Week 06: Shallow Foundations:

Settlement

CV3013: Foundation Engineering

School of Civil and Environmental Engineering

A/Prof Leong Eng Choon

Office: N1-1C-80
Tel: 6790 4774
Email: [email protected]
Learning Objectives

By the end of this lesson, you will be able to:

• Discuss stress and stress distribution beneath shallow
foundations.
• Explain point and line load.
• Explain rectangular areas carrying uniform pressure.
• Discuss elastic and consolidation settlements.
• Explain the design for foundations using Serviceability
Limit State (SLS) and Ultimate Limit State (ULS).

2
Topic 1: Strength Below Shallow Foundation
CV3013: Foundation Engineering
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering

3
Stresses Beneath Shallow Foundations

Under typical working loads, the applied vertical bearing pressure

applied by a shallow foundation to the underlying soil will be much
less than the bearing capacity.

Applied load
Bearing resistance (Ultimate If the stresses beneath the
Limit State - ULS) foundation are known for an
Adequate applied bearing pressure (q)
performance
Foundation behaviour then the movements of the
under load foundation can be
Working load determined from the elastic
Limiting
settlement
material properties.
(Serviceability
Limit State - SLS)

Actual Settlement
settlement 4
Topic 2: Point and Line Load
CV3013: Foundation Engineering
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering

5
Point Load

Boussinesq (1885): bel

~
deph 4
Thee

( =const)
∆ ∆ ( = 0)
.
3Q 1
∆σ = ∆
2πz r (a) ( =const)
1+
z (8.40)

Q 3r z 1 − 2v (∆σ plotted
( =const)
∆σ = .
− horizontally)
2π r + z r +z +z r +z (8.41)
(∆σ plotted
Q z 1 vertically)
∆σ = − (1 − 2v) .
− (b)
2π r +z r +z +z r +z
(8.42)

3Q rz
∆τ = . (8.43)
2π r + z

6
Point Load

Boussinesq (1885):

( =const)
. ∆ ∆ ( = 0)
3Q 1
∆σ =
2πz r ∆
1+ (8.40) (a) ( =const)
z
r (∆σ plotted
∆σ = I (8.45) ( =const)
z horizontally)
(∆σ plotted
vertically)
where
(b)
.
3 1
I =
2π r
1+ (8.44)
z

7
Point Load
.
3 1
∆σ = I where I = 2
1+

Influence factors (IQ) for vertical stress due to point load

r/z IQ r/z IQ r/z IQ

0.00 0.478 0.80 0.139 1.60 0.020
0.10 0.466 0.90 0.108 1.70 0.016 The stresses at a point due to
0.20 0.433 1.00 0.084 1.80 0.013 more than one surface load are
obtained by superposition.
0.30 0.385 1.10 0.066 1.90 0.011
0.40 0.329 1.20 0.051 2.00 0.009
0.50 0.273 1.30 0.040 2.20 0.006
0.60 0.221 1.40 0.032 2.40 0.004
0.70 0.176 1.50 0.025 2.60 0.003
8
Line Load

-permetran
/
increase in

jurti 2
∆σ = (8.46)
+

horizontal strel
↓ 2
∆σ = (8.47)
+
σ
sheer
increase
in
σ 2
∆τ = (8.48)
+

9
Strip Area Carrying Uniform Pressure

∆σ = + . cos( + 2 )
(8.49)

∆σ = − . cos( + 2 )
(8.50)

σ ∆τ = . . cos( + 2 )
(8.51)
σ

10
Topic 3: Rectangular Area Carrying Uniform Pressure
CV3013: Foundation Engineering
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering

11
Rectangular Area Carrying Uniform Pressure
matteruside
deset Fadum’s chart
X

chic
0.28
-
L mz n
0.26 -
nz q ∞
2.0
0.24
z 1.4

∆σ = qI 0.22
1.0
0.20
(8.52) 0.8
(8.52) 0.18 L ∆σ = qI -

0.16 0.6

0.5
Iqr0.14
0.12 0.4

0.10 0.3
0.08
0.2
0.06
0.04 0.1

0.02
0
0 1
0.1 10
m
12
Pressure Bulb

B B

q q

0.8q 0.8q
0.6q
0.6q
0.4q
B
0.4q 1-5B 0.2q
(b)

2B

0.2q 3B
(a)
Strip area Square area
13
Rectangular Area Carrying Uniform Pressure

Example

A rectangular foundation 6 m x 3 m carries a uniform pressure of 300 kPa near the

surface of a soil mass. Determine the vertical stress at a depth of 3m below a point A on
the centre line 1.5 m outside a long edge of the foundation.

6.00 m

3.00 m 300 kPa

1.50 m

14
Rectangular Area Carrying Uniform Pressure
Fadum’s chart
0.28
mz n
0.26 nz x
q
2.0
0.24
z 1.4

∆σ = qI 0.22
1.0
0.20
(8.52) 0.8
(8.52) 0.18 ∆σ = qI
0.16 0.6

0.5
Iqr0.14
0.12 0.4

0.10 0.3
0.08
0.2
0.06
0.04 0.1

0.02
0
0 1
0.1 10
m
16
Depth of Borings
∆ 0 is calculated from ground surface to required depth.
∆ is calculated from lower face of foundation.
2:1 method is usually used to estimate ∆ .
P P ASCE (1972)

1
D B 2
2 D
1
2
1
B+D

P P P P
∆σ = = ∆σ = =
A B + D × (L + D) Area at depth (D) × B+D 2
4
P = the load applied on the foundation (KN) P = the load applied on the foundation (KN)
A = the area of the stress distribution at depth (D) A = diameter of the foundation (m)
17
Rectangular Area Carrying Uniform Pressure

Example

A rectangular foundation 6 m x 3 m carries a uniform pressure of 300 kPa near the

surface of a soil mass. Determine the vertical stress at a depth of 3m below a point A on
the centre line 1.5 m outside a long edge of the foundation.

19
Rectangular Area Carrying Uniform Pressure

Example

A rectangular foundation 6 m x 3 m carries a uniform pressure of 300 kPa near the

surface of a soil mass. Determine the vertical stress at a depth of 3m below a point A on
the centre line 1.5 m outside a long edge of the foundation.

m = 3.0/3.0 = 1
n = 4.5/3.0 = 1.5
6.00 m 3.00 m
m = 3.0/3.0 = 1
n = 1.5/3.0 = 0.5
3.00 m
3.00 m 300 kPa +300 kPa +300 kPa
4.50 m

1.50 m 1.50 m -300 kPa -300 kPa

A A A
(1) (2)
20
Rectangular Area Carrying Uniform Pressure
when the sail Schavior is linear
electic
applied

Cube
Using the principle of superposition, solution is given by (1) – (2) as displayed in the
previous screen.

For the two rectangles (1) carrying +300 kPa, m = 1.00 and n = 1.50, therefore I = 0.193.

For the two rectangles (2) carrying -300 kPa, m = 1.00 and n = 0.50, therefore I = 0.120.

Hence,
∆σ = ΣqI = 2 · 300 · 0.193 − 2 300 · 0.120 = 44kPa

21
Rectangular Area Carrying Uniform Pressure
Fadum’s chart
0.28
mz n
0.26 nz x
q
2.0
0.24
z 1.4

∆σ = qI 0.22
m = 1.0, n = 1.5 1.0
0.20
0.8

(8.52) 0.18 ∆σ = qI
0.16 0.6
Iqr 0.5
Iqr0.14 m = 1.0, n = 0.5
0.12 0.4

0.10 0.3
0.08
0.2
0.06
0.04 0.1

m and n can be interchanged! 0.02

0
0 1
0.1 m = 0.5, n = 1.0 m = 1.5, n = 1.0 10
m
22
Topic 4: Settlements from Elastic and
Consolidation Theory
CV3013: Foundation Engineering
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering

23
Settlements from Elastic Theory

Clay Sand
Edge T loading
is f defined
Flexible
M1

s s
(a) (b)

Clay Sand

Rigid
s s
Settlement
M
-
(a) in unitern (b)

24
Settlements from Elastic Theory

Settlement profile depends on:

1 Soil type 2 Rigidity of foundation

25
Settlements from Elastic Theory

qB
s= (1 − v )I (8.53)
E -
one value
- (Flexible)
J
Shape of area -
(Rigid)
Centre Corner Average
Square L/B = 1 1.12 0.56 0.95 0.82
Rectangular L/B = 2 1.52 0.76 1.30 1.20
Rectangular L/B = 5 2.10 1.05 1.83 1.70
Rectangular L/B = 10 2.54 1.27 2.25 2.10
Rectangular / = 100 4.01 2.01 3.69 3.47
Circle 1.00 0.64 0.85 0.79
Influence factors (Is) for vertical displacement under flexible and rigid
areas carrying uniform pressure.

26
Settlements from Elastic Theory
Example

A flexible foundation 4 m x 2 m carries a uniform pressure of 150 kPa near the surface of a soil
mass with E = 40 MPa and ν = 0.5. Determine the settlement at the centre and the average
settlement of the foundation.

L 4
For = =2
B 2
At centre, I (flexible) = 1.52
Average, I (flexible) = 1.30

Answer Contd.
27
Settlements from Elastic Theory
Example

A flexible foundation 4 m x 2 m carries a uniform pressure of 150 kPa near the surface of a soil
mass with E = 40 MPa and ν = 0.5. Determine the settlement at the centre and the average
settlement of the foundation.

L 4
For = =2
B 2
At centre, I (flexible) = 1.52
Average, I (flexible) = 1.30

Settlement at the centre of foundation: Average settlement:

ratio
qB Sprissons
1 −&v I =
150.2
1 − 0.5 1.52 s=
qB
1−v I =
150.2
1 − 0.5 1.30
E 40000 E 40000
= 8.55 × 10 m = 8.55 mm = 7.17 × 10 m = 7.17 mm
28
Settlements from Elastic Theory

1.0 L = length q

For the special case of ν = 0.5 (fully

undrained condition) and average μ00.9 d
B
settlement under a flexible area, H
the previous equation may be = 0.5
0.8
simplified to: 0 5 10 15 20
d/B s=
qB 2.0 endment depth L/B
s=μ μ
E (8.54) 10
1.5 5
3
μ1 2
1.0 1.5
Use these charts to determine 1
0.5 Circle
the average settlement for the
previous example!
0.0
0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 20 50 100 1000
H/B
29
Settlements from Elastic Theory
Example

A flexible foundation 4 m x 2 m carrying a uniform pressure of 150 kPa is located at a depth of

1 m in a layer of clay 5 m thick for which the value of Eu is 40 MPa. This layer is underlain by a
second clay layer 8 m thick for which the value of Eu is 75 MPa. A hard stratum lies below the
second layer.

Determine the average immediate settlement si under the foundation.

d = 1m

H1 = 4m Clay 1, Eu = 40 MPa
M
H2 = 12m Clay 2, Eu = 75 MPa

Hard stratum
30
Settlements from Elastic Theory
Example Using principle of superposition:

Clay 1, E = 40 MPa Clay 2, E = 75 MPa

Hard stratum Hard stratum
Clay 2, E = 75 MPa
Hard stratum

d 1 d 1 d 1
= = 0.5 → μ = 0.94 = = 0.5 → μ = 0.94 = = 0.5 → μ = 0.94
B 2 B 2 B 2

H 4 L 4 H 12 L 4 H 4 L 4
= = 2, = = 2 → μ = 0.60 = = 6, = = 2 → μ = 0.85 = = 2, = = 2 → μ = 0.60
B 2 B 2 B 2 B 2 B 2 B 2
qB 150 · 2 qB 150 · 2 qB 150 · 2
S =μ μ = 0.94 · 0.60 · S =μ μ = 0.94 · 0.85 · S =μ μ = 0.94 · 0.60 ·
E 40e3 E 75e3 E 75e3
= 4.2 mm = 3.2 mm = 2.3 mm

By superposition, S = S + S − S = 4.2 + 3.2 − 2.3 = 5 mm

31
Settlements from Elastic Theory

1.0 L = length q

For the special case of ν = 0.5 0.94

µ0 d
(fully undrained condition) and 0.9
B
average settlement under a H
flexible area, the previous 0.8
= 0.5
0 5 10 15 20
equation may be simplified to: d/B s=
qB 2.0 L/B
s=μ μ
E (8.54) 10
1.5 5
3
µ1 2
1.0 1.5
0.60 1
0.5 Circle

0.0
0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 20 50 100 1000
H/B
32
Settlements from Consolidation Theory

1-D consolidation settlement can be predicted using oedometer tests. In the

oedometer tests, the lateral strain is zero and for this condition the initial excess
pore-water pressure is theoretically equal to the increase in total vertical stress.
In practice, many situations involve significant lateral strain. The initial excess
pore-water pressure is dependent on the in-situ stress conditions.

σ + ∆σ
Consider an element of soil under principal stresses σ ,
σ , σ . If the major principal stress (σ ) is increased by an
amount ∆σ due to a shallow foundation, there will be an
σ immediate increase in pore-water pressure ∆u . The
increase in effective stresses are:
σ ∆σ = ∆σ − ∆u
u + ∆u ∆σ = ∆σ = ∆u

33
Settlements from Consolidation Theory
If the soil behaved as an elastic material during application of load, reduction in
volume of soil skeleton is given by:
1 1
C V ∆σ − ∆σ − ∆σ = C V ∆σ − 3∆u
3 3

The reduction in pore space is:

C nV∆u

Under undrained condition, these two volumes are equal, that is:
1
C V ∆σ − 3∆u = C nV∆u
3

1 1 1
∆u = ∆σ = B∆σ
3 1+n C 3
C
34
Settlements from Consolidation Theory

However, soil is not elastic and a more general form is given by:
∆u = AB∆σ
Here A is a pore pressure coefficient to be determined experimentally. (8.55)

Note that both A and B are more commonly known as Skempton’s pore pressure coefficients.

For a fully saturated soil, B = 1, ∆u = A∆σ (8.56)

For a 3-D situation, the general equation for pore-water pressure response ∆u to an
isotropic stress increase ∆σ together with a deviatoric stress increase (∆σ − ∆σ ) is
given by:

∆u = ∆u + ∆u
= B∆σ + AB ∆σ − ∆σ
= B[∆σ + A(∆σ − ∆σ )] (8.57)
35
Settlements from Consolidation Theory

If lateral strain is zero, immediate settlement is zero under undrained situation. In cases where
lateral strain is not zero, there will be immediate settlement in addition to consolidation settlement.
In the Skempton-Bjerrum method, the total settlement(s) of a clay foundation is given by:
S=S +S .

∆
For a fully saturated soil, u = ∆u = ∆σ A + (1 − A) (8.58)
∆
Note:
u > ∆σ if A > 0
u = ∆σ if A = 1

Types of clay A
Highly sensitive clays >1
Normally consolidated 0.5 to 1
Lightly overconsolidated 0 to 0.5
Heavily overconsolidated -0.5 to 1
36
Settlements from Consolidation Theory

In the oedometer test,

e e NCL (Slope C )
∆V e − e
= m =
1 e −e
V 1+e 1+e σ −σ Virgin
compression
dS e −e Recompression
=
dz 1+e

e −e σ −σ Unload-reload Expansion
dS = dz line (Slope C )
σ −σ 1+e
σ logσ
= m ∆σ dz

S = m ∆σ dz
37
Settlements from Consolidation Theory

By the Skempton-Bjerrum method, the consolidation settlements is given by:

S = m u dz
∆σ
= m ∆σ A + (1 − A) dz
∆σ

Compare with S = m u dz = m ∆σ dz If m and A are assumed to be constant

with depth:
S =μ S (8.59)
μ = A + (1 − A)α (8.60)
Here: Here:
∆σ
m ∆σ A + (1 − A) dz ∆σ dz
∆σ
μ = α=
m ∆σ dz ∆σ dz
38
Settlements from Consolidation Theory

1.2

1.0
H/D or H/B

0.8
H: Depth to
hard stratum
0.6 or zone of
0.55 influence
Circular footing
0.4
Strip footing

0.2

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2

Settlement coefficient µc (after Scott, 1963)

39
Settlements from Consolidation Theory – Alternative Method

In the oedometer test, e e NCL (Slope C )

1 e −e
m =
∆V e − e 1+e σ −σ Virgin
= compression
V 1+e
dS e −e Recompression
=
dz 1+e
e −e σ −σ
dS = dz Unload-reload Expansion
σ −σ 1+e line (Slope C )
= m ∆σ dz σ logσ

S = m ∆σ dz = m ∆σ H
σ H σ σ
C log S = C log + C log
σ 1+e σ σ
S = H S =μ S
1+e
40
Settlements from Consolidation Theory – Alternative Method
Approximate thickness of soil layers for manual computation of
consolidation settlement of spread footings
Layer number Approximate layer thickness
Square footing Continuous footing
1 B/2 B
2 B/2 B
3 B 2B
4 B 2B (Coduto et al., 2016)

1. Adjust the number and thickness of the layers to account for changes in soil properties. Locate each
layer entirely within one soil stratum.
2. For rectangular footings, use layer thickness between those given for square and continuous footings.
3. Use somewhat thicker layers (perhaps up to 1.5 times the thickness shown) if the groundwater table
is very shallow.
4. For quick, but less precise analysis, use a single layer with a thickness of about 3B (square footings)
or 6B (continuous footings). 41
Settlements from Consolidation Theory – Alternative Method
Example

A footing 6 m square carrying a net pressure of 160 kPa is located at a depth of 2 m in a

deposit of stiff clay 17 m thick; a firm stratum lies immediately below the clay. From
oedometer tests on specimens of the clay the value of mv was found to be 0.13 m3/MN,
and from triaxial tests the value of A was found to be 0.35. The undrained Young’s
modulus for the clay is estimated to be 55 MPa. Determine the total settlement under
the centre of the footing.

In this problem, there will be considerable lateral strain and therefore

there are immediate and consolidation settlement, i.e. si + sc.

Use Skempton-Bjerrum method.

42
Settlements from Consolidation Theory – Alternative Method
Example

6m

160 kPa
3m
2m

3m 1.5 m (1) 3m

4.5 m (2)

17 m
7.5 m (3)

10.5 m (4)

13.5 m (5)

43
Settlements from Consolidation Theory – Alternative Method
Example

A footing 6 m square carrying a net pressure of 160 kPa is located at a depth of 2 m in a

deposit of stiff clay 17 m thick; a firm stratum lies immediately below the clay. From
oedometer tests on specimens of the clay the value of mv was found to be 0.13 m3/MN,
and from triaxial tests the value of A was found to be 0.35. The undrained Young’s
modulus for the clay is estimated to be 55 MPa. Determine the total settlement under
the centre of the footing.

44
Settlements from Consolidation Theory – Alternative Method
Example 6m

160 kPa
3m
2m

3m 1.5 m (1) 3m

4.5 m (2)
17 m
7.5 m (3)

10.5 m (4)

13.5 m (5)

Immediate settlement:

d 2
= = 0.33 → μ = 0.95
B 6
H 15 L qB 160 · 6
= = 2.5, = 1 → μ = 0.55 Hence s =μ μ = 0.95 · 0.55 · = 9mm
B 6 B E 55e3
45
Settlements from Elastic Theory

1.0 L = length q

For the special case of ν = µ0 d

0.9
B
0.5 (fully undrained H
condition) and average 0.8
v = 0.5
settlement under a 0 5 10 15 20 qB
d/B s=μ μ
flexible area, Eq. 8.53 2.0
E L/B
may be simplified to:
10
1.5 5
qB 3
s=μ μ (8.54) µ1
E 1.0
2
1.5
1
0.5 Circle
H/B

0.0
0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 20 50 100 1000

46
Bulb of Pressure

B B

q q

0.8q 0.8q
0.6q
0.6q
0.4q
B
0.4q 0.2q
(b)

2B

0.2q 3B
(a)
Strip area Square area
47
Rectangular Area Carrying Uniform Pressure
Example
∆σ = qI = 4 · 160 · I (kPa)
Consolidation settlement:
Divide stiff clay into five sub-layers of ∆s = m ∆σ h = 0.13 · ∆σ · 3 = 0.39∆σ (mm)
thickness h = 3 m beneath the footing
and use Fadum’s chart:
Using Scott (1963) chart:

Layer z (m) m,n Iqr ∆σ’ (kPa) soed (mm) Equating area:
1 1.5 2.00 0.233 149 58.1 πD 4B
B = →D=
2 4.5 0.67 0.121 78 30.4 4 π
3 7.5 0.40 0.060 38 14.8 4.6
4 10.5 0.285 0.033 21 8.2 = = 6.77m
π
5 13.5 0.222 0.021 13 5.1
Σsoed 116.6 = .
= 2.2 → μ = 0.55

(Given A = 0.35)
48
Rectangular Area Carrying Uniform Pressure
Fadum’s chart
0.28
mz n
0.26 nz x
q
2.0
0.24
z 1.4
0.22
1.0
0.20
0.8
0.18 ∆σ = qI
∆ = 0.16 0.6

0.5
Iqr0.14
0.12 0.4
(8.52)
0.10 0.3
0.08
0.2
0.06
0.04 0.1

0.02
0
0 1
0.1 10
m
49
Settlements from Consolidation Theory

1.2

1.0
H/D or H/B

0.8
H: Depth to
hard stratum
0.6 or zone of
0.55 influence
Circular footing
0.4
Strip footing

0.2

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2

Settlement coefficient µc (after Scott, 1963)

50
Settlements from Consolidation Theory
Example
Consolidation settlement:
∆σ = qI = 4 · 160 · I (kPa)
Divide stiff clay into five sub-layers of thickness
h = 3 m beneath the footing and use Fadum’s chart. ∆s = m ∆σ h = 0.13 · ∆σ · 3 = 0.39∆σ (mm)
Layer z (m) m,n Iqr ∆σ’ (kPa) soed (mm)
1 1.5 2.00 0.233 149 58.1
2 4.5 0.67 0.121 78 30.4
3 7.5 0.40 0.060 38 14.8
4 10.5 0.285 0.033 21 8.2
Using Scott
(1963) chart: 5 13.5 0.222 0.021 13 5.1
Σsoed 116.6
Equating area: Consolidation settlement, s = μ s
πD 4B 4.6 = 0.55 · 116.6
B = →D= = = 6.77 m = 64 mm
4 π π
H 15
= = 2.2 → μ = 0.55 Given A = 0.35 Total settlement, s = s + s = 9 + 64 = 73 mm
D 6.77 51
Settlements from Consolidation Theory – Alternative Method
Example

A footing 6 m square carrying a net pressure of 160 kPa is located at a depth of 2 m in a

deposit of stiff clay 17 m thick; a firm stratum lies immediately below the clay. From
oedometer tests on specimens of the clay the value of mv was found to be 0.13 m3/MN,
and from triaxial tests the value of A was found to be 0.35. The undrained Young’s
modulus for the clay is estimated to be 55 MPa. Determine the total settlement under
the centre of the footing.

Need Cc, γ and eo.

Cc = 0.04 S = H = 0.025 H log

γ = 16.5 kN/m3
eo = 0.6

52
Settlements from Consolidation Theory – Alternative Method
Example

6m

160 kPa
3m
2m

B/2 = 3 m 1.5 m (1) 3m

B/2 4.5 m (2)

17 m
4.5 m < B 8.25 m (3)

4.5 m < B 12.25 m (4)

53
Settlements from Consolidation Theory – Alternative Method
Example

Consolidation settlement:
Divide stiff clay into four sub-layers of thickness h = 3,3 ,4.5, 4.5 m beneath the footing and use Fadum’s
chart:
∆σ = qI = 4 · 160 · I (kPa)
S = 0.025 H log

Layer z (m) m,n Iqr ∆σ’ H (m) σ0' σf' (kPa) soed
(kPa) (kPa) (mm)
1 1.5 2 0.233 149 3 23.4 172.4 65.0
2 4.5 0.67 0.121 78 3 43.5 121.5 33.5
3 8.25 0.36 0.05 32 4.5 68.6 100.6 18.7
4 12.25 0.24 0.025 16 4.5 95.3 111.3 7.6
Σsoed = 124.8

Consolidation settlement, s = μ s = 0.55 · 124.8 = 69 mm

Total settlement, s = s + s = 9 + 69 = 78 mm
54
Topic 5: Standard Penetration Test and Cone
Penetration Test
CV3013: Foundation Engineering
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering

55
Settlement From In-situ Test Data

Due to extreme difficulty of obtaining undisturbed sand samples for laboratory

testing and to inherent heterogeneity of sand deposits, foundation settlements
on coarse-grained soils are normally estimated by means of correlations based
on the results of in-situ tests such as:

Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

Cone Penetration Test (CPT)

56
Standard Penetration Test
63.5 kg drop hammer.
Need to correct to a reference energy efficiency
due to different hammer used (N60).

Split –barrel
sampler
(hollow tube)

Seating load 0.15m 1st Increment

N = No. of blows 0.15m 2nd Increment

over 0.3m 0.15m 3rd Increment

57
Cone Penetration Test

BH Log qc fs uw Rf 58
Analysis Using SPT Data

Burland and Burbidge (1985) carried out a statistical analysis of over 200 settlement
records of foundations on sands and gravels. A relationship was established between
compressibility of the soil, width of the foundation and average SPT blowcount (N) over
the depth of influence (z ) of the foundation.

59
Analysis Using SPT Data
50

30
The depth of influence (z ) of
the foundation can be
20
estimated using the figure.
10
z (m)
5
The compressibility index is
3 related to the average value of
2 the corrected standard
penetration resistance (N60):
1
1 2 3 5 10 20 30 50 100 1.71
B(m) I =
(N60) .
Figure 8.31 Relationship between depth
of influence and width of foundation
(Burland and Burbidge 1985)
60
Bulb of Pressure

B B

q q

0.8q 0.8q
0.6q
0.6q
0.4q
B
0.4q 0.2q
(b)

2B

0.2q 3B
(a)
Strip area Square area
61
Analysis Using SPT Data

In case of fine sands and silty sands below the ground water table, there is a
need to correct N if N > 15 for the increased resistance due to negative excess
pore-water pressure set up during driving and unable to dissipate immediately:

1
N = 15 + ( − 15)
2

For gravels and sandy gravels, N = 1.25N

62
Analysis Using SPT Data

Settlement = F F F s

Here
.
s = qB I for normally consolidated sand

s= q− σ B .
I (if q > σ ) (σ = preconsolidation pressure)

.
s = qB (if q ≤ σ ) For overconsolidated sand

L
1.25 H H
F = B ,F = 2− if H < z
L z z
+ 0.25
B
t
F = 1 + R + R log If t > 3 years
3

R = 0.3, R = 0.2 (Conserve estimate from Burland for static loading)

63
Analysis Using CPT Data

Foundation level
The estimate of settlement is based on a 0.1 0.2 I q
0 −
simplified distribution of vertical strain under
the centre, or centre-line of a shallow I σ′
z = B/2 −
foundation expressed in the form of strain σ′
influence factor I (Schmertmann 1970, 1978). z =B I −
.
q
I = 0.5 + 0.1
L/B = 10 σ
z = 2B
Lee et al. (2008):
L/B ≥ 10
z π L
= 0.95cos min , 6 − 1 − π + 3
B 5 B
z L z = 4B
= 0.11 min , 6 − 1 + 0.5 ≤ 1
B B
Depth (Z)

64
Bulb of Pressure

B B

q q

0.8q 0.8q
0.6q
0.6q
0.4q
B
0.4q 0.2q
(b)

2B

0.2q 3B
(a)
Strip area Square area
65
Analysis Using CPT Data

The settlement is based of a footing carying net pressure q is given as:

I
s=C C q ∆z
E

where
C = correction factor for depth = 1 − 0.5
C = correction factor for creep = 1 + 0.2 log .

For normally consolidated sands, For overconsolidated sands,

E = 2.5q for square foundations (L/B = 1) E = 5q for square foundations (L/B = 1)
E = 3.5q for strip foundations (L/B ≥ 10) E = 7q for strip foundations (L/B ≥ 10)

Note: t in years
66
Analysis Using CPT Data
Example 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

0 2 4 6 8 10 12
(MPa)

1
A footing 2.5 m x 2.5 m supports a net
(1)
foundation pressure of 150 kPa at a
2
depth of 1.0 m in a deep deposit of (2)
normally consolidated fine sand of

Depth ()m
unit weight 17 kN/m3. The variation of 3
(3)
cone resistance with depth is shown in
the figure. 4
(4)

Estimate the settlement of the footing. 5 (5)

6 (6)

67
Analysis Using CPT Data
Example 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

0 2 4 6 8 10 12
(MPa)
1 Draw the strain influence diagram
1
Peak value of strain I occurs at B/2 below
(1)
foundation level i.e. at depth of 2.25 m.
2
. (2)
q
I = 0.5 + 0.1

Depth ()m
. 3
150 (3)
= 0.5 + 0.1 = 0.70
17 · 2.25
4
(4)

2 5 (5)
Idealise the qc profile and divide into layers
from 0 to z = 2 .
6 (6)

68
Analysis Using CPT Data
Example 3 Calculate I ∆z/E for sublayers (E = 2.5q ):

Layer ∆z (m) qc (MPa) E (MPa) I I ∆z/E

1 0.90 2.3 5.75 0.32 0.050
2 0.50 3.6 9.00 0.68 0.038
3 1.60 5.0 12.50 0.50 0.064
4 0.40 7.5 18.75 0.33 0.007
5 1.20 3.3 8.25 0.18 0.026
6 0.40 9.9 24.75 0.04 0.001
ΣIz∆z/E = 0.186

4 Calculate correction factors: 5 5. Calculate settlement:

σ 1 · 17
C = 1 − 0.5 = 1 − 0.5 = 0.94
q 150
I
s=C C q ∆z = 0.94 · 1 · 150 · 0.186 = 26mm
t E
C = 1 + 0.2 log =1
0.1
69
Topic 6: SLS and ULS

CV3013: Foundation Engineering

School of Civil and Environmental Engineering

70
Design for Shallow Foundation

To perform in a satisfactory way, the

foundation must meet two principal
performance requirements (known as
limit states).
Its capacity or resistance should be
sufficient to support the loads
(actions) applied (i.e. so that it
doesn’t collapse) – strength - ULS.

Excessive deformation must be avoided

under these loads. They might damage the
supported structure or lead to a loss of
function – serviceability – SLS.
Limit State Design
71
Foundation Design Codes

CP4: 2003 Foundation Design

(BS 8004:1986 Code of practice for foundations)

Eurocode Part Title First Singapore National

Publication Annex
Date Publication Date

SS EN 1997-1 Eurocode 7. Oct 2010 Dec 2010

SS EN 1997-1 Geotechnical design. 2018
(2018)+A1(2018) General rules
SS EN 1997-2 Eurocode 7. Oct 2010 Mar 2011
SS EN 1997-2 (2015) Geotechnical design. 2015
SS EN 1997-2 (2020) Ground investigation and 2020
testing

From 1 April 2015 onwards, BCA has stipulated that Eurocodes be the
Singapore's prescribed building codes for structural design.
72
 SS EN 1990 Eurocode 0 Basis of design

SS
EN 1991 Eurocode 1 Action on structures

SS EN 1992 Eurocode 2 Design of concrete

CP4: 2003 Foundation Design

structures
SS EN 1993 Eurocode 3 Design of steel
structures
SS EN 1994 Eurocode 4 Design of composite
steel and concrete structures
SS EN 1995 Eurocode 5 Design of timber
structures
SS EN 1996 Eurocode 6 Design of
masonry structures
SS EN 1997 Eurocode 7 Geotechnical
design
2 PARTS

SS EN 1998 Eurocode 8 Design of structure

for earthquake resistance
SS EN 1999 Eurocode 8 Design of aluminium
alloy structures
Source: Nanyang Technological University Library
73
Eurocodes

Design:
SS EN 1997-1
SS EN 1997-2

Ground
Execution Properties
Standards Geotechnical TC341
TC288 Projects Standards

Other
structural
Eurocodes ISO/CEN
e.g. SS Standards
EN1993-5
74
Basis of Geotechnical Design according to Eurocode 7

Design Approaches
Design Approach 1

Combination 1: A1 “+” M1 “+” R1

Combination 2: A2 “+” M2 “+” R1
or
Combination 2: A2 “+” (M1 or M2) “+” R4 for axially loaded piles or anchors

Design Approach 2
Combination : A1 “+” M1 “+” R2

Design Approach 3
Combination : (A1 or A2) “+” M1 “+” R3
A1 :on structural actions
A2 :on geotechnical actions
75
Selection of Design Approach

Design No/Incompl- Design approach of EC 7-1

example ete answers
All DAs DA 1 DA 2 DA 2* DA 3
Shallow N, CZ, M, S, IRL B, UK, P, LT, I, F, SK, I, EST D, A, E, PL, CH, NL, DK
foundation LV, CY, IS, H, RO SLO, GR
BG
SF, L
Piles IRL B, UK, P, LT, I, F, SK, CH, SF, D, A, E, NL, SLO,
RO PL, DK, GR, L, EST
Retaining IRL B, UK, P, LT, I, F, SK, CH, SF, D, A, E, SLO, PL, NL, DK
structures RO GR, L, EST
Slopes IRL B, UK, P, LT, I, F, E NL, F, SK, CH,
EST SF, D, A, PL,
DK, SLO, GR,
L, RO
Total 9 1 5-6 2 - 14 2 - 13
(Schuppener 2010) 2nd International Workshop on Evaluation of Eurocode 7, Pavia, Italy, April 2010
76
Selection of Design Approach
Abbreviation Country Abbreviation Country Abbreviation Country
EU-12 European Union of 12 I Italy PL Poland
member states IRL Ireland SK Slovakia
EU-15 European Union of 15 N-IRL Northern Ireland SI Slovenia
member states
L Luxembourg BG Bulgaria
EU-25 European Union of 25
member states NL The Netherlands RO Romania
EU-27 European Union of 27 P Portugal CH Switzerland
member states S Sweden N Norway
A Austria UK United Kingdom US United States
B Belgium CY Cyprus JAP Japan
D Germany CZ Czech Republic FIN Finland
D-W Germany West EE Estonia GB Great Britain
D-E Germany East H Hungary GR Greece
DK Denmark LV Latvia
E Spain
List of country abbreviations in the
LT Lithuania
European System of Social Indicators
F France MT Malta
77
Selection of Design Approach

Design No/Incompl- Design approach of EC 7-1

example ete answers
All DAs DA 1 DA 2 DA 2* DA 3
Shallow N, CZ, M, S, IRL B, UK, P, LT, I, F, SK, I, EST D, A, E, PL, CH, NL, DK
foundation LV, CY, IS, H, RO SLO, GR
BG
SF, L
Piles IRL B, UK, P, LT, I, F, SK, CH, SF, D, A, E, NL, SLO,
RO PL, DK, GR, L, EST
Retaining IRL B, UK, P, LT, I, F, SK, CH, SF, D, A, E, SLO, PL, NL, DK
structures RO GR, L, EST
Slopes IRL B, UK, P, LT, I, F, E NL, F, SK, CH,
EST SF, D, A, PL,
DK, SLO, GR,
L, RO
Total 9 1 5-6 2 - 14 2 - 13
(Schuppener 2010) 2nd International Workshop on Evaluation of Eurocode 7, Pavia, Italy, April 2010
78
Basis of Geotechnical Design according to Eurocode 7

Design Approaches
Design Approach 1

Combination 1: A1 “+” M1 “+” R1

Combination 2: A2 “+” M2 “+” R1
or
Combination 2: A2 “+” (M1 or M2) “+” R4 for axially loaded piles or anchors
In Craig’s Soil Mechanics,

Design Approach 2 Combination 1 is referred to as a

Combination : A1 “+” M1 “+” R2 Combination 2 is referred to as b
i.e. DA1a means Design Approach 1,
Combination 1
Design Approach 3
Combination : (A1 or A2) “+” M1 “+” R3
A1 :on structural actions
A2 :on geotechnical actions
79
EC 7 – Limit State Design
Partial factors for limit states Design Approach 1 for footings and piles
Combination 1 Combination 2 Combination 2 - piles
A1 M1 R1 A2 M2 R1 A2 M1 or R4
M2
Actions Permanent Unfavourable 1.35 1.0 1.0
Favourable 1.0 1.0 1.0
Variable Unfavourable 1.5 1.3 1.3
Soil tanφ’ 1.0 1.25 1.0 1.25
Effective cohesion, c’ 1.0 1.25 1.0 1.25
Undrained strength cu 1.0 1.4 1.0 1.4
Confined strength qu 1.0 1.4 1.0 1.4
Weight γ 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Spread Bearing 1.0 1.0
footing Sliding 1.0 1.0
DA1a DA1b DA1b
Characteristic value 80
EC 7 – Limit State Design
Partial factors for limit states Design Approach 1 for footings and piles
Partial factors for limit states Design Approach 1 for footings & piles
Combination 1 Combination 2 Combination 2 - piles
A1 M1 R1 A2 M2 R1 A2 M1 or R4
M2
Driven Base 1.0 1.7/1.5
piles Shaft (compression) 1.0 1.5/1.3
Total / combined 1.0 1.7/1.5
Shaft in tension 1.0 2.01.7
Bored Base 1.0 2.01.8
piles Shaft (compression) 1.0 1.6/1.4
Total / combined 1.0 2.0/1.7
Shaft in tension 1.0 2.0/1.8
DA1a DA1b DA1b

81
Characteristic Values

SS EN 1997 – Part 1: General Rules

2.4.5.2 Characteristic values of geotechnical parameters

(1) P The selection of characteristic values for geotechnical parameters shall be based on results
and derived values from laboratory and field tests, complemented by well-established experience.
(2) P The characteristic value of a geotechnical parameter shall be selected as a cautious estimate
of the value affecting the occurrence of the limit state.
•
•
•
(12) P When using standard tables of characteristic values related to soil investigation parameters,
the characteristic value shall be selected as a very cautious estimate.

82
Characteristic Values
Undrained shear strength (kPa)
0 100 200 300 400
0

4
Depth below top of London Clay (m)

12
Mean
16
Cautious
(local)
20

24

28
Cautious
(average)
32
BH1 BH2 BH3 (From Simpson and Driscoll 1998)
83
Characteristic Values
Soil properties / Quality class
Unchanged soil properties
Quality classes of soil Particle size    
samples for laboratory Water content   
testing and sampling
Density, density index, permeability  
categories to be used
Compressibility, shear strength 
Properties that can be determined
Sequence of layers     
Boundaries of strata – broad    
Boundaries of strata – fine  
Atterberg limits, particle density, organic    
content
Water content   
Density, density index, porosity, permeability  
Compressibility, shear strength 
Sampling category according to EN ISO 22475-1 A
B
C 84
SS EN1997-1 Section 6

6.2 Limit States

• Loss of overall stability;

• Bearing resistance failure, punching failure, squeezing;
• Failure by sliding;
• Combined failure in the ground and in the structure;
• Structural failure due to foundation movement; ULS

• Excessive settlements;
• Excessive heave due to swelling, frost and other causes;
• Unacceptable vibrations. SLS

85
Design at ULS

To satisfy the ultimate limit state, the sum of the applied actions (loads) Q
on the foundation must be less than or equal to the available resistance R
which is dependent on the material properties X:

R(X)
Q ≤ R(X) F=
ΣQ

To provide some margin of error associated with Q, R and X, partial factors

γ (> 1.0) are applied:
X
R
γx Design values
γ Q≤
γ

86
EC 7 – Limit State Design
Partial factors for limit states Design Approach 1 for footings and piles
Combination 1 Combination 2 Combination 2 - piles
A1 M1 R1 A2 M2 R1 A2 M1 or R4
M2
Actions Permanent Unfavourable 1.35 1.0 1.0
Favourable 1.0 1.0 1.0
Variable Unfavourable 1.5 1.3 1.3
Soil tanφ’ 1.0 1.25 1.0 1.25
Effective cohesion, c’ 1.0 1.25 1.0 1.25
Undrained strength cu 1.0 1.4 1.0 1.4
Confined strength qu 1.0 1.4 1.0 1.4
Weight γ 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Spread Bearing 1.0 1.0
footing Sliding 1.0 1.0
DA1a DA1b DA1b
Characteristic value 87
EC 7 – Limit State Design
Partial factors for limit states Design Approach 1 for footings and piles
Partial factors for limit states Design Approach 1 for footings & piles
Combination 1 Combination 2 Combination 2 - piles
A1 M1 R1 A2 M2 R1 A2 M1 or R4
M2
Driven Base 1.0 1.7/1.5
piles Shaft (compression) 1.0 1.5/1.3
Total / combined 1.0 1.7/1.5
Shaft in tension 1.0 2.01.7
Bored Base 1.0 2.01.8
piles Shaft (compression) 1.0 1.6/1.4
Total / combined 1.0 2.0/1.7
Shaft in tension 1.0 2.0/1.8
DA1a DA1b DA1b

88
Eurocode 7 – Annex D.3 Undrained Conditions

(V; H)
R
q = = π+2 c b s i +q
A′
α

ρ
γ
where:

D=
2α
b =1−
π+2 B 2e

1 H A
s = 1 + 0.2 − rectangle i = 1+ 1−
2 A′c

e
L
s = 1.2 − circular and H ≤ A′c

2e
e
B

89
Eurocode 7 – Annex D.3 Drained Conditions

q = = c′N b s i + q′N b s i + 0.5γ B′N b s i

Here:
The bearing resistance:
N =e tan (45 + φ′/2)
N = N − 1 cotφ
N = 2 N − 1 tanφ , where  ≥ φ /2

The inclination of the foundation base:

b = b − (1 − b )/(N tanφ )
b = b = 1 − α. tanφ
The shape of foundation:
s = 1 + (B /L′)sinφ for a rectangular shape
s = 1 + sinφ , for a square or circular shape

s = 1 − 0, 3 (B /L′), for a rectangular shape

s = 0, 7, for a square or circular shape

s = (s N − 1)/(N − 1) for rectangular, square or circular shape

90
Eurocode 7 – Annex D.3 Drained Conditions (Cont’d)

q = = c′N b s i + q′N b s i + 0.5γ B′N b s i

Here:
The inclination of the load caused by a horizontal load H:
i = i − (1 − i )/(N tanφ );
i = [1 − H/(V + A cotφ )]
i = [1 − H/(V + A c cotφ )]

Where:
m = m = [2 + (B /L )]/[1 + (B /L )] where H acts in the direction of B ;
m = m = [2 + (L /B )]/[1 + (L /B )] when H acts in the direction of L ;

In cases where the horizontal load compartment acts in a direction forming

an angle θ with the direction of L , m may be calculated by:
m = m = m cos2 θ + m sin2 θ

91
Eurocode 7 – Annex D.3 Drained Conditions (Cont’d)
Example
A foundation 2.0 m x 2.0 m is located on the surface of a clay with characteristic saturated unit weight
γk =18 kN/m3. Assume water table at the ground surface. The characteristic drained shear strength parameters are
c’k = 5 kPa and φ’k = 25o. Determine the characteristic drained bearing resistance using EC7 - Design Approach 1.

R
q = = c N s + q N s + 0.5γ N s 
A′  tan
N =e 45 + = 10.66
2
For combination 1:
N = N − 1 cot = 20.72
γ = 1.0, γ  = 1.0, γ = 1.0,
N = 2 N − 1 tan = 9.01
c 5
c = = = 5kPa
γ 1.0 s = 1 + sin = 1.423
tan tan25
 = tan = tan = 25 s −1
γ  1.0
s = = 1.467
N −1
γ −γ 18 − 9.81
γ = = = 8.19kN/m s = 0.7
γ 1.0
q = 5 20.72 1.467 + 0 + 0.5 8.19 2 9.01 0.7
= 151.98 + 0 + 51.65 = 203.6 kPa 92
EC 7 – Limit State Design
Partial factors for limit states Design Approach 1 for footings and piles
Combination 1 Combination 2 Combination 2 - piles
A1 M1 R1 A2 M2 R1 A2 M1 or R4
M2
Actions Permanent Unfavourable 1.35 1.0 1.0
Favourable 1.0 1.0 1.0
Variable Unfavourable 1.5 1.3 1.3
Soil tanφ’ 1.0 1.25 1.0 1.25
Effective cohesion, c’ 1.0 1.25 1.0 1.25
Undrained strength cu 1.0 1.4 1.0 1.4
Confined strength qu 1.0 1.4 1.0 1.4
Weight γ 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Spread Bearing 1.0 1.0
footing Sliding 1.0 1.0
DA1a DA1b DA1b
Characteristic value 93
Eurocode 7 – Annex D.3 Drained Conditions (Cont’d)
Example
A foundation 2.0 m x 2.0 m is located on the surface of a clay with characteristic saturated unit weight
γk =18 kN/m3. Assume water table at the ground surface. The characteristic drained shear strength parameters are
c’k = 5 kPa and φ’k = 25o. Determine the characteristic drained bearing resistance using EC7 - Design Approach 1.

R 
q ; = = c N s + q N s + 0.5γ B N s N =e  tan 45 + = 6.72
A′ 2
For combination 2
N = N − 1 cot = 15.31
γ = 1.25, γ  = 1.25, γ = 1.0, N = 2 N − 1 tan = 4.28
c 5
c = = = 4kPa s = 1 + sin = 1.350
γ 1.25
tan tan25 s N −1
 = tan = tan = 20.5 s = = 1.411
γ  1.25 N −1
γ −γ 18 − 9.81 s = 0.7
γ = = = 8.19kN/m
γ 1.0
q ; = 4 15.31 1.411 + 0 + 0.5 8.19 2 4.28 0.7
= 86.41 + 0 + 24.54 = 111.0 kPa 94
Eurocode 7 – Annex D.3 Drained Conditions (Cont’d)
Example

A foundation 2.0 m x 2.0 m is located at a depth of 1.5 m in a layered clay of saturated unit
weight 21 kN/m3.

The characteristic undrained shear strength is 160 kPa in the upper 2.5 m thick, and
80 kPa below. The foundation supports an existing permanent action of 1000 kN, and
is subjected to a variable action of 500 kN. Additional floors are to be added to the
support structure which will increase the dead load acting on the foundation.

Determine the maximum allowable additional permanent action which can be

supported by the foundation under undrained conditions if it is to satisfy EC7 Design
Approach 1 at ULS.

95
Eurocode 7 – Annex D.3 Drained Conditions (Cont’d)
Example

A foundation 2.0 m x 2.0 m is located at a depth of 1.5 m in a layered clay of saturated unit
weight 21 kN/m3.

The characteristic undrained shear strength is 160 kPa in the upper 2.5 m thick, and
80 kPa below. The foundation supports an existing permanent action of 1000 kN, and
is subjected to a variable action of 500 kN. Additional floors are to be added to the
support structure which will increase the dead load acting on the foundation.

Determine the maximum allowable additional permanent action which can be

supported by the foundation under undrained conditions if it is to satisfy EC7 Design
Approach 1 at ULS.

96
EC 7 – Limit State Design
Partial factors for limit states Design Approach 1 for footings and piles
Combination 1 Combination 2 Combination 2 - piles
A1 M1 R1 A2 M2 R1 A2 M1 or R4
M2
Actions Permanent Unfavourable 1.35 1.0 1.0
Favourable 1.0 1.0 1.0
Variable Unfavourable 1.5 1.3 1.3
Soil tanφ’ 1.0 1.25 1.0 1.25
Effective cohesion, c’ 1.0 1.25 1.0 1.25
Undrained strength cu 1.0 1.4 1.0 1.4
Confined strength qu 1.0 1.4 1.0 1.4
Weight γ 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Spread Bearing 1.0 1.0
footing Sliding 1.0 1.0
DA1a DA1b DA1b
Characteristic value 97
Eurocode 7 – Annex D.3 Drained Conditions (Cont’d)
Example

Let the unknown increase in permanent action be QI,

the total applied action on the foundation is given by:

ΣQ = 1000 + Q γ + 500γ
Permanent Variable
unfavourable unfavourable

98
Eurocode 7 – Annex D.3 Drained Conditions (Cont’d)
Example

The resistance R (bearing capacity x area) is given by:

R =q A= s N c +σ A
;
c γ
s N + d A
R γ γ
R = =
γ γ

99
Bearing Capacity Factors (Undrained)

For two-layered soil: 1.8

9
c /c 1.6 c /c
8 c H
0.2 0.2
7 c 1.4 0.5
6 0.5 1.0
S
5 1.2 2.0
N 1.0 5.0
4
3 2.0 1
2
5.0
1 0.8
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
0 H/B
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
H/B (b) Merifield and Nguyen (2006)
(a) Merifield et al. (1999) for square footings
Solid lines for UB, dashed lines for LB
H 2.5 − 1.5 c 160
For = = 0.5 and = = 2.0
Note: in calculating q , c = c B 2.0 c 80
N = 3.53 and s = 1.41
100
Bearing Capacity Factors (Undrained)
Example

The resistance R (bearing capacity x area) is given by:

R = q ; kA = s N c + σ A
c γ
s N + d A
R γ γ
R = =
γ γ

160 21 3176.4 126

1.41 · 3.53 · + · 1.5 (2.2) +
γ γ γ γ
= =
γ γ
101
Bearing Capacity Factors (Undrained)
Example
To satisfy ULS:

3176.4 126
+
γ γ
1000 + Q · γ + 500 · γ ≤
γ

Partial Factors Design Approach 1a Design Approach 1b

γA1 1.35 1.00
γA2 1.50 1.30
γcu 1.00 1.40
γγ 1.00 1.00
γR 1.00 1.00
Maximum QI (kN) 891 745
More critical 102
Design at SLS

To satisfy serviceability limit state,

the effect of the applied actions EA
(action effect) giving a settlement
must be less than or equal to a
limiting value of the action effect, CA
(limiting settlement) : E ≤ C

After a foundation has been sized to

satisfy ULS, the settlement of the
foundation (s = EA) is found and this
has to be less than the limiting
settlement C .

103
Design at SLS

Normally limiting settlement CA is specified. Zhang and Ng (2005) suggested total

In the event that no CA is given, the settlements for:
following may be used:
• Building foundations – 125 mm
• For normal structures with isolated • Bridge foundations – 135 mm
foundations – 50 mm
• For normal structures with isolated
foundations in sands – 25 mm

(Based on probabilistic study of a large

number of structures suffering various
levels of serviceability damage)

104
Design at SLS

Generally the guidelines should be applied to normal, routine

structures and should not be applied to buildings or structures
which are out of the ordinary for which the loading intensity is
markedly non-uniform.

105
Design at SLS

Larger settlements may be acceptable provided the total settlements do not

cause problems with services entering the structure or causing tilt.

106
Design at SLS

Tilt, w βd
L
∆

∆
Angular distortion =

∆ βd
Abutment Abutment

Differential settlement, angular distortion and tilt.

107
Design at SLS

Angular distortion limits for building structures

1/150 Structural damage of general building expected

1/300 Cracking in panel walls expected
Difficulties with overhead cranes

1/500 Limit for building in which crack is not permissible

1/600 Overstressing of structural frames with diagonals
1/750 Difficulties with machinery sensitive to settlement

108
Design at SLS

Tilt limits for building structures

1/50 Building is likely to be structurally unsound, requiring re-levelling or

demolition
1/100 Floor drainage may not work, dangerous to stack
1/250 Tilting of high-rise buildings (e.g. chimneys and towers) may be visible
1/333 Difficulties with overhead cranes
1/400 Design limit value for low-rise housing
1/500 Maximum limit for monolithic concrete tanks
1/2000 Difficulties with high racking warehouses
1/5000 Maximum limit for machine foundations (e.g. power station turbines)

109
Design at SLS
Example

A square footing carrying an applied pressure of 250 kPa is to be located at a depth of

1.5 m in a sand deposit, the ground water table being 3.5 m below the surface. Values of
standard penetration resistance were determined as detailed in the table below.
Determine the minimum width of the foundation if the settlement is limited to 25 mm.

Depth (m) N60 σ’v (kPa) CN (N1)60

0.75 8 - - -
1.55 7 26 2.0 14
2.30 9 39 1.6 14
3.00 13 51 1.4 18
3.70 12 65 1.25 15
4.45 16 70 1.2 19
5.20 20 - - -
110
Analysis Using SPT Data
50

30
The depth of influence ( ) of
the foundation can be
20
estimated using the figure.
10
( )
5
The compressibility index is
3 related to the average value of
2 the corrected standard
penetration resistance (N60):
1
1 2 3 5 10 20 30 50 100 1.71
( ) =
(N60) .
Figure 8.31 Relationship between depth
of influence and width of foundation
(Burland and Burbidge 1985)
111
Analysis Using SPT Data
Example

1 1. Assume a value for B, say B = 3.00 m.

2 2. Based on B and Figure 8.31, determine depth of influence z gives z =2.2 m

3 3. Determine average value of N60 between 1.5 m (foundation depth) to 1.5 + z = 3.7 m.

N60 = (7+9+13+12)/4 = 10

4 4. Determine the compressibility index I .

. .
= . = . = = 0.068
( ) ( )

112
Analysis Using SPT Data
50

30
The depth of influence ( ) of
the foundation can be
20
estimated using the figure.
10
( )
5
The compressibility index is
3 related to the average value of
2.2 2
the corrected standard
penetration resistance (N60):
1
1 2 3 5 10 20 30 50 100 1.71
( ) =
(N60) .
Figure 8.31 Relationship between depth
of influence and width of foundation
(Burland and Burbidge 1985)
113
Analysis Using SPT Data

η
Settlement = F F F s

where
1.0
.
s = qB I for normally consolidated sand

.
s= q− σ
0.9 B I (if q > σ ) (σ = preconsolidation pressure)

.
s = qB (if q > σ ) For overconsolidated sand

0.8 L
1.25 H H
F = B F = 2− If H < z
L z z
+ 0.25
B
0.7
F = 1 + R + R log if t > 3

R =00.3, R 10 20
= 0.2 (Conserve 30
estimate40 50
from Burland for60 70
static loading) 80 90 θ

114
Analysis Using SPT Data
Example

5 Determine action effect EA (= s)

Settlement = F F F s
where
. . .
s = qB I for normally consolidated sand= 250 · B · 0.068 = 17B mm

L
1.25 H H
F = B = 1, F = 2− If H < z = 1
L z z
+ 0.25
B

F = 1 + R + R log if t > 3 years = 1

R = 0.3, R = 0.2 (Conservative estimate from Burland for static loading)

115
Analysis Using SPT Data
Example 8.9

6 Applying equation for SLS

E ≤C 17B .
≤ 25 B ≥ 1.73 m
7 Repeat steps 2 to 6 with new B

new B
Iteration B (m) zI (m) N60 Ic
(m)
1 3.00 2.2 10 0.068 1.73
2 1.73 1.5 9 0.079 1.40
3 1.40 1.2 8 0.093 1.11
4 1.11 1.1 8 0.093 1.11
116
Summary

Here are the key takeaways from this lesson.

The applied vertical bearing pressure applied by a shallow foundation should be less than the
bearing capacity of the underlying soil.

Point load is a concentrated load at a specific point on the ground surface.

Line load is a load applied along a line on the ground surface.

An irregular area carrying uniform pressure can be treated using the superposition principle which
states that for all linear systems, the net response caused by various stimuli is the sum of
response caused by each stimulus individually.

Total settlement consists of immediate settlement, consolidation settlement and secondary

settlement. Secondary settlement is only important for organic soils.

117
Summary

Here are the key takeaways from this lesson.

In cohesionless deposits, settlement can be determined using in-situ tests.

Serviceability limit state (SLS) refers to the condition where deformation does not exceed some
limiting value. The deformation can be settlement, movement or rotation.

Ultimate limit state (ULS) refers to the condition where deformation is excessive or where
resistance capacity is exceeded.

In ULS design, partial factors are used. In SLS design, the partial factors are one.

118