Term Requirement

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/306378966
BEARING CAPACITY AND SETTLEMENT OF SHALLOW FOUNDATION –

COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT APPROACHES
Technical Report · April 2016

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23244.82560
CITATIONS READS
0 1,757
1 author:
Hamzah M. Beakawi Al-Hashemi

King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals
21 PUBLICATIONS 34 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF ROCK SLOPES – ِA CASE STUDY View project
Geotechnical Properties of Lunar (Moon) Soil View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Hamzah M. Beakawi Al-Hashemi on 23 August 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

KING FAHD UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM & MINERALS
College of Engineering Sciences and Applied Engineering
Civil and Environmental Engineering Department
Master of Science in Geotechnical Engineering
CE552 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING:
TERM PROJECT:
BEARING CAPACITY AND SETTLEMENT

OF SHALLOW FOUNDATION –
COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT
APPROACHES
Revision No. Rev.0
Status Term Project
Date 23rd April 2016
PREPARED FOR
PROFESSOR SAHEL ABDULJAUWAD
KFUPM – DHAHRAN
Revision History
Hamzah M. Beakawi
Rev.0 23rd April, 2016 Term Project
g201552950
Revision
Date Description Prepared By
No.
BEARING CAPACITY AND SETTLEMENT OF SHALLOW FOUNDATION – COMPARISON OF
DIFFERENT APPROACHES.
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Rev.0-Term Project
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I would like to pass my profound thankfulness to my term

project advisor, Prof. Sahel Abduljauwad. I have comprehended
plentiful thingummies since I became Prof. Sahel’s student. He
exerts exceedingly abundant time guiding me how to compose a
paper, how to scout about literature and how to compile data.
Rev.0-Term Project
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 4
2.0 OBJECTIVE AND PROBLEM DESCRIPTION ........................................................................ 4
3.0 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................... 6
3.1 ABOUT SETTLE-3D (V. 2007) .................................................................................................. 6
3.2 ABOUT CPET-IT (V. 1.6)......................................................................................................... 7
3.3 ABOUT IBM SPSS STATISTICS (V. 23) ...................................................................................... 8
3.4 STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT) ..................................................................................... 8
3.5 PIEZO CONE PENETRATION TESTS (PCPT/CPTU) ...................................................................... 9
3.6 CROSS-HOLE SEISMIC TESTING (CHS) ..................................................................................... 9
3.7 PLATE LOAD/BEARING TEST (PLT) ....................................................................................... 10
3.8 COMPUTATION OF SOIL PROPERTIES THROUGH EMPIRICAL CORRELATIONS ................................ 11
3.8.1 Shear Strength Parameters (Angle of Internal Friction Ø and Cohesion c) ........................... 11
3.8.1.1 Angle of Internal Friction (Ø) ...................................................................................................................... 11
3.8.1.2 Cohesion (C) / Undrained Shear Strength (SU) ............................................................................................ 12
3.8.2 Unit Weight of Soil (Ɣ) ................................................................................................ 13
3.8.3 Stiffness (Young’s (Elastic) Modulus Es and Poisson’s Ratio μ) ........................................ 14
3.9 BEARING CAPACITY OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS.................................................................... 15
3.10 IMMEDIATE ELASTIC SETTLEMENT OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS ............................................... 19
4.0 SUBSURFACE PROFILE ....................................................................................................... 22
5.0 FIELD TESTING PARAMETERS .......................................................................................... 23
6.0 FOUNDATIONS GEOMETRY ............................................................................................... 24
7.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS .............................................................................................. 25
7.1 PARAMETRIC STUDY ............................................................................................................ 25
7.2 ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY.......................................................................................... 30
7.3 IMMEDIATE (ELASTIC) SETTLEMENT ...................................................................................... 32
8.0 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 39
LIST OF REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 40
List of Tables
Table 1: Field Testing Parameter .................................................................................................. 23

Table 2: Foundations Geometry and Field Design Parameters ..................................................... 24
Rev.0-Term Project Page 1 of 41

List of Figures
Figure 1: General Site Location ...................................................................................................... 5

Figure 2: Soil Behavior Type Analysis by CPeT-IT ....................................................................... 22
Figure 3: Borehole Log Profile ...................................................................................................... 23
Figure 4: Angle of Internal Friction Variation ................................................................................. 25
Figure 5: Undrained Shear Strength Variation .............................................................................. 26
Figure 6: Bulk Unit Weight Variation ............................................................................................. 27
Figure 7: Poission’s Ratio Variation .............................................................................................. 28
Figure 8: Elastic/Young’s Modulus Variation ................................................................................. 29
Figure 9: Allowable Bearing Capacity of Foundation on Surface Variation .................................... 30
Figure 10: Allowable Bearing Capacity of Foundation at 1.0 m Depth Variation ............................ 31
Figure 11: Settlement of Foundation at Surface Variation ............................................................. 32
Figure 12: Settlement of Foundation at 1.0 m Depth Variation ...................................................... 33
Figure 13: 1 x 1 m Foundation Size – Settle-3D Analysis on Surface ........................................... 34
Figure 14: 1.5 m Dia. Foundation Size – Settle-3D Analysis on Surface ....................................... 34
Figure 15: 1.5 x 1.5 m Foundation Size – Settle-3D Analysis on Surface...................................... 35
Figure 16: 2.0 x 10.0 m Foundation Size – Settle-3D Analysis on Surface.................................... 35
Figure 17: 1 x 1 m Foundation Size – Settle-3D Analysis at 1.0 m ................................................ 36
Figure 18: 1.5 m Dia. Foundation Size – Settle-3D Analysis at 1.0 m ........................................... 36
Figure 19: 1.5 x 1.5 m Foundation Size – Settle-3D Analysis at 1.0 m .......................................... 37
Figure 20: 2.0 x 10.0 m Foundation Size – Settle-3D Analysis at 1.0 m ........................................ 37
Figure 21: Recommended qa limit to shear failure and settlement (on surface) ............................ 39
Figure 22: Recommended qa limit to shear failure and settlement (at 1.0 m Depth) ..................... 39

ABBREVIATIONS TABLE
ABBREVIATION MEANING
SPT Standard Penetration Test
CPT Cone Penetration Test
UCS/ qu Uniaxial/ Unconfined Compressive Strength
GPS Global Positioning System
UTM Universal Transverse Mercator Coordinates
N.A Not Applicable
MSL Mean Sea Level
No. Number
B(e/f)gl Below (Existing/Finished) Ground Level
ERT Electrical Resistivity Test
BH Borehole
TP Test/ Trial Pits
M.C Moisture Content
D.D Dry Density
L.L Liquid Limit
P.L Plastic Limit
P.I Plastic Index
USCS Unified Soil Classification System
CBR California Bearing Ratio
N.E Not Encountered
e.g. For The Sake of Example
i.e. That Is / In Other Word
c Cohesion
S SAND
G Gravel
M Silt
C Clay
PGA Peak Ground Acceleration
B Width of the Footing
I Shape Factor
µ Poisson’s Ratio
j Mass Factor
NABC / qa(net) Net Allowable Bearing Capacity
Ratio Between the Deformation Modulus and
Mr
the Unconfined Compressive Strength
Ks Modulus of Subgrade Reaction
Se Elastic Settlement
N.P Non Plastic
qult Ultimate Bearing Capacity
FS Safety Factor
Ncorr/N60 Corrected SPT N-Value
Es Young’s Modulus
L Length of the Footing
Df Depth of Foundation

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Bearing capacity and settlement for the shallow foundation are widely varied depending on
the predictive approach, subsurface strata conditions, foundation geometry, loading, correlation
methods, etc. The wide range of these approaches results can be minimized and localized for a
specific type of local conditions and hence define an adequate approach to be recommended.
2.0 OBJECTIVE AND PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
Shallow foundations are the most locally common type of foundations that uses in housing,
commercial and relatively small projects. And hence, one should pay an attention to come up with
quite simple, quick, safe and adequate approach to estimate the bearing capacity and settlement for
this type of foundation, which will lead to enhancing the selection, design and construction of the
structure/foundation.
A comprehensive Geotechnical investigation report(ACES 2016) done by ACES (Arab
Center for Engineering Studies), Khobar branch, were utilized in this term project. The
investigation was performed in Uthmanyiah Gas Plant (UGP) in the eastern region of Saudi Arabia
and consisting of:
 Nine (09) boreholes were drilled to approximate depths of 30.0 m each; below the
existing ground level.
 Two (02) boreholes were drilled to approximate depths of 12.0 m each; below the
 Thirty (30) boreholes were drilled to approximate depths of 10.0 m each; below the
 Forty one (41) piezocone penetration tests (PCPT) were performed to 10.0 m depth
or refusal whichever comes first.
 Six (06) cross-hole seismic testing to 10.0 m depth including drilling for the test
were performed.
 Seventeen (17) plate load test using plate diameter of 0.3 m at maximum depth 0.5
m begl.
General site location is shown on Figure 1.

Approximate
Site locations
Figure 1: General Site Location

3.0 METHODOLOGY
Field data for the selected project within the eastern province of Saudi Arabia (such as SPT,
CPT, PLT, Cross-hole seismic testing, etc) will be analyzed using well-known methodologies
stated globally to assess the bearing capacity and settlement of shallow foundation. Moreover,
Settle-3D modeling and CPeT-IT analysis software will be used as modeling techniques. Finally,
statistical and engineering analysis using IBM SPSS software will be performed so as to define the
most appropriate foundation criteria which are applicable for the investigated area with most
economical, practicable and yet safe solution.
3.1 About Settle-3D (v. 2007)
Settle3D is a 3-dimensional program for the analysis of vertical consolidation and
settlement under foundations, embankments and surface loads. The program combines the
simplicity of one-dimensional analysis with the power and visualization capabilities of more
sophisticated three-dimensional programs. Modeling can be staged, and time-dependent
consolidation analysis can be performed including primary and secondary consolidation (creep) at
user defined time intervals.
A variety of linear and non-linear material types can be modeled. Groundwater elevation
can be staged and horizontal and vertical drainage conditions can be specified. Back analysis
options allow you to determine the pre-load fill height or time required to achieve a given
settlement. Settlement, stress and pore pressure are computed throughout the 3-dimensional
volume, and results can be contoured along any horizontal or vertical plane, or plotted along any
line. Settlement deformation can be viewed in 3-dimensions, magnified by a user-defined scale
factor. Data presentation is highly interactive, and contours and graphs are updated in real time as
you change the data type, depth or location. Results can be exported to Excel with a single mouse
click.

3.2 About CPeT-IT (v. 1.6)

CPeT-IT is a detailed software package for the interpretation of Cone Penetration Test
(CPTu) data. CPeT-IT is the result of a collaborative effort with Gregg Drilling Inc., a leading
company in geotechnical site investigation and cone penetration testing (CPT) and Professor Peter
Robertson, co-author of the comprehensive text book on the CPT. CPeT-IT takes Cone Penetration
Test raw data and performs basic interpretation in terms of Soil Behaviour Type (SBT) and various
other geotechnical parameters using the current published correlations based on the comprehensive
review by (Powell, Lunne, and Robertson 1997) as well as recent updates by Professor Robertson.
GeoLogismiki Co. developed the software to deal with:
 Imports raw Cone Penetration Test data from any ASCII text file
 Supports input and output in both the SI and Imperial unit systems
 Interpretations based on the comprehensive review by Lunne, Robertson and Powell (1997)
 Tabular presentation of all interpretation results
 Graphical presentation of all interpretation results
 Analytic reports for every level of interpretation
 Overlay report for selected CPTU files
 Dissipation data interpretation module
 Direct settlements calculation module
 Single pile bearing capacity calculation
 Typical geotechnical section creation
 2D cross section maker module

3.3 About IBM SPSS Statistics (v. 23)

IBM SPSS Statistics is an integrated family of products that addresses the entire analytical
process, from planning to data collection to analysis, reporting and deployment. IBM SPSS
software enables educators to teach effectively, helps students gain critical analytical skills and
supports more accurate and insightful institutional research and decision-making.
3.4 Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
Standard penetration tests (SPT) were performed in all drilled boreholes in the encountered
surface sandy materials to obtain approximate relative densities of the ground materials. The test
was performed in accordance to ASTM D 1586 – 11. The SPT equipment used in this project
consisted of an auto-trip hammer (63.5kg weight) and 45 cm long split tube (5.0 cm diameter) with
a hammer drop of 760mm.
SPT hammer and guide rod was checked in house and found as per requirement of ASTM standard.
The standard blow count N60 (corr) can be computed by the formula suggested by (Skempton 1986).
Equation 1
Whereas;
Nfield = SPT N from field
ηH = Hammer efficiency = (Er/60) %: Er= 71.0
ηB = Correction for borehole diameter = 1.0
ηS = Sampler correction = 1.0
ηR = Correction for rod length = 0.75 (0.0-4.0m)
= 0.85 (4.0-6.0m)
= 0.95 (6.0-10.0m)
= 1.0 (> 10.0m)
While Overburden correction (N1 (60)):
N(1)60 = CN * N60; Equation 2

CN: Adjustment from effective overburden pressure (kPa):
CN = (100 / Overburden Pressure)^0.5 Equation 3
3.5 Piezo Cone Penetration Tests (PCPT/CPTu)
The Cone Penetration Tests were performed using self-propelled, with sufficient weights,
truck mounted penetrometer equipped with a 20 Ton Capacity Hydraulic ram set. A single electric
piezocone of a type conforming to the requirements of ASTM D 5778-07 was used on this project.
The cone was manufactured by Pagani Geotechnical Equipment Italy and measured the cone end
resistance (qc), the local side friction (fs) and pore water pressure (u).
The final depth of the test was determined by either completion of the specified test depth or
when the maximum safe capacity of the equipment was reached with no more penetration
(Refusal). The cone resistance and local side friction are measured by load cells housed in the cone
whilst pore water pressures are measured by a pressure transducer that is also housed in the cone.
The recorded data is transmitted through the hollow push rods by an umbilical cable that is
attached to a computerized data acquisition system. The rate of penetration is kept constant at
20mm + 5mm per second except where penetrating very dense or hard strata. The system gives
instantaneous and continuous graphical records of cone resistance, local side friction, pore water
pressure, friction ratio, tilt and speed with depth on a screen. Simultaneously, the results are
recorded on the computer hard disc at 10mm depth intervals and this facility enables automatic
controlled processing and plotting of the data. The data is backed up on a compact disc at the end of
each project.
3.6 Cross-Hole Seismic Testing (CHS)

Many techniques have been developed to measure the dynamic properties of materials In-
Situ using seismic wave namely down hole seismic method, up hole method, Cross-Hole Seismic
Testing method, SCPT (Seismic Cone Penetration Test), SASW (Spectral Analysis of Surface

Wave), Full Wave Form Sonic Logging and PS –Suspension Logging. The Cross-Hole seismic test
is performed in accordance with ASTM D 4428.
The cross-hole seismic test is an established technique for determining in-situ wave velocity
profiles. The test consists of first establishing a series of cased boreholes along a common line a
known distance apart. Testing can be conducted with a minimum of two boreholes. In one borehole
a source is inserted to create a seismic wave. Receiver is placed in the other hole to measure the
arrival of the seismic wave. These kinds of receivers are usually some type of transducer,
depending on the material being tested, and the receivers transfer the wave arrivals to a time
recorder. The essential measurement of the Cross-Hole Seismic Testing is travel time. Preferably,
the interval for the wave to travel between source boreholes to receiver borehole is used as the
travel time. The interval time eliminates the need for precise triggering of the source and recording
equipment. Body wave velocities are then calculated through dividing the receiver borehole
spacing by the interval travel time. The velocity of both compression and shear waves can be
determined in this manner. Three (03) boreholes for the test were dug; Main borehole (Source) on
the eastern corner and two supplementary boreholes (receivers 1 & 2) with lateral distance between
the boreholes of approximately 3.0 m c/c and up to approximate depth of 10.0 m begl.
3.7 Plate Load/Bearing Test (PLT)

Seventeen (17) static plate load tests (0.3 m Dia.) were performed on site at depth of 0.30
m begl in accordance with ASTM D1194. Plate Load Test is a field test for determining the ultimate
bearing capacity of soil and the likely settlement under a given load. The Plate Load Test basically
consists of loading a steel plate placed at the foundation level and recording the settlements
corresponding to each load increment. The test load is gradually increased till the plate starts to
sink at a rapid rate. The total value of load on the plate in such a stage divided by the area of the
steel plate gives the value of the ultimate bearing capacity of soil. The ultimate bearing capacity of
soil is divided by suitable factor of safety (which varies from 2 to 3) to arrive at the value of safe
bearing capacity of soil.

3.8 Computation of Soil properties through Empirical Correlations

3.8.1 Shear Strength Parameters (Angle of Internal Friction Ø and Cohesion c)
Based on the performed field testing at the site, following correlations were utilized in the analysis:
For fine grained soil (as clay):
( ) ( ( )), (Kulhawy and Mayne 1990) Equation 4
3.8.1.1 Angle of Internal Friction (Ø)
From SPT:
Equation 5
( ) √( ) , (Dunham 1954)
Equation 6
( ) ( ) , For Building (Shioi and Fukui 1982)
( ) ( ) ( ), (Wolff 1989) Equation 7
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ‫ـ‬ ) Equation 8
2
Average of Eqs: 5,6 &7, Author generated by SPSS. R = 1.0
From CPT:
( ) √ , qc in MPa, for silty SAND. (Bowles 1997)

Equation 9
( ) ( ) , (Uzielli, Mayne, and Cassidy 2002) Equation 10

√

( ) ( ) √
√ Equation 11
Average of Eqs: 9 &10, Author generated.
From CHS:
( ) ( ) , (Uzielli, Mayne, and Cassidy 2002) Equation 12

( )
3.8.1.2 Cohesion (C) / Undrained Shear Strength (SU)
, (Hara et al. 1974) Equation 13
From SPT:
( ) , (Terzaghi and Peck 1948) Equation 14
( ) , (Sivrikaya and Toğrol 2002) Equation 15
Equation 16
( ) , (Hettiarachchi and Brown 2009)
Equation 17
( )
Average of Eqs: 14,15 &16, Author generated.
From CPT:
( ) , ( )
Equation 18
( ), ranges 10-20. (Bowles 1997)

From CHS:
( ) ( ) ,vs (m/sec). (Levesques, Locat, and Leroueil 2007) Equation 19
3.8.2 Unit Weight of Soil (Ɣ)
From SPT:
( ) , (AbdulRazzaq, Hussein, and Hameed 2011) Equation 20
From CPT:
( ) ( ( )) , fs (kPa). Equation 21
(P. W. Mayne and Peuchen 2013)
From CHS:
( ) ( ) ( ) , Vs (m/sec), z (m). Equation 22

(Paul W. Mayne 2007)
( ) ( ),Vp (m/sec). (Tezcan, Keceli, and Ozdemir 2006) Equation 23
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ), Equation 24
Average of Eqs 22 & 23, Generated by Author.

3.8.3 Stiffness (Young’s (Elastic) Modulus Es and Poisson’s Ratio μ)
For granular (cohesionless) Soil:
, =0.5 for saturated clay (Martin 1986) Equation 25
For Cohesive Materials (as clays):
( )
( ) Equation 26
Round K to the nearest multiple of 10, (Bowles 1997)
From SPT:
( ) ( ), (Bowles 1997)
Equation 27
From CPT:
( ), Square/Circular Foundation
( ), Strip Foundation Equation 28
(Schmertmann, Hartmann, and Brown 1978)
From CHS:
( )
( ) ( )
Equation 29
( ( ) )
, (Tezcan, Keceli, and Ozdemir 2006)
( )
All highlighted equations in red above will be used in the analysis.

3.9 Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations

Vertical and concentric load, isotropic and homogeneous soil, rough and horizontal base
and horizontal ground conditions will be considered to facilitate the calculations.
(Bowles 1997)
Equation 30

Equation 31

Equation 32

( ) ( ) for B <= 1.2 m.
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) for B > 1.2 m. Equation 33
( )
Sa: Allowable settlement of foundation, mm. (For footings usually 25.4 mm).
From Plate Load Test:
Equation 34

3.10 Immediate Elastic Settlement of Shallow Foundations

Rigid foundation and average (or at center) settlement will be considered in this project. In
addition of using well-known methods either semi-empirical and theory of elasticity; stress-strain
method will be modeled through Settle-3D software for verification.
From Theory of Elasticity: (amended by Author)
( )
( ) , q (kPa), B (m). (Bowles 1997)
( )
( )
( ) , qt (MPa)
( )
, (Schmertmann, Hartmann, and Brown 1978)

( )
(( ), ( ),
)
( √ ) √ ( √ ) √
, Equation 35
( √ ) (√ )
, , ,
√
( ), (Fox 1948)
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Author generated by SPSS, R2= 0.893, SE= 0.0422.

(BURLAND and BURBIDGE 1986)

( ) ( )
( )
B (m), q (kPa).
( ) , ( )
Equation 36
( ),
( )
( )
, ( ( ))

(Anagnostopoulos et al. 1991)
Equation 37
Total settlement will be the average of N-Settlement and B-Settlement.
In addition, other settlement methods will be used through Settle-3D software.

4.0 SUBSURFACE PROFILE
Worst condition is considered in (ACES 2016) report, that is, BH-40 (drilled up to 10 m),
PCPT-40, CHS-40 and PLT-40 which performed at the same location of the project. Subsurface
materials were encountered as following:
0 to 3.5 m: Light Brown poorly graded SAND, fine to medium grained, dry and loose to very
dense.
3.5 to 10 m: Marly limestone rock.
Figure 2 shows CPT classification using CPeT-IT.
Figure 2: Soil Behavior Type Analysis by CPeT-IT

Figure 3 shows the borehole log profile:
Figure 3: Borehole Log Profile
5.0 FIELD TESTING PARAMETERS
Table 1 shows the field testing parameters:
Table 1: Field Testing Parameter

Depth Vs Vp
N60 qt (MPa) fs (kPa) Fr (%)
Interval (m) (m/sec) (m/sec)
0 – 1.5 8 18.14 142.5 0.68 270 625
1.5 – 2.25 13 8.78 110.1 1.30 357 760
2.25 – 3.0 50 12.47 74.1 0.70 402 1054
> 3.0 Refusal 637 1805

6.0 FOUNDATIONS GEOMETRY
Selected sizes of foundations will be considered in the analysis. Field testing design
parameters were taken by considering the average values among the influence zone (2B) as shown
in Table 2:
Table 2: Foundations Geometry and Field Design Parameters

Type of qt Vs Vp
Df (m) BxL N60 fs (kPa) Fr (%)
Foundation (MPa) (m/sec) (m/sec)
Isolated
1 8 18.14 142.5 0.68 270 625
(Square)
Isolated
1.5 Dia. 11 13.46 126.3 1 313 692
(Circle)
0.0
Isolated
1.5
(Square)
Strip 2 x 20 343 813
Isolated
1
(Square)
23 13.13 108.9 0.9
Isolated
1.5 Dia.
(Circle)
1.0
Isolated
1.5 360 900
(Square)
Strip 2 x 20

7.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
7.1 Parametric Study

For Angle of Internal Friction Ф:
Angle of Internal Friction

45.00
43.00
41.00
39.00
fi (Degrees)
37.00
Values From SPT
35.00
Values From CPT
33.00
Values From CHS
31.00
Average Values
29.00
27.00
25.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
Foundation Width (m)
Figure 4: Angle of Internal Friction Variation
* Circular foundation is converted to equivalent square foundation in order to facilitate the

calculation.
By evaluation of Figure 4:
- It seems clearly that the values obtained from CPT give the highest values.
- On the other hand, the CHS values give the lowest values but yet close to SPT values.
- The average values can be used, or SPT values can be recommended to facilitate the
analysis.
I.e. For Ф, use equation No. 8.

For Undrained Shear Strength Su:
Undrained Shear Strength

450.00
400.00
350.00
300.00
Su (kPa)
250.00 Values From SPT

200.00 Values From CPT
150.00 Values From CHS

Average Values
100.00
50.00
0.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
Figure 5: Undrained Shear Strength Variation

calculation.
- It seems clearly that the values obtained from CHS give the highest values.
- On the other hand, the SPT values give the lowest values but yet close to CPT values.
- The average values can be used for all type of soil, or CPT remolded values can be
recommended for C-Soil and SPT values for C-Ф soil to facilitate the analysis.
I.e:
For C-Ф soil, to obtain Su; use equation No. 17.
For C soil, to obtain Su; use equation No. 18 (Remolded).

For Unit Weight (Bulk) Ɣ:
Bulk Unit Weight

19.60
19.40
19.20
Ɣ (kN/m3)
Values From SPT

19.00
Values From CPT
18.80 Values From CHS
18.60 Average Values
18.40
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60
Figure 6: Bulk Unit Weight Variation

calculation.
- It seems clearly that the values obtained from CPT give the highest values approximately.
- On the other hand, the SPT values give the lowest values.
- The average values can be recommended for all type of soil, or SPT values still acceptable
to facilitate the analysis.
I.e:
For Ɣ; use the average of equations Nos 20, 21 and 24.
Or, use equation No. 20.

For Poission’s Ratio ʋ/ :
Poission's Ratio
0.45
0.40
0.35 Values From SPT

μ
Values From CPT

0.30
Values From CHS
0.25 Average Values
0.20
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
Figure 7: Poission’s Ratio Variation

calculation.
- It seems clearly that the values obtained from CHS give the highest values.
- On the other hand, the CPT values give the lowest values.
- The average values can be recommended for all type of soil, or SPT values as they’re equal
to average values approximately to facilitate the analysis.
I.e:
For ; use equation No 25, Ф obtained from equation No 8.

For Elastic/Young’s Modulus Es:
Elastic/Young's Modulus
50000
45000
40000
35000
30000
Es (kPa)
25000 Values From SPT

20000 Values From CPT
15000 Average Values
10000
5000
0
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
Figure 8: Elastic/Young’s Modulus Variation

calculation.
* CHS values were excluded once it give extremely high values, and that’s due to dynamic
properties is considered.
* CPT values differ slightly than SPT values, and that’s due to CPT values are dependent on L/B
ratio.
- It seems clearly that the values obtained from CPT give the highest values.
- On the other hand, the SPT values give the lowest values.
- The average values can be recommended for all type of soil.
I.e:
For Es; use the average of equations No 27 and 28.

7.2 Allowable Bearing Capacity
- Factor of Safety of 3.0 is used in the analysis.
qa For Foundation on Surface

500
450
400
350
Meyerhof
300
qa (kPa)
Hansen
250
Vesic
200
Meyerhof, SPT
150 Plate Load
100 Average M, V, H
50
0
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50
Figure 9: Allowable Bearing Capacity of Foundation on Surface Variation

calculation.
- It seems clearly that the values obtained from Meyerhof SPT-Based give the highest values.
- On the other hand, larger the width is; the Plat load based values give the lowest values, and
that’s due to influence zone limitations of the plate.
- The average values can be recommended or Vesic method.
I.e:
For qa limit to shear failure; use the average of equations No 30, 31 and 32.

- Factor of Safety of 3.0 is used in the analysis.
qa For Foundation at 1.0 m Depth

700
650
600
Meyerhof
qa (kPa)
550 Hansen
Vesic
500
Meyerhof, SPT
450 Average M, V, H
400
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50
Figure 10: Allowable Bearing Capacity of Foundation at 1.0 m Depth Variation

calculation.
* Plate load based values were excluded once it is performed at surface (influence zone
limitations).
- It seems clearly that the values obtained from Meyerhof SPT-Based give the highest values,
especially for small value of width. .
- The average values can be recommended or Vesic method for small values of width and
Meyerhof for larger values of width.
I.e:
For qa limit to shear failure; use the average of equations No 30, 31 and 32.

7.3 Immediate (Elastic) Settlement

Settlement analysis was performed against average (H, V & M) allowable bearing capacity values:
Settlement For Foundation at Surface

50
45
40
35
30 Se(SPT) Bowles
Se (mm)
25 Se(CPT) Bowles
Se Burland
20
Se Anagnastopolous
15
Se Settle-3D
10
0
1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.20
Figure 11: Settlement of Foundation at Surface Variation
- It seems clearly that the values obtained from Settle-3D analysis give the highest values,
especially for large value of width, Settle-3D analysis provide more accurate values.
- For simple and quick estimation, either Burland and/or Bowles SPT-Based is
recommended.
I.e:
For Se (quick estimation); use one of equations No 35 (SPT-Based) and 36.

Settlement analysis was performed against average (H, V & M) allowable bearing capacity values:
Settlement For Foundation at 1.0 m Depth

60
50
40
Se(SPT) Bowles
Se (mm)
30 Se(CPT) Bowles
Se Burland
20 Se Anagnastopolous
Se Settle-3D
10
0
1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.20
Figure 12: Settlement of Foundation at 1.0 m Depth Variation
- It seems clearly that the values obtained from Settle-3D analysis give the highest values,
especially for large value of width, Settle-3D analysis provide more accurate values.
- For simple and quick estimation, Burland method.
I.e:
For Se (quick estimation); use equation No 36.

Settle-3D Analysis (At Surface):
Figure 13: 1 x 1 m Foundation Size – Settle-3D Analysis on Surface
Figure 14: 1.5 m Dia. Foundation Size – Settle-3D Analysis on Surface

Figure 15: 1.5 x 1.5 m Foundation Size – Settle-3D Analysis on Surface
Figure 16: 2.0 x 10.0 m Foundation Size – Settle-3D Analysis on Surface

Settle-3D Analysis (At 1.0 m Depth):
Figure 17: 1 x 1 m Foundation Size – Settle-3D Analysis at 1.0 m
Figure 18: 1.5 m Dia. Foundation Size – Settle-3D Analysis at 1.0 m

Figure 19: 1.5 x 1.5 m Foundation Size – Settle-3D Analysis at 1.0 m
Figure 20: 2.0 x 10.0 m Foundation Size – Settle-3D Analysis at 1.0 m

(Settle-3D Settings):

8.0 CONCLUSION
Based on: the parametric study performed in this project, allowable bearing capacity against
shear failure analysis and settlement analysis, following are the recommended allowable bearing
capacity:
qa For Foundation on Surface

250
200
150
qa (kPa)
Recommended
100 Plate Load
Average M, V, H
50
0
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50
Figure 21: Recommended qa limit to shear failure and settlement (on surface)
Recommended qa For Foundation at 1.0 m

Depth
600
500
400
qa (kPa)
300
Recommended
200 Average M, V, H
100
0
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50
Figure 22: Recommended qa limit to shear failure and settlement (at 1.0 m Depth)

LIST OF REFERENCES
AbdulRazzaq, K. S., W. A. Hussein, and A. H. Hameed. 2011. “Bearing Capacity Based on SPT-
Computer Interpolation.” Diyala Journal of Engineering Science 4 (2): 118–29.
ACES. 2016. “DETAILED GEOTECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATION FOR DEEP ETHANE

RECOVERY TRAIN BI-10-01760 – UGP - SAUDI ARABIA.” Khobar.
Anagnostopoulos, A. G., N. Kalteziotis, G. K. Tsiambaos, and M. Kavvadas. 1991. “Geotechnical

Properties of the Corinth Canal Marls.” Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 9 (1).
Kluwer Academic Publishers: 1–26. doi:10.1007/BF00880981.
Bowles, Joseph E. 1997. Foundation Analysis and Design. Edited by B.J. Clark, Kiran V. Kimbell,
and John M. Morriss. 5th ed. Singapore: McGraw-Hill, Inc. doi:10.1016/0013-
7952(84)90010-3.
BURLAND, J. B., and M. C. BURBIDGE. 1986. “Settlement of Foundations on Sand and Gravel.”
ICE Proceedings 80 (6): 1625–48. doi:10.1680/iicep.1986.537.
Dunham, J.W. 1954. “„Pile Foundation for Buildings‟,.” In Proc. ASCE Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Division.
Fox, E.N. 1948. “The Mean Elastic Settlement of a Uniformly Loaded Area at a Depth below the
Ground Surface.” In 2nd International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, 129–32. Rotterdam.
Hara, A., T. Ohta, M. Niwa, S. Tanaka, and T. Banno. 1974. “„Shear Modulus and Shear Strength
of Cohesive Soils.‟” Soils and Foundations, Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering 14 (3): 1–12.
Hettiarachchi, Hiroshan, and Timothy Brown. 2009. “Use of SPT Blow Counts to Estimate Shear
Strength Properties of Soils: Energy Balance Approach.” Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering 135 (6): 830–34.
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000016.
Kulhawy, F. H., and P. H. Mayne. 1990. “Manual on Estimating Soil Properties for Foundation
Design.” Palo Alto. www.epri.com.
Levesques, C.L, J. Locat, and S. Leroueil. 2007. “Characterization of Postglacial Sediments of the
Saguenay Fjord, Quebec.” Characterization and Engineering Properties of Natural Soils,
Taylor & Francis Group, London. 4: 2645–77.
Martin, William O. 1986. Settlement of Shallow Foundations on Cohesionless Soils: Design and
Performance. Edited by William O. Martin. American Society of Civil Engineers. American S.
Seattle, Washington: American Society of Civil Engineers.
Mayne, P. W., and J. Peuchen. 2013. “Unit Weight Trends with Cone Resistance in Soft to Firm
Clays.” In Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization 4, Proc. ISC-4, Pernambuco,
CRC Press., 1:903–10. London.
Mayne, Paul W. 2007. “NCHRP Synthesis 368: Cone Penetration Testing.” Traffic Safety.

Powell, J.J.M., T. Lunne, and K. P. Robertson. 1997. Cone Penetration Testing in Geotechnical
Practice. Illustrate. Canada: Taylor & Francis, 1997.
Schmertmann, J.H., J.P. Hartmann, and P.R. Brown. 1978. “Improved Strain Influence Factor
Diagrams.” Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE. 104 (8): 1131–35.
Shioi, Y., and J. Fukui. 1982. “Application of N-Value to Design of Foundation in Japan.” In
Proceedings of the Second European Symposium on Penetration Testing, 1:24–27.
Sivrikaya, O., and E. Toğrol. 2002. “Relations between SPT-N and Qu.” In 5th International
Congress on Advances in Civil Engineering, 943–52.
Skempton, A. W. 1986. “Standard Penetration Test Procedure and the Effects in Sands of
Overburden Pressure, Relative Density, Particle Size, Aging, and Overconsolidation.”
Geotechnique 36 (3): 425–47.
Terzaghi, K., and R. B. Peck. 1948. “Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice” 1ère: 566.
doi:10.1007/SpringerReference_4898.
Tezcan, Semih S., Ali Keceli, and Zuhal Ozdemir. 2006. “Allowable Bearing Capacity of Shallow
Foundations Based on Shear Wave Velocity.” Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 24
(1): 203–18.
Uzielli, Marco, Paul W Mayne, and Mark J Cassidy. 2002. “Probabilistic Assessments of Design
Strength for Sands from in-Situ Testing Data,” no. Ec1 1994.
Wolff, Thomas F. 1989. “Pile Capacity Prediction Using Parameter Functions.” ASCE 1 (1): 96–
106.
View publication stats

Term Requirement

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Term Requirement

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

BEARING CAPACITY AND SETTLEMENT OF SHALLOW FOUNDATION –

Technical Report · April 2016

Hamzah M. Beakawi Al-Hashemi

DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF ROCK SLOPES – ِA CASE STUDY View project

Geotechnical Properties of Lunar (Moon) Soil View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

CE552 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING:

BEARING CAPACITY AND SETTLEMENT

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

I would like to pass my profound thankfulness to my term

Table 1: Field Testing Parameter .................................................................................................. 23

Rev.0-Term Project Page 1 of 41

Figure 1: General Site Location ...................................................................................................... 5

Rev.0-Term Project Page 2 of 41

Rev.0-Term Project Page 3 of 41

2.0 OBJECTIVE AND PROBLEM DESCRIPTION

A comprehensive Geotechnical investigation report(ACES 2016) done by ACES (Arab

and consisting of:

General site location is shown on Figure 1.

Rev.0-Term Project Page 4 of 41

Figure 1: General Site Location

Rev.0-Term Project Page 5 of 41

economical, practicable and yet safe solution.

3.1 About Settle-3D (v. 2007)

Settle3D is a 3-dimensional program for the analysis of vertical consolidation and

sophisticated three-dimensional programs. Modeling can be staged, and time-dependent

user defined time intervals.

line. Settlement deformation can be viewed in 3-dimensions, magnified by a user-defined scale

Rev.0-Term Project Page 6 of 41

3.2 About CPeT-IT (v. 1.6)

GeoLogismiki Co. developed the software to deal with:

 Tabular presentation of all interpretation results

 Graphical presentation of all interpretation results

 Analytic reports for every level of interpretation

 Overlay report for selected CPTU files

 Dissipation data interpretation module

 Direct settlements calculation module

 Single pile bearing capacity calculation

 Typical geotechnical section creation

 2D cross section maker module

Rev.0-Term Project Page 7 of 41

3.3 About IBM SPSS Statistics (v. 23)

supports more accurate and insightful institutional research and decision-making.

3.4 Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

a hammer drop of 760mm.

Nfield = SPT N from field

ηH = Hammer efficiency = (Er/60) %: Er= 71.0

ηB = Correction for borehole diameter = 1.0

ηS = Sampler correction = 1.0

ηR = Correction for rod length = 0.75 (0.0-4.0m)

= 1.0 (> 10.0m)

While Overburden correction (N1 (60)):

N(1)60 = CN * N60; Equation 2

Rev.0-Term Project Page 8 of 41

CN: Adjustment from effective overburden pressure (kPa):

CN = (100 / Overburden Pressure)^0.5 Equation 3

3.5 Piezo Cone Penetration Tests (PCPT/CPTu)

3.6 Cross-Hole Seismic Testing (CHS)

Rev.0-Term Project Page 9 of 41

is performed in accordance with ASTM D 4428.

3.7 Plate Load/Bearing Test (PLT)