Suggested Analysis and Design Procedures For Combined Footings and Mats

ACI 336.
2R-88
(Reapproved 2002)
Suggested Analysis and Design Procedures for

Combined Footings and Mats
Reported by ACI Committee 336
Edward J. Ulrich Shyam N. Shukla

Chairman Secretary
Clyde N. Baker, Jr. John A. Focht, Jr. Hugh S. Lacy John F. Seidensticker
Steven C. Ball M. Gaynor .Jim Lewis Bruce A. Suprenant
Joseph E. Bowles John P. Gnaedinger James S. Notch Jagdish S. Syal
Joseph P. Colaco Fritz Kramrisch Ingvar Schousboe John J. Zils
XI. T. Davisson
This report deals with the design of foundations carrying more than Chapter 4-Combined footings, p. 336.2R-7
a single column of wall load. These foundations are called combined 4. l-Rectangular-shaped footings
footings and mats. Although it is primarily concerned with the struc- 4.2-Trapezoidal or irregularly shaped footings
tural aspects of the design, considerations of soil mechanics cannot 4.3-Overturning calculations
be eliminated and the designer should focus on the important inter-
relation of the two fields in connection with the design of such struc-
tural elements. This report is limited to vertical effects of all loading Chapter 5-Grid foundations and strip footings
conditions. The report excludes slabs on grade.
supporting more than two columns, p. 336.2R-8
Keywords: concretes; earth pressure: footings: foundations; loads (forces); mat 5.l-General
foundations: reinforced concrete; soil mechanics; stresses; structural analysis; 5.2-Footings supporting rigid structures
structural design. 5.3-Column spacing
5.4-Design procedure for flexible footings
CONTENTS 5.5-Simplified procedure for flexible footings
Chapter 1 -General, p. 336.2R-2
1.1-Notation
1.2-Scope Chapter 6-Mat foundations, p. 336.2R-9
1.3-Definitions and loadings 6.1-General
1.4-Loading combinations 6.2-Finite difference method
1.5-Allowable pressure 6.3-Finite grid method
1.6-Time-dependent considerations 6.4-Finite element method
1.7-Design overview 6.5-Column loads
6.6-Symmetry
Chapter 2-Soil structure interaction, p. 336.2R-4 6.7-Node coupling of soil effects
2.1-General 6.8-Consolidation settlement
2.2-Factors to be considered 6.9-Edge springs for mats
2.3-Investigation required to evaluate variable factors 6.10-Computer output
6.11-Two-dimensional or three-dimensional analysis
6.12--Mat thickness
Chapter 3-Distribution of soil reactions, 6.13-Parametric studies
p. 336.2R-6 6. 4-Mat foundation detailing/construction
3.1-General
3.2-Straight-line distribution
3.3-Distribution of soil pressure governed by modulus of subgrade Chapter 7-Summary, p. 336.2R-20
reaction
ACI Committee Reports, Guides, Standard Practices, and

Commentaries are intended for. guidance in designing, plan-
ning, executing, or inspecting construction and in preparing
specifications. Reference to these documents shall not be made This report supercedes ACI 336.2R-66 (Reapproved 1980).
in the Project Documents. If items found in these documents Copyright 0 2002, American Concrete Institute.
All rights reserved including rights of reproduction and use in any form or
are desired to be part of the Project Documents they should by any means, including the making of copies by any photo process, or by any
be phrased in mandatory language and incorporated into the electronic or mechanical device, printed, written, or oral, or recording for sound
Project Documents. or visual reproduction or for use in any knowledge or retrieval system or de-
vice, unless permission in writing is obtained from the copyright proprietors.
336.2R-1
336.2R-2 MANUAL OF CONCRETE PRACTICE
Chapter 8-References, p. 336.2R-21 MF = overturning moment about base of foundation, caused by Fvh
8.1 -Specified and/or recommended references loads, F f
8.2-Cited references Mw = overturning moment about base of foundation, caused by
wind loads, blast, or similar lateral loads, F l
Mo = largest overturning moment about the pressed edge or cen-
troid of the base, F !
CHAPTER 1-GENERAL MR = resultant resisting moment, F !
n = exponent used to relate plate k to mat k , Q
1.1-Notation p s
P = any force acting perpendicular to base area, F
The following dimensioning notation is used: F = q = soil contact pressure computed or actual, F/P2
force; e= length; Q = dimensionless. qa = allowable soil contact pressure, F/P2
qu = unconfined (undrained) compression strength of a cohesive
A = base area of footing, e2 soil, F/e2
b = width of pressed edge, l qult = ultimate soil bearing capacity; a computed value to allow
B = foundation width, or width of beam column element, 4 computation of ultimate stregth design moments and shears
Bm = mat width, P for the foundation design, also used in overturning calcula-
Bp = plate width, ! tions, F/e2
c = distance from resultant of vertical forces to overturning edge qi = actual or computed soil contact pressure at a node point as
of the base, ! furnished by the mat analysis. The contact pressures are
D = dead load or related internal moments and forces, F evaluated by the geotechnical analysis for compatibility with
Do = dead load for overturning calculations, F qa and foundation movement, F/f2
Df = the depth Df should be the depth of soil measured adjacent ^_q = average increase in soil pressure due to unit surface contact
pressure, F/f2
to the pressed edge of the combined footing or mat at the
time the loads being considered are applied Rv = resultant of all given design loads acting perpendicular to
Dst = stage dead load consisting of the unfactored dead load of the base area, F
structure and foundation at a particular time or stage of R v min least resultant of all forces acting perpendicular to base area
construction, F under any condition of loading simultaneous with the over-
e = eccentricity of resultant of all vertical forces, P turning moment, F
S = section modulus of mat plan area about a specified axis; S
ei = eccentricity of resultant of all vertical forces with respect to x
the x- and y-axes (ex and ey, respectively), ! about x-axis; Sy about y-axis, t3
E = vertical effects of earthquake simulating forces or related in- SR = stability ratio (formerly safety factor), Q
ternal moment or force, F tw = thickness of shearwalls, e
Ec = modulus of elasticity of concrete, F/e2 W = vertical effects of wind loads, blast, or similar lateral loads,
E = modulus of elasticity of the materials used in the superstruc- F
ture, F/l? Xi = the maximum deflection of the spring at node i as a linear
Es = soil modulus of elasticity, F/e2 model, P
Fvh = vertical effects of lateral loads such as earth pressure, water Z = foundation base length or length of beam column element, !
Z' = footing effective length measured from the pressed edge to
pressure, fill pressure, surcharge pressure, or similar lateral
loads, F the position at which the contact pressure is zero, e
s = vertical soil displacement, k
G = shear modulus of concrete, F/e
hw = height of any shearwalls in structure, e = torsion constant adjustment factor, Q
; = footing stiffness evaluation factor defined by Eq. (5-3), l/t?
H = settlement of foundation or point, !
p = Poissons ratio, Q
Hci = consolidation (or recompression) settlement of point i, l
v = distance from the pressed edge to R
AH = magnitude of computed foundation settlement, t v min (see Fig. 4-l and 4-2,
I = plan moment of inertia of footing (or mat) about any axis e
c = summation symbol, Q
x(Ix) or y(Iy) , f
= unit weight of soil, F/e
IB = moment of inertia of one unit width of the superstructure, t Y
IF = moment of inertia per one unit width of the foundation, t

Iw = base shape factor depending on foundation shape and flexi-
bility, e4 1.2-Scope
i = vertical displacement of a node, t! This report addresses the design of shallow founda-
J = torsion constant for finite grid elements, e4 tions carrying more than a single column or wall load.
kp = coefficient of subgrade reaction from a plate load test, F/l 3 Although the report focuses on the structural aspects of
ksi = coefficient of subgrade reaction contribution to node i, F/E
k'si = revised coefficient of subgrade reaction contribution to node
the design, soil mechanics considerations are vital and
i, F/4, see Section 6.8 the designer should include the soil-structure interac-
ks = q/6 = coefficient (or modulus) of vertical subgrade reaction phenomenon in connection with the design of
tion; generic term dependent on dimensions of loaded area, combined footings and mats. The report excludes slabs-
F/f on-grade.
kvl = basic value of coefficient of vertical subgrade reaction for a
square area with width B = 1 ft, F/4
K = spring constant computed as contributory node area x ks, F/l
1.3-Definitions and loadings
Kr = relative stiffness factor for foundation, Q
L = live load or related internal moments and forces produced by Soil contact pressures acting on a combined footing
the load, F or mat and the internal stresses produced by them
Ls = sustained live loads used to estimate settlement, F. A typical should be determined from one of the load combina-
value would be 50 percent of all live loads. tions given in Section 1.3.2, whichever produces the
Lst = stage service live load consisting of the sum of all unfac- maximum value for the element under investigation.
tored live loads at a particular stage of construction, F
M' = bending moment per unit length, F l Critical maximum moment and shear may not neces-
ME = overturning moment about base of foundation caused by an sarily occur with the largest simultaneously applied load
earthquake simulating force, F 4 at each column.
ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF COMBINED FOOTINGS AND MATS 336.2R-3
1.3.1 Definitions 1.3.2 Loadings-Loadings used for design should

ks-Ratio be-
Coefficient of vertical subgrade reaction conform to the considerations and factors in Chapter 9
tween the vertical pressure against the footing or mat of ACI 318 unless more severe loading conditions are
and the deflection at a point of the surface of con- required by the governing code, agency, structure, or
tact conditions.
1.3.2.1 Dead loads-Dead load D consisting of the
k, = q/6 sum of:
a. Weight of superstructure.
Combined footing-A structural unit or assembly of b. Weight of foundation.
units supporting more than one column load. c. Weight of surcharge.
Contact pressure q-Pressure acting at and perpendic- d. Weight of fill occupying a known volume.
ular to the contact area between footing and soil, 1.3.2.2 Live loads-Live load L consisting of the
produced by the weight of the footing and all forces sum of:
acting on it. a. Stationary or moving loads, taking into account
Continuous footing-A combined footing of prismatic allowable reductions for multistory buildings or large
or truncated shape, supporting two or more columns floor areas, as stated by the applicable building code.
in a row. b. Static equivalents of occasional impacts.
Grid foundation-A combined footing, formed by in- Repetitive impacts at regular intervals, such as those
tersecting continuous footings, loaded at the inter- caused by drop hammers or similar machines, and vi-
section points and covering much of the total area bratory excitations, are not covered by these design
within the outer limits of assembly. recommendations and require special treatment.
Mat foundation-A continuous footing supporting an 1.3.2.3 Effects of lateral loads-Vertical effects of
array of columns in several rows in each direction, lateral loads Fvh such as:
having a slablike shape with or without depressions a. Earth pressure.
or openings, covering an area of at least 75 percent b. Water pressure.
of the total area within the outer limits of the assem- c. Fill pressure, surcharge pressure, or similar.
bly. d. Differential temperature, differential creep and
Mat area-Contact area between mat foundation and shrinkage in concrete structures, and differential settle-
supporting soil. ment.
Mat weight-Weight of mat foundation. Vertical effects of wind loads, -blast, or similar lat-
Modulus of subgrade reaction-See coefficient of ver- eral loads W.
tical subgrade reaction. Vertical effects of earthquake simulating forces E.
Overburden-Weight of soil or backfill from base of Overturning moment about base of foundation,
foundation to ground surface. Overburden should be caused by earthquake simulating forces ME.
determined by the geotechnical engineer. Overturning moment about base of foundation,
Overturning-The horizontal resultant of any combi- caused by FVH loads MF.
nation of forces acting on the structure tending to Overturning moment about foundation base, caused
rotate the structure as a whole about a horizontal by wind loads, blast, or similar lateral loads Mw.
axis. Dead load for overturning calculations Do, consist-
Pressed edge-Edge of footing or mat along which the ing of the dead load of the structure and foundation
greatest soil pressure occurs under the condition of but including any buoyancy effects caused by parts
overturning. presently submerged or parts that may become sub-
Soil stress-strain modulus-Modulus of elasticity of soil merged in the future. The influence of unsymmetrical
and may be approximately related (Bowles 1982) to fill loads on the overturning moments Mo, as well as the
the coefficient of subgrade reaction by the equation resultant of all vertical forces Rv min, shall be investi-
gated and used if found to have a reducing effect on the
Es = k~(1-p2)/. stability ratio SR.
Service live load Ls, consisting of the sum of all un-
Soil pressure-See contact pressure. factored live loads, reasonably reduced and averaged
Spring constant-Soil resistance in load per unit de- over area and time to provide a useful magnitude for
flection obtained as the product of the contributory the evaluation of service settlements. Also called sus-
area and k,. See coefficient of vertical subgrade re- tained live load.
action. Stage dead load Dst, consisting of the unfactored
Stability ratio (SR)-Formally known as safety factor, Dead Load of the structure and foundation at a partic-
it is the ratio of the resisting moment MR to the over- ular time or stage of construction.
turning moment Mo. Stage service live load Lst, consisting of the sum of all
Strip footing: See continuous footing definition. unfactored Live Loads up to a particular time or stage
Subgrade reaction: See contact pressure and Chapter 3. of construction, reasonably reduced and averaged over
Surcharge: Load applied to ground surface above the area and time, to provide a useful magnitude for the
foundation. evaluation of settlements at a certain stage.
1.4-Loading combinations siderations include (1) stage loading where the initial
In the absence of conflicting code requirements, the load consists principally of dead load; (2) foundation
following conditions should be analyzed in the design settlement with small time dependency such as mats on
of combined footings and mats. sand and soft carbonate rock; (3) foundation settle-
1.4.1 Evaluation of soil pressure-Select the combi- ment which is time-dependent (usually termed consoli-
nations of unfactored (service) loads which will pro- dation settlements) where the foundation is sited over
duce the greatest contact pressure on a base area of fine-grained soils of low permeability such as silt and
given shape and size. The allowable soil pressure should clay or silt-clay mixtures; (4) variations in live loading;
be determined by a geotechnical engineer based on a and (5) soil shear displacements. These five factors may
geotechnical investigation. produce time dependent changes in the shears and mo-
Loads should be of Types D, L, Fvh, W, and E as de- ments.
scribed in Section 1.3.2, and should include the vertical
effects of moments caused by horizontal components of 1.7-Design overview
these forces and by eccentrically (eccentric with regard Many structural engineers analyze and design mat
to the centroid of the area) applied vertical loads. foundations by computer using the finite element
a. Consider buoyancy of submerged parts where this method. Soil response can be estimated by modeling
reduces the stability ratio or increases the contact pres- with coupled or uncoupled soil springs. The spring
sures, as in flood conditions. properties are usually calculated using a modulus of
b. Obtain earthquake forces using the applicable subgrade reaction, adjusted for footing size, tributary
building code, and rational analysis. area to the node, effective depth, and change of mod-
1.4.2 Foundation strength design-Although the al- ulus with depth. The use of uncoupled springs in the
lowable stress design according to the Alternate Design model is a simplified approximation. Section 6.7 con-
Method (ADM) is considered acceptable, it is best to siders a simple procedure to couple springs within the
design footings or mat foundations based on the accuracy of the determination of subgrade response.
Strength Design Method of ACI 318. Loading condi- The time-dependent characteristics of the soil response,
tions applicable to the design of mat foundations are consolidation settlement or partial-consolidation settle-
given in more detail in Chapter 6. ment, often can significantly influence the subgrade re-
After the evaluation of soil pressures and settlement, action values. Thus, the use of a single constant mod-
apply the load factors in accordance with Section 9.2 of ulus of subgrade reaction can lead to misleading re-
ACI 318. sults.
1.4.3 Overturning-Select from the several applica- Ball and Notch (1984), Focht et al. (1978) and Ban-
ble loading combinations the largest overturning mo- avalkar and Ulrich (1984) address the design of mat
ment Mo as the sum of all simultaneously applicable foundations using the finite element method and time-
unfactored (service) load moments (MF, Mw, and ME) dependent subgrade response. A simplified method,
and the least unfactored resistance moment MR result- using tables and diagrams to calculate moments, shears,
ing from Do and Fvh to determine the stability ratio SR and deflections in a mat may be found in Bowles
against overturning in accordance with the provisions (1982), Hetenyi (1946), and Shukla (1984).
of Chapter 4. Caution should be exercised when using finite ele-
1.4.4 Settlement-Select from the combinations of ment analysis for soils. Without good empirical results,
unfactored (service) loads, the combination which will soil springs derived from values of subgrade reaction
produce the greatest settlement or deformation of the may only be a rough approximation of the actual re-
foundation, occurring either during and immediately sponse of soils. Some designers perform several finite
after the load application or at a later date, depending element analyses with soil springs calculated from a
on the type of subsoil. Loadings at various stages of range of subgrade moduli to obtain an adequate de-
construction such as D, Dst, and Lst should be evalu- sign.
ated to determine the initial settlement, long-term set-
tlement due to consolidation, and differential settle-
ment of the foundation.
1.5-Allowable pressure CHAPTER 2-SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION
The maximum unfactored design contact pressures 2.1-General
should not exceed the allowable soil pressure, qa. qa Foundations receive loads from the superstructure
should be determined by a geotechnical engineer. through columns, walls, or both and act to transmit
Where wind or earthquake forces form a part of the these loads into the soil. The response of a footing is a
load combination, the allowable soil pressure may be complex interaction of the footing itself, the super-
increased as allowed by the local code and in consulta- structure above, and the soil. That interaction may
tion with the geotechnical engineer. continue for a long time until final equilibrium is es-
tablished between the superimposed loads and the sup-
1.6-Time-dependent considerations porting soil reactions. Moments, shears, and deflec-
Combined footings and mats are sensitive to time- tions can only be computed if these soil reactions can
dependent subsurface response. Time-dependent con- be determined.
2.2-Factors to be considered considered to act as a rigid body, a uniform settlement

No analytical method has been devised that can eval- of the footing occurs and the pressure distribution must
uate all of the various factors involved in the problem change to higher values at the center where the resis-
of soil-structure interaction and allow the accurate de- tance to settlement is greater and lower values at the
termination of the contact pressures and associated perimeter of the footing where the resistance to settle-
subgrade response. Simplifying assumptions must be ment is lower.
made for the design of combined footings or mats. The For nongranular soils, the stiffness of the footing will
validity of such simplifying assumptions and the accu- affect the problem in a different manner. The settle-
racy of any resulting computations must be evaluated ment of a relatively flexible footing supported on a clay
on the basis of the following variables. soil will be greatest at the center of the footing al-
2.2.1 Soil type below the footing-Any method of though the contact soil pressure is uniform. This oc-
analyzing a combined footing should be based on a de- curs because the distribution of soil pressure at greater
termination of the physical characteristics of the soil depths has a higher intensity under the center of the
located below the footing. If such information is not footing. If the footing may be considered to act as a
available at the time the design is prepared, assump- rigid body, the settlement must be uniform and the unit
tions must be made and checked before construction to soil pressures are greater at the edge of the footing.
determine their validity. Consideration must be given to 2.2.7 Superstructure stiffness-This factor tends to
the increased unit pressures developed along the edges restrict the free response of the footing to the soil de-
of rigid footings on nongranular soils and the opposite formation. Redistribution of reactions occur within the
effect for footings on granular soils. The effect of superstructure frame as a result of its stiffness, which
embedment of the footing on pressure variation must reduces the effects of differential settlements. This fac-
also be considered. tor must be considered together with Section 2.2.6 to
2.2.2 Soil type at greater depths-Consideration of evaluate the validity of stresses computed on the basis
long-term consolidation of deep soil layers should be of foundation modulus theories. Also, such redistribu-
included in the analysis of combined footings and mats. tion may increase the stresses in elements of the super-
Since soil consolidation may not be complete for a structure.
number of years, it is necessary to evaluate the behav- 2.2.8 Modulus of subgrade reaction-For small
ior of the foundations immediately after the structure foundations [B less than 5 ft (1 .5 m)], this soil property
is built, and then calculate and superimpose stresses may be estimated on the basis of field experiments
caused by consolidation. which yield load-deflection relationships, or on the ba-
2.2.3 Size of footing-The effect of the size of the sis of known soil characteristics. Soil behavior is gen-
footing on the magnitude and distribution of the con- erally more complicated than that which is assumed in
tact pressure will vary with the type of soil. This factor the calculation of stresses by subgrade reaction theo-
is important where the ratio of perimeter to area of a ries. However, provided certain requirements and limi-
footing affects the magnitude of contact pressures, such tations are fulfilled, sufficiently accurate results can be
as in the case of the increased edge pressure, Section obtained by the use of these theories. For mat founda-
2.2.1, and the long-term deformation under load, Sec- tions, this soil property cannot be reliably estimated on
tion 2.2.2. The size of the footing must also be consid- the basis of field plate load tests because the scale ef-
ered in the determination of the subgrade modulus. See fects are too severe.
Section 3.3. Sufficiently accurate results can be obtained using
2.2.4 Shape of footing-This factor also affects the subgrade reaction theory, but modified to individually
perimeter-to-area ratio. Generally, simple geometric consider dead loading, live loading, size effects, and the
forms of squares and rectangles are used. Other shapes associated subgrade response. Zones of different con-
such as trapezoids, octagons, and circles are employed stant subgrade moduli can be considered to provide a
to respond to constraints dictated by the superstructure more accurate estimate of the subgrade response as
and property lines. compared to that predicted by a single modulus of
2.2.5 Eccentricity of loading-Analysis should in- subgrade reaction. A method is described in Ball and
clude consideration of the variation of contact pres- Notch (1984) and Bowles (1982), and case histories are
sures from eccentric loading conditions. given in Banavalkar and Ulrich (1984) and Focht et al.
2.2.6 Footing stiffness-The stiffness of the footing (1978). Digital computers allow the designer to use mat
may influence the deformations that can occur at the models having discrete elements and soil behavior hav-
contact surface and this will affect the variation of ing variable moduli of subgrade reaction. The modulus
contact pressures (as will be seen in Fig. 3.1). If a flex- of subgrade reaction is addressed in more detail in Sec-
ible footing is founded on sand and the imposed load is tion 3.3 and Chapter 6.
uniformly distributed on top of the footing, then the
soil pressure is also uniformly distributed. Since the re- 2.3-Investigation required to evaluate variable
sistance to pressure will be smallest at the edge of the factors
footing, the settlement of the footing will be larger at Methods are available to estimate the influence of
the edges and smaller at the center. If, however, the each of the soil structure interaction factors listed in
footing stiffness is large enough that the footing can be Section 2.2. Desired properties of the structure and the
combined footing can be chosen by the design engi-

neer. The designer, however, must usually accept the
soil as it exists at the building site, and can only rely on
careful subsurface exploration and testing, and geo-
technical analyses to evaluate the soil properties affect-
ing the design of combined footings and mats. In some
instances it may be practical to improve soil properties.
Some soil improvement methods include: dynamic con-
solidation, vibroflotation, vibroreplacement, surcharg-
ing, removal and replacement, and grouting.
Fig. 3.1-Contact pressure on bases of rigid founda-
CHAPTER 3-DISTRIBUTION OF SOIL tions l
REACTIONS
3.1- General
Except for unusual conditions, the contact pressures
at the base of a combined footing may be assumed to
Z=Jq-e
( ) (3-4)
follow either a distribution governed by elastic subgrade

reaction or a straight-line distribution. At no place Eq. (3-l) to (3-4) are based on the assumption that no
should the calculated contact pressure exceed the max- tensile (-) stresses exist between footing and soil. The
imum allowable value, qo. equations may be applied with the details to be shown
in the stability ratio calculation in Chapter 4, Fig. 4.2.
Eq. (3-2) through (3-4) apply for cases where the resul-
3.2-Straight-line distribution of soil pressure tant force falls out of the middle third of the base.
A linear soil pressure distribution may be assumed
for footings which can be considered to be a rigid body
to the extent that only very small relative deformations 3.3-Distribution of soil pressure governed by
result from the loading. This rigid body assumption the modulus of subgrade reaction
may result from the spacing of the columns on the The assumption of a linear pressure distribution is
footing, from the stiffness of the footing itself, or the commonly used and is satisfactory in most cases be-
rigidity of the superstructure. Criteria that must be ful- cause of conservative load estimates and ample safety
filled to make this assumption valid are discussed in the factors in materials and soil. The acutal contact pres-
sections following. sure distribution in cohesionless soils is concave; in co-
3.2.1 Contact pressure over total base area- If the hesive soils, the pressure distribution is convex (Fig.
resultant of all forces is such that all portions of the 3.1). See Chapter 2 for more discussion of foundation
foundation contact area are in compression, the maxi- stiff and pressure distributions.
mum and minimum soil pressure may then be calcu- The suggested initial design approach is to size the
lated from the following formula, which applies only to thickness for shear without using reinforcement. The
rectangular base areas and only when e is located along flexural steel is then obtained by assuming a linear soil
one of the principal axes pressure distribution and using simplified procedures in
which the foundation satisfies statics. The flexural steel
may also be obtained by assuming that the foundation
q;:g = g( 1+-6eZ > (3-l)
is an elastic member interacting with an elastic soil.
Simplified methods are found in some textbooks and
references: Bowles (1974, 1982); Hetenyi (1946); Kram-
3.2.2 Contact pressure over part of area-The soil risch (1984); and Teng (1962).
pressure distribution should be assumed to be triangu- 3.3.1 Beams on elastic foundations - If a combined
lar. The resultant of this distribution has the same footing is assumed to be a flexible slab, it may be ana-
magnitude and colinear, but acts in the opposite direc- lyzed as a beam on elastic foundation using the meth-
tion of the resultant of the acting forces. ods found in Bowles (1974, 1982); Hetenyi (1946);
The maximum and minimum soil pressure under this Kramrisch and Rogers (1961); or Kramrisch (1984). The
condition can be calculated from the following expres- discrete element method has distinct advantages of al-
sions lowing better modeling of boundary conditions of soil,
At the footing edge load, and footing geometry than closed-form solutions
of the Hetenyi type. The finite element method using
beam elements is superior to other discrete element
q (3-2) methods.
It is common in discrete element analyses of beams to
use uncoupled springs. Special attention should be
At distance Z from the pressed edge given to end springs because studies with large-scale
models have shown that doubling the end springs was
9 nl, = 0 (3-3) needed to give good agreement between the analysis
and performance (Bowles 1974). End-spring doubling pressure at no place exceeds the allowable soil pressure.
for beams will give a minimal spring coupling effect. All moments should be calculated about the centroid of
3.3.2 Estimating the modulus of subgrade reaction - the footing area and the bottom of the footing. All
It is necessary to estimate a value for the modulus of footing dimensions should be computed on the as-
subgrade reaction for use in elastic foundation analy- sumption that the footing acts as a rigid body. When
sis. the resultant of the column loads, including considera-
Several procedures are available for design: tion of the moments from lateral forces, concides with
a. Estimate a value from published sources (Bowles the centroid of the footing area, the contact pressure
1974, 1982, and 1984; Dept. of Navy 1982; Kramrisch may be assumed to be uniform over the entire area of
1984; Terzaghi 1955). the footing.
b. Estimate the value from a plate load test (Ter- When the resultant is eccentric with respect to the
zaghi 1955). Since plate load tests are of necessity on center of the footing area, the contact pressure may be
small plates, great care must be exercised to insure that assumed to follow a linear distribution based on the as-
results are properly extrapolated. The procedure (Sow- sumption that the footing acts as a rigid body (see Sec-
ers 1977) for converting the ks of a plate kp to that for tion 3.2). The contact pressure varies from a maximum
the mat ks may be as in the following at the pressed edge to a minimum either beneath the
footing or at the opposite edge.
n
Ks = K, 2 Although the effect of horizontal forces are beyond
(3-8)
( m> the scope of this analysis and design procedure, hori-
zontal forces can provide a major component to the
where n ranges from 0.5 to 0.7 commonly. One must vertical resultant. Horizontal forces that can generate
allow for the depth of compressible strata beneath the vertical components to the foundation may originate
mat and if it is less than about 4B the designer should from (but are not limited to) wind, earth pressure, and
use lower values of n. unbalanced hydrostatic pressure. A careful examina-
c. Estimate the value based on laboratory or in situ tion of the free body must be made with the geotech-
tests to determine the elastic parameters of the foun- nical engineer to fully define the force systems acting
dation material (Bowles 1982). This may be done by on the foundation before the structural analyses are at-
numerically integrating the strain over the depth of in- tempted.
_H and back computing
fluence to obtain a settlement ^
ks as 4.2-Trapezoidal or irregularly shaped footings
To reduce eccentric loading conditions, a trapezoidal
Ks = q/AH or irregularly shaped footing may be designed. In this
Several values of strain should be used in the influence case the footing can be considered to act as a rigid body
depth of approximately 4B where B is the largest di- and the soil pressure determined in a manner similar to
mension of the base. Values of elastic parameters de- that for a rectangular footing.
termined in the laboratory are heavily dependent on
sample disturbance and the quality and type of triaxial 4.3-Overturning calculations
test results. For calculations that involve overturning, use the
d. Use one of the preceding methods for estimating combination of loading that produces the greatest ratio
the modulus of subgrade reaction, but, in addition, of overturning moment to the corresponding vertical
consider the time-dependent subgrade response to the load.
loading conditions. This time-dependent soil response For footings resting on rock or very hard soil, over-
may be consolidation settlement or partial-elastic turning will occur when the eccentricity e of the loads
movement. An iterative procedure outlined in Section P falls outside the footing edge. Where the eccentricity
6.8, and described by Ulrich (l988), Banavalkar and is inside the footing edge, the stability ratio SR against
Ulrich (1984). and Focht et al. (1978), may be neces- overturning can be evaluated from
sary to compare the mat deflections with computed soil
response. The computed soil responses are used in a SR = M R / M o (4-1)
manner similar to producing the coupling factor to
back compute springs at appropriate nodes. Since the In Eq. (4-l). Mo is the maximum overturning mo-
soil response profile is based on contact stresses which ment and MR is the resisting moment caused by the
are in turn based on mat loads, flexibility, and modu- minimum dead weight of the structure; both are calcu-
lus of subgrade reaction, iterations are necessary until lated about the pressed edge of the footing. The stabil-
the computed mat deflection and soil response con- ity ratio should generally not be less than 1.5.
verge within user-acceptable tolerance. Overturning may occur by yielding of the subsoil in-
side and along the pressed edge of the footing. In this
CHAPTER 4-COMBINED FOOTINGS case, rectangular or triangular distributions of the soil
4.1-Rectangular-shaped footings pressure along the pressed edge of the footing as shown
The length and width of rectangular-shaped footings in Fig. 4.1 and 4.2, respectively, are indicated. In this
should be established such that the maximum contact case the stability ratio SR against overturning is calcu-
lated from Eq. (4-l), with For Kr = 0, the ratio of differential to total settle-
ment is 0.5 for a long footing and 0.35 for a square
MR = Rv min (c - v) (4-2) one. For Kr = 0.5, the ratio of differential to total set-
tlement is about 0.1.
The calculation of the stability ratio is illustrated in
Fig. 4.1 and 4.2. Since the actual pressure distribution
may fall between triangular and rectangular. the true
stability ratio may be less than that indicated by rect-
angular distribution. A stability ratio of at least I.5 is
recommended for overturning.
CHAPTER 5-GRID FOUNDATIONS AND STRIP

FOOTINGS
SUPPORTING MORE THAN TWO COLUMNS
5.1 -General
Strip footings are used to support two or more col-
umns and other loadings in a line. They are commonly
used where it is desirable to assume a constant soil
pressure beneath the foundation; where site and build-
ing geometries require a lateral load transfer to exterior
columns; or where columns in a line are too close to be
supported by individual foundations. Grid foundations R v min
should be analyzed as independent continuous strips I
using column loads proportioned in direct ratio to the
SlABIL:TV RAT:O: S.R. * r 2 1 . 5
stiffness of the strips acting in each direction. The fol- 0
lowing design principles defined for continuous strip
UHERE bh * R" ml" lc - v)
footings will also apply with modifications for grid
R
foundations. mm
=z-qt
5.2-Footings supporting rigid structures

Continuous strip footings supporting structures Fig. 4.1-Stability ratio calculation (rectangular distri-
which, because of their stiffness, will not allow the in- butions of soil pressure along pressed edge of footing)
dividual columns to settle differentially, may be de-
signed using the rigid body assumption with a linear
distribution of soil pressure. This distribution can be
determined based on statics.
To determine the approximate stiffness of the struc-
ture, an analysis must be made comparing the com-
bined stiffness of the footing, superstructure framing
members, and shearwalls with the stiffness of the soil.
This relative stiffness Kr will determine whether the
footing should be considered as flexible or to act as a
rigid body. The following formulas (Meyerhof 1953)
may be used in this analysis
K, = 2 (5-l)
An approximate value of EIB per unit width of build-

ing can be determined by summing the flexural stiff-
ness of the footing E'IF, the flexural stiffness of each I 'v min
framed member E'Ib' and the flexural stiffness of any

shearwalls E'twh3w/12 where tw and hw are the thickness
and height of the walls, respectively
&
E IB = E' IF + CE IB + E 12 (5-2)
Computations indicate that as the relative stiffness Kr Fig. 4.2-Stability ratio calculation (triangular distri-
increases, the differential settlement decreases rapidly. butions of soil pressure along pressed edge of footing)
If the analysis of the relative stiffness of the footing CHAPTER 6-MAT FOUNDATIONS
yields a value of 0.5, the footing can be considered rigid 6.1-General
and the variation of soil pressure determined on the Mat foundations are commonly used on erratic or
basis of simple statics. If the relative stiffness factor is relatively weak subsurfaces where a large number of
found to be less than 0.5, the footing should be de- spread footings would be required and a well defined
signed as a flexible member using the foundation mod- bearing stratum for deep foundations is not near the
ulus approach as described under Section 5.4. foundation base. Often, a mat foundation is used when
spread footings cover more than one-half the founda-
5.3-Column spacing tion area. A common mat foundation configuration is
The column spacing on continuous footings is im- shown in Fig. 6.1(a).
portant in determining the variation in soil pressure The flexural stiffness EI of the mat may be of con-
distribution. If the average of two adjacent spans in a siderable aid in the horizontal transfer of column loads
continuous strip having adjacent loads and column to the soil (similar to a spread footing) and may aid in
spacings that vary by not more than 20 percent of the limiting differential settlements between adjacent col-
greater value, and is less than 1.75/X. the footing can umns. Structure tilt may be more pronounced if the
be considered rigid and the variation of soil pressure mat is very rigid. Load concentrations and weak sub-
determined on the basis of simple statics. surface conditions can offset the benefits of mat flex-
The beam-on-elastic foundation method (see Section ural stiffness.
2.2.8) should be used if the average of two adjacent Mats are often placed so that the thickness of the mat
spans as limited above is greater than 1.75///\ . is fully embedded in the surrounding soil. Mats for
For general cases falling outside the limitations given buildings are usually beneath a basement that extends
above, the critical spacing at which the subgrade mod- at least one-half story below the surrounding grade.
ulus theory becomes effective should be determined in- Additionally, the top mat surface may function as a
dividually. basement floor. However, experience has shown that
The factor X is utilities and piping are more easily installed and main-
tained if they are placed above the mat concrete. De-
pending on the structure geometry and weight, a mat
h = (5-3) foundation may float the structure in the soil so that
settlement is controlled. In general, the pressure caus-
ing settlement in a mat analysis may be computed as
5.4-Design procedure for flexible footings
A flexible strip footing (either isolated or taken from
Net pressure = {[Total (including mat) structure weight]
a mat) should be analyzed as a beam-on-elastic foun-
dation. Thickness is normally established on the basis - Weight of excavated soil}/Mat area (6-1)
of allowable wide beam or punching shear without use
of shear reinforcement; however, this does not prohibit Part of the total structure weight may be controlled
the designers use of shear reinforcement in specific sit- by using cellular mat construction, as illustrated in Fig.
uations. 6.1(b). Another means of increasing mar stiffness while
Either closed-form solutions (Hetenyi 1946) or com- limiting mat weight is to use inverted ribs between col-
puter methods can be used in the analysis. umns in the basement area as in Fig. 6.1 (c). The cells in
a cellular mat may be used for liquid storage or to alter
5.5-Simplified procedure for flexible footings the weight by filling or pumping with water. This may
The evaluation of moments and shears can be sim- be of some use in controlling differential settlement or
plified from the procedure involved in the classical the- tilt.
ory of a beam supported by subgrade reactions, if the Mats may be designed and analyzed as either rigid
footing meets the following basic requirements (Kram- bodies or as flexible plates supported by an elastic
risch and Rogers 1961 and Kramrisch 1984): foundation (the soil). A combination analysis is com-
a. The minimum number of bays is three. mon in current practice. An exact theoretical design of
b. The variation in adjacent column loads is not a mat as a plate on an elastic foundation can be made;
greater than 20 percent. however, a number of factors rapidly reduce the exact-
c. The variation in adjacent spans is not greater than ness to a combination of approximations. These in-
20 percent. clude:
d. The average of adjacent spans is between the lim- 1. Great difficulty in predicting subgrade responses
its 1.75/X and 3.50/X. and assigning even approximate elastic parameters to
If these limitations are met, the contact pressures can the soil.
be assumed to vary linearly, with the maximum value 2. Finite soil-strata thickness and variations in soil
under the columns and a minimum value at the center properties both horizontally and vertically.
of each bay. This simplified procedure is described in 3. Mat shape.
some detail by Kramrisch and Rogers (1961) and 4. Variety of superstructure loads and assumptions in
Kramrisch (1984). their development.
5. Effect of superstructure stiffness on mat (and vice most immediately recovered when the mat concrete is
versa). placed, since concrete density is from 1.5 to 2.5 times
With these factors in mind, it is necessary to design that of soil.
conservatively to maintain an adequate factor of safety. The influence of heave on subgrade response should
The designer should work closely with the geotechnical be determined by the geotechnical engineer working
engineer to form realistic subgrade response predic- closely with the structural designer. Recovery of the
tions, and not rely on values from textbooks. heave remaining after placing the mat must be treated
There are a large number of commercially available as either a recompression or as an elastic problem. If
computer programs that can be used for a mat analy- the problem is analyzed as a recompression problem,
sis. ACI Committee 336 makes no individual program the subsurface response related to recompression
recommendation since the program user is responsible should be obtained from the geotechnical engineer. The
for the design. A program should be used that the de- subsurface response may be in the form of a re-
signer is most familiar with or has investigated suffi- compression index or deflections computed by the geo-
ciently to be certain that the analyses and output are technical engineer based on elastic and consolidation
correct. subsurface behavior. If the recovery is treated as an
6.1.1 Excavation heave-Heave or expansion of the elastic problem, the modulus of subgrade reaction
base soil into the excavation often occurs when exca- should be reduced as outlined in Section 6.8, where the
vating for a mat foundation. The amount depends on consolidation settlement used in Eq. (6.8) includes the
several factors: amount of recompression.
a. Depth of excavation (amount of lost overburden 6.1.2 Design procedure-A mat may be designed us-
pressure). ing either the Strength Design Method (SDM) or work-
b. Type of soil (sand or clay)-soil heave is less for ing stress design according to the Alternate Design
sand than clay. The principal heave in sand overlying Method (ADM) of ACI 318-83, Appendix B. The ADM
clay is usually developed in the clay. is an earlier method, and most designers prefer to use
c. Previous stress history of the soil. the SDM.
d. Pore pressures developed in the soil during exca- The suggested design procedure is to:
vation from construction operations. 1. Proportion the mat plan using unfactored loads
The amount of heave can range from very little-1/2 and any overturning moments as
to 2 in. (12 to 50 mm)-to much larger values. Ulrich
and Focht (1982) report values in the Houston, Tex.,
(6-2)
area of as much as 4 in. (102 mm). Some heave is al-
Plan Plan
(a) Solid mat of reinforced (b) Mat using cell (c) Ribbed mat used to
c o n c r e t e ; most common construction. Cells control bending
configuration. D = depth may be filled with with minimum con-
f o r s h e a r , moment or stab- water or sand to con- c r e t e . Ribs may
i l i t y a n d ranges from about trol settlements or for be either one or
1.5 to 6+ ft (0.5 to 2+ m). stability. two-way.
Fig. 6.1--Mat configurations for various applications: (a) mat ideally suited for finite element or finite grid method;
(b) mat that can be modeled either as two parallel plates with the upper plate supported by cell walls modeled as
springs, or as a series of plates supported on all edges; and (c) mat ideally suited for analysis using finite grid method,
since ribs make direct formulation of element properties difficult
The eccentricity ex, ey of the resultant of column loads Computer analysis for mat foundations is usually
C P includes the effect of any column moments and any based on an approximation where the mat is divided
overturning moment due to wind or other effects. The into a number of discrete (finite) elements using grid
eccentricities ex, ey are computed using statics, sum- lines. There are three general discrete element formula-
ming moments about two of the adjacent mat edges tions which may be used:
[say, Lines O-X, O-Y of Fig. 6.1(a)]. The values of de- a. Finite difference (FD).
sign ex, ey will be slightly different if computed using b. Finite grid method (FGM).
unfactored or factored design loads. c. Finite element method (FEM).
The actual unfactored loads are used here as the These latter two methods can be used for mats with
comparison to the soil pressure furnished by the geo- curved boundaries or notches with re-entrant corners as
technical engineer is in Fig. 6.2. All three of these methods use the modulus
of subgrade reaction k, as the soil contribution to the
q G qil structural model. This has been considered in Sections
2.3, 3.3, and 5.4, and will be considered in Sections 6.7
The allowable soil pressure may be furnished as one and 6.8. Computers (micro to mainframe) and avail-
or more values depending on long-term loading or in- able software make the use of any of the discrete ele-
cluding transient loads such as wind and snow. The soil ment methods economical and rapid. The finite ele-
pressure furnished by the geotechnical engineer is used ment model shown in Fig. 6.2(b) indicates a simple
directly in the ADM procedure. For strength design it gridding that produces 70 elements, 82 nodes, and 246
is necessary to factor this furnished allowable soil pres- equations with a band width computed as shown.
sure to a pseudo ultimate value, which may be done
as follows 6.2-Finite difference method
sum of factored design loads The finite difference method is a procedure which
of unfactored design loads
(6-3) provides quite good results for the approximations
used. This procedure was used extensively in the past,
2. Compute the minimum mat thickness based on but is sometimes used to verify finite element methods.
punching shear at critical columns (corners, sides, inte- It is particularly appealing since it does not require
rior, etc.), refer to Fig. 6.1(a), based on column load massive computer resources. Fig. 6.3 shows the finite
and shear perimeter. It is common practice not to use difference method with node equation for interior node
shear reinforcement so that the mat depth is a maxi- given.
mum. This increases the flexural stiffness and increases
the reliability of using Eq. (6-2). 6.3-Finite grid method
3. Design the reinforcing steel for bending by treat- This method discretizes the mat into a number of
ing the mat as a rigid body and considering strips both beam-column elements with bending and torsional re-
ways, if the following criteria are met: sistance (Fig. 6.4). The torsional resistance is used to
a. Column spacing is < 1.75/X, or the mat is very incorporate the plate twist using the shear modulus G.
thick. In finite element terminology, the FGM produces non-
b. Variation in column loads and spacing is not conforming elements, i.e., interelement compatibility is
over 20 percent. For mats not meeting this cri- insured only at the nodes. A theoretical development of
teria, go immediately to Step 4. this method specifically for mats is found in Bowles
These strips are analyzed as combined footings with (1974, 1976, and 1982).
multiple columns loaded with the soil pressure on the
strip, and column reactions equal to the factored (or 6.4-Finite element method
unfactored) loads obtained from the superstructure This method discretizes the mat into a number of
analysis. Since a mat transfers load horizontally, any rectangular and/or triangular elements (Fig. 6.5). Ear-
given strip may not satisfy a vertical load summation lier programs used displacement functions which pur-
unless consideration is given to the shear transfer be- ported to produce conforming interelement compatibil-
tween strips. Bowles (1982) illustrates this problem and ity (i.e., compatibility both at nodes and along element
a method of analysis so the strips satisfy statics. boundaries between adjacent elements).
4. Perform an approximate analysis (Shukla 1984) or For bending, the nodal displacement and slopes in
a computer analysis of the mat and revise the rigid the X- and Y-direction are required. This results in tak-
body design as necessary. An approximate analysis can ing partial derivatives of the displacement function.
be made using the method suggested by ACI 336.2R-66 First, however, one must delete one term for the trian-
to calculate moments, shears, and deflections in a mat gle or add two nodes and use the fifteen-term displace-
with the help of charts. Charts for this procedure are ment function. Similarly, for the rectangle one must
given in Shukla (1984) and Hetenyi (1946). A com- drop three terms or add a node. There are computer
pleted example problem is given in the paper to assist programs which drop terms, combine terms, and add
the designer. The geotechnical engineer should furnish nodes. Any of the programs will give about the same
the designer subgrade response values even when a sim- computed output so the preferred program is that one
plified design method is used. most familiar to the user.
/rt--*t--c
6?,+t-f----+- + --,L\t?3
Nodes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
This grid produces 70 elements, 82 nodes, 246

equations
Bandwidth depends on node numbering
scheme =3 (largest element node
difference + 1)
Here. bandwidth = 3(37 + 25 +1) = 39
a. Mat with wall, notch. and irregular shape

including a curved area.
Fig. 6.2-Mat gridding for either finite grid or finite element method
6.4.1 Iso-parametric elements-An element is of the

iso-parametric type if the same function can be used to
rh h rh
describe both shape and displacement. Some computer
programs suitable for mat (or plate) analysis use this h
methodology. The method is heavily computation-in-

TT
tensive but has a particular advantage over displace- h
ment functions in that any given element may contain a \
%L
different number of nodes than others as illustrated in
I
Fig. 6.5. b
Interpolation functions are used together with an ap-
proximation for area integration. Good results are
claimed with care in using enough interpolation points.
Some programs using the iso-parametric formulation
may not have the necessary routines to include extra
nodes on select elements and in these cases there is usu-
For r = 1: 20(wo + kshC/D) - 8(-T + wB + wR + wL)
ally no advantage of the iso-parametric element over
the displacement function approach. Neither of these + 2(WTL + WTR + VBL + v
BR)
approaches is exact, unless substantial effort is ex-
+ (WTT + WBB + LL + wRR) - Ph*/D
pended.
Cook (1974), Ghali and Neville (1972), and Zien-
kiewicz (1977) describe formulation of the finite ele- Fig. 6.3-Finite difference method with node equation
for interior node given. Separate equations are re-
ment stiffness matrix. quired for corners, sides, and first nodes in from sides
Advantages of the FEM include:
a. The solution is particularly mathematically effi-
cient.
b. Boundary condition displacements can be mod- Disadvantages of the FEM include:
eled. a. The formulation of the stiffness matrix is compu-
c. The iso-parametric approach can allow use of mid- tationally intensive.
side nodes, which produces some mesh refinement b. It is very difficult to include a concentrated mo-
without the large increase in grid lines of the other ment at the nodes as the methodology uses moment per
methods. unit of width.
Pl, P2, P4, P5 = moment (x i = 0,)
PS
P6 = P (X
P3, i = Azi)
L
PS - x5 // -P p2
p6
P4
P2 4h;-"
-.x2
Start node coding at upper

Node K
left corner of mat
typical beam element with

torsion included.
Fig. 6.4-Element coding for nodes and element forces for the finite grid method. Dimension: B and t used both
for element moment of inertia i and torsion inertia J
The FEM plate element

M
M yx Mi + Mx etc in general
X
MY t
p2 - x2 1
--
M'
P3 - x 3 X Node P-X coding has
t
PI - Xl M same relationship to
F
node forces and disp-
lacements as in Fig. 6-4.
5.
Additional nodes are allowed with some programs

where isoparametric elements using shape functions
are programmed.
Fig. 6.5-Typical rectangular finite element using the FEM plate formulation.
Continuing Pi-Xi coding counterclockwise around the four-node element gives
twelve element displacements: four translations and eight rotations
a. Gridding through a column center

as commonly done (typically column 1
-I of Fig. 6-2.
b. Gridding through column

-P
3 faces when column is fixed
- PO/4 with boundary conditions
input of Qx = Q = 0 as
shown. Y
3
C. Pro-rating a column axial load (or

moment to adjacent nodes when grid
lines are not on column.
K - Po/LlL2
- cbK
pl
P2 - dbK
P3 - daK
- CaK
p4
Fig. 6.6--Procedures for modeling columns and column loads into one of the dis-
crete (finite) element procedures
c. Often a statics summation of nodal moments is would be to slide the foundation laterally. There could
only approximated. This is often the case where the also be a tendency to compress the mat between two
common elements include triangles or a mix of trian- columns; however, the AEc/Z term is so large that this
gles and rectangles. movement is negligible and can be ignored.
d. It requires interpretation of the plate twist mo- There is no practical way to incorporate horizontal
ment Mxv that is output. loads into the mat, except at the expense of additional
e. It is not directly amenable to increasing the nodal computations. For example, the FGM would require six
degree-of-freedom from three to six for pile caps as is degree-of-freedom nodes to allow this. This represents
the finite grid method (FGM). prohibitive effort for the results-except for pile caps,
f. The stiffness matrix is the same size as the FGM where some (or all) of the horizontal shear force may
but three times the size of the FD method. be assumed to be carried by the piles.
The FEM is particularly sensitive to aspect ratios of The mat may be gridded through the column centers
rectangular elements and intersection angles of trian- (Fig. 6.6) with any of the methods. If column fixity,
gles. In practical problems, the designer has little con- zero rotation, at the four column nodes of Fig. 6-6(b)
trol over these factors other than increasing the grid is modeled, the grid lines must be taken through the
lines (and number of nodes). For example, Elements A, column faces for the FGM or FEM.
B, and C of Fig. 6.2 may not give reliable computed If the column lies within the grid spacing, the adja-
results. This deficiency may be overcome for that ex- cent nodes are loaded with a portion of the load. The
ample by adding grid lines, but this is at the expense of simple beam analogy shown in Fig. 6.6(c) is sufficiently
increasing user input and a rapid increase in the size of accurate and may be used for both axial load and col-
the stiffness matrix since it increases at three times the umn moments.
number of nodes.
6.6-Symmetry
6.5-Column loads Consideration should be given to any mat symmetry
Columns apply axial loads, shears, and moments to to reduce the total number of nodes to be analyzed.
a mat. Generally the shear is neglected since its effect This is critical in the FGM and FEM in particular since I
supported plate with a (b) FEM or FGM model taking advantage of plate
concentrated load at the symmetry (both load and geometry). For this
giving matrix size shown, model user must recognize the following boun-
dary restraints:
For At Nodes =
aBZ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 16, 21
1, 6, 11, 16, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25
@; 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25
Theereduced model gives: NP = 3 x 25 = 75

bandwidth = 3 x 6 = 18
matrix size = 75 x 18 = 1350 words
Note that user must recognize the correct
boundary restraints as incorrectly identified
ones will give a solution for the model used.
there are three equations per node so that a mat with conditions. It is very easy to make an error, and care-
400 or more nodes will require substantial memory and ful inspection of the output displacement matrix is nec-
may require special matrix reduction routines which essary.
block the stiffness matrix to and from a disk file.
With symmetry, perhaps only one-quarter or one- 6.7-Node coupling of soil effects
alf of the mat will uire modeling. If there is sym- When the mat is interfaced with the ground, the soil
metry only for selec load cases and not for others, effect is concentrated at the grid node for computer
nothing is gained by attempting to analyze some load analysis. The most common soil-to-node concentration
cases with a reduced mat plan. Fig. 6.7 illustrates the effect produces the so-called Winkler foundation. That
use of symmetry to reduce a simple plate problem by is, the modulus of subgrade reaction is used and the
approximately one-quarter. Success in using symmetry concentration is simply
to reduce the problem size depends very heavily on
being able to recognize and input the correct nodal K = Contributory area X ks (6-7)
boundary conditions along the axes of symmetry.
A careful study of whether symmetry applies should This is shown for several element shapes in Fig. 6.8.
be made prior to any modeling, since a substantial Since the concentration is a product of area and ks, the
amount of engineering and programming effort is often result has the units of a spring and is commonly called
required in developing the element data. a soil spring.
A major factor where computer memory is adequate Strictly, nodes might be coupled [Fig. 6.9(b)], but
is whether there is sufficient advantage in utilization of this is seldom done, If a Winkler foundation is used,
any symmetry to reduce the problem size. Some sav- the soil spring K direetly adds (superposition) to every
ings of computer resources are offset with engineering third diagonal term of the stiffness matrix, m g it
time of identification and input of the extra boundary very easy to model excessive displacements into soil
C Grid l i n e s d i v i d i n g
G
irregular shaped mat
6 2
N I
B F
c
e-l
Compute spring constants Ki as follows:

Let the area of any element such as A, B, C 1 . . . . = A, B, C....
Let the modulus of subgrade reaction within any element be kA, kg, etc.
Then: KT = AkA/3 + BkB/4
K2 = 6kB/4 + CkC/4 (typical side spring)
K3 = CkC/4 (typical corner spring)
K4 = AkA/3 + EkE/4 + DkD/3
K5 = AkA/3 + (BkB + Ek E + FkF)/4
K6 = (BkB + CkC + FkF + Gkti)/4 (typical interior spring)
A computer routine can develop corner, side and interior springs easily but
is substantially more difficult for springs with contributions from triangle
elements.
A good computer program should be able to compute the typical corner, side and
interior springs and allow the user to input by hand springs such as for nodes
1, 4, and 8 above.
Fig. 6.8-Computation of uncoupled Winkler-type soil node springs
or mat-soil separation at nodes. This allows reuse of the

stiffness matrix by removing the spring as necessary on
subsequent cycles. Since the elastic parameters E, and ,4,
usually increase with depth from overburden and pre-
consolidation it appears this may lessen the effect of
ignoring coupling (Christian 1976).
If coupling were undertaken, the equations to be (a) Uncoupled springs
programmed become much more complicated and, ad-
ditionally, fractions of the soil concentration appear in
off-diagonal terms of the stiffness matrix. If nonline-
arity is allowed (soil separation or excessive deforma-
tion) the stiffness matrix requires substantial modifica-
tions and it becomes about as easy to completely re-
build it on subsequent cycles.
The most direct and obvious effect of coupling ver- (b) Coupled springs
sus noncoupling is that this analysis of a uniformly
loaded mat (an oil tank base) will produce a dishing
Fig. 6.9-Soil springs in X-Z plane
profile across the slab with coupling and a constant
settlement profile without coupling. Boussinesq theory
indicates a dishing profile is correct.
It is possible to indirectly allow for coupling as fol- pressure bulbs in Bowles (1982) might be used. This is
lows (Bowles 1984 and Fig. 6.10): done at sufficient points so that the mat plan can be
1. Obtain a vertical pressure profile for the mat us- subsequently zoned with different values of k,. Use a
ing any accepted procedure. The Newmark (1935) convenient influence depth of 38 to 5B, subject to the
method in Bowles (1984) might be programmed or the approval of the geotechnical engineer. Only slightly
ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 0 FOOTINGS AND MATS 336.2R-17
2 has 4 areas with 2 contributions

from
Point 3 has 4 contributing areas

from 3-C-D-E-3
Possible zones are as shown with outer zone using ks furnished

ther zones are bounded by a-b-c-d and e-f-g-h; inner zone is e-f-g-h.
Edge l/4 point Center

I.
are rounded from

Table 6-l
Compute average DQ as:

(1.0 ; 0.028 + 0.40 + 0.24 + 0.146 + 0.095 + 0.066 + 0.048 + 0.036)
= O.l93(qo) Using values directly from Table 6-1
For ks = 500: Obtain edge k = 500; zone 1 = 500(.193/.235) = 410.6 (use 410.)
Central values= 500(.193/.250) = 386.
Fig. 6. 10-Method of computing coupled ks
different results are obtained using 3B versus 10B in an 2. Numerically integrate the vertical stress profile to
elastic system, therefore, a suggested value of 4B may obtain the average pressure DO. Designate the edge
be sufficiently accurate. value as DO,. - -
Table 6.1 provides values at the 5/s points for several 3. Compute ks at any point i (refer to Fig. 6.10) as
mat plans which can he used directly or with linear in-
terpolation for other mat shapes. (6-8)
Table 6.1-Vertical pressure profiles by Newmarks 1935 method (in

Bowles 1985) for selected points beneath a foundation as shown
B/L = 1
PRESSURE PROFILE FOR POINTS:
DY 1 2 3 4 5
0 .00 B 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
0 .50B 0.400 0.530 0.628 0.683 0.701
1.00B 0.240 0.278 0.309 0.329 0.336
1.50B 0.146 0.160 0.170 0.177 0.179
2.00B 0.095 0.100 0.105 0.107 0.108
2.50B 0.066 0.068 0.070 0.071 0.072
3.00B 0.048 0.049 0.050 0.050 0.051
3.50B 0.036 0.037 0.037 0.038 0.038
4.00B 0.028 0.028 0.029 0.029 0.029
AVERAGE PRESSURE INCREASE

DQ = 0.193 0.217 0.235 0.246 0.250
B/L = 2
DY 1 2 3 4 5
0.00B 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
0.50B 0.408 0.648 0.757 0.792 0.800
1.00B 0.270 0.362 0.431 0.469 0.481
1.50B 0.186 0.229 0.263 0.285 0.293
2.00B 0.135 0.157 0.175 0.186 0.190
2.50B 0.101 0.113 0.123 0.129 0.131
3.00B 0.078 0.085 0.090 0.094 0.095
3.50B 0.061 0.066 0.069 0.071 0.072
4.00B 0.049 0.052 0.054 0.056 0.056

DQ = 0.220 0.273 0.304 0.319 0.324
B/L = 3
DY 1 2 3 4 5
0.00B 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
0.50B 0.409 0.718 0.796 0.811 0.814
1.00B 0.274 0.408 0.486 0.517 0.525
1.50B 0.195 0.262 0.312 0.340 0.348
2.00B 0.147 0.l85 0.216 0.235 0.241
2.50B 0.115 0.138 0.157 0.170 0.174
3.00B 0.092 0.107 0.119 0.127 0.130
3.50B 0.075 0.085 0.093 0.098 0.100
4.00B 0.062 0.069 0.075 0.078 0.079

DQ = 0.230 0.305 0.340 0.355 0.359
I
l.OB
tY
The furnished value of ks is taken for the mat perime- the gridding scheme used for the mat. When doing this
ter zone. take into account how the nodal springs will be com-
4. Assign values of ksi in the interior as practical for puted (refer to Fig. 6.8 and 6.10).
6.8-Consolidation settlement In order of increasing difficulty, the suggested pro-

Consolidation settlement and recompression of heave cedures are:
can be incorporated into the mat analysis in an approx- 1. Using direct area contributions for all springs
imate manner as follows: (common practice but not correct, as stated previ-
1. Compute the estimated consolidation settlements ously).
ZJ H,, at the several points as used for the coupling 2. Doubling the edge springs (not strictly correct, but
analysis. This must also be done for the edge. not very difficult to program a routine in a mat pro-
2. Make a basic mat analysis (including coupling if gram).
this is going to be the method used). Inspect output for 3. Using the Boussinesq coupling of Section 6.7. This
edge pressures and obtain a best estimate of the edge- is the most accurate of the approximate procedures, but
pressure average. Also obtain node displacements AH, is also more difficult. Some difficulty can be reduced
and estimate node consolidation displacements AH,,. by programming a routine for most of the mechanical
The revised k'si can be computed from the basic defini- steps.
tions of ks 4. Using Methods 2 and 3 in combination.
4, = kst (&Y,j and k'st = q,/(AH, + AH,.,)

6.10-Computer output
to obtain The computer program for any of the three methods
(finite difference [FD], finite grid method [FGM], or
k'st = ksi (AH,)/(AH, + AH,,) (6-9) finite element method [FEM] should output:
1. X and Y bending moment summations at all nodes
3. Run the mat analysis with these new zoned values so that a statics check can be quickly made at points
of k'si Output will include effect of consolidation set- where this summation should be zero.
tlement. Edge nodes should compute a displacement 2. The displacement matrix. This should be routinely
approximately equal to the computed consolidation checked for any symmetry and points of known dis-
settlement from Step 2. placements (if any).
The problem may be cycled several times since the 3. Nodal soil reactions (forces) computed as
consolidation settlement computed depends on the mat
contact pressure, which may change as computations Force = Node spring x Displacement (6-10)
progress.
Since the consolidation settlement is time-dependent The node forces should be computed, summed, and
it may be appropriate (depending on time for consoli- compared to the sum of the vertical input forces (col-
dation) to use a reduced value of Ec for the concrete to umn loads and mat weight). Routinely check this to
allow for creep effects, within computer roundoff.
4. Nodal soil pressures computed as:
6.9-Edge springs for mats
An alternative to using the Boussinesq coupling pro- 4, = k, x Displacement (6-11)
cedure is to double the exterior edge springs (but not
any along edges of symmetry where a part of the mat is The node pressures q should not exceed the value rec-
analyzed). This doubling will include some coupling ef- ommended by the geotechnical engineer. If the pro-
fect and account somewhat for the higher theoretical gram considers nonlinear effects, both the node force
edge pressures claimed to develop in cohesive soils be- and node pressure is limited to some maximum value.
neath rigid plates. Doubling of springs for a plate with Verify that the program uses this by inspecting the dis-
a single column (as a spread footing) tends to give placements larger than the limiting value (and any that
computed differences of less than 10 percent for mo- indicate soil separation).
ments at the column faces. If a program is reasonably complete in providing the
Doubling of springs for mats can give differences be- above output, the designer can make a rapid check of
tween computer-generated values as much as 20 per- the computations. A check of the mat data (node co-
cent larger with the higher values obtained from dou- ordinates, etc.) will usually take much longer; however,
bling. A Committee comparison using the FGM and the the check may identify that some input is bad if the
mat given by Shukla (1984) showed that doubling the computed output is grossly in error. Where errors
edge springs produced computed moments about 18 to might occur, a user should modify the program to print
25 percent higher and that the larger moments gave a (on demand) the full stiffness matrix (in blocks so the
better comparison to the values computed by hand in pages can be cut and pasted) to display the matrix for
that reference. inspection of symmetry. Since the stiffness matrix is al-
It should be noted, however, that doubling the edge ways symmetrical and has no zeroes on the diagonal,
springs tends towards the same end result as using the this provides a good check on the internal program-
Boussinesq coupling procedure, since the reduction of ming used to develop the stiffness matrix. While this
the interior values of ks for a mat is similar to increas- check produces a large amount of paper output, the
ing the soil resistance at the edge. paper cost is negligible compared to a design error.
6.11-Two-dimensional or three-dimensional both directions. As localized flexure requirements dic-

analysis tate, additional reinforcement is placed in the same
A mat designed as a plate on an elastic foundation layer, or as additional layers to add strength to the sec-
using soil concentrations at the nodes is considered a tion. It is essential that the engineer prepare thorough
two-dimensional analysis (2-D). If the mat is placed on drawings documenting all phases of the reinforcement
the soil and the soil is modeled using three-dimensional placement. Splice locations must be shown and lengths
solids. the analysis is termed three-dimensional (3-D). noted. Specification of placement sequence is very im-
A 3-D analysis is extremely costly in modeling time portant. To insure structural integrity, short staggered
and use of computer resources. At present, computer lap splices should be used instead of long splices occur-
programs are not widely available to model the soil as ring at one location. On large jobs, No. 14 and No. 18
a 3-D continuum and most use has been for nuclear bars may be used to minimize the number of pieces on
power plants. the job and to reduce the quantity of bar layers.
Since any mat analysis is only as good as the soil pa-
rameters, it is usually difficult to justify a 5 to 10 per-
cent computational difference when the soil parameters
may only be estimates or a range of values. This is par-
ticularly true if:
a. 3-D analysis cost is four or five times that of a 2-D CHAPTER 7-SUMMARY
analysis. The recommendations given in Chapters 1 through 6
b. Design personnel are not particularly familiar with may be used as a guide in analysis and design of com-
the program or methodology. bined footings (two or more columns in a line) or mat
The major appeal of a 3-D analysis is for soil cou- foundations. These recommendations represent the
pling. Since coupling can be handled within the preci- collective opinion of the Committee members based on
sion of the soil response prediction as outlined in both practice and a survey of published literature. The
Section 6.7, there is little to justify use of a 3-D mat Committee recognizes that it is impossible to cover all
analysis. foundation cases likely to be encountered by a designer
and no attempt has been made to do this.
6.12-Mat thickness The Committee recognizes that the state of the art in
The FD and FEM methods imply use of thin plate computerized analyses is substantially ahead of the
theory. While an investigator may question whether a ability of engineers to determine soil properties accu-
5-ft (1.8 m) mat is a thin plate, a thin plate analysis is rately. The use of computer methods is recommended
generally used and is adequate. The FGM method since they allow parametric studies so that a range of
makes no assumption on plate thickness but analyzes possible (or probable) soil responses can be investi-
what is given. gated.
A comparison study by Frederick (1957) showed that The Committee concedes that the Winkler founda-
a plate would have to be quite thick to invalidate the tion model can be improved, but the increased compu-
thin plate theory model. tational complexity is not warranted when soil proper-
ties are taken into account. For this reason the simple
coupling procedure outlined here which relies on the
6.13-Parametric studies widely used Boussinesq theory will generally be ade-
It is very difficult for the geotechnical engineer to quate if some additional computational refinement is
provide accurate elastic design parameters for the soil wanted.
(Es, p, and ks). Recognizing this, the structural designer Computer analyses are generally more efficient than
and geotechnical engineer may do a parametric study,
hand computations - particularly of the beam-on-
varying the value of ks over a range of one-half the fur- elastic-foundation type since interpolation of table or
nished value to five or ten times the furnished value. curve values is eliminated. This statement also recog-
The results of the parametric study should be re-
nizes the current widespread availability of desk-top to
viewed by the geotechnical engineer during the course
main-frame computer systems.
of the design. If no satisfactory solution is found, then
Finally, the Committee notes that, with the same care
adjustments in the development concept may be appro- and attention to detail, the real advantage of the com-
priate. Adjustments may include: reducing the weight puter approach is the ability to better capture the ef-
of the structure (change from reinforced concrete to fects of irregular geometry and foundation flexibility.
structural steel), enlarging the mat in plan, or deepen-
The keywords are with the same care. The analysis
ing the mat base to reduce the net applied pressure. and design of a mat foundation is a problem in soil-
Such adjustments should be made only with the con- structure interaction requiring a close working relation-
currence of the geotechnical engineer. ship between the structural and geotechnical engineer.
Although published values of soil response parameters
6.14-Mat foundation detailing/construction are available, geotechnical engineering analysis and
To simplify steel placement, it is common practice to judgement are needed to make the values meaningful to
provide a layer of top and bottom reinforcement in the design.
CHAPTER 8--REFERENCES Ghali, A., and Neville, A. M.. 1972, Structural Analysis: A Uni-
8.1 -Specified and/or recommended references fied Classical and Matrix Approach. Intext Educational Publishers
(Now Harper and Row), Chapters 17-20.
American Concrete Institute Haddadin, M. J.. 1971. Analysis and Design of Foundation Mats
318-83 Building Code Requirements for and Combined Footings-Program Users Manual, Portland Ce-
(Revised 1986) Reinforced Concrete ment Association, Skokie. 55 pp.
Hetenyi, M., 1946. Beams on Elastic Foundation. University of
Michigan Press. Ann Arbor, pp. 100-106.
8.2 -Cited references Kramrisch, Fritz, and Rogers, Paul, Oct. 1961. Simplified Design
ACI Committee 336, 1966, Suggested Design Procedures for
of Combined Footings, Proceedings. ASCE, V. 88, SM5, pp. 19-44.
Combined Footings and Mats, American Concrete Institute. De-
Kramrisch, Fritz, 1984, Footings, Handbook of Concrete Engi-
troit, 13 pp.
neering, 2nd Edition. Mark Fintel. Editor, Van Nostrand Reinhold
Ball. Steven C., and Notch, James S., May 1984, Computer Co., New York, pp. 139-168.
Analysis/Design of Large Mar Foundations, Journal of Structural
Meyerhof, G. G., June 1953. Some Recent Foundation Research
Engineering, ASCE, V. 110, No. 5, pp. 1180-1196. and its Application to Design, The Structural Engineer (London), V.
Banavalkar, P. V.. and Ulrich, E. J., Jr., 1984, Republic Bank 31, No. 6.
Center: Structural and Geotechnical Features, International Con- Newmark, N. M., 1935. Simplified Computation of Vertical
ference on Tall Buildings, Singapore, Oct. Pressures in Elastic Foundations, Experiment Station Circular No.
Bowles, Joseph E., 1974, Analytical and Computer Methods in 24, University of Illinois, Urbana.
Foundation Engineering, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, pp. Schleicher, Ferdinand, 1926, Kreisplatten auf elastischer Unter-
154, 155, and 168-170. lage, Jules Springer, Berlin.
Bowles, Joseph E.. 1975, Spread Footings, Foundation Engi- Scott, R. F., 1981, Foundation Analysis, Prentice-Hall, Inc.. En-
neering Handbook, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York. Chap- glewood Cliffs, pp. 150-197.
ter 15, pp. 490-491. Shukla, Shyam N., Sept.-Oct. 1984, A Simplified Method for
Bowles. Joseph E., 1976, Mat Foundations and Computer Design of Mats on Elastic Foundations, ACI JOURNAL, Proceed-
Analysis of Mat Foundations, Proceedings, Short Course-Seminar ings V. 81. No. 5, pp. 469-475.
on Analysis and Design of Building Foundations (Lehigh Univer- Sowers, G. F.. 1977, Foundation Modulus for a Mat on Sand,
sity), Envo Press, Lehigh Valley, pp. 209-232 and 233-256. Preprint No. 29371. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York.
Bowles, Joseph E., 1982. Foundation Analysis and Design, 3rd Teng. Wayne Chi-Yu, 1962. Foundation Design, Prentice-Hall,
Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Co.. New York, 800 pp. Inc., Englewood Cliffs, pp. 174-191.
Bowles. Joseph E.. 1983, Pile Cap Analysis, Proceedings, 8th Terzaghi. K., Dec. 1955, Evaluation of Coefficients of Subgrade
Conference on Electronic Computation (Houston), American Society Reaction, Geotechnique (London), V. 5, No. 4, pp. 297-326.
of Civil Engineers, New York, pp. 102-113. Timoshenko, S., and Woinowsky-Krieger, S.. 1959, Theory of
Bowles, Joseph E.. 1984. Physical and Geotechnical Properties of Plates and Shells, 2nd Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York,
Soil, 2nd Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1984, Chap- pp. 259-281.
ter IO. Ulrich, E.J., 1988, Geotechnical Considerations in Mat Founda-
Christian, J. T., 1976, Soil-Foundation-Structure Interaction.
tion Design, Structural and Geotechnical Lecture Series, Illinois
Proceedings, Short Course-Seminar on Analysis and Design of
section, ASCE, Chicago.
Building Foundations (Lehigh University), Envo Press, Lehigh Val- Ulrich, E. J., and Focht, J. A., 1982. First City National Bank
ley. pp. 149-179. to Texas Commerce Tower: Lessons Learned, Preprint No. 82-532,
Collatz, L., 1960, The Numerical Treatment of Differential Equa- ASCE National Convention (New Orleans), American Society of Civil
tions, 3rd Edition, Springer-Verlag. Berlin. Engineers, New York.
Cook, R. D., 1974, Concepts and Applications of Finite Element U.S. Department of the Interior, 1960. Moments and Reactions
Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 402 pp. for Rectangular Plates, Engineering Monograph No. 27. Bureau of
Department of the Navy, 1982, Soil Mechanics, Design Manual Reclamation, Denver.
NAVFAC DM-7.1. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Alexan- Winterkorn, Hans F., and Fang, Hsai-Yang. 1975, Foundation
dria, pp. 7.1-161 - 7.1-241. Engineering Handbook, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, pp.
Department of the Navy, 1982, Foundations and Earth Struc- 481-555.
tures, Design Manual NAVFAC DM-7.2, Naval Facilities Engi- Zienkiewicz. O. C., 1977, The Finite Element Method, 3rd Edi-
neering Command, Alexandria, pp. 7.2-129 - 7.2-159. tion, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 808 pp.
Focht, John A., Jr.; Khan, Fazlur, R.; and Gemeinhardt, J. Peter,
May 1978, Performance of One Shell Plaza Deep Mat Founda-
tion, Proceedings, ASCE, V. 104, GT5, pp. 593-608.
Frederick, Daniel, 1957, Thick Rectangular Plates on an Elastic
Foundation, Transactions, ASCE, V. 122. pp. 1069-1085. Also, see This report was submitted to letter ballot of the committee and was ap-
Discussion, p. 1086, which corrects conclusions presented in paper. proved according to ACI balloting procedures.

Suggested Analysis and Design Procedures For Combined Footings and Mats

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Suggested Analysis and Design Procedures For Combined Footings and Mats

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Suggested Analysis and Design Procedures For Combined Footings and Mats

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ACI 336.

Suggested Analysis and Design Procedures for

Edward J. Ulrich Shyam N. Shukla

ACI Committee Reports, Guides, Standard Practices, and

IF = moment of inertia per one unit width of the foundation, t

1.3.1 Definitions 1.3.2 Loadings-Loadings used for design should

2.2-Factors to be considered considered to act as a rigid body, a uniform settlement

combined footing can be chosen by the design engi-

follow either a distribution governed by elastic subgrade

CHAPTER 5-GRID FOUNDATIONS AND STRIP

5.2-Footings supporting rigid structures

An approximate value of EIB per unit width of build-

framed member E'Ib' and the flexural stiffness of any

This grid produces 70 elements, 82 nodes, 246

a. Mat with wall, notch. and irregular shape

6.4.1 Iso-parametric elements-An element is of the

methodology. The method is heavily computation-in-

Pl, P2, P4, P5 = moment (x i = 0,)

Start node coding at upper

typical beam element with

The FEM plate element

Additional nodes are allowed with some programs

a. Gridding through a column center

b. Gridding through column

C. Pro-rating a column axial load (or

Theereduced model gives: NP = 3 x 25 = 75

Compute spring constants Ki as follows:

K2 = 6kB/4 + CkC/4 (typical side spring)

K3 = CkC/4 (typical corner spring)

K4 = AkA/3 + EkE/4 + DkD/3

K5 = AkA/3 + (BkB + Ek E + FkF)/4

K6 = (BkB + CkC + FkF + Gkti)/4 (typical interior spring)

Fig. 6.8-Computation of uncoupled Winkler-type soil node springs

or mat-soil separation at nodes. This allows reuse of the

2 has 4 areas with 2 contributions

Point 3 has 4 contributing areas

Possible zones are as shown with outer zone using ks furnished

Edge l/4 point Center

are rounded from

Compute average DQ as:

= O.l93(qo) Using values directly from Table 6-1

Fig. 6. 10-Method of computing coupled ks

Table 6.1-Vertical pressure profiles by Newmarks 1935 method (in

AVERAGE PRESSURE INCREASE

AVERAGE PRESSURE INCREASE

AVERAGE PRESSURE INCREASE

6.8-Consolidation settlement In order of increasing difficulty, the suggested pro-

4, = kst (&Y,j and k'st = q,/(AH, + AH,.,)

6.11-Two-dimensional or three-dimensional both directions. As localized flexure requirements dic-

You might also like