CTR09629 - GEOTECHNICS 2 COURSEWORK

BEng (Hons) Civil Engineering

LECTURER: DR VICKY DIMITRIADI

NAME MATRICULATION NO.

Min Khant Naing 40455548

Thet Naing Htoo 40455566

Htun Aung Kyaw 40455539

Table of Contents
List of Notations
Abstract............................................................................................................................1
1 Introduction...............................................................................................................1
2 Objectives..................................................................................................................1
3 Structural Arrangements..........................................................................................1
4 Design process.........................................................................................................2
4.1 Design prcoess...................................................................................................2
4.2 Measures to ensure the stability of the excavations during constructions
and other challenges.................................................................................................43
5 Discussion...............................................................................................................45
6 Conclusion...............................................................................................................45
References......................................................................................................................45
7 Appendix..................................................................................................................46
8 Statement.................................................................................................................57

List of Notations

γ =¿ Unit Weight of soil

σ '1 =¿ Effective Major Principal Stress

σ '3 =¿ Effective Minor Principle Stress

∅ u=¿ Undrained Angle of Friction

c u=¿ Undrained Cohesion of Soil

∅ ' =¿ Effective Angle of Friction

C '=¿ Effective Cohesion of Soil

L, B, z = Length, Width, Depth of Foundation

N c , N q , N γ =¿ Bearing Capacity Factors

Sc , S q , S γ=¿ Shape Factors

d c , d q ,d γ=¿ Depth Factors

q = Bearing Capacity
q f =¿ Ultimate Bearing Capacity

q s=¿ Safe Bearing Capacity

Cr = Static Cone Resistance

N = Number of Penetration
Abstract
The goal of this exercise is to provide three foundation designs with proper dimensions
for the structural reinforced columns. The calculations on bearing capcity and total
settlement of each foundations will be implemented to provide a proper foundation
designs. In addition, the measures for the stability of soil and other challenges that we
might overcome during the construction of foundations will be discussed.

1 Introduction
The office development and hotel having floor height of 6 m will be constructed in the
area of vacant land. Due to environmental vibration and cost reasons, the structural
elements are going to be constructed in reinforced concrete. There will be measurable
amount of sulpur in the soil and having high water table as the site area is in the
neighbourhood of sea. Additionally, the foundations which are to be constructed will be
shallow foundation for sustainability; economy and less impact on the environment. The
goal is this design exercise is to state suitable dimensions for the three shallow
foundations in which the columns will be cast. The three shallow foundations are
locating at A, B and C on the overview of the site(Figure 1,Appendix). The laboratory
classification test results, shear box test results, consolidated undrained Triaxial test
results, borehole logs and structural arrangements of the three columns are provided.

2 Objectives
The goal of this exercise is to produce three foundation designs along with proper size
and appearance at locations A,B and C in which their performance are also in safe and
sound and cost has to be efficient. The soil parameter data, safe bearing capacity for
both long and short term states and total settlement which is less than acceptable limit
25 mm for each foundations are to be explored to carry out this process. The measures
to ensure the stability of ground during the excavation process and other incoming
challenges while the foundations are being constructed are discussed without any
calculations.

3 Structural Arrangements
The foundation A having column dimension 300 mm∗300 mm and vertical load of column
800 kN . For foundation B, column dimension is 400 mm∗400 mm and vertical column load
is 1000 kN . Column dimension and vertical load for foundation C are 500 mm∗500 mm and
1400 kN respectively. But horizontally, there are no loads acting on the three
foundations.

1
4 Design process
4.1 Design prcoess
Soil Parameters for Foundation A

The soil stratigraphy data from borehole 1 is used to determine the soil parameter. To
determine the representative set of soil properties, but first, the soil should be
encountered into sand and clay. In borehole 1, the soil stratigraphy consists of 6.8 m of
sand and 12 m of clay and water table at 1.5 m which shows in the figure. Then, the
representative set of soil properties for two soil layers are calculated using laboratory
classification test results. In borehole 1, the sand has a bulk density of ρ=1.8 Mg/m 3, w
= 18% and specific gravity Gs = 2.60. The clay has ρ=2.0 Mg/m 3, w = 22% and specific
gravity Gs = 2.60.

Unit weight of the soil can be calculated:

Unit weight of sand, γ s =ρ∗g

γ s =1.8∗9.81

γ s =17.66 kN /m 3

Unit weight of clay, γ s =ρ∗g

γ s =2.0∗9.81
Figure 1. Soil
3
γ s =19.62kN /m stratigraphy

Soil parameters for short term state

The undrained soil parameters can be calculated using the results from the undrained
triaxial test at the depth of 8.5 m from borehole 1. However, the assumed depth for the
foundation is 1.5 m. Since the data is insufficient to calculate the undrained soil
parameters, so the effective parameters have to assumed as same as the undrained soil
parameters. Then, the effective parameters can be determined by drawing a Mohr-
Coulomb Failure Envelope.

Test 1:σ '3 =200−108=92 kPa , σ '1 =106+92=198 kPa

Test 2:σ '3 =400−206=194 kPa, σ '1 =212+ 94=406 kPa

Test 3:σ '3 =800−316=484 kPa, σ '1 =542+ 484=1026 kPa

By using the diagram which is shown in Figure, soil parameters are c ’=0 and ϕ = 21°.

2
 Figure 1. Mohr Circle for Foundation A
Soil parameters for the Long-term state

The soil parameters for the long-term state can be calculated by using the results of the
shear box test results of Borehole 1. The shear box test result at the dept of 1.5 m will
be used to determine the effective soil parameters. The results are inserted in the
Microsoft Excel spreadsheet to draw the following graph.

Shear
Test Normal stress(kPA) Shear Force (kN)
stress(kPa)
1 27.78 66 18.33
2 55.56 111 30.83
3 111.11 192 53.33
Table 1.Shear Box Test Results

3
 Shear box test
60
53.33
50
Shear stress τ (kPa)
40
30.83
30
18.33
20

10

0
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Normal stress σ (kPa)

Figure 2. Borehole 1 shear box graph

The effective soil parameters for the long-term sate as c u=8 and φ=19°.
Foundation A

Bearing Capacity

The safe bearing capacity can be calculated for both short and term states of foundation
A by using the soil parameters. In this section, the calculation for the bearing capacity
will be carried out in order to check if the soil has enough bearing capacity to withstand
the pressure applied by the column for both states. Meyerhof’s method will be applied to
calculate the bearing capacity factors. The safety factor of 3 will be used to determine
the safe bearing capacity as the safety factor of 3 is the generally accepted safety
factor.

Column load 800

Pressure applied by Column, Gross pressure= = =106 kPa
area 2.75∗2.75

Short-term condition

γ (sat)=17.66 kN /m3

γ ' =γ−γ w =17.66−9.81=7.81 kN /m3

c ' =0 , ∅=21 ° , z =1.5 m, L=B=2.75 m

load 800
Pressure of the foundation= = =106 kPa
area 2.75∗2.75

4
 ∅ π tan ∅ 21 ° π tan 21 °
(
N q =tan 2 45+
2 )
ε =tan 2 45+( 2
ε ) =7.07

N C =( N q−1 ) cot ∅=(7.07−1)∗cot 21° =¿ 15.812¿

N γ =( N q−1 ) tan ( 1.4 ∅ ) =( 7.07−1 )∗tan(1.4∗21° )=3.42

Shape Factor

sq =1+ 0.1 ( BL ) tan ( 45+ ∅2 )=1+0.1( 2.75

2
2.75 ) tan (45+
21°
2
2
)=1.21

sc =1+0.2 ( BL ) tan ( 45+ ∅2 )=1+ 0.2( 2.75

2
2.75 ) tan (45+
21 °
2
2
)=1.42

sγ =1+0.1 ( BL ) tan ( 45+ ∅2 )=1+ 0.1 ( 2.75

2
2.75 ) tan ( 45+221 °
2 )
=1.21 CITATION Das07 \l 1033

(Das, 2007)

Depth Factor

d q =1+ 0.1 ( Lz ) tan ( 45+ ∅2 )=1+0.1( 2.75

1.5
) tan (45+ 212 ° )=1.08
d c =1+0.2 ( Lz ) tan(45+ ∅2 )=1+ 0.2( 2.75
1.5
) tan (45+ 21°2 ¿)=1.16 ¿
d γ =1+0.1 ( Lz ) tan (45+ ∅2 )=1+ 0.1( 2.75
1.5
)tan ( 45+
21 °
2
)=1.08

Inclination Factor

i q=i c =i γ =1(because there is no inclination load)

Ultimate Bearing Capacity

'
q u =cu N c s c i c d c + γz ( N q−1 ) s q i q d q+ 0.5 γ B N γ S γ i γ d γ
( net)

q u = { 0∗15.812∗1.42∗1∗1.16 }+ { 17.66∗1.5∗( 7.07−1 )∗1.21∗1∗1.08 } +{0.5∗7.81∗2.75∗3.42∗1.21∗1∗1.08 }

( net)

q u =258.12 kPa
( net)

To ensure the safety of the foundation, the safety factor is to be considered.

Assume that factor of safety=3

5
Safe Bearing Capacity

qu
q s= + γz
( net)

FS

258.12
q s= +(17.66∗1.5)
3

q s=112.53 kPa

Pressure of foundation loading=106 kPa

The foundation design is acceptable as the value of pressure of foundation loading does
not exceed that of safe bearing capacity. The foundation possesses sufficient resistance
to withstand the foundation loading pressure acting upon it.

Long-term condition

For the long term consideration, the value of cohesion(c ' ) and ϕ ' will vary.

γ sat =17.66 kN /m3 , γ ' =17.66−9.81=7.81 kN /m3

c u=8 , ϕ' =19 ° , z=1.5 m , L=B=2.75 m

N c , N q , N γ will be calculated by using Meyerhof’s method

∅ π tan ∅ 19 ° π tan 19 °
N q =tan 2 45+ ( 2 )
ε (
=tan 2 45+
2
ε) =5.8 ,

N c =(N q−1)cot ∅=( 5.8−1 ) cot 19 °=13.94 ,

N γ =(N q−1)tan ( 1.4∗∅ )=(5.8−1)tan (1.4∗19 ° )=2.4

Shape Factor(using Meyerhof’s method)

sq =1+ 0.1 ( BL ) tan ( 45+ ∅2 )=1+0.1( 2.75

2
2.75 ) 2
tan (45+
19°
2
)=1.20

sc =1+0.2 ( BL ) tan ( 45+ ∅2 )=1+ 0.2( 2.75

2
2.75 ) 2
tan (45+
19 °
2
)=1.39

sγ =1+0.1 ( BL ) tan ( 45+ ∅2 )=1+ 0.1( 2.75

2
2.75 ) 2
tan (45+
19 °
2
)=1.20 CITATION Das07 \l 1033

(Das, 2007)

Depth Factor(using Meyerhof’s method)

6
d q =1+ 0.1 ( Lz ) tan ( 45+ ∅2 )=1+0.1( 2.75
1.5
) tan (45+ 192 ° )=1.08
d c =1+0.2 ( Lz ) tan(45+ ∅2 )=1+ 0.2( 2.75
1.5
)tan( 45+
19 °
2
)=1.15

d γ =1+0.1 ( Lz ) tan (45+ ∅2 )=1+ 0.1( 2.75

1.5
) tan( 45+
19 °
2
)=1.08

Inclination Factor

i q=i c =i γ =1(No inclination factor )

Ultimate Bearing Capacity

q u =c' N c s c i c d c +γz ( N q −1 ) s q iq d q + 0.5 γ ' B N γ s γ i γ d γ

( net)

q u = { 8∗13.94∗1.39∗1∗1.15 }+ {17.66∗1.5∗( 5.8−1 )∗1.2∗1∗1.08 } +{0.5∗7.81∗2.75∗2.4∗1.2∗1∗1.08 }

( net)

q u =321.53 kPa
(net )

Factor of safety, FS= 3

Safe Bearing Capacity

qu
q s= + γz
( net)

FS

321.53
q s= +(17.66∗1.5)
3

q s=133.67 kPa

800
Pressure of foundation loading¿ =106 kPa
2.75∗2.75

As the value of safe bearing capacity is greater than that of foundation loading pressure,
this foundation design for the long term state is acceptable. The foundation has enough
resistance to carry the foundation loading pressure above it.

Total settlement

For the final step of the foundation A design, the total settlement caused by foundation
requires to be calculated to make sure that the settlement does not exceed the
acceptable limit of 25mm. In order to calculate the total settlement, firstly, immediate
settlement and consolidation settlement should be determined. The immediate

7
settlement will be calculated by using Schmertmann’s Method after that consolidation
settlement of clay layers below the foundation will be calculated.

Net pressure applied by the column,

∆ σ 'v =Gross pressure−surcharge pressure

Columnload
∆ σ 'v = −γz
Area

800
∆ σ 'v = −17.66 ×1.5
2.75 ×2.75

∆ σ 'v =79.3 kPa

Immediate Settlement

The soil is a cohesionless soil type so the immediate settlement will occur. To determine
the immediate settlement, Schmertmann’s method will be applied as it is based on the
physical model of settlement which has been calibrated using empirical data. The
settlement depends on the load from the above, the depth of the foundation and the type
of footing. In Schmertmann’s method, the variation of the strain factor I z is influenced.
[ CITATION Smi06 \l 1033 ] For the calculation, the borehole data given for Borehole 1
will be used.

z=1.5 m , L=B=2.75 m, ∆ σ 'v =79.3 kPa

γ (sat)=17.66 kN /m3

The shaped of the foundation is squared-shape so L/B=1, the maximum value of the
influence factor Iz occurs at a depth of 2.875 m (B/2 below the foundation)

σ 'vp=17.66 × 2.875=50.77
0.5
∆ σ 'v
I z =0.5+0.1
[ ] σ 'vp

0.5
79.3
I z =0.5+0.1 [ 50.77 ] =0.6

8
The soil below foundation A divided into eight layers to reach two times of the width of
the foundation for greater accuracy is 5.5m. Each layer has a thickness of 0.6875m.
Then the figure below to indicate the layer centre depth (LCD) and the number of
penetration (N) for each layer.

Modulus of elasticity can be calculated by using the following formula:

E=479 ×(N +15)

By interpolation,

At z=0.34375 , I z for layer 1=0.22

At z=1.03125 , I z for layer 2=0.47

At z=1.71875 , I z for layer 3=0.55

At z=2.40625 , I z for layer 4=0.45

At z=3.09375 , I z for layer 5=0.35

At z=3.78125 , I z for layer 6=0.25

At z=4.46875 , I z for layer 7=0.15

At z=5.15625 , I z for layer 8=0.05

Laye ∆ z i(m) Depth below E=479*(N+15) *10−3 Iz I z ∆ zi

r foundation to the E
centre of layer (m) (MPa)

1 0.6875 0.34375 ¿ 479∗( 14+15 )∗10−3 0.22 0.011

9
 =13.891
2 0.6875 1.03125 13.891 0.47 0.023
3 0.6875 1.71875 13.891 0.55 0.027
4 0.6875 2.40625 13.891 0.45 0.022
5 0.6875 3.09375 13.891 0.35 0.017
6 0.6875 3.78125 13.891 0.25 0.012
7 0.6875 4.46875 13.891 0.15 0.007
8 0.6875 5.15625 13.891 0.05 0.002

I z ∆ zi
∑ E
=0.121

Correction factor C1 is calculated using the formula shown below:

σ 'v
C 1=1−0.5
[ ] ∆ σ 'v

17.66 ×1.5
C 1=1−0.5 [ 79.3 ]
= 0.83

Asuumethat C2 =1,

Total immediate settlement,

' I z ∆ zi
ρi=C 1 × C2 × ∆ σ v × ∑ =0.83× 1× 79.51× 0.121=7.9 mm
E

The immediate settlement for the foundation A is 7.9mm. Now, consolidation settlement
has to be carried out.

Consolidation settlement

Before getting down into calculations of consolidation settlement, firstly, consolidation

properties such as vertical effective stresses, compression index, change in void ratio
and elastic stiffness have to be determined.

Vertical effective stresses

γ (sand)=17.66 kN /m 3 ,γ clay =19.62 kN /m3

10
 Net pressure applied by the column,

∆ σ 'v =79.3 kPa

Initial vertical effective stress has to be determined at the mid-depth of the clay layer,

γ clay∗z clay
(
σ vo= ( γ sand z sand ) +
2 )
σ vo= (17.66∗6.8 )+ ( 19.62∗12
2 )
σ vo=237.808 kPa

u=γ w∗z

u=9.81∗11.3

u=110.853

σ 'vo=σ vo −u

σ 'vo=237.808−110.853

σ 'vo=127 kPa

Vertical effective stress after the application of the column,

σ 'v1 =σ 'vo +∆ σ 'v

σ 'v1 =127+76.57

σ 'v1 =203.57 kPa

Compression index,C c

Compression index can be carried out by using the formula shown below,

C c =0.01 w , w=22%

C c =0.01× w

C c =0.22

Change in void ratio, e 1

11
e o=0.665,

σ 'vo +∆ σ 'v
e 1=e o−C c log 10
[ σ 'vo ]
127+76.57
e 1=0.665−0.22 log 10 [ 127 ]
e 1=0.62

Elastic stiffness, mv

e o−e 1
mv = ' '
( 1+e o )∗(σ v 1−σ vo )
0.665−0.62
mv =
( 1+0.665 )∗(76.57)

mv =0.0003529714905m2 /kN

Consolidation settlement

Consolidation settlement can be calculated by using the following formula,

ρc =mv∗∆ σ 'v∗H c

ρc =0.0003529714905∗76.57∗12

ρc =0.324324 m

ρc =324.324 mm

Total settlement

Total settlement = immediate settlement + consolidation settlement

ρtotal= ρi+ ρc

ρtotal=7.9+ 324.324

ρtotal=332.224 mm

The total settlement exceeds the acceptable limit of 25 mm so the dimensions are not
suitable for the foundation. So, we have to adapt to other dimensions and calculate the
total settlement to check that the result does not exceed the acceptable limit of 25 mm.

12
 Foundation A

With dimension of length and width assumed 4.2 m and at the depth of 2.5 m, the
calculation for the total settlement will be determined. In this section, the calculation for
the bearing capacity will not be determined because the increase in dimensions of the
foundation will also increase the bearing capacity of foundation. The assumed
dimensions can be said that they are suitable for the foundation so this foundation has
adequate resistance to withstand the column load.

Total settlement

For the final step of the foundation A design, the total settlement caused by foundation
requires to be calculated to make sure that the settlement does not exceed the
acceptable limit of 25mm. In order to calculate the total settlement, firstly, immediate
settlement and consolidation settlement should be determined. The immediate
settlement will be calculated by using Schmertmann’s Method after that consolidation
settlement of clay layers below the foundation will be calculated.
3
L=B=4.2 m, z=2.5 m,γ (sand)=17.66 kN /m

Net pressure applied by the column,

∆ σ 'v =Gross pressure−surcharge pressure

Columnload
∆ σ 'v = −γz
Area

800
∆ σ 'v = −17.66× 2.5
4.2 × 4.2

∆ σ 'v =1.2 kPa

Immediate Settlement

As the dimensions are increased, the value of immediate settlement will reduce. In this
process, we will focus on the calculation of consolidation settlement.

Consolidation settlement

Before getting down into calculations of consolidation settlement, firstly, consolidation

properties such as vertical effective stresses, compression index, change in void ratio
and elastic stiffness have to be determined.

Vertical effective stresses

13
γ (sand)=17.66 kN /m 3 ,γ clay =19.62 kN /m3

Net pressure applied by the column,

∆ σ 'v =1.2 kPa

Initial vertical effective stress has to be determined at the mid-depth of the clay layer,

γ clay∗z clay
(
σ vo= ( γ sand z sand ) +
2 )
σ vo= (17.66∗6.8 )+ ( 19.62∗12
2 )
σ vo=237.808 kPa

u=γ w∗z

u=9.81∗11.3

u=110.853

σ 'vo=σ vo −u

σ 'vo=237.808−110.853

σ 'vo=127 kPa

Vertical effective stress after applied the column,

σ 'v1 =σ 'vo +∆ σ 'v

σ 'v1 =127+1.2

σ 'v1 =128.2 kPa

Compression index,C c

Compression index can be carried out by using the formula shown below,

C c =0.01 w , w=22%

C c =0.01 w=0.01∗22=0.22 %

Change in void ratio, e 1

14
e o=0.665,

σ 'vo + ∆ σ 'v
e 1=e o−C c log 10
( σ 'vo )
e 1=0.665−0.22 log 10 ( 127+ 1.2
127 )

e 1=0.664

Elastic stiffness, m v

e o−e 1
mv = ' '
( 1+e o )∗(σ v 1−σ vo )
0.665−0.664
mv =
( 1+0.665 )∗(1.2)

m v =0.0005005005005m 2 /kN

Consolidation settlement

Consolidation settlement can be calculated by using the following formula,

ρc =mv∗∆ σ 'v∗H c

ρc =0.0005005005005∗1.2∗12

ρc =0.0072m

ρc =7.2 mm

Total settlement

Total settlement = immediate settlement + consolidation settlement

ρtotal= ρi+ ρc

ρtotal=1+7.2

ρtotal =8.2mm

15
The total settlement obtained is 8.2 mm which is less than acceptable limit 25 mm.
However, the dimensions are extremely large which are not eligible for the shallow
foundation design and also not cost efficient. That becomes unsustainable foundation.
Foundation B
Design Assumption
Proper dimensions; depth, length and width needs to be assumed to implement the
calculations on the bearing capacity and settlements. As the space between each
column is 10 m in both x and y directions, the dimensions of the foundation should not
exceed 5m. Additionally, the structure of the foundation has to be square as the column
which are to be cast is square in shape. As the design is for a shallow foundation, the
assumed width and length are 3 m respectively and depth is 1 m.
For shallow foundation, the ratio of depth to the width of the foundation is less than 1.
z 1
= =0.3333<1
B 3
As the ratio of depth to the width of the assumed foundation is less than 1, the
dimensions are acceptable. The designs for the bearing capacity and settlement will be
calculated by applying assumed dimensions.

Soil parameters

The soil stratigraphy data from borehole 2 is used to determine the soil parameter. To
determine the representative set of soil properties, but first, the soil should be
encountered into sand and clay. In borehole 2, the soil stratigraphy consists of 11.1 m of
sand and 12 m of clay and water table at 1.3 m which shows in the figure. Then, the
representative set of soil properties for two soil layers are calculated using laboratory
classification test results. In borehole 2, the sand has a bulk density of ρ=1.9 Mg/m 3, w
= 23% and specific gravity Gs = 2.60. The clay has ρ=2.05 Mg/m 3, w = 16% and specific
gravity Gs = 2.60.

Unit weight of the soil can be calculated:

Unit weight of sand, γ s =ρ∗g

γ s =1.90∗9.81

γ s =18.64 kN /m 3

Unit weight of clay, γ c =ρ∗g

Figure 4. Soil
16
stratigraphy
 γ c =2.05∗9.81

γ c =20.11 kN /m 3

Soil parameters for short term state

The undrained soil parameters can be calculated using the results from the undrained
Triaxial test at the depth of 12.5 m from borehole 2. However, the assumed depth for the
foundation is 1.5 m. Since the data is insufficient to calculate the undrained soil
parameters, so the effective parameters have to assumed as same as the undrained soil
parameters. Then, the effective parameters can be determined by drawing a Mohr-
Coulomb Failure Envelope.

Test 1:σ '3 =200−112=88 kPa , σ '1 =140+88=228 kPa

Test 2:σ '3 =400−200=200 kPa, σ '1 =320+200=520 kPa

Test 3:σ '3 =800−260=484 kPa, σ '1 =848+540=1388 kPa

By using the diagram which is shown in Figure, soil parameters are c ’=0 and ϕ = 26°.

Figure 3. Mohr Circle for Foundation B

17
Soil parameters for the Long-term state

The soil parameters for the long-term state can be calculated by using the results of the
shear box test results of Borehole 2. The shear box test result at a depth of 1.5 m will be
used to determine the effective soil parameters. The results are inserted in the Microsoft
Excel spreadsheet to draw the following graph.

Shear
Test Normal stress(kPa) Shear force (kN)
stress(kPa)
1 27.78 62 17.5
2 55.56 109 30.28
3 111.11 191 53.33
Table 2. Shear Box results

Shear Box Test

60
53.33
50
Shear Stress τ (kPa)

40
30.28
30

20 17.5

10

0
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Normal Stress σ (kPa)

Figure 4. Shear Box Graph

The effective soil parameters for the long-term sate as c u=8.5 and ∅=20°.

Foundation B

Bearing capacity

By applying the soil parameters, the calculations for the bearing capacity of the soil
(both long term and short term states) will be implemented. The calculations for the
bearing capacity will be implemented to check if the soil possesses proper bearing
capacity to withstand the column pressure acting from above. In this process,
Meyerhof`s method will be used to calculate the bearing capacity of a foundation. The
safety factor of 3 will be used to determine the safe bearing capacity as the safety of 3
is the generally accepted safety factor.
18
The short term situation,

At 5 m, γ sat =ρg=1.9∗9.81=18.64 kN /m3

8.83 kN
γ ' =γ sat −g=18.64−9.81= at 5 m .
m3

At 12.5 m, γ sat =ρg=2.05∗9.81=20.11 kN /m3

c ' =0 , ∅=26 °

column load 1000

Foundation loading pressure= = =111.11 kPa
area 3∗3

For shallow foundation, the ratio of the depth and width of the foundation is less than 1.

z 1
∴ = =0.3<1
B 3

Since the ratio of depth to the width is less than 1, depth and width can be assumed for
the shallow foundation.

z=1 m, L=B=3 m

ϕ π tan ∅ 26° π tan 26 °

(
N q =tan 2 45+
2 )
ε (
=tan 2 45+
2
ε ) =11.85

N c =( N q−1 )∗cot ∅=( 11.85−1 )∗cot 26° =22.25

N γ =( N q−1 ) tan ( 1.4∗∅ )= (11.85−1 )∗tan ( 1.4∗26 ° )=7.99

Shape Factor

sq =1+ 0.1 ( BL ) tan ( 45+ ∅2 )=1+0.1( 33 ) tan ( 45+ 262 ° )=1.26

2 2

sc =1+0.2 ( BL ) tan ( 45+ ∅2 )=1+ 0.2( 33 ) tan ( 45+ 262° )=1.51

2 2

sγ =1+0.1 ( BL ) tan ( 45+ ∅2 )=1+ 0.1( 33 ) tan ( 45+ 262° )=1.26

2 2

Depth Factor

d c =1+0.2 ( Bz ) tan (45+ ∅2 )=1+ 0.2 ( 13 ) tan ( 45+ 262 ° )=1.11

19
d q =1+ 0.1 ( Bz ) tan ( 45+ ∅2 )=1+0.1 ( 13 ) tan (45+ 262 ° )=1.05
d γ =1+0.1 ( Bz ) tan (45+ ∅2 )=1+ 0.1( 13 ) tan (45+ 262 ° )=1.05
Inclination Factor

As there are no inclination loads acting on the foundation,

i c =i q=i γ =1

Ultimate Bearing Capacity

q f =c N c s c i c d c + γz ( N q−1 ) i q s q d q +0.5 γ ' B N γ sγ i γ d γ

q f =0+ { 18.64∗1∗( 11.85−1 )∗1∗1.26∗1.05 } +{0.5∗8.83∗3∗7.99∗1.26∗1∗1.05}

q f =407.58 kPa

For safety requirements, a process which ensures the safety withstandable limit of the
foundation and factor for safety has to be considered so that the foundation can safely
withstand the loading pressures installed upon it.

Assuming the factor of safety, FS=3

Safe Bearing Capacity

qf 407.58
q s= + γz= + ( 18.64∗1 ) =154.5 kPa
FS 3

Foundation load pressure=111.11kPa

As the value of safe bearing capacity is larger than that of pressure acting on it, it is
obvious that the design of foundation B is acceptable. So, the foundation B possess
enough amount of capacity to bear the above pressure.

The long term situation,

kN ' kN
γ sat =18.64 3
, γ =8.83 3
m m

c u=8.5 , ∅=20° , z=1 m, L=B=3 m

∅ π tan ∅ 20 ° π tan 20 °
(
N q =tan 2 45+
2
ε) =tan 2 45+ (2
ε )=6.4

20
N c =(N q−1) cot ∅=( 6.4−1)cot 20 °=14.83

N γ =(N q−1) tan ( 1.4∗∅ )=(6.4−1) tan ( 1.4∗20 ° )=2.87

Shape Factor

sq =1+ 0.1 ( BL ) tan ( 45+ ∅2 )=1+0.1( 33 ) tan (45+ 20°2 )=1.2

2 2

sc =1+0.2 ( BL ) tan ( 45+ ∅2 )=1+ 0.2( 33 ) tan (45+ 202° )=1.4

2 2

sγ =1+0.1 ( BL ) tan ( 45+ ∅2 )=1+ 0.1( 33 )tan (45+ 202 ° )=1.2

2 2

Depth Factor

d q =1+ 0.1 ( Lz ) tan(45+ ∅2 )=1+0.1( 13 ) tan (45+ 202 ° )=1.05

z ∅ 1 20°
d c =1+0.2 () L
tan(45+ )=1+ 0.2( )tan 45+
2 3 2
=1.09 ( )
d γ =1+0.1 ( Lz ) tan (45+ ∅2 )=1+ 0.1( 31 ) tan ( 45+ 20°2 )=1.05
Inclination Factor

i q=i c =i γ =1

Ultimate Bearing Capacity

q f =c ' N c s c i c d c + γz ( N q−1 ) i q s q d q+ 0.5 γ ' B N γ s γ i γ d γ

q f =( 8.5∗14.83∗1.4∗1∗1.09 )+ { 18.64∗1∗( 6.4−1 )∗1∗1.2∗1.05 }+(0.5∗8.83∗3∗2.87∗1.2∗1∗1.05)

q f =367.08 kPa

Factor of safety, FS= 3

Safe Bearing Capacity

qf 367.08
q s= + γz= + ( 18.64∗1 )=141 kPa
FS 3

Foundation load pressure=111.11 kPa

21
Since the value of safe bearing capacity exceeds that of pressure, the designated
foundation is acceptable. The foundation has a safe withstandable limit to the loading
pressures above it.

Immediate settlement

As the sand is silica, the soil is cohesionless and thus it leads to immediate settlement.
Schmertmann`s method will be used to calculate the immediate settlement of soil.

The interpolation process will be implemented in obedience to the dimensions of the

footing whether it is L/B=1 or L/B=10.

L=B=3 m

∆ p=pressure−γz
∆ p=111.11−( 18.64∗1 )
∆ p=92.47 kPa

σ 'vp=γ∗( 1.5+0.5 B )=18.64∗[ 1.5+ ( 0.5∗3 ) ] =55.92 kPa

0.5
∆p
I zp =0.5+ 0.1
( ) σ 'vp
, [CITATION Smi14 \l 1033 ]

0.5
92.47
I zp =0.5+ 0.1 ( 55.92 )
I zp =0.63

22
 Laye ∆ z i(m) Depth below E=479*(N+15)*10−3 Iz I z ∆ zi
r foundation to the E
centre of layer (m) (kPa)

1 0.75 0.375 ¿ 479∗( 12+15 )∗10−3 0.24 0.0139

=12.933
2 0.75 1.125 12.933 0.5 0.029
3 0.75 1.875 12.933 0.58 0.0336
4 0.75 2.625 12.933 0.48 0.0278
5 0.75 3.375 12.933 0.37 0.0215
6 0.75 4.125 12.933 0.26 0.0151
7 0.75 4.875 ¿ 479∗( 15+15 )∗10−3 0.16 0.0084

=14.37
8 0.75 5.625 14.37 0.05 0.0026

I z ∆ zi
∑ E
=0.1519

0.5∗σ 'v 18.64∗1

C 1=1−
∆p
=1−0.5∗ (
92.47 )
=0.899 0.9 m

Assume that C 2=1 m

I z ∆ zi
Immediate settlement,ρ=C1∗∆ p∗∑ =0.9∗92.47∗0.1519=12.6 mm
E
Consolidation settlement

γ sand =ρg=1.9∗9.81=18.64 kN /m3

γ clay =ρg=2.05∗9.81=20.11 kN /m 3

po =( γ 1 z 1 ) + ( γ 2 z 2 ) =( 18.639∗5 ) + ( 20.11∗12.1 )=336.526 kPa

u=γ w z w =9.81∗15.8=154.998 m

Initial stress, p'o =p o−u=181.528 kPa

p1= po + ∆ p=336.526+ 92.471=428.997 kPa

Final stress, p'1= p1−u=428.997−154.998=273.999 kPa

23
dp= p'1− p'o =273.999−181.528=92.471 kPa
C c =0.01 w=0.01∗16=0.16

e o=0.665

p'o+ dp
e 1=e o−C c log 10
( '
p
o
) =0.665−0.16 log ( 181.528+ 92.471
181.528 )
e 1=0.636

eo −e 1 0.665−0.636
mv = ' '
= =0.0001883554565
(1+ eo )(σ −σ ) (1+0.665)(273.999−181.528)
1 o

Primary consolidation settlement,

ρc =mv ∆ σ 'v H o

ρc =0.0001883554565∗( 273.999−181.528 )∗12

ρc =0.209009

ρc =209.009 mm

Total settlement

Total settlement = immediate settlement + consolidation settlement

ρtotal= ρi+ ρc

ρtotal=12.6 +209=221.6 mm

The total settlement exceeds the acceptable limit of 25 mm so the dimensions are not
suitable for the foundation. So, we have to adapt to other dimensions and calculate the
total settlement to check that the result does not exceed the acceptable limit of 25 mm.

Design assumptions
As previously assumed, L=B=3 m and z=1 m, the bearing capacity obtained is
acceptable. The immediate settlement obtained is 12.6 mm. But the value of
consolidation settle is very huge which is 209.009 mm. So, we will increase the
dimensions of the foundation and try again whether the settlement which is less than 25
mm can be obtained or not.
Now we change the dimensions of Foundation B to,
ϕ π tan ∅ 26° π tan 26 °
2
L=B=4.2 m , z=2 m N q =tan 45+ ( 2)ε (
=tan 2 45+
2
ε) =11.85

24
N c =( N q−1 )∗cot ∅=( 11.85−1 )∗cot 26° =22.25

N γ =( N q−1 ) tan ( 1.4∗∅ )= (11.85−1 )∗tan ( 1.4∗26 ° )=7.99

column load 1000

Foundation load pressure= = =56.689 kPa
area 4.2∗4.2

Shape Factor

sq =1+ 0.1 ( BL ) tan ( 45+ ∅2 )=1+0.1( 4.2

2
4.2 ) tan ( 45+
26 °
2 )
2
=1.26

sc =1+0.2 ( BL ) tan ( 45+ ∅2 )=1+ 0.2( 4.2

2
4.2 ) tan ( 45+
26 °
2 )
2
=1.51

sγ =1+0.1 ( BL ) tan ( 45+ ∅2 )=1+ 0.1( 4.2

2
4.2 ) tan ( 45+
26°
2 )
2
=1.26

Depth Factor

d c =1+0.2 ( Bz ) tan (45+ ∅2 )=1+ 0.2( 4.22 ) tan ( 45+ 262 ° )=¿1.15 ¿
d q =1+ 0.1 ( Bz ) tan ( 45+ ∅2 )=1+0.1 ( 4.22 ) tan ( 45+ 262 ° )=1.08
d γ =1+0.1 ( Bz ) tan (45+ ∅2 )=1+ 0.1 ( 4.22 ) tan( 45+ 262 ° )=1.08
Inclination Factor

As there are no inclination loads acting on the foundation,

i c =i q=i γ =1

Ultimate Bearing Capacity

q f =c N c s c i c d c + γz ( N q−1 ) i q s q d q +0.5 γ ' B N γ sγ i γ d γ

q f =0+ { 18.64∗2∗( 11.85−1 )∗1∗1.26∗1.08 } +{0.5∗8.83∗4.2∗7.99∗1.26∗1∗1.08 }

q f =752.04 kPa

25
For safety requirements, a process which ensures the safety withstandable limit of the
foundation and factor for safety has to be considered so that the foundation can safely
withstand the loading pressures installed upon it.

Assuming the factor of safety, FS=3

Safe Bearing Capacity

qf 752.04
q s= + γz= + ( 18.64∗2 )=287.96 kPa
FS 3

Foundation load pressure=56.689 kPa

As the value of safe bearing capacity is larger than that of pressure acting on it, it is
obvious that the design of foundation B is acceptable. So, the foundation B possess
enough amount of capacity to bear the above pressure for the short term state.

Considering the long term situation,

kN ' kN
γ sat =18.64 3
, γ =8.83 3
m m

c ' =8.5 , ∅=20 ° , z=2 m, L=B=4.2 m

∅ π tan ∅ 20 ° π tan 20 °
(
N q =tan 2 45+
2 )
ε (
=tan 2 45+
2
ε) =6.4

N c =(N q−1) cot ∅=( 6.4−1)cot 20 °=14.83

N γ =(N q−1) tan ( 1.4∗∅ )=(6.4−1) tan ( 1.4∗20 ° )=2.87

Shape Factor

sq =1+ 0.1 ( BL ) tan ( 45+ ∅2 )=1+0.1( 4.2

2
4.2
2
)tan ( 45+
20 °
2
)=1.2

sc =1+0.2 ( BL ) tan ( 45+ ∅2 )=1+ 0.2( 4.2

2
4.2
2
) tan (45+
20 °
2
)=1.4

sγ =1+0.1 ( BL ) tan ( 45+ ∅2 )=1+ 0.1( 4.2

2
4.2
2
) tan (45+
20 °
2
)=1.2

Depth Factor

d q =1+ 0.1 ( Lz ) tan( 45+ ∅2 )=1+0.1 ( 4.22 ) tan (45+ 202° )=1.06
26
d c =1+0.2 ( Lz ) tan(45+ ∅2 )=1+ 0.2( 4.22 ) tan ( 45+ 20°2 )=1.14
d γ =1+0.1 ( Lz ) tan (45+ ∅2 )=1+ 0.1( 4.22 ) tan ( 45+ 202 ° )=1.06
Inclination Factor

i q=i c =i γ =1

Ultimate Bearing Capacity

q f =c ' N c s c i c d c + γz ( N q−1 ) i q s q d q+ 0.5 γ ' B N γ s γ i γ d γ

q f =( 8.5∗14.83∗1.4∗1∗1.14 ) + { 18.64∗2∗ ( 6.4−1 )∗1∗1.2∗1.06 } +(0.5∗8.83∗4.2∗2.87∗1.2∗1∗1.06)

q f =524.95 kPa

Factor of safety, FS= 3

Safe Bearing Capacity

qf 524.95
q s= + γz= + ( 18.64∗2 )=212.26 kPa
FS 3

Foundation load pressure=56.689 kPa

As the magnitude of safe bearing capacity is larger than that of foundation pressure, this
design is acceptable. The bearing capacity of the foundation will decrease if the
dimensions of the foundation are reduced. In this case, dimensions will be increased so
the bearing capacity will do increase.

Total settlement

Calculation of settlements of this foundation is the final procedure. In this procedure, the
total settlement due to the foundation loading pressure has to be calculated to make
sure that the total settlement is less than acceptable limit, 25 mm. As the first of this
process, immediate settlement will be calculated. After that, the consolidation settlement
will be determined. The immediate settlement will be calculated by following
Schmertmann`s method.

Immediate settlement

L=B=4.2 m,

27
∆ p=pressure−γz
∆ p=56.689−( 18.64∗2 )
∆ p=19.409 kPa

σ 'vp=γ∗( 1.5+0.5 B )=18.64∗[ 1.5+ ( 0.5∗4.2 ) ] =67.104 kPa

0.5
∆p
I zp =0.5+ 0.1
( ) σ 'vp
, [CITATION Smi14 \l 1033 ]

0.5
19.409
I zp =0.5+ 0.1 ( 67.104 )
I zp =0.55

Laye ∆ z i(m) Depth below E=479*(N+15)*10−3 Iz I z ∆ zi

r foundation to the E
centre of layer (m) (kPa)

1 1.05 0.525 ¿ 479∗( 12+15 )∗10−3 0.21 0.0171

=12.933
2 1.05 1.575 12.933 0.44 0.0357
3 1.05 2.625 12.933 0.5 0.0406
4 1.05 3.675 ¿ 479∗( 15+15 )∗10−3 0.41 0.0300

=14.37
5 1.05 4.725 14.37 0.32 0.0234
6 1.05 5.775 14.37 0.23 0.0168
7 1.05 6.825 14.37 0.14 0.0102

28
 8 1.05 7.875 14.37 0.04 0.0029

I z ∆ zi
∑ E
=0.177

0.5∗σ 'v 18.64∗2

C 1=1−
∆p
=1−0.5∗
19.409 (
=0.04 m )
Assume that C 2=1 m
I z ∆ zi
Immediate settlement,ρ=C1∗∆ p∗∑ =0.04∗19.409∗0.177=0.137 mm
E
Consolidation settlement

γ sand =ρg=1.9∗9.81=18.64 kN /m 3

γ clay =ρg=2.05∗9.81=20.11kN /m 3

Net pressure applied by the column,

∆ σ 'v =Gross pressure−surchargeload

Columnload
∆ σ 'v = −γz
Area
1000
∆ σ 'v = −(18.64∗2)
4.2∗4.2

∆ σ 'v =19.409 kPa

Initial vertical effective stress at the mid-depth of the clay layer,

γ clay∗z clay
σ vo= ( γ sand∗z sand ) +( )
2

σ vo= (18.64∗11.1 )+ ( 20.11∗12

2 )
σ vo=327.56 kPa

u=γ w z w =9.81∗15.8=155 kPa

σ 'vo=σ vo −u

σ 'vo=327.56−155

σ 'vo=172.56 kPa

29
σ 'v1 =σ 'vo +∆ σ 'v

σ 'v1 =172.56+19.409

σ 'v1 =191.969 kPa

C c =0.01 w=0.01∗16=0.16

e o=0.665

σ 'vo + ∆ σ 'v 172.56+19.409

e 1=e o−C c log 10
( σ '
vo
) =0.665−0.16 log 10
172.56

e 1=0.658

e o−e 1 0.665−0.658
mv = ' '
==0.0002166110672
(1+ eo )(σ −σ ) (1+ 0.665)(19.409)
v1 vo

Consolidation settlement

ρc =mv ∆ σ 'v H o
ρc =0.0002166110672∗19.409∗12=0.05045=50.45 mm

Total settlement = immediate settlement + consolidation settlement

ρtotal= ρi+ ρc

ρtotal =0.04+50.45=50.49 mm

The total settlement obtain is 50.49 mm which is over the acceptable limit of 25 mm.
Foundation C
Design Assumption

Proper assumptions for the dimensions of the foundation are required such as length,
width and depth to implement the calculations on the bearing capacity and settlements.
As the space between each column is 10 m in both x and y directions, the dimensions
of the foundation should not exceed 5m. Additionally, the structure of the foundation has
to be square as the column which are to be cast is square in shape. As the design is for
a shallow foundation, the assumed width and length are 3.5 m and depth is 2 m. The
calculations for the bearing capacity and settlement will be carried out by applying
assumed dimensions.

For a shallow foundation, the ratio of depth to the width of the foundation is less than 1.

30
 z 2
= =0.57 <1
B 3.5

As the ratio of depth to the width of the foundation is less than 1, the assumed
dimensions are acceptable to carry on other processes. Firstly, the safe bearing
capacity will be calculated. After that, the total settlement will be determined.

Soil paramaters

The soil stratigraphy data from borehole 3 is used to determine the soil parameter. To
determine the representative set of soil properties, but first, the soil should be
encountered into sand and clay. In borehole 1, the soil stratigraphy consists
of 11.1m of sand and 12m of clay and water table at 1.3m which shows in
the figure. Then, the representative set of soil properties for two soil layers
are calculated using laboratory classification test results. In borehole 1, the
sand has a bulk density of ρ=1.95 Mg/m 3, w = 22% and specific gravity G s
= 2.64. The clay has ρ=1.95 Mg/m3, w = 22% and specific gravity Gs = 2.64.

Unit weight of the soil can be calculated:

Unit weight of sand, γ s =ρ∗g

γ s =2.05∗9.81

γ s =20.11 kN /m 3
Figure 1 Borehole
Unit weight of clay, γ s =ρ∗g 3 soil stratigraphy.
γ s =2.05∗9.81

γ s =20.11 kN /m 3

Soil parameters for short term state

The undrained soil parameters can be calculated using the results from the undrained
triaxial test at the depth of 8.5 m from borehole 3. However, the assumed depth for the
foundation is 2 m. Since the data is insufficient to calculate the undrained soil
parameters, so the effective parameters have to assumed as same as the undrained soil
parameters. Then, the effective parameters can be determined by drawing a Mohr-
Coulomb Failure Envelope.

Test 1:σ '3 =100−60=40 kPa , σ '1 =40+82=122 kPa

Test 2:σ '3 =200−90=110 kPa, σ '1 =110+212=322kPa

31
Test 3:σ '3 =400−120=280 kPa, σ '1 =280+542=822 kPa

By using the diagram which is shown in Figure, soil parameters are c ’=0 and ϕ = 29°.

Figure 5. Mohr Circle

Soil parameters for long term state

As the data of shear box results for borehole 3, we pick the data from the Bore hole
shear box results.

The soil parameters for the long-term state can be calculated by using the results of the
shear box test results of Borehole 1. The shear box test result at the dept of 1.5 m will
be used to determine the effective soil parameters. The results are inserted in the
Microsoft Excel spreadsheet to draw the following graph.

Shear
Test Normal stress(kPa) Shear Force (kN)
stress(kPa)
1 27.78 66 18.33
2 55.56 111 30.83
3 111.11 192 53.33
Table 3.Shear Box Test Results

32
 Shear box test
60
53.33
50
Shear stress τ (kPa)
40
30.83
30
18.33
20

10

0
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Normal stress σ (kPa)

Figure 6. Borehole 1 shear box graph

Bearing Capacity

The calculations on the safe bearing capacity will be carried out for both short term and
long term states by the use of data from soil parameters. This process will be
implemented in a way to check if the soil possesses sufficient bearing capacity to bear
the column load pressure acting from above. In calculating the bearing capacity,
Meyerhof`s method will be followed. The safety factor of 3 will be used to determine the
safe bearing capacity as the safety of 3 is the generally accepted safety factor.

Short term state

In considering the short term condition of foundation C, data are provided in both
Borehole no.1 and no.3.

Calculation of short term condition by using data from Borehole no.1

γ sat =17.66 kN /m3

γ ' =γ−γ w =17.66−9.81=7.81 kN /m3

σ 'v =Dγ−u=( 2∗17.66 )−( 0.5∗9.81 )=30.415 kPa

c u=0

33
∅=21°

z=2 m

L=B=3.5 m

∅ 21° π tan 21°

N q =tan 2 (45+ )ε π tan ∅ =tan 2(45+ )ε =7.07
2 2

N c =(N q−1) cot ∅=(7.07−1)cot 21 °=15.82

N γ =(N q−1) tan ( 1.4 ∅ )=(7.07−1)tan ( 1.4∗21 ° )=3.42

Shape Factor

B ∅ 4 21 °
sq =1+ 0.1( )tan 2 (45+ )=1+ 0.1
L 2 4 () (
tan 2 45+
2
=1.21 )
B ∅ 4 21°
sc =1+0.2( ) tan 2 (45+ )=1+0.2
L 2 4 () (
tan 2 45+
2
=1.42 )
B ∅ 4 21°
sγ =1+0.1( ) tan 2 ( 45+ )=1+0.1
L 2 4 () (
tan 2 45+
2
=1.21 )
Depth Factor

z ∅ 2 21°
L (
d q =1+ 0.1( ) tan 45+ =1+0.1
2 )
4
tan 45+ () (
2
=1.08 )
d c =1+0.2 ( Lz ) tan (45+ ∅2 )=1+ 0.2( 24 ) tan ( 45+ 21°2 )=1.16
d γ =1+0.1 ( Lz ) tan (45+ ∅2 )=1+ 0.1( 24 ) tan ( 45+ 212° )=1.08
Inclination Factor

i q=i c =i γ =1( as there is no load inclination)

For safety reasons, a factor for safety is required so that the foundation will safely bear
the loading pressures acting upon it.

Factor of safety, FS=3

Ultimate Bearing Capacity

34
 ' '
q u =cu N c s c i c d c +σ v ( N q−1) s q i q d q +0.5 γ B N γ s γ i γ d γ
( net)

q u =0+ { 30.415∗( 7.07−1 )∗1.21∗1∗1.08 }+ { 0.5∗7.81∗3.5∗3.42∗1.21∗1∗1.08 }

(net )

q u =302.34 kPa
( net)

Safe Bearing Capacity

qu 302.34
q s= + γz= + ( 17.66∗2 )=136.1 kPa
( net)

FS 3

1400
pressure= =114.29 kPa
3.5∗3.5

According to the calculations, the value of q s(safe bearing capacity) is greater than that
of pressure. So, this design is acceptable as the foundation can withstand the pressure
acting upon it.

Calculation of long term condition by using data from Borehole no.1

γ sat =17.66 kN /m3

γ ' =γ−γ w =17.66−9.81=7.81 kN /m 3

σ 'v =Dγ−u=( 2∗17.66 )−( 0.5∗9.81 )=30.415 kPa

c ' =8.5 , ∅=20 °

z=2 m , L=B=3.5 m
∅ 20 ° π tan 20 °
N q =tan 2 ( 45+ )ε π tan ∅ =tan 2(45+ )ε =6.4
2 2
N c =(N q−1) cot ∅=( 6.4−1)cot 20 °=14.83

N γ =(N q−1) tan ( 1.4 ∅ )=(6.4−1) tan ( 1.4∗20 ° )=2.87

Shape Factor

B ∅ 3.5 20 °
sq =1+ 0.1( )tan 2 (45+ )=1+ 0.1
L 2 3.5
tan 2 45+
2 ( ) (
=1.2 )

35
 B ∅ 3.5 20 °
sc =1+0.2( ) tan 2 ( 45+ )=1+0.2
L 2 3.5
tan 2 45+
2 ( ) (
=1.4 )
B ∅ 4 20 °
sγ =1+0.1( ) tan 2 ( 45+ )=1+0.1
L 2 4
tan 2 45+
2 () (
=1.2 )
Depth Factor

z ∅ 2 20 °
d q =1+ 0.1( ) tan 45+ =1+0.1
L 2 (
3.5 )
tan 45+
2 ( ) (
=1.08 )
d c =1+0.2 ( Lz ) tan (45+ ∅2 )=1+ 0.2( 3.52 ) tan ( 45+ 202 ° )=1.16
d γ =1+0.1 ( Lz ) tan (45+ ∅2 )=1+ 0.1( 3.52 ) tan ( 45+ 20°2 )=1.08
Inclination Factor

i q=i c =i γ =1( as there is no load inclination)

For safety reasons, a factor for safety is required so that the foundation will safely bear
the loading pressures acting upon it.

Factor of safety, FS=3

Ultimate Bearing Capacity

' ' '
q u =c N c s c i c d c +σ v (N q−1) s q i q d q +0.5 γ B N γ sγ i γ d γ
( net)

q u ={8.5∗14.83∗1.4∗1∗1.16 }+ { 30.415∗( 6.4−1 )∗1.2∗1∗1.08 } + {0.5∗7.81∗3.5∗2.87∗1.2∗1∗1.08 }

(net )

q u =468.41 kPa
( net)

Safe Bearing Capacity

qu 468.41
q s= + γz= + ( 17.66∗2 )=191.46 kPa
( net)

FS 3

1400
pressure= =114.29 kPa
3.5∗3.5

Short term condition of Foundation C by applying data from Borehole no.3

γ = ρg=1.95∗9.81=19.13 kN /m3

36
γ ' =γ−γ w =19.13−9.81=9.32 kN /m 3

c u=2 , ∅=29 ° , z=2 m, L=B=3.5 m

σ 'v =Dγ−u=( 2∗19.13 )−( 0.6∗9.81 )=32.374 kPa

∅ π tan ∅ 29 ° π tan 29 °
(
N q =tan 2 45+
2 )
ε (
=tan 2 45+
2
ε ) =16.44

N c =( N q−1 ) cot ∅=(16.44−1) cot 29 °=27.85

N γ =(N q−1)tan ( 1.4 ∅ )=(16.44−1) tan ( 1.4∗29 ° )=13.23

Shape Factor

sc =1+0.2 ( BL ) tan ( 45+ ∅2 )=1+ 0.2( 3.5

2
3.5 ) tan ( 45+
2 29 °
2 )
=1.58

sq =1+ 0.1 ( BL ) tan ( 45+ ∅2 )=1+0.1 ( 3.5

2
3.5 ) tan ( 45+
2 29°
2 )
=1.29

sγ =1+0.1 ( BL ) tan ( 45+ ∅2 )=1+ 0.1( 3.5

2
3.5 )
tan ( 45+
2 29 °
2 )
=1.29

Depth Factor

d c =1+0.2 ( Lz ) tan (45+ ∅2 )=1+ 0.2( 3.52 ) tan( 45+ 29°2 )=1.19
d q =1+ 0.1 ( Lz ) tan ( 45+ ∅2 )=1+0.1( 3.52 ) tan (45+ 292 ° )=1.11
d γ =1+0.1 ( Lz ) tan (45+ ∅2 )=1+ 0.1 ( 3.52 ) tan ( 45+ 29°2 )=1.11
Inclination Factor

i q=i c =i γ =1(because there is no load inclination)

In order to designate the foundation safely, a safety factor needs to be considered so

that the foundation will be resistant to the loading pressures acting on it.

Factor of Safety, FS = 3

Ultimate Bearing Capacity

37
 ' '
q u =cu N c s c i c d c +σ v ( N q−1) s q i q d q +0.5 γ B N γ s γ i γ d γ
( net)

q u = {2∗27.85∗1.58∗1∗1.19 }+ { 32.374∗( 16.44−1 )∗1.29∗1∗1.1 } +{0.5∗9.32∗3.5∗13.23∗1.29∗1∗1.1 }

( net)

q u =1120.21 kPa
( net)

Safe Bearing Capacity

qu 1120.21
q s= + γz= + ( 2∗19.13 )=411.67 kPa
( net)

FS 3

1400
pressure= =114.29 kPa
3.5∗3.5

Since the value of Safe Bearing Capacity(q s) is greater than that of column load(C), the
calculated design is acceptable.

Even though it is ok, it is important to make considerations of Foundation C about

choosing the calculations between Borehole no.1 and Borehole no.3. The magnitude of
Safe Bearing Capacity with data from Borehole no.1 is 138.05 kPa and that of Safe
Bearing Capacity by using data from Borehole no.3 is 442.02 kPa .

By comparing both magnitudes, it is obvious that the Safe Bearing Capacity of Borehole
no.3 is larger. So, we decided to go on with the Safe Bearing Capacity magnitude
obtained from Borehole no.1(economical design which is safe and not over-designed).
For the long term state, the data are not provided in Borehole No.3 and the foundation
design for long term state is calculated applying data from Borehole No.1.

Total Settlement

The total settlement caused by the foundation load pressure will be calculated to make
sure that it is less than acceptable limit which is 25 mm. In order to calculate the total
settlement, firstly, immediate settlement and consolidation settlement should be
determined. Immediate settlement will be calculated by using Schmertmann’s Method.
After that the consolidation settlement will be calculated.

Immediate Settlement

As the sand is silica, the soil is cohesionless and thus it leads to immediate settlement.
Schmertmann`s method will be used to calculate the immediate settlement of soil.

The interpolation process will be implemented in obedience to the dimensions of the

footing whether it is L/B=1 or L/B=10.

L=B=3.5 m

38
∆ σ 'v = pressure−γz

∆ σ 'v =114.29−( 17.66∗2 )

∆ σ 'v =78.97 kPa

σ 'vp=γ∗( 1.5+0.5 B )=17.66∗[ 1.5+ ( 0.5∗3.5 ) ] =57.395 kPa

0.5
∆ σ 'v
I zp =0.5+ 0.1
( ) σ 'vp
, [CITATION Smi14 \l 1033 ]

0.5
78.97
I zp =0.5+ 0.1 ( 57.395 )
I zp =0.61

Laye ∆ z i(m) Depth below E=479*(N+15)*10−3 Iz I z ∆ zi

r foundation to the E
centre of layer (m) (kPa)

1 0.875 0.4375 ¿ 479∗( 22+15 )∗10−3 0.23 0.011

39
 =17.723
2 0.875 1.3125 17.723 0.48 0.024
3 0.875 2.1875 17.723 0.56 0.028
4 0.875 3.0625 17.723 0.46 0.023
5 0.875 3.9375 17.723 0.36 0.018
6 0.875 4.8125 17.723 0.26 0.013
7 0.875 5.6875 17.723 0.15 0.007
8 0.875 6.5625 17.723 0.05 0.003

I z ∆ zi
∑ E
=0.127

0.5∗σ 'v 17.66∗2

C 1=1− '
∆ σv
=1−0.5∗ (
78.97
=0.78 m)
Assume that C 2=1 m

' I z ∆ zi
ρ=C1∗∆ σ v∗∑ =0.78∗78.97∗0.127=7.8 mm
E
Consolidation Settlement

γ =1.95∗9.81=19.13 kN /m 3
po =γz=19.13∗11.3=216.169 kPa

u=γ w z w =9.81∗9.9=97.119 m

Initial stress, p'o =p o−u=119.05 kPa

p1= po + ∆ p=216.189+90.89=307.059 kPa

Final stress, p'1= p1−u=307.059−97.119=209.94 kPa

dp= p'1− p'o =90.89 kPa

C c =0.01 w=0.01∗22=0.22

e o=0.665

p 'o +dp 119.05+90.89

e 1=e o−C c log 10
po
' (
=0.665−0.22 log 10
119.05 )
40
e 1=0.611

eo −e 1 0.665−0.611
mv = ' '
= =0.0003568316914
(1+ eo )(σ −σ )
1 o
(1+0.665)(209.94−119.05)

Consolidation settlement,

ρc =mv ∆ σ 'v H o

ρc =0.0003568316914∗( 90.89 )∗13.8

ρc =0.447568

ρc =447.568 mm

Total settlement = immediate settlement + consolidation settlement

ρtotal= ρi+ ρc

ρtotal =7.8+ 447.568=455 mm

The total settlement obtained is 455 mm which is extremely larger than the acceptable
limit 25 mm. So, we will change the dimensions of the foundation to check if the total
settlement does not exceed 25 mm.
Foundation C,
In the previous design calculation of foundation C, the dimensions assumed are
L=B=3.5 m and z=2 m. Even though the bearing capacity of foundation C was
acceptable, the primary consolidation value obtained is 447.568 mm which exceeds the
given limit, 25 mm. So, in order to obtain the primary consolidation which is less than 25
mm, it is necessary to increase the L and B of the foundation.
In the following calculation of bearing capacity, data from Borehole-1 will be applied, as
the bearing capacity will increase with the increase in dimensions of foundation. This
calculation is only focused on the calculation of settlement in sand and clay.
Now, the dimensions of the foundation will be,
L=B=4.5 m, z=2 m
Immediate settlement
column load 1400
Gross pressure= = =69.136 kPa
area 4.5∗4.5

γ sand =ρg=1.95∗9.81=19.13 kN /m3

∆ σ 'v =Gross pressure−surchargeload

41
 Columnload
∆ σ 'v = −γz
Area
1400
∆ σ 'v = −(19.13∗2)
4.5∗4.5

∆ σ 'v =30.876 kPa

σ 'vp=γ∗( 1.5+0.5 B )=189.13∗[ 1.5+ ( 0.5∗4.5 ) ]=71.7375 kPa

0.5
∆ σ 'v
I zp =0.5+ 0.1
( ) σ 'vp
, [CITATION Smi14 \l 1033 ]

0.5
30.876
I zp =0.5+ 0.1 ( 71.7375 )
I zp =0.57

Laye ∆ z i(m) Depth below E=479*(N+15)*10−3 Iz I z ∆ zi

r foundation to the E
centre of layer (m) (kPa)

1 1.125 0.5625 ¿ 479∗( 22+15 )∗10−3 0.22 0.0140

=17.723
2 1.125 1.6875 17.723 0.46 0.0292
3 1.125 2.8125 17.723 0.52 0.0330
4 1.125 3.9375 17.723 0.43 0.0273
5 1.125 5.0625 17.723 0.33 0.0210
6 1.125 6.1875 17.723 0.24 0.0152
7 1.125 7.3125 17.723 0.14 0.0089
8 1.125 8.4375 17.723 0.05 0.0032

I z ∆ zi
∑ E
=0.152

0.5∗σ 'v 38.36

C 1=1−
∆p
=1−0.5∗
30.876
=0.38 m ( )
Assume that C 2=1 m

42
Immediate settlement,
I z ∆ zi
ρ=C1∗∆ p∗∑
E
ρ=0.38∗30.876∗0.152
ρ=1.7 mm
Settlement in clay

γ clay =ρg=1.95∗9.81=19.13 kN /m 3

Net pressure applied by the column,

∆ σ 'v =30.876 kPa

Initial vertical effective stress at the mid-depth of the clay layer,

γ clay∗z clay
σ vo= ( γ sand∗z sand ) +( )
2

σ vo= (19.13∗4.4 ) + ( 19.13∗13.8

2 )
σ vo=216.169 kPa

u=γ w z w =9.81∗9.9=97.119 kPa

σ 'vo=σ vo −u

σ 'vo=216.169−97.119

σ 'vo=119.05 kPa

σ 'v1 =σ 'vo +∆ σ 'v

σ 'v1 =119.05+21.3

σ 'v1 =140.35 kPa

w=22 %
C c =0.01 w=0.01∗22=0.22

e o=0.665

43
 σ 'vo + ∆ σ 'v
e 1=e o−C c log 10
( σ '
vo
) =0.665−0.22 log 10 ( 140.35
119.05 )

e 1=0.652

e o−e1
mv = ' '
( 1+e o ) ( σ v 1−σ vo )
0.665−0.652
mv =
( 1+0.665 ) ( 21.3 )
m v =0.0003665637468

Consolidation settlement,

ρc =mv ∆ σ 'v H o
ρc =0.0003665637468∗21.3∗13.8

ρc =0.10775

ρc =107.75 mm

Total settlement
Total settlement= immediate settlement+primary consolidation settlement
Total settlement=1.7+107.75=109.45 mm
The total settlement obtained is 109.45 mm which is still larger than 25 mm. In this
case, the column load pressure acting from above is too large and the dimensions of
foundations should be less than 5 m so that they can fit in 10m in both x and y
directions.
4.2 Measures to ensure the stability of the excavations during constructions and
other challenges
Excavation is one of the most challenging processes in the construction of the site as it
directly affects the health and safety of the working environment. Collapse of excavation
will lead to loss of lives and injuries of workers which is a massive threat to the health
and safety sector. As a proverb “prevention is better than cure”, risk investigations and
assessments have to be done before the initiation of excavation works. Firstly, ground
investigations have to be carried out by applying methods such as trial pits, mechanical
augers and percussion boring. After that, the controlling process should be implemented
according to the soil and groundwater conditions. [ CITATION Cra04 \l 1033 ]

To prevent the collapse of the ground, the grouting process can be applied. In this
process, some kind of fluid will be injected to the ground to fill the voids in the clay layer.

44
Thus the soil collapse will be protected. There are two processes of grouting;
compaction grouting and jet grouting. [ CITATION Bel00 \l 1033 ]

Strutting system can also be applied to prevent the collapse of excavations for the
foundation. However, strutting system is applied in deep excavations. In this project, as
shallow foundations are to be constructed, other option with low costs can be applied.
The two mentioned procedures can be utilized to prevent the collapse of excavations for
foundations while the construction processes are being carried out.

Apart from collapse, other incidents might also occur such as slipping of soils, flooding
due to entrance of water and workers might be drowned, workers, machines and
vehicles such as excavators might fall into the excavation, objects such as rocks,
working tools and equipment might fall onto the workers working in the excavation,
electric shocks, gas leakage and explosions. [ CITATION Mat19 \l 1033 ]

One of the challenges that can concern the foundations is water seepage. Water
seepage takes place, especially in the rainy and winter seasons. If water seepage takes
place, firstly, the place where the water comes from have to be investigated. If any gaps
are found in foundation walls, fill them with epoxy which is concrete bonding adhesive.
In such a way, the gaps are filled and the water seepage problem is solved. Another
way to solve water seepage issue is to make small trenches with slopes lowering down
to the external side.

Additionally, hydrostatic pressure and ground pressure are also threats to the
construction workers. As the site is close to the sea, the water table is very high. The
continuous inflow of water through the ground can cause flood and workers might be
drowned. So, it becomes a must to control the inflow of water by dewatering method.

The first method to dewater the ground is to pump out the water while the soil is being
excavated. In this process, there will be low costs.

The second way of dewatering is to install the retaining walls in a way to gain resistance
to the lateral pressure of the ground. Later on, the shores are to be installed to ensure
the strength of retaining walls. The dewatering process will also be accomplished inside
the excavation area so that there will be no floods and drownings. This process might
not be economical which can be considered as the second choice.

In some cases, if the soil is too soft, adding some mixture into the soil can create a hard
surface and ground. For instance, adding a bag of concrete to a ground having area of
196-metre square. By doing so, the soil will gain strength and provide a hard surface
where the construction process can be carried out safely.

45
As a measurable amount of Sulphur can be found in the soil, it becomes a threat to the
concrete structures as Sulphur deteriorates them. This sulphate content is an
obstruction for the development of this construction site. It is a must to make a
discussion with geologists to cure the soil so that the construction development will not
be delayed.

46
5 Discussion
The bearing capacity of the foundation will increase if the dimensions of the foundation
are increased. However, the immediate settlement and consolidation settlement will will
decrease, if the dimensions of the foundation are increased. In this report, if we want to
obtain the total settlement which is less than 25 mm, the dimensions of the foundations
have to be very large about 4.5 m in both length and width and 3 m in depth. So, this
will not be cost effective foundation and this will also be assumed as a deep foundation.
The column load acting from above is very large so we need large foundation design.

6 Conclusion
In conclusion, the appropriate designs for each foundations at locations A, B and C are
calculated. The bearing capacity and total settlement of three foundations are also
calculated in order to check if the assumptions are acceptable or not. In addition,
discussions on the meausres to maintain the stability of soil during excavation for the
foundations and challenges that might occur during the construction of foundations are
also included.

References
Bell, F. G., 2000. Engineering Properties of Soils and Rocks. 4th ed. Oxford: Keyword
Publishing Services.

Craig, R. F., 2004. CRAIG`S SOIL MECHANICS. 7th ed. New York: Spon Press.

Matters, S., n.d. Safety Matters. [Online]

Available at:
https://www.aisolutions.co.uk/Community/Knowledge/Topic/68/1004/Excavation
[Accessed 7 November 2019].

Smith, I., 2014. Smith`s Elements of Soil Mechanics. 9th ed. New York: John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd.

47
7 Appendix

Figure 7. Site location, boreholes and foundations

48
Bore logs

Figure 8. Bore hole 1 stratigraphy.

49
Figure 9. Bore hole 2 stratigraphy

50
Figure 10. Bore hole 3 stratigraphy

51
Figure 11. Bore hole 4 stratigraphy

Table 4. Laboratory classification test results

52
Table 5. Bore hole-1 Shear box test results at 1.5 m

53
Table 6. Borehole 1 shear box results at 3m

54
Table 7. Bore hole-2 shear box result at 1.5m

55
Table 8.Bore hole-2 shear box result at 5m

56
Table 9.Bore hole-4 shear box result at 3.5m

57
Table 10.Consolidated undrained triaxial test results

58
8 Statement

Name Matriculation No Work Done

Min Khant Naing (40455548)
Calculations for foundation A,
rechecked all calculations, discussion
Thet Naing Htoo
(40455566) Calculations for foundation B, general
research,
Htun Aung Kyaw
(40455539) Calculations for foundation C,
AutoCAD drawing

59