Foundations in

Civil Engineering
Foundations in Civil Engineering
The John Hancock
Building in Boston
Storage tanks
Cable-stayed bridge
Offshore drilling platform
2/58
Foundations
o Emergence of Foundation Engineering

o Uncertainties

o Rationalism vs. Empiricism
3/58
Foundations
o Factors of Safety

o Building Codes

o Types of Foundations
4/58
Foundations
o Emergence of Foundation Engineering
Early foundation designs were based on precedent,
intuition and common sense

Empirical rules usually produced acceptable results
as long as they were applied to structures and soil
conditions similar to those encountered in the past

However, . . . the results were often disastrous
when builders extrapolated the rules to new
conditions
5/58
Foundations
o Emergence of Foundation Engineering
New methods of building construction began to appear
in the late 19
th
century

The introduction of steel and reinforced concrete led to
a transition away from rigid masonry structures to
more flexible rigid frame structures

New materials also permitted buildings to be taller and
heavier than before

Good sites became occupied, builders were forced to
consider sites with poorer soil conditions.
6/58
The Eiffel Tower in Paris
o Built in 1887 - 1889

o An excellent example of a new type of
structure in which old rules for
foundation no longer applies

o Adjacent to the Seine River and is
underlain by difficult soil conditions
(uncompacted fill and soft alluvial
soils)
7/58
The Eiffel Tower in Paris
o Piers for the nearby Alma bridge
(founded in this alluvium) had already
settled by 1 m.

o Eiffel devised a new way of exploring the
soils, which consisted of driving 200-mm
diameter pipe filled with compressed air.

o Eiffel placed the foundations for the two
legs furthest from the river on the
shallow but firm alluvial soils. The
bottom of these foundations were above
GWT
8/58
The Eiffel Tower in Paris
o He made the foundations for the
other two legs much deeper so they
too were founded on firm soils. This
required 12m - excavation below the
ground surface (6m below GWT).

o As a result of Eiffels diligence, the
foundations have supported the
tower for more than 100 years.
9/58
Some examples of foundation failure
Canada (Oct. 18, 1913)
Leaning Tower of Pisa,
Italy (Built 1173 1350)
Bridge failure due to ground
failure
10/58
Some examples of foundation failure
Definition
Panoramic view of the same warehouse with
widespread variable differential settlements
Large angular distortion leading to severe
damage to a warehouse 11/58
Foundations
As structures continued to become larger and
heavier, engineers continued to learn more about
foundation design and construction.

Instead of simply developing new empirical rules,
they began to investigate the behavior of foundations
and developed more rational methods of design thus
establishing the discipline of foundation engineering
12/58
Uncertainties
From an unknown structural engineer:
Structural engineering is the art and science of
molding materials we do not fully understand into
shapes we cannot precisely analyze to resist forces
we cannot accurately predict, all in such a way that
the society at large is given no reason to suspect
the extent of our ignorance
13/58
Uncertainties
o Limited knowledge of soil conditions

o Limitations in our understanding of the interaction
between a foundation and a soil

o Difficulty in the prediction of the actual service loads that
will act on the foundation

14/58
Rationalism vs. Empiricism
o Design methods include a mixture of rational and
empirical techniques

o Rational techniques are those developed from the
principles of physics and engineering sciences

o Empirical techniques are based primarily on experimental
data

o One of the keys to successful foundation engineering is to
understand this mix of rationalism, empiricism, the
strength and limitations of each, and how to apply them
to practical design problems

15/58
Factors of Safety
o In spite of the many uncertainties in foundation design and
analysis, the public expects the engineers to develop reliable
and economical designs in a timely and efficient manner.

o We compensate these uncertainties by using factors of
safety in our designs

o Q
ult
load that will lead to an ultimate state


o The ASD is based on the inequality
16/58
Factors of Safety
(modified after Vesic 1975)

Category

Typical structures

Observations
Soil Exploration
Thorough Limited
A Railway bridges
Warehouses
Blast furnaces
Retaining walls
Silos
Maximum design load
likely to occur often
Ultimate limit states with
disastrous
consequences
3 4
B Highway bridges
Light industrial and
public buildings
Maximum design load
may occur occasionally
Ultimate limit states with
serious consequences
2.5 3.5
C Apartment buildings
Office Buildings
Maximum design load
unlikely to occur often
2 3
17/58
Building Codes
o NSCP Buildings / Bridges

o UBC

o ACI, AISC, API

o AASHTO
18/58
Types of Foundations
19/58
Performance Requirements
o Design Loads

o Methods of Expression
Allowable Stress Design (ASD) / Working Stress Design
(WSD)
Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)

o Strength Requirements
Geotechnical strength Requirements
Structural strength Requirements
20/58
Performance Requirements
o Serviceability Requirements
Total Settlement

Differential Settlement
21/58
Performance Requirements
o Performance Requirements
Constructibility Requirements

Economic Requirements
22/58
Design Loads
o Dead loads (D) are those caused by the weight of the structure,
including permanently installed equipment.

o Live loads (L) are those caused by the intended use and occupancy.
These include loads from people, furniture, inventory, maintenance
activities, moveable partitions, moveable equipment, vehicles, and
other similar sources.

o Snow loads (S) and Rain loads (R) are a special type of live load
caused the accumulation of snow or rain. Sometimes rain loads
caused by ponding (the static accumulation of water on the roof)
are considered separately.

o Earth pressure loads (H) are caused by the weight and lateral
pressures from soil or rock, such as those acting on a retaining wall.
23/58
Design Loads
o Fluid loads (F) are those caused by fluids with well-defined
pressures and maximum heights, such as water in a storage tank.

o Earthquake loads (E) are the result of acceleration from
earthquakes

o Wind loads (W) are imparted by wind onto the structure.

o Self-straining loads (T) are those caused by temperature changes,
shrinkage, moisture changes, creep, differential settlement, and
other similar processes.

o Impact loads (I) are the result of vibratory, dynamic, and impact
effects. Impact loads from vessels are especially important in some
bridge and port facilities.
24/58
Design Loads
o Stream flow loads (SF) and ice loads (ICE) are caused by the action
of water and ice in bodies of water, and are especially important in
bridges, offshore drilling platforms, and port facilities.

o Centrifugal (CF) and braking loads (BF) are caused by the motion of
vehicles moving on the structure. Centrifugal forces occur when the
vehicle is turning, such as on a curved bridge, while braking forces
are those transmitted to the structure when a vehicle brakes.
25/58
Methods of Expression
Two methods of expressing and working with design
loads
o Allowable Stress Design (ASD) or Working Stress
Design Method

o Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)
26/58
Design Loads
ASD design load combinations [ANSI/ASCE 2.4.1]
o D
o D + L + F + H + T + (L
r
or S or R)
o D + L + (L
r
or S or R) + (W or E)
o D + (W or E)

Alternate method of evaluating wind and seismic loads
o 0.75[D + L + (L
r
or S or R) + (W or E)]
o 0.75[D + (W or E)]

27/58
Load and Resistance Factor Design
o aka Ultimate Strength Design method

o Applies load factors, g, most of which are greater
than one, to the nominal loads to obtain the
factored load , U.

o In the case of normal loads, the factored load P
U
is

=
1

+
2

+
28/58
Load and Resistance Factor Design
o applies a resistance factor, f (aka strength
reduction factor) to the ultimate capacity from a
strength limit analysis

o nearly all resistance factors are less than one

o Design must satisfy the following criteria
29/58
ACI Code
ACI 1999 defines the factored load as the largest of those
computed from the following equation [ACI 9.2]
o U = 1.4D + 1.7L
o U = 0.75(1.4D + 1.4T + 1.7L)
o U = 0.9D + 1.4F
o U = 1.4D + 1.7L + 1.7H
o U = 0.9D + 1.3W
o U = 0.9D + 1.43E
o U = 0.75(1.4D + 1.7L + 1.7W)
o U = 0.75(1.4D + 1.7L + 1.87E)
o U = 0.9D + 1.7H
o U = 1.4(D + T)
30/58
ANSI/AISC Code
ANSI/ASCE defines the factored load as the largest of those
computed from the following equation [ANSI/AISC 2.3.2]
o U = 1.4D
o U = 1.2(D + F + T) + 1.6(L + H ) + 0.5(L
r
or S or R)
o U = 1.2D + 1.6(L
r
or S or R) + (0.5L or 0.8W)
o U = 1.2D + 1.3W+ 0.5L + 0.5(L
r
or S or R)
o U = 1.2D + 1.0E + 0.5L + 0.2S
o U = 0.9D + (1.3W or 1.0E)
31/58
Load Factors
Loads AASHTO
(1998)
ACI
(2002)
AISC
(1994)
API
(1993)
MOT
(1992)
NRC
(1995)
Dead 1.25 1.95
(0.65 0.9)
1.2
(0.9)
1.2 1.4
(0.9)
1.1 1.3
(0.9)
1.1 1.5
(0.65 0.95)
1.25
(0.85)
Live 1.35 1.75 1.6 1.6 1.1 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.5
Wind 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.35 1.3 1.5
Seismic 1.0 1.4 1.0 0.9 1.3 1.0
Note: Values in parenthesis apply when the load effects tend to resist failure for a given load combination,
that is, when the loads have a beneficial effect.

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
ACI American Concrete Institute
AISC American Institute of Steel Construction
API American Petroleum Institute
MOT Ministry of Transportation (Canada)
NRC National Research Council (Canada)
32/58
Example Problem
A column carries the following vertical compressive loads; P
D
=
2100 kN downward, P
L
= 1400 kN downward, and P
W
= 600 kN
upward. Using the ASD load combinations, compute the design
normal load for use in foundation design.

The column described above will be supported by a group of
four steel H-pile foundations. These H-piles are similar to wide
flange beams, and are driven vertically into the ground. The
piles will be made of A36 steel (F
y
= 248 Mpa) and the allowable
compressive stress, F
a
, is 0.50F
y
. Considering only the stresses
in the steel, determine the required cross-sectional area of
each pile.

33/58
Example Problem
Solve the previous problem using LRFD with the ANSI /
ASCE load factors and a resistance factor of 0.70.

34/58
Reliability-based design (RBD)
o The key concept in RBD is risk

o Risk refers to the likelihood (or probability) that a
foundation system will fail to perform adequately.

o The safety margin S is defined as the difference
between capacity and demand
S = C D

o The criterion S = 0 defines the limit of acceptable
performance (a limit state).
35/58
Reliability-based design (RBD)
o The events S < 0 defines system failure.

o The probability of failure (P
f
) can be determined if
enough information is available about the
probability distribution of the capacity C and
Demand D.

o The reliability index b is defined as the number of
standard deviations of S between the mean, E[S]
and S = 0.
36/58
Reliability-based design (RBD)
The probability distribution of the safety margin S, which is
the difference between capacity C and demand D, and the
concepts of probability of failure P
f
and the reliability index
b.
o Mathematically



where s
S
is the standard
deviation of S and b is the
inverse coefficient of
variation of S.
37/58
Strength Requirements
Foundation soil must be strong enough to
support imposed loads
Once the design loads have been defined,
we need to develop foundation designs
that satisfy several performance
requirements

o Strength requirements intended to
avoid catastrophic failures
geotechnical requirements
structural strength requirements

o Serviceability requirements intended to
produce foundations that perform well
when subjected to service loads
38/58
Strength Requirements
A bearing capacity failure beneath a spread
footing foundation. The soil has failed in
shear, causing the foundation to collapse
o Geotechnical Strength requirements
address the ability of the soil or rock
to accept the loads imparted by the
foundation without failing.

geotechnical strength requirements is
satisfied by comparing shear stresses
with shear strengths and designing
accordingly

for spread footing foundations,
geotechnical strength is expressed as
the bearing capacity of the soil
39/58
Strength Requirements
o Structural Strength requirements
address the foundations structural integrity and its
ability to safely carry the applied loads.

structural strength analysis are conducted using either
ASD or LRFD methods
40/58
Seatwork
A proposed column has the following design loads:

EVEN COLUMNS:
Axial load: P
D
= 200 kN, P
L
= 170 kN, P
E
= 50 kN, P
W
= 60 kN (all compression)
Shear load: V
D
= 0 kN, V
L
= 0 kN, V
E
= 40 kN, V
W
= 48 kN

ODD COLUMNS:
Axial load: P
D
= 250 kN, P
L
= 150 kN, P
E
= 60 kN, P
W
= 40 kN (all compression)
Shear load: V
D
= 0 kN, V
L
= 0 kN, V
E
= 30 kN, V
W
= 58 kN

Compute the design axial and shear loads for foundation design using ASD.

Repeat the problem using LRFD with the ACI load factors.
41/58
Seatwork
EVEN COLUMNS:
A steel pile foundation with a cross-sectional area of 15.5 in
2
and F
y
=
50 k/in
2
is to carry axial compressive dead and live loads, of 300 and
200 k, respectively. Using LRFD with the ANSI / ASCE load factors and
a resistance factor of 0.75, determine whether this pile satisfies
structural strength requirements for axial compression.

ODD COLUMNS :
A steel pile foundation with a cross-sectional area of 20 in
2
and F
y
=
60 k/in
2
is to carry axial compressive dead and live loads, of 350 and
400 k, respectively. Using LRFD with the ANSI / ASCE load factors and
a resistance factor of 0.70, determine whether this pile satisfies
structural strength requirements for axial compression.

42/58
Serviceability Requirements
Foundation that satisfy strength requirements
will not collapse, but they still may not have
adequate performance.

Serviceability requirements are intended to
produce foundations that perform well when
subjected to service loads. These requirements
include:
settlement
heave
tilt
lateral movement
vibration
durability
Settlement must be within acceptable limits
43/58
Serviceability Requirements
Modes of settlement (a) uniform; (b)
tilting with no distortion; (c) distortion
o Settlement
the vertical downward movement of
foundations

zero settlement is ideal, but not an attainable
goal

the foundation engineer must answer the
following questions
how to determine the amount of tolerable
settlement
how to design the foundation to
accommodate this requirement
Total vs. Differential Settlement
45/58
The Leaning Tower of Pisa
Schematic cross-section of intervention by under-excavation
(elevation in meters)
Situation of the tower of Pisa in May 1993. 46/58
Total Settlement
Total settlement in a spread footing foundation
o Total Settlement, d
the change in foundation elevation from the
original unloaded position to the final loaded
position

some of the problems experienced during
excessive total settlements
connections with existing structures
utility lines
surface drainage
access
aesthetics
47/58
Total Settlement

Type of Structure
(in) (mm)
Office buildings 0.5 2.0 (1.0 is the
most common value)
12 50 (25 is the
most common value)

Heavy industrial buildings 1.0 3.0 25 75
Bridges 2.0 50
48/58
Total Settlement
49/58
Total Settlement
Total settlement in a spread footing foundation
50/58
Differential Settlement
o Differential Settlement, d
D
the difference in total settlement between two foundations
or between two points on a single foundation

some of the problems experienced during excessive total
settlements
cracks in walls
Jamming in doors and windows
poor aesthetics
if allowed to progress, it can threaten the integrity of the
structure
51/58
Differential Settlement
allowable differential settlement, d
a

d
a
= q
a
S
where
q
a
= allowable angular distortion
S = Column spacing (horizontal distance between
columns)
52/58
Type of Structure
Steel tanks 1/25
Bridges with simply-supported spans 1/125
Bridges with continuous spans 1/250
Building that are very tolerant of differential settlements, such as industrial
buildings with corrugated steel sliding and no sensitive interior finishes

1/250
Typical commercial and residential buildings 1/500
Overhead traveling crane rails 1/500
Buildings that are especially intolerant of differential settlement, such as those
with sensitive wall or floor finishes
1/1000
Machinery 1/1500
Buildings with unreinforced masonry load-bearing walls
1/2500
1/1250
53/58
Example Problem
A steel-frame office building has a column spacing of
20 ft. It is to be supported on spread footings founded
on a clayey soil. What are the allowable total and
differential settlements?

54/58
Seatwork
Even Columns:
A one-story steel warehouse building is to be built of structural steel.
The roof is to be supported by steel trusses that will span the entire
70 ft. width of the building and supported on columns adjacent to the
exterior walls. These trusses will be placed 24 ft on center. No
interior columns will be present. The walls will be made of corrugated
steel. There will not be any roll-up doors. Compute the allowable
total and differential settlements.

Odd Columns :
The grandstands for a minor league baseball stadium are to be built
of structural steel. The structural engineer plans to use a very wide
column spacing (25 m) to provide the best spectator visibility.
Compute the allowable and differential settlements.

55/58
Economic Requirements
Foundation designs are usually more conservative than
those in the superstructure for the following reasons:
o Assessments of the soil and rock conditions include considerable
uncertainty

o Foundations are not built with the same degree of precision as
the superstructure

o Structural materials (piles) may be damaged during installation

56/58
Economic Requirements
Foundation designs are usually more conservative than those in
the superstructure for the following reasons:
o Uncertainty in the nature and distribution of the load transfer
between foundation and the ground

o The consequences of a catastrophic failure are much greater

However gross over-conservatism is not warranted. This is also
a type of failure; the failure to produce an economical design.

Engineers must strive to achieve the optimum balance between
reliability (safety) and cost.
57/58
Summary
o The foundation engineer must determine the necessary
performance requirements before designing a foundation

o Foundations must support various types of loads

o Design loads may be expressed using the ASD or the LRFD.

o Strength requirements are those that are intended to avoid
catastrophic failure. There are two kinds: geotechnical
strength requirements and structural strength requirements

58/58
Summary
o Serviceability requirements are those intended to produce
foundations that perform well when subjected to the service
loads.

o Settlement is often the most important serviceability
requirement.

o Durability is another important serviceability requirement.
Foundations must be able to resist the various corrosive and
deteriorating agents in soil and water.
59/58
Summary
o Foundations must be buildable

o Foundation designs must be economical.
60/58