8553-Article Text PDF-24981-2-10-20170623
8553-Article Text PDF-24981-2-10-20170623
8553-Article Text PDF-24981-2-10-20170623
Civil Engineering
Capacity of Shallow Foundations
According to the Principles of
61(3), pp. 505–515, 2017 Eurocode 7
https://doi.org/10.3311/PPci.8553
Creative Commons Attribution b
Balázs Móczár1*, János Szendefy1
Abstract 1 Introduction
Various simplified design procedures can be found in the litera- With Eurocode 7 (EC7) [17, 18] becoming effective, the for-
ture, intended for the design of shallow foundations of lower mer standards for geotechnical design [16] were withdrawn.
importance buildings and pre-dimensioning. In most cases, According to the international practice, the Hungarian stand-
these design procedures are based on vaguely defined soil ard MSZ 15004-1989 [16] allowed for the use of a so-called
types and parameters, and are not compatible with Eurocode. „permissible bearing pressure” for preliminary dimensioning,
The aim of this paper is to establish a „design procedure by and for foundation design in case of buildings with low impor-
prescriptive measures”, according to the guidelines of Euroc- tance. With this method, the central, vertical limit load of strip
ode 7. Within this framework, previous design procedures are foundations and column footings with a given geometry could
reviewed and a new procedure is developed for the simplified be obtained by applying the permissible bearing pressure along
calculation of the bearing capacity of shallow foundations, with shape and depth factors. In the light of the popularity of
conforming to the principles and rules of Eurocode 7. this method, and given that EC7 allows for employing design
methods based on prescriptive measures, the authors have
Keywords developed a new calculation method which conforms to the
shallow foundations, bearing capacity, limiting bearing pres- principles of EC7 and which is similar to the former method.
sure, presumed bearing capacity
2 Design procedures according to ec7
The EC7 and the literature explaining it [2, 6, 23] clearly
define and categorize the possible design procedures for shal-
low foundations. According to Section 6.4 of EC7, one of the
following design methods may be applied.
Bearing
Soil type Remarks
value (kPa)
2.2 Indirect method number of soil investigations, the required quality of soil sam-
Results from comparable experience and from field and lab- pling and laboratory tests, which are used to set up the detailed
oratory measurements and observations are employed, and the geotechnical site investigation programme. Furthermore, the
design is carried out for SLS loads such that the requirements simplified methods may also be applied as the final stage in
for all relevant limit states should be fulfilled. foundation design for buildings with low importance. Before
Indirect methods comprise calculations which are based on the introduction of EC7 many European standards contained
extensive experience and field measurements, e.g. probing. simplified design methods for shallow foundation. [3, 11, 20]
One example for such an indirect method is the semi-empirical Among others, the British Standard [3] gives values for the
method presented in Annex E of EN 1997-1 [17] that is based presumed bearing resistance applicable for different soil types
on pressuremeter test results and is commonly used in France. and conditions. An excerpt from BS 8004 is shown in Table 1.
The BS states that these values may only be applied in pre-
2.3 Prescriptive method dimensioning, and furthermore it is required that the ground-
In this case, a so-called presumed bearing resistance is water table should lie deeper than B (shorter dimension of the
calculated. footing) beneath the foundation level – and thus have no effect
EC7 categorizes the foundation design with the presumed on the bearing capacity – and the footing should be at least 1.0
bearing resistance as a prescriptive method based on conserva- m wide (B>1.0 m). As it can be seen, even for the same soil con-
tive rules. As an example, Annex G of the standard contains a ditions, presumed bearing resistances may vary significantly.
method to derive the presumed bearing capacity of spread foun- Although, the BS doesn’t provide direct values for safety
dations on rock [17]. There, an allowable bearing pressure can against bearing failure, comparison with bearing resistance
be calculated for different rock types, using the spacing of dis- back-calculated from presumed shear strength parameters of
continuities and the uniaxial compressive strength of the rock. the corresponding soil classes indicates that the factor of safety
Furthermore, a number of international guidelines [3, 11, 13, is at least three. The standard does neither include corrections
20, 21, 23] belong to the prescriptive method, which include that account for a deeper foundation level (depth factor), nor
among others the method based on the „permissible bearing pres- for the footing geometry (shape factor).
sure”, which was in use until the 1st of January 2011. in Hungary. A number of cases can be found in the literature, where the
permissable bearing capacity already contains provisions to
3 Presentation and evaluation of prescriptive fulfil the requirements in the SLS [11, 13]. In these cases, usu-
methods ally the allowable footing pressures that correspond to a settle-
In engineering practice, the methods for pre-dimensioning ment of 1 inch (25 mm) are given. In each case, the authors of
play an important role, as they allow quick estimation of the these tables stress that the values should only be adopted in the
buildings’ main dimensions. During the design of larger build- pre-dimensioning phase.
ings, the decision about employing shallow or deep founda- Table 2 contains presumed bearing capacity values pre-
tions has to be made based on simple calculations and scarce sented in the Handbook of Geotechnical Investigation and
geotechnical data. This has in turn an impact on the depth and Design Tables [13]. Again, the author suggests using the values
Presumed bearing
Soil type Description Undrained shear strength (kPa)
capacity value (kPa)
The smaller cover depth of the footing Design value of bearing resistance σR,d (kPa)
B
m
0.50 m 1.00 m 1.50 m 2.00 m 2.50 m 3.00 m
0.50 280 420 560 700 700 700
1.00 380 520 660 800 800 800
1.50 480 620 760 900 900 900
2.00 560 700 840 980 980 980
If the cover depth is 0.30 m ≤ d ≤ 0.50 m and the width
210
of the footing B ≥ 0.30 m
Table 4 Bearing resistance design values (σR,d) of shallow foundations in case of medium silt
(IP ≤ 4 % and 35% < wL < 50%), low plasticity clay (IP ≥ 7% and wL ≤ 35%) and medium plasticity clay (IP ≥ 7% and 35% ≤ wL ≤ 50%) [10]
doesn’t comprise a simplified design method for shallow on the cover depth (0.5-2.0 m) and footing width (0.5-3.0 m); for
foundations unlike its predecessor, therefore unfortunately no cohesive soils (silt, clay with low and high plasticity) the values
benchmark is provided. Although, the national annex of the are given depending on the cover depth and consistency.
Austrian EC7 doesn’t include a simplified method either, but Three types of consistency are considered: stiff (0.75 ≤ Ic ≤
based on our best knowledge its development is in progress, 1.0), very stiff (1.0 ≤ Ic ≤ 1.3) and hard (1.3 ≤ Ic), for which uni-
and a new, revised version will be published shortly. axial compressive strengths are also assigned that can be deter-
The German DIN EN 1997-1 and DIN 1054 however con- mined from undisturbed samples.
tains a simplified design method for shallow foundations (“Ver- In the following two tables (Table 3 and 4) examples are
einfachter nachweis in Regelfällen”) harmonized with the EC. shown for granular soils, and for medium silts, low and medium
The tabulated values of bearing resistance design values (σR,d) plasticity clays for cohesive soils.
were determined using γR = 1.4 partial factor and were derived Between the above presented resistance values linear inter-
based on the EC7 recommended failure theory. Soil proper- polation may be employed. A separate table deals with the con-
ties assumed for the calculations (primarily the shear strength ditions upon which σR,d can be increased, e.g. if the ratio of the
parameters) are unknown, thus they can only be estimated by sides of the footing is (L/B) is less than 2, then values given by
back-calculating form the tabulated values. Table 3 can be increased by 20 %.
The German code [10] provides the design values of bear- In case of granular soils the depth of the groundwater is
ing resistance (σR,d) in altogether 6 tables, from which the first taken into account as follows:
two concern granular soils, while the rest covers cohesive soils. 1. if the groundwater level lies deeper than the width of the
Within granular soils there is no differentiation between sand, footing (d>B), then the tabulated values are valid;
gravelly sand and sandy gravel; in the first table resistance values 2. if the groundwater level matches the foundation level,
correspond to 2 cm settlement, while the second table gives val- then the tabulated values should be reduced by 40 %;
ues for 1 cm settlement. In case of cohesive soils the maximum 3. if the groundwater level is between the above two condi-
settlement is 2-4 cm if values of the tables are used. However it tions, linear interpolation should be applied;
should be noted that practising German engineers propose the 4. if the groundwater level is situated above the foundation
performance of a separate settlement calculation for wider foot- level, than the 40 % decrease of point 2 is only valid if
ings (2-3 m). The German standard doesn’t apply separate shape the cover depth is larger than the footing width and at
and depth factors, their effect is taken into account via the tabu- least 0.8 m.
lated values. For granular soils the values are listed depending
L 18 9 35 0
sandy gravel
MD 19 10 37 0
(Gr>50%)
D 20 11 38 0
GRANULAR SOILS
L 18 9 32 0
gravelly sand
MD 19 10 34 0
(Gr>20%, Si+Cl< 15 %)
D 20 11 36 0
L 17 8 29 0
sand
MD 18 9 31 0
(Gr<20% and Si+Cl<15%)
D 19 10 33 0
L 18 9 24 5
silty sand
MD 19 10 26 10
(Gr<20%, Si+Cl< 40%, Sa>45%)
D 20 11 28 15
TRANSIENT SOILS
L 18 9 20 15
sandy silt
MD 19 10 22 20
(60%>Sa>20%, Cl<20%)
D 20 11 24 25
P 18 9 16 20
silt
F 19 10 19 25
(Ip 10-15%)
S 20 11 22 30
F 18 9 14 25
low plasticity clay
S 19 10 17 35
(Ip 15-20%)
VS 20 11 19 45
COHESIVE SOILS
F 18 9 11 30
medium plasticity clay
S 19 10 15 40
(Ip 20-30%)
VS 20 11 19 50
F 18 9 7 30
high plasticity clay
S 19 10 12 50
(Ip >30%)
VS 20 11 15 70
4.1 Geotechnical data resistance of the layers. The evaluation of the density of cohe-
The geotechnical input data was assessed in light of the aims sive soils according to dynamic probing results is a more com-
of the proposed new method. The ground investigation report plex task, in such a case it is advised to rely mainly on labora-
for buildings of less importance is usually based on a smaller tory tests and draw upon the consistency index.
site investigation programme. It mainly contains results from In ground investigation reports of simpler tasks, the design-
small-diameter boreholes, and eventually dynamic probing. ers will – at least in the Hungarian practice – find the results
The soil samples obtained from small-diameter borings are of soil classification with the description of the layers, their
usually disturbed samples, the possibility for the retrieval of density and consistency, and mainly “tabulated” data on shear
undisturbed samples is limited. These disturbed samples are of strength and oedometric modulus. In light of the above, the
quality classes 3-4 of category B [19] may only be used for authors have assembled Table 7 with soil types and the related
soil classification tests (grain size distribution, plasticity index, characteristic values of geotechnical input parameters for the
organic content). Rarely direct shear tests are also carried out, calculation of presumed bearing capacities.
but shear strength parameters are mainly determined from Soils were classified according to geotechnical practice into
experience or taken from tables based on soil classification. three main groups: granular, transient and cohesive soils. The
Through the results of dynamic probing, the density of gran- main groups contain three soil types each. For clays, in accord-
ular soils may be classified as loose, medium dense or dense. ance with the Hungarian geomorphological conditions, physi-
The person conducting the drill also classifies the condition of cal properties associated with normally consolidated soils were
the soil layers with these categories according to the drilling taken into account. The soil types were defined according to the
The influence of the groundwater level was examined in parts, only the bearing capacity factor for cohesion has a pro-
3 situations for each soil type (Fig. 3). In the first situation nounced effect on the results in case of cohesive soils, whereas
(Fig. 3a) the groundwater has no effect on the bearing resistance changes in the foundation width or cover depth have almost no
since it lies deeper than the footing width beneath the founda- effect on the resulting bearing pressures at failure (the charac-
tion level. In the second situation (Fig. 3b) the area enclosed by teristic value of bearing resistance).
the logarithmic spiral slip line is mostly submerged under water.
In the third situation the foundation lies completely under the 4.4 Deriving the shape and depth factors
water table, and the weight of the cover is reduced by the buoy- The bearing capacity of a foundation is influenced by its width,
ancy force. Of course, if the groundwater table lies at the border the cover depth, and the type of foundation (strip foundation or
of the investigated situations presented in Fig. 3, interpolation column footing) [1, 4, 12, 21]. For this end, shape and depth fac-
between the presumed bearing capacity values is allowed. tors have been determined that account for these circumstances.
The initial values of strip foundation width and cover depth However, opposed to the previous Hungarian method, and con-
were B=1.0m and d=1.0m for the calculation of the character- forming better to the structure of the bearing resistance formula,
istic value of the bearing resistance, as in the case of the former these are different for each of the three soil groups. To determine
“permissible bearing pressure” method. these factors, the bearing resistance calculations were extended
Taking into account the slight increase in safety on the action to combinations of foundation width of B=0.5-2.0 m and cover
side introduced in Eurocode, literature data, and previous Hun- depths ranging between d=0.5-2.0m, both for strip foundations
garian experience, the safety against failure was set to n=2.25. and column footings with a square base.
This can also be interpreted as a model factor of 1.6 besides The main goal for the determination of the shape and depth
the partial factor against bearing capacity failure (γR=1.4, factors was to find correlations which allow for a maximum devi-
1.4∙1.6≈2.25). If a partial factor of 1.4 is taken into account as ation of ±10% from the exact values obtained from the bearing
the weighted average of permanent γG=1.35 and variable action capacity formula for the same width and depth. The derived shape
γQ=1.5 on the action side, then global safety becomes approx. and depth factors are shown in Table 9, as a function of founda-
2.25∙1.4=3.15, which harmonizes with the international practice tion width and cover depth, for the three different soil groups.
and domestic experience. As it can be seen from the table, compared with the former
With the procedure presented above, the design value of Hungarian method, the shape factors for column footings have
the presumed bearing capacity (pressure) was calculated changed a little for transient and cohesive soils (1.3 instead of
from Rk/2.25, and the resulting pressure values are shown in 1.25), but for granular soils the values may be significantly
Table 8, rounded to 25 for the sake of simplicity. The symbol different depending on width and depth. The depth factor cor-
selected for the design value of the presumed bearing capacity responds to the one found in the former method for granular
(pressure) is σpb;d. soils (which yields the best fit to the values obtained from the
It should be underlined that the position of the groundwa- bearing capacity formula). However, the effect of foundation
ter table has practically no effect on the bearing resistance for width is smaller in the newly introduced soil group, for tran-
cohesive soils (as can be seen from the values in Table 8), but sient soils. It is negligible for cohesive soils; hence it does not
plays an ever increasing role as the soil grains get coarser. Fur- appear in the depth factor for this soil group. Thus the depth
thermore, in the formula for bearing resistance consisting of 3 factors resemble well the tendency that as the soil gets more
Table 9 Shape and depth factors for strip foundations and column footings with square base
and more cohesive, the effect of foundation width and depth on the simplifications made when deriving the presumed bearing
the bearing capacity reduces. When inserting B=1 m and d=1 capacities all bear uncertainties, thus the method proposed by
m into the formula of the depth factor, we get dpb=1.0 for each the authors bears larger uncertainty than that connected with the
soil group, i.e. we arrive at the base value. characteristic value of the bearing resistance calculated accord-
ing to EC7 [17]. To account for these, instead of the safety factor
4.5 Calculation procedure according to the proposed for bearing resistance of γR=1.4 after EC7 [17], a larger value of
method 2.25 was adopted – as explained before – for the calculation of
With the help of the values of presumed bearing capacities the design value of the presumed bearing capacities.
given in Table 8 and the shape and depth factors from Table With the help of the values and factors defined above, the
9, the bearing resistance of foundations may be estimated. The bearing resistance of a foundation against central, vertical
assumed ground investigation methods, the limited extent of lab- loads may be calculated and checked against the design value
oratory tests, the experience-based values for shear strength and of the vertical, central foundation loads as follows: