PROJECT REPORT

on
ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF FOUNDATIONS ON
DIFFERENT TYPES OF SOILS IN AND AROUND
CHENNAI
Submitted in partial fulfillment for the award of the degree
of
BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY
in
CIVIL ENGINEERING
by

BETHALA SRILEKHA 1011010037

ABHILASH REDDY 1011010012
BHARGAV V 1011010039
NITESH REDDY B 1011010041
Under the guidance of
Mrs. T. V. PREETHI
(Assistant Professor)

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
SRM UNIVERSITY
(Under section 3 of UGC Act, 1956)

SRM Nagar, Kattankulathur- 603203

Kancheepuram District

APRIL 2014

i
 PROJECT REPORT
on
ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF FOUNDATIONS ON
DIFFERENT TYPES OF SOILS IN AND AROUND
CHENNAI
Submitted in partial fulfillment for the award of the degree
of
BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY
in
CIVIL ENGINEERING
by

BETHALA SRILEKHA 1011010037

ABHILASH REDDY 1011010012
BHARGAV V 1011010039
NITESH REDDY B 1011010041
Under the guidance of
Mrs. T. V. PREETHI
(Assistant Professor)

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
SRM UNIVERSITY
(Under section 3 of UGC Act, 1956)

SRM Nagar, Kattankulathur- 603203

Kancheepuram District

APRIL 2014

ii
 BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE

Certified that this project report titled “ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF

FOUNDATIONS ON DIFFERENT TYPES OF SOILS IN AND AROUND

CHENNAI” is the bonafide work of BETHALA SRILEKHA (1011010037),

ABHILASH REDDY (1011010012), BHARGAV V (1011010039) and

NITESH REDDY (1011010041) who carried out the project under my

supervision. Certified further, that to the best of my knowledge the work

reported herein does not form part of any other project report or dissertation on

the basis of which a degree or award was conferred on an earlier occasion or

any other candidate.

Signature of the Guide Signature of the HOD

Mrs. T. V. PREETHI Dr. R. ANNADURAI

Assistant Professor Professor & Head
Department of Civil Engineering Department of Civil Engineering
SRM University SRM University
Kattankulathur- 603203 Kattankulathur- 603203

INTERNAL EXAMINER EXTERNAL EXAMINER

DATE:

iii
 ABSTRACT

The present study illustrates the study of bearing capacity different types
of soil available in Chennai and selection of suitable foundation systems for
various loading conditions.
For the soil studies, the first step has been collection of samples. Three
samples have been taken from three diverse locations in Chennai. Index
properties of the samples have been determined by conducting experiments
governed by Indian Standard codes.
For the analysis of superstructure loading, 3 diverse loading conditions
viz., a residential, a high rise and a commercial building have been analyzed.
STAAD.pro has been adopted for all analysis purposes.
The bearing capacities for shallow foundations have been computed
adopting Terzaghi and IS code methods. Static analysis has been adopted for the
computation of the ultimate load carrying capacity of piles.
From the above results, isolated footing and piles foundation systems
have been selected and IS codes were followed to govern the design of the
same.
Various design constraints for the project such as economic, social and
safety constraint have been identified and all design and construction work is
carried out by overcoming these constraints.
The final drawing of the foundations is done using AutoCAD showing
the dimensions and the reinforcement details.

iv
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We would like to place on record, our grateful thanks to Dr.T.P.GANESAN,

Pro Vice Chancellor (P&D), for providing all facilities and help in carrying out this project.
We thank Dr. C. MUTHAMIZHCHELVAN, Director (E&T) for the stimulus provided.
We are extremely grateful to Dr. R. ANNADURAI, Professor and Head, Department
of Civil Engineering for the encouragement and support provided during the project work.
We express our sincere thanks to the coordinator Dr. K. GUNASEKARAN,
Professor, for his valuable suggestions for improvement during project reviews.
We hereby acknowledge with deep sense of gratitude the valuable guidance,
encouragement and suggestions given by our guide Mrs. T.V. PREETHI, Assistant
Professor (O.G) who has been a constant source of inspiration throughout this project.
Also, we would like to take this opportunity to thank all the faculty members and non-
teaching staff members in the Department of Civil Engineering for their direct and indirect
help rendered during the course of the project work.
We also thank the staff of SRM DTP section for their efforts in composing the project
report. We record our sincere thanks to our parents for the support and motivation.
Last, but not the least, we thank all our friends, who freely helped us in many ways
towards the successful completion of this project work.

SRILKEHA B
ABHILASH REDDY A
BHARGAV V
NITESH REDDY

v
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER TITLE PAGE

ABSTRACT iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT v
LIST OF TABLES ix
LIST OF FIGURES x
ABBREVATIONS xi
1 OVERVIEW 1
1.1 OBJECTIVE 1
1.2 NECESSITY ` 1
1.3 SCOPE 1
1.4 METHODOLOGY 2
1.5 MAJOR DESIGN EXPERIENCE 2
1.6 REALISTIC DESIGN CONSTRAINTS 2
1.7 REFERENCE TO CODES AND STANDARS 3
1.8 APPLICATION OF EARLIER COURSE WORKS 3
1.9 MULTIDISCIPLINARY AND TEAM WORK 4
1.10 SOFTWARES / EQUIPMENTS USED 4
2 INTRODUCTION 6
2.1 GENERAL 6
2.2 LITERATURE REVIEW 6
2.2.1 Shallow foundation design 7
2.2.2 Pile foundation design 7
2.3 SUMMARY OF LITERATURE REVIEW 7
3 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE 8
3.1 OBJECTIVE 8
3.2 SCOPE 8
3.3 MATERIALS AND METHOLOGY 8
3.3.1 Brief methodology 8
3.3.2 Steps followed 9
3.3.2.1 Sample collection 9
3.3.2.1 Experimental study 9

vi
 3.3.2.3 Analysis of bearing capacity 9
3.3.2.3.1 Shallow foundations 9
3.3.2.3.2 Deep foundations 10
3.3.2.4 Analysis of superstructure loading 10
3.3.2.5 Design of foundation system 10
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 11
4.1 PLANNING 11
4.1.1 Collection of samples 11
4.1.2 Laboratory tests performed 11
4.1.2.1 Sieve analysis 11
4.1.2.2 Determination of specific gravity 11
4.1.2.3 Liquid limit and plastic limit 12
4.1.2.4 Unconfined compression test 12
4.1.2.5 Direct shear test 12
4.1.3 Soil classification based on test results 13
4.2 ANALYSIS 14
4.2.1 Design of foundation systems 14
4.2.1.1 Introduction 14
4.2.1.2 Bearing capacity from laboratory tests 14
4.2.1.3 Computation of bearing capacity 15
4.2.2 Shallow foundations 15
4.2.2.1 Terzaghi’s bearing capacity theory 15
4.2.2.1.1 Sample A 16
4.2.2.1.2 Sample T 17
4.2.2.1.2 Sample P 17
4.2.2.2 Is code method for bearing capacity design 18
4.2.2.2.1 Sample A 19
4.2.2.2.2 Sample T 20
4.2.2.2.2 Sample P 20
4.2.3 Deep foundations (pile foundations) 21
4.2.3.1 Static analysis 21
4.2.3.1.1 End bearing capacity 22
4.2.3.1.1.1 Sample A 22
4.2.3.1.1.2 Sample T 22

vii
 4.2.3.1.1.3 Sample P 23
4.2.3.1.2 Skin friction resistance 23
4.2.3.1.2.1 Sample A 24
4.2.3.1.2.2 Sample T 24
4.2.3.1.2.3 Sample P 25
4.2.4 Results of bearing capacity computation 25
4.2.5 Superstructure loading ( analysis of loads) 25
4.2.5.1 Load estimation 26
4.2.5.1.1 Residential building 26
4.2.5.1.2 High rise building 30
4.2.5.1.3 Commercial building 35
4.3 DESIGN 39
4.3.1 Isolated footing design 39
4.3.1.1 Sample T- building B1 39
4.3.1.2 Sample P- building B1 42
4.3.1.3 Sample A- building B1 46
4.3.2 Pile foundation design 50
4.3.2.1 Sample A-building B2,B3 50
4.3.2.2 Sample T,P- building B2,B3 ` 52
5 CONCLUSION 56
REFERENCES 57

viii
 LIST OF TABLES

TABLE TITLE PAGE

1.1 List of codes and standards 3
1.2 Application of earlier coarse work 4
4.1 Index properties of sample A 13
4.2 Index properties of sample T 13
4.3 Index properties of sample P 14
4.4 Bearing capacity factors for angle of
shearing resistance 16
4.5 Shape factor 18
4.6 Bearing capacity factors 19
4.7 Vesic’s value of Nq for deep foundation 22
4.8 Adhesion factors for piles in clay 23
4.9 Coefficient of friction between sand and
pile materials 24
4.10 Results of bearing capacity computation 25
4.11 Axial forces and bending moment for B1 26
4.12 Nodal displacement detail B1 29
4.13 Nodal displacement detail B2 30
4.14 Axial forces and bending moment B2 33
4.15 Nodal displacement detail for B3 36
4.16 Axial forces and bending moment for B3 37
4.17 Maximum column load values extracted from
STAAD.Pro 39

ix
 LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE TITLE PAGE

1.1 Methodology flow chart 2
4.1 Beam end force for Building B1 26
4.2 Nodal displacement for Building B1 28
4.3 Nodal displacement for Building B2 30
4.4 Beam end force for Building B2 32
4.5 Nodal displacement for Building B3 35
4.6 Beam end force for Building B3 37
4.7 Isolated footing design for TB1 42
4.8 Isolated footing design for PB1 46
4.9 Isolated footing design for AB1 49
4.10 Pile foundation design for AB2,AB3 52
4.11 Pile foundation design for PB2,PB3, TB2,TB3 55

x
xi
 CHAPTER 1

OVERVIEW

1.1 OBJECTIVE

The objectives of the project are as follows:

 To analyse the characteristics of the soil strata present in different locations in

and around Chennai.
 As per the soil strata present in the field, the suitable foundation is to be
designed.
 To analyse the superstructure for different structures such as
 Residential building
 High rise building
 Commercial building
 To provide suitable foundation under critical condition due to the soil.

1.2 NECESSITY
 Chennai being a metropolitan city, its infrastructure should be well
diversified to cater the rising demand due to increase in population.
 Hence, arises the necessity to be able to utilize all the available land with its
divergent soil conditions.
 These reasons are why we decided to analyse and design foundations for
three types of buildings for the critical soil conditions available in Chennai.

1.3 SCOPE
This project includes the estimation of safe bearing capacity (SBC) and
analysis of superstructure loads for the assumed residential building, high rise

1
building and a commercial building and selection and design of the most reliable
foundation under critical soil conditions.

1.4 METHODOLOGY
The methodology followed is shown in Figure 1.1.

Collection of Determination of Analysis of

samples index properties bearing capacity

Design of Analysis of super

foundation structure loading
systems

Fig. 1.1 Methodology

1.5 MAJOR DESIGN EXPERIENCE

Design experience that has been gained during the course of the project is the
design of pile foundation systems and isolated footings. Also the analysis of safe
bearing capacity in shallow foundations and static analysis for ultimate load carrying
capacity of piles. The load analysis for superstructure has been performed adopting
STAAD.pro.

1.6 REALISTIC DESIGN CONSTRAINTS

 Environmental: The corrosive effect of salt content present in the soil
near offshore structures might have a disastrous effect on the foundation.
 Political: As per the scope of the project the soil is assumed to be
homogeneous and the effects of the adjacent buildings on the foundation
are neglected.
 Safety: Piles and footings, all the design satisfy the safety norms for
strength and serviceability.

2
1.7 REFERENCE TO CODES AND STANDARDS
As far as the codes and standards are concerned, for the design of isolated
footings and piles, the Indian Standard (IS) codes have been used. The soil testing
was also governed by Indian Standard (IS) codes. In case where the IS codes were
not sufficient and for the process of comparing, the theory’s put forward by various
scientists viz., Terzaghi and Vesic have been used. The codes and standards used in
this project are shown in Table 1.1
Table 1.1 List of Codes and Standards

Codes/ Standards Context

IS 1080:1985 Code of practice for Design and Construction of Shallow

Foundations in Soils

IS 1904:1986 Code of practice for Design and Construction of Foundation in

Soils; general requirement

IS 2911:1985 Code of practice for design and construction of pile

foundations

IS 2720: 1975 Code of practise for methods of testing of soils.

1.8 APPLICATION OF EARLIER COURSE WORK

The knowledge gained from some of the earlier courses are used in this
project and are listed in Table 1.2.

3
 Table 1.2 Application of earlier course work

Course code and name Context

ME0130A-Engineering
Graphics
To draw plans necessary for the assumed
buildings and to draw the respective
CE0104- Computer Aided
foundations as designed
Building Drawing

Study of geological factors affecting design,

construction, operation and maintenance of
CE0203- Engineering Geology
engineering works

Compute and analyze loads acting on the piles

CE0301- Structural Analysis I
and other foundation elements

CE0303- Structural Design II Design of foundation and footings

Determining soil index properties, safe

bearing capacity (SBC), and settlement
CE0305- Soil Mechanics
analysis.

CE 0311 – Soil Mechanics

Conducting soil tests
Laboratory

CE 0306 – Foundation Analysing settlement and design of

Engineering foundation.

1.9 MULTIDISCIPLINARY COMPONENT AND TEAM WORK

This project involved students interaction with the Government officials, the
local occupants and faculty while collecting required samples from the study area
and conducting experiments in the soil mechanics laboratory etc.

1.10 SOFTWARE/ EQIPMENT USED

The various software/equipment used in the project are:
 AutoCAD

4
 STAAD.pro
 Direct shear apparatus
 Unconfined compression testing machine
 Casagandre’s apparatus

5
 CHAPTER 2

INTRODUCTION

2.1 GENERAL
A shallow foundation is a type of foundation which transfers building loads
to the earth very near the surface, rather than to a subsurface layer or a range of
depths as does a deep foundation. Shallow foundations include spread footing
foundations, mat-slab foundations, slab-on-grade foundations, pad
foundations, rubble trench technique, and earth bag foundations. (Ref 1)
A deep foundation is a type of foundation distinguished from shallow
foundations by the depth they are embedded into the ground. There are many reasons
a geotechnical engineer would recommend a deep foundation over a shallow
foundation, but some of the common reasons are very large design loads, a
poor soil at shallow depth, or site constraints (like property lines). There are different
terms used to describe different types of deep foundations including the pile (which
is analogous to a pole), the pier (which is analogous to a column), drilled shafts,
and caissons. Piles are generally driven into the ground in situ; other deep
foundations are typically put in place using excavation and drilling. The naming
conventions may vary between engineering disciplines and firms. Deep foundations
can be made out of timber, steel, reinforced concrete and prestressed concrete.
(Ref 2)

2.2 LITERATURE REVIEW

This project demands through the study of terminology and the methods of
construction of shallow and deep foundation. The required details are collected from
the literature and also from earlier course study (i.e.) geotechnical engineering are
summarized here.

6
2.2.1 Shallow foundation design
A shallow foundation must be designed not to excessively settle or reach the
ultimate bearing capacity of the subsurface. Each criterion is dependent on the
footing geometry and several soil properties, which must be accurately determined
before design. Because soil properties are rather difficult to obtain, close scrutiny
should be used when interpreting laboratory or in-situ tests and lack of doing so may
lead to incorrect predictions. Once the soil properties are understood, the proper
bearing capacity factors should be selected to obtain an accurate bearing capacity.
(Ref 3)

2.2.2 Pile foundation design

Pile foundations are generally adopted in the following situations:
 Low bearing capacity of the soil.
 Non availability of proper bearing stratum at shallow depths.
 Heavy loads from the super structure for which shallow foundation
may not be economically feasible. (Ref 4)

2.3 SUMMARY OF LITERATURE REVIEW

Based on the above literatures studied, it is clear that soil testing is evident in
the computation of bearing capacity. Depending on these literatures, the
methodology has been sequenced and followed. The foundation systems for different
situations have been selected depending on the general criterion decided in the
literatures that have been studied.

7
 CHAPTER 3

OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE

3.1 OBJECTIVE
The objective of this project is to basically design foundations systems in any
given soil in and around Chennai. To achieve this, the project involves, experimental
study on soil samples is conducted to analyze the index properties, which in turn is
used for bearing capacity computations. Depending on the super structure loading
and the bearing capacities the foundations are selected and designed respectively.

3.2 SCOPE
The scope of this project involved the comprehensive planning, analyses and
design of suitable foundation systems. The bearing capacity of shallow foundations
has been computed by two different methods, one being Terzaghi’s theory and the
other adopting Indian Standard (IS) codes. The deep foundations i.e., the ultimate
load carrying capacity of the piles have been computed by statically analysing.

3.3 MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY

The first step in any project is data collection and analysis or otherwise called
literature review. The literature review was followed by the steps briefed below.

3.3.1 Brief methodology

The work is analytical, experimental and computer stimulation in nature. Our
main aspect is to estimate the bearing capacity of the soil samples collected from
three different locations in Chennai and to design suitable and strong foundations for
all the types of buildings which can be possibly constructed in the near future.

8
3.3.2 Steps followed
The various steps that are sequenced in this project are

3.3.2.1 Sample collection

Three locations viz., Adyar, T Nagar and Perambur areas of Chennai have
been selected for soil sampling. 1 meter depth of soil sample has been extracted.
From each chosen area, 3 samples were taken to conduct various experimental
analysis.

3.3.2.2 Experimental Study

The soil tests were conducted to determine the index properties of the soil
samples collected. The various tests that have been conducted were
 Sieve analysis
 Specific gravity
 Liquid and plastic limit
 Unconfined compression test
 Direct shear test

3.3.2.3 Analysis of bearing capacity

Analysis has been divided into two methods depending on the foundations
employed.
 Shallow foundations
 Deep foundations

3.3.2.3.1 Shallow foundations

Analysis of bearing capacity for shallow foundations has been done by two
methods.
 Terzaghi’s bearing capacity theory
 Indian Standard(IS) code method
From the results obtained the least value has been taken for design of
foundation systems.

9
3.3.2.3.2 Deep foundations
Pile foundation systems have been employed for deep foundations. The
ultimate bearing capacities of piles have been analyzed by static analysis. Static
analysis was performed for both, end bearing resistance and skin friction resistance.

3.3.2.4 Analysis of superstructure loading

Plans for three types of buildings were done using AutoCAD viz., residential
building (G+2), high rise building (G+10) and commercial building (G+10). Load
analysis has been performed on these buildings adopting STAAD.pro.

3.3.2.5 Design of foundation system

The entire design has been governed by Indian Standard (IS) codes.
Depending on the bearing capacities and STAAD.pro analysis suitable foundation
have been selected and designed.

10
 CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1 PLANNING
4.1.1 Collection of samples
The samples have been collected in the following areas of Chennai:
 Sample 1- Adyar ( A)
 Sample 2- T Nagar ( T)
 Sample 3- Perambur ( P )

4.1.2 Laboratory tests performed

The experiments carried out for this study are as following
4.1.2.1 Sieve analysis
A sieve analysis or gradation test is a practice or procedure used to assess the
particle size distribution of a granular material. The size distribution is often of
critical importance to the way the material performs in use. A sieve analysis can be
performed on any type of non- organic or organic granular materials including sands,
crushed rock, clays, granite, feldspar, coal, and soil, a wide range of manufactured
powders, grain and seeds, down to a minimum size depending on the exact method in
this project (SAND).
Being such a simple technique of particle sizing,it is probably the most common
technique used.

4.1.2.2 Determination of specific gravity

The specific gravity of solid particles (G) is defined as the ratio of the mass of
given volume of solids to the mass of equal volume of distilled water at 40C. Both
weights are taken in air. Specific gravity is computed by the equation 4.1 as follows

11
G = ρs/ρW (4.1)
The mass density of water, ρw at 4O C is 1 gm/ml. The specific gravity of
solids for most natural solid fall in the general range of 2.65 to 2.80, the smaller
values are for the coarse – grained soils. The specific gravity of the different particles
in a soil mass may not be the same. Wherever the specific gravity of a soil mass is
indicated, it is the average value of all the solid particles present in the soil mass.
Pycnometer is used for coarse grained soil and Density bottle is used for fine grained
soil. (Ref 5)

4.1.2.3 Liquid limit & plastic limit

The liquid limit may be defined as the minimum water content at which the
soil will flow under the application of a very small shearing force.
The procedure employed according to the IS standardisation is About 120 g
of dry pulverized soil sample passing 425 micron IS sieve is weighed, and mixed
thoroughly with distilled water in the evaporating dish to form a uniform thick paste.
The liquid limit device is adjusted to have a free fall of cup through 10 mm. A
portion of the paste is placed in the cup above the lowest spot, and squeezed down
with the spatula to have a horizontal surface. The specimen is trimmed by firm
strokes of spatula in such a way that the maximum depth of soil sample in the cup is
10 mm. The soil in the cup is divided along the diameter through the centre line of
the cam followed by firm strokes of the grooving tool so as to get a clean sharp
groove. Grooving tool (b) may be used for all soils, whereas grooving tool (a) may
be used only in clayey soils free from sand particles or fibrous materials. (Ref 5)

4.1.2.4 Unconfined compression test

The primary purpose of this test is to determine the unconfined compressive
strength, which is then used to calculate the unconsolidated-un drained shear strength
of clay under unconfined conditions. (Ref 5)
4.1.2.5 Direct shear test
A direct shear test also known as shear box test is a laboratory or a field test
used by geotechnical engineers to measure the shear strength parameters of soil or
rock material, or of discontinuities in or rock masses. (Ref 5)

12
4.1.3 Soil classification based on test results
The results of the experiments performed are obtained and tabulated. The
index properties of the soil samples A, B and C are tabulated in table 4.1, table 4.2
and table 4.3 with its classification respectively.
The Table 4.1 shows the index properties of sample A, which is classified
based on these properties.
Table 4.1 Index properties of sample A
Index properties of soil Values
Liquid Limit (%) 48
Plastic Limit (%) 20
Consistency Index (%) 28
Specific Gravity (GS) 2.3
UCS (kN/m2) 68
Un drained Cohesion (kN/m2) 34

The Table 4.2 shows the index properties of sample T, which is classified
based on these properties.
Table 4.2 Index properties of sample T
Index properties of soil Values
State of soil Medium (Coarse)
Void Ratio 0.35
Porosity 36%
Dry density (g/cc) 1.9
Dry unit weight (KN/m3) 19
Angle of internal friction (ϕ) 320

The Table 4.3 shows the index properties of sample P, which is classified
based on these properties.

13
 Table 4.3 Index properties of sample P
Index properties of soil Values
State of soil Loose (fine grained)
Void Ratio 0.85
Porosity 42.1%
Dry density (g/cc) 1.4
Dry unit weight (KN/m3) 14
Angle of internal friction (ϕ) 290

4.2 ANALYSIS
4.2.1 Design of foundation systems
4.2.1.1 Introduction
According to the observations from study, 3 types of buildings viz.,
residential building, high rise building and commercial building are assumed and
from the design analysis each footing loads are determined and from this calculation,
a study is carried out to check and design the best suitable foundation in each of the 3
samples of soils which are previously collected from various parts of Chennai and
tested. This includes the following,
 Assumption of a building to be built based on the result
 Determination of bearing capacity of the soil
 Analysis of structural loads
 Design of suitable foundation
 Calculation of safe design

4.2.1.2 Bearing capacity from laboratory tests

The bearing capacity of a cohesive soil can be evaluated from the unconfined
compression strength. From the concept of shearing strength, the bearing capacity of
a cohesive soil is the value of major principal stress at failure in shear. This stress in
failure is called unconfined compression strength, qu. it is given by the equation 4.2
as follows.
σ1 qu 2ctan(45+ϕ/2) (4.2)

14
qu 2c (4.3)
This applies at the ground surface, i.e., when Df 0. The ultimate bearing
capacity may be divided by a suitable factor of safety to give the safe bearing
capacity.
However this procedure as an indirect check of the ultimate bearing capacity
of cohesive soil, since the allowable soil pressures commonly specified in building
codes are conservative from the standpoint of safety against rupture of clay. (Ref 6)

4.2.1.3 Computation of bearing capacity

Bearing capacity is the capacity of soil to support the loads applied to the
ground. The bearing pressure of the soil is the maximum average contact pressure
between foundation and the soil which should not produce shear failure in the soil.
Ultimate bearing capacity is the theoretical maximum pressure which can be
supported without failure.
There are three modes of failure that limit bearing capacity: general shear
failure, local shear failure and punching shear failure. The general shear failure case
is the one which is normally analysed. Prevention against other failure modes is
accounted for implicitly in settlement calculations. There are many different methods
for computing when this failure will occur.
I. SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS
 Terzaghi’s bearing capacity theory
 IS CODE method
II. DEEP FOUNDATIONS

4.2.2 Shallow foundations

4.2.2.1 Terzaghi’s bearing capacity theory
Kal Von Terzaghi’s was the first to present a comprehensive theory for the
evaluation of the ultimate bearing capacity of rough shallow foundations. This theory
states that a foundation is shallow if its depth is less than or equal to its width.
Terzaghi developed a method for determining bearing capacity for the general shear

15
failure case in 1943. The equations, 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5 give the bearing capacity
equations for different shapes of foundations. (Ref 6)
For square foundations:
qult 1.3c’Nc + σ’zDNq + 0.4 γ’BN γ (4.4)
For continuous foundations:
qult c’Nc + σ’zDNq + 0.5 γ’BN γ (4.5)
For circular foundations:
qult 1.3c’Nc + σ’zDNq + 0.30 γ’BN γ (4.6)
The bearing capacity of the sample is computed using Terzaghi’s method for shallow
foundations for isolated square footing, assuming the water table is very deep. A
square footing is adopted, with dimensions:
 Size 3m
 Depth 1.5 m

4.2.2.1.1 Computation of bearing capacity for Sample A

UCS 68 kN/m2
C 34 kN/m2
The bearing capacity factors given by Terzaghi’s theory are tabulated in Table 4.4.
Table 4.4 Bearing capacity factors for angle of shearing resistance
Angle of shearing resistance ϕ0 Nγ
Nc Nq
0 5.7 1.0 0.0
5 7.3 1.6 1.5
10 9.6 2.7 1.2
15 12.9 4.4 2.5
20 17.7 7.4 5.0
25 25.1 12.7 9.7
30 37.2 22.5 19.7
35 57.8 41.4 42.4
40 95.7 81.3 100.4
45 172.3 173.3 297.5
50 347.5 415.1 1153.0

According to the Table 4.4, the bearing capacity factors for angle of shearing
resistance when angle of internal friction, (ϕ = 00) are

16
 1. Nc 5.7
2. Nq 1
3. Nγ 0
From equation 4.4, the term (γDfNq) is neglected, so
qult 1.3cNc
1.3 × 34 × 5.7
251.94 kN/m2

qsafe =( ) + γD

+ (16 1.5)

107.98 kN/m2

4.2.2.1.2 Computation of bearing capacity for Sample T

Cohesion(C) 0.
The Terzaghi’s bearing capacity factors from the table 4.4
1. Nq 30.06
2. Nγ 28.78
3. Nc
Using equation 4.4, the bearing capacity computation is as follows
qult (19 × 1.5 × 30.06) + (0.4 × 19 × 3 × 28.78)
1512.89 kN/m2

qsafe ( ) + γD

+ (19×1.5)
532.79 kN/m2

4.2.2.1.3 Computation of bearing capacity for Sample P

cohesion(C) 0
The Terzaghi’s bearing capacity factors from the table 4.4
1. Nq 20.54
2. Nγ 17.7
3. Nc 0

17
Using equation 4.4, the bearing capacity computation is as follows
qult (14 × 1.5 × 20.54) + (0.4 × 14 × 3 × 17.7)
138.36 kN/m2

qsafe ( ) + γD

67.12 kN/m2

4.2.2.2 IS code method for bearing capacity computation

The Indian Standard Code for computation of bearing capacities for shallow
foundations is given by IS 1080:1986. The Net ultimate bearing capacity is shown in
equation 4.7
qnu cNCsCdCic + q(Nq-1)sqdqiq + 0.5BγN γsγdγiγw’ (4.7)
Depth factors are given by the following equations, 4.8, 4.9, 4.10.

1. dc 1+0.2[ ] tan(45+ ϕ/2) (4.8)

2. dq dy
1 ϕ <100 (4.9)
3. dq dy

1+0.1[ ] t tan(45+Ø/2) , ϕ> 100 (4.10)

Shape factor varies according to the shape of the footing, as shown in the following
Table 4.5.
Table 4.5 Shape factor
Shape of footing Sc Sq SY
Continuous 1 1 1
Rectangle 1+0.2B/L 1+0.2B/L 1-0.4B/L
Square 1.3 1.3 0.8
Circle 1.3 1.2 0.6
Inclination factors are given by the following equations 4.11, 4.12.
1. ic iq
[1-α/90]2 (4.11)
2. iy [1-α/ϕ]2 (4.12)
Bearing capacity factors are given by the following equations 4.13, 4.14, 4.15
1. Nq tan2[45+ϕ/2][e πtanϕ] (4.13)
2. Nγ 1.8[Nq-1]tanϕ (4.14)

18
 3. Nc [Nq-1]cotϕ (4.15)

4.2.2.2.1 Computation of bearing capacity for Sample A:

Table 4.6 gives the bearing capacity factors according to Vesic’s theory.
Table 4.6 Bearing capacity factors

ϕ’ 00 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

133.8 266.8
Nc 5.14 6.49 8.35 10.98 14.83 20.72 30.14 46.12 75.31
8 9

134.8 319.0
Nq 1.0 1.57 2.47 3.94 6.40 10.66 18.40 33.30 64.20
8 7

Nγ 109.4 271.7 762.8

0.0 0.45 1.22 2.65 5.39 10.88 22.40 48.03
1 6 9

The Vesic’s bearing capacity factors from the table 4.6

1. Nc 5.14
2. Nq 1
3. Nγ 0
Depth factors:
1. dc
2. dq dγ
1.05
Shape factors:
1. Sc 1.3
2. Sq 1.2
3. Sγ 0.8
Inclination factors:
ic iq
iγ
1
The bearing capacity is computed by the equation 4.7.
qu (34 5.14 1.3 1.1)

19
 249.90 kN/m2
qsafe 249.90/3 + γDf
111.8 kN/m2

4.2.2.2.2 Computation of bearing capacity for Sample T

The bearing capacity factors computed using the equations 4.13, 4.14, 4.15 are
1. Nq 23.17
2. Nγ 24.93
3. Nc 35.47
The depth factors computed using the equations 4.8, 4.9, 4.10.
1. dc 1.1804
2. dq dy
1.090
The shape factors taken from table 4.5 for square shape are
1. Sc 1.3
2. Sq 1.2
3. Sγ 0.8
The inclination factors computed using the equations 4.11, 4.12 are
α 0
1. ic iq
1
2. iγ 1
The bearing capacity is computed by the equation 4.7.
qu 826.45 + 619.5
1446.0 kN/m2

qsafe ( ) + γDf

510.5 kN/m2

4.2.2.2.3 Computation of bearing capacity for Sample P

The bearing capacity factors computed using the equations 4.13, 4.14, 4.15 are
1. Nq 16.42
2. Nγ 15.39

20
The depth factors computed using the equations 4.8, 4.9, 4.10.
1. dc 1.1697
2. dq dy
1.084
The shape factors taken from table 4.5 for square shape are
1. Sc = 1.3
2. Sq = 1.2
3. Sγ = 0.8
The inclination factors computed using the equations 4.11, 4.12 are
α 0
1. ic iq
1
2. iγ 1
The bearing capacity is computed by the equation 4.7.
qu 421.4 + 280.24
701.67 kN/m2

qsafe ( ) + γDf

254.89 KN/m2

4.2.3 Deep foundations (pile foundation)

4.2.3.1 Static analysis:
The ultimate bearing load of a pile is considered to be the sum of the end
bearing resistance and the resistance due to skin friction.
Qup Qeb + Qsf (4.16)
According to Vesic’s theory,
Qeb qb Ab (4.17)
Qsf fs As (4.18)
The standard diameters of piles for a working load of 1200KN are, 0.4m,0.5m, 0.6m.

21
4.2.3.1.1 End bearing resistance:
 Depth 0.1 m
 Diameter of the pile 0.005 m.
For piles in clays:
qb cNc + q (4.20)
Nc ranges from 6 to 9 depending on the stiffness of the clay: a value of 9 is taken for
Nc conventionally.
It is also considered that in equation 4.20 the value of ‘q’ is not significant compared
to the term ‘cNc’, hence for all practical purposes
qb 9 c (4.21)
For piles in sands:
qb (0.3γDNγ) + (qNq)
with driven piles the term involving the size of the pile is invariably negligible with
the surcharge term ‘q.Nq’. Thus, for all practical purposes
qb qNq (4.22)
Vesic’s values of Nq for deep foundation are tabulated in Table 4.7

Table 4.7 Vesic’s value of Nq for deep foundation

Φ0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Nq 1.0 1.2 1.6 2.2 3.3 5.3 9.5 18.7 42.5 115.4 4.22

4.2.3.1.1.1 Computation of ultimate load carrying capacity of piles in Sample A:

From equation 4.21,
qb 306 kN/m2
From equation 4.17,
Qeb 58.14 kN

4.2.3.1.1.2 Computation of ultimate load carrying capacity of piles in Sample T:

From the Table 4.7, for Φ=320 the value of the bearing capacity factor,
Nq 13.18

22
From equation (4.22),
qb (19 10 13.18)
2504.2 kN
From equation 4.17,
Qeb 491.6 kN

4.2.3.1.1.3 Computation of ultimate load carrying capacity of piles in Sample P

From the Table 4.7, for Φ=320 the value of the bearing capacity factor,
Nq 8.66
From equation (4.22),
qb (14 10 8.66)
1212.4 kN
From equation 4.17,
Qeb 237.63 kN

4.2.3.1.2 Skin friction resistance

The general form for unit skin friction resistance, fs, is given by the equation 4.17
fs ca + σtanδ (4.23)
For piles in clay:
fs ca (since tanδ= 0) (4.24)
The adhesion ca may be expressed as
ca α c (4.25)
Adhesion factors for piles in clay given by Tomlinson are tabulated in table 4.8
Table 4.8 Adhesion factors for piles in clay
Material of the Consistency of
Cohesion(KN/m2) Adhesion factor
pile clay
Soft 0-35 0.90 to 1.00
Wood and Medium 35-70 0.60 to 0.90
Concrete Stiff 70-140 0.45 to 0.60
Soft 0-35 0.45 to 1.00
Medium 35-70 0.10 to 0.50
Steel
Stiff 70-140 0.50

23
For piles in sand:
fs (σh tanδ) (since ca=0)
(4.26) σh (Ks × q)
(4.27)
For loose sands
Ks 1 to 3
For dense sands
Ks 2 to 5
The coefficient of friction values for different materials is given in Table 4.9.
Table 4.9 Coefficient of friction between sand and pile materials
Coefficient of friction tan δ
S. No Material
1 Wood 0.4
2 Concrete 0.45
3 Steel, smooth 0.2
4 Steel, rusted 0.4
tan ϕ
5 Steel, corrugated

4.2.3.1.2.1 Computation of ultimate load carrying capacity of piles in Sample A

For a concrete pile, with cohesion value of 34 kN/m2, the adhesion factor, α lies
between 0.90 and 1.00.
Taking
α 0.90
From equation 4.25,
ca 30.6
From equation 4.24,
fs 30.6
From equation 4.18,
Qsf 480.6 kN

4.2.3.1.2.2 Computation of ultimate load carrying capacity of piles in Sample T

For dense sand, taking Ks 3
From equation 4.27,

24
 σh = 570
tan δ value, from the table for concrete pile, tanδ = 0.45
From equation 4.26,
fs 256.5
From equation 4.18,
Qsf 4027.05 kN

4.2.3.1.2.3 Computation of ultimate load carrying capacity of piles in Sample P

For loose sand, taking Ks= 2
σh 280
tan δ value, from the table for concrete pile, tanδ = 0.45
From equation 4.26,
fs 126
From equation 4.18,
Qsf 1978.2 kN

4.2.4 Results of bearing capacity computation

Table 4.10 shows the bearing capacity values of different samples using Terzaghi
and IS code method.

Table 4.10 Results of bearing capacity computation

Bearing capacity
Sample
Shallow foundation Deep foundation
Terzaghi IS code End Bearing Skin friction
A 99.98 111.8 58.14 480.6
T 523.29 510.5 491.6 4027.05
P 120.12 254.89 237.63 1978.2

4.2.5 Superstructure loading (analysis of buildings)

Analysis of 3 types of buildings viz., residential building (B1), high rise
building (B2) and commercial building (B3) are completed using STAAD.pro. The
results are as follows.

25
 4.2.5.1 Load estimation
For the analysis of buildings, all types of loads should be considered such as
dead load due components, live load given by IRC. The estimation of each load is
determined below. The primary load cases are
 Dead Load
 Live Load

4.2.5.1.1 Residential building (B1)

The figure 4.1 shows the beam end forces which is extracted from
STAAD.pro

Fig.4.1 Beam and force for Residential building

The table 4.11 shows the beam end forces which is extracted from
STAAD.pro

Table 4.11 Axial Forces and Bending moment

Fx Fy Fz Mx My Mz
BEAM L/C NODE KN KN KN KN-m KN-m Kn-m
113 - -
1 DEAD 51.1 13.8 38.26 40.74
Max Fx 39 LOAD 14 1 37 6 0.376 8 -9.65
- - -
1 DEAD 161. 208. 19.33 20.75 16.67 78.28
Min Fx 105 LOAD 50 809 443 8 6 9 6

26
 Table 4.11 continued

1 DEAD 1855 1569.

Max Fy 171 LOAD 7 0 .006 0 0 0 992
-
1 DEAD 1855 1569.
Min Fy 171 LOAD 12 0 .01 0 0 0 992
348 - - -
1 DEAD 7.38 400. 254.8 316.6 526.5
Max Fz 129 LOAD 38 9 069 57 7.731 1 62
257 -
1 DEAD 7.91 28.5 270.9 340.3 38.71
Min Fz 134 LOAD 43 1 44 24 1.282 23 4
1 DEAD 54.9 116. 94.14
Max Mx 111 LOAD 51 14 016 4.574 8 -4.436 38.13
-
1 DEAD 26.9 274. 92.30 12.85
Min Mx 116 LOAD 59 73 619 -15.47 4 9 25.41
348 -
1 DEAD 0.98 400. 254.8 460.1 692.8
Max My 129 LOAD 54 1 069 57 7.731 97 53
257 - -
1 DEAD 1.50 28.5 270.9 485.4
Min My 134 LOAD 57 3 44 24 1.282 55 -48.29
1 DEAD 1855 1569.
Max Mz 171 LOAD 7 0 .006 0 0 0 992
315 - -
1 DEAD 9.48 500. 165.9 911.6
Min Mz 133 LOAD 53 4 897 -92.8 4.383 07 7

The figure 4.2 shows the node displacement which is extracted from
STAAD.pro

27
 Fig.4.2 Nodal displacement for Residential building

The table 4.12 shows the beam end forces which is extracted from
STAAD.pro

28
 Table 4.12 Nodal Displacement diagram
Horizontal Vertical horizontal resultant
Node L/C Xm Ym Zm m
1
DEAD
Max X 54 LOAD 0.019 -0.032 -0.004 0.037
1
DEAD
Min X 1 LOAD 0 0 0 0
1
DEAD
Max Y 1 LOAD 0 0 0 0
1
DEAD
Min Y 63 LOAD 0.007 -0.036 -0.003 0.036
3
ROOF
LIVE
Max Z 42 LOAD 0 0 0 0
1
DEAD
Min Z 59 LOAD 0.007 -0.023 -0.007 0.025
1
DEAD
Max rX 54 LOAD 0.019 -0.032 -0.004 0.037
1
DEAD
Min rX 57 LOAD 0.008 -0.024 -0.004 0.026
1
DEAD
Max rY 22 LOAD 0.001 -0.016 -0.001 0.016
1
DEAD
Min rY 54 LOAD 0.019 -0.032 -0.004 0.037
1
DEAD
Max rZ 53 LOAD 0.008 -0.03 -0.002 0.031

29
4.2.5.1.2 High rise building :
The Figure 4.3 shows the node displacement which is extracted from STAAD.pro

Fig.4.3 Node displacement for High rise building

The Table 4.13 shows the node displacement which is extracted from STAAD.pro
Table 4.13 Nodal displacement detail

Horizontal Vertical Horizontal Resultant

NODE L/C X (m) Y (m) Z(m) M
11 GENERATED
INDIAN CODE
Max GENRAL_STRUCTURES
X 239 7 26.554 0.021 -4.019 26.857
13 GENERATED
INDIAN CODE
Min GENRAL_STRUCTURES
X 239 9 -26.554 -0.021 4.019 26.857
12 GENERATED
INDIAN CODE
Max GENRAL_STRUCTURES
Y 115 8 0.441 0.412 5.341 5.375

30
 Table 4.13 continued

5 GENERATED INDIAN
CODE
Min GENRAL_STRUCTURES
Y 118 1 0.029 -3.34 -1.676 3.737
12 GENERATED
INDIAN CODE
Max GENRAL_STRUCTURES
Z 108 8 -0.376 0.007 22.186 22.189
14 GENERATED
INDIAN CODE
Min GENRAL_STRUCTURES
Z 108 10 0.376 -0.007 -22.186 22.189
12 GENERATED
INDIAN CODE
Max GENRAL_STRUCTURES
rX 59 8 -0.359 -0.005 11.96 11.966
14 GENERATED
INDIAN CODE
Min GENRAL_STRUCTURES
rX 59 10 0.359 0.005 -11.96 11.966
9 GENERATED INDIAN
CODE
Max GENRAL_STRUCTURES
rY 243 5 -13.477 -0.363 -1.947 13.622
14 GENERATED
INDIAN CODE
Min GENRAL_STRUCTURES
rY 109 10 0.565 -0.015 -19.27 19.279
9 GENERATED INDIAN
CODE
Max GENRAL_STRUCTURES
rZ 44 5 -6.147 -0.237 -0.189 6.154
11 GENERATED
INDIAN CODE
Min GENRAL_STRUCTURES
rZ 44 7 7.043 0 0.112 7.044
9 GENERATED INDIAN
CODE
Max GENRAL_STRUCTURES
Rst 240 5 -26.413 -0.212 -7.909 27.572

31
The figure 4.4 shows the beam and forces which is extracted from STAAD.pro

Fig.4.4 Beam end forces for High rise building

The table 4.14 shows the beam and forces which is extracted from STAAD.pro

32
 Table 4.14 Axial force and bending moment of the beam
Fx Fy Fz Mx My Mz
BEAM NO KN- KN- KN-
L/C KN KN KN
DE m m m
5
GENERATE
D INDIAN - -
Max 59981 620.6 488.6 811.
32 CODE 12 17.7 857.5
Fx .65 37 23 676
GENRAL_S 28 05
TRUCTURE
S1
12
GENERATE
D INDIAN - -
Min 362.3 25.7 3932. 776.
25 CODE 5 8258. 1125.
Fx 92 25 523 425
GENRAL_S 11 21
TRUCTURE
S8
5
GENERATE
D INDIAN -
Max 2473. - 20.32 7159
530 CODE 228 307.0 -4.51
Fy 033 3.043 3 .472
GENRAL_S 05
TRUCTURE
S1
5
GENERATE
D INDIAN - -
Min - 21.5 - 7468
37 CODE 28 236.6 2548.
Fy 0.338 77 3.044 .384
GENRAL_S 65 58
TRUCTURE
S1
10
GENERATE
D INDIAN - - - -
Max 42756 2100.
57 CODE 17 1118. 61.7 5558. 2954
Fz .52 59
GENRAL_S 82 8 96 .19
TRUCTURE
S6
5
GENERATE
D INDIAN - - - -
Min 3640. 4183.
551 CODE 228 769.7 2030. 36.8 1578
Fz 821 315
GENRAL_S 65 91 66 .74
TRUCTURE
S1

33
 Table 4.14 continued

13
GENERATE
D INDIAN
CODE
GENRAL_S - -
Max TRUCTURE 24.81 21.00 45.40 583. 127.4 126.
Mx 89 S9 47 9 9 7 283 99 466
11
GENERATE
D INDIAN
CODE
GENRAL_S - - - -
Min TRUCTURE 24.81 21.00 45.40 583. 127.4 126.
Mx 89 S7 47 9 9 7 283 99 466
8
GENERATE
D INDIAN
CODE
GENRAL_S - - - -
Max TRUCTURE 35100 508.0 1888. 67.6 5093. 1348
My 63 S4 23 .23 15 73 75 91 .49
5
GENERATE
D INDIAN
CODE
GENRAL_S - - - -
Min TRUCTURE 3640. 769.7 2030. 36.8 5971. 2270
My 551 S1 245 821 65 91 66 21 .087
5
GENERATE
D INDIAN
CODE
GENRAL_S - -
Max TRUCTURE 318.3 2545. - 28.8 7478
Mz 524 S1 233 73 51 0.651 32 1.617 .009
9
GENERATE
D INDIAN
CODE
GENRAL_S - - - -
Min TRUCTURE 42792 2113. 1099. 102. 2800. 5709
Mz 57 S5 17 .23 64 246 402 86 .15

34
4.2.5.1.3 Commercial building
The figure 4.5 shows the node displacement detail which is extracted from
STAAD.pro

Fig.4.5 Node Displacement for Commercial building

The table 4.15 shows the nodal displacement detail which is extracted from
STAAD.pro

35
 Table 4.15 Nodal displacement detail
Horizontal Vertical Horizontal Resultant
NODE L/C X(m) Y(m) Z(m) (m)
Max 15
X 369 0.9DL+1.5EQX 0.059 -0.003 0.001 0.059
Min 12 1.5(DL-
X 369 EQX) -0.068 -0.001 0.003 0.068
Max 16 0.9DL-
Y 379 1.5EQX -0.02 0.003 0.002 0.02
Min 12 1.5(DL-
Y 334 EQX) -0.043 -0.01 0.001 0.045
Max 13
Z 365 1.5(DL+EQZ) -0.01 -0.007 0.04 0.042
Min 18 0.9DL-
Z 370 1.5EQZ -0.007 -0.005 -0.035 0.036
Max 13
Rx 524 1.5(DL+EQZ) 0 0 0.007 0.007
Min 14 1.5(DL-
Rx 639 EQZ) 0 0 0.001 0.001
Max 13
Ry 799 1.5(DL+EQZ) 0 0 0.007 0.007
Min 14 1.5(DL-
Ry 618 EQZ) 0 0 -0.002 0.002
Max 12 1.5(DL-
Rz 57 EQX) -0.011 -0.001 0 0.011
Min 11
rZ 407 1.5(DL+EQX) 0.021 -0.008 -0.002 0.022
Max 12 1.5(DL-
Rst 367 EQX) -0.068 -0.009 0.002 0.069

The Figure 4.6 shows the beam end forces detail which is extracted from
STAAD.pro

36
 Fig.4.6 Beam and Forces for Commercial building

The Table 4.16 shows the beam end forces which is extracted from
STAAD.pro.
Table 4.16 Axial Forces and Bending Moment
Fx Fy Fz Mx My Mz
KN- KN-
BEAM L/C NODE KN KN KN KN-m
m m
6
- - -
Max 1.5(D 3332.0 243.0
106 74 200.6 145.2 3.335 338.
Fx L+LL 75 04
71 73 552
)
18
0.9DL - - - -
Min 48.41
280 - 38 628.90 41.42 0.807 30.82 32.3
Fx 8
1.5EQ 5 6 9 3
Z

37
 Table 4.16 continued

11
Max 1.5(D 114.78 408.3 43.2
967 1104 -7.726 -2.02 -0.209
Fy L+EQ 8 5 35
X)
11
- -
Min 1.5(D 42.0
964 1106 61.803 422.2 10.83 7.199 7.154
Fy L+EQ 57
96 4
X)
14
Max 1.5(D 641.85 143.7 16.88 34.26 0.28
75 634 -0.362
Fz L- 5 27 6 7 9
EQZ)
13
- - -
Min 1.5(D 2465.0 - 377.7
106 74 185.5 210.3 324.
Fz L+EQ 14 3.999 76
9 35 186
Z)
14
Max 1.5(D 434.03 53.58 1.13
3 504 -0.244 0.232 -8.116
Mx L- 8 6 4
EQZ)
11
- -
Min 1.5(D 414.31 40.66 25.9
14 645 121.9 39.56 2.729
Mx L+EQ 7 3 24
6 4
X)
13
- - -
Max 1.5(D 2465.0 - 377.7
106 74 185.5 210.3 324.
My L+EQ 14 3.999 76
9 35 186
Z)
13
- - -
Min 1.5(D 2430.3 - 195.
106 14 185.5 210.3 211.1
My L+EQ 64 3.999 467
9 35 62
Z)
15
-
Max 0.9DL 968.87 200.5 501.
391 93 4.29 0.603 15.29
Mz +1.5E 2 34 497
7
QX
12
- - -
Min 1.5(D 1445.7 11.54 36.50
377 91 385.9 19.48 922.
Mz L- 01 6 8
13 5 677
EQX)

38
 From the STAAD.pro analysis performed on all the three buildings, the
maximum column loads are extracted for the design purposes and are tabulated in
Table 4.17.

Table 4.17 Maximum column load values extracted from STAAD.pro

Maximum column load (fy)
Building kN

B1 408.35
B2 2473.03
B3 1856.00

4.3 DESIGN

4.3.1 Isolated footing design

4.3.1.1 Sample T - Building B1

Dimensions:
 Size of column(B) 300mm 300mm
 Safe bearing capacity of soil (q) 523 kN/m2
Design:
Load on the column (P) 408.35 kN
Assume the self- weight of footing as 10% of the column load

Approximate self- weight of footing 408.35 ( )

40.8 kN
Total load on the soil 408.35+40.8
449.15 kN

Area of footing required

0.86 m2
Adopting square footing
Size of square footing √0.86

39
 0.92 m
Provide square footing of size 0.92 m 0.92 m
Net upward pressure:

Net upward pressure, w

( )

( )

712.23 kN/m2
Depth of foundation based on B.M:
Projection of footing
from face of column (0.92-0.30)/2
0.31 m
B.M@ the section
Mx 712.23 0.92 0.31 (0.31/2)
31.48 kNm
Provide a square ledge 400 400 around the column.
Calculations are made on column size 300 300 with a ledge 400 400

Effective depth required, d2 ( )

d 300.76 mm
Check depth of footing based on one way shear:
Assume the shear
strength of concrete 0.350 N/mm2
350 kN/m2
( )
= 350

Solving the above equation, we get

d = 25 mm
Take section at effective depth from the face of column (d= 400)

Tc =

= 0.123N/mm2

40
 Using IS 456
Less than tc for grade 20 concrete with nominal steel
Hence one-way shear is safe.
Check depth of footing based on punching shear (Two way shear):
Perimeter of punching area = 4(b+d)
Punching shear = 46.04(0.922-(0.30+d))
Punching shear strength of concrete = 0.25 √fck
= 0.25 √20
=1120 kN/m2
( ( ) )
= 1120
( )

Solving the above the equation, we get

d = 250mm

Tp =
( )

0.19N/mm2
Hence two- way shear is safe.
Effective depth of footing:
d = 300.76 mm
Total depth D
D = 300.76+6+50
= 357 mm
Check for development length:
Ld of 12mm bars = 677mm (from SP 16; table 65)
Length available = 920-300/2
= 770mm < Ld
This is sufficient so provide 770 mm.
Reinforcement required:

M/bd2 =
( )

= 0.69
Steel percentage = 0.158

41
 Ast = 0.158 357
= 201.3 mm2
Provide 12mm ϕ bars

No of bars required =

=2
( ( ) ( ))
Spacing of 12mm ϕ bars =

= 95 mm
Therefore, provide 12mm ϕ bars @ spacing of 95 mm c/c.
The Figure 4.7 shows the reinforcement details for isolated footing adopted
for building B1 on sample T.

Fig.4.7 Isolated footing design for TB1

4.3.1.2 Sample P - Building B1

Dimensions:
 Size of column(B) = 300mm 300mm
 Safe bearing capacity of soil (q) = 254.9kN/m2
Design:

42
 Load on the column (P) = 408.35 kN
Assume the self- weight of footing as 10% of the column load

Approximate self- weight of footing = 408.35 ( )

= 40.8 kN
Total load on the soil = 408.35+40.8
= 449.15 kN

Area of footing required =

` = 1.76 m2
Adopt square footing
Size of square footing = √1.76
= 1.32 m
Provide square footing of size = 1.32 m 1.32 m
Net upward pressure:

Net upward pressure, w =

( )
=

( )
=

= 348.02kN/m2
Depth of foundation based on B.M:
Projection of footing
( )
from face of column =

= 0.51 m
B.M@ the section
Mx = 348.02 1.32 0.51 (0.51/2)
= 59.74 kNm
Provide a square ledge 400 400 around the column.
Calculations are made on column size 300 300 with a ledge 400 400

43
 Effective depth required, d2 =
( )

D = 414 mm
Check depth of footing based on one way shear:
Assume the shear strength of concrete= 0.350 N/mm2
= 350 kN/m2
( )
= 350

Solving the above equation, we get

d = 74 mm
Take section at effective depth from the face of column (d= 400)

Tc =

= 0.75 N/mm2
Using IS 456
Less than tc for grade 20 concrete with nominal steel
Hence one-way shear is safe.
Check depth of footing based on punching shear (Two way shear):
Perimeter of punching area = 4(b+d)
Punching shear = 46.04(1.3222-(0.30+d))
Punching shear strength of concrete = 0.25 √fck
= 0.25 √20
= 1120 kN/m2
( ( ) )
= 1120
( )

Solving the above the equation, we get

d = 289mm

Tp =
( )

0.26N/mm2
Hence two- way shear is safe.
Effective depth of footing:
d = 414 mm
Total depth D:

44
 D = 414+6+50 = 356.76
= 470mm
Check for development length:
Ld of 12mm bars = 677mm (from SP 16; table 65)
Length available = 1320-300/2
= 1170mm < Ld
This is sufficient so provide 1170 mm.
Reinforcement required:

M/bd2 =
( )

= 0.57
Steel percentage = 0.158

Ast = 0.158 470

= 349 mm2
Provide 12mm ϕ bars

No of bars required =

=3
( ( ) ( ))
Spacing of 12mm ϕ bars =

= 145 mm
Therefore, provide 12mm ϕ bars @ spacing of 145 mm c/c.
The Figure 4.8 shows the reinforcement details for isolated footing adopted
for building B1 on sample P.

45
 Fig.4.8 Isolated footing design for PB1

4.3.1.3 Sample A – Building B1

Dimensions:
 Size of column(B) = 300mm 300mm
 Safe bearing capacity of soil (q) = 254.9 kN/m2
Design:
Load on the column (P) = 408.35 kN
Assume the self- weight of footing as 10% of the column load

Approximate self- weight of footing = 408.35 ( )

= 40.8 kN
Total load on the soil = 408.35+40.8 = 449.15 kN

Area of footing required =

= 1.76 m2
Adopt square footing

46
 Size of square footing = √1.76
= 1.32 m
Provide square footing of size 1.32 m 1.322 m
Net upward pressure:

Net upward pressure, w =

( )
=

( )
=

= 232.01 kN/m2
Depth of foundation based on B.M:
Projection of footing from
face of column = (1.32-0.30)/2
= 0.51 m
B.M@ the section
Mx = 348.02 1.32 0.51 (0.51/2)
= 59.74 kNm
Provide a square ledge 400 400 around the column.
Calculations are made on column size 300 300 with a ledge 400 400

Effective depth required, d2 =

( )

d = 414 mm
Check depth of footing based on one way shear:
Assume the shear strength of concrete= 350 kN/m2

( )
= 350

Solving the above equation, we get

d = 74 mm
Take section at effective depth from the face of column (d= 400)

Tc =

= 0.75 N/mm2

47
 Using IS 456
Less than tc for grade 20 concrete with nominal steel
Hence one-way shear is safe.
Check depth of footing based on punching shear (Two way shear):
Perimeter of punching area = 4(b+d)
Punching shear = 46.04(1.3222-(0.30+d))
Punching shear strength of concrete = 0.25 √fck
= 0.25 √20
= 1120 kN/m2
( ( ) )
= 1120
( )

Solving the above the equation, we get

d = 289 mm

Tp =
( )

0.26N/mm2
Hence two- way shear is safe.
Effective depth of footing:
d = 414 mm
Total depth D:
D = 414+6+50 = 356.76
= 470 mm
Check for development length:
Ld of 12mm bars = 677mm (from SP 16; table 65)
Length available = 2000-300/2
= 1850 mm < Ld
This is sufficient so provide 1850 mm.
Reinforcement required:

M/bd2 =( )

= 0.57
Steel percentage = 0.158

48
 Ast = 0.158 470

= 219.8 mm2
Provide 12mm ϕ bars

No of bars required =

=2
( ( ) ( ))
Spacing of 12mm ϕ bars =

= 230 mm
Therefore, provide 12mm ϕ bars @ spacing of 230 mm c/c.
The figure 4.9 shows the reinforcement details for isolated footing adopted
for building B1 on sample A.

Fig.4.9 Isolated footing design for AB1

49
4.3.2 Pile foundation design
4.3.2.1 Sample A - Building B2, B3
Dimensions:
 Length = 25 m
 Diameter m
Design specifications:
 Service load = 2473.03 kN
 No of piles =6
 Size = 1000mm
 fck = 30 N/mm2
 fy = 415 N/mm2
Design:

Step 1:

S.L on each side =

412.172 kN
Ultimate load = (1.5 × 412.172)
= 618.25 kN
Step 2:
Longitudinal ratio
Pu = 0.4fckAg+[0.67fy-0.4fck]Asc
Asc = 465 mm2
Step 3:
Lateral reinforcement in
Centre portion = 0.2% gross volume
Assume 8mm diameter ties,
Therefore volume for each tie =( 2
(1000-100))

= 180955.73 mm3

Volume of pile per pitch length = (1000)2 P

= 1809955.73 mm3

50
 P = 115.2 mm
But max permissible pitch is D/2
P = D/2
= 500 mm
115.2 < 500
P = 115.2 mm
Step 4:
Lateral reinforcement near pile head:
Spiral = (3 × D)
= 3000 mm
Volume of spiral = 0.6% of gross volume
Therefore diameter of using 8 mm helical ties,
As = 50 mm2
Volume of spiral per/mm length = 4712.3 mm2
If P pitch of spiral with diameter‘d’ = 860 mm

P =

= 30 mm
Provide 8mm spiral of at a pitch of 30mm for a length of 900m near pile
head.
Step 5:
Lateral reinforcement near pile end :
Volume of ties = 0.6% of gross volume
Volume of each tie = 180955.73 mm2
Volume of pile per pitch length = 180955.73
P = 40 mm
rovide 8 mm at 40 mm, CC for a distance of 90 mm from the end of the pipe
both top and bottom.
Step 6:
Spacer forks:
Provide spacer forks in pairs of steel using 25 mm diameter bars at 1500 mm
centre.

51
 Provide 32 mm diameter of hole at 1500 mm from the ends.
The minimum longitudinal
reinforcement of steel = (30 D)
= 30000 mm
Asc = 1.25% of the cross section
= 9817 mm2
Provide 4 bars of 20 mm diameter with clear cover of 50 mm
The figure 4.10 shows the pile reinforcement details for piles in sample A for
bulidings B2 and B3.

Fig.4.10 Pile foundation design for AB2,AB3

4.3.2.2 Sample T,P - Building B2, B3

Dimensions:
 Length = 10 m
 Diameter m
Design specifications:
 Service load = 2473.03 kN

52
  No of piles =6
 Size = 1000mm
 fck = 30 N/mm2
 fy = 415 N/mm2
Design:
Step 1:
S.L on each side =

412.172 kN
Ultimate load = (1.5 × 412.172)
= 618.25 kN
Step 2:
Longitudinal ratio
Pu = 0.4fckAg + [0.67fy-0.4fck] × Asc
Asc = 465 mm2
Step 3:
Lateral reinforcement
In centre portion ` = 0.2% gross volume
Assume 8mm diameter ties,
Therefore volume for each tie =( 2
(750-100))

=130690.25 mm3

Volume of pile per pitch length = (750)2 P

= 130690.25 mm3
P = 204.79 mm
But max permissible pitch is D/2
P = D/2
= 375 mm
204.79 < 375
P = 204.79 mm
Step 4:
Lateral reinforcement near pile head:

53
 Spiral = (3 × D)
= 2250 mm
Volume of spiral = 0.6% of gross volume
Therefore diameter of using 8 mm helical ties,
As = 50 mm2

Volume of spiral per/mm length =( (750)2)

= 265.07 mm2
If P pitch of spiral with diameter, d = 610 mm

P =

= 40 mm
Provide 8 mm spiral of at a pitch of 40 mm for a length of 900 mm near
pile head.
Step 5:
Lateral reinforcement near pile end :
Volume of ties = 0.6% of gross volume
Volume of each tie = ( (8)2 4(700-100))

= 130690.25 mm3
Volume of pile per pitch length = 130690.25
P = 50 mm
Provide 8mm diameter at50 mm, CC for a distance of 90 mm from the end of
the pipe both top and bottom.
Step 6:
Spacer forks:
Provide spacer forks in pairs of steel using 25 mm diameter bars at 1500 mm
centre.
Provide 32 mm diameter of hole at 1500 mm from the ends.
But, the minimum
longitudinal reinforcement of steel = (30 D)
= 22500 mm
Asc = 1.25% of the cross section

54
 = 5522.33 mm2
Provide 4 bars of 20 mm diameter with clear cover of 50 mm.
The Figure 4.10 shows the pile reinforcement details for piles in samples, T
and P for building’s B2 and B3.

Fig.4.11 Pile foundation design for PB2, PB3, TB2, TB3

55
 CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION

 Based on the bearing capacity computations, the foundation systems have

been adapted.
 For the building B1 shallow foundations was selected because of its low
column load.
 The rest of the buildings were designed by pile foundation systems as the
column loads were much heavier.
 Although pile foundations are more reliable in carrying loads, it is
economical and hence isolated footings are provided wherever it is feasible.

56
 REFERENCES

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_foundation
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shallow_foundation
3. http://www.slideshare.net/RexRadloff/the-bearing-capacity-of-a-shallow-
foundation-as-proposed-by-vesic-the-settlement-of-a-shallow-foundation-on-
sand
4. http://www.slideshare.net/ved_ram/pile-foundations
5. IS (2720:1985), ‘Code of Practice for methods of testing of soils’.
6. C Venkataramaiah., (2006), “Geotechnical Engineering”
7. IS (875:1987)- (Part -1). ‘Code of Practice for Design Loads’.
8. IS (1080:1985), ‘Code of Practice for Design and Construction of
shallow foundations in Soils’.
9. P.C.Varghese., (2005), “Foundation Engineering”.
10. P.C.Varghese., (2013), “Design of reinforced concrete foundation”.
11. IS (456:2000), ‘Code of Practice for Plain and Reinforced Concrete’.
12. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/geotech/pubs/05159/chapter2.cfm

57
58
59