SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

Francisco J. Grajales S., Ph.D.

School of Civil Engineering

1ST SEMESTER, 2020

 Types of Foundations
• Shallow Foundations

COMBINED FOOTING ISOLATED FOOTINGS

Instructor: F. Grajales, Ph.D. Slide 2

 Types of Foundations
• Shallow Foundations

MAT FOUNDATION

Instructor: F. Grajales, Ph.D. Slide 3

 Types of Foundations
• Deep Foundations

Source: Das (2011)

Instructor: F. Grajales, Ph.D. Slide 4

 Types of Foundations
• Deep Foundations

Source: Lange (2018)

Instructor: F. Grajales, Ph.D. Slide 5

 Types of Foundations
• New Concepts

Source: Jean-Louis Briaud (2013)

Instructor: F. Grajales, Ph.D. Slide 6

 Shallow Foundations
• Types of shallow foundations

Isolated Spread Footing Strip Spread Footing Combined Spread Footing

Instructor: F. Grajales, Ph.D. Slide 7

 Shallow Foundations
• Types of shallow foundations

Retaining Walls Mat Foundation

Instructor: F. Grajales, Ph.D. Slide 8

 Shallow Foundations
• Types of shallow foundations

Bridge Abutment

Instructor: F. Grajales, Ph.D. Slide 9

 Shallow Foundations
• Types of shallow foundations

Bridge Abutment

Instructor: F. Grajales, Ph.D. Slide 10

 Types of Foundations
• Types of shallow foundations

Bridge Abutment

Instructor: F. Grajales, Ph.D. Slide 11

 Shallow Foundations
• General Design Considerations

• In most cases, spread footings are the most economical foundation

type if they do not have to be installed deeply into the ground. At
some limiting depth, a “shallow” foundation begins to behave like
and have the associated construction needs of a “deep” foundation.
This limiting depth is somewhat arbitrary.

Instructor: F. Grajales, Ph.D. Slide 12

 Shallow Foundations
• General Design Considerations

• The decision to use a shallow foundation for support of a structure

includes checking that an adequate margin of safety is provided
against failure of the ground below the bearing depth (bearing
capacity failure), and checking that deformations (settlement) under
expected loading conditions will be acceptable.

• If the foundation can meet these fundamental design requirements, it

also must be constructible.

Instructor: F. Grajales, Ph.D. Slide 13

 Shallow Foundations
• Design Considerations – Cohesionless Soils
• Granular, or cohesionless, soils are generally more suited to support
of shallow foundations than cohesive soils, particularly when a
foundation is supported on a structural fill.
• Cohesionless soils tend to be less prone to settlement under applied
loads.
• Settlement of cohesionless soils generally occurs rapidly, as loads
are applied.

Gravel Sand

Instructor: F. Grajales, Ph.D. Slide 14

 Shallow Foundations
• Design Considerations – Cohesive Soils
• Normally consolidated cohesive soils (clays) will experience
consolidation settlement when subjected to an increase in stress such
as that applied by a shallow foundation.
• Normally consolidated cohesive soils may also exhibit relatively low
shear strength when loaded rapidly. This is an undrained loading
condition.
• Heavily over-consolidated cohesive soils with OCR’s greater than
about 3 or 4 represent the most suitable cohesive soil conditions for
consideration of support of shallow foundations.

Instructor: F. Grajales, Ph.D. Slide 15

 Shallow Foundations
• Additional Design Considerations
• Water table close to or above the foundation bearing elevation.
Saturated ground conditions will result in reduced effective stresses
in the soils supporting the footing and in an associated reduction in
the bearing capacity of the soil.

Instructor: F. Grajales, Ph.D. Slide 16

 Shallow Foundations
• Additional Design Considerations
• Steep slopes near the bearing elevation of a footing. An adequate
factor of safety with respect to global stability must be maintained
over the life of the structure

Instructor: F. Grajales, Ph.D. Slide 17

 Shallow Foundations
• Additional Design Considerations
• Presence of collapsible soils. Collapsible soils are generally stable
when dry, but upon wetting or saturation, rapid settlement (collapse)
can occur that could exceed the performance (settlement) criteria for
the structure.

Instructor: F. Grajales, Ph.D. Slide 18

 Shallow Foundations
• Additional Design Considerations
• Presence of seismic hazards. Seismic hazards, including
liquefaction potential under seismic conditions, should be evaluated.
If liquefaction is possible, the dynamic stability of the footing should
be checked and the potential for dynamic settlement assessed.

Instructor: F. Grajales, Ph.D. Slide 19

 Shallow Foundations
• Additional Design Considerations
• Scour. Excessive removal of the material around a shallow
foundation or undermining of a footing can cause excessive
deformation or structure collapse. Foundations for bridges and
structures located near rivers, channels and in floodplains should be
located below the limits of scour.

Instructor: F. Grajales, Ph.D. Slide 20

 Shallow Foundations
• Two main design checks:

Can the soil beneath the foundation resist the

Capacity stresses imposed by structural and non-
structural loads?

Is soil deformation (i.e. settlement) well

Serviceability controlled in such a way that functionality of
the building or facility is not compromised?

Instructor: F. Grajales, Ph.D. Slide 21

 Shallow Foundations
The design of shallow foundations involves calculating an
allowable bearing pressure that will (a) maintain an adequate
factor of safety relative to shear failure of the bearing soil,
and (b) limit the settlement of the foundation to meet
serviceability requirements.
The allowable bearing capacity of a shallow foundation is
defined as the lesser of:
• The pressure that will result in a shear failure divided by a
suitable factor of safety (FS), or
• The pressure that results in a specified limiting amount of
settlement.

Instructor: F. Grajales, Ph.D. Slide 22

 Terzaghi´s Bearing Capacity Equation
Karl Terzaghi (1883-1963) ➔ “Father of Soil Mechanics”

Instructor: F. Grajales, Ph.D. Slide 23

 Terzaghi´s Bearing Capacity Equation
Terzaghi’s 1925 book Erdbaumechanik included this illustration of a consolidometer,
which is a laboratory device for measuring the settlement of soils. Terzaghi used devices
like this to develop his theory of consolidation, which we will discuss in this class.

Instructor: F. Grajales, Ph.D. Slide 24

Terzaghi´s Bearing Capacity Equation

Instructor: F. Grajales, Ph.D. Slide 25

Terzaghi´s Bearing Capacity Equation

Instructor: F. Grajales, Ph.D. Slide 26

Terzaghi´s Bearing Capacity Equation

Instructor: F. Grajales, Ph.D. Slide 27

 Terzaghi´s Bearing Capacity Equation
• ASSUMPTIONS
1) Depth of the footing is less than or equal to its width (Df ≤ B)
2) No sliding between soil and footing
3) Soil beneath footing is homogeneous and semi-infinite
4) Shear strength ➔ s = c´+ σ´tanϕ´

Instructor: F. Grajales, Ph.D. Slide 28

 Terzaghi´s Bearing Capacity Equation
• ASSUMPTIONS
5) Shear failure governs
6) No consolidation occurs
7) Footing is very rigid in comparison to the soil
8) Soil above foundation has no shear strength ➔ Only surcharge
9) Load applied vertically through the centroid of the footing

Instructor: F. Grajales, Ph.D. Slide 29

 Terzaghi´s Bearing Capacity Equation
• DERIVATION

Instructor: F. Grajales, Ph.D. Slide 30

 Terzaghi´s Bearing Capacity Equation
• EQUATIONS

Continuous Footings
𝑞𝑢 = 𝑐´𝑁𝑐 + 𝜎𝑧𝐷 𝑁𝑞 + 0.5𝛾´𝐵𝑁𝛾

Square Footings
𝑞𝑢 = 1.3𝑐´𝑁𝑐 + 𝜎𝑧𝐷 𝑁𝑞 + 0.4𝛾´𝐵𝑁𝛾

Circular Footings
𝑞𝑢 = 1.3𝑐´𝑁𝑐 + 𝜎𝑧𝐷 𝑁𝑞 + 0.3𝛾´𝐵𝑁𝛾

Instructor: F. Grajales, Ph.D. Slide 31

 Terzaghi´s Bearing Capacity Equation
• EQUATIONS

Where:
c´ ➔ Effective cohesion
σ´zD ➔ Effective stress at a depth D below ground surface
γ´ ➔ Submerged unit weight
B ➔ Foundation base or diameter
Nc
Nq Bearing capacity factors (See table on next slide)
Nγ

Instructor: F. Grajales, Ph.D. Slide 32

Terzaghi´s Bearing Capacity Equation

Original Graph (Terzaghi, 1943)

Instructor: F. Grajales, Ph.D. Slide 33
 Terzaghi´s Bearing Capacity Equation
• Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Factors

Instructor: F. Grajales, Ph.D. Slide 34

 General Bearing Capacity Equation
• Contributors apart from K. Terzaghi

Alec Skempton Geoffrey Meyerhof

1951 1951, 1953, 1963
J. Brinch Hansen Aleksandar Vesić
1961, 1970 1973, 1975

Instructor: F. Grajales, Ph.D. Slide 35

 General Bearing Capacity Equation
Vesić’s Approach
′
𝑞𝑢 = 𝑐´𝑁𝑐 (𝑠𝑐 𝑑𝑐 𝑖𝑐 𝑏𝑐 𝑔𝑐 ) + 𝜎𝑧𝐷 𝑁𝑞 (𝑠𝑞 𝑑𝑞 𝑖𝑞 𝑏𝑞 𝑔𝑞 ) + 0.5𝛾´𝐵𝑁𝛾 (𝑠𝛾 𝑑𝛾 𝑖𝛾 𝑏𝛾 𝑔𝛾 )

Where:
c’ ➔ cohesion
σ´zD ➔ effective stress at the bottom of the foundation
γ ➔ unit weight
B ➔ foundation width

Nc ,Nq ,Ng ➔ Bearing capacity factors (𝑖𝑐 , 𝑖𝑞 , 𝑖𝛾 ) ➔ Load inclination factors

(𝑠𝑐 , 𝑠𝑞 , 𝑠𝛾 ) ➔ Shape factors (𝑏𝑐 , 𝑏𝑞 , 𝑏𝛾 ) ➔ Base inclination factors

(𝑑𝑐 , 𝑑𝑞 , 𝑑𝛾 ) ➔ Depth factors (𝑔𝑐 , 𝑔𝑞 , 𝑔𝛾 ) ➔ Ground inclination factors

Instructor: F. Grajales, Ph.D. Slide 36

 General Bearing Capacity Equation
Vesić’s Approach - Bearing Capacity Factors

f' p tanf '

Nq = tan (45+
2
)e
2

Ng = 2(Nq +1)tanf '

Nc = (Nq -1)cot f '

Instructor: F. Grajales, Ph.D. Slide 37

General Bearing Capacity Equation
Vesić’s Approach - Geometry

Instructor: F. Grajales, Ph.D. Slide 38

 General Bearing Capacity Equation
Vesić’s Approach
Shape Factors Depth Factors
𝐵 𝑁𝑞 𝑑𝑐 = 1 + 0.4𝑘
𝑠𝑐 = 1 +
𝐿 𝑁𝑐
𝑑𝑞 = 1 + 2𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜙′ 1 − 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜙′ 2 𝑘
𝐵
𝑠𝑞 = 1 + 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜙′
𝐿 𝑑𝛾 = 1

𝐵
𝑠𝛾 = 1 − 0.4 Where k is a factor defined as follows:
𝐿
𝑘 = 𝐷ൗ𝐵 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝐷ൗ ≤ 1
𝐵
For strip (continuous) footings
all shape factors are taken as: 𝑘 = 𝑡𝑎𝑛−1 𝐷ൗ𝐵 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝐷ൗ > 1
𝐵
𝑠𝑐 = 𝑠𝑞 = 𝑠𝛾 = 1 NOTE: k must be used in radians

Instructor: F. Grajales, Ph.D. Slide 39

 General Bearing Capacity Equation
Vesić’s Approach - Load Inclination Factors
For loads inclined in 2 + 𝐵/𝐿
𝑉
𝑚 𝑚 = 𝑚𝐵 =
the B-direction: 1 + 𝐵/𝐿
𝑖𝑞 = 1 − ≥1
𝑁 + 𝐴𝑓 𝑐𝑎 𝑐𝑜𝑡𝜙′
For loads inclined in 2 + 𝐿/𝐵
𝑉
𝑚+1 the “L-direction”: 𝑚 = 𝑚𝐿 =
1 + 𝐿/𝐵
𝑖𝛾 = 1 − ≥1
𝑁 + 𝐴𝑓 𝑐𝑎 𝑐𝑜𝑡𝜙′
For loads inclined in 2
both L and B directions: 𝑚= 𝑚𝐵2 + 𝑚𝐿2
𝑚𝑉
𝑖𝑐 = 1 − for 𝜙′ = 0
𝐴𝑐𝑎 𝑁𝑐 N = applied normal load
1 − 𝑖𝑞 V = applied shear load
𝑖𝑐 = 𝑖𝑞 − for 𝜙′ > 0 A = base area of footing
𝑁𝑐 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜙′
ca = base adhesion (≈ 0.7c’)
If the load acts perpendicular to the c’ = effective cohesion
base of the footing the i factors are ϕ’ = effective friction angle
equal to 1 and may be neglected from B = footing width
the equation. L = footing length
𝑖𝑐 = 𝑖𝑞 = 𝑖𝛾 = 1
Instructor: F. Grajales, Ph.D. Slide 40
 General Bearing Capacity Equation
Vesić’s Approach

Ground Inclination Factors Base Inclination Factors

𝛽 𝜂
𝑔𝑐 = for 𝜙′ = 0 𝑏𝑐 = for 𝜙′ = 0
5.14 5.14

1 − 𝑖𝑞 2𝜂
𝑔𝑐 = 𝑖𝑞 − for 𝜙>0 𝑏𝑐 = 1 − for 𝜙>0
5.14𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜙 5.14𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜙

2 2
𝑔𝑞 = 𝑔𝛾 = 1 − 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝛽 𝑏𝑞 = 𝑏𝛾 = 1 − 𝜂𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜙

The angle β has to be measured The angle η has to be measured

clockwise from the horizontal counter-clockwise from the
and introduced in radians. horizontal and introduced in
radians.

Instructor: F. Grajales, Ph.D. Slide 41

 General Bearing Capacity Equation
Meyerhof’s Approach
′
𝑞𝑢 = 𝑐´𝑁𝑐 (𝑠𝑐 𝑑𝑐 ) + 𝜎𝑧𝐷 𝑁𝑞 (𝑠𝑞 𝑑𝑞 ) + 0.5𝛾´𝐵𝑁𝛾 (𝑠𝛾 𝑑𝛾 ) ➔ for vertical load

′ ➔ for inclined load

𝑞𝑢 = 𝑐´𝑁𝑐 (𝑑𝑐 𝑖𝑐 ) + 𝜎𝑧𝐷 𝑁𝑞 (𝑑𝑞 𝑖𝑞 ) + 0.5𝛾´𝐵𝑁𝛾 (𝑑𝛾 𝑖𝛾 )

𝑁𝑞 = 𝑡𝑎𝑛2 45 + 𝜙′/2 𝑒 𝜋𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜙

𝑁𝑐 = 𝑁𝑞 − 1 𝑐𝑜𝑡𝜙

𝑁𝛾 = 𝑁𝑞 − 1 tan(1.4𝜙)

Instructor: F. Grajales, Ph.D. Slide 42

 General Bearing Capacity Equation
Meyerhof’s Approach
For any ϕ For ϕ > 0 For ϕ = 0
INCL. DEPTH SHAPE

𝐵 𝐵
𝑠𝑐 = 1 + 0.2𝐾𝑝 𝑠𝑞 = 𝑠𝛾 = 1 + 0.1𝐾𝑝 𝑠𝑞 = 𝑠𝛾 = 1
𝐿 𝐿

𝐷 𝐷
𝑑𝑐 = 1 + 0.2 𝐾𝑝 𝑑𝑞 = 𝑑𝛾 = 1 + 0.1 𝐾𝑝 𝑑𝑞 = 𝑑𝛾 = 1
𝐵 𝐵

2 2
𝜃° 𝜃°
𝑖𝑐 = 𝑖𝑞 = 1 − 𝑖𝛾 = 1 − 𝑖𝛾 = 0 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝜃 > 0
90° 𝜙°

Where:
Kp = tan2(45 + ϕ/2)
θ = Angle of resultant measured from vertical without a sign
If θ = 0, all the i factors = 1
Instructor: F. Grajales, Ph.D. Slide 43
Capacity from In-Situ Tests
Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

Courtesy of Prof. Paul Mayne, Ph.D.

Instructor: F. Grajales, Ph.D. Georgia Institute of Technology
Slide 44
Capacity from In-Situ Tests
Peck’s SPT Approach

Source: Lutenegger and DeGroot (1995)

Instructor: F. Grajales, Ph.D. Slide 45

 Capacity from In-Situ Tests
Meyerhof’s SPT Approach

For SI Imperial

B ≤ 4 ft 𝑁
𝑞𝑎 = 12𝑁𝑘𝑑 𝑞𝑎 = 𝑘
(B ≤ 1.22 m) 4 𝑑

B > 4 ft 2 2
𝐵 + 0.305 𝑁 𝐵+1
(B > 1.22 m) 𝑞𝑎 = 8𝑁 𝑘𝑑 𝑞𝑎 = 𝑘𝑑
𝐵 6 𝐵

qa in units of kips/ft2 for Imperial system and kN/m2 for SI

kd = 1 + 0.33(D/B) ≤ 1.33, as suggested by Meyerhof.

Instructor: F. Grajales, Ph.D. Slide 46

 Capacity from In-Situ Tests
Bowles’ SPT Approach

For SI Imperial

B ≤ 4 ft 𝑁
𝑞𝑎 = 20𝑁𝑘𝑑 𝑞𝑎 = 𝑘
(B ≤ 1.22 m) 2.5 𝑑

B > 4 ft 2 2
𝐵 + 0.305 𝑁 𝐵+1
(B > 1.22 m) 𝑞𝑎 = 12.5𝑁 𝑘𝑑 𝑞𝑎 = 𝑘𝑑
𝐵 4 𝐵

qa in units of kips/ft2 for Imperial system and kN/m2 for SI

kd = 1 + 0.33(D/B) ≤ 1.33, as suggested by Meyerhof.

Instructor: F. Grajales, Ph.D. Slide 47

Capacity from In-Situ Tests
Cone Penetration Test (CPT)

Courtesy of Prof. Paul Mayne, Ph.D.

Georgia Institute of Technology
Instructor: F. Grajales, Ph.D. Slide 48
Capacity from In-Situ Tests
NAVFAC CPT Approach

Instructor: F. Grajales, Ph.D. Slide 49

 Capacity from In-Situ Tests
Direct CPT Approach for SANDS
Schmertmann (1978)

Following conditions need to be met:

If B > 0.9m (3ft), embedment D ≥ 1.2m (4ft)
If B ≤ 0.9m (3ft), embedment D ≥ 0.45 + 0.5B [or D ≥ 1.5 + 0.5B] Source: Mayne (2007)

Instructor: F. Grajales, Ph.D. Slide 50

Capacity from In-Situ Tests
Direct CPT Approach for SANDS
Schmertmann (1978)

Source: Mayne (2007)

Instructor: F. Grajales, Ph.D. Slide 51

 Capacity from In-Situ Tests
Direct CPT Approach for CLAYS
Tand et al. (1986)
𝑞𝑢𝑙𝑡 − 𝜎𝑣𝑜
A parameter Rk is defined as: 𝑅𝑘 =
𝑞𝑡 − 𝜎𝑣𝑜

The parameter Rk is taken from the graph and depends on:

• The embedment ratio (D/B), where D is the depth of embedment and B is
the foundation width.
• Whether the clay beneath foundation is intact (upper curve) or fissurated
(lower curve).

𝑞𝑢𝑙𝑡 = 𝜎𝑣𝑜 + 𝑞𝑡 − 𝜎𝑣𝑜 𝑅𝑘

Source: Mayne (2007)

Instructor: F. Grajales, Ph.D. Slide 52

Capacity from In-Situ Tests
Direct CPT Approach for CLAYS
Tand et al. (1986)

Source: Mayne (2007)

Instructor: F. Grajales, Ph.D. Slide 53

Eccentrically Loaded Foundations

Source: Fang (1991)

Instructor: F. Grajales, Ph.D. Slide 54

Eccentrically Loaded Foundations

Source: Fang (1991)

Instructor: F. Grajales, Ph.D. Slide 55

Foundations on Sloping Ground

Source: Shields et al. (1990)

Instructor: F. Grajales, Ph.D. Slide 56

Foundations on Sloping Ground

Source: Shields et al. (1990)

Instructor: F. Grajales, Ph.D. Slide 57

Foundations on Sloping Ground

Source: Shields et al. (1990)

Instructor: F. Grajales, Ph.D. Slide 58

Foundations on Stratified Soils
Briaud’s Layered Soil Cases

Source: Briaud (2013)

Instructor: F. Grajales, Ph.D. Slide 59

 Settlement
Total Settlement: Stotal = Selastic + Sconsolidation + Screep
ELASTIC SETTLEMENT: General approach for settlement calculation

1. Determine the depth of influence, zi ≈ 2B

2. Divide depth into several layers (4 min), each being Hi thick.
3. Calculate initial effective stress σ’z0i @ the middle of each layer
4. Calculate increase in stress Δσ’zi due to load @ middle of each layer
5. Calculate effective stress @ middle of each layer after loading: σ’zi = σ’z0i + Δσ’zi
6. Obtain vertical strain εzi-initial @ middle of each layer before any load is applied
7. Obtain vertical strain εzi-final @ middle of each layer after application of load.
8. Calculate the compression ΔHi of each layer as: ΔHi = (εzi-final - εzi-initial ) Hi
9. Calculate the settlement as: ΔHTOT =Σ ΔHi

Instructor: F. Grajales, Ph.D. Slide 60

 Settlement
Approximate increase in vertical stress: 2:1 Method

Source: Briaud (2013)

Instructor: F. Grajales, Ph.D. Slide 61

 Settlement

CONSOLIDATION SETTLEMENT:
For Normally Consolidated Clays σ’0 + Δσ’ = σ’c

  '0 + '  H

Sc = Cc log   
  '0  1 + e0
For Over-consolidated Clays σ’0 + Δσ’  σ’c

  '0 + '  H

Sc = Cs log   
  '0  1 + e0
For Over-consolidated Clays σ’0 + Δσ’  σ’c

  'c  H   '0 + '  H

Sc = Cs log    + Cc log   
  '0  1 + e0   'c  1 + e0
Instructor: F. Grajales, Ph.D. Slide 62
 Settlement

CREEP SETTLEMENT:

e  t2  H
SS = H = C log  
1 + ep  t1  1 + e p

Where:
ep, is the void ratio at the end of the
primary consolidation
H, thickness of clay layer

Instructor: F. Grajales, Ph.D. Slide 63