LRFD Design of

Shallow Foundations

Nominal Geotechnical
Resistances

ASD Failure Modes

Overall Stability
Bearing Capacity
Settlement
Sliding
Overturning

Nominal Geotechnical
Resistances

LRFD Service Limit State

Overall Stability
Vertical (Settlement) and Horizontal
Movements

LRFD Strength Limit State

Bearing Resistance
Sliding
Eccentricity Limits (Overturning)

Service Limit State

Global Stability

Stabilize

Destabiliz
e

Global Stability Factor of Safety

Method of Slices
+
WT
N tan
cl
T

WT

l
N
WT
T

l
WT

N
T

N tan
cl
T

Resistance Factors
ASD Factors of Safety
Slope Supports
Abutment or
Other
Structure?

Soil/Rock Parameters and

Ground Water Conditions
Based On:
In-situ or Laboratory Tests and
Measurements
No Site-specific Tests

LRFD

Yes

No

1.5

1.3

1.8

1.5

FS

Stability Wrap-Up

Unfactored loads

Applied stress must be limited

Service Limit State

Footings supported in a slope
0.65 (FS 1.5)

Stress criteria for stability can control

footing design

Service Limit State Design

Settlement

Cohesive Soils

Evaluate Using Consolidation Theory

Cohesionless Soils

Evaluate Using Empirical or Other Conventional

Methods
Hough Method

Impact on Structures

Settlement of Granular vs.

Cohesive Soils

Relative importance of settlement

components for different soil types

Elastic
Primary Consolidation
Secondary Settlement (Creep)

Settlement of Granular vs.

Cohesive Soils

Structural effects of settlement

components
Include Transient Loads if Drained
Loading is Expected and for
Computing Initial Elastic Settlement
Transient Loads May Be Omitted When
Computing Consolidation Settlement of
Cohesive Soils

Hough Method
Settlement of Cohesionless Soils

'vo v
1

H Hc log
C'
'vo

Stress
Below
Footing
Boussinesq
Pressure
Isobars

Nominal Bearing Resistance at

Service Limit State
For a constant value
of settlement
Rn

Bf

Eccentricity of Footings on Soil

ML

eB =
eL =

MB / P
ML / P

P
P

MB

Effective Dimensions for

Footings on Soil
B = B 2eB
L = L 2eL

ML

MB

Applied Stress Beneath Effective

Footing Area

P
q
B' L'
ML

MB

Stress Applied to Soil

Strip Footing

P
M

B'f
q = P/B'f

Footings on Rock
Trapezoidal Distribution
qmin

P
e

1 6
Bf

qmax

P
e

1 6
Bf

Bf

qmin
qmax

eBf
RESULTANT

Footings on Rock
Triangular Distribution
Bf
B1

2 P
qmax
Bf

3
e
2

qmax

eBf

B1/3

RESULTANT

Use of Eccentricity and Effective

Footing Dimensions

Service Limit State

Strength Limit State

Nominal Bearing Resistance Limited by

Settlement
Nominal Bearing Resistance Limited by Bearing
Resistance

Prevent Overturning

All Applicable Limit States

Strength Limit State

Bearing Resistance

Strength Limit State Design

Bearing Resistance

Footings on Soil

Evaluate Using Conventional Bearing Theory

Footings on Rock

Evaluate Using CSIR Rock Mass Rating Procedure

Bearing Resistance Mechanism

qn cNc DfNqCWq 0.5 BfN CW
Ground
Surface
Df

v = Df

B
3

B>Df
d

= C + tan
Soil Shear Strength

c
Pp

b I
a

b
c
Pp

b
2

1
a

b
2

3
d

Table 10.5.5.2.1-1 Resistance Factors for Geotechnical Resistance of Shallow

Foundations at the Strength Limit State

METHOD/SOIL/CONDITION

Bearing
Resistance

Sliding
ep

RESISTANCE FACTOR

Theoretical method (Munfakh, et al. (2001), in clay

0.50

Theoretical method (Munfakh, et al. (2001), in sand,

using CPT

0.50

Theoretical method (Munfakh, et al. (2001), in sand,

using SPT

0.45

Semi-empirical methods (Meyerhof), all soils

0.45

Footings on rock

0.45

Plate Load Test

0.55

Precast concrete placed on sand

0.90

Cast-in-Place Concrete on sand

0.80

Cast-in-Place or precast Concrete on Clay

0.85

Soil on soil

0.90

Passive earth pressure component of sliding

resistance

0.50

Footings on Rock

Service Limit State use published

presumptive bearing
Published values are allowable
therefore settlement-limited
Procedures for computing settlement
are available

Footings on Rock
Strength Limit State

Very little guidance available for

bearing resistance of rock
Proposed Specification revisions
provide for evaluating the cohesion
and friction angle of rock using the
CSIR Rock Mass Rating System

CSIR Rock Mass Rating System

CSIR Rock Mass Rating developed for

tunnel design
Includes life safety considerations and
therefore, margin of safety
Use of cohesion and friction angle
therefore may be conservative

LRFD vs. ASD

All modes are expressly checked at a

limit state in LRFD
Eccentricity limits replace the
overturning Factor of Safety

Bearing Pressure (kPa)

Width vs. Resistance - ASD

Shear Failure
controls

Settlement
controls

800
600
400
0
0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

Footing width, B (m)

Allowable Bearing Capacity, FS = 3.0
Bearing Pressure for 25-mm (1in) settlement

5.0

Settlement vs. Bearing

Resistance

Nominal Bearing
Resistance (ksf)

Width vs. Resistance - LRFD

35
25
15
5
0

12

16

Effective Footing width, B (m)

Strength Limit State
Service Limit State

20

Recommended Practice

For LRFD design of footings on soil

and rock;

Size footings at the Service Limit State

Check footing at all other applicable Limit States

Settlement typically controls!

Summary Comparison of ASD

and LRFD for Spread Footings

Same geotechnical theory used to

compute resistances, however
As per Limit State concepts,
presentation of design
recommendations needs to be modified

Strength Limit State Resistance Factors

METHOD/SOIL/CONDITION
Bearing
All methods, soil and rock

Resistance

Sliding

ep

RESISTANCE
FACTOR
0.45

Plate Load Test

0.55

Precast concrete placed

on sand

0.90

Cast-in-Place Concrete on
sand

0.80

Clay

0.85

Soil on soil

0.90

Passive earth pressure

component of sliding
resistance

0.50