THE UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE

SCHOOL OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING DESIGN III

M. B. Jaksa

DESIGN OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

References:

1.

Bowles, J. E. (1988). Foundation Analysis and Design, 4th ed., McGraw Hill, 1004p.
Coduto, D. P. (1994). Foundation Design - Principles and Practices, Prentice Hall, 796p.
Das, B. M. (1995). Principles of Foundation Engineering, 3rd ed., PWS Publ. Co., 828p.
Fang, H.-Y. (ed.) (1991). Foundation Engineering Handbook, 2nd ed., Chapman and Hall, 923p.
Fraser, R. A. and Wardle, L. J. (1976). Numerical Analysis of Rectangular Rafts on Layered
Foundations. Gotechnique, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 613630.
Tomlinson, M. J. (1986). Foundation Design and Construction, 5th ed., Longman, 842p.
Zhang, B. Q. and Small, J. C. (1991). Finite Layer Analysis of Soil-Raft Interaction. Research
Report, University of Sydney, 66p.

INTRODUCTION

As mentioned previously, the design of foundations must include assessment of at least the
following three criteria: (i) bearing capacity; (ii) settlement; and (iii) construction and economic
feasibility.

2.

DESIGN OF PAD FOOTINGS

The design of pad, or spread, footings involves the following procedure:

1.

*
Estimate the preliminary allowable bearing pressure, qall
, from Table 1.1 (Bearing Capacity of
Shallow Foundations Lecture Notes) based on the underlying foundation material, such that:

*
qall
=

2.

qu
FS

(2.1)

Determine the width of a square footing, B, or the diameter of a circular footing, D, dependent
*
, such that:
on qall
B=
where:

P
(square footings), D =
*
qall

4P
(circular footings)
*
qall

(2.2)

is the vertical column load;

3.

Perform a bearing capacity analysis on the smallest of the proposed footings and calculate the
maximum allowable bearing pressure, qall(bearing);

4.

Perform a settlement analysis on the largest of the proposed footings and calculate the
maximum allowable bearing pressure, qall(settlement) , that keeps the settlement within tolerable
limits;

5.

Determine the design allowable bearing pressure, qall , which is the lower of qall(bearing) and
qall(settlement) .

Example 2.1:
A proposed building is to have column loads which vary between 130 and 1000 kN. The underlying
foundation material is a medium-dense sand. If the allowable total settlement is 15 mm, determine
the allowable bearing pressure for 0.5 m deep, square footings. (Assume that c = 0, = 35 and =
18 kN/m3, s = 0.5, Es = 50 MPa).

Solution:
1. From Table 1.1 (Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations Lecture Notes): for medium-dense
sand, qu = 300 kPa. Choosing FS = 3:
*
qall
=

300
= 100 kPa
3

2. B =

P
130
=
1.1 m ;
*
qall
100

B=

P
1,000
=
3.2 m
*
qall
100

3. Determine allowable bearing pressure for 1.1 m square footing. Using Terzaghis equation:
qu = 1.3cNc + qNq + 0.4BN = 0 + 18 0.5 41.4 + 0.4 18 1.1 42.4 = 0 + 372.6 + 335.8
qu = 708.4 kPa.
qall ( bearing ) =

708.4
= 236.1 kPa
3

4. Determine settlement for 3.2 m square footing. Using Equation (4.1) from Loading Induced
Stresses and Displacements Lecture Notes:
qB
1 2 ) Is . From Loading Induced Stresses and Displacements Lecture Notes: Is = 0.82
(
E
for average settlement of a rigid square footing and Is = 0.95 for average settlement of a flexible
square footing. Taking the average of these 2 values, Is = 0.90.
si =

Rearranging to solve for q:

q=

si E
15 50
=
= 0.347 MPa = 347 kPa
2
B(1 ) Is 3,200 (1 2 ) 0.9

5. Therefore, qall is smallest of qall(bearing) and qall(settlement) , and rounding down to the nearest 25 mm:

qall = 225 kPa.

3.

DESIGN OF STRIP FOOTINGS

The structural design of strip, or continuous, footings is very similar to that of pad footings. The
width of the strip footing is chosen to satisfy bearing capacity and settlement criteria, and the depth
of the footing is determined to satisfy beam shear requirements (Warner et al., 1989). The flexural
steel reinforcement is evaluated assuming that the strip footing undergoes one-way bending, a one
metre length being designed as a double cantilever.

4.

DESIGN OF MAT (RAFT) FOOTINGS

Mat foundations are designed so that bearing capacity failure does not occur and so that settlements,
particularly differential settlements, are maintained within acceptable limits. Tables 4.1 and 4.2
show typical acceptable differential settlements and deflection ratios ( / L), respectively.

Table 4.1

Acceptable differential settlements in buildings (mm). (Source: Bowles, 1988.)

Criterion
Angular distortion (cracking)
Greatest differential settlement:
Clays
Sands
Maximum settlement:
Clays
Sands

Table 4.2

Isolated Footings
1 / 300

Mat Foundations
1 / 300

40
30

40
30

60
50

60 100
50 70

Acceptable deflection ratios ( / L). (Source: Das, 1995.)

/L
1 / 750
1 / 600
1 / 500
1 / 300
1 / 300
1 / 250
1 / 150
1 / 150

Category of Potential Damage

Danger to machinery sensitive to settlement
Danger to frames with diagonals
Safe limit for no cracking of buildings
First cracking of panel walls
Difficulties with overhead cranes
Tilting of high rigid buildings becomes visible
Considerable cracking of panel and brick walls
Danger of structural damage to general buildings

Mat, or raft, foundations rarely fail as the result of bearing capacity failure because of their
relatively large width. However, bearing capacity might be important with cohesive soils, especially
if undrained conditions apply. Bearing capacity is assessed using the techniques detailed in the
Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations lecture notes.
The design of a mat foundation built on a soil involves both the behaviour of the supporting soil and
of the mat itself, and so a full soil-structure interaction analysis is necessary. Often, sophisticated
computer packages are used to model the behaviour of the concrete mat on the underlying soil. The
3

simplest way to account for the deformation of the soil is to assume that the pressure at any point on
the surface of the soil is proportional to the deformation of the soil at that point. This results in the
Winkler model (1867) which, in effect, treats the soil as a series of springs, as shown in Figure 4.1.

Figure 4.1 Winkler spring model.

While affording a relatively simple means of obtaining the deformation response of the soil, the
Winkler model neglects the interaction of one spring with another and, therefore, does not treat the
underlying soil as a true continuum. An alternative and improved approach is to treat the soil as an
elastic continuum. Fraser and Wardle (1976) used finite elements to model rectangular rafts of
dimensions l b (such that l > b), supported by a homogeneous isotropic layer of thickness d resting
on a rigid base, as shown in Figure 4.2.

Figure 4.2 Rectangular raft foundation on a homogeneous layer.

(Source: Fraser and Wardle, 1976.)
4

The authors generated a series of graphical solutions, as shown in Figures 4.3 to 4.11. The charts
are based on the following relationships:
Stiffness factor, K:

where:

K=
Er
r
Es
s
t

2
3
4 Er (1 vs ) t
3 Es (1 vr2 ) b 3

(4.1)

is the modulus of elasticity of the raft;

is the Poissons ratio of the raft;
is the modulus of elasticity of the soil;
is the Poissons ratio of the soil; and
is the thickness of the raft.

For flexible rafts, K 0, and for rigid rafts, K .

Settlement, :
where:

= pb
p
I

(1 v ) I
2
s

Es

(4.2)

is the applied uniform pressure on the raft;

is the influence factor for settlement.

Note: and I have the following typical subscripts: A, B and C associated with central
settlement (point A, Fig. 4.3), mid-edge settlement (point B, Fig. 4.3) and C corner settlement
(point C, Fig. 4.3), respectively; and AB and AC associated with differential settlement between
the centre and mid-edge, and the centre and corner, respectively.

Figure 4.3 Settlement influence factors, I. (Source: Fraser and Wardle, 1976.)

 Maximum bending moment, m:

(per unit width)
where:

m = plb M

(4.3)

is the bending moment influence factor of the raft.

Note: MAB refers to bending about the axis AB.

Correction factors, S (settlement) and R (bending moment), are applied to raft foundations for the
effect of finite layer depth, d, such that:
= S si

where:

si

is the settlement based on a semi-infinite soil mass.

(S = 1 for a semi-infinite soil mass).
m = Rmsi

where:

msi

(4.4)

(4.5)

is the bending moment based on a semi-infinite soil mass.

(S = 1 for a semi-infinite soil mass).

Figure 4.4 Bending moment influence factors, M. (Source: Fraser and Wardle, 1976.)

Example 4.1
Consider a square raft foundations of dimensions 10 m 10 m and 0.5 m thick, subject to a uniform
load of 100 kPa resting on a soil layer of thickness d = 40 m. The raft properties are as follows: Er =
15,000 MPa, r = 0.2 and the soil properties are: Es = 81.9 MPa, s = 0.3. Determine (a) the central
settlement, (b) the differential settlement between the centre and the mid-edge of the raft, and (c) the
maximum bending moment.

Figure 4.5 Settlement correction factor, S (l/b = 1): (a) s = 0; (b) s = 0.3; (c) s = 0.5.
(Source: Fraser and Wardle, 1976.)
7

Figure 4.6 Settlement correction factor, S (l/b = 2): (a) s = 0; (b) s = 0.3; (c) s = 0.5.
(Source: Fraser and Wardle, 1976.)
8

Figure 4.7 Bending moment correction factor, R (l/b = 1): (a) s = 0; (b) s = 0.3; (c) s = 0.5.
(Source: Fraser and Wardle, 1976.)
9

Figure 4.8 Bending moment correction factor, R (l/b = 2): (a) s = 0; (b) s = 0.3; (c) s = 0.5.
(Source: Fraser and Wardle, 1976.)
10

Figure 4.9 Settlement influence factors, IA (l/b 5): (a) d/b = ; (b) d/b = 1.
(Source: Fraser and Wardle, 1976.)

Figure 4.10 Differential settlement influence factors, IAB , IAC , IAD , (3 l/b 5):
(a) d/b = ; (b) d/b = 1. (Source: Fraser and Wardle, 1976.)

11

Figure 4.11 Bending moment influence factors, M, (l/b 5):

(a) d/b = ; (b) d/b = 1.

Solution:
Firstly, calculate K:

2
3
2
3
4 Er (1 vs ) t
4 15,000(1 0.3 ) 500
From Equation (4.1): K =
=
= 0.0289
3 Es (1 vr2 ) b 3 3 81.9(1 0.2 2 )10,000 3

K is close to 0 flexible raft.

(a)

From Fig. 4.3, with K = 0.0289, IA = 1.10.

From Equation (4.2): Asi

(1 v ) I
= pb
2
s

Es

Asi

100 10 (1 0.32 )
81.9 10 3

1.10 = 12.2 mm

From Fig. 4.5(b), with l / b = 1, d / b = 40/10 = 4 (i.e. b / d = 0.25), and s = 0.3, SA = 0.88.
From Equation (4.4): A = SA Asi = 0.88 12.2 = 10.8 mm
(b)

From Fig. 4.3, with K = 0.0289, IAB = 0.26. Therefore ABsi = 2.9 mm
From Fig. 4.5(b), SAB = 1.00. Thus AB = 2.9 mm

(c)

From Fig. 4.4, with K = 0.0289, Msi = 0.005.

From Equation (4.3): m = plbM = 100 10 10 0.005 = 50 kNm / m
From Fig. 4.7(b), R = 1.00. Thus m = 50 kNm/m.

12

4.1

Multi-Layered Soil Profiles

The charts given in 4 deal with a raft foundation resting on a single soil layer. As we know, the
majority of situations involve multi-layered soil profiles. Fraser and Wardle (1976) suggested the
following method for dealing with multi-layered soil profiles.
1. The total settlement, , and the maximum bending moment, m, are calculated by means of
Equations (4.1) and (4.2), using equivalent elastic parameters, E s* and , where E * = E (1 2 ) .
2. The equivalent elastic parameters are calculated by using the following relationships:

(1 v ) I ( z)
( z ) = pb
2

where:

(z)

I(z)

(4.6)
Es
is the vertical settlement at depth, z, below the centre of a
uniformly loaded, square, flexible raft; and
is shown plotted in Figure 4.12.
n
1
1 I i
=

*
*
Es
i =1 Ei I total
n

= i
i =1

I i
I total

(4.7)

(4.8)

3. The task of determining E s* is simplified by plotting values of 1 Ei* using a horizontal scale
which is linear with respect to I(z), but for convenience is labelled with values of z/b, as shown
in Figure 4.13. The value of 1 E * is then simply the average value of 1 Ei* weighted according
to the special horizontal scale.
4. The average Poissons ratio, , is calculated in the same way, that is, by plotting n against z/b,
using the special scale.

Figure 4.12 Vertical settlement influence factor, I(z). (Source: Fraser and Wardle, 1976.)
13

Figure 4.13 Variation of 1 Ei* with depth z/b. (Source: Fraser and Wardle, 1976.)

Example 4.2
Using the same situation as in the previous example, except that, in this case, the soil is multilayered, as shown in Figure 4.14, determine (a) the central settlement, (b) the differential settlement
between the centre and the mid-edge of the raft, and (c) the maximum bending moment.

Figure 4.14 Details of Example 4.14. (Source: Fraser and Wardle, 1976.)
14

Solution:
Plot 1 E * to special scale. For example:

Layer 1:

E1* = 100 MPa, 1 E1* = 1 100 = 0.010 .

Layer starts at z = 0, that is z/b = 0/10 = 0, and
Layer ends at z = 10, that is z/b = 10/10 = 1.

Layer 2:

E2* = 80 MPa, 1 E2* = 1 80 = 0.0125 .

Layer starts at z/b = 10/10 = 1, and
Layer ends at z = 20, that is z/b = 20/10 = 2.

etc. as shown in Figure 4.13.

Now calculate the area under the curve:

Area =

1.12 0.48 0.48 0.26 0.26 0.18 0.18 0.14

+
+
+
= 0.01088
100
80
60
100

And the average value =

1.12 0.14
= 90.0 MPa
0.01088

= 0.3 . Therefore: E s = E s* 1 2s = 90 1 0.32 = 81.9 MPa

Analyses are then performed in the same manner as in Example 4.1.

Hence, the results are the same as in Example 4.1.

Geotech3_LS8_Shallow Foundations.doc
2006, M. B. Jaksa

15