Fundamentals of Foundation Design

Foundation Engineering Course

Faculty of Technology
CEPT University
 PURPOSE OF FOUNDATION

 To distribute load of structure on soil

 To load soil strata evenly, to prevent unequal
settlement
 To take structure deep into ground for stability,
preventing overturning
PURPOSE OF FOUNDATION
Lloyd Estate, Wadala, Mumbai, Cave-in of micro-
pile with rock anchor system
Failure in Istanbul

Failure -2
 PURPOSE OF FOUNDATION

Rare Foundation Failure of a Building in Shanghai, China

Dr. N. Subramanian, Consulting Engineer, Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA
NBM&CW AUGUST 2009
PURPOSE OF FOUNDATION
PURPOSE OF FOUNDATION
FACTORS AFFECTING DESIGN OF FOUNDATION
 Soil Exploration
 Choice of type of Foundation
 Foundation depth
 Bearing Capacity of Soil
 Loads to be considered for foundation design
 Permissible Settlement
 Determination of Contact Pressure
 Assessing Corrosion potential of soil
 Effect of Water table location and fluctuation
 Environmental Consideration
 Stability against sliding and overturning
 Constructability
FACTORS AFFECTING DESIGN OF FOUNDATION

Soil Exploration:
 A fairly accurate assessment of the characteristics and
engineering properties of the soils at a site is essential for
proper design and construction of foundation.
 Comparatively, cost of soil exploration is a very small
fraction of over cost of any construction project and
should never be neglected. (Cost is about 0.1-0.5 % of
total cost of project.)
 CHOICE OF TYPE OF FOUNDATION
Types of Foundation

Shallow Foundation Deep Foundation

(D ≤ B – Constructed by (D > B – Can not be constructed
open excavation) by open excavation)

Combined Footing Raft Foundation

Spread Footing
•Strip footing •Rectangular footing
•Isolated Column footing •Trapezoidal footing
•Strap footing

• Pile Foundation
Piled Raft Foundation • Well Foundation
FACTORS AFFECTING DESIGN OF FOUNDATION
Foundation depth:

 Foundation depth shall be decided based on data

collected from soil investigation carried out.
 Generally, foundation depth will be the depth at which
required safe bearing capacity is available.
 However, Footing should always be carried below :
o Top organic soil, filled up soil (landfill), debris, garbage or
muck.
o If the thickness of the top unsuitable soil for resting
foundation is large, two alternatives are available:
FACTORS AFFECTING DESIGN OF FOUNDATION
Foundation depth:

Alternatives when top soil is unsuitable for resting

foundation for large depth
FACTORS AFFECTING DESIGN OF FOUNDATION
Foundation depth:

 Footing should be taken below the depth of frost

penetration.
 The damage due to frost action is caused by the volume
change of water in the soil at freezing temperatures.
 In India, frost is not a problem except in very few areas
of Himalayan region.
 Frost depth – 0.3 to 0.8 m
 FOUNDATION DEPTH
 Footing should be taken below the possible depth of
erosion due to surface water runoff.
 In case of expansive soil, footing should be taken below
zone of high volume change due to moisture fluctuation.
 Footing on sloping ground be constructed with a
sufficient edge distances (minimum 60-90 cm) for
protecting against erosion.
 BEARING CAPACITY OF SOIL
 Bearing capacity should be determined based on recommendations of IS 6403,
considering data collected from site investigations carried out and field-
laboratory tests results.
 Wherever possible bearing capacity calculations shall be made on the basis of
 Shear strength parameters ‘c’ and ‘Φ’ obtained from appropriate shear tests [IS
:2720 ( Parts XI and XIII)]
 Permissible settlement criteria
 Standard penetration test data/Static Cone Penetration Test
 Plate load test results as given in IS: 1888
 Static cone penetration resistance qc obtained from static cone penetration test
as per IS:4968(part-III).
 Generally, bearing capacity should be determined at different depth and for
different sizes of footings, rather than using single value for any size of
foundation.
 FACTORS AFFECTING DESIGN OF FOUNDATION
 Increase in allowable pressure in soils : When earthquake forces
are included, the allowable bearing pressure in soils shall be
increased as per Table 1, IS:1893 depending upon type of foundation
of the structure and the type of soil.
 Generally, for piles resting on rock or hard soil strata or for raft
foundation resting on any soil, 50% increase in Bearing capacity
 For isolated footing on medium soil (N- 10-30 ), 25% increase in
Bearing capacity and no increase on foundation on soft soil (N<10 ).
 Sandy soil (SP) with N<15-10 should be checked for possible
liquefaction
 Marine clays and other sensitive clays are also known to liquefy due
to collapse of soil structure and will need special treatment
according to site condition.
LOADS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN

 Dead Load
 Live Load
 Wind Load
 Earthquake
 Horizontal Pressures Below Grade
 Uplift
 Any other load, due to water, snow, traffic,
etc.
LOADS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN

 For checking whether foundation pressure is ≤ Safe

bearing capacity or for calculation of immediate
settlement, DL + Max. LL shall be considered.
 However for calculations of long term consolidation
settlement, DL + 50% of max. LL shall be considered.
 Depending upon type of structure and its location,
appropriate earthquake loads and wind loads may be
considered.
 SETTLEMENT CALCULATION
 Maximum settlement of individual footings and differential
settlements are to be calculated as per guidelines of IS:8009 and
shall be checked with permissible settlement as per IS:1904, as
mentioned in Table below:

Footing type Total Differential Angular

Settlement rotation
Isolated footings
Steel 50 mm 0.0033L 1/300
R.C.C. 50 mm 0.0015L 1/666
Raft foundation
Steel 75 mm 0.003L 1/300
R.C.C. 75 mm 0.002L 1/500
 SETTLEMENTS OF FOUNDATIONS

NO SETTLEMENT TOTAL SETTLEMENT DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT

Uniform settlement is usually of little consequence in a building, but differential

settlement can cause severe structural damage
 DETERMINATION OF CONTACT PRESSURE

 Contact Pressure is the reactive pressure offered by the soil on

the foundation, at the interface between the foundation and
the soil, against the loads transmitted to the soil through the
foundation.

 Required to determine its distribution in order to design

Foundation structurally.

 Contact pressure distribution will depend upon i) flexibility or

rigidity of the footing, ii) the type of soil and it can be
determined only by soil-structure interaction, involving elastic
properties of both soil and foundation system.
 DETERMINATION OF CONTACT PRESSURE

 A perfectly flexible footing is one that cannot withstand any

bending moment or shear force. (flexural rigidity, EI = 0)
Physically very thin member represent the case of prefect
flexibility.
 A perfectly rigid footing is one that can withstand enormous
bending moment or shear force with negligible deflection. (EI ≈
α ). Physically, a very thick block represents the case of perfect
rigidity.
 Rigid foundation settles uniformly under a load
 Flexible foundation closely follows theoretical settlement profile
of soil.
DETERMINATION OF CONTACT PRESSURE

Rigid

Rigid

Flexible
Rigid
DETERMINATION OF CONTACT PRESSURE

Rigid
Flexible
Uniform Settlement

Cohesive soil

Cohesionless soil
DETERMINATION OF CONTACT PRESSURE

Flexible
Flexible

Clay - Settlement

Cohesionless soil-
Settlement
DETERMINATION OF CONTACT PRESSURE

Uniform Settlement

Uniform Pressure
 DETERMINATION OF CONTACT PRESSURE

• Assumption of uniform pressure is true for small isolated

footings
• But for large combined footings, raft, etc. actual pressure
distribution will be different.
• In such cases, actual contact pressure must be determined
using flexural rigidity of footing/structure, stiffness of soil and
loading pattern. This is what is known as Soil-Structure
Interaction.
 Assessing Corrosion potential of soil

 Corrosion is a major problem affecting durability of underground

structures such as pipelines, liquid storage tanks, foundations for
transmission line towers, bridges, buildings, etc.
 Service life and durability of these structures depend mainly on
their corrosion resistance.
 As soil plays a very important role in accelerating the corrosion of
buried structures, soil characterization to ascertain its corrosion
potential must be conducted.
 Based on these findings, suitable measures such as coating,
backfilling, cathodic protection, Cement content in concrete,
increased cover to reinforcement, etc. can be recommended to
protect the underground structures from corrosion.
 Assessing Corrosion potential of soil
 Corrosion is an electrochemical process
Electrochemical reaction
 Certain conditions must exist for the
corrosion to occur, which is also termed as Metallic connection
functioning of the “corrosion cell”,
Electric current
 For functioning of this cell, metal or metals
with at least two energy levels, an
electrolyte (such as soil, water or concrete) Corrosion
and a conductor must be present.
 The metal that gives up energy (anode)
corrodes, while the metal that receives
energy (cathode) maintains its form.
 The driving force behind this cell is a
potential difference between the anode and
the cathode. Cathode Anode
Electrolyte (Soil)
 The potential difference gets created due to
the contact of different soils, In order to prevent formation of the corrosion
inhomogeneities in metal etc. cell and flow of electric current,
 When corrosion cell functions properly, One of the four necessary components –
current flows from anode to cathode, anode, cathode, electrolyte and metallic
through the electrolyte. This flow causes conductor must be absent
corrosion of the anode.
 Assessing Corrosion potential of soil

 Soil acts as an electrolyte in corrosion cell

 Therefore its properties play a crucial role in accelerating the
corrosion process.
 Properties of soils such as electrical resistivity, pH, moisture
content, porosity, sulphate and chlorides content, presence of
micro-organism, temperature, etc. are important.
 Based on extensive research, guidelines have been developed for
Assessment of Corrosion Potential of soil.
 Based on different soil characteristics, a certain rating (R1 to R6)
for the soils has been assigned and the sum of these ratings is a
measure of the overall soil corrosivity.
 Assessing Corrosion potential of soil

Rating based on the soil fraction

Soil fraction % by weight R1

Clay & silt <10 +4
10 to 30 +2
30 to 50 0
50 to 80 -2
>80 -4
Organic matter, e.g. muddy or
swampy soils: peat, mud, marsh >5 -12
Severely polluted: due to fuel ash,
slag coal, coke, refuse, rubbish or - -12
waste water
 Assessing Corrosion potential of soil

Rating based on the electrical resistivity

Resistivity (.m) R2
>500 +4
200 to 500 +2
50 to 200 0
20 to 50 -2
Rating based on the pH
10 to 20 -4
<10 -6 pH R3
>9 +2
5.5 to 9 0
4.0 to 5.5 -1
<4 -3
 Assessing Corrosion potential of soil

Rating Based on the ground water status

Ground water status R4

No groundwater 0 Rating based on the Sulphite content
Groundwater -1
Sulphite content (g/l) R5
Groundwater at times -2
<0.15 0
0.15 to 1 -2
Rating based on the chloride content 1 to 2 -4
>2 -6
Chloride content (ppm) R6
<100 0
100-2000 -2
2000-10000 -4
>10000 -6
 Assessing Corrosion potential of soil

 Chlorides can promote the corrosion of embedded steel

reinforcement bars if present in sufficiently high concentration.
 The sulphate ions react with hydrated calcium aluminate and/or the
calcium hydroxide components of the hardened cement paste in the
presence of water.
 The products resulting from these reactions have a very much high
volume than the solid reactants and, as a consequence, stresses that
are produced may result in breakdown of the concrete and hence
exposing the reinforcement.
 Also, in the presence of anaerobic sulphate reducing bacteria,
sulphates can be converted to highly corrosive sulphides (S-2).
Sulphide ions react with metal surface allowing the corrosion to
occur.
 Assessing Corrosion potential of soil

Total assessment of the corrosion potential

Summation of
Corrosion potential
R1- R6, R
0 Virtually not corrosive
-1 to –4 Slightly corrosive
-5 to –10 Corrosive
< -10 Highly corrosive
 Assessing Corrosion potential of soil
Properties of the soils used in the study

Property SS ST BC WC MC
Specific Gravity 2.65 2.80 2.65 2.63 2.78
Particle Size Characteristics
% fraction: - 26 1 - 12
Coarse sand (4.75-2.0 mm) 32 25 10 - 3
Medium sand (2.0-0.425 mm) 68 5 9 - 9
Fine sand (0.425-0.075 mm) - 40 27 46 44
Silt (0.075-0.002 mm) - 4 53 54 32
Clay (<0.002 mm)

Consistency Limits
Liquid Limit (%) - 44 73 54 61
Plastic limit (%) - 29 31 28 37
Plasticity index (%) - 15 42 26 24
Shrinkage limit (%) - 23 18 25 18
USCS Soil Classification SP ML CH CH MH
Mineralogical Composition Quartz Albite Quartz, Kaolinite, Anorthite,
Anorthite Mullite Illite Quartz
Ferroselite Muscovite Montmorillonite
Assessing Corrosion potential of soil

Soil R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R Comments

Non-
SS +4 +2 0 0 0 0 +6
corrosive
ST 0 -2 0 0 0 0 -2
Slightly
BC -2 -2 0 0 0 0 -4
corrosive
WC -4 0 0 0 0 0 -4
Highly
MC -2 -6 0 0 -6 -6 -20
corrosive
 Effect of Water table location and fluctuation
 Where deep excavation is necessary for the construction of a
foundation structure, below water table, suitable measures for
dewatering shall be adopted.
 If the groundwater table is located at a sufficient depth (> width of
foundation) below the base of the footing, there will be no
reduction in bearing capacity of soil.
 However, if the water table at any time of the year will be above
this level, there will be reduction in bearing capacity.
 Further, uplift force due to hydrostatic head shall be considered for
the design of raft or underground tanks.
 Alternate wetting and drying can cause pose problems for durability
of foundation
 (Certain salts, such as sodium carbonate, may cause surface
disintegration by crystallizing in the pores of the concrete).
 Moreover, alternate wetting and drying can pose very serious
 Environmental Consideration

 Now days, with much awareness and concern about

environmental protection and sustainable development,
enough care should be taken during design-construction of
foundation. Issues which can be considered are as
mentioned below:
 Noise due to vibration
 Air pollution due to excavation
 Pollution of ground water
 Effect of river & marine structure on aquatic life
 Possibility of land slide
 Use of sustainable materials for foundation construction
 Stability against sliding and overturning

 For structures resisting lateral pressures such as retaining walls,

bridge abutments or tall structures, stability against sliding and
overturning is required to be checked.

Relieve water pressure

– Crushed stone
– Weeps
Overturning
– Cantilevered Footing
– Reinforcing
Sliding
– Key
 Constructability
 While selecting type of foundation, suitability of methodology to
be adopted for construction of foundation and availability of
manpower-equipment can be considered.

 Depending upon type and location of the project, atmospheric

conditions, tender conditions, etc. Choice of type of foundation
can differ.

 Safety aspects and Availability of time can also be considered.

 Impact on surrounding structures
Safeguarding sides of Excavation

 Benching
 Sheet pile wall
 Diaphragm wall
 Secant Pile wall
 Deep mixing
 Soil Nailing
Benched Excavation
 Sheet Pile Wall
(IS 9427-3, IS:2314)
 Sheet piles may be used to retain the sides of cuts
made in earth
Diaphragm wall
Diaphragm wall
Secant Pile wall
Secant Pile wall
Deep Mixing:
Application of Deep Soil Mixing:
 Bracing

 Crosslot

 Rackers

 Tiebacks
 Tieback Installation

 Rotary Drill Hole

 Insert & Grout Tendons

 Tendons Stressed & Anchored

Soil Nailing
 Beam on Elastic Foundation : Winkler Model
 Winkler published paper on laws of Elasticity & strength (1867)
 Model continuous elastic foundation as a set of springs
 Reaction from the spring is taken as being proportional to
deflection of spring
 Beam on Elastic Foundation : Winkler Model
 q = contact pressure
 q = ky
 k = k0B
 k0 = elastic spring constant or modulus of subgrade reaction
(kN/m3) = pressure required for unit deformation
 B = width of footing

Settlement = 1.25 mm
 Beam on Elastic Foundation : Winkler Model
Soil K0 (kN/m3)
Loose Sand (N<10) 4800-16000
Medium Dense Sand (N=10-30 ) 9600-80000
Dense Sand (N>30) 64000-128000
Clayey medium dense sand 32000-80000
Silty medium dense sand 24000-48000
Clayey soil
qa <200 kN/m2 12000-24000
200 < qa <800 kN/m2 24000-48000
qa >800 kN/m2 >48000
Infinite Beam on Elastic Foundation & Loaded at Centre

λx

λx

λx

λx
 Infinite Beam on Elastic Foundation & Loaded at Centre

For continuous beam (infinite length, differential equation

of elastic curve of beam on elastic support is given by:

EI = flexural rigidity of beam

y = deflection at that point
q = intensity of pressure per unit length of beam
x = distance from point of origin
k = spring constant = k0B
 Infinite Beam on Elastic Foundation & Loaded at Centre
With notation,

λ = dimension L-1 λx = dimensionless (radian)

λL < 0.8 - rigid footing
λL > 3 – flexible footing

General solution for y of differential equation for x≥0

Where

Aλx = e-λx (sinλx+cosλx)

Bλx = e-λx sinλx
Cλx = e-λx(cosλx - sinλx)
Dλx = e-λx cosλx
 SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION

 Conventional Method  Soil Structure Interaction

 Results of G+5 Storey Building
COMPARISON OF COLUMN AXIAL
FORCE

Soft Soil Medium Soil Hard Soil

Column Fix 5 Mpa Fix 275.5. Mpa 100 Mpa 50 Mpa Fix 1000 Mpa
A-1 1533.2 2132.9 1458.4 1489.8 1536.4 1598.9 1458.4 1468.9
G-1 1419.0 1623.0 1419.1 1449.0 1483.4 1518.4 1419.1 1430.9
L-1 1454.1 2088.4 1378.4 1413.0 1463.9 1531.9 1378.4 1389.9
C-2 1819.0 1736.2 1825.5 1816.8 1814.2 1808.4 1825.5 1818.5
G-2 1504.8 820.9 1494.3 1434.4 1347.3 1249.0 1494.3 1478.0
J-2 1745.4 1652.5 1752.5 1741.4 1735.2 1725.7 1752.5 1745.0
A-3 1568.7 1925.0 1562.5 1592.3 1639.1 1694.5 1562.5 1570.6
C-3 1448.4 1233.1 1437.3 1424.5 1395.9 1360.7 1437.3 1435.4
G-3 1483.6 1115.5 1462.6 1440.3 1400.9 1351.6 1462.6 1457.3
J-3 1389.4 1174.0 1379.1 1363.1 1330.5 1292.2 1379.1 1376.4
% Change in Column Axial Force from Fix Based Condition

Max. % Change is @ 62% for soft soil

 Results of 12 Storey Building

COMPARISON OF COLUMN AXIAL FORCE

Soft Soil Medium Soil Hard Soil

Column Fix 5 Mpa Fix 275.5 Mpa 100 Mpa 50 Mpa Fix 1000 Mpa
A-1 3488.4 7405.0 3542.3 3845.0 4389.7 4948.7 3531.0 3611.2
G-1 3601.5 6032.1 3422.9 3732.0 4327.1 4830.8 3338.9 3408.7
L-1 3323.7 7394.7 3373.2 3663.2 4280.2 4864.8 3363.0 3449.5
C-2 3997.2 2903.4 3920.4 3779.3 3542.7 3730.8 4104.0 4069.1
G-2 3580.4 560.0 3553.3 3203.3 2856.5 1984.3 3448.9 3376.2
J-2 3861.2 2720.1 3784.0 3663.7 3384.0 3558.8 3963.2 3926.4
A-3 3697.3 5350.2 3620.3 3845.1 4384.7 4602.7 3557.6 3628.5
C-3 3310.3 1032.3 3369.9 3193.5 2780.2 2324.1 3395.6 3352.2
G-3 3391.7 672.0 3444.4 3235.7 2719.3 2276.7 3456.6 3377.7
J-3 3196.9 864.5 3255.6 3077.0 2637.2 2172.7 3285.5 3239.3
% Change in Column Axial Force from Fix Based Condition

Max. % Change is @ 152% for soft soil

 COMPARISON OF TIME PERIOD
G+5 STOREY BUILDING

Soft Soil Medium Soil Hard Soil

1000
Fix 5 Mpa Fix 275.5 Mpa 100 Mpa 50 Mpa Fix Mpa
1.681 2.111 1.754 1.771 1.792 1.821 1.754 1.761
COMPARISON OF STOREY SHEAR (X-DIR.)
 RESULTS OF 12 STOREY BUILDING

Soft Soil Medium Soil Hard Soil

1000
Fix 5 Mpa Fix 275.5 Mpa 100 Mpa 50 Mpa Fix Mpa
2.473 3.685 2.582 2.622 2.525 2.569 2.595 2.611
Comparison of Storey Shear (X-Dir.)
 Comparison of Storey Shear

For G+5 Storey Building For G+12 Storey Building

 For Soft Soil: 7.2 % difference  For Soft Soil: 62% difference

 For Medium Soil: 2.5 %  For Medium Soil: 12.6 %

difference difference

 For Hard Soil: 0.8 % difference  For Hard Soil: 1.09% difference
 Summary
 SSI is not significant for cases of flexible structures on stiff
soil deposits
 SSI can be quite significant for stiff structures founded on
soft soils
 Fundamental period of soil-structure system is longer than
that of fixed-base structure
 Effective damping of soil-structure system is higher than
damping of structure alone
 Total displacements can be increased by SSI – can be
important for closely-spaced tall structures
 Neglecting SSI is equivalent to assuming the structure is
supported on rigid materials