Advanced Foundation Design - Exam

Study Guide

Table of Contents
• Topic 1: Theoretical and Conceptual Principles
• Topic 2: Shallow Foundation Width Design (Vertical, Lateral, Seismic)
• Topic 3: Shallow Foundation Width Design (Uplift/Tensile Resistance)
• Topic 4: Deep Foundation Bearing Capacity (Vertical Loading)
• Topic 5: Settlement of Deep Foundations (Clay)
• Topic 6: Lateral Resistance and Displacement of Deep Foundations

Topic 1: Theoretical and Conceptual

Principles
This section will cover the key theoretical concepts and principles underlying
advanced foundation design, drawing from the provided course materials. It will
include discussions on soil-structure interaction, failure modes, design principles
under various loading conditions (including seismic and uplift), and the distinct
behaviors of clay and sand.

Key Concepts from Chapter 1a: Basic Principles

This chapter introduces fundamental concepts crucial for understanding advanced
foundation design. These include:

Effective Stress

The principle of effective stress is a cornerstone of soil mechanics. It states that the
stress that controls the behavior of soils (like shear strength and compression) is the
effective stress (σ'), not the total stress (σ). Effective stress is the total stress minus
the pore water pressure (u).

• Total Stress (σ): The total force per unit area transmitted through the soil,
including both the solid particles and the water in the pores. For a soil element
at depth h, with unit weight γ, the total vertical stress is γh. If there are multiple
layers with different unit weights and thicknesses (h1, h2, ...) and potentially a
saturated layer (γ_sat), the total stress is calculated accordingly (e.g., γ1h1 +
γ_sath2).
• Pore Water Pressure (u): The pressure of the water held within the pores of
the soil. For hydrostatic conditions, u = γ_w * h_w, where γ_w is the unit weight
of water and h_w is the depth below the water table.
• Effective Stress (σ'): σ' = σ - u. This represents the stress carried by the soil
skeleton through inter-particle contacts.

Understanding effective stress is critical because changes in pore water pressure

directly impact the effective stress and, consequently, the soil's strength and
deformation characteristics.

Stress Distribution

Foundations apply loads to the soil, causing an increase in stress within the soil
mass. Understanding how these stresses are distributed is essential for predicting
settlements and checking bearing capacity.

• Initial (In-situ) Effective Stress: The effective stress existing in the ground
before any construction or loading.
• Additional Normal Stress due to Footing: When a footing applies a load, it
induces additional vertical and horizontal stresses in the soil beneath and
around it. These stresses decrease with depth and distance from the loaded
area. Various theories (e.g., Boussinesq, Westergaard) are used to estimate
these stress distributions for different loading conditions and soil types.

Shear Strength

The shear strength of a soil is its ability to resist shearing stresses. It is a critical
parameter in determining the bearing capacity of foundations and the stability of
slopes. The Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion is commonly used to define shear
strength (τf):

• τf = c + σf tan ϕ

◦ τf: Shear strength on the failure plane.

◦ c: Cohesion, which is the shear strength when the normal stress (σf) is
zero. It's significant in clays.
◦ σf: Normal stress on the failure plane at failure.
◦ ϕ: Angle of internal friction, representing the frictional resistance
between soil particles. It's the primary strength component in sands.

• For Sands (c' ≈ 0): τf = σ' tan ϕ'. The shear strength is primarily dependent on
the effective normal stress and the effective angle of internal friction.

• For Clays: Shear strength can be considered in terms of undrained shear

strength (su) for short-term conditions (undrained analysis, ϕu = 0, τf = su = cu)
or effective stress parameters (c', ϕ') for long-term conditions (drained
analysis).

The mineral composition of soil particles also influences their shear strength
characteristics.

Compressibility and Settlement

When soil is subjected to increased stress from a foundation, it deforms. This

deformation, primarily vertical, is known as settlement. Understanding soil
compressibility is key to predicting settlement.

• Types of Settlement:

◦ Immediate Settlement (Si): Occurs rapidly upon load application, due to

elastic deformation of the soil without volume change (especially in
clays) or volume change due to expulsion of air (in sands).
◦ Consolidation Settlement (Sc): A time-dependent process occurring in
saturated cohesive soils (clays and silts) due to the gradual expulsion of
pore water under sustained loading, leading to a decrease in void ratio
and volume.
◦ Secondary Compression/Creep (Ss): Occurs after primary consolidation
is complete, due to the plastic readjustment of soil particles under
constant effective stress. It's more significant in highly organic soils and
peats.
 • Total Settlement (St): St = Si + Sc + Ss

The ability of a soil to decrease in volume under load is its compressibility. This is
quantified by parameters like the compression index (Cc), recompression index (Cr),
and coefficient of volume compressibility (mv), typically determined from
oedometer (consolidation) tests.

Design Approaches

Two main design approaches are generally considered in foundation engineering:

1. Allowable Stress Design (ASD):

◦ The ultimate bearing capacity (q_ult) is divided by a Factor of Safety

(FOS) to get the allowable bearing capacity (q_all).
◦ q_all = q_ult / FOS
◦ A typical FOS is around 3, but it can vary based on soil conditions, site
investigation quality, and importance of the structure.
◦ The applied stress from the structure must be less than or equal to q_all.

2. Limit State Design (LSD) / Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD):

◦ This approach considers different limit states (e.g., ultimate limit state -
ULS, serviceability limit state - SLS).
◦ Loads are multiplied by load factors (e.g., Dead Load Factor a_DL = 1.4,
Live Load Factor a_LL = 1.7, though these can vary by code).
◦ Soil strength parameters (resistances) are divided by resistance factors
(e.g., Cohesion resistance factor Φ_c = 0.5, Friction angle resistance factor
Φ_ϕ = 0.8, also code-dependent).
◦ The design requirement is that the factored resistance must be greater
than or equal to the factored load effect.

Soil Investigation

Thorough soil investigation is paramount for a safe and economical foundation

design. Its objectives are to determine:

• Geological Regime: Nature and sequence of subsurface layers (stratigraphy).

• Geotechnical Model: Physical and mechanical properties of these layers (e.g.,
unit weight, shear strength parameters, compressibility parameters).
• Hydrogeological Regime: Groundwater conditions (e.g., depth of water table,
pore water pressures).
Engineering properties of in-situ soil depend on numerous factors including particle
packing, water/air content, stratigraphy, mineralogy, grain size/shape, pore size/
shape, organic content, pore water chemistry, and temperature.

Key Stages of Soil Investigation:

1. Review of Background Information: Project details, geological reports, soil

surveys, aerial photos, data from nearby existing structures, previous
geotechnical reports.
2. Field Reconnaissance: Site walkover, observation of surface conditions
(accessibility, geology, vegetation, slopes, drainage).
3. Field Exploration:
◦ Drilling: Augers (solid stem, hollow stem), rotary drilling (wash boring),
rock coring.
◦ Sampling: Disturbed samples (for classification, compaction tests) and
Undisturbed samples (Shelby tubes for soft soils, split spoon for stiffer
soils/sands; for shear strength, compressibility, permeability tests).
◦ In-situ Testing: Standard Penetration Test (SPT), Cone Penetration Test
(CPT/CPTu/SCPTu), Dilatometer Test (DMT), Pressuremeter Test (PMT),
Field Vane Test (FVT), Plate Load Test (PLT).
4. Laboratory Testing: Classification tests, density/consistency tests, seepage
tests, consolidation tests, shear strength tests (Direct Shear, Triaxial - UU, CU,
CD).
5. Geotechnical Interpretations and Analysis.
6. Report of Exploration: Including borehole logs, soil profiles, test results, and
recommendations.

Challenges in Soil Investigation: Uncertainty about conditions between boreholes.

Solutions include increasing borehole numbers, using local geological knowledge,
interpolation, employing a higher FOS, and incorporating monitoring during
construction.

Number, Spacing, and Depth of Borings: No strict rules, but depend on site size,
expected soil variability, type/size/criticality of the structure, accessibility, and
budget. Generally, more variable soils, heavier loads, and more critical structures
require more borings. At least one boring should ideally reach bedrock. Piezometers
are installed to monitor groundwater.

Field Tests Overview:

• Standard Penetration Test (SPT): Good for sands. Provides N-value,

correlated to soil density, friction angle, and bearing capacity.
 • Cone Penetration Test (CPT): Provides continuous readings of cone tip
resistance (qc) and sleeve friction (fs). Useful for soil profiling and estimating
strength/compressibility. Piezocone (CPTu) also measures pore pressure.
• Field Vane Test (FVT): Measures undrained shear strength (Su) of soft to firm
clays in-situ.
• Pressuremeter Test (PMT): Measures in-situ stress-strain properties of soil or
rock.

This foundational knowledge is essential before delving into specific design

calculations for shallow and deep foundations.

Topic 2: Shallow Foundation Width

Design (Vertical, Lateral, Seismic)
This section will focus on the design of shallow foundation widths in both clay and
sand, considering combined vertical and lateral loads, with a particular emphasis on
seismic conditions. It will cover bearing capacity, settlement, and stability analyses
under these complex loading scenarios.

Key Concepts from Chapter 2a: Ultimate Bearing

Capacity of Shallow Foundations
This chapter delves into the critical aspects of determining the ultimate bearing
capacity of shallow foundations, which is essential for designing their width to safely
support vertical, lateral, and seismic loads.

Criteria for Shallow Foundation Design

A proper shallow foundation design must satisfy three primary criteria:

1. Bearing Capacity: The foundation and the underlying soil/rock must be safe
against shear failure. The applied load must not cause the soil to collapse.
2. Settlement: Both total and differential settlements must be within tolerable
limits to maintain the structure's integrity and functionality.
3. Feasibility: The foundation solution must be technically and economically
feasible and practical to construct.
Ultimate Bearing Capacity (q_ult): The theoretical maximum pressure the soil can
withstand before failure. Allowable Bearing Capacity (q_all): The design pressure,
obtained by dividing q_ult by a Factor of Safety (FOS), or determined by settlement
criteria. q_all = q_ult / FOS.

Modes of Bearing Capacity Failure

Understanding how soil fails under a foundation is crucial. The primary modes are:

1. General Shear Failure: Characterized by a well-defined failure surface

extending to the ground surface, typically occurring in dense sands or stiff
clays. It involves significant bulging of the soil on the sides of the footing.
2. Local Shear Failure: Occurs in medium-dense sands or medium-stiff clays.
The failure surface is not as well-defined and doesn't extend fully to the ground
surface. Significant settlement and soil compression occur beneath the footing
before noticeable bulging.
3. Punching Shear Failure: Common in loose sands or soft clays, or when
foundations are at a considerable depth. The soil directly beneath the footing
compresses significantly, and the failure surfaces are primarily vertical or
inclined immediately around the perimeter of the footing, with minimal
bulging at the ground surface.

Terzaghi's Bearing Capacity Theory

Terzaghi (1943) provided one of the earliest comprehensive theories for the ultimate
bearing capacity of a strip footing. Key assumptions include:

• Shallow foundation (Depth D ≤ Width B).

• Rigid foundation with a rough base.
• Homogeneous, semi-infinite soil mass.
• General shear failure mode.
• Soil shear strength is defined by s = c' + σ' tan ϕ'.

The general formula is: q_ult = c'N_c + γ'DN_q + 0.5γ'BN_γ

Where: * c': effective cohesion * γ': effective unit weight of soil * D: depth of
foundation * B: width of foundation * N_c, N_q, N_γ: Terzaghi's bearing capacity
factors, which depend on the soil's effective friction angle (ϕ').
General Bearing Capacity Theory (Vesic, Meyerhof, Hansen)

Terzaghi's theory was extended by others (e.g., Meyerhof, Hansen, Vesic) to account
for various factors not included in the original formulation. Vesic's (1973, 1975)
general bearing capacity equation is widely used and incorporates correction
factors:

q_ult = c'N_c s_c d_c i_c b_c g_c + γ'DN_q s_q d_q i_q b_q g_q + 0.5γ'BN_γ s_γ
d_γ i_γ b_γ g_γ

Where: * N_c, N_q, N_γ: Bearing capacity factors (different formulations exist, e.g.,
Vesic's N_γ = 2(N_q + 1)tanϕ'). * N_q = e^(π tanϕ') tan²(45° + ϕ'/2) * N_c = (N_q - 1)
cotϕ' (for ϕ' > 0); N_c = 5.14 (for ϕ' = 0) * s_c, s_q, s_γ: Shape factors (account for
footing shapes other than strip, e.g., square, circular, rectangular). * s_c = 1 + (B'/L')
(N_q/N_c) * s_q = 1 + (B'/L')tanϕ' * s_γ = 1 - 0.4(B'/L') * (B', L' are effective width and
length, adjusted for eccentricity) * d_c, d_q, d_γ: Depth factors (account for the
shearing resistance of the soil above the foundation base). * d_c = 1 + 0.4k * d_q = 1 +
2k tanϕ'(1 - sinϕ')² * d_γ = 1 * k = D/B for D/B ≤ 1; k = tan⁻¹(D/B) for D/B > 1 (angles in
radians for tan⁻¹). * i_c, i_q, i_γ: Load inclination factors (for loads not acting
perpendicular to the base). * i_c = 1 - (mH) / (B'L'c'N_c) (for ϕ'=0, i_c = 1 - mH/(B'L'A_f
c_u) where A_f is footing area) * i_q = [1 - H / (V + B'L'c'cotϕ')]^m * i_γ = [1 - H / (V +
B'L'c'cotϕ')]^(m+1) * m = (2+x)/(1+x) where x = B'/L' if H is parallel to B', or x = L'/B' if H
is parallel to L'. V and H are vertical and horizontal load components. * b_c, b_q,
b_γ: Base inclination factors (for footings with an inclined base). * b_c = 1 - α / 147°
(α in degrees) * b_q = b_γ = (1 - α tanϕ' / 57°)² (α in degrees) * g_c, g_q, g_γ: Ground
inclination factors (for footings on or near slopes). * g_c = 1 - β / 147° (β in degrees) *
g_q = g_γ = (1 - tanβ)² (β in degrees)

Effect of Rate of Loading / Water Table Level

• Undrained Conditions (Rapid Loading in Clays): Use total stress parameters

(c = c_u, ϕ = ϕ_u = 0). N_c = 5.14, N_q = 1, N_γ = 0. Soil unit weight is bulk unit
weight (γ_bulk).
◦ q_ult = 5.14c_u s_c d_c i_c b_c g_c + γD s_q d_q i_q b_q g_q
◦ c_u should be representative of soil within 0.67B to B below foundation.
• Drained Conditions (Slow Loading in Clays, or Sands): Use effective stress
parameters (c', ϕ', γ'). The position of the Groundwater Table (GWT) affects γ':
◦ GWT at depth ≥ B below base: Use γ_bulk for both γ'D and 0.5γ'B terms.
◦ GWT at foundation base: Use γ_bulk for γ'D term, and γ_sub (submerged
unit weight, γ' = γ_sat - γ_w) for 0.5γ'B term.
 ◦ GWT between base and depth B below base: Use γ_bulk for γ'D term, and
an average effective unit weight for the 0.5γ'B term (e.g., weighted
average or γ' = γ_sub + (d_w/B)(γ_bulk - γ_sub) where d_w is depth of
GWT below base).
◦ GWT above foundation base (depth d_a above base): Use an effective
surcharge (q = γ_bulk(D-d_a) + γ_subd_a) for the γ'D term, and γ_sub for
0.5γ'B term.
◦ GWT at ground surface: Use γ_sub for both terms.

Footing Subjected to Eccentric or Moment Loading

When a footing is subjected to an eccentric vertical load or a combination of vertical

load and moments, the pressure distribution beneath the footing is non-uniform.
Meyerhof (1953) proposed the concept of effective width (B') and effective length
(L'):

• B' = B - 2e_B
• L' = L - 2e_L

Where e_B = M_L / V and e_L = M_B / V are eccentricities along the L and B axes,
respectively. (M_L is moment about L-axis, M_B is moment about B-axis, V is total
vertical load). These effective dimensions are then used in the bearing capacity
equations instead of B and L. The area used for bearing capacity is A' = B'L'. For the
foundation to be in full contact with the soil, eccentricities must be limited (e.g., e_B
≤ B/6, e_L ≤ L/6 for rectangular footings to avoid tension).

Bearing Capacity of Foundations in Layered Soils

When the soil profile consists of layers with different strengths within the influence
zone of the footing (typically 1B to 2B below the base), the bearing capacity is
affected.

Case I: Stronger Clay Layer Overlying Weaker Clay Layer (c_u1 / c_u2 > 1)
(Meyerhof and Hanna, 1978)

• q_ult = [1 + 0.2(B/L)] c_u2 N_c + (1 + B/L)(2c_aH/B) + γ1D

◦ This should be ≤ [1 + 0.2(B/L)] c_u1 N_c + γ1D
◦ c_a is adhesion along the punching shear surface (see provided charts,
Fig 5 in Ch2a).
◦ H is the thickness of the upper stronger layer.
Case II: Weaker Clay Layer Overlying Stronger Clay Layer (c_u1 / c_u2 < 1)

• q_ult = q_t + (q_b - q_t)(1 - H/B)² (for H/B < 1)

◦ This should be ≥ q_t
◦ q_t = [1 + 0.2(B/L)] c_u1 N_c + γ1D (capacity of top layer)
◦ q_b = [1 + 0.2(B/L)] c_u2 N_c + γ2D (capacity if founded on bottom layer,
using γ1D for surcharge from top layer if applicable, or γ2D if D is
measured into the second layer)
◦ Engineering judgment is crucial as this can be non-conservative.

For sand layers overlying clay or vice-versa, or multiple layers, more complex
analyses or numerical methods might be needed. Punching shear failure through
the upper layer and bearing capacity of the lower layer are often checked.

Bearing Capacity from In-Situ Tests

• Standard Penetration Test (SPT): For footings on sand, Parry (1977)

proposed:
◦ q_ult (MPa) = 0.24 N_F (D/B + 0.73) / (D/B + 0.75) (Note: original formula
might have slightly different constants or form, verify from source. The
provided text has (D+0.73B)/(D+0.75B) which is different. Let's use the
text's version: q_ult (MPa) = 0.24 N_F * [(D + 0.73B) / (D + 0.75B)]
◦ N_F is SPT N-value at 0.75B below foundation level. For D/B < 1, q_ult =
0.24 N_F.
• Cone Penetration Test (CPT): Schmertmann (1978) correlations (D/B ≤ 1.5):
◦ Footing on Sand:
▪ Strip: q_ult (ton/ft²) = 28 - 0.0052(300 - q_c)^1.5
▪ Square: q_ult (ton/ft²) = 48 - 0.009(300 - q_c)^1.5
◦ Footing on Clay:
▪ Strip: q_ult (ton/ft²) = 2 + 0.28q_c
▪ Square: q_ult (ton/ft²) = 5 + 0.34q_c
◦ (q_c in ton/ft². These are approximate and units must be consistent).
Lateral Load Capacity and Seismic Considerations

While Chapter 2a primarily focuses on vertical bearing capacity, the design for lateral
and seismic loads involves additional considerations:

• Sliding Resistance: The foundation must resist horizontal forces. Sliding

resistance (F_R) is typically calculated as:
◦ F_R = V' tanδ + c_a A_b
▪ V': Effective vertical load
▪ δ: Friction angle between foundation base and soil (often taken as a
fraction of ϕ', e.g., 2/3 ϕ' to ϕ')
▪ c_a: Adhesion between base and soil (for cohesive soils, often a
fraction of c_u)
▪ A_b: Base area of the foundation.
◦ Passive earth pressure on the side of the footing can also contribute to
lateral resistance, especially if the footing is embedded.
• Overturning Stability: Moments from lateral loads can cause overturning. The
stabilizing moment (from V' and self-weight) must be greater than the
overturning moment by an adequate factor of safety.
• Bearing Capacity under Inclined and Eccentric Loads: Seismic loads often
result in inclined and eccentric loading on the foundation. The general bearing
capacity equation with i_c, i_q, i_γ factors and effective area (B', L') concept is
used.
• Seismic Bearing Capacity Factors: Some design codes or researchers propose
modifications to bearing capacity factors (N_c, N_q, N_γ) or introduce specific
seismic bearing capacity factors (e.g., N_cE, N_qE, N_γE) to account for the
dynamic nature of seismic loading and its effect on soil strength (e.g., potential
for liquefaction in sands, or strength degradation in clays).
• Liquefaction Assessment: For foundations on saturated sandy soils, seismic
shaking can lead to liquefaction, causing a significant loss of bearing capacity.
This needs to be assessed, and if liquefaction is likely, ground improvement or
deep foundations may be necessary.
• Dynamic Soil Properties: For more rigorous seismic analysis, dynamic soil
properties (e.g., shear modulus, damping ratio) are needed, often determined
from field (e.g., seismic CPT, downhole/crosshole tests) or laboratory tests
(e.g., resonant column, cyclic triaxial).

(Further details on lateral load capacity for shallow foundations are mentioned in
Chapter 2b, page 27, and uplift capacity in Chapter 2b, pages 22-26, and Chapter
8Uplift Capacity of Shallow [Link]. These will be integrated as
appropriate.)
Topic 3: Shallow Foundation Width
Design (Uplift/Tensile Resistance)
This section will address the design of shallow foundations in clay or sand to resist
uplift (tensile) forces. It will cover the principles of uplift capacity, failure
mechanisms, and calculation methods based on the provided course materials.

Key Concepts from Chapter 2b and "8Uplift Capacity

of Shallow [Link]": Uplift/Tensile
Resistance
Shallow foundations may be subjected to uplift forces due to various reasons such
as wind loads on structures, hydrostatic pressure, or expansive soils. Designing for
uplift requires ensuring the foundation has sufficient resistance to prevent being
pulled out of the ground.

General Principles of Uplift Capacity (Q_u)

The ultimate uplift capacity of a shallow foundation generally consists of two main
components:

1. Weight of the foundation itself (W_f): The self-weight of the concrete footing.
2. Weight of the soil in the failure zone (W_s): The weight of the soil prism or
cone that is mobilized above the foundation during uplift.
3. Frictional or shear resistance along the failure surface (F_s): The resistance
developed along the sides of the mobilized soil mass or between the
foundation sides and the soil.

Q_u = W_f + W_s + F_s (This is a general conceptual formula; specific theories will
refine these components).

From "Chapter 2b CE660 Foundation [Link]" (page 22): * "Foundations and

other structures may be subjected to uplift forces under special circumstances. For
those foundations, during the design process it is desirable to apply sufficient factor
of safety against failure by uplift." * "Qu = frictional resistance of soil along the failure
surface + weight of soil in the failure zone and the foundation."
Uplift Capacity in Granular Soils (Sand)

Several theories have been developed to estimate the uplift capacity of foundations
in sand. The failure mechanism often involves a truncated cone or pyramid of soil
being pulled up with the foundation.

Key Factors Influencing Uplift Capacity in Sand:

• Embedment Depth (D_f): Deeper foundations generally have higher uplift

capacity.
• Foundation Width/Shape (B, L): Affects the volume of soil mobilized.
• Soil Density and Friction Angle (γ, ϕ"): Denser sands with higher friction
angles provide greater resistance.
• Presence of Water Table: Affects the effective unit weight of the soil.

**Common Theories/Methods (as indicated by the content in "8Uplift Capacity of

Shallow [Link]" and hinted at in Ch2b):

• Balla's Theory (1961):

◦ Assumes a failure surface that is an arc of a circle starting from the edge
of the foundation and extending to the ground surface.
◦ From "Chapter 2b CE660 Foundation [Link]" (page 23): "In general,
Balla’s theory is in good agreement with the uplift capacity of shallow
foundations embedded in dense sand at an embedment ratio of Df/B ≤
5. However for foundations located in loose and medium sand, the theory
overestimates the ultimate uplift capacity. The main reason Balla’s
theory overestimates the ultimate uplift capacity for Df/B > about 5 even
in dense sand is because it is essentially deep foundation condition, and
the failure surface does not extend to the ground surface."
◦ The theory involves complex calculations for the shape of the failure
surface and the forces involved.

• Meyerhof's Theory (1973):

◦ Provides equations for both shallow and deep anchors.

◦ For shallow circular foundations (D_f/B ≤ critical depth ratio, typically
around 2.5 to 7 depending on ϕ"), the uplift capacity can be estimated
considering the weight of soil in a truncated cone and side friction.
◦ Q_u = (π/2) B D_f² γ K_u tanϕ" + W_s + W_f
▪ K_u: Uplift coefficient (related to earth pressure coefficient).
 ▪ W_s: Weight of soil above the foundation (often approximated as a
cylinder or truncated cone).
◦ For D_f/B exceeding a critical value, it's considered a deep anchor, and
the failure mechanism changes.

• Vesic's Theory (1971):

◦ Based on cavity expansion theory.

◦ Q_u = A_b (c N_cu + γ D_f N_qu) + W_f (This is a general form, specific
uplift factors N_cu and N_qu for uplift would be used).
◦ More commonly, for uplift in sand (c=0): Q_u = A_b (γ D_f F_q) + W_f,
where F_q is an uplift capacity factor.

• Das's Method (and others mentioned in "8Uplift Capacity of Shallow

[Link]")

◦ The document "8Uplift Capacity of Shallow [Link]" likely

contains detailed formulations for various shapes (strip, circular,
rectangular) and conditions (e.g., presence of water table).
◦ General form for uplift in sand: Q_u = W_f + A_b * (Shape Factor * γ * D_f
* UpliftFactor_q + SideFrictionTerm)
◦ Breakout Factor (F_q or N_q(uplift)): This is a key parameter, often
presented in charts or tables as a function of D_f/B and ϕ".
◦ Shape Factors (s_u): To account for foundation geometry (e.g., s_u = 1
for strip, 1 + B/L for rectangular, specific values for circular).
◦ Side Resistance: For deeper footings, side friction along the vertical
shear surface can be significant. This might be expressed as: P * D_f *
(K_u * γ_avg * D_f/2 * tanδ), where P is perimeter.

From "Chapter 2b CE660 Foundation [Link]" (pages 24-26, figures related

to uplift capacity factors and failure surfaces): These pages likely show charts for
breakout factors (e.g., Meyerhof's F_q, Das's F_q) and illustrate assumed failure
surfaces (e.g., truncated cone/pyramid, curved surfaces).

Uplift Capacity in Cohesive Soils (Clay, ϕ_u = 0)

In saturated clays under undrained conditions (short-term loading), the uplift

capacity is primarily governed by the undrained shear strength (c_u) and the weight
of the soil and foundation.
Key Factors Influencing Uplift Capacity in Clay:

• Embedment Depth (D_f).

• Foundation Width/Shape (B, L).
• Undrained Shear Strength (c_u).
• Adhesion (c_a) between foundation sides and clay.

Common Theories/Methods:

• Total Stress Analysis (ϕ_u = 0 condition):

◦ Q_u = W_f + W_s + F_s

◦ W_s: Weight of the soil block directly above the footing (e.g., A_b * D_f *
γ).
◦ F_s: Shear resistance along the perimeter of the soil block being pulled
out.
▪ For a rectangular footing: F_s = 2(B+L) * D_f * c_u (assuming vertical
shear surface)
▪ Alternatively, an inclined shear surface might be assumed, leading
to a breakout factor approach.

• Meyerhof's Method (for clay):

◦ Q_u = A_b c_u N_cu + P D_f c_a + W_f

▪ N_cu: Uplift bearing capacity factor for cohesion (can be different
from compressive N_c).
▪ P: Perimeter of the foundation.
▪ c_a: Adhesion between foundation side and clay (often taken as
αc_u, where α is an adhesion factor).

• Das's Method (and others in "8Uplift Capacity of Shallow

[Link]")

◦ Often involves a breakout factor (F_c or N_c(uplift)) that depends on D_f/

B and foundation shape.
◦ Q_u = A_b (F_c c_u) + W_f + (Perimeter * D_f * c_a) (conceptual, actual
formulas may vary)
◦ For D_f/B > critical value, a cylindrical shear failure might be assumed for
the side resistance part.
Considerations for Uplift Design:

• Factor of Safety (FOS): A suitable FOS (typically 1.5 to 3, depending on

certainty of parameters and consequences of failure) must be applied to the
ultimate uplift capacity to get the allowable uplift resistance.
◦ Allowable Uplift (T_all) = Q_u / FOS
• Tension Cracks: In cohesive soils, tension cracks can develop near the surface
around the foundation, potentially reducing the effective area for shear
resistance. This is more critical for shallow embedment.
• Cyclic Loading: If uplift forces are cyclic (e.g., due to wind), the soil's resistance
might degrade over time. This requires special consideration.
• Group Effects: If multiple footings are closely spaced and subjected to uplift,
their individual capacities might be affected by group interaction.
• Water Table: The position of the water table will affect the effective weight of
the soil (W_s) and potentially the shear strength parameters if an effective
stress analysis is performed for long-term uplift in clays.

(Detailed formulas, charts for uplift factors (F_q, F_c), and specific failure
mechanisms for different D_f/B ratios and soil types would be extracted from
"8Uplift Capacity of Shallow [Link]" and the figures in Chapter 2b when
creating the final guide.)

Reference to "8Uplift Capacity of Shallow [Link]": This document is

expected to provide comprehensive coverage of: * Uplift capacity equations for strip,
circular, and rectangular foundations in both sand and clay. * Influence of D_f/B
ratio on failure mechanism (shallow vs. deep anchor behavior). * Charts and tables
for uplift capacity factors/breakout factors. * Effect of soil properties (ϕ", c_u, γ). *
Consideration of the water table. * Comparison of different theories and
experimental results.

This information will be crucial for populating this section with specific, actionable
formulas and design procedures.

Topic 4: Deep Foundation Bearing

Capacity (Vertical Loading)
This section will cover the analysis and design of deep foundations (piles) for
vertical compressive loads. It will include methods for determining the ultimate
bearing capacity of single piles and pile groups in various soil conditions (clay and
sand), considering both end bearing and skin friction components.

Key Concepts from Chapter 3b: Analysis and Design

of Pile Foundations for Vertical Loads
This chapter focuses on determining the axial capacity of single piles and pile
groups under vertical compressive loads. It covers static analysis methods, empirical
correlations, and considerations for different soil types.

Pile Foundation Design Stages

Effective pile foundation design involves several key stages: 1. Selection of pile type
and installation method. 2. Determination of pile size and number to ensure an
adequate factor of safety against failure (Ultimate Limit State - ULS). 3. Estimation of
foundation settlement (total and differential) under service loads to meet structural
tolerances (Serviceability Limit State - SLS). 4. Evaluation of performance under
lateral loads. 5. Evaluation of pile performance from load tests. 6. Consideration of
group action for axial and lateral loading.

Axial Capacity of Single Piles - Methods

Four main methods are used to evaluate ultimate axial compression load capacity:
1. Static Analysis: Utilizes soil strength parameters (theoretical capacity). 2.
Empirical Analysis: Uses correlations with standard field tests (SPT, CPT). 3.
Dynamic Driving Resistance: Based on driving formulas or wave equation analysis
(not detailed in this extract). 4. Full-Scale Pile Load Tests: Direct measurement of
pile capacity (covered in Chapter 3a).

This section will focus on Static Analysis and Empirical Analysis.

Static Analysis (Theoretical Capacity)

The ultimate axial compressive load ((Q_v)_ult) for a single pile is the sum of its
shaft resistance (Q_s) and base resistance (Q_b), minus the pile weight (W), though
W is often offset by the soil displaced by the pile tip or considered negligible for long
piles compared to Qs and Qb.
(Q_v)_ult = Q_s + Q_b - W

• Shaft Resistance (Q_s): Q_s = ∫ f_s C dz (from 0 to L)

◦ f_s: Ultimate skin friction per unit area of the shaft.
◦ C: Circumference of the pile.
◦ L: Embedded pile length.
• Base Resistance (Q_b): Q_b = f_b A_b
◦ f_b: Ultimate resistance of the pile base per unit area.
◦ A_b: Area of the pile base.

Unit Skin Friction (f_s): Based on the Coulomb expression: f_s = c_a + K_s σ'_v tan
δ * c_a: Pile-soil adhesion. * K_s: Coefficient of lateral earth pressure. * σ'_v:
Effective vertical stress at the point considered along the shaft. * δ: Pile-soil friction
angle.

Unit Base Resistance (f_b): From general bearing capacity theory: f_b = c N_c +
σ'_vb N_q + 0.5 γ d N_γ * c: Cohesion of soil beneath the base. * σ'_vb: Effective
vertical stress at the level of the pile base. * N_c, N_q, N_γ: Bearing capacity factors
(depend on ϕ' of the soil at the base). * γ: Unit weight of soil at the pile tip. * d: Pile
diameter or width.

1. Piles in Cohesive Soils (Clays, Undrained Conditions, ϕ_u = 0) - α Method

Undrained conditions (total stress analysis) often yield the more critical (lower)
capacity in clays for short-term loading. * ϕ_u = 0 => N_γ = 0, N_q = 1, δ = 0. * Unit
Skin Friction (f_s): f_s = c_a = α c_u * α: Adhesion factor (reduction coefficient),
depends on c_u, pile type, and installation method. (See Fig. in Ch3b, pg 8 for α vs
c_u for driven piles). * c_u: Undrained shear strength of the clay along the pile shaft.
* Unit Base Resistance (f_b): f_b = c_ub N_c + σ_vb (total stress σ_vb, not effective)
* c_ub: Undrained cohesion of clay below the pile base (average within ~2d below
base). * N_c: Bearing capacity factor, generally taken as 9 for piles (can be lower, e.g.,
6 for short piles).

If pile weight W ≈ σ_vb A_b (weight of soil displaced by base), then: (Q_v)_ult = ∫
(α c_u C) dz (from 0 to L_e) + c_ub N_c A_b * L_e: Effective pile length (L - 1 to 1.5m
is sometimes used, or full length L).

2. Piles in Cohesive Soils (Clays, Effective Stress Approach) - β Method

This method can be used for long-term capacity or when effective stress parameters
are more reliable. * Unit Skin Friction (f_s): f_s = K_s σ'_v tan δ = β σ'_v * β = K_s
tan δ (shaft friction coefficient). * For driven piles in Normally Consolidated Clay
(NCC): β_nc = (1 - sinϕ') tanϕ' (typically 0.24 < β_nc < 0.29 for 20° < ϕ' < 30°). * For
Overconsolidated Clay (OCC): β = β_nc (OCR)^0.5, where OCR is the
Overconsolidation Ratio. * For bored piles, β is typically lower than for driven piles
(reduction factor of 0.5 to 0.66 suggested). * Base Resistance (Q_b): Calculated
using effective stress parameters: Q_b = (c'N_c + σ'_vb N_q) A_b (N_γ term often
small for piles).

3. Piles in Cohesionless Soils (Sands, Gravels - Drained Conditions)

Drained effective stress analysis is used (c' = 0, c_a = 0). Assuming the 0.5γdN_γ term
in f_b offsets the pile weight W/A_b: (Q_v)_ult = ∫ (K_s σ'_v tan δ C) dz (from 0 to
L) + σ'_vb N_q A_b

• Pile-Soil Friction Angle (δ): Often taken as δ = ϕ' or δ = ϕ' - 5°.

• Coefficient of Lateral Earth Pressure (K_s): Depends on soil density, pile
type, and installation method. Increases with volume of displaced soil.
◦ Bored and jetted piles: K_s ≈ 0.5
◦ Driven H-piles: K_s ≈ 0.5 - 1.0
◦ Driven displacement piles: K_s ≈ 1.0 - 2.0
• Bearing Capacity Factor (N_q): Depends on ϕ', pile installation method, and
L/d ratio. (See Table in Ch3b, pg 11 for Meyerhof, 1976 values for driven and
drilled piles).
• Limiting Values for f_s and f_b in Sands: Conventional methods suggest f_s
and f_b increase linearly with depth. However, field evidence indicates that
both unit shaft friction (f_sl) and unit base resistance (f_bl) reach limiting
values at certain critical depths, especially in dense sands. These limits depend
on pile material and soil friction angle (API, 1991 recommendations). (See
Tables in Ch3b, pg 12 for δ/ϕ' ratios and limiting f_sl, f_bl values).

4. Piles in Layered Soils

Meyerhof (1976) and Meyerhof & Sastry (1978) considered pile capacity in layered
soils: * Dense Sand Layer Underlies Weak Layer: Full base capacity in dense sand
is not developed until the pile penetrates at least ~6 pile diameters into the dense
sand. * Weak Layer Underlies Dense Sand Layer: If the pile tip is in the dense sand
but close to an underlying weak layer (within ~6d_b, or 3d_b by Matsui, 1993), the
base capacity is reduced. It decreases linearly from the value for dense sand to the
value for the weak layer as the distance to the weak layer decreases. * Dense Sand
Layer Sandwiched Between Two Weak Layers: Effects of both weak layers must be
considered.
Empirical Analysis (Correlation with Standard Field Tests)

1. Standard Penetration Test (SPT) - Meyerhof (1976)

For single piles in granular soils: (Q_v)_ult = m N_toe A_t + n N_avg A_s * m:
Empirical coefficient (400 for driven piles, 120 for bored piles, with (Q_v)_ult in kN if
N is blows/0.3m, A in m² - units need careful checking, original Meyerhof might be in
different units/forms). * The text seems to imply (Q_v)_ult = (m N_toe A_t / 1) + (n
N_avg A_s / 1) where N is SPT index. Units: If N is blows/ft, A in ft², Q in kips, then
m=4N_toe A_t (driven), m=1.2N_toe A_t (bored); n=0.04N_avg A_s (driven),
n=0.02N_avg A_s (bored). The provided formula is simplified and needs unit
consistency. Let's assume the text implies: (Q_v)_ult = (Factor_m * N_toe * A_t) +
(Factor_n * N_avg * A_s) where factors incorporate units. * Let's use the text's
notation: (Q_v)_ult = m N A_t + n N_bar A_s. It's crucial to verify the units and
exact formulation from a primary source if this is for an exam. * N_toe (or N in
text): SPT index at pile toe. * N_avg (or N_bar in text): Average SPT index along the
pile shaft. * A_t: Pile toe area. * A_s: Pile embedded shaft area. * N values should be
corrected: N_corr = C_N * N_field, where C_N = 0.77 log10(2000/σ'_v) (σ'_v in kPa, ≥
25 kPa).

Decourt (1995) - More comprehensive SPT correlation: * Unit Skin Friction (f_s):
f_s (kPa) = α (2.8 N_60 + 10) * α = 1 for displacement piles (any soil) & non-
displacement piles in clays. * α = 0.5 - 0.6 for non-displacement piles in granular
soils. * N_60: Average SPT index (normalized to 60% energy) along shaft. * Unit Toe
Resistance (f_t): f_t (kPa) = K_b N_b * N_b: Average SPT index (N_60) near pile toe. *
K_b: Base factor (see Table in Ch3b, pg 17, depends on soil type and pile type -
displacement/non-displacement). * A minimum FOS of 4 is suggested due to SPT
variability.

2. Cone Penetration Test (CPT)

CPT values (q_c - cone tip resistance) are correlated to shaft friction and tip
resistance. * Unit Skin Friction (f_s): f_s = q_c / α_c (or f_s = α' q_c, depending on α
definition) ≤ f_sl (limiting value) * α_c (or 1/α'): Shaft factor (see Table 1, Ch3b, pg
18, depends on pile type and soil type - clay/silt/sand/gravel, soft/stiff/hard, L/M/D -
likely related to q_c range or density). * f_sl: Limiting ultimate shaft friction (from
same table). * Unit Base Resistance (f_b): f_b = k_c q_c * k_c: Base factor (see Table
2, Ch3b, pg 18, depends on nature of soil and q_c range, and Pile Group I/II -
installation method). * q_c for f_b is average value within ~1.5d_b above and below
pile base.
3. Pressuremeter Test (PMT) - Baguelin et al. (1978)

• Unit End Bearing (f_b): f_b = q_0 + K_q (P_L - P_0)

◦ q_0: Horizontal stress at rest at pile tip.
◦ P_L: Limit pressure from PMT.
◦ P_0: At-rest horizontal pressure from PMT.
◦ K_q: Bearing capacity factor (see Figure in Ch3b, pg 19, depends on soil
type class 1-4 and embedment ratio).
• Ultimate Skin Friction (f_s or τ_f): Can also be estimated from PMT data (see
Figure in Ch3b, pg 19).

Ultimate Capacity of Helical Piles

Failure mechanism depends on inter-helix spacing ratio (S/D): * Cylindrical Shear

Method (S/D ≤ 2.0): The soil between helices moves with the pile. * For Clay
(Narasimha Rao et al., 1993): Q_ult = (A_h + A_t)C_u N_c + (πDL_c)C_u +
(πdH_eff)αC_u * A_h, A_t: Helix and pile toe area. * D, d: Helix and shaft diameter. *
L_c: Inter-helical distance. * H_eff = H - D (effective shaft length, H is upper helix
depth, no resistance on 1.0D of shaft above upper helix). * For Sand (Mitsch &
Clemence, 1985): Q_ult = (A_h + A_t)γ'H_n N_q + (π/2 DL_c²)γ'K_s tanϕ' + (π/2
dH_eff²)γ'K_s tanϕ' * H_n: Depth to bottom helix. * (Shaft resistance terms seem to
be squared, verify this form. Usually, shaft resistance is linear with depth or average
stress). * Individual Plate Bearing Method (S/D > 2.0): Each helix acts as an
individual small footing. * For Clay: Q_ult = A_t C_u N_c + Σ(A_h C_u N_c) + πdH_eff
αC_u * For Sand: Q_ult = A_t γ'H_n N_q + Σ(A_h γ'H_i N_q) + (1/2) πdH_eff² γ'K_s
tanϕ' * H_i: Embedment depth of each upper helix. * (Again, check the squared term
for shaft friction). * Important Note for Structured/Sensitive Clay: Use remolded
undrained cohesion (C_ur) for shaft resistance and upper helix bearing (IPB
method).

Ultimate Capacity of Micropiles

Classified by grouting pressure (Type A, B, C, D - details in Ch3b, pg 22-23). * Skin

Friction (f_s): Depends on grout-ground bond strength, influenced by drilling
method, flushing, grout pressure, and soil type. * Values are often empirical or based
on load tests. (Table in Ch3b, pg 23 gives typical bond stress values for different soil/
rock and micropile types). * End Bearing (f_b): Often neglected for micropiles if
socketed into rock, or small if in soil.
Pullout Capacity of Piles (Vertical Uplift)

Covered in Ch3b, pg 4 (syllabus) and Ch3a, pg 6 (load transfer mechanism).

Generally, for uplift: * End bearing is zero (unless belled base). * Shaft resistance is
the primary component, often assumed similar to compressive skin friction but can
be lower. * Weight of the pile contributes to resistance.

Pile Group Capacity

(Briefly mentioned in Ch3b, pg 5, and Ch3a, pg 29). The capacity of a pile group is
not simply the sum of individual pile capacities due to interaction effects. * Group
Efficiency (η): Q_g(ult) = η * n * Q_s(ult) * n: number of piles. * Q_s(ult): ultimate
capacity of a single pile. * η depends on pile spacing, soil type, pile type, and
installation method. Can be < 1 (e.g., friction piles in clay due to overlapping stress
zones) or > 1 (e.g., piles in loose sand due to densification). * Block Failure: The pile
group and the enclosed soil may fail as a single large block. This is common for
closely spaced piles in clay. * Q_g(ult) = A_g * c_u_avg * N_c_block + P_g * L *
c_u_avg (for block in clay) * A_g: Base area of the group block. * P_g: Perimeter of
the group block. * L: Length of piles. * N_c_block: Bearing capacity factor for the
block.

The design capacity of a pile group is taken as the lesser of the sum of individual
capacities (modified by efficiency) and the block capacity.

(This section primarily draws from Ch3b. Ch3a provides introductory concepts on
load transfer, installation effects, pile types, and load testing, which are more
theoretical background than direct capacity calculation for this topic but are good
for overall understanding.)

Topic 5: Settlement of Deep

Foundations (Clay)
This section will focus on the settlement analysis of deep foundations (piles) in clay,
covering both immediate (elastic) settlement and time-dependent consolidation
settlement. It will draw upon methods and principles discussed in the provided
course materials.
Topic 6: Lateral Resistance and
Displacement of Deep Foundations
This section will cover the analysis and design of deep foundations (single piles and
pile groups) subjected to lateral loads. It will include methods for determining
ultimate lateral resistance, predicting lateral displacement, and design procedures
based on the provided course materials.