Foundation design lecture notes by Mr.

kiboh Mathew k NPUI Bamenda

COURSE OUTLINE
CH. GENERALITIES
SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS
CH. UNTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY
CH. SAFE BEARING CAPACITY
CH. STRESSES IN SOILS/CON PENETRATION TEST
CH. PRESURE DISTRIBUTION
SETTLEMENT CALCULATION
CH. LOADS, ECCENTRICITY AND EFFECTS
CH. MAT FOUNDATIONS
CH. SPREAD FOOTINGS
TEST
DEEP FOUNDATIONS
CH. PILE FOUNDATIONS
CH. BEHAVIOR UNDER LATERAL LOADING
CH. DRIVEN PILES
 Foundation design lecture notes by Mr. kiboh Mathew k NPUI Bamenda

CHAPTER 1: GENERALITIES ON FOUNDATIONS

INTRODUCTION
A foundation is the structural element that is generally embedded underground and connects the
superstructure to the ground. Its function is to transmit the load from the superstructure to the underlying soil
or rock such that the superstructure can be safely supported by the soil or rock.
The foundations are properly called the basis of the fabric, viz. that part of it underground which sustains the
whole edifice above; and therefore of all the errors that can be committed in building, those made in the
foundation are most pernicious, because they at once occasion the ruin of the whole fabric, nor can they be
rectified without the utmost difficulty.
Builders have long recognized the importance of a solid foundation, and that the integrity of a structure can
be no greater than that of its foundation. If a foundation fails, the overlying structure fails with it. In addition,
defects in the foundation are very difficult to repair after the structure has been built. Thus, well designed and
well- constructed foundations continue to be an essential part of successful construction.
However, foundations can also be very expensive, so over- designed foundations are needlessly wasteful and
inefficient. Our goal is to provide sturdy foundations that properly support the superstructure, while avoiding
costly over- design. The methods of doing so form the subject of this course.
FOUNDATION CLASSIFICATION
Foundations are divided into two major categories: shallow foundations and deep foundations, depending on
the depth of embedment of the foundation.
Generally, if the ratio of the embedment to the width of a foundation (D/B) is larger than 4, then the
foundation is considered a deep foundation; otherwise, the foundation is considered a shallow foundation.
Foundations are structural elements that transfer loads from the superstructure to the underlying soil or rock.
A structure may be supported on a system of individual foundations, or on a single large foundation. Engineers
classify foundations into two broad categories:
i. shallow foundations (spread footings and mats) and
ii. deep foundations (piles; (driven piles, drilled shafts, auger piles), caissons, and Pile Supported and
Pile Enhanced Mats)
Shallow foundations transmit the structural loads to the soils immediately beneath the foundation. The most
common type is a spread footing, which spreads the applied load over a sufficiently large area to maintain soil
stresses within tolerable limits. Spread footings are easy and inexpensive to build, and are most often used to
support small to medium size structures on sites with good soil conditions. Typically, each column has its
own spread footing, although sometimes multiple closely- spaced columns are supported on a single footing.
Thus, a building might have dozens of individual footings.
The second type of shallow foundation is a mat foundation (also called a raft foundation), which normally
encompasses the entire footprint of the structure. Mats have the advantage of providing structural continuity
and rigidity, as well as spreading the load over a larger area.
Conversely, deep foundations transmit much, or all, of the applied load to deeper Soils. Piles are long slender
structural members that can be either prefabricated and driven into the ground, or cast in place. Caissons are
large prefabricated boxes that are sunk into place and filled with concrete to form a foundation. The load-
 Foundation design lecture notes by Mr. kiboh Mathew k NPUI Bamenda

carrying capacity of soils generally increases with depth, and deep foundations engage a larger volume of soil,
so they are most often used on larger and heavier structures, especially when the shallow soils are poor.
The terminology used to describe and classify foundations is sometimes inconsistent.
Different terms are sometimes used to describe the same thing, and the same term is sometimes used to
describe different things. Even the term “foundation” is sometimes used to describe the underlying soil or
rock rather than a structural element. This book uses terminology that reflects common practice, and
alternative terms are included in context.
FOUNDATION SAFETY
Foundations should be safe against:
 Shear failure in soil.
 Excessive total or differential settlements.
 Depression settlement due to excessive dewatering.
 Uplift during construction due to high G.W.T.
 Sliding or overturning due to large horizontal loads.
REQUIREMENTS FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN
The following information is needed for this purpose
 A lay out plan of the project.
 A plan of the load – bearing elements such as columns, walls, etc. with estimated dead and live loads.
 The strength and settlement characteristics of the subsoil.
 The hydraulic conditions of the site.
The design of foundations mainly includes three primary aspects:
 Bearing capacity (ultimate limit state).
 Settlement (serviceability limit state).
 Structural design (ultimate and serviceability limit states).
The following parameters are required as input values in a foundation design:
 Loads from superstructure.
 Factor of safety for bearing capacity (or partial factors of safety for geotechnical properties and
structural loads).
 Foundation Safety
 Foundations should be safe against:
 Shear failure in soil.
 Excessive total or differential settlements.
 Depression settlement due to excessive dewatering.
 Uplift during construction due to high G.W.T.
 Sliding or overturning due to large horizontal loads.
 Total and differential settlements.
 Reinforcement, if using reinforced concrete, and structural stability.
To perform satisfactorily, shallow foundations must have two main characteristics:
 They have to be safe against overall shear failure in the soil that supports them.
 Foundation design lecture notes by Mr. kiboh Mathew k NPUI Bamenda

 They cannot undergo excessive displacement, or settlement. (The term excessive is relative, because
the degree of settlement allowed for a structure depends on several considerations).

CONCEPT FOR FOUNDATION SELECTION

Choosing a shallow foundation or a deep foundation depends on many factors, including:
 Loads (or actions) acting on the superstructure, such as horizontal, vertical, and seismic loads.
 Subsurface conditions.
 Performance (serviceability) requirements, such as required bearing capacity and settlement.
 Available materials and contractor’s capabilities.

THE EMERGENCE OF MODERN FOUNDATION ENGINEERING

The history of foundations extends for thousands of years, and impressive projects were built hundreds or
even thousands of years ago. For example, 4,000 to 5,000 years ago the alpine lake dwellers in Europe used
timber piles to support their houses. Also, Julius Caesar built a pile- supported bridge across the Rhine River
to facilitate his conquest of Gaul. In Shanghai, the 40 m tall Longhua Pagoda was constructed on soft clay
using a foundation of bricks laid on a wooden raft supported by closely- spaced wooden piles, a design very
similar to today’s pile- supported mat, and has stood firm for over 1,000 years while some newer buildings
nearby have been badly damaged by excessive settlement (Kerisel, 1987).
Early foundation designs were based on precedent, intuition, and common sense. Through trial- and- error,
builders developed rules for selecting, sizing, and constructing foundations. For example, even as late as the
nineteenth century, the width of spread footings supporting masonry walls in New York City was set at 1.5
times the width of the wall when founded on compact gravel, and 3.0 times the width of the wall when founded
on sand or stiff clay (Powell, 1884).
These empirical rules, combined with good judgment, usually produced acceptable results as long as they
were applied to structures and soil conditions similar to those encountered in the past. However, the results
were sometimes disastrous when builders extrapolated the rules to new conditions. This problem became
especially troublesome when new building materials and methods of construction began to appear during the
last quarter of the nineteenth century. The introduction of steel and reinforced concrete led to a gradual
transition away from rigid masonry structures supported primarily on bearing walls to more flexible frame
structures that used columns. These new materials also permitted structures to be taller and heavier than
before. In addition, as good sites became increasingly scarce, builders were forced to consider sites with
poorer soil conditions, which made foundation design and construction much more difficult. Thus, the old
rules for foundation design no longer applied.
The introduction of these new building materials led to more rational design methods, the beginning of what
we now call structural engineering, and this rational approach naturally extended to the foundations.
Geotechnical engineering, which began in earnest during the 1920s, further added to our understanding of
foundations and the mechanical processes of transferring loads into the ground. Thus, instead of simply
developing new empirical rules, engineers began to investigate the behavior of foundations and develop more
rational methods of design, establishing the discipline of foundation engineering. This transition began in the
late nineteenth century, rapidly progressed through the twentieth century, and continues in the twenty- first
century.
 Foundation design lecture notes by Mr. kiboh Mathew k NPUI Bamenda

These advances in analysis and design were accompanied by tremendous improvements in construction
methods and equipment. For example, modern pile driving hammers enable construction of huge high-
capacity piles that far exceed the capabilities of timber piles driven by falling weights. These advances have
enabled building at sites where foundation construction had previously been impossible or impractical.
It is now possible to build reliable, cost- effective, high- capacity foundations for a wide range of modern
structures, even on very difficult sites. Advances in design and construction continue to be developed in the
twenty- first century, so future engineers will probably have even greater capabilities. Nevertheless, precedent,
empiricism, common sense, and engineering judgment are still important, and continue to have a role in
modern foundation engineering.
THE FOUNDATION ENGINEER
Foundation engineering does not fit completely within any of the traditional civil engineering subdisciplines.
Instead, the foundation engineer must be multidisciplinary and possess a working knowledge in each of the
following areas:
• Structural engineering—A foundation is a structural member that must be capable of transmitting the
applied loads, so we must also understand the principles and practices of structural engineering. In addition,
the foundation supports a structure, so we must understand the sources and nature of structural loads and the
structure’s tolerance of foundation movements.
• Geotechnical engineering—All foundations interact with the ground, so the design must reflect the
engineering properties and behavior of the adjacent soil and rock. Thus, the foundation engineer must
understand geotechnical engineering. Most foundation engineers also consider themselves to be geotechnical
engineers.
• Construction engineering—Finally, foundations must be built. Although the actual construction is performed
by contractors and construction engineers, it is very important for the design engineer to have a thorough
understanding of construction methods and equipment to develop a design that can be economically
built. This knowledge also provides essential background when solving problems that develop during
construction.
This book focuses primarily on the design of foundations, and thus emphasizes the geotechnical and structural
engineering aspects. Discussions of construction methods and equipment are generally limited to those aspects
that are most important to design engineers. Other important aspects of foundation construction which are
primarily of interest to contractors are beyond the scope of this book.
1.4 CODES, STANDARDS, AND TECHNICAL LITERATURE
Foundation design and construction is subject to the provisions of various codes, which define the methods
for computing applied loads, the load- carrying capacity of various structural materials, performance
requirements, detailing requirements, and other aspects.
Some of these provisions are similar to those that apply to other structural members, while others are unique
to foundations. Most codes have a separate chapter specifically addressing foundations.
Codes are legally binding, and thus must be followed. The two most commonly used codes in the United
States are:
• The International Building Code (IBC), which governs the design of most buildings (ICC, 2012). This
code replaced the American model building codes (the Uniform Building Code, the National Building Code,
 Foundation design lecture notes by Mr. kiboh Mathew k NPUI Bamenda

and the Standard Building Code) as well as many local codes. The IBC has legal authority only when adopted
by a state, city, or other regulatory authority, and these authorities sometimes include modifications.
For example, building construction in California is governed by the California Building Code, which is a
modified version of the IBC. Although the IBC and its variants is by far the most commonly used building
code in the United States, some parts of the country use different codes. For example, the City of Chicago has
its own unique building code.
• AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (AASHTO, 2012) governs the design of highway
structures. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials is a consortium of the
various state departments of transportation (DOTs), and thus has substantial influence on state DOT
construction projects, as well as those for local governments. These state and local sometimes modify the
AASHTO specifications and add additional requirements.
For example, the Washington State Department of Transportation specifies a particular type of concrete be
used in all drilled shaft foundations.
Other widely- used codes include:
• Eurocode, which is used in the European Union, typically with country- specific modifications. Eurocode
7 addresses geotechnical design, including foundations.
• The National Building Code of Canada (NBC)
• The National Building Code of India
A number of standards also impact the design and construction of foundations.
Unlike codes, standards do not have the force of law (except when explicitly referenced or adopted in a code).
However, they have a very significant impact on practice. Applicable standards widely used in North America
include:
• The AREMA Manual for Railway Engineering, published by the American Railway Engineering and
Maintenance of Way Association. It governs the design of railroad structures in the United States and Canada.
• Various standards published by the American Petroleum Institute (API) which govern facilities used to
produce petrochemical products. The most notable of these from a foundation engineering perspective are
offshore drilling platforms
(API, 2000).
• Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI Standard 7-10, published by the
American Society of Civil Engineers.
• Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-11), published by the American Concrete
Institute (ACI, 2011).
• Steel Construction Manual, published by the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC, 2011).
• Various standards published by the American Society for Materials and Testing (ASTM). These standards
typically address test procedures and construction material specifications.
Detailed discussions of the requirements for all of these codes and standards are beyond the scope of this
book, and they are constantly changing. Selected provisions from the 2012 IBC and the 2012 AASHTO codes
 Foundation design lecture notes by Mr. kiboh Mathew k NPUI Bamenda

and the ASCE 7-10 and ACI 318-11 standards are included when appropriate and other codes are occasionally
referenced. These references are included in brackets.
Building codes represent minimum design requirements. Simply meeting code requirements does not
necessarily produce a satisfactory design, especially in foundation12 Chapter 1 Foundations engineering.
Often, these requirements must be exceeded and, on occasion, it is appropriate to seek exceptions from certain
requirements. In addition, many important aspects of foundation engineering are not even addressed in the
codes or standards. Therefore, think of these publications as guides, and certainly not as a substitute for
engineering knowledge, judgment, or common sense.
Finally, foundation engineering has a rich collection of technical literature. Most of this material can be found
in professional journals and conference proceedings, as well as in books. This book includes generous
references to the technical literature, and the authors encourage the readers to consult technical literature for
additional information and insights.
Summary
1. Foundations are structural elements that transfer loads from the superstructure to the underlying soil or
rock.
2. The central objective of foundation engineering is to design and build foundations that provide reliable
support for the superstructure, while avoiding wasteful and expensive over- design.
3. Foundation engineering requires a synthesis of knowledge and skills from geotechnical engineering,
structural engineering, and construction engineering.
4. Mankind has been building foundations for millennia, often with very impressive results. Modern
foundation engineering began to appear in the late nineteenth century as methods based primarily on precedent
and common sense began to be supplemented by rational designs based on the principles of structural
mechanics and soil mechanics.
5. Advances in construction methods and equipment have facilitated a much broader range of construction
technologies.
6. Foundations are classified into two broad categories: shallow and deep.
7. Foundation designs are subject to the provisions of applicable codes and standards.
 Foundation design lecture notes by Mr. kiboh Mathew k NPUI Bamenda

CHAPTER TWO: DESIGN OF SHALLOW FOUNDATION

Shallow foundation can be classified into:-
 Spread footing (support one column).
 Combined footing (support more than one column).
 Raft or mat footing.
 Spread Footing
1- WITH CONCENTRIC LOAD ONLY
The applied axial load acts at the center of gravity of footing and the pressure under footing is uniform

𝑞𝑎𝑐𝑡 = Q/A ≤ 𝑞𝑎𝑙𝑙

Foundation design lecture notes by Mr. kiboh Mathew k NPUI Bamenda
 Foundation design lecture notes by Mr. kiboh Mathew k NPUI Bamenda

For a footing with moment on both axes:

Foundation design lecture notes by Mr. kiboh Mathew k NPUI Bamenda
Foundation design lecture notes by Mr. kiboh Mathew k NPUI Bamenda
 Foundation design lecture notes by Mr. kiboh Mathew k NPUI Bamenda

COMBINED FOOTINGS
The footing must be combined due to one or two the following reasons:
- Two columns so closely spaced, if using spread footing the overlap between them occur.
- The limitation of column located at property lead to unsymmetrical loading, so to prevent eccentricity, using
the combined footing.
Types of combined footings
 Rectangular combined footing
 Trapezoidal combined footing
 Strap beam combined footing
Foundation design lecture notes by Mr. kiboh Mathew k NPUI Bamenda
 Foundation design lecture notes by Mr. kiboh Mathew k NPUI Bamenda

If there is no limited value of L use it as the distance out to out of columns.

Solve above equations to find B & B values which give a uniform pressure under footing:
1 2
B = (2A/L) * ((3X /L) -1, B = (2A/L) – B
1 c 2 1
Example: - Find B & B for footing shown. Design for uniform pressure, qall = 180 kPa
1 2

column Dimensions in mm Load (KN)

A 500*500 1000
B 400*400 900

Footing layout
 Foundation design lecture notes by Mr. kiboh Mathew k NPUI Bamenda

Solution:
x = (900*3.2)/1900= 1.52 m
X = 1.52 + 0.25 = 1.77 m
c
2
A = 1900/180 = 10.56 m
B = (2*10.56)/ [4.45 (3*1.77/4.45 -1)] = 0.92 m
1
B = (2*10.56/4.45) – 0.92 = 3.83 m
2
 Foundation design lecture notes by Mr. kiboh Mathew k NPUI Bamenda

Usually the interior footing is square footing.

The eccentricity value is assumed as (1/6 -1/7) S.𝑺́
Find the distance between the resultants R1 & R2
S’= S-e
Compute the resultant of forces on the footing as:-
R = Q * S/𝑺́
2 2

R1 = Q1 + Q2 – R2

Exterior footing:-
L = 2(c + e)
A1 = R2 /qall B1 = A1 / L

Interior footing: -
A2 = R1/ qall B2 = √𝑨𝟐

Solution: - take moment about col. B

R * (7.2 – 1.5) = 1000 * 7,
1
R = 1228 kN
1
∑F = 0, R = 2200 -1228 = 972 kN
y 2
External footing:
A = 1228/200 = 6.14 m, B = 6.14/3 = 2.05 m
1 1
Internal footing:
A = 972/200 = 4.86, B = 4.86/2 = 2.43 m
2 2
 Foundation design lecture notes by Mr. kiboh Mathew k NPUI Bamenda

RAFTED OR MAT FOUNDATION:

consists of one footing usually placed under the entire building area. They are used, when soil bearing capacity
is low, and/or the column loads are so large that more than 50% of the area covered by conventional spread,
differential settlement must be reduced

The design of a mat is done as follows;

 Foundation design lecture notes by Mr. kiboh Mathew k NPUI Bamenda

L = L + L + 2C
1 2
Find location of the resultant R = P = ∑𝒏𝒊=𝟏 𝑷𝒖𝒊 as:-
u (total)
Moment about line 1-1 (first vertical axes) ∑M @ 1-1= 0 ∑M/1-1= 0

(𝑷 +𝑷 +𝑷 )𝑳 +(𝑷 +𝑷 +𝑷 )(𝑳 +𝑳 ) ∑ 𝒏
𝑷 𝒙
𝒙̅ = 𝒖𝟐 𝒖𝟓 𝒖𝟖 𝟏 𝒖𝟑(𝑹) 𝒖𝟔 𝒖𝟗 𝟏 𝟐 = 𝒊=𝟏 𝒖𝒊 𝒊 and e = e = |𝒙
̅ − 𝑳𝟐 |
𝑷𝒖𝑻 = 𝑹 x L
∑M @ a-a = 0
(𝑷 +𝑷 +𝑷 )𝑩 +(𝑷 +𝑷 +𝑷 )(𝑩 +𝑩 ) ∑𝒏 𝑷 𝒚
𝒚̅ = 𝒖𝟒 𝒖𝟓 𝒖𝟔 𝟏 𝒖𝟕 𝒖𝟖 𝒖𝟗 𝟏 𝟐 = 𝒊=𝟏 𝒖𝒊 𝒊 and e = e = |𝒚
̅ − 𝑩𝟏 |
𝑷𝒖𝑻 =(𝑹) 𝑹 y B
Find B from
𝑹 𝟔𝒆 𝟔𝒆𝑩
𝒒𝒎𝒂𝒙 = (𝟏 + 𝑳 +
𝑳𝑩 𝑳 𝑩
)≤q
all
and no tension zone
𝑹 𝟔𝒆 𝟔𝒆𝑩
𝒒𝒎𝒊𝒏 = (𝟏 − 𝑳 −
𝑳𝑩 𝑳 𝑩
)≥0

The pressure under any point of mat is computed as:-

 Foundation design lecture notes by Mr. kiboh Mathew k NPUI Bamenda

P = total load on columns.

u
B, L: dimensions of mat.
X, y: coordinates of the point, where the pressure is computed.
Foundation design lecture notes by Mr. kiboh Mathew k NPUI Bamenda
 Foundation design lecture notes by Mr. kiboh Mathew k NPUI Bamenda

Point x y Sign for x Sign for y qu applied, kPa

A 8 10.5 - + 41.622
B 0 10.5 + + 49.062

C 8 10.5 + + 56.502

J 8 10.5 - - 39.018

K 0 10.5 + - 46.458
L 8 10.5 + - 53.898

𝟏𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝟔∗𝟎.𝟏 𝟔∗𝟎.𝟒𝟒

𝒒𝒎𝒂𝒙 = 𝟐𝟏.𝟓∗𝟏𝟔.𝟓 (𝟏 + 𝟐𝟏.𝟓
+ 𝟏𝟔.𝟓
) = 𝟑𝟔. 𝟖𝟑𝒌𝑷𝒂 < 𝒒𝒂𝒍𝒍

𝟏𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝟔∗𝟎.𝟏 𝟔∗𝟎.𝟒𝟒

𝒒𝒎𝒊𝒏 = 𝟐𝟏.𝟓∗𝟏𝟔.𝟓 (𝟏 − − ) = 𝟐𝟓. 𝟏𝟖 𝒌𝑷𝒂 > 𝟎, 𝒐. 𝒌
𝟐𝟏.𝟓 𝟏𝟔.𝟓

Therefore, the dimensions are adequate.

 Foundation design lecture notes by Mr. kiboh Mathew k NPUI Bamenda

Structural Design of Spread Footings:

To design a spread footing, use the ultimate strength design method, and the reduction factors are:-

Design Steps.
Step 1. Compute the footing area via B x L,
for a square footing BxB = A = (Q / qall)
for a rectangular footing BxL= Q / qall
Step 2. Find the soil reaction under ultimate structural loads to check bearing capacity.
Find the ultimate load and pressure from;

Qult = 1.2 D.L + 1.6 L.L

qult = Qult / A = qall *(Qult / Qall).
Step 3. Compute the shear in the concrete vc.to find depth of footing

Case (a) wide beam shear: - the critical section is located at a distance (d) from the face of the column as
shown in Fig. below The resisting shear force
∅
𝒗𝒄 = 𝟔
√𝒇𝒄́ 𝑩 𝒅 , (∅ = 𝟎. 𝟖𝟓) B- Direction

And the ultimate shearing force at critical section is:-

𝑳 𝒄
𝒗𝒖 = 𝒒𝒖 𝑩 (𝟐 − 𝟐 − 𝒅) to determine d assuming 𝒗𝒄 = 𝒗𝒖 , then
𝒒
( 𝒖𝒍𝒕 )(𝑳−𝒄)
𝟐
𝒅= ∅ B- Direction
𝟔
√𝒇𝒄́ +𝒒𝒖𝒍𝒕

𝒒
( 𝒖𝒍𝒕 )(𝑩−𝒃)
𝟐
or 𝒅 = ∅ L-Direction
𝟔
√𝒇𝒄́ +𝒒𝒖𝒍𝒕

Use larger (d)..

 Foundation design lecture notes by Mr. kiboh Mathew k NPUI Bamenda

Case (a) Two - way shear (punching): - inclined cracks may occur in the footing at distance (d/2) from the
face of the column on all the face sides.
The analysis of a square or rectangular footing may first be performed by assuming there is no steel in the
member. The depth (d) from the top of the footing to the tension axis is:-
∅ 𝟏 𝟏 ∅
𝒗𝒄 = ( + 𝜷 ) √𝒇𝒄́ ≤ √𝒇𝒄́ (∅ = 𝟎. 𝟖𝟓) (Shear strength of concrete)
𝟑 𝟐 𝒄 𝟑

𝒄𝒐𝒍. 𝒍𝒆𝒏𝒈𝒕𝒉
𝜷𝒄 = 𝒄𝒐𝒍. 𝒘𝒊𝒅𝒕𝒉

∑ Fy = 0
Qu = 2d vc (b + d) + 2d vc (c + d) + (c+d)(b+d) qult
(shear on 4 faces) (bottom face)
Set Qu = BL qult
d2(4 vc + qult) + d (2 vc + qult)(b + c) - (BL - cb) qult = 0
For the special case of a square column, where c = b = w,
d2 (vc + qult/4) + d (vc + qult/2)w - (BL - w2) qult/4 = 0
For the case of a round column, with a = diameter,
d2 (vc + qult/4) + d (vc + qult /2) a - (BL - Acol) qult /π= 0
Effective depth is the largest value of (d) computed from two - way and one - way shear
Foundation design lecture notes by Mr. kiboh Mathew k NPUI Bamenda
 Foundation design lecture notes by Mr. kiboh Mathew k NPUI Bamenda

Step 4. Compute the required area of steel As (each way) for bending (flexure).

L L l
l
B

B - direction L - direction

l l

l
Moments
MuL = qult Bl2 / 2
MuB = qult Ll2 / 2
Where l: critical length as sho
Steel ratios 𝜌 :-
0.85𝑓𝑐́ 2𝑅 𝑢𝐿 𝑀𝑢𝐿
𝜌𝐿 = ( ) (1 − √1 − 0.85∅𝑓 ) , 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑅𝑢𝐿 =
𝑓𝑦 𝑐́ 𝐵𝑑2

0.85𝑓𝑐́ 2𝑅 𝑢𝐵 𝑀𝑢𝐵
𝜌𝐵 = ( ) (1 − √1 − 0.85∅𝑓 ) , 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑅𝑢𝐵 =
𝑓𝑦 𝑐́ 𝐿𝑑2

Check minimum area of steel:

1.4
𝜌𝐿 & 𝜌𝐵 ≥ 𝜌𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 𝑓𝑦

𝐴𝑆𝐿 = 𝜌𝐿 𝐵 𝑑 ,& 𝐴𝑆𝐵 = 𝜌𝐵 𝐿𝑑

Select bar diameter and compute No. of bars in both directions.
Step 5. Distribution of reinforcement:-
In L – direction, use uniform distribution of bars
 Foundation design lecture notes by Mr. kiboh Mathew k NPUI Bamenda

In B – direction, place a ratio of reinforcement (AsB1) in a region of width equal to (B). The rest steel used in
equal parts in both sides.
𝟐 𝑳
𝑨𝒔𝑩𝟏 = (𝜷+𝟏) 𝑨𝑺𝑩 , 𝒘𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝜷 = 𝑩

Step 6. Compute bond length, column bearing, and the steel area required for dowels.
Bearing strength is :-
𝐴
𝑁 = 0.85∅𝑓𝑐́ 𝐴1 √𝐴2 , (∅ = 0.7)
1

Where: - A1 = column area, A2 = (c + 4d)*(b + 4d)

𝐴
And √𝐴2 ≤ 2
1

Hence, area of dowels is: -

𝑄𝑢𝑙𝑡−𝑁
Ad = ≥ 0.005 𝐴1 , and use least 4 equal bars one at each corner.
𝑓𝑦

Step 7. Draft the above information into a complete drawing showing all the details.
 Foundation design lecture notes by Mr. kiboh Mathew k NPUI Bamenda

STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF RECTANGLE COMBINED FOOTINGS

To compute the depth of a rectangular combined footing as follow: -
Find pressure per unit length under footing as
Pult = 1.2 D. L + 1.6 L.L
qult = Pult/L
Find the pressure due to column load on column width as: -
q1=Pu1/w1 & q2 = Pu2/w2
Where: - w1: width of column 1, w2: width of column 2
Draw shear force diagram and choose the column of max. shear force (vmax).
Use one – way shear (wide beam) to find the depth of footing as: -
vu = vmax – qult *d
∅
vc = 6 √𝑓𝑐́ ∗ 𝐵 ∗ 𝑑

Draw bending moment diagram and choose the column of max. B.M (Mmax).
 Foundation design lecture notes by Mr. kiboh Mathew k NPUI Bamenda

STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF MAT FOUNDATIONS

There are several methods to design a mat (or plate) foundation.
a- An approximate method. The mat is divided into strips loaded by a line of columns and resisted
by soil pressure. This strip is then analyzed as a combined footing. This method can
be used where the mat is very rigid and the column pattern is fairly uniform in both spacing
and loads. This method is not recommended at present because of the substantial amount
of approximations and the wide availability of computer programs that are relatively easy
to use—the finite grid method
b- Approximate flexible method. This method was suggested by ACI Committee 336 (2008) and is briefly
described here, and the essential design aids are provided.
c- Discrete element methods. In these the mat is divided into elements by gridding. These
methods include the following:
1. Finite-difference method (FDM)
2. Finite-element method (FEM)
3. Finite-grid method (FGM)
 Foundation design lecture notes by Mr. kiboh Mathew k NPUI Bamenda

Chapter 3: BEARING CAPACITY OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

INTRODUCTION
When Society started building structures imposing large concentrated loads onto the soil, occasionally,
catastrophic failures occurred. Initially, the understanding of foundation behavior merely progressed from
the lessons of one failure to the next. Later, much later, laboratory tests were run of model footings on
different soils and the test results were extrapolated to the behavior of full-scale foundations by means of
theoretical analysis. For example, loading tests on model size footings gave load-movement curves with
a distinct peak value—a "bearing capacity failure"—agreeing with a theoretical analysis that the capacity
(not the settlement) controlled the response of a footing to load. Such tests further suggested that the
"bearing capacity" in terms of stress of a model footing in clay is independent of the footing size, while,
in contrast, tests on model footings in sand resulted in "capacities" in terms of stress that increased with the
footing size.

However, tests on full-size footings have shown that bearing capacity in terms of an ultimate resistance at
which failure occurs, does not exist. It has been shown conclusively that the theoretical treatment of
bearing capacity provides an incorrect picture of actual response of footings to load. The correct
modeling of footing response is a settlement analysis (Chapter 3). That the subject treatment in Section
6.2 through 6.5 is at all presented here is primarily in order to serve as a piece of historical geotechnics.
The practicing design engineer is strongly advised against actually applying the formulas and relations
presented. The details behind this recommendation are presented in Section 6.10. Sections 6.2 through
6.9 are only provided to present the historical or conventional approach. I do not suggest that the
approach would in any way be correct.

THE BEARING CAPACITY FORMULA

Buisman (1935; 1940) and Terzaghi (1943) developed the “bearing capacity formula” given in Eq. 6.1
with details in Eqs. 6.2a through 6.2d. The premise of the formula is that the footing foundation has
infinite length(is continuous) and the load is vertical and concentric with the footing center line, the soil is
homogeneous, and the ground surface is horizontal.

When the groundwater table lies above or at the base of a footing, the effective unit weight, ‘, is the
buoyant unit weight of the soil. When it lies below the base and at a distance equal to the width, B, ‘ is
equal to the total unit weight. When the groundwater table lies within a distance of B, the value of ‘ in
Eq. 6.1a is equal to the average buoyant value. The formula as based on the model shown in Figure 6.1.
 Foundation design lecture notes by Mr. kiboh Mathew k NPUI Bamenda

The bearing capacity factors are a function of the effective friction angle of the soil. Notice, for friction angles
larger than about 37, the bearing capacity factors increase rapidly. The factors were originated by
Buisman (1935; 1940) and Terzaghi (1943), later modified by Meyerhof (1951; 1963), Hansen (1961),
and others. According to the Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (1992), the bearing capacity
factors, which are somewhat interdependent, are as follows.

Terzaghi and many others refined the original coefficients of the "triple N formula", relying mainly on
results of test on model footings. The range of published values for the Nq coefficient is about 50 through
about 600. (This wide range of the key parameter should have alerted the profession to that perhaps the
pertinence of the formula could be questionable).

Equation 6.2c is not the only one used for determining the N bearing capacity coefficient. Eq. 6.2d, for
example, is a commonly applied relation that was developed by Vesic (1973; 1975) by means of fitting a
curve to a set of values from values in a table produced by Caquot and Kerisel (1953):

Vesic (1975) presented a table listing the factors according to Eq. 6.1e ranging from 0 through 50,
which table is reproduced in the AASHTO Specifications (1992).
There are many other expressions in use for the N bearing capacity factor.
 Foundation design lecture notes by Mr. kiboh Mathew k NPUI Bamenda

For example, the German code DIN 4017 uses N = 2(Nq - 1) (tan‘) in its expression, that is, a “-” sign
instead of a “+”sign (Hansbo 1994). For details, see Tomlinson (1980), Bowles (1988), and (Hansbo 1994).
INCLINED AND ECCENTRIC LOADS
Fig. 6.2 shows a cross sections of two strip footings of width, B, subjected to vertical load, Q and Qv,
respectively. The load on the left footing is vertical and concentric. The applied contact stress, q, is stress
per unit length (q = Q/B) and it mobilizes an equally large soil resistance, r.
However, loads on footings are normally eccentric and inclined, as shown for the footing to the right.
Loading a footing eccentrically will reduce the bearing capacity of the footing. An off-center load will increase
the stress (edge stress) on one side and decrease it on the opposing side. A large edge stress can
be the starting point of a bearing failure. The edge stress is taken into account by replacing the full footing
width (B) with an effective footing width (B’) in the bearing capacity formula (Eq. 6.1a; which assumes a
uniform load).
The effective footing width is the width of a smaller footing having the resultant load in its center. That
is, the calculated ultimate resistance is decreased because of the reduced width (-component in Eq. 6.1)
and the applied stress is increased because it is calculated over the effective area as q = Q/(B’ L). The
approach is approximate and its use is limited to the requirement that the contact stress must not be
reduced beyond a zero value at the opposite edge (“no tension at the heel”). This means that the resultant
must fall within the middle third of the footing, that is, the eccentricity must not be greater than
B/6 (= 16.7 % of the footing width). Fig. 6.3 illustrates the difference in contact stress between a footing
loaded within its middle third area as opposed to outside that area.
 Foundation design lecture notes by Mr. kiboh Mathew k NPUI Bamenda

INCLINATION AND SHAPE FACTORS

Combining a vertical load with a horizontal load, that is, inclining the resultant load, will also reduce the
bearing capacity of a footing. The effect of the inclination is expressed by means of reduction factors called
Inclination Factors, i. An inclination may have an indirect additional effect due to that the resultant to the load
on most occasions acts off center, reducing the effective area of the footing.
Also the shape of the footing influences the capacity, which is expressed by means of reduction factors
called Shape Factors, s.
The bearing capacity formula is derived under the assumption of an infinitely
long strip footing. A footing with finite length, L, will have a contribution of soil resistance from the
footing ends. This contribution is what the shape factors adjust for, making the formula with its bearing
capacity factors applicable also to rectangular shaped footings. Notice, Eq. 6.3 does not include Depth
Factors. However, many will consider the depth of the footing by including the overburden stress, q’.
Thus, to represent the general case of a footing subjected to both inclined and eccentric load, Eq. 6.1a
changes to Eq. 6.2

When the load is offset from the center of the footing toward the long side, the L-side, rather than toward
the short side, the B-side, the bearing stress is assumed to act over a footing area of B times L’. When the
 Foundation design lecture notes by Mr. kiboh Mathew k NPUI Bamenda

resultant is eccentric in the directions of both the short and long sides of the footing, the effective area
according to the Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code (1991) takes the shape of a triangle with the
resultant in its centroid. In contrast, the AASHTO Specifications (1992) defines the effective area as a
rectangle with sides B’ and L’.
As long as the resultant falls within the middle third of the footing width, it can acceptably be assumed
that the stress distribution below the footing is approximately linear. However, when the resultant moves
beyond the third point, that is, closer to the edge of the footing, not only does the edge stress increase
rapidly, the assumption of linearity is no longer valid. The requirement of having the resultant in the
middle third is, therefore, very important in the design. In fact, if the resultant lies outside the middle
third, the adequacy of the design becomes highly questionable. See also Section 6.6.
The shape factors are given in Eqs. 6.4a through 6.3k.
 Foundation design lecture notes by Mr. kiboh Mathew k NPUI Bamenda

Notice, all the above inclination factors as quoted from the various sources can result in values that are
larger than unity. Such a calculation result is an indication of that the particular expression used is not
valid.
Many textbooks present a basic formulae multiplied with influence factors for shape and inclination of the
resultant. These influence factors are calculated from formulae similar to the ones listed above and are
often to be determined from nomograms as opposed to from formulae. They may also include
considerations of stress distribution for different shapes (or with separate influence factors added). Such
influence factors are from before the advent of the computer, when calculations were time-consuming.

OVERTURNING
Frequently, one finds in text books and codes that the stability of a footing is expressed as an overturning
ratio: “Factor-of-Safety against overturning”. This is the ratio between rotating moment around the toe of
the footing taken as the quotient between the forces that try to topple (overturn) the footing and the forces
that counteract the overturning. Commonly, the recommended “factor-of-safety against overturning”
 Foundation design lecture notes by Mr. kiboh Mathew k NPUI Bamenda

is 1.5. However, while the ratio between the calculated moments may be 1.5, the Factor of Safety, Fs, is
not 1.5. For the factor of safety concept to be valid, a value of Fs close to unity must be possible, which is
not the case when the resultant moves beyond the third point. For such a situation, the combination of
increasing edge stress and progressively developing non-linearity causes the point of rotation to move
inward (see Fig. 6.3). At an overturning ratio of about 1.2, failure becomes imminent. Ballerinas dance
on toe, real footings do not, and the overturning ratio must not be thought of as being the same as a factor
of safety. Safety against overturning cannot be by a factor of safety. It is best guarded against by
keeping the resultant inside the middle third of the footing.

SLIDING
The calculation of a footing stability must include a check that the safety against horizontal sliding is
sufficient. The calculation is simple and consists of determining the ratio between the sum of the
horizontal resistance and the sum of all horizontal loads, Rh/Qh at the interface between the footing
underside and the soil. This ratio is taken as the factor of safety against sliding. Usually, the safety
against sliding is considered satisfactory if the factor of safety lies in the range of 1.5 through 1.8. The
horizontal resistance is made up of friction (Qv tan ' ) and cohesion components (c'BL).

COMBINED CALCULATION OF A RETAINING WALL AND FOOTING

Fig. 6.4 illustrates the general case of earth stress acting on a ‘stubby’ cantilever wall. The bearing
capacity of the footing has to consider loads from sources not shown in the figure, such as the weight of
the wall itself and the outside forces acting on the wall and the soil. The earth stress governing the
structural design of the wall (P1) is determined from the product of the active earth stress coefficient (Ka)
and the effective overburden stress. The calculations must consider the soil internal friction angle (),
inclination of the wall (), wall friction (tan ), as well as sloping of the ground surface (). When the
heel of the footing and/or the ground surface are sloping, the average height (H1) is used in the
calculation of the effective overburden stress used for P1, as shown in the figure. Notice, many codes
postulates that the backfill soil nearest the wall stem may not relax into full active condition. These codes
therefore require a larger earth stress coefficient (closer to K0) in the calculation of the earth stress acting
directly on the stem. The vertical component of the earth stress is often disregarded because including it
would necessitate the corresponding reduction of the weight of the soil resting on the base.
 Foundation design lecture notes by Mr. kiboh Mathew k NPUI Bamenda

The geotechnical design for bearing capacity and overturning requires the calculation of the resultant of
all loads acting on a free body comprised by the wall and footing and the soil resting on the heel. The
earth stress (P4) to include in the calculation of the force resultant the acts against the boundary of the
free body, which is a normal rising from the heel, that is, its earth stress coefficient is determined from
a  equal to 90. Notice also that the height of the normal (H4) is used in determining the overburden
stress applied in calculating P4.
In contrast to the case for the earth stress against the stem, the earth stress acting on the normal from the
heel should be calculated disregarding wall friction in the soil (Tschebotarioff 1978).
In summary, the design for capacity of a footing consists of ensuring that the factors of safety on bearing
capacity of a uniformly loaded equivalent footing and on sliding are adequate, and verifying that the edge
stress is not excessive.
EXAMPLES
The bearing capacity calculations are illustrated in a numerical example summarized in Fig. 6.5. The
example involves a 10.0 m long and 8.0 m high, vertically and horizontally loaded retaining wall (bridge
abutment). The wall is assumed to be infinitely thin so that its weight can be neglected in the
calculations. It is placed on the surface of a ‘natural’ coarse-grained soil and a coarse material (backfill)
is placed behind the wall. A 1.0 m thick fill is placed in front of the wall and over the toe area. The
groundwater table lies close the ground surface at the base of the wall and the ground surface is
horizontal.

In any analysis of a foundation case, a free-body diagram is necessary to ensure that all forces are
accounted for in the analysis, such as shown in Fig. 6.5. Although the length of the wall is finite, it is
normally advantageous to calculate the forces per unit length of the wall (the length, L, then only enters
into the calculations when determining the shape factors).
The vertical forces denoted Q1 and Q2 are loads on the base (heel portion). Q1 is from the surcharge on
the ground surface calculated over a width equal to the length of the heel. Q2 is the weight of the soil on
 Foundation design lecture notes by Mr. kiboh Mathew k NPUI Bamenda

the heel. The two horizontal forces denoted P1 and P2 are the active earth stress forces acting on a
fictitious wall rising from the heel, which wall is the boundary of the free body. Because this fictitious
wall is soil, it is commonly assumed that wall friction does not occur (Tschebotarioff, 1978).
Because of compaction of the backfill and the inherent stiffness of the stem, the earth stress coefficient to
use for earth stress against the stem is larger than active pressure coefficient. This earth stress is of
importance for the structural design of the stem and it is quite different from the earth stress to consider in
the stability analysis of the wall.
Fig. 6.5 does not include any passive earth stress in front of the wall, because this front wall earth stress is
normally neglected in practice. The design assumes that movements are large enough to develop active
earth stress behind the wall, but not large enough to develop fully the passive earth stress against the front
of the wall. Not just because the passive earth stress is small, but also because in many projects a more or
less narrow trench for burying pipes and other conduits is often dug in front of the wall. This, of course,
eliminates the passive earth stress, albeit temporarily.
Calculations by applying the above quoted equations from the Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual
(CFEM 1985) result in the following;

The design calculations show that the factors of safety (see Chapter 10) against bearing failure and against
sliding are 3.29 and 2.35, respectively. The resultant acts at a point on the base of the footing at a distance
of 0.50 m from the center, which is smaller than the limit of 1.00 m. Thus, it appears as if the footing is
safe and stable and the edge stress acceptable. However, a calculation result must always be reviewed in
a “what if” situation. That is, what if for some reason the backfill in front of the wall were to be
removed? Well, this seemingly minor change results in a reduction of the calculated factor of safety to
0.90. The possibility that this fill is removed at some time during the life of the structure is real.
Therefore, despite that under the given conditions for the design problem, the factor of safety for the
footing is adequate, the wall structure may not be safe.
EXERCISES
A very long footing will be constructed in a normally consolidated sand (dimensions and soil parameters
are shown in Figure 6.6). The resultants to all vertical and horizontal forces are denoted V and H,
respectively and act along lines as shown. The counteracting resultant to all activating forces is denoted
R. The sand deposit is 9 m thick and followed by bedrock.
A. Is the resultant within the middle third?
B. Calculate the factor of safety, Fs, bearing, according to the Bearing Capacity Formula
C. Calculate the factor of safety, Fs, sliding
D. Calculate the settlement of the footing. Assume that the modulus number indicated in the figure
covers both immediate and long- term settlement. Use stress distribution per the 2V:1H-method.
Hints:
 Foundation design lecture notes by Mr. kiboh Mathew k NPUI Bamenda

PRESUMPTIVE STRESS
Frequently, footing designs based on a so-called presumptive-stress approach that applies certain,
intentionally conservative working stress values governed by assessment of the soil profile and the
local geology at the site according to the local practice of the geology. Table 6.1 present a typical such
an array of values.

Assignment:
1. static loading tests on square footings in well graded sand and other soils
2. foundation settlement
3. graphs of bearing capacity factors.