Civil Engineering 2020/2021

Geotechnical Design (CSE40403)

by Dr. Zhenyu YIN

Office: ZS915, Tel: 3400-8470
Email: zhenyu.yin@polyu.edu.hk

1
https://www.polyu.edu.hk/cee/people/academic-staff/dr-zhen-yu-yin/

2
Self introduction – education & experiences
Education NTNU
97, BEng in ZJU NGI
03, Msc in ECN (Fr) HUT
06, PhD in ECN (Fr) Umass TUChalmers
(~9 months) Glasgow
SJTU, TongJi
Research fellow (~2 years)
(~4 years)
06-08, StrathU PLAXIS
08-09, Umass ZJU
09-10, ECN U-Stuttgart HK

Academic position ECN

10-13, SJTU (~10 years)
14-18, ECN
(16-17 in Tongji) UPC (Europe)
18-now, PolyU

Industrial experience https://zhenyuyin.wixsite.com/polyu

97-02, Engineer in Jiahua Architecture Design Institute
3
 Self introduction – Research interests
➢ Multi-scale modeling for next generation of geotechnical designs

Engineering
applications
Deformation & strength
degradation
Microstructure &
micromechanics

Contact information
Dr Zhenyu YIN
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
Tel: 3400 8470; Office: ZS915
Email: zhenyu.yin@polyu.edu.hk
4
Civil Engineering 2020/2021
Subject: Geotechnical Design (CSE40403)

Introduction of
Geotechnical Engineering
by Dr. Zhenyu YIN
Office: ZS915, Tel: 3400-8470
Email: zhenyu.yin@polyu.edu.hk

5
❑ Underground geotechnics

Hong Kong

Underground space
(infrastructures)

❑ Challenges
Shanghai

Salisbury Road, HK
Leakage of tunnel Fukuoka Nov. 8 2016 June 3 2007
❖ Long-term subsidence ❖ Internal erosion induced damage
6
❑ Underground geotechnics
Example: tunneling induced problems
Subsidence

Face stability
7
❑ Underground geotechnics

Example: sinkhole induced damage – Fukuoka, Japan, 2016

8
❑ Foundation engineering

Tower of Pisa
❖ Long-term settlement Long-term
(time effects of clayey soils) settlement

(Inclination)
Ma On Shan, HK 2002

Shanghai, July 27 2009

Long-term strength degradation (Long-term settlement)

9
❑ Foundation engineering

Example: Collapse of Building, Shanghai

10
❑ Foundation engineering
Example: long-term settlement of Pisa tower

11
❑ Transportation geotechnics

Tsing Ma Bridge, 2.16 km

Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge, 55 km

12
❑ Transportation geotechnics

Settlement of
embankment
Instability of
embankment

Problem of ballast
Differential settlement
and embankment
(Train in and out of the station)

13
❑ Transportation geotechnics
Example: development of high-speed railway in the world

2030 high-speed rail planning network in China

(八纵八横)

14
❑ Transportation geotechnics

Example: high-speed railway test in France

The differential
settlement has to
be strictly
controlled!

15
❑ Transportation geotechnics
Example: Mud pumping in railway engineering

To find an effective protection way, convenient, cheap

16
❑ Transportation geotechnics

Example: breakage of ballast materials under traffic loading

Have to change from time to time, not convenient!

Breakage mechanism?
Mode?
Crushed particles?

17
❑ Environmental geotechnics

Nuclear waste disposal

Anti-seepage

Municipal solid waste disposal

18
❑ Environmental geotechnics

Example: Construction of a landfill of municipal solid waste

19
❑ Environmental geotechnics

Example: a conceptual construction of nuclear waste disposal

20
❑ Energy geotechnics

21
❑ Energy geotechnics

Example: geothermal energy options-how it works

22
❑ Geotechnical hazards

Po Shan Road Landslide, HK,

1972 (67 killed, 20 injured)

1994, Kennedy Town, 5 dead

Unstable?
Displacement

Ya An debris flow,
Sichuan 2013 Stable?
Time

❖ Long-term instability (time effects)

❖ Internal erosion trigged damage
23
❑ Geotechnical hazards

Example: debris flow, Shenzhen, 20 Dec. 2015

24
❑ Geotechnical hazards

Example:
massive landslides
after a rainstorm

25
❑ Geotechnical hazards

Example: landslide in Alta, Norway - Jun. 3, 2020

26
❑ Offshore / submarine geotechnics

❑ Challenges
❖ Long-term instability
(clay)
❖ Grain breakage induced damage
(carbonate sand)
❖ Erosion induced damage
(water flow coupling)

Wind turbine breakwater

Offshore platform Training jetty

27
❑ Offshore / submarine geotechnics

Example: how to build breakwater

28
❑ Offshore / submarine geotechnics

Example: how to build offshore wind farms

29
❑ Offshore / submarine geotechnics

Example: typical offshore foundations

设计最大风暴 Floating platform
Wave loading moving
小风浪

Failure of anchor

Pumping

Water
Suction pressure
Uplift Seepage
of clay liquefaction
Torpedo anchor penetration
Soft clay Sand
30
❑ Offshore / submarine geotechnics

Seabed sand wave migration

Example: pipeline (like Desert)

Gas and Methane hydrates

phase transition
31
❑ Offshore / submarine geotechnics

Example: Methane hydrate exploration

32
❑ Earth works (or hydraulic works)
West Kowloon Cultural Hong Kong airport
District, 40 hectares (reclamation)
(9.46h-PolyU)

High Island Reservoir

East Dam, 64 m high

Plover Cove Reservoir

Dam, 2m high

33
❑ Earth works (or hydraulic works)
Lantau tomorrow (https://www.lantau.gov.hk/en/sustainable-lantau-office/index.html)

Ma Liu Shui
Lung Kwu Tan

Sunny Bay

(1700 hectares)
East Lantau Metropolis

(1700 hectares)

Siu Ho Wan
34
❑ Earth works (or hydraulic works)

Campos Novos Dam, H=200m

Fill height
Rupture of dam (rockfill)
Kansai airport, Japan

❖ Grain breakage induced damage

Creeping

Data of
Kansai airport Sinkhole on
(Settlement up to 9 m) Failure of dike top of dam

❖ Long-term instability (time effects) ❖ Internal erosion induced damage

35
❑ Earth works (or hydraulic works)

Example: Piping induced damage

36
❑ Earth works (or hydraulic works)

Example: Dam Failure, Minas Gerais, Brazil, 2019

37
Geotechnical Design
Topic 1: Site investigation
Topic 2: Slope Stability
Topic 3: Shallow Foundations
Topic 4: Mat (Raft) Foundations
Topic 5: Earth Retaining Structures
Topic 6: Pile Foundations
Textbook:
❑ B. M. Das. (2011). Principles of Foundation
Engineering, 7th Edition.
❑ B. M. Das & K. Sobhan (2016). Principles of
Geotechnical Engineering, Ninth Edition.
❑ Craig, R.F. (2004). Soil Mechanics, 7th
edition (6thor 5th edition), Spon Press,
London and New York. 38
Break
39
Additional books/references for this course

40
Additional books/references for this course

41
 Additional references for this course
Code of Practice for Foundation, Buildings Department, 2017.
Hong Kong Foundation Handbook, HKIE, 2015/2017
Guide to Retaining Wall Design, GEO Guide 1, GEO
Guide to soil and rock description, GEO Guide 3, GEO
Foundation Design and Construction, GEO, 2006.
Prescriptive measures for man-made slopes and retaining walls, GEO 2009
Guide to Site investigation, GEO Guide 2, GEO
Review of design methods for excavation, GCO, 1990
Hong Kong Geology Guidebook, GEO, 2007
Engineering Geology Practice in HK, GEO, 2007
Practice note from Buildings Department
Advanced Soil Mechanics, BM Das, 4ed, CRC Press, 2014.
Shallow Foundations Bearing Capacity and Settlement, 3rd edition, B.M. Das, CRC Press, 2017
Soil Slope stability analysis and stabilization – new methods and insights, 2nd edition, Cheng
Y.M., Spon Press 2014
Geotechnical Correlations for Soils and Rocks, Verbrugge, Wiley, 2018.
In Situ Tests in Geotechnical Engineering, Monnet, Wiley, 2015.
42
 The design of geotechnical structures
- generally requires a knowledge of such factors as
(a) the load that will be transmitted by the superstructure to the foundation
system, (e.g. stress in soil)
(b) the requirements of the local engineering code, (e.g. factor of safety)
(c) the behavior and stress-related deformability of soils that will support the
foundation system, (e.g. mechanical properties of soils)
(d) the geological conditions of the soil under consideration. (e.g. type of soils
and depth)
For example:
when determining which
ICC (484 m) IFC (415 m)
foundation is the most
economical, the engineer
must consider the
superstructure load, the
subsoil conditions, and the
desired tolerable settlement.
43
 Importance of Geotechnical Engineering in HK
Special features of Hong Kong:
(a) Scarce of land (not exactly true), high population
(b) Reclamation and construction adjacent to slopes
(c) Deep basement for various commercial uses
(d) Large amount of materials are involved

Outcome:
(a) Lots of slope failures – average 300 per year
(b) Large diameter deep piles
(c) Deep excavation (underground space)
(d) High ground tables, loose soil creates various problems
(e) Loose backfill create settlement and failure problems

44
 Nature of Geotechnical Engineering

(a) Material left by nature, difficult to control properties or distribution

(b) Most problems or structures are 3D in nature, compared with 1D or
2D in structural engineering
(c) Difficult or impossible to be solved even for simple problems
(d) Analytical solutions are usually very long and tedious even for
simple problems, if available. Most of the problems cannot be
solved by hand calculators.
(e) Highly complicated nature of soil, need deeper understanding and
experience besides knowledge. Many uncertainties behind

45
 Analysis of Geotechnical Engineering
(a) Rule of thumb: rely mainly on past experience, useful, but not
applicable to new structure or situations
(b) Statistics: Interpretation of field test results, settlement, soil
movement etc., useful but may not be representative
(c) Analytical solutions: Only for some simple problems. Use of design
graphs and tables are also common to replace the use of long
equations. Many classical methods rely on assumptions which may
be approximations.
(d) Computational method: Rely on use of computer programs with
less assumptions, needs knowledge and judgment in using these
programs. otherwise, just Rubbish in -> rubbish out.

Different from Structural analysis and design

❖ Experience is important because of the various underground conditions.
❖ On site monitoring is also common.
❖ Greater factor of safety
46
Teaching materials and tutorial

Tutorial starts at Week 3 (1 Feb. 2021)

Quiz at Week 7 (10 March 2021), 45 minutes

Specific methods/tasks % weighting

1. Assignment 10
2. Test (quiz) 20
3. Final Examination 70
Total 100 %
* Due to public holidays,
in Week 4 and Week 10, Friday Groups will be combined to Monday and
Tuesday of the weeks;
in Week 11, the Monday and Tuesday groups will be combined to Friday of
the week.

47
Break
49
TOPICS & SYLLABUS:
I. Geotechnical Properties of Soil
Topic 1: Site investigation
II. Natural Soil Deposits and Subsoil
Topic 2: Slope Stability Exploration

Topic 3: Shallow Foundations

Topic 4: Mat (Raft) Foundations
Topic 5: Earth Retaining Structures
Topic 6: Pile Foundations

50
Civil Engineering 2020/2021
Subject: Geotechnical Design (CSE40403)

Site investigation
Part I- Geotechnical Properties of Soil

by Dr. Zhenyu YIN

Office: ZS915, Tel: 3400-8470
Email: zhenyu.yin@polyu.edu.hk

51
Main content:
Recall of Soil
Mechanics
I. Physical properties
❖ Size Limits for Soils and Grain-Size Distribution
❖ Weight–Volume Relationships
❖ Relative Density, Atterberg Limits and Activity
❖ Soil Classification Systems

II. Hydro-mechanical properties

❖ Hydraulic Conductivity of Soil and Steady-State Seepage
❖ Effective Stress
❖ Consolidation
❖ Shear Strength
❖ Unconfined Compression Test and Sensitivity

52
1 Size Limits for Soils and Grain Size Distribution

(0.074 mm) Marine mud

Shenzhen bay area

Ballast
Sand
East Rail line of HK Golden Beach in HK 53
1 Size Limits for Soils and Grain Size Distribution

Clay particles: minerals

such as kaolinite, illite, and
montmorillonite
Clay-size particles: minerals,
(0.074 mm) such as quartz and feldspar

Crystal structure of clay minerals

54
1 Size Limits for Soils and Grain Size Distribution

Crystal structure of clay minerals https://virtual-museum.soils.wisc.edu/

Kaolinite Illite Montmorillonite

Si2Al2O9 KAl2Si4O12 CaAl4Si8O24
Red: O Red: O Red: O
Yellow: Si Purple: K Green: Ca
Pink: Al Yellow: Si Yellow: Si
Pink: Al Pink: Al
55
 1 Size Limits for Soils and Grain Size Distribution

Sieve Analysis
A sieve analysis is conducted by taking a measured amount of dry, well-pulverized
soil and passing it through a stack of progressively finer sieves with a pan at the
bottom. The amount of soil retained on each sieve is measured, and the cumulative
percentage of soil passing through each is determined. This percentage is generally
referred to as percent finer.
D60
Uniformity coefficient Cu =
D10

Coefficient of gradation
(or coefficient of curvature)

( D30 )
2

Cc =
( D60 )( D10 )

56
1 Size Limits for Soils and Grain Size Distribution

Example: Completely Decomposed Granite (CDG), a typical granular soil in Hong Kong
Uniformity coefficient Cu? Coefficient of gradation Cc?
100

80
Percent finer (%)

60

40
D60 = 0.15
20 D30 = 0.0129
D10 = 0.0015
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Particle size (mm)

( D30 ) = 0.74
2
D
Cu = 60 = 100 Cc =
D10 ( D60 )( D10 )
57
1 Size Limits for Soils and Grain Size Distribution
Hydrometer Analysis
In case of fine grained soil, sieve analysis test does not
give reliable test result. This because a fine grained soil
consist of different sizes of particles starting from 0.075
mm to 0.0002 mm. and it is not practicable to design
sieve having so smaller screen size. Also, there is a George Gabriel Stokes
chance of lost of sample during sieving. Therefore, (1819-1903)
hydrometer analysis is done for grain size analysis of
fine grained soils.
Hydrometer analysis is based on Stokes’ law. According 1 ( Gs − 1)  w 2
v= D
to this law, the velocity at which grains settles out of 18 
suspension, all other factors being equal, is dependent D = diameter of the soil particle
upon the shape, weight and size of the grain. Gs = specific gravity of soil solids
 = viscosity of water
In case of soil, it is assumed that the soil particles are w = unit weight of water
spherical and have the same specific gravity. Therefore, v = Terminal velocity of particle
we can say that in a soil water suspension the coarser
particles will settle more quickly than the finer ones.
58
 1 Size Limits for Soils and Grain Size Distribution
Sediment distance of the particle
From Stokes’ law to particle size L within the time t
1 ( Gs − 1)  w 2 18 18 L
v= D D= v=
18  ( Gs − 1)  w ( Gs − 1)  w t

 = viscosity of water (= 0.1x10-4 g.s/cm2 at 20⁰C)

w = unit weight of water (= 9.81 kN/m3)
Gs = specific gravity of soil solids
FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE MEDIUM
CLAY
SILT SAND GRAVEL
100

90

80
Deep marine
No.2
soils
Percentage finer (%)

70 No.4

60 From 33.6 to 34.6

From 42.3 to 43.3
50
From 44.3 to 45.3
40 From 44.3 to 45.3
30 From 43.2 to 44.2

20
Top marine soils From 39.5 to 40.5
From 47.2 to 48.2
10
GSD of HKMC 0
From 31.4 to 32.4

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

Particle size (mm) 59
 2 Weight–Volume Relationships
In nature, soils are three-phase systems consisting of solid soil particles, water,
and air (or gas). To develop the weight–volume relationships for a soil, the three
phases can be separated, based on which the volume relationships can then be
defined.

Vv Special case
e=
Vs
60
2 Weight–Volume Relationships

Various Forms of Relationships for , d, and sat

61
3 Relative Density, Atterberg Limits and Activity
In granular soils, the degree of compaction in the field can be measured
according to the relative density, defined as
emax − e   d −  d (min)   d (max)
Dr ( % ) = 100 or   100

emax − emin   d (max) −  d (min)   d
emax = void ratio of the soil in the loosest state
emin = void ratio in the densest state
e = in-situ void ratio Attention: physically
loose or dense, not
mechanically!
Denseness of a Granular Soil

62
3 Relative Density, Atterberg Limits and Activity
When a clayey soil is mixed with an excessive amount of water, it may flow like
a semiliquid. If the soil is gradually dried, it will behave like a plastic, semisolid,
or solid material, depending on its moisture content.
The moisture content, in percent, at which the soil changes from a liquid to a
plastic state is defined as the liquid limit (LL or wL). Similarly, the moisture
content, in percent, at which the soil changes from a plastic to a semisolid
state and from a semisolid to a solid state are defined as the plastic limit (PL
or wP) and the shrinkage limit (SL or wS), respectively.
These limits are referred to as Atterberg limits

PI = LL − PL
or PI = wL − wP
(wS) (wP) (wL)
63
3 Relative Density, Atterberg Limits and Activity
Because the plasticity of soil is caused by the adsorbed water that surrounds
the clay particles, we can expect that the type of clay minerals and their
proportional amounts in a soil will affect the liquid and plastic limits.
Skempton (1953) observed that the plasticity index of a soil increases linearly
with the percentage of clay-size fraction (% finer than 2 mm by weight)
present. The correlations of PI with the clay-size fractions for different clays
plot separate lines. This difference is due to the diverse plasticity
characteristics of the various types of clay minerals.
On the basis of these results, Skempton defined a quantity called activity,
which is the slope of the line correlating PI and % finer than 2 m, expressed as
PI
A=
% of clay-size fraction, by weight

Alec Westley Skempton

(1914-2001) 64
4 Soil Classification Systems
Soil classification systems divide soils into groups and subgroups based on
common engineering properties such as the grain-size distribution, liquid limit,
and plastic limit. The two major classification systems presently in use are:
(1) the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) System, mainly for the classification of highway subgrades;
(2) the Unified Soil Classification System (also ASTM), for all geotechnical work

65
4 Soil Classification Systems
Soil classification systems divide soils into groups and subgroups based on
common engineering properties such as the grain-size distribution, liquid limit,
and plastic limit. The two major classification systems presently in use are:
(1) the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) System, mainly for the classification of highway subgrades;
(2) the Unified Soil Classification System (also ASTM), for all geotechnical work

66
4 Soil Classification Systems
The Unified Soil Classification System was originally proposed by A.
Casagrande in 1942 and was later revised and adopted by the United States
Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Arthur Casagrande
(1902-1981)

67
Break
68
 5 Hydraulic Conductivity of Soil and Steady-State Seepage
The void spaces, or pores, between soil grains allow
water to flow through them. In soil mechanics and
foundation engineering, you must know how much
water is flowing through a soil per unit time. This
knowledge is required to design earth dams,
determine the quantity of seepage under hydraulic Henry Darcy
structures, and dewater foundations before and (1803-1858)
during their construction.

h
i=
v = ki L

 −4  e
3
 0.6 2.32   w 
k = 3.5 10   Cu D10   for sand
  1 + e     Type of soil k (cm/sec)

 en
k = C 1 + e for clay

69
5 Hydraulic Conductivity of Soil and Steady-State Seepage
For most cases of seepage under hydraulic structures, the flow path changes
direction and is not uniform over the entire area. In such cases, one of the ways
of determining the rate of seepage is by a graphical construction referred to as
the flow net, a concept based on Laplace’s theory of continuity.
2h 2h 2h
kx 2 + k y 2 + kz 2 = 0 ❖ A flow line is a path that a
x y z water particle would
follow in traveling from
the upstream side to the
downstream side.
❖ An equipotential line is a
line along which water, in
piezometers, would rise
x to the same elevation.
❖ flow lines perpendicular
to equipotential lines
❖ A flow net is a
combination of numerous
equipotential lines and
flow lines.
z
70
5 Hydraulic Conductivity of Soil and Steady-State Seepage
A number of flow lines and equipotential lines are drawn by trial and error so
that all the flow elements in the net have the same length-to-width ratio (L/B).
All flow lines must intersect all equipotential lines at right angles (perpendicular).

❖ The space between two consecutive flow lines is defined as a flow channel.
❖ The space between two consecutive equipotential lines is called a drop.

Seepage: q = kh N f n
max
Nd
Nf = number of flow channels
Nd = number of drops
n = B/L

Flow line
(assumed isotropic)
Equipotential line B for flow channel, L for drop

71
6 Effective Stress
The total stress at a given point in a soil mass can be expressed as

 =+u
Pore water pressure
Total stress Effective stress
(used to calculate settlement
Example 1 and soil strength)

Example 2

 =  w h1 +  sat h2 u =  w ( h1 + h2 + h )
  = (  h1 +  sat h2 ) −  w h2
 h 
= h1 +  h2  =  − u =   −  w  h2 = (   − i w ) h2
 
 h2  72
7 Consolidation
In the field, when the stress on a saturated clay layer is increased, for example
by the construction of a foundation, the pore water pressure in the clay will
increase. Because the hydraulic conductivity of clays is very small, some time
will be required for the excess pore water pressure to dissipate and the
increase in stress to be transferred to the soil skeleton.
This gradual increase in the effective stress in the clay layer will cause
settlement over a period of time and is referred to as consolidation.

u =  w hi

Excess pore water pressure

dissipate with time
  =  − u
u →0
⎯⎯⎯ → = 

73
7 Consolidation
Oedometer test:
❖ Specimens are placed inside a ring, with
one porous stone at the top and one at
the bottom of the specimen.
❖ A load on the specimen is then applied
so that the total vertical stress is equal
to Settlement readings for the
Preconsolidation Pressure specimen are taken periodically for 24
hours.
❖ The load on the specimen is doubled
and more settlement readings are
taken.

Compression Index
e
Swelling Index Cc or Cs =
 log  

74
 7 Consolidation

Preconsolidation pressure: an important parameter in determining settlements

Casagrande method for preconsolidation stress

1. Produce back the straight-line part (BC)

of the curve; e

2. Determine the point D of the maximum D

curvature on the recompression part of D’
AB of the curve; B
3. Draw the tangent to the curve at D and
bisect the angle between the tangent
and the horizontal through D;
4. The vertical through the point of
intersection of the bisector (DD’) and CB C
produced gives the approximate value
of the preconsolidation pressure. σ’c log σ’z
75
 7 Consolidation
Preconsolidation pressure
❖ Due to disturbance during retrieval/transportation/handling of soil samples, the
results from lab oedometer test may deviate from in-situ (field) behaviour.

In-situ e – logσ’ curve (Schmertmann, J.H. 1953)

1. In-situ value of e0 taken as the same e
as the start of oedometer test (A by A B
e0
e0 & ’z0 and B by e0 & ’c). σ’c corrected
2. In-situ recompression curve
approximated to be parallel to the Cc corrected
mean slope of laboratory
recompression curve (Line).
3. The in-situ and laboratory virgin 0.42*e0
compression lines intersect at 0.42 C
times of e0 (C).
σ’z0 σ’c log σ’z
4. Line BC gives the in-situ Cc and BC
crossing with “Line” gives in-situ ’c. 76
 7 Consolidation
Calculation of Primary Consolidation Settlement (using Cc and Ce)
( c = preconsolidation pressure ) (i) For over-consolidated clay-region
with  z0 +  z   c :
 z   c −  0
C   +  z
log ( z )
(Initial stress) (i) Sc ( p ) = s log z 0 H0
 z0  c 1 + e0  z0
 z   c −  0 (ii) For normally consolidated clay-region
Cs (1 + e0 ) (iii) with  z0   c &  z0 +  z   c :
(Swelling index)
C   +  z
Sc ( p ) = c log z 0 H0
Cc (1 + e0 ) 1 + e0  z0

log ( z )
(Compression index)
e  c  z0
z =
1 + e0  z
Cs (1 + e0 ) (ii)
(iii) From overconsolidated to normally consolidated
with  z0   c &  z0 +  z   c : Cc (1 + e0 )
 C  C   +  z 
Sc ( p ) =  s log c + c log z 0  H0 e
 1 + e0  
z0 1 + e0  
c  z =
1 + e0 77
7 Consolidation

Terzaghi’s theory of 1-D consolidation

Karl von Terzaghi

(1883-1963)

Some remarks implied and assumed:

h
❖ Darcy’s law: v = ki = k with k-permeability, h-hydraulic head
z
❖ The condition of continuity: for an incremental time dt, the change of volume of water
flowed out Vw equal to the change of volume (void space) due to the compression Vv.
❖ Compression equation expressed as: mv = d  z d  z  de = − (1 + e0 ) mv d z

78
7 Consolidation

Terzaghi’s theory of 1-D consolidation

Karl von Terzaghi

(1883-1963)
Solution:

The volume of water Vw flows out  v   v

Vw =  v + dz  − v  dxdydt = dxdydzdt
within the incremental time dt:  z   z
According to Darcy’s law: h 
v=k 
z k ue v k  2ue
h 1 ue   v =  z  z =  z 2
ue =  w h  =  w w
z  w z 
k  2 ue
Vw = dxdydzdt
 w z 2

79
7 Consolidation

Terzaghi’s theory of 1-D consolidation

Karl von Terzaghi

(1883-1963)
Solution:

The change of volume due to the  e  de

Vv = dVv = d ( nV ) = d  dxdydz  = dxdydz
change of void space Vv within dt: + +
 1 e0  1 e0

According to the compressibility law:

ue
de = − (1 + e0 ) mv d z = − (1 + e0 ) mv d ( − ue ) = (1 + e0 ) mv due = (1 + e0 ) mv dt
t
ue
(1 + e0 ) mv dt
u
Vv = t dxdydz = mv e dxdydzdt
1 + e0 t
80
7 Consolidation

Terzaghi’s theory of 1-D consolidation

Karl von Terzaghi

(1883-1963)
Solution:
For an incremental time dt, the change of volume of water Vw equal to change of
volume due to the change of void space Vv:
Vw = Vv
k  2 ue ue
 dxdydzdt = m dxdydzdt
 w z 2 v
t
k  2 ue ue
 = m coefficient of consolidation
 w z 2 v
t
ue k  2 ue  2 ue
 = = cv 2
t mv w z 2
z
81
7 Consolidation

Terzaghi’s theory of 1-D consolidation

Problem to be solved: ue  2ue

❖ = cv 2 , 0  z  2d , t  0
t z

ue (0, t ) = 0
❖ Boundary conditions:
ue (2d , t ) = 0, t  0

❖ Initial conditions: ue ( z ,0) = ui ( z ), 0  z  2d

d = maximum flow distance

Two methods for the solution:

❖ Numerical (Finite Difference)
❖ Analytical (Fourier expansion) 82
7 Consolidation
Numerical (Finite Difference) ue  2 ue
= cv 2 (1)
t z
❖ The following finite difference approximations can be derived from Taylor’s theorem:
 u
Time j
1
(
 t = t ui , j +1 − ui , j
e
)
 (2)
  2u
 2e =
1
(
ui −1, j − 2ui , j + ui +1, j )
 z ( z )
2

❖ Put (2) into (1), we can easily get:
cv t
ui , j +1 = ui , j + (u − 2ui , j + ui +1, j )
( z )
2 i −1, j

Depth i
cv t
❖ We can define an operator b: b=
( z )
2

ct cv nt n Numerical requirement:

Tv = v2 = = 4 b The errors due to neglecting higher-order
( 0.5mz )
2 2
d m
derivatives in Taylor’s theorem are reduced to a
minimum when the value of b less big than 1⁄6
83
7 Consolidation
Analytical (Fourier expansion)

❖ Exact solution for excess pore water pressure and degree of consolidation:
m =
 2u i  Mz  
ue = 
m=0  M


sin 
d 
 exp(− M Tv )
2

 Time factor:
M= (2m + 1)
2 ct
m =
Tv = v2 (unitless)
2
 U =1− 
m=0 M 2
exp( − M 2
Tv ) d

ue S
(Average degree of consolidation U = 1 − = c (t) )
ui Sc (max)

❖ Approximate solutions:
  2
 U U  0.6
Tv =  4
−0.933log(1 − U ) − 0.085 U  0.6

84
8 Shear Strength
The shear strength of a soil, defined in terms of effective stress, is
(Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion)
N
 n =
A  f = c +  n tan  

R
=
A

Charles-Augustin
de Coulomb
(1736-1806)

85
8 Shear Strength
(a) Direct shear n
, 

(b) Simple shear

n , 
n

(c) Ring shear

(n)

(, )

86
8 Shear Strength
z (z)
(d) Biaxial shear

h
 =0 (~h)

(e) Triaxial shear

a

r
r

Hollow cylinder pv T
(f) Others
torsional shear
True triaxial
1
z
 1 a
po pi z q
q
3 3
2 r=2

87
8 Shear Strength
Triaxial compression tests can be conducted on
sands and clays to measure shear strength

(CD)

(UU) 88
8 Shear Strength
Triaxial compression tests can be conducted on
sands and clays to measure shear strength

Consolidated-undrained test (CU)

89
9 Unconfined Compression Test and Sensitivity

The unconfined compression test is a special type

of unconsolidated undrained triaxial test in which
the confining pressure is zero.

For many naturally deposited clay soils, the unconfined compression strength is
much less when the soils are tested after remolding without any change in the
moisture content. This property of clay soil is called sensitivity. The degree of
sensitivity is the ratio of the unconfined compression strength in an
undisturbed state to that in a remolded state: qu ( undisturbed )
St =
qu ( remolded )
90
9 Unconfined Compression Test and Sensitivity

The sensitivity ratio of most clays ranges from about 1 to 8; however, highly
flocculent marine clay deposits may have sensitivity ratios ranging from about
10 to 80. Some clays turn to viscous liquids upon remolding, and these clays are
referred to as “quick” clays. The loss of strength of clay soils from remolding is
caused primarily by the destruction of the clay particle structure that was
developed during the original process of sedimentation.
Intact and remolded
Leda clay from Ottawa

91
Summary of Part I: Geotechnical Properties of Soil

I. Physical properties
❖ Size Limits for Soils and Grain-Size Distribution
❖ Weight–Volume Relationships

❖ Relative Density, Atterberg Limits and Activity

❖ Soil Classification Systems

II. Hydro-mechanical properties
❖ Hydraulic Conductivity of Soil and Steady-State Seepage

❖ Effective Stress

❖ Consolidation

❖ Shear Strength

❖ Unconfined Compression Test and Sensitivity

92
Summary of HKMC

(after Yeung & So 2001)

Typical SEM photos of HKMC: (a) turbulent

fabric, (b) oriented clay layer around cavity, (c)
coccolith, (d) concentric with (a), (e-f) extensive
amorphous coating of particles (after Tovey
1986)
93
Summary of HKMC (after Yeung & So 2001)

94
Summary of HKMC (after Yeung & So 2001)

6sin   3M 
M=   = sin −1  
3 − sin  6+M 
M

95
Summary of HKMC (after Yeung & So 2001)

96
Summary of HKMC (after Yeung & So 2001)

97
Exercise 1
The moist weight of 3 x 10-3 m3 of soil is 50 N. If the moisture content is 20%, and the
specific gravity of soil solids is 2.7, find the following:
a. Moist unit weight (kN/m3)
b. Dry unit weight (kN/m3)
c. Void ratio
d. Porosity
e. Degree of saturation (%)
f. Volume occupied by water (m3)

98
Exercise 2
The maximum and minimum dry unit weights of a sand are 17.1 and 14.2 respectively. The
sand in the field has a relative density of 70% with a moisture content of 12%. Determine
the moist unit weight of the sand in the field.

100
Exercise 3
A laboratory consolidation test on a normally consolidated clay showed the following
results:

Load, ’ (kN/m2) Void ratio at the end of consolidation, e

150 0.92
220 0.86

The specimen tested was 25.4 mm in thickness and drained on both sides. The time required
for the specimen to reach 50% consolidation was 5 min.
A similar clay layer in the field 2.8 m thick and drained on both sides, is subjected to a similar
increase in average effective pressure (i.e., ’0 = 150 kN/m2 and ’0 + ’ = 220 kN/m2).
Please determine:
a. the expected maximum primary consolidation settlement in the field.
b. the length of time required for the total settlement in the field to reach 40 mm. (Assume
a uniform initial increase in excess pore water pressure with depth.)

102
 References relating to HKMC
[1] S.-F. Zou, X.-Y. Xie, J.-Z. Li, Z.-J. Wang, H.-Y. Wang, Rheological characteristics and one-dimensional isotache modelling of marine soft clays,
Marine Georesources & Geotechnology, 37 (2019) 660-670.
[2] J. Yin, W. Feng, Validation of a new simplified hypothesis B method for calculating consolidation settlement of clayey soils exhibiting creep,
Geotechnical Engineering, (2018).
[3] W.-Q. Feng, B. Lalit, Z.-Y. Yin, J.-H. Yin, Long-term non-linear creep and swelling behavior of Hong Kong marine deposits in oedometer condition,
Computers and Geotechnics, 84 (2017) 1-15.
[4] F. Tong, J.-H. Yin, Experimental and constitutive modeling of relaxation behaviors of three clayey soils, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 139 (2013) 1973-1981.
[5] F. Tong, J.-H. Yin, H. Pei, Experimental study on complete consolidation behavior of Hong Kong marine deposits, Marine Georesources &
Geotechnology, 30 (2012) 291-304.
[6] F. Tong, J.-H. Yin, Nonlinear creep and swelling behavior of bentonite mixed with different sand contents under oedometric condition, Marine
Georesources & Geotechnology, 29 (2011) 346-363.
[7] Z. Fang, J.-H. Yin, Physical modelling of consolidation of Hong Kong marine clay with prefabricated vertical drains, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 43
(2006) 638-652.
[8] J.-H. Yin, C.-M. Cheng, Comparison of strain-rate dependent stress-strain behavior from K o-consolidated compression and extension tests on natural
Hong Kong marine deposits, Mar. Georesour. Geotechnol. , 24 (2006) 119-147.
[9] C.-M. Cheng, J.-H. Yin, Strain-Rate Dependent Stress--Strain Behavior of Undisturbed Hong Kong Marine Deposits under Oedometric and Triaxial
Stress States, Mar. Georesour. Geotechnol. , 23 (2005) 61-92.
[10] J.-H. Yin, Stress-strain strength characteristics of a marine soil with different clay contents, Geotech. Test. J. , 25 (2002) 459-462.
[11] J.-H. Yin, J.-G. Zhu, J. Graham, A new elastic viscoplastic model for time-dependent behaviour of normally and overconsolidated clays: theory and
verification, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 39 (2002) 157-173.
[12] J. Zhu, J. Yin, Drained creep behaviour of soft Hong Kong marine deposits, Géotechnique, 51 (2001) 471-474.
[13] J.-H. Yin, Time and strain-rate effects on the stress-strain behaviour of soft Hong Kong marine deposits, in: Proceedings of the international
conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering, aa balkema publishers, 2001, pp. 333-336.
[14] P. Lee, Y. Lam, W. Wong, Evaluation of a rational multistage triaxial test method on the strength parameters of Hong Kong marine clay, in: Soft Soil
Engineering, Routledge, 2017, pp. 683-688.
[15] J.-G. Zhu, J.-H. Yin, Strain-rate-dependent stress-strain behavior of overconsolidated Hong Kong marine clay, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 37
(2000) 1272-1282.
[16] J.-H. Yin, J.-G. Zhu, Measured and predicted time-dependent stress-strain behaviour of Hong Kong marine deposits, Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
36 (1999) 760-766.
[17] J.-G. Zhu, J.-H. Yin, S.-T. Luk, Time-dependent stress-strain behavior of soft Hong Kong marine deposits, Geotech. Test. J. , 22 (1999) 118-126.
[18] J.-H. Yin, Properties and behaviour of Hong Kong marine deposits with different clay contents, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 36 (1999) 1085-1095.
[19] X. LEE PKK, A laboratory investigation of the permeability characteristics of Hong Kong marine clay, in: Recent Advances in Soft Soil Engineering:
Proceedings of the International Conference on Soft Soil Engrg (ICSSE). Guangzhou: Science Press, 1993, pp. 2-127.

105
 References relating to CDG
[20] R.P. Chapuis, M. Aubertin, Discussion of "Influence of relative compaction on the hydraulic conductivity of completely decomposed granite in Hong Kong", Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 47 (2010) 704-707.
[21] H. Chen, C.F. Lee, K.T. Law, Causative mechanisms of rainfall-induced fill slope failures, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 130 (2004) 593-602.
[22] H. Chen, C.F. Lee, J.M. Shen, Mechanisms of rainfall-induced landslides in Hong Kong, 2000.
[23] L.M. Chu, J.H. Yin, A laboratory device to test the pull-out behavior of soil nails, Geotech. Test. J. , 28 (2005) 499-513.
[24] S.M. Dasaka, L.M. Zhang, Spatial variability of in situ weathered soil, Géotechnique, 62 (2012) 375-384.
[25] J.K.M. Gan, D.G. Fredlund, Shear strength characteristics of two saprolitic soils, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 33 (1996) 595-609.
[26] M.A. Hossain, J.H. Yin, Behavior of a Compacted Completely Decomposed Granite Soil from Suction Controlled Direct Shear Tests, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 136 (2010) 189-198.
[27] M. Kumruzzaman, J.H. Yin, Influence of the intermediate principal stress on the stress-strain-strength behaviour of a completely decomposed granite soil, Géotechnique, 62 (2012) 275-
280.
[28] G.L.M. Leung, W.G. Wong, Fundamental findings of dynamic behaviour of pavement subgrade material in hong kong, 2010.
[29] A.G. Li, L.G. Tham, Z.Q. Yue, C.F. Lee, K.T. Law, Comparison of field and laboratory soil-water characteristic curves, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 131
(2005) 1176-1180.
[30] P. Liu, X.W. Zhou, Y.B. He, Bond Yield Characteristics of Undisturbed Completely Decomposed Granite, Advances in Materials Science and Engineering, (2015).
[31] K.K. Lu, J.H. Yin, S.C. Lo, Modeling Small-Strain Behavior of Hong Kong CDG and Its Application to Finite-Element Study of Basement-Raft Footing, Int. J. Geomech. , 18 (2018).
[32] B.N. Madhusudhan, B.A. Baudet, Influence of reconstitution method on the behaviour of completely decomposed granite, Géotechnique, 64 (2014) 540-550.
[33] A.W. Malone, C.W.W. Ng, J.W. Pappin, I. Publications Comm Of Xiv, Panel discussion: The prediction and the control of displacements around deep excavations in completely
decomposed granite, 1999.
[34] C.W.W. Ng, X.S. Li, P.A. Van Laak, D.Y.J. Hou, Centrifuge modeling of loose fill embankment subjected to uni-axial and bi-axial earthquakes, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering, 24 (2004) 305-318.
[35] K.T.W. Ng, I.M.C. Lo, Fines migration from soil daily covers in Hong Kong landfills, Waste Manage. (Oxford) 30 (2010) 2047-2057.
[36] Y.J. Shang, S.J. Wang, Z.Q. Yue, Variation of shearing; strength parameters of undisturbed CDG in Hong Kong, 2003.
[37] S.Y. Wang, D. Chan, K.C. Lam, Experimental study of the effect of fines content on dynamic compaction grouting in completely decomposed granite of Hong Kong, Construction and
Building Materials, 23 (2009) 1249-1264.
[38] S.Y. Wang, D. Chan, K.C. Lam, S.K. Au, L.G. Tham, Soil improvement using compaction grouting - a laboratory investigation on the confining pressure and injection rate in completely
decomposed granite, 2007.
[39] S.Y. Wang, D.H. Chan, K.C. Lam, S.K.A. Au, Numerical and experimental studies of pressure-controlled cavity expansion in completely decomposed granite soils of Hong Kong,
Computers and Geotechnics, 37 (2010) 977-990.
[40] S.Y. Wang, D.H. Chan, K.C. Lam, S.K.A. Au, Effect Of Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient On Pressure Controlled Compaction Grouting In Triaxial Condition, Soils and Foundations,
50 (2010) 441-445.
[41] W.M. Yan, X.S. Li, Mechanical response of a medium-fine-grained decomposed granite in Hong Kong, Eng. Geol. , 129 (2012) 1-8.
[42] J.H. Yin, Influence of relative compaction on the hydraulic conductivity of completely decomposed granite in Hong Kong, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 46 (2009) 1229-1235.
[43] J.H. Yin, L.M. Chu, L.J. Su, Millpress, Study on the interface shear strength of soil nails in a completely decomposed granite soil by laboratory pullout tests and large-size direct shear
box tests, 2005.
[44] J.H. Yin, W.H. Zhou, M. Kumruzzaman, C.M. Cheng, A Rigid-Flexible Boundary True Triaxial Apparatus for Testing Soils in a Three-Dimensional Stress State, Geotech. Test. J. , 34
(2011) 265-272.
[45] Z.Q. Yue, Y.J. Shang, R.L. Hu, X.B. Tu, Five test methods for porosity of completely decomposed granite in Hong Kong, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. , 41 (2004) 393-394.
[46] T.L.T. Zhan, G.W. Jia, Y.M. Chen, D.G. Fredlund, H. Li, An analytical solution for rainfall infiltration into an unsaturated infinite slope and its application to slope stability analysis, Int.
J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. , 37 (2013) 1737-1760.
[47] L.M. Zhang, S.M. Dasaka, Uncertainties in Geologic Profiles versus Variability in Pile Founding Depth, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 136 (2010) 1475-
1488.

106
TOPICS & SYLLABUS:
I. Introduction and Geotechnical
Topic 1: Site Investigation Properties of Soil
Topic 2: Slope Stability II. Natural Soil Deposits and Subsoil
Exploration
Topic 3: Shallow Foundations
Topic 4: Mat (Raft) Foundations
Topic 5: Earth Retaining Structures
Topic 6: Pile Foundations

1
Civil Engineering 2019/2020
Subject: Geotechnical Design (CSE40403)

Site investigation
Part II- Natural Soil Deposits and Subsoil
Exploration
by Dr. Zhenyu YIN
Office: ZS915, Tel: 3400-8470
Email: zhenyu.yin@polyu.edu.hk
2
Main content:

I. Natural Soil Deposits

❖ Soil Origin
❖ Transported Soils
❖ Residual Soils
❖ Peats and Organic Soils

II. Subsurface Exploration

❖ Subsurface Exploration Program
❖ Boring and Sampling
❖ Field Mechanical Testing
❖ Geophysical Exploration

3
I. Natural Soil Deposits Atmosphere:
Air, wind, rain/sunny

life Rocks
Minerals

Weathering
Hydrosphere

Soils
Transported soils
Residual soils
Peats/organic soils
4
I.1 Soil origin
Most of the soils that cover the ❖ Changes in temperature result in expansion
earth are formed by the weathering and contraction of rock due to gain and loss
of various rocks. of heat.
Two general types of weathering: ❖ Continuous expansion and contraction will
result in the development of cracks in rocks.
(1) Physical weathering, is a process
by which rocks are broken down ❖ Flakes and large fragments of rocks are split.
into smaller and smaller pieces by
❖ Frost action is another source of physical
physical forces without any change
weathering of rocks.
in the chemical composition.
❖ Water can enter the pores, cracks, and other
(2) Chemical weathering, is a
openings in the rock. Continuous freezing
process of decomposition or
and thawing will result in the breakup of a
mineral alteration in which the
rock mass.
original minerals are changed into
something entirely different. ❖ Exfoliation by which rock plates are peeled
off from large rocks by physical forces.
❖ Action of running water, glaciers, wind,
ocean waves, etc.
5
I.1 Soil origin
Most of the soils that cover the
earth are formed by the weathering
of various rocks.
Two general types of weathering:
(1) Physical weathering, is a process
by which rocks are broken down
into smaller and smaller pieces by
physical forces without any change
in the chemical composition.
(2) Chemical weathering, is a
process of decomposition or
mineral alteration in which the
Common minerals in igneous rocks are quartz,
original minerals are changed into
feldspars, and ferromagnesian minerals. The
something entirely different.
decomposed products of these minerals due to
chemical weathering listed in the above Table.

6
I.2 Transported soils

Most rock weathering is a combination of physical and chemical weathering.

❖ Soil produced by the weathering of rocks can be transported by physical processes
to other places. The resulting soil deposits are called transported soils.
❖ In contrast, some soils stay where they were formed and cover the rock surface
from which they derive. These soils are referred to as residual soils.
❖ There are peats and organic soils, which derive from the decomposition of organic
materials (plant and animal detritus).

7
I.2 Transported soils
(1) Gravity transported soil
Most rock weathering is a combination of (2) Lacustrine (lake) deposits
physical and chemical weathering. (3) Alluvial or fluvial soil deposited
by running water
❖ Soil produced by the weathering of rocks
can be transported by physical processes (4) Glacial deposited by glaciers
to other places. The resulting soil deposits (5) Aeolian deposited by the wind
are called transported soils.
❖ In contrast, some soils stay where they
were formed and cover the rock surface
from which they derive. These soils are
referred to as residual soils.
❖ There are peats and organic soils, which
derive from the decomposition of organic
materials.

8
 I.2 Transported soils

Landslides in HK
after a rainstorm

Summary for the

locations of landslides
in HK (1982-2004 )

9
I.2 Transported soils
(1) Gravity transported soil
Most rock weathering is a combination of (2) Lacustrine (lake) deposits
physical and chemical weathering. (3) Alluvial or fluvial soil deposited
by running water
❖ Soil produced by the weathering of rocks
can be transported by physical processes (4) Glacial deposited by glaciers
to other places. The resulting soil deposits (5) Aeolian deposited by the wind
are called transported soils.
❖ In contrast, some soils stay where they
were formed and cover the rock surface
from which they derive. These soils are
referred to as residual soils.
❖ There are peats and organic soils, which
derive from the decomposition of organic
materials.

10
I.2 Transported soils
(1) Gravity transported soil
Most rock weathering is a combination of (2) Lacustrine (lake) deposits
physical and chemical weathering. (3) Alluvial or fluvial soil deposited
by running water
❖ Soil produced by the weathering of rocks
can be transported by physical processes (4) Glacial deposited by glaciers
to other places. The resulting soil deposits (5) Aeolian deposited by the wind
are called transported soils.
❖ In contrast, some soils stay where they
were formed and cover the rock surface
from which they derive. These soils are
referred to as residual soils.
❖ There are peats and organic soils, which
derive from the decomposition of organic
materials.

11
 I.2 Transported soils
Cross section of a braided-stream deposit

Fine sand

Gravel

Silt

Coarse sand

Levee and backswamp deposit

Formation of point bar deposits and

oxbow lake in a meandering stream

12
I.2 Transported soils
(1) Gravity transported soil
Most rock weathering is a combination of (2) Lacustrine (lake) deposits
physical and chemical weathering. (3) Alluvial or fluvial soil deposited
by running water
❖ Soil produced by the weathering of rocks
can be transported by physical processes (4) Glacial deposited by glaciers
to other places. The resulting soil deposits (5) Aeolian deposited by the wind
are called transported soils.
❖ In contrast, some soils stay where they
were formed and cover the rock surface
from which they derive. These soils are
referred to as residual soils.
❖ There are peats and organic soils, which
derive from the decomposition of organic
materials.

13
I.2 Transported soils
(1) Gravity transported soil
Most rock weathering is a combination of (2) Lacustrine (lake) deposits
physical and chemical weathering. (3) Alluvial or fluvial soil deposited
by running water
❖ Soil produced by the weathering of rocks
can be transported by physical processes (4) Glacial deposited by glaciers
to other places. The resulting soil deposits (5) Aeolian deposited by the wind
are called transported soils.
❖ In contrast, some soils stay where they
were formed and cover the rock surface
from which they derive. These soils are
referred to as residual soils.
❖ There are peats and organic soils, which
derive from the decomposition of organic
materials.

14
I.3 Residual soils

Most rock weathering is a combination of

physical and chemical weathering.
❖ Soil produced by the weathering of rocks
can be transported by physical processes
to other places. The resulting soil deposits
are called transported soils.
❖ In contrast, some soils stay where they
were formed and cover the rock surface
from which they derive. These soils are
referred to as residual soils.
❖ There are peats and organic soils, which
derive from the decomposition of organic
materials.

15
I.4 Peats and organic soils

Most rock weathering is a combination of

physical and chemical weathering.
❖ Soil produced by the weathering of rocks
can be transported by physical processes
to other places. The resulting soil deposits
are called transported soils. Major characteristics:
❖ In contrast, some soils stay where they 1) Natural moisture content may
were formed and cover the rock surface range from 200 to 300 %.
from which they derive. These soils are 2) Highly compressible.
referred to as residual soils. 3) Under loads, a large amount of
❖ There are peats and organic soils, which settlement is derived from
derive from the decomposition of organic secondary consolidation.
materials.

16
 In summary
Rocks
Minerals

Atmosphere (1) Gravity transported soil

Physical (2) Lacustrine (lake) deposits
Biosphere Weathering (3) Alluvial or fluvial soil
Chemical deposited by running water
Hydrosphere
(4) Glacial deposited by glaciers
(5) Aeolian deposited by the wind
Residual soils Transported soils
Below horizons
✓ Topsoil
Soils
✓ Completely weathered
Peats/organic soils
✓ Highly weathered
with plant and animal detritus
✓ Moderately weathered
✓ High water content
✓ Slightly weathered
✓ Highly compressible
✓ Fresh rock 17
✓ Highly creeping
Break
18
Main content:

I. Natural Soil Deposits

❖ Soil Origin
❖ Transported Soils
❖ Residual Soils
❖ Peats and Organic Soils

II. Subsurface Exploration

❖ Subsurface Exploration Program
❖ Boring and Sampling
❖ Field Mechanical Testing
❖ Geophysical Exploration

19
II.1 Subsurface exploration program

The purpose of subsurface exploration is to obtain information that will aid the
geotechnical engineer in
❖ Selecting the type and depth of foundation suitable for a given structure.
❖ Evaluating the load-bearing capacity of the foundation.
❖ Estimating the probable settlement of a structure.
❖ Determining potential foundation problems (e.g., expansive soil, collapsible soil,
sanitary landfill, etc.).
❖ Determining the location of the water table.
❖ Predicting the lateral earth pressure for structures such as retaining walls, sheet pile
bulkheads, and braced cuts.
❖ Establishing construction methods for changing subsoil conditions

20
II.1 Subsurface exploration program
Subsurface exploration comprises several steps:
❖ Collection of Preliminary Information ✓ Information regarding the type of
structure to be built and its general use;
❖ Reconnaissance
✓ A general idea of the topography;
❖ Site Investigation ✓ Type of soil to be encountered near and
around the proposed site.

✓ More detailed topography of the site (ditches, debris, cracks, etc.);

✓ Type of vegetation at the site (relating to the nature of the soil);
✓ High-water marks (nearby buildings and bridge abutments);
✓ Groundwater levels by checking nearby wells;
✓ Existence of any cracks in walls or other problems nearby;
✓ Stratification and physical properties of the soil nearby from any
available soil-exploration reports on existing structures.

21
II.1 Subsurface exploration program
Subsurface exploration comprises several steps:
❖ Collection of Preliminary Information
❖ Reconnaissance
❖ Site Investigation

✓ It consists of planning, making test boreholes, and collecting soil samples

at desired intervals for subsequent observation and laboratory tests.
✓ The approximate required minimum depth of the borings should be
predetermined.
✓ There are no hard-and-fast rules for borehole spacing. Spacing can be
increased or decreased, depending on the condition of the subsoil. If
various soil strata are more or less uniform and predictable, fewer
boreholes are needed than in nonhomogeneous soil strata.
22
 F
II.1 Subsurface exploration program q = F/(B*L)
Subsurface exploration comprises several steps:
❖ Collection of Preliminary Information
❖ Reconnaissance
❖ Site Investigation

(For a simple shallow foundation)

Rule of ASCE to determine the approximate minimum depth of boring
✓ Determine the net increase in the effective stress Ds’ under a foundation with depth.
✓ Estimate the variation of the vertical effective stress s’0 with depth.
✓ Determine the depth D1 at which Ds’= 0.1*q (q= net stress on the foundation).
✓ Determine the depth D2 at which Ds’/s’0 = 0.05.
✓ Choose the smaller of the two depths (D1 & D2), just determined as the approximate
minimum depth of boring required, unless bedrock is encountered. 23
II.1 Subsurface exploration program
Subsurface exploration comprises several steps:
❖ Collection of Preliminary Information
❖ Reconnaissance
❖ Site Investigation Depth of
boring Number of
Some empirical formulations and requirements: stories

(1) For light steel or narrow concrete buildings Db = 3S 0.7

(2) For heavy steel or wide concrete buildings Db = 6S 0.7
(3) When deep excavations are anticipated, the
depth of boring should be at least 1.5 times Approximate Spacing of Boreholes
the depth of excavation.
(4) The minimum depth of core boring into the
bedrock is about 3 m in the case of the
bedrock being considered as foundation.

24
In summary

The purpose of subsurface exploration:

✓ Type and depth of foundation, load-bearing capacity, settlement;
✓ Potential foundation problems, water table;
✓ Lateral earth pressure, construction methods;

Subsurface exploration comprises several steps:

✓ Collection of Preliminary Information
✓ Reconnaissance
✓ Site Investigation Boreholes (in-situ testing, soil sampling for lab tests)
✓ Depth (ASCE rule, empirical formulae/ requirements)
✓ Spacing (depending on the type of superstructure)

25
Break
26
 II.2 Boring and Sampling
Exploratory Borings in the Field
❖ Auger boring is the simplest method of making exploratory boreholes.
❖ Two types of hand auger (< 3 to 5 m): the posthole auger and the helical auger.
❖ Electrical continuous-flight augers are probably the most common method used
for advancing a borehole (up to 60~70 m):
- Rotary drilling, for soils not too hard;
- Percussion drilling, for hard soil and rock.

Posthole Helical
auger auger

27
II.2 Boring and Sampling
Sampling of soils
Two types of soil samples during subsurface exploration: disturbed and undisturbed.

Disturbed samples can generally be used for:

❖ Grain-size analysis
❖ Determination of liquid and plastic limits
❖ Specific gravity of soil solids
❖ Determination of organic content

Undisturbed soil samples can be used for:

❖ Consolidation (oedometer) test
❖ Hydraulic conductivity (permeability) test
❖ Shear strength tests (direct, triaxial…)

28
II.2 Boring and Sampling
Sampling of soils

Four typical sampling methods:

(1) Split-Spoon Sampling
(2) Sampling with a Scraper Bucket
(3) Sampling with a Thin-Walled Tube
(4) Sampling with a Piston Sampler

29
II.2 Boring and Sampling
AR ?
[1] Split-Spoon Sampling
Split-spoon samplers can
be used in the field to
obtain soil samples that
are generally disturbed,
but still representative.

How to estimate the degree of disturbance for a soil sample?

AR = Area ratio (ratio of disturbed area to total area of soil)

D −D
2 2
AR ( % ) = o
2
i
100 Do = Outside diameter of the sampling tube
Di Di = Inside diameter of the sampling tube

When the area ratio is 10% or less, the sample

generally is considered to be undisturbed.
30
II.2 Boring and Sampling
[2] Sampling with a Scraper Bucket
When the soil deposits are sand mixed with pebbles, obtaining samples by split-spoon
with a spring core catcher may not be possible because the pebbles may prevent the
springs from closing. In such cases, a scraper bucket may be used to obtain disturbed
representative samples.

31
II.2 Boring and Sampling
[3] Sampling with a Thin-Walled Tube
❖ Thin-walled tubes are made of seamless steel and are frequently used to obtain
undisturbed clayey soils.
❖ The most common dimension: outside diameter of 50.8 mm or 76.2 mm.
❖ The bottom end of the tube is sharpened.

Exercise
A thin-walled tube with 50.8 mm outside diameter has a wall thickness of 1.63 mm.
How is the degree of disturbance?

32
 II.2 Boring and Sampling
[4] Sampling with a Piston Sampler
When undisturbed soil samples are very soft
or larger than 76.2 mm in diameter, they tend
to fall out of the sampler. Piston samplers are
particularly useful under such conditions.
❖ Initially, the piston closes the end of the
tube. The sampler is lowered to the
bottom of the borehole, and the tube is
pushed into the soil hydraulically, past the
piston.
❖ Then the pressure is released through a
hole in the piston rod.
To a large extent, the presence of the piston
prevents distortion in the sample by not
letting the soil squeeze into the sampling
tube very fast and by not admitting excess
soil. Consequently, samples obtained in this
manner are less disturbed than those 33
obtained by Shelby tubes.
II.2 Boring and Sampling
Observation of Water Tables
❖ If water is encountered in a borehole during
a field exploration, that fact should be
recorded.
❖ In soils with high hydraulic conductivity (e.g.
in sand), the level of water in a borehole will
stabilize about 24 hours after completion of
the boring.
❖ In highly impermeable layers (e.g. in clay),
the water level in a borehole may not
stabilize for several weeks. A piezometer
should be used with periodic checking until
the water level stabilizes.

34
In summary
Exploratory Borings in the Field
✓ Hand augers (< 3 to 5 m): the posthole auger and the helical auger.
✓ Electrical augers (up to 60~70 m): rotary drilling (soft), percussion drilling (hard)

Sampling of soils
✓ Disturbed samples, used for tests of physical properties
✓ Undisturbed samples, used for hydro-mechanical properties

Four typical sampling methods

✓ Split-Spoon Sampling: for clayey soils, disturbed (AR = 111.5%)
✓ Sampling with a Scraper Bucket: for sand mixed with pebbles, disturbed
✓ Sampling with a Thin-Walled Tube: for clayey soils, undisturbed, AR around 10%
✓ Sampling with a Piston Sampler: for very soft clays or large-diameter tube, undisturbed

Observation of Water Tables

✓ In sandy soils, directly measure the water level in 24 h after borehole completion
✓ In clayey soils, use piezometer to periodically check the water level 35
Break
36
II.3 Field Mechanical Testing ✓ sample disturbance
Why need field mechanical testing? ✓ size effect
✓ boundary effect
Limitations of lab tests:
✓ expensive and time consuming

Typically, five field testing methods are used:

Blow Penetrate Expand Expand Rorate

SPT CPT DMT PMT VST

Pressurem-
Standard Cone Dilatometer eter Test Vane
Penetration Penetration Test Shear
Test Test Test
37
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wik
II.3 Field Mechanical Testing i/Standard_penetration_test

[1] Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

❖ During Split-Spoon Sampling, the sampler is driven
into the soil by hammer blows to the top of the drill
rod. The standard weight of the hammer is 622.72 N.
❖ The number of blows required for a spoon
penetration of three 152.4-mm intervals are
recorded. The number of blows required for the last
two intervals (why?) are added to give the standard
penetration number, N, at that depth.
Input energy = effective energy + energy dissipated Average energy ratio:
Actual hammer energy to the sampler Effective energy
Er ( % ) = 100
Input energy
❖ The N-value to a Er of 60%, noted as N60, is used for
correlating mechanical properties of soils.
N60 = standard penetration number
 H B S R N N = measured penetration number
N 60 = H = hammer efficiency (%)
60 B = correction for borehole diameter
S = sampler correction 38
R = correction for rod length
 II.3 Field Mechanical Testing H = hammer efficiency (%)
B = correction for borehole diameter
[1] Standard Penetration Test (SPT)  H B S R N S = sampler correction
N 60 =
60 R = correction for rod length

39
II.3 Field Mechanical Testing

Some correlations by N60

atmospheric pressure
(=101.325 kN/m2)
Undrained shear strength of clay cu = 0.29 N 600.72 pa

0.689
Overconsolidation ratio, OCR of clay  N 60 
OCR = 0.193  
s 
 0 
Effective vertical stress
Unconfined compression strength (UCS) of clay (in MPa)

 w −w 
 CI = L 
 wL − wp 

40
II.3 Field Mechanical Testing Correction coefficient. For example,
Liao and Whitman’s relationship (1986)
Some correlations by N60
pa atmospheric
 = CN N 60 CN = pressure
Correction for N60 in Granular Soil N 60 s 0 (101.325 kN/m2)
Effective vertical
stress
Relative Density of Granular Soil uniformity coefficient

(Kulhawy and Mayne 1990)

‘
(Meyerhof 1957)

‘
(Cubrinovski and Ishihara 1999)

41
II.3 Field Mechanical Testing Correction coefficient. For example,
Liao and Whitman’s relationship (1986)
Some correlations by N60
pa
 = CN N 60 CN =
Correction for N60 in Granular Soil N 60 s 0

Friction Angle of Granular Soil ‘ ‘

(Wolff 1989)
‘

(Kulhawy and Mayne 1990)

‘ (Hatanaka and Uchida 1996)

Elastic Modulus of Granular Soil

‘ (Kulhawy and Mayne 1990)

42
II.3 Field Mechanical Testing

Compactness and consistency of soil (GeoGuide 3, HK)

Approximate relation
between N and the
relative density of soil
(GeoGuide 3, HK)
43
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shear_vane_test
II.3 Field Mechanical Testing
[2] Vane Shear Test (VST)
The VST is used during the drilling operation
to determine the in-situ undrained shear
strength of clay soils—particularly soft clays.

Testing procedure:
(1) The vanes of the apparatus are pushed
into the soil at the bottom of a borehole
without disturbing the soil appreciably.
(2) Torque is applied at the top of the rod to
rotate the vanes at a standard rate (0.1⁰/sec).
This rotation will induce failure in a soil of
cylindrical shape surrounding the vanes.
(3) The maximum torque, T, applied to cause
failure is measured. The undrained shear
strength is estimated by
T  D2 H  D 
cu = K=  1 +  (why?) 44
K 2  3H 
II.3 Field Mechanical Testing
T
[2] Vane Shear Test (VST)
T  D2 H  D  (why?)
cu = K=  1 + 
K 2  3H 
Three failure surfaces: side of cylinder, top and bottom

Part 1: side of cylinder D

T1 =  DHcu
2

Part 2: top and bottom

D 2

T2 = 2  2 r  dr  cu  r
0
dr
( D 2)
3
 D3
D 2

= 4 cu  r 2 dr = 4 cu = cu r
0
3 6
In total:
D  D3 T  D2 H  D 
T = T1 + T2 =  DHcu + cu  cu = with K =  1 + 
2 6 K 2  3H  45
II.3 Field Mechanical Testing
[2] Vane Shear Test (VST)
The cu is overestimated by VST. (Morris and Williams 1994)
In real design cu needs to be
corrected: cu = cu (VST)

(Bjerrum 1972)

Preconsolidation pressure of clay

s c = 7.04 ( cu )
0.83

Overconsolidation ratio of clay cu

OCR = 
s 0
(Mayne and Mitchell 1988)

(Hansbo 1957)

(Larsson 1980) 46
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cone_penetration_test
II.3 Field Mechanical Testing
[3] Cone Penetration Test (CPT)
❖ The test is also called the static penetration test,
and no boreholes are necessary to perform it.
❖ In the original version, a cone with a base area of
10 cm2 was pushed into the ground at a steady rate
(20 mm/sec).
❖ Two measures by the CPT can be obtained:
(a) the cone resistance (qc) to penetration developed
by the cone, which is equal to the vertical force
applied to the cone, divided by its horizontally
projected area;
(b) the frictional resistance (fc) which is equal to the
vertical force applied to the sleeve, divided by its
surface area—actually, the sum of friction and
adhesion.

47
 II.3 Field Mechanical Testing
[3] Cone Penetration Test (CPT)
Friction ratio (Fr) is defined as

Frictional resistance f c
Fr = =
Cone resistance qc

Empirical formulations by
Anagnostopoulos et al. (2003):

Attention: not always applicable!

Typical results of CPT

48
II.3 Field Mechanical Testing
[3] Cone Penetration Test (CPT)
(Kulhawy and Mayne 1990)
Relative density of sand

49
II.3 Field Mechanical Testing
[3] Cone Penetration Test (CPT)

Drained Friction Angle of sand

(Kulhawy and Mayne 1990)

(Ricceri et al. (2002)

(Lee et al. 2004)

50
II.3 Field Mechanical Testing
[3] Cone Penetration Test (CPT)
(Robertson and Campanella 1983)
Undrained Shear Strength

Preconsolidation pressure

Overconsolidation ratio

51
II.3 Field Mechanical Testing
[3] Cone Penetration Test (CPT) (Anagnostopoulos et al. 2003)
Correlation between qc and N60

52
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressuremeter_test
II.3 Field Mechanical Testing
[4] Pressuremeter Test (PMT)
❖ The PMT is an in-situ test conducted in a borehole. It
was originally developed by Menard (1956) to measure
the strength and deformability of soil.
❖ The PMT consists of a probe with three cells (top and
bottom guard cells, the middle measuring cell).
❖ The common dimension of probe has a diameter of 58
mm and a length of 420 mm.
❖ The probe cells can be expanded by liquid/gas. The
guard cells are expanded to reduce the end-condition
effect on the measuring cell (V0 = 535 cm3).
❖ During the expansion, the soil around the borehole is
first pushed back into the initial state (with an
incremental volume v0), and then continues to expand.
❖ The soil is considered to have failed when the total
volume of the expanded cavity is about twice the
volume of the original cavity (V = 2*(V0 + v0)). 53
II.3 Field Mechanical Testing
[4] Pressuremeter Test (PMT)
Zone I represents the reloading
portion during which the soil
around the borehole is pushed back
into the initial state (i.e., the state it
was in before drilling). The pressure
p0 represents the in-situ total
horizontal stress.
Zone II represents a pseudoelastic
zone in which the cell volume
versus cell pressure is practically
linear (with a pressuremeter
modulus Ep). The pressure pf
represents the yield pressure.
Zone III is the plastic zone. The
pressure pl represents the limit
pressure.

54
II.3 Field Mechanical Testing
[4] Pressuremeter Test (PMT)

Pressuremeter modulus
 Dp 
E p = 2 (1 + m s )(Vo + vm )  
 Dv 
ms = Poisson’s ratio (=0.33)

Preconsolidation pressure
(Kulhawy and Mayne 1990) s c = 0.45 pl

Undrained shear strength of clay pl − p0

cu =
(Baguelin et al. 1978) Np
 Ep 
N p = 1 + ln  
 u
3c
Coefficient of in-situ Pore water pressure
p −u
earth pressure at rest K0 = 0 0 55
s 0 In-situ vertical effective stress
II.3 Field Mechanical Testing
[5] Dilatometer Test (DMT)
❖ The DMT consists of a flat plate. A
thin, flat, circular, expandable steel
membrane is located flush at the
center on one side of the plate.
❖ The dilatometer probe is inserted
into the ground with a cone
penetrometer testing rig.
❖ Two pressure readings are taken: (1)
the pressure A required to “lift off”
the membrane, and (2) the pressure
B at which the membrane expands
1.1 mm into the surrounding soil.
❖ Contact stress p0 and expansion Pore water pressure
stress p1 are obtained from the
In-situ vertical
pressures A and B. effective stress

56
II.3 Field Mechanical Testing
[5] Dilatometer Test (DMT)
Three important parameters:

57
 In summary

Field testing methods Measures For clayey soils For sandy soils Applied by

Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N60 cu, OCR, UCS Dr, f', Es Blow

Vane Shear Test (VST) cu cu, s'c, OCR N.A. Rotate

Cone Penetration Test (CPT) qc, fc cu, s'c, OCR Dr, f' penetrate

Pressuremeter Test (PMT) p0, pf, pl, Dv cu, s'c, K0, Ep K0, Ep Expand

Dilatometer Test (DMT) p0, p1 cu, OCR, K0, Es K0, Es, f' Expand

58
Break
59
II.4 Geophysical Exploration
Three typical geophysical exploration techniques:
✓ Seismic refraction survey
✓ Cross-hole seismic survey
✓ Resistivity survey
Advantages: rapid evaluation, large areas, less expensive than field testing.
Drawbacks: definitive interpretation is difficult, thus only for preliminary work.

60
II.4 Geophysical Exploration
[1] Seismic Refraction Survey
Purpose: to obtain the thickness of the soil layer and the depth to rock/hard soil at a site.
Principle and procedure:
❖ To create a point Source (P-waves) by a hammer blow or by a small explosive charge;
❖ To record with time the first arrival of P-waves at several other points (e.g., 1, 2, …… );
❖ To estimate the thickness of soil layer using velocities and times.

v=
Es (1 − ms )
( g ) (1 − 2ms )(1 + ms )

61
II.4 Geophysical Exploration
To determine the velocity v of P waves in various layers and the thicknesses
of those layers:

62
II.4 Geophysical Exploration
[2] Cross-Hole Seismic Survey
Purpose: to obtain the shear modulus of
the soil layer at a specified depth.
Principle and procedure:
❖ Two holes drilled into the ground with
a distance L.
❖ A vertical impulse is created at the
bottom of one borehole by means of
an impulse rod, to generate S-waves.
❖ The velocity of S-waves can be
estimated by
L
vs =
t

Gs vs2
vs =  Gs =
( g ) g (Stokoe and Woods, 1972)
63
II.4 Geophysical Exploration
[3] Electrical Resistivity Survey
The electrical resistivity of any conducting
material having a length L and an area of
cross section A, defined as Electrical
AR
= resistance
L
Purpose: to obtain the thickness of the soil
layer at a site.
(a) Wenner method
Principle and procedure:
❖ To make four electrodes driven into the
ground and spaced equally along a straight
line (referred as Wenner method).

2 dV Voltage drop
=
I Electrical current

To extend, the empirical method was

developed by conducting tests at various
electrode spacings (many d, >4). (b) empirical method
64
In summary

Geophysical exploration Purpose Principle

techniques

Seismic refraction survey Thickness, depth P-waves, to measure the time of

arrival for many distances

Cross-hole seismic survey Shear modulus S-waves, to measure the time of

arrival at a given distance

Resistivity survey Thickness Electricity, to measure the Voltage

drop and Electrical current to
obtain the electrical resistivity

65
II. Subsoil Exploration Report
General requirements of a Report:
1) A description of the scope of the investigation
2) A description of the proposed structure for which the subsoil exploration has been
conducted
3) A description of the location of the site, including any structures nearby, drainage
conditions, the nature of vegetation on the site and surrounding it, and any other
features unique to the site
4) A description of the geological setting of the site
5) Details of the field exploration—that is, number of borings, depths of borings, types of
borings involved, etc.
6) A general description of the subsoil conditions, as determined from soil specimens and
from related laboratory tests, standard penetration resistance and cone penetration
resistance, etc.
7) A description of the water-table conditions
8) Recommendations regarding the foundation, including the type of foundation
recommended, the allowable bearing pressure, and any special construction procedure
that may be needed; alternative foundation design procedures should also be
discussed in this portion of the report
66
9) Conclusions and limitations of the investigations
II. Subsoil Exploration Report
Necessary attachments to the report:
1) A site location map
2) A plan view of the location of the borings with
respect to the proposed structures and those
nearby
3) Boring logs
4) Laboratory test results
5) Other special graphical presentations

67
Exercise 1
A load of 100 kN is carried on a foundation 2 m square at a shallow depth in a soil
mass. The foundation soil has a water table at the top of ground, and a saturated
unit weight of 17 kN/m3.
Please use the rule of ASCE to determine the approximate minimum depth of
boring. (Note: The calculation of stress in soil is simplified by the equation of point
load.) 52
Q 3  1 
s z = 2 I P with I P =  
z 2 1 + ( r z )2  Q
q = Q/(B*L)

68
Exercise 2
For a Shelby tube, given: outside diameter = 76.2 mm and inside diameter = 73 mm.
What is the area ratio of the tube?
Do2 − Di2
Ar =
Di2

70
Exercise 3
A soil profile is shown in Figure below along with the standard penetration numbers in
the clay layer. Use the following equations to determine the variation of cu and OCR
with depth. What is the average value of cu and OCR?
0.689
 N 60 
cu = 0.29 N 600.72 pa OCR = 0.193  
s 
 0 
= 100 kPa in MPa
Atmospheric pressure

Depth (m) N60 σ’0 (kPa) cu (kPa) OCR

3 5
4.5 8
6 8
7.5 9 72
9 10
Exercise 4
The following table gives the variation of the field standard penetration number
(N60) in a sand deposit.
The groundwater table is located at a depth of 12 m. The dry unit weight of sand
from 0 to a depth of 12 m is 17.6 kN/m3. Assume that the mean grain size (d50) of
the sand deposit to be about 0.8 mm. Estimate the variation of the relative density
with depth for sand. Use the following equation.
0.5
 
1.7
0.06    pa
  0.23 +
 N 60   =CN N 60 with CN =
N 60
 s 0
  D50   1 
Dr (% ) =   

9  s 0 
 p  (D50 in mm, stress in kN/m2)
  a 

Depth (m) N60 σ’0 (kPa) Dr (%)
1.5 5
3 11
4.5 14
6 18
7.5 16
74
9 21
Exercise 5
In a pressuremeter test in a soft saturated clay, the measuring cell volume V0 = 535
cm3, p0 = 42.4 kN/m2, pf = 326.5 kN/m2, v0 = 46 cm3, and vf = 180 cm3.
Assuming Poisson’s ratio (ms) to be 0.5 and using the Figure below, calculate the
pressuremeter modulus (Ep).

 Dp 
E p = 2 (1 + m s )(Vo + vm )  
 Dv 

76
Exercise 6
The results of a refraction survey at a site are given in the following table. Please
determine the P-wave velocities and the thickness of the material encountered.

Distance of geophone from Time of first arrival

Time of first arrival, t (sec x 10-3)

the source of disturbance (m) (sec x 10-3)

Distance, x (m)

78
TOPICS & SYLLABUS:
Topic 1: Site Investigation
Topic 2: Slope Stability
Topic 3: Shallow Foundations
Topic 4: Mat (Raft) Foundations
Topic 5: Earth Retaining Structures
Topic 6: Pile Foundations

a
1
Civil Engineering 2020/2021
Subject: Geotechnical Design (CSE40403)

Slope Stability

by Dr. Zhenyu YIN

Office: ZS915, Tel: 3400-8470
Email: zhenyu.yin@polyu.edu.hk
Main content:
1 Introduction
2 Factor of safety
3 Methods of slope stability analysis
3.1 Limit equilibrium method (LEM) – most common
3.2 Limit analysis – energy balance
3.3 Finite element/difference method (FEM/FDM)
4 LEM-based method of slices
4.1 Translational sliding failure
4.2 Method of slices
4.3 Method of Bishop
5 Design of slope stability
3
1 Introduction

✓ The generally slow displacement of a mass of slope along a sliding surface.

✓ This surface has a depth that varies from the order of the meter to a few tens or even
a few hundred meters in exceptional cases.
✓ The landslide velocities remain variable but can reach a few decimetres a year.
✓ When there is a rupture/failure, the slope can slide very quickly, especially when
saturated with water.

Sliding distance
Sliding
surface

Time

4
1 Introduction
Landslide in La Conchita,
California, 1995

Low sliding velocity

High sliding velocity

Champagne, France

Sliding distance

Time

5
1 Introduction
Results of slope instability:
landslides

Slope

Soil Rock

Stability Consequ Protecti-

analysis -ence on

e.g. runout distance;

Impact to existing
structures

6
1 Introduction

7/9/2016 at Lantau Island

21/5/2016
slope failure at
Sai Kung,
about 2000m3
failure mass
1 Introduction
Rainfall is a very critical
problem in HK. Average
rainfall 1961-1990 is
2214mm per year. From
1961-2007 is 2304mm.
Average 300 slope failures
in the past._by CEDD

Debris flow at Tsing Shan 1990 Debris flood at Route Twisk, Tsuen Wan,

Debris flow at North Lantau

1 Introduction

Shum Wan Road 1995

1 Introduction

Flume test of landslide in PolyU (using HK-CDG, simulating rainfall, reduced scale)
1 Introduction

20/12/2015, Shenzhen, slope failure

and debris flow, 77 people killed
1 Introduction
Mountain collapse in Mao County, Sichuan, 06/2017

Before After
 In summary

High & steep

Long & gentle

Stability analysis
✓ Factor of safety
✓ Failure surface
✓ Shear strength
✓ Equilibrium
13
Break
14
2 Factor of safety

Expressed by Fs or FOS, defined for the Slope Stability Analysis

t
❖ Total stress approach t f = cu

For clayey slopes or slopes with saturated sandy soils under

short-term loadings with the pore pressure not dissipated. s’n

❖ Effective stress approach

For long-term stability analysis in which drained conditions t

prevail.

For natural slopes and slopes in residual soils, where a

significant rainfall may occur over a long period (like in HK). s’n

15
2 Factor of safety
Three FOS can be defined:

1. Moment equilibrium: generally used for the analysis of the rotational landslides.
Considering a circular slip surface, the factor of safety is defined:
Fsm = Mr/Md

Where Mr is the sum of the resisting moments (against rotation)

Md is the sum of the driving moments (overturning)

2. Force equilibrium: generally applied to translational or rotational failures

composed of plane or polygonal slip surfaces
Fsf = Fr/Fd

Where Fr is the sum of the resisting forces

Fd is the sum of the driving forces

3. Shear strength: the actual shear stress mobilized along the failure surface against
the ultimate shear strength as:
tm =tf/Fst with tf = c’+σ’n tanϕ’ or tf = cu

16
2 Factor of safety
Mr = sum of resisting moments
Md = sum of driving moments
❖ Based on moment: Fsm = Mr/Md tf = ultimate shear strength
❖ Based on force: Fsf = Fr/Fd tm = mobilized shear stress
Fr = sum of the resisting forces
❖ Based on shear strength: Fst = tf/tm Fd = sum of the driving forces

Attention:
✓ Without external forces, these definitions are same.
✓ With external forces, they are different.

For example, under an external supporting load:

❖ Active support: Fsm = Mr/(Md-Me) where Me=resisting moment from support
❖ Passive support: Fsm = (Mr+Me)/Md

Mr M + Me (If Mr = 3, Md = 2, Me = 1, Fs = ?)
− r
Md − Me Md
Active support is more commonly adopted,
=
(Me + Mr − Md ) Me > or < 0??? China code for hydraulic structures – adopt passive
(Md − Me ) Md support concept.
17
2 Factor of safety Exercise
Force against sliding
Example 1: Estimate the factor of safety (1) Fsf =
Force of sliding
using three definitions of FOS?

O Rcos(a+b)
Rotation center
R htanb
htan(a+b)

W
tf h
b a
Shear Strength
(2) Fsτ =
Shear stress

Unit weight: g
Undrained shear strength: cu
Moment against rotation
(3) Fsm =
Moment of overturning

18
2 Factor of safety
Force against sliding
Example 1: Estimate the factor of safety (1) Fsf =
Force of sliding
using three definitions of FOS?
t fl
Fs =
Rcos(a+b) W cos (a + b )
O
Rotation center cu h cos (a + b )
=
R htanb 1 2
g h  tan (a + b ) − tan ( b )  cos (a + b )
htan(a+b) 2
2c 1
= u
W g h  tan (a + b ) − tan ( b )  cos 2 (a + b )
tf h
b a
Shear Strength
(2) Fsτ =
Shear stress
tf t fl
Fs = =
Unit weight: g W cos (a + b ) l W cos (a + b )
Undrained shear strength: cu
Moment against rotation
1 (3) Fsm =
W= h  h tan (a + b ) − h tan ( b )  g
2  Moment of overturning
1
= g h 2  tan (a + b ) − tan ( b )  t f lR t fl
Fs = =
2 WR cos (a + b ) W cos (a + b )
19
2 Factor of safety

Example 2: Estimate the factor of safety?

by the forces of strength resistance
x = resistant along the rupture circus
O
q R Moment against 𝒓𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏
C B 𝑭𝒔 =
Moment of overturning
R
W
h by forces of overturning = Weight
tf of soil limited by the rupture circus
A
Unit weight: g
Undrained shear strength: cu

This is the simplest of the circular arc methods of analysis. Failure is assumed to occur by
rotation of a rigid block of soil on a cylindrical failure surface along which the undrained
shear strength of the soil cu is mobilized. [known as Fellenius Method]

20
2 Factor of safety

Example 2: Estimate the factor of safety?

x
1) Length of arc: L = Rq
O
q R 2) The tm is average mobilized shear stress along
C B L, so T = tmL = (cu/Fs)Rq
R
W 3) Restoring moment: TR
h
tf 4) Overturning moment: Wx

A 5) Since Wx = TR , hence Fs = (cuR2q)/(Wx)

Alternatively,
tfLR = cuLR = cuR2q
Moment 𝒂𝒈𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒔𝒕 𝒓𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏
𝑭𝒔 =
Moment of overturning
Wx

21
2 Factor of safety

Estimate the factor of safety Moment against 𝒓𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 cuR2 q

𝑭𝒔 = =
x
Moment of overturning Wx
O
q R
C B O =W3x3-W1x1-W2x2
R O
W
h 2
tf B
C C
1
A
O
Unit weight: g
Undrained shear strength: cu
A
3 B
Different position of O gives different arcs

22
In summary

Two approaches of Slope Stability Analysis:

total stress approach, effective stress approach

Three factors of safety:

✓ Based on moment: Fsm = Mr/Md
✓ Based on force: Fsf = Fr/Fd
✓ Based on shear strength: Fst = tf/tm

▪ Without external forces, these definitions are same.

▪ With external forces, they are different.

If there is external load:

✓ Active support
✓ Passive support

23
Break
24
3 Methods of slope stability analysis
❖ Limit equilibrium method (LEM) – most common
❖ Limit analysis method (LAM) – energy balance
❖ Finite element/difference method (FEM/FDM)
❖ Distinct element/rigid element method – uncommon
❖ Slip-line method – uncommon
❖ Variational principle – uncommon

25
3 Methods of slope stability analysis Exercise

3.1 Limit Equilibrium Method (LEM)

❖ An “arbitrary” failure surface (or slices) is assumed
❖ Equilibrium (force/moment) is considered for the failing soil mass (or slices)
❖ Stress equilibrium (mass and slices) is NOT necessarily considered

htan(b)
❑ Example 3a: Estimate FOS and the critical height
of a vertical cut by LEM (total stress approach) W
tf h
Relating to high & steep slopes b

Undrained shear strength: cu

Unit weight: g

26
3 Methods of slope stability analysis
htan(b)

Wsin(b) 1
W = g h 2 tan ( b ) W
W
2 tf h
Wcos(b) b
Solution:
Step 1: for an arbitrary slip surface (b ), the general FOS is
t l = W cos ( b )
tf h 1
 = g h 2 tan ( b ) cos ( b )
Fs cos ( b ) 2 4cu hcr
Fs = =
 Fs =
2cu b = 4
⎯⎯⎯ → gh h
g h tan ( b ) cos 2 ( b )

Step 2: “The critical height”corresponds to an “h” at FOS = 1 Step 3

2cu 4cu
2cu 2cu hcr = =
Fs = = 1  h = g tan ( 4 ) cos 2 ( 4 ) g
g h tan ( b ) cos 2 ( b ) g tan ( b ) cos 2 ( b )

“h” depends on “b ”, and it should exist a “b ” for a minimum value of “h”:

h −2cu cos ( 2 b ) 
= = 0  cos ( 2 b ) = 0  b =
b g sin ( b ) cos ( b )  2
4
  corresponds to a minimum FOS for general case
27
3 Methods of slope stability analysis

3.2 Limit analysis method (LAM) (e.g. MC, DP) (f = y)

❖ Assumptions: (a) Soils behavior is perfect/ideal plastic, (b) Yield surface is convex in
shape and plastic strains follow an associative flow rule (normality), (c) Changes in
geometry of soil mass at failure are insignificant; (E = )
❖ Two theorems: (a) Upper bound (unsafe) solution based on energy; (b) Lower bound
(safe) solution based on stress. The true solution in between.

(“movement or displacement happened and failure

occurred” are assumed, so unsafe assumption)

Unsafe theorem
An unsafe solution to the true collapse loads (for the ideal plastic material) can be
found by selecting any kinematically possible failure mechanism and performing
an appropriate work (or energy) calculation. The loads so determined are either
on the unsafe side or equal to the true collapse loads.
Referred as “Upper bound” theorem. The accuracy of the solution depends on
how close the assumed failure mechanism is to the real one.
28
3 Methods of slope stability analysis
htan(b)
❑ Example 3b: Estimate FOS and the critical height
W
of a vertical cut by Upper bound analysis
tf h
b
Solution:
Step 1: for an arbitrary slip surface, under a relative
displacement between the two rigid blocks u, Wsin(b)
1
the dissipation energy is W = g h 2 tan ( b )
2 W
c h Wcos(b)
E p = t lu = u u
Fs cos ( b )
work done by external (body) forces is
u
1 ucos(b)
Ew = Wu cos ( b ) = g h 2 tan ( b ) u cos ( b )
2 usin(b)
Step 2: equilibrium of work gives:
E p = Ew
cu h 1
 u = g h 2 tan ( b ) u cos ( b )
Fs cos ( b ) 2
2cu
 Fs =
g h tan ( b ) cos 2 ( b ) The rest is same as the example 3a.
29
3 Methods of slope stability analysis

❑ Limit analysis method (LAM) (e.g. MC, DP) (f = y)

❖ Assumptions: (a) Soils behavior is perfect/ideal plastic, (b) Yield surface is convex in
shape and plastic strains follow an associative flow rule (normality), (c) Changes in
geometry of soil mass at failure are insignificant; (E = )
❖ Two theorems: (a) Upper bound (unsafe) solution based on energy; (b) Lower bound
(safe) solution based on stress. The true solution in between.

Safe theorem
If a statically admissible stress field covering the whole soil mass can be found,
which nowhere violates the yield condition, then the loads in equilibrium with the
stress field are on the safe side or equal to the true collapse loads.
Referred as “Lower bound” theorem. The accuracy of the solution depends on
how close the assumed stress field is to the real one.

30
3 Methods of slope stability analysis
❑ Example 3c: Estimate FOS and the critical height
of a vertical cut by Lower bound analysis
h
Solution:
In stress field, to find an equilibrium distribution of
sz = g *z
stress that balances the body stress (geostatic stress):
cu sh =
sz = gh = 2
Fs K0*s’z+u
2cu
 Fs =
gh t
sz = gh
cu

Fs =1 2cu cu/Fs
⎯⎯⎯
→ hcr =
g sz sh sz s’n

LEM = Upper > Lower

31
3 Methods of slope stability analysis

3.3 Finite element method

✓ Element and mesh
✓ Boundary conditions
✓ Loading conditions
✓ Model of material

The constitutive model generally adopted:

Mohr-Coulomb model (c-f)
Using strength reduction method:
For the stability of slope under self-weight, a factor of safety on its strength
parameters will be calculated. In c-f reduction method, the factor of safety is
defined as follows:
c* = c/SRF & (tanf)*= (tanf )/SRF
This factor SRF is obtained when the finite element calculation reaches the latest
converged solution, just before slope failure.
32
3 Methods of slope stability analysis
Example using PLAXIS (a commercial finite element code)

Introduction of PLAXIS: https://www.bentley.com/en/products/brands/plaxis

To get a demo version: https://www.bentley.com/en/about-us/contact-us/sales-contact-request-m-plaxis
33
In summary
Limit Equilibrium Method (LEM)
✓ An “arbitrary” failure surface (or slices) is assumed
✓ Equilibrium (force/moment) is considered for the failing soil mass (or slices)
✓ Stress equilibrium (mass and slices) is NOT necessarily considered

Limit analysis method (LAM)

✓ Assumptions: (a) Soils behavior is perfect/ideal plastic, (b) Yield surface is
convex in shape and plastic strains follow an associative flow rule (normality),
(c) Changes in geometry of soil mass at failure are insignificant.
✓ Two theorems: (a) Upper bound (unsafe) solution based on energy; (b) Lower
bound (safe) solution based on stress. The true solution in between.
General remark:
A solution obtained using the limit equilibrium method is not necessarily an upper or
a lower bound. However, any upper-bound (energy based) limit analysis solution will
obviously be a limit equilibrium solution. (Don’t be confused:
same solution, but not same method!)
Finite element method (FEM)
✓ The constitutive model generally adopted: Mohr-Coulomb model (c-f)
✓ Using strength reduction method: c* = c/SRF & (tanf)*= (tanf )/SRF 34
Exercise 1: Estimate the factor of safety of the translational slope Tutorials
below according to an arbitrary slice of soil block.
Force against sliding Shear Strength
(1) Fsf = (2) Fsτ =
Force of sliding Shear stress

(3) If the soil is cohesionless, how will be the FOS.

z
Unit weight: g
shear strength: c’, f’
(water table below
the bedrock)

(1-2) c’ = 20 kPa, f’ = 25o, g = 20 kN/m3, β =17o, z = 4 m, FOS = ?

(3) c’ = 0 kPa, FOS = ?
35
Solution of Exercise 1 Tutorials
b
Force against sliding
(1) Fsf = b
Force of sliding
z T
Fs =
Tf
=
( c + s n tan f )( b cos b )
T g zb sin b Unit weight: g
W N
shear strength: c’, f’
c + s n tan f 
=
g z sin b cos b
N g zb cos b l=b/cosb
s n = = = g z cos 2 b W = g zb (FOS = 1.53)
l b cos b
N = W cos b = g zb cos b (3) Cohesionless soil: c’ = 0
c + g z cos b tan f 
2
T = W sin b = g zb sin b
0 + g z cos 2 b tan f  tan f 
= Fs = =
g z sin b cos b Tf = t f l
g z sin b cos b tan b
(FOS = 2.42)
Test of
repose angle
Shear Strength
(2) Fsτ =
Shear stress

t f t f t fl
Fs = = = = ......
t T l T
36
Exercise 2: The figure below shows a selected slice of soil block Tutorials
above an assumed circular slip surface.
O d
F A’ B’
R
y

b
a
x
Unit weight: g A B
shear strength: c’, f’
a
b
(a) Derive formulations for the driving moment Md and (x1, y’1) (x2, y’2)
resisting moment Mr of the selected slice of soil
(xm, y’m)
block, assuming AB a straight-line.
Given coordinates: O(11,20), F(14,14),and soil properties:
c’ =10 kPa, f’=35⁰, g = 11 kN/m3, z
the given slice
(b) For the slice from AA’(x=22) to BB’(x=24), calculate
the Md and Mr?
(c) For the slice from AA’(x=6) to BB’(x=8), calculate the (x2, y2)
Md and Mr? (x1, y1) (xm, ym)
37
Solution of Exercise 2(a) Tutorials
(a) Derive formulations for the driving O d
moment Md and resisting moment Mr of F A’ B’
the selected slice of soil block, assuming R
AB a straight-line. y

b
a
x
A B

a
b
W = g zb
(x1, y’1) (x2, y’2)
N = W cos a = g zb cos a T
T = W sin a = g zb sin a (xm, y’m)
N W

Tf the given slice

z
 N g zb cos b  T = t f l = ( c + s n tan f  ) b cos a
 s n = = = g z cos 2 a  f
 l b cos b  = c b cos a + g zb cos a tan f 
(x2, y2)
M r = T f R = ( c b cos a + g zb cos a tan f  ) R (x1, y1) (xm, ym)
M d = Wd = g zbR sin a ( or M d = TR = g zb sin a R ) 38
Solution of Exercise 2(b) Tutorials
(xc, yc)
Given coordinates: O(11,20), F(14,14),and soil O d
properties: c’ =10 kPa, f’=35⁰, g = 11 kN/m3, F A’ B’
(b) For the slice from AA’(x=22) to BB’(x=24), R
calculate the Md and Mr? y

M r = ( c b cos a + g zb cos a tan f  ) R 45⁰

a
x
M d = g zbR sin a
A B
R = xc2 + yc2 = 112 + 202 = 22.8254 a
b
yi = yc − R − ( xi − xc )
2 2
(x1, y’1) (x2, y’2)

 y1 = 20 − 22.82542 − ( 22 − 11) = 0
2
(xm, y’m)

y2 = 20 − 22.82542 − ( 24 − 11) = 1.24

2

z = ym − ym = 14 − ( 0 + 1.24 ) 2 = 13.38 z

the given slice

b = x2 − x1 = 2
 xm − xc  −1  23 − 11 
a = sin −1   = sin   = 0.55 (= 31.72 )
o

 R   22.8254  (x2, y2)

(xm, ym)
M r = 4538.9 kN  m (x1, y1)

M d = 3532.5 kN  m (plane strain, thickness is 1 m) 39

Solution of Exercise 2(c) Tutorials
d O
Given coordinates: O(11,20), F(14,14),and soil R
properties: c’ =10 kPa, f’=35⁰, g = 11 kN/m3, F
(c) For the slice from AA’(x=6) to BB’(x=8),
calculate the Md and Mr? B’
A’
y
a
x
A B

W = g zb a b
N = W cos a = g zb cos a T
(x2, y’2)
T = W sin a = g zb sin a
W N
(xm, y’m)
(x1, y’1)
Tf
z
 N g zb cos b  T = t f l = ( c + s n tan f  ) b cos a
 s n = = = g z cos 2 a  f
 l b cos b  = c b cos a + g zb cos a tan f  (x1, y1)
(xm, ym)

(x2, y2)
M r = T f R = ( c b cos a + g zb cos a tan f  ) R
M d = Wd = g zbR sin a ( or M d = TR = g zb sin a R ) 40
Solution of Exercise 2(c) Tutorials
d O
Given coordinates: O(11,20), F(14,14),and soil R
properties: c’ =10 kPa, f’=35⁰, g = 11 kN/m3, F
(c) For the slice from AA’(x=6) to BB’(x=8),
calculate the Md and Mr? B’
A’
y
M r = ( c b cos a + g zb cos a tan f  ) R a
x
M d = g zbR sin a
A B
R = x + y = 11 + 20 = 22.8254
2 2 2 2
c c
a b
yi = yc − R 2 − ( xi − xc )
2
T (x2, y’2)
 y1 = 20 − 22.82542 − ( 6 − 11) = −2.27
2

W N (xm, y’m)
y2 = 20 − 22.8254 − ( 8 − 11) = −2.63
2 2
(x1, y’1)
At the slope: y = x tan ( 4 ) = x  y1 = 6, y2 = 8
Tf
z = ym − ym = ( 6 + 8 ) 2 − ( −2.27 − 2.63) 2 = 9.45 z
b = x2 − x1 = 2 (x1, y1)
(xm, ym)
x −x  −1  7 − 11 
a = sin  m c
−1
 = sin   = −0.18 (= −10.09 )
o

 R   22.8254  (x2, y2)

M r = 3734.8 kN  m
M d = −831.5 kN  m (plane strain, thickness is 1 m) 41
Break
42
4 LEM-based method of slices
This method is well known to be a statically indeterminate problem
and assumptions on the interslice shear forces are required to render
the problem statically determinate.
O
The common features of the limit equilibrium
method have been summarized as follows: X1 E2
❖ The sliding body over the failure surface is E1
X2
divided into a finite number of slices
(generally vertical).
❖ The strength of the slip surface is
mobilized to the same degree to bring the
sliding body into a limit state.
Based on the assumptions on the internal
❖ Assumptions regarding inter-slice forces forces and force and/or moment
are employed to render the problem equilibrium, there are more than 10
determinate. methods developed for slope stability
analysis (e.g. by Fellenius (1936), Bishop
❖ The factor of safety is computed from (1955), Janbu (1954,1957,1973), Lowe and
force or/and moment equilibrium Karafiath (1960), Spencer (1967),
equations, and a unique factor of safety is Morgenstern-Price (1965) etc.).
assumed for the failure surface. 43
4 LEM-based method of slices
Based upon the static equilibrium conditions and the concept of limit equilibrium:
❖ Known equations
Number of equations Condition
n Moment equilibrium for each slice
2n Force equilibrium in X and Y directions
n Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion
Total number of equations: 4n
❖ Unknowns No. of unknowns > No. of equations
Number of unknowns Description
1 Safety factor
n Normal force at the base of slice
If slice is thin
n Location of normal force at base of slice enough, then
n Shear force at base of slice location of normal
n-1 Interslice normal force force at base of slice
can be taken as
n-1 Interslice shear force centre, hence add
n-1 Location of interslice force only 5n-2 unknowns
Total number of equations: 6n-2 44
4 LEM-based method of slices

❖ Known equations: 4n
No. of unknowns > No. of equations
❖ Unknowns: 6n-2 or 5n-2

Therefore, assumptions on internal (interslice) forces required:

such as Bishop, Janbu, Morgenstern-Price, Spencer…….,

For example:
add n-1 equations (n-1 interslices),
hence there will 1 equation more than unknowns.
Assumptions cannot be proved, still problem!

Mathematically, the method of slices is not strict, inaccurate,

but can approach the real solution with improvements.

45
4 LEM-based method of slices
LEMs according to equilibrium conditions
O

X1 E2
E1
X2

46
4.1 Translational sliding failure
e.g., a long gentle soil
slope on hard soil/bedrock.

(seepage parallel to slope, gsoil above/below

equipotential line perpendicular to the slip line) water table is same

l=b/cosb
Infinite Slope
Consider the infinite slope as shown, the tangential force T down the slope is:
T = W sin b = g zb sin b (1)
The tangential stress τ down the slope is: T zb sin
= = = z sin cos (2)
l b cos
The normal total force N on the slip surface is:
N = W cos b = g zb cos b
(3)
The normal total stress σ on the segment is : N g zb cos b
sn = = = g z cos 2 b
l b cos b (4)
The normal effective stress σ’ on the segment is then:
s 'n = s − u = g z cos 2 b − ( z − hw ) g w cos 2 b = (g z − g w z + g w hw ) cos 2 b (5)
The shearing resistance τf at the base of the segment will be:
t f = c '+ s n tan f ' = c '+ ( g z − g w z + g w hw ) cos 2 b tan f ' (6)
47
4.1 Translational sliding failure Exercise

The factor of safety is given by:

Fs = t f t (7)
For the general case:
c '+ ( g z − g w z + g w hw ) tan f  cos 2 b
Fs = (8)
g z sin b cos b

Example 4: Several special cases can be considered, as described blow.

(a) Dry cohesionless slope c’= 0, hw = z, this is the case for a deep water table with no pore
pressures (positive or negative) assumed on the slip surface. How is Fs?

(b) Wet cohesionless slope c’= 0, hw = 0, this is the most critical condition, when the water
table is at ground level and seepage is occurring downslope. How is Fs?

48
4.1 Translational sliding failure
The factor of safety is given by:
Fs = t f t (7)
For the general case:
c '+ ( g z − g w z + g w hw ) tan f  cos 2 b
Fs = (8)
g z sin b cos b

Example 4: Several special cases can be considered, as described blow.

(a) Dry cohesionless slope c’= 0, hw = z, this is the case for a deep water table with no pore
pressures (positive or negative) assumed on the slip surface. From eq.(8):
0 + ( g z − g w z + g w z ) tan f  cos 2 b tan f  cos b tan f '
Fs = = = (9)
g z sin b cos b sin b tan b
For the critical case (when Fs = 1), b = ϕ’

(b) Wet cohesionless slope c’= 0, hw = 0, this is the most critical condition, when the water
table is at ground level and seepage is occurring downslope. From eq.(8):
0 + ( g z − g w z + g w 0 ) tan f  cos 2 b g  tan f 'cos b g  tan f '
Fs = = = (10)
g z sin b cos b g sin b g tan b
b ≈ ϕ’/2 for fully saturated slope (when Fs ≈ 1), a major reduction in slope angle.

49
 Exercise
Example 5
The infinitely long slope is shown in the figure. The thickness of the soil is 4 m, the bedrock is
below it, and the dip Angle of the slope is β =17o. The unit weight of soil is 20 kN/m3.
Assuming that the sliding surface in the figure is parallel to the slope.
(1) For a dry cohesionless slope, please calculate the minimum factor of safety for the slope.
(soil parameter: f’=35o, c’=0)
(2) For a wet cohesionless slope, please calculate the minimum factor of safety for the slope.
(soil parameter: f’=35o, c’=0)
(3) For a cohesionless slope, if the water table is 1m, calculate the minimum safety factor for
slope.
(4) For s cohesive slope (soil parameter: f’=25o, c’=20kPa), calculate the minimum safety
factor when the water table is 1m below.

Note: suppose unit weight of soil above

or below water table is the same. The
unit weight of water is 9.81 kN/m3

l = b/cosb 50
Solution of Example 5
(1) For a dry cohesionless slope, please calculate the tan f ' tan ( 35 )
Fs = = =2.29
minimum factor of safety for the slope. (soil tan b tan (17 )
parameter: f’=35o, c’=0)
(2) For a wet cohesionless slope, please calculate the g  tan f ' ( 20 − 9.81)  tan ( 35 )
Fs = = =1.17
minimum factor of safety for the slope. (soil g tan b 20  tan (17 )
parameter: f’=35o, c’=0)
(3) For a cohesionless slope, if the water table is 1m,
calculate the minimum safety factor for slope. β =17o
(4) For s cohesive slope (soil parameter: f’=25o,
c’=20kPa), calculate the minimum safety factor
when the water table is 1m below.
g = 20 kN/m3

l = b/cosb
tan f  ( g z − g w z + g w hw ) tan ( 35 )  ( 20  4 − 9.81 4 + 9.81 1)
Fs = = = 1.45
g z tan b tan (17 )  20  4

c '+ tan f  cos 2 b ( g z − g w z + g w hw ) 20+ tan ( 25 )  cos 2 (17 )  ( 20  4 − 9.81 4 + 9.81 1)
Fs = = = 1.86
g z sin b cos b sin (17 )  cos (17 )  20  4 51
4.1 Translational sliding failure

Development of a design tool for slope stability analysis using php

http://geoinvention.com/teaching.html

Try calculations of Fs:

❖ Different cohesion c’
❖ Different friction angle f ’
❖ Different slope angle b
❖ Different water table hw

52
 Exercise
Example 6
Parallel seepage flow,
U g wb ( z − hw ) cos b
u= = = g w ( z − hw ) cos 2 b
l l

horizontal seepage flow

u = g w ( z − hw )
l=b/cosb
Please derive FOS for the case of
horizontal seepage flow?

Attention:
✓ For parallel seepage flow, the hydraulic gradient height is “(z-hw)cosb ”
perpendicular to the slip surface;
✓ For horizontal seepage flow, the hydraulic gradient height is directly “(z-hw)”,
same value at any direction.

53
Example 6
Parallel seepage flow,
U g wb ( z − hw ) cos b
u= = = g w ( z − hw ) cos 2 b
l l

horizontal seepage flow

u = g w ( z − hw )

Solution of Example 6 l=b/cosb

The normal effective stress σ’ on the segment is then:

s 'n = s − u = g z cos 2 b − ( z − hw ) g w (5)

The shearing resistance τf at the base of the segment will be:
t f = c '+ s n tan f ' = c '+ g z cos 2 b − ( z − hw ) g w  tan f ' (6)
The factor of safety is given by:
Fs = t f t
(7)
For the general case:
c '+ g z cos 2 b − ( z − hw ) g w  tan f '
Fs = (8)
g z sin b cos b
54
 In summary
Common features of LEM:
❖ Finite number of slices
❖ The strength along the slip surface reaches the limit state simultaneously
❖ Inter-slice forces
❖ Factor of safety is computed from force or/and moment equilibrium equations
❖ Known equations: 4n
❖ Unknowns: 6n-2 or 5n-2

Thus, assumptions on internal forces required.

Translational sliding failure

c '+ ( g z − g w z + g w hw ) tan f  cos 2 b

Fs =
g z sin b cos b

gsoil above/below water

table assumed the same

l=b/cosb 55
Break
56
4.2 Swedish method (or Ordinary method)

❖ This method is based on two specific assumptions:

- failure surface is circular;
- the interslice forces are equal and opposite so their resultants are zero.
❖ Safety factor Fs is taken as
Moment against rotation
𝑭𝒔 =
Moment of overturning

X1 E2
E1
X2

57
4.2 Swedish method (or Ordinary method)
O

Moment against rotation

𝑭𝒔 =
Moment of overturning

Features of Swedish method: a

✓ The Swedish method is the simplest method of slices to use.

✓ The shear strength on the slip surface is related to the effective normal stress by the
Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion.
✓ The normal force acting on the base of any slice is determined by resolving forces
normal to the base of the slice.
✓ Failure is assumed to occur by rotation of a block of soil on a circular slip surface
centred on O.
✓ By examining moment equilibrium about O, the factor of safety can be obtained.

Only moment equilibrium is applied!

58
4.2 Swedish method O di
For a drained and dry slope (xc,yc) rR
Moment from shear strength bi B (xf,yf)
𝑭𝒔 = Rr
Moment of overturning
(xmi,y’mi)

hi
Wi
A b
(0,0) li
a+ - ai
Sm (xi+1, y’i+1)

(xmi,ymi) N (xi, y’i)

(xmi, y’mi)

the ith slice

(xmi, ymi)

(xi, yi) (xi+1, yi+1)

59
4.2 Swedish method

Example 7: for a special case: Undrained condition (c = cu, fu = 0)

This is an analysis in terms of total stresses and applies to the short-term condition for a
cutting or embankment assuming the soil profile to comprise fully saturated clay. Failure
surface is assumed to be a circular arc. The tendency for gravity forces to rotate about its
circle center is resisted by the shear strength mobilized along the slip surface, so moment
equilibrium is applied. Similar to the previous derivation, please derive the factor of safety
against instability?

O di Moment against 𝒓𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏

𝑭𝒔 =
(xc,yc) rR Moment of overturning
bi B (xf,yf)
Rr
(xmi,y’mi)
hi

Wi
A
(0,0) li
a+ - ai
Sm

(xmi,ymi) N

Fs =
 ( cb sec a + b h g cos a
i i i i i tan f  )
 b h g sin a i i i For clayey soils (undrained),
possibly below the toe! 60
Solution of Example 7

The shear stress at base of slice = cu. The shear resistance moment is equal to the force
along the length of the circular LAB are multiplied by the radius of the circle, R:
Shear resistance moment = cuLABR

The overturning moment is Wd. W is the total weight of the segment determine from γA, γ
is the bulk unit weight of the soil and A is the area of the segment. d is the horizontal
distance from the circle center to the centroid of the failure mass. The factor of safety is
then:
cu LAB R
Fs =
Wd
The determination of W and d can entail lengthy calculation, so it will be more convenient
to split the segment into a number of slices. Since di for i segment is given by Rsinαi, and
the arc length of i segment is approximated by chord length as bi/cosαi = bisecαi, the factor
of safety is then given by
Fs =
 Rcu li =  Rcubi sec ai =  cubi sec ai
Wdi Wi R sin a i  bi hig sin ai
Alternatively,

Fs =
 ( l c + b h g cos a tan f ) f
i i i i  l c =  c b sec a
 = 0 , c = cu
⎯⎯⎯⎯→ F = i u u i i

 b h g sin a  b h g sin a  b h g sin a

s
i i i i i i i i i
61
4.2 Swedish method Exercise
Fs =
 c b sec a
u i i

Example 8: consideration of “tension crack” (undrained condition) W sin a

i i

As the condition of limiting equilibrium develops with the factor of safety close to 1, a tension
crack may form near the top of the slope through which no shear strength can be developed
and if it fills with water. A horizontal hydrostatic force Pw will increase the disturbing moment
Pwxw. The factor of safety will be further reduced because of the shorter length of circular arc
along which shearing resistance can be mobilized. The depth of a tension crack can be taken
as:

(xo, yo) Pw
xw
O

(xc, yc)

62
4.2 Swedish method
Fs =
 c b sec a
u i i

W sin a
i i

Solution of Example 8

2cu (s’h is zero at the crack depth,

cu
sz
zc = maximum zc can be estimated) s zc increasing
g
h

s z = g zc = 2cu
1
✓ the hydrostatic force is Pw = g w zc2 (Depth of water is zc)
2 zc
(In clayey soils, dissipation of c 
2

water pressure is very slow ) = 2g w  u  g wzc

g
(xo, yo) Pw
xw
O
✓ The expression for the factor of safety becomes:
R  cu bi sec a i
Fs =
R  Wi sin a i + Pw xw
(xc, yc)
xw = xc − xo
2
c 
Pw = 2g w  u 
g

So, good covers (also should be light) are necessary, like by grass/plants! 63
4.2 Swedish method Exercise

Example 9: Drained analysis in saturated slope

For moment equilibrium, ignoring inter-slice forces, the overturning moment produced by the
forces S must be balanced by the resisting moment of the mobilized shear strength forces T
(=τl= τfl/Fs):
 i 
S R = TR
i

Please derive FOS.

64
4.2 Swedish method

Solution of Example 9
For moment equilibrium, ignoring inter-slice forces, the overturning moment produced by the
forces S must be balanced by the resisting moment of the mobilized shear strength forces T
(=τl= τfl/Fs):  Si R =  Ti R
t f li
  Wi sin a i R =  R
Fs
Assume Fs is the same for all slices:
 Fs =
t l f i

W sin a
i i

The shear strength of the soil in terms of effective stress is given by Mohr-
Coulomb equation as (in force, not stress)
(s n = g h cos2 a , l = b cos a )
T = t f l = ( c + s n tan f  ) l = cl + g hb cos a tan f  (like parallel seepage flow)

Then,
Fs =
 ( l c + b h g  cos a
i i i i tan f  )
 b h g sin a
i i i

and the subscript denote that the factor of safety is determined from a moment equilibrium
65
4.2 Swedish method (Drained analysis in saturated slope)

Example 10: Fellenius method- Circular failure surface

Also known as the Swedish method, in this analysis it is assumed that the interslice
forces are equal and opposite, so their resultants are zero :
E1=E2 and X1=X2
Resolving the forces acting normal to the base of each slice:

N ' = W cos a − ul
( s ' = s − u, multiply l to both sides)
or N=Wcosα expressed in total force

(Issue: assumption of horizontal seepage flow)

where u=γwhw and hw is the height to the water table above the base of the slice or related to
the nearest equipotential if a flow net is drawn. The factor of safety is then

c ' LAB + tan f '  (Wi cos a i − uli )  l c + ( b h g cos a − g h b sec a ) tan f 
Fm =  Fs =
i i i i w i i i

W sin a
i i  b h g sin a
i i i

Values of W, α and u can be determined for each slice and presented in a table, the
summations are obtained by addition in the columns. This solution underestimates the
factor of safety compared with more accurate methods of analysis with an error of up
to 20%, and will therefore, be conservative. 66
 di
LEM – Swedish Method O
(xc,yc) rR
bi B (xf,yf)
Moment against 𝒓𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 Rr
𝑭𝒔 =
Moment of overturning (xmi,y’mi)

hi
Wi
A
(0,0) li
a+ - ai
Sm

(xmi,ymi) N
(or P)

General formulation for non-circular surface The moment due to N is zero because the
direction of N towards O in circular
surface, but P not in non-circular surface!

67
4.3 Method of Bishop Widely accepted by many codes in different countries!
(Bishop, 1955)
In Swedish method, T is the maximum force corresponding to (X1=X2, E1≠E2)
shear strength. So, T is not real applied value when Fsm > 1.
According to Fsf = Tmax/T, the real applied value should be
T = Tmax/Fsf ≈ Tmax/Fsm.
T =  cl + N  tan f  Fsm (Mohr-Coulomb)

According to vertical force equilibrium, we have

( N  + ul ) cos a + T sin a = W T
Combining above two equations, more realistic N’ can be solved
 cl   tan f  sin a  N’+ul
N  = W − sin a − ul cos a   cos a + 
 Fsm   Fsm 

According to the moment definition for Fs, we have [try the derivation by yourself]

 ( cl + N  tan f  ) R  cl cos a + (W − u l cos a ) tan f  ma

= =
i i i i i i i i
Fsm ,bishop
 W sin
i a R i W sin a i i
bi = li cos a i
tan f  sin a i  tan f  tan a i 
with ma = cos a i + = cos a i 1 +  Wi = bi hig
Fsm  F sm 
ui li = g w hi bi sec a i 68
4.3 Method of Bishop Widely accepted by many engineers in different countries!
(Bishop, 1955)
(X1=X2, E1≠E2)

By successive iteration convergence on the true

value of F is obtained.
It should be noted that: horizontal force equilibrium
is not satisfied in Bishop’s method.

 ( cl + N  tan f  ) R  cl cos a + (W − u l cos a ) tan f  ma

= =
i i i i i i i i
Fsm ,bishop
 W sin
i a R i W sin ai i
bi = li cos a i
tan f  sin a i  tan f  tan a i 
with ma = cos a i + = cos a i 1 +  Wi = bi hig
Fsm  F sm 
ui li = g w hi bi sec a i 69
4.3 Method of Bishop

Development of a design tool for slope stability analysis using php

http://geoinvention.com/teaching.html

Try calculations of Fs:

❖ Different number of slices n
❖ Different cohesion c
❖ Different friction angle f
❖ Different slope angle b
❖ Different slope angle a
❖ Different center of rotation O

70
 In summary O

Two specific assumptions of Swedish method: (X1=X2, E1=E2) X1 E2

E1
✓ failure surface is circular; X2

✓ the interslice forces are equal and opposite. a

Features of Swedish method:
✓ The simplest method of slices to use;
✓ The shear strength by the Mohr-Coulomb criterion;
✓ The normal force normal to the base of the slice; (X1=X2, E1≠E2)
✓ Failure by rotation on a circular slip surface; Extension to
✓ By moment equilibrium to obtain the factor of safety. Bishop method

Fs =
 ( l c + b h g cos a tan f )
i i i 1 i Special cases:
 b h g sin a
i i 2 i ✓ Undrained condition c = cu , f = 0, g 1 = g 2 = g sat

( Dry slope: c, f , g = g 2 = g dry ) ✓ Tension crack in saturated slope

1

✓ Drained condition in saturated slope c, f , g 1 = g , g 2 = g sat

✓ Compare to Fellenius method ( bi hig sat cos a i − g w hibi sec a i )

✓ To non-circular slip surface
71
Break
72
5 Design of slope stability
1.32 1.45
How to estimate FOS？

Grid search for

Rotational center

1.47

Principle:
The circular surface, which gives the lowest factor of safety, is the critical circle with FOS.
General method:
A number of trial circles must then be analyzed in the same way but with difference circle
centers and different points where the circle cuts the slope. Use each grid point, try 10-20
failure surfaces, the smallest factor of safety is assigned as the factor of safety for that grid
point, then form the contour of factors of safety, and determine the minimum FOS.
73
5 Design of slope stability
Local and global minimum in general

There are several minimum values C, D, E, B, and E is the global minimum which is the
smallest within the solution domain. Points C and D possess the property of gradient =0 and
are called local minimum.
Using classical mathematics, unless the initial solution is close to E, points C or D may be
obtained. For multi-variables problem, search for global minimum will be a difficult
problem. If B is the smallest value, the traditional gradient method will fail to obtain it.
In slope stability analysis, we need to find the global minimum/critical solution for design.
74
5 Design of slope stability

Searching for global minimum for multi-dimensional problem

A good way:
To use the artificial intelligence based methods in slope stability,
to overcome the difficulty of nearly infinite possibilities by
Heuristic optimization method.
75
5 Design of slope stability

❖ What’s the optimization mathematically?

Max

Min

76
5 Design of slope stability

❖ Stochastic OA: Genetic algorithm (GA)

Competition to
next population

Start

(can be >1)

77
5 Design of slope stability

❖ Stochastic OA: Genetic algorithm (GA)

78
5 Design of slope stability
❖ Stochastic OA: Genetic algorithm (GA)

Advantages: global solution

Disadvantage: computational cost

79
5 Design of slope stability
All these possible failures should be considered in the slope stability analysis.
o

80
5 Design of slope stability
http://geoinvention.com/down_Slop.html
Development of a design tool for slope stability analysis using MATLAB

Try calculations of Fs:

❖ Different cohesion
❖ Different friction angle
❖ Different alpha
❖ Different beta

Finally, based on numerous

calculations, we can establish
a chart of FS.

81
5 Design of slope stability
Stability chart which gives the minimum factor
of safety of a simple slope without the use of a
program, enable simple and quick stability
assessment.
❖ For the sake of simplicity, most charts have
been developed for homogeneous slope and
very simple geometry.
❖ In the case of non-homogeneity of the soil
strata, average parameters should be
evaluated.

below toe failure 82

Points to note:
1. Critical surface pass through toe of slope

2. Why a>b, no values in table ?

Upper part will control

83
5 Design of slope stability
SLOPE/W, a Slope Stability Analysis Software
(https://www.geoslope.com/support/support-resources/tutorial-
videos/geostudio-2018)

84
5 Design of slope stability
For more complicated cases, the FEM is recommended for design.

Using strength reduction method:

c* = c/SRF & (tanf)*= (tanf )/SRF

Try calculations of Fs:

❖ Different mesh density
❖ Different cohesion
❖ Different friction angle

85
5 Design of slope stability
Recommended factors of safety (by GEO, Hong Kong, 1984)

Recommended factors of safeties for rehabilitation of failed slopes

(by GEO, Hong Kong, 1984)

The definitions of factor of safety, the method of analysis and the accuracy
in the optimization search are never specified in either the Hong Kong code,
Euro code or any other engineering codes.
For very important slopes, the monitoring is needed.
86
5 Design of slope stability
Problems with Slope stability analysis: inaccurate
1. Simplified methods satisfy either force (more common) or moment equilibrium
but not both.
2. Fail to converge in the solution of the factor of safety is sometimes obtained from
commercial programs for ‘rigorous’ methods which satisfy both force and moment
equilibrium.
3. If a solution converged in the analysis, there is still a possibility that the answer is
not acceptable (e.g. global minimum search).
4. All failure mass is 3D, but 2D analysis is performed at present due to various
constraints. The difficulties associated with true 3D analysis are : (1) sliding
direction, (2) satisfaction of all 3D force and moment equilibrium, (3) great amount
of computational geometry calculations is required.
5. Soil strength affected by heavy rainfall with a long recurrency period, additional
stabilization from the presence of vegetation and soil suction, etc. is usually not
considered.
For very important slopes, the monitoring is needed.
87
5 Design of slope stability

How to design the improvement (soil nailing, pile, ……)

tpile >> tsoil

tnail >> tsoil

nt nail or pile A +  ( li c + bi hig cos a i tan f )

Fs =
 b h g sin a
i i i

(Passive support)

88
5 Design of slope stability

How to design the improvement (soil nailing, pile, ……)

For nails, we need to check:

(1) allowable tensile capacity based on shear strength of nails
(2) allowable pullout resistance based on soil-nail interface friction
89
5 Design of slope stability

Basic Elements of a
Soil-nailed System

90
5 Design of slope stability
For a typical slope design works, the following items are required to be considered:
❖ Detailed geological conditions, topography, surrounding buildings, drainage, loadings,
vegetation.
❖ Soil and rock conditions and strength parameters, water table.
❖ For sandy soil slopes in HK, non-circular failures are measured from past failures which
should be adopted in the analysis.
❖ Design of slope stabilization measures (usually in form of soil nails in HK) or even
trimming of slope to a gentler profile.
❖ Permanent drainage, surfacing (vegetation), net or other accessories.

91
In summary

How to estimate the FOS of a slope

Principle: The circular surface that gives the lowest FOS is the critical circle with FOS.
Method for LEMs: To use the artificial intelligence based methods efficient in searching
for global minimum for multi-dimensional problem
Method for FEM: Strength reduction method

Problems with Slope stability analysis

1. Simplified methods satisfy either force or moment equilibrium but not both.
2. Fail to converge in the solution of the factor of safety.
3. There is still a possibility that the answer is not acceptable (e.g. global minimum).
4. All real failure mass is 3D instead of 2D.
5. Soil strength affected by heavy rainfall, the presence of vegetation, soil suction,
etc. usually not considered.
For very important slopes:
✓ the monitoring is needed;
✓ the reinforcement is needed.
92
TOPICS & SYLLABUS:
Topic 1: Site Investigation
Topic 2: Slope Stability
Topic 3: Shallow Foundations
Topic 4: Mat (Raft) Foundations
Topic 5: Earth Retaining Structures
Topic 6: Pile Foundations

1
 Types of foundation Foundations

Shallow (Df<3~4B) Deep (Df>3~4B)

Footing Mat/Raft Pile Pier Caissons

Strip Rectangular Circular Combined

Special case of rectangular:

(1) B = L, square
(2) B << L, strip/continuous

2
Design Philosophy

Limit State
Defined as conditions under which a structure or its component members no
longer perform their intended functions.
Whenever a structure or part of a structure fails to satisfy one of its intended
performance criteria, it is said to have reached a limit state

Ultimate Limit State (ULS)

Involving the total or partial collapse of the structure or foundation

Serviceability Limit State (SLS)

Representing those conditions which affect the function or service requirements
/performance of the structure under expected service or working loads

Limit State Design

In general, this design considers separately the two classes of ultimate and
serviceability limit states using partial factors of safety. The factored resistance
for design must be greater than or equal to the factored load effects
3
 Some typical cases (Ultimate Limit State)

✓ The foundation was a reinforced concrete raft 2 ft thick and founded at a depth of 12 ft
below the ground surface. (1 ft=0.3048 m)
✓ The weight of the silo was 20,000 tons, which was 42.5 percent of the total weight, when it
was filled.
✓ Filling the silo with grain started in September 1913, and in October when the silo contained
875,000 bushels, and the pressure on the ground was 94 percent of the design pressure, a
vertical settlement of 1 ft was noticed.
✓ The structure began to tilt to the west and within twenty-four hours was at an angle of
26.9° from the vertical, the west side being 24 ft below and the east side 5 ft above the
4
original level.
Design Philosophy

Limit State
Defined as conditions under which a structure or its component members no
longer perform their intended functions.
Whenever a structure or part of a structure fails to satisfy one of its intended
performance criteria, it is said to have reached a limit state

Ultimate Limit State (ULS)

Involving the total or partial collapse of the structure or foundation

Serviceability Limit State (SLS)

Representing those conditions which affect the function or service requirements
/performance of the structure under expected service or working loads

Limit State Design

In general, this design considers separately the two classes of ultimate and
serviceability limit states using partial factors of safety. The factored resistance
for design must be greater than or equal to the factored load effects
5
Some typical cases (Serviceability Limit State)
❖ For working/living, failed the function
❖ For tourism, good of function

Pisa tower
✓Construction in 1173
Gallileo
✓Inclination: 5.5o
✓Settlement: 5m

Clay

6
Design Philosophy

Limit State
Defined as conditions under which a structure or its component members no
longer perform their intended functions.
Whenever a structure or part of a structure fails to satisfy one of its intended
performance criteria, it is said to have reached a limit state

Ultimate Limit State (ULS) fixed x

Involving the total or partial collapse of the structure
movable or foundation
x

Serviceability Limit State (SLS) /

/
Representing those conditions which affect the function or service requirements
/performance of the structure under expected service or working loads

Limit State Design

In general, this design considers separately the two classes of ultimate and
serviceability limit states using partial factors of safety. The factored resistance
for design must be greater than or equal to the factored load effects
7
 Topic 3: Shallow Foundations
Key points of a foundation design:
(a) shall be safe against overall shear failure (Ultimate Limit State);
(b) cannot undergo excessive displacement (Serviceability Limit State).
I. Ultimate Bearing Capacity (ULS) II. Settlement (SLS)
❖ General Concept ❖ Types of Settlement
❖ Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Theory ❖ Elastic Settlement
❖ Effect of Groundwater Table ❖ Consolidation Settlement
❖ Factor of Safety
❖ General Bearing Capacity Equation
❖ Eccentrically Loaded Foundations

8
Ma On Shan, HK 2002
Civil Engineering 2020/2021
Subject: Geotechnical Design (CSE40403)

Topic 3 Shallow Foundations

I. Ultimate Bearing Capacity

By Dr. Zhenyu YIN

Office: ZS915, Tel: 3400-8470
Email: Zhenyu.yin@polyu.edu.hk
9
I.1 General Concept
Typical model tests of footing

Soil h

l Footing
plate

(dense soil)

(dense soil)
10
I.1 General Concept
MPM-DEM modeling of footing
(Liang & Zhao, 2019, DOI:
10.1002/nag.2921)

11
 I.1 General Concept pressure qu

What is Ultimate Bearing Capacity qu? 
load Qult

The load per unit area of the foundation at which shear failure in soil occurs.

qu Failure mode 1:
General shear failure
dense sand or
stiff cohesive soil (sudden
failure up to ground)

qu(1) : First failure load

qu
Failure mode 2:
sand or clayey soil of
medium compaction Local shear failure
(progressive failure
towards ground)
SLS is complemented!
qu(1)
qu qu Failure mode 3:
Punching shear failure
loose sand or soft clay (no
failure to ground) 12
I.1 General Concept
What is Ultimate Bearing Capacity qu?
The load per unit area of the foundation at which shear failure in soil occurs.

Bigger Dr , more
failure lines!

qu (1)  qu Bigger Df , less

qu (1)  qu failure lines!

2BL
B* = B B = width;
B+L L = length
Square foundations? B*=B=L
Circular foundations? B*=B=L=diameter
(Note: L is always greater than/equal to B) 13
I.1 General Concept
What is Ultimate Bearing Capacity qu?
The load per unit area of the foundation at which shear failure in soil occurs.

S
More settlement for
punching failure!

S (Bigger Df)
Less settlement for general failure!

14
In summary

Design Philosophy
- Some notations: Limit State?
Ultimate Limit State (ULS)? Serviceability Limit State (SLS)?
- Limit State Design (factors)

Failure modes of footing

- General, local, punching shear failures
- Depending on soil strength, relative density, buried depth of footing
- Corresponding to different settlement levels

Ultimate Bearing Capacity

- Corresponding to the occurrence of shear failure in soil
- Depending on soil strength, relative density, buried depth of footing

15
Break 16
I.2 Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Theory
(for general failure case, strip or continuous footing)
Equation of ultimate bearing capacity qu is derived
considering force equilibrium.

Terzaghi 太沙基 (1883-1963):

开創了土力學 – 土力學之父

Ultimate bearing capacity (Continuous)

qu at this depth !!! Terzaghi neglected
shear along this surface

Pp     Pp
Arc of a logarithmic spiral Strong assumption:
r = r0 exp ( tan   )  = 
17
I.2 Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Theory
(for general failure case, strip or continuous footing)
Equation of ultimate bearing capacity qu is derived considering force equilibrium.

(Plane strain condition,

considering one unit
thickness, saying 1 meter)

(v)

K, Kc, Kq: earth-pressure coefficients on functions of ’

( qu )( 2b )(1) = −W + 2C sin   + 2 Pp(v)

C

Pp b
W =  b tan  
2 qu = + c tan   − tan  
b 2 18
I.2 Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Theory
(for general failure case, strip or continuous footing)
Equation of ultimate bearing capacity qu is derived considering force equilibrium.

1
qu = cN c + qN q +  BN
2
 exp ( 2(3 4 −   / 2) tan   ) 
N c = tan  ( K c + 1) = cot  
  − 1 = cot   ( N q − 1)
 2 cos ( 4 +   2 )
2

1
exp ( 2(3 4 −   / 2) tan   ) cot x =
N q = K q tan   = tan x
2 cos 2 ( 4 +   2 )
K p = 3 tan 2 ( 4 + (  2 + 33 /180 ) 2 )

1  K p  (’ in radian in all equations)

tan   ( K tan   − 1) = 
1
N = − 1  tan  
2 2  cos   
2

For foundation soils, only , c’ and ’ are needed! 19

I.2 Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Theory 1
(for general failure case, strip or continuous footing) qu = cN c + qN q +  BN
2
Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity factors
?
(deg) (deg)

20
【Improved accuracy by numerical solution compared to graphical method】
I.2 Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Theory 1
(for general failure case, strip or continuous footing) qu = cN c + qN q +  BN
2
Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity factors
Matlab code
clc; % clean display
close all; % close figures
clear; % clean values of variables data1993=importdata('data.dat');
%% phi1993=data1993(:,1);
phi0=0:1:50; Nc1993=data1993(:,2);
phi=phi0/180*pi; Nq1993=data1993(:,3);
Nr1993=data1993(:,4);
Nq=exp(2*(3/4*pi-phi/2).*tan(phi))./(2*(cos(pi/4+phi/2)).^2);
Nc=(Nq-1)./tan(phi); figure(1)
h1=plot(phi0, Nq,'r-');hold on
Kpr=3*(tan(pi/4+(phi+33/180*pi)/2)).^2; h2=plot(phi0, Nc,'b-');hold on
Nr=1/2*(Kpr./(cos(phi)).^2-1).*tan(phi); legend([h1,h2],'Nq','Nc','best');
%%
figure(2)
h1=plot(phi0, Nr,'b-');hold on
h2=plot(phi1993, Nr1993,'r-');hold on
legend([h1,h2],'Nr','Nr-1993','best'); 21
I.2 Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Theory 1
(for general failure case, strip or continuous footing) qu = cN c + qN q +  BN
2
Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity factors
 exp ( 2(3 4 −   / 2) tan   ) 
N c = tan   ( K c + 1) = cot    − 1 = cot   ( N q − 1)
 2 cos 2
(  4 +   2 ) 
(for ’ = 0? Just put 0.0001)

exp ( 2(3 4 −   / 2) tan   ) 1  K p 

tan   ( K tan   − 1) = 
1
N q = K q tan   = N = − 1  tan  
2 cos 2 ( 4 +   2 ) 2 2  cos 
2
 

Alternatively, Excel is also suggested to use for plotting figures! 22

I.2 Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Theory t
(only for general failure case, strip or continuous footing) tan(’ )
1
qu = cN c + qN q +  BN c’
2 s 'n
Extending the Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity for Rectangular footing:
 
❑ Square foundation: qu = 1.3cN c + qN q + 0.4 BN B =
2 BR LR
BR + LR
if BR  LR 
 
❑ Circular foundation:
qu = 1.3cN c + qN q + 0.3 BN (B = diameter)

Extending for local shear failure - using reduced (2/3) of tan(friction angle):
2 1
❑ Strip foundation: qu = c N c + qN q +  BN
   2/3*’
3 2
❑ Square foundation: qu = 0.867cN c + qN q + 0.4 BN
(2/3*1.3
❑ Circular foundation: = 0.867)
qu = 0.867cN c + qN q + 0.3 BN

where N’, N’c, N’q are calculated using   = tan −1 ( 23 tan   ) 23

I.2 Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Theory 2 1
(for local shear failure case, strip/continuous footing) qu = cN c + qN q +  BN
3 2
Terzaghi’s Modified Bearing Capacity factors
(deg) (deg)

If we use this table, the

original ’ is kept.

Alternatively, we can
still use the old table by
the   = tan −1 ( 23 tan   )

24
I.2 Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Theory 2 1
(for local shear failure case, strip/continuous foundation) qu = cN c + qN q +  BN
3 2
Terzaghi’s Modified Bearing Capacity factors

To extend the Matlab code

Matlab code
clc; % clean display
close all; % close figures
clear; % clean values of variables
%%
phi0=0:1:50;
phi=atan(tan(phi0/180*pi)*2/3);

Nq=exp(2*(3/4*pi-phi/2).*tan(phi))./(2*(cos(pi/4+phi/2)).^2);
Nc=(Nq-1)./tan(phi);

Kpr=3*(tan(pi/4+(phi+33/180*pi)/2)).^2;
Nr=1/2*(Kpr./(cos(phi)).^2-1).*tan(phi);
%%

25
 1
I.3 Effect of Groundwater Table qu = cN c + qN q +  * BN
e.g. 2

Case I: the groundwater table is located at a

distance D above the bottom of the footing

 * replaced by   = (  sat −  w )
q =  ( D f − D ) +  D

Case II: the groundwater table coincides

with the bottom of the footing

 * replaced by   = (  sat −  w )

q =  Df

26
 1
I.3 Effect of Groundwater Table qu = cN c + qN q +  * BN
e.g. 2

Case III: the groundwater table is at a

depth D below the bottom of the footing

q =  Df

 * replaced
1
 D +   ( B − D )  ( for D  B )
B
by  av =
B-D B
or by  av =  ( for D  B )

27
I.4 Factor of Safety qu − q0 q  1 
qall − q0 =  qall = u + 1 −  q0
FS FS  FS 
Factor of Safety (FS) is defined in two ways:
❑ Using gross ultimate bearing capacity qu ❑ Using net ultimate bearing
depending on shear strength of soils: capacity qnet(u)=qu-q0
q q qu ( net ) qu − q0
qall = u or FS = u qall ( net ) = =
FS qall FS FS
The qall is gross allowable bearing capacity WF + WS
q0 =  D f 
A
FS is in the range 3 ~ 6
Dead and live loads above the footing
according to the design of the superstructure

Self-weight of the footing

Weight of the soil located
immediately above footing
W( D + L ) + WF + WS
qall =
A 28
Example 1 A square foundation is 1.5 m×1.5 m in plan. The soil supporting the foundation
has a friction angle of ’ = 20°, and 𝑐 ′ = 15.2 kN/m2. The unit weight of soil, 𝛾, is
17.8 kN/m3. Determine the allowable gross load on the foundation with a factor
of safety (FS) of 4. Assume that the depth of the foundation (𝐷𝑓 ) is 1 m and that
general shear failure occurs in the soil.
(a) How is total allowable gross load?

(deg) Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity equations

1
qu = cN c + qN q +  BN
2
qu = 1.3cN c + qN q + 0.4 BN
qu = 1.3cN c + qN q + 0.3 BN

Qult qu
FS = = =4
Qall qall
Df = 1 m

’ = 20°
𝑐 ′ = 15.2 kN/m2
𝛾 = 17.8 kN/m3
B = L = 1.5 m
29
Example 1 A square foundation is 1.5 m×1.5 m in plan. The soil supporting the foundation
has a friction angle of ’ = 20°, and 𝑐 ′ = 15.2 kN/m2. The unit weight of soil, 𝛾, is
17.8 kN/m3. Determine the allowable gross load on the foundation with a factor
of safety (FS) of 4. Assume that the depth of the foundation (𝐷𝑓 ) is 1 m and that
general shear failure occurs in the soil.
(a) How is total allowable gross load?

Solution:
(deg)

30
Example 1 A square foundation is 1.5 m×1.5 m in plan. The soil supporting the foundation
has a friction angle of ’ = 20°, and 𝑐 ′ = 15.2 kN/m2. The unit weight of soil, 𝛾, is
17.8 kN/m3. Determine the allowable gross load on the foundation with a factor
of safety (FS) of 4. Assume that the depth of the foundation (𝐷𝑓 ) is 1 m and that
general shear failure occurs in the soil. q = 130 kN/m 2 , Q = 292.5 kN
all all

(b) For the same cost of concrete, how will be the Qall for a circular footing?
(c) To achieve the same Qall, how should be the diameter for a circular footing?
(deg)
Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity equations
1
qu = cN c + qN q +  BN
2
qu = 1.3cN c + qN q + 0.4 BN
qu = 1.3cN c + qN q + 0.3 BN

Qult qu
FS = = =4
Qall qall
Df = 1 m

’ = 20°
𝑐 ′ = 15.2 kN/m2
𝛾 = 17.8 kN/m3
B = L = 1.5 m 31
Example 1 A square foundation is 1.5 m×1.5 m in plan. The soil supporting the foundation
has a friction angle of ’ = 20°, and 𝑐 ′ = 15.2 kN/m2. The unit weight of soil, 𝛾, is
17.8 kN/m3. Determine the allowable gross load on the foundation with a factor
of safety (FS) of 4. Assume that the depth of the foundation (𝐷𝑓 ) is 1 m and that
general shear failure occurs in the soil. q = 130 kN/m 2 , Q = 292.5 kN
all all

(b) For the same cost of concrete, how will be the Qall for a circular footing?
(c) To achieve the same Qall, how should be the diameter for a circular footing?

(b) 1 (Same quantity of concrete!)

1.5 1.5 =  Bc 2  Bc = 1.6926 (circular)
4
qu = 1.3cN c + qN q + 0.3 Bc N
= 1.3 15.2 17.69 + 117.8  7.44 + 0.3  17.8  1.6926  3.64
= 514.8865 kN/m 2
q 514.8865 1
qall = u = = 128.7 kN/m 2  Qall = 128.7   1.69262 = 289.6 kN
Fs 4 4

Qall (s) = Qall (c)  (1.3cN c + qN q + 0.4 BN ) B 2 = (1.3cN c + qN q + 0.3 Bc N  )  Bc 2

(c) 1
4
 ( 349.55 + 132.43 + 38.87 )1.52 = ( 349.55 + 132.43 + 19.44 Bc ) 0.7854 Bc 2
 Bc = 1.703 m (by trial & error) 32
Example 1 A square foundation is 1.5 m×1.5 m in plan. The soil supporting the foundation
has a friction angle of ’ = 20°, and 𝑐 ′ = 15.2 kN/m2. The unit weight of soil, 𝛾, is
17.8 kN/m3. Determine the allowable gross load on the foundation with a factor
of safety (FS) of 4. Assume that the depth of the foundation (𝐷𝑓 ) is 1 m and that
general shear failure occurs in the soil. q = 130 kN/m 2 , Q = 292.5 kN
all all

(d) Assuming that the ground water table is located 1 m below the bottom of the footing,
determine the allowable gross load per unit area with Fs = 3 and sat = 19 kN/m3.
(deg)
Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity equations ( w = 9.81 kN/m3)

1
qu = cN c + qN q +  BN
2
qu = 1.3cN c + qN q + 0.4 BN
qu = 1.3cN c + qN q + 0.3 BN
Qult qu
FS = = =3
Df = 1 m

Qall qall
’ = 20°
𝑐 ′ = 15.2 kN/m2
𝛾 = 17.8 kN/m3
D=1m

𝛾𝑠𝑎𝑡 = 19 kN/m3
33
B = L = 1.5 m
Example 1 A square foundation is 1.5 m×1.5 m in plan. The soil supporting the foundation
has a friction angle of ’ = 20°, and 𝑐 ′ = 15.2 kN/m2. The unit weight of soil, 𝛾, is
17.8 kN/m3. Determine the allowable gross load on the foundation with a factor
of safety (FS) of 4. Assume that the depth of the foundation (𝐷𝑓 ) is 1 m and that
general shear failure occurs in the soil. q = 130 kN/m 2 , Q = 292.5 kN
all all

(d) Assuming that the ground water table is located 1 m below the bottom of the footing,
determine the allowable gross load per unit area with Fs = 3 and sat = 19 kN/m3.

Solution: q = 1.3cN + qN + 0.4 * BN

u c q 

1
 * replaced by  av =  D +   ( B − D )  ( for D  B )
B

34
Example 1 A square foundation is 1.5 m×1.5 m in plan. The soil supporting the foundation
has a friction angle of ’ = 20°, and 𝑐 ′ = 15.2 kN/m2. The unit weight of soil, 𝛾, is
17.8 kN/m3. Determine the allowable gross load on the foundation with a factor
of safety (FS) of 4. Assume that the depth of the foundation (𝐷𝑓 ) is 1 m and that
general shear failure occurs in the soil. q = 130 kN/m 2 , Q = 292.5 kN
all all

(e) Assuming that local shear failure occurs in the soil supporting the foundations.

(deg)
Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity equations
1
qu = cN c + qN q +  BN
2
qu = 1.3cN c + qN q + 0.4 BN
qu = 1.3cN c + qN q + 0.3 BN

Qult qu
FS = = =4
Qall qall
Df = 1 m

’ = 20°
𝑐 ′ = 15.2 kN/m2
𝛾 = 17.8 kN/m3
B = L = 1.5 m 35
Example 1 A square foundation is 1.5 m×1.5 m in plan. The soil supporting the foundation
has a friction angle of ’ = 20°, and 𝑐 ′ = 15.2 kN/m2. The unit weight of soil, 𝛾, is
17.8 kN/m3. Determine the allowable gross load on the foundation with a factor
of safety (FS) of 4. Assume that the depth of the foundation (𝐷𝑓 ) is 1 m and that
general shear failure occurs in the soil. q = 130 kN/m 2 , Q = 292.5 kN
all all

(e) Assuming that local shear failure occurs in the soil supporting the foundations.

(deg)
Solution: qu = 0.867cN c + qN q + 0.4 BN
(’ should be reduced to tan-1(2/3*tan’) = 13.64° 2/3*’=13.3°
(Wrong!)
N c = 11.86, N q = 3.88, N = 1.18

qu = 0.867 15.2 11.86 + (1 17.8)  3.88 + 0.4  17.8  1.5  1.18
= 156.3 + 69.1 + 12.6 = 237.96 kN/m 2
Thus:
q 237.96
qall = u = = 59.5 kN/m 2
FS 4
The total allowable gross load:
Qall = qall  A(area) = 59.5  ( B  B) = 59.5  (1.5 1.5) = 133.9 kN
36
In summary

❑ Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Theory (based on Strip 1

q
footing, neglected shear above the footing bottom, u = c N c + qN q +  BN
2
general shear failure,  = ’)
❑ Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity factors Nc Nq N
❑ Extending the Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity for
square/circular foundations
❑ Extending for local shear failure
❑ Effect of Groundwater Table (3 cases: modify q,  )
❑ Factor of Safety (gross or net)

Limitations of Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Theory:

• No corrections on depth, load inclination, general foundation shape (B≠L)
• N is over-estimated due to inaccurate assumption of .
37
Break 38
 Limitations:
I.5 General Bearing Capacity Equation • No corrections on depth, load inclination,
❑ Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity qu: general foundation shape (B≠L)
• N is over-estimated due to inaccurate
1 assumption of .
qu = cN c + qN q +  BN
2
 =   in Terzaghi exp ( 2(3 4 −   / 2) tan   )
Nq =
2 cos 2 ( 4 +   2 )
N c = cot   ( N q − 1)
1  K p 
N =  − 1  tan  
2  cos 2   

❑ Modification of qu due to  changed to /4+’/2 (Vesic 1973)

s1
t
s3 (1) For ’ = 0?  
N q = tan 2 ( + )e tan  
 /2 Nq = 1 4 2
 = /2+’ N c = 5.14 N c = ( N q − 1) cot  
s3 s1 s N = 0 N = 2( N q + 1) tan  
39
(for Nc, Just put ’ = 0.0001)
Theoretical derivation of strip footing based on LEM (not required)

40
41
Presumed allowable vatical bearing pressure under foundations on horizontal ground
(The Code of Practice for Foundation 2017, Hong Kong)

It is emphasized that the presumed

bearing value should be used by
the designer only for preliminary
foundation design purpose and, in
all cases, he should then review
and, if necessary, amend his first
design. This will frequently entail an
estimate of settlements.

42
I.5 General Bearing Capacity Equation  
N q = tan 2 ( + )e tan  
4 2
New Bearing Capacity factors N c = ( N q − 1) cot  
N = 2( N q + 1) tan  

43
I.5 General Bearing Capacity Equation  
N q = tan 2 ( + )e tan  
4 2
New Bearing Capacity factors N c = ( N q − 1) cot  
N = 2( N q + 1) tan  

To extend the Matlab code

Matlab code
clc; % clean display
close all; % close figures
clear; % clean values of variables
%%
phi0=0:1:50;
phi=phi0/180*pi;

Nq=exp(2*(3/4*pi-phi/2).*tan(phi))./(2*(cos(pi/4+phi/2)).^2);
Nc=(Nq-1)./tan(phi);

Kpr=3*(tan(pi/4+(phi+33/180*pi)/2)).^2;
Nr=1/2*(Kpr./(cos(phi)).^2-1).*tan(phi);
%%

44
I.5 General Bearing Capacity Equation
1
qu = cN c + qN q +  BN
2

B≠L

The soil-bearing capacity equation should be modified for general use by

incorporating:
❑ Depth factor: To account for the shearing resistance developed along the
failure surface in soil above the base of the footing (effect of Df)
❑ Shape factor: To determine the bearing capacity of rectangular and circular
footings (effect of B/L)
❑ Inclination factor: To determine the bearing capacity of a footing on which
the direction of load application is inclined at a certain angle to the vertical
qu = cN c Fcs Fcd Fci + qN q Fqs Fqd Fqi + 12  BN F s F d F i
45
I.5 General Bearing Capacity Equation

qu = cN c Fcs Fcd Fci + qN q Fqs Fqd Fqi + 12  BN F s F d F i

c’ = effective cohesion
 = ’ (effective),  (average) or total unit weight g of the soil
B = width of footing (= diameter of a circular footing)
Nc, Nq, N = bearing capacity factors
Fcs , Fqs , F s = shape factors Note:
Fcd , Fqd , F d = depth factors Equations are derived for
plane strain case. One
Fci , Fqi , F i = load inclination factors may need corrections for
 from triaxial data.
Attention:
If L B  2 use tr
✓ The Equation is proposed for effective stress
parameters using ’ and c’; If L B  2 use  ps = 1.5tr − 17

✓ The Equation can also be adopted for total If tr  34 use tr =  ps
stress parameters using  and c.
Keep consistent ! 46
Direct shear sn
t, 

Triaxial shear
sa

sr
sr

Note:
Equations are derived for If L B  2 use tr
plane strain case. One If L B  2 use  ps = 1.5tr − 17
may need corrections for If tr  34 use tr =  ps
 from triaxial data.
47
  
N q = tan 2 ( + )e tan 
I.5 General Bearing Capacity Equation 4 2
N c = ( N q − 1) cot 
qu = cN c Fcs Fcd Fci + qN q Fqs Fqd Fqi + 12  BN F s F d F i N = 2( N q + 1) tan 

❑ Shape Factors:
(empirical relations based on extensive laboratory tests by De Beer 1970)

B Nq
Fcs = 1 +
L Nc
B
Fqs = 1 + tan 
L
B
F s = 1 − 0.4 Put B/L
L
L ( footing length )  B ( width )

(1) For  = 0?
Nq = 1
Put equations needed
N c = 5.14
N = 0
(2) For square footing? (3) For continuous footing? 48
  
N q = tan 2 ( + )e tan 
I.5 General Bearing Capacity Equation 4 2
N c = ( N q − 1) cot 
qu = cN c Fcs Fcd Fci + qN q Fqs Fqd Fqi + 12  BN  F s F d F i N = 2( N q + 1) tan 

❑ Depth Factors :
(empirical relations based on extensive laboratory tests by Hansen 1970)

If D f  B
If D f  B

(1) Df = 0?
(2) Df = B?

49
  
N q = tan 2 ( + )e tan 
I.5 General Bearing Capacity Equation 4 2
N c = ( N q − 1) cot 
qu = cN c Fcs Fcd Fci + qN q Fqs Fqd Fqi + 12  BN  F s F d F i N = 2( N q + 1) tan 

❑ Inclination Factors:
(empirical relations based on extensive laboratory tests by Meyerhof 1963)
2
  
o
Fci = Fqi = 1 − o 
 90 
2
 
F i = 1 −  ( = 0  N  = 0 )
 
 = load inclination angle from vertical


Attention: qu is vertical!!!
Df
qu BL
Qult (i) cos  = Qult  Qult (i) =
cos 
50
Example 2 Qall(i), not Qall
A square column foundation has to carry a gross allowable total load Q of 150 kN.
The depth of the foundation is 0.7 m. The load is inclined at an angle of 20°to the
vertical. Determine the width of the foundation, B. (factor of safety is 3)
General bearing capacity equation:
qu = cN c Fcs Fcd Fci + qN q Fqs Fqd Fqi + 12  BN  F s F d F i

No water table is provided,

so no mofication of .

51
Example 2
A square column foundation has to carry a gross allowable total load Q of 150 kN.
The depth of the foundation is 0.7 m. The load is inclined at an angle of 20°to the
vertical. Determine the width of the foundation, B. (factor of safety is 3)

Solution:
qu = cN c Fcs Fcd Fci + qN q Fqs Fqd Fqi + 12  BN  F s F d F i
No mention of water table → no water
c = 0 → qu = 0 + qN q Fqs Fqd Fqi + 12  BN F s F d F i
q = D f  = 0.7 18 = 12.6 kN/m 2  
N q = tan 2 ( + )e tan  
4 2
N c = ( N q − 1) cot  
for   = 30o → N q = 18.4, N = 22.4 N = 2( N q + 1) tan  

B B B
Fqs = 1 +tan  = 1 + tan 30o = 1 + 0.577 = 1.577 F s = 1 − 0.4 = 0.6
L B L
Assuming D f B  1:
Df 0.7 0.202
Fqd = 1 + 2tan  (1 − sin  ) 2
= 1 + 2tan 30o (1 − sin 30o ) 2 =1+ F d = 1
B B B
2 2
  o   20      20 
2 2

Fqi = 1 − o  = 1 −  = 0.605 F i = 1 −  = 1 −  = 0.11

 90   90      30  52
Example 2
A square column foundation has to carry a gross allowable total load Q of 150 kN.
The depth of the foundation is 0.7 m. The load is inclined at an angle of 20 to the
vertical. Determine the width of the foundation, B. (factor of safety is 3)

Solution:
qu = cN c Fcs Fcd Fci + qN q Fqs Fqd Fqi + 12  BN  F s F d F i

qu  44.68  14.89
qall = =  221.2 + + 13.3B  3 = 73.73 + + 4.43B
FS  B  B
Q 150 150 14.89
qall = all = 2  2 = 73.73 + + 4.43B
Area B B B
(Wrong!)
By trial & error, find B = 1.3 m
Check D f / B = 0.7 /1.3  1.0 → under the assumption

Qall Q cos  140.95 140.95 14.89

qall = = all (i) 2 = 2
 2
= 73.73 + + 4.43B
Area B B B B
By trial & error, find B = 1.243 m (Correct!)
Check D f / B = 0.7 /1.243  1.0 → under the assumption
53
In summary

The soil-bearing capacity equation should be modified for general use by

incorporating:
❑ Depth factor: To account for the shearing resistance developed along the
failure surface in soil above the base of the footing
❑ Shape factor: To determine the bearing capacity of rectangular and circular
footings
❑ Inclination factor: To determine the bearing capacity of a footing on which
the direction of load application is inclined at a certain angle to the vertical

qu = cN c Fcs Fcd Fci + qN q Fqs Fqd Fqi + 12  BN F s F d F i

Attention:
❖ Previous water table effect is applicable.
❖ The ultimate or allowable Q with inclination needs to be modified.

54
Break 55
I.6 Eccentrically Loaded Foundations (one-way case)
Calculation of foundation base pressure for e ≤ B/6:

(moment = force*distance)
1 BL   2 B 
M =  q(ii )     2
2 2  3 2
6M
 q(ii ) = 2
B L

M (i ) (ii )
q = q(i )  q(ii ) =
Q 6M
 2 e=
BL B L Q
Q  6M  Q  6e  Q Q
= 1  = 1   M
BL  BQ  BL  B e
= +
q(ii )
q(i ) q(ii )
Q
6𝑒 q(i ) =
(1 − >0) BL 56
𝐵
I.6 Eccentrically Loaded Foundations (one-way case)
Calculation of foundation base pressure for e ≤ B/6:

(moment = force*distance)
1 BL 2 B
M= q(ii )    2
2 2 3 2
6M
 q(ii ) = 2
B L

M (i ) (ii )
q = q(i )  q(ii ) =
Q 6M
 2 e=
BL B L Q
Q  6M  Q  6e  Q Q
= 1  = 1   M
BL  BQ  BL  B e
𝐵 = +
(𝑒 = )
6 q(ii )
q(i ) q(ii )
Q
6𝑒 q(i ) =
(1 − =0) BL 57
𝐵
I.6 Eccentrically Loaded Foundations (one-way case)
M
Calculation of foundation base pressure for e > B/6: e=
Q

B 1
Vertical force Fv (total area of pressure): e= − B
2 3
1
Fv = BLqmax
2
2Q
Force equilibrium: Fv = Q  qmax = 1
BL Fv B
Moment equilibrium: 3
→ Fv has same location as Q B
B 1 3
e= − B  B = B − 3e
2 3 2 Tension will cause large penetration
2Q 2Q 4Q (settlements). So, for design the
 qmax = = =
BL ( 3 B − 3e) L 3L( B − 2e) case e > B/6 has to be avoided!!!
2 58
I.6 Eccentrically Loaded Foundations (one-way case)

M
e=
M Q
e= (eccentricity)
Q
For e  B 6 :
Q 6M Q  6e 
qmax = + 2 = 1 + 
BL B L BL  B

Q 6M Q  6e 
qmin = − 2 = 1 − 
BL B L BL  B

For e  B 6 :
4Q
qmax =
3L( B − 2e)
qmin = 0
Qult = qu BL with B = B − 2e
(Empirical formula, not theoretical) 59
I.6 Eccentrically Loaded Foundations (one-way case)
[1] Effective Area Method (Meyerhoff, 1953)

qu = cN c Fcs Fcd Fci + qN q Fqs Fqd Fqi + 12  BN  F s F d F i

1. To check e>B/6? (* The case e > B/6 is not allowed)

2. Calculate effective width B’=B-2e, and effective length L’=L
(smaller of B’ and L’ is the effective width)
2. Use the above equation to calculate q’u.
when calculating shape factors (Fcs, Fqs and Fs), use B’ and L’,
but, depth factors (Fcd, Fqd and Fd) still use B and L (on safer side!).
3. The total ultimate load is: Qult = qu A = qu ( B  L)
Qult
4. F =
The factor of safety for such type of loading can be evaluated as: S Q
all

5. To double check the qmax due to applied eccentric load smaller than q’u/Fs?

60
I.6 Eccentrically Loaded Foundations (one-way case)
[2] Prakash and Saran Theory (1971)

qu = cN c (e) Fcs (e) + qN q (e) Fqs (e) + 12  BN (e) F s (e)

1. The influence of effective width length was included in the modified bearing
capacity factors under eccentric loading.
2. To calculate ultimate load, use full area (not effective area) Qult = qu A
3. The bearing capacity factors and factors of shape effect was modified as
L
Fcs (e) = 1.2 − 0.025 and Fcs (e)  1.0; Fqs (e) = 1
B
2
 2e B  3 e  B 
F s (e) = 1 +  − 0.68  +  0.43 −  
B L  2 B  L 

Lack of corrections for depth and inclination! 61

 I.6 Eccentrically Loaded Foundations (one-way case)
[2] Prakash and Saran Theory (1971)

Nc(e) Nq(e) N(e)

Friction angle, ’ (deg) Friction angle, ’ (deg) Friction angle, ’ (deg)

62
I.6 Eccentrically Loaded Foundations (one-way case)

[3] Reduction Factor Method (For Granular Soil) (Purkayastha and Char 1977)
(Based on the stability analysis of eccentrically loaded continuous footings
supported by a layer of sand using the method of slices)

qu (eccentric) qu 
Rk = 1 − =1 − 
qu (centric) qu    e 
k

  qu = qu 1 − a   
e
k
   B  
Rk = a   
B 
considering Shape, inclination, depth!
* To calculate ultimate load, use full area (not effective area)

e=
M Qult = qu A
Q

63
Example 3
A square foundation is shown in the figure below. Assume that the one-way load
eccentricity e =0.15 m. Determine the ultimate load, Qult. (check e/B < 1/6?)
Bearing capacity equation according to effective area method
qu = cN c Fcs Fcd Fci + qN q Fqs Fqd Fqi + 12  BN  F s F d F i

No water table is provided,

so no mofication of .

64
Solution 1
qu = qN q Fqs Fqd Fqi +  BN F s F d F i
With 𝑐 ′ = 0, the q’u becomes 2
with q = D f  = ( 0.7 )(18 ) = 12.6 kN m 2

For 𝜙 ′ = 30°, from the Table, 𝑁𝑞 = 18.4 and 𝑁𝛾 = 22.4. (eccentricity effect ignored)
B = B − 2e = 1.5 − 2 ( 0.15 ) = 1.2 m
L = L = 1.5 m
B  1.2 
Fqs = 1 + tan  = 1 +   tan30 = 1.462
L  1.5 
Shape factors using B’ and L’,
 B   1.2 
F s = 1 − 0.4   = 1 − 0.4   = 0.68 Depth factors using B and L.
 
L   1.5 

Fqd = 1 + 2tan  (1 − sin  )

2 Df
= 1+
( 0.289 )( 0.7 ) = 1.135
B 1.5
F d = 1

So 1
qu = qN q Fqs Fqd Fqi +  BN F s F d F i
2
1
= (12.6 )(18.4 )(1.462 )(1.135 ) + (18 )(1.2 )( 22.4 )( 0.68 )(1)
2
= 384.7 + 164.50 = 549.2 kN m 2
Hence
Qult = BL ( qu ) = (1.2 )(1.5 )( 549.2 )  988 kN 65
Example 4
A continuous foundation is shown in the figure below. If the load eccentricity is 0.2
m, determine the ultimate load, Qult, per unit length of the foundation. (a) Use
Meyerhof’s effective area method.
Bearing capacity equation (effective area method)
qu = cN c Fcs Fcd Fci + qN q Fqs Fqd Fqi + 12  BN  F s F d F i

(check e/B < 1/6?)

No water table is provided,

so no mofication of .

66
Example 4
A continuous foundation is shown in the figure below. If the load eccentricity is 0.2
m, determine the ultimate load, Qult, per unit length of the foundation. (a) Use
Meyerhof’s effective area method.
(check e/B < 1/6?)
Solution:
For 𝑐 ′ = 0, it gives
1
qu = qN q Fqs Fqd Fqi +  BN  F s F d F i
2
Where q = (16.5) (1.5) = 24.75 kN/m2.
For 𝜙 ′ = 40°, from the Table, 𝑁q = 64.2 and 𝑁𝛾 =109.41. Also,
B = 2 − ( 2 )( 0.2 ) = 1.6 m
Because the foundation in question is a continuous foundation, 𝐵′ Τ𝐿′ is zero. Hence,
𝐹𝑞𝑠 = 1, 𝑁𝛾𝑠 = 1. From the Table, (For continuous foundation, shape factors are 1)
Fqi = F i = 1
Df  1.5 
Fqd = 1 + 2tan  (1 − sin  ) = 1 + 0.214   = 1.16
2

B  2 
F d = 1
1
qu = ( 24.75 )( 64.2 )(1)(1.16 )(1) +   (16.5 )(1.6 )(109.41)(1)(1)(1) = 3287.39 kN m 2
2
Consequently Qult = ( B )(1) ( qu ) = (1.6 )(1)( 3287.39 )  5260 kN 67
Example 4
A continuous foundation is shown in the figure below. If the load eccentricity is 0.2
m, determine the ultimate load, Qult, per unit length of the foundation. (b) use the
theory of Prakash and Saran (1971).
qu = cN c (e) Fcs (e) + qN q (e) Fqs (e) + 12  BN (e) F s (e)
L
Fcs (e) = 1.2 − 0.025 and Fcs (e)  1.0; Fqs (e) = 1
B
2
 2e B  3 e  B 
F s (e) = 1 +  − 0.68  +  0.43 −  
B L  2 B  L 

Nc(e) Nq(e) N(e)

Friction angle, ’ (deg) Friction angle, ’ (deg) Friction angle, ’ (deg) 68

Example 4
A continuous foundation is shown in Figure 3.18. If the load eccentricity is 0.2 m,
determine the ultimate load, Qult, per unit length of the foundation. (b) use the
theory of Prakash and Saran (1971).

Solution by Prakash and Saran Theory:

(For continuous foundation, shape factors are 1)

Since 𝑐 ′ = 0
 1 
Qult = B  qN q( e ) +  BN ( e ) 
 2 
e 0.2
= = 0.1
B 2
Since 𝜙 ′ = 40°and e/B = 0.1, Figures give 𝑁q(𝑒) = 56.09 and 𝑁𝛾(𝑒) ≈ 71.8.
Hence,
 1 
Qult = 2 ( 24.75 )( 56.09 ) +   (16.5 )( 2 )( 71.8 )  = 5146 kN
 2 
(attention, lack of correction of depth!) 69
Example 4
A continuous foundation is shown in Figure 3.18. If the load eccentricity is 0.2 m,
determine the ultimate load, Qult, per unit length of the foundation. (c) Use the
Reduction Factor Method.

qu = qu (1 − Rk )
k
e
Rk = a  
B

(For continuous foundation,

shape factors are 1)

70
Example 4
A continuous foundation is shown in Figure 3.18. If the load eccentricity is 0.2 m,
determine the ultimate load, Qult, per unit length of the foundation. (c) Use the
Reduction Factor Method.

Solution by Reduction Factor Method:

1
qu ( centric ) = qN q F qd +  BN F d
2
For 𝜙 ′ = 40°, 𝑁q = 64.2 and 𝑁𝛾 ≈ 109.41 (from Table).
Hence,
Fqd = 1.16 and F d = 1 ( see Example 4(a) )
(For continuous foundation,
1
qu ( centric ) = ( 24.75 )( 64.2 )(1.16 ) + (16.5 )( 2 )(109.41)(1) shape factors are 1)
2
= 1843.18 + 1805.27 = 3648.45kN m 2
The reduction factor is expressed as follows: k
e
Rk = a  
B
For Df/B = 1.5/2 = 0.75, the Table gives a ≈ 1.75 and k ≈ 0.85. Hence,
0.85
 0.2 
Rk = 1.79   = 0.253
 2 
Qu = Bqu ( eccentric ) = Bqu ( centric ) (1 − Rk ) = ( 2 )( 3648.35 )(1 − 0.253)  5451 kN 71
Break 72
 (not required)
I.7 Eccentrically Loaded Foundations (two-way case)
Extension1: to two-way case qu = cN c Fcs Fcd Fci + qN q Fqs Fqd Fqi + 12  BN  F s F d F i
(Highter and Anders, 1985)
My Mx
eB = ; eL = using effective dimensions
Qult Qult to calculate all factors!!!
Qult = qu A = qu ( B  L)

Case I Case II

Case V Case III Case IV

73
 (not required)
I.7 Eccentrically Loaded Foundations (two-way case)
Extension2: Continuous Foundation Subjected to Eccentric Inclined Loading
(Saran and Agarwal 1991) 

qu = cN c (ei) + qN q (ei) + 12  BN (ei)

factors = f ( e B ,  ,  ) Df
q =  Df
Qult = qu A = qu ( B 1) e

74
 (not required)
I.7 Eccentrically Loaded Foundations (two-way case)
Extension2: Continuous Foundation Subjected to Eccentric Inclined Loading
(Saran and Agarwal 1991) 

qu = cN c (ei) + qN q (ei) + 12  BN (ei)

factors = f ( e B ,  ,  ) Df
q =  Df
Qult = qu A = qu ( B 1) e

75
Example 5 (not required)
A continuous foundation is shown in the Figure. Estimate the ultimate load, per
unit length of the foundation.

qu = cN c (ei) + qN q (ei) + 12  BN (ei)

factors = f ( e B ,  ,  )
q =  Df
Qult = qu A = qu ( B 1)

76
Example 5 (not required)
A continuous foundation is shown in the Figure. Estimate the ultimate load, per
unit length of the foundation.

Qult = Bqu = B ( cN c (ei) + qN q (ei) + 12  BN (ei) )

= B ( qN q (ei) + 12  BN (ei) )
 1 
= 1.5  16 12.5 + 16 1.5 15 
 2 
= 570 kN
(attention, lack of corrections for depth and shape!)

12.5
15

77
In summary

The general bearing capacity equation should be extended for eccentrically

loading condition:
❑ Eccentrically Loaded Foundations for one-way case
✓ Effective area method (using effective area)
✓ Prakash and Saran Theory (using total area, not considering depth and inclination)
✓ Reduction Factor Method (using total area)
❑ Extension from one-way to two-way case (not required)
❑ Continuous Foundation Subjected to Eccentric Inclined Loading (not required)

78
TOPICS & SYLLABUS:
Topic 1: Site Investigation
Topic 2: Slope Stability
Topic 3: Shallow Foundations
Topic 4: Mat (Raft) Foundations
Topic 5: Earth Retaining Structures
Topic 6: Pile Foundations

1
 Topic 3: Shallow Foundations
Key points of a foundation design:
(a) shall be safe against overall shear failure (Ultimate Limit State);
(b) cannot undergo excessive displacement (Serviceability Limit State).
I. Ultimate Bearing Capacity (ULS) II. Settlement (SLS)
❖ General Concept ❖ Types of Settlement
❖ Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Theory ❖ Elastic Settlement
❖ Effect of Groundwater Table ❖ Consolidation Settlement
❖ Factor of Safety
❖ General Bearing Capacity Equation
❖ Eccentrically Loaded Foundations
❖ Special Cases

2
Ma On Shan, HK 2002
Civil Engineering 2020/2021
Subject: Geotechnical Design (CSE40403)

Topic 3 Shallow Foundations

II. Settlement

By Dr. Zhenyu YIN

Office: ZS915, Tel: 3400-8470
Email: Zhenyu.yin@polyu.edu.hk
3
Types of Foundation Settlement
Foundation settlement under load can be classified to:
(1) Immediate, or elastic settlement, Se
(2) Consolidation settlement, Sc Primary consolidation settlement Sc(p)
Secondary consolidation settlement Sc(s)
Se

Sc(p)

Sc(s)

Stresses in ground induced by surface loading have to be clear! 4

 II.1 Stresses in ground
K 0 = 1 − sin c
❖ Stress due to self-weight of soils
K 0 = (1 − sin c ) OCR sin c

sz=gh s h = K 0s z
sh=? (s h = K 0s z ? ) (x)

(s h = s h + u ) (√)

Example 1:
Please plot the distribution of vertical stress (total/effective) and horizontal
stress (total/effective) along the depth for four cases.
Cas-1 Cas-2 Cas-3 Cas-4

gsat, c,  g, c,  g1, c1, 1

H g, c,  H H
hw hw
h2 g2, c2, 2

(assuming g ≈ gsat) (assuming g1 ≈ g1sat)

5
 II.1 Stresses in ground
Example 1:
Please plot the distribution of vertical stress (total/effective) and horizontal stress
(total/effective) along the depth for four cases.
Cas-1

H g, c, 

Cas-2

H gsat, c, 

6
 II.1 Stresses in ground
Example 1:
Please plot the distribution of vertical stress (total/effective) and horizontal stress
(total/effective) along the depth for four cases.
Cas-1

H g, c, 

s'z=sz=gH s'h=sh=K0gH

Cas-2

Attention: s h = K 0s z (No)
H gsat, c,  s h = s h + u = K 0s z + u  K 0s z (Yes )

sz=gsatH sh=s'h+u=K0(gsat-gw)H+gwH
s'z=(gsat-gw)H s'h=K0s'v=K0(gsat-gw)H
7
 II.1 Stresses in ground
Example 1:
Please plot the distribution of vertical stress (total/effective) and horizontal stress
(total/effective) along the depth for four cases.
Cas-3

g, c, 
H
hw

(assuming g ≈ gsat)

Cas-4

g1, c1, 1
H
hw
h2 g2, c2, 2

(assuming g1 ≈ g1sat)
8
 II.1 Stresses in ground
Example 1:
Please plot the distribution of vertical stress (total/effective) and horizontal stress
(total/effective) along the depth for four cases.
Cas-3

g, c,  s'z=sz=g(H-hw) s'h=sh=K0g(H-hw)
H
hw
sz=gsatH sh=s'h+u=s'h+gwhw
(assuming g ≈ gsat) s'z=g(H-hw)+(gsat-gw) hw s'h=K0g(H-hw)+K0(gsat-gw) hw

Cas-4
s z1 = s z1 = g 1 ( H − hw ) , s h1 = s h1 = K 0s z1
g1, c1, 1 s'z1(sz1)
H s z 2 = s z1 + ( g 1 − g w )( hw − h2 ) , s h 2 = K 0s z 2
s'z2(sz2)
hw s z 2 = s z1 + g 1 ( hw − h2 ) , s h 2 = K 0s z2 + g w ( hw − h2 )
h2 g2, c2, 2
s'z3(sz3) s z3 = s z 2 + ( g 2 − g w ) h2 , s h 3 = K 0s z3
(assuming g1 ≈ g1sat)
s z 3 = s z 2 + g 2 h2 , s h 3 = K 0s z3 + g w h2 9
II.1 Stresses in ground (induced by surface loading of different geometries)
Forms of external surface load

Point load Linear load Triangular load

Circular uniform load Rectangular strip load Triangular trip load

Irregular uniform load

10
II.1 Stresses in ground (induced by surface loading of different geometries)
(Google map:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Phase+8+(Block+Z),+The+Hong+Kong+Polytechnic+University/@22
.3066481,114.1783823,18z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x340400e80cc5a513:0xf260aecd5ec53016!8m
2!3d22.3066456!4d114.1794793?hl=en&authuser=0)

(Remark: “Point” is a relative concept relating to the land)

Electric line pole Obelisk in Paris IFC (HK)

11
II.1 Stresses in ground (induced by surface loading of different geometries)
Recall
❑ Stress due to a Concentrated Load P
Stresses at any point inside homogeneous, x
elastic, and isotropic mediums due to a r
concentrated point load located at the surface:
 3Pz 3 3P
s =
 z 2 R 5 = y R z
2 52
 2 z 1+ ( r z ) 
2 

  
 3P  zx 2 1 − 2  R 2 − Rz − z 2 x ( 2 R + z )  
2
z
A (x,y,z)
s x =  5 +  3 − 3 
 2  R 3  R ( R + z ) R ( R + z )2   sz
  
 3P  zy 2 1 − 2  R 2 − Rz − z 2 x ( 2 R + z )  
2
s y =  5 +  3 − 3 2 
 2  R 3  R ( R + z ) R ( R + z )  

 3P  xyz (1 − 2 ) xy ( 2 R + z ) 

 xy =   =  5 − 2
 ( ) 
yx
 2  R 3 R 3
R + z
 2
 =  = − 3Pyz
 yz zy
2 R 5
 2
 =  = − 3Pxz J. V. Boussinesq
 xz zx
2 R 5 (1842-1929, France) 12
 II.1 Stresses in ground (induced by surface loading of different geometries)
 3Pz 3 3P
Recall s z = 2 R 5 = 2 52
2 z 1+ ( r z ) 
2 
❑ Stress due to a concentrated load 
  
 
3P  zx 1 − 2  R − Rz − z 2 x ( 2 R + z )  
2 2 2
s x =  5 +  3 − 3 
Matlab code and plot  2  R 3  R ( R + z ) R ( R + z )2  
  
 3P  zy 1 − 2  R − Rz − z
2 2 2
x ( 2 R + z )  
2

clc s y =  5 +  3 − 3 
 2  R 3  R ( R + z ) R ( R + z )2  
close all 
 3P  xyz (1 − 2 ) xy ( 2 R + z ) 
clear  xy =  yx =  − 2
 2  R 5 3 R 3 ( R + z ) 
%%  2
 =  = − 3Pyz
p=1;  yz zy
2 R 5
FontSize=16;  2

nu=0.3;  =  = − 3Pxz

figure1=figure(1);  xz zx
2 R 5

x=0.1:0.1:10; set(1,'color','w');
z=(0.1:0.1:10)'; set(1,'Position',[500 200 400 700]);
% [x,z]=meshgrid(X,Z); axes1 = axes('Parent',figure1);
r=x; h1=contour(z,x,sigz,'LevelStep',0.01,'ShowText','on');hold on;
% R=sqrt(r.^2+z.^2); set(gca,'Ydir','reverse')
%% set(axes1,'BoxStyle','full','Layer','top','XAxisLocation','top');
for i=1:length(x) axis([0 5 0 10]);
for j=1:length(z) set(gca,'Ytick',0:2:10);
r=x(i); legend('{\it\sigma}_{z}')
R=sqrt(r^2+z(i)^2); shading interp ;
r_z(j,i)=r/z(j); shading flat;
I1(j,i)=3/(2*pi)/((1+(r/z(j))^2)^2.5); %r/z(j) xlabel('\itx','FontWeight','bold');
sigz(j,i)=p/z(j)^2*I1(j,i); ylabel('{\itz}','FontWeight','bold');
end % colorbar('peer',axes1);
end set(gca,'Fontsize',FontSize,'FontName','Times new Roman');
set(get(gca,'XLabel'),'FontSize',FontSize,'FontName','Times new Roman');
set(get(gca,'YLabel'),'FontSize',FontSize,'FontName','Times new Roman');13
II.1 Stresses in ground (induced by surface loading of different geometries)
Recall
❑ Stress due to a uniform circular load
3P 3 ( q0 rd dr )
s z = 52
 ds z = 52
2 z 2 1+ ( r z )  2 z 2 1+ ( r z ) 
2 2
   

 
clc 2 B 2
2 −3 2
close all  s =
  ds z = q0 1 − 1 + ( B 2 z ) 

clear
z  
 =0 r =0
%%
p=1; Matlab code and plot?
nu=0.3;
x=0.1:0.1:10;
z=(0.1:0.1:10)';
% [x,z]=meshgrid(X,Z);
r=x; sz
% R=sqrt(r.^2+z.^2);
%%
for i=1:length(x)
for j=1:length(z)
Much simplified from
r=x(i); this program!
R=sqrt(r^2+z(i)^2);
r_z(j,i)=r/z(j);
I1(j,i)=3/(2*pi)/((1+(r/z(j))^2)^2.5); %r/z(j)
sigz(j,i)=p/z(j)^2*I1(j,i);
end
end 14
II.1 Stresses in ground (induced by surface loading of different geometries)
Recall
❑ Stress due to a uniform circular load
3P 3 ( q0 rd dr )
s z = 52
 ds z = 52
2 z 2 1+ ( r z )  2 z 2 1+ ( r z ) 
2 2
   

 
2 B 2 −3 2
 s z =   ds z = q0 1 − 1 + ( B 2 z ) 
2
 
=0 r =0

Ir for a Uniformly Loaded Flexible Circular Area

s zr = q0 I r
szr sz

15
II.1 Stresses in ground (induced by surface loading of different geometries)
Recall
❑ Stress due to a uniform rectangular load
3P 3 ( q0 dxdy )
s z = 52
 ds z = 52
2 z 2 1+ ( r z )  2 z 2 1+ ( r z ) 
2 2
   
L B
 s z =   ds
y =0 x =0
z = q0 I

1  2mn(m 2 + n 2 + 2) −1 2mn m + n + 1
2 2 
I=  + tan 
4  (1 + n 2 )(1 + m 2 ) m 2 + n 2 + 1 m 2 + n 2 + 1 − m 2 n 2 
with m = B z , n = L z sz
General case
General case

s z = q0 ( I1 + I 2 + I 3 + I 4 )

s z = q0 I c (A special case: O in the center)

2 m1n1 (m12 + 2n12 + 1) m1 
Ic =  + sin −1 
  (1 + n12 )(n12 + m12 ) m12 + n12 + 1 m12 + n12 1 + n12 

with m1 = L B , n1 = 2 z B 16
z m=B z
n=L z

17
z m=B z
n=L z

18
s z = q0 I c (A special case: O in the center) m1 = L B , n1 = 2 z B

19
 ❑ Stress due to a uniform rectangular load dQ p
Example 2: applying the principle of superposition to calculate the stress at M y
A D
Case-1 x l
M b
z
B C
M
A D

Case-2
z

B C

M
A F
Case-3
M
B E

20
C D
 ❑ Stress due to a uniform rectangular load dQ p
Example 2: applying the principle of superposition to calculate the stress at M y
A G D
Case-1 x l
M
E F b
AEMG+EBHM+MHCF+GMFD z
B H C
M
A G D

Case-2 z
AEMG-BEMH+GMFD-HMFC
B H C
E F
M
A F
Case-3
M
B E ABCM+MDFE

D 21
C
 ❑ Stress due to a uniform rectangular load dQ p
Example 2: applying the principle of superposition to calculate the stress at M y
A E
x l
Case-4 b
M D z
M

B C z
K J
Case-5
A M I H

B C F G

D E
22
 ❑ Stress due to a uniform rectangular load dQ p
Example 2: applying the principle of superposition to calculate the stress at M y
A E
AFME+FBGM+MGCD x l
Case-4 b
M D
F z
M

B G C z
K J
Case-5
A M I H

B C F G

ABCM+KMIJ+MDEI+MCGH-MCIF
D E
23
II.1 Stresses in ground (induced by surface loading of different geometries)

❑ Approximate 2:1 method

Foundation engineers often use an approximate method to determine the
increase in stress with depth caused by the construction of a foundation.
The method is referred to as the 2:1 method.

q0 BL
s z =
( B + z )( L + z )

z/2 z/2
24
Example 3 A flexible rectangular area measures 2.5 m×5 m in plan. It supports
a load of 150 kN/m2.
Determine the vertical stress increase due to the load at a depth of
6.25 m below the center of the rectangular area.
(1) Using general rectangular index method;
(2) Using simplified center point index method;
(3) using 2:1 method

25
 Example 3 A flexible rectangular area measures 2.5 m×5 m in plan. It supports
a load of 150 kN/m2.
Determine the vertical stress increase due to the load at a depth of
6.25 m below the center of the rectangular area.
Solution 2: s = q I m = L B , n = 2 z B
z 0 c 1 1

Solution 1: s z =  q0 I m = B z; n = L z

Solution 3: using 2:1 method q0 BL 150  2.5  5

s z = = = 19.05 kPa
( B + z )( L + z ) ( 2.5 + 6.25)( 5 + 6.25) 26
II.1 Stresses in ground (induced by surface loading of different geometries)

❑ Average vertical stress increase s z = q0 I

1 H
( q0 I ) dz = q0 I a
H 0
 s av =

I a = f ( m2 , n2 )
m2 = B H
n2 = L H

27
II.1 Stresses in ground (induced by surface loading of different geometries)

❑ Average vertical stress increase s z = q0 I

1 H 2 I a(H2 ) − H1 I a(H1 )
( q0 I ) dz = q0
H2
 s av =
H H1 H 2 − H1
I a = f ( m2 , n2 )
m2 = B H
n2 = L H

28
Example 4
Refer to the Figure below. Determine the average stress
increase below the center of the loaded area between z
= 3 m to z = 5 m (that is, between points A and A’).

(only 1/4 of load)

(for whole load)

29
II.1 Stresses in ground (induced by surface loading of different geometries)

❑ Stress increase under an embankment

For this two-dimensional loading condition
(continuous, plane strain), the vertical
stress increase may be expressed as
1  B1 + B2  B1 
s z = q0   ( +  ) −  
  B2  1 2 B2 2 
= q0 I  Try Matlab code and plot?

 B1 + B2 
1 = tan −1   − 2
 z 
sz
(1 & 2 in radians)  = tan −1  B1 
2  
 z 

30
Example 5
An embankment is shown in the figure.
Determine the stress increase under the
embankment at points A1 and A2.

q0 = g H = 17.5  7 = 122.5 kN/m 2 (109.03 kPa)

Solution for “stress increase at A1”:

 B1 
 2 = tan −1  
B2 B1  z 
B +B 
1 = tan −1  1 2  −  2
 z 
1  B1 + B2  B1 
I =   (  +  ) −  
  B2  1 2 B2 2 

s = s (1) + s (2) = 2q0 I 

31
Example 5
An embankment is shown in the figure.
Determine the stress increase under the
embankment at points A1 and A2.

q0 = g H = 17.5  7 = 122.5 kN/m 2 (44.76 kPa)

Solution for “stress increase at A2”:

 B1 
B1 B2  2 = tan −1  
 z 
B2 (B1=0) B +B 
1 = tan −1  1 2  −  2
 z 
1  B1 + B2  B1 
I =   (  +  ) −  
  B2  1 2 B2 2 

s = s (1) + s (2) − s (3)

z=5 m

B2 (B1=0)
32
In summary

Foundation settlement under load can be classified to:

(1) Immediate, or elastic settlement, Se
(2) Consolidation settlement, Sc primary, secondary

Settlements are due to applied loadings, to estimate which we need to make

clear the stress distribution in ground subjected to loads:
❑ Recall of stress due to a Concentrated Load
❑ Recall of stress due to a uniform circular load
❑ Recall of stress due to a uniform rectangular load
❑ Approximate 2:1 method
❑ Average vertical stress increase
❑ Stress increase under an embankment

33
Break 34
 II.2 Settlement based on the theory of elasticity

❑ Elastic settlement of a shallow foundation

Hooke’s law from 
 x E ( s x − s y − s z )
1
 =
1D to 3D to 
estimate the strains:  = s 
  y = ( s y − s x − s z )
1
E  E

 z E ( s z − s y − s x )
1
  =


Settlement can be estimated from the strain (perfectly flexible) by Bowles (1987):
1 H
( s z − s y − s x ) dz
H
Se =   z dz = 
0 E 0

Flexible: uniform stress

Rigid: uniform strain 1− 2
Se = qo ( B) Is I f
E

E
(average of z=0~5B)
Figure 3.16 35
II.2 Settlement based on the theory of elasticity

❑ Elastic settlement of a shallow foundation (Bowles 1987)

 = factor depending on location for settlement
1− 2
At "center":  = 4, B =
B L
, m = , n =
H Se = qo ( B) Is I f
2 B ( B / 2) E
L H I f = depth factor (Fox, 1948)
At "corner":  = 1, B = B , m = , n =
B B  Df L
= f , , 
I s = shape factor (Steinbrenner, 1934)  B B
1 − 2 Noting: if D f = 0, I f = 1 in all cases
= F1 + F2
1 −

1 n
with F1 = ( Ao + A1 ) and F2 = tan −1 ( A2 )
 2
(1 + m2 + 1) m2 + n2
Ao = m ln
m(1 + m2 + n2 + 1)
(m + m2 + 1) 1 + n2
A1 = ln
m + m2 + n2 + 1
m
A2 =
n m2 + n2 + 1 Se ( rigid )  0.93Se ( flexible, center )
36
37
38
 Refer to the Figure and consider a rigid square foundation 2.44 m × 2.44
Example 6 m in plan (Df = 1.22 m) on a layer of normally consolidated sand. A rock
layer is located at z = 10.98 m. The following is an approximation of the
standard penetration number (N60) with z.

Es = pa’N60
pa = 100 kN/m2
’= 10
Given: μs = 0.3 and qo = 167.7 kN/m2. Estimate the elastic settlement
( = s ) below the center of the foundation. Use Eqation

 = factor depending on location for settlement 1− 2

B L H Se = qo ( B) Is I f
At "center":  = 4, B = , m = , n = E
2 B ( B / 2)
L H
At "corner":  = 1, B = B , m = , n =
B B
Depth factor If
I s = shape factor (Steinbrenner, 1934)
1 − 2
= F1 + F2
1 −
1 n
with F1 = ( Ao + A1 ) and F2 = tan −1 ( A2 )
 2
(1 + m2 + 1) m2 + n2
Ao = m ln
m(1 + m2 + n2 + 1)
(m + m2 + 1) 1 + n2
A1 = ln
m + m2 + n2 + 1
m
A2 = 39
n m2 + n2 + 1
Example 6
Es = pa’N60
pa = 100 kN/m2
’= 10

( = s )

Solution: B = L = 2.44 m
H = 10.98 m < 5B

Calculation of Se below the Center of the Foundation

Df = 1.22 m, μs = 0.3, qo = 167.7 kN/m2

40
Example 7
A rigid shallow foundation 1 m × 2 m is shown in
Figure below. Calculate the elastic settlement at
the center of the foundation.

( = s )

 = factor depending on location for settlement

1− 2
At "center":  = 4, B =
B L
, m = , n =
H Se = qo ( B) Is I f
2 B ( B / 2) E
L H
At "corner":  = 1, B = B , m = , n =
B B
Depth factor If
I s = shape factor (Steinbrenner, 1934)
1 − 2
= F1 + F2
1 −
1 n
with F1 = ( Ao + A1 ) and F2 = tan −1 ( A2 )
 2
(1 + m2 + 1) m2 + n2
Ao = m ln
m(1 + m2 + n2 + 1)
(m + m2 + 1) 1 + n2
A1 = ln
m + m2 + n2 + 1
m
A2 =
n m2 + n2 + 1 41
Solution to example 7
We are given that B=1 m and L = 2 m. Note that 𝑧ҧ = 5 m = 5𝐵, use average Es

Es =
 Es( i ) z
z

=
(10 ,000 )( 2 ) + ( 8,000 )(1) + (12 ,000 )( 2 )
= 10 ,400 kN m 2
5
For the center of the foundation,
 =4
L 2
m = = =2
B 1
and
H 5
n = = = 10
B 1
   
 2  2

42
From Table, F1=0.641 and F2=0.031. then
1 − 2s
I s = F1 + F2
1 − s
1 − 2  0.3
= 0.641 +  0.031 = 0.659
1 − 0.3
Again, Df/B = 1/1 = 1, L/B = 2, and μs = 0.3. From the table, If = 0.709.
Hence,
1 −  s2
Se( flexible ) = qo ( B ) Is I f
Es
 1   1 − 0.3 
2
= (150 )  4    ( 0.659 )( 0.709 ) = 0.0122 m = 12.2 mm
 2   10 ,400 

Since the foundation is rigid, we obtain

Se( rigid ) = ( 0.93)12.2 mm = 11.39 mm

43
II.2 Settlement based on the theory of elasticity

❑ Improved equation for elastic settlement (Mayne and Poulos 1999)

(only for the case below the center)
1− 2
1 − 2
Se = qo ( B) Is I f Se = qo Be I G I F I E  4 BL  rectangular
E E Be = 
 B circular
IG: Influence factor of E with depth (thickness of soil) (equivalent to circular
for same area)
 0.8 −1
 1 + 0.6 ( E0 ( kBe ) ) 
 flexible
IG =  −1
 1.27 + 0.75 ( E ( kB ) )0.8  rigid
 0 e


IF: Correction factor of foundation rigidity

−1
   E  2t 

3

I F = +  4.6 + 10  f
  
4 
  E0 + k Be 2  Be  

IE: Correction factor of foundation embedment

−1
 B  Se ( rigid )  0.93Se ( flexible, center )
I E = 1 − 3.5e(1.22 −0.4)  e + 1.6  
 D 
 f  44
 −1
 B 
I E = 1 − 3.5e(1.22 −0.4)  e + 1.6  
 D 
 f 

 0.8 −1
 1 + 0.6 ( 0 ( e ) )  flexible
E kB
IG =  −1
 1.27 + 0.75 ( E ( kB ) )0.8  rigid
 0 e


Alternatively for IG

−1
   Ef  2t  
3

I F = +  4.6 + 10    
4   E0 + k Be 2  Be  
 

45
II.2 Settlement based on the theory of elasticity

1− 2 1 − 2
Se = qo ( B) Is I f Se = qo Be I G I F I E
E E (Key parameters of soil for design)

✓ Suggestion of E E =  N 60 pa
by Kulhawy and
Mayne (1990)

✓ Suggestion of E by E =  cu
Duncan and
Buchignani (1976)

✓ Suggested range of Soils E (MN/m2) 

elastic parameters

46
 For a shallow foundation supported by a silty
Example 8 clay,
Length: L = 3.05 m
Width: B = 1.52 m
Depth of foundation: Df = 1.52 m
Thickness of foundation: t =0.305 m
Load per unit area: qo = 239.6 kN/m2
Ef = 15.87 × 106 kN/m2
The silty clay soil has the following properties:
H = 3.66 m
μs = 0.3
Solution: Eo = 9660 kN/m2
k = 565.6 kN/m2/m
Estimate the elastic settlement of the
foundation below center.

I G = 0.69
I F = 0.785
I E = 0.908
47
In summary

Settlement based on the theory of elasticity:

❑ Settlement of foundation (perfectly flexible, by Bowles 1987)
✓ Location factor (centre or corner) Se ( rigid )  0.93Se ( flexible, center )
✓ Shape factor (L/B)
✓ depth factor (Df/B)
❑ Improved equation for elastic settlement (Mayne and Poulos 1999)
✓ Influence factor of E with depth ✓ Only for center
✓ Correction factor of foundation rigidity
✓ Between flexible and rigid

✓ Correction factor of foundation embedment

❑ Key elastic parameters of soil for design

48
Break 49
 e
II.3 Consolidation settlement Vertical strain  z =
1 + e0
For homogenuous field:
❑ Recall of one-dimensional consolidation settlement Hc
Sc =   z dz =  z H c
0

e

Solid
Solid

Not constant!

50
 II.3 Consolidation settlement

❑ Recall of one-dimensional consolidation settlement

(s c = preconsolidation pressure ) (i) For over-consolidated clay-Area
with s z0 + s z  s c :
s z  s c − s 0
C s  + s z
log (s z )
(Initial stress) (i) Sc ( p ) = s log z 0 H0
s z0 s c 1 + e0 s z0
s z  s c − s 0 (ii) For normally consolidated clay-Area
Cs (1 + e0 ) (iii) with s z0 = s c & s z0 + s z  s c :
(Swelling index)
C s  + s z
Sc ( p ) = c log z 0 H0
Cc (1 + e0 ) 1 + e0 s z0

s c = s z0 log (s z )
(Compression index)
e
z =
1 + e0 s z
Cs (1 + e0 ) (ii)
(iii) From overconsolidated to normally consolidated
with s z0  s c & s z0 + s z  s c : Cc (1 + e0 )
 C s C s  + s z 
Sc ( p ) =  s log c + c log z 0  H0 e
 1 + e0 s 
z0 1 + e0 s 
c  z =
1 + e0 51
 II.3 Consolidation settlement

❑ Primary consolidation settlement

Consolidation settlement occurs over time in saturated clayey soils subjected to an
increased load. The one-dimensional consolidation settlement can be expressed:
(i) For over-consolidated clay-Area
with s 0 + s av  s c :
C s  + s av
Sc ( p ) = s log 0 Hc
1 + e0 s 0

(ii) For normally consolidated clay-Area

with s 0 = s c & s 0 + s av
  s c :
C s  + s av (top)
Sc ( p ) = c log 0 Hc
1 + e0 s0

(iii) From overconsolidated to normally consolidated (middle)

with s 0  s c & s 0 + s av
  s c :
 C s C s  + s av  (bottom)
Sc ( p ) =  s log c + c log 0  Hc
 1 + e0 s 0 1 + e0 s c   =
s av
1
( s t + 4s m + s b )
6
52
 II.3 Consolidation settlement

❑ Primary consolidation settlement

By intelligent multi-objective EPR

technique for Cc of remolded clays

Cc = 0.1576e0 wL + 0.193
53
❑ Settlement during consolidation
Terzaghi’s theory of 1-D consolidation

Problem to be solved: ue  2ue

❖ = cv 2 , 0  z  2d , t  0
t z

ue (0, t ) = 0 Karl von Terzaghi

❖ Boundary conditions:
ue (2d , t ) = 0, t  0 (1883-1963)

❖ Initial conditions: ue ( z ,0) = ui ( z ), 0  z  2d

d = maximum flow distance

Two methods for the solution:

❖ Numerical (Finite Difference)
❖ Analytical (Fourier expansion) 54
❑ Settlement during consolidation

Analytical (Fourier expansion)

❖ Exact solution for excess pore water pressure and degree of consolidation:
m =
 2u i  Mz  
ue = 
m=0  M


sin 
d 
 exp(− M Tv )
2

 Time factor:
M= (2m + 1)
2 ct
m =
Tv = v2 (unitless)
2
 U =1− 
m=0 M 2
exp( − M 2
Tv ) d

ue S
(Average degree of consolidation U = 1 − = c (t) )
ui Sc (max)

❖ Approximate solutions:


 2
U U  0.6 Sc (t ) = USc ( p )
Tv =  4
−0.933log(1 − U ) − 0.085 U  0.6

55
II.3 Consolidation settlement
❑ Secondary consolidation settlement
At the end of primary consolidation (i.e., after the complete dissipation of excess
pore water pressure) some settlement is observed that is due to the plastic
adjustment of soil fabrics. This stage of consolidation is called secondary
consolidation.
Attention to definitions: C = e  log t

C e = e  ln t
C =   log t
  v

C t 
Sc (s) = H c log  2 
1 + ep  t1 

For Hong Kong Marine Clays:

C = 0.01~0.003*w (in %)
56
II.3 Consolidation settlement

❑ Secondary consolidation settlement

Why a clayey soil creeps?

❖ viscous adsorbed water (double layers) on clay particles (Adsorbed water
is NOT free water, and thus NOT free to flow under gravity)
❖ viscous re-arrangement/sliding/deformation of clay particles/ aggregates
❖ viscous deformation of clay aggregates

Sedimentation of pure Kaolinite e1

e2

Zhao (2017)
57
II.3 Consolidation settlement

❑ Secondary consolidation settlement Possible mechanisms of water

adsorption by clay surfaces

Under
effective
stress

Creep movement !
58
II.3 Consolidation settlement Creep always exists under the effective
❖
stresses (loading), independent of the
excess pore water pressure.
❑ Secondary consolidation settlement
❖ Therefore, creep has nothing to do with
the “primary” consolidation.
❖ Creep exists during and after “primary”
consolidation.
❖ Creep rate depends on stress states:
▪ Creep rate is large in a normally
consolidated state.
▪ Creep rate is small in a over-
consolidated state.

Mersri and Godlewski (1977) :

❑ For C
❖ Overconsolidated clays ≤ 0.1%
❖ Normally consolidated clays = 0.5%~3%
❖ Organic soil ≥ 4%

❑ For C/Cc
❖ Inorganic clays and silts = 0.04±0.01
Mersri and Godlewski (1977)
❖ Organic clays and silts = 0.05±0.01
❖ Peats = 0.075±0.01 59
II.3 Consolidation settlement

❑ Secondary consolidation settlement

For Hong Kong Marine Clays: C = 0.01~0.003*w (in %) 60

II.3 Consolidation settlement

❑ Secondary consolidation settlement

Intelligent single/multi-objective EPR technique

❖ Predictive performance
❖ Mathematic complicity  I p2 1 1 
ln ( Cα ) =  0.3114 − 0.1229 2 + 0.6455  e − 5.1308
 CI Ip IP
❖ Monotonicity with variables  

C C
(g) l=0.05 and 0.1 (h) l=0.05 and 0.1
R2=0.895
Training Testing R2=0.857

(120 measurements) 61
Example 9
A plan of a foundation 1 m × 2 m. is shown in Figure below. Estimate the
consolidation settlement of the foundation (using the 2:1 method for s)

16.5

eo
Cc

Figure 3.30 Calculation of primary consolidation settlement for a foundation

62
Solution
The clay is normally consolidated. Thus,
Cc H c s o + s av
Sc = log
1 + eo s o
so
s o = ( 2.4 )(16.5 ) + ( 0.5 )(17.5 − 9.81) + (1.25 )(16 − 9.81)
= 41.25 + 3.85 + 7.74 = 52.84 kN m 2
From Eq.(3.86),
1
s av = ( s l + 4s m + s b )
6
Using the 2:1 method,
qo  B  L
s =
(B + z)(L + z)
For the top of the clay layer, z = 2 m, so

s l =
(150 )(1)( 2 ) = 25kN m 2
(1 + 2 )( 2 + 2 )
63
Similarly
s m =
(150 )(1)( 2 )
= 13.45kN m2
(1 + 3.25)( 2 + 3.25)
and s b =
(150 )(1)( 2 ) = 8.39 kN m2
(1 + 4.5)( 2 + 4.5 )

1
Thus,  =  25 + 4 (13.45 ) + 8.39  = 14.53kN m 2
s av
6

So Sc =
( 0.32 )( 2.5) log  52.84 + 14.53  = 0.0469 m = 46.90 mm
 
1 + 0.8  52.84 

(iii) From overconsolidated to normally consolidated

with s 0  s c & s 0 + s av
  s c :
 C s C s  + s av 
Sc ( p ) =  s log c + c log 0  Hc
 1 + e0 s 0 1 + e0 s c 

For a given C, secondary consolidation settlement?

For an OC soil, sc=60kPa, what is Sc ?
What is the immediate settlement for the clay layer, Se ? 64
In summary

❖ “Elastic settlement” is required for both sand and clay layers. For clay, it refers to
immediate settlement without sense of time.
❖ “Primary settlement” and “Secondary settlement” are only required for clay layer.

65
Break 66
II.4 Field load test
Plate load test
in the field

67
II.4 Field load test

Plate load test simulates field loading

conditions and predicts settlement
on proposed foundation. Bearing
capacity and modulus of subgrade
reaction.

68
II.4 Field load test

qu(F): bearing capacity of the foundation

❖ For tests in clayey soils qu(P): bearing capacity of the test plate
BF
SF = SP BF: width of the proposed foundation
qu ( F ) = qu ( P ) BP BP: width of the test plate
(size effect)
❖ For tests in sandy soils
2
BF  2B F 
qu ( F ) = qu ( P ) SF = SP  
BP  F
B + B P  69
II.5 Settlement restriction

❑ Tolerable Settlement of Buildings

Definition of parameters
for differential settlement

(tilt)

(max angular distortion) (relative deflection) (max difference in

total settlement)
(max total settlement)
ST(max) in Hong Kong: (gradient between two successive points)
❖ 25mm – for important structures
❖ 50mm – less important
❖ 100 mm for walk road
❖ 200mm for gardens 70
II.5 Settlement restriction

❑ Tolerable Settlement of Buildings

Skempton and McDonald (1956) proposed the
following limiting values for maximum settlement
and maximum angular distortion, to be used for
building purposes:

Alec W. Skempton (1914-2001)

Polshin and Tokar (1957) suggested the following allowable deflection ratios
for buildings as a function of the ratio of the length to the height of a building:

71
II.5 Settlement restriction

❑ Tolerable Settlement of Buildings

The 1955 Soviet Code of Practice gives the
following allowable values:

Bjerrum (1963) recommended the following limiting angular distortion max

for various structures:

72
Laurits Bjerrum (1918-1973)
II.5 Settlement restriction

❑ Tolerable Settlement of Buildings

The European Committee for Standardization has
also provided limiting values for serviceability and
the maximum accepted foundation movements:

73
In summary
BF
Field load test SF = SP
qu ( F ) = qu ( P ) BP (size effect)
❖ For tests in clayey soils
❖ For tests in sandy soils BF 2
qu ( F ) = qu ( P )  2B F 
BP SF = SP  
 F
B + B P 

Tolerable Settlement of Buildings

Definition of parameters
for differential settlement

(tilt)

(max angular distortion) (relative deflection) (max difference in

total settlement)
(max total settlement)
(gradient between two successive points) 74
TOPICS & SYLLABUS:
Topic 1: Site Investigation
Topic 2: Slope Stability
Topic 3: Shallow Foundations
Topic 4: Mat (Raft) Foundations
Topic 5: Earth Retaining Structures
Topic 6: Pile Foundations

1
Civil Engineering 2020/2021
Subject: Geotechnical Design (CSE40403)

Topic 4 Mat Foundations

By Dr. Zhenyu YIN

Office: ZS915, Tel: 3400-8470
Email: Zhenyu.yin@polyu.edu.hk
2
III.1 From combined footings to Mat Foundation

❑ Rectangular combined footing

Two or more columns can be supported on a single rectangular foundation
(allowable net) (In practice: by design of
individual footings, B1/2+B2/2
bigger or close to L3)

Qult ( net ) qult ( net ) A Q1 + Q2

Fs = =  A= Fs
Qall ( net ) Q1 + Q2 qult ( net )

Q2 L3
X=
Q1 + Q2

B=
A L = 2 ( L2 + X )
L
(L = L1+L2+L3)
3
III.1 From combined footings to Mat Foundation

❑ Trapezoidal combined footing

is sometimes used as
an isolated spread
foundation of
columns carrying large
loads where space is
tight

(In practice: too tight

or not enough space
close to column 2)

4
III.1 From combined footings to Mat Foundation

❑ Cantilever footing

It uses a strap beam to connect

an eccentrically loaded column
foundation to the foundation of
an interior column. It is normally
adopted when the distances
between the columns are large.

To strengthen the integrity of the foundation, adjust the uneven settlement between the
foundations, and eliminate or reduce the sensitivity of the superstructure to settlement.

5
III.1 From combined footings to Mat Foundation

❑ Mat foundations (or raft foundation)

is a combined footing that may cover the entire area under a structure
supporting several columns and walls.

Flat plate (uniform Flat plate thickened

Beams and slab
thickness) under columns
6
III.1 From combined footings to Mat Foundation

❑ Mat foundations (or raft foundation)

is a combined footing that may cover the entire area under a structure
supporting several columns and walls.

Flat plates with pedestals

Slab with basement walls as a part of the mat7
III.1 From combined footings to Mat Foundation

❑ Mat foundations (or raft foundation)

8
 Attention:
III.2 Bearing capacity of mat foundations In footing: Qall ( net ) = Qlive + dead
In mat foundation: Qall ( net ) = Qlive + dead −  D f
Gross ultimate bearing capacity pressure
qu = cN c Fcs Fcd Fci + qN q Fqs Fqd Fqi + 12  BN  F s F d F i

Net ultimate capacity pressure

(*  is total unit weight, not effective, because of
qu ( net ) = qu − q = qu −  D f boundary closed)

Net allowable pressure Different from footing

Q: allowable load from the
Q
qall ( net ) = −  D f superstructure (live+dead)
A  Df: removed weight of soils
(excavated)
Factor of safety
qu ( net )
FS = 3
qall ( net )

(* definition based on net …)

9
III.2 Bearing capacity of mat foundations

Special case:
for saturated clays (f’=0) and a vertical loading condition, qu(net)=?

qu = cN c Fcs Fcd Fci + qN q Fqs Fqd Fqi + 12  BN  F s F d F i

= cu N c Fcs Fcd Fci + q (for f’ = 0, N = 0; Fqs = Fqd = Fqi = 1)


 N q = 1; N c = 5.14; N = 0

 B Nq B 1 0.195B
f = 0   Fcs = 1 + = 1+ = 1+
 L Nc L 5.14 L
 D
 Fcd = 1 + 0.4 f
 B

qu ( net ) = qu − q = cu N c Fcs Fcd Fci (Fci = 1)  0.195B   Df 

5.14cu 1 +  1 + 0.4 
qu ( net )  L  B 
 0.195B   Df  FS = =
= 5.14cu 1 +  1 + 0.4  qall ( net ) Q
−  Df
 L  B  A
10
Example 1
The mat shown in the Figure has a dimension of 18.3
m × 30.5 m. The total dead and live load on the mat is
111 × 103 kN. The mat is placed over a saturated clay
having a unit weight of 18.87 kN/m3 and cu = 134
kN/m2. Given that Df = 1.52 m determine the factor of
safety against bearing capacity failure.

Solution: The factor of safety

 0.195 B   Df 
5.14cu 1 +  +
B 
1 0 .4
 L 
FS =
Q
−  Df
A
We are given that cu = 134kN m 2 , D f = 1.52 m, B = 18.3 m, L = 30.5 m, and  =
18.87 kN m3 . Hence,
 0.195  18.3   1.52 
5.14 134  1 +  1 + 0 .4 
FS =  30.5  18.3 
= 4.66
111 103
− 18.87  1.52
18.3  30.5
11
 III.2 Bearing capacity of mat foundations

Empirical design according to the

standard penetration resistance
(after Meyrhof 1965, Bowles 1977):

Averaged standard penetration number between the

bottom of the foundation and 2B below the bottom
Depth of the foundation bottom (m)
N 60  B + 0.3    D f    Se 
2
 Se 
qall ( net ) =   1+0.33      16.63 N 60   Allowable settlement (mm)
0.08  B    B   25   25 
according to the design code
Net allowable
bearing capacity
Width of the foundation (m),
(kPa)
normally B is big in mat
foundation, so
 B + 0.3 
2

  1
 B 

12
Example 2
Following the results of a standard penetration test in Depth (m) Field value of N60
the field (sandy soil) as the table at right:
1.5 9
Estimate the net allowable bearing capacity of a mat
foundation 6.5 m × 5 m in plan. Here, Df = 1.5 m and 3.0 12
allowable settlement = 50 mm. Assume that the unit 4.5 11
weight of soil, γ = 16.5 kN/m3.
6.0 7
7.5 13
N 60   D f    Se   Se  9.0 11
qall( net ) = 1+0.33      16.63 N 60  
0.08   B   25   25  10.5 13
The bottom of the foundation = 1.5 m,
2B below the bottom = 1.5+2x5=11.5 m
Solution:
9 + 12 + 11 + 7 + 13 + 11 + 13
N 60 =  11
7
N   D   S  S 
qall( net ) = 60 1+0.33  f    e   16.63 N 60  e 
0.08   B    25   25 
11   1.5    50 
= 1 + 0 .3 3     = 302.23kN m 2
 365.86 kN m 2

0.08   5    25 
13
III.3 Settlement of mat foundations

Same as before: Foundation settlement under load can be classified according

to two major types:
1− 2
(1) Immediate, or elastic settlement, Se Se = qo ( B) Is I f
E
(2) Consolidation settlement, Sc (i.e., Sc(p), Sc(s)) Se ( rigid )  0.93Se ( flexible, center )
(i) For over-consolidated clay-Area with  0 +  av
   c : 1 − 2
or Se = qo Be I G I F I E
C   +  av E
Sc ( p ) = s log 0 Hc
1 + e0  0

(ii) For normally consolidated clay-Area with  0   c &  0 +  av

   c :
C   +  av
Sc ( p ) = c log 0 Hc
1 + e0 0
(iii) From overconsolidated to normally consolidated
with  0 =  c &  0 +  av
   c :
 C    +  av  C  t2 
Sc ( p )
C
=  s log c + c log 0  Hc Sc (s) = H c log  
 1 + e0  0 1 + e0  c  1 + ep  t1 
14
III.4 Compensated foundation
The net pressure increase in the soil under a mat foundation can be reduced by
increasing the depth Df of the mat. This approach is generally referred to as the
compensated foundation design and is extremely useful when structures are to be
built on very soft clays.  0.195B   D 
5.14c 1 + 1 + 0.4  u
f

qu ( net )  L  B 
FS = =
Q
Depth of mat for a fully compensated foundation qall ( net )
A
−  Df

Q Q
qall ( net ) = −  D f =0  D f =
A A
Also, stress increase is zero since q=0,
no settlement. So, absolutely safe!

Factor of safety (for partially compensated

foundations)

qu ( net ) qu ( net )  Q 
FS = =  f
D  
qall ( net ) Q
−  Df   A 
A

15
Example 3
A mat foundation on a saturated clay soil has dimensions of 20 m × 20 m. Given: dead
and live load =48 MN, cu = 30 kN/m2, and γclay = 18.5 kN/m3.
a. Find the depth, Df, of the mat for a fully compensated foundation.
b. What will be the depth of the mat (Df) for a factor of safety of 3 against bearing
capacity failure?

Q Q
Compensated: qall ( net ) = −  D f =0  D f =
A A

 0.195 B   Df 
5.14cu 1 +  +
B 
1 0 .4
 L 
FS =
Q
−  Df
A

16
Example 3
A mat foundation on a saturated clay soil has dimensions of 20 m × 20 m. Given: dead
and live load =48 MN, cu = 30 kN/m2, and γclay = 18.5 kN/m3.
a. Find the depth, Df, of the mat for a fully compensated foundation.
b. What will be the depth of the mat (Df) for a factor of safety of 3 against bearing
capacity failure?

Solution: For part a

Q 48  103
Df = =  6.5 m
A ( 20  20 )  18.5
For part b
 0.195 B   Df 
5.14cu 1 +  +
B 
1 0 . 4
 L 
FS = =3
Q
−  Df
A
 0.195  20   Df 
5.14  30  1 +  +
20 
1 0 .4
 20 
 =3
48  103
− 18.5 D f
20  20
 D f = 2.96 m
17
Example 4
Consider a mat foundation 30 m x 40 m in plan, as shown in the figure below. The total
dead and live load on the raft is 200 x 103 kN. Estimate the consolidation settlement at
the center of the foundation.

Average stress increase:

(can use 2:1 method with simplified

average formula alternatively,
depending on what required!) 18
Example 4
Consider a mat foundation 30 m x 40 m in plan, as shown in the figure below. The total
dead and live load on the raft is 200 x 103 kN. Estimate the consolidation settlement at
the center of the foundation.
Solution:

(middle of clay layer)

19
Example 4

Solution:

20
Summary

❑ From combined footings to Mat Foundation

✓ Rectangular combined footing
✓ Trapezoidal combined footing
✓ Cantilever footing
✓ Mat foundations (or raft foundation)
- Flat plate (uniform thickness)
- Flat plate thickened under columns
- Beams and slab
- Flat plates with pedestals
- Slab with basement walls as a part of the mat
❑ Bearing capacity of mat foundations [FS based on net ….]
❑ Settlement of mat foundations Q: allowable load from the superstructure
(live+dead)
 Df: removed weight of soils (excavated)
 : total unit weight
21
Exercise 1
Determine the net ultimate bearing capacity of mat foundations with the following
characteristics:
qu(net) = 770.8 kN/m2

cu = 120 kN m 2 , f = 0, B = 8 m, L = 18 m, D f = 3 m

 0.195 B   Df 
qu( net ) = 5.14cu 1 + 1 + 0.4 
 L  B 

22
Solution for exercise 1
Determine the net ultimate bearing capacity of mat foundations with the following
characteristics:

cu = 120 kN m 2 , f = 0, B = 8 m, L = 18 m, D f = 3 m

Solution:
 0.195 B   Df 
qu ( net ) = 5.14cu 1 + 1 + 0.4 
 L  B 

 0.195  8   3
= 5.14  120  1+ 
  1+0.4  
 18   8

= 770.8 kN m 2

23
Exercise 2
Following are the results of a standard penetration test in the field (sandy soil):

Depth (m) Field value of N60

1.5 9
3.0 12
4.5 11
6.0 7
7.5 13
9.0 11
10.5 13

Estimate the net allowable bearing capacity of a mat foundation 6.5 m × 5 m in plan. Here,
Df = 1.5 m and allowable settlement = 30 mm. Assume that the unit weight of soil, γ =
16.5 kN/m3.

qall(net) = 181.34 kN/m2

N 60   D f    Se   Se 
qall( net ) = 1+0.33      16.63 N 60  
0.08   B   25   25 
24
Solution for exercise 2
Estimate the net allowable bearing capacity of a mat foundation 6.5 m × 5 m in plan. Here,
Df = 1.5 m and allowable settlement = 30 mm. Assume that the unit weight of soil, γ =
16.5 kN/m3.

Solution:
The bottom of the foundation = 1.5 m,
2B below the bottom = 1.5+2x5=11.5 m

9 + 12 + 11 + 7 + 13 + 11 + 13
N 60 = = 10.86
7

N 60   D f    Se   Se 
qall( net ) = 1+0.33      16.63 N 60  
0.08   B   25   25 

10.86   1.5    30 
= 1 + 0 .3 3     = 179 k N m 2
 216.7 kN m 2

0.08  
 5    25 

Thus, qall( net ) = 179 kN m 2

25
Exercise 3
A mat foundation is shown in Figure. The design considerations are L = 12 m, B = 10 m,
Df = 2.2 m, Q = 30 MN, x1 = 2 m, x2 = 2 m, x3 = 5.2 m, and preconsolidation pressure σ’c
≈ 105 kN/m2. Calculate the consolidation settlement under the center of the mat.

Q Sc(p) = 378 mm
q= −  Df
A
 H 2 I a( H 2 ) − H1I a( H1 ) 
 (H
 av H1 )
= qo 
2
 H 2 − H 1 
CH    +  av  
Sc( p ) = c c log  o
  ( For NC Clay )
1 + eo   o 

26
Solution for exercise 3
A mat foundation is shown in Figure. The design considerations are L = 12 m, B = 10 m,
Df = 2.2 m, Q = 30 MN, x1 = 2 m, x2 = 2 m, x3 = 5.2 m, and preconsolidation pressure σ’c
≈ 105 kN/m2. Calculate the primary consolidation settlement under the center of the mat.
Solution:  o = ( D f + x1 ) (16 ) + x2 (18 − 9.81) + x3 (17.5 − 9.81)
2
 5.2 
= ( 4.2 )(16 ) + ( 2 )( 8.19 ) +   ( 7.69 ) = 103.574 kN m
2

 2 
 o   c  Normally consolidated clay.

Cc H c    +  av
 
Sc( p ) = log  o 
1 + eo   
o 
H c = x3 = 5.2 m; Cc = 0.38; eo = 0.88.

For Q = 30  103 kN, the net load per unit area is

Q 30  103
q = −  Df = − 16  2.2 = 214.8 kN m 2
A 12  10

 H 2 I a( H 2 ) − H1I a( H1 )   ( 2 + 2 + 5.2 ) I a( H 2 ) − ( 2 + 2 ) I a( H1 ) 
 (H
 av H1 )
= qo   = 214.8   
2
 H 2 − H 1   5.2  27
Solution for exercise 3
A mat foundation is shown in Figure. The design considerations are L = 12 m, B = 10 m,
Df = 2.2 m, Q = 30 MN, x1 = 2 m, x2 = 2 m, x3 = 5.2 m, and preconsolidation pressure σ’c
≈ 105 kN/m2. Calculate the primary consolidation settlement under the center of the mat.
For I a( H 2 ) ,
B2 10 2 
m2 = = = 0.54 
H 2 2 + 2 + 5.2 
  I a( H 2 ) =0.19
L2 12 2
n2 = = = 0.65 
H 2 2 + 2 + 5.2 
Again, for I a( H1 )
B 2 10 2 
m2 = = = 1.25
H1 2 + 2 
  I a( H1 ) = 0.235
L 2 12 2
n2 = = = 1.5 
H1 2 + 2 
 ( 2 + 2 + 5.2 )( 0.19 ) − ( 2 + 2 )( 0.235 ) 
 ( H H ) = 214.8  
 av  = 33.38 kN m 2

 5.2 
2 1

So, the stress increase below the center of the 12 m  10 m area is 4  33.38 = 133.52 kN m 2 .
0.38  5200  103.574 + 133.52 
Sc( p ) = log   = 378 mm
1 + 0.88  103 .574  28
Exercise 4
For the mat foundation in Exercise 3, estimate the primary consolidation settlement under
the corner of the mat.
Sc(p) = 168 mm
Q
q= −  Df
A
 H 2 I a( H 2 ) − H1I a( H1 ) 
 (H
 av H1 )
= qo 
2
 H 2 − H 1 
CH    +  av  
Sc( p ) = c c log  o
  ( For NC Clay )
1 + eo   o 

29
Solution for exercise 4
For the mat foundation in Exercise 3, estimate the primary consolidation settlement under
the corner of the mat.

Solution:  o = ( D f + x1 ) (16 ) + x2 (18 − 9.81) + x3 (17.5 − 9.81)

 5.2 
= ( 4.2 )(16 ) + ( 2 )( 8.19 ) +   ( 7.69 ) = 103.574kN m
2

 2 
 o   c  Normally consolidated clay.

Cc H c    +  av
 
Sc( p ) = log  o 
1 + eo   
o 
H c = x3 = 5.2 m; Cc = 0.38; eo = 0.88.

For Q = 30  103 kN, the net load per unit area is

Q 30  103
q = −  Df = − 16  2.2 = 214.8kN m 2
A 12  10

 H 2 I a( H 2 ) − H1I a( H1 )   ( 2 + 2 + 5.2 ) I a( H 2 ) − ( 2 + 2 ) I a( H1 ) 
 (H
 av H1 )
= qo   = 214.8   
2
 H 2 − H 1   5.2 
30
Solution for exercise 4
For the mat foundation in Exercise 3, estimate the primary consolidation settlement under
the corner of the mat.

For I a( H 2 ) ,
B 10 
m2 = = = 1.09 
H 2 2 + 2 + 5.2 
  I a( H 2 ) =0.23
L 12
n2 = = = 1.3 
H 2 2 + 2 + 5.2 
Again, for I a( H1 )
B 10 
m2 = = = 2.5
H1 4 
  I a( H1 ) = 0.25
L 12
n2 = = =3 
H1 4 
 ( 2 + 2 + 5.2 )( 0.23) − ( 2 + 2 )( 0.25 ) 
 av ( H H ) = 214.8    = 46 .1 kN m 2

 5.2 
2 1

0.38  5200  103.574 + 46.1 

Sc( p ) = log   = 168 mm
1 + 0.88  103.574 
31
Exercise 5
A plan calls for a square foundation measuring 3 m × 3 m, supported by a layer of sand. Led
Df = 1.5 m, t = 0.25 m, Eo = 16,000 kN/m2, k = 400 kN/m2/m, μs = 0.3, H = 20 m, Ef = 15 × 106
kN/m2, and qo = 150 kN/m2. Calculate the elastic settlement.
Se = 19.1 mm

Se =
qo Be I G I F I E
Eo
(1 −  s2 ) with Be =
4 BL

 1
IF = + 3
4  Ef  2t 
4.6 + 10   
 Eo + Be k 2  Be 
1
IE = 1−
B 
3.5 exp (1.22  s − 0.4 )  e + 1.6 
 Df  32
 
Solution for Exercise 5
4 BL 4  3 3
Be = = = 3.385 m
 
Eo 16000
= = = 11.82
kBe 400  3.385

H 20
= = 5.91
Be 3.385

From the Figure, I G  0.88

 1
IF = +
4   3
 Ef   2t 
4.6 + 10 
Be  Be 
 Eo + k 
 2 
 1
= + = 0.815
4  
 15  10 6
  2  0.25 3
4.6 + 10   
 16000 +
3.385
 400   3.385 
 2 
33
Solution for Exercise 5
1
IE = 1−
B 
3.5 exp (1.22  s − 0.4 )  e + 1.6 
 Df 
 
1
=1 − = 0.923
 3.385 
3.5  exp (1.22  0.3 − 0.4 )  + 1.6 
 1.5 

Se =
qo Be I G I F I E
Eo
(1 −  s2 )

150  3.385  0.88  0.815  0.923

=  (1 − 0.32 ) = 0.0191 m = 19.1 mm
16000

34
TOPICS & SYLLABUS:
Topic 1: Site Investigation
Topic 2: Slope Stability
Topic 3: Shallow Foundations
Topic 4: Mat (Raft) Foundations
Topic 5: Earth Retaining Structures
Topic 6: Pile Foundations

1
 Topic 5: Earth Retaining Structures
Key points of a retaining structures design:
(a) Lateral earth pressure theories;
(b) Factor of safety in terms of overturning, sliding and bearing capacity.
I. Retaining Walls II. Sheet Pile Walls
❖ Lateral earth pressure theories ❖ Cantilever sheet pile walls
❖ Stability of retaining walls ❖ Anchored sheet-pile walls
❖ Gravity and cantilever walls ❖ Penetration into soils
❖ Mechanically stabilized retaining III. Braced Cuts
walls ❖ Pressure envelope
❖ Design of components
❖ Stability and deformation

2
Civil Engineering 2020/2021
Subject: Geotechnical Design (CSE40403)

Topic 5 Earth Retaining Structures

I. Retaining Walls

By Dr. Zhenyu YIN

Office: ZS915, Tel: 3400-8470
Email: Zhenyu.yin@polyu.edu.hk

3
I.1 Types of retaining wall

✓ Economical to a
height of about 8 m

✓ Stability on their own weight and

any soil resting on the masonry
✓ Not economical for high walls
✓ A small amount of steel used to
minimize the size of wall sections

✓ Counterfort is to reduce the

shear and the bending moments 4
 I.2 Proportioning retaining walls
❑ In designing retaining walls, an engineer must assume some of their dimensions,
so-called proportioning.
❑ Such assumptions allow the engineer to check trial sections of the walls for stability.
❑ If the stability checks yield undesirable results, the sections can be changed and
rechecked.

5
I.3 Application of lateral earth pressure theories to design

❑ Three types of earth pressure

❑ Rankine’s earth pressure theory
❑ Coulomb’s earth pressure theory

K p = tan 2 ( 4 +   2 )
 p =  0 K p + 2c K p K 0  (1 − sin   ) OCR sin  

K a = tan 2 ( 4 −   2 )
 a =  0 K a − 2c K a

6
 I.3 Application of lateral earth pressure theories to design

❑ Three types of earth pressure

❑ Rankine’s earth pressure theory
❑ Coulomb’s earth pressure theory

K p = tan 2 ( 4 +   2 )
 p =  0 K p + 2c K p

’a K0’v ’v ’p ’n

K a = tan 2 ( 4 −   2 )
 a =  0 K a − 2c K a

7
I.3 Application of lateral earth pressure theories to design
❑ Rankine’s active earth pressure

Cohesionless soils

8
I.3 Application of lateral earth pressure theories to design
❑ Rankine’s passive earth pressure

Kp=?

Cohesionless soils

9
I.3 Application of lateral earth pressure theories to design
❑ Rankine’s active earth pressure

Ka=?

Cohesive soils

10
I.3 Application of lateral earth pressure theories to design
❑ Rankine’s active earth pressure

Ka=?

11
I.3 Application of lateral earth pressure theories to design
❑ Rankine’s passive earth pressure

Kp=?

Cohesive soils

12
I.3 Application of lateral earth pressure theories to design
❑ Rankine’s passive earth pressure

Kp=?

13
I.3 Application of lateral earth pressure theories to design

❑ Three types of earth pressure

❑ Rankine’s earth pressure theory
❑ Coulomb’s earth pressure theory

Only for cohesionless

soils (c’ = 0)

cos  − cos 2  − cos 2  

K a = cos 
cos  + cos 2  − cos 2  
cos  + cos 2  − cos 2  
K p = cos 
cos  − cos 2  − cos 2  
 a' =  v K a  'p =  v K p
Pa = 0.5 H 2 K a with the force acting at H 3
Pp = 0.5 H 2 K p with the force acting at H 3
14
 cos  − cos 2  − cos 2  
K a = cos 
cos  + cos 2  − cos 2  

15
I.3 Application of lateral earth pressure theories to design

❑ Three types of earth pressure

❑ Rankine’s earth pressure theory
❑ Coulomb’s earth pressure theory

(active)

16
I.3 Application of lateral earth pressure theories to design
❑ Coulomb’s earth pressure theory (active)

17
I.3 Application of lateral earth pressure theories to design
❑ Coulomb’s earth pressure theory (active)

18
I.3 Application of lateral earth pressure theories to design
❑ Coulomb’s earth pressure theory (active)
  
For a special case:  = ;  = 0;  = 0;  = + KA=?
2 4 2

sin 2 (  +   )
KA = 2
 sin (  +  )  sin (  −  ) 
sin 2 (  )  sin (  −  )  1 + 
B  sin (  −  )  sin (  +  ) 
C
 
sin 2  +   
= 2 
2

pa  
 sin (  )  sin (  ) 
2     
sin    sin    1 + 
2     
2 sin    sin   
 2  2  

A  
sin 2  +   
( ) = tan 2   −   
2
2  =  cos   
=    
1 + sin (  )  1 + sin (  )  4 2
2

Same as Rankine’s Ka
19
 I.3 Application of lateral earth pressure theories to design

❑ Three types of earth pressure

❑ Rankine’s earth pressure theory
❑ Coulomb’s earth pressure theory

(passive)

20
I.3 Application of lateral earth pressure theories to design
❑ Coulomb’s earth pressure theory (passive)

pp R

21
I.3 Application of lateral earth pressure theories to design
❑ Coulomb’s earth pressure theory (passive)

22
I.3 Application of lateral earth pressure theories to design
❑ Coulomb’s earth pressure theory (passive)
  
For a special case:  = ;  = 0;  = 0;  = − Kp=?
2 4 2

sin 2 (  −   )
KP = 2
 sin (  +  )  sin (  +  ) 
sin (  )  sin (  +  )  1 −
2

 sin (  +  )  sin (  +  ) 
 
sin 2  −   
= 2 
2
pp  
 sin (  )  sin (  ) 
2     
sin    sin    1 − 
2     
45 −  2 2 sin    sin   
 2  2  

 
sin 2  −   
( )
2
 2  =  cos    2   
=   = tan  + 
1 − sin (  ) 
2
 1 − sin (   )   4 2 
Same as Rankine’s Kp

23
In summary

❑ Types of retaining wall

✓ Gravity retaining walls
✓ Semi-gravity retaining walls
✓ Cantilever retaining walls
✓ Counterfort retaining walls
❑ Proportioning retaining walls
❑ Application of lateral earth pressure theories to design
✓ Rankine’s earth pressure theory
✓ Coulomb’s earth pressure theory

24
Break
25
I.4 Stability of retaining walls

❑ Failure modes
Sliding
Overturning

bearing capacity
failure
deep-seated
shear failure
(due to weak
soil layers)
26
I.4 Stability of retaining walls

❑ Check for overturning (design requirement

normally FS > 2)

(Attention: inclined)

Overturning point

Attention:
when estimating overturning,
suppose no supporting pressure.
27
I.4 Stability of retaining walls

❑ Check for overturning

Attention:
For more safe design, Mpp is not
accounted in resisting moment.

28
I.4 Stability of retaining walls

❑ Check for sliding along the base (design requirement normally FS > 1.5)

Resistance against sliding

Sliding force due to earth pressures

(k1 & k2 = 1/2 ~ 2/3)

29
I.4 Stability of retaining walls

❑ Check for sliding along the base

Three alternatives for (3)

increasing the factor of
safety with respect to
sliding!

(2)

(1)

30
I.4 Stability of retaining walls

❑ Check for bearing capacity failure

’
(design requirement
normally FS > 3)

qu = c2 N c Fcd Fci + qN q Fqd Fqi + 12  2 BN  F d F i

(Effective Area Method)

V  6e 
qmax = 1 + 
B  B

Attention:
For more safe design, e = B − CE = B − M net
Pp is not accounted for 2 2 V
inclination.
31
Example 1
The cross section of a cantilever retaining wall is shown in the figure below.
Calculate the factors of safety with respect to overturning, sliding, and
bearing capacity.

32
Solution:

0.3495 cos  − cos 2  − cos 2  

0.3495 or by K a = cos 
cos  + cos 2  − cos 2  

33
Solution:

34
35
Solution:

Wrong! Should be “B”

36
Example 2
A gravity retaining wall is shown in the following figure. Use ’ = 2/3’1 and
Coulomb’s active earth pressure theory. Determine:
(a) The factor of safety against overturning.
(b) The factor of safety against sliding.
(c) The pressure on the soil at the toe and heel.

37
38
Solution:

39
Solution:

Attention:
❖ Using Coulomb’s
theory, no soil above
the back face;
❖ Using Rankine’s theory,
account the soil above.

40
Solution:

41
Solution:

42
 I.5 Additional consideration of design for construction

❑ Construction joints (Modular)

A retaining wall may be constructed with one or more of the following joints:
(1) Construction joints are vertical and horizontal joints that are placed between two successive
pours of concrete.
(2) Contraction joints are vertical joints (grooves) placed in the face of a wall (from the top of
the base slab to the top of the wall) that allow the concrete to shrink without noticeable harm.
(3) Expansion joints allow for the expansion of concrete caused by temperature changes; These
joints may be filled with flexible joint fillers.

43
I.5 Additional consideration of design for construction

❑ Drainage from the backfill

As the result of rainfall or other wet conditions, the

backfill material for a retaining wall may become
saturated, thereby increasing the pressure on the wall
and perhaps creating an unstable condition. For this
reason, adequate drainage must be provided by
means of weep holes or perforated drainage pipes.

Weep holes should have a minimum diameter of

about 0.1 m and be adequately spaced.
The grain-size distribution of the materials should be:
(a) the soil to be protected is not washed into the
filter;
(b) excessive hydrostatic pressure head is not created
in the soil with a lower hydraulic conductivity.

44
In summary

❑ Stability of retaining walls

✓ Overturning
✓ Sliding
✓ Bearing capacity failure
✓ Deep-seated shear failure (due to weak soil layers) -> checking settlement!

❑ Additional consideration of design for construction

✓ Construction joints (Modular)
✓ Drainage from the backfill

45
Break
46
I.5 Mechanically stabilized retaining walls - Soil reinforcement

The beneficial effects of soil

reinforcement derive from
(a) the soil’s increased tensile strength
(b) the shear resistance developed from
the friction at the soil-reinforcement
interfaces.
Geotextiles

Geogrids

Metal Strips

47
I.5 Mechanically stabilized retaining walls - General design considerations

❑ Satisfying internal stability requirements

Determining tension and pullout resistance in the reinforcing elements, and
ascertaining the integrity of facing elements (breaking & sliding)
❑ Checking the external stability of the wall

48
I.6 Retaining walls with metallic strip reinforcement

❑ Main components
✓ 1. Backfill, which is granular soil
✓ 2. Reinforcing strips, which are thin, wide strips placed at regular intervals
✓ 3. A cover or skin, on the front face of the wall

(Coulomb’s failure angle)

49
I.6 Retaining walls with metallic strip reinforcement

❑ Calculation of active horizontal and vertical pressures

 = 1z
 0(1)  qa
 a + z ( for z  2b)

 0(2) =
qa
 ( for z  2b)
 a + z 2 + b

 2q
 a (2) = M  (  − sin  cos 2 )
 a (1) =  0(1)
 K a − 2c K a ⎯⎯⎯⎯ c '= 0
→  a (1) =  1 zK a  
  = z
0 (1) 1
0.4b
K a = tan 2 ( 4 −   2 ) M = 1.4 − 1
0.14 H
50
I.6 Retaining walls with metallic strip reinforcement

❑ Factor of safety against tie failure (internal stability)

Factor of safety against tie breaking

Yield or breaking strength of each tie wtf y
FS(B) = =
Maximum force in any tie  a SV S H

Factor of safety against tie pollout

Resistance of friction force of each tie 2le w 0 tan u

FS(P) = = (“2le” because a tie
Maximum force in any tie  a SV S H has two main sides)

For a given factor of safety,

the dimension of Sv should
be based on the depth of
the layer closest to the
(attention: not soil!) foundation ground.
51
I.6 Retaining walls with metallic strip reinforcement

❑ Total length of tie (internal stability)

L = lr + le

lr =
( H − z)
tan ( 45 + 1 2 )

2le w 0 tan u FS(P) a SV S H

FS(P) =  le =
 a SV S H 2w 0 tan u

L=
( H − z)
+
FS(P) a SV S H The dimension of L should be
based on the depth of the layer
tan ( 4 + 1 2 ) 2 w 0 tan u next to the top of backfill.
52
I.6 Retaining walls with metallic strip reinforcement

❑ step-by-step design procedure

(trial-error)

(depth-dependent)

53
I.6 Retaining walls with metallic strip reinforcement

❑ step-by-step design procedure

Use filling soil!

(Normally L2 ≤ L1, same le along the depth)

54
 I.6 Retaining walls with metallic strip reinforcement

❑ step-by-step design procedure

Use filling soil!

Foundation under ground: Df=0, Fd=1

Continuous footing: Fs=1
Vertical load: Fi=1

Use in-situ soil!

Reinforced soil is totally flexible, no

need to correct effects of eccentricity
and inclination of loading! 55
Example 3

56
Solution:
- Check for internal stability

z (m) lr (m) le (m) L (m)

0.6 4.789539 8.559475 13.34901
1.2 4.483824 8.559475 13.0433
1.8 4.178109 8.559475 12.73758
2.4 3.872393 8.559475 12.43187
3 3.566678 8.559475 12.12615
3.6 3.260963 8.559475 11.82044
4.2 2.955248 8.559475 11.51472
4.8 2.649532 8.559475 11.20901
5.4 2.343817 8.559475 10.90329
6 2.038102 8.559475 10.59758
6.6 1.732387 8.559475 10.29186 (pay attention to
7.2 1.426671 8.559475 9.986146
7.8 1.120956 8.559475 9.680431
SV, z should be
8.4 0.815241 8.559475 9.374716 chosen as n*Sv)
9 0.509525 8.559475 9.069001
9.6 0.20381 8.559475 8.763285
10.2 -0.10191 8.559475 8.45757
13.4 m 57
Solution:
- Check for external stability

58
I.7 Retaining walls with geotextile reinforcement

59
I.7 Retaining walls with geotextile reinforcement

❑ step-by-step design procedure

Use filling soil!

60
I.7 Retaining walls with geotextile reinforcement

❑ step-by-step design procedure

(SH is continuous!)

friction angle at geotextile–soil interface (≈2/3*’1)

(+lap becoming 2 layers with 4 main sides; ll≥1) 61
I.7 Retaining walls with geotextile reinforcement

❑ step-by-step design procedure

62
Example 4
A geotextile-reinforced retaining wall 5 m high is shown in the figure below. For the granular
backfill, 1 = 15.7 kN/m3, ’1 = 36o. For the geotextile, Tult = 52.5 kN/m.
For the design of the wall, determine SV , L and ll. (use RFid = 1.2, RFcr = 2.5, and RFcbd = 1.25)
For the retaining wall, calculate the factor of safety against overturning, sliding, and bearing
capacity failure.

The dimension of Sv should be based on

the depth of the layer closest to the
foundation ground; the dimension of L
should be based on the depth of the
layer next to the top of backfill.

63
Solution:
- Check for internal stability

(z = 4.5 m should be
considered or recheck)

(no less than 1 m) 64

Solution: Use filling soil!
- Check for external stability

Use filling soil!

Use in-situ soil!

65
 I.8 Retaining walls with geogrid reinforcement

Three typical geogrids adopted in design and construction:

(a) uniaxial; (b) biaxial; (c) with triangular apertures

66
I.8 Retaining walls with geogrid reinforcement

❑ step-by-step design procedure

67
I.8 Retaining walls with geogrid reinforcement

❑ step-by-step design procedure

68
Example 5
Consider a geogrid-reinforced retaining wall. Referring to the figure below, given: H = 6 m,
1 = 16.5 kN/m3, ’1 = 35o, Tall = 45 kN/m, FS(B) = 1.5, FS(P) = 1.5, Cr = 0.8, and Ci = 0.75. For the
design of the wall, determine SV and L.

based on the depth of the layer

closest to the foundation ground

based on the depth of the layer

next to the top of backfill
69
In summary

Mechanically stabilized retaining walls

❑ General design considerations
✓ Satisfying internal stability requirements (breaking & sliding)
✓ Checking the external stability of the wall (overturning, sliding, bearing)

❑ Three types of reinforcement for design and constriction

✓ with metallic strip reinforcement
✓ with geotextile reinforcement
✓ with geogrid reinforcement

70
TOPICS & SYLLABUS:
Topic 1: Site Investigation
Topic 2: Slope Stability
Topic 3: Shallow Foundations
Topic 4: Mat (Raft) Foundations
Topic 5: Earth Retaining Structures
Topic 6: Pile Foundations

1
 Topic 5: Earth Retaining Structures
Key points of a retaining structures design:
(a) Lateral earth pressure theories;
(b) Factor of safety in terms of overturning, sliding and bearing capacity.
I. Retaining Walls II. Sheet Pile Walls
❖ Lateral earth pressure theories ❖ Cantilever sheet pile walls
❖ Stability of retaining walls ❖ Anchored sheet-pile walls
❖ Gravity and cantilever walls ❖ Penetration into soils
❖ Mechanically stabilized retaining III. Braced Cuts
walls ❖ Pressure envelope
❖ Design of components
❖ Stability and deformation

2
Civil Engineering 2020/2021
Subject: Geotechnical Design (CSE40403)

Topic 5 Earth Retaining Structures

II. Sheet Pile Walls

By Dr. Zhenyu YIN

Office: ZS915, Tel: 3400-8470
Email: Zhenyu.yin@polyu.edu.hk

3
II.1 Types of sheet pile
❑ Wooden sheet piles: only for temporary, light
structures that are above the water table
(cross section 50 mm x 300 mm)

❑ Precast concrete sheet piles: to withstand the

permanent stresses (dimension: 500~800
mm wide and 150~250 mm thick)

❑ Steel sheet piles: convenient to use because

of their resistance to the high driving stress, Thumb-and-finger
also lightweight and reusable (10 to 13 mm
thick)
❑ New retaining structures ball-and-socket
4
II.2 Construction methods
Two basic categories of sheet pile walls: (a) cantilever and (b) anchored
Two construction sequences: (1) Backfilled structure; (2) Dredged structure

5
 II.3 Cantilever sheet piling penetrating sandy soils (c’ = 0, f ’ ≠ 0)
P
1 1
No fills  FH = 0   p D −  a D − P = 0
Rankine's theory: 2 2
 p =  0 K p + 2c K p 2P
L   D2 K p −  D2 Ka = 2P  D =
  ( K p − Ka )
 a =  0 K a − 2c K a ?
1 D 1 D
 M = 0   p D −  a D − P ( L + D ) = 0
2 3 2 3
D=? z (for Mmax)   D 3 K p −  D 3 K a − 6 PD − 6 PL = 0
Passive Active =  ( K p − K a ) D 3 − 6 PD − 6 PL = 0  D = ?
 DK p  DK a
 p −  a =  D ( K p − K a )
O [Note: More simple if only one side of
pressure by “passive-active”]

M = P ( L + z ) +  a z −  p z = P ( L + z ) +  ( K a − K p ) z 3
1 z 1 z 1
2 3 2 3 6
Strong assumption
(free earth support) M = 0  P + 1  ( K a − K p ) z 2 = 0  z = 2P
 M max = ?
z 2  ( K p − Ka )
Note: 2 equations,
Or zero shear stress: P −  ( K p − K a ) z = 0  z =
z 2P
 ( K p − Ka )
but 1 unknown (D). 2 6
 II.3 Cantilever sheet piling penetrating sandy soils (c’ = 0, f ’ ≠ 0)
P P ❖ The distribution is only
No fills due to Rankine’s earth
pressures
L L ❖ In one single soil layer,
the pressure distribution
should be continuous

Passive Active D=? z (for Mmax)

D=?
O
Active Passive L5=?
 D ( K p − Ka )  D ( K p − K a ) 2 equations,
2 unknowns.
More general assumption (with M = 0 at the end point)

  M = 0   D ( K p − K a ) DD
− 2 D ( K p − K a ) L5 L5
− P (L + D) = 0
 2 3 2 3  L5 = ?

  D ( K p − K a ) − 2 P  D = ?
2
 FH = 0   D ( K p − K a ) − 2 D ( K p − K a ) − P = 0  L5 =
D L 5


2 2 2 D ( K p − K a )

By zero shear stress: P −  ( K p − K a ) z

z 2P
=0 z =
2  ( K p − Ka ) 7
II.3 Cantilever sheet piling penetrating sandy soils (c’ = 0, f ’ ≠ 0)
P
Attention:
No fills ❖ The distribution is only due to
Rankine’s earth pressures (not
L including external pressure P!)
❖ In one single soil layer, the pressure
distribution should be continuous

D=? z (for Mmax)

L5=?
 D ( K p − Ka )  D ( K p − Ka )

Note:
Linear distribution is idealized, the
reality should be nonlinear curved.

Same surface shape & area, opposite direction!

8
 II.3 Cantilever sheet piling penetrating sandy soils (c’ = 0, f ’ ≠ 0)

Granular fills or sandy soils

Left:  p =  z K p
Right:  a = (  L +  z  ) K a L L L
P = P1 + P2 =  2 +  2 3
Left − Right ① 2 2
=  z K p − (  L +  z  ) K a P (horizontal force of yellow area)
=  z  ( K p − K a ) −  LK a
 LK a =  2 (only because of same f’ assumed for fills and soils)
z’ ② L3 = LK a (K p − K a )   LK a −  L3 ( K p − K a ) = 0
D=?
O L4 = D − L3 z (for Mmax)
L5=?
 D ( K p − K a )− LK a  D ( K p − K a ) + LK p =  4
=  L4 ( K p − K a ) =  3

 L4 L4 L5 L5  L  L3 
  M = 0    − (   +   ) − P1 D + −
 2 P D − =0
 L5 = ?
3 3 4
 2 3 2 3  3  3
  
L L
  F = 0    − (  +   ) − P = 0  L =
4 5  
3 L4 − 2 P  D=?
 H 3
2
3 4
2
5
( 3 +  4 )
P −  ( K p − Ka ) z
z 2P
=0 z =
 ( K p − Ka )
By zero shear stress: 2
9
 II.3 Cantilever sheet piling penetrating sandy soils (c’ = 0, f ’ ≠ 0)

If it exists water table L1 Granular fills or sandy soils

①  L1 K a =  1
L
② L1 L L
L2 P = P1 + P2 + P3 =  1 + ( 1 +  2 ) 2 +  2 3
2 2 2
( L1 +  L2 ) K a =  2
③ L3 =  2   ( K p − K a )    2 −  L3 ( K p − K a ) = 0
D=?
O L4 = D − L3 z (for Mmax)
L5=?
 L4 ( K p − K a ) =  3  D ( K p − K a ) + (  L1 +  L2 ) K p =  4

D = L3 + L4
 4 =  5 +  L4 ( K p − K a )
⎯⎯⎯⎯
→
with  5 =  L3 ( K p − K a ) + (  L1 +  L2 ) K p

 L4 L4 L5 L5 L44 + A1 L34 − A2 L24 − A3 L4 − A4 = 0

  M = 0   
3 − (  
3 +  
4 ) −  MP = 0
2 3 2 3  L4 = ... (A1..4 are coefficients)
 L L  L − 2P
 FH = 0   3 4 − ( 3 +  4 ) 5 − P = 0  L5 = 3 4  D = L3 + L4
 2 2 ( 3 +  4 )
10
 II.3 Cantilever sheet piling penetrating sandy soils (c’ = 0, f ’ ≠ 0)

If it exists water table L1 Granular fills or sandy soils

 1
L M at the point E : Pz = M E  z = M E P
L1  L1   L2 
L2 with M E =  1  + L + L3 +  
1 2
L + L3 
P 23
2
  2 
z  2 L2  L2  L3 2 L3
+ ( 2 −  1 )  + L3 +  
2
2 3  2 3
L3
E
D=?
O L4 = D − L3 z (for Mmax)
L5=?
 3  4

L44 + A1 L34 − A2 L24 − A3 L4 − A4 = 0

 L4 = ...
 D = L3 + L4
11
 II.3 Cantilever sheet piling penetrating sandy soils (c’ = 0, f ’ ≠ 0)
(Summary of equations in previous slide)
K a = tan 2 ( 4 − f  2 )
K p = tan 2 ( 4 + f  2 )
 1 =  L1 K a

L1 L L
P =  1 + ( 1 +  2 ) 2 +  2 3
2 2 2
 2 = (  L1 +  L2 ) K a
L3 =  2   ( K p − K a ) 

 L1  L1   L2 
 1 2  3 + L2 + L3  +  1L2  2 + L3  
1    
z= 
P L2  L2  L3 2 L3 
 + ( 2 −  1 )  + L3  +  2  L44 + A1 L34 − A2 L24 − A3 L4 − A4 = 0
 2 3  2 3 
 5 =  L3 ( K p − K a ) + (  L1 +  L2 ) K p
 L4 = ...
 D = L3 + L4 12
 II.3 Cantilever sheet piling penetrating sandy soils (c’ = 0, f ’ ≠ 0)

If it exists water table L1 Granular fills or sandy soils

 1
L
L2
P
z  2

E
D=?
O L4 = D − L3 z (for Mmax)
L5=?
 3  4

By zero shear stress: P −   ( K a − K p ) z

z 2P
=0 z =
2   ( K p − Ka )
M max
M max = P ( z + z ) −  z ( K p − K a )
zz
S=
23  all
L1  L1   L2 
with P ( z + z ) =  1  + L2 + L3 + z  +  1L2  + L3 + z 
23   2 
Allowable flexural
L L  L  2L 
+ ( 2 −  1 ) 2  2 + L3 + z  +  2 3  3 + z  stress of the sheet pile13
2 3  2 3 
 Exercise 1
The figure below shows a cantilever sheet pile wall penetrating a granular soil. Here, L1 = 2 m,
L2 = 3 m,  = 15.9 kN/m3, sat = 19.33 kN/m3, and f’ = 32°.
(a) What is the theoretical depth of embedment, D?
(b) For a 30% increase in D, what should be the total length of the sheet piles?
(c) What should be the minimum section modulus of the sheet piles? Use all = 172 MN/m2.

Pressure and moment distribution diagram

14
Solution

Part a
Using the Figure of the pressure
distribution diagram, one can now
prepare the following table for a
step-by-step calculation.

15
Solution
Part b
The total length of the sheet pile is

Part c
Finally, we have the following table:

16
II.4 Cantilever sheet piling penetrating clayey soils (c ≠ 0, f = 0)
P Example 1: Please demonstrate the whole
No fills procedure with formulas for
(a) the theoretical depth of penetration of the
L
clay layer by the sheet pile D;
(b) the position and the value of maximum
bending moment of the sheet pile.
Rankine's theory:  K a = tan 2 ( 4 − f 2 ) = 1
 p =  0 K p + 2c K p 
 K p = tan ( 4 + f 2 ) = 1
2
D=?

 a =  0 K a − 2c K a
O

Strong assumption

17
 II.4 Cantilever sheet piling penetrating clayey soils (c ≠ 0, f = 0)
P Example 1: Please demonstrate the whole
No fills procedure with formulas for
Rankine's theory:
 p =  0 K p + 2c K p
(a) the theoretical depth of penetration of the
L
 clay layer by the sheet pile D;
 a =  0 K a − 2c K a (b) the position and the value of maximum
bending moment of the sheet pile.
2c
 K a = tan 2 ( 4 − f 2 ) = 1
z (for Mmax) 
 K p = tan ( 4 + f 2 ) = 1
2

Passive D=? Active

Solution:
 D + 2c  D − 2c
P
4c O  FH = 0  4cD − P = 0  D =
4c
D
 M = 0  4cD − P ( L + D) = 0
Strong assumption 2
 2cD 2 − PD − PL = 0  D = ?
by zero shear stress: P − 4cz = 0  z = P
4c
2
z  P P
M max = P ( L + z ) − 4cz = P  L +  − 2c  
2  4c   4c 
18
II.4 Cantilever sheet piling penetrating clayey soils (c ≠ 0, f = 0)
P Example 2: Please demonstrate the whole
No fills procedure with formulas for
(a) the theoretical depth of penetration of the
L clay layer by the sheet pile D;
(b) the position and the value of maximum
bending moment of the sheet pile.
Rankine's theory:  K a = tan 2 ( 4 − f 2 ) = 1
 p =  0 K p + 2c K p 
 K p = tan ( 4 + f 2 ) = 1
2
Passive Active

D=?
O  a =  0 K a − 2c K a
Active Passive

More general assumption

19
 II.4 Cantilever sheet piling penetrating clayey soils (c ≠ 0, f = 0)
P P  K a = tan 2 ( 4 − f 2 ) = 1

No fills  K p = tan ( 4 + f 2 ) = 1
2

Rankine's theory: L L
Solution:
 p =  0 K p + 2c K p

 a =  0 K a − 2c K a

Passive Active D=? z (for Mmax)

D=?
O
Active Passive L4=?

 p −  a = 4c  p −  a = 4c
More general assumption
 D L4 L4  P ( P + 12cL )
  M = 0  4cD − 8c − P ( L + D ) = 0

4cD 2
− 2 PD − =0 D =?
2 2 3 2c
 
L
 F = 0  4cD − 8c 4 − P = 0  L = 4 cD − P → L = 4cD − P
 H 2
4
4c  4
4c
2
P z  P P
By zero shear stress: P − 4cz = 0  z = M max = P ( L + z ) − 4cz = P  L +  − 2c  
4c 2  4c   4c 
20
II.4 Cantilever sheet piling penetrating clayey soils (c ≠ 0, f = 0)
Example 3: Please demonstrate the
Granular fills
whole procedure with formulas for
(, f, c = 0)
L (a) the theoretical depth of penetration
P1 =  2
L 1 2
=  L Ka
of the clay layer by the sheet pile D;
2 2 (b) the position and the value of
 LK a =  2 maximum bending moment of the
sheet pile.
z (for Mmax) Rankine's theory:
D=?
 p =  0 K p + 2c K p
L4=? O

 a =  0 K a − 2c K a
4c 4c
For saturated clay, f  = 0
 K a = tan 2 ( 4 − f 2 ) = 1

 K p = tan ( 4 + f 2 ) = 1
2

21
 II.4 Cantilever sheet piling penetrating clayey soils (c ≠ 0, f = 0)

Granular fills Solution:

(, f, c = 0) F H =0
L 1 1
  2 L −  6 D + ( 6 +  7 ) L4 = 0
L 1 2 2 2
P1 =  2 =  L Ka
1 1
Not continuous due to
2 2   LK a L − ( 4c −  L ) D + ( 4c −  L + 4c +  L ) L4 = 0
2 2
different f’ of soils  LK a =  2
  L2 K a − 2 ( 4c −  L ) D + 8cL4 = 0
z’ z (for Mmax) 2 ( 4c −  L ) D −  L2 K a
D=?  L4 =
8c
L4=? O
M = 0
4c − L =  6 4c + L =  7 D 1 L  1 L
( p −a ) ( −  2 L  + D  − ( 6 +  7 ) L4 4 = 0
p −a )
 6D
2 2 3  2 3
Left:  p =  clay z  + 2c (K p = 1)
P1 ( P1 + 4cL )
Right:  a =  fill L +  clay z  − 2c ( K a = 1)  ( 4c −  L ) D 2 − 2 P1 D − =0
 L + 2c
Left − Right =  clay z  + 2c − (  fill L +  clay z  − 2c ) = 4c −  fill L
 D=?
By zero shear stress:
2
1 2  1 2  1 2 
 L Ka  L Ka  ( 4c −  L )  2  L K a
P1 2 L  6 2 1 2  L 2 
P1 −  6 z = 0  z = =  M max = P1  + z  − z =  L Ka  + −  
 6 4c −  L 3  2 2  3 4c −  L  2  4c −  L 
   
22
II.4 Cantilever sheet piling penetrating clayey soils (c ≠ 0, f = 0)

L1 Granular fills or sandy soils

 L1 K a =  1
If it exists water table
L
L1 L
L2 P = P1 + P2 =  1 + ( 1 +  2 ) 2
2 2
( L1 +  L2 ) K a =  2
Example 4: Please demonstrate the
z (for Mmax)
D=? whole procedure with formulas for
L4=? O (a) the theoretical depth of penetration
of the clay layer by the sheet pile D;
(b) the position and the value of
maximum bending moment of the
sheet pile.
Rankine's theory:
 p =  0 K p + 2c K p

 a =  0 K a − 2c K a
For saturated clay, f  = 0
 K a = tan 2 ( 4 − f 2 ) = 1

 K p = tan ( 4 + f 2 ) = 1
2

23
 II.4 Cantilever sheet piling penetrating clayey soils (c ≠ 0, f = 0)

L1 Granular fills or sandy soils

 L1 K a =  1
If it exists water table
L
L1 L
L2 P = P1 + P2 =  1 + ( 1 +  2 ) 2
2 2 Solution:

E
z ( L1 +  L2 ) K a =  2  FH = 0
1
z (for Mmax)  P −6D + ( 6 +  7 ) L4 = 0
D=? 2
L4=? O  4c − (  L1 +  L2 )  D − P
 L4 =
4c
 6 = 4c − (  L1 +  L2 ) 4c+ (  L1 +  L2 ) =  7 M = 0
( p −a ) ( p −a )
 6D
D 1 L
−  M P − ( 6 +  7 ) L4 4 = 0
2 2 3
M at the point E : Pz = M E  z = M E P
P ( P + 12cz )
L1  L1   L2  L2  L2   ( 4c −  L1 −  L2 ) D 2 − 2 PD − =0
with M E =  1  + L2  +  1L2   + ( 2 −  1 )    L1 +  L2 + 2c
23   2 2 3
 D=?
By zero shear stress:
P 6 M max
P −6z = 0  z =  M max = p ( z + z ) − z2 S=
6 2  all
L1  L1   L2  L2  L2  6 2
=  1  + L2 + z  +  1L2  + z  + ( 2 −  1 )  + z  − z
23   2  2 3  2 24
 Tutorials
Exercise 2
In the figure below, for the sheet pile wall penetrating into saturated clay, determine
(a) The theoretical and actual depth of penetration, using Dactual = 1.5Dtheory.
(b) The minimum size of sheet pile section necessary, using all = 172.5 MN/m2.

25
Solution

26
Solution

27
II.5 Anchored sheet-pile walls
❑ When the height of the
backfill material behind a
cantilever sheet-pile wall
exceeds about 6 m, tying the
wall near the top to anchor
plates, anchor walls, or
anchor piles becomes more
economical.
D free  D fixed free earth support method
❑ Anchors minimize the depth
of penetration required by the
sheet piles and also reduce
the cross-sectional area and
weight of the sheet piles
needed for construction.
❑ Two design methods
depending on assumptions
(free earth support method;
fixed earth support method)
fixed earth support method
28
II.6 Free Earth Support Method for Penetration of Sandy Soil (c’ = 0, f ’ ≠ 0)

 L1 K a =  1
Active

L1 L L
Passive P =  1 + ( 1 +  2 ) 2 +  2 3
2 2 2

free earth support method

( L1 +  L2 ) K a =  2
 2 −  L3 ( K p − K a ) = 0  L3 =  2   ( K p − K a ) 

 ME
 M E = Pz  z =
 8 =  p −  a =  L4 ( K p − K a ) P

L1  L1   L2  L2  L2  L3  2 L3 
 M E =  1  + L2 + L3  +  1L2  + L3  + ( 2 −  1 )  + L3  +  2  
23   2  2 3  2 3 
29
 II.6 Free Earth Support Method for Penetration of Sandy Soil (c’ = 0, f ’ ≠ 0)
Note:
❖ Without anchor, we have 2 equations
(sum(M)=0, sum(FH)=0) but 1 unknown (D).
❖ With anchor, we have 2 unknowns (D, Fanchor).

at the anchoring point:  M O = 0 x = z − L1

L4  2 L4 
 P ( L1 + L2 + L3 ) − ( z + l1 )  −  8  l 2 + L2 + L3 + =0
2 3 
 L4 = ? (for length of sheet pile)

Dtheoretical = L3 + L4  Dactual = 1.3 ~ 1.4 Dtheoretical

or K p (design ) = K p FS  Dactual = L3 + L4

F H =0 (for anchor)
L4 L
 P −  8 − F = 0  F = P −  8 4 = ?
2 2

( z − L1 ) = 0  z = ?
2
L
 1 1 − F +  1 ( z − L1 ) +  K a
2 2 (Zero shear stress/maximum
L L  x 2
x x moment occurs within L )
 M max =  1 1  1 + x  − F ( l2 + x ) +  1x +  K a 2
23  2 2 3 30
Exercise 3
Let L1 = 3.05 m, L2 = 6.1 m, l1 = 1.53 m, l2 = 1.52 m, c’ = 0, f’ = 30o,  = 16 kN/m3, sat = 19.5
kN/m3, and E = 207,103 MN/m2 in the figure below.
(a) Determine the theoretical and actual depths of penetration. (Note: Dactual = 1.3Dtheory)
(b) Find the anchor force per unit length of the wall.
(c) Determine the maximum moment, Mmax.

31
 Part a
Solution We use the following table.

32
 Part b
Solution The anchor force per unit length of the wall is

Part c

33
II.6 Free Earth Support Method for Penetration of clayey Soil (c’ ≠ 0, f ’= 0)

 L1 K a =  1
Active

L1 L
Passive P =  1 + ( 1 +  2 ) 2
2 2
P

free earth support method

( L1 +  L2 ) K a =  2

 MD
 M D = Pz  z =
P
 6 =  p −  a = 4c − (  L1 +  L2 )
L1  L1   L2  L2  L2 
 M D =  1  + L2  +  
1 L2   + (  
2 −  
1 )  
23   2  2 3  34
II.6 Free Earth Support Method for Penetration of clayey Soil (c’ ≠ 0, f ’= 0)

Example 5: Please demonstrate the

whole procedure with formulas for
(a) the theoretical depth of penetration
of the clay layer by the sheet pile D;
(b) the anchor force;
(c) the position and the value of P
maximum bending moment of the
sheet pile.

35
 II.6 Free Earth Support Method for Penetration of clayey Soil (c’ ≠ 0, f ’= 0)

Solution:
x = z − L1
M O =0
 D
 P ( L1 + L2 ) − ( z + l1 )  −  6 D  l2 + L2 +  = 0
 2
P
 D=?

Dtheoretical = D  Dactual = 1.3 ~ 1.4 Dtheoretical

or K p (design ) = K p FS  Dactual = D

F H =0
 P − 6D − F = 0  F = P − 6D = ?

( z − L1 ) = 0  z = ?
2
L
 1 1 − F +  1 ( z − L1 ) +  K a
2 2
(Zero shear stress/maximum
L1  L1  x x2 x
 M max =  1  + x  − F ( l2 + x ) +  1x +  K a moment occurs within L2)
23  2 2 3 36
 Exercise 4
In the figure below, let L1 = 3 m, L2 = 6 m, and l1 = 1.5 m. Also let,  = 17 kN/m3, sat = 20 kN/m3,
f’ = 35o, and c = 41 kN/m2.
(a) Determine the theoretical depth of embedment of the sheet-pile wall.
(b) Calculate the anchor force per unit length of the wall.

37
Solution

Part a

 6 = 4c − (  L1 +  L2 )

1.53

Part b

38
 Design of anchors will be studied in
II.7 Anchors “Advanced Geotechnical Design”
Various types of anchoring for sheet-pile walls
Tieback

Anchor beam Vertical anchor pile

with batter piles

39
Summary

❑ Types of sheet pile

✓ Wooden sheet piles
✓ Precast concrete sheet piles
✓ Steel sheet piles
✓ New retaining structures
❑ Construction methods
✓ Two basic categories of sheet pile walls: (a) cantilever and (b) anchored
✓ Two construction sequences: (1) Backfilled structure; (2) Dredged structure
❑ Cantilever sheet piling penetrating sandy soils
✓ without fills, with fills, with water table in fills
❑ Cantilever sheet piling penetrating clayey soils
❑ Anchored sheet-pile walls
✓ Free Earth Support Method for Penetration of Sandy Soil
✓ Free Earth Support Method for Penetration of clayey Soil
✓ Various types of anchoring for sheet-pile walls
40
Tutorial Figure below shows a cantilever sheet pile wall penetrating a granular soil. Here,
Exercise 1 L1 = 4 m, L2 = 8 m,  = 16.1 kN/m3, sat = 18.2 kN/m3, and f’= 32°
a. What is the theoretical depth of embedment, D?
b. For a 30% increase in D, what should be the total length of the sheet piles?
c. Determine the theoretical maximum moment of the sheet pile.

 f   f  ME
K a = tan 2  45 −  ; K p = tan 2  45 +  ; z =
 2  2 P

 5 = (  L1 +  L2 ) K p +  L3 ( K p − K a )

 5 8P
A1 = ; A2 =
 ( K p − Ka )  ( K p − Ka )

6 P  2 z   ( K p − K a ) +  5  P ( 6z  5 + 4P )
A3 = ; A4 =
 2 ( K p − K a )  2 ( K p − K a )
2 2

L44 + A1L34 − A2 L24 − A3 L4 − A4 = 0

Dtheory = L3 + L4

2P
z =
 ( K p − Ka )

1  z
M max = P ( z + z ) −   z2 ( K p − K a ) 
2 3
Solution for Exercise 1
Part a:

 f   32 
K a = tan 2  45 −  = tan 2  45 −  = 0.307
 2  2 

 f   32 
K p = tan 2  45 +  = tan 2  45 +  = 3.255
 2  2 

 1 =  L1K a = 16.1 4  0.307 = 19.77 kN m 2

 2 = (  L1 + L2 ) K a = 16.1 4 + (18.2 − 9.81)  8  0.307 = 40.38kN m 2

 2 40.38
L3 = = = 1.633 m
 ( K p − Ka ) (18.2 − 9.81)  ( 3.255 − 0.307 )
1 1 1
P =  1L1 +  1L2 + ( 2 −  1 ) L2 +  2 L3
2 2 2
1 1 1
=  19.77  4+19.77  8+ ( 40.38 − 19.77 )  8 +  40.38  1.633
2 2 2
= 39.54 + 158.16 + 82.44 + 32.97 = 313.11kN m

ME 1 39.54  (1.633 + 8 + 4 3) + 158.16  (1.633 + 8 2 ) 

z= =   = 5.48 m
P 313.11  +82.44  (1.633 + 8 3) + 32.97  (1.633  2 3 ) 
Solution for Exercise 1
 5 = (  L1 +  L2 ) K p +  L3 ( K p − K a )

= 16.1 4 + (18.2 − 9.81)  8  3.255 + (18.2 − 9.81)  1.633  ( 3.255 − 0.307 )

= 432.004 + 40.390 = 472.394kN m 2

 5 472.394
A1 = = = 19.10
 ( K p − Ka ) (18.2 − 9 .81) (
 3 .255 − 0 .307 )
8P 8  313.11
A2 = = = 101.27
 ( K p − Ka ) (
 18.2 − 9 .81 ) (
 3 .255 − 0 .307 )
6 P  2 z   ( K p − K a ) +  5 
A3 =
 2 ( K p − K a )
2

6  313.11  2  5.48  (18.2 − 9.81)  ( 3.255 − 0.307 ) + 472.394 

=
(18.2 − 9.81)  ( 3.255 − 0.307 )
2 2

= 2283.16

P ( 6z  5 + 4P ) 313.11( 6  5.48  472.394 + 4  313.11)

A4 = = = 8590.79
  ( K p − Ka ) (18.2 − 9.81)  ( 3.255 − 0.307 )
2 2 2 2

L4 : L44 + A1L34 − A2 L24 − A3 L4 − A4 = 0

L44 + 19.10 L34 − 101.27 L24 − 2283.13L4 − 8590.79 = 0  L4  11.683 m

Solution for Exercise 1

Thus
Dtheory = L3 + L4 = 1.633 + 11.683 = 13.316 m

Part b:
The total length of the sheet piles is

L1 + L2 + 1.3 ( L3 + L4 ) = 4 + 8 + 1.3  (13.316 ) = 29.31 m

Part c:

2P 2  313.11
z = = =5.03 m
 ( K p − Ka ) (18.2 − 9.81)  ( 3.255 − 0.307 )
1  z
M max = P ( z + z ) −   z2 ( K p − K a ) 
2 3
1  5.03
= 313.11 ( 5.48 + 5.03) −   (18.2 − 9.81)  5.032  ( 3.255 − 0.307 )  
2  3
= 3290.79 − 524.62 = 2766.17 kN  m m
Tutorial Refer to Figure below, for which L1 = 2.4 m, L2 = 4.6 m,  = 15.7 kN/m3, sat = 17.3
Exercise 2 kN/m3 and f’= 30°for sand, and c = 29 kN/m2 for clay.
a. What is the theoretical depth of embedment, D?
b. Increase D by 40%. What length of sheet piles is needed?
c. Determine the theoretical maximum moment in the sheet pile.

 f  ME
K a = tan 2  45 −  ; z =
 2 P1

P1 ( P1 + 12cz1 )
D 2  4c − (  L1 +  L2 )  − 2 DP1 − =0
( L1 +  L2 ) + 2c
P1
z =
6

D  4c − (  L1 +  L2 )  − P1
L4 =
4c
 6 z 2
M max = P1 ( z + z1 ) −
2
Solution for Exercise 2
Part a:

 f   30 
K a = tan 2  45 −  = tan 2  45 −  = 0.333
 2  2 

 1 =  L1K a = 15.7  2.4  0.333 = 12.56 kN m 2

 2 = (  L1 + L2 ) K a = 15.7  2.4 + (17.3 − 9.81)  4.6   0.333 = 24.04 kN m 2

1 1
P1 =  1L1 +  1L2 + ( 2 −  1 ) L2
2 2
1 1
=  12.56  2.4+12.56  4.6+ ( 24.04 − 12.56 )  4.6
2 2
= 15.072 + 57.776 + 26.415 = 99.26 kN m

 M E 15.072  ( 4.6 + 2.4 3) + 57.776  ( 4.6 2 ) + 26.415  ( 4.6 3 ) 

z= =
P1 99.26

= 2.567 m

P1 ( P1 + 12cz1 )
D 2  4c − (  L1 +  L2 )  − 2 DP1 − =0
( L1 +  L2 ) + 2c
 
 D 2 4  29 − 15.7  2.4 + (17.3 − 9.81)  4.6  − 2  D  99.26

99.26  ( 99.26 + 12  29  2.567 )

− =0
15.7  2.4 + (17.3 − 9.81)  4.6  + 2  29
Solution for Exercise 2

 43.866 D 2 − 198.53D − 757.03 = 0

 D  6.99 m
Part b:
L = L1 + L2 + 1.4 D = 2.4 + 4.6 + 1.4  6.99 = 16.786 m

Part c:

 6 = 4c − (  L1 +  L2 ) =4  29 − 15.7  2.4 + (17.3 − 9.81)  4.6  = 43.866 kN m 2

 7 = 4c + (  L1 +  L2 ) =4  29 + 15.7  2.4 + (17.3 − 9.81)  4.6  = 188.134 kN m 2

P1 99.26
z = = = 2.263 m
6 43.866

 6 z 2
M max = P1 ( z + z1 ) −
2
43.866  2.2632
= 99.26  ( 2.567 + 2.263) − = 367.085kN  m m
2
TOPICS & SYLLABUS:
Topic 1: Site Investigation
Topic 2: Slope Stability
Topic 3: Shallow Foundations
Topic 4: Mat (Raft) Foundations
Topic 5: Earth Retaining Structures
Topic 6: Pile Foundations

1
Question:
Skyscrapers are one of the
favorite topics of the public on
civil engineering projects.
On what are the skyscrapers
founded?

2
Ranking: Height to pinnacle (highest point)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings 3
 The Burj Khalifa set several world records:
Jan.2004 – Jan.2010
❖ Tallest existing structure: 829.8 m
❖ Tallest structure ever built: 829.8 m
❖ Tallest freestanding structure: 829.8 m
❖ Tallest skyscraper (to top of spire): 828 m
❖ Tallest skyscraper to top of antenna: 829.8 m
❖ Building with most floors: 163
❖ World's highest elevator installation
❖ World's longest travel distance elevators: 504 m
❖ Highest vertical concrete pumping for a building:
606 m
❖ World's tallest structure that includes residential
space
❖ World's highest installation of an aluminium and
glass façade: 512 m
❖ World's highest nightclub: 144th floor
❖ World's highest restaurant (Atmosphere): 122nd
floor at 442 m
❖ World's highest New Year display of fireworks
❖ World's largest light and sound show staged on a
single building
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burj_Khalifa 4
Boreholes for site investigation
In 2003, 33 test holes were drilled to study the strength of
the bedrock underlying the structure. "Weak to very weak
sandstone and siltstone" was found, just meters below the
surface. Samples were taken from test holes drilled to a
depth of 140 meters, finding weak to very weak rock all the
way.

Pile foundation design

Over 45,000 m3 of concrete, weighing more than 110,000
tones were used to construct the concrete and steel
foundation, which features 192 piles; each pile is 1.5 meter
in diameter by 43 m in length, buried more than 50 m. The
foundation was designed to support the total building
weight of approximately 450,000 tones. This weight was
then divided by the compressive strength of concrete of
which is 30 MPa which yielded a 450 m2 of vertical normal
effective area, which then yielded to a 12 meters by 12
meters dimensions. A cathodic protection system is under
the concrete to neutralize the sulphate and chloride-rich
groundwater and prevent corrosion.
5
International Commerce Centre (環球貿易廣場)
Located on reclaimed land with bedrock
2002 – 2010 more than 90 meters below ground level,
484 m traditional foundation system commonly
118 floors used in Hong Kong such as bored piles and
driven H-pile systems are not applicable to
the requirement of the project. Through a
number of value engineering sessions with
the structural engineer, a barrette foundation
system, utilizing rectangular shaped
reinforced concrete friction piles, was
adopted and successfully completed. This
foundation system was relatively new to
Hong Kong at the time of construction at ICC.

6
 Topic 6: Pile Foundations
Key points of foundation design: (Pile: bottom, side; Shallow: bottom)
(a) shall be safe against overall shear failure (Ultimate Limit State);
(b) cannot undergo excessive displacement (Serviceability Limit State).
I. Single pile II. Pile group
❖ General information ❖ Configuration & Group Efficiency
❖ Pile loading capacity ❖ Ultimate Capacity of Group Piles
❖ Point load capacity ❖ Settlement of Group Piles
❖ Frictional resistance
III. Bored pile
❖ Negative Skin Friction
❖ Pile driving ❖ Construction Procedures
❖ Pile load test ❖ Load-Bearing Capacity
❖ Settlement of piles ❖ Elastic settlement

7
Civil Engineering 2020/2021
Subject: Geotechnical Design (CSE40403)

Topic 6 Pile Foundations

I. Single Pile

by Dr. Zhenyu YIN

Office: ZS915, Tel: 3400-8470
Email: zhenyu.yin@polyu.edu.hk
8
Main content:

❖ General information
❖ Pile loading capacity
❖ Point load capacity
❖ Frictional resistance
❖ Negative Skin Friction
❖ Pile driving
❖ Pile load test
❖ Settlement of piles

9
I.1 General information (a) When one or more upper soil layers are
highly compressible and too weak to
support the load transmitted by the
Why use piles? superstructure.
(earth-retaining structures,
foundations of tall structures) (b) When bedrock is not encountered at a
reasonable depth below the ground
surface, the pile will be long with frictional
resistance at the soil–pile interface.
(c) When subjected to horizontal forces, pile
foundations resist by bending, while still
supporting the vertical load.
(d) When expansive and collapsible soils may
be present at the site of a proposed
structure. Piles may be used extended into
stable soil.
(e) The foundations of some structures
subjected to uplifting forces. Piles are
sometimes used for these foundations to
resist the uplifting force.
(f) Bridge abutments and piers are usually
(transmission towers,
constructed over pile foundations to avoid
offshore platforms, and the loss of bearing capacity (erosion).
basement mats below
the water table)
10
I.1 General information

Types of piles and their structural characteristics

11
I.1 General information

Types of piles and their structural characteristics

Steel, concrete, Timber, Composite
• generally are either pipe piles or rolled steel H-section piles. Cross-sectional area of the steel
• The allowable structural capacity for steel piles:
Qall = As f s
(against the rupture of steel)
Allowable stress of steel (≈0.33-0.5 fy)
• Usual length: 15 m to 60 m
(implying FS=2~3)
• Usual load: 300 kN to 1200 kN
• Advantages:
(a) easy to handle with respect to cutoff and extension to the desired length
(b) can stand high driving stresses
(c) can penetrate hard layers such as dense gravel and soft rock
(d) high load-carrying capacity
• Disadvantages:
(a) relatively costly
(b) high level of noise during pile driving
(c) subject to corrosion
(d) H-piles may be damaged or deflected from the vertical during driving
through hard layers or past major obstructions
12
I.1 General information

Types of piles and their structural characteristics

Steel, concrete, Timber, Composite
• generally are either precast piles or cast-in-situ piles. Cross-sectional area
• The allowable structural capacity for precast piles:
Qall = Asc f sc
Allowable stress of steel-concrete
[1] Precast ordinary piles (Precast prestressed piles)
• Usual length: 10 m to 15 m (to 45 m)
• Usual load: 300 kN to 3000 kN (to 8500 kN)
• Advantages:
(a) can be subjected to hard driving
(b) corrosion resistant
(c) can be easily combined with a concrete superstructure
• Disadvantages:
(a) difficult to achieve proper cutoff
(b) difficult to transport

13
I.1 General information

Types of piles and their structural characteristics

Steel, concrete, Timber, Composite
• generally are either precast piles or cast-in-situ piles. As = area of cross section of steel
fs = allowable stress of steel
• The allowable structural capacity of cast-in-situ piles:
Qall = As f s + Ac f c
Ac = area of cross section of concrete
[2] Cast-in-situ piles (cased & uncased)
fc = allowable stress of concrete
• Usual length: 10 m to 40 m
(steel cage can be installed
• Usual load: 300 kN to 800 kN (cased) or 700 kN (uncased) before pouring concrete)
• Advantages:
(a) relatively cheap (cased), or economical (uncased)
(b) allow for inspection before pouring concrete
(c) easy to extend (cased), or can be finished at any elevation (uncased)
• Disadvantages:
(a) difficult to splice after concreting
(b) thin casings may be damaged during driving (cased)
(c) in soft soils, the sides of the hole may cave in, squeezing the concrete (uncased)

14
I.1 General information

Types of piles and their structural characteristics

Steel, concrete, Timber, Composite
• tree trunks that have had their branches and bark carefully trimmed off.
• The allowable structural capacity of wooden piles: average area of cross section

Qall = Ap f w

• Usual length: 10 m to 20 m allowable stress of the timber

• Usual load: 300 kN to 500 kN
• Advantages:
(a) cheap and economical
(b) no heavy material or experienced labor is needed
(c) Installation is fairly quick
• Disadvantages:
(a) cannot withstand hard driving
(b) may be damaged during driving (crushing of wooden fibers)
(c) splicing should be avoided

15
I.1 General information

Types of piles and their structural characteristics

Steel, concrete, Timber, Composite
• The upper and lower portions of composite piles are made of different materials.
For example, composite piles may be made of steel and concrete. Steel-and-concrete
piles consist of a lower portion of steel and an upper portion of cast in-place concrete.
This type of pile is used when the length of the pile required for adequate bearing
exceeds the capacity of simple cast-in-place concrete piles.

GFRP tube

Fam et al (2003)

FRP rebar
16
I.1 General information

Types of piles and their structural characteristics

Table. Normal range of pile lengths typically available

From Piling Engineering, 3rd Edition, Fleming et al.

17
I.1 General information

Types of piles and their structural characteristics

Table. Typical design load ranges for different pile types and sizes

From Piling Engineering, 3rd Edition, Fleming et al.

18
Break 19
 I.2 Pile loading capacity – load transfer mechanism
Pile load test
(Mansur and Hunter, 1970)
= Q1 + Q2 Q

Q2
Q1 = Q – Q2
During pile load test:
 s = 2.5 mm: Q = 700 kN, Q1 = 600 kN, Q2 = 100 kN Q Qu = 45%, Q1 Qs = 55%, Q2 Q p = 22%
 
 s = 5 mm: Q = 1100 kN, Q1 = 800 kN, Q2 = 300 kN Q Qu = 71%, Q1 Qs = 73%, Q2 Q p = 67%
 s = 11 mm: Q = 1550 kN, Q = 1100 kN, Q = 450 kN
 u s p
Q1 is developed at a much smaller pile
Ultimate Skin friction Point displacement (or much faster) than Q2
20
 I.2 Pile loading capacity – load transfer mechanism
The load on the pile is gradually increased from zero to Q(z=0) at the ground surface.

dQ( z ) = f( z ) pdz
Q(z) dQ( z )
 f( z ) =
pdz

dQ(z) = f(z).p.dz

Q(z+dz)

21
 I.2 Pile loading capacity – load transfer mechanism
The load on the pile Q(z=0) is increased up to yield value Qu

mostly
adopted
failure mode
❖ Pile foundations are deep foundations and
that the soil fails mostly in a punching mode
(a triangular zone I developed at the pile tip).
❖ In dense sands and stiff clayey soils, a radial
shear zone, II, may partially develop.

22
 I.2 Pile loading capacity – pile length
The ultimate load-carrying capacity of a pile is given by
where Qu = Q p + Qs
Qp = load carried at the pile point
Qs = load carried by skin friction developed at the side of the pile (caused by shearing
resistance between the soil and the pile)

Extreme case:
The lengths of point
bearing piles up to Extreme case:
the rock-bed (or The lengths of friction
more embedded in piles depend on the
rock-bed). shear strength of the
soil, the applied load,
and the pile size.
Figure. (a-b) Point bearing piles; (c) friction piles
23
 I.2 Pile loading capacity – general equation
Qp = load-capacity of the pile point
Qu = Q p + Qs Qs = frictional resistance (skin friction)
derived from the soil–pile interface.

Qs =  pLf

(Frictional Bearing Capacity

or Frictional Resistance)

Q p = Ap q p
(Point Bearing Capacity)

Figure. Ultimate load-carrying capacity of pile

24
I.3 Point bearing capacity – Derivation of Qp
Point Bearing Capacity, Qp
The general ultimate bearing capacity equation for shallow foundations was given in
Topic 3 (for vertical loading) as 1
qu = cN c Fcs Fcd + qN q Fqs Fqd +  BN  F s F d
2
Hence, in general, the ultimate load-bearing capacity may be expressed as
qu = cN c + qN q +  BN 
where Nc*, Nq* and Nγ* are the bearing capacity factors that include the necessary shape
and depth factors.
Pile foundations are deep. However, the ultimate resistance per unit area
developed at the pile tip, may be expressed by an equation similar in form to the above
equation, although the values of Nc*, Nq* and Nγ* will change. The notation used in this
part for the width of a pile is D. Hence, substituting D for B in the above equation gives

qu = q p = cN c + qN q +  DN 

25
I.3 Point bearing capacity – Derivation of Qp
Because the width D of a pile is relatively small, the term γDNγ* may be dropped from
the right side of the preceding equation without introducing a serious error; thus, we
have
q p = cN c + qN q +  DN 

Note that the term q for pile is the effective vertical stress at the pile tip, better to
expressed in q’. Thus, the point bearing of piles is

Q p = Ap q p = Ap ( cN c + qN q )
Where
Ap = area of pile tip
qp = unit point resistance
c’ = cohesion of the soil supporting the pile tip
q’ = effective vertical stress at the level of the pile tip
Nc*, Nq* = the bearing capacity factors

26
 I.3 Point bearing capacity – Development of Qp
Ultimate Point Resistance, qp of Test Pile in sand at the Ogeechee River Site (Vesic 1970)

Observation: the point bearing capacity of a

pile in sand generally increases with the
depth of embedment in the bearing stratum
and reaches a maximum value at a critical
embedment ratio.

Q p = Ap q p = Ap ( cN c + qN q )

Variation of qp &
N60 with depth

27
 I.3 Point bearing capacity – Development of Qp (Meyerhof’s Method)

Q p = Ap q p = Ap ( cN c + qN q )

For Sand, we have c’=0

Q p = Ap q p = Ap qN q

Q p = Ap qN q  Ap ql

with ql = 0.5 pa N q tan  

For Clay, we have ϕ=0, c’=cu

Very small value,
Q p = Ap q p = Ap ( cN c + qN q ) negligible

For piles in saturated clays under undrained

conditions the net ultimate load can be given as

Q p  N ccu Ap = 9cu Ap

where cu = undrained cohesion of the soil below

the tip of the pile. 28
I.3 Point bearing capacity – Development of Qp
Vesic’s Method for sand
Vesic (1977) proposed a method for estimating the pile point bearing capacity based on
the theory of cavity expansion.
Q p = Ap q p = Ap m N

where
1 1 + 2K0
 m = ( v + 2 h ) = q ( 0 =  v = q =  z , K 0 = 1 − sin  )
3 3
N = f ( , I rr )
I
where Irr = reduced rigidity index for the soil I rr = r
1 + Ir 
Es Gs
Ir = rigidity index = =
2 (1 +  s ) q tan  q tan 

Es = modulus of elasticity of soil

μs = Poisson’s ratio of soil
Gs = shear modulus of soil
pa = atmospheric pressure (=101.325 kPa)
Δ = average volumetric strain in the plastic zone below the pile point
   − 25  q
 = 0.005 1 − 
 20  pa 29
I.3 Point bearing capacity – Development of Qp
Vesic’s Method for sand

Table. Bearing Capacity Factors Nσ* Based on the Theory of Cavity Expansion

30
I.3 Point bearing capacity – Development of Qp
Vesic’s Method for clay
In saturated clay (’=0), the net ultimate point bearing capacity of a pile can be
approximated as
Q p = Ap q p = Ap cu N c

According to the expansion of cavity theory of Vesic (1977),

4 
N c = ( ln I rr + 1) + + 1
3 2
Ir
where Irr = reduced rigidity index for the soil I rr = (=0 for saturated clay)
1 + Ir 

Es c
( 347 u − 33  300)  Es  s =0.5 Es 
Ir = rigidity index = ⎯⎯⎯
 2 (1 +  ) q tan   f =cu → =
3cu pa 3cu 
 s

 = c +   tan  
Es = modulus of elasticity of soil  f n 
cu = undrained shear strength of saturated clay
pa = atmospheric pressure (=101.325 kPa)

31
I.3 Point bearing capacity – Development of Qp
Coyle and Castello’s Method for sand

Q p = Ap q p = Ap qN q

(Using the general equation,

but specify the coefficient N*q
based on 24 large-scale field
load tests of driven piles in
sand)

32
Example 1 Solution
Consider a 15-m long concrete pile
with a cross section of 0.45 m x 0.45
m fully embedded in sand. For the
sand, given: unit weight  = 17 kN/m3;
(Figure left-down)
and soil friction angle ’ = 35o.
Estimate the ultimate point Qp with
each of the following:
a. Meyerhof’s method
b. Vesic’s method (m = 250)
c. The method of Coyle and Castello
d. based on the results of parts a, b, ( better to use  m to replace  0 )
and c, adopt a value for Qp

143

33
Example 1 Solution
Consider a 15-m long concrete pile
with a cross section of 0.45 m x 0.45
m fully embedded in sand. For the
sand, given: unit weight  = 17 kN/m3;
and soil friction angle ’ = 35o.
Estimate the ultimate point Qp with
each of the following:
a. Meyerhof’s method
b. Vesic’s method (m = 250)
c. The method of Coyle and Castello
d. based on the results of parts a, b,
and c, adopt a value for Qp

48

34
Example 2
Consider a pipe pile (flat driving point)
having an outside diameter of 406 mm. Solution
The embedded length of the pile in
layered saturated clay is 30 m. The
following are the details of the subsoil.
The groundwater table is located at a
depth of 5 m from the ground surface.
Estimate Qp by using
a. Meyerhof’s method
b. Vesic’s method

  4  
 N c = ( ln I rr + 1) + + 1 = 11.57 
 3 2 

35
I.3 Point bearing capacity – Development of Qp
Q p = Ap q p
Correlations for Calculating with SPT and CPT Results
On the basis of field observations, Meyerhof (1976) also suggested that the ultimate
point resistance in a homogeneous granular soil may be obtained from standard
penetration numbers as
L
q p = 0.4 pa N 60  4 pa N 60
D

N60 = the average value of the standard penetration number near the pile point (about
10D above and 4D below the pile point)
pa = atmospheric pressure ( = 101.325 kPa)

According to Briaud et al. (1985), in granular soil with the standard penetration
resistance N60
q p = 19.7 pa ( N 60 )
0.36

According to Meyerhof (1956), in granular soil with the cone penetration resistance qc
q p = qc

36
Example 3
Consider a concrete pile that is 0.305 m x 0.305 m in cross section in sand. The pile is 15.2 m
long. The following are the variations of N60 with depth.
a. Estimate Qp using q p = 0.4 pa N 60 L  4 pa N 60
D
b. Estimate Qp using
q p = 19.7 pa ( N 60 )
0.36

Solution

4D (not necessary to be integer)

15.2+4D = 16.4 m, very close

(can be adopted)

37
 I.3 Point bearing capacity – Point Bearing Capacity of Piles Resting on Rock
Sometimes piles are driven to an underlying layer of rock. In such cases, the engineer
must evaluate the bearing capacity of the rock. The ultimate unit point resistance in rock
(Goodman, 1980) is approximately

Where
q p = qu N +1 ( )
Nф = tan2(45+ ф’/2)
qu = unconfined compression strength of rock
ф’ =drained angle of friction qu( design ) = qu( lab ) 5

Q p = q p Ap = qu( lab ) ( N +1) Ap 5

Unconfined Compressive Strength of Rocks qu(lab) Typical Values of Angle of Friction ’ of Rocks

38
Break 39
I.4 Frictional Resistance – Derivation of Qs
Frictional Resistance, Qs
The frictional, or skin, resistance of a pile may be written as
Qs =  pLf
Where
p = perimeter of the pile section
ΔL = incremental pile length over which p and f are taken to be constant
f = unit friction resistance at any depth z
p = D

The key is how to calculate f ?

L
p = 2(d1+d2)

40
I.4 Frictional Resistance – Frictional (Skin) Resistance in Sand

(L’≈15*D)

f = K o tan   if 0  z  L
f = f z = L if z  L

Figure. Unit frictional resistance for piles in sand

K = effective earth pressure coefficient
σ’o = effective vertical stress at the depth
under consideration (sometime we use q’)
δ’ = soil-pile friction angle

41
I.4 Frictional Resistance – Frictional (Skin) Resistance in Sand
Effective Earth Pressure coefficient

Based on load test results in the field, Mansur and Hunter (1970) reported the following
average values of K.
H-piles . . . . . . K = 1.65
Steel pipe piles . . . . . . K = 1.26 Qs =  pLf
f = K o tan  
Precast concrete piles . . . . . . K = 1.5
f = f z = L
Replace the summation by average

Qs =  pLf = p  Lf = pf av L = p ( K o tan   ) L

 o = average effective overburden pressure along the depth

  = soil–pile friction angle (=0.5~0.8’)
p = perimeter of the pile section
L = Total pile length 42
Example 4 Solution
Consider a 15-m long concrete pile
with a cross section of 0.45 m x 0.45
m fully embedded in sand. For the
sand, given: unit weight  = 17 kN/m3;
and soil friction angle ’ = 35o.
(following example 1)
Estimate Qs with each of the
following:
a. Based on f = K  tan   if 0  z  L
o
(K= 1.3)
f = f z = L if z  L
( ’ = 0.8’)
b. Based on Qs = p ( K o tan   ) L

f 0.93

1702

If asked to determine Qall using result of example 1 with FS=3?

z
43
 For 14/4
I.4 Frictional Resistance – Frictional (Skin) Resistance in Sand
Qs = pf av L
Correlation with Standard Penetration Test Results
Meyerhof (1976) indicated that the average unit frictional resistance, fav, for high
displacement driven piles may be obtained from average standard penetration
resistance values as
f av = 0.02 pa ( N 60 )

where
( N60 ) =
average value of standard penetration resistance.
Pa = atmospheric pressure (= 101.325 kPa or kN/m2)
For low-displacement driven piles
f av = 0.01 pa ( N 60 )

Briaud et al. (1985) suggested

f av = 0.224 pa ( N 60 )
0.29

44
I.4 Frictional Resistance – Frictional (Skin) Resistance in Sand
Qs =  pLf
Correlation with Cone Penetration Test Results
Nottingham and Schmertmann (1975) and Schmertmann (1978) provided correlations
for estimating Qs using the frictional resistance (fc) obtained during cone penetration
tests. According to this method
f =   fc

The variations of α’ with z/D for electric cone and mechanical cone penetrometers are
shown in Figure below, respectively. We have
Qs =  p ( L ) f =  p ( L )  f c

Based on tests of mechanical cone penetrometer

Based on tests of electric cone penetrometer

(one pile, one L/D, one ’) 45
Example 5
Consider a concrete pile that is 0.305 m x 0.305 m in cross section in sand. The pile is 15.2 m
long. The following are the variations of N60 with depth. (following example 3)
a. Estimate Qs using f = 0.02 p ( N )
av a 60
b. Estimate Qs using
f av = 0.224 pa ( N 60 )
0.29

Solution

(not necessary to be integer)

If asked to determine Qall based on Meyerhof’s method and Briaud’s method (FS=3)?

46
Example 6
Consider an 18-m long concrete pile (cross section: 0.305 m x 0.305 m) fully embedded in a
sand layer. For the sand layer, the following is an approximation of the cone penetration
resistance qc (mechanical cone) and the frictional resistance with depth.
Estimate the allowable load that the pile can carry. Use FS=3.
Solution

(for mechanical cone)

0.44

47
I.4 Frictional Resistance – Frictional (Skin) Resistance in Clay
Qs = pf av L
λ Method
This method, proposed by Vijayvergiya and Focht (1972), Variation of  with pile
is based on the assumption that the displacement of soil embedment length, L
caused by pile driving results in a passive lateral pressure
at any depth and that the average unit skin resistance is
f av =  ( o + 2cu )
where
 o = mean effective vertical stress for
the entire embedment length
cu = mean undrained shear strength (ф = 0)

In general case

 o = ( A1 + A2 + A3 + ... ) L
cu = ( cu(1)L1 + cu(2)L2 + cu(3)L3 + ... ) L
48
I.4 Frictional Resistance – Frictional (Skin) Resistance in Clay
Qs =  pLf
α Method
According to the method, the unit skin resistance in clayey soils can be represented by
the equation
f =  cu

where α = empirical adhesion factor.

The ultimate side resistance can thus be given as

Qs =  p ( L ) f =  p ( L ) cu

→α1 Variation of 
(interpolated values
→α3 based on Terzaghi, Peck
and Mesri, 1996)
→α3

49
I.4 Frictional Resistance – Frictional (Skin) Resistance in Clay
Qs =  pLf
β Method
When piles are driven into saturated clays, the pore water pressure in the soil around
the piles increases. The excess pore water pressure in normally consolidated clays may
be four to six times cu. However, within a month or so, this pressure gradually dissipates.
Hence, the unit frictional resistance for the pile can be determined on the basis of the
effective stress parameters of the clay in a remolded state (c’=0). Thus, at any depth,

f =  o
Where
σ’o = verticaleffective stress
β = Ktanф’R
ф'R = drained friction angle of remolded clay
K = pressure coefficient
Qs =  pLf =  pLK tan R  0

1 − sin R for normally consolidated clays

K =
(1 − sin R ) OCR for over-consolidated clays

50
Example 7
Refer to the pile in saturated clay shown in the figure below. For the pile, calculate the skin
resistance by (1) the -method, (2) the -method, and (3) the -method. For the -method,
use ’R = 30o for all clay layers. The top 10 m of clay is normally consolidated. The bottom clay
layer has an OCR = 2. (Note: diameter of pile = 406 mm)

51
Solution

52
Example 8
A concrete pile 305 mm x 305 mm in cross section is driven to a depth of 20 m below the
ground surface in a saturated clay soil. A summary of the variation of frictional resistance fc
obtained from a cone penetration test is as follows.
Estimate the frictional resistance Qs for the pile.

Solution

(Whatever mechanical or electric cone)

0.84
0.71
0.63

53
Break 54
 I.5 Negative Skin Friction (NSF)

Negative skin friction is a downward drag force exerted

on a pile by the soil surrounding it. Such a force can exist
under the following conditions:
❖ If a fill of clay soil is placed over a granular soil layer
into which a pile is driven, the fill will gradually
consolidate. The consolidation process will exert a
downward drag force on the pile (See Figure below)
during the period of consolidation.
❖ If a fill of granular soil is placed over a layer of soft
clay, it will induce the process of consolidation in the
clay layer and thus exert a downward drag on the pile.
❖ Lowering of the water table will increase the vertical
effective stress on the soil at any depth, which will
induce consolidation settlement in clay. If a pile is
located in the clay layer, it will be subjected to a
downward drag force.
Key words: Qu = Q p + Qs − Qn
Clay layer
Increase of effective stress Total downward drag force 55
I.5 Negative Skin Friction (NSF)
(a) Clay fill over granular soil
the negative (downward) skin stress on the pile is
f n = K  o tan  
where
K’ = earth pressure coefficient = K0 = 1-sin’ (attention:
not c=cu & ’=0 assumed in NSF)
’0 = vertical effective stress at any depth z =  ’fz
’f = effective unit weight of fill
 ’ = soil-pile friction angle = 0.5~0.7’

by integrating with depth in clay fill, the total downward drag force on a pile is

1
Qn = 
Hf
f n pdz = 
Hf
K  f z tan   pdz = K  f tan   pH 2f
0 0 2
where
Hf = Height of the fill (attention: if the fill is above water table, the ’f should be
replaced by the moist unit weight)
p = perimeter of the pile
56
 I.5 Negative Skin Friction (NSF)
fn of sand fill is
(b) Granular soil fill over clay layer
not considered
the negative (downward) skin stress on the pile is
f n = K  o tan  
where
K’ = K0 = 1-sin’ (of clay layer)
’0 =  ’fHf +  ’z ( ’ = effective unit weight of clay layer)
 ’ = 0.5~0.7’ (of clay layer)

Transition from downward to no-

by integrating with depth in clay layer downward, given by Bowles (1982)
( L − H ) L − H  f H f  2 f H f
Qn =  f n pdz =  K  (  f H f +  z ) tan   pdz
L1 L1
L = + −
f f

0 0
1
L1  2   
1
= K  f tan   pH f L1 + K   tan   pL12 Attention: for end-bearing piles, the
2
neutral depth may be assumed to be
(attention: if the soil and the fill are above water located at the pile tip:
table, the effective unit weight should be replaced
L1 = L − H f
by the moist unit weight)
57
 I.5 Negative Skin Friction (NSF)
A case history in Oslo by Bjerrum et al (1969)
(sand)

Since in this case the pile is a point bearing pile, then

L1 = L-Hf = 40-11-2 = 27 m

Thus, the maximum downdrag force on the pile:

Qn = p ( K  tan   ) (  f H f L1 + 0.5 L12 )

= (  0.5 )( 0.22 ) (16  2 )( 27 ) + ( 8.69  11)( 27 ) + 0.5 ( 9.19 )( 27 ) 

2
 
= 2348 kN
(measured value was 2500 kN, very close) 58
Example 9a
In the figure right, let Hf = 2 m. The pile is circular in cross
section with a diameter of 0.305 m. For the fill that is
above the water table, and f = 16 kN/m3 and ’ = 32o.
Determine the total drag force. ( ’ = 0.6’)

Solution

59
 Solution (Attention: for end-bearing piles:
Example 9b L1 = L-Hf)
In the figure below, let Hf = 2 m
and L = 20 m. The pile is circular
in cross section with a diameter
of 0.305 m. For the fill that is
above the water table, and f =
16.5 kN/m3, ’clay = 34o and
sat(clay) = 17.2 kN/m3 Determine
the total drag force. ( ’ = 0.6’)

60
Break 61
I.6 Pile driving
Piles are driven into the ground by means of
❖ Hammers (for big piles)
❖ vibratory drivers (for small piles)
❖ jetting or partial augering (for small piles in soft soils)
❖ drilling (Bored Pile, for big piles)

62
I.6 Pile driving
Piles may be divided into two categories based on the nature of their placement:
❖ displacement piles
✓ Driven piles are displacement piles, because
❖ non-displacement piles they move some soil laterally; hence, there is
a tendency for densification of soil
surrounding them.
✓ Concrete piles and closed-ended pipe piles
are high-displacement piles.
✓ Steel H-piles displace less soil laterally during
driving, so they are low-displacement piles.

✓ Bored piles are non-displacement piles

because their placement causes very little
change in the state of stress in the soil.

63
I.6 Pile driving
For pile-driving by hammers
❖ In the driving operation, a cap is attached to the top of the pile.
❖ A cushion may be used between the pile and the cap.
The cushion has the effect of reducing the impact force and
spreading it over a longer time; however, the use of the
cushion is optional.
❖ A hammer cushion is placed on the pile cap.
❖ The hammer drops on the cushion

Types of hammer
(a) drop hammer
(b) single-acting air of steam hammer
64
I.6 Pile driving

Types of hammer
(c) double-acting and differential air or steam hammer
(d) diesel hammer
(e) vibratory pile driver

65
I.6 Pile driving
Table. Examples of Commercially Available Pile-Driving Hammers

66
I.6 Pile driving
Pile-Driving Formulas: (a) EN formula
Dynamic equations are widely used in the field to determine whether a pile has reached a
satisfactory bearing value at the predetermined depth. The principle is (so-called
“(Engineering News Record (EN) Formula)”):
Energy imparted by the hammer per blow = (pile resistance)(penetration per hammer blow)
WR h
Qu =
S +C C = 25.4 mm (=1 inch) for drop hammers
WR = weight of the ram C = 2.54 mm for steam hammers
h = height of fall of the ram
S = penetration of pile per hammer blow the average value obtained from
C = a constant the last few driving blows.

For single- and double-acting hammers, the term WRH can be replaced by EHE
where
EH E
E is the efficiency of the hammer Qu =
HE is the rated energy of the hammer S +C

67
I.6 Pile driving
Pile-Driving Formulas: (b) Modified EN Formula
EWR h WR + n W p
2

Qu =
S + C WR + W p
E = efficiency of hammer
C = 2.54 mm if the units of S and h are in mm (whatever drop or steam)
Wp = weight of the pile with the cap
n = coefficient of restitution between the ram and the pile cap
Typical values for E
Single- and double-acting hammers 0.7–0.85
Diesel hammers 0.8–0.9
Drop hammers 0.7–0.9

Typical values for n

Cast-iron hammer and
concrete piles (without cap) 0.4–0.5
Wood cushion on steel piles 0.3–0.4
Wooden piles 0.25–0.3
68
 I.6 Pile driving
A case study of using the modified EN formula
Knowns :
W p = Ap L c + Wcap = ( 645  10−4 ) ( 24.4 )( 23.58 ) + 2.98 = 40.08 kN
EWR h WR + n W p
2

Qu = Rated enery H E = WR h = 26.03 kN-m

S + C WR + W p
Weight of ram WR = 22.24 kN
C = 2.54 Hammer efficiency E = 0.85
25.4
S= Coefficieint of restitution n = 0.35
N
(N=number of hammer blows per 25.4 mm of penetration)

( 0.85 )( 26.03  1000 )  22.24 + ( 0.35 ) ( 40.08 ) 

2

Qu =  
25.4
+ 2.54  22.24 + 40.08 
N
9639.08
=
25.4
+ 2.54
N

Normal value of N:
4-5 for wooden piles
6-8 for concrete piles
12-14 for steel piles
69
I.6 Pile driving
Pile-Driving Formulas: (c) Danish formula EH E
Qu =
(Olson and Flaate, 1967) EH E L
S+
2 Ap E p

E = efficiency of hammer
HE = rated hammer energy
Ep = modulus of elasticity of the pile material
L = length of the pile
Ap = cross-sectional area of the pile

Pile-Driving Formulas: (d) Janbu’s formula

(Janbu, 1953)
EH E
Qu =
K u S
  

where K u = Cd 1 + 1 + 
 C d 

 Wp   EH E L 
with Cd = 0.75 + 0.14   and   =  2 

 R
W A E S
 p p 
70
Example 10

( = WR h )

(with unit weight of concrete: 23.58 kN/m3)

W
EWR h R + n 2
Wp
Qu =
S + C WR + W p
EH E
Qu =
EH E L
S+
2 Ap E p

71
Solution

72
Break 73
I.7 Pile Load Test
❖ The primary reason is the unreliability of prediction methods.
❖ Force control: Step loads are applied (each step load = 1/4 of working load).
❖ Or displacement control: a constant rate of penetration 0.25-2.5 mm/min.
❖ The load test should be carried out to at least a total load of two times proposed
working load.
❖ After the desired pile load is reached, the pile is gradually unloaded.

74
I.7 Pile Load Test

snet = st − se

Curve (1): Pile settlement may increase with load to a certain point, beyond which
the load–settlement curve becomes vertical. The load corresponding to the point
where the curve of Q versus becomes vertical is the ultimate load, for the pile.
Curve (2): In many cases, the latter stage of the load–settlement curve is almost
linear, showing a large degree of settlement for a small increment of load. The
ultimate load, for such a case is determined from the point of the curve of Q versus
where this steep linear portion starts.
But not always clear? 75
I.7 Pile Load Test Total settlement

One of the methods to obtain the ultimate load Qu from the load-settlement plot is that
proposed by Davisson (1973). Davisson’s method is used more often in the field and is
described here. Referring to Figure below, the ultimate load occurs at a settlement level
(su) of
 D  Qu L
su ( mm ) = 0.012 Dref + 0.1 +
 D  A E
Where  ref  p p

Qu is in kN
D = pile diameter or width (in mm)
Dref = reference pile diameter
or width (= 300 mm)
L = pile length (mm)
Ap = pile cross section (mm2)
Ep = Young’s modulus of pile material
(kN/mm2) Slope su/Qu
= L/(ApEp)

76
 Example 11
The figure below shows the load test results of a 20-m
long concrete pile (406 mm × 406 mm) embedded in
sand. Using Davisson’s method, determine the ultimate
load Qu. Given: Ep = 30x106 kN/m2.
Qu = 1460 kN
s = 3.735 mm
Solution
 D  Qu L
su = 0.012 Dref + 0.1  +
D
 ref  Ap E p Slope = 0.004
 406  Qu ( 20000 )
= 0.012  300 + 0.1  +
 300  406  406  30
= 3.735 + 0.004Qu

77
I.7 Pile Load Test
Soils surrounding the pile would be disturbed during pile driving, but they will be recovered
to some degree after certain time. So the test should be conducted after certain time.

(1) When piles are driven into soft clay, a

certain zone surrounding the clay
becomes remolded or compressed. This
results in a reduction of undrained shear
strength. With time, the loss of undrained
shear strength is partially or fully
regained. The time lapse may range from
30 to 60 days.

After t days (Skov & Denver 1988)

 t  
Qt = QOED  A log   + 1 (for clay:
  t0  
A = 0.6, t0 = 1)

After 14 days (Guang-Yu 1988)

Q14 = ( 0.375St + 1) QOED
EOD: end of driving
St: sensitivity of clay 78
 I.7 Pile Load Test
Soils surrounding the pile would be disturbed during pile driving, but they will be recovered
to some degree after certain time. So the test should be conducted after certain time.

(2) For piles driven in dense saturated fine

sands, relaxation is possible. Negative pore
water pressure, if developed during pile
driving, will dissipate over time, resulting
in a reduction in pile capacity with time
after the driving operation is completed.
(3) In loose sand, excess pore water
pressure may be generated during pile
driving. The excess pore water pressure
After t days (Skov & Denver 1988) will dissipate over time, which will result in
 t   greater pile capacity.
Qt = QOED  A log   + 1
(for sand:
  t0   A = 0.2, t0 = 0.5)

(Both formulae for loose or

After t days (Svinkin 1996) medium dense sandy soils)
1.025t 0.1QOED  Qt  1.4t 0.1QOED

EOD: end of driving 79

Break 80
I.8 Settlement of Piles
The total settlement of a pile under a vertical working load Qw is given by
Se = Se(1) + Se( 2) + Se( 3)

Se(1) = elastic settlement of pile itself

Se(2) = settlement of pile caused by the load at the pile tip
Se(3) = settlement of pile caused by the load transmitted along the pile shaft

= 0.5 for uniform friction

Se(1) is attributed by “average axial force”

Se(1) =
( Q
wp +  Qws ) L
Ap E p

Qwp = load carried at the pile point under working load condition
Qws = load carried by frictional (skin) resistance under working load condition
Ap = area of cross section of pile
L = length of pile
Ep = modulus of elasticity of the pile material

The magnitude of ξ varies between 0.5 and 0.67 depending on the nature of the
distribution of the unit friction (skin) resistance f along the pile shaft.
81
 I.8 Settlement of Piles
The total settlement of a pile under a vertical working load Qw is given by
Se = Se(1) + Se( 2) + Se( 3)

Se(2) is attributed by “Soil below the pile” (Similar to shallow foundation)

(1 −  ) I
qwp D
Se( 2) = 2
s wp
Es
D = width or diameter of pile
qwp = point load per unit area at the pile point = Qwp/Ap
Es = modulus of elasticity of soil at or below the pile point
μs = Poisson’s ratio of soil
Iwp = influence factor ≈ 0.85

by Vesic (1977), just for reference

Table. Typical Values of Cp
Qwp C p
Se( 2) =
Dq p
Ultimate point
resistance of the pile

82
I.8 Settlement of Piles
The total settlement of a pile under a vertical working load Qw is given by
Se = Se(1) + Se( 2) + Se( 3)

Se(3) is attributed by “friction force of pile skin”

Q  D
Se( 3) =  ws  (1 −  s2 ) I ws
 pL  Es
Qws = load carried by frictional (skin) resistance under working load condition
p = perimeter of the pile
L = embedded length of pile
D = width or diameter of pile
Es = modulus of elasticity of soil at or below the pile point
μs = Poisson’s ratio of soil
L
Iws = influence factor = 2 + 0.35
D

Qws Cs 
Se( 3) = L
Lq p Cs = an empirical constant =  0.93 + 0.16 C p
 D 
by Vesic (1977), just for reference
83
I.8 Settlement of Piles
Example 12: The allowable working load on a prestressed concrete pile 21-m long that
has been driven into sand is 502 kN. The pile is octagonal in shape with D = 356 mm (see
Table below). Skin resistance carries 350 kN of the allowable load, and point bearing
carries the rest. Use Ep = 21 X 106 kN/m2, Es = 25 X 103 kN/m2, μs = 0.35 and ξ = 0.62.
Determine the settlement of the pile.

Table. Typical Prestressed Concrete Pile in Use

84
I.8 Settlement of Piles
From the table, for D = 356 mm, the area of pile cross section. Ap = 1045 cm2, Also,
perimeter p = 1.168m. Given: Qws = 350 kN, so

Qwp = 502 − 350 = 152 kN

Se(1) =
(Qwp +  Qws ) L 152 + 0.62 ( 350 )  ( 21)
= = 0.00353 m = 3.35 mm
Ap E p ( 0.1045 m 2
)( 21  10 6
)

 152  0.356 
(1 −  ) I 3 (
1 − 0.352 ) ( 0.85 ) = 0.0155 m = 15.5 mm
qwp D
Se( 2) = 2
= 
 0.1045  25  10 
s wp
Es

Q  D
Se( 3) =  ws  (1 −  s2 ) I ws  I ws = 2 + 0.35
L 21
= 2 + 0.35 = 4.69
 pL  s
E D 0.356
   0.356 
3 (
1 − 0.352 ) ( 4.69 ) = 0.00084 m = 0.84 mm
350
Se( 3) =  
 (1.168 )( 21)   25  10 

Hence, the total settlement is

Se = Se(1) + Se( 2) + Se( 3) = 3.35 + 15.5 + 0.84 = 19.69 mm
85
Break 86
Civil Engineering 2020/2021
Subject: Geotechnical Design (CSE40403)

Topic 6 Pile Foundations

II. Pile Group

by Dr. Zhenyu YIN

Office: ZS915, Tel: 3400-8470
Email: zhenyu.yin@polyu.edu.hk
87
Main content:

❖ Configuration
❖ Group Efficiency
❖ Ultimate Capacity of Group Piles in Saturated Clay
❖ Elastic Settlement of Group Piles
❖ Consolidation Settlement of Group Piles

88
II.1 Configuration
Interference between two piles

d = center to center pile spacing

Figure. Group piles

In practice, the minimum d, is

2.5D and, in ordinary situations,
is actually about 3 to 3.5D.

89
II.2 Group Efficiency
The efficiency of the load-bearing capacity of a group pile may be defined as
Qg ( u )
=
Q u
Where
ŋ = group efficiency
Qg(u) = ultimate load-bearing capacity of the group pile
Qu = ultimate load-bearing capacity of each pile without the group effect
(for pure friction pile)
Qg ( u ) f av pg L ( )
pg = 2 Lg + Bg f av  2 ( n1 + n2 − 2 ) d + 4 D  L 2 ( n1 + n2 − 2 ) d + 4 D
= = ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯→ = =
 Qu  f av pL number of pile=n1n2 n1n 2 pLf av pn1n2

Attention:  ≤ 1 !!!

90
II.2 Group Efficiency
Equation for Group Efficiency of Friction Piles
Converse-Labarre equation
 ( n1 − 1) n2 + ( n2 − 1) n1 
 = 1−  
 90 n n
1 2 
where θ (deg) = tan-1(D/d)
Los Angeles Group Action equation
D 
 = 1−  n1 ( n2 − 1) + n2 ( n1 − 1) + 2 ( n1 − 1)( n2 − 1) 
 dn1n2

Seiler-Keeney equation (Seiler and Keeney,1994)

  11d   n + n − 2   0.3
 = 1 −   
1 2
 +
  7 ( d − 1)   n1 + n2 − 1   n1 + n2
2
where d is in ft

91
II.3 Ultimate Capacity of Group Piles in Saturated Clay

The Figure shows a group pile in saturated clay.

Step 1. The ultimate bearing capacity of individual
pile is
Qu = Q p + Qs = Ap 9cu( p )  +  pcu L

Where cu(p) = undrained cohesion of the clay at

the pile tip
Determine the ultimate bearing capacity of pile
group by the summation of individual piles,
expressed as ΣQu =n1n2(Qp+Qs).

Qg (u ) = n1n2 9 Ap cu( p ) +  pcu L 

Note: Any previous methods of

Qp and Qs can be adopted!

93
 II.3 Ultimate Capacity of Group Piles in Saturated Clay

Step 2. Determine the ultimate bearing capacity by

assuming that the piles in the group act as a block
with dimensions Lg X Bg X L. The skin resistance of
the block is (“ = 1” assumed)
Qs =  pg cu L =  2 ( Lg + Bg ) cu L
Calculate the point bearing capacity:
Q p = Ap q p = Ap cu( p ) N c = ( Lg Bg ) cu( p ) N c

Obtain the value of the bearing capacity factor from

Figure. Thus, the ultimate load is

Qg (u ) = Lg Bg cu( p ) N c +  2 ( Lg + Bg ) cu L

94
II.3 Ultimate Capacity of Group Piles in Saturated Clay
Step 3. Compare the two values obtained from two methods. The lower value is taken
as the final Qg(u) for design.
Step 4. If step 1 is adopted, need to reduce it by .

Figure. Variation of N*c with Lg/Bg and L/Bg

95
II.3 Ultimate Capacity of Group Piles in Saturated Clay
Example 1
The section of a 3x4 group pile in a layered
saturated clay is shown in the Figure. The
piles are square in cross section (356 mm x
356 mm). The center-to-center spacing, d,
of the piles is 889 mm. Determine the
allowable load-bearing capacity of the pile
group. Use FS = 4. Note that the
groundwater table coincides with the
ground surface. Qg (u ) = n1n2 9 Ap cu( p ) +  pcu L 
  or

Qg (u ) = Lg Bg cu( p ) N c +  2 ( Lg + Bg ) cu L

96
Solution of Example 1

97
Solution of Example 1

Remark: No good, in
practice should be Qu*

98
Break 99
II.4 Elastic Settlement of Group Piles
In general, the settlement of a group pile under a similar working load per pile increases
with the width of the group and the center-to-center spacing of the piles (d). Several
investigations relating to the settlement of group piles have been reported in the
literature, with widely varying results. The simplest relation for the settlement of group
piles was given by Vesic (1969), namely,

Bg (corresponding to the working load

sg ( e ) = se per pile (= total working load of the
D
group pile divided by the total
number of piles in group)
sg(e) = elastic settlement of group piles
Bg = width of group pile section
D = width or diameter of each pile in the group
se = elastic settlement of each pile at comparable working load

100
II.4 Elastic Settlement of Group Piles
For group piles in sand and gravel using standard penetration test results, for elastic
settlement, Meyerhof (1976) suggested the empirical relation

0.96q Bg
sg ( e ) (mm) = I with q =
Qg (u )
(in kN/m 2 )
N 60 Lg Bg

N60 = average standard penetration number within seat of settlement (around = Bg

deep below the tip of the piles)
Lg and Bg = length and width of the group pile section, respectively (m)
I = influence factor = 1-L/(8Bg) ≥ 0.5
L = length of embedment of piles (m)

Similarly, the group pile settlement is related to the cone penetration resistance by the
formula
qBg
sg ( e ) = I Average cone penetration resistance
2qc within the seat of settlement.

(for clay, we need to calculate consolidation settlement…)

101
II.4 Elastic Settlement of Group Piles
Example 2
Consider a 3x4 group of prestressed concrete piles, each 21 m long, in a sand layer. The
details of each pile and the sand are similar to that described in Example 12. The
working load for the pile group is 6024 kN (3x4xQall —where Qall = 502 kN as in example
12), and d/D = 3. Estimate the elastic settlement of the pile group. Use the equation
Bg
sg ( e ) = se
D
Solution
(Don’t forget: Lg ≥ Bg, so n2 = 3 for Bg)
Bg = ( n2 − 1) d + 2 D 2 = 2  3D + D = 7 D = 7  0.356 = 2.492 m
from the previous example, se =19.69 mm. Hence,
Bg 2.492
sg ( e ) = se =  19.69 = 52.09 mm
D 0.356

102
 II.5 Consolidation Settlement
of Group Piles
The consolidation settlement of a group
pile in clay can be estimated by using
the 2:1 stress distribution method. The
calculation involves 5 steps:

 C  C   +  av 
Sc ( p ) =  s log c + c log 0  Hc
 1 + e0  0 1 + e0  c 

103
Example 3
A group pile in clay is shown in the figure below. Determine the consolidation
settlement of the piles. All clays are normally consolidated.

104
Solution

(attention to this location!)

105
Solution

106
Break 107
Civil Engineering 2020/2021
Subject: Geotechnical Design (CSE40403)

Topic 6 Pile Foundations

III. Bored Pile (Optional)

by Dr. Zhenyu YIN

Office: ZS915, Tel: 3400-8470
Email: zhenyu.yin@polyu.edu.hk
108
 Optional
Main content:

❖ Basic information
❖ Construction Procedures
❖ Estimation of Load-Bearing Capacity
❖ Elastic settlement of Drilled Shafts at Working Load

109
III.1 Basic information
Definition:
We use the term drilled shaft (or Bored Pile) for a hole drilled or excavated to the bottom
of a structure’s foundation and then filled with concrete. Depending on the soil conditions,
casings may be used to prevent the soil around the hole from caving in during construction.
The diameter of the shaft is usually large enough for a person to enter for inspection.

Advantages:
1. A single drilled shaft may be used instead of a group of piles and the pile cap.
2. Constructing drilled shafts in deposits of dense sand and gravel is easier than others.
3. Environment friendly (avoid impact, vibration, noise, displacements during construction).
4. Because the base of pile can be enlarged, it provides great resistance to the uplifting load.
5. The surface of the base of the drilled shaft can be visually inspected.

Drawbacks:
1. The concreting operation may be delayed by bad weather.
2. As in the case of braced cuts, deep excavations for drilled shafts may induce substantial
ground loss and damage to nearby structures.
110
III.1 Basic information
Types of drilled shaft
(a) straight shaft
(b) and (c) belled shaft
(d) straight shaft socketed into rock

111
 III.2 Construction Procedures

(1) Dry Method of Construction

This method is employed in soils and rocks
that are above the water table and that will
not cave in when the hole is drilled to its
full depth.
The sequence of construction:
(a) Initiating drilling: the excavation is
completed (and belled if desired), using
proper drilling tools.
(b) Starting concrete pour: concrete is then
poured into the cylindrical hole.
(c) Placing rebar cage: If desired, a rebar
cage is placed in the upper portion of the
shaft.
(d) Concreting is then completed.

112
III.2 Construction Procedures

(2) Wet Method of Construction

Also referred to as the slurry
displacement method. Slurry is used
to keep the borehole open during
the entire depth of excavation.
The sequence of construction:
(a) Excavation continues to full depth
with slurry.
(b) If reinforcement is required, the
rebar cage is placed in the slurry.
(c) Concrete that will displace the
volume of slurry is then placed in the
drill hole.
(d) Concreting is then completed.

113
 III.2 Construction Procedures

(3) Casing Method of Construction

This method is used in soils or rocks in
which caving or excessive deformation is
likely to occur when the borehole is
excavated.
The sequence of construction:
(a) The excavation procedure is initiated as
in the case of the dry method of
construction.
(b) When the caving soil is encountered,
bentonite slurry is introduced into the
borehole. Drilling is continued until the
excavation goes past the caving soil and a
layer of impermeable soil or rock is
encountered.
(c) A casing is then introduced into the hole.
(d) The slurry is bailed out of the casing
with a submersible pump.
114
 III.2 Construction Procedures

(3) Casing Method of Construction

This method is used in soils or rocks in
which caving or excessive deformation is
likely to occur when the borehole is
excavated.
The sequence of construction:
(e) A smaller drill that can pass through
the casing is introduced into the hole, and
excavation continues.
(f) If needed, the base of the excavated
hole can then be enlarged, using an
underreamer.
(g) If reinforcing steel is needed, the rebar
cage needs to extend the full length of the
excavation. Concrete is then poured into
the excavation and the casing is gradually
pulled out.
(h) The completed drilled shaft.

115
III.2 Construction Procedures
Other Considerations
For an ordinary drilled shafts without casings, a minimum amount of vertical steel
reinforcement is always desirable. Minimum reinforcement is 1% of the gross cross-
sectional area of the shaft. For drilled shafts with nominal reinforcement, most building
codes suggest using a design concrete strength, fc, on the order of f ’c/4. Thus, the
minimum shaft diameter becomes (implied FS = 4 for pile structure)
f c = 0.25 f c
Qw   D =
Ds = diameter of the shaft
Qw Qw Q
fc = =  = 2.257 w f’c = 28-day concrete strength
Ags  D 2 
s
 f c
( 0.25) fc Qw = working load of the drilled shaft
4
s
 4 Ags = gross cross-sectional area of the shaft

Concrete Mix Design

When a reinforcing cage is used, consideration should be given to the ability of the
concrete to flow through the reinforcement. In most cases, a concrete slump of about
15.0 mm is considered satisfactory. Also, the maximum size of the aggregate should be
limited to about 20 mm.

116
III.3 Estimation of Load-Bearing Capacity
(1) General equation of the ultimate load-bearing capacity of a drilled shaft:
Qu = Q p + Qs (B is small compared to the depth)
1
q p = cN c Fcs Fcd Fcc + qN q Fqs Fqd Fqc +  BN  F s F d F c
2 Qp = load-capacity at the base
Qu = Ap ( cN c Fcs Fcd Fcc + qN q Fqs Fqd Fqc ) + Qs
Qs = frictional (skin) resistance

’ = effective unit weight of soil

at the base of the shaft
q’ = effective vertical stress at
the base of the shaft
Ap = area of the base = Db2/4

(a) with bell (b) straight shaft 117

III.3 Estimation of Load-Bearing Capacity
(2) Ultimate load-bearing capacity of a drilled shaft in Granular Soil
❖ Estimation of Qp
(radian)
Fqs = 1 + tan  
Q p = Ap ( cN c Fcs Fcd Fcc + qN q Fqs Fqd Fqc )
Fqd = 1 + C tan −1 ( L Db )
c=0
⎯⎯→ Q p = Ap qN q Fqs Fqd Fqc
with C = 2 tan   (1 − sin   )
2

Q p( net ) = Q p − Ap q  Ap q ( N q − 1) Fqs Fqd Fqc Fqc = complicated

Method of Chen and Kulhawy (1994)

118
III.3 Estimation of Load-Bearing Capacity
(2) Ultimate load-bearing capacity of a drilled shaft in Granular Soil
❖ Estimation of Qp
Method of Chen and Kulhawy (1994)

119
III.3 Estimation of Load-Bearing Capacity
(2) Ultimate load-bearing capacity of a drilled shaft in Granular Soil
❖ Estimation of Qp
Method of Chen and Kulhawy (1994)

120
III.3 Estimation of Load-Bearing Capacity
(degree)
(2) Ultimate load-bearing capacity of a drilled shaft in Granular Soil
❖ Estimation of Qp N q* = 0.21e0.17 
Method of Berezantzev et al. (1961)
Q p( net ) = Ap q ( N q* − 1)

121
III.3 Estimation of Load-Bearing Capacity
(2) Ultimate load-bearing capacity of a drilled shaft in Granular Soil
❖ Estimation of Qs p = shaft perimeter = πDs
f = unit frictional (or skin) resistance = Kσ’otanδ’
Qs =  pfdz K = earth pressure coefficient ≈ Ko = 1-sin’
L1

0
σ’0 = effective vertical stress at any depth z

(increase to a depth of about 15Ds and will

remain constant thereafter)

Qs =  pfdz =  Ds (1 − sin   )   o tan dz

L1 L1

0 0

For cast-in-pile concrete and good construction techniques, a rough interface

develops and, hence,  ’/ ’ = 1. With poor slurry construction,  ’/ ’ ≈ 0.7 to 0.8.

❖ Allowable net load Qall(net)

Q p ( net ) + Qs
Qall(net) =
FS
122
 III.3 Estimation of Load-Bearing Capacity
(2) Ultimate load-bearing capacity of a drilled shaft in Granular Soil
Example 1a: A soil profile is shown in the figure
below. A point bearing drilled shaft with a bell is
placed in a layer of dense sand and gravel. Determine
the allowable load the drilled shaft could carry. Use
the Method of Chen and Kulhawy (1994) and a factor
of safety of 4. Take and For the dense sand layer,
Ignore the frictional resistance of the shaft.
Solution:

123
124
 III.3 Estimation of Load-Bearing Capacity
(2) Ultimate load-bearing capacity of a drilled shaft in Granular Soil
Example 1b: A soil profile is shown in the figure below.
A point bearing drilled shaft with a bell is placed in a
layer of dense sand and gravel. Determine the
allowable load the drilled shaft could carry. Use the
Method of Berezantzev et al. (1961) and a factor of
safety of 4. Take and For the dense sand layer, Ignore
the frictional resistance of the shaft.
Solution:

125
Break 126
III.3 Estimation of Load-Bearing Capacity
(3) Ultimate load-bearing capacity of a drilled shaft in Clay For simplicity
❖ Estimation of Qp cu
 1 then N c* = 9
(
Q p( net )  Ap cN c Fcs Fcd Fcc + q ( N q − 1) Fqs Fqd Fqc ) pa
c=c ,  =0 N =1
⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
u q
→ Q p( net )  Ap cu N c Fcs Fcd Fcc
Approximation to:
Q p( net ) = Ap cu N c*

N c* = 1.33 ( ln I r ) + 1

Soil rigidity index:

Es for clay  s =0.5 Es
Ir = ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ → I =
2 (1 +  s ) q tan   q tan  =cu r
3cu
❖ Estimation of Qs
L = L1
Similar to -method:
Qs =   *cu pL
L =0

Conservatively, * = 0.4
127
III.3 Estimation of Load-Bearing Capacity
(3) Ultimate load-bearing capacity of a drilled shaft in Clay

Example 2: The figure below shows a drilled

shaft without a bell. Determine
a. The net ultimate point bearing capacity L1 = 8.23 m
b. The ultimate skin resistance L2 = 2.59 m
c. The working load (FS=3) Ds = 1.0 m
cu (1) = 50 kN/m 2
Q p( net ) = Ap cu N c*
cu (2) = 108.75 kN/m 2
L = L1
Qs =   *cu pL
L =0

( *
= 0.4 )

128
 L1 = 8.23 m
III.3 Estimation of Load-Bearing Capacity L2 = 2.59 m
Ds = 1.0 m
(3) Ultimate load-bearing capacity of a drilled shaft in Clay cu (1) = 50 kN/m 2
cu (2) = 108.75 kN/m 2
Solution:

129
 III.3 Estimation of Load-Bearing Capacity
(4) Drilled Shafts extending into Rock
Ultimate load-bearing capacity of a drilled shaft in rock:

Qu( net ) = Q p + Qs = q p Ap + fpL

Considering the relationship between

qp and qu by Zhang & Einstein (1998)

Q p ( MN ) = 4.83 ( qu MN/m 2 ) Ap ( m 2 )
0.51

For smooth socket:

Qs ( MN ) = 0.4 ( qu MN/m 2 )  Ds ( m ) L ( m )
0.5

For rough socket:

Qs ( MN ) = 0.8 ( qu MN/m 2 )  Ds ( m ) L ( m )
0.5

(In the field, there are cracks, joints, and

discontinuities in the rock, and the
influence of those factors should be
considered.) Figure. Drilled shaft socketed into rock 130
III.3 Estimation of Load-Bearing Capacity
(4) Drilled Shafts extending into Rock

Example 3: The figure below shows a drilled shaft

extending into a shale formation. For the intact rock
cores, given qu = 4.2 MN/m2. Estimate the allowable
load-bearing capacity of the drilled shaft. Use a factor
of safety FS=3. Assume a smooth socket for side
resistance.

Solution:

131
III.4 Elastic settlement of Drilled Shafts at Working Load
The total settlement of a pile under a vertical working load Qw is given by
Se = Se(1) + Se( 2) + Se( 3)

Se(1) = elastic settlement of pile

Se(2) = settlement of pile caused by the load at the pile tip
Se(3) = settlement of pile caused by the load transmitted along the pile shaft

Se(1) is attributed by “average axial force”

Se(1) =
( Q
wp +  Qws ) L
Ap E p

Se(2) is attributed by “Soil below the pile”

(1 − s2 ) I wp or Se( 2) =
qwp D Qwp C p
Se( 2) =
Es Dq p

Se(3) is attributed by “friction force of pile skin”

Q  D
Se( 3) =  ws  (1 −  s2 ) I ws or Se( 3) = ws s
Q C
 pL  Es Lq p
132
III.4 Elastic settlement of Drilled Shafts at Working Load

Qw = 1005 kN
Example 4: The figure below shows a drilled
shaft without a bell. Estimate the elastic
settlement at the working load. (taking  =
L1 = 8 m
0.65, Ep = 21x106 kN/m2, Es = 14,000 kN/m2,
s = 0.3, Qwp = 250 kN) L2 = 3 m
Ds = 1.5 m

Se(1) =
(Q wp +  Qws ) L cu (1) = 50 kN/m 2
Ap E p cu (2) = 105 kN/m 2
Qwp C p
Se( 2) =
Dq p
Q  D
Se( 3) =  ws  (1 −  s2 ) I ws
 pL  Es

133
 Qw = 1005 kN

Solution:
L1 = 8 m
L2 = 3 m
Ds = 1.5 m
cu (1) = 50 kN/m 2
cu (2) = 105 kN/m 2

 = 0.65
Ep = 21x106 kN/m2
Es = 14,000 kN/m2
s = 0.3
Qwp = 250 kN

134
Break 135
Tutorial A driven closed-ended pile, circular in cross section, is shown in the Figure bleow.
exercise 1 Calculate the following.
a. The ultimate point load using Meyerhof’s procedure.
b. The ultimate point load using Vesic’s procedure. Take Irr = 50.
c. An approximate ultimate point load on the basis of parts (a) and (b).
d. The ultimate frictional resistance Qs. [Use Eqs. (1) through (2), and take K = 1.4
and δ’ = 0.6’.]
e. The allowable load of the pile (use FS = 4).

L = 15 D (1)
f = f z = L ( 2)
f

=381 mm 136
Example 1

137
Solution for Example 1

Part a : Meyerhof s Method

For  = 40 , N q* = 346
2
 0.381 
Q p = Ap qN =     3.05  15.72 + 3.05  (18.24 − 9.81) + 15.24  (19.24 − 9.81)   346  8575 kN
*
q
 2 
Q p = Ap qN q*  Ap ( 0.5 pa N q* tan  ) = Ap ( 0.5 pa N q* tan  )
2
 0.381 
=    ( 0.5  100  346  tan40 )  1655 kN
 2 

Part b : Vesic's method

Q p = Ap q p = Ap m N*
1+2 (1 − sin  ) 
 m =   q
 3 
 1 + 2  (1 − sin40 ) 
=  3.05  15.72 + 3.05  (18.24 − 9.81) + 15.24  (19.24 − 9.81)  = 124.22 kN m 2
 3 
 
From Table 11.7, for   = 40 and I rr = 50 the value of N*  93.225. Hence,
2
 0.381 
Q p = Ap m N =  
*
  124.22  93.225  1320 kN
 2 
138
Solution for Example 1 ’0

1655 + 1320 47.946

Part c : Q p( average ) = = 1487.5 kN
2 z = L’ 70.41

Part d : L = 15 D = 15  0.381 = 5.715 m

at z = 0,  o = 0, f = 0
z
at z = 3.05,  o = 15.72  3.05 = 47.946 kN m 2
f
f = K o tan  = 1.4  ( 47.946 )  tan ( 0.6  32 ) = 23.38
L’ = 15D = 5.715 m
at z = 5.715,  o = 47.946 + ( 5.715 − 3.05 )  (18.24 − 9.81) = 70.41 kN m 2

f = f z = L = K o tan  = 1.4  ( 70.41)  tan ( 0.6  32 ) = 34.33

Qs =  pLf =
( f z =0 + f z =3.05 ) pL + ( f z =3.05 + f z =5.715 ) p
1 ( L − L1 ) +f z =5.715 p ( L − L) z
2 2
0 + 23.38 23.38 + 34.33
=  ( 0.381 )  3.05 +  ( 0.381 )  ( 5.715 − 3.05 )
2 2
+ 34.33  ( 0.381 )  (15.24 + 3.05 + 3.05 − 5.715 ) (Part of constant f, smaller ’ used
for safe design, but not realistic)
= 42.68 + 92.04 + 642.05 = 776.77 kN 139
Solution for Example 1

From part c, Q p( average ) = 1487.5 kN.

From part d, Qs( average ) = 776.77 kN.

Q p( average ) + Qs( average ) 1487.5 + 776.77

Qall = = = 566.1 kN
FS 4
’0 f

47.946 23.38

z = L’ 70.41 34.33
43.89

(Recommended for design

and exam if given!)
z z
(higher ’ gives higher Qs, more realistic!)
f = f z = L = K o tan  = 1.4  ( 70.41)  tan ( 0.6  40 ) = 43.89
f z =5.715 p ( L − L ) = 34.33  ( 0.381 )  ( 3.05 + 3.05 − 5.715 ) + 43.89  ( 0.381 ) 15.24 = 816.96 kN
Qs = 42.68 + 92.04 + 816.96 = 951.68 kN
Qall = 609.8 kN 140
 Tutorials
Exercise 1
A load of 100 kN is carried on a foundation 2 m square at a shallow depth in a soil
mass. The foundation soil has a water table at the top of ground, and a saturated
unit weight of 17 kN/m3.
Please use the rule of ASCE to determine the approximate minimum depth of
boring. (Note: The calculation of stress in soil is simplified by the equation of point
load.) 52
Q 3  1 
 z = 2 I P with I P =  
z 2 1 + ( r z )2  Q
q = Q/(B*L)
(unit weight of water is taken as 10 kN/m3)

1
Solution for Exercise 1
According to the rule of ASCE:
(1) Determine the depth z1 at which D’= 0.1*q (q= net stress on the foundation).
52
Q 3  1 

D z = 2 I P with I P =  
z 2 1 + ( r z )2 
3 Q
 D z = (because of r = 0)
2 z 2
Q Q
q= =
BL 4
3 Q Q z independent of
D z = 0.1q  = 0.1  z = 4.37 m
2 z 2 4 applied load!

(2) Determine the depth z2 at which D’/’0 = 0.05.

 0 = (  sat −  w ) z = 7 z
3 100
D z = 0.05 0  = 0.05  7 z  z = 5.15 m
2 z 2

The approximate minimum depth of boring required is 4.37 m. 2

 Tutorials
Exercise 2
For a Shelby tube, given: outside diameter = 76.2 mm and inside diameter = 73 mm.
What is the area ratio of the tube?
Do2 − Di2
Ar =
Di2

3
Solution for Exercise 2
For a Shelby tube, given: outside diameter = 76.2 mm and inside diameter = 73 mm.
What is the area ratio of the tube?

Do = 76.2 mm
Di = 73 mm
( 76.2 ) − ( 73)
2 2
D −D
2 2
Ar = o
=
i
= 8.96 %
( 73)
2 2
Di

Change the “inside diameter = 73 mm” by “the wall thickness of the tube = 1.63 mm”?

Di = 76.2 − 2  1.63 = 72.94 mm

Do2 − Di2 ( 76.2 ) − ( 72.94 )
2 2

Ar = = = 9.14 %
( 72.94 )
2
Di2

4
 Tutorials
Exercise 3
A soil profile is shown in Figure below along with the standard penetration numbers in
the clay layer. Use the following equations to determine the variation of cu and OCR
with depth. What is the average value of cu and OCR?
0.689
 N 60 
cu = 0.29 N 600.72 pa OCR = 0.193  
 
 0 
= 100 kPa in MPa
Atmospheric pressure

(unit weight of water is taken as 9.8 kN/m3)

Depth (m) N60 σ’0 (kPa) cu (kPa) OCR

3 5
4.5 8
6 8
7.5 9 5
9 10
 Solution for Exercise 3 cu = 0.29 N 600.72 pa

0.689
 N 60 
OCR = 0.193  
 
 0 

When z = 3 m
 0 =  z1 + (  sat −  w )  z2 = 16.5  1.5 + (19 − 9.81)  1.5 = 38.535 kPa
cu = 0.29  ( N 60 )  pa = 0.29  50.72  100 = 92.4 kPa
0.72

0.689
N 
0.689
 5 
OCR = 0.193   60  = 0.193    = 5.5
  0   0.038535 

Depth (m) N60 σ’0 (kPa) cu (kPa) OCR

3 5 38.535 92.4 5.5
4.5 8 49.02 129.6 6.5
6 8 59.505 129.6 5.7
7.5 9 69.99 141.1 5.5
9 10 80.475 152.2 5.4 6
 Tutorials
Exercise 4
The following table gives the variation of the field standard penetration number
(N60) in a sand deposit.
The groundwater table is located at a depth of 12 m. The dry unit weight of sand
from 0 to a depth of 12 m is 17.6 kN/m3. Assume that the mean grain size (d50) of
the sand deposit to be about 0.8 mm. Estimate the variation of the relative density
with depth for sand. Use the following equation.
0.5
 
1.7
0.06    pa
  0.23 +
 N 60   =CN N 60 with CN =
N 60
  0
  D50   1 
Dr (% ) =   

9   0  (pa = 100 kN/m2, D50 in mm,
 p 
  a  stress in kN/m2)

Depth (m) N60 σ’0 (kPa) Dr (%)
1.5 5
3 11
4.5 14
6 18
7.5 16
7
9 21
 0.5
Solution for Exercise 4  
1.7
0.06   
  0.23 +
 N 60 

  D50   1 
Dr (% ) =   
9   0 
When z = 1.5 m 

 p
 a



 0 =  z = 17.6  1.5 = 26.4 kPa
pa 100
CN = = = 1.946
 0 26.4
0.5
 
1.7
0.06     
0.5

1.7
  0.23 +
 N 60  0.06   
   1.946  5   0.23 +   1 
  D 50  1  
Dr (% ) = 
0.8
  =  26.4   = 73.75 %
 0 

9 
 p


9  
  100  
  a  

Depth (m) N60 σ’0 (kPa) Dr (%)
1.5 5 26.4 73.8
3 11 52.8 65.1
4.5 14 79.2 54.1
6 18 105.6 49.5
7.5 16 132 39.5
8
9 21 158.4 39.4
 Tutorials
Exercise 5
In a pressuremeter test in a soft saturated clay, the measuring cell volume V0 = 535
cm3, p0 = 42.4 kN/m2, pf = 326.5 kN/m2, v0 = 46 cm3, and vf = 180 cm3.
Assuming Poisson’s ratio (ms) to be 0.5 and using the Figure below, calculate the
pressuremeter modulus (Ep).

 Dp 
E p = 2 (1 + m s )(Vo + vm )  
 Dv 

9
 Solution for Exercise 5

 Dp 
E p = 2 (1 + m s )(Vo + vm )  
 Dv 

(If a p-V curve is given, you should know definitions

of all key parameters, and estimate their numbers!)

Vo = 535 cm3 = 535  10−6 m3 , po = 42.4 kN/m 2 , p f = 326.5 kN/m 2 ,

vo = 46 cm3 = 46 10−6 m3 , v f = 180 cm3 = 180  10−6 m3 , m s = 0.5

vo + v f
vm = = 113  10−6 m3
2
Dp = p f − po = 284.1 kN/m 2
Dv = v f − vo = 134  10−6 m3

 Dp  −6  284.1 
E p = 2 (1 + m s )(Vo + vm )  
 Dv 
= 2  (1 + 0.5 ) ( 535  10 −6
+ 113  10 )  −6 
 134  10 
= 4121 .57 kN/m 2

10
 Tutorials
Exercise 6
The results of a refraction survey at a site are given in the following table. Please
determine the P-wave velocities and the thickness of the material encountered.

Distance of geophone from Time of first arrival

Time of first arrival, t (sec x 10-3)

the source of disturbance (m) (sec x 10-3)

Distance, x (m)

11
Solution for Exercise 6
Plot the figure:

Chart Title
80
Time of first arrival, t (sec x 10-3)

70
60
Ti2
50
40
30
20
10
0
xc
0 10 20 30 40 50
Distance, x (m)
12
Solution for Exercise 6
Velocity
In the Figure, the times of first arrival of the P waves are plotted against the
distance of the geophone from the source of disturbance. The plot has three
straight-line segments. The velocity of the top three layers can now be calculated as
follows:

Time of first arrival, t (sec x 10-3)

13
 Can’t
Solution for Exercise 6
Thickness of Layers

14
Exercise 1: Estimate the factor of safety of the translational slope Tutorials
below according to an arbitrary slice of soil block.
Force against sliding Shear Strength
(1) Fsf = (2) Fsτ =
Force of sliding Shear stress

(3) If the soil is cohesionless, how will be the FOS.

z
Unit weight: g
shear strength: c’, f’
(water table below
the bedrock)

(1-2) c’ = 20 kPa, f’ = 25o, g = 20 kN/m3, β =17o, z = 4 m, FOS = ?

(3) c’ = 0 kPa, FOS = ?
1
Solution of Exercise 1 Tutorials
b
Force against sliding
(1) Fsf = b
Force of sliding
z T
Fs =
Tf
=
( c +  n tan f )( b cos b )
T g zb sin b Unit weight: g
W N
shear strength: c’, f’
c +  n tan f 
=
g z sin b cos b
N g zb cos b l=b/cosb
 n = = = g z cos 2 b W = g zb (FOS = 1.53)
l b cos b
N = W cos b = g zb cos b (3) Cohesionless soil: c’ = 0
c + g z cos b tan f 
2
T = W sin b = g zb sin b
0 + g z cos 2 b tan f  tan f 
= Fs = =
g z sin b cos b Tf =  f l
g z sin b cos b tan b
(FOS = 2.42)
Test of
repose angle
Shear Strength
(2) Fsτ =
Shear stress

 f  f  fl
Fs = = = = ......
 T l T
2
Exercise 2: The figure below shows a selected slice of soil block Tutorials
above an assumed circular slip surface.
O d
F A’ B’
R
y

b
a
x
Unit weight: g A B
shear strength: c’, f’
a
b
(a) Derive formulations for the driving moment Md and (x1, y’1) (x2, y’2)
resisting moment Mr of the selected slice of soil
(xm, y’m)
block, assuming AB a straight-line.
Given coordinates: O(11,20), F(14,14),and soil properties:
c’ =10 kPa, f’=35⁰, g = 11 kN/m3, z
the given slice
(b) For the slice from AA’(x=22) to BB’(x=24), calculate
the Md and Mr?
(c) For the slice from AA’(x=6) to BB’(x=8), calculate the (x2, y2)
Md and Mr? (x1, y1) (xm, ym)
3
Solution of Exercise 2(a) Tutorials
(a) Derive formulations for the driving O d
moment Md and resisting moment Mr of F A’ B’
the selected slice of soil block, assuming R
AB a straight-line. y

b
a
x
A B

a
b
W = g zb
(x1, y’1) (x2, y’2)
N = W cos a = g zb cos a T
T = W sin a = g zb sin a (xm, y’m)
N W

Tf the given slice

z
 N g zb cos b  T =  f l = ( c +  n tan f  ) b cos a
  n = = = g z cos 2 b  f
 l b cos b  = c b cos a + g zb cos a tan f 
(x2, y2)
M r = T f R = ( c b cos a + g zb cos a tan f  ) R (x1, y1) (xm, ym)
M d = Wd = g zbR sin a ( or M d = TR = g zb sin a R ) 4
Solution of Exercise 2(b) Tutorials
(xc, yc)
Given coordinates: O(11,20), F(14,14),and soil O d
properties: c’ =10 kPa, f’=35⁰, g = 11 kN/m3, F A’ B’
(b) For the slice from AA’(x=22) to BB’(x=24), R
calculate the Md and Mr? y

M r = ( c b cos a + g zb cos a tan f  ) R 45⁰

a
x
M d = g zbR sin a
A B
R = xc2 + yc2 = 112 + 202 = 22.8254 a
b
yi = yc − R − ( xi − xc )
2 2
(x1, y’1) (x2, y’2)

 y1 = 20 − 22.82542 − ( 22 − 11) = 0
2
(xm, y’m)

y2 = 20 − 22.82542 − ( 24 − 11) = 1.24

2

z = ym − ym = 14 − ( 0 + 1.24 ) 2 = 13.38 z

the given slice

b = x2 − x1 = 2
 xm − xc  −1  23 − 11 
a = sin −1   = sin   = 0.55 (= 31.72 )
o

 R   22.8254  (x2, y2)

(xm, ym)
M r = 4538.9 kN  m (x1, y1)

M d = 3532.5 kN  m (plane strain, thickness is 1 m) 5

Solution of Exercise 2(c) Tutorials
d O
Given coordinates: O(11,20), F(14,14),and soil R
properties: c’ =10 kPa, f’=35⁰, g = 11 kN/m3, F
(c) For the slice from AA’(x=6) to BB’(x=8),
calculate the Md and Mr? B’
A’
y
a
x
A B

W = g zb a b
N = W cos a = g zb cos a T
(x2, y’2)
T = W sin a = g zb sin a
W N
(xm, y’m)
(x1, y’1)
Tf
z
 N g zb cos b  T =  f l = ( c +  n tan f  ) b cos a
  n = = = g z cos 2 b  f
 l b cos b  = c b cos a + g zb cos a tan f  (x1, y1)
(xm, ym)

(x2, y2)
M r = T f R = ( c b cos a + g zb cos a tan f  ) R
M d = Wd = g zbR sin a ( or M d = TR = g zb sin a R ) 6
Solution of Exercise 2(c) Tutorials
d O
Given coordinates: O(11,20), F(14,14),and soil R
properties: c’ =10 kPa, f’=35⁰, g = 11 kN/m3, F
(c) For the slice from AA’(x=6) to BB’(x=8),
calculate the Md and Mr? B’
A’
y
M r = ( c b cos a + g zb cos a tan f  ) R a
x
M d = g zbR sin a
A B
R = x + y = 11 + 20 = 22.8254
2 2 2 2
c c
a b
yi = yc − R 2 − ( xi − xc )
2
T (x2, y’2)
 y1 = 20 − 22.82542 − ( 6 − 11) = −2.27
2

W N (xm, y’m)
y2 = 20 − 22.8254 − ( 8 − 11) = −2.63
2 2
(x1, y’1)
At the slope: y = x tan ( 4 ) = x  y1 = 6, y2 = 8
Tf
z = ym − ym = ( 6 + 8 ) 2 − ( −2.27 − 2.63) 2 = 9.45 z
b = x2 − x1 = 2 (x1, y1)
(xm, ym)
x −x  −1  7 − 11 
a = sin  m c
−1
 = sin   = −0.18 (= −10.09 )
o

 R   22.8254  (x2, y2)

M r = 3734.8 kN  m
M d = −831.5 kN  m (plane strain, thickness is 1 m) 7
 Tutorials
LEM – Method of slices (Swedish Method)
(to establish an excel file)
The reservoir is empty and soil of fill is dry
Geometry: H=14 m; A(0;0), F(14;14), O(11,20)

c’=10 kPa
f’=35°
gd=11 kN/m3

x = 22m, 24m
(2) Mr=? Md=?
(1) x = 6m, 8m
Please calculate the resisting moment Mr Mr=? Md=?
and driving moment Md for two given slices.

 − ymi
hi = ymi
(R = x +y
2
c
2
c ) bi = xi +1 − xi
yi = yc − R 2 − ( xi − xc )  xmi − xc 
2

a i = sin −1  
 R  M d i = bi hig sin a i R
yi = xi tan b Average of “i” & “i+1”
li = bi cos a i M r i = ( li c + bi hig cos a i tan f  ) R

93
 Tutorials
LEM – Method of slices (Swedish Method)
(to establish an excel file)

Geometry: H=14 m; A(0;0), F(14;14), O(11,20)

c’=10 kPa
f’=35°
gd=11 kN/m3

x = 22m, 24m
x = 6m, 8m Mr=? Md=?
(a) The reservoir is empty and soil of fill is dry? Mr=? Md=?

M resistance  ( li c + bi hig cos a i tan f ) R

Fs =
M driving
=
 bi hig sin ai R (g = g d )
The solution using Excel :

94
 Tutorials
LEM – Method of slices (Swedish Method)

Geometry: H=14 m; A(0;0), F(14;14), O(11,20)

c’=10 kPa, f’=35°

gd=11 kN/m3

(b) In use, the reservoir is full of water? gsat=20 kN/m3

M resistance  ( li c + bi hig cos a i tan f ) R

Fs = = (g = g  = g sat − g w )
M driving  bi hig sin ai R

96
 Tutorials
LEM – Method of slices (Swedish Method)

Geometry: H=14 m; A(0;0), F(14;14), O(11,20)

c’=10 kPa, f’=35°

gd=11 kN/m3

(c) In the case of rapid emptying? gsat=20 kN/m3

(g = g  = g sat − g w ) (if the soil is clay,

we need to use cu)
M resistance  ( li c + bi hig cos a i tan f ) R
Fs = =
M driving  bi hig sin ai R
(g = g sat ) 97
 Tutorials
LEM – Bishop Method
O di
Swedish method of slices
(xc,yc) rR
B (xf,yf)
 ( l c + b h g cos a tan f ) bi
Rr
Fm = i i i i

 b h g sin ai i i (xmi,y’mi)

hi
Wi
A
(0,0) li
a+ - ai
Sm

(xmi,ymi) N

Modified Method of slices: Bishop method = bi hig − g w hi bi = g bi hi

Fm ,bishop =
 ( cl + N  tan f ) R =  cl cos a + (W − u l cos a ) tan f 
i i i i i i i i ma
W sin a Ri i W sin a
i i
bi = li cos a i
tan f  sin a i  tan f  tan a i 
with ma = cos a i + = cos a i 1 +  Wi = bi hig
Fm  F m 
ui li = g w hi bi sec a i

98
 Tutorials
LEM – Method of slices (from Swedish to Bishop)

Geometry: H=14 m; A(0;0), F(14;14), O(11,20)

c’=10 kPa, f’=35°

gd=11 kN/m3
gsat=20 kN/m3

(d) In the case of rapid emptying, FS of Bishop method?

 ( cl + N  tan f ) R  cl cos a + (W − u l cos a ) tan f  ma

= =
i i i i i i i i
Fm ,bishop
 W sin
i a R i W sin ai i
bi = li cos a i
tan f  sin a i  tan f  tan a i 
with ma = cos a i + = cos a i 1 +  Wi = bi hig
Fm  F m 
ui li = g w hi bi sec a i

99
 Tutorials
LEM – Method of slices (Swedish Method)

Geometry: H=14 m; A(0;0), F(14;14), O(11,20)

c’=10 kPa, f’=35°

gd=11 kN/m3
gsat=20 kN/m3

(e) For the last case of rapid emptying, please try to find the minimum value of Fs of
Bishop for the rotation center within the domain of (-5, 15), (5, 15), (-5, 25), (5, 25)
using the grid-point method. (online teaching tool is allowed)

(f) If the FOS is smaller than 1.1, please state possible design modifications for the slope.

Assignment 2:
A final report needed for all questions from (a) to (f).
Deadline for submitting report: 12th March 2021.
100
Exercise 1 For the following cases, determine the allowable gross vertical load-bearing
capacity of the foundation. Use Terzaghi’s equation and assume general shear
failure in soil. Use FS = 4 (based on gross..).
Part B Df 𝜙′ 𝒄′ γ Foundation type
a. 1.22 m 0.91 m 25° 28.75 kN/m2 17.29 kN/m3 Continuous
b. 2m 1m 30° 0 17 kN/m3 Continuous
c. 3m 2m 30° 0 16.5 kN/m3 Square
Part a: qall = 252.6 kN/m2
Part b: qall = 176.8 kN/m2
Part c: qall = 280.0 kN/m2

Qall = ?

Terzaghi's bearing capacity equations :

1
qu = cN c + qN q +  BN
2
qu = 1.3cN c + qN q + 0.4 BN
qu = 1.3cN c + qN q + 0.3 BN
Exercise 1 For the following cases, determine the allowable gross vertical load-bearing
capacity of the foundation. Use Terzaghi’s equation and assume general shear
failure in soil. Use FS = 4. Part B D f γ Foundation type
a. 1.22 m 0.91 m 25 28.75 kN/m2 17.29 kN/m3 Continuous
b. 2m 1m 30 0 17 kN/m3 Continuous
Part a c. 3m 2m 30 0 16.5 kN/m3 Square

From the equation :

1
qu = cN c + qN q +  BN
2
From the Table, when   = 25 ,
N c = 25.13
N q = 12.72
N = 8.34
Thus :
1
qu = 28.75  25.13 + ( 0.91 17.29 )  12.72 +  17.29  1.22  8.34
2
= 1010.58 kN m 2
q 1010.58
qall = u = = 252.6 kN m 2
FS 4
Qall = qallB*1 =
Exercise 1 For the following cases, determine the allowable gross vertical load-bearing
capacity of the foundation. Use Terzaghi’s equation and assume general shear
failure in soil. Use FS = 4. Part B D f γ Foundation type
a. 1.22 m 0.91 m 25 28.75 kN/m2 17.29 kN/m3 Continuous
b. 2m 1m 30 0 17 kN/m3 Continuous
c. 3m 2m 30 0 16.5 kN/m3 Square
Part b
From the equation :
1
qu = cN c + qN q +  BN
2
From the Table, when   = 30 ,
N c = 37.16
N q = 22.46
N = 19.13
Thus :
1
qu = 0  37.16 + (1 17 )  22.46 +  17  2  19.13
2
= 707.03 kN m 2
q 707.03
qall = u = = 176.8 kN m 2
FS 4 Q = q B*1 = all all
Exercise 1 For the following cases, determine the allowable gross vertical load-bearing
capacity of the foundation. Use Terzaghi’s equation and assume general shear
failure in soil. Use FS = 4. Part B D f γ Foundation type
a. 1.22 m 0.91 m 25 28.75 kN/m2 17.29 kN/m3 Continuous
b. 2m 1m 30 0 17 kN/m3 Continuous
c. 3m 2m 30 0 16.5 kN/m3 Square

Part c
From the equation :
qu = 1.3cN c + qN q + 0.4 BN
From the Table, when   = 30 ,
N c = 37.16
N q = 22.46
N = 19.13
Thus :
qu = 1.3  0  37.16 + ( 2  16.5 )  22.46 + 0.4  16.5  3  19.13
= 1119.95 kN m 2
q 1119.95
qall = u = = 280.0 kN m 2
FS 4
Qall = qallB2 =
Exercise 2 A square column foundation has to carry a gross allowable
′
load of 1805 kN (FS = 3,
′
based on gross..). Given: Df = 1.5 m, γ = 15.9 kN/m3, 𝜙 = 34°, and 𝑐 = 0. Use
Terzaghi’s equation to determine the size of the foundation (B). Assume general
shear failure. B = 2.0 m

Terzaghi's bearing capacity equations :

1
qu = cN c + qN q +  BN
2
qu = 1.3cN c + qN q + 0.4 BN
qu = 1.3cN c + qN q + 0.3 BN
Exercise 2 A square column foundation has to carry a gross allowable′ load of 1805′ kN (FS =
3 , based on gross..). Given: Df = 1.5 m, γ = 15.9 kN/m3, 𝜙 = 34°, and 𝑐 = 0. Use
Terzaghi’s equation to determine the size of the foundation (B). Assume general
shear failure.
From the Table, when   = 34 ,
N c = 52.64
N q = 36.5
N = 38.04
We have :
q Q 1805 5415
FS = u  qu = all  FS =  3 = 2 kN m 2
qall B B B B B
From the equation :
qu = 1.3cN c + qN q + 0.4 BN (q =  D )f

= 1.3  0  52.64 + (1.5  15.9 )  36.5 + 0.4  15.9  B  38.04

= 870.53 + 241.93B
Combine the two equations :
5415
= 870.53 + 241.93B
B2
by trial and error, B = 2.0 m
Exercise 3 For a square foundation that is B×B′ in plan, D′ f = 2 m; vertical net allowable load,
Qall(net) = 3330 kN, γ = 16.5 kN/m3; 𝜙 = 30°, 𝑐 = 0; and FS=4 (based on net..).
Determine the size of the foundation using Terzaghi′s bearing capacity
equations (a) assuming general shear failure? (b) assuming local shear failure?.
B = 3.42 m
B = 5.75 m

Terzaghi's bearing capacity equations :

1
qu = cN c + qN q +  BN
2
qu = 1.3cN c + qN q + 0.4 BN
qu = 1.3cN c + qN q + 0.3 BN
Exercise 3 For a square foundation that is B×B′ in plan, D′ f = 2 m; vertical net allowable load,
Qall(net) = 3330 kN, γ = 16.5 kN/m3; 𝜙 = 30°, 𝑐 = 0; and FS=4 (based on net..).
Determine the size of the foundation using Terzaghi′s bearing capacity
equations (a) assuming general shear failure? (b) assuming local shear failure?
(a) From the Table, when   = 30 ,
N c = 37.16
N q = 22.46
N = 19.13
We have :
q Q 3330 13320
FS = u (net)  qu (net) = all(net)  FS = 4 = kN m 2
qall(net) B B BB B 2

From the equation :

qu = 1.3cN c + qN q + 0.4 BN
= 1.3  0  37.16 + ( 2  16.5 )  22.46 + 0.4  16.5  B  19.13
= 741.18 + 126.258 B
Combine the two equations :
qu (net) = qu − q
13320
 = 741.18 + 126.258 B − 2  16.5
B2
by trial and error, B = 3.42 m
Exercise 3 For a square foundation that is B×B′ in plan, D′ f = 2 m; vertical net allowable load,
Qall(net) = 3330 kN, γ = 16.5 kN/m3; 𝜙 = 30°, 𝑐 = 0; and FS=4 (based on net..).
Determine the size of the foundation using Terzaghi′s bearing capacity
equations (a) assuming general shear failure? (b) assuming local shear failure?
(b)
  = tan −1 ( 23 tan  ) = 21.05
From the Table,
N c = 18.92; N q = 8.26; N  = 4.31
We have :
Q 3330 13320
qu (net) = all(net)  FS = 4 = kN m 2

B B BB B2
From the equation :
2
qu =  1.3cN c + qN q + 0.4 BN
3
2
=  1.3  0  18.92 + ( 2  16.5 )  8.26 + 0.4  16.5  B  4.31
3
= 272.58 + 28.446 B
Combine the two equations :
13320
qu (net) = qu − q  = 272.58 + 28.446 B − 2  16.5
B2
B = 5.75 m
Exercise 4 A′column foundation (see Figure) is 3 m × 2 m in plan. Given: Df = 1.5 m, 𝜙 ′ = 25°,
𝑐 = 70 kN/m2. Using Terzaghi′s bearing capacity equations assuming general
shear failure and FS = 3 (based on net..), determine the net allowable load the
foundation could carry. (w = 9.81 kN/m3) Q = 5240.87 kN
net

Terzaghi's bearing capacity equations :

1
qu = cN c + qN q +  BN
2
qu = 1.3cN c + qN q + 0.4 BN
qu = 1.3cN c + qN q + 0.3 BN
qu − q
qall ( net ) =
FS
Exercise 4 A′column foundation (see Figure) is 3 m × 2 m in plan. Given: Df = 1.5 m, 𝜙 ′ = 25°,
𝑐 = 70 kN/m2. Using Terzaghi′s bearing capacity equations assuming general
shear failure and FS = 3 (based on net..), determine the net allowable load the
foundation could carry.

2 BL 2  2  3
B = = = 2.4 m
B+L 2+3
q = D1 + D2 (  sat −  w ) = 1 17 + (1.5 − 1)  (19.5 − 9.81) = 21.845kN m 2
From the equation :
qu = 1.3cN c + qN q + 0.4 B* N 
From the Table, when   = 25 ,
N c = 25.13
N q = 12.72
N = 8.34
Thus :
qu = 1.3  70  25.13 + 21.845  12.72 + 0.4  (19.5 − 9.81)  2.4  8.34
= 2642.28kN m 2
qu − q ( 2642.28 − 21.845 )
qall ( net ) = = = 873.48 kN m 2
FS 3
Qnet = qall ( net ) BL = 880.76  2  3 = 5240.87 kN
Exercise 5 An eccentrically loaded foundation is shown in the Figure. Use FS of 4 (based on
gross..) and determine the maximum allowable load that the foundation can carry.
Use Meyerhof’s effective area method.

Effective Area Method (Meyerhoff, 1953) : Q = 378 kN

1
qu = cN c Fcs Fcd Fci + qN q Fqs Fqd Fqi +  BN  F s F d F i
2
Exercise 5 An eccentrically loaded foundation is shown in Figure P3.8. Use FS of 4 (based on
gross..) and determine the maximum allowable load that the foundation can carry.
Use Meyerhof’s effective area method.

e/B = 0.1/1.5 = 1/15 < 1/6, OK!

B = B − 2e = 1.5 − 2  0.1 = 1.3 m

From the Table, when   = 32 ,N c = 35.49,N q = 23.18,N  = 30.22.
Since the load is vertical, Fqi = F i = 1.
 B   N  1.3 23.18
Fcs = 1 +    q  = 1 +  = 1.566

 L   Nc  1.5 35.49
 B  1.3
Fqs = 1 +   tan  = 1 +  tan32 = 1.542
 L  1.5
 B  1.3
F s = 1 − 0.4   = 1 − 0.4  = 0.653

L  1.5
Df
 1, for    0
B
2 D   0.8 
Fqd = 1 + 2tan  (1 − sin  )  f  = 1 + 2  tan32  (1 − sin32 )
2
 
 B   1.5 
= 1.147
Exercise 5 An eccentrically loaded foundation is shown in Figure P3.8. Use FS of 4 (based on
gross..) and determine the maximum allowable load that the foundation can carry.
Use Meyerhof’s effective area method.

F d = 1
Thus :
qu = (17  0.8 )  23.18  1.542  1.147  1
+ 0.5  17  1.3  30.22  0.653  1
= 775.63kN m 2
Qult = qu BL = 775.63  1.3  1.5  1512 kN
Qult 1512
Qall = = = 378 kN
FS 4
Exercise 1
Refer to the Figure below. Using the equations outlined below, determine the average
stress increase in the clay layer below the center of the foundation due to the net
foundation load of 900 kN Δσ’ =68.60 kN/m2 av
 H 2 I a( H 2 ) − H1I a( H1 )  (Attention: this equation
 ( H H ) = qo 
 av  is based on corner…)
2 1
 H 2 − H1 
B L
m2 = ; n2 =
H H
general, can be H1 or H2

Clay

(for ’av, Elastic integration method)

1
Solution for Exercise 1

P 900
qo = = = 268.74 kN m 2
A 1.83  1.83
 H 2 I a( H 2 ) − H1I a( H1 )   4.27  I a( H 2 ) − 1.22  I a( H1 ) 
 (H
For 1 / 4 of footing :  av H1 )
= qo   = 268.74  
2
 H 2 − H 1   3 . 05 
For I a( H1 ) and I a( H 2 ) :

B1 1.83 2
m2(1) = n2(1) = = = 0.75
H1 1.22

B1 1.83 2
m2( 2) = n2( 2 ) = = = 0.214
H2 4.27

Reffering to Griffiths' influence factor I a

Clay
I a (H1 ) = 0.201 I a (H 2 ) = 0.103

 (H  4.27  0.103 − 1.22  0.201 

 av H1 )
= 268.74    = 17 .15kN m 2
2
 3.05

 (H
For whole footing : 4 av H1 )
= 4  17.15 = 68.60 kN m 2
2

2
 Exercise 1
Refer to the Figure below. Using the equations outlined below, determine the average
stress increase in the clay layer below the center of the foundation due to the net
foundation load of 900 kN Δσ =68.60 kN/m2
av
 H 2 I a( H 2 ) − H1I a( H1 ) 
 ( H H ) = qo 
 av 
2 1
 H 2 − H 1 
B L
m2 = ; n2 =
H H

Can also be solved by the simplest way (2:1):

qo  B  L
  =  = (  t + 4 m +  b ) 6
,  av
( B + z )( L + z )

268.74  1.83  1.83 Clay

 t = =96.75
(1.83 + 1 .22 ) (
 1 .83 + 1 .22 )
268.74  1.83  1.83
 m = =43
(1.83 + 1 .22 + 3 .05 / 2 ) (
 1 .83 + 1 .22 + 3 .05 / 2 )
268.74  1.83  1.83
 b = =24.19
(1.83 + 1.22 + 3.05 )  (1.83 + 1.22 + 3.05 )
 = (  t + 4 m +  b ) 6 = ( 96.75 + 4  43+24.19 ) 6 = 48.8
 av
3
Exercise 2
Figure shows an embankment load on a silty clay soil layer. Determine the stress increase
at points A, B, and C, which are located at a depth of 5 m below the ground surface.

qo  B1 + B2  B1  A: Δσ’ = 160.48 kN/m2


 =   (  1 +  2 ) − ( 2 )     = qo I  B: Δσ’ = 153.51 kN/m2
  B2  B2 
C: Δσ’ = 14.45 kN/m2
qo =  H (H: Height of embankment cut section at the located point)
 B1 + B2  −1  B1 
1 = tan −1   − tan  
 z   z 
B 
 2 = tan −1  1 
 z 

(V: vertical length,

H: horizontal length)

4
Solution for Exercise 2

qo =  H = 17  10 = 170kN m 2

1) Stress increase at A
B1 = 3 m; B2 = 10  2 = 20 m.

B1 3 B2 20
= = 0.6 and = =4
z 5 z 5
I  = 0.472
  =  (1) + (2)

(
= qo I (left side ) + I (right side ) )
= 2  170  0.472 = 160.48 kN m 2

5
Solution for Exercise 2

2) Stress increase at B
At left side, B1 = 0 m; B2 = 20 m.

B1 0 B2 20
= =0 and = =4
z 5 z 5
I (left side ) = 0.415

 (1) =qo I (left side ) =170  0.415 = 70.55 kN m 2

At right side, B1 = 6 m; B2 = 10  2 = 20 m.

B1 6 B2 20
= = 1.2 and = =4
z 5 z 5
I (right side ) = 0.488

 (2) =qo I (right side ) =170  0.488 = 82.96 kN m 2

  =  (1) + (2) = 70.55 + 82.96 = 153.51 kN m 2

6
Solution for Exercise 2

3) Stress increase at C
At middle section, B1 = 26 m; B2 = 20 m.

B1 20 + 6 B2 20
= = 5.2 and = =4
z 5 z 5
I  = 0.5

 (1) =qo I =170  0.5 = 85 kN m 2

For the left side, B1 = 0 m; B2 = 20 m.

B1 0 B2 20
= =0 and = =4
z 5 z 5
I (extra ) = 0.415

 (2) =qo I (extra ) =170  0.415 = 70.55 kN m 2

  =  (1) −  (2) = 85 − 70.55 = 14.45 kN m 2

7
Exercise 3
The figure below shows a foundation of 3.05 m × 1.91 m resting on a sand deposit. The
net load per unit area at the level of the foundation, qo, is 144 kN/m2. For the sand, μs =
0.3, Es = 22,080 kN/m2, Df = 0.76 m and H = 9.76 m. Assume that the foundation is rigid,
and determine the elastic settlement the foundation would undergo. S = 10.9 mm
e
1−  2
Se = qo ( B ) s
IsI f
Es
L H
m = ; n =
B B
  (H = 0~5B is only considered
2
for averaging Es)
1 − 2s
I s = F1 + F2
1 − s
Se( rigid )  0.93Se( flexible,center )
(not perfect rigid, but close to rigid)

 = factor depending on location for settlement

B L H
At "center":  = 4, B = , m = , n =
2 B ( B / 2)
L H
At "corner":  = 1, B = B , m = , n = 8
B B
Exercise 3

9
Exercise 3

10
Solution for Exercise 3
1.91
B = = 0.955 m;  = 4;
2
L 3.05
m = = = 1.60
B 1.91
H 9.76
n = = = 10.22
 B  1.91
 
2 2

F1 = 0.597; F2 = 0.025;

1 − 2s 1 − 2  0.3
I s = F1 + F2 = 0.597 +  0.025 = 0.611
1 − s 1 − 0.3

Df 0.76 B 1.91
= = 0.4; = = 0.626
B 1.91 L 3.05
I f is located in 0.81 ~ 0.86

0.625 − 0.5
If =  ( 0.81 − 0.86 ) + 0.86 = 0.8475
1 − 0.5
1 −  s2 1 − 0.32
Se( flexible,center ) = qo ( B ) I s I f = 144  ( 4  0.955 )   0.611 0.8475
Es 22080

= 0.0117 m = 11.7 mm
Se( rigid )  0.93Se( flexible,center ) = 0.93  11.7 = 10.9 mm 11
 Exercise 4
A square column foundation is shown in following figure. Determine the average increase
of pressure in the clay layer below the center of the foundation:
(a) by using elastic theory (for ’av, elastic simplified method)
(b) by using the 2:1 method (for ’av, 2:1 simplified method)
(c) Estimate the 1-D consolidation settlement of the clay layer using the results (a)
(d) Assume that the primary consolidation settlement is completed in 5 years. Also let
Cα=0.003. Estimate the secondary consolidation settlement at the end of 12 years.
  = 4qo  I or =qo  I c ( elastic theory )
(same as ex.1)
qo  B  L
  = (2 : 1 method)
( B + z )( L + z )
 = (  t + 4 m +  b ) 6
 av

Cs H c  C H   +  av
Sc( p ) = log c + c c log o
1 + eo  o 1 + eo  c
Sc    +  av
e = (1 + eo ) ; e = Cs log c + Cc log o
Hc  o  c
C H c t
Sc( s ) = log 2
1 + ep t1 12
Exercise 4

13
Exercise 4

14
Exercise 4

15
 Solution for Exercise 4

(a - b) qo = 900 (1.83  1.83) = 268.74 kPa

  = 4qo  I ( elastic theory )
qo  B  L
  = (2 : 1 method)
( B + z )( L + z )
 = (  t + 4 m +  b ) 6
 av

Δσ′ (elastic Δσ′ (2:1

z (m) m = n (B/2/z) I
theory) method)
1.22 0.75 0.1372 147.49 96.75
2.745 0.33 0.0447 48.05 43.00
4.27 0.21 0.0204 21.93 24.19
𝛥𝜎 ′ 𝑡 + 4𝛥𝜎 ′ 𝑚 + 𝛥𝜎 ′ 𝑏 Τ6 60.27 kPa 48.82 kPa

(c) Pre-consolidation pressure, σ′𝑐 =100 kPa

 o = 1.52  15.7 + 1.22  (19.24 − 9.81) + ( 3.05 2 )  (19.24 − 9.81) = 49.75 kPa   c
 o +  av = 49.75 + 60.27 = 110.02   c
Hence, the clay is overconsolidated at first, then become normally consolidated at final.

16
Solution for Exercise 4

Cs H c  C H   +  av
Sc( p ) = log c + c c log o
1 + eo  o 1 + eo  c
0.06  3050 100 0.25  3050 110.02
= log + log
1 + 0.68 49.75 1 + 0.68 100
= 52.17 mm
17
 Solution for Exercise 4

(d) Cα=0.003
The change of void ratio of clay during primary consolidation, Δe
Sc 52.17
e = (1 + eo ) = (1 + 0.68 ) = 0.0287
Hc 3050
   +  av
or for this case, e = Cs log c + Cc log o
 o  c

Assume that the primary consolidation settlement is completed in 5 years

So the void ratio after 5 yrs, ep = eo - Δe = 0.68-0.0287 = 0.6513
The secondary (creep) settlement,

C H c t 0.003  3050 12
Sc( sec ondary ) = log 2 = log = 2.11 mm
1 + ep t1 1 + 0.6513 5

18
 Exercise 1
The figure below shows a cantilever sheet pile wall penetrating a granular soil. Here, L1 = 2 m,
L2 = 3 m,  = 15.9 kN/m3, sat = 19.33 kN/m3, and f’ = 32°.
(a) What is the theoretical depth of embedment, D?
(b) For a 30% increase in D, what should be the total length of the sheet piles?
(c) What should be the minimum section modulus of the sheet piles? Use all = 172 MN/m2.

Pressure and moment distribution diagram

14
Solution

Part a
Using the Figure of the pressure
distribution diagram, one can now
prepare the following table for a
step-by-step calculation.

15
Solution
Part b
The total length of the sheet pile is

Part c
Finally, we have the following table:

16
Tutorial Figure below shows a cantilever sheet pile wall penetrating a granular soil. Here,
Exercise 1 L1 = 4 m, L2 = 8 m,  = 16.1 kN/m3, sat = 18.2 kN/m3, and f’= 32°
a. What is the theoretical depth of embedment, D?
b. For a 30% increase in D, what should be the total length of the sheet piles?
c. Determine the theoretical maximum moment of the sheet pile.

 f   f  ME
K a = tan 2  45 −  ; K p = tan 2  45 +  ; z =
 2  2 P

 5 = (  L1 +  L2 ) K p +  L3 ( K p − K a )

 5 8P
A1 = ; A2 =
 ( K p − Ka )  ( K p − Ka )

6 P  2 z   ( K p − K a ) +  5  P ( 6z  5 + 4P )
A3 = ; A4 =
 2 ( K p − K a )  2 ( K p − K a )
2 2

L44 + A1L34 − A2 L24 − A3 L4 − A4 = 0

Dtheory = L3 + L4

2P
z =
 ( K p − Ka )

1  z
M max = P ( z + z ) −   z2 ( K p − K a ) 
2 3
 Tutorials
Exercise 2
In the figure below, for the sheet pile wall penetrating into saturated clay, determine
(a) The theoretical and actual depth of penetration, using Dactual = 1.5Dtheory.
(b) The minimum size of sheet pile section necessary, using all = 172.5 MN/m2.

25
Solution

26
Solution

27
Tutorial Refer to Figure below, for which L1 = 2.4 m, L2 = 4.6 m,  = 15.7 kN/m3, sat = 17.3
Exercise 2 kN/m3 and f’= 30°for sand, and c = 29 kN/m2 for clay.
a. What is the theoretical depth of embedment, D?
b. Increase D by 40%. What length of sheet piles is needed?
c. Determine the theoretical maximum moment in the sheet pile.

 f  ME
K a = tan 2  45 −  ; z =
 2 P

P1 ( P1 + 12cz1 )
D 2  4c − (  L1 +  L2 )  − 2 DP1 − =0
( L1 +  L2 ) + 2c
P1
z =
6

D  4c − (  L1 +  L2 )  − P1
L4 =
4c
 6 z 2
M max = P1 ( z + z1 ) −
2
Exercise 1 Refer to the braced cut shown in the figure below. Given: g = 16 kN/m3, f’=
38°and c’ = 0. The struts are located at 3.5 m center-to-center in the plan. Draw
the earth-pressure envelope and determine the strut loads at levels A, B, and C.

 f 
K a = tan 2  45 − 
 2
 a = 0.65g HK a
M B1 = 0; M B2 =0
Strut load = reactions  horizontal spacing
Solution for Exercise 1

 f   38 
K a = tan 2  45 −  = tan 2  45 −  = 0.238
 2  2 
 a = 0.65g HK a = 0.65  16  (1 + 2.5 + 3 + 1.5 )  0.238 = 19.79 kN m 2
M B1 =0
 1 + 2.5 
19.79  (1 + 2.5 )  
A=  2 
= 48.49 kN m
2.5
B1 = 19.79  (1 + 2.5 ) − 48.49 = 20.78kN m
M B2 =0
 3 + 1.5 
19.79  ( 3 + 1.5 )  
C=  2 
= 66.80 kN m
3
B2 = 19.79  ( 3 + 1.5 ) − 66.80 = 22.27 kN m
The strut loads are
At A, 48.49  ( spacing ) = 48.49  3.5 = 169.71 kN
At B, ( B1 + B2 )  ( spacing ) = ( 20.78 + 22.27 )  3.5 = 150.67 kN
At C , 66.80  ( spacing ) = 66.80  3.5 = 233.79 kN
Exercise 2 Refer to the figure below. For the braced cut, given: H = 6 m, Hs = 2.5 m; gs = 16.5
kN/m3; angle of friction of sand f’s = 35°; Hc = 3.5 m, gc = 19.2 kN/m3 and
unconfined compression strength of clay layer, qu = 62 kN/m2.
a. Estimate the average cohesion (cav) and average unit weight (gav) for the
construction of the earth-pressure envelope.
b. Plot the earth-pressure envelope.

1
cav = g s K s H s2 tanfs + ( H − H s ) nqu 
2H
K s : a lateral earth pressure coefficient for the sand layer (  1)
 ranging from 0.5 to 1.0, 
n: a coefficient of progressive failure  
 average value 0.75 
1
g av = g s H s + ( H − H s ) g c 
H
gH    4c   
 4:  a = max g H 1 −   , 0 .3g H 
c    g H  
gH
 4:  a = 0.3g H
c
Solution for Exercise 2

Part a:
1
cav = g s K s H s2 tanfs + ( H − H s ) nqu 
2H
 16.5  1 2.52  tan ( 35 ) + ( 6 − 2.5 )  0.75  62 
1
=
26
= 19.58kN m3
1 1
g av = g s H s + ( H − H s ) g c  =  16.5  2.5 + ( 6 − 2.5 )  19.2 
H 6
= 18.075kN m3
Part b:
g av H 18.075  6
= = 5.54  4
cav 19.58
   4c  
 a = max g H 1 −   , 0 .3g H 
  gH  
  4c     4  19.58  
 a = g H 1 −    = 18.075  6  1 −    = 30 .13kN m 2

  g H    18.075  6  
 a = 0.3g H = 0.3  18.075  6 = 32.54 kN m3
Thus,
 a = 32.54 kN m3
Exercise 3 Refer to the figure below. Given: g = 17.5 kN/m3, c = 30 kN/m2. and center-to-
center spacing of struts in the plan = 5 m. Draw the earth-pressure envelope and
determine the strut loads at levels A, B, and C.
gH    4c  
 4:  a = max g H 1 −   , 0 .3g H 
c   gH  
gH
 4:  a = 0.3g H
c
 M B1 = 0;  M B2 = 0
Strut load = reactions  horizontal spacing

gH gH
4 4
c c
Solution for Exercise 3

1m
=1.75 m
A

Part a:

3m
H = 1+ 3 + 2 +1 = 7 m
g H 17.5  7 B
= = 4.08  4 =5.25 m
c 30

2m
   4c   
 a = max g H 1 −    , 0 .3g H  C
   g H  

1m
  4c     4  30  
 a = g H 1 −    = 17.5  7  1−    = 2.5kN m
2

  g H    17.5  7  
 a = 0.3g H = 0.3  17.5  7 = 36.75kN m 3
Thus
 a = 36.75kN m3
Part b:
To calculate the strut loads, taking the moment about B1 , we have  M B1 = 0, and
1  0.25 H   1 + 3 − 0.25 H 
A ( 3) −  36.75  0.25 H  1 + 3 − 0.25 H +  − (1 + 3 − 0 .25 H )  36 .75   
2  3   2 
1  2   4 − 0.25  7 
3 A =  36.75  0.25  7   4 −  0.25  7  + ( 4 − 0.25  7 )  36.75   
2  3   2 
A = 61.38kN m
Solution for Exercise 3

1m
=1.75 m
A
Also,  horizontal forces = 0. Thus,

3m
1
 36.75  0.25 H + 36.75  (1 + 3 − 0.25 H ) = A + B1
2 B
1 =5.25 m
 36.75  0.25  7 + 36.75  (1 + 3 − 0.25  7 ) = 61.38 + B1

2m
2
B1 = 53.46 kN m C
Taking the moment about B2 , we have  M B2 = 0, and

1m
1+ 2 
C ( 2 ) − (1 + 2 )  36.75     2C = 3  36.75  1.5
 2 
C = 82.69 kN m
Also,  horizontal forces = 0. Thus,
36.75  (1 + 2 ) = C + B2
36.75  (1 + 2 ) = 82.69 + B2
B2 = 27.56 kN m
Thus
At A, PA = 61.38  ( spacing ) = 61.38  5 = 306.9 kN
At B, PB = ( B1 + B2 )  ( spacing ) = ( 53.46 + 27.56 )  5 = 405.1 kN
At C , PC = 82.69  ( spacing ) = 82.69  5 = 413.45 kN
Exercise 4 Determine the sheet-pile section modulus for the braced cut described in Exercise
3. Use σall = 170 MN/m2

M max
S=
 all

gH gH
4 4
c c
Solution for Exercise 4

1m

1m
=1.75 m
Part a A
For the maximum moment, the shear

3m
force should be zero. The location of
point E and F can be given as B
=5.25 m

2m
x
53.46 C
B1 −  a x = 0  x = = 1.45 m;

1m
36.75
27.56
B2 −  a y = 0  y = = 0.75 m
36.75 y
Also,
1  36.75   1 
Magnitude of moment at A =  1   1   
2  1.75  3
= 3.5kN  m meter of wall

1m
and
x 1.45
Magnitude of moment at E = B1 x −  a x = 53.46  1.45 − 36.75  1.45 
2 2
= 38.88kN  m meter of wall
1
Magnitude of moment at C = 36.75  1   = 18.375kN  m meter of wall
2
y 0.75
Magnitude of moment at F = B2 y −  a y = 27.56  0.75 − 36.75  0.75 
2 2
= 10.33kN  m meter of wall
Solution for Exercise 4
Hence, the maximum moment is 38.88 kN·m/meter of wall.
The section modulus of the sheet piles is thus

M max 38.88
S= = = 2.287  10−4 m3 m of the wall
 all 170,000
Exercise 5 Determine the factor of safety against bottom heave for the braced cut described
in Exercise 3. And assume the length of the cut, L = 18 m.

 0.2 B  cH
5.14c 1 + + 
FS =  L  B
gH +q
B = B 2
B = 2 B
Solution for Exercise 5
From the Equation:
 0.2 B  cH
5.14c 1 + + 
FS =  L  B
gH +q
B = B 2 =6 2 = 4.243
B = 2 B = 6
 0.2  6  30  7
5.14  30  1 + +
FS =  18  4.243 = 1.75
17.5  7 + 0
Tutorial A driven closed-ended pile, circular in cross section, is shown in the Figure bleow.
exercise 1 Calculate the following.
a. The ultimate point load using Meyerhof’s procedure.
b. The ultimate point load using Vesic’s procedure. Take Irr = 50.
c. An approximate ultimate point load on the basis of parts (a) and (b).
d. The ultimate frictional resistance Qs. [Use Eqs. (1) through (2), and take K = 1.4
and δ’ = 0.6’.]
e. The allowable load of the pile (use FS = 4).

L = 15 D (1)
f = f z = L ( 2)
f

=381 mm 136
Example 1

137
Solution for Example 1

Part a : Meyerhof s Method

For  = 40 , N q* = 346
2
 0.381 
Q p = Ap qN =     3.05  15.72 + 3.05  (18.24 − 9.81) + 15.24  (19.24 − 9.81)   346  8575 kN
*
q
 2 
Q p = Ap qN q*  Ap ( 0.5 pa N q* tan  ) = Ap ( 0.5 pa N q* tan  )
2
 0.381 
=    ( 0.5  100  346  tan40 )  1655 kN
 2 

Part b : Vesic's method

Q p = Ap q p = Ap m N*
1+2 (1 − sin  ) 
 m =   q
 3 
 1 + 2  (1 − sin40 ) 
=  3.05  15.72 + 3.05  (18.24 − 9.81) + 15.24  (19.24 − 9.81)  = 124.22 kN m 2
 3 
 
From Table 11.7, for   = 40 and I rr = 50 the value of N*  93.225. Hence,
2
 0.381 
Q p = Ap m N =  
*
  124.22  93.225  1320 kN
 2 
138
Solution for Example 1 ’0

1655 + 1320 47.946

Part c : Q p( average ) = = 1487.5 kN
2 z = L’ 70.41

Part d : L = 15 D = 15  0.381 = 5.715 m

at z = 0,  o = 0, f = 0
z
at z = 3.05,  o = 15.72  3.05 = 47.946 kN m 2
f
f = K o tan  = 1.4  ( 47.946 )  tan ( 0.6  32 ) = 23.38
L’ = 15D = 5.715 m
at z = 5.715,  o = 47.946 + ( 5.715 − 3.05 )  (18.24 − 9.81) = 70.41 kN m 2

f = f z = L = K o tan  = 1.4  ( 70.41)  tan ( 0.6  32 ) = 34.33

Qs =  pLf =
( f z =0 + f z =3.05 ) pL + ( f z =3.05 + f z =5.715 ) p
1 ( L − L1 ) +f z =5.715 p ( L − L) z
2 2
0 + 23.38 23.38 + 34.33
=  ( 0.381 )  3.05 +  ( 0.381 )  ( 5.715 − 3.05 )
2 2
+ 34.33  ( 0.381 )  (15.24 + 3.05 + 3.05 − 5.715 ) (Part of constant f, smaller ’ used
for safe design, but not realistic)
= 42.68 + 92.04 + 642.05 = 776.77 kN 139
Solution for Example 1

From part c, Q p( average ) = 1487.5 kN.

From part d, Qs( average ) = 776.77 kN.

Q p( average ) + Qs( average ) 1487.5 + 776.77

Qall = = = 566.1 kN
FS 4
’0 f

47.946 23.38

z = L’ 70.41 34.33
43.89

(Recommended!)
z z
(higher ’ gives higher Qs, more realistic!)
f = f z = L = K o tan  = 1.4  ( 70.41)  tan ( 0.6  40 ) = 43.89
f z =5.715 p ( L − L ) = 34.33  ( 0.381 )  ( 3.05 + 3.05 − 5.715 ) + 43.89  ( 0.381 ) 15.24 = 816.96 kN
Qs = 42.68 + 92.04 + 816.96 = 951.68 kN
Qall = 609.8 kN 140
 Answer for Assignment 1

Feb. 2021, PolyU

1(a)

D2 H  D  63.52 127  63.5 

K = 1 +  =  1 +
−9 −4
 10 = 9.385 10 m
3

2  3H  2  3 127 

T 0.051
cu ( field ) = = = 54.342 kPa
K 9.385 10−4

PI (%) = LL − PL = 46 − 21 = 25

 = 1.7 − 0.54 log[ PI (%)] = 1.7 − 0.54 log ( 25 ) = 0.945

cu =  cu ( field ) = 0.945  54.342 = 51.352 kPa

1(b)

 0 = 16.5 1.5 + (19 − 9.8) 1.5 + (16.8 − 9.8)  3 = 59.55 kPa

 = 22[ PI (%)]−0.48 = 22  ( 25)

−0.48
= 4.693

cu ( field ) 54.342
OCR =  = 4.693  = 4.283
 0 59.55
2

No water only sand,  = 16 kN/m3

Normally consolidated， OCR=1

pa = 100 kN/m3

Using ,

Depth (m) σ0’ (kPa) qc (kN/m2) ф’ (deg) Dr (%)

1.5 24 2060 42.05 37.13

3 48 4230 42.15 44.74

4.5 72 6010 41.95 48.19

6 96 8180 42.03 52.32

7.5 120 9970 41.93 54.63

9 144 12420 42.07 58.25

 (average) = 42.03 (deg)

Variation of Dr: The Dr increases with the depth following a power function (Attention: x is Dr, y

is depth).

Dr (%)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0

6
y = 6E-07x4.0813
R² = 0.9961
8

10
3(a)

u0 =  w hw = 9.8  (8 − 3) = 49 kN/m2

p0 − u0 280 − 49
KD = = = 2.432
 0 95

0.47 0.47
K   2.432 
K0 =  D  − 0.6 =   − 0.6 = 0.655
 1.5   1.5 
3(b)

OCR = (0.5K D )1.56 = (0.5  2.432)1.56 = 1.357

3(c)

ED = 34.7( p1 − p0 ) = 34.7  (350 − 280) = 2429 kN/m 2

Es = (1 − s 2 ) ED = (1 − 0.352 )  2429 = 2131.4 kN/m2