See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/272492627

DESIGN OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS BASED ON LRFD DESIGN METHOD

Conference Paper · May 2011

CITATIONS READS

0 5,513

4 authors, including:

Bilge Siyahi Jeff Budiman

Gebze Technical University Illinois Institute of Technology
31 PUBLICATIONS   486 CITATIONS    11 PUBLICATIONS   35 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Bulent Akbas
Gebze Technical University
120 PUBLICATIONS   660 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Performance-Based Assessment of Historical Structures View project

Statistical analysis of crash data View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Bulent Akbas on 19 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Yedinci Ulusal Deprem Mühendisliği Konferansı, 30 Mayıs- 3 Haziran, 2011, İstanbul
Seventh National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 30May- 3 June 2011, Istanbul, Turkey

SIĞ TEMELLERİN LRFD YÖNTEMİNE GÖRE TASARIMI

DESIGN OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS BASED ON LRFD DESIGN METHOD

Bilge SİYAHİ1, Jeff BUDIMAN2, Bülent AKBAŞ3, Jay SHEN4

ÖZET

Yük ve Mukavemet Faktörü (LRFD) tasarım yöntemi, farklı malzeme ve taşıyıcı sistemler için
tasarım yönetmeliklerini birleştirmek amacıyla yapı mühendisliği uygulamalarında yer
almıştır. LRFD yönteminde tasarımda sağlanan dayanımın arttırılmış yüklere eşit veya büyük
olması beklenmektedir. LRFD tasarım yönteminin, belirsizlikleri ve yapının gerçek davranışını
göze almasından dolayı geleneksel elastik hesap yönteminden (ASD) daha rasyonel olduğu
kabul edilmektedir. Gerek yük arttırma katsayıları gerekse dayanım azaltma katsayıları,
değişik yüklemeler ve dayanımlardaki belirsizlikleri tanımlarlar. LRFD yönetmeliği AASHTO
tarafından 1994 yılında kabul edilmiştir. Türkiye’de geleneksel olarak sığ temellerin
tasarımında Terzaghi’nin taşıma gücü denklemleri kullanılmaktadır. Terzaghi denkleminden
elde edilen taşıma gücü güvenlik katsayısını bölünerek emniyetli taşıma gücü bulunmaktadır.
Güvenlik katsayısı çoğunlukla 3 olarak alınmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, sığ temeller üzerine
oturan 4 katlı bir çelik bina örnek olarak seçilmiştir. Seçilen bina alçak katlı bir binayı temsil
etmektedir ve hem yatay hem de düşey doğrultuda düzensizlik içermemektedir. Binanın plan
boyutları 36.60m x 54.90 m’dir. Sığ temeller emniyetli taşıma gücü yöntemine ve LRFD
yöntemine göre tasarlanmış ve sonuçlar karşılaştırılmıştır. Tasarım için düşey yük aktaran
orta kolon seçilmiştir. Elde edilen sonuçlar LRFD yönteminin daha ekonomik bir çözüm
verdiğini göstermiştir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: sığ temeller, Terzaghi taşıma gücü, LRFD yöntemi

ABSTRACT

Load and Resistance Factor (LRFD) design methodology has been in structural engineering
practice in an attempt to to unify the design codes for different construction materials and
structural systems. In basic terms, LRFD method requires that the strength provided in design
be greater than or at least equal to factored loads acting. LRFD is considered to be more
rational than traditional Allowable Stress Design (ASD) in treating uncertainties and
considering the real behavior of structure. LRFD uses a different overload factor for each type
of load and strength reduction factor for the strength. Both overload and strength reduction
factors define the degree of uncertainty in the various loads and the resistance. LRFD
approach has been adopted by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) in 1994. In Turkey, design of shallow foundations is, traditionally, based
on Terzaghi’s bearing capacity approach. The bearing capacity obtained from Terzahi’s
bearing capacity formula is then divided by the factor of safety of 3 to obtain the allowable
stress. In this study, a typical 4-story steel building on a shallow foundation is considered for
the analyses. The building represent a typical low-rise building and very regular in both
horizontal and vertical directions. The plan dimensions of the building are 36.60m x 54.90m.
The shallow foundations are designed based on traditional design method currently used in
Turkey and the LRFD approach by using different partial factors for the load and resistance
sides. The central gravity column is selected for design. The results indicated a more
economical design when LRFD methodology is used in design.
Keywords: shallow foundations, Terzaghi bearing capacity, LRFD design

1
Prof, Gebze Inst. of Tech., Dep. of Earthquake and Structural Eng., Kocaeli, bilge.siyahi@gyte.edu.tr
2
Assoc.Prof., Illinois Ins. of Tech., Dep. of Civil, Arch. and Env. Eng., Chicago, budiman@iit.edu
3
Assoc.Prof., Gebze Inst. of Tech., Dep. of Earthquake and Structural Eng., Kocaeli, akbasb@gyte.edu.tr
4
Assoc.Prof., Illinois Ins. of Tech., Dep. of Civil, Arch. And Env. Eng., Chicago, shen@iit.edu

1
2 Design of Shallow Foundations based on LRFD Design Method

INTRODUCTION

In Allowable Stress Design (ASD) methodology, design loads are compared to the nominal
resistance of the system through a factor of safety (FS). To unify the design codes for different
construction materials and structural systems, many design codes are under revision from ASD
format to the load and resistance factor design (LRFD) format. LRFD method has been used in
USA for the design of steel structures since the middle of 1980s as an alternative to traditional
Allowable Stress Design (ASD) method and has gained great attention since then. In basic terms,
LRFD method requires that the strength provided in design be greater than or at least equal to
factored loads acting. The overload factors may be different for each type of load. The required
strength of the structure and its elements must be determined from the appropriate ciritical
combination of factored loads. LRFD is more rational than ASD in treating uncertanities and
considering the real behavior of structure. LRFD uses a different overload factor for each type of
load and strength reduction factor for the strength. Both overload and strength reduction factors
define the degree of uncertainity in the various loads and the resistance. So, a uniform reliability is
possible. That is why LRFD seems to be more rational in treating uncertainities. LRFD approach
has been adopted by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) in 1994. In recent decade, many modern geotechnical design modes are switching
from ASD to LRFD format (CEN 2004, DIN EN 1997-1 2008).
Figure 1 shows a typical probability density function for a certain foundation type. As
different from structural engineering practice, loads in geotechnical engineering have smaller
coeeffient of variation than resistances (Figure 1). The relative magnitude of uncertanities involved
in the superstructure and the foundation affects the quantity of partial factors assigned to the the
load and the resistance side of the design. As compared to the superstructures, foundations and
geotechnical structures have more uncertainity in the resistance side than the the load side (Honjo
et al., 2000). Foye-1 et al. (2006) studied the uncertanities for LRFD design of shallow foundation
design. The same group of reserachers (Foye-2 et al. 2006) proposed some resistance factors for
use in shallow foundation in a companion paper.
The basic foundation design consists of proportioning the foundation to prevent the limit
states. Two types of limit states are considered in the analyses: ultimate limit states and
serviceability limit states. LRFD design can be used for ultimate limit state checks. In desigh of
shallow foundations, LRFD allows control of uncertainities and is believed to provide a more
consistent level of reliability than traditional ASD design. However, a major issue in LRFD design
of shallow foundations is to address the LRFD factors (Foye-2 et al. 2006). Resistance factors for
ultimate bearing capacity can be computed for shallow foundations to be built in both sand an clay
for ASCE 7-05 (2005) and AASHTO (2010) load factors.
In Turkey, design of shallow foundations are, traditionally, based on Terzaghi’s bearing
capacity approach. The bearing capacity obtained from Terzahi’s bearing capacity formula is then
divided by the factor of safety to obtain the allowable stress. The factor of safety is taken 3 for
design. In this study, a typical 4-story steel building on a shallow foundation is considered for the
analyses. The building represent a typical low-rise building and very regular in both horizontal and
vertical directions. The plan dimensions of the building are 36.60m x 54.90m. The shallow
foundations are designed based on tradional degin method currently used in Turkey and the LRFD
approach by using different partial factors for the load and resistance sides for twodifferent soil
types. In designing the foundations, the central gravity column is selected.
 B.Siyahi, B. Akbaş, J. Budiman, J. Shen

Q and R

Figure 1. A typical probability desity function for load (Q) and resistance (Q) (NCHRP 2010)

ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF SHALLOW FOUNDATION

A foundation is defined as shallow when the depth of embedment (Df) is less than the minimum
lateral dimension of the foundation (B) (Figure 1). Shallow foundations have been widely used for
ordinary buildings. An ideal foundation design should include all the information regarding to the
soil and code practice. Soil parameters obtained from soil investigations obtained from site survey
and laboratory studies should be used to construct an analysis model. The design should be based
on the stability (overturning, bearing, etc.). In terms of cost, construction, material and labor work,
shallow foundations have certain advantages over other types of foundations such as piles, piers,
caissons and deep foundation. However, using shallow foundations when there is a problem of
settlement, irregular ground surface or combined bending and axial loading might cause some
problems.
The soil beneath the foundation has to carry the loads to be transfered from the
superstructure upon it without any failure. Failure term here defines the case where there is an
abrupt increase settlement under any additional load increment. Ultimate bearing capacity of the
foundations (qu) for for framed structures is obtained by evaluating the limiting shear resistance of
the soil (Bowles, 1997). In ASD, the allowable bearing capacity, qall, is then obtained by dividing
qu by a safety factor, FS:

(1)

The general bearing capacity for equations for soils was proposed by many researchers using
bearing capacity parameters (Prandtl 1921, Reissner 1924,, Meyerhof 1951, Vesic 1963, Goodman
1989, etc.). Among the many ultimate bearing capacity equations, Terzaghi bearing capacity
equation (Terzaghi, 1943) has been widely used in geotechnical engineering practice due to its ease
on use. No shape, depth, etc. factors need to be determined.
4 Design of Shallow Foundations based on LRFD Design Method

Ground surface

B > Df
Df

Figure 1. A typical Shallow Foundation

Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Theory

Terzaghi (1943) proposed a well-conceived theory to determine the ultimate bearing capacity of a
shallow, rough, rigit, continuous (strip) foundation supported by a homogeneous soil layer
extending to a great depth. The failure surface in soil at ultimate load assumed by Terzaghi (1943)
is shown in Figure 2. Referring to Figure 2, the failure area in the soil under the foundation can be
divided into three major zones:
1. Zone abc. This is a triangular elastic zone located immediately below the bottom of the
foundation. The inclination of sides ac and bc of the wedge with the horizontal is α=φ
(soil internal friction angle).
2. Zone bcf. This zone is Prandtl’s radial shear zone.
3. Zone bfg. This zone is the Rankine passive zone. The slip lines in this zone make
angles of ±(45- φ/2) with the horizontal.

Terzaghi (1943) assumed that the soil located above the bottom of the foundation could be replaced
by a surcharge load of q=γDf.

B
qu
Df q=γDf

a α α b 45- φ/2 45- φ/2 g

c
f

Figure 2. Failure surface in soil at ultimate load for a continuous rough rigid foundation as assumed by
Terzaghi (Das 2009).

The ultimate load per unit area of the foundation (that is, the ultimate bearing capacity ) for a
soil with cohesion, friction, and weight can now be given as

(2)
 B.Siyahi, B. Akbaş, J. Budiman, J. Shen

Substituting the relationships for

1 1 ,

yields to

(3)

where , , and are bearing capacity factors; B is width of square foundation; γ is dry unit
weight of soil and c is cohesion term. , , are related to the self-weight of soil, overburden
and cohesion, respectively. However, Equation (3) is considered to be suitable only for foundations
under concentric loading for cohesive soils, not for foundations under axial and bending effects.
The combined bending and axial load and loading direction affects the bearing capacity of soil. If
the axial load is relatively high, then the effect of bending and loading direction might be less
significant. Since, for foundations on granular soils, cohesion term (1st term in bracket in Equation
3) and embedment term (2nd term in bracket in Equation 3) are zero, the bearing capacity becomes
a function of the soil weight effect (3rd term in bracket in Equation 3).

ANALYTICAL STUDY

Description of the Building

A typical steel moment frame with 4-story representing typical low-rise steel buildings, as shown
in Figure 3 is selected for this study (Shen et al., 2011). The structural system consists of steel
perimeter moment resisting frames and interior simply-connected framing for gravity, i.e. lateral
loads are carried by perimeter frames and interior frames are not explicitly designed to resist
seismic loads in the direction of the earthquake. The two perimeter moment resisting frames are
designed based on the seismic design requirements in ASCE 7-05 (ASCE 7) and AISC 341-05
(AISC 341). The 4-story building has plan dimensions of 36.60m x 54.90m with four 9.15m bays
and six 9.15m bays in the two orthogonal directions, respectively, and a typical story height of
3.96m. The columns are assumed to be fixed at the ground level. The perimeter frames of the
buildings in the direction of the design earthquake were designed as special moment frames using
response modification factor of R = 8. The ASCE 7-05 (ASCE 7) base shear for the entire building
is 6,405 kN. Braced frames, shown in Figure 3, are used as the seismic force resisting system in the
direction perpendicular to the moment frames. For comparison of both design approaches, ASD
and LRFD, central column is selected (Column D3 in Figure 3). The design dead load (DL) and
live load (LL) are given in Table 1. Two different soil types are considered in the analyses: sand
and clay.
6 Design of Shallow Foundations based on LRFD Design Method

  1 2 3 4 5
Moment 
9.15mt 9.15mt 9.15m 9.15mt
Frame 
A

9.15mt
rd 4@
B 3 Story
3.96mt
9.15mt

C Ground
Level
9.15mt

D
Braced 
Frame  9.15mt

E b.b. Elevation of the 4‐story moment frame on Lines A 
Elevation of the 4-story frames on Lines a
9.15mt through G
and G  
F

9.15mt

G
Moment 
Design Earthquake  Frame 
a. Plan 

Figure 3. Plan and elevation of the 4-story frame (Shen et al. 2011)

Table 1. Design Loads

Axial Force (kN)

Column
DL LL

D3 1488 322

Shallow Foundation Design: ASD Approach

A typical shallow foundation based on ASD approach on clay and sand is designed using Equation
3 and typical design parameters are given in Table 2 for column D3. The depth of the ground water
table (Dgwt) from ground surface is assumed to be below the foundation level (Df)(Table 2). The
ASD approach resulted in a required width of square foundation of 3.44m and 2.85m for clay and
sand, respectively.
 B.Siyahi, B. Akbaş, J. Budiman, J. Shen

Table 2. Design Parameters for ASD design (Column D3)

Soil c Nc Nq Nγ Df B Dgwt γ γsat

type (deg) (kPa) (m) (m) (m) (kN/m3) (kN/m3)

clay 20 20 17.69 7.44 3.64 2 3.44 3 16 17

sand 35 0 37.16 22.46 19.13 2 2.85 3 18 21

Soil q γ′ FS qu qall qall(net) DL LL 1.4DL+1.7LL Breq

type (kPa) (kN/m3) (kPa) (kPa) (kN) (kN) (m)

clay 19.5 9.75 3 685 228 222 1488 322 2631 3.44

sand 27.16 13.58 3 1003 334 325 1488 322 2631 2.85
= soil internal friction angle (°); Dgwt= depth of ground water table from ground
surface (m); γ= natural unit weight of soil (kN/m3); γsat= saturated unit weight of
soil (kN/m3); q = surcharge at foundation level; γ′= effective unit weight below
foundation level; Breq= Required width of foundation

Shallow Foundation Design: LRFD Approach

The LRFD methodology addresses the uncertainties in loading and in resistance separately to
provide a prescribed margin of safety. In analysis and design of foundations, the factors applied to
load affects are normally the same as applied to the structural analysis and design. The same
principal is also applied for the strength limit state, where the nominal resistance Rn multiplied by a
resistance factor φ becomes the factored resistance and must not be less than the summation of load
Qi multiplied by load factors γi, or:

Rr= φRn ≥ Qi γi. (4)

Load and resistance factors in Equation 4 should be set equal to a certain value for a uniform
reliability in geotechnical as well as structural system. In practice, a reliability index of 3.0 is
considered to be sufficient in foundation design (Foye-1 2006). A rational approach for
determining the resistance factors includes: a) identfying the bearing capacity equations,
b)component variables of the equations, c)measurable quantitites from geotechnical experiments
for each of the input variable, d)component uncertainities for each variable, e)evaluating composite
uncertainities, f)selecting representative design variables, g)performing a reliability analysis to
obtain resistance factors, h)adjusting resistance factors for design load factors (Foye-1 2006). The
bearing capacity equation for shallow foundation as shown below was developed based on the
general failure mode of a plain strain strip footing, it is expressed as:

qu = cNc +qNq +0.5γBNγ (5)

The bearing capacity factors Nc, Nq and Nγ are derived from soil strength parameter φs reflecting
the contribution of cohesion c, surcharge q and the unit weight of the soil γ to the overall bearing
capacity. The recommended resistance factors for the natural soils are shown in Table 3.
 8 Design of Shallow Foundations based on LRFD Design Method

Table 3. Resistance Factors (NCHRP 2010)

Soil internal friction angle φs(o) Resistance factor φ

30 - 34 0.40
35 – 36 0.45
37 - 39 0.50
40 - 44 0.55
≥ 45 0.65

For foundations other than continuous strip foundations, Equation 5 is corrected by

introducing various correction factors leading to (NCHRP 2010):

qu = cNcscdcic+qNqsqdqiq+1/2γBNγ sγdγiγ (6)

and
Ncm = Ncscdcic
Nqm = Nqsqdqiq (7)
Nym = Nγ sγdγiγ

where correction factors si, di and ii are for shape, depth and load inclination factors, respectively,
for each of the three terms in equation (6). In this paper, the load inclination factors are 1.0, and
Meyerhof’s correction factors are used. Table 4 below summarizes the analysis for the bearing
capacity of a square footing with strength resistance factor φ = 0.4. The LRFD approach resulted in
a required width of square foundation of 3.03m and 2.21m for clay and sand, respectively.

Table 4. Design Parameters for LRFD Design (Column D3)

Soil r c Nc Nq Nγ Ncm Nqm Nym sc sq sγ dc dq dγ γ γsat

type (deg) (kPa) (kN/m3 (kN/m3
) )

clay 20 20 17.69 7.44 3.64 23.35 8.93 4.37 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 16 17

sand 35 0 37.16 22.46 19.13 52.02 34.59 26.78 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.1 1.1 1.0 18 21

Soil q γ′ γe B qu φqu 1.4DL+1.7LL Breq

type (kPa) (kN/m3) (kN/m3) (m) (kPa) (kPa) (kN) (m)

clay 32 9.75 11.83 3 715 286 2631 3.03

sand 36 13.58 15.05 3 1349 540 2631 2.21

Design Comparison

The required width of the square foundation (B) on clay and sand is calculated to be 3.44m and
2.85m, respectively, according to ASD approach, whereas it is 3.03m and 2.21, respectively,
according to LRFD aprroach. This indicates a 11.2% and 22.5% reduction in the required width of
the square foundation (B) designed according to the LRFD approach.
 B.Siyahi, B. Akbaş, J. Budiman, J. Shen

CONCLUSIONS

In Turkey, design of shallow foundations are, traditionally, based on Terzaghi’s bearing capacity
approach. The bearing capacity obtained from Terzahi’s bearing capacity formula is then divided
by the factor of safety to obtain the allowable stress for ASD methodology. The primary focus of
this study was to design a shallow foundation based on two different design approaches: ASD and
LRFD. For this purpose, a typical 4-story steel building on a shallow foundation is considered for
the analyses. The results obtained from this study can be summarized as follows:

a. Traditional ASD design with a factor of safety of 3 may be conservative for shallow
foundation design.
b. The depth of the ground water table is taken to be 3 m from ground surface. It is rarely
above the base of foundation.
c. Footings under concentric loading are considered in this study. Footings under combined
bending and axial loads should be further studied.
d. Even though, a real design should include the ultimate bearing capacity and settlements for
any foundation type, the design in this study is based on the evaluation of the ultimate
bearing capacity for two different soil types (clay and sand). Settlement is not considered
in the analyses.

REFERENCES

API (2000) Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms –
Working Stress Design, American Petroleum Institute
AASHTO (1994) LRFD Bridge Specifications, Wahington D.C.
ASCE 7-05 (2005) Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, VA
Bowles, JE (1997) Foundation Analysis and Design, 5th Ed., McBraw-Hill Companies Inc.
CEN (2004) prEN 1997-1 Geotechnical Design – General Rules, European Commitee for Standardization
Das, B. M. (2009) Shallow Foundations: Bearing Capacity and Settlement, CRC Press, Taylor and Francis
Group, New York
DIN EN 1997-1 (2008) Geotechnical Design, Part I: General Rules, Beuta-Verlag, Berlin
Goodman RE (1989) Introduction to Rock Mechanics, 2nd ed. Wiley, New York
Foye(1) KC, Salgado R, Scott B (2006) “Assessment of Variable Uncertanities for Reliability-Based Design
of Foundations”, Journal of Geotechnical and Environmental Engineering, 132(9):1197-1207
Foye(2) KC, Salgado R, Scott B (2006) “Resistance Factors for Use in Shallow Foundation LRFD”, Journal
of Geotechnical and Environmental Engineering, 132(9):1208-1218
Honjo Y, Suzuki M, Matsuo M (2000) “Reliability Analysis of Shallow Foundations in Reference to Design
Codes Development”, Computers and Geotechnics, 26: 331-346
Meyerhof GG (1953) “The Bearing Capacity of Foundations under Eccentric and Inclined Loads”, Proc. 3rd
Int. Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 1: 440-445
NCHRP (2010) Report 651: LRFD Design and Construction of Shallow Foundations for Highway Bridge
Structures, TRB Board, Washington, D.C
Prandtl L (1921) “Über die Eindringfestigkeit Plastischer Baustoffe und die Festigkeit von Schneiden”,
Zietschrift für angewandte Matmematik und Mechanik 1, Band 1, pp15-20.
Reissner H (1924) “Zum Erddruckproblem”, Proc. 1st Int. Congress of Applied Mechanics, Delft, 295-311.
Shen J, Sabol, T, Akbas, B, Sutchiewcharn, N (2011) “Seismic Demand on Column Splices in Steel Moment
Resisting Frames”, Engineering Journal, 4th Quarter
Vesic A (1973) “Analysis of Ultimate Loads of Shallow Foundations”, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Division, 99(1):54-73
Terzaghi, K (1943) Theoretical Soil Mechanics, Wiley, New York

View publication stats