See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/338170723

Codal Provisions for Foundation Design on Soils and Rocks: A Review

Conference Paper · December 2019

CITATIONS READS

0 3,334

4 authors, including:

Koushik Pandit Sayantani Lala

Central Building Research Institute Central Building Research Institute
19 PUBLICATIONS   19 CITATIONS    9 PUBLICATIONS   29 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

ENGINEERING OF DISASTER MITIGATION AND HEALTH MONITORING FOR SAFE AND SMART BUILT ENVIRONMENT - A NETWORK PROJECT Under CSIR-12TH FIVE YEAR
PLAN View project

Development of a technology for optimal extraction of locked-up coal from underground mines using artificial pillars (DeCoalArt). Project No: ESC0105 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Koushik Pandit on 26 December 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Codal Provisions for Foundation Design on Soils and
Rocks: A Review

Gaurav Sharma1, Pradeep Kumar1, Koushik Pandit1 [0000-0001-8741-8685] and Sayantani

Lala1
1 CSIR – Central Building Research Institute, Roorkee 247 667, India
www.cbri.res.in

Abstract. Usual design of building foundations are performed based on pre-

scribed serviceability and strength criteria as laid down by various standard codes
adopted by different countries. Generally, total settlement of a foundation is de-
scribed under the serviceability criterion; whereas a strength criterion is de-
scribed by bearing capacity of the soil or rock underlying the foundation. Both of
these safeguard a foundation from its stability and structural integrity point of
view against the acting design loads that may appear during its lifetime. The im-
portant most function of a foundation is to transfer super-structure load to the
underlying strata which are composed of either soil or rock or both in layers.
Engineering properties of both soils and rocks vary geo-spatially in small to large
scale. In view of the wide spectrum of soil/rock characteristics, the analysis and
design of foundations are provided by understanding of basic soil and rock me-
chanics principles. Although, a detailed analysis of site-specific solutions is a
must for a vital and large-scale project as well as for a problematic site condition.
Building codes present the most relevant guidance in design and construction of
foundations. An attempt has, therefore, been made in the present study to revisit
and compare foundation design methodology, by studying and investigating three
popular design codes, namely Indian Standard Code (IS code), American Con-
crete Institute Code (ACI) and International Building Code (IBC) by the Interna-
tional Code Council (ICC). In this study, basic technical information on (i) ‘gen-
eral behaviour of soil and rock’ i.e. nature of soil, rock types, stability and prop-
erties along with its behaviour under foundation, (ii) ‘effect of groundwater’ i.e.
effect of underground water on foundation, (iii) ‘foundation settlement’ i.e. foun-
dation failure modes, and (iv) ‘preventive and strengthening measures’ i.e. im-
provement of bearing capacity of strata through stabilizing methods, etc. have
been covered in brief.

Keywords: Settlement, Bearing Capacity, Foundation Design, Standards and

Codes; Comparative Study.

1 Introduction

Any building structure transmits its super-structure load through foundations which are
constructed over soil or rock, together termed as sub-strata. Foundations are hence
2

called the sub-structure buried beneath the natural ground level (NGL). Elementary de-
sign of a foundation is based on satisfactory bearing capacity and tolerable settlement
of the sub-strata on which it rests [1]. Design load pressure in excess of the bearing
capacity of the sub-strata causes ruptures and develops failure surfaces between the
footing edges and ground surface. Diverse failure modes in the sub-strata have been
observed and listed as (a) general shear failure: the load beyond ultimate bearing ca-
pacity develops, shear force within the soil underlying the footing causes its sudden
settlement and bulging over the ground surface; (b) local shear failure: the settlement
is accompanied by sudden jerks and little bulging over ground surface and further in-
crease in load causes large settlement and heaving; and (c) punching shear failure: only
vertical settlement of soil and footing occurs without any heaving on the ground surface
[2, 3]. The design methodologies of sub-structure are thus formulated to suit the indig-
enous soil conditions for an efficient building design without foundation failure.

Some mechanical properties of soils and rocks are complex and difficult to deter-
mine precisely, probably because they are not a manufactured standard product like
rolled steel or mix-designed concrete and the origin and process of rock and soil cycles
are mainly governed by physical and chemical changes within their micro-structures.
Further, the selection of site for construction of a building and its foundation is not
entirely within the engineer's control and many times, a structure is to be built on an
apparently weak soil site or highly weathered and fissured rocky topography. Hence,
the stability and function of a building largely depend upon the behaviour of the soil or
rock upon which it is built.

Characteristically, serviceability is typically a long-term trait for a building founda-

tion related to time-dependent consolidation phenomenon of the bearing sub-strata,
whereas, bearing capacity may be a short-term feature (e.g. an embankment construc-
tion on an undrained clay foundation) or a long-term feature where the maximum foun-
dation load may appear at an unknown time. Usually, bearing capacity of shallow and
deep or pile foundations is estimated using codal provisions developed after classical
soil mechanics principles utilized by Terzaghi & Meyerhoff (Terzaghi, 1943 [4]; Mey-
erhof, 1951 [5]) and static formula by Tomlinson (1981) [6], respectively.

For the purpose of design of foundation, a number of codes are available in various
countries around the world. As the soil and climatic conditions differ geo-spatially, the
design parameters also alter accordingly, even if the principles of the design methodol-
ogies are essentially the same. However, a comparative study of the foundation codes
have revealed some inconsistency in the principles considered for design methodolo-
gies which should be studied and modified, if and when necessary.

An attempt has, therefore, been made in the present study to revisit and compare
foundation design methodology, by studying and investigating three popularly referred
and used design codes, namely Indian Standard Codes (IS codes) [7-18], American
Concrete Institute Codes (ACI) [19, 20] and International Building Codes (IBC) [21]
by the International Code Council (ICC). In this study, basic information on nature of
 3

soil, rock types, stability and properties along with its behaviour under foundation, ef-
fect of groundwater on foundation, foundation failures, and improvement of bearing
capacity of strata through soil stabilizing methods, etc. have been covered in brief.

2 Comparison of Codal Design Methodology

For the comparative study three international building codes, namely IS, ACI &
UBC/IBC are considered. After studying and analyzing the different clauses of these
codes, comparative discussions have been made along with highlighting some research
gaps. These comparisons will facilitate the scope of improvement in building codes
after further studies and validations.

There are several Indian Standards for foundation on soil and rocks like IS 1080 on
“Code of Practice for Design and Construction of Shallow Foundations in Soils (Other
Than Raft, Ring And Shell)” [7], IS 1904 on “Code of Practice for Design and Con-
struction of Foundations in Soils: General Requirements” [8], IS 2911 (Part 1 to Part 4)
“Design and Construction of Pile Foundations - Code of Practice” [9, 10, 11, 12], IS
6403 [13], IS 12070 on “Code of Practice for Design and Construction of Shallow
Foundations on Rocks” [14], IS 13063 on “Code of Practice for Structural Safety of
Buildings on Shallow Foundations on Rocks” [15], IS 14243 (Part 2) on “Guidelines
for selection and development of site for building in hill areas” [16], IS 14593 on “De-
sign and Construction of Bored Cast-in-situ Piles Founded on Rocks - Guidelines” [17]
and IS 14804 on “Siting, design and selection of materials for residential buildings in
hilly areas – Guidelines” [18]. Prevailing building codes on concrete constructions in
the USA are provided in ACI: 318-14 [19], and ACI: 332R-84 [20]. The main regula-
tions for foundations in the International Building Code [21] are located in Section 1808
(Foundations), Section 1809 (Shallow Foundations), and Section 1810 (Deep Founda-
tions).

2.1 Depth of footing

According to all the considered codes in this paper, footing depth is the depth below
the natural ground surface at which the required bearing capacity of soil/rock for load
transmission is obtained. The clauses defining the depth of footing according to various
codes have been listed below.

Indian Standard. All foundations shall extend to a depth of at least 0.5 m below NGL
where the bearing strata is soil. This minimum depth is required to ensure the availa-
bility of safe bearing capacity and optimum frost depth [8] (sec. 7.1, 7.2). For founda-
tion depth in rocks, Cl. 5.4 of [15] is referred to. It says that (i) in partially weathered,
jointed and sheared rocks, foundation base is to be kept at least 0.5 m inside rock;
whereas, (ii) for very low strength, rock, foundation material shall be treated to be as
soil and depth is defined using IS 1904 [8] provisions; and (iii) for sound and massive
rock, foundation line shall be above frost penetration limit.
4

ACI. Depth of footing above reinforcement should not to be less than 0.15 m even
though firm bearing soil is found at a shallower depth. A practical minimum depth is
taken as 0.25 m. However, the overall depth of pile foundation shall be selected such
that the effective depth of bottom reinforcement is at least 0.3 m as per Cl. 13.3.1.2 and
13.4.2.1 of [19], and Cl. 8.3.2 [20].

IBC. According to IBC (sec. 1805.2 and sec.1805.2.1) [21], concrete footings and solid
masonry foundations shall extend below the frost line. Foundation walls supporting
wood shall extend at least 0.15 m above the finish grade adjacent to the wall at all
points. However for masonry buildings, IBC suggests that, depth of footings shall ex-
tend to 0.3 m and should confirm to sufficient frost depth.

Discussion. After a preliminary overview, it is noted that the minimum foundation

depth prescribed in IS codes is almost double than the other two referred standards.
This may be due to heavy weight of solid masonry and concrete (the most common
materials of construction used in India), as compared to various light weight IBS prev-
alent in other countries [22]. The IBC [21] prescribes regulations about commercial
construction whereas IRC: The International Residential Code [23] prescribes regula-
tion on residential construction along with home remodeling issues. Hence, the
UBC/IBC [21] is a more generic code and prescribes range of values for the determi-
nation of the minimum depth of the foundation. IBC/UBC has also included consider-
ations of frost depth in defining the minimum depth of foundation.

2.2 Cover to Footing Reinforcements

The main reason of providing the cover is to protect the reinforcement from the chem-
ical agents present in the atmosphere. Because inappropriate cover depth results into
the corrosion of constituent elements which ultimately reduce the life of the structure.

Indian Standard. Cl. 5.3.6 of [8] recommends a minimum cover of 50 mm for foot-
ings. But the actual cover may be even more depending on the presence of harmful
chemicals, water table etc. For locations with considerable salt and sulphate content in
water, Cl. 26.4.2.2 of IS 456: 2000 [24] suggests that dense M-20 concrete along with
pozzolana could be used. A thick layer of bitumen can be laid before laying foundation
concrete, to prevent infiltration of water from sulphate bearing soil.

ACI. American building Code [19] specifies the cover depth for different regions (Ta-
ble 1).

IBC. There should be a minimum of 3 inches (7.62 cm) concrete between reinforce-
ment and the other main structural member in which the concrete is deposited against
the ground and 2 inches (5.08 cm) for concrete surfaces which are just in contact with
natural ground level. IBC also suggests a concrete cover of 3.2 cm for prestressed
 5

square piles of 12 inches (30.5 cm) or smaller size and 3.8 cm for larger piles. For
foundations exposed to seawater, the minimum 6.4 cm of protective concrete cover is
prescribed in Sec. 1809.2.3.5 of [21].

The following Table 1 gives a summary of concrete cover specification by ACI code
[19].

Table 1. Summary of concrete cover specification by ACI code [19].

Concrete exposure Member Specified cover (mm)

Permanent ground contact All 75
Exposed to weather or in contact
All 40 to 50
with ground
Not exposed to weather or in con- Slab joists 40
tact with ground Walls 20
Beams, columns, pedes-
40
tals, and tension ties

Discussion. ACI specifies the cover thickness depending upon the type of reinforce-
ment. However, the IS and IBC codes specify concrete cover to foundation as per the
climatic conditions irrespective of the provided diameter of the foundation slab rein-
forcements.

2.3 Longitudinal reinforcement and Dowel length

The forces and moments developed at column face must be conveyed to footing through
the pedestal. The compressive force is delivered to the concrete while the tensile force
is taken by the reinforcement steel. However, for balancing large permissible bearing
stresses dowel bars or column extensions should be provided.

Indian Standard. As prescribed in IS, these extending bars should be at least 0.5 per-
cent of the cross-sectional area of the supported column or pedestal. Minimum of four
bars shall be provided whose diameter should not exceed the diameter of column bars
by 3 mm as per Cl. 34.4 of [24].

ACI. For columns, minimum dowel reinforcement is given as, As (min.) = 0.005 Ag,
where Ag is column gross cross-sectional area. Required dowel reinforcement is given
by:

As (req) = (Pu – Φ * Pn) / (Φ * fy), where the value of strength reduction factor (Φ) is
0.65, as per Cl. 15.8.2.1 of [19].
6

IBC. According to IBC [21], the total sectional area of dowels shall not be less than the
sectional area of the longitudinal reinforcement of the member and in no case less than
four dowels should be used. Also, the diameter of the dowels shall not exceed the di-
ameter of the column bars by more than 1/8 inch (nearly 3 mm) as per Sec. 2623 (h) of
UBC [25].

Discussion. As per IS and ACI codes, the minimum sectional area of dowels should be
0.5% of the sectional area of the column or pedestal whereas, in UBC/IBC the corre-
sponding minimum area is simply taken as equal to column reinforcement. This lead to
contradiction and diverse values, because different codes have different methods for
defining the minimum nominal reinforcement.

2.4 Allowable lateral soil or rock pressure and bearing capacity

The bearing capacity or allowable lateral soil pressure of soil is the gross pressure that
the footing can withstand such that, the soil doesn’t fails in shear and settlement occur
within the safe limits [3, 15].

Indian Standard. As per Sec 5.2.2.1 of [13], the equation for calculating of ultimate
bearing capacity is:
Qnu = c*(Nc ic Sc dc) + q*(Nq-1)*(iq Sq dq) + 0.5Bγ * Nγ * (iγ Sγ dγ) * W'

Where, Nγ = 2(Nq+1) tanΦ

Nc = (Nq-1) cotΦ
and, Nq = e^ᴨ*tanΦ*tan2(450+Φ/2)

Here, S, d and i are empirical correlation factors for shape, depth and inclination of
loading respectively.
If depth of water below ground > (Df) then, reduction factor, W' = 1
If water table at depth = (Df), then, W' = 0.

As per, IS 12070 [14], Cl. 4 gives calculation of safe bearing pressure (SBP) on rock
based on rock mass material types (massive crystalline bedrock, having SBP 1000 t/m2
to Soft or broken bedrock, having SBP 40 t/m2). Although, universally applicable SBP
values based on rock mass classification cannot be given but, according to Cl. 5 of [14],
Rock Mass Rating (RMR) values (100 to 0) could be used to determine SBP values
(600-448 t/m2 for RMR = 100 to 81, to 55-45-40 t/m2 for RMR = 20 to 0). For good
quality rock with wide joint spacing i.e. 1 m to ≥ 3 m, Cl. 6.1 gives an empirical equa-
tion to determine SBP based on average UCS of rock cores. Alternatively, Cl. 7 of [14]
suggests an empirical equation based on pressure-meter tests to determine SBP for low
strength fragmented or weathered rock masses with closely spaced (5 to 30 cm) discon-
tinuities. In common practice, such cases are considered as granular mass and founda-
tion design is based on conventional soil mechanics. Again, Cl. 9 of [14] outlines a
 7

different method to calculate the SBP based on plate load tests performed at field on
poor rocks suspected to have bearing capacity less than 100 t/m2.
Although, SBP values can be calculated based on above methods, but settlement
criterion often plays the pivotal role in limiting the SBP value which is finally taken for
foundation design. Total settlement shall not be more than permissible settlement as
prescribed in Cl. 5.2.2 of [15], whereas, differential settlement and tilt of the building
shall be not more than the recommended values specified in Cl. 5.2.3 of [15].

ACI. The theoretical bearing capacity of soil (X1) can be calculated as, X1 = (qult * m1
– γ*Df), where, m1 = model error for the bearing capacity. According to Meyerhof
(1995) [5], the model error m1 can be represented by a random variable with a bias
factor of 1.0 and a coefficient of variation of 0.25.

IBC. Allowable foundation pressure and lateral bearing pressure of soil or rock as per
IBC [21] is given in Table 2 below.

Table 2. Allowable foundation pressure and lateral bearing pressure of soil/rock as per
IBC [21].

Class of materials Allowable foundation Lateral bearing pres-

pressure (kN/m2) sure of soil (kN/m2)
Bed rock 575 575
Sedimentary rock 190 19
Sandy gravel 145 9.5
Sand 95 8
Clay 70 5

Discussion. Allowable bearing capacity in different building codes are different which
can be used for proportioning footings. On the basis of the building’s performance, a
presumptive bearing capacity value is assumed. But these values are used only for pre-
liminary design or for less important structures [26]. It is recommended by IS 1904 [8]
that the safe bearing capacity should be estimated only after analyzing soil test data. If
water table is present near the footing on non-cohesive soil, then these values should
be further reduced to 50%.

2.5 Foundations adjacent to slopes

Cl. 10.2 of IS 1904 [8] stipulates the different requirements for construction of build-
ing foundations on a sloping terrain. It says that any construction on a suspected unsta-
ble landslip area should be avoided. Spread footing on sloping sites should be prepared
resting on horizontal bearing strata by making a stepped ground profile by cut and fill
method. At all level changes, the footings should be lapped at the steps for a minimum
distance of foundation thickness or twice the height of step, whichever is the maximum
8

(Cl. 10.2.4 of [8]). On valley side, clearance on valley side i.e. the minimum edge dis-
tance of the footing from slope’s crest should be more than 1.5 m and should rest on a
firm soil or rock as per Cl. 6.1 of IS 14243 Part 2 [16].

3 Strengthening Measures for Foundations

There are some guidelines provided by the IS codes to strengthen the foundation of
buildings to make it stable under the prevailing design loads. These guidelines may be
summarized as below:
 For water covered bearing strata, suitable drainage arrangement shall be pro-
vided (Cl. 6.2.5 of [15]). For prevention of water entry into foundation, a min-
imum of 0.75 m wide apron should be provided all around the building (Cl.
6.3 of [16]).
 For wide joints, cracks, areas of disintegrated rock, the foundation should
grouted with 1:1 cement sand mortar up to maximum frost depth [15].
 If at the time of actual excavation, major solution cavities have been found
which have rendered the ground surface uneven, the depth of foundation
should be taken to a level such that 80% rock area is available. It must be
ensured that the raft does not over hang at any corner (Cl. 10.1 of [15]).
 Due attention should be paid to problems of foundation on heterogeneous
rocks, particularly foundations on rock slopes and necessary remedial
measures should be taken (10.5 of [15]).
 Foundations should be checked for total and differential settlements to trace
any distress in the foundation after construction of the super-structure [27].
 The foundation should be well beyond the influence shear zone created due to
cuttings or excavations or due to proximity of the foundation to a sloping
ground (Cl. 10.2.5 of [8]).
 If the probable slip surface passes through a support structure like a retaining
wall, then it should be made strong enough to resist any unbalanced thrust
coming due to slope movement.
 The minimum horizontal spacing between an existing footing and a new one
shall be equal to the width of the wider one (Cl. 14 of [8]).

4 Conclusion

The present comparative study of foundation design methodology was taken up by

studying and investigating several design codes that prescribes the standards for the
efficient foundation design. Later in this paper, contrasting discussions of clauses along
with some propositions are thus been delivered for further detailed analysis for codal
improvement. However the study here has been limited to only three code of practice
 9

of foundation design. It has been found that in some sections, a common basic assess-
ment criteria has not been followed, and hence should be considered for future ongoing
studies.

Though the codes listed above provide every necessary details of foundation design,
but there is a need to update the depth consideration in the Indian Standards in accord-
ance with the various climatic classifications. Footing located at insufficient depth is
subjected to frost damage due to formation of ice lenses and consequent frost heave.
During summer, thawing occurs and melted water is entrapped. As the soil water
freezes and melts, the footing is lifted during cold weather and it settles during warm
weather due to an increase in water content. To prevent frost damage, the footing should
be placed below the frost depth, which may be 1 m or more in cold climate [1, 26].
India being considered a tropical country, the frost depth has not been taken into con-
sideration while calculating minimum footing depth. However, several regions in India
record snowfall in winter and hence this criteria should be considered in the codal meth-
odology. Also in Annexure-V of CPWD handbook of plinth area rates, the depth de-
pendency is based upon the soil bearing capacity alone [28]. Between the different
building codes of the United States, it is difficult to determine which frost penetration
charts should be followed. However, in warm states for concrete or block wall founda-
tions, frost depth could extend to 45 cm whereas in regions like Canada and Alaska, the
required depth can even extend to 150 cm. Similar to these charts, a frost depth map is
also needed suiting to the geophysical conditions of the Indian terrain.

On the other side, the IBC and ACI codes give more descriptive details of concrete
cover to reinforcements for foundations which should be followed in Indian standards.
According to ACI, even if the bearing strength of concrete is not exceeded, reinforce-
ment must be provided at column interface. This type of specification is not provided
in other two codes. Also ACI provides the upper limiting value of dowel reinforcement
i.e. no. 36 (35.81 mm in dia.), while IS and UBC agree on the minimum diameter of
dowel should not extend the diameter of reinforcement by 3 mm. Dowels should extend
in supported member at least the greater of the development length of the longitudinal
bar in compression which is entirely different due to different methods of design. Apart
from this, there is requirement of a standard formula in IS code for calculation of dowel
reinforcement.

The comparison drawn between different codes for the presumptive safe bearing
pressures of foundations on different soils and rocks show much variance in the values
of SBP, even for the same type of soil. Though the soil characteristic of different re-
gions are different but this much deviation should be taken into consideration and
needed to be checked again.

References
1. Das, B. M.: Principles of foundation engineering, 7th edn., Cengage, (2016).
10

2. Ranjan, G., Rao A. S.: Basic and Applied soil mechanics, 3rd edn., New Age International
Publication, (2016).
3. Murthy, V.N.S.: Textbook of soil mechanics and foundation engineering, Marcel Dekker
Inc., (2005).
4. Terzaghi K.: Theoretical Soil Mechanics, 1st edn., John Wiley & Sons, Inc., (1943).
DOI:10.1002/9780470172766
5. Meyerhof G. G.: The Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Foundations, Géotechnique, vol. 2 (4),
pp. 301-332, (1951). https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1951.2.4.301
6. Tomlinson, M. and Woodward J., Pile Design and Construction Practice, 5th edn. Taylor and
Francis, New York (2008).
7. IS 1080: 1985 (RA 2002), Indian standard code of practice for design and construction of
shallow foundations in soils (other than raft, ring and shell), Bureau of Indian Standards,
Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi 110002.
8. IS 1904: 1986 (RA 2006), Indian standard code of practice for design and construction of
foundation in soil, Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi 110002.
9. IS 2911 (Part 1/Sec 1): 2010, Design and construction of pile foundations — code of practice
Part 1 Concrete piles Section 1 Driven cast in-situ concrete piles, 2nd revision, Bureau of
Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi 110002.
10. IS 2911 (Part 1/Sec 2): 2010, Design and construction of pile foundations — code of practice
Part 1 Concrete piles Section 2 Bored cast in-situ concrete piles, 2nd revision, Bureau of
Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi 110002.
11. IS 2911 (Part 1/Sec 3): 2010, Design and construction of pile foundations — code of practice
Part 1 Concrete piles Section 3 Driven precast concrete piles, 2nd revision, Bureau of Indian
Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi 110002.
12. IS 2911 (Part 1/Sec 4): 2010, Design and construction of pile foundations — code of practice
Part 1 Concrete piles Section 4 Precast concrete piles in pre-bored holes, 1st revision, Bureau
of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi 110002.
13. IS 6403: 1981 (RA 2002), Code of practice for determination of bearing capacity of shallow
foundations, Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New
Delhi 110002.
14. IS 12070: 1987 (RA 2010), Code of practice for design and construction of shallow founda-
tions on rocks, Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi 110002.
15. IS 13063: 1991 (RA 2001), Structural safety of buildings on shallow foundations on rocks
code of practice, Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi 110002.
16. IS 14243 (Part 2): 1995 (RA 2005), Selection and development of site for building in hill
areas guidelines; part 2 selection and development, Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bha-
van, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi 110002.
17. IS 14593: 1998 (RA 2003), Design and construction of bored cast-in-situ piles founded on
rocks – Guidelines, Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar
Marg, New Delhi 110002.
18. IS 14804: 2000, Siting, design and selection of materials for residential buildings in hilly
areas – Guidelines, Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar
Marg, New Delhi 110002.
19. ACI: 318-14, Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318M-14) and com-
mentary (ACI 318 RM-14), American Concrete Institute, (2014).
 11

20. ACI: 332R-84, Guide to Residential Cast-in-Place Concrete Construction, American Con-
crete Institute, (1999).
21. IBC: International Building Code, International Code Council, (2012).
22. Brand, A. H., Trivedi, K.H.: Foundation Design and Construction in Urban Environments,
Proceedings of the International Foundations Congress and Equipment Expo, pp. 1550 –
1559, ASCE, San Antonio (2015).
23. IRC: The International Residential Code, International Code Council, (2012).
24. IS 456: 2000, Indian Standard code of practice for Plain and Reinforced Concrete, Bureau
of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi 110002.
25. UBC, International Conference Of Building officials, 10 South LOS Robles, Pasadena, Cal-
ifornia 91101, (1967).
26. Pillai, S. U., Menon, D.: Reinforced concrete design, 3rd edn., Mc Graw Hill, (2003).
27. IS 8009 Part 1: 1976 (RA 1998), Code of practice for calculation of settlement of founda-
tions: shallow foundations subjected to symmetrical static vertical loads, Bureau of Indian
Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi 110002.
28. Plinth area rates Handbook, Central Public Works Department, M/s Jain Book Agencies, C-
9, Connaught place, New Delhi 110001, (2012).

View publication stats