ground

1
  Types of foundation :
The two main types of foundation
are :
 Shallow foundation (spread
foundation) and
 Deep foundation
Types of Shallow foundation :
 Isolated footing (single
footing, Column footing)
 Combined footing
Types of Deep foundation :
o Pile foundation
o Pier foundation
27 January 2020
Types of Pile foundation :
 Friction pile
 Load bearing pile
Note : Under-reamed piles is a
type of load bearing pile
Note : choice of particular
foundation depends on
Magnitude of loads, nature of
sub soil strata nature of
superstructure and its specific
2
requirements
 Shallow foundations:
 Where the ratio of embedment depth to min plan dimension
is less or equal to 2.5
 Embedment depth is the depth below the ground surface
where the base of foundation rests.

a. plain concrete foundation,

b. stepped reinforced concrete foundation,
c. reinforced concrete rectangular foundation,
d. reinforced concrete wall foundation.

 3
  Shallow foundation (spread
foundation):
 Depth of foundation is less
than or equal to its width.

 Isolated footing (single

footing, column footing):
 In framed structures where
several columns are to be
constructed, isolated footings
can be adopted.
 The columns involved can be
provided with masonry or  In case of masonry footing, the
concrete footing. projection of each step must be ½
 If masonry footing is brick thick and each step is made of
provided, steps are given
and the foundation area is 1 or 2 bricks put together.
thus increased so that the  Concrete can be moulded to any
stresses developed at the shape and hence a concrete footing
base is within the limit.
may be a sloping one to provide
27 January 2020
sufficient spread. 4
  Isolated footing (single footing, column footing)…

27 January 2020 5
  Isolated footing (single footing, column footing)…

27 January 2020 6
  Isolated footing (single footing, column footing)…
wall footing

27 January 2020 7
  Combined footing:

 This type of footing is

adopted when the space
between two columns is so
small that the foundation
for individual columns
will overlap.
Footing :
 Combined footings are
proportioned in such a Footings are structural members
way that the centre of used to support columns and walls
gravity of the loads and to transmit and distribute their
coincides with the centre
of gravity of the loads to the soil in such a way that
foundation. Hence these the load bearing capacity of the soil
footings have either a is not exceeded. Also excessive
trapezoidal or a settlement, differential settlement or
rectangular shape.
rotation are prevented and adequate
safety against overturning or sliding
is maintained.
27 January 2020 8
  Size of footing :
 The area of footing can be determined from the actual
external
loads, such that the allowable soil pressure is not
exceeded.

Total load including self - weight 

Area of footing 
allowable soil pressure

27 January 2020 9
1 Obtain the required information concerning the nature of the
superstructure and the loads to be transmitted to the foundation.
2. Obtain the subsurface soil conditions.
3. Explore the possibility of constructing any one of the types of
foundation under the existing conditions by taking into account (i)
the bearing capacity of the soil to carry the required load, and (ii)
the adverse effects on the structure due to differential settlements.
Eliminate in this way, the unsuitable types.
4. Once one or two types of foundation are selected on the basis of
preliminary studies, make more detailed studies. These studies may
require more accurate determination of loads, subsurface conditions
and footing sizes. It may also be necessary to make more refined
estimates of settlement in order to predict the behavior of the
structure.
5. Estimate the cost of each of the promising types of foundation, and
choose the type that represents the most acceptable compromise
between performance and cost.

10
 Total Overburden Pressure q0
 qo is the intensity of total overburden pressure due to the weight of both soil
and water at the base level of the foundation.
 Effective Overburden Pressure q'0
 q'0 is the effective overburden pressure at the base level of the
foundation.

 The Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Soil, qu

 qu is the maximum bearing capacity of soil at which the soil fails by shear.
 The Net Ultimate Bearing Capacity, qnu
 qnu is the bearing capacity in excess of the effective overburden pressure q'0
expressed as

11
 Gross Allowable Bearing Pressure, qa is expressed as:

 where Fs = factor of safety.

 Net Allowable Bearing Pressure, qna

 Safe Bearing Pressure, qs

 qs is defined as the net safe bearing pressure which produces a settlement of

the foundation which does not exceed a permissible limit.

 Note: In the design of foundations, one has to use the least of the two
values of qna and qs.

12
Location and Depth

Bearing Capacity Criteria

Settlement Criteria

13
 Depth and location of foundation

Depth and location of foundation depends on

1. Zone of significant volume changes in soil.

2. Adjacent structures and property lines.

3. Ground water

4. Underground defects
 Depth and location of foundation
Adjacent structures and property lines.

Structures may be damaged by the construction of new

foundations, as a result of vibrations, undermining by
excavation or lowering of the water table. After new
foundations have been constructed, the (new) loads they
place on the soil may cause settlement of previously existing
Part extending structures as a result of new stress pattern in the surrounding
soil.
property line Property line

New Footing
In general, deeper the foundations and
closer to the old structure, greater will 450 Existing Footing
be the potential for damage to old Limit for bottom of
structures. deeper Footing
Depth and location of foundation

Ground water

Presence of water reduces soil bearing capacity, larger footing size more
cost. During construction pumping is necessary – adds to the cost of
construction.

Underground defects

Footing location affected by underground defects

Faults, caves, mines, sewer lines , underground cables and utilities.
Principal modes of soil failure

17
18
B.C. Failures

General shear
Dense soils,
Rock, NC clays

Defined failure surf.

Fast failure

Local shear

Intermediate case
+/- gradual failure

Punching
Loose sands,
weak clays (dr.)

F. surf. not defined

Gradual failure
20
21
22
23
Table 1 Summary of Type of Bearing Capacity failure versus
Soil Properties

Type of Cohesionless soil (e. g., sands) Cohesive soil (e. g., clays)
bearing
capacity
failure Density Relative (N1)60 Consis-
Consistency
condition density, Dr, tency
(percent) Su

General Dense to 65-100 20 Very stiff >100 kPa

shear very dense to hard

Local Medium 35-65 5-20 Medium 25-100 kPa

shear stiff

Punch-ing Loose to 0-35 <5 Soft to <25 kPa

shear very loose very soft

24
 The determination of bearing capacity of soil based on the classical earth
pressure theory of Rankine (1857) began with Pauker, a Russian military
engineer (1889).

 It was modified by Bell (1915). Pauker's theory was applicable only for
sandy soils but the theory of Bell took into account cohesion also.

 The methods of calculating the ultimate bearing capacity of shallow strip

footings by plastic theory developed considerably over the years since
Terzaghi (1943). Terzaghi extended the theory of Prandtl (1921).

 Taylor (1948) extended the equation of Prandtl by taking into account the
surcharge e Terzaghi (1943) first proposed a semi-empirical equation for
computing the ultimate bearing capacity of strip footings by taking into
account cohesion, friction and weight of soil, and replacing the
overburden pressure with an equivalent surcharge load at the base level of
the foundation effect of the overburden soil at the foundation level.

25
1. Terzaghi's bearing capacity theory
2. The general bearing capacity equation including IS codes
3. Field tests
 TERZAGHI'S BEARING CAPACITY THEORY
 Terzaghi made the following assumptions for developing an
equation for determining qu for a c-ɸ soil.
 The soil is semi-infinite, homogeneous and isotropic,
 The problem is two-dimensional,
 The base of the footing is rough,
 The failure is by general shear,
 the load is vertical and symmetrical,
 The ground surface is horizontal,
 the overburden pressure at foundation level is equivalent to a
surcharge load
 the principle of superposition is valid,
 Mohr-Coulomb criteria law is strictly valid, that is,
26
 The shapes of the failure surfaces under ultimate loading conditions are
given in Fig.
 The zones of plastic equilibrium represented in this figure by the area
gedcf may be subdivided into three zones:
 1 . Zone I of elastic equilibrium
 2. Zones II of radial shear state
 3. Zones III of Rankine passive state

27
28
 When load qu per unit area acting on the base of the footing of width
B with a rough base is transmitted into the soil, the tendency of the
soil located within zone I is to spread but this is counteracted by
friction and adhesion between the soil and the base of the footing.
 Due to the existence of this resistance against lateral spreading, the
soil located immediately beneath the base remains permanently in a
state of elastic equilibrium, and the soil located within this central
Zone I behaves as if it were a part of the footing and sinks with the
footing under the superimposed load.
 The depth of this wedge shaped body of soil abc remains practically
unchanged, yet the footing sinks.

29
 This process is only conceivable if the soil located just below point c moves
vertically downwards. This type of movement requires that the surface of
sliding cd (Fig.) through point c should start from a vertical tangent. The
boundary be of the zone of radial shear bed (Zone II) is also the surface of
sliding.
 As per the theory of plasticity, the potential surfaces of sliding in an ideal
plastic material intersect each other in every point of the zone of plastic
equilibrium at an angle (90° - ɸ). Therefore the boundary be must rise at an
angle ɸ to the horizontal provided the friction and adhesion between the soil
and the base of the footing suffice to prevent a sliding motion at the base.
 The sinking of Zone I creates two zones of plastic equilibrium, II and III,
on either side of the footing. Zone II is the radial shear zone whose remote
boundaries bd and af meet the horizontal surface at angles (45° - ɸ/2),
whereas Zone III is a passive Rankine zone. The boundaries de and fg of
these zones are straight lines and they meet the surface at angles of
(45° - ɸ/2). The curved parts cd and cf in Zone II are parts of logarithmic
spirals whose centers are located at b and a respectively.

30
 tanΦ

da

31
32
 Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Soil Strip Footings:
 Terzaghi developed his bearing capacity equation for strip footings
by analyzing the forces acting on the wedge abc in Fig.

 where Qult = ultimate load per unit length of footing, c = unit cohesion,
/the effective unit weight of soil, B = width of footing, D,= depth of
foundation, Nc, Nq and Nɣ are the bearing capacity factors. They are functions
of the angle of friction ɸ.

 where Kp = passive earth pressure coefficient

33
34
35
36
37
 Terzaghi's bearing capacity Eq. has been modified for other types of
foundations by introducing the shape factors. The equations are:
 Square Foundations:
 Circular Foundations:

 Rectangular Foundations:

 Ultimate Bearing Capacity qu in Purely Cohesion-less and Cohesive

Soils Under General Shear Failure:
 For cohesion-less soil (for c = 0) and cohesive soils (for ɸ = 0) as follows.
 Strip Footing

 Square Footing:

 Circular Footing
 Rectangular Footing 38
39
40
 In case the water table lies at any intermediate depth less
than the depth (Df+ B), the bearing capacity equations are
affected due to the presence of the water table.
 Case 1. When the water table lies above the base of the foundation.

41
42
 Meyerhof (1963) presented a general bearing capacity equation which
takes into account the shape and the inclination of load. The general
form of equation suggested by Meyerhof for bearing capacity is

43
44
45
46
47
48
 There is currently no method of obtaining the ultimate
bearing capacity of a foundation other than as an estimate
(Bowles, 1996).
 There has been little experimental verification of any of the
methods except by using model footings. Up to a depth of
Df~ B the Meyerhof qu is not greatly different from the
Terzaghi value (Bowles, 1996). The Terzaghi equations,
being the first proposed, have been quite popular with
designers.

 Both the Meyerhof and Hansen methods are widely used.

The Vesic method has not been much used. 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.
49
 A strip footing of width 3 m is founded at a depth of 2 m below the
ground surface in a (c - ɸ) soil having a cohesion c = 30 kN/m2 and angle
of shearing resistance ɸ = 35°. The water table is at a depth of 5 m below
ground level. The moist weight of soil above the water table is 17.25
kN/m3.
 Determine (a) the ultimate bearing capacity of the soil, (b) the net
bearing capacity, and (c) the net allowable bearing pressure and the
load/m for a factor of safety of 3. Use the general shear failure theory
of Terzaghi.

50
51
 If the water table in Ex. 12.1 rises to the ground level, determine the
net safe bearing pressure of the footing. All the other data given in Ex.
12.1 remain the same. Assume the saturated unit weight of the soil
ɣsat= 18.5 kN/m3.

52
53
 A rectangular footing of size 10 x 20 ft is founded at a depth of 6 ft
below the ground surface in a homogeneous cohesionless soil having
an angle of shearing resistance ɸ = 35°. The water table is at a great
depth. The unit weight of soil 7= 114 lb/ft3. Determine: (1) the net
ultimate bearing capacity, (2) the net allowable bearing pressure for Fs
= 3, and (3) the allowable load Qa the footing can carry. Use Terzaghi's
theory.

 A rectangular footing of size 10 x 20 ft is founded at a depth of 6 ft

below the ground level in a cohesive soil (ɸ = 0) which fails by general
shear. Given: ɣsat =114 lb/ft3, c = 945 lb/ft2. The water table is close to
the ground surface. Determine qu , qnu and qna by Terzaghi's method,

54
 IS 1888:1982
 Bearing plate
 Test Pit
 Loading Arrangement
 Reaction truss
 Gravity Loading

55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 For Granular Soils:

 For Cohesive Soils:

66
 For Granular Soils:

 For Cohesive Soils:

67
The method has been standardized as ASTM D-1586 (1997) with periodic
revision since 1958. The method of carrying out this test is as follows:
 1. The split spoon sampler is connected to a string of drill rods and is
lowered into the bottom of the bore hole which was drilled and cleaned
in advance.
 2. The sampler is driven into the soil strata to a maximum depth of 18 in
by making use of a 140 Ib weight falling freely from a height of 30 in on
to an anvil fixed on the top of drill rod. The weight is guided to fall
along a guide rod. The weight is raised and allowed to fall by means of a
manila rope, one end tied to the weight and the other end passing over a
pulley on to a hand operated winch or a motor driven cathead.
 3. The number of blows required to penetrate each of the successive 6 in
depths is counted to produce a total penetration of 18 in.
 4. To avoid seating errors, the blows required for the first 6 in of
penetration are not taken into account; those required to increase the
penetration from 6 in to 18 in constitute the N-value.
 The SPT is conducted normally at 2.5 to 5 ft intervals. The intervals may
be increased at greater depths if necessary.
68
Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
65 kg hammer

760 mm drop
Count the number of blows required anvil
for 300 mm penetration
Blow count
or
N-Value

drill rod

split spoon sampler

27 January 2020 69
 Standard Penetration Test
 Mainly for granular soils (difficult for undisturbed
sampling
 N-value correlated to ’, E …
 Done within bore holes at 1.5 m depth intervals

 Samples (disturbed) collected in split-spoon sampler

AR = 112%; use
for classification

soil
I.D. = 35 mm
O.D.= 51 mm

27 January 2020 70
Standard Penetration Test

71
 Standard Energy Ratio Res Applicable to N Value
 The empirical correlations established in the USA between N and soil
properties indicate the value of N conforms to certain standard energy ratios.
Some suggest 70% (Bowles, 1996) and others 60% (Terzaghi et al., 1996).
 The relation between Ncor and ɸ established by Peck et al., (1974) is
given in a graphical form in Fig. The value of Ncor to be used for getting ɸ is
the corrected value for standard energy. The angle ɸ obtained by this method
can be used for obtaining the bearing capacity factors, and hence the
ultimate bearing capacity of soil.
 Cohesive Soils
 Relationship Between Ncor and qu (Unconfined Compressive Strength)
Relationships have been developed between Ncor and qu (the undrained
compressive strength) for the ɸ = 0 condition. This relationship gives the
value of cu for any known value of Ncor. The relationship may be expressed
as Eq.
 where the value of the coefficient & may vary from a minimum of 12 to a
maximum of 25

72
73
74
Dynamic cone penetration Static cone penetration
test (DCPT) test (SCPT)

 similar to SPT; hammer driven  pushed into the ground @ 2 cm/s

 using cone instead of split spoon  gives continuous measurements

 gives blow counts @ 1.5 m

depth intervals

27 January 2020 75
  Simple and rugged.
 Better than SPT or SCPT in hard soils such as dense
gravels
 As crude as SPT; relies on correlations based on blow
counts Hollow (split spoon)

SPT

DCPT

Solid (no samples)

27 January 2020 76
10 cm2 cross section

sleeve friction (fs)

fs
friction ratio, fR =  100 %
qc

cone resistance or tip resistance (qc)

77
78
79
80
 Laboratory:  Simple Shear
 Stress Path Controlled
 Plane Strain
 Cyclic Triaxial
 In-Situ:
 Pressuremeter
 Dilatometer
 Piezo-cone, Seismic Cone
 SASW, etc.

27 January 2020 81
 Relative Cost per Test

Pressuremeter
test

Dynamic cone Static cone

penetration test
penetration test

Standard
penetration test
Relative Test Accuracy
Pocket
penetrometer test

27 January 2020 82