Final Version

LEARNING FROM COLLAPSE OF BUILDINGS
IN DOUALA: GEOTECHNICAL CAUSES AND

POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS
A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement for a degree of Master of

Engineering (MEng) in Civil Engineering. Curriculum: Geotechnical Engineering
Presented and defended by:
SIAKA NTAMBWE Willy

Student number: 12TP20425
Under the supervision of:

Prof. Eng. Simonetta COLA
&
Co-supervised by:
Dr. Eng. Alberto BISSON
Academic year
2016 – 2017
LEARNING FROM COLLAPSE OF BUIDINGS IN DOUALA: GEOTECHNICAL CAUSES
AND POSSIBLE REMEDIES
DEDICATION
This research project is dedicated to all my family members, who give me every day
the encouragement to afford this work.
i
AKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to express my great appreciation to the President of jury for having agreed to
sacrifice his precious time to chair this thesis defence.
I am also thankful to the Examiner of this thesis defense for his availability.
I would like also to thank Pr. Eng. Simonetta COLA for her help during the writing of this
thesis.
I would like to convey my heartfelt gratitude to my supervisor Dr. Eng. Alberto BISSON for
the patient guidance, advices, and encouragements throughout this work. I am grateful for the
effort and time he dedicated during this research.
I also thank the Director of the National Advanced School of Public Works (NASPW)
Pr. NKENG George ELAMBO, for his devotion in order to ensure to us the best formation.
I am also thankful to Pr. Carmelo MAJORANA always working for the success of our
training.
I wish to thank, Pr. MBESSA Michel, civil engineering department head, to always going
after us in order to push us going forward and be better.
Pr. ESOH ELAME who have work hard so that the Master’s in Engineering training
program has a complete success.
I wish also to thank, Ing. MBO Franky Serein, for the orientation he gave me and the
accompaniment during my research.
I wish to thanks The School Administration and the Teaching staff for the welcome and
accompaniment during all these five years.
My gratitude also goes to my Friend and Classmates for their help during moments of
difficulties all through these five years.
I would like also to thank my parents Mr. & Mrs. SIAKA and Mr. & Mrs. NKUINDOU
for their endless love, support and sacrifice in encouraging me to complete this research.
I wish to thank, cabinet “C.E.C MEDOU”, for their awareness for the data on my case study
of research.
ii
LIST OF NOTATTIONS AND GLOSSARY OF

ABBREVIATION
bi Base factors for the bearing capacity with subscripts c, q and γ

cu Undrained shear strength of the soil
c′ Effective cohesion of the soil
d pile diameter
di Depth factors for the bearing capacity with subscripts c, q and γ
e Void ratio
eb Eccentricities in B direction
el Eccentricities in L direction
fs ultimate unit skin resistance
gi Ground factors for the bearing capacity with subscripts c, q and γ
ii Inclination factors for the bearing capacity with subscripts c, q and γ
kE rate of increase of modulus of elasticity with depth
mv Volume compressibility
n number of piles in the pile group
qall Allowable bearing capacity
qt ultimate unit bearing capacity at the toe
qult Ultimate bearing capacity
r Planar radius from the point of application of the load
s Shape factors for the bearing capacity with subscripts c, q and γ
Xd Design values of the geotechnical parameters
Xk Characteristic values of the geotechnical parameters
A Area of foundation base
As skin area
At cross sectional area of pile tip
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation
iii
AFNOR Association française de normalisation

ASCE American Society of Civil Engineering
ASTM Association for Testing Materials
B Foundation width
Be Equivalent diameter
BS British standard
Cc Compression index
Cs Swell index
CPT Cone Penetrometer Test
Df Embedment depth of foundation
Dr Relative density of soil
Dw Water table level
Ed Design effect of actions
Ek Characteristic values of the actions (loads)
the soil’s modulus of elasticity at depth z = 0 at the bottom of
E0
the foundation
Es the soil’s modulus of elasticity at depth z ≥ 0
EC7 Eurocode 7
EN Eurocode Standard
FS Factor of safety
H thickness of the soil stratum for which the consolidation settlement
IG, IF, IE displacement influence factors
L Foundation length (shallow or deep)
NF Norme Française
Dimensionless bearing capacity factors that account for the contribution
N𝑐
of cohesion c
N𝑞
of surcharge q
Nγ
of the soil’s unit
N60 average SPT blow count
OCR Over Consolidation Ratio
P Point load
PMT Pressuremeter Test
PS Pressuremeter Sounding Points
iv
Q Superstructure load
Qa design axial force on an individual pile
Qs ultimate skin (or shaft) resistance of a pile
Qt ultimate bearing capacity provided by the toe of a pile
Qu Ultimate bearing capacity of a pile
Qu(g) ultimate bearing capacity of pile group
Rd Design resistance
R
Resistance of soil trough the dynamic penetrometer
S
Se Elastic settlement
Sg settlement of a pile group

Sc Consolidation settlement
SPT Standard Penetrometer Test
VG,k Characteristic vertical, permanent values of actions
VQ,k Characteristic vertical, variable values of actions
Wf Foundation weight
empirical adhesion factor for the unit
𝛼
skin resistance
𝛽 normalized Gibson modulus
γ Unit weight of the homogeneous soil

partial factors of safety applied to the
𝛾s
skin resistance
partial factors of safety applied to the
𝛾t
toe resistance
𝛾 Saturated unit weight of the homogeneous soil
γG Partial factor of safety on permanent favorable or unfavorable actions
γQ Partial factor of safety on variable favorable or unfavorable actions
γM Partial factor of safety on the geotechnical parameters
𝜂g pile group efficiency
𝜇 Poisson’s ratio
preconsolidation pressure, derived from e ∼ log p curve using the
𝜎′c
Casagrande method
𝜎′0 average effective stress
𝜙’ Internal frictional angle in drained condition
v
𝜙u Internal frictional angle in undrained condition
ABSTRACT
Facing the recurrence of collapse of buildings in the city of Douala, it has been found
that the causes were somewhere geotechnical. The purpose is to determine those causes and
propose solutions. Focusing on it, the foundation design skills were recall, since the site
vi
investigation up to the bearing capacity verification. Foundation failing is unable to insure its
role which is to transmit the loads from the superstructure to the underground soil. It is then
necessary to determine those failures linked to a specific cause. There can be design causes if
the design has not been done well, natural causes if any element of the nature occurs,
accidental causes when uneventful event like earthquake occurs and construction causes when
the technician doesn’t respect the rules for the case. The city of Douala has known some
buildings collapses we will focus on the G+5 building in Nkongmondo which occurs in
November 2015. After interview with the civil engineering actors who has taken part in the
expertise on the sinister, the report taken from them has permit to analyse the phenomenon.
The foundation survey, tests on the soil including SPT test, Direct shear test and sieve
analysis, test on concrete and test on steel have been done. SPT test has given the soil
stratigraphy, the water level in the soil, its parameters including friction angle and cohesion.
Those results permitted to obtain the soil’s bearing capacity and its settlement obtained
following different method and approaches. From direct shear test results, the bearing
capacity obtained was too large from the SPT results this is not reliable because as the soil
type is classified as sandy from the sieve analysis, the samples have surely been remoulded
during the sampling. The tensile strength test has shown that the steel was conform and the
concrete strength test that the concrete was not good. Solutions, what should have been done
to avoid the collapse are presented, they include increase the foundation dimension, increase
the embedment depth, or replace the foundation type by taking ones having higher bearing
like pile or raft foundation.
RESUME
Face au problème d’effondrements de bâtiments récurrents a dans la ville de Douala, il

est a été constaté que les causes sont pour une grande part d’ordre géotechniques. En nous
vii
fixant de les déterminer et d’en proposer des solutions, il a donc été rappelé les règles de
dimensionnement de fondation, depuis les études géotechniques jusqu’au calcul de la
portance. Une fondation défaillante ne pouvant plus assurer son rôle qui est celui de
transmettre les charges permanentes ou variables appliqué sur structure vers le sol, il a été
nécessaire de déterminer les différents types de défaillance étroitement liées à leurs causes.
Les causes peuvent survenir lors de la construction si les études géotechniques sont mal faites,
de façon naturelle si des acteurs de la nature viennent s’y apposer ou lors de construction si
les matériaux sont mal mis en œuvre ou si les règles de l’art ne sont pas respectées. La ville de
Douala a connu des effondrements, notre cas études est un immeuble R+5 survenue en
Novembre 2015 au quartier Nkongmondo. Après entretien avec les acteurs du génie civil
ayant pris part aux expertises menées après le sinistre, les rapports saisis à ces derniers nous
ont permis d’analyser le phénomène. Les vérifications des dimensions et profondeurs sur les
fondations ont été effectué, de même que les essais sur le sol, les essais SPT et cisaillement
direct. Les armatures ont été analyser ainsi que la qualité du béton. L’essai SPT pour sa part
nous a permis d’avoir une idée de la stratigraphie du sol, du niveau de l’eau dans le sol et ses
paramètres tels que la cohésion et l’angle de friction. Ces résultats nous ont permis de faire
des corrélations pour obtenir la portance et le tassement suivant des approches différentes. Il
s’est donc avéré que la portance ne satisfaisait pas toutes les approches. Pour l’essai de
cisaillement direct, les paramètres ont permis d’avoir une portance très large comparé à celle
obtenu au SPT et très large devant la charge totale de l’immeuble, ce qui pourrai être
interpréter comme la non pertinence de cet essai, le sol ayant été caractérisé comme
sablonneux à certainement été remanié lors de l’échantillonnage et a perdu ses propretés
initiales. L’essai de tension sur le fer a révélé qu’il respectait les normes et l’essai au
scléromètre a révèle que le béton n’était pas résistant. Face à cela des solutions d’ordres
géotechniques ont été proposés : élargir les fondations, ancré davantage les fondations, utiliser
les des colonnes ballastées, réalisé une fondation profonde ou une fondation en radier.
Figure1.1 Main types of shallow foundation; a) Spread footing, b) Combined footing, c) strip
footing, d) raft footing. ) (source Craig’s soil, 2012)................................................................12
viii
Figure1.2 Principal types of pile: (a) precast RC pile, (b) steel H pile, (c) steel tubular pile
(plugged), (d) shell pile, (e) CFA pile, (f) under-reamed bored pile (cast-in-situ) (source
Craig’s soil Mechanism, 2012).................................................................................................13
Figure1.3 Typical shallow foundation ) (source Craig’s soil, 2012).......................................17
Figure1.4 Determination of bearing capacity from CPT test..................................................23
Figure1.5 Log time method for sc computation.......................................................................27
Figure2.1 General shear failure (source: Craig’s Soil Maechanics, 2012)..............................30
Figure2.2 Local shear failure (source: Craig’s Soil Maechanics, 2012).................................30
Figure2.3 Punching shear failure (source: Craig’s Soil Maechanics, 2012)...........................31
Figure2.4 Soil improvement by preloading (from P.C. Varghese 2005)................................39
Figure2.5 Sand drains (after, Das 1983)..................................................................................40
Figure2.6 Prefabricated vertical drains (after Das, 1983).......................................................41
Figure2.7 Installation process of stone column (after, Hussein 2006)....................................42
Figure2.8 Jet grouting system (after, burke 2004)..................................................................45
Figure2.9 Classification of soil improvement..........................................................................47
Figure 4.1 Gradation curve of sieve analysis realized..........................................................60
Figure 4.2 Graphical representation of SPT results.................................................................66
Figure4.3 Illustration of the increase of the depth...............................................................74
Figure4.4 Footing dimensions for safety.................................................................................75
Figure4.5 Disposition of the stone column : a) longitudinal section, b) transversal section. .76
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1 Guidance on spacing of ground investigation points (Eurocode 7, Part 2: 2007)......4
Table 1.2 Value of the bearing factor and corresponding class kp (fascicule 62 titre V)........15
Table 1.3 Bearing capacity in drained and undrained condition..............................................21
ix
Table 1.4 Cα/Cc ratio and corresponding soil type............................................................27

Table 2.1 Effect of temperature increase on the properties of clayey soil...............................46
Table 3.1 Rate of stressing.......................................................................................................57
Table 4.1 Dimensions of most loaded foundation (from CEC MEDOU)................................58
Table 4.2 Sieve analysis of soil sample: percentage retain (from CEC MEDOU)..................59
Table 4.3 Direct shear test result on soil sample (from CEC MEDOU).................................61
Table 4.4 Bearing resistance obtained from direct shear test results.......................................62
Table 4.5 Comparison bearing resistance - applied load from direct shear test.......................63
Table 4.6 Tensile strength test results (from CEC MEDOU)..................................................64
Table 4.7 Classification of steel after tensile test (from CEC MEDOU).................................64
Table 4.8 Records after SPT tests (from CEC MEDOU)........................................................65
Table 4.9 Consistency of assumed layers after SPT................................................................67
Table 4.10 Tables of corrected values obtain using ER=55%, ζ =1.05..................................68
Table 4.11 Values of undrained shear strength cu, obtained from SPT results.......................68
Table 4.12 Values of undrained friction angle ϕu obtained from SPT results.........................69
Table 4.13 Design bearing resistance forces from different design approaches and following
trinomial equation (Eurocode 7)...............................................................................................70
Table 4.14 Comparison bearing resistance – applied load from SPT parameters....................71
Table 4.15 Correlation of settlement from some authors.........................................................71
Table 4.16 Sclerometer test results on the foundation G15 (source CEC MEDOU)...............72
GENERAL INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................1
Chapter 1 : DESIGN OF FOUNDATION AND CONSIDERATION FOR BUILDINGS. .3
Introduction.............................................................................................................................3
1.1. Soil investigation..........................................................................................................3
x
1.1.1. The purpose...........................................................................................................3
1.1.2. Methods of Intrusive investigation.......................................................................4
1.1.1. Sampling...............................................................................................................5
1.1.2. In-situ test..............................................................................................................7
1.1.2.1. Standard Penetration Test (SPT)...................................................................7
1.1.2.2. Field Vane Test (FVT)..................................................................................7
1.1.2.3. Pressuremeter Test (PMT).............................................................................8
1.1.2.4. Cone Penetration Test (CPT).........................................................................8
1.1.3. Laboratory test......................................................................................................8
1.1.3.1. Classification and index testing.....................................................................9
1.1.3.2. Stress-strain shear test.................................................................................10
1.2. Type of foundation.....................................................................................................11
1.2.1. Shallow foundation.............................................................................................11
1.2.2. Deep foundation..................................................................................................12
1.3. Design approach.........................................................................................................13
1.3.1. Design method....................................................................................................13
1.3 .1.1 . The permissible stress method.....................................................................14
1.3 .1.2 . The limit state method.................................................................................14
1.3.2. Bearing capacity..................................................................................................14
1.3.2.1. Correlation from in-situ test........................................................................14
1.3.2.2. Computation from test results......................................................................16
1.3.3. Settlement of foundation.....................................................................................25
1.3.3.1. Soil mechanics.............................................................................................25
1.3.3.2. From SPT and CPT test...............................................................................27
Conclusion............................................................................................................................28
Chapter 2 : FOUNDATION FAILURE..............................................................................29
Introduction...........................................................................................................................29
xi
2.1. Foundation failure mechanism...................................................................................29
2.1.1. General shear failure...........................................................................................29
2.1.2. Local shear failure...............................................................................................30
2.1.3. Punching shear failure.........................................................................................30
2.2. Causes of foundation failure......................................................................................31
2.2.1. Design causes......................................................................................................31
2.2.2. Natural causes.....................................................................................................32
2.2.1. Accidental causes................................................................................................34
2.2.2. Construction causes............................................................................................35
2.3. Possible remedies to foundation failure.....................................................................37
2.3.1. Appropriate soil investigation and foundation design........................................37
2.3.2. Soil replacement..................................................................................................38
2.3.3. Soil improvement................................................................................................38
Conclusion............................................................................................................................48
Chapter 3 : METHODOLOGY.........................................................................................49
Introduction...........................................................................................................................49
3.1. Description of the site................................................................................................49
3.1.1. Climate, relief and hydrology.............................................................................49
3.1.2. Geological and geotechnical context..................................................................50
3.1.3. Urban context......................................................................................................50
3.2. Expertise on the study case........................................................................................51
3.2.1. The actors............................................................................................................51
3.2.2. The back analysis................................................................................................51
Conclusion............................................................................................................................57
Chapter 4 : RESULTS INTEPRETATION AND PROPOSITION OF REMEDIES.........58
Introduction...........................................................................................................................58
4.1. Foundation inspection................................................................................................58
xii
4.2. Sampling and laboratory test......................................................................................59
4.2.1. Sieve analysis......................................................................................................59
4.2.2. Direct shear test...................................................................................................60
4.2.3. Steel analysis.......................................................................................................63
4.3. SPT test......................................................................................................................65
4.3.1. Realisation...........................................................................................................65
4.3.2. Interpretation.......................................................................................................65
4.4. Concrete analysis........................................................................................................72
4.5. The possible remedies to the Collapse.......................................................................73
4.3.1. Digging down deeper..........................................................................................73
4.3.2. Enlarge the footing dimension............................................................................74
4.3.3. Stone columns.....................................................................................................75
4.3.4. Choose pile foundation.......................................................................................76
4.3.5. Raft foundation...................................................................................................76
Conclusion............................................................................................................................77
GENERAL CONCLUSION.....................................................................................................78
ANNEX.....................................................................................................................................80
Annex 1: Classical formulae of bearing capacity factors.....................................................80
Annex 2: Bearing capacity factors Nc for strip foundations of width B on layered undrained
soils (after Merifield et al. 1999)..........................................................................................80
Annex 3 : Shape factors sc (after Merifield and Nguyen 2006)...........................................81
Annex 4: Bearing capacity factor Nc for strip foundations of width B at the crest of a slope
of undrained soil (after Geaogiadis, 2010)...........................................................................81
Annex 5: Factor Fz for strip foundations on non-uniform undrained soil (after Davis and
Booker, 1973).......................................................................................................................81
Annex 6: Shape factors according to authors and codes.......................................................82
Annex 7: Classical formulations for inclination factors according to authors......................82
Annex 8: Classical formulations for depth factors...............................................................83
xiii
Annex 9 : Values for empirical coefficient of horizontal stress k and δ is the frictional angle
at the contact pile/soil for corresponding piles types............................................................83
Annex 10: Chart skin resistance- limit pressure from pressuremeter test............................83
Annex 11: Tip resistance from mean tip resistance correspondent (source EC7 –part 2
Annex D, DIN 1054).............................................................................................................84
Annex 12 : Mean lateral friction correspondence to mean tip resistance.............................84
Annex 13: Values of admissible load of pile foundation from limits state combinations
“fascicule 62” (Source fascicule 62 titre V).........................................................................84
Annex 14: Figure Ballast system..........................................................................................85
Annex 15: contrast system....................................................................................................85
Annex 16 : Elastic settlement theories..................................................................................86
Annex 17: Settlement correlation from SPT test..................................................................87
Annex 18: Settlement correlation from CPT test..................................................................88
Annex 19: Skempton’s Bearing Capacity Factors for Cohesive soil....................................88
Annex 20: Table giving the values of the adhesion coefficient for corresponding pile type
and undrained shear strength................................................................................................89
Annex 21: Partial factor of different design approaches (Eurocode 7)................................89
Annex 22: SPT test report (source, Cabinet MEDOU expertise report)...............................90
Annex 23 : Direct shear test report (source, Cabinet MEDOU expertise report)................91
Annex 24 : Sieve analysis report (source, Cabinet MEDOU expertise report)....................92
Annex 25: SPT correction factor ζ (after Skempton, 1986).................................................93
Annex 26: Common Energy ratios in use worldwide (after Skempton, 1986).....................93
Annex 27: Foundation plan of Nkongmondo Building (from CEC MEDOU)....................94
BIBLIOGRAPHY.....................................................................................................................95
xiv
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
A building is a permanent or temporary structure enclosed within exterior walls and a

roof, and including all attached apparatus, equipment, and fixtures that cannot be removed
without cutting into the ceiling, floors or walls. They are used for housing where people live,
for services where people’s office are installed or for factories where goods are made.
Buildings are made to meet a particular need of the society. During the last decade, Cameroon
has experienced an economic boom that translates into an HDI (Human Development Index)
change of 1.27% between 2010 and 2015 (UNDP, 2017), one of the highest in the world.
This change is accompanied by a demographic increase in its two big metropolises which are
Yaounde, the political capital and Douala the economical capital. It creates urban problems
like: pollution, traffic congestion, insecurity and housing deficit. The Ministry of Housing and
Urban Development estimated at more than a million units to fill, with an annual growth of
10%, this is why in 2010 a construction program of 10000 socials housing was launched. In
the same way, entrepreneurs are taking the opportunity to make money by loaning houses. As
in all developing country, Cameroon is experiencing a recurrence of collapsing buildings that
has caused numerous casualties which creates a sense of fear in society. The city of Douala,
having the highest population, 2.8 million inhabitants (La langue francaise dans le monde,
2014), will be the one on which we will focus. It is situated at the 4°03’ North and 9°42’ East,
in the Wouri estuary. It has a very low altitude and built on a sedimentary basin. The soil is
mostly marshy, with a relative high-water level, thus the necessity of an appropriate design of
building basement. Incessant collapsing of buildings has caused numerous life and goods
destructions and scandals so that is why it has taken all attention to understand which are the
causes are prevent the collapsing of buildings to this. It has become a serious concern to the
professionals in the building industry, clients, governments, and general public. The architects
and engineers who are directly involved in the construction of such building are held
responsible for collapsing of buildings. Structural design and geotechnical has been suspected
as being the principal reasons. The first concern the design of reinforced concrete and
structural members, the second, the design of appropriate foundation after investigating the
soil. As the foundation be the part of the building in charge of supporting the overall load and
transmitting it to the underground. It is important to determine its contribution in the
1
Written by SIAKA NTAMBWE Willy Master thesis in Civil Engineering
collapsing of buildings in Douala. To understand this, the skills of design of foundation for a
building will be elaborate in the chapter 1, this include the foundation choice criteria, the test
applied to get soil’s characterisation and parameters, the bearing capacity and evaluation of
settlement follow by the foundation failure type in chapter 2, where possible solutions will be
established. The chapter 3 will present the methodology applied for the study case of a G+5
building collapse that occurs in the city and the chapter 4 presents the results and their
interpretation concluding with proposition of remedies to the collapse.
2
Chapter 1 : DESIGN OF FOUNDATION AND CONSIDERATION

FOR BUILDINGS
Introduction
A building can be divided into two parts, the superstructure and the substructure. The
superstructure is constituted of non-structural elements and structural elements. The later
supports all the imposed loads and transmits them to the foundation. The substructure is the
lower portion of the building which transmits the dead loads, live loads and other loads to the
underneath sub soil. The substructure is considered as the foundation. It has to ensure safety
while transmitting loads to underneath soil. There are several types of foundation, the choice
of depends on the capacity of the soil to withstand the loads transmitted. Designing a
foundation consist into choosing the type of foundation and determine its shapes making sure
that the load is transmitted safely to the soil. Thus, to design foundation, we first of all have to
make an investigation on the soil, which give us much information on the soil to choose a
foundation having the necessary bearing capacity to sustain the loads with an acceptable
settlement.
1.1. Soil investigation

1.1.1. The purpose
Soil properties differ from one location to another. In fact, a soil cross section shows a
sequence of layers which have different composition. This composition is very important for
the foundation choice and design. The general purpose of the soil investigation given by the
Eurocode 7 can be resume to: determine the suitability of the site for the proposed project;
determine an adequate and economic foundation design; determine the difficulties which may
arise during the construction process and period; determine the occurrence and/or cause of all
changes in subsoil conditions. The principal objects of a soil investigation are: determining
the sequence, thicknesses and lateral extent of the soil strata, and where appropriate, the level
of bedrock; obtain a representative sample of the soils for identification and classification and
for use in laboratory test which should be include to assess appropriate soils characteristics;
identify the groundwater conditions. Soil investigation is made following a method which
3
depends on the strata. Realizing soil investigation required first a field inspection, to identify
existing river, excavation, road and railway cutting which can help us to get information of the
possible strata and water condition. Also existing structure should be examined to identify
settlement damage.
1.1.2. Methods of Intrusive investigation

Investigation procedure depends on the nature of the strata and the type of project.
There are many method of investigating, but they involve excavation of boreholes or trial pits.
The number of points where boreholes will be executed and the adequate depth should be
planned in such a way that basic geological structure of the site and the subsurface condition
to be detected. The table 1.1 shows the approximated spacing of investigating points.
Table 1.1 Guidance on spacing of ground investigation points (Eurocode 7, Part 2: 2007)
Type of constructions Spacing of investigation points

High-rise and industrial structures Grid pattern, at spacing of 15–40 m
Large-area structures Grid pattern, spacing ≤ 60 m
Linear structures (e.g. roads, railways, retaining Along route, at spacing of 20–200 m
walls etc.)
Special structures (e.g. bridges, chimneys/stacks, 2–6 investigation points per foundation
machine foundations)
Dams and weirs 25– to 75-m spacing, along relevant sections
The determination of the depth and number of point depends also on the type and size
of the construction. Boreholes and trial pits should be backfilled after use with compacted soil
but if the groundwater conditions are altered by a borehole and the resultant flow could
produce adverse effects then it is necessary to use a cement-based grout to seal the hole. There
are five principal methods of intrusive investigation, they include: trial pits, Mechanical
auger, Hand and portable augers, Wash boring and Rotary drilling.
Trial pits are pits dug by hand or mechanical excavator to a limit of 4-5 m depth,
Mechanical auger is a power operate augers generally mounted on vehicles used for
percussion boring, Hand and portable augers are auger used a set of extension rods to
excavate boreholes up to a depth of 5m, Wash boring is a method in which the soil particles
are being washed to the surface between the rods and the side of the borehole by means of
pumping and release of water and then Rotary drilling is a method where the drilling tool is
4
pushed by the weight of drilling equipment and rotated by motor and soil particles are washed
out by water following the same principle as wash boring.
1.1.1. Sampling
To determine soils characteristics in the laboratory, some soil sample is needed. There
are two types of soil sample: undisturbed and disturbed sample.
The undisturbed sample is required to determine the shear strength and consolidation
tests, it is obtained by techniques which aim at preserving the in- situ structure and water
content of the soil as far as is practically possible. It can be obtained by withdrawing the
boring tools and driving or pushing a sample tube into the soil at the bottom of the hole. When
the tube is brought to the surface, some soil is removed from each end and molten wax is
applied, in thin layers, to form a water-tight seal approximately 25 mm thick; the ends of the
tube are then covered by protective caps.
A disturbed sample is one having the same particle size distribution as the in- situ soil
but in which the soil structure has been significantly damaged or completely destroyed. In
addition, the water content may be different from that of the in-situ soil. Disturbed samples
are used mainly for soil classification tests, visual classification and compaction tests, it can
be excavated from trial pits or obtained from the tools used to advance boreholes. Samples
should be taken at changes of stratum and at a specified spacing within strata of not more than
3 m. All samples should be clearly labelled to show the project name, date, location, borehole
number, depth and method of sampling. In addition, each sample should be given a unique
serial number.
There are many type of sampling techniques, some of them are: open drive sampler,
thin walled sampler, split barrel sampler, stationary piston sampler, continuous sampler
and the windows sampler.
In the open drive sampler, a cutting shoe is attached to one end of the tube. The
sampler head incorporates a non-return valve to allow air and water to escape as the soil fills
the tube. The inside of the tube should have a smooth surface and must be maintained in a
clean condition. The most widely used sample tube has an internal diameter of 100 mm and a
length of 450 mm. This sampler is suitable for all clay soils.
5
Thin walled sampler does not employ a separate cutting shoe, the lower end of the tube
itself being machined to form a cutting edge. It used in soils which are sensitive to
disturbance, such as soft to firm clays and plastic silts. The internal diameter may range from
35 to 100 mm.
The split barrel sampler consists of a tube which is split longitudinally into two halves;
a shoe and a sampler head incorporating air- release holes are screwed onto the ends. The two
halves of the tube can be separated when the shoe and head are detached to allow the sample
to be removed. The internal and external diameters are 35 and 50 mm, respectively, there is
considerable disturbance of the sample, this sampler is used mainly in sands.
The stationary piston sampler consists of a thin- walled tube fitted with a piston which
is attached to a long rod passing through the sampler head and running inside the hollow
boring rods. The sampler is lowered into the borehole with the piston located at the lower end
of the tube, the tube and piston being locked together by means of a clamping device at the
top of the rods. The diameter of the sampler is usually between 35 and 100 mm, but can be as
large as 250 mm. The samplers are generally used for soft clays.
In the continuous sampler, there is elimination of frictional resistance between the

sample and the inside of the sampler tube by superimposing thin strips of metal foil between
the sample and the tube. Lengths of sample tube (68 mm in diameter) are attached as required
to the upper end of the sampler. It is a highly specialized type of sampler which is capable of
obtaining undisturbed samples up to 25 m in length; the sampler is used mainly in soft clays.
The compressed air sampler is used to obtain undisturbed samples of sand below the
water table. The sample tube, usually 60 mm in diameter, is attached to a sampler head having
a relief valve which can be closed by a rubber diaphragm. An outer tube, or bell, surrounds
the sample tube, the bell being attached to a weight which slides on the guide rod. The tube is
pushed into the soil by means of the boring rods and the boring rods are then withdrawn.
Compressed air is introduced to expel the water from the bell and to close the valve in the
sampler head by pressing the diaphragm downwards. The tube is withdrawn to the surface.
The window sampler is the sampler which is most suited to dry fine- grained soils,
employs a series of tubes, usually 1 m in length and of different diameters (typically 80, 60,
50 and 36 mm). Tubes of the same diameter can be coupled together. A cutting shoe is
attached to the end of the bottom tube. The tubes are driven into the soil by percussion using
either a manual or rig- supported device and are extracted either manually or by means of the
6
rig. The tube of largest diameter is the first to be driven and extracted with its sample inside.
A tube of lesser diameter is then driven below the bottom of the open hole left by extraction
of larger tube. The operation is repeated using tubes of successively lower diameter, and
depths of up to 8 m can be reached. There are longitudinal slots or ‘windows’ in the walls at
one side of the tubes to allow the soil to be examined and enable disturbed samples to be
taken.
1.1.2. In-situ test
In-situ tests are valuable test for some reasons. Firstly, in qualifying the mechanical
behaviour of an element of soil. Secondly, there are some data to be obtained through
undisturbed sample, which is difficult and expensive to get from some deposits. Lastly, the
response of a small element of soil may not represent the behaviour of the complete soil mass,
if the sample happens to be taken containing any of significant features that can be existing.
The in-situ test gives a rapid assessment of key parameters which can be conducted during
ground investigation. There are four principal in-situ test, they include: The Standard
Penetration Test (SPT), the Field Vane Test (FVT); the Pressuremeter Test (PMT); the Cone
Penetration Test (CPT).
1.1.2.1. Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
The SPT is one of the oldest and most widely used in- situ tests worldwide. The
technical standards governing its use are EN ISO 22476, Part 3 (UK and Europe) and ASTM
D1586 (US). Its popularity is largely due to its low cost and simplicity, and the fact that
testing may be conducted rapidly as a borehole is drilled.
1.1.2.2. Field Vane Test (FVT)
The technical standards governing its use are EN ISO 22476, Part 9 (UK and Europe)
and ASTM D2573 (US). The equipment consists of a stainless steel vane of four thin
rectangular blades at 90° to each other, carried on the end of a high- tensile steel rod; the rod
is enclosed by a sleeve packed with grease. The length of the vane is equal to twice its overall
width, typical dimensions being 150 mm by 75 mm and 100 mm by 50 mm. Preferably, the
diameter of the rod should not exceed 12.5 mm. The vane and rod are pushed into the soil
below the bottom of a borehole to a depth of at least three times the borehole diameter; if care
is taken this can be done without appreciable disturbance of the clay. Steady bearings are used
to keep the rod and sleeve central in the borehole casing. In soft clays, tests may be conducted
7
without a borehole by direct penetration of the vane from ground level; in this case a shoe is
required to protect the vane during penetration. Small, hand- operated vanes are also available
for use in exposed clay strata.
1.1.2.3. Pressuremeter Test (PMT)
The pressuremeter was developed in the 1950s by Ménard to provide a high quality in-
situ test which could be used to derive both strength and stiffness parameters for soil as an
alternative to triaxial testing. Ménard’s original design, consists of three cylindrical rubber
cells of equal diameter arranged coaxially. The device is lowered into a borehole to the
required depth and the central measuring cell is expanded against the borehole wall by means
of water pressure, measurements of the applied pressure and the corresponding increase in cell
volume being recorded. Pressure is applied to the water by compressed gas (usually nitrogen)
in a control cylinder at the surface. The increase in volume of the measuring cell is determined
from the movement of the gas–water interface in the control cylinder.
1.1.2.4. Cone Penetration Test (CPT)
The penetrometer consists of a short cylindrical element, at the end of which is a cone-
shaped tip. The cone has an apex angle of 60° and a cross- sectional area of 1000 mm2. This
is pushed vertically into the ground using a thrust machine at a constant rate of penetration of
20 mm/s (ISO, 2006). In a standard electrical cone (CPT), a load cell between the cone and
the body of the instrument continuously records the resistance to penetration of the cone (cone
tip resistance qc), and a friction sleeve is used to measure the interface shearing resistance (fs)
along the cylindrical body of the instrument.
1.1.3. Laboratory test
The laboratory test is the test which are being realized in the laboratory, very large
time consuming. It gives direct measures of soil properties in controlled conditions with very
high precision. Laboratory tests on soil and rock samples ascertain the nature, strength, and
consolidation characteristics of the materials existing at the site. They can be realized on
disturbed or undisturbed sample but key’s one is obtained from the later because it simulated
the situation on the field.
8
1.1.3.1. Classification and index testing

This set of test concerns moisture content test, grain size analysis, density and more over.
They are useful to classify the soil, by this expect its behaviour and make appropriate choice
during bearing capacity and settlement computation.
Moisture content test aim to determine the amount of water present in the soil expressed as
a percentage of the mass of dry soil. the moisture content of a soil is assumed to be the
amount of water within the pore space between the soil grains which is removable by oven
drying at a temperature not exceeding 110°C. the moisture content has a profound effect on
soil behaviour.
Particle density determination is essential in relation to other tests, especially for
calculating porosity and voids and for computation of particle size for sedimentation
procedure. the small pyknometers method is suitable for soils consisting of particles finer than
2mm. Larger particles may be ground down to smaller than 2 mm before testing.
Bulk density is very important to derived the Unit Weight for undisturbed sample which is
an essential parameter in bearing capacity analysis. The Bulk density is the ratio between the
total mass to the total volume. The Unit of the soil is the ratio of the total weight (a force) to a
total the volume.
Sieve analysis is a necessary classification for soils, especially coarse soils, in that it
presents the relative portions of different sizes of particles. From this it is possible to
determine whether the soils consist of predominantly gravel, sand, silt or clay sizes and, to a
limited extend. the procedure involves the preparation of the sample by wet sieving to remove
silt and clay sized particles. Followed by dry sieving of the remaining coarse material. This
method covers the quantitative determination of particle size distribution in an essentially
cohesive soil, down to find sand size. The combined silt clay can be obtained by difference. If
the soil does not contain particles retained on a 2 mm test sieve in significant quantity, the
hydrometer method shall be used.
Hydrometer method combined to a sieving, enable a continuous particle size distribution
curve of a soil to be plotted from size of the coarsest particles down to clay sizes. the
hydrometer covers the quantitative determination of the particle size distribution in a soil from
the coarse and size to the clay size by means of sedimentation. The test is normally not
required if less than 10% of material passes the 75μm test sieve in a wet or dry sieving
analysis. It required that the particle density of the soil specimen is known or can be assumed.
9
1.1.3.2. Stress-strain shear test
This set of test is useful to determine soil strength compressibility parameters, these
include cohesion, friction angle, undrained shear strength, compressibility index. The test are
oedometer test, triaxial test and direct shear test.
The oedometer consolidation test is used for the determination of consolidation

characteristics of low-permeability soils when subjected to vertical loads. The results may be
used to calculate and estimate settlements of structural foundations when placed on the
ground. The two parameters normally required are: The compressibility of the soil:
Coefficient of volume compressibility, mv and the time related parameter: Coefficient of
consolidation, Cv. When the structure is built on saturated soils, the load is presumed to be
carried initially by incomprehensible water within the soils void. Due to the additional load on
the soil, water will tend to be squeezed out from the voids causing reduction in voids volume
and consequently settlement of the structure. In soils of high permeability (coarse grained
soils), this process takes a relatively short time for completion, with the result that almost all
of the settlement will occur during the construction period. These rarely cause major
problems. In low permeability soils (clays), this process takes place slowly and consciously
over a long period of time – months, years and even decades – after completion of
construction. This concerns the primary consolidation phase, but it can be used to determined
secondary compression characteristics. The soil specimen is loaded in increments of applied
stress. Each stress increment is held constant until primary consolidation has ceased. During
this process water drains out of the specimen, resulting in decrease in height which is
measured at suitable intervals. These measurements are used for the determination of the
relationship between compression (or strain) or voids ratio and effective stress, and for the
calculation of parameters which describes the amount of compression and the re at which it
takes place.
Triaxial Test is primarily designed to determine the shear strength parameters of a soil
sample either in terms of total stresses, i.e. the angle of shear resistance ( φ ), the cohesion (c)
and the undrained shear strength (c u ). Or in terms of effective stresses, i.e. the angle of shear
resistance ( φ ' ) and the cohesion ( c ' ). These values may be used to calculate the bearing
capacity of a soil and the stability of slopes.
10
Direct Shear Test is made by relating the shear stress at failure to the applied normal stress
on a shear box. The objective of the test is to determine the effective shear strength parameters
of the soil, the cohesion (c’) and the angle of internal friction (φ’). These values may be used
for calculating the bearing capacity and the stability slopes. In the direct shear test a square
prism of soil is laterally restrained and sheared along a mechanically induced horizontal plane
while subjected to a pressure applied normal to that plane. The shearing resistance offered by
the soil as one portion which is made to slide on the other, is measured at regular intervals of
displacement. Failure occurs when the shearing resistance reaches the maximum value which
the soil can sustain.
1.2. Type of foundation
There are three main functions of a building foundation: sustain and safely transmit the
loads from building / structure to the ground in such a way that it does not impair the stability
or cause damage to the building or surrounding buildings; the construction of foundations
must safeguard the building against damage by physical forces generated in the subsoil;
foundations must resist the chemical compounds present in soil to prevent corrosion to
reinforcement.
The properties of soil have the major influence on the design, stability and sustainability
of foundations to make it perform its functions.
1.2.1. Shallow foundation
If a soil stratum near the surface is capable of adequately supporting the structural
loads it is possible to use either footings or a raft, these being referred to in general as shallow
foundations. A footing is a relatively small slab giving independent support to part of the
structure. The main types of shallow foundation are: spread footing; combined footing; strip
footing and raft footing. Figure 1.1 illustrate these types of shallow foundation.
Spread footing is a footing supporting a single column, also called individual footing
or pad, combined footing is supporting a closely spaced group of columns, strip footing is one
that supports a load-bearing wall and raft footing is a relatively large single slab, usually
stiffened with cross members, supporting the structure as a whole.
11
The resistance of a shallow foundation is quantified by its bearing resistance (a

limiting load) or bearing capacity (a limiting pressure). Bearing capacity is directly related to
the shear strength of soil and therefore requires the strength properties φ′, c′ or c u, depending
on whether drained or undrained conditions are maintained, respectively.
a) b)
c) d)
Figure1.1 Main types of shallow foundation; a) Spread footing, b) Combined footing, c) strip
footing, d) raft footing. ) (source Craig’s soil, 2012).
1.2.2. Deep foundation
If the soil near the surface is incapable of adequately supporting the structural loads,
piles, or other forms of deep foundations such as piers or caissons, are used to transmit the
applied loads to suitable soil (or rock) at greater depth where the effective stresses are larger.
Preformed piles may be installed by driving or jacking, displacing the surrounding soil.
Alternatively, piles may be cast from reinforced concrete in-situ into a pre-formed hole (non-
displacement piles). The method of installation and construction procedure has a large
influence of the soil–shaft interface and, consequently, on the shaft capacity.
Where shallow foundations are wide compared to their depth, deep foundations are
elements which are much smaller in plan but extend to greater depth within the ground. The
12
most common type of deep foundation is the pile, which is a column of concrete, steel or
timber installed within the ground as shown in figure 1.2. Piles may be circular or square in
section, but will always have an outside diameter (D0) or width (Bp) that is very much smaller
than their length (Lp), i.e. Lp>> D0… Piles can be driven, drilled or cast in place depending
on the construction technology.
Figure1.2 Principal types of pile: (a) precast RC pile, (b) steel H pile, (c) steel tubular pile
(plugged), (d) shell pile, (e) CFA pile, (f) under-reamed bored pile (cast-in-situ) (source
Craig’s soil Mechanism, 2012).
A pier or caisson is another type of deep foundation which has a much larger diameter
compared to its length, i.e. Lp > D0, but which can be analysed in the same way as a pile.
Caissons are often used as foundations for offshore structures.
1.3. Design approach
1.3.1. Design method
In order to design a shallow foundation two approaches are mainly used: the permissible
method and limit states method.
1.3.1.1. The permissible stress method
13
The limiting bearing capacity, q lim ¿¿ is reduced by a lumped factor of safety FS to obtain
the q adm(allowable bearing capacity). A relatively high factor of 2–3 (more often 3) is
specified to allow for uncertainties in soil conditions and analytical method, and to ensure
that settlement is not excessive. Theq adm is the maximum pressure which may be applied
to the soil such that an adequate factor of safety against shear failure is ensured and that
settlement (especially differential settlement) should not cause unacceptable damage nor
interfere with the function of the structure.
1.3.1.2. The limit state method
The bearing resistance (a load) is used in contrast to bearing capacity (a pressure) in the
permissible stress method. The limit bearing resistance is developed when shear failure of the
supporting soil is on the point of occurring. It is obtained taking account of the shape of the
foundation. The allowable bearing resistance (Qadm =Q lim ¿⁡/ FS ¿ ) has to be greater than the dead
load of the foundation + the maximum vertical load imposed by the superstructure. Eurocode
7 provides combinations for ULS, in which safety factors for material and actions are modify
to consider all possible case of damage.
1.3.2. Bearing capacity
The bearing capacity can be defined as the ability of a foundation to withstand the load
of the super-structure. It can be get from c and ϕ parameters obtained from laboratory or insitu
test also after direct correlation from in-situ test result. Shallow and deep foundation have
different way to compute the bearing capacity.
1.3.2.1. Correlation from in-situ test
The establishment of norm in the geotechnical domain has increase the number of design
method. The pressuremeter test is the most used in Cameroon to foundation design, it refers to
the one used in France. This method has been chosen as the reference one for static
penetrometer and pre-existing methods. In the “fascicule 62 titre V” of the “Cahier des clauses
techniques générales » (CCTG) (1993), computation using pressuremeter has been applied.
14
1
The simplified and usual rule q a= pl (admissible pressure equal to the third of limit
3
pressure) is used to obtained directly the force under the footing on the ground.
3
A foundation is said shallow if his equivalent embedment depth D e is less than of
2
his width B. The ultimate pressure q 'u is given by the relation:
q 'u−q '0=k p ∙ p¿¿ =qu −q0 (1.1)
where k p the bearing factor, which depend on the soil type and its classification. It can
be written as:
De De
k p=k p ( 0 ) + k p ( B ) ∙ + k p( L) ∙ (1.2)
B L
Table 1.2 gives the expression of k p for a corresponding soil type, and the
corresponding limit pressure.
Table 1.2 Value of the bearing factor and corresponding class kp (fascicule 62 titre V)
Type and soil classes Expression of k p Limite pressure pl

(MPa)
Soft Clay and silt A De De <0,7
0.8+ 0.12∙ + 0.08∙
B L
Medium Clay and silt B De De 1.2 to 2.0
0.8+ 0.17∙ +0.11 ∙
B L
Stiff Clay and silt C De De > 2.5
0.8+ 0.24 ∙ +0.16 ∙
B L
Loose Sand and gravel A De De < 0.5
1+0.21 ∙ +0.14 ∙
B L
Medium Sand and gravel B De De 1.0 to 2.0
1+0.30 ∙ + 0.20∙
B L
Dense Sand and gravel C De De > 2.5
1+0.48 ∙ + 0.32∙
B L
Under the shallow foundation, the soil is supposed to be homogeneous if it constituted,
3
under a depth of at least B, of the same soil or same soil type and characteristics. In the case
2
the limit pressure in the depth range [ D; D+1,5 B], is linear:
pl ( z ) =az +b (1.3)
The equivalent limit pressure can be expressed is:

15
2
p¿¿ = p¿l ( z e ), with z e =D+ B
3
The equivalent embedment depth De , different from the geometric depth D, is used to
take in account the fact that mechanical characteristics of upper soil is weaker than bearing
soil (it should be less than D). It depends on the depth D and the test used. For pressuremeter
test, D e is given by :
D
1
De = ¿ ∫ p¿l ( z ) ∙ dz (1.4)
p¿ d
Where:
o p¿¿ presents the equivalent limit pressure of the soil under the foundation, computed
following equation;
¿ ¿
o pl ( z ) obtain joining segment on linear scale of different limit pressure pl
measured;
o d (< D) generally taken as zero, except there is very are weak upper layers such a
way that we do not take in account the embedment. The ultimate pressure can be
written:
D
k ( B) k ( L)
¿ [
q u−q 0=k p ( 0 ) ∙ p + p + p
¿
B L ]∫
d
p¿l ( z ) ∙ dz (1.5)
The pressuremeter method is an empirical one; site loading test are realized to get the
value of the bearing factor k p. The pressuremeter is realized each meter from 1m depth due to
the geometry of the probe.
There bearing capacity can also be computed from other test like SPT, CPT, each
having a correlation with its result. Also, those correlation depends on the theory followed. In
fact, many authors have correlated the test result with the bearing capacity.
1.3.2.2. Computation from test results
c et φ parameters are obtained from laboratory test and in-situ test. Several bearing
capacity equations proposed by different authors and adopted in different codes are available
to calculate the ultimate bearing capacity of soil at foundation level (SukantaKumer Shill et al,
16
2015). But, different method of evaluating bearing capacity yields different result. However,
in Cameroon the are many code used principally DTU 13.12 and Eurocode 7.
a) Bearing capacity theory for shallow foundation
Due to the fact that foreigner contractors present in the country are using their own code,
many code are used but those named previously served as reference as reference one. The
basic equations of bearing capacity concerns strip footings loaded vertically in the plane of
symmetry as shown in figure 1.3, these equations are one of the first formulas for bearing
capacity calculation of shallow foundation given by Terzaghi (1943). They have been very
widely used since then and continue to be in great use mainly because of their relative
simplicity. Terzaghi used trial wedges of the type assumed by Prandtl (1921), expanding and
improving on Prandtl’s theory. The expressions of bearing capacity obtained by Terzaghi are:
q ult =c N c + q N q +0.5 γ B N γ (1.6)
square footings:
q ult =1.3 c N c +q N q+ 0.4 γB N γ (1.7)
For circular footings:
q ult =1.3 c N c +q N q+ 0.3 γB N γ (1.8)
in which: q ult is the ultimate bearing capacity of soil; c is the cohesion of soil; γ is the unit
weight of soil; N c is the bearing capacity factors concerning the cohesion of the soil; N q is
the bearing capacity factors concerning the depth of foundation; N γ is the bearing
capacity factors concerning the internal friction angle of soil ϕ;
Figure1.3 Typical shallow foundation ) (source Craig’s soil, 2012).
17
Skempton (1951) proposed a bearing capacity equation for saturated clay soil that is
for ϕ=0, as:
q ult =c u N c + γ D f (1.9)
Where:
o c u = unconfined compressive strength of clay

o Df = depth of footing
o γ = unit weight of soil
Meyerhof (1951, 1963) proposed a bearing capacity equation similar to that of

Terzaghi but included some factors: a shape factor s, an inclination factors i and a depth
factors d taking in account respectively the shape of the footing, the depth of embedment of
the footing and the inclination of the load apply on the foundation. These additions produce
equation of the general form as:
q ult =c N c sc ic d c + q N q s q i q dq + 0.5 γ B N γ s γ i γ d γ (1.10)
Hansen (1970), proposed the general bearing capacity equation as:
q ult =c N c sc ic d c gc bc +q N q sq i q d q g q bq +0.5 γ B γ N γ s γ i γ d γ g γ bγ (1.11)
He has added g the ground factor and b the base factor for the inclination of the
ground supporting the foundation and the tilt of the foundation from horizontal respectively.
Vesic (1973) proposed same bearing capacity equation as stated by Hansen’s (1970)
general equation. Also, the expression for N c and N q terms are same as Hansen (1970), but N γ
is slightly different. There are also differences in i ,b and g terms. The Vesic (1973) equation
is somewhat easier to use than Hansen’s (1970) because Hansen uses the i terms in computing
shape factors s, whereas Vesic does not. IS code (1981) gives an equation of bearing capacity
which proposed by Vesic (1973). Eurocode7 (1996) proposed the equation of bearing capacity
as:
q ult =c N c sc ic + γ d D f N q sq i q +0.5 B γ d N γ s γ i γ (1.12)
18
b) The bearing capacity factors
The factors used in bearing equations are chosen dependently on the theory used or code.
The bearing capacity factors N c , N q and N γ are the dimensionless numbers, depending upon
the angle of shearing friction resistance. The annex 1 presents the factors used from various
authors and codes. In the case of cohesive soil, Skempton defines bearing capacity factors as
N q =1, N γ = 0 and annex 19 gives N c .
For layered soils, Merrifield et al. (1999) presented upper and lower bound values
of N c for strip footings resting on a two-layer cohesive soil as a function of the thickness H of
the upper layer of soil of strength c u 1 which overlies a deep deposit of material of strength c u 2.
Proposed design values of N c for this case are given in annex 2 which are valid if the
undrained shear strength of the upper layer is used in equation 1.9 (i.e. cu= cu1).
Subsequently, Merrifield and Nguyen (2006) conducted further analyses for square footings
with B/L = 1.0. The resulting shape factors they obtained are shown in annex 3.
If a shallow foundation is built close to a slope, its bearing capacity may be

dramatically reduced. This is a common case for transport infrastructure (e.g. a road or
railway line) which is situated on an embankment. These types of construction are commonly
very long, and so will always behave as strip foundations. Georgiadis (2010) presented charts
for N c for strip foundations set back from the crest of a slope of angle β by a multiple λ of the
foundation width. From annex 4, the presence of a nearby slope reduces N c (and hence also
the bearing capacity). If the foundation is set far enough back from the crest of the slope (λ >
2B), then the slope will have no effect on the bearing capacity and N c =2+ π as for level
ground.
It is common for undrained strength to vary with depth, rather than be uniform
(constant with depth). Davis and Booker (1973) conducted upper and lower bound plasticity
analyses for soil with a linear variation of undrained shear strength with depth z below the
founding plane, i.e. where c u 0 is the undrained shear strength at the founding plane (z = 0) and
C is the gradient of the c u−z relationship. The bearing capacity is expressed in a different
form compared to given equation (1.13), F z taken from annex 5.
CB
[
q f = ( 2+ π ) cu 0 +
4]Fz (1.13)
19
The shape factor s takes into account the non-infinite length of a rectangular footing
for each bearing capacity factor. The footing has width B and length L, here, B ≤ L. The shape
factors used by different authors and codes are listed in annex 6.
The inclination factors i is used to take into account the inclination of the load in the
footing, for each bearing capacity factor. There are two parameters to characterize the
inclination of load. The external load has a vertical component V and horizontal component
H, therefore the inclination angle δ defined as equation (1.14).
H
tan δ= (1.14)
V
A second form to describe the inclination of the load consist of introducing an angle
Θ defined by equation (1.15).
H
tanΘ= (1.15)
V + Aa cot ϕ
where A is the effective soil– footing contact area, a is the adhesion (J.G. Sieffert and Ch. Bay
– Gress, 2000). Eurocode7 (1996) assumes (a = c) and Bowles (1997) assumes a = 0.6 to 1.0
of c. Therefore, the inclination factors used by the different authors are listed in annex 7.
Depth factor d is used to take into account the depth of footing and this for each
bearing capacity factor. The bearing capacity factors presented in annex 8 are defined in the
case of the strip footing at shallow depth D ≤ B.
Ground factor g. The bearing capacity factors presented are defined in the case of
footing based on horizontal. In the case of base on slope, a ground factor gis introduced for
each bearing capacity factor, by Skempton (1970) to reduce the bearing capacity.
b the base factor is defined for the inclination of the ground used to reduce the
bearing capacity in the case where the ground is not horizontal. This has been introduced for
each bearing capacity factors.
c) Bearing capacity of deep foundation
The determination of bearing capacity for deep foundation is based on several methods,
some of them are same as shallow’s one. We have: the analytical method based on soil
strength parameters got from tests and using static formulas, the empirical methods based on
the result of in-situ tests (pressuremeter tests or penetrometric tests), full scale load tests and
dynamic formulas based on driving energy this one concern only driven piles.
20
i) The Analytical methods
This method used static formulas. Those formulas depend on strength parameters which
can be determined by laboratory or in-situ tests. In Analytical methods the maximum axial
load is considered composed by two contributions by equation 1.16: the base bearing capacity
given by equation 1.17 and the shaft contribution given by equation 1.18.
Q lim ¿=Q +Q ¿
b s
(1.16)
Qb= A b qb (1.17)
Ab : area of the base q b: the tip resistance
Qs =A s q s (1.18)
A s: area of the skin (lateral area) q s: tcahe skin resistance
The tip resistance is calculated similarly to the bearing capacity of a shallow foundation
but neglecting the term relative to the weight of the wedge under the foundation which is
often very small compare to other contribution. Then we have that the bearing expressed by
equation 1.19.
q b=c N c +σ vL N q (1.19)
The table 1.3 gives the transformation of equation 1.19 in drained and undrained condition.
Table 1.3 Bearing capacity in drained and undrained condition

Nc Nq qb
Drained conditions ( N q −1 ) cot ϕ ' Taken from chart c ' N c + N q σ 'zL
depends on ϕ ' and
L/ D ratio
Undrained conditions 9 1 9 Cu+σ zL
In the case of a coarse grained soil the tip resistance is reduced to the simple form given
by equation 1.20.
q b=N q σ 'zL (1.20)
21
This is called the Berezantev method. This method come from the fact that the vertical
resistance, after a defined depth value, doesn’t increase linearly with the depth but can be
assumed constant below a critical depth: this is the so-called “silo effect”. Thus, Berezantev
suggested a N q factor decreasing with the L/ D increase, and function of a design value of
friction angle, which is a reduced in drilled piles for unloading and increased in driven pile for
compaction effect.
The skin resistance has also two formulas depending on the drained or undrained
conditions. In drained conditions the skin resistance is given by equation 1.21
q s=k tanδ σ 'z= β σ 'z (1.21)
Where: k is the empirical coefficient of horizontal stress given by table in annex 10, σ 'z is the
effective vertical stress, δ is the frictional angle at the contact pile/soil.
In the undrained conditions:
q s=α c u (1.22)
Where α is the adhesion coefficient depending from the type of pile and clay consistency,
annex 21 gives its values.
ii) The Empirical methods
This method is essentially based on in-situ tests result; thus, each test has his way of
determining the bearing capacity. In Cameroon pressuremeter and Cone penetrometer are
mostly used.
The pressuremeter method, as refer to the “Fascicule 62 titre V”, the tip resistance is
obtained as we have seen the design of shallow foundation using pressuremeter test result.
The skin resistance is then obtained from a chart depending on the pressure from the
pressuremeter test ( q s = f ¿). There several graph on the chart corresponding each to the case
of the piles we have. Annex 11 gives skin resistance from limit pressure after pressuremeter
test.
The Eurocode 7 defines how to correlate bearing capacity for a drilled pile from CPT
results. For the case of granular soil, The mean tip resistance q c is determined as a mean value
22
in the range [ z p−4 D ; z p + D ] (EC7 –part 2 Annex D, DIN 1054) where z p is the base depth
and D the pile diameter.
To get the tip resistance, we use the equation 1.23 with its parameter illustrate on the figure
1.4.
α p βs q c , I + qc , II
q b=
2 ( 2 )
+q c, III ≤15 MPa (1.23)
0
1
Where q c ,I = ∫ q dz with 0.7 Deq < d crit <4 Deq ; Deq =max ( 1.13 √ ab ; 8 a )
d crit d c
crit
Deq = base equivalent diameter; aandb = base sides if the base is rectangular
d crit = distance from the base which minimizes the q bvalue.
Figure1.4 Determination of bearing capacity from CPT test
−8 D eq
1
q c ,II =min ⁡(q c ) in the range below the base; q c ,III = ∫ qc dz
8 D eq 0
23
α p = factor depending from the pile type (0.6÷1); β=¿ function of pile sizes =
2 sin ϕ '
f
D
[ ( )]
H
; eq
Deq d eq
=( 0.7 ÷ 1 ); s=¿ shape factor
¿ 1+
( )a
b
/(1+sin ϕ' )
; a and b = sizes of the
base is it is rectangular (a> b) ;
The skin resistance is then given by: q s=α s q cz
α s=¿factor depending from the pile type (0.005÷0.01 for granular soils, 0÷0.03 for cohesive)
q cz =¿ value of the tip resistance at the depth
iii) The Dynamic formulas methods
These methods are based on driving energy of driving piles. Observing the pile
response during driving, with every collision we have a useful settlement of the pile, the
rejection δ and a recovered displacement, the elastic response. The total energy applied with
a blow Lm should be written as shown in equation 1.24.
Lm=Lu + L p (1.24)
with Lu=Q' δ; Lm = Total Energy applied in one blow; Lu = Energy really utilized to drive
the pile; Q ’ = penetration resistance of the pile that is assumed equal to the bearing capacity
Q lim ¿ ¿; δ = useful infixion (rejection) ; L p = Energy lost in elastic deformation in the collision
between pile and hammer.
The lost energy is difficult to quantified. Janbu suggested the following relation given by
equation1.25 to obtain the bearing capacity.
' ρ Em
Q= (1.25)
δk
λ λ= Em L C=0.75+0.075 W p
( √ )
Where :k =C 1+ 1+
C
;
AE δ 2
;
Wh
W p = pile weight W h = hammer weight δ= medium rejection after 10 blows
ρ = efficiency coefficient (0.75-1.0, as a function of hammer …) L = pile length
Em = energy given by the hammer in one blow (diesel hammer …)
24
iv) Full scale load tests
Full-scale static loading is a widely accepted test method for authoritative assessment of
deep foundation (Mohammed Hussein et al.). Testing is typically performed once and the
result is considered the definitive answer regarding the pile’s load bearing capacity. The pile
load tests may be performed with two objectives: design or final acceptance trial.
In the design load test, the purpose is to verify the ultimate bearing capacity of pile and
consequently the load is increased until failure. For acceptance trial test, the purpose is to
verify the serviceability bearing capacity of pile and it is normally carried out after the
construction of the pile group.
1.3.3. Settlement of foundation
Settlement refers to the distortion or disruption of parts of a building due to unequal

compression of its foundation, shrinkage or undue loads being applied to the building after its
initial construction. Settlement is quite normal after construction has been completed, but
unequal settlement may cause significant problems on building. Foundation settlements are
estimated using deformation analyses based on the results of laboratory testing and/or in-situ
testing. The soil parameters used in the analyses represent its deformability and are chosen to
reflect the loading history of the soil, the construction sequence, and the effect of soil
layering. Both total and differential settlements, including time dependent effects, need to be
considered. It can be analysed from soil mechanics or in-situ test.
1.3.3.1. Soil mechanics
For the case of shallow foundation, the total settlement can be divided in part which
includes immediate (i.e., elastic) and time dependent response (i.e., consolidation and
secondary components), expressed by equation 1.26.
st =s i +s c +s s (1.26)
where si = immediate settlement; sc = consolidation settlement ; ss = secondary settlement
Immediate settlement is often referred to as elastic settlement because of the method of

computation, it results to instantaneous distribution of the load and strain across the soil mass
that occurs as the soil is loaded.
25
a) Elastic settlement
The elastic theory is used to compute immediate settlement which occurs immediately
after the construction. The vertical displacement (s) under an area carrying a uniform pressure
q on the surface of a semi-infinite, homogeneous, isotropic mass, with a linear stress–strain
relationship, can be expressed using theories shown in annex 17.
b) Consolidation and secondary settlement
This concerns saturated or nearly saturated cohesive soil. The Consolidation theory,
predict consolidation settlement using the one-dimensional method that can be made based on
the results of oedometer tests using representative samples of the soil. Due to the confining
ring in the oedometer the net lateral strain in the test specimen is zero, and for this condition
the initial excess pore water pressure is equal theoretically to the increase in total vertical
stress. In practice, the condition of zero lateral strain is satisfied approximately in the cases of
thin clay layers and of layers under loaded areas which are large compared with the layer
thickness. In many practical situations, however, significant lateral strain will occur, and the
initial excess pore water pressure will depend on the in-situ stress conditions.
The primary consolidation settlement is estimated from parameters deduced from

oedometer test and we have three cases:
' ' Δe H σ ' + Δσ

 σ z 0=σ p ⇒s c =H 0 = 0 c c log z 0 ' z (1.27)
1+e 0 1+ e0 σz0
 σ 'z 0 <σ 'p
Δe H0 σ 'z 0 + Δσ z
{
' '
σ + Δσ z <σ ⇒ s c =H 0
z0 p = c log (1.28)
1+e 0 1+ e0 r '
σ z0
H0 σ 'zc σ 'z 0+ Δ σ z
'
z0
'
σ + Δ σ z >σ ⇒ s c =H 0
p
Δe
=
1+e 0 1+e 0 r [
c log ' + c c log
σ z0 σ 'zc ]
(1.20)
Where :
σ 'z 0 :initial stress c c : compression index σ 'p : pre−consolidation stress
c r : ℜ−compression index Δ σ z : stressincrement s c : primary settlement
H 0 :initial thickness e 0 : void ratio

26
Experimental results show that compression does not cease when the excess pore
water pressure has dissipated to zero but continues at a gradually decreasing rate under
constant effective stress, figure 1.5 shows at a logarithmic scale, the secondary settlement
part.
Figure1.5 Log time method for sc computation
Secondary settlement is the further slow compression of the soil occurring after
primary consolidation is completed due to soil creep, continuing for an indefinite period of
time. The rate of secondary compression in the oedometer test can be defined by the slope
(Cα) of the final part of the compression–log time curve. Mitchell and Soga (2005) collated
data on Cα for a range of natural soils, normalizing the data by compressibility index, Cc.
These data are summarized in table 1.4, from which it can be seen that the secondary
compression is typically between 1% and 10% of the primary compression, depending on soil
type.
Table 1.4 Cα/Cc ratio and corresponding soil type
Soil type Cα/ Cc

Sands (low fines content) 0.01 – 0.03
Clays and silts 0.03 – 0.08
Organic soils 0.05 – 0.10
27
1.3.3.2. From SPT and CPT test
a) analysis using in-situ SPT test data
Due to the extreme difficulty of obtaining undisturbed sand samples for laboratory testing
and to the inherent heterogeneity of sand deposits, foundation settlements on coarse-grained
soils are normally estimated by means of correlations based on the results of in-situ tests. SPT
data’s can be used correlate settlement, and many authors proposed computation shown in the
table annex 18.
b) analysis using in-situ CPT test data
The cone penetration test (CPT) is also been used extensively to estimate settlement of
shallow foundation on granular soils. Most of the approaches based on the results of the CPT
rely on the tip resistance values obtained from the test. The table on annex 18 shows some of
them.
Conclusion
Foundation design is realised in steps, the first one is the site investigation in which the
natural terrain is surveyed in other to have enough information on the soil such as its
classification, its parameters or its water table level. This can be done through test in place or
in the laboratory on sample taken during investigation. The suitable foundation will be
adopted after analysing its bearing capacity and its settlement making sure the foundation
sustained the over-structure without excessive settlement. If the foundation is not design
taking care of all these factors, it can fail and failure may have many origins.
28
Chapter 2 : FOUNDATION FAILURE
Introduction
Foundation realisation is the first step when constructing a building, when it fails, it can
cause many defects in the building including leading to the collapse of the building. Repair of
defects in foundations are most difficult and very costly, so it is more important to understand
the types of foundation failure their causes to avoid them by taking precautionary measures
during construction, then know how to remedy if ever it happens.
2.1. Foundation failure mechanism
Bearing capacity (qu) can be defined as the pressure which would cause shear failure of
the supporting soil immediately below and adjacent to a foundation. Three distinct modes of
failure have been identified, they are general shear failure, punching shear failure and they
will be described with reference to a strip footing.
2.1.1. General shear failure

In the case of general shear failure, continuous failure surfaces develop between the edges
of the footing and the ground surface, as shown in figure 2.1. As the pressure is increased
towards the value qu a state of plastic equilibrium is reached initially in the soil around the
edges of the footing, which subsequently spreads downwards and outwards. Ultimately, the
state of plastic equilibrium is fully developed throughout the soil above the failure surfaces.
Heave of the ground surface occurs on both sides of the footing, although in many cases the
final slip movement occurs only on one side, accompanied by tilting of the footing, as the
29
footing will not be perfectly level and will hence be biased to fail towards one side. This mode
of failure is typical of soils of low compressibility (i.e. dense coarse-grained or stiff fine-
grained soils).
Figure2.6 General shear failure (source: Craig’s Soil Maechanics, 2012)

2.1.2. Local shear failure
In the mode of local shear failure there is significant compression of the soil under the
footing, and only partial development of the state of plastic equilibrium. The failure surfaces,
therefore, do not reach the ground surface and only slight heaving occurs. Tilting of the
foundation would not be expected. Local shear failure is associated with soils of high
compressibility and, as indicated in figure 2.2, is characterised by the occurrence of relatively
large settlements (which would be unacceptable in practice) and the fact that the ultimate
bearing capacity is not clearly defined.
Figure2.7 Local shear failure (source: Craig’s Soil Maechanics, 2012)
2.1.3. Punching shear failure

Punching shear failure occurs when there is relatively high compression of the soil under
the footing, accompanied by shearing in the vertical direction around the edges of the footing
as shown on figure 2.3. There is no heaving of the ground surface away from the edges, and
no tilting of the footing. Relatively large settlements are also a characteristic of this mode, and
again the ultimate bearing capacity is not well defined. Punching shear failure will also occur
in a soil of low compressibility if the foundation is located at considerable depth. In general,
the mode of failure depends on the compressibility of the soil and the depth of the foundation
30
relative to its breadth. The bearing capacity problem can be considered in terms of plasticity
theory.
Figure2.8 Punching shear failure (source: Craig’s Soil Maechanics, 2012)
In general, the mode of failure depends on the compressibility of the soil and the depth of
the foundation relative to its breadth.
2.2. Causes of foundation failure
Foundation failure can be attributed to several causes. Most damage account to three
main ground movement, settlement, subsidence and heave which are linked the soils features,
water in the soil, man and natural effect. Settlement is the downward movement of the ground
usually occurring in new or relative new buildings. In the other hand subsidence is the vertical
downward movement of a building foundation caused by the loss of support of the site
beneath the foundations. Heave on his side is the upward movement of the ground. This
ground movement are results of different phenomenon.
2.2.1. Design causes
2.2.1.2. Inadequate geotechnical investigation
If the soil is soft, the building should not be too tall. A building should be constructed
with the environment and climate in mind, if freeze-thaw cycles will expose the building’s
foundation to ice and water throughout the winter, materials that will not be degraded by these
cycles should be used. Geotechnical investigation is the first step in construction. An
inadequate realization of this can conduct to overcome many foundation failures. The problem
is, if ground investigation is not well realized, information like soil characteristics,
groundwater level will not be available but are useful for foundation choice and design.
31
2.2.1.3. Design error
Proper subsurface investigation is essential to safe guard the building and for proper
design of foundation, but even after knowing the site information, a good design should
follow. Design error is one of the cause of foundation failure occasioned by construction
engineer. For example, when a soil undergoes a water level uplift after rainfall, the foundation
design should be done taking in account a reduction of bearing capacity or design in
undrained condition if following Eurocode 7, what is not do most of time.
2.2.2. Natural causes
2.2.2.1. Shrinkage or swelling
Most commonly foundation failure is caused by the movement of expansive and

highly plastic soils beneath different sections of the foundation footings. An expansive soil is
a soil which exhibit large volume changes when their water content changes. The volume
changes conduct to movement that can be in the form of shrinkage, which causes settlement,
or expansion, which causes heave. Soil shrinkage is reduction of bulk volume that occurs
during drying, so when dry conditions prevail, soils consistently lose moisture and shrink. It
occurs in varying degrees in all soils but most in clayey soil. Also, if a soil shrinks it can
usually swell. When moisture levels are high, soils swell. Alternate heave and settlement due
to seasonal climatic variations result in distress and damage foundation.
There are many other reason of soil shrinkage or swell. In presence of vegetation, tree
roots may desiccate the soil beneath a home causing the soil to shrink and the home to settle.
Also, during construction if the vegetation are removes, heave can occur due to the loss of tree
load. Mining activities are associated to swallow hole’s formation. Those holes can cause the
soil to shrink, damaging the foundation. Hot dry wind and intense heat will often cause the
soil to shrink beneath the foundation. Improper drainage is one of the leading causes of
foundation failure. Poor drainage from yard run-off and gutter downspouts discharging at the
base of the foundation, plumbing leaks will heavily increase the moisture. Excess moisture
will erode or consolidate soils and cause settlement. Regardless of the nature of the
32
movement, it will most likely manifest itself in the form of visible cracks in the foundation
walls, exterior brick walls, or interior sheetrock or plaster walls.
2.2.2.2. Soil erosion and scour
Erosion is defined by the International Building Code (ICC, 2006) as the “wearing
away of the ground surface as a result of the movement of wind, water or ice”. Erosion can
occur across a wide range of timeframes – it can be gradual, occurring over a long period of
time (many years); more rapid, occurring over a relatively short period of time (weeks or
months); or episodic, occurring during a single coastal storm event over a short period of time
(hours or days).
In relative low altitude zone, scour occurs when floodwater passes around
obstructions in the water column. As the water flows around an object, it must change
direction and accelerate. Soil can be loosened and suspended by this process or by waves
striking the object and be carried away. Pilings, pile caps, columns, walls, footings, slabs, and
other objects found under a coastal building can lead to localized scour. Scour effects increase
with increasing flow velocity and turbulence, and with increasing soil’s ability to erode. The
closer a building is to the shoreline, the more likely erosion will occur and the greater the
erosion depth will be. Erosion and scour have several impacts on foundation, which are more
observable on coastal one:
o Erosion and scour reduce the embedment of the foundation into the soil, causing
shallow foundations to collapse and making buildings on deep foundations more
susceptible to settlement, lateral movement, or overturning from lateral loads.
o Erosion and scour increase the unbraced length of pile foundations, increase the
bending moment to which they are subjected, and can overstress piles.
o Erosion over a large area between a foundation and a flood source exposes the
foundation to increased lateral flood loads (i.e., greater Stillwater depths, possible
higher wave heights, and higher flow velocities)
o Local scour around individual piles or a building foundation will not generally expose
foundations to greater flood loads, but linear scour across a building site may do.
If the foundation embedment into the ground is not sufficient to account for erosion and
scour that may occur over the life of the building, the building is vulnerable to collapse under
33
design flood and wind conditions. Foundation is often rest on natural rock. The rocks are
found to be eroded due to different erosion agent of ambient environment. When foundation
of a structure rests on rock, the stability and subsequent damage of foundation depends on
strength and durability of rock. Some rocks have greater strength but possess lesser durability
and durability is very important factor in respect to longevity of foundation and structure over
it. The strength and durability of rock depend on distribution and amount of weaker and
smaller mineral within it. When these minerals get worn out, everything is also broken down
or dissolved which results no interaction between stronger minerals that once connected to
each other by strong mineral bond. These wearing actions left nothing but a stone that is
merely composed of conglomeration of loosely connected particles. The deterioration
accelerates when foundation surface is damaged, in addition, by frost action, sand washing
and like other process.
2.2.2.3. Changes in groundwater level
It is important to note that both rising and falling groundwater levels can affect soil
behaviour. Rise in GWT reduces the bearing capacity of the soil and on the other hand rapid
fall in the GWT causes ground subsidence or formation of sinkholes due to increased
overburden effective stress value. The former is induced naturally due to heavy rain or
seepage flow but the latter is caused due to human activity such as uncontrolled pumping or
dewatering during construction of deep basement. It is clear that the effect of water on
geotechnical properties is significant. The effects of water, particularly with respect to
foundation stability and settlement. Formation of sinkhole is another major cause of
foundation failure due to increased water usage, altered drainage pathways, overloaded
ground surface, and redistributed soil. The majority of the cases related to formation of
sinkholes are associated with collapsible soils.
2.2.1. Accidental causes
2.2.1.1. Earthquakes
Earthquake is the shaking of the surface of the Earth, resulting from the sudden release
of energy in the Earth's lithosphere that creates seismic waves. Earthquakes are the most
common cause of foundation failure due to ground vibrations. However, heavy operating
34
machinery used in certain construction projects can create vibrations that may cause
foundation failure as well. Violent shaking of an earthquake is capable of damaging homes,
buildings, bridges or any other manmade structures. The most noticeable damage appears in
the walls or roofs of buildings, but building foundations are also drastically affected by the
Earth’s sudden movement. During an earthquake the foundation of the building moves with
the ground and the superstructure and its contents shake and vibrate in an irregular manner
due to the inertia of their masses (weight). The movement of the ground during the earthquake
induces kinematic and inertial loading which decrease the bearing capacity and increments the
settlement of shallow foundation. In seismic regions, where kinematic interactions have been
observed, the mat foundations overturning moments. Pile foundations are influenced by both
kinematic and inertial interaction which causes many failures. If the foundation of a building
is a mat foundation, it can easily crack into pieces.
2.2.1.2. Landslide
Foundation failure due to rapid movement of landmass over a slope results when a
natural or man-made slope on which structure exists becomes unstable. The major causes of
slope instability/ landslide can be identified as: steep slope, groundwater table changes / heavy
rainfall, earthquakes and other vibrations, and, removal of the toe of a slope or loading the
head of a slope, both of which may be the result of man-made and geological factors.
The resistance to a landslide or slope instability is offered by the type of soil and the
geometry of the slope.
2.2.2. Construction causes
2.2.2.1. Load applied
The objective of foundation is to transfer the load on superstructure to the foundation

soil on a wider area. When the load is applied, some movement occurs as the ground adjusts
to accommodate the new load. This accommodation follows as compaction, then if the
permissible load exceeded, the soil settle, and the foundation fails. Overloading can occur
where in the original building additional loads have been applied due to a change of use, then
the loads placed on the subsoils are greater than was originally allowed for. Also, when door
35
or window openings have been enlarged which may result in a heavier load being transferred
to an adjacent section of brickwork consisting of a narrow pier. Again, the load imposed upon
the subsoil is greater than originally allowed for, causing the pier to settle. Foundations can
move as a result of loads applied causing a downward movement known as settlement.
2.2.2.2. Building on made up ground
Filled or made up ground is extremely varied in form and should be treated as suspect.
Experience has shown that the majority of foundation failures on filled ground have been due
to the use of poor fill, and inadequate compaction. Unfortunately, during an inspection,
detailed knowledge of the fill is usually lacking. All possible information concerning the site
should be obtained by discussion with the local authority and by studying local maps of the
area. Apart from digging trial holes the surveyor should observe signs of damage to any
adjacent buildings. The trial holes should be deep enough to enable the surveyor to assess the
nature of the fill, its depth, composition and degree of compaction.
2.2.3. Construction errors
During construction, adequate sequence of realization should be followed. Unforeseen

problem can occur and make damage on the foundation if not respect. There are two common
sources of the construction errors: temporary protection measures, error relating to temporary
shoring, bracings and temporary coffer dams, and foundation work itself. The former concern
all the works done after foundation build. If for example we want to shore the ground near the
building, the pressure repartition on the soil would be different and the foundation would be
damage. This is the case of the foundation failure of a building in Shanghai, China. An
unoccupied 13-storey block of flat building, still under construction toppled over and ended
up lying on its side in a muddy construction field. The latter concerns the workmen. If they
are qualified, they would not realize adequately the foundation as prevail by the design. This
will have caused foundation to fail due to inadequate repartition of the pressure in the soil.
When foundation is subjected to any failure causes, it is no more able to sustain the
structure. Foundation failure describes the way a foundation is damaged. It is linked to a cause
of failure and can have different causes. For each failure type there is a possibility to remedy,
this remedy can be preventive or repairing but in some case like earthquake there is no way to
prevent.
36
2.3. Possible remedies to foundation failure
Foundation failure can conduce to the building collapse so there are ways to avoid it.
Some are preventive, so they are applied in other to avoid foundation. The main one is soil
investigation which permit to identify the soil in such a way that soil replacement or soil
improvement methods may be applied to remedy the failure.
2.3.1. Appropriate soil investigation and foundation design
This is the main preventive measure to avoid foundation failure. Knowing that soil
investigation will give us soil characteristics and data useful to classify the soil and design the
foundation. In most of the codes it is recommended that soil investigation up to the depth of
1.5–2.0B, where B is the least lateral dimension of the building should be carried out.
Occurrence of foundation failure due to improper geotechnical investigation and design error
should be avoided. In a typical case study, it was found that weak clay layer existed beneath
the foundation but due to insufficient or inadequate subsurface geotechnical investigation it
was not recognized and the foundation failed. Soil exploration program should be proper
planned and executed. The extent of site investigation depends heavily on the project but
should provide the information: to determine the type of foundation required; to get sufficient
data/laboratory tests, to estimate the allowable load capacity of the foundation and to make
settlement predictions; to locate GWT and its fluctuation over a period of time; to identify and
look for solution of potential construction as well as environmental problems.
Often, a deficiency in engineering ethics is found to be one of the root causes of an

engineering failure. An engineer, as a professional, has a responsibility to their client or
employer, to their profession, and to the general public, to perform their duties in as
conscientious manner as possible. Usually this entails far more than just acting within the
bounds of law. An ethical engineer is one who avoids conflicts of interest, does not attempt to
misrepresent their knowledge so as to accept jobs outside their area of expertise, acts in the
best interests of society and the environment, fulfils the terms of their contracts or agreements
in a thorough and professional manner.
2.3.2. Soil replacement
37
Soil replacement is one of the oldest and simplest methods which improve the bearing
soil conditions. The foundation condition can be improved by replacing poor soil (eg. organic
soils and medium or soft clay) with more competent materials such as sand, gravel or crushed
stone as well, nearly any soil can be used in fills. Abdel Salam (2007) affirm that some soils
are more difficult to compact than others when used as a replacement layer. The use of
replacement soil under shallow foundation can reduce consolidation settlement and increase
soil bearing capacity. It has some advantages over other techniques and deep foundation as it
is more economical and requires less delay to construction. Despite of soil replacement's
advantages, the determination of the replacement soil thickness is based on experience which
in many cases is questionable (Gabr, 2012). P.C.Varghese (2005) stated that the region of
high stress in a shallow foundation is only 1 to 1.5 its breadth and this part can be replaced by
selected good soil. Abdel Salam and Abdel Fatah investigated the effect of using different
types and thickness of replacement layer on increasing bearing capacity and reducing
consolidation settlement of soft clayey soil experimentally and concluded that, with increasing
replacement layer thickness the vertical settlement decreased.
2.3.3. Soil improvement
The soil could be poor, having insufficient bearing capacity or compose of coarse particle.
In all those case the soil can be improve. Chu (2009) stated that soil improvement techniques
can be divided into four main categories: Soil improvement without admixtures
(preloading, sand drains, vertical drains…); Soil improvement with admixtures or
inclusions (stone columns, sand compaction piles…); Soil improvement using stabilization
with additives and grouting methods (chemical stabilization, deep mixing, jet grouting…);
soil improvement using thermal methods (Heating, Freezing).
2.3.3.1. Soil improvement without admixtures
This category of soil improvement is widely and commonly used. It can be executed using
many techniques including pre-compression, vertical drains and soil reinforcement.
a) Pre-compression or preloading
38
Pre-compression or preloading technique is simply to place a surcharge fill on the top

of the soil that requires large consolidation settlement to take place before construction of the
structure, this is illustrated by figure 2.4. Once sufficient consolidation has occurred, the fill
can be removed and construction process takes place. In general, this technique is adequate
and most effective in clayey soil. Since clayey soils have low permeability, the desired
consolidation takes very long time to occur, even with very high surcharge load. Therefore,
with tight construction schedules, preloading may not be a feasible solution. Hence, sand or
vertical drains may be used to accelerate consolidation process by reducing the drainage paths
length.
Sand fill as preload
Soft soil
Figure2.9 Soil improvement by preloading (from P.C. Varghese 2005)
b) Vertical drains
Vertical drains are unique technique in which the drains are installed under a surcharge
load to accelerate the drainage of relatively impervious soils and thus speed up consolidation.
The drains provide a shorter path for the water to flow through to get away from the soil. So,
time to drain clay layers can be reduced from many years to a few months. The common types
of vertical drains are sand drains and prefabricated vertical drains. Sand drains are constructed
by drilling holes through the clay layer by using rotary drilling, continuous flight auger or
driving down hollow mandrels into the soil. The holes are then filled with sand. When a
surcharge is applied at the ground surface, the pore water pressure in the clay will increase,
and it will be dissipated by drainage in both vertical and horizontal directions as shown in
figure 2.5. Hence the settlement is accelerated.
39
Sand drains can work as sand piles. They reinforce soft soil in which they are installed.
Even though sand drains replace only 1 to 2% of soil volume, the overall improvement in
bearing capacity may be more than 10 %. But on the other hand, they have some
disadvantages like: installation of sand drains by driving down hollow mandrels causes a
disturbance of the soil surrounding each drain, this may reduce the flow of water to the drain;
during filling, bulking of the sand might appear which could lead to cavities; construction
problems and/or budget problems might arise due to the large diameter of sand drains.
Surcharge
San G.
d W.
Vertical
drainage Sand
Cla Radial drains
draina
y
ge
Vertical
drainage
San
d
Figure2.10 Sand drains (after, Das 1983)
Prefabricated vertical drains also known as wick drains consist of channelled

synthetics core wrapped in geotextile fabric as shown in figure 2.6. They are flexible, durable,
inexpensive and have an advantage over sand drains is that they don't need drilling. PVD is
best suited in clay, silt, organic layers, clayey and silty sand. PVD is placed into steel mandrill
then the mandrill is pushed into the ground to the determination depth with a mast mounted on
back hoe. Anchor plate is attached to the wick material to hold it in place as mandrill is
removed. Then the PVD is cut off a little above the ground.
40
Polypropylene
core
Geotextile
fabric
Figure2.11 Prefabricated vertical drains (after Das, 1983)
PVDs are used to reduce surcharging process time and accelerate settlement not reduce it.
Pore water will move laterally to the nearest drain instead of moving vertically to the
permeable layer. Therefore, the drainage distance decreased. Whenever the distance between
drains becomes closer, the surcharging time decreases.
2.3.3.2. Soil improvement with admixtures or inclusions
This category of soil improvement may also be known as "in-situ densification"

because it results in increasing density of the natural soil existing in the construction site.
Stone columns and sand compaction piles are two of the common techniques used in this way
Stone columns are popularly used in cohesive soils to improve shear strength, to reduce
the excessive settlement and to speed up the consolidation by shortening horizontal drainage
paths for pore-water flow. As shown in figure 2.7, stone columns are constructed by drilling
holes that extend through clay to firmer soil. Then the hole is filled with compacted gravel.
They can be installed as either independent columns or as continuous walls or panels of
columns.
Stone columns are preferable than sand drains because of its granular nature which
provide additional shear strength to the surrounding soils. They reduce settlements by
promoting soil arching which transfers the loads from the surrounding soil to the stiffer
columns. The geosynthetic-reinforced fill and stone column system can provide an economic
and effective solution for structures constructed on clay soil. The use of geosynthetic
reinforcement transfers the stress from soil to stone columns due to stiffness difference
41
between the stone columns and soil, and this may prevent large displacement and reduce the
total as well as differential settlement.
Figure2.12 Installation process of stone column (after, Hussein 2006)
2.3.3.3. Soil improvement using stabilization with additives and grouting methods
Soil stabilization method is widely used to improve soil strength and decrease its
compressibility through bonding the soil particles together. Additives or grout are mixed with
soil to bring about the stabilizing action required.
a) Chemical stabilization
Soil stabilization can be achieved by pulverizing the natural soil, mixing in a chemical
additive, and thoroughly compacting the mixture. Under this category, soil stabilization
depends mainly on chemical reactions between the additive (such as lime, cement, fly ash or
combinations of them) and the natural soil to achieve the desired effect. The main purposes of
stabilizing soil are to improve the performance of the soil, accelerate settlement, increase the
strength, the durability and reduce the compressibility of the soil. There are many varieties of
soil stabilization including: cement stabilization, lime stabilization and Fly-ash stabilization.
Cement stabilization is the oldest binding agent since the invention of soil stabilization
technology in 1960’s. It is commonly used to stabilize wide range of soils, provided sufficient
42
quantity is added. As clay content increase, soils become more difficult to pulverize and work,
and larger quantities of cement must be added to harden them. Cement reaction is not
dependent on soil minerals, and the key role is its reaction with water that may be available in
any soil. This can be the reason why cement is used to stabilize a wide range of soils. Paul
Makusa (2012) found that in this technique, cement is mixed with water and soils by special
equipment in site. Physical and chemical reactions within cement and soil are happened.
Setting of cement will enclose soil as glue, but it will not change the structure of soil. The
soil is hardened as cemented soil. Hardening process can be affected by physical and
chemical properties of soil, water-cement ratio, curing temperature and the degree of
compaction Shao Li et al. (2008). purushothama Raj (1999) said the determining the correct
proportion of soil – cement is affected by the nature of soil treated, the type of cement
utilized, the placement and cure conditions adopted.
Lime provides an economical way of clayey soil stabilization. Selection of the suitable
lime concentration for clay stabilization is based on achieving a target pH value. Stabilization
can be ineffective if the concentration of admixture is not adequate to ensure strength and
durability. Manuel Celaya et al. (2011) said it is usually in the range from 5 to 10%. Lime can
be mixed with the soil either in plant or in site or lime slurry can be injected in to the soil,
Braja (1983). The improvements in soil properties are attributed to the soil-lime reactions
(cation exchange and flocculation – agglomeration). In these reactions, monovalent cations
associated with clay are generally replaced by divalent ions. S. Narasimha Rao et al. found
that the flocculation – agglomeration produces changes in clay texture and clay particles
become larger there by improving soil strength.
Fly-ash stabilization is the soil stabilization with coal fly ash which is an increasingly
popular alternative nowadays. Fly ash is a product of coal fired electric power generation
facilities; it has little cementitious properties compared to lime and cement. Most of the fly
ashes belong to secondary binders; these binders cannot produce the desired effect on their
own, Makusa (2012). Therefore, the use of fly ash to stabilize clay must usually be in concert
with lime or cement. For example," type F" fly ash is ineffective as stabilizer without the
addition of lime as a source of calcium, M. Thomas et al. (2002). Fly-Ash and cement have
significant environmental impacts associated with its production in terms of high energy
consumption and CO2 emissions, N. Huybrechts (2013).
43
b) Deep mixed columns
The deep mixing method involves the stabilization of soils at large depth. It is an in situ
ground modification technology in which a wet or dry binder (lime or cement) is injected into
the ground and blended with in situ clayey soils by mechanical or rotary mixing tool to create
a column, or panel of columns. Deep mixed columns are similar to stone columns. They
reduce expected settlement by promoting soil arching which transfers the loads to stiffer
panels rather than insitu-soil. But the main difference between them is that strength of stone
columns is dependent on the friction angle of the aggregate and confinement from
surrounding soils; while deep mixed columns have internal strength from cohesion. Deep
mixed columns are constructed such that they are continuous panels and the groundwater flow
will be reduced, S. Bryson (2013).
c) Jet grouting
Jet grouting proves its effectiveness across wide range of soils. It is an erosion-based
system. Granular soils are considered the most erodible and plastic clays the least. The
technique hydraulically mixes soil with grout to create in situ geometries of soilcrete told
James D. Hussin (2006). Hydraulic Rotary drill is used to reach the design depth and at that
point grout and sometimes water and air are pumped to the drill rig. This create a cementitious
soil matrix that George K. burke (2004) called soilcrete.
As shown in figure 2.8, there are three traditional jet grout systems: the single fluid
system where a high-velocity cement slurry grout is used to erode and mix the soil, this
system is most effective in cohesion less soil; the double-fluid system in which the high-
velocity cement slurry jet is surrounded with an air jet, the shroud of air increases the erosion
efficiency. The double-fluid system is more effective in cohesive soils than the single-fluid
system; the triple-fluid system where a high-velocity water jet surrounded by an air jet is
used to erode the soil. A lower jet injects the cement slurry at a reduced pressure. Separating
the erosion process from the grouting process results in higher quality soilcrete and is the
most effective system in cohesive soils.
44
Figure2.13 Jet grouting system (after, burke 2004)

2.3.3.4. Soil improvement using thermal methods
Heating or freezing a soil can cause marked changes in its properties. Although thermal
stabilizations appear to be very effective, the use of these methods is limited because of its
high cost.
a) Soil heating
Raj (1999) Stated that the higher the heat input per mass of soil being treated, the greater
the effect. Even small increase in temperature may cause strength increase in fine grained
soils by reducing the electric repulsion between the particles, a flow of pore water due to
thermal gradient and a reduction in moisture content because of increasing evaporation rate.
Table 2.1 shows the effect of increasing the temperature on changing soil properties. Heating
is applied to the soil by burning liquid or gas fuels in boreholes or injection of hot air into 0.15
to 0.2 m diameter boreholes that can produce 1.3 to 2.5 m diameter stabilized zone after
continuous treatment for about 10 days.
45
Table 2.5 Effect of temperature increase on the properties of clayey soil
Temperature The effect

1000 °C Can cause drying and significant increase in clay strength
5000 °C Can cause permanent changes in the structure of clays hence decreasing
its plasticity
10000 °C Can cause fusion of clay particles into a solid substance
b) Soil freezing
Soil freezing involves lowering the temperature of the soil until the moisture in the
pore spaces freezes. Yang (1991) stated that freezing of pore water acts as a cementing agent
between the soil particles causing significant increase in shear strength and permeability.
Unlike soil heating, soil freezing may be applicable to a wide range of soil types, grain sizes
and ground conditions. Fundamentally, the only requirement is that the ground has sufficient
soil moisture (pore water), Peter G. Nicholson (2014). The process typically involves
installing double walled pipes in the soil. A coolant is circulated through a closed circuit. A
refrigeration plant is used to maintain the coolant’s temperature, Hussein (2006).
Most of researches investigated the effect of using different soil improvement

techniques on increasing soil bearing capacity and /or decreasing the expected settlement
while, a few researches considered the cost of foundation works as one of the governing
factors when selecting between different soil improvement techniques. The figure 2.9 classify
them for the corresponding type of soil on which it can be applied.
46
Figure2.14 Classification of soil improvement
2.3.4. Underpinning
Underpinning is a method for repair and strengthening of building foundations. In

situations where a failure in foundation or footing happens unexpectedly after the completion
of whole structure, a remedial method has to be suggested to regain the structural stability.
The method of underpinning help to strengthen the foundation of an existing building or any
other infrastructure. These involve installation of permanent or temporary support to an
already held foundation so that additional depth and bearing capacity is achieved.
Underpinning methods are selected based on age of structure and types of works
involved. Structure age categories are: ancient structures, greater than 150 years; recent
structures, age between 50 – 150 years; modern structures, age less than 50 years. Types of
works are: conversion works, the structure has to be converted to another function, which
requires stronger foundation compared to existing and protection works for which problems
like nearby excavation affecting the soil that supports existing footing or mistakes in initial
foundation design which have caused subsidence of the structure, have to undergo. The
underpinning methods are: mass concrete underpinning method (pit method); underpinning by
cantilever needle beam method; pier and beam underpinning method; mini piled
underpinning; pile method of underpinning; pre-test method of underpinning. Whatever be the
types of underpinning method selected for strengthening the foundation, all of them follow a
47
similar idea of extending the existing foundation either lengthwise or breadthwise and to be
laid over a stronger soil stratum. This enables distribution of load over a greater area.
Conclusion
The failure of foundation can lead to the collapse of the building. There are three mode of
failure mechanism: general shear failure, punching shear failure and local shear failure, each
behaving differently conducing to the soil movement around the foundation. The causes of
failure can be classified as design causes concerning the failure due to the bad design, natural
causes from natural phenomenon like erosion, accidental causes that can occur accidentally
like earthquakes and construction causes concerning the bad realisation of the designed
footings, the bad quality of the materials, the man errors. In the case it is possible, we can
prevent those failures by investigating well the soil or remedy to the failure by improving the
soil or underpinning the foundation. To understand the cause in the city of Douala, it is
inserting to study a case of collapse in the city.
48
Chapter 3 : METHODOLOGY
Introduction
In this chapter we will be presenting the site localisation, his urban context, the
hydrological, geological and geotechnical context. Then we will present how the analysis of
the collapse will be done by presenting the specialist and the laboratory performing expertise,
the different material that have been used to analysed the collapse for the case the survey of
the sinister, in-situ and laboratory test.
3.1. Description of the site
3.1.1. Climate, relief and hydrology
3.1.1.1. Climate
There are two seasons in Douala: rainy season from March to November and dry
season from December to February. The temperature is very high during the year. It rises over
33°C with highest temperature in January and February. Temperature decrease during rainy
season also when breeze is blowing from the sea. The pluviometry is also high but during
rainy season, it reaches 3600 mm per year with 500 mm per month from de July to
September.
3.1.1.2. Relief
The city of Douala is a has coastal area of around 400km, it is in form of arc
constituted of successive sedimentary plane, rivers, and spring throwing in delta form to the
Atlantic Ocean. This zone is marked by unstable mangrove swamps. The city is situated on a
tray going to 1000m. the morphology change increasingly from coast to the inland.
3.1.1.3. Hydrology
49
The geographic position of the Douala basin subjects the city to a relative high
humidity due to the long rainy season which feeds the groundwater and streams, follows by a
strong evaporation during short dry season. The hydrological system of Douala is very dense.
The principal river is the Wouri, within Sanaga, Dibamba, Moungo and Nyong. The city is
divides in many watersheds: Bonnes-courses, Epolo, Mbanya, Mbopi, Bologo, Ngoua,
Lonmayagui, Kambo, TongoBassa and Beseke.
3.1.2. Geological and geotechnical context
The Douala basin is predominantly an offshore basin extending from the Cameroon
volcanic line in the north to the Corisco ach in the south near the Equatorial Guinea-Gabon
border. The sedimentary section in the basin has a maximum thickness of 8-10km, based on
exploration drilling and gravity and magnetics modelling. The synrift section consists of
Aptian-Albian sands and shales, deposited primarily as submarine fans, fan-deltas and
turbidite deposits. These are overlain by salt, though to be equivalent to the Ezangna salt of
Alpian age in the Gabon basin to the south and the soil is ferritic.
3.1.3. Urban context
A study carried out in 2014 shows that 33 quarters in Douala are under-structured and
under-equipped, and 47% of the population are settled in those quarters. This situation is due
to the population explosion and the galloping urbanization of the city. The anarchic
occupation of land is also due to the poverty that reigns in the population who, lives in self-
built dwellings of low value. Nkongmondo is historically a “no man’s land” in which people
fighting for independence were reclassify. After independence as the first urbanization plans
were made up people were left homeless. In this way, actors of private sector invest in the
housing sector. Many buildings are thus erected through the city and the buildings are getting
higher and higher.
50
3.2. Expertise on the study case
3.2.1. The actors
The civil engineering cabinet counsel, “Cabinet d’Etudes et Conseils MEDOU”

(CEC MEDOU) performed expertise. It is a private enterprise in the civil domain, furnishing
the services of controlling and studying projects in the domain. It has civil engineers and
technicians in its services. To realized test, on the site and in the laboratory, they contracted
the « Centre d’Etude et de Contrôle Géotechnique » (CEGC), a civil engineering
laboratory specialized in test realization and analysis. On the base of their report “CEC
MEDOU” will make its own analysis and conclude.
3.2.2. The back analysis
The purpose of the expertise is to determine the potential reason pf the collapse. Thus
a back analysis is necessary. This will consist into identifying the soil and the foundation
realised, determine its bearing capacity and settlement and then compare it with the load
applied on it. Further the verification of concrete strength of the structure and the steel
strength will follow. To accomplish this, the following tasks to be do follows:
 Outcome the lithological section of the soil;

 Classify the soil;
 Localize the water table;
 Determine soil strength parameters;
 Determine the concrete strength;
 Determine the steel elasticity.
To understand the causes of the G+5 building collapse in Nkongmondo, some tests are
realised to identify the soil and determine the water level, each having a specified aim. There
were in-situ tests, realized on the site including: SPT test and Concrete strength test.
Laboratory tests were followed sampling on the site, these were: Direct Shear test and Sieve
analysis on soil sample, steel strength test on steel sample.
51
3.2.2.1. Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
a) Aim
The SPT is one of the oldest used in-situ tests for a rapid assessment of key parameters
such as the undrained shear strength (cu), friction angle (ϕ), and eventually assess the water
level.
b) Principle
The test consists in inserting a normalized split-barrel sampler carry by a rod by dropping
a hammer and count the number of blow necessary for a drop of 30 cm, after a seating of 15
cm.
c) Apparatus
SPT apparatus, constituted of: a casing; a boring rod; a winch unit; a power unit; a split-
barrel sampler; a drop hammer.
d) Procedure
A borehole is first drilled (using casing where appropriate) to just above the test depth. A
split-barrel sampler with a smaller diameter than the borehole is then attached to a string of
rods and driven into the soil at the base of the borehole by a drop hammer (a known mass
falling under gravity from a known height). An initial seating drive to 150 mm penetration is
first performed to embed the sampler into the soil. This is followed by the test itself, in which
the sampler is driven further into the soil by 300 mm (this is usually marked off on the rod
string at the surface). The number of blows of the hammer to achieve this penetration is
recorded; this is the (uncorrected) SPT blow counts, N.
e) Results
At the end of the test, we obtained a table of blow counts recorded: the one of the 150 cm
seating and the next two 150 cm that we add to obtain the 300 cm blow counts. This last value
will be use to correlate key parameters: the friction angle; the undrained shear strength; the
cohesion; the relative density. it will also be used to correlate the settlement. Many authors
proposed a way of correlation of all these.
c) Reference
52
The technical standards governing its use are EN ISO 22476, Part 3 (UK and Europe), NF
P94-116 (F) and ASTM D1586 (US).
3.2.2.2. Particle size distribution – Sieve analysis

a) Aim
A particle size distribution analysis is a necessary classification test for soils, especially
coarse soils, in that it presents the relative portions of different sizes of particles. From this it
is possible to determine whether the soils consist of predominantly gravel, sand, silt or clay
sizes and, to a limited extend.
b) Principle
The test consists of sieving successively a soil sample (75 mm to 75μm ) in sieves of
normalized diameter from the highest to the lowest and record the sample weight at each
sieve.
c) Apparatus
Test sieves: 75 mm to 75μm normalized dimension, lid and receiver, a balance readable
and accurate to 0.5g, riffle boxes, a drying oven capable of maintaining a temperature of
105°C to 110°C, evaporating dishes, metal trays, scoop, sieve brushes, sodium
hexametaphosphate, rubber tubing about 6mm bore, mechanical sieve shaker.
d) Procedure
The procedure involves the preparation of the sample by wet sieving to remove silt and
clay sized particles. Followed by dry sieving of the remaining coarse material. This method
covers the quantitative determination of particle size distribution in an essentially cohesive
soil, down to find sand size. The combined silt clay can be obtained by difference. If the soil
does not contain particles retained on a 2 mm test sieve in significant quantity, the hydrometer
method shall be used.
e) Results
The mass of sample retained at each sieve will be used to compute the percentage retained and
the percentage passing by computing the ratio for each of the sum with preceding mass and
the total mass. The curve obtained by this is useful to classify the soil using some parameters:
cu, uniformity coefficient; The effective size, D10; coefficient of curvature (Cz)
53
f) Reference
The technical standards governing its use are BS 1377: Part 2: 1990
3.2.2.3. Direct Shear Test

a) Aim
The Shear Box allows a direct shear test to be made by relating the shear stress at failure
to the applied normal stress. The objective of the test is to determine the effective sear
strength parameters of the soil, the cohesion (c’) and the angle of internal friction (φ’). These
values may be used for calculating the bearing capacity and the stability slopes.
b) Principle
Subject a sample of soil to an increasing shearing force in horizontal direction while in the
vertical direction a constant force is applied.
c) Apparatus
Shear box apparatus for carrying out tests on soil specimens of 60 mm square and 30 mm
high divided horizontally into halves, two porous plates of corrosion-resistant material, two
perforated grid of about the same size in plan as the porous plates, if necessary, loading cap to
cover the top grid plate or porous plate, a calibrated means of applying a vertical force to the
loading cap such as a loading yoke, a motorized loading device capable of applying horizontal
shear to the vertically loaded specimen, a shear load measuring device (loading ring), dial
gauge for measuring the relative horizontal displacement of the two halves of the shear box,
dial gauge for measuring the vertical deformation of the specimen during the test, specimen
cutter, tool for removing the specimen from the cutter, levelling template for trimming the
surface of the specimen to 0.1 mm, stop clock, balance, apparatus for determining moisture
content, silicone grease or petroleum jelly.
d) Procedure
for a cohesive soil, the sample has first to be saturated under a chosen consolidation pressure.
The shear box is put in place, the square prismatic sample of soil is inserted in the shear box
and put on the direct shear apparatus. The sample is laterally restrained and sheared along a
mechanically induced horizontal plane while subjected to a pressure applied normal to that
plane. At regular time interval, the value of the displacement is read. The shearing resistance
54
offered by the soil as one portion is made to slide on the other is measured at regular intervals
of displacement. Failure occurs when the shearing resistance reaches the maximum value
which the soil can sustain.
e) Results
Shear force: convert value read in KN or N
Shear surface: during the test, the shearing surface reduce proportionally to the displacement
of the shear box. The corrected section A’ of the sample at time t is expressed by:
A ’=l(l− Δl)
where l is the sample length, and Δl=V ∙t, V being the speed.
F
Shear stress: we determine it using the formula: τ =
A'
Then we draw the shear-displacement curve from which we derive the cohesion and the
friction angle.
d) Reference:
The technical standards governing its use are BS 1377: Part 7: 1990 and P 94-071-1
3.2.2.4. Concrete strength test

a) Aim
Evaluate the possible resistance and compression of the concrete by establishing the
relating impact hardness provided by the used tool. It checks rapidly and with agility without
damaging the investigate area.
b) Principle
Place the sclerometer in contact with the surface, in perpendicular direction and
measuring the rebounds of a steel cursor pushed hard on the surface.
c) Apparatus
Sclerometer, abrasive stone in carborundum.
d) Procedure
The test is performed by placing the sclerometer in contact with the surface, after a
treatment with a medium-grain abrasive stone in carborundum, in perpendicular direction and
55
measuring the rebounds of a steel cursor pushed hard on the surface. A graduated spring and
its needle indicate the rebound index on a scale. For each test surface 10 measurements are
performed.
e) Results
The results of the measurements are properly arithmetically mediated to provide the
sclerometric rebound index. With this value it is possible to extrapolate from diagram
provided by the manufacturer company of the tool the possible cubic resistances to examined
the concrete compression, with relating dispersion.
f) Reference
The technical standards governing its use are NF P18-417
3.2.2.5. Steel tensile strength test

a) Aim
Determine tensile strength, yield strength, eventually ductility and reduction area.
b) Principle
The test involves straining a test piece by tensile force, generally to fracture.
c) Apparatus
The tensile strength test machine.
d) Procedure
Before testing, measure the diameter of the test piece, determine cross-sectional area S 0
and original gauge length L0. Complementary scale shall be marked along the whole test
piece. The marks could not result in the premature fracture. Grip the test in the jaws of the test
machine. Ensure that test pieces are held in such a way that the force is applied as axially as
possible. Prepare the writing device for marking of stress-strain diagram. Apply load by
prescribed rate of stressing shall be within the limits given in table 3.1. Within the plastic
range the staining rate shall not exceed 0.0025/s for determination of yield strength and
0.008/s for determination of tensile strength. After the fracture put down the maximum force
F m, measure the final gauge length Lu and minimum diameter after fracture. From stress-strain
56
diagram find the force at the point of yield F y. Determine tensile strength Rm , yield strength
R y , percentage elongation after fracture A, minimum cross-sectional area and percentage
reduction of area Z.
e) Results
Determined values of tensile strength yield strength and ductility (percentage elongation
after fracture) should be compare with requirements given in the appropriate standards.
f) Reference
The technical standards governing its use are NF EN 10002-1
Table 3.6 Rate of stressing
Modulus of elasticity of the Rate of stressing

material N/mm².s-1
N/mm²
min. max.
¿ 150 000 2 10
≥ 150 000 6 30
Conclusion
The aim of this chapter was to present the site on which the collapse occurs, it is in
Douala, in a where the hydrology and geology are unknown and complex. The zone is in
coastal area so the soil is sandy. From urban context, there is a growth of construction in the
city because of the boom of population. Following this, the actors of the expertise realised
were “CEC MEDOU” and “CECG” a civil engineering counsel cabinet and a geotechnical
laboratory respectively which have worked together, following the method of surveying of the
site during which in-situ test and sampling were made. The sampling got sample for
laboratory test. All the result obtained should be interpreted in other to understand the causes
of the collapse, that’s what will do in the next chapter.
57
Chapter 4 : RESULTS INTEPRETATION AND PROPOSITION

OF REMEDIES
Introduction
In this chapter, the Nkongmondo building collapse will be analysed through survey,
laboratory test and in-situ test. The interpretation of the results from each will be interpreted
and other elements like classification, parameters will be determined when necessary. For the
case of the soil test, the bearing capacity and the settlement will be determined which will be
compared with the limiting values. All these will help to understand the possible reason of the
collapse thus possible preventives solutions to this collapse will be proposed.
4.1. Foundation inspection
To understand what happened on the site, it was useful to inspect the foundation. The
aim of the inspection is to know the foundation dimension. which are the height H, the width
B, and the Length L, then the embedment depth D. To realize this, boreholes have first been
dug manually near the most loaded columns and measurements have been made. Following
the foundation plan shown by annex 27, those columns are E16, E7 and G15 which is
considered as the most loaded one. The different results are recapitulated in the table 4.1.
Table 4.7 Dimensions of most loaded foundation (from CEC MEDOU)
N° column Embedment D(m) Length L(m) width B(m) Height (m)

E16 1.70 1.60 1.40 0.35
E7 1.90 1.60 1.40 0.35
G15 1.35 2.90 1.70 0.20
58
These dimensions are useful in the computation of bearing capacity and settlement that
will be done during the analysis. G15 being the most loaded footing, it has been chosen as the
one on which computation will be carry out. It is also the less deep so more susceptible to fail.
4.2. Sampling and laboratory test
In other to analyse the soil in reliable way, sample are taken to laboratory. The
laboratory tests realized are the sieve analysis, the direct shear test on soil sample and the
tensile strength test on the steel. The samples for the sieve analysis and direct shear test have
been taken under the footings. This is useful to classify the soil and characterize the soil on
which the foundation is based. The steel sample has been taken on a footing to evaluate its
tensile strength.
4.2.1. Sieve analysis
The sieve analysis of soil is a practice or procedure used to assess the particle size
distribution (also called gradation) of a granular material. Gradation is important in
foundation design, and in the case, it might only call for coarse aggregates, and therefore an
open gradation is needed. The sample has been taken under the footing of column G15, 1.40 –
1.90 m depth and the sieve to be following the norm NF P 11-300.
a) Results:
The results obtained from the sieve analysis are reported in table 4.2. The Atterberg limit test
has also been realized on the sample and the plasticity of Index of 31.1 obtained.
Table 4.8 Sieve analysis of soil sample: percentage retain (from CEC MEDOU)
Sieves 2 1.6 1.25 1 0.63 0.5 0.315 0.2 0.16 0.08

% passing 100 99 98 96 84 76 54 32 25 15
b) Interpretation:
59
To interpret these results, it is necessary to draw the gradation curve, this is done on
figure 4.1. The soil has a smooth, concave distribution curve, it is well graded. There is no
excess of particles in any size range, no intermediate sizes are lacking. The effective size, D10
= 0.06 mm. Other sizes, D30 and D60 are respectively 0.2 mm and 0.35mm respectively. We
get then the general slope and shape of the distribution curve described by means of the
coefficient of uniformity (Cu) and the coefficient of curvature (Cz) respectively 5.83 and
1.9, this correspond to a sandy soil.
The graph shows that there is 68% grain in the sand range (0.2mm – 2mm) and 32%
in silt one, the soil can be classified as very silty sand following the USC soil classification.
The plastic Index having that it is 31.1, the soil is highly plastic.
Silty sand soils have relatively high plasticity and noticeable variations of volume
change as their moisture content changes. They are more compressible than coarse grain soil.
% passing
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0.01 D10 0.1 D30 D60 1 10
Figure 4.15 Gradation curve of sieve analysis realized
4.2.2. Direct shear test

a) Soil parameters
The sample has been taken under the column G15, at the depth 1.4-1.9 m. The test has
been realized following the norm P 94-071-1. The results of soil strength parameters obtained
60
from the stress-displacement diagram of annex 23, drew after the test are recapitulated in the
table 4.3.
Table 4.9 Direct shear test result on soil sample (from CEC MEDOU)
Results
Cohesion Friction angle
c’ ( kPa) ϕ ' (°)
c’p c’f ϕ 'p ϕ 'f
14 12 35 35
Table 4.3 shows that the cohesion at the peak c'p and at failure c'f are respectively 14
kPa and 12 kPa. The corresponding friction angle obtained is 35 for the peak and critical
value.
This value of the cohesion and the friction angle correspond to saturated silty sand
(USCS soil classification). These values are very important to evaluate the bearing capacity
and the settlement, after what the bearing capacity will be compare with the applied value and
the settlement with the acceptable value to understand the cause of the collapse.
b) Bearing capacity
Soil parameters obtained after direct shear permit us to compute the bearing capacity.
We should notice that the foundation type is shallow with dimension of 1.7m width, B, 2.9m
length and 0.2m height for the most loaded footing and for which we are evaluating the
bearing capacity. The significant depth is situated at 1.5B for a shallow foundation, means
2.55m from foundation level. In the other hand, there are two conditions of evaluating the
bearing capacity, drained and undrained. Knowing that the material types up to the significant
depth is soft, and that the collapse occurs in rainy season, there is necessity to evaluate in both
conditions. Now for the design consideration, a safety factor should be considered. From
61
Eurocode 7, there are different design approaches to be considered for which safety factors
values are dependent, these are illustrated in the annex 21.
We have shallow foundation, so appropriate formulas should be used to get the bearing
capacity. The value of the critical friction angle was ϕ c =¿35 ° and the cohesion was 12kPa.
Thus, using the trinomial equation, we can compute the ultimate bearing capacity. The Water
level is at 2.8m depth so 1.45m under the foundation which is lower than the depth of
influence corresponding to B=1.7m, which is 1.5B = 2.55m, there is water table effect on the
bearing capacity.
The computation will be done for drained condition, in fact the triaxial test was
Consolidated – drained and the parameters obtained were the effective friction angle ϕ 'and
effection cohesion c’. For the case, the following formulae should be used:
1
q u=sc c ' N c +s q q N q + s γ γ́ B N γ
2
D f ≤ D w ≤ ( D f + B ) , thus γ́ =γ ' + ( D −D
w
B )
f
( γ −γ ) '
γ ' =10.35 kN /m 3;
γ́ =10.35+ ( 2.8−1.35
1.7 )( 20.35−10.35 )=18.87 kN /m 3
The table 4.4 recapitulated the result obtained following each design approaches.
Table 4.10 Bearing resistance obtained from direct shear test results
DA1/1: A1+M1+R1 DA1/2: A2+M2+R1 DA2: A1+M1+R2 DA3: A1+M2+R3
c' 17.2 12.28 17.2 12.28

ϕ' 35 29.25 35 29.25
γ 20.35 20.35 20.35 20.35
Nq 33.25 16.88 33.25 16.88
Nc 45.98 28.35 45.98 28.35
Nγ 37.09 13.77 37.09 13.77
sq 0.82
sc 0.81 0.8 0.81 0.81
sγ 1.33 1.28 1.33 1.33
qu 1987 935.12 2242.91 1160.07
Rd 9795.91 4610.18 7898.25 5719.17
(kN)
c) Comparison
62
The value of the bearing capacity has been obtained from result of test, now we can
compare with the applied load on the foundation. Notice that we have used Eurocode 7 design
approaches. The applied load was F = 317 kN, and the self-load of the footing is G= B x H x
L x γ c = 5kN. Thus, V= 341.65 kN. For the Eurocode 7, depending on the design approach this
value will be multiplying by a safety factor seen in table. The comparison with the bearing
capacity is analyse in table 4.5.
Table 4.11 Comparison bearing resistance - applied load from direct shear test
Design approaches
DA1/1: DA1/2: DA2: DA3:
A1+M1+R1 A2+M2+R1 A1+M1+R2 A1+M2+R3
Rd 9795.91 4610.18 7898.25 5719.17
(kN)
Vd 461.22 341.65 461.22 461.22
(kN)
Safe Yes Yes Yes Yes
The
correlation obtained after parameters from direct shear test in Undrained condition shows that
the bearing was verified, but we can notice that the bearing values are larger enough than the
applied load to doubt on our results. This can be understood by the fact that the soil type is
clayey sand, the sampling could have been done without disturbance. So the test’s results
4.2.3. Steel analysis
Foundation failure can be cause by the cracks of concrete followed by the yields of the
steel. That’s why it was necessary to analyse a sample of steel. For steel sampling, hammer
was used to broke the reinforced concrete and clip to cut it.
Most of the steel used was diameter 8, 10 and 12 mm. Testing sample from the field
will help us to understand if the failure was due to the steel rupture. The test consists of
determining a sample's behaviour under an axial stretching load. The result obtained are
recapitulated in table 4.6.
63
Table 4.12 Tensile strength test results (from CEC MEDOU)
Diameter Linear Elastic Ultimate Ultimate Striction

height limit limit strain
(mm) (gr/ml) fy (MPa) fs (MPa)
8 372.7 528.2 634.2 20.0% 59.4%
10 525.9 494.3 559.7 20.0% 62.8%
12 830.4 457.8 632.9 24.6% 53.5%
Observations on the steel bars are grouped in table 4.7. It can be seen that the 8mm steel have
an ultimate limit strength 1.26 time bigger than the elastic limit, 1.11 for the 10mm and 1.37
for 12mm steel. Furthermore, the lengthening of each of them under maximum load follows
the norm. The steel follows the norm NF EN 10002-1 on steel. We conclude that the steel
didn’t contribute to the collapse.
Table 4.13 Classification of steel after tensile test (from CEC MEDOU)
Lengthening under maximum load
Eurocode 2 Diameter gab

from the
Diameter NF EN 10002-1 ASTM 615 Minimal fs/fy linear nominal
(mm) elastic mass
Steel
limit
(MPa)
8 Fe 500 GR 72 500 1.26 > 3.6% 2.18%

1.05 (normal Conform
ductility)
10 Fe 500 GR 72 500 1.11 > 3.6% -7.13 %

64
1.05 (normal
ductility) Conform
12 Fe 460 GR 66 460 1.37 > 4.4% -2.86%

1.05 (normal Conform
ductility)
4.3. SPT test
4.3.1. Realisation
SPT test has been realized following the NF P94-116 norm, from the ground surface level
to 12 m deep. The data recoded during the test is recapitulated in table 4.8. The water level in
the soil has also been obtained during the test.
Table 4.14 Records after SPT tests (from CEC MEDOU)
Number of blows
Depth (z) initial Final
M N0 N1 N2
1 1 2 1
2 1 1 2
3 1 2 1
4 2 2 2
5 4 4 5
6 4 3 2
7 2 2 1
8 2 2 1
9 1 2 1
10 2 2 1
11 2 2 2
12 8 4 4
65
The SPT values of number of blows will be used to derive the bearing capacity and the
settlement of the foundation.
4.3.2. Interpretation
a) Soil stratigraphy
The data recorded in the table 4.8 can be represented like strata as shown on figure 4.2.
This figure gives the depth to number blows count diagram. The sieve analysis of the sample
taken under the foundation has permitted to classify the soil as silty sand. As the foundation
base is at 1.35 m depth, it can be assumed that all the part of the soil stratigraphy having
merely the same number of blows as the soil at foundation base, has the same nature. So, a
depth at which the number of blows count is higher than the one of our reference nature, its
nature should be stiffer and weaker in the other case. Thereby, the resulting graph shows that
there is silty sand from (0.00 – 3.00) m and (7.00 – 10.00) and sand from (4.00 – 6.00) m and
(10.00 – 12.00).
STRATIGRAPHY FROM BOREHOLE S1

1
2 Silty Sand
3
4
5 Sand
6
depth
7
8
9
Silty Sand
10
11
Sand
12
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
spt number
Figure 4.16 Graphical representation of SPT results
66
Following the norm NF P94-261 of June 2013, the consistency depends on the number
of blows N (SPT). By averaging the SPT value from consecutive layers having merely the
same value we get consistency for each assumed layer. Table 4.9 shows that the soil is
constitute of two set of soil soft and medium soil underlying on each other beginning by 3m
of soft soil at the surface, then 2 m of medium soil, 3m of soft soil after medium soil.
Knowing that the embedment depth is 1.35m, the foundation is embedded inside soft soil.
Table 4.15 Consistency of assumed layers after SPT
Range from the GL (m) Average N (SPT) Consistency
(0.00 – 3.00) 3 Soft

(4.00 – 6.00) 6 Medium
(7.00 – 10.00) 3 Soft
(10.00 – 12.00) 6 Medium
b) Soil properties
These parameters give an idea on the soil strength. Those are the undrained strength c u,
cohesion c’ and the friction angle ϕ.
SPT test is straight linked to the number blows. But there is need to compute the
corrected value of number of blows. The constitutive properties of a given soil deposit should
not vary with the equipment used, and so N is conventionally corrected to a value N 60,
representing a standardized energy ratio of 60%. The blow count also needs to be corrected
for the size of the borehole and for tests done at shallow depths (<10 m). These corrections are
achieved using the formula:
N 60=Nζ ( ER
60 )
Where ζ is the correction factor for rod length (i.e. test depth) and borehole size taken
from annex 25, and ER is the Energy Ratio of the equipment used. BS EN ISO 22476 (2005)
describes how ER may be measured for any SPT apparatus; for most purposes, however, it is
sufficient to use the values given in annex 26.
67
The corrected values obtained after taken ER=55% because the machine used and
ζ =1.05, are computed in the table 4.10. The results are near to the uncorrected values. So to
avoid mess, we can use initial values during computation.
Knowing that the foundation is shallow, the different parameters will correspond to the
soil in the range of the significant depth, 1.5B, which is 2.55 m from the foundation level, thus
at a depth of 2.9 m. At that the depth the number of blows count is 3.
Table 4.16 Tables of corrected values obtain using ER=55%, ζ =1.05.
Number of blows
Depth (z) initial Test N N60
M N0 N1 N2
1 1 2 1 3 2.89
2 1 1 2 3 2.89
3 1 2 1 3 2.89
4 2 2 2 4 3.85
5 4 4 5 9 8.66
6 4 3 2 5 4.81
7 2 2 1 3 2.89
8 2 2 1 3 2.89
9 1 2 1 3 2.89
10 2 2 1 3 2.89
11 2 2 2 4 3.85
12 8 4 4 8 7.70
o Undrained shear strength, cu
From SPT test results, the undrained shear strength can be correlate. It can be given
from many methods corresponding each to authors. Each of them gives a different value but
they are all used to correlate an appropriate value. The formulae and the values obtained are
presented in the table 4.11.
Table 4.17 Values of undrained shear strength c u, obtained from SPT results
68
Authors Formulas Values (kPa) Mean (kPa)
TERZAGHI & PECK c u=0.067∙ N SPT 20.1

(1967)
DESIGN MANUAL
c u=0.038∙ N SPT 17.2
FOR SOIL 11.4
MECHANICS
SANGLERAT c u=0.067∙ N SPT 20.1
The mean value of different correlations is 17.2 kPa. This value of the undrained shear
strength corresponds to a silty sand soil. This coincide with the correlation done on the
stratigraphy.
o Friction angle, ϕ u
The friction angle can be correlated from SPT number of blows too, the following
table 4.12 presents for the correlation of friction angle, the authors, their formulas and the
values obtained from each them. The average value of the friction angle is 25.9 kPa. this value
corresponds to silty soil.
Table 4.18 Values of undrained friction angle ϕ u obtained from SPT results
Authors Formulas Values Mean
SHIOI & FUKUNI

Road Bridge ϕ=√ 15∙ N SPT +15 21.7
Specification (1982)
SHIOI & FUKUNI

Japanese National ϕ=0.3 ∙ N SPT +27 27.9 25.9
Railway (1982)
SOWERS (1961) ϕ=28+0.28 ∙ N SPT 28.84
MEYERHOF (1965) ϕ=23.7+0.57 ∙ N SPT −0.006 ∙ N SPT 25.35
c) Bearing capacity
69
The correlation of bearing capacity depends from the author. Meyerhof (1956,1965)
suggested that the safe allowable bearing capacity of shallow foundations on dry or moist
sands with respect to a bearing capacity failure could be estimated on the basis of penetration
tests. Assuming a factor of safety of 3, it was recommended that safe bearing pressure could
be obtained from:
q s=NB (1+ D/ B)/30 (in tsf)
N = 3 (average blow counts); B = 1.7 m = 5.57ft (breadth); D = 1.35 m=4.43 ft (Depth)
1 foot = 0.305m; l TSF = 96 kN/m2
The correspondent bearing force obtained after multiplying q sby the footing surface area is
Rd = 473.28 kN.
The analysis in undrained condition can also be done. The main parameter was the c u the
undrained shear strength, and depending on the design approach we can get the value of the
bearing capacity. The trinomial equation can be used to compute the bearing capacity. The
table 4.13 gives different values obtained from different design approaches.
Table 4.19 Design bearing resistance forces from different design approaches and following
trinomial equation (Eurocode 7)
Design approaches
DA1/1 DA1/2 DA2 DA3
A1+M1+R1 A2+M2+R1 A1+M1+R2 A1+M2+R3
cu 17.2 kPa 17.2 12.28 17.2 12.28
γ 20.35 20.35 20.35 20.35 20.35
kN/m3
q u=¿ 5.14 c u +q kN/m² 115.89 90.59 115.89 90.59
Rd kN 571.38 446.6 408 446.6
Let’s compare the different resisting values obtained with the applied load. Following
each design approaches we get the results in table 4.14. It shows that the foundation doesn’t
verify the safety conditions in ULS for some design approaches. First of all, the direct
correlation from SPT test of the bearing capacity using Meyerhof (1956,1965) suggestion, in
which there is a global factor of safety of 3 used, shows that the foundation is safe. In fact, the
design resistance Rd =473.28 kN and the load applied 317 kN .
70
The second correlation was using the undrained shear strength c u, obtained from SPT test.
Here the computation of the bearing capacity was done in the undrained condition. Based on
Eurocode 7 expression of the formula terms, three design approaches have been evaluated and
two of them, Design approach 2 and design approach 3 are not verified.
Table 4.20 Comparison bearing resistance – applied load from SPT parameters
SPT Trinomial equation after Eurocode 7

correlation Undrained condition from SPT test
DA1/1 DA1/2 DA2 DA3

A1+M1+R1 A2+M2+R1 A1+M1+R2 A1+M2+R3
Rd (kN) 473.28 kN 571.38 446.6 408 446.6
V d (kN) 317 461.22 341.65 461.22 461.22
Safe Yes Yes Yes No No
d) Evaluation of settlement
There are many methods to determine settlement and the one SPT test result is the most
suitable for us. Many authors correlated those result to the settlement. The result obtain from
each of them are computed and given in the table 4.15:
Table 4.21 Correlation of settlement from some authors
Authors Results (cm) Mean(cm)

Terzaghi and Peck (1948, 1967) 4.94
Alpan (1964) 5.85
D’Appolonia et al. (1968) 0.25 3.37
Burland and Burbidge (1985) 3.35
Hough (1959) 2.5
71
e) Water level
Water table being situated at 2.80 m from GL, this position is a critical because the
significant depth situates at 2.9 m depth, the water present in the 0.1 m left reduce the
bearing capacity of the foundation. In the other hand, the soil being silty sand, the water
level could raise easily during rain and occasioned the failure of the foundation.
4.4. Concrete analysis
The concrete verification consists on the determination of the resistance of the

concrete used for the construction of the building. The analysis was realized on the footings
using the sclerometer test method following the norm NF P18-417. The test is performed by
placing the sclerometer in contact with the footing surface, after a treatment with a medium-
grain abrasive stone in carborundum, in perpendicular direction and measuring the rebounds
of a steel cursor pushed hard on the surface. A graduated spring and its needle indicate the
rebound index on a scale. For each test surface 10 measurements are performed and their
results, properly arithmetically mediated, provide the sclerometric rebound index. With this
value it is possible to extrapolate from a diagram provided by the manufacturer company of
the tool the possible cubic resistances to the exanimated concrete compression, with the
relating dispersion. Result from the two columns is given in the table 4.16. The surface of test
has been taken 625 m².
Table 4.22 Sclerometer test results on the foundation G15 (source CEC MEDOU)
RESULT OF SCLEROMETER TEST ON FOOTINGS

Direction angle 90°
NUMBER OF POINTS 27
2
TEST SURFACE (cm ) 625
A B C
14 20 18
16 20 20
20 22 20
20 20 20
20 20 20
16 20 24
16 20 24
72
20 28 24
18 18 22
The value obtained was 10.5 MPa of concrete strength. This is very low. First of all,
the design value of the concrete strength was 25 MPa, secondly the value is very low for a 5
storey building. It is important that the structure has appropriate concrete strength because if
for instance the foundation fails due to differential settlement, the structure must resist. In the
case too much low concrete strength, continuous cracks appear until collapse. Also, concrete
which is the main constituent of the foundation can fail in the case of presence of horizontal or
vertical load exceeding the compressive strength.
4.5. The possible remedies to the Collapse
The building collapse of the Nkongmondo could have been avoided if some measures
have been taken. Those measures would increase the bearing capacity of the soil, so, whether
it is their type of foundation, dimension of the footings, the embedment depth which are
modify, or the soil which is improved.
4.3.1. Digging down deeper
This is the simplest solution. Digging down a little further, foundation will be having a
higher bearing capacity due to the increase of the weight of lateral soil above the foundation
plane. It will also be having a significant depth including the stiffer soil underneath.
Let’s compute the necessary depth that the foundation should have had to avoid bearing
capacity failure. Following the two equation from unfulfilled Design approaches 2 and 3, we
have that
⇒ ¿ D≥ 2.09 m ,( DA 2 , Eurocode)
{
D ≥ 1.49m ,(DA 3 , Eurocode)
73
Thus at a design embedment depth of 2.1m illustrated on figure 4.3, the foundation will
fulfil the safety of bearing of all the design approaches.
2.1m
Figure4.17 Illustration of the increase of the depth
4.3.2. Enlarge the footing dimension
The bearing capacity of a shallow foundation is straight linked to his width B, but the width
should keep a certain correspondence with other dimensions. The footing studied during the
expertise. The G15 footing studied has a dimension of B=1.7m, H=0.2m, L=2.9m
Let’s check for appropriated values of the width B, so that the foundation can withstand the
load of the building. To fulfil the Eurocode DA2 and DA3, following condition should be
respect:
⇒ ¿ B ≥ 1.94 m ,( DA 2, Eurocode)
{
B ≥1.76 m,( DA 3 , Eurocode)
Then a base width of B=2 m will be insure safety. The new foundation dimensions will
follow as on figure 4.4.
74
H=0.2m L= 2.9m
B= 2 m
Figure4.18 Footing dimensions for safety
Also, building wider foundations can help spread the load over a larger area, but this may
require steel reinforcement to prevent shearing.
4.3.3. Stone columns
To remedy to this collapse, stone columns could have been placed under the shallow
foundation to increase soil bearing capacity. A compacted layer of granular material will be
placed over the site prior to placing footings.
Let’s consider stone column 1.2m diameter, constitute of gravel of friction angle ϕ=35 °.
Hughes et al. (1975) gives a formula to determine its allowable bearing capacity.
ϕ
q a=
Kp
∙ ( 4 c +σ 'r )=
(
ta n2 45 ° +
2 ) ∙ ( 4 c+ 2 c) =253.88 kPa
SF SF
The allowable load
Pa=qa ∙ A c =q a ∙ 0.7854 D 2col =287.13 kN
So two columns will have a bearing capacity of q a=574.27 kN . Those columns will be
disposed symmetrically under the foundation as shown on figure 4.5.
75
a) b)
1.7
column
Stone
s
1.2
2.9
1.2
Sand
Clay
d
San
y
Figure4.19 Disposition of the stone column : a) longitudinal section, b) transversal section
4.3.4. Choose pile foundation
Pile foundation is used when the shallow foundation has an insufficient bearing capacity.
In the case of Nkongmondo building, pile of foundation appropriately designed would have
withstood the bearing load. It can be go far underneath the sandy soil, for design we need
parameters from underground soil like the unit weight and undrained shear strength or
cohesion. Because piles are deep the skin resistance and combine with the tip resistance will
give a high bearing capacity.
4.3.5. Raft foundation
A raft is a large continuous reinforced concrete slab that extends under the whole building.
By distributing the load over the entire footprint, the load per unit area is reduced. Structural
calculations should be provided, confirming that the raft design is suitable for bearing onto the
ground and that the ground bearing capacity safely supports the structure.
Conclusion
76
In this chapter, the case of Nkongmondo building collapse have been analysed through
survey, laboratory test and in-situ test. The data from foundation surveying, the foundation
dimension and embedment depth, the test results on the soil, the test on steel and concrete, all
permitted to come out with the soil classification, its parameters, the steel type and the
concrete quality. The bearing capacity of the most loaded footing was determined using the
SPT test and Direct Shear test and we got that the from the SPT correlation using design
approach 2 and 3, the soil was not able to sustain the loads applied on the structure. Remedies
have been proposed, increase the foundation dimension, increase the embedment, use stone
column, realize raft or pile foundation.
GENERAL CONCLUSION
77
The objective of our research thesis was to outcome the geotechnical causes of the
collapsing buildings in the city of Douala and propose solutions to remedy to the
phenomenon. In this way, a general view on foundation design was provided, starting from
the soil investigation a primordial step during which the soil is identified. This identification
concerns the geology, the soil’s classification, parameters and identification of the water level.
The principal material of the soil investigation is tests. There are in-situ tests such as SPT,
CPT, FVT, PMT, and laboratory tests including soil’s classification test and soil strength test.
Some tests are more relevant that others but for a complete analysis there is a need to use all
of them. The test parameters such as the friction angle and the cohesion are useful to evaluate
the bearing capacity which is the maximum load that a foundation can sustain. Moreover, the
settlement can also be evaluated. These two elements are the basic verifications when
designing foundations. When they do not verify the foundation fails.
A view on foundation failure has been made to understand what could be the geotechnical
causes of a collapsed building because a foundation fails before provoking a collapse.
Foundation failures have been classified as design, natural, accidental and construction
causes. Design causes concern the bad design of foundation, the natural causes concern the
failure due to natural phenomenon like upraise of water after rain or shrinkage after soil
drying, accidental causes concern uncertain events and construction causes concern the
quality of the work, the quality of the materials used. At the opposite of these, possible
remedies are provided and can be preventive or curative. The most important remedy to a
collapse is the soil’s investigation, it is a preventive solution because when it has been done
well, we get enough information to do good design. The investigation will also help to know
the type of soil, then in the case of having a bad soil quality we can replace the soil or improve
it. There are many method of soil improvement depending on the soil characteristics.
For the special case of the city of Douala, the Nkongmondo building collapse has been
analysed to determine the possible causes. The methodology of analysis was in-situ test and
laboratory tests realized by “CCEG” laboratory with the partnership of “CEC MEDOU” a
local civil engineering cabinet. From in-situ test SPT test, we got the number of blows per unit
depth, these number of blows have been used to obtain the stratigraphy where the soil can be
considered to be silty sand and sand. These number of blows help also to correlate the bearing
capacity, after correlation of undrained shear strength and the settlement. Following design
approaches the different values of bearing capacity are not satisfying the condition of bearing
which should be greater than the load applied, for the case design approach 2 and 3. This
78
shows that the foundation was not design taking those condition in consideration. The
settlement was less than 25mm which is the limiting value. The Direct Shear test result have
also been used to determine the bearing capacity, but the values obtained from all the design
approaches were not near the SPT one. This is comprehensible because as the soil is being
classified as sandy, the sampling has not been done without remoulding. The steel tensile test
has shown that the steel was good, respecting the norm but the sclerometer test on concrete
shown the concrete was too bad, this could have caused cracks which promote the foundation
failure. In this manner some remedies have been proposed such as going down deeper with
the foundation, enlarge the foundation base or used stone column. These three ways will have
increase the bearing capacity of the shallow foundation type used. Other possibility was to use
pile foundation which have a higher bearing capacity because going deeper it has a great
lateral resistance, or raft foundation for which the load is concentrated at the axis of all the
structure such a way that any movement of the foundation will be general and not affect the
structure.
It can be seen that the lack of investigation of the field of construction is a great handicap
for constructing a building, is like skipping the core step in a process. People neglect it
because it is expensive, that’s why the government could sensitize the population or work to
reduce the prize in such a way that the number collapses will reduce. Furthermore, soil type in
Douala is sandy with small amount of silt. This type of soil is unstable and water can rise and
go down easily. For this reason, engineer must take all that in consideration during design.
The best to do is to design in undrained condition, taking in account the level of water during
rainy season. The collapse at Nkongmondo occurs after a huge rain, it can be due to the
upraise of water level which reduces the bearing capacity. In all cases it remains the
responsibility of the engineer to design well, that’s why he should learn the cyndinics.
ANNEX
79
Annex 1: Classical formulae of bearing capacity factors
Authors & Codes Nγ Nc Nq

Terzaghi (1943) tan ϕ K py ( N q −1 ) cot ϕ a2
(
2 cos 2 ϕ
−1 ) π ϕ
2cos 2 [( ) ]
+
4 2
3π ϕ
a=exp
[( ) ]
− tan ϕ
4 2
Skempton (1951) 0 See Table 5 1
Meyerhof (1963) ( N q −1 ) tan (1.4 ϕ) ( N q −1 ) cot ϕ tan ² ( π2 + ϕ2 ) e π tan ϕ
Hansen (1970) 1.5( N q −1 ) tan(ϕ) Same as Meyerhof Same as Meyerhof

Vesic (1973) 2( N q +1 ) tan(ϕ) Same as Meyerhof Same as Meyerhof
Eurocode 7 (1996) 2( N q −1 ) tan (ϕ) Same as Meyerhof Same as Meyerhof
IS Code (1981) 2( N q +1 ) tan(ϕ) Same as Meyerhof Same as Meyerhof
DTU 13.12 1.85 ( N q−1 ) tan φ ( N q −1 ) cot φ π φ
(
e πtanφ tan 2 +
4 2 )
Annex 2: Bearing capacity factors N c for strip foundations of width B on layered
undrained soils (after Merifield et al. 1999)
Annex 3 : Shape factors sc (after Merifield and Nguyen 2006)
80
Annex 4: Bearing capacity factor N c for strip foundations of width B at the crest of a
slope of undrained soil (after Geaogiadis, 2010)
Annex 5: Factor F z for strip foundations on non-uniform undrained soil (after Davis
and Booker, 1973)
Annex 6: Shape factors according to authors and codes
Authors & Codes sγ sc sq
81
Terzaghi (1943)
(i) Strip 1 1 1
(ii) Square 0.8 1.3 1
(iii) Circular 0.6 1.3 1
(iv) rectangular (1-0.2 B/L) (1+0.3 B/L) 1
Meyerhof (1963) 1, when ϕ=0 1 , when ϕ=0
π ϕ
( ) B (1+0.2 K BL ) p
B
K p =tan ² +
4 2
(1+0.1 KP ), ϕ> 100
L ( L )
1+° 0.1 K p , ϕ>100
Hansen (1960) B B
(1−0.4 BL )≥ 0.6 1+0.2
L
for ϕ=0 1+ sin ϕ
L
¿
Nq B
( 1+
Nc L )
for ϕ ≠ 0
Vesic (1973) B Nq B B
( 1−0.4
L )
≥ 0.6 1+
Nc L
1+
L
tan ϕ
Eurocode 7 B B B
1−0.3 1+0.2 for ϕ=0 1+ sin ϕ
L L L
¿
s q N q−1
( N q−1 )
for ϕ ≠ 0
IS Code (1981)
(i) Strip 1.0 1.0 1.0
(ii) Square 0.8 1.2 1.3
(iii) Circular 0.6 1.2 1.3
(iv) rectangular
(1−0.4 BL ) (1+0.2 BL ) (1+0.2 BL )
DTU 13.12 B B 1
1−0.2 1−0.2 .
L L
Annex 7: Classical formulations for inclination factors according to authors
Authors iq i c (ϕ ≠ 0) i c (ϕ=0) iγ comments

2
Meyerhof ( 1−2 δ /π )2 2δ 2 2δ 2
(1963) (1− 2πδ ) ( 1−
π ) 1−
ϕ ( )
Hansen ( 1−0.5 tan θ )α 1
iq N q −1 0.5−√ (1−( H / Aa)) ( 1−0.7 tan θ )α 2
2 ≤ α 1 <5
(1970)
N q−1 2≤ α 2 <5
Vesic ( 1−tan θ )m iq N q −1 mH ( 1−tan θ )m+ 1 B
(1973) 1− 2+
N q−1 Aa N c L
m=
B
1+
L
Eurocode 1−H /(V +1 c' cot ϕiq' )N q −1 0.5 [1+ √ 1−H / A c u ] 1− H
7
N q−1 V +1 c ' cot ϕ'
2
α 2 2
IS code α α α 2
(1981) (1−
90 ) 1− (90 ) ( 1−
90 ) ( ) 1−
ϕ
82
Annex 8: Classical formulations for depth factors

Authors dc dq dγ
Meyerhof (1963) D for ϕ>10 Same as d q
1+0.2 √ K P
B D
1+0.1 √ K P
B
Hansen D 1.0
(1970) 1+0.4
B
Vesic D 1.0
(1973) 1+0.4
B
IS code D ϕ D ϕ Same as d q
(1981) 1+0.2 tan 45+
B 2 ( ) 1+0.1
B
tan 45+ (
2 )
0
For ϕ> 10
And 1.0 for ϕ> 100
Annex 9 : Values for empirical coefficient of horizontal stress k and δ is the frictional
angle at the contact pile/soil for corresponding piles types
Pile type k-loose soil k-dense soil δ

Driven steel 0.7 1.0 20°
Driven precast 1.0 2.0 3
ϕ
concrete 4
Driven Cast In 1.0 3.0 ϕ
Place concrete
Drilled 1−sin ϕ 1−sin ϕ ϕ
Continuous Flight 0.7 0.9 ϕ
Auger (CFA)
Annex 10: Chart skin resistance- limit pressure from pressuremeter test
83
Annex 11: Tip resistance from mean tip resistance correspondent (source EC7 –part 2
Annex D, DIN 1054)
Normalized Bearing capacity q b (MPa)

settlement
s s q c =10 MPa q c =15 MPa q c =20 MPa q c =25 MPa
;
Ds Db
0.02 0.70 1.05 1.40 1.75
0.03 0.90 1.35 1.80 2.25
0.10¿ 2.00 3.00 3.50 4.00
s: pile settlement at the base
D s :shaft diameter
Db : base diameter
* : Maximum settlement at the base pile
Annex 12 : Mean lateral friction correspondence to mean tip resistance
Mean tip Mean lateral

resistance, friction,
q c(MPa) q l(MPa)
0.02 0.70
0.03 0.90
0.10¿ 2.00
Annex 13: Values of admissible load of pile foundation from limits state combinations
“fascicule 62” (Source fascicule 62 titre V)
Limit state Combinations Traction Q min Compression Q max

U.L.S Fundamental −Q tu Qu
1.4 1.4
Accidental −Q tu Qu
1.3 1.3
E.L.S Rare −Q tc Qc
1.4 1.1
Quasi-permanents 0( 1 ) Qc
1.4
(1) D’après le fascicule 62, les pieux ne sont pas conçus pour travailler en traction de façon
permanente. Cependant, ce type de fonctionnement est admis pour les micros pieux
84
Annex 14: Figure Ballast system
Annex 15: contrast system
85
Annex 16 : Elastic settlement theories

Theory Expression Parameters definition
AASHTO – LRFD Bridge [ q 0 ( 1−ν 2) √ A ] si = settlement (FT)
Design Specifications (1998, si= q 0= load intensity (TSF)
Es βz
2007) A = area of footing (SF)
E s = Young’s modulus of
soil (TSF)
β z = shape factor
ν = Poisson’s Ratio
Bowles (1987) q 0 ( α B ' ) ( 1−μ2s ) q 0 = net applied pressure on
si= Is If the foundation
Es
μs =¿ Poisson’s ratio of soil
E s=¿average modulus of
elasticity of the soil under
the foundation, measured
from depth z = 0 to about z =
4B
'
B =¿ B/2 for centre of the
foundation
I s=¿ shape factor
(Steinbrenner, 1934)
Mayne and Poulos (1999) q 0 Be I G I F I E 2 B=¿ width of rectangular

si= (1−μ s ) foundation or diameter for
E0
circular foundation
L = length of foundation
I G = influence factor for the
variation of E s with depth
I F =foundation rigidity
correction factor
I E = foundation embedment
correction factor
E s=¿ modulus of elasticity
E0 =¿ initial modulus of
elasticity
E f =¿ modulus of foundation
material
Canadian foundation manual q 0 B ic si=¿ settlement
(1975, 1985, 1992) si=
Es q 0=¿ applied net footing
stress
B = footing width
E s=¿ apparent modulus
i c =¿ influence factor
86
Annex 17: Settlement correlation from SPT test

authors Formulas parameters
Terzaghi and Peck (1948, 3q 2B s=¿settlement (in inches)
2
1967) s=( )( )
N B+1
CwCd q=¿net footing stress (in tsf)
N=¿ uncorrected (field) SPT
blow count
B=¿ footing width (in ft.)
C w =¿water table correction
= 2-(W/2B) ≤2.0 for surface
footings
= 2-0.5(D/B) ≤2.0 for C d=¿
fully submerged,
embedment correction
= 1-0.25(D/B)
Meyerhof (1956, 1965) 4q s=settlement
s= for B ≤ 4 ft
N q=footing stress
6q B
2 N=uncorrected blow count
s= [ ]
N B +1
for B>4 ft B=footing width
6q
s= for raft
N
Alpan (1964) B
2
s=¿ settlement (inches)
s=s 0 2[B+ 1
mC w ] s0=¿ settlement of a 1ft² plates
(inches)
m=¿ shape correction factor
C w =¿ shape correction factor
D
( )
= 0.5
B
≤2
D’Appolonia et al. (1970) qBI s=¿ settlement (inches)

s=
M q=¿footing stress (in tsf)
I = influence factor
M = modulus of compressibility
87
Annex 18: Settlement correlation from CPT test

authors Formulas parameters
Meyerhof (1956, 1965, s= ( qB ) / ( 2 qc ) s=¿settlement (in inches)
1974) q=¿net footing stress (in tsf)
q c =¿ average cone tip resistance
over a depth equal to B below
the footing (in tsf)
Schmertmann et al. (1978) n
I zi I zi =¿ strain influence factor for
s=C1 C2 ( q́−q) ∑ Δz
i=1 Esi i layer i
C 1=¿ correction factorfor the
depth of foundation embedment
q
C 1=1−0.5 [ ] q́−q
C 2=¿correction factor to account
for creep in soil
C 2=1+0.2 log(time∈ years/0.1)
q́=¿ stress at the level of the
foundation
q=¿ initial effective overburden
pressure atthe foundation level
E si =¿soil modulus for layer i;
recommended using a weighted
average of Es
Δ z i=¿ thickness of layer of
constant E si
i=¿ layer i
Annex 19: Skempton’s Bearing Capacity Factors for Cohesive soil

Footing shapes Nc
Strip
( DB ) with limit of N ≤7.5
5 1+ 0.2 c
Square/Cicular D
6 ( 1+ 0.2 ) with limit of N ≤ 9.0c
B
Rectangular D B
5 ( 1+ 0.2 )( 1+0.2 ) for D ≤2.5
B L
D
7.5 ( 1+0.2 ) for D>2.5
B
88
Annex 20: Table giving the values of the adhesion coefficient for corresponding pile type
and undrained shear strength.
Pile type cu α
Driven c u ≤25 1.0
25< cu <70 1−0.011(c u−25)
c u ≥25 0.5
Drilled C u ≤ 25 0.7
25< cu <70 0.7−0.008 ( c u−25 )
c u ≥25 0.35
Annex 21: Partial factor of different design approaches (Eurocode 7)

Parameters Partial Partial factor sets
factors A1 A2 M1 M2 R1 R2 R3
Permanent action (G) Unfavorabl γG 1.35 1.0
e
Favorable γ G , fav 1.0 1.0
Variable action (Q) Unfavorabl γQ 1.5 1.3
e
Favorable - - -
Accidental action (A) Unfavorabl γA 1.0 1.0
e
Favorable - - -
Tan of effective angle γϕ' 1.0 1.25
of friction (tan φ′)
Effective cohesion γ 'c 1.0 1.25
intercept (c′)
Undrained shear γ cu 1.0 1.4
c
strength ( u)
Unconfined γ qu 1.0 1.4
compressive
strength (q u ¿
Weight Density (γ) γγ 1.0 1.0
Bearing capacity ( R v) Rv 1.0 1.4 1.0
89
Annex 22: SPT test report (source, Cabinet MEDOU expertise report)
90
Annex 23 : Direct shear test report (source, Cabinet MEDOU expertise report)
91
Annex 24 : Sieve analysis report (source, Cabinet MEDOU expertise report)
92
Annex 25: SPT correction factor ζ (after Skempton, 1986)
Rod length/depth (m) Borehole diameter (mm)

65-115 150 200
3-4 0.75 0.79 0.86
4-6 0.85 0.89 0.98
6-10 0.95 1.00 1.09
>10 1.00 1.05 1.15
Annex 26: Common Energy ratios in use worldwide (after Skempton, 1986)
Country ER (%)
UK 60
USA 45-55
China 55-60
Japan 65-78
93
Annex 27: Foundation plan of Nkongmondo Building (from CEC MEDOU)
94
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Amadi, A. N., Eze, C. J., Igwe, C. O., Okumlola, I. A., & Okoye, N. O. (2012). Architect’s
and Geologist’s View on the Causes of Building Failures in Nigeria. Modern Applied
Science, 6(6), 31-38. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/mas.v6n6p31.
Ayuba, P., Olagunju, R. E., & Akande, O. K. (2012). Failure and Collapse of Buildings in
Nigeria: The role of professionals and other participants in the building industry. Inter-
disciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in business, 4(6), 1267-1272.
Burland, J. (1973). Shaft friction of piles in clay--a simple fundamental approach. Publication
of: Ground Engineering/UK/, 6(3).
Bhushan, K. (1982). Discussion: New Design Correlation for Piles in Sands. ASCE Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering Division, Vol (108), No. GT11, pp. 1508–1510.
Briaud, J. L. (2013). Geotechnical Engineering: Unsaturated and Saturated soils. Hoboken,

New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Curtin, W. G., SHAW, G., Parkinson, G. I., & Golding, J. M. (1994). STRUCTURAL
FOUNDATION DESIGNERS'MANUAL. Blackwell
Cernica, J. N. (1995). Geotechnical Engineering Foundation Design. John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Das, B. M. (2011). Principles of Foundation Engineering (7th Edition). Stamford, CT, USA:
Cengage Learning.
Das, B. M. (2016). Principles of Foundation Engineering (8th Edition). USA: Cengage

Learning.
Friedman, D. (2001). Inspecting foundations for structural defects. Poughkeepsie, NY: Daniel
Friedman.
Hannigan, P. J., Goble, G. G., Thendean, G., Likins, G. E., & Rausche, F. (1998). Design and
Construction of Driven Pile Foundations-Vol. I. FHWA-HI-97-013. Washington, DC:
National
Highway Institute, Federal Highway Administration, US Department of Transportation.
Hui, L. j. (2005). A study of building foundations in Malaysia. (Thesis, University of

Southern Qeensland, Queensland). Journal du Cameroun. (2010). Effondrement des
Immeubles. Retrieved from http://www.camerounactu.net/fr/societe/faits-divers/852-
effondrement-dun-immeuble-a-yaounde-le-bilans’alourdit. Journal le Messenger. (2013).
95
Effondrement des Immeubles. Retrieved from

http://www.journalducameroun.com/article.php?aid=15630. Journal le Messenger. (2014).
Effondrement des Immeubles. Retrieved from
http://www.journalducameroun.com/article.php?aid=15630. Manual, N. A. V. F. A. C., &
Mechanics, S. (1986). Naval Facilities Engineering Command Design Manual 7.01 Soil
Mechanics Design Manual. BS 8006-1:2010, Code of practice for strengthened/reinforced
soils and other fills;
Mayne, P.W., & Poulos, H.G. (1999). Approximate displacement influence factors for elastic
shallow foundations. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol
(125), No. 6, p. 453–460.
MEYERHOF, G. (1977). BEARING CAPACITY AND SETTLEMENT OF PILE

FOUNDATIONS. JOURNAL OF THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING DIVISION-
ASCE, 103(9), 1023-1025.
McCarthy, D. F. (1998). Essentials of Soil Mechanics and Foundations, Basic Geotechnics

(5th Edition). Prentice Hall Inc
Meyerhof, G. G. (1953). The bearing capacity of foundations under eccentric and inclined
loads. In Proc. of 3rd Int, conf. Soil Mech. Found. Eng., Zurich (Vol. 1, p. 440-445).
Meyerhof, G. G. (1963). Some recent research on the bearing capacity of foundations.

Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 1(1), 16-26.
Newmark, N. M. (1935). Simplified computation of vertical pressures in elastic foundations.

Engineering Experiment Station. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Oke, S. A., Amadi, A. N., Abalaka, A. E., & Akerele, R. T. (2009a). Result of subsoil
investigation on a collapsed building site in Lagos. Nigerian Journal of Construction
Technology and Management, 10(1&2), 36-45.
Onyemachi, T. U., & Uji, Z. A., (2005). Building failures and it’s implication on real estate
investment in Nigeria. AARCHES Journal, 4(1), 57-63.
Oke, S. A., & Amadi, A. N. (2008). An assessment of the geotechnical properties of the
subsoil of parts of Federal University of Technology, Minna, Gidan -Kwano Campus, for
foundation design and construction. Journal of Science, Education and Technology, 1(2), 87-
102.
96
Hornby, A. S. (2001). Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of current English. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.
Terzaghi, K. (1943). Theoretical Soil Mechanics. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Terzaghi, K., & Peck, R.B. (1967). Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice (2nd edition).
New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Terzaghi, K., Peck, R. B., & Mesri, G. (1996). Soil mechanics in engineering practice (3rd
edition). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Tomlinson, M. J. (1971). Some effects of pile driving on skin friction. In Behaviour of piles,
ICE, London (pp. 107-114). Thomas Telford Publishing.
Tomlinson, T. J. (1994). PILE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PRACTICE (4th edition).

London: E&FN Spon.
Tomlinson, M. J. (1999). Foundation design and construction. Pitman Pu
Vesic, A. S. (1973). Analysis of ultimate loads of shallow foundations. ASCE Journal of the
Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, Vol (99), No. SM1, pp. 45–73.
Vesic, A.S. (1975). Bearing capacity of shallow foundations. Foundation Engineering

Handbook (First Edition), p. 121–147. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York: Winterkorn, H.F.,
and Fang, H.-Y., edit.
Vesic, A. S. (1977). Design of pile foundations. National cooperative highway research

program synthesis of practice no. 42. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 32-
48.
Xiao, M. (2015). Geotechnical Engineering Design. Oxford, United Kingdom: John Wiley
and Sons. BS 5930:1999+A2:2010, Code of practice for site investigations;
97

Final Version

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

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

Final Version

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

LEARNING FROM COLLAPSE OF BUILDINGS

IN DOUALA: GEOTECHNICAL CAUSES AND

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement for a degree of Master of

Presented and defended by:

SIAKA NTAMBWE Willy

Under the supervision of:

LIST OF NOTATTIONS AND GLOSSARY OF

bi Base factors for the bearing capacity with subscripts c, q and γ

c′ Effective cohesion of the soil

di Depth factors for the bearing capacity with subscripts c, q and γ

fs ultimate unit skin resistance

gi Ground factors for the bearing capacity with subscripts c, q and γ

ii Inclination factors for the bearing capacity with subscripts c, q and γ

kE rate of increase of modulus of elasticity with depth

r Planar radius from the point of application of the load

s Shape factors for the bearing capacity with subscripts c, q and γ

Xd Design values of the geotechnical parameters

Xk Characteristic values of the geotechnical parameters

A Area of foundation base

AFNOR Association française de normalisation

Sg settlement of a pile group

γ Unit weight of the homogeneous soil

γM Partial factor of safety on the geotechnical parameters

𝜂g pile group efficiency

𝜙u Internal frictional angle in undrained condition

Face au problème d’effondrements de bâtiments récurrents a dans la ville de Douala, il

Table 1.4 Cα/Cc ratio and corresponding soil type............................................................27

Chapter 1 : DESIGN OF FOUNDATION AND CONSIDERATION FOR BUILDINGS. .3

1.1. Soil investigation..........................................................................................................3

1.1.1. The purpose...........................................................................................................3

1.1.2. Methods of Intrusive investigation.......................................................................4

1.1.2. In-situ test..............................................................................................................7

1.1.2.1. Standard Penetration Test (SPT)...................................................................7

1.1.2.2. Field Vane Test (FVT)..................................................................................7

1.1.2.3. Pressuremeter Test (PMT).............................................................................8

1.1.2.4. Cone Penetration Test (CPT).........................................................................8

1.1.3. Laboratory test......................................................................................................8

1.1.3.1. Classification and index testing.....................................................................9

1.1.3.2. Stress-strain shear test.................................................................................10

1.2. Type of foundation.....................................................................................................11

1.2.1. Shallow foundation.............................................................................................11

1.2.2. Deep foundation..................................................................................................12

1.3. Design approach.........................................................................................................13

1.3.1. Design method....................................................................................................13

1.3 .1.1 . The permissible stress method.....................................................................14

1.3 .1.2 . The limit state method.................................................................................14

1.3.2. Bearing capacity..................................................................................................14

1.3.2.1. Correlation from in-situ test........................................................................14

1.3.2.2. Computation from test results......................................................................16

1.3.3. Settlement of foundation.....................................................................................25

1.3.3.1. Soil mechanics.............................................................................................25

1.3.3.2. From SPT and CPT test...............................................................................27

Chapter 2 : FOUNDATION FAILURE..............................................................................29

2.1. Foundation failure mechanism...................................................................................29

2.1.1. General shear failure...........................................................................................29

2.1.2. Local shear failure...............................................................................................30

2.1.3. Punching shear failure.........................................................................................30

2.2. Causes of foundation failure......................................................................................31

2.2.1. Design causes......................................................................................................31

2.2.2. Natural causes.....................................................................................................32

2.2.1. Accidental causes................................................................................................34

2.2.2. Construction causes............................................................................................35

2.3. Possible remedies to foundation failure.....................................................................37