Existing models and new proposal for load carrying capacity of square footing

Giuseppe Campione

Department of Civil Enviormental and Aerospatial Engineering, University of Palermo,

Viale delle scienze, 90144, Italy

Abstract. In this paper a simplified calculus model for the prediction of the load carrying capacity of RC column footing
with square cross-section is presented. Several subgrade contact pressures distributions for column footings (rigid or soft
soils) were considered. A detailed background of existing models for prediction of load carrying capacity of slender and deep
footing was presented. Aim of the paper was the proposal and the choice of the best model (strut and tie or cantilever
beam/two ways slab model) to predict the load carrying capacity of single column footing. Numerical results and available
experimental results were utilised to verify the model in comparison with existing models. Effects of main parameters such as
geometry of footing and column (depth, width), mechanical ratio of longitudinal steel and type of soil are investigated both
numerically and analytically. The comparison between analytical and numerical results allows one to validate the proposed
model.
.
Keywords: Footing; strut and tie model; beam model; elastic soil; punching shear, concrete crushing.

a) b)
1. Introduction
P P
Concrete footing were commonly used as foundation for rigid foundation rigid foundation

building and bridges located on a layer of soil or rock with

good bearing characteristics. Such soils would include
dense sands, marl, other granular materials and stiff clays.
This kind of foundation is widely used in practice, but has
been less studied so far when flexural strength is concerned.
In the design of column footings, besides geotechnical rigid soil

aspects, assumes an important role the limit state of

deformable soil
P P
concrete members, with a control of allowable settlements. flexible foundation flexible foundation

Characteristics of subgrade are very different from those of

structure, especially in term of deformability; in their
calculation have not been considered both in the literature
and neither in the technical regulations. The study of soil-
structure interaction is essential to determine the soil- rigid soil deformable soil

foundation pressures necessary for the design of the

foundation in the respect of the limit state and to evaluate c) d)
the settlements of foundation (Alber 1964). Elastic analyses
of soil-structure interaction (Terzaghi 1964, Hetenyi 1964), Fig. 1 – RC column footing: a) rigid footing on rigid soil (clay);
b) rigid on soft soil (sand); c) flexible on rigid soil; d) flexible on
based on continuum models have shown that for deep
soft soil.
footing the shape of contact pressures is that of Fig. 1 a) or
Fig. 1 b) for rigid or soft soils, respectively. Otherwise if At limit state, the effective stress distribution for elastic
footing is flexible (it is the case of slender foundation with behaviour becomes convex and the soil reaction underneath
low thickness), the shapes of contact pressures are those of the punching cone is greater than for a uniform one. Studies
Fig. 1 c) or Fig. 2 d) for rigid or soft soils, respectively. So present in literature (Alber 1964, Terzaghi 1964, Hetenyi
contact pressures distribution on substrate could be different 1964, Viggiani 1999) show that the distribution of contact
P pressures indicated in Fig. 1 can be approximated as in Fig.
from the constant value pm  2 (with P load applied and
B 2 a) for rigid soil or Fig. 2 b) per soft soil. Reference values,
B side of the square footing), which is usually used. for the definition of loading profiles, are those of Fig. 2.

a)
P P
B/2 B/2 B/2
3/7 pm
9/7 pm
idealized rigid soil
idealized deformable soil
Fig. 2 – Forms of subgrade upward pressure distributions for
rigid column footing on: rigid soil; b) flexible soil; c) Winkler’s
model of soil.
They are defined though the maximum and the minimum
values correlated to the medium value pm. Near failure
conditions of footing, hypothesis of uniform contact
pressure is acceptable for safety conditions and the
distribution of pressures that can be adopted is that of Fig. 2
c) as in the Winkler model. Finally, when column footing
failure occurs with soil in elastic range, the better shape of
contact pressures is that of Fig. 2 a) and b), depending on
the type of soil (rigid or flexible); otherwise, the best
contact pressures distribution is that of Fig. 2 c).
In this case, bending moments are higher than those
obtained with effective pressures distribution. According to
(Menditto 1984, Migliacci and Mola 1984, Toniolo 1996)
column footing can be considered rigid foundation when,
referring to Fig.3, > 45°, whereas can be considered
flexible foundation when < 45°. Some other researchers
(Viggiani, 1999) give as limits 4° for slab behaviour,
14°<° for beam model and  for rigid beam.
a
Fig. 3 – Single column footing.
In both cases important phenomenon determining columns
footing failure are the punching shear failure, the yielding
of main bars and the crushing of concrete compressed
regions (strut members) (Hallgre and Bjerke 2002, Hegger
et al. 2007, Bonic and Folic 2013). In the last decade’s
theoretical studies and experimental researches carried out
approached to simplified calculus models such as beam or
slab models transferred in simple analytical expressions
given in different design codes and textbooks. From
structural point of view, simplified calculation is generally
adopted in the design of foundations, which are considered
as rigid, with a linear pressures distribution on subgrade. In
the case of single column footing, the choice of calculus
model depends on the type of elements, which depends on
their geometry. Control of column punching though floor
Existing models and new proposal for load carrying capacity of square footing
b) c) slab with or without shear reinforcement is one of the main
aspect to take into account in the calculus of load carrying
P capacity of RC footing [8-12]. The references calculus
B/2 B/2 B/2
models utilized for the prediction of failure load of the
3/5pm
footing mentioned in several text-books (Menditto 1984,
pm
Migliacci and Mola 1984, Toniolo 1996) and codes (ACI
9/5 pm
318 2005, Eurocode 2 2004) are: - strut and tie model for
Winkler soil and rigid foundation
deep members; - cantilever or slab models for flexible
footing in which the shear failure due to punching failure
are also considered with flexural failure due to yielding of
main bars. According to Eurocode 2 (2004) the shear
strength of structural concrete footing shall be governed by
the more severe of two conditions: - a) beam action for
footing with a critical section extending in a plane across
the entire footing width and located at a distance a from
face of concentrated load or reaction area; b) two-way
action for footing with a critical section perpendicular to
plane of footing and located so that its perimeter is a
minimum, but need not approach to perimeter of
concentrated load or reaction area.
According to these models, the arrangements of
longitudinal steel reinforcement are those of Fig. 4 a) for
rigid footings and that of Fig. 4 b) for flexible footing with
specific punching reinforcement, if it is necessary.
P P
b b
H
s s
H
P
s
b
s/2
B
s
H

B B
t
Fig. 4 – Reinforcements details for RC column footings: a) deep;
B a) flexible.
According to Eurocode 2 (2004), reinforcements equal in x
and y direction, are placed on the bottom of the column
footing with adequate cover and bended on the upper side
with length calculated as the maximum between 200 mm,
10 times the diameter of the reinforcement and 1/3 of the
footing side. Extensive experimental researches (Hallgren
and Bjerke 2002, Hegger et al. 2007, Bonic and Folic 2013,,,
Vacev et al. 2015, Simoes et al. 2016, Nguyen et al. 2016,
Chavarría et al. 2017) exist referred to the study of column
punching though floor slab with or without shear
reinforcement; while, very few data area available for deep
members. Therefore, although the load carrying capacity of
footings subjected to a concentrated loading originated from
a column has been the object of different research works
there is not yet a consensus on a consistent method with
physical basis for its design.
 Existing models and new proposal for load carrying capacity of square footing

2. Research significance function of m=M/B flexural strength for the footing slab per
The aim of the present study is the determination of the unit width are given in Jiang (1982) for cases shown in Fig.
load-carrying capacity of concrete footings by means of 6.
single expressions that are more accurate and consistent (i.e.
uniform in the prediction) than the existing formulas. The
proposed expressions are derived from two principal
mechanical models: - one, a cantilever beam model, based P P P

on a mechanism consisting of flexural failure and punching b b b

shear failure; - and one, a truss model, based on a

mechanism consisting of concrete crushing of compressed
strut and yielding of main bars. Case 1 Case 3
Case 2

3. BACKGORUND OF EXISTING CALCULUS

MODELS AND NEW PROPOSAL
As mentioned previously the choice of the best calculus
model for the prediction of the load carrying capacity B B
B

depends on geometry, dimensions and reinforcements of P P P

concrete footing and among them plays a fundamental role b b b

the shear to span ratio. Strut and tie model is generally

adopted for deep members characterized by low shear to
span ratio (>45°), while for slender member (<45°) the Case 4 Case 5 Case 6

cantilever beam or two ways slab models are generally

adopted. In both cases important phenomenon determining
columns footing failure is the punching shear failure.
3.1. Slender footing
B B
B

Jiang (1982) suggests adopting the calculus beam model

shown in Fig. 5 for slender footing. Supposing the subgrade
pressures uniform the steel area in a reinforced concrete Fig. 6 - Yield line patterns for two-way cantilever slab [Jiang H.,
footing is calculated either by considering the rectangular 1982].
area or the trapezoidal area with a beam or slab model
shown in Fig. 5. By contrast, the lower bound solution indicated in Jiang
(1982) considers three cases denoted as A, B, C. The case A
P
for which the bending moment in the load-distribution
b
element is that of Fig. 6 a, and the load is:
H

b
b

B
B

M
a
y y
P  8 (3)
pt
B
b a b a

The case B, in which the slabs is subdivided into a system

Fig. 5 –Calculus model for RC column footing according to Jiang
of radial cantilever beams and the load, is:
(1982).

The bending moments result considering the rectangular b

area or the trapezoidal area respectively: M B
P  6  3
(4)
B 3 b 1 b
1 P 1    
M    B  b 2 (1) 2 B 2 B
8 B
Finally the case C in which the slab is cut along the
1 P
M   B  b 2  2 B  b  (2) diagonals and the collapse load is:
24 B 2

In Jiang (1982) several upper and lower bound solutions for M 24

P  2
(5)
the collapse load of a square spread slab footing are also B  b  B 
given assuming rigid plastic behavior and square yield 1     2   1
 B  b 
criterion of failure. Similar studies are also those given in
Gesund (1985,) and Rao and Singh (1985).
According to Jiang (1982) the exact solution is the
For the upper bound solutions, the yield line theory of two- somewhere in the three lower bounds (A, B, C). Fig. 7
way slabs along four sides was applied. Expressions of P shows the correlation between the collapse load and ratio
 Existing models and new proposal for load carrying capacity of square footing

b/B for different yield line patterns determined in Jiang (see Fig. 9) were investigated for non uniform subgrade
(1982). reaction and expressions for ultimate load derived as lowest
70
P/m - case B P/m -case C upper bound solution of yield line theory gives are the
60
P/m -case A
P/m -case 5
P/m -case 6
P/m-case4
following:
P/m-case3 P/m-case2
P/m-case1  b  b 2 p  b  b  
2
50 32  B  1      1   2      (soft soil) (10)
 B  B  p 
2  B  B  
M  
P  2
40 B  b  b p1  b 
1    3     9  
P/m

 B  B p2  B 
30
 b b
2
p  b  b  
2
32  B  2      1  1     
 
(rigid soil) (11)
20  B  B  p 2  B  B  
M 
P 
2    b  
B 2 2
 b  b b p1  b
10 1    18   10      6  11  10    
 B    B  
B p 2 
 B   
B

0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 P P

b/B B/2 B/2 B/2 B/2

p2

p2
Fig. 7 – Variation of collapse load with b/B ratios (Jiang, 1982).
The model here proposed is a beam model, showed in Fig. 8,

p1

p1
obtained subdividing the footing in four independent
cantilever beams subjected to uniform pressures. idealized rigid soil
idealized deformable soil
P P P
b
b H/2 b failure surface Fig. 9 – Two different forms of subgrade upward pressure Jiang
C
(1982).
H


H
H

T 45°

Similar expressions are here derived with reference to

P/4 a pt
b+H
pt

model of Fig. 2 for soft, rigid and Winkler soil.

b/4

In the case of rigid soil (type a) of Fig. 2) the moment is

b

b
B

equal to:
y
y

M 56  B3
P  3
  (12)
b a b a

B B  5B  7b  b3  B  b
Fig. 8 –Proposal of calculus model for RC rigid versus flexible
column footing.
While for flexible soils (type b of Fig. 2) the moment is
equal to:
The ultimate load is expressed as:
M 40  B 3

P
M
 2
24  B 2
(6)
P  3

B B  3B  5b  b3  3B  b  (13)

B B  (2  B  3b)  b3
Fig. 10 shows a comparison between expressions (Eqn. 6,
With M  0.9  d  A f  f y . 10,11,12,13).

70
Studies present in literature (Menditto 1984, Migliacci and [15] - Case2

Mola 1984, Toniolo 1996) give similar expressions to Eq. 60 [6]

[5]

(6): 50
[4]
Campione flexible
Campione rigid
2
24  B
Campione-uniform
M 40
P  [Viggiani 1999] (7)
P/m

B B  b 2  (2  B  b) 30

20
M 8 B
P  [Menditto 1984] (8)
B B  b2 10

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
M 1
P  [Toniolo 1994] (9) b/B

B B b

12 8 Fig. 10 – Correlation between collapse load and b/B for models
(Jiang 1982,Menditto 1984, Migliacci and Mola 1984, Toniolo 1996).
In Jiang (1982) two different forms of subgrade pressures
 Existing models and new proposal for load carrying capacity of square footing

It is interesting to observe that all expressions give same and mechanical properties of footing shown in Fig. 12.
trend of results with scatter of 10%. Fig. 11 shows a r s

comparison between expressions here derived and V

expressions derived in Jiang (1982) taking into account of r

different type of soil. Comparison was made for p1/p2=0.33.
c

failure surface
Comparison shows that proposed flexural model and Jiang
(1982) model consider the effect of different type of soil

d
H
with similar trend of results.
r 0

In the case of very slender column footing, strength is r q

V
B

generally limited by punching shear failure, and the r s

ultimate load can be predicted utilizing one of the

expressions given by literature and also available in Fig. 12- Punching shear calculus model for RC column slab
European or International codes (ACI 318 2005, Eurocode footing (Simoes et al. 2016).
2 2004).
A theoretical solution of the load carrying capacity of
axisymmetric isolated footing with low slenderness was
70
adopted in which two different failure mechanisms were
Campione flexible
Campione rigid
selected as potentially governing. Failure mechanisms
60
Campione-uniform consider that two footing portions separated by a failure
Non uniform subgrade reaction (rigid)
surface which is assumed to be rotationally symmetric. In a
50 Non uniform subgrade reaction (flexible)
simplified version, the author has proposed to calculate the
load carrying capacity as the minimum between values
40
related to flexural failure and punching shear failure.
P/m

30
In flexure the reduced moment capacity [12] is expressed
as:
20
    r d  
10 Pflex  2     f cp  d    1    0.4 s   
 2  r rq  rc

   c   (15)
0
rs rs2
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7  
b/B rq  rc rs2  rc2

Fig. 11 – Correlation between collapse load and ratio b/B for While under punching shear failure the ultimate load
different type of soils and models. (Simoes et al. 2016) is expressed as:
If shear punching failure has to be checked the model   
shown in Fig. 6 can be adopted in which the area of footing    /2 
Psh  f cp   2  rc  0.2  d  cot   
base was assumed B/2, the control section perimeter was   0 .8  0 .5 a 
assumed 4(b+d), and the ultimate shear stress at punching   (16)
  d 
of the control section v was that suggested in Eurocode 2 rs2 1
(2004). d  2 2

rs  r0 0.9  rs
The load carrying capacity is expressed as: d

  0.33
   (14)  30 
  With: f cp  f c  c   
0.33
d  4  b  d    
  0.18  1  200   100  f  f c  
A and c a softening coefficient
Pus  

1 

B 2  b  d 2   
 



d    BH 
   fc 
 B2  assumed as in Simoes et al. (2016) . The ultimate load is the
minimum between Eq. (15) and Eq. (16).
The ultimate load is the minimum between Eq.(6) and
Eq.(14), 3.2. Deep footing
By imposing that the ultimate load due to shear punching The calculus model here proposed for deep member is the
(Eq. 14) is equal than ultimate load producing flexural strut and tie model shown in Fig. 8. This model is
failure (Eq. 6) it results the maximum mechanical ration of constituted by two single trusses each loaded by P/2. Each
Af  f y truss is constituted by two strut and one tie member, the
longitudinal reinforcements   to avoid latter constituted by longitudinal reinforcements.
B  H  fc
punching shear failure. Different approaches for the The force T in the tie and the force C in the strut are related
calculus of load carrying capacity of single footing is that to the external load P with the relations:
adopted in Simoes et al. (2016) which refers to geometrical
 Existing models and new proposal for load carrying capacity of square footing

1.2
P P
 T  tan   C  sen (17) AASHTO (2007)
4 4 1


Campione (2009)

 and z being defined as: 0.8

z
tan  
0.6
(18)
y
0.4

z  0.9  H     0.9  d (19) 0.2

 is the cover thickness and y is the distance of P/4 from the 0

fixed section of the strut member. 0 20 40 60 80 100

If the column footing is prismatic and the contact pressures
are supposed uniform y= B/4 with  =1; while, for rigid or Fig. 13 – Softening coefficients for compressed struts of deep
soft soil it results  = 1.22 and 0.77, respectively. column footing with  variation.
Analogously, for shaped column footing is results y=  B/3, If Eq. (21) and Eq. (24) are solved with respect to P and it is
and  =1, 1.62 and 1.02 B/3, respectively, for Winker, rigid
assumed M  A f  f y  0.9  d it results:
and soft soil.
The tensile force at yielding of reinforcement is equal to: 1
Pu , y  4M  (25)
B b
Ty  A f  f y (20) 
4
Eq. (20) substituted in Eq. (17) gives: 1 b 2  f c  sen
Pu , c  4M   (26)
 Bb 
2
A f  f y  0.9  d
z 1  0.66   
Pu , y  4  A f  f y  tan   4  A f  f y  (21)  2  0.9  d 
y
Similar expressions to Eq. (25) and Eq. (26) are given in the
From equilibrium of internal forces (see Fig. 6), it is
literature (Menditto 1984, Migliacci and Mola 1984,
possible to derive force Ccc on strut that, at cracking,
Toniolo 1996) in the form:
assumes the value:
Finally, at concrete crushing the force on strut is:  
 1  1
Pu , y  4M    [5] (27)
Ccu    b 2  f c (22)  B  b b
 0.2  d  1 
 4  B
Where ξ is softening coefficient that takes into account of
the biaxial state of stresses (tensile-compression) in the 1 1 [6] (28)
concrete struts. The softening coefficient was here Pu ,c  4  0.4  d  b  f c  2
 2
  b
calculated through the expression proposed by Campione   1  
d B
(2012) in the form:  Bb 
  0.2  d 
 4 
1
 2
(23)
a 16 1
1  0.66    Pu , y  4 M   [7] (29)
z 0.9 B  b

Eq. (23) agrees with expression given in AASHTO (2014). 16 0.4  d 2 0.50  d 1
Pu ,c  M    b  fc   [4] (30)
Fig 13 shows the variation of the softening coefficient 0.9 B  b b d  Af  f
calculated with Eq. (23) and with that given in Bonic and
Folic (2013) expression with the variation of  Substituting 0.9
Eq. (23) into Eq. (22), it results: Pu , y  4M  [2] (31)
B b
Pu , c  4    b 2  f c  sen (24) 4
Comparison among expressions given by Eqn. (29, 30,31)
Eq. (24) is valid for B>3b. For B<3b it is necessary to
and Eq. (25,26) gives results that differs for  between 45°
B and 60° in the range of 15%.
introduce in Eq. (24) a corrective coefficient   that
4b
considers the limit case b=B for which it must In Fig. 14 the proposed models (beam and truss models)
was compared (in term of load carrying capacity referred to
results Pu , c  b 2  f c .
load carrying capacity of column) with the Simões model
 Existing models and new proposal for load carrying capacity of square footing

for footing with fc=25 MPa , fy=450 MPa , B=1000 mm , mechanical ratio of reinforcement, with variation of θ for
b=300 mm and two different values of =Af/(BH)=0.2 and Winkler, rigid or flexible soil modeled assuming y=1.22 B/4
0.8. and y=0.72 B/4. In the application of Eq. (22) it was
f 
a) =0.2 assumed that ct  0.1 and it was supposed that ct was
fc y
4 negligible. From graphs of Fig. (8) it can be observed that
14° 45° 63°
the minimum mechanical ratio is equal to 0.02 which is
Truss model very close to the value suggested in Eurocode 2 (2004)
3 equal to 0.022. Maximum value changes with the soil type
and with the θ.
(strut)
P/(b fc)

[12 ] model
2

2
4. COMPARISON OF MODELS WITH AVAILABLE
(tie) EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
1
To validate the proposed model and to establish which
Beam model
model is more appropriate for slender or deep members, a
0 collection of experimental results given in the literature and
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 collected in Bonic and Folic (2013) and Simoes et al. 2016)

were utilized. The 57 data were in the range of  shown in
Fig. 15. From this graph it emerges clearly that the most of
a) =0.8 experimental data available in the literature are referred to
<45 for which the beam or two-way slabs with flexural or
4
14° 45° 63°
punching shear failure govern the problem. Nerveless very
few experimental data are available for deep beams that are
Truss model
of particular interest because the use of this king of footing
3
ensures uniform distribution of pressures. Extended number
(strut) of data (123) not utilised here because not available, are
P/(b fc)

[12 ] model
those of Richard et al. (1948).
2

2
(tie)
80
1
70 Deep footing
=63°
Beam model
60
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 50 =45°

40 Slender footing


Fig. 14 – Variation of load carrying capacity with angle .: for  30

a) 0.2; b) 0.8.
20
=14°
The comparison show that for =0.2 the beam models are in 10 Very slender footing
a good agreement, while for =0.8 the proposed model is
0
more conservative when increases. The truss model gives 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
higher load carrying capacity with respect to the beam Research
models.
Fig. 15 – Variation of angle  with number of researches
If premature failure due to concrete cracking in tension or considered.
due to concrete crushing in compression have to be avoided
it is necessary to limit mechanical ratio of reinforcement to The reduced number of test referred to deep beams is also
a minimum and a maximum value. These values are related to the very high bearing capacity of testing machine
obtained placing Eq. (7) equal to Eq. (9) and placing Eq. (9) necessary to develop test including soil foundation.
equal to Eq. (15) resulting: Therefore, in this paper for comparison and for the
validation of the models for deep members numerical
f ct 1 results (here generated) were utilised. The comparison was
 min x  0.2   (22)
f c 1   ct made in term of predicted ultimate load versus experimental
y value with the variation of mechanical ratio of longitudinal
reinforcements. Proposed models (beam with flexure and
punching shear and truss model) were compared with
 b2   2 
max       cos  max     b   cos  (23) Simões et al. (2016) model and experimental results. Fig.
  BH 
 BH    16 a) and b) show the variation of ultimate load determined
analytically and referred to the 57 experimental results
In Fig. 8 is showed the variation of minimum and maximum versus .
 Existing models and new proposal for load carrying capacity of square footing

a) of Simoes et al. (2016) mean and standard deviation were

0.48 and 0.175, respectively. With the proposed beam
4
model mean and a standard deviation were 0.30 and 0.06,
(20°<<37°) Beam model
respectively. Results obtained confirm that for >45° the
truss model predict more accurately the response of deep
Truss model
3
members and failure is due to concrete crushing with main
Simoes et al. (2016)
bars to be yielded.
Pteor/Pexper

2 A further comparison was also made referring to numerical

analyses carried out here. Numerical simulations were
developed with non-linear finite elements analyses through
1 the ATENA software (Cervenka 2000). Soil was modelled
with independent springs having stiffness proportional to
the type of the considered soil. Single column footings were
0
modelled through isoparametric finite elements having nine
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 joints. Concrete material utilized was the so-called “SBeta”
 (Cervenka 2000). It has assumed a tensile constitutive law
for concrete having linear behaviour before cracking. When
b) maximum principal stress exceeds tensile strength, cracks
develop. In this case it was utilized a “smeared crack
model” where cracks were modelled reducing tensile
2
(45°<<63°) Beam model
principal stress according to a constitutive law of tensile
concrete. It has supposed perfect bond between concrete
and steel. Compressive softening coefficient has been
1.5 Truss model
assumed 0.7. Steel is assumed with an elasto-plastic with
Simoes et al. (2016)
strain- hardening behaviour. For the numerical analyses
Pteor/Pexper

footing were constituted by single prismatic members

1
having square base 800 mm and base of the column 300
mm. Reinforcement was constituted by 8 bars having 14
mm diameter in x and y directions. Different heights of 800,
0.5
700, 600, 500, 400 mm were considered. Fig. 17 shows the
variation of ultimate load P with H determined both
numerically and with the truss model. The comparison both
0
in term of ultimate load corresponding to concrete crushing
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
and steel yielding is satisfactory.

15
Fig. 16 – Correlation between ultimate load and mechanical ratio Anal. concrete 
crusching 
of longitudinal reinforcement for Simoes et al. (2016) and
12.5
proposed models.
Nc ‐ numerical

The comparison shows that the beam model predicts the 10

experimental results with a mean 1.04 and a standard

P (MN)

deviation of 0.39. Similar results are obtained with the 7.5

model given in Simoes et al. (2016) for which mean 0.80 Analytical yielding
and standard deviation 0.32 were obtained, respectively. 5
With the truss model, the worst prediction was obtained Ny ‐ numerical
with a mean of 2.08 and a standard deviation of 0.88. The 2.5
application of model of Jiang (1982) gives in the best case a
mean of 1.66 and a standard deviation 0.79, respectively. 0
This comparison is in the opinion of the author in not only 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
term of mean and the standard deviation unsatisfactory but H (mm)
mainly because it does not take into account of punching
shear failure, which is the mode of failure observed Fig.17 – Load carrying capacity of RC prismatic column footing
experimentally. with variation of H.

Results obtained confirm that for <45° the beam model
predicts more accurately the response of concrete footing
and failure is due in the most of the cases examined to
punching shear. As shown in Fig. 17 the comparison shows
that the truss model predicts the experimental results with
mean 0.98 and standard deviation of 0.10. With the model
Also cases of footing with base 800 mm , H=700 mm and
with 8 bars different diameter of bars were considered
(12,14,16,18,20,22,24,26 mm) corresponding to different
ara of steel bars. Fig. 18 shows the variation of ultimate
load P with Af determined both numerically and with the
truss model. The comparison both in term of ultimate load
 Existing models and new proposal for load carrying capacity of square footing
corresponding to concrete crushing and steel yielding is
satisfactory. Also numerical results conforms that for high
values of steel bars concrete crushing occurs before steel
yielding and ultimate load do not change significantly with
the area increases.
20
Anal. concrete  2nd Edition, with 2012, 2014, and 2015 Interim Revisions.
crusching 
15
P (MN)
10 Nc ‐ numerical
Ny ‐ numerical
5 Analytical yielding
0
0 1000 2000 3000
2 ASCE Structural Journal, 111, 11, paper n. 20144.
Af (mm )
Fig.18 – Load carrying capacity of RC column footing with
variation of Af.
4. Conclusions
In the present paper, a detailed background of existing
models for prediction of load carrying capacity of slender
and deep footing was presented. A simplified calculus
model to determine the load carrying capacity of reinforced
concrete column footings subjected to centred compression
is presented. Two different models were presented: strut and
tie model for deep footing and cantilever beam model for
flexible column footings with punching shear and flexural
behaviour. Different loading profiles were considered,
corresponding to different soil types (rigid or soft soil). The
role of different position of soil pressures resultant, both in
terms of load both in terms of displacement capacity of
column footing were considered.
Results obtained for the prediction of ultimate load of RC
column footing showed that:
- the angle expressed as the ratio between the depth and
the shear span of the footing) is the main parameter to
define the range of using strut and tie model or beam
model; - beam model with flexural and punching shear
failure predicts accurately the ultimate load of slender
column footing for 
- strut and tie model predicts accurately the ultimate load of
column footing for including yielding of steel bars
and concrete crushing of compressed struts;
- beam model allows one to define the maximum
mechanical ratios corresponding to simultaneous
occurrence of punching shear and yielding of main steel
bars useful parameter for design of slender footing; - strut
and tie model allows one to define the maximum
mechanical ratios corresponding to simultaneous
occurrence of yielding of steel bars and concrete crushing
useful parameter for design of deep footing.
References
ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary, American Concrete
Institute, Framington Hills, MI 2005, 430 pp.
Alber L. (1964), Interazione fra struttura e fondazioni”, Riunioni e
Congressi (only available in Italian).
AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design,
Bonic Z. and FolicR. (2013),” Punching of column footings-
comparison of experimental and calculus results”, Grandevinar
65, 0,887-899.
Campione G., (2012), “Flexural Behavior of Steel Fibrous
Reinforced Concrete Deep Beams”, J. Struct. Eng, 138, No. 2.
Cervenka, V. (20009, “Simulating a response.” Concrete
Engineering International, 4, 4, 45–49.
Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures. P art 1-1: General
Rules and Rules for Building (ENV1992-1-1), 2004.
Gradevinar Singh S. (1985)” Lower-bound collapse load of square
footing”, ASCE Structural Journal, 113, 8,paper n. 21761.
4000
Gesund H. (1985),” Flexural limit design of column footings”,
Hallgren M, Bjerke M. (2002), “Non-linear finite element analyses
of punching shear failure of column footings”, Cement &
Concrete Composites , 24, 491–496.
Hegger J., Ricker M., Ulke B., Ziegler M. (2007), Investigation on
the punching behavior of reinforced concrete footing”,
Engineering Structures 29, pp. 2233-2241.
Hetenyi M. (1964), “Beams on Elastic Foundation”. University of
Michigan Press. Ann Arbor. MI. U.S.A.
Jiang H., (1982),” Flexural strength of square spread footing”,
ASCE Structural Journal, 109, 8, 18176.
Menditto G. (1984), “Esercitazioni di tecnica delle costruzioni” –
volumi I e II, Liguori Editore (only available in italian).
Migliacci A. and Mola F. (1984), “Progetto agli stati limite delle
strutture in c.a.”, Parte I e parte II, Ed. Masson Italia, Milano,
(only available in italian).
Nguyen Q.V., Fatahi B and Hokamabadi AL.S. (2016) “The effects
of foundation size on the seismic performance of buildings
considering the soli-foundation interaction, Structural
engineering and mechanics, (58), 6.
Terzaghi K. (1964),”Theroetical soil mechanics”, Jhon Wiley &
Sons , Inc. - New York, London, Sidney.
Rao K.S.S. and Singh S. (1985)” Lower-bound collapse load of
square footing”, ASCE Structural Journal, 113, 8, 21761.
Richart, F.E. (1948),” Reinforced concrete wall and column
footings, Journal of the American Concrete Institute,
Proceeding, 45, 1., 97-127
López Chavarría, Sandra & Luévanos Rojas, Arnulfo & Medina
Elizondo, Manuel. (2017). A NEW MATHEMATICAL MODEL
FOR DESIGN OF SQUARE ISOLATED FOOTINGS FOR
GENERAL CASE. International Journal of Innovative
Computing, Information and Control. 13. 1149-1168.
Simões J.T., Faria D.M.V., Ruiz M.F., Muttoni A. (2016),
Strength of reinforced concrete footings without transverse
reinforcement according to limit analysis”, Engineering
Structures 112, 146–161.
Toniolo G., (1984), Il cemento armato, 2° Volume, Zanichelli,
(only avalaibale in Italian).
Viggiani C. (1999),” Fondazioni”, pp.584 Helvelius Editore (only
avalaibale in Italian).
Vacev T. Bonic´ Z., Prolovic´ V., Davidovic´ N., Lukic D., (2015),
“Testing and finite element analysis of reinforced concrete
column footings failing by punching shear”, Engineering
Structures , 92 pp. 1–14.