CA4665

GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN

Lecture 5
Site Investigation and
Shallow Foundation

By Dr. Jeff Wang

 Basic Concepts of Foundation Design
Criteria of satisfactory foundation performance
Successfully transferring loads of superstructure to
foundation soil without shear failure;
Undergoing a settlement within the tolerance of
superstructure
Essential considerations in foundation design and
construction include
Engineering consideration
Economic consideration
Constructability consideration
Types of Shallow Foundation
 Types of Deep Foundation
Pile foundation Drilled shaft
 Foundation Design Approach

1. Determine foundation loads, structure layout,

and special requirements;
2. Conduct the site investigation and collect in-
situ and laboratory testing data;
3. Prepare a final soil profile and critical cross
sections;
4. Consider and prepare alternative designs;
5. Prepare cost estimates for feasible alternative
foundation designs;
6. Select the optimum foundation alternative.
 Uncertainties in Design

Uncertainties in estimating the loads

Uncertainties associated with the variability of
the soil conditions at the site
Uncertainties in evaluation of the engineering
properties of soils and rocks at the site
Uncertainties in analytical model representing
the actual behavior of the foundation,
structure and soils and rocks
 Limit States

Ultimate Limit State (ULS)

ULS (stability requirement) delineates the strength of a
geosystem or component that should not be exceeded
by any conceivable loading during its design life.
Serviceability Limit State (SLS)
SLS (serviceability requirement) delineates a limiting
deformation (displacement, rotation, and settlement) of a
geosystem or component that, if exceeded, will impair its
function.
In a foundation design, both ULS and SLS must be
satisfied (Refer to Code of Practice for Foundations for
specific ULS and SLS requirements in Hong Kong).
 Design Method
Allowable Stress Design (ASD)
Ultimate Bearing Capacity (qult) limiting shear resistance of soils
beneath foundations

Allowable Bearing Capacity (qa) capacity used for design obtained

by dividing the ultimate capacity with a factor of safety FS greater
than 1.0 (and as high as 3.0).

qa = qult / FS (Satisfying ULS)

The factor of safety FS accounts for all the uncertainties encountered

in the design process.

In designing shallow foundations, bearing capacity is not the only

issue. It is also necessary to check for settlements. Shallow
foundations must be proportioned to yield a bearing pressure that
is compatible with settlement restrictions (Satisfying SLS).
 Site Investigation
Objectives are to determine the following:
The nature of the deposits, including geologic origins,
and other factors that may affect their engineering
behavior;
The aerial extent , depth, thickness and elevation of
each soil strata;
The depth to firm soil or rock;
The location of groundwater and its fluctuation, and the
possible presence of artesian pressures;
The engineering properties of soils and rocks;
Other pertinent information, such as the chemical
properties of soils and groundwater.
Investigation Techniques
Investigation Techniques
Investigation Techniques
Investigation Techniques
 Investigation Techniques
Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

The sampler is driven into the soil by hammer

blows to the top of drilling rod.

The standard weight of the hammer is 622.72

N (140 lb), and for each blow the hammer
drops a distance of 760 mm (30 in.).

The number of blows required for spoon

penetration of three150 mm (6 in.) intervals are
recorded.

The number of blows required for the last two

intervals are added to give the standard
penetration number at that depth.

Split Barrel Sampler (After FHWA, 1972)

 Investigation Techniques
Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

A correction of filed N value is

necessary to account for the effects
of overburden pressures when
estimating physical properties of
cohesionless soils.

The corrected N value is

determined by multiplying the field
N value by the correction factor
obtained from the left figure.

Correlation of cohesive soil physical

properties with N values are crude,
and therefore, correction of N
values in cohesive soils is not
necessary.
 Investigation Techniques

Cone Penetration Test (CPT)

In the CPT test, a cone with a 1000

mm2 base and a 60 deg tip attached
to a series of rods is continuously
pushed into the ground.

A friction sleeve with a surface area

of 15000 mm2 is located behind the
conical tip. Build in load cells are
used to continuously measure the
cone tip resistance, qc, and sleeve
friction resistance fs. The friction
ratio, Rf, is the ratio of fs/qc and is
commonly used in the interpretation
of test results. Cone Penetrometer
(After Robertson and Campanella, 1989)
 Investigation Techniques

Cone Penetration Test (CPT)

Typical CPT data presentation:

Unit Tip Resistance qc vs. Depth

Unit sleeve friction fs vs. Depth

Friction ratio qc/fs vs. Depth

In Hong Kong, the allowable
bearing capacity for soils
and rocks may be taken as
those presumed values
derived from empirical
correlations and stipulated
as in the table provided that
the following conditions are
complied with:
1. The planning, conducting
and supervision of site
investigation and the
interpretation of the results
are carried out;
2. The structures are not
unduly sensitive to
settlement or other
displacement that may be
required to mobilize the
allowable capacity.

Refer detailed explanations

to Code of Practice by the
Building Department of
Hong Kong
 Useful Correlations

Many useful correlations have been established

between the engineering properties of soils and
various indirect and classification properties.
For small projects or preliminary studies, such
correlations are often used extensively. In other
cases, these correlations serve as alternative
sources of design information.
Typical application
Estimation of the undrained shear strength (Su) of clay based on the
effective vertical overburden stress (v0).
Typical application
Estimation of the coefficient of consolidation (Cv) for calculation of time rate
of consolidation based on the liquid limit of clay.
Typical application
Estimation of the cone resistance (qc) or SPT value N for the estimation of
bearing capacity of shallow or deep foundations
Typical application

Estimation of the
shear strength
parameters of sand
or clay based on
their relative density
(for sand) or
consistency condition
(for clay).
Typical application

Estimation of the
friction angle of a
clean sand using the
SPT N value or
relative density (Dr)
Typical application

Estimation of the friction angle of a clean sand using the CPT value
or relative density (Dr)
 Approximate relationships between the angle of internal friction and the dry unit weight
for granular soils (After NAVFAC, 1982)

Typical application

Estimation of the friction angle of sand or clay based on their soil classification
Correlations between peak effective friction angle and plasticity index for clays
(After Duncan, et al., 1989)
Case Study Site investigation for school buildings in
Tin Shui Wai
0 1 2km

Mai Po

Deep Bay Granite

Volcanic rocks

Metamudstone

Marble

Fault
Tin Shui
Wai

-200

-400
m
Yuen
Long

NW-SE geological cross-section

through Yuen Long (after Sheet 6,
Geotechnical Control Office,
1988)
 Solid Geology beneath Superficial Deposits - Site 1, Area 104 Tin Shui Wai
Case Study Site investigation for school buildings in
Tin Shui Wai
50

40 50
50

40

30
80 30
30
70
60
50

40

40
50
100

90

80
30 50 6070
40 40
70
60
Granodiorite
Geological contact
Metasandstone/Siltstone 70 Rockhead contours (depth in
metres below ground level
Marble
Fault
Shear Zone 45
Strike/dip of geological structure
 Rock Cores

Jointed slightly sheared

granodiorite (Grade II)

Contact of granodiorite Strongly foliated

with chilled margin granodiorite Grade I)
Sheared marble Folded metasiltstone
 Maziers

Foliated Grade V
granodiorite with
Relict joint
relict joint
Grade IV in Grade IV
granodiorite granodiorite
 Case Study Site investigation for school buildings in
Tin Shui Wai
Granodiorite
50 50
50
Metasiltstone/ 40
metasandstone 40

Marble
40
Lighter colour denotes
completely/highly 50
decomposed rock 60

Shear Zone 40

Quartz body 50

20m 80 60 50
100 90 70

Geological
contact A B
0 Superficial
Deposits
-10

-20

-30
60 Rockhead contour
-40
in metres
Metres

-50

45 Average strike/dip of -60

main geological discontinuity -70

A -80

Line of section -90

B -100
Shallow Foundation Design
 Patterns of Bearing Capacity Failures
(a) General shear failure - characterized
mainly by the occurrence of continuous
rupture or failure surfaces from the edge of
the footing to the soil surface. Full shear
resistance of the soil is developed along
the failure surface.

increasing stiffness
Increasing density

decreasing depth
(b) Local shear failure - the failure surfaces
are formed close to the footing edge and
extend only partly towards the soil surface
(only up to the so-called Rankine passive
region). Instead, bulging of the soil surface
is produced accompanied by considerable
vertical compression beneath the footing.
Soil shear strength is not fully developed.

(c) Punching shear failure - localized failure

beneath the footing characterized by visible
vertical shear deformation around the
periphery of the footing. There is no bulging
at the surface and very little horizontal
strains are induced.
 Bearing Capacity Based on
Rankine's Wedges
Horizontal force in the active block below the footing:

P1 = 12 K a H 2 2cH K a + qu K a H

Horizontal force in the passive block at the side of the footing:

P2 = 12 K p H 2 + 2cH K p + qu K p H

Deriving H from geometry:

B B
H= =
(
2 tan 45 2 ) 2 Ka

Equating P1 and P2 and using the relation Ka=1/Kp result in

the expression for the bearing capacity qult:

qult = cN c + qN q + 12 BN

where Nc, Nq and N are called the bearing capacity factors. In the case of Rankine wedges shown
in the figure above, the bearing capacity factors are directly related to the coefficient of passive
earth pressure Kp.
 Terzaghis Bearing Capacity Theory
This theory is an improvement of the Prandtl-
Taylor bearing capacity theories. The main
improvements consisted of including the load
due to weight of the soil above the footing and
the effects of a rough footing base. Terzaghi
assumed the triangular wedge below the
footing has faces oriented at angle instead
of the angle 45-/2 used in Prandtls theory.

Terzaghis bearing capacity equation:

Long footing: qult = cN c + qN q + 12 BN

Square footing: qult = 1.3cN c + qN q + 0.4 BN

Circular footing: qult = 1.3cN c + qN q + 0.3BN

a2 a2 K p
N c = cot 1 Nq =
N = tan
1
1
2 cos 2
(45 + 2 ) 2 cos 2 (45 + 2 ) 2
cos
2

(3 4 2 ) tan + 33
where a=e K p = 3 tan 2 45 +
2
Values of Nc, Nq and N in Terzaghis
equations
 Meyerhofs Bearing Capacity Equation
Meyerhofs added shape factors s, depth factors d, and inclination factors i to an
equation similar to the Terzaghis equation:

Vertical load: qult = cN c sc d c + qN q sq d q + 12 BN s d

Inclined load: qult = cN c sc d c ic + qN q sq d q iq + 12 BN s d i
Shape factors s,
depth factors d, and
inclination factors i
can be determined
from the right table.

Bearing capacity
factors Nc, Nq and N
are determined as

N q = e tan tan 2 (45 + 2 )

N c = (N q 1)cot

N = (N q 1) tan (1.4)
Values of Nc, Nq and N in Meyerhofs
equations
 Bearing Capacity for Local or
Punching Type Failure

For local shear or punching type failure, Terzaghi

proposed using a reduced friction angle ' and
cohesion c ' in the bearing capacity equations.
These reduced parameters are given as:

c = 0.67c
= tan (0.67 tan )
1
 Bearing Capacity for Shallow
Foundations Under Eccentric Loads
In determining the total allowable load
for a footing under eccentric load,
Meyerhof recommended using the
following reduced dimensions:

B' = B 2eb
L' = L 2el
A = B' L'
The reduced dimension should be
used in calculating the allowable load
in the bearing capacity equation and
in the various bearing capacity
factors.
 Pressure Distribution for Shallow
Foundations Under Eccentric Loads
When eb = B/6 or el = Vn Vn
L/6, min = 0. eb el

To avoid the negative

value of min (practically
impossible because B L
foundation soil cannot
resist any tension), min min
you must avoid the max max
situation by designing
Along foundation width: Along foundation length:
the foundation such that
eb < B/6 and el < L/6. V 6e Vn 6el
max = n 1 + b max = 1 +
B' = B 2eb A B A L
L' = L 2el V 6e V 6e
min = n 1 b min = n 1 l
A = B' L' A B A L
Effect of Water Table on Bearing Capacity

q = (D Dw ) + b Dw
qult = cN c sc d c + qN q sq d q + 12 b BN s d

q = D
qult = cN c sc d c + qN q sq d q + 12 b BN s d

q = D
qult = cN c sc d c + qN q sq d q + 12 ave BN s d

ave = 1
B
[Dw + b (B Dw )] for Dw B
ave = for Dw > B
Example Problem 1
 Bearing Capacity from Standard
Penetration Test (SPT)
NB Df
qult = cw1 + cw 2 (qult in ton/ft2 )
10 B Df
N = average blow count
Df = depth from ground surface to base of footing (ft)
B = footing width (least dimension) (ft) 1.5
Dw = depth from ground surface to water table (ft)

The value of N is determined by averaging SPT

blow count within the range of depth from the bottom (1) for Dw = 0, Cw1=0.5, Cw2=0.5.
of footing to a depth 1.5B below the footing. (2) for Dw = Df, Cw1=0.5, Cw2=1.0;
(3) for Dw Df + 1.5B, Cw1=Cw2=1.0;
For saturated fine or silty sand, the measured
SPT blow count need to be corrected for Values for other positions of the
submergence effect as follows: water table (between Dw = 0 and
N = 15 + 1 2 (N 15) for N > 15
Dw = Df +1.5B) can be determined by
interpolation.
Where, N= measured SPT blow count
 Example Problem 2

For the conditions shown in the right figure, estimate the bearing capacity
of a 16 ft square footing using the SPT blow count. The averaged SPT
blow count within the range of depth from the bottom of footing to 1.5B
below the footing is 11.

7' Sand
N = 11
5' 16'
 Bearing Capacity for Shallow
Foundations on Layered Soils
Bearing capacity of shallow foundations on layered soils are generally
complex and difficult to analyze. The basic problem lies in
determining and defining soil properties for layered soils and the
mechanism of failure.

Bearing capacity of simple two-layered systems can be estimated

using limit equilibrium, limit analysis or results from numerical
methods.

For multi-layered soils, it is best to use numerical tools such as Finite

Element Method (FEM) or Finite Difference Method (FDM), which are
very useful in determining not only the bearing capacity of foundations
but also the foundation settlement.
 Shallow Foundation on A Simple
Two-Layer Soil Profile
According to Prandtls failure mechanism, if the thickness, H, of the
top soil layer is greater than

exp(A tan p )
B
H cr =
(
2 cos 45 + p
2 )
(
where A = 45
p
2
) Df Footing
in radians, the failure
B
surface will be confined in Top layer
H
the top layer and it is
sufficiently accurate to
calculate the bearing
capacity based on the Bottom layer
properties of top soil layer.