Analysis and Design of Shallow Foundations

Analysis and Design of
Shallow Foundations
Prof. Samirsinh P Parmar

Mail: samirddu@gmail.com
Asst. Professor, Department of Civil Engineering,
Faculty of Technology,
Dharmsinh Desai University, Nadiad-387001
Gujarat, INDIA
Content of the presentation
• Procedure for selection of foundation type.
• Types of shallow foundations.
M.Tech. Sem-1, DoCL, DDU, Nadiad, Gujarat, India.

• Footing on slope.
• Various theories for bearing capacity.
• Plate load test.
• Combined footing.
2
Procedure for the choice of foundation type
• Assess
 function of structures, ex. residential, public, industrial,
warehouses, etc.
 various loads transmitted to the foundation soil, DL, LL, WL,

EQL, moving and dynamic loads, etc.
 ground conditions
 level and fluctuations of ground water table
 other adverse conditions if any, swelling pressure on the
foundations in expansive soils, heave pressures on the
foundations in areas subjected to frost heave, etc.
 the suitability of a particular type of foundation, shallow or
deep.
3
Shallow foundations
• A structural system which can safely transfer loads from
superstructure to the subsoil at shallow depths
• Depth of foundation (Df) is less than width of foundation (B)
Majority of load is transferred through bearing (base resistance)

•
• Important design considerations

 Bearing capacity
 Ultimate load a soil can take just before complete failure (A good design should
eliminate the possibility of shear failure of supporting soil)
 Settlement
 Total settlement below a footing, and
 Differential settlement between two footings, must not exceed tolerable limits.
4
Shallow foundation

5
Types of footing
• Based on shape:
 Square, circular, rectangular, etc.
 In general, shape of column decides the shape of footing

• Based on load-dispersion:
 Spread footing
 Strip footing or wall footing
• Based on number of columns supported:

 Isolated footing – to support individual columns
 Combined footing – to support a row of columns or Individual footings
combined with a rigid beams called straps
 Mat/Raft foundation – to support more than one row of columns
6
Isolated footings
Spread footing

Continuous or wall or Strip footing
Pad footing
7
Combined footing

8
Raft or mat foundation

9
Requirements for a good foundation
• Properlylocated with respect to any future influence

which could adversely affect its performance.

• Must be stable or safe from failure
• Must not settle or deflect sufficiently to damage the

structure or impair its usefulness.
10
Minimum depth for shallow foundations
• Decided considering:
 Local erosion of soils due to flowing water
 Underground defects such as root holes, cavities, mine shafts, etc.

 Unconsolidated filled-up soil
 Adjacent structures, property lines, excavations and future
construction operations
 Ground water table
 Depth of frost action
 Depth of volume change due to the presence of expansive soils, etc.
11
New foundation adjacent to an existing foundation
Limit for
horizontal
spacing in all
soils New

New
footing
footing in
in soft
average
B soils
45º 30º soil
Limit for bottom of new footing

deeper than old footing
12
Bearing capacity

Modes of bearing capacity failure (After Vesic, 1975)
(a) General Shear (b) Local shear (c) Punching shear 13
Modes of foundation failure in sand

Source: EM 1110-1-1905 14
Bearing Capacity
• Ultimate Bearing Pressure: It is the pressure at which the
foundation would fail in shear (A bearing capacity failure is
defined as a foundation failure that occurs when the shear
stresses in the soil exceed the shear strength of the soil) or

continue to settle.
• Presumed Bearing Pressure: It is the pressure with an

adequate factor of safety ignoring factors such as foundation
width, degree of settlement, etc.
• Allowable Soil Pressure: It is the pressure which, having taken

account of factors such as settlement, water table, etc., will
provide an adequate factor of safety.
15
Bearing capacity failure of Silo foundation
(Vesic, 1975)

16
Bearing capacity
Methods that can be used to determine capacity of soil to bear loads:
1. Historical / experience :
 Building Codes specify allowable values according to specific ground formations
2. Field loading tests

 Plate loading tests for very large projects
3. Analytical solutions
 Upper and lower bound solutions for special cases
4. Approximate solutions
 Solutions for general cases
17
Presumptive bearing
capacity (Indian Standard
Code of Practice)

18
Contd..

19
Presumed Bearing Values under Static Loading

Source: BS 8004:1986 20
Contd..

21
Presumptive Bearing
Pressures

Source: Research Designs and
Standards Organisation (RDSO)
Indian Railways
22
Contd..
Contd..

23
Presumptive Bearing Pressures on Horizontal ground

(Source: Buildings Department, 2004) 24
Contd..

25
Contd..

Important note: The use of presumptive values does
not preclude the requirement for consideration of
settlement of the structure.
26
Load Tests on Soils

27
Plate Load Test
• Conducted to determine ultimate bearing pressure (or bearing
capacity) of a soil in-situ, when soil strata is reasonably
uniform.

• To determine the modulus of subgrade reaction of a soil strata,
used in the design of raft foundations and pavements
• Conducted at proposed foundation level in a test pit, which is
at least 5 times the plate size
• If the water table is above the test level, it may be lowered
down artificially by adopting pumping
• All the dead loads, viz., ball and socket, loading column, jack,
test plate, etc. should be properly accounted for.
28
Size of plate
• Circular or square plates of 300-750 mm size (mild steel),
thickness not less than 25 mm, or equivalent concrete blocks
with chequered or grooved bottom for better contact

• Single size of plate may be sufficient for testing in clays
• Three plates of different size are suggested for testing in
gravelly and dense sands (to understand the size effect), and
results are extrapolated for real footings.
• Side of the plate should be greater than 4 times the maximum
size of particle present at the location
29
Loading
Stress controlled loading in cumulative equal increments up to 1 kg/sq.cm.
(100 kPa) or one-fifth of the estimated ultimate bearing pressure (qu).
Ex., Load on the plate should be 100 kPa in the first stage, followed by

200 kPa in the second stage, 300 kPa in the third stage, and so on, till the
final load is reached; or
1/5qu in the first stage, followed by 2/5qu in the second stage, 3/5qu in the
third stage, 4/5qu in the fourth stage, and qu in the last loading stage.
• Gravity loading
• Reaction loading in the form of
 Kentledge
 Anchored piles
30
Hydraulic or mechanical Jack
•Ahydraulic jack of required capacity to apply and
maintain to maximum estimated load but not less
than 50 tonnes.

qu
4/5qu
Pressure
3/5qu
2/5qu
1/5qu
7 kPa
72 hours
96 hours
48 hours
120 hours
24 hours
31
Seating
Time
load
Limitations of plate load tests
• Sizeof the foundation influences the load-settlement
response of shallow foundations. This is very
particular in case of cohesionless soils, wherein the

modulus of elasticity increases with depth.
• Bearing capacity increases with increase in size of
plate for cohesionless soils.
• Incohesive soils, particularly those that are saturated,
the plate load test will not be able to capture the
ultimate settlements under any load application,
which may require more time than 24 hours, used in
the plate load test.
32
Influence zone
• Influence zone in case of plate load test is extended to smaller
depths, in the order of two times the width of the plate.
However, in case of real footings, whose width is many times

higher than the plate size, soil at deeper depths can also
significantly contribute to the bearing capacity of soil.
33
Influence zone
100 kPa 100 kPa

N1Bp
N1Bf
N2Bp
N2Bf
Plate width =Bp

Footing width=Bf
Bf>>Bp & N1≈2 34
Scale effect
100 kPa 100 kPa
Es Es

Es=Young’s modulus of soil
For cohesionless soils, Es is a function of overburden pressure
35
Scale effect
100 kPa 100 kPa

Loose Sand
Soft clay
Dense Sand
Bed Rock
36
Scale effect
100 kPa 100 kPa

Medium to Dense Sand
Geologic surprise
Bed Rock
37
38
Gravity Loading Platform
Source: IS:1888-2002

39
Reaction Loading Platform
Source: IS:1888-2002

40
Supports for dial gauges should
not be located in the vicinity of
plate.

Plate load test
Adapted from V.N.S. Murty (2007) 41
Interpretation of Bearing Capacity
from Load-Settlement Data
Source: Cerato (2005)

42
Interpretation of Bearing Capacity from
Load-Settlement Data

43

44

45

The ultimate load is defined as the point where the

load displacement becomes practically linear
Adapted from Brand et al. (1972) 46

Bearing capacity
• quf=qup (clays) [where f= footing; p=plate]
 For f=0, the third term in bearing equation (since Ng is zero)
is zero (gBNg)

 Bearing capacity will not be a function of width of
foundation, B.
 Bearing capacity obtained from plate load test can be used to
represent bearing capacity of real footings.
• quf=qup*Bf/Bp (Sands)
 Bearing capacity is underestimated using plate load test in
sands
47
Analytical solutions
• Failure of real soils with weight, cohesion and friction is a

complex phenomenon

• Not amenable to simple theoretical solutions
• With simplifying assumptions, it is possible to develop

analytical solutions
48
Analytical solutions for weightless soils
• Prandtl(1921):Penetration of a long hard metal
punch into softer materials. The material was
assumed weightless with cohesion and friction.

 Solutions with f = 0 :
 smooth punch : qu = 5.14c
 rough punch : qu = 5.7c
• Taylor(1948): Extended Prandtl’s work to include

surcharge effect of overburden soil at foundation
base
49
Solutions for real soils (Approximate)
• No rigorous mathematical solution for a soil which contains
cohesion, c, and angle of friction, f, and weight, g.
• Empirical or numerical approaches must be used to estimating

bearing capacity in practical situations.
• Numerical approaches include finite element and boundary
element methods and would rarely be used in practice
50
Terzaghi’s approximate analysis
• Solution for soil with c, f, g and Df > 0
• Solution is based on superposition of 3 separate

analytical cases:
 Soil with f and c but g = Df = 0 : qu = Nc f(c)
 Soil with f and Df but c = g = 0 : qu = Nq f(Df)
 Soil with f and g but c = Df = 0 : qu = Ng.f(g)
• Each case has a different failure surface, so superposition

is not theoretically valid.
51
General shear failure as assumed by
Terzaghi (1943)

Zone-I of elastic equilibrium
Zones-II of radial shear state
Zones-III of Rankine passive state
52
Assumptions of Terzaghi (1943)
 The soil is semi-infinite, homogeneous and isotropic
 The problem is two-dimensional

 The base of footing is rough
 The failure is general shear
 The load is vertical and symmetrical
 The ground surface is horizontal
 The overburden pressure at foundation base level is equivalent to a surcharge load q o=gDf
 The principle of superposition is valid
 Coulomb’s law is valid, s=c+stanf
53
Terzaghi’s bearing capacity Equation
qunet = c.Nc + gDf Nq + 0.5BgNg

Solution for c and f only soil
Solution for Df and f only soil
Solution for g and f only soil
54
Terzaghi’s bearing capacity Equation
qu = cNc + gDf Nq + 0.5BgNg

Overburden
Df
B
Failure Zone
Generalized soil strength : c, f Soil unit weight : g (total or
(drainage as applicable) effective as applicable)
55
Bearing capacity – General Shear Failure
(Terzaghi, 1943)
qult  cNc  gDfNq  0.5gBN g

N c  N q  1cot f
Nq 
e 0.75 f / 2  tanf

2
1  K pg 
N g  tan f   

2 cos2 45  f / 2  2  cos2
f
1

56
Bearing Capacity –General Shear Failure
(Terzaghi)
Square foundations:

qu  1.3cN c  gD f N q  0.4gBN g
Circular foundations:
qu  1.3cN c  gD f N q  0.3gBN g
57
Meyerhof ’s approximate analysis
• Presented a general bearing capacity equation in
1963 to take into account the shape and inclination of
load.

– Differs from Terzaghi’s analysis particularly for buried
footings
– soil above footing base provides not only surcharge but
also strength
– more realistic i.e. less conservative compared to
Terzaghi’s results
qu = cNcFcsFcdFci + gDf NqFqsFqdFqi + 0.5gBNgFgsFgdFgi

58
General Bearing Capacity (Meyerhof, 1963)
N c  N q  1cot f '

N g  N q  1 tan1.4f '
 f' 
N q  exp  tan f ' tan  45  
2
 2
59
Shape factors
Based on extensive laboratory test results De Beer (1970)
presented the following empirical relations for shape factors:
 B  N q 

Fcs  1    
  c 
L N
B
Fqs  1    tan f 
L
B
Fgs  1  0.4 
L
60
Depth factor (Brinch Hansen,1970)
For Df/B≤1: For Df/B>1:

 Df   Df 
Fcd  1  0.4  Fcd  1  0.4 tan  1

 B   B 
Df  Df 
Fqd  1  2 tan f 1  sin f  Fqd  1  2 tan f 1  sin f  tan  1

2 2
B  B 
Fgd  1 Fgd  1
 Df 
where tan 
1
 B
 is in radians

61
Inclination factor
(Meyerhof 1963; Hanna and Meyerhof (1981)
Fci = Fqi = (1-dº/ 902 Fgi = (1-dº/f)2

d with respect to vertical

Correction Factors, Fci , Fqi and Fgi were empirically determined from
experiments
62
Analyses by Hansen & Vesic
qu = cNcFcsFcdFciFcgFcb + gDfNqFqsFqdFqiFqgFqb +
0.5gBNgFgsFgdFgiFggFgb

Nc, Nq, Ng : Meyerhof bearing capacity factors
Fcs, Fqs, Fgs : shape factors
Fcd, Fqd, Fgd : depth factors
Fci, Fqi, Fgi : load inclination factors
Fcg, Fqg, Fgg : ground inclination factors
Fcb, Fqb, Fgb : base inclination factors
63
Meyerhof, Hansen & Vesic
• Meyerhof (1963)
Ng=(Nq-1)tan(1.4f N c  N q  1cot f

• Brinch Hansen (1970) N q  exp tan f Nf
Ng=1.5(Nq-1)tan(f
 tan f fN 
N q  exp2 
N  tan  45  
where
f
f
• Vesic (1973,1974)
2  f 2 
Nf  tan  45  
Ng=2(Nq+1)tanf  2
64
Bearing Capacity Factors

Nc, Nq, and Ng factors obtained by Meherhof (1963) are less than those given by
Terzaghi (1943). However, other (shape, depth, and inclination) factors do come into
existence with Meherhof’s general bearing capacity equation, making his theory less
conservative than Terzaghi’s theory.
65
Contd..

66
Bearing Capacity factors
(GEO Publication: 1/2006)

67
Contd..

68
(GEO Publication: 1/2006)

69
Contd..

70
General bearing capacity equation
qu = cNcFcsFcdFci + gDf NqFqsFqdFqi + 0.5gBNgFgsFgdFgi
 Fcs,Fqs,Fgs=shape factors
 Fcd,Fqd,Fgd=depth factors

 Fci,Fqi,Fgi=load inclination factors
• Hansen (1970) extended the work of Meyerhof by including in the

above equation, two more factors to take care of base tilt and
foundations on slopes.
• Vesic (1973, 1974) used the same form of equation suggested by
Hansen.
• Meyerhof, Hansen, and Vesic assumed smooth foundation base
and a=45+f/2 for deriving Nc and Nq factors, similar to the
assumption made by Prandtl, as against a=f assumed by
Terzaghi.
71
Bearing capacity factors

Bearing capacity factors versus friction angle (AASHTO 1996),
based on Caquot and Kerisel (1948)
72
Bearing Capacity –General Shear Failure
(Architectural Institute of Japan, 2001)
Recommendations for Design of Building

Foundations: Rigid Circular foundations:

qu  1.2cN c  gD f N q  0.3gBN g 
Where eta is correction factor dependent on foundation size, B-1/3
 f
N q  exp  tan f  tan 2  45  
N c  N q  1cot f
 2
N g  N q  1 tan 1.4f 
73
Extent of Failure Zone
Lsh

Homogeneous soil extended to a
great depth below base of
foundation
74
Lsh
45-f’/2
Df
B

45+f’/2
Assuming that the maximum depth of shear failure occurs beneath the edge of the
foundation, failure surface from base of foundation is given by Vesic (1973) as:
 f' 
D  B tan 45   Ex: For surface footings on soils with
 2 f’=30 degrees, D=1.73B, and
f 
Lsh  D  D f  tan 45  
 Lsh=3B
 2 If f’=0, D=B & Lsh=B 75
Prandtl (1921)

Reissner (1924)
Lundgren and
Mortensen
(1953)
76
Bearing Capacity –
Local and punching shear failure
Compressibility of soil is responsible for shear failure pattern.

General bearing capacity equation is valid for soils failing in
general shear failure.
To apply general bearing capacity equation for soils experiencing
local or punching modes of failure, the shear strength parameters
used in the equation, are changed as under:
c '  0.67c' tan f '  0.67 tan f '
77
Effect of Soil Compressibility
Vesic (1973) studied the effect of soil compressibility on the shear failure
mode, and proposed the following modification to the general bearing capacity
equation:

qu = cNcFcsFcdFciFcgFcb + gDfNqFqsFqdFqiFqgFqb + 0.5gBNgFgsFgdFgiFggFgb
Where Fcc, Fqc, and Fgc are soil compressibility factors

Procedure:
1. Calculate the rigidity index, Ir, of the soil at a depth approximately B/2 below
the bottom of the foundation:
Gs Gs=Shear modulus of the soil;

Ir 
c   q  tan f  q’=effective overburden pressure at a depth of Df+B/2
78
2. The critical rigidity index, I r(cr):
1   B  f   
I r cr    
exp 3.30  0.45  
cot 45   
2   L  2  

f’(deg) Ir(cr)
B/L=0 B/L=1
0 13 8
10 25 15
20 55 30
30 152 70
40 592 225
50 4330 1258
79
3: If Ir≥Ir(cr), then Fcc=Fqc=Fgc=1

If Ir<Ir(cr), then  B  3.07 sin f log 2 I r  
Fgc  Fqc  exp  4.4  0.6  tan f     
 L  1  sin f  
For f’=0
B
Fcc  0.32  0.12  0.60 log I r
L
For f’≥0
1  Fqc
Fcc  Fqc 
N q tan f  80
Effect of ground water table
• Case I: The GWT is

located so that 0≤D1≤Df:
Ground Surface

D1
Ground water Table
gDf in the second term of
D2 Df bearing capacity equation is
B equal to gD1+(gsat - gw)D2
Assumption: Static ground

Also, the g in the last term of
water table the equation is replaced by
g’=gsat - gw
Where the ground water flows under an upward hydraulic gradient, the effective unit
weight of the soil should be taken as g-gw(1+i), where ‘i’ is the upward hydraulic
gradient (GEO 1/2006).
81
•Case II: The GWT is
located so that 0≤d≤B:
Ground Surface
gDf in the second term
will not

Df be altered
B However, g in the last term of
the
d 
d
g  g  by
g  g  is replaced
equation
B B
Ground water table
Assumption: Static ground

water table
82
Ground Surface
• Case III: The GWT is located so

that d≥B:
Df The water table will have no
B influence on the bearing capacity
d
B
Ground water table
83
Bearing capacity of shallow foundations -
Special cases
• Foundation supported by a soil with a rigid base at shallow
depth
 Foundation supported by Layered Soils: Stronger soil underlain by weaker

soil
 Top layer is dense sand and bottom layer is saturated soft clay
 Top layer is dense sand and bottom layer is loose sand
 Top layer is stiff saturated clay and bottom layer is soft saturated clay
 Foundation supported on top of a slope
84
Special cases
• Foundation supported by a soil with a rigid base at shallow depth
• Foundation supported by Layered Soils

 Stronger soil underlain by weaker soil
• Foundation supported on top of a slope
85
Failure Surface Under a Rough Continuous Footing
Prandtl (1921)

Reissner (1924)
Lundgren and
Mortensen
(1953)
D=Depth of failure zone in the derivation of

bearing capacity factors 86
Influence of rigid base at shallow depth on failure surface
Homogeneous soil
extended to a great

depth below base of
foundation
Rigid base at a
shallow depth below
base of foundation
87
Foundation supported by a soil with a rigid base at shallow depth

N c* Nq Ng *
*
For rough continuous footings: qu=c’Nc*+gDfNq*+0.5gBNg* (Mandel and Salencon, 1972) 88

Foundation on sand layer with a rigid base at
shallow depth

m2
m1
For rough circular and rectangular footings on sand layer (c’=0):

qu=gDfNq*Fqs*+0.5gBNg*Fgs* ; Fqs*≈1-m1(B/L); Fgs* ≈ 1-m2(B/L) (Meyerhof, 1974)
on saturated clay layer under undrained conditions (f=0):qu=cuNc*+q 89
Special cases
• Foundation supported by a soil with a rigid base at shallow depth
• Foundation supported by Layered Soils
 Stronger soil underlain by weaker soil

• Foundation supported on top of a slope
90
Foundation supported by Layered Soils
Stronger soil underlain by weaker Soil
Work by Meyerhof (1974) and Meyerhof and Hanna (1978)
H (depth to interface from foundation

base) is relatively small compared to
foundation width B
H (depth to interface from

foundation base) is relatively large
compared to foundation width B
91
Continuous Foundation
2 ca' H 2
2D f  K s tan f1'
qu  qb   g 1 H 1    g 1 H  qt
B  H  B

qb  c2' N c 2    1
 g 1 D f  H N q 2   g 2 BNg 2 
2
1
q 2  c N c 2   g 2 BNg 2 
'
2
Ks=Punching shear
2 coefficient = f(q2/q1, f1’)
1 c ’=adhesion= f(q /q , c )
q1  c N c 1  g 1 BNg 1
' a 2 1 u1
1 q =BC of the bottom layer

2 b
1
qu  qt  c1 N c 1  g 1 D f N q 1  g 1 BNg 1
'
2 92
Continuous Foundation
q1 and q2=ultimate bearing capacities of a

continuous foundation of width B under vertical
load on the surfaces of homogeneous thick beds of

upper and lower soil
q1=c’1Nc(1)+0.5g1BNg(1)
q2=c’2Nc(2)+0.5g2BNg(2) Q Q
qu=q1 qu=q2
GS GS
Stronger Soil Weaker Soil

93
Adhesion, ca

Punching Shear Coefficient, Ks
94
Rectangular Foundation
 B  2 ca H  2 B  2 D f  K s tan f1' 

'
qu  qb  1     g 1 H 1  1     g 1 H  qt
 L  B   L  H  B 

qb  c N c 2  FCS 2   g 1 D f  H N q 2  FqS 2   g 2 BNg 2  FgS 2 
' 1
2
2
1
qu  qt  c N c 1 FCS 1  g 1 D f N q 1 FqS 1  g 1 BNg 1 FgS 1
'
1
2
95
Example-1
A foundation 1.5 m 1 m is located at a depth Df
of 1 m in a stronger clay. A softer clay layer is
located at a depth H of 1 m, measured from the

bottom of the foundation. For the top clay layer,
undrained shear strength is 120 kPa, and unit
weight is 16.8 kN/m3, and for the bottom clay
layer, undrained shear strength is 48 kPa, and
unit weight is 16.2 kN/m3. Determine the gross
allowable load for the foundation with an FS of 4.
96
Example-1
1.5 x 1 m

1m
Clay: Undrained
shear strength, cu=
1m 120 kPa g=16.8
kN/m 3
Clay: cu= 48
kPa
g=16.2 kN/m3
97
Example-2
• Determine the ultimate bearing capacity of the foundation
1.5 x 1 m

1m
Sand: Effective
friction angle, f’= 40o
1.2 m
g=18.7 kN/m3
Soft clay: cu= 19.5

kPa
g=16.2 kN/m3
98
Foundation supported on top of a slope

Meyerhof (1957):
• qu (For continuous footings)=c’N cq+0.5gBNgq
• qu (Non-cohesive soil, c’=0)=0.5gBNgq
• qu (For purely cohesive soil, f=0)=cuNcq
99
• Ns=stability number=gH/c

• If
B<H, use the curve for
Ns=0
• If
B≥H, use the curve for the
calculated stability number.
100

101
Allowable pressures in sand: Correlation with SPT ‘N’
According to Meyerhof (1956):
Allowable soil pressure for 25 mm settlement:
SPS 25mm kPa  11 .98  N1 60   for B  1.22 m

 3.28B  1 
2
SPS25mm kPa  7.99 N1 60     for B  1.22 m

 3.28  1 
According to Bowles (1977): Allowable soil pressure at settlement Se:
 3.28B  1 
2
S 
SPS25mm kPa  11.98 N1 60   Fd  e    for B  1.22 m
 3.28  1   25 
 3.28B  1 
2
 Se 
SPS25mm kPa  11.98 N1 60   Fd     for B  1.22 m
 3.28  1   25 
Fd=depth factor=1+0.33(Df/B)≤1.33; Se=tolerable settlement, mm 102

Allowable pressures in sand: Correlation with CPT ‘qc’
According to Meyerhof (1956):

Allowable soil pressure for 25 mm settlement:

qc kPa
SPS25mm kPa    for B  1.22 m
15
qc kPa  3.28B  1 
2
SPS25mm kPa      for B  1.22 m

15  3.28B 
103
Combined Footing

104
Combined Footings
• Supports a line of two or more columns
• Usefulwhen conventional isolated foundations need to
extend beyond property line

• May take either of the following shapes
 Rectangular
 Trapezoidal
 Strap (connecting two isolated footings with a beam)
• Designed to ensure that the contact pressure at

working loads is uniform throughout the foundation
105
Combined Footings
• Inputs required
 Column loads (Q1, Q2, ….)
 Allowable soil pressure (lower of the safe bearing pressure

and soil pressure corresponding to allowable settlement)
 Maximum distance available from the center of the exterior
column to the property line, if exists
• Design principle: resultant of the column loads should

pass through the geometric center of the foundation
area, so as to achieve uniform contact pressures below
the foundation base.
106
Combined Footings - Rectangular
Q1 Q1+Q2 Q2
L2 L3 L1
x Section

Contact
pressure
Property B Plan
line
107
Combined Footings - Rectangular
1. Assume suitable size of the foundation, and estimate the allowable soil
pressure for the assumed size.
2. Determine the area of the foundation, A=(Q1+Q2)/allowable soil pressure
3. Determine the location of resultant of the column loads, x=Q2L3/(Q1+Q2)

4. Length of the foundation, L=2(L2+x), where L2 is distance between
property line and centre of the nearest column
5. L1=L-L2-L3
6. Width of the foundation, B=A/L
7. The values of L and B determined above, may be different from that
assumed initially. Reevaluate the allowable soil pressure for the new
values of L and B, as it is not constant, but depends on the size of the
foundation, the procedure described above is iterative in nature.
108
Combined Footings -Trapezoidal
• Used where space is tight for isolated foundations carrying larger loads

Q1+Q2
Q1 Q2
L2
x
B1 L3 B2
L
109
Combined Footings -Trapezoidal
1. Assume suitable size of the foundation, and estimate the
allowable soil pressure for the assumed size.
2. Determine the area of the foundation, A=(Q1+Q2)/allowable
soil pressure & A=L(B1+B2)/2
3. Determine the location of resultant of the column loads,

x=Q2L3/(Q1+Q2)
4. From the property of a trapezoid,
 B1  2 B2  L L
 X  L2 
L
X  L2   
 B1  B2  3 3 2
5. Solve the above equations to find B1 and B2
6. As for the case of rectangular combined footing, the procedure
described above is iterative in nature, as the allowable soil
pressure is not constant but depends on the size of the
foundation.
110
Combined Footings - Strap
• Cantilever footings
• Uses a strap beam to connect an eccentrically loaded column

foundation to the foundation of an interior column
• Can replace rectangular and trapezoidal combined footings
when the allowable soil pressure is high and the distances
between the columns is large
111
Strap
Strap beam

112
Strap
Strap

113
Raft Foundations
• Supports more than one line of columns
• Used in soils exhibiting lower bearing capacity

GL
Df
114
Compensated (or Floating) Raft

Q=LL+DL Unit weight of Soil=g
Df
A=Area of mat
Q
Net pressure applied on soil caused by a mat q   gD f
foundation, A
115
Compensated Raft

GL GL
Deeper basement below a higher portion of the superstructure, to

maintain net soil pressure at any depth relatively uniform.
116

Analysis and Design of Shallow Foundations

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Analysis and Design of Shallow Foundations

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Analysis and Design of

Prof. Samirsinh P Parmar

• Types of shallow foundations.

M.Tech. Sem-1, DoCL, DDU, Nadiad, Gujarat, India.

• Various theories for bearing capacity.

• Plate load test.

M.Tech. Sem-1, DoCL, DDU, Nadiad, Gujarat, India.

M.Tech. Sem-1, DoCL, DDU, Nadiad, Gujarat, India.

• Important design considerations

M.Tech. Sem-1, DoCL, DDU, Nadiad, Gujarat, India.

M.Tech. Sem-1, DoCL, DDU, Nadiad, Gujarat, India.

• Based on number of columns supported:

M.Tech. Sem-1, DoCL, DDU, Nadiad, Gujarat, India.

M.Tech. Sem-1, DoCL, DDU, Nadiad, Gujarat, India.

M.Tech. Sem-1, DoCL, DDU, Nadiad, Gujarat, India.

• Properlylocated with respect to any future influence

M.Tech. Sem-1, DoCL, DDU, Nadiad, Gujarat, India.

• Must not settle or deflect sufficiently to damage the

M.Tech. Sem-1, DoCL, DDU, Nadiad, Gujarat, India.

M.Tech. Sem-1, DoCL, DDU, Nadiad, Gujarat, India.

Limit for bottom of new footing

M.Tech. Sem-1, DoCL, DDU, Nadiad, Gujarat, India.

M.Tech. Sem-1, DoCL, DDU, Nadiad, Gujarat, India.

M.Tech. Sem-1, DoCL, DDU, Nadiad, Gujarat, India.

• Presumed Bearing Pressure: It is the pressure with an

• Allowable Soil Pressure: It is the pressure which, having taken

M.Tech. Sem-1, DoCL, DDU, Nadiad, Gujarat, India.

M.Tech. Sem-1, DoCL, DDU, Nadiad, Gujarat, India.

M.Tech. Sem-1, DoCL, DDU, Nadiad, Gujarat, India.

M.Tech. Sem-1, DoCL, DDU, Nadiad, Gujarat, India.

M.Tech. Sem-1, DoCL, DDU, Nadiad, Gujarat, India.

M.Tech. Sem-1, DoCL, DDU, Nadiad, Gujarat, India.

M.Tech. Sem-1, DoCL, DDU, Nadiad, Gujarat, India.

M.Tech. Sem-1, DoCL, DDU, Nadiad, Gujarat, India.

M.Tech. Sem-1, DoCL, DDU, Nadiad, Gujarat, India.

M.Tech. Sem-1, DoCL, DDU, Nadiad, Gujarat, India.

M.Tech. Sem-1, DoCL, DDU, Nadiad, Gujarat, India.

M.Tech. Sem-1, DoCL, DDU, Nadiad, Gujarat, India.

M.Tech. Sem-1, DoCL, DDU, Nadiad, Gujarat, India.

M.Tech. Sem-1, DoCL, DDU, Nadiad, Gujarat, India.

M.Tech. Sem-1, DoCL, DDU, Nadiad, Gujarat, India.

M.Tech. Sem-1, DoCL, DDU, Nadiad, Gujarat, India.

M.Tech. Sem-1, DoCL, DDU, Nadiad, Gujarat, India.

M.Tech. Sem-1, DoCL, DDU, Nadiad, Gujarat, India.

M.Tech. Sem-1, DoCL, DDU, Nadiad, Gujarat, India.

Plate width =Bp

M.Tech. Sem-1, DoCL, DDU, Nadiad, Gujarat, India.

M.Tech. Sem-1, DoCL, DDU, Nadiad, Gujarat, India.

M.Tech. Sem-1, DoCL, DDU, Nadiad, Gujarat, India.

M.Tech. Sem-1, DoCL, DDU, Nadiad, Gujarat, India.

M.Tech. Sem-1, DoCL, DDU, Nadiad, Gujarat, India.

M.Tech. Sem-1, DoCL, DDU, Nadiad, Gujarat, India.

Source: Cerato (2005)

M.Tech. Sem-1, DoCL, DDU, Nadiad, Gujarat, India.

Source: Cerato (2005)

M.Tech. Sem-1, DoCL, DDU, Nadiad, Gujarat, India.

Source: Cerato (2005)

M.Tech. Sem-1, DoCL, DDU, Nadiad, Gujarat, India.

Source: Cerato (2005)

M.Tech. Sem-1, DoCL, DDU, Nadiad, Gujarat, India.

M.Tech. Sem-1, DoCL, DDU, Nadiad, Gujarat, India.

The ultimate load is defined as the point where the