Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A Comprehensive Analysis of Foundation Design Approaches: December 2022
A Comprehensive Analysis of Foundation Design Approaches: December 2022
net/publication/367561355
CITATIONS READS
0 33
1 author:
Samirsinh Parmar
Dharmsinh Desai University
27 PUBLICATIONS 4 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Samirsinh Parmar on 31 January 2023.
www.matjournals.com
www.matjournals.com
engineer to vary the factors applied based on his the LRFD method in geotechnical engineering
interpretation of variability. This was explicitly for foundations, earth retaining systems,
the case in earlier Swedish practice, for example. culverts, etc. Foye K.C.et al. (2006) [2] studied
A new approach, accepted by Eurocode methodology for the estimation of soil
7 (EC7), is "direct appraisal of design values," in parameters for the design of shallow foundations
which the designer consciously evaluates a value using the LRFD method as shown in Fig.1.
severe enough that a worse value is extremely Robert L.P. (2006) [3] published a special
unlikely to take place. It is not straightforward to edition, in which he discussed limit state design,
define this value, and EC7 resorts to as well as Christian J.T. (2007) [4], described
comparisons with factored values by saying "If LRFD for geotechnical engineering applications
design values of geotechnical actions are considering the probably based design to achieve
evaluated directly, the values of the partial more precise results to design geosystems.
factors suggested in [the code] should be utilized Schuppener B. et al. (2009) [5] proposed
as a guide to the requisite degree of safety". Eurocode 7 for geotechnical design codes for
Some further options available, not yet non – European Union countries. Kotadia R. and
adopted in standards of practice, could be to Malvania A. (2021) [6] made rationalization of
perform a reliability calculation, in which the the LRFD method for the estimation of the safe
failure probability is calculated, or an index for it bearing capacity of shallow footings. In their
such as the "reliability index". This is typically analysis, they proposed to use partial safety
accomplished by taking into account a stochastic factors instead of bearing capacity factors to
spread of parameter values, including some that derive SBC to incorporate shear failure criteria
are extremely severe. As a result, the intention in Eurocode 07-based design approach.
here is to allow for an acceptable range of severe Dodigovi´c, F.; Ivandi´c, K. (2021) [7]; studied
values. modified reality-based geotechnical design
methods.
REVIEW
www.matjournals.com
www.matjournals.com
The key points for ASD are: The analysis's inaccuracies and risks are not
In ASD, the loads and resistances are explicitly considered.
conclusive; such that, the dead load, live The various degrees of danger associated
load, earthquake load, and so forth are with various structures and their
assumed to be known a predetermined components are not explicitly considered.
during the design life of a system, and any The FS has no core principle; it is based on
variability is ignored. previous experience and decisions
All loads are considered equal and regarding existing structures' performance.
combined.
www.matjournals.com
When performing a geosystem analysis, it is a wind load. QEL is earthquake load, and QHL is
must to combine loads in such a way that they lateral loads due to earth pressures. Groundwater
have the greatest negative effect on the system. pressures or pressure from bulk materials, QFL is
Load combinations are often recommended by loads from fluids with well-defined pressures
codes for the worst-case scenario. Design for and maximum heights, QTL is loads due to
allowable stress. The following load temperature changes, and QRL is rain load. These
combinations are recommended by IBC (2006): load combinations apply only to structural
QDL + QFL components and must be used with extreme
QDL + QHL + QFL + QLL + QTL caution when applied to soils. Structural
QDL + QHL + QFL + (QRoL or QSL or QRL) components are examined as either linearly
QDL + QHL + QFL +0.75 (QLL + QTL) + elastic or linearly elastic-rigid plastic materials.
0.75(QRol or QSL or QRL) Nonlinearity exists in soils. The stress path is
QDL + QHL + QFL + (QWL or 0.7QEL) anisotropic, and stress-history dependent
QDL + QHL + QFL + 0.75(QWL or 0.7QEL) + materials, where the size and direction of
0.75QLL + 0.75(QRoL or QSL or QRL) loadings are critical. The positive sign in load
0.6QDL + QWL + QHL combination expressions should be read as load
components functioning concurrently rather than
0.6QDL + 0.7QEL + QHL
arithmetic addition.
Where QDL is dead load. QLL is live load. QRoL is
the roof load, and QSL is the snow load. QWL is
The responses at supports that rest on transferred to the pile head at the ground surface
foundations are estimated during structural in the case of pile foundations. Fig. 2 depicts a
design. These supports may not be visible from connection detail for a steel column to the
the ground. For shallow foundations, structural foundation. As indicated in Fig. 3a, the loads at
loads at the supports must be shifted to the the bottom of the column are a vertical-centric
foundation's base. The structural loads must be load, a clockwise moment, and a horizontal load.
www.matjournals.com
Fig. 3b depicts the equivalent loads at the because there are exceptions or alternate loads
footing's base for foundation design. Designers that should be considered.
should be conversant with the applicable codes
Figure 3: (a) Load at column base (b) Equivalent load at the column base.
Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) structure, the consequences of failure, and
to Satisfy ULS construction practice. LRFD is defined
mathematically as
The load and resistance factor design
(LRFD) examines the uncertainties of various ΣϕR Rult ≥ Σρi Qi (2)
loads and soil resistances using reliability theory.
Each load type is evaluated independently, with Where ФR is the performance or resistance
factors based on its uncertainty applied. The factor, Rult is the ultimate soil resistance, and ρ is
ultimate resistance provided by the soil is the magnitude of the nominal load (estimated
adjusted based on the uncertainty of the soil actual load) for load type i. Codes recommend
parameters (each parameter is treated various load and resistance factors. Table 2
separately), the sample and testing method, the compares the load factors in IBC (2006).
scope of the soil investigation, the analytical Eurocode 7 and the Canadian Foundation
method, the amount of risk associated with the Engineering Manual (CFEM) (1993).
www.matjournals.com
To produce the worst-case scenario, the loads 1.2QDL + 1.6QEL + f1 QLL+ f2QSL
are combined in specific ways. The following 0.9QDL + (1.0 QEL or 1.6QHL)
load combinations are recommended by IBC where:
(2006): f1 = 1 for floors in places of public assembly
The top values are maximums and the lower for live loads above 4.8 k Pa and parking garage
values are minimums. live load
1.4{QDL + QFL) = 0.5 for other live loads
1.2(QDL + QFL QTL) + 1.6(QLL + QH1) + f2 = 0.7 for roof configurations (such as saw
O.5{QRoL or QSL or QRL) tooth) that do not shed snow off the structure
1.2QDL + 1.6 (QRoL or QSL or QRL) + f1 (QLL = 0.5 for another roof configuration.
or 0.8QWL)
1 .2QDL + l .6QWL + f1QLL + 0.5 (QRoL or
QSL or QWL)
Because there is insufficient data to use In FSM or PFM. a factor (< 1) is applied to the
reliability theory effectively, current LRFD soil strength parameters rather than the
issues focus on resistance factors (also known as calculated soil resistance.
performance factors). As a result, resistance is
proposed using experience and judgment, as well ASD and LRFD to Satisfy SLS
as reliability theory and limited data sets. The
performance factors may change as more high- When calculating geosystem movements
quality field and laboratory test data becomes to satisfy the serviceability limit slate, a load
available. Furthermore, in reliability theory, the factor of one is used for all types of loads,
correct or expected value is assumed to be regardless of whether ASD or LRFD is used.
known a priori, which is not the case for soils. Meyerhof (1995) proposed a preliminary
An alternative method to LRFD called serviceability limit state for structure rotation
the factored strength method (FSM) or partial (Table 4).
factor method (PFM) is used in some countries.
www.matjournals.com
www.matjournals.com
connected with the structure merit involved any apparent concerns such as cracks,
analyses. differential settlement, and so on. This will
assist you in determining the scope of the
The Key Points are: soil research and the sort of geosystem that
may be necessary.
The allowable stress design approach does Prepare and carry out a soil investigation.
not explicitly account for uncertainty in Your preliminary assessments should assist
load and soil parameters. To reduce the you in determining the soil parameters to
possibility of failure, a factor of safety (an gather as well as the scope of the soil
arbitrary, subjective value based on inquiry. You must choose the soil
experience) is applied to the ultimate parameters that will be used in a design.
resistance. This is a crucial phase since the soil
The load and resistance factor design strength (friction angle and undrained shear
method take into account the uncertainties strength) and anti-deformation (elastic and
of the load and soil resistance. shear moduli) characteristics directly affect
LRFD is calibrated against ASD using the ultimate and serviceability limit states.
safety factors following good engineering Poor soil parameter estimation could lead to
practices. LRFD and ASD with the (a) an imperfect system: (b) failure-ultimate
appropriate safety factor should produce the limit state reached or exceeded: (c)
same design. structure failing to meet its design function-
serviceability limits state exceeded: and (d)
DETAIL PROCEDURE TO START WITH loss of property and life. Design the
THE BEST SUITABLE DESIGN geosystem to comply with the appropriate
APPROACH code of practice. For example. IBC (2006).
Remember that in executing your design
How can I begin a design? Here is a list of you should consider how the system would
potential answers to this question: be constructed.
Collect as much information about the Any value derived from computations
project as possible, such as its location, should not be regarded as an absolute value.
purpose, loads, importance, and Any computed value, such as settlement,
surrounding buildings. Environmental should instead be treated as an
consequences, cost projections, and so on. approximated expected value. You should
Go to the location and dig a few test pits or investigate what-if scenarios, paying
shallow borings. specific attention to the effects of soil
Preliminary investigations should be characteristics and groundwater conditions.
performed by utilizing existing geotechnical It is best to examine a range of predicted
data and the presumed soil parameters in expected values based on prior experience.
reference books, as well as those in codes Consider the consequences of the
or technical manuals. Consider a variety of conceivable range of variations in input soil
soil factors that you believe characterize characteristics instead of experience. For
your soil. For example, if the soil at the site instance, if the friction angle is uncertain,
is soft clay and you only have water content how would the design alter (system type,
data from the test pits, you can estimate geometry, constructability, and costs) if the
values of undrained shear strength and inaccuracy is ± 5°?
friction angle using empirical equations.
When you finish the preliminary analysis, SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
you should be able to limit your selection of
geosystems and appreciate the geosystem's The foundation design process is always
sensitivity to changes in soil values. If there a unique task as every geotechnical problem is
is a structure similar to the one you are unique; hence versatile solution for the adoption
planning on the site or nearby, you can run of the design approach is still difficult.
back analyses to obtain preliminary soil Optimization in the design process makes it
parameters and evaluate the structure for further complicated. A framework for the
www.matjournals.com
selection of the design approach has been 4. J.T. Christian (2007), “LRFD for
established. All the design approaches should be Geotechnical Applications”, [Online]
incorporated separately and never include two Available at:
different approaches into a single geosystem https://www.structuremag.org/?p=6036
design. The output values coming from different [Available at May 2007].
design approaches should be analyzed with 5. B. Schuppener, B. Simpson, R Frank, et al
conservativeness or non-conservativeness. For (2009). Eurocode 7 for geotechnical design
the LRFD method, the factors incorporated must – a model code for non-EU countries?. 17th
be studied and analyzed with reliability analysis. International Conference on Soil
The compatibility of resistance factors versus Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering,
load factors must be studied before implication (pp. 1132-1135). IOS Press, Available at:
in the design procedure. https://www.issmge.org/uploads/publication
s/1/21/STAL9781607500315-1132.pdf.
ABBREVIATIONS 6. R Kotadia, K. N. Sheth and A Malaviya
(2021), Rationalization of LRFD method
LS : Limit State for safe bearing capacity of shallow
ASD : Allowable Stress Design footings to incorporate the type of shear
ULS : Ultimate Limit State failure, In: Patel, S., Solanki, C.H., Reddy,
LRFD : Load and Resistance Factor K.R., Shukla, S.K. Editors. Proceedings of
Design the Indian Geotechnical Conference 2019.
CFEM : Canadian Foundation Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering,
Engineering Manual Springer; Singapore, 311-322, Available at:
AASHTO : American Association of State https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/9
Highway and Transportation 78-981-33-6346-5_27#citeas:~:text=DOI-
Officials ,https%3A//doi.org/10.1007/978%2D981%
IBC : International Building Code 2D33%2D6346%2D5_27,-Published.
FSM : Forced Strength Method 7. F Dodigović, K Ivandić, M-Saša Kovačević
PFM : Partial Factor Method and B Soldo (2021). Modified, reliability-
based robust geotechnical design method, in
REFERENCES accordance with Eurocode 7, Applied
Sciences, 11(18), Available at:
1. G Goble (1999), “Geotechnical Related https://doi.org/10.3390/app11188423.
Development and Implementation of Load 8. M Budhu (2008), Foundations and Earth
and Resistance Factor Design (LFRD) Retaining Structures, 1st Edition. Wiley,
Methods”, [Online] Available at: New Jersey, USA. ISBN-10: 0471470120,
https://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/nchrp Available at:
/nchrp_syn_276.pdf. https://www.amazon.com/Foundations-
2. K. C. Foye, R. Salgado and B. Scott (2006). Earth-Retaining-Structures-
Resistance factors for use in shallow Budhu/dp/0471470120.
foundation LRFD, Journal of Geotechnical 9. IS 6403:1981 (1998), “Indian Standard
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Code of Practice for Determination of
132(9), Available at: Breaking Capacity of Shallow
https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28 Foundations”, [Online] Available at:
ASCE%291090- https://civilengineer.co.in/wp-
0241%282006%29132%3A9%281208%29. content/uploads/2017/04/IS-6403-1981-
3. R L. Parsons, L Zhang, W Dong Guo, et al INDIAN-STANDARD-CODE-OF-
(2006). Foundation analysis and design: PRACTICE-FOR-DETERMINATION-OF-
Innovative methods. GeoShanghai BREAKING-CAPACITY-OF-SHALLOW-
International Conference. ASCE, Available FOUNDATIONS.pdf.
at: https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784408650.