Addis Ababa Institute of Technology School of Civil Engineering

Addis Ababa Institute of Technology

School of Civil and Environmental Engineering
FOUNDATION ENGINEERING I (CENG 3204) – Course Outline
Academic Year: 2008 E.C (2016) Semester: II
1. SITE EXPLORATION
1.1. Purpose of Site Exploration
1.2. Planning of Site Exploration
1.3. Methods of Site Investigations and Evaluation of Field Test Results
1.3.1. Exploratory Boring
1.3.2. Soil Sampling
1.3.3. Cone Penetration Test
1.3.4. Field Vane Shear Test
1.3.5. Coring of Rocks
1.3.6. Ground Water Table Location
1.4. Other Methods of Site Investigation
1.5. Soil Exploration Report
2. TYPES OF FOUNDATIONS AND THEIR SELECTION
3. DESIGN OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS
3.1. General
3.2. Bearing Capacity and Settlement of Foundations
3.3. Design of Isolated or Spread Footings
3.4. Design of Combined Footings
3.5. Design of Strap and Cantilevered Footings
3.6. Design of Mat Foundations
4. Analysis and Design of Retaining Walls
4.1. Types of Retaining Walls
4.2. Common Proportions of Retaining Walls
4.3. Forces on Retaining Walls
4.4. Design of Retaining Walls
References:
1. Foundation Engineering by Alemayehu Tefera
2. Foundation Analysis and Design by J.E. Bowels
3. Foundation Design by W.C. Teng
4. Foundation Design and construction by M.J, Tomlinson,
5. Other related Materials

1
Foundation I- Lecture Note Academic Year: 2015/2016
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology School of Civil Engineering

CHAPTER ONE

SITE EXPLORATION

2.1 Definition and Purpose

Definition: Site exploration is a term covering field and lab investigations of a site for gathering
information on the layers of deposits that underlain a proposed structure for economical and
safe design of foundation. It shall always be a prerequisite for foundation design.
Purpose: Site exploration shall be made:
 To select among alternative sites
 To decide on the type and depth of foundation
 To estimate the load bearing capacity & probable settlement
 To select appropriate method of construction
 To select and locate construction materials
 To evaluate the safety of existing structures
 To determine ground water location
Extent: Site exploration extent depends on:
 Importance of structure
 Complexity of soil conditions
 Foundation arrangement
 Availability of equipment and skill
 Relative cost of exploration
 Information available from performance of existing structures
The least details are required in a highway project, as the soil needs to be explored only up to a
depth of 3m or so. More details and deeper explorations are however, required for heavier,
multistoried buildings, bridges, dams, etc.
Cost: ranges between 0.1 to 0.5% of the total cost of the project
Information obtained from soil exploration include: general topography and accessibility of the
site, location of buried services: power, communication, supply, etc, general geology of the site,
previous history and use of the site, any special features (erosion, earth quakes, flooding,
seasonal swelling and shrinkage of the soil etc), availability of construction materials, a detailed
record of the soil and rock strata including ground water condition, lab and field results of the
various strata, results of chemical analysis if any is made etc.

2.1 Planning the Site Exploration (1HLCH-1.doc)

The actual planning of subsurface exploration program includes some or all of the following:
1 Assembly of Available Information
On the specific use of the site, about the site, about the structure- on dimensions, column
spacing, type and use, basement or any special requirement etc. Referring building codes is
also essential.
2 Reconnaissance Survey:
 survey of existing literatures, maps, etc
 a close visual inspection by walking over the site
o wrinkling of the surface on a hill side slope and leaning trees  soil creep and
potential stability problem
o Flat low lying areas in the valleys  lacustrine or river deposits
2
Foundation I- Lecture Note Academic Year: 2015/2016
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology School of Civil Engineering

o Marshy ground with weeds  shallow GWT

o Cracks, sags, sticking doors and windows in existing light buildings 
expansive soils
o Out crops of rocks and profile of existing gullies and cuts, stream patterns, etc
 indication of the geology of the site
3 Preliminary Ground Investigation:
It is done by making few borings, opening pits and field sounding tests to establish the
general stratification. Sampling is mostly limited to acquisition of representative
samples. The number of quality samples should be limited to a minimum. Important
parameters (like shear strength and compression) are mainly estimated from correlations
with the index properties obtained on the representative (disturbed) sample. The
information obtained at this stage can be used for preliminary design of the foundation.
4 Detailed Ground Investigation:
Where the preliminary investigation has indicated the feasibility of the project at the site,
more detailed site exploration should be under taken. Depending on the results obtained
from the preliminary investigation, additional and deeper boreholes may be sunk; more
samples extracted (both disturbed & undisturbed); more sounding field tests undertaken
to obtain information which shall be sufficient for final design.

2.1 Methods of Site Exploration

The major methods of soil explorations include boring (and sampling), sounding tests, load
tests, shear tests, field density tests, geophysical explorations, etc
1. BORING: enables one to extract continuous or discrete samples for visual inspection and
testing to determine properties of soils. Methods of boring can be:
a) Test Pits:
 Simplest , cheapest method of shallow investigation
 Provide clear picture of stratification
 Weak lenses and pockets can be identified
 Block samples can be easily extracted from which undisturbed samples are
obtained – called chunk sampling
 If GWT is encountered near the ground surface, bore holes are preferred. Pits
cannot be dug in silts or sands below the water table or in soft clays because the
sides will collapse, endangering the excavation machine & its operator.
 Commonly it is uneconomical to go deeper than 5m
 It is easier to take good undisturbed soil samples from a trial pit than a bore hole;
to carry out in-situ tests (such as SPT & vane shear test)
b) Bore Holes:
 Most common for deep investigations
 Mostly done by power-driven machines

Bore hole drilling methods include:

i) Auger boring: boring a hole using augers operated either by hand or machine.
Hand operated auger (Figure 1.1)
 The hand operated augers may be helical types or post-hole auger.
 It can be used for depths up to 3 to 5m. Diameter of holes varies from 5 to 20cm.
 Generally suitable for all types of soils above water table but suitable only below
water table in clay soils. Soils with boulders & cobbles are difficult to investigate
using augers. Also limited use in sandy soils b/c they do not stick to the auger.

3
Foundation I- Lecture Note Academic Year: 2015/2016
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology School of Civil Engineering

 Are generally used for making subsoil explorations for high ways, runways, railways
etc where the explorations are generally confined to depths of about 5m or so.
 Machine operated auger: are suitable in all types of soils and can go to deeper depths.
The hollow stem can be used for sampling or conducting SPT test and plugged when
not in use. They are capable of penetrating up to 50m.
ii) Wash boring: (Figure 1.2)
 Is machine operated boring
 Involves pushing or driving of casings ahead of boring operation and drilling is
facilitated through by means of a chopping bit attached at the bottom of flight of
hollow drilling rod. Water is pumped which helps in disintegration and facilitates
loosening of the soil. Slurry rises up; screened in to soil solids and water.
 The method is rapid except in hard strata and soils with boulders. The machine is
light so that it can be easily transported to relatively in accessible areas. It causes not
so much disturbance to underlying material.
 Undisturbed samples can be extracted easily by pushing thin walled sampler (split
spoon sampler). However the effect of water must be taken in to consideration.
 Disadvantages: - there may be undetected thin layer and high alteration of moisture
content.
iii)Rotary Drilling: (Figure 1.3 (a))
 It is generally trailer mounted or lorry mounted.
 Bore hole is advanced by power rotated drilling (cutting) bit (2HLCH-1.doc) with
simultaneous application of pressure. The drilling bit is carbide or diamond and is
attached to the drilling rods.
 Most rapid method in almost all soils. Fluid usually water is used to cool the edges
and reduce friction.
 Undisturbed sample can be obtained by attaching special sampler usually split spoon
sampler.
 Disadvantage: not suitable for highly fissured rocks (gravelly soils), as gravels do
not break easily, but rotate beneath the bit, expensive
iv) Percussion Drilling: (Figure 1.3 (b))
 Involves alternately rising and falling of a heavy chisel-like bit. The drilling activity
disintegrates the material below in to the sand silt size. Water is added to loosen soil
and chiseler chisels and the loose material (slurry) is scooped out by a bailer. The
bailer is generally attached to the boring rod after removing the tool bit at intervals,
and then lowered to the hole. It has a non returning valve.
 It can be adopted in almost all types of soils, and is particularly useful in very hard
soils or soft rocks.
 Disadvantage: impossible to detect thin compressible layers, high disturbance of
soil, expensive
In all types of drilling used in soft soils that may cave in, casing is used. Drilling mud usually
bentonite clay may also be used to stabilize the soil instead of casing.
3.2 Layout, Number and Depth of Bore Holes
Layout /Spacing:
 While layout of the structure is not yet ready, evenly spaced grid of bore holes is
commonly used
 Whenever possible bore holes should be located close to proposed foundations
 For light weight structure like residential houses, it is wise to locate test pits away
from the foundation locations
 Approximate spacing of bore holes may be as follows:
o Multi storey buildings ------10 m to 50 m
o One storey industrial buildings-----20 m to 60 m
o Highways ------250 m to 500 m

4
Foundation I- Lecture Note Academic Year: 2015/2016
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology School of Civil Engineering

o Dams ------- 40 m to 80 m

(b)
(a)
(c)
Figure 1.1: (a) Hand Augers (b) Hollow-stem auger plugged while advancing the auger (c)
Hollow-stem auger plug removed and sampler inserted to sample soil below auger

Pulley

Motor

5
Foundation I- Lecture Note Academic Year: 2015/2016
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology School of Civil Engineering

Motor
Power
unit

casing
driling rod
tool bit
valve
cutting bit Bailer chisel

(a) Rotary Driling (b) Purcussion Driling

Figure 1.2: Wash boring
Figure 1.3: Drilling types
Number:
 It is recommended that a minimum of three bore holes/pits be employed, where the surface
is more or less level and the stratification are not so erratic. But if the stratification and
topography are far from uniform, it is advisable to use 5 bore holes. Table 1.1 can be used
as a guide line.
Table 1.1: Guidelines for preliminary exploration (EBCS 7, 1995)
Distance b/n borings (m) Minimum number of
Project Horizontal stratification of soil borings
Uniform Average Erratic
Multi storey building 50 25 10 2 if supplemented with
sounding tests otherwise 4
One or two storey building 60 30 15 2
Bridge piers, abutments, towers, etc - 30 7.5 1 to 2 for each foundation
High ways 300 150 30
* Euro Code 7- recommends that the exploration points including sounding from a grid at a
spacing of 20 to 40m.

Depth:
 Depends on soil condition and magnitude and type of the construction. For highways
and air fields a depth of about 2m would suffice. However, if organic soil, muck or
compressible soil is encountered, the boring should extend well below the bad soil.
 Is governed by the depth of influence of the foundation soil contact pressure. Bore
holes should go down to at least the depth below the foundation level at which only 5
to 40% q reaches (q=contact pressure). This translates about 2 to 3 times the
foundation width below the foundation level.
 It is recommended to make the depth of 1 to 2 bore holes deeper than that of the rest.
 A minimum of 3m drilling in to a rock formation is recommended especially in area,
where occurrence of boulders is common so as to conform that it is really a rock, and
not large boulder.
 EBCS 7, 1995 recommends: (3HLCH-1.doc)
- For structures on footings D = 3B > 1.5m
- For structures on mat D = 1.5B
- For structures on piles D > D' + 3m , where D' = pile length from surface
 For preliminary investigation, the depth of exploration may be estimated as:
o D  3 * S 0.7 for light steel and narrow concrete buildings
o D  6 * S0.7 for heavy steel and wide concrete buildings
6
Foundation I- Lecture Note Academic Year: 2015/2016
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology School of Civil Engineering

where S = number of stories

3.2 Soil Sampling

Samples of soils are taken from boreholes and trial pits so that the soil can be described and
tested. The various types of soil samples to be collected can be divided in to:
1. Non representative Sample: consists of mixture of soil from different soil strata. The
size of the soil grains, as well as the mineral constituents, might, thus have changed in
such samples. Soil samples obtained from auger cuttings and settlings in sump well of
wash boring, can be classified in this category. Such samples may help in determining
the depth at which major changes may be occurring in subsurface soil strata. The rock
fragments obtained from percussion drilling, soil samples from auger borings and wash
boring can hardly be used for the determination of index properties (Like Atterberg limits,
grain size distribution, specific gravity, natural moisture content, etc)
2. Representative or Disturbed Sample: is that which contains the same particle size
distribution as in the in-situ stratum from which it is collected, though the soil structure
may be seriously disturbed. The water content may also have changed. Such disturbed
samples can be used for identification of soil types of different strata, for determining
Atterberg limits, grain size distribution, specific gravity, natural moisture content,
organic and carbonate content, compaction, etc.
3. Undisturbed Sample: is the one that preserves the particle size distribution as well as
the soil structure of the in-situ stratum. The moisture content is also tried to be
preserved to its original in-situ value. Such soil samples are required for determination
of most important properties of the soil to be used for design. Theses properties include
shear strength, consolidation or compressibility and permeability.
Extraction of disturbed samples: this is done by pushing or driving an open ended split spoon
sampler in to the soil. The sampler is connected at the bottom to a driving shoe and at the top to
a flight of drilling rod by means of coupling. If the natural moisture content is needed, then
liner must be employed, which will be waxed at the two ends once the sample is retained. This
is sent to the lab for testing. (4HLCH-1.doc)
Extraction of undisturbed samples: such a sample can be lifted by stopping the boring
operation at a certain level and then inserting the appropriate sampler at the bottom of the
borehole. When the sampler tube is brought to the surface, some soil is removed from both
ends, and molten wax applied in thin layer, to form about 25mm thick seal. Both the ends of the
tube are then closed with lids, and transported to the laboratory. Thin-wall samplers with an
outer diameter of 5cm (minimum) are used. The common sizes are Do=5cm and Do=7.5cm.
The degree of disturbance of the sample mostly depends on: (4HLCH-1.doc)
 Natural cause of removal of the overburden, while collecting samples
 The impact applied
 Rate of penetration of the devices
 Dimension of the sampler (cutting edge) and inside wall friction (oil)
If other conditions are kept constant, the degree of disturbance of a sample is roughly indicated
by the:
a) Area ratio:
Do  Di
2 2

Ar ( % )  2
*100% (5HLCH-1.doc)
Di
7
Foundation I- Lecture Note Academic Year: 2015/2016
 Addis Ababa Institute of Technology School of Civil Engineering

If Ar < 10%, the sample disturbance can be considered as negligible. However, value up to 25%
is even considered to be good. Thin walled samplers are preferred to thick wall samplers.
do

ri Ri
ro di sampler tube
Ro
Sampler tube

cutting edge (shoe)

Di
cutting edge (shoe)

b) Inside clearance: Do
d i  Di
Inside clearance(% )  *100%
Di
It should be as low as 1 to 3%. This reduces the frictional resistance between the tube and the
sampler. It also allows the slight elastic expansion of the soil sample on entering the tube, and
thus assists in sample retention.
c) Out side clearance:
Do  d o
Out side clearance(% )  *100%
do
It should not be much greater than the inside clearance. It helps in reducing the force required
to withdraw the tube.
Spacing of Soil Sampling
 It is common practice to take undisturbed samples in a depth range of 0.2m to 0.7m
for the top investigation and for the following few meters of investigation,
continuous sampling is advisable.
 For a fairly good number of boreholes it is usual to extract samples every 1.5m
starting from around 0.5m below ground surface or in every layer, which ever is
less. (4HLCH-1.doc)

2. Sounding Tests
2.1 Standard Penetration Test (SPT): (6HLCH-1.doc)
It is really impossible to obtain undisturbed sample from cohesion less soils. Density, strength
and compressibility estimates are usually obtained from penetration tests. The objective of SPT
is to determine the resistance of the soil to penetration of the standard size of sampler, in order
to obtain rough estimate of the properties of the soils in situ. SPT is the most commonly used in
situ test in a bore hole. The test is made by making use of a split spoon sampler shown in
Figure 1.4 (a). Here a split-spoon sampler is lowered to the bottom of the bore hole by attaching
it to the drill rod and then driven by forcing it in to the soil by blows from a hammer (64Kg)
falling from a height of 76cm. The sampler is initially driven 15cm below the bottom of the
bore hole to exclude the disturbed soil while boring. It is then further driven 30cm in two stages
(each 15cm). The number of blows required to penetrate the last 30cm is termed as the SPT

8
Foundation I- Lecture Note Academic Year: 2015/2016
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology School of Civil Engineering

value, or N-value. The test is halted if there is refusal (if 50 blows are required for any 15cm
penetration, i.e. N=100, or if 10 successive blows produce no advance). After applying some
corrections, this blow count is correlated with important properties of the soil, which can be
used for design of foundations. The test is run intermittently with almost all types of boring
methods and for any type of soils even if it was developed for cohesion less soils. It has clearly
the advantages of enabling one to extract representative samples. It is also economical in terms
of cost per unit operation.

Figure 1.4: Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

Corrections to Observed SPT

It was regularly observed that the N-value in adjacent boreholes or when using different
equipment are not the same. The principal factor is the input energy and its dissipation around
the sampler in to the surrounding soil. Energy measurements show that the actual in put energy
to the sampler is 70 to 100 % of the theoretical input energy. It is believed that the
discrepancies arise from the following factors:
 Difference in some features of SPT equipment, drilling rig, hammer and skill of operation
 Driving hammer configuration and the way hammer load is applied
 Whether liner is employed or not
 Amount of overburden pressure- the bigger the over burden pressure the more is N value
 Length of the drill rod- the shorter the rod the more is N value
 Bore hole diameter - the smaller the size of the hole the more is N value
Therefore, in order to get approximately the same value for a given soil type at a given depth, it
has been suggested to correct the N value as:
N ' 70  C N1 2 3 4 N
Where: N'70 = corrected or modified blow count
95.76
CN = adjustment for effective overburden pressure CN 
P' o
P'o= effective overburden pressure at the depth of interest (in KPa)
 1 = correction for equipment and hammer type

9
Foundation I- Lecture Note Academic Year: 2015/2016
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology School of Civil Engineering

E r (i) E r (i)
1   ; Er (i) = equipment used for the test (7HLCH-1.doc)
E r (70) 70
Note: Er* N = constant for all equipment [i.e. N70*70=N60*60]
 2 = correction for rod length
1.0 ; for L  10 m


0.95 ; for 6  L  10 m
2 
0.85 ; for 4  L  6 m


0.95 ; for L  4 m
 3 = correction for sample liner
1.0 ; without liner


 3  0.8 ; with liner in dense sand and clay


0.9 ; with liner in loose sand
 4 = correction for bore hole diameter
1.0 ; for 60    120 mm


 4  1.05 ; for   150 mm

1.15 ; for   200 mm

Correlations of SPT Results
Although the SPT is not considered as refined and completely reliable method of investigation,
the N values give useful information with regards to consistency of cohesive soils and relative
density of granular soils.
Cohesion less soils
 The Japanese Railway Standard proposed
  18 N ' 70  15 for roads and bridges

  0.36 N ' 70  27 for buildings

 Mayerhof (1959) suggested
  28  0.15 Dr , where Dr = relative density in %
 Yoshida et al (1988) suggested
Dr (%)  25P 'o  N 60 0.46 , where P'o =effective pressure in KPa
 0.12

 Skempton (1986):
N '70
2
 32  0.288P 'o ; where P'o in KPa
Dr
 Terzaghi and Peck also gave the following correlation between SPT value,  and Dr.
Table 1.2 : Correlation between N, , and Dr for Sands
Condition N'70  degree  Dr(%)
Very loose 0-4 <20 0-15
Loose 4-10 28-30 15-35
Medium 10-30 30-36 35-65
Dense 30-50 36-42 65-85
Very dense >50 >42 >85 (8HLCH-1.doc)
Cohesive Soils

10
Foundation I- Lecture Note Academic Year: 2015/2016
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology School of Civil Engineering

 The common correlations of N-values with unconfined compressive strength of cohesive

soils is: qu  K * N
Where K- is about 12 and qu- in MPa
 The following correlations are suggested by Bowels (1995)
Table 1.3 : Correlation between N and qu for Clays
Consistency N qu(KPa) gsat(KN/m3)
Very soft 0-2 <25
16-19
Soft 2-4 25-50
Medium 4-8 50-100 17-20
Stiff 8-15 100-200
Very stiff 15-30 200-400 19-22
Hard >30 >400
Note: Other dynamic sounding tests can be conducted by using cone instead of split spoon
sampler and driving the cone by hammer blows. Depending on the weight of hammer, the drop
height and the tip area we have the different types as summarized in Table 1.2.

Table 1.4: Proprties of sounding equipment

Mass of hammer, Drop height , Tip area
Type m (Kg) h (cm) (cm2)
Light penetrometer 10 50 10
Medium penetrometer 30 50 10
Heavy penetrometer 50 50 15
SPT 63.5 76.2 tip open

2.2 Cone Penetration Test (CPT) / Dutch Cone Penetration Test (CPT)
It is developed in Dutch and is widely now all over the world. It is a simple test widely used for
soft clays and in fine to medium course sands instead of SPT. The test does not have any
application in gravels and stiff / hard clays. It is performed by pushing the standard cone
(metallic wedge of base area 10cm2 and apex angle of 60o) in to the ground at a rate of 10 to 20
mm/sec for a depth of 13cm and the force is measured and the end resistance of the cone called
the cone penetration resistance (point resistance) - qc is computed as the force required to
advance the cone divided by the end area. Then the sleeve is pushed until it touches the top of
the wedge followed by pushing both the wedge and the sleeve for 7cm to obtain the combined
cone and sleeve resistance, q'c. Then the side resistance (skin friction) q s = q' c- q c. This value
is important for pile design. (9HLCH-1.doc)
 Data from CPT can be used to estimate soil profile in conjunction with bore hole driving.
Supposing one is required to know the soil profile along axis 1-2-3-4 (Figure 1:6), key
boring and sounding tests will be done at points 1 & 4. From the results of the boring and
sounding tests one may easily deduce the profile of the soil strata by carrying out sounding
tests at points 2 & 3. A number of sounding tests may be made including points 1 & 4
depending on the nature of the stratification
 CPT data may also be used to compute bearing capacity of shallow as well as deep
foundations.
Correlations of CPT Results
Some correlations are suggested by different researchers

11
Foundation I- Lecture Note Academic Year: 2015/2016
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology School of Civil Engineering

 Lancellotta (1983) and Jumilkawiski (1985) suggested the following correlations for the
relative density of granular soil.
 q 
Dr  98  66 * log 10  c 
 ' 
 v 

where qc=point resistance (metric tone/m ) and ’v= the effective pressure (metric tone/m2)
2

Figure 1.5: Static Penetration Test (CPT)

12
Foundation I- Lecture Note Academic Year: 2015/2016
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology School of Civil Engineering

Figure 1.6: Soil Profile identification

 The following table can be used to estimate  and the stress strain modulus of
compressibility- Es of non cohesive soils

Average point resistance qc (MPa) compactness o Es (MPa)

<5 Very loose (weak) 30 15 - 30
5-10 Loose 32 30 – 50
10-15 Medium dense 35 50 – 80
15-20 Dense 37.5 80 - 100
>20 Very dense 40 100 - 120
 Mayne and kempler (1988) suggested for the undrained shear strength (cu)
qc   v
cu 
NK
where qc = point resistance (KPa) and v= the total vertical pressure (KPa),

15 for electric cone penetrometer
NK  

20 for mechanical cone penetrometer
 For the over consolidation ratio
1.01
 qc   v 
OCR  0.37 
  'v 
3. Vane shear Test
It is used for the determination of the undrained shear strength (cu) of soft clays (clays
which may be disturbed during the extraction and testing process with cohesions up to
100Kpa). The test is performed at any given depth by first augering to the prescribed depth,
cleaning the bottom of the borings, and then carefully pushing the vane instrument (Figure 1.7)
in to the stratum to be tested. A torque necessary to shear the cylinder of soil defined by the
blades of the vane is applied gradually [by rotating the arm of the apparatus with constant speed
of 0.5degree per second] and the peak value noted. The shear strength of the soil can then be
estimated by using the formulae derived below.
Vane dimension Rod (mm)
(mm) Drod
L = 4r r S Drod
150 37.5 3 16
100 25 1.6 18
S = blade thickness
Drod = rod diameter (mm)

Figure 1.7: Vane Instrument

The torque is resisted by T1 and T2 (moments about the center)

If both ends of the vane are ‘submerged’ in the soil stratum, and if the
maximum shear stress is Cu for all shear surfaces, then
Resisting moment = cylindrical surface resistance + two circular end face resistance
13
Foundation I- Lecture Note Academic Year: 2015/2016
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology School of Civil Engineering

T = 2r L (Cu r) + 2[r2 Cu (2/3r)] =2r2Cu (L+2/3r)

T 3T
 Cu   Cu  if L  4 r (commonly used ratio)
2π r L  2 3 r 
2
28 π r 3
If one end of the vane is ‘submerged’ in the soil stratum,
Resisting moment = cylindrical surface resistance + one circular end face resistance
T = 2r L (Cu r) + r2 Cu (2/3r) =2r2Cu (L+1/3r)
T
 Cu   Cu  3T if L  4 r (10HLCH-1.doc)
2 π r L  13 r 
2
26 π r 3
The following table gives correlation between consistency and Cu
Undrained shear strength Cu(Kpa)
Consistency BS5930:1981 Terzaghi and Peck: 1967
Very soft <20 <12
Soft 20-40 12-25
Firm 40-75 25-50
Medium 40-75 25-50
Stiff 75-150 50-100
Very stiff >150 100-200
Hard >200
This test is made in every 1 to 2m. Vane shear test is also made in laboratories using small vane
instrument.
 Field vane shear test overestimates the undrained shear strength. Therefore reduction factor
should be used to estimate the design undrained shear strength.
cu, d =  cu, The commonly used value of  is 0.6. Or one can use curves (Figure 1.8)
to obtain  based on the PI value.

Figure 1.8: Bjerrum’s correction factor for vane shear test.

Example 1:
At a depth of 5.8m from the ground level at a site, a shear vane test gave a torque value of
80Nm when fully inserted. The vane is of r=37.5mm.
a) Determine the undrained shear strength of the clay and its consistency
b) If the clay has LL=60%, PL=30%, what would be the undrained shear strength for design
3T
Solution: a) Using the formula Cu  we have,
28 π r 3

14
Foundation I- Lecture Note Academic Year: 2015/2016
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology School of Civil Engineering

3 * 80 *10 -3
cu   51. 65KPa Thus the clay has a firm consistency.
28  * (0.0375m) 3
c) The design cu will be obtained as cu, d =  cu but =f (PI)

PI =60-30=30, For PI=30,  = 0.87 (Figure 1.8)  cu, d =  Pa

4. Plate Load Test

Obviously the most reliable method of obtaining the ultimate bearing capacity and the
settlement characteristics at a site is to perform a load test. The test is also used in the design of
highways and runways. The probable settlement of the soil for a given loading and at a given
depth can also be determined.
Round plate with standard diameter (30cm and 70cm) or square plate of side (0.3m x 0.3m and
60cmx60cm) is loaded in a pit excavated in the ground, at a depth equal to the roughly
estimated depth of the foundation for which the bearing capacity is to be estimated. The
procedure is:
 Excavate a pit to a depth on which the test is to be performed. The test pit should be at least
4B (or 4R) wide as the plate to the depth the foundation is to be placed.
 A load is applied on the plate by increments (P=qult, estimated/5), and settlements are recorded
from dial gauges (at least 3 in no.) for each load increment. Then plots of settlement vs. time
and settlement vs. applied stress are made.
 The test is continued until a total settlement reaches 25mm or until the capacity of the testing
apparatus is reached or until the soils fails by shear (plate starts to sink rapidly). Figure 1.9
presents the essential features of the test and typical plots obtained from the plate load test.
 When the load vs. settlement curve approaches vertical, one interpolates qult. Sometimes,
however, qult is obtained as that value corresponding to a specified displacement (say, 25mm)

Figure 1.9: Plate Load test

Determination of Bearing Capacity from Plate Load Test
Terzaghi and Peck have suggested the following relation between the settlement of the plate S p
and the settlement of the footing SF:
 b B  0.3
2
bP
For sands SP  SF  P  and SP  SF for clays
 Bb p  0.3 B
where: B= width of footing (least dimension) and bp= width (diameter) of plate
The permissible settlement value, such as 25mm, should be substituted for SF in the above
equations and the SP value will be calculated. Then from the load-settlement curve, the pressure
15
Foundation I- Lecture Note Academic Year: 2015/2016
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology School of Civil Engineering

corresponding to the computed settlement SP, is the required value of the ultimate bearing
capacity, qult,P, for the plate. The ultimate bearing capacity of the foundation qult, F is then
determined from qult, P as follows:
B
For sandy soils q ult, F  F q ult, P and for clays q ult, F  q ult, P (11HLCH-1.doc)
BP
The coefficient of sub-grade reaction, ks, can also be estimated from:
ks 
Δσ 0.4σ max
ΔS

ΔS

KN/m3 
This parameter is also employed in immediate settlement computation.
Limitations of the test
1. Size effects: Since the size of the test plate and the size of the prototype foundation are very
different, the results of a plate load test do not directly reflect the bearing capacity of the
foundation. The bearing capacity of footings in sands varies with the size of footing; thus,
the scale effect gives rather misleading results in this case. However, this effect is not
pronounced in cohesive soils as the bearing capacity is essentially independent of the size of
footing in such soils.
2. Consolidation settlements in cohesive soils, which may take years, cannot be predicted, as
the plate load test is essentially a short-term test. Thus, load tests don’t have much
significance in the determination of qall based on settlement criterion w.r.t cohesive soils.
3. The load test results reflect the characteristics of the soil located only within a depth of about
2B of plate. This zone of influence in the case of a prototype footing will be much larger and
unless the soil is essentially homogenous for such a depth and more, the results could be
terribly misleading. Thus it may be misleading if there is weak soil and ground water with in
this influence zone.

5. Indirect Geophysical Methods of Soil Exploration

Geophysical methods correlate speed and condition of wave propagation in a soil media with
soil properties. They help us in checking and supplementing the soil test results. They are
generally useful in preliminary investigation stage when they can give us ideas about position
of the water table, strata boundaries of vastly differing soils, depth of existing bedrocks, etc.
The results inferred from such tests must, however, be checked and confirmed from the
boreholes, by lifting soil samples, and examining and testing them. Some of these methods are
discussed below.
1) Seismic exploration
Such method is based on the simple fact that the seismic waves move through different types
of soils at different velocities (4000 to 7000m/s in sound rocks, 500-700m/s in clays, and as low
as 30m/s in loose weathered materials) and are also refracted when they cross the boundary
between two different types of soils. Here shock waves are induced by producing an explosion
at the surface (drop hammer or 3Kg sledge hammer adequate for 20m penetration; deeper with
explosive shock source). The waves are then picked up through geophones placed at various
points.
This method can help us in plotting the soil profiles, economically, but would fail to detect a
layer having velocity lesser than that of the upper layer. Hence a layer of clay laying below a
layer of compacted gravel, would go undetected in this method. It is reliable for relatively thick
and distinct layers.

16
Foundation I- Lecture Note Academic Year: 2015/2016
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology School of Civil Engineering

(12HLCH-1.doc)
Figure 1.10: Seismic Exploration
 Interpretation of the test results of seismic exploration should be done with care. Reliable
information is only obtained when the soil profile consists of relatively thick and distinct
layers. The test results may lead to inaccurate conclusion if the soil profile consists of
relatively thin layers. The velocity of longitudinal waves is correlated with the soil type as
given in the table below. Shear waves may also be correlated with the soil type.
Soil type Velocity of Longitudinal Waves Vl (m/s)
Non cohesive 200 – 1500
Soils with little cohesion 1000 – 1600
Cohesive soils 1600 – 2000
Rocks 2000 – 6000

2) Electrical Resistivity Method:

This method uses the principle that different soils exhibit different resistivity. As a result four
electrodes are inserted in to the ground and current is made to flow. The resistance is then
measured. This method requires good contrast in resistivity between the soil layers. If
difference between the layers is not substantial, or if the soil is wet and contains a considerable
amount of dissolved salt, the reading may be wrong. Clean dense sand above the water table,
will therefore have high resistivity, because it will have very small saturation and dissolved
salts. Saturated clay of high void ratio will similarly have low resistivity, because there would
be a lot of pore water and free ions in it, so as to act as good conductors of electricity, offering
very low resistance.

E
  2 x
I
where: = apparent resistivity in Ohms/m
x = electrode spacing
E = potential drop
I = circuit current

Figure 1.11: Electrical Resistivity method

17
Foundation I- Lecture Note Academic Year: 2015/2016
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology School of Civil Engineering

By increasing electrode spacing, there will be an increase in influence depth. As long as the
stratum does not change,  remains the same and if  changes a new stratum is encountered at a
certain depth (approximately at a depth equal to x).
Interpretation of the test results of electrical resistivity method can be made with the help of the
following table.
Soil type Resistivity Ohms/m
Clay and saturated silt 0 – 1000
Sandy clay 1000 – 2700
Clayey sand and saturated sand 2700 – 5400
sand 5400 – 16400
gravel 16,400 – 50,000

6. ROCK CORE SAMPLING

In rocks, except for very soft or partially decomposed sandstone or lime stone, blow counts are
at refusal level (N >100). When rock layer is encountered during driving, rock coring is
necessary to check the soundness of the rock. Unconfined compressive strength could also be
determined using rock cores. Rock coring is the process in which a sampler consisting of a
tube (core barrel) with a cutting bit at its lower end cuts an annular hole in a rock mass,
thereby creating a cylinder or core of rock which is recovered in the core barrel. Rock cores
are normally obtained by rotary drilling.
Standard rock cores range from about 1 ¼ inches to nearly 6 inches in diameter. The recovery
ratio Rr defined as the percentage ratio between the length of the core recovered and the length
of the core drilled on a given run, is related to the quality of rock encountered in boring, but it is
also influenced by the drilling technique and the type and size of core barrel used. A better
estimate of in situ rock quality is obtained by a modified core recovery ratio as the rock quality
designation (RQD) which is expressed as

RQD 
 Length of intact pices of core  100mm length
Total length of the core advance
Breaks obviously caused by drilling are ignored. The diameter of the core should preferably not
less than 2 1/8 inches. The table below gives the rock quality description, modulus of Elasticity
and unconfined compressive strength as related to RQD
RQD (%) Rock Quality E field/ E lab qu, field/qu, lab
90-100 Excellent 0.7 – 1.0 0.7 – 1.0
75-90 Good 0.3 – 0.7 0.3 – 0.7
50-75 Fair 0.25 0.25
25-50 Poor 0.2 0.2
0-25 Very Poor 0.15 0.15
 If rock is close to the ground surface, it is recommended to drill 2m in sound rock and 3 to
6m in weathered rock.
 If rock is encountered at deeper depth, it is recommended to drill 3 to 4m in to the rock,
especially below the location of the foundation elements.

18
Foundation I- Lecture Note Academic Year: 2015/2016
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology School of Civil Engineering

7. Ground Water
The presence of water table near the foundation affects the load bearing capacity of a
foundation. The water table may change seasonally. In many cases establishing the highest and
the lowest possible levels of water during the life of the project is necessary. If water is
encountered in bore hole during field exploration, the fact should be recorded. In soils with
high coefficient of permeability, the level of water in bore hole will stabilize in a bout 24 hrs
after completion of the bore hole drilling. The depth of the water table can then be measured
using steel tape. In soils with low K-values, this process may take a week. If the seasonal
ground water table variation is to be measured, piezometer may be installed in to bore hole and
the variation is recorded for longer time. (14HLCH-1.doc)

8. Soil Exploration Report

At the end of all soil exploration programs, after the required information has been collected, a
soil exploration report is prepared for the use in the design office. It is a good practice to divide
the report in to two:
1. Factual report: include all gathered data
2. Interpretative report: include interpreted data which serve as a basis for design.
The report may be presented in the following sections
a) Introduction: which contains information like
 For whom?
 Why?
 Method and approach
 Terms of reference (TOR) if there is any
b) General description of the site: which should describe
 General configuration and surface features like trees, shrubs, buildings, quarries,
marshy ground, fill areas, etc
 Any useful information derived from past records
 Other peculiar observations- wind, earth quakes, slopes, subsidence, etc
c) General geology of the area: which include notes on the geology of the area
based on comparison with existing published information and special geologic
features like, faults, springs, mine shafts, etc
d) Preparation of the soil profile: This shall describe the various strata in the
deposit. It can be best presented by passing an imaginary section through a series of
bore holes. The water table location shall be indicated if possible.

19
Foundation I- Lecture Note Academic Year: 2015/2016
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology School of Civil Engineering

e) Laboratory test results : a brief mention of the various tests done is made
 Due emphasis on unusual tests
 For detailed results reference should be made to approximate curves or tables
 For non standard tests, it is necessary to describe the detailed procedure
followed.
f) Discussion of Results : this is made in relation to implication on design and
construction
For example:
 In case of shallow foundations, one can recommend depth of foundation, safe
bearing capacity, expected settlements a result of superstructure loads provided,
advantages and disadvantages of going deeper
 In case of pile foundations, one can recommend the bearing stratum, depth of
penetration in the bearing stratum, method of installation of the pile, the type of
pile to be used (friction/end bearing)
If any detrimental effects on existing structure are possible, it must be well discussed.
g) Conclusions: a summary of the main findings of investigation and the
interpretation is given.

20
Foundation I- Lecture Note Academic Year: 2015/2016
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology School of Civil Engineering

CHAPTER TWO

TYPES OF FOUNDATIONS AND THEIR SELECTION

2.1 Types of Foundations

Commonly encountered foundations in practice may be broadly classified into two main
categories:
1. shallow foundations (1HLCH-2.doc)
a. Wall or continuous footings (Figure 2.1 (a))
b. Spread or isolated footings and combined footings (Figure 2.1 (b))
c. Mat or raft foundations (Figure 2.1 (c))
2. Deep foundations
a. Pile foundation (Figure 2.1 (d))
b. Piers and caissons (Figure 2.1 (e))
c. Under shallow foundations

Figure 2.1: Different Types of Foundations

21
Foundation I- Lecture Note Academic Year: 2015/2016
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology School of Civil Engineering

Figure 2.1………………………continued

22
Foundation I- Lecture Note Academic Year: 2015/2016
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology School of Civil Engineering

Figure 2.1………………………continued
23
Foundation I- Lecture Note Academic Year: 2015/2016
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology School of Civil Engineering

Figure 2.1………………………continued
24
Foundation I- Lecture Note Academic Year: 2015/2016
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology School of Civil Engineering

Figure 2.1………………………continued

25
Foundation I- Lecture Note Academic Year: 2015/2016
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology School of Civil Engineering

2.2. Selection of Foundation Types

In selecting the foundation types the following must be considered:
a) Function of the structure
b) Loads it must carry
c) Subsurface conditions
d) Cost of foundation in comparison with the cost of the superstructure (2HLCH-2.doc)

Having the above points in mind one should apply the following steps in order to arrive at a
decision.
1) Obtain at least approximate information concerning the superstructure and the loads to
be transmitted to the foundation
2) Determine the subsurface conditions in a general way
3) Consider each of the usual types of foundations in order to judge whether or not
a. They could be constructed under existing conditions
b. They are capable of carrying the required load.
c. They experience serious differential settlements
4) Undertake a detailed study of the most promising types. Such a study may require
additional information on loads and subsurface conditions.
5) Determine the approximate size of footings, piers or caissons or the approximate length
and number of piles required.
6) Prepare an estimate for the cost of each promising type of foundation
7) Select the type that represents the most acceptable compromise between performance
and cost.

26
Foundation I- Lecture Note Academic Year: 2015/2016
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology School of Civil Engineering

CHAPTER THREE

SOME CONSIDERATIONS FOR DESIGN OF SHALOW FOUNDATIONS

3.1 General Requirements (1HLCH-3.doc)

In the design of shallow foundations, the following factors should be considered properly
Footing depth and location:
Net and gross bearing capacity
Erosion problems for structures adjacent to flowing water
Corrosion protection and sulfate attack
Water table fluctuation
Foundations in sand, silt and clays
Foundations on expansive soils
Footings should be carried below
- Top soil, organic material, peat or muck
- Unconsolidated material such as abandoned (or closed) garbage dumps and similar
filled in areas
- Zones of high volume change due to moisture fluctuations

 Use an approximate spacing of footings as

m >Zf to avoid interface between ‘old’ and
m
New footing ‘new’ footings
45
o
 If the ‘new’ footing is in the relative
Zf 2 position to the ‘existing’ footing of this
1
figure, interchange the words ‘existing’ and
Existing footing ‘new’.

It is difficult to compute how close one may excavate to existing footings with out having a
detrimental effect on the existing footing. If excavation of a new footing is at a depth
greater than that of the existing footing there might be a possible settlement of the existing
footing because of (a) loss of lateral support of the soil wedge beneath the existing footing
(b) loss of overburden pressure-q Nq term of the bearing capacity equation. Thus, it is
recommended to construct a wall (sheet pile wall or other material) to retain the soil in
essentially the Ko state out side the excavation.

3.2 SETTLEMENT AND BEARING CAPACITY

3.2.1 SETTLEMENT
1. Definition of settlement
Foundations placed on the soil introduce change in stresses which will compress and deform
the underlying soil. The statistical accumulation of the movements in the direction of interest
(usually in the vertical direction) is referred to as settlement, S.
A structure may undergo 'uniform settlement' or 'differential settlement'. Uniform settlement
or equal settlement under different points of the structure does not cause much harm to the
structural stability of the structure. However, differential settlement or different magnitudes of
27
Foundation I- Lecture Note Academic Year: 2015/2016
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology School of Civil Engineering

settlement at different points underneath a structure-especially a rigid structure is likely to

cause supplementary stress and thereby cause harmful effects such as cracking, permanent and
irreparable damage, and ultimate yield and failure of the structure. As such, differential
settlement must be guarded against. (2HLCH-3.doc)

2. Data for Settlement analysis:

To estimate the settlements we need:
 To obtain the soil profile-which gives an idea of the depths of various characteristic
zones of soil at the site of the structure, as also the relevant properties of soil such as
initial void ratio, grain specific gravity, water content, and the consolidation and
compressibility characteristics
 To estimate the stresses transmitted to the subsurface strata, using a theory such as
Boussinesq's for stress distribution in soil.

3. Total Settlement
The total settlement may be considered to consist of the following contributions:
a) Initial settlement or elastic compression.
b) Consolidation settlement or primary compression.
c) Secondary settlement or secondary compression.

Initial Settlement or Elastic Compression

This is also referred to as the 'immediate or distortion or contact settlement' and it is usually
taken to occur immediately on application of the foundation load (within about 7 days).
Immediate settlement computation (3HLCH-3.doc)
The settlement of the corner of a rectangular base (flexible) of dimensions B' X L' on the
surface of an elastic half-space can be computed from an equation from the Theory of
Elasticity [e.g., Timoshenko and Goodier (1951)] as follows:
1 v2 
S i  qo B'   I S I F
 s 
E
qo = intensity of contact pressure in units of Es
B' = least lateral dimension of contributing base area in units of S.
Es, v = elastic soil parameters
Ii = influence factors, which depend on L'/B', thickness of stratum H, Poisson's ratio v, and
base embedment depth D. The influence factor Is (see Figure 3.1 for identification of terms) can
be computed using equations given by Steinbrenner (1934) as follows:
1  2v
I S  I1  I2 with I1 and I 2 as follows:
1 v
1  (1  M 2  1)( M 2  N 2 ) 
 
 ( M  M 2  1)( 1  N 2 ) 
I 1   M ln  ln  
  M (1  M 2  N 2  1)   M  M 2  N 2  1 
    
N  M 
I2  tan 1   tan 1 in radians
2  N M  N 1 
2 2

L' H
where; M  and N 
B' B'
28
Foundation I- Lecture Note Academic Year: 2015/2016
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology School of Civil Engineering

B L
B'  for center and B'  B for corner I i ; L'  for center and L'  L for corner I i
2 2
IF = influence factor from the Fox (1948b) equations, which suggest that the settlement is
reduced when it is placed at some depth in the ground, depending on Poisson’s ratio and L/B.
Figure 3.1 can be used to approximate IF.
Note: if your base is "rigid" you should reduce the Is factor by about 7 percent (that is, Is, rigid =
O.931 Is, flexible)

Figure 3.1: Influence factor IF for footing at a depth D. Use actual footing width and depth
dimension for this D/B ratio.
Determination of Es: Determination of Es-the modulus of elasticity of soil, is not simple
because of the wide variety of factors influencing it. It is usually obtained from a consolidated
undrained triaxial test on a representative soil sample, which is consolidated under a cell
pressure approximating to the effective overburden pressure at the level from which the soil
sample was extracted. The plot of deviator stress versus axial strain is never a straight line.
Hence, the value must be determined at the expected value of the deviator stress when the load
is applied on the foundation. If the thickness of the layer is large, it may be divided into a
number of thinner layers, and the value of Es, determined for each.

Consolidation Settlement or Primary Compression

The phenomenon of consolidation occurs in clays because the initial excess pore water
pressures cannot be dissipated immediately owing to the low permeability. The theory of one-
dimensional consolidation, advanced by Terzaghi, can be applied to determine the total
compression or settlement of a clay layer as well as the time-rate of dissipation of excess pore
pressures and hence the time-rate of settlement. The settlement computed by this procedure is
known as that due to primary compression since the process of consolidation as being the
dissipation of excess pore pressures alone is considered.
The total consolidation settlement, Sc. may be obtained from one of the following
equations:
H Cc  σ' Δσ 
Sc  log10  o 
(1  e o )  σ'o 
Sc  mv Δσ H
29
Foundation I- Lecture Note Academic Year: 2015/2016
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology School of Civil Engineering

e
Sc  H
(1  e o )
Where, Cc = compression index from the e versus log P plot
eo = in situ void ratio in the stratum where Cc was obtained
H = stratum thickness. If the stratum is very thick (say >6m) it should be
subdivided into several sub layers of Hi = 2 to 3m, with each having its own eo
and Cc. Compute the several values of Sci and then sum them to obtain the total
consolidation settlement.
'o = effective overburden pressure at mid-height of H
 = average increase in pressure from the foundation loads in layer H and the
same units of 'o. The vertical pressure increment  at the middle of the layer
has to be obtained by using the theory of stress distribution in soil.
mv = constrained modulus of elasticity determined from consolidation test =1/Es
Time-rate of settlement: Time-rate of settlement is dependent, in addition to other
factors, upon the drainage conditions of the clay layer. If the clay layer is sandwiched
between sand layers, pore water could be drained from the top as well as from the
bottom and it is said to be a case of double drainage. If drainage is possible only from
either the top or the bottom, it is said to be a case of single drainage. In the former case,
the settlement proceeds much more rapidly than in the latter. The calculations are based
upon the equation:
C
Tv  2v
H
Secondary Settlement or Secondary Compression
Settlement due to secondary compression is believed to occur during and mostly after the
completion of primary consolidation or complete dissipation of excess pore pressure. It is the
continuing readjustment of the soil grains in to a closer (or more dense) state under
compressive load. In the case of organic soils and micaceous soils, the secondary compression
is comparable to the primary compression; in the case of all other soils, secondary settlement is
considered insignificant.

4. Differential Settlement
Non-uniform or differential settlement is settlement in which part of a foundation or two
adjoining footings settle differently. If the effect of differential settlement is not taken in to the
design of the structure, the structure may crack very badly and the safety of the structure
becomes questionable. Basically there are two methods of estimating the allowable differential
settlement of a given structure:
1 Analytical methods: expressions derived by introducing simplifying assumptions where
stiffness used as a criterion. They may be sometimes misleading and are not used in
practice.
2 Empirical methods: previous knowledge or results of field or lab tests are used to
determine the settlements.
The magnitudes of the settlements obtained by using the above methods are compared with the
permissible amount of settlement.

30
Foundation I- Lecture Note Academic Year: 2015/2016
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology School of Civil Engineering

From statistical analysis Skempton and MacDonald concluded that as long as the angular
distortion,  /l , of a building is less than 1/300, there should be no settlement damage.(Figure
3.2).

l1 l2 l3
1, 2, 3 = differential settlements
 = greatest differential settlement
Ground level Smax = maximum total settlement
Origional foundation
level
l 1, l 2, l 3, = bay width
 /l = angular distortion
1 Smax
 3
2

Figure 3.2: Definition of differential settlement

Having established the permissible limits of differential settlement, various authors have
recommended the magnitude of maximum permissible total settlement Smax for practical
purposes. If the maximum total settlement is kept within the permissible limit, the differential
settlement, being a function of the total settlement, will also be taken care of.

5. Allowable magnitude of recommended settlement (7HLCH-3.doc)

If the computed settlements are with in the values in the parentheses in the table below,
statistically the structure should adequately resist that deformation.
Table: Tolerable settlements of buildings in mm (After Skempton and MacDonald)
Recommended maximum values in parentheses
Criterion Isolated foundation Rafts
Angular distortion (cracking) 1/300
Greatest differential settlement
Clays 45 (35)
Sands 32 (25)
Maximum settlement
Clays 75 75-125 (65-100)
Sands 50 50-75 (35-65)
According to EBCS 7 (1995), the permissible total settlement is 50mm and 75mm on sand and
clayey soils respectively for isolated footings and correspondingly 75mm and 125mm for rafts.

31
Foundation I- Lecture Note Academic Year: 2015/2016
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology School of Civil Engineering

3.2.2 Bearing Capacity

1. Introduction
To ensure stability, foundations must provide an adequate factor of safety against shear or
bearing failure of the underlying soil and the structure must be capable of withstanding the
settlements that will result, in particular the differential settlements. Thus the criteria for the
determination of the bearing capacity of a foundation are based on the requirements for the
stability of the foundation. The design value of the safe bearing capacity would be the smaller
of the two values, obtained from the two criteria:
1. Shear failure criterion (10.1HLCH-3.doc)
2. Settlement criterion
The soil’s limiting shear resistance is referred to as the ultimate bearing capacity, qu, of the
soil. For design, one uses an allowable bearing capacity, qall, obtained by dividing the ultimate
bearing capacity by a suitable safety factor (i.e. qall=qu/FS). (10.2HLCH-3.doc)
Some analytical methods of estimating bearing capacity are given below.
2. Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Theory
Terzaghi obtained expressions for the ultimate bearing capacity for general shear conditions as:
1
Long footings : q u  cN c  γ D f N q  Bγ N γ
2
Square footings : q u  1.3cN c  γ D f N q  0.4 γB N γ

Circular footings : q u  1.3cN c  γ D f N q  0.3γB N γ

where : Nq 
a2
; 
N c  N q  1 cot   ;
2 cos 2 45   / 2 

 3π  φ  tan
1  K pg  
4 2 
Nγ  tan   1 with a  e
 cos 
2
2 
    33  
N pγ  3tan 2  45    (After S. Husain)
  2 

Table 3.1 below gives the values for the various bearing capacity factors recommended for the
above equations.
Table 3.1: Terzaghi’s N-factors
 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Nc 5.7 6.3 6.97 7.73 8.6 9.61 10.76 12.11 13.68 15.52 17.69 20.27 23.36
Nq 1 1.22 1.49 1.81 2.21 2.69 3.29 4.02 4.92 6.04 7.44 9.19 11.4
Ng 0 0.18 0.38 0.62 0.91 1.25 1.7 2.23 2.94 3.87 4.97 6.61 8.58
 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50
Nc 27.09 31.61 37.16 44.04 52.64 63.53 77.5 95.67 119.67 151.95 196.2 258.29 347.52
Nq 14.21 17.81 22.46 28.52 36.51 47.16 61.55 81.27 108.75 147.74 204.2 287.86 415.16
Ng 11.35 15.15 19.73 27.49 36.96 51.7 73.47 100.39 165.69 248.29 427 742.61 1153.2
The
results obtained here are quite within acceptable limits for shallow footings (e.g. Df /B<1)
subjected to only vertical loads. But they are limited to concentrically loaded horizontal
footings; they are not suitable for footings that support eccentrically-loaded columns or to tilted
footings. Furthermore, they are regarded as somewhat overly conservative.
Terzaghi developed his bearing-capacity equations assuming a general shear failure in a dense
soil and a local shear failure for a loose soil. For the local shear failure he proposed reducing
the cohesion and  as:
2
c '' c
3
2 
 ' '  tan 1  tan  
3 
3. Meyerhof’s Bearing Capacity Equation
32
Foundation I- Lecture Note Academic Year: 2015/2016
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology School of Civil Engineering

Meyerhof proposed a bearing capacity equation similar to that of Terzaghi but added shape
factors, s, depth factors, d, and inclination factors, i.
1
Inclined Load : q u  cN c s c d c i c  γ D f N q s q d q i q  Bγ N γ s γ d γ i γ
2
where : N q  e  tan tan 2 45   / 2 N c  N q  1 cot 

N γ  N q  1 tan(1.4 )
The N values are given in Table 3.2 (a) and (b).
Table 3.2 (a): Meyerhof’s N- factors
 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Nc 5.1 5.63 6.19 6.81 7.53 8.34 9.28 10.37 11.63 13.1 14.83 16.88 19.32
Nq 1 1.2 1.43 1.72 2.06 2.47 2.97 3.59 4.34 5.26 6.4 7.82 9.6
Ng 0 0.01 0.04 0.11 0.21 0.37 0.6 0.92 1.37 2 2.87 4.07 5.72
 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50
Nc 22.25 25.8 30.14 35.49 42.16 50.59 61.35 75.32 93.71 118.37 152.1 199.27 266.89
Nq 11.85 14.72 18.4 23.18 29.44 37.75 48.93 64.2 85.38 115.31 158.51 222.31 319.07
Ng 8 11.19 15.67 22.02 31.15 44.43 64.08 93.69 139.32 211.41 328.74 526.47 873.89

Table 3.2 (b): Meyerhof’s factors (s, d, i)

 Shape Depth Inclination
Any   
2
B D 
s c  1  0.2K p d c  1  0.2 K p ic  iq  1 - 0 
L B  90 

For  =00 s q  s g  1.0 d q  d g  1.0 i g  1 .0

For  >100
2
s q  s g  1  0.1K p
B
d q  d g  1  0.1 K p
D   
ig  1 - 
L B   
 
K p  tan 2  45   where  = angle of resultant measured from vertical axis
 2
V  Q
H

 B
When triaxial  tr is used for plain strain, adjust tr to obtain  ps  1.1  0.1  tr
 L
Meyerhof suggested that footing dimensions B'=B-2ey and L'= L-2ex be used in determining the
total allowable load eccentrically applied in the x and y directions, respectively (i.e., Qu=qu B'
L'), and in the corresponding terms in the ultimate bearing capacity equations and in the various
correction factors for shape and inclination.
4. Hansen’s Bearing Capacity Equation
Hansen proposed the general bearing capacity equation which includes ground factors and
base factors to include conditions for a footing on a slope.
1
q u  cN cs c d cic b c g c  γ Df N q s q d q iq bq g q  Bγ N γs γ d γ iγ b γ g γ
2
where: N q  e  tan
tan  45   / 2  ; N c   N q  1 cot  ;
2

N γ  1.5  N q  1 tan  [Table 3.3 (a)]

Expressions for inclination, shape, depth, base, and ground inclination expressions proposed by
Hanson are given in Table 3.3 (b).
33
Foundation I- Lecture Note Academic Year: 2015/2016
 Addis Ababa Institute of Technology School of Civil Engineering

Table 3.3 (a): Hansen’s N- factors

 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Nc 5.1 5.63 6.19 6.81 7.53 8.34 9.28 10.37 11.63 13.1 14.83 16.88 19.32
Nq 1 1.2 1.43 1.72 2.06 2.47 2.97 3.59 4.34 5.26 6.4 7.82 9.6
Ng 0 0.01 0.05 0.11 0.22 0.39 0.63 0.97 1.43 2.08 2.95 4.13 5.75
 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50
Nc 22.25 25.8 30.14 35.49 42.16 50.59 61.35 75.32 93.71 118.37 152.1 199.27 266.89
Nq 11.85 14.72 18.4 23.18 29.44 37.75 48.93 64.2 85.38 115.31 158.51 222.31 319.07
Ng 7.94 10.94 15.07 20.79 28.77 40.05 56.18 79.54 113.96 165.58 244.65 368.68 568.59

Table 3.3 (b): Hansen’s factors (s, d, i, b, g)

Shape factors Depth factors Inclination factors
B' (for =0) d  0.4 k (for =0)
s c  0.2 c
ic 
1 1
 1
Hi (for  =0)
L'
d c  1.0  0.4k (for >0) 2 2 Af Ca
N q B' (for >)
sc  1  d q  1  2 tan  (1  sin  ) 2 k 1  iq
N c L' ic  iq  (for  >0)
B' d γ  1.0 Nq 1
s q  1.0  sin  α1
L'
k 
D D
1
 0.5H i 
B'
if i q  1  
V  A f C a cot 
B B
s γ  1.0 - 0.4  0.6 D D 
L' k  tan 1   if 1
B B 2  1  5
k in radians α2
    
  0.7  H i 
 
0
450
i γ  1  
 V  A f C a cot 
 
 
2 2  5

Ground factors (base on

slope)
 0 (for =0)
gc  0
147
0 (for >)
g c  1.0 
147 0
g q  g γ  1  0.5tan 
5

Base factors (tilted base)

 0 (for =0)
bc 
 < 900;    ; D measured vertically. 0
147
For L/B < 2 use tr 0 (for >)
bc  1
For L/B>2 use ps=1.5 tr -170 but for tr< 340use tr= ps 147 0
 = friction angle between base and soil (0.    ) b q  e 2 tan   in radians
2.7 tan 
Af = B' L' (effective area) bγ  e  in radians
ca = base adhesion (0.6c to 1.0c)
Notes
 Failure can take place either along the long side or along the short side and thus
shape , depth and inclination factors shall be calculated in both sides
 Use Hi as either HB or HL for inclination factors

5. Vesic’s Bearing Capacity Equation

The Vesic procedure is essentially the same as the method of Hansen with select changes. The
Nc and Nq terms are those of Hansen but Ng is slightly different as is given by:
N γ  2N q  1 tan  (also see Table 3.4 (a))
34
Foundation I- Lecture Note Academic Year: 2015/2016
 Addis Ababa Institute of Technology School of Civil Engineering

There are also differences in the ii, bi and gi, terms (Table 3.4 (a)).
Table 3.4 (a): Vesic’s Ng - factors
 0 5 10 15 20 25 26 28
Ng 0 0.4 1.2 2.6 5.4 10.9 12.5 16.7
 30 32 34 36 38 40 45 50
Ng 22.4 30.2 41 56.2 77.9 109.3 271.3 761.3
(10.3HLCH-3.doc)
Table 3.4 (b): Vesic’s factors (s, d, i, b, g)
Shape factors Depth factors Inclination factors
Nq B d c  0.4k (for =0) mH i (for  =0)
s c  1.0  ic  1 
Nc L
d c  1.0  0.4k (for >0) Af Ca Nc
B 2  B/L
s q  1.0  tan d q  1  2 tan  (1  sin  ) 2 k m  mB 
L Where: 1  B/L
s γ  1.0 - 0.4
B
 0.6
d γ  1.0 2  L/B
m  mL 
L
k 
D D
if 1
1  L/B
B B 1  iq
D D ic  iq  (for  >0)
k  tan 1   1
B
if
B Nq 1
k in radians m
 Hi 
iq  1  
 V  A f C a cot 
m 1
 Hi 
i γ  1  
 V  A f C a cot 

Ground factors (base on slope)


gc     in rad (for =0)
5.14
1  iq
g c  iq  (for >)
5.14 tan 
g q  g γ  1.0  tan 
2

 < 900;   ; D measured vertically. Base factors (tilted base)

b c  g c (for =0)
For L/B < 2 use tr
2 (for >)
For L/B>2 use ps=1.5 tr -170 but for tr< 340use tr= ps bc  1
5.14 tan 
 = friction angle between base and soil (0.    )
b q  b γ  1  η tan    in radians
2

Af = B' L' (effective area)

Notes
ca = base adhesion (0.6c to 1.0c)
 Compute m=mB when Hi=HB (H parallel to B) and m=mL when Hi=HL (H // L). If

you have both HB and HL use m  m B 2  m L 2 . Note use of B and L, not B',L'.
 When  =0 and K0, use Ng = -2sin( ) in Ng term
 Always iq, ig > 0. For Vesic use B' in the Ng term even when Hi=HL

6. Effect of Water Table on Bearing Capacity

The water table location can be in one of the following cases (Fig 3.2):
1. Water Table Above the base of the Footing
Fig 3.2(a) depicts a case of the water table located between the ground surface and base of the
footing. When this condition is encountered, both the 2nd and 3rd terms of the bearing capacity
equations are affected by a lower value of g [= gb (g') or gsub].

35
Foundation I- Lecture Note Academic Year: 2015/2016
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology School of Civil Engineering

Fig 3.2: Effect of Water Table

2. Water at the Base of Footing
For this case, the g in the second term (Nq) requires no adjusting. The third term will be gb (Fig
3.2 (b)).
3. The Water Table Below the Base of Footing but with in the wedge zone
When the water table lies with in the wedge zone [depth approximately H=0.5Btan(45+ /2)
from base of footing], some small difficulty may be obtained in computing the effective unit
weight to use in the Ng term [Fig 3.2 (c)]. In many cases this term for such situation can be
ignored to obtain a conservative solution. However, one can compute effective weight (ge) for
the soil within the wedge zone as
dw γ
γ e  2H  d w  γ  sub2 H  d w 
2
2
H H
Where: H=0.5B tan (45+/2); dw =depth of water table below base of footing
g and gsub (= g - gw) are wet and submerged unit weight of the soil respectively
4. The Water Table Below the wedge zone
When the water table is below the wedge zone [depth approximately H=0.5Btan(45+ /2) from
base of footing], the water table effects can be ignored for computing the bearing capacity.
7. Bearing Capacity Based on Tolerable Settlement
For the second criterion, the tolerable values of the total and differential settlements which a
particular structure, on a particular type of foundation in a given soil, can undergo without
sustaining any harmful effects are to be decided up on. These values have already been
specified, basing on experience and judgment. Once the limiting values of settlement are fixed,
the procedure involves determining that pressure which causes settlements just equal to the
limiting value. This is allowable bearing capacity on the basis of the settlement criterion. It is to
be noted that there is no need to apply a further factor of safety to this pressure, since it would
have been applied even at the stage of fixing up tolerable settlement values.
The smaller pressure of the values obtained from the two criteria is termed the ‘allowable
bearing pressure’, which is used for design of the foundation.
The bearing capacity based on settlement criterion may be determined from the field load tests
or plate load tests, standard penetration tests or from the charts like those prepared by Terzaghi
and Peck, based on extensive investigation.
i. Bearing Capacity From SPT

36
Foundation I- Lecture Note Academic Year: 2015/2016
 Addis Ababa Institute of Technology School of Civil Engineering

The SPT is widely used to obtain the bearing capacity of soils directly. According to Bowels,
the allowable bearing capacity is obtained as follows:
 For an allowable settlement of Smax = 25mm
q all (KPa)  25 N' 70 K d ; B  1.2m

 B  0.3 
2

q all (KPa)  16 N' 70   Kd; B  1.2m

 B 
Df
where K d  1   1.33
3B

 B  0.3 
2

For mat foundation (B  1.2m),    1.0

 B 
 For Smax > 25mm
q all 
S(mm)
q all 25mm
25mm
ii. Bearing Capacity From CPT
 Meyerhof (1956,1965) suggested for Smax =25mm and sands
q
q all (KPa)  c ; for B  1.2m (a)
30
where qc= point resistance in KPa
q c  B  0 .3 
2

q all (KPa)    ; for B  1.2m (b)

50  B 
Meyerhof proposed doubling the result obtained from (b) for mat foundations.
 Schmertmann (1975) gave for footings on sands
q
Ng  c with this value of Ng,  is determined followed by other factors. Then
80
Meyerhof’s bearing capacity equation is employed to determine qult. This approximation should
be applicable for D/B <1.5. qc is averaged over the depth interval from about B/2 above to 1.1B
below the footing base.
 For clays one may use[Schmertmann]:
Strip : q all (KPa)  200  28qc
Square : q all (KPa)  500  34qc q c in KPa
iii. Bearing Capacity From Field Load Tests (Refer Chapter 1)
8. Bearing Capacity Based on Building Codes(Presumptive Pressure)
Table 3.5 indicates representative values of building code pressures. These values are primarily
for illustrative purposes, since it is generally agreed that in all but minor construction projects
some soil exploration should be undertaken. Major drawbacks to the use of presumptive soil
pressures are that they don’t reflect the depth of the footing, size of footing, location of water
table, or potential settlements.
Table 3.5 Presumed Design Bearing Resistances* under Vertical Static Loading (EBCS 7, 1995)
Compactness** Presumed Design
Supporting
Description or Bearing Remarks
Ground Type
Consistency*** Resistance (KPa)
Massively crystalline igneous and
metamorphic rock (granite, basalt, Hard and sound 5600 These values are
Rocks gneiss) based on the
Foliated metamorphic rock (slate, Medium hard and assumptions that
2800
schist) sound the foundations are

37
Foundation I- Lecture Note Academic Year: 2015/2016
 Addis Ababa Institute of Technology School of Civil Engineering
carried down to un
Sedimentary rock (hard shale, Medium hard and
2800 weathered rock
siltstone, sandstone, limestone) sound
Weathered or broken-rock (soft
Soft 1400
limestone)
Soft shale Soft 850
Decomposed rock to be assessed as
soil
Dense 560
Width of foundation
Gravel, sand and gravel Medium dense 420
(B) not less than 1 m
Loose 280
Non-cohesive
Soils Dense 420 Ground water level
assumed to be depth
Sand Medium dense 280 not less than B below
Loose 140 the base of the
foundation
Hard 280
Silt Stiff 200
Medium stiff 140
Soft 70
Cohesive soils
Hard 420
Stiff 280
Clay Medium stiff 140
Soft 70
Very soft Not Applicable
* The given design bearing values do not include the effect of the depth of embedment of the foundation
** Compactness: dense: N > 30,
medium dense: N is 10 to 30
loose: N < 10, where N is standard penetration value
*** Consistency: hard: qu > 400 kPa,
stiff: qu = 100 to 200 kPa
medium stiff: qu = 50 to 100 kPa
soft: qu = 25 to 50 kPa, where qu. is unconfined compressive strength
9. Bearing Capacity for Footings on Layered Soils
If the thickness of the stratum from the base of the footing d1 is less than the H distance [H =
0.5 B tan (45 + /2)], the rupture zone will extend in to lower layer(s) depending on their
thickness and require some modification of qult. There are three general cases.
Case 1: Layered cohesive soil layers with  1 =  2 = 0, C1 ≠ C2 and strength ratio CR = C2 / C1
a) For CR < 1 obtain Nc [Brown and Meyerhof] as follows,
For strip and rectangular footings:
1.5d1
Nc   5.14C R  5.14
B
For circular footings with B=diameter:
3d 1
Nc   6.05C R  6.05
B
1. If CR > 0.7, reduce the above bearing capacity factors by 10%.
b) For CR >1 obtain Nc [Brown and Meyerhof] as follows,
 N c1 N c2 
N c  2  with
 N c1  N c2 

38
Foundation I- Lecture Note Academic Year: 2015/2016
 Addis Ababa Institute of Technology School of Civil Engineering

0.5 B 
N c1  4.14 
d1  
 strip and rectangular footings
1.1 B 
N c2  4.14 
d1  
0.33 B 
N c1  5.05 
d1  
 circular footings
0.66 B 
N c2  5.05 
d1  
2. When the top layer is very soft with a small d1/B ratio, one should consider placing
the footing deeper on to the stiff clay or using some kind of soil replacement because
the top soil may squeeze out (i.e. if qult > 4C1+g Df) beneath the footing.
Case 2: Stratified c- soil
Using 1, compute H =0.5Btan (45+/2)
If H < d1, compute qult using C1 and 1
If H > d1, use modified Cavg and avg to compute
qult with,
C1 d 1  C 2 (H - d 1 )
C avg 
H
1 d 1   2 (H - d 1 )
 avg 
H
Case 3: Footings on sand overlaying clay or on clay overlaying sand
Using 1, compute H =0.5Btan (45+/2)
If H < d1, compute qult using C1 and 1
If H > d1, estimate qult as follows,
P σ vh K s tan Pd1C1
q' ult  q' ' ult    q ult
Af Af
where: qult = bearing capacity of top layer
q''ult = bearing capacity of lower layer computed using B = footing dimension,
C and  of lower layer and q = gd1
P = total perimeter for punching [P =2 (B+L) or P = *diameter]
Af = area of footing (converts perimeter shear forces to a stress)
vh = total vertical pressure from footing base to lower soil
Ks = lateral earth pressure coefficient Ka < Ks < Kp. Use Ks = Ko
Pd1C1 = cohesion on perimeter as a force
tan = coefficient of friction b/n vhKs and perimeter shear zone wall
A possible alternative for c- soil with a number of thin layers is to use average values of c
and  in the bearing capacity equations obtained as:
C H  C 2 H 2  .......  C n H n  H   2 H 2  .......   n H n
C avg  1 1  avg  1 1
H H

10. Bearing Capacity of Foundations Subjected to Uplift or Tension Forces

Footings in industrial applications such as for legs of elevated water tanks, anchorages for the
anchor cables of transmission towers, and bases for legs of power transmission towers-and in a
number of industrial equipment installations are subjected to uplift or tension forces. Footings
that can develop tensile resistance or drilled piers with or without enlarged base are commonly

39
Foundation I- Lecture Note Academic Year: 2015/2016
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology School of Civil Engineering

used as foundations for these types of structures. The bearing capacity of these types of
foundations may be computed using the following equations. (11HLCH-3.doc)
For shallow foundations (D/B < 2.5):
 D2 
Circular : Tult  πBCD  s f π B γ  K u tan  W
 2 
Rectangular : Tult  2(B  L)CD  γD 2 (2s f B  L - B) K u tan  W
mB
Where: s f  1  ; B= width or diameter of footing; D= depth of footing;
D
L = length of footing; C = cohesion; g = unit weight ;  = angle of internal friction
Ku = earth pressure coefficient; W= weight of backfill and footing
For deep foundations (H/B > 2.5):
H
Circular : Tult  πBCH  s f π B γ 2 B  H  K u tan  W
2
Rectangular : Tult  2(B  L)CH  γ2B - H  (2 s f B  L - B) H K u tan  W
mB
Where: s f  1  ; B= width or diameter of footing; D= depth of footing;
H
L = length of footing; C = cohesion; g = unit weight ;  = angle of internal friction
Ku = earth pressure coefficient; W= weight of backfill and footing
Obtain shape factors sf, ratios m and H/B [all f()] from the following table-interpolate as
necessary:
  20 25 30 40 45 48
Max [ D/B or H/B] 2.5 3 4 7 9 11
m 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.35 0.5 0.6
sf 1.12 1.3 1.6 4.45 5.5 7.6
11. Bearing Capacity of Rocks
It is common to use building code values for the allowable bearing capacity of rock; however,
geology, rock type, and quality (as RQD) are significant parameters which should be used
together with the recommended code value. (13HLCH-3.doc)
One may use Terzaghi’s bearing capacity equations to obtain the bearing capacity of rocks
using  and c of rock from high pressure triaxial tests. Bearing capacity factors to be used are:
N q  tan 6 45   / 2; N c  5tan 4 45   / 2; Ng  Nq  1
We could estimate  = 40 o for most rock except limestone or shale where values between 38o
and 45o should be used. Similarly we could in most cases estimate Su=5Mpa as a conservative
value. Finally we may reduce the ultimate bearing capacity based on RQD as
q'ult = qult (RQD)2
One can also estimate the bearing capacity using the unconfined compressive strength, qu,
determined in the laboratory using core samples (intact rock). The allowable bearing capacity is
estimated as: qall = qu to 2.5qu
CHAPTER FOUR

DESIGN OF SHALOW FOUNDATIONS

4.1 DESIGN OF ISOLATED FOOTING S (1HLCH-4.doc)

40
Foundation I- Lecture Note Academic Year: 2015/2016
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology School of Civil Engineering

A footing carrying a single column is called a spread footing; since its function is to “spread”
the column load laterally to the soil so that the stress intensity is reduced to a value that the soil
can safely carry. These members are sometimes called single or isolated footings. Single
footings may be of constant thickness or either stepped or slopped.
Assumptions used in footing design- [Contact pressure distribution]
Theory of elasticity analysis and observations indicate that the stress distribution beneath
symmetrically loaded footings is not uniform. The actual stress distribution depends on the
rigidity of the footing and the stiffness of the soil. However, linear pressure distribution is
assumed for design purpose. Also the few field measurements reported indicate this assumption
is adequate. (2HLCH-4.doc)
The approximate contact pressure under a given symmetrical foundation can be obtained from
the flexural formula, provided that the considered load lies with in the kern of the footing
[i.e. ey < B / 6 and ex< L / 6].
P M y Myx
σ (x , y)   x  (4.1)
A Ix Iy

By substituting the following in equation (4.1) we obtain equation (4.2),

My M LB3 BL3
A  Bx L; ex  ; ey  x ; Ix  ; Iy 
P P 12 12
and x  L / 2; y  B / 2 ( for the corners )
P  6e x 6e y 
σ max  1    (4.2)
min B L  L B 
If we want to know when we will have negative contact pressure (separation), we proceed as
follows
P  6e x 6e y 
σ min  1   0
B L  L B 
6ex 6e y
 1
L B
If ex = 0  ey < B/6 and if ey = 0  ex < L/6 .
Thus as long as the load is within the kern (see Figure),
no separation takes place.
A design should not allow as much as possible
separation, because that would lead to uneconomical design and potential tilting of the column.
But if there is separation for some reason, then max will be determined as follows. Consider
eccentricity along L only [ex > L/6].

41
Foundation I- Lecture Note Academic Year: 2015/2016
 Addis Ababa Institute of Technology School of Civil Engineering

The new compressive contact pressure alone must

equilibrate the superstructure force and moment. Thus,
F z 0R P

1 2P
 σ max B c  P  R ;  c  (*)
2 σ max B
L c
M  0  P ex  R  - 
o
 2 3
(**)

From (*) and (**) we have,

4P
σ max  and
3B( L  2e x )
L
c  3(  ex )
2
If eccentricity is only along B [ey > B/6] one can similarly get:
4P B
σ max  and c  3(  ey )
3L( B  2e y ) 2
If the load is eccentric about both axes, trial and error is needed to determine the maximum soil
pressure under any footing. Graphical methods are also available. The curves of Plock shown in
Figure 4.1 can be used to locate the zero-pressure line and also determine the magnitude of the
maximum contact pressure.
 For bearing capacity calculation consider the following,
Case 1: ex > L/6 and ey > B/6
B L
L'1  3(  e y ) and B'1  3(  e x )
2 2
Larger of L'1 or B'1 will be L'
A'
A'  B ' L'  B' 
L'
Use B' and L' to compute shape factors
Use B and L to compute other factors
Use either B' or L' with Ng in the bearing
capacity equation based on the direction of the
horizontal load. Example\9.xls
Case 2: ex < L/6 and ey < B/2
1 A'
A'  ( B'1  B' 2 ) L and L'  L  B' 
2 L'
Obtain B'1 and B'2 using the above curves
Use B' and L' for shape factors
Use B and L to compute other factors
Use either B' or L' with Ng in the bearing capacity
equation based on the direction of the horizontal load.

42
Foundation I- Lecture Note Academic Year: 2015/2016
 Addis Ababa Institute of Technology School of Civil Engineering

Example\Example.xls
Figure 4.1: Approximate Contact Pressure Distribution under Eccentrically Loaded Strip and
Rectangular Foundations
Case 3: ex < L/2 and ey < B/6
1
A'  ( L'1  L' 2 ) B
2
Obtain L'1 and L'2 using the above curves
L' is taken as greater of L'1 or L'2 and B'  A'
L'
Use B' and L' for shape factors
Use B and L to compute other factors
Use either B' or L' with Ng in the bearing capacity
equation based on the direction of the horizontal load.

4.1.1 Proportioning of Footings

After having the allowable soil pressure qall for a given soil, one may determine the area and
subsequently the proportions of a footing necessary to sustain a given load or combinations of
loads. Footings are designed as rigid.
The allowable soil pressure, qall is substituted in place of max in the equation,
P  6e x 6e y  . Thus, P  6e x 6e y .
σ max  1    q all  1   
B L  L B  B L  L B 
In this equation all other quantities are known except the area A= B L of the footing.
43
Foundation I- Lecture Note Academic Year: 2015/2016
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology School of Civil Engineering

4.1.2 Structural Design of Footings

Before going in to the structural design, one should check if the settlement of the selected
footing is with in the prescribed safe limits. If the settlement exceeds the safe limits, one should
increase the area of the footings until the danger of settlement is eliminated.
One then should design for the following modes of failures:
1. Shear failure
 Punching shear
to avoid these provide adequate depth
 Wide beam shear (diagonal tension)
2. Flexural failure --- provide adequate depth and reinforcement
3. Bond failure
 column bar pullout to avoid these provide adequate
 Flexural reinforcement bars failed in bond development or anchorage length
(4,5,6HLCH-4.doc)
(i) Determination of Thickness
The thickness of a given footing is usually governed by punching shear (for square and
centrally loaded footings) or wide beam shear (for rectangular footings with large L/B ratio or
eccentrically loaded footings).
(a) Thickness from Punching Failure (3HLCH-4.doc)
It is common practice to provide adequate depth to sustain the shear stress developed without
reinforcement. The critical section for punching is as shown in the figure below.
Rectangular columns:

 = 1.0
d
i.e. distance around the column
2

- punching resistance: Vr  2  (a ' d )  (b ' d )  vup d

- acting punching shear force: Va  ab  (a' d )(b' d )  Or Va  Pcol  (a' d )(b' d )
- equating the two above expressions, one can now solve for d from
(4vup   )d 2  (2vup   )( a ' b ') d  ( ab  a ' b ')  0 (4.3a)
Circular columns:

 = 0.5

- punching resistance: Vr   (  d ) vup d

  2 
- acting punching shear force: Va  ab  (  d )   Or Va  Pcol  (  d ) 2 
 4  4
- equating the two above expressions, one can now solve for d from
   
(vup  )d 2  (vup  )( )d  (ab   2 )  0 (4.3c)
4 2 4 
44
Foundation I- Lecture Note Academic Year: 2015/2016
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology School of Civil Engineering

(b) Thickness from wide beam Shear (Diagonal Tension)

The selected depth using punching shear criterion may not be adequate to withstand the
diagonal tension developed. Hence one should also check the safety against diagonal tension.
The critical sections for wide beam shear are as shown in the figure below.
Acting shear force (wide beam shear)
Short direction: VSS   a  ( a'  d )  b
2 2 
 b b' 
Long direction: VLL    (  d )  a
2 2 
Resisting shear (wide beam shear)
Short direction: Vr S  b d vuw
Long direction: Vr L  a d vuw
At the limiting state we have,
 a a'  (a  a ')
VSS  Vr S    (  d )  b  b dvuw  d 
 2 2  2(  vuw )
 b b'  (b  b ')
VLL  Vr L    (  d )  a  a dvuw  d 
2 2  2(  vuw )
Thus if d is calculated from punching, the above calculated d’s for wide beam shear must be
less than that d from punching. Or if the thickness is already obtained from punching
requirement, then we need only to check that the wide beam shear strength is not exceeded.
 a a' 
 (  d ) 
VSS  2 2  v
Short direction : vw   uw
bd d
 b b' 
 (  d ) 
VLL  2 2  V
Long direction : Vw   uw
ad d

(ii) Determination of Flexural Reinforcement

The critical section for bending moment may vary according to the types of columns as shown
in the figure below.
- column/ wall(except masonry) Masonry

- Steel column resting on concrete

x
base
  x
plate
0.5x

0.25x
critical section

critical section
critical section

(iii) Bond Strength and Development Length

The development length is determined from available formulae and it should be grater or equal
to the available length. The available development length can be calculated as length from
critical section to extreme side of the footing less concrete cover.

45
Foundation I- Lecture Note Academic Year: 2015/2016
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology School of Civil Engineering

(iv) Placement of Reinforcement Bars

a) For square footings reinforcements are distributed uniformly in both directions
b) For rectangular footing:
Longitudinal steel in the long direction (usually placed on bottom) shall be
uniformly spaced
Steel in the short direction based on ACI code is as shown below
L [a]
Asl  As a  a
1LB
B[b]

As As1  As 3    As b b
2L B
2B
As 2  As b b
A s1 A s2 A s3
LB

0.5(L-B) B 0.5(L-B)

Allowable stresses according to EBCS 2 (1995): [for LSD]

1. Punching shear resistance
vup  0.5f ctd (1  50  e )  Vup  0.5f ctd (1  50  e ) U d
0.35
where: fctd = design tensile strength of concrete; f ctd  f cu ; γ c  1.5
γc
e = effective geometrical ratio of reinforcement
 e   ex  ey  0.008 , ex and ey are geometrical steel ratios in the x
and y directions respectively
U = perimeter of the critical section
d = effective depth
2. Wide beam shear resistance
vuw  0.3f ctd (1  50  )  Vuw  0.3f ctd (1  50  ) b w d
where:   As  0.02 ; bw = width of web or rib of a member
bw d
3. Development length
 f yd
ld 
4 f bd
where: fyd = fyk/ gs ; gs=1.15; fbd = fctd

Allowable stresses according to ACI: [for USD]

1. Punching shear resistance

vup  f ' c  0.33 f ' c
3
2. Wide beam shear resistance

vuw  f ' c  0.17 f ' c
6
3. Embedment of reinforcing bars of diameter < 35mm
0.19 Ab f y
ld 
f 'c

46
Foundation I- Lecture Note Academic Year: 2015/2016
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology School of Civil Engineering

where:  = reduction factor and is 0.85 for shear

f ' c = 28-day cubic concrete strength in MPa, fy =yield strength of steel( MPa)
Ab = area of single bar in mm2 and ld(mm)
4. The permissible bearing pressure
A2 A2
f b  0.60 f ' c ; 2
Acol Acol
Where A2 = base area of the bearing frustum = (b' + 4d) (a' + 4d)
Acol = area of the columns = b' a'

4.2 DESIGN OF COMBINED FOOTINGS

When a footing supports a line of two or more columns, it is called combined footing. A
combined footing may have either rectangular or trapezoidal shape. It may not be possible to
place columns near property line or near mechanical equipment. Columns located off center
will result in a non uniform pressure and it may not be also stable against overturning. In order
to avoid this problem, an alternative is to enlarge the footing and place one or more columns on
one footing.

4.2.1 DESIGN OF RECTANGULAR COMBINED FOOTINGS (8HLCH-4.doc)

The footing is designed such that the centroid of the footing area coincides with the resultant of
the column loads. This produces uniform bearing pressure over the entire area and prevents the
tendency of tilting. Thus the proportioning is done using the flexural formula.
a [L] First determine location of the resultant:
R  P1  P2
s R * e x  M 1 y  M 2 y  P2 e2 x  P1e1x
b [B]

P1 P2 M 1 y  M 2 y  P2 e2 x  P1e1x
M1 M2  ex 
e R
e1 R e2
R * e y  M 1x  M 2 x  P2 e2 y  P1e1 y

0.5a 0.5a
max min
M 1x  M 2 x  P2 e2 y  P1e1 y
 ey 
R
Then use flexural formula to determine the planar dimensions of the footing
P  6e x 6e y 
σ max  1     q all or q ult 
min B L  L B 
General Design Procedure
1 Determine the location of the resultant R, eccentricities ea [eL or ex] and eb [eB or ey]
2 Determine the planar dimension in such a way that
P  6e x 6e y 
1 
σ max     q all or q ult 
min B L  L B 
3 Treating it like a beam in the longitudinal direction draw BMD and SFD

47
Foundation I- Lecture Note Academic Year: 2015/2016
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology School of Civil Engineering

4 Make a structural design using the SF and BM. The critical sections are same as that of
isolated spread footing with the thickness determined based on punching and wide beam
shear and flexural steel is determined from BM
5 Determine short direction reinforcement as spread footing. Here width of footing around
column is assumed to be effective to transfer the column loads to the soil. The effective
zones are obtained by adding 0.75d in ether side of the columns from the face of the
column.
a [L]

s
b [B] a'1 a'2
Ws1  a'1 1.5d
Ws1 Ws2

P2 Ws 2  a' 2 1.5d
P1
M1 M2
e
e1 R e2

Ws1 Ws2 (9HLCH-4.doc)

4.2.2 DESIGN OF TRAPEZOIDAL COMBINED FOOTINGS

A combined footing will be trapezoid-shaped if the column that has too limited space for a
spread footing carries the larger load. In this case the resultant of the column loads (including
moments) will be closer to the larger column load, and doubling the centroid distance as done
for rectangular footing (to achieve a uniformly distributed contact pressure) will not provide
sufficient length to reach the interior column. Thus one has to use a wider section near the
column with larger load. The footing geometry is as shown below.
a [L] R  P1  P2
a  a'   a' 
R  P1  1   M1  P2  s  1   M 2
2  2  2
s
2   a'   a'  
b1 b2  a  P1  1   M1  P2  s  1   M 2 
a'1 a'2 R  2   2 
x'

Trapezoidal footing will be used if the out-to-

P2 out distance between columns is greater than
P1
M2  a' a' 
M1 2a i.e 2a   1  s  2  unless the distance
R
 2 2 
s is so great that a cantilever (or strap) footing
would be more economical.
Area of trapiezium A
L
b1  b 2 
2
L 2b 2  b1 
Centroid of trapiezium x'  by taking moment of area.
3 b1  b 2
For uniform contact pressure distribution line of action of the resultant R should
pass through the centroid of the area.

48
Foundation I- Lecture Note Academic Year: 2015/2016
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology School of Civil Engineering

L L
For b 2  0 (i.e triangle), x' 
and for b 2  b1 (i.e rectangle), x'  ; it follows that a
3 2
trapezoidal footing is a solution for L/3 < x' <L/2 with a minimum value of L as out-to-out of
the column faces. In most cases a trapezoidal footing would be used with only two columns, but
the solution proceeds similarly for more than two columns. The forming and reinforcing steel
for trapezoid footing is somewhat awkward to place.
General Design Procedure
1 Determine the location of the resultant R, eccentricities ea [eL or ex] and eb [eB or ey]
2   a'   a'  
2 Calculate a [or L] from, a  P1  1   M1  P2  s  1   M 2  . Then trapezoidal
R  2   2 
 a' a' 
footing will be used if 2a   1  s  2  unless the distance s is so great that a
 2 2 
cantilever (or strap) footing would be more economical.
3 Determine the planar area, A in such a way that
P
σ [uniform stress distribution is implied]
A
2b  b 
4 Determine dimensions b1 and b2 from A 
L
b1  b 2  and x'  L 2 1
2 3 b1  b 2
5 After b1 and b2 are determined the footing is treated like a beam in the longitudinal
direction similar to rectangular footings except that the “beam” pressure diagram will be
linearly varying (1st degree) from b1 and b2 not being equal.
P1 P2
M1 M2

 b 2 (KN/m)
 b1 (KN/m)

6 Draw BMD (3rd degree curve) and SFD(2nd degree curve)

7 Make a structural design using the SF and BM. The critical sections are same as that of
isolated spread footing with the thickness determined based on punching and wide beam
shear and flexural steel is determined from BM
8 Determine short direction reinforcement as spread footing. Here width of footing around
column is assumed to be effective to transfer the column loads to the soil. The effective
zones are obtained by adding 0.75d in ether side of the columns from the face of the
column. (10HLCH-4.doc)

49
Foundation I- Lecture Note Academic Year: 2015/2016
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology School of Civil Engineering

4.2.3 DESIGN OF STRAP (OR CANTILEVER) FOOTINGS

Essentially a strap footing consists of a rigid beam connecting two pads (footings) to transmit
unbalanced shear and moment from the statically unbalanced footing to the second footing so
that a uniform soil pressure is computed beneath both footings. The strap serves the same
purpose as the interior portion of a combined footing but is much narrower to save on materials.
Thus strap footings are used as alternative to combined footings when the cost of combined
footings is relatively high. It may be used in lieu of a combined rectangular or trapezoid footing
if the distance between columns is large (say > 8m) and /or the allowable soil pressure is
relatively large so that the additional area is not needed.

Proportioning
In the proportioning of footings, three basic assumptions are used. Theses are:
1. The strap or beam connecting the two footings is perfectly rigid. Perhaps Istrap/Ifooting > 2
(Bowels). This rigidity is necessary to avoid rotation of the exterior footing
2. Footings should be proportioned for approximately equal soil pressure and avoidance of
large differences in b to minimize differential settlement
3. Strap should be out of contact with soil so that there is no soil reactions

s
b1 b'1 b'2 b2
a'1 a'2

exterior footing
a2
a1 P2
P1 xs M2
M1 Ws
strap
a1 a2
1b 2 b 2
1
e xR
R2
R1
Procedures for proportioning the footins are:
a. Assume a1 and establish the eccentricity e of the soil reaction force R1
a 1  20.5 a'1  e   xR  S  e
b. Determine the magnitude of the soil reaction force by taking moments about R2
P S  Ws X S  M 1  M 2
R 1X R  P1S  Ws X S  M 1  M 2  0  R 1  1
XR
where Ws= weight of strap (it can be neglected if the strap is relatively short)
c. Determine the magnitude of R2 from Fy = 0
R 2  P1  P2  Ws - R 1
d. Compute the widths of the footings
R R
b1  1 then make b1  b 2 and hence a 2  2
a 1σ b2σ
e. Structural design : SFD and BMD are drawn and the footings are designed as spread
footings (11HLCH-4.doc)

50
Foundation I- Lecture Note Academic Year: 2015/2016
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology School of Civil Engineering

4.2.4 DESIGN OF MAT FOUNDATION

Mat or raft foundation is a large concrete slab supporting a number of columns. It is used where
the supporting soil has low bearing capacity. The bearing capacity is increased by combining
individual footings in to one mat as the bearing capacity is proportional to width and depth of
foundations. In addition to increasing the bearing capacity mat foundations tend to bridge over
irregularities of the soil and average settlement does not approach the extreme values of
isolated footings. Thus mat foundations are often used for supporting structures that are
sensitive to differential settlement.
Mat foundations may have different forms as shown in the Figure 4.2.

Figure 4.2: Different Forms of Mat foundations

a) Flat Plate b) Flat plate thickened under columns
c) Two-way beam and ribbed slab d) Flat plate with pedestals
e) Cellular Construction f) Basement walls as rigid frame
51
Foundation I- Lecture Note Academic Year: 2015/2016
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology School of Civil Engineering

Probably the most common mat design consists in a flat concrete slab 0.75m to 2m thick and
with continuous two way reinforcing top and bottom. This type of foundation tends to be
heavily over designed for three major reasons:
1. Additional cost of, and uncertainty in, analysis
2. The extra cost of over design of this element of the structure will generally be quite
small for reasonable amounts of over design relative to total project cost
3. The extra safety factor provided for the additional cost
Design Methods
In structural action a mat is very similar to a flat slab or flat plate, upside down, i.e. loaded
upward by the bearing pressure and downward by the concentrated column reactions. The
method of design depends on the assumption made regarding the distribution of bearing
pressures which act as up ward loads on the foundation. Basically there are two methods of
design, namely the rigid method and elastic method.
1. Elastic Method
This method may be divided into two groups.
The first group is known as the simplified elastic method or Winkler method, is based on the
assumption that the soil behaves like individual separate elastic springs. The spring constant is
taken to be the modulus of sub-grade reaction of the soil. In the case of a raft resting on piles,
each pile is considered as a spring having an elastic constant equal to EA where, E = modulus
I
of elasticity of pile, A = cross-sectional area of
P1 P2 pile,
ground out side the L =
P1 P2 loaded area not affected
lengt
h of
elastic pile pile.
deformation piles

individual springs (b) Mat resting on Piles

(a) Mat resting on Soil

The second group known as the true elastic method assumes that the soil is elastic continuum
with a constant or variable
modulus of
compressibility.
P1 P2 ground out side the
loaded area affected

Soil replaced by an elastic continum

True Elastic method

52
Foundation I- Lecture Note Academic Year: 2015/2016
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology School of Civil Engineering

2. Rigid Method
Here it is assumed that the mat is infinitely rigid in comparison with the sub soil. The contact
pressure under the mat is assumed to be linearly distributed and the centroid of the bearing
pressure coincides with the line of action of the resultant force of all the loads acting on the
mat. Then all loads, the downward column loads as well as the upward bearing pressures are
known. Hence, moments and shear forces in the foundation can be found by statics alone. Once
theses are determined the design of the mat foundation is similar to that of inverted flat slabs or
plates. However, approximate methods of analysis of mats can be used.
A mat foundation is considered rigid if it supports a rigid superstructure or when the column
spacing is less than 1.75 and,

1/ 4
K b
 S  ------- ( a )
 4 Ec I 
where  = characteristic coefficient
Ks =coefficient of sub-grade reaction
b = width of a strip of mat between centers of adjacent bays
Ec = modulus of elasticity of concrete
I = moment of inertia of strip of width b
It should, however, be noted that eqn (a) is valid for relatively uniform column loads (loads not
varying more than 20% between adjacent columns) and relatively uniform column spacing.

a. Rigid Method for Uniform Mat Design

For uniform mat, the following procedure for design is suggested:
(i) Compute the maximum column and wall loads
(ii) Determine the line of action of the resultant of all the loads
(iii) Determine the contact pressure distribution using the flexural equation:
R R e x Rtot e y y
σ  tot  tot x  (b)
A Ix Iy
(iv) Analyze the mat in one of the following approximate methods:

Method A
Convert the contact pressure calculated using equation (b) to a uniform contact pressure
distribution using the engineering judgment. Take a system of column strip with width Ws as
shown in Figure 4.3 (a). Draw 450 diagonal lines from the edges of pedestals (columns) to form
the system of lines indicated in the figure.
The central slabs, like for instance RSTU (shaded), are designed as two way rectangular slabs
with fixed edges supported by strips, in which the supports are located at an imaginary location
inside the appropriate strips at a distance of 20% of the width of the column strip but not
exceeding the effective depth d. The same reinforcements are used for bottom and top of the
slab.
The column strips, like BEHK, should support the loads from BPEM, EQHN, etc., and are
designed as a series of fixed-end beams with triangular loading [Figure 4.3 (a)].

53
Foundation I- Lecture Note Academic Year: 2015/2016
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology School of Civil Engineering

Method B
In the case where the column loads and spacings do not vary more than 20% from each other,
divide the slab into perpendicular bands [Figure 4.3(b)]. Each band is assumed to act as an
independent beam subjected to known contact pressure and known column loads. Determine
w l2
the magnitudes of the positive and negative moment using M  for interior spans and
10
w l2
M for exterior spans.
8
(v) Check wide beam and punching shear
(vi) Provide the necessary reinforcement.

54
Foundation I- Lecture Note Academic Year: 2015/2016
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology School of Civil Engineering

Figure 4.3: Approximate Methods of analysis of Large Mat

b. Ribbed Mat Design
Ribbed mats are frequently used in the practice and are found to be economical than uniform
mats especially for heavy structures. In the case of ribbed mat, systems of beams are introduced
both in the x- and y- directions to stiffen the slab. Ribbed mat could be designed as two way
slab or using a simplified method. And the beams (girders) have to be designed for both
bending and shear.
55
Foundation I- Lecture Note Academic Year: 2015/2016
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology School of Civil Engineering

Simplified Method
Considering the figure below,
s X1 s X2 s X3 s X4 s X5
A B C D E F
l1
s y1 slab

G H I J K L l2
s y2 Girder or
Beam
M N O P Q R l2
s y3
X X
l2
s y4

S V l3
T U W X

SECTION X-X
RIBBED MAT

Slab design:
 Along the X- direction
 Calculate the moment from, M = σ S S
y x
2

10
 Using M determine the reinforcement and provide the same steel area at the top
and bottom
 Along the Y- direction
 Calculate the moment from, M =  σ Sx  Sy
2

10
 Using M determine the reinforcement and provide the same steel area at the top
and bottom
Beam (Girder) design:
 Along the X -direction
Edge beams (beam A-B-C-D-E-F and S-T-U-V-W-X)
n X2 + 2 X1 = Ltx w --------- (a)

R A= X 1 R B= X 2 R C= X 2 R D= X 2 R E = X 2 RF= X 1

w  l2
Girder / Beam

Interior beams (beams like G-H-I-J-K-L etc)

n X4 + 2 X3 = Ltx w --------- (b)

56
Foundation I- Lecture Note Academic Year: 2015/2016
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology School of Civil Engineering

R G= X 3 R H= X 4 RI =X 4 R J = X 4 R K= X 4 R L= X 3

w  l2
Girder / Beam

 Along the Y -direction

Edge beams (beam A-G- - -M-S and F-L-R- - -X)
m X3 + 2 X1 = Pi --------- (c)
PA PG PM P- PS

X1 X3 X3 X3 X1
Girder / Beam
Interior beams (beams like B-H-N-Z-T etc)
m X4 + 2 X2 = Pi --------- (d)
PB PH PN PZ PT

X1 X2 X2 X2 X1
Girder / Beam

Other additional relationships are,

X1  l1 l X 2  l1 l
  1 and   1      (e)
X3  l2 l2 X 4  l2 l2
One can solve for the unknown reactions from equations (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) and hence
draw BMD and SFD. The beams are then designed for flexure and shear accordingly.
(12HLCH-4.doc)

CHAPTER FIVE

57
Foundation I- Lecture Note Academic Year: 2015/2016
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology School of Civil Engineering

RETAINING WALLS

1. Types of Retaining Walls

Retaining walls are structures used to retain a mass of earth or any other material where
prevailing conditions do not allow the mass to assume its natural slope. They commonly
support vertical or nearly vertical slopes of soil.
Various types of retaining walls are shown in Figure 5.1 & 5.2 and are widely employed in civil
engineering works ranging from their use in road and rail construction to support cuts and fills
where space is limited to prevent the formation of appropriate side slopes, to the construction of
marine structures such as docks, harbours and jetties.
Based on the method of achieving stability, retaining walls may be categorized into the
following types. .
a) Gravity walls: the stability of the walls depends on their weight (Figure 5.1)

58
Foundation I- Lecture Note Academic Year: 2015/2016
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology School of Civil Engineering

Figure 5.1: Gravity walls

b) Cantilever walls: these are reinforced concrete walls that utilize cantilever action to
retain the mass of earth or any other material behind them (Figure 5.2 b)
c) Semi-Gravity walls: these are walls that are intermediate between gravity and
cantilever walls. Here a small amount of reinforcement is added to reduce the mass of
concrete.
d) Counterfort retaining walls: these are high walls similar to cantilever walls with
the difference that vertical bracing is provided to tie the walls and the base together.
(Figure 5.2 c)
e) Buttresses retaining walls: these walls are similar to the counterfort retaining walls
with the difference that the bracing is in front of the wall and is subjected to compressive
force instead of a tension force (Figure 5.2 d)

59
Foundation I- Lecture Note Academic Year: 2015/2016
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology School of Civil Engineering

f) Crib walls: the walls are built up members of pieces of timber, metal or pre-cast concrete
and filled with granular material (Figure 5.2 g )
g) Sheet pile walls: Sheet pile walls are sheet like retaining structures that are commonly
used in place of conventional retaining walls. They are commonly used in: water front
constructions, temporary constructions, places where massive excavation is not possible
due to limited space (Figure 5.2 e & f)

Figure 5.2 Types of Earth retaining structures

2. Common Proportions of Retaining Walls
The usual practice in the design of retaining walls is to assign tentative dimensions and then
check for the overall stability of the structure. In Figure 5.3 the common proportions based on
experience are indicated for the three types of retaining walls.

60
Foundation I- Lecture Note Academic Year: 2015/2016
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology School of Civil Engineering

Figure 5.3: Common Design Proportions of Retaining Walls

3. Forces Acting on Retaining Walls
The forces that should be considered in the design of retaining walls include
a) Active and passive earth pressures
b) Dead weight including the weight of the wall and portion of soil mass that is considered
to act on the retaining structure
c) Surcharge including live loads, if any
d) Water pressure, if any
e) Contact pressure under the base of the structure
The active and the passive earth pressures are calculated using the classical theories of Rankin
and Coulomb. The distribution of the contact pressure under the base of the retaining wall is
assumed to be planar and hence the usual flexural formula is used. The stability of the retaining
wall is checked for sliding and overturning and deep foundation failure. The factor of safety against
sliding, overturning and deep foundation failure is normally fixed in accordance with prevailing
Building Codes. However, in all cases a minimum factor of safety of 1.5 should be maintained.
4. Procedures for the Design of Retaining Walls
For the complete analysis of retaining walls it is common to follow the following steps:
1) Select height, shape and type of retaining wall according to field requirements and
tentative dimensions
2) Compute all the vertical and horizontal loads acting on the wall (like weight of the wall,
weight of soil above the wall, active and passive earth pressures, water pressures, etc)
3) Check stability of the wall (like sliding, overturning, bearing capacity, deep foundation
failure, settlement etc)
4) Structural design: for gravity walls the above steps are sufficient but for cantilever
retaining wall, in addition to stability check, the stem, the heel and the toe should be
designed structurally for shear and flexure.

61
Foundation I- Lecture Note Academic Year: 2015/2016
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology School of Civil Engineering

5. Stability Check
1. Overturning Stability
Considering the wall shown,
 Acting moment Ma = Pa y

 Resisting moment Mr = Ws xs + Ww xw

 Factor of safety:
Mr
FS= 1.5
Ma
If FS < 1.5, the design shall be revised
 The effect of passive resistance shall be
neglected.

2. Sliding Stability
Considering the wall shown,

 Horizontal acting force is: Ha = Pa

 Horizontal resisting force is :
Hr = ( tanb)B + Ca B
= V tanb + Ca B
where: b =0.5  to 2/3  and Ca =0.5C to 0.7C
 = angle of internal friction of the foundation soil
C = cohesion of the foundation soil
 Factor of safety:
Hr
FS= 1.5
Ha
 The effect of passive resistance shall be neglected unless it is very significant.

In some cases factor of safety of 1.5 may not be found. To increase the sliding resistance, either
the base slab width may be increased or key may be provided which ever is economical. There
are different opinions on the location of the base key. However, it is possible to mobilize more
sliding resistance when the base key is on the back fill side.

The advantage of opinion (a) is that one can

extend the reinforcement of the stem in to the
(a) (b) key.

62
Foundation I- Lecture Note Academic Year: 2015/2016
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology School of Civil Engineering

3. Bearing Capacity
The vertical pressure as transmitted to the soil by the base slab should be checked against the
bearing capacity of the soil.

V  6 eb
 max = 1     all
B*1  
b
V  6 eb 
 min = 1   0
B*1  b 
1
 min =  0  the load should be within the middle rd
3

4. Deep Foundation Failure

In addition to the three types of possible failures for retaining walls discussed previously, deep
shear failure could also occur if there is weak soil deposit within a depth of 1.5h below the base
of the foundation. Therefore, it is necessary to check deep foundations failure as slope stability
analysis.

 The critical slip surface is

failure
obtained by trial like in slope stability
surface
analysis

 The FS > 1.5

(1HLCH-5.doc)

63
Foundation I- Lecture Note Academic Year: 2015/2016