Module 3: Shallow Foundations
Module 3: Shallow Foundations
Module 3: Shallow Foundations
1.2 Examples
Some examples of simple shallow foundations (not an exhaustive list!)
are given below
ETB/JJMH Page 1
ENCN353:: Geotechnical Engineering
ETB/JJMH Page 2
ENCN353:: Geotechnical Engineering
ETB/JJMH Page 3
ENCN353:: Geotechnical Engineering
ETB/JJMH Page 4
ENCN353: Geotechnical Engineering
This means that, for example, not only do we need to know how far a
footing might settle overall but also how much the middle might settle
compared with the edge.
How might these differences arise? Possibilities include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
ETB/JJMH Page 5
ENCN353:: Geotechnical Engineering
Tomlinson (2004)
Rigid foundations can be thought of as settling uniformly
u but resulting
in a non-uniform
uniform stress distribution beneath the foundation.
foundation Mostly in
this course we will examine
xamine flexible foundation loading and response.
response
ETB/JJMH Page 6
ENCN353:: Geotechnical Engineering
ETB/JJMH Page 7
ENCN353: Geotechnical Engineering
This course:
Examine failure loads in soil for shallow and deep foundations (as in
#1 above for ULS).
Design shallow and deep foundations for both ULS and SLS.
ETB/JJMH Page 8
ENCN353: Geotechnical Engineering
For each of these criteria what are the principal stresses at failure?
ETB/JJMH Page 9
ENCN353: Geotechnical Engineering
(Note on K0)
The “At rest earth pressure coefficient” K0, simply relates the in situ
horizontal effective soil stress to that of the vertical soil stress:
Empirically:
For NC soils:
(Jaky, 1944)
For OC soils:
(Mayne & Kulwhawy, 1982)
ETB/JJMH Page 10
ENCN353: Geotechnical Engineering
ETB/JJMH Page 11
ENCN353: Geotechnical Engineering
ETB/JJMH Page 12
ENCN353: Geotechnical Engineering
ETB/JJMH Page 13
ENCN353: Geotechnical Engineering
a)
b)
c)
ETB/JJMH Page 14
ENCN353: Geotechnical Engineering
b)
ETB/JJMH Page 15
ENCN353: Geotechnical Engineering
That is:
1
Associated flow is where the vector of plastic strain increment is normal to the yield surface – a
condition also known as “normality”.
ETB/JJMH Page 16
ENCN353: Geotechnical Engineering
ETB/JJMH Page 17
ENCN353: Geotechnical Engineering
Zone A
It is assumed that the soil directly beneath the foundation is in a state
of active failure – i.e. the vertical stress σvA is the major principal equal
to σf, while the horizontal stress σhA is the minor principal stress equal
to (σf -2cu).
ETB/JJMH Page 18
ENCN353: Geotechnical Engineering
Zone B
The soil directly next to the foundation is assumed to be in a state of
passive failure – i.e. the vertical stress σvB is minor and is equal to σ0,
while the horizontal stress is major and is equal to (σ0+2cu).
This stress field with only a single discontinuity on each side of the
foundation has a principal stress rotation of 90º across the
discontinuity (180º on the Mohr circle).
The value of NC=4 is not the optimal lower bound solution. That is, the
stress field shown in the above figure may be easily improved by
involving a more gradual rotation of stresses through larger numbers
of discontinuities and by removing the imposition that the wound has
no strength.
ETB/JJMH Page 19
ENCN353: Geotechnical Engineering
ETB/JJMH Page 20
ENCN353: Geotechnical Engineering
On the right we are using the longer arrows to denote the major
principal stress, σ1, and shorter arrows to denote the minor principal
stress, σ3 (I will subsequently omit the minor principal stress in later
diagrams and represent the major principal stress as a single arrow).
If we now draw the Mohr circles for the stresses shown, we can
determine a number of important relationships between the rotation of
principal stress and the discontinuity.
This is done below in a step-wise manner:
1. As stated previously, we find there is a common stress state,
(σ,τ) across the discontinuity, which can exist. This can be
shown as a common point on two intersecting Mohr’s circles.
2. Next we define the “Origin of Planes” (also known as the “Pole
for planes”) in zone A, OPA and that in zone B, OPB on the Mohr
circles. These points may be found by projecting a line from the
common stress point in the direction of the plane.
ETB/JJMH Page 21
ENCN353: Geotechnical Engineering
ETB/JJMH Page 22
ENCN353: Geotechnical Engineering
1. We know σ0, so we start by plotting the circle (radius cU) for zone
A on the Mohr plot. Given that σ0 acts on a horizontal plane, we
can draw a line from σ0 to find the origin of planes OPA for zone A
on the Mohr plot.
2. Recalling that we can plot the θ=30º stress rotation on the Mohr
circle for zone A (i.e. the point of the previous section), this will
give us the common stress point, N, for zones A and B. We can
then draw the Mohr circle for zone B (radius cU).
3. We can draw a line through OPA and N to give us the angle of the
discontinuity between zones A and B, and hence, the origin of
planes for zone B, OPB.
ETB/JJMH Page 23
ENCN353: Geotechnical Engineering
ETB/JJMH Page 24
ENCN353: Geotechnical Engineering
Consider the rate of work done by the external forces and energy
dissipated along the slip, as it rotates about the origin O with angular
velocity ω.
Recall that work is: Force × Distance
Rate of work done by the foundation load, σf along AO, as it falls with
an average velocity of ωB/2:
Rate of work done against the surface load σ0 along OC, as it rises
with an average velocity of ωB/2:
ETB/JJMH Page 25
ENCN353: Geotechnical Engineering
So
(Note that, for clarity here, we will dispense with the load due to the soil weight σ0,
and simply take σf as our applied foundation load – we can substitute (σf -σ0) for σf
at the end to include the effect of soil surcharge above the founding plane, if we
wish.)
ETB/JJMH Page 26
ENCN353: Geotechnical Engineering
Work dissipated:
With NC=5.77, this is better (i.e. lower) than our previous upper bound
attempt, but is still not the best solution…
ETB/JJMH Page 27
ENCN353: Geotechnical Engineering
ETB/JJMH Page 28
ENCN353: Geotechnical Engineering
The Mohr circles for the active and passive zones are given below.
ETB/JJMH Page 29
ENCN353: Geotechnical Engineering
Zone 1
Under the foundation directly below the founding plane the vertical
effective stress σ’v1 is σ’f. At failure, this is an active zone (with σ’f the
major principal effective stress). So the horizontal effective stress σ’h1
is equal to Kaσ’f.
Zone 2
The vertical effective stress, σ’v2 at the founding level in the soil
adjacent to the founding plane is σ’0. At failure, this is a passive zone
(with σ’0 the minor principal effective stress). So, the horizontal
effective stress, σ’h2 is equal to Kpσ’0.
Given that
ETB/JJMH Page 30
ENCN353:: Geotechnical Engineering
ETB/JJMH Page 31
ENCN353: Geotechnical Engineering
We can analyse the failure surface in the same way that we analysed
the solutions used for the undrained case, however, we have this
additional dilative component to be aware of. We will not cover this
analysis in this course, except to state the result for interest, i.e.:
Now, like the simple lower bound solution, we can improve on this
case. We will not go into detail, except to say that the lowest upper
bound solution is found to be:
Sensitivity to φ’
Note that, due to the natural log term (e), the exact solution is very
sensitive to the friction angle φ’ specified.
ETB/JJMH Page 32
ENCN353: Geotechnical Engineering
(σ f − σ 0 ) = (N C ⋅s C ⋅d C ) ⋅ cU
Where NC
sC
dC
(σ f (
− σ 0 ) = N C ⋅ 1 + s c + d c ⋅ cU
* *
)
The shape factor sc (or sc*) allows for the fact that a footing is, in
reality, not infinitely long, while the depth factor dc (or dc*) takes
account of the fact that, in reality, the soil above the founding plane
has some strength and does more than simply act as a surcharge σ0.
ETB/JJMH Page 33
ENCN353: Geotechnical Engineering
γB
σ ' f = [N q ⋅ s q ⋅ d q ]⋅ σ ' 0 + N γ ⋅ sγ ⋅ d γ ⋅ rγ ⋅ − ∆u
2
sq
dq
The purpose of the left-hand terms is the same for those used in the
undrained analysis (previous section).
The right-hand part of the expression is a little more complex to
explain. Basically, if we were to rely on the left hand part of the
expression, which uses σ’0 (the stress at the founding level), to
calculate the bearing capacity, it would be a significant underestimate.
This is because, with effective stress (Mohr-Coulomb) analysis, the
strength of the soil increases with applied mean stress (i.e. is
frictional). This means that the soil will have greater capacity at some
depth, due to the self-weight of the soil. (Note, this is not the case for
total stress analysis!).
ETB/JJMH Page 34
ENCN353: Geotechnical Engineering
So we need to account for the fact that the failure occurs over
approximately one footing depth B, which experiences an average
vertical effective stress of σ’0+(γB/2-∆u) – including the effects of pore
pressure.
So, the right-hand part of the expression covers the additional
influence of soil stress at depth to enhance bearing capacity, while the
left-hand part covers bearing capacity as if at the founding plane
alone.
This means for the right-hand part of the expression:
Nγ
sγ
dγ
rγ
ETB/JJMH Page 35
ENCN353: Geotechnical Engineering
Notes on table:
Meyerhof’s expressions only apply for φ’>10º
Kp= (1+sinφ’)/(1-sinφ’)
rγ = 1 for B<2m; rγ = 1- 0.25 log10(B/2) for B≥ 2m (Bowles, 1998)
2
See papers by Martin, CM and Smith, CC.
3
This website also has kinematic solutions for drained analyses
ETB/JJMH Page 36