LRFD Design of Shallow Foundations

Nominal Geotechnical Resistances

ASD Failure Modes

Overall Stability Bearing Capacity Settlement Sliding Overturning

Nominal Geotechnical Resistances

LRFD Service Limit State

Overall Stability Vertical (Settlement) and Horizontal Movements Bearing Resistance Sliding Eccentricity Limits (Overturning)

LRFD Strength Limit State

Service Limit State

Global Stability

Stabilize

Destabilize

Global Stability Factor of Safety Method of Slices

+
WT
N tan f cl T WT

l
N a WT T

l
WT a

N
T

N tan f cl T

Resistance Factors
ASD Factors of Safety
Soil/Rock Parameters and Ground Water Conditions Based On: In-situ or Laboratory Tests and Measurements

Slope Supports Abutment or Other Structure? Yes No

1.5 1.3

No Site-specific Tests

1.8

1.5

LRFD

Stability Wrap-Up

Unfactored loads

Service Limit State

Footings supported in a slope f 0.65 (FS 1.5)

Applied stress must be limited

Stress criteria for stability can control footing design

Service Limit State Design Settlement

Cohesive Soils

Evaluate Using Consolidation Theory

Evaluate Using Empirical or Other Conventional Methods Hough Method

Cohesionless Soils

Impact on Structures

Settlement of Granular vs. Cohesive Soils

Relative importance of settlement components for different soil types

Elastic Primary Consolidation Secondary Settlement (Creep)

Settlement of Granular vs. Cohesive Soils

Structural effects of settlement components Include Transient Loads if Drained Loading is Expected and for Computing Initial Elastic Settlement Transient Loads May Be Omitted When Computing Consolidation Settlement of Cohesive Soils

Hough Method
Settlement of Cohesionless Soils

Stress Below Footing

Boussinesq Pressure Isobars

Nominal Bearing Resistance at Service Limit State

For a constant value of settlement Rn

Bf

Eccentricity of Footings on Soil

ML

P P

MB

eB = MB / P eL = M L / P

eL
B

Effective Dimensions for Footings on Soil

B = B 2eB L = L 2eL

ML
L

MB

eL
B

Applied Stress Beneath Effective Footing Area

L

ML

MB

eL
B

Stress Applied to Soil

Strip Footing

Footings on Rock
Trapezoidal Distribution

Footings on Rock
Triangular Distribution

Use of Eccentricity and Effective Footing Dimensions

Service Limit State

Nominal Bearing Resistance Limited by Settlement Nominal Bearing Resistance Limited by Bearing Resistance

Strength Limit State

Prevent Overturning

All Applicable Limit States

Strength Limit State Bearing Resistance

Strength Limit State Design Bearing Resistance

Footings on Soil

Evaluate Using Conventional Bearing Theory

Evaluate Using CSIR Rock Mass Rating Procedure

Footings on Rock

Bearing Resistance Mechanism

Ground Surface Df B>Df d e = C + s tan f Soil Shear Strength B 3 b 2 1 a b 2 3 d

sv = g Df

c
Pp

b I a

c Pp

Table 10.5.5.2.1-1 Resistance Factors for Geotechnical Resistance of Shallow Foundations at the Strength Limit State

METHOD/SOIL/CONDITION Theoretical method (Munfakh, et al. (2001), in clay Theoretical method (Munfakh, et al. (2001), in sand, using CPT Bearing Resistance b

RESISTANCE FACTOR

0.50
0.50 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.55 0.90 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.50

Theoretical method (Munfakh, et al. (2001), in sand, using SPT

Semi-empirical methods (Meyerhof), all soils Footings on rock Plate Load Test

Precast concrete placed on sand

Sliding ep Cast-in-Place Concrete on sand Cast-in-Place or precast Concrete on Clay Soil on soil Passive earth pressure component of sliding resistance

Footings on Rock

Service Limit State use published presumptive bearing Published values are allowable therefore settlement-limited Procedures for computing settlement are available

Footings on Rock
Strength Limit State

Very little guidance available for bearing resistance of rock Proposed Specification revisions provide for evaluating the cohesion and friction angle of rock using the CSIR Rock Mass Rating System

CSIR Rock Mass Rating System

CSIR Rock Mass Rating developed for tunnel design Includes life safety considerations and therefore, margin of safety Use of cohesion and friction angle therefore may be conservative

LRFD vs. ASD

All modes are expressly checked at a limit state in LRFD Eccentricity limits replace the overturning Factor of Safety

Width vs. Resistance - ASD

Bearing Pressure (kPa) Shear Failure controls
800 600 400 0 0.0

Settlement controls

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

Footing width, B (m)

Allowable Bearing Capacity, FS = 3.0 Bearing Pressure for 25-mm (1in) settlement

Settlement vs. Bearing Resistance

12 10 N=30 8

qa, ksf

N=25 6 4 2 N=5 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 N=20 N=15 N=10

B, ft

Width vs. Resistance - LRFD

Nominal Bearing Resistance (ksf)
35 25

15
5

12

16

20

Effective Footing width, B (m)

Strength Limit State Service Limit State

Recommended Practice

For LRFD design of footings on soil and rock;

Size footings at the Service Limit State Check footing at all other applicable Limit States

Settlement typically controls!

Summary Comparison of ASD and LRFD for Spread Footings

Same geotechnical theory used to compute resistances, however As per Limit State concepts, presentation of design recommendations needs to be modified

Strength Limit State Resistance Factors

METHOD/SOIL/CONDITION Bearing Resistance f All methods, soil and rock Plate Load Test Sliding f Precast concrete placed on sand Cast-in-Place Concrete on sand Clay Soil on soil fep Passive earth pressure component of sliding resistance RESISTANCE FACTOR 0.45 0.55

0.90
0.80 0.85 0.90 0.50