BY

Ir. NEOH CHENG AIK

E-GEO CONSULTANT SDN BHD
caneoh@gmail.com
190511

1. Introduction
2. Common Foundation Distress & Causes
3. Cases histories & lessons learnt
3.1 Case History # 1
3.2 Case History # 2
3.3 Case History # 3
3.4 Case History # 4
3.5 Case History # 5
3.6 Case History # 6
4. Q & A
5. Concluding remarks

Shallow foundations generally refer to foundations that transmit loads from the
superstructures to ground at shallow depth (<3m generally). Simple construction
involves with simple & common plant & comparatively cheap when compared with
that of deep foundations.
Virtually all shallow foundations are reinforced concrete
Common types of shallow foundations: isolated or combined spread footings
(mainly for isolated columns), strip footings (mainly for walls, bearing walls or
closely spaced columns in straight line) & raft/mat footings (mainly for large/heavy
structures, especially those with differential settlement problems, etc). Generally
shallow foundations are not suitable when the shear strength & subsoil conditions
are prone to changes unless adequate & reliable mitigations are carried out?
Shallow foundations with BM shall be properly sized to ensure no uplift (negative
bearing ores sure) or eccentricity, e<B/6
Minimum depth of footings? Basis?
Bearing capacity in clay especially saturated clay is more uncertain than
that of sand. Why?
Smaller footings (B<1.5m) generally settle less than big footings (controlled by
settlement criteria).
Punching failure mainly for very loose sand. Local shear failures mainly in
loose to medium sands. Footings in weak rocks or clay mainly have general
shear failures, if not properly designed & constructed.

Footings in difficult sites that need special considerations with proper mitigations
are: footings on slopes, in fill, in weak fractured or laminated bedding rocks. Footings
subject to inundation, flooding, ponding, scouring. Footings in ground that subject to
fluctuation of groundwater level, excessive pore water pressure, excessive seismic
loading. Problems & solutions?
How to estimate allowable bearing capacity? Factors & issues: soil/rock types,
extent/scope of SI, site geology & soil variability, stiffness of ground beams &
superstructure, loading variations, etc. Selection of effective strength (peak, critical or
residual) or undrained strength? Worst cases? WT consideration? FOS=2-4? Methods &
scope of design validation?
Settlement consideration? Allowable limits (total, differential & rate issues)? Factors:
soil type & subsoil profile, WT, stiffness of structure, size of footings, loading variations,
construction tolerances, methods of analysis, scope of design validation, etc. Large
footings & raft usually have critical settlement problems.
Compared with deep foundations, shallow foundations are more simple to design &
construct because detail subsoil conditions (strength & WT) can be obtained with ease &
with high degree of certainty. Construction is also very simple & easy to control.
However, foundation distress or failures also sometimes are encountered, especially in
difficult ground.
Defective design is usually caused by inadequate and/or unreliable SI, inadequate
design mitigations vs WCGW, inadequate design validation, inadequate case histories,
etc. Defective construction is usually caused by inadequate supervision, supervision
by inexperience/unreliable Engineer, inadequate site temporary drainage & measures to
prevent infiltration/ponding, poor construction planning & sequence of works, etc.

For low-rise buildings or light structures in original or cut ground (not soft or
filled grounds), where shallow foundations are feasible, JKR probes shall be
carried out (about 6-20 probes per block of building or at spacing of about 10m
to 20m). JP results plus HA/TP/PBT to check soil type/strength & WT are
generally adequate for design if the following conditions are fully complied:
JP results are reasonably consistent & good bearing layers are <3m bgl &
subsequent layers are stronger. WT>3m bgl
No footings on filled ground.
Design bearing pressure<200kPa; column load<2000 kN, generally.
The designer has visited the site & knows the site history
Otherwise, additional SI such as more HA/Test pits (to check soil strata,
shear strength & WT). BH/CPT/CPTU/FVST, etc., shall be carried out.
How to check settlement?
Design validation? Confirmatory probes at each column after setting out
or plate bearing tests or full size footing test, etc.
Refer KPKR circular: bil (3C) KPKR 2587 dated 25 May 77

Desk studies for scope of project & likely loading. Site plan & site conditions. For soft
ground site, likely has some fill. Refer case histories of D & C of buildings on soft grd &
necessary precautions & mitigations. Similarly for other types of site such as fill grd, slope,
ex-mining site, etc. Be aware & understand the problems & necessary mitigations vs
possible problems for various types of difficult sites, especially the treacherous ones. Site
inspection.
Plan scope of SI based on established guidelines (REAM GL 6/2004) to get subsoil profile
& necessary parameters for the necessary analysis & design as per CP or design criteria
requirements. BEM Circular 4/2005?
Foundation design:
design select type of foundation based on loading, SI results & CP
(BS8004/EC7) & reported case histories of similar nature. Study & evaluate the possible
changes in subsoil & ground conditions. Estimate qult & check FOSb, estimated likely
settlement, prepare mitigations vs WCGW at site. Design validation methods & scope.
Prepare drgs & construction control requirements.
Typical important notes for shallow foundation construction: 1. All footings are
designed to be at least 1.2m below FGL with ABC=??? kPa. Confirmatory probe shall be
carried out at each footing to ensure footings are founded at strata with probe value of not
less than ?? blows/ft. No footings shall be in fill or saturated ground unless approved by
Engineer in writing. 2. Excavation for each footing shall be immediately protected by 75mm
screed or within 2 hr after excavation. Concreting for each footing shall be carried out as
soon as possible or within the same day with necessary backfilling plus compaction as
specified. Temporary site drainage to prevent ponding shall always be maintained. Any
excavation for footing subject to ponding or saturation shall be reconfirmed by confirmatory
probe. Costs for additional excavation/ works shall be fully borne by the Contractor if site
drainage is not satisfactory or the Contractor does not carry out the works with due care,
skill & diligence as specified.

For footing design using large ABC (>200 kPa), design shall be
comprehensive including checking ground movement, possible changes in
subsoil & ground conditions, etc. Also, more elaborate design
validation/site tests such as plate bearing tests, check WT, HA or BH, etc.,
shall be specified for construction stage. Instrumentation & some
monitoring to check ground movement shall be specified. Footings on
newly filled ground shall be avoided unless extensive analysis &
mitigations are carried out to address the problems of changes in moisture
content, collapse settlement, etc for long term basis
basis... Why?
What to do if results of confirmatory probes are substantially different from
the designed values? How to assess if encountered boulders at shallow
depths? In case WT is above footing level during the excavation? Case
histories?
For footings near slopes/walls or on unstable ground such as soft/filled
grounds, etc., ground movement estimation during construction & in
service based on adequate & reliable SI shall be carried out
What to do if the positions of stumps are deviated excessively (>75mm)?
When there is a failure, the foundation designer or supervisor could be
accused of professional negligence, which is generally defined as failure of
the engineer to possess and to use the necessary due care, diligence &
skill of a normal competent engineer. Standard of care?



Setting up & marking of column positions or wall alignment shall be by qualified personnel
and independent checked by surveyor. In case of doubt, consult the designer.
Confirmatory probes shall be carried out at visually weak spots first to ensure the shallow
foundations are on suitable & stable levels as designed for. If results are too much different
from the designed level, the designer shall be consulted. Few PBT/TP shall be carried out to
check & verify bearing capacity & deformation as part of design validation scope.
Excavate to the approved designed levels and inspect the subsoil conditions, which if
abnormal or significantly different from the expected designed conditions such as
encountering WT or boulder, etc., design revision shall be carried out, after consultation with
the designer. The base of excavation shall be immediately (or within 2 hrs after excavation
unless otherwise approved by the Engineer) protected by at least 75mm screed against
wetting/ponding/swelling.
Fixing reinforcement, formwork & concreting for each footing shall be efficiently planned &
executed soonest possible and within the same day of excavation unless otherwise
approved by the Engineer. In case rain is encountered in the process of the excavation, all
softened soil shall be removed & more screed shall be added. Backfilling with suitable
material & compaction shall be carried out soonest possible or as directed by the Engineer
after the concrete have adequately hardened.
Temporary site drainage to keep the site dry and to prevent localized ponding shall be
always carried out & maintained with necessary temporary drains. Refer Eurocode 7.
Due to limitations of SI & geologic interpretations, there is bound to have some deviations
from the anticipated designed subsoil conditions. Hence, site supervisors shall have
adequate experience & knowledge to recognize the significant design deviations at site so
that necessary adjustments to the design can be made.



Important for designers to be aware of possible signs of distress & the

common causes.
causes.
Terminology, definition for failures
Problems/failures (effects) invariably & mainly are caused by Technical
Shortfalls as the result of OVERSIGHTS or human factors (90%, Peck)
such as unawareness, ignorance,. 10% due to lack of technology.
Definition of building foundation distress/failures

* Deformation causing unacceptable distress to superstructure

. * Any unacceptable defects or deformation of substructure
* Classification: structural & non-structural
* Settlement/deflection/angular distortion: extent, rate & amount
* Cracks: pattern, width, depth & length
* Unacceptable tilt or distortion
* Excessive or intolerable limits of foundation deformation (refer to ACI or Bjerrum
or Burland, etc.)

Commonly & invariably technical shortfalls or causes for building foundation
distress/failures is due to excessive ground movement beyond tolerable limits as
the result of bold design or inadequacies of structural stiffness/designs by
inexperienced/unqualified designer or by not qualified checker, poor
workmanship by unreliable/ unqualified Contractor/workers, works not in
compliance with spec due to lack of quality supervision. All these causes are
mainly oversights or human factors: unawareness or ignorance/inexperience,
carelessness, false economy, greed, etc. In fact Prof. Peck (1981) also concluded
that 90 % of failures are not due to lack of technology, but oversights that could
have been avoided.

Common foundation distress for foundations in typical Difficult Grounds (fill, slope,
soft ground, ex-mining site, etc.). Mechanism? Soil-structure interaction behaviour,
common problems & Common Mitigations?
Types of causes for building foundation distress/failures
distress/failures:
uniform vertical
settlement of whole rigid/stiffened structure (no structural damages except
incoming services), Differential movement of the whole structure (tilting; no damage
except incoming services) & differential movement of part of the structure (distress,
cracks, etc). Need of stiffened foundation on unstable ground?
Types of foundation movement triggering causes & contributing causes; technical
causes & procedural causes; human factors
Objectives & methods of failure investigation??
Well known case histories: Leaning Tower of Pisa, etc. Lessons learnt?
Professional ethic
ethic: always be aware & awake. Always exercise with due care & skill
in design & construction. How? Professional negligence?
Geotechnical engineering not a perfect science
science. Why? SOTA/P? Erratic subsoil
profile & properties (despite detail SI) coupled with imperfect methods of design
can be the main causes for the problems even when adequate FOS is applied by
experienced designers. Hence, adequate design validation is always specified by
experienced designers. Muar Flat research case history is an enlightening one.

INTERRELATED CAUSES & EFFECTS FOR Building Distress/

FAILURES

CAUSES
HUMAN
FACTORS

1.UNAWARENESS
2.INEXPERIENCE
3.IGNORANCE
4.CARELESSNESS
5.FALSE ECONOMY
6.GREED
7.ATTITUDE
(Professional negligence
from designers, R.E &
maintenance Engineer)

EFFECTS
TECHNICAL
SHORTFALLS

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

INADEQUACY IN S.I. & DESIGN.

Unreliable SI
DEFECTIVE CONSTRUCTION
POOR WORKMANSHIP
LACK OF QUALITY SUPERVISION
LACK OF PROPER METHOD
STATEMENT
LACK OF REPORTED CASE
HISTORIES (REF.)
MISUSE OF BUILDING, SLOPE
POOR MAINTENAINCE

Building/SLOPE
SLOPE
DISTRESS/FAILURE

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

EXCESSIVE
INFILTRATION
SATURATION & LOSS
OF MATRIC
SUCTIONSUCTION
TENSION CRACKS
EROSION
CREEPING
ULTIMATE SLIPS
FAILURES/SLIPS

Notes:
1. Main cause for most civil engineering projects are Inadequate SI & unreliable SI. What is adequate SI &
reliable SI?
2. Design shall include design criteria adopted, design parameters, analysis method, WT, slope protection &
drainage design, slope stabilization method, Q.C, spec., etc.



SK Raub: be cautious for inconsistent results with extreme

localized hard layer; too good result may not be good.
SK Mersing: Footing design based on JP results without
knowing site conditions & soil type can be dangerous. JP
results in sandy subsoil are highly sensitive & affected by
fluctuation water table or tidal effects.
Tampoi Multiple Hall: JP results can be very misleading in
newly filled ground. Reasonably compacted fill is usually
unsaturated with void>5%-10% & Su=75-150kPa, but Su can
be drastically reduced to Su=40 kPa upon saturation due to
infiltration by surface runoff or capillary action from WT.
Fraser Hills bungalow (micropiles to footings)
Mentakap Sch Extension (piles to strip footings)
Kuantan Class G Quarters (piles to footings)
Cheras Mosque in limestone formation (combination of
footings, hand dug caissons & piles)
Segambut Condo in granite formation hill (piles plus footings)

Why excessive tilt? No

much differential
settlement?
How to stabilize the
deformation?
Prof. Burlands
proposal.

Potential failures & Problems of footings founded on rocks

with discontinuities. Mitigations & Solutions?



Soft ground will settle slowly when filled or when WT is lowered. Not
suitable for shallow foundations.
Differential settlement up to 2/3 of total settlement may be encountered.
This will give a lot of foundation problems, damages to buried services,
drains, ground floor, aprons, etc.
Shallow foundations with low ABC (<50 kPa) with strong framed structure
alone may not adequate for buildings on soft ground. Settlement effects
of soft ground shall be assessed and treated adequately with particular
reference to amount of total settlement, differential settlement, time
effects and how the settlement can affect ground floor, aprons, buried
services, drainage, etc. Drag-down effect on piles & piling problems (high
tensile stress, bending stress if l/r>120, etc), etc.
Prediction of settlement is not an exact science & cost for remediation for
foundation distress is very costly. Why? Important to have adequate &
reliable SI. Requires instrumentation to monitor & to verify settlement.
Mitigations against problems & risks or uncertainties of soft ground for
building projects?
Similar problems can be learnt through reported case histories.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.
6.
7.

Housing project in soft ground where raft foundations are used. The soft ground has
about 1.5m fill. Problems encountered: excessive differential settlement & some
localized cracks. Causes? Defective design
Mersing Island school project where isolated footings are used. The subsoil is fine to
medium loose to very loose silty sand. JKR probe values at design depth have more
than 25 blows/ft. ABC used for design is 50 kPa only ABC drops during high tide times
Fraser Hills Bungalow. The site has been cut to flat platform. Building sited on cut only &
column load mainly varies from 250 kN to 350 kN. Spacing of columns mainly about
2.5m to 5.5m. Results of 20 JKR probes for building columns show that top 2.0m
generally about 10-18 blows/ft with few localized probe exceeding 400/blows/ft. JKR
probes from 2m to 3m varies from 25 to 80 blow/ft with few localized probes 400
blows/ft. Micropiles are proposed. Very costly. Can shallow foundations be used? How?
Lipis School project. Column loads mainly 26 to 29 ton. Isolated spread footings based
on ABC=100 kPa are used. Results of 18 JKR probes show that top 1m are 12-30
blows/ft. 1m to 2.5m, 45 to 400 blows/ft. 2.5m to 5.4m, 120-400 blows/ft. When the
building is nearly completed, 2 columns are observed to have settled excessively and
some nearby beams are also observed to have cracks. How to investigate? Causes?
Remediations?
Tampoi Multiple-purpose Hall Project
Bangsar condo project where shallow foundations are used (dynamic compaction
ground improvement)
Mentakap school project where strip footings are used to replace piles..

Housing Project, about 100 units of medium cost 2-storey terrace houses
constructed over newly filled ground of about 10m deep max. Less than 10
units are fully on cut areas. Project site: rolling terrains, metasedimentary
rocks.
Immediate after filling with some compaction, JKR probes plus HA & test
pits were carried out and shallow foundations (ABC=75kpa to 125 kPa) are
used to support the RC framed structure. Compacted subsoil up to about
2m is light grayish sandy clayey silt with high silt content (G/S=28-39%,
Silt=39-49%, Clay=18-21%). WT below 2m. 3 field density tests at about
1.5mbgl show degree of compaction=89 to 92% of BS Std compaction &
M/C=18-20%. ABC is based on JKR probe value for each column & JKR
probe correlation chart.
Before the buildings are fully completed some serious structural distress of
cracks, tilt & differential settlement are noted.
What are the possible causes for the distress? What shall be the scope of
investigation to verify the hypothesis of distress?
Scope of SI for foundation design adequate (BEM 4/2005)?
What remediations?

Single storey terrace houses of column load mainly about 3.5 to

5.5 ton on 1m to 1.8m fill over soft ground with ABC=50 kPa
spread shallow foundations. ABC is solely based on JKR probe
results & correlation chart.
Serious cracks over the building (unsuspended ground floors,
walls, beams & columns) after about 3 years of completion.
Scope of SI for design adequate?
Possible causes for the problems?
How to identify & assess the problems? Scope of SI required?
How to remedy? Any further potential problems?



More than 100 unit of 2-storey link houses are to be built over soft peaty flat
land
Proposed construction: remove top 2m to 3m of peat and the hydraulic fill the
site with fine to medium silty sand of about 1.5m to 2.5m over the OGL. Raft
foundation (9.6mx56m for 8 units with total load 2150 ton) is proposed.
You are required to assess the feasibility of the proposal. Estimate settlement
(immediate, primary & secondary settlement) & check FOS of bearing failure.
Any mitigations vs WCGW at site? What shall be the methods & scope of
design validation?
The site is flat coastal area of about 9 acres. Site vegetation: grass, ferms and
some bakau trees. OGL=0.8m to 1.8m mainly around 1.0m. Site geology:
Quaternary alluviums of very soft ground, No bedrock up to 40m deep (based
on 5 BH results). Typically subsoil consists of saturated, deposited soft to
very soft peaty & silty clay or clayey silt with some localized sandy layers.
Top layer: 1m to 2.8m of peaty soil (to be removed). Very soft layer: bulk
density 16-17 kN/m3, M/C=28-55%, Cc=0.4-0.5, e0=0.9 to 1.5, CR=0.2 to 0.25,
Cv=3-8 m2/yr with av Cv=4.5 m2/yr.
Subsoil profile & properties (see generalized subsoil profile)

An additional block of 2-storey school building (10mx60m building area,

column loads mainly 28 to 32 tons) is to be constructed for an existing
school that has several blocks of buildings (1 to 3 storey, some on piles &
some on footings). No signs of building distress are noted.
Results of JKR probe: @ 0.3m=12-16 blows, @0.6m=20-27 blows, @0.9m=3035 blows, @1.2m=36-48blows, @1.5m=42-56 blows, @1.8m=48-59 blows,
@2.1m=59-66 blows, @2.4m=69-77 blows, @ 2.7m=78-95 blows, @3.0m=93
blows, @3.3m=133 blows, @3.6m=299 blows, @3.9m=345 blows, @4.2m=350400 blows/155mm, @4.5m=345-400 blows/125mm, @4.8m=380-400
blows/130mm, @5.1m=400 blows/130mm.
Questions:
Is the scope of SI adequate? Why?
If you are required to design the foundation based on given JP results, which
type of foundation (spread/strip/raft or pile) you would like to recommend?
Why? What methods & scope of design validation you would like to
recommend?
If shallow foundation is suggested, what is your estimated safe bearing
capacity? Any settlement problems?
If the site is prone to frequent inundation up to about 200mm of water for up
to 2 hours, what shall be your answers to the above questions?

A 5-storey quarters is to be constructed over an vacant land (30mx42m building area,

column loads mainly 150-215 tons, column spacing=3.2m to 5m), in a built up area or
about 10m from the nearest existing 2/3 storey buildings founded on footings. No
signs of distress are noted on the nearby buildings of more than 5 years old.
Results of JKR probe: @ 0.3m=18-23 blows, @0.6m=18-23 blows, @0.9m=33-49 blows,
@1.2m=38-80 blows, @1.5m=60-77 blows, @1.8m=65-89 blows, @2.1m=80-98 blows,
@2.4m=79-120 blows, @ 2.7m=111-150 blows, @3.0m=93-200 blows, @3.3m=133-250
blows, @3.6m=299-333 blows, @3.9m=225-345 blows, @4.2m=332-400 blows/155mm,
@4.5m=315-400 blows/150mm, @4.8m=390-400 blows/120mm, @5.1m=378-400
blows/120mm, @5.4m=379-400 blows/130mm, @5.7mm=400 blows/120mm. 3 HA & 3
PBT/TP were carried out at 1.5m bgl & results: very stiff sandy silty clay with some
gravels/sands Su=120 to 255 kPa, no WT.
Questions:
Is the scope of SI adequate? Why?
If you are required to design the foundation based on given JP results, which type of
foundation (spread/strip/raft or pile) you would like to recommend? Why? What
methods & scope of design validation you would like to recommend?
If shallow foundation is suggested, what is your estimated safe bearing capacity? Any
settlement problems?
If the site is prone to frequent inundation up to about 200mm of water for up to 2
hours, what shall be your answers to the above questions?

4. Q n AA-1
1.
1.What
What is meant by shallow foundation?
2.
2.What
What are the common types of shallow foundations used for buildings & bridges?
Applications & limitations for each type of shallow foundation?
3.
3.Generally
Generally shallow foundations are not suitable under what conditions?
4.
4.Can
Can a RC building partly supported by footings and piles (In fill)? How?
5.
5.Can
Can a footing constructed on sloping fractured bedrock? What are the possible
risk? How to assess? Possible remediations?
6.
6.What
What are the usual scope & methods of design validation for shallow foundations?
When full scale load test on footing is necessary? How?
7.
7.What
What are the important checklist or usual construction inspection measures and
precautions that shall be carried out by RE at site for footing construction?
8.
8.Saturated
Saturated clay is prone to excessive or more deformation when subject to loading
from footings when compared with sandy soils. What are the usual measures to
address the problems in design practice?
9.
9.What
What are the usual problems for raft on soft clay even the FOS vs shear failure is
more than 2 or 2.5? How to address the problems in practice?
10.Can
10.
Can a localized footing or bridge abutment rest on big boulder? What assessment
to check long term stability and design validation that shall be carried out?

1. Can shallow foundations be designed & constructed at (a) steep slopes, (b) exmining area, filled ground, (d) soft alluvial soil? What are the problems? How to
assess the problems? What are the risks and uncertainties? Possible mitigations?
2. Building platform over soft ground usually has a fill of 1m or more. What are the
potential problems for shallow foundation in such soil? How to assess & evaluate
the problems? What are the normal scope of SI required to procure the relevant
properties & info? How to assess & check ground movement is within tolerable
limits? What are the critical info required? How to obtain? Methods of analysis?
Design validation? Awareness of the problems & reliable info for the analysis are
very important. Uncertainties in info & analysis methods ? How to account for these
if shallow foundation is used?
3. Ground settlement surely affects the buried utilities & services. Building foundation designers
should design safe & stable foundations for these utilities & services. Guidelines?

4. What are the differences between engineered fill & non-engineered fill (uncontrolled
fill)? How shear strength of newly compacted fill can be reduced by subsequent
saturation? How saturation can occur? Why it is important to be aware &
understand the properties & behaviour of fill plus all sorts of ground movements
that can affect foundations & buried services? Possible problems & relevant
properties that shall be investigated, studied and assessed before design the
building foundation on fill ground? Boulder problems in fill for foundation
construction? Collapse settlement? What mitigations against the normal problems
are necessary?
5. Awareness & understanding of the potential problems of building foundations in
various types of grounds can be learnt through reported case histories, etc. Adequate
& reliable SI & info are equally important to address the problems effectively. What is
meant by adequate & reliable SI?

Shallow foundations such as isolated/strip footings, raft, etc., are generally

cost-effective for low-rise buildings and light structures instable ground.
Some localized weak spots can or may be treated economically.
Important scope of design checks shall include 4 aspects, namely FOS vs
shear/sliding failure >2, settlement within tolerable limits by the structures,
checks & mitigations vs WCGW especially possible ground movement &
distress plus adequate scheme of design validation.
Estimation of ultimate bearing capacity & settlement shall be based on
adequate SI and reliable methods/practice plus past experience or reported
case histories, especially for difficult /unstable sites.
Difficult & unstable grounds such as filled & soft grounds, erratic subsoil
with localized soft strata, structures near slopes/ponds/rivers, etc., shall be
thoroughly assessed for the long term bearing capacity and ground
movement effects if shallow foundations are to be used. Reported case
histories of similar nature shall be referred & studied. Adequate design
validation & monitoring shall be also included.
Foundation distress/failures are usually due to excessive foundation
structure movement as the result of unstable ground or excessive soil
movement caused by oversights, ignorance & carelessness of designer or
lack of adequate/reliable information (SI). Contents of BEM 4/2005?
Difficult & unstable site shall be avoided if possible unless the design is
based on extensive investigation & assessments.

Types of causes of failures: Technical Shortfalls as the result of human

errors/oversights (90%), inherited risks due to limited/inadequacies in CP/SOTA,
circumstances of uncertainty and variability in soil properties & analysis methods
or inherited uncertainties/variability of soil properties/design methods, etc (10%).

Building foundation failures are not just accidents nor acts of God. They are
mainly due to technical shortfalls as the result of oversights or human errors
such as unawareness, ignorance, carelessness, greed or false economy. Hence,
the most effective mitigations against building foundation failures are to refer to
many reported case histories of similar nature, to engage experienced designers
plus independent design audit by BEM accredited checker or IEM/ACEM
accredited experts. Mitigation is cheaper & better than cure
cure.

Be aware & understand the common problematic sites, including soft ground,
filled ground, ex-mining site & sloping ground, etc. How problems can arise &
effective methods of mitigations can be best learnt from reported case histories.
The mechanism & behaviour of ground or soil movement for building foundations
in problematic sites shall be adequately investigated & assessed. Methods of
prediction of ground behaviour are very empirical. Heavily based on engineering
principles and SI results plus experiences or reported case histories. Tests &
instrumentation to verify critical design assumptions & performance are very
necessary. Scope of SI required to procure the relevant properties & info for the
analysis & assessments? Adequate & reliable SI are critical for reliable analysis.

What can go wrong will go wrong unless effective mitigations are in place.
Effective mitigations depends on adequate & reliable SI. There is no right way to
do wrong things.