Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 38, No.

1, 2001

TECHNOLOGY AND WORK PRODUCTION

STRENGTHENING THE FOUNDATIONS OF AN EXISTING BUILDING

V. I. Krutov and A. S. Kovalev UDC 624.159.4:624.153.522

Experience is described for the strengthening of strip foundations beneath the brick walls of an
existing building by increasing their depth of embedment by 0.9 m and width by up to 2-4
times, and also the procedure used to install foundations for an addition to this building in the
areas where they abut.

An addition to an existing two-story building with a basement was designed basement dimensions of
20.3 × 26.8 m in plan and height of 2.5 m.
The addition is brick and contains metal columns and girders on which honeycombed floor slabs are
supported. The enclosing 51-cm-thick walls are brick, while the bearing walls are constructed with 38 × 51-cm
pilasters. The distances between columns is 5150-6300 mm on the axes, and 7315 mm between the columns
and bearing wall.
The existing building has a rectangular planform with dimensions of 12 × 42 m. The walls are brick,
and the foundations are strip foundations formed from sectional foundation slabs and wall blocks and are
embedded to a depth of 3.7 m from the elevation of the finished floor of the first story. An enclosure adjacent
to the building is formed of brick masonry and two rows of wall blocks 0.4 m wide, each 0.6 m high and 0.9-
1.2 m long, and is embedded to a depth of 2.6 m from the surface of the ground.
According to geologic-engineering surveys, light-cinnamon sandy-loams with the following physico-
mechanical characteristics exist to relative elevations of (3.9-4.0): soil density of 1.86 tons/m 3, angle of inter-
nal friction of 23°, specific cohesion of 12 kPa, and compression modulus of 16 MPa. Considering these char-
acteristics, the computed resistance for the foundations, which are embedded to a depth of 0.5 m below the
basement floor, and are 1-2 m wide, amounts to 145-155 kPa.
Below the sandy loams, silty dense sands reside in a layer ranging from 0.6 to 1.9 m thick in the
upper portion, and fine sands of medium density in a layer from 3.4 to 3.7 m thick in the lower portion. The
silty and fine sands are characterized by the following, respectively: moisture content of 0.10 and 0.15; void
ratio of 0.55 and 0.64; density of 1.88 and 1.85 tons/m3; angle of internal friction of 30 and 32°; and, com-
pression modulus of 28 MPa.
No ground water was encountered in opening holes to a depth of 10 m.
During the design of the addition and its actual construction, it was necessary to meet the following
basic requirements:
1) preserve and utilize the wall of the brick enclosure as the lower outer portion of the walls;
2) avoid supporting the bearing structures for the addition on the walls and foundations of the existing

Translated from Osnovaniya, Fundamenty i Mekhanika Gruntov, No. 1, pp. 16-20, January-February, 2001.
20 0038-0741/01/3801-0020$25.00 2001 Plenum Publishing Corporation
 Fig. 1. Design of reconstructed foundations beneath wall.
1 and 2) resisting block foundations and masonry
of enclosure; 3) reinforcing mats and cages;
4) new sections of foundations; 5) water
proofing; 6) honeycombed floor slabs.

building; and,
3) place the columns of the first and second stories against the walls of the existing building, and no
more than 1 m from the walls in the basement.
Above all, the foundation of the brick wall for the enclosure had to be strengthened, and a design
developed and implemented for the foundations beneath the columns at the points where the addition abuts the
building.
Strengthening of the foundation of the existing brick wall of the enclosure included an increase in the
depth of embedment and in the area of the lower surface. Here, the characteristic features of the actual con-
struction and, among other things, its implementation were taken into account only within the limits of the
internal area of the addition.
The loads on the foundations due to the external walls of the addition were increased from 25-40 kN
to 110-150 kN per running meter. Prior to assembly of the floors above the basement, moreover, it was nec-
essary to consider the performance of the newly built foundations as retaining walls resisting the soil pressure
from the outside.
In this connection, the foundations beneath the wall were designed as reinforce-concrete strips with a
lower surface expanded by 0.9 and 1.35 m beneath the walls only within the addition, and by 2.0 m beneath
the pilasters and beneath the monolithic reinforced-concrete retaining wall of the basement (Fig. 1).
Considering the low bending strength of the brick and concrete-block sections of the existing founda-
tion, the risk of their horizontal lamination, and also the impossibility of performing actual construction from
the external side, it was planned to bring the foundation to a depth of 0.2 m, i.e., only half the width of the
existing foundation.
In analyzing the foundations for vertical eccentric loads, and also for tilting (due to the lateral pressure
of the soils), we considered the combined performance of the existing and newly built sections of the founda-
tions (see Fig. 1).
The work required to strengthen the foundations beneath the existing walls was carried out with sepa-
rate detainers using bracing. For convenience of work production and to regulate the combined performance of

21
 Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of bracing for existing foundation.
1) enclosure foundation; 2) brick wall; 3) anchor
slabs-supports; 4) distributing beam; 5) bracing; 6) counter
wedges; 7) perimeter of trench for installation of new
foundation sections.

the newly built and existing foundation sections, the foundations were partitioned into detainers with a length
of 1.5-3 m.
Transition from one detainer to another was carried out in both directions so as to ensure uniform
installation of the foundations beneath all walls.
The trenches-slots near a previously installed detainer were opened only after the concrete had set in
the vertical retaining wall and acquired a strength of no less than 25-40% of the design strength. Installation
of the new sections of foundations beneath the existing walls was begun from the detainer within the limits of
the pilasters and the corner of the intersecting walls with subsequent transition onto the detainers between the
pilasters. This sequence of operations made it possible within the limits of the pilasters and the corner to cre-
ate, after installation of the new foundations, rather rigid and strong buttresses on which all sections were sub-
sequently supported while working beneath the latter.
Bracing (Fig. 2), which included distributing beams formed from channels 3-4 m long, struts fashioned
from wooden beams with counter wedges, and anchor slabs-supports in the form of wooden panels were con-
structed to ensure the stability of the existing walls and the foundations of the enclosure when opening the
trenches for inclusion of the new foundations.
After the bracing had been assembled, it was preliminarily compressed, and the external lateral surface
of the foundation blocks was pressed against the soil using additional bracing and a jack or thrust coupling. In
that case, the pressing was carried out with a force of no less than 2-5 kN on each brace so that the specific
pressure against the lateral surface of the blocks was 0.015-0.025 MPa. The counter wedges were then driven,
and the additional bracing removed.
The blocks were compressed from the central part of the detainer alternating to each side within the
limits of each detainer.
During the entire work period, the bracing was monitored with respect to deepening of the trenches,
and, especially during partial recovery of the soil from beneath the lower surface of the blocks, as well as the
placement of waterproofing, and concreting of the lower sections of the foundations (to the base of the dis-
tributing beams).
The braces used for concreting of the upper sections of the foundations (above the base of the dis-
tributing beam) were dismantled only after installation of bracing for the adjacent detainers, or after full com-
pletion of work involving installation of the foundations with pilasters.
Due to the low volume of the work and the constrained conditions under which it was performed, the
trenches were manually opened immediately at the bases of the foundations uniformly over the entire length of

22
the detainer. Slots were first opened near the foundation to the design depth (-3.500 m), and then under the
new section of the foundation with a width of 200 mm by careful removal of soil beneath the lower surface of
the existing foundation and by cleaningcollapsing soil from the foundation bed and walls.
Cleaning of the surfaces of the existing foundations should ensure a strong bond with the new founda-
tion sections.
The concrete preparation was produced with V7.5 concrete 100 mm thick. The new concrete sections
were waterproofed with two layers of Ruberoid, which overlapped the joints, and was placed over the concrete
preparation of the vertical longitudinal wall of the trench beneath the foundation and along the edge of the
internal shelf of the foundation within the latter’s vertical limits. Reinforcing cages were installed with a cover
layer of no less than 30 mm over the outer surfaces and 20 mm over the concrete and brick sections of the
existing foundation, and were connected via butt or lap splices.
The formwork was made of panels, which were anchored to the existing foundations of the enclosure
wall. The panels on the external side were covered with insulating mats formed from slag wool.
The new foundation sections (see Fig. 1) were concreted with a V12.5 thermal concrete with a slump
of 6-8 cm by gravity feed and its compaction by deep vibrators. During its placement, the fresh concrete was
heated by electrical means.
To achieve high quality, continuity of highly intense work involving installation of bracing, opening of
trenches, placement of the preparation and waterproofing, installation of the reinforcing cages and formwork,
and concreting of the foundations was ensured for each detainer. Moreover, production, organizational, and
other interruptions were confined to periods when work had been fully completed on each detainer and on
transferring to the next one. The latter was especially critical, since basic operations were conducted during
the winter.
In the process of strengthening the foundations, we constantly monitored the observance of rules gov-
erning the installation of bracing, the sequence of individual operations, the quality exercised in cleaning the
walls of the lower surface of the existing foundations, placement of the preparation and waterproofing beneath
the new foundation sections, and the condition of the walls of the open trenches.
The special designs of foundations for the columns in areas where they adjoin the existing building were
implemented with partial insertion beneath the foundation (Fig. 3). When, the loads due to the basement
columns N 1 = 220 kN, and due to the columns of the first and second stories N2 = 260 kN acted on foundation
Fm-3 (Fig. 3b) with an eccentricity of 0.9 m, the relative eccentricity of the load appreciably exceeded 1/6 in
the case where the new foundations for the addition were placed directly against the existing ones, and separa-
tion of the lower surface of the foundation from the ground was unavoidable. The design of foundations Fm-3
with their partial insertion at a depth of 350 mm beneath the existing strip foundations, an embedment depth 0.5
m below the existing foundations, and support of their lower surfaces on the silty sands with a computed resis-
tance R = 250-280 kPa was therefore adopted. Moreover, a tooth to a depth of 300 mm along the entire length
of the foundations was built to take up the moment from the direction opposite to the eccentricity of the load.
Here, concreting of the foundations into the bracing with vertically open trench walls was one of the mandato-
ry conditions of their installation. In analyzing the foundations, this made it possible to account for the passive
resistance of the soil in the direction opposite to the active load-induced moment. Considering the passive resis-
tance of the soil within the vertical limits of the foundation alone, the maximum stresses along the lower sur-
face of the foundations were no more than 0.23 MPa, and the minimum 0.07 MPa, resulting in an average stress
of 0.15 MPa; this exceeds the vertical stresses due to the dead weight of the soil by only 0.075 MPa.
In calculating the passive pressure of the soil, the effect of the floor design on the transfer of the hori-
zontal load onto the entire soil mass and foundations of the next (along axis B) row of columns was disregard-
ed in the safety factor. To improve the reliability indices and stability of the foundations under consideration,
the basement floor was installed immediately after assembly of the columns, and consisted of a concrete bed
150 mm thick, which was structurally reinforced with a mat having 10-mm-diameter bars spaced 40 × 40 cm on
centers, and a finished floor based on a cement preparation.
Calculations indicated that settlements of the new foundations amounted to 5 mm. Moreover, addition-
al settlements of the soil beneath the existing foundations may not be more than 2 mm as a result of the effect

23
 a b

Fig. 3. Plan view (a) and cross section 1-1 (b) of foundations under columns at
points where they abut strip foundations of existing building. 1) strip
foundation of building; 2) foundation Fm-3 under column; 3) placement
of two layers of Ruberoid; 4) anchor bolts; 5) passive-pressure diagram
for soil against lateral wall of foundation; 6) foundation Fm-4 beneath
column; 7) section of frame of existing foundation.

of the new foundations; this is entirely permissible for the existing building.
Foundations Fm-4 and the others along axis 2 ′ (see Fig. 3a) were of a more complex design. To create
a support section beneath the columns and fix the anchor bolts, the width of these foundations should be no
less than 1100 mm at the top. With the distance between axes 2 and 2 ′ of the existing building and addition
being 1050 mm, therefore, a 1100 mm reduction in the length of the cantilever of the foundation slabs at a
depth of 350 mm was required in the support sections of the columns.
Just as for the foundations (Fm-3) along axis A, partial reduction of the cantilevers of the foundations
and insertion of the new foundations beneath them (Fm-4 and others) along axis 2 ′ did not lead to appreciable
degradation of the conditions under which they function. With an eccentricity of 0.3 m for application of the
vertical load due to the columns of the first and second stories, the effective moment is essentially complete-
ly balanced by the soil’s reactive support along the lateral wall of the foundations, and the average stresses
along their lower surface do not exceed 0.16 MPa.
The trenches beneath the foundations were opened manually from the elevation at the base of the base-
ment floor -3.300 m strictly in accordance with the planform dimensions of the foundations. In that case, spe-
cial attention was focused on eliminating softening of the soil along the walls and bottoms of the trenches, and
cleaning of the surfaces.
Installation of the reinforcing cages and concreting of the foundations were carried out by analogy with
the above-described procedure. The vertical gaps between the existing and new foundations were filled with a
sand-bitumen grout after removal of the forms and placement of the Ruberoid.
Under these conditions, installation of foundations formed from cast-in-place piles was found to be
more material- and time-consuming, and expensive as compared with the above-described foundations, since
nearly half of the piles functioned under vertical pull-out loads. The factor for pile-material utilization was
therefore very low, and the dimensions of the grillages were, by nature, close to those of the above-described
foundations.
Continuous observations conducted during construction of the addition did not reveal visible deforma-
tions in the structures of the existing building, and the measured settlements of the foundations for the addi-
tion did not exceed several millimeters, which corresponds to the accuracy of technical leveling.

24