foundation

Geotechnical Design Of Foundations

As Per Limit State Method
varies between 1.5 and 3. The FS value mostly adopted for shallow
E.S. Jayakumar foundations for shear failure criteria is 3, which was selected
M.Tech. (Struct.), MIE through a combination of applied theory, experience and consensus
FIAStructE for comparison to unfactored load combinations (US Federal
Highway Administrations). The factor of safety is, thus, an empirical,
but arbitrary, measure used to reduce the degree of probability
for adverse performance.

I
n the discussions of many forums on Civil engineering, As per the WSD
the following query is often seen popped up: “Why are the (Rug / FS) ≥ ΣQ i (1)

dimensions of foundation not proportioned using factored
Rug = the ultimate geotechnical strength
(ultimate) loads?” The answer to this, in a general sense, is
FS = Overall Factor of Safety
“the allowable bearing pressure is based on or compatible to
service loads”. However, the emerging Limit State Design trend Qi = Load case
in Geotechnical engineering enables the proportioning of Rug /FS is the allowable load capacity
foundations using the limit or factored loads. The Limit State Design
The Working Stress Method Of Design The Limit State Design (LSD) or the Load and Resistance Factor
The traditional Working Stress Design (WSD) or Allowable Stress Design (LRFD) philosophy is a more rational approach by which the
Design (ASD) method utilizes characteristic or service loads which more significant uncertainties on load and material resistance can be
are combined to produce a maximum effect in a member. Stresses incorporated quantitatively into the design process. In other words,
in the materials due to various combinations of loads cannot exceed it addresses the uncertainties in loading and in resistance separately
the allowable or working stress of the material. The allowable or to provide a prescribed margin of safety.
working stress is found by taking either yield strength for ductile There are two types of Limit States for foundation design,
materials or the ultimate strength for brittle materials and applying as indicated below (AASHTO) -
an appropriate factor of safety. –– Service Limit State shall include:
The primary limitations of WSD are the following: • Settlements
• Horizontal movements
Ignoring The Level Of Uncertainty Of Loads
In WSD, no consideration is given to the fact that various types • Overall stability and
of loads have different levels of uncertainty. For example, the dead • Scour at design flood (with reference to foundation of bridges)
load of a building can be estimated with a high degree of accuracy. –– Strength Limit State shall include:
However, earthquake loads acting on it cannot be estimated with the • Structural resistance
same degree of accuracy and confidence. Nevertheless, dead loads, • Loss of lateral and vertical support dues to scour at design
live loads and environmental loads are all treated equally in WSD. flood event

Ignoring The Level Of Uncertainty Of Soil Parameters –– The design of spread footing at strength Limit State shall
All these uncertainties of applied loads are transferred to the also consider:
foundation, however, the ultimate geotechnical capacity of the soil • Nominal bearing resistance
and rock to support the loads is incorporated in a single factor of safety, • Overturning or excessive loss of contact
FS, the typical value of which adopted for foundation design • Sliding at the base of footing

58 CE&CR October 2021

foundation

–– The design of pile foundations at strength Limit Table 1: (AASHTO-2017)

State shall also consider: (i) Geotechnical Resistance Factors for Bearing Resistance of Shallow Foundations
• Axial compression resistance of single pile/group Method/Soil/Condition Resistance Factor (Φg)
of piles Theoretical method in clay 0.5
• Uplift resistance for single pile/group of piles Theoretical method in sand, using CPT 0.5
• Pile punching failure in to a weaker stratum below Theoretical method, in sand using SPT 0.45
the bearing stratum Semi-empirical methods, all soils 0.45

• Lateral resistance of single pile/group of piles Footings on rock 0.45

Plate Load Test 0.55
• Constructability/drivability (for driven piles)
(ii) Geotechnical Resistance Factors for Driven Piles
–– The design of drilled shafts at strength Limit State
Method/Soil/Condition Resistance Factor (Φg)
shall also consider:
• Side Resistance and End Bearing: Clay and Mixed Soils
• Axial compression resistance for a single drilled α-method (Tomlinson; Skempton) 0.35
shaft β-method (Esrig & Kirby, Skempton) 0.25
In this article, we confine the focus essentially on the λ-method (Vijayvergiya; Skempton) 0.40
Strength Limit State, in order to impart conceptual clarity • Side Resistance and End Bearing: Sand
on the basics of the geotechnical design based on the Nordlund/Thurman Method (Hannigan) 0.45
Limit State Method. SPT-method (Meyerhof ) 0.30
The essence of this method is that the effect of the • CPT-method (Schmertmann) 0.50
loads must be less than the resistance (or strength) of the • Static Load Test on Piles 0.75
material (soil), so that the following requirement is met:
Table 2: (National Building Code of Canada-2005)
Factored Resistance ≥ Factored Load Effects Geotechnical Resistance Factors for Bearing/Load Carrying Capacity of Shallow
When applying this principle to design, it is essential & Deep Foundations
Method/Soil/Condition Resistance Factor (Φg)
that both sides of the inequality be evaluated for the same
Shallow Foundation
conditions.
Vertical bearing resistance from semi empirical analysis 0.5
The statement that a factored resistance shall always
using laboratory and in-situ test data
exceed the total factored load can be expressed
Pile Foundations: Resistance to Axial Load
mathematically by the following equation -
• Semi-empirical analysis using laboratory and in-situ test data 0.4
ΦgRug ≥ Σγi Qi (2)
• Analysis using static loading test results 0.6
Where, • Analysis using dynamic monitoring results. 0.5
Φ g = the geotechnical resistance factor, which is
Table 3: (NCHRP-REPORT 651: LRFD Design and Construction of
formulated based on statistical methods (reliability theory). Shallow Foundations for Highway Bridge Structures)
Rug = the ultimate geotechnical strength/resistance Geotechnical Resistance Factors for Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations
(capacity) on Natural Deposited Granular Soil Conditions
Soil Friction Angle, Φf Resistance Factor (Φg)
γi = Statistically-based load factor (or partial safety
30° - 34° 0.4
factor) for a particular load case, generally greater
35° - 36° 0.45
than one, as per the provisions of the governing Code
37° - 39° 0.5
of Practice.
40° - 44° 0.55
Qi = Load case ≥ 45° 0.65
One can note the obvious difference between the
AASHTO has generalised the above, by stating that, for high-quality tests,
equation (1) and equation (2).
Φg will range from 0.5 to 0.6, while, for ordinary quantity and quality of tests,
The geotechnical resistance factors Φg for different Φg will range from 0.3 to 0.5. A detailed compilation of Φg values for shallow and
parameters by different Codes/Publications are given in deep foundations can be found in ‘AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications
Tables 1, 2 & 3 below. The notations are self-explanatory. (2017)’.

60 CE&CR October 2021


Comparison With The LRFD Of Steel Structures
The analogy with LRFD (LSD) of steel structures will invoke clarity
in the principle followed in that of geotechnical design. Let’s take the
example of a tubular structural steel member under tension.
In WSD,
(Rus / FS) ≥ ΣQ i If A is the area of the footing,
Where, Rus = the ultimate strength/resistance of steel
Here, Rus / FS = 0.6 fy A [as per IS 800:1984]
Where, fy = yield stress of steel and A = gross area of the section.
Here, the FS is 1/0.6 = 1.67
In LSD, as per Cl.6.2 of IS: 800-2007, we have Tdg = Ag fy/γm0,
Where, Tdg = design strength due to yielding of the gross cross
section,
Ag = gross area of cross section, and
γ m0 = partial safety factor for failure in tension by yielding
(1.10, as per the IS Code)
In the equation Φ Rus ≥ Σγi Q i,
“Φ Rus” can be written as (1/γm0) (fy Ag)
Here, the term 1/γm0 = 1/1.10 = 0.909 represents the reduction (or
resistance) factor Φ while fyAg represents Rus, the ultimate strength
of the steel section under consideration. ‘ΦRus’shall be ensured to be
more than or equal to the most unfavourable combination of loads
(factored load), Σγi Q i.
Numerical Examples
The following numerical examples will elucidate the principles
involved in the LSD of foundations. It may be noted that these
examples are purely for illustrative purpose. The SBC of soil is
considered constant, even though, as per theory, it is dependent
on the width of the footing. The footing/pile cap is assumed to be
subjected to concentric vertical loads only, and no moments. It is
also assumed that shear failure governs the soil design. [Settlement
criterion is a serviceability limit state, for which, load factors
and resistance factors are taken equal to 1 (Jean-Louis Briaud &
AASHTO-2017)].
Example 1: A multi-storeyed building has one of its columns
transmitting a critical factored load of 1.2 (DL+LL+EL) = 1200 kN
to the proposed square column footing. The soil is medium dense
sand with an SBC of 180 kN/m2, as ascertained by the SPT. Calculate
the size of the square footing by (i) ASD & (ii) LSD.
(i) ASD
The working load on the footing = 1200/1.2 = 1000 kN
Allowable bearing capacity = 180 kN/m2
CE&CR October 2021 61
foundation
As per Table 1 of IS 1893(Part 1): 2016, the allowable bearing
pressures can be increased by 25% for medium soils, for load
combinations involving seismicity.
Allowable bearing capacity so increased = 180 × 1.25 = 225 kN/m2
As per equation (1), Rug / FS ≥ ΣQi.
(225 A) ≥ 1000, or A ≥ 4.44 m2
Adopt a square footing of size 2.15 m x 2.15 m (A = 4.62 m2)
(ii) LSD
Factored (ultimate) load, ΣγiQ i = 1.2 (DL+LL+EL) = 1200 kN
Using an assumed factor of safety value of 3, the Ultimate bearing
capacity of soil
= 180 x 3 = 540 kN/m2.
From Table 1, Φg = 0.45 for sand, the SBC of which is calculated
using SPT data.
As per equation (2), ΦgRug ≥ ΣγiQ i
If A is the area of the footing, then we have,
0.45 x (540 x A) ≥ 1200, or A ≥ 4.94 m2.
Adopt a square footing of size 2.25 m x 2.25 m (A= 5.60 m2)
Example 2: A two-storeyed building has one of its columns
transmitting a factored load of 1.5 (DL+LL) = 360 kN to the proposed
square column footing. The soil is a cohesion-less one with an SBC
of 300 kN/m2. The Soil Friction Angle Φf was found to be 37°, as per
laboratory tests. Calculate the size of the square footing by (i) ASD
& (ii) LSD.
(i) ASD
The working load on the footing = 360/1.5 = 240 kN
Allowable bearing capacity = 300 kN/m2
(The permissible stress is not increased, as seismicity/wind effect
is not involved in the critical load combination.)
As per equation (1), Rug/FS ≥ ΣQ i.
If A is the area of the footing,
(300 A) ≥ 240, or A ≥ 0.80 m2.
Adopt a square footing of size 0.90 m x 0.90 m (A = 0.81 m2)
(ii) LSD
Factored (ultimate) load, Σγi Qi = 1.5 (DL+LL) = 360 kN
Using an assumed factor of safety value of 3, the Ultimate bearing
capacity of soil
= 300 x 3 = 900 kN/m2.
foundation
From Table 3, Φg = 0.5, for soil friction angle in the range 37°– 39°.
As per equation (2), ΦgR ug ≥ ΣγiQ i.
If A is the area of the footing, then we have,
0.5 x (900 x A) ≥ 360, or A ≥ 0.80 m2.
Adopt a square footing of size 0.90 m x 0.90 m (A = 0.81 m ) 2
Here, we get the same size of the footing by both the methods.
Example 3: The pier of a highway bridge transmits a factored
load of 8100 kN, for the most critical combination of loads arrived
at by using the partial safety factors prescribed in Table B.4
of IRC: 6-2017 for various load cases. It is proposed to use
400mm dia., 20m deep driven precast concrete piles to support
the pier. The soil stratum throughout is medium sand. The average
corrected N value along the pile shaft is 20, while that at the pile
tip is 25. There is no negative skin friction. Compute the number
of piles required by Limit State Method, assuming the spacing
of the piles is so provided in the pile cap as to achieve 100%
efficiency.
We compute the ultimate load carrying capacity of the pile
by Meyerhof method, adopted by IS 2911 (Part 1/Sec 3): 2010.
The calculation is tabulated below -
Calculation of Load Carrying Capacity of Driven precast Concrete
Pile based on Standard Penetration Test Data [IS 2911 (Part 1/Sec 3):
2010]: B-4 [Meyerhof Method]
No. Item Value Unit
Dia. of Pile (D) 0.40 m improbable”.
Length of pile penetration (Lb) 20 m
Cross sectional area of pile tip (Ap) 0.1256 m2
Surface area of pile shaft (As) 25.120 m2
A End Bearing Resistance of Pile Tip
Average N value at pile tip 25
End Bearing Resistance of Pile tip = 1256 kN
40*N*(Lb/D) *Ap, limited to 400*N*Ap
[B-4.1 of the Code read along with Foot note.]
B Frictional Resistance of Pile Shaft
Average N value along pile shaft (N’) 20
Frictional Resistance of Pile shaft = N’ As/0.50 1005 kN
[B-4.1 of the Code]
Factored (ultimate) load, ΣγiQ i = 8100 kN (given)
End Bearing Resistance of Pile tip = 1256 kN
Frictional Resistance of Pile shaft = 1005 kN
From Table 1(ii), Φg = 0.3 for both Side Resistance and End Bearing
[SPT-method (Meyerhof )]
[It can be noted that, for drilled shafts, Φg value is different for
Side Resistance and End Bearing]
62 CE&CR October 2021
As per equation (2), ΦgRug ≥ ΣγiQ i
If N is the total number of piles required,
(0.30 x 1256+0.30 x 1005) x N ≥ 8100, or N ≥ 11.94 Nos.
Provide 12 piles, with 6 piles each aligned in 2 rows in the pile cap.
Conclusion
For foundation design, the LRFD is a more rational method
than the ASD, in view of that, in the latter; all the uncertainties in
the variation of the design parameters are accounted for in a single
Factor of safety. In the LRFD, the uncertainties on load and material
resistance are taken care of in a more efficient manner, through the
Resistance Factors and the Load Factors.
In this context, the following annotations of Fred H. Kulhawy are
noteworthy:
“Engineering Judgment always plays a critical role in geotechnical
design process. In traditional geotechnical foundation design,
the risk of adverse performance has been controlled by an empirical
factor of safety at the design stage. However, this traditional design
approach does not ensure a consistent level of safety, because
the factor of safety is not well-defined, and its relationship to its
underlying uncertainties is ambiguous. To address this problem
in a more realistic fashion, an essential first step is to adopt limit
state design. The philosophy of limit states represents a logical
and systematic approach to the process of engineering design,
ensuring that the occurrence of limit states is sufficiently
Acknowledgement
The author expresses his sincere gratitude to the renowned
Authors Dr. H. J. Shah and Dr. N. Subramanian, for the valuable
suggestions offered by them to the draft of this article.
References
1. Braja M. Das and Nagaratnam Sivakugan: ‘Principles of Foundation
Engineering’ (9th Ed.).
2. Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) for Highway Bridge
Substructures (US Department of Transportation).
3. Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (4th Ed.).
4. National Cooperative Highway Research Program: Report-651,
Washington DC.
5. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (2017).
6. Jean-Louis Briaud: ‘Geotechnical Engineering - Unsaturated and Saturated
Soils’.
7. Fred H. Kulhawy and Kok-Kwang Phoon: ‘Engineering Judgement in the
Evolution from Deterministic to Reliability-based Foundation Design’.
8. Dr. N. Subramanian: ‘Design of Steel Structures – Limit State Method’.
9. IS 2911 (Part 1/Sec 3): 2010: IS Code on Driven Precast Concrete Piles.