INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY – VNU HCMC

SCHOOL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

AND MANAGEMENT

TALL BUILDING PROJECT

FOUNDATION FAILURES AND REPAIR: TALL
BUILDING AND HEAVY CONSTRUCTION

Student’s name:
- Nguyễn Thành Tâm
- Ngô Phi Vũ
- Lê Huy Khang
- Nguyễn Duy Khánh
- Chung Hoàng Nam

Instructor: Prof. Phạm Nguyễn Linh Khánh

Prof. Trần Cao Thanh Ngọc

Ho Chi Minh City, VietNam

 June 2023
TABLE CONTENTS
ABSTRACT. 3
INTRODUCTION 4
PROBLEM STATEMENT 5
RESUME…. 5
SCOPE OF RESEARCH 6
THEORETICAL BEARING CAPACITY 6
CAUSES…… 12
REPAIR…… 14
CONCLUSION 21
REFERRENCE 21

2
 ABSTRACT
The foundation failure and righting of the Transcona Grain Elevator in 1913
is recognized as a truly remarkable case history made famous by its collapse during
loading after bearing pressures exceeded the limiting shear resistance of the
underlying clay foundation soil. This paper takes you on a journey lasting 90 years
beginning with the construction, failure and righting of the structure. The landmark
work carried out in the 1950’s comparing the load at failure with that predicted by
classical bearing capacity formula is examined with a modern perspective made
possible by finite element modeling techniques using nonlinear effective stress
analysis. The results from the effective stress analysis were imported into a limit
equilibrium analysis to determine the minimum factor of safety against bearing
capacity failure at the failure load with the associated critical slip surface. The
vertical settlement and tilting of the structure predicted by the model closely
matches the events described by eyewitnesses. The time dependency of the pore
water pressure generation has been evaluated to explore the possibility that the
catastrophic failure could have been avoided using staged loading.

3
 INTRODUCTION
Bearing capacity theory is relatively well understood by today’s geotechnical
engineers. While many foundations on cohesive soils are still designed using
classical total stress bearing capacity theory first proposed by Terzaghi (1943),
designers now have more sophisticated analysis tools at their disposal allowing
them to carry out advanced effective stress analysis. However, at the turn of the
20th century no such formulations or tools existed and by necessity, local
experience was relied upon to design foundations. Such was the case of the
Transcona Grain Elevator in Winnipeg, a structure made famous by its collapse
during loading after bearing pressures exceeded the limiting shear resistance of the
underlying clay foundation soil. Since settlement is often the controlling factor in
design, cases of ultimate shear failure are uncommon today, in particular for large
structures. While it is almost certain that the mat foundation for the Transcona Grain
Elevator was designed to tolerate large settlements, its susceptibility to a
deep-seated base shear failure was neither understood nor expected.

4
 PROBLEM STATEMENT
The storage of grain in the bin house was begun in September,1 913, with
considerable care taken to distribute the grain uniformly. On October: 18, when
875,000 bushels of wheat were stored, a vertical settlement of a foot was noted
within an hour after movement had been detected. The structure then began to tilt to
the west and within 24 hours was resting at an angle of 26' 53' from the vertical and
the west side was 24 feet below its original position. The east side had risen 5 feet
above original elevation. Eye witness accounts stated that the structure acted
monolithically with only a few superficial cracks appearing. It's coming to rest,
approximately 24 hours after the movement began, corresponded with the cupola
falling off the top of the structure.

RESUME
The foundation failure and righting of the Transcona Grain Elevator in 1913
is recognized as a truly remarkable case history made famous by its collapse during
loading after bearing pressures exceeded the limiting shear resistance of the
underlying clay foundation soil. This paper takes you on a journey lasting 90 years
beginning with the construction, failure and righting of the structure. The landmark
work carried out in the 1950’s comparing the load at failure with that predicted by
classical bearing capacity formula is examined with a modern perspective made
possible by finite element modeling techniques using nonlinear effective stress
analysis. The results from the effective stress analysis were imported into a limit
equilibrium analysis to determine the minimum factor of safety against bearing
capacity failure at the failure load with the associated critical slip surface. The
vertical settlement and tilting of the structure predicted by the model closely
matches the events described by eyewitnesses. The time dependency of the pore
water pressure generation has been evaluated to explore the possibility that the
catastrophic failure could have been avoided using staged loading.

5
 SCOPE OF RESEARCH
The literature review on different types of foundations, failures of
foundations, foundation soils, excavation retaining structures, failure of piles, soil,
and causes can be used to define the research's scope. The analysis based on the site
and building conditions at the time of the failure is included in the case study's
scope. Through analysis, assessment, and identification of the sorts of corrective
work completed, the types of failures, their causes, and defects will be identified.
Appropriate foundation maintenance procedures for residential buildings will also
be recommended in order to avoid repeat failures.

THEORETICAL BEARING CAPACITY

The relatively rapid loading of the elevator on saturated clay corresponds to the
laboratory undrained quick triaxial test for which the unconfined compression test is a
special case. For such conditions it is recognized that the angle of internal friction is
negligible and thus the cohesion is equal to half the unconfined compressive strength.
In general the ultimate unit bearing capacity of a soil may be expressed by:

𝐵
𝑞𝑢 = 𝑁𝑐𝑐 + 𝑁𝑞γ𝑑 + 𝑁γγ× 2

𝑞𝑢 = 𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑏𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑐𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦

𝑐 = 𝑐𝑜ℎ𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛
γ = 𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡
𝐵 = 𝑤𝑖𝑑𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑜𝑜𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔
𝑑 = 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑜𝑜𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔
𝑁𝑐, 𝑁𝑞, 𝑁γ: 𝐵𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑐𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟

6
7
For long continuous footings, the quantities Nc, Nq, and No are pure numbers
depending on the angle of internal friction,∅ . Their values are given in most
modern soil mechanics or foundation texts.

For the special case of ∅= 0, Nq becomes unity and Ny= 0. The equation thus
becomes:

𝑞𝑢 = 𝑁𝑐𝑐 + γ𝑑 (2)

In an early form of equation (2) evaluated Nc as 5,14 and Terzaghi gives 5.7 for
general shear failure and 3.8 arbitrarily for local shear failure. The general shear
failure applies when the stress-strain curve (from laboratory test) is of the type
shown in Fig. 4a or is approached when negligible variation exists in both loading
and soil conditions.

For rectangular footings the value of Nc has been shown by analytical methods,
model studies and a study of actual failures to be a function of L/B and d/B, where
L= length of footing. Recently, Skempton has given the following formula:

(
𝑁𝑐 = 5 1 +
𝐵
5𝐿 ) × (1 + )(3)
𝑑
5𝐵

The theory for the equation assumes that the soil fails along a composite curve as
shown in Fig. 4B. Although the theory is beyond the scope of this report, it may be
noted that when ∅=0 , the composite curve extends to a depth below the bottom of
the footing equal to approximately one half the footing width. As failure
commences, there's a rise of soil on both sides of the footing attributed to '’edge
action". Complete failure is associated with a further large on the side to which the

8
building tilts.

9
Stability analysis

A general.examination of the actual failure and test data shows that the failure was
consistent with the bearing capacity theory. 'l'he undrained quick triaxial test
confirmed a negligible angle of internal friction. The composite curve along which
the soil failed would have theoretically extended to a depth equal to about one-half
the foundation width or 38 feet below the bottom of the foundation. Since the dense
glacial till occurred. at approximately the same depth, it did not prevent the full
development of this curve.

It may also be noted that the soil upheaval all around the foundations due to "edge
effect" at the start of failure actually occurred. Allaire, report an upheaval of 5 feet.
Photographs confirm that further large upheaval consistent with theory occurred on
the side to which the structure tilted. The actual direction of tilting is not important
as even a very minor eccentricity in loading or variation in soil condition could
cause a failure to either side.

The nearest test holes to the side of the tilting structure were 63 feet distant and
from the examination and testing of undisturbed samples,the soil appeared to be
unaffected by the failure. Although the failure occurred nearly 40 years ago,it is not
believed that the loss in strength of the soil resulting from the failure has been
regained. Tests on a similar Lake Agassiz deposit do not indicate any extensive
thixotropic strength regained for this material. Although no remolded strength tests
were performed, it has been generally found that remolding results in a loss of
one-half of the strength of the Winnipeg clays.

It is also reasonable to assume that because of the nature of the laboratory

stress-strain curves and the precautions taken to assure uniform loading of the
elevator, that the Terzaghi general shear conditions were satisfied, it is questionable,
however,whether the assumption of local shear value (N = 3.8) would have been
applicable had the stress-strain curves been different.

The undrained quick triaxial test confirmed that the angle of internal friction was
negligible and that equation (2) was valid substitution in equation (3) with:
10
B = 77, L =195, and d = 12 (all in feet) gives Nc= 5.56. The ultimate bearing
capacity is thus given by:

It was difficult, however, to ascertain what value of the cohesion should be used in
(5), The values for the brown silty clay or the grey silty clay alone would be
unjustifiable high and low respectively since the failure plane passed through both
materials. Use of the average unconfined compressive strength value of 1850 lb. per
square foot for both the brown and grey silty clays from holes 4 and 7 appears the
most justifiable.The same value for the remaining test holes I, 2, 3, 5, and B, nearer
to the building, was 1933 lb per square foot and probably reflects the effects of
consolidation caused by the continuous pumping from under the bin house for a
period of almost 40 years. Moisture contents and densities for thc grey silty clay
when compared for holes 4 and 7 with those of l, 2, 3. 5, and 6, also indicate the
effects of consolidation

The average unconfined compressive strength values of 1933 lb per square foot for
holes 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6, and 1850 lb per square foot for holes 4 and 7, do not include
the low values from the 35 to 40 foot depth from holes 1 and 3, and hole 7
respectively. The difference in the values of cohesion, density, and moisture content
mentioned, however,are small and could simply reflect statistical accuracy.

Results of substitution in equation (5) are shown in Table I. The unit weight Y, of
the soil covering. the footings was taken as 107 Ib. per cubic foot and the cohesion
as half the unconfined compressive strength

11
 CAUSES
It was ascertained later on that the failure occurred when the foundation pressure at
the base was about equal to the calculated ultimate bearing capacity of an
underlying layer of plastic clay (Peck and Byrant,1953), and was essentially a
shearing failure.
Immediately after the accident, several deeper exploration boreholes were drilled.
The samples taken were not laboratory tested, however, soil classification was
conducted using optical observation. It was concluded that the soil was a uniform
layer of clay, which confirmed the previous design assumptions, and that this was
also the geological structure of the wider area.

12
Figure 3 shows that the compressive strength in the upper layers of clay was qu =
108 kPa (undrained shear strength cu = qu / 2 = 54kPa), and that the clay in the
lower layers was of lower strength parameters (compressive strength qu = 62 kPa,
cu = 31 kPa).
These results confirmed that the load under the foundation structure affected the
lower layers of softer clay that had lower strength parameters, and thus it was
proved that the failure of the foundation soil had occurred due to insufficient
bearing capacity of the soil under the foundation structure.
The conditions of construction, the load under the foundation structure and the
geological structure of the Transcona grain elevator were similar to those of the
surrounding buildings in the wider area. However, this structure had a much wider
foundation, and thus the impact of the load on the foundation soil was much deeper.
Engineers in charge were guided by the assumption that the soil was homogeneous,
with the parameters of the upper layers of stiff clay having a significantly higher
13
bearing capacity than the lower layers. Guided by this assumption, the designers
calculated the allowable load of 321 kPa, which was then more than the actual load
on the structure. However, the load from the structure under the foundation also
affected the lower, softer layer of clay, which has a much lower load-bearing
capacity. According to today’s investigations, when the lower layer with the lower
parameters is taken into account, the permissible load is only 251 kPa, which is
lower than the actual load (291 kPa).

REPAIR

In December 1913, the Foundation Company of Montreal and Vancouver submitted

a plan to Canadian Pacific Rail to underpin the workhouse as it was feared its
foundation might also fail. The plan was accepted and work began almost
immediately to underpin the structure by sinking a pier under each building column.
Because of the heavy loads and height of the structure, it was first necessary to
install an elaborate system of internal and external timber shoring. Despite
significant groundwater intrusion into the 5 foot diameter piers (Chicago Wells) that
were all excavated by hand, the workhouse operations were completed by the
beginning of June 1914.

During the workhouse underpinning, the Foundation Company convinced CP Rail

that it was possible to salvage the binhouse by writing it and underpinning the
structure once the vertical position had been reached. Due to economic reasons, it
was decided not to attempt to raise the building to its old height, but to straighten
the structure by rotating it to the low edge; this was done by digging under the east
or high side, and lowering it to the level of the low or west side. This means that the
carpet in its final position will be about 38 ft below grassland level. Since it is
below the groundwater level, it has been proposed to waterproof it. The barrel house
when not containing grain weighs 20 000 tons. Below the lower or western edge of
the carpet, fourteen piers were sunk into the rock and concreted. The purpose is to
block the building from these piers to form a fulcrum, on which it rotates when
excavation is done below the elevation. The clay layer underneath the rug is
14
removed in two ways: First, by working from under the high edge of the rug; and
second, through the holes in the carpet. Initially, a trench was excavated along the
entire east side of the binhouse to the underside of the mat foundation

Drifts were then excavated beneath the mat foundation and a row of 14 piers was
sunk to bedrock along the west edge of the mat. The intent was to support the
structure with these piers acting as a fulcrum, about which the structure would be
rotated as the soil was removed from under the high side. As construction
proceeded, the original plan was modified

15
The structure was raised on the west side using shoring screws and timber rockers
installed on the tops of successive rows of piers (figure 2). To assist in the righting,
twelve timber pushers were placed against the west side of the bins. On October 17,
1914, two days behind schedule, the binhouse was back in its vertical position having
been raised about 12 feet in the process

Figure 4 shows the structure after the completion of the righting and underpinning
operations. The structure has been successfully used since this time and is now owned
and operated by Parrish and Heimbecker Limited

16
17
Step 1: Use a pump to suck groundwater out of layer 1 to refine the inclination of the
building.

18
Step 2: Insert wooden pads into areas G, H, I, J, K to slowly lower the inclination from
the East side of the building. This construction was leaning toward the West around 26
degrees 53 minutes.

19
20
Step 3: Pouring concrete into areas G, H, I, J, K after the inclination of the
construction returns to 0 degrees compared to the original before settlement problems
appear.

21
To remove all the materials, we shall use the inner tube. The inner tubes will next be
filled with concrete by gradually lowering the funnel-shaped pipes as seen in images c
and d.

The casing (a) consist of an outer shell, a depressed end of conical shape and an inner
tube attached to and leading up-ward from the conical end. The lower, or entering
plate, is cutting edge. All seams are flush on the outside. A section of convenient
length is set in position and filled with concrete. A pipe that will direct a jet
horizontally, is passed through material so removed passing out through the inner tube.
When a section has settled into the cavity so formed, it is extended and the process of
22
sinking is repeated (see(c) & (d)). When the pile is finally down, the conical end and
inner tube are filled with concrete as in (e).

Reference: The figure 21 in the upper news and report (Page No. 1363 - The failure
and righting of a million-bushel grain elevator - With discussion by Messrs. David
Gutman, W. R. Phillips, and E. P. Goodrich)

CONCLUSION
Foundation failures can be summarized as an unacceptable difference
between expected and observed performance (Morley 1996). In the case of the
Transcona Grain Elevator, the observed performance was seen not only as an
unacceptable event but also as an unexplainable event. While today’s standard of
practice would have easily predicted the outcome, such was not the case in the early
1900’s when an observational approach was in many cases, the best available
analytical tool.
In order to attempt to take the forensic investigation of the failure to a new level of
understanding. While the modeling did not reveal any unexpected results, it
provides an example of the ability to analyze foundation performance using the
integration of a number of commonly used modern day tools.

REFERRENCE

1. Alan Crocker, 1990, Building Failures “Recovering the Cost”, BSP Professional
Books, Oxford.
23
2. C. R. I. Clayton, et al, 1995, Site Investigation, Blackwell Science, Oxford.

3. Cheng Liu and Jack B. Evett, Soils and Foundations (Sixth Edition), 2004,
Pearson Education, Inc., New Jersey.

4. Ikram Utara, 2006, Site Monitoring Report (Vol. III) for Project Ground
Settlement Problems and Building Cracks Assessment at 88 Unit Houses Taman
Tunas Muda on Lot 6034, Mukim 12, Daerah Barat Daya, Penang”, Ikram, Pulau
Pinang.

5. Ikram Utara, 2006, Site Investigation Report (Vol. II) for Project Ground
Settlement Problems and Building Cracks Assessment at 88 Unit Houses Taman
Tunas Muda on Lot 6034, Mukim 12, Daerah Barat Daya, Penang”,Ikram, Pulau
Pinang.

6. Ikram, 2006, Final Report (Vol. I) for Project Ground Settlement Problems and
Building Cracks Assessment at 88 Unit Houses Taman Tunas Muda on Lot 6034,
Mukim 12, Daerah Barat Daya, Penang”,Ikram, Pulau Pinang.

7. John S. Scott, 1991, Dictionary of Civil Engineering (fourth edition), Penguin

Books, London.

8. Jamie Ambrose, M.S., 1988, Building Structure, John Wiley &Sons, Inc.,
Canada.

9. Lee How Son and George C. S. Yuen, 1993, Building Maintenance Technology,
The Macmillan Press Ltd, London.

10. P.B.Attewell and R.K.Taylor, 1984, Ground Movement and Their Effects on
Structures, Blackie and Son Ltd, London.

11. Perunding Ihsan Sdn. Bhd., 2007, Rectification Works to Defects Unit No. 40 &
42 Lintang Bayan 8 Taman Tunas Muda on Part of Lot 6034 Mukin 12 Daerah
Barat Daya Pulau Pinang, Perunding Ihsan Sdn. Bhd., Pulau Pinang.

12. Robert Wade Brown, 1997, Foundation Behavior and Repair “Residential and
Light Construction”, McGraw-Hill,Inc. USA

13. Roxanna Mcdonald, 2003, Introduction to Natural and Man-Made Disasters and
Their Effects on Buildings,Architectural Press, Oxford.

14. S. Thorburn and J.F Hutchison, 1985, Underpinning, Blackie and Son Ltd,
London

24
25