LRFD Design of

Shallow Foundations
Nominal Geotechnical
Resistances
 ASD Failure Modes
 Overall Stability
 Bearing Capacity
 Settlement
 Sliding
 Overturning
Nominal Geotechnical
Resistances
 LRFD Service Limit State
 Overall Stability
 Vertical (Settlement) and Horizontal
Movements
 LRFD Strength Limit State
 Bearing Resistance
 Sliding
 Eccentricity Limits (Overturning)
Service Limit State

Global Stability

Stabilize Destabilize
Global Stability Factor of Safety
– Method of Slices

WT
N tan f WT
cl N tan f
l cl
T l
N T
a WT N
WT a
T
T
Resistance Factors
ASD Factors of Safety
Slope Supports
Soil/Rock Parameters and Abutment or
Ground Water Conditions Other
Based On: Structure?
Yes No
In-situ or Laboratory Tests and
1.5 1.3
Measurements
No Site-specific Tests 1.8 1.5

LRFD
Stability Wrap-Up
 Unfactored loads
 Service Limit State
 Applied stress must be limited
 Footings supported in a slope
 f ≤ 0.65 (FS ≥ 1.5)
 Stress criteria for stability can control
footing design
Service Limit State Design –
Settlement
 Cohesive Soils
 Evaluate Using Consolidation Theory
 Cohesionless Soils
 Evaluate Using Empirical or Other Conventional
Methods
 Hough Method
Impact on Structures
Settlement of Granular vs.
Cohesive Soils
 Relative importance of settlement
components for different soil types
 Elastic
 Primary Consolidation
 Secondary Settlement (Creep)
Settlement of Granular vs.
Cohesive Soils
 Structural effects of settlement
components
 Include Transient Loads if Drained
Loading is Expected and for Computing
Initial Elastic Settlement
 Transient Loads May Be Omitted When
Computing Consolidation Settlement of
Cohesive Soils
Hough Method
Settlement of Cohesionless Soils
Stress
Below
Footing

Boussinesq
Pressure
Isobars
Nominal Bearing Resistance at
Service Limit State

For a constant value

of settlement

Rn

Bf
Eccentricity of Footings on Soil

L
B
P
ML P
MB

eB = MB / P
eL = M L / P e
B eL
B’
L’
Effective Dimensions for
Footings on Soil
 B′ = B – 2eB
 L′ = L – 2eL
L
B

ML P
MB

e
B eL
B’
L’
Applied Stress Beneath Effective
Footing Area

L
B

ML P
MB

e
B eL
B’
L’
q
Stress Applied to Soil
Strip Footing
Footings on Rock
Trapezoidal Distribution
Footings on Rock
Triangular Distribution
Use of Eccentricity and Effective
Footing Dimensions
 Service Limit State
 Nominal Bearing Resistance Limited by
Settlement
 Strength Limit State
 Nominal Bearing Resistance Limited by Bearing
Resistance
 Prevent Overturning
 All Applicable Limit States
Strength Limit State
Bearing Resistance
Strength Limit State Design –
Bearing Resistance
 Footings on Soil
 Evaluate Using Conventional Bearing Theory
 Footings on Rock
 Evaluate Using CSIR Rock Mass Rating Procedure
 Bearing Resistance Mechanism

Ground
Surface sv =  Df

Df B
3 b’ 1 b 3
B>Df
2 2
d’ a d
e = C + s’ tan f
Soil Shear Strength

b’ I b
c c
a
Pp Pp
Table 10.5.5.2.1-1 Resistance Factors for Geotechnical Resistance of Shallow
Foundations at the Strength Limit State

METHOD/SOIL/CONDITION RESISTANCE FACTOR

Theoretical method (Munfakh, et al. (2001), in clay 0.50
Theoretical method (Munfakh, et al. (2001), in sand,
0.50
using CPT
Theoretical method (Munfakh, et al. (2001), in sand,
Bearing 0.45
b using SPT
Resistance
Semi-empirical methods (Meyerhof), all soils 0.45
Footings on rock 0.45
Plate Load Test 0.55
Precast concrete placed on sand 0.90
Cast-in-Place Concrete on sand 0.80

Cast-in-Place or precast Concrete on Clay 0.85
Sliding
Soil on soil 0.90
Passive earth pressure component of sliding
ep 0.50
resistance
Footings on Rock
 Service Limit State – use published
presumptive bearing
 Published values are allowable
therefore settlement-limited
 Procedures for computing settlement
are available
Footings on Rock –
Strength Limit State

 Very little guidance available for

bearing resistance of rock
 Proposed Specification revisions
provide for evaluating the cohesion and
friction angle of rock using the CSIR
Rock Mass Rating System
CSIR Rock Mass Rating System
 CSIR Rock Mass Rating developed for
tunnel design
 Includes life safety considerations and
therefore, margin of safety
 Use of cohesion and friction angle
therefore may be conservative
LRFD vs. ASD
 All modes are expressly checked at a
limit state in LRFD
 Eccentricity limits replace the
overturning Factor of Safety
 Width vs. Resistance - ASD
Shear Failure Settlement
controls controls
Bearing Pressure (kPa)

800

600

400

0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Footing width, B (m)
Allowable Bearing Capacity, FS = 3.0
Bearing Pressure for 25-mm (1in) settlement
Settlement vs. Bearing
Resistance
12

10

N=30
8
N=25
qa, ksf

6 N=20

N=15
4
N=10
2
N=5
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

B, ft
 Width vs. Resistance - LRFD

35
Resistance (ksf)
Nominal Bearing

25

15

0 4 8 12 16 20
Effective Footing width, B’ (m)
Strength Limit State
Service Limit State
Recommended Practice
 For LRFD design of footings on soil
and rock;
 Size footings at the Service Limit State
 Check footing at all other applicable Limit States
 Settlement typically controls!
Summary Comparison of ASD
and LRFD for Spread Footings
 Same geotechnical theory used to
compute resistances, however
 As per Limit State concepts,
presentation of design
recommendations needs to be modified
Strength Limit State Resistance Factors
RESISTANCE
METHOD/SOIL/CONDITION FACTOR
Bearing f All methods, soil and rock 0.45
Resistance

Plate Load Test 0.55

Sliding f Precast concrete placed

0.90
on sand
Cast-in-Place Concrete on
0.80
sand
Clay 0.85
Soil on soil 0.90
fep Passive earth pressure
component of sliding 0.50
resistance