Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Giuseppe Campione
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
3/5pm
12]. The references calculus models utilized for the
pm
prediction of failure load of the footing mentioned in
9/7 pm
9/5 pm
several text-books (Menditto 1984, Migliacci and Mola
idealized rigid soil
idealized deformable soil Winkler soil and rigid foundation
1984, Toniolo 1996) and codes (ACI 318 2005, Eurocode 2
Fig. 2 – Forms of subgrade upward pressure distributions for 2004) are: - strut and tie model for deep members; -
rigid column footing on: rigid soil; b) flexible soil; c) Winkler’s cantilever or slab models for flexible footing in which the
model of soil. shear failure due to punching failure are also considered
with flexural failure due to yielding of main bars. According
They are defined though the maximum and the minimum to Eurocode 2 (2004) the shear strength of structural
values correlated to the medium value pm. Near failure concrete footing shall be governed by the more severe of
conditions of footing, hypothesis of uniform contact two conditions: - a) beam action for footing with a critical
pressure is acceptable for safety conditions and the section extending in a plane across the entire footing width
distribution of pressures that can be adopted is that of Fig. 2 and located at a distance a from face of concentrated load or
c) as in the Winkler model. Finally, when column footing reaction area; b) two-way action for footing with a critical
failure occurs with soil in elastic range, the better shape of section perpendicular to plane of footing and located so that
contact pressures is that of Fig. 2 a) and b), depending on its perimeter is a minimum, but need not approach to
the type of soil (rigid or flexible); otherwise, the best perimeter of concentrated load or reaction area.
contact pressures distribution is that of Fig. 2 c).
According to these models, the arrangements of
In this case, bending moments are higher than those longitudinal steel reinforcement are those of Fig. 4 a) for
obtained with effective pressures distribution. According to deep footings and that of Fig. 4 b) for flexible footing with
(Menditto 1984, Migliacci and Mola 1984, Toniolo 1996) specific punching reinforcement, if it is necessary.
column footing can be considered deep (rigid foundation)
when, referring to Fig.3, > 45°, whereas can be P P
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.
a
According to Eurocode 2 (2004), reinforcements equal in x
Fig. 3 – Single column footing. and y direction, are placed on the bottom of the column
footing with adequate cover and bended on the upper side
In both cases important phenomenon determining columns with length calculated as the maximum between 200 mm,
footing failure are the punching shear failure, the yielding 10 times the diameter of the reinforcement and 1/3 of the
of main bars and the crushing of concrete compressed footing side. Extensive experimental researches (Hallgren
regions (strut members) (Hallgre and Bjerke 2002, Hegger and Bjerke 2002, Hegger et al. 2007, Bonic and Folic 2013,
et al. 2007, Bonic and Folic 2013). In the last decade’s Rojas 2014, Vacev et al. 2015, Simoes et al. 2016, Nguyen
theoretical studies and experimental researches carried out et al. 2016) exist referred to the study of column punching
approached to simplified calculus models such as beam or though floor slab with or without shear reinforcement;
slab models transferred in simple analytical expressions while, very few data area available for deep members.
given in different design codes and textbooks. From Therefore, although the load carrying capacity of footings
structural point of view, simplified calculation is generally subjected to a concentrated loading originated from a
adopted in the design of foundations, which are considered column has been the object of different research works
as rigid, with a linear pressures distribution on subgrade. In there is not yet a consensus on a consistent method with
the case of single column footing, the choice of calculus physical basis for its design.
model depends on the type of elements, which depends on
Existing models and new proposal for load carrying capacity of square footing
2. Research significance unit width are given in Jiang (1982) for cases shown in Fig.
The aim of the present study is the determination of the 6.
load-carrying capacity of concrete footings by means of P P P
3.1. Slender footing Fig. 6 - Yield line patterns for two-way cantilever slab [15].
Jiang (1982) suggests adopting the calculus beam model
shown in Fig. 5 for slender footing. Supposing the subgrade By contrast, the lower bound solution indicated in Jiang
pressures uniform the steel area in a reinforced concrete (1982) considers three cases denoted as A, B, C. The case A
footing is calculated either by considering the rectangular for which the bending moment in the load-distribution
area or the trapezoidal area with a beam or slab model element is that of Fig. 6 a, and the load is:
shown in Fig. 5.
M
P 8 (3)
P
B
b
b
b
B
B
a
of radial cantilever beams and the load, is:
pt y y
b
b a b a
M B
Fig. 5 –Calculus model for RC column footing according to [15]. P 6 3
(4)
B 3 b 1 b
1
The bending moments result considering the rectangular 2 B 2 B
area or the trapezoidal area respectively:
Finally the case C in which the slab is cut along the
1 P
M B b 2 (1) diagonals and the collapse load is:
8 B
M 24
1 P P (5)
M 2 B b 2 2 B b (2) B b 2 B
24 B 1 2 1
B b
In Jiang (1982) several upper and lower bound solutions for
the collapse load of a square spread slab footing are also According to Jiang (1982) the exact solution is the
given assuming rigid plastic behavior and square yield somewhere in the three lower bounds (A, B, C).
criterion of failure. Similar studies are also those given in
Gesund (1985,) and Rao and Singh (1985). Fig. 7 shows the correlation between the collapse load and
ratio b/B for different yield line patterns determined in
For the upper bound solutions, the yield line theory of two- Jiang (1982). The comparison shows the range of variation
way slabs along four sides was applied. Expressions of P of collapse load by cases.
function of m=M/B flexural strength for the footing slab per
Existing models and new proposal for load carrying capacity of square footing
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
P
M
2
40 B b b p b
1 3 1 9
P/m
B B p2 B
30
b b
2
p b b
2
32 B 2 1 1
(rigid soil) (11)
20
M
B
B p 2 B
B
P
2
p b
B 2 2
b b b b
10 1 18 10 1 6 11 10
B B B p2 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
P P
idealized deformable soil
P
b
b H/2 b failure surface
H
H
T 45°
y
P/4 a
b+H
pt
Similar expressions are here derived with reference to
model of Fig. 2 for soft, rigid and Winkler soil.
pt
equal to:
b
b
B
y
y
M 56 B3
b a b a P 3
B B 5B 7b b3 B b (12)
Fig. 8 –Proposal of calculus model for RC deep 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
P 3
B B 3B 5b b3 3B b (13)
(6)
B B (2 B 3b) b3 Fig. 10 shows a comparison between expressions here
derived (Eqn. 6, 12,13) and expression Eqn. (10,11) given
With M 0.9 d A f f y . in the literature (Jiang 1982,Menditto 1984, Migliacci and
Mola 1984, Toniolo 1996).
Studies present in literature (Menditto 1984, Migliacci and
Mola 1984, Toniolo 1996) give similar expressions to Eq. 70
B B b 2 (2 B b)
Campione rigid
Campione-uniform
40
P/m
M 8 B
30
P [5] (8)
B B b2 20
10
M 1
P [6] (9) 0
B B b
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
12 8 b/B
In Jiang (1982) two different forms of subgrade pressures Fig. 10 – Correlation between collapse load and ratio b/B for
(see Fig. 9) were investigated for non uniform subgrade proposed model and models (Jiang 1982,Menditto 1984, Migliacci and
Mola 1984, Toniolo 1996).
reaction and expressions for ultimate load derived as lowest
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%. r s
V
Fig. 11 shows a comparison between expressions here
derived and expressions derived in Jiang (1982) taking into r c
failure surface
account of different type of soil. Comparison was made for
p1/p2=0.33. Comparison shows that proposed flexural
d
H
model and Jiang (1982) model consider the effect of
different type of soil with similar trend of results. r 0
r q
V
B
In the case of very slender column footing, strength is r s
30
In flexure the reduced moment capacity [12] is expressed
as:
20
r d
Pflex 2 f cp d 1 0.4 s
2 r rq rc
10 c (15)
rs rs2
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 rq rc rs2 rc2
b/B
While under punching shear failure the ultimate load
Fig. 11 – Correlation between collapse load and ratio b/B for (Simoes et al. 2016) is expressed as:
different type of soils and models [1,2,3].
If shear punching failure has to be checked the model /2
shown in Fig. 6 can be adopted in which the area of footing Psh f cp 2 rc 0.2 d cot
0 .8 0 .5 a
base was assumed B/2, the control section perimeter was (16)
d
assumed 4(b+d), and the ultimate shear stress at punching
of the control section v was that suggested in Eurocode 2 rs2 1
d 2 2
(2004). rs r0 0.9 rs
d
The load carrying capacity is expressed as:
0.33
30
(14) With: f cp f c c and c a softening coefficient
0.33
d 4 b d
0.18 1 200 100 f f c
A
fc
Pus
1
B 2 b d 2
d BH
assumed as in Simoes et al. (2016) . The ultimate load is the
B2
minimum between Eq. (15) and Eq. (16).
The ultimate load is the minimum between Eq.(6) and
3.2. Deep footing
Eq.(14),
The calculus model here proposed for deep member is the
By imposing that the ultimate load due to shear punching
strut and tie model shown in Fig. 8. This model is
(Eq. 14) is equal than ultimate load producing flexural
constituted by two single trusses each loaded by P/2. Each
failure (Eq. 6) it results the maximum mechanical ration of
truss is constituted by two strut and one tie member, the
Af f y latter constituted by longitudinal reinforcements.
longitudinal reinforcements to avoid
B H fc
The force T in the tie and the force C in the strut are related
punching shear failure. Different approaches for the to the external load P with the relations:
calculus of load carrying capacity of single footing is that
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)
z
tan
0.6
(18)
y
0.4
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
4b
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
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 Also cases of footing with base 800 mm , H=700 mm and
predicts more accurately the response of concrete footing with 8 bars different diameter of bars were considered
and failure is due in the most of the cases examined to (12,14,16,18,20,22,24,26 mm) corresponding to different
punching shear. As shown in Fig. 17 the comparison shows ara of steel bars. Fig. 18 shows the variation of ultimate
that the truss model predicts the experimental results with load P with Af determined both numerically and with the
mean 0.98 and standard deviation of 0.10. With the model truss model. The comparison both in term of ultimate load
Existing models and new proposal for load carrying capacity of square footing