International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 6, Issue 12, December-2015

ISSN 2229-5518 279

Analysis and Design of Shell Foundation:

IS: 9456-1980 Provision
Shaikh Mohd Ahmed1, Shilpa Kewate 2,
1
PG Student, Dept of Civil Engg, Saraswati College of Engineering, Kharghar, India, [email protected]
2
Asst. Prof, Dept of Civil Engg, Saraswati College of Engineering, India, [email protected]

Abstract- Shell foundations are economic alternatives Types of Shells Used in Foundation
to plain shallow foundations in situations involving The common types of shells used in Civil
heavy super structural loads to be transmitted to weaker Engineering practice is given, 1) Domes, 2) Hyberbolic
soils.The development in analysis and design of shell shells, 3) Cylindrical shells, 4) Paraboloidal shells, 5)
type foundations have led to the understanding that Conoids(skew shells), 6) Combination of shells.Shell
there are more advantages of shell type foundations surface are not popular for use as foundations due to such
compared to their conventional footing. In this reasons as the difficulty in exactly shaping the surface for
paper,hypar shell footing were designed and compared the foundation, and casting the concrete.Domes, circular
with sloped footing. The result were found that the hypar paraboloids are all theoretically possible for foundations.
shell footing saves the concrete and steel upto 43.78% But even though formation of these surfaces for roofs is
and 4.76% respectively. easy, it is much more difficult for foundation than using
. conventional foundations such as rafts and piles.however ,

IJSER
because of the easiness in construction and forming the
Key words: Shell Foundation, Sloped Footing, Steel, casting surface of the cone and the hyperbolic paraboloids,
Concrete. these two shapes have been adopted, to a limited extent, in
practical construction. The bureau of indian standards has
INTRODUCTION also published IS 9456 (1980) Code of practice for design
Shell foundation are considered cost-effective when and construction of conical and hyperbolic paraboloid type
heavy loads are to be carried by weak foundation soils. Such of shell foundations.
situations require large-sized foundations because of the low
bearing capcity.if we use bending members such as slabs and
beams, the bending moments and shears in them will be
large and the sections required will also be large. Shells
which act mostly in tension or compression will be more
efficient and economical in such situations. Even in
smaller foundations, the amount of materials that is
necessary for a shell to carry a load will be
considerably less than that required for bending
members such as beams and slabs. However, the labour
involved in shell construction (in forming the shell surface,
fabricating steel, supervision, etc.) will be more than that is
necessary in conventional type of foundations. Thus, in such
special situations, one can consider the use of shells as Fig 1 commonly used shells and their classification
foundations. (a) Dome (b) Hyperboloid (c) Cylindrical shell (d)
However, we must also be aware that arches Hyperbolic paraboloid (f) Conoids (g) Water tank
made of a combination of shells.
and many other forms of shells such as inverted barrel
shells, folded plates, etc. can also be used as foundation Scope of using Shells in Foundations
structure. Compared to roofs, these shells when used as The basic difference between a plain s
foundations will be smaller in spans and also in rise to structural element like a slab and a non-planar structural
thickness ratio. We must note that the intensity of loads the element like a shell is that, while the former resists
shells have to carry as foundation structure will be very transverse loads, including self-weight, in flexure, the
much larger than in roofs. The shapes of shells commonly same loads induce primarily a direct, in-plane or
used in civil engineering as shown in figure 2.They are membrane state of stress in a shell, which may be
generally classified, in structural engineering as rotational tension, compression or shear, but all lying in the plane
and translational shells. Rotational shells, also called as of the shell.
shells of revolution.
IJSER © 2015
http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 6, Issue 12, December-2015
ISSN 2229-5518 280

Concrete as a material is most efficient in direct Model footing were subjected to vertical compression
compression least efficient in tension, with the load acting on the center by means of a compression
efficiency in bending lying between the two. Thus if a machine. The load acting on the footing and
plain roof slab is substituted by a shell and if the corresponding settlements were recorded until failure.
geometry and boundary conditions of the shell are The experimental results showed the triangular shell
such that the same applied load induces a state of footings had higher bearing capacity and better
membrane compression, and that too of low magnitude, settlement characteristics than the flat foundation with
better material utilization results, which in terms of an equivalent footing width.at a certain load level, the
design means a substantial reduction in thickness. smaller the peak angle of the foundation, the higher the
bearing capacity and lower the measured settlement.
LITERATURE REVIEW
THE HYPERBOLIC PARABOLOID SHELL
Dr. Pusadkar Sunil Shaligram, June 2011 , in their FOUNDATION
paper have conducted experiment on, Triangular shell The hypar footing made up of four hypar shells with the
footing which is used as a strip footing with 60, 90, 120, centre at a higher level than the base. Each hypar
150, and 180 (flat footings) peak angles resting on two- consists of the following parts, as shown in fig no-02
layered sand, reinforced with geotextiles.The upper layer
of sand is weaker than followed layer. The strip footing
was placed on homogeneous sand, reinforced with
geotextiles at different depth.The results were indicate
that the ultimate bearing capacity increases with decrease

IJSER
in peak angle.
D. Esmaili and N. Hataf, December 2008, in their
paper have determined the ultimate load capacities of
conical and pyramidal shell foundations on unreinforced
andreinforced sand by laboratory model tests and
numerical analysis and results were compared with
circular and square flat foundations. Both the Fig no-02 Hyperbolic Paraboloid individual Shell
experimental and numerical studies indicated that , if Footing
shell foundation thickness increases, the behavior of the  Shell
shell foundation on either reinforced and unreinforced  Ridge beam (these are the sloping members
sand gets closer to that of flat foundations. that support the column)
B.B.K Haut, T.A Mohammed, A.A.A Abang Ali and  Edge beam (these are the beams on the ground
A.A Abdullah, 2007, in their paper two shapes of
along the edges)
triangular shells were studied on the performance of the
‘upright’ triangular and inverted triangular shell using
MEMBRANE FORCES IN HYPAR
finite element and field model test.Both the finite FOUNDATION
element analysis and field tests showed that inverted The unique structural property of the hyperbolic
triangular shell had better load carrying capacity paraboloid (hypar) shell is that under vertical loads, the
compared with the ‘upright’ triangular shell. middle or shell surface of a hypar (with reference to its
Bujang B.K Haut and Thamer A. Mohammed, 2006, X- and Y-axes as shown in fig no 03 ) will be subjected
to only uniform shear force of the following magnitude.
in their Paper have studied on the geotechnical behavior
This is specially true when they are shallow hypar
of shell footing using a non- linear finite element shells.
analysis with a finite element code, PLAXIS. The shell
footing is found to have a better load carrying capacity 𝑞 𝑎𝑏 𝑞
compared with the conventional slab/flat footing of s=t= ( ) = in KN/m
2 ℎ 2𝑥𝑊𝑎𝑟𝑝
similar cross sectional area.
Hanna and Abdel-Rahman, 1988, reported where,
experimental results on strip shell foundations on sand
for plain strain condition. Four shell type footings were q=ground pressure in KN/m
investigated with peak angle Ѳ varying from 60 to 180 . a,b=sides of hypar
Testing was conducted in a plexiglass tank with h=rise
dimensions ensuring plain strain conditions. For sand (h/ab)= warp
compaction, the drop technique was adopted. Footings Direct forces Nx=Ny=0 (for membranes M=0)
were tested at the surface and in buried conditions.
IJSER © 2015
http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 6, Issue 12, December-2015
ISSN 2229-5518 281

In a hypar shell roof where the load acts down, this MAGNITUDE OF FORCES IN HYPAR SHELL
shear acts from the lowest level to the higher level. FOOTING
Hence in a foundation shell where the ground pressure
acts upwards and the column point is above the  Stresses in the shell
foundation level, the shear will be acting in the shell The shell surface is in pure shear which produce
from the higher to the lower level as shown in fig no-03 tension and compression as shown in fig.
Shear=Tension=Compression in shell
𝑞 𝑎𝑏 𝑞
s=t= ( ) =
2 ℎ 2𝑥𝑊𝑎𝑟𝑝
 Tension in edge beam
Max tension=sum of shear along length=a x s

Where,
a=Length of edge member or side of shell
=1/2 the base length of foundation
Maximum tension occurs at the junction of the
edge beam and ridge beam.
 Compression in ridge beam
Fig no-03 Membrane Stresses in Hypar Footing

 These compression members should be designed to

IJSER
be sufficient by rigid and should not have more than
We know that these shears produce equivalent
5% compression steel in it.
tension and compression along the diagonals. These
tensions and compressions can be compared to the Compression for each shell=Lx s
forces in two sets of parabolas, each parallel to the Where,
diagonals, a concave parabola from the lower to the L=√𝑎2 + ℎ2
higher level acting in compression due to load from
below and a convex parabola parallel to the other As two shells from each side of the ridge beam meet
diagonals acting in tension again due to the load from along the ridge, the total compression is the sum of
below. The tension in the shell has to be resisted by steel forces from the two shells.
placed in the shell. In fact we provide a mesh of steel as
shown in fig no 03 to take care of this tension.
C=2Ls

Force in the Ridge Beams and the Edge Beams  Check for column load-it is advisable at this stage
to check whether the vertical component of the
 The unique structural property of the hyperbolic compressions balances the column load.
paraboloid (hypar) shell is that under vertical loads, 𝑃𝐿
C=
the middle or shell surface of a hypar will be 4ℎ
subjected to only uniform shear force. EMPIRICAL DIMENSIONING OF HYPAR
 In a hypar foundation,the forces in the ridge beams FOOTING
boundary members will be acting from the lower to The following thumb rules can be used as a rough
the higher points along the ridge beams so that ridge guide to choose the dimensioning of hypar footings for
will be in compression. estimating as well as preliminary planning and design.

1. Rise of shell. The rise of the shell should not be

 The force in the edge beam will be equal to the sum
more than the slope at which concrete can be
of the shear forces along the edge of these members
placed and compacted, which is not more than 1 in
and it will obviously be in tension.
1.5 (say about 33.7 degree). In addition, for a
hypar to be considered shallow, the slope should
 We have tension and compression in the shell,
not be more than 1 in 2.5 of each of the side of
compression in the ridge beam and tension in the
four hypar.generally a maximum slope of 1 in 2
edge beams.
with respect to the side of each hypar can be
adopted.

IJSER © 2015
http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 6, Issue 12, December-2015
ISSN 2229-5518 282

2. The thickness of the shell. The thickness of the PROBLEM STATEMENT

shell footing should be more than that used for
roofs as we have to meet the needs of cover for Comparison of hypar shell footing with sloped footing.
foundations. Usually, shells are cast on mud mat
1
with a minimum cover of 50-75mm of 1:1 :3
2
 Design a hypar shell footing for a column carrying
concrete, and the steel placed at the middle of the
1400 KN if the safe bearing capacity of the soil is
thickness will have to be 120-150mm. “A
150 KN/𝑚2 .
thickness to length ratio” of 1/12-1/16 can be
adopted. The shell surface is in pure shear and
hence subjected to pure tension and
compression.(some recommend a minimum
 Design a sloped footing for a square column of
percentage steel of 0.5% to reduce cracking of the
400mmx400mm and intended to carry a load of
shell.)
1400KN.The safe bearing capacity of the soil is 150
KN/𝑚2 .Assume that grade M25 concrete and Fe
3. Edge beams. The edge beams at the base are in
415 steel are used for the construction.
tension. The thickness of the edge beams is made
half the size of the column. Its depth should be
about 1/6 the total length of the two hypar(2a)
which form the base length. The percentage steel
DESIGN OF SHELL FOOTING ACCORDING TO
of not more than 5% is recommended. Nominal IS 9456-1980.
ties should be also provided. We should remember
that this beam is in pure tension. 1. Find shell dimensions.

IJSER
4. Ridge beams. The four inclined ridge beams are in Adopt a 3.2m square base=9.33m2
compression and their vertical component of
compression should carry the column. Their breath 2. Calculate membrane shear on factored load
is made equal to the size of the column and of
enough depth to make it a rigid short column 𝑞
membrane shear =s= =329.33KN/m
member and also to extend into the shell proper. 2𝑥𝑊𝑎𝑟𝑝
The percentage of steel neend not be more than
5%. 3. Design the steel in shell(find area of
steel for tension due to shear)

DETAILING OF HYPAR FOOTINGS Tension=shear=329.33KN/m

1. Junction of the column with shell and ridge beams. Steel Required=912.14mm2/m
The column should properly stand on the top of Percentage of steel=0.76%
the ridge beam junction and the column bars (This steel is more than the minimum 0.12%
should be properly anchored equally into the ridge for shrinkage)
beams. Also, the shell should be properly joined to Provide 12mm bar @120mm giving
the column. Proper fillets should be used at the 942.48mm2/m area.
junction.
4. Check Compression in concrete in the shell.
2. Junction between edge beam and ridge beam. This
junction should be tied together as shown so that Compression stress=tension=shear=2.74N/m
the section of maximum tension does not fail This is very much less than 0.4fck=10N/m.
prematurely.
5. Find tension in edge beam & area
3. Corners of the shell. As the two edge beam of steel in beam.
members that meet at the corners are in tension,
there is a resultant tension at the corner and hence Max tension=shear x length.
a tendency to split along the diagonal. Area of steel required=1459.41mm2
Provide 4nos of22mm bars=1520.53mm2.
The detailing of hypar shells is shown in fig. no 04

IJSER © 2015
http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 6, Issue 12, December-2015
ISSN 2229-5518 283

Assume width=1/2 size of the column=200mm

Assume depth=300mm

Percentage of steel=2.5%
Good percentage for a beam not more than
5%.also provide nominal ties of 6or 8mm
@200mm spacing.

6. Find compression in ridge beam &provide

steel as in column.

Compression=(shear x length)(2 for two sides)

=1179.00KN
Compare the above compression as calculated
from the column load.
𝑃𝐿
Comp. = =1174.69KN
4ℎ

Make width of beam=that of column

=400mm

Total beam area=60,000mm2

IJSER
As Required=2082.35mm2
=3.47%
Fig no-04 Detailing of Hypar Shell footings:
Provide 4nos rods(3 at the bottom of the (a) General arrangement plan,(b) Section X-
rectangle & one at the top of the triangle) of X, in Figure (a) above (c) Section along edge
28mm giving 2463.0mm2. beam, (d) Detail below column, (e) Detail at
junction YY, (f) Detail at corner Z.
Provide ties of 6mm @200mm spacing.
RESULT

7. Details special section to avoid premature failure. Comparison between Design of Hypar shell
footing and Sloped foooting in following points
a) Corners at base. as given in Table no 01
At corners of the base, provide corner fillets to
the width of edge member with nominal ties of Table 1:Comaprison between Hypar shell
10mm @100mm spacing. footing and Sloped footing

b) Junction between column and ridge beams Sr Point of Sloped Hypar

Equal numbers of column steel are continued no Comparison Footing Shell %
into ridge beam and lapped with ridge beam Footing Save
steel. The vertical component of the
compression in the ridge beam should be more 01 Size of 3.4x3.4m 3.2x3.2m __
than balance of the column load. footing

c) Junction of ridge and edge beams. 02 Volume of 5.07m3 2.85m3 43.7

The ridge and edge beams by extending steel for Concrete 8%
a length at least equal to the full development
length provide also corner fillet. 03 Area of 10053.08 9573.63 4.76
Steel mm3 mm3 %

IJSER © 2015
http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 6, Issue 12, December-2015
ISSN 2229-5518 284

CONCLUSIONS

The Hypar shell footing were designed and

compared with sloped footing.The following
conclusion can be drawn:
1. The hypar shell footing were found economical
than that of conventional footing, and its saves the
concrete and steel upto 43.78% and 4.76%
respectively.
2. It gives minimum materials consumption over the
conventional footing.
3. It gives the greater load capacity and stability over
the conventional footing.

REFERENCES

(1) Dr.Pusadkar sunil shaligram(2011). “Behavior Of

Triangular Shell Strip Footing on Geo-Reinforced
Layered Sand.” International Journal of Advanced
Technology. IJAET/Vol.II/Issue II/p.192-196.
(2) D.Esmaili and Hataf(2008). “Experimental and

IJSER
Numerical Investigation of Ultimate Load
Capacity of Shell Foundation on Reinforced and
Unreinforced Sand. Iranian Journal of Science &
Technology Vol 32 No B5 pp 491-500.
(3) Huat B. B. K.,Mohammed T. A.,and Abdullah
A.A,(2007), “Numerical and Field Study on
Triangular Shell Footing for Low Rise Building”,
International Journal of Engineering and
Technology,l. 4- 194-204.
(4) Huat, B.B.K. and Mohammed, T.A. (2006). “Finite
Element Study Using FE Code (PLAXIS) on the
Geotechnical Behaviour of Shell
Footings”.Journal of Computer Science. USA:
NY. 2(1): 104-108
(5) Abdel-Rahman, M.M, and A.M.Hanna (1988)
“Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Triangular Shell
Strip Footing on Sand”.Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering ASCE, 116(2):1851-1863.
(6) IS 9456 – 1980, Code of Practice for Design and
Construction of Conical and Hyperbolic
Paraboloidal types of Shell Foundations.
(7) Varghese P.C.,(2009) .”Design of Reinforced
Concrete Foundations”.Published by Ashok K
Ghosh, PHI Learning Private .pp 27.

IJSER © 2015
http://www.ijser.org