applied

sciences
Article
The Effect of the Water Table on the Bearing Capacity of a
Shallow Foundation
Wenfeng Chen 1,2 , Qichao Liu 3 and Erlei Wang 4, *

1 School of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Wuhan University of Technology, 122 Luoshi Rd.,
Wuhan 430070, China; chenwenfeng@cjwsjy.com.cn
2 Changjiang Institute of Survey, Planning, Design and Research Co., Ltd., Wuhan 430010, China
3 China Construction Third Engineering Bureau Group Co., Ltd., Wuhan 430223, China; 15228366250@163.com
4 Design & Research Institute of Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan 430070, China
* Correspondence: wangerlei@whut.edu.cn

Abstract: Immersion is an important part of reservoir engineering investigation and evaluation.

Determining the reasonable and effective burial depth of the critical immersion water table is one
of the key scientific issues in the impact assessment of the bearing capacity of reservoir immersion
foundations. In this study, basic physical and mechanical property tests were carried out on the soil
in the typical immersion area of Xiaonanhai Hydropower Station, and the influence mechanism of
saturation on the mechanical properties of building foundation soil and immersion on the bearing
capacity of a shallow foundation was obtained. According to the test results, the influence depth of
the rising groundwater level on the stability of the building foundation is analyzed, and a method
to determine the critical depth of immersion groundwater in the reservoir is proposed. Taking the
typical building foundation of Luohuang Town in the immersion area of Xiaonanhai Reservoir as
an example, the validity of the critical water depth is further verified. The results show that the
safety limit depth of the independent foundation affected by the rise of the water table increases
with the increase of the width of the foundation and decreases with the increase of the buried depth
Citation: Chen, W.; Liu, Q.; Wang, E. of the foundation. Considering the safety limit depth, the critical depth of building immersion is
The Effect of the Water Table on the 4.830 m, and without considering the safety limit depth, the critical depth of building immersion is
Bearing Capacity of a Shallow 4.05 m. To a certain extent, it can reduce the impact of water table changes on the bearing capacity of
Foundation. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 6571. shallow foundations.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
app12136571
Keywords: reservoir immersion; shallow foundation; bearing capacity; critical burial depth; safety
Academic Editor: Giuseppe limit depth
Lacidogna

Received: 6 June 2022

Accepted: 27 June 2022
Published: 29 June 2022
1. Introduction
Reservoir immersion will lead to submergence, salinization, deformation, or destruc-
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
tion of building foundations, water filling or gushing of underground works, and a rise in
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
surrounding groundwater levels [1–3]. This is a serious environmental and geological prob-
published maps and institutional affil-
lem. Identifying dynamic submergence processes and developing economical and scientific
iations.
joint mitigation measures to control groundwater submersion is a major challenge [4–6],
as are ways to reduce the impact of immersion conditions and understand the evolution
mechanism of damage [7–9]. It will be of great significance to strengthen the research on
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. soil mechanics and chemistry during reservoir impoundment [10–13]. Some scholars have
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. paid attention to the adverse effects of reservoir immersion on the foundation, analyzed the
This article is an open access article causes of immersion, and evaluated the immersion effect [14–16]. A series of experimental
distributed under the terms and investigations, tests, and numerical simulations have been carried out on the changes in
conditions of the Creative Commons soil water level, mechanical properties, and predicted changes in the immersion area. The
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// research focused mainly on the bearing capacity and deformation of the foundation under
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ the influence of the groundwater level and resulted in a series of achievements [17–19].
4.0/).

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 6571. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12136571 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 6571 2 of 17

Wang et al. [20], through field tests, laboratory tests, and references to other engineer-
ing experience, comprehensively analyze and propose the recommended critical value of
immersion groundwater depth in typical reservoir building areas, study the safety impact
of groundwater stagnation and immersion on buildings, classify the degree of impact
delineation, and put forward the corresponding engineering treatment plan. Yu et al. [21]
established an elastic-plastic calculation model of foundation soil under immersion condi-
tions through many physical and mechanical tests of soils with different saturation and
proposed a calculation method for the safe burial depth of shallow foundations. Tang
et al. [22] proposed a finite element formula based on effective stress to calculate the bear-
ing capacity of shallow foundations in unsaturated soils. The results show that suction and
hydraulic hysteresis directly affect the bearing capacity of unsaturated foundations.
Alencar et al. [23] studied the influence of different groundwater levels on the ultimate
bearing capacity of shallow rock foundations and how the groundwater level no longer
affects the bearing capacity by using the finite difference method, respectively assessing
the width of the foundation, the type of rock mass, the uniaxial compressive strength,
and the geological strength index. Safarzadeh and Aminfar [24] studied the effect of the
groundwater table drop on the bearing capacity of shallow square model footings on
compact sand by conducting plate load tests and finite element software OptumG2 under
different groundwater table conditions. The experimental results show that the decrease of
the groundwater level increases the matrix suction, and the ultimate bearing capacity of
the soil increases nonlinearly from 2.5 times to 4 times the bearing capacity of the saturated
state. Roh et al. [25] used the finite element method for the load-settlement curve and axial
bearing capacity of the slab foundation with the change in the groundwater level. The
results show that the axial bearing capacity changes most significantly when the depth of
the water table is 0 to 1.0 times the width of the raft foundation, indicating that the depth
of the influence of the water table on the raft foundation is controlled by the size of the raft.
Khan et al. [26] studied the load-settlement response and bearing capacity of ground
footings above conduits embedded in soil slopes using laboratory model tests. The test
results show that the buried depth of the conduit is the most important parameter affecting
the settlement and bearing capacity of the ground footing. Park et al. [27] performed a
series of model footing load and cone penetration tests using a hydraulic control room
system, considering different groundwater levels and soil conditions. The bearing capacity
of the footings decreased as the water table increased and was most pronounced at a water
table depth equal to the footing width (1.0 B). The bearing capacity of loose soil with lower
relative density decreases more with the groundwater level.
In most of the above studies, few scholars have studied the critical burial depth of
building foundations from the perspective of safety impact depth and capillary water level
rise to reduce the impact of water table rise in immersion areas on the bearing capacity of
shallow foundations. In the process of reservoir survey and design, it is very important
to evaluate and analyze the immersion problem. Currently, most engineering circles use
the capillary rise height and the foundation depth as the standard for the critical depth
of building immersion [28–30]. Since the influence of the rising groundwater level on
the physical and mechanical properties of the foundation soil layer has not been fully
considered, the evaluation of building flooding problems according to this standard is not
perfect, and sometimes there are certain risks.
In this paper, natural and saturated soil samples with an area of S = 30 cm2 and a
height of H = 2 cm were prepared in the laboratory by taking the low liquid limit clay
in the immersion zone with a ring knife and the mechanical properties of compression
and consolidation were tested [31–33]. The influence of saturation on the strength and
deformation index of low liquid limit clay was analyzed. Based on the experimental
research, the influence mechanism of immersion on the bearing capacity of the shallow
buried foundation is analyzed, and the method for determining the critical burial depth of
immersion groundwater in the reservoir is obtained. Taking the typical building foundation
of Luohuang Town in the immersion area of Xiaonanhai Reservoir as an example, the
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 18

the influence mechanism of immersion on the bearing capacity of the shallow buried foun-
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 6571 3 of 17
dation is analyzed, and the method for determining the critical burial depth of immersion
groundwater in the reservoir is obtained. Taking the typical building foundation of Luo-
huang Town in the immersion area of Xiaonanhai Reservoir as an example, the influence
influence of foundation
of foundation width andwidth
burialand burial
depth on depth on the
the safety safety
limit limit
depth wasdepth was and
studied, studied, and
the final
the finalburial
critical critical burial
depth depth
of the of thefoundation
shallow shallow foundation was determined.
was determined. The researchThe research
technology
technology
roadmap is roadmap
as Figureis1:as Figure 1:

1. research background and purpose

2. research status
3. research contents and methods

Study on basic physical and mechanical

properties of soil in immersion area

Study on influence of immersion on

bearing capacity of shallow foundation

1. Summarize test results

2. Analyze existing problems
3. Propose further research directions
Figure 1.
Figure 1. The
The Research
Research Roadmap
Roadmap of
of this
this paper.
paper.

2.
2. Physical
Physical and
and Mechanical
Mechanical Properties
Properties Tests
Tests
2.1. Physical Properties of Soil
2.1. Physical Properties of Soil
According
According to to the
the geotechnical
geotechnical structure
structure characteristics
characteristics ofof Luohuang
Luohuang Town,Town, the
the soil
soil
mass in Luohuang Town is mainly composed of low liquid limit
mass in Luohuang Town is mainly composed of low liquid limit clay and sand gravel. clay and sand gravel.
Two shallow pits were designed in Luohuang Town, and two blocks were sampled along
Two shallow pits were designed in Luohuang Town, and two blocks were sampled along
with the depth of each pit. The soil sample numbers in Luohuang Town were LTC1−1,
with the depth of each pit. The soil sample numbers in Luohuang Town were LTC1−1,
LTC1−2, LTC2−3, and LTC2−4. The sampling depth of LTC1−1 and LTC1−2 is 2 m, and
LTC1−2, LTC2−3, and LTC2−4. The sampling depth of LTC1−1 and LTC1−2 is 2 m, and the
the sampling depth of LTC1−3 and LTC1−4 is 2.5 m. According to field sampling and
sampling depth of LTC1−3 and LTC1−4 is 2.5 m. According to field sampling and analysis,
analysis, the soil layer affected by immersion is mainly a clay layer with a low liquid limit,
the soil layer affected by immersion is mainly a clay layer with a low liquid limit, and the
and the physical properties are shown in Table 1.
physical properties are shown in Table 1.
Low liquid limit clay, the particles are mainly powder, the powder content was gen-
Table 1. Luohuang Town Soil Physical Test Results.
erally more than 60%, and clay content was less than 20%. The natural density was 1.69
g/cm 3~2.01 g/cm3, the average was 1.83 g/cm3, the void ratio was 0.682~0.847, moisture
Physical Index of the Natural State Liquid Plastic Plastic Liquidity
Soil Natural Water Specific
content wasWet 15.8~27.9%,Dryand theVoidconverted saturatedLimit
density is 1.91 g/cm
Limit 3~2.01 g/cm3, the
Index Index
Saturation
Sample Content Gravity Density Density 3 Ratio
w
average value ρ
was 1.94 g/cm , the liquid limit
Sr
was 27.6~31.1%,
W L17
the
Wp
liquid index was mostly
Number Gs
ρd
e IP17 IL17
% 0.07~0.84, the
g/cmplastic
3 limit
g/cm 3 was 14.9~17.4%, % and the % plastic index
% was mostly 12.7~14.0,
LTC1−1 15.8 showing
2.67 a hard
1.69 plastic to a soft0.827
1.46 plastic state.
51.0 - 14.9 12.7 0.07
LTC1−2 17.5 2.67 In sand1.75and gravel,
1.49 the structure
0.793 was58.9mainly loose
28.3 to slightly
15.2 dense
13.1 and partially
27.6
LTC2−3 25.2 2.70 2.01 1.61 0.682 99.8 31.1 17.4 13.7 0.57
dense. The content of pebble and gravel was generally 50% to 70%, and the particle gra-
LTC2−4 27.9 2.7 1.87 1.46 0.847 89.0 30.2 16.2 14.0 0.84
Average 21.6 dation
2.685 was 1.83 good. The1.505particle 0.787
size was generally
74.7 2 29.3
cm to 7 cm, 15.9and the13.4diameter0.42
of the
larger one was greater than 15 cm. Most of the particles are oval or oblate in shape, with
relatively good roundness, and their components are dark gray magmatic rock, milky yel-
Low liquid limit clay, the particles are mainly powder, the powder content was gen-
low quartzite, gray-white quartz sandstone, and a small amount of purple-red siltstone.
erally more than 60%, and clay content was less than 20%. The natural density was
1.69 g/cm3 ~2.01 g/cm3 , the average was 1.83 g/cm3 , the void ratio was 0.682~0.847, mois-
ture content was 15.8~27.9%, and the converted saturated density is 1.91 g/cm3 ~2.01 g/cm3 ,
the average value was 1.94 g/cm3 , the liquid limit was 27.6~31.1%, the liquid index
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 6571 4 of 17

was mostly 0.07~0.84, the plastic limit was 14.9~17.4%, and the plastic index was mostly
12.7~14.0, showing a hard plastic to a soft plastic state.
In sand and gravel, the structure was mainly loose to slightly dense and partially dense.
The content of pebble and gravel was generally 50% to 70%, and the particle gradation was
good. The particle size was generally 2 cm to 7 cm, and the diameter of the larger one was
greater than 15 cm. Most of the particles are oval or oblate in shape, with relatively good
roundness, and their components are dark gray magmatic rock, milky yellow quartzite,
gray-white quartz sandstone, and a small amount of purple-red siltstone. The pebbles are
filled with light gray medium-fine sand, with clay clumps interposed locally.

2.2. Mechanical Properties of Soil

The original ring-knife soil sample with area S = 30 cm2 and height H = 2 cm was
prepared in the laboratory. Using the DGY-2H consolidation instrument and DJY-4 direct
shearing instrument, laboratory compression and consolidation quick shear tests under
natural and saturated conditions were carried out for the low liquid limit clay of the
building foundation in the reservoir area. The saturation adopts the pumping saturation
method. For the compression test, LTC1−1, LTC1−2, LTC1−3, and LTC1−4 samples
were used. Low liquid limit clays in the natural and saturated state were taken for each
sample. The loading pressures were 50 kPa, 100 kPa, 150 kPa, 200 kPa, 250 kPa, and
300 kPa, respectively. For the shear test, the selection of soil samples is the same as that
of the compression test. The loading pressure is changed to the consolidation pressure of
100 kPa, 200 kPa, 300 kPa, and 400 kPa, and the shear rate is set to 0.828 mm/min. For
the test operation and data arrangement, please refer to the Specification for soil test (SL
237-1999) [34]. Table 2 gives the basic mechanical properties of low-liquid limit clay in
natural and saturated states.

Table 2. Luohuang Town mechanical properties test results.

Natural Physical
Mechanical Index
Property Index
Soil Sampling
Water Compression Consolidation
Sample Depth Saturation Soil Type Sample State
Content Index Quick Shear
Number (m)
av1-2 Es1-2 Ccq Φcq
w% Sr % ◦
MPa−1 MPa kPa
15.8 51.0 Low liquid Natural 0.252 7.24 26 27.3
LTC1-1 2
15.8 55.1 limit clay Saturation 0.399 4.02 6.5 24.1
17.5 58.9 Low liquid Natural 0.291 6.16 17.2 25.8
LTC1-2
17.5 61.3 limit clay Saturation 0.369 4.78 10.3 24.7
25.2 99.8 Low liquid Natural 0.190 8.85 8.9 26.9
LTC2-3 2.5
25.2 99.8 limit clay Saturation 0.214 7.86 3.0 25.0
27.9 89.0 Low liquid Natural 0.283 6.53 11.4 23.3
LTC2-4
27.9 95.4 limit clay Saturation 0.297 6.02 11.1 23.1

It can be seen from Table 2 that in the natural state, the compressibility av1-2 of Lu-
ohuang Town’s low liquid limit clay was 0.190 MPa−1 ~0.291 MPa−1 , the average value
was 0.254 MPa−1 , the compressive modulus Es1-2 was 6.160 MPa~8.85 MPa, the average
value was 7.195 MPa, Ccq was 8.9 kPa~26 kPa, the average value was 15.88 kPa, Φcq
was 23.3◦ ~27.3◦ , and the average value was 25.83◦ . Under the saturated state, its com-
pressibility av1-2 was 0.214 MPa−1 ~0.399 MPa−1 , the average value was 0.320 MPa−1 ,
compressive modulus Es1-2 was 4.02 MPa~7.86 MPa, the average value was 5.67 MPa,
Φcq was 3.0 kPa~11.1 kPa, the average value was 7.73 kPa, Φcq was 23.1◦ ~29.0◦ , with an
average value of 24.23◦ .
It can be seen from the above analysis that the cohesion Ccq of the low liquid limit
clay in Luohuang Town has a certain discreteness under natural and saturated conditions,
and the other indicators have little difference. Through the statistical analysis of the test
results, it was suggested that the average value of soil mechanics parameters in Luohuang
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 6571 5 of 17

Town should be taken. The suggested values of the basic mechanical parameters of the
Luohuang Town soil compression test, the average compressibility coefficients of the low
liquid limit clays in the natural and the saturated state, are 0.254 MPa−1 and 0.320 MPa−1 ,
and the average compressive moduli are 7.195 MPa and 5.67 MPa. For the shear test, the
average cohesion was 0.254 kPa and 0.320 kPa, and the average internal friction angles
were 25.83◦ and 24.23◦ .
Compared with the saturated moisture content, the natural moisture content of most
soils in Luohuang Town was quite different, and the saturation was relatively low. Com-
pared with the saturated state, the mechanical properties index in its natural state was
smaller in compression modulus and larger in compression. The shear strength index
of consolidation quick shearing strength cohesion Ccq and internal friction angle Φcq are
greater than those in the saturated state. It can also be seen that in terms of the degree of
influence of saturation on the mechanical property index, the influence on the cohesion
was stronger than that on the internal friction angle.

2.3. Influence of Saturation on Mechanical Property of Building Foundations

To analyze the influence of reservoir water table changes on the bearing capacity of
building foundations, laboratory compression and consolidation quick shear tests with
different saturation levels were carried out on typical low liquid limit clay in undisturbed
samples of building foundations in Luohuang Town. Using the principle of water content
to control saturation, samples with different saturation were prepared by dehumidifying
or adding water to the undisturbed soil in its natural state. Four kinds of saturation were
prepared for typical soil samples (LTC1−1, LTC2−4), respectively, while other conditions
were controlled to be as similar as possible, and the influence of saturation on the mechani-
cal properties of building foundation soil was analyzed. For the test operation and data
arrangement, please refer to Specification for soil test (SL 237-1999) [34]. Table 3 shows the
basic mechanical properties of typical soil samples in Luohuang Town under different
saturation conditions.

Table 3. Effect of saturation on mechanics index of soil in Luohuang Town.

Mechanical Property Index

Soil Sampling Soil Type Saturation Consolidation of Quick
Compression Index
Sample Depth Shear Index
Number Classification Criteria Sr av1-2 Es1-2 CCq ΦCq
m SL 237-1999 [33] % MPa-1 MPa kPa ◦

51.0 0.252 7.24 26 27.3

70.5 0.315 5.91 16.3 25.5
LTC1−1 2 Low liquid limit clay
84.2 0.378 4.89 11.9 24.8
100 0.399 4.02 6.5 24.1
46.5 0.195 9.28 26.9 27.8
66.8 0.233 8.05 18.5 26.4
LTC2−4 2.5 Low liquid limit clay
84.6 0.264 6.79 12.2 24.5
100 0.297 6.02 11.1 23.1

It can be seen from Table 3 that when the saturation of the LTC1−1 soil sample
increased from 51.0% to 100.0%, its compressive index increased from 0.252 MPa−1 to
0.399 MPa−1, and the compressive modulus decreased from 7.24 MPa to 4.02 MPa. The
cohesive force was reduced from 26.0 kPa to 6.5 kPa, and the internal friction angle was
reduced from 27.3◦ to 24.1◦ . When the saturation of the LTC2−4 soil sample increased from
46.50% to 100.0%, its compressive index increased from 0.195 MPa−1 to 0.297 MPa−1 , and
the compressive modulus decreased from 9.28 MPa to 6.02 MPa. The cohesion force was
reduced from 26.9 kPa to 11.1 kPa, and the internal friction angle was reduced from 27.8◦
to 23.1◦ .
 which mainly comes from the mutual attraction between soil particles, the cementation
between particles, the mutual connection of water films, etc., while the friction angle
[39,40] mainly includes sliding friction and bite friction between solid particles. For low
liquid limit clay, with the increase of water content, the lubrication effect of water between
particles gradually increases, the bonding force of water film gradually decreases, and the
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 6571 relative motion between soil particles becomes larger. The friction resistance of the 6clay of 17
decreases gradually, and its ability to resist deformation gradually decreases so that the
cohesion, internal friction angle, and compressive modulus of the low liquid limit clay
gradually
Figuresdecrease, and the
2 and 3 show the compressibility
variation curves coefficient increases
of the compressive gradually.
and mechanical This will
indexes
closely relate toTown
of Luohuang the bearing
LTC1−1 capacity and−burial
and LTC2 4 soil depth
samples of with
the buildings in the
saturation. immersion
It can be seen
area
fromofthethefigure
reservoir.
that under the same other conditions, with the increase of saturation, the
compressive index of low liquid limit clay gradually increases, while the compressive
Table
modulus3. Effect of saturation
gradually on mechanics
decreases. At the index
same of soil in
time, theLuohuang
cohesionTown. and internal friction angle
gradually decrease with the increase in saturation. The degree of influence of saturation on
Mechanical Property Index
the compressive index and compressive modulus was almost the same, and the degree of
Soil Sampling Soil Type Saturation
influence on the cohesion was larger than that of the internal Consolidation of Quick
Compression Index friction angle. It is generally
Sample Depth believed that the properties of the soil itself, the structure and composition ShearofIndex
the soil, and
Number Classification
the bonding Criteria Sr a E C
between the fine particles affect its shear strength index. The cohesion
v1-2 s1-2 Cq ΦCq of
m SL [35–38]
soil 237-1999 is [33]
the result of the%interactionMPa-1
of attraction and MPa repulsion kPa °
between soil particles,
which mainly comes from the 51.0mutual attraction
0.252 between
7.24 soil particles,
26 the cementation
27.3
between particles, the mutual connection of
70.5 water films,5.91
0.315 etc., while the friction angle
16.3 [39,40]
25.5
LTC1−1 2 Low liquid limit clay
mainly includes sliding friction and bite friction between solid particles. For low liquid limit
84.2 0.378 4.89 11.9 24.8
clay, with the increase of water content, the lubrication effect of water between particles
100 0.399 4.02 6.5 24.1
gradually increases, the bonding force of water film gradually decreases, and the relative
motion between soil particles 46.5 0.195The friction
becomes larger. 9.28resistance26.9 27.8
of the clay decreases
gradually, and its ability to66.8 0.233 gradually
resist deformation 8.05decreases18.5 26.4
so that the cohesion,
LTC2−4 2.5 Low liquid limit clay
internal friction angle, and 84.6 compressive 0.264
modulus of the 6.79low liquid 12.2 24.5
limit clay gradually
decrease, and the compressibility 100 coefficient
0.297increases gradually.
6.02 This will
11.1 closely relate to
23.1
the bearing capacity and burial depth of the buildings in the immersion area of the reservoir.

0.42 8
30 30
Compression index Cohesion
0.40 Compression modulus Internal friction angle
7 25
0.38 28

0.36
20
av1-2/MPa-1

6
Es1-2/MPa

0.34 26
CCq/kPa

φCq/°
15
0.32
5
24
0.30
10
0.28 4
22
0.26 5

0.24 3
50 60 70 80 90 100 0 20
50 60 70 80 90 100
Sr/%
Sr/%

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure2.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2. Variation curve of
Variation curve ofLTC1
LTC1−1 sample: (a)
−1 sample: (a)compression
compressionindex
indexwith
withsaturation;
saturation;
(b)(b) consolida-
7 of 18
consolidation
tion quick
quick shear
shear index
index withwith saturation.
saturation.

0.40 10 30 32
0.38 Compression index Cohesion
Compression modulus Internal friction angle
0.36 25 30
9
0.34
0.32 20 28
av1-2/MPa-1

8
Es1-2/MPa

0.30
CCq/kPa

φCq/°

0.28 15 26
0.26 7
0.24 10 24
0.22
6
0.20 5 22
0.18
0.16 5 0 20
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Sr/% Sr/%
(a) (b)
Figure
Figure3.
3. Variation curve of
Variation curve ofLTC2
LTC2−4 sample: (a)
−4 sample: (a)compression
compressionindex
indexwith
withsaturation;
saturation;
(b)(b) consolida-
consolidation
tion quick shear index with saturation.
quick shear index with saturation.

3.Influence
3. Influence of
of Immersion
Immersion on on the
the Bearing
Bearing Capacity
Capacity of of Shallow
Shallow Buried Foundation
The prediction
The prediction of
of the
the immersion
immersion range
range of
of the
the reservoir
reservoir isis to
to calculate
calculate the
the stagnant
stagnant
groundwater height
groundwater height through
throughthe thecorresponding
correspondingformula
formulaoror seepage
seepage software and
software predict
and the
predict
the groundwater return level elevation. The backwater elevation in a certain area is com-
pared with the burial depth of the critical groundwater level; when the burial depth is
higher than the critical groundwater level, it can be considered that the immersion phe-
nomenon occurs. Therefore, determining a reasonable and effective immersion critical
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 6571 7 of 17

groundwater return level elevation. The backwater elevation in a certain area is compared
with the burial depth of the critical groundwater level; when the burial depth is higher
than the critical groundwater level, it can be considered that the immersion phenomenon
occurs. Therefore, determining a reasonable and effective immersion critical groundwater
level is one of the key scientific issues in reservoir immersion impact assessment.
According to the Code for Hydropower Engineering Geological Investigation (GB50287-
2006) [41], the capillary rise height plus the depth of the building foundation is used as the
critical burial depth of the building immersed in groundwater. The Code for Engineering
Geological Investigation of Water Resources and Hydropower (GB 50487-2008) [42] has two
standards, the living environment standard and the building safety standard. When
the living environment is used as the standard, the critical burial depth of immersed
groundwater is equal to the capillary rise of the topsoil. When the safety of the building is
taken as the standard, the value of the critical burial depth of immersion groundwater is
equal to the depth of the building foundation plus the capillary rise.
From the experimental research results of the effect of different saturation on soil
mechanical properties in Section 2.2, it can be seen that with the rise of the groundwater
level, the water content of the soil gradually increases, and the soil changes from an
unsaturated state to a saturated state. The compressive index increases, the compressive
modulus, cohesion, and internal friction angle also decrease gradually, the soil gradually
softens, and the shear strength decreases, which leads to the decrease in the bearing capacity
of the foundation and the increase of the foundation deformation. However, the impact
assessment of building immersion in the code does not consider the impact of immersion on
the bearing capacity of the foundation. That is, the depth of the safe impact of groundwater
level rise on the stability of the building foundation is not considered. For low liquid limit
clay foundations, after the groundwater rises into the foundation bearing layer, it will
impact the bearing capacity and deformation stability of the building foundation, and its
degree will gradually become serious with the rise of the groundwater level.
In this section, according to the load type, foundation type, and foundation buried
depth of the building, the self-weight stress, additional stress, and foundation bearing
capacity of the foundation at different buried depths of groundwater are analyzed and
calculated according to the different depths of the groundwater level below the base.
Based on the safety sensitivity analysis of the building foundation, an appropriate method
to determine the critical buried depth of groundwater is sought. The typical building
foundation of Luohuang Town in the immersion area of Xiaonanhai reservoir was analyzed
as an example, which provides a strong basis for the delimitation of the treatment scope of
immersion buildings in the reservoir area.

3.1. Influence Mechanism of Reservoir Immersion on Bearing Capacity of Shallow

Buried Foundation
After the completion of reservoir construction and water storage, the groundwater
level in the foundation soil of buildings has been at a high level for a long time. Under
specific geological and topographic conditions, the buildings in the reservoir area will be
immersed, resulting in adverse effects. The rise of groundwater level has a particularly
obvious impact on shallow foundation buildings, and the harm is relatively large.
When the groundwater level is low, the water content of the building foundation
soil is small, the effective weight of the soil body is large, and the cohesion and internal
friction angle are large. Thus, the bearing capacity of the foundation is high, and the
bearing capacity of the building foundation is high, and deformation stability can meet the
requirements. From the research on the influence of different saturation degrees on soil
mechanical properties in Section 2.2, it can be seen that under the same other conditions,
with the increase of saturation, the compressive index of low liquid limit clay gradually
increases, while the compressive modulus gradually decreases. At the same time, the
cohesion and internal friction angle gradually decrease with the increase of saturation.
When the groundwater level rises, the soil changes from an unsaturated state to a saturated
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 6571 8 of 17

state. For the soil immersion below the groundwater level, due to the loss of the apparent
cohesion formed by weak binding force or capillary stress, the internal friction angle of the
soil gradually decreases, the compressive index increases, and the compressive modulus
gradually decreases. The soil gradually softens and the shear strength decreases, resulting
in a decrease in the bearing capacity of the foundation and an increase in the deformation.
At the same time, due to the existence of groundwater, the effective weight of the soil
decreases, which leads to a decrease in the bearing capacity of the soil. The immersion of
the reservoir affects the bearing capacity of the shallow foundation in two aspects.

3.2. Depth of Safety Impact of Rising Groundwater Level on Building Foundation Stability
According to the test and analysis of the influence of different saturation degrees on soil
mechanical properties, it can be seen that the bearing capacity and strength characteristics
of clay foundations with a low liquid limit are highly correlated with their moisture content.
After the groundwater rises into the foundation bearing layer, it will impact the bearing
capacity and deformation stability of the building foundation, and its degree will gradually
become serious with the rise of the groundwater level. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct
an in-depth analysis of the depth of the safety impact of the rise of the groundwater level
on the stability of the low liquid limit clay foundation to provide a basis for the definition
of the immersion affected area. According to the analysis of the immersion mechanism
of buildings in Section 3.1, combined with the physical and mechanical properties test
of low liquid limit clay in typical immersion areas in Section 2, when the distance from
the groundwater level to the bottom of the foundation is at a certain value, the bearing
capacity of the foundation is equal to the sum of the additional stress of the building and
the self-weight stress of the soil. This value is the safe depth affected by the rise of the
groundwater level, as shown in Figure 4. The following will detail the method to obtain the
foundation bearing capacity of the soil layer at the groundwater level and the additional
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 18
stress of the building there.

B
Buried depth of foundation

P
Safety impact depth

Groundwater level

Pz Pcz

Figure 4.
Figure 4. Safe
Safe depth
depth for
for the
the impact
impact of
of groundwater
groundwater level
level rise.
rise.

According to article
According article5.2.7
5.2.7ofofthe Code
the for for
Code Design of Building
Design Foundations
of Building (GB50007-2011)
Foundations (GB50007-
[43], the
2011) sum
[43], theofsum
additional stress and
of additional self-weight
stress stress at
and self-weight the groundwater
stress table should
at the groundwater table
satisfy the
should following
satisfy formula:
the following formula:

Pk =P((F
k = ((Fk + Gk)/A) ≤ fac
k + Gk )/A) ≤ f ac
(1)
(1)
where Fk is the vertical force value transmitted from the superstructure to the top surface
of the F
where k is the vertical
foundation force valuetotransmitted
corresponding the standard from the superstructure
combination to the topeffect.
of the load-open surfaceGk
of the foundation corresponding to the standard combination of the load-open effect.
is the sum of the foundation and the soil self-weight on the foundation. A is the foundation Gk is
bottom area. fac is the corrected eigenvalues of foundation bearing capacity.
The Pz value in the figure can be solved by the corner point method according to the
additional stress under the corner points of the rectangular uniform load, that is, Pz = 4𝛼 ⋅
𝑝 , which 𝛼 is the additional stress coefficient of the corner point of the 1/4 rectangle of
the foundation bottom. The value in the table in Appendix K.0.1-1 of Code for Design of
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 6571 9 of 17

the sum of the foundation and the soil self-weight on the foundation. A is the foundation
bottom area. f ac is the corrected eigenvalues of foundation bearing capacity.
The Pz value in the figure can be solved by the corner point method according to the
additional stress under the corner points of the rectangular uniform load, that is, Pz = 4α · p0 ,
which α is the additional stress coefficient of the corner point of the 1/4 rectangle of the
foundation bottom. The value in the table in Appendix K.0.1-1 of Code for Design of Building
Foundations (GB50007-2011) [43], and p0 is the additional stress of the base.
Different groundwater levels are set along the base. The additional stress, self-weight
stress, and foundation bearing capacity are calculated according to the methods in the Code
for Design of Building Foundations (GB50007-2011) [43]. Generally speaking, when the size
and burial depth of the foundation are constant, the additional stress below the bottom
surface of the foundation gradually decreases, the self-weight stress gradually increases,
and the bearing capacity of the foundation increases gradually. When the sum of the
self-weight stress and additional stress at the groundwater level is equal to the bearing
capacity of the foundation, the distance from the groundwater level to the basement at this
time is the safe depth affected by the rise of the groundwater level.

3.3. Determination of Immersion Critical Groundwater Depth

Determining the immersion critical groundwater depth is the basis for judging the im-
pact of immersion and the boundary conditions for determining the scope of the immersion
area. When the burial depth of the critical groundwater is greater than the predicted burial
depth of the diving backwater, the area is determined to be an immersion zone. The burial
depth of immersion critical groundwater should be determined through field observation
and local production practice experience according to soil properties, groundwater salinity,
the height of soil capillary water rising zone, or the depth of building foundations.
For low liquid limit clay and silt foundations, after groundwater enters the foundation
bearing layer, it will affect the bearing capacity and deformation stability of the building
foundation, and the degree of influence will increase with the rise of groundwater. Accord-
ing to the load type of the building, the type of foundation, the depth of the foundation,
and the different depths of the groundwater table below the base, the additional stress, self-
weight stress, and foundation bearing capacity of the foundation soil of the shallow-buried
foundation are calculated. Sensitivity analysis is carried out on the safety of the building to
determine the safety impact depth z of the groundwater level rise on the stability of the
building foundation. At the same time, considering the rising height of capillary water, the
critical groundwater level buried depth of this kind of foundation soil is determined as the
foundation buried depth plus the rising height of capillary water and the safety influence
depth z, as shown in Figure 5. However, the impact of the security impact depth z is not
considered in the current specifications.
The height of the capillary water rising area of the soil layer above the groundwater
level can be directly measured in test pits and exploratory wells. Or it can be measured
according to the appropriate water content of the soil layer during the growing period of
crops, and the relationship curve of the soil layer water content above the groundwater
level measured on-site with depth selected. Urban residential areas can be determined by
comparing the relationship curve of soil moisture content above the groundwater level
with the natural moisture content of the foundation-bearing layer before the reservoir
is impounded.
 level can be directly measured in test pits and exploratory wells. Or it can be measured
according to the appropriate water content of the soil layer during the growing period of
crops, and the relationship curve of the soil layer water content above the groundwater
level measured on-site with depth selected. Urban residential areas can be determined by
comparing the relationship curve of soil moisture content above the groundwater level
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 6571 10 of 17
with the natural moisture content of the foundation-bearing layer before the reservoir is
impounded.

Figure5.
Figure 5. Schematic
Schematic diagram
diagram of
of immersion
immersion critical
critical groundwater
groundwaterdepth
depth(Hcr)
(Hcr)in
in the
the construction
constructionarea.
area.

3.4.
3.4. Immersion
Immersion Prediction
Prediction Engineering
EngineeringExample
Example
For
For an independent foundation in
an independent foundation in the
the urban
urban area
area ofof Luohuang
Luohuang Town,
Town, the
the structure
structure
type is shown in Figure 6, and the size of the bottom surface
type is shown in Figure 6, and the size of the bottom surface of the foundationof the foundation is shown
is shown in
Table 4. The foundation was placed in a low liquid limit clay layer, and
in Table 4. The foundation was placed in a low liquid limit clay layer, and the basic phys- the basic physical
and mechanical
ical and mechanicalparameters
parameters of the soilsoil
of the areare
shownshown in in
Table 5. 5.The
Table Thecapillary
capillarywater
water rise
rise
height of the low liquid limit clay was 1.3 m, the base pressure was
height of the low liquid limit clay was 1.3 m, the base pressure was 150 kPa, and the foun- 150 kPa, and the
foundation
dation bearing bearing capacity
capacity of theof low
the low
liquidliquid
limitlimit
clay clay
in theinsaturated
the saturated
statestate
was was 105 kPa.
105 kPa. The
The influence of different foundation widths and foundation burial
influence of different foundation widths and foundation burial depths on the safe depth depths on the safe
depth of groundwater
of groundwater was studied
was studied through
through the calculation
the calculation method
method of safe
of the the safe
depthdepth of
of ofthe
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW
the groundwater level rise on the stability of the building foundation in Section 11 The
2.2. 18
groundwater level rise on the stability of the building foundation in Section 2.2. The spe-
specific calculation results are shown in Tables 6–12.
cific calculation results are shown in Tables 6–12.
100mm

50mm 50mm
50mm
50mm

50mm 50mm
200mm 200mm

Concrete
100mm 100mm
100mm 100mm

Figure6.6.Foundation
Figure Foundationstructure
structuretype.
type.

Table4.4.Dimensions
Table Dimensionsofoffoundation
foundationbottom.
bottom.

Number
Number b (m)
b (m)
b1 (m)
b1 (m)
l (m)
l (m)
l1 (m)
l1 (m)
d (m)
d (m)
① 1.5 0.75 1.5 0.75 2.5
1 1.5 0.75 1.5 0.75 2.5
2
② 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.01.0 2.5 2.5
3 ③ 2.5 2.5 1.251.25 2.5 2.5 1.25
1.25 2.52.5
4 ④ 3.0 3.0 1.5 1.5 3.0 3.0 1.51.5 2.52.5
5
⑤ 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.01.0 2.02.0
6 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.25
7
⑥ 2.0
2.0 1.0
1.0 2.0
2.0 1.0
1.0 2.25
2.75
⑦ 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.75

Table 5. Calculation parameters of the soil mass.

Sample Density Cohesion Internal Friction Angle Compression Modulus

ρ
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 6571 11 of 17

Table 5. Calculation parameters of the soil mass.

Sample Density Cohesion Internal Friction Angle Compression Modulus

State ρ (g/cm3 ) C (kPa) Φ (◦ ) Es (MPa)
Natural 1.83 15.88 25.83 7.2
Saturation 1.94 7.73 24.23 5.7

Table 6. Calculation results of foundation bearing capacity (b = 1.5 m, d = 2.5 m).

Groundwater to
z/(b/2) Pz (kPa) Pcz (kPa) f ac (kPa) PZ + PCZ (kPa)
Foundation Bottom z (m)
0.3 0.4 100.08 51.24 147.09 151.32
0.4 0.53 95.49 53.07 148.92 148.56
0.5 0.67 89.66 54.9 150.75 144.56
0.6 0.8 83.4 56.73 152.58 140.13
0.7 0.93 76.44 58.56 154.41 135.00
0.8 1.07 69.76 60.39 156. 24 130.15
0.9 1.2 63.38 62.22 158.07 125.60
1 1.33 57.55 64.05 159.9 121.60

Table 7. Calculation results of foundation bearing capacity (b = 2.0 m, d = 2.5 m).

Groundwater to PZ + PCZ
z/(b/2) Pz (kPa) Pcz (kPa) f ac (kPa)
Foundation Bottom z (m) (kPa)
0.5 0.5 96.54 54.9 150.75 151.44
0.6 0.6 92.99 56.73 152.58 149.72
0.7 0.7 88.20 58.56 154.41 146.76
0.8 0.8 83.4 60.39 156.24 143.79
0.9 0.9 78.19 62.22 158.07 140.41
1 1 72.98 64.05 159.9 137.03

Table 8. Calculation results of foundation bearing capacity (b = 2.5 m, d = 2.5 m).

Groundwater to PZ + PCZ
z/(b/2) Pz (kPa) Pcz (kPa) f ac (kPa)
Foundation Bottom z (m) (kPa)
0.5 0.4 100.08 54.9 150.75 154.98
0.6 0.48 97.24 56.73 152.58 153.97
0.7 0.56 94.41 58.56 154.41 152.97
0.8 0.64 91.07 60.39 156.24 151.46
0.9 0.72 87.24 62.22 158.07 149.46
1 0.8 83.4 64.05 159.9 147.45

Table 9. Calculation results of foundation bearing capacity (b = 3 m, d = 2.5 m).

Groundwater to PZ + PCZ
z/(b/2) Pz (kPa) Pcz (kPa) f ac (kPa)
Foundation Bottom z (m) (kPa)
0.5 0.33 101.33 54.9 150.75 156.23
0.6 0.4 100.08 56.73 152.58 156.81
0.7 0.47 97.58 58.56 154.41 156.14
0.8 0.53 95.49 60.39 156.24 155.88
0.9 0.6 92.99 62.22 158.07 155.21
1 0.67 89.66 64.05 159.9 153.71
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 6571 12 of 17

Table 10. Calculation results of foundation bearing capacity (b = 2.0 m, d = 2.0 m).

Groundwater to PZ + PCZ
z/(b/2) Pz (kPa) Pcz (kPa) f ac (kPa)
Foundation Bottom z (m) (kPa)
0.5 0.5 105.01 45.75 141.6 150.76
0.6 0.6 101.15 47.58 143.43 148.74
0.7 0.7 95.94 49.41 145.26 145.35
0.8 0.8 90.72 51.24 147.09 141.96
0.9 0.9 85.05 53.07 148.92 138.12
1 1 79.38 54.9 150.75 134.28

Table 11. Calculation results of foundation bearing capacity (b = 2.0 m, d = 2.25 m).

Groundwater to PZ + PCZ
z/(b/2) Pz (kPa) Pcz (kPa) f ac (kPa)
Foundation Bottom z (m) (kPa)
0.3 0.3 106.43 46.67 142.52 153.10
0.4 0.4 104.47 48.50 144.35 152.97
0.5 0.5 100.77 50.33 146.18 151.10
0.6 0.6 97.072 52.16 148.01 149.23
0.7 0.7 92.07 53.99 149.84 146.05
0.8 0.8 87.06 55.82 151.67 142.88
0.9 0.9 81.62 57.65 153.50 139.26
1 1 76.18 59.48 155.33 135.65

Table 12. Calculation results of foundation bearing capacity (b = 2.0 m, d = 2.75 m).

Groundwater to PZ + PCZ
z/(b/2) Pz (kPa) Pcz (kPa) f ac (kPa)
Foundation Bottom z (m) (kPa)
0.4 0.4 95.69 57.65 153.50 153.33
0.5 0.5 92.30 59.48 155.33 151.77
0.6 0.6 88.91 61.31 157.16 150.22
0.7 0.7 84.33 63.14 158.99 147.46
0.8 0.8 79.74 64.97 160.82 144.71
0.9 0.9 74.76 66.80 162.65 141.55
1 1 69.77 68.63 164.48 138.39

Among them, according to the mechanical parameters of the low liquid limit clay
obtained from the reservoir immersion geotechnical test, and through the calculation
formula of the characteristic value of the foundation bearing capacity, the characteristic
value f ac of the foundation bearing capacity of the saturated soil with various groundwater
levels can be calculated separately. The revised formula for the critical load P1/4 of Code for
Design of Building Foundations (GB50007-2011) [43]:

f ac = Ck Mc + qMd + γbMb (2)

where f ac is the modified foundation bearing capacity characteristic value determined by

the shear strength index of the soil, Ck is the standard value of soil cohesion in the depth of
one time of the width of the short side under the foundation, and γ is the weight of the
foundation soil below the bottom of the foundation, and the buoyant unit weight below
groundwater level. b is the width of the bottom surface of the foundation. When it is
greater than 6 m, it is considered as 6 m. For sandy soil less than 3 m, it is considered as
3 m. q is the overload on both sides of the foundation q = γm (γm is the weighted average
weight of the soil layer within the range of the foundation buried depth d. Mc , Md and
Mb are the bearing capacity coefficients according to the standard value of the internal
friction angle of the soil ϕk , ϕk is the standard value of the internal friction angle of soil in
the depth of one time of the width of the short side under the base (◦ ). It can be seen that
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 6571 13 of 17

the bearing capacity of the foundation is related to the cohesion, internal friction angle of
the foundation soil, and the weight of soil mass above and below the foundation bottom.
Therefore, the storage state and dynamic changes of groundwater have a significant impact
on the bearing capacity of the foundation.
Figure 7 is a schematic diagram of the safe depth affected by the groundwater level
rise. It can be seen from the figure that Pz + Pcz decreases with the increase of z, and f ac
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW
increases with the increase of z. The x-axis coordinate of the intersection is the safe14 of 18
depth
affected by the groundwater level rise. When b = 1.5 m and d = 2.5 m, the limit depth is 0.40
for the influence of groundwater level rise. When b = 2.0 m and d = 2.5 m, the limit depth
of the impact
depth of groundwater
of the impact level riselevel
of groundwater was rise
0.520.
wasWhen b =When
0.520. 2.5 mband d=
= 2.5 m2.5 m,dthe
and limit
= 2.5 m,
depth
the limit depth of the impact of groundwater level rise was 0.650. When b = 3.0 m and dm,=
of the impact of groundwater level rise was 0.650. When b = 3.0 m and d = 2.5
the
2.5 limit
m, thedepth
limit was
depth0.780
wasfor thefor
0.780 impact of groundwater
the impact level rise.
of groundwater levelWhen b = 2.0
rise. When b =m2.0
and m
dand
= 2.0 m, the limit depth for the impact of groundwater level rise was 0.70. When
d = 2.0 m, the limit depth for the impact of groundwater level rise was 0.70. When b b = 2.0 m
and
= 2.0dm= and
2.25 dm,= the
2.25limit depth
m, the limitwas 0.625
depth wasfor0.625
the impact of groundwater
for the impact level rise.
of groundwater When
level rise.
b = 2.0 m and d = 2.75 m, the limit depth for the impact of groundwater level rise was 0.398.
When b = 2.0 m and d = 2.75 m, the limit depth for the impact of groundwater level rise
When the water level rises, the cohesion force and the internal friction angle gradually
was 0.398. When the water level rises, the cohesion force and the internal friction angle
decrease with the increase of saturation, the effective weight of the soil decreases, and the
gradually decrease with the increase of saturation, the effective weight of the soil de-
pore water pressure gradually increases. Therefore, with the rise of the water table, the
creases, and the pore water pressure gradually increases. Therefore, with the rise of the
bearing capacity of the groundwater table shows a decreasing trend.
water table, the bearing capacity of the groundwater table shows a decreasing trend.

160
Foundation bearing capacity (kPa)

150

140

130

fac
120 Pz+Pcz

110
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Distance between groundwater and foundation bottom (m)

Figure7.7. Schematic
Figure Schematic diagram
diagramof
ofthe
theinfluence
influenceof
ofthe
therising
risinggroundwater
groundwaterlevel
levelon
onthe
thesafe
safedepth.
depth.

Figures 88 and 9 show

Figures showthe thevariation
variationcurves
curvesofofthe
thelimit depth
limit depthaffected
affectedbyby thetheriserise
of the
of
groundwater
the groundwater level withwith
level the the
width andand
width burial depth
burial of the
depth basement.
of the basement. It can be seen
It can that
be seen
under
that generally
under similar
generally otherother
similar conditions,
conditions,the limit depthdepth
the limit of theofinfluence of theof
the influence rise
theofrise
the
of the groundwater
groundwater level
level on on the independent
the independent foundationfoundation
increasesincreases
with the with
increasethe ofincrease
the width of
the width
of the of the foundation
foundation and decreases and with
decreases with the
the increase of increase
the buried of depth
the buried
of thedepth of the
foundation.
foundation.
According to According to Formula
Formula (3), when the (3),foundation
when the foundation
width increases,widththe increases,
ultimatethe ultimate
bearing ca-
bearing
pacity ofcapacity of the foundation
the foundation also As
also increases. increases. As depth
the burial the burial depthand
increases increases and the
the foundation
foundation
width remainswidth remains unchanged,
unchanged, it can be seenit can be seen
from (Fk +from k+G
Gk)/A(Fthat k )/A
the sumthatof the
thesum of the
additional
additional
stress and stress and self-weight
self-weight stress at thestress at the groundwater
groundwater table will decrease.
table will gradually graduallyTherefore,
decrease.
Therefore,
the bearingthe bearingofcapacity
capacity of the foundation
the foundation will also gradually
will also gradually decrease, anddecrease, and the
the allowable
allowable safety depth will decrease with the increase of the buried
safety depth will decrease with the increase of the buried depth of the foundation.depth of the foundation.
1
𝑃 = 𝛾𝑏 ∙ 𝑁 1+ 𝑞 ∙ 𝑁 + 𝑐 ∙ 𝑁 (3) (3)
2 Pu = 2 γb· Nγ + q· Nq + c· Nc
where 𝑁 , 𝑁 , and 𝑁 are the bearing capacity coefficients, their magnitudes only de-
where Nγ , Nq , and Nc are the bearing capacity coefficients, their magnitudes only depend
pend
theon theofsize
theofinternal
the internal friction angle, c is cohesive
the cohesive force,
1 𝛾𝑏 ∙ 𝑁 represents
on size friction angle, c is the force, 2 γb · Nγ represents the
the resistance force generated by the self-weight of the sliding soil, and 𝑞 ∙ 𝑁 represents
the resistance due to the side load 𝛾𝑏, 𝑐 ∙ 𝑁 represents the resistance due to the cohesion
𝑐 on the slip surface.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 6571 14 of 17

resistance force generated by the self-weight of the sliding soil, and q· Nq represents the
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 18
resistance
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW due to the side load γb, c· Nc represents the resistance due to the cohesion
15 cofon18
the slip surface.

0.90
0.90
0.85
0.85
0.80
0.80
0.75 d=2.5m
0.75 d=2.5m
0.70
0.70
0.65
0.65
(m) )

0.60
z z(m

0.60
0.55
0.55
0.50
0.50
0.45
0.45
0.40
0.40
0.35
0.35
0.30
0.30
1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2
1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2
bb(m)
(m)
Figure 8. Influence of foundation width on safety depth.
Figure 8. Influence of foundation width on safety depth.

0.90
0.90
0.85
0.85
0.80 b=2.0m
0.80 b=2.0m
0.75
0.75
0.70
0.70
0.65
0.65
0.60
(m) )

0.60
z z(m

0.55
0.55
0.50
0.50
0.45
0.45
0.40
0.40
0.35
0.35
0.30
0.30
0.25
0.25
1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2
1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2
dd(m)
(m)
Figure 9. Influence of foundation burial depth on safe depth.
Figure 9. Influence of foundation burial depth on safe depth.
Figure 9. Influence of foundation burial depth on safe depth.
It can be
beseen
seenfrom Section 2.3 that when
whenthe thefoundation
foundationdepth, depth,width,
width,impact
impactsafety
ItItcan
canbe seen fromSection
from Section2.3 2.3that
thatwhen the foundation depth, width, impact safety
safety
depth,
depth,andand capillary
andcapillary water
capillarywater rise
waterrise height
riseheight
height of the building are known, the corresponding criti-
depth, ofofthe the building
building areare known,
known, thethe corresponding
corresponding criti-
critical
cal burial
cal burial depth
depth of groundwater
of groundwater immersion
immersion can be determined. From the perspective ofof
burial depth of groundwater immersion can becan be determined.
determined. From the From the perspective
perspective of safety,
safety, in this example, the building foundation in the Luohuang reservoir area was buried
insafety, in this example,
this example, the building the building
foundation foundation in the Luohuang
in the Luohuang reservoir reservoir
area wasarea waswith
buried buried a
with
withaaofdepth
depth of 2.75 mmand aawidth ofof3.0 m, and andthethecritical value ofofthe effects
effectsof ofthe
depth 2.75 mofand 2.75a width andof width
3.0 m, and 3.0
the m,critical valuecritical
of the value
effects of the
the safety depth the
safety
safety depth
depth was
was0.7800.780m. m. Therefore, the thecritical immersion depth ofofbuildings ininthis
thisarea
was 0.780 m. Therefore, theTherefore,
critical immersion criticaldepthimmersion depthin
of buildings buildings
this area was 4.830 area
m.
was 4.830
was 4.830 m. m.
4. Discussion
4.4.Discussion
Discussion
According to the Code for hydropower engineering geological investigation (GB50287-
2006)According
According toto the
[41], the capillary theCode for
for hydropower
rise height
Code plus the engineering
hydropower depth
engineeringof thegeological
buildinginvestigation
geological foundation (GB50287-
investigation is(GB50287-
used as
2006)
2006) [41], the capillary rise height plus the depth of the building foundation isused
the [41],
critical the capillary
burial depth rise
of theheight
buildingplus the
immerseddepth of
in the building
groundwater. foundation
The safe is
depth of the
used as
as
the critical
impact of burial
the depth
building isof the
not building
considered, immersed
and the in groundwater.
critical
the critical burial depth of the building immersed in groundwater. The safe depth of thestandard The
for safe depth
immersion of
in the
this
impact
area
impact ofofthe
is 4.05 m. building
the After
building isisnot
notconsidered,
considering the safe depth
considered, and
andtheofthe critical
criticalstandard
groundwater rise, the
standard for immersion
forpredicted
immersion ininthis
range of
this
area
the is 4.05
immersion m. After
area considering
will increase the
to a safe
certain depthextent.of groundwater
There is
area is 4.05 m. After considering the safe depth of groundwater rise, the predicted range a rise,
certain the predicted
degree of safety range
risk
ofofdelineating
in the
theimmersion
immersionthe area
areawill
scope increase
of the
will building
increase totoaimmersion
acertain
certainextent. area There
extent. using
Theretheisisaanormative
certain
certaindegree
method.
degree ofofsafety
As a
safety
risk in delineating the scope of the building immersion area
risk in delineating the scope of the building immersion area using the normative method. using the normative method.
AsAsaaresult,
result,thethebearing
bearingcapacitycapacityofofthe theshallow
shallowfoundation
foundationconsidered
consideredisissmallersmallerthan thanthe the
actual demand. The influence of the safe depth of groundwater
actual demand. The influence of the safe depth of groundwater rise should be considered rise should be considered
ininthe
theactual
actualimmersion
immersionprediction.
prediction.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 6571 15 of 17

result, the bearing capacity of the shallow foundation considered is smaller than the actual
demand. The influence of the safe depth of groundwater rise should be considered in the
actual immersion prediction.
In addition, it is possible to study the influence of porosity and permeability [44],
different foundation types, and the reinforcement of the foundation in the immersion
area, to more accurately calculate the appropriate burial depth of the foundation in the
immersion area and reduce the risk and loss of immersion.

5. Conclusions
The following main conclusions are drawn from this study:
(1) Through the sampling analysis of drilling holes and pits, the foundation soil layer
affected by immersion is mainly a low-liquid-limit clay layer. The physical mechanics
of the main soil layers of the building foundation in the typical immersion area in the
natural and saturated state are carried out, and the geotechnical test parameters for
evaluating the impact of reservoir submersion are obtained.
(2) The results show that the compressive index of low liquid limit clay increases gradu-
ally with the increase of saturation, while the compressive modulus decreases grad-
ually. At the same time, the cohesion and internal friction angle gradually decrease
with the increase of saturation.
(3) Based on the relevant specifications for the critical burial depth of submerged ground-
water for buildings and the research on the immersion mechanism of reservoirs, a
method for determining the critical burial depth of submerged buildings was pro-
posed. Among them, the influence of the rising groundwater level on the stability of
the building foundation can be considered, and the method and process of determin-
ing the depth of the safety influence limit are given.
(4) The immersion example of typical building foundations in Luohuang Town, Xiaonan-
hai Reservoir immersion area was analyzed, and the influence of foundation width
and burial depth on the safety limit depth was studied. Other conditions being the
same, the limit depth of independent foundation groundwater level rise varies with
the width of the foundation increases and decreases with the increase of the depth of
the foundation.
(5) The effects of porosity, permeability, different foundation types, and reinforcement
measures can also be studied. Thereby increasing the bearing capacity of the building
foundation, reducing the influence of the rising water table in the immersion area,
and ensuring the safe use of the building.

Author Contributions: Data curation, W.C.; Investigation, W.C.; Methodology, E.W.; Project adminis-
tration, Q.L.; Resources, E.W.; Writing—review & editing, Q.L. All authors have read and agreed to
the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable for studies not involving humans or animals.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable for studies not involving humans.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Wang, Y.; Qin, X.R.; Feng, X. Analysis on the Effect of Reservoir Immersion in Yanqing New Town. Adv. Mater. Res. 2014, 1010,
1317–1321. [CrossRef]
2. Xu, D.S.; Chen, W.; Fan, X. Experimental investigation of particle size effect on the self-healing performance of microcapsule for
cemented coral sand. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 256, 119343. [CrossRef]
3. Lin, P.; Zhao, S.L.; Li, A.; Li, M.H. Effect of Infiltration into cliff debris on the stability of slope. Geotech. Investig. Surv. 2002, 1,
26–28.
4. Yang, Y.; Nan, W.; Guo, S.; Jin, D.; Wu, J.H.; Zhang, Y.; Dou, Z.; Zhou, Z.F. Application of numerical modeling to reservoir
immersion assessment and control in dual-formation hydrogeological unit. Water Supply 2021, 21, 2357–2373. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 6571 16 of 17

5. Dos Santos, J.S.; De Oliveira, E.; Bruns, R.E.; Gennari, R.F. Evaluation of the salt accumulation process during inundation in water
resource of Contas river basin (Bahia Brazil) applying principal component analysis. Water Res. 2004, 38, 1579–1585. [CrossRef]
6. Xu, D.S.; Liu, H.B.; Luo, W.L. Development of a novel settlement monitoring system using fiber-optic liquid-level transducers
with automatic temperature compensation. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 2018, 67, 2214–2222. [CrossRef]
7. Wang, F.; Liang, N.; Li, G. Damage and failure evolution mechanism for coal pillar dams affected by water immersion in
underground reservoirs. Geofluids 2019, 2019, 2985691. [CrossRef]
8. Fang, M. Analysis on subsidence of roadbed effect with the high water level in reservoir area. Highw. Eng. 2009, 34, 118–121.
9. Xu, D.S.; Liu, Q.; Qin, Y.; Chen, B. Analytical approach for crack identification of glass fiber reinforced polymer–sea sand concrete
composite structures based on strain dissipations. Struct. Health Monit. 2020. [CrossRef]
10. Ying, C.; Hu, X.; Zhou, C.; Siddiqua, S.; Makeen, G.M.H.; Wang, Q.; Xu, C. Analysis of chemo-mechanical behavior of silty soil
under long-term immersion in saline reservoir water. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 2021, 80, 627–640. [CrossRef]
11. Qin, Y.; Wang, Q.K.; Xu, D.S.; Yan, J.M.; Zhang, S.S. A FBG based earth and water pressure transducer with 3D fused deposition
modeling approach for soil mass. J. Rock Mech. Geotech. 2022, 14, 663–669. [CrossRef]
12. Gao, H.X.; Shi, P. Study on Bearing capacity and settlement of shallow foundation with underground water. J. Shandong Univ.
Technol. 2017, 31, 22–25.
13. Nieć, J.; Zawadzki, P.; Kaluża, T. Numerical Simulation of Groundwater Level Changes: A Case Study of the Struzyna Reservoir.
Rocz. Ochr. Śr. 2019, 21, 141–156.
14. Fowler, D.K.; Maddox, J.B. Habitat improvement along reservoir inundation zones by barge hydroseeding. J. Soil Water Conserv.
1974, 29, 263–265.
15. Chen, J.; Huang, Y.; Yang, Y.; Wang, J. Evaluation of the influence of Jiangxiang reservoir immersion on corp and residential areas.
Geofluids 2018, 2018, 9720970. [CrossRef]
16. Xu, D.S.; Huang, M.; Zhou, Y. One-dimensional compression behavior of calcareous sand and marine clay mixtures. Int. J.
Geomech. 2020, 20, 04020137. [CrossRef]
17. Zheng, X.; Zhang, B.X.; Deng, Z.R.; Cao, D.N. Judgment method and inundation degree evaluation for inundation area of
Danjiangkou Reservoir. Yangtze River 2011, 42, 19–23.
18. Qin, Y.; Wang, Q.; Xu, D.S.; Chen, W. Mechanical behavior and healing efficiency of microcapsule-based cemented coral sand
under various water environments. Materials 2021, 14, 5571. [CrossRef]
19. Wang, Q.H.; Tao, L.J.; Han, Y.X. Study on the characteristics of rock mass and stability of the Liujiaxia bridge abutment at reservoir
bank. Highw. Eng. 2013, 38, 52–66.
20. Wang, B.; Bai, C.F.; Jia, J.H. Influence of reservoir inundation on structures area and treatment measures. Yangtze River 2013, 44,
75–78.
21. Yu, Z.L.; Wang, Y.L. Calculation method for critical depth of a shallow foundation building in reservoir immersion area. J. Yangtze
River Sci. Res. Inst. 2014, 31, 53–56.
22. Tang, Y.; Taiebat, H.A.; Russell, A.R. Bearing capacity of shallow foundations in unsaturated soil considering hydraulic hysteresis
and three drainage conditions. Int. J. Geomech. 2017, 17, 04016142. [CrossRef]
23. Alencar, A.; Galindo, R.; Melentijevic, S. Influence of the groundwater level on the bearing capacity of shallow foundations on the
rock mass. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 2021, 80, 6769–6779. [CrossRef]
24. Safarzadeh, Z.; Aminfar, M.H. Experimental and numerical modeling of the effect of groundwater table lowering on bearing
capacity of shallow square footings. Int. J. Eng. 2019, 32, 1429–1436.
25. Roh, Y.; Kim, I.; Kim, G.; Junhwan, L. Comparative analysis of axial load capacity for piled-raft foundation with changes in
groundwater level. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2019, 23, 4250–4258. [CrossRef]
26. Khan, M.U.A.; Shukla, S.K. Load–Settlement Response and Bearing Capacity of a Surface Footing Located Over a Conduit Buried
Within a Soil Slope. Int. J. Geomech. 2020, 20, 04020173. [CrossRef]
27. Park, D.; Kim, I.; Kim, G.; Lee, J. Groundwater effect factors for the load-carrying behavior of footings from hydraulic chamber
load tests. Geotech. Test. J. 2017, 40, 440–451. [CrossRef]
28. Yang, J.X.; Li, F.J.; Chen, T.H. The Influence about water table rise on bearing capacity of shallow foundations. Constr. Des. Proj.
2010, 6, 95–99.
29. Xu, D.S.; Zhang, Z.; Qin, Y.; Yang, Y. Effect of particle size on the failure behavior of cemented coral sand under impact loading.
Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2021, 149, 106884. [CrossRef]
30. Zhang, Y.; Yao, Z.G.; Liu, Z.H. Study on impact of reservoir immersion on buildings and its evaluation standard. Yangtze River
2014, 45, 74–77.
31. Wan, J.; Zhu, J.; Xiao, H.; Ma, Q. Study on mechanical and ecological properties of fly ash substrate for ecological slope protection.
Adv. Civ. Eng. 2019, 2019, 8095219. [CrossRef]
32. Li, G.R.; Li, X.L.; Chen, W.T.; Li, J.F.; Zhu, H.L.; Hu, X.S.; Zhou, H.K.; Sun, H.Q. Effects of degradation severity on the physical,
chemical and mechanical properties of topsoil in alpine meadow on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, west China. Catena 2020, 187,
104370. [CrossRef]
33. Wei, H.Z.; Xu, D.S.; Meng, Q.S. A newly designed fiber-optic based earth pressure transducer with adjustable measurement range.
Sensors 2018, 18, 932. [CrossRef]
34. SL237-1999; Specific Cation of Soil Test. China Water Power Press: Beijing, China, 1999.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 6571 17 of 17

35. Noroozi, A.G.; Hajiannia, A. The effect of cohesion and level of groundwater on the slope instability using finite element method.
Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res. 2015, 6, 96–99.
36. Shen, J.; Xu, D.S.; Liu, Z.; Wei, H. Effect of particle characteristics stress on the mechanical properties of cement mortar with coral
sand. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 260, 119836. [CrossRef]
37. Xu, D.S.; Zhao, Y.M.; Liu, H.B.; Zhu, H.H. Deformation monitoring of metro tunnel with a new ultrasonic-based system. Sensors
2017, 17, 1758. [CrossRef]
38. Xu, D.S.; Su, Z.Q.; Lalit, B.; Qin, Y. A hybrid FBG-based load and vibration transducer with a 3D fused deposition modelling
approach. Meas. Sci. Technol. 2022, 33, 065106. [CrossRef]
39. Rasti, A.; Adarmanabadi, H.; Pineda, M.; Reinikainen, J. Evaluating the effect of soil particle characterization on internal friction
angle. Am. J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 2021, 14, 129–138. [CrossRef]
40. Chen, Z.X.; Wang, R.; Hu, M.J.; Wang, Z.B.; Xu, D.S. Study of content of clay particles for debris flow occurrence in Jiangjia Ravine.
Rock Soil Mech. 2010, 31, 2197–2201.
41. GB50287-2006; Code for Hydropower Engineering Geological Investigation. China Planning Press: Beijing, China, 2006.
42. GB 50487-2008; Code for Engineering Geological Investigation of Water Resources and Hydropower. China Planning Press:
Beijing, China, 2009.
43. GB50007-2011; Code for Design of Building Foundation. China Architecture and Building Press: Beijing, China, 2012.
44. Zheng, G.; Sun, B.; Lv, D.W.; Pan, Z.J.; Lian, H.Q. Study on reservoir properties and critical depth in deep coal seams in Qinshui
Basin, China. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2019, 2019, 1683413. [CrossRef]