1

Modules 19,20/Topic 10

GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS IN

COHESIVE AND COHESIONLESS SOILS
Under shallow foundations we intend to cover footings and rafts. Even though
combined footings and grid foundations constitute a separate class structurally, their
geotechnical design practically follows the same principles as applying to ordinary
footings. While footings practically in all cases and rafts in most cases are backfilled,
rafts are sometimes not backfilled to great geotechnical design advantage and at the
same time deriving the benefit of utilising the space above for basement floor/s (Fig.
10.1). Both these types are dealt with under this Topic.

Cohesive soils here include clays and plastic silts (silts with substantial clay
content) whereas cohesionless soils include sand and pure (uncontaminated) silts.
We shall call them c-soil and Ø-soil respectively, as we did in Topic.3. The
geotechnical design features in c- and Ø-soils are markedly different; the main factor
differentiating the two, as we have already noted under Sec.9.4.2, is settlement which
is time-dependent, being mainly the result of consolidation (Topic 7) in the case of c-
soils and elastic and instantaneous in the case of Ø-soils. In design in c-soils we are,
however, concerned with the final settlement without being concerned about the time
factor involved.

In the following we use the general term ‘clay’ for c-soils and ‘sand’ for Ø-soils.
The general case of a c-Ø soil is dealt with at the end of this section.

10.1 Shallow foundations in clay

Since this is a c > 0 and Ø = 0 case, the shear strength parameter c is routinely
determined from the unconfined compression test from which it is taken as half the
unconfined compressive strength qu, That is,
𝑞𝑢
s = c= (10.1)
2

10.1.1 Safe bearing pressure

It shall be convenient for us to start with the two-dimensional case of a continuous
footing (see Fig.9.4.) in clay for the determination of the safe bearing pressure.

At Ø =0, since Nγ = 0 and Nq = 1, it follows from Terzaghi’s expression (Eq.5.1)

that

‘gbc’ = B (cNc + γ Df)

(𝐵 x 1)
↑ ↑
B ∞
 2

from which ‘gubc’ = (cNc + γDf)

(1 x 1)
↑ ↑
B ∞
𝑞𝑢
Now, ‘nubc’ = ‘gubc’ - γDf = cNc = .Nc
2

‘nubc’ 𝑞𝑢 𝑁𝑐
‘sbp’ = = , taking F = 3. (10.2)
𝐹 6

The Terzaghi bearing capacity factor Nc is influenced by both the shape of the
footing and its depth. As regards shape it is convenient to consider the influence of
the aspect ratio (B/L), the value of which is 0 for a continuous footing and 1 for a square
or circular footing, the intermediate values representing the general rectangular case.
As for depth, the effect is studied in terms of the depth ratio (Df/B). Fig.10.2 shows
the variation of Nc with the depth ratio (Df/B) for the aspect ratio (B/L) = 0. It is noted
from the curve that (Df/B) has practically no influence on Nc beyond a value of 4 for
the former.

A linear interpolation formula given by Eq.(10.3) is used to convert Nc for (B/L) = 0

to any value of (B/L) > 0, < 1

𝐵
𝑁𝑐 = 𝑁𝑐 [1+0.2 ]
𝐵 𝐵 𝐿 (10.3)
(( )>0,≤1) ( =0)
𝐿 𝐿

B
In the above [1 + 0.2( L )] is called the shape factor which is seen to be a linear function
of the aspect ratio (B/L).

Now, using Eq.(10.3) Eq. (10.2) can be modified as follows.

𝑞𝑢 .𝑁𝑐 𝐵
‘sbp’ = x [1 + 0.2 ] (10.4)
6 𝐿

It is noted from Eq.(10.2) that for a continuous footing, ‘sbp’ is 𝛼 qu, the constant of
proportionality being (Nc/6). Further, since the Nc value hovers around 6 over the
range of (Df/B) from 0 to 4, it follows that, as a first approximation

‘sbp’ ≅ qu (10.5)

which can be used advantageously for obtaining a preliminary rational value of B,

rather than start with a random value of B for the subsequent iterations. (Interestingly
Eq.(10.5) equates a safe value to an ultimate value. The author’s observation on the
same may be seen in Kurian (2005: Sec.3.1.1).)
 3

The depth of the bulb of pressure under a footing depends on B, the width of the
footing, and not on the intensity of the load coming on the footing. If the bulb can be
simplified as a square of depth B, where B is the width of the footing (Fig.10.3a), the
design value of qu must be taken as the average value over a depth equal to B.
Considering the possible variation of qu with B (Fig.10.3b) it is obvious that a new value
of qu enters the calculation during the process of iteration on B.

10.1.2 Approach to the design of footings in clay

Since in the case of backfilled footings, the depth Df would have been fixed based
on factors (see Kurian, 2005: Sec.2.4) not the least of which is the quality of the soil
at depth Df as revealed by the soil investigation report, the quantity to be designed is
B, the width of the footing.

In the design nli must satisfy the requirements of sbp and settlement (S)
independently, and being independent, one of them will be just satisfied and the other,
oversatisfied. It is necessary at this stage to examine the influence of B on the
quantities for geotechnical design. This is presented in chart form as under.

1) ‘ nli’ ← ‘ali’← B

2) ‘sbp’

i) qu av over depth B

ii) ← Nc ←(Df/B), (B/L)

3) S = nS

∆p ← ‘nli’ ← ‘ali’ ← B

The initial rational trial value of B can be established using the average value of qu
over likely depth (based on a notional value of B). Using this value of B determine ‘nli’,
‘sbp’ and S and check for satisfaction. If a revision is indicated, ‘sbp’ and S
requirements are simultaneously checked at each value of B and the work is
terminated on reaching the value of B at which one requirement is just satisfied and
the other, oversatisfied. The work is ideal for computer programming as will be
explained later.

It has been found in respect of footings in clay that bearing capacity invariably
governs the design unless the soil is very soft and normally loaded or where the
footings are close enough so that there is interference between the zone of influence
of the soil (bulbs of pressure) under adjacent footings. The above implies that what
governs geotechnical design of footings in clay, in the majority of cases is bearing
capacity and not settlement, contrary to the notions existing in the minds of designers
in this regard.

10.2 Rafts in clay

 4

As far as geotechnical design is concerned, the difference between that of footings

and rafts is essentially a matter of difference in size. Therefore what have been stated
in respect of footings apply equally to rafts in clay so long as they are fully backfilled
like the footing. However, in the case of raft foundations such as for multistoreyed
buildings, it is very often neither feasible (like in situations involving site restrictions)
nor desirable to increase the plan dimensions to reduce ‘nli’. Instead, the reduction in
‘nli’ and the consequent reduction in settlement can be achieved by adopting an
ingenious solution which consists in keeping the plan dimensions of the foundation
same as that of the structure above, but not backfilling the raft. This solution is
concomitant with incorporating basement floors below ground level, the number
depending upon the depth of the raft Df. Unlike in the case of the footing, since the
plan dimensions are fixed, geotechnical design in this case essentially means
determining Df. Since there is no backfill, the ‘gli’ in this case = Pt/A (see Fig.9.9)
where Pt is the gross load (dead and live) including that of the raft, and ‘nli’ = (Pt /A) -
γs Df. This shows the possibility of reducing ‘nli’ at a given ‘gli’ by increasing the depth
of the foundation Df. In the limit,
𝑃𝑡
‘nli’ = 0 at Df = .
𝐴𝛾𝑠

One would have noted that the essential difference between a footing which is
backfilled and a raft which is not backfilled in terms of geotechnical design is that, in
the case of the footing the weight of the backfill balances the weight of the soil
excavated except for the thickness of the footing, whereas in the case of the raft the
weight of the soil excavated compensates for the gross load, instead of adding to it in
the form of the backfill as in the case of the buried footing. As a result, while the net
load (nl) is comparable to gross load (gl) in the case of the backfilled footing, (nl) is a
very small quantity (zero under full compensation) compared to (gl) which is very high
in the case of an unbackfilled raft.

Such a raft is called a floating raft or a compensated raft, the former in the sense
that it does not place any net load on the soil, and the latter, since the weight of the
soil excavated balances the gross load transmitted.

Whether the compensation is full or partial, the twin benefits resulting from the
above scheme is that it combines the possibility of controlling settlement, with the
creation, at the same time, of additional utility (service) space to the structure in the
form of basement floors, the number of which depends upon the depth of the soil
excavated.

We have already noted from Sec.9.5.1 that, just as in the case of the submerged
footing, the rise of the water table above the level of the base of the raft has no
influence on the nli of floating rafts with water-proofed basements. Further, just as in
the case of footings, since sbp in clay is independent of γ, submergence of the soil
does not affect sbp. Water table, however, influences settlement to the extent of its
contribution to the original intergranular pressure, 𝑝̅. It should be remembered in this
 5

connection that during construction, the water table will have to be kept lowered by
suitable ground water lowering techniques such as use of ‘well points’ (Sec.21.1)
below the level of the base of the raft to enable the construction to be carried out in
the dry, and that till such times as it is allowed to return to the original position at the
end of construction, there will be no buoyancy on the raft.

Our discussion on compensation so far was centred on settlement. It is therefore

time for us to examine the influence of compensation on the other geotechnical design
parameter, viz., bearing capacity.

In discussing bearing capacity, instead of considering Df for bearing capacity, it

shall be convenient for us to discuss the factor of safety F on the failure of the raft in
bearing. We know,
‘nubc’ ‘nubc’
‘sbp’ = , or transposing, F = , and that, in clay, ‘nubc’ = cNc
𝐹 ‘sbp’

Now, in the design for bearing capacity, setting ‘nli’ = ‘sbp’, we can write
𝑐𝑁𝑐 𝑐𝑁𝑐
F= ′ 𝑛𝑙𝑖 ′
= [ ] (10.6)
′𝑔𝑙𝑖 ′ −𝛾𝑠 𝐷𝑓

Eq. (10.6) shows that F varies inversely as nli (Fig.10.4), if the numerator cNc can
be treated as nearly constant. Thus we note that when nli = 0, i.e., under conditions
of full compensation, the factor of safety against a bearing capacity failure is infinite.
Since the variation of F with nli is hyperbolic (Sec.), it is noted from the figure, that a
partial compensation which gives rise to a small positive of nli will bring down F
substantially in the initial ranges of values of nli.

We can now summarise and state the above results as:

Full compensation (‘nli’ = 0) : S = 0, F = ∞

Partial compensation (‘nli’ > 0) : S > 0, F < ∞

B being a constant (same as that of the superstructure) in this case, design means
determination of Df. (In the case of the footing, on the other hand, Df is fixed and
design means determining a satisfactory value for B.)

In the process of iteration for design, qu av varies while changing the trial value of
Df, as shown in Fig,10.5. One can determine qu av in each case by finding the area of
the corresponding hatched part and dividing the same by B.

10.3 Shallow foundations in sand

We are able to accommodate clean silt with sand here because in this case Ø does
not depend upon grain size, but only on the density index( Id) of the soil which has
been reliably correlated with the N-value (Standard Penetration Resistance) of the soil
 6

(Fig.10.6). Since the bearing capacity factors Nγ and Nq are functions of Ø , these
are plotted in the same figure using which one can reach their values directly from the
N-value - Ø curve.

10.3.1 Safe bearing pressure

Considering the unit length of a continuous footing of width B as earlier (Fig.9.4),
for the condition c = 0, we have,
1
‘gbc’ = B[2 𝐵𝛾𝑁𝛾 + 𝛾𝐷𝑓 𝑁𝑞 ]

1
Therefore, ‘gubc’ =2 𝐵𝛾𝑁𝛾 + 𝛾𝐷𝑓 𝑁𝑞

1
Now, ‘nubc’ = ‘gubc’ - 𝛾Df = 𝐵𝛾𝑁𝛾 + 𝛾𝐷𝑓 (𝑁𝑞 − 1) (10.7)
2

The ‘nubc’ is thus seen to be the sum of two components of which the first is the
contribution from the soil below the level of the base of the footing, and the second,
the contribution from the soil above this level, i.e., the surcharge. (One should note
that Nq being large, the difference between Nq and (Nq–1) is numerically small, even
though conceptually significant.) The most significant result that follows from the
above, which constitutes the major departure from the case of clay and which makes
geotechnical design in sand much more involved than in clay, is that the former of the
two, which in the unit form itself is a function of the width B.

By taking B out Eq. (10.7) can be expressed as,

𝛾𝑁𝛾 𝐷𝑓
‘nubc’ = B [ + 𝛾(𝑁𝑞 − 1) ] (10.8)
2 𝐵

This leaves the first term inside the brackets independent of B and the second term, a
function of the depth ratio (Df / B).

Now,
𝛾𝑁𝛾 𝐷𝑓
‘nubc’ +𝛾(𝑁𝑞 −1)
‘sbp’ = =[ 2 𝐵
]𝐵 (10.9)
𝐹 𝐹

which makes it a linear function of B for given values of γ, N ( Nγ, Nq), (Df / B) and F.

Even though we can determine ‘sps’ in sand directly (unlike in clay) and take the
smaller of ‘sbp’ and ‘sps’ as ‘asp’ for comparison with ‘nli’ for geotechnical design,
(Sec.9.6), we shall go by S itself (Eq.9.3) as in the case of clay so that a general
purpose computer program can be developed which has common features for
geotechnical design in clay and sand.
 7

Notwithstanding the same, an expression for ‘sps’ can be given if we put S =1 mm

and invert Eq. (9.3). The result is,
𝐵+0.3 2
p(S=1mm) = 1.385 (N-3) [ ] (10.10)
2𝐵

To obtain ‘sps’ for a given value of permissible settlement we need only to multiply the
RHS of Eq.(10.10) by the Codal values of permissible settlement.
𝐵+0.3 2 𝐵+0.3 2
Fig.10.7 plots B vs.[ ] . Since ‘sps’ is a multiple of [ ] , the same figure
2𝐵 2𝐵
represents the variation of ‘sps’ with B.

The net result is, while ‘sbp’ linearly increases with B, ‘sps’ hyperbolically
decreases with B. Fig.10.8 attempts to plot both the results highlighting ‘asp’ which is
the smaller under the respective parts.

A significant result that follows from the above figure is that except when the
footings are very narrow, what governs geotechnical design in sand in the majority of
cases is settlement and not bearing capacity contrary to popular notions existing in the
minds of designers in this regard. It will be recalled that we have come through a
similar unsettling result in respect of clay where we noted that what normally governs
the geotechnical design in clay is bearing capacity.

10.4 Corrections
We now proceed to explain two corrections which are of material significance in
geotechnical design in sand.

10.4.1 Correction for water table

We have already established in Sec 9.5.1. that water table has no influence on ‘nli’
whether it is a submerged footing or a floating raft, or whether the soil is clay or sand,
subject of 𝛾course to the assumptions we have made. As far as clay is concerned,
since ‘sbp’ is independent of 𝛾, the same is not affected by water table, even though
it affects settlement to the extent of its contribution to 𝑝̅ . In the case of sand, however,
both ‘sbp’ and S are directly influenced by the position of the water table as we are
presently going to see.

Safe bearing pressure

We have noted from Eqs.(10.7) and (10.8) that both the components, i.e., the
contributions from below and above the base of the footing to ‘sbp’ are directly
dependent on the unit weight of the soil. It is therefore obvious that submergence of
the soil can significantly influence the magnitude of these components, depending
upon the position of the water table in relation to the base of the footing. This is on
account of the fact that below the water table where the soil is fully submerged, its
submerged unit weight alone is effective. For most soils, their unit weights under dry,
 8

moist or even saturated conditions lie within a narrow range, whereas the submerged
1
unit weight is roughly equal to half this value. (That is to say γsub ≅ (γdry ≅ γmoist ≅
2
γsat)) The question that arises now is, what is the position of the water table in relation
to the base of the foundation at which the influence of the water table must be begun
to be recognised. Irrespective of the fact that we are discussing bearing capacity,
since the soil response is elastic under the working load acting on the footing, it shall
be appropriate for us to recognise the influence of the water table as starting at position
1 (Fig.10.9a), taking the bulb of pressure as extending to a depth equal to the width of
the footing. Thus the rise of the water table from any depth up to position 1 has no
influence on ‘sbp’. However, from the composition of the safe bearing pressure it
follows that the rise of the water table from position 1 to position 2 results in a 50 %
reduction in the first component of bearing capacity as a result of an equal reduction
in the effective unit weight. For intermediate positions the effect can be approximated
by linear interpolation as shown in the figure. In the same way, the rise of the water
table from position 2 to position 3 reduces the second component of ‘sbp’ by half, and
as before, linear interpolation may be resorted to for intermediate positions of the water
table. The interpolation diagrams shown in Fig.10.9a for each component cover the
entire range from position 1 to 3 and also beyond them on either side. However, if γ
is taken outside the brackets in Eq.(10.8) one can draw a single approximate linear
interpolation diagram from position 1 to 3. Juxtaposition of this figure on the first two
figures shows that this approximation is on the unsafe side with regard to component
I and on the safer side with regard to component II.

We shall now unify the influence of the position of the water table on components I
and II of ‘sbp’ by the composite correction diagram shown in Fig.10.9b which is not in
much appreciable error considering the empirical nature of our entire approach. From
this figure we get,
𝐷𝑤
Cw = 0.5 + 0.5 [ ] (10.11)
𝐷𝑓 +𝐵

where Cw is the correction factor for water table which should multiply the ‘dry’ value
of ‘sbp’ obtained from Eq.(10.9). The nature of the above interpolation formula is such
that a higher value of Cw implies lesser correction, and a lower value, higher correction.
The minimum value of Cw, corresponding to maximum correction, is 0.5, obtained at
Dw = 0, whereas the maximum value of Cw corresponding to the least or no correction
is when Dw = (Df + B). It should, however, be realised that the validity of this equation
is confined to the range of Dw from 0 to (Df + B) so that when Dw > (Df + B), i,e., when
the water table is below position1, Cw > 1, but = 1. Similarly, when Dw < 0, i.e., when
the water table has risen above the ground surface, Cw < 0.5, but = 0.5, as shown in
the figure. Note that within the above range, the higher the value of Dw, the lower the
position of the water table, the higher the value of Cw and lesser the correction for
water table, and vice versa.

Settlement
 9

As in ‘sbp’, we are concerned with the bulb of pressure also in the matter of
settlement.

Since submergence reduces the stiffness of the sand within the bulb of pressure,
the rise of water table from position 1 to 2 (Fig.10.10) will double the settlement. As
before we can use a linear correction formula Cs (Eq.10.12.) to apply on the dry values
of settlement obtained.
𝐵−𝐷𝑤 𝐷𝑤
Cs = 1 + =2- (10.12)
𝐵 𝐵

It is noted from Eq.(10.12) that Cs = 1 (no correction) for Dw> B, and Cs = 2 (maximum
correction) for Dw < 0. For intermediate positions Eq. (10.12) gives the linearly
interpolated correction factor.

10.4.2 N-value
As we have noted, the N-value serves as the basic soil parameter for geotechnical
design in sand. (In the case of clay, the corresponding parameter was qu, the reason,
as noted earlier, being that, while N-value is a reliable measure of denssity index in
sand, it is no more than a crude approximation of consistency in the case of clay.)
However, it has been found that the confinement of sand produced by the overburden
at increasing depths tends to increase the N-value leading to a wrong interpretation of
the density index. Even though there is no overburden directly above the soil under
test in the bore hole, the surcharge on the sides can produce the above effect by
increasing friction on the outer side of the sampling tube due to the increase in
horizontal pressure (Fig.10.11) produced by the increase in vertical pressure, leading
to exaggerated values of N at increasing depths. Even though arbitrary, since the N-
values serve as a property of sand, just as qu in clay, we cannot tolerate any such
influence which tends to vitiate the result. In other words, the influence of the
overburden pressure on the N-value must be eliminated if it must serve as a property
of the soil to be used as such in the geotechnical design of foundations. This has been
achieved by reducing the N-value obtained in the field against the actual overburden
pressure to a standard overburden pressure. The standard overburden pressure so
selected is 100 kN/m2 and the reduction is effected by multiplying the field N-value by
a correction factor, CN, the variation of which with the overburden pressure is shown
in Fig.10.12. This curve follows the equation,
1990
CN = 0.77 x log10 (10.13)
𝑝̅

It is seen that CN = 1 at an overburden pressure (𝑝̅ ) of 100 kN/m2, its value decreasing
at higher overburden pressures. Just as higher overburden pressures tend to magnify
the N-value, lower overburden pressures tend to diminish them. By multiplying with
the CN values, the N-values at higher overburden pressures get reduced, and those
at lower overburden pressures get increased, in the process of bringing them at par
with the standard overburden pressure. Where water table is encountered, what
 10

applies is the effective overburden pressure considering submerged unit weights

below the water table. Further, the height of the overburden considered in all cases
must be the one which existed at the time of conducting the standard penetration test,
i.e., during the soil investigation phase, irrespective of whether the site is subsequently
graded (soil removed) or filled up, prior to construction.

It is obvious from the above that uncorrected N-values will result in unsafe design
at higher values of 𝑝̅ and to oversafe or uneconomical design at lesser values of 𝑝̅
than the standard. The correction is therefore of material significance in geotechnical
design in sand.

A question that comes to mind is whether such a correction applies to the N-value
obtained in clay soils also. The answer is positive; only, we are not concerned, since,
in the normal course, we do not propose to use N-values for design in clay.

An additional question is, whether such a correction applies to qu used for design
in clay. The answer in this case is negative since, once the samples are extracted for
testing, they are relieved of the overburden pressure, unlike in the case of sand where
SPT is a field test conducted in the in-situ state.

A word of caution is necessary with regard to the conduct of the standard

penetration test to avoid over-registration of the N-values. The latter can happen due
to two reasons: (1) the falling weight not being lifted fully, and (2) the rod guiding the
falling weight being out of plumb, causing friction between the two. Both the above
tend to increase the N-values.

10.5 Approach to the geotechnical design of footings in sand.

The basic soil property that we make use of for geotechnical design is qu in clay
and N-value in sand. So, as in clay, we have to go by the average of the corrected N-
values over a likely depth to establish a preliminary rational trial value for B. Thereafter
we proceed with iteration until we reach a B value which just satisfies either ‘sbp’ or S
(invariably the latter) as the case may be, and oversatisfying the other.

10.6 Geotechnical design of rafts in sand

Under geotechnical design of footings in sand we have noted that while ‘sbp’
increases linearly with B, ‘sps’ decreases hyperbolically with B (Fig.10.8). For higher
ranges of values of B, typical of the domain of rafts, the chances of a raft failing in
bearing in sand is too remote to require consideration in design. Consequently the
geotechnical design of rafts in sand is always governed by settlement. This makes
the computation of ‘sbp’ in the case of rafts a redundant exercise.

As in clay, we have backfilled rafts and compensated rafts in sand too. In the
former, Df is fixed, and B is designed, while in the latter, B is fixed and Df is designed.
 11

When it comes to design it is important to realise that while ‘nli’ is unaffected by the
water table, settlement can be much affected by the same.

10.7 Geotechnical design of combined footings, grids and annular rafts

We started our discussion on the geotechnical design of footings in sand with the
case of the continuous footing of width B. Since the bulb of pressure in the elastic
range (and also the failure wedges at the ultimate stage of bearing capacity) are
formed in the shorter direction, it enabled us to extend the geotechnical design
concepts that we developed for the continuous footing to a rectangular footing by
taking B as the width (the smaller of the two plan dimensions), to a square footing by
taking B as the side of the square, and to a circular footing by taking B as the diameter
of the circle, all within a margin of error acceptable in geotechnical design. (One may
note in this connection that the aspect ratio (B/L) does not figure here. It may be
recalled that it applied in the case of clay as a factor influencing the value of Nc).

By the same token as the above, the same approach applies to a rectangular
combined footin (Fig.10.13). As regards the grid foundation (Fig.10.14a), one should
note that if the openings are too small (Fig.10.14b) it should be designed as a full raft.
The same applies also to an annular raft (Fig.10.15a) in whose case if the central
opening is very small (Fig.10.15b), it would be necessary to treat it as a full circular
raft. It is, however, difficult to prescribe limits on the size of openings which qualify it
to be treated as a raft with large enough openings.

10.8 Geotechnical design in c-Ø soils

Having come all the way through c and Ø soils, it is time for us to address the
question of geotechnical design in the general c-Ø soil for which we shall use a
generalised approach.

To obtain the initial trial value of B one may use presumptive safe bearing pressure
values for different types of soils given in Codes such as IS: 1904 – 1978. To obtain
the value of ‘sbp’ for the width so obtained one may use Terzaghi’s expression for
bearing capacity applicable to the general c-Ø case. As regards settlement, one may
have to determine elastic settlement and settlement by consolidation and add the two.
Iteration can be effected in the same manner as we discussed individually for c and
Ø soils, until one of the requirements is just satisfied – either ‘sbp’ or settlement - and
the other oversatisfied.

In concluding the above Section and by way of an introduction to computer-aided

design, mention is made of the fact that Kurian (2005) has given a good number of
manual design examples – in the special format of Design Plates – which touch on
several crucial aspects of design. Since the same is available in book form, for every
interested student to develop a quantitative feel for design, it shall be idle to repeat
them here. We shall therefore straight away take up the features of computer-aided
 12

design (CAD) which will unravel the tremendous potential inherent in it for the
geotechnical design of foundations.

10.9 A software for the geotechnical design of shallow foundations

Since the geotechnical design computations of shallow foundations presented
under this Topic are essentially iterative, it was thought ideal to develop a general
purpose computer program which would take the tedium out of manual design
calculations, and at the same time give accurate designs to the user, free from errors
which manual calculations are prone to. An added appeal is that it enables, in
particular old-timers among structural engineers whose knowledge of geotechnical
design is limited to dividing column load by the so-called ‘bearing capacity’, to obtain
accurate designs by merely learning how to input the soil investigation data into the
program. The following sections explain the features of this design software. An
example of design obtained using this software is appended to Kurian (2005: Chapter
4). The software itself is attached to Kurian (2005) on a CD. Designers thus have free
access to the software which they are encouraged to make use of in their own
professional interest.

10.9.1Features of the software for the geotechnical design of shallow

foundations
This software is based on the work done by Roy (2002) under the guidance of the
author.

The software is developed in “C”, adopting the modular approach in PC

environment, in which figures supplement the textual output of results. It provides for
the entry of data in an interactive format.

It designs individual footings, backfilled rafts and compensated rafts by successive

elimination (advising a deep foundation if compensated raft is also not feasible),
thereby guiding the designer in the right choice of the foundation. Footings are
eliminated if the sum of their plan area exceeds 50 % of the plan area of the structure.
All trial dimensions (B, L) of the raft satisfy the coincidence principle, i.e., the
coincidence of the point of application of the resultant load with the centroid of the plan
area of the raft in contact with the soil, the work starting with the smallest values of B
and L so obtained. If the final design dimensions of a backfilled raft cross the
boundaries of the site, the program reverts to the minimum plan dimensions and try
for a compensated raft.

The types of soil accommodated are, c, Ø, c-Ø and layered, with the limitation that
in layered soils it designs only footings, and that too, if the thickness of the soil in the
layer below the footing is sufficient to accommodate the bulb of pressure.

The design makes use of N-values in the case of sand, and qu values in clay. If qu
values are not available, the same are reduced empirically from the N-values. In the
 13

case of c-Ø soils, however, c and Ø values, determined from samples extracted at
various depths in the field, are directly used, which makes for greater accuracy in
design. (This means, the latter can be used in c-soils and Ø-soils as well, which indeed
will give more accurate results than can be obtained using qu and N-values.)

The CAD approach is more general and is happily free from many of the limitations
of the manual approach. By way of example, a footing is designed for the nearest
bore hole data – identified by assigning coordinates. At each trial B, both ‘sbp’ and S
(also in sand) are determined before moving on to the next trial value. Differential
settlements are checked for all possible pairs, whatever the number of footings. (By
way of example, if there are 30 footings, the exact mathematical number of pairs is a
staggering 435!) Such a formidable task will never be attempted manually. Iterations
on B, L or Df, as the case may be, are carried out in regular steps (intervals), which
can be chosen at will. This enables the design to be fine-tuned by reducing the length
of the step.

The CD includes softwares for the geotechnical design not only of shallow
foundations, but also deep foundations and retaining structures, the features of all of
which will be presented later at the appropriate stage.

It is hoped that the present software will prove to be a useful, efficient and time-
saving tool at the hands of those engaged in the design of foundation system.

A general point to be added in this context is that, philosophically speaking, using

a computer program to generate a design is akin to carrying out calculations using an
electronic pocket calculator, just by entering data, without having to know the hardware
or software involved in either case!