DISSERTATION

PRESENTATION
ON
FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF ECCENTRIC R.C.C FOOTING
SUBMITTED BY
Mr. BADEGHAR MUSAB
GUIDE
Prof. Dr. J.B.DAFEDAR

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

P.N.E.S.P.’s
NAGESH KARAJAGI ORCHID COLLEGE
OF ENGINEERING & TECH.
SOLAPUR-413002
2013-2014
PRESENTATION LAYOUT

2
 INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION OF FOOTINGS
Structural elements that transfer the loads safely from column to the earth.

1.2 Types of Footings

a)Shallow foundations

b)Deep foundations

FIG.1 Concentric Footing

3
FIG.2 Eccentric Footing FIG.3 Combined Footing

4
FIG.4 Strap Footing FIG.5 Mat Foundation

5
Deep foundations

6
FIG.6 Pile Foundation
 Haddadin (1971) presented Mat and Combined Footings Analysis by the
Finite Element Analysis in which various factors affecting contact pressure
distribution under mats and combined footings were reviewed and an
analytical tool was provided to include them in mat design.

 Bose & Das (1995) presented nonlinear finite element analysis of stresses
and deformations beneath rigid footing. A finite element analysis was
carried out to study the effect of rigidity of footing on soil media and
compare the results with the corresponding experimental observations.

7
Tabsh (2005) presented the effect of footing flexibility on structural
response. Finite element analysis of footing by four noded element, soil as
elastic spring

 Ivan Adrian (2010) pressures distribution for eccentrically loaded

rectangular footings on elastic soils. In this paper a rigid foundation of a
rectangular shape is analyzed under the action of a vertical load placed any
where on the foundation area.
 Garg and Hora (2012) presented conventional method of building frame
analysis which assumes that columns are resting on unyielding supports. In
reality, the supporting soil strata deforms unevenly under the action of loads,
which causes redistribution of forces in the frame members and stresses in
the supporting soil media.
8
 CLOSING REMARKS

 The soil structure interaction is studied in all above papers.

 Design parameters such as SF, BM & soil stress distribution are

evaluated.

 These parameters are studied for different moduli of elasticity.

 In the present study, the pressure distribution evaluated for

eccentric footing.

 The alternative solutions for eccentric footing to reduce the

pressure distribution are tried.

9
 THEORETICAL FORMULATION

1 Introduction to FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS :

Numerical technique in which all complexities of the problems are

solved.

2 Steps in FEA:

1) Discretization :- Modeling a structure using suitable number, shape and

size of the elements.

10
10
FIG.7 Discretization of Footing with 50mm X 50mm X 50mm 3D solid element

11
 SHAPE FUNCTIONS:
The function which relates the field variables at any point within the element
to the field variables of nodal points

Displacements of the elements are

u  N i ui  N1u1  N 2u2  N 3u3  ......

v  N i vi  N1v1  N 2v2  N 3v3  ......
w  N i wi  N1w1  N 2 w2  N 3 w3  ......

Where, N1, N2, N3….are the shape functions of the element

u, v, w are the displacements in the X, Y and Z directions
respectively.

12
12
 DERIVATION OF STIFFNESS MATRIX

Eight Noded Brick Element:

13
13
 x  x2 y  y5 z  z4
N1  . .
x1  x2 y1  y5 z1  z 4
x  a y b z  c
 . .
2 a 2b 2c
1 x  y  z 
  1   1   1  
8 a  b  c 

1 x  y  z 
N2  1   1   1  
8 a  b  c 
1 x  y  z 
N3  1   1   1  
8 a  b  c 
1 x  y  z 
N4   1   1   1  
8 a  b  c 
14

14
 1 x  y  z 
N5  1   1   1  
8 a  b  c 
1 x  y  z 
N6  1   1   1  
8 a  b  c 
1 x  y  z 
N7  1   1   1  
8 a  b  c 
1 x  y  z 
N8  1   1   1  
8 a  b  c 

15
The variation of displacement inside the element can be expressed as
16

u 
 
v    N 3 X 24  24 X 1
 w
 3 X 1

16
The Elasticity matrix for three dimensional element is represented as

1     0 0 0 
  1   0 0 0 
 
   1  0 0 0 
E  
[D] =
 0 1  2
(1   )(1  2 ) 0 0 0 0 
 2 
 1  2 
 0 0 0 0 0 
 2 
 1  2 
 0 0 0 0 0 
 2 
17
 The matrix of the shape functions [N] is represented as

 N1 0 0 N2 0 0 ... .... ... N8 0 0 

 0 N 0 0 N 0 ... ... ... 0 N 0 
[N] =  1 2 8 
 0 0 N1 0 0 N2 ... ... ... 0 0 N8 3 X 24

The strain displacement matrix [B] is given by

 N 1 N 2 N 8 
 0 0 0 0 ... ... ... 0 0 
 x x x 
 0 N 1 N 2 N 8 
0 0 0 ... ... ... 0 0
 y y y 
 N 1 N 2 N 8 
 0 0 0 0 .. ... ... 0 0 
[B] =  z z z 
 N 1 N 1 N 2 N 2 N 8 N 8 
 y 0 0 ... ... ... 0 
x y x y x
 N 1 N 1 N 2 N 2 N 8 N 8 
 0 0 ... ... ... 0 
 z y z y z y 
 N 1 N 1 N 2 N 2 N 8 N 8 
 0 0 ... ... ... 0 
 z x z
18
x z x  6 X 24
 The Final Stiffness matrix for Eight Noded Brick element is
obtained by using the equation,

 24 X 24 
K  [ B ]T
24 X 6 [ D ]6 X 6 [ B ]6 X 24 dv

19
STIFFNESS MATRIX FOR SIX NODED PRISM ELEMENT:

20
Shape Functions For Prism Element:

x  x2 y  y5 z  z4
N1  . .
x1  x2 y1  y5 z1  z 4
x  2 a / 3 y  2b / 3 z  c
 . .
a b 2c
 2 x  2 y  1 z 
       
 3 a  3 b  2 2c 
1 x  3y  1 z 
N2        
3 a  b  2 2c 
1 x  3y  1 z 
N3        
3 a  b  2 2c 
 2 x  2 y  1 z 
N4        
 3 a  3 b  2 2c 
 3x   1 y  1 z 
N5       
 a  3 b  2 2c 
 3x   1 y  1 z 
N6        
 a  3 b  2 2c 
21

21
 The variation of displacement is given by
22
u 
 
v    N 3 X 18  18 X 1
 w
 3 X 1
For a three dimensional problem, the elasticity matrix [D] is given by

1     0 0 0 
  1   0 0 0 

   1  0 0 0 
 
E  0 1  2
[D] = 0 0 0 0 
(1   )(1  2 )  2 
 1  2 
 0 0 0 0 0 
 2 
 1  2 
 0 0 0 0 0 
 2 
22
 The matrix of the shape functions [N] is represented as

 N1 0 0 N2 0 0 ... .... ... N6 0 0 

 0 N 0 0 N 0 ... ... ... 0 N 0 
[N] =  1 2 6 
 0 0 N1 0 0 N 2 ... ... ... 0 0 N6 3 X 18
Hence the strain displacement matrix [B] is
 N1 N 2 N 6 
 x 0 0 0 0 ... ... ... 0 0 
x x
 
 0 N1 is N 2 N 6 
0 0 0 ... ... ... 0 0
 y y y 
 
[B] =  0 N1 N 2 N 6 
0 0 0 .. ... ... 0 0
 z z z 
 
 N1 N1 N 2 N 2 N 6 N 6 
0 0 ... ... ... 0
 y x y x y x 
 
 0 N1 N1 N 2 N 2 N 6 N 6 
0 ... ... ... 0
 z y z y z y 
 
 N1 N1 N 2 N 2 N 6 N 6 
0 0 ... ... ... 0
 z x z x z x  6 X 18

23
The Final Stiffness matrix for Six Noded Prism element is derived by using
equation,

 18 X 18  18 X 6 [ D]6 X 6 [ B]6 X 18 dv

K  [ B ]T

24
 VALIDATION OF RESULTS

Validation of Results of Software:

E  2 X 105 N / mm 2
 0
5 kN
5 kN

The discretized element in three parts and five are as shown in following fig

25
 5 kN
5 kN

Discretization in Three Elements 5 kN 5 kN

Discretization in Five Elements

26
 TABLE.1 Comparison of Vertical Deflection in cm

Dist. From Free SAP Results

End Beam Theory
cm 3 Elements 5 Elements

0 0.29629 0.29150 0.29630

40.00 0.20859 - 0.20884
66.67 0.15364 0.15040 -
80.00 0.12800 - 0.12821
120.00 0.06163 - 0.06177
133.33 0.04380 0.04227 -
160.00 0.01659 - 0.01667
27
200.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
27
 TABLE.2 Comparison of Bending Stresses in N/mm2

Dist. From free SAP Results

end Beam Theory
in cm
3 Elements 5Elements
20.00 0.67 - 0.67
33.33 1.11 1.11 -
60.00 2.00 - 2.00
100.00 3.33 3.33 3.33
140.00 4.67 - 4.68
166.67 5.56 5.55 -
180.00 6.00 - 6.00 28

28
 PARAMETRIC INVESTIGATIONS
Selection of Element Size
Various element sizes such as 150mm, 100mm, 50mm are tried for
the following cases.
Case-1) Footing Size- 1.5mX1.5mX.3m
Column Size- 0.3mX0.3m
Load – 250 kN
S.B.C. of Soil- 500 kN/M2
Case-2) Footing Area : 1.2m x 1.2mx0.3m
Load and S.B.C. are same as above.

Case-3) Footing Area : 0.9m x 0.9mx0.3m

Load and S.B.C. are same as above.

Fig. shows the model of footing in SAP 29

29
 Pressure Distribution below Footing of Size – 0.9m x 0.9m x 0.3m

30

150mm Size 100mm Size 50mm Size 30

FIG.8 Pressure Distribution below Footing

30
 Pressure Distribution below Footing of Size–1.5m x 1.5m x 0.3m

31

150mm Size 100mm

31
Size 50mm Size
FIG.9 Pressure Distribution below Footing 31
 Table 3. Maximum Pressure below Footing of size 0.9m x 0.9m
Maximum Pressure in kN/m2 Theoretical value

Depth of Footing in m (Uniform Pressure

150mm Element 100mm Element 50mm Element
Distribution)KN/m2

0.3 862.44 995 1061.6

0.45 507.11 589.6 613.2 308.64
0.6 358.4 398.6 391.28
0.75 284.4 310.8 313.16
Table 4. Maximum Pressure below Footing of size 1.2m x 1.2m
Maximum Pressure in kN/m2 Theoretical value
Depth of Footing
(Uniform Pressure
in m 150mm Element 100mm Element 50mm Element
Distribution)KN/m2
0.3 849.38 982.7 1047.2
0.45 497.73 581.5 608 173.61
0.6 336.84 373.3 388.4
0.75 244.71 266.5 272.4
Table 5. Maximum Pressure below Footing of size 1.5m x 1.5m
Maximum Pressure in kN/m2 Theoretical value
Depth of Footing
(Uniform Pressure
in m 150mm Element 100mm Element 50mm Element
Distribution)KN/m2

0.3 839.69 980.6 1047.6

0.45 495.87 578.2 606.8 111.11
0.6 351.02 370.9 386
32
0.75 227.16 257.61 265.2
 The stresses obtained with 50mm element size are converged in all
the three cases.
 Thus, the 50mm element size is more effective in analysis of footing
to obtain better results.

33
 Support Conditions below Footings

 The strata below the footings - Hard strata having safe bearing capacity
500kN/m2.
 Footings are analyzed by using two types of support conditions.
i) Elastic Spring support.
ii) Hinged/Ball & Socket Support.

 Footing Size- 1.5mX1.5mX.45m

Column Size- 0.3mX0.3m
Load – 750 kN
S.B.C. of Soil- 500 kN/M2

34
 35

Footing with Elastic Spring Support Footing with Hinged Support

35
FIG.10
35
 36

GRAPH 1.Comparison of Pressure Distribution at Central c/s of Footing with

Elastic Spring & Hinged Supports

Thus, the stresses with hinged support are more close to stresses with
elastic spring support. Hence the hinged support is considered for the
analysis of footing supported on hard strata.
36
 ANALYSIS OF ECCENTRIC FOOTING

 Situations of Eccentric Footings:

 Eccentric footings are used when property line is close to the column.
 Centre of gravity of the footing does not coincide with the centre of
gravity of the centrically loaded column.
 Footings are subjected to eccentric loading, which will create moment
in footing and may be subject to overturning effect.
 The pressure distribution below footing is trapezoidal.
 The various possible solutions for eccentric footing are evaluated to
reduce the effect of eccentricity and to increase the contact area with the
soil.
 Iterative procedure is adopted in the analysis.

37
 Footing Size : 1.5m x 1.3m x 0.6m. Load 500kN

Prismatic eccentric footing Eccentric Footing with Triangular Stiffener

FIG.11
38
Eccentric Footing with rectangular Stiffener Eccentric Footing with concrete pedestal

FIG.12
39
 Stresses in Prismatic Ecc. Footing Stress in Ecc. Footing with triangular stiffener

Stresses in Ecc. Footing with rectangular Stiffener Stresses in Ecc. Footing with pedestal
40
FIG.13 3D View of Stresses in Footing
 Stresses & Contact Area of Soil

Contact Area Contact Area

Prismatic Eccentric Footing Eccentric. Footing with triangular Stiffener

Contact Area Contact Area

Eccentric Footing with rectangular stiffener Eccentric. Footing with conc. pedestal
41
FIG.14 Pressure distribution diagram
 GRAPH1.WIDTH VS STRESS
Ecc.Box Ecc.Pedastal Ecc.Triangular Stiffener Ecc.Rectangular Stiffener

2500
Pressure in kN/m2 2000

1500

1000

500

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3
Width in m
GRAPH2.WIDTH VS STRESS
Ecc.Box Ecc.Pedastal Ecc.Triangular Stiffener Ecc.Rectangular Stiffener
1800
1500
Pressure in kN/m2

1200
900
600
300
0
-300 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Length in m

Comparison of Pressure Distribution along Transverse/Longitudinal Direction under

Eccentric Footing at outside/central bottom edge

42
 It can be observed from Figures Graphs that,

 Provision of triangular stiffeners or pedestals does not help to substantially

reduce the maximum pressure below eccentric footings.

 Neither it helps to increase the contact area.

 The stiffeners or pedestal are not the effective alternatives for the

eccentric footings.

 In case of eccentric footing with rectangular stiffener, it increase much

amount of contact area with soil and reduced stress.

Following combined Footings are also analyzed as an alternative for the

Eccentric footings.
1) Strap Footing
2) Combined Footing
43
 VARIOUS ALTENATIVES IN STRAP FOOTING
 1. Strap Footing
 2.Strap Footing with P.B
 3.Strap Footing with P.B and Brick wall
 4.Strap Footing with P.B and RCC wall

Problem Data:
Footing 1 Footing 2
Load P1 = 500 kN Load P2 = 750 kN
Size: 1.5m x 1.3m x 0.6m Size: 1.5m x 1.3m x 0.6m
Column Size : 400mm x 400mm Column Size : 400mm x 400mm
Center to center Dist. between columns: 3.5m
Strap Beam Depth: 0.9m & width: 0.4m
Plinth Beam depth: 0.45m & width: 0.4m
S.B.C. of Soil: 500 kN/m2

44
 3D View of Stresses
in Strap Footing

3D View of Stresses in Strap

Footing with Plinth Beam

45
FIG.15 3D View of Stresses in Footing
 3D View of Stresses in Strap
Footing with P.B and brick wall
between P.B & Strap Beam

3D View of Stresses in Strap

Footing with P.B and RCC wall
between P.B & Strap Beam

46

FIG.16 3D View of Stresses in Footing

 Pressure Distribution & Contact
Area below Strap Footing

Pressure Distribution & Contact

Area below Strap Footing with P.B

47

FIG.17 Pressure distribution diagram

 Pressure Distribution & Contact Area
below Strap Footing with
P.B and Brick Wall

Pressure Distribution & Contact Area

below Strap Footing with
P.B and RCC Wall

48
FIG.18 Pressure distribution diagram
 Strap Footing Strap Footing with Plinth Beam
Strap Footing with Plinth Beam and Brick Wall Strap footing with Plinth Beam and RCC Wall

1500

1200
Pressure in kN/m2

900

600

300

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

-300
Length in m

GRAPH 2.Variation of Pressure Distribution under Strap Footings along

Longitudinal Section
1. Only strap footing and strap footing with plinth beam are not much effective.
2. The strap footing with plinth beam and R.C.C wall is very effective solution, it
increases contact area with the soil up to 100% and reduces stress tremendously.
3. In all cases, there is sudden increase in pressure at the end of eccentric footing. This
is because, there is large concentration of stresses transferring from eccentric footing
to strap beam.
49
 VARIOUS ALTERNATIVES OF ECCENTRIC FOOTING IN
CASE OF COMBINED FOOTING
A) Eccentric Footing with Rectangular Stiffener and various depth of Plinth Beam
B) Eccentric Footing with Rectangular Stiffeners on both Footings and 0.45m
Plinth Beam
C) Eccentric Footing with RCC Wall above the Footing with or without Plinth Beam

Footing 1 Footing 2
Load P1 = 500 kN Load P2 = 750 kN
Size: 1.5m x 1.3m x (0.6m) Size: 1.5m x 1.5m x (0.6m)
Column Size : 400mm x 400mm Column Size : 400mm x 400mm
Center to center Dist. between columns : 3.5m * Rectangular Stiffener: 0.4m wide
Plinth Beam Depth : 0.45,0.6,0.75m & width : 0.4m
S.B.C. of Soil : 500 kN/m2
* Size of RCC wall : 0.2m wide

50
 51
FIG 19: 3D MODEL
A) Eccentric Footing with Rectangular Stiffener and various depth of Plinth Beam

FOR 0.6m DEPTH (FOR SQUARE COLUMN)

Pressure Distribution 3D models for eccentric footing with rectangular stiffener and
0.45m P.B

52

FIG.20 3D View of Stresses in Footing

Pressure Distribution 3D models for eccentric footing with both side rectangular
stiffener and 0.6m P.B

53
FIG.21 3D View of Stresses in Footing
 Pressure Distributions and
Contact Area(P.B=0.45m)

Pressure Distributions and

Contact Area(P.B=0.6m)

54
FIG.22
 1200

1100

1000

900

s 800

t 700
r 600 stress(0.45depth)KN/M2
e stress(0.6depth)KN/M2
500
s stress(0.75depth)KN/M2
400
s
300

200

100

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Length(m)

GRAPH 3.COMPARISION GRAPH OF STRESSES FOR VARIOUS DEPTH OF FOOTING FOR

COLUMN(0.4x0.4m) when (P.B=0.4mx0.6m)

55
 1200

1100

1000

900

s 800
t 700
r 600 stress(0.45depth)KN/M2
e stress(0.6depth)KN/M2
500
s stress(0.75depth)KN/M2
400
s
300

200

100

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Length(m)

GRAPH 4.COMPARISION GRAPH OF STRESSES FOR VARIOUS DEPTH OF FOOTING FOR

COLUMN(0.4x0.4m) when (P.B=0.4mx0.75m)
56
 1200

1100

1000

900

s 800
t 700
r 600 stress(0.45depth)KN/M2
e stress(0.6depth)KN/M2
500
s stress(0.75depth)KN/M2
400
s
300

200

100

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Length(m)

GRAPH 5.COMPARISION GRAPH OF STRESSES FOR VARIOUS DEPTH OF FOOTING FOR

COLUMN(0.3x0.6m) when (P.B=0.4mx0.6m)

57
 1200

1100

1000

900
s 800
t 700
r 600 stress(0.45depth)KN/M2
e stress(0.6depth)KN/M2
500
s stress(0.75depth)KN/M2
400
s
300

200

100

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Length(m)

GRAPH 6.COMPARISION GRAPH OF STRESSES FOR VARIOUS DEPTH OF FOOTING

FOR COLUMN(0.3x0.6m) when (P.B=0.4mx0.75m)
58
B) Eccentric Footing with Rectangular Stiffeners on both Footings and 0.45m
Plinth Beam

Eccentric Footing Concentric Footing

Load P1 = 500 kN Load P2 = 750 kN
Size: 1.5m x 1.3m x (0.6,0.75m) Size: 1.5m x 1.5m x (0.6,0.75m)
Column Size: 400mm x 400mm Column Size: 400mm x 400mm
Center to center Dist. between columns: 3.5m
Size of Rectangular Brick/RCC Stiffener: 0.4mx1.4m
Size of Plinth Beam: 0.4mx0.45m
S.B.C. of Soil: 500 kN/m2

59
 Footing of Depth 0.6m
(Both side Brick Stiffener)

Footing of Depth 0.6m

(Both side RCC Stiffener)

60

FIG.23 3D View of Stresses in Footing

 Footing with
(Both side Brick Stiffener)

Footing with
(Both side RCC Stiffener)

61
FIG.24 Pressure distribution diagram
 depth 0.6m(Brick stiffener) depth 0.6m(RCC Stiffener)

1200
depth 0.75m(Brick Stiffener) depth 0.75m(RCC Stiffener) GRAPH 7
Variation of Pressure Distribution
900
under Eccentric Footing with
Pressure Dist. in kN/m2

Rectangular Brick and RCC Stiffener

600

300

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Length in m
depth 0.6m RCC stiffener depth 0.6m brick stifenner

1500
GRAPH 8
Pressure Dist. in kN/m2

1200

900
Variation of Pressure Distribution
under Concentric Footing with
600 Rectangular Brick and RCC Stiffener
300

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
-300
Length in m

62
C) Eccentric Footing with RCC Wall above the Footing with or without Plinth
Beam

Eccentric Footing Concentric Footing

Load P1 = 500 kN Load P2 = 750 kN
Size: 1.3m x 1.5m x 0.6m Size: 1.5m x 1.5m x 0.6m
Column Size: 400mm x 400mm Column Size: 400mm x 400mm
Center to center Dist. between columns: 3.5m
Size of RCC Wall above the Footing: 0.2mx(1.4,1.2,1.0m)
* Size of Plinth Beam: 0.4mx0.45m
S.B.C. of Soil: 500 kN/m2

63
 Footing with 0.2mx1.4m
RCC wall & 0.45m P.B

Footing with 0.2mx1.4m

RCC wall without P.B

64

FIG.25 3D View of Stresses in Footing

 Footing with 0.2mx1.2m
RCC wall & 0.45m P.B

Footing with 0.2mx1.2m

RCC wall without P.B

65

FIG.26 3D View of Stresses in Footing

 Footing with 0.2mx1.4m
RCC wall & 0.45m P.B

Footing with 0.2mx1.4m

RCC wall without P.B

66

FIG.27 Pressure Distributions and Contact Area under the Eccentric Footings
 Footing with 0.2mx1.2m
RCC wall & 0.45m P.B

Footing with 0.2mx1.4m

RCC wall without P.B

67

FIG.28 Pressure Distributions and Contact Area under the Eccentric Footings
 0.2mx1.4m RCC wall & 0.45m P.B 0.2mx1.4m RCC wall without P.B
0.2mx1.2m RCC wall & 0.45m P.B 0.2mx1.2m RCC wall without P.B
0.2mx1.0m RCC wall & 0.45m P.B 0.2mx1.0m RCC wall without P.B
1200
Pressure Dist. in kN/m2

900

600
Pressure
300
Distributions under
Eccentric Footing
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Length in m

0.2mx1.4m RCC wall & 0.45m P.B 0.2mx1.4m RCC wall without P.B 0.2mx1.2m RCC wall & 0.45m P.B
0.2mx1.2m RCC wall without P.B 0.2mx1.0m RCC wall & 0.45m P.B 0.2mx1.0m RCC wall without P.B
900
Pressure Dist. in kN/m2

600

300 Pressure Distributions

under Concentric Footing
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Length in m

GRAPH 9.Pressure Distributions under Eccentric Footing with RCC Wall above
the Footing
68
 FINAL RESULTS

ecc with rect stiffener strap with p.b and RCC wall ecc with rect stiffener and p.b

ecc with both side Brick stiffener ecc with both side RCC Stiffener

1500

1200
Pressure Dist. in kN/m2

900

600

300

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4

-300
Length in m
GRAPH 10.Pressure Distributions under the different alternatives of
Eccentric Footing69with Square Column
 ecc with rect stiffener strap with p.b and RCC wall ecc with rect stiffener and pb

ecc with both side rect brick stiffener ecc with both sideRCC stiffener
1200

900
Pressure Dist. in kN/m2

600

300

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4

-300
Length in m

GRAPH 11.Pressure Distributions under the different alternatives of

Eccentric Footing with Rectangular Column

70
 CONCLUSION
 The triangular stiffener generally provided for prismatic eccentric footing is not much
effective as the contact area with soil does not increase as compared to isolated eccentric
footings without stiffener.
 Eccentric footing with rectangular stiffener is more effective in increasing contact area
with soil and reducing the stresses below the footing compare to prismatic and triangular
stiffener type of eccentric footing.
 Strap footing with plinth beam and RCC wall is very effective in reducing pressure
below the eccentric footing and gives 100% contact area of footing with the soil as
compare to other alternatives of strap footing.
 Eccentric footing with RCC wall on footing is also much better effective solution and it
seems to be economical as compare to other alternatives.
 Eccentric footing with rectangular RCC stiffener on both footings and plinth beam is the
best solution for the eccentric footing.
 The stresses below this footing tremendously reduced as compare to all other alternatives
of eccentric footing. Also it gives the full contact area of eccentric footing with soil.

71
72