Foundation

Engineering
Engr. Gabriel Gamana

1.0 Stresses, Strains and Elastic

Deformations of Soil
2.0 Compressibility of Soil
3.0 Shear Strength of Soil
4.0 Lateral Earth Pressure
Table of Contents 5.0 Slope Stability
6.0 Shallow Foundation – Soil Bearing
Capacity
7.0 Deep Foundation – Pile Capacity
8.0 Foundation Design

1
 6.1 Introduction
6.2 Soil Response to a Loaded Footing
6.3 Conventional Failure Surface Under a Footing
6.4 Collapse Load Using the Limit Equilibrium
6.0 Shallow Method
6.5 Bearing Capacity Equations
Foundation – 6.6 Which Equations to Use
6.7 Concentric Loadings
Soil Bearing 6.8 Eccentric Loadings
Capacity 6.9 Inclined Loadings
6.10 Effect of Water Table on Bearing Capacity
6.11 Bearing Capacity from SPT
6.12 Bearing Capacity of Foundation with Uplift
Forces

6.1 Introduction

2
6.1 Introduction
• The soil must be capable of carrying the loads from any
engineered structure placed upon it without a shear failure
and with the resulting settlements being tolerable for that
structure.
• A soil shear failure can result in excessive building distortion
and even collapse. Excessive settlements can result in
structural damage to a building frame, nuisances such as
sticking doors and windows, cracks in tile and plaster, and
excessive wear or equipment failure from misalignment
resulting from foundation settlements.
• This chapter will be concerned with evaluation of the limiting
shear resistance, or ultimate bearing capacity q of the soil
under a foundation load. Chapter 2 will be concerned with
estimation of settlements.
5

6.1 Introduction
Depending on the structure and soil encountered, various types
of foundations are used.
a. Spread Footing
b. Mat Foundation
c. Pile Foundation
d. Drilled Shaft Foundation

3
6.1 Introduction
Shallow Foundation
A shallow foundation is a type of building foundation that
transfers building loads to the earth very near to the surface.
Generally ≤

6.1 Introduction
Deep Foundation
A deep foundation is a type of foundation which transfers
building loads to the earth farther down from the surface than a
shallow foundation does, to a subsurface layer or a range of
depths, generally ≥

4
6.1 Introduction

6.2 Soil Response to a Loaded Footing

• Let us consider soil as a linear elastic–perfectly plastic
material in which the elastic response is small. We assume a
strip footing (its length is much longer than its width) traps a
wedge of soil, and this wedge, acted on by the footing,
pushes its way downward into the soil (Figure below). If the
footing were circular, it would trap a cone of soil.
• Centric vertical loads are now incrementally applied on the
footing. As the load increases, some regions of the soil would
yield and behave plastically (plastic flow).

10

5
6.2 Soil Response to a Loaded Footing
• If the soil were a rigid–perfectly plastic material, some regions
would flow plastically while other regions would show no
deformation. We will call the soil regions that have reached
the plastic state the “plastic zones”. As more loads are
added, the plastic zones increase and eventually break free to
the surface, and soil “pileup” on the sides of the footing.
• The surface between the plastic zones and the nonplastic or
nondeforming zones (applicable to rigid–perfectly plastic
material) is called a slip surface or limiting stress surface.

11

6.2 Soil Response to a Loaded Footing

The “pileup” is influenced by the overburden pressure and the
strain-hardening ability of the material. If the footing is
embedded in the soil and/or the soil has a large potential to
strain-harden, the plastic flow that causes “pileup” of soil around
the edges of the footing would be restrained, creating large
lateral pressures to force the soil to move laterally.

12

6
6.2 Soil Response to a Loaded Footing
Two consequences
1. A soil that would normally show a peak shear stress because
of dilatancy and then strain-soften would be forced to behave
as a strain-hardening material, pushing the plastic zone
farther into the soil mass.
2. the failure mechanism discussed might not develop.
Therefore, in this situation, there would not be any distinct
collapse load but an increasing load with increasing footing
displacement until critical state is achieved. Generally, this
would occur at displacements that are intolerable.

13

6.3 Conventional Failure Under a Footing

Prandtl (1920) studied a rigid–perfectly plastic half space loaded
by a stiff wedge that is subjected to centric loads. Terzaghi
(1943) applied Prandtl’s theory to a strip footing with the
assumption that the soil is a semi-infinite, homogeneous,
isotropic, weightless rigid–plastic material.
6.3.1 General Shear Failure Mechanism

14

7
6.3 Conventional Failure Under a Footing
• One zone, ABD, is a fan with radial slip planes stopping on a
logarithmicspiral slip plane. The other zone, ADE, consists of
slip planes oriented at angles of 45 + Φ/2 and 45 − Φ/2 to
the horizontal and vertical planes, respectively. Zone ADE is
called the Rankine passive zone.
• According to the Mohr–Coulomb criterion, slip planes form
when soils are sheared to failure. No slip plane, however, can
pass through the rigid footing, so none can develop in the soil
just below the footing. The collapse mechanism shown in
previous figure is called the general shear failure
mechanism.
• Conventional collapse mechanism shown in previous figure
may not develop. Therefore, calculation of a collapse load
from this mechanism (general shear failure mechanism) could
be considerably inaccurate.
15

6.3 Conventional Failure Under a Footing

16

8
6.3 Conventional Failure Under a Footing
6.3.2 Local Shear Failure
Other collapse mechanisms have been proposed. For example,
it is assumed that for loose soils, the slip planes, if they
developed, are expected to lie within the soil layer below the
base of the footing and extend laterally. This is called local
shear failure

17

6.3 Conventional Failure Under a Footing

18

9
6.3 Conventional Failure Under a Footing
6.3.3 Punching
For very loose soil, the slip surfaces may be confined to the
surfaces of the rigid wedge. This type of failure is termed
punching shear.

19

6.3 Conventional Failure Under a Footing

20

10
6.3 Conventional Failure Under a Footing

21

6.4 Collapse Using the Limit Equi. Method

Two potential failure modes, where the footing, when loaded to
produce the maximum bearing pressure q , will do one or both
of the following:
6.4.1 Rotate
Rotate as in figure below about some center of rotation
(probably along the vertical line Oa) with shear resistance
developed along the perimeter of the slip zone shown as a
circle.

22

11
6.4 Collapse Using the Limit Equi. Method
• When the foundation pushes into the ground, stress block 1 to
the left of vertical line OY has principal stresses as shown.
The push into the ground, however, displaces the soil on the
right side of the line OY laterally, resulting in the major
principal stress on block 2 being horizontal as shown.
• When the two blocks are adjacent to each other at the vertical
line OY, it is evident that , = , but with a principal stress
rotation of 90° between blocks.

23

6.4 Collapse Using the Limit Equi. Method

For =
Based on passive pressure
= +4
Based on rotation
=2 +
Average of combined Passive and Rotation with =0
= .

24

12
6.4 Collapse Using the Limit Equi. Method
6.4.2 Punch
Punch into the ground as the wedge agb of figure below.

25

6.4 Collapse Using the Limit Equi. Method

For footing on soil with both cohesion c and angle of internal
friction .
Consolidate all variables we will arrive at.
2
= + + + −
cos cos 4 cos

Replacing multiplier with N factors

= + +
= Cohesion + Lateral Pressure + Wedge Weight

26

13
6.5 Bearing Capacity Equations
• There is currently no method of obtaining the ultimate bearing
capacity of a foundation other than as an estimate.
• Full-size footings as small as 1 m X 1 m can develop ultimate loads
of 3000 to 4000 kN so that very expensive site preparation and
equipment availability are necessary to develop and measure loads
of this magnitude.

27

6.5 Bearing Capacity Equations

• Net Ultimate Bearing Capacity - If the difference between
the unit weight of concrete used in the foundation and the unit
weight of soil surrounding is assumed to be negligible, then
( ) = −
where; = Gross Ultimate Bearing Capacity

• Gross Allowable Bearing Capacity

=

• Net Allowable Bearing Capacity

( )
( ) =

28

14
6.5 Bearing Capacity Equations
6.5.1 Terzaghi’s Bearing-Capacity Equation
One of the early sets of bearing-capacity equations was
proposed by Terzaghi (1943). Terzaghi's equations were
produced from a slightly modified bearing-capacity theory
developed by Prandtl (ca. 1920) from using the theory of
plasticity to analyze the punching of a rigid base into a softer
(soil) material.
= + + .
.
= ; =
Φ
2 45 + 2

= − 1 cot Φ; If Φ = 0 then = 1.5 + 1

tan Φ
= −1
2 Φ 29

6.5 Bearing Capacity Equations

For Strip = 1.0 = 1.0
For Circular = 1.3 = 0.6
For Square = 1.3 = 0.8

For Rectangular = 1 + 0.3 = 1 − 0.2

30

15
6.5 Bearing Capacity Equations
6.5.2 Meyerhof 's Bearing-Capacity Equation
Meyerhof (1951, 1963) proposed a bearing-capacity equation
similar to that of Terzaghi but included a shape factor with the
depth term . He also included depth factors and inclination
factors for cases where the footing load is inclined from the
vertical.
Vertical Load; = + + .
Inclined Load; = + + .
Φ
= tan 45 +
2
= − 1 cot Φ ; If Φ = 0 then = +2

= − 1 tan(1.4Φ)
31

6.5 Bearing Capacity Equations

Shape Factor
= 1 + 0.2 Φ≥0

= = 1 + 0.1 Φ>0
= =1 Φ=0
Depth Factor
= 1 + 0.2 Φ≥0

= = 1 + 0.1 Φ>0
= =1 Φ=0

Φ
= tan 45 +
2
32

16
6.5 Bearing Capacity Equations
Inclination Factor

= = 1− Φ≥0

= 1− Φ>0
= 0 for >0 Φ=0

33

6.5 Bearing Capacity Equations

Footing with eccentricity

( ) =

For Cohesive soil

= −

For Cohesionless soil

= −

34

17
6.5 Bearing Capacity Equations
6.5.3 Hansen's Bearing-Capacity Equation
Hansen (1970) proposed the general bearing-capacity case and
N factor equations. This equation is readily seen to be a further
extension of the earlier Meyerhof (1951) work. These represent
revisions and extensions from earlier proposals in 1957 and
1961. The extensions include base factors for situations in which
the footing is tilted from the horizontal and for the possibility of
a slope of the ground supporting the footing to give ground
factors .
= + + . ′
When =0 = . + + − − − +
Φ
= tan 45 +
2
= − 1 cot Φ
= 1.5 − 1 tan(Φ) 35

6.5 Bearing Capacity Equations

Shape Factor

= 0.2 Φ=0

=1+ Φ>0

=1 Strip

=1+ sin Φ Φ>0

= 1 − 0.4 ≥ 0.6 Φ>0

36

18
6.5 Bearing Capacity Equations
Depth Factor
= 0.4 Φ=0
= 1 + 0.4 Φ>0

= 1 + 2 tan Φ 1 − sin Φ Φ>0

= 1.00 Φ>0

= ≤1

= tan >1

37

6.5 Bearing Capacity Equations

Inclination Factor
= 0.5 − 1 − Φ=0

= − Φ>0

.
= 1− Φ>0

2≤ ≤5

.
= 1− Φ>0

2≤ ≤5
0.8 ≤ ≤ 1.0 38

19
6.5 Bearing Capacity Equations
Ground Factor
= Φ=0

=1− Φ>0
= = 1 − 0.5 tan Φ>0
Base Factor
= Φ=0

=1− Φ>0
= Φ>0
.
= Φ>0

39

6.5 Bearing Capacity Equations

Footing on slope

Footing with eccentricity

= −2 and = −2
1. Use in the term.
2. Use and in computing shape factors.
3. Use actual and for all depth factors. 40

20
6.5 Bearing Capacity Equations
Footing with inclined loads
=
Then , , , and ,

,
= 0.2 Φ=0
,
=1+ Φ>0

=1 Strip

,
=1+ sin Φ Φ≥0

,
= 1 − 0.4 ≥ 0.6 Φ≥0
, 41

6.5 Bearing Capacity Equations

Footing with inclined loads
=
Then , , , and ,

,
= 0.2 Φ=0
,
=1+ Φ>0

=1 Strip

,
=1+ sin Φ Φ>0

,
= 1 − 0.4 ≥ 0.6 Φ>0
, 42

21
6.5 Bearing Capacity Equations
6.5.4 Vesi ̀’s Bearing-Capacity Equation
The Vesic (1973, 1915b) procedure is essentially the same as
the method of Hansen (1961) with select changes. Vesic
equation is somewhat easier to use than Hansen's
= + + . ′

When =0 = . + + − − − +
Φ
= tan 45 +
2
= − 1 cot Φ

=2 + 1 tan(Φ)

43

6.5 Bearing Capacity Equations

Shape Factor
=1+ Φ≥0

=1 Strip

= 1 + tan Φ Φ>0

= 1 − 0.4 ≥ 0.6 Φ>0

44

22
6.5 Bearing Capacity Equations
Depth Factor
= 1 + 0.4 Φ≥0

= 1 + 2 tan Φ 1 − sin Φ Φ>0

= 1.00 Φ>0

= ≤1

= tan >1

45

6.5 Bearing Capacity Equations

Inclination Factor
=1− Φ=0

= − Φ>0

= 1− Φ>0

= 1− Φ>0

= ; = = and = ; = =

≠ 0; = +
0.8 ≤ ≤ 1.0 46

23
6.5 Bearing Capacity Equations
Ground Factor
= Φ=0
.

= − Φ>0
.
= = 1 − tan Φ>0

Base Factor
= Φ=0
=1− Φ>0
.
= = 1 − tan Φ>0

47

6.5 Bearing Capacity Equations

Footing on slope

48

24
6.6 Which Equations to Use
It is a good practice to use at least two methods and compare
the computed values of qu. If the two values do not compare
well, use a third method,
• Terzaghi
Very cohesive soils where D/B < 1 or for a quick estimate of
quit to compare with other methods. Do not use for footings
with moments and/or horizontal forces or for tilted bases
and/or sloping ground
• Hansen, Meyerhof, Vesi ̀
Any situation that applies, depending on user preference or
familiarity with a particular method.
• Hansen, Vesi ̀
When base is tilted; when footing is on a slope or when D/B
> 1.
49

6.7 Concentric Loadings

Problem 6-1
Compute the allowable bearing pressure using the Terzaghi
equation for the square footing and soil parameters shown in
figure below. Use a safety factor of 3.

Answer
= . 50

25
6.7 Concentric Loadings
Problem 6-2
A square foundation is 2 m x 2 m in plan. The soil supporting the
foundation has a friction angle of Φ = 25° and = 20 kPa. The
unit weight of soil, is = 16.5 kN/m . Determine the allowable
gross load on the foundation with a factor of safety (FS) of 3.
Assume that the depth of the foundation is 1.5 m and that
general shear failure occurs in the soil. Use Terzaghi’s equation

Answer
= . 51

6.8 Eccentric Loadings

Problem 6-3
A square footing is 1.8 X 1.8 m with a 0.4 X 0.4 m square
column. It is loaded with an axial load of 1800 kN and M =
450 kN m ; M = 360 kN m . Undrained triaxial tests (soil not
saturated) give Φ = 36° and c = 20 kPa. The footing depth D =
1.8 m; the soil unit weight γ = 18 kN/m ; the water table is at a
depth of 6.1 m from the ground surface. If FS = 3.0, determine
the net allowable Bearing Capacity using the following equation;
a. Meyerhof’s Equation
b. Hansen’s Equation

Answer
a. ( ) = .
b. ( ) = . 52

26
6.9 Inclined Loadings
Problem 6-4
Given the data shown on the sketch of a load test. Determine
the ultimate soil bearing capacity using the following equation;
a. Hansen’s Equation
b. Vesic̀ ’s Equation

Answer
a. = .
b. = . 53

6.9 Inclined Loadings

Problem 6-5
A 2 X 2 m square footing has the ground slope of = 0 for the
given direction of . Determine the Gross Ultimate Soil Bearing
Capacity using the following equation;
a. Hansen’s Equation
b. Vesic̀ ’s Equation
c. Meyerhof’s Equation
d. Terzaghi’s Equation

Answer
a. = .
b. = .
c. = .
d. = . 54

27
6.10 Effect of Water Table on Bearing Cap.
Equations from Terzaghi through Vesi c̀ ’s give the ultimate
bearing capacity, based on the assumption that the water table
is located well below the foundation. However, if the water table
is close to the foundation, some modifications of the bearing
capacity equations will be necessary.
• Case I. If the water table is located so that 0 ≤ ≤ the
factor in the bearing capacity equations takes the form
below. Also, the value of in the last term of the equations
has to be replaced by = − .
= + −

55

6.10 Effect of Water Table on Bearing Cap.

• Case II. For a water table located so that 0 ≤ ≤ . the factor
in the bearing capacity equations takes the form = . In
this case, the factor in the last term of the bearing capacity
equations must be replaced by the factor.

= + −

• Case III. When the water table is located so that > the
water will have no effect on the ultimate bearing capacity.

56

28
6.10 Effect of Water Table on Bearing Cap.
Problem 6-6
A footing 2 m square, subjected to a concentric vertical load, is
located at a depth of 1.0 m below the ground surface in a deep
deposit of compacted sand Φ = 35° and = 18 kN/m .
Determine the allowable bearing capacity for a factor of safety of
3 using Terzaghi’s equation when the groundwater is located.
a) At 5 m below the ground surface
b) At the ground surface
c) At the base of the footing
d) At 1m below the base of footing
Answer
a. = .
b. = .
c. = .
d. = . 57

6.11 Bearing Capacity from SPT

• The SPT is widely used to obtain the bearing capacity of soils
directly. One of the earliest published relationships was that of
Terzaghi and Peck (1967). This has been widely used, but an
accumulation of field observations has shown these curves to
be overly conservative.
• Meyerhof (1956, 1974) published equations for computing the
allowable bearing capacity for a 25-mm settlement. These
could be used to produce curves similar to those of Terzaghi
and Peck and thus were also very conservative.
• Considering the accumulation of field observations and the
stated opinions of the authors and others, this author
adjusted the Meyerhof equations for an approximate 50
percent increase in allowable bearing capacity to obtain the
following:
58

29
6.11 Bearing Capacity from SPT
= ≤

= >

= 1 + 0.33 ≤ 1.33

These equations have been in existence for quite some time and
are based primarily on N values from the early 1960s back and,
thus, is likely on the order of 50 to 55 and not 7O+ as
suggested. Since lower produces higher blow counts N if the
preceding equations are standardized to , we must use
revised values for factors and as shown in the table of F
factors.

59

6.11 Bearing Capacity from SPT

In these equations N is the statistical average value for the
footing influence zone of about 0.5B above footing base to at
least 2B below.

60

30
6.11 Bearing Capacity from SPT
We note in these equations that footing width is a significant
parameter. Obviously if the depth of influence is on the order of
2B a larger footing width will affect the soil to a greater depth
and strains integrated over a greater depth will produce a larger
settlement.
∆
=
∆
where; ∆ = 25 mm
∆ = Actual Settlement that can be tolerated

61

6.11 Bearing Capacity from SPT

Problem 6-7
The average blow count = 6 in the effective zone for a
footing located at D = 1.6 m, B = 1.5 m (blow count average in
range from 1 to 4 m depth). What is the allowable bearing
capacity for a 40 mm settlement.

Answer
= .
= .
= .
= .
= .
= . 62

31
6.12 Bearing Cap. of Fdn with Uplift Forces
Footings to develop tension resistance are idealized in Figure below.
Balla (1961) considered this problem. He assumed a failure surface
(the dashed line ab in figure below) as circular and developed some
highly complicated mathematical expressions that were verified on
model tests in a small glass jar and by some larger tests of others.

63

6.12 Bearing Cap. of Fdn with Uplift Forces

The following equations are developed by neglecting the larger
pull-out zone observed in the tests and using an approximation
of shear resistance along line ab’. Shape factors are used
together with a limiting depth ratio D/B or H/B to make the
simplified equations adequate for design use. In the general
case we have for the ultimate tension. with adjustments for
depth and shape (whether perimeter is round or rectangular).
This equation gives (only for footings in sands) the following:
• For Shallow Footings
Round
= + tan Φ +
2

64

32
6.12 Bearing Cap. of Fdn with Uplift Forces
Rectangular
=2 ( + )+ 2 + − tan Φ +
=1+

• For deep Footings ( > )

Round
= + (2 − ) tan Φ +
2
Rectangular
=2 ( + ) + (2 − ) 2 + − tan Φ +
=1+

65

6.12 Bearing Cap. of Fdn with Uplift Forces

The lateral earth pressure coefficient can be taken as one of
the following:
Φ
= = 45 +
2
Φ
= = 45 −
2
= = 1 − sin Φ
= 0.65 + 0.5Φ
With these several choices the user must make a judgment
analysis for . An average of may be reasonable.

66

33
6.12 Bearing Cap. of Fdn with Uplift Forces
Problem 6-8
A footing 1.2 X 1.2 X 0.6 m is placed at a depth of 1.80 m in a
soil of = 17.29 kN/m , = 23.60 kN/m ; Φ = 20 ; =
20 kPa. Estimate the allowable uplift force for a FS = 2.5.

Answer
= . 67

34