DESIGN OF FOUNDATIONS

Lecture Notes

Professor Mohamed Shahin

School of Civil and Mechanical Engineering
Curtin University, Australia
DESIGN OF FOUNDATIONS
Lecture Notes

Professor Mohamed Shahin

School of Civil and Mechanical Engineering
Curtin University, Australia
DESIGN OF FOUNDATIONS
Lecture Notes

Professor Mohamed Shahin

School of Civil and Mechanical Engineering
Curtin University, Australia
 CHAPTER (1)
FOOTINGS ON REACTIVE SOILS
Introduction
Foundations are structures that transmit loads from superstructures to the underlying ground
(soil or rock). Shallow foundations are those of which the ratio of the depth of foundation (Df )
to footing breadth/width (B), i.e. Df /B ≤ 2.5. Deep foundations are those of which Df /B > 2.5
(see Figure 1). Shallow foundations comprise pad footings (also called the spread or isolated
footings), strip footings, combined footings, strap footings and rafts or mats (see Figure 2),
whereas deep foundations comprise piles, piers and caissons. The design and type of shallow
foundations depend on the type of superstructure and soil. Raft or waffle raft is usually used
for lightweight structures of single or double-storey houses resting on reactive soils, whereas
for multi-storey buildings, the foundation could be either pad footings, strip footings, combined
footings, strap footings or raft, depending on certain conditions that will be explained later.

The design of shallow foundations for lightweight structures resting on reactive soils is
different from that of multi-storey buildings. In this lecture series, the focus will be on the
design of foundations for lightweight structures on reactive soils, while the design of
foundations for multi-storey buildings will be covered later in the following lecture series.
Reactive (or expansive) soils are those which exhibit some degree of volume change (i.e. shrink
or swell), upon the addition or removal of moisture. Clays vary in their response to moisture
change, depending on their mineral structure. Kaolin clay is generally not reactive, while
smectite (i.e. montmorillonite and bentonite) clay is reactive and montmorillonite is the most
reactive. In this lecture series, we will examine the volume change characteristics of reactive
soils and will introduce the design of foundations on such soils carrying lightweight structures.
Expansive soils can undergo significant vertical movement (or heave) as a result of changes in
soil suction. As explained in GEOT2000, soil suction results from the capillary action of the
water and the effect of soil suction are to draw water above the water table, causing negative
pore water pressure or soil suction, u, which is situated in the soil pores or voids. The surface
heave can often cause major cracking to lightweight structures founded on expansive soils; the
distress can be reduced by constructing the dwelling on a stiffened raft (slab) foundation. A
raft foundation, also known as a mat foundation, is a large concrete slab used to accommodate
the entire building's columns and walls so that their loads are spread over a large area (Figure
2).

Figure 1: Typical examples of foundations: pad footing (left); and pile (right).

2
 Figure 2: Common types of shallow foundations.

Stiffened raft foundations resting on expansive soils can be designed in Australia using the
deemed-to-comply method proposed by Australian Standard AS 2870 (2011) or engineering
principles involving the use of Mitchell or Walsh methods. For any proposed design method,
the ground surface heave (due to swell or shrink) of expansive soil, ys, has to be calculated first,
as follows:

ys = I pt  u  H s (1)

where;
Ipt = Soil instability index (%) obtained from the laboratory, including core shrinkage test,
loaded shrinkage test or shrink-swell test (AS 2870, 2011). It measures the soil's degree
of expansiveness due to soil suction.
Δu = Change in soil suction, u, at the middle of the expansive soil layer (in pico-farads, pF)
calculated from the maximum change in soil suction at the ground surface, Δus, taken
as the difference between soil suction in the dry and wet seasons (Figure 3a).
Hs = Thickness of expansive soil layer subjected to change in soil suction (see Figure 3).

To determine, Δus, and in turn Δu (Eqn. 1), for a certain site, the soil suction profile of that site
needs to be established, by taking soil samples at different depths from the field in the dry and
wet seasons, and the soil suction, u, for the samples taken, is measured in the laboratory using
several different methods, including the psychrometer vacuum desiccator suction plate or
pressure membrane. The profile of soil suction for any site varies under different moisture
content due to climatic changes, and a typical example is shown in Figure 3(a). For design
purposes, however, the surface heave, ys, can be calculated using the idealised soil suction
profile (Figure 3b) instead of the actual soil suction profile.

3
 Figure 3: Typical example of soil suction profile: (a) actual; and (b) idealised.

As can be seen in Figure 3(b), the idealised soil suction profile is based on an assumption that
the suction change has a triangular distribution with depth, with the maximum value of suction
change occurring at the ground surface (Δus), and decreasing linearly with the depth until it
reaches the soil suction depth, Hs, below which a constant soil suction occurs. Two important
variables (Δus and Hs) are therefore needed to obtain the idealised soil suction, which varies
according to locality and climate changes. For design purposes, however, these variables are
not necessary to be measured and can be obtained as recommended by Australian Standard AS
2870 (2011) for different cities in Australia (Table 1 and Figure 4).

Table 1: Change in soil suction at the ground surface and depth of suction change
recommended by AS 2870.

NOTE: The variation in Hs depends largely on climatic variation.

4
 Figure 4: Depth of suction change, Hs, for different site conditions.

For layered soils (see Figure 5), the surface heave is the sum of individual soil heave for each
expansive soil layer and is calculated as follows:

N
ys =  ( I pti  ui  H si ) (2)
i =1

where; ys = total soil surface heave observed at the ground surface; N = number of soil layers
influenced by the change in the soil suction; and i = soil layer number.

Figure 5: Idealised soil suction profile for layered soils.

Design using Australian Standard AS 2870

This method uses Australian Standard AS 2870 (2011) “Residential Slabs and Footings”, and
requires the site classification in terms of its reactivity using Table (2), then a footing can be
designed as stiffened/rigid raft (slab) foundation as per Figure (6) and Table (3), or waffle raft
foundation as per Figure (7) and Table (4). The site classification is based on the ground surface
heave, ys. For Classes (M, H1, H2, E), further classification is required based on the depth of
the deep-seated movement. Where the design depth of the suction change, Hs, is greater than
or equal to 3 m, the classification shall be (M-D, H1-D, H2-D, E-D), as appropriate.

5
 Table 2: Site classifications as specified by Australian Standards (AS 2870).

Figure 6: Typical cross-section of stiffened raft foundation design by Australian

Standard AS 2870.

Beam layout:
• Internal and external edge beams shall form an integral structural grid.
• Where the number of beams in a particular direction satisfies the requirements of the
maximum spacing in Figure. 4, the spacing between individual beams may be varied,
provided the spacing between any two beams does not exceed the spacing given in Figure 4
by 25%.

Reinforcement:
• Where external beams wider than 300 mm are specified, an extra bottom bar or the
equivalent of the same bar size shall be used for each 100 mm additional width.
• If a beam depth greater than that required in Figure 4 for the particular class of site and type
of construction is to be used, the bottom reinforcement for the deeper beam given in Figure
4 shall be used.

6
Table 3: Details of stiffened raft foundation design using Australian Standard AS 2870.

Figure 7: Typical cross-section of waffle raft foundation design

(Australian Standard AS 2870).

7
Waffle Raft:
If a waffle raft is to be used, the sub-beam spacing is smaller so that the number of beams in
the long and short directions is greater. This type of footing has the advantage of giving formed
voids underneath the slab to allow the expansive soil to move freely without applying too much
swelling pressure on the raft.

Table 4: Details of waffle raft foundation design using Australian Standard AS 2870.

8
Specifications of Steel Reinforcement
Trench Mesh (TM):
3-L8TM has three bars, each is 8 mm in diameter.

4-L11TM has four bars, each 11 mm in diameter.

Square Mesh:
SL72 square mesh has bars of 7 mm in diameter
and is on a grid of 200 mm apart (centre-to-
centre).

Reinforcing “Y” Bars (fys = 400 MPa):

4-Y16 means 4 bars, each 16 mm in diameter.

Reinforcing “N” Bars (fys = 500 MPa):

4-N16 means 4 bars, each 16 mm in diameter.

“R” bars are mild steel, plain rods (yield strength, fsy = 250 MPa), and “Y” bars are cold-deformed steel (fsy =
400 MPa), and can be replaced with “N” bars, cold-deformed normal ductility steel (fsy = 500 MPa).
[Notation: 5-Y24 means 5 “Y” bars, 24 mm in diameter].

Limitations of the footing system using the deemed-to-comply (AS 2870) method
The standard deemed-to-comply design method does not apply to the following cases:
• Class E or E-H sites.
• Buildings longer than 30 m.
• Slabs congaing permeant joints (e.g. contraction or control joints).
• Two-storey building with a suspended concrete floor on the first floor.
• The two-storey building is above 8.5 m in height.
• Buildings incorporating masonry arches.
• Buildings of three or more storeys.

9
 Worked Example (1)
A borehole drilled for a proposed house extension of 15m width and 23m length in the City of
Adelaide, and subsequent laboratory identification and testing, gave the geotechnical
information shown in the table below. Suggest a design of footing using the AS2870 for the
proposed extension if it is articulated masonry veneer construction. [Answers: ys = 43 mm,
use stiffened raft foundation of 500 mm deep beams reinforced with 3N12 bottom bars
and 2N12 top bars and a maximum beam spacing of 4 m centre-to-centre. Use SL82 slab
of 100 mm thickness]

10
Design Using Engineering Principles
Many mathematical techniques can be used to model the behaviour of foundations on
expansive soils. These techniques use the moisture diffusion equations and soil-footing
interactions and rely mainly on the use of computers for their solution such as finite element
and finite difference. SLOG (Slab on Ground – Mitchell’s method by Mitchel, 1984) and
CORD (Code Oriented Raft Design – Walsh’s method by Walsh and Walsh, 1980) are two
commercial computer packages currently used by geotechnical engineers in Australia. SLOG
will be considered in our unit, and detailed information on the method can be found in Mitchel
(1984). The computer methods commonly used in Australia, including Mitchell’s method,
consider the interaction of a loaded raft (slab) footing on an initially distorted soil surface.
When the soil suction (or moisture) in the subsoil under the footing is changed for any reason,
differential soil movement occurs across the footing. If the moisture content under the house is
higher than that of the house exterior, the raft footing will tend to be distorted in a centre heave
shape (or hogging mode) of distortion (see Figure 8a). Otherwise, if the soil moisture under the
house is lower than that of the house exterior, the raft footing will tend to be distorted in an
edge heave shape (or sagging mode) of distortion (see Figure 8b). The raft footing may
experience both distortion modes during its service life, and the design should be able to
consider both distortion modes. The main concept of the design of raft footings on expansive
soils is to design the raft in such a way as to be of sufficient structural capacity to limit the
magnitude of expansive soil movements to a value permissible for the house frame. This can
be achieved using a system of sub-beams integrated within the floor slab of the raft to form a
grid with no internal corners, and the sub-beams being continuous for the full length of the raft.

Figure 8: Two-dimensional mounds: (a) centre heave; and (b) edge heave.

The approach for the design of stiffened raft footings on expansive soils using Mitchell’s
method is to examine the interaction of the loaded raft footing on an initially distorted soil
surface, and the stress distribution due to soil heave and footing deflection, P, along the footing
is obtained, as follows:

p = k ( y − ) (3)

where;
k = soil stiffness (described later);
y = soil mound movement; and
δ = footing deflection or deformation due to soil movement.

The obtained stress, P, is then superimposed with the superstructure applied loads/stresses
(dead load + live load) and the corresponding bending moments and shearing forces are
calculated by choosing EI that satisfies the moments and serviceability to permit the footing
design for both the hogging condition (centre heave) and sagging condition (edge heave),
considering the following design aspects:

11
Soil Stiffness, k:
The soil behaviour can be modelled by elastic parameters such as Young’s modulus and
Poisson’s ratio. However, the model used in Mitchell’s method adopts the Winkler spring in
which the soil behaviour is simulated as springs of constant stiffness, k. For footings in contact
with reactive soils, the soil stiffness, k, will range between 400-1500 kPa/m. A soil stiffness of
100q but not less than 1000 kPa/m may be used, where q is the total building load divided by
the plan of the footing. For small building loads, a value of k = 1000 kPa/m is appropriate for
both the centre heave and edge heave, as recommended by Mitchell’s method. It should be
noted that for locations where the footing is not in contact with the soil (i.e. lift-off points), k =
0.0 and thus P = 0, and the moments will be developed due to the structure applied loads only.

Soil mound:
Depending on the conditions occurring at the perimeter of the structure, a variety of mound
shapes of the initially distorted soil surface can occur. It should be noted that the soil mound
shapes are developed after the footing is constructed, and the problem is to determine the
deflected shape of the footing (mound shape) for an appropriate soil heave. This includes the
centre heave (or hogging mode) of distortion and the edge heave (or sagging mode) of
distortion. Several comparative studies have shown that this parameter is the most critical
design parameter. For a maximum initial soil surface due to soil swell or heave, the soil mound
at any point x from the footing centre, y, for the mound shapes in Figure 9 can be
mathematically represented using the following equation (Lytton 1977):

m
 2x 
y =   ys (4)
 L 

1.5 L
m= (5)
Dcr − De

H s ym
Dcr (meters ) = + (6)
7 25

where;
ys = ground surface heave (obtained using Equations 1 or 2).
L = footing length.
m = mound exponent.
Dcr = critical depth of soil suction (≤ 4.2 m or depth to bedrock, whichever is smaller).
De = depth of embedment of the footing edge beam from the finished ground level.
Hs = thickness of soil layer subjected to suction (m).
ym = 0.7 ys = design value of soil heave (mm).

Figure 9: Possible mound shape scenarios: (a) centre heave; and (b) edge heave.

12
 Figure 10: Calculation of critical depth, Dr, and depth of embedment, De.
(Note: if waffle raft is used, ts, will be ignored as this technique does not use underfloor sand fill)

Footing deflection:
The structural interaction of the footing with the distorted soil surface is explored using the
beam-on-Winkler foundation, by taking the deflected shape of the footing to be defined using
an equation similar to that representing the soil mound movement (i.e. Equation 4) but with a
different exponent, t, and the footing permissible differential deflection, Δ (obtained from Table
5). Then the footing deformation or deflected shape of the footing, δ, can be determined,
including the “lift-off” distance between the footing and soil (i.e. length of footing that loses
contact with the soil), using t = 2, as follows:

t =2
 2x 
=   (7)
 L 

Permissible differential deflection:

This parameter is defined as the footing maximum allowable differential deflection that
guarantees a satisfactory level of structural serviceability before distress becomes manifest. It
is dependent on the construction type and has usually been empirically determined from the
observed behaviour of structures, so that the allowable differential deflection ratio, Δ/L, of
structures, is of the order shown in Table 5.

Table 5: Allowable deflection ratio and maximum differential deflection

(Australian Standard AS 2870).

~
-
-
-
-
Geometry:
The geometry of the house (structure) can be simplified (reduced) into rectangles/squares of
dimensions length (L) and breadth (B), and for complex shapes, the plan of the structure can
be divided into overlapping rectangles/squares; each is analysed separately and the one that
gives the maximum footing stiffness/inertia is used for design.

13
Loading:
A variety of structure loading patterns will occur in practice. However, this complexity can be
reduced by simplifying the applied loads into perimeter (edge) line loads and interior centre
line loads (see Figure 11), as well as interior uniformly distributed loads, which include the
wall, roof, flooring, footing and live loads. Service loads rather than factored loads are used
in the design of foundations for lightweight structures.

Figure 11: Edge and centreline loads in Mitchell’s method.

For calculating the bending moment in the hogging condition (centre heave), the raft will act
as a beam with a double cantilever, whereas it will act as a simple beam in the sagging condition
(edge heave). The solution will need an iterative process to determine footing stiffness, EI, or
inertia, I, that limits the footing deflection to tolerable values given in Table 5, for the long and
short footing spans and negative and positive bending moments, ensuring that:

Mu/M* ≥ 1.2 and Mu/Mcr ≥ 1.2.

Mu = ultimate moment.
M* = working moment and Mcr = cracking moment.

Reducing the Impact of Reactive Soils

In addition to the appropriate design of footing on expansive soils, using either the AS 2870 or
engineering principles, the extent of distortion and cracking of a dwelling built on expansive
soils can be reduced by the following precautions:
• Providing a concrete or paved path around the perimeter of the house.
• Providing an adequate drainage system so that rainfall and runoff are discharged well away
from the vicinity of the dwelling.
• Ensuring that vegetation is not located close to the house.
• Ensuring that gardens close to the dwelling are not over-watered.
• Ensuring that the soil adjacent to the footing is maintained at a reasonably constant moisture
content.

14
 Worked Example (2)
Design a raft foundation (stiffened and waffle) resting on an expansive soil supporting an
articulated masonry veneer of a single-storey house located in the City of Perth, using
Mitchell’s method and SLOG software. The raft dimensions are (8 width × 16 m length) and
the soil has a ground surface heave of 70 mm. Use the following loads: edge load = 6 kN/m’,
centreline load = 10 kN/m’ and uniform load (including roof, flooring and live loads, and
excluding the weight of footing) = 4 kPa. Use an underfloor sand fill of 200 mm thick.

Mesh
Code SL81 SL62 SL72 SL82 SL92 SL102
Cross-wire (mm) 7.60@100 6.00@200 6.75@200 7.60@200 8.55@200 9.50@200
Long-wire (mm) 7.60@100 6.00@200 6.75@200 7.60@200 8.55@200 9.50@200

15
 Tutorial (1)
Footings on Reactive Soils
Design a raft foundation (stiffened and waffle) for Example (1), using Mitchell’s method and
SLOG software. The external walls are made of double leaf bricks of edge load = 6 kN/m’ and
the internal walls are made of single 90 mm leaf bricks, over an average wall height of 2.8 m,
and the brick unit weight is 14 kN/m3. The internal walls cover 2-times the length and 3-times
the breadth of the raft foundation. A uniform load (including roof, flooring and live loads, and
excluding the weight of footing) = 4 kPa is applied and there is an underfloor sand fill of 200
mm thick.

16
References:
• Australian Standard AS 2870 (2011). Residential slabs and footings.
• Lytton, R. L. (1977). Foundations in expansive soils. Numerical Methods in Geotechnical
Engineering, McGraw-Hill, pp. 783
• Mitchell, P. W. (1984). A simple method of design of shallow foundations on expansive
soils. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Expansive Soils, Adelaide, pp.
159-164.
• Whitlow, M. J. (1990). Basic soil mechanics, Longman Science & Technical, Harlow, UK.
• Walsh, P. F. and Walsh, S. F. (1980). Structure/reactive clay model for a microcomputer,
CSIRO Australia, DBR Report R86/9.

17
 CHAPTER (2)
SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS ‒ BEARING CAPACITY
Introduction
As mentioned in the previous lecture series, shallow foundations comprise pad footings, strip
footings, combined footings and rafts (Figure 1). The design of such foundations for multi-
storey buildings relies on the satisfactory fulfilment of two criteria: bearing capacity and soil
compressibility or settlement. The design requirement for bearing capacity ensures that there is
adequate protection against possible shear failure to the underlying ground, whereas the design
requirement for settlement (total and differential) ensures that the building serviceability is
accepted and structural damage is avoided.

Figure 1: Typical examples of shallow foundations for multi-storey buildings.

18
Applied Pressure vs Bearing Capacity
To design a shallow foundation for bearing capacity, the applied pressure at the foundation
level should be less than the bearing capacity of soil by a factor of safety, usually between 2 to
3. The applied pressure is the contact force per unit area along the bottom of the foundation,
whereas the bearing capacity is the pressure at which the soil beneath the foundation fails in
shear, or it is the shear strength that the soil provides against applied pressure or external loads.
There are two conditions for the applied pressure and bearing capacity that can be used for the
geotechnical design, as explained below (see Figure 2).

• Gross Applied Pressure (qapp-gross): unit area

contact force
per
PG PC + W f + Ws
qapp − gross = = (1)
A A
to the foundation
where; total load apply
PG = applied load at the foundation level.
PC = column load.
Wf = weight of footing.
Ws = weight of soil above the footing, if any.
A = base area of foundation. Pa : 1 /Pa
.

For design, Wf + Ws can be virtually assumed to be equal to 10% of the column load, i.e. PG =
PC + 0.1PC = 1.1PC.

wait
Wsoil
% 12 .
5

-
Figure 2: Applied pressure of shallow foundations.

• Net Applied Pressure (qapp-net):

An alternative way to define the applied pressure is by the net applied pressure, qapp-net, which
is the difference between gross applied pressure, qapp-gross, and effective overburden pressure,
σ’vo (i.e. effective vertical stress due to own-weight of soil) at the foundation level (i.e. at depth
Df from the ground surface). In other words, it is the applied pressure at the foundation level
above the existing soil's weight.
UDF -Gro
Tapp-gross
Tapp-net
-
:

Failure Modes for Bearing Capacity Calculations:

To compute the bearing capacity of soil for shallow foundations, it is important to study the
different principal modes of failure beneath the foundations, which may be defined as follows:
— General shear failure (Figure 3a):
• This mode of failure is associated with dense cohesionless or stiff cohesive soils of low

deep foundation
compressibility.
for
19
# = 2 . 5
 • Failure starts with a soil wedge underneath the footing, followed by a spiral slip surface
which extends outward to the ground surface.
• Failure is sudden and accompanied by considerable bulging at the ground surface.

— Local shear failure (Figure 3b):

• This failure mode occurs for footing resting on compressible soils of medium
compaction.
• Failure starts with a soil wedge underneath the footing, followed by spiral slip surfaces
that do not extend to the ground surface.
• Failure is not sudden and some bulging may occur.

— Punching shear failure (Figure 3c):

• This failure mode occurs if the foundation is supported by a fairly loose cohesionless or
soft cohesive soil of high compressibility.
• Only a soil wedge underneath the foundation occurs and the failure surface does not
extend to the ground surface.
• Failure is accompanied by a considerable vertical movement and bulging at the ground
surface is absent.

↑...... e
....... Only onei
Bearing ultimateg)
capacity
Settlem

Figure 3: Principal modes of bearing capacity failure: (a) general shear failure; (b) local
shear failure; (c) punching shear failure (Das, 1998).

• Gross Bearing Capacity:

The gross bearing capacity is determined by considering one of the failure modes shown in
Figure 3 and applying the limit equilibrium analysis to evaluate the stresses and strengths along
the surface of failure. For design purposes, it is only necessary to check the general shear failure

20
 mode rather than the local or punching shear failure modes and then calculate the ultimate gross
bearing capacity, qult-gross. It should be noted that assuming the general shear failure mode in
the design is practical as in reality the soil is usually improved by compaction or stabilisation
before placing the footings.

• Net Bearing Capacity:

It is the difference between the gross bearing capacity and effective vertical overburden
pressure, σ’vo, at the foundation level. Thus the net ultimate bearing capacity, qult-net, is the
difference between qult-gross and σ’vo.
QUH-net I Quit-gross- UDF
For the design of shallow foundations, we want to make sure that the applied pressure is less
than the ultimate bearing capacity, by a factor of safety (FS), thus, limiting the probability of
failure. For calculation of the factor of safety, the gross ultimate bearing capacity and gross
applied pressure may be used, alternatively, the net ultimate bearing capacity and net applied
pressure can also be used, as follows: Ultimate
-
FS =
qult − gross
qapp − gross
or
q
FS = ult −net
qapp − net
F- applied
In this unit, we will use the② gross rather than the net definition for the calculation of the factor
of safety as usually used by many codes. For simplicity, we will use the term qult for qult-gross,
and qapp for qapp-gross. The factor of safety will thus be expressed, as follows:

qult
FS = (2)
qapp

For a safe design, FS obtained from Equation (2) should not be less than 2; however, if certain
FS needs to be achieved (usually between 2 to 3), then the allowable bearing pressure, qall, can
be obtained, as follows: --

qult
qall = (3)
FS

There are many methods available in the literature for the calculation of the ultimate bearing
capacity, qult, based on soil characteristics obtained either from laboratory experiments or in-
situ tests; however, in our unit, we will only focus on the methods that use soil characteristics
from laboratory experiments. It should be noted that qall is the working pressure that can be
safely applied at the foundation level so that shear failure is unlikely to occur. We then design
the foundation in such a way that qapp does not exceed qall (i.e. qapp ≤ qall).

① Terzaghi’s Method of Ultimate Bearing Capacity

Terzaghi (1943) used the general failure mode shown in Figure 4 and proposed the following
equation for the ultimate bearing capacity, qult, of shallow foundations, qult:

qult = cNc Sc + qNq + 0.5b BN  S (4)

21
where;
c = soil cohesion.
γb = unit weight of soil below the foundation level.
B = footing breadth or width.
q = applied overburden vertical stress (surcharge) at the foundation level.
Nc, Nq & Nγ = bearing capacity factors (depend solely on soil friction angle, ).
sc & sγ = shape factors.

Figure 4: General shear failure as proposed by Terzaghi (Das, 1998).

The bearing capacity factors Nc, Nq, Nγ are given by the following equations:

K p
T
Nc = ( Nq − 1) cot  , N q =
e(3/2−) tan 
2cos (45 +  / 2)
2

= (8 − 4 + 3.8) tan (60 +  / 2)

2 2
I
1  K p
−1 , N = 
2  cos  
2

− 1 tan  , and

The above equations are translated into a simple form in Table 1, in which Nc, Nq, Nγ are
obtained by knowing the friction angle . The shape factors sc & sγ can be obtained from Table
2. It should be noted that Terzaghi’s equation for ultimate bearing capacity did not consider
the impact of the depth of foundation and/or inclined footing load.
Table 1: Bearing capacity factors of Terzaghi’s method.

O O O ②

Table 2: Shape factors of Terzaghi’s method.

⑨
22
 Worked Example (1)

Nur
For the square
-
footing shown below, use Terzaghi’s method to obtain the following (the water
-

table is far below the ground surface):

(a) Factor of safety against bearing capacity failure, if the footing is subjected to a column& i
load of 450 kN.
(b) Magnitude of the maximum allowable column load that can be applied for a factor of
safety, FS = 3. [Answers: FS = 2.4 and PC = 362 kN]
esodi Gall At
↓
:

23
Meyerhof’s Method of Ultimate Bearing Capacity
Meyerhof (1963) presented an equation to calculate the ultimate bearing capacity, qult, that
takes into account the impact of the depth of foundation, Df, and load inclination to the vertical,
α, as follows:

qult = cNc Sc dcic + qNq Sq dqiq + 0.5b BN  S d i (5)

Nc, Nq, Nγ are the bearing capacity factors and are given as: Nc = ( Nq − 1) cot  ,
N q = e tan  tan 2 (45 +  / 2) and N = ( Nq − 1) tan(1.4)

sc, sq, sγ = shape factors.

dc, dq, dγ = depth factors.
ic, iq, iγ = load inclination factors.

Values of the bearing capacity factors do not have to be obtained using the above equations and
an alternative easy way is to use Table 3. Also, the equations needed to obtain the values of the
shape, depth and load inclination factors are included in Table 4. It should be noted that the
safety against sliding due to load, T, should be checked but sliding may be somewhat restricted
when footings are connected by tie beams.

Table 3: Bearing capacity factors of Meyerhof’s method.

~ ~ ~

24
Table 4: Shape, depth and load inclination factors of Meyerhof’s method.

O for circular
6

~
1
should
.

v
W

25
 Worked Example (2)
In the figure shown below, use Meyerhof’s method to check the stability of the footing against
bearing capacity failure and sliding failure. [Answers: FSbearing = 1.23 and FSsliding = 0.5]

26
Hansen’s Method of Ultimate Bearing Capacity
Hansen (1970) extended Meyerhof’s work to include two additional factors to the equation of
ultimate bearing capacity, qult, to take care of the sloping ground surface, β, and tilted base, η,
as follows:

qult = cNc Sc dcic gcbc + qNq Sq dqiq gqbq + 0.5b BN  S d i g b (6)

The bearing capacity factors Nc and Nq are the same as Meyerhof, but Nγ is developed as:
N = 1.5( Nq − 1) tan  .

sc, sq, sγ = shape factors.

dc, dq, dγ = depth factors.
ic, iq, iγ = load inclination factors.
gc, gq, gγ = ground slope factors.
bc, bq, bγ = tilted base factors.

Values for the bearing capacity factors can be obtained directly from Table 5, and equations to
compute the values of the shape, depth, load inclination, ground slope and tilted base factors
are given in Table 6.

Table 5: Bearing capacity factors of Hansen’s method.

27
Table 6: Shape, depth, load inclination, ground slope and tilted base factors of Hansen’s
method.

~
~
-
- in
degree
w
-

↑ in
rad

28
 Worked Example (3)
Calculate the factor of safety against bearing capacity failure for the footing shown below,
using Hansen’s method. [Answer: FS = 1.8 < 2-3, unsafe]

29
Vesic’s Method of Ultimate Bearing Capacity
Vesic (1975) used the same form of equation suggested by Hansen to obtain the ultimate
bearing capacity, qult, but developed his own bearing capacity factor Nγ as well as load
inclination, ground slope and tilted base factors. Values for the bearing capacity factors are
given in Table 7, whereas the equations needed to obtain the shape, depth, load inclination,
ground slope and tilted base factors are given in Table 8.

Table 7: Bearing capacity factors of Vesic’s method.

30
Table 8: Shape, depth, load inclination, ground slope and tilted base factors of Vesic’s
method.

O
O in rad
-
I always
:
10

O
if H :

O
Ca
:

31
 Worked Example (4)
Calculate the ultimate bearing capacity for the footing shown below, using Vesic’s method.
Neglect applied shear to the footing base. [Answer: qult = 481 kPa]

32
 Summary of Ultimate Bearing Capacity Factors

Note: Values of the bearing capacity factors for Meyerhof (M), Hansen (H) and Vesic (V).

33
 Summary of Ultimate Bearing Capacity Calculations

Which equation to use?

Bowles (1996) suggested the various equations be used in the following situations:

Bearing capacity near ground slopes?

If footings are on or near slopes, the bearing capacity would be less than if the case where the
footings are on level ground. Bearing capacity equations for footings on or near ground slopes
calculated using Hansen and Vesic methods are for zero edge distance (i.e. zero distance

②
between the footing edge and shoulder of the ground slope). In cases where the edge distance

34
 Terzaghi's Method .

is greater than zero and less than a maximum value at which the presence of ground slope no
longer affects the bearing capacity, Hansen and Vesic methods cannot be used for the
calculation of bearing capacity and other methods, which are not covered herein, and can be
used (e.g. Saran et al. 1989 and Castelli & Motta 2010). However, such methods are not reliable
and it is better to solve this problem using numerical modelling, such as finite elements, and
the overall slope stability to be checked as well.

35
 /
Effective vs Total Stresses for Bearing Capacity
I
If the water table is far below the foundation level, the bearing capacity should be computed
using the effective shear strength parameters c’ and ’, and the bulk unit weight of soil, γ.
However, if the water table is located close to the foundation, the shear strength parameters
will be following whether the design should be based on effective stress analysis (drained
condition) or total stress analysis (undrained condition). Also, some modifications are
necessary for the bearing capacity equations for the surcharge load q and unit weight of soil,
depending on the depth of the water table below the ground surface.

Effective Stress Analysis: This analysis considers the drained condition where the excess pore
water pressures, if any, that may be created due to loading has time to dissipate. In this case,
in the various bearing capacity equations, use the effective shear strength parameters c’ and ’,
and the values of q and γb should be computed taking into account the level of the water table
as per the following three cases (see Figure 6).

• Case I: ground water table is located so that (0 ≤ D1 ≤ Df). The surcharge pressure q in the
bearing capacity equations will take the following form:

where;
γ
1 /
q = D1 +  sat D2 −  w D2 = D1 + ( sat −  w )D2 = D1 + D2

= bulk unit weight of soil above the water table.

8' Usat-Un
:

γsat = saturated unit weight of soil below the water table.

γ‘ = effective unit weight of soil.
γw = unit weight of water.

Also, the parameter γb, in the last term (… γb BNγ ) is replaced by γ’.

• Case II: ground water table is located above the ground surface by a height of hw. The
surcharge pressure q in the bearing capacity equations will be:
thickness

-
q =  whw +  sat D f −  w (hw + D f ) = ( sat −  w ) D f = D f can assume
the layer
Also, the parameter γb, in the last term (… γb BNγ ) is replaced by γ’.
- -

• Case III: groundwater table is located below the base of the footing so that (0 ≤ d ≤ B). The
surcharge load q in the bearing capacity equation will take the form:

q = D f

Also, the parameter γb, in the last term (… γb BNγ ) is replaced by the factor:

d
 =  + (  −  )
B

36
 Figure 5: The three groundwater cases that influence bearing capacity.

Total Stress Analysis: This analysis considers the undrained condition where excess pore
water pressures develop due to loading and will not have enough time to dissipate. In this case,
in the various bearing capacity equations, use the undrained strength parameters cu (or su) and
u = 0, and in the calculation of the surcharge load q, use the bulk unit weight γ above the water
table and saturated unit weight γsat below the water table, depending on the location of the water
table between the ground surface and foundation level. It should be noted that in this case, N
= 0, thus the last term (… γb BNγ ) is zero.

Please note that for fully saturated soils: use drained condition (or effective stress analysis) for
sands; whereas using both drained and undrained conditions (effective and total stress analyses)
for clays, and consider the worst case scenario, however, the undrained condition is likely to
be more critical. For partially saturated soils: use drained condition for sands, and use
undrained condition for clays but it will be conservative.

37
 Worked Example (5)
Refer to the figure below and use FS = 3 and Terzaghi’s method to calculate the allowable
column load, for drained and undrained conditions, and comment on the results obtained, if the
water table is located at:
(a) ground surface.
(b) 0.5 m below the ground surface.
(c) 2.0 m below the ground surface.
[Answers: Pc-drained condition = 307 , 327 , 357 kN, Pc-undrained condition = 64, 63, 62 kN]

38
Bearing Capacity for Footings on Layered Soils
The bearing capacity equations examined thus far have treated the soil beneath the footing as
being a single homogeneous deposit (i.e. c,  and γ are constant with depth). In some instances,
the subsoil beneath the footing may be stratified into layers. One way of dealing with such a
situation is to use the weighted average values of c,  and γ based on the relative thicknesses
of each stratum in the zone between the bottom of the footing and a depth H below the bottom.
The depth H can be taken equal to B or [B/2 × tan(45o + ϕ1/2)], whichever is higher. The
weighted average values can be calculated as follows (see Figure 5):

i =n i =n i=n

 ci H i  i H i  H
00
i i

o
cav = av =  av =
i =1 i =1 i =1
i =n i =n i =n
(7)
H
i =1
i   i =1
Hi
i =1
Hi

where;
ci = cohesion of layer i.
i = friction angle of layer i.
γi = unit weight of soil for layer i.
Hi = thickness of layer i.
Hi = effective depth beneath the footing.

Figure 6: Footing on layered soils.

Footings with Eccentric Loading

Most foundations are built so that the vertical load acts through the centroid, thus producing a
uniform distribution of bearing pressure underneath the foundation. However, sometimes it
becomes necessary to accommodate eccentric loadings which result from loads applied
somewhere other than the footing’s centroid or from applied moments (see Figure 7), such as
those resulting at the footings of a tall building from wind loads or earthquakes. Eccentric
loadings produce non-uniform bearing pressure distribution underneath footings, leading to
change the bearing capacity calculations. When a footing is subjected to an eccentric load, it
tilts towards the side of the eccentricity and the bearing pressure increases on that side and
decreases on the opposite side. When the vertical applied load reaches its ultimate value, there
will be a failure of the supporting soil on the side of eccentricity. It is then important to know
how bearing pressure and bearing capacity change with eccentric loading and how they can be
determined. In Figure 7(a), the eccentricity of the bearing pressure is equal to:

39
 M M
e= = (8)
PG 1.1PC

In Figure 7(b), the eccentricity is equal to:

M Px
e= = c (9)
PG 1.1PC

where;
M = applied moment at the foundation level of the footing centroid.
PG = applied load at the foundation level of the footing centroid.
PC = column load.
A = base area of foundation.
e = eccentricity of the bearing pressure distribution.
e1 = eccentricity of the column load to the footing centroid.

Figure 7: Examples of footings with eccentricity.

Applied Pressure for Eccentric Foundations

One-Way Eccentricity: For a footing with one-way eccentricity in the B direction (i.e. eB) the
possible applied pressure distributions will be as shown in Figure 8. If eB < B/6, the applied
pressure distribution is trapezoidal and its minimum and maximum values, qapp-min and qapp-max,
can be calculated as follows:

PG 6  eB
qapp − min = (1 − ) (11)
A B

PG 6  eB
qapp − max = (1 + ) (12)
A B

If eB = B/6, then qapp-min = 0 and the applied pressure distribution is triangular, as shown in
Figure 8. Therefore, so long as eB ≤ B/6, there will be some applied pressure contact along the
entire base area of the foundation. However, if eB > B/6, part of the applied pressure will be in
tension and one side of the foundation will lift off the ground, which should not be allowed. If
the column includes crane loads, the applied pressure distribution should satisfy the following
condition: qapp-min ≥ 25% qapp-max. If the eccentricity is in the L direction, replace B with L and
eB with eL in Eqns. (11) and (12), respectively, to calculate qapp-min and qapp-max.

Pl - 40
Figure 8: Possible applied pressure distributions for a footing with one-way eccentricity
in the B-direction.

Two-Way Eccentricity: In Figure 9, the footing is subjected to two-way eccentricity and the
minimum & maximum applied pressures are calculated, as follows:

PG 6  eB 6  eL
qapp − min = (1 − − ) (13)
A B L

PG 6  eB 6  eL
qapp − min = (1 + + ) (14)
A B L

where: eB and eL are the eccentricities in the B and L directions, respectively, and can be
obtained as follows: eB = ML /PG and eL = MB /PG.

Figure 9: Footing with two-way eccentricity.

41
Bearing Capacity for Eccentric Foundations
Meyerhof (1963) suggested a method that is generally referred to as the effective area method
to obtain the bearing capacity of footings subjected to eccentricity. The design of footing
subjected to eccentricity is the same as described earlier using any of the ultimate bearing
capacity methods but with some modifications to consider for the effective dimensions of
footing, as explained below.

One-Way Eccentricity: For footings with one-way eccentricity, the effective footing
dimensions are as follows (see Figure 10):

B’ = effective width = B – 2eB (for eccentricity in B direction)

L’ = effective length = L – 2eL (for eccentricity in L direction)

In the bearing capacity equations, to obtain the shape factors (sc, sq and sγ), use the effective
width B’ or effective length L’ instead of B or L. Also, use B’ in the last term of the bearing
capacity equations (… γbBNγ ). However, to determine the depth factors (dc, dq and dγ), use B
& L and do not replace them with B’ & L’.

Figure 10: Effective dimensions for footings with one-way eccentricity in B and L
directions.

It should be noted that if eccentricity was in the direction of the footing length, as the case in
the left of Figure 8, the effective length L’ would be equal to L – 2eL and the effective width
would be equal to B. L’ and B should be compared and the smaller of the two dimensions
should be used as the effective width of footing and the other dimension should be used as the
effective length.

42
 Worked Example (6)
Determine the factor of safety against bearing capacity failure using Meyerhof’s method for
the footing shown in the figure below. The water table is far below the ground surface and the
depth of the foundation is 1.5 m from the ground surface. The soil has the following properties:
γ = 18 kN/m3, c’ = 15 kPa and ’ = 20o. [Answer: FS = 5.5, very safe]

43
Two-Way Eccentricity: When a foundation is subjected to two-way eccentricity, its effective
area (i.e. the area affected by the load) will be similar to the dashed area depicted in Figure
11(a). In this case, the effective width of foundation B’ will be such that:

( B + B1 ) L1 ( B − B1 )
B = + (15)
2 2L

where, B1 and L1 can be determined from charts established by Higher and Andres (1985) and
reproduced in Figures 12 and 13, respectively. In this case, the effective length will still be
equal to the original length L (i.e. L’= L).

A simpler but less reliable way of dealing with the two-way-eccentricity problem is to assume
that the effective area will be similar to the dashed area depicted in Figure 11(b). In this case,
the effective width, B’, and effective length, L’, can be calculated as follows:

B = B − 2eB (for eccentricity in the B-direction)

L = L − 2eL (for eccentricity in the L-direction)

(a) Higher & Andres method (b) Simple method by Meyerhof

Figure 11: Effective area related to a two-way eccentricity footing.

44
 Figure 12: Higher and Andres charts for Figure 13: Higher and Andres charts for
calculation of B1. calculation of L1.

As with the one-way eccentricity, in the bearing capacity equations, use the effective width B’
instead of B to obtain the shape factors (sc, sq and sγ). Also, use B’ in the last term of the bearing
capacity equation (… γbBNγ ). However, to determine the depth factors (dc, dq and dγ), use the
original width B and do not replace it with B’. For footings with eccentricity, the bearing
capacity, qult, can then be compared with the maximum bearing pressure, qapp-max, and the factor
of safety can then be obtained as follows:

qult
FS = (16)
qapp − max

Determination of Footing Dimensions: In the calculation of the bearing capacity of shallow

foundations shown previously, the footing dimensions (B × L) were given. However, in reality,
such dimensions should be determined in advance by the geotechnical engineer and the
following general procedure can be used for this purpose.
1. Estimate the preliminary allowable bearing pressure, q*all, from the ultimate bearing
capacity of the underlying foundation material, qu (obtained from Table 9), such that: q*all
= qu/FS. The values in Table (9) should only be used for preliminary design purposes. The
choice of the FS (factor of safety) should be decided with the following considerations: (i)
type of structure; (ii) quality of the soil exploration program; (iii) likelihood of the maximum
load occurring; and (iv) consequences of failure. On the one hand, high FS > 2 is used where
limited soil exploration is undertaken, the soil conditions are very variable, the
consequences of failure are disastrous and the maximum design load is likely to occur often.
On the other hand, low FS = 2 is adopted where thorough and complete site investigations
are undertaken, the soil conditions are relatively uniform, the consequences of failure are
not disastrous and the maximum design load is unlikely to occur.
2. Determine the vertical load and moment (if any) transmitted from the structure to the footing
under the service loading conditions. These are the applied load, PG, and moment, MG, at
the foundation level. Where PG is made of the column load, PC, weight of footing, WF, and
weight of soil above it, Ws, or (PG = 1.1 PC), noting that PC is made of the dead load, PD,
and live load, PL, of the structure (i.e. PC = PD + PL). Likewise, MG (if any) is made of the
column moment, MC (i.e. MC = MD + ML).
ultimate limit state
45
3. Select the overall dimensions of the footing for the load, PG, and moment, MG (if any), to
fulfil the allowable bearing pressure, q*all, in such a way as to achieve as uniform pressure
as possible.
4. Perform the bearing capacity analysis on the proposed footings and calculate the actual
ultimate bearing capacity, qult, using the actual allowable bearing capacity (i.e. qall = qult/FS),
making sure that the applied bearing pressure, qapp, is less than qall.
5. Calculate the net applied bearing pressure, qnet, and perform the settlement analysis, as will
be explained in the next lecture series, to calculate the settlement, making sure that it is
within tolerable limits.

Table 9: Typical ultimate bearing capacities for various soil and rock types
(Whitlow 1990).

46
 Worked Example (7)
Use Meyerhof’s method with FS = 3 and check the bearing capacity of a pad footing carrying
a vertical column load of 550 kN (400 kN dead load and 150 kN live load). The footing is
located at 1.5 m from the ground surface and the water table is far below the ground surface.
The underlying foundation material is stiff to very stiff clay with the following properties: c’ =
50 kPa, ϕ’ = 5o, γsoil = 18 kN/m3. [B = 2.0 m × L = 3.0 m gives qapp = 100 kPa < qall = 163
kPa, safe]

47
Bearing Capacity of Raft Foundations
As mentioned previously, a raft foundation is a large concrete slab used to accommodate the
entire building columns and walls so that their loads are spread over a large area (Figure 14
shows pad footings versus raft foundation). Raft foundations are usually used where the soil
has a low bearing capacity and/or the structural loads are so large that more than 50% of the
available land area would be covered by pad footings. Several configurations for raft
foundations can be used and typical examples are shown in Figure 15, the simplest and most
common type is the flat slab (Figure 15a), which will be the main focus of our unit. Raft
foundations have the following advantages over pad footings, they: (i) provide much more
structural rigidity and reduce the potential for excessive total settlement; (ii) when the soil
contains weak pockets or cavities, large differential settlements are to be expected if the
building is founded on pad footings; raft foundations, however, tend to bridge over the weak
soil pockets and hence reduce differential settlement; (iii) spread the structural loads over a
large area, thus, reduce the applied bearing pressure on the supporting soil; and (iv) have greater
weight and thus can resist higher uplift loads.

Figure 14: Pad footing versus raft foundation.

Figure 15: Several configurations of raft foundations: (a) flat slab/plate; (b) plate
thickness under columns; (c) beam and slab (waffle slab); (d) slab with pedestals; and
(e) basement walls or closed boxes.

48
Bearing capacity calculations for raft foundations are similar to those of pad or strip footings,
as discussed earlier. One important aspect of the design of raft foundations is that the
dimensions of the raft have to be selected to satisfy the requirement that the point of application
of the resultant applied load, PG, coincides with the centroid of the raft area, thus, the applied
pressure is distributed uniformly (Figure 16), which will help to avoid tilting. If for whatever
reason the resultant applied load does not act at the centroid of the raft area, the contact pressure
will no longer be uniform (Figure 17). In this case, the bearing capacity can be calculated using
the same procedure described earlier for footings with eccentricity.

Figure 16: Uniform applied pressure distribution for raft foundation.

Figure 17: Non-uniform applied pressure distribution for raft foundation.

49
 Tutorial (2)
Shallow Foundations ‒ Bearing Capacity
1. A square footing is to be constructed on sandy soil whose properties are: γ = 18 kN/m3, γsat
= 20 kN/m3, c’ = 5 kPa and ’ = 30o. The depth of the foundation is 0.7 m and the water
table is well below the ground surface.
(a) If the gross applied load at the foundation level is 250 kN, use Hansen’s method with
FS = 3 to determine the footing dimensions.
(b) If the groundwater table rises to be at 0.5 m below the ground surface, what would be
the new factor of safety against the bearing capacity failure (comment on the result)?
[Answers: B × L = 0.95 m × 0.95 m and FS = 2.7]

2. A rectangular footing (1.5 m × 2.0 m) is to be constructed such that its base is located at
1.5 m below the ground surface and the ground water table is at 0.5 below the ground
surface. The soil has the following properties: γ = 17 kN/m3, γsat = 19 kN/m3, c’ = 20 kPa
and ’ = 25o. A vertical gross load of 150 kN and a horizontal load (parallel to the breadth
of footing) of 75 kN are to be applied simultaneously at the foundation level. Use Vesic’s
method to check whether or not the applied loads can be carried safely (FS = 3 and ca = c).
[Answers: qall = 229 kPa and qapp = 50 kPa < qall, safe]

3. Use Hansen’s method with FS = 3 and find the allowable load for drained and undrained
conditions that can be applied at the foundation level of the bridge pier (4 m × 12 m) shown
in the figure below. [Answers: PG = 5808 kN and 6048 kN]

WT

2m
GS

2m γsat = 17 kN/m3

4 × 12 m
c’ = 10 kPa

4m ϕ‘ = 20o
cu = 50 kPa
γsat = 18 kN/m3

c’ = 5 kPa
ϕ‘ = 30o
5m
cu = 15 kPa
γsat = 19 kN/m3

50
4. A circular footing (2 m in diameter and 0.5 m thick) is located 0.5 m below the ground
surface and carries a vertical gross load of 1460 kN. The soil profile from the ground
surface is given in the table below and the water table is at the ground surface. Use
Terzaghi’s method and check the stability of the footing against bearing capacity failure.
[Answer: FS = 1.8]

Layer Thickness (m) Soil type γsat (kN/m3) c' (kPa) ’ (degrees)
1 1 Sand 20 5 35
2 2 Sandy clay 19 20 25
3 >5 Clay 8 100 10

5. Determine the factor of safety against bearing capacity failure using Meyerhof’s method
for the footing shown in the figure below. The water table is far below the ground surface
and the depth of foundation is 1.5 m from the ground surface. The soil has the following
properties: γ = 18 kN/m3, c’ = 15 kPa and ’ = 20o. [Answer: FS = 4.2, very safe]

6. The cylindrical water tank shown below is to be built on a square footing (20 m × 20 m)
resting on a clay soil of saturated unit weight of 20 kN/m3 and undrained shear strength of
30 kPa. The tank is subjected to a horizontal wind load of 25% of the vertical applied load.
The weight of tank material and foundation is 6000 kN and the footing thickness is 0.5 m.
Use Meyerhof’s method to check the factor of safety against bearing capacity failure.
[Answer: FS = 0.82]

0.25 W
10 m

5m W
WT GS
20 m × 20 m

51
7. Use Meyerhof’s method with FS = 2 and check the bearing capacity failure for the raft
foundation shown below which carries square columns (0.25 m × 0.25 m). The water table
is far below the foundation level and the depth of footing embedment is 1.5 m from the
ground surface. The soil is medium-dense sand with some clay and has the following
properties:  = 18 kN/m3, c’ = 15 kPa and ’ = 20o. [Answer: qall = 298 kPa > qapp-max =
125 kPa, safe]

1250 kN 1450 kN 1300 kN

5m

1300 kN 1550 kN 1450 kN

L = 15.25 m
5m

1300 kN 1400 kN 1450 kN

5m

1250 kN 1350 kN 1300 kN

5m 5m

B = 10.25 m

52
References:
• Bowles, J. E. (1996). Foundation analysis and design, McGraw-Hill, N.Y.
• Castelli, F., and Motta, E. (2010). “Bearing Capacity of Strip Footings Near Slopes” Journal
of Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 28, 187–198.
• Das, B. (1998). Principles of geotechnical engineering, PWS Publishing Company, Boston,
MA.
• Hansen, J. B. (1970). “A revised and extended formula for bearing capacity” Danish
Geotechnical Institute, Copenhagen, Bulletin (28), 5-11.
• Higher, W. H., and Andres, J. C. (1985). “Dimensioning footings subjected to eccentric
loads” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 11(GT5), 659-665.
• Meyerhof, G. G. (1963). “Shallow Foundations” Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Division, 91(SM2), 21-31.
• Saran, S., Sud, V. K., and Handa, S. C. (1989). “Bearing capacity of footings adjacent to
slopes” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 115(4), 553-573.
• Terzaghi, K. (1943). Theoretical soil mechanics, Wiley & Sons, N.Y.
• Vesic, A. S. (1975). “Analysis of ultimate loads of shallow foundations” Journal of Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering Division, ASCE, 99(SM1), 45-73.

53
 CHAPTER (3)
SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS ‒ SOIL COMPRESSIBILITY
As mentioned in the previous lecture series, two main criteria need to be considered for a safe
design of shallow foundations, including (a) The foundation must be stable against the bearing
capacity (shear) failure of the underlying soil, and (b) The foundation must not settle beyond
tolerable values of total and differential settlements so that the structural damage can be
avoided and serviceability can be achieved. The settlement of foundations can be divided into
the following three parts:
– Elastic settlement (Se);
– Primary consolidation settlement (Sc); and
– Secondary consolidation settlement (Ss).

The total settlement of a foundation (St) is the sum of the above three settlement components,
that is:

St = Se + Sc + Ss (1)

Elastic Settlement (Se): occurs after the load application during, or immediately after, the
erection of a structure. It is primarily a consequence of soil movements as a result of grain
distortion and reorientation. For dry and partially saturated soils, it is mainly due to the
expulsion of air and for fully saturated granular soils, it is due to the instantaneous expulsion
of water. In cohesive soils where drainage is poor, immediate settlement takes place under
undrained conditions where there is a change in shape without volume change. Elastic
settlement is the major concern for granular soils (sands and gravels) than cohesive soils due
to the more porous and free-draining nature of granular soils, causing the settlement to occur
almost instantaneously regardless of whether the soil is above or below the water table.
Consolidation Settlement (Sc): (also called primary consolidation settlement) occurs in
saturated soils when the application of loads creates a state of excess pore water pressure that
can only be dissipated by the gradual expulsion of water out of the soil particles which results
in volume changes. This settlement generally takes several years to occur and is the major
concern for cohesive soils (silt and clay).
Secondary Consolidation Settlement (Ss): (also called creep settlement) occurs due to the
decomposition of soil particles with no change in applied stresses. In reality, consolidation and
creep settlements may occur simultaneously; however, for simplicity, it can be assumed that
creep begins upon completion of the primary consolidation settlement. Creep settlement is
usually negligible for most soils, especially sand and gravel, but it may be significant for
organic soils and highly plastic clay.

Calculations of Elastic Settlement

Many methods are available in the literature for calculating elastic/immediate settlement.
However, in this unit, we will only focus on those methods of practical interest that use the
theory of elasticity and soil characteristics obtained from laboratory experiments. It should be
noted that footings founded on cohesionless/granular soils (i.e. sand and gravel) reach almost
the total settlement during the construction stage and thus the total settlement in such a case is
equivalent to the elastic settlement (i.e. St = Se). This is due to the high permeability of granular
soils in which the water inside the soil voids is expelled simultaneously with the application of
load and as such the elastic and consolidation settlements are rolled into one, and the secondary

54
settlement is usually negligible. The elastic settlement can be determined using Janbu et al.
(1956) method, assuming that the soil behaves as an elastic material, as follows (see Figure 1):
Bq
Se ( centre ) = net (1 −  2s ) I1 I 2 (for flexible footings) (2)
Es

Se( rigid ) = 0.92Se(centre) (for rigid footings) (3)

Se = elastic settlement.
B = width or breadth of foundation.
Es & νs = Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio of soil considered for a stratum of depth H or
5B below the foundation, whichever is smaller. For a multi-layered soil stratum, use
the weighted average of Es and νs for the soil layers located within H or 5B, whichever
is smaller.
I1 & I2 = influence factors (obtained from Fig. 2) for the depth of foundation (Df) and thickness
of compressible soil layer (H).
qnet = net uniform applied pressure. If the applied pressure is not uniform, an equivalent
uniform applied pressure value should be calculated from the applied load divided by
the equivalent effective area calculated using Meyerhof’s effective area method
described earlier in the bearing capacity.

Fig. 1: Elastic settlement of flexible and rigid foundations.

55
Fig. 2: Influence factors I1 and I2 for Janbu et al. method (Christian and Carrier, 1978).

Flexible vs Rigid Footings: Equations (2) and (3) calculate the elastic settlement for flexible
and rigid footings, respectively. The rigidity of footings can be determined using the rigidity
or stiffness factor, K, as follows:

4 E f (1 −  2s )t 3
K= (4)
3Es (1 −  2f ) B3

where;
Ef = modulus of elasticity of the footing.
Es = modulus of elasticity of the soil.
νf = Poisson’s ratio of the footing.
νs = Poisson’s ratio of the soil.
t = thickness of the footing.
B = breadth or width of the footing.

For fully flexible footings (K ≈ 0.0), while for fully rigid footings (K > 1.0). Table 1 gives
approximate ranges of the elastic soil parameters (Es and νs) for various soil types, and can be
used for the preliminary design purposes.

56
Table 1: Elastic parameters of various soils (Das, 1998).

57
 Worked Example (1)
A rectangular footing of size (2 m × 4 m) is founded at 2 m below the ground surface in a
medium-dense sand 6 m thick from the ground surface, which is underlain by a clay layer 5 m
thick than the bedrock. The gross applied pressure of the footing is 250 kPa, and the water table
is located 2 m below the ground surface. The soil properties of the sand layer are: Es’ = 25
MPa, νs’ = 0.3, γ = 16.5 kN/m3 and γsat = 18.3 kN/m3, whereas the properties of clay are: Eu =
40 MPa, νu = 0.5, γ = 18 kN/m3 and γsat = 20 kN/m3. Estimate the elastic settlement of the
foundation. [Answer: Se= 10.6 mm]

58
Elastic Settlement of Raft Foundations
Elastic settlement of raft foundations can be obtained using Eqns. (2 & 3) explained earlier;
however, these equations can only calculate the elastic settlement at the centre of the raft and
hence the differential settlement cannot be obtained. This problem is well suited using
numerical modelling by the finite element or finite difference methods. Fraser and Wardle
(1976) used the finite element to develop a method for calculating elastic total and differential
settlements of raft foundations. The method is based on modelling a rectangular raft of
dimensions (l × b) such that (l > b), is supported by a homogeneous soil layer of thickness (d)
underlain by a rigid base (see Figure 3). The raft is designed as a flat concrete slab of a constant
thickness (t), and to use the method, an initial raft thickness should be determined (which will
be explained later in the topic) and the following procedure should be applied:

Fig. 3: Rectangular raft foundation resting on a homogeneous layer

(Fraser and Wardle, 1976).

• Calculate the rigidity or stiffness factor, K, of the raft foundation:

4 Er (1 −  2s )t 3
K= (5)
4 Es (1 −  r2 )b3

where;
Er = modulus of elasticity of the raft.
νr = Poisson’s ratio of the raft.
Es = modulus of elasticity of the soil.
νs = Poisson’s ratio of the soil.
t = thickness of the raft.
b = breadth (width) of the raft.

For fully flexible footings (K ≈ 0.0), for partially flexible footings (0.0 < K < 1.0), and fully
rigid footings (K > 1.0).

• Calculate settlement or differential settlement (ρi) of the raft for a semi-infinite soil layer:

bqnet (1 −  2s )t 3
i = I (6)
Es

where;
qnet = net uniform applied pressure of the raft. As mentioned earlier, in the case of a non-
uniform applied pressure, an equivalent uniform applied pressure value should be

59
 calculated from the applied load divided by the equivalent effective area calculated
using Meyerhof’s effective area method.
I = settlement influence factor obtained from charts (Figures 4 to 6).
Es = modulus of elasticity of the soil.
νs = Poisson’s ratio of the soil.
b = breadth (width) of the raft.

• Correct obtained settlement or differential settlement using a correction factor (S) to

consider the effect of a finite soil layer of depth (d) such that:

 = S i (S obtained from Figures 7-8) (7)

Note that the influence factor, I, has the following typical subscripts: A, B and C (see Figures
4-8) associated with the settlement at Points A (centre), B (mid-edge) and C (corner),
respectively; and AB and AC associated with the differential settlement between the centre and
mid-edge, and the centre and corner, respectively.

Fig. 4: Settlement influence factor, I, for (l/b =1 or 2) and d/b = ∞.

60
 Fig. 5: Settlement influence factor, IA, for (l/b ≤ 5) and d/b = ∞.

Fig. 6: Differential settlement influence factors, IAB, IAC, IAD, for (3 ≤ l/b ≤ 5) and d/b = ∞.

61
Fig. 7: Settlement correction factor, S, for (l/b = 1): (a) νs = 0; (b) νs = 0.3; (c) νs = 0.5.

62
Fig. 8: Settlement correction factor, S, for (l/b = 2): (a) νs = 0; (b) νs = 0.3; (c) νs = 0.5.

63
Consolidation Settlement
When a saturated soil mass is subjected to loads, no volume change will initially occur and an
excess pore water pressure will develop. By the gradual dissipation of the excess pore water
pressure with time as a result of water being squeezed out of soil voids, the soil tends to
decrease in volume and after a long time, all the excess pore water pressure will dissipate and
settlement of the soil will reach its long term (final) value. This process is known as
consolidation. The term consolidation is reserved for the behaviour of saturated, fine-grained
soils undergoing a reduction in volume as the result of some increase in load. The consolidation
characteristics of soil are important for the geotechnical engineer to be able to calculate the
consolidation settlement of soils as a result of some load increase. The simplest consolidation
is one-dimensional consolidation in which lateral strain is assumed to be zero. This is similar
to an element of soil which is located at a certain depth within a soil mass where a vertical load
applied to the ground surface will cause the soil element to undergo vertical compression and
will not be able to expand laterally because of the confining influence of the surrounding soil.

The behaviour of saturated, fine-grained soil undergoing consolidation can be readily explained
by the use of the piston and spring model, as shown in Fig. 9. A piston, P, is loaded vertically
and compresses a spring inside the chamber, which is filled with water (Fig. 9a). The spring
simulates the soil skeleton (i.e. the soil particles), while the water in the cylinder represents the
water in the soil voids. The valve, V, at the top of the piston, represents the pore sizes in the
soil (i.e. the permeability), and at equilibrium (at rest) the valve is open and no water flows out.
This situation is analogous to one where a soil layer is at equilibrium with the weight of all soil
layers (i.e. overburden) above it. A pressure gauge is connected to the cylinder and shows the
hydrostatic pressure, uo, at this particular location within the soil.

Fig. 9: The piston and spring model to explain soil consolidation

(adapted from Holtz and Kovacs, 1981).

Now let us imposes an additional vertical load increment, Δ, to the piston (Fig. 9b). This is
analogous to the additional stress caused due to erecting a structure on the site or placing fill
over the site. At the start of the consolidation process, let us assume that the valve, V, is initially
closed. Upon application of the load, the pressure is immediately transferred to the water inside
the cylinder. This is because water is incompressible, and as a result of the valve being closed,
no water can escape and none of the load increment Δ is felt by the spring (soil skeleton).
Notice that because of this, the pressure measured by the gauge has increased to uo + Δu, where
Δu = Δ. This increase in the porewater pressure, Δu, is known as excess porewater pressure.
Now let us open the valve, V, to simulate the low permeability of fine-grained soil. With time,
water will flow out of the cylinder through the valve, and the load increment, Δ, will be slowly

64
transferred from the water in the cylinder to the spring. This results in a compression of the
spring, S, as shown in Fig. 9c. Once the spring and water have balanced the combined load of
’o+Δ (i.e. at equilibrium), no further water will flow out of the valve, the spring takes the
entire combined load and the porewater pressure will return to its original value of uo. The
process by which water flows out through the soil as a result of an increased load, and the
consequent reduction in the porewater pressure, is known as porewater pressure dissipation.

One Dimensional Consolidation (Oedometer) Test

To predict the consolidation settlement in soil, the stress-strain properties of the soil need to be
obtained. This usually involves bringing a soil sample to the laboratory for a one-dimensional
consolidation test (also known as an oedometer test) and is conducted in a consolidometer (or
oedometer). The experimental apparatus for this test is shown in Fig. 10, and details of the test
procedure are given in the laboratory manual of the course. The test starts by placing an
undisturbed soil sample (usually 75 mm diameter and 20 mm thick), in a brass or stainless steel
ring. The purpose of this ring is to maintain zero horizontal strain, thus, producing one-
dimensional consolidation. Porous stones are placed at each end of the specimen so that the
water is allowed to pass through freely. The sample, ring and porous stones are then submerged
inside the oedometer cell, which is filled with water to keep the soil saturated and to simulate
the worst-case scenario in the field. A load P is applied to the soil specimen and maintained
(usually for 24 hours) so that the soil is allowed to consolidate over time (i.e. the excess
porewater pressure has dissipated), thus, the applied stress is effective. As the test progresses,
the axial compression is measured using a dial gauge placed above the sample until the soil has
achieved full consolidation. Over a few days, a series of load increments are applied to the
specimen and settlement at various increments is recorded. Once the maximum required
applied load has been reached, the loads are removed in stages at 24-hour intervals and the
increase in thickness of the specimen, or rebound, is recorded.

Table top consolidometer (ELE International) Schematic diagram of consolidometer

Fig. 10: The oedometer (consolidometer) test.

The results are then presented by plotting either (see Figure 11):
(a) The void ratio, e, versus the effective consolidation pressure ’c = P/A, A is the cross-
sectional area of soil specimen; or
(b) The void ratio, e, versus the logarithm of the effective consolidation pressure log ’c.

65
 O O
Fig. 11: Consolidation curves: (a) e versus σ’c; and (b) e versus logσ’c.

The void ratio, e, at the end of any applied load, can be calculated in terms of the height of the
soil specimen at the end of load increment, H, and the equivalent height of soil particles
(solids), Hs, as follows:

H − Hs
e= (8)
Hs

The height of soil particles, Hs, can be calculated (in mm), as follows:

ms
Hs =  1000 (9)
Gs  A

where; ms = mass of dry soil (in gm); Gs = soil specific gravity; A = cross sectional area of the
oedometer (in mm2). The curves shown in Figure 11 are known as the consolidation curves,
from which some important soil properties can be derived and used for the calculation of
consolidation settlement, as will be explained next.

Determination of Consolidation Settlement from e-σ’c Curve

In this method, the consolidation settlement is obtained from a soil property called the
coefficient of volume compressibility, mv, which can be measured form the e-σ’c curve, as will
be explained later. The coefficient of volume compressibility is a measure of the
compressibility of the clay and is defined as the volumetric strain, εv, per unit stress increase,
and is expressed as follows:

 v V / Vo
mv = = (10)
 

where; Vo = initial volume of soil, ∆V = volume change and ∆σ = stress increase that causes
the volume change ∆V. mv takes the unit inverse of pressure (e.g. m2/kN). For a clay layer of
initial thickness Ho (see Figure 12) and considering one-dimensional consolidation where the
horizontal cross-sectional area remains the same, ∆V/Vo = ∆H/Ho. Therefore, Eqn. (10) can be
rewritten as follows:

Sc = H = mv Ho  (11)

66
where;
Sc = consolidation settlement.
mv = coefficient of volume compressibility obtained from the oedometer test.
Ho = thickness of compressible soil layer.
∆σ = additional vertical stress (at the middle of the compressible clay layer) due to external
load q.

Fig. 12: Determination of consolidation settlement using mv and e-logσ’c method.

From Figure (10), the coefficient of volume compressibility, mv, can be obtained by choosing
any two points close to each other on the curve e-σ’c so that the line connecting is almost a
straight line from which mv is calculated as follows:

e /  c
mv = (12)
1 + e1

As can be seen in Figure 10, mv for a particular soil varies depending on the stress range over
which it is calculated. The British Standards recommends the use of mv calculated for a stress
increment of 100 kPa above the effective overburden pressure of the in-situ soil at the depth of
interest.

67
 Worked Example (2)
A building is supported on the raft foundation shown in the figure below, which has dimensions
(30 m × 45 m), and a net applied pressure equal to 125 kPa. Determine the settlement and
maximum differential settlement of the raft due to the consolidation of the clay layer.
[Answers: Sc(centre) = 107 mm, Sc(corner) = 39 mm, ΔSc = 68 mm]

*L I

↳.
es

!-
--

53 5.

m
-

1 75m
.
&
O 685w

Mutto 16 .

Sc :
vis
12 5
+

/0 125 x .

5 (4)
.

:
0.

68
Determination of Consolidation Settlement from e-logσ’c Curve
The determination of consolidation settlement from the e-logσ’c curve requires the following
soil properties to be obtained.

Recompression Index, Cr: is the gradient of the recompression portion of the consolidation
curve, and is given algebraically as follows (see Fig. 13):

e1 − e2
Cr = (15)
(log  c ) 2 − (log  c )1

Compression Index, Cc: is the gradient of the virgin compression portion of the consolidation
curve, and is given algebraically as follows (see Fig. 13):

e3 − e4
Cc = (16)
(log  c ) 4 − (log  c )3

Swelling Index, Cs: is the gradient of the rebound portion of the consolidation curve, and is
given algebraically as follows (see Fig. 13):

e5 − e6
Cs = (17)
(log  c )6 − (log  c )5

In theory, the recompression and rebound curves have nearly equal slopes and as such, Cs may
be used for settlement calculations instead of Cr.

Fig. 13: Determination of consolidation indices.

The determination of consolidation settlement is dependent on the soil stress history (i.e. pre-
consolidation pressure, ’p) and the current overburden pressure (i.e. ’vo) or whether the soil
is normally consolidated or overconsolidated. Preconsolidation pressure is the maximum

69
effective vertical stress the soil had in its entire life, and the overburden pressure is the effective
vertical stress due to the soil's ownweight. If the soil has never been loaded above its current
overburden pressure, i.e. ’p = ’vo, the soil is said to be normally consolidated. If, on the other
hand, the soil has been previously loaded with effective vertical stress that is greater than the
current overburden pressure (i.e. ’p > ’vo), the soil is said to be overconsolidated. A situation
such as this can occur as a result of erosion or the removal of a structure from a site. The over-
consolidation ratio, OCR, is defined as the ratio of ’p to ’vo, as follows:

 p
OCR = (18)
 vo

If OCR = 1, the soil is normally consolidated; and if OCR > 1, the soil is overconsolidated.
Soils can never have an OCR < 1, and as such, soils have been recently deposited and
equilibrium stresses have yet to be attained.

Determination of Pre-consolidation Pressure

Casagrande (1936) proposed a graphical method whereby the pre-consolidation pressure can
be determined from the oedometer test results, as follows (Fig. 14):
1. Choose by eye the point of minimum radius on the consolidation curve (i.e. Point A).
2. Draw a horizontal line from Point A.
3. Draw a tangent to the curve at Point A.
4. Bisect the angle made by Steps 2 and 3.
5. Extend the straight line portion of the virgin compression curve up to where it meets the
bisector line obtained in Step 4. The point of intersection of these two lines (Point B) is the
pre-consolidation pressure, ’p.

Fig. 14: Casagrande’s method of determining the pre-consolidation pressure.

70
Consolidation Settlement of Normally Consolidated Soils (’vo = ’p ):
The initial and final stress conditions of a normally consolidated soil are as shown in Fig. 15
from which it can be obtained such that:

e
Cc = (19)
log( f ) − log( vo
)

For a soil layer of initial thickness Ho that will be compressed by ∆H, the following relationship
applies:

H
e = (1 + eo ) (20)
Ho

By substituting Δe in Eqn. (19) with the value in Eqn. (20), the consolidation settlement, Sc,
can be calculated as follows:

Cc   f 
Sc = H o log   (21)
(1 + eo )  
  vo

where;
Sc = consolidation settlement.
Cc = compression index.
eo = initial void ratio of the compressible soil layer.
Ho = initial height of the compressible soil layer.
σ’vo = overburden pressure at the middle of the compressible soil layer.
σ’f = final applied stress at the middle of the compressible soil layer = σ’vo + ∆σ, in which
∆σ is the additional stress in the middle of the compressible soil layer due to the
external load.

Fig. 15: Consolidation of normally consolidated soils.

71
Consolidation Settlement of Overconsolidated Soils – Case I (’o < ’f ≤ ’p ):
If the initial and final stresses (’vo and ’f ) do not exceed the pre-consolidation pressure (’p
), the entire consolidation process occurs on the recompression curve, as shown in Fig. 16. In
this case, the analysis is identical to that of the normally consolidated soils except that the
recompression index, Cr, should be used instead of the compression index, Cc, as follows:

Sc =
O
C r
  f 
H o log   (22)
(1 + eo )  
  vo

Consolidation Settlement of Overconsolidated Soils – Case II (’vo < ’p < ’f):
If the consolidation process begins at the recompression curve and ends on the virgin curve, as
shown in Fig. 17, then the analysis must consider both Cr and Cc, as follows:

Cr   p  Cr   f 
Sc = H o log  + H o log   (23)
   p
(1 + eo )   vo  (1 + eo )  

Fig. 16: Consolidation of over- Fig. 17: Consolidation of over-consolidated

consolidated soils (σ’vo < σ’f ≤ σ’p) soils (σ’vo < σ’p≤ σ’f)

72
 Worked Example (3)
Tests on undisturbed soil samples taken from a 7 m thick saturated clay layer showed that it
had a void ratio of 0.92. The in-situ overburden pressure in the middle of the clay layer was
found to be 50kPa. An oedometer test conducted on a sample taken from the middle of the
clay layer gave the results in the following table:

(a) Plot the consolidation curve (i.e. e versus log ’c), and estimate the pre-consolidation
pressure, ’p, recompression index, Cr, and compression index, Cc.
(b) Investigate whether the clay is normally consolidated or over-consolidated.
(c) A multi-storey building is expected to increase the vertical effective stress in the middle
of the clay layer by 450 kPa. Estimate the amount of settlement that will occur as a result
of the consolidation of the clay layer.
[Answer: (a) 280 kPa, 0.025 & 0.326; (b) 5.6 and (c) 367 mm]

73
Rate of Consolidation Settlement
As mentioned previously, consolidation is the gradual dissipation of the excess porewater
pressure, Δu, from a clay layer, as a result of a load application, Δ, which induces the primary
consolidation settlement. Many years, or even decades, may be required for the full dissipation
of porewater pressure to occur, so geotechnical engineers often need to evaluate the rate of
consolidation settlement, in addition to the maximum consolidation settlement. This section
investigates the ability to produce relationships between the consolidation settlement and time
(i.e. degree or rate of consolidation). To estimate the degree of consolidation of a clay layer
after a load application, Δ, the rate of excess porewater pressure dissipation needs to be
determined. For one-dimensional consolidation, Terzaghi derived the following differential
equation to estimate the rate of dissipation of Δu at some time t and depth z, as follows:

 (u )  2 (u )
= Cv (24)
t z 2

Cv is defined as the coefficient of consolidation (usually takes the unit of m2/year) and can be
calculated as follows:

k
Cv = (25)
mv w

where;
k = soil permeability.
mv = coefficient of volume compressibility.
γw = unit weight of water.

The solution for Terzaghi’s differential equation of soil consolidation (Eqn. 24) can be carried
out using the Fourier series and ascertaining the following boundary conditions for a clay layer
of thickness H that has double drainage:
- At t = 0, the initial excess porewater pressure Δuo = Δ
- At t = ∞, the final excess porewater pressure Δuf = 0
- At z = 0, Δu = 0 and At z = H, Δu = 0 (for any time between 0 and infinity)

   Tv  
 (2 N +1)2  2 

4 (2 N + 1) z −
=     
 4
u(t , z ) sin    e (26)
N = 0  (2 N + 1)  2 Hd  
 

and

Cv
Tv = (27)
H d2

where;
Δu (t, z) = excess porewater pressure at time t and depth z.
Δz = change in total vertical stress at depth z due to external load.
Hd = length of longest drainage path. For single drainage, Hd is equal to the thickness
of the compressible stratum and for double drainage, Hd is equal to one-half the
thickness of the compressible stratum (see Fig. 18).

74
Cv = coefficient of consolidation.
Tv = parameter called time factor obtained using Eqn. (27).

The solution of Eqn. (26) requires a summation of several increments, N, each increment of N
produces a progressively smaller change in the summation, thus, the summation needs to
continue until this incremental change becomes negligible. This occurs at an N < 10, although
sometimes it may take more.

Fig. 18: Computation of the length of the longest drainage path, Hd.

By definition, the average degree of consolidation, U, at any time t for a clay layer is the ratio
of the consolidation settlement at that time, Sc(t), to the maximum consolidation settlement,
Sc(max), or mathematically:

Sc (t )
U= (28)
Sc (max)

To obtain U in terms of the excess porewater pressure, Δu, it is essential to assume that the
vertical strain (or settlement) due to consolidation is directly proportional to the vertical stress.
This assumption means that the vertical settlement becomes directly proportional to the drop
in excess porewater pressure (i.e. Sc ∝-Δu), thus, the following equation can be assumed to be
valid:

uo − ut
U= (29)
uo

where;
Δut = excess porewater pressure at time t.
Δuo = initial excess porewater pressure.

The values of Δut and Δuo in Eqn. (29) can be calculated using Eqn. (26), leading to a unique
relationship between U and Tv, as shown in Figure 19. This relationship may also be represented
by the following equations:

4Tv
U= 100% (for U ≤ 60%) (30)


75
  
 0.085+Tv 
−
U = 1 − 10  0.933   100% (for U > 60%) (31)
 

Fig. 19: Terzaghi’s U versus Tv for one-dimensional consolidation.

Determination of Cv from the Oedometer Test

As mentioned previously, Fig. 19 shows that there is a unique relationship between the average
degree of consolidation U and time factor Tv. Consequently, if Tv at any time t is known, U at
that time can be determined. From Eqn. (27), it can be seen that Tv is a function of the
coefficient of consolidation Cv. For a given load increment on a soil specimen, Cv is rarely
obtained from Eqn. (25), rather, it is computed by rearranging Eqn. (27) and using one of the
following two commonly used graphical methods:
1. The square root of time method.
2. The logarithm of time method.

Square Root of Time Method

For a given incremental loading of the laboratory test, the specimen deformation against the
square root of time (in minutes) is plotted, as shown in Figure 20. The method is as follows:
1. Draw a straight line AB through the early portion of the curve, which intersects the zero time
axis at Point A, and cuts the square root of the time axis at Point B.
2. Draw line AC such that OC = 1.15 OB.
3. Where line AC intersects the consolidation-time curve at Point D, this gives the square root
of time for 90% consolidation (√t90).
4. For 90% consolidation, T90 = 0.848 (see Fig. 19), so:

Cv  t90 0.848H d2
T90 = 0.848 = or Cv = (32)
H d2 t90

Hd is the drainage path of the soil specimen used in the laboratory and is equal to one-half of
the average thickness of the soil specimen during a given load increment.

76
 Fig. 20: Square root of time method.

The logarithm of Time Method

For this method, a plot of specimen deformation against log-of-time is required as shown in
Fig. 21, and the following procedure needs to be followed:
1. Extend the straight-line portions of the primary and secondary consolidations to intersect at
Point A. The ordinate of A represents d100, i.e. the deformation at the end of 100%
consolidation.
2. Select times t1 and t2 on the curved portion of the initial readings (e.g. at Points B and C) of
the plot such that t2 = 4t1. Let the vertical difference (distance) of specimen deformation
during time (t2 – t1) be equal to x.
3. Draw a horizontal line DE such that the vertical distance BD is equal to x. The deformation
corresponding to the line DE is d0, i.e. the deformation at 0% consolidation.
4. Bisect the distance between d0 and d100 such that Point F is obtained on the consolidation-
time curve. The ordinate of Point F on the curve represents the deformation at 50% primary
consolidation, and its abscissa represents the corresponding time, t50.
5. For 50% consolidation, Tv = 0.197 (see Figure 19), so:

Cv  t50 0.197 H d2
T90 = 0.197 = or Cv = (33)
H d2 t50

It should be noted that Cv changes from one load application (vertical stress) to another, the
selected values used for the design purposes could be those that correspond to the final effective
vertical stresses anticipated in the field.

77
Fig. 21: The logarithm of time method.

78
 Worked Example (4)
A sample was taken from a clay layer 7 m thick and was sent to the laboratory for a
consolidation test. For a given load increment, the compression readings were recorded in the
table below:

After 1440 minutes, the thickness of the specimen was 15 mm. Determine the time needed for
the clay layer to reach 70% and 100% consolidation, knowing that the clay layer was underlain
by bedrock. [Answers: Cv, = 9.7 m2/year; t70 = 2.0 years; t100 = 13.7 years]

79
Secondary Consolidation Settlement
As mentioned previously, secondary consolidation settlement (also called creep settlement)
theoretically starts after the consolidation settlement is ceased (i.e. after the full dissipation of
the excess porewater pressures) as a result of soil creep and decomposition. The secondary
compression settlement can be calculated using the secondary compression index, Cα, which is
obtained while conducting the oedometer test by maintaining one of the load increments
beyond the completion of consolidation settlement. The change in the void ratio after this point
can be plotted against the log time to determine Cα (see Figure 22), as follows:

ec − et
C = (34)
log(t / tc )

where;
ec = void ratio at the end of consolidation corresponding to time tc (see Figure 22).
et = void ratio at a time (t) after the consolidation settlement.

The secondary compression settlement is then can be calculated as follows:

C t 
Ss = H o log   (35)
(1 + ec )  tc 

It should be noted that, in the above equation, ec could be replaced by the soil void ratio before
consolidation eo without introducing much error.

Fig. 22: Determination of secondary compression index, Cα.

80
 Worked Example (5)
For the soil in Worked Example (4), determine the expected secondary consolidation settlement
of the clay layer after 10 years from the primary consolidation. It should be noted that the soil
specimen used in the laboratory has a dry mass of 50 gm, specific gravity of 2.7 and an
oedometer cross-sectional area of 1850 mm2. [Answer: Cα = 0.009; Ss = 9.9 mm]

81
Allowable Settlements
In most instances, the subsoil is not homogeneous and the load carried by various shallow
foundations of a given structure can vary widely. As a result, it is reasonable to expect varying
degrees of settlement in different parts of a given building. The differential settlement of
various parts of a building can lead to damage to the superstructure. Hence, it is important to
define certain parameters to quantify differential settlement and develop limiting values for
these parameters for desired safe performance of structures. From the information of total
settlements, the differential settlement, δ, between two foundations, or between two points on
a single foundation, can be calculated. Figure 23 shows a structure in which its various footings
at A, B, C, D and E have gone through some settlement. The settlement at A is AA′, and at B it
is BB′, and so on. Based on this figure the definitions of the various parameters follow:
St = total settlement at a given point.
ΔSt-max = maximum differential settlement of the building.
Δ = relative deflection (movement) from a straight line joining two points.
Δ/l = deflection ratio.

Fig. 23: Definition of parameters for differential settlement.

For a safe design, the total and differential settlements should not exceed certain allowable
values to avoid structural damage and achieve serviceability. These values for various
structures are given in Tables 2 and 3, respectively.

Table 2: Allowable total and differential settlements

(European Committee for Standardization).

82
Table 3: Allowable deflection ratio (Δ/l) for different buildings (after Bowles, 1996).

83
 Tutorial (3)
Shallow Foundations ‒ Soil Compressibility

1. The raft foundation shown below of Q7 Tutorial (1): Bearing Capacity Lecture Series rests
on a clay layer of 30 m thickness that overlies bedrock. The clay elasticity properties are
Es’ = 40 MPa and νs’ = 0.3. The raft was checked for punching and the thickness needed
was found to be 1.0 m. The raft properties are Er = 15 GPa and νr = 0.2. Determine the
central elastic settlement and differential settlement between the centre and mid-edge of
the raft length using Fraser and Wardle. [Answers: ρA = 18.5 mm & ρAB = 3.0 mm]

1250 kN 1450 kN 1300 kN

5m

1300 kN 1550 kN 1450 kN

L = 15.25 m

5m

1400 kN 1450 kN
1300 kN
5m

1250 kN 1350 kN 1300 kN

5m 5m

B = 10.25 m
2. A 3.0 m deep compacted fill is to be placed over the soil profile shown in the figure below.
A consolidation test carried out on a sample taken from point (A) found that the clay is
normally consolidated having the following properties: eo = 1.1, Cr = 0.08, Cc = 0.4 and Cv
= 0.65 m2/year. Compute the primary consolidation settlement of the clay layer due to the
weight of fill at the end of consolidation and after 15 years from consolidation.
[Answer: Sc = 457 mm and Sc(t = 15 years) = 320]

84
 Proposed fill
3m
γ = 19.2 kN/m3

1.5 m
Fine to medium sand
γt = 18.5 kN/m3
2m γsat = 19.5 kN/m3

4m

Soft clay
A γsat = 16 kN/m3
10 m

Dense sand and gravel

3. The following results were obtained from an oedometer test carried out on a specimen taken
at 3.75 m from a clay layer of 6.0 m thickness that overlies an incompressible stratum. The
data of void ratio, e, and effective consolidation stress, ’c, were determined after
equilibrium had been reached for each applied load, and are given in the table below.
e 0.705 0.698 0.688 0.673 0.645 0.600 0.550 0.500 0.508 0.518 0.532 0.540
’c (kPa) 18 36 72 144 288 576 1152 2304 576 144 36 18

Draw the consolidation curve and calculate the recompression index, Cr, compression
index, Cc, and pre-consolidation pressure, ’p. Use the information obtained from the
oedometer test to calculate the maximum differential settlement of primary consolidation
for a flexible rectangular footing of dimensions 3 m × 6 m located at 1.5 m from the ground
surface. The net applied stress of the foundation is 500 kPa, the water table is 1 m below
the foundation level and the unit weights of soil above and below the water table are 17 and
19 kN/m3, respectively. The field initial void ratio of the clay is 0.95. (use Newmark’s
chart method for calculation of stress within the soil). [Answer: max. diff. Sc = 35.6 mm]

4. A 4.0 m circular footing subjected to a net applied stress of 500 kPa will be constructed on
top of the soil profile shown in the figure below. Laboratory tests on samples from point
(A) produced the results shown in the table below. Calculate the total settlement of footing.
[Answer: St = 183.5 mm]

Soil Property Sample from Point (A)

Compression Index, Cc 0.25
Recompression Index, Cr 0.08
Initial void ratio, eo 0.66
Pre-consolidation pressure, ’p 105 kPa
Drained Young’s modulus, E’ 35 MP
Drained Poisson’s ratio, ν’ 0.30
Undrained Young’s modulus, Eu 25 MP

85
 2m
3m Stiff silty clay
γt = 18.3 kN/m3
A γsat = 19 kN/m3
5m

Bedrock

5. A soil deposit consists of 2 m of gravel overlaying an 8 m thick deposit of an over-

consolidated clay overlying rigid permeable sandstone. The gravel has a saturated unit
weight of 22 kN/m3 and the water table is at the ground surface. The properties of the clay
are uniform throughout the layer and are as indicated below:
Void ratio, e = 1.2, Saturated unit weight of clay, γsat = 18 kN/m3, Pre-consolidation
pressure, ’p = 70 kPa, Compression Index, Cc = 0.1, Recompression Index, Cr = 0.02,
Consolidation coefficient, Cv = 0.5 m2/year
Calculate the consolidation settlement after a long time under the centre of a square tank of
side 5 m exerting a net average pressure of 175 kPa constructed on the ground surface, and
estimate the time for 70% of this settlement to occur (ignore the settlement of the gravel
layer and use Newmark’s chart method for calculating the stresses within the soil).
[Answers: Sc = 61.3 mm & t = 12.9 years]

6. An embankment is constructed by placing a sand fill of height 3 m over 5 m compressible

clay that lies on an impermeable shale bedrock, and the water table is at the top surface of
the clay layer. The unit weight of the sand fill is 18 kN/m3 and the saturated unit weight of
clay is 20 kN/m3. An oedometer test was carried out on a 20 mm thick sample taken from
the middle of the clay layer and found that 50% consolidation of the sample was achieved
in 12 minutes, and after full consolidation, the thickness of the sample was sample 18 mm.
The test also led to the following clay properties: initial void ratio = 1.1, recompression
index = 0.05, compression index = 0.2 and OCR = 1.5. If the sand fill is left for 18 months
and it was then decided to remove it, calculate the primary consolidation settlement of the
clay layer caused by the construction of the fill embankment. [Answer: Sc = 43 mm]

7. For the foundation shown in the figure below, determine the primary consolidation
settlement of the clay layer. Use Newmark’s chart to calculate induced stresses.
[Answer: Sc = 690 mm]
PC = 45,830 kN

GS
0.5 m WT

1.5 m Sand
γ = 18.5 kN/m3
10 m × 10 m
γsat= 20 kN/m3
3m

γsat= 22 kN/m3
Cr= 0.05
Clay eo= 0.585
4m Cc= 0.8
OCR = 2.5

Sand

86
 1

0.9

0.8
Void ratio

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4
1 10 100 1000 10000
Consolidation stress (kPa)

87
References:
• Casagrande, A. (1936). “The determination of the pre-consolidation load and its practical
significance.” Proceedings of the First International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Vol. III, 60-64.
• Christian, J. T., and Carrier, W. D. (1978). “Janbu, Bjerrum and Kjaernsli’s chart
reinterpreted.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 15, 123-128.
• Das, B. (1998). Principles of geotechnical engineering, PWS Publishing Company, Boston,
MA.
• Fraser, R. A. and Wardle, L. J. (1976). “Numerical analysis of rectangular rafts on layered
foundations” Geotechnique, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 613-630.
• Janbu, N., Bjerrum, L., and Kjaernsli, B. (1956). “Veiledning ved losning av
fundamentering soppgaver.” Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Publication No. 16, 30-32.
• Meyerhof, G. G. (1963). “Shallow Foundations” Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Division, 91(SM2), 21-31.

88
 CHAPTER (4)
SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS ‒ STRUCTURAL DESIGN
As mentioned in the previous lecture series, shallow foundations include pad (also called
isolated or spread) footings; strip footings; combined footings and raft (or mat) foundations.
• Pad, spread or isolated footings: are those of square or rectangular shape placed beneath
the columns of the superstructure. An example of square pad footings is shown in Figure
1(a).
• Strip footings: are continuous footings that transfer the loads from the walls or several
columns to the underlying ground. Examples of strip footings are shown in Figure 1(b).
• Combined footings: these are footings supporting two columns and are considered effective
for treating the edge columns when it is not possible to extend the footing beyond the
building boundary line. An example of combined footings is shown in Figure 1(c).
• Raft foundations: are large concrete slabs used to interface several columns in several lines
with the underlying ground. An example of raft footings is shown in Figure 1(d). Raft
footings are used where the base soil has low bearing capacity and/or column loads are so
large that more than 50% of the foundation area would be covered if pad footings are used.

Figure 1: Different types of shallow foundations (modified after Warner et al., 1999): (a)
square pad footing; (b) strip footings; (c) combined footing; and (d) raft or mat
foundation.

89
Design Criteria for Shallow Foundations
As mentioned previously, the design of shallow foundations includes geotechnical design and
structural design. In the previous lecture series, we finished the geotechnical design, covering
the bearing capacity and soil compressibility, and in this lecture series, we will cover the
structural design. The structural design of shallow foundations should make sure that the
footing critical sections can resit the internal applied straining actions (i.e. bending moment,
shearing forces and punching) due to applied pressure. In principle, it is preferred to design the
footings to have as uniform soil pressure distribution underneath the footing as possible,
although this cannot always be achieved. The footings should be designed to resist the factored
applied loads and moments, which represent the ultimate strength conditions. It should be noted
that in the geotechnical design; however, the service or un-factored loads and moments, rather
than the factorised ones, were used for the geotechnical design, which represents the normal
service conditions.

Requirements for Satisfactory Foundations

Before starting the structural design of shallow foundations, it is useful to mention some
necessary items that satisfy a good foundation, including:
 The foundation must be safe against the attack of harmful materials which may be present
in the ground. For example, sulphate-resisting cement should be used when the quantity of
sulphate in the soil is high enough to cause damage to the concrete used for foundations.
Another example is the isolation of the foundation in the presence of any high content of
sodium chloride.
 The foundation must be placed at an adequate depth, the choice of which is based on various
factors. The general aim is to locate the foundation at as shallow a level as possible because
the construction work of foundations will be less costly. However, the uppermost soil strata
often do not meet the requirements of a satisfactory foundation. The following
considerations should be taken into account in the choice of the foundation level:
• Footings should be placed below the top organic soil miscellaneous fill, abandoned
foundation, debris or muck.
• Footings should be constructed below the surface layers of the soil affected by seasonal
temperature, moisture changes, erosion or scour.
• Footings on the sloping ground should have sufficient edge distance (minimum 0.6-1.0
m) as protection against erosion (see Figure 2).
• Adjacent footings should be placed such that the difference in footing elevation should
not be so great as to introduce undesirable overlapping of stresses in soil. This can be
avoided by maintaining the maximum elevation difference to be equal to or less than
the clear distance between the footings (Figure 2). This requirement is also necessary
to prevent soil disturbance under the higher footing due to the lower footing excavation.
• If the soil of a higher bearing capacity exists at no great depth below the minimum
required depth, consideration could be given to taking the foundation to the deeper
stratum to get smaller foundations with consequent savings in the quantity of concrete.
However, if the deeper stratum lies below the groundwater table, the cost of pumping
or sheet piling might well outweigh this saving.
• Structural requirements may involve a depth of foundation at greater depth than the
minimum required solely from the abovementioned soil considerations as in the case
of a building with a basement.

90
 Figure 2: Footings on sloping ground or adjacent footings.

General Design Procedure for Shallow Foundations

The following general procedure can be used for the design of shallow foundations, including
geotechnical and structural design:
1. Assume a reasonable factor of safety (FS) against bearing capacity failure and estimate the
preliminary allowable bearing pressure (q*all) from the ultimate bearing capacity of the
underlying foundation material (qu), obtained from Table 1, such that: q*all = qu/FS.
2. Determine the vertical load and moment (if any) transmitted from the structure to the footing
under the service loading conditions. These are the applied load (PG) and moment (MG) at
the foundation level. Where PG = 1.1 PC, noting that PC is made of the dead load (PD) and
live load (PL) of the structure (i.e. PC = PD + PL). Likewise, MG (if any) is made of the
column moment (MC) and MC = MD + ML.
3. Select the overall dimensions of the footing for the load (PG) and moment (MG, if any), to
fulfil the allowable bearing pressure (q*all) in such a way as to achieve as uniform pressure
as possible.
4. Perform a bearing capacity analysis on the proposed footings and calculate the actual
ultimate bearing capacity (qult) from which calculate the actual allowable bearing pressure
(qall = qult/FS), making sure that the applied bearing pressure (qapp) is less than qall.
5. Calculate the net applied bearing pressure (qnet) and perform a settlement analysis, making
sure that the obtained settlements (total and differential) are within tolerable limits.
6. Calculate factored axial force, P* (P* = 1.25PD + 1.5PL), and factored moment, M* (M* =
1.25MD + 1.5ML), acting on the column under the factored ultimate load conditions, and
determine the factored applied pressure (q*u). Please note that the soil pressure caused by
the weight of the footing and soil above it are ignored in calculating the value of q*u, which
is a hypothetical value used to calculate the structural design ultimate moments and shearing
foresees of the footing and thus its value is not related to the soil failure pressure.
7. Knowing q*u and footing dimensions, determine the thickness of the footing such that the
footing can resist the beam shear, then check the punching shear strength without shear
reinforcement. Otherwise, you may determine the thickness of the footing such that the
footing can resist the punching shear, then check the beam shear. Following this step,
determine the amount of reinforcement needed to resist the bending moment in both
directions of the footing.
75mm 10mm -
20mm
To do Step 7 above, the concrete cover and the diameter of reinforcement bars should be
assumed. The concrete cover is the minimum thickness of concrete that surrounds the steel bars
and proves protection against chemical attacks and corrosion, hence, cracking and spalling of
the concrete are minimised. The cover is usually greater if the concrete is to be placed against
the ground rather than if it is to be placed inside a building. It is thus essential that sufficient
cover be provided to the reinforcement bars and a cover of 75 mm is usually used for footings.
The minimum diameter of steel bars used in the design of foundations is 12 mm (deformed

91
bars). The above general design steps can now be applied to the design of different types of
shallow footings as will be discussed in more detail later.

Table 1: Typical ultimate bearing capacities for various soil and rock types
(after Whitlow 1990).

Structural Design of Concentric Pad Footings

A pad footing is commonly a square shape of sides, B, or sometimes a rectangular shape of
dimensions: width or breadth, B, and length, L. If a pad footing is subjected to an axial
concentric load, P, the pressure under the footing will be theoretically distributed uniformly.
However, the pressure under the footing can vary significantly, depending on the type of soil
and whether the footing is rigid or flexible. For example, the pressure of a rigid footing resting
on granular soils is a maximum at the centre of the footing and decreases towards the edges
(see Figure 3a). For cohesive soils, the pressure is maximum around the edges of the footing
(Figure 3b). For practical design purposes and given the very approximate nature of the design,
the pressure under the pad footing is usually assumed to be uniformly distributed throughout
(Figure 3c) and equal to the maximum pressure. This assumption is satisfactory since the factor
of safety used in the structural design of footings is large enough to include any uncertainty in
the contact pressure distribution.

92
 Figure 3: Pressure distributions underneath pad footings subjected to concentric axial
load (Warner et al., 1999).

The design of pad footings subjected to concentric (centrically) axial load is as follows:
1. From Table 1, select qu that suits the type of soil at hand and assume FS = 2-3, then
calculate q*all = qu/FS.
2. Determine the footing area (B × L) using q*all and the vertical applied load at the
foundation level, PG, as follows: B × L = PG/q*all. In the determination of the footing
dimensions, take B = L if the column is square or circular, otherwise use a rectangular
footing if the column is rectangular in section, and L should not be greater than 2B.
3. Knowing B × L, perform bearing capacity and settlement analyses, and make sure they
fulfil the geotechnical design requirements.
4. Calculate factored applied pressure, q*u, to be used in the concrete design due to P*
(where: P* = 1.25PD + 1.5PL).
5. Assume the diameter of the reinforcement bar to be ≥ 12 mm and a cover thickness of 75
mm, and determine the thickness of the footing by examining the beam shear under
factored ultimate load conditions, considering the critical sections shown in Figure 4 (i.e.
S1-S1 and S2-S2) and minimum required area of steel reinforcement, Ast-min, needed for
bending moment.
6. The beam shear, V*, acting at the critical sections is used to obtain the area of steel
reinforcement required for the beam shear as: V* = ϕVuc, where ϕ = 0.7 is a shear capacity
reduction factor and Vuc is the total shear strength for beams not containing shear
reinforcement calculated as follows:

1/3
A 
Vuc = 1 Bd  st  f c  (1)
 Bd 

where;
β1 = 1.1(1.6-d/1000) ≥ 1.1
f c = compressive strength of concrete at 28 days (can be assumed to be 30 MPa).
d = t – cover – bar diameter/2.
For Section (S1-S1), B is equal to the footing length, L, whereas it is equal to the footing
width, B, for Section S2-S2).
7. The minimum area of steel reinforcement required for bending, Ast-min, can be calculated
as follows:

93
 Ast-min = Pmin × L × d (for the critical Section m1-m1)
Ast-min = Pmin × B × d (for the critical Section m2-m2)
Pmin = 1.4/fsy = 1.4/400 = 0.0035 (fsy = 400 Mpa for Y-bars)
8. Check the punching shear strength, V*, for a perimeter at a distance d/2 from the column
face (for b + d × a + d shown in Figure 4), and make sure that V* < ϕVuo, where ϕ = 0.7 is
the shear capacity reduction factor and Vuo is the shear strength of the above perimeter,
which is calculated as Vuo = u×d×fcv, where u is the perimeter length, Bh is the ratio of the
longest column dimension to the one at right-angle and fcv is calculated as:
2
f cv = 0.17(1 + ) f c  0.34 f c (2)
h
9. Calculate the bending moment, M*, acting on the critical section(s) (i.e. m1-m1 and m2-m2
in Figure 4) under factored ultimate load conditions and determine the area of steel
reinforcement at the right angle to the critical section(s), as follows:
M*
Ast = (3)
0.68  d  f sy

10. Select the required number of steel bars accordingly using Table 2 and calculate the
required spacing between the steel bars. Table 2 shows typical areas of steel reinforcement,
Ast, where “R” bars are mild steel, plain rods (yield strength, fsy = 250 MPa), and “Y” bars
are cold-deformed bars (fsy = 400 MPa), and can be replaced with “N” bars, cold-deformed
normal ductility steel (fsy = 500 MPa).

Figure 4: Critical sections for pad footings.

94
 Table 2: Areas of steel reinforcement, Ast (mm2).

It should be noted that in the case of a square footing carrying a square column, the above
procedure should only be applied to one side of the footing as the other side will be similar. In
the meanwhile, in the case of a square footing carrying a rectangular column, the above
procedure should be applied to the side that has the biggest column dimension, as shown in
Figure 5, because it will be more critical than the other side. This is because the effective depth
in the other direction is less and the moment is also less. On this side, use similar reinforcement
to that used on the critical side (see Worked Example 28.1 in Warner et al. 1999).

Figure 5: Critical sections for a square pad footing carrying a rectangular column.

So far we have learned that pad footings are designed so that the bearing capacity failure does
not occur and the total settlements are maintained within acceptable limits. The design of pad
footings should also consider the differential settlements between the pad footings, which also
need to be maintained within acceptable limits (see Soil Compressibility of Shallow
Foundations lecture notes). As a common practice to resist any possible differential settlement
between adjacent pad footings, tie/balanced beams are usually used (see Figure 6), which are
designed for the bending moment and shear force induced due to the relative movement (Δ)
between the columns/beam ends (Figure 6).
95
Figure 6: Typical examples of tie beams connecting pad footings and induced moment
and shear.

96
 Worked Example (1)
Design a square pad footing supporting (300 mm × 300 mm) column carrying a vertical column
load of 550 kN (400 kN dead load and 150 kN live load). The footing is located at 1.5 m from
the ground surface and the water table is far below the ground surface. The underlying
foundation material is a sandy clay (stiff to very stiff) with the following properties: c’ = 50
kPa, ϕ’ = 5o, E’ = 30 MPa, ν’ = 0.45, γsoil = 18 kN/m3. Use compressive strength of concrete fc’
= 30 MPa and yield strength of steel fsy = 400 MPa. If an adjacent footing 6 m apart settles to
provide a differential settlement between the two footings of 20 mm, design a tie beam to resist
the differential settlement. [Answers: B = 2.5 m, t = 400 mm, d = 315 mm, 9-Y20 bars (both
directions) at spacing = 290 mm centre-to-centre; Tie Beam: b = 300 mmm, t = 400 mm,
d = 315 mm, 3-Y28 bars (top and bottom)]

97
Structural Design of Eccentric Pad Footings
In some cases where the pad footings are subjected to axial loads and moments at the same
time, eccentricity exists (e.g. Figure 7). In such cases, it will be advantageous to place the
column off-centre of the footing base so that the resultant force at the foundation level passes
through the centroid of the base (Figure 8). Accordingly, there will be no load eccentricity and
the footing pressure distribution will be uniform, the problem can then be solved as
concentrically loaded footings as explained in Worked Example (2). If for whatever reason it
will not be possible to place the column off-centre of the footing, load eccentricity will exist
and the footing pressure distribution will no longer be uniform. Several possibilities of the
pressure distributions will need to be considered in the design, using the service load (PG) and
service moment (MG) for the geotechnical design and using the factored load (P*) and factored
moment (M*) for the structural design (see Question 2 in Tutorial, 2).

Figure 7: One-way eccentric loaded pad Figure 8: Eccentric footing converted to

footing. uniform pressure distribution.

98
 Worked Example (2)
Design a pad footing supporting a 300 mm square column carrying a vertical load of 550 kN
(400 kN dead load and 150 kN live load) and a moment of 400 kN.m (300 kN.m dead load and
100 kN.m live load) so that the footing applied pressure is uniform. The footing is located at
1.5 m from the ground surface and the water table is far below the ground surface. The
underlying foundation material is a sandy clay (stiff to very stiff) with the following properties:
c’ = 50 kPa, ϕ’ = 5o, E’ = 30 MPa, ν’ = 0.45, γsoil = 18 kN/m3. Use compressive strength of
concrete fc’ = 30 MPa and yield strength of steel fsy = 400 MPa. [Answers: B = 2 m × L = 3 m,
t = 585 mm, d = 500 mm, 12-Y20 bars at spacing = 170 mm in the long direction and 17-
Y20 bars at spacing = 175 mm in the short direction]

99
Structural Design of Strip Footings
The design of strip (or continuous) footings (Figure 9) is very similar to that of pad footings.
The width, B, of the strip footing, is chosen to satisfy the bearing capacity and settlement
criteria, and the thickness of footing is determined to satisfy the beam shear requirements for
the critical section of beam shear taken at a distance, d, out from the face of the wall or column,
as shown in Figure 9. The bending steel reinforcement is evaluated assuming that the strip
undergoes one-way bending, a one-metre length transverse being designed as a double
cantilever. The design calculations proceed as for the pad footings but are simplified because
no punching shear is to be checked (see Question 2 in Tutorial 3).

Figure 9: Critical sections in strip footings.

Structural Design of Combined Footings

Combined footings may be used where two columns are close together in such a way that using
pad footings would overlap or approach each other (Figure 10a). In the design of combined
footings, uniform bearing pressure needs to be achieved and as such the centroid of the
combined footings should align with the resultant force of the column loads. It follows that the
footing centroid should be made to coincide with the line of the resultant service load. For the
structural design of combined footings, the critical sections for beam shears and bending
moments need to be considered. The beam shear needs to be checked at sections located at
distance d away from the column faces, in both the longitudinal x-direction and transverse y-
direction. The bending moments in the x-direction under the columns are positive and require
bottom steel, whereas the in-span moments are usually negative and require top steel. In the y-
direction, the bending moments are positive and require bottom steel. Punching shear has to be
checked on a shear perimeter located at d/2 from each column. For the beam shear in the x-
direction, the critical sections are S1, S2, S3 and S4 (Figure 10c), while in the y-direction the
critical sections are S5 and S6 for column (A) and a similar situation applies around column
(B), as shown in Figure 10d. In the x-direction, the critical sections for the positive bending
moments are M1, M2, M3 & M4 (Figure 10c). The reinforcing steel under column (A) is
designed for the larger of moments M1 & M2, whereas the steel below column (B) is designed
for the larger of moments M3 and M4. The maximum in-span bending moment occurs at Section
M5 where the shear force is zero. For the bending moments in the y-direction, two transverse
panels may be considered, one for each column. For column (A), the pressure balances the load
and produces positive bending moments M6 & M7 (Figure 10d), and a similar situation applies
around column (B).

-
We

BMD
100 Eve
The
 As
* BMD

Figure 10: Combined footings carrying two columns (Warner et al. 1999).

101
 Worked Example (3)
A combined footing is required for two columns (A) and (B) which are 3 m apart, both columns
are 400 mm square. Column (A) carries service loads of 1500 kN dead load and 950 kN live
load, and the corresponding loads for column (B) are 2000 kN dead load and 1000 kN live
load. The allowable applied pressure is 420 kPa and allowable footing settlement is 25 mm.
The footing is located at 2 m from the ground surface and the water table is at 0.5 m from the
ground surface. The underlying soil is sand and the foundation material has the following
properties: c’ = 10 kPa, ϕ’ = 36o, E’ = 50 MPa, ν’ = 0.35, γsoil = 18 kN/m3 and γsat = 20 kN/m3.
Use concrete fc’ = 35 MPa and steel fsy = 400 MPa (after Warner et al. 1999). [Answers: B =
2.6 m, L = 5.5 m, t = 900 mm, d = 815 mm, 24-Y20 bars in the long direction at spacing =
105 mm, 15-Y20 bars in the short direction at spacing = 115 mm]

102
Structural Design of Strap Footings
In case when a pad footing is close to a property line and cannot be extended beyond that line,
the pad footing will be subjected to a severe eccentricity which would most probably lead to
excessive overturning or tilting. To avoid such a situation, combined footings may be used (see
Figure 11). However, when the distance between the edge (exterior) column and the adjacent
interior column is large or when the distance between the two columns is short but the load of
the edge column is much higher than the interior column load, it will be more suitable to use
another type of combined footings called strap footings (Fig. 12). Strap footings can be
regarded as two pad footings connected by a member termed as strap beam, its function is to
transmit the moment of the eccentric column footing to the interior column footing so that
uniform pressure is generated beneath both footings. The strap beam is considered to be a pure
flexural member and does not take any soil reaction, it must be rigid for the solution to be valid
and its inertia should be equal to or more than twice the footing inertia to avoid the exterior
footing rotation. Strap footings could be selected to be square or rectangular, but it is
recommended that the footing carrying the boundary line column has a rectangular shape in
such a way that the longer dimension of the footing is parallel to the strap beam and thus
reducing the eccentricity and moment in the strap beam. The strap beam may have several
configurations but the common one would have a width at least equal to the higher width of
the two columns. If the depth is restricted, it may be necessary to increase the strap width to
obtain the necessary rigidity. The strap should be securely attached to the column and footing
by dowels so that the system acts as a unit (see Question 3 in the Tutorial). It should be noted
that strap footings should be considered only after a careful analysis that pad footings, even if
oversize, will not work. The extra labour and forming costs for this type of footing make them
one of “the least resort”.

Figure 11: Combined footings of the Figure 12: Strap footings of the property line
property line for a short distance for a long distance between P1 and P2 or a
between P1 and P2. short distance between P1 and P2 but P1 > P2.

Structural Design of Raft Foundations

As mentioned previously, a raft (or mat) foundation is a large concrete slab used to
accommodate the entire building's columns. Raft foundations are usually used when the
column loads are so large that more than 50% of the available land area would be covered by
pad footings. Several configurations of raft foundations are shown in Figure 13, the most
common type is the flat slab (Figure 13a), which has a constant thickness throughout the whole
raft. This type of raft foundation requires less labour, is easy to construct and more economical,

103
and will thus be the main focus of our unit. Various methods have been used for the structural
design of raft foundations, the two most commonly used methods include the Conventional
Rigid Method and Approximate Flexible Method. In the rigid method, the raft is assumed to be
infinitely stiff and divided into strips in x and y directions (Figure 14). Assuming that the
divided strips are independent of each other, each strip is treated as a combined footing. The
linear pressure distribution below the strip is obtained and the moment and shear along the strip
is determined by simple statics. The rigid method is criticised for the following reasons: (i) the
divided strips do not act independently as there is a shear transfer between the adjoining strips;
and (ii) the method greatly overestimates the bending moments if it is applied to relatively
flexible foundations, leading to uneconomical design. The flexible method, on the other hand,
assumes that soil is equivalent to an infinite number of springs (Figure 15), sometimes referred
to as the Winkler foundation. While affording a relatively simple means of design, the Winkler
Foundation neglects the interaction of one spring with another and, therefore, does not treat the
underlying soil as a true continuum.

Figure 13: Several configurations of mat foundations: (a) flat slab/plate; (b) plate
thickness under columns; (c) beam and slab (waffle slab); (d) slab with pedestals; and
(e) basement walls or closed boxes.

104
 Figure 14: Rigid raft foundation divided into strips.

Figure 15: Flexible raft foundation using Winkler spring model.

An alternative approach that can be used for the structural design of raft foundations, for either
rigid or flexible footings, and can treat the soil as a continuum material is the numerical
modelling by the finite element or finite difference methods. Fraser and Wardle (1976) used
the finite element method to model rectangular raft foundations of dimensions (l × b such that
l > b), supported by a homogeneous isotropic soil layer of thickness (d) underlain by a rigid
base (see Figure 16). The raft is designed as a flat concrete slab of constant thickness (t) with
continuous top and bottom reinforcement in both directions, as explained next.

105
 Figure 16: Rectangular raft foundation on a homogeneous layer
(Fraser and Wardle, 1976).

• Calculate footing thickness from critical punching shear, and check the punching shear of
various other critical columns (see Figure 17):

Figure 17: Critical punching shear columns within the raft foundation.

• Calculate the stiffness factor, K, to find out whether the raft is rigid or flexible:
4 Er (1  s2 )t 3
K (4)
3Es (1  r2 )b3
where;
Er = modulus of elasticity of the raft.
νr = Poisson’s ratio of the raft.

106
 Es = modulus of elasticity of the soil.
νs = Poisson’s ratio of the soil.
t = thickness of the raft.
b = breadth of the raft.
For fully flexible footings (K = 0.0).
For partially flexible footings (0.0 < K < 1.0).
For fully rigid footings (K > 1.0).

• Calculate the maximum bending moment (per unit width), mi, for a semi-infinite soil layer:
mi  qu*  l  b  M (5)

where;
qu* = factored uniform applied pressure on the raft;
l&b = length and breadth of the raft; and
M = bending moment influence factor of the raft (obtained from Figures 18 & 19).
Note: MAB refers to bending about the axis AB.
• Correct calculated bending moment, mi, using a factor, R, obtained from Figures (20, 21) to
consider the effect of the finite layer of soil depth, d, such that:
m  R  mi (6)

Figure 18: Bending moment influence factors, M, for (l/b =1 or 2) and d/b = ∞.

107
Figure 19: Bending moment influence factors, M, for (l/b ≤ 5) and d/b = ∞.

108
Figure (20): Moment correction factor, R, for l/b = 1.0.

109
Figure (21): Moment correction factor, R, for l/b = 2.0.

110
 Worked Example (4)
For the raft foundation shown in the figure below, conduct the structural design using Fraser
and Wardle’s method. All columns are 250 mm square and loads are a combination of (2/3DL
+ 1/3LL). Use fc’ = 30 MPa & fsy = 400 MPa.

111
Conventional Rigid Method
After deciding the footing dimensions (B × L) and performing both the bearing capacity and
settlement analyses and making sure they are fine, this method can be explained by referring
to Figure (22) and applying the following steps:

1. Determine the raft thickness (t) by checking the punching shear at (d/2, where d is the raft
depth) from the faces of various columns (see Figure 23).

2. Calculate the total column loads: Pc = P1 + P2 + P3 + …

3. Calculate applied pressure below the raft at several points as A, B, C, D, … using the
following equation:

qapp 
Pc M y

A Iy
r
M
x x y
Ix o i (7)

where;
A = area of the raft.
Mx = moment of the column loads about the x-axis.
My = moment of the column loads about the y-axis.
Ix = (1/12) (B × L3) = moment of inertia about the x-axis.
Iy = (1/12) (L × B3) = moment of inertia about the y-axis.

4. Divide the raft into several strips (in the x and y directions). For example, the average applied
pressure of the bottom strip (OHMN) in the x direction is:

O
qaverage 
q H  qM
2
(8)

where qH & qM are applied pressure at points H & M, as obtained from Step (3). The soil
reaction of this strip will be: (qavg × B × L1). Because the shear between the adjacent strips
has not been taken into account, therefore, the soil reaction and column loads will not be
equal to each other and will thus need to be adjusted, as follows:

(qavg  B  L1 )  Pc  strip
Average  load  (9)
2

The average load obtained above is then used to adjust qavg, as follows:

 Average  load   Average  load 

qavg  mod ified  qavg    qavg   (10)
 Soil  reaction   qavg  B  L1 

Likewise, the column loads are modified using the following load modification factor (F),
so that the modified column loads are: F.P9, F.P10, F.P11, F.P12, for column loads P9, P10,
P11 and P12, respectively, (see Figure 24):

112
  Average  load 
F  qavg   (10)
 Pc  strip 

5. Draw the shear and bending moment diagrams for each strip using the modified loads in the
x and y directions. From the moment diagrams of all strips in one direction (x or y), obtain
the maximum positive and negative moments per unit width and determine the required
areas of steel.

⑭ H

Figure 22: Conventional raft foundation design.

Figure 23: Critical punching shear of various raft columns.

Figure 24: Modified loading for strip OHNP.

113
 Tutorial (4)
Shallow Foundations ‒ Structural Design

1. Design a square pad footing supporting a 300 mm square column carrying a vertical load of
550 kN (400 kN dead load and 150 kN live load) and a moment of 100 kN.m (70 kN.m dead
load and 30 kN.m live load). The footing base is located 1.5 m from the ground surface and
the water table is far below the ground surface. The underlying foundation material is a
sandy clay (stiff to very stiff) with the following properties: c’ = 50 kPa, ϕ’ = 5o, E’ = 30
MPa, ν’ = 0.5 and γsoil = 18 kN/m3. Use fc’ = 30 MPa and fsy = 400 MPa. [Answers: B = 2.5
m, t = 400 mm, d = 315 mm, use 9-Y20 bars in both directions at spacing = 290 mm]

2. Design a strip footing resting on the ground surface for a 200 mm reinforced masonry wall
that carries a dead load of 50 kN/m and a live load of 25 kN/m and is supported by medium-
dense clayey sand with the following properties: c’ = 5 kPa, ϕ’ = 30o, E’ = 80 MPa, ν’ =
0.45 and γsoil = 19 kN/m3. Use fc’ = 30 MPa and fsy = 400 MPa. [Answers: B = 850 mm, t =
165 mm, d = 80 mm, use SL92 steel mesh]

3. For columns (A) and (B) shown in Figure Q3, give a complete design of strap footings.
Column (A) carries a vertical load of 1650 (1050 dead load + 600 live load) and column (B)
carries a vertical load of 3580 (2240 dead load + 1340 live load). The allowable bearing
capacity of soil is 300 kPa, and the allowable footing settlement is 25 mm. The foundation
base is located at 2.5 m below the ground surface and the water table is far below the ground
surface. The underlying foundation soil has the following properties: c’ = 100 kPa, ϕ’ = 15o,
E’ = 25 MPa, ν’ = 0.4 and γsoil = 18 kN/m3. Use fc' = 30 MPa and fsy = 400MPa. [Answers:
Footing (A): B = L = 2.8 m, t = 590 mm, d = 505 mm, 16-Y20 bars at spacing = 175 in
one direction and 13-Y16 bars at spacing 220 mm in the other direction; Footing (B):
B = L = 3.5 m, t = 865 mm, d = 780 mm, 22-Y24 bars (both directions) at spacing = 158
mm; Strap Beam: B = 500 mmm, t = 1320 mm, d = 1235 mm; 8-Y32 top bars and 7-
Y32 bottom bars, with 5-Y12 stirrups per metre]
Property line

6m

Column (B)
Column (A) 300 ×× 500
500 300 mm
mm
400 × 400 mm
Figure: Q3

4. Assuming that both the bearing capacity and settlement are safe for the raft foundation
shown in Figure Q4, conduct the structural design of the raft using the conventional rigid
method. All columns are 500 mm square and column loads are a combination of (2/3DL +
1/3LL). Use fc’ = 25 MPa & fsy = 400 MPa. [Answers: t = 700 mm, d = 615 mm,
reinforcement of long direction are 11-Y20 bars per metre (top) at spacing = 100 mm
and 7-Y20 per metre (bottom) at spacing = 166 mm, the solution should be conducted
for strips to get reinforcement for short direction]

114
 y
A G B I C
0.25 m

3.75 m
400 kN 500 kN 450 kN

7m
P O

1500 kN 1500 kN 1200 kN

7m
L K

PC e
x
ey Q
x
7m
R

1500 kN 1500 kN 1200 kN

7m
N M

4.25 m 8m 4.25 m
7m

T S
3.75 m

400 kN 500 kN 350 kN

0.25 m
F H E J D
8m 8m
0.25 m 0.25 m

Figure: Q4

115
References:
 Bowles, J. E. (1996). Foundation analysis and design, McGraw-Hill, N.Y.
 Fraser, R. A. and Wardle, L. J. (1976). “Numerical analysis of rectangular rafts on layered
foundations” Geotechnique, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 613-630.
 Whitlow, M. J. (1990). Basic soil mechanics, Longman Science & Technical, Harlow, UK.
 Warner, R. F., Rangan, B. V., Hall, A. S., and Faulkes, K. A. (1999). Concrete Structures,
Addison Wesley Longman, Melbourne, Australia.

116