1

Foundations

The foundations are properly called the basis of the fabrick, viz. that part
of it under ground which sustains the whole edifice above; and there-
fore of all the errors that can be committed in building, those made in
the foundation are most pernicious, because they at once occasion the
ruin of the whole fabrick, nor can they be rectified without the utmost
difficulty.
Venetian architect Andrea Palladio (1508–1580)
as translated by Isaac Ware, 1738

Builders have long recognized the importance of a solid foundation, and that the integ-
rity of a structure can be no greater than that of its foundation. If a foundation fails,
the overlying structure fails with it. These truths were especially evident in Palladio’s
renaissance Venice, where heavy masonry structures were being built on small islands
in a lagoon underlain by very soft soils. In addition, as Palladio observed, defects in
the foundation are very difficult to repair after the structure has been built. Thus, ­well-​
­designed and ­well-​­constructed foundations continue to be an essential part of successful
construction.
However, foundations can also be very expensive, so o­ ver-​­designed foundations are
needlessly wasteful and inefficient. Our goal is to provide sturdy foundations that prop-
erly support the superstructure, while avoiding costly ­over-​­design. The methods of doing
so form the subject of this book.

3
4 Chapter 1  Foundations

1.1  FOUNDATION CLASSIFICATION

Foundations are structural elements that transfer loads from the superstructure to the under-
lying soil or rock. A structure may be supported on a system of individual foundations, or
on a single large foundation. Engineers classify foundations into two broad categories:
shallow foundations and deep foundations, as shown in Figure 1.1.
Shallow foundations transmit the structural loads to the soils immediately beneath the
foundation, and are discussed in Chapters 6 to 11. The most common type is a spread footing,
which spreads the applied load over a sufficiently large area to maintain soil stresses within
tolerable limits. Spread footings are easy and inexpensive to build, and are most often used
to support small to medium size structures on sites with good soil conditions. Typically, each
column has its own spread footing, although sometimes multiple ­closely-​­spaced columns are
supported on a single footing. Thus, a building might have dozens of individual footings.
The second type of shallow foundation is a mat foundation (also called a raft foun-
dation), which normally encompasses the entire footprint of the structure. Mats have the
advantage of providing structural continuity and rigidity, as well as spreading the load
over a larger area.
Conversely, deep foundations transmit much, or all, of the applied load to deeper
soils, and are discussed in Chapters 12 to 24. Piles are long slender structural members
that can be either prefabricated and driven into the ground, or cast in place. Caissons
are large prefabricated boxes that are sunk into place and filled with concrete to form a
foundation. The ­load-​­carrying capacity of soils generally increases with depth, and deep
foundations engage a larger volume of soil, so they are most often used on larger and
heavier structures, especially when the shallow soils are poor.
The terminology used to describe and classify foundations is sometimes inconsistent.
Different terms are sometimes used to describe the same thing, and the same term is some-
times used to describe different things. Even the term “foundation” is sometimes used to
describe the underlying soil or rock rather than a structural element. This book uses termi-
nology that reflects common practice, and alternative terms are included in context.

Foundations

Shallow Deep
Foundations Foundations
Chap 12

Spread Footings Mats Piles Caissons Pile Supported

Chaps 6 –10 Chap 11 Chaps 13 –14, 19 –23 and Pile Enhanced
Mats Chap 24

Driven Piles Drilled Shafts Auger Piles Other Types

Chap 15 Chap 16 Chap 17 Chap 18

Figure 1.1  Classification of foundations.

1.2  The Emergence of Modern Foundation Engineering 5

1.2  THE EMERGENCE OF MODERN FOUNDATION ENGINEERING

The history of foundations extends for thousands of years, and impressive projects were
built hundreds or even thousands of years ago. For example, 4,000 to 5,000 years ago the
alpine lake dwellers in Europe used timber piles to support their houses. Also, in the year
55 BCE, Julius Caesar built a ­pile-​­supported bridge across the Rhine River to facilitate his
conquest of Gaul. In Shanghai, the 40 m tall Longhua Pagoda was constructed on soft clay
in 977 CE using a foundation of bricks laid on a wooden raft supported by ­closely-​­spaced
wooden piles, a design very similar to today’s ­pile-​­supported mat, and has stood firm for
over 1,000 years while some newer buildings nearby have been badly damaged by exces-
sive settlement (Kerisel, 1987).
Early foundation designs were based on precedent, intuition, and common sense.
Through ­trial-​­and-​­error, builders developed rules for selecting, sizing, and constructing
foundations. For example, even as late as the nineteenth century, the width of spread foot-
ings supporting masonry walls in New  York City was set at 1.5 times the width of the
wall when founded on compact gravel, and 3.0 times the width of the wall when founded
on sand or stiff clay (Powell, 1884).
These empirical rules, combined with good judgment, usually produced accept-
able results as long as they were applied to structures and soil conditions similar to those
encountered in the past. However, the results were sometimes disastrous when builders
extrapolated the rules to new conditions. This problem became especially troublesome
when new building materials and methods of construction began to appear during the last
quarter of the nineteenth century. The introduction of steel and reinforced concrete led
to a gradual transition away from rigid masonry structures supported primarily on bear-
ing walls to more flexible frame structures that used columns. These new materials also
permitted structures to be taller and heavier than before. In addition, as good sites became
increasingly scarce, builders were forced to consider sites with poorer soil conditions,
which made foundation design and construction much more difficult. Thus, the old rules
for foundation design no longer applied.
The introduction of these new building materials led to more rational design methods,
the beginning of what we now call structural engineering, and this rational approach natu-
rally extended to the foundations. Geotechnical engineering, which began in earnest during
the 1920s, further added to our understanding of foundations and the mechanical processes
of transferring loads into the ground. Thus, instead of simply developing new empirical
rules, engineers began to investigate the behavior of foundations and develop more ratio-
nal methods of design, establishing the discipline of foundation engineering. This transition
began in the late nineteenth century, rapidly progressed through the twentieth century, and
continues in the ­twenty-​­first century.
These advances in analysis and design were accompanied by tremendous improve-
ments in construction methods and equipment. For example, modern pile driving ham-
mers enable construction of huge ­high-​­capacity piles that far exceed the capabilities of
timber piles driven by falling weights. These advances have enabled building at sites
where foundation construction had previously been impossible or impractical.
6 Chapter 1  Foundations

It is now possible to build reliable, c­ ost-​­effective, ­high-​­capacity foundations for a

wide range of modern structures, even on very difficult sites. Advances in design and
construction continue to be developed in the t­wenty-​­first century, so future engineers will
probably have even greater capabilities. Nevertheless, precedent, empiricism, common
sense, and engineering judgment are still important, and continue to have a role in modern
foundation engineering.

The Eiffel Tower

The Eiffel Tower, Figure 1.2, is an excellent example of a new type of structure in which
the old rules for foundations no longer applied. It was built for the Paris Universal Expo-
sition of 1889 and was the tallest structure in the world. Alexandre Gustave Eiffel, the
designer and builder, was very conscious of the need for adequate foundations, and clearly
did not want to create another Leaning Tower of Pisa (Kerisel, 1987).
The Eiffel Tower is adjacent to the Seine River, and is underlain by difficult soil
conditions, including uncompacted fill and soft alluvial soils. Piers for the nearby Pont
de l'Alma (Alma bridge), which were founded in this alluvium, had already settled nearly
1 m. The tower could not tolerate such settlements.

Figure 1.2  Two legs of the Eiffel Tower are

underlain by softer soils, and thus could have
settled more than the other two. Fortunately,
Eiffel carefully explored the soil’s conditions,
recognized this potential problem, and designed
the foundations to accommodate these soil con-
ditions. His foresight and diligence resulted in
a ­well-​­designed foundation system that has not
settled excessively (Courtesy by Shutterstock).
1.2  The Emergence of Modern Foundation Engineering 7

Eiffel began exploring the subsurface conditions using the crude drilling equipment
of the time, but was not satisfied with the results. He wrote: “What conclusions could one
reasonably base on the examination of a few cubic decimeters of excavated soil, more
often than not diluted by water, and brought to the surface by the scoop?” (Kerisel, 1987).
Therefore, he devised a new means of exploring the soils, which consisted of driving a
200 mm diameter pipe filled with compressed air. The air kept groundwater from entering
the tube, and thus permitted recovery of higher quality samples.
Eiffel’s studies revealed that the two legs of the tower closest to the Seine were
underlain by deeper and softer alluvium, and were immediately adjacent to an old river
channel that had filled with soft silt. The foundation design had to accommodate these
soil conditions, or else the two legs on the softer soils would settle more than the other
two, causing the tower to tilt toward the river.
Based on his study of the soil conditions, Eiffel placed the foundations for the
two legs furthest from the river on the shallow but firm alluvial soils. The bottoms of
these foundations were above the groundwater table, so their construction proceeded
easily. However, he made the foundations for the other two legs much deeper so they
too were founded on firm soils. This required excavating about 12 m below the ground
surface (6 m below the groundwater table). As a result of Eiffel’s diligence, the foun-
dations have safely supported the tower for more than a century, and have not experi-
enced excessive differential settlements.

Chicago

The advancement of foundation engineering in Chicago also illustrates many of the world-
wide changes in practice that occurred during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centu-
ries (Peck, 1999). Rapid population growth and other factors drove a sustained construction
boom that, in many ways, made the city a laboratory for new design and construction meth-
ods. Chicago is particularly interesting from a geotechnical perspective, because the city is
underlain by saturated clay to a depth of about 100 ft. This is a stark contrast to New York
City, where competent bedrock is often easily within reach and provides adequate bearing
for the large buildings in most of Manhattan.
During the early part of this period, virtually all buildings in Chicago were compar-
atively small and supported on spread footings. This foundation type continued to be used
as the size and weight of buildings increased. A significant advance came in 1873 when
Frederick Baumann, a Chicago architect, published the pamphlet The Art of Preparing
Foundations, with Particular Illustration of the “Method of Isolated Piers” as Followed
in Chicago (Baumann, 1873). He appears to be the first to explicitly recommend that the
base area of a footing should be proportional to the applied load, and that the loads should
act concentrically upon the footing. He also gave allowable bearing pressures for Chicago
soils and specified tolerable limits for total and differential settlements.
As buildings became increasingly larger and heavier, foundation settlement became
increasingly problematic. The auditorium building, constructed between 1887 and 1889
on spread footings, is one of the most noteworthy examples. Most of the building had a
height of 10 stories, but part of it consisted of a 19-story tower, as shown in Figure 1.3.
8 Chapter 1  Foundations

Figure  1.3  The auditorium building in Chicago experienced 28 in of settlement, but is still in service more
than a century after its completion. This structure helped usher in new foundation designs that are less suscep-
tible to settlement.

Although designed according to the state of the art at the time, the tower portion ulti-
mately settled 28 in, with significant differential settlements between the tower and the
less heavily loaded areas.
It became clear that spread footings were not adequate for larger buildings, even
when designed according to Baumann’s guidelines. Driven piles were then used on some
buildings, but a new method, the Chicago caisson,1 was introduced in 1892 by William

1
 In this case, the term “caisson” is being used to describe a foundation that we would classify as a c­ ast-​­in-​­place
pile. This is quite different from our usage of the term, which describes a method that uses large prefabricated
boxes that are sunk into place and filled with concrete.
1.3  The Foundation Engineer 9

­ ooy-​­Smith, a former civil war general turned foundation engineer. This method consisted
S
of ­hand-​­excavating a cylindrical hole about 1 m in diameter down to harder bearing stra-
tum, then filling the hole with ­cast-​­in-​­place concrete. Local engineers developed methods
of designing and building these caissons, which solved the excessive settlement problem
and soon became the foundation of choice. Modern ­high-​­rise buildings in Chicago, such as
the Willis Tower (formerly known as the Sears Tower), still use drilled shafts, which are
modern ­machine-​­dug versions of the Chicago caisson.

San ­Francisco–​­Oakland Bay Bridge

The original San ­Francisco–​­Oakland Bay Bridge, constructed between 1933 and 1936,
required innovative foundations because of the poor soils conditions and deep water (Hus-
band, 1936). For example, the foundation for one of the piers on the west span extends
through an unprecedented 21 m (70 ft) of water, then 43 m (140 ft) of soil (much of it
soft clay) to bedrock. This was far too deep for pneumatic caissons, which were the stan-
dard method of the day, so legendary foundation engineer Daniel Moran (1864–1937) was
retained to help develop new technologies for building these foundations.
Based on Moran’s work, several of the piers on both spans were constructed using
a new type of massive caisson constructed of concrete and steel in a nearby shipyard.
Initially airtight, the caisson was floated to the site, then accurately positioned in place
on the bay floor by slowly filling its chambers with water. The underlying soil was then
progressively excavated through the chambers using clamshell buckets until reaching
the required depth. The caisson was then filled with concrete. In contrast, portions of the
bridge near the Oakland shore were in much shallower water and had much shorter spans,
so the piers were supported on groups of driven timber piles.
The eastern span was subsequently replaced with a new bridge, which was completed
in 2013. Advances in heavy marine driven pile technology over the intervening 80 years,
much of which was developed for offshore drilling platforms, resulted in a completely dif-
ferent foundation system. The new bridge is supported on 1.8 to 2.5 m (6–8 ft) diameter
steel pipe piles driven with an exceptionally large hydraulic pile hammer to depths of 60 to
100 m (200–330 ft) (Saba et al., 2004). A total of 160 piles were used on the entire project.

1.3  THE FOUNDATION ENGINEER

Foundation engineering does not fit completely within any of the traditional civil engineer-
ing subdisciplines. Instead, the foundation engineer must be multidisciplinary and possess
a working knowledge in each of the following areas:

• Structural ­engineering​­—A foundation is a structural member that must be capable

of transmitting the applied loads, so we must also understand the principles and
practices of structural engineering. In addition, the foundation supports a structure,
so we must understand the sources and nature of structural loads and the structure’s
tolerance of foundation movements.
10 Chapter 1  Foundations

• Geotechnical ­engineering​­—All foundations interact with the ground, so the design

must reflect the engineering properties and behavior of the adjacent soil and rock.
Thus, the foundation engineer must understand geotechnical engineering. Most
foundation engineers also consider themselves to be geotechnical engineers.
• Construction ­engineering​­—Finally, foundations must be built. Although the
actual construction is performed by contractors and construction engineers, it is
very important for the design engineer to have a thorough understanding of con-
struction methods and equipment to develop a design that can be economically
built. This knowledge also provides essential background when solving problems
that develop during construction.

This book focuses primarily on the design of foundations, and thus emphasizes the
geotechnical and structural engineering aspects. Discussions of construction methods and
equipment are generally limited to those aspects that are most important to design engi-
neers. Other important aspects of foundation construction which are primarily of interest
to contractors are beyond the scope of this book.

1.4  CODES, STANDARDS, AND TECHNICAL LITERATURE

Foundation design and construction is subject to the provisions of various codes, which
define the methods for computing applied loads, the ­load-​­carrying capacity of various
structural materials, performance requirements, detailing requirements, and other aspects.
Some of these provisions are similar to those that apply to other structural members, while
others are unique to foundations. Most codes have a separate chapter specifically address-
ing foundations.
Codes are legally binding, and thus must be followed. The two most commonly
used codes in the United States are:

• The International Building Code (IBC), which governs the design of most buildings
(ICC, 2012). This code replaced the American model building codes (the Uniform
Building Code, the National Building Code, and the Standard Building Code) as well
as many local codes. The IBC has legal authority only when adopted by a state, city,
or other regulatory authority, and these authorities sometimes include modifications.
For example, building construction in California is governed by the California Build-
ing Code, which is a modified version of the IBC. Although the IBC and its variants
is by far the most commonly used building code in the United States, some parts of
the country use different codes. For example, the City of Chicago has its own unique
building code.
• AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (AASHTO, 2012) governs the
design of highway structures. The American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials is a consortium of the various state departments of trans-
portation (DOTs), and thus has substantial influence on state DOT construction
projects, as well as those for local governments. These state and local agencies
1.4  Codes, Standards, and Technical Literature 11

sometimes modify the AASHTO specifications and add additional requirements.

For example, the Washington State Department of Transportation specifies a par-
ticular type of concrete be used in all drilled shaft foundations.

Other ­widely-​­used codes include:

• Eurocode, which is used in the European Union, typically with c­ountry-​­specific

modifications. Eurocode 7 addresses geotechnical design, including foundations.
• The National Building Code of Canada (NBC)
• The National Building Code of India

A number of standards also impact the design and construction of foundations.

Unlike codes, standards do not have the force of law (except when explicitly referenced
or adopted in a code). However, they have a very significant impact on practice. Appli-
cable standards widely used in North America include:

• The AREMA Manual for Railway Engineering, published by the American Railway
Engineering and Maintenance of Way Association. It governs the design of railroad
structures in the United States and Canada.
• Various standards published by the American Petroleum Institute (API) which
govern facilities used to produce petrochemical products. The most notable of
these from a foundation engineering perspective are offshore drilling platforms
(API, 2000).
• Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI Standard
7-10, published by the American Society of Civil Engineers.
• Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-11), published by
the American Concrete Institute (ACI, 2011).
• Steel Construction Manual, published by the American Institute of Steel Construc-
tion (AISC, 2011).
• Various standards published by the American Society for Materials and Testing
(ASTM). These standards typically address test procedures and construction mate-
rial specifications.

Detailed discussions of the requirements for all of these codes and standards are
beyond the scope of this book, and they are constantly changing. Selected provisions from
the 2012 IBC and the 2012 AASHTO codes and the ASCE 7-10 and ACI 318-11 stan-
dards are included when appropriate and other codes are occasionally referenced. These
references are included in brackets. For example, [IBC 1801.1] refers to Section 1801.1
of the  IBC.  However, this book is not a substitute for codes or standards, so engineers
should always refer to the current edition of the applicable publications when designing
foundations.
Building codes represent minimum design requirements. Simply meeting code
requirements does not necessarily produce a satisfactory design, especially in foundation
12 Chapter 1  Foundations

engineering. Often, these requirements must be exceeded and, on occasion, it is appropri-

ate to seek exceptions from certain requirements. In addition, many important aspects of
foundation engineering are not even addressed in the codes or standards. Therefore, think
of these publications as guides, and certainly not as a substitute for engineering knowl-
edge, judgment, or common sense.
Finally, foundation engineering has a rich collection of technical literature. Most of
this material can be found in professional journals and conference proceedings, as well
as in books. This book includes generous references to the technical literature, and the
authors encourage the readers to consult technical literature for additional information and
insights.

SUMMARY

Major Points

1. Foundations are structural elements that transfer loads from the superstructure to the
underlying soil or rock.
2. The central objective of foundation engineering is to design and build foundations
that provide reliable support for the superstructure, while avoiding wasteful and
expensive ­over-​­design.
3. Foundation engineering requires a synthesis of knowledge and skills from geotech-
nical engineering, structural engineering, and construction engineering.
4. Mankind has been building foundations for millennia, often with very impres-
sive results. Modern foundation engineering began to appear in the late nineteenth
century as methods based primarily on precedent and common sense began to be
supplemented by rational designs based on the principles of structural mechanics
and soil mechanics.
5. Advances in construction methods and equipment have facilitated a much broader
range of construction technologies.
6. Foundations are classified into two broad categories: shallow and deep.
7. Foundation designs are subject to the provisions of applicable codes and standards.

Vocabulary

Caisson Pile
Deep foundation Shallow foundation
Foundation Spread footing
Mat