FOUNDATIONS

Function of a FOUNDATION
 To transfer the load of the
superstructure to the underlying soil
formation without overstressing the
soil
 The structure is only as strong as the
ground on which it is built. The supporting
ground is the ultimate structure on which
all the building or structure loads are
transmitted.
 Foundation distress or FAILURE is defined
in terms of
1. the serious loss of functionality for which
the structure or substructure was originally
intended
2. The increased potential risk to life and
property brought about by the causative
condition
 SAFE FOUNDATION DESIGN
provides for a suitable factor
against
1. Shear failure of the soil
2. Excessive settlement
 Definition of Key Terms
 FOUNDATION – is a structure that transmits
loads to the underlying soils
 FOOTING – is a foundation consisting of a small
slab for transmitting the structural load to the
underlying soil
 SHALLOW FOUNDATION – is one in which the
ratio of the embedment depth to the minimum
plan dimension, which is usually the width, is
Df/B < 2.5
 EMBEDMENT DEPTH (Df) – is the depth below
the ground surface where the base of the
foundation rests
 ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY – is the
maximum pressure that the soil can support
 Definition of Key Terms
 ULTIMATE NET BEARING CAPACITY (qult) – is
the maximum pressure that the soil can support
above its current overburden pressure
 ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY OR SAFE
BEARING CAPACITY (qa) – is the working
pressure that would ensure a margin of safety
against collapse of the structure from shear
failure. The allowable bearing capacity is usually a
fraction of the ultimate net bearing capacity
 FACTOR OF SAFETY (FS) – is the ratio of the
ultimate net bearing capacity to the allowable
bearing capacity or to the applied maximum
vertical stress.
 LIMIT EQUILIBRIUM
 The bearing capacity equations that are
in general use in engineering practice
were derived using an analytical method
called the limit equilibrium method
 Essential Steps
1. Selection of plausible failure mechanism
or failure
2. Determination of the forces acting on the
failure surface
3. Use of the equilibrium equations in static
to determine the collapse or failure load
 The moment equilibrium equation is
B
Pu     S u B  B  0
2

and the collapse load is

Pu  6.28 BS u
 Taking moments about O

 B
Pu   R cos     S u     2  R  R  0
 2
Rearranging
S u     2  R  R S u    2  R
Pu  
 B  B 
 R cos     Cos   
 2  2R 
 Findthe least load that will produce
collapse
Pu 4 S u R   2  R cos   B 
 0
R  2 R cos  B  2

Pu 4S u R 2  B  2 R cos   R sin   2 R sin  

 0
  2 R cos   B  2

and the collapse load is

Pu  5.52 BS u
 Prandtl’s Theory (1920)
 Prandtl’s theory of plastic equilibrium
reflects on the penetration (deformation)
effects of hard objects (i.e. rigid concrete
footing) into much softer material
 Assumptions
1. Infinitely long footing (L/B > 5)
2. Smooth at the interface of footing and
soil
3. Load is applied at the very surface of the
soil
4. Soil is a semi-infinite, homogeneous,
isotropic, weightless rigid-plastic material
 PRANDTL’S THEORY FOR
ULTIMATE BAERING CAPACITY
 The ultimate bearing capacity of a
soil based on Prandtl’s theory is
given by
     tan  
qu  c cot   tan 2 45  e  1
  2 
Shortcoming: If c = 0, qu will also be zero;
equation not applicable to
cohesionless soils
 Taylor’s Bearing Capacity Equation
 Taylor added a term to account for
the shear strength induced by the
overburden pressure
 B         tan  
qu  c cot   tan 45    tan 2 45  e  1
 2  2    2 
Shortcoming: Equation falls short as a reasonable
formula for predicting a qu that
gives results consistent with
observations.
BEARING CAPACITY BASED ON RANKINE WEDGES
 RANKINE WEDGES
 For the active case, wedge I
1
P  K a H 2  2cH K a  qu K a H
2

 
K a  tan  45  
2

 2
 RANKINE WEDGES
 For the passive case, wedge II

1
P  K p H 2  2cH Kp  qK p H
2

 
K p  tan  45  
2

 2
 RANKINE WEDGES
 The two resultants are assumed to
have the same magnitude. Hence,
1 1
K a H 2  2cH K a  qu K a H  K p H 2  2cH Kp  qK p H
2 2

1  1
qu  H 
2  Ka

 K p  K a  
2c
Ka
 
K p  K a  qK p
2


 RANKINE WEDGES

1 B B
Kp  and H


Ka  2 Ka
2 tan  45  
 2

1 3/ 2
 1
 
1/ 2
qu  BK p K p  K p  2cK p K p  K p
4
1 / 2
 qK p
2

1
4

qu  B K p  K p
5/ 2 1/ 2
  3/ 2
 2c K p  K p
1/ 2

 qK p
2
 RANKINE WEDGES
Let

1
5/ 2
N  K p  K p
2
1/ 2
 ,
1
 3/ 2
Nc  K p  K p
2
1/ 2
 , Nq  K p
2

The basic form of the general bearing capacity is

1
qu  cN c  qN q  BN 
2
TERZAGHI’S BEARING CAPACITY THEORY
 B

qa

a b

c  c

 Pp 
Pp
TERZAGHI’S BEARING CAPACITY THEORY
 Terzaghi expanded on Prandtl’s theory
 Assumptions
1. Effects of weight of the soil above the footer
(bottom) level were included
2. General shape of the various zones to remain
unchanged
3. The angle that the wedge faced forms with the
horizontal to be rather than the (45 + /2)
4. Strip footing of infinite extent and unit width
5. Rough base surface
6. Neglected shear resistance of the soil above the
base of the footing, accounted for the effects of
the soil weight by superimposing an equivalent
surcharge load q=D
 Downward load is resisted by the
forces of the inclined faces of the
wedge. These forces consist of the
cohesion and the resultant of the
passive pressure. Thus, assuming a
unit length of the footing, F=o

qu B  2 Pp  2(bd )cSin

but B
bd    cos 
2
thus, quB  2 Pp  Bc tan 
 Terzaghi represented the value Pp
as the vector sum of the three
components:
1. that from cohesion
2. that from surcharge
3. that resulting from the weight of
the soil
TERZAGHI’S Ultimate Bearing Capacity for
General Shear Conditions

Long Footings
1
qu  cN c  DN q  BN 
Square Footings 2

qu  1.3cN c  DN q  0.40BN 

Circular Footings

qu  1.3cN c  DN q  0.30BN 

TERZAGHI’S Ultimate Bearing Capacity for
General Shear Conditions

   
 a2   
a2
N c  cot    1 Nq   
 2    2  
 2 cos  45  2    2 cos  45  2  
   

1  Kp 
 3 / 4  / 2  tan  Ny  tan    1
ae 2  cos  
2
Shortcomings of Terzaghi’s equations
 Equations are limited to
concentrically-loaded horizontal
footings; not suitable for footings
that support eccentrically-loaded
columns or to tilted footings
 Overly conservative
 MEYERHOF’S Bearing Capacity
Equation
 Meyerhof followed a similar approach
to Terzaghi but included the shearing
resistance of the soil above the
footing base
 Assumption

Failure surface extends to the ground

surface
 MEYERHOF’S BEARING
CAPACITY EQUATION
Vertical Load
1
q u  cN c s c d c  DN q s q d q  BN  s y d y
2
Inclined load
1
qu  cN c s c d c ic  DN q s q d q iq  BN  s d  i
2

Nq  e  tan   
tan  45  
2 N c   N q  1 cot 
 2
N    N q  1 tan 1.4
 HANSEN’S BEARING CAPACITY
EQUATION
Hansen proposed a general equation that
allows the determination of bearing
capacity of any shape and size, and any
inclination of loading or bearing surface

1
qu  cN c s c d c ic bc g c  DN q s q d q iq bq g q  BN  s d  i b g 
2

1
qu  c cot    D  c cot   N q s q d q iq bq  BN  s d  i b
2
 SKEMPTON’S BEARING
CAPACITY EQUATION (1951)
 Skempton’s equation was obtained
by comparing field measurements
with Terzaghi bearing capacity
equation and making modifications
to it. (for rectangular and square
footings resting on clay)

 Df  B  Df
qult  5S u 1  0.2 1  0.2 ;  2.5
 B  L B
EFFECTS OF GROUNDWATER
 EFFECTS OF GROUNDWATER
 CASE 1. Groundwater level at a
depth B below the base of the
footing. If the groundwater level is at
depth B below the base of the
foundation, no modification of the
bearing capacity equations is
required
 EFFECTS OF GROUNDWATER
 CASE 2. Groundwater level within a
depth B below the base of the
footing. If the groundwater level is at
depth dw below the base, such that
 dw < B, then the term is

dw + ’(B-dw) or satdw + ’(B-dw). The

latter equation is used if the soil is
saturated. The term Df remains
unchanged
 EFFECTS OF GROUNDWATER
 CASE 3. Groundwater level within
the embedment depth. If the
groundwater level is at depth dw
within the embedment depth, then
the term Df is dw + ’(Df-dw) or satdw
+ ’(Df-dw).The latter equation is
used if the soil is saturated. The term
B becomes ’B
ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY
AND FACTOR OF SAFETY
 The allowable bearing capacity is
qult
qa   D f
FS
If the maximum applied foundation stress
a)max and the dimension of footing
are known, the factor of safety
qult
FS  ; D f    a  max
 a  max  D f
 FACTORS OF SAFETY
 The design factor of safety is based on
the following factors
1. Required reliability
2. Consequences of failure
3. Uncertainties in soil properties and
applied loads
4. Construction tolerances
5. Ignorance of the true behavior of
foundations
6. Cost-benefit ratio of additional
conservatism in the design
 Typical Factors of Safety
Structure FS
Retaining
Walls 3
Temporary Braced Excavation >2
Bridges
Railway 4
Highway 3.5
Buildings
Silos 2.5
Warehouses 2.5
Apartments, Offices 3
Light Industrial, Public 3.5
 Typical Factors of Safety
Structure FS
Footings 3
Mats >3
Deep Foundations
With load tests 2
Driven Piles with wave equation
analysis calibrated to results of
dynamic pile tests 2.5
Without load tests 3
Multilayer soils 4
Groups 3
 BEARING CAPACITY BASED ON
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
Units Meyerhof Bowles For

English qa 
N
kd qa 
N
kd
B<4’
4 2.5
N  B  1
2
N  B 1
2
B>4’
qa    kd qa    kd
6 B  4 B 

SI q a  12 Nk d q a  20 Nk d B<1.22m
2
 B  0.305 
2
 B  0.305 
qa  8N   kd q a  12.5 N   kd B>1.22m
 B   B 
BEARING CAPACITY OF LAYERED
SOILS: Practical Guidelines
 Softclay over stiff clay: In general,
shallow foundations on soft clays
should be avoided except lightly
loaded structures such as houses and
one-story buildings. Calculate the
bearing capacity using methods
described previously before making a
decision to remove soft clay and
replace with compacted fills
BEARING CAPACITY OF LAYERED
SOILS: Practical Guidelines
 Stiff clay over soft clay: The
bearing capacity for this case is the
smaller value of
1. Treating the stiff clay as if the stiff
clay layer does not exist and
2. Assuming that the footing punches
through the stiff clay and is
supported on the soft clay
BEARING CAPACITY OF LAYERED
SOILS: Practical Guidelines
 Thinly stratified soils: In this type of
deposit, deep foundations should be
used. If deep foundations are
uneconomical, then the bearing
capacity can be calculated by using
the shear strength parameters for
the weakest layer.
BEARING CAPACITY OF MULTI-
LAYERED SOIL PROFILES

D
1 f
D f N q    i N qi
B i 1
D
1 f
D f N q    i N qi
B i 1
Df B
1 1
2
BN  
B

i  D
i N i
 General Observations on qu and qa
Expressions
 The integrated expressions are essentially
the culmination and product of theory,
experimentation, and some empirical
considerations
 Soil properties such as unit weight,
cohesion, and angle of internal friction are
shown to be key ingredients in the
equations
 Footing data such as width, depth, shape
are also accounted for in the expressions
SEISMIC BEARING CAPACITY
 Richardset al. (1993) developed a
seismic bearing capacity theory (not
supported by field data)
 1
Static conditions: qu  qN q  BN 
2
Where q = Df
 1
Earthquake conditions: qu E  qN q E  BN  E
2
RECENT ADVANCES IN BEARING
CAPACITY OF FOUNDATIONS ON
REINFORCED SOIL
 Guido et.al. (1985) conducted laboratory model
tests for determining the bearing capacity of a
square foundation supported by loose sand
(relative density = 50%) and reinforced by layers
of non woven heat-bonded geotextiles
 Findings: When the geotextile layers are placed
within a depth equal to the width of the
foundation, they increase theload-bearing
capacity of the foundation-but only after a
measurable settlement has occurred
RECENT ADVANCES IN BEARING
CAPACITY OF FOUNDATIONS ON
REINFORCED SOIL
 Sakti and Das (1987) reported some model test
results on the bearing capacity of a strip
foundation on saturated clay. They used a heat-
bonded non-woven geotextile for reinforcement
(grab tensile strength = 534 N)
 Findings:
1. Beneficial effects of geotextile reinforcement are
realized when reinforcement is placed within a
distance equal to the width of the foundation
2. The first layer of geotextile reinforcement should
be placed at a distance d=0.35B for maximum
benefit
3. The most economical value of L0/B is about 2
RECENT ADVANCES IN BEARING
CAPACITY OF FOUNDATIONS ON
REINFORCED SOIL
 Guido et al, 1987; Khing et al.,
1993;Omar et al.,1993 conducted in the
laboratory on small-scale models of
geogrid layers as reinforcement in sand
to support shallow foundations
 Findings:
1. Geogrids as soil reinforcement increase
the ultimate and allowable bearing
capacities of shallow foundations
RECENT ADVANCES IN BEARING
CAPACITY OF FOUNDATIONS ON
REINFORCED SOIL
 Shin et al.,1993 reported laboratory
model test results for the ultimate
bearing capacity of a surface strip
foundation on saturated clay (= 0)
with geogrid reinforcement