Q_AUoAXoECA0QAw&biw=1600
&bih=757#imgrc=YhWr3gfZYiKtMM&imgdii=7jGtMeetXJz5MM.

Acknowledgement:
1) Mrs. Faizah Kamarudin for providing Lecture Note CEG561.

12
Thanks!
Any questions?
You can find me at:
masyitahmn@uitm.edu.my
013-3672330
Online attendance is recorded base upon on
students’ engagement in activity and assessment
(quizzes, test, assignments) notify/given by each
lecturer’s of group registration via Microsoft Teams
(MT) or Google Classroom (GC)

13
 CEG 561 - GEOTECHNICS
TOPIC 2
FOUNDATION & MASYITAH MD NUJID

SETTLEMENT
masyitahmn@uitm.edu.my
PPKA
BKBA 3.14
UiTMCPP

PART 1: SHALLOW
FOOTING
SERIES 2: EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS ON ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY &
ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY

OPEN DISTANCE LEARNING & ACTIVITY

WEEK 5: 13 APRIL 2020 – 19 APRIL 2020
PART 1: SERIES 2

Definition of
bearing
capacity terms
and formula
2
 3

LEARNING OUTCOMES: Students are able to

× DEFINE BEARING CAPACITY TERM
× FORMULATE ULTIMATE AND
ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY
Learning process for topic 2
Apply-calculate/
Design
1) Calculate the loads acting on the footing
2) Obtain soil profiles along with pertinent field and
Understand laboratory measurements and testing results
3) Determine the depth and location of the footing
Define design 4) Evaluate the bearing capacity of the supporting
Theory/Concept requirements 5)
soil
Determine the size of the footing
& factor 6) Compute the footing’s contact pressure and
check its stability against sliding and overturning
7) Estimate the total and differential settlements
8) Design the footing structure
Source: Soils and Foundations (Liu & Evett, 2005)

3
DEFINITION: 4

1. ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY, qf : the 3. FACTOR OF SAFETY, FOS: Is defined as

intensity of bearing pressure at which the the ratio between the net ultimate bearing
supporting ground is expected to fail in capacity and the net bearing pressure :
shear qnf q -  'o
F = = f
• Net ultimate bearing capacity, qnf = qf - o qn q -  'o
2. NET BEARING PRESSURE, qn : net 4. PRESUME BEARING VALUE:
foundation pressure / net loading intensity. • A conservative value to a rock or soil
• Preliminary design purpose
• the net change in total stress • Empirical data: consideration the width
experienced by the soil at the base of of foundation, the probable settlement
the foundation limits and local experience
• the difference between the total applied
stress (q) and the stress removed due
to excavation (σo ) P/Q kN (design load

qn = q −  o
' transferred from column)

where ;
q = contact pressure at the base of the foundation, q = P/A  zw  gwt
(kN/m2) sat
o = overburden pressure adjacent to the foundation OR pressure
relief due to excavation.
D q = P/A
o =  D (if no gwt)
’o =  zw +  ’hw (with gwt above the base) o hw’o 4
5. ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY, qa : the bearing pressure that will cause either 5

DEFINITION:
undrained or drained settlement or creep equal to a specified tolerable design limit.
• the allowable design value for the applied bearing pressure MUST SATISFY THE
TWO CRITERIA
• 1) An ultimate limit state value (shear strength) and 2) A serviceability limit state value
(settlement)

1) Ultimate limit state 2) Serviceability limit state value (settlement)

value (shear strength) qa = bearing pressure corresponding to a specified limit
value (sL) of undrained or drained settlement.
(a) Immediate or undrained settlement
~ 1st criteria
q f -  'o sL Eu
qa = +  'o qa = +  '
o
F B(1 - ν 2 ) I  ~ 2nd criteria OR

(b) Consolidation or drained settlement ~ 2nd criteria

sL
qa = +  o'
mv ( I + 1 ) H o
5
Assumptions made by Terzaghi: 6

o The soil is a semi-infinite, homogeneous, isotropic, weightless, rigid-plastic material.

o The embedment depth is not greater than the width of the footing (Df < B).
o General shear failure occurs.
o The failure zone angle, f = ’. However later work has shown (Vesic, 1973) that f = 45
+ ’/2 to be more realistic.
o The shear strength of the soil above the footing base is negligible. Meyerhof (1951)
considered the shear above the footing base.
o The soil above the footing base can be replaced by a surcharge stress (= D)
o The base of the footing is rough.

Failure surface assumed by Terzaghi

6
 7
1) Ultimate Bearing Capacity, qf Formula
qf is the intensity of bearing pressure at which the
supporting ground is expected to fail in shear q f = qc + qq + q
Thus the ultimate bearing capacity for strip footing is giving by; 1st term 2nd term 3rd term
1 cohesion surcharge unit weight
q f = cN c +  o N q + BN qc = c*Nc qq = o*Nq q = ½*B**N
2
Nc , Nq , N ~ are bearing capacity factors depending on angle ’ of the soil.

Terzaghi’s (1943) First term, qc Second term, qq third term, q

Strip 1cNc  Nq
O 0.5BN

Circular 1.3cNc  Nq
O 0.3BN

Square 1.3cNc  Nq
O 0.4BN

0.5BN(1-
Rectangular cNc(1+0.3*B/L)  Nq
O
0.2*B/L) 7
 Reduction in ’ due to groundwater 8
Water pressure load (ground
1 2nd 3rd water table) effect on qf
q f = cN c +  N q + B ' N
'
o • If the groundwater is in between the ground
2 surface and the foundation level (at position (ii))
, the effective overburden is duly determined for
the 2nd term and 3rd term used ’.

 o' = γzw +  'hw ~ 2nd term

 = γ' D γ = γsat − γw
'
(i) '
o

(ii)  o' =  zw + γ' hw γ' = γsat − γw • If the groundwater is below the foundation level
o and above the passive zone (i.e within depth B
o (iii)  o= γD γ' = γsat − γw below the foundation, at position (iv)), the
effective unit weight for the 3rd term will be :
within B depth ~ 3rd term
(above passive (iv)  o= γD   D − Df
 =  sat −  w 1 −  w
' 

zone)
  B    Dw − D f 
 ' =  sat −  w 1 −  
  B 
passive zone
(below B depth)
(v)  o= γD γ' = γ
Whitlow, R.
page 464

8
a) Table of bearing capacity coefficients – for 9
b) Table of bearing capacity c) Table for Modified bearing
general shear failure (After Prandtl, coefficients – for general shear capacity coefficients
Reissner, Hansen) failure (

9
 10
1. Ultimate bearing capacity, qf and net ultimate bearing capacity, qnf
Foundations on sands and gravels (c = 0 ) Foundations on clays and silts (u = 0)
× Bearing capacity calculations should be × Skempton (1951) suggested that for
carried out in terms of effective and the an undrained saturated clay (u = 0),
the basic form of Terzaghi’s equation
previous equation becomes :
should be used, but with the values

qnf = 'o N q sq + 0.5γ'BNγ sγ - γ'D of Nc related to the shape and depth

of the foundation.
For soil  f = cu
q f = 'o N q sq + 0.5γ'BN γ sγ (since  = 0  N q = 1.0 and N γ = 0)

× However the values of ’ changes q f = cu N c + γ ' D thus giving,

depending on the position of qnf = cu N c
groundwater as given in the previous
slide. × Values of Nc may be obtained from
the chart below ~ see next slide

10
Skempton’s values for Nc for undrained conditions (for 2. Net bearing pressure (qn) = q -  o 11
clays and silts)
qn = q −  o
'

• How to calculate overburden stress, o due to net

stress effect and surcharge effect

Max value when D/B  4

Strip footing

B/L = 0 Nc= 7.5

Square or circle footing

B/L = 1 Nc= 9.0

where ;
q = contact pressure at the base of the foundation, q = P/A (kN/m2)
o = overburden pressure adjacent to the foundation OR pressure relief due to
excavation.
o =  D (if no gwt)
’o =  zw +  ’hw (with gwt above the base) 11
Ultimate Stability Design for Shallow Foundations 12

Based on the work of de Beer (1967) and Vesic

(1970), the following general expression seems
acceptable :
q f = cN c sc +  'o N q sq + 0.5γ ' BN γ sγ
qnf = cN c sc +  'o N q sq + 0.5γ' BN γ sγ - γ' D
where Nc , Nq , Nγ ~ are bearing capacity
coefficients.
sc , sq , sγ ~ are shape factors as
given in the following table.
12
Shape factors for shallow foundation 13

13
 14

Shape factors for shallow foundation

14
 3. Factor of Safety, FOS 4. Presumed bearing value 5. Allowable bearing 15
capacity
× a rock or soil for preliminary design
purpose 1) An ultimate limit state value
× the ratio between (shear strength
the net ultimate × empirical data
bearing capacity and × Consider the width of foundation, q f -  'o
the net bearing the probable settlement limits and
qa = +  'o
pressure F
local experience
qnf q f -  'o 2) A serviceability limit state

F= =
value (settlement)

qn q -  'o (a) Immediate or undrained settlement

sL Eu
qa = +  '
o
B(1 - ν 2 ) I 
(b) Consolidation or drained settlement

sL
qa = +  o'
mv ( I + 1 ) H o

15
 16

16
To be continued
“ Source: success.com
References:
1) Braja, M. D. & Nagaratnam S., “Fundamental of Geotechnical Engineering” 5th
Edition, Cengage Learning, Boston, USA, 2017.
2) Craig's “Soil Mechanics” 8th Edition, J.A. Knappett & R. F. Craig, Spoon Press,
UK, 2012.
3) Liu, C. & Evett, J. B., “ Soils and Foundations, SI Edition” Pearson Education South
Asia, Malayisa, 2005.

Acknowledgement:
1) Mrs. Faizah Kamarudin for providing Lecture Note CEG561.
17
 18

Thanks!
Any questions?
You can find me at:
masyitahmn@uitm.edu.my
013-3672330
Online attendance is recorded base upon on
students’ engagement in activity and assessment
(quizzes, test, assignments) notify/given by each
lecturer’s of group registration via Microsoft Teams
(MT) or Google Classroom (GC)
18
 CEG 561 - GEOTECHNICS
TOPIC 2

FOUNDATION
& SETTLEMENT
PART 1: SHALLOW FOOTING
SERIES 3: CALCULATION EXAMPLES ON BEARING CAPACITY OF
SHALLOW FOUNDATION

MASYITAH MD NUJID
masyitahmn@uitm.edu.my
PPKA
OPEN DISTANCE LEARNING & ACTIVITY BKBA 3.14
WEEK 5: 13 APRIL 2020 – 19 APRIL 2020 UiTMCPP
PART 1: SERIES 3

2
LEARNING OUTCOMES: STUDENTS ARE ABLE TO
CALCULATION ○ Perform empirical analyses to determine
EXAMPLES ON ultimate bearing capacity and allowable
BEARING bearing capacity of shallow foundations.
CAPACITY OF
SHALLOW
FOUNDATION LEARNING PROCESS FOR TOPIC 2
Apply-calculate/
Design
1) Calculate the loads acting on the footing
2) Obtain soil profiles along with pertinent field and
Understand laboratory measurements and testing results
3) Determine the depth and location of the footing
Define design 4) Evaluate the bearing capacity of the supporting
soil
Theory/Concept requirements 5) Determine the size of the footing
& factor 6) Compute the footing’s contact pressure and
check its stability against sliding and overturning
7) Estimate the total and differential settlements
8) Design the footing structure
Source: Soils and Foundations (Liu & Evett, 2005)
2
 Question: Example 1
A square of footing size of From Terzaghi bearing capacity factor :
1.5 m by 1.5 m is supported For  = 20 3
in a uniform deposit of soil.
Given the soil’s information N c = 17.7 N q = 7.4 N = 4.4
as seen on the slide.
Calculate; Df = 1m γ = 17.8 kN/m3
i) Ultimate bearing
capacity  ' = 20
c' = 15.2 kΝ / m 2
ii) Allowable load using
FOS = 4.0
Consider the ground water
table effect on all cases. 1.5 m X 1.5 m
F .O.S = 4.0
Case/Square Footing First term, qc Second term, qq third term, q Ultimate Bearing capacity,
(Terzaghi) 1.3cNc (kPa)  Nq = ( D) Nq (kPa)
O
0.4BN (kPa) qf (kPa)
GWT at ground surface 1.3*15.2*17.7 = 349.75 (17.8-9.81)*1*7.4 = 59.13 0.4*1.5*(17.8-9.81)*4.4 = 349.75 + 59.13 + 21.09 =
(i) 21.09 429.97

GWT at intermediate (0.5 m 1.3*15.2*17.7 = 349.75 [(17.8*0.5)+{(17.8- 0.4*1.5*(17.8-9.81)*4.4 = 349.75 + 95.42 + 21.09 =
below ground surface) (ii) 9.81)*0.5}]*7.4 = 95.42 21.09 466.26

GWT at base of foundation 1.3*15.2*17.7 = 349.75 (17.8*1)*7.4 = 131.72 0.4*1.5*(17.8-9.81)*4.4 = 349.75 + 131.72 + 21.09 =
(iii) 21.09 502.56

GWT at within B depth (above 1.3*15.2*17.7 = 349.75 (17.8*1)*7.4 = 131.72 0.4*1.5*[(17.8-9.81)[1-(1.5- 349.75 + 131.72 + 14.06 =
passive zone), Dw = 1.5 m 1.0/1.5)]*4.4 = 14.06 495.53
from ground surface
(iv)

GWT at (below passive zone) 1.3*15.2*17.7 = 349.75 (17.8*1)*7.4 = 131.72 0.4*1.5*17.8*4.4 = 46.99 349.75 + 131.72 + 46.99 =
(v) 528.46
3
 SOLUTION 1: GROUNDWATER TABLE EFFECT ON BEARING CAPACITY ANALYSIS OF
SHALLOW FOUNDATION
Case GWT at GWT at GWT at GWT at GWT at
ground intermediat base of within B
4(below
surface e (ii) foundati depth passive
(i) on (iii) (above zone)
P kN (design load transferred passive (v)
zone)
from column) (iv)

(i) gwt
zw (ii)
qf 429.97 466.26 502.56 495.53 528.46

 gwt (kPa)
qnf = qf - o 429.97 - 466.26 - 502.56 – 495.53 - 528.46 -
sat (kPa) (17.8- [(17.8*0.5) (17.8*1) (17.8*1) = (17.8*1)
9.81)*(1) +{(17.8- = 484.76 477.73 = 510.66
D hw = 421.98 9.81)*0.5}]
= 453.37
q = P/A
o ’o (iii) gwt FOS 4 4 4 4 4

qnall = qnf 421.98/4 453.37/4 = 484.76/4 477.73/4 = 510.66/4

B (iv) gwt / FOS
(kPa)
= 105.50 113.34 = 121.19 119.43 = 127.67

Area of (1.5*1.5) (1.5*1.5) = (1.5*1.5) (1.5*1.5) = (1.5*1.5)

footing , A
B (m2)
= 2.25 2.25 = 2.25 2.25 = 2.25

Net (105.50*2 (113.34*2. (121.19* (119.43*2. (127.67*

Loading, Q
.25) = 25) = 2.25) = 25) = 2.25) =
= qnall x A
237.38 255.02 272.68 268.72 287.26
passive zone
(below B depth) (v) gwt (kN)
 EXAMPLE 2
Determine the dimension of a circular footing required to carry a 5
column load of 1.4 MN at a depth of 1.2 m in cohesive frictional soil
having the following properties:

c' = 35 kN/m2 ' = 28º

dry = 17 kN/m3 sat = 19 kN/m3

Consider the water table is well below the footing and take the
factor of safety against shear failure as 2. 5.

Use Terzaghi's formula and the appropriate bearing capacity

coefficients Nc, Nq, and N as 31.6, 17.8 and 14.6 respectively.

What would be the factor of safety if the area is flooded.

5
SOLUTION 2:
6

6
 q= Q
7
Area
Q = q x Area
1.4 x 10³ = (732.608 + 29.78B) x πB²
4
23.39B3 + 575.39B² - (1.4x10³) = 0
B = 1.51 m
F.O.S (Case 1)
' = sat - w
=19 – 9.81
= 9.19 kN/m³

qu = 1.3c’Nc +σ’Nq +0.3BN

= (1.3 x 35 x 31.6) + (9.19 x 1.2 x 17.8) + (0.3 x 1. 51 x 9.19 x 14.6)
=1694.88 kN/m²
7
 8

EXAMPLE 3:
 9

SOLUTION 3:

To be continued
 10

Source: success.com
References:
1) Braja, M. D. & Nagaratnam S., “Fundamental of Geotechnical Engineering” 5th
Edition, Cengage Learning, Boston, USA, 2017.
2) Craig's “Soil Mechanics” 8th Edition, J.A. Knappett & R. F. Craig, Spoon Press,
UK, 2012.
3) Liu, C. & Evett, J. B., “ Soils and Foundations, SI Edition” Pearson Education South
Asia, Malayisa, 2005.

Acknowledgement:
1) Mrs. Faizah Kamarudin for providing Lecture Note CEG561.

8
 THANKS!
Any questions?
You can find me at
masyitahmn@uitm.edu.my
013-3672330
Online attendance is recorded base upon on students’
engagement in activity and assessment (quizzes, test,
assignments) notify/given by each lecturer’s of group
registration via Microsoft Teams (MT) or Google Classroom
(GC)

11
 CEG 561 - GEOTECHNICS
TOPIC 2

FOUNDATION & SETTLEMENT

PART 2: ESTIMATION OF SHALLOW FOUNDATION SETTLEMENT
SERIES 1: TYPES OF SETTLEMENT
OPEN DISTANCE LEARNING & ACTIVITY
WEEK 5: 13 APRIL 2020 – 19 APRIL 2020

MASYITAH MD NUJID
masyitahmn@uitm.edu.my
PPKA
BKBA 3.14
UiTMCPP
PART 2: SERIES 1
TYPES OF SETTLEMENT
LEARNING PROCESS FOR TOPIC 2

Define Understand design

Apply-calculate/design
Theory/Concept requirements & factor

LEARNING OUTCOME: AT THE END,

STUDENTS ARE ABLE TO
DEFINE OF SETTLEMENT
FOUNDATION SETTLEMENTS
TOTAL SETTLEMENT
2
 DEFINITION OF SETTLEMENTS
✘ IT IS DEFINED AS VERTICAL DOWNWARD
DISPLACEMENT AT THE BASE OF A
FOUNDATION OR OTHER STRUCTURE DUE TO
GROUND MOVEMENT.
✘ TOTAL SETTLEMENT, St = IMMEDIATE
SETTLEMENT, Si + PRIMARY CONSOLIDATION
SETTLEMENT, Sc + SECONDARY
SETTLEMENT, Ss
✘ THE CAUSE OF SETTLEMENT IS THE
REDUCTION OF VOLUME AIR VOID RATIO IN
THE SOIL St = Si + Sc + Ss
3
FOUNDATION SETTLEMENT
TYPES OF FOUNDATION
SETTLEMENT
DIFFERENTIAL SETTELEMENT
• Occurs at differing rates between different portions of a building.
• if there is difference in soils, loads, or structural systems between parts of a
building.
• Causes to the frame of the building may become distorted, floors may slope,
walls and glass may crack, and doors and windows may not work properly
• May force buildings to shift out of plumb which lead to crack initiation in
foundation, structure, or finish.
• Majority of foundation failures.
• 20mm differential settlement-conventional buildings with isolated
foundations.
• 50mm total settlement is tolerable for the same structures.

UNIFORM SETTELEMENT CAUSES OF FOUNDATION SETTLEMENT

• Occurs at nealy the same rate throughout all portions of a
building.
• If all parts of a building rest on the same kind of soil.
• Loads on the building and the design of its structural system
are uniform throughout. INDIRECT CAUSES
• Has small detrimental influence on the building safety. DIRECT • Failure of collapsible soil underground infiltration.
• It influences utility of the building for example damaging CAUSES • Yielding of excavation (adjacent to foundation)
sewer; water supply; and mains and jamming doors and • The weight of • Failure of underground tunnels and mines
building (live • Collapse of cavities of limestones
windows.
• Undermining of foundation while flood
load, dead
• Earthquake induced settlement
4 load etc)
• extraction of ground water and oil.
https://theconstructor.org/geotechnical/foundation-settlement-types-causes/6544/
THREE (3) TYPES OF COMPONENTS OF TOTAL
SETTLEMENT OF FOUNDATIONS
1) IMMEDIATE/ELASTIC
SETTLEMENT, Si
✘ It is also called short term
settlement.
✘ Immediate settlement take
place mostly in coarse
grained soils of high
permeability and in
unsaturated fine-grained
soils of low permeability.
✘ it occurs over short period of
time which about 7 days. So,
it ends during construction
time.
5
https://theconstructor.org/geotechnical/foundation-settlement-types-causes/6544/
2) PRIMARY SETTLEMENT, Sc
✘ It also termed as primary
consolidation.
✘ Take place over long period of
time that ranges from 1 to 5
years or more.
✘ Primary settlement frequently
occurs in saturated inorganic
fine grain soil.
✘ Expulsion of water from pores
of saturated fine grain soil is the
cause of primary settlement.
3) SECONDARY
SETTLEMENT, Ss
✘ Secondary settlement is the
consolidation of soil under
constant effective stress.
✘ Frequently, it occurs in organic
fine grain soil.
✘ It continues over the life span
of foundation structure similar
to creep in concrete.
6
To be continued
 Source: success.com

References:
1) Braja, M. D. & Nagaratnam S., “Fundamental of Geotechnical Engineering” 5th Edition, Cengage
Learning, Boston, USA, 2017.
2) Craig's “Soil Mechanics” 8th Edition, J.A. Knappett & R. F. Craig, Spoon Press, UK, 2012.
3) https://theconstructor.org/geotechnical/foundation-settlement-types-causes/6544/

Acknowledgement:
1) Mrs. Faizah Kamarudin for providing Lecture Note CEG561.

7
 THANKS!
Any questions?
You can find me at
masyitahmn@uitm.edu.my
013-3672330
Online attendance is recorded base upon on students’
engagement in activity and assessment (quizzes, test,
assignments) notify/given by each lecturer’s of group
registration via Microsoft Teams (MT) or Google Classroom (GC)
8
 CEG 561 - GEOTECHNICS
TOPIC 2

SHALLOW FOUNDATION
& SETTLEMENT
PART 2: ESTIMATION OF SHALLOW FOUNDATION SETTLEMENT
SERIES 2: ESTIMATION OF SHALLOW FOUNDATION SETTLEMENT BASED ON THEORY AND
FIELD TEST MEASUREMENT
MASYITAH MD NUJID
masyitahmn@uitm.edu.my
PPKA
OPEN DISTANCE LEARNING & ACTIVITY BKBA 3.14
WEEK 5: 13 APRIL 2020 – 19 APRIL 2020 UiTMCPP
PART 2: SERIES 2 ESTIMATION OF SHALLOW FOUNDATION SETTLEMENT BASED ON
THEORY & FIELD TEST MEASUREMENT

LEARNING OUTCOME: AT THE END, STUDENTS ARE ABLE TO 2

» ESTIMATE SHALLOW FOUNDATION SETTLEMENT

BASED ON THEORY
» ESTIMATE SHALLOW FOUNDATION SETTLEMENT
BASED ON FIELD TEST MEASUREMENT
Understand
Define design Apply-
Theory/Concept requirements & calculate/design
factor
ESTIMATION OF SHALLOW FOUNDATION SETTLEMENT BASED ON THEORY &
FIELD TEST MEASUREMENT
3
 METHODS OF EVALUATING IMMEDIATE SETTLEMENT
A. Settlement in soil of infinite depth
Figure 3 shows the settlement profiles under the base of a rigid and flexible foundation with the parameters of the
4
foundation and soil use in the elastic analysis of soil settlement.
 BASED ON THEORY AND FIELD MEASUREMENT TEST

SETTLEMENT TYPE OF SOIL METHOD FORMULA

5
qB(1 −  ) 2
Terzaghi
 = i I p
Skempton E u

Steinbrenner
Cohesive
  qB(1 −  ) 2

=
0 1
Janbu et al
i
IMMEDIATE
E u

De Beer & Martens H  '+  





s =
 o z 
log  

'
i  
 
C s

 o



Cohesionless
I z
S =CC p 
z
i 1 2 nett
Schmertmann
(SPT/CPT) E
6
BASED ON FIELD MEASUREMENT TEST

7
BASED ON FIELD MEASUREMENT TEST

8
BASED ON THEORY

9
BASED ON FIELD MEASUREMENT TEST

PLATE BEARING TEST 10

11
BASED ON FIELD MEASUREMENT TEST: PLATE BEARING TEST
SANDY/GRANULAR SOIL

12
SANDY/GRANULAR SOIL, for a
plate 1 ft square, thus Sf as
below:

in which Sf, and Sp are expressed in inches

and B in feet

CLAY SOIL

http://www.abuildersengineer.com/2012/11/field-plate-load-tests-foundations.html
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT)

13
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT)
14
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT)
15
 SETTLEMENTS OF LOADS ON SAND-SPT
Terzaghi et al., (1996) and Burland and Burbidge (1985)

1) Determine depth intervals of 0.76m, corresponding to the proposed footing’s

base.
2) The SPT N-values must be corrected for overburden pressure. 16
3) Compute the average corrected N-value for each boring for the sand between the footing’s base
and a depth B0.75 below the base, with B is the footing’s width (Liu & Evett, 2005)

» Normally consolidated soils and gravels

» Square footing

Source:Liu & Evett (2005), http://www.abuildersengineer.com/2012/11/design-charts-from-spt-values-for.html

 SETTLEMENTS OF LOADS ON SAND-SPT
Terzaghi et al., (1996) and Burland and Burbidge (1985)

» For values of foundation contact pressure less than the preconstruction effective overburden
pressure at the foundation’s base 17

For saturated very dense fine or silty sand, measured SPT N-values should be reduced according to
the following (Terzaghi et al., (1996) and Burland and Burbidge (1985)):
N’ = 15 + [(N-15)/2]

Source:Liu & Evett (2005) , http://www.abuildersengineer.com/2012/11/design-charts-from-spt-values-for.html To be continued

 18

Source: success.com
References:
1) Braja, M. D. & Nagaratnam S., “Fundamental of Geotechnical Engineering” 5th Edition, Cengage
Learning, Boston, USA, 2017.
2) Craig's “Soil Mechanics” 8th Edition, J.A. Knappett & R. F. Craig, Spoon Press, UK, 2012.
3) https://theconstructor.org/geotechnical/foundation-settlement-types-causes/6544/
4) http://www.abuildersengineer.com/2012/11/design-charts-from-spt-values-for.html
5) http://www.abuildersengineer.com/2012/11/field-plate-load-tests-foundations.html

Acknowledgement:
1) Mrs. Faizah Kamarudin for providing Lecture Note CEG561.
 THANKS!
Any questions?
You can find me at
masyitahmn@uitm.edu.my
013-3672330
Online attendance is recorded base upon on students’
engagement in activity and assessment (quizzes, test,
assignments) notify/given by each lecturer’s of group
registration via Microsoft Teams (MT) or Google Classroom (GC)

19
 CEG 561 - GEOTECHNICS
TOPIC 2

SHALLOW FOUNDATION &

SETTLEMENT
PART 2: ESTIMATION OF SHALLOW FOUNDATION SETTLEMENT
SERIES 3: CALCULATION EXAMPLES ON ESTIMATION OF SHALLOW FOUNDATION BASED ON
THEORY & FIELD TEST MEASUREMENT
MASYITAH MD NUJID
masyitahmn@uitm.edu.my
PPKA
OPEN DISTANCE LEARNING & ACTIVITY BKBA 3.14
WEEK 5: 13 APRIL 2020 – 19 APRIL 2020 UiTMCPP
PART 2: SERIES 3 CALCULATION EXAMPLES ON SHALLOW FOUNDATION
SETTLEMENT BASED ON THEORY & FIELD
MEASUREMENT TEST

LEARNING OUTCOME: AT THE END,

STUDENTS ARE ABLE TO
Perform empirical analyses on
estimation shallow foundation
settlement based on theory
Perform empirical analyses
on estimation shallow
foundation settlement based
on field test measurement 2

LEARNING PROCESS FOR TOPIC 2

Define Understand design

Apply-calculate/design
Theory/Concept requirements & factor
EXAMPLE 1

SOLUTION 1

3
 Example 2
Required: Given:
1. A square 3-m by 3-m rigid
The expected immediate settlement footing is resting on a deep 4
beneath the center of the footing (Liu clay deposit (infinite depth). P = 1800kN
& Evett, 2005) 2. The footing is to carry a
concentrated load of
Solution 2: 1800kN.
Immediate settlement, Foundation 3. The undrained elastic
on Clay Soil of Infinite Depth: modulus of clay (Eu) is
• Cohesive soil estimated to be 40 MPa.
• Rigid foundation 4. Assume Poisson’s ratio of
• Center the clay of 0.5. 3.0 m X 3.0 m
• Square footing
1800𝑘𝑁
• Estimated based on the linear 3∗3
(3) 1 − 0.52
𝑆𝑖 = (0.82)
theory of elasticity, Terzaghi 40 𝑋 103 𝑘𝑁/𝑚2
(1943):
Si = 0.0092m or 9.2mm
𝑞𝐵(1 − 𝜈 2 )
𝑆𝑖 = 𝐼𝑝
𝐸𝑢
Ip = Cs x  = 0.82

4
Example 4 (Secondary Settlement) (Liu & Evett, Example 3 (Primary Settlement)
2005)
Given:
Given: 5
1. Initial void ratio, eo = 1.65
1. A foundation is to be built on a sand deposit
2. Final void ratio, ef = 1.60
underlain by a highly compressible clay layer
5.0m thick. 3. Thickness layer of clay deposit,
2. The clay layer’s natural water content is 80%. H = 4m
3. Primary consolidation is estimated to be
complete in 10 years. Required:
4. Coefficient of secondary consolidation, Total primary consolidation
C=0.015 settlement
3.0 m X 3.0 m
Required:
Secondary compression settlement expected to Solution 3:
occur from 10 to 50 years after construction of the
foundation. Sc = eo – ef (H)
1+ eo
Solution 4 : Sc = 1.65 – 1.60 (4)
1+1.65
Ss = CH [log(ts/tp)] Sc = 7.5 cm
Ss = (0.015)(5m)[log(50yr/10yr)]
Ss = 0.052m
5
Example 5: Foundation Settlement based on Field
Test Measurement : Plate Bearing Test

Given:
In a plate load test conducted on cohesionless
soil, a 550 mm square test plate settles by 10 mm
under a load intensity of 0.2N/mm2. All conditions
remaining the same,

Required:
What will be settlement of 1 m square footing?
1mX1m
6
Solution 5:
Solution: All calculation are in mm unit.
Sf = 10 [100(55+30)/55(100+30)]^2
Sf = 14.13 mm

https://www.slideshare.net/KarnamBamel/numerical-problem-settlement-of-footing-plate-laod-test-
51569612
http://www.abuildersengineer.com/2012/11/field-plate-load-tests-foundations.html
Example 6: Foundation Settlement based on Field Test Measurement : CPT
Schmertmann (CPT) A footing with the size of 2 m X 2 m and the buried-depth
of 1 m below the ground surface is assumed and
analyzed, on which a load of 1600 kN is centrally applied
(Fig. 4). The subsoil stratum, with shallow stratum
composed of 4 m of clean sand with varied
relative density, is a typical soil formation from the coast
of the city of Vitoria, in the state of Espirito Santo,
southeast of Brazil, which is influenced by the
transgression/regression marine phenomena that
occurred in Quaternaries’ period.
The results of 6 mechanical CPTs (CPT01, CPT02,
CPT03, CPT04, CPT05, CPT06), with 0.2 m limit interval
data, are hypothetically assumed to be available in the
region, which is represented by the shown subsoil
stratum. For Schmertmann (1970)’s equation, the
sublayer thickness was set to 0.2 m, therefore, 20
sublayers were used in the calculation. To account for
soil variability in this region, CPT data are analyzed
firstly. For each sublayer, the mean (qci) and variance
I z (V(qci)) values are calculated and presented in Table 1.
S =CC p 
z
i 1 2 nett
After that, the deformability modulus is estimated for
E each sublayer through the adopted empirical
correlation(s). Here, it is assumed that only one
correlation is used, which is given by Schmertmann
(Bungenstab & Bicalho, 2016) (1970)’s equation:
7
SOLUTION 6

(Bungenstab & Bicalho, 2016)

8
Example 7: Foundation Settlement of Loads on Sand-
SPT

Given:
1. A square footing 3m by 3m
2. Located Df = 1.5m below ground level
3. Constructed on sand, unit weight = 18.30kN/m3 Overburden pressure,
4. Arithmetic mean of the SPT-N values measured pc = (Df*s )
within the zone of influence is 30.
Required: 3.0 m X 3.0 m
Allowable soil pressure (qs)/ gross bearing pressure
(qs) of footing for a settlement of 25 mm. A value of
tolerance settlement value of Sc = 16mm
Solution 7:
Assume the foundation contact pressure (qs) is Sc = 16mm
greater than the preconstruction effective overburden B = 3m
pressure (pc) at the foundation's base with the Navg = 30
pc = 27.45 kN/m2 = (1.5 x 18.30)
equation:
16 mm = (3m)0.75 (1.7/301.4)[qs-(0.67*27.45)]
qs = 501 kN/m2
9
 Source: success.com
References:
1) Braja, M. D. & Nagaratnam S., “Fundamental of Geotechnical
Engineering” 5th Edition, Cengage Learning, Boston, USA, 2017.
2) Craig's “Soil Mechanics” 8th Edition, J.A. Knappett & R. F.
Craig, Spoon Press, UK, 2012.
3) Liu, C. & Evett, J. B., “ Soils and Foundations, SI Edition”
Pearson Education South Asia, Malayisa, 2005.
10
4) 4) Bungenstab, F. C. & Bicalho, K. V., “Settlement predictions
of footings on sands using probabilistic analysis” Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016), p.198-
203.
5) https://www.slideshare.net/KarnamBamel/numerical-problem-
settlement-of-footing-plate-laod-test-51569612
6) http://www.abuildersengineer.com/2012/11/field-plate-load-
tests-foundations.html

Acknowledgement:
1) Mrs. Faizah Kamarudin for providing Lecture Note CEG561.
 THANKS!
Any questions?
11

You can find me at:

masyitahmn@uitm.edu.my
013-3672330
Online attendance is recorded base upon on students’
engagement in activity and assessment (quizzes, test,
assignments) notify/given by each lecturer’s of group
registration via Microsoft Teams (MT) or Google
Classroom (GC)