Analysis and Design of

Foundations
Procedure for the choice of
foundation type
Assess function of structures, ex. Residential, public,
industrial, warehouses, etc.
Assess various loads transmitted to the foundation soil,
DL, LL, WL, EQL, moving and dynamic loads, etc.
Assess ground conditions
Level and fluctuations of ground water table
Assess other adverse conditions if any, swelling
pressure on the foundations in expansive soils, heave
pressures on the foundations in areas subjected to frost
heave, etc.
Assess the suitability of a particular type of foundation,
shallow or deep.
Shallow foundations
A structural system which can safely transfer loads from
superstructure to the subsoil at shallow depths
Depth of foundation (D
f
) is less than width of foundation
(B)
Majority of load is transferred through bearing (base
resistance)
Important design considerations
Bearing capacity
Ultimate load a soil can take just before complete failure (A good
design should eliminate the possibility of shear failure of supporting
soil)
Settlement
Total settlement below a footing, and
Differential settlement between two footings, must not exceed
tolerable limits.
Shallow foundation
Types of footing
Based on shape:
Square, circular, rectangular, etc.
In general, shape of column decides the shape of footing
Based on load-dispersion:
Spread footing
Strip footing or wall footing
Based on number of columns supported:
Isolated footing to support individual columns
Combined footing to support a row of columns or Individual
footings combined with a rigid beams called straps
Mat/Raft foundation to support more than one row of columns

Isolated footings
Continuous
or wall or
Strip footing
Pad footing
Spread footing
Combined footing
Raft or mat foundation
Requirements for a good
foundation
Properly located with respect to any future
influence which could adversely affect its
performance.
Must be stable or safe from failure
Must not settle or deflect sufficiently to damage
the structure or impair its usefulness.
Minimum depth for shallow
foundations
Decided considering:
Local erosion of soils due to flowing water
Underground defects such as root holes, cavities,
mine shafts, etc.
Unconsolidated filled-up soil
Adjacent structures, property lines, excavations and
future construction operations
Ground water table
Depth of frost action
Depth of volume change due to the presence of
expansive soils, etc.
New foundation adjacent to an
existing foundation
B
B
Limit for
horizontal
spacing in all
soils
45

30

New
footing
in soft
soils
New
footing in
average
soil
Limit for bottom of new footing
deeper than old footing
Bearing capacity
Bearing Capacity
Ultimate Bearing Pressure: It is the pressure at
which the foundation would fail in shear or
continue to settle.
Presumed Bearing Pressure: It is the pressure
with an adequate factor of safety ignoring factors
such as foundation width, degree of settlement,
etc.
Allowable Bearing Pressure: It is the pressure
which, having taken account of factors such as
settlement, water table, etc., will provide an
adequate factor of safety.

Bearing capacity failure of Silo
foundation (Vesic, 1975)
Methods that can be used to determine
capacity of soil to bear loads:
1. Historical / experience :
Building Codes specify allowable values according
to specific ground formations
2. Field loading tests
Plate loading tests for very large projects
3. Analytical solutions
Upper and lower bound solutions for special cases
4. Approximate solutions
Solutions for general cases
Bearing capacity
Presumed Allowable Bearing
Values under Static Loading
Presumed Allowable Bearing
Values under Static Loading
Source: BS 8004:1986
Interpretation of Bearing Capacity
from Load-Settlement Data
Plate load test
Bearing capacity
q
uf
=q
up
(clays) [where f= footing; p=plate]
For |=0, the third term in bearing equation (since N

is
zero) is zero (BN

)
Bearing capacity will not be a function of width of
foundation, B.
Bearing capacity obtained from plate load test can be
used to represent bearing capacity of real footings.
q
uf
=q
up
*B
f
/B
p
(Sands)
Bearing capacity is underestimated using plate load
test in sands

Modes of bearing capacity failure (After Vesic, 1975)
(a) General Shear (b) Local shear (c) Punching shear
Modes of bearing capacity failure
Identification of type of shear failure
Relative density approach
The failure of real soils with weight,
cohesion and friction is a complex
phenomenon, not amenable to simple
theoretical solutions.
If simplifying assumptions are made, it is
possible to develop particular analytical
solutions.
Analytical solutions
Prandtl (1921):Penetration of a long hard metal
punch into softer materials. The material was
assumed weightless with cohesion and friction.
Solutions with | = 0 :
smooth punch : q
u
= 5.14c
rough punch : q
u
= 5.7c
Taylor (1948): Extended Prandtls work to
include surcharge effect of overburden soil at
foundation base
Classic analytical solutions
for weightless soils :
There is no rigorous mathematical solution
for a soil which contains cohesion, c, and
angle of friction, |, and weight, .
Empirical or numerical approaches must
be used to provide methods of estimating
bearing capacity in practical situations.
Numerical approaches include finite
element and boundary element methods
and would rarely be used in practice
*
Solutions for real soils
(Approximate)
Solution for soil with c, |, and D
f
> 0
Solution is based on superposition of 3
separate analytical cases:
Soil with | and c but = D
f
= 0 : q
u
= N
c
f(c)
Soil with | and D
f
but c = = 0 : q
u
= N
q
f(D
f
)
Soil with | and but c = D
f
= 0 : q
u
= N

.f()

Each case has a different failure surface,
so superposition is not theoretically valid.
Terzaghis approximate analysis
General shear failure as assumed
by Terzaghi (1943)
Zone I of elastic equilibrium
Zones II of radial shear state
Zones III of Rankine passive state
Assumptions of Terzaghi (1943)
The soil is semi-infinite, homogeneous and isotropic
The problem is two-dimensional
The base of footing is rough
The failure is general shear
The load is vertical and symmetrical
The ground surface is horizontal
The overburden pressure at foundation base level is equivalent to a
surcharge load q
o
=D
f
The principle of superposition is valid
Coulombs law is valid, s=c+otan|
Solution for c and | only soil
q
unet
= c.N
c
+ D
f
N
q
+ 0.5BN

Solution for D and | only soil
Solution for and | only soil
Terzaghis bearing capacity
Equation
B
q
u
= cN
c
+ D
f
N
q
+ 0.5BN

D
f
Generalized soil strength : c, |
(drainage as applicable)
Soil unit weight : (total or
effective as applicable)
Overburden
Failure Zone
Terzaghis bearing capacity
Equation
Bearing capacity
General Shear Failure
(Terzaghi, 1943)

BN N D cN q q f c
ult
5 . 0 + + =
( ) | cot 1 =
q c
N N
( )
( )
( ) 2 / 45 cos 2
2
2
tan 2 / 75 . 0
|
| | t
+
=

e
N
q
|
|
.
|

\
|
= 1
cos
tan
2
1
2
|
|

p
K
N
Bearing Capacity
General Shear Failure (Terzaghi)

BN N D cN q
q f c u
4 . 0 3 . 1 + + =
Square foundations:
Circular foundations:

BN N D cN q
q f c u
3 . 0 3 . 1 + + =
Differs from Terzaghi analysis particularly
for buried footings
soil above footing base provides not only
surcharge but also strength
more realistic i.e. less conservative compared
to Terzaghis results
q
u
= cN
c
s
c
d
c
i
c
+ qN
q
s
q
d
q
i
q
+ 0.5'BN

i

s, d, and i are shape, depth and load
inclination factors
Meyerhofs approximate analysis
General bearing capacity equation
Terzaghi (1943):Strip foundation, general
shear failure: extended to square, circular,
and rectangular shapes by introducing
shape factors.
Meyerhof (1963): presented a general
bearing capacity equation, which takes
into account the shape and inclination of
load
q
u
= cN
c
s
c
d
c
i
c
+ D
f
N
q
s
q
d
q
i
q
+ 0.5BN

i

General bearing capacity equation


s
c
,s
q
,s

=shape factors
d
c
,d
q
,d

=depth factors
i
c
,i
q
,i

=load inclination factors

Hansen (1970) extended the work of Meyerhof by including in the
above equation two more factors to take care of base tilt and
foundations on slopes.
Vesic (1973, 1974) used the same form of equation suggested by
Hansen.
Meyerhof, Hansen, and Vesic assumed smooth foundation base and
o=45+|/2 for deriving N
c
and N
q
factors, similar to the assumption
made by Prandtl, as against o=| assumed by Terzaghi.

q
u
= cN
c
s
c
d
c
i
c
+ D
f
N
q
s
q
d
q
i
q
+ 0.5BN

i

Bearing capacity
General Bearing Capacity
(Meyerhof, 1963)
( ) ( ) |

4 . 1 tan 1 =
q
N N
( )
|
.
|

\
|
+ =
2
45 tan tan exp
2
|
| t
q
N
( ) | cot 1 =
q c
N N
Shape factors
|
|
.
|

\
|
|
.
|

\
|
+ =
c
q
c
N
N
L
B
S 1
|
'
|
.
|

\
|
+ = tan 1
L
B
S
q
|
.
|

\
|
=
L
B
S 4 . 0 1

Based on extensive laboratory test results De Beer (1970)

presented the following empirical relations for shape factors:
Depth factor (Brinch Hansen,1970)
|
|
.
|

\
|
+ =
B
D
d
f
c
4 . 0 1
( )
B
D
d
f
q
2
sin 1 tan 2 1 | |
'

'
+ =
1 =

d
|
|
.
|

\
|
+ =

B
D
d
f
c
1
tan 4 . 0 1
( )
|
|
.
|

\
|
'

'
+ =

B
D
d
f
q
1
2
tan sin 1 tan 2 1 | |
1 =

d
For D
f
/B1: For D
f
/B>1:
|
|
.
|

\
|

B
D
f 1
tan is in radians where
Inclined Loads
Correction Factors, i
c
, i
q
and i

were
empirically determined from
experiments
i
c
= i
q
= (1-o/ 90)
2
i

= (1-o/|)
2

o with respect to vertical
q
u
= cN
c
s
c
d
c
i
c
g
c
b
c
+ qN
q
s
q
d
q
i
q
g
q
b
q
+
0.5'BN

b

N
c
,N
q
,N

: Meyerhof bearing capacity factors

s
c
,s
q
,s

: shape factors

d
c
,d
q
,d

: depth factors

i
c
,i
q
,i

: load inclination factors

g
c
,g
q
,g

: ground inclination factors

b
c
,b
q
,b

: base inclination factors

Analyses by Hansen & Vesic
Meyerhof, Hansen & Vesic
Meyerhof (1963)
N

=(N
q
-1)tan(1.4|)
Brinch Hansen (1970)
N

=1.5(N
q
-1)tan(|)
Vesic (1973,1974)
N

=2(N
q
+1)tan|

( )
|
.
|

\
|
+ =
=
|
|
2
45 tan
tan exp
2
|
| t
N
N N
q
( ) | cot 1 =
q c
N N
( )
|
.
|

\
|
+ =
=
|
|
2
45 tan
tan exp
2
|
| t
N
N N
q
where
Bearing Capacity
Local and punching shear failure
c c 67 . 0 =
| | tan 67 . 0 tan =
Bearing capacity of soil under local and punching shear failure
phenomena can be obtained using equations developed for
general shear failure, by changing the shear strength
parameters as:
Bearing capacity factors
Bearing capacity factors versus friction angle (AASHTO 1996),
based on Caquot and Kerisel (1948)
Effect of ground water table

Case I: The GWT is
located so that
0D
1
D
f
:
D
f
in the second term
of bearing capacity
equation is equal to
D
1
+(
sat
-
w
)D
2

Also, the in the last
term of the equation
is replaced by
=
sat
-
w
Surface Ground
Ground water Table
D
f
D
1
D
2
B
Assumption: No seepage
forces in the soil
Effect of ground water table

Case II: The GWT is
located so that
0dB:
D
f
in the second term
will not be altered
However, in the last
term of the equation
is replaced by

Surface Ground
Ground water table
D
f
d

B
( )
'
+
'
=
B
d
B

Assumption: No seepage
forces in the soil
Effect of ground water table

Case III: The GWT is
located so that dB:
The water table will
have no influence on
the bearing capacity
Surface Ground
Ground water table
D
f
d

B
B