UPLIFT CAPACITY

SHALLOW FOUNDATION
Budijanto Widjaja, Ph.D
Universitas Katolik Parahyangan
 Definition of Ultimate Uplift Capacity
Qu
=
frictional resistance of soil along the failure surface
+
weight of soil in the failure zone and the foundation

In this case, foundation material and

soil have the same unit weight
Allowable Uplift Capacity
 SF = 2 – 2.5

Qu
Qall 
SF
Uplift Capacity Theory
A. Sand
1. Balla (1961)
2. Meyerhof and Adams (1968)
3. Vesic (1965)
4. Saeddy (1987)
B. Clay
1. General Uplift Capacity
2. Vesic (1971)
3. Meyerhoff (1973)
4. Das (1978)
5. Merifield, et.al (2003)
Balla’s Theory (Sand)
1. Based on model and field test in dense sand
2. Circular foundation (aa’ and bb’ = radius of circle)
3. Good for Df/B ≤ 5

Df
r
 
sin  45  
 2
  Df   Df 
Qu  D f   F1   ,
3
  F3   , 
  B   B 
Balla’s Theory (Sand)

Ultimate Uplift Capacity

  Df   Df 
Qu  D   F1   ,
3
f   F3   , 
  B   B 
Question
Consider a circular foundation in sand.
Calculate the ultimate uplift capacity!
1.5 m

Sand
 = 17.4 kN/m3
 = 35o
1.5 m (Circular)
 Meyerhoff and Adams’ Theory (Sand)
1. Continuous foundation
2. Consider:
1. Weight of soil and foundations
2. Passive force (Pp’) – ac and bc
3. d uses Caquot-Kerisel

2  1 
d   for    90   
3  2 
 1   2 
   90    to  90   
 3   3 
 Meyerhoff and Adams’ Theory (Sand)
1. W = Df B (assume unit weight of soil and concrete
are the same)
Ph ' 1 1
Pp '   K phD 2f
cosd 2 cosd
Ph’ = horizontal component of the passive force
Kph = passive earth pressure coefficient

F v 0
Qu  W  2 Pp ' sin d
Qu  W  2Pp ' cosd  tan d
Qu  W  2 Ph ' tan d
Qu  W  K phD 2f tan d
Meyerhoff and Adams’ Theory (Sand)

Ku tan   K ph tan d
where:
Ku = nominal uplift coefficient

Qu  W  K uD 2f tan 
Meyerhoff and Adams’ Theory (Sand)

Circular foundation Variation of m

with shape factor SF:

Qu  W  S F BD 2f K u tan 
2
 2
W  B Df 
4
 Df 
S F  1  m 
 B
Meyerhoff and Adams’ Theory (Sand)

Variation of m
Rectangular foundation
(BxL)with shape factor SF:
Qu  W  D 2f 2 S F B  L  B K u tan 
W  BLD f
 Df 
S F  1  m 
 B 
Vesic’s Theory (Sand)
Use theory of expansion of cavities

   
2

    For c = 0
D D
 A2 
f  
Qu  D f A1  A1  D f AFq
f
 B  B  where:
      A = area of foundation
 2   2    Fq = breakout factor
Vesic’s Theory (Sand)

Fq for circular foundations

Vesic’s Theory (Sand)
Fq for continuous foundations
 Saeddy’s Theory (Sand)
1. Failure surface  arc of
logaritmic spiral
2. During the fundation uplift, the
soil located above the achor
gradually becomes compacted
Qu  D f AFq  compacted

  1.044 Dr  0.44
where:
 = compaction factor
Dr = relative density of sand
Fq = breakout factor
Ultimate Uplift Capacity – General (Clay)

Qu  AD f  cu Fc 
where:
A = area of foundation
 = saturated unit weight of the soil
Fc = breakout factor
Vesic’s Theory (Clay)
1. Using analogy of the cavity
expansion
2. This theory is closer estimate
only for shallow foundation
embedded in softer clay (by
laboratory model test results)

Qu  AD f  cu Fc 
where:
A = area of foundation
 = saturated unit weight of the soil
Fc = breakout factor
Vesic’s Theory (Clay)
Shallow Deep
foundation foundation
Question
 A circular foundations in saturated clay
 Estimate the ultimate uplift capacity!
1.8 m

Clay
 = 18.9 kN/m3
cu = 5.2 kPa
1.5 m (Circular)
 Meyerhoff’s Theory (Clay)
• Using experimental results

Qu  AD f  cu Fc 

Circular and square foundations: Strip foundations:

 Df   Df 
Fc  1.2   9 Fc  0.6   8
 B  B
 Df   Df 
   7.5    13.5
 B  cr  B cr
Das’ Theory
Modifications to Meyerhoff’s Theory (Clay)
Rectangular and square/square footings
Step:
1. Determine parameter cu
2. Determine critical embedment ratio
Circular and square foundations:
 Df 
   0.107 cu  2.5  7
 B cr  S
Rectangular foundations:

 Df   Df    L   Df 
     0.73  0.27   1.55 
 B cr  R  B cr  S   B   B cr  S
Das’ Theory
Modifications to Meyerhoff’s Theory (Clay)
3. Determine Df/B ratio

4. Determine foundation type

Shallow foundation Deep foundation
Df  Df  Df  Df 
     
B  B cr B  B cr


Qu  A  ' Fc cu  D f
*
 
Qu  A Fc cu  D f
*

B
Fc  Fc  7.56  1.44 
*

L
Das’ Theory
Modifications to Meyerhoff’s Theory (Clay)

Df
' B
 Df 
 
 B cr

Plot of ’ versus ’
Merifield et al. - 3D Lower Bound Solution
(Clay)
Finite element formulation
Step:
1. Determine breakout factor in
homogenous soil with no unit
weight (=0)
Fc = Fco
2. Determine breakout factor in
homogenous soil with unit
weight (0)

D f
Fc  Fc  Fco 
cu
3. Critical breakout factor
Fc  12.56 for circular foundation s
*

Fc  Fc
*
 Shallow foundation
Fc  11.9 for square foundation s
*

Fc  11.9 for strip foundation s with L/B  10 Fc  Fc

* *
 Deep foundation
Merifield et al. - 3D Lower Bound Solution
(Clay)

Qu  Acu Fc  Shallow foundation

Qu  Acu Fc
*
 Deep foundation