GEOTECHNICS

FOR
THE STRUCTURAL
ENGINEER

DENIS H. CAMILLERI
[email protected]
BICC – CPD 22/04/05
The Development of Foundation limit State
Design

Before World War II codes of practice for

foundation engineering were used only in a
small number of countries.
In 1956 Brinch Hansen used for the first time the
words “limit design” in a geotechnical context.
Brinch linked the limit design concept closely to
the concept of partial safety factors, and he
introduced these two concepts in Danish
foundation of engineering practice.
 Basis Behind Eurocode 7
The Limit state concept is today widely accepted as a
basis for codes of practice in structural engineering.
From the very beginning of the work on the
Eurocodes it was a foregone conclusion that the
Eurocodes should be written in the limit state design
format and that partial factors of safety should be
used.
Consequently it was decided that also those parts of
the Eurocodes which will be dealing with
geotechnical aspects of design should be written in
the limit state format with the use of partial factors
of safety
Geotechnical Categories & Geotechnical Risk Higher Categories satisfied by
greater attention to the quality of the geotechnical investigations and the design
Table 1-Geotechnical Categories related to geotechnical hazard and vulnerability levels
Factors to be Geotechnical Categories
considered GC1 GC2 GC3

Geotechnical hazards Low Moderate High

/vulnerability /risk

Ground conditions Known from comparable Ground conditions and Unusual or

experience to be properties can be exceptionally difficult
straightforward. Not determined from routine ground conditions
involving soft, loose or investigations and tests. requiring non-routine
compressible soil, loose investigations and
fill or sloping ground. tests.
Regional seismicity Areas with no or very low Moderate earthquake Areas of high
earthquake hazard hazard where seismic earthquake hazard
design code (EC8 Part
V) may be used

Surroundings Negligible risk of damage Possible risk of damage High risk of damage to
to or from neighbouring to neighbouring neighbouring
structures or services and structures or services structures or services
negligible risk for life due, for example, to
excavations or piling
 Table 1 (cont.)
Geotechnical Categories

GC1 GC2 GC3

Expertise Person with appropriate Experienced qualified Experienced
required comparable experience person – Civil Engineer geotechnical
specialist
Design Prescriptive measures and Routine calculations for More sophisticated
procedures simplified design procedures stability and analyses
e.g. design bearing pressures deformations based on
based on experience or design procedures in
published presumed bearing EC7
pressures. Stability of
deformation calculations may
not be necessary
Examples of - Simple 1 & 2 storey Conventional: - Very large
structures structures and agricultural - Spread and pile buildings
buildings having maximum foundations - Large bridges
design column load of 250kN - Walls and other - Deep
and maximum design wall load retaining structures excavations
of 100kN/m
- Bridge piers and - Embankments
- Retaining walls and abutments on soft ground
excavation supports where
ground level difference does not Embankments and Tunnels in soft or
exceed 2m earthworks highly permeable
ground
 Ultimate Limite State (ULS) partial factors (persistant &
transiet situations)
Table 2- Partial factors for ultimate limit states in persistent and transient situations

Parameter Factor Case A Case B Case C Case C2 Case C3

Partial load factors (γF ) (UPL) (STR) (GEO) (EQU) (HYD)

Permanent γG 1.00 1.35 1.00 1.35 1.00
unfavourable action
Variable unfvaourable γQ 1.50 1.50 1.30 1.50 1.20
action
Permanent fvourable γG 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
action
Variable favourable γQ 0 0 0 0 0
action
Accidental action γA 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

„ Values in red are partial factors either given or implied in ENV version of EC7
„ Values in green are partial not in the ENV that may be in the EN version
 Table 2 (Cont.)
Parameter Factor Case A Case B Case C Case C2 Case C3
Partial material factors (γm ) (UPL) (STR) (GEO) (EQU) (HYD)
Tan φ’ γtanφ
tanφ’ 1.10 1.00 1.25 1.00 1.20

Effective cohesion c’ γc’ 1.30 1.00 1.60 1.00 1.20

Undrained shear strength cu γcu 1.20 1.00 1.40 1.00 1.40

Compressive strength qu γqu 1.20 1.00 1.40 1.00 1.40

Pressuremeter limit γplim 1.40 1.00 1.40 1.00 1.40

pressure plim
CPT resistance γCPT 1.40 1.00 1.40 1.00 1.40

Unit weight of ground γ γg 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

„ Values in red are partial factors either given or implied in ENV version of EC7
„ Values in green are partial not in the ENV that may be in the EN version
 Table 2 (Cont.)
Parameter Factor Case A Case B Case C Case C2 Case C3

Partial resistance factors (γR ) (UPL) (STR) (GEO) (EQU) (HYD)

Bearing resistance γRV -* 1.00 1.00 1.40 1.00

Sliding resistance γrS -* 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00

Earth resistance γRe -* 1.00 1.00 1.40 1.00

Pile base resistance γb -* 1.00 1.30 1.30 1.00

Pile shaft resistance γs -* 1.00 1.30 1.30 1.00

Total pile resistance γt -* 1.00 1.30 1.30 1.00

Pile Tensile resistance γst 1.40 1.00 1.60 1.40 1.00

Anchor pull-out resistance γA 1.30 1.00 1.50 1.20 1.00

„ Values in red are partial factors either given or implied in ENV version of EC7
„ Values in green are partial not in the ENV that may be in the EN version
„ * Partial factors that are not relevant for Case A
 Serviceability Limit State Calculations (SLS)
Table 3 – Serviceability limits
Degree of damage Effect on
Crack width mm structure and
Dwelling Commercial or Industrial
building use
public
> 0.1 Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant None

0.1 to 0.3 Very slight Very slight Insignificant none

0.3 to 1 Slight Slight Very slight Aesthetic only

1 to 2 Slight to Slight to Very slight Accelerated

moderate moderate weathering to
external features
2 to 5 Moderate Moderate Slight Serviceability of
the building will
5 to 15 Moderate to Moderate to Moderate be affected, and
severe severe towards the
upper bound,
15 to 25 Severe to very Moderate to Moderate to
stability may
severe severe severe
also be at risk
>25 Very severe to Severe to Severe to Increasing risk
dangerous dangerous dangerous of structure
becoming
dangerous
 LIMIT STATE DESIGN –
CHARACTERISTIC VALUE & DESIGN
STRENGTH
CHARACTERISTIC STRENGTH OF A
MATERIAL is the strength below which not
more than 5% (or 1 in 20) samples will fail.

CHARACTERISTIC STRENGTH =
MEAN VALUE – 1.64 X Standard Deviation
DESIGN STRENGTH =
CHARACTERISTIC STRENGTH fu
MATERIAL FACTOR OF SAFETY γm
EXAMPLE:
Ten concrete cubes were prepared and tested by crushing in
compression at 28 days. The following crushing strengths in N/mm2
were obtained:
44.5 47.3 42.1 39.6 47.3 46.7 43.8 49.7 45.2 42.7
Mean strength xm = 448.9 = 44.9N/mm2
10
Standard deviation = √[(x-xm)2/(n-1)] = √(80/0)
= 2.98N/mm2
Characteristic strength = 44.9 – (1.64 X 2.98)
= 40.0 N/mm2
Design strength = 40.0 = 40.0
γm 1.5
= 26.7N/mm2
BICC Project Job ref:

BUILDING INDUSTRY FOUNDATION CPD COURSE

CONSULTATIVE Part of Structure

COUNCIL CHARACTERISTIC VALUE DETERMINATION

Drawing Ref: Done by: DHC Date: 05/02
Ref Calculations Output

The Characteristic Value of the angle of shearing resistance ∅’K is

required for a 10m depth of ground consisting of sand for which the
following ∅’K values were determined from 10 traxial tests: 33°, 35°,
33.5°, 32.5°, 37.5°, 34.5°,36.0°, 31.5°, 37°, 33.5°
To find the 95% confidence level, for soil properties, as only a small
portion of the total volume involved in a design situation is tested, it is
not possible to rely on Normal Distribution.
For a small sample size the Student t value for a 95% confidence level
may be used to determine that XK value, given by
XK = Xm [ l-tV ] = Xm - tσ
√n √n
Some typical values of V for different soil properties given by
Soil Property Range of typical Recommended V
V values Value if limited
Test results available
tanφ’ 0.05 – 0.15 0.10
c’ 0.30 – 0.50 0.40
cu 0.20 – 0.40 0.30
mv 0.20 – 0.70 0.40
γ (unit weight) 0.01 – 0.10 0
BICC Project Job ref:

BUILDING INDUSTRY FOUNDATION CPD COURSE

CONSULTATIVE Part of Structure

COUNCIL CHARACTERISTIC & DESIGN VALUE

DETERMINATION
Drawing Ref: Done by: DHC
Ref Calculations Output

Average angle of shearing resistance ∅’AV = 34.4°

With a Standard Deviation σ = 1.97°
Coeff of variation V = 0.057

Student t for a 95% confidence level

with 10 test results = 2.26
∅’K = 34.4 - 1.97 X 2.26 / √10 = 33.0°

The Design Value XD = Xk/γm

Applying the γm = 1.25 for Case C in Table 2
∅’c = arc tan (tan ∅’K ) / 1.25 = 27.8°
The t values are given in Table 4
Basic Cohesive Soil Founding Pressures

Shallow Foundation occurs when founding depth (D) is

less than width (B)
D/B < 1 or when d<3m (may not be applicable for rafts)
For undrained conditions, the base resistance qB per unit
area
Shallow foundation qB = 5cu + γsD
Deep foundation qB = 9cu + γsD
For the general soil type use the EC7 Brinch-Hansen
equation.
MALTESE CLAYS CHARACTERISTICS

Referring to Mr. A. Cassar A&CE, from various

insitu tests carried out using SPT and laboratory
tests on recovered samples, Maltese clays may be
described as stiff to very stiff in its natural state,
having an average C value of 100KN/m2, with a
lower limit of 50 and an upper limit of 200.
Also the plastic limit (PL) of clay is given at 23%,
with the liquid limit (LL) at 70% (Bonello 1988).
The plasticity index (PI) is thus given by
PI = LL – PL = 47%
MALTESE CLAYS CHARACTERISTICS -
continued
From the Casagrande plasticity chart this is
classified as an inorganic clay of high plasticity.
From BS 8004 table 1, stiff clays have a presumed
alloweable bearing value of 150 to 300KN/m2,
whilst very stiff clays have values varying from
300 to 600 KN/m2.
For a PL at 23% and a high clay content, the
shrinkage and swelling potential of Maltese clays
is classified at high, usually showing cracks on
drying.
 Blue Clay Formation
Mineralogic Composition
Clay Water Undrained Liquid Placticity Illite Kaolinite Chlorite Smectite
type Content shear str limit limit % % % %
(%) kPa % %
Blue 36.0 137 78 31 13.0 30 0 57
Clay

Lon- 29.0 345 89 32 31.5 24.5 3 41

don
clay

Maximum burial depth: Blue clay: c 400m London Clay: c500m

Source: Saviour Scerri - geologist

 Blue Clay – Geotechnical characteristics

Sample Moisture LL PL PI LI Soil Bulk Dry Lateral Cu –

Depth Content Class Weight Weight Press KN/m2
m
4.00 36 77 29 48 0.15 CV 1.90 1.40 80 243

8.50 33 71 26 45 0.16 CV 1.91 1.44 170 251

5.20 33 74 25 49 0.16 CV 1.92 1.44 104 266

8.80 34 74 28 46 0.13 CV 1.92 1.45 176 334

1.00 32 72 27 45 0.11 CV 1.91 1.45 20 285

5.50 33 76 27 49 0.12 CV 1.90 1.43 110 305

1.00 30 69 27 42 0.07 CH 1.95 1.49 20 415

5.50 33 74 26 48 0.15 CV 1.91 1.46 110 342

Source: Saviour Scerri -geologist

 Blue Clay Formation
„ Blue Clay has a high clay content
• Shrinkage due to desiccation is high and may
reach 3m in depth
• Deep cracks are produced
• Clay loses all its cohesion
• Subsequent saturation produces clay slips

Source: Saviour Scerri - geologist

Preparing A Clay Founding Layer
„ In order to eliminate seasonal ground movement
(heave or shrinkage) a min. foundation depth of 0.9m
is suggested
„ When constructing foundations in very dry weather,
care must be taken to ensure superstructure loads are
applied as soon as possible
„ Foundations are to be placed at a sufficient distance
from trees. To reduce above damage due to
subsidence or heave, foundations should be placed at a
distance away of 0.5H, being the mature tree height.
„ For trees such as the poplar, oak, elm, willow and
eucalyptus the distance should be doubled to H
Constructing a Raft Foundation
„ Raft foundations should be placed on fully
compacted draining infill separated by a polythene
sheet not exceeding 1.0m in depth. The raft and
fully compacted fill tend to act compositely in
resisting the heave forces. Heave movement is
reduced by removing the most desiccated clay
layer.
„ For protection against the possibility of future tree
planting producing damaging ground movement the
bored pile foundation is more suitable. The upper
part of the pile shaft in the clay desiccation zone
should be sleeved to reduce uplift selling forces
„ Heaving pressures in clays may be up to 200KN/m2
 Indirect Design Methods
This is the traditional method used in most countries. In
this method calculations are carried out at characteristic
stress levels (CP 2004 – table 1 enclosed) with
unfactored load and ground parameters.
Although EC7 does not provide provision for this method,
it is expected to be included in the revised version.
Foundations on rock applicable to this method, although
Annex G of EC7 gives presumed bearing resistances
dependant on the rocks compressive strength and
discontinuity spacing.
Foundation Settlement EC7 – Appendix F
Adjusted elasticity method s= pBf/Em (cohesive &
non-cohesive)
p is elastic bearing pressure linearly distributed
f is the settlement coefficient?
Em is the soil modulus of elasticity
Appendix H outlines structural deformation &
foundation movement
 ALLOWABLE SETTLEMENTS &
ROTATIONS
For normal structures with isolated foundations total
settlements up to 50mm acceptable. A max relative
rotation of 1/500 acceptable for most structures, given
in EC7.
Other sources’ max raft total settlement of clay up to
125mm with differential settlements of 45mm
acceptable. For sand, total given at 50mm and
differential at 30mm.
Isolated foundations max. deflection on clay given at
75mm (sand 50mm).
Brick buildings total settlement quoted at 75-100mm.
Angular distortion of 1/300 also quoted.